A Text Worthy of Plotinus: The Lives and Correspondence of P. Henry S.J., H.-R. Schwyzer, A.H. Armstrong, J. Trouillard and J. Igal S.J. 9789462702592, 9789461663672, 9462702594

Table of contents :
Cover
Table of Contents
Preface
Acknowledgements
Images
Chapter One: The Text of Plotinus: From Ficino to Henry and Schwyzer
1.1. From Marsilio Ficino to Thomas Taylor
1.2. The Search for a Properly Established Edition
Chapter Two: Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)
2.1. Life
2.2. Extracts from the Memoirs of Paul Henry S.J.: Souvenirs d’un jésuite itinérant
2.3. Letters
2.4. Handouts
2.5. Obituary
2.6. Bibliography of Paul Henry S.J.
Chapter Three: Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (1908-1993)
3.1. Life
3.2. Letters
3.3. Obituary
3.4. Bibliography of H. R. Schwyzer
Chapter Four: Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)
4.1. Life
4.2. Memories: Meeting and working under the supervision of A.H. Armstrong
4.3. Reminiscences of a Malta Childhood (1935-1943)
4.4. Poems
4.5. Letters
4.6. Obituary
4.7. Bibliography of A. H. Armstrong
Chapter Five: Jean Trouillard (1907-1984)
5.1. Life
5.2. Jean Trouillard: Portrait of a Neoplatonic Thinker
5.3. Reminiscence of my meetings with Jean Trouillard
5.4. Letters
5.5. Obituary
5.6. Bibliography of J. Trouillard
Chapter Six: Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)
6.1. Life
6.2. Letters
6.3. Textual Notes on the Enneads
6.4. Notes for answer to Igal from Armstrong’s papers
6.5. Obituaries
6.6. Bibliography of J. Igal
Chapter Seven: Miscellaneous
7.1. Émile Bréhier (1876-1952)
7.2. Willy Theiler (1899-1977)
7.3. Bertram Samuel Page (1904-1993)
7.4. Evanghelos Roussos (1931-2016)
Index Locorum
Index Nominum

Citation preview

Kevin Corrigan is Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Interdisciplinary Humanities in the Department of Middle Eastern and South Asian Studies at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia.

AM P�

José C. Baracat Jr. is Professor of Ancient Greek Language and Literature at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil).

1 234567 890128

Serie AMP-1 Plotinus Trimbox.indd 1

LIX

ancient and medieval philosophy · series 1

Suzanne Stern-Gillet is Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the ­University of Bolton and Honorary Research Fellow in the Department of ­Classics and Ancient History at the University of Manchester. She is an editor of The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition.

S.1

Suzanne Stern-Gillet, Kevin Corrigan, José C. Baracat Jr. (eds)

A Text Worthy of Plotinus will prove a crucial archive for generations of scholars. Those interested in the philosophy of Plotinus will find it a fount of information on his style, manner of exposition, and handling of sources. The volume will also appeal to readers interested in broader trends in 20th century scholarship in the fields of Classics, History of ­Ideas, Theology, and Religion.

AM P1

A Text Worthy of Plotinus

A Text Worthy of Plotinus makes available for the first time information on the collaborative work that went into the completion of the first reliable edition of Plotinus’ Enneads: Plotini Opera, editio maior, three volumes (Brussels, Paris, and Leiden, 1951-1973), followed by the editio minor, three volumes (Oxford, 1964-1983). Pride of place is given to the correspondence of the editors, Paul Henry S.J. and Hans-Rudolf ­Schwyzer, with other prominent scholars of late antiquity, amongst whom are E.R. Dodds, B.S. Page, A.H. Armstrong, and J. Igal S.J. Also included in the volume are related documents consisting in personal memoirs, course handouts and extensive biographical notices of the two editors as well as of those other scholars who contributed to fostering the revival of Plotinus in the latter half of the 20th century. Taken together, letters and documents let the reader into the problems – codicological, exegetical, and philosophical – that are involved in the interpretation of medieval manuscripts and their transcription for modern readers. Additional insights are provided into the nature of collaborative work involving scholars from different countries and traditions.

A Text Worthy of Plotinus

The Lives and Correspondence

of P. Henry S.J., H.-R. Schwyzer, A.H. Armstrong, J. Trouillard and J. Igal S.J. Edited by Suzanne Stern-Gillet Kevin Corrigan José C. Baracat Jr.

Leuven University Press

04-01-21 15:44

A TEXT WORTHY OF PLOTINUS

ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL PHILOSOPHY

DE WULF-MANSION CENTRE Series I

LIX

Editorial Coordinator Russell Friedman

Editorial Board Peter d’Hoine Jan Opsomer Andrea Robiglio Carlos Steel Gerd Van Riel

Advisory Board Brad Inwood, Yale University, USA Jill Kraye, The Warburg Institute, London, United Kingdom John Marenbon, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom Lodi Nauta, University of Groningen, The Netherlands Timothy Noone, The Catholic University of America, USA Robert Pasnau, University of Colorado at Boulder, USA Martin Pickavé, University of Toronto, Canada Pasquale Porro, Università di Torino, Italy Geert Roskam, KU Leuven, Belgium

The “De Wulf-Mansion Centre” is a research centre for Ancient, Medieval, and Renaissance ­philosophy at the Institute of Philosophy of the ku Leuven, Kardinaal Mercierplein, 2, b-3000 Leuven (Belgium). It hosts the international project “Aristoteles latinus” and publishes the “Opera omnia” of Henry of Ghent and the “Opera Philosophica et Theologica” of Francis of Marchia.

A TEXT WORTHY OF PLOTINUS The Lives and Correspondence of P. Henry S.J., H.-R. Schwyzer, A.H. Armstrong, J. Trouillard and J. Igal S.J.

Edited by Suzanne Stern-Gillet, Kevin Corrigan and José C. Baracat Jr.

LEUVEN UNIVERSITY PRESS

This book was published with the generous support of Emory University.

© 2021 by the De Wulf-Mansioncentrum – De Wulf-Mansion Centre Leuven University Press / Presses Universitaires de Louvain/ Universitaire Pers Leuven Minderbroedersstraat 4, B-3000 Leuven / Louvain (Belgium) All rights reserved. Except in those cases expressly determined by law, no part of this publication may be multiplied, saved in an automated data file or made public in any way whatsoever without the express prior written consent of the publishers. ISBN 978 94 6270 259 2 eISBN 978 94 6166 367 2 https://doi.org/10.11116/9789461663672 D/2021/1869/1 NUR: 732 Cover: Geert de Koning

This Book is dedicated to: Zayn Axel and Rafi Raza Stern-Gillet Rafael and Natasha (Tashi) Corrigan Carla and Clara Baracat

Table of Contents Preface ix Acknowledgements xv Images xix Chapter One: The Text of Plotinus: From Ficino to Henry and Schwyzer 1.1. From Marsilio Ficino to Thomas Taylor 1.2. The Search for a Properly Established Edition Chapter Two: Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

1 1 5 23

2.1. Life 23 2.2. Extracts from the Memoirs of Paul Henry S.J.: Souvenirs d’un jésuite itinérant 31 2.3. Letters 48 2.4. Handouts 85 2.5. Obituary 96 2.6. Bibliography of Paul Henry S.J. 98 Chapter Three: Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (1908-1993) 3.1. Life 3.2. Letters 3.3. Obituary 3.4. Bibliography of H. R. Schwyzer

103 103 106 149 153

Chapter Four: Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)

159

4.1. Life 4.2. Memories: Meeting and working under the supervision of A.H. Armstrong 4.3. Reminiscences of a Malta Childhood (1935-1943) 4.4. Poems 4.5. Letters 4.6. Obituary 4.7. Bibliography of A. H. Armstrong

159 171 174 184 185 202 203

VIII

A Text Worthy of Plotinus

Chapter Five: Jean Trouillard (1907-1984) 5.1. Life 5.2. Jean Trouillard: Portrait of a Neoplatonic Thinker 5.3. Reminiscence of my meetings with Jean Trouillard 5.4. Letters 5.5. Obituary 5.6. Bibliography of J. Trouillard Chapter Six: Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

221 221 222 228 230 238 239 253

6.1. Life 253 6.2. Letters 257 6.3. Textual Notes on the Enneads 321 6.4. Notes for answer to Igal from Armstrong’s papers 337 6.5. Obituaries 339 6.6. Bibliography of J. Igal 342 Chapter Seven: Miscellaneous 7.1. Émile Bréhier (1876-1952) 7.2. Willy Theiler (1899-1977) 7.3. Bertram Samuel Page (1904-1993) 7.4. Evanghelos Roussos (1931-2016)

347 347 350 354 358

Index Locorum

365

Index Nominum

387

Preface Suzanne Stern-Gillet Plotinus long remained the poor relative of ancient philosophy. He no longer is. To account for this happy change of affairs is the object of our book. Symptomatic of the disregard in which Plotinus was held in the Anglo-American philosophical world was the absence of the Enneads from the Loeb Classical Library. When E. R. Dodds (1893-1979), then in the first flush of his scholarly enthusiasm, approached the General Editor, T.E. Page, to enquire whether a translation of Plotinus would be a welcome addition to the series, he was told that the Loeb library “was interested only in authors for whose works there was some foreseeable demand.”1 Also symptomatic was the lack of a reliable English version of the Enneads2 until Stephen MacKenna, in 1908, embarked on what he anticipated would be a lifelong commitment: “I am interested in Plotinus”, he wrote, “to translate him into beautiful English and then to interpret him and press him into the use of this century seems to me, has always seemed to me, really worth a life.”3 If we are to judge by his diaries and letters, the endeavour involved considerable hardship on his part and may well have seemed to him to have taken over his life. But, as the volumes came out under the imprint of the Medici Society Ltd, they were hailed as masterpieces of English prose and remain, to this day, unsurpassed as a rendering into English of the most intricate philosophical system to have come out of the ancient world. Sadly, the literary merits of the translation did not compensate for the deficiencies of the text on which it was based. Not being scholarly trained, MacKenna could not have known that the Creuzer edition that he had picked up in a second-hand bookshop in St Petersburg was unreliable until E.R. Dodds and B.S. Page drew his attention to the fact when they helped him to make sense of difficult passages in the sixth Ennead. Sad also in a way is the fact that MacKenna’s superlative translation of the Enneads made little impression upon English-speaking philosophers, who are used to more sober language in the expression of philosophical thought.

1 

E.R. Dodds (1977). Missing Persons. An Autobiography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Oxford, 75. Admittedly, a full English translation of the Enneads by K.S. Guthrie (1871-1940) had come out in 1918 and was later reprinted several times. In so far as it was dependent upon M-N. Bouillet’s mediocre French translation (1857-1861), it was less than fully reliable. For English translations of individual tractates and selections of the Enneads, see, e.g., Thomas Taylor (1792, 1794, 1817 and 1834) and Elmer O’Brien (1964). 3  Journal and Letters of Stephen MacKenna. Edited with a Memoir by E. R. Dodds. 1936. London: Constable and Co., Ltd. Reprint 2007. Coracle Press, San Rafael Ca. See also J. Murray (1937). “Stephen MacKenna and Plotinus”. Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review. 26 (102). 2 

X

A Text Worthy of Plotinus

The philosophically educated public was better served on the Continent, where translations of the Enneads had been forthcoming in French, German and Italian throughout the first half of the twentieth century. Each translation has merits of its own. Bréhier’s lucid and fluent French translation (1924-1938) remains to this day a point of anchor for those seeking an overview of the problems dealt with in individual tractates. Rather than simply relying on previous editions, Bréhier had collated readings from the two manuscripts to be found in the Bibliothèque Nationale (Parisinus A and Parisinus B) whilst also taking some account of the indirect tradition. In 1924, it could still be said of his apparatus criticus that “it is the most useful that we have.”4 In addition to his translation of Plotinus—Bréhier was a historian of philosophy—his seven-volume history of the subject long held authority and, in 1941, made him an obvious choice to succeed Bergson at the Académie des sciences morales et politiques.5 Together with Bréhier’s authority as a historian, Bergson’s own interest in the Enneads explains why Plotinus has remained to this day a presence in mainstream French philosophy.6 Almost contemporary with Bréhier’s translation came Richard Harder’s German rendering of the Enneads (1930-1937). Although Pierre Hadot praised it for the “unhoped for clarifications”7 that it brought to the understanding of Plotinus’ philosophy, Harder himself had been less than sanguine in his assessment of the then current state of Plotinian studies: “We have no adequate text, no commentary, no grammar, no lexicon; no other great author of antiquity has been neglected to this degree.”8 Like Harder, Cilento was highly conscious of the parlous state of the text that he was endeavouring to translate into Italian and, whenever possible, he, too, took account of variants found in the manuscripts that he had been able to consult, justifying his choice of readings in the critical commentary that accompanied his translation (1947-1949).9 The major obstacle to the in-depth study of Plotinus’ philosophy, therefore, was the lack of a serviceable text of the Enneads. Dodds bluntly summed up the situation in the review of the first volume of Henry and Schwyzer’s editio maior that he wrote for The Classical Review: 4  See R.M. Jones’ review of the first volume of Bréhier’s translation, Classical Philology, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Apr. 1928), 196. 5  E. Bréhier (1926-1934). Histoire de la philosophie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. The whole work was later translated into English by J. Thomas et al. 6  For an appreciation of Bréhier’s contribution to the study of Plotinus, see L. Brisson’s biographical sketch in this volume. See also W. Hankey, “One Hundred Years of Neoplatonism in France: a Brief History” in Narbonne and Hankey (2006). Levinas and the Greek Heritage. Leuven, Paris & Dudley: Peeters, 97-248. 7  See P. Hadot’s review of the first volume of the second edition of Harder’s translation, Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire, 1958, 36 (1), 156. 8  R. Harder, Plotins Schriften, I, p. VII (first ed.), as translated and quoted by E.R. Dodds, Memoir of Stephen MacKenna, 43. 9  See H. Cherniss’ critical notice, “Plotinus: a Definitive Edition and a New Translation”, The Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 6, No. 2 (Dec. 1952).

Preface

XI

The condition of the text of Plotinus has long been one of the scandals of scholarship … until today it has remained impossible to ascertain with any approach to accuracy what the manuscript evidence is for any particular passage in the Enneads. Moreover, the nineteenth century editors embellished the text with a steadily growing accretion of false emendations, based sometimes on a mistaken attempt to atticize Plotinus, sometimes on a failure to understand his argument, and always on an imperfect acquaintance with the manuscript tradition. Many of these blunders have remained to this day part of the textus receptus, though a certain number were removed by Bréhier. This discreditable state of affairs will be ended for good when Henry and Schwyzer have completed their monumental task.10 The “monumental” task in question turned out to be a labour of twenty-four years. Both men were well prepared for the task. By 1930, Paul Henry S.J., as his memoirs testify, had already read the whole of the Enneads in Greek and acquainted himself with Ficino’s translation. The two manuscripts in the Bibliothèque Nationale that he had consulted, possibly on the advice of Bréhier, whose doctoral student he had been, had further aroused his interest and, in 1932, he spent four months trawling through the libraries of Italy in search of more manuscripts. Of the forty-five manuscripts that he found and collated, ten were trustworthy enough to make him confident of being able to reconstruct the archetype. He also used the indirect tradition to striking effect. Having found in Eusebius’ Praeparatio Evangelica a quotation matching the lacuna in Ennead IV 7 [2], he inferred the existence of a pre-Enneadic edition of Plotinus that would have been in the possession of Eustochius, the doctor who attended Plotinus on his deathbed.11 Lastly, in 1937, he spent ten months in the Lebanon and Palestine (as it was then called), in search of manuscripts of the Theologia Aristotelis, which provides an indirect source for the writings of Plotinus. The results of his investigations were published in 1941 as Les manuscrits des Ennéades. Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer, for his part, had been working independently on the text of Plotinus by examining and assessing the reliability of a number of manuscripts as well as developing an interest in the reception of Plotinus in the Arab world. The outcome of his researches had appeared in learned journals from 1934 onwards.12 They reveal his complete agreement with Henry on matters of methodology. Like Henry, Schwyzer was committed to the austere application of the method of textual criticism in the study of ancient texts, as opposed to Theiler’s method of choice, which admitted a large number of editorial conjectures into the text, as well as being more reliant on Quellenforschung.13 10 

Dodds (1952). The Classical Review, 2 (3-4), 165-166. For fuller information on the supposed “Eustochian edition,” see notes 65, 67 and 82 below. 12  See Dufour’s bibliography at the end of chapter 3. 13  See Gerard O’Daly’s essay on Theiler in this volume. 11 

XII

A Text Worthy of Plotinus

The two men, who had only met once, briefly in 1938, got together again in 1946 for a trial run of a couple of weeks, to test their scholarly compatibility before embarking on the long-term project of producing a full critical edition, with apparatus criticus, of the Enneads. Upon successful completion of the trial run, which had them working jointly on the text and apparatus of a short tractate (IV 2 [4] On the Essence of the Soul II), Henry and Schwyzer agreed to spend together four months every summer in Schwyzer’s Zürich house for as long as it took to produce the full critical text of the Enneads that they planned. The work took almost a quarter of a century to complete (1951-1973), at the end of which they had produced, not only the editio maior of the Enneads, but had also started the editio minor in 1964, the last volume of which was published in 1982. It contained revisions of the maior as well as an enlarged apparatus fontium. The partnership appears to have been untroubled by serious scholarly disagreements; holding each other in high intellectual esteem, the two men respected each other’s life choices and modus vivendi. In some ways, the enterprise could almost be described as business-like: since editing Plotinus was what had got them together, they ensured that no outside distraction would divert them from their common task. The reviews that greeted the completion of the first volume were largely eulogistic: the greatest specialists of late antiquity, Harold Cherniss, Werner Beierwaltes, Vincenzo Cilento and Eric Dodds, all warmly saluted the achievement. Reviews of the later volumes were equally complimentary. The letters reproduced in this volume all date from after the publication of the first volume of the editio maior and concern either the edition itself or the scholarly debates, large and small, that ensued. They enable us vicariously to share the elation that greeted the long overdue critical edition of Plotinus’ text and give us insights into the personalities of the writers. Schwyzer (1908-1993), the steady hand behind the partnership, was a meticulous scholar who rarely allowed his correspondents into his private life or let slip his mask of detached courtesy. Henry (1906-1984), on the contrary, was candid to the point of indiscretion, prone to anger and indignation, and seemingly impervious to hierarchical considerations. Being a typical “mover and shaker,” he was the one who dealt with publishers, generated funding and organised conferences, including the famous Entretiens Hardt 1957 meeting on Les Sources de Plotin.14 In contrast with Henry’s forceful personality, Trouillard, a Sulpician priest (19071984) who had been influenced by the Christian philosophy of Maurice Blondel, was all priestly serenity and open-mindedness. Less concerned with exegetical precision than the others, he imperturbably pursued his interest in Proclus and dealt with the philosophical problems posed by the Christianisation of Neoplatonism. The letters of Fr Igal S.J. (1924-1986) are wholly taken up with textual and exegetical problems. 14 

The proceedings were published in 1960.

Preface

XIII

Unconcerned with the practicalities of publication, he never hesitated to acquaint Schwyzer, who had to deal with the practicalities of preparing a manuscript for publication, with his second (or third) thoughts and his successive misgivings over editorial decisions—his own as well as those of his colleagues. Fascinating also are the letters of those who, at the time, were budding students of Neoplatonism and have become today’s foremost Plotinian scholars. Although none of Armstrong’s letters have survived, other than very few personal ones of moderate interest, he is the filter through which readers of this volume will get to know his fellow Plotinian scholars. As the recipient of most of the letters, he also provides the time-frame covered in the volume. At this point, a double note of caution must be sounded. First, let readers be aware that although we have reproduced the great majority of the letters that have been passed on to us, we are conscious of offering only a percentage of the letters likely to have been addressed to Henry, Schwyzer and Armstrong. The dispersion of Henry’s belongings at the time he was recalled to Belgium for medical treatment means that his correspondence is likely to be irremediably lost. Fortunately, his memoirs and the regular letters he sent to Armstrong provide us with a record of what he considered to have been his main activities and projects. Second, for all our indebtedness to Armstrong, it must be borne in mind that the letters that have come down to us are those that he either chose to keep or—almost equally likely— managed not to lose in the course of a busy academic life that involved extensive travelling. The one-sidedness of the correspondence makes Armstrong the great absent of this volume. He never went to the trouble of making copies of his replies to his colleagues, save for jotting down brief notes for future use in the margins of Igal’s notes and letters, all of which are here reproduced. As a result, the glimpses we get of his personality are through Henry’s trust and friendship. Luckily, in view of the fact that most of the letters were handwritten, there are only very few references and individual words that we have not been able to identify or decipher. The publication of the maior and minor editions restored Plotinus to what ought to have been all along his position as one of the major philosophical figures of the ancient world. The re-drawing of the philosophical map of late antiquity that followed the critical edition of the Enneads did not happen overnight. Indeed, it remains ongoing seventy years later. The first task was to translate the revised text and analyse it tractate by tractate by relying on the tools of classical textual exegesis. The first volume of the revised edition of Harder’s Plotin, Schriften by Beutler and Theiler came out in 1956, the year before the Foundation Hardt seminal meeting on Les Sources de Plotin took place. This was followed by other new translations or re-translations of the corpus either in its entirety or of individual tractates. While A.H. Armstrong’s 1966-1988 Loeb translation continues to be a standard work of reference for many English-speaking readers, an entirely new translation came out in 2018 by a team of translators working under the general editorship of L. P. Ger-

XIV

A Text Worthy of Plotinus

son (Cambridge University Press). Another completely new translation, tractate by tractate and with accompanying commentaries, is currently under way under the joint editorship of John Dillon and Andrew Smith (Parmenides Publishing, Las Vegas/Zurich/Athens). In French a re-translation of the Enneads was undertaken in 2002 under the joint direction of L. Brisson and J.-F. Pradeau and finally brought to completion in 2010 (Garnier-Flammarion). Two more French re-translations are ongoing, the one started by Pierre Hadot (Editions du Cerf 1984-2015, now moved to Vrin under the directorship of D. O’Meara, G. Aubry, J.-F. Balaudé and A.-L. Darras-Worms). The latest in date proceeds under the direction of J.-M. Narbonne, the first volume of which came out in 2012 (Collection des Universités de France). Like their Dillon-Smith counterparts, all three new French re-translations are accompanied by extensive commentaries. Last but not least, a full translation into modern Greek with the most extensive commentary so far of all six Enneads has recently been completed by Paul Kalligas (Vivliothēkē A. Manousē, 1997-2018).15 In addition to these re-translations, many individual tractates have more lately been the object of detailed studies in German, French, English, Italian and Spanish. Being on the whole more purely philosophical in tone and content than the above-mentioned translations cum exegetical commentaries, such studies give us hope that Plotinus’ Enneads might henceforth be studied also for the philosophical insights that they contain on such issues as selfhood and subjectivity, consciousness, time and eternity (and sempiternity), freedom of the will and human agency. Let it be hoped that the philosophy of Plotinus, who regarded himself as a philosopher (philosophos) rather than a philologist (philologos)16 will continue to be studied in its various aspects by philosophers of all schools and persuasions. Manchester, August 2020

15  An English translation of the first volume of the commentary came out in 2014. The other two are forthcoming. 16  As we know from Porphyry, Vita Plotini, 14. 19-20.

Acknowledgements Suzanne Stern-Gillet The book has been long in the making and has accumulated many debts. Our first debt is to Christopher Armstrong and Bridget Turner, son and granddaughter of Arthur Hilary Armstrong (hereafter AHA). The debt was incurred when, on a blustery spring afternoon, Christopher gallantly took a heavy battered box to my car, parked at some distance from his house. In the box were professional papers of AHA, consisting mainly of his correspondence with the leading Plotinian scholars of the day. By then I already knew that the box contained letters from the two most recent editors of the Enneads, Fr Paul Henry S.J. and Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer. If I knew this, it was through the good offices of Denis O’Brien who, shortly after AHA’s death, had acquired a substantial part of his library and been given photocopies of the letters. Knowing of my interest, Denis then had kindly provided me with photocopies. Unfortunately, these were less serviceable than could have been hoped: modern xerox machines offering no exact match for the originals, the right-hand side of the pages as well as, in some cases, the bottom lines, were cut off. If only for that reason, Christopher’s generosity in entrusting the originals to me made the project a real possibility rather than a dream. By then, Kevin Corrigan, who had been AHA’s doctoral student, friend and regular correspondent, had agreed to collaborate in the edition of the letters. What neither of us had expected was that Christopher’s box contained a major surprise in the shape of extensive letters and notes by Fr Jesús Igal S.J., the Spanish scholar who, in the dark years of Francoist Spain, spent his professional life poring over the text of the Enneads and often succeeded in making sense of passages which had eluded the philological and philosophical expertise of other scholars. Also contained in the box were six letters from Fr Jean Trouillard, which provided a welcome outsider’s viewpoint on French Plotinian studies in the fifties and sixties. These letters gave us the makings of this book. The first task was to digitalise and, when necessary, translate, them.17 In this task we found willing helpers. Kathleen Grant transcribed Fr Henry’s letters which, fortunately, were mostly in English. Elisabeth Planella transcribed and translated Fr Trouillard’s letters. José C. Baracat Jr., who is himself a translator of Plotinus (into Portuguese), took over the arduous task of digitalising and annotating all the Igal material (also, fortunately, in English). When the task of organising the material proved too onerous for the original two editors, José stepped in as a third member of the editorial team and undertook much 17  We wish to record our gratitutde to the University of Bolton and to Emory University for the financial assistance they gave us while we were engaged in this project.

XVI

A Text Worthy of Plotinus

of the organisation and formatting of the manuscript to be submitted to the press. Irini Viltanioti translated Evanghelos Roussos’s review of the editio maior. Zachary Hayworth and Sarah Corrigan worked through some of Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer’s correspondence until Emanuel Zingg, an able young Hellenist and compatriot of Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer, took over the task of translating part of the correspondence and assisting José in the digitalisation of Schwyzer’s minutely detailed editorial notes and suggestions for alternative readings. Lastly, Tessa Shaw, the acting Librarian of The Queen’s College, Oxford, kindly made available to us Paul Henry’s Mémoires d’un jésuite itinérant, which had been entrusted to the College by one of its alumni, Albert Marien. Our gratitude also goes to the distinguished colleagues and friends who filled gaps in our knowledge of the revival of Neoplatonism in the latter part of the last century and passed on to us their own correspondence with the pioneers who initiated the revival, Professors Paul Kalligas, Gerard O’Daly, Rein Ferwerda, and Dr Michael Atkinson. Thanks are also due to Professor Isabel Santa Cruz (“la dame argentine” of Igal’s memory) who dug deep in her archives to recover mimeographed versions of the handouts that Henry had prepared as aids to the lectures he gave at the University of Buenos Aires in the 1960s. Prof. Carlos Guarcia Gual of the Royal Spanish Academy recorded his memories of Fr Igal, whom he had later commissioned to undertake a translation of Plotinus for the Biblioteca Clásica Gredos. Prof. Gary Gurtler S.J. used material gleaned from the archives of the Jesuit Province of Spain to write a biographical note on Fr Igal. He also helped us track down information on fellow Jesuits with whom Henry had worked in the course of his travel to collect manuscripts. Professors Georges Leroux and Gregory Shaw both shed light on the figure of Jean Trouillard, whose scholarship long remained underappreciated in the Anglo-American world. Georges Leroux, who recalls Trouillard’s visit to Québec as a Visiting Professor, offers an analysis of his style as an exercise in Plotinian self-purification while Gregory Shaw shares with us his reminiscences of the conversations he had as a graduate student with the elderly Trouillard, who was then living out his retirement in a book-lined flat in Paris. Finally, posthumous thanks are due to the late Professor David Bain, who rewarded me for a research paper that I had given in his department with the gift of letters from Dodds, Page and Schwyzer found in a secondhand book that he had purchased in Thornton’s bookshop at the time it was still in Oxford. We were fortunate also in those who agreed to collaborate in this volume. Richard Dufour, the author of Plotinus: A Bibliography, 1950-2000 (2002), who continues to this day to update it on the internet, kindly agreed to compile a full bibliography for our five main authors, Henry, Schwyzer, Igal, Trouillard and Armstrong. Leo Catana put his expertise on the history of historiography to cover the fate of Plotinian studies after Brucker’s concept of “system of philosophy” proved a decisive shift in the conception of both the history of philosophy and its role in philosophy itself.

Acknowledgements

XVII

Luc Brisson’s observations on Emile Bréhier’s work on the Enneads provided us with a timely reminder of his achievements as editor and translator at a time when no trustworthy edition of the Enneads was available. Gerard O’Daly contributed a portrait of his erstwhile mentor, the scholar whom Dodds had dubbed “the redoubtable Willy Theiler”. The portrait was all the more timely since Theiler’s practice of Quellenforschung made him the representative of a method that Henry, Schwyzer, Dodds and Armstrong, all of them convinced textual critics, disapproved of and situated themselves against, as well as being more restrained than Theiler in their recourse to textual emendation. Elena Glazov-Corrigan recalls AHA’s readiness to enable female graduate students burdened with family responsibilities to continue with their studies—a rare initiative in those days. We also called upon the descendants of two of our four main scholars. All responded positively. As noted above, Christopher Armstrong entrusted the precious box to us while Bridget Turner took much trouble over the digitalisation of family photos. Christopher also gave us an account of his experience as a child during the war in Malta. His vivid description of the war years will make readers of our book marvel at AHA’s ability to discharge his teaching duties at the Royal University at Malta by undertaking a daily commute across two deep-sea obstacles and in the throes of massive bombing and airborne battles. Martin Schwyzer wrote a memoir of his father’s public persona and recorded his memories of the visits to their house of what his childish self called “der schwarze Mann” (aka Fr Henry). To him, we also owe both the photos of Hans-Rudolf reproduced in this volume and of the participants of the 1957 meeting on Les Sources de Plotin at the Foundation Hardt at Vandœuvres. Lastly, Denis O’Brien welcomed us in his book-lined Normandy château during an unseasonably cold spell in May 2018. Our grateful memories of these few days are of finger-numbing searches through “the Armstrong collection” before retreating to roaring fires and stimulating conversations in one of the downstairs sitting rooms.

Images

From left to right: H. Dörrie, H.-R. Schwyzer, Baron v. Hardt, V. Cilento, W. Theiler, E.R. Dodds, A.H. Armstrong, P. Hadot, R. Harder, P. Henry. Vandoeuvres, 29 August 1957.

XX

A Text Worthy of Plotinus

H.-R. Schwyzer. Undated.

Images

H.-R. Schwyzer on the Alpes. Undated.

XXI

XXII

A Text Worthy of Plotinus

The wedding of H.-R. Schwyzer and Charlotte Schwyzer-Schiller. 9 October 1943.

Images

A.H. Armstrong. Undated.

XXIII

XXIV

A Text Worthy of Plotinus

A.H. Armstrong. Malta visa. C. 1939

Images

A.H. Armstrong as a baby in his mother’s arms. Undated.

XXV

XXVI

A Text Worthy of Plotinus

Jean Trouillard. Pencil sketch by Peg Quinn (formerly Peg Shaw). 18 December 1982.

Images

XXVII

On the 2nd row: first from the left, H. Dörrie; third: H.-J. Blumenthal; fourth: J. Rist. On the 3rd row: first from the left: G. O’Daly; second W. Theiler; fifth J. Trouillard. On the 4th row: first from the right P. Courcelle; second H.R. Schwyzer. Conference on “Plotino e il neoplatonismo in Oriente e in Occidente”. October 1970.

XXVIII

A Text Worthy of Plotinus

Invitation from A.H. Armstrong to H.R. Schwyzer for a “Plotinus Party”. 1988.

Images

Schwyzer’s reply to Armstrong’s invitation. 1988.

XXIX

XXX

A Text Worthy of Plotinus

Martin Schwyzer’s Habilitationsschrift with a dedication to his father.

Images

Martin Schwyzer’s Habilitationsschrift with a dedication to his father.

XXXI

Chapter One

The Text of Plotinus: From Ficino to Henry and Schwyzer 1.1. From Marsilio Ficino to Thomas Taylor Leo Catana The Florentine humanist and philosopher Marsilio Ficino (1433-1499) published Latin translations of a series of texts belonging to the ancient Platonic tradition. In 1471, he published his translation of Hermes Trismegistus’ Pimander, in 1484 his translation of Plato’s dialogues and letters appeared, and in 1492 his translation of, and commentary to, Plotinus’ Enneads came out. Even though Ficino’s Plotinus translation was not printed before 1492, his familiarity with Plotinus’ philosophy dated back to a much earlier stage, since Ficino had had access to two manuscripts of Plotinus’ Enneads already in 1462, and since the Enneads played a significant role in Ficino’s commentary to Plato’s Symposium.18 Ficino’s understanding of Plotinus was intimately connected to his understanding of Plato, and to Ficino’s use of Plato, for which reason we need to know the historical perspective through which Ficino approached Plato before we focus on his interpretation of Plotinus. Ficino’s work on Plato’s texts was underpinned by a peculiar historical perspective which can be summarized in the phrase prisca theologia or antica theologia, that is, ancient theology. According to Ficino, Plato’s philosophy derived from the same historical sources as early Christianity: During Moses’ captivity in Egypt, he had conveyed his wisdom to one of the learned Egyptians, Hermes Trismegistus, who had integrated this wisdom into his writings, the Corpus Hermeticum. (In fact, the Corpus Hermeticum is of gnostic origin and thus of a much later date.) Ficino held that Hermes’ doctrines had been passed on to Orpheus, who in turn passed them on to Pythagoras, who, finally, passed them on to Plato. Ficino’s historical perspective led him to believe that Plato’s philosophy was a more suitable foundation of Christian theology than Aristotle’s philosophy.19 Ficino came to regard Plotinus, Porphyry and Proclus as legitimate heirs to the philosophy of Plato—especially Plotinus. “Plato speaks”, Ficino claimed, “through the mask [persona] of Plotinus.”20 Indeed, Plotinus himself had stated that his philo18  For the two manuscripts (Laurentianus 87, 3 and Parisinus graecus 1816) that Ficino probably used when translating Plotinus’ Enneads, see Saffrey, 1996, 490-491. 19  For Ficino’s theory of ancient theology, see Walker, 1972. 20 Ficino, Exhortatio Marsilii Ficini ad auditores, et legentes Plotinum, fol. a6r: “Principio vos omnes admoneo, qui divinum audituri Plotinum huc acceditis, ut Platonem ipsum sub Plotini persona loquentem, vos audiuros existimetis. Sive enim Plato quondam in Plotino revixit.”

2

The Text of Plotinus: From Ficino to Henry and Schwyzer

sophical theories were not new, but inherited from Plato (Enneads V. 1. 8). Although this statement undoubtedly reflects Plotinus’ belief that he belonged to a tradition going back to Plato, it is worth remembering that Porphyry pointed out other sources in addition to Plato, e.g., Aristotle and the Stoics (Porphyry, Vita Plotini 14). Ficino’s ethics was marked by the idea that the highest good for a human being consists in the soul’s noetic unification with the divinity, also called likeness with the divinity (homoiōsis theō).21 This idea Ficino traced back to the ancient Platonic tradition: Plato had emphasized that the philosopher should orientate his soul towards the invisible, divine realm in order to become alike to the divine as much as possible for a human being.22 Plato’s idea of godlikeness was adopted by ancient Platonists like Alcinous, Plotinus and Porphyry, Ficino pointed out.23 Ficino thus gave the Platonic theory of homoiōsis theō a central position in his interpretation of ancient Platonism, and he read later ancient Platonists—Plotinus first of all—as insightful heirs whose ethical and metaphysical ideas could be used to unfold this Platonic theory, as is clear in his commentary to Plotinus’ Enneads and in other Ficino texts.24 Porphyry’s ordering of Plotinus’ Ennneads—starting from Plotinus’ ethics, centred on noetic ascent (I), moving on to natural philosophy (II-III), psychology (IV) and ending with metaphysics (V-VI)—supported this reading. Moreover, Porphyry’s Vita Plotini and its account of Plotinus’ personal unification with the divinity (23) supplied an important example of this ethical theory. Ficino’s account of Plotinus’ doctrine of hypostases differs from the one that we have inherited from 19th- and 20th-century Plotinus scholarship. Ficino operates with different numbers of hypostases in different passages, he uses different names for them, and he approaches Plotinian metaphysics from different viewpoints. Hence, in his commentary to Plato’s Symposium, entitled De amore, where he draws decisively on Plotinus’ doctrine of hypostases, Ficino offers Plotinian accounts of ontological levels with three, four, five and six levels. In De amore II.4, he refers to three levels, namely divinity, Intellect and soul (deus, mens, anima).25 In De amore VI.15-16, Ficino refers to four levels, namely divinity, angelic mind, soul and body (deus, angelus, anima, corpus).26 In De amore II.3 he lists five levels—divinity, Intel-

21 

For this theme in Medieval thought, see Trinkaus, 1970.

22 Plato, Phaedrus 247e-248a, 253b-c; Phaedo 69c-d and Theaetetus 176a-b. See also Sedley, 1999,

309-328. 23 Alcinous, Didaskalikos 28; Plotinus, Enneads I.2.1; Porphyry, Sententiae 32. 24  See, for instance, Ficino, De amore VII.13, 239-240; id., In Plotinum I.2.1, pp. 7-8; id., (20012006) Theologia platonica XIV.10, vol. 4, 318; id., Epistulae 50 (commentary on Plato’s Theaetetus 176), in id., Lettere, 97. 25 Ficino, De amore II.4, 33.15-18. Repeated in id., Theologia platonica IV.1.25-28, vol 1, 289-294 (deus, mens, anima). 26 Ficino, De amore VI.15-16, 185.18-191.32. See also id., In Phaedrum xi, 1372.6-13 (mundus corporeus, mundus animalis, mundus intellectualis, primus intellectus).

From Marsilio Ficino to Thomas Taylor

3

lect, soul, nature and matter (deus, mens, anima, natura, materia).27 Finally, in De amore VII.13 he distinguishes between six levels, namely The One, Intellect, soul, reasoning, sensation, bodies (unum, mens, anima, ratio, opinio, corpora).28 This variation may appear inconsistent to the modern reader, but if one were to defend Ficino, one could point out that Plotinus’ own text opens up different determinations of the number of hypostases, and that the common determination from the 19th and 20th century was unavailable to Ficino. It remains decisive, however, that Ficino did his best to interpret Plotinus’ doctrine of hypostases in a manner that was compatible with Christian thought. To what extent he succeeded is open to debate. Ficino’s reading of Plotinus was rejected by the German philologist and theologian Christoph August Heumann (1681-1764), who belonged to the Lutheran church. In 1715, he published a critical review of Porphyry’s Vita Plotini (‘Das Leben Plotini vom Porphyrio’), in order to discredit the ancient biographical tradition as a legitimate model for the writing of the history of philosophy. This model had been well-known through collective biographies like Diogenes Laertius’ Lives of Eminent Philosophers, but also through biographies of individual philosophers like Porphyry’s Vita Plotini. Heumann argued that this model was bound to be uncritical and unreliable, since it was imbued with the uncritical appraisal of the biographer in regard to the philosopher portrayed. He also argued that this model only provided a historical account of a past philosopher, not a philosophical account, that is, an account which passed judgement on the truth value of the philosopher’s doctrines. Heumann used Porphyry’s Vita Plotini as a test case and condemned it for these reasons. Moreover, he rejected this particular biography because it implicitly invited the reader to emulate Plotinus and his understanding of noetic ascent, which was unacceptable to Heumann as a Lutheran, because it violated Lutheran Christology. Instead, Heumann recommended that past philosophy, including that of Plotinus, should be accounted for through depersonalised systems of philosophy, consisting of over-arching principles and deductions from these principles.29 In that way Heumann not only rejected a model of writing the history of philosophy; he also blocked one cognitive and ethical strategy that was facilitated by the biographical tradition and its peculiar reading technique, namely, one in which the reader of biographies of philosophers emulated the philosopher portrayed and lived, so to speak, the philosophy in question. Heumann reserved this cognitive and ethical strategy for one figure only, Christ.

27 Ficino, De amore II.3, 27.13-14. See also id., In Parmenidem [lv], 1166.1-4 (deus, intellectus primus, anima, species materialis, materia informis); id., Theologia platonica I.1.3, vol. 1, 16; III.2.1, vol. 1, 230 (corpus, qualitas, anima, angelus, deus). 28 Ficino, De amore VII.13, 239.6-8. For Ficino’s interpretation of Plotinus’ doctrine of the hypostases, see Allen, 1982, 19-44. 29  Heumann, 1715, 138-159. For this theme, see Catana, 2017, 337-397.

4

The Text of Plotinus: From Ficino to Henry and Schwyzer

Jakob Brucker (1696-1770) founded the history of philosophy as a philosophical discipline with his Historia critica philosophiae (1742-1767), largely following Heumann’s methodological precepts—both the negative ones (rejection of the biographical model) and the positive ones (reconstruction of depersonalised and abstract philosophical systems).30 Contrary to the earlier tradition of Plotinus scholarship from the 15th to the 18th century, Brucker by-passed Porphyry’s Vita Plotini and Ficino’s commentary. Even more importantly, Brucker deviated from Porphyry’s ordering of Plotinus’ Enneads in his account of the Plotinian system of philosophy: For Brucker, who held that the task of the historian of philosophy was to identify and convey the principles in a given system of philosophy, the hypostases were to be regarded as the primary principles in the Plotinian system, from which the various doctrines were deduced. This implied that the ethical treatises were now regarded as derivative of these principles. Brucker regarded the hypostases as starting points for logical deductions, i.e., principles, rather than starting points in ontological processes; and Plotinus’ ethical treatises were now regarded as deductions from these principles.31 Ficino’s account of Plotinus’ philosophy was very different from the account presented by Brucker: He did not by-pass Porphyry’s Vita Plotini, he did not reject Porphyry’s ordering, and he did not have recourse to any notion of a system with all-embracing principles. Instead, his primary mode of exposition was the commentary form. Moreover, Ficino did not see a radical divide between what we now call Middle Platonism (e.g. Alcinous) and Neoplatonism (e.g. Plotinus). Instead, he used the term platonici for what we now call Middle Platonists and Neoplatonists. It was Brucker who made possible this terminological and historiographical divide, and he did so by means of his notions ‘system of philosophy’, ‘syncretism’ and ‘eclecticism’. In Brucker’s terminology, syncretists are intellectually unable to produce systems of philosophy, because they cannot emancipate themselves from inherited traditions, which is a precondition for selecting principles in a system of philosophy that are internally coherent. Eclecticists, on the other hand, possess this ability, and they are the intellectual heroes in Brucker’s thought. According to Brucker, Platonists like Plotinus and Porphyry were syncretists, that is, weak minds unable to free themselves from imbibed philosophical and religious traditions in Alexandria; they belonged to a sect and gave a confused and distorting rendering of Plato’s philosophy.32 The English Platonist Thomas Taylor (1748-1835) translated several texts from the ancient Platonic tradition, often supplemented with significant introductions 30  Catana, 2008. For modern scholarship on Plotinus, see also Varani, 2008; Corrigan, 2019, 257-288. 31  Catana, 2013, 50-98. 32  For the terms ‘Middle Platonism’ and ‘Neoplatonism’, see Catana, 2013, 50-98; id. 2013b, 166200. Gerson, 2010, 3-4, argues that we should abandon the term ‘Neoplatonism’.

The Search for a Properly Established Edition

5

and commentaries. In 1794 his translation of Plotinus’ Ennead I.4 came out; in 1804 his (and Floyer Sydenham’s) translation of Plato’s works appeared; and in 1823 his translation of Porphyry’s Sententiae was printed. Taylor’s selection of works by Plotinus and Porphyry indicates his strong interest in ethics and moral psychology. Taylor’s basic view was that Platonism offered philosophical solutions to some of the problems caused by modern, philosophical materialism, and this view coloured his work with the ancient Platonic tradition. He turned against the Bruckerian tradition, within which Plotinus’ ethics, his doctrine of homoiōsis theō, had been re-located from a prominent position in Porphyry’s ordering of the Enneads to a philosophically insignificant derivative in the Bruckerian account of Plotinus’ system of philosophy. Even though the English romantic poets embraced Taylor’s approach to the Platonic tradition, it was vehemently rejected in two reviews, probably written by James Mill (1773-1836), citing Brucker’s systematic account of Plotinus as authoritative.33 Although Taylor shared Ficino’s view that the Platonic doctrine of homoiōsis theō was central to a proper understanding of Plotinus’ thought, Taylor ended up rejecting the Ficinian interpretation of Plotinus, since it was too indebted to Ficino’s Christian inclinations.

1.2. The Search for a Properly Established Edition Kevin Corrigan

1.

Introduction: Ficino

The story of the modern text of Plotinus starts with Ficino in the Renaissance.34 Two manuscripts of Plotinus’ works, the Parisinus graecus 1976 and the Laurentianus 87, 3, were brought to Italy in the early fifteenth century and purchased by Cosimo who gave them to Ficino at Careggi in 1462.35 On this latter manuscript or on a copy made by Johannes Scutiatores—the Parisinus graecus 1816, Ficino began work from 1463. While Ficino may have made a copy of the Parisinus graecus 1976 before 1471 in Palla Strozzi’s library, only the Laurentianus 87, 3 and its copy, the Parisinus graecus 1816, bear several different annotations in his hand. Thus, although he did use other manuscripts (two collections of excerpts from Plotinus (and Plato) in Greek, Milan, Bibiotheca Ambrosiana, F 19 sup., and in Latin, Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana 92 and Vatican Library, Borg.gr. 22),36 these manuscripts are all dependent upon the Laurentianus 87,3. On the one hand, then, Ficino was unable to carry out a 33 

Catana, 2013c, 180-220. In the earlier indirect tradition of citations by pagan and Christian authors from the 4th to the 6th centuries, and beyond, copies of the Enneads (now lost) were available not only in Rome, but also in Sicily, Byzantium, Caesarea, Skythopolis, Apamea, Athens, and Alexandria. On this see Henry, 1934, 25-43; 1938, 43-67; 159-196; D’Ancona, 2012a, 42-43; 2012b, 911-930. 35  On this and Ficino’s library, see Laurens, 2012, lxxi-lxxxix, especially lxxvii-lxxix. 36  Saffrey, 1996, 491. 34 

6

The Text of Plotinus: From Ficino to Henry and Schwyzer

critical comparison of manuscripts but had to resort to conjectures—divinatio, as Saffrey puts it,37 however brilliant these conjectures may still have been. On the other hand, he divided the text into chapters with titles and headings that we use today. And his translation of Plotinus with commentary (shorter commentaries for the later Enneads) was published in 1492 and became widely used by scholars in Italy and elsewhere, including Giordano Bruno and many others. In the sixteenth century it was reprinted five times, and his commentary separately reprinted three more times. Ficino therefore provided an invaluable framework for the study of the Enneads, but necessarily left to posterity the problem of establishing a proper text based on a collation of different manuscripts and an evaluation of all the evidence, direct and indirect.38

2.

Editio Princeps and the indirect tradition

In 1580, Ficino’s 1492 Latin translation was used in the editio princeps of the Greek text that appeared in Basle under the editorship of Pietro Perna. The text was prepared for Perna by an unknown editor (H-S1) (identified by O’Meara, on the basis of Perna’s preface, fol. 3v and fol. 203v, as Domenico Montesoro of Padua39), who consulted four manuscripts,40 though ‘secondary and very inferior’.41 Earlier in 1519 Plotinus had also appeared in disguise through the long version of the Theology of Aristotle, portions of Enneads IV-VI (wrongly attributed to Aristotle), translated into Arabic in the Abū Yūsuf Yaʿqūb al-Kindī circle probably by a Syriac Christian, Ibn Naʿima al-Ḥims ̣ī, in the 9th Century,42 and then re-translated into Latin and incorporated into editions of Aristotle published by A. Jacobus Martin (Lyons, 1578), Joachim Périon (1580), and Claudius Marnius and Johannes Aubrius (Frankfort, 1593) and others. The authorship of the Theology was not rejected until Luther (1483-1546) and Pierre de la Ramée (Petrus Ramus: 1515-1572) in the sixteenth century, and not traced to Plotinus’ Enneads until Thomas Taylor in 1812. No vernacular translations of Plotinus seem to have appeared in these centuries, except perhaps for a missing commentary attributed to Paulus Scalichius (1534-1575).43 So the Perna text, together with ‘Plotinus’ in the guise of ‘Aristotle’—but with lesser consequence, and together with direct quotations from Plotinus in other authors 37 

Saffrey, 1996, 505. For this work, I have consulted Cherniss, 1952, “Review of Plotini Opera I,” 239-256; Henry, 1935, “Recherches;” 1937, “l’enseignement oral de Plotin,” 310-342; 1938, “États du texte”; 1948, “Manuscrits;” Schwyzer, 1951, “Plotinos,” col. 471-592; Saffrey, 1996, “Florence,” 488-508; D’Ancona, 2012a, “Textual Tradition,” 37-71; 2012b, “Plotin,” 885-1068; Narbonne/Achard/Ferroni, Plotin. Oeuvres Complètes, 2012, Introduction; Corrigan, “Plotinus and Modern Scholarship,” 2019, 257-287. 39  O’Meara, 1992, 59. 40  See Henry, 1948 (Manuscrits), 295-319; H-S1, 1, Praefatio xxv-xxvi. 41  H-S, Praefatio xxv. 42  For the Theology, see below, pages 9-10. See also Adamson, 2002 on the Arabic Plotinus; 2016, 26-32; on Al Kindī; D’Ancona, 2010, 872-8(. 43  For this see O’Meara, 1992, 58-59. 38 

The eclipse, yet major influence, of Plotinus: England and Germany

7

such as Eusebius, was seminal for the sixteenth up to the nineteenth centuries. These centuries for many reasons were at times very unfavorable to Plotinus and to Ficino’s revival of Plotinus, despite the enormous hidden influence of Plotinus upon the development of modern thought. Let me briefly observe this influence in two countries: England and Germany.

3.

The eclipse, yet major influence, of Plotinus: England and Germany

In England, we might, first, note the metaphysical poets of the 16th and 17th centuries; second, the group known as the Cambridge Platonists (Ralph Cudworth, Henry More, Ann Conway, and others), influenced by Ficino and Augustino Steucho (the first to use the phrase “perennial philosophy”) who read Plotinus and ancient philosophy in the kind of open-ended ‘perennial’ way through the lens of Ficino;44 third, George Berkeley (1685-1753), who demonstrates his profound knowledge of Plotinus in his late work Siris (1744) which is dedicated, among other things, to extolling the virtues of tar-water; and finally, Thomas Taylor’s revival of Platonism as an alternative pagan religion manifested especially in his paraphrasing translations of selections of Plotinus (1817 and 1834) and of the complete works of Plato and Aristotle, among other things, that made Plotinus, together with many other ancient texts, available to Blake, Wordsworth, Keats, and Coleridge. In a letter included in this present volume, A. H. Armstrong rues Taylor’s anti-Christian sectarian cult, but respects the scope of his influence—especially in America upon Emerson, Thoreau, Whitman, Emily Dickinson, and many others. In Germany, the influence of Plotinus in different forms was problematic, often hidden, but immense (as noted by Catana in this book). We can see, on the one hand, the favorable reactions of Novalis (1772-1801), who was unable to read Plotinus directly and Tiedemann (1748-1803), who devoted over 170 pages of his six-volume Geist der spekulativen Philosophie (1793) to Plotinus, but nonetheless regarded his “system” as having its “very weak points,”45 and, on the other hand, the open hostility of Brentano later (1838-1917). Ficino’s translation had been reprinted at Basle (with the appended Greek) several times between 1559 and 1615, with one further printing at Paris in 1641, but it was not reprinted again until 1835 at Oxford, a gap of nearly two hundred years. Overwhelmingly, then, German writers presented Plotinus’ thought as obscure, superstitious and fanatical. As Catana notes in this book, for Jakob Brucker (1696-1770), who founded the history of philosophy as a philosophical discipline (1742-1767), Platonists like Plotinus and Porphyry were syncretists, who “belonged to a sect and gave a confused and distorting rendering of Plato’s philosophy” (6). 44  45 

See Catana, 2020 (above). Tiedemann, 1793, 263-264. See also Hampton, in press, 2020.

8

The Text of Plotinus: From Ficino to Henry and Schwyzer

Nonetheless, in the seventeenth century, Spinoza (1632-1677) and Leibniz (16461716) developed opposite views of substance directly or indirectly related to Plotinian principles (together with the undoubted influence of the Liber de Causis46)—God as single total substance versus God as the Monad of monads. Fichte’s immanent idealism based upon the ‘I’ is much removed from Plotinus, but it captures something of the dynamism of the self in Plotinus’ thought, even if the transcendental is lost. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was interested precisely in the relation between the sensible and the supersensible, even if he wanted to eliminate the mystical aspect of Platonism and establish limits for human thinking, which he did in his three critiques, but especially in the Critique of Pure Reason. Goethe (1749-1842), Schelling (1775-1854), Hölderlin (1770-1843), and Hegel (1770-1831)—the last three roommates at the Tübinger Stift—all admired Plotinus and transmitted this to the British Idealists and the American Transcendentalists. Goethe’s studies of light and color, of the metamorphosis of plants and insects, and Schelling’s emphasis upon the array of developmental potencies in creative nature are directly or indirectly related to the dynamism and freedom of nature and logoi that we see in Enneads III 8 and V 8 and that we find later in Emerson’s view that procession from the top down is intimately connected with the geological record and the emergence of consciousness from the bottom up. Hegel was known as the ‘German Proclus,’ but his dialectic was given classic pre-modern formulation by both Plotinus and Proclus in the productive/developmental models of abiding-procession-return and procession-conversion-autoconstitution.47

4.

From Creuzer-Moser, Kirchhoff, Müller, to Bréhier

With this brief overview of reception in England and Germany, let us turn to the history of the text of the Enneads in the 19th century. Hegel’s colleague, Friedrich Creuzer, published texts and Latin translations (adapted from Ficino’s translations of Enneads III 8 (1805) and I 6 (1814)), with extensive commentary in the latter, and then, together with G. H. Moser, a new complete edition of Plotinus in 1835 in which the editors tried to establish a scientific basis for approaching the text, based on practically all the available manuscripts, but they did not succeed in establishing any coherent relation among the manuscripts themselves. In addition, they relied 46  This treatise, drawing on Plotinus’ Enneads, Proclus’ Elements of Theology, and the so-called Theology of Aristotle, originally written in Arabic, probably in the 9th century, was translated into Latin by Gerard of Cremona in the 12th century, with commentaries by Aquinas and Giles of Rome. Nicholas of Cusa and Giordano Bruno used Giles of Rome’s commentary, for instance. So the Liber de Causis was known in the Latin tradition prior to Ficino’s translation of the Enneads and continued to be influential thereafter. As Leo Catana has pointed out, it is quite possible that Leibniz’ understanding of Plotinus may have been mediated by the Liber de Causis. On this generally, see Bardenhewer, 1882, 204-302; Taylor, 1983, 81-84; Fouke, 1994, 168-194; Catana, 2005. 47  8 For the difference between later Neoplatonism and Hegelian dialectic, see Wallis, 1995, 130131.

From Creuzer-Moser, Kirchhoff, Müller, to Bréhier

9

too much upon the readings of the manuscript used by Ficino, the Laurentianus 87,3. Victor Cousin, a French contemporary and admirer of Hegel, performed a similar service for the French-speaking world (see M.-N. Bouillet’s translation and notes, 1857-1861). The Creuzer-Moser text was followed by a succession of editions: first, A. Kirchhoff (Leipzig, 1856), which, despite his severe criticism of the Creuzer-Moser edition (Henry-Schwyzer Praefatio, iii-iv), used fewer manuscripts. Kirchhoff presented the Enneads in their chronological order (according to him, Porphyry’s order is based on nothing else but the esoteric numerology of his time), but he was more conjectural, taking considerable liberties to ‘improve’ the text, since, in his view, the manuscript tradition could not be trusted; indeed, because the oldest manuscript dated only to the 12th century (Marcianus Graecus 209, Siglum D), there was for Kirchhoff no question of tracing this tradition back to any archetype. There then followed the editions of H. F. Müller (2 volumes, Berlin, 1878-1880) and R. Volkmann (Leipzig, 1883-1884), both indebted to Kirchhoff’s judgment that, given manuscript uncertainty, intelligent conjecture was the only recourse available. An edition of 1855 by M. A.-F. Didot (Les Œuvres de Plotin, avec quelques ouvrages accessoires, Bibliothèque des écrivains grecs) was virtually a reprint of the Creuzer-Moser edition. And two years later, one of the most influential French translations, that by M.N. Bouillet in 1857, rejects Kirchhoff’s text (superior to Creuzer-Moser only because of better punctuation), adopts a lightly corrected version of Creuzer-Moser, and notes the previous absence of attention to Plotinus, who was, in Vacherot’s memorable assessment, ‘le dernier mot de la philosophie grecque’. Bouillet, however, also rejects Kirchhoff’s espousal of Porphyry’s chronological order as ‘without plausible motive’ and ‘practically useless’; and, despite many judgments of good sense about Plotinus, maintains in the title of his work the assessments of Simon (Histoire de L’École d’Alexandrie, Paris, 1843-1845) and Vacherot (L’École d’Alexandrie, Paris, 1846-1851) that Plotinus was leader of the School of Alexandria. As Vacherot maintained, Neoplatonism is “essentially and radically oriental, having nothing of Greek thought but its language and procedure” (cited in Dodds, 1928, 130). In the next century, there followed new editions by O. Kiefer (German, 2 vols., Jena and Leipzig, 1905), E. H. Bréhier (French, Paris, 1924-1938), and G. Faggin (Italian, Milan, 1947-1948). Bréhier collated readings from two manuscripts in the Bibliothèque Nationale (Parisinus A and Parisinus B) while also taking some account of the indirect tradition.48 Faggin’s edition is a reprint of the text established by Bréhier with his translation a “faithful remodeling” for the most part of that of Bréhier (Narbonne/Achard/Ferroni, cclxxxv, note 6). Finally, Stephen MacKenna’s translation (MacKenna, 1872-1934; translation, 1917-1930), based on Volkmann’s text with an occasional reading from Creuzer, had an enormous influence in Ireland 48 

See Preface.

10

The Text of Plotinus: From Ficino to Henry and Schwyzer

and England and is still used today, though it has generally been superseded by Armstrong’s translation.

5. Henry-Schwyzer There was, therefore, in the 20th century a real need to establish a scientific edition of the text in order to get as accurate a picture as possible of Plotinus’ thought and also to provide a basis for a new appreciation of that thought that could overcome the misunderstandings and sectarian prejudices that had in part dominated the previous 450 years from Ficino’s time. Each successive edition from Creuzer to Kirchhoff and Müller had made some advances in distinguishing the families of the different manuscripts, but especially given Kirchhoff’s view that divinatio was in many cases the only appropriate approach to the text, each edition was a further departure from the MS tradition and “a further obscuration of the evidence.”49 Thus, from 1946, Paul Henry S.J. and Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer started work upon the first truly reliable scientific Greek edition of the Enneads: Plotini Opera, editio maior, 3 vols. (Brussels, Paris, and Leiden, 1951-1973)—a major achievement, in its own way comparable to that of Ficino in the Renaissance. This was followed, first, by the appearance of the editio minor, 3 vols. (Oxford. 1964-1983)—with significant changes on the basis of suggestions from scholars such as Dodds and others50—and, later, further corrections after the death of P. Henry (e.g., Schwyzer, “Corrigenda ad Plotini textum,” 1987, 191-210). Some of the earlier work of both scholars provided the methodological foundation for the new critical edition.51 However, each of them inspected the MSS and worked out the text independently. They then together worked through the doubtful readings and difficult passages, together deciding the text they would adopt.52 The major result was effectively a revolution in Plotinian studies, the fruit of nearly 30 years of collaborative work and of correspondence between major scholars. As we can now see in the present volume, this collaboration included a wider circle of Dodds, Armstrong, Atkinson, Igal S.J., Roussos, Kalligas, and many others. For the first time, the text was based on a thorough examination of all the manuscripts, the indirect sources and evidence, that traced the four major families of the manuscript tradition (w, x, y, z), the single manuscript of a fifth sub-archetype (D: Marcianus Graecus 209), as well as ten secondary manuscripts derivative from the sub-archetypes, back to a single archetype.53 Of the primary manuscripts they collated all of families w, x, 49 

Cherniss, 1952, 239-240. Dodds, 1956, 108-113; cf. Narbonne/Achard/Ferroni, 2012, cclxxxvii, notes 1-3. 51  See note 5 above for details. For Schwyzer, add 1937a, 358-384; 1937b, 270-285; 1939, 367-379; 1949, 216-236; 1950, 154-158. 52  Cherniss, 1952, 243. 53  For a list of the manuscripts, see H-S1 Praefatio xii-xxii (De Codicibus primariis), xxiii-xxv (De Codicibus secondariis). 50 

Henry-Schwyzer

11

z, and D, and U, S, M, of y. As Cherniss notes in his review of the editio maior, Vol. I, manuscript C they collated only for the Life of Plotinus and the Pinax; N and V they did not collate themselves, and they cited the readings of these manuscripts only when U, S, and M were not in agreement. Most important was the weight Henry and Schwyzer assigned to either manuscript families or individual manuscripts. As Cherniss notes, in selecting the text, they trusted w more than z, y more than w or x, the consensus xy more than wz, and the consensus wx more than the consensus yz. They also distinguished two separate hands in the Laurentianus 87, 3 (the manuscript worked on by Ficino), of which only the first they took to be more authoritative, contrary to the practice of all previous editors. In short, the resultant text and apparatus provide the reader for the first time with “a clear and complete schematic account of the MS tradition of the text and a history of its treatment in the printed editions” (Cherniss, 244). In other words, Henry-Schwyzer provide the basis for anyone to form a critical judgment of the text. Above all, the existence of a single archetype, however slightly corrupted (for which see immediately below), meant for Henry and Schwyzer that their primary duty was to restore this archetype and thus to favor wherever possible the best manuscript tradition rather than to emend wherever the text was difficult, obscure, or nonsensical. As Henry Blumenthal observed in 1984, “Henry and Schwyzer might fairly claim to have made the most important contribution to the study of Plotinus since Porphyry published the Enneads in the early years of the fourth century.”54 The existence of a single archetype (or single line of transmission, a thesis contested by other possibilities, as we will see below) was shown by the major lacuna in Ennead IV 7 [2]. This lacuna is present in the entire direct tradition and thankfully remedied by the chance testimony of Eusebius’ Preparatio Evangelica (PE) XV, 10 and 22. In PE XV, 10, 1-9, Eusebius provides the text for IV 7, 85 (as numbered by H-S) against the Aristotelian soul-entelechy theory, and in PE XI, 22, 1-67, the text for IV 7, 1, 1-84, 28, against the Stoic corporeal soul theory. In almost all the manuscripts, the lacuna extends from 8, 28, δικαιοσύνη, up to 85, 49, τοῦ ὄντος, while in J, M, V (and a copy of M, Barberinus graecus 27555) alone, it extends from 84, 28, ἁρμονία up to 85, 49, τοῦ ὄντος. The lacuna and its fortunate retrieval through Eusebius, therefore, can only be explained by the loss of several folios in the archetype. That the archetype has in this way been corrupted is also confirmed by the presence of those texts in the Arabic Theology of Aristotle, something that seems to provide the strongest evidence that a pre-archetypal manuscript of the Enneads with Porphyry’s headings included was available for translation into Arabic by either al-Hims ̣ī or al-Kindī or both in the early decades of the 9th century.56 54 

Blumenthal, Review of H-S2 iii 1984, 221. See Narbonne/Achard/Ferroni, 2012, cclxii, note 2. 56  On this see further below; cf. D’Ancona, 2012a, 37-71; 2012b, 885-1068. 55 

12

The Text of Plotinus: From Ficino to Henry and Schwyzer

According to the editio maior, Henry-Schwyzer supposed that there was a second lacuna in Ennead VI 7 [38] 1, lines 48-49, in which all the manuscripts, even those that did not contain IV 7 [2], omitted the words δεῖ τοίνυν καὶ τοῦ ἀεὶ εἶναι attested by John Philoponus, who cites the passage three times in his work De aeternitate mundi contra Proclum.57 But in the editio minor, Henry-Schwyzer changed their mind and instead cited the Philoponus passage as a gloss. As Narbonne/Achard/ Ferroni note, if one thinks that the Philoponus passage genuinely goes back to Plotinus, then Philoponus’ citation constitutes a terminus post quem for the date of the archetype—perhaps between the 9th and 12th centuries.58

6.

Henry-Schwyzer in correspondence with Armstrong, Igal, and others

As this book shows, Henry-Schwyzer’s magnum opus took place for the most part independently, but very often in extensive consultation with scholars working on other editions and translations in German, Italian, English, and Spanish, especially Armstrong, Igal, Kalligas,59 et alii. These roughly contemporaneous projects included: a German edition, with an often speculative Greek text departing at many places from H-S, with complete translation and notes by R. Harder, revised and with commentary supplied for treatises 22-54 (in the chronological order) by W. Theiler and R. Beutler with an extensive survey of Plotinus’ philosophy and indices together with G. J. P. O’Daly (Plotins Schriften, Hamburg, 1956-1971)—undertaken, as O’Daly has noted, in “friendly independence;” an Italian translation by V. Cilento (Plotino: Enneadi, Bari, 1947-1949—with major bibliography by Bert Mariën);60 a revised version of the editio minor text published with English translation by A. H. Armstrong, Plotinus, 7 vols. Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1966-1988); a complete translation of the Enneads into Spanish by Jésus Igal (Porfirio, Vida de Plotino – Plotino, Enéadas I-II, Madrid 1982; Plotino, Enéadas III-IV, Madrid 1985; Plotino, Enéadas V-VI, Madrid, 1998), with the introductions and commentary of the third volume separately completed after the death of Igal. From their letters to Armstrong, we can see that both Henry and Schwyzer hoped that the Lexicon Plotinianum (Sleeman and Pollet) would be published as part of their own Plotini Opera series, and Henry envisaged working with Armstrong to provide a further series of running commentary to the Enneads. What is clear from their letters and from reviews of the maior and minor is that the older editions provided not 57 

De aeternitate mundi II 5, 39, 8. Narbonne/Achard/Ferroni, 2012, cclv, and also note 2 on the possibility that the archetype was part of a ‘philosophical collection’ of manuscripts copied in Constantinople in the second half of the Ninth Century. See also Westerink, 1986, lxxiii-lxxx and lxxv, note 2; Goulet, 2007, 54-58. 59  See the slightly later edition of Kalligas, P. 1991, 1994, 1997, 2004. Porphyriou: Peri tou Plôtinou biou, and Plôtinou Enneas prôtē, Plôtinou Enneas deutera, Plôtinou Enneas tritē, Athens: The Academy of Athens. 60  For criticism see Cherniss, 1952, 252-256. 58 

Consequences and influence

13

so much a finished or even definitive text as a continuing conversation for future corrections. As Blumenthal notes in his 1986 review of the minor ii and iii, “in H-S2 iii the editors have made some 230 changes from H-S1 […] in particular they have accepted proposals made by J. Igal, whose contribution is noteworthy: over 40 of the new readings follow his suggestions. At the same time H-S have abandoned some of the small number of their own conjectures which they admitted in H-S1 iii […]” (CR 222).61 The extensive contribution of Igal can be seen clearly for the first time with his impressive letters in this book.62 Schwyzer may have feared the work that Igal’s suggestions imposed upon him, just as he disliked flurries of emendations from Theiler, but when it came to the completion of the editio minor in the possible event of his own death and in the absence of Henry because of medical problems, in the final analysis he entrusted this work to Igal.

7.

Consequences and influence

By way of preliminary conclusion, let me make three further points that may be helpful for any reader of the documents in this book. First, as we can see in his letters to Armstrong, Schwyzer is radically opposed to emendations designed to domesticate or eradicate difficulties in Plotinus’ Greek. Of Kirchhoff and likeminded editors, he writes: “we are going to retain our mistrust of coniecturae quoquo modo menda tollentes,63 particularly in those cases where they originate with Kirchhoff. He may have been an excellent epigrapher, but for Plotinus’ text he was a major catastrophe.”64 Nonetheless, Henry-Schwyzer’s conservative approach to the manuscript tradition (of which Schwyzer is expressly proud) and their claim (Praefatio to vol. I of the editio maior [p. xi]) that in restoring the archetype they usually restored Plotinus’ own words would turn out not to be fully acceptable in practice. Two notable examples: first, they sometimes favored the best MSS tradition even when the text was unintelligible beyond anything explicable by the idiosyncrasies of Plotinus’ Greek; second, they retained the intensive pronoun αὐτό on significant MSS authority instead of the reflexive αὑτό even where the reflexive was clearly required—a practice rightly abandoned later. For later editions when Henry could no longer bear to read, Schwyzer remained committed to rethinking their earlier convictions and therefore stayed faithful to the critical scientific spirit of the overall project, namely, to provide the reader with the best instruments for a critical determination of the text.

61  Blumenthal and others refer to the editio major as H-S1, the minor as H-S2, and H-S2 vol. iii as H-S3. 62  See also Biography of Igal, Gary Gurtler, in this book. 63  That is, conjectures in some way designed to eliminate errors. 64  For Schwyzer’s assessment of the morphological and syntactical qualities of Plotinus’ writing see Paulys RE 512-530.

14

The Text of Plotinus: From Ficino to Henry and Schwyzer

Second, Henry and Schwyzer were by no means always in agreement. The idea of a Eustochian edition of Plotinus’ text, for example, noted by a scholion that appears in several manuscripts belonging to three families of the Enneads,65 together with the fact that Eusebius quotes the missing section of IV 7 [2] in the Preparatio Evangelica, caused Paul Henry to argue that Eusebius was not using Porphyry’s text, but a pre-Porphyrian edition of Eustochius (a proposal first made by Creuzer III, col. 202b; Henry, Recherches; H-S1 II, Praefatio, ix-vii). Henry also maintained that in the Arabic tradition it is possible to discern traces of an edition of Amelius: “Le Livre de la Théologie […] n’est qu’ un fragment des notes de cours d’Amélius” (Henry, 1937, 310-342 and 326; ibid. États, xiv).66 Concerning the text of Eusebius, Henry supposed that since Ennead IV 7 is not divided by Porphyry in the way Eusebius divides it, it must be based on a different, non-Enneadic division, namely, that of Eustochius,67 and since part of the text of the Praeparatio differs in 103 places from the text of Porphyry’s Enneads, he thought that this could not be explained by copyist errors. However, Schwyzer argued against a pre-Porphyrian edition of Plotinus’ works from which Eusebius had drawn his quotations of IV. 7 [2], and the discovery of a new Eusebian manuscript by Dörrie (T Vaticanus Rossianus 986) reduced the variant readings from 103 to 10, and so we can attribute the discordances between the direct and indirect tradition in one passage of Eusebius to the Eusebian manuscript tradition itself.68 Subsequent scholarship has cast further doubt on the hypothesis.69 In his letter to Dodds in our collection, Schwyzer remains non-committal about the Eustochian hypothesis. Finally, Henry’s pursuit of the Plotiniana Arabica was far-sighted. As we can see from his letters to Armstrong, Henry hunted down the manuscripts of the so-called Theology of Aristotle and insisted upon having them translated into English by G. Lewis and then included for comparison in the editio maior, against Schwyzer’s initial resistance—something that can still look odd to the untutored eye. The Arabic Theology itself is a very free collection of extracts from Enneads IV-VI, interlaced with some literal translations and yet other passages that have no 65  That is, a scholion to Ennead IV 4 [28], 29, 55 transmitted, among the primary manuscripts, only by A E (w), R J (x), and C M (y), that reads: “Up to this point in the [books] of Eustochius, the second treatise on the soul and the third began. In the [books] of Porphyry, on the other hand, what follows is attached to the second treatise.” The scholiast seems to suggest that it was possible to read a differently arranged ‘Plotinus’ of Eustochius alongside an Enneadic Plotinus of Porphyry. 66  The Arabic pseudo-Theology of Aristotle contains the whole of Ennead IV 7 [2]; see D’Ancona, 2006,128-155; Goulet-Cazé, 2007, 63-97. 67  See the conclusions of Henry, 1935 (Recherches), 79-80; H-S1 II, Praefatio, x; Rist, 1981,140-141; 159-164, thought these Plotinian passages were drawn not from Eustochius, but from copies of Amelius or Longinus; see also Kalligas, 2001, 584-598; Goulet-Cazé, 1992, 90-96; Narbonne/Achard/Ferroni, 2012, cclxxiii-iv, note 2. 68  Dörrie, 1938, 529; Schwyzer, 1939, 367-379; 1936, 543-549. 69  Brisson, 1992, 65-76; Van der Valk, 1956, 114-131; Goulet-Cazé, 2007, 63-97; D’Ancona, 2012a, 42; 2012b, 899-902.

Consequences and influence

15

Greek source. The collection contains, as far as we can see today, paraphrases or extracts only from Enneads IV-VI (partially collected, as noted above, in an English translation by G. Lewis in H-S1 II, 1959) that include the following: first, the so-called Theology of Aristotle (why it is attributed to Aristotle is unknown) in long and short, or vulgate, recensions (whose interconnection is unclear) with a prologue, 142 chapter headings or mayāmir [singular: mīmar] in Syriac (for Ennead IV 4) and 6 books of paraphrase for Enneads IV-VI (perhaps Porphyry’s lost comments and summaries), that can be traced either to a Syriac original or to the translator of Plotinus into Arabic from Syriac, al-Hims ̣ī, or to al-Kindī himself; second, The Letter of Divine Science, attributed to al-Fārābī, including paraphrases of parts of Ennead V; and third, various materials attributed to the “Greek Old Man,” paraphrases of Enneads IV-VI and, thus, parallel to the Theology itself. The collection was well known to the Islamic tradition (al-Kindī, al-Farabī, Ibn Sīnā [Avicenna], the Brethren of Purity [Ikhwān al-S ̣afāʾ], and many others) and to medieval Jewish writers (Ibn Gabirol, Ibn Ezra). It was translated into Arabic by al-Hims ̣ī, and corrected by al-Kindī (as the Incipit informs us), during the reign of the Caliph Abū Isḥāq al-Mūʿtaṣim (833-842). Why it was ascribed to Aristotle remains unclear. Schwyzer himself demonstrated that the Arabic version depends upon Porphyry’s model, since the cut in between treatises 27 and 28 (IV 3 and IV 4) is exactly that of Porphyry, among other peculiarities. Indeed, Henry and Schwyzer take the Arabic text into account eleven times in their Corrigenda Ad Arabica (in the editio maior, vol. III, 408-410), and Schwyzer himself discusses five further corrections suggested by the Arabic text in “Nachlese zur indirekten Überlieferung des Plotin-Textes,” Museum Helveticum 26, 1969, 252-270. In their letters included here, Schwyzer and Igal are acutely aware of the Arabic text and of what it can tell us about the manuscript tradition. Cristina D’Ancona70 has argued that the Arabic “headings of the questions” in the Theology are a partial translation of Porphyry’s list of κεφάλαια and ἐπιχειρήματα,71 present in the pre-archetypal Baghdad Plotinus but not in the (Western) archetype, even though this list has left some traces in the Greek direct tradition in the form of marginal numbers that feature in some manuscripts of the Enneads. So complex has this question remained and so difficult the collation of the many manuscripts of the Arabic version that we still await the first proper edition of the Arabic Theology, a team project at present being directed by D’Ancona herself.72 Henry and Schwyzer were, therefore, far ahead of their own times in including a translation of parts of the Arabic text in the editio maior and in recognizing its major importance for the evaluation of the textual tradition. 70 

D’Ancona, 2012a, 54-55; For other views see Schwyzer, Goulet-Caze, Zimmerman. VP 26, 32-37. 72  For information on progress see http:/www.greekintoarabic.eu. 71 Porphyry,

16

The Text of Plotinus: From Ficino to Henry and Schwyzer

Bibliography Editions of Plotinus: texts and translations in chronological order73 Plotinus, Opera omnia, cum latina Marsilii Ficini interpretatione et commentatione, Basileae, P. Perna, 1580. Creuzer, F. Plotini Opera omnia. Apparatum criticum disposuit, indices concinnavit G. H. Moser; emendavit, indices explevit, prolegomena, introductiones, annotations adiecit F. Creuzer, Oxonii, 1835. Creuzer, F. PLŌTINOS. Plotini Enneades, cum Marsilii Ficini interpretatione castigata, iterum ediderunt F. Creuzer et G. H. Moser. Primum accedunt Porphyrii et Procli Institutiones, et Prisciani Philosophi Solutiones, ex codice sangermanensi edidit et annotatione critica instruxit, F. Dübner, Parisiis, 1855. Kirchhoff. A. Plotini opera, recognovit A. Kirchhoff, I-II, Lipsiae, 1856. Bouillet, M.-N. Plotin, Les Ennéades, chef de l’école néoplatonicienne. Traduites pour la première fois en français, accompagnées de sommaires, de notes et d’éclaircissements et précédées de la Vie de Plotin et des Principes de la théorie des intelligibles de Porphyre Paris, 1857-8. Müller, H. F. Plotini Enneades, Antecedunt Porphyrius, Eunapius, Suidas, Eudocia de vita Plotini, I-II, Berolini, 1878-80. Volkmann, R. Plotini Enneades praemisso Porphyrii de vita Plotini deque ordine librorum eius libello, Lipsiae, 1886-4. Reprint of Creuzer, Moser, Dübner edition of 1855, 1896. MacKenna, S. The Enneads, London [translation based on Volkmann’s text], 1917-30. Bréhier, É. Plotin, Ennéades, texte, traduction, notices, I-VII, Paris, 1924-38. Faggin, G. Plotino, Le Enneadi, e Porfirio, Vita di Plotino, introduzione, testo critico, traduzione e note, Milan, 1947-8. Cilento, V. Plotino, Enneadi, versione italiana e commentario critico, I-III, Bari, 1947-9. Henry, P. and Schwyzer, H.-R. Plotini opera, Porphyrii Vita Plotini, I-III, Paris/ Bruxelles/Leiden [editio major] 1951-73. Miguez, J. A. Plotino, traducción del griego, prólogo y notas, Buenos Aires, 1955-67. Harder, R., Beutler, R., Theiler, W., with O’Daly, G. J. P. Plotins Schriften, Neuarbeitung mit griechischem Lesetext und Anmerkungen, Hamburg, 1956-71. Kroiewicz, A. Les Ennéades de Plotin, traduites et précédées d’une introduction [in Polish], I-II, Warsaw, 1959. Henry, P. and Schwyzer, H.-R. Plotini opera, Porphyrii Vita Plotini, Oxford [editio minor] 1964-82. 73  This gives a sense of the history of editions and the proliferation of translations accompanying the work of Henry and Schwyzer. For Greek Texts and Translations from Ficino to the Present see also S. Gersh [K. Corrigan], Plotinus’ Legacy, ed. S. Gersh, Cambridge 2019, 288-291.

Bibliography

17

Armstrong, A. H., Plotinus, I-VII Cambridge, MA [Greek text and English translation based on edition minor of Henry–Schwyzer] 1966-88. MacKenna, S. Revised by B. S. Page, London [see 1917-30] 1969. Spiegel, N., Plotinus’ Enneads [in Hebrew], I-II, Jerusalem, 1978-81. Igal, J. Plotino, Enéades, I-III, Madrid, 1982-98. Ferwerda, R. Plotinos. Enneaden. Porphyrius: Over het leven van Plotinus en de indeling van zijn traktaten, Amsterdam, 1984. Tanaka, M., Mizuchi, M., and Tanogashira, Y. Plotinos Zenshū, I-V, Tokyo, 1986-7. Hadot, P. (ed.). Les écrits de Plotin, Paris [multiple author series], 1987. Kalligas, P. Porphyriou: Peri tou Plôtinou biou, Plôtinou Enneas prôtē, Plôtinou Enneas deutera, Plôtinou Enneas tritē, Athens, 1991-2004. Casaglia, M., Guidelli, C., Linguiti, A., and Moriani, F. Enneadi di Plotino, prefazione di F. Adorno, I-II, Turin, 1997. Cornea, A. Plotin, Opere, I-III, Bucurest [Romanian], 2003-9. Brisson, L. and Pradeau, J.-F. (eds.). Plotin Ennéades, Traités, Paris [multiple author series], 2003-10. Sēdash, T. G. Плотин. Эннеады, I-VI, Saint Petersburg. Shí Mǐnmǐn, Pǔ luótí’nuò: Jiǔzhāng jí, Běijīng, 2009. Dillon, J. M. and Smith, A. (eds.). The Enneads of Plotinus with Philosophical Commentaries, Las Vegas [multiple author series], 2012-. Narbonne, J., Achard, M., and Ferroni, L. (eds.). Plotin: Oeuvres Complètes, Paris [multiple author series], 2012Kalligas, P. The “Enneads” of Plotinus: A Commentary, Princeton, 2014Gerson, L. P. (ed.) with Boys-Stones, G., Dillon, J. M., King, R. A. H., Smith, A., and Wilberding, J. Plotinus: the Enneads, Cambridge, UK, 2018.

Other works cited Adamson, P. (2002). The Arabic Plotinus: A Philosophical Study of the Theology of Aristotle, London: Duckworth. Allen, M. J. B. (1982). “Ficino’s Theory of the Five Substances and the Neoplatonists’ Parmenides”, Journal of Medieval and Renaissance studies, vol. 12, 19-44. Aouad, M. (1989). “La Théologie d’Aristote et autres textes du Plotinus Arabus,” Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, I, R. Goulet (ed.), Paris: CNRS Editions, 541-90. Bardenhewer, O. (1882). ‘Zur Geschichte der lateinischen Uebersetzung’, in O. Bardenhewer, Die pseudo-aristotelische Schrift ‘Ueber das reine Gute’ bekannt unter dem Namen Liber de causis. Herder’sche Verlagshandlung: Freiburg, 204-302. Blumenthal, H. J. (1984). Classical Review of Plotini Opera, III: Enneas VI by Plotinus, Paul Henry and H.-R. Schwyzer, CR 34, 2, 221-222. Brisson, L. (1992). “Une edition d’Eustochius?” In Porphyre: Sentences, I, L. Brisson (ed.), Paris: Vrin, 65-76.

18

The Text of Plotinus: From Ficino to Henry and Schwyzer

Brucker, J. (1742-1767). Historia critica philosophiae a mundi incunabulis ad nostram usque aetatem deducta, 6 vols, Leipzig (5 vols published in Leipzig 17421744. 1 vol. [appendix], published in Leipzig 1767). Catana, L. (2005). The Concept of Contraction in Giordano Bruno’s Philosophy, Aldershot: Ashgate. Catana, L. (2008). The Historiographical Concept ‘System of Philosophy’: Its Origin, Nature, Influence and Legitimacy, Leiden and Boston: Brill. Catana, L. (2013). “Changing Interpretations of Plotinus: The 18th-century Introduction of the Historiographical Concept ‘System of Philosophy,’” International Journal of the Platonic Tradition 7.1, pp. 50-98. Catana, L. (2013b). “The Origin of the Division between Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism,” Apeiron: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science 46.2, pp. 166-200. Catana, L. (2013c). “Thomas Taylor’s Dissent from Some 18th-Century Views on Platonic Philosophy: The Ethical and Theological Context,” The International Journal of the Platonic Tradition, vol. 7.2, pp. 180-220. Catana, L. (2017). “From Persona to Systema: Heumann’s Dethronement of Porphyry’s Vita Plotini and the Biographical Model in History of Philosophy,” in Biography, Historiography, and Modes of Philosophizing: The Tradition of Collective Biography in Early Modern Europe, ed. P. Baker. Leiden: Brill, 2017, pp. 337-397. Catana, L. (2019). Late Ancient Platonism in Eighteenth-Century German Thought, Leiden: Springer. Cherniss, H. (1952). Review of Plotini Opera I, Review of Metaphysics, 6, 2, 239-256. Corrigan, K. (2019). “Plotinus and Modern Scholarship: From Ficino to the Twentieth Century,” in S. Gersh (ed.), Plotinus’ Legacy: The Transformation of Platonism from the Renaissance to the Modern Era, Cambridge, 257-287. D’Ancona, C. (2001). “‘Pseudo ‘Theology of Aristotle’, Chapter I: Structure and Composition,” Oriens 36, 78-112. D’Ancona, C. (2005). “Les Sentences de Porphyre entre les Ennéades de Plotin,” Porphyre: Sentences, I, L. Brisson (ed.), Paris: Vrin, 139-274. D’Ancona, C. (2006). “The Arabic Version of Enn. IV 7 (2) and its Greek Model,” Arabic Theology, Arabic Philosophy. From the Many to the One: Essays in Celebration of Richard M. Frank, J.E. Montgomery, ed., Leuven-Paris-Dudley (Ma), 128-155. D’Ancona, C. (2007). “Deux traités plotiniens chez Eusèbe de Césarée,” The Libraries of the Neoplatonists, Philosophia Antiqua 107, C. D’Ancona (ed.), Leiden: Brill, 63-97. D’Ancona, C. (2012a). “The Textual Tradition of the Graeco-Arabic Plotinus,” in The letter before the spirit: The importance of text editions for the study of the reception Aristotle, Brill: Leiden, 37-71. D’Ancona, C. (2012b). “Plotin,” Dictionnaire des Philosophes Antiques, CNRS Editions, Paris, Va, 885-1068. Dodds, E. R. (1956). “Notes on Plotinus Enn III 8,” Studi italiani di filologia classica, 27-28, 108-113.

Bibliography

19

Dodds, E. R. et al. (1960). Les Sources de Plotin: dix exposés et discussionsVolume 5 of Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique, Fondation Hardt pour l’Étude de l’Antiquité Classique, Vandoeuvres-Genève. Dörrie, H. (1938). Review of Henry États, GGA (Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen) 200, 526-539. Dörrie, H. (1964). Review of H-S1, Gnomon 36, 461-469. Ficino, M. (2000). Opera, 2 vols. Basel, Ex officina Henricpetrina, 1576. Anastatic reprint: 2 vols, ed. S. Toussaint. Paris: Phénix Éditions. —. In Phaedrum, in id., Opera, vol. 2, pp. 1363-1386. —. In Parmenidem, in id., Opera, vol. 2, pp. 1137-1206. —. In Plotinum ad magnanimum Laurentium Medicem patriae servatorem, in Plotinus, Opera omnia (1580), fols a5r-a5v. —. Exhortatio Marsilii Ficini florentini ad auditores, et legentes Plotinum, in Plotinus, Opera omnia (1580), fol. a6r. —. In Plotinum, in Plotinus, Opera omnia (1580). —. (1990). Lettere, vol. 1, ed. S. Gentile. Florence: Olschki. —. (2001-2006). Theologia platonica, in id., Platonic theology, 6 vols, Latin text edited by J. Hankins and W. Bowen, English translation by M. J. B. Allen, Cambridge, Mass., and London: Harvard University Press. —. (2002). Commentarium in Convivium Platonis, De amore, in Ficino, Commentaire sur Le Banquet de Platon, De l’amour, Latin text, French translation and notes by P. Laurens, Paris: Les Belles Lettres (cited as Ficino, De amore). Fouke, D. (1994). “Emanation and the perfections of being: Divine causation and the autonomy of nature in Leibniz”: Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, vol. 76, 168-194. Gerson, L. P. (2010). “General Introduction,” in The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, ed. L. P. Gerson, 2 vols. with continuous pagination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, vol. 1, 1-10. Goulet, R. ed. (1989-2017). Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, 7 vols, & 1 suppl., Paris: CNRS. Goulet, R. (1992). “Le Plan de la Vita Plotini,” Porphyre: Sentences, II, L. Brisson (ed.), Paris: Vrin, 77-85. Goulet, R. (2007). “La conservation et la transmission des textes philosophiques grecs,” C. D’Ancona et al., eds, The Libraries of the Neoplatonists, Leiden: Brill, 29-61. Goulet Cazé, M.-0. (1982). “L’arrière-plan de la Vie de Plotin,” Porphyre: Sentences, I, L. Brisson (ed.), Paris: Vrin, 229-328. Goulet Cazé, M.-0. (1982). “L’édition d’ Eustochius,” Porphyre: Sentences, I, L. Brisson (ed.), Paris: Vrin, 289-94. Goulet Cazé M.-0. (1992). “Remarques sur l’Édition d’Eustochius.” Porphyre: ­Sentences, II, L. Brisson (ed.), Paris: Vrin, 71-6. Goulet Cazé M.-0. (2007). “Deux Traités plotiniens chez Eusèbe de Césarée,” The Libraries of the Neoplatonists, C. D’Ancona, ed, Leiden: Brill, 63-97.

20

The Text of Plotinus: From Ficino to Henry and Schwyzer

Hampton, A. J. B. (2020) “The Role of Plotinus in the Romantic Philosophy of Novalis: Transcending Fichte and Spinoza” (in press). Henry, P. (1935). Recherches sur La Préparation Évangelique d’Eusèbe et L’Édition perdue des oeuvres de Plotin publiée par Eustochius, Paris: Librairie Ernest Leroux. Henry, P. (1937). “Vers la reconstruction de l’enseignement oral de Plotin,” Bulletin de l’Académie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres, 23, 310-342. Henry, P. (1938). Études plotiniennes, vol. 1: Les états du texte de Plotin, Bruxelles: Edition Universelle. Henry, P. (1948). Études plotiniennes, vol. 1I: Les Manuscrits des Ennéades, Bruxelles: Edition Universelle. Heumann, C. A. (1715). “Das Leben Plotini vom Porphyrio,” in id., Acta philosophorum, vol. 1.1, 138-159 Kalligas, P. (1988). “Some new Plotinian emendations,” Emerita, 56, 95-102 [8 passages from Enneads II, III, IV et V]. Kalligas, P. (1991, 1994, 1997, 2004). Porphyriou: Peri tou Plôtinou biou, and Plôtinou Enneas prôtē, Plôtinou Enneas deutera, Plôtinou Enneas tritē, Athens: The Academy of Athens. Kalligas, P. (2001). “Traces of Longinus’ Library in Eusebius’ Praeparatio Evangelica,” Classical Quarterly 51, 584-598. Kristeller, P. O. (1937). Supplementum ficinianum. Marsilii Ficini Florentini philosophi platonici opuscula inedita et dispersa, ed. P. O. Kristeller, 2 vols. Florence: Olschki (contains texts by Ficino that are not included in Ficino, Opera Omnia (1576)). Narbonne, J. M., M. Achard, L. Ferroni, (2012). Plotin. Oeuvres Complètes. Introduction, Traité 1 (I 6), Sur le Beau, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, Vrin. O’Meara, D. (1992). “Plotinus,” Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum: Medieval and Renaissance Latin Translations and Commentaries, 55-73. Plato. (1900-1907). Opera, ed. J. Burnet, 5 vols. Oxford: Clarendon. Porphyry. (2005). Sentences, Greek text and French translation edited by L. Brisson, English translation by J. M. Dillon. Paris: J. Vrin. Rees, V., Allen, M. J. B., and Davies, M. (eds) (2002). Marsilio Ficino: His Theology, his Philosophy, his Legacy, Leiden, Boston and Cologne: Brill. Rist, J. M. (1981). “Basil’s ‘Neoplatonism,’ Its Background and Nature,” Basil of Caesarea: Christian Humanist, Ascetic. A Sixteen-Hundredth Anniversary Symposium, P. J. Fedwick, ed., Toronto, 137-220. Saffrey, H. D. (1996). “Florence 1492: The Reappearance of Plotinus,” Renaissance Quarterly, 49, 3, 488-508. Schwyzer, H.-R. 1936. Review of Henry, Recherches sur la Préparation évangélique d’Eusèbe et l’Édition Perdue des Oeuvres de Plotin. Gnomon, 12 (10), 543-549. Schwyzer, H.-R. (1937). Der Plotin-Codex Laurentianus 87,3. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, 86 (4), 358-384

Bibliography

21

Schwyzer, H.-R. (1937b). “Der Plotin-Codex ‚Vindobonensis Phil. graec. 226’,” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, 86 (3), 270-285. Schwyzer, H.-R. (1939). “Das Plotin-Excerpt im Codex Rossianus Graecus 986,” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, 88 (4), 367-379. Schwyzer, H.-R. (1941). “Die pseudoaristotelische Theologie und die Plotin-Ausgabe des Porphyrios,” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, 90, 216-236. Schwyzer, H.-R. (1950). “Die älteste Plotin-Handschrift,” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, 93 (2), 154-158. Schwyzer, H.-R. (1951). “Plotinos,” In Paulys Realenzyklopadie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft 21(1), col. 471-592. [Stuttgart: Druckenmiiller. With supplement notes in 1978, Paulys Realenzyklopadie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, Suppl. 15, 319-23. Munich: Druckenmüller]. Schwyzer, H.-R. (1987). “Corrigenda ad Plotini textum,” Museum Helveticum 44, 191-210. Sedley, D. (1999). “The Ideal of Godlikeness,” in Plato, 2 vols, ed. G. Fine, Oxford: Oxford University Press, vol. 2, 309-328. Taylor, R. C. (1983). “The Liber de causis: A Preliminary list of extant manuscripts,” in Bulletin de la société internationale pour l’étude de la philosophie médiévale, vol. 25, 81-84. Trinkaus, C. (1970). In our Image and Likeness: Humanity and Divinity in Italian Humanist Thought, 2 vols. London: Constable. Van der Valk, M. (1956) “A few Observations on the Text of Plotinus,” Mnemosyne 9, 114–131. Varani, G. (2008). Pensiero ‘alato’ e modernità. Il neoplatonismo nella storiografia filosofica in Germania (1559-1807), preface G. Piaia, Padua: Cleup. Walker, D. P. (1972). The Ancient Theology. Studies in Christian Platonism from the Fifteenth to the Eighteenth Century, London: Duckworth. Zimmerman, F. W. (1986). “The Origins of the so-called Theology of Aristotle,” in J. Kraye, W. F. Ryan and C.-B. Schmidt (eds.), Pseudo-Aristotle in the Middle Ages: The ‘Theology’ and other texts, London, 110-240.

Chapter Two

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984) 2.1. Life Suzanne Stern-Gillet There cannot have been in the last hundred years or so a more successful scholarly life than that of Paul Henry S.J. As his correspondence and his memoirs testify, the success, in which luck played its part, was due mostly to great intellectual gifts, perseverance and an ability to work unstintingly, both in solitude and in cooperation with others. Paul Henry was born in Louvain on March 1st, 1906 of an academically distinguished family. By the time of his birth, his father, also named Paul, had succeeded his own father in the chair of organic chemistry at the University of Louvain. His mother, née Anna Vandenbroeck, whom he would later praise as “sweet, mild, devoted and self-effacing,” would remain a constant presence in his life. Until 1914, the young Paul was educated at home and enjoyed traditional Belgian holidays at the seaside. In 1912, affected by tuberculosis, like his father and elder brother, he spent the winter months in Cannes. These golden months were not to be repeated as war soon broke out and, in 1914, Louvain was laid waste by the advancing German army. The family escaped on the last ship to leave Ostend for England. After a spell in London, the Henry family moved to Oxford, one of over a hundred academic families from Louvain to which the University of Oxford extended generous hospitality. They would remain in Oxford until the time of the armistice on 11th November 1918. This meant that, up to the age of thirteen, the young Paul, like his four siblings, received a traditional British education. He flourished in Oxford, doing well on all counts, becoming head-boy and cricket captain of his school. So well-integrated was he in his Oxford milieu that he soon became fluent in English. Indeed, English long remained his dominant language. The occasional stylistic infelicities to be detected in his correspondence with A.H. Armstrong are due to the thirty years he later spent studying and teaching in Paris. Although he spent the last twelve years of his life in the Flemish part of Belgium, he never mastered the language. If the Oxford years were mostly happy, they were also marked by tragedy: Paul Henry senior died of tuberculosis in 1917 at the young age of fifty-one and young Paul’s elder brother died in battle shortly before the armistice. Tragedy did not crush this intensely religious family. Throughout the period of their displacement and after the death of her husband, Madame Henry continued to nurture the Catholic faith of her children through daily communal prayers and readings from both the Old and the New Testament. The young Paul heard mass daily, serving as altar

24

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

boy at either Campion Hall or St Aloysius on the Woodstock Road. His religious vocation must have manifested itself early since he chose to attend a “vocational retreat” in 1923, his last year of secondary school. In the course of the retreat, which took place in the Trappist monastery of Chimay (Belgium), Paul came under the influence of the then famous Dom Chautard O.C.S.O. (Ordo Cisterciensis Strictioris Observantiae),74 to whom he confided that he was thinking of becoming a Benedictine. With insight all the more remarkable for being based on a short acquaintance, Dom Chautard replied: “No, that is not your vocation, you must become a Jesuit.” Paul Henry followed the advice and, at the young age of seventeen, was accepted as a novice by the Society of Jesus. He was ordained in 1934, aged thirty. He would always recall the emotion of his first mass, the dinner with which the occasion was celebrated (including the fine bottles of Nuits St Georges 1906, the year of his birth, that were served), and the toast raised to him by his elder brother, Pierre: “Paul, you used to be unbearably boorish. No longer: the Jesuits have humanised you.” The newly ordained Jesuit happily concurred. This intriguing exchange prompts a question: who was Paul Henry, a man who, despite being brought up in a settled and loving family environment, was judged to be lacking in “human” qualities before thirteen years of training at the hands of the Jesuits made him open up and prepared to face the world as a fully-fledged member of the order? In so far as he became one of the greatest scholars of the last century, the judgement of the Jesuits proved sound, and the training they gave him well suited to his temperament. The sustained correspondence that he carried out with Hilary Armstrong and the memoirs that he wrote at the very end of his life reveal both the depth of his lately acquired “humanity” and the strength of his commitment to scholarship. Hilary Armstrong was his friend in the full sense of the word—to him he could own up to periods of depression and bouts of un-creativity; with him he would empathise most compassionately at the death of his daughter, Bridget; and to Mrs Armstrong he would express gratitude for the manner in which she made him feel part of the family. Readers of the letters learn the names of the Armstrong children, their toys of choice and the idiosyncrasies of their cat, Porphyry. However, as his letter of 4th April 1955 testifies, his closeness to Armstrong occasionally led him to express himself in an imperious manner. In their planned joint commentary of the Enneads, a project that remained unfulfilled, Henry would undoubtedly have been the dominant partner. If Hilary Armstrong seems to have been his closest friend, Paul Henry also formed other friendships, with both men and women. He rejoiced at the success of his friends, celebrating, for instance, the election at the Collège de France of Pierre Hadot, with whom he had collaborated on the edition of Marius Victorinus’ Traités 74 

Author of an oft-quoted manual of Christian spirituality, Soul of the Apostolate (1912).

Life

25

théologiques sur la Trinité. He was also lavish in his praise of the work of those of his colleagues whose scholarship he admired, such as Courcelle’s books on Augustine. However, if Henry could be a generously-minded friend, he could also be a fierce critic, as shown by what he calls his “twenty-year quarrel” with Willy Theiler over the Neoplatonic roots, Plotinian or Porphyrian, of Augustine.75 It is worth here going into the details of the “quarrel” since they reveal how Henry could combine fierceness in criticism and generosity in praise. The quarrel stemmed from their different outlooks on the methodology best appropriate to the study of ancient texts. Willy Theiler was an exponent of Quellenforschung (“search for sources”), a method that involves going beyond the text to hypothesise relationships of dependence between it and older sources, whether known or not. In his Porphyrios und Augustin (1933), in which he follows that method, Theiler conjectured that the best source to account for Augustine’s Platonism was Porphyry, even though there were no direct Porphyrian texts that could be cited to substantiate the dependence.76 The following year, Paul Henry, who would always be committed to the methodology of text criticism, published Plotin et l’Occident, in which he put forward substantive and exclusively text-based arguments to demonstrate that the chief influence behind Augustine’s Platonism was Plotinus. Since neither scholar would yield to the methodology, and hence to the arguments, of the other, what Henry dubbed a “twenty-year quarrel” ensued77. But the quarrel did not spill over into other areas of scholarship. At any rate, all seemed well between the two men when they met in Vandœuvres (Genève) in 1957 for the Entretiens Hardt on Les sources de Plotin. Furthermore, Henry’s presentation copy to Theiler of the Saint Augustine Lecture delivered at Villanova University in 1959 (Saint Augustine on Personality), in which he describes the other party to the “quarrel” as a “superb philologist” shows that the quarrel was confined to methodology. Paul Henry was a man of immense drive and energy who, until the time of his forced retirement for reasons of ill-health, withstood the pressure of simultaneously carrying out several commitments, each of which on its own would have filled a professional life well lived. He led the academic life to the full; for close on twenty-five years, he taught and examined undergraduate students and supervised graduate students for one semester per year at the Institut Catholique in Paris while also, from time to time, providing spiritual guidance in the form of retreats preached to Catholic educators. He helped organise large international conferences, such as the Augustinian Congress in 1935 and the even more famous Entretiens sur l’Antiquité 75  For an account of Theiler’s personality and involvement in the revival of Neoplatonic studies in the XXth century, see Gerard O’Daly’s contribution to this volume. I should here like to record my gratitude to him for interesting conversations on the pioneers who made the revival of Neoplatonic studies possible. 76  Thus, the Letter to Anebo, although Augustine does quote it in the City of God (10.11), does not constitute a proof that Augustine’s Platonism is of Porphyrian origin. To support his argument, Theiler chose to rely instead on Porphyry’s Sententiae and various other ancient testimonia. 77  For Henry’s own account of the quarrel, see pages 17-18 of his memoirs, reproduced infra.

26

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

Classique, whose proceedings remain a “must read” for Plotinian scholars.78 From a relatively young academic age and when not engaged in pedagogic duties, he conducted research on the manuscripts—Greek, Latin and Arabic—that would later enable him, together with Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer, to produce both the editio maior and the editio minor of the Enneads of Plotinus. Of all these activities his letters to Armstrong bear witness: written in telegraphic style and candid to the point of indiscretion, they let us peer into the scholarly life of the time, in Paris and elsewhere. Especially interesting are Henry’s accounts of the travelling involved in his codicological research in Italy and the Middle East. As he notes humorously in his memoirs, he was always happy to conform to the rule of the Jesuit Constitution specifying that one of the missions of the order is “to travel in diverse places and countries”.79 Until his forced retirement, he would always be ready to travel by foot, rail, ship, plane or indeed on horse/mule back to wherever he could find manuscripts to scrutinise, congenial colleagues to meet or students to teach. He recounted with particular glee his travels in Arabia, where, bearded and dressed as a local, travelling on foot or on the back of a mule, he learned Arabic and garnered some manuscripts of the Arabic Plotinus which would later be the foundations of the Theology of Aristotle that was included in the editio maior of the Enneads. So energised did he feel by his visits to other lands that he later accepted invitations to lecture in a number of U.S. American universities as well as in several countries of South America. His facility with languages gave him an easy entry into the life of his colleagues and students. He made a point of seeking out and visiting U.S. American specialists in his field, such as Harold Cherniss and Erwin Panofsky, both of whom he admired, and he accepted invitations to lecture in their respective universities. He enjoyed the contact with the young and from the description of his classes—his own and the students’—he appears to have been a stimulating and popular teacher who would have done well in “Rate My Professors” surveys of student satisfaction.80 The memoirs sound a different note from the correspondence, being sadder and, at times, bitter. Written in the last two years of his life under the prompting of a friend, after the pain of intellectual exile had eased off, they are a record of what he retrospectively regarded as the salient points of his life. Repetitive and, at times, less than fully coherent, they should not be read as an Apologia pro vita sua, for they 78  Les sources de Plotin. Entretiens sur l’Antiquité Classique. Tôme V. Vandœuvres-Genève, Fondation Hardt. 1960. 79  “Nostrae vocationis est diversa loca peragrare.” 80  A fine tribute to Henry’s pedagogical excellence comes from Rein Ferwerda, who later became himself a distinguished Plotinian scholar (La signification des images dans la pensée de Plotin, 1965). As he writes in his preface (p. VII), “What particularly struck me is the quasi-mystical overtone that Fr Henry succeeded in imparting to his lectures on Plotinus. I am also most grateful to him for the many occasions on which he received me rue de Grenelle (the Jesuit house in Paris) to discuss various Plotinian problems” (trans. from the Dutch by J.-L. Biron). For a similarly warm expression of gratitude, see Pierre Hadot, Plotin, Porphyre. Etudes néoplatoniciennes: 8-9). See also Fr Lambrecht’s testimony in footnote 89 infra.

Life

27

contain no indication that the elderly Henry felt any need to justify his opinions, his former activities or indeed himself. By then, he had been living in the Flemish part of Belgium for over ten years, having been recalled there from Paris by his superiors when, in the late sixties, it had become obvious that his alcoholism had rendered him incapable of fulfilling his teaching obligations. He felt keenly the lack of congenial contact, the linguistic solitude and the loss of his possessions (books and paintings) in the first nursing home to which he was sent. Unsurprisingly, he did not get on well with the staff. He states the circumstances of his “exile” and the misery that ensued baldly and without self-pity. Bowing to inevitability, he nonetheless regretted that the curtailment of his teaching in Paris had cost him the Légion d’Honneur, which he felt he had merited. Readers of the memoirs hoping for insights into the inner life of a great scholar will be disappointed—Henry was not given to introspection and remained a very private person to the end. We never learn why he became a priest, whether his faith suffered vacillations or how he combined his priestly duties with the active life of scholarship that he chose to pursue and for which he received the blessing of his superiors. He recalls having been a happy novice and appears never to have regretted his decision to join the Society of Jesus, to which he belonged for sixty-one years. His vows seemingly weighed lightly upon him and, whatever the difficulties that blighted the last twelve years of his life, there can be no doubting the enduringness of his vocation or the depth of his commitment to both the Church and the Order. Henry’s reasons for choosing Plotinus as a subject of study remain unexplained in his memoirs and correspondence. “Why Plotinus, rather than, say, Plato or Aquinas?” philosophically minded readers will ask. Was Henry drawn to the Enneads for doctrinal reasons or did he, more simply, respond to a reflection of the libri platonici glimpsed in the course of his reading of Augustine’s Confessions (VII, 24)? Was the reception of Plotinus by the great Christian writers of the fourth Century Latin West, to whom he devoted his 1934 Plotin et l’Occident, a subject close to his theological preoccupations? Or did he see Plotinus as the pivotal point, the “charnière,” between the Greek largely rationalist tradition and the Christian philosophy of the Fathers and their later medieval successors? From the Introduction that he wrote in 1956 to the revised edition of MacKenna’s translation of the Enneads, it seems clear that this was indeed the reason for which he devoted most of his professional life to Plotinus. “Plotinus’ whole œuvre,” he wrote, “is infused with the powerful dynamism of ‘the desire of the soul for God’.” The religious nature of his interest comes out clearly, if more controversially, in the following lines: It was left to the Christian Church, the authentic heir to what is best in Plotinus’ teaching, to combine harmoniously in reflective thought the Biblical revelation, Plato’s interest in man as a member of society, and Plotinus’ interest in him as a person proceeding from God and striving towards oneness with the One (lxxv).

28

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

What can be gathered from the evidence of his writings, however, is that Henry’s primary interest was not the philosophy of his authors, but the texts in which they expressed their thoughts. A historian and a codicologist rather than a philosopher, his method of choice for dealing with philosophical problems was by attending to the minutiae of the text. So much is evident in his three-part youthful essay on “Le problème de la liberté chez Plotin.”81 When, as in that case, textual exegesis turned out to be philosophically significant, he saw it merely as a bonus. As already mentioned, Paul Henry was an exponent of a method known as textual criticism. As he conceived it, textual criticism revolves around a detailed scrutiny of all the existing manuscripts that make up the direct tradition for a particular author. The object of the method is to establish for each and every manuscript its provenance, date, relationship with other broadly contemporary manuscripts and, more importantly, with manuscripts of earlier periods. Only so can inter-relationship and filiation between manuscripts be tentatively established, a stemma (or genealogy of manuscripts) constructed and a likely archetype hypothesised. Although textual critics will readily emend the text when they detect obvious scribal errors, they keep emendations to a minimum and mark the text as corrupt rather than speculating on what may have been the likely choice of words of the author or scribe. They forbid themselves conjectures which have no textual basis and, in the absence of clear lexical pointers, they also avoid speculations about sources. The four months that Henry spent trawling through the ancient libraries of Italy in 1932 gave him opportunities to put that austere method into practice. Having examined some forty-four manuscripts of the Enneads, he was able to establish that thirty-four of them were inferior copies, direct or indirect, of ten earlier, “primary,” manuscripts, which were themselves of high quality. He did not neglect the indirect tradition that consists of references to the text through the quotations and allusions in other authors or documents. These, as he knew well, can provide independent checks on the reliability of the manuscripts of the direct tradition or, alternatively, yield an earlier state of the text. Thus, his study of the vision at Ostia in book IX of Augustine’s Confessions led him to the text of Plotinus’ Ennead I 6 9, of which it contains a direct quotation. Thus, his research on the manuscripts of the Praeparatio Evangelica by Eusebius of Caesarea, for which no satisfactory edition existed at the time, led him to recover a large extract of Eustochius’ early edition of the Enneads. Since Eustochius, Plotinus’ doctor, attended him on his deathbed, Henry inferred that he must have been in possession of an edition of the Enneads that predates by some thirty years the one compiled by Porphyry.82 81  In his letters to Armstrong, he occasionally made clear that he did not consider himself to be a “philosopher” and expressed the hope that he would one day write on the philosophy of Plotinus. 82  That particular inference on the part of Henry has since been questioned by L. Brisson (“Une édition d’Eustochius ?,” dans L. Brisson et al. Porphyre, La Vie de Plotin, II. Paris: Vrin, 1992, 66-69). For a full account of the difficulties involved in dealing with the lacuna, see P. Kalligas (“Eusebius’ Contri-

Life

29

Henry wrote up the results of his research on the direct tradition in the two volumes that make up his Études plotiniennes. In the first volume, Les états du texte de Plotin (1938), he discussed the ancient editions of the Enneads, and, in a subsequent four-hundred-page volume, Les manuscrits des Ennéades (1941), he turned to the medieval tradition. On his return from Italy, he had all the primary manuscripts, each of which consisted of 300 to 400 pages, photocopied and expensively bound in linen and leather. The photocopies were to be the foundation of the critical edition of Plotinus that he had long planned and which he later spent twenty-four years (1945 to 1968), at the rate of four months every summer, to produce in collaboration with Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer, the distinguished Zürich philologist. The collaboration was made possible by the complete agreement between the two men on matters of methodology. Their edition would, in turn, form the basis of the Lexicon Plotinianum that Gilbert Pollet would finally complete in 1979, after the death of its initiator, J.H. Sleeman. Henry’s passionate insistence on the study of the minute detail of the text is affectionately recorded by Jean Pépin83 in the obituary he wrote for Henry: “‘Des textes, des textes!’ clamait-il en ces jours-là pour réduire à quia une hypothèse qui ne le convainquait pas.”84 René Arnou,85 too, drew attention to these methodological principles in his review of Henry’s early volumes on Plotin et l’Occident and Études plotiniennes: I. Les états du texte de Plotin and II. Les manuscrits des Ennéades. The review is a skilful blend of praise and reservations: Ces volumes témoignent de qualités rarement unies: l’imagination capable de concevoir un ensemble si grandiose et la persévérance de le mener à bien; l’analyse patiente et minutieuse qui fait profession de rapporter le petit fait brut sans l’interpréter et un esprit synthétique qui partout affleure malgré sa volonté de disparaître; une méthode rigide et sévérement obéie, mais qui n’arrive pas à éteindre l’ardeur, la vie, l’entrain, l’enthousiasme même d’un savant qui reste un humaniste. 86

The three volumes of the editio maior of the Enneads, which came out in 1951-1973 and included Geoffey Lewis’ translation of the Theology of Aristotle, is a monument to scholarship and the crown of both Henry’s and Schwyzer’s careers. By providing us with as reliable a text of the Enneads as is possible to get, together with a nearly bution to the Transmission of Plotinus Enn IV.7 [2] On the Immortality of the Soul,” in L Ferroni (ed.), Tempus Quaerendi: Nouvelles expériences philologiques dans le domaine de la pensée de l’Antiquité tardive. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2019, 2-12). 83  Jean Pépin (1924-2005) was a French historian and philosopher, who founded a CNRS research unit on Late Antiquity (Histoire des Doctrines de la fin de l’Antiquité et du Haut Moyen-Age). 84  See R. Dufour’s bibliography. The Revue was called the Revue des études augustiniennes until 2004 (vol. 50). 85  René Arnou was a Plotinian scholar, whose Le Désir de Dieu dans la philosophie de Plotin (1921), published before Bréhier’s edition, long held authority and is still worth reading. 86  Arnou, R.(1943). Gregorianum vol. 24(3), 267-71; italics mine.

30

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

exhaustive apparatus criticus, Henry and Schwyzer have achieved much. They have fostered the twentieth century revival of a period in ancient thought that had, until then, been a poor relative of other areas of Classical scholarship. The revival, in turn, gave us an increased understanding of the philosophy of late antiquity at a time when Christianity was developing into a force that would soon require profound readjustments in ancient ways of thinking. Lastly, the publication of the Henry and Schwyzer edition has spurred scholars to undertake new translations of the Enneads (in French, English, Dutch, Italian, Spanish, modern Greek, and Portuguese) and to investigate ever new aspects of the philosophy of Plotinus. As the Plotinian bibliography maintained by Richard Dufour shows, monographs, commentaries and articles now come out in specialist journals at such a rate that it would be no exaggeration to claim that the development of Neoplatonic studies has been the dominant feature of the study of ancient thought these fifty years just past. The achievement was the fruit of a joint labour that took almost a quarter of a century to complete. For four months every summer, Henry would arrive at 9 am at the Schwyzers’ house in Zürich, where the two men would sit at facing desks and work, mostly silently, on the photocopies that Henry had made of the nine or ten manuscripts of the Enneads from which all other manuscripts in existence proceed. Scholars are no strangers to hard work and, for the sake of their studies, often impose restrictions on their family.87 It is therefore appropriate here to record the debt of gratitude that scholarship owes to Frau Schwyzer (née Charlotte Schiller) who, for twenty-four summers, put up with such disruption of her domestic arrangements as the presence of a stranger in their midst inevitably entailed. Only through her forbearance, it seems clear88, could her husband and Henry carry out the labour of completing the editio maior and to start work on the editio minor of the Enneads that we now take for granted. Soon after the publication of the third volume of their edition, they planned an extensively revised edition and index fontium. Although they started work together, Henry’s deteriorating health soon made it impossible for him to be a full partner in this second enterprise and, as he himself recognised in his memoirs, the editio minor was largely the work of Schwyzer alone. It speaks much for Schwyzer’s generosity of spirit that he had the editio minor signed in both their names. Carrying out the task alone, he took comfort in the thought that, should he die before it was complete, the Spanish translator of Plotinus, Fr Jesús Igal S.J. of the University of Deusto in Bilbao would take over. But Fr Igal, too, predeceased Schwyzer who, fortunately, lived long enough to bring the minor edition to completion. Paul Henry died on the 8th August 1984. After the miserable ten years he spent in his first nursing home, he was moved to a more congenial clinic in Drongen near Ghent, where he reported being kindly treated by nurses and administrators and 87 

See Martin Schwyzer’s biographical sketch of his father in chapter 3.1. As his memoirs testify, Henry was aware of the strain that his presence in the midst of her family might have been for Frau Schwyzer. 88 

Extracts from the Memoirs of Paul Henry S.J.

31

receiving visits from friends and family. There he even started to work again on what he suspected would be his last, unfinished, project, a book on L’enseignement oral de Plotin. In the words of Fr Jan Lambrecht S.J., who, at 93, may be the oldest among his surviving students, his funeral was a lonely ceremony: I attended the funeral of Fr Paul Henry in Drongen, RIP. I still remember that the weather was very bad: rain and wind and cold. Not very many people were present, probably a small number of Jesuits, relatives and friends. I cannot answer your question whether colleagues from the Classical world were present. 89

2.2. Extracts from the Memoirs of Paul Henry S.J.: Souvenirs d’un jésuite itinérant Selected and annotated by Suzanne Stern-Gillet

Foreword The following pages come from a typed book of memoirs that Paul Henry put together at the end of his life, when he had returned to Belgium for medical treatment. After his death the book was deposited in the library of The Queen’s College in Oxford by one of his friends, Albert Marien, who happened to be an alumnus of the College. It is likely that in putting the book together Henry drew on material and notebooks, presumably written at different stages of his busy professional life. Partly as a result, the memoirs are not without the odd mistake and repetition. Although I have tidied up the narrative and eliminated a number of repetitions, 89  I should like here to express my gratitude to Fr Lambrecht, who answered my questions on his lifelong acquaintance with Paul Henry. In an earlier letter Fr Lambrecht had shared with me his few memories of his fellow Jesuit:   “Dear Suzanne Stern-Gillet,   My name is Jan Lambrecht. I entered the Society of Jesus in 1945. I am almost 93 years old. I am a retired professor of NT of the Catholic University Leuven (KULeuven). I remember Fr Paul Henry, but only vaguely.   At the split of the Belgian Jesuit province into a francophone province and a Flemish, Fr Henry, although French speaking, remained in the Flemish province. His father was a professor at the university and lived in Leuven. This might have been the reason. The mother tongue of Fr Henry was French. I do not think he was able to speak fluent Flemish/Dutch. He certainly could not teach in that language.   Fr Henry, teaching in Paris and traveling abroad, was only rarely in Leuven. As a student, probably in 1957-58, I had one course of him, on Romans in French. It was not an exegetical class but an excellent course on Paul’s theology, somewhat exuberant in its presentation. He must have been a brilliant teacher. And he was a very nice person.   Later, in 1960, I think, he spent some months (years?) in our new scholasticate at Heverlee (Leuven), before he left for Drongen. In Heverlee he had become a different figure, old and lonely, with health problems. I was present at this funeral in Drongen.   All of us knew that Fr Paul Henry was a highly respected Plotinus specialist. Yet, as far as I know, he did not talk much about his work to the community.   I realize that my reflections are rather poor. I send you and Kevin Corrigan my best wishes for your publication.”

32

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

I have not sought to impose a conventional chronological structure upon Henry’s reminiscences. By reproducing them in the language in which they were written and the order in which he placed them in the book, I hope to have made it possible for the reader to hear the aged scholar’s distinctive voice, grumpy, boastful, bitter, generous, and joyful, in turn, as he records past glories and sorrows as well as lingering regrets…

Liminaire La règle 2 du Sommaire de nos Constitutions énonce : “Nostrae vocationis est diversa loca peragrare…”90 Il est peu de règles auxquelles j’ai été, dans ma vie, plus fidèle, sauf, peut-être, à obéir à mes supérieurs, mais pas exactement comme un cadavre, sauf ces dernières années en matière de régime alimentaire, étant gourmet de nature et d’hérédité.

P 6 (Schooldays in Oxford) Nous apprenions aussi, par cœur, des douzaines, voire des centaines de vers, dont mes favoris furent Tennyson (les contes du cycle du Roi Arthur et des chevaliers de la Table Ronde) et Longfellow, dont j’admirais surtout Hiawatha et Evangeline. Miss Lucy se mit même en tête de m’enseigner, outre pas mal de latin, les tout premiers éléments du grec (helléniste en herbe à 9 ou 10 ans). Chaque semaine, sous la direction d’une jeune maîtresse de dessin, nous allions dessiner les cours intérieures, les chapelles, les tours des plus pittoresques collèges ; je n’étais pas des plus doués, bien qu’en 1931, à Jersey, chez les jeunes jésuites français, en vacances d’été je m’essayais, sans grand succès, à l’aquarelle et au portrait. Tous les après-midis, il y avait une heure ou une heure et demie de sport (exercice aussi essentiel à l’éducation d’un Anglais bien né que l’étude de l’orthographe, de l’histoire, de la géographie). Ces exercices de mémoire, pratiqués de bonne heure, font que les Anglais des classes dirigeantes, qu’ils soient travaillistes ou conservateurs, ayant passé par les Public Schools, telles que Harrow, Eton, Rugby, connaissent, à peu de choses près, tout Shakespeare par cœur, et le citent à tout propos, soit aux Lords ou aux Commons, soit dans leurs livres, leurs lettres privées, et, souvent, en prennent quelques mots comme titres de leurs romans policiers. Bref, Shakespeare à toutes les sauces. Mais, au monde entier, nul n’est plus grand poète, surtout poète lyrique par moments, dans ses tragédies et dans ses sonnets. Mais, si familier que je sois avec la langue anglaise, de loin la plus riche de nos langues occidentales (l’arabe “méditerranéen” est plus riche encore), je ne puis lire une pièce de Shakespeare sans trébucher sur 15, 20 ou 30 mots ou phrases que je ne comprends que lorsque je les vois joués à la scène, ce qui m’est arrivé deux ou trois fois, dont l’une représentation de Richard III, jouée à Londres par la célèbre troupe de Stratford-on-Avon, où, hélas, je ne fus jamais. 90 

“Notre vocation est de parcourir divers lieux…”

Extracts from the Memoirs of Paul Henry S.J.

33

PP 7-8 Autre ami, Will ou Willy (c’est-à-dire William) Inge, fils du pasteur anglican de l’Eglise St-Giles, à la jonction de Woodstock Road et de Banbury Road, au début de Broad Street, et neveu du célèbre doyen de la cathédrale St Paul de Londres, Dean Inge, the “gloomy dean”, qui se trouvait être un connaisseur apprécié de la philosophie de Plotin (dont je devins, par la suite, le grand spécialiste). Son étude, en deux volumes, très bien écrite eut, en peu de temps, trois éditions, mais n’égala jamais, à mes yeux, l’Introduction à la Philosophie de Plotin d’Émile Bréhier, historien de la philosophie, en Sorbonne, éditeur (plutôt mauvais que bon) et traducteur (honnête, sans plus) des Ennéades de Plotin (six groupes de neuf traités, d’où le nom) édités, dans cet arrangement par Porphyre, son disciple, en 304 AD, c’est-à-dire 34 ans après la mort du maître.

P10-11 (Return to Oxford after studies in Louvain and Paris) Parmi les “dons” (professeurs au sens européen du mot), j’avais pas mal d’amis. F.L. Cross de Christ Church, qui m’invita, en 1955, à faire six conférences sur “L’idée chrétienne de Dieu” (acceptées d’avance par Faber and Faber, Londres, mais qu’hélas je ne publiai jamais). Rév. Eric Mascall, alors student à Christ Church,91 qui transposait le thomisme à l’usage des Anglicans et fut plus tard, professeur de théologie à Londres. Surtout E.R. Dodds, le Regius Professor of Greek (nommé par la reine, c’est-à-dire par le premier ministre socialiste d’alors, Ramsay MacDonald, je crois, qui, en 1981, vit toujours)92. C’est lui qui me fit connaître H. Sleeman, de Londres, auquel je rendis visite à Penzance dans les Cornouailles, en 1954, et dont j’acceptai (a) de faire réviser sur notre texte Henry et Schwyzer ; et (b) de faire publier son Lexicon Plotinianum. C’est vers cette époque que je fis, à Christ Church, pour un groupe d’érudits, une conférence sur Marius Victorinus Afer (ca 362 AD), traducteur de Plotin (au moins partiellement) et dont l’Adversus Arium est inspiré de Plotin (Pierre Hadot dit : “inspiré de Porphyre”, le disciple de Plotin). La conférence (un auditeur me dit : ce n’est pas fréquent que nous écoutions une conférence sur un sujet aussi difficile. Il avait raison) fut publiée dans le Journal of Theological Studies, un grand honneur, qui stupéfia Dom Bernard Capelle, O.S.B., Abbé de Mont-César à Louvain. Plus tard, avec Pierre Hadot, pour Sources Chrétiennes (Le Cerf, Paris) et pour l’Académie de Vienne nous publiâmes ensemble ce texte, Hadot se chargeant de la traduction et du commentaire.93 Dans son de Viris illustribus, Saint Jérôme écrit 91 

Members of Christ Church College, Oxford, are traditionally called “students.” Henry is wrong: Ramsay MacDonald, born in 1866, died in 1937. 93  The joint publications by P. Henry and P. Hadot are (1) Marius Victorinus, Traités théologiques sur la Trinité (Sources Chrétiennes 68-9), Paris 1960, and (2) Marii Victorini Opera, Pars Prior: Opera theologica (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 83/1), Vienna 1971. By the time these books came out, P. Henry had already written “The ‘Adversus Arium’ of Marius Victorinus, the First 92 

34

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

de Victorinus : “adversum Arium libros scripsit more dialectico, valde obscuros qui nonnisi ab eruditis intelliguntur,”94 parmi lesquels, évidemment, Jérôme ne se comptait pas. Car, bien sûr, Victorinus est très obscur. Je mis, personnellement, dix-sept ans à entrevoir ce dont il s’agissait. Signalons qu’outre l’excellente traduction et le savant commentaire de Pierre Hadot, nous attendons une traduction anglaise, prête depuis vingt ans – j’écris en 1981 – de Sister Mary Clarke, religieuse du Sacré-Cœur à Manhatanville College, Purchase, N.Y., U.S.A., une amie de longue date.95

P 12 (Having entered the Society of Jesus as a novice) Je fus un novice fervent et heureux. Je me rappelle deux choses : (a) nos excursions hebdomadaires, le jeudi je crois, à notre maison de campagne, Clairefontaine (b) d’affreuses engelures, dont je ne me débarrassai qu’au départ d’Arlon.96

P13 En 1930 ou 31, après avoir lu tout Plotin en grec, je publiai mon premier article (en trois parties) sur “Le problème de la liberté dans la philosophie de Plotin” dans la Revue Néo-scolastique de Louvain (Institut Saint-Thomas) de plus ou moins quatre-vingt-dix pages.

P 14 (Moving to Paris for further study) Mon Provincial, le Père Charles Van de Vorst, voulut m’envoyer à Berlin. Je lui demandai d’aller à Paris car, très anglicisé, je connaissais mal le français, l’anglais étant ma principale langue (depuis, je n’ai lu que des ouvrages anglais, rarement des français). J’arrivai donc à Paris, 42, rue de Grenelle, Paris VII, reçu par le vieux père d’Armagnac, qui me conduisit au Ministre, qui m’accueillit en disant “Ah ça, vous tombez mal !” Un vieux père me conduisit dans une mansarde. Je lavai les murs et doublai le degré de lumière ; je n’avais qu’une lucarne de quarante cm. de côté pour m’éclairer ; j’y vécus 3 ans, heureux comme un coq en pâte. Quand mon Provincial vint m’y rendre visite, il fut épouvanté ; je le suppliai de ne rien changer à mon statut, ce qu’il accepta.

Systematic Exposition of the Doctrine of the Trinity,” The Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 1, no 1, April 1950, pp. 42-55. 94  “He wrote extremely obscure books in a dialectical manner against Arius, which only learned persons could understand.” 95  The translation eventually came out in 1981: Marius Victorinus, Theological Treatises on the Trinity, translated by Mary T. Clarke (The Fathers of the Church, 69). Washington, D.C., The Catholic University of America Press, 1981. XIII, 357. 96  A small town in the south of Belgium.

Extracts from the Memoirs of Paul Henry S.J.

35

P 15 (Studies in Paris) Enfin, je fus admis (sur recommandation de J. Bidez) aux cours de Jérôme Carcopino (plus tard, ministre de l’Education Nationale sous Pétain et Laval, prestigieux professeur d’épigraphie, à l’Ecole normale supérieure de la rue d’Ulm). Un de mes maîtres préférés fut H.C. Puech, à l’Ecole des hautes études, annexe de la Sorbonne (un bavard, qui m’initiait à toutes les intrigues académiques, après ses cours). Un grand maître fut Marouzeau, latiniste magistral, idem Mr Mazon, incomparable traducteur d’Homère, qui dirigeait les éditions Guillaume Budé, humaniste à 100%, éditeur scientifique à 0%. Je suivais aussi les cours brillants d’E. Bréhier, sur les Ennéades de Plotin (techniquement, il était mon directeur de thèse de Doctorat ès Lettres). Je ne le vis que deux fois : (a) à l’arrivée pour arrêter avec lui mon sujet ; (b) en 1938, à la veille de ma soutenance. Durant ma première année à Paris, je suivis jusqu’à vingt-quatre à vingt-cinq heures de cours (de soixante minutes chacun) par semaine, dont : a) Leroy, au Collège de France, disciple et successeur de Bergson deux fois par semaine, l’un sur “l’Esprit” (on ne savait pas trop si c’était (a) l’Esprit Divin ; (b) l’Esprit de l’homme ; (c) un Esprit indéfinissable). Ce fut une grande déception après les cours de J. Maréchal, plus précis et plus techniques, à Eegenhoven, mais les cours de Leroy sur les méthodes et techniques de la recherche scientifique (atomique, à cette époque) étaient vraiment superbes). b) Au même Collège de France, je suivais les cours de Croiset sur les dialogues de Platon, élégants mais décevants.

P 16 (continuing studies in Paris before leaving for Italy in search of manuscripts) En Sorbonne, mes principaux maîtres étaient : a) J. Marouzeau, en latin, b) Paul Mazon, admirable traducteur du grec, c) Meridier, Homère, je crois, d) X sur Thucydide, e) Puech, sur les Gnostiques, f) de Labriolle, en latin, g) Enfin, je l’ai déjà dit, à l’École du Louvre, Charbonneaux, l’art grec et Dussaud, l’art et l’épigraphie sémitique, les deux seuls cours que je suivis pendant trois ans. À cette époque, je songeais à compiler un “Lexique” de Plotin mais je m’aperçus, grâce à l’édition de Creuzer de 1835, que l’édition Bréhier, dans la collection Guillaume Budé, n’était pas valable (j’avais déjà acheté 10.000 fiches !!). Je décidai d’examiner directement les manuscrits des Ennéades et, en 1932, à 26 ans, pendant

36

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

quatre mois, je parcourus l’Italie (surtout, par exemple, six semaines à la Bibl. San Marco de Venise, quinze jours à Florence etc…), bref plus ou moins quarante à quarante-cinq MSS (les seuls que je ne vis pas furent les cinq ou six MSS tardifs, du milieu XVIème s. de l’Escurial en Espagne, dont j’eus des photos). Ce fut un voyage d’exploration, une expérience extraordinaire. Aujourd’hui encore, je suis étonné d’avoir pu faire ce que j’ai fait. Plus d’une fois, je pus faire voyager un MS d’une bibliothèque à l’autre. Je les décrivis tous minutieusement. Par comparaison directe, je démontrai en plus ou moins quatre-cents pages Les manuscrits des Ennéades (publié en 1948)97 que quarante d’entre eux dérivaient de dix seuls manuscrits, seuls à considérer pour une édition critique. Ces dix-là, je les fis photocopier, en blanc sur noir, et je les fis relier à Louvain en toile et dos plein cuir, un luxe, mais appréciable car, pendant vingt-quatre ans, Dr Schwyzer et moi nous nous en servîmes. J’examinais aussi, à la même époque, la tradition indirecte, à savoir les citations de Plotin par des auteurs du IV et du Vème siècles, dont Eusèbe de Césarée (ca 315 AD), Cyrille d’Alexandrie, Théodoret de Cyr, ce qui fut ma principale thèse de Doctorat ès Lettres, Sorbonne 1938, montrant, par la tradition indirecte que les dix MSS de base de la tradition directe transmettaient un texte excellent, ce qu’avaient contesté six éditeurs de Plotin, de Kirchoff (Teubner 1856) à Bréhier (Budé, dans les années trente). Mon mentor, Joseph de Ghellinck,98 était effaré de mon audace révolutionnaire, qui était en fait conservatrice, mais, soutenu par le Père Charles Van de Vorst, mon Provincial, je pus poursuivre et … publier.

PP 17-18 (Eustochius’ “edition,” mss collection and W. Theiler) Chez Eusèbe de Césarée (ca 315), j’avais découvert de larges fragments d’une édition, celle d’Eustochius, médecin et ami de Plotin, antérieure de trente ans à l’édition de Porphyre, les Ennéades de 304 AD. Ce fut le sujet (a) de mon mémoire des Hautes Études et (b) de ma thèse de Doctorat ès lettres. Incidemment, j’étais tombé sur un très curieux problème : au milieu du XVe siècle, il y avait, en Occident, après la chute de Constantinople en 1453, trois grandes collections de MSS grecs: a. celle des Medicis à Florence, dont deux MSS de Plotin; b. celle du Cardinal Bessarion, Byzantin mais rallié à Rome en 1439, au Concile de Florence; Patriarche de Venise et possesseur d’environ trois cents MSS grecs, dont trois ou quatre de Plotin. J’étudiai, en 1932, sa bibliothèque de San Marco pendant six semaines, 97  Henry’s memory is deceiving him. The book was actually published in 1941, Les manuscrits des Ennéades, Museum Lessianum, Desclée De Brouwer et Cie, Paris, 1941. 98  Joseph de de Ghellinck S.J. (1870-1950) was a highly productive medievalist and patristic scholar, specialising in XIIth century theologians.

Extracts from the Memoirs of Paul Henry S.J.

37

c. Enfin, celle de Mathias Corvin, roi de Bohème et de Hongrie, grand collectionneur de MSS grecs. Ses MSS illuminés, une trentaine je crois, avaient été souvent décrits et étudiés. Mais on n’avait jamais fait attention, que je sache, aux MSS de sa collection, bien plus nombreux. Or le Plotin Monacensis (Munich) était incontestablement un de ceux-là, relié vers 1460 (probablement à Florence) en cuir, avec divers écussons et ornements, frappés à froid. M’étant assuré que la bibliothèque de Matthias Corvin n’avait jamais péri par l’eau, le feu, le pillage, je me mis à les rechercher à Paris, Munich, Vienne, Cambridge et à la Bibliothèque Royale de Bruxelles, où j’en découvris quinze, l’un, par correspondance, à la Bibliothèque Jagellonne à Varsovie99 (à la stupéfaction du bibliothécaire, à qui j’avais décrit la reliure; même stupéfaction chez Mr Lauer, Conservateur des MSS de la Bibliothèque Nationale à Paris). Bref, j’identifiai de trente à quarante MSS “ordinaires” de Corvin. Enquête que je n’ai jamais publiée. Mon voyage en Italie (quinze jours à Milan, quinze à Florence, une semaine à Bologne (pour Eusèbe de Césarée, six semaines à Venise) m’épuisa presque car, outre mes descriptions de MSS, j’écrivais pour la Nouvelle Revue Théologique (Louvain) – Directeur, le Père Jean Levie – une sorte de compte-rendu critique des ouvrages parus sur Plotin, les trois dernières années, une trentaine, dont trois ou quatre traductions de MacKenna, superbe, en anglais, Harder en allemand et Bréhier à la Collection Budé à Paris. Ce fut soixante pages en tout, je crois, dans trois numéros successifs, ce qui, à vingt-six ans, me firent passer pour une compétence … ce que j’étais devenu. Finalement, je me méfiais de tous les éditeurs et traducteurs, sauf du vieux Fr. Creuzer, 1835, dont l’édition, enfin décomptée, surpasse toutes les autres. Vers cette époque, j’eus une controverse assez âpre, avec Willy Theiler, suisse, alors à Königsberg, plus tard, à Berne, car, lorsqu’il lisait chez Augustin, dans ses dialogues de Cassiciacum, vers 487,100 il lisait “Plotin”, il disait “c’est non Plotin, mais Porphyre”, ce que je me refusais à admettre. La bagarre dura vingt ans. W. Theiler était, par ailleurs, un philologue de première classe, qui publia une édition (acceptable), une traduction allemande (excellente) et le seul bon commentaire de Plotin, à part les savantes et brillantes “notices” d’E. Bréhier, aux cinquante-quatre traités de Plotin. Bref, en 1932, après quatre mois d’Italie, d’où je ramenai un ouvrage de quatre-cents pages Les manuscrits des Ennéades (publié en 1941, après ma thèse, Les états du texte de Plotin, 1938, tiré à 1.000 exemplaires, contre tous les avis compétents et épuisé en dix ans), et un bref séjour à Cambridge, où il y avait un MS de Plotin, 99 

That library is in fact in Cracow. This cannot be correct since Augustine, born in 354, died in 430. The date of 487 is likely to be a mistake for 387 since Augustine’s Cassiciacum dialogues are amongst his early writings, known to have been composed between 386 and 391. 100 

38

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

peu important, je rejoignis mon cher grenier de Paris et, en trois ans, je conquis divers titres.

P 22 (Publications) Entretemps Plotin et l’Occident parut au Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, en 1934, hélas tiré seulement à huit cents exemplaires, bien vite épuisés et jamais réédités. Outre un chapitre sur Victorinus, il contenait un chapitre sur Firmicus Maternus (latin du IVe – Ve s.) sur la dernière maladie de Plotin, à comparer avec le récit de Porphyre, dans sa Vie de Plotin, et surtout deux chapitres sur les citations littérales de Plotin chez Augustin, les unes en 387-391, les autres dans la Cité de Dieu, vers 415. Ma Vision d’Ostie parut chez Vrin, à mes frais, en 1938 (à la veille de la guerre, une bien mauvaise date), n’eut qu’un seul compte-rendu, un article du P. Joseph Huby, S.J.101, dans les Etudes, enthousiaste.

P 24 (Travels in the Middle East) En guise de consolation – et parce que j’en avais besoin pour le Plotin arabe – (un texte en arabe Theologia Aristotelis, en fait un commentaire sur Plotin dû à Porphyre), le Provincial accepta, après ma troisième année à St-André à Lavanttal, Autriche, de m’envoyer au Liban (dix mois) et en Palestine (deux mois) 1938-1939. Ce fut la grâce de ma vie et me marqua indélébilement. J’appris l’arabe parlé à Bikfaya, à 600 m. d’altitude, non loin de Beyrouth. Je passai six semaines dans un couvent de Maronites, au-dessus de Sidon, parlant arabe avec les moinillons (seul l’abbé parlait français). Je les quittai pour vagabonder, avec ma barbe, mon keffie (châle de soie) et Agul (bande au front), circulant à pied et à dos d’âne ou de mulet, avec un boy, avec qui je parlais arabe, dans le sud-Liban et le pays des druzes. Jours inoubliables. A Beyrouth, Université St-Joseph, S.J., j’avais achevé mes manuscrits des Ennéades, que je ramenai en Belgique, non sans peine, par Le Caire (censure anglaise), Venise et Rome…

P 31 (Visits to the U.S.A) A partir de 1952, libre en février jusqu’aux environs du quinze au vingt juin pour les examens annuels, je pus voyager douze fois. Je fus professeur visitant, remplaçant un professeur en sabbatical (tous les sept ans) en diverses universités des USA : Fordham (Catholique, S.J.) en 1952; Iowa City en 1956; Pennsylvania Univ. Philadelphia en 1957; 101 

Joseph Huby S.J. (1878-1948), French theologian, author of several books on the Gospels.

Extracts from the Memoirs of Paul Henry S.J.

39

Duke University (North Carolina) et La Jolla, San Diego, California en 1959, 1967 et 1968; Northwestern University à Evanston, au nord de Chicago, en 1961 et 1962, un semestre. J’insistais pour “bloquer” mes cours du lundi au jeudi midi, ce qui me permettait jeudi soir, vendredi et samedi, de visiter d’autres universités ; au total je visitai cinquante-trois universités américaines en une douzaine d’années, pour “échouer” à la Jolla, Californie, comme professeur à cent pour cent (mais pour un seul semestre). C’était le paradis des fleurs, même fin de l’hiver. Je préférais les leçons aux tout jeunes (cent-trente auditeurs à la Jolla) aux cours “avancés” (pour graduates) ; un grand succès. Mes supérieurs de Belgique, inquiets, me demandèrent de donner ma démission. Je ne revins aux USA qu’en 1969, pour un semestre, à St John’s University (Vincentians = Lazaristes).102 J’y gagnai des milliers de dollars que je prêtai (sans aucun espoir de récupérer mes prêts) à divers collègues. Ainsi va!

P 33 (Teaching commitments) Je fus pendant vingt-quatre ans professeur de théologie, à Paris, divisant mon temps en 3 périodes: 1) Du 1er novembre au 1er février, six heures (de soixante minutes pleines) de cours à l’Institut Catholique de Paris, la Catho ;103 2) Du 1er février au 1er juillet, depuis 1952 et surtout après 1956, professeur de philosophie (philosophie française: Bergson, Blondel, Lévi-Strauss) aux U.S.A., dans diverses universités; 3) Du 1er juillet au 1er novembre, philologue à Zürich, logeant chez les jésuites, mais de 9h à midi, de 14 à 18.30 chez Dr H.R. Schwyzer, dans son studio, en deux tables opposées, préparant avec lui l’édition critique des œuvres de Plotin, Plotini Opera en trois volumes, 1956-1973, tirés à 2.200 exemplaires (le tome 1 est pratiquement épuisé). Le tout, à présent, est vendu par la maison d’éditions Brill, Leiden, Hollande.

P 46 (The “end of the world lecture”) En 1956, je fus invité à remplacer un professeur en congé sabbatique à Iowa City, par Paul Welsh, chef du Département de Philosophie. Là non plus, ce ne fut pas un grand succès. Je logeais au Newman Club, dirigé par un Mgr très intelligent 102  Vincentians, also called Lazarists, are members of a Roman Catholic society of priests and brothers founded by St Vincent de Paul for the purpose of preaching missions to the poor and training young men in seminaries for the priesthood. 103  The usual abbreviation of l’Institut Catholique de Paris.

40

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

et ouvert et un Père Welsh, aumônier des étudiants catholiques. C’est là que je fis ma sensationnelle conférence sur “The end of the World”. Thème: ce n’est pas pour demain, le monde n’est pas prêt, résumé, in extenso, assez bien, dans le Davenport Messenger.104 Je fis plus tard cette même conférence à Liverpool, sous les yeux horrifiés de mon ami Hilary Armstrong. C’était un hymne à l’optimisme; je citai même Teilhard de Chardin.

PP 47-49 (Harold Cherniss) Le premier contact que j’eus avec Harold Cherniss (aujourd’hui 79 ans),105 98, Battle Road, Princeton, New Jersey, fut en 1956 à l’occasion de la sortie de notre Plotini Opera I, 1956, (co-édité avec Dr H-R Schwyzer de Zürich). J’avais appris, probablement par E. de Strycker, que Harold Cherniss était le plus grand helléniste américain. A la stupeur du Dr Schwyzer, effrayé de mon audace, je lui écrivis à l’Institute for Advanced Studies, à Princeton, NJ, U.S.A., lui demandant de faire un compte-rendu de notre volume I, ce qu’il fit de façon magistrale, pour, je crois, la Review of Metaphysics. Il y consacra dix pages (de loin, le compte-rendu le plus approfondi, avec celui, plus court, de R. Harder, alors à Münster). Cherniss me dit, plus tard, qu’il y consacra trois semaines. Imaginez, pour un compte-rendu! Il étudia, notamment, relevant nos (= “mes”) incohérences, dans l’apparat, au sujet de ma théorie sur l’esprit des pronoms réflexifs grecs: surtout auton. Je maintenais que, dans les MSS de Plotin, et c’est un fait, le réflexif le plus intensif (seipsum en latin) portait non l’esprit rude de toutes les éditions, mais l’esprit doux : auton, non hauton, et c’est ainsi que, dans notre texte de l’édition critique, nous imprimâmes les pronoms personnels réfléchis, quitte à signaler leur sens réflexif dans l’apparat par un “seipsum”. Comme je l’ai dit, sans désapprouver notre principe, Harold Cherniss avait relevé quelques-unes de nos “inconséquences”, et non sans raison. Je le remerciai chaleureusement. Aucun autre auteur de compte-rendu n’avait étudié notre texte avec autant de soin. En 1957, je crois, étant à Penn. University106, peut-être en 1959, de Duke, je lui rendis visite à Princeton, situé près de Trenton, à mi-chemin entre N. York et Baltimore. Je logeai deux jours chez lui ; Madame Cherniss me dit que j’étais le seul scholar ayant eu cette chance, parce que Mr Cherniss, par ses critiques, était au plus mal avec plusieurs philologues américains. Il eut, en particulier, une “bataille

104  It was in fact published in The Catholic Messenger (the official Diocesan Paper of Davenport, Iowa), vol. 74, no 21, published April 19, 1956. 105  Since Harold Cherniss was born in 1904, Henry’s visit must have taken place in 1983. 106  Henry probably means to refer to The University of Pennsylvania, rather than The State University of Pennsylvania.

Extracts from the Memoirs of Paul Henry S.J.

41

royale” avec le Père Festugière OP,107 de Paris, au sujet d’un texte de Platon. A mon avis, Cherniss avait raison ; ce fut une controverse pénible. Festugière, professeur aux Hautes Etudes, que je visitai un jour, en son couvent dominicain, me parut d’un caractère et d’un orgueil insupportables, ce que Harold Cherniss n’avait pas. J’ai toujours regretté de n’avoir pas accepté de Cherniss un junior fellowship de six mois à l’Institute for Advanced Studies, pour travailler dans ce milieu prestigieux à mon “Enseignement oral de Plotin”, toujours sur le métier, en 1981, avec l’aide de Jan Gijsel, d’Anvers, qui devra sans doute, pour finir, le publier seul.

P 52 (C.S. Lewis) C’est à Oxford que je fis connaissance, dans un pub de Broad Street, de l’étonnant C.S. Lewis, l’auteur des Screwtape Letters et d’autres ouvrages de théologie “catholisante”. En fait, sa spécialité était la haute littérature anglo-saxonne. Il m’offrit son admirable ouvrage sur les auteurs du XVIe siècle (Shakespeare excepté) dans la Cambridge ou l’Oxford History. Je le revis, pour la dernière fois, à Cambridge qui l’avait appelé à une chaire spéciale de poésie, lorsque les “logical positivists” le contrèrent de toutes les façons à Oxford.

P 53 (Working with Schwyzer and G. Pollet) De 9h à midi, de 14.30 à 18.30, j’étais, quatre mois durant (sauf une semaine de retraite et 15 jours de vacances) chez Dr. H.R. Schwyzer, le fils du distingué professeur d’indo-germanisme, Eduard Schwyzer (Bonn, puis Berlin), lui-même Zunftmeister à savoir maître de la guilde des forgerons, helléniste remarquable, avec qui je m’entendais scientifiquement à merveille. Je fis cela pendant 24 ans, ±4 mois durant. D’où résultèrent nos trois volumes de Plotini Opera, 1956-1973, tirés à 2.200 exemplaires et aujourd’hui, en 1981, presque épuisés. Une editio minor, sous nos deux noms mais, en fait, l’œuvre du seul Dr. Schwyzer, paraît à l’Oxford Clarendon Press, le troisième volume est sous presse en 1981. Une année, je fis venir Gilbert Pollet, à cette époque, encore jésuite (il nous quitta avant son ordination), pour travailler, sous la direction du Dr Schwyzer et de moi-même à la révision (sur notre texte) du Lexicon Plotinianum de H. Sleeman (celui-ci y travailla onze ans, G. Pollet vingt ans, moi mille heures, Schwyzer environ cinq cents heures, révisant le MS et corrigeant les épreuves; il sortit enfin en 1980 (imprimé par De Meester, Wetteren, coût FB 1.600.000, – financé pour F300.000,

107  André-Jean Festugière OP (1998-1982) was a French philosopher, classicist and historian of late antiquity. Author of some seventy volumes, he is best known for his translation of Proclus’ commentaries on Plato’s Republic and Timaeus as well as of the works attributed to Hermes Trismegistus (La Révélation d’Hermès Trismégiste, 4 vol., 1944-1949). Dodds (1977: 187) describes him as “a master of learning in so many obscure fields”. Pierre Hadot’s obituary further gives an idea of this towering figure of French scholarship, Annuaire de l’Ecole pratique des hautes études, 1983, 92, pp 31-35.

42

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

– par la Fondation Universitaire, pour F 900.000, – par un prêt du Fonds National Suisse, le solde par l’Université Catholique de Leuven où G. Pollet est professeur).

P 64 (Journey to Italy to collect mss – revisited) Je comptais composer un lexique de Plotin (ce que fit, plus tard, sous ma direction, G. Pollet, Lexicon Plotinianum, Brill, Leiden, 1980). J’avais même acheté quelque 10.000 fiches mais je m’aperçus fort vite que, depuis 1856, Kirchhoff, Tenier, Leipzig, en passant par Müller, 1882, Volkmann 1884, Bréhier, 1930, le texte “accepté” m’était à moi inacceptable. Le seul texte, fidèle aux MSS, était celui de Fr. Creuzer, in-quarto, en 3 vol. (deux de texte et apparat de Ficin, le troisième de notes) de 1835, qu’en fait l’édition critique d’Henry-Schwyzer, en trois vol., 1956-1973, ne fit que reconstituer plus scientifiquement. C’est cette constatation qui détermina, entre ma deuxième et ma troisième année de Paris, avec le plein accord du Père C. Van De Vorst, mon Provincial, en 1932, mon voyage de quatre mois (15 août ± 1er novembre) à la recherche des manuscrits des Ennéades, j’en vis à peu près quarante-cinq et, en les comparant, en les faisant voyager d’une bibliothèque à l’autre (j’en eus à Louvain, j’en eus à Paris, venus d’Italie), je pus établir que plus ou moins trente-cinq d’entre eux étaient copiés ou dérivés de dix seuls manuscrits que j’appelai “primaires” ou “fondamentaux” et que je fis, sans tarder, polycopier (en blanc sur noir, chaque MS de ± 300 à 400 feuillets, reliés en quatre ou cinq volumes reliés en toile et dos cuir) qui servirent, à Dr Schwyzer et à moi, de base à notre édition critique. Je ne sais comment mais, pendant ces quatre mois, séjournant à Milan, arrivé là le 15 août 1932, en pleine canicule, à Venise (six semaines), à Bologne les MSS de la Préparation d’Eusèbe, fondamentaux pour la tradition indirecte), à Florence (2 MMS), à Rome, la Vaticane 1-2 MSS), à Naples (Eusèbe encore) enfin à Paris, trois MSS, plus tard à Cambridge, un MS sans importance, pareillement à Turin, un MS, à moitié brûlé, que je prouvai (après avoir eu grand peine à le consulter) être copié sur un autre et donc sans valeur, un MS de Darmstadt, copié sur le MS A de Florence, j’écrivis, en ces quatre mois, mes quatre cents pages, Les manuscrits des Ennéades, publié en 1941 (2ème édition 1948). En même temps, je ne sais comment, le soir, j’écrivais pour la Nouvelle Revue Théologique, de Louvain, trois articles (en tout environ quatre-vingt-dix pages) intitulés Bulletin critique des études plotiniennes, 1929-1932, l’analyse critique de trente ouvrages, éditions, traductions (dont Stephen MacKenna et R. Harder, Felix Meiner Verlag) et études sur Plotin, qui, étrangement, me classèrent, du coup, comme un expert, parfois assez redoutable dans ses critiques.

Extracts from the Memoirs of Paul Henry S.J.

43

P 65 (Plotinus and Augustine) Un sous-produit de mes “Etats du texte de Plotin” fut Plotin et l’Occident au Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, 1934, hélas publié à 800 exemplaires seulement, rapidement épuisé, qui étudiait les citations latines de Plotin, soit la Vie de Plotin par Firmicus Maternus, soit une citation littérale et de très claires allusions à Plotin, dans Marius Victorinus Afer, Adversus Arium, libri IV “more dialectico conscriptos qui non nisi ab eruditis intelliguntur”108 (Jérôme, De Virus Illustribus) Jérôme n’était pas de ces “eruditis”; les allusions à Plotin, voire des citations, chez Augustin (a) dans les Dialogues de Cassiciacum de 387 à 391 ; (b) dans les Confessions (au livre IX, surtout, écrit vers 400); (c) dans son De Civitate Dei; (d) enfin, cette étonnante citation, sur son lit de mort (ainsi que le raconte Possidius, son biographe au chap. XXVIII) en 430: “Non erit magnus magnum putans quod cadunt ligna et lapides et moriuntur mortales” = “Il n’est pas grand celui qui considère que c’est une grande chose que bois et pierres s’écroulent et que meurent des mortels,” une traduction littérale d’une phrase des Ennéades de Plotin (I. 4. 7. 24). Vers la même époque, mais après avoir achevé Plotin et l’Occident, je découvris que la Vision d’Ostie, entretien qu’Augustin eut avec sa mère Monique (Confessions, IX) sur la vision béatifique, était une transposition d’une page des Ennéades, I. 6. 9, dont elle citait d’ailleurs littéralement une phrase entière. Ce fut ma petite thèse de doctorat.

PP 71-72 (end of professional life) En 1968, l’année de la révolte ouvrière et estudiantine, toutes deux avortées, je quittai, après vingt-quatre ans, ma chère Catho. On réduisait d’un tiers les cours de dogme et d’Écriture Sainte au profit de la pastorale et de la catéchétique, branches “mineures”, à mon sens. De plus, j’avais protesté, par écrit, auprès de Mgr ­Hauptmann, le nouveau Recteur, instrument de notre chancelier, Mgr Veuillot, Cardinal-Archevêque de Paris, supprimant toutes nos facultés profanes: droit, sciences, lettres, économiques, sous prétexte de double emploi avec la Sorbonne (protestation qui me valut la perte de la Légion d’Honneur, pas mal méritée, après avoir représenté, vingt ans durant, la Catho et la France à l’étranger). Jean Daniélou était notre Doyen, sur le point d’être élevé au cardinalat. Je me retirai à Heverlee où, de 1968 à 1978, je vécus, ou vivotai, malheureux sous la houlette du père Bernard Van Dorpe, soit Ministre, soit Recteur, qui ne m’aimait pas parce que j’étais fransquillon109 – faux – et un “oude peke” (un petit vieux), ce que j’étais.110

108 

“Written in a dialectical manner which only erudite readers understand.” As used by Flemish speakers in Belgium, it is derisive term for a Belgian French-speaker. 110  See Schwyzer’s letter to Armstrong, 30th May 1974. 109 

44

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

A Heverlee, je ne fis, dix ans durant, presque rien, vivant dans une chambre obscure (électricité 24h sur 24), sauf que, pendant environ mille heures, j’aidai G. Pollet dans la rédaction finale du Lexicon Plotinianum de H. Sleeman (visité à Penzance, Cornwall, 1954, l’année du congrès augustinien). Il y mit vingt ans. Sorti, enfin, en 1980, miraculeusement financé par (a) F 300.000 – de la Fondation Universitaire – (b) F 100.000 – de la Powett Foundation, Oxford et de la British Academy (grâce à A. H. Armstrong) et (c) par un prêt, inespéré, du Fonds National de la Recherche Suisse (F 900.000). Le coût total de l’impression chez De Meester, Wetteren, était de F 1.600.000 – (Duculot demandait FB 3.000.000, – l’Imprimerie Orientale à Louvain à peu près de même).111 Dr H.R. Schwyzer revit la copie du MS Sleeman-Pollet, original ainsi que deux des épreuves. Et le Lexicon, tiré à 2.200 exemplaires, ne coûte que FB 2.200.

Conclusion Je voudrais dire un mot ici de mes principaux ouvrages: Après le très long article (d’environ quatre-vingt-dix pages) en trois livraisons, publié en 1931 (j’avais vingt-cinq ans) dans la Revue Néo-Scolastique de Louvain sur “Le problème de la liberté dans la philosophie de Plotin” et une traduction (anonyme) des Prières et méditations du Père LaFarge, Jésuite américain,112 mon premier vrai travail scientifique fut Recherches sur la Préparation Evangélique d’Eusèbe et l’édition perdue d’Eustochius des œuvres de Plotin, Ecole des hautes études, éditeur Lacan, Paris 1934. [J’avais découvert que le traité IV 7 de Plotin sur l’Immortalité de l’âme d’après l’édition dont se servait Eusèbe vers et avant 315, était là en deux livres, ce qui n’était pas le cas pour les Ennéades publiées par Porphyre en 304. J’en concluais qu’Eusèbe avait utilisé une édition antérieure, que j’appelais d’Eustochius, ami, médecin et éditeur de Plotin, d’après Porphyre lui-même.] Mon collaborateur (plus tard) Dr H-R. Schwyzer, approuve cette vue que l’on peut, je crois, considérer comme définitivement établie. Elle fut contestée par Willy Theiler (de Kiel, et, plus tard, de Berne) ainsi que par un arabisant du Caire. Vers la même époque, à Paris, je commençai deux travaux parallèles: a) Les états du texte de Plotin, c’est-à-dire l’étude des citations de Plotin, du IVème au Vè siècle (d’Eusèbe de Césarée à Simplikios), en d’autres termes, l’étude de la tradition indirecte du texte. Cet ouvrage, que Duculot mit trois ans à imprimer sous ma direction constante, fut ma thèse de doctorat ès lettres, en Sorbonne, en 1938.

111  This is inconsistent with the information given on p. 53, when Henry claims that the University of Leuven contributed to the cost of publication. 112  John Lafarge S.J. (1880-1963), best known for his interest in racial justice, was associate editor and later editor of America, The Jesuit Review. He is also the author of The Catholic Viewpoint on Race Relations, 1956, and An American Amen, 1958.

Extracts from the Memoirs of Paul Henry S.J.

45

b) Les manuscrits des Ennéades, c’est-à-dire la tradition directe du texte. Il y en avait une cinquantaine, le plus ancien datant du XIVème s., les meilleurs étant du milieu du XVIème siècle. En 1932, à 26 ans, en ma seconde année de Sorbonne, à Paris, j’entrepris, du 15 août (à Milan, chaleur torride) du 2 ou 3 novembre, pendant près de quatre mois, une quête, en Italie, sur les quelques quarante MSS de Plotin. Je les faisais voyager d’une bibliothèque à l’autre (ce qui était facile, à cette époque), afin de les comparer directement de visu. Je pus ainsi, en quatre mois, établir que des quelque quarante-cinq MSS de Plotin, trente-cinq étaient copiés sur dix d’entre eux (ce que j’établis dans un livre de quatre cents pages, Les manuscrits des Ennéades, de 1938 à 1941). Peu après, en théologie à Louvain, je fis photocopier, blanc sur noir, ces dix manuscrits fondamentaux qui, de 1956 à 1973, servirent à Dr Schwyzer et à moi, de base à notre édition critique. Les seuls MSS que je ne vis pas furent ceux de l’Escorial mais ils dataient du XVIe siècle et étaient sans valeur. J’en fis d’ailleurs prendre quelques photocopies.

P 76 (Indebtedness to B.S. Page) Vers ce temps-là, je fis aussi une visite à Leeds, où B.S. Page (et sa femme peintre) me reçurent gracieusement. Ce grand philologue, bibliothécaire de l’Université de Leeds (plus tard président de tous les bibliothécaires de Grande-Bretagne) nous aida constamment, Schwyzer et moi, en suggérant des références (insoupçonnées de nous) à Platon, et en corrigeant nos épreuves pour nos trois volumes de Plotini Opera (le vol. III est dédié à A.H. Armstrong, E.R. Dodds et B.S. Page). Bègue, Page ne pouvait avoir un poste de professeur. Je crois que je fis là une conférence.

P 78 (Last Move – to Drongen) Enfin, en 1978, lorsqu’après un séjour de près de quatre mois en clinique, je fus déclaré persona non grata, on m’accueillit généreusement à Drongen, où je vis heureux depuis bientôt trois ans, travaillant avec Jan Gijsel, à mon très difficile “Enseignement oral de Plotin”, très compliqué; douze ans déjà de travail, mais je m’y retrouve à peine. De plus, le Révérend Père Recteur veille jalousement sur ma santé car, à soixante-quinze ans, mon cœur défaille. A ce propos, je dois dire ma gratitude à notre Père Ministre, Jean-Marie Van der Linden qui n’en finit pas de m’entourer de ses gentillesses et délicatesses. Qu’on me permette de remercier nos deux infirmières, mes amies: Odette Fasseur et Thérèse Van Ingelgem (depuis un an), à qui j’ai confié tous mes secrets, à charge de les transmettre à mes deux chers neveux: Claude et Béatrice Bodart, mes fidèles voisins et visiteurs (ils m’invitaient souvent lorsque je me morfondais dans ma chambre sombre d’Heverlee (24 h sur 24 d’électricité) et Etienne Bodart, le banquier, Christiane, sa femme, et leurs cinq enfants (de 15 à 22 ans), à qui j’ai légué mes 18 cahiers de voyages, rencontres, travaux etc… (de 1952 à

46

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

1973, je crois). Merci aussi au Fr. Harry Tangh qui m’a soigné à Heverlee (parfois un peu tyrannique) et au Fr. Marcel Van Akoleyem qui, alors Ministre, m’accueillit à Drongen à l’automne de 1978. A tous, du fonds du cœur, merci!

Supplément (Collaboration with H-R Schwyzer during the summer months) Vers 9h chaque jour, je remontais la rue, près de l’Université (du Canton) et du Polytechnicum et en 10-12 m. j’arrivais au 67 Clausiusstr., où résidaient H.-R. Schwyzer, sa femme Lotti, leur fils aîné Martin, alors 5-6 ans qui souvent venait à ma rencontre, criant à tue-tête: das ist der schwarze Mann der Herr Onui. (C’est l’homme noir, c’est Mr Henry). Cela m’était très sympathique. Bientôt, allait naître Vreneli, la plus brillante de la famille, et quatre ou cinq ans plus tard Andreas, mon préféré, pas très considéré par ses parents, mais qui, interrompant pour un an d’apprentissage manuel, se remit pourtant aux études du Gymnase, obtint sa Maturität ou bachot et devint “forestier” au Pérou, où il se maria. Martin épousa une danoise, trois filles, Vreneli un Strasbourgeois bilingue. En entrant, à gauche la salle à manger, où se réfugiait Lotti Schwyzer, que je chassais du studio-living où je travaillais, et ou normalement elle eut dû se tenir sous sa lampe, dans l’un des quatre fauteuils confortables installés là; les murs étaient tapissés de l’admirable bibliothèque gréco-latine d’Eduard Schwyzer, le père d’Hans-Rudolf, d’abord Professeur à Zürich, travaillant à l’Idiotikon (les dialectes suisses, ou le seul zürichois, je ne sais) puis à Bonn (où H-R. conquit son Doctorat), confrère de K. Barth, dont il disait à son fils: “Si c’est cela le christianisme authentique, dépréciant toutes les valeurs naturelles, comment pourrais-je me sentir chrétien?” J’en veux à Hans-Rudolf, écrivant plus tard, pour une œuvre charitable, une biographie, d’ailleurs admirable, de son illustre père (auteur d’une grammaire historique indo-européenne de grande valeur, il finit professeur à Berlin, mais quitta à temps, peu après 1933, l’ascension d’Hitler) d’avoir omis ce détail, à mon avis capital, de la vie de son père. Je crois que ce fut de peur de froisser E. Brunner, sorte de collègue, moins illustre, mais tout de même grand théologien, collègue à Zürich, de Barth qui lui était à Bâle. E. Brunner faisait partie de la même Académie zürichoise que Dr. H-R. Schwyzer. Près de la fenêtre, donc très bien éclairées, deux tables faisaient face, Dr Schwyzer à l’une, moi à l’autre, travaillant en silence sur les photocopies que dès 1932 et les années suivantes j’avais fait des neuf ou dix MSS des Ennéades, dont tous les autres dérivaient – j’avais mis quatre cents pages à le prouver. C’est en lui demandant d’en corriger les épreuves (car il avait écrit une monographie sur le MS A, Medicaeus, Florentin, de Plotin) que je fis sa connaissance, probablement dès 1939, où les MSS étaint à l’impression (car en 38/39 j’étais au Liban et Palestine). Toujours est-il qu’en 1941, mon Recteur de Louvain reçut une letter de Schwyzer s’informant si j’étais toujours en vie. Je l’avais vu une fois, revenant d’Autriche en 38, pour soutenir mes

Extracts from the Memoirs of Paul Henry S.J.

47

États these de Sorbonne car je voyais venir la guerre, Dès 45, nommé à Paris, je pus lui offrir de travailler avec moi à l’édition, à laquelle je me sentais comme condamné par trois travaux préparatoires: (1) l’édition perdue d’Eustochius des œuvres de Plotin dans la Préparation Évangélique d’Eusèbe de Césarée publiée en 1934, pour le diplôme de l’École Pratique des Hautes Études. J’avais prouvé que les fragments de IV 7, chez lui en deux livres, dans les Ennéades en un seul, venaient non des Ennéades, mais d’une édition antérieure, celle d’Eustochius, dont Porphyre dans sa Vita Plotini nous avait conservé et l’ordre chronologique de composition (tellement probable que c’est quasi certain et, que je sache, jamais contesté), et, tout aussi intéressant, les titres originaux, plus tard, parfois changés par Porphyre, lorsqu’en 304 ou 305, plus de trente ans après la mort du maître (± 270), il les publia en six Neuvaines, Ennéades. (2) ma grande thèse de Doctorat, les États du texte de Plotin, je crois pouvoir dire un ouvrage pionnier, étudiant la tradition indirecte, c’est-à-dire les citations de Plotin dans Eusèbe (+ 315, mais sa documentation fut rassemblée bien plus tôt), Théodoret, Cyrille d’Alexandrie, voire Basile de Césarée, dont un petit traité sur le Saint Esprit, dont je crois avoir démontré l’authenticité, était… un canton d’Ennéades VI, décrivant l’Esprit Saint par les termes mêmes par lesquels Plotin décrit sa 3ième Hypostase, l’Âme, écrit, je crois, sous forme de lettre à un ami qui étudiait à Athènes. Naturellement, les Mauristes, éditeurs o.s.b.113 de Basile n’y reconnurent pas son style. Le premier à identifier la source fut un certain Jahn, au milieu du XIXe siècle. Scandale. Je dis au Père de Ghellinck, choqué: “Je publie les faits, je laisse aux théologiens de les expliquer”. Comme théologien, plus tard, cela ne me scandalisa pas. Songez à Augustin mourant, en 430, citant Plotin! (3) le troisième et dernier ouvrage était la première édition 1941 (au 9/10ème brulée à Bruges), Les manuscrits des Ennéades, deuxième édition anastatique, horrible, 1948, et qui se vend toujours, d’après Brill (Leiden): soixante-dix exemplaires de vendus en 1980. Un fait, mais inexplicable, car l’ouvrage utile en son temps, ayant éliminé environ quarante des cinquante MSS des Ennéades (les seuls dont je ne vis que quelques photocopies furent un ou deux MSS tardifs, milieu du XVIème siècle, de l’Escorial, manifestement).114 Drongen, août, 1982 Paul Henry S.J. 113 

Abbreviation of the Order of St Benedict, a Catholic monastic religious order founded in 529. The memoirs end at this point. Henry, obviously very tired, runs several ideas together. He begins by expressing puzzlement at the fact that his book, Les manuscrits des Ennéades, is still selling although it lost much of the interest it held at the time of the first publication. The reason, he then explains, is that of the fifty MSS described in the book, forty proved to be copies of ten earlier manuscripts. Lastly, he notes that of all the manuscripts which he described in the book, there are only two that he did not personally scrutinise; these are late ones, kept at the Escorial in Madrid. 114 

48

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

2.3. Letters Selected and annotated by Suzanne Stern-Gillet

1 TO E. R. DODDS Paris, 28-01-1953 Dear Prof. Dodds, I have long wanted to write to you. I am given the opportunity to do so by your review of Plotini Opera, of which I have received an offprint. Thank you for your praise – it rewards our hard work. I do indeed understand your criticisms regarding our religious conservatism;115 they are similar to the reservations that R. Harder expressed in Gnomon. However, just like him, you do not always approve of us when we indulge in speculation. This is quite understandable. I have to admit that the correction of λέγειν into ψέγειν is just about inexplicable, hence the “nonsense” that we have accepted in the text without crux or correction. For Volume II, our current plan is to be less succinct in our explanation and translation of difficult passages. I understand that you are reluctant to accept that Eusebius did not have knowledge of Eustochius’ edition, but I think it is hard to deny that he had at his disposal another edition than that of Porphyry. From March to October I shall be in Zürich at Schwyzer’s and we hope to get the Greek of Enneads IV and V ready for printing, but we would like to reproduce, separately on the opposite page, the English translation of the corresponding Arabic texts. You wrote to me a most lovely and friendly letter before I left for America. I spent six months there, from 14 February to 20 July, teaching in Fordham for four hours a week: a. Plotinus; b. Platonic themes in Christian thinking and mysticism. I have found more interest than I expected in non-Catholic circles for Plotinus and mysticism. As highlights of my stay, I recall with gratitude the three days spent at Illinois University (Urbana) with Frieh, [indecipherable] and others; likewise, in Princeton, with Cherniss; at Dumbarton Oaks (Byzantine Studies); at Johns Hopkins I met Edelstein and, at Harvard, the delightful A.D. Nock.116 I was rather disappointed by Chicago; I do not know why. I did not visit Columbia or Yale. I also had an excellent evening at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. In short, it was 115  The use of “religious” is metaphorical; it refers to Henry’s commitment to the method of textual criticism. The method is defined in the biographical note that precedes his letters as well as in Jean Pépin’s obituary, listed in R. Dufour’s bibliography at the end of this chapter. 116  A.D. Nock (1902-1963), Professor at Harvard, was an English Classicist and theologian.

Letters

49

interesting; I found our colleagues very active, very lively, but somehow “isolated.” W. Jaeger,117 in particular, gave me the impression of not having many disciples. And I was delighted, as you were too, no doubt, to be back in Europe, where I feel at home anywhere.118 Please give my best wishes to Mrs Dodds for 1953. And once again, warmest thanks for all your encouragement. Sincerely yours, Paul Henry S.J.

2 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Paris, 22-8-1953 My dear Armstrong, You must wonder at my silence and I am wondering (slightly) whether you’ll forgive me. First of all, I must thank you for the Plotinus Selections and the so very witty and kind dedication. I found the book in Paris, at the end of June, and wanted to answer your letter from there. Now I realise that I left that letter in Paris, and I only remember that you were planning a visit passing through Belgium and hoping to meet me. I somehow did not seem to have definite addresses for you on the Continent and that is another reason for the unforgiveable (but probably by now forgiven) delay. The others were that: I attached so much importance to your book that I did not want to write to you before I had really examined it and studied it. (Although I have not done so fully, I do answer); Although I have been in good health (for the last 3-4 years, never better), I have been really pressed with work; Some of my plans were upset and part of my time was taken up by a very grave illness of my elder and only brother, a doctor. I had to travel twice to Louvain to see him. He is slightly better now. Your book is fine, very good selections, very perfect translation and a marvellous introduction. I am so glad you quoted Hans-Rudolf abundantly; his “summa117  Werner Jaeger (1888-1961), German Classicist, author of many influential books, among which are Aristotle: Fundamentals of the History of His Development (English transl, 1934) and Paideia (English trans. 1939-1944). 118  Henry may here be alluding to Dodds’ spell at the University of California at Berkeley, where he had been invited to deliver the Sather Lectures. His chosen theme, The Greeks and the Irrational, resulted in a book which was published in 1951 by The University of California Press. It soon became a classic and has been translated into many languages.

50

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

ry” of Plotinian Studies is really a masterpiece of balance and sober condensation. I see you endorse his view about αὐτός (= θεός) and that neither the articles in the November issue of the Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie nor my remarks in États119 nor my Cambridge paper (of which you so kindly were Chairman) have really convinced you that the explanation is “doctrinal” rather than grammatical, as surely you will have it. Of course, I have not yet published my arguments and so you could hardly, especially in such a “Selections” book, refer to them. I doubt very much that Plotinus habitually thought of his ἕν as θεός, much less ὁ θεός, although he does occasionally use those words. I find Arnou excellent on this. The extension of θεός is for him too wide to really mean what we mean by God. Hence αὐτός is as authentic as can be and, as I think I have shown, has to have another explanation. Working on IV 3 and 4, we had occasion to consult your version (I hope we may be able to quote it somewhere in vol. ii); I think it was a fine idea to translate “the great dance of the universe.” It amused me, too, to observe that translating IV 4 36, you had diplomatically left out the last and ambiguous sentence δυὸ καὶ πολλὰ δουλεύει αὐτῶν ταῖς δυνάμεσιν on which we, too, stumbled and which we discussed together fully. It was a month ago, if I remember rightly, that we finally decided to adopt Harder’s interpretation. In vol. III, we are giving much more “interpretation” than in vol. I, especially where the “conservative” text is difficult. I think this will be quite welcome to scholars… and translators. On the quiet, and as πάρεργον to this Plotinian παρεργου, I am writing as carefully as I can, for you to read and use one day, if things develop as we planned, short commentaries on difficult passages. But it is sporadic. And you should not hope too much. I am now more in favour of publishing a separate commentary on P. rather than including it in the Loeb. But this is only a mood, for there is much to say for volumes which have at the same time Text, Translation and Commentary. You, if I remember, have completed fragments of commentary on whole treatises. It was good news and encouraged me to go on writing sporadic comments on the texts I was editing; there is nothing very marvellous in what I wrote up to now. I am still too far, in a way, from Philosophy, too steeped in mere editorial work. Perhaps, if I gave you an outline of my activities past and in the near future, you’ll be kinder to my silence. I was with H-R for about 3 weeks, end of May till June 15th, then a terribly busy fortnight at Paris, with exams, theses and so forth. I spent 2 days with a Syrian student of mine examining various sections of 5 Bengal mss of the Theologia of Aristotle, of which photographs are at last in the West (this is top secret, especially for Oxonian scholars). I hope to get the transcription of the 3 Istanbul mss, one 119 

For full bibliographical references, consult R. Dufour’s bibliography.

Letters

51

of which is the ms of the Theologia. My object is (1) to write with Fr Finnegan, S.J., USA (Beirut)120 a technical article forcing the Oxonian editor, G Lewis, to take account of these mss, and then to offer them to him; (2) H-R has agreed to allow me to use his translation, but I am never quite sure that I shall eventually be allowed to. In 1947 or thereabouts, Schwyzer was opposed to the idea of publishing, in vol. II, parallel to the French, the English translation of all Arabic Plotinian material. The Greek would have been edited exactly as it is now. Of course, there was no question of deciding or supposing what the Theologia really was. At the least, it is the only ancient extant commentary, or paraphrase, of what was almost certainly a text by Plotinus, originally in Greek. In 1950, Schwyzer agreed completely and fully, out of conviction, to my original plan. As a matter of fact, that I should be allowed to adopt this plan was my only condition when we joined forces, but I am reluctant to do it if he is reluctant. I am still reluctant, although I am convinced it is the proper thing to do, to help scholars and medievalists to use these interesting texts, still practically unknown. Now I feel he is again reluctant, and I am a little worried. I think he is mainly annoyed at the possible delay. My plan was to finish the Greek of vol. II this year (I shall not be able to do so, quite) and then to concentrate on “arranging” the Arabic (and English) in 1954, from Easter to November. This might bring me to Oxford and take me to Beirut. I think I shall not give the plan up, notwithstanding all the difficulties. I don’t know why I tell you all this except that it takes time and mental strength and exertion. In August, Schwyzer was on holiday, I have been here since early July and have had a month to myself in his room, with his books and … with my documents of which he has been for 8 years the jealous custodian. Well, having a favourable “regime” of sleep, I suddenly decided to take up my vol. III of Études plotiniennes or “History of the Text” that I haven’t worked at since 1932. I wrote, in first rédaction, three essays: 1. L’esprit d’un pronom et d’une philosophie (either αὐτ-’ αὑτ- ἑαυτ-). Kleinarbeit, but fairly difficult, fairly important, fairly new and unknown. It goes beyond Plotinus and should, or may, interest grammarians and papyrologists ; 2. “Les ultima verba de Plotin” (Vita 2, 26-27). I am now convinced that τὸν ἐν ὑμιν θεόν is the anchor of the saying, and that P.’s last words are a spiritual testament to his disciples – πειρᾶσθαι = infinitive als Befehls und Wunsh-form. His solicitude for others to the last!

120  Fr J. Finnegan S.J. (1912-1984) was attached to the University of St Joseph in Beirut, which was then a Francophone institution. He was killed by mortar shell in one of the incidents in Beirut in the 80s.

52

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

3. I am now working on “Le texte de l’archétype,” reconstructing it. It is very difficult and hazardous but interesting. I am now fairly certain that in I 9,14 ἐξαγωγή (of “bad” Q only) is right as it is the only way of explaining the other variants; 4. This week I shall be working on “Les deux mss grecs de travail de Marsile Ficin, le traducteur des Ennéades”. It will be: (a) a long paragraph on the History of the Text; (b) a communication for the Congress to which Schwyzer and I are both invited as guests of honour (Sept 3-9th) in Tours and Poitiers. I feel younger now that I have taken up again my philological and partly philosophical enquiries – “petites synthèses”, I call them, left lying in 1932 … for theology. This of course is still the great ἔργον of my life, strenuous, but magnificent. I wish some day you could come to Paris. From Nov. 9th to 15th 1953, in Paris, the Centre Intellectuel Catholique is hosting its “week” on God. I hope it is a success. The Augustinian Congress of Sept 1953 is going to be a success, I think. You must come, of course; by the way, we have decided in committee that you are one of the rare scholars who is to be “allowed (!) to read his paper” as we can’t have 80 papers in 4 days and want to have the abstracts as a basis for discussion. But I hope you can get it finished by Jan ’54 so that it can be printed beforehand. I work in close and friendly collaboration with H.-I Marrou.121 From Sept 7th to 10th 1953 (I shall have to leave Tours before the end of the Budé Congress), I am delivering 12 lectures on the Holy Trinity to 30 or 40 members of the Paroisse Universitaire, at ‘La retraite’, Quimperlé, Finistère. They first have a retreat of 3 days with Père [indecipherable] then, with me, 4 days of theological studies. Fine. It was a pleasure to be at Chevetogne: Dom Rousseau is charming, as are the others.122 We are bringing out in the Autumn at Desclée de Brouwer a “prospectus” of the reviews of our vol I. I am so sorry not to be able to include your Journal of Hellenic Studies review. If ever it should have appeared by Sept. or Oct. 1953, do you think you could let us have proof sheets or even MSS, so that we could quote from it instead of from The Downside Review? Well, that is a long epistle. If ever you write, as there are quite a few subjects I have not discussed with Schwyzer, would you mind writing this year to 12, Leonhardstrasse, Zürich 1, rather than to his address.

121  Henri-Irénée Marrou (1904-1977) was a French historian specialising in late antiquity and the history of education. He is best known for his study of Histoire de l’éducation dans l’Antiquité (1948), which was translated into English by G. Lamb under the tile of History of Education in Antiquity (1982) 122  Dom Olivier Rousseau O.S.B. (1898-1984) was a monk at the Benedictine abbey of Chevetogne in the French-speaking part of Belgium. He was the editor of the journal Irénikon and worked in the fields of liturgical reform and ecumenism.

Letters

53

I hope your European tour was a success. I still ask you to forgive me my silence, but, you see, I have been thinking of your work, and of what I hope is still “our” work, quite often. Yours sincerely, Paul Henry P.S.: Your review of de Gandillac123 is perfect. I agree completely.

3 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Tours, 04-9-1953 My dear Armstrong, Dr Schwyzer brought me your review. Fine! Thank you for such an appreciative judgement, and for your very clear position on Eustochius-Archetype fidelity. We shall quote that, if there is still time. I have just written and sent extracts to Desclée de Brouwer. Schwyzer thinks you are right about Sophist 248E in Ennead. III 8 9. May I remind you that I am in Louvain, 11 rue des Recollets, from Oct. 17th to 30th? If you are then in Europe, come and visit us. We shall be glad to give you accommodation. But I suppose you’ll be back in Liverpool by that date. I delivered a paper this morning on F124 and Ficino’s work; next Monday, Schwyzer will speak on Plato interpreted in Enn. III 9 1 initium. Off on Sunday, to La Retraite, Quimperlé. Met here Miss de Vogel, but the atmosphere is not favourable for theological or religious “échanges de vues”.125 Let me tell you, too, how glad I am of what you said of Cilento’s magnificent work. (Even the Henry-Schwyzer contact is, in a way, “substantially” correct). Very grateful for mentioning Page, whose help was as generous as it was useful. So, merci again, and again. There are new possible developments about the Theologia, on the Arabic side, and Schwyzer, considering my growing hopes (or perhaps a “mirage”), is again more amenable to the original plan. 123  Maurice de Gandillac (1906-2006) was a French philosopher who worked mainly on the philosophy of Nicholas of Cusa. He is also the author of La sagesse de Plotin (1952). 124  F is the MS Parisinus Graecus 1816, copied by John Scoutariotès on the order of either Cosimo de’ Medici or Ficino himself. It is abundantly annotated by Ficino. For a detailed description, see Henry’s Les manuscrits des Ennéades, pp 45-62. 125  Cornelia de Vogel (1905-1986) was a Dutch classicist and philosopher. In her best-known work, published the year of her death, Rethinking Plato and Platonism, she takes a favourable though nuanced position on the vexed question of Plato’s unwritten doctrines. Not one to shy away from controversy, she frequently expressed disagreement with A.H. Armstrong on the compatibility of Platonism and Christianity. In his letters Henry often expresses reservations on her scholarship.

54

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

It is a crucial problem. I may suddenly be in England again this Autumn for a day or two (London) about this business. Yours in Christ, in haste, Paul Henry S.J.

4 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Paris, 21-01-1954 My dear Armstrong, Good news all round from you. So glad that Christopher126 has three companions of his (religious) age. Your German journey must have been quite interesting. Thank you for giving me news of the interesting meeting of 1954. If you have a more detailed programme of Sept. 9th-14th, could you let me have it? I don’t know if I told you that Cross127 has invited me to deliver the theological lectures at Oxford to his Anglican students. I accepted for early March but am going to ask him to have them last week of October or Feb. 1955. I was not definitely committed to a date. On the spur of the moment (in Sept. 1953), I thought of asking you if you thought Liverpool could invite me to give some lectures, but I am glad I didn’t as the plan has been deferred. On the same occasion, I would try and pay a visit to Sleeman in Devonshire (about his Lexicon).128 If things develop nicely, I might spend the whole of October in England. My immediate plan is to go to Cairo, from March 1st to June 20th. [This is top secret, to see if I can get Badawi to publish (well?) and translate into French all the Plotinian tradition, so that I could use it for vol. II].129 But I don’t want to break with the Warburg Institute and Oxford (who are at “daggers drawn”: sic Hercule Poirot) until I know where I stand with Badawi to whom I wrote a month ago and who hasn’t answered. Oriental too. It’s all very difficult and delicate. But if I don’t get something done by June or October, I shall be forced (by Schwyzer and myself) to drop the bilingual and parallel vol. II: it would mean a lot to me, for I think it would be a minus for scholarship. 126  Armstrong’s elder son, author of “Reminiscences of a Malta Childhood 1935-1943”, reproduced in chapter 4.3. 127  F.L. Cross (1900-1968) was a Patristic scholar and the founder of the Oxford International Conference on Patristic Studies. He was Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at the University of Oxford from 1944 to 1968. 128  J.H. Sleeman, who had planned to produce a Lexicon Plotinianum, would not live long enough to see the project come to fruition. It was eventually completed by Gilbert Pollet and came out under their joint names in 1980. As his letter to Schwyzer testifies, Evanghelos Roussos had planned a similar study. 129  Naguib Baladi (1907-1978) was an Egyptian philosopher who taught at the Farouk University and remains best known for his book on La pensée de Plotin (1970).

Letters

55

I have just written to Mrs Fulton Brown, and Hadot is sending her his roneographed thesis. (By the way, Pierre Hadot, although remaining basically Catholic, has deserted the priesthood. Sad. We continue in friendship and scientific collaboration). If things go well, I hope we may offer the theological works of Marius Victorinus to Vienna (exclusive of Exegetical) by January 1955. Met Merlan in Sept. in Paris. Schwyzer and I are furious with him for his pseudo-review of Cilento-Mariën in the Journal of the American Philological Association.130 We straightened things out a bit, but not too well. Leys had the book bought for (Indecipherable) S.J. Father Aubin’s address is 4 Montée de Fourrière, Lyon. Quite useful, don’t you think? I suggested your name and a few others to him. You have perhaps heard that Faber and Faber are reprinting MacKenna in one vol. at 3 Guineas (not 30 shillings). I think it is right. I don’t think it will hurt your translation and “our” Magnum Opus in Plotinum Perpetuum. B.S. Page is supervising the work, Dodds is writing a short foreword and they (Faber) want me to write the Introduction showing Plotinus’ place in the history of thought, especially his influence on later authors. I have asked them when. I suggested 40 pages, but I am not certain how I can manage this; at least six weeks of hard work or perhaps 3 months. It’s a great honour and I don’t like to decline. What do you think? Page would like to suggest alternative renderings where the translation of MacKenna is clearly deficient. (Dodds is against it). But where should he stop? What do you think? Could you answer this double MacKenna question on a postcard before I answer and decide? On Feb. 4, I shall read a paper to the Association des Études Grecques on ­“L’Esprit doux du pronom réfléchi αυτου dans les Ennéades”. I’d like to consult experts and would like to do the same paper in Oxford (in October?). Writing to Page, I told him of τὸν θεὸν and ὑμῖν. He answers: τὸν θεὸν yes, but what do you do with ὑμῖν? It is really amusing and stimulating. Schwyzer immediately saw the point. The Augustinian Congress is going to be a success, but difficult to organise. 120 papers are announced, with 80 already there. (You are still one of the “elect”). We are terribly short of non-Catholic, non-French, non-Clerical Chairmen. Out of 12, 5 are non-Frenchmen, only 2 non-Catholics (Baxter131 and Pincherle132) and 4 are laymen, I think. But I am glad it is not a “clerical” or French or Catholic meeting.

130  Bert Mariën was the author of an extensive critical bibliography of Plotinian studies, which Cilento later included in his translation of Plotinus (1947-49). 131  J.H. Baxter was an Augustinian scholar, best known for his edition and translation of select letters of Augustine (1930). 132  A. Pincherle (1894-1979) was the author of several books on Augustine, amongst which are Vita de saint’agustino (1930) and Introduzione al christianesimo antico (1971).

56

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

We were both very glad that Desclée managed at the last moment to include your J.H.S. review in our rather boasting prospectus. We did our best to include qualified and reserved opinions: Harder, Dodds, Puech. I enclose one with our heartiest thanks. And now, my best wishes for 1954 to my unknown friend Porphyry.133 Yours, P. Henry S.J.

5 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Paris, 19-02-1954 My dear Armstrong, Your letter was a great pleasure for me, amusing, interesting and so friendly. I am not in Egypt. It is a flub. I do not know what I shall do: Badawi, who had agreed, says now that he is not ready. I might go in October or in Feb. 1955. To think that I gave up Oxford theological lectures … for nothing. Thank you for arranging lectures in Liverpool. Could you let me know (a) what the approximate dates of “terms” are in Liverpool; (2) what time should suit you best; (3) how long in advance I should let you know. For the time being I am simply “depressed” and totally uncreative. There has not been a single idea in my head since October last. I do hope things will get better. Notwithstanding your advice I have accepted the MacKenna introduction. I need it to force myself to tackle the philosophy of Plotinus. Page suggested “The place of Plotinus in the history of thought: sources and influences”. Your “History” will be a great help. It is unlikely that I shall come to Hawkesyard. Would you thank Fr Pepler for his invitation?134 At the last minute I might decide to come. I am quite intrigued by the Tablet polemics. If ever you could lend me the dossier, I’d like to read it and send it back. I am sending you all the documents I have on Prêtres-Ouvriers. Things are settling down. But great harm has been done. Perhaps Rome is right in the id quod but the modus quo, as often, is disastrous. I am so glad Christopher is happy and that Downside is flourishing. Excuse this short letter of a sickly spirit. I cannot do much better for the time being. For a month I have been trying to write a chapter on my Christology lectures 133 

This particular Porphyry was Armstrong’s cat, a bad-tempered Siamese by some accounts. Fr Conrad Pepler OP (1908-1993) is best known for having been the editor of Blackfriars as well as for having set up a conference centre and a Dominican house of study at Hawkesyard Priory in Staffordshire. Armstrong was a regular visitor and Henry may occasionally have joined him there. 134 

Letters

57

on Origen: X revelation of God. I feel quite beaten and have not been able to write a single satisfactory page. For the Augustinian Congress we expect 250 scholars, more than 100 nonFrench, and about 70 non-Catholics, I think. I shall be for a week in Zürich, then from April 1st to 11th in Paris, then Zürich till st 1 September (except June 20-28) Yours sincerely, Paul Henry S.J.

6 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Paris, 09-03-1954 My dear Armstrong, There is so much to tell you that I am writing in French.135 I Overall, the controversy between Armstrong and Smiley is welcome and fruitful and addresses a vital issue.136 From the bottom of your heart, like many, you feel that large parts of our scholastic philosophy are “out of date”, which does not make more attractive the flat or subtle positivism, logical or illogical, of its adversaries. You were certainly “very angry,” but your second letter is a handsome apology. In your first letter I find the points you are making excellent in the reverse order that you are making them. IV is excellent, III too; I hesitate a little about II and I do not like I much. In your second letter, there are two major elements that nobody seems to have picked up as well as you: the first, philosophy is not a neutral science; the second, philosophy is not primarily argumentative, but reflective (cf. O’Meara, I think, on awareness). I find O’Meara quite good and there is some truth in Kolnai.137 The most difficult issue is, of course, “tradition as a philosophical value.” I think that I would go, at least in theory, less far and less forcefully than you. I would talk of “perennial,” not by virtue of a tradition, but by virtue of a fundamental structure of the spirit. 135 

This letter was translated by E. Planella. Timothy Smiley (b. 1930), Emeritus Knightsbridge Professor of Philosophy, works mostly on the philosophy of mathematics and logic. Although the nature of the controversy between him and AHA could not be established with certainty, it is tempting to speculate that it might have been over the lack of relevance of the history of philosophy to philosophy as it was conceived by the analytical school in the Anglo-American world in the nineteen fifties. 137  Aurel Kolnai (1900-1973) was a Hungarian philosopher who worked primarily in ethics and political philosophy. He had a chequered career in Britain, Canada and the US. His main books are The War against the West (1938) and Ethics, Value and Reality: Selected papers of Aurel Kolnai (1977), which was edited posthumously by Bernard Williams and David Wiggins. 136 

58

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

Thank you for having sent me the documents. Thank you for your “anger,” which finds an echo in me. When I see you, remind me to tell you about the Philosophical Convention at Ann Arbor in May 1952 (200 philosophers, 5 of them Catholic! The Philosophers’ Bible: Hume; their prophet Dewey! Alas).138 II I have sent a nice enough reply to Merlan (because Schwyzer and I were furious of the manner he had treated Cilento-Mariën. He visited me in Paris last summer; it was not pleasant). I told him I was inclined, with Schwyzer, to accept Vita 10 αὐτῶ is Plotinus and, for the rest, I could not agree with him, because: 1. Magic is action on the gods (not directly on other creatures) and of this there is no symptom either in the Vita or in Plotinus’ writings; 2. Last sentence: that surely, according to Plotinus, the One is not alone in being ἀγοήτευτος, the νοῦς certainly, the soul probably; 3. That magic-sympathy of the universe is a philosophical expression; In short, overall, I agree with Dodds – Armstrong. Forgive me for not going into the details. III Thank you for the documents. The Mandouze139 article about bishops … in the past made me just as furious as you against Smiley. Because: 1. I have read the treatise twice (it is wonderful – Mandouze distorts it completely). What annoys me is that it is a scholar and a specialist of Augustine who writes this way. Augustine agrees exactly with the official position of the bishops of France and the Holy See. Time-limited work; St Paul working with his hands is an exception, Augustine insists on the normal right of the apostles not to work. 2. I rather like the letter of the Archbishop of Paris on the Jesuits. But (a) this did not prevent the Jesuits from being suppressed; (b) the very first Jesuits have had the problem, even before the Bulle was promulgated, of wanting to suppress themselves in order to obey the will (perhaps unfair) of the Pope.140

138  Armstrong’s so-called “controversy” with Smiley must have put Henry in mind of his own grudges against American so-called analytical philosophers who, he assumed, were at one with their British counterparts in being steeped in Hume’s empiricism cum scepticism. The grudges continue to this day on the part of those American philosophers who prefer to align themselves with the so-called “continental” tradition of philosophy. John Dewey (1859-1952) was a leading exponent of the school of American pragmatism. 139  André Mandouze (1916-2006), journalist, academic and author of several books and articles on Augustine. It has not been possible to identify the particular article that Henry is here referring to. It is likely, however, to have been inspired by his left-wing views. 140  A “bulle papale” or “papal bull” is a juridical document or public decree promulgated by the Pope to inform the Catholic Clergy and laity of a papal decision on matters of dogma, policy, or Church organisation.

Letters

59

I wanted to reply publicly to Mandouze, but given the circumstances, it could have appeared as a condemnation of the worker-priests, which would be contrary to my thinking (from a doctrinal viewpoint).141 I am sending you a new batch of documents that you should return to me. The “Cahiers universitaires” are interesting.142 The situation is bad. Except for 15 religious, 2/3 did not comply, but did not actively rebel. It seems that Rome and the bishops do not want any scandal but are up against increasing resistance from the worker-priests. I am sending you: – Smiley documents; – Merlan and commentary (keep them for later); – Worker-priests, new series. From 25 May to 20 June and from 1 July to 30 September I will be at Schwyzer’s. Thank you for giving your term dates in advance. I do appreciate that you need to know in advance; for financial reasons and because of the weather, I will combine with Oxford and probably Leeds, Cambridge, and Devon, where I would like to visit Sleeman. If I come, it will probably be in February ’55 and I will let you know by November 1954. I have to finish writing now because I am going to vote in Belgium, being the good citizen that I am.143 Happy Easter, Kind regards, Henry

141  The movement called “the worker-priests” was aimed at counteracting the effects of what was perceived as the disaffection of the working-classes from traditional Roman Catholicism. Started in France, the movement soon spread to Belgium and Italy and initially received the support of the Vatican. Priests who joined the movement discarded their traditional clerical garb and were freed by their bishops from their pastoral duties, to work on the shop floor in factories or the docks alongside workers. However, when the worker-priests became politicised, taking part in union activities and going on strike and, in some cases, aligning themselves with the Communist Party, the Catholic hierarchy expressed concern. In 1953 Pope Pius XII recalled all the worker-priests to their traditional parish duties, but not all of them complied with the Vatican ruling. 142 Les Cahiers universitaires catholiques, to which Henry refers here, were a monthly periodical. Started in 1948, they ceased publication in 1992. 143  Voting was, and remains, obligatory in Belgium.

60

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

7 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Zürich, 03-08-1954 c/o Schwyzer My dear Armstrong I am extremely sorry to hear that your eldest daughter, Bridget, died recently. In many Christian families, and probably in most families, there seems to be someone chosen by God, often the best, the purest, the nearest to Him, whom He calls soon to Him and who there protects us, and here is alive in our love and memories as an inspiring force. When I look around me, very near, I think of my eldest brother, Jean, killed in 1918, a fortnight before the Armistice: he was to be a priest or a doctor (Pierre my brother is a doctor and I a priest), when he was only 21. He was and is for us and his nephews a great example. Again, in the next war, my eldest nephew Jean (after the first Jean) was killed at 24. He was really a saint, daily Mass and daily meditation before Mass. My sister for 2 years was simply crushed, and I feared for her moral and physical balance. My other sister, too, lost a young child, the first after 7 years of separation from her husband, a prisoner in Germany. Everywhere sacrifice, everywhere faith to support us. Your daughter wanted to give her life to God and God has taken her to Himself immediately. May I ask you to tell Mrs Armstrong, whom I hope to know soon, how greatly, how deeply I share in your sorrow, but how very much I confide in God to help you. I am glad Christopher is so happy. Thank you for “understanding” and not minding in the least about the unread paper. Thank you for accepting to be a “second best” (!) chairman, you understand what I mean. Thanks for the information: yes, O’Meara might be quite a good choice,144 but does he know as much as you do about mysticism? Gabriel has only become a Monsignor. Since I wrote to you, I have received from Axel Rahl a cheque of 10,000 F.F. (an extraordinary gesture). He is nearly blind and cannot come and wants to help the Congress. This is in confidence of course. I know Ivanka has a poor salary.145 The third-class journey one way (sleeper) is just 10,000 francs. He may still want to come if we can help him. I know Austrian scholars are not well off. I know that he very much likes to attend congresses. So, after consulting with Fr. Folliet146 and perhaps 144  Henry here refers to John O’Meara (1915-2003), the Irish Classical scholar, who wrote mainly on Augustine and John Scotus Eriugena. 145  Endre von Ivanka (1902-1974) was an Austro-Hungarian scholar who taught at various Hungarian universities and became Professor of Byzantine Studies at the University of Graz, Austria. His collected essays on Platonism in Greek patristic authors are in his Plato Christianus (1964). 146  Fr G. Folliet (1920-2011) was a member of the Congregation of the Augustinians of the Assumption. He specialised in the study of Augustine and worked most of his life in the Institut d’études

Letters

61

Ivanka himself, we would ask him to come. But may I keep you as a “substitute”? If you were chairman, Fr. Folliet or I would assist you, in case of a heated discussion, which is very likely. I hope, or rather, I know, that you do not mind and only want to help us. I somehow would like Ivanka to refuse, but I also want to invite him on these new terms if Fr. Folliet agrees. For the “connaissance problème”, we should have Dr Koch of Bonn,147 our only German chairman. I found c/o Schwyzer (who is away in Bonn) your July 11th letter awaiting me. (Schwyzer was expecting me for July 1st!) He is nicely or rather coldly mad at me for being too much of a theologian. He will be madder still when he hears I am thinking of going to Spode House, but I feel I must see Sleeman soon (between September 14th and 19th I’d like to go down to Devon), so that I am very much inclined to do the short and rather costly trip. We would probably have more time to spend together in Spode House than in Paris. Fr. Pepler also sent me the programme and instructions: French Cook agencies despair to find me proper trains to …?148 from London and Oxford. If you have any suggestions for a good train from London or Oxford (where I might be with the Segars149) and getting me to Spode House just in time for the opening, I’d be grateful. I’d leave Zürich on September 8th. You see, I am seriously considering coming, subject to an answer from Sleeman. On July 30th I wrote to Cross. If his invitation still holds for 2 theological lectures – I gave him first choice for dates – I shall certainly come to Liverpool (and thanks for any fee or expenses, however small) and I shall probably lecture on the subjects you propose with much broader and general views than at Cambridge in Aug. ’51. Your July 11th letter is extremely interesting. I agree on every item you mention including the lack of appeal of scholastic philosophy to laymen and many theologians (including Paul Henry) except for the spirit and some very important principles. Yes, the prêtres-ouvriers affair is developing fairly well; the great problem being now the new status and role of the more important “mission de France”. I am afraid English Catholics do not quite grasp the importance of the whole affair and are prone to condemn France (SJ + O.P. + Bishops – for it comes to that) as [indecipherable] to say the least. There is much in your letter I do not refer to, hoping to talk it over with you. But there is still one thing I would like to say. I spent my first two days in Zürich preparing my MacKenna Introduction, that is, reading your introduction to Anc.

augustiniennes. With Fr Cayré, he founded the Revue d’études Augustiniennes (1955). He played a central role in the conference mentioned above. 147  Josef Koch (1885- ?) was a specialist in medieval philosophy. 148  A gap in the letter. 149  The Segars were friends dating from his Oxford years.

62

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

Hist.150 It is extremely interesting, very valuable, full of fine ideas and witty comments. Really, I am most thankful the book exists. I read your Aristotle chapter with the greatest care; also, the difficult one on Middle Platonists. They are really good. I shall certainly “poach” upon it, pilfer you (“vous piller”) for my Introduction. I do hope to write the first draft before September 8th, while Schwyzer thinks that I rest. I have not yet dared tell him. I have brought all the offprints that were sent to me on Greek philosophy, many I never read. It is refreshing for me to be able not to be too technical and analytical, to move into philosophy not sic, away from philologia and theologia, although theology is not absent. This must be all for tonight. Again, my thanks, and, most of all, my heartfelt sympathy, for Mrs Armstrong and you. Paul Henry S.J. P.S.: I do not think I have received either the dossier of the Tablet or the dossier of Prêtres-Ouvriers, unless they are waiting for me at one of my three Zürich addresses.

8 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Zürich, 14-08-1954 c/o Schwyzer My dear Armstrong, Just a few lines: 1. Ivanka has accepted our offer and comes to be Chairman of “Mystique”. I know it is not necessary to apologise, but thanks for being ready to be a substitute, now unnecessary. 2. I very much doubt I shall be able to attend the Philosophical Enquiry week. I rather think of going to Devonshire between Oct. 10th and 18th. Nothing definite yet. I must write to Sleeman. 3. Cross has definitely invited me for Feb. ‘55 in Oxford. He wants a “course” (6 lectures) on the “The development of the Christian Doctrine of God from the Holy Scripture to the General Councils”. I think it will be from Feb. 27th to March 12th, plus a more “general interest” lecture. I shall probably accept the course. One of my great ambitions realised. Pray for me. I shall drop everything else, except the 2 Liverpool lectures, which I shall probably ask you to arrange between Feb. 22nd or 23rd and Feb. 26th or 27th.

150  This is likely to be a reference to Armstrong’s An Introduction to Ancient Philosophy (1947). See Dufour’s bibliography in 4.7.

Letters

63

Can I ask you what you would think of a semi-popular essay (my lectures in Oxford on “The Development of the Christian Doctrine of God”), a survey being published by Faber & Faber, or would you think S.P.C.K.151 to be a better option? Is Methuen likely to accept? I ask you for I am thinking of sending Cross’s letter, with his permission, to Faber & Faber, who have been extremely bienveillant as far as the Introduction to Plotinus goes. Would Oxford Clarendon Press accept my theological lectures? I doubt it. Can you advise me? Yours sincerely, Paul Henry

9 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Canterbury, 14-09-1954 My dear Armstrong, Sorry I was so silent. Thank you for postcard of 5th Sept. and the letter of Aug. 17. I hope this reaches you in Haresby (?) and Priory. Would you explain to Fr Pepler that even for 1955 I could not promise anything definite so long in advance and therefore that he should not make plans or programme in any way that would include my contribution. I seem to be particularly good at defaulting when I have to come to England, but I shall be in Liverpool in early ’55, s’il plaît à Dieu. I am rather worried about the dossier and inquired. It never seems to have arrived at Schwyzer’s. Perhaps it is in Paris, where some “imprimés” are not sent forward. But I cannot understand how it could have got lost. Terribly sorry if “your” dossier is missing; mine does not matter so much. Please tell Fr Pepler and possible members that I am with them in spirit. You must accept the Cambridge invitation for the History of Medieval Philosophy. Yes, you are good at that. Did I tell you that I was visiting Sleeman about Oct. 10th ? (Don’t say a word, but I am trying to get it published as vol. IV of Plotini Opera; but I must find £3000!) Thanks for your advice about Faber. Cross was thinking of [indecipherable] and does not react to my suggestion about Oxford Clarendon. In haste, off to Zürich, then Paris. Hurrah! Paul Henry

151  S.P.C.K. or Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge is a Christian charity based in the UK, whose aim is to further awareness of Christian doctrines.

64

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

10 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Paris, 09-12-1954 My dear Armstrong, Sorry for writing so late. 1. I am free from Monday Feb. 22nd at noon till the following Sunday morning (first lecture in Oxford on Monday 28th). 2. I doubt I can leave Paris before Tuesday morning, arriving London about 6pm. 3. I could take an early train about 9 or 10 am on Wed. 23rd to Liverpool and lecture as soon as I arrive. What do you suggest? I see no other date possible than between Wed. and Sat. so it should be Wed., I suppose, and the “Catholic” one on Thursday. I am thinking of getting myself an appointment with the Archbishop of Birmingham on Sat. 26th or Sunday. Do not move yet. Could you ring up the Registrar and say that I accept and shall write officially as soon as we have settled the date (and the honorarium) between ourselves? Thank you for your sympathy for my sister’s bereavement. Hurrah for Enn. I. Glorious. I may have to give up the “Introduction” as it cannot be ready before April ’55. Have left them free. Would be sorry if because of me you had to give up Edinburgh. Thanks for the Antiochus review. En hâte, Paul Henry S.J.

11 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Oxford, 28-02-1955 My dear Armstrong, It’s difficult to tell Mrs Armstrong and you how fine and perfect the days were that I spent with you. I shall forever remember them with pleasure and I am so glad to have been allowed to stay with you to prepare my “nefarious” lecture! Thank you for having introduced me to so many of your colleagues and friends. Thank you for everything.

Letters

65

I am quite at home in C. Hall, and Fr Corbishley152 and the Senior C. Rowse are all very kind. Unfortunately, they can’t keep me after Thursday next and I’ll be till 11th in “St Aloysius”, 25 Woodstock Road. The strain is great. I expected an audience of 12 or 15 for the first lecture. There were, I think, anything from 85 to 100 or 110. The room was full, and I felt quite at home and alive (quite as much as with Liverpool’s so very encouraging audiences). A few dons were there, out of courtesy, among whom Rev. Evans (chaplain of Corpus) and Dr Kelly, Principal of St Edmund’s Hall, both excellent on Early Christian creeds. Next week I shall be attending at Pusey House a talk on Chalcedon (St Alban and St Serge). I shall certainly see Dodds and Meiggs. Richard Robinson has invited me to dine at Oriel on Sunday. Pray for these lectures, for I feel they may be important, but how shall I ever be able to put them in book form? My love to Nicolette153 and ‘her’ daughter. Mrs Armstrong must have felt how very much I was at home in your home. Paul Henry

12 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Zürich, 04-04-1955 c/o Schwyzer My dear Armstrong, Avant tout, bonne fête de Pâques to all, to Mrs Armstrong, Nicolette, Porphyry and the rest of the family. May Easter, through sorrow, bring you God’s peace and joy, χαρὶς καὶ εἰρήνη. I came here a week ago, to finish the extremely difficult introduction to MacKenna’s – Page, Plotinus, and I feel more and more that you should have written it, which means that I am going to “pilfer” you shamelessly and the same with H.-R. Schwyzer. Am bound, absolutely, to deliver it, or at least, finish it by 16/04/55. The text is already in print and I cannot hold them up anymore. I study your articles and books and my admiration grows. I did like your inaugural Liverpool lecture that I read for the second time. I also admire H.-R.’s sober treatment of problems. Would you have the address of R.E. Witt,154 and what is his present position and occupation? 152 

Fr Corbishley was Master of Campion Hall at the time. Nicolette is Armstrong’s youngest daughter. 154  R.E. Witt (1903-1980) was a graduate student of Dodds’ at Birmingham (Missing Persons, 90) and later became Professor of Classics at Queen Mary College, University of London. His early book, Albinus and the History of Middle Platonism (1937, repr. 1971), was much used until newer studies 153 

66

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

With Schwyzer (who is now in Italy with Mrs Schwyzer till the 13th), we discussed your ἀπορίαι and here are some notes. Often, we agree with Cilento, whom I advise you to consult on difficult passages – he often follows the excellent Harder but sticks more closely to the mss tradition. LOEB. Two important comments of mine: A. Date – my agreement with Loeb provides that the Loeb text-translation will not come out sooner than one year after the publication of Oxford Clarendon Press of our editio minor. My agreement with Clarendon Press (of which Mrs Rowlan Robinson is aware) provides that volume I of the minor (Enn. I-III) will not come out before vol. II of the maior (Enn. IV-V) is out, because otherwise we could never sell vol. II maior, of which I bear155 the heavy financial responsibility. We now hope to send vol. II of the maior (with translated Arabic texts) to the printers in autumn 1956, which means the volume will be out at Easter 1957. Oxford minor I (Enn. I-III) in ’58, and Loeb I (Enn. I)in 1959!! But once Oxford I is out, Loeb I, II and III may come out in rapid succession, one each year. So, I suggest you work hard (!) on Enn. II and III and prepare the three for the printers. Because of “distribution” (οἰκονομία), commentary among all VI Enneads, it may be wise not to publish Enn. I Loeb before a great deal of the whole translation and commentary is prepared. I think this could be explained to Mrs Rowlan Robinson. Moreover, if all goes well, the Sleeman Lexicon should come out about the same time as vol. II maior, in 1957 or perhaps 1958, and it would be useful to have it before you give the final form to the commentary. As for some key words, I feel the Armstrong commentary (or, if you still agree and if I am able to contribute, the “Armstrong and partly Henry commentary”), should either consist in a running commentary or short technical appendices, which would supply the deficiencies of a somewhat too “material” lexicon. B. Running commentary versus Introductions. I understand your idea, it has much for it, but I am completely against it: (a) Bréhier has done that admirably (in a spirit that is not “ours” but remains invaluable); (b) People, or even or more so, scholars and students, prefer, I think, (at least I do) to turn to the running commentary, when there is a difficulty or a leading passage, rather than an introduction where one “loses” oneself; (c) there exists, since Creuzer,156 no running commentary at all on Plotinus and this should be provided for.

(by Dillon, Tarrant et al.) made it seem dated. Later in his career, he wrote Isis in the Graeco-Roman World (1971). 155  Or “fear”; Henry’s handwriting is unclear at this point. 156  For Henry’s admiration for Creuzer’s edition of the Enneads, see pages 15, 16-17 and 64 of his “Memoirs” in the previous section of this chapter.

Letters

67

I remind you that Oxford Clarendon Press would be prepared to print it separately, even if it was extensive (not more than III 8 Armstrong), which is, I think, perfect. I see now three possibilities: – Loeb: a running commentary, even if the notes are long and frequent, but with appendices on special problems as in one of the Loeb Aristotle. It would boil down the Introduction to very short pages, anything from two to three pages, or even less sometimes. – Write a full commentary as separate books for Oxford, although it is nice to have the text, translation and commentary in the same volume, plus technical appendices on special questions. – A thing I never thought of before. Include the Armstrong full running commentary (plus some notes signed by Henry, if you agree) as a two-volume “companion” to the Schwyzer-Henry editio maior, which shall remain the fundamental work for scholars, I hope. In that case, yes, if you think so, revert to Introductions (Bréhier style) for Loeb, and very short notes to the text. As you know, in the maior series we print as volume IV the Sleeman Lexicon (English) and in vol. II the English translation (by Lewis and Rosenthal) of Arabic parallels. Why not as vol. V-VI a full Armstrong commentary (the financing would be no major difficulty)? There is at least one thing I would insist upon, namely that when writing your running commentary – and I do hope it is to be a running commentary (the only one, and very much needed), you should not be restricted by space considerations as it is easy to print it in full form. Tell me what you think about all this. I hope it does not give you headaches. Next time we meet, we shall have to discuss this. After you tell me you understand question A, I shall also on my side write to Mrs R. Robinson about it. In the summer, I shall be here from July 10th to Oct. 23rd, mainly busy with the Arabic. In September I won’t be in Oxford for the Patristic conference as I must finish vol. II with H.-R. S. I may go to Iowa State University as professor of the History of Philosophy and Plotinus, in March 1956 (first priest appointed). Yours sincerely, Paul Henry P.S.: I look forward to “Theology and the Liberal Arts.” I quite well realize that we agree on very much (I did like your “Psychology of Platonic St Thomas”, read also recently for the second time), but I am very much impressed by the implication of the Incarnation. You should read Tresmontant, the Essai, his first and better work.157

157 

Claude Tresmontant, Essai sur la pensée hébraïque, 1953.

68

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

P.P.S.: If ever your (or “our”??) commentary comes out as vol. V-VI of maior, we could of course publish Enn. I-III commentary as soon as it is ready, but I suggest the “distribution” of the whole commentary be carefully considered.

13 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Paris, 27-04-1955 My very dear Armstrong, I just received your fine letter and your paper on “Theology and the Liberal Arts”. It is difficult to engage in a friendly controversy only by correspondence, in as much as I have not fully developed in writing, or even in my own mind, “intimations from mortality.” But may I just say this: I would “qualify” much of what you say on p.134 first half, but fully agree on pages 134-135 and with the rest of the paper. I am in complete agreement with the last 4 lines of p. 132. You seem to leave out of your inquiry and even problematik, technical and even sociological requirements, achievements and problems. I would be grateful for the Tablet on Teilhard and send a cutting from Témoignage Chrétien by Marrou. Could you send it back and can I keep the Tablet!? Of course, Teilhard is no pantheist, but I admit that he does not take sufficient account of sin in his esoteric papers. The best article on him up to now is by Et. Borne158 in Le Monde of April 13th (I have no copy, alas) and Borne’s own line is perhaps closer to Bouyer159 than to Teilhard. Another paper by Paul Rivet in France Observateur is completely one-sided and would have pained Teilhard. Today, there was a Mass for him, and Fr. d’Ouince,160 for 19 years editor of Etudes, said “L’ordre auquel il 158  Etienne Borne (1907-1993) was a catholic philosopher and journalist. He was doctrinally close to Teilhard de Chardin. 159  Louis Bouyer (1913-2004) was a Lutheran pastor who converted to Catholicism and joined the Congregation of the Priests of the Oratory. A theologian, he was for a time a colleague of Henry’s at the Université Catholique de Paris. With Joseph Ratzinger and a few others, he founded the international Catholic review, Communio. 160  René d’Ouince S.J. (1896-1973) is the author of a two-volume work Un prophète en procès: Teilhard de Chardin (1970), in which he describes Teilhard de Chardin’s attempt to combine palaeontological research premised on the validity of Darwin’s theory of evolution with a cosmic directional theology. Teilhard de Chardin had been the object of a monitum (warning) from the Vatican and his books were banned from Catholic libraries and bookshops. As Henry makes clear in this letter, he supported Teilhard de Chardin and was dismayed at the Vatican’s condemnation. The fact that Fr d’Ouince, like Teilhard de Chardin himself and indeed Henry, were fellow Jesuits adds to the interest of the book. Henry’s doctrinal sympathies with Teilhard are evident from the talk he gave on the end of the world during his stay in Iowa State University. As reported by The Catholic Messenger of April 19, 1956, he argued that the end of the world would not come until the world had prepared itself for its end or glorification, a position he justified through a cautious adhesion to Teilhard’s theological conception of evolution. See also Henry’s letter of 14th December 1955.

Letters

69

appartient a exercé sur lui une vigilance constante et lui a imposé des sacrifices pénibles qu’il a toujours acceptés.”161 He was a very humble man. I shall send, printed matter, both Témoignage Chrétien and France Observateur; please send them back. Yes, I think Oxford was a success. The problem now is writing them down. Pringle of Faber tells me he must have them by July 31st if they are to be published, as I wish, in Spring 1956. Am in the last (!!) throes of my English Introduction to MacKenna and got “stuck” in Middle Platonism etc. I was to send the ms by 18th of April and told Pringle it was a “matter of days.” Am sorry to have bungled this but your works and articles were a great help. Good news is that my “Catéchèse Biblique de la Grâce” to 30 regular students of the Institut Supérieur Catéchétique, plus about 40 curés, vicaires, professeurs de religion and aumôniers de Paris are, I think, a success. I prepare them very carefully, as if I had never tackled the subject, which I did first in a course of theology (in Louvain 40/41!) then in ’60 (!) sermons 41-43, which I prepared, on average for 15 to 20 hours each. I hope to bring out these 1955 lectures one day in some popular book form. And now for the Opus Magnum162: a. So glad you do not say NO. But before we decide we must really think it over a little more. If I suggested signing P.H. some notes of the commentary, it is because I thought it would be mainly your own work and I did not feel equal to you. But, of course, if I work sufficiently hard and can really contribute, we could make it a joint commentary. b. On the other hand, commentary is not edition, and the readers might like to know what Armstrong’s part is and what is Henry’s. c. But, on the other hand, if we collaborate and as our ideas on Neo-Platonism are not far apart and, as a collaborative work, would probably bring us even closer and make, on the whole (as for the Henry-Schwyzer edition), a better running commentary than separately signed notes, I have no objection, but great joy. d. Yes, it would be a matter of years. But joining forces would probably be a great stimulant. e. What I think is essential, and I am very glad of your agreement, is that it should be a full scholarly running commentary. Of course, completely centred on Plotinus and not on our own ideas, although we could, in the best “Armstrong manner”, point out parallels and contrast earlier with later thought. As you know, I am with Schwyzer this summer for at least 3 months (30 July to 30 Oct), possibly four (1st July), to prepare the parallel Arabic (in English)-Greek, vol. II. I shall try my hand perhaps at a commentary of some small treatises. 161  “The religious order to which he belonged has kept him under constant watch and imposed upon him painful sacrifices, which he always accepted.” 162  The joint project described in this and subsequent letters, for which Henry at least had high hopes, never came to fruition.

70

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

As I possibly told you, (Schwyzer again and all the others are kept in ignorance of this), I am thinking of accepting an offer from Iowa State Univ. to teach the History of Greek Philosophy (from Plato more or less to Plotinus) from March 1st to June 1956. Two reasons: 1. I want to start real work on the philosophy of Plotinus; 2. I refused the Chair Iowa offered me in the School of Religion (Catholic in a School of 3 Departments: Catholic, Protestant and Jewish). I would accept in order to break down prejudices, help bridge the gulf between the 2 Americas. I would, I think, be the first priest to hold a regular appointment in a US State University. If I accept this, it would be a step, perhaps, to a fuller competence for our joint commentary and also for the work I “plan” (!) with Fr. Leys S.J., Enchiridion Philosophicum Aevi Patristici. Conclusion: could we re-examine this at the end of October 1955, after preferably (if I go to the States) the end of summer 1956? I think I could then make up my mind. As you “understand” the Loeb dates, and as I must first see that vol. II is finished and that the Sleeman Lexicon is revised and sent to the press, I hope you excuse my delay in committing myself. But I feel the full running commentary, be it published separately or, as I hope, as vol. V-VI, of Plotini Opera, is what “we” must aim at. I shall write to Mrs Rowan Robinson reminding her of our agreement about the dates. I suggest you tell her nothing of what we are thinking of doing together until we see the possibilities more clearly. But I feel that if we have both committed ourselves to work on this together, we might pull through. I would then perhaps occasionally (and after vol. III regularly) transfer my Plotinian headquarters from Zürich to Liverpool!! Of course, I would welcome H-R S’s additional notes on grammar etc. Glad you have come to see how very “conscious” he is and, at least in our own view, justified in his/our extreme conservatism. On I 1.5 I have never felt quite as confident as my dear Hans-Rudolf; that is why I left the burden of persuading you to him. But I am even less confident about the alternate readings or emendations. I think you were right in refusing Pépin’s offer163 (so does Marrou, but for other reasons). I shall probably contribute a short chapter on Relations (or Relativism) and Aristotelianism in Augustine’s trinitarian doctrine along the lines you know. Looking forward to your article on magic. Glad Merlan finds somebody to answer him. Glad you liked the Ruysbroeck’s memoirs. Read him for 10 years then spent 4 full months writing those 60 pages, which I rate among the best I ever wrote. I can understand you are depressed. We both have taken upon ourselves formidable tasks, you as a “lay” theologian, I as a “lay” classical scholar (profanus et idiota), but I am so glad to find in you one who, as I do, does try to combine both magnificent fields of research.

163  It is not known what invitation Pépin extended to Armstrong, but it may have been to take an active part in his research unit at the CNRS in Paris.

Letters

71

When I am in Zürich, remind me to ask about I 9. Have nothing new on this. Fr. L. Bouyer’s address is: Villa Montmorency, 8 Avenue de Montmorency, Paris 16. Fr. Wilkinson, you should try to get him to come to Liverpool. Affectueux souvenirs à Madame Armstrong, à Nicolette et à Porphyry. Paul Henry P.S.: I still have two of your detective novels. They shall come from the Bigerts in Zürich to whom I have lent them. P.P.S: I shall not attend the Oxford conference.

14 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Paris, 21-11-1955 My dear Armstrong, Although I am very busy (as you are too) I want to give you some personal news: a. Plotini Opera II is druckfertig. We have already printed IV 8 and have sent IV 5 and IV 4, 1-8 to Duculot. b. Opposite the Greek, we print (technically difficult but possible) all the Arabic Plotinus in Dr Lewis’s translation, even the unedited Epistola de Scientia Divina (Cairo and Istanbul) sent by Fr Anawati164 to Lewis through me. (Complete harmony with him and hopes of having the original Arabic printed by Warburg at about the same date, end of 1957). So Schwyzer does not need me till July 1957 for the Common Praefatio. I even have serious (and “last”) hope of getting the photo of the Leningrad Theologia brevior fragment through the “political” Dr Gruscher of Berlin Academy (of little use for Opera or otherwise) so that what I planned as far back as 1937 or 1936, and what I often thought to be impossible (Schwyzer even more than me), is now realised. By the way, I don’t believe very much in my oral (Amelius) hypothesis. But I cannot decide definitely before I study the texts, which are now available in their

164  Fr George Anawati O.P. was a prolific writer on Islamic theology, philosophy and mysticism. Besides working to foster inter-faith dialogue and playing an active role in the second Vatican Council, George Anawati, in his capacity as librarian of the Institut Dominicain des études orientales, was instrumental in amassing a vast quantity of scholarly material relevant to the work of the Institute. An English translation by G. Lewis of the Epistola, together with other Plotiniana Arabica, was included in volume II of the editio maior, published in 1959. For more information about Fr Anawati, see Gilliot C., Père Georges Chehata Anawati (1905-1994). Revue du monde musulman et de la Méditerranée, 1993: n° 68-69.

72

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

integrity and easy to study. I stayed in Zürich till Nov 5th to “finish” (and I did, we planned even the typography of the difficult “harmonies”). I have only one trouble: my Introduction for the Page/MacKenna. The whole book is printed, and they don’t have my text yet. You were right in advising against it. Am terribly disappointed with what I have written, and more about the unforgivable delay. Page is kindly translating my French text.165 In Paris, plus the usual Faculty lectures, I have accepted (this year again, but in the same semester) an absolutely new series of lectures, one I never dared to tackle in Faculty: De Deo Uno, Theologicus Tractatus, viz. founded on Bible and Revelation, not on Philosophy or Religious Philosophy. It is for l’Institut Supérieur Catéchétique: 40 regular students of this Institut, plus 30 “auditeurs libres”, mostly parish priests or lycée chaplains of Paris. Am absolutely enthusiastic about the American programme (what the reality will be is another matter). Popkin, my kind and able “agent,” has caught the spirit of what I wanted to do there, lecture as a priest in a non-Catholic university, mainly on non-Christian (but pro-Christian or pre-Christian) themes. Two of the series are a preparation a longuiquo for our Plotinus commentary. Shall I have any students and some non-Catholic? I do not know. I teach 2 hours on each of the first days of the week from Feb 20 to June 15. Note that “Theology of Romans” is sponsored jointly by the Department of Classics and the School of Religion. Note the change of title (typical) of the Platonism in Antiquity lecture. To save time, I send you 3 originals and 2 copies drawn at Popkin’s request (for on 6 or 8 weeks of the 12 or 14 I shall deliver single lectures in “neighbouring” universities, amongst which Chicago and Kansas). On the American Philosophical Association (about 200 attend) I more or less forced the “God in Plotinus” symposium. I doubt they even dared to “discuss” God. [Horrible this “discuss” God, but you understand.] Note my address valid till Oct 9, 1956, but please send the 5 documents as soon as possible. I know I am hawking the subject a bit, but they mature into articles or books. During the summer I don’t know what I’ll do. In Sept.-Oct., I shall be in the East delivering lectures in the older universities and colleges. I try to exclude Catholic universities with one or two exceptions. I shall leave by the last possible boat in time for my first Paris lecture on Nov. 5th, 1956. Am trying (but probably shall fail) to deliver short series of lectures too, 3 or 4, on some “mixed themes,” Strange news is that I have accepted Gruscher’s invitation to lecture in May or April 1957 in Berlin-East and Prof. Kusch (met at Gorresg. in Freiburg) to lecture (in dark civilian clothes) at Leipzig, Halle and Iena about the same date. 165 

The book came out in 1956; see Dufour’s bibliography.

Letters

73

I leave Paris and Le Havre by the Liberté on Wed. Feb 8th. For Baron Hardt,166 of Vandœuvres-Genève, I am arranging more or less a Symposium (to be published with discussions) on The Sources of Plotinus (ambitious, difficult, but to my surprise Schwyzer agrees). We hope to have Harder, Cilento, de Vogel, Theiler, B.S. Page, Puech (on the Gnostics) and you. Do not breathe a word to anyone, not even Hardt, Dodds or Schwyzer. It would be the first week of August 1957 in Geneva. I tell you not to accept anything else. Am now trying to get Dodds and Cherniss not to say “no.” And you? My best regards to Mrs Armstrong, Paul Henry

15 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Paris, 14-12-1955 My dear Armstrong, Thanks for returning the letters. Above all, Happy Xmas (Dominus Vobiscum) and Happy New Year to Mrs Armstrong, yourself, the children and … Porphyry. When is your OSB son ordained? In 1957? Glad you’ll reserve beginning of August for the Plotinus Sources Symposium. Will certainly be there (up to now): Schwyzer, Cilento, Armstrong, H.C. Puech, Henry, probably Dodds too, at least for the discussions. Cherniss has said ‘no’ but, when I see him, I hope to convince him to come. We have two “personal” difficulties. This is in absolute confidence. But, as we have few secrets from one another, I’d like your advice and … your absolute discrétion. I was thinking of inviting Miss de Vogel (on early or middle Platonism, all the more so that I am not convinced she is right). Festugière. Some object to both, more on personal grounds and because neither seems to be “easy” in discussions or personal contacts. (This is certainly true of Fr Festugière; Theiler seems to be charming as a person, but impossible – sic Hardt his friend – in lectures and in discussion, but we cannot not invite him as a. he is in Bern; b. again, he has other methods and ideas than, say, Schwyzer, Armstrong, Cilento and Henry). 166  In 1949, Baron Kurd von Hardt (1889-1958) set up a foundation in his mansion at Vandœuvres-Genève for the study of Classical Antiquity. This includes a library and facilities for visiting scholars to pursue research in the Classics as well as to organise international colloquia. One such was the famous meeting on Les sources de Plotin, to which Henry alludes in several letters. The resulting proceedings, in which are gathered contributions by Dodds, Armstrong, Cilento, Hadot, Schwyzer, Harder, Theiler, and Henry, was published in 1960.

74

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

Somebody told me Miss de Vogel was superficial as a scholar. What do you think? And then, as the only woman, would she get along with 8 or 10 men? The difficulty may be solved by practical considerations: I very much want to have Page (say on Plotinus’s exegesis of Plato), if possible, Beutler (it would also encourage him as he has been refused at his Habilitation, with a subsequent breakdown), possibly Leemans, and certainly Harder (who will come). Now Hardt has only room for 8 scholars. I rather favour the idea of having Festugière, immensely learned, and who, I am told, is turning his interest to Plotinus. – I could certainly “sleep outside,” that would mean 9 scholars. As I see Hardt here in Jan., I’d like to have your opinion soon (in confidence) on Miss de Vogel as (a) a scholar; (b) a person (given the 7 days of συνουσίαι). If you prefer to say nothing, say so and we shall do for the best. From Paris, we are definitely not inviting de Gandillac. Glad that vol. I Loeb is nearly finished. Before I leave for USA, I shall have to write to Mrs Rowlan Robinson. Can you make this clear (and if ever I “forget” to write to her and she asks, tell her) that: (a) Plotini Opera II comes out earliest Easter, latest Oct. 1957. (b) One year after that, Oxford Clarendon Press is allowed by contract to publish ed. minor I (Enn. I-III), at the earliest, Easter 1958. (c) And one year after that (i.e. at the earliest, Easter 1959), Loeb may publish “our” text and your translation and notes. But then you may publish Enn. II and III in quick succession. So, you may work hard to get II and III ready for Loeb once they start (we have agreed that the best solution is 6 volumes). I suppose that maior III (Enn. VI) will be out in about 1960 or ’61, but one year, I think, after maior II is out (i.e. in 1959), Oxford may publish minor II (Enn. IV-V) and, in 1960, Loeb may publish IV-V in quick succession. G. Lewis, Oxford, at our request, has been studying ms Marsh 539 and in the first quarter of ms [he] has found new Plotinian Arabic texts (IV 3, 18, 1-22; IV 3, 23, 9-15; V 1, 2, 10-25 and V 7, 3, 6-12). So, we hope to have all the Marsh 539 texts discovered by Rosenthal in Plotini Opera II. Jackson-Knight tells me the new MacKenna is announced, and only 20 pages of “Introduction” (out of 50) are in Page’s hands for translation. A little prayer that I may finish before Xmas and have a week’s holiday (badly needed) probably in Nice, Riviera. Glad you were happy to have the Teilhard. In confidence, Fr General SJ is “organising” a campaign by S.J. reviews to say they disagree. So, the Etudes Dec. article by Fr Villain (the Superior) who personally does not agree with Teilhard, but who wanted to publish an article for him, was practically forced to “condemn” him. The Civilta Cattolica167 on Dec 15th does the same. I am trying to stop the Nouvelle Revue 167 La

Civilta Cattolica is a periodical published by the Jesuits at Rome.

Letters

75

Théologique (Louvain) from writing anything, either against or for, although, there again, there is a definite pressure. It is sad. Please return the three reviews before Jan 31st ’56. In great haste and friendship in Christ, Paul Henry S.J. P.S.: If ever you have a photo of Lindisfarne …

16 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Iowa City, 22-12-55 My dear Armstrong, Again, Happy Xmas to all. I want to tell you immediately that before I received your letter of 18th, on Fr de Strycker’s clear and decisive advice, who was, since before her conversion, a personal friend of Miss de Vogel, I had decided and told Hardt and Schwyzer that we would not invite Miss de Vogel. Fr de S. is clearly of Dodds’ opinion on both points and you are not far from them. Let it be a consolation that I took my decision without waiting for your advice. So, I shall not even tell Hardt, de Strycker or Schwyzer that I asked your advice, and this remains absolutely between us two. Thanks very much. I shall remember what you tell me and shall probably ask her for her offprints (I have a good reason to do so). I am sorry for this isolation. In a new letter, Cherniss, who had first fairly clearly declined, seems now inclined to consider coming. I expect Hardt here by the middle of Jan. Have you any ideas about possible subjects to be distributed among the scholars? I could do with your suggestions and discuss them with Hardt. I have not yet told Page as I have other (and delicate) correspondence with him. Tomorrow I work again on my Introduction. This pressure makes it impossible to say anything now about I 9. Sorry, I had even forgotten I had two conflicting views on this. About Festugière’s altum silentium, I doubt we shall invite him, for so many clearly “predestined” to be there are coming. Excuse the haste. Ah: Lewis, on our suggestion, is re-examining ms Marsh 539. The Bodleian has found in the first quarto four unknown Arabic Plotinian texts. Yours, Paul P.S.: On de Strycker’s advice, I (and I had thought of it) am thinking of inviting Leemans.

76

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

17 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Paris (undated, probably early in 1956) My dear Armstrong, As to the Loeb, I hope you do not give up the idea of a full running commentary in English written by both of us and published (in English) either as vol. V (after the Lexicon) of Plotini Opera or at Oxford Clarendon Press. Hence, I would ask you to suppress the Loeb Commentary and revert to your original idea of writing ‘Notices’ for each treatise, as Bréhier did. Vandœuvres – you’ll receive shortly K. von Hardt’s invitation for Aug 20-29. Are certainly coming: Harder, Dodds, Puech, Theiler, Cilento, Schwyzer, myself. I am doing my best to get Cherniss to come on “Production of ὕλη sive νοητή sive νοῦς from Dyad” – his own idea going back to Eudorus. We shall know in Jan. or early Feb. if he comes or not. If he does not, take the subject, you might propose it. I think both Dodds and Harder will take Plato, I think Leemans (to be invited too, as of 10th) will take Numenius. Have you nothing on Aristotle as source of Plotinus? Unless, which I very much doubt, Schwyzer prefers this. Of course, any “Middle-Platonism” subject by you would be fine, even if Theiler is on the same subject. But it must be on the Sources of Plotinus. The date proposed is Aug 20-29, so as to leave time for Dodds, Cherniss (?), and Armstrong (?) to attend the Oxford Conference on Academy in IVth B.C. (manager: Owen of Philadelphia). I think USA was a full apostolic and scientific success. My love to Mrs Armstrong. So glad of what you write about Teilhard – wrong, but orthodox! Paul Henry S.J. P.S.: If you could give us (i.e. von Hardt) the choice of two subjects, it might help to plan a comprehensive volume.

18 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Paris, 26-12-1956 My dear Armstrong, I shall naturally do my best for Downside. I shall be perfectly sincere and straightforward. I would like to get the document before Feb. 1 as I leave here on 15/2 and the

Letters

77

last days are hectic. Although I do not know what it is about – you are quite wise to be cryptic – may I tell you that I welcome a “storm centre”? I wish there was a bit more of that at Campion Hall! Or maybe not. But it may be that “orthodox” ideas are better not circulated amongst young monks.168 If you answer (a postcard), how do I address an Abbot in English? In French, it is, I think, “Révérendissime Père Abbé”. Glad of the good news of your son. Hardt, I know, more or less on my advice, and because impressed by your objection to οὐκ ἔξω τοῦ νοῦ (cutting across others), asked you to do the Pre-Socratics. But other subjects have not yet come in, and I have asked Schwyzer (you will like him) if he doesn’t think οὐκ ἔξω more fundamental. Has not answered yet. Would Feb. 1 be too late for a definite answer? Hardt visits me here on 22nd. No, I am afraid that we all have to pay our travel expenses (the only possible exception would be Cherniss, whose journey the Bollingen – plus or minus the Jung Foundation – would partly pay for (in confidence). I doubt very much that he will come. Puech, who had accepted, refuses, but I still hope he comes as an “observateur”. (Reason for refusal: concentrating on [indecipherable]). (I have not told Hardt yet as I hope “to force” Puech to come).169 May I leave it to you completely to placate and explain to Loeb the delay? I do hope you get all of Enn. I-III ready for printer by 1960. Am confident that Opera II (Enn. IV-V, plus Arabic) will be published at the latest in autumn 1958. Duculot promises to print Opera II completely in 1957. I am definitely working towards an extensive Armstrong-Henry English commentary. I could never do it alone, scientifically or psychologically. I would transfer, around 1962, my summer headquarters to Liverpool instead of Zürich! So, get on with the Loeb…! Wish you success with the article on Neoplatonism for the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Am writing, before Jan. 30, an article of 136 lines (!) for Harder’s Lexicon of Theology and Church History, on “Christentum und Antike” (Dogmageschichtlich). I wrote the plan or draft on Xmas Eve; as a draft, it comes off beautifully, it is packed with explosives! I dread to see my MacKenna Introduction in print. I am so ashamed of it. It is one thing I completely bungled: hence my sympathy with your Encyclopaedia article. I shall have offprints, I think, and shall send you one. By the way, if ever you find a second-hand copy of Armstrong’s Architecture, do buy it for me. I never see it offered for sale. 168  Henry here alludes to the decision of AHA’s elder son, Christopher, to leave Downside Abbey, where he had been a novice. 169  Henry was successful in persuading Puech to attend the meeting and to have his contribution published in the proceedings.

78

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

I spent my forced (and welcome) leisure lying down (sprained ankle) and after many years of “brooding”, I shall try to write at last (roneotype) the “Christologie des Conciles” (Apollinarius of Ephesus, Chalcedon), a difficult job. Do you have my “Compléments de Christologie” (roneotype)? A new Teilhard is announced: Apparition de l’Homme (Seuil). Do not know the contents, but it becomes dangerous. Index?170 Do pray (silently, by sometimes thinking of it in God’s presence) for my Penn. lectures. I think it is important I don’t fail. My heartiest greetings to Mrs Armstrong and to you, Votre vieil ami, Paul Henry P.S.: I shall ask Jean Pépin to send you an interesting article. Pray for him: like Hadot, he has given up “ecclesiastical calling.” They are so isolated.

19 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Philadelphia, 16-02-57 My dear Armstrong, My plane being delayed four hours, I find time to write to you and to Mrs Armstrong. (a) Congratulations and thanks for the proof sheets of the Loeb Vita etc. I find the notes magnificent, exactly suited to the type of the collection. Introduction and translation are fine. I shall naturally read and correct the proofs, and you might suggest to Loeb to send also one copy (not exclusive of mine) to Schwyzer, a very careful proof-reader. (b) Hardt must have officially invited you and told you that all three of us (Hardt, Schwyzer, Henry) agreed that ὅτι οὐκ ἔξω τοῦ τὰ νοητὰ (but Hardt does not read Greek) would be a fascinating topic. The symposium takes shape; are definitely coming Harder, Theiler, Schwyzer, Cilento, Henry, (Leemans declined) and Puech. Hardt, I think, is inviting Dörrie. I am asking Dodds to do his best to get Cherniss over. If he declines, we might invite B.S. Page, but we may prefer to invite P. Hadot, who would be the only real Frenchman. (Puech refusing to write a proper paper: no time, no documents because theses and Nicotheos are unavailable).171 (This bit 170  It seems likely that Henry is here referring to the Index librorum prohibitorum, that is, books forbidden to Catholics on dogmatic or moral grounds. The index was formally abolished by Pope Paul VI in 1966. 171  Henry must be referring to Puech’s treatment of the Nag Hammadi Apocalyptic text, Nicotheos, in Puech, Henri-Charles, “Les nouveaux écrits gnostiques découverts en Haute-Égypte,” Coptic

Letters

79

about Page/Hadot is confidential as we hope to get Cherniss). I am thinking of asking Dodds and Dörrie to speak on the first 2 days while Puech is there, but possibly also you. It is too soon to plan details. (c) The Faber Plotinus is out. I have asked Faber to send you a complete copy. I wish one day you could find/barter (!) a copy of your “Architecture”172 – introuvable. (d) Dom Butler, I hope, as I asked him, has sent you a copy of my δόξα – I hope it will help things over there if the author is allowed to publish a historical essay on Eckhart. (e) I am really sorry I cannot do more for the family at Easter. A “pension” seems unknown to Frenchmen: I asked three times in very different sets. Please excuse writing and poor style. Yours, Paul Henry P.S.: the writing of Opera II is now in full swing.

20 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Paris, 22-11-1957 My dear Armstrong, Excuse the delay. I came back from USA, after 9 months of lecturing in 20 universities, only on Nov. 5th. I am so glad about the Loeb progress, although, in a way, it is too fast. Too fast, for the agreement is in this way Editio Minor (with short apparatus) at O.C.P. in 3 vol. (I – II – III), (IV-V), (VI) as in Editio Maior, but vol. I of Oxford Clarendon Press appearing one year after vol. II of Editio Maior vol. ii out. The reason is: Editio Maior is a very great financial liability and its sale must be more or less secured before any minor edition is out. With Loeb, the agreement was that vol. I of Loeb (that is, Enn. I alone) would come out one year after vol. I O.C.P. is out, that is 2 years after vol. II of Maior is out. Now Maior II (Enn. IV-V) is being printed, the Greek has been absolutely ready for the printer since Oct. 1955, but because we add the English translation of Arabic Plotinus (by G. Lewis, Oxford) there is a delay (the last texts were discovered in Dec. Studies in Honor of Walter Ewing Crum, Bulletin of the Byzantine Institute 11 (Boston: 1950), 91-154; or, especially, “Plotin et les Gnostiques,” in Les sources de Plotin (especially 167-169 on Nicotheos) reprinted in Puech, Henri-Charles. “Plotin et les Gnostiques,” in En quête de la Gnose, vol. I. La Gnose et le temps et autres essais (Paris: Gallimard, 1978), 85-116. 172  Short for Armstrong’s 1940 book; see Dufour’s bibliography in chapter 4.7.

80

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

1955), and the Leningrad photos arrived after 9 years of waiting, in May 1956. We are confident that the whole will be out by Spring 1958. Oxford Classical Texts I (Enn. I-II-III), spring 1959. Hence, Loeb Plotinus I, by Spring 1960 only. I am sorry if there was a misunderstanding, but this was very clearly stated right from the beginning. The redeeming fact is that once O.C.T. I is out (1959), the three first Loeb volumes (one for each Ennead) can come out in quick succession. So, you can get busy translating II and III, of which you have the text. Answering your questions: – Proof sheets to Paris address. – No apparatus criticus whatever (as originally proposed – in 1937) by Prof. Rowse and agreed with Prof. Warrington, except: (a) All emendations accepted in the text; (b) Possibly, all readings accepted in the text and translated by you against Henry and Schwyzer’s maior, Desclée de Brouwer and even in O.C.T. Excuse the haste with which I write. I hope that this “surprise” about the delay of Loeb I (but not really of Loeb volumes II and III) will not inconvenience either you or the very understanding London Loeb Publishers. Yours, Paul Henry

21 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Paris, La Chandeleur173 1959 My dear Armstrong, Yes, it is my turn to write in answer to your full letter of June 22 and your kind note of Jan. 24. Teresa professed last June, Christopher, happy, reviewing, learning Spanish and not too unhappy about Spanish Catholicism – things are different when one is there. Tell me when he is ordained, and I shall be with you all in spiritu, wherever I may be. The reason for my silence is that in October (Zürich) and November (Paris) I was “down and out” – it happens every 5 or 6 years – and since Dec. I have simply been crushed with correspondence, lectures, 40 dissertations, journeys to be prepared, and, not least, the “administration” of bringing out Plotini Opera II, now printed, I think. Schwyzer, as ever, has been a great help but the “business” part was much heavier than for any other of my own, or our, volumes. The death of the brothers Duculot complicated things immensely, and, partly, the financial help of the Swiss Research Council. I am very proud of this volume, especially against the advice of 173 

“Candelmas,” the feast of the Presentation of Jesus.

Letters

81

nearly everybody (at the time of Schwyzer, too), publishing the Lewis translation of the Arabica. I have the impression that I can now die “safely” as far as Plotinus goes. I have often thought of death these last two years, I know not why. In July and August, I tackled rather successfully the Entwurf of VI 4 and 5 and even the very difficult VI 1 (only paragraphs 1-10 are in my Entwurf ). I am so glad your Enn. II is finished, and that you can consult with H-R., who, although very busy, is not a writer or a theologian, inspiring a pseudo-philosopher. In September, I shall definitely be in Oxford, and I shall tell OCT to submit our apparatus “minor”. As you know, my contract, if maior II is out in February ’59, minor I (OCT) may come out in Feb ‘60 – it might be possible – and then Loeb in 1961, and then, of course, they can publish I, II and III as quickly as you, and they, want. I am sure it is going to be a major achievement. I am still slowly writing notes (often) or a running commentary as I go along. (I have a rather full one on VI 4 and 5; if I die and they are useful to you – I doubt it – ask Schwyzer or de Strycker to send them to you). As you know, because of Dodds’ strong and very timely démarche, the dear Baron invited Hadot and me, from July 20-30. It was much more difficult than we thought. We worked 10 hours a day and both had (in the night) nightmares about it. But we left him a druckfertig ms of the discussions only. Our last days with the Baron were the most peaceful I have ever spent with him. (I enclose a copy of my poor snapshot.) The curatorium is good. I hope, wishfully perhaps, that Reverdin,174 who is on the spot, takes the lead. I doubt the book will be out before 1961. Puech, who did a remarkable job with his part in the discussion, has not yet written his conference: he promised it to me for after Easter 1959. They’ll have great financial difficulties: the Baron generally got 1500 Swiss Francs for the other volumes, he told me he needed 3,000 for “ours.” It is sad that both Harder and the Baron have gone. I am a bit sorry in se (not egoistically) that Schwyzer’s shyness and courteousness left Harder’s continuation to Theiler and Beutler. On the other hand, it is good that a completely different outlook is expressed. Happily, you now more or less belong to the Trouillard school from which I am now more and more estranged … theologically. I am so glad to have finished with Markus “The Great Dialogue.” Hurrah. By chance (because K [indecipherable] gave me a copy as offprint), I read his “Sign in St Augustine” article in Phronesis, and appreciated it immensely.175 Glad too that you had talks with professional philosophers on Platonism, the same kind of thing I do in Germany: Kiel (2), Marburg (4, theologians too), Münster (2), Mainz (2), but mainly on Arabic Plotinus and Augustine.

174  Olivier Reverdin (1913-2000) was Professor of Greek language and literature at the University of Geneva. After Hardt’s demise in 1958 and until his death, he was president of the Hardt Foundation for the study of Classical Antiquity. 175  The title was “St Augustine on Signs,” Phronesis 2 (1): 60-83 (1957).

82

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

By the way, Hadot has finished his translation and commentary on Victorinus’s Theologica. The Latin text (for which I am responsible) is printed first in galleys, so as to rewrite all the references. I shall have to revise the whole thing in July and August – evenings when I am in Zürich (write to Schwyzer’s address). In October I shall, for once, sit down in Paris writing the Trinity part of a new (French) [indecipherable] with excellent collaborators, Congar,176 then Nicolas Chavasse OP177 (etc.) and possibly, at the same time, my Faber book, long overdue. I wouldn’t like to die before I have at least written that. Last winter, 57/58, I made rather startling discoveries “on Nicea”. (I am thinking of translating and commenting the lecture notes for Sources Chrétiennes.) I met Congar today. We are both enthusiastic about John XXIII’s new style. He is more optimistic than I am about some Orthodox bishops attending. What worries me is the Anglican church: theirs, I think, is the most discouraging “situation”. We shall pray “for all”. On Feb 13, I am off to “Dept Phil., Duke University, Durham N.C., USA” (My address till May 22). I shall teach 7 hours a week. (Visited for 48 hours my colleagues (very “pagan”) in July ‘58 and a wonderful Bishop, Monsignor Vincent Waters: one per cent of Catholics in N.C. is registered). Graduates: Plato and Plotinus (2 and a half hours) 19 attending, then Philosophy of Religion (2 and a half hours) – I am scared of this: pray for me – (8 attending). Seniors (third year college): Metaphysics. I shall also lecture at Columbia (3 lectures), Villanova (a new annual lecture on Augustine on April 19, Sunday), Marquette (3), Dumbarton Oaks. From May 22 to June 20, I shall lecture at some at least of these places: Mexico, Bogota, Medellin, Lima, Santiago, Cordoba, Buenos Aires.178 (I do not like it at all, but I cannot refuse, too long to explain). Pray that I survive and meet you at Oxford. My best regards to “Deborah” as the Americans say, and to Porphyry, if he is still with you. No, I do not know anything about Armand de Mandiet [indecipherable] Yours in Christ, Paul Henry S.J. P.S.: New stamp just out yesterday, a year late. I hope it is not a political move for “oil.” 176  Yves Congar OP (1904-1995) was a French theologian who drew inspiration from Aquinas and wrote on ecclesiology. He was an early advocate of ecumenism. After being the object of suspicion on the part of the Vatican hierarchy for his support of the worker-priests movement, he was invited by Pope John XXIII to take an active part in the work of the second Vatican Council. He was made a cardinal in 1994. 177  Nicolas Chavasse OP (1909-2005) taught at the Institut Catholique of Lyons before moving to the University of Strasbourg. His teaching and interests centred on dogmatic theology and the Biblical sources of the liturgy. Some of his ideas are reflected in the Vatican Council’s promulgation of the dogmatic constitution of the Church (Lumen Gentium) in 1964. 178  Some of Henry’s handouts for his lectures at the University of Buenos Aires are reproduced in section 2.4 below.

Letters

83

P.P.S: By the way, you get, of course, a joint hommage from Schwyzer and me. We sent a review copy to the Journal of Hellenic Studies; I hope you get it for review and thank you for a short note in The Downside Review, if you feel like it.

22 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Paris, 29-07-60 Dear Hilary, A short note before I leave for Schwyzer, where I shall be till Oct. 20 (except from Aug. 25 to Sept.12). If Anthony is ever in Zürich … The last three months were not good, so that 1959/60 is one of my worst years. I suppose I am getting old and worn-out. You seem to be doing well and I am glad. Of course, you will get a copy of Hellenisms. Victorinus is all printed and ready. But they will publish it only in Sept. If ever you get a copy for review from Roman or Hellenic Studies, do not say “no;” they allow, I think, more detailed reviews. But let me know and we will send you an author’s copy. And if no one asks you for a review, let us also know. I think The Journal of Theological Studies will find more experts than Roman or Hellenic Studies. One good news about the Council: both Congar and de Lubac179 are appointed to the Commission (a kind of symbol), but will they have anything to say? Although I begin to hate Zürich, the plodding work done there is a kind of redemption. I am sending you “Personality” (I had a row with Macmillan), the notes are not mine, except n.35 – mine were not included, no more than my corrections. Typically American. Two marginal notes: I am afraid my essay flatly contradicts Cornelia de Vogel (vol. III), which I read only afterwards, but I am not convinced. The young Jesuit, Fr G. Pollet, will be with us in Zürich to revise the Lexicon till 25th of September. Love to all, Paul

179  Henri de Lubac S.J. (1896-1991) was a French theologian whose advocacy of a return to the patristic sources of Catholic theology was influential. After teaching for a number of years at the Catholic University of Paris, he came under the suspicion of the Curial Office for his support of Teilhard de Chardin and his books were banned from Catholic libraries. However, the ban was lifted by Paul VI and he was invited by John XXIII to take part in the second Vatican Council. He founded the series Sources Chrétiennes with his fellow Jesuit Jean Daniélou and later the journal Communio with Josef Ratzinger and Hans Urs von Balthazar. He was made a cardinal in 1983.

84

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

23 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Rome, 07-05-1961 Dear Hilary, Off to Paris in an hour. If I don’t write now, never. Thanks for Eros-Agape, illuminating. I go a long, long, way with you. P. 113 gives me doubts. VI 8 15. 1 is definitely in a “not correct and technical passage,” according to Plotinus. Moreover, I find no texts (p. 118) to substantiate that ἔρως is still there when the lover is in union with the object of love. My very best wishes to you both and Julian.180 In haste, Paul P.S.: I can’t draw too sharp a distinction between VI 8 and the other treatises. 13.1-5 would apply to an apparent duality in expressions like “love of himself” rather than to name ἔρως and 13. 47-50 seems to do no more than state Plotinus’s normal thought about ἀγαθόν or ἑν. P.P.S.: What about the two passages I quote (unless you distinguish “seeing” from “union” in I 6, which is impossible), plus VI 7 35, which makes it as clear as possible that νοῦς in its union-vision with/of the One is always ἐρῶν?

24 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Paris, then Zürich, 23-10-1965 My dear Hilary, I was in Canada (Calgary in Alberta) from 1 July to 1 Sept., Philosophy of Religion. From Sept. 20 to now, I was for 4 to 5 weeks in Zürich, two on VI 6 (maior), two with Dr Schwyzer on Enn. II, Loeb Armstrong, also I 5 and III 8 after TheilerBeutler. I congratulate you on your translation, perfectly clear, concise, and close to mss. Hurrah! It is perfect and we are delighted to have “our” Plotinus in English. But I do ask you to do this: a. Always print the Greek text that you translate.

180 

Julian is Armstrong’s younger son.

Handouts

85

b. Everywhere, when you depart from the mss, say so in a brief footnote and give the mss reading and the author of the emendation which you translate. You might, possibly, take into account our retractatio of I 5, but it is perhaps too late. I shall be in Paris from 25 Oct to 1 Feb ’66. My love to Deborah. How and where is Anthony, and what is your youngest daughter going to do? Love, Paul

25 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Paris then Zürich, 05-01-1967 Dear Hilary, 1. We shall be glad, of course, to give you our help for your translation of Enn. IV; 2. We intend, we try, to have the ms of Plotini Opera III ready for the printer (Duculot) by Nov.1/67; 3. After that, we intend to prepare the Lexicon Plotinianum (months of work needed); 4. … and only later the minor of Plotini Opera IV. I shall be glad to receive Blumenthal’s thesis (my best greetings to him), and also to R.T. Wallis. Hadot, 23 rue de Rome, Val d’ Oise, has sent his philosophy thesis on Victorinus to the printers. You should order: O. du Roy OSB (Maredsous), L’Intelligence de la foi en la Trinité, Etudes Augustiniennes, 1966. Thèse Strasbourg, a masterpiece. Paul Henry

2.4. Handouts Selected and annotated by Suzanne Stern-Gillet

Foreword The handouts reproduced below were composed by Henry in preparation for lectures he had been asked to give in the Sixties in various universities in South America. Professor Maria Santa Cruz, who attended them as an undergraduate and realised their value, kept them in her archives before kindly passing them on to us. Sixty years or so later, they still make fascinating reading; not only do they give us

86

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

a unique insight into Henry’s teaching manner and confirm the glowing reports of his European and North American students at the time,181 they are also highly stimulating from an exegetical point of view. They show that Henry was not content to feed his students conventional accounts of the philosophy of Plotinus in its various aspects, but mostly sought to encourage them to free themselves from the shackles of conventional philosophical categories and to question received opinions in matters of methodology. By claiming, for example, that Plotinus’ One can be viewed as a personal God and that in the Enneads metaphysics is inseparable from mysticism,182 he showed, perhaps surprisingly, that hyper conservatism in editorial matters went hand in glove with considerable daring in exegesis. It will not escape the reader that these handouts, like most handouts, were prepared in a hurry and often in seeming disregard of typographical and bibliographical norms and conventions. If we have refrained from adjusting them in these respects, it is to give the reader a flavour of Henry’s extraordinary teaching style and personality.

1. ABSOLU IMPERSONNEL OU DIEU PERSONNEL A. Préalables 1. Portée du problème – si le Dieu de Plotin n’est pas personnel, l’union mystique n’est pas personelle. Au mieux elle ne serait, après avoir fait le vide, que l’identité avec soi-même, et le symbole de l’extase, comme de son contenu, serait, non pas l’un, mais le zéro. – On peut aborder le problème soit du côté du sujet (montrer que l’extase est plénitude et exaltation de l’individu) soit du côté de l’objet, l’Un en soi-même tel que le décrit Plotin. Telle est la voie suivie ici. 2. Légitimité – Avons nous le droit de poser à des philosophes des questions en des termes qui ne sont pas les leurs? Si la réponse devait être “non”, il me semble que c’en serait fait de toute histoire philosophique de la philosophie, partie intégrante (comme chez Aristote et Plotin) de la recherche spéculative; il n’y aurait plus qu’un catalogue de systèmes, relégués sous vitrines au musée ou au magasin des antiquités. 3. Difficultés – Si donc la réponse est “oui”, les difficultés demeurent, aigües, du fait soit du néant soit du glissement du vocabulaire de notre Problematik, non seulement dans les Ennéades, mais dans toute la mouvance philosophique de la langue grecque: a) Le mot “dieu” (theos) et “divin” (theion), chez les grecs (Platon et Plotin), n’a ni la même “compréhension” ni la même “extension” qu’il a pour nous dans l’Occident 181  See the testimonies of Rein Ferwerda and Jan Lambrecht in Henry’s biography in section 2.1 above. 182  In this view, he was in total agreement with Jean Trouillard, as Georges Leroux’ essay on Trouillard shows.

Handouts

87

chrétien: ainsi Platon n’appelle jamais les idées “divines”, alors que beaucoup de ses exégètes y voient, si j’ose dire, une “partie essentielle” de son Dieu, et qu’elles ont, incontestablement, un caractère d’absolu; inversement l’univers sensible, non-absolu, puisqu’il est “image” et derivé, est magnifié comme “dieu sensible, très grand, très bon, très beau et très parfait” (Tim 92c). Pour Plotin de même: les astres, par exemple, sont des “dieux” (II 9, 9, 30-42; cf. Platon, Crat. 387, resumé par Eus. PE. XI, 6: theos de theein, et par là appliqué aux astres), “le divin est multiple” (9, 36) et il a des degrés d’intensité (cf. p. ex. V I, 3, 1-5), mais son domaine propre est avant tout celui des trois hypostases, jusqu’à l’âme inclue (V I, 7, 48); en revanche, le terme désigne assez rarement chez Plotin l’Un, son seul absolu, deux ou trois fois seulement avec l’article, exclusif (ho theos, V 5, 9, 16): Dieu. b) Les Grecs n’ont pas de mot pour “personne” (ni pour “littérature”, ni pour “histoire’, et il est peu probable qu’ils en ont eu le concept; car l’”individu”, même rationnel, d’un “genre” (Aristote, Boèce, St Thomas) est chose très différente. Indice: lors des controverses trinitaires, l’Église doit faire appel à hypostasis (bas et vague, tout “ce qui subsiste”, p. ex. la lie du vin, la matière) et à prosōpon, le rôle, le masque”, quelque chose d’assez extérieur (tandis qu’en latin persona est déjà davantage “personnalisé,” du moins sur le plan juridique: “sujet de droits et de devoirs”). Voir Henry, Augustine on Personality, N. Y. Macmillan, 1960. Le mot qui, en grec, au moins chez Plotin, paraît le mieux exprimer ce que nous exprimons par personne, est le pronom autos, i.e. le soi, lat. ipse; cf. Enn. IV 7, 1, 25. 4. Définitions nominales. a. Par “dieu” nous entendons le seul Absolu de Plotin, l’Un (contre Inge, Philos. of Plot., t. II, p. 116). b. “la personne,” très prudemment. Unanimement admis: là où il n’y a ni conséquence, ni volonté, il n’y a pas de personne; suffisant pour notre enquète puisque Plotin refuse ces attributs à l’Un. La réciproque est plus délicate, et ne vaut qu’à titre provisoire, dans la problématique grecque pré-chrétienne qui est ici la nôtre. La pensée chrétienne distingue, et, plus récemment, la pensée occidentale non-idéaliste tend à distinguer personne et conscience. B. Le Dieu de Plotin est personnel. La thèse paraît contredire tout ce que répète Plotin au sujet de l’Un, et Inge paraît avoir raison: “God is not the deity of Personal theism” (British Encycl. 1950), de même l’anonyme de Encycl. Americana (1940): “He uses Plato’s term, the Good, for his highest generalization; but for Plotinus it is an abstraction (bis falso) from which every determinate quality has been eliminated (recte) and would rather be described in modern philosophical language as the Absolute (recte).” Nous présentons trois preuves, dont les deux premières, indépentantes l’une de l’autre, suffiraient seules; la troisième est une confirmation, mais qui pose et résoud un grave problème.

88

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

L’exégèse d’un texte, V 4 (7) 2, 12-21. Texte peu remarqué, dans un court traité rigoureusement technique. Comme en V 6 (24) 2 et déjà en III 9 (13) 1, l’Un est appellé exceptionnellement “intelligible” (noēton), mais pour l’Intellect. Contre V 6 de la maturité, contre III 9 [13] de la jeunesse, contre V 3 [49] 13, 6 de la vieillesse, l’Un est décrit cinq fois en termes qui lui attribuent la “conscience de soi” (ouk hoion anaisthēton, hoionei synaisthēsei; notez la réserve “pour ainsi dire”)183, mais distinguée radicalement de celle qu’a l’Intellect. N.B. 1). Pas de distinction nette entre conscience et connaissance, contre Schwyzer (Sources, p. 375 et 386. 2). Pas de distinction nette entre les périodes, ni d’évolution marquée sur ce point, avec Schwyzer RE XXI, 561, contre O. Becker, P. und [das Problem der] geistigen Aneignung, 1940, p.31 et Harder2 I, p.455 (aliter Sources, p. 380). Ce texte est d’autant plus remarquable que Plotin, primo, paraît attribuer à l’Un les catégories repos-mouvement 2, 18, car noēsis est kinēsis, (cf. VI 7, 35, 2) reservées à l’ Intellect; secundo, rattache son exposé à sa théorie de l’acte double (2, 27-33), alors que normalement l’acte (energeia) est au niveau de l’Intellect (cf. V 3, 12, 27), l‘Un étant avant tout dynamis, même V 4, 1, 24-26; 1, 35; 2, 36-37. Conclusion: d’après ce seul texte, il est clair que pour Plotin l’Un est hyperconscience et transcendante connaissance de soi; il est donc, dans les limites de nos définitions, personnel. C. Dialectique des Visées et Symbolismes Complémentaires. Si le Dieu de Plotin est personnel, on comprend que pour parler de lui, il ne se contente pas de la visée sévère, seule reconnue légitime par lui, de la théologie négative. Il lui donne pour compléments, plus sans doute par instinct que de propos délibéré, une autre vie, rationelle elle aussi, mais de structure diamétralement différente, celle de l’analogie des concepts, d’inspiration aristotélicienne, mais aussi – et ceci est encore plus surprenant – des moyens d’expression empruntés à la symbolique religieuse, soit à l’antique religion grecque de la cité, soit aux religions orientales de type universel, répandues au temps où il vivait, dans tout l’empire romain, les religions à mystère. I. L’analogie des concepts. Théoriquement, Plotin rejette la doctrine de l’analogie, mais pratiquement il en fait usage. Toutes ses préférences vont à la via negationis, mais il recourt aussi à la via affirmationis et à la via eminentiae. Bien plus, la technique des textes declarés “incorrects” (ouk orthōs VI 8, 13, 2-3) est la même, substantiellement, que celle des textes non suspects de condescendance pour le langage usuel et cherchant à entraîner par la persuasion les uns et les autres; elle débouche par exemple dans l’ affirmation d’une conscience de l’Un qui est hyperconscience, autre que celle de l’Intellect. Il y a donc chez Plotin une dialectique des méthodes de la théodicée des visées sur l’Un. En l’un de ses traits les plus sévères et les plus 183 

The missing reference is to V 4 [7] 2,15-18.

Handouts

89

anti-aristotéliciens, il mentionne comme procédés d’enseignement (didaskousin) sur l’Un, non seulement “la négation” (aphaeresis), mais aussi l’”analogie” (analogiai, non au sens technique), les “connaissances conceptuelles tirées des effets” de l’Un (gnōseis tōn ex autōn) et, en outre, en métaphysicien qui est aussi un spirituel et un directeur, les “voies qui mènent à lui” (poreuousin), telles que “les purifications, les vertus, etc.” (VI 7 [38] 36, 6-10). Le même traité va jusqu’à déclarer “que la nécessité doit être mélangée de persuasion” (40, 5 cf. VI 8, 13, 4), et prélude même, en sourdine, à quelques grands thèmes de cette voie persuasive, comme lorsqu’en une formule paradoxale, il pose une question “ce que personne n’a créé, qui donc pourrait le créer?” (VI 7, 32, 12). Ceci annonce, en creux, le Deus causa sui de VI 8. De même au sujet de l’Un, qui sans être ni acte, ni tendance, ni pensée, ni même “d’ordre intellectuel” (noeron, 39, 19) est “simple projection intuitive” (epibolē) de soi vers soi (39, 2) et, dans la ligne de Rep. 508-509, pur “éclat fulgurant” (augē), 36, 22, 24 et prob. 41, 6). Prévoyant l’ insuffisance de la seule voie négative, au moment même où il l’accentue (cf. par exemple, VI 7, 38), il semble préparer une autre voie, positive, dangereuse lorsqu’elle est employée seule, mais qu’il utilisera largement dès les traités suivants, VI 8 [39], avec les mêmes procédés d’ailleurs qu’au début de sa carrière, en V 4, 2. Ce serait donc, me semble-t-il, être infidèle, non seulement à la pratique de Plotin, mais peut-être aussi à sa doctrine, que de ne vouloir s’exprimer sur l’Un que par des NON et des HOION répétés. Une dialectique des méthodes paraît s’imposer même à l’austère métaphysicien qu’est ce grand mystique. Il ne dédaigne même pas les approches et approximations plus humbles, plus affectives, plus populaires. II. Symbolismes religieux a) Les dieux d’Homère, d’Hésiode. Il est probable que Plotin ne croit pas vraiment aux dieux de l’antique cité grecque – Platon, on s’en souvient, avait proscrit les poètes de sa cité idéale, Rep. X – mais, à la suite des commentateurs philosophiques d’Homère, Plotin transpose ces mythes et cette mythologie classiques en symboles de ses thèmes (cf. III 5 sur l’Éros) et de ses hypostases: Ouranos est le symbole de l’Un, Kronos (dont l’étymologie Koros + Nous illustre le thème de la “satiété et perfection de l’Intellect”), celui de la seconde hypostase, et Zeus représente l’Âme Universelle, où Plotin voit son vrai Démiurge (V 8, 13; cf. V I, 4 et 7). Mais, à la différence de la voie conceptuelle et somme toute rationelle de l’analogie, ce ne sont sans doute là que de simples moyens d’expression, rien de plus. III. Analyse d’une méthode insolite VI 8 [39], 13-21. Déjà le titre (disciples) est étrange: De la liberté et de la volonté de l’Un (E. Benz, 1932 y voit “les débuts en Occident de la métaphysique de la volonté”, titre et thème excessifs). Contre le “discours téméraire” (7, 11-15), peut-être des gnostiques (Bréhier, Notice, p. 119-122), qui attribuaient la naissance de Dieu au “hazard” (tychē) et à

90

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

un “concours de circonstances” (hōs synebē), menaçant par là “l’idée hellénique d’un ordre permanent et rigoureux” (Bréhier, p. 122), Plotin (ch. 7-21) défend la libertas a coactione de l’Un, mais, à ce propos, étudie aussi sa pure spontanéité ou liberté de tout déterminisme immanent. Il le fait par deux méthodes radicalement différentes (pas relevé par Bréhier), celle, classique chez lui, de la “théologie négative” (p. ex. l’ Un n’est pas “maître de lui-même” 12, 37, ce serait le dédoubler) puis par la méthode “irrationelle” (paranoēteon en logois 13, 4) et “inexacte” (ouk akribeia, 13, 49) de la “théologie positive”. C’est un “bloc erratique” dans les Ennéades. Il commence par mettre en garde a. “que même pour la pensée il ne faut pas le faire double”. b. que ce qu’il va dire est “pour entrâiner la conviction” (tēs peithous charin) 13, 4. c. qu’à chaque attribut il faut ajouter une réserve “pour ainsi dire” (lambanetō de kai to hoion eph’ hekastō, 13, 49). Puis il développe cinq thèmes principaux ou plutôt cinq “variations” d’un même thème: 1. L’Un est acte, volonté, essence et tout cela en lui est identique (p. ex. 13, 5-8). St. Thomas ne parle pas autrement. 2. Il en conclut qu’il est totalement “maître de lui-même” (kyrios ara pantē heauton, 13, 10, nié en 12, 36-37) ou encore … 3. qu’il est “cause de soi-même” (13, 41) Deus causa sui! reprenant le vieux thème (Recogn. Clément) de l’autogennetos (Deus est a se), autre expression de agennetos (V 4, 1, 18). 4. puis, ce qui est inouï, que l’Un n’est pas seulement “aimable” (erasmion) mais “désir de soi” (eros hautou, 15, 1; cf. 16, 13 “amour de soi”), “tendance” (13, 7) et “inclinaison vers soi” (16, 24), alors qu’on sait que l’Un ne se convertit (epistrophē) pas vers soi-même (malgré deux textes difficiles, V I, 6, 18 et 7, 5, où l’Intellect doit être sujet); 5. enfin, ce qui nous intéresse plus directement, que l’Un a conscience de soi, d’abord sous une forme particulièrement surprenante (appel aux attributs du troisième niveau) qu’explique la polémique: “la première hypostase ne consiste pas en une chose inanimée ou en une vie privée de raison” (en zōē alogō 15, 29 contre la tychē en alogia des adversaires 17, 17; cf. 7, 12), puis sous une forme qui affirme de l’Un conscience (“comme un eveil”, hoion egregorsis, 16, 31; cf. Arist. Métaph. XII 7, 1072 b 17; cf. ibid. XII 9, 1074 b 18) et connaissance, mais transcendante (hypernoesis, 16, 31), texte capital de la “théologie positive” declaré en principe inexact, mais dont on peut montrer qu’il présente exactement la même technique que le grand texte rigoureux de V 4, 2, notamment: (a) par l’emploi de hoion, (b) par la connaissance de soi distinguée de celle de l’Intellect (hyper- cf. heterōs V 4, 2, 18), (c) par la liaison du thème, comme en rappel immédiat et formel de la doctrine de l’absolue transcendance de l’Un (epekeina ousias kai nou, 18, 35 et Rep. 509b). 6. il va de soi que dans ces pages l’Un est constamment masculin, notamment par l’emploi du pronom autos; ainsi en 14, 42 que MacKenna traduit “He is what

Handouts

91

He is, the first self, transcendently, the Self”. Cf. 21, 25 et traduction “possible” mais audacieuse, de Bréhier, puis au neutre, 21, 32 monon auto kai ontos auto; cf. supra, note sur la prédilection de auto ou autos pour caractériser l’ Un. Conclusion: Ainsi, pas trois voies différentes, mais qui se recoupent, nous arrivons au même résultat: avec les moyens limités à sa disposition, Plotin entend démontrer que Dieu est personnel.

2. MYSTIQUE ET METAPHYSIQUE I. LE DILEMME: A. Nul ne conteste que Plotin soit un mystique, le père de la mystique occidentale. Le vrai titre de son œuvre: Le Désir de Dieu (Arnou, 1921)184, désir qui “explique” même le “circuit céleste”, image de l’Intellect, comme lui en repos (= possession) et en movement (= tension) autour de Lui (masculin, l’Un) (II 2 [14] 2.20-22) et qui est donc le ressort de sa physique et de sa cosmologie. B. Nul ne conteste le caractère rationnel, voire rationaliste, des Ennéades. Il montre plutôt qu’il ne démontre. Ni théorèmes comme Proclus, ni questions et articles comme Thomas d’Acquin. Ni recherches et reprises, comme Platon, ni analyses de mot, de concepts, de principes comme Aristote. Mais système cohérent et constant (plus sans doute que chez Platon et que chez l’Aristote de Jaeger). “Ses œuvres ne présentent pas un système; celui-ci est derrière les mots. En chaque écrit, le système préalablement constitué est tout entier, mais implicite; dans aucun cas il n’est explicité.” (Schwyzer, RE XXI, 547-8) LA REPONSE – Il faut nier le dilemme. La mystique est métaphysique, la métaphysique est mystique. Non pas “ou” mais “et” ou “=”. Il y a coïncidence stricte. A. La critique est quasi unanime. Déjà Zeller (III, 2, 4ème éd, p. 473)185 distinguait une visée “objective” et une visée “subjective”; Kristeller (Begriff der Seele, 1929, p. 5) et Schwyzer (Zweifache Sicht, Mus. Helv., 1944, pp 87-89) “gegenständlich” (êtres) et “actual” (états). Surtout Bréhier (La Philosophie de Plotin, p.23): “le trait caractéristique du système de Plotin me paraît être l’union intime de ces deux problèmes – le problème religieux, celui de la destinée de l’âme, et le problème philosophique, celui de la structure et de l’explication rationnelle de la réalité – union telle que la question de savoir lequel est subordonné à l’autre ne peut plus se poser.” Plotin est un “directeur de conscience” tel Marc Aurèle ou Epictète. Contre Zeller qui accentue trop l’objectif, contre Bréhier qui réduit tout à la vie spirituelle (ibid., pp 34, 168-9, 185 etc.), contre Schwyzer qui ramène à la double visée l’antinomie chute-providence de 184 

See note 48 supra. Henry is here referring to E. Zeller’s masterpice, Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung (1844). 185 

92

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

la descente de l’âme (IV 8, alors que l’antinomie affecte les deux visées, l’âme devant se particulariser pour gouverner les parties), je crois avec Dodds que la coïncidence est absolue, l’équilibre parfait: “The divine triad is within man, as well as outside him. Man’s center and God’s center are identical (mais cf. VI 9 8.1-22), and the individual finds salvation by an ascent which is no barren process of abstraction, but a conversion or reversion to God and at the same time an inversion upon his own deepest self … Like Spinoza and Bradley, he was a mystic without ceasing to be a rationalist.” (Select Passages, 1923, pp 10 et 15) Mais Bréhier a presque raison quand il écrit: “La pensée religieuse de Plotin est aussi opposée aux représentations ordinaires de l’univers dans les religions du salut, que sa pensée philosophique est opposée (?) au rationalisme grec” (p. 185). Plotin n’est pas Platon. B. Les textes peu nombreux mais presque toujours suggestifs: (1) Du Démon (III 4 [20] 3.22) ‘Chacun de nous est le monde intelligible’ – fundamental. (2) De la Dialectique (I 3 [15] 1. 1-5): “Quel est l’art, quelle est la méthode, quelle est la pratique qui nous conduise où il faut aller? Où faut-il aller? C’est au Bien et au principe premier. Voilà ce que nous posons comme accordé et démontré (raison!) de mille manières; et les démonstrations qu’on en donne sont aussi les moyens de s’élever jusqu’à lui”. Cf. aussi V 3 [49] 14.8-16, où pour atteindre l’Un “intimité même de l’Intellect (ho endon nous)” sont fusionnés la dialectique (Parménide) et l’inspiration (enthousiazôn, Phèdre); cette union, “c’est tout Plotin.” (Bréhier in Histoire I). (3) De la Descente IV 8 [6] 1. 1-11 qui introduit un problème cosmogonique par le rappel, à la première personne, d’un état psychologique, l’éveil de l’âme. Sa métaphysique est méta-psychique. Notez qu’à part ce texte, il ne fait que deux fois allusion, indirectement, à sa propre expérience, I 6 7.2 et VI 9 4.16: ei tis eiden (voir), oiden (savoir) ho legō. En six ans, il n’eut que quatre extases (Vita 23.16). (4) Des trois hypostases V 1 [10] 10.1-6 (cf. V 1 11.5-15 très difficile): après avoir déclaré que nous devons “penser” et qu’on a “prouvé” (deiknunai, trois fois), il conclut: “Comme ces trois réalités sont dans la nature des choses (en physei), il faut penser qu’elles sont aussi en nous (par’ hēmin)”. (5) Du Bien VI 9 [9] 8.1-22: après avoir montré que le mouvement de l’âme n’est pas vers l’extérieur, mais vers l’intérieur, vers son centre, il demande: “Ce centre de l’âme est-il ce que nous cherchons? Ne faut-il pas plutôt penser à autre chose, vers laquelle convergent tous les centres (particuliers) …?” et, plus loin, (8.19-20), catégoriquement, “par notre centre propre nous sommes attachés à Lui comme au centre de toutes choses (toutō synaptomen kata to heautōn kentron tō hoion pant), et c’est là que nous trouvons notre repos.”

Handouts

93

II. STRUCTURE ET VOCABULAIRE DE L’EXTASE Trois métaphores, inévitables, et une catégorie dialectique fondamentale, qui les sous-tend, servant à exprimer l’inexprimable; textes essentiels en I 6 fin, VI 9 fin, les deux seuls traités qui font en outre appel au symbolisme des “mystères”, probablement isiques (a) Le “haut” et le “bas”. La dialectique est une montée (cf I 3 1), le monde intelligible est “supérieur” (anō, ekei), l’Un est au-dessus et au-delà (epekeina). Mais la montée n’est pas locale, mais psychologique et vitale (I 6 8.21-27), purification, changement, éveil, cf. Olympiodore, In Gorg. L 2, p. 240, 20 Norvin: ou topikōs, alla dia tēs zoēs. “La différence d’‘ici’ et ‘là-bas’, supérieur et inférieur ne signifie plus que la différence entre la dispersion dans le sensible (multiplicité) et la concentration intérieure (unité)” (Bréhier, La Philosophie de Plotin, p. 185) (b) Extérieur et Intérieur. Non moins fréquent, souvent combiné avec la métaphore précédente. Cf. I 6 8.4-5, IV 8 1.1-11, deux thématiques qui dominent toute la mystique occidentale, cf. Richard de St Victor, Benjamin Major IV, 23, PL 196, 167: “In humano procul dubio animo idem est summum quod intimum”186, qui se poursuit en “Deus intimior intimo meo”187. Corollaire: la purification plotinienne consiste à arracher tout l’extérieur qui s’est attaché à l’âme; cf., par exemple, I 6 9. (c) Le retour aux origines, spécifiquement plotinien. La “fuite” est un “retour” (Ulysse, I 6 8.16), tout comme la chute est “fragmentation” (moiras). Est oubli du père et donc de soi-même (V 1 début). C’est le thème du De regressu animae de Porphyre, dont la couleur origéniste (préexistence des âmes) donnait des scrupules à Augustin, Retract. I 1 3, Patrologia Latina 32, 587: “Iturus autem quam rediturus dixissem securius”.188 Les trois métaphores coïncident dans une expression technique, à la fois métaphysique et mystique: “conversion (epistrophē)” (d) L’Un et le Multiple, opposition dialectique, rigoureusement métaphysique, sous-tend toutes les autres oppositions dynamiques et exprime de la manière la plus dépouillée le point culminant de l’expérience mystique. Les quatre thèmes sont entrelacés, par exemple en VI 9 8.1-10 et aussi au chap. 9-10. Le vocabulaire demeure largement celui de la vision, mais avec réserve, tandis que les termes corrects sont “contact”, “présence” (de l’âme à l’Un, quand elle veut, tandis que par nature l’Un est toujours présent partout, VI 4-5), “union” et surtout “unité”. Unité double mais, par coïncidence, l’unité de l’âme en son tréfonds avec elle-même, est, par identité, l’unité de l’âme avec son Absolu, tout comme “plus bas”, son état intuitif et noétique, est coïncidence avec l’Intellect et, de façon plus complexe, son état de réflexion (dianoia) et de souci du corps (kēdemōn) la fait une 186 

“It is without doubt that in the human soul, what is highest is deepest”. St Augustin, Confessions III.11: “You were more intimately present to me that my innermost being” (transl. Maria Boulding) 188  “It would have been safer for me to say ‘it [the soul] will go’ rather than ‘it will return’.” 187 

94

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

avec l’Âme universelle, sans qu’elle ne perde jamais cependant son identité propre ; le problème de l’Unité des petites âmes avec la grande âme (VI 9) éclaire, indirectement, le problème de la permanence du sujet dans l’extase. Ceci paraît avoir été entrevu par Numenius (Test. 34 = Jamblique, Stob. I, 458, 3 tautotēta adiakriton tēs psyches pros tas heautēs archas), mais chez Plotin ce principe est constant et patent. “This belief in the identity of the soul with its Ground is the characteristic faith (et le fondement dernier) of ‘theistic mystics’, the world over.” (Dodds, Sources, p. 22) III. DIFFERENCES AVEC LA MYSTIQUE CHRETIENNE (N.B. – Bréhier, Phil de Plotin, ch. VII, croit qu’il y a influence de la mystique hindoue, mais O. Lacombe remarque que cette expérience de l’absolu, sans influence réciproque, se traduit naturellement dans les mêmes categories mentales.) a. Le Dieu de Plotin est bonté sans amour. Il n’a aucun intérêt à ce qui vient de lui, ne montre aucune condescendance. Même l’âme supérieure “ne s’incline pas”. b. Aucune doctrine de la grâce. L’âme est de plein-pied avec l’absolu et l’attend sans secours, I 6 9. 23-24. c. Ni péché, ni conflit, ni ténèbres, ni cette déchirure que provoque dans ce qui est fini et contingent, même sans péché, l’irruption de l’infini.

3. EMANATION OU CREATION A. La Doctrine plotinienne, principes fondamentaux. I. La loi nécessaire, naturelle, universelle. – Deux textes essentiels: a) IV 8 (6) 6, 10-23. Plotin affirme comme évidence rationelle: “ce qui est, doit être etc.” (dei mē hon monon einai), ce qui signifie à la fois “qu’il ne doit pas exister comme une seule chose” (trad. Bréhier) et que “l’Un ne doit pas être seul,” (trad. MacKenna et Cilento). Il le prouve (6, 13), en s’inspirant de Tim. 29e et Phèdre 247a sur l’absence de “jalousie” chez les dieux, l’illustre par la comparaison du germe d’où procède comme de l’invisible (le logos spermatikos, l’âme, voire l’Un) une puissance “immense” qui va jusqu’au sensible. Notez que pour expliquer le problème particulier de la descente des âmes, il remonte au principe universel de l’émanation, jusqu’à son origine au niveau de l’Un. La matière elle-même, qu’elle soit éternelle (elle l’est pour Plotin) ou dépendante nécessairement des Principes (elle l’est pour Plotin—dilemme inadéquat), participe au Bien et n’en est “pas séparée”. b) V 2 (11) 2, 27 parle de cette puissance “comme d’une longue vie qui s’étend en une ligne prolongée” et le contexte entre le vitalisme et la nécessité rationelle, accentue la distinction (allo kai allo) entre les degrés d’être, la continuité (suneches), la permanence de chaque niveau supérieur.

Handouts

95

c) Trois comparaisons, dont les deux premières sont aussi des cas particuliers, “sensibles”, de la grande loi métaphysique. Servent d’illustration: 1) Au plan biologique, le germe (stoicien); 2) Au plan physico-astronomique, la lumière ou le feu, inaltérable en soi dans son rayonnement (p. ex. V 1, 6, 28-37), probablement déjà chez Posidonius, cf. Witt, Class. Quart. 24, 1930 citant Senèque Ep. 41, 5 etc.): le centre “génerateur” du cercle. II. Structure de l’émanation: la théorie de l’acte double. Deux textes: V 4 (7) 2, 27-33 (première procession) “Il y a un acte de l’essence (génitive) … et qui la constitue, et un acte sortant (ek) de l’essence, qui doit de toute nécéssité suivre toute chose et en être different (heteron), ainsi le feu”. Idem V 1 (10) 3, 7-12, à propos de la seconde procession de l’âme, où Plotin rejette le mot “émanation” (ekreousan), car le principe “demeure”. III. Mécanisme de la procession. V 2 (11) 1, 1-11. Ici les métaphores de l’”écoulement” et du “trop plein”. Au sommet l’Un, virtualiter (comme “puissance”), principaliter (comme principe), mais ni formaliter ni meme eminenter pour toutes choses (pas d’analogie). Dans un premier moment sort, indéfini, massif, l’être (qui serait stasis et heterotēs), dans un second moment cet être se retourne vers soi et vers son principe; dans cette contemplation (= kinēsis) il atteint l’identité (tautotēs) parfaite avec soi et “tentionelle” avec l’Un, devient Intellect, Idée, Essence.—La seconde procession, toute pareille, prolonge “le flux de grande puissance” (dunamin procheas pollen), dans l’immobilité absolue (Aristote!) tandis que l’âme (troisième procession) meut-en-se-mouvant. (Platon!). IV. Note sur la matière. a) L’origine de la théorie de l’origine de la matière, peu explorée, paraît être néopythagoicienne (Eudore d’Alex., Proclus in Tim., Moderatus de Gadès, etc.) dans les considerations mathématiques sur la monade et le couple de monade-dyade (première déchirure de l’unité, et multiplicité naissante); cf. V 1, 5, 6-19, capital, difficile. b) D’où, en parfaite logique, la doctrine plotinienne de “la matière intelligible” (II 4), puisque l’Intellect est “un-multiple”. La matière paraît être la limite de l’être, nous dirions le principe de sa finitude, même dans l’Intellect “infini” qui n’est pas l’absolu.

96

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

2.5. Obituary PAUL HENRY S. J. (Gnomon, 57. Bd., H. 1 (1985), pp. 93-95, reprinted with permission) The long illness and consequent retirement from active scholarly life of Paul Henry (1906-1984) may have dimmed in some minds the remembrance of the great achievements of his prime, of which the greatest was his part in the restoration of the text of the only Hellenic philosopher of late antiquity who can be ranked with Plato and Aristotle, Plotinus. He had prepared the way for the critical edition of the text of the Enneads by an impressive series of preliminary studies, ‘Plotin et l’Occident’ (Louvain 1934), ‘Recherches sur la ‘Preparation Évangélique’ d’Eusebe et L’édition perdue des ceuvres de Plotin publiée par Eustochius’ (Paris 1935) and above all the two volumes of ‘Études plotiniennes, Les États du Texte de Plotin’ (Paris-Bruxelles 1938) and ‘Les manuscrits des Ennéades’ (Paris-Bruxelles 1948). The great critical edition itself189 was prepared in the closest and most intimate collaboration with Dr. Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer, who is happily still with us, and still engaged in that endless revision of the Henry-Schwyzer text of Plotinus which every critical edition needs if it is to remain truly critical and in which these most self-critical of editors have always been very willing to engage. The closeness of their collaboration is exactly described in the Preface to Vol. I of the editio maior: “laborem parandae editionis non diuisimus, ut alteri altera pars attributa sit, sed duplicauimus. Nam uterque separatim elaborauit toto in textu, codices inspexit, fontibus aperiendis studuit, marginalia descripsit. Quibus peractis communiter dubias codicum lectiones considerauimus, communiter difficiles locos excussimus, communiter quid in textum recipiendum esset decreuimus. Ideoque reuera commune nostrum opus esse scito” (p. XLII). But, though their collaboration was so close, it was never closed. Throughout the progress of the editions the editors have always invited the collaboration of other scholars, and have most generously welcomed and thoroughly examined any suggestions for the improvement of their text. This openness and eagerness to attract collaborators has generated even more scholarly activity concerning Plotinus than that which will inevitably result from the appearance of a good new critical edition of an important author. Paul Henry’s main contribution to that growth in interest in and understanding of the thought of Plotinus, which has been so evident in recent decades, was of course his part in the preparation of the great edition. Apart from this, and his volumes of studies of 189  Plotini Opera. Ed. Paul Henry et Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (I Paris-Bruxelles 1951; II, including the ‘Plotiniana Arabica’ translated into English by Geoffrey Lewis, Paris-Bruxelles 1959; III Paris-Bruxelles-Leiden 1973). Plotini Opera I-III, Oxford 1964-1982: the extensively revised editio minor. Plotinus, with an English translation by A. H. Armstrong (Loeb Classical Library I-III 1966-67; IV-V 1984; VI-VII [containing Ennead VI] complete and awaiting publication) has the text of the editio minor with some later revisions and corrections.

Obituary

97

the history of the text mentioned above, he did not publish a great deal on Plotinus. His most notable survey of the thought of Plotinus was his long introduction to the one-volume edition of Stephen MacKenna’s translation published by Faber (London, first published 1956, last revised edition 1969). But he inspired and encouraged a great deal of work by others, including the present writer. Above all, it was his enthusiasm, hard work and efficiency which led to the convocation and the success of the meeting at the Fondation Hardt in 1957 which was the most important landmark in the history of recent Plotinian studies (‘Entretiens sur l’ Antiquite Classique V, Les Sources de Plotin’, Vandœuvres Geneve 1960). The area of study which was closest to Paul Henry’s heart and vocation was that of the relationship between Neoplatonic philosophy and the Latin Christian thought of the 4th/5th centuries, above all of Marius Victorinus and Augustine. Here he joined Pierre Hadot in another great collaborative work, the ‘Sources Chretiennes’ edition of the theological treatises of Marius Victorinus (Marius Victorinus, Traités Théologiques sur la Trinité, Texte établi par Paul Henry, Introduction, Traduction et Notes par Pierre Hadot, 2 vols., Paris 1960). This was a most fruitful collaboration. It inaugurated Hadot’s work on Porphyry and Victorinus, which has so greatly increased our understanding of the Neoplatonism of the fourth century. On Augustine he published comparatively little, but one work of his is likely to endure, ‘La Vision d’Ostie’ (Paris 1938), a profound and beautifully written study of what is Plotinian and what is not Plotinian in Confessions IX 10. His view of the origin of the idea of personality in Augustine’s development of the Nicene theology of the Trinity (see ‘St. Augustine On Personality’, New York 1960) was not altogether well received. The work already described might seem enough to occupy one lifetime. But throughout his working life Paul Henry’s main vocation and academic occupation was that of a Catholic theologian. Here again he published comparatively little, but his personal influence was great. He helped many as inspirer, encourager, guide to the perplexed, and defender of unpopular causes (he was an early champion of Teilhard de Chardin). He was conservative but enlightened and independent in his own theological views, and often showed courage at a time when it really did require courage for a Catholic theologian to differ, however slightly, from the opinions and attitudes of the magisterium. Paul Henry’s many-sided achievement was due to an extraordinary vitality, a deep and impassioned commitment to whatever he undertook ad maiorem Dei gloriam, and an intense sensitivity which showed itself both in his understanding of the ancients and in his quick and dependable sympathy for the concerns of his friends. He was a passionate man in the best sense of that ambiguous word, very far from the apatheia of the Stoic sage. As a consequence he felt intensely the strains of his multifarious and demanding occupations, and these, and the means he took to alleviate the tensions, led to his final illness and retirement. His last years were not altogether unhappy or unproductive. He enjoyed correspondence with and visits

98

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

from his friends. A good article by him on ‘The Oral Teaching of Plotinus’ (one of his perennial interests) was published less than two years before his death in a Canadian periodical (Dionysius 6, December 1982, 4-12). And some of his friends had the great pleasure of being with him at the Ninth International Conference on Patristic Studies at Oxford in September 1983, where he read a communication on progress in the Beatific Vision according to Irenaeus and presided at the concluding meeting. The Oxford Patristic Conferences had from their beginning in 1951 been among his favourite scholarly meetings, and many will remember his inspiring and animating presence at earlier ones. So the 1983 Conference was an appropriate public conclusion to the career of a man whose achievements in the study of the thought of late antiquity, Hellenic and Christian, command general respect, and whose enthusiasm, generosity, humour, and utter devotion to learning and religion have left his friends with happy memories which will endure and a deep and lasting regret at his loss. Ludlow, Shropshire A. Hilary Armstrong

2.6. Bibliography of Paul Henry S.J. Richard Dufour

Biography [Henry, P.?] (1960). Paul Henry, S.J. Saint Augustine on Personality (pp. 43-44). New York: Macmillan. Jacquemet, G. (1962). Henry (Paul). In G. Jacquemet (Ed.), Catholicisme: Hier, Aujourd’hui, Demain (Vol. 5, pp. 625-626). Paris: Letouzey et Ané. (1982). Souvenirs d’un Jésuite Itinérant [Photocopied typescript of memoirs]. [Drongen].

Bibliography Morlion, H. (1984). Bibliographie de Paul Henry. Revue d’Études Augustiniennes et Patristiques 30(3-4), 207-209.

Books Duffy, T. G. (1931). Ceux qui là-bas… Adapté de l’anglais [par Paul Henry s.j.] avec la permission de l’auteur. Louvain: Éditions de L’Aucam. (1934). Plotin et l’Occident: Firmicus Maternus, Marius Victorinus, Saint Augustin et Macrobe. Louvain: “Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense” Bureaux.

Bibliography of Paul Henry S.J.

99

(1935). Recherches sur la Préparation Évangélique d’Eusèbe et l’Édition Perdue des Oeuvres de Plotin Publiée par Eustochius. Paris: Leroux. (1938). Études plotiniennes, I: Les États du Texte de Plotin. Paris: De Brouwer. (1938). La Vision d’Ostie: Sa Place dans la Vie et l’Oeuvre de Saint Augustin. Paris: Vrin. (1941). Études plotiniennes, II: Les Manuscrits des Ennéades. Paris: De Brouwer. (1948). De Verbo Incarnato. n.p.: n.p. (1951). “Manet Autem Fides” (1 Cor. 13,13). Essai Théologique sur la Question : “Utrum Fides Maneat post hanc Vitam” (Ia-IIae, q. 67, a. 3). Gembloux: J. Duculot. & Schwyzer, H.-R. (1951). Plotini Opera, I (editio maior): Porphyrii Vita Plotini, Enneades I-III. Paris: De Brouwer. (1954). Compléments de Christologie. Paris: Institut Catholique de Paris. (1955). Philosophie Religieuse de l’Épître aux Romains. Paris: Institut catholique. & Lewis, G., Schwyzer, H.-R. (1959). Plotini Opera, II (editio maior): Enneades IV-V; Plotiniana Arabica ad Codicum Fidem Anglice Vertit G. Lewis. Paris: De Brouwer. (1960). Saint Augustine on Personality. New York: Macmillan. ([1960?]). Études sur la Trinité. Paris: Institut catholique de Paris. & Hadot, P. (1960). Marius Victorinus, Traités Théologiques sur la Trinité. Paris: Cerf. & Schwyzer, H.-R. (1964). Plotini Opera, I (editio minor): Porphyrii Vita Plotini. Enneades I-III Oxonii: e typographeo Clarendoniano. (1969). Leçons sur le Baptême. Paris: Institut Catholique de Paris. & Hadot, P. (1971). Marii Victorini Opera, I: Opera theologica. Vindobonae: HoelderPichler-Tempsky. & Schwyzer, H.-R. (1973). Plotini opera, III (editio maior): Enneas VI. Paris: De Brouwer. & Schwyzer, H.-R. (1977). Plotini Opera, II (editio minor): Enneades IV-V. Oxonii: ex typographeo Clarendoniano. (1981). The Path to Transcendance: From Philosophy to Mysticism in Saint Augustine. Introduction and Translation by F. F. Burch. Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press. & Schwyzer, H.-R. (1982). Plotini Opera, III (editio minor): Enneas VI. Oxonii: ex typographeo Clarendoniano. (n.d.). De Trinitate. n.p.: n.p. (n.d.). L’Épître aux Romains: Commentaire Théologique. Lormoy par Montlhéry: Éditions St Augustin.

Edited book & Delcuve, G., Hardt, H., Aubert, R. (Eds.). (1952). Au Seuil du Christianisme: Platon, S. Augustin, Pascal, Newman, Blondel. Bruxelles: Éditions Universitaires.

100

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

Papers (1931). Le Problème de la Liberté chez Plotin. Revue Néoscolastique de Philosophie, 33, 50-79, 180-215, 318-339. (1933). Pour un Lexique de Plotin: Recherches de Style et de Vocabulaire sur Enn. IV 7-6, 3-11. Revue de Philologie, de Littérature et d’Histoire Anciennes, 7(59), 73-91. (1933). Une Traduction Grecque d’un Texte de Macrobe dans le Περι μηνῶν de Lydus. Revue des Études Latines, 11, 164-172. (1934). Marius Victorinus a-t-il lu les Ennéades de Plotin? Recherches de Science Religieuse, 24, 432-449. (1934). Un Hapax Legomenon de Plotin. In Mélanges Bidez (Vol. 2,1, pp. 475-485). Bruxelles: Secrétariat de l’Institut. (1936). La Longueur des Lignes dans l’Archétype des Ennéades de Plotin. Revue des Études Grecques, 49(233), 571-585. (1937). Augustine and Plotinus: ‘Ibi legi… non ibi legi’ – Confessions VII, IX, 13. The Journal of Theological Studies, 38(149, 1), 1-23. (1937). Langue anglaise: I. Méthodologie. In G. Delcuve (Ed.), Où en est l’Enseignement Religieux? (pp. 275-288). Tournai: Casterman. (1937). Plotinus weer in de Mode. Studiën: Tijdschrift voor godsdienst, Wetenschap en Letteren, 127, 245-255. (1937). Suidas, le Larousse et le Littré de l’Antiquité Grecque. Les Études Classiques, 6, 155-162. (1937). Vers la Reconstitution de l’Enseignement Oral de Plotin. Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres de l’Académie Royale de Belgique, 23(6), 310-342. (1938). Un Bohème de l’Humanisme: Stephen MacKenna (1872-1934). La Revue Catholique des Idées et des Faits, 18(33-34), 8-10. & Borboux, A. (1945). La Religion dans l’Histoire. In P. Wigny (Ed.), La Bibliothèque de l’Honnête Homme (pp. 321-346). Bruxelles: Ad. Goemaere. & Borboux, A. (1945). Le problème religieux. In P. Wigny (Ed.), La Bibliothèque de l’Honnête Homme (pp. 285-320). Bruxelles: Ad. Goemaere. (1948). On Some Implications of the “Ex Patre Filioque Tanquam Ab Uno Principio”. Eastern Churches Quarterly, 7(Supplement 2), 16-31. (1950). The Adversus Arium of Marius Victorinus: The First Systematic Exposition of the Doctrine of the Trinity. The Journal of Theological Studies, 1(1), 42-55. (1950). Het Sacramentalisme van het Doopsel. Bijdragen: Tijdschift voor Philosophie en Theologie, 11(1), 24-50. (1950). L’Humanisme de Saint-Paul. In C. E. Roma) (Ed.), Atti: il Valore Universale dell’Umanesimo (pp. 67-79). Napoli: R. Pironti. (1951-1952). La Mystique Trinitaire du Bienheureux Jean Ruusbroec: La Doctrine de Dieu. Recherches de science religieuse, 40, 335-368. (1952). The Christian Philosophy of History. Theological Studies, 13(3), 419-432.

Bibliography of Paul Henry S.J.

101

(1952). Saint Augustin au Seuil de l’Église. In G. Delcuve, P. Henry, H. Hardt & R. Aubert (Eds.), Au Seuil du Christianisme: Platon, S. Augustin, Pascal, Newman, Blondel (pp. 25-38). Bruxelles: Éditions Universitaires. (1953). La Dernière Parole de Plotin. Studi Classici e Orientali, 2, 113-130. (1953). La Mystique Trinitaire du Bienheureux Jean Ruusbroec (Suite et Fin). Recherches de Science Religieuse, 41, 51-75. (1954). La Bible et la Théologie. In R. André & A. Tricot (Eds.), Initiation Biblique: Introduction à l’Étude des Saintes Écritures (pp. 964-998). Paris: Desclée. (1954). Les Manuscrits Grecs de Travail de Marsile Ficin, le Traducteur des Ennéades de Plotin. In Actes du Congrès de Tours et de Poitiers de l’Association G. Budé, 3-9 septembre 1953 (pp. 323-328). Paris: Belles Lettres. (1954). [Sens et Valeur de l’Athéisme Contemporain]. In Monde Moderne et Sens de Dieu: Semaine des Intellectuels Catholiques, 8 au 14 Novembre 1953 (pp. 69-78). Paris: P. Horay. (1956). Introduction: Plotinus’ Place in the History of Thought. In Plotinus, The Enneads, translated by S. MacKenna (pp. xxxiii-li). London: Faber and Faber. (1960). Frühchristliche Beziehungen zwischen Theologie und Philosophie. Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie, 82(4), 428-439. (1960). Une Comparaison chez Aristote, Alexandre et Plotin. In E. R. Dodds (Ed.), Les Sources de Plotin: Dix Exposés et Discussions (pp. 427-449). Genève: Fondation Hardt. (1961). Philosophy and Mysticism in the Confessions of St. Augustine [La vision d’Ostie, chap. 7]. Philosophy Today, 5(4), 242-256. Also in (1961). Downside Review, 79(257), 297-316. (1962). L’exégèse de l’Épître aux Romains dans la Tradition Catholique. In Da Tarso a Roma: Conferenze in Occasione del XIX Centenario Della Venuta di san Paolo a Roma (pp. 108-127). Milano: Vita e Pensiero. (1965). Marxism and Christianity. Alternatives (La Jolla), 1, 8-24. (1973). Trois Apories Orales de Plotin sur les Catégories d’Aristote. In Zetesis: Album Amicorum door Vrienden en Collega’s Aangeboden aan Prof. Dr. E. de Strycker ter Gelegenheid van zijn 65e Verjaardag (pp. 234-265). Antwerpen: De Nederlandsche Boekhandel. (1975). Contre le Filioque. Irénikon, 48(2), 170-177. (1977). Plotins Standort in der Geschichte des Denkens. In C. Zintzen (Ed.), Die Philosophie des Neuplatonismus (pp. 118-165). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. (1977). Sobre el Filioque. Selecciones de teologia, 16(62), 160-162. (1982). The Oral teaching of Plotinus. Dionysius, 6, 3-12. (1987). Apories Orales de Plotin sur les Catégories d’Aristote. In J. Wiesner (Ed.), Aristoteles. Werk und Wirkung, Paul Moraux gewidmet, II: Kommentierung, Überlieferung, Nachleben (Vol. 2, pp. 120-156). Berlin: De Gruyter.

102

Paul Henry S.J. (1906-1984)

Dictionary entries (1950). Kenose. In L. Pirot & A. Robert (Eds.), Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible (Vol. 5, pp. 7-161). Paris: Letouzey et Ané. (1960). Hellenismus und Christentum. In M. Buchberger (Ed.), Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche (Vol. 5, pp. 215-222). Freiburg: Herder.

Reviews (1932). Bulletin Critique des Études Plotiniennes (1929-1931). Nouvelle Revue Théologique, 59, 708-735, 785-803, 906-925. (1935). Costil, Pierre (1935). André Dudith: Sa Vie, son Oeuvre et ses Manuscrits Grecs. Paris: Belles Lettres. Nouvelle Revue Théologique, 62, 724-727. (1936). Dahl, Axel. (1934). Odödlighetsproblemet hos Plotinos, Jämte en kort Framställning av Samma Problem hos Augustinus. Lund: Lindstedt. Revue Néoscolastique de Philosophie, 39, 272-273. (1938). Festugière, A. J. (1936). Contemplation et vie Contemplative selon Platon. Paris: Vrin. L’Antiquité Classique, 7(1), 117-119. (1945-1946). Daniel-Rops (1943). Histoire Sainte, le Peuple de la Bible. Paris: Fayard. L’Escholier de Louvain, 2, 109-123. Also in (1946). Études (Paris), 79(249), 62-76.

Obituaries Pépin, J. (1984). Père Paul Henry S. J. 1906-1984. Revue d’Études Augustiniennes et Patristiques, 30(3-4), 205-206. Viola, C. (1984). In Memoriam: R. P. Paul HENRY, S. J. (1906-1984). Bulletin de Liaison – Société internationale des études néoplatoniciennes – Section francophone d’Europe, 5-15. Armstrong, A. H. (1985). Paul Henry S. J. Gnomon, 57(1), 93-95. Popkin, R. H. (1985). Paul Henry (1906-1984). Journal of the History of Philosophy, 23(3), 453.

Chapter Three

Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (1908-1993) 3.1. Life Martin Schwyzer Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer was born in Zürich on March 8th, 1908 as the second of three brothers. His father Eduard Schwyzer (1874-1943) was at that time Privatdozent (lecturer) for comparative linguistics at the University of Zürich and editor of Schweizerisches Idiotikon, a dictionary of all Swiss German dialects, a long-term project started in 1881 that will soon come to completion (more than one hundred and forty years later!). His mother Hedwig Schwyzer-Bebié (1877-1962) had been working as a secretary on that edition before her marriage in 1903. Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer studied classical philology from 1926 to 1931 at the Universities of Zürich, Bonn and Berlin. In Bonn, he was awarded the Welcker prize for his doctoral thesis on Chairemon,190 a Stoic philosopher, who was also Nero’s teacher. As Chairemon’s writings are not extant, Schwyzer had to search for fragments and testimonials in other sources, among them Porphyry. This early work prepared him for a life-long preoccupation with Plotinus and Porphyry, as well as for a painstaking approach to their transmitted texts. For the next ten years, however, other matters took precedence. During the world economic crisis, it was not easy to earn a living. Schwyzer taught Greek and Latin, first from 1932 to 1937 at the Kantonsschule (state college) in Zürich, then from 1937 to 1943 at the private Lyceum Alpinum in the Engadine, and from 1943 to 1945 at the Kantonsschule in Chur (Grisons). During his years in the Grisons, he became a fervent alpinist. In the war years, he commanded a company of the Swiss army at the mountainous Swiss-Italian border. At the age of 35, he founded a family; with his wife Charlotte (Lotti) Schwyzer-Schiller (1917-1986) he had three children: Martin (b. 1944), Verena (b. 1946), and Andreas (b. 1950). In 1945, he returned to his native city of Zürich, at last having obtained there a permanent position at the Kantonsschule. There, he remained a highly respected teacher of Greek and Latin until his retirement in 1975, always with a full workload. Already in 1942, he had started to devote his scarce free time to the study of Plotinus.191 Conditions improved with his move to Zürich and enabled him to undertake the collaboration with Paul Henry that was to prove so fruitful. It was for this work that he was awarded honorary degrees of the Universities of Zürich, Fribourg and Munich. 190  191 

See Schwyzer (1932) in the bibliography at the end of the chapter. Schwyzer (1944).

104

Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (1908-1993)

This short biographical note, written by his elder son, a biochemist, cannot do justice to his scientific work. But perhaps it can shed some light on the familial background which was an important source of encouragement to Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer. The Schwyzer family192 dates back to 1401 when one immigrant from nearby Schwyz was granted citizenship in the medieval city-state of Zürich. In 1336, Zürich had undergone revolutionary changes by adopting a new political system, in which associations of artisans and traders, known as guilds, ruled alongside the traditional feudal leaders. In this way, the guilds offered their members political careers based on merit—at that time a rare exception. Indeed, the Schwyzers soon saw family members as masters of various guilds, or as occupants of other high offices filled by the guilds. In the Reformation, which in Zürich was initiated in 1519 by Huldrych Zwingli, who then turned Zürich into the very first reformed state (thus preceding the factual onset of Luther’s German Reformation by at least a decade), one Hans Schwyzer took Zwingli’s side against the Catholic cantons and fell, together with the Swiss Reformer, in the battle of Kappel, 1531, as the Bearer of the Zürich banner. In the centuries to follow, many family members held positions in Zürich’s guilds that remained the base of political power until 1798 and continue to this day to play a prominent role in the social life of Zürich. Remarkably, the family brought forth a number of linguists. The first was Johann Caspar Schweizer (1619-1688) who published a voluminous compendium of religious terminologies under the title Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus. Heinrich Schweizer-Sidler (1815-1894) was a professor of Sanskrit and comparative linguistics—then a new and rapidly expanding academic discipline—at the University of Zürich. He strongly influenced his great-nephew Eduard Schwyzer193 (1874-1943) to take up the study of Indo-European languages. A generation later, Eduard Schwyzer had a profound influence on his son, to the extent that Hans-Rudolf became proficient in the same field and even wrote a fifty-six page biography of his father.194 Eduard was appointed professor of Indo-European languages at the University of Zürich in 1909, moved to the University of Bonn in 1927, and in 1932 to the University of Berlin where he held the chair of comparative linguistics until his death. Principal among his many works is the Griechische Grammatik, still considered to be the most authoritative available.195 Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer was proud of his family heritage and did his best to pass it on to future generations, not only by academic achievement, but also in many other ways. Foremost, together with his beloved wife Lotti, he raised three children. He could occasionally lose his temper and be overly strict, but Lotti always succeeded in restoring harmony. He was a cheerful father, best remembered for the long holidays he spent with his family in the Swiss Alps (but even there, Plotinus accompanied 192 

Irniger, M. (2018). Schwyzer und Schweizer von Zürich – Geschichte einer Familie. Zürich. In 1892, a majority of family members decided to change the then fashionable way of spelling the family name as “Schweizer” back to the historical spelling of “Schwyzer”. 194  Schwyzer (1951). 195  Schwyzer, E. (1939-1971). Griechische Grammatik, Band 1-4. München: C-H Beck. 193 

Life

105

him for rainy days). For thirty years, Hans-Rudolf was president of the Schwyzer Family Association, a trust founded in 1648 with the aim to support family members in adverse situations and to provide modest stipends toward their education. He was a life-long member of the Blacksmith Guild and for twenty-four years its Master. Although the guilds lost their political power under Napoleon, they thrive even today as associations of friendship and traditional values. In the social life of Zürich, the guilds are best known for their annual spring festival, the Sechseläuten, when they parade through the inner city in historical costumes and hold witty speeches during their banquets, for which Schwyzer in particular acquired local fame. Last but not least, he was a gifted college teacher who fostered a deep understanding of classical antiquity in his students, as many have testified later. From 1945 to 1963, the Schwyzer family lived in a flat at Clausiusstrasse 67 in the Academic Quarter of Zürich. The most spacious room was Hans-Rudolf’s retreat and sanctuary, lined with thousands of books. The children were not permitted access, except on Christmas Eve when the candles were lit. Even Lotti entered the room sparingly and avoided disturbing the scholar at work. To us children, the room gave a feeling of mystery, especially when Paul Henry arrived in his black habit, the white collar tightly closed in the back, and was ushered into the room instantly. Of course, we often sneaked a view of the two men facing each other at their desks. We saw and heard more of Paul Henry when he was invited to our table for lunch—usually on a Friday—which made him gladly accept the invitation with the remark “today, I must eat fish”. When the family moved to a flat in the parental Schiller house at Reinacherstrasse 8, the mysterious room was set up exactly as before, and Henry continued his visits for as long as he could. A brief passage from Henry’s memoirs may help to explain why the Jesuit priest and the descendant of an old Protestant family collaborated so well. Henry reprimanded Schwyzer for having omitted a significant detail from his father’s biography, namely that Eduard Schwyzer had doubted his own Christian faith after confronting the views of Karl Barth, then a colleague in Bonn and later the author of the monumental Church Dogmatics. Henry also mentions the theologian Emil Brunner who held a more human-centered view. He was—like Eduard and Hans-Rudolf—a member of an ancient Academy tracing its origins to the 14th-century Canons of Zürich’s Grossmünster, later dissolved and re-founded in 1837 as Gelehrte Gesellschaft. However, Henry must have missed in that same biography (p.16) that Eduard’s scepticism had begun many years earlier. His grandmother Elisabetha Schweizer-Knecht, a fervent admirer of Swedenborg, had hoped to make him a preacher. But the future linguist could not accept that God confused the languages as a punishment for those who attempted to construct the Tower of Babel. His religious views became rather liberal without making him leave the church. We have reasons to believe that Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer shared the liberal views of his father and that Paul Henry with his open mind at least tolerated them.

106

Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (1908-1993)

Schwyzer left his personal volumes of Plotini Opera, editio maior, to his elder son. They are filled with thousands of finely pencilled annotations attesting to his life-long interaction with Plotinus. In the third and final volume, published in 1973 with a dedication to A. H. Armstrong, E. R. Dodds and B. S. Page, on the cover page below Paul Henry’s name, he simply wrote “† 8/8/84” in his precise way, not betraying the sadness he must have felt. Ten years earlier, as recorded in Schwyzer’s letter to Armstrong (May 30, 1974), Henry had visited him in Zürich in rather poor health and with failing eyesight. Presumably it was the last time that Schwyzer saw his long-time companion in person. In fact, after completion of the editio maior in 1973, Schwyzer had to carry on alone. Nevertheless, he thought it fair that the final volume of the editio minor (1982) should be signed in both their names. In the last ten years of his life, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer continued to make important contributions to Plotinian studies. In 1990, his elder son Martin published a treatise on virology, quoting Plotinus III 2, 9, 31-38 in honour of his father. Characteristically, Hans-Rudolf re-examined these lines and discovered two items worthy of comments. These now figure among many other items in his last article,196 incidentally the first one to be typed on a computer by his grand-daughter Helle. Late in 1992, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer moved to a home for the elderly, but still visited the nearby flat at Reinacherstrasse 8 and his book-lined study. On October 23, 1993, he died peacefully.

3.2. Letters 1 TO E. R. DODDS Zürich, 1 February 1953 Dear Professor Dodds, Thank you for your kind and positive review of our Plotinus I in The Classical Review. We are proud to have been evaluated so favorably by such an expert of late antiquity and of Greek in general. Your discussion will be a source of motivation for our continued work on this rather large project. I would also like to thank you for the criticism which you leveled against our scanty emendatio. We quite expected it. Even R. Harder (whose review in Gnomon I am sending you) censured us on that account. I am afraid that we will not have the opportunity to make enough improvement in the ensuing volume. This is because our extremely conservative approach is not primarily caused by the “vestigia terrent”197 of the earlier editor, nor is it a mere “seesaw reaction”,198 but rather is due 196 

Schwyzer (1992). Schwyzer quotes Horace, Epistulae 1.1.74. 198  This is a quotation from Dodds’ review mentioned before. 197 

Letters

107

to the comparison of Eusebius and our mss. It matters not whether the Eustochius hypothesis is correct (although Porphyry would be exonerated on that count from any suspicion of having edited it); it is important that the two recensions since the beginning of the 4th century are separated; any agreement between the two gives us the text as it existed at that time (unless of course a coincidentally identical error occurred in both recensions). We will have an opportunity to say in the second volume that the two editors made twenty-seven changes contra consensum Eusebii et Enneadum in the ten pages (of Volkmann’s edition) in IV 7 before the major gap in the text. We consider these changes incorrect and are simply resigned to the fact that the Greek, which in our opinion Plotinus wrote, reads as “odd” or even “gibberish” to this or that person. At passages like IV 7, 1, 21-25 or IV 7, 3, 1-5, we would probably have placed an obelus, if Eusebius did not testify that the text is correct. And what is correct here must be at least possible at other places in the text where we can reconstruct the archetype. (We also believe that the archetype is later than 800; we should have indicated the minuscule mistakes, which are only possible if the model for our text were also written in minuscule.) That is not to say, of course, that each and every one of the decisions that you question is correct. The passages that you criticize are difficult and we must take all your remarks into consideration. However, there is one thing that we will definitely take to heart when writing the second volume, namely, to increase the number of explanatory notes and, perhaps, to increase the number of obeloi. However, we are going to retain our mistrust of coniecturae quoquo modo menda tollentes,199 particularly in those cases where they originate with Kirchhoff. He may have been an excellent epigrapher, but for Plotinus’ text he was a major catastrophe. Moreover, he was dishonest. In the first three Enneads, we found thirty changes he made that do not appear in his own apparatus, and these are clearly not mere typing errors. All of these appear in the ensuing printings and all are incorrect. Among these are also “ghost-words” like συνενεργέω, which is indicated as Plotinian in Liddell-Scott. Bréhier, you are correct, rejected several false conjectures. Even so, there is not a single page in his text that is free of both typos and mistakes in the apparatus. I do not wish to make further demands on your time. I only want to make a humbler request. You wrote of an “extensive, though not complete, collection of published emendations”. Does this “not complete” refer to your own Select Passages, which we shamefully missed, or do you know of further literature that we have overlooked? Our aim is to mention, if not all, at least all emendations worthy of some consideration, and it would be a shame if some change remained unknown to us that deserves a mention in the text. Indeed, we are keenly aware that we can make a definite contribution to the recensio only. We agree with you entirely “that textual critics will still find plenty of work to do on the Enneads”. Any other attitude 199 

That is, conjectures designed by whatever means to eliminate errors.

108

Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (1908-1993)

would be immodest, and we want to avoid it despite your flattering words for which I thank you again, also on behalf of my friend Paul Henry (currently in Paris). Yours truly, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer

2 TO A.H. ARMSTRONG Zürich, 20 February 1955 Dear Professor Armstrong, In your excellent “Plotinus”, p. 77, you translate in chapter 4 of the treatise Enn. V 8: “It is as if one were to imagine that this visible heaven of ours which is luminous produced the light which comes from it” (line 19-20, Bréhier). May I ask if you are proposing here the conjecture φῦσαι instead of φῦναι? As we intend to offer the reader of our edition all appropriate possibilities to elucidate difficult passages in Plotinus, we should like to indicate this proposition in our apparatus. Furthermore, I should be very glad indeed if you were so kind as to mention also other conjectures, which might be hidden in your translation. For it is not always easy to distinguish between conjecture and translator’s license. As Fr Henry told me, he will meet you soon. Please give him my compliments. Yours sincerely, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer P.S. I thank you very much for your interesting review of Luck’s book.200 As I take Gnomon myself, I return the review to you since you may be glad to have a further copy.

3 TO A.H. ARMSTRONG Zürich, 21 April 1955 Dear Professor Armstrong, Please forgive me for answering your letter of April 6th only now. My wife and I have been in Ravenna to see the splendid mosaics which I had hitherto known only from illustrations. I was able to see Fr Henry before he returned to Paris. 200  Luck, G. (1953). Der Akademiker Antiochos. Bern: Haupt. See Armstrong (1954) in Armstrong’s bibliography.

Letters

109

As to your ἀπορίαι. I interpret I, 6, 3, 26-27 as you do, but am not quite comfortable in doing so. τὸ μὴ κρατοῦν is peculiar, but an absolute κρατέω is possible (cf. Liddell-Scott, s.v. κρατέω II) and is at any rate no worse than the conjecture κρατούμενον. I find it more problematic that something can become ἐξίτηλον as a result of light. In any case, at most “by contrast”, not “by illumination”. In I, 1, 12, 3 I am completely in accord with your train of thought. With δίκαι, the δίκαι ἐν Ἅιδου are meant, and therefore καὶ4 would be superfluous. The λόγος contains only 4 constituents, not 5, namely 1) ἁμαρτάνειν, 2) κατορθοῦν, 3) διδόναι δίκας, 4) μετενσωματοῦσθαι. If I want to retain the καὶ4, it is [only] for the reason that I would not want to translate it by the English “also”, but rather by the German “und zwar” (i.e. “in particular”). ἐν Ἅιδου does not denote “the disembodied state”, but ἐν Ἅιδου does involve it. So: “and (3) to do penance, particularly in Hades (where the soul is alone and therefore ἀπαθής)”. And finally, the passage I 1, 5, 17-18. First, a text-critical observation: the deviation of τοῦ κακὸν with respect to τοῦ κακοῦ or τὸ κακὸν involves only one letter and is really minor. But the very fact that both τοῦ κακοῦ (Apc, prob. Fic. + C) or τὸ κακὸν (Q) have been transmitted proves to me that the lectio difficilior τοῦ κακὸν is the main or even the sole reading of the archetype. The sequence περὶ τοῦ κακὸν is so peculiar that it could very easily be changed into περὶ τὸ κακὸν or περὶ τοῦ κακοῦ, but not the reverse. We may only resort to τὸ κακὸν or τοῦ κακοῦ when τοῦ κακὸν makes no sense. Linguistically τὸ τῆς λύπης is no more “extraordinary” than τὸ τῆς δόξης. τὸ τῆς δόξης in line 15-16 is somewhat less definite than ἡ δόξα, just as τὸ τῆς λύπης is less definite than τὴν λύπην. Moving on to the content: what is P. trying to say in this sentence? Quite certainly, that mere δόξα does not involve πάθος. Which δόξα? The δόξα that grief (τὸ τῆς λύπης) is an evil. This interpretation goes very well in my view with the previous as well as the subsequent sentence; one has to read lines 12-21 together. If you are still inclined to make a change, περὶ τὸ κακὸν τὸ τῆς λύπης seems to me better than περὶ τοῦ κακοῦ. πάθος τῆς λύπης “feeling of grief” is out of the question, preferably “any feeling”, but the article τὸ with πάθος is disturbing. Of course, I object to περὶ τὸ κακὸν τὸ τῆς λύπης because it would make τὸ κακὸν refer to κακόν τι in line 13, which at that point means any κακόν at all and not a κακὸν τῆς λύπης. Consequently, I translate (as in Rhein. Mus. 86, 1937, 372): “The opinion that someone’s grief is an evil does not contain any feeling.”201 Of course, it is up to you to decide. If I remember correctly, Professor Dodds was not comfortable with τοῦ κακὸν τὸ τῆς λύπης either when we showed him the specimen of I 1 in 1946.

201  In the original: “Die Meinung darüber, daß die Sache der Unlust ein Übel ist, enthält keine Affektion.”

110

Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (1908-1993)

Please excuse the length of this letter and my failure to attempt to solve the difficult ἀπορίαι in English. With my most cordial greetings, ever yours, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer P.S. Special thanks for the Irenaeus parallel to I 8, 14, 51. I haven’t yet got around to reading up on it in the library. I do not have a copy of Irenaeus.

4 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Zürich, 4 May 1955 Dear Professor Armstrong, Most cordial thanks for your letter of May 1. It is obvious that I claim no monopoly in understanding Plotinus properly; rather there are numerous passages where even today I feel quite uncertain. But I am very pleased that you concur with my views on I, 1, 5, 17-18 and I, 1, 12, 3. In the case of I, 6, 3, 26-27, on the other hand, I accept your interpretation of ἐξίτηλον τῷ φωτὶ γινόμενον. The meaning that you adopt is altogether satisfactory; my reservations are on the linguistic side: ἐξίτηλον γίνεσθαι means something like “evanescere”. Now one could assume “evanescens propter lumen” or “evanescens luminis causa”, but not really “evanescens lumine” or “evanescens per lumen”. It is the dative that seems paradoxical, but one just has to live with that. Your objections to τὸ δὲ μὴ κρατοῦν are understandable. κρατέω does not necessarily mean “to be the best” (this sense is not even certain in the Critias passage in Liddell-Scott), but can also mean “to prevail, to get the upper hand” (in Liddell-Scott s.v. II a); the absolute usage appears also in prose, e.g. Plat. Tim. 88b αἱ τοῦ κρείττονος κινήσεις κρατοῦσαι. To be sure, I don’t know of any passage with the negation, but τὸ μὴ κρατοῦν does seem to me to stand in contrast to κρατήσει lin. 17, which we take to be a verb (in contrast to L.-S. s.v. κράτησις). Our “ultraconservative” attitude to the text has, of course, been criticized and will continue to be criticized. Collaboration further strengthens this attitude, because when differences occur between Henry and me the transmission usually prevails. However, on the whole, it seems to me, we have not proceeded badly. All my best wishes for your trip to North Italy. If I can be of any assistance with practical advice, please tell me. I’ll gladly be at your disposal. I have not yet thanked

Letters

111

you for your essay in the Downside Review on the ἄπειρον etc. in Plotinus.202 I continue to admire how well you know Plotinus and the Greek Fathers.203 Ever yours, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer

5 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Zürich, 8 November 1956 Dear Professor Armstrong, My cordial thanks for your detailed letter of October 26, 1956. In Vita 7. 20 your argumentation convinced me: ῥοπὰς ἔχοντα “to be inclined to”, in addition to πολιτικὸν ὄντα, would indeed be a tautology. The other passages were no longer in dispute. Regarding Fischer, I thank you for your explanations. Of course, it wouldn’t occur to me to make you responsible for the incorrect translations; I was merely taken aback when I found your name in the Foreword. My Gnomon review is already with the editors.204 It is a short review (in the section “Nachrichten und Vorlagen”), and your name does not appear in it. I expressly granted Fischer the bona fides: it is an avowal written in earnest, and the German style is actually quite good for a book of philosophy in German. But with that I have undoubtedly listed all of its positive qualities. Regarding the book by Gerhard Huber205 I have just noted with some dismay that Heinrich Dörrie has judged it far less favorably than I did (Gnomon 28, 1956, 419-426). He is correct on several points but is blind to the quite positive qualities of the book. I even find the language not as horrible by far as that of Heidegger, even granting that reading it is an imposition for a non-native speaker of German. I just wanted to add that so that you won’t curse me if you should ever get hold of the book. With my most cordial greetings, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer 202 

See Armstrong (1955) in Armstrong’s bibliography In a different hand, not Armstrong’s, but perhaps Henry’s: “See apparatus I 7, 1, 18. We also are attracted by αὐτῇ μονῇ and do not think the article necessary. So, go ahead with μονῇ. We just wanted to emphasize the accentuation of archetype I 7, 1, 27-8. It means that you can never really sever the connexion with the source of light, if you cut it off on one side, on this side of the screen it will be dark no doubt; but the ray still remains on the other side with the sun. Your translation is correct. Concerning I 8, 14, 51. The sentence is irrealis. ‘Even if, (which is not, says Plotinus, my opinion) the soul produced matter (not τι ἐν but τὴν), still on this (false hypothesis), matter would be responsible for evil affecting the soul’. If you need more light on I 1, 5, 17 and I 6, 3, 27, ask Schwyzer.” 204  See Schwyzer (1956). 205  Huber, G. (1955). Das Sein und das Absolute. Studien zur Geschichte der ontologischen Problematik in der spätantiken Philosophie. Basel: Verlag für Recht und Gesellschaft. 203 

112

Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (1908-1993)

6 TO E. ROUSSOS Zürich, 20 September 1960 Dear Mr Roussos, First of all, I wish to apologize for not replying earlier to your letter of September 3rd, 1960, but I wished to show your letter and sample to my colleague Paul Henry, who has only just arrived to continue work on the third volume of our critical edition. I can now respond to your question in the name of both editors. We ourselves are not personally preparing a Lexicon Plotinianum since we already possess such a book, which was produced over a period of more than ten years by J. Herbert Sleeman in Penzance, Cornwall, England. We intend to publish it as the fourth volume of our edition. The Jesuit Gilbert Pollet is currently working on the revision of the lexicon. The overall goal of the revision is to bring the lexicon into agreement with our edition. Fr Pollet is currently here, but will soon take Sleeman’s manuscript to Belgium, where he will continue his work. Since work on the lexicon started before our edition, the overall goal of the revision is to bring the lexicon into agreement with our edition. In order to reach this end, the revisor will also have the already completed parts of our still unpublished third volume at his disposal. The lexicon corresponds, on the whole, to your project, except that certain lemmata, such as καί or δέ are going to remain incomplete. In the case of many lemmata, all the relevant passages are going to be cited, but the Greek will not be cited. In the case of lemmata with few instances or in the case of important technical terms, the passages will all be cited in entirety. Your project seems to aim at reproducing the entire passages, making it broader in scope than Sleeman’s lexicon. In contrast to your planned work, Sleeman’s lexicon will contain many citations of other articles in the work, so that the same passage need not be repeated several times. To get to the point: I feel I must dissuade you from continuing your project. I believe that you have not fully considered how long your planned lexicon would be. Our printer has estimated that ours will be approximately 800 pages. If you intend to write out all the passages for all the lemmata (including, for example, ὅτι), your lexicon would doubtless be twice, if not three times, as long. I am not sure whether you have begun to negotiate with a printer. We have already received a guarantee from a printer that Sleeman’s lexicon will be produced directly after the publication of the third volume of our edition. I am sorry that I must give you such disappointing news, particularly since you have been at work on the project for so long. I advise you to take this letter to

Letters

113

Professor Herter,206 to whom I extend my warmest regards, and ask for his advice about how you might, despite this setback, still make some use of the effort you have invested in Plotinus. For example, the field is very much in need of investigations into the individual technical terms used by Plotinus. Of course, I will remain available to you to answer further questions, but I cannot unfortunately give you advice for your project, on which you must have worked for years and which has been completed and—as it seems to me—has been completed well. With best wishes, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer

7 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Zürich, 12 January 1961 Dear Professor Armstrong, My heartfelt thanks for your New Year’s letter and I reciprocate your good wishes for the New Year. The changes we undertake in the editio minor versus the editio maior are, of course, not binding for you. Please, accept only whatever you find acceptable. Beutler-Theiler is better than I had expected; I had feared that Theiler would flood the text with new conjectures; of course, this does happen from time to time, but many are quite worthy of consideration and there is much that is useful in the notes. I can understand that the Loeb editors were rather annoyed, but within four or five years corrections cannot be avoided. I hope you have not yet returned the proofs: I send you the corrections of the Vita Plotini. These corrections are probable, but not certain. For I must discuss them with Father Henry when he is coming to Zürich (in March, I suppose).207 I hope to be able to send you the changes in Enn. II and III in April, together with a response to your ἀπορίαι. I ask you to send me further ἀπορίαι in Enn. III, even though I remain in your debt for a response to the last ones. Beutler writes that Harder² IΙ is already ready for printing. I may get the proofs in time (for II 5 and III 6).

206  Hans Herter (8 June 1899 – 7 November 1984), a German Classical philologist who was for many years Director of the Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, Bonn, and whose major interests were the works of Thucydides and Plato. 207  Schwyzer wrote this paragraph in English.

114

Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (1908-1993)

Your “references” p. xiv (note) are correct. I expected a reference to ὕλη and therefore believed that II. 1. 4 was a typographical error for II. 4. 1. But that note nowhere mentions ὕλη. In addition to the editio minor, I am currently working on VI, 1; that is a tedious task and I sometimes wish this work (VI 1-3) had been lost! I just received today from Professor Dodds his lovely essay in The Journal of Roman Studies that he delivered at the Congress of Class. Studies, 1959.208 Please extend my greetings to your wife. My wife thanks you for your good wishes and reciprocates them, as do I. Yours, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer

8 TO E. ROUSSOS Zürich, 4 January 1962 Dear Mr Roussos, First, I must apologize for leaving your letter of December 4th, 1961 unanswered for so long. However, I was so overwhelmed by other work around Christmas that I did not get to it before then and I have since been in the grips of a cold that has left me bedridden. That is also the reason why I am answering your letter by hand and not with the typewriter. I hope that you can still manage to read it. Your proposal to investigate the allusions of Heraclitus in Plotinus is certainly a worthy one. At the Sources de Plotin conference, Richard Harder was asked to cover the Pre-Socratics. He declined on the grounds that the concept of “sources” itself seemed suspect to him, and so the Pre-Socratics were left undiscussed at the conference. Considering this, it would be certainly helpful to complete our collection of presentations by including this perspective. The task is, however, no easy one, precisely because the quotations are few and say more about the one quoting than about the one being quoted. If you care to hear my opinion, limiting the scope of the study to Heraclitus is ill-advised. If indeed you intend to write a chapter about “The predominance of Heraclitus among the Pre-Socratics according to Plotinus”, you certainly won’t be able to do so without consulting the fragments of the other Pre-Socratics. So, why not just write on “Plotinus and the Pre-Socratics”? It is a debatable subject whether Plotinus cites Heraclitus or the other Pre-Socratics directly. I consider it unlikely, but I admit that Plotinus’ dependence on those 1-7.

208 

Dodds (1960). Tradition and Personal Achievement in the Philosophy of Plotinus. JRS 50(1-2),

Letters

115

authors has not been fully accounted for. At the conference Sources de Plotin, the problem was a topic of conversation at several moments, specifically concerning the writings of Plato and Aristotle (take a look at Entretiens V p. 100, Dörrie, and 226, Gigon). This problem – if it is a problem at all – is, of course, one that concerns all of Heraclitus’s fragments, not just the ones that might appear in Plotinus. The same applies to the other Pre-Socratics. If you successfully prove that the Pre-Socratics were directly referenced in Plotinus’ time or soon after, you will still not have proven that this is the case for Plotinus himself, though the latter possibility would become plausible. On page 158 of his “Parmenides”, Karl Reinhardt investigated the fragments of Heraclitus that appear in Hippolytus and concluded that the ancient stoic Diogenes of Babylon was their original source.209 Those fragments that are preserved only in the texts of Plotinus are drawn together cursorily in note 2 of page 194. Professor Hans Diller in Kiel210 shared with me a few years ago, in response to my question, that he was working on Heraclitus. I understood him to mean that he was writing a book (like the book of O. Gigon, Investigations concerning Heraclitus).211 He has not yet published any such book, but he may have written an article that has escaped my notice or put an end to the work altogether. It would be a good idea for you to get in touch with him. Indeed, I had the impression that he intended to ascertain the same thing as yourself about all the Heraclitus fragments preserved in Plotinus, what they tell us about Heraclitus and the author who cites him. You may mention my name when you contact Prof. Diller. I do not know him personally, but he knows Fr Henry. Unfortunately, I cannot be of much help to you, since I was only ever concerned with what the Heraclitus fragments in the text of Plotinus actually say, which only became problematic at the beginning of IV 8. (I assume you noticed that we agreed with Cilento in reading IV 8. 1. 12-13 as a citation from Heraclitus, which Diels does not acknowledge.) As far as the fragments of the Pre-Socratics in the text of Plotinus, our intention was to compile a complete index of all citations. It should therefore not be necessary that you undertake your own reading of all of Plotinus. It might, however, be possible that someone uncovers a hidden citation. Critics pointed out to us a considerable number of Plato and Aristotle citations which we had not accounted for, but no one has indicated to us any missing Pre-Socratic citations. You will find on an enclosed sheet an index of citations from Enn. VI. (Xenocrates is mentioned at VI 5.9.14 only because Heraclitus comes up in the same line.) 209  Reinhardt, K. (1916). Parmenides und Die Geschichte der griechischen Philosophie. Bonn: Verlag von Friedrich Cohen. 210  Hans Diller (1905-1977), German classical scholar and historian of ancient Greek medicine. 211  Gigon, O. (1935). Untersuchungen zu Heraklit. Leipzig: Dieterich. Olof Gigon (1912-1998) was Professor of Classics (Latin) in Berne, 1948-1982, working chiefly on ancient philosophy.

116

Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (1908-1993)

Please send my warmest regards to Professors Herter and Vogt. I thank you for the regards from Prof. Kakridis. I was glad to hear that he received the doctor honoris causa from the University of Tübingen. I had the pleasure of meeting him in Zürich several years ago. If you ever see him again, please tell him that he would be welcome again in Zürich at any time. With best wishes for you work, yours, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer Citations of the Pre-Socratics in the Texts of Plotinus’s Enneads VI VI 1.3 nihil VI 4.4.24-25 = Parm. B 8.25 and 8.5 VI 5.5.4 and 6.3 = Anaxag. B 1 9.14 ἀριθμὸν = Xenocrates fr. 60 αὐτὸν αὐξοντα = Heraclit. B 115 10.12 = Heraclitus B 113 VI 6.18.42-43 cf. Parm. B 8.6 VI 7.14.20 cf. Empedocl. B 17 20.4 cf. Pythagoras apud Stob. Anth. IV 1.49 = Pre-Socratics I. p. 469, 36 = Aristoxenus fr. 35 VI 8 nihil VI 9 nihil

9 TO E. ROUSSOS Zürich, 7 February 1962 Dear Mr Roussos, I am sending you here a few supplements to the letters I wrote to you at the beginning of January. Plotinus cites, at Enn. VI 3. 11.24-25, as you are likely to know already, Heraclitus fr. B 82, which I missed, since it is taken from Plato’s Hipp. Mai. 289a (I mentioned it in my RE-article XXI 551).212 At VI 1.1.2, Plotinus has multiple Pre-Socratics in mind, as in Aristotle’s Metaphysics Z 1.1028b 3-6 and Phys. A2, 184b 22-24, specifically: 2 Thales, Anaximenes, Hipparchus, Heraclitus (οἱ μὲν ἕν), cf. Aristot. Metaphys. A 3.983b 18-21; 984a 5-7. 2 (οἱ δὲ ὼρισμένα) Empedocles, cf. Aristot. Metaphys. A 3.984a 8. 2 (οἱ δὲ ἄπειρα) Anaxagoras, cf. Aristot. Metaphys. A3, 984a 11-13, and Democrit fr. A 37 = Aristot. fr. 202 Rose. 212 

Schwyzer (1951).

Letters

117

I 3.13.17 πληγῇ νομόμενα. In our app. we cite Plato Critias 109c1. However, the citation goes back to Heraclitus fr. B11, perhaps via another text than the Critias. With best wishes for the future of your project, yours, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer

10 TO E. ROUSSOS Zürich, ? February 1962 Dear Mr Roussos, I thank you for your letter of 15.2.62 and I hope that things continue to go well with your project. Today I have only two comments: 1) δύσφραστον θέαμα is at VI 9.10.19 (you could have found the passage by consulting Creuzer’s Index Graecitatis as well as Bréhier’s Index des mots grecs, s.v. δύσφραστος). 2) I probably forgot to mention the passage VI 3. 11.24 in the list I sent you. I also think that Plotinus recognized not only fr. B82 out of Plato, but also fr. B83. I have only one detail from the mss. to report on this topic. At Plat. Hipp. Mai. 289b, we find πρὸς δέον, at Plot. VI 3. 11.24, all editors after Perna read θεῶν; πρὸς θεῶν could only mean “from the Gods”, but what we really need in this instance is the singular and the accusative. The mss. are as follows: θεῶν AE θεόν BRJUC Thus, what we are dealing with here is the very common class W error (i.e., in A and E).213

11214 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Zürich, 12 April 12 1962 Dear Professor Armstrong, I am glad to send you the last ἀπορίαι Fr Henry and I tried to solve. Most of the solutions we owe either to Theiler or to Dodds in his review in Gnomon 33, 1961. You’ll see that Theiler has found a new interpretation of the πολυθρύλητον passage in I 1, 5, 18. 213  W is the subarchetype reconstructed on the ground of the readings of manuscripts A E. What Schwyzer appears to mean is that this kind of mistake (basically, a vowel quantity error, ω instead of ο, or viceversa) is very common in this “family” of manuscripts (i.e., w), so that it is easy to choose the reading attested by BRJUC (manuscripts belonging to different branches of the stemma). 214  This letter was written completely in English.

118

Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (1908-1993)

As to III 4, 5, 16-17, we have now obelised this locus impeditissimus. I think that I have sent you the additions concerning II 5 and III 6 (about 30 passages); but if I am mistaken, please tell me. Fr Henry is actually in the U.S.A., but I think he’ll give his permission to send the ms. of the editio minor (Enn. I – III) to the printer (with a delay of two years!). We had a great grief in our family: a fortnight ago, my beloved mother passed away in her eighty-fifth year. She wished to leave this world, but we are missing her. With my compliments to your wife, yours truly, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer

12 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Zürich, 21 April 1962 Dear Professor Armstrong, In II 3.10.6-7 I hesitate: Dodds, Gnomon 33, 1961, 708 proposes κατὰ τὴν φορὰν instead of the first κατ ’ αὐτὴν τὴν φορὰν. That is not bad but goes only with τῷ instead of τὸ. τῷ is not a correction of the prima manus of S, as we said in the ed. maior, but of S2; therefore, a mere conjecture. Now I think [τὸ εἰσιέναι] is a gloss in the form of a κεφάλαιον. I apologise for not having sent the corrections to II 5 and III 6. I had the opportunity of seeing the proof-sheets for text and translation (but not the notes) of the second volume of the Beutler-Theiler’s continuation of Harder. Needless to say, they introduce a far greater number of corrections than those adopted by us. Theiler’s interpretation of I 1, 5, 1 7-18 is easier than the undeclined “κακόν”. I hope you can persuade the Loeb authorities that some little alterations are inevitable after six years! As to Fr Henry, he is in the U.S.A. at the moment. His address (until June 5th) is: 1725, Orrington Ave., Evanston Illinois (U.S.A.). After June 15th, he will be back to Paris, and from July 30th until Oct. 15th, he will be working here. I do not know whether he intends to go to England next year. Thank you very much for your and your wife’s sympathy on the death of my mother. I must be grateful to Fate that to have been allowed to have my mother for so long; nevertheless, her definitive departure is very sad. Fr Henry admired her, and she liked his good humour and his slight εἰρωνεία. Please give my compliments to Mrs Armstrong. Yours sincerely, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer

Letters

119

13 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Zürich, 24 January 1965 Dear Professor Armstrong, May I ask you for a favor? I recently came across the following bibliographical reference: R.G. Bury, “Emendations in Plotinus”, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, Nr. 178, 1941-1945, p. 20. Cambridge, University Press. The war years edition of this journal is not available in any public library in Switzerland. Might I ask you, therefore, either to have a photocopy of this page (according to the reference, it is a single page) or of these pages (in case there are several pages) and to send me the bill, or at least to note down Bury’s suggestions, if necessary, with his justifications. Since we endeavor to note all suggestions for the text in our editio maior, we would also like to consider these. If they refer to passages from Enn. I-V, we want to mention them in the Addenda in Volume III. I hope that you can find this journal in Liverpool or can have it sent from Cambridge without difficulty. With my apologies for burdening you with such tasks and with my warmest greetings to you and your wife. I remain ever yours, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer

14 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Zürich, 20 July 1965 Dear Professor Armstrong, My cordial thanks to you for the two reviews in The Classical Review. I will be meeting Professor Sodano in September. He was invited this year to Vandoeuvres (I don’t know for what topic) and intends to look me up here immediately afterwards. My cordial thanks for your most generous review of our minor I. I believe there is no danger that “scholarship would come to a stop”. There will continue to be hundreds of disputed passages in Plotinus, and even more attempts at repair, coniecturae palmares215 are, however, by their very nature rarissimae. Regarding III 5 [50] 7.24 ἀμήχανον, your arguments are, as it now seems to me, compelling. To be sure, Eros could be called εὐμήχανος (ἀεὶ πλέκων μηχανάς Plat. 215 

That is, prizewinning conjectures.

120

Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (1908-1993)

Symp. 203 d6), but not διὰ τὴν ἔνδειαν. That I am termed a “sociologist”, I find a witty remark; in that case Euripides fr. 641 already also was one πενία δὲ σοφίαν ἔλαχε. The mistake in III 7.6.9 is particularly bothersome because Prof. Dodds had provided two suggestions to me, either: καὶ τὸ οὕτω μένον αἰὼν [εἶναι] or: καὶ τὸ οὕτω μένειν αἰὼν εἶναι. At first, Henry and I had wanted to keep our interpretation out of the ed. minor. We gave up the practice before the final correction, but then we were able only to mention one of the two corrections in the apparatus, and this was the very one the printer set incorrectly. In the process, I had to fight like a man possessed that I at least should be granted a third correction. I wanted to drop the Appendix to I 9 for the minor, but Henry insisted on it, I yielded; probably he would now yield to me, following the appearance of Westerink’s essay. Your final sentence (work on the editio minor is well advanced) is still overly optimistic. To be sure, I have just finished VI 3 (of the final text), but Henry is behind. And then we still have to discuss the addenda for Enn. I-V with one another. So that will take some time; by then Beutler-Theiler’s last volume will be out, and that means more work again. With cordial thanks and my warmest greetings to you and to Mrs Armstrong. Ever yours, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer

15 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Zürich, 23 October 1965 Dear Professor Armstrong, On October 6, I sent back to you the printed sheets of the second Ennead with the corrections and changes that seemed preferable to Fr Henry and me after the appearance of our editio minor. Above all, these changes are related to BeutlerTheiler volume III, which appeared at the same time as our minor. In the enclosures, I’m also sending you two pages of additional changes to volume I of the editio minor. Of course, it is up to you how you use them. All the changes on these two sheets (just like those on the printed sheets of Enn. II) have been discussed by the two of us. Fr Henry returned to Paris today after a four-week stay. We were able to get Enn. VI 6 ready for the printer. Personally, I am finished with all the texts, but Fr Henry must still work through VI 2 and VI 3, and that will take a long time.

Letters

121

Regarding your Loeb text, we would like to express a wish that you do not cite deviations from our text, but only deviations from the mss. (at least in all those places where you do not have even a single manuscript as support). Of course, you are not providing a critical edition, but conjectures should be provided never or always. I prefer “always”. As far as I can see, that is also the case in other Loeb volumes. I would gladly be of assistance again for Enn. III when you’re that far along. I admire your accomplished translations. It is not easy to find one’s own translation style after MacKenna. I wish you all the best for your future work. Please give my regards to your wife, also from Fr Henry who joins me in sending greetings to you. Ever yours, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer Additions to the editio minor for Ennead I and III (1964), on the basis of Beutler–Theiler IIIa–b (1964) and Dodds, Gnomon 37, 1965, 419–420:

Ed. Minor

nunc in textu scribendum

in apparatu scribendum

I 5, 7, 11 παρεῖναι

μέλλειν [παρεῖναι]

I 5, 7, 12 συμβεβηκέναι

συμμεμενηκέναι

I 5, 10, 7 μᾶλλον

[μᾶλλον]

I 8, 5, 14 καὶ ἤδη κακόν

καὶ ἤδη κακόν τῳ χρὴ

τῳ χρὴ

(idem)

iamque aliqua re malum est (id est: τῳ neutrum pro masculine in ed. min.)

I 8, 6, 41 τὰ ἄλλα

[τὰ ἄλλα]

τὰ ἄλλα : τοῖς ἄλλοις Kirchhoff

I 8, 15, 26 ἵνα οὕτω

ἵν’ ἄμουσα

III 8, 1, 10-11 –

–

ἵν’ ἄμουσα Dodds : ἵν’ οὖσα Enn. ἵνα οὕτω Schröder ἵν’ ἄκουσι Theiler ἐν τῷ παρόντι cum παίζοντες

III 8, 2, 3 ἐν εἴδει ποιεῖ

ἐνειδοποιεῖ

I 5, 1, 3 λέγειν

μέλλειν Theiler : λέγειν Enn. παρεῖναι Enn. : εἶναι Beutler deleuimus

συμμεμενηκέναι coniecimus: συμβεβηκέναι Enn. συμπεπηγμέναι Theiler μᾶλλον del. Theiler

deleuimus

coniungendum (contra Harder Theiler)

ἐνειδοποιεῖ coniecimus (ἐνειδοποιήσει Bury) : ἐν εἴδει ποιεῖ Enn.

122

III 8, 4, 24 τοῦ ὕπνου

Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (1908-1993)

καθύπνου

καθύπνου coniecimus (τοῦ καθ’ὕπνου Theiler) : τοῦ ὕπνου Enn.

III 8, 4, 5 σιώπησις

σιωπώσης

σιωπώσης Coleridge (secundum Dodds, Gnomon 37, 1965, Studi ital. fil. cl. 27-28, 1956, 109) :

σιώπησις Enn. σιωπησάσης Creuzer del. Harder

τίς τίς Apc : τί Enn. III 8, 5, 7 παιδίῳ παιγνίῳ παιγνίῳ Theiler : παιδίῳ Enn. III 8, 5, 9-10 θεωρήματα θεωρήματα. τὸ πρῶτον τὸ λογιστικὸν del. Kirchhoff τὸ πρῶτον. [τὸ λογιστικὸν] οὖν τὸ λογιστικὸν οὖν III 8, 5, 12 μεταλαμβάνον πρόεισι add. Theiler μεταλαμβάνον· πρόεισι ‹πρόεισι›· (γὰρ del. Kirchhoff) γὰρ πρόεισι γὰρ ἐνέργεια III 8, 5, 13 ἐνεργείᾳ ἐνέργεια (propter lin. 18-19) III 8, 4, 43 τί

wy

ἐνεργεία x III 8, 5, 29 ποιεῖ καὶ III 8, 5, 31 ἢ καὶ διὰ

τοῦτο

III 8, 6, 27 οὐ

ποιεῖ· καὶ [ἢ καὶ διὰ τοῦτο]

–

εὖ ἐναργεστέρα· αὕτη

del. Kirchhoff

πανταχοῦ παραστήσας

τῷ γὰρ πανταχοῦ παρὸν στήσας

εὖ Theiler : οὐ Enn. ἡ δὲ subiectum, ἐναργεστέρα (ἐνεργεστέρα Enn.) praedicatum; αὕτη subiectum, πρώτη – εἷς praedicatum τὸ Enn. : τῷ Kirchhoff παρὸν στήσας (cf. lin. 28 στήσας) Theiler : παραστήσας

III 8, 10, 5 πᾶσιν

πᾶσαν

πᾶσαν Mras, Sitz.-Ber. Aka.

III 8, 8, 18-19

ἐναργεστέρα αὕτη

III 8, 9, 24-25 τῷ γὰρ

Enn.

Berl. 1933, 277: πᾶσιν Enn.

Letters

123

III 8, 11, 3-4 οἷον –

[οἷον – ὅρασις1]

οἷον – ὅρασις1 del. Theiler

III 8, 11, 24 ἐκεῖ

ἐκεῖ‹νος›

ἐκεῖνος (i.e. τὸ ἕν) Theiler : ἐκεῖ Enn., si tenetur, ἐκεῖ – ἐφιέμενος intellegen-

ὅρασις1

dum : illic autem non est qui appetat; an ἐκεῖ δὲ ‹οὔτε ἔφεσις› οὔτε ἐφιέμενος coniciendum? III 7, 4, 1 τοῦτο

τοῦτον

τοῦτον Enn. : τοῦτο Druck­ fehler

16 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Zürich, 20 November 1966 Dear Professor Armstrong, Last week, I received your Loeb Plotinus I-II, for which many thanks. Both volumes look very nice. That your English translation in its straightforwardness is superb and that it can be readily understood by a foreigner, I have already told you. Your Plotinus will certainly be a great success, also because Loeb has set a reasonable price. Our Oxoniensis without a translation is much too expensive and Harder‘s is virtually prohibitive (Volume IV, the final one, should be out by 1967 at the latest.) What a pity that you weren’t permitted to undertake any additional changes in vol. I, so that, as a result, some coniecturae latentes pro codicum lectionibus216 appear. Your volume III will undoubtedly not be long in coming out, so that we should hurry up with vol. II of the Oxoniensis (= Enn. IV-V). But the completion of the editio maior is more pressing. Unfortunately, we made very little progress this summer. Henry lay sick for several weeks during his time in Zürich and then his brother, a doctor in Louvain, died. But don’t mention anything about his illness to him; he doesn’t want people talking about it. I am only telling you in order to explain the renewed delay. My daughter spent half a year last winter in Florence; my wife and I picked her up there in spring. You can imagine how shocked we were about the catastrophe that swept over that lovely city.217 216 

That is, hidden conjectures taken for manuscripts readings. The flood of the River Arno in November 4, 1966, that killed over a hundred people and destroyed or damaged millions of pieces of art and rare books. 217 

124

Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (1908-1993)

My cordial thanks for your extraordinarily generous words in your Preface. In return, I would like to say how much I owe to my correspondence with you regarding individual passages and how much I enjoyed having the honour to work together with you. Might you be coming again to Switzerland? With your wife to whom I send cordial greetings? Ever yours, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer

17 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Zürich, 22 April 1967 Dear Professor Armstrong, It was a special pleasure last week to receive your Loeb-Plotinus vol. III, which of course I was already familiar with. My hope is that we can publish our Oxoniensis II (= Enn. IV-V) in the foreseeable future, so that you can publish additional volumes. Fr Henry, however, wants to give priority to the third volume of the maior. Currently, Fr Henry is in California again. I have not heard anything from him since his departure. I just sent a review of the extensive Porphyrios Volume (in Entretiens XIII) to Gnomon.218 With heartfelt thanks and sincere greetings to your wife. Ever yours, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer

18 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Zürich, 17 October 1969 Dear Professor Armstrong, I send you attached to this letter:219 1) pp. 54–71 of the manuscript Addenda ad Textum (copies) 2) 1 page Fontes Addendi 3) 3 pages of additional remarks on your list (I am not sending back the list itself assuming that you have a copy. Si minus, quaeso scribas, et accipies). 218  219 

Schwyzer (1968). The attachments are missing.

Letters

125

I have been only brief in my remarks. As you see, we have become a bit less conservative and have accepted some changes from B–T. But by far not all of them. I have sent a review of B–T II, III, IV for Gnomon and realised that we have accepted almost 100 changes (in II–IV). B–T, on the contrary, have inserted over 600! Our volume III will contain: Testes Addendi, Fontes Addendi, Addenda ad Textum, all in all, probably over 50 printed pages. I am very unhappy now that the Oxoniensis I was printed already in 1964. Already, we have many additions (some of them are in your Loeb edition), that we can perhaps print in Oxoniensis III; but who would see them there? And in Oxoniensis I, there will not be further changes in the text and the apparatus. The photographic reprint techniques also have their dark sides. Hadot had kindly invited me to Royaumont, but I was short of time. Moreover, his announcement that there would only be discussions scared me off. I need to see texts in foreign languages in front of me in print, otherwise I do not understand them. Getting older, I even do not understand German anymore if it is, as often, spoken carelessly. I realised this again at the Bonn congress (1st–6th September). The most valuable thing were not the talks, but the reunion with old friends: Hadot, de Strycker, Dörrie, Cilento. For October 1970, Cilento is planning a Plotinus Jubilee congress in Naples. Probably, he wrote to you, too. Jean Pépin wrote to me that La Revue internationale de Philosophie in Brussels would like to edit “un numéro commémoratif sur Plotin”. Has he also asked you for an article? Fr Henry is doing much better than last year. In any case, we have at long last finished our discussion of the Addenda in May 1969. Now he is, as I have already told you, in the USA (St. John’s University, Department of Philosophy, Jamaica, N.Y. 11432). On 24 October 1969, W. Theiler reaches the age of 70 (3000 BERN, Gotenstr. 6/ XI). There will be a double issue of the Museum Helveticum as a Festschrift. I have not seen him for some time. I hear that he is not doing well. You ask for the publication of Oxoniensis II. I can respond with Homer: αὐτίκα γάρ τοι ἔπειτα μεθ’ Ἕκτορα πότμος ἑτοῖμος. This means Achilles = Oxoniensis II will fulfil his destiny as soon as Hector = volume III editio maior is ready. (Henry thinks in 1970, I would rather say in 1971.) I wish you all the best and I gladly am at your disposal for further questions. Pass my good wishes to your wife. Let us hope for a reunion soon, perhaps in Naples. Ever yours, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer

126

Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (1908-1993)

19 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Zürich, 22 February 1970 Dear Professor Armstrong, In the attachment, you will find the answer to your questions, and I have again tried hard rethinking these loci difficillimi. I am feeling ὡς ἂν ἐξ ὑδάτων δίκτυον ἐξῃρημένον καὶ ἐξηρασμένον, μηκέτι δὲ τεγγόμενον ζωῇ (?). Before you go to America, I hope to see you in Rome in October. Rosenthal (who has studied the Arabica Plotiniana) wrote to me that he would come to Rome, too. My paper for Rome, which should be ready by the end of March, is giving me trouble. Even though I am looking forward to seeing again many a Plotinian, I am still annoyed that our volume III is going to be delayed again. The conclusion of this volume would have been a better contribution to the Plotinus volume than my modest paper. With warm wishes. Ever yours, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer Regarding IV 3–4 (Answer to the questions from 16 February 1970) IV 3, 9, 38. ζωῇ was already read by Ficino (which we should have indicated). He writes quasi madefactum vita, but quasi is not in the Greek text (he translates ὡς with quemadmodum). I still find it even stranger to say of a δίκτυον steeped in life, that an immersed net lives. If you inter-punctuate τεγγόμενον ζωῇ, you seem to suggest that the two words do not belong to the simile anymore but are referring to the κόσμος; but, if so, you should then expect τεγγόμενος like κρατούμενος above. Or, if it goes with οὐδὲν ἄμοιρον, ‹ἀλλ’› ὡς is missing. Furthermore, ὡς ἂν ἐν ὕδασι δίκτυον would be a poor comparison for οὐδὲν ἄμοιρον αὐτῆς. It seems to me that τεγγόμενον ζωῇ belongs to the simile, but then it seems indispensable to write: ‹οἷον› ζωῇ, and, in this case, I prefer ζῴη. Another interesting possibility would be to write ἐρωῇ instead of ζωη (the ligature ερ can be easily be confused with ζ ). A net steeped by the rush (of the sea).220 It gets the motion, not by itself, but by the rush of the sea. However, Plotinus never uses the substantive ἐρωή, and its only usage is in epic, but τέγγω, too, is rare in prose. IV 3, 13, 16-17. Either: redeundum ad ed. maiorem: “and regarding the organisation of trees which come into being at fixed dates,” scil. “the same applies”. This is bad telegram style. Or: we go with Theiler. καὶ περιττάς can only refer to the 220 

In English in the original.

Letters

127

ἐπανθήσεις, not to the διοικήσεις; therefore, H–S2 falso. When περιττάς was replaced by περὶ τὰς, διοίκησις was transformed into διοικήσεις. In Plotinus, διοίκησις occurs

only in the plural only here, while in other writers it seems to occur only in the singular. Moreover, it is not the trees that come into being, but rather their διοίκησις that takes place at fixed dates. Plotinus does not think of the growth of trees, but of the yearly blossoming. Four conjectures in one phrase are a lot, but the last three belong together. Contrary to Theiler, I should not like to complement διοικήσεως with κινούσης γεννώσης in 13-14, but with ψυχῆς; otherwise, one would have to write κινοῦσα γεννῶσα with Vitringa. The verbs excellently suit ψυχή, but not διοίκησις. IV 3, 24, 25 I do not understand your translation: “A soul of this kind will be where substance and reality are and the divine is in god, and it will be with them, and in him”. 24 οὗ is relative and ἐνταῦθα corresponds to it, but you do not translate ἐνταῦθα.221 I would understand as follows: “where the substance is and the being and the divine (viz. in god), there and among them and in him such a soul must be”. ἐν τῷ θεῷ is clarifying οὗ and refers to οὐσία, ὄν, θεῖον. (It seems to me that τὸ θεῖον ἐν τῷ θεῷ is not the same as τὸ θεῖον τὸ ἐν τῷ θεῷ.) IV 4, 8, 22-23 You are right: ἔτι μᾶλλον διελθῶν can only intensify τεμεῖν, not be opposite to ἐν τῷ κατὰ τόπον κινεῖσθαι. So, as in maior: comma after κινεῖσθαι. IV 4, 26, 18 I do not like ἄλλοις at all. Perhaps, instead of cancelling it, one could write: γευστῶν; Ἀλλ’ ἢ … (ἀλλ’ ἢ = intensified ἢ). IV 4, 28, 32 It is a pity that no one wants to believe my βράσεις. I have dealt with it at length in Museum Helveticum 20, 1963, 193–195 (of which I sent a copy at the time).222 It is also clear there why I reject Bréhier’s violent conjecture. I do not have new arguments. But I shall not be angry if you prefer Bréhier.

20 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Zürich, ?223 Dear Professor Armstrong, At long last I sent the Addenda ad Textum to Enn. I–V and the Fontes Addendi to the printer. For IV 6 sqq., I can send you the printed sheets. In IV 4, 8, 47-49, I returned to Kirchhoff ἱσταμένῃ + τοιαύτῃ (ἱσταμένη – τοιαύτη H–S1). In IV 4, 26, 18, I write now (dubitanter): γευστῶν; Ἀλλ’ ἤ, ὅσα. 221 

Note by Armstrong: “understood and agreed.” Note by Armstrong: “Sorry, … often more careful consid. of … Quote Page.” 223  There is no legible date. However, the date of the stamp of the small postcard on which this note is written is 15 May 1970. 222 

128

Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (1908-1993)

In IV 4, 28, 32, (quamvis ab omnibus nec non ab infideli Page4 despectus repulsus derelictus) βράσεις (κἀγὼ τὰς ὀργὰς ἔχω πρὸς τὸ δοκηθὲν λυμήνασθαι). Fons in IV 3, 3, 19–20 cf. Plat. Theaet. 184 d 3–4. J. Igal, “Adnotatiunculae in Plotinum”, Mnemosyne 22, 1969, 356–377, writes in florid Latin, but not a single one of his suggestions has convinced me with the exception of III 9, 1, 2, where the second ἐκεῖνον is obiectum ad νοοῦντα (cum Fic., sed contra Harder, Cilento and Armstrong). With the same post, I send you again, for your collection, my ἅπαξ εἰρημένα, you apparently threw into the fire ὀργισθεὶς τῷ βράσεις!224 With all good wishes. Yours, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer

21 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Zürich, 2 March 1971 Dear Professor Armstrong, I send you in this attachment:225 1) one sheet with my λύσεις (τὰς λεγομένας λύσεις). 2) four pages of the first proofs of our Addenda; you see that I have accepted some of your suggestions. We also do not have supplements regarding IV 9 (Harder could just be taken into consideration for IV 7, IV 8, IV 9 in H–S1; therefore fewer supplements than for IV 3, IV4, IV 5, IV 6, where B–T appeared only later.) As soon as the second proofs of the Addenda arrive at my home you will get a copy of them; the first proofs are too bad. There are 80 pages of Addenda. Of course, I am at your disposal for questions regarding the fifth Ennead, but I cannot take anymore into account your suggestions for the Addenda as the imprimatur has to be given now. Your report on the Studia Graeca in Canada intrigued me. Here, things are going in another direction: the students of Protestant Theology would like to suppress Latin and Greek as necessary conditions of admission (“Being a Reverend is a social job, and the Bible has been translated and can anyway be interpreted in any way you like”).

224  “Angered at βράσεις”: it is a reference to Armstrong’s lengthy note rejecting Schwyzer’s emendation, in his Loeb translation of Plotinus (IV p. 214-15). This is a good example of Armstrong’s tactful determination. 225  The attachment is missing.

Letters

129

I shall review Roloff on Ennead III 8, V 8, V 5, II 9 for Gnomon. I checked it briefly on account of the Addenda. Sed nil ad textum. In II 9, too, I was looking in vain for fontes that go beyond Puech although I have not yet had the chance to study the book thoroughly. I should make ready for printing my Rome paper, which was only a rough draft and then work, first and foremost, on the indices of tomus III. Every now and then, Father Henry writes a post card and that he is doing well, but I doubt that this is true. I have not seen him since May 1969, but meetings are no longer necessary as we can discuss everything by mail for the time being. He wrote me that he had to respond to many letters. However, since he never writes down to whom he has written, it is perfectly possible that he thinks he has already replied to you. I have not heard from Cilento, who is supposed also to have written a commentary on III 8, V 8, V 5, II 9. I shall ask him about it sometime. May I ask you to pass my greetings on to your wife? I am sorry not to have seen her in Rome. My wife and I stayed there for another couple of days. She also sends greetings to you both. Ever yours, H.-R. Schwyzer

22 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Zürich, 25 March 1971 Dear Professor Armstrong, I want immediately to respond to your letter of 17th March so that you get it before leaving Halifax. (It probably makes no sense to forward the second proofs of the Addenda to you in America. They are unlikely to arrive at my home before May, at which time you will presumably be on your way back.) With regard to your other questions: IV 7, 5, 19–20: μεταλήψεται, ἀλλ’ + ἑτέρα; εἰ sic interpungendum. Aliter Cilento H–S1. IV 7, 7, 6: I understand that you prefer παθήματος. But paleographically (with πνεύματος nomen sacrum), the error cannot be explained because it was already there around 312 AD. Jos. Igal (Hispaniensis S. J.) would like to understand ἄλλου … τοῦ πνεύματος aliud … ac spiritus, but ἄλλου is the contrary to τὸ ἡγεμονοῦν. We would not change anything in H–S1. IV 7, 11, 7: We keep, with Ficinus and Cilento, the reading adopted in H–S1. IV 7, 14, 9: Igal proposes: λυθήσεσθαι ‹λεχθήσεται›. But λεχθήσεται is [indecipherable] remain [indecipherable] shall return to [indecipherable]. To me a solution

130

Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (1908-1993)

seems to be: λυθήσεσθαι ‹λέγεται›. λέγεται with accusativus cum infinitivo instead of nominativus cum infinitivo is possible. Paleographically:

λέγεται λυθήσεσθαι ( λέγε neglectum, ται fit varia lectio ad σθαι, postea archetypus: ται λυθήσεσθαι,

alterum in xUCMV, alterum in wD.) IV 3, 9, 38: ζῴη is strange; it fits the cosmos, but not δίκτυον, it does not belong to the simile. delendum cum Theiler would be best, but who added it? Incomprehensible as a gloss. Therefore, we leave it there: a net lives metaphorically. ἐρωῇ (dat.) an epic word (rete madefactum impetu maris) is a suggestion perhaps too bold but stays in the metaphor. And stylistically, an epic word is not impossible in this nice passage. (However, I do not know of any evidence together with τέγγεσθαι.) From P. Henry nihil novi. Best regards to you and your wife, also from my wife. Ever yours, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer

23 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Zürich, 30 May 1974 Dear Professor Armstrong, This week, I sent the manuscript of the second volume of Plotini Opera ed. minor OCT to the Clarendon Press in Oxford (text of Enn. IV–V – praefatio and bibliography). In the attachment, I am sending you a list of the changes made since 27th August 1973 (i.e. since the last list that I sent you).226 I have included only the changes in Enn. IV. The ones in Enn. V are presumably not urgent yet. You will see them in the printed volume, which, I hope, will be sent within a year (if England is not going to be as Italy). About our congress on Plotinus and the proceedings of that congress, I have not yet heard anything, and some participants are already dead. Last week, Cardinal Daniélou was called home. And Fr Cilento was very sick last year. How he is doing now, I do not know. He has not written to me since. In April, Fr Henry attended the Thomists’ congress in Rome and visited me in Zürich on his return here. He is not doing well at all. He has problems with his eyesight, and it takes him 226 

The attachment is missing.

Letters

131

a lot of effort to read. That is even sadder as he feels rather isolated in his Flemish college being the only Walloon there. I hope that you and your wife are well, and I remain ever yours, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer

24227 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Zürich, 2 September 1974

Ἀπορίαι Armstrong 16th July 1974, answered on 2nd September 1974 Enn. V 7, 2, 12: οἱ δὲ ἐν ἄλλῃ χώρᾳ πῶς διάφοροι; Ficino qui in alia parte concipiuntur. It is not entirely certain whether Ficino meant the matrix, but it is probable. An argument against the matrix is that χώρα = pars matricis does not seem to be attested. Bréhier thinks of twins, but they are not mentioned before chapter 3. The sentence is isolated, and so Vitringa and Müller deleted it. ‹οὐ› διάφοροι; (This is not decisive with regard to the meaning of χώρα.) H-S1 understood in alia terra ab isdem parentibus, but better Igal: in alia terra scil. externae gentis (racial differences). In this sense, the following can be understood as a response. For if there were only one εἶδος, the racial differences would be inexplicable, πάντες χωρὶς ἑνὸς παρὰ φύσιν. However, there are beautiful people ἐν ἄλλῃ χώρᾳ as well (τὸ διάφορον πολλαχοῦ καλόν, ergo: οὐχ ἓν τὸ εἶδος). V 8, 2, 6-9: locus difficillimus. You translate (cum Harder, B-T): “the colour of these (αἷμα – καταμήνια) is different”. Different from what? B-T: ἄλλη “different, i.e. not beautiful” (in the commentary). One thing is undisputed: αἷμα – καταμήνια does not explain beauty. But perhaps, χρόα + σχῆμα, which are “other than these” (that is how we must translate τούτων), are a possible explanation. Plotinus also rejects χρόα + σχῆμα as an explanation as they are “either (a) nothing but something unshaped” (ἢ1 = aut, ἢ2 = quam) or (b) (ἢ3 = aut) they are, like the whole, something simple, like matter (ὕλη nominative). (a) predicates χρόα, (b) predicates σχῆμα. Plotinus says therefore that beauty is neither to be explained 1) by αἷμα – καταμήνια (which are material) nor 2) by χρόα (which is indeed ἄλλη τούτων, i.e., immaterial, but ἄσχημον and, therefore, not the reason for beauty) nor 3) by σχῆμα (which is also ἄλλο τούτων, i.e., immaterial, but resembles matter insofar as σχῆμα is “ἁπλοῦν τι οἷον τὸ περιέχον”, “something simple like the whole”, i.e., like the contour). Matter as a receptaculum of form is also a περιέχον. But the contour, τὸ περιέχον, does not explain beauty. – This is Igal’s explanation. I am not altogether happy, yet it is the best. Otherwise, there will be a locus nondum sanatus in H-S2. 227 

The letter to which this attachment belongs is missing.

132

Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (1908-1993)

V 8, 8, 3: Fic. non certe quicquam quod non sit ipsum totum, sed … habeat (the translation was altered by Creuzer). Ficino seems to have already conjectured ἔχον … ἔχον. I consider ipsum totum to be wrong because αὐτοῦ (4) must be understood as καλοῦ, and therefore αὐτό as well. I would now like to follow Cilento and B-T (but not Harder1) and to write: intellegendum: οὐ γὰρ δή ἐστιν ὃ μὴ ὅλον καλόν ἐστι. The subject is illud, nempe idem subiectum ac lin. 1. (Schwyzer3 deserendum, ubi ὃ μὴ ὅλον καλόν ἐστι subiectum erat ad οὐ γὰρ δὴ καλόν ἐστιν). MacKenna’s suggestion is worth considering: he does not interpret αὐτό as τὸ καλόν, but as every quality in general; καλόν as a special case. But one should then expect οὐ γὰρ δή ‹τι› … V 8, 11, 1-9 The main offence of εἰ is linguistic. If we start with εἰ δέ, the verbs that go with it are 3 προφέρει, βλέπει, 5 ἐστὶ, 6 ἔστι (2 ἐπὰν inserts a second subordinate clause into the subordinate clause beginning with εἰ). Then, the subordinate clause is taken up |again with 7 εἰ δ’ ἐπιστραφείη and it is only at καθαρὸς that the main clause finally begins, which, however, fits only εἰ δ’ἐπιστραφείη. With ἔτι (instead of εἰ) these problems disappear; the first main clause starts with ἑαυτὸν προφέρει. Translate with MacKenna, Harder, Cilento; differently B-T. (Cilento, Paideia antignostica p. 187, explains the passage extraordinarily well). V 9, 11, 10-11: Ficino makes good sense, but there are two dubious linguistic disadvantages: a) ἔχουσα1 intransitive, ἔχουσα2 transitive. b) περὶ ἁρμονίαν … καὶ ῥυθμόν belonging to ἔχουσα1, περὶ ῥυθμὸν καὶ ἁρμονίαν not belonging to ἔχουσα1, but to τὰ νοήματα. Actually, my explanation is not profound and it concerns only the sequence of the words ῥυθμός and ἁρμονία, which is neither the same in the three passages in Plato which I gave you. However, it is important that we write 13 ἀριθμὸν (instead of ῥυθμὸν). Addendum: 11, 13 ἔχουσα scil. τὰ νοήματα. V 3, 11, 13-14 Igal’s ἓν δυέμενος is the best suggestion so far, but since ‹τὸ› ἓν δυέμενος seems necessary to me, I keep the †, but mention Igal (and his suggestion alone) in the apparatus.

25 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Zürich, 11 November 1974 Dear Professor Armstrong, Thank you so much for your letter of 9 September 1974 and for your interesting article in the JHS, which I have read with admiration. The day after tomorrow, my wife and I shall begin our journey across the ocean for the first and probably also the last time, a journey that will lead us via New York

Letters

133

and Princeton (where I am allowed to visit Harold Cherniss) to Washington and to our son in Durham in North Carolina and then, at Christmas, to our daughter in Bogota, Colombia. Beginning January, we hope to be back again. If something should happen to me on the journey, Fr Jesús Igal, University of Deusto, Bilbao, Spain, will take care of the OCT edition. He is magister artium of Oxford and has studied with Prof. E.R. Dodds. He will only correct tome II (i.e. the proofsheets) since the ms. is ready at the printing shop of Clarendon Press. I have not started tome III yet; there he will have carte blanche. But he has told me on his own initiative he would only revise it if you, too, were fine with the changes. However, I hope that we shall come back safe and sound and this precaution will turn out to be unnecessary. In the notorious passage, V 8, 2, 9, I have now decided to follow you and to delete [οἷα ὕλη], and I write in the apparatus: οἷα ὕλη ut ineptum exemplum simplicitatis del. Armstrong. I (we in the editio maior) interpret ἁπλοῦν τι (which Igal takes to be nominative) as an object, although I am not very happy with it. Igal is right when he says that one fails to see why τὸ περιέχον should embrace a simple thing rather than a composite one. The crux † (in addendis t. III) was prudens, at least. With best wishes, yours, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer

26 TO E. ROUSSOS Zürich, 16 April 1975 Dear Mr Roussos, Your letter of 10 April 1975, together with your suggestions, crossed with the separata I sent to you last week. Many thanks for your thorough discussion of our Plotini opera I-III as well as for the long list of typos. You have clearly put a great deal of work into looking through, or perhaps even reading through, all three volumes. I have rarely seen this level of industry, even among my critics. The list of typos is not as severe for us as it seemed at first. We had wanted to follow Bréhier by simply giving up the so-called trema (προΐασι, προϊόν) in the first two volumes, but we changed our minds when working on the third. In the next two volumes of the editio minor, we are going to use the trema throughout, and we are thankful to you for indicating the passages, though there are still a few more that you did not see. Our intention is to include in the third volume of the minor comments concerning the first volume, but to keep the comments within manageable length, we shall have to forgo such small matters as this. The mistakes in accents and breathing marks that you point out are unfortunately the result of my

134

Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (1908-1993)

ever-worsening vision, though the deterioration is not as severe as it is for Fr Henry, who had to give up altogether providing corrections for the third volume. It has by now become so bad that reading is exhausting for him. Please do send him a copy of your review when it is in print, since someone will perhaps be able to translate it aloud for him. Do not expect any answer, since writing is also difficult for him. As far as the separation of words at the end of the lines is concerned, there are no rules from antiquity that should be followed, and whatever conventions might be said now to govern the separation of Greek words are not binding for us. For example, I prefer to separate suffixes or endings rather than follow some rigid rule such as to “separate before the consonant beginning the second syllable.” For example, the following seems strange to me: ἀφωρι-σμένα (where the ending is μένα); ἐπα-κτῷ (ending: τῷ); ἀκριβέ-στερον (suffix: τερον). You yourself were horrified by ἐ-μπῖπτον. And would you make the separation: ἀπα-ντᾶν? Now with regard to the details of your review: p. 4 at the bottom: the two conjectures at I 6.7.14 and II 9.9.19 seem good to me. I agree with you completely on III 2.1.32. I explained in Mus. Helv. 26, 1969, 260, note 17, why, in such cases, we print forms with a spiritus lenis despite their reflexive meaning. As it happens, we indicated the reflexive meaning in the apparatus, for example on page 5 (of your manuscript) on IV 8.1.16-17 apud seipsum (we do not trace παρ᾽αὐτῷ back to Heraclitus). I do not know whether you can correct typos in your manuscript before it is printed. If you can please make the following changes to your list: (on the bottom of page 4) I 1.5.35 (instead of 25); in the case of I 3.6.3, I cannot find a typo; at II 4.8.10 spiritus asper is correct because of οὐχ; II 6.1.50 contains an indirect question, so full stop is the correct punctuation; in the case of VI 9.11.36, you repeat our mistake instead of offering an improvement. On page 6 of your manuscript: the Aeschylus passage for III 5.9.9, which you claim is missing, is actually in the Fontes addendi, along with a Thucydides passage concerning the same line. The Aristophanes passage for II 9.3.20 is already in the minor; it is repeated in the Fontes addendi and is therefore in the Index fontium. The passages from Plut. Alex. and Arrian for V 8.4.40-42 are fortuitous parallels to Plotinus, but not sources; rather, they all three draw upon a single source, in which Soph. Oed. Col. 1382 was combined with Pind. O1.8, 21-22. Unfortunately, I only found out about that recently. Concerning the bottom of page 6 and the top of page 7: it does not become clear in your explanation that only a part of the sources is missing, whereas others (including Homer and Xenocrates) are certainly dealt with in our work. I do not care individually to address all the issues of sources that you point out on pages 7-10. Some of them are so obvious that they should never have escaped our notice, like (on page 9-10) the Symposium passage at IV 4.40.6-7. Others seem

Letters

135

to me too far-fetched or utterly impossible, like the biblical passage at the end. In the middle of page 9, II 7.1.1 is incorrect—you most likely meant III 9.1.1. I am naturally very pleased about your provisional work on Ὁ πρώιμος Ἑλλενισμὸς ὡς πηγὴ στὴ σκέψη τοῦ Πλωτίνου, with which you are complementing your book on Heraclitus. We can use all the sources, so far as I can tell, for the second and third volumes of the editio minor, and we hope to be able to make special mention of those that pertain to Enn. I-III in a supplement to volume III of the minor. Your labours, for which I thank you once more, have, therefore, not been for nothing. Sleeman’s Lexicon Plotinianum, which Gilbert Pollet has adapted to our edition, is as good as complete. But, due to the now quite exorbitant printing costs, the chances of it appearing any time soon are slim. With best wishes, I remain yours, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer

27 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Zürich, 5 June 1975 Very dear Mr Armstrong, In the attachment,228 I am sending you a complete list of the changes to Enn. IV–V since the Addenda in vol. III of our editio maior. I have already sent you most of the changes, but in several mailings. New are some changes in V 8, 6 (Pater Igal sent me a re-interpretation of this chapter, which has convinced me; we must abandon Theiler’s nice conjecture ἐκεῖ οὐ); furthermore, I am notifying you that we will space229 some words. How much of the fontes you want to indicate in your ‘notes’ is up to you, of course. There are now not many more changes to be expected; Igal promised me not to send any more on Enn. IV–V. I still have to thank you for your offprint of your talk in Rome that has finally appeared. I had not sent you my contribution on Porphyry’s Ἀφορμαί because you too might have received the entire volume. Yet, should this not be the case, I would still send an offprint to you, of course. Equally, I spared myself sending you an offprint from the Festschrift in honour of C. J. de Vogel since you certainly own the entire volume yourself, as I do. Gilbert Pollet wrote me in April 1975 that you have handed in an application to the British Academy concerning the Lexicon Plotinianum. It would be nice if you were successful. He wrote me also that there might be the possibility that the work

228 

229 

The attachment is missing. Here, Schwyzer inserted the English word “space” in the original.

136

Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (1908-1993)

be printed at the Clarendon Press. That would be right, indeed, because its author Sleeman was an Englishman. I do not know whether I have written to you about our journey to America (the first and probably also the last one in my life). We flew above England, Ireland, and Nova Scotia, unfortunately without seeing the slightest thing. In the States, I visited my old friends James H. Oliver (Baltimore), Friedrich Solmsen (formerly in Madison Wisc., now in Chapel Hill, N.C., retired230), P. O. Kristeller (a specialist on Ficino, Columbia University, New York), F. Rosenthal (who took part at Rome, in Yale), and then, after we had been corresponding for more than 20 years, I finally met the charming Prof. Cherniss, who showed me around in his institute. Unfortunately, it was only later that I came to know that Geoffrey Lewis (our translator of the Plotiniana Arabica) was at that time in Princeton as well (however, at the University, and not at the Institute for Advanced Studies). I had already missed him twice, and that is now the third time. I have never seen him. Father Henry has announced his visit to Switzerland this month, but I have heard nothing from him anymore and I do not know whether he is capable of travelling. With best wishes from my wife as well and, of course, to your wife as well, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer

28 TO E. ROUSSOS Zürich, 17 August 1975 Dear Mr Roussos, Very many thanks for sending four copies of your review of Plotinus I-III in φιλοσοφία 4, 1974, 459-65. I already commented on the review in my letter of 16 April, so that all that is left for me to do today is to reiterate my thanks for the flattering discussion of our work and for your additions. If I understood you correctly, you have also sent separata to Fr Paul Henry, 220 Waversebaan, 3030 Heverlee-Louvain, Belgique. If not, please tell me so that I can send him one of my own copies. With kind regards, Yours, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer

230 

Schwyzer’s original already had “retired”, in English.

Letters

137

29 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Zürich, 9 September 1977 Dear Mr Armstrong, I finally get to answer your kind letter from 12th August. Manu Leumann belonged to a different generation, indeed. He was 15 years younger than my father Eduard Schwyzer, born in 1874, and was back in 1927, when my father went to Bonn (later to Berlin), his successor as Professor for Indo-European Studies in Zürich. Yet, Leumann became almost 88 years old while my father already died in 1943. In the attachment, I am sending you 1) a copy of suggestions on Enn. IV–VI by B. S. Page together with a copy of my reply to him. I hope you can still make use of these for your Loeb IV-V. I find V 1, 10, 26 evident, VI 9, 7, 19 as well. 2) the reply to your aporiai from 12 August.231 I will send a copy of it to father Igal. I have added a few passages, though (suggestions by Igal from 14 January 1975, which had sneaked off into a wrong folder at my home; I have not made it yet to check all suggestions on Enn. VI 7–8). 3) A Xerox of Igal’s last letter to me from 29 August 1977. New explanation of VI 5, 8, 28–33. I understand him now, but the two conjectures are heavy interventions and the lonely position of ᾖ after the subordinate clause εἰ πᾶν αὐτὸ πολλά is unsatisfactory: I keep my cruces. On the same page, Igal defends his suggestion on VI 8, 7, 29–30. I do not find his distinction between natura spectata and activitas spectata in the text. I keep the suggestion you find in my table. And finally, VI 2, 5, 4–5. To delete 5 ἢ1 – ἑνὸς1 is, in my view, just too cheap a resort: this is neither a scribe’s error nor a sensible gloss. With regards to the different ἕν, I would like to distinguish them as follows: Plotinus, line 4, states: ἔρχεται δὲ τὰ πάντα ἐξ ἑνός, and now, he wants to explain what can be understood by ἕν: a) ἢ παντάπασιν ἐξ ἑνὸς “either from a ἕν at all”. παντάπασιν is something different than πάντη πάντως. παντάπασιν = omnino, this means that it is left open here whether this ἕν could be the absolute ἕν or the ἓν ὄν or the number ἕν or another ἕν. b) ἢ ἐξ ἔτι πάντη πάντως ἑνὸς (ἐξ ἔτι Theiler’s uncertain attempt, πάντη πάντως being justly defended by Igal) “from the still thoroughly One”, i.e. from the absolute ἕν, thus the one that in line 8 again is called πάντη ἓν ἢ αὐτοέν. c) ἢ μᾶλλον μὲν ἑνὸς etc. seems to mean the ἓν ὄν. I am not very happy about this solution; but otherwise, only the obelos remains. You will probably go back to Canada soon. 231 

The reply is missing.

138

Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (1908-1993)

From both of us warm greetings to you and your wife. Yours ever, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer Response to the theses from 4/8/77 by B. S. Page IV 7, 85, 41–43. I am inclined to see οἷον – γεννήσει as an unhappy addition, too. (Since chapter 85 is only in Eusebius, there is no parallel tradition; the Theologia quae dicitur Aristotelis already ends in line 18.) At least, even a glossator must have had something in his mind. It seems to me that οἷον cannot mean here neither sicut (H-S¹) nor “in other words”,232 but rather: exempli gratia; τοῦδε (= τοῦ σώματος) is replaced by ζῴου (although ζῷον = σῶμα + ψυχή). Translation: e.g. “animalis cuius corpus animam generaturum esset”. The glossator wrote thus οὗ (Vigier). With οὗ you should expect γεννᾷ; γεννήσει is futurum pro irreali. V 1, 10, 26: ‹μὴ› φαντασίαις optime, III 6, 5, 25 is decisive. (It is a pity that I did not come to know the suggestion ante Ox. II!) V 3, 10, 46: I agree with your explanation. But the tradition can give the same sense, too. If we accept σιωπῶσαν, we should, at least, write: σύνεσιν δῷ σιωπῶσαν, and, therefore, τὴν delendum? V 3, 12, 22–25: locus desperatus. You need 4 conjectures – among them 23 [ο] following Kirchhoff. In that case, I would like to prefer τὸ Harder B–T – for a dubious solution, though; I keep † … †. V 6, 2, 12–14: I agree with you (against Cilento, H–S¹-²) that the subject of ἔχῃ is ὁ νοῦς, not τὸ ἕν; but I keep the question mark in ἔχῃ; “Is it, therefore (οὖν an argument for νοῦς as subject), a complete thing at the time when it has it?” (τέλειος is not necessary, cf. I 6, 6, 27 ψυχὴ νῷ καλόν). Although the νοῦς is often called τέλειος elsewhere, in V 1, 4, 13 even τελειότατος, its τελειότης is challenged here because in 14-15 it is said in a general manner: ᾧ ἄρα τὸ τέλεον ὑπάρξει, πρὸ τοῦ νοεῖν τοῦτο ἔσται, i.e. there is absolute completeness only for a being before thinking. “The νοῦς should therefore be complete before thinking due to its own being” (= 13–14). ἔδει is irreal; your insertion δέ ‹τι› (anticipating the One), seductive as it is, wants δεῖ (instead of ἔδει): real necessity. V 6, 4, 4: καὶ εἰ οὐδέν, ὅτι μηδὲ ἄλλο. Where is the ἀπόδοσις to the εἰ-clause? H–S¹ found the ἀπόδοσις in 4-5 ἔτι – ἀγαθοῦ, but that is bad because of ἀγαθοειδὴς γὰρ … It seems to me that your saving of εἰ requires: καὶ εἰ οὐδὲν ὅ τι (scil. πάρεστι αὐτῷ), μηδὲ ἄλλο (scil. πάρεστι αὐτῷ). Is this your opinion? In this case, however, I would rather prefer: καὶ εἰ μηδὲν ὅ τι, οὐδὲ ἄλλο. V 8, 10, 16–17: ἡ δὲ cannot mean σωφροσύνη, but (as H–S² suggest) for example ἡ δὲ τοῦ καλοῦ φύσις. As τὸ τελευταῖον … τὸ κάλλος follows only in line 23-24, it is yet difficult, indeed, to merely tacitly understand τοῦ καλοῦ φύσις here. Your insertion 232 

In English in the original.

Letters

139

seems necessary to me (I would like to decline Theiler’s ‹ἰδέα› exactly because of Plat. Rep. 517b8). Of your 3 suggestions, I would prefer ‹ἀγλαΐα›, but write: ἐπιθέουσα ‹ἀγλαΐα› τελευταία. That way, ἐπιδέουσα τελευταία do not stand unconnectedly one next to the other like 2 adjectives, but ἐπιθέουσα is the attribute, τελευταία (“as last”) predicative. VI 7, 16, 30–31: Here, J. Igal, Genethliakon Isidorianum, Salamanca 1975, 301 has proposed almost the same. He writes in line 30 τούτων καὶ ‹νοεῖν καὶ› νοεῖσθαι. The place of your insertion is more correct from a logical point of view, Igal’s seems better to me from a stylistic point of view due to the chiasm. VI 9, 7, 19: αἰσθήσει instead of διαθέσει is evident: gratias ago (ἀφεμένην 17 seems possible to me in spite of 20 ἀγνοήσαντα; transition from the human ψυχή to man).

30 TO M. ATKINSON Zürich, 16 July 1979 Dear Mr Atkinson, Thank you very much for your learned and courteous review of our Plotinus II OCT. Unfortunately, there are far more misprints in the book than you had to blame. I send you a list, but I am afraid it is not yet complete. The printer had promised me to send the proofs to both scholars I had thanked in the Preface p. xxiv for their helping me, but in fact he did not! There are more instances where we had kept the smooth breathing for the reflexive pronoun (e.g. IV 8, 3, 26; V 3, 8, 53; V3, 11, 6), i.e. in all those instances, where a conjecture μεθ’ καθ’ ἐφ’ οὐχ’ would have been necessary. The list on page 12, note three, contains but a few samples. All the passages you were discussing are indeed difficult. In V 1, 2, 17 ἀμείνων I agree, is bad; I think I have a new solution, but I have to think it over again. IV 8,8,16 is queer, although κάτω in Sophocles’ O.T. 968 has comparative force. In V 8, 10,32 ἐκομίσθη (Page) may be appropriate, but the Arabic Theologia VIII 147 seems to have read ἐνομίσθη. As to V 1,6,18 and 7, 6, the decision is rather painful and I am afraid the argument pro and contra were in balance. The Lexicon Plot. composed by Sleeman and Pollet is now in print; the third vol. OCT θεῶν ἐν γούνασι κεῖται.233 Yours sincerely, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer

233 

“Rests in the lap of the gods.”

140

Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (1908-1993)

31 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Zürich, 10 October 1979 Dear Professor Armstrong, Thank you very much for your good wishes of 14 September 1979, which seem to have had some effect, as the inflammation of my pancreas has subsided. The gall bladder operation has been postponed until the end of October. Asklepios’ youths assure me that it is the second-easiest operation (after the “appendectomy”). I am very glad that the British Academy has renewed your grant. Thank you for sending me part of Pollet’s answer as, for some obscure reason, he did not write to me. I do not know whether the page proofs have been completely read and whether we may hope that the work will be published in 1980. Attached, please find a copy of the anticipated changes to Enn. IV-V (as a supplement to the list of 25 May 1979).234 This is the only part of volume II Ox. that is ready for the printer (ready for the printer, that is, so long as Igal doesn’t send any “second and third thoughts”). You will see that I have adopted a lot of Igal’s suggestions, some of which I have explicitly rejected, others I have passed over in silence. An editio minor does not need to contain every single possible reading. I wish you the best for what is likely your last (?) Canadian winter.235 I probably cannot ask you to pass my greetings to your wife since, if I remember rightly, you usually travel to Canada alone. With best wishes, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer

32236 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Zürich, 27 February 1980 Ulteriora Addenda ad Enn. IV-V In textu IV 1 15 ἄνω [καὶ κάτω] οὔσης 15 οὔσης 234 

In apparatu

καὶ κάτω Enna-b : del. Bréhier οὔσης Enna : ἰούσης EnnbH-S1-2

Both are missing. The academic year 1981-1982 was Armstrong’s last in Halifax. 236  The letter to which the attachment belongs is missing. 235 

Letters

141

These corrections were inspired by Szlezák p. 188, whose arguments seem compelling to me. But because of the double transmission of the text in antiquity, his emendation doesn’t seem paleographically defensible to me. There are enough psychological reasons for accepting the careless insertion of [καὶ κάτω] in view of the frequency of the idiom ἄνω καὶ κάτω. Comments on the 3 passages mentioned in your letter of January 26, 1980: In IV.4.1.36 I am leaving the † in the text; Igal’s addition will only appear in the apparatus. In IV.4.26.24-25 I am placing † in the text; Kirchhoff’s, Harder’s and Cilento’s suggestions will appear only in the apparatus. In V.9.3.16 I am not satisfied with H-S2 subaudiendum; an emendation seems necessary.237

33 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Zürich, 26 March 1980 Dear Mr Armstrong, Thank you very much for your letter of 16 March 1980. Since you mentioned that you will soon be done with Enn. VI 1-5, I am enclosing the index of the changes that have been accounted for in the ed. Oxon. III vis-à-vis the ed. maior III. The index grew to be much longer than I had anticipated. A large part of the changes are due to the work of J. Igal, who usually sent his proposed changes to you as well. For a few others, thanks are owed to B. S. Page. The names are mentioned in the apparatus lectionum, but not in this list, which will be included in the Praefatio just as in tomi I and II. I’ve also taken account of all the changes made to the punctuation, but did not mention the places where αὐτοῦ has been replaced by αὑτοῦ (cf. Praefatio tom. II, p. xii, 3). The appendix to the ed. Oxon. III should, like the appendix to maior III (regarding the Vita and Enn. I–V), contain Fontes addendi and Addenda ad textum (but no Testes). I already sent you the Addenda ad textum for Enn. IV-V on 10 Oct. ’79, along with a supplement (IV 1, 15 [καὶ κάτω]) on 17 Jan ’80. I’ve included in the list another supplement, which I cannot remember whether I sent to you already. It is at IV 5.7.35, where H-S1-2 following Kirchhoff have [φῶς]. In the supplements, we will want to keep φῶς in accordance with H-S3 and Igal: “φῶς del. Kirchhoff, sed αὐτὸ… φῶς idem atque αὐτοφῶς.” You do not need at this time the far more numerous changes in Enn I-III. I just want to come back to one passage. In III 5.7.24 you criticized our “sociological” εὐμήχανον. In the Addenda to tomus III (maior) I allowed myself to be persuaded 237 

The rest of the attachment is missing.

142

Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (1908-1993)

by Wolters to stick with εὐμήχανον.238 Now I have changed my mind and want to write instead ἀμήχανον with Kirchhoff, which is supported by Plotinus III 6. 14. 17 and Plut. De Is. 57. 374d. I hope to be able to send off the manuscript for the ed. minor III in a few months. I have no idea when it will actually be published. Pass along my best wishes to your wife. With all the best to both of you, from both of us, yours, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer Supplement to the list of changes to Enn. VI vis-à-vis H-S1 H-S1 VI.1.19.32.

H-S2

VI.6.12.32

ἐπιγίγνεται, ἔλγημα ἐπιγίγνεται ἄλγημα ἐπεὶ εἰ [εἰ Westerwink, Mnemosyne 30, 1977, 322: ἀεὶ Enn.: ἐπεὶ Theiler H-S1] θέσιν θέσιν [ Theiler] [ἐπὶ πάντων] ἐπὶ πάντων ἁπάντων ἐπὶ πάντων

VI.6.13.21

ἥ

VI.3.13.12 VI.6.12.28 VI.6.12.31

[i.e. VI.6.12.31-32 retus ad codices]

VI.6.18.49 VI.7.1.45 VI.7.2.25 VI.7.38.15 VI.9.7.4

ἢ [ἢ vel UCruzer: ἡ ABCQ: εἰ x: ἥH μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ τὸ ἀγαθὸν μετὰ τοῦτο τἀγαθον [id est: reditus ad Kirchhoff, cf. lin. 50 γὰρ et πρὸ, et cf. V.9.2.24-5] καὶ πῶς [καὶ πῶς] glossa τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ [τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ] (iteratum e lin. 24)

αὐτὸ θίγειν ἐκεῖ

αὑτὸν Kirchhoff θιγεῖν ἀεὶ

[the justification of ἐκεῖ by van Winden, Mus. Helv. 37, 1980, 61-62 leaves me unconvinced. ἐκεῖ can in no way refer to a human being, particularly not when the person is already referred to in the text: τῷ δυναμένω. Puelma is planning to come back to that in the next issue of Mus. Helv.]239 238  Armstrong refers to this in his review of the editio minor; see Armstrong (1965) in Armstrong’s bibliography. 239  Mario Puelma (1917-2012), Swiss classical philologist. See Puelma (1979). Vorschläge zu Plotin Enn. VI 9. Museum Helveticum 36(1), 90-100; and (1980). Zu Plotin Enn. VI 9: Ein Nachtrag. Museum Helveticum 37(1), 133-134.

Letters

143

The changes in VI.6 are in agreement with J Bertier, L. Brisson, A. Charles, J. Pépin, H.-D. Saffrey, A.-Ph. Segonds, Plotin, Traité sur les nombres (Enn. VI.6), Paris, Vrin, 1980 (Pépin gave me an advance copy of the book, which comes out of his seminar, which has just appeared). Ad VI.2.5.4-5 addidi: sed fortasse locus corruptus. I do not like Theiler’s ἐξ ἔτι either, but I do not understand Igal’s ἥει (fut. of ἥκω). Furthermore, ἑνὸς is a long shot (ἢ ἐξ ἑνὸς ἥξει πάντη πάντως ἑνος), and what is the subject of ἥξει? Igal begins the apodosis with ἢ at line 4 while, to my mind, it begins with λείπεται at line 9. Ad VI.2.9.21 Igal ὄν τι ex VI.2.8.45. The difference between ὄν τι and < ὂν> ὄντα (Müller) is slight, but it hardly works without some addition (H-S1 explanation incorrect). Ad VI.3.19.25 ἐρυθριᾶν and 27 ἐρυθαίνεσθαι are the same thing. ἐρυθρός cannot mean “momentary redness” (Harder), but can only mean the same thing as in line 30. Therefore, there is no distinction between ἐρυθρίας and ἐρυθρός, but there is definitely one between ἐρυθαίνεσθαι “become red” and ἐρυθρὸς εἶναι “to be red”. (Bréhier, who invented the conjecture τὸν ἐρυθρίαν, nevertheless translated both ἐρυθρίαν and ἐρυθαίνεσθα by “rougir”!) Ad VI.7.6.32 Igal (1/14/75) has convinced me that the Platonic analogy δαίκονες = δαήμονες = φρόνιμοι (Crat. 398b) is not ad rem here, but rather the interposition of the daimon between God and man. Ad †VI.5.8.29-33 nihil novi.

34 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Zürich, 11 June 1980 Dear Professor Armstrong, Thank you very much for your letter of 27, 1980. I include here my answers to your “queries” (καθ᾽ ὅδον οἷόν τε). I will release the Ox. III-ms. either this week or next. Oxford will not be delighted at my having included an addenda to tom. I-II of several pages and a sizeable Index fontium. I will have to convince them that that is precisely how I intend to contribute to the editio maior tom. III. The volume will definitely not come out before 1982. But I am satisfied enough just to have been able to complete the ms. I wish you an equally happy conclusion to your translation and hope that you will live to see publication even if it should be delayed. Since the first three volumes will again be in the public domain, once all the volumes are available, you will be spared the sad fate of the translator of Zosimus. On the other hand, Plotinus has become popular—Zosimus will never accomplish that.

144

Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (1908-1993)

Are you going to Canada again next winter? With best wishes from me and my wife (who has recently become a grandmother for the sixth time!).

35 TO R. FERWERDA Zürich, 21 August 1986 Dear Mr Ferwerda, I offer you my sincere thanks for your letter of the 11 August. Me too, I was very glad to get to know you. There is a particular attraction in suddenly encountering face to face scholars one has had correspondence with for years, if not for decades. This once happened to me with A. H. Armstrong and with B. S. Page, with Fr Igal and in the most extreme way with Westerink, whom I had probably corresponded with already at the beginning of the fifties; but I met him only last year in Neuchâtel at the Proclus colloquium. I have never been to Wolfheze. I met Prof de Vries at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam on the occasion of Al Wolters’ promotion in 1972. At that time, I had the honour to be invited as co-supervisor of Wolters’ PhD thesis (on Plotinus, Ennead III 5). Apart from that, I have got to know only Mrs C. J. de Vogel in the Netherlands, and this already in 1953 at a congress in Tours and Poitiers. She visited me here a few years ago. And now, I have just read today in the most recent issue of Gnomon that she died on 7th May. About ten years ago, I wrote a contribution to her Festschrift; but she was not happy at all with this article. Now, I have a last request for you. I am thinking of composing another list of addenda to our editio minor, especially with regard to Igal’s new conjectures, which came to his mind after the completion of our editio minor in 1982. And I would very much like to know whether there are any coniecturae latentes behind your translation (I would like to count as conjectures in the narrower sense also passages where you retain the text, yet understand it differently with regard to grammar or content). Due to my very deficient understanding of Dutch, I am hardly able to find such passages myself, whereas you have perhaps made yourself a list. However, I should ask you this favour only if it is not troublesome for you. In no way do I want to hold you back from your new project on Diogenes Laertius. And I should also reserve my right to accept or to refuse conjectures if there are any. Ever yours Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer

Letters

145

36 FROM R. FERWERDA Ede, 2 December 1986 Dear Mr Schwyzer, I thank you for your off-print from o-o-pe-ro-si240 and I think that you are right with the translation of VP 22, 13–15. Also, I have read with pleasure your opinion on πλείων. I should like to answer your letter from 21st August. You asked if I have any hidden conjectures in my Plotinus translation. I am afraid that I did not make a list and I did not find many new things either. There are only two passages I would like to mention, and both are personal interpretations, not conjectures. VI 5, 7, 10ff. πρόσωπα πολλά and IV 5, 8, 36: ξύλον is “wood” and not “tree”. I discussed both passages in my dissertation (pp. 66 and 113-4). Unfortunately, I have not been able to find more. Diogenes Laertius is almost finished, apart from the introduction. But I do not have much time at the moment and, therefore, it may take several more months. With warm wishes, R. Ferwerda

37 TO P. KALLIGAS Zürich, 26 January 1987 Dear Dr Kalligas, Mr E. N. Roussos sent me your manuscript “Some new Plotinian Emendations” to look over. I never thought that the Henry-Schwyzer edition of Plotinus was perfect, and so I am grateful for any and all feedback. I simply hope that the second edition is better than the first, and the fourth better than editions one to three. Five years have elapsed since edition four, however, and in that period many authors have worked on this subject matter, namely: a) M. Atkinson: Plotinus, Enn. V 1, Oxford, 1983. b) P. Boot: Plotinus over voorzienigheid (= Enn. III 2-3), Amsterdam, 1984. c) Porphyre, La vie de Plotin I (preface de J. Pépin), Paris, 1982. d) A. M. Wolters: Plotinus on Eros (Enn. III 5), Toronto, 1984. e) J. Igal, Traducción Española (Vida de Plotino + Enn. I-IV), Madrid, 1982-1985. 240 

Schwyzer (1986).

146

Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (1908-1993)

All these works, particularly the highly insightful contribution by Igal, have required me to assemble a new list of corrigenda, which might be thought of as the fifth edition. I was just about to deliver the hand-written version of this list to the Museum Helveticum, when, on 6 January 1987, your manuscript arrived. I opted to hold on to my version as long as it took to look over your manuscript. The following are my observations: 1) Your emendation of II 6.1.7-8 according to Brinkmann’s Rule seems obviously correct to me, and I merely regret that the same solution did not occur to me. 2) Your emendation of IV 3.4.31-33 according to the same rule seems to me less obviously correct but still better than what has been the traditional reading of this passage, and I am therefore prepared to adopt your solution. 3) Your conjecture at IV 6.3.70 seems excellent to me, where you have ψυχικὴν instead of ψυχὴν, and I have recorded it in this way: ψυχικὴν (scil. μαρτυρεῖ δύναμιν εἶναι τὴν μνήμην) Kalligas: ψυχὴν Enn. 4) Your emendation of V 1.8.1-2 using Brinkmann’s Rule is clever and resolves all the difficulties, but I do not dare to change the text accordingly. Brinkmann’s Rule assumes that a mistake has arisen in the text due to the conventions used by medieval copyists. The πρῶτα in question, however, appears not only in the Plot. codices but also in the three better Euseb. codices BIO, which were never contaminated by the Plot. codices. I am no more satisfied with our explanation of πρῶτα at 8.2 nempe τὸν πάντων βασιλέα. 5) Your recommendation for dealing with the difficult passage at V 3.12.22-5 is the best one to date. I plan to mention you in a comment about it, although I am still stuck at the crux, since even you are obliged to make four different conjectures. 6) At III 2.17.1 I don’t see where the confusion lies; πάντως means “in all ways, universally.” Igal’s “inexorable” and B-T’s “unconditional” do not sit well with me. And οἷος refers back to τοιοῦτος. 7) You are right to take issue with δὲ βλέπει at II 9.9.68, and I would feel comfortable doing away with it completely. But ἔξω at 67 is difficult: what is supposed to stand in opposition to? Your decision to take οὐδε-κάτω in 66-67 as part of the protasis (like MacKenna and Armstrong) is, in and of itself, plausible, though neither MacKenna nor Armstrong offer a translation of the καί in 67. 8) Most translators (with the exception, however, of Müller, MacKenna, Kiefer, Ferwerda) translate γενόμενος ἥκειν at IV 8.1.19 with one expression. But there is a small difference: the aorist means “came” and the present “is present.” If you take away ἥκειν, however, then you would have to read γενέσθαι; since the καὶ connects with two infinitives dependent upon εἰπὼν. From the passage beginning with πίσυνος μαινομένῳ νείκει no conclusive readings are possible. Plotinus’s text is the only place where verse 14 of the Empedocles

Letters

147

fragment B 115 is preserved; Plotinus was not concerned about the meter, cf. VI 5.12.32. I have taken the liberty of incorporating the first three improvements in my list, obviously with due mention of your name in each case, and moreover I have mentioned the fifth in a comment, as stated above. I hope that you do not object to this. I do not mention numbers 4, 6, 7, or 8. In the event your work is published, do let me know how to cite it. For the time being, I have noted it in my text with the words secundum auctoris manuscriptum. With the sincerest thanks for your manuscript and your interesting suggestions, I remain ever yours, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer

38 TO E. ROUSSOS Zürich, 26 January 1987 Dear Mr Roussos, Thank you so much for your cover letter and for sending Dr Kalligas’s manuscript. Professor Herter’s widow showed me Hans Herter’s τιμηκτικὸς τόμος.241 Sixty years have passed since I attended the review sessions of associate professor H. H. Yours, Hans-Rudoph Schwyzer

39 FROM P. KALLIGAS Kifissia, 2 February 1987 Dear Professor Schwyzer, I wish to express to you my sincere gratitude for your very thoughtful criticisms concerning my paper on Plotinus’ text. They will surely prompt me to rethink most of the issues involved, and I hope that you will have no objection if I use some of your comments in order to develop my argument further. You are of course entitled to make use of my suggestions, but since I have not yet sent my paper for publication, I am not in a position to give you any information concerning its fate. 241  TIMHKTIKOS TOMOS is the title of a collection of articles by H. Erbse and others, honouring Hans Herter posthumously, and published in Athens in 1986.

148

Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (1908-1993)

As I understand that you intend to publish a new list of Corrigenda to H–S, I am sending you a small list of my own, containing some typographic errors I have detected in H–S2, which seem to have been overlooked in H–S4. It might be useful to you, in case you have not already noticed them. lege I 8.9.20 II 3.13.17 IV 4.8.14 V 3.14.11 V 5.13.34 V 7.1.9–10 V 9.5.13 VI 1.15.2 VI 2.16.1 VI 7.23.2 VI 9.7.5 VI 9.10.10

ἵνα πληγῇ καὶ ἡ ἐνέργεια κεκίνηνται ἐν λόγους ἄρα τὰ ὄντα γὰρ ὡς Τὸ κινεῖ, ὥσπερ μᾶλλον

pro

ἵνὰ πληγῃ ἡ ἐνέργεια κεκίνηται ἑν λόλους ἄρα ὄντα γάρ· ὡς Το κινεῖ. ὥπερ νᾶλλον

Also, in vol. II, p.77, the apparatus ad IV 4.22.12 should read: προσθέσθαι Aac (σ1 expunctum) etc. Furthermore, I would like to present to you, very shortly, my corrections on two problematic passages of the V. Plot., which I didn’t include in my article, since they fall outside its scope. I only hope they might be of some interest to you. In 9.11 the received ἓν (H–S: var. lect. ἂν) seems to me out of place. It may be an infelicitous conjecture on 13 ἐν (del. H–S2), where, according to my view, we should read τῶν ἐπ’ ἐκείνοις παραμενόντων. This use of ἐπί with dative (referring to the παῖδες and παρθένοι) corresponds exactly to the sense given by LSJ s.u. ἐπί B III 6 and provides an interesting legal formula for the services offered by Plotinus. As for the crux at 14.3, I venture the conjecture καὶ ‹εἴχε›το συμπαθείας, which gives us an almost elegant and pretty accurate description of Plotinus’ style. I would finally wish to thank you for sending me your article on πλείων. It is all the more valuable for me, since in Greece library facilities are, unfortunately, almost negligible. Yours sincerely, Paul Kalligas

Obituary

149

40 TO P. KALLIGAS Zürich, 22 March 1987 Dear Dr Kalligas Cordial thanks for your two letters of 2 February and 12 March 1987. I am greatly indebted to you for your list of typos. Most of them I had already discovered, but the most important ones I had not, including at IV 4. 8. 14, V 3. 14. 11, and at V 9. 5. 13. I had great difficulties getting Volume II printed correctly. The assistants helping with corrections (B. S. Page and Pater Igal, whom I thank in the preface) were not even supplied with print sheets! I’m afraid, therefore, that further typos remain in the text. The worst typo, however, is my own fault: there is a μὴ missing after ὅτι in VI 9. 5. 23, in both the ed. maior and the ed. minor. I asked for my manuscript back so that I could correct the typos. That process had already been completed, however, when your second letter arrived. Perhaps I can still include a mention of Emerita in the corrections. With very best wishes, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer

3.3. Obituary242 Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (By Werner Beierwaltes, Gnomon, 67. Bd., H. 4 (1995), pp. 379-381—with permission) Plotins Denken, seine Reflexion auf Geist, Sein und dessen Einheitsgrund, und sein Entwurf einer daraus sich bestimmenden Lebensform des Menschen ist nicht nur repräsentativ für die späte Gestalt griechischer Philosophie, sondern paradigmatisch für Metaphysik überhaupt – für ihr Vermögen und für ihre Grenze. Von Plotin entfaltete Grundgedanken haben die metaphysische Form philosophischer Theorie über die frühchristliche Theologie und deren mittelalterliche Modifikation oder Steigerung bis hin zur Philosophie des Deutschen Idealismus spürbar geprägt. Für einen ausgewogenen und sachlich einigermaßen adäquaten Begriff der Denkgeschichte insgesamt ist es daher unerläßlich, daß Plotins offenes, geschichtlich verifizierbares, aber auch sein verdecktes Wirken intensiv bewußt gemacht und bewußt gehalten werde. Vorbedingung hierfür ist ein kritisch durchdachter, nach den Regeln der philologischen Kunst erstellter Text von Plotins Schriften, der ein 242 

We would like to thank the editors of Gnomon for permission to reproduce the obituary.

150

Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (1908-1993)

Verstehen der komplexen Struktur des plotinischen Denkens in seiner authentischen Form allererst ermöglicht und zugleich erleichtert. Diese Voraussetzung hat Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer in einer über Jahrzehnte hin währenden engen und produktiven Zusammenarbeit mit dem Patrologen und Theologen Paul Henry SJ geschaffen: als ein eindrucksvolles, für dieses Jahrhundert paradigmatisches Dokument editorischer Tätigkeit im Bereiche griechischer Philologie.243 Geboren wurde Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer am 8. März 1908 in Zürich als Bürger von Zürich. Sein Vater war der Indogermanist und Gräzist Eduard Schwyzer, der dem Sohne nach dessen eigenem Bekunden “zeitlebens ein unerreichtes Vorbild an Gelehrsamkeit und Arbeitskraft” geblieben ist. Auf seinen Einfluß geht Hans-Rudolf Schwyzers intensives und weitreichendes Interesse an der griechischen Sprache und ihrer Literatur zuruck; dieses entfaltete er später auch in seinem Engagement for die Vermittlung von Einsichten in die antike Kultur durch die alten Sprachen in Gymnasien. Sein Studium der Klassischen Philologie absolvierte Schwyzer an den Universitäten Zürich, Bonn und Berlin zwischen 1926 und 1931. Seine solide Bildung und Ausbildung verdankt er – außer dem Vater, der in Bonn als Professor wirkte – am meisten Ernst Howald und Manu Leumann in Zürich, Ernst Bickel, Hans Herter und Christian Jensen in Bonn, Ludwig Deubner, Werner Jaeger und Eduard Norden in Berlin. Er promovierte 1931 in Bonn mit einer von Ernst Bickel angeregten Dissertation über den stoischen Philosophen Chairemon, den Lehrer Neros. Diese Arbeit, eine kommentierte Sammlung der Fragmente des Chairemon, erschien im darauffolgenden Jahr im Druck – mit dem Welcker-Preis ausgezeichnet, dem Vater “zur Erinnerung an seine Bonner Tätigkeit” gewidmet. Die Suche nach Testimonien und Fragmenten aus Chairemons Lehre führte Schwyzer schon damals zu Plotins Schüler Porphyrios. Bis in die siebziger Jahre hinein war Schwyzer als Lehrer für Latein und Griechisch an den Kantonsschulen in Zürich, Zuoz und Chur tätig, seit 1947 am Literargymnasium in Zürich. “In den Annalen” dieser Schule – so deren gegenwärtiger Rektor Hans-Ulrich Lappert – “ist er verzeichnet als einer der maßgebenden Begründer und Förderer des Literargymnasiums und als vehementer und überzeugender Anwalt der humanistischen Bildung”. Auf eine akademische Laufbahn hat Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer schon nach seiner Promotion bewußt verzichtet. So hat er auch 1959 einen Ruf auf einen Ordentlichen Lehrstuhl für Klassische Philologie an die Freie Universität Berlin abgelehnt, um 243  Plotini Opera, ed. P. Henry et H.-R. Schwyzer (Editio maior), tom. I (Porphyrii Vita Plotini. Enneades I-III), Paris-Bruxelles 1951. Tom. II (Enneades IV-V. Plotiniana Arabica) 1959· Tom. III (Enneas VI, mit ‘Addenda ad tomum primum et alterum’), Paris-Bruxelles-Leiden 1973·- Plotini Opera, ed. P. Henry et H.-R. Schwyzer (Editio minor), tom. I (Porph. Vita Plotini. Enneades I-III), Oxford 1964. Tom. II (Enneades IV-V) 1977 (mit Addenda zum zweiten Band der Editio maior, S. XIII-XXIV).Tom. III (Enneas VI) 1982, mit weiteren Addenda.

Obituary

151

sich ganz seiner Arbeit am Plotin-Text widmen zu können: für die wissenschaftliche Welt jedenfalls und speziell for die Freunde Plotins hat diese Entscheidung gegen eine sog. Karriere ein höchst erfreuliches und förderliches Resultat gezeitigt. Dennoch haben Universitäten an Schwyzers philologischer Arbeit und Sachkompetenz ein reges Interesse gezeigt und haben sein Lebenswerk nachdrücklich gewürdigt: er war zeitweilig Gastdozent an der Universität Fribourg, die Universitäten Fribourg, Zürich und München haben ihn mit dem ‚Doctor honoris causa‘ ausgezeichnet. Paul Henrys und Hans-Rudolf Schwyzers “Plotini Opera” können trotz der Ausgaben von Petrus Perna, Friedrich Creuzer, Adolph Kirchhoff, Richard Volkmann und Emile Bréhier aufgrund der Verläßlichkeit und Umsicht ihrer Textarbeit als die eigentliche “Editio princeps” betrachtet werden. Einzig Marsilio Ficinos lateinische Plotinübersetzung (1492), die Plotins Philosophie nach Jahrhunderten des Vergessens zum ersten Mal in genuiner Form zugänglich machte, könnte als Äquivalent im Verstehen von Text und Gedanke Plotins gelten: Ficinos Ingenium für Plotins Denken und Sprache hat die beiden Editoren in “verzweifelte Situationen” “iterum atque iterum ex inscitiae caligine” herausgerissen.244 Mit der aus einem umfassenden Studium der handschriftlichen Überlieferung erarbeiteten dreibändigen “Editio maior” (1951-1973), einem durch reiche, aber concise Anmerkungsapparate gerechtfertigten und erschlossenen Text, ist die Plotin-Forschung zum ersten Mal auf einen sicheren Boden gestellt warden. Plotins Quellen sind in ihr aspektreicher und genauer als bisher verifiziert, seine indirekte Wirkung über die griechisch-lateinische Spätantike bis ins byzantinische Mittelalter hinein und seine Präsenz und Umformung in den arabischen Übersetzungen ist in ihr deutlich ans Licht gekommen. Von der ständigen Weiterarbeit der Editoren an ihrem Text, von ihrer zustimmenden und kritisch-zurückhaltenden Reaktion auf die Vorschläge anderer zeugen eindrucksvoll die “Editio minor” innerhalb der “Bibliotheca Oxoniensis”, nicht minder die “Addenda ad textum” in beiden Ausgaben und “Addendis Addenda” im Museum Helveticum 1987. Ein Vermächtnis Schwyzers in diesem Bereich seiner nie ruhenden Plotin-Interpretation ist sein Beitrag zur Festschrift für Jean Pepin [ΣOΦIHΣ MAIHTOPEΣ] von 1992: “Textkritisches zu Plotin und zur Vita Plotini”. In Schwyzers Arbeit am Text haben Philologie und philosophisches Verstehen einander sich fördernd glücklich zusammengewirkt. Dies zeigt schon der 1951 erschienene Artikel “Plotinos” in der Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft,245 in dem Schwyzer die Probleme der Überlieferung und wesentliche historische Aspekte von Plotins Leben und Lehre einläßlich beschreibt, aber auch die Grundzüge von Plotins Philosophie sowohl im Blick auf die chronologische Entwicklung seiner Gedanken im einzelnen, als auch im Blick auf die für das Ganze 244  245 

Plotini Opera I, XXXIV. Bd. XXI l, 471-592, und dessen Fortführung im Supplementband XV 3 l l-328 (1978).

152

Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (1908-1993)

seiner Theorie konstitutiven Begriffe und Probleme klar und plastisch analysiert. Seine gründliche Erfahrung mit dem Plotin-Text ist allenthalben spürbar. Er hat darin auch den verheißungsvollen Anfang gemacht mit einer Untersuchung von Plotins Sprache, die er selbst später mannigfach fortführte, die aber zugleich ein differenzierter Entwurf bleibt für eine noch ausstehende, umfassendere Behandlung dieses Bereiches. In einer viel zitierten und in ihrer Intention vielfach realisierten Abhandlung: “Die zwiefache Sicht in der Philosophie Plotins”246 hat Schwyzer – einem Vorschlag Paul Oskar Kristellers folgend – für das Verständnis Plotins ein Interpretationsmuster entwickelt, das der Vielschichtigkeit des plotinischen Denkens einigermaßen gerecht zu werden vermag: Wir gewinnen sicher nur einen Plotinus dimidiatus, wenn wir sein Denken nur “gegenständlich”, d.h. wie ein “objektiv” Gegebenes, wie eine in-sich-seiende Vorstellung verstünden, und nicht auch das für die Seele selbst, d. h. für unser eigenes Denken erfahrbare und denkbare Potential in Plotins philosophischer Theorie durch eine “aktuale Sicht” entbinden würden: dies “im Bewußtsein einer inneren Steigerung” des Gedachten. Nur so kann eben dieses Gedachte – radikal verschieden von “abstrakter Spekulation” – bestimmend warden für die von Plotin erstrebte und geforderte philosophische Lebensform. Schwyzer hat das historische Umfeld Plotins genau und mit einschneidenden Folgerungen in den Blick genommen und auch seine Wirkungsgeschichte paradigmatisch – z. B. für Porphyrios oder den Neuplatoniker Origenes – erörtert. So ist er nach jahrelanger Vorarbeit den von anderen in der unterschiedlichsten Weise immer wieder hin- und hergewendeten historischen Aussagen über die Persönlichkeit des Ammonios, des Lehrers Plotins, minuziös nachgegangen, nicht minder den möglichen, vielfach vermuteten Spuren von Ammonius’ Lehre, die nirgendwo direkt überliefert ist; in dieser Spurensicherung hat er ein fragwürdiges Syndrom gewagter Hypothesen über den “großen Schatten” als unhaltbar aufgedeckt, so daß es nun durch Schwyzers scharfsinnige Diagnose möglich geworden ist, von einer einigermaßen sicheren Basis aus die nicht nur persönliche, sondern auch sachliche Bedeutung des Ammonios für seinen größten Schüler neu zu überdenken. – Für jeden, der an Bewußtseinstheorien der Moderne interessiert ist, hat Schwyzer in seiner Abhandlung “‘Bewußt’ und ‘unbewußt’ bei Plotin” (Vandœuvres 1957) das metaphysische Paradigma von Selbstbewußtsein und Selbstreflexion als Ansatz für eine neuzeitlich bestimmte Anknüpfung und Unterscheidung zugleich vorgestellt. Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer ist am 23. Oktober 1993 in Zürich gestorben. Er hat einen “Rückblick” hinterlassen – “meine erste Rede, die ich nicht selbst halte” –, der nach seinem Tode öffentlich Dank bekunden sollte: an seine Eltern, an seine verstorbene Frau und seine Kinder, an Lehrer, Kollegen und Freunde. Er gedenkt dabei auch der “scharfen abendlichen Wortgefechte” in der Zunft zur Schmiden, die “zu den heitersten Augenblicken” seines Lebens gehörten: der Meister in der 246 

MusHelv. l, 1944, 87-99.

Bibliography of H. R. Schwyzer

153

Zunft der Philologen auch ein veritabler Zunftmeister der Kupferschmiede, 25 Jahre hindurch, verbunden mit dem Handwerk seiner Vorfahren. Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer ist ein herausragendes Beispiel für die durchaus seltene Fähigkeit, zwei Arbeitsfelder überzeugend und produktiv in sich zu vereinen, deren jedes für sich einen intensiven Einsatz der Kräfte fordert: Schule und Wissenschaft, verwirklicht in einer starken und freundlichen Menschennatur. München Werner Beierwaltes

3.4. Bibliography of H. R. Schwyzer Richard Dufour

Biography Baertschi, C. (2011). Schwyzer, Hans-Rudolf. Dictionnaire Historique de la Suisse: Académie Suisse des Sciences Humaines et Sociales. Retrieved from http://www. hls-dhs-dss.ch/textes/f/F43455.php.

Books (1932). Chairemon. Leipzig: Harrassowitz. (1951). Eduard Schwyzer, 1874-1943. Zürich: Kommissionsverlag Beer. & Henry, P. (1951). Plotini Opera, I (editio maior): Porphyrii Vita Plotini, Enneades I-III. Paris: De Brouwer. & Henry, P. (1959). Plotini Opera, II (editio maior): Enneades IV-V; Plotiniana Arabica ad Codicum fidem Anglice Vertit G. Lewis. Paris: De Brouwer. & Henry, P. (1964). Plotini Opera, I (editio minor): Porphyrii Vita Plotini. Enneades I-III. Oxonii: e typographeo Clarendoniano. & Henry, P. (1973). Plotini Opera, III (editio maior): Enneas VI. Paris: De Brouwer. & Henry, P. (1977). Plotini Opera, II (editio minor): Enneades IV-V. Oxonii: ex typographeo Clarendoniano. & Henry, P. (1982). Plotini Opera, III (editio minor): Enneas VI. Oxonii: ex typographeo Clarendoniano. (1983). Ammonios Sakkas, der Lehrer Plotins. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Papers (1934). Ein Beitrag zur Interpretation von Plotin, Enn. IV, 7, 6. Philologus, 89, 459-461. (1935). Zu Plotins Interpretation von Platons Timaeus 35A. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, 84(4), 360-368.

154

Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (1908-1993)

(1937). Der Plotin-Codex Laurentianus 87,3. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, 86(4), 358-384. (1937). Der Plotin-Codex Vinbodonensis phil. graecus 226. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, 86(3), 270-285. (1939). Das Plotin-Exzerpt im Codex Rossianus graecus 986. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, 88(4), 367-379. (1941). Die pseudoaristotelische Theologie und die Plotin-Ausgabe des Porphyrios. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, 90(3), 216-236. (1944). Die zwiefache Sicht in der Philosophie Plotins. Museum Helveticum, 1(2), 87-99. (1950). Die älteste Plotin-Handschrift. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, 93(2), 154-158. (1954). Une Interprétation Plotinienne d’un Passage du Timée. In Association Guillaume Budé (Ed.), Congrès de Tours et de Poitiers, 3-9 Septembre 1953: Actes du Congrès (pp. 255-256). Paris: Belles Lettres. (1958-1959). Kurd von Hardt, ein außergewöhnlicher Mäzen. Schweizer Monatshefte, 38(10), 883-884. (1960). “Bewusst” und “unbewusst” bei Plotin. In Les Sources de Plotin: Dix Exposés et Discussions (pp. 341-378). Vandœuvres-Genève: Fondation Hardt. (1963). Sibley’s “Aesthetic Concepts”. Philosophical Review, 72(1), 72-78. (1963). Sieben ἅπαξ εἰρημένα bei Plotin. Museum Helveticum, 20(3), 186-195. (1963, September 29). Die Entdeckung des Unbewussten in der griechischen Philosophie. Neue Zürcher Zeitung, [4?] (1964). J. Herbert Sleeman. Gnomon, 36(4), 431-432. (1969). Nachlese zur indirekten Überlieferung des Plotin-Textes. Museum Helveticum, 26(4), 252-270. (1970). Plotin und Platons “Philebos”. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 24(2), 181-193. (1973). Zu Plotins Deutung der sogenannten platonischen Materie. In Zetesis: Album amicorum door vrienden en collega’s aangeboden aan Prof. Dr. E. de Strycker ter gelegenheid van zijn 65e verjaardag (pp. 266-280). Antwerpen: De Nederlandsche Boekhandel. (1974). Plotinisches und Unplotinisches in den Ἀφορμαί des Porphyrios. In Atti del Convegno Internazionale sul Tema: Plotino e il Neoplatonismo in Oriente e in Occidente (Roma, 5-9 Ottobre 1970) (pp. 221). Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. (1975). The Intellect in Plotinus and the Archetypes of C. G. Jung. In J. Mansfeld & L. M. De Rijk (Eds.), Kephalaion: Studies in Greek Philosophy and its Continuation Offered to Professor C. J. de Vogel (pp. 214-222). Assen: Van Gorcum. (1976). Plotins letztes Wort. Museum Helveticum, 33(2), 85-97.

Bibliography of H. R. Schwyzer

155

(1980). ἀκήμων ‘still’ bei Plotin und ἀκήμωτος ‘widerspenstig’ bei Cicero? Museum Helveticum, 37(3), 179-189. (1984). ἀνάφαυσις, ἔκφαυσις, σύμφαυσις, ἐπιθάλλειν vier ἅπαξ εἰρημένα. Museum Helveticum, 41(2), 65-80. (1986). Πλείων in der Bedeutung “plenus”. In A. Etter (Ed.), O-o-pe-ro-si. Festschrift für Ernst Risch zum 75. Geburtstag (pp. 546-557). Berlin: De Gruyter. (1987). Corrigenda ad Plotini textum. Museum Helveticum, 44(3), 191-210. (1987). Proklos über den Platoniker Origenes. In G. Boss, G. Seel & F. Brunner (Eds.), Proclus et son influence: Actes du colloque de Neuchâtel, juin 1985 (pp. 45-59). Zürich: Éditions du Grand Midi. (1992). Textkritisches zu Plotin und zur Vita Plotini. In M.-O. Goulet-Cazé, G. Madec & D. O’Brien (Eds.), Σοφίης μαιήτορες = Chercheurs de Sagesse: hommage à Jean Pépin (pp. 343-346). Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes.

Encyclopaedia entries (1951). Plotinos. In K. Ziegler (Ed.), Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Vol. 21, pp. 471-592; 1276). Stuttgart: Alfred Druckenmüller Verlag. (1978). Plotinos. In H. Gärtner (Ed.), Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Vol. Suppl. 15, pp. 310-328; 1676). Stuttgart: Alfred Druckenmüller Verlag.

Reviews (1936). Henry, Paul (1935). Recherches sur la Préparation évangélique d’Eusèbe et l’Édition Perdue des Oeuvres de Plotin. Paris: Leroux. Gnomon, 12(10), 543-549. (1937). Häsler, Berthold (1935). Favorin über die Verbannung. Bottrop i.W.: Wilhelms Postberg. Gnomon, 13(6), 329-331. (1939). Henry, Paul (1938). Études Plotiniennes, I: Les États du Texte de Plotin. Paris: De Brouwer. Gnomon, 15(6), 303-311. (1941). Becker, Otfrid (1940). Plotin und das Problem der geistigen Aneignung. Berlin: De Gruyter. Gnomon, 17(7), 257-261. (1943). Düring, Ingemar (1941). Herodicus the Cratetean: A Study in Anti-Platonic Tradition. Stockholm: Wahlström & Widstrand. Gnomon, 19(6), 299-305. (1949). Henry, Paul. (1941). Études Plotiniennes, II: Les Manuscrits des Ennéades. Paris: De Brouwer; Faggin, Giuseppe (1947). Plotino: Le Enneadi. Milano: Istituto editoriale italiano; Cilento, Vincenzo (1947-1949). Plotino: Enneadi. Bari: Laterza. Gnomon, 21(1/2), 61-68. (1950). Armstrong, A. H. (1940). The Architecture of the Intelligible Universe in the Philosophy of Plotinus: An Analytical and Historical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Van Essen-Zeeman, C. W. (1946). De plaats van de wil

156

Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (1908-1993)

in de philosophie van Plotinus. Arnhem, Van Loghum Slaterus; Dubbink, Henk (1943). Studia Plotiniana: Onderzoek naar eenige grondgedachten van het stelsel van Plotinus. Purmerend: Muusses; Marïen, Bert (1949). Bibliografia Critica Degli Studi Plotiniani. Bari: Laterza; Cilento, Vincenzo (1947-1949). Plotino: Enneadi. Bari: Laterza. Gnomon, 22(7/8), 384-389. (1953). Katz, Joseph (1950). Plotinus’ Search for the Good. New York: King’s Crown Press. The American Journal of Philology, 74(2), 200-201. (1955). Barker, Ernest, Clark, George & Vaucher, P. (Ed.). (1954). The European Inheritance. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gnomon, 27(6), 450-451. (1956). Fischer, Hugo (1956). Die Aktualität Plotins: über die Konvergenz von Wissenschaft und Metaphysik. München: C.H. Beck. Gnomon, 28(8), 638-639. (1958). Kitto, H. D. F. (1957). Die Griechen: Von der Wirklichkeit eines geschichtlichen Vorbildes. Stuttgart: Klett. Gnomon, 30(4), 306-307. (1960). Harder, Richard (1958). Plotins Schriften. Neubearbeitung mit griechischem Lesetext und Anmerkungen. Bd. 1: Die Schriften 1-21. Hamburg: Meiner; MacKenna, Stephen (1956). Plotinus. 2nd revised edition. London: Faber & Faber; Mras, Karl (1954-1956). Eusebius: Werke. 8. Bd.: Die Praeparatio evangelica. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Gnomon, 32(1), 31-48. (1962). (1959). Lebendige Antike. Heft 1-6. Zürich und Stuttgart: Artemis Verlag. Gnomon, 34(5), 515-516. (1965). Stählin, Otto (1960). Clemens Alexandrinus, 2. Bd.: Stromata 1-6. 3. Aufl. neu hrsg. von Ludwig Früchtel. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Gnomon, 37(5), 484-490. (1966). Lloyd-Jones, H. (Ed.) (1962). The Greeks. London: Watts & Co. Gnomon, 38(6), 625-626. (1967). Weber, Karl-Otto (1962). Origenes der Neuplatoniker: Versuch einer Interpretation. München: Beck. . Gnomon, 39(8), 776-779. (1968). Dörrie, H. et al. (1966). Porphyre: Huit Exposés Suivis de Discussions. Vandoeuvres-Genève: Fondation Hardt. Gnomon, 40(1), 17-22. (1970). Harder, Richard (1962-1967). Plotins Schriften. Bd. 2a-b; Bd. 3a-b; Bd. 4a-b. Neubearb. mit griech. Lesetext und Anm. fortgeführt von Rudolf Beutler und Willy Theiler. Hamburg: Meiner. Gnomon, 42(7), 652-654. (1970). Köhler, Friedrich Wilhelm (1965). Textgeschichte von Hierokles’ Kommentar zum Carmen aureum der Pythagoreer. Münster: Universität zu Mainz. Gnomon, 42(3), 306-308. (1974). Harder, Richard (1971). Plotins Schriften. Neubearb. von Rudolf Beutler und Willy Theiler. Bd. 6: Indices, unter Mitwirkung von Gerard O‘Daly. Hamburg: Meiner. Gnomon, 46(8), 808-809. (1974). Kostaras, Grigorios Ph. (1969). Der Begriff des Lebens bei Plotin. Hamburg: Meiner. Gnomon, 46(6), 615-616. (1976). Cilento, Vincenzo (1971). Paideia Antignostica: Ricostruzione d’un Unico Scritto da Enneadi III 8, V 8, V 5, II 9. Firenze: Monnier; Roloff, Dietrich (1970).

Bibliography of H. R. Schwyzer

157

Plotin: Die Grosschrift III 8 – V 8 – V 5 – II 9. Berlin: De Gruyter. Gnomon, 48(5), 447-453. (1978). Dillon, John M. (1973). Iamblichi Chalcidensis in Platonis dialogos commentariorum fragmenta. Leiden: Brill. Gnomon, 50(7), 679-681. (1978). Köhler, Friedrich Wilhelm (1974). Hieroclis in aureum Pythagoreorum carmen commentarius. Stutgardiae: Teubner. Gnomon, 50(3), 251-256. (1986). Atkinson, Michael (1983). Plotinus, Ennead V 1: On the Three Principal Hypostases. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Boot, P. (1984). Plotinus, Over Voorzienigheid. Enneade III 2-3 [47-48]. Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij. Gnomon, 58(7), 597-603. (1987). Parente, Margherita Isnardi (1984). Introduzione a Plotino. Roma: Laterza. Gnomon, 59(2), 153-154.

Obituaries Lappert, H. U. (16 november 1993). Zum Gedenken an Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer. Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 54. Beierwaltes, W. (1995). Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer. Gnomon, 67(4), 379-381.

Chapter Four

Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997) 4.1. Life Kevin Corrigan

I Hilary Armstrong transformed the focus of ancient philosophy in the English speaking world by opening up a path to the rigorous study of Plotinus and the later Neoplatonists, a path that would be crucial not only to a more balanced understanding of ancient thought as a whole, but also to a more focused study of late antiquity and its major contributions to subsequent thought, especially to Christianity and the other Abrahamic traditions. As the present book shows more clearly, Armstrong’s achievement should be seen in the context of the intellectual fellowship of major figures—such as Paul Henry, Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer, Jean Trouillard, and others. As A. A. Long has rightly noted,247 when Armstrong graduated from Cambridge University in 1932, Plotinus was widely regarded in the English speaking world as an obscurely mystical thinker, a minority interest at best, and certainly not a philosopher remotely comparable in intellect and rigour to Plato and Aristotle.248 Today no serious student of antiquity can neglect Plotinus or those significant resonances of his thought in Christian texts from the third century CE and also in Islamic and Jewish texts from the ninth century CE. Even though some older objections to the later Neoplatonists as principally religious and superstitious practitioners still remain, Armstrong’s more balanced attitude to the value of these later thinkers and his critical but positive view of religion helped to promote the completely different attitude to Neoplatonism in general that prevails today. Furthermore, on the local English level, by intention and happy circumstance, Armstrong helped to make the University of Liverpool a focus for the study of late antiquity, a focus that would have been impossible at either Oxford or Cambridge despite the pioneering work of E. R. Dodds on Proclus’ Elements of Theology.249 Oxford in effect turned Dodds away from Neoplatonism and from the study of late 247  See Long (2003) in the bibliography at the end of the chapter. I follow Long’s excellent account in this biography and I thank Gerard O’Daly for reading this text and for his valuable suggestions. 248  As noted in the Preface of this volume. 249  Dodds, E.R. (1933). Proclus. Elements of Theology. A Revised Text with Translation, Introduction and Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. See generally W. Hankey (2007). Re-evaluating E. R. Dodds’ Platonism. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 103, 499-541.

160

Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)

antiquity generally. For in 1936, Dodds refused Paul Henry’s invitation to collaborate with him on a critical edition of Plotinus and he later refused an invitation to translate Henry’s proposed edition of the Enneads for the Trustees of the Loeb texts in favour of a proposal from Oxford University Press that he edit the Bacchae.250 Perhaps he recommended Armstrong for this task, or perhaps Armstrong was still too junior, but at any rate Armstrong eventually accepted a Loeb proposal to translate Plotinus.251 Thus, for the next forty years and more, first, the University of Liverpool effectively became a laboratory for the study of Plotinus and later thought, out of which emerged the early volumes of Armstrong’s magisterial Loeb translation. And this was followed, after his early retirement from Liverpool, by Armstrong’s tenure of a distinguished chair in Classics at Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada (and other smaller appointments in the USA) and the gradual appearance of the subsequent volumes. Consequently, Armstrong also turned out to be a force for the development of Neoplatonic Studies in North America, a force still evident today.

II Armstrong was born in Hove, Sussex, on 13 August 1909, the youngest of four children, to E. Cripps, his mother, remembered as rather submissive, and W. A. Armstrong, his father, an Anglican priest in the Chichester diocese, who had read theology at Cambridge, collected antique Bibles, and by all accounts cut a rather stern, authoritarian figure. Armstrong’s maternal uncle, Arthur Shirley Cripps, became an Anglican priest in Rhodesia where he built a mud-brick church, practised poverty, and became revered as the local saint. Armstrong remembers him as a “romantic Anglo-Catholic missionary, poet and story-writer who gave nearly everything he had away and lived in a Mashona hut nearly till his death.”252 As A. A. Long notes, religion was a central part of Armstrong’s early experience and probably reinforced by his reputedly strict and dominating father whose political sympathies were high Tory.253 Of his two brothers and sister, John, Ronald, and Dorothy—John became a distinguished artist (ARA), painting in a Daliesque style,254 while Ronald disappeared. With his sister Dorothy, Armstrong developed a love of gardening that remained a strong interest throughout his life, and he became a keen photographer, which “reflected the feeling for natural beauty that is constantly evident in his writings 250  Dodds, E.R. (1944). Euripides. Bacchae. Edited with Introduction and Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 251  R. Todd (2005). His own sideshow: Aspects of Neoplatonic Studies in Britain, 1835-1941. Dionysius, 23, 139-60, especially 157-158 and notes 91 and 92. 252  Letter to Corrigan, 17 February, 1997. 253  Long (2003) 4. 254 Ibid.

Life

161

and a basic feature of his personal religion.”255 Connections among the siblings appear not to have been strong, but the deep appreciation for natural beauty and its contemplative foundation was long-lasting. In his lecture to the Eranos Conference in 1986, published under the title “Platonic Mirrors,” Armstrong remarks that a painting by his brother John “with whom I had little contact, who had never … read a line of Plotinus, and who had a strong objection to any religious or philosophical symbolism” was, nonetheless, the “best illustration I have ever seen to any part of the Enneads.’”256 The painting represented a lake in which buildings were reflected and at the bottom reclining “a very beautiful dreaming figure”—namely, in Armstrong’s Plotinian imagination, the dreaming figure of Nature in Ennead III 8 [30] On Nature, Contemplation and the One.257 Something in Armstrong’s tone and in these few details about the male children’s lives makes one think that these Armstrongs were highly talented, yet headstrong and rebellious against the parental norms. A precocious Armstrong was made to read the Times at the age of six and, much later, he rejected his father’s Anglicanism for—of all things—Roman Catholicism, though he returned to his father’s faith in his old age. In several conversations during his time in Canada, he never spoke of his father or mother (reasonably enough), but was inordinately proud of a decidedly adventurous Scottish ancestor, a highwayman who robbed the rich to redistribute wealth—mostly to himself—and met an untimely death on the gallows. At the age of thirteen Armstrong went to Lancing College, in Sussex, where Evelyn Waugh was an older contemporary.258 He studied the Classics Tripos at Jesus College, Cambridge, graduated with first-class honours (BA) in 1932 and, as is customary, received his MA in 1935. He was close friends with Arthur Peck (who, among other things, translated Aristotle’s History and Parts of Animals for the Loeb Classical Library) with whom he shared an unlikely interest in Morris dancing.259 In 1933 he converted to Roman Catholicism, spent a year at the University of Vienna where he met Deborah Wilson, one of the first women graduates of the University of Birmingham. Deborah was of Quaker background, but converted to Roman Catholicism on her marriage. Upon his return to England, he was appointed assistant librarian of the new library of the Cambridge Classical Faculty in Mill Lane,260 a position that gave him a virtual research fellowship to begin work on his first monograph, The Architecture of’ the Intelligible Universe in the Philosophy of Plotinus261

255 Ibid. 256 

See Armstrong (1990) 159-160, in the bibliography at the end of the chapter. III 8 [30] 4. 258  Long (2003) 5. 259 Ibid. 260  See Todd (2005) 140, note 6. 261  Armstrong (1940). In his Preface Armstrong credits the help of Cornford, Dodds, Merlan, and Farrington, a Swansea colleague, best known for his books on ancient Greek science. In a letter 257 

162

Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)

and also to write his first articles, notably, “Plotinus and India”262 and “Emanation” in Plotinus.263 These were later reprinted in his first Variorum Collection: Plotinian and Christian Studies.264 For Bréhier, the mysticism of Plotinus, in which the intelligence is unified with universal being, is partly to be credited to “L’orientalisme de Plotin,” specifically to the Upanishads.265 In his first article, Armstrong rejects Indian Influence in favor of Stoicism and the solar theology popular in Plotinus’ own time. In the second, by pointing to Plotinus’ own critical revision of the emanationist metaphor that seems to show that he was not unaware of the metaphor’s inadequacies, and by tracing the notion back to a Posidonian solar theology of the Platonic Intelligible Universe in Hermetic thought, he provides a stronger philosophical basis when allied with Plotinus’ view of analogy for supposing that Plotinus’ most characteristic metaphor should be given more serious consideration—a thesis that must have allowed for this work to be published in Mind. In these two early articles, one can already see Armstrong’s comprehensive understanding of the Enneads, his sympathy for the spirit of Plotinus’ thought, and simultaneously the pronounced critical distance from Plotinus that will help to lay a foundation for the broader academic acceptance of a hitherto mystical Plotinus. This is also true of his monograph The Architecture of’ the Intelligible Universe which charts Plotinus’ many different viewpoints about the One (positive and negative), emanation, and the subsequent hypostases, tracing these viewpoints in part to the variety of historical antecedents that not even Plotinus could make into a coherent whole and “subjecting them to a searching philosophical criticism.”266 Famous here is Armstrong’s contention that Plotinus sometimes appears to treat physis as a fourth hypostasis distinct from the higher Soul, just as logos in the treatises on Providence (III 2-3 [47-48]) plays a role assigned to soul in other treatises. Armstrong was somewhat irked in later life to be reminded of this fourth hypostasis theory, especially since his major focus had been to point out perspectives that did not seem to fit into Plotinus’ normal thought. It might be argued in Armstrong’s favor that in this early work he effectively indicates an important feature of Plotinus’ thinking, namely, that it is not a rigid ‘system’, at least in the later German understanding of this term.267 On the whole, Armstrong’s concluding estimate that Plotinus “is one of the few ancient philosophers whom we can still honour … as a master, and not to Dodds in 1936, he also notes how “[o]ne tends to get rather isolated when working on Plotinus, in England at any rate …” (cited in Todd, 2005, 140). 262  Armstrong (1936). 263  Armstrong (1937). 264  Armstrong (1979). 265  Hankey (2007) 13. 266  J. H. Sleeman (1940), CR, 54 (04), 195-197. 267  Catana, L. (2013). Changing Interpretations of Plotinus: The 18th-Century Introduction of the Concept of a “System” of Philosophy. IJPT, 7 (1), 50-98.

Life

163

simply study as a historical curiosity,” was whole-heartedly endorsed by his early reviewers, J. H. Sleeman268 and A.E. Taylor.269 Taylor’s review points, in fact, to a small seismic shift in the English scholarly reception of Plotinus: “Mr. Armstrong’s essay is one of the most valuable works on Greek philosophy that it has been my good fortune to fall in with …”270

III In 1936 Armstrong began teaching as Lecturer and then Senior Lecturer in Latin at University College, Swansea. Just before the outbreak of war, he accepted the position of Professor of Latin Literature and Classical Greek at the Royal University of Malta in Valletta. By this time he had three young children. The journey to Malta via Italy and Sicily was difficult,271 but the experience of war was worse. In later years Armstrong often confirmed that in Malta he underwent a complete breakdown. After the war he published an account in the Downside Review,272 not of the siege of Malta itself but rather of the Maltese islands, the indomitable spirit of the people, their Catholicism (“we saw I think Our Lady’s intervention especially”273—a remark that speaks volumes about the extremity of the experience), the fauna and flora of the islands (one “can find Persephone’s narcissus in the green waterless valleys after Christmas and fields of asphodel a little later on. The giant fennel whose stalk was the ‘narthex’ in which Prometheus brought down fire from heaven which made the thyrsus of the Bacchants and the ferula of Orbilius, flourishes in the Maltese fields”274). Though he refuses to speak about the siege and emphasizes that it was no worse than the experience of millions in London or Berlin, the grimmest reality, nonetheless, seeps into his account that is worth citing here: From January 1941 to the late autumn of 1942 we had something like nine nights’ unbroken sleep, only three of them consecutive, and most of the really heavy attacks were by day. The heaviest of all the attacks, the all-out attempt to neutralize the island in the spring of 1942, lasted for about two months without a break, with some four heavy raids a day and smaller ones all night. Worse than the bombing was the food shortage which became acute in the summer of 1942 and the sense of isolation, of being cut off in a hostile world which accompanied it … There was very little food and almost no fuel; we cooked what we could get on a camp fire in the garden fuelled with bits of wood salvaged from the debris of the bombed streets, and had to stand guard to keep off the tribes of starving cats which wandered about among the houses and would sit as near as they dared to our cooking fire screaming with hunger. These 268  269  270  271 

272 

273  274 

Sleeman (1940) 197. A. E. Taylor (1941), Philosophy, 426-427. Ibid. 426. Long (2003) 5. Armstrong (1945). See also Christopher Armstrong’s Reminiscences below. Ibid. 168. Ibid. 159.

164

Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)

cats are one of my vivid memories of the siege, and are linked m my mind with the thin women screaming and jostling, their clawlike hands raised in the air, round the horseflesh stall in the half-ruined market of Valletta on the rare occasions when it had anything to sell (168-169).

I cite this passage in full because it helps to explain much about the real breakdown Armstrong experienced in Malta and the lasting damage to his nervous health that I think resulted. I remember seeing vividly how the imminent prospect of transatlantic flight drained him of any nervous resources and I could not help tracing this to the trauma of Malta of which experience he often spoke. I suspect too that it was genuinely a family trauma. His son, Christopher, observed that he had never seen his father without extreme nervous tension until he finally retired from Canada and came back to England. At any rate, as A. A. Long observes, the “Armstrongs, seriously depleted in weight and forced to sell all their possessions, were evacuated to Britain by military plane. Before they left Hilary ruefully observed someone wearing his pyjamas.”275 Nevertheless, Armstrong always mentioned Malta and the Maltese people with deep fondness.

IV On returning to England in 1943, Armstrong became sixth form Classics master at Beaumont College, Old Windsor, in Berkshire. The same year he delivered a series of lectures on ancient philosophy at the London headquarters of the London Newman Association, a society of Roman Catholic university graduates, which became the foundation for his most widely read book, An Introduction to Ancient Philosophy, which he dedicated to his wife, Deborah (1947, frequently reprinted, translated into Italian, Spanish, and Japanese). The book has several major aims: to set out the range of what Armstrong contends is the “great central tradition of Greek philosophy” which is “still living” and to chart out “the transition from Hellenic philosophy to the Christian philosophy” – and in the case of a Newman course of lectures dedicated to scholastic philosophy “to show those lines of development in the Greek philosophical tradition which lead towards the great synthesis of St. Augustine and St. Thomas with the real i­ ncompatibilities and divergences highlighted” (xv-xvi). While Armstrong’s small ‘c’ catholic sympathy is clear, the book is not intended to be “a propagandist tract” but rather a critical history. Its scope for a young scholar in his thirties is remarkable for it ranges from the Presocratics, Plato, Aristotle, through the Cynics, Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics, Philo, the Apologists, Tertullian, and Origen, through Plotinus, the later Neoplatonists (including several pages on the Neoplatonist Commentators on Aristotle), and culminating in Augustine. In short, it is a highly successful project that enlarges 275 

Long (2003) 5.

Life

165

the common view of ancient philosophy and sees Plotinus as a key lynchpin upon which any history of philosophy must depend. Indeed, as Long notes, over half the book is dedicated to post-Aristotelian philosophy which was completely against the conventions of the time. In an otherwise wholly positive review, Michael Stock O.P. criticized Armstrong’s confusion between the natural and supernatural orders in one sentence of the book touching upon Plotinus’ mysticism: Armstrong “grants the possibility of true supernatural contemplation on the part of one who lacks the first elements of the supernatural life.”276 Following some subsequent criticism, Armstrong later in the preface to the fourth edition rejected its “old-fashioned sort of Roman Catholic onesidedness” and noted that it failed “to show any sign of realizing that contemporary philosophy has important criticism to offer of some of the traditional positions described with approval.”277 He was unnecessarily hard on himself since his engaging personal tone, however catholic, is an indelible part of the book’s appeal, but these perceived faults he would attempt to remedy in his later The Cambridge History of later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (1967).

V In 1950, he succeeded A. C. Campbell as Gladstone Professor of Greek at the University of Liverpool, remaining there as head of the Department of Greek until taking early retirement in 1972. The Armstrongs, now parents of five children, began living in the Wirral (a peninsula situated between Liverpool and North Wales, overlooking the River Dee, the Welsh hills and the River Mersey). In these years, Armstrong had a distinguished group of colleagues, among whom were the following: R. G. Austin (1901-1974), Professor of Latin, whose text editions of Cicero, Quintilian, and Vergil, and Vergil commentary provided the paradigm for Classics in the post-war period; A. C. Lloyd (1916-1994), Chair of Philosophy, author of the influential Anatomy of Neoplatonism (Oxford, 1998), Form and Universal in Aristotle (Liverpool: F. Cairns, 1981), who was by temperament very different from Armstrong, an agnostic, and one who “liked nothing so much as a paper which he thought merited vigorous attack,”278 but a renowned teacher, simultaneously; R. A. Markus (1924-2010), a distinguished medieval and ecclesiastical historian known principally for his writings on St Augustine and the history of the early Church, of Jewish background who had converted to Roman Catholicism, later Chair of Medieval History at Nottingham University; H. Liebeschütz (1893-1978), Reader in Medieval History and a Jewish refugee from Germany; John Pinsent (1922-1995), Lecturer and later Reader, founder of the Liverpool Classical Monthly, and an expert on mythology; and Henry Blumenthal (1936-1998), who would become one of 276 

M. Stock (1930), Thomist, 600. Long (2003) 6. 278  R. Sorabji (1992), Proceedings of the British Academy, 97, 347-355 (348). 277 

166

Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)

the leading British Neoplatonist scholars of his generation, Lecturer, later Reader, Gladstone Professor 1997-98, famous especially for his Plotinus’ Psychology (1971). Andrew Smith, the Porphyrian scholar, taught for one year in the department. With Markus, Armstrong published a short book Christian Faith and Greek Philosophy (1960), based on lectures they gave under the auspices of the university’s Extra-Mural Department. Much later still, Blumenthal and Markus edited a Festschrift for Armstrong (Neoplatonism and Early Christian Thought. Essays in Honour of A. H. Armstrong. Variorum, London 1992). For The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy, Markus wrote the chapters on Marius Victorinus and Augustine, Lloyd those on the Later Neoplatonists, and Liebeschütz the section on Western Christian Thought from Boethius to Anselm. Armstrong collected several other distinguished scholars to write sections spanning Plato to Plotinus (P. Merlan), Philo and early Christianity (H. Chadwick), the Cappadocians to Maximus and Eriugena (I. P. Sheldon-Williams) and R. Walzer (Early Islamic Philosophy). Armstrong himself wrote the section on Plotinus and edited this as a volume with extraordinary range from Plato to early Islamic Philosophy, a volume that was to become a major source book on the subject for the next forty years (until L.P. Gerson, ed. The Cambridge History of Philosophy in Late Antiquity, 2010). Mary Clarke, R.S.C.J., who became Armstrong’s firm friend, called it a “monumental work of historical scholarship.”279 “Perhaps nowhere else […] has there been such a delicate and detailed study of religious thinkers in confrontation with philosophical worldviews.”280 L. Westerink celebrated its “radical shifting of the view, so that Neoplatonism appears as a fresh start than as the last stage of a dying civilization,”281 but noted its gaps (Nemesius, Macrobius, Calcidius), shortcomings that had been emphasized by J. M. Rist, especially the final section on Islamic thought that he termed “thin.”282 Nonetheless, this volume mapped out the extensive territory that needed to be covered, even if it could not cover everything seamlessly. Indeed, following the lead of Paul Henry S.J., Armstrong positively promoted the importance of Neoplatonism for Islamic thought and together with Paul O. Kristeller and John Findlay as participants on a panel entitled “The Relevance of Islamic Neoplatonism” was later presented an engraved plaque by the ISNS in recognition of this.283 On the negative side of his tenure at Liverpool, A. A. Long observes that by the end of his time at Liverpool Armstrong cut a lonely figure; from a practical perspective, he could not have managed without the help of dedicated friends such as Pinsent and Blumenthal: “At routine meetings he would sometimes groan and wave his hands in desperation; and at home he was much the same, so helpless when the 279 (1970),

Augustinian Studies, 1, 197-221 (especially 197). Ibid. 198. 281 (1969), Mnemosyne, 22 (4), 446-447. 282 (1968), Journal of Hellenic Studies, 88, 204-207 (207). 283 (1992). Neoplatonism and Islamic Thought. New York: Albany, ix-x. 280 

Life

167

lights fused during a party he was hosting that all he could manage was to jump up and down, calling ‘do something’. As a teacher, however, he was kindly and much appreciated, but in an era without computers, e-mail, and university assessment demands, he stood out for his lack of practicality.”284 Noreen Fox, a junior lecturer in Armstrong’s department, later told Suzanne Stern-Gillet: “There are not many people for whom I would open the door, but Armstrong was one of them.” On the positive side, the most important contribution to ancient philosophy in Armstrong’s Liverpool years was the preparation for his seven-volume translation and edition of Plotinus for the Loeb Classical Library series. His correspondence with Henry and Schwyzer, as we can see in this book, laid the basis for his use of their text for his own translation, although his view of that text changed over these years. In 1953 he supported both Henry’s hypothesis of a Eustochian edition surviving in Eusebius’ PE and the editors’ textual conservatism.285 In 1960, he supported Henry’s inclusion of a translation of the Plotinus Arabicus in their edition, though doubting its success;286 by now he agrees with Henry’s revised view that the Arabica are not derived from the scholia of Amelius but he is simultaneously critical of H-S’ conservatism (“There are of course places where a conservative reliance on the manuscript tradition has been carried too far…”).287 In 1965, this critical stance is more pronounced (“If everybody was ever satisfied with any critical text, however good, scholarship would come to a stop”).288 By 1975, despite sixty pages of changes in the maior, H-S1, Vol. III (Ennead VI), Armstrong notes that these changes “by no means represent the editor’s final thoughts on the passages in question […] discussion is vigorously continuing with the scholars mentioned on p. xvii of the preface […] in most cases these [changes] will be further emendations of the manuscripts, but in some the discussion seems to be leading round to a return to the original text.”289 The mention in H-S of these 18 scholars headed by Armstrong, and including Beierwaltes, Cherniss, Igal, Page, Pépin, Theiler, Westerink, et al., was something of which Armstrong was especially proud.290 In other words, Henry-Schwyzer’s earlier conservatism and Schwyzer’s view of earlier emendations as forms of divinatio have, over the course of twenty years correspondence, been strongly tempered. The two first volumes of Armstrong’s highly accessible translation appeared in 1966, volume 3 in 1967, but volumes 4 and 5 did not appear until 1984 (for reasons beyond his control) and the sixth and most difficult Ennead appeared as volumes 6 and 7 in 1988 with funding from the British Academy and Leverhulme Trust. The 284 

Long (2003) 8. See Armstrog’s review (1953) of Henry and Schwyzer’s editio maior I. 286  Armstrong (1960) on Henry and Schwyzer. 287 Ibid. 288  Armstrong (1965) on Henry and Schwyzer, 289  Armstrong (1975) on Henry and Schwyzer. 290  See Armstrong’s letter to Corrigan, undated—in this volume. 285 

168

Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)

Armstrong family invited Hans-Rudolph Schwyzer to a “Plotinus party” reception held at Christ Church College, Oxford, to celebrate the appearance of these final two volumes. Schwyzer, whose superlative skills as a philologist made him naturally reluctant to express himself in a language other than his own, declined the invitation. By way of an apology, he did send the following lines: Plotinus Romae vixit graeco tamen ore hesperiae linguae Marsilius dat eum Brittonum gentem expleturus amore Platonis en duce te freta nunc transgreditur sapiens291 The earlier translation by Stephen MacKenna is still seen today as a product of MacKenna’s literary genius, but it is too far removed from the Greek text and too flowery. Armstrong’s translation actually manages to inhabit the letter and spirit of the text in a way that makes the thought of Plotinus readily accessible to ordinary English readers. For Schwyzer, Armstrong’s translation “in its straightforwardness is superb [and] can be readily understood by a foreigner;”292 for Westerink, the translation is clear, readable, avoiding technical terminology as far as possible, without losing in accuracy.293 In 1970, three years after the publication of his third volume, Armstrong was elected Fellow of the British Academy, something of which he was very proud, though apparently less proud than dedications to him by Henry-Schwyzer and his student.294

VI Armstrong was appointed visiting professor at Manhattanville College, New York, in 1966. From 1970 to 1971 he was nominated Killam Senior Fellow and, eventually, distinguished Professor in Classics at Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada (where he served until 1982). During these years he became a Fellow of the American Catholic Philosophical Association and was awarded the Association’s Aquinas Medal in 1973. He later became a founding member of Dionysius (a journal concerned with the history of ancient philosophy, theology, and their afterlives) together with J. A. Doull (the resident aristocratic chief guru, expert on Hegel and much else) and R.D. Crouse (a really distinguished scholar of Augustine and the Augustinian tradition).

291  “Plotinus triumphed in Rome, though speaking Greek; Marsilio [Ficino] renders him in the Italian tongue; under your leadership, the sage now crosses the seas to satisfy the English people’s love for Plato.” 292  Schwyzer, Letter to Armstrong, November 20, 1966. 293  Westerink (1969), Mnemosyne 4(22), 91-92. 294  See Armstrong, Letter to Corrigan, undated.

Life

169

The Classics department at Dalhousie University, that produced so many distinguished graduates, was unique, a complete shock to newcomers. Ideas really did matter, not just ancient ideas, but ideas from the whole range of thought. “Ancient and modern dialectic, from Plato to Hegel,” and beyond, was the buzz; and James Doull, the principal interpreter of that dialectic, was as close to divinity as one might come, around whose aegis many disciples clustered and whose idiosyncratic intonation and gestures were proudly imitated by most of the students and some professors. In the midst of this phenomenon, Armstrong stood tall as the University’s distinguished professor, but in the interstices of student life, few had any idea of his real stature and many affected a reverse elitist attitude to the tall but quaint English Neoplatonist and his students. Armstrong was a relatively young-ish man at this time in his mid to late sixties and in full power. His steady guiding hand for the five years I studied directly with him was indispensable. He invariably acted with patience (despite having a keen nose for human stupidity), acute political acumen and insight (he knew exactly what to do to avoid unnecessary complexity), and impartiality (he would tell the truth even if the truth was hard for the student and for him). If the students had nothing to say at points in his seminars, he would allow an unimaginable but very Neoplatonic twenty minutes of pure silence—which none of us ever forgot! As I noted in our personal memories of him (section 4.2 below), while he was in Halifax, he came almost every Friday to dinner in our house; he invariably brought a bottle of wine to dinner and I provided a second, and when Elena, my wife, once suggested that two bottles were perhaps too much, he replied with his wry smile that the perfect solution to the too much wine problem would be if she were herself to take up drinking. The few times his wife, Deborah, came across the Atlantic we all wanted to adopt her—she was the sweetest human being imaginable, from whose later loss Armstrong would never recover (as he told me in our last conversation).295 Armstrong’s many years’ work on the text of Plotinus and the history of thought came to full fruition in these and later years. His books had charted a new way of approaching Plotinus and ancient thought, but his many articles and reviews also built up a major legacy. After 1980 until his death, for instance, he wrote in every year, three book reviews and nearly three articles. In fact, his career review output alone (135+) is astonishing, a guide for any young scholar. His later articles, collected into a second Variorum series under the title Hellenic and Christian Studies (1990), reveal the mature range of his thought: his insistence on diversity; on earthly beauty with radical reconsideration of Athenian Neoplatonism’s “dark other;” negative theology; a critical view of Christianity versus Hellenic thought; not knowing too much about God; a return to the question of Plotinus and India, etc.

295 

For personal reminiscences, see Section 2, below.

170

Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)

I remember an irate clerical gentleman having to be restrained from violence at an Oxford Patristics Conference presentation of “Some Advantages of Polytheism.”296 Armstrong himself said that of all his audiences, Catholics were the best polytheists. Nonetheless, this was the crisis period during which he changed from being “a deeply dissident Roman Catholic” to become “a worshipping member” of the Church of England, “liberal” if not “extremist,”297 a return to the faith of his father. In his final years at Dalhousie, he became friends with a Physics Professor, Ravi Ravindra, in whose just-above-the-shoreline house he not only meditated but also explored the real resonances between Buddhi in the Bhagávadgita and Psyche in Plotinus. Armstrong’s rejection of any narrow exclusivity, his interest in all forms of religion, and his friendship with Ewert Cousins also led to him becoming the editor of Classical Mediterranean Spirituality (1986) in the series World Spirituality (General Editor, Ewert Cousins). For this book he enrolled a team of scholars from Germany and France as well as Britain and North America, including several of his former students (myself included). The chapters include not only treatments of Greek and Roman religion and the contributions of leading ancient philosophers, but also studies of Egyptian cults, the civic contexts of religion, and the piety of ordinary men and women of late antiquity.298 To his initial surprise, A. A. Long found Armstrong enthusiastic about his proposed interpretation of the Epicurean gods as a theory of human idealisation and projection, anticipating Feuerbach.299 Armstrong invariably had a prophetic instinct for such things. But in my case, he was simply kind and supportive. With his uncanny ability to divine the needs of future scholarship; his love of gardening and pipe smoking; his love of classical music and ballet, noted by A. A. Long at the Liverpool Philharmonic300 and by me at the Rebecca Cohen Auditorium in Halifax, Nova Scotia; his unerring instinct for the real; his refusal to ban personal and religious struggles from intellectual discourse; his proclivity for silence in the face of his students’ lack of preparation; his straightforward courage to tell the truth—even against his own best interests: Armstrong was a major scholar of a most unusual kind, someone able to manifest the “mind of Ammonius” in Plotinus,301 able also to change, even dissolve, the boundaries of earlier dispensations. A. A. Long recounts from our conversation together302 Armstrong’s liking to be taken 296  I remember the occasion, but perhaps not the exact paper, since, as we see in one of his letters to Greg Shaw below, Armstrong remembers two similar occasions at Oxford but with two different papers. 297  Armstrong (1990) xi. 298  Long (2003) 15. 299 Ibid. 300  Ibid. 17. 301  For the phrase, Porphyry, Life of Plotinus 14, 15-16 302  Long (2003) 17.

Memories: Meeting and working under the supervision of A.H. Armstrong 171

out for a pub lunch that could involve a drive of (over) a hundred miles to and from his favourite place. I remember how each lunch involved a longer drive as the years went by and I only wish I had realized more clearly how increasingly housebound he must have felt in those final years. Professor Armstrong (as I always addressed him) died on 16 October 1997. His ashes are interred with those of his wife in the Ludlow churchyard which is also the last resting place of A. E. Housman. He was survived by two sons and a daughter.303 As an anonymous obituary observed in the Times: “he returned without fuss to the faith of his fathers.” Suzanne Stern-Gillet remembers Henry Blumenthal at a conference in Binghamton in upper state New York on the day of Armstrong’s funeral asking for a minute of silence to observe his passing and talking about the lonely Shropshire cemetery where Armstrong was buried in an after-dinner address permeated by Henry’s profound affection for the mentor and friend he had lost.

4.2. Memories: Meeting and working under the supervision of A.H. Armstrong Kevin and Elena Corrigan I first met Professor Armstrong in the summer of 1975 in Oxford before setting off for Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, to study for a masters and a doctorate under his direction. He terrified me at first—just as he himself many years before must have been terrified to meet Dodds, as he later told me. He was tall, imposing, very knowledgeable—very “English” as he would draw himself up to his full height before making a magisterial pronouncement on some weighty matter. He clearly did not tolerate fools gladly—and I felt impossibly young and foolish. I had no idea at that moment what an effect he would have upon me and my future family. I flew to Canada in September, not knowing anyone in North America and thinking, with T. S. Eliot, as I flew into Halifax that though I knew little about “gods” I thought the rivers of that new country were “strange brown gods.” After two nights in a very unprepossessing hostel, I began an entirely new and unexpected existence, studying with Professor Armstrong, a time in which I met my wife, Elena, a Soviet refugee studying Classics and English literature. In fact, after that first year, for the duration of his time in Canada, Professor Armstrong came almost every Friday to dinner in our house to mark the end of the week. In short, he became a part of our family—a very distinguished part; he became the godfather of our first child, John; Elena finished her Classics and English BA partly under his guidance, wrote an MA thesis on Plato’s Symposium—under his 303 

Ibid. 17.

172

Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)

direction (whose findings were incorporated into our joint book, Plato’s Dialectic at Play, published in 2004) and started another MA thesis on Shakespeare with his encouragement. In those first five years he was an integral part of our lives, our intellectual conversations, and our busy domestic life with two sons, John and Yuri. I wrote an MA thesis for him in preparation for my doctoral work: Plotinus’ Implicit Critique of Aristotle (that I am only now beginning to be able to think about properly). I read Pindar and other poets in classes with him and also had the privilege, and anxiety, of reading Plato’s Alcibiades I and the Seventh Letter alone with him in his office. Did I think (after Schleiermacher) that these two works were not genuine, he asked me after completing each work. If I remember correctly, I stammered something incomprehensible and asked for his view: in the case of Plato’s Alcibiades, he replied “even Plato can have an off-day and still start a new tradition;” and in the case of the Seventh Letter, “it is either by Plato or by a genius equal to Plato.” I remember one day after an early morning Pindar class, I saw him inscribe the title of a new article he had been asked to write for Dionysius (a still flourishing journal started during his tenure as distinguished professor by the Classics Department of Dalhousie University). The article requested of him was on “Form and Individual in Plotinus”—one that later became a classic in Plotinian scholarship.304 I asked him if he intended to start immediately and he replied that there was no time like the present. I came back to his office after lunchtime to check—and the pages were multiplying—to my amazement; and then I returned towards the end of the day and found that he had just completed the work. I was astounded. Although I had no idea at the time, he transmitted to me that day something of the way he worked that came to benefit me in later life. He was also of course in correspondence with the great Spanish scholar Jesús Igal at that time—and this correspondence, in part, allowed him to write this article at one sitting, as I now appreciate. Many people came to Halifax to consult him. I remember Peter Manchester and John Kenney from that time and the real attention Professor Armstrong gave them. But he was not only in correspondence with scholars all over the world, but also gave of his time and substance to those in his direct care. Once when Elena and I were to visit my family in England at Christmas, the University made a mistake and did not deposit the money at the right time; we were discussing this in a somewhat appalled state at our dinner with Professor Armstrong—there was absolutely no intention to borrow or to ask for anything—we were simply changing our plans, when Professor Armstrong asked “what is the sum you need?” and immediately lent us the balance, not permitting us to argue any further.

304 

Armstrong (1977).

Memories: Meeting and working under the supervision of A.H. Armstrong 173

There was another circumstance, central to Elena’s career, and I will let her tell the story: There was a time, we both remember it well, when in the conservative world of certain departments in Canadian universities, a married woman who had just had a child was considered to be inappropriate in a postgraduate program. I [Elena] had been admitted into a Masters program in Classics in the previous spring, and had been awarded a scholarship, only to find out in September that the program had suddenly over the summer months added an extra set of mandated classes. To me it meant the end of my studies: the schedule was simply unmanageable. I remember my shock and the discussion that ensued with the professors in the Common Room of the department. I argued and saw some hardly veiled but definitely gleeful satisfaction on their faces, when Professor Armstrong said seemingly very sternly and even icily: “Elena, I want you to go to my office immediately—I need to talk to you.” I continued to argue that such requirements could not be changed so abruptly and heard again a very sharp remark: “Elena, immediately.” There was nothing to do but to obey. In his office on the second floor of what was then Dalhousie’s Classics Department, Professor Armstrong said: “I will give you two reading classes myself.” One of these classes was called: ‘Reading the Symposium’; the second ‘Topics in Greek philosophy’, and we were to meet twice a week at a time suitable for me. The immediate result of that very generous gesture was that I was able to carry the program’s requirement of five classes in Latin and Greek, and my future academic career was saved, but there were other far-reaching outcomes: I had a very brilliant and patient mentor, and the world of Plato’s thought was opened up to me; Plato became my companion for the rest of my life. Every time I read in Sophocles’ Antigone “what price outweighs the priceless worth of prudence!” I remember that seemingly stern call to his office that changed my life.

In later years, I [Kevin] visited Professor Armstrong often—though never often enough—at his house in Ludlow, Shropshire. I would take him for a pub lunch on each occasion with the distance between his house and the pub increasing with each visit. I know John Kenney, Peter Manchester, Jay Bregman, Nancy Ogle, Gerard and Ursula O’Daly, and others did the same. On the last occasion I saw him, I calculated that I drove on the round trip from house to pub over 100 miles, so housebound had he become in his later years. What did we discuss on those visits? I include below several letters he wrote to me in the 1990s which show what a thoroughly supportive intellectual mentor he was, helping me and many other young scholars to find suitable publishers in a world generally indifferent, if not openly hostile to Neoplatonism; they show also how he was always interested in open living conversation and the spiritual exercise that stands at the heart of ancient thought, especially as he rethought in his final days the Platonic responsibility to live the practice of dying; and how genuinely humble he continued to be despite all his major achievements. They also show, I think, what it was like to be a part, no matter how small, of the revolution in Plotinian studies that occurred in the latter half of the twentieth Century.

174

Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)

4.3. Reminiscences of a Malta Childhood (1935-1943) Christopher. J.R. Armstrong The sun always shines in memories of “before the war.” Even the snapshots of my childhood self with my two younger sisters, Bridget and Teresa, show me (and them) looking happy. My father was an impecunious post-graduate “don” working away in Cambridge, the town of my birth in 1935, at what was to be his life-work, the study and eventual translation for Loeb, of a late ancient philosopher, Plotinus. His research, based on difficult Greek texts, was published (one did not usually submit for a Ph.D. in those days), and his first professional post was as Assistant Lecturer in the University of Wales at Swansea. One of my earliest memories from those days is of being deservedly scratched by an angry cat whose tail I had pulled in a neighbouring house in Swansea. Both my sisters were born by then and I remember clearly the hushed expectant atmosphere in the house when Teresa, the younger, was being delivered in my parents’ bedroom on November 30th, 1938. Memories of “before the War” are easily confused with memories of “after the war” because my mother’s family home near Barnt Green, Birmingham, played an important part in both periods. My grandmother, Claudia Wilson, was, by the date of my birth, a widow of many years standing. She lived in a large “tudorbethan” house down an immensely long drive not far from the Lickey Woods. When visiting, we went for walks in that unspoilt area (a motorway cuts across it on the south nowadays). And it was there that the family of myself and two girls were joined to be taken care of by “Nanny,” whose proper name was Nellie Horton and who was “handed on” to my mother by an older Catholic sister, Kitty, whose children had grown out of her. Nellie, as I shall call her hereafter, became an indispensable part of the family as cook, house-keeper, counsellor (if not “friend”) of my mother. She was from a farming family near Newark and shared all our travels and trials. She was especially recommended to us because, among other things, she was a devout and recent convert, like my parents, to Roman Catholicism. It is necessary to say something more about the fervent faith and religious practise of the family because it deeply affected us children and was almost certainly the chief reason why my father, Hilary Armstrong, with an assured academic future of distinction, was chosen in late 1939 to become, at the tender age of 30, the Professor of Classics at the Royal University of Valletta. This was the only university of the fervently Catholic island of Malta, having been established under the Knights of Malta in the former Jesuit College there in 1769. It became “Royal” in 1935. I have my father’s letter of appointment which is dated 10th November, 1939, from “Lieutenant Governor’s Office”. He is to be “Professor of Latin literature and Classical Greek” with effect from the 7th October, 1939. His salary is set at £390 a year. “You will also

Reminiscences of a Malta Childhood (1935-1943)

175

receive £30 a year as a house allowance.” The signature on this document is not reliably legible by me at present. We had already been some weeks on the island by the time it was issued. Not that I wish to omit details of our journey to Malta, for which I have reliable dates and still vivid memories. War had already broken out between Britain and Germany, but Italy was not yet at war with us. The visa for passage through Italy was obtained in London on October 3. We set sail from Folkestone to Boulogne on October 7th and all the family except my baby sister, Teresa, who slept soundly throughout, were violently and wretchedly seasick. We arrived at Vallorbe on the Swiss border on the 8th and entered Italy at Domodossola the following day. One short photographic memory I have is of waking up on the upper bunk of our sleeper train and catching a glimpse of the snow-covered Alps as we passed through. We must have stayed somewhere in Rome since I have a picture of us all in St Peter’s Basilica in The Vatican where I was lifted up to add my kiss to the well-burnished toe of the bronze statue of St Peter, placed, as I remember it, near the entry. Our next stop must have been Syracuse from where we took the ferry to Valletta, arriving in the dusk of evening of the 12th October. My first sight of Grand Harbour as darkness fell has an almost visionary quality thanks to the great quantity and variety of electric lights twinkling at various levels all round the harbour and reflected in the water. Landing on the quayside and transport to our new Maltese home is blurred by comparison. Our house, which we rented for nearly three years, in which we all suffered greatly, was in itself a fine modest building, perched along the contour of a boulder-strewn hill, with scrubby vegetation up behind and a deep waterless ravine below. Access on foot was on a rough track past terrace houses. Coming from St Julians, one also had the choice of a narrower track behind the terrace. Both pathways ended in a right-angle turn up steep steps to an iron gate. The coastal road passed the entry to these tracks and connected St Julians to Sliema. Many times, we walked those tracks, the outer one, bounding the grassy ravine, yielded plenty of sticky grass and the ravine itself usually drew our eyes and fascinated us, though we never entered it. At its farthest end from the sea there were more houses perched along its edge. The way to our front-door was all uphill and up steps. The flight from the public pathway was used by ourselves and the tenants of the ground-floor but the final flight was for our exclusive use since we held the piano nobile, the first floor, with the best views. I do not recall ever socializing with the British occupants of the ground floor. In the days of calm, I loved them for the sounds of ping-pong below our sleeping quarters at the other end of the house. That and the bugle calls from St Andrew’s barracks, round the rock promontory, called Spinola Point, were my favourite sounds in a space that became haunted by all too much threat from the air and the skies. The whole house was owned by a Maltese family whose name I only learnt many

176

Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)

years later in the 1980s when I and my family made a return visit (for me). The young man we encountered there, showed us round a building internally renewed in every detail and I could find no familiar landmarks. But the garden below was beautiful and the orchards marvellous. The spectacle of the upper terrace garden which we had tenanted with our part of the house at that level, was a sad sight compared with what my father had made of it in days gone by. The first period of our occupation of Rocky Vale, before Italy entered the war and became active, was quite peaceful and we soon discovered a rocky coast-line with rocks one could walk on and deep-cut pools in which we could swim. I learnt my swimming in them. On the return visit I found that the pools had totally disappeared, due, probably, to road widening. The road heading to St Julians had become more densely inhabited. In those days one met small boys selling peanuts from very large sacks slung round their shoulders; also, mostly elderly women wearing the unique Maltese black outer garment, a sort of stiffened cloak, called “faldetta” (Sir Harry Luke has alternative names and a fine photograph of young women wearing them). The house of which we became tenants was high up relative to its surroundings. There was a steep drop on one side to the orchards of oranges and lemons (which were not ours); and, on the other side, the rock-filled hillside stretched ever upwards to we knew not where. My father who was a keen cultivator from his boyhood, developed a productive and fruitful garden on our stretch of earth to a boundary wall upon which grew a vine and part of which was enclosed to hold pigeons. The area contained a few fruit trees and grew a great number of tomato-plants, ever more important as food became scarce. My mother used to say after the war that, after Malta, she never wanted to see another tomato! Hilary’s, my father’s, commute must have been by way of Sliema and so by road or boat into Valletta (he did not then or at any time in his life drive a car). We never visited his place of work and seldom found our way to the capital for any reason whatsoever. Not were these, or any other matters connected with Malta in wartime, ever discussed afterwards in the family. My route to the convent and convent school which I soon started to attend, lay up a steep hill away from the coast and skirting the far side of the ravine from our house. How regular attendance at school squared with the increasing pressure of air-raids, I have no idea; any more than I can imagine how Hilary carried on his lecturing and tutorials in Valletta under the blitz. It was in a ditch beside my road to the convent that I remember seeing the only dead victim of the war, a pitifully bloodied dog who must have been hit by shrapnel. I was an angel in the school Nativity Play and my wings were made of real feathers. The chapel of the convent was also where I was prepared for and received my First Holy Communion. The sister in charge of my coaching, at the age of five, stressed impressively that whatever I did, I must on no account touch the sacred wafer as I received it. Needless to say, my fingers inevitably strayed to my mouth to lend the

Reminiscences of a Malta Childhood (1935-1943)

177

new arrival an extra shove! I remember the flutter in the dovecots which this caused! The great day in question was the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, December 8th (a Friday). It was also the day before the Japanese assault on the American Fleet in Pearl Harbour, which helped to assure our ultimate rescue. I have much to thank that community of nuns for. The handwriting of the sister in charge of me is very familiar to me from the little book of simple prayers with childish pictures stuck round them, which I still keep with personal documents. She also inscribed the devout picture-record of the event with the name of the priest who officiated. The picture is large and shows Jesus seated and handing the Eucharistic species to four cherubic youngsters with long curly hair like his own and dressed in “whiter than white” nightie-like robes. I long thought it was a typical product of Maltese-Italian piety; only to discover, on examination of some small print, that it was produced by a firm in Leeds, Yorkshire. The convent staff sheltered us during air-raids and I clearly remember one such raid when all we children gathered in a tight crowd underground and sang hymns and said the rosary, while the bombers went about their business overhead. My father’s humorous comment was that we children had a good start intellectually in Malta since the goats which provided all our liquid milk, could often be seen munching their way through The Malta Times! My family did not own a goat and it was no laughing matter, as food became more and more scarce, when my infant sister, Teresa, in a high chair by this time, threw her milk pudding on the floor. The milky mess on the floor and the anger it caused is also something I easily remember. Likewise, the deep bomb-crater which appeared at some stage in our playground at the Sacred Heart. Only one Christmas, probably our first, remains to be described. We gathered as a family in the “downstairs room”, a sort of anomalous sitting-room on the groundfloor to which we descended from immediately inside the front-door. It had no connection with the rest of the floor, tenanted by our neighbours, but it did open onto a tiny outside area. That Christmas, Father Christmas really was real for us. We heard him coming down the staircase with his great sack of presents going thump-thump behind him. I have no longer any idea what presents! The room itself was reckoned to be “safer” than upstairs. The piano was there and I began, but did not persevere with, piano lessons. My sister and I shared it as temporary shelter, lying head to toe. As the blitz gathered strength, nights were interrupted at this time by desperate, panic-stricken rushes downstairs as the dive-bombers began their hideous descents. I have since discovered that the shrieking mechanisms with which they terrified us were set off automatically by their diving, and were intended to strike terror. They certainly terrified me . . . When the air-raids became nightly, and could last a whole night, it was decided to enlarge the tiny rock-cut cupboard accessible via a french-window from the

178

Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)

“downstairs room”. It was greatly enlarged to provide two chambers, one for us children and Nellie; one for parents. There was no window or entry for air besides the entrance. Many people at this time took refuge in such underground caves. But we hated ours and I well remember my tearful reaction on being led down to the “new” bedroom, tears which greatly angered an already over-wrought Nellie. The tonnage of bombs dropped on Malta in the month of April 1942 alone (6,728 tons) should be compared to the 18,000 tons “dropped on Britain during the entire blitz.” In daytime, at first, we began almost carelessly to stand in the open air to watch the dog-fights between our own and enemy airplanes. That was indeed foolish and, after some “near misses” from a hail of shrapnel, we took cover as soon as the ack-ack opened up; eventually, I was given a smallish “tin-hat.” One Junkers 88 crew was of the opinion that “Malta is one huge ack-ack battery.” This did not stop me making a small collection of pieces of shrapnel, some of them quite large. It was difficult, though, not to be drawn outside to the spectacle of spitfires soaring out against the enemy, whom they attacked from above; then fighting it out with the Messerschmitt fighter planes and, sometimes, at least, sending these to their doom. We did not hate the Germans. Nor, I think, did the Maltese. The population was more angry with the Italians who, after all, were their neighbours and whom they knew through transport and business. Our main contact with Maltese people was through Maria, who came to help Nellie and my mother. We liked her and were much upset when the news came that her fiancé had been killed in the bombing. Nellie also had a friend in the wife of a sergeant in the military garrison, Mrs Small. We met her once or twice. My parents had almost no contacts or friends among the military but knew well the Lunn family. Peter was on the diplomatic side and his wife was a courtesy “aunt” to us – as happened in those days. David, her son, became a colleague of mine much later in our lives. We knew each other in Malta because he was a pupil at the Sacred Heart. My father’s great friend, who also endeared himself to us children, was Papas George Shiro, the Catholic Orthodox priest of Malta. He came originally from the Byzantine Greek rite of Sicily, based in communities which were Greek-speaking but had become separated from the east by the eleventh century schism of East and West. He had of course a large black beard and was good with children. I have on my shelves, a small manual of liturgical devotions to Our Lady, Akathistos Hymnos, given by him to Hilary “as a token of friendship.” Greek and Italian texts are on facing pages. His church was the scene of a wedding ceremony of which I was a witness and found especially moving. But it was destroyed later by bombing in Valletta. Over the post-war years he managed to have it re-built and sent my father photographs of every stage of the re-building. The occasion when my father took me to visit the Archbishop of Malta, Dr Caruana, engraved itself on my consciousness in part because of the way Hilary built it up. I am sure the Archbishop addressed words to me, but I was totally overwhelmed by the importance and venerableness of this large elderly prelate, realizing vaguely

Reminiscences of a Malta Childhood (1935-1943)

179

that he was the most important public person in the eyes of the Maltese on Malta, and carried round his neck a gold pectoral cross containing an actual relic of the Cross of Christ. After Christmas Day, a Thursday, 1941, things became distinctly worse, as James Holland clearly describes. “Malta became,” he writes,” the most bombed place on earth,” with a Luftwaffe now manned by seasoned pilots and fielding apparently unlimited modern aircraft, only 60 miles away in Sicily. Field Marshall Kesselring could and did send wave after wave of bombers to cow the morale of the defenders and prepare the way for the invasion which he had agreed with Hitler. The morale of the islanders was low, and lack of food, and the difficulty of getting adequate air power underlined our weakness. The great Opera House of Malta was smashed to smithereens on April 7th, 1942. The low walls of the ruined building remain in evidence to this day. We children experienced hunger and picked up and ate the carob beans under our favourite tree in a corner of the garden. Bridget made herself ill by eating unripe figs. Nelly went out on foot to Sliema to collect soup from the “Victory Kitchen,” which was opened there. This liquid, described as “disgusting” recently on TV by another survivor of the siege, was not liked by any of us. My father, who could sometimes see the funny side even of our situation, used to evoke the scene outside the kitchen door on the terrace where cooking was done on a primus stove. This attracted a band of local stray cats, which sat in a circle round the preparations. The shortage of food was matched by a shortage of all sorts of fuel. The Maltese were understandably a trifle bitter when their struggle was rewarded with the George Cross on April 15th. My photograph shows Lord John Gort V.C. handing it over to Sir George Borg, the Chief Justice of the island, before assembled dignitaries and soldiers in pith helmets. I believe the event was broadcast by loud-speakers over the island. Certainly, I remember an uncanny silence broken only by this booming noise in the distance. I was intensely aware of noise then. My favourite sound came from over the hill, at the St Andrew’s barracks, where bugles could sometimes be heard calling on the refrain “Come to the cook-house now, boys; come to the cook-house door!” That, and the peaceful sound of ping-pong. Both of which were some kind of counter to the ever-familiar detonations of the 3.7 inch guns of the Spinola battery not far from the barracks. We were three children; but I and my older sister, Bridget, made a pair, with the toddler, Teresa, tagging along behind. I do not remember our games; only that the ceremony of Low Mass was a regular feature. Like many sons of pious families in past ages, I liked to mimic the Mass. The scene was our carob-bean tree in the far corner of the garden. I was the priestly celebrant, of course, and Bridget my altar-server. A ledge of the virgin rock was the altar. I seem to recall that, although we stuck fairly closely to correct movements and gestures, we could never remember actual Latin words. It was all mumble-jumble. The high point of the ritual was the transfer of the altar missal, a suitable piece of stone, from one end of the altar

180

Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)

to the other before the gospel. Woe betide Bridget if she missed her cue! No other children ever took part in this charade. Indeed, I do not remember playing with any other children in that garden. Its dedication to high productivity must have ruled out childish games. From our house we looked out on the inland end of our arm of Baluta Bay, dominated by a large rectangular building the purpose of which was and remains unknown to me. The rocky coast, which the road follows, was heavily infested with rolls of barbed wire. For weeks we looked out on a large ship in the bay, which, we were told, was a mine-sweeper. One day, as I surveyed the scene in springtime, I saw a large lorry, an unusual sight in itself, loaded with a great cargo of fully charged white sacks. I even think there may have been an armed soldier on top. Very recently, watching James Holland’s powerful film, The Siege of Malta, I experienced the shock of recognition. The screen showed for a minute or two scenes of derricks in Grand Harbour unloading to the quayside piles of large white sacks just like the ones I had seen on that lorry. Perhaps the lorry itself was sent round at that time to tell us all that, at last, rescue was at hand, a convoy had “got through!” The great flock of spitfires also arrived eventually after some disasters en route with “the first spitfire fighters to see service outside Britain”, which touched down at Takali airfield in March 1942. I think it must have been as things eased a little (Stalingrad and Moscow had given Hitler headaches) that the whole family unexpectedly (for us) took a seaside holiday at Ghajn Tuffieha, a sandy bay on the opposite side of the island and now known to holiday-makers as “Golden Sands.” The hotel upon its low cliff is still there and for a day or two housed a group of Britishers celebrating something. Was it my parents’ farewell party? Upstairs, in a bedroom, I felt desperately “left out.” Probably, it was soon afterwards that auctioneers moved into our house to separate us from our furniture and anything that could not be carried by air at short notice. Had I heard what objects were on offer, I might have regretted the red-painted round table at which all meals were taken; also, the red-painted chairs, on one of which I had laboriously and painfully practised my swimming strokes. But the children, packed off to have a “rest,” could only hear a sound of voices. Hilary would tell, years later, of visiting an ill pupil in hospital and confronting his own pyjamas! Only a very few paper relics came with us and I have to suppose that my father’s books, and a few items of sentimental value, were stored in hopes of a future reunion. It was time to leave Rocky Vale. The house was badly shaken by bomb blast; two ceilings were damaged, and one had fallen in. Had there been large scale evacuation of British citizens before, we would probably have left long since. Our departure was scheduled for July 17th. and the stamp in Hilary’s passport reads “Good for single journey” and “Visa for Egypt” with the handwritten note” Authority: telegram from Ministry for the Interior dated Cairo11th July1942.” The passport kindly gave its stamp “gratis.” Rather suddenly we were told we were going on an RAF plane to

Reminiscences of a Malta Childhood (1935-1943)

181

Egypt and we would begin our journey “this afternoon” in a carrozzi. This detail was as exciting as anything since we almost never went anywhere in these horse-drawn four-wheel cabs. One good reason for this was that their number had dwindled with the inevitable loss of horses to the butchers. To keep us occupied, it was suggested that the children might like to collect carob beans for the horse. This we did, filling a good sackfull. In the afternoon the adults and girls were inside, and I was promoted to the “box” beside the driver. It was a proud moment when we moved off, myself in that commanding seat, and the sack of carob beans underneath. It was a sedate journey, probably to Luqa airfield though I am a little uncertain since both it and Ta’qali had been periodically reduced to rubble. I believe our transport was by Wellington Bomber, suggesting the larger airfield. The British passport my father held at this point is still by me. As I examined it, out dropped a small piece of paper with pencilled information. It was information, presumably for Hilary to hand in to the authorities, on the weights of each family member. I have wondered about the significance of the figures it contains, which are: N. Horton [Nellie] 8 stone; C. Armstrong [myself] 4 stone; B. Armstrong [Bridget] 3 stone; T. Armstrong [Teresa] 2 stone 7 lbs; Mrs Armstrong [mother] 9 stone; AHA [father] 10 stone. Total: 36stone 7lbs. On this evidence I think I can speak proudly of my parents’, and Nellie’s, self-denial, so that we children could maintain at least an approximately “normal” diet. Dentists later in England would compliment us on our healthy teeth for which we had our daily intake of calcium-rich goats milk to thank. But the RAF was not interested in our teeth! Escorted onto the plane, Bridget and I were arranged on a raised area in the centre of the fuselage, while the adults and (probably) Teresa, sat facing across like paratroops in the films. In prospect was an over 800-mile journey, mostly over sea, with the possibility of interception by enemy fighters from North Africa or elsewhere. I wonder whether I was helped artificially to fall asleep. The boxes (of ammunition?) were uncomfortable to lie on but sleep we did. No one spoke, as I remember. The next thing was arrival in the desert airfield near Cairo. Everything seemed to hold its breath as we disembarked; to be warmly welcomed, surrounded by lights and the general bustle of a large airfield taking things extremely calmly. Among those welcoming us later in Cairo itself was my cousin Joan, at that time a WAAF, specialized in decoding. I am unsure how long we stayed in Cairo. The next date in my father’s passport is for the 13th October and is a visa for entry “in transit” to the Union of South Africa where he seems to have arrived on the 31st October. This must, I think, mean all us with him because we only separated temporarily later on. As I believe we only spent around three weeks in Cairo, I have concluded that the departure from Malta took place either towards the end of September or early October due to postponements entailed by the state of hostilities in the eastern Mediterranean. The time in Cairo

182

Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)

itself is coloured by visits to the Nile, to tombs of former Kings and Pashas, by the voice of the muezzin’s calls to prayer from a mosque across the street and on the next corner. When asked about the pyramids, I have to say I don’t remember them. When floating on the Nile, I was sternly warned not to dip my hands in its brown water since there were alligators around. More enduring for me are a few memories of the large passenger ship which carried us from Suez down the Red Sea to Durban. This Dutch ship, the Nieuw Amsterdam, had been adapted as a troop-carrier transporting Commonwealth personnel to the war zone in North Africa and beyond. I believe that Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans and Indians, played a large part in defeating General Romel at around this time. The ship did indeed seem rather empty and I must imagine that the time between the 13th October in Cairo and the South African Immigration stamp of the 31st October was mainly spent in rest and recuperation. Probably at this point, or shortly after it, my parents decided that Hilary should leave us in Africa and make his own way back to Britain. It seems likely that a South African stamp of 21st December, 1942, signals his departure from South Africa. He would be awaiting us in Liverpool when we arrived there in the early summer of 1943. We enjoyed Durban, starting off in an hotel on the sea-front where the bathing was much more fun that in the placid Med. We moved shortly to higher ground inland, in the outer suburbs, where we lived in a flat in a free-standing block of such apartments. I remember little of contact with neighbours. But there was a very thrilling snake-pit exclusively devoted to these venomous beasts, quite near at hand; also, a park with monkeys roaming freely who always managed to snatch our bananas from us before we could approach the creatures for which they were really destined. I also developed a healthy dislike of African biting ants hidden in innocuous-looking grass. A short walk downhill took us to a patch of open ground where Zulu dancing made a great impression on us. My mother needed to earn money and took up teaching. She was qualified to the extent of a University of Birmingham BA; but she had little or no experience. I went with her to the school and, as far as I can remember, simply did not fit in. I was backward for a seven-year old, barely able to read, and especially bad at mathematics. Post-traumatic Stress Disorder had not been invented in those days, but something like it affected me then and long after. Our South African residence came to an end abruptly for us all, adults (Deborah, my mother, and Nellie) included. It was announced at lunchtime on Easter Day, 1943 (April 15th) that a boat was expected to set sail for Liverpool very shortly from Cape Town and we should catch the train across southern Africa at once to board it. We were enjoying an Easter of plenty, surrounded by chocolate Easter eggs, but, fortunately, still without much in the way of moveable property. The rush down to Durban’s railway station and the wait in the train somehow remains a fixed point of

Reminiscences of a Malta Childhood (1935-1943)

183

memory. Perhaps we started eating our chocolate eggs to pass the time. The journey took at least two days and we had a sleeping compartment. There was much to look at as we passed through, an endless panorama only blighted by the intervention of a drunken South African sailor in uniform who put his foot in the door and roundly cursed “filthy Britishers,” or words to that effect. There seemed little sense of urgency in the Port of Cape Town and we used the ship as an hotel for a week or two. When the Dampfer did set sail, I chose that moment to develop measles and was confined to our cabin. There were other children on the ship and it rapidly spread among them. We had a Roman Catholic priest on board, Father Green, and I well remember making my confession to him and saying that I thought I wanted to be a priest when I grew up. The voyage of some weeks held its own drama when we were apparently pursued by a U-Boat. I well remember a large gun dramatically making its appearance near the bridge and firing off at something. It seems to be known that U-Boats were then haunting the seas off the coast of West Africa. Perhaps the Dampfer, which had a long subsequent history, was faster than it looked. The weather was grey as we approached the English coast. All stood on deck straining for a first view. Then my mind jumps to our boarding-house in Liverpool, a rather annoying eclipse by memory of actually landing on English shores and, of course, seeing our father again. The boarding-house was not impressive, and Liverpool was itself a stricken scene of bomb-damage and black-out. But it did have barrage-balloons. Malta never had barrage-balloons. The real “home-coming” was our return to my grandmother’s home where her family had gathered to cheer our arrival. The house was hung with an immense Union Jack and we were embraced by Granny Wilson who had last seen us on a flying visit in February, 1939, with Teresa still only a baby four months old. We must have lived with Granny for at least a few weeks while my parents sought out a rented house compatible with paid work for my father. He was in fact employed as a lecturer under the Central Advisory Council for Adult Education in His Majesty’s Forces. This employment, which I only heard described by my mother, seemed to consist in preparing members of the Forces for “what was going to happen after the War.” Hilary was probably lucky to obtain it, though what he actually said and did, I never found out. We did not see much of him then although I have a clear image of him sitting astride one of Granny’s (or Marjorie, her daughter’s) horses, and not looking comfortable. My great thrill was discovering the “Engine House” not far from the big house, in the orchard, which was full of Victorian toys, large and small; also, the stables, still very much in use as such, and from which time I date my love of the smell of such establishments. The stables have been converted into a prestigious mansion and the “tudorbethan” house itself demolished and replaced by a stately edifice twice the size. Lord Austin, of motor-car fame, might regret its passing; he built it for his family. Had I been asked, I should have said my favourite

184

Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)

room was the music-room (all granny’s family were “musical”) with its grand-piano, its immense glassed-in musical-box and its shelves lined with bound volumes of “Punch” magazine. It is possible that some of the leeway in my ability to read was made up by ready access to that treasure. Preparatory School beckoned and separation from my sisters, especially Bridget. The first thing they did when I set foot in that gloomy building in Little Malvern, was to take me to see a native of Malta who was either visiting or had been hired to teach there. This was one of the most excruciating moments of my life as I sat with this very homesick gentleman, kind and enquiring, only to find myself absolutely tongue-tied and unable to meet his very deep sadness and need for a reassuring word. The meeting, and the burning embarrassment for me, even at eight years old, is a memory that will always remain.305 Burley-in-Wharfedale Feast of St Agnes 2013

4.4. Poems I Casal Curmi. Passio Domini Nostri Jesu Christi. The purple banner, the great title-page Sails through the narrow streets. The bleeding Agonies come out in order. Round them the boys in many colours carry Grotesque disorder of our sins. Hammer for violence, finance for the betrayal, Stuffed cock on a pole mocking our cowardice. The respectable beards wag under the horned mitres. “It is expedient…” (Tibi, cornute, loquor) The agnostic interested official Evades responsibility for destruction With water and with towels.

305  The above text is based on personal memories and the evidence of my father’s passports. In those days, every time a frontier was crossed, a date stamp was added. Visas also acted as dating events. Un-attributed quotations are nearly all from James Holland’s Fortress Malta. An Island Under Siege 1940-1943. I have used the scarce but valuable The Epic of Malta (no date but circa 1945). More general information has come from Sir Harry Luke’s genial Malta (London, 1949) with its rich store of photographs.

Letters

185

II Santa Maria Damascena of the Greeks. Lights around the Death grow in the growing twilight. All green and flowering is the grave, Its pillars twined with growing green. If we dare to look at the Face among the lights We may take our flowers, our blest fertility From the holy cloth, the white and wounded body Laid there before the assembly of burial. The Corn of life has bent, heavy with fruit, Lies reaped, white in the harvest. With golden shroud upon the empty cross We glorify the seed of Resurrection. A.H. Armstrong, Malta, April-June 1940

4.5. Letters 1 [At the time of E.R. Dodds’s death in April 1979, Armstrong was Visiting Professor at the University of Villanova (Pennsylvania). Presumably at the request of D.F. Russell, who was Dodds’s literary executor, Armstrong sent him his memories of the great man. It is not known whether Russell integrated them in a memoir to celebrate his life and achievements. However, some forty years later (2019), a volume entitled Rediscovering E.R. Dodds: Scholarship, Education, Poetry, and the Paranormal, edited by Christopher Stray, Christopher Pelling and Stephen Harrison, came out at Oxford University Press. Although Russell does not specifically refer to AHA’s memories in his own contribution to the volume, the points made in the assessment reproduced below are all confirmed by the various essays in the book (Suzanne Stern-Gillet).] TO D.F. RUSSELL Villanova, Pennsylvania, January 25, 1980 Memories of E.R. Dodds Nothing to add to what he said in Missing Persons about his reasons for editing Proclus in the thirties – he never seemed greatly interested in later Neoplatonism in his later life. But his interest in Plotinus remained real and strong and I formed

186

Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)

some idea of the reasons for this, though perhaps again what I can say does not go beyond what an intelligent reader could gather from his own writings. Though of course Dodds hated superstition, irrationalism, clericalism etc. and was not any sort of religious believer, he was not just crudely and imperceptively anti-religious. Much of his work shows how accurately, sensitively and in a way sympathetically he could understand all sorts or religious phenomena, from primitive Dionysiac cults to the religions of late antiquity. [The same applies to F.M. Cornford: perhaps the intellectuals of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were more open and broad-minded in this respect than later generations.] Or perhaps my sense of the difference between periods here is an illusion and I feel the difference because in later decades I have encountered philosophers rather more. Scholars feel an obligation to understand and speak fairly of what they dislike. Philosophers, like theologians, apparently do not. As a result of this openness, Dodds was not put off by Plotinus’ “mysticism” and indeed found much to commend in Plotinus’ kind of religion. He saw him, perhaps a bit one-sidedly, as a defender of “Hellenic rationalism” in a time of intellectual collapse and strongly approved of his philosophic approach to the Divine and his indifference to myth, cult, and magic. He was also attracted to Plotinus through his interest in psychology. He admired his psychological insight and thought and, as others have also found, he gave a good account of some aspects of human experience. [This did not, of course, mean any endorsement of the Neoplatonic metaphysical or religious explanations of that experience.] His interest in psychic phenomena meant that he continued to maintain a slightly hostile interest in late Neoplatonic theurgy. Constructive Discouragement It should be well known that Dodds did much to help and encourage younger scholars. But he had his own methods. Both I and, many years later, Henry Blumenthal had the same experience when we sent him the manuscript of a projected book, our first in each case, for his comments – mine was Architecture306, H.B’s Psychology307. We in due course both received devastating letters pointing out, precisely and cogently, our many failures in scholarship and clarity of thought and the appalling defects in our English style and recommending a delay in publication of ten years or so. We published the books against his advice but the letters did us both good. We were shaken out of any complacency about our own work, and I think both of us have since then been trying to do better.

306 

Armstrong (1940). H.J. Blumenthal (1971). Plotinus’ Psychology: His Doctrines of the Embodied Soul. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. 307 

Letters

187

General I suppose everyone who knew him was aware of his clean-cut and invigorating austere moral and aesthetic standards, of his love of flowers and all natural beauty especially of mountains – it was a delightful but exhausting experience to walk with him in Switzerland in the late fifties – of his love of poetry, which had a good deal to do with his ability to understand religion, and painting. My last memory of him is going round the great Turner exhibition at the Royal Academy with him and of his pleasure in the way everything turned into light in Turner’s late pictures. Perhaps here we return to a very deep reason for his continuing love of Plotinus, the philosopher of light.

2 TO G. SHAW Ludlow, Shropshire, January 15, 1988 Dear Greg Shaw, Thank you very much for your letter and the published article. I’m particularly glad to have the article, as I’ve more than once wanted to refer to it in things I have been writing and haven’t been able to do so since I haven’t had the particulars (I’m very bad at keeping up with periodical literature [I’ve never been very good] since my final retirement from Dalhousie University in 1982, since when I only visit learned libraries occasionally). What you say about my original letter to you is very cheering and encouraging. It’s a great joy to an elderly person like myself to know that he can be of some help to younger scholars. I’m very glad you have a job (I note, in a department of Religious Studies! This seems to be where most Platonists end up nowadays, and a very good thing too!) and have finished your dissertation on Iamblichus. Have you thought about possibilities of publishing this (perhaps after some revision, which dissertations usually need)? It strikes me, and may have struck you, that it might go well into Peter Brown’s California series “The Transformation of the Classical Heritage”, in which Patricia Cox and Jay Bregman have appeared, but perhaps for this you may need to expand into the influence of theurgic Neoplatonism on the Greek Christian tradition, which some remarks in the article suggest you might be prepared to do. This of course would infuriate the Orthodox: they absolutely hate and resent any suggestion of Neoplatonic influence on their doctrines or practices and retain their traditional hostility to the Hellenic Neoplatonists. I shall never forget the disapproving beard-wagging that ensued when I read a paper (perfectly Orthodox in its theology) to the Patristic Conference at Oxford in which I hailed the victory of the icons as a victory for Neoplatonism; and I had a bit of the same

188

Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)

not so long ago when I spoke kindly of Julian at the Patristics C. and 2 Orthodox from Russia disagreed unintelligibly and at length. Your PS interests me greatly. I’ve been thinking on rather similar lines about Plotinus, Porphyry and Iamblichus (and Amelius, who should not be forgotten) myself. You’ll find something of this on in the enclosed paper on the De Myst. Etc—which was intended to appear only in French translation: the English got published by mistake, hence some oddities. There’s more on Porphyry in my 1987 Aquinas lecture, of which I’m afraid I haven’t a copy to send, but it should be fairly easily findable (Expectations of Immortality in Late Antiquity, Marquette University Press, 1987). The Iamblichus paper will also show rather definitely where my sympathy for theurgy stops and that Dodds (whom I knew well) still has some influence on my mind. I’ve had an interesting letter from Beierwaltes about this. His difficulties with theurgy are not dissimilar to mine. I also enclose a couple of Eranos papers which may not be so easy for you to get a hold of. The 1985 one contains my tribute to Trouillard, written just after his death. If I come again to USA, it’s likely to be in summer 1989, when I’ve been invited to give one of the keynote speeches at the Neoplatonic Conference they’re planning at San Diego. If this comes off, I should welcome the opportunity to break my journey in the East, and perhaps visit you at Stonehill College. Jay Bregman has plans for something involving me at Orono, Maine, but there’s nothing definite yet. And I shall in any case want to visit Peter Manchester at Stony Brook—I hope you’re still in touch with him: it was he who first recommended your work on theurgy to me. With all good wishes, Hilary Armstrong

3 TO G. SHAW Ludlow, Shropshire, April 9, 1988 Dear Greg Shaw, Thank you for your letter and the copy of the article. I haven’t been able to answer before because I have been busy with a number of other things. Even now I haven’t really time to write about the paper as carefully as it deserves, and in any case I’d rather wait until you have made the changes you suggest in your treatment of Plotinus. So I’ll just try to answer your question about why I think “the pendulum has swung too far,” and in doing so explain what I find particularly dislikeable about Iamblichus’ “supernaturalism”. It does seem to make a good deal of difference where we respectively start from. I have always studied Plotinus in the context of the great public traditions, especially Catholicism and the living English Christian

Letters

189

Platonist tradition: and though I can no longer accept their absolute claims and their exclusiveness or give uncritical and unqualified respect to their authorities, I still regard them with much more reverence than I’ve ever felt for any esoteric or occultist group. But I also have considerable respect for the other side of my personal tradition, the sturdy, by no means always narrow or insensitive, rationalism of the great Victorian agnostics of whom Dodds was the last (this is represented in my paper not only by Dodds at its ends but by Molière in its beginnings. So my “wry comments” in the paper on modern scholarship were not intended to be simply dismissive. I have a great deal of use for it in its own sphere, though thinking that it is often narrow and religiously insensitive: those who know the whole of the Browning poem which I quoted will see this. So the short answer to the question of why I think the pendulum has swung too far is that we seem to be getting to a point where one is expected to take the Chaldaean rites (and of course similar oddities in the devotions of the public traditions) and the claims of the theurgists (and of course of the Catholic magisterium, various assorted preachers, gurus and Wonder-Rabbis etc.) seriously and not apply to them the rigorous and disrespectful criticism which they often require. But it goes a bit deeper. I don’t at all question what you say about Iamblichus’ teaching about the presence of the gods in this world—indeed, as you’ve noticed, I say a good deal about it myself. But I remain with Plotinus against Iamblichus in refusing to set an upper limit to the psychē, and indeed in disliking all this setting up of precise limits and sharp differentiations within the divine, and between the divine and the psychē and the cosmos, which is likely to issue in the (to me blasphemously absurd) claim that the gods grant certain psychai a privileged extra-psychic access to themselves which makes them exempt from all criticism (not only “rational” criticism in a narrow modern sense) and raises them above “mere” philosophers (in the ancient sense, i.e., wise and good persons who study and live by a great tradition reverently, but also freely and critically). I intended to suggest something of this by choosing a Jungian quotation which in its context expresses the strongest Jungian complaint against “theologians.” With whom Jung’s determined attempts to come to an understanding left him so deeply disillusioned. Maybe my understanding of the psyche is becoming as much Jungian as Plotinian—I think they complement each other, and we need them both. I hope this may do something to clarify my position. With all good wishes, Yours, Hilary Armstrong

190

Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)

4 TO K. CORRIGAN Ludlow, Shropshire, August 30, 1994 Dear Kevin, Just a note to acknowledge your book, which arrived today.308 Thank you very much for letting me read it. It will obviously take me some time—I’m a bit slower than I was and I have other things to do, which I hope won’t take long. It will, however, obviously be some time before I write to you with my comments. I’ve so far just glanced at the Contents, and I think I have a dim idea of the plan. O’Brien seems to be notorious throughout the academic world for his vitriolic attacks, which he seems to think one shouldn’t mind. I think that having been attacked by him will help rather than hinder your case.309 I hope you get on well with the publishing. Hilary O’Shea seems a pleasant friendly person. I had some dealings with her over Deidre Carabine’s book on the earlier history of apophatic theology, which is now going to be published by Peeters of Louvain, who seem good and receptive. They’ve done Studia Patristica very well and quickly, which is a nice change. I also like Dominic O’Meara, but I don’t think he does anything for Oxford. It was a great joy to see you again, and I hope it won’t be too long before you re-visit England. Are you coming to the Patristic Conference next year? With much love to Elena, and all the family. Yours, Hilary Armstrong

308  The book was not yet finished. I had written parts of it in 1992-1993, in my first full year as Dean of St. Thomas More College, in Saskatchewan, Canada. With Professor Armstrong’s help, it would eventually be published as Plotinus’ Theory of Matter – Evil and the Question of Substance: Plato, Aristotle, and Alexander of Aphrodisias. Louvain: Peeters Press, 1996. 309  My “case” was an article, entitled “Is there more than one generation of matter in the Enneads?” (Phronesis, 21, 1986, 167-181), of which Denis O’Brien wrote a vigorous rejection (“On the generation of matter in the Enneads: a reply,” Dionysius, 12, 1988, 17-24), shocking to me at the time, followed later by an even more vigorous and extensive rejection (Plotinus on the Origin of Matter: An Exercise in the Interpretation of the Enneads. Bibliopolis, 1991). With his customary judgement and compassion, Professor Armstrong acknowledges the event but gives it only cursory mention, with indication of a future more positive outcome.

Letters

191

5 TO K. CORRIGAN Ludlow, Shropshire, 1995 (?) Dear Kevin, I have just finished reading through your book and I am filled with admiration for the way you have shown and demonstrated that Plotinus was continually involved in real and positive, though often critical, philosophical discussion with Aristotle and Alexander, and was continually using that discussion and the development of Aristotle’s thought to help him understand Plato better. A good deal of the book was rather wasted on me. I’m not really a precise Aristotelian scholar, and I’m no logician—I don’t think I really understood the Category treatises even while I was translating them! But I understood enough of your book to be quite clear that a careful study of his use of Aristotle is indispensable to understanding Plotinus, and that you have gone the right way about it. I think it was necessary to begin with the ‘commentary’ chapters on the matter and evil treatises, which I am very glad to have anyhow, particularly on III 6. But admittedly it does make it a very difficult book to read, and this, I am afraid, will influence publishers. You will need a very clear and instructive preliminary note on how the book is to be read. And you will need a very good and clear last chapter, in which you sum up and make generally accessible as far as possible, any conclusions which you may draw. I would like to say something about your Aristotle as well as about your Plotinus. It seems to me that Aristotle, as well as Plotinus, comes out in the end rather different from some conventional anti-Platonic pictures, and more historically probable—much more the sort of man who would have been an active and prominent member of the Academy till Plato’s death, and to whom later generations of Platonists would turn to precisely for help in understanding Plato. There is something else which I would like to come out somewhere, perhaps in the last chapter, which is rather difficult to explain. Perhaps you could look again at my “Dualism” (XII in Hellenic and Christian Studies) and see if you agree with it, and if not, why not. The main relevant point is that in the Pythagorean-Platonic tradition, right back to the Table of Opposites, κακόν is a necessary constituent of any world which is not the One Absolute Good (if it is recognized, as it certainly is by Plotinus). Without κακόν there would not be a world at all. This gives a great deal of point to the perpetual quoting of the Theaetetus in the Enneads. I think Cornford always saw it in the Timaeus. This means that κακόν doesn’t perhaps just mean something different from our “evil” – rather flavoured with conflict-dualism. It is used by Platonists in quite a different context, quite a different way of thinking. One doesn’t preach against, crusade against, or persecute a necessary constituent

192

Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)

of the only world there is: one handles it, manages it, tries to do one’s best with it—like a demiourgos. Your 7.7 has just arrived,310 and I’ve read it with much enthusiasm and complete agreement. But, though I quite agree that Plotinus cannot be reduced to a “dualist” or a “monist” in any ordinary sense, it is worth noting that the Pythagorean-Platonic understanding of κακόν fits equally well into a two-independent principles account of the world or a one-principle one. If one holds that there is only one, that the universe is given by the Good or the One, then the natural, simple thing to do is to adopt Syrianus and Proclus’ account of peras-apeiron proceeding directly from the One. But perhaps that is a little over-simplified? (Is putting agathon quite so firmly on the side of measure, order and limit a bit restricting?) Perhaps, now we have your account, we might find, with Plotinus’ help, something a bit more subtle! Of course, it is a commonplace, I think, of all Neoplatonism that the higher, right up to the Good, is fully present and active on all activities of the lower, e.g., psyche. “Hierarchy” in Neoplatonism needs continual rethinking in this light, as it does in pre-Reformation Christianity especially in Eastern Orthodoxy. I hold it rather against Plotinus that he slips too often into using the language of conflict-dualism in speaking of his matter-evil. Perhaps this is inevitable considering his heritage; I think this is what I meant by calling his identification of matter and evil “rhetorical.” I am also rather unhappy still about Aristotle’s very sharp separation of Nous and psyche. Perhaps you will understand why, and what I think Plotinus did about it, if you look at the enclosed (from A. C. Lloyd’s Festschrift).311 Perhaps, I now think, the sharp separation was somewhat infected by the other kind of Platonic thought, the cosmic piety which saw the divine demonstrated in the order of the heavens, and easily came to think that the heavens were nearest to the divine, as Plotinus did, and was always slightly in danger of thinking of spirit as an ultra-subtle form of the material and corporeal. Of course the immaterial is not more “distant” from anything corporeal than anything else, any more than eternity is a long time. Perhaps the intelligible in Plotinus sometimes becomes infected with the corporeality of the heavens. I think my remark about Aristotle should be taken quite seriously from the point of view of publication. As far as I know, there is no-one at Oxford now seriously interested in Plotinus, and there may be a tendency in the Press to give your book to an Aristotelian scholar to read who mayn’t like your understanding of Aristotle. I think anyhow you should perhaps have another publisher or publishers in mind. I haven’t done anything in the way of detailed notes and commentary all through, mainly because whenever I came to a crux, either of text or interpretation, which I 310 

My 7.7 was, I think, a version of the final chapter of the book noted above in first note of letter 4. H.J. Blumenthal and H. Robinson (1991). Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary vol.: Festschrift for A. C. Lloyd: On the Aristotelian Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 311 

Letters

193

had studied, it seemed to me that you had considered the possibilities and taken a reasonable course perfectly fairly and adequately. Of course I should very much like to see a copy of the last chapter when you have written it. With love and best wishes to Elena and all the family. Yours, Hilary Armstrong

6 TO K. CORRIGAN Ludlow, Shropshire, January 23, 1995 Dear Kevin, I was enormously pleased and most grateful to get your letter. Soon after I’d finished your book I was talking to Henry Blumenthal (still flourishing as head of Classics in Liverpool) about it and he more or less forcibly lent me a great fat commentary on I 8 with which a Chinese person at Liverpool has got his Ph.D this summer (supervisor of course H. B.). I don’t much like his attitude to Aristotle, Plotinus etc. and probably shan’t read it all, even the 4 enormous introductory chapters. But you might like it better and anyway ought to show some awareness of its existence [Plotinus on Matter and Evil: A Commentary on Plotinus, Ennead I 8, “On what are Whence come Evils?” Jia-Sheng Veng, Ph.D 1993]. It is in the Liverpool library and you might be able to get the loan of the library copy somehow (it’s over 500 pp. of typescript)]. I hope that your paper on the Existence-Life-Intellect triad goes well, and I should very much like to see a copy when it is complete.312 I’m more and more convinced that the One and the One-Being are very close to each other (and yet quite distinct) in Plotinus. It isn’t so much a question of the One making the real, intelligible world and remaining quite separate from it as of Nous having a principle of existence which goes beyond it into the infinite and unknowable. Anyhow I think (with much help from your ANRW article) that this sort of thing was a subject of discussion in the circle, perhaps before the death of Plotinus and in the period between it and the “publication” of the Enneads. And that everyone in that and subsequent Neoplatonist discussions thought they were being faithful to Plotinus. I don’t think there is much evidence for the existence of a formalized triad in the pre-Plotinian exegesis of the Parmenides, but if you have found some I should certainly like to know about it. 312  Corrigan (1987). “Amelius, Plotinus and Porphyry on Being, Intellect and the One.” Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, Band II, 36(2), 975-993.

194

Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)

Even before your letter I had begun to think that κακόν in the Pythagorean-Platonic tradition had rather a different tone and emphasis from “evil” as we usually think of it. You’ll find a sort of rough sketch of my thinking about it in my “Dualism”—a paper delivered at the Calvinist Free University of Amsterdam, with various somewhat unexpected but on the whole encouraging results—in the last few pages. You might care to look also at the extraordinary conclusions of “Platonic Mirrors”—about the Athenians, not about Plotinus—when everything I’d written, and a good deal else, came together in my mind, and I wrote the last paragraph almost as if from dictation, and without intending to write anything like that. Both papers are in Hellenic and Christian Studies. But I hadn’t really thought out why Plotinus hadn’t adopted the solution of the Athenians, quite old in Post-Platonic Pythagoreanism, which Syrianus knew and which he and Proclus adopted and developed. I think I shall send you, with this, a note of my working on this, and if your last chapter extends, as you mean, beyond Aristotle and Plotinus, you can use anything that you like in it on that. I have finished this, and it has turned into a summary of my thought about κακόν, of which there seems to be a good deal, but all in bits and pieces, and there seem to be interesting consequences if you put it all together. I’ve seen various things, dimly, but hadn’t quite seen how they were connected. Please, use as much of it as you like for your last chapter. I shan’t publish it, as I’ve published most of it already. Tolma in Nous seems to me a good example of something which we should probably not call “evil” but Plotinus would call κακόν, and we should mean much the same thing. I think I’ve always seen Plotinus’ religious thinking as being about a checked return to the Good,’ the check is the Good-implanted tolma and comes just at the point where if it didn’t exist there wouldn’t be a world—there would just be the Good—it is in fact the mystery of creation. The creation is never re-absorbed, as it couldn’t be united with God, because it wouldn’t be there. There would only be God. I don’t know that Plotinus’ account of the presence of κακόν in the world is more subtle than the Athenians: it is certainly more complex, and perhaps gives a way of discriminating between what would have been κακόν to Plotinus but perhaps not “evil” to us, and what is to both both κακόν and evil, but at the price of the limitation of agathon which we both disapprove of: perhaps I’ve puzzled you a bit by so much insisting on the tension in Platonism between “cosmic piety” and “intelligible-sensible” which I’ve only recently come to see as important. I enclose my summary of my thought on κακόν which I do hope will help a little with that last chapter. I was very moved by, and grateful for, your ending, and want to keep on helping if I can. You seem to be surviving administration remarkably well, but its monstrous growth is causing very deep problems to all of us who are still active academics. I’m very much looking forward to seeing you in the summer. With love and good wishes to you and all the family, Hilary

Letters

195

“Some Notes on κακόν in the Platonic-Pythagorean Tradition” My concern with this subject started some time ago when I noticed that there is a difference of tone and emphasis between the meaning of kakon and kaka in the thought of Pythagoreans and Plato and those many followers of his who were affected by Pythagorean ways of thinking and the sense of cosmic evil and the evils in the created world which is usual in the discussions of later theists. In this latter, it is assumed that the creator of the world is good, and the world as created is wholly good in it [s?] degree. The bad in it comes later, either as a result of attack from outside by a kingdom of evil presided over by a principle of evil, or some internal corruptions never satisfactorily explained, a fall or falls of created beings. “Evil” and “Principle of Evil” are emotional, fighting words. They denote attempts to destroy or spoil something originally good. Those who are on the side of the creative divinity must fight and seek to obliterate and/or utterly cast out Evils and their cause. The Pythagorean and Pythagorean-Platonic way of looking at kakon and kaka is very different. For them a created or ordered world requires number, as it does, that it may have diversity and variety, as it does: and number for them originates in the Dyad, the principle of indefinite multiplicity. And number, diversity and variety imply at least the possibility, sometimes actualised, of kaka. (There may be, at least inchoately and implicitly, the ideas that in a multiple world there is a possibility of choice, and it also gives possibilities of error. We find both choice and error in the world). So no kakon, no world. Of course, if this world is to show evidence of divine action in it, if it is to be a kosmos, a world of ordered beauty, as all Pythagoreans believed that it was, the divine must order, limit and arrange the chaotic multiplicity as far as possible. So agathon, divine goodness, is in this way of thinking, firmly relegated to one side of the Table of Opposites. It is “Apolline”, male, the principle of measure, order and limit. You and I are agreed in regarding this as an inadequate limitation. But I think we must wait for Proclus, in this tradition (here probably following Syrianus) to see and say that there is agathon, too on the apeiron, dyadic, hylic side. The dark, chaotic, female is good, too. Apollo shares Delphi quite naturally and unselfconsciously with Dionysus (the opposition of the two is German, not Greek) and the Thyiads dance at Delphi. See Proclus Platonic Theology III.8 p.32, Saffrey-Westerink. In my “Dualism” you’ll find other references, and I quote Jean Trouillard’s superb comment on the Athenian doctrine from La Mystagogie de Proclus. Of course, you’re right in saying that the Pythagorean two-opposite principles doctrine isn’t necessarily creationist. The divine may find the chaos just as something is there and order it. Post-Platonic Pythagoreans seem to settle for both principles coming from the One a little, perhaps, before Eudorus. At this point, I rely very much on Merlan’s Ch.5 of the Cambridge History and Dillon’s Middle Platonists etc. for the

196

Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)

pre-history and for Syrianus’ claims to earlier authority: he seems really to go back to an early stage in post-Platonic Pythagoreanism. I think Plotinus goes back to a rather different Pythagorean idea with his tolma in Nous and Psyche, if Anatolius is to be trusted (see my Ch.15 of the C. H. pp.242-3). but more on tolma when we come to Plotinus. I have always been puzzled that in Plotinus hyle is only the principle of kaka and absolute kakon in the Lower Cosmos, the sublunary world. Your book has shown marvelously how rich and varied his doctrine of hyle is, and how much he gained from his long philosophical discussion with Aristotle and the Peripatetics. But it doesn’t quite solve my problem. This is roughly how I should do it. Plotinus is always very concerned to keep close to Plato, and to present his own thought as an exposition of Plato’s, or at least of what Plato would have said if he had made himself perfectly clear. The exposition of the Timaeus must form an important part of an exposition of the nature of the world by Plotinus. And in the Timaeus Plato seems mainly concerned with the kaka of the lower world. More important is the conviction of Plato in his later years that there is no kakon in the Higher Cosmos. There is a hylic or dyadic element, of course, in this, as even in the intelligible, to account for its plurality. But it is perfectly tractable and in tune with the divine ordering. It is, both for Plotinus and Plato, to the Higher Cosmos which one must look, above all, for evidence of the divine action in the sense-world. We should, of course, always remember that light is incorporeal in Plotinus, the only incorporeal perceived by the senses, the sign of the intelligible order in the sense-world. But, of course, if one really believes in the incorporeality of the incorporeal, its space lessness and eternity, as Plotinus most certainly did, there is no “higher” or “lower”. The intelligible is as near to my cat or a lettuce in my garden, and as infinitely other, as to Helios and the host of heaven. Plotinus seems to think that way sometimes. In that wonderful passage at the end of III 2.13 where he is speaking of the working of the divine powers in the sense-world he is speaking of earth and the shapes of earth, not of the Higher Cosmos: and in IV 4.22 he takes dirty little Gaia (as she was for the cosmic piety of his time) as his example of the psychology of a visible god, not glorious Helios or any visible being of the Upper Cosmos. True Platonic incorporeality does not really go very well with a hierarchization of the divine to fit the hierarchization of the cosmos or cosmic piety: as “Dionysius” said in Divine Names (Ch.V.1 and XI. 6) when confronted by his Athenian teachers with an extreme form of divine hierarchy. See my Negative Theology (Plotinian and Christian Studies XXIV) p.183: and by so saying he founded the whole anti-Neoplatonic tradition of Orthodox theology down to and including St Gregory Palamas. In Plotinus, then, there is a “heavenly gap”, comprehending both the “highest” part of the sense-world, the Upper Cosmos, and the intelligible world, above which hyle is no longer absolute kakon and principle of kaka. But there is something kakon, in the sense that it is other than and worse than the Absolute Agathon, and an

Letters

197

impulse to be One-in-Many, One-Being, and to produce lower multiplicities, even in Nous itself, and that Plotinus calls tolma (though the word is not used when P. speaks of a recognisable tolma in Nous} – I can’t read III.8.11 without being strangely reminded of another passage in quite a different tradition “Why callest thou me good? There is none other who is good but God alone.” (I quote from memory, but you’ll easily find it in the Gospels).313 Plotinus would certainly say the tolma of Nous was kakon. But we would hesitate to say it was “evil”, for all creation depends on it. Nous is a derived reality. Who put it in Nous? You’ll gather that I stick to my explanation of tolma in ch.15 of the Cambridge History, though Veng disagrees. A subsidiary reason, I think, why Plotinus makes hyle principle of kaka in the lower world is his desire to get completely rid of the “evil soul” of some Middle Platonists, Plutarch and Atticus, which is sometimes influenced by conflict-dualism. Perhaps some trace of conflict-dualism survives in Plotinus’s descriptions of hyle as absolute kakon, which are more violent and emotional than anything in the Middle Platonists. Dillon is very good on the “evil” soul, which he prefers to call the maleficent soul, in Plutarch and Atticus. See my “Dualism.”314 Plotinus, as we know, is the most rigid of Platonists in insisting that there is no kakon at all in the divine, which includes psyche, and that it cannot be really affected by what is below it. Henry Blumenthal has shown what difficulties this gets him into. I don’t think it is in Plato. I don’t think Plotinus would have minded the idea of kaka as parhupostaseis in itself. There seems to be a good deal of it in III 2-3. We should remember III 2. 17 (it’s not easy to forget) where it is the passionate pursuit of one’s good which destroys others. So Plotinus seems to give two explanations of kakon; separated by the “heavenly gap” which is in Plato. Both are Pythagorean (if Anatolius is to be believed about tolma) and both put the responsibility for the appearance of kaka in the world on the hylic, dyadic element of multiplicity, without which there would not be a world at all. Both see kakon as kakon (though not perhaps always in our usual, rhetorical, sense of the word “evil”) and place divine Agathon entirely on the measuring, limiting, ordering side. Syrianus and Proclus, the Athenian Neoplatonists, ignore the tolma explanation and return to probably the earliest post-Platonic Pythagorean explanation of two opposite principles proceeding directly from the One, the Monad or Peras and the Dyad or apeiron. The development by Proclus shows the advantages of this explanation clearly. Both principles proceed directly from the Agathon, and communicate its goodness equally to derived being. The dyadic or indefinite principle is cause of kaka only incidentally, and this can find much, perhaps indirect, support in Plotinus, especially in the treatise On Providence. And it is also clearly stated to 313 

314 

Mark 10:18; Matthew 19:17. Armstrong (1984).

198

Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)

be the cause of much good in the cosmos. Jean Trouillard and I were much pleased when we saw this clearly set out. At last in this tradition the dark, chaotic mother of the universe is acknowledged as the equal in the communication of goodness to the bright, measuring, ordering father. Both proceed from the Good, and transmit as much goodness as it can have to the cosmos. The consequences of the acknowledgement of this are enormous. I take the “heavenly gap”’, which Plato transmitted to Plotinus, as the consequence of the tremendous intellectual, imaginative and experiential power exercised by the cosmic piety which Plato first began to develop from the geocentric view of the structure of the universe which he justifiably accepted, and which has by no means lost all its power to-day. We should think someone very odd if he refused to say that the sun rose and set and the moon waxed and waned. It is, I’m inclined to think, responsible for a good deal of the emphasis on hierarchy, especially in later Neoplatonism. The totally immaterial cannot be arranged in hierarchy. The geocentric Higher Cosmos can and must be. Etc. Etc. These notes have no conclusion to those who follow the Neoplatonic way. I have written a good deal on “cosmic piety”. Perhaps see particularly section II of the Divine Enhancement of Earthly Beauties (IV in Hellenic and Christian Studies), which the Jungians have reprinted. Perhaps I have rather exaggerated its effect on Plotinus. But its effect on Plato and Platonists and Stoics was far-reaching and deep.

7 TO K. CORRIGAN Ludlow, Shropshire, undated Dear Kevin, Thank you very much for your preface etc. and additions and revisions to chapters 5, 6, and 7, also on the offprint and Boston paper,315 which I was very glad to see. I felt while reading them that if one only dug deeper and read the texts accurately enough the two sides of our “Inherited Conglomerate,” the Biblical and the Greek, might come together; whereas when I was reading my friend, E. P. Meijering’s very fine new book on the great historian of Christian dogma, Masheim, in the 18th century, the father, in a way, of scholarly Christian orthodoxy,316 whose conclusions were governed by his strict Reformation Biblical theology, and taking irritated notice of 315  One of these might have been my “Ecstasy and Ectasy in Some Early Pagan and Christian Mystical Writings”. In William J. Carroll & John J. Furlong (Eds.). Greek and Medieval Studies in Honor of Leo Sweeney, S.J. New York, Berlin: Peter Lang, 1995, 27-37. 316  E. P. Meijering (1995). Die Geschichte der christlichen Theologie im Urteil J.L.von Mosheims. Amsterdam, 1995.

Letters

199

various remarks, theories, and procedures at a more superficial level, from Louth downwards,317 I nearly came to the conclusion that they were quite incompatible. I think that now you have a very fine book indeed and I think you shouldn’t add anything more: you make a great contribution to something we urgently ought to study: what I call the “dark other” because I don’t know quite what else to call it, that other element in the universe which is certainly there, which Plato spoke of in the Timaeus and which Pythagoreanizing Platonists or Platonizing Pythagoreans saw must come in some way from the One, and which already in Plotinus becomes part of the very mystery of creation. I would rather like you to develop some time more fully what you say on p. 313: “if this is so, then Plotinus’ analysis of the origin and nature of intelligible form and matter are the direct forerunners of Proclus’ later positive treatment of primal Limit and Unlimitedness …” In the course of showing this, you might be able to make a rather critical examination of what I’ve said about tolma in the CHLGEMP318 (and my Loeb note to V 1, 1), in which I now detect two weaknesses: (1) I don’t stress quite enough that Plotinus is rather shy about using the word tolma, tolmēsas. (2) More important, he doesn’t use kakon, or anything like it, in talking about the necessary will to independence even in Nous (see III 8, 8, 7 on soul and in III 7, 11), without which movement away from the Good, of course, there wouldn’t be a multiple and diverse universe at all, but only the Absolute Good: he seems to regret, especially in III 8, 8, that any good less than the Absolute Good should exist. But it is just this combination of movement away and checked (before absorption) return which constitutes the universe, and I think must be given directly by the Good: which means that the “hylic” or “dyadic” element, the “other,” is as important and intended in absolute generosity by the First as the more obviously, to a Greek, divine element of light, limitation, order and measure, as Proclus makes clear. Plotinus obviously doesn’t want to talk about hyle as principle of kaka and absolute kakon in this context. So perhaps his thought is essentially that of the Athenians, only a little more subtle. And this seems to me a very good way of being neither a “monist” nor a “dualist.” I was very pleased with the way you brought out that eternal reality is a living reality, life from the source of life. And, this being so, it isn’t incongruous to detect in the eternal derived reality a sort of will to be derived but independent. I feel most honoured by my share in the dedication. It’s the second greatest honour I’ve ever received in my life, the first and, I think you’ll agree, greatest being my share with Dodds and Page in the dedication of Henry-Schwyzer III. I still think there is something in my idea of the “heavenly gap,” the effect of the cosmic piety of Plato’s later years on Plotinus’ thinking, but your new approach is, I think, better and more in accord with your thinking, and the other needs some working 317  Perhaps A. Louth (1981). The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition: From Plato to Denys. Oxford, 1981. 318  The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy: Armstrong (1967).

200

Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)

out, and is perhaps better thought about in connection with the hierarchization of the divine. With all good wishes and love to everybody, and again congratulations to you and Elena on managing to do so many things so well, Hilary Armstrong

8 TO K. CORRIGAN Ludlow, Shropshire, April 25, 1996 Dear Kevin, Thank you very much for your admirable article on “solitary” mysticism,319 and the student newspaper. The article is one which much needed doing and will help greatly to make discussion of the awareness of the One among the Neoplatonists more intelligent. I think your analysis of what was meant, and in what sense the final approach to the One is to be called “solitary” is excellent. My “Apprehension of Divinity in Self and Cosmos” (Plotinian and Christian Studies XVIII) doesn’t really compete, but might, I think, be a useful supplement here and there. With all best wishes, and love to Elena and the family, Yours, Hilary Armstrong

9 TO K. CORRIGAN Ludlow, Shropshire, February 17, 1997 Dear Kevin and all the family, Thank you very much for your card and enclosures (with a very nice portrait of you purveying knowledge to the masses!). I haven’t answered it before because I have had so many letters, some of which needed long answers, about Christmas-time which needed to be answered first. This is very pleasant now that I have decided I’m too old and decrepit to do much about trying to write learned articles (to find the right book to check a reference is now an effort), but I even write letters slowly and it fills time. I’ve reached the stage when meletē thanatou is absolutely necessary, though my health, apart from the lack of mobility, is good, but I’m 88 this year and have hardly even begun yet. When I remember my Uncle Arthur, the romantic 319  Corrigan (1996). ‘Solitary’ Mysticism in some pagan and Christian mystical writings: Plotinus, Proclus, Gregory of Nyssa and Pseudo-Dionysius, The Journal of Religion, 76 (1), 28-42.

Letters

201

Anglo-Catholic missionary, poet and story-writer who gave nearly everything he had away and lived in a Mashona hut320 nearly till his death and Barbara, who was so transformed by her last illness that her funeral was the most joyous occasion I have ever been at, a real natalicia aeternitatis:321 or Abbess Maria Gysi,322 the Christian Platonist who wrote to me that dying of a painful cancer was a chance to live her philosophy to the ultimate point, and did, I feel very small, as I should, but hope for their help in getting ready for the end. They were all people whom Plotinus would have thought of as true philosophers. I’m sure you are right in giving up administration for your really important research (though I wish you had got that presidency in Ontario). It’s the only hope of getting anything really done. I’ve known at least 2 sad examples of the reverse, and I think you are working on something really important. Especially I think that in these days when there is a real unformed interest in the Aristotelian commentaries of the later Neoplatonists, and Henry Blumenthal is trying to revive, in a mild and qualified way, the old view that the “Alexandrians” were somehow more “Aristotelian” than the “Athenians” and Ilsetraut Hadot is vigorously opposing him, anything you can do to make your work on Plotinus and Aristotle more widely known is very much worthwhile. I most strongly recommend the latest books by that amazing pair, Pierre and Ilsetraut Hadot. I haven’t by any means finished reading the long introduction to her great edition of Simplicius’ commentary on the Enchiridion of Epictetus, but every page brings interest and enlightenment (just published by Brill, and generously sent to me by I. H.). And Pierre’s little paperback Qu’est-ce que la philosophie antique? (Gallimard) is a book to read and re-read passages from again and again. He (and Ilsetraut) are basically right about ancient philosophy, and this is why I look to the very unacademic people I mentioned earlier as my “true philosophers”, and think of Abbess Maria’s words about her philosophy as giving the real meaning of philosophy in a way which Epicurus as well as Plotinus would have approved. They’d have both asked “How did she die?” I’m more and more convinced that the impact of Neoplatonism on English cultural life has been great, but almost entirely informal and unacademic, and I’m not in touch with the right people, and have never really worked in the right areas, though I’ve made my quite ineffective protest against the cranky, anti-Christian, sectarian cult of Thomas Taylor, as distinct from a study of his influence, which was great in certain fields… With all very best wishes to you and Elena, and the family, Hilary 320 

A hut of the Shona people of Southern Africa, principally, Zimbabwe. A real “birth of eternity.” 322  See also for Mother Maria, Hellenic and Christian Studies, 1990, V, 98-99n18; and VII, 50. 321 

202

Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)

4.6. Obituary In Memoriam Professor Hilary Armstrong Hilary Armstrong, Emeritus Professor, died quietly on 16 October 1997 at his home in Ludlow England, aged 88. Arthur Hilary Armstrong, a Fellow of the British Academy came to the Department of Classics, Dalhousie University, first in 1970 as a Killam Senior Fellow, and stayed as Professor of Classics until 1983; he was a founding editor of this journal and was recognised as a leading authority in the English-speaking world in the study of the philosophy and culture of the later ancient world: his seven-volume translation of Plotinus in the Loeb series in felicitous and graceful English is probably the accomplishment for which he will be most readily remembered by the general public. Scholars will recall his distinguished editorship of and contribution to the Cambridge History of Later Ancient and Early Mediaeval Philosophy. Many of his numerous essays revealing his many-sided interests were collected in Variorum editions – Plotinian and Christian Studies (1979) and Hellenic and Christian Studies (1991). His work at Dalhousie involved the establishment of the doctoral programme in Classics and subsequent collection around him of a lively group of graduate students and scholars from all over North America, devoted to the rediscovery of a phase of intellectual culture long neglected in more conventional classical and philosophical studies. He was generous with his unrivalled learning, catholic in his interests in the visual arts and poetry, and deeply concerned to understand the relation of Greek thought and culture to other – and particularly Indian – traditions. Though primarily known as a historian of Neoplatonic thought, he delighted to teach the Greek poets, and many a student learned something of the power and force of Greek tragic drama through reading Sophocles with him and enjoying his unsurpassed knowledge of, and sensitivity to, the Greek language. Throughout his career Hilary Armstrong saw the pursuit of philosophical enlightenment and the conduct of life as aspects of a search for truth in an authentic Platonic sense; directions of enquiry and intellectual and religious loyalties were modified if the search necessitated them: he was, as Plato claimed, “a true philosopher – one for whom the truth is a spectacle of which he is enamoured.” J. Patrick Atherton323 (Reproduced by kind permission of Prof. Wayne Hankey, editor of Dionysius).

323 

See bibliography.

Bibliography of A. H. Armstrong

203

4.7. Bibliography of A. H. Armstrong Richard Dufour

Biography Long, A. A. (2003). Arthur Hilary Armstrong 1909-1997. Proceedings of the British Academy, 120, 3-17.

Books (1940). The Architecture of the Intelligible Universe in the Philosophy of Plotinus: An Analytical and Historical Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Also in French: (1984). L’Architecture de l’Univers Intelligible dans la Philosophie de Plotin : Une Étude Analytique et Historique (J. Ayoub & D. Letocha, Trans.). Ottawa: Université d’Ottawa. (1946). Aristotle, Plotinus & St Thomas. Oxford: Blackfriars. (1947). An Introduction to Ancient Philosophy. London: Methuen. Also in Italian: (1999). Introduzione alla Filosofia Antica (V. Moloni De Vio, Trans.). Bologna: Mulino. (1949). The real Meaning of Plotinus’s Intelligible World. Oxford: Blackfriars. (1952). The Greek philosophical Background of the Psychology of St. Thomas. London: Blackfriars. (1953). Plotinus: A Volume of Selections in a new English Translation. London: Allen & Unwin. (1966). Plotinus, I: Porphyry, On the Life of Plotinus and the Order of his Books; Enneads I, 1-9. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. (1966). Plotinus, II: Enneads II, 1-9. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. (1967). Plotinus, III: Enneads III, 1-9. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. (1967). St. Augustine and Christian Platonism. Villanova: Villanova University Press. Reprinted in Plotinian and Christian Studies, XI. (1984). Plotinus, IV: Enneads IV, 1-9. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. (1984). Plotinus, V: Enneads V, 1-9. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. (1987). Expectations of Immortality in Late Antiquity. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press. (1988). Plotinus, VI: Enneads VI, 1-5. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. (1988). Plotinus, VII: Enneads VI, 6-9. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. & Markus, R. A. (1960). Christian Faith and Greek Philosophy. London: Darton, Longman & Todd. Also in Polish: (1964). Wiara Chrześcijańska a Filozofia Grecka (H. Bednarek, Trans.). Warszawa: Instytut Wydawniczy Pax. And in Spanish: (1970). Fe Cristiana y Filosofía Griega. Barcelona: Herder.

204

Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)

Edited books (1967). The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Also in CZech: (2002). Filosofie Pozdní Antiky: od Staré Akademie po Jana Eriugenu. Praha: Oikoumene. (1986). Classical Mediterranean Spirituality: Egyptian, Greek, Roman. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. & Fry, E. J. B. (Eds.). (1963). Rediscovering Eastern Christendom: Essays in Commemoration of Dom Bede Winslow. London: Darton Longman & Todd.

Collected papers (1979). Plotinian and Christian Studies. London: Variorum. (1990). Hellenic and Christian Studies. Aldershot: Variorum.

Papers (1936). Plotinus and India. Classical Quarterly, 30(1), 22-28. Reprinted in Plotinian and Christian Studies, I. (1937). “Emanation” in Plotinus. Mind, 46(181), 61-66. Reprinted in Plotinian and Christian Studies, II. (1937). The Neo-platonist Attack on Christianity. Dublin Review, 201(402), 51-60. (1938). The Gods in Plato, Plotinus, Epicurus. Classical Quarterly, 32(3/4), 190-196. (1939). Modern Liturgical Architecture. The Downside Review, 57(4), 448-457. (1941). Aristotle’s Theory of Poetry. Greece and Rome, 10(30), 120-125. (1943). St. Augustine and the Eastern Tradition [I]. The Eastern Churches Quarterly, 5(7-8), 157-167. (1943). The Greek Catholic Church of our Lady of Damascus, Valletta, Malta. The Eastern Churches Quarterly, 5(5-6), 114-116. (1944). Some Aspects of the Teaching of St. Athanasius and St. Augustine About the Blessed Trinity. The Eastern Churches Quarterly, 5(9), 233-241. (1944). St. Augustine and the Eastern Tradition, II: Man as Pilgrim. The Eastern Churches Quarterly, 5(12), 387-402. (1944). The Royal University of Malta. Blackfriars, 25(286), 18-22. (1945). Malta and the Siege of 1940-42. The Downside Review, 63(3), 158-170. (1945). Platonism as a Vital Force in Catholic Theology. The Eastern Churches Quarterly, 6(2), 56-66. (1946). Anthropos: An Introduction to a Historical Study of the Traditional Metaphysic of Person and Society. The Downside Review, 64(4), 238-246. (1946). St. Bonaventure on the Divine Simplicity. The Eastern Churches Quarterly, 6(5), 258-266. (1947). Studies in Traditional Anthropology I: Plato, A: The Soul of Man. The Downside Review, 65(3), 237-245.

Bibliography of A. H. Armstrong

205

(1947). Studies in Traditional Anthropology I: Plato, B: The Form of Man. The Downside Review, 65(4), 363-373. (1947). The Prospects of Reunion in the West. The Eastern Churches Quarterly, 7(1), 20-27. (1948). Studies in Traditional Anthropology I: Man in Plato, C: Individual and Community. The Downside Review, 66(2), 148-164. (1948). Studies in Traditional Anthropology II: Plotinus, A: Man’s Higher Self. The Downside Review, 66(4), 405-418. (1949). Membership of the Church. The Eastern Churches Quarterly, 8(4), 231-240. (1949). Studies in Traditional Anthropology II: Plotinus, B: The relevance of Plotinus. The Downside Review, 67(2), 123-133. (1950). The World of the Senses in Pagan and Christian Thought. The Downside Review, 68(3), 305-323. (1951). A Christian’s Temptation. The Eastern Churches Quarterly, 9(4), 184-190. (1951). Catholics and the University: A Personal View. Blackfriars, 32(376-377), 334-339. (1951). The International Patristic Conference at Oxford. The Eastern Churches Quarterly, 9(3), 152-155. (1952). The Place of Religion in the University. Higher Education Quarterly, 7(1), 26-30. (1952). The Platonic Tradition. The Downside Review, 70(219), 1-22. (1954). Spiritual or Intelligible Matter in Plotinus and St. Augustine. In Augustinus Magister. Congrès international augustinien. Paris 21-24 septembre 1954, I-II: Communications (pp. 277-283). Paris: Études augustiniennes. Reprinted in Plotinian and Christian Studies, VII. (1954). The Plotinian Doctrine of νοῦς in Patristic Theology. Vigiliae Christianae, 8(4), 234-238. (1955). Plotinus’s Doctrine of the Infinite and its Significance for Christian Thought. The Downside Review, 73(231), 47-58. Reprinted in Plotinian and Christian Studies, V. (1955). Theology and the Liberal Arts. The Downside Review, 73(232), 129-138. (1955). Was Plotinus a Magician ? Phronesis, 1(1), 73-79. Reprinted in Plotinian and Christian Studies, III. (1957). Correspondence [on Père Bouyer]. The Downside Review, 75(239), 103-105. (1957). Salvation, Plotinian and Christian. The Downside Review, 75(240), 126-139. Reprinted in Plotinian and Christian Studies, VI. (1960). The Background of the Doctrine “that the Intelligibles are not Outside the Intellect”. In Les sources de Plotin (pp. 391-425). Vandœuvres-Genève: Fondation Hardt. Reprinted in Plotinian and Christian Studies, IV. Also in German: (1977). Der Hintergrund der Lehre, “daß die intelligible Welt sich nicht außerhalb des Nous befindet”. In Zintzen, Clemens (Ed.), Die Philosophie des Neuplatonismus (pp. 38-57). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

206

Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)

(1961). Platonic Eros and Christian Agape. The Downside Review, 79(255), 105-121. Reprinted in Plotinian and Christian Studies, IX. (1961). Platonism. In I. Ramsey (Ed.), Prospect for Metaphysics: Essays of Metaphysical Exploration (pp. 93-110). London: Allen & Unwin. (1962). Mystery and Mysteries: A. General Principles of the Study of Comparative Religion. The Downside Review, 80(259), 111-117. (1962). Mystery and Mysteries: B. The Christian Mystery and the Mystery-Religions. The Downside Review, 80(260), 214-225. (1962). The Greeks and their Philosophy. In H. Lloyd-Jones (Ed.), The Greeks (pp. 123135). Cleveland: C. A. Watts & Co. (1962). The Theory of the Non-existence of Matter in Plotinus and the Cappadocians. In F. L. Cross (Ed.), Studia patristica, V: Papers presented to the third international Conference on Patristic Studies Oxford 1959 (Vol. 80, pp. 427-429). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Reprinted in Plotinian and Christian Studies, VIII. (1963). A Platonic Comment on M. F. Sciacca. In Potere e Responsabilità: Atti del XVII del Centro di Studi Filosofici tra Professori Universitari, Gallarate, 1962 (pp. 98-102). Brescia: Morcelliana. (1963). Rites and Man. The Downside Review, 81(263), 97-104. (1964). Platonic Love: A Reply to Professor Verdenius. The Downside Review, 82(268), 199-208. (1966). Reason and Faith in the first Millenium A. D. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, 40, 104-109. Reprinted in Plotinian and Christian Studies, XII. (1966). Some Comments on the Development of the Theology of Images. In Studia patristica, IX, 3: Papers Presented to the fourth International Conference on Patristic Studies held at Christ Church, Oxford, 1963 (Vol. 101, pp. 117-126). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. (1967). Plotinus. In A. H. Armstrong (Ed.), The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (pp. 193-268). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1968). Faith and Reason: Ancient and Modern. In G. F. McLean (Ed.), Philosophy and Contemporary Man (pp. 3-16). Washington: Catholic University of America Press. Reprinted in Plotinian and Christian Studies, XIII. (1971). Eternity, Life and Movement in Plotinus’ Accounts of νοῦς. In Le néoplatonisme: Actes du Colloque de Royaumont, 9-13 juin 1969 (pp. 67-76). Paris: CNRS. Reprinted in Plotinian and Christian Studies, XV. (1971). Later Platonism and its Influence. In R. R. Bolgar (Ed.), Classical Influences on European Culture, A.D. 500-1500. Proceedings of an International Conference held at King’s College, Cambridge, April 1969 (pp. 197-201). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bibliography of A. H. Armstrong

207

(1972). Neoplatonic Valuations of Nature, Body and Intellect. An Attempt to Understand Some Ambiguities. Augustinian Studies, 3, 35-59. (1973). Elements in the Thought of Plotinus at Variance with Classical Intellectualism. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 93, 13-22. Reprinted in Plotinian and Christian Studies, XVI. (1973). Man in the Cosmos: A study of some Differences Between Pagan Neoplatonism and Christianity. In W. d. Boer, P. G. v. d. Nat, C. M. J. Sicking & J. C. M. Van Winden (Eds.), Romanitas et Christianitas: Studia Iano Henrico Waszink a.d. VI Kal. Nov. a MCMLXXIII XIII lustra complenti oblata (pp. 5-14). Amsterdam: North Holland. (Reprinted in Plotinian and Christian Studies, XXII. (1973). The Search for Understanding: Philosophy and Theology in 1973. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, 47, 43-48. Reprinted in Plotinian and Christian Studies, XIV. (1974). Tradition, Reason and Experience in the Thought of Plotinus. In Atti del Convegno Internazionale sul Tema: Plotino e il Neoplatonismo in Oriente e in Occidente (Roma, 5-9 ottobre 1970) (Vol. 198, pp. 171-194). Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Reprinted in Plotinian and Christian Studies, XVII. (1975). Beauty and the Discovery of Divinity in the Thought of Plotinus. In J. Mansfeld & L. M. De Rijk (Eds.), Kephalaion: Studies in Greek philosophy and its Continuation Offered to C. J. de Vogel (pp. 155-163). Assen: Van Gorcum. Reprinted in Plotinian and Christian Studies, XIX. (1975). The Escape of the One: An Investigation of Some Possibilities of Apophatic Theology Imperfectly Realised in the West. In E. A. Livingstone (Ed.), Studia Patristica, XIII: Papers Presented to the Sixth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 1971 (Vol. 13, pp. 77-89). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Reprinted in Plotinian and Christian Studies, XXIII. (1976). The Apprehension of Divinity in the Self and Cosmos in Plotinus. In R. B. Harris Significance of Neoplatonism (pp. 187-198). Albany: International Society for Neoplatonic Studies. Reprinted in Plotinian and Christian Studies, XVIII. (1977). Form, Individual, and Person in Plotinus. Dionysius, 1, 49-68. Reprinted in Plotinian and Christian Studies, XX. (1977). Negative Theology. The Downside Review, 95(320), 176-189. Reprinted in Plotinian and Christian Studies, XXIV. (1978). Gnosis and Greek Philosophy. In U. Bianchi & B. Aland (Eds.), Gnosis: Festschrift für Hans Jonas (pp. 87-124). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Reprinted in Plotinian and Christian Studies, XXI. & Deck, J. N. (1978). A Discussion on Individuality and Personality. Dionysius, 2, 93-99. & Ravindra, R. (1979). The Dimensions of Self: Buddhi in the Bagavad-Gita and Psyche in Plotinus. Religious Studies, 15, 327-342.

208

Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)

(1980). Philosophy, Theology and Interpretation: the Interpretation of Interpreters. In W. Beierwaltes (Ed.), Eriugena: Studien Zu Seinen Quellen. Vorträge des III. Internationalen Eriugena-Colloquiums, Freiburg Im Breisgau, 27.-30. August 1979 (pp. 7-14). Heidelberg C. Winter. Reprinted in Hellenic and Christian Studies, X. (1980). The Self-definition of Christianity in Relation to Later Platonism. In E. P. Sanders (Ed.), Jewish and Christian Self-definition, I: The Shaping of Christianity in the Second and third Centuries (pp. 74-99). Philadelphia Fortress Press. Reprinted in Hellenic and Christian Studies, VIII. (1981). Gotteschau (Visio Beatifica). Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, 22(89), 1-19. (1981). Greek Philosophy and Christianity. In M. I. Finley (Ed.), The Legacy of Greece: A new Appraisal (pp. 347-375). Oxford: Clarendon Press. (1981). Negative Theology, Myth and Incarnation. In Néoplatonisme: Mélanges offerts à Jean Trouillard (pp. 47-62). Fontenay-aux-Roses: École Normale Supérieure. Reprinted in Hellenic and Christian Studies, VII. (1981). Some Advantages of Polytheism. Dionysius, 5, 181-188. Reprinted in Hellenic and Christian Studies, I. (1982). Negative theology, Myth, and Incarnation. In D. J. O’Meara (Ed.), Neoplatonism and Christian Thought (pp. 213-222). Albany: Suny Press. Reprinted in Hellenic and Christian Studies, VII. (1982). Two Views of Freedom: A Christian Objection in Plotinus Enneads VI, 8 [39] 7, 11-15? In E. A. Livingstone (Ed.), Studia Patristica XVII, 1: Papers Presented at the Eighth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 1979 (Vol. 17, 1, pp. 397-406). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Reprinted in Hellenic and Christian Studies, XI. (1983). The Negative Theology of νοῦς in Later Neoplatonism. In H. Blume & F. Mann (Eds.), Platonismus und Christentum: Festschrift für Heinrich Dörrie (Vol. 10, pp. 31-37). Münster: Aschendorff. Reprinted in Hellenic and Christian Studies, III. (1984). Dualism Platonic, Gnostic and Christian. In D. T. Runia (Ed.), Plotinus Amid Gnostics and Christians: Papers Presented at the Plotinus Symposium held at Free University, Amsterdam, on 25 january 1984 (pp. 29-52). Amsterdam: Free University Press. Reprinted in Hellenic and Christian Studies, XII. (1984). Pagan and Christian Traditionalism in the first three Centuries A.D. In E. A. Livingstone (Ed.), Studia patristica XV: Papers Presented at the Seventh International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 1975 (Vol. 15, pp. 414431). Berlin: Akadamie-Verlag. Reprinted in Hellenic and Christian Studies, IX. (1984). The Divine Enhancement of Earthly Beauties. The Hellenic and Platonic Tradition. Eranos, 53, 49-81. Reprinted in Hellenic and Christian Studies, IV.

Bibliography of A. H. Armstrong

209

(1984). The way and the ways: Religious Tolerance and Intolerance in the fourth Century A.D. Vigiliae Christianae, 38(1), 1-17. Reprinted in Hellenic and Christian Studies, XIII. (1985). Paul Henry S.J. Gnomon, 57(1), 93-95. (1985). The Hidden and the Open in Hellenic Thought. Eranos, 54, 81-117. Reprinted in Hellenic and Christian Studies, V. (1985). The way and the ways: Religious Tolerance and Intolerance in the fourth Century A.D. In J. Neusner, E. S. Frerichs & C. McCracken-Flesher (Eds.), “To see Ourselves as Others see us.”: Christians, Jews, “others” in Late Antiquity (pp. 357372). Chico (CA): Scholars Press. Reprinted in Hellenic and Christian Studies, XIII. (1986). Platonic Mirrors. Eranos, 55, 147-181. Reprinted in Hellenic and Christian Studies, VI. (1986). The Ancient and Continuing Pieties of the Greek World. In A. H. Armstrong (Ed.), Classical Mediterranean spirituality. Egyptian, Greek, Roman (pp. 66-101). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (1987). Iamblichus and Egypt. Les Études Philosophiques (2/3), 179-188. Reprinted in Hellenic and Christian Studies, II. (1987). Itineraries in Late Antiquity. Eranos, 56, 105-131. Reprinted in Hellenic and Christian Studies, XIV. (1987). Jamblique et l’Égypte. (Luc Brisson, trad.). Les Études Philosophiques (4), 521-532. (1987). The Divine Enhancement of Earthly Beauties: the Hellenic and Platonic Tradition. In On Beauty (pp. 39-73). Dallas: Spring. (1989). On not Knowing too much About God: The Apophatic way of the Neoplatonists and Other Influences from Ancient Philosophy which have Worked Against Dogmatic Assertion in Christian Thinking. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 25, 129-145. Reprinted in Hellenic and Christian Studies, XV. (1989). Plotinus and Christianity: with Special Reference to II 9 [33] 9, 26-83 and V 8 [31] 4, 27-36. In E. A. Livingstone (Ed.), Studia Patristica, XX: Papers Presented to the tenth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford 1987 (Vol. 20, pp. 83-86). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. (1991). Apophatic-kataphatic Tensions in Religious Thought from the third to the sixth Century A.D.: a Background for Augustine and Eriugena. In Francis X. Martin & J. A. Richmond (Eds.), From Augustine to Eriugena: Essays on Neoplatonism and Christianity in Honor of John O’Meara (pp. 12-21). Washington: Catholic University of America Press. (1991). Aristotle in Plotinus: the Continuity and Discontinuity of Psychè and Nous. In H. J. Blumenthal & H. Robinson (Eds.), Aristotle and the Later Tradition (pp. 117-127). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

210

Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)

(1992). Dualism: Platonic, Gnostic, and Christian. In R. T. Wallis & J. Bregman (Eds.), Neoplatonism and Gnosticism (pp. 33-54). Albany (N.Y.): State University of New York Press. Reprinted in Hellenic and Christian Studies, XII. (1992). Plotinus and Christianity. In S. Gersh & C. Kannengiesser (Eds.), Platonism in Late Antiquity (pp. 115-130). Notre Dame (Ind.): University of Notre Dame Press. (2002). Plotinus on the Origin and Place of Beauty in Thought About the World. In R. B. Harris (Ed.), Neoplatonism and Contemporary Tfproclihought (pp. 217-229). Albany: Suny Press.

Encyclopaedia entries (Various editions). Platonism and Neoplatonism. In: Encyclopaedia Britannica. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica. (Various editions). Plotinus. In: Encyclopædia Britannica. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica.

Reviews (1944). Berdyaev, N. (1943). Slavery and Freedom. London: Centenary Press. The Eastern Churches Quarterly, 5(12), 425-428. (1944). International Association of University Professors and Lecturers (1943). The Function of a University in a Modern Community. Oxford: Blackwell. Blackfriars, 25(286), 27. (1944). Mascall, B.D. (1943). He Who Is: A Study in Traditional Theism. London: Longmans. The Eastern Churches Quarterly, 5(10), 309-312. (1946). Baynes, N. H. (1945). The Hellenistic Civilization and East Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press. The Eastern Churches Quarterly, 6(8), 519. (1946). Bourke, Vernon J. (1945). Augustine’s Quest of Wisdom. Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company; Sparrow, W. J. (1944). St. Augustine’s Episcopate: A Brief Introduction to his Writings as a Christian. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. The Eastern Churches Quarterly, 6(6), 358-360. (1946). Inge, W. R. (1946). Origen. London: G. Cumberlege. The Eastern Churches Quarterly, 6(8), 520. (1947). Allen, Herbert Warner (1946). The Timeless Moment. London: Faber and Faber. Blackfriars, 28(324), 145-146. (1947). Bardy, G. (1947). La Théologie de l’Église de Saint Irénée au Concile de Nicée. Paris: Cerf. The Eastern Churches Quarterly, 7(4), 292-294. (1947). Cruttwell, Robert W. (1946). Virgil’s Mind at work: An Analysis of the Symbolism of the Aeneid. Oxford: Blackwell. Blackfriars, 28(327), 286-287. (1947). Malingrey, Anne-Marie (1947). Jean Chrysostome: Lettres à Olympias. Paris: Cerf. Life of the Spirit, 2(17), 230-231.

Bibliography of A. H. Armstrong

211

(1947). Pontifex, Mark (1947). The Existence of God: A Thomist Essay. London: Longmans, Green and Co. The Downside Review, 65(4), 396-397. (1947). Walbank, F. W. (1946). The Decline of the Roman Empire in the West. London: Cobbett Press. Blackfriars, 28(329), 373-374. (1948). Glimm, Francis X. and Marique, Joseph Marie-Félix (1947). The Apostolic Fathers. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press. The Downside Review, 66(3), 331-332. (1948). Hilaire de Poitiers (1947). Traité des Mystères. Paris: Cerf. The Eastern Churches Quarterly, 7(5), 356-358. (1948). Théophile D’Antioche (1948). Trois livres à Autolycus. Paris: Cerf. The Eastern Churches Quarterly, 7(8), 563-564. (1948). Wolfson, Harry Austryn (1947). Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Mind, 57(227), 385-386. (1949). Callahan, John Francis (1948). Four Views of Time in Ancient Philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 69, 96. (1949). Daniélou, Jean (1948). Origène. Paris: Table ronde. The Eastern Churches Quarterly, 8(3), 216-217. (1949). Dempf, Alois (1947). Selbstkritik der Philosophie und vergleichende Philosophiegeschichte im Umriss. Wien: Herder. Blackfriars, 30(356), 546-547. (1949). Freeman, Kathleen (1948). Ancilla to the Pre-Socratic Philosophers: A Complete Translation of the Fragment in Diels, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Mind, 58(229), 123-124. (1949). Ivanka, Endre (1948). Hellenisches und Christliches im Früh-Byzantinischen Geistesleben. Vienna: Herder. The Eastern Churches Quarterly, 8(3), 223. (1949). Mascall, E. I. (1949). Existence and Analogy. London: Longmans. The Eastern Churches Quarterly, 8(4), 273-276. (1949). Pétré, Hélène (1948). Éthérie. Journal de Voyage. Paris: Cerf. The Downside Review, 67(2), 196-198. (1950). Beck, Edmund (1949). Die Theologie des HL. Ephraem in seinen Hymnen über den Glauben. Roma: Libreria Vaticana. The Eastern Churches Quarterly, 8(6), 397-398. (1950). Colleran, Joseph M. (1950). St Augustine: The Greatness of the Soul and The Teacher. Westminster, Md.: Newman Bookshop. The Downside Review, 68(4), 482-483. (1950). Festugière, A. J. (1949). La Révélation d’Hermès Trismégiste II. Le Dieu Cosmique. Paris: Gabalda. Mind, 59(234), 279-280. (1950). Guthrie, W. K. C. (1950). The Greek Philosophers from Thales to Aristotle. London: Methuen. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 70, 97. (1950). Guthrie, W. K. C. (1950). The Greeks and their Gods. London: Methuen. Blackfriars, 31(368), 551-552.

212

Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)

(1950). Meecham, H. G. (1949). The Epistle to Diognetus. Manchester: Manchester University Press. The Downside Review, 68(3), 359-360. (1950). Pieper, Josef (1948). Musse und Kult. München: Kösel-Verlag. The Downside Review, 68(1), 86-88. (1950). Rosán, Laurence Jay (1949). The Philosophy of Proclus: The Final Phase of Ancient Thought. New York: Cosmos. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 70, 92. (1951). Cornford, F. M. (1950). The Unwritten Philosophy and Other Essays. Cambridge, University Press. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 71, 272-273. (1951). Hoffmann, E. (1951). Die griechische Philosophie bis Platon. Heidelberg: Kerle; Kranz, W. (1950). Die griechische Philosophie: Zugleich eine Einführung in die Philosophie überhaupt. Wiesbaden: Dieterich; Schilling, K. (1951). Geschichte der Philosophie. I. Band: Die alte Welt. Das christlich-germanische Mittelalter. München/Basel: E. Reinhardt; Vorländer, K. (1949). Geschichte der Philosophie. I. Band: Altertum und Mittelalter. Hamburg: Meiner; Mondolfo, R. (1950). II pensiero antico. Storia della filosofía Greco-Romana, Firenze: La Nuova Italia. Gnomon, 23(8), 453-455. (1951). McGrath, Fergal (1951). Newman’s University: Idea and Reality. London/New York: Longmans/Green. The Downside Review, 69(218), 496-500. (1951). St Augustine (1951). Against the Academics. Translated by J. J. O’Meara. Westminster: Newman Press. The Eastern Churches Quarterly, 9(3), 160-162. (1952). A Survey of Work on Later Greek Philosophy and Patristic Philosophy, 19451950. The Philosophical Quarterly, 2(8), 253-264. ((1952). Foster, Kenelm, Humphries, Silvester and Thomas, Ivo (1951). Aristotle’s De anima, in the version of William of Moerbeke and the Commentary of St. Thomas Aquinas. New Haven: Yale University Press. Blackfriars, 33(383), 93-94. (1952). Pistorius, P. V. (1952). Plotinus and Neoplatonism: An Introductory Study. Cambridge: Bowes and Bowes. The Eastern Churches Quarterly, 9(7), 385-386. (1952). Skemp, J. B. (1952). Plato’s Statesman: a Translation of the Politicus of Plato. London: Routledge/Kegan Paul. Blackfriars, 33(387), 272-273. (1953). Cilento, V. (1947-1949). Plotinus, Enneadi. 3 vols, Bari: Laterza. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 73, 162-163. (1953). Dodds, E. R. (1951). The Greeks and the Irrational. Berkeley: University of California Press. The Downside Review, 71(226), 457-458. (1953). Henry, P. and H.-R. Schwyzer (1951). Plotini Opera. Tomus I. Porphyrii Vita Plotini. Enneades I-III. Oxford: Oxford University Press. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 73, 162. (1953). Palanque, Jean-Rémy (1953). The Church in the Christian Roman Empire. New York: Macmillan. The Downside Review, 71(224), 208-209. (1953). Zucker, F. (1950). Plotin und Lycopolis. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 73, 198.

Bibliography of A. H. Armstrong

213

(1954). Heron, Fr. Germain and Hawkins, D. J. B. (1954). Nicolas Cusanus: Of Learned Ignorance. London: Routledge/ Kegan Paul. Blackfriars, 35(417), 540-541. (1954). Luck, Georg (1953). Der Akademiker Antiochos. Bern: Haupt. Gnomon, 26(7), 484-486. (1954). Von Hildebrand, Dietrich (1953). Christian Ethics. New York: McKay. The Journal of Theological Studies, 5(1), 141-142. (1954-1955). Jaeger, W. (1954). Two Rediscovered Works of Ancient Christian Literature: Gregory of Nyssa and Macarius. Leide: Brill. The Eastern Churches Quarterly, 10(8), 405-406. (1955). Festugière, A. J. (1953). La Révélation d’Hermès Trismégiste. III. Les Doctrines de l’Âme. Suivi de Jamblique, Traité de l’Âme, Traduction et Commentaire, Porphyre, De l’Animation de l’Embryon. Paris: Lecoffre/Gabalda. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 75, 202. (1955). Festugière, A. J. (1954). La Révélation d’Hermès Trismégiste. IV. Le Dieu Inconnu et la Gnose. Paris: Gabalda. The Journal of Roman Studies, 45(1/2), 188-189. (1955). Grabowski, S. J. (1954). The All-Present God: A Study in St. Augustine. St. Louis: Herder. The Journal of Theological Studies, 6(2), 298-299. (1955). Merlan, Philip (1953). From Platonism to Neoplatonism. The Hague: M. Nijhoff. Mind, 64(254), 273-274. (1956). Lodge, Rupert C. (1956). The Philosophy of Plato. London: Routledge/ Kegan Paul; Taylor, A. E. and Klibansky, R. (1956). Plato, Philebus and Epinomis. London/New York: Nelson. Blackfriars, 37(438), 383-384. (1957). Daniélou, J. (1955). Grégoire de Nysse, La Vie de Moïse, ou Traité de la Perfection en Matière de Vertu. Paris: Cerf. The Journal of Theological Studies, 8(1), 167-168. (1957). De Keyser, Eugénie (1955). La Signification de l’Art dans les Ennéades de Plotin. Louvain: Publications universitaires de Louvain. The Philosophical Quarterly, 7(27), 178-179. (1957). Festugière, A. J. (1954). La Révélation d’Hermès Trismégiste. IV. Le Dieu Inconnu et la Gnose. Paris: Gabalda. The Journal of Roman Studies, 47(1/2), 257-258. (1957). Fox, Adam (1957). Plato and the Christians: Passages from the Writings of Plato. New York: Philosophical Library. Life of the Spirit, 12(133), 46-47. 1957). Grilli, A. (1953). Il Problema Della Vita Contemplativa nel Mondo Greco-romano. Milano e Roma: Bocca. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 77, 173. (1957). MacKenna, Stephen (1957). Plotinus, The Enneads. Revised by B. S. Page. Preface by E. R. Dodds. Introduction by Paul Henry, S.J, London: Faber and Faber. Blackfriars, 38(450), 390. (1957). Marrou, H. I. and Lamb, George (1956). A History of Education in Antiquity. New York: Sheed and Ward. Blackfriars, 38(442), 38-39. (1957). Rudberg, Gunnar (1956). Platonica Selecta. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. Gnomon, 29(6), 465-466.

214

Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)

(1958). Bourbon di Petrella, F. (1956). Il Problema Dell’Arte e Della Bellezza in Plotino. Firenze: Le Monnier. The Philosophical Quarterly, 8(32), 281. (1958). MacKenna, Stephen (1957). Plotinus, The Enneads. Revised by B. S. Page. Preface by E. R. Dodds. Introduction by Paul Henry, S.J, London: Faber and Faber. The Classical Review, 8(2), 128-129. (1958). MacMurray, J. (1957). The Self as Agent. London: Faber and Faber. The Eastern Churches Quarterly, 12(5), 213-214. (1958). Osborn, E. F. (1957). The Philosophy of Clement of Alexandria. Cambridge: University Press. The Journal of Theological Studies, 9(1), 149-150. (1958). Sicherl, Martin (1957). Die Handschriften, Ausgaben und übersetzungen von Iamblichos De Mysteriis. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. The Classical Review, 8(3/4), 284. (1959). Guthrie, W. K. C. et al. (1958). Recherches sur la Tradition Platonicienne: sept Exposés. Cambridge: Heffer. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 79, 177-178. (1959). Roques, R., Heil, G. and De Gandillac, M. (1958). Denys L’Aréopagite: La Hiérarchie Céleste. Paris: Cerf. The Journal of Theological Studies, 10(2), 412-413. (1959). Vogt, Ernst (1957). Procli Hymni. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. The Classical Review, 9(1), 31-32. (1959). Völker, Walther (1958). Kontemplation und Ekstase bei Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita. Wiesbaden: Steiner. The Journal of Theological Studies, 10(1), 175-177. (1959). Von Gonzenbach, Victorine (1957). Untersuchungen zu den Knabenweihen im Isiskult der Römischen Kaiserzeit. Bonn: Rudoph Habelt Verlag. The Journal of Roman Studies, 49(1/2), 211-212. (1959). Zaehner, R. C. (1958). At Sundry Times: An Essay in the Comparison of Religions. London: Faber and Faber. The Downside Review, 77(249), 341-342. (1960). Dörrie, H. (1959). Porphyrios’ Σύμμικτα Ζητήματα : ihre Stellung in System und Geschichte des Neuplatonismus nebst einem Kommentar zu den Fragmenten. München: Beck. The Classical Review, 10(3), 220-221. (1960). Fortin, E. L. (1959). Christianisme et Culture Philosophique au Cinquième Siècle: La Querelle de l’Âme Humaine en Occident. Paris: Études Augustiniennes. The Journal of Roman Studies, 50(1/2), 258-259. (1960). Henry, Paul and Schwyzer, Hans-Rudolf (1959). Plotini Opera II. Bruges: De Brouwer. The Classical Review, 10(3), 221-222. (1960). Himmerich, Wilhelm (1959). Eudaimonia: die Lehre des Plotin von der Selbstverwirklichung des Menschen. Würzburg: Triltsch. Gnomon, 32(4), 319-320. (1960). Vanneste, J. (1959). Le Mystère de Dieu: Essai sur la Structure Rationnelle de la Doctrine Mystique du Pseudo-Denys l’Aréopagite. Bruges: De Brouwer. The Journal of Theological Studies, 11(1), 190-191. (1961). Cuttat, Jacques Albert (1960). The Encounter of Religions: A Dialogue Between the West and the Orient, with an Essay on the Prayer of Jesus. New York: Desclée. The Downside Review, 79(256), 261-262.

Bibliography of A. H. Armstrong

215

(1961). Gordillo, M. (1960). Theologia Orientalium cum Latinorum Comparata: Commentatio Historica. I. Ab ortu Nestorianismi usque ad expugnationem Constantinopoleos 431-1453. Romae: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum. The Journal of Theological Studies, 12(2), 353. (1961). Harder, Richard (1960). Kleine Schriften. München: Beck. The Classical Review, 11(3), 247-248. (1961). Nédoncelle, Maurice and Trethowan, Illtyd (1960). Is There a Christian Philosophy? New York: Hawthorn. The Downside Review, 79(254), 64. (1962). Boese, Helmut (1960). Procli Diadochi tria Opuscula Latine, Guilelmo de Moerbeka Vertente, et Graece, ex Isaaci Sebastocratoris Aliorumque Scriptis Collecta. Berlin: De Gruyter. The Classical Review, 12(1), 94-95. (1962). Harder, Richard, Beutler, R. and Theiler, W. (1960). Plotins Schriften. Band V: Die Schriften 46-54. Hamburg: Meiner. The Classical Review, 12(1), 94. (1963). Cilento, V. (1962). Plutarch, Diatriba Isiaca e Dialoghi Delfici: Testo e Versione di Iside e Osiride, La E delfica, I responsi della Pizia, Il tramonto degli oracoli. Firenze: Sansoni. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 83, 173. (1963). Crouzel, Henri (1962). Origène et la Philosophie. Paris: Aubier. The Downside Review, 81(263), 181-182. (1963). MacKenna, Stephen (1962). Plotinus: The Enneads. Third revised edition, London: Faber and Faber. The Classical Review, 13(3), 343-344. (1963). Mathew, Gervase (1963). Byzantine Aesthetics. New York: Viking Press. The Downside Review, 81(265), 390-391. (1963). Maximos IV, Patriarch of Antioch (ed). (1962). Voix de l’Église en Orient, Voix de l’Église melchiteeditor. Bâle: Herder. The Downside Review, 81(264), 279-281. (1963). Momigliano, Arnaldo (1963). The conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the fourth Century. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Blackfriars, 44(520), 431-432. (1963). Weber, K.-O. (1962). Origenes der Neuplatoniker: Versuch einer Interpretation. München: Beck. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 83, 184-185. (1964). Dodds, E. R. (1963). Proclus, The Elements of Theology. Oxford: Clarendon Press. The Classical Review, 14(3), 341. (1964). Hadot, Pierre (1963). Plotin ou la Simplicité du Regard. Paris: Plon. The Classical Review, 14(3), 273-274. (1964). Harder, Richard, Beutler, R. and Theiler, W. (1962). Plotins Schriften. Band II: Die Schriften 22-29. Hamburg: Meiner. The Classical Review, 14(1), 107-108. (1964). Meynell, Hugo A. (1964). Sense, Nonsense and Christianity: An Essay on the Logical Analysis of Religious Statements. London/New York: Sheed and Ward. The Downside Review, 82(268), 256-258. (1964). Momigliano, Arnaldo (1963). The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the fourth Century. Oxford: Clarendon Press. The Journal of Roman Studies, 54(1/2), 207.

216

Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)

(1964). Rahner, Hugo and Battershaw, B. (1963). Greek Myths and Christian Mystery. New York: Harper & Row. The Journal of Roman Studies, 54(1/2), 219-220. (1965). Harder, R., Beutler, R. and Theiler, W. (1964). Plotins Schriften. Band III: Die Schriften 30-38. Hamburg: Meiner. The Classical Review, 15(3), 358. (1965). Henry, Paul and Schwyzer, Hans-Rudolf (1964). Plotini Opera. Tomus I: Porphyrii Vita Plotini; Enneades I-III. (Editio minor). Oxford: Clarendon Press. The Classical Review, 15(2), 176-178. (1965). Ivánka, Endre von (1964). Plato Christianus: Ubernahme und Umgestaltung des Platonismus durch die Väter. Einsiedeln: Johannes Verlag The Downside Review, 83(273), 379-380. (1965). Lamirande, Émilien (1963). L’Église Céleste selon Saint Augustin. Paris: Études augustiniennes. The Journal of Theological Studies, 16(1), 212-213. (1965). Sodano, A. R. (1964). Porphyrii In Platonis Timaeum Commentariorum Fragmenta. Neapoli: Istituto della stampa. The Classical Review, 15(2), 168-169. (1966). Ferwerda, Rein (1965). La Signification des Images et des Métaphores dans la Pensée de Plotin. Groningen: J.B. Wolters. The Classical Review, 16(2), 182-183. (1966). Pépin, J. (1964). Théologie Cosmique et Théologie Chrétienne (Ambroise, Exam. I 1, 1-4). Paris: Presses universitaires de France. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 86, 237. (1967). Dörrie, H., et al. (1965). Porphyre: Huit Exposés, Suivis de Discussions., Vandoeuvres-Genève: Fondation Hardt pour l’étude de l’Antiquité classique. The Philosophical Quarterly, 17(68), 268-269. (1967). Minio-Paluello, L. (1966). Aristoteles Latinus, i. 6-7: Categoriarum Supplementa. Leiden: Brill. The Classical Review, 17(3), 387. (1968). Balás, David L. (1966). ΜΕΤΟΥΣΙΑ ΘΕΟΥ: Man’s Participation in God’s Perfections According to Saint Gregory of Nyssa. Romae: Herder. The Journal of Theological Studies, 19(1), 328-329. (1968). Du Roy, Olivier (1966). L’Intelligence de la Foi en la Trinité Selon Saint Augustin: Genèse de sa Théologie Trinitaire Jusqu’en 391. Paris: Études augustiniennes. The Journal of Theological Studies, 19(1), 338-340. (1968). Harder, R., Beutler, R. and Theiler, W. (1967). Plotins Schriften. Band IV, (Schriften 39-45). Hamburg: Meiner. The Classical Review, 18(2), 169-170. (1968). Rist, J. M. (1967). Plotinus: The Road to Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The Journal of Roman Studies, 58(1/2), 277-278. (1968). Theiler, Willy (1966). Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus. Berlin: De Gruyter. Gnomon, 40(2), 204-206. (1969). Deck, John N. (1967). Nature, Contemplation, and the One. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. The Philosophical Quarterly, 19(74), 81. (1969). Hadot, Pierre (1968). Porphyre et Victorinus. Paris: Études augustiniennes. The Journal of Theological Studies, 20(2), 637-639.

Bibliography of A. H. Armstrong

217

(1969). Sheldon-Williams, I. P. and Bieler, Ludwig (1968). Iohannes Scottus Eriugena, Periphyseon (De Divisione Naturae) Liber Primus. Dublin: The Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. The Journal of Theological Studies, 20(2), 667-669. (1969). Zintzen, Clemens (1967). Damascii Vitae Isidori reliquiae. Hildesheim: Olms. The Classical Review, 19(1), 49-50. (1970). Callahan, John F. (1967). Augustine and the Greek Philosophers. Villanova USA: Villanova University Press. The Journal of Roman Studies, 60, 230. (1970). Meijering, E. P. (1968). Orthodoxy and Platonism in Athanasius: Synthesis or Antithesis. Leiden: Brill. The Journal of Theological Studies, 21(1), 189-191. (1970). Mountain, W. J. and Glorie, Fr. (1968). Sancti Aurelii Augustini De Trinitate Libri XV. Turnholti: Brepols. The Journal of Theological Studies, 21(1), 203-204. (1971). MacKenna, Stephen (1969). Plotinus: The Enneads. Fourth revised edition, London: Faber and Faber. The Classical Review, 21(3), 453. (1971). Mühlenberg, E. (1966). Die Unendlichkeit Gottes bei Gregor von Nyssa: Gregors Kritik am Gottesbegriff der klassischen Metaphysik. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. The Journal of Theological Studies, 22(1), 237-240. (1973). Daniélou, J. (1973). Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture. Philadelphia: Westminster Press The Downside Review, 91(305), 308-309. (1973). Koutras, Demetrios N. (1968). Ἡ ἔννοια του ϕωτὸς εἰς τὴν αἰσθητικὴν του Πλωτίνου. Athens: Typographeion ‘Adelphon Myrtíde. The Classical Review, 23(1), 91. (1973). Lilla, Salvatore Romano Clemente (1971). Clement of Alexandria: A Study of Christian Platonism and Gnosticism. London: Oxford University Press. Heythrop Journal, 14(1), 74-75. (1973). Pépin, Jean (1971). Idées Grecques sur L’homme et sur Dieu. Paris: Belles lettres. The Journal of Theological Studies, 24(2), 573-574. (1973). Roloff, Dietrich (1970). Plotin, Die Großschrift III. 8-V. 8-V. 5-II. 9. Berlin: De Gruyter. The Classical Review, 23(1), 34-35. (1973). Wallis, Richard T. (1972). Neoplatonism. London: Duckworth. Heythrop Journal, 14(3), 322-327. (1974). Harder, Richard, et al. (1971). Plotins Schriften. Band VI: Indices. Hamburg: F. Meiner. The Classical Review, 24(1), 133-134. (1974). Sambursky, S. and Pinès, S. (1971). The Concept of Time in Late Neoplatonism. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. The Classical Review, 24(2), 231-232. (1974). Sheldon-Williams, I. P. and Bieler, Ludwig (1972). Iohannis Scotti Eriugenae, Periphyseon (De Divisione Naturae) Liber Secundus. Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. The Journal of Theological Studies, 25(2), 536-537. (1974). Wallis, R. T. (1972). Neoplatonism. London: Duckworth. The Classical Review, 24(2), 227-228.

218

Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)

(1975). Findlay, J. N. (1974). Plato: The Written and Unwritten Doctrines. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Heythrop Journal, 16(2), 201-205. (1975). Gosling, J. C. B. (1973). Plato. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Heythrop Journal, 16(2), 201-205. (1975). Henry, Paul and Schwyzer, Hans-Rudolf (1973). Plotini Opera. Tomus III, (Enneas VI). Leiden: Brill. The Classical Review, 25(1), 146-147. (1975). Meijering, E. P. (1975). God Being History: Studies in Patristic Philosophy. New York: Elsevier. The Journal of Theological Studies, 26(2), 472-473. (1975). Vlastos, Gregory (1973). Platonic Studies. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Heythrop Journal, 16(2), 201-205. (1976). Wurm, Klaus (1973). Substanz und Qualität. Ein Beitrag zur Interpretation der Plotinischen Traktate VI 1, 2 und 3. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter. The Classical Review, 26(2), 220-221. (1978). Meijering, E. P. (1977). Tertullian contra Marcion: Gotteslehre in der Polemik: Adversus Marcionem I-II. Leiden: Brill. The Journal of Theological Studies, 29(2), 555-556. (1979). Bouffartigue, J. and Patillon, Michel (1977). Porphyre, De l’abstinence. Tome 1. Livre I. Paris: Belles Lettres. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 99, 185. (1979). Des Places, É. (1977). Atticus, Fragments. Paris: Belles Lettres. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 99, 185. (1980). Meijering, E.P. (1979). Augustin über Schöpfung, Ewigkeit und Zeit. Leiden: Brill. Heythrop Journal, 21(2), 193-195. (1980). Miles, M. R. (1979). Augustine on the Body. Missoula: Scholars Press. Heythrop Journal, 21(2), 193-195. (1981). Burger, Ronna (1980). Plato’s ‘Phaedrus’: A Defense of the Philosophic Art of Writing. Alabama: University of Alabama Press. Heythrop Journal, 22(3), 294-295. (1981). O’Connell, Robert J. (1978). Art and the Christian Intelligence in St. Augustine. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 12(4), 251-252. (1982). Louth, Andrew (1981). The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition: From Plato to Denys. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heythrop Journal, 23(4), 416-417. (1983). Ackrill, J. L. (1981). Aristotle the Philosopher. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heythrop Journal, 24(4), 484. (1983). Athanassiadi-Fowden, Polymnia (1981). Julian and Hellenism: An Intellectual Biography. Oxford: Clarendon Press. The Journal of Theological Studies, 34(1), 297-299. (1983). Guthrie, W. K. G. (1981). A History of Greek Philosophy. Vol. VI: Aristotle: An Encounter. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Heythrop Journal, 24(4), 484-486. (1983). Osborn, Eric (1981). The Beginning of Christian Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heythrop Journal, 24(4), 486-487.

Bibliography of A. H. Armstrong

219

(1984). Brisson, Luc, et al (1982). Porphyre, Vie de Plotin, I: Travaux préliminaires et index grec complet. Paris: Vrin. The Classical Review, 34(1), 57-59. (1985). Atkinson, Michael (1983). Plotinus, Ennead V. 1. On the Three Principal Hypostases. Oxford: Oxford University Press. The Classical Review, 35(1), 201. (1985). Meyer, Ben F. and Sanders, E. P. (1982). Jewish and Christian Self-Definition. Volume three: Self-Definition in the Graeco-Roman World. London: S.C.M. The Journal of Theological Studies, 36(2), 470-471. (1986). Barnes, Jonathan (ed). (1983). Science and Speculation: Studies in Hellenistic Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heythrop Journal, 27(1), 109-110. (1986). Beierwaltes, Werner (1985). Denken des Einen: Studien zur neuplatonischen Philosophie und ihrer Wirkungsgeschichte. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann. The Classical Review, 36(2), 322-323. (1986). Cameron, Alan (1985). Literature and Society in the Early Byzantine World. London: Variorum Reprints. The Journal of Theological Studies, 37(1), 307. (1986). Meijering, E. P. (1985). Die Hellenisierung des Christentums im Urteil Adolf von Harnacks. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts & Sciences. The Journal of Theological Studies, 37(1), 269-272. (1986). Woodruff, P. (1982). Plato ‘Hippias Major’. Oxford: Blackwell. Heythrop Journal, 27(1), 111. (1987). Hadot, Ilsetraut (1984). Arts Libéraux et Philosophie dans la Pensée Antique. Paris: Études augustiniennes. Phoenix, 41(1), 86-88. (1987). Winston, David (1985). Logos and Mystical Theology in Philo of Alexandria. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press. The Journal of Theological Studies, 38(1), 293. (1988). Hadot, Ilsetraut (ed). (1987). Simplicius: Sa Vie, son Oeuvre, sa Survie. Actes du Colloque International de Paris (28 Sept-1 Oct. 1985). Berlin: De Gruyter. The Classical Review, 38(2), 428-429. (1989). Van den Broek, R., Baarda and T., Mansfeld, J. (1988). Knowledge of God in the Graeco-Roman World. Leiden: Brill. The Classical Review, 39(2), 401. (1990). Garzya, Antonio (1989). Opere di Sinesio di Cirene: Epistole, Operette, Inni. Torino: Unione Tipografico-Editrice Torinese. The Classical Review, 40(2), 483. (1990). Long, A. A. and Sedley, D. N. (1987). The Hellenistic Philosophers. Vol. 1, Translations of the Principal Sources with Philosophical Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heythrop Journal, 31(2), 230-232. (1990). Majercik, Ruth (1989). The Chaldean Oracles. Leiden, Brill. The Classical Review, 40(2), 472. (1991). Dillon, John M. and Long, A. A. (1988). The Question of ‘Eclecticism’: Studies in Later Greek Philosophy. Berkeley: University of California Press. Heythrop Journal, 32(2), 286-287.

220

Arthur Hilary Armstrong (1909-1997)

(1991). Helleman, Wendy E. (1989). Christianity and the Classics: The Acceptance of a Heritage. Lanham: University Press of America. The Classical Review, 41(1), 274. (1991). Irwin, Terence (1989). Classical Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heythrop Journal, 32(3), 432-433. (1991). Johnston, Sarah Iles (1989). Hekate Soteira: A Study of Hekate’s Roles in the Chaldean Oracles and Related Literature. Atlanta: Scholars Press. The Classical Review, 41(1), 248. (1991). Taormina, Daniela Patrizia (1989). Plutarco di Atene: L’Uno, l’Anima, le Forme. Catania: Università di Catania. The Classical Review, 41(1), 247. (1992). Betz, Hans Dieter. (1990). Hellenismus and Urchristentum. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. The Classical Review, 42(1), 213. (1992). Leroux, Georges (1990). Plotin, Traité sur La Liberté et La volonté de L’Un (Ennéade VI, 8 [39]). Paris: Vrin. Ancient Philosophy, 12(1), 227-229. (1993). Alt, K. (1990). Philosophie gegen Gnosis: Plotins Polemik in seiner Schrift II 9. Stuttgart: Steiner. Gnomon, 65(2), 174-176. (1995). Meijering, E. P. (1993). Von Den Kirchenvatern zu Karl Barth: Das Altkirchlichen Dogma in der ‚Kirchlichen Dogmatik‘. Gieben: Amsterdam. The Journal of Theological Studies, 46(1), 191-195.

Obituaries Atherton, J. P. (1998). In memoriam Professor Hilary Armstrong. Dionysius 16, 7.

Chapter Five

Jean Trouillard (1907-1984) 5.1. Life Suzanne Stern-Gillet Jean Trouillard was born in Niort (Deux-Sèvres) in 1907. His priestly vocation must have manifested itself early since he decided to enter a seminary in 1925, soon after completing his secondary schooling. He was ordained in 1930 and joined the Compagnie des Prêtres de Saint-Sulpice, an apostolic order primarily concerned with the training of future priests as well as with missionary work overseas. He studied philosophy at the Sorbonne and the Institut Catholique de Paris, where he came under the influence of Maurice Blondel, who would remain for him a lifelong source of inspiration. Blondel was a controversial figure, distrusted by both the conservative wing of the Catholic hierarchy, who suspected him of modernist sympathies, and by prominent figures in the philosophical establishment, who disapproved of the central role that he gave religion in his system. His best known book, Action (1893), can be seen as an attempt to develop a catholic philosophy drawn in part from the writings of the Neoplatonists and Augustine. From 1933 to 1956, in line with the tradition of his order, Trouillard taught in various seminaries. Following the successful defense of his doctoral theses on Plotinus, later to be published under the titles of La purification plotinienne and La procession plotinienne, he was appointed, in 1956, to a teaching post at the Facultés Catholiques d’Angers (Maine-et-Loire), now called l’Université Catholique de l’Ouest, where he remained until 1959. From 1959 until his retirement, he taught at the Institut Catholique de Paris. In 1984, diagnosed with a severe illness, he went back to his hometown of Niort, where he died soon after. A humble man, at peace with himself, Jean Trouillard spent his life studying and teaching, first Plotinus, then Proclus. A highly productive scholar, he appears never to have refused to review books for learned journals or to write encyclopedia entries. Mild mannered and kindly, he was generous with his time. As Gregory Shaw recalls, he was open to all who sought his advice and was willing to follow the meetings with correspondence in which he continued to advise, encourage, and exchange views. His approach to the study of ancient texts, probably evolved under Blondel’s influence, has been much remarked upon. As Joseph Combès notes in the obituary he wrote for la Revue de philosophie ancienne, Trouillard aimed at gaining a “connaissance intérieure” of whatever text he studied, an approach that would do justice to the unity of thought and style that mostly characterises Plotinus’ writings. Furthermore, as Georges Leroux notes, Trouillard’s style admirably epitomizes his

222

Jean Trouillard (1907-1984)

view that the reading of the Enneads should be both a philosophical undertaking and an “invitation au recueillement”. For some time after his death, Trouillard was undeservedly overshadowed by those of his colleagues who, being more forceful personalities and more directly involved with the edition of the text of the Enneads, became the dominant figures of the renewal of Neoplatonic studies in the latter part of last century. However, his more modest voice and input is currently gaining the recognition it deserved all along: his books are being reprinted in France and an English translation of his main works is underway.

5.2. Jean Trouillard: Portrait of a Neoplatonic Thinker324 Georges Leroux In an essay of 1986,325 written shortly after the death of his teacher and mentor, Joseph Combès expressed clearly what it was that made Jean Trouillard such an original, and in several cases, unique interpreter of Plotinus and Proclus. First of all is the fact that Trouillard himself practiced, from within, so to speak, that which constitutes the particular philosophical approach of Neoplatonism; that is, an exercise in purification, an ascetic divesting of the self, which aims towards union with the supreme Principle, the One. Jean Trouillard’s two theses on Plotinus, La procession plotinienne and La purification plotinienne, both published by Les Presses Universitaires de France in 1955, illustrate this approach and are rightly counted among the seminal works in French research on Neoplatonism. One cannot but admire the determined effort undertaken by all those who embark on the study of Plotinus’ metaphysics. A moral requirement, to begin with, as Trouillard’s interpretation, like the later reading of Pierre Hadot, rests on the necessity of purification. But this exigency is also spiritual and, in its end, fully mystical. Indeed, it supposes a commitment to a quest, a journey defined at the outset by a conversion and ultimately by union. Pierre Hadot will take up this same spiritual lexicon in his own first works. To this systematic practice of divesting oneself is added, naturally, the exercise of writing, a writing that has the rigour of its own idiom: in the French language, but equally in Neoplatonic discourse in other languages, this mode of writing has remained unique. It can be characterised by a disciplined recourse to an intellectual economy of discourse that limits the analysis of a text to the terms of the work itself. The work of interpretation is conducted within Plotinus’ own text, where Jean 324 

Translated into English by Jillian Tomm. Combès (1986). Néoplatonisme aujourd’hui: la vie et la pensée de Jean Trouillard. Revue de philosophie ancienne, 4(1), 145-157; reprinted in (1996). Études néoplatoniciennes. Grenoble: Jérôme Millon, 2nd ed., 353-365. 325 

Jean Trouillard: Portrait of a Neoplatonic Thinker

223

Trouillard espouses each move, each gain leading to a higher principle, through a practice of meditation of incomparable intensity. The scope of this decision to write from within Plotinus’s text can be measured by a glance at the notes and bibliography of his two theses: they are composed almost entirely of references to the text of the Enneads. And if we set aside the references to French philosophers devoted to the metaphysics of the spirit, who remained always for Jean Trouillard figures of the greatest authority, we find almost no references to scholarly sources, no mention of any research that would have, for him, the status of an interlocutor. He has at times been criticised for it, but this austerity resulted from a fundamental choice that might be defined as a radical restriction. It has been described as an inward-looking style, one to which Trouillard would remain faithful in all his writings, but although it is unavoidable to address the choice of style, the essential point lies elsewhere. It is Pierre Hadot who revealed, and in large part extended, the significance of this way of writing: to write about Plotinus is an act that cannot be detached from Plotinus’ own aims, it is a “spiritual exercise” in the very sense that Pierre Hadot gave to this expression in his own works on Plotinus – notably in the commentaries in his edition of Plotinus’ treatises – and later on Marcus Aurelius.326 Ancient philosophy is, from that standpoint, an exercise upon the self; it cannot be limited to an analytic study of a set of arguments or demonstrations. If one must identify rhetorical strategies in the text, the reading nevertheless consists first and foremost of exercises of moral and intellectual self-purification. There is nothing academic here, no overarching position. The philosophical message unfolds without constraints other than the aims of the spiritual exercise. This conviction, which attains the force of principle in the reading of these texts, is already fully present in the work of Jean Trouillard. These two characteristics – purification of thought and asceticism in writing – are found in varying degrees in all of Jean Trouillard’s publications on Plotinus and also in those on Proclus, to whom he devoted exceptional work, most notably in his role as translator of the Elements of Theology. And these same characteristics perhaps explain why, even today, his influence remains limited: despite his abundant personal bibliography he is rarely referenced in research on Neoplatonism, which, moreover, saw extraordinary growth both in France and elsewhere after his death. When he was invited to the department of philosophy at the Université de Montréal for the fall semester of 1966, his work was yet little known, but our professors had already recognised his importance. The invitation was extended by Vianney Décarie (1917-2009), a specialist in Aristotle and student of Étienne Gilson in Paris, who also had an interest in Neoplatonic thought and its links with Aristotelianism. Among Décarie’s students in the philosophy department was my friend Luc Brisson, who 326  See, for instance, Hadot (1987). Exercices spirituels et philosophie antique. Paris: Études augustiniennes, 2nd ed.

224

Jean Trouillard (1907-1984)

would become a leading expert on Plato and who has recently edited a complete French translation of Plotinus’ Enneads. Also there was Renée Houde-Sauvé who, in 1967, presented a master’s thesis on the aesthetics of Plotinus and who later collaborated with Vianney Décarie on his commented edition of the Eudemian Ethics. I was, at that time, a student at the Institut d’études médiévales, an autonomous institution associated with the Université de Montréal and directed by the Dominican fathers, where courses were offered by, notably, Raymond Klibansky (1905-2005), a specialist in medieval Platonism and the author of an important study on Proclus’ interpretation of the Parmenides. His teaching concerned, above all, the Platonic tradition through the Middle Ages to the Renaissance,327 but he also introduced us to the Neoplatonic reading of the Parmenides and the Timaeus. I prepared a master’s thesis on Gnosticism and the refutation of Plotinus, directed by then emeritus professor Georges-Mathieu de Durand (1923-1997), a patrologist and editor of Cyril of Alexandria who greatly admired the work of Jean Trouillard. This was a few years before the major colloquium at Royaumont in June 1969, organised by Pierre-Maxime Schuhl and Pierre Hadot,328 which can be considered the principal foundation of Neoplatonic research at an international scale. The edition of the Enneads by Paul Henry S.J. and Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer (the editio maior) that had begun in 1951 had not yet been completed, but we had access to advance reading copies of volume three, corrected by Fr Paul Henry, which was published finally in 1973. The French contribution to this colloquium was remarkable (Jean Pépin and Pierre Courcelle come to mind, for example), and included an impressive exposé by Jean Trouillard on Proclus among presentations by great scholars such as A. H. Armstrong, H. Blumenthal and L. G. Westerink. But, as far as the intellectual biography of Jean Trouillard is concerned, it should be noted that this learned milieu then growing around Neoplatonist studies, as testified by the Royaumont colloquium, had not yet taken form at the time of Trouillard’s studies in the 1930s, and that he owes his orientation to the thought of Plotinus principally to philosophers like Maurice Blondel, whose thought permeates the several years of reflection leading to his two theses of 1955. A look at the articles he dedicated to Blondel from 1952 onwards makes the point convincingly. Trouillard was, in this realm, a pioneer. It was this modest man, a Sulpician priest educated at the Institut de philosophie of the Sorbonne and the Institut catholique de Paris from 1931 to 1933, who stood before us in Montreal at the beginning of that fall term in 1966. On the strength of his extensive experience as a teacher in various French lycées between 1933 and 1956, Jean Trouillard offered us instruction on Plotinus and on the interpretation of Neoplatonism developed in his 1955 theses. When I read again the notes that I, 327  Klibansky (1939). The Continuity of the Platonic Tradition during the Middle Ages. London: Warburg Institute; 2nd edition, 1982. 328  Hadot and Schuhl (1971). Le Néoplatonisme, Royaumont, 8-13 juin 1969. Paris: Éditions du CNRS.

Jean Trouillard: Portrait of a Neoplatonic Thinker

225

like many of my classmates, preserved from those studious hours, I realise how little importance was given, in those classes, to what was to become the scholarly study of Neoplatonism. The bibliography was minimal. We plunged directly into the reading of the fundamental texts that constituted for Jean Trouillard the milestones of a spiritual itinerary: first the stages of the procession of the intelligible, explored principally in treatise I, 6 (1), treatise V, 1 (10) and treatise V, 3 (49), and then the stages of purification that accompany the ascent to the First Principle, the One. None of us were sufficiently prepared properly to take in this teaching, but we all had a sense, even if we didn’t understand its significance, of the depth of the philosophical commitment that had been offered to us: how could we not be sensitive to this perspective of the catharsis that inspires the process of conversion towards the One? It was of course not so easy to accept the basic premise of the entire enterprise; that is, that no clear distinction was possible between philosophy and spirituality when reading Plotinus. Such a distinction had to be given up at once. This premise is so essential that Jean Trouillard would affirm, in the conclusion to his thesis on purification, that if one insists on maintaining the distinction, “Neoplatonism becomes incomprehensible.” The question of mysticism is, then, at the heart of this approach, and Jean Trouillard would repeatedly return to this in his subsequent work. In his teaching he put great emphasis on the moral lexicon of conversion, a lexicon fed by the entire Greek ethic of retrenchment, aphaeresis, and finally silence. “Take away everything!” (aphele panta). Although his teaching involved few philological analyses, there being few students with any Greek, Jean Trouillard stressed the richness of the lexicon of mysticism, from vision to contact, from desire to union. Critical of the intellectualist approach to theôria proposed in René Arnou’s 1921 work on the desire for God,329 as we can read in his published review of Arnou’s 1967 corrected edition, Trouillard emphasised first and foremost the importance of negative theology in Plotinus. Although he cites the important dissertation of Paul Oskar Kristeller (1905-1999) on the soul,330 Jean Trouillard would not appear to be indebted to him for the general structure of his own proposition, which nevertheless resembles it in several points. Kristeller’s interpretation, which takes the ontology of the hypostases as a metaphor for the progression of the soul towards unity and self-presence, does not seem to Trouillard to be true to the metaphysics of Plotinus. Wishing to show the dual movement of Plotinus’ method, Trouillard stressed the immanence of the absolute in all things, drawing from the philosophical heritage of his French mentors, chiefly 329  Arnou (1921). Le désir de Dieu dans la philosophie de Plotin. Paris: Alcan; 2nd ed., revised, Rome, Presses de l’Université Grégorienne, 1967, with a review by Jean Trouillard, Revue des études grecques LXXXI (1968) 311-312. 330  Kristeller (1929). Der Begriff der Seele in der Ethik des Plotins. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr. See also Leroux (2006). Objectivité et actualité. L’interprétation de la doctrine plotinienne de l’âme chez Paul Oskar Kristeller. Études platoniciennes, 3, 209-227.

226

Jean Trouillard (1907-1984)

Maurice Blondel. As in his theses, his lectures abounded in subtle formulations that, despite often flirting with paradox, illuminated and brought to life Plotinus’ text. Such was, for Jean Trouillard, the first lesson of the Enneads: the imperative of a search for simplicity that must be reconciled with the multiplicity of discourse and the intelligible. I encountered this approach again later when I attended the seminars of Pierre Hadot and Jean Pépin on the mysticism of Plotinus and Saint Augustine, at the École pratique des hautes études. Over the course of these Parisian years, I became good friends with the late Alain-Philippe Segonds (1942-2011)331 and with Philippe Hoffmann, who is today the director of the École’s Vième section, the department of religion. Both were attentive followers of Pierre Hadot’s lectures and both authored editions of Neoplatonic texts and studies, ranging from Plotinus to Damascius, considered among the most important contributions in the French Neoplatonic revival. Under the direction of Jean Trouillard, our reading of the treatises of the fifth Ennead followed the exposition of this method step by step, but it was while listening to his reflections on the exigencies posed to all discourse on the One, in Ennead VI, 8 (treatise 39, On Free Will and the Will of the One) that I found the question to which I would devote my own thesis. It is, in effect, in this treatise that Plotinus takes his approach to the brink of negative theology, by denying all possibility of setting forth a discourse on the One that would cross the threshold of negation. But how, then, should we understand predicates such as liberty or free will? Trouillard shared with us his masterly article of 1961 on the mysticism of Plotinus, in which he turns to treatise VI, 8 and sees there, in the concept of causa sui, an example of a positive concept. I had the privilege of discussing the challenges of this treatise with him, and also heard him speak on Plotinus and his treatise against the Gnostics when he was invited to give a lecture in our seminar with Georges-Mathieu de Durand on the Valentinian Gnosis. I still remember, from that encounter, Trouillard’s words of praise for Werner Beierwaltes’ study, Lux intelligibilis, published in Munich in 1957.332 A philosopher and outstanding interpreter of German Idealism, Beierwaltes devoted several studies to the concepts of self-constitution. I recall the event because it was for me a decisive contact with German scholarship and led me not only to learn German but also influenced my decision to continue in Paris, with Pierre Hadot, the studies I had begun at the Institut d’études médiévales. Jean Trouillard’s advice and encouragement also played a role in this. His manner, so gentle and modest, had made a strong impression on me, and it was thanks to my friend Alain-Philippe Segonds that I was able to see him again during my time in France. I also owe a great debt to Pierre Hadot and Jean Pépin for welcoming me 331  Noirot and Ordine (Eds.). (2012). Omnia in uno. Hommage à Alain Philippe Segonds, Paris: Les Belles-Lettres. 332  Beierwaltes (1957). Lux intelligibilis. Untersuchung zur Lichtmetaphysik der Griechen. Munich, Uni-Druck Novotny & Söllner.

Jean Trouillard: Portrait of a Neoplatonic Thinker

227

into their seminars. The work of Beierwaltes has remained central to my work, as it has to the work of my colleague and friend Jean-Marc Narbonne, and the tribute I paid to Jean Trouillard in the book published in 1990333 based on my thesis can only partly express my gratitude to him for, among other things, having introduced me to this brilliant thinker. Over the course of these years during which Neoplatonism took form as a research area, the constellation of names involved in this scholarship continued to grow: alongside the work of Werner Beierwaltes and Pierre Hadot, Jean Trouillard would often mention the earlier work of Fr André-Jean Festugière, with its sensitivity to the vitality of Gnostic and late antique spirituality, or the work of Fr Édouard de Places. Of rationalist interpretations such as those of Émile Bréhier or E. R. Dodds he remained critical, however. A. H. Armstrong’s major study (“The Escape of the One”, 1971),334 in which he refers to Trouillard’s work, had not yet been published, but they had no doubt already made contact. We now know that they maintained through their publications a dialogue of reciprocal respect, and I had the privilege to discuss some of these topics with Professor Armstrong when he was in Canada, where he had been invited as Killam Senior Fellow to Dalhousie University and where he continued as Visiting Professor for several years. The French translation of Armstrong’s seminal study on Plotinus (The Architecture of the Intelligible Universe in the Philosophy of Plotinus)335 made by two of my schoolmates, Josiane Boulad-Ayoub and Danièle Letocha, originated in a seminar given by Georges-Mathieu de Durand on Neoplatonism and the Greek Fathers. And as pointed out by Wayne Hankey,336 himself a professor at Dalhousie, in his study of French Neoplatonism, Armstrong recognised his intellectual debt to Trouillard in several of his publications, most notably in his contribution to the Mélanges offered to Trouillard in 1981 by his students and friends.337 It is impossible to end this brief tribute to Jean Trouillard without touching upon the profound unity of his work: his interpretation of Neoplatonism, and especially of philosophical mysticism, includes the late Neoplatonists such as Iamblichus, Proclus and Damascius. Iamblichus in particular inspired him, and it was Trouillard who initiated the study of his work from a philosophical perspective in France. He explains his approach to these later thinkers in several texts, showing the continu333  Leroux (1990). Plotin. Ennéade VI, 8. La liberté et la volonté de l’Un. Texte grec, traduction et commentaire. Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin, “Collection Histoire des doctrines de la fin de l’Antiquité,” dirigée par Jean Pépin, vol. 15. 334  See Armstrong’s bibliography. 335  See Armstrong (1940) in Armstrong’s bibliography. 336  Hankey (2004). Cent ans de néoplatonisme en France, dans Narbonne (2006). Lévinas et l’héritage grec. Paris and Québec: Librairie philosophique J. Vrin and Presses de l’Université Laval, “Zêtêsis”, 2004, 123-268; Eng. trans.: One Hundred years of Neoplatonism in France: A Brief Philosophical History, in Narbonne (2006). Levinas and the Greek Heritage. Leuven, Paris & Dudley: Peeters, 97-248. 337  See Armstrong (1981) in Armstrong’s bibliography.

228

Jean Trouillard (1907-1984)

ity of the Neoplatonic philosophic experience while underlining at the same time what separates these thinkers individually. He liked to repeat that Plotinus moves towards the Principle by negation and otherness, while Proclus introduces a more unified hierarchy and evokes, rather, a transfiguration of nature in the divine. The emphasis that Jean Trouillard gives to transcendence, which he invites us to conceive as an excess of presence, one of the themes of treatise VI, 8 (39), recurs as a leitmotif throughout his work. Citing an article from 1977 on Proclus and myth,338 Jean-Marc Narbonne339 reminds us how Trouillard’s method integrates the ancient myth of Night in the metaphysical representation of the universe and its principle: this night is the realm of negation, it is to this that belongs the wholly nocturnal (“intégralement nocturne”) theology of Proclus, it is from this that proceeds all Presocratic thought, and it is here that negative theology finds its foundation. I leave the last word to him who remains our Neoplatonist teacher: “La théologie négative repose sur un don initial du Principe qui rend la procession tout entière intérieure et spontanée en chaque véritable foyer. Et c’est le Principe lui-même qui nous inspire la négation théologique. C’est dans sa motion que nous déployons cet univers d’expressions que nous lui refusons.”340

5.3. Reminiscence of my meetings with Jean Trouillard Gregory Shaw My introduction to Jean Trouillard began with the reading of his books on Plotinus, La purification plotinienne, and La procession plotinienne. I was a graduate student at UC Santa Barbara, studying under the Gnostic scholar, Birger Pearson. I was already familiar with Neoplatonism, but Trouillard’s subtle and deeper reading of Plotinus opened my eyes to depths in Platonism I hadn’t seen before. My French was not great, so it was slow reading. I took a lot of notes; the slow pace deepened my engagement. I had already developed an interest in Iamblichus and theurgy and had written a paper critiquing Dodds’ approach. So, when I discovered that Trouillard had written on Proclus and had described theurgy as the culmination of Neoplatonic mystagogy, I began to read everything he had written, on Proclus, on Blondel, and on a number of other philosophic themes. But it was his two books on Proclus, L’Un et l’âme selon Proclos, and La mystagogie de Proclos that most captured my attention. Trouillard revealed Neoplatonism as a mystagogic discipline, one that he 338 

Trouillard (1977). See Narbonne’s “Préface” in Trouillard (2014). 340  “Negative theology rests on an original ‘gift’ of the Principle by which the procession becomes fully internalised and spontaneous wherever it truly resides. And it is the Principle itself that inspires theological negation in us. It is within its motion that we deploy this universe of expressions that we deny to it.” 339 

Reminiscence of my meetings with Jean Trouillard

229

articulated in lucid prose that belied how devastating it was to our rational habits of thought. Trouillard was an exponent of a mystical Platonism, and I became fully immersed in his vision. As I read his books on Proclus, I took careful notes and wrote my own reflections as I went along. Often, I saw, remarkably, that my own intuitions about Trouillard’s argument were confirmed in the next and following pages of his book. I realized that I had entered his stream of thought. I somehow “knew” what he knew. I became a devotee of Trouillard’s luminous scholarship on Neoplatonism, and finally, in 1980, after reading an inspiring article by Wayne Hankey about Trouillard and his influence, I decided to see if I might study with him in Paris and to ask all the questions I had about theurgy and the role of the rational mind in Neoplatonism. I wrote to Trouillard, asking him if I might come to Paris to study with him. To my great delight, he graciously agreed, writing me back in the same lucid style, but now in his own hand. I understood how one of the disciples of Iamblichus felt after receiving a letter from his master: “I would rather receive one letter from Iamblichus than possess all the gold of Lydia.” I felt the same way and made plans, with Professor Pearson’s encouragement, to study with Trouillard from the fall of 1982 to the spring of 1983. Professor Trouillard was the embodiment of his thought. When I met him at his tiny, one room apartment at 92 Rue d’Alésia, I faced a man of very small stature, with a gentle face, and a warm and gracious demeanor. And he had the largest hands! We sat across from each other and he allowed me to tape our conversations, all in French. Trouillard did not speak English and my French was improving rapidly, so we did pretty well, and he was a gentle and patient listener. We talked of Blondel, of Proclus, Iamblichus, the role of the mind, and regularly discussed the significance of theurgy in Neoplatonism. The discussions were wide ranging and he allowed me to pursue every idea, every notion, that I was gripped by. He was incredibly patient, remarkably gracious and his voice, deep and softly reassuring, seemed to invite me into his mind. After each visit, as I would wait by the ascenseur, I often felt overwhelmed, somehow unworthy of being in Trouillard’s presence, to receive so much of his generosity and brilliance. I felt quietly humbled and, at the same time, passionately interested to express the insights that were coming to me after our sessions. It was a remarkable time. Trouillard also made connections for me with H. D. Saffrey, whom I found to be a charming man with a perfect command of English. Saffrey was generous as well, loaning me books and inviting me to visit periodically. I was also able to meet Trouillard’s student, Christian Guerard, a brilliant scholar of Proclus and particularly of “les hénades” that played a central role in Proclus’ metaphysics. I also attended Pierre Hadot’s seminar on the Symposium at the École pratique des hautes études at the Sorbonne. The seminar was packed and included Hadot’s wife,

230

Jean Trouillard (1907-1984)

Ilsetraudt, whose German accent in French I found quite distinctive. But it was my meetings with Trouillard, those precious afternoons, sitting across from this delicate sage, that was the center of my experience. Last thoughts: At our initial meeting, which I still remember vividly, I gave Trouillard a prehistoric trilobite fossil as a gift because it reminded me of the image of the birth of Phanes in Orphic mythology. He received it warmly and then gave me a white stone, speaking in a soft revelatory tone: “C’est une pierre magique; c’est une pierre théurgique…c’est une pierre du Parthénon.” He was casting a spell. For me, Trouillard was himself the spell, magical and theurgic, and I kept his stone as a talisman. I brought my former wife to meet Professor Trouillard near Christmas time. He was so gentle and gracious to us, sitting in his little study. She is an artist and made a sketch of Trouillard sitting in his chair while we talked. I asked her if she would be willing to share her sketch for this book and she said she would be delighted, then told me what she remembered most was that his feet didn’t even reach the floor! A little over a year after I returned to UC Santa Barbara, I received a letter from Christian Guerard. Inside was an obituary of my dear mentor, Jean Trouillard, who passed on November 24, 1984. As I read the obit, I was stunned to read that his birthday, December 12, is my own. Just another piece of the wonderful mystery of my connection with Jean Trouillard.

5.4. Letters 1 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Bourges, November 9, 1954 Dear Armstrong, Very many thanks for your letter. Please do not apologize for writing to me in English. Fortunately, I can read English much better than I can speak and write it so please allow me to reply to you in French: I will make fewer mistakes and my letter will be clearer than if I tried to express myself in English. Your agreement on the procession of matter from the sensible world is extremely precious to me. Your opinion, carefully considered and thought through, gives me considerable reassurance. For my part, I recognise that one could take IV. 8. 6 as representing a hesitation on Plotinus’ part: εἴτ’… εἴτ’. But it is methodologically sound to consider this passage in relation to the others, especially with Plotinus whose thinking is usually so coherent. Yet, eternal existence for him is not opposed to procession since, as you know, he denies in many passages that the world had a beginning while at the same

Letters

231

time affirming that everything comes from the Good. He therefore does not see a dilemma there, but rather a succession of aspects: “on the one hand…on the other”. Regarding matter as principle of evil, I think that Plotinus gives us a solution in III. 4. 1. Matter is complete indeterminacy or impossibility of conversion towards the superior principle. Therefore, matter becomes the enemy of all the beings who draw their life and their consistency from their conversion. Matter perverts by paralysing. It is negativity because it is opposed to the self-constitutive movement. This implies a theory of the fall as powerlessness that I sketched in an article of the Revue de l’histoire des religions (January-March 53),341 of which I take the liberty of enclosing a copy for you. It concerns the question you asked me. I thought I could see there (in the doctrine of sin) a real difference with Christianity. With kind regards, Jean Trouillard P.S. I forgot to thank you for sending the paper you wrote for the Augustinian Conference. I do it herewith.

2 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Niort, January 4, 1959 Dear Armstrong, Thank you for your nice letter, which I received around the summer solstice and to which I reply around the winter solstice. Since it is the season of good wishes, please accept mine and trust in their sincerity. I am sending you a few offprints on Proclus – others will follow. I am becoming increasingly interested in Proclus. In order to further my translation and exegesis projects I secured a one-year sabbatical from the Faculty of Angers. But one year is rather short for such a work. I hope to be able to extend it. I particularly focused on the Commentary on the Parmenides, which I take to be the core of Neoplatonism. I hope to be able to put together a book on that subject in the coming months. There are enough similarities and differences between Plotinus and Proclus to make the connection between the two extremely enlightening. For example, Proclus’ theory of time being superior to soul at first seems opposed to Plotinus’ conception of time as distension of the soul (III. 7. 11). Even so, there is in Plotinus an outline of a conception of time as pure or purified (IV. 1. 16; IV. 8) that Proclus might have remembered and developed. 341 

Trouillard (1953).

232

Jean Trouillard (1907-1984)

In Proclus, the concept of duration is much closer to the Intelligible principle and this is part of a more optimistic orientation to the body. But it is very interesting to note that the seeds of this tendency can already be discerned in Plotinus. The root of evil is the “first difference”, but neither it nor its consequences are entirely bad, except a certain non-being which is rather negativity. You can see how I interpret III. 8. 8, to which you allude. The dyad, Proclus writes, is the principle and fount of all multiplicity (In Parmenidem 1. 711-712), and all spirit is dyad. Warmest regards Jean Trouillard

3 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Niort, December 27, 1959 Dear Armstrong, It has been a very long time since I last wrote to you but, please, do not think I forgot you. A few days ago I spoke at length about you with Fr Henry, whom I see more often now that I live in Paris. I was wondering what you think of J. O’Meara’s thesis in his Porphyry in Augustine,342 which I reviewed for the Revue des Etudes Latines. Perhaps it was you who gave my name to the Journal of Hellenic Studies, which has just asked me to write a review of Plotini Opera by Henry-Schwyzer.343 I have accepted. I have been living in Paris since the beginning of last September, and it is for good, I hope. It is essential in order to pursue my work on Proclus as the University library at Angers was insufficient. This is all the more so that Proclus requires me to study the entire Neo-Pythagorean movement. Currently, I am translating Iamblichus’ De communi mathematica, which in my view is a compendium of Neo-Pythagoreanism. I also teach a class at the Institut Catholique in Paris, but it does not take me too much of my time. I have learnt a lot reading Merlan’s From Platonism to Neoplatonism as well as the works of Cornelia de Vogel. I am less in agreement with M. Kuchinski, whom I meet often in Paris, but whose interpretation of Plato I disagree with.344 I think that it was fortunate for Platonism to meet Pythagoreanism, but also that it was an excellent

342  It seems likely that Trouillard is here referring to John O’Meara’s article on “Porphyry’s ‘Philosophy from Oracles’ in Augustine,” published the same year in Études Augustiniennes (1959). 343  For full bibliographical references to the two reviews, see R. Dufour’s bibliography at the end of this chapter. 344  Trouillard is presumably referring to G.M. Kuchinski, a Russian scholar who wrote on Plato from a Jungian perspective.

Letters

233

chance for Neo-Pythagoreanism to ally itself (more or less completely) with Neoplatonism. The two doctrines or movements complement and clarify each other. I will send you my recent works on Neoplatonism as they get published. Here is one already, which bears some relation to Pythagoreanism. I wish you a happy new year 1960, with, once again, my warmest regards. Jean Trouillard 24 Rue Cassette, Paris 6345

4 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Niort, December 23, 1962 Dear Armstrong, Despite racking my brain, I cannot remember whether or not I answered your most interesting letter of January 27, 1962. In the spring of 1962, I moved to Paris, where I now live at 92, rue d’Alésia, 14ème. The move has disturbed both my work and my papers. I am mostly in agreement with you when you explain the sense in which Plotinus’ thought takes itself to be “hypothetico-deductive”. What I wanted to say is that since the Absolute is prior to the Intelligible and since truth cannot be simple and absolute, there can only be partial and relative starting points for a descending dialectic. νοῦς is indeed not a hypothesis in the modern sense, but a conditioned reality, and what is “unconditioned” is not a noetic reality. νοῦς is an act which cannot be rationally formulated. We can only anchor dialectic at a doubly inferior level of the dianoetic principle. And since no dianoetic formulation can wholly encapsulate the noetic principle, it is impossible to exclude a degree of pluralism. Did Plotinus realize all these consequences? Likewise, did he see clearly that it is only metaphorically that one can talk of necessity for the procession when intelligible necessity itself must be brought into being? I was very happy to read what you wrote about your journey to Greece. I keep unforgettable impressions of time spent there, especially Delphi, Olympia and Samos. In 1960 I spent ten days in Naxos, near Paros. I intend to go back as soon as I can. However, I have more and more work. I agreed to translate into French Proclus’ Elements of Theology, which will include an introduction and notes. The whole thing will come out at Aubier in 1964. Furthermore, I agreed to write the article on Neoplatonism for the history of philosophy to be published by Gallimard for 345  Trouillard often returned to his roots in Niort, but did not want his correspondants to reply to that address, hence the request to reply to his Paris address in some of the letters.

234

Jean Trouillard (1907-1984)

the collection La Pléiade, late in 1964. I intend to concentrate mostly on Plotinus and Proclus. I intend to shed little by little the teaching I am still committed to in Angers so as to concentrate on Proclus and my teaching in Paris. At the moment I comment upon the Gorgias and E.R. Dodds’ commentary is of great interest to me. It goes without saying that I think of you during my weekly meetings with Fr Saffrey.346 I cannot remember whether I thanked you for The Classical Review paper that you kindly sent me. With kind regards and all best wishes for 1963, Jean Trouillard

5 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Niort, December 21, 1963 Dear Armstrong, As usual, I am taking advantage of my quiet holidays out of Paris to send you my best wishes and to thank you for your kind letter of June. I enclose a small article on Plotinus,347 in which I have tried to summarize his thinking in eight points. It is far too short but the Lexikon did not give me more space. At some point in 1964, I will send you my translation of The Elements of Theology by Proclus, which will be published by Aubier. I am in the process of revising it and I will add an introduction and notes. My translation follows Dodds’ text, apart from a few amendments. My discussion with Dodds is mainly based upon a differing concept of “grace”. Dodds takes it mostly as a superimposed assistance while I take it to be rather an attentive and divinizing presence. The disagreement is more theological than Plotinian. Pierre Hadot must have sent you his brilliant little book on Plotinus.348 I have enjoyed his analysis of the personality of the thinker. It is often subtle and nicely articulated. I wish, however, that P. Hadot had insisted more on some points of doctrine that seem very important to me. 346  H. D. Saffrey O.P. (b. 1921), a specialist of late Neoplatonism, was directeur de recherches at the CNRS in Paris from 1962 to 1989. He has collaborated with Leendert Gerritt Westerink in the edition and translation of the six volumes of Proclus’ Theologie platonicienne. With A. Segonds, he edited, translated and wrote a commentary of Porphyry’s Lettre à Anébon and Iamblichus’ De mysteriis. 347  Trouillard (1963). 348  The book was Plotin ou la simplicité du regard, reviewed by Trouillard (1964), which was later translated into English by M. Chase (Plotinus or the Simplicity of Vision, University of Chicago Press, 1998).

Letters

235

P. Saffrey’s edition is in progress,349 but I fear that his new function as librarian at Saulchoir350 will rob him of much time, especially since he is a very knowledgeable and enthusiastic librarian. We often talk about you, likewise with Fr Henry who is revising the proofs of his Oxford edition of Plotinus. Please accept my kindest regards and best wishes for Christmas and the New Year. Jean Trouillard

6 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Paris, December 19, 1964 Dear Armstrong, I have just read again your letter of May 24, which brings me so many interesting news. I thank you for your article “Platonic love”; I agree much more with you than with Verdenius on this issue. I have given your regards to Father Saffrey whom I meet every Thursday since we are both faithful listeners of Father Fertugière, who gives us a commentary of his translation of Proclus’ Commentary on the Timaeus, about to be published by Vrin. On August 15, I completed my translation of the Elements of Theology for Aubier – I am expecting to get the proofs in a few days’ time. I shall be delighted to send you the book when it comes out. My translation follows Dodds’ text for the most part although I do not agree with his reading of theorem 180. I have just finished the chapter on “Neoplatonism from Plotinus to Damascius”351 that I had to write for the History of Philosophy for La Pléiade (Gallimard). I struggled with Damascius because Ruelle’s edition of the Dubitationes is not reliable.352 Fortunately, I got some help from Madame Galperine who is drafting a critical edition of this work.353 In the Revue des Etudes Grecques, I have written reviews on Dodds’ McKenna, Dodds’ Proclus. Elements of Theology, Henry’s Plotini Opera (Oxford University 349  Trouillard is presumably referring to H.-D. Saffrey and L.G. Westerink’s edition and translation of Proclus, Théologie Platonicienne, vol. I, Paris, Les Belles-Lettres, 1968. 350  Le Saulchoir is the Dominican School of Theology in France, where Fr Saffrey O.P. was teaching at the time. 351  Trouillard (1969). 352  Ruelle, Ch. Ém. (1889). Damascii successoris Dubitationes et solutiones de primis principiis, in Platonis Parmenidem, 2 vol. Paris: Klincksieck [repr. Bruxelles, 1964; Amsterdam, 1966]. All of Damascius’ extant books, save his commentary on the Phaedo, are now available in new translations at Paris, Les Belles Lettres. 353  Galpérine, Marie-Claire (1987). Damascius, Des premiers principes: apories et résolutions. Introduction, notes et traduction du grec. Lagrasse: Verdier.

236

Jean Trouillard (1907-1984)

Press) and, lastly, Hadot’s Plotinus. It will probably be published at some point in 1965.354 I much praised Hadot’s Plotin but expressed reservations on two points: (1) the term “experience” as applied to the presence of the One in the soul (in French the word is a term tinged with empiricist connotations); (2) the “passivity” of the subject in ecstasy (this word is fine if it means that the One’s liberality is fundamentally attentive, but not fine if it fails to recognize that ecstasy is the principle of any action on the part of the subject). Kindest regards and best wishes for Christmas 1965 and the progress of your work. Jean Trouillard

7 TO G. SHAW Paris, July 28, 1981 Dear Mr Shaw, I much enjoyed your letter and the accompanying essay on theurgy. Please allow me to reply in French since, like you, but inversely, I read English without difficulty, but would find it very difficult to express myself well in it. I append to my letter a short essay which is still unpublished – it was photocopied by my students – which I wrote in response to a request for inclusion in a revised edition of Ueberwegs (currently stuck in a rut). It is an introduction to the reading of Proclus. You will find in it themes that you already know but in a more condensed form in the last section. You are quite right to underscore the importance of theurgy in the soul’s progression to mystical union. It is not a concession to the prejudices of the time, but an essential piece that is well integrated in the Neoplatonic approach. If one fails to acknowledge it, it is through a certain kind of rationalism that an overhasty reading of Plotinus is liable to foster.355 The necessity of theurgy is grounded, not only in the soul’s embodiment, but in the very nature of Neoplatonic mysticism and negative theology. Unlike Augustine and Aquinas’ negative theology, the Neoplatonist variety is radical. The One is not only beyond Being, but also beyond unity and goodness. Strictly speaking ineffable, it is beyond intelligibility. As a consequence, it will never be given to thought, but 354  See Trouillard’s reviews of 1965 in the bibliography. “Dodd’s McKenna” is Dodd’s edition of Mckenna’s journal and letters. 355  The reader may be amused to note that Armstrong, in a letter dated 9th April 1988 and reproduced above, gives Gregory Shaw a very different advice.

Letters

237

to the μὴ ὄντος, to the σπέρμα τοῦ μὴ ὄντος which bubbles within us (Proclus, In Parmenidem, Cousin, 1864, 1081-1082). Δεῖ γὰρ οὐ γνωστικῶς οὐδὲ ἀτελῶς τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἐπιζητεῖν (In Platonis Theologiam, Portus, I 25, p.61). To be sure, dialectics, contemplation, intellectual intuition play an indispensable, though cathartic, role. They open in the soul an internal distance, a space that the operative symbols of theurgy will transform into presence. You are right to stress the “anteriority” (pro) of the presence and action of the ineffable. Because that presence was already there in an obscure fashion it gives symbols the necessary dynamism to find it again. The trajectory of the soul is circular or at least helicoidal. Read again pages 61-63 and 193-194 of In Platonis Theologiam (Portus). Faith (πίστις) that Proclus here celebrates is trust, “unitive silence” which are the conditions of theurgy. You ask for my views on Proclus’ commentary on the Chaldean Oracles in which he locates the flower of our substance beyond that of our νοῦς. You know that for Proclus being is superior to life and life to thought. Since each level has its ἄκρον the ἄκρον of psychical substance is superior to that of νοῦς; while the latter unites with the Father of the intelligibles (which is not the ineffable), the summit of the soul’s substance (its ὕπαρξις) assures the One’s presence. The relation of these two summits and the generation inside the soul of the flower of νοῦς through that of substance confirms that presence. I shall be delighted to see you in Paris. Call me as soon as you get here (542.49.00). I shall be away in the summer from 25th June to 15th September, except for the occasional few days. With all best wishes for you work, Yours ever, Jean Trouillard

8 TO G. SHAW Paris, September 5, 1982 Dear friend, Many thanks for your letter of 20th August and for your dissertation outline and your photo. You tell me that you will be in Paris from 29th October to 20th March 1983. I am delighted about that. As soon as you get here, call me on 542. 49. 00, preferably from 16 to 22 pm. At that time, I am almost always at home working. You will find courses on Neoplatonism at the Sorbonne, at the Section “Hautes Etudes” at the Sorbonne and at the Collège de France (Pierre Hadot). Several of these courses only start on November 15.

238

Jean Trouillard (1907-1984)

You can pay a visit to several specialists, such as Fr Saffrey, Alain Segonds, Jean Pépin, Stanislas Breton etc. Young people who work for their doctorate could also be pleased to talk with you. Unfortunately, you will not be able to visit Fr Festugière, who died on 13th August aged 84. I do not know whether you have come across the works of Maurice Blondel. There is a definite attempt there to provide a rational justification of Christian “sacramentalism”, which also applies to theurgy provided it is carefully distinguished from magic. You would also benefit from the last chapters of L’action (1893), which has been re-printed by the Presses Universitaires de France. There is also Histoire et dogme by the same author at the same publisher. I advise you to perfect your handling of the French language before coming to Paris since you will not find courses in English. Apart from Fr Saffrey, Neoplatonic scholars read English more than they speak it. See you soon, my dear friend. Please bring warm clothes – although the winter in Paris is not usually very cold, it is long and humid, unlike California. With all best wishes, Jean Trouillard

5.5. Obituary Jean Trouillard (1907-1984)356 “Tout est là”, me disait-il un jour: “savoir ce que l’on veut faire de sa vie” – ce qui était dans le droit fil du platonisme et du christianisme, de sa pensée et de sa foi. Il avait su accorder l’une et l’autre dans cette liberté que saint Paul donne comme le fruit de l’Esprit. Attiré par la prêtrise en même temps que par la philosophie, marqué dès le départ par la pensée de Blondel, qu’il connaissait personnellement, il entra tôt dans les ordres et prit ses grades en Sorbonne. Membre de la Compagnie de Saint-Sulpice, il se voua d’abord à la formations des clercs. Après ses thèses de 1955 sur Plotin, il fut élu professeur aux Facultés Catholiques d’Angers, puis à l’Institut catholique de Paris, où il enseigna jusqu’en 1978. Son génie le portait au platonisme, qu’il vivait de l’intérieur et d’une façon si actuelle qu’on l’eut dit sortant de quelque discussion entre amis dans les jardins d’Akademos, et cheminant paisible et joyeux vers l’Acropole. Membre fondateur du Centre d’Etudes Platoniciennes et Aristotéliciennes d’Athènes, il ne voulait manquer aucune des rencontres prestigieuses organisées par E. Moutsopoulos, son ami de toujours. Jusqu’à ses vacances, qu’il ne concevait qu’au grand soleil de la Grèce ! Ses livres, ses articles, écrits dans une langue naturellement élégante, surent communiquer à une génération de disciples la prodigieuse illumination qui nait du Parménide et de 356 

Jerphagnon, L. (1985) in R. Dufour’s bibliography of this chapter.

Bibliography of J. Trouillard

239

la République epekeina tēs ousias. Sa renommée s’étendait au loin. Effacé et génial, ironique et savoureux, il vous dévoilait l’essentiel comme en s’excusant, à la manière de Socrate – et vous en aviez pour la vie. J’en connais plus d’un qu’il sauva de la désespérance et, pire peut-être, de la médiocrité. “Maitre Jean” s’en est allé un soir triste de Novembre. Et dans ce cimetière de Niort ou nous l’avons conduit, tandis que gagnaient la nuit d’automne et le vent, nous avons vraiment su qu’il était passé des ténèbres à la lumière, et que nous resterions à l’attendre au bord de l’éternité. Lucien Jerphagnon

5.6. Bibliography of J. Trouillard Richard Dufour

Bibliography (1981). Bibliographie. In P.-M. Schuhl & L. Jerphagnon (Eds.), Néoplatonisme: Mélanges Offerts à Jean Trouillard (pp.  313-316). Fontenay-aux-Roses: École Normale Supérieure.

Books (1955). La Procession Plotinienne. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. (1955). La Purification Plotinienne. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. (1965). Proclus, Éléments de Théologie. Traduction, introduction et notes. Paris: Aubier. (1972). L’Un et l’âme Selon Proclos. Paris: Belles Lettres. (1972). Procession et Conversion chez Spinoza. Paris: Institut Catholique de Paris. (1973). L’action chez Spinoza. Paris: Institut Catholique de Paris. (1973). Procession Néoplatonicienne et Création Judéo-chrétienne. Paris: Institut Catholique de Paris. (1979). Études sur Platon [Qu’est-ce que la Philosophie Selon Platon? – Le “Parménide” de Platon – Le bien Platonicien] (2 ed.). Paris: Institut Catholique de Paris. (1982). La Mystagogie de Proclos. Paris: Belles Lettres. & Westerink, L. G., Segonds, A.-P. (1990). Prolégomènes à la Philosophie de Platon. Texte établi par L.G. Westerink et traduit par J. Trouillard avec la collaboration de A.Ph. Segonds. Paris: Belles Lettres. (2014). Jean Scot Érigène: Études [Reprint of published papers]. Édition et présentation des textes par Frédéric Berland. Paris: Hermann. (2014). Raison et Mystique: Études Néoplatoniciennes [Reprint of published papers]. Édition établie par Mathias Goy et préface de Jean-Marc Narbonne. Paris: Cerf.

240

Jean Trouillard (1907-1984)

Edited book & Bertier, J., Brisson, L., Combès, J. (Eds.). (1977). Recherches sur la Tradition Platonicienne (Platon, Aristote, Proclus, Damascius). Paris: Vrin.

Papers (1949). La Liberté chez Plotin. In La Liberté: Actes du IVe Congrès des Sociétés de Philosophie de Langue Française, Neuchâtel, 13-16 Septembre 1949 (pp. 353-357). Neuchâtel: La Baconnière. (1950). Sagesse Plotinienne et Sagesse Cartésienne. In Les Sciences et la Sagesse: Actes du Ve Congrès des Sociétés de Philosophie de Langue Française, Bordeaux, 14-17 Septembre 1950 (pp. 227-229). Paris, Presses Universitaires de France. (1952). Épistémologie et Théologie. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 6(22 (4)), 449-452. (1952). Histoire et Vérité Selon Plotin. In L’homme et l’Histoire: Actes du VIe Congrès des Sociétés de Philosophie de Langue Française, Strasbourg, 10-14 Septembre 1952 (pp. 267-271). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. (1952). La Structure de la Recherche Métaphysique Selon Maurice Blondel. Les Études Philosophiques, 7(4), 368-372. (1952). Saint-Thomas Selon le R.P. Chenu. Les Études Philosophiques, 7(1-2), 136-141. (1953). Axiologie et Théologie. Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie, 3(4), 265-269. (1953). L’impeccabilité de l’Esprit, Selon Plotin. Revue de l’Histoire des Religions, 143(1), 19-29. (1953). La Méthode de Plotin. In Actes du XIe Congrès International de Philosophie, Bruxelles 20-26 août 1953, XII: Histoire de la Philosophie: Méthodologie, Antiquité et Moyen Âge (pp. 128-132). Amsterdam: North-Holland. Reprinted in Raison et Mystique, p. 121-125. (1954). La Présence de Dieu Selon Plotin. Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, 59(1), 38-45. (1954). La Pureté chez les Grecs. Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé (2), 37-45. (1954). L’hyperontologie du “Devoir” (En Hommage à René Le Senne). Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale, 59(4), 413-422. (1954). Vie et Pensée Selon Plotin. In La vie, la Pensée: Actes du VIIe Congrès des Sociétés de Philosophie de Langue Française, Grenoble, 12-16 Septembre 1954 (pp.  351-357). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Reprinted in Raison et Mystique, p. 137-143. (1954). Vraie et Fausse Intelligibilité Selon Jacques Paliard. Les Études Philosophiques, 9(4), 459-465. (1955). La Genèse du Plotinisme. Revue Philosophique de Louvain, 53(40), 469-481. (1956). L’unité Humaine Selon Jean Scot Érigène. In L’homme et son Prochain: Actes du VIIIe Congrès de l’Association des Sociétés de Philosophie de Langue Française,

Bibliography of J. Trouillard

241

Toulouse, 6-9  Septembre 1956 (pp.  298-301). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Reprinted in Jean Scot Érigène: Études, p. 55-61. (1956). La Médiation du Verbe Selon Plotin. Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger, 146(1), 65-73. (1956). La Pensée et la vie Selon Jacques Paliard. Teoresi, 11(1/2), 114-118. (1957). Âme et Création Selon Proclus. In L’homme et ses Oeuvres: Actes du IXe Congrès des Sociétés de Philosophie de Langue Française, Aix-en-Provence, 2-5 Septembre 1957 (pp. 430-433). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. (1957). Le sens des Médiations Proclusiennes. Revue Philosophique de Louvain, 55(47), 331-342. (1957). Réflexions sur l’ὄχημα dans les Éléments de Théologie de Proclus. Revue des Études Grecques, 70(329-330), 102-107. (1958). “Agir par son Être Même”: La Causalité Selon Proclus. Revue des Sciences Religieuses, 32(4), 347-357. (1958). Contemplation et Unité Selon Plotin. In R. Jolivet, S. Breton & J. Châtillon (Eds.), De la Connaissance de Dieu (pp. 161-175). Paris-Bruges: De Brouwer. (1958). Sur un Pluriel de Plotin et de Proclus. Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé (2), 88-91. (1959). Âme et Esprit Selon Proclus. Revue d’Études Augustiniennes et Patristiques, 5(1), 1-12. (1959). La Monadologie de Proclus. Revue Philosophique de Louvain, 57(55), 309-320. (1959). L’homme Antique. Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie, 9(1), 69-76. (1959). Sagesse Bergsonienne, Sagesse Plotinienne. Bulletin de la Société Française de Philosophie [thematic issue: Bergson et nous: Actes du Xe Congrès des Sociétés de Philosophie de Langue Française, Paris, 17-19 mai 1959], 53(1), 307-310. (1959). Sources et Histoire du Bergsonisme. In Raison et Mystique (pp. 159-162). Paris: Cerf. (1959). Symbole et Distance. Recherches et Débats du Centre Catholique des Intellectuels Français [thematic issue: Le Symbole], 29, 37-43. (1960). La Vertu Selon Proclus. In Atti del XII Congresso Internazionale di Filosofia, 1958 (pp. 177-183). Firenze: Sansoni. (1960). L’intelligibilité Proclusienne. In La Philosophie et ses Problèmes: Recueil d’Études de Doctrine et d’Histoire Offert à R. Jolivet (pp. 83-97). Lyon: Vitte. Reprinted in Raison et Mystique, p. 227-239. (1960). Note sur προούσιος et πρόνοια chez Proclus. Revue des Études Grecques, 73(344-346), 80-87. (1960). Raison et Négation. In La Crise de la Raison dans la Pensée Contemporaine (pp. 29-38). Bruges: De Brouwer. (1960). Un et Être. Les Études Philosophiques, 15(2), 185-196. (1961). Aix et Athènes: Le Panlogisme Blondélien. Giornale di Metafisica: Rivista Bimestrale di Filosofia (Sept-Oct), 609-615.

242

Jean Trouillard (1907-1984)

(1961). Convergence des Définitions de l’âme chez Proclus. Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques, 45(1), 3-20. (1961). The Logic of Attribution in Plotinus. International Philosophical Quarterly, 1(1), 125-138. (1961). Pluralité Spirituelle et Unité Normative Selon Blondel. Archives de Philosophie, 24(1), 21-28. (1961). Valeur Critique de la Mystique Plotinienne. Revue Philosophique de Louvain, 59(63), 431-444. (1962). La Présence de Dieu Selon Blondel. In Existence et Nature: Actes du XIe Congrès des Sociétés de Philosophie de Langue Française, Montpellier, 4-7 Septembre 1961 (pp. 199-207). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. (1962). Les Notes de Ravaisson sur Proclus. Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger, 152(1), 73-75. (1962). Louis Foucher (1882-1961). Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger, 152(2), 288. (1963). Plotin et le Moi. Revue des Facultés Catholiques de l’Ouest (1), 71-82. (1965). Plotin et le Moi. In Horizons de la Personne (pp. 59-75). Paris: Éditions Ouvrières. Reprinted in Raison et Mystique, p. 175-186. Also in Spanish: (1968). Plotino y el Yo. In A. Jagu (Ed.), Horizontes de la Persona (pp. 71-92). Barcelona: Herder. (1966). L’âme “lieu des Idées” Selon Proclus. Sciences Ecclésiastiques, 18(1), 7-24. (1967). La Genèse de l’Hylémorphisme Selon Proclos. Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review, 6(1), 1-17. (1968). Chronique d’Histoire de la Philosophie Antique (1964-1967). Bulletin du Comité des Études, 52, 233-239. (1970). Histoire de la Dialectique de l’Antiquité à la Renaissance. Les Études Philosophiques, 25(3), 347-354. (1970). L’âme du Timée et l’Un du Parménide dans la Perspective Néoplatonicienne. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 24(92 (2)), 236-251. (1971). La μονή Selon Proclos. In Le Néoplatonisme: Actes du Colloque de Royaumont, 9-13 juin 1969 (pp. 229-240). Paris: CNRS. (1971). L’antithèse Fondamentale de la Procession Selon Proclos. Archives de Philosophie, 34(3), 433-449. (1971). Réminiscence et Procession de l’âme Selon Proclos. Revue Philosophique de Louvain, 69(2), 177-189. (1972). El Neoplatonismo. In Brice Parain (Ed.), Del Mundo Romano al Islam Medieval: Roma-Bizancio-El neoplatonismo – La Filosofía Judía Medieval – La Filosofía Islámica (pp. 98-141). Madrid: Siglo XXI de España. (1972). La Notion de δύναμις chez Damascios. Revue des Études Grecques, 85(406/408), 353-363. (1972). Rencontre du Néoplatonisme. Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie, 22(1), 1-13.

Bibliography of J. Trouillard

243

(1973). Érigène et la Théophanie Créatrice. In The Mind of Eriugena: Papers of a Colloquium, Dublin, July 1970 (pp. 98-113). Dublin: Irish University Press. Reprinted in Raison et Mystique, p. 425-446 and in Jean Scot Érigène: Études, p. 63-98. (1973). Le Merveilleux dans la vie et la Pensée de Proclos. Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger, 163(3), 439-452. (1973). Le “Parménide” de Platon et son Interprétation Néoplatonicienne. Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie, 23(2), 83-100. Also in Études Néoplatoniciennes (pp. 9-26). Neuchâtel: La Baconnière. Reprinted in Raison et Mystique, p. 39-54. (1974). La Définition Blondélienne de la Vérité. Nouvelles de l’Institut Catholique de Paris (4), 38-44. (1974). Le Dynamisme Psychique Selon Proclos. Diotima, 2, 117-124. (1974). L’édition Henry-Schwyzer des Ennéades. Nouvelles de l’Institut Catholique de Paris (1), 42-46. (1974). Raison et Mystique chez Plotin. Revue d’Études Augustiniennes et Patristiques, 20(1-2), 3-14. (1974). Théologie Négative et Psychogonie chez Proclos. In Atti del Convegno Internazionale sul Tema: Plotino e il Neoplatonismo in Oriente e in Occidente (Roma, 5-9 Ottobre 1970) (pp. 253-264). Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. (1975). L’activité Onomastique Selon Proclos. In H. Dörrie (Ed.), De Jamblique à Proclus (pp. 239-255). Vandœuvres-Genève: Fondation Hardt. Reprinted in Raison et Mystique, p. 287-300. (1975). Proclos Définit l’âme Contre Aristote. Diotima, 3, 127-136. (1976). La Notion de “Théophanie” chez Érigène. In Manifestation et Révélation (pp. 15-39). Paris: Beauchesne. Reprinted in Raison et Mystique, p. 447-467 and in Jean Scot Érigène: Études, p. 99-131. (1976). La Procession du temps Selon Proclos. Diotima, 4, 104-115. (1976). Théologie Négative et Autoconstitution Psychique chez les Néoplatoniciens. In Savoir, Faire, Espérer: Les Limites de la Raison; Volume Publié à l’Occasion du Cinquantenaire de l’École des Sciences Philosophiques et Religieuses et en Hommage à Mgr Henri Van Camp. (pp. 307-321). Bruxelles: Facultés Universitaires Saint-Louis. Reprinted in Raison et Mystique, p. 55-67. (1977). La Figure du Choeur de Danse dans l’Oeuvre de Proclos. In Permanence de la Philosophie: Mélanges Offerts à Joseph Moreau (pp. 162-174). Neuchâtel: La Baconnière. Reprinted in Raison et Mystique, p. 331-342. (1977). La Notion d’ “Analyse” chez Érigène. In Jean Scot Érigène et l’Histoire de la Philosophie: Actes du Colloque de Laon, 7-12 Juillet 1975 (pp. 349-356). Paris: CNRS. Reprinted in Raison et Mystique, p. 469-480 and in Jean Scot Érigène: Études, p. 133-151. (1977). Le Quiétisme de Spinoza. Nouvelles de l’Institut Catholique de Paris (2), 18-21. (1977). Les Degrés du ποιεῖν chez Proclos. Dionysius, 1, 69-84.

244

Jean Trouillard (1907-1984)

(1977). Les Fondements du Mythe chez Proclos. In Le Mythe et le Symbole: De la Connaissance Figurative de Dieu (pp. 11-37). Paris: Beauchesne. Reprinted in Raison et Mystique, p. 311-329. (1980). Doctrines et Méthodes du Haut Moyen Âge. Annuaire de l’École Pratique des Hautes Études, Ve Section, Sciences Religieuses, 89, 497-502. (1980). Le lien de l’âme et du corps Selon Proclos. Diotima, 8, 128-133. (1980-81). La Transfiguration Finale Selon Érigène. Annuaire de l’École Pratique des Hautes Études, Ve Section, Sciences Religieuses, 89, 500-502. Reprinted in Jean Scot Érigène: Études, p. 159-164. (1980-81). La Trinité Selon Érigène. Annuaire de l’École Pratique des Hautes Études, Ve section, Sciences Religieuses, 89, 497-499. Reprinted in Jean Scot Érigène: Études, p. 153-158. (1981). La Virtus Gnostica selon Érigène. Annuaire de l’École Pratique des Hautes Études, Ve Section, Sciences Religieuses, 90, 369-373. Reprinted in Jean Scot Érigène: Études, p. 165-172. (1981). Le Symbolisme chez Proclos. Dialogues d’Histoire Ancienne, 7, 297-308. (1981). Néoplatonisme et Gnosticisme. In Métaphysique, Histoire de la Philosophie: Recueil d’Études Offert à Fernand Brunner à l’Occasion de son 60ᵉ Anniversaire (pp. 43-52). Neuchâtel: La Baconnière. Reprinted in Raison et Mystique, p. 69-78. (1981). Procession Néoplatonicienne et Création Judéo-chrétienne. In P.-M. Schuhl & L. Jerphagnon (Eds.), Néoplatonisme: Mélanges Offerts à Jean Trouillard (pp. 2-30). Fontenay-aux-Roses: École Normale Supérieure. Reprinted in Raison et Mystique, p. 79-108. (1981). Proclos et Spinoza. Bulletin de l’Association des Amis de Spinoza, 6, 1-12. (1982). Les Demeures du Paradis Selon Érigène. Annuaire de l’École Pratique des Hautes Études, Ve Section, Sciences Religieuses, 91, 423-425. Reprinted in Jean Scot Érigène: Études, p. 173-178. (1982). Proclos et Spinoza. Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger, 172(2), 435-448. (1982). Un Texte de Proclus sur la foi. In J. Greisch (Ed.), La Croyance (pp. 149-160). Paris: Beauchesne. Reprinted in Raison et Mystique, p. 391-399. (1983). Érigène et la Naissance du sens. In H. Blume & F. Mann (Eds.), Platonismus und Christentum: Festschrift für Heinrich Doerrie (pp. 267-276). Münster: Aschendorff. Reprinted in Raison et Mystique, p. 481-495 and in Jean Scot Érigène: Études, p. 225-249. (1983). La Notion Érigénienne de Créature. Annuaire de l’École Pratique des Hautes Études, Ve Section, Sciences Religieuses, 92, 401-403. Reprinted in Jean Scot Érigène: Études, p. 179-182. (1983). La Puissance Secrète du Nombre Selon Proclos. Revue de Philosophie Ancienne, 1(2), 227-241.

Bibliography of J. Trouillard

245

(1983). La ‘Virtus Gnostica’ Selon Jean Scot Érigène. Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie, 115(4), 331-354. Reprinted in Jean Scot Érigène: Études, p. 183-223. (1983). Proclos et la joie de Quitter le ciel. Diotima, 11, 182-192. (1984). Métensomatose Proclienne et Eschatologie Érigénienne. Annales de l’Institut de Philosophie et de Sciences Morales [thematic issue: Philosophies non Chrétiennes et Christianisme], 87-99. Reprinted in Jean Scot Érigène: Études, p. 251-272. (1985). Les Puissances Divines Selon Érigène. In Qu’est-ce que Dieu? Philosophie/ Théologie: Hommage à l’Abbé Daniel Coppieters de Gibson (1929-1983) (pp. 139152). Bruxelles: Facultés Universitaires Saint-Louis. Reprinted in Raison et Mystique, p. 537-549 and in Jean Scot Érigène: Études, p. 273-293. (1985). ‘L’un de l’âme’ Selon Proclos. Diotima, 13, 137-142.

Dictionary entries (1974). ΚΑΘΑΡΣΙΣ (Catharsis) – Philosophie Ancienne. In M. Viller (Ed.), Dictionnaire de Spiritualité Ascétique et Mystique: Doctrine et Histoire (Vol. 8, pp. 16641670). Paris: Beauchesne.

Encyclopedia entries (1957). Le Problème du Salut. In G. Berger (Ed.), Philosophie, Religion (Vol.  19, pp. 19.40-16-10). Paris: Société Nouvelle de l’Encyclopédie Française. (1968). Blondel (Maurice) 1861-1949. In Encyclopædia Universalis (Vol. 3, pp. 368369). Paris: Encyclopædia Universalis. (1968). Jamblique 250 env. – 330 env. In Encyclopædia Universalis (Vol. 9, pp. 287288). Paris: Encyclopædia Universalis. (1968). La Théurgie Païenne (Sacrements). In Encyclopædia Universalis (Vol. 14, pp. 582-583). Paris: Encyclopædia Universalis. (1968). Néo-platonisme. In Encyclopædia Universalis (Vol. 11, pp. 681-683). Paris: Encyclopædia Universalis. (1968). Proclus 412-485. In Encyclopædia Universalis (Vol. 13, pp. 588-589). Paris: Encyclopædia Universalis. (1968). Un (Philosophies de l’). In Encyclopædia Universalis (Vol. 16, pp. 461-463). Paris: Encyclopædia Universalis. (1969). Le Néoplatonisme. In B. Parain (Ed.), Histoire de la Philosophie I: Orient – Antiquité – Moyen Âge (Vol. 1, pp. 886-935). Paris: Gallimard.

Reviews (1951). Blondel, Maurice (1950). Exigences Philosophiques du Christianisme. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Les Études Philosophiques, 6(4), 369-371. (1952). À Propos d’une Étude sur Paul Valéry [Bémol, Maurice (1949). Paul Valéry. Paris: Belles Lettres]. Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé (2), 57-61.

246

Jean Trouillard (1907-1984)

(1953). Brunner, Fernand (1950). Études sur la Signification Historique de la Philosophie de Leibniz. Paris: Vrin. Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie, 3(1), 51-53. (1953). L’ontogénie du “Philèbe”: À Propos d’une Étude Récente [Boussoulas, Nicolas-Isidore (1952), L’être et la Composition des Mixtes dans le “Philèbe” de Platon. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France]. Revue Philosophique de Louvain, 51(29), 101-107. (1953). Wahl, Jean (1951). La Pensée de l’Existence. Paris: Flammarion. Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger, 143(1), 93-99. (1954). Blondel, Maurice (1952). Études Blondeliennes. Vol. 2. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Esprit 22(217-218 (8/9)), 345-347. (1954). L’Anthropologie et son Histoire [Groethuysen, Bernhard (1953). Anthropologie philosophique. Paris: Gallimard]. Revue des Sciences Religieuses, 28(3), 286-291. (1954). Le Problème de Socrate Selon deux Ouvrages Récents [Magalhães-Vilhena, Vasco de (1952). Le Problème de Socrate: Le Socrate Historique et le Socrate de Platon. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France; Magalhães-Vilhena, Vasco de (1952). Socrate et la Légende Platonicienne. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France]. Revue Philosophique de Louvain, 52(34), 279-288. (1954). Moreau, Joseph (1953). L’idée d’Univers dans la Pensée Antique. Torino: Società Editrice Internazionale. L’année Théologique Augustinienne, 14(49-50), 113-117. (1955). Duméry, Henry (1954). Blondel et la Religion: Essai Critique sur la “Lettre” de 1896. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Esprit 23(223 (2)), 326-329. (1955). Le Cosmos du Pseudo-Denys [Roques, René (1954). L’Univers Dionysien: Structure Hiérarchique du Monde selon le Pseudo-Denys. Paris: Aubier]. Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie, 5(1), 51-57. (1955). Spinoza (1954). Œuvres Complètes. Paris: Gallimard. Les Études Philosophiques, 10(3), 532-534. (1955). Houang, François (1954). De l’Humanisme à l’Absolutisme: L’évolution de la Pensée Religieuse du Néo-hégélien Anglais Bernard Bosanquet. Paris: Vrin. Les Études Philosophiques, 10(2), 304-305. (1956). Barbotin, Edmond (1954). La Théorie Aristotélicienne de l’Intellect d’Après Théophraste. Louvain: Publications Universitaires de Louvain. Revue des Sciences Religieuses, 30(1), 78-80. (1956). Cartier, Albert (1955). Existence et Vérité: Philosophie Blondélienne de l’Action et Problématique Existentielle. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Esprit 24(240-241 (7/8)), 213-215. (1956). Keyser, Eugénie de (1955). La Signification de l’Art dans les Ennéades de Plotin. Louvain: Publications Universitaires de Louvain. Les Études Philosophiques, 11(1), 121-122. (1957). Duméry, Henri (1957). Le Problème de Dieu en Philosophie de la Religion. Bruges: Desclée de Brouwer. Esprit 25(254 (10)), 458-464.

Bibliography of J. Trouillard

247

(1957). MacKenna, Stephen (1957). Plotinus, The Enneads. Second edition, London: Faber and Faber. Revue des Études Grecques, 70(331/333), 547-549. (1958). Moreau, Joseph (1958). La Conscience et l’Être. Paris: Éditions Montaigne. Esprit 26(263-264 (7/8)), 178-182. (1959). Mossé-Bastide, Rose-Marie (1959). Bergson et Plotin. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Les Études Philosophiques, 14(4), 554. (1959). Muralt, André de (1958). La Conscience Transcendantale dans le Criticisme Kantien: Essai sur l’Unité d’Aperception. Paris: Aubier. Esprit 27(272 (4)), 702-704. (1959). Pépin, Jean (1958). Mythe et Allégorie: Les Origines Grecques et les Contestations Judéo-chrétiennes. Paris: Aubier. Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie, 9(4), 389-390. (1960). Dodds, E.R., Theiler, W., Hadot, P., et al. (1960). Les Sources de Plotin: Dix Exposés et Discussions. Vandœuvres-Genève: Fondation Hardt. Les Études Philosophiques, 15(4), 533-534. (1960). Duméry, Henry (1957). Philosophie de la Religion: Essai sur la Signification du Christianisme. 2 vols. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger, 150(4), 550-556. (1960). Henry, P., Lewis, G. & Schwyzer, H.-R. (1959). Plotini Opera, II (editio maior): Enneades IV-V; Plotiniana Arabica ad Codicum Fidem Anglice Vertit G. Lewis. Paris: De Brouwer. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 80, 231-231. (1960). Neugebauer, O. & Van Hoesen, H. B. (1959). Greek Horoscopes. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. Revue de l’Histoire des Religions, 158(2), 239. (1961). Dodds, E.R., Theiler, W., Hadot, P., et al. (1960). Les Sources de Plotin: Dix Exposés et Discussions. Vandœuvres-Genève: Fondation Hardt. Revue des Études Grecques, 74(349-350), 328-329. (1961). Boese, Helmut (1960). Procli Diadochi Tria Opuscula (De Providentia, Libertate, Malo) Latine Guilelmo de Moerbeka Vertente, et Graece ex Isaacii Sabastocratoris Aliorumque Scriptis Collecta. Berlin: De Gruyter. Revue des Études Grecques, 74(349-350), 330-331. (1961). Combès, Joseph (1960). Valeur et Liberté. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie, 11(1), 111-112. (1961). Crouzel, Henri (1961). Origène et la “Connaissance Mystique”. Paris: De Brouwer. Revue des Études Grecques, 74(351-353), 534-535. (1961). Marius Victorinus (1960). Traités Théologiques sur la Trinité. 2 vols. Texte établi par Paul Henry, introduction, traduction et notes par Pierre Hadot. Paris: Cerf. Revue des Études Grecques, 74(351-353), 535-537. (1961). Moreau, Joseph (1960). L’horizon des Esprits: Essai Critique sur la Phénoménologie de la Perception. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Esprit 29(292 (2)), 343-344. (1961). Schuhl, Pierre-Maxime (1960). Le Dominateur et les Possibles. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Annales de l’Université de Paris, 30, 134-135.

248

Jean Trouillard (1907-1984)

(1962). Dodds, E.R., Theiler, W., Hadot, P., et al. (1960). Les Sources de Plotin: Dix Exposés et Discussions. Vandœuvres-Genève: Fondation Hardt. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 82, 191-192. (1962). Celier, Paul (1962). Que fais-je au Monde? Tours: Mame. Esprit 30(311 (11)), 909-912. (1962). Rutten, Christian (1961). Les Catégories du Monde Sensible dans les Ennéades de Plotin. Paris: Belles Lettres. Revue des Études Grecques, 75(354-355), 304-306. Also in Les Études Philosophiques, 17(2), 283-284. (1962). Wolff, Gustavus (1962). Porphyrii De Philosophia ex Oraculis Haurienda Librorum Reliquiae [Berlin, 1856]. Hildesheim: Olms. Revue des Études Grecques, 75(356-358), 602. (1963). Cousin, Victor (1961). Procli Commentarius in Platonis Parmenidem [Paris, 1864]. Hildesheim: Olms. Revue des Études Grecques, 76(359-360), 290-292. (1963). Évrard, Étienne (1960). La Date de la Naissance de Proclus le Néoplatonicien. L’Antiquité Classique, 29(1), 137-141. Revue des Études Grecques, 76(359-360), 289290. (1963). Évrard, Étienne (1960). Le Maître de Plutarque d’Athènes et les Origines du Néoplatonisme Athénien. L’Antiquité Classique, 29(1-2), 108-133; 391-406. Revue des Études Grecques, 76(359-360), 289. (1963). Westerink, Leendert Gerrit (1962). Anonymous Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy. Introduction, text, translation and indices. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Revue des Études Grecques, 76(359-360), 292-294. (1964). École, Jean (1962). Christiani Wolffii Philosophia Prima Sive Ontologia [1716]. Édition critique avec introduction, notes et index. Hildesheim: Olms. Revue Philosophique de Louvain, 62(74), 360-361. (1964). Hadot, Pierre (1963). Plotin ou la Simplicité du Regard. Paris: Plon. Revue des Études Grecques, 77(366-368), 638-639. (1964). Henry, P. & Schwyzer, H.-R. (1964). Plotini Opera, I (editio minor): Porphyrii Vita Plotini. Enneades I-III. Oxonii: E Typographeo Clarendoniano. Revue des Études Grecques, 77(366-368), 636. (1964). MacKenna, Stephen (1962). Plotinus: The Enneads. Third revised edition, London: Faber and Faber. Revue des Études Grecques, 77(366-368), 636-638. (1965). École, Jean (1964). Christiani Wolffii Cosmologia Generalis [1737]. Édition critique avec introduction, notes et index. Hildesheim: Olms. Revue Philosophique de Louvain, 63(77), 149-150. (1965). Ferwerda, Rein (1965). La Signification des Images et des Métaphores dans la Pensée de Plotin. Groningen: Wolters. Revue des Études Grecques, 78(369-370), 441-442. (1965). Kleve, Knut (1963). Gnosis Theon: Die Lehre von der natürlichen Gotteserkenntnis in der epikureischen Theologie. Symbolae Osloenses, fasc. supplet 19. Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé (3), 417.

Bibliography of J. Trouillard

249

(1965). Romano, Francesco (1964). Logos e Mythos Nella Psicologia di Platone. Padova: CEDAM. Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé (3), 414. (1965). Sérouya, Henri (1964). La Kabbale. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Esprit 33(336 (3)), 594-595. (1966). Henry, P. & Schwyzer, H.-R. (1964). Plotini Opera, I (editio minor): Porphyrii Vita Plotini. Enneades I-III. Oxonii: E Typographeo Clarendoniano. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 86, 206-207. (1967). Armstrong, A.H. (1966). Plotinus, I: Porphyry, On the Life of Plotinus and the Order of his Books; Enneads I, 1-9. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Revue des Études Grecques, 80(379-383), 673-675. (1967). Blumenthal, H.J. (1966). Did Plotinus Believe in Ideas of Individuals? Phronesis, 11(1), 61-80. Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger, 157(1), 138-139. (1967). Isaak Sebastokrator (1966). Zehn Aporien über die Vorsehung. Herausgegeben von Johannes Dornseiff. Mesenheim am Glan: Anton Hain. Revue des Études Grecques, 80(379-383), 684. (1967). Varvaro, Paolo (1965). Studi su Platone. Vol. 1. Palermo: G. Mori. Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Budé (2), 248. (1968). Arnou, René (1967). Le Désir de Dieu dans la Philosophie de Plotin. Rome: Presses de l’Université Grégorienne. Revue des Études Grecques, 81(384-385), 311-312. (1968). Conches, Guillaume de (1965). Glosae Super Platonem. Texte critique avec introduction, notes et tables par Édouard Jeauneau. Paris: Vrin. Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger, 158(2), 288-289. (1968). Moreau, Joseph (1967). Le Sens du Platonisme. Paris: Belles Lettres. Revue des Études Grecques, 81(386-388), 613-614. (1969). Aubin, Paul (1963). Le Problème de la “Conversion”: Étude sur un Terme Commun à l’Hellénisme et au Christianisme des trois Premiers Siècles. Paris: Beauchesne. Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger, 159(2), 281-283. (1969). École, Jean (1968). Christiani Wolffii Psychologia Empirica [1738]. Édition critique avec introduction, notes et index. Hildesheim: Olms. Revue Philosophique de Louvain, 67(96), 664. (1969). Hadot, Pierre (1968). Porphyre et Victorinus. 2 vols. Paris: Études Augustiniennes. Revue des Études Grecques, 82(389-390), 242-244. (1969). Svidercoschi, Gian Franco (1968). Historia del Concilio. Madrid: Coculsa. Salmanticensis, 16(2), 456-457. (1970). Bastid, Paul (1969). Proclus et le Crépuscule de la Pensée Grecque. Paris: Vrin. Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger, 160(2), 228-229. (1970). Breton, Stanislas (1969). Philosophie et Mathématique chez Proclus. Paris: Beauchesne. Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger, 160(2), 229-230. Also in Revue des Études Grecques, 83(394-395), 266-268.

250

Jean Trouillard (1907-1984)

(1970). Scot Érigène, Jean (1969). Homélie sur le Prologue de Jean. Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes de Édouard Jeauneau. Paris: Cerf. Revue des Études Grecques, 83(394-395), 271-272. (1971). Blondel, Maurice (1961). Lettres Philosophiques. Paris: Aubier. Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger, 161(4), 453-454. (1971). Koutras, Demetrios N. (1968). Ἡ ἔννοια τοῦ ϕωτὸς εἰς τὴν αἰσθητικὴν τοῦ Πλωτίνου. Athens: Typographeion ‘Adelphon Myrtíde. Revue des Études Grecques, 84(399-400), 247-249. (1971). Moreau, Joseph (1970). Plotin ou la Gloire de la Philosophie Antique. Paris: Vrin. Revue des Études Grecques, 84(399-400), 245-247. (1972). Baron, Roger (1957). Science et Sagesse chez Hugues de Saint-Victor. Paris: Lethielleux. Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger, 162(1), 78-79. (1972). Bernhardt, Jean (1971). Platon et le Matérialisme Ancien: la Théorie de l’Âme-harmonie dans la Philosophie de Platon. Paris: Payot. Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger, 162(1), 42-43. (1973). École, Jean (1972). Christiani Wolfii Psychologia Rationalis [1740]. Édition critique avec introduction, notes et index. Hildesheim: Olms. Revue Philosophique de Louvain, 71(10), 364-365. (1975). Blumenthal, H.J. (1971). Plotinus’ Psychology: His Doctrines of the Embodied Soul. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Revue des Études Grecques, 88(419-423), 375376. (1975). Brisson, Luc (1974). Le Même et l’Autre dans la Structure Ontologique du Timée de Platon: Un Commentaire Systématique du Timée de Platon. Paris: Klincksieck. Philosophiques, 2(2), 287-299. (1975). Mossé-Bastide, Rose-Marie (1972). La Pensée Philosophique de Plotin. Paris: Bordas. Revue des Études Grecques, 88(419-423), 373-374. (1975). Scot Érigène, Jean (1972). Commentaire sur l’Évangile de Jean. Introduction, édition critique, traduction, notes et index par Édouard Jeauneau. Paris: Cerf. Revue des Études Grecques, 88(419-423), 383-384. (1975). Wallis, Richard T. (1972). Neoplatonism. London: Duckworth. Revue des Études Grecques, 88(419-423), 376-378. (1978). La Connaissance Selon Saint Thomas [Moreau, Joseph (1976). De la Connaissance Selon S. Thomas d’Aquin. Paris: Beauchesne]. Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger, 168(1), 73-77. (1979). Charrue, Jean-Michel (1978). Plotin, Lecteur de Platon. Paris: Belles Lettres. Revue Philosophique de Louvain, 77(33), 109-111. (1979). École, Jean (1978). Christiani Wolfii Theologiae Naturalis [1739]. Vol. 1. Édition critique avec introduction, notes et index. Hildesheim: Olms. Revue Philosophique De Louvain, 77(35), 426-427. (1979). Hani, Jean (1976). La Religion Égyptienne dans la Pensée de Plutarque. Paris: Belles Lettres. Revue Philosophique de Louvain, 77(33), 101-105.

Bibliography of J. Trouillard

251

(1979). Katsimanis, Kyriakos S. (1977). Étude sur le Rapport Entre le beau et le bien chez Platon. Thèse présentée devant l’Université de Paris IV le 29 juin 1974. Université de Lille III: Service de Reproduction des Thèses. Revue des Études Grecques, 92(436-437), 264-265. (1980). Gersh, Stephen (1978). From Iamblichus to Eriugena: An Investigation of the Prehistory and Evolution of the Pseudo-Dionysian Tradition. Leiden: Brill. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, 100, 242-243. (1981). Lowry, James M.P. (1980). The Logical Principles of Proclus’ Στοιχείωσιϛ θεολογιϰή as Systematic ground of the Cosmos. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Les Études Philosophiques (3), 358-359. (1981). Renault, Marc (1979). Le Singulier: Essai de Monadologie. Tournai: Desclée; Montréal: Bellarmin. Revue Philosophique de Louvain, 79(41), 125-127. (1982). École, Jean (1981). Christiani Wolfii Theologiae Naturalis. Vol. 2. Édition critique avec introduction, notes et index. Hildesheim: Olms. Revue Philosophique de Louvain, 80(47), 520-521. (1984). École, Jean (1983). Christiani Wolffii Horae Subsecivae Marburgenses [17291741]. Édition critique avec introduction, notes et index. Hildesheim: Olms. Revue Philosophique de Louvain, 82(55), 437-438. (1984). École, Jean (1983). Christiani Wolfii Opuscula Metaphysica [1724]. Édition critique avec introduction, notes et index. Hildesheim: Olms. Revue Philosophique de Louvain, 82(55), 434-436. (1984). École, Jean (1983). Christiani Wolfii Philosophia Rationalis Sive Logica [1740]. Édition critique avec introduction, notes et index. Hildesheim: Olms. Revue Philosophique de Louvain, 82(55), 436-437.

Obituaries Combès, J. (1986). Néoplatonisme Aujourd’hui: La vie et la Pensée de Jean Trouillard (1907-1984). Revue de Philosophie Ancienne, 4(1), 145-157. Jerphagnon, L. (1985). Jean Trouillard (1907-1984). Diotima, 13, 216.

Chapter Six

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986) 6.1. Life Gary Gurtler S.J. Plotinian scholars frequently come across the name Igal in the notes of the critical edition of the Enneads, edited by Paul Henry, S.J., and Hans-Rudolph Schwyzer. They are a small indication of the important role Jesús Igal, S.J., played in helping to establish the critical text of Plotinus and in understanding his thought. It is intriguing that two Jesuits figure so prominently in establishing the text and interpreting the thought of Plotinus. Their contributions were much different, particularly in style. Henry focused on establishing the pedigree of the text of Plotinus, collating and comparing the various families of textual transmission. He inhabited a world where accomplishing this meant traveling to Switzerland for intense summers in collaboration with Schwyzer or to Beirut to check on the work of fellow Jesuits and their familiarity with the Arabic manuscripts of Plotinus. Henry represents one instantiation of the Jesuit scholar, a man at home in the world, loyal to the Jesuit order, but very much a free agent. Igal’s Jesuit life is quite the opposite. The drama in his life is external, the expulsion of the Jesuits from Spain, so beginning his Jesuit life in the Belgium in which Henry was born years before, and then returning to Spain as Europe was engulfed in war on the grand scale. This external drama contrasts with Igal’s quiet development both intellectually and socially, with a calm and humor that contrasts with Henry’s energy. Igal was a man at peace with himself, working in the Jesuit university in Bilbao and living as a member of that particular Jesuit community. Within that context, however, Igal translated and wrote about Plotinus’ thought and corresponded with the scholarly world in a remarkably fruitful way. Both his articles in Spanish and his translation of the Vita of Porphyry and the Enneads testify to his scholarly attention for clarity and insight. They show him as a remarkably independent scholar, even among the great scholars of the last century who made Plotinus’ thought accessible to a wider audience. The biographical comments that follow capture the unremarkable external life that stands behind his extraordinary importance among the great Plotinian scholars of the last century, including his fellow Jesuit, Paul Henry. Igal’s foundation as a scholar began during upheavals in Spain in the 1930s, followed immediately by the eruption of World War II across the rest of Europe. He entered the Jesuit novitiate in 1935 but had to do so in Belgium as the Jesuits had been expelled from Spain under the Republic. The ability of Spanish Jesuits to re-

254

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

group without pause under such circumstances owed not a little to their experience in the 18th and 19th Centuries, when the changing political scene alternatively put them in exile or allowed them to return to their educational works in Spain. It was during these years of traditional Jesuit training that the young Jesús Igal was devoted to learning the classics, Latin and Greek, and the other liberal arts typical of Jesuit education, especially of their own men. The last three years of this training covered philosophy, with special attention to the history of ancient, medieval, and modern philosophy. After completing these studies, Igal taught for three years in a Jesuit high school in Spain, sharing with the students his knowledge of the classics and acquiring the skills that characterized his teaching throughout his life, an enormous competence as well as a personal and witty interaction with his students. His theology studies capitalized on his talent for language, both ancient and modern, and were completed at Heythrop College, the Jesuit College in Heytrop, ­Oxfordshire.357 With his fluent grasp of English, he later studied at Oxford under E. R. Dodds, the professional basis for his work as a scholar in classics and Greek philosophy. While at Oxford, Igal was a member of Campion Hall, the Jesuit Residence College named after the Elizabethan Martyr, Edmund Campion, S.J., another Oxford graduate who was also an internationally celebrated Jesuit scholar in his day. After receiving his degree with honors, Igal returned to Spain, teaching young Jesuits in formation, but soon established an academic career at the Jesuit University of Deusto in Bilbao. His effect on his students can be gauged by the testimony of Alex de la Iglesia, the well-known director of Spanish films and a disciple of Jesús Igal. He modeled a character in his film El día de la bestia (1995), on Jesús Igal, his master of philosophy at Deusto. In his words: We quickly sketched a character for the first part of the movie who was a priest, around 65 years old, and loaded with dynamite. I told myself: “This would be great for a movie, an old man evil to the max.” Already the core is there! The erudite core for a series of things, things absurd in life: he knows Aramaic, translates the Apocalypse into Hebrew, astute about numerology, but has no idea what television is. This character is Jesús Igal, my philosophy professor, a type who never watched TV. That’s what he told me, and it flipped me out: he had never watched TV. He lived in a cell at Loyola, next to the library, the largest library on demonology in Europe; Cornell (USA) is first, Loyola second. We based a little on him. 358 357  Heythrop College, University of London, was a constituent College of the University of London, specialising in Theology and philosophy. Founded in 1614 by the Society of Jesus, it ceased operations on January 31st, 2019 and left the University of London. 358  Alex de la Iglesia: “De pronto construimos para la primera partida un personaje que era un cura de unos sesenta y cinco años lleno de dinamita y me dije; ‘Esto para una película sería maravilloso. Un anciano criminal hasta el máximo’. ¡El espíritu ya está allí! El espíritu erudito en una serie de cosas, absurdas para la vida, sabe arameo, traduce el ‘Apocalipsis’ en hebreo, sabe todos los valores numéricos, pero no sabe que es la televisión. Y ese personaje es Jesús Igal, el profesor que me daba a mí clases de filosofía. Un tipo que nunca había visto la televisión. Esto me lo dijo él, y eso me dejó flipado, nunca había visto la tele. Vivía en una celda en Loyola, al lado de la biblioteca, la biblioteca de demonología más grande de Europa. La primera esta en Cornell, (EEUU), y la segunda en Loyola. Nos basamos un

Life

255

No doubt being depicted as such a devious character would have struck Igal’s sense of humor and irony, as the testimony of his students and colleagues suggests. His teaching of classical mythology to students like Alex de la Iglesia turned out to inspire equally fantastic stories and to invent a character that captured Igal’s amazing knowledge of languages and philosophical insight. This amazement at Igal’s knowledge not only characterized his students but the major figures in establishing the critical text of Plotinus, in its major and minor editions. A touching letter from November 1974, that H.-R. Schwyzer wrote to A. H. Armstrong, brings this out very clearly. Schwyzer is relating his forthcoming trip to the US and South America later that year, with some concern for his health and safety, so it seems: If something should happen to me on the journey, Pater Jesús Igal, University of Deusto, Bilbao, Spain, will take care of the OCT edition. He is a magister artium of Oxford and has studied with Prof E. R. Dodds. He will only correct tome II (i.e. the proof sheets) since the manuscript is ready at the printing shop of Clarendon Press. I have not started with tome III yet; there he will have carte blanche. But he has told me on his own initiative he would only revise there if you too are fine with the changes.

While Schwyzer survived his trip to the Americas and thus finished tome II, Igal effectively substituted for the ailing Henry in the task of editing tome III with Schwyzer. This confidence in Igal’s capacity for the editorial tasks associated with the critical edition crowns years of correspondence in which Igal was an active contributor in the intricate task of establishing a critical text of Plotinus’ Enneads. Schwyzer’s letters to Armstrong, Kalligas and Atkinson (1980 and 1987), reproduced in this book, all testify to his gratitude to Igal for his contributions to the revision of the critical text, as summed up in the index. As he writes to Armstrong: I am enclosing here the index of the changes that have been accounted for in the ed. Oxon. III vis-à-vis the ed. maior III. The index grew to be much longer than I had anticipated. A large part of the changes follows the work of J. Igal, who usually sent his proposed changes to you as well.

Further in the same letter, he mentions a particular emendation of Igal’s on a disputed text at IV 5.7.35, which talks about an odd little passage where Plotinus is digressing about the light coming from such things as fireflies: I’ve included in the list here another supplement, which I cannot remember whether I sent to you already or not. It is at IV 5.7.35, where H-S1-2 following Kirchhoff have poco en él”. (“Silencios de Pánico: Historia del Cine Fantástico y de Terror Español” [Diego López y David Pizarro, 2013], “Tyrannosaurus Books”, Pag 566). Also see: http://www.lapromovida.com/2017/11/ el-que-piensa-pierde.html.

256

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

[φῶς]. In the supplements, we will want to keep φῶς in accordance with H-S3 and Igal: “φῶς del. Kirchhoff, sed αὐτὸ… φῶς idem atque αὐτοφῶς.”

Years later, in January 1987, Schwyzer writes to Paul Kalligas, thanking him for his own list of emendations. It is noteworthy that he lists a number of works, but singles out Igal’s contribution for special mention: Five years had already elapsed since edition four, however, and in that interim a variety of authors have worked on this subject matter, among whom are: a. M. Atkinson: Plotinus, Enn. V 1, Oxford 1983. b. P. Boot: Plotinus over voorzienigheid (=Enn.III 2-3), Amsterdam 1984. c. Porphyre, La vie de Plotin I (preface de J. Pépin) Paris 1982. d. A. M. Wolters: Plotinus on Eros (Enn. III 5) Toronto 2984. e. J. Igal, Traducción Española (Vida de Plotino + Enn. I-IV) Madrid, 1982-1985. All of these works, and in particular the highly insightful contribution by Igal, have required me to assemble a new list of corrigenda, which might be thought of as the fifth edition.

What is striking is the note of reverence that creeps into the voice whenever Igal is mentioned. The mere reading of his numerous notes and letters to Armstrong, all of which are reproduced in this volume, shows a shrewdness of judgment and sharpness of thought that makes him second to none. Even more, he expresses himself with such self-effacement that you end up thinking that his humility as a scholar was truly admirable. While these citations in the critical edition testify to his international renown, his Spanish translation and articles fill out a more complete picture of his mastery of the text and his ability to render it into the fluid idiom of his own language. As a Jesuit, I spent a year in Salamanca, Spain, for Tertianship in 1984, as Igal himself had done years earlier at Gandia in 1952. During that year, I first became aware of Igal’s translation of Plotinus, purchasing the two volumes then available. These two volumes became the backbone of my own research for a monograph published in 1987 and dedicated to Igal, who had died the previous year. I mentioned to a Canadian colleague, Jean-Marc Narbonne, that a reviewer of that book seemed to find my reliance on Igal misplaced. Narbonne replied that such reliance could not be a better accolade for understanding the Enneads. Igal’s translation, he continued, unlike most others that evince dependence on one traditional reading or another of Plotinus’ thought, clearly manifested his towering independence as a scholar. His introduction and notes are still among the best available. His synopses of the treatises give an excellent guide to the argument of the treatises. They are so clear that I make them available to my students, who can profit from them even though they are

Letters

257

in Spanish. His other articles have also been invaluable in my own work, especially “Aristóteles y la evolución de la antropología de Plotino,” Pensamiento, 35 (1979), 315346, which presents a precise collating of Plato’s tripartite soul with the very different division of Aristotle. Unfortunately, I did not have the chance to meet him when I was in Spain and he died prematurely the following year, leaving incomplete his translation of Enneads V and VI, with the loss as well of the introductions and notes that would have contained his invaluable insights into their structure and meaning.

6.2. Letters Transcribed and annotated by José. C. Baracat Jr.

1 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Bilbao, April 14 1974 Dear Prof. Armstrong, With this I am sending you the first series of notes on Plotinus Enn.VI (VI 1-5)359 and I hope I shall be able to send you the rest (VI 6-9) in the course of the next Summer. I add a late note on IV 4, 36, 3-4 together with Schwyzer’s comment on my conjecture (I suppose he will not mind if I transcribe the relevant words from his letter of 1 December 1973). Of all the notes on VI 1-5 herewith enclosed I have sent notice to Schwyzer, but it is most likely that he has not yet read them. He said he would be very busy for several months with the preparation of vol. II of the Oxford edition. I hope you will find some, if not all, of my conjectures and discussion useful for your own translation of Enn.VI. VI 1-3 are particularly difficult and I myself am aware that not all of my suggestions are equally valuable or equally convincing (I am also working on a Spanish translation of the Enneads, and so I find it convenient to submit my own views to the judgement of better and far more experienced scholars before I accept them or reject them on second thoughts). I have been absent in Madrid from about the middle of February until a few days ago and so I was unable to send you my notes before now. Yours very sincerely, Jesús Igal A NOTE ON IV 4, 36, 3-4 On the whole it seems far more likely that some words or even a whole line should have perished by homoeoteleuton than that ὀφθαλμὸν καὶ should have intruded into 359 

These series of notes were not found.

258

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

the text. Let me offer a couple of suggestions, even if neither of them seems to be altogether satisfactory: 1) ……ἄλλην μὲν δύναμιν

ἔχειν ὀφθαλμὸν καὶ ὀστοῦν

τόδε, τοδὶ δ› ἄλλην κτλ. 2) ἄλλην μὲν δύναμιν ἔχειν ὀφθαλμὸν καὶ ὀστοῦν τόδε, τοδὶ δ’ ἄλλην κτλ.

Let me add two further remarks in support of this conjecture: 1º The example of the eye is a classical one in this kind of context. For Plato and Aristotle see my discussion of I 7, 3, 1-3 (Emerita 41, 1973, 76-78). For Plotinus cf. III 2, 3, 39-41; III 3, 5, 13-14; III 3, 6, 30-31. 2º For the sequence of particles μέν/καί cf. Denniston² 374. Schwyzer‘s comment on this conjecture (His letter 1 Dec. 1973): “Dagegen hat mich Ihr Vorschlag zur Heilung von IV 4, 36, 3-4 interessiert. Lücken sicher auszufüllen ist freilich besonders schwer. Die streichung von ὀφθαλμὸν καὶ gibt zwar vorzüglichen Sinn, aber damit ist nicht erklärt, wie sie in den Text geraten sired. Ich denke, wir werden Ihren Vorschlag 1) mindenstens im Apparat erwähnen”.

2 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Bilbao, January 13, 1975 Dear Prof. Armstrong, At last, having finished the first draft of my Spanish translation of the Enneads, I have been able to write down two sets of notes, textual and hermeneutic: one of supplementary notes on VI 2-3360 and another on VI 6-8 (I plan to send a copy of both sets to Schwyzer). I omit VI 9 because I have dealt with that treatise at great length in a paper I think I sent to you long ago (Helmantica 1971: a rather immature paper, written in 1969, when I was not much acquainted with Plotinus nor with Plotini Opera III; still some of the notes might even now be valuable. I am very grateful for your letter of Nov. 8 1974 as well as for your wise criticisms on my “Sidelights…”. These “Sidelights” are not, of course, meant for publication, much less after reading your “reservations” about what I said on the lower self and on the question of transmigration. As a matter of fact, having concentrated up to the present almost exclusively on textual and hermeneutic matters, I am aware of my slight acquaintance with the more philosophical problems raised by the Enneads. I am now looking forward to reading your lecture on the problem of Ideas 360 

These notes have not been found.

Letters

259

of Individuals. Also, I would be very grateful to you if you could send me a copy (if you have any) of your JHS article on Plotinus (which was published in the issue dedicated to E. R. Dodds). Blumenthal361 has recently send me an off-print of his Rome Plotinus Congress paper. Last Friday, I had the opportunity of meeting Dr. Harris in Paris. As you said in a letter to me, he seems to be a very efficient man. Although I agreed with him when he told me about the subject of the 1978 Neoplatonic Congress in Athens (the idea of soul in Neoplatonism), on second thoughts I wonder if it would not be wiser to propose a wider subject, which would perhaps attract a greater gathering and would reflect in some way the present state of Neoplatonic studies in all its aspects. With my best wishes, yours sincerely, Jesús Igal NOTES ON PLOTINUS VI 6-8 VI 6, 1, 2-3 See infra p. 18. VI 6, 1, 26 Ἐπεὶ ἔρημον ὂν τοῦτο κτλ .: “For if it (i.e. the universe) were this (i.e. great) alone (i.e. great bereft of beauty)”. I take then τοῦτο = μέγα (supplied from the preceding sentence) as predicate together with ἔρημον. Punctuate: … τοῦτο, ὅσῳ… VI 6, 3, 8 τῷ δ’ ἑνὶ παρ’ ἐκείνῳ τὸ σεμνὸν ἔχει: “sed per unitatem maiestatem habet prope Illud (i.e. prope Unum)”, i.e. “thanks to its unity it has a place of honour next to the One”. For this idea comp. V 5, 3, 3-4: νοῦς a θεὸς δεύτερος. VI 9, 5, 20-29 (21 ἔστι μὲν ὃ πρὸς τῷ πρώτῳ, 26 οὐκ ὄντος δὲ ἕν, ἑνοειδοῦς δέ, 28 τῷ πλησίον μετὰ τὸ ἓν εἶναι). VI 6, 5, 12 ἐκείνως does not refer to the Pythagorean account, but to 7-9. 16 ἐκεῖ is rightly referred to 12 ἐκείνως by H.-S. VI 6, 5, 45 Probably: εἶτα εἰ πρότερον εἶναι (scil. ἓν αὐτὸ τὸ ἕν) συμμιχθὲν κτλ. VI 6, 6, 5-19 Fontes: 5-14 against Atticus and the like, who took the Ideas to be νοήματα of God; 14-19 against Albinus, who identified them with νοήσεις of God. It is clear from 13 that νόημα = τὸ ἐκ νοήσεως ὑποστάν. (Theiler’s reference to Alexander Aphrod. is irrelevant. Alexander is dealing with man’s intellect, whereas Plotinus has di-vine Ideas, as interpreted by Atticus, in mind.) VI 6, 6, 26 Instead of 26 ὂν τί ἄλλο, I propose to read οὔθι ἄλλο. VI 6, 7, 1 I conjecture ἐν μιᾷ . Cf. 8 τὰ ἐν τῷ νῷ καὶ τῇ οὐσίᾳ. VI 6, 7, 8-9 Read and punctuate as follows: ἐνορᾷ δὲ αὐτὰ τὰ ἐν τῷ νῷ καὶ τῇ οὐσίᾳ ὁ ἔχων νοῦς οὐκ ἐπιβλέπων, ἀλλ’ ἔχων κτλ. There is nothing to be gained, and much to be lost, by deleting 8 ἔχων: ὁ ἔχων νοῦς as no doubt a formula of common currency within the Platonic school in commenting on Plato’s Timaeus 39 e 7-9 (Remember that Amelius distinguished three Intellects: τὸν ὄντα, τὸν ἔχοντα, τὸν ὁρῶντα). I miss a reference to the Timaeus 361  Blumenthal (1974). “Nous and Soul in Plotinus: some problems of demarcation”. In Atti del Convegno Internazionale sul tema: Plotino e il neoplatonismo in Oriente e in Occidente (Roma, 5-9 ottobre 1970). Roma: ANL, 203-219. This article is quoted in two notes below.

260

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

passage in the app. fontium. Plotinus has that passage in mind, but since the Platonic text was liable to be interpreted otherwise, he has introduced two main changes: ἑνορᾷ (= “sees within itself”) instead of Plato’s καθορᾷ, which could be interpreted as referring to Soul as ὁ καθορῶν νοῦς (actually this is how Plotinus interprets the Timaeus passage at VI 2, 22, 1 ff.), not to νοῦς proper. For the same reason, in order to avoid any ambiguity, Plotinus does not say simply νοῦς, which could be taken to refer to ὁ καθορῶν νοῦς, but ὁ ἔχων νοῦς. The contrast 8-9 οὐκ ἐπιβλέπων, ἀλλ’ ἔχων is added for the sake of emphasis and in order to account for ἑνορᾷ. VI 6, 7, 10-14: 10-11 Πιστούμεθα δὲ πρὸς τοὺς τεθαυμακότας (= scil. ὅτι κεχώρισται) ἐκ τῶν μετειληφότων· τὸ δὲ μέγεθος κτκ. It seems a mistake to me to take this sentence as prospective. It refers to what precedes, not to what follows. Sleeman’s “to those who marvel at this intelligible world we prove its existence from what participates in it” (Class. Quart. 22, 1928, 33)362 is, I think, equally wrong. The sense is: “Contra eos qui mirantur quod separata sint probamus (scil. separata esse) ex iis quae participant intelligibilium”. Plotinus means that the variety which is discernible in the sensible world is a clear proof that a similar and correspondent variety should be discernible within the intelligible one. This argument ultimately goes back to Plato’s Timaeus 39 e 7-9 (Cf. infra 15-19; comp. IV 8, 1, 48-50; V 9, 9, 3-8). The particle δέ (11 τὸ δὲ μέγεθος) clearly shows too that Plotinus proceeds to deal with a new point, viz. the greatness and beauty of the intelligible world. 11-14 Τὸ δὲ μέγεθος αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ κάλλος (scil. πιστούμεθα) ψυχῆς ἔρωτι πρὸς αὐτό καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τὸν εἰς ψυχὴν ἔρωτα διὰ τὴν τοιαύτην φύσιν (scil. εἶναι) καὶ τῷ ἔχειν ᾗ κατά τι ὡμοίωται. In order to show the greatness and beauty of Intellect Plotinus puts forward three proofs: (1) by the love of soul for Intellect, (2) by the fact that the love of all other things for soul is due to the extent of the nature of the soul (i.e. the greatness and beauty of the soul), (3) by the fact that all other things have a point of similarity (i.e. in greatness and beauty) with the Intellect. That this is the sense of the third proof is clear from what follows (14-15). VI 6, 7, 15 Whereas I formerly thought that ἀπαύστου might be the right reading, I am now convinced by Schwyzer’s defence of ἀφαύστου. 14 Καὶ γὰρ δὴ καὶ: the combination of these four particles is, I think, a unique case in the Enneads. VI 6, 9, 10-13: 10-11 After putting the question whether Number is prior even to Being, the natural interpretation of the next sentence is as follows: Ἢ τοῦτο (scil. τὸ ὄν) ἐατέον καὶ πρὸ ἀριθμοῦ (scil. εἶναι) κτλ. “No, let us admit for the present that Being is prior even to Number and let us grant that Number originates from Being”. 362 

J. H. Sleeman (1928). “Notes on Plotinus (II)”, Classical Quarterly 22, 28-33.

Letters

261

11-13 The MSS text is all right. I take the sense to be as follows: “But if Being is because it is one and things that are two are because they are two, then the one will be prior to Being and Number will be prior to Beings”. 12 καὶ τὰ δύο ὄντα: the sense is “and things that are two (i.e. by nature)”. Man, for instance, is two by nature: 16, 20-22 Ὅταν δὲ τὸν ἄνθρωπον αὐτὸν ἐφ’ ἑαυτοῦ λέγῃς ἀριθμόν τινα, οἷον δυάδα, ζῷον καὶ λογικόν κτλ. Since Man in itself is two by nature, the Form of Man cannot exist except by participating in twoness. It follows that twoness (= Number) is prior to Man (= Being). The same is true of any other Being, for, according to Plotinus (10, 1-4), Number is a sort of preparation and prefiguration of all Beings and each Being is assigned to a definite Number (11, 29-33). (τὰ δύο ὄντα = τὰ ὄντα δύο, i.e. δύο is predicate). Here Plotinus is anticipating the Iamblichean doctrine of the priority of the “unparticipated” (= Twoness in itself) over the “participated” (= Twoness in Man) and over the “participant” (= Man, who is two by nature). VI 6, 9, 21 καὶ μετ ’ ἐμοῦ καὶ ἄλλο ποιητέον: μετ’ ἐμοῦ = “mecum” in the sense of “mea ipsius opera”, “meo marte”, in keeping with the hypothesis that a man generates by himself first a man, then a horse, next a dog. Cf. LSJ μετά A II “by aid of” (Comp. the formula μετὰ τοῦ θεοῦ as explained by Iamblichus in the sense of a creative cause; Dillon, Fragments pp. 80-82363). καὶ ἄλλο ποιητέον, i.e. a third one: in keeping with the hypothesis: εἰς ἓν ἰτέον (= ἄνθρωπον) καὶ μετιτέον εἰς ἄλλο ἓν (= ἵππον) καὶ δύο ποιητέον (=ἄνθρωπον + ἵππον) καὶ μετ’ ἐμοῦ καὶ ἄλλο (= κύνα) ποιητέον. VI 6, 10, 32-33 The text is sound, but the punctuation should be changed as follows: ᾗ τὸ αἴτιον τὸ πεποιηκὸς (scil. τὸ ἀγαθόν) καὶ ἐν ἄλλῳ δεῖ εἶναι ἢ αὐτοαγαθόν κτλ.: “quatenus causa quae bonum etiam in alio produxit debet esse aut Bonum in se aut id quod bonum in propria natura genuit” (i.e. aut Bonum in se aut Intellectus, for the Intellect, being self-constitutive, is able to generate goodness in its own nature. Cf. V 6, 4, 5 ἀγαθοειδὴς γὰρ τῷ τὸ ἀγαθὸν νοεῖν). VI 6, 10, 39 This is, I think, a clear case of a mechanical error in the Enneads. The copyist, after writing 38 … δεκάδα εἶναι … δεκάδα εἶναι, mechanically repeated 39 δεκάδα εἶναι, instead of writing δεκάδα οὖσαν. VI 6, 13, 46 I propose to emend Enn. δύνασθαι into δύνασαι. VI 6, 14, 9-13 This is a very difficult passage. Text and punctuation as follows: … πῶς οὐκ ἐν τοῖς οὖσι τάξομεν, ὅπου ἂν ᾖ, καὶ (scil. πῶς οὐ τάξομεν) συμβεβηκέναι μὲν τούτοις, καθ’ αὑτὸ δὲ εἶναι ἔν τε τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς [ὅταν φαίνηται] ἔν τε τοῖς νοητοῖς τοῖς μὲν ὑστέροις συμβεβηκός, ἐφ’ αὑτοῦ δὲ ἐν τοῖς νοητοῖς τῷ πρώτῳ, ὅταν ἕν, εἶτα ὄν; 1º For τάττω with infinitive cf. LSJ III 1 b. 2º Brinkmann’s rule: 11 [ὅταν φαίνηται], 13 ὅταν , taking ὅταν as causal: “cum appareat primum ut unum, deinde ut ens?” 363  John M. Dillon (1973). Iamblichi Chalcidensis in Platonis Dialogos Commentariorum Fragmenta. Leiden: Brill.

262

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

3º ἔν τε τοῖς νοητοῖς τοῖς μὲν ὑστέροις συμβεβηκός, = τῶν τε νοητῶν ἔν τοῖς μὲν ὑστέροις συμβεβηκός (partitive apposition). ἐφ’ αὑτοῦ δὲ ἐν τοῖς νοητοῖς τῷ πρώτῳ = ἐφ’ αὑτοῦ δὲ τῶν τε νοητῶν ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ (partitive apposition). 4º There is a great deal of ambiguity in the vocabulary. If I have not misunderstood the philosophical purport of this passage, let me summarize its contents under the three following propositions: 1ª The “one” exists καθ’ αὑτό in all beings, both in the sensible and in the intelligible ones. But here καθ’ αὑτό is opposed to πρός τι (for the usage comp. VI 3, 11, 21-22): unity is not a relative term 2ª But only in the first of the intelligibles (i.e. the One-Being) the “one” is not only καθ’ αὑτό, but also ἐφ’ αὑτοῦ (= self-subsisting and unparticipated). 3ª In all other beings (that is, in sensible beings and in all intelligible Beings except the first one) the “one” exists καθ’ αὐτό (it is not a relative predicate), yet as something συμβεβηκός, or ἐν ἄλλῳ, not (or not necessarily) in the sense of something “accidental”, but in the sense of “supervening” and “participated” (The sense is clear from 14, 46-50). 12 ὑστέροις is, then, naturally opposed to 13 πρώτῳ). VI 6, 14, 45 Brinkmann’s rule: … τὴν [δεκάδα] ἐνοῦσαν δεκάδα κτλ . VI 6, 15, 12-13 The text is sound: “Etenim etiam hic homo sensibilis est pars mundi uniuersi quatenus mundus uniuersus est animal”. Punctuate: … ἄνθρωπος, ᾗ ζῷον τὸ πᾶν, μέρος αὐτοῦ. VI 7, 1, 39-42 Punctuation as follows: Πῶς οὖν τὸ μόνον καὶ ἓν καὶ ἁπλῶς ἔχει ἀναπτυττόμενον τὸ “τοῦτο, ἵνα μὴ τοῦτο” καὶ “ἔμελλε γὰρ τοῦτο, εἰ μὴ τοῦτο” καὶ “χρήσιμον τοῦτο ἀνεφάνη” καὶ “σωτήριον τοῦτο γενόμενον”; (Cilento’s punctuation slightly changed). VI 7, 1, 42-45 Punctuation as follows: Προείδετο ἄρα καὶ προελογίσατο ἄρα καὶ δὴ καὶ – τὸ νῦν ἐξ ἀρχῆς λεχθέν – τὰς αἰσθήσεις διὰ τοῦτο κτλ. “Si ita foret, nimirum deus prouidisset, nimirum prius ratiocinatus esset atque etiam – id quod nunc ab initio dictum est – sensus facultatesque ob eam causam donasset etc.”. VI 7, 2, 46-48 Punctuation and interpretation of this difficult passage as follows: Τί γὰρ ἂν καὶ περιττὸν εἶχε νοῦ – ὡς ἂν νοῦ νόημα – μὴ τοιοῦτον ὂν, οἷον μὴ τέλεον γέννημα. Εἰ οὖν κτλ. I remove, then, the question-mark and take τί … νοῦ as partitive: “something of the Intellect”. This is explained by the parenthetical remark: “a product of the Intellect, as it were”. 47 μὴ τοιοῦτον ὄν does not go with νόημα, but with the subject of εἶχε. My Latin translation: “Secus enim (unumquodque ens) haberet etiam superfluum quiddam Intellectus – quasi cogitatum quoddam Intellectus –, cum tamen (unumquodque ens) not sit tale, ut non sit proles perfecta”. On this interpretation, neither μή is redundant. The qualification ὡς ἄν is added so as to suggest that 1º if τί νοῦ, then a νόημα; 2º but if devoid of its ὅτι, cannot be a true νόημα.

Letters

263

VI 7, 3, 4-5 There should be no doubt that βούλευσις is the right reading: 1º ἡ βούλευσις καὶ ὁ λογισμός looks back to 3 τὸ βουλεύσασθαι καὶ λελογίσθαι. In both cases we have an hendiadys. 2º Plato’s Leg. 896 c 9 is different: καὶ βουλήσεις καὶ λογισμοί refers to two different activities of the soul, whereas Plotinus’ ἡ βούλευσις καὶ ὁ λογισμός = ὁ βουλευτικὸς λογισμός (= “deliberative reasoning” as opposed to “theoretical reasoning”) refers to one and the same activity. VI 7, 6, 11-13: 11-12 καὶ ὁ ἐν νῷ ἄνθρωπος τὸν πρὸ πάντων τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἄνθρωπον (scil. εἶχε, in the sense that ὁ ἐν νῷ ἄνθρωπος was identical with ὁ πρὸ πάντων τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἄνθρωπος, just as 10-11 ὁ ὕστερος ἄνθρωπος … εἶχε τοὺς λόγους in the sense that ὁ ὕστερος = ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος 6 was identical with ὁ λογικός ἄνθρωπος. 13 Ἐλλάμπει δ’ οὗτος (= ὁ ἐν νῷ ἄνθρωπος = ὁ πρὸ πάντων τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἄνθρωπος = ὁ ἄνθρωπος ὁ ἐκεῖ) τῷ δευτέρῳ (= τῷ λογικῷ) καὶ οὗτος (ὁ δεύτερος = ὁ λογικός) τῷ τρίτῳ (= τῷ αἰσθητικῷ = τῷ ἐσχάτῳ). VI 7, 6, 26-35 A most complicated passage. Text and punctuation as follows: … ποιεῖ. (Ποιεῖ δὲ καὶ δαίμονας προτέρους, ὁμοειδεῖς τῇ ἄνθρωπον, καὶ ὁ πρὸ αὐτῆς δαιμονιώτερος, μᾶλλον δὲ θεός, καὶ ἔστι μίμημα θεοῦ δαίμων εἰς θεὸν ἀνηρτημένος, ὥσπερ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ἄνθρωπον· οὐ γὰρ λέγεται θεός, εἰς ὃν ὁ ἄνθρωπος – ἔχει γὰρ διαφορὰν ἣν ἔχουσι ψυχαὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλας – κἂν ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ὦσι στοίχου. Λέγειν δὲ δεῖ δαίμονας εἶδος δαιμόνων, οὕς φησιν ὁ Πλάτων δαίμονας). Ὅταν δὲ συνέπηται τῇ “θήρειον φύσιν” ἑλομένῃ ψυχῇ ἡ συνηρτημένη [τῇ] ὅτε ἄνθρωπος ἦν κτλ . 1º Plotinus is contemplating two alternatives: the first (when the soul is pure) is dealt with at 24-26 (Καθαρὰ μὲν … κάλλιον ποιεῖ). The second alternative begins at 33 (Ὅταν δὲ συνέπηται κτλ.). It follows that 26-33 (Ποιεῖ δὲ … δαίμονας is a digression from the main track and must be put in parenthesi. 2º Before I come to discuss the details of the parenthetical section, let me dispose of the text of the second alternative (33-35): I believe that 34 τῇ is a correct but misplaced marginal correction of 33 τὴν (a natural mistake due to the following accusative). The sense of the second alternative according to my text and punctuation (see supra) is as follows: “Quando autem animam quae ‘bestiae naturam’ elegit comitetur anima quae cum ilia coniuncta erat quando homo erat, haec illi confert rationem quam in se habet illius animantis”. 3º The parenthetical digression raises a lot of problems: 26-28 I think it is a mistake to take the soul as the subject of 26 Ποιεῖ 2. This cannot be right. The subject is, I believe, 27 ὁ πρὸ αὐτῆς δαιμονιώτερος, μᾶλλον δὲ θεός. This is reasonable. Plotinus bears in mind throughout this section a series of two στοῖχοι (στοῖχος = “row in an ascending series” LSJ s.u.) which may be described as follows: ὁ πρῶτος στοῖχος: ὁ θεός (πρώτως) ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος (δεύτέτως) ὁ δεύτερος στοῖχος: ὁ δαίμων (πρώτως) ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος (δευτέρως)

264

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

Accordingly, the god produces demons who are prior to, but of the same species (= rank or level) as the soul (the reasoning soul) which produces man (i.e. man as compound of body + lower soul). 28-29 καὶ ἔστι μίμημα θεοῦ δαίμων εἰς θεὸν ἀνηρτημένος, ὥσπερ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ἄνθρωπον. The demon, being an image of god, is attached to god, just as the second man, being an image of the first man, is attached to the first man. 29-33 Here Plotinus explains why he has just said “as man to man”. The reason of this is twofold: on the one hand, the name “god” is confined to the first member of the first row; on the other (32 δέ) the name “demon” should be confined to the primary member of the second row: 29-31 Οὐ γὰρ λέγεται θεός, εἰς ὃν ὁ ἄνθρωπος – ἔχει γὰρ διαφοράν ἣν ἔχουσι ψυχαὶ πρὸς ἀλλήλας – κἂν ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ὦσι στοίχου: “Non enim dicitur ‘deus’ (the first man) ad quem homo (the second man) adhaerescit – differt enim (homo primus ab homine altero) ut anima ab anima – licet (deus et homo primus) ex oedema sint ordine”. 32-33 Λέγειν δὲ δεῖ δαίμονας εἶδος δαιμόνων, οὕς φησιν ὁ Πλάτων δαίμονας. This must be interpreted in the light of 26-27 δαίμονας προτέρους, ὁμοειδεῖς τῇ ἄνθρωπον, and in the light of the above mentioned series of rows. The demon and the second man are ὁμοειδεῖς. Yet the name “demon” should be confined to the primary species (προτέρους) of the two species of the second row and ought not to be extended to the other species. The name should be reserved to those spirits intermediary between god and man who were called “demons” by Plato (Symp. 202 d 13 – e 1). Harder’s brilliant and attractive conjecture (δαημόνων) is, then, however regretfully, to be abandoned as unnecessary and irrelevant to the context. (The other species of “demons” is no doubt the tribe of reasoning souls, intermediary between the divine man or ὁ ἐν νῷ ἄνθρωπος and the sensitive man. The intermediary man is a sort of “demonic” soul—this is implicit in 27 ὁ πρὸ αὐτῆς δαιμονιώτερος –, but should not be called a “demon” proper). οὕς φησιν κτλ . is, then, explicatiuum of εῐδος δαιμόνων. Volkmann’s 31 στοίχου is, I think, to be accepted (a case of iotacismus). VI 7, 7, 6 In view of the two alternatives considered at 7-8 (ἢ ὃ προσετάχθησαν, ἢ ὃ ἡ ὕλη ἐθέλει τῇ ἐπιτηδειότητι), one is tempted to read 5-6 εἰ δὲ μή, ὃ δύναται, ἢ

γε ποιεῖν προσταχθεῖσα·

VI 7, 7, 12 Again, one is tempted to read εἰς τὴν ὕλην ἰέναι, in keeping with 11 ἥκειν and 12 προδόμους. VI 7, 7, 23-28 Infra “Appendix on Two Doubtful Passages”. VI 7, 8, 1 Probably Τὸ δὲ “ἵππος” ὅμως κτλ . VI 7, 14, 11-18: Text and punctuation: Καὶ τὸ ἄπειρον οὕτως ἐν νῷ, ὅτι ἓν ὡς ἓν πολλά, οὐχ ὡς ὄγκος εἷς, ἀλλ’ ὡς λόγος πολύς, ἐν αὐτῷ ἐν ἑνὶ σχήματι νοῦ οἷον περιγραφῇ ἔχων κτλ. “Atque infinitudo ideo est in Intellectu, quia (Intellectus) est unum ut unum

Letters

265

multiplex, nempe non ut moles una, sed ut ratio multiplex, continens in se ipso, in una inquam figura Intellectus tanquam circunscriptione etc.”. 11-12 ὅτι ἓν ὡς ἓν πολλά: This reading is supported by Porphyry (Sent. Mommert 30, 17-19 διὸ καὶ ἕν κτλ .) and by Theol. Arist. VIII 42: “Thus the mind is one and not one etc.” (Of course, Plotinus is thinking of the “one” of the second hypothesis of Plato’s Parmenides.) 12-13 ἐν ἑνὶ σχήματι νοῦ is a limitative apposition to 12 ἐν αὐτῷ (= ἐν νῷ). 15-18 διαίρεσιν is used in the concrete sense of “series partium”. 16 φύσεις, 17 ἄλλας in appositione ad 15 διαίρεσιν: “et partes diuisas non in rectum, sed semper ad intra, puta species animalium animalis uniuersi in eo inclusas ac rursus alias etc.” VI 7, 15, 31-32 Probably δεῖ δὲ αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνο γενόμενον τὴν θέαν ἑαυτὸν ποιήσασθαι: “oportet autem ut ipse illud factus se ipsum uisionem (i.e. obiectum uisionis) faciat”. 31 αὐτὸν is opposed to 31 ἄλλος, and 32 ἑαυτὸν to 31 ἄλλον. VI 7, 16, 30-31 Probably … καὶ νοεῖσθαι φωτὶ τῷ ἑαυτοῦ εἰς τὰ ὄντα καὶ εἰς τὸν νοῦν παρέχων (homoeoteleuton). νοεῖν answers chiastically to νοῦν, and νοεῖσθαι to ὄντα. Comp. 24-26 … τοῦ ὁρᾶσθαι … καὶ τῆς ὅψεως. VI 7, 16, 32-33 I propose to read Ἀρχὴ δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐκεῖνό τε ὃ πρὶν πληρωθῆναι ἦν, ἑτέρα δὲ ἀρχὴ κτλ. Plotinus is referring to the genesis of the Intellect by the twofold causality of 1º νοῦς ἀτελής (νοῦς being self-constitutive) and 2º the One. (On this twofold causality see my Emerita paper364 39, 1971, 155 and comp. V 1, 5, 17-18.) For the sequence τε/δέ cf. Denniston 513 (the second particle marks addition and contrast: “and, on the other hand”). VI 7, 18, 2 In support of Kirchhoff’s conjecture comp. 39, 1. VI 7, 18, 21-23 Probably Brinkmann’s rule: καὶ οὐδὲν ἄτιμον παρ’ ἐκείνου [ λεκτέον εἶναι], καὶ καθὸ ζωή, ἀγαθὸν εἶναι κτλ. VI 7, 18, 25 Punctuate … ἀγαθοειδές· ᾗ οὖν τι ἔχει ἀγαθόν κτλ . Cf. 27-28. VI 7, 24, 18-21: 20 καί τι is explicatiuum of ἀγαθόν: “… good, that is, something beyond these (i.e. something beyond life and intellect)”. 19 τοῖς ὀνόμασιν ἄνω καὶ κάτω = “with words upside down”, “with topsy-turvy language”. “Heus uos! Cur extollitis uitam inuersis uocabulis appellantes bonum et intellectum appellantes bonum, nempe quid excelsius ipsis?” (ἄνω καὶ κάτω because the good is lowered to the level of intellect and life, and life and intellect are raised to the level of good). VI 7, 26,1-6: 1-2 Καὶ δὴ τὸ πεφυκὸς αἰσθάνεσθαι παρ’ αὐτὸν (scil. παρὰ τὸν νοῦν), εἰ ἥκει αὐτῷ τὸ ἀγαθόν, γινώσκειν καὶ λέγειν ἔχειν. Καὶ δὴ marks the transition from Intellect (= transcendent Intellect) to intellect in man. 1 τὸ πεφυκὸς αἰσθάνεσθαι παρ› αὐτὸν = τὸ πεφυκὸς αἰσθάνεσθαι παρὰ τὸν νοῦν (supplied from the end of the preceding chapter), i.e. man, capable not 364 

See Igal (1971) in the bibliography.

266

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

merely of sensation, but also of perception “alongside of”, “side by side with intellect”. This must be read in the light of I 4, 10 and IV 3, 30. Plotinus is thinking of παρακολούθησις. Hence man is able to γινώσκειν καὶ λέγειν. 2 γινώσκειν καὶ λέγειν are ruled by ἔχειν. Comp. 34, 25-26: Ὥστε τότε ἔχει καὶ τὸ κρίνειν καλῶς καὶ γιγνώσκειν κτλ. (Therefore: γινώσκειν καὶ λέγειν = γινώσκειν καὶ κρίνειν). 1-2 εἰ ἥκει αὐτῷ τὸ ἀγαθόν: εἰ = “num” (Man is able to know and to judge whether the good is present to him). I read ἥκει (the lectio difficilior) with w and U.365 ἥκει αὐτῷ = πάρεστιν αὐτῷ = τῷ πεφυκότι. For the dative comp. Xenophon Cyr. 5, 3, 26 ἥκουσιν αὐτῷ ἄγγελοι. 4-5 Εἰ δὲ τοῦτο, ἐκεῖνο ἀγαθὸν ἂν αὐτῷ εἴη, ἀφ’ οὗ ἠπάτηται. The text is all right, but the sense is not: “If this is so, the good for him will be that by which he was deceived”, but “If this is so, the good for him will be that from which he was enticed away”. (I doubt whether this is good English. I mean that ἐκεῖνο, ἀφ’ οὗ ἠπάτηται = ἐκεῖνο, ἀφ’ οὗ ἀπέστη ἠπατημένος. ἀπατᾶσθαι ἀπό τινος in the sense of “to be seduced away from something”). Notice that here the antecedent is not omitted: ἐκεῖνο. No assimilation of the relative. 5-6 … ἀφίσταται ἀφ’ οὗ ἠπάτηται. Here the syntax is different, for the antecedent is omitted and the relative has been assimilated to the case of the omitted antecedent, so that ἀφίσταται ἀφ’ οὗ ἠπάτηται = ἀφίσταται ἀπ’ ἐκείνου, ᾧ ἠπάτηται (For a very similar assimilation of the relative from the dative into the genitive of the omitted antecedent comp. Aesch. 2, 117 παρ’ ὧν βοηθεῖς οὐκ ἀπολήψει χάριν = παρ’ ἐκείνων οἷς βοηθεῖς οὐκ ἀπολήψει χάριν. VI 7, 28, 3 εἶδος ἒν = εἶδός τι = “a (particular) form”, viz. the ἔσχατον εἶδος referred to at 27, 11-12 (Cf. LSJ εἷς 4). VI 7, 28, 9-12 Punctuation as follows: … ἀλλ› ὑπόθεσιν ἐποιεῖτο ὁ λόγος αἴσθησιν δούς – εἴπερ οἷόν τε ἦν δοῦναι ὕλην τηροῦσιν, ἀλλὰ τοῦ εἴδους ἐπελθόντος, ὥσπερ ὀνείρατος ἀγαθοῦ – ἐν καλλίονι τάξει γεγονέναι. 12 γεγονέναι is governed by 9 ὑπόθεσιν ἐποιεῖτο ὁ λόγος: by bestowing perception on matter we had placed ourselves on the theoretical hypothesis that matter had been raised to a higher level. The parenthetical remarks are meant to explain that this hypothesis is only an impossible dream, for, in bestowing perception on matter, we have to combine incompatible things: 1º matter must remain intact in its essence, so to speak; 2º on the other hand, if matter has to get perception, a sort a form must supervene on matter; 3º finally, if matter has to remain intact, the supervening form cannot be the real good of matter, but a reverie good: “si nobis integrum est (sensum materiae) conferre materiam (quidem) seruantibus, sed forma adueniente, (non ut bono, sed) ut somnio boni”. 365 

Familia W = Laurentianus 87.3 and Parisinus Gr. 1976; Familia U = Vaticanus Urbinas Gr. 62.

Letters

267

VI 7, 28, 15 αἰρομένη is not impossible, but there are strong indications in support of αἰρουμένη: 1) Εἰ δὲ … αἱρήσεται is a rejoinder to 14-15: Ἢ οὐχ ἡ κακία ἦν ἡ αἰρουμένη κτλ . 2) Plotinus is applying to vice the same hypothesis he had applied to matter: 3 πότερον ἠθέλησεν ἂν κτλ. 3) 18 ἀγαπήσει = αἱρήσεται, ἀγαπητόν = αἱρετόν. VI 7, 28, 18-19 Most likely … τὸ μὴ ἀγαπητὸν is a mechanical error for … τὸ μὴ ἀγαθὸν (= 17-18 τὸ κακὸν), 19 τὸ ἀγαθόν. VI 7, 28, 24 Here again, ψυχῆς seems to be a mechanical mistake for ὕλης (cf. 23 ψυχῆς). There being no mention of matter in the context, it is difficult to understand: “id animae quod materiae oppositum est”. VI 7, 30, 31-32: 31 αἴτιον = ἡ ἀλήθεια, 32 αὐτά = νοῦν + ἡδονήν. VI 7, 30, 35-39: 36 καὶ ἐν τούτῳ μοίρας (scil. ἐσμέν): partitive construction: “this is our share of good”. 36-39 While I am now convinced by H.-S.’s interpretation of 36-38 (I reject my old view: ἡμῖν – ἀλλ’ὡς μὲν κτλ .), I have no doubt that 39 εἶδος σύνθετον (the MSS reading) is correct. This is clear from Plato Philebus 65 a 1-2: Οὐκοῦν εἰ μὴ μιᾷ δυνάμεθα ἰδέᾳ τὸ ἀγαθὸν θηρεῦσαι, σὺν τρισὶ λαβόντες, κάλλει καὶ συμμετρίᾳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ κτλ. Plotinus’ εἶδος σύνθετον = Plato’s complex “idea” made up of three elements: beauty + commensuration + truth. Plotinus is replacing the “mixture” (= intellect + pleasure) by the complex form (beauty + commensuration + truth). I take 39 καὶ as explicatiuum: ἐναργῆ answers to ἀλήθεια, νοερὰν to συμμετρία (νοῦς/νοητόν), καλήν to κάλλος. VI 7, 32, 12 I now believe that the right reading is: ὃ δὲ μηδεὶς ἐποίησε, τίς ἂν ποιήσειεν; ( looks back to 11 τι): “quod autem nemo fecit, id quis facere posset aliquid?”. VI 7, 37, 22-23 The simplest way of dealing with this difficult passage is to change ἕξει into ἕξειν: … ἀλλ’ἀεὶ ὅ ἐστι, τίς αἰτία τοῦ νοεῖν ἕξειν; (τοῦ goes with ἕξειν, νοεῖν is governed by ἕξειν, τὸ … γενόμενον … ἔχον is the subject of ἕξειν): “… quae causa est cur facultatem cogitandi habiturum sit?” The future ἕξειν, and not the present, because νόησις is regarded as subsequent to the existence of some νοητόν (22 πρὸ αὐτοῦ. 40, 49-50 Καὶ γὰρ ἔχει ὃ νοήσει, ὅτι ἄλλο πρὸ αὐτῆς). VI 7, 39, 13-14 Probably ὅτι οὐ νόησις τούτου (comp. 25-26 αἱ δὲ τούτου νοήσεις). VI 7, 40, 7-8 Note the correlation ὑποκείμενον/ἐπικείμενον in support of my conjecture III 3 6, 15 εἰς τὸ ἐπικείμενον (comp. VI 1, 3, 13-14). VI 7, 40, 15 Probably καὶ ἓν τῇ οὐσίᾳ: “and one and the same thing with the essence”. Cf. LSJ εἷς 2 and Plat. Leg. 745 c 6-7. VI 7, 41, 10 The MSS text is all right. The correction falls upon δύο (cf. 11 τρίτον). μᾶλλον as corretiuum without particle (μᾶλλον δέ, ἢ μᾶλλον) is unprecedented.

268

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

VI 8, 1, 2-3 … ἐν ἀνθρώπων ἀδυναμίαις τε καὶ ἀμφισβητησίμοις δυνάμεσι. The sense of this is well explained by Plotinus himself at 21, 5-7, from which it seems clear that ἀμφισβητήσιμοι δυνάμεις = δυνάμεις τῶν ἀντικειμένων. VI 8, 1, 34-39 The details of this passage are obscure, but the general idea is, I think, quite clear. It is clear to me that Plotinus has three different cases in mind: 1º Both τὸ ἑκούσιον and τὸ ἐφ’ἡμῖν concur or are in agreement with one another in one and the same act: A knows that he ought not to kill B and does not mistake B for another person; he kills B knowing that he is killing B and acting under no compulsion. His act is, then, both “voluntary” and “in his power” and both characteristics refer to one and the same act (34-35). 2º (36-38) This is the case of ἁμαρτία (ignorance of the particular circumstances): A knows that he ought not to kill his father, but mistakes his father for some other person; he kills his father acting under no compulsion, but thinks he is killing a stranger. Plotinus seems to think that, in this case, both τὸ ἑκούσιον and τὸ ἐφ’ἡμῖν are found in the same agent, but are in disagreement with one another as far as the act is concerned: qua parricide it is in his power, because it was in his power to kill or not to kill his father (he was under no compulsion), but, qua parricide, it is not voluntary, for he thought he was killing a stranger; qua homicide, the act is both voluntary and in his power. 3º The third case is one of ἄγνοια, that is, ignorance not of the particular circumstances, but of the general law; A knows that B is his friend and he kills B knowing that he is killing his friend and acting under no compulsion; but he does not know that he ought not to kill his friend. Plotinus seems to think that, in this case, the agent has τὸ ἐφ’ἡμῖν (he acts under no compulsion), but not τὸ ἑκούσιον, through ignorance of the universal. This, then, I take to be the meaning of 38-39 Τάχα δ’ ἂν κἀκεῖνο (= τὸ ἑκούσιον) διαφωνοῖ ἔχοντι τὸ ἐφ’ ἑαυτῷ. It is not that both what is “voluntary” and what is “in our power” are in the agent, but in disagreement with one another (like in case 2º), but that the “voluntary” is missing to the agent (LSJ διαφονῶ 3, see Supplement: “to be missing”). Plotinus’ analysis of the third case is clearly in disagreement with Aristotle’s doctrine. R. A. Gauthier (L’ Éthique à Nicomaque II, 1 p. l84) is, then, quite right in taking VI 8, 1, 39-44 as a criticism of Aristotle. I miss a reference in app. fontium. A final point as regards the text of 34-35: in view of 36 διαφωνήσειεν ἄν, it is hardly possible to disagree with Kirchhoff’s 34-35 συνθείοι μὲν ἂν. In sum, the three cases considered by Plotinus are: 1º The two characteristics (τὸ ἑκούσιον + τὸ ἐφ’ἡμῖν) concur in the same agent and are in agreement with one another. 2º Both characteristics concur in the same agent, but are in disagreement with one another. 3º Only one of the two characteristics is present in the agent, while the other is missing (and in this sense, is in disagreement with the agent).

Letters

269

VI 8, 2, 2-5 A transposition is, I think, unavoidable if we are to make sense of this passage. Text and punctuation as follows: Ἢ γὰρ τῇ ὁρμῇ καὶ ᾑτινιοῦν ὀρέξει – οἷον ὃ θυμῷ πράττεται ἢ ἐπιθυμίᾳ – ἢ λογισμῷ τοῦ συμφέροντος μετ’ ὀρέξεως [ἢ μὴ πράττεται]. Thus the two main members of the disjunction are: ἢ τῇ ὁρμῇ καὶ ᾑτινιοῦν ὀρέξει (first member) and ἢ λογισμῷ (second member). The parenthetical sentence is explanatory: θυμῷ refers to ὁρμῇ (θυμός itself is a kind of ὄρεξις, ἐπιθυμία is another kind. Remember that Aristotle distinguishes three kinds of ὀρέξεις: βούλησις, θυμός, ἐπιθυμία). Again, this is in agreement with the context: 5 Ἀλλ’ εἰ μὲν θυμῷ καὶ ἐπιθυμίᾳ = first member of the disjunction. 8-9 εἰ δὲ λογισμῷ μετ ’ ὀρέξεως = second member of the disjunction. Palaeographically, ἢ μὴ πράττεται dropped through homoeoteleuton, was then added in the margin and finally put in the wrong place. VI 8, 2, 9 To take ἆρ’ εἰ = num is, I think, unprecedented in Greek. Kirchhoff’s emendation makes perfectly good sense. VI 8, 4, 37-40 The addition of 39-40 εἴπερ πρὸς αὐτό at the end of the sentence is weakening and can hardly be explained as a stylistic device. I propose, then, to make use of Brinkmann’s rule as follows: ἤδη γὰρ ἔχει τὸ πρὸς αὐτὸ ἐξ αὐτοῦ ὁρμώμενον καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ , εἴπερ πρὸς αὐτό, ὃ ἄμεινον ἂν εἴη αὐτῷ [ἐν αὐτῷ ἂν εἶναι, εἴπερ πρὸς αὐτό]. 38 τὸ goes with . “iam enim eo ipso obtinet ut, dum ad Bonum sponte tendat, possit etiam in se ipso esse, si- quidem ad id tendit quod ipsi satius futurum sit”. VI 8, 6, 12 Sleeman366 forgets to mention what seems to me to be decisive in support of his βεβουλῆσθαι: 5, 44 πότερα βούλεται, in a similar context. Comp. 5, 17 ἕλοιτο, referring to what Aristotle calls προαίρεσις. Now προαίρεσις for Aristotle is subsequent to, and not identical with, βούλευσις. Hence Aristotle’s EN 1112 a 18-30 does not, I think, support the text of the MSS. Plotinus’ point is that such happenings occur against the soul’s will, and yet she is able to master the situation. VI 8, 6, 37-38 To read a proverb here seems unnatural and far-fetched. It is far simpler to see here a confusion between ἡ and καί in compendio: “ἡ γὰρ λεγομένη βούλησις τὸ κατὰ νοῦν μιμεῖται”. VI 8, 6, 42 ἐτίθεμεν is all right: “statuebamus”, i.e. in ch. 4. VI 8, 7, 29-30 I propose to read … καὶ τοῖς καθό εἰσιν ἀιδίοις: “et iis qui aeterni sunt secundum earn partem qua (uere) sunt”, i.e. secundum animam. Plotinus is thinking of men. The sense is well ascertained by what is said at 12, 4-6 ὡς ἕκαστος μὲν ἡμῶν κατὰ μὲν τὸ σῶμα πόρρω ἂν εἴη οὐσίας, κατὰ δὲ τὴν ψυχὴν καὶ ὃ μάλιστά ἐσμεν μετέχομεν οὐσίας καί ἐσμέν τις οὐσία (where καὶ ὃ μάλιστά ἐσμεν = καὶ καθ’ ὃ μάλιστά ἐσμεν and is explicatiuum of κατὰ δὲ τὴν ψυχήν). 366 

Probably in the article mentioned above.

270

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

Thus the whole sentence becomes coherent and understandable: 29 τοῖς ἀιδίοις = τοῖς νοητοῖς, τοῖς καθό εἰσιν ἀιδίοις = τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, 30 τοῖς … διώκουσιν = ταῖς ψυχαῖς, ἔχουσιν = τοῖς νοητοῖς. Comp. 5-6 ὅταν τὸ μὲν (= ἡ ψυχή) … τὸ δὲ (ὁ νοῦς). Coming after εἰσιν, ἀίδιοι (for ἀιδίοις) is a mistake easily made by an inadvertent scribe. VI 8, 8, 9-13 Punctuation as follows: Ἀποτιθεμένοις … καὶ τὸ αὐτεξούσιον – ἤδη γὰρ εἰς ἄλλο ἐνέργειαν λέγει καὶ (scil. λέγει) ὅτι ἀνεμποδίστως καὶ (scil. λέγει ὅτι) ὄντων ἄλλων τὸ εἰς αὐτὰ ἀκωλύτως –, δεῖ δὲ κτλ. (δεῖ δὲ incipit apodosis). For the construction (ἀποτιθεμένοις δεῖ) comp. vgr. Plato Philebus 33 b 2-4. For δέ in apodosi after a participial clause cf. Denniston2 pp. 181-182. VI 8, 9, 19 Probably Brinkmann’s rule: καὶ τοῦτο ὅπερ ἐστὶν αὐτός [τοῦτο αὐτὸν θέσθαι] κτλ . VI 8, 9, 30 Punctuate thus: νοῦς; Ἐπεὶ κτλ . VI 8, 10, 2-3 Punctuate as follows: … τὸ συνέβη· εἰ τί εἴη καὶ πῶς ἄν τις ἀφέλοι τὸ συνέβη; (1 ἐρωτῆσαι is followed, firstly, by an indirect question and then by a direct one which is epexegetic of the former): “On the condition that there existed what and how, would one deny that it existed by chance?”. VI 8, 10, 4-5 I suspect an haplography: Εἰ γὰρ τὴν τῶν ἄλλων κτλ . VI 8, 11, 19-20 The MSS text is correct: ὥσπερ ἔπηλυν ὄντα is accusatiuus absolutus. Comp. Xen. Mem. 2, 3, 3 ὥσπερ ἐκ πολιτῶν μὲν γιγνομένους φίλους, ἐξ ἀδελφῶν δὲ οὐ γιγνομένους. VI 8, 12, 19-20 Change punctuation as follows: … τίνι ἂν δοῦλον εἴη, εἴπερ … φθέγγεσθαι τόδε; Τῇ αὐτοῦ οὐσίᾳ; Ἀλλὰ κτλ. (τόδε = τὸ “δοῦλον”). VI 8, 13, 1-3 Brinkmann’s rule: 1 [οὐκ ὀρθῶς], 2-3 ὡς τὰ μὲν ὀρθῶς εἴρηται κτλ. (3 ὅτι causale). Plotinus sees he cannot avoid such expressions and actually he has already made use of them (εἴρηται), but he warns the reader again (cf. 12, 28-30 and 36-37) that such a language is improper. VI 8, 13, 16-20 Text, punctuation and interpretation as follows: ὡς τῆς τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ φύσεως ἑαυτῇ δηλονότι πολὺ πρότερον αἱρετῆς οὔσης – εἴπερ τοι ὅση μοῖρα ἀγαθοῦ παρ’ ἄλλῳ αἱρετωτάτη –, καὶ οὐσία ἑκούσιος καὶ παραγενομένη θελήσει κτλ.: “ita ut, cum perspicuum sit naturam Boni sibimet ipsi esse multo exoptabiliorem quam quicquam aliud – si reapse quanta portio boni penes aliud est, exoptabilissima est –, eius (= Boni) quoque Essentia et uoluntaria sit et uoluntati adaequata etc.” 1º I take 16 ὡς as consecutive governing 18 καὶ οὐσία (scil. τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ) κτλ . 16-17 τῆς … οὔσης genitiuus absolutus. 2º Plotinus is aiming at proving that the Essence of the Good is voluntary. Hence it is essential for the strength of the argument to keep the MSS text 16 ἑαυτῇ : the Good’s Essence is voluntary because there is nothing more worth wishing for the nature of the Good than itself. 3º That there is nothing more worth wishing for the nature of the Good than itself is proved, in turn, by the fact (already established 12-16) that everything wishes for

Letters

271

itself whatever portion of good it sees in others. The purpose of the parenthetical sentence (17-18 εἴπερ τοι αἱρετωτάτηs) is to remind the reader of that fact. I read εἴπερ τοι which makes better sense than the MSS εἴπερ τὸ. VI 8, 14, 19 Probably Brinkmann’s rule: ἐν τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς [τοιοῦτον] τῷ ἀπ’ἐκείνων τοιοῦτον κτλ. VI 8, 15, 14 The anacoluthon can be avoided by reading 13-14 ἀλλ’ ὅτι ἐνίοτε καὶ αὐτοὶ κτλ., referring to the rare moments of mystical experience. VI 8, 17, 4 MSS οὕτως = “as they actually are”. VI 8, 17, 22 It is possible to take εἷς πάντα (on the analogy of VI 7, 14, 11-12 ἓν πολλά) as predicate: “a logos which is one-all”. VI 8, 18, 25-30 I accept Creuzer’s 28 κεκινημένου (or Ficinus’, to be more accurate), keep the MSS text at 29 and punctuate 30 … γεννήσαντος. Τίς οὖν κτλ.: “In like manner, since the One is being circled around by the intellective power, we must think of Him as being like the model of an image of Himself, who is Intellect in unity; the model of an image which has been stirred up, so to speak, by a multiplicity and into a multiplicity and has become Intellect thanks to this multiplicity, the One having generated the multiplicity of Intellect by having remained prior to the Intellect as the Intellect’s power. Therefore, what chance coincidence etc.”. I take, then, 29 τῆς δυνάμεως as predicate. 29 the plural νοῦς is essential (cf. 27-28 πολλοῖς καὶ εἰς πολλά, 36 τὸ σκεδασθὲν εἴδωλον ὁ νοῦς, 39-40 ὁμοῦ πάσας ἔχον τὰς μελλούσας … νοερὰς αἰτίας). 27-28 πολλοῖς καὶ εἰς πολλά is reminiscent of the símile of the centre, whose image is stirred up by a multiplicity of radii and into a multiplicity of points. VI 8, 20, 15 MSS πρῶτον: “it will be activity before anything else”. Comp. 21, 16 Πρῶτον ἄρα ἡ βούλησις αὐτός. APPENDIX ON TWO DOUBTFUL PASSAGES VI 6, 1, 2-3 On this difficult passage I can only offer the following tentative suggestion. Text: καὶ διὰ τοῦτο κακῷ εἶναι ἡ ἀπειρία καὶ ἡμεῖς κακοί, ὅταν πλῆθος; There is a chiastic structure: διὰ τοῦτο links chiastically 2) ἡ ἀπειρία ἀπόστασις παντελὴς with 3) κακῷ εἶναι ἡ ἀπειρία and 1) τὸ πλῆθος ἀπόστασις τοῦ ἑνὸς with 4) ἡμεῖς κακοί, ὅταν πλῆθος. “And for this reason (because unlimitedness is a total departure from the one), unlimitedness is essential evil, and (because multiplicity is a departure from the one) we are bad whenever we are multiplicity”. For unlimitedness as essential evil cf. II 4, 15. VI 7, 7, 23-28 I find it difficult to accept H.-S.’s interpretation of these bewildering lines: 1º 24 ἐκεῖνα τὰ αἰσθητά = τὰ ἐν τοῖς νοητοῖς αἰσθητά. Therefore if we take 25-26 τήνδε τὴν αἴσθησιν = τὴν ἐκείνων τῶν αἰσθητῶν αἴσθησιν and 26 τῆς ἐκεῖ ἀντιλήψεως = τῆς τῶν νοητῶν νοήσεως, we would have Plotinus saying that the perception of the sensibles in the intelligible world is more obscure than the perception of the

272

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

intelligibles, which is difficult to accept because the sensibles in the intelligible world are themselves intelligible. 2º Again, in view of 25 ὅτι ἀσώματα, it is hardly credible that 27 σωμάτων = corporum qua in mundo intellegibili (Plotinus would be guilty of a bewildering ambiguity). 3º Again, while I agree that 26 ἦν recipit 25-26 τήνδε τὴν αἴσθησιν, I believe that 26-27 ἀμυδροτέραν/ἐναργεστέραν points to the same contrast as that of 30-31 ἀμυδρὰς/ἐναργεῖς (which does not seem to be the case in H.-S.’s interpretation). I will base my (highly conjectural) interpretation of the present passage on the hypothesis of a 20 letters line having been omitted by homoeoteleuton. Text and punctuation as follows: … καὶ συνεζεῦχθαι ταῦτα τὰ αἰσθητὰ τούτῳ, ἐκεῖνα δ’ ἐκείνῳ – “ἐκεῖνα γὰρ τὰ αἰσθητά”, ἃ οὕτως ὠνομάσαμεν, ὅτι ἀσώματα –, ἄλλον δὲ τρόπον ἐν ἀντιλήψει καὶ τήνδε τὴν αἴσθησιν, ἀμυδροτέραν οὖσαν τῆς ἐκεῖ ἀντιλήψεως, ἣν ὠνομάζομεν “αἴσθησιν”, ὅτι σωμάτων, ἦν, ἐναργεστέραν εἶναι κτλ. My Latin translation (for the sake of clarity I will use the barbarism “sensatio”): “… et haec quidem sensibilia coniungi cum hoc homine, illa autem cum illo – ‘illa enim sensibilia’, quae ita nominauimus quia incorporalia –; sed etiam hanc sensationem (i.e. the sensation in the sensible world) in perceptione consistere, alia quidem ratione (atque illa perceptio mundi intellegibilis), cum sit obscurior illa mundi intellegibilis, quam (sensationem hanc) ‘sensationem’ nominabamus quia corporum erat; illam autem perceptionem, quia incorporalium erat, clariorem esse etc.” Thus , the perception of the sensibles in the intelligible world, is opposed to 25-26 τήνδε τὴν αἴσθησιν, the perception of the sensibles in the sensible world. 26 τῆς ἐκεῖ ἀντιλήψεως = τῆς τῶν ἐκείνων αἰσθητῶν ἀντιλήψεως. 24 ἐκεῖνα 2 is emphatic. 25 ἄλλον δὲ τρόπον ἐν ἀντιλήψει is explained by the causal participial clause ἀμυδροτέραν οὖσαν τῆς ἐκεῖ ἀντιλήψεως. The contrast 26-27 ἀμυδροτέραν/ ἐναργεστέραν is the same as 29-30 ὥστε εἶναι τὰς αἰσθήσεις ταύτας ἀμυδρὰς νοήσεις (= ἄλλον τρόπον ἀντιλήψεις), τὰς δὲ ἐκεῖ νοήσεις (= τὰς τῶν ἐκείνων αἰσθητῶν ἀντιλήψεις) ἐναργεῖς αἰσθήσεις.

Letters

273

3 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Bilbao, April 4, 1975 Dear Prof. Armstrong, I am very grateful to you for the off-prints you sent me of your two papers: the Rome paper (“Tradition …”) and the JHS one (“Elements…”).367 I have enjoyed reading them with great interest and profit during these days of Easter vacation. Not only are both of them very readable; they also contain a great wealth of interesting remarks and fresh insights into various sides of Plotinian philosophy. To mention only one point, your distinction in your Rome paper of two levels of mystical experience, the mystical experience proper and “the experience of being in the intelligible world”, strikes me as very true and illuminating. I could mention many other points which I have found instructive, but I hope you will allow me to refer to three doubts which have arisen in my mind while reading your JHS paper: the first is about IV 9, 5, 12 ff. You rightly remark that (p. 14) “Plotinus is still operating … with a rather Aristotelian conception of an ἐπιστήμη as a static, complete, finished structure”. In fact, I have the impression that Plotinus’ dependence on Aristotle is even greater than that. This seems clear to me from Arist. De an. 412a 22-27, where he distinguishes two kinds of actuality, ἡ μὲν ὡς ἐπιστήμη (=ἐπιστήμη as ἕξις), ἡ δ’ὡς τὸ θεωρεῖν (= the actual exercise of knowledge). Moreover, knowledge is likened to sleep, and the actual exercise of knowledge to waking, sleep being for Aristotle a sort of ἀργία, of the higher conscious activities (EN I 13, 1102b 7-8; comp. De somno 454b 32ff.). As Hicks368 remarks (his note on De an. 412 a 23), “In waking hours many psychical activities will be manifested, of which in sleep there is only the latent capacity”. The Aristotelian passage seems, then, to account both for the Plotinian distinction between ἐπιστήμη and τὸ προχειρισθὲν οὗ χρεία, and for his idea of “tacit knowledge” (14-15 δυνάμει λανθάνοντα). IV 9, 5 seems to be a striking example of what Porphyry says (Vita 14, 4-5) as explained by Dodds (JRS 50, 1960, p. 2).369 My second remark refers to pp. 19-20 of the same paper (a summary of your Royaumont lecture370). I am reluctant to admit that Plotinus should have fallen into such a glaring and explicit contradiction in his accounts of the genesis and life of the second Hypostasis, and I am surprised that in the discussion following your Royaumont lecture no one appears to have resorted to III 5, 9, 23-29 (comp. V 1, 6, 19-22; VI 7, 35, 27-30), where Plotinus clearly lays down the principle that not only 367 

See Armstrong (1974) and Armstrong (1973) in Armstrong’s bibliography. R.D. Hicks (1907). Aristotle: De anima. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 369  Dodds (1960). “Tradition and Personal Achievement in the Philosophy of Plotinus”, The Journal of Roman Studies 50, 1-7. 370  See Armstrong (1971) in Armstrong’s bibliography. 368 

274

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

“mythos”, but also “logos” (= rational account) temporalizes and separates things which exist together but are distinct in rank and power. Maybe I am mistaken, but my own idea (at least before I had read your paper, now I feel more doubtful) was that, in Plotinus’ view, the Intellect is an eternal reality eternally made up of two eternal simultaneous elements, the one acting as matter (= Intelligible matter) and the other as form (= Intelligible Form), yet without transition from potentiality into actuality. When Plotinus speaks of a transition from potentiality into actuality within the second Hypostasis, this is only a “rational (half-mythical) account” of the eternal duality-in-unity of the Intellect, in other words, a translation of what is merely a logical priority and posteriority into terms of a temporal priority and posteriority. A similar explanation could be offered of Plotinus’ account of the life of the Intellect in terms of a διέξοδος or a πλάνη: it is only a “rational account” in terms of our own durational experience of life (we ought to distinguish, which Kneale371 does not, between our experience of life, which is durational, and the concept of life, which does not necessarily include the idea of having acts: it might be a life which is an act all at once). My third point refers to your translation of V 5, 12, 35-37 (p. 21 of your JRS paper): you seem to take ἐρώμενον as middle (“the lover”). I think it is passive (“the beloved”, “the object of love”) in agreement with common Greek usage and with the context. Bréhier’s translation of this passage, though rather free, renders better than any other the meaning, and is in agreement with VI 9, 9, 30-36. Please take these as spontaneous quandaries arising in my mind while reading your paper. You need not worry to answer them. And I need not emphasize how much I have learned about Plotinus from your writings and letters. With gratefulness and best wishes, yours sincerely, Jesús Igal

4 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Bilbao, May 27, 1975 Dear Prof. Armstrong, Thank you very much for your letter and your important remarks on my comments. Your letter reached me when I was fully engaged in writing the notes I send you now herewith enclosed. They have arisen as a result of my attempt at deciphering a chapter I had never before understood: V 8, 6. This led me to revise the whole treatise and this in turn led me to the revision of V 5. My reading of your articles has 371  A reference to Martha Kneale (1968). “Eternity and Sempiternity”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 69, 223-238.

Letters

275

also greatly contributed to my renewed interest for these two important treatises of the great antignostic tetralogy. The note on V 8, 6 and those on V 5 are copies of the typescript I sent to Schwyzer. On the other hand, of the other notes on V 8 I sent him only a brief account leaving out many a note. The reason is that at the present stage of the Oxford edition I do not want to disturb him with too many late remarks. Though I appreciate your judgement very much, you need not take the trouble of making a detailed criticism of my views. But I do welcome any comment you might be pleased to make. Best wishes for a quick publication of Loeb IV and for your preparation of V. Again with many thanks, Yours sincerely, Jesús Igal A NOTE ON PLOTINUS V 8, 6 The general lines of my interpretation are as follows: 1º as to the contents: In 6, 1-15 Plotinus is drawing a contrast between hieroglyphic (which he mistook for ideographic) writing and alphabetic (not hieratic, nor demotic) writing. There follows (6, 15-18), by way of conclusion (15 ἄρα), the statement of a general principle, after which Plotinus proceeds to examine the application of the principle he has so far considered in paruo (= in writing) to the visible world (= in magno, 18 ἐφ’ ἑνὸς μεγάλου). 2º as to the text: I read, as certain, 12 ἐξεύρισκον (imperfect as very probable, 7 τὴν ἐκείνου διέξοδον and 13 θαυμάσας (for θαυμάσαι 1); I accept Theiler’s 14 αὐτὴ, and I suspect 11 λόγον (for λέγον) and 12 τοῦ γεγραμμένου (for τοῦ γεγενημένου). That Plotinus is drawing a contrast between what he took to be graphic writing and alphabetic writing and that the subject of 6, 9 is alphabetic writing can be shown from the following considerations: 1º The contrast is prepared by a remark dropped at the end of the preceding chapter (5, 23, where Plotinus is availing himself of the wide range of meanings of γράφω). 2º That Plotinus has this contrast in mind is further supported by 6, 3-5, which refers to alphabetic writing. 3º It seems clear that 11 ἐν διεξόδῳ looks back to 7 διέξοδον and this in turn to 3 διεξοδεύουσι, which clearly refers to alphabetic writing. 4º The description of alphabetic writing as a διέξοδος is supported by Plato Theaet. 208a9-10 τὴν διὰ στοιχείου διέξοδον ἔχων γράψει, where Plato is availing himself of the double meaning of στοιχεῖον as “element” and as “letter” (comp. Plotinus 11 αἰτίας; comp. Plato ibid. b 4-5). Notice also that “discursive thinking” (τὸ διανοεῖσθαι, compl. Plotinus 9 διανόησις) is described by Plato as the soul’s silent dialogue with herself and is defined as λόγον ὃν αὐτὴ πρὸς αὑτὴν ἡ ψυχὴ διεξέρχεται (ibid. 189 e 6). It seems, then, that the description of language, whether mental, spoken or written, as a διέξοδος comes from Plato (ibid. 206 a 5-8 makes it clear he

276

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

makes no difference between spoken or written as far as his account of λέγειν or λόγος as διέξοδος is concerned). 5º The method of examining a subject first in paruo and then in magno had been canonized by Plato (Soph. 218c7-d2; Pol. 286a7-b2). Therefore, when Plotinus says (6, 18-19) that he is going to examine in magno (i.e. in the visible world as an image of, and as contrasted with, the intelligible world) the principle he has just stated at 15-18, the natural interpretation is that up to 15 he has been considering the same principle in paruo (i.e. in alphabetic writing as an image of, and as contrasted with, ideographic writing). 6º Notice 16-17 ἐκ ζητήσεως … μόλις … τις ἐξεύροι, which refers to the later discoveries through syllogism and reasoning (comp. 7, 43-44 ὕστερα γὰρ πάντα ταῦτα, καὶ λόγος καὶ ἀπόδειξις καὶ πίστις). This, together with the reasons above stated, makes me think that we ought to read 6, 9-12 Ὕστερον δὲ ἀπ’ αὐτῆς … ἐξευρίσκον. But the subject of this imperfect is not, and cannot be, the Egyptian sages of 6, 1. Rather, the subject is left indeterminate and is to be extracted from the verb itself (French “on”, German “man”): “They (= the inventors, the Phoenicians or whoever they were) discovered…”. Alphabetic writing, as contrasted with the older ideographic one, is but a later derived discovery, just as the conclusion by syllogism is a later derived discovery (for ἐξευρίσκω as an appropriate verb for discovery of alphabetic writing, cf. vgr. Eurip. Palamedes Nauck fr. 578). That this is what Plotinus intends us tounderstand, is confirmed by the fact that he likens the Egyptian sages to the Platonic philosopher in that they are σοφοί and in that their ideograms are “substantial wisdoms” and “substantial ἀγάλματα” (5, 15-25; 6, 9 οὐ διανόησις). Similarly, the discoverers of alphabetic writing are likened to “discursive thinkers” (12 ἐξευρίσκον, 17 ἐξεύροι) in that their achievements are but later derived discoveries (6, 9 ὕστερον; 7, 43 ὕστερα). This interpretation is borne out by I 3, 4-6, where the “dialectician” (i.e. the true philosopher, Dialectic being the best part of philosophy: 5, 9) is equated with the σοφός (6, 15 διαλεκτικῆς καὶ σοφίας; 16 σοφὸν … καὶ διαλεκτικόν; 6, 12-13 ἡ δὲ διαλεκτικὴ καὶ ἡ σοφία) in contrast with the Logician, who is likened to, and even equated with, the γραμματικός (4, 18-20; 5, 17-18). There remains for us the task of discussing the details, textual and exegetic, of the 6th chapter. Let me observe, as a preliminary remark, that σοφία is used here, from the end of the preceding chapter (5, 15), in an objective sense, as a substantial objective wisdom, and not merely as a quality of the mind. 6, 7 … τὴν ἐκείνου (= ἀγάλματος) διέξοδον κτλ .: “the non-discursive character of the ideogram”. The arguments for adopting this reading are as follows: 1º Since 10 αὐτῆς ἀθρόας οὔσης takes up 8 σοφία, it follows (if my interpretation of 9-15 is correct) that 7-9 ὡς ἄρα … βούλευσις refers to ideographic writing, for alphabetic writing is presented as a later discovery derived from Egyptian hieroglyphic writing (this, by the way, may not be altogether devoid of historical sense,

Letters

277

for, according to the traditional theory, alphabetic Phoenician writing did derive from Egyptian hieroglyphic writing according to the principle of “acrophonia”. This theory, however, is questioned by some modern scholars). 2º On the other hand, 8 ἕκαστον ἄγαλμα most naturally takes up 6 ἕκαστον ἄγαλμα, and is thus best interpreted as “each ideogram”, not “each Idea” in the intelligible world. 3º 7-9 ὡς ἄρα … βούλευσις is epexegetic. Therefore, if 7-9 refers to each ideogram being a sort of substantial wisdom, it follows that we ought to read 7 τὴν ἐκείνου διέξοδον (= τὴν ἐκείνου οὐ διανόησιν) rather than τὴν ἐκεῖ οὐ διέξοδον, taking ἐκεῖ = τῷ νοητῷ. Rather, Plotinus means that the Egyptian sages fashioned their ideograms in such a way as to make it quite clear that each ideogram is a substantial wisdom and that they represented each idea by means of a substantial wisdom (3 διὰ σοφίας), not by means of a διέξοδος (= alphabetic writing, where each idea is represented by a row of letters). 6, 9-12 Ὕστερον … ἐξευρίσκον. 10 εἴδωλον ἐν ἄλλῳ ἐξειλιγμένον ἤδη: whereas each hieroglyphic (= ideographic, for Plotinus) character is a self-subsisting ἄγαλμα, each written word is but a faint image, subsisting in an other thing (comp. IV 6, 3, 74-75 ἐν πίναξιν ἢ δέλτοις γεγραμμένων γραμμάτων), enlarged and diluted in a multiplicity of characters. 11 καὶ λέγον αὐτό is difficult: it can hardly mean “et dicens seipsum”, for the function of speech, whether spoken or written, is to signify something else (for the distinction between λέγειν and προσφέρειν in Stoic philosophy cf. SVF III 213, 22-23). I have been then led to suspect that we ought to read καὶ λόγον αὐτὸ ἐν διεξόδῳ (αὐτό = εἴδολον, λόγον predicate = “simulacrum in alio iam euolutum idque sermonem-rationem in discursione et causas proper quas ita est inueiterunt”. For the construction comp. 8, 20. λόγον would combine the double meaning of “sermo” and “ratio”). Alternatively (but less likely in my opinion) we might read λέγον αὐτὸ, taking αὐτό = “the thing itself”, as opposed to its name or its image (comp. VI 9, 11, 21; comp. Plato Crat. 432d8-9; Resp. 402b7, c 6; 476c7; 516a7; Soph. 266b6, c7, d7; 265b2; Pol. 306d1; see also Bonitz372 Index 125a14 ss. and Torstrik373 Philologus 12, 1857, 525-526). 11 καὶ τὰς αἰτίας, δι’ ἃς οὕτω no doubt refers to the discovery of sounds, their number, their kinds, classification and combination in syllables, words, propositions… (comp. 6, 3-5). For what Plotinus might have in mind cf. such passages of Plato as Crat. 431e- 432a, Theaet. 207a- 208b. 6,12-15. A very difficult passage. The comparison of 6, 9-15 with Theol. Arist. X 176-178 has been neglected. Yet it is important and it does shed not negligible light 372  373 

H. Bonitz (1879). Index Aristotelicus. Berlin: Reimer. A. Torstrik (1857). “Die Authentica der Berliner Ausgabe des Aristoteles”, Philologus, 12, 494-530.

278

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

on the text itself. The clearest correspondences are two: 13 θαυμάσαι, εἰ τις οἶδε (with this punctuation) with Theol. 177: “If any one were to think and reflect …, he would wonder at them…”; 13-14 θαυμάσαι ἔφη τὴν σοφίαν, πῶς αὐτὴ αἰτίας οὐκ ἔχουσα with Theol. 178: “then a fortiori we should admire the first wisdom which … without reflecting about the causes…”. Notice that the inclusion of “then a fortiori” leaves no doubt that 178 “we should admire…” is not a mere repetition of 177 “he would wonder at them”, in other words it is clear that the author of the Theol. read θαυμάσαι twice (there are other minor and less obvious correspondences, the most important of which: 11-12 καὶ τὰς αἰτίας … ἐξευρίσκον with Theol. 177: “and how they attained those causes”. I do not mean to say, however, that this is an argument for the imperfect: it is a matter of punctuation). On the whole, the Theol. seems to support the text of the MSS against Harder, Theiler and Volkmann. On the other hand, 12-13 is difficult. H-S (III p. 405): “sed fortasse locus nondum sanatus”. The omission of the adversative particle with Εἴ τις οἶδε is disquieting and renders the text suspect. I am then strongly inclined to change θαυμάσαι 1 into θαυμάσας (in spite of the authority of both the direct and the indirect tradition: the corruption would have taken place in uncial writing before the 9th century): “so that if any one well acquainted with the fact marvelled at the product having beauty as it is, expressed his admiration for the wisdom, how…”. There is an intended contrast between θαυμάσας and θαυμάσαι ἔφη: he marvels at the product, but since he is well acquainted with the fact (i.e. with the fact that writing is only a later derived discovery: 9-10 Ὕστερον ἀπ’ αὐτῆς at the beginning of the sentence is emphatic, and accounts for the consecutive clause), he does not express his admiration for the product, but for the wisdom which is at the origin of the product, i.e. for the ideograms). Plotinus is anticipating (in paruo) the remark which he will make (in magno) at 8, 11-12 (comp. 6, 15 τοῖς ποιουμένοις κατ ’ αὐτήν with 8, 11 κατ ’ ἄλλο ποιηθὲν, 12 καθ’ ὅ ἐστι πεποιημένον; 6, 13 εἰ τις οἶδε with 8, 11-12 Εἰ δ’ ἀγνοεῖ). As to the syntax of 12-13: θαυμάσας, εἰ τις οἶδε = θαυμάσας, ὅστις οἶδε (εἰ τις here, after the participle, functions as ὅστις. Comp. 10, 22-23). For the “Substantivierung” of the adverb (τὸ καλῶς) cf. Schwyzer RE 21, 516, 40; comp. 15. I take it as object of 12 ἔχοντος (comp. 12, 17; II 1, 2, 9-10; III 9, 7, 5-6). I construe θαυμάσας with genitive + participle (for a similar construction followed, as here, by the same verb with accusative, cf. Pl. Crit. 50e6-7): “If any one marvelled at the product having beauty thus (i.e. as it is)”. NOTES ON PLOTINUS V 5 1, 1-4 Nothing is gained and much is lost by emending the text at 4. But before I come to discuss the text, let me refer to some passages of Plato which cast important light on the meaning of 1-4: for 1-2 cf. Resp. 413a6-8 and Phaedr. 262b2-3. For 3-4 cf. Phaedo 75d7-11, from which it is clear that ἀεὶ εἰδέναι = μὴ ἐπιλαθέσθαι ποτέ (comp. Symp. 208a4-5 and Phileb. 33e3).

Letters

279

Now from the above stated equation ἀεὶ εἰδέναι = μὴ ἐπιλαθέσθαι ποτέ, it is clear that 4 καὶ μηδ’ ἂν marks an intentional climax: “Therefore the Intellect (i.e. the divine real transcendent Intellect, cf. 1) should have knowledge for ever and should not even be liable ever to forget”. Plotinus, if I am not mistaken, is ruling out the idea that the divine Intellect’s continued possession of knowledge forever might be based on memory. Man’s continued possession of knowledge is based on memory, and memory for Plotinus is extrinsical to the Intellect, and so man is always liable to forget even if, and even when, he does not in fact forget because he is endowed with a powerful memory. It is for this reason, I think, that Plotinus is not content to say that the Intellect should possess knowledge forever, which might convey the wrong idea that the divine Intellect should be endowed with an extraordinarily powerful unfailing memory. So he adds “and should not even be liable ever to forget”, trying to suggest that the divine Intellect’s continued possession of knowledge forever should be based not on memory, but on the intrinsical possession of his objects, which makes the loss of knowledge an impossible mishap. As for the Greek: for καὶ μηδέ = “and not even”, cf. LSJ.’s remark on οὐδέ B: “This οὐδέ freq. follows καί, and not even”. ἂν ἐπιλαθέσθαι stands for a potential optative: cf. 2, 10 καὶ οὐδ’ ἂν ἐπιλάθοιτο, which conveys the same idea: “and is not even liable to forget” (cf. the preceding lines 2, 4-9, which support my interpretation that Plotinus is ruling out the notion of memory from the divine Intellect). As a matter of fact, 2, 10 is a striking confirmation of the MSS text at 1, 4. Theiler wrongly argues the other way round and, after accepting Sleeman’s emendation at 1, 4, he proceeds to emend 2, 10 as well. For ἄν with infinitive in non-indirect style cf. 6, 4; VI 8, 4, 39. 4, 7 The MSS text κατ ’ ἄλλο makes good sense; it is then very difficult to challenge it. Nevertheless there seem to be good reasons for throwing suspicions on the transmitted reading: 1º V 4, 1, 8-12 ὄντως ἕν, οὐχ ἕτερον ὄν, εἶτα ἕν, καθ’ οὗ ψεῦδος καὶ τὸ ἓν εἶναι κτλ . Here we get the contrast between what is ὄντως ἕν and what is “x” + one, i.e. what is one as a predicate of something else, i.e. κατ ’ ἄλλο. It is then very likely that at V 5, 4, 7 Plotinus has the same contrast in mind. 2º V 5, 6, 28 ff. Here the same idea recurs: neither the name “one” nor its significate should be taken as a positive attribute (θέσις), in other words, the “one” of the One is not a κατ ’ ἄλλο ἕν. 3º A similar distinction is made at V 5, 13 with regard to the Good: the Good is not good, “good” is not a predicate of the Good. 4º Finally at II 9, 1, 1-8, where he is summarizing the results of V 5 (notice that the problem set forth at V 5, 4, 6-8 was just this; the investigation is carried out throughout the rest of the treatise and the results are summarized at the beginning of II 9), Plotinus says (II 9, 1, 4-5): καὶ γὰρ αὕτη οὐκ ἄλλο, εἶτα ἕν, οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἄλλο, εἶτα ἀγαθόν, which amounts to saying that neither the “one” nor the “good” are predicates of the first principle (comp. ibid. 7 κατηγοροῦντας ἐκείνης οὐδέν), and

280

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

since II 9, 1, 1-8 is a summary answer to the problem stated at V 5, 4, 6-8, I am much inclined to read 4, 7 κατ ’ ἄλλο. 4, 9-10 Neither Cilento’s nor Beutler-Theiler’s translation is satisfactory (Bréhier’s is much better, but inaccurate): 10 μηδὲ τοὐλάχιστον … προελθεῖν is coordinated with στῆναι, not subordinated to 9 δεδιότα. Δέδοικα + infinitive (without negative adverb) = “fear to do” (LSJ δείδω 4). It follows that 10 μηδὲ1 = “and not” (conjunction); μηδὲ2 might be either adverb (“not even”) or conjunction (“nor”, explicatiuum): it is not easy to decide between the two: “sed stare omnino veritum ne ab Eo discedat, neque minimum ne ad duo quidem procedure”. 4, 19-20 As a matter of fact, there is no real reason for emending the text: … τοῦ δὲ ποσοῦ ὁ τὸ ποσὸν μετ’ ἄλλων ἢ ὅ τι (scil. ποσόν) μὴ μετ’ ἄλλων κτλ.: “a quantitative number is that which exhibits either the quantity bound up with other things (i.e. with things other than number) or any quantity not bound up with (i.e. abstracted from) other things, since indeed this (i.e. this quantity abstracted from things) is number”. I take then ὅ τι = “quodcumque” (i.e. quodcumque quantum). The contrast between “the” and “any” is intentional: Plotinus is distinguishing two kinds of quantitative number: a) concrete, in the sense of bound up with, immanent in, sensible things vgr. the 100 inherent in the oxen in a herd of 100 oxen: when I count 100 oxen, this number exhibits the quantity inherent in the oxen themselves, so many oxen, neither more nor less than they actually are; b) abstract, in the sense of separated and abstracted from sensible things, as when I count 80 + 20 = 100; abstract quantitative number can exhibit any quantity, since it is not bound up with the actual quantity of existing things. 20 τοῦτο takes up 19 ὅ τι. 4, 31-33 I am not sure that I can give a satisfactory account either of the text or of its interpretation, but I will try my best. I am inclined to retain the MSS text with H-S against Theiler. Theiler’s ὥς τι (32) implies that he thinks that a house is, for Plotinus, an instance of continuum. Yet it is far from certain that it is so. Rather, Plotinus’ mind oscillates not so much between two contradictory conceptions as between a stricter and a looser view. When he takes the looser view, he thinks of the house (or of the ship) as a continuum in contrast with a chorus or an army (this is, I think, the case of VI 9, 1, 4-8 and VI 6, 13, 24-25). At VI 2, 11, 8-9, however, he takes a stricter view: the house and the ship are intermediates (= contiguous) between aggregates (a chorus or an army) and the continuum. We must beware of taking 8 (the chorus, the army, the ship, the house) as four coordinate members: rather they are two pairs of members. This is clear from 15-16: Οὐ γὰρ ἧττον στρατὸς ἢ χορὸς οἰκίας, ἀλλ’ ὅμως ἧττον ἕν (for the text see my note on this passage). At VI 2, 11 we get then a gradation of three levels of unity: 1º aggregates (a chorus or an army), 2º contiguous (a house or a ship) and 3º continuous. Now I believe that at V 5, 4, 31-33 Plotinus has the same threefold classifi-374 374 

The surviving pages of this document end here.

Letters

281

5 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Bilbao, June 5, 1975 Dear Prof. Armstrong, On my return to Bilbao after an absence of a few days, I notice I was somehow inaccurate in the first part of my note on V 8, 4, 21-23375 in that I stated, that ἕκαστον μέρος = “each part”, whereas in fact μέρος is predicate. Here is a fuller account of this passage (which, in my opinion, has been badly misunderstood): 21/22 Ἐνταῦθα/ἐκεῖ continues the analogy: “here in the visible heaven/there in the intelligible one”, so that 21 ἐνταῦθα = 19 κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν οὐρανὸν. 21 οὖν because the imaginary supposition of 19-21 is contrary to fact. 21 “one part” = “one star” (the stars being parts in the visible heaven (cf. II 1, 5, 14-15). γίνεσθαι ἐκ, as already noted by Aristotle, is ambiguous. Here the sense is not “to become from”, but “to be made of”. The sense is then: “Here then, in the visible heaven, one part (= one star) cannot be made of another, and so each one (= each star) can be only a part; but there, in the intelligible heaven, each one (= each entity) is always made of the whole, and so it is at once each and whole” (the sense of this is clear from 4, 9-10: καὶ ἥλιος ἐκεῖ πάντα ἄστρα, καὶ ἕκαστον ἥλιος αὖ καὶ πάντα. This, by the way, supports my interpretation of 21/22 ἐνταῦθα μὲν/ἐκεῖ δὲ. 22 and 23, καὶ = “and so” (consecutive). With best wishes, yours sincerely, Jesús Igal NOTES ON PLOTINUS V 8 1, 11 Comp. Pl. Resp. 472d4-7 1, 21 It is difficult to accept Cilento’s ἐν αὐτῷ = ἐν τῷ λίθῳ: 1º μένειν ἐν αὐτῷ in the sense of “in seipso manere” is a stereotyped formula (Cf. within this tetralogy III 8, 3, 2 and elsewhere: III 5, 7, 17-18; ibid 9, 53-54 reinforced by μόνον as it is reinforced by καθαρὸν in our case. 2º It is clear enough from the context that the “form” in question is the form in the stone (cf. τοῦτο). Hence “in itself” is far more pointed than “in the stone”, mainly if we bear in mind that Plotinus himself explains what he means by saying that the form in the stone does not remain pure in itself: 27-28: Ἀφίσταται γὰρ ἑαυτοῦ πᾶν διιστάμενον κτλ. (Cf. 27 τοῦ ἐν ἑνὶ μένοντος). 1, 30-32 My impression is that Plotinus is thinking above all of Arist. Met. 1049b24-26 ἀεὶ γὰρ … μουσικὸς ὑπὸ μουσικοῦ, ἀεὶ κινοῦντός τινος πρώτου.

375  This is a correction to his interpretation of this passage in the series of notes on Ennead V 8, which is included after this letter, but which was presumably sent a few days before it.

282

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

1, 38-40 While I accept Kirchhoff’s emendation at 38, I take the sentence as elliptic: Ἐπεὶ καὶ ὁ Φειδίας (scil. ἔχει, supplied from ὡς ἔχουσαι τὸ κάλλος) κτλ . (ποιήσας is best taken as causal). For ἐπεὶ καὶ introducing (as it does here) “eine begründende Parallele”, see Harder on V 2, 1, 27. 2, 33 ὁρᾶν is governed by both εἰθισμένοι and εἰδότες (οἶδα with infin. =“to know how to do,” LSJ εἴδω B 2). 2, 38-41 38 οὗ is not = τοῦ ἐν μεγέθει κάλλος, but οὗ δὴ = “and it is here that…”, emphatic (comp. I 6, 7, 30); οὗ = ἐν ταῖς ψυχαῖς. οὗ δὴ καὶ marks the climax: after the beauty in nature and the beauty ἐν τοῖς μαθήμασι καὶ τὸ ἐν τοῖς ἐπιτηδεύμασι …, there comes the highest degree of beauty within the souls: the beauty of virtue (here 39 φρόνησιν stands for virtue; cf. the illuminating summary at the beginning of the next chapter: 3, 1-6). 39-41 Plotinus is thinking no doubt of Alcibiades’ speech in Pl. Symp. 216d4217a2. It is difficult to supply 39 ὅταν with 41 διώκῃς. I propose then 40-41 ἀλλ’ἂν (= ἀλλ’ ἐάν) πᾶσαν κτλ. 2,46 I think that the sense of ἀναμνήσθητι has been misunderstood. The sense is not: “so gedenke daran” (Harder), “ricòrdatene” (Cilento), “so denke daran” (B-T), but “incipe reminisci” (ingressive). The object is left indeterminate for the moment, because Plotinus, having reached a climax, makes a halt in order to summarize the gradation carried out throughout the second chapter. The idea of ἀναμνήσθητι is taken again, after a short interruption, at 3, 6 ff. συλλογίζεσθαι ποιεῖ … and the object of the “recollection” (its starting point, method, goal) is the subject of chapters 3-12. It is important to notice this if we are to understand the meaning of the whole treatise and its place with the tetralogy. As a matter of fact, ἀναμνήσθητι is Plotinus’ answer to the question raised at the beginning of the treatise: 1, 5-6 πῶς ἄν τις τὸ κάλλος τοῦ νοῦ καὶ τοῦ κόσμου ἐκείνου θεάσαιτο. The answer to this is: ἀναμνήσθητι. Blumenthal tends to minimize the importance of ἀνάμνησις in the philosophy of Plotinus376. Yet the greatest part of this treatise is devoted to the problem of how to attain the vision of the intelligible world through ἀνάμνησις. Similarly, the main purpose of V 1 is to bring about “recollection” in the soul (comp. 1, 2 ἐπιλαθέσθαι with 1, 27 ἀναμιμνήσκων). ἀνάμνησις is the bridge leading us from the sensible copy to the model (comp. V 8, 3, 6-18 with III 7, 1, 20-24), the link between the vision of the sights within the soul and the sights of the intelligible world (cf. IV 7, 12, 8-10 and infra my note on 10, 16-25), the dividing line between imperfect pure lover and perfect pure lover (III 5, 1, 34-65), the decisive turning point in the soul’s ascent from lower to higher virtue (I 2, 4, 16-23). (See my final remark).

376  Igal refers to H.-J. Blumenthal (1971). Plotinus’ Psychology. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 97, note 26.

Letters

283

4, 19-21 I am inclined to accept Dodds’ 19 κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν οὐρανὸν (leaving out his other conjectures): “it is as if one were to imagine that, throughout this visible heaven, being luminous as it is, this light coming out from it were born to be the stars”, taking τὸ φῶς 20 as subject and 21 τὰ ἄστρα as predicate. Thus Plotinus would be making here, with regard to all stars, the same supposition he makes at V 5, 7, 12-14 with regard to the sun: that each star, in the visible heaven, were φῶς ἐν φωτί, not φῶς ἐν ὄγκῳ, just as, in the intelligible heaven each Entity is νοῦς ἐν νῷ and νοῦς (18-19 Καὶ γὰρ τὸ ὑποκείμενον νοῦς καὶ αὐτὸς νοῦς). To take τὰ ἄστρα as epexegetic of 20 τοῦτο τὸ φῶς will not do, because in fact the stars are not pure light, but light in a substrate which is not light. 4, 21-23 The analogy intelligible heaven/visible heaven continues. Hence 21 Ἐνταῦθα does not mean “here, in the visible world”, but “here, in the visible heaven”, and 22 ἕκαστον μέρος = “each part”, i.e. “each star”, the stars being parts of the visible heaven (cf. II 9 5, 14-15) just as each intelligible Entity is a “part” in the intelligible heaven. The difference, however, lies in that here, in the visible heaven, one part (one star) is not made of (γίνεσθαι ἐκ = “to be made of”: this is also the sense, I think, at 3, 12 and probably at 10, 19) another, whereas in the intelligible heaven each part (= each entity) is made of the whole (cf. 4, 9-10). I notice three Anaxagorean features in Plotinus’ account of the intelligible world: 1) ὁμοῦ πάντα, 2) πάν ἐν παντί, 3) ἕκαστον κατὰ τὸ ἐπικρατοῦν. This looks like a deliberate transposition, rather than a mere coincidence. (Armstrong’s remark, Les Sources de Plotin, p. 145,377 about the Anaxagorean background of the principle of naming by predominance has perhaps received too little attention). I believe that Plotinus was fully acquainted both with the principle itself and with its Anaxagorean origin. Comp. vgr. II 1, 6, 23-24 ἀλλὰ πάντα μὲν μέμικται, λέγεται δὲ κατὰ τὸ ἐπικρατοῦν ἕκαστον, with Simplicius’ account of Anaxagoras DK 59, A 41, 19-20. The same principle is latent in V 7, 2, 5-12. 7, 4 ἐπὶ τῇ γῇ τοῦτο. Ficinus rightly “terrae continuam”. Cf. LSJ ἐπί B I 1 a. 7, 12-14 ἐν ἄλλῳ is explained in the same line as = ἐν τῷ ὄντι. 13-14 τῇ ἐν τῷ ὄντι πρὸς ἄλλο γειτονείᾳ = “by their nearness within Being to another thing” (i.e. to matter). That πρὸς ἄλλο = πρὸς ὕλην is clear from VI 5, 8 (particularly 19-20), which is the best commentary on this passage (Cilento and B-T have missed this point). Plotinus means that, since all things were in Being, they were ipso facto near matter, as a result of which there suddenly arose in matter a faint image of the intelligible world, this faint image being of course the sensible world. 7, 24-26: 24 ἐποιεῖτο δὲ. The sense is not “sed hic mundus creabatur”, but “creabatur autem”, i.e. creation went on. The subject is to be extracted from the verb itself (French “on”). 25 καὶ οὕτως = καὶ ἀψοφητί (supplied from 24). 377 

Armstrong (1960).

284

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

25-26 Καὶ παντὸς δὲ ἦν, ὡς ἂν πᾶν: “sed et totius erat, utpote quae totum”. It was the creation of a universe because the Demiurge’s creation was the whole of his creative activity, not a part of it. For ὡσάν = ἅτε cf. LSJ s.v. Ι 3. 10, 4 ff. Armstrong’s distinction of two levels of mystical experience is best documented, I think, by this tetralogy: V 8, 10-11 contains a description of mystical experience at the lower level of the intelligible world. Later in the same tetralogy (V 5, 7-8; 10-11) we find a description of mystical experience at the highest level. Notice 1º that the analogy of the sunrise occurs in both accounts (Comp. V 8, 10, 4-10 with V 5, 8, 4-8). 2º Both descriptions are somehow reminiscent of Plato’s Republic. Actually V 8, 10 combines the Phaedrus with the Republic: comp. 10, 6 κατέλαμψε (καταλάμπει Resp. 508d1, d5); 10, 6-7 ἔπλησεν αὐγῆς (αὐγῆς ἂν ἔχοντα τὰ ὄμματα μεστὰ Resp. 516a2); 10, 7 ἐστράφησαν (ἀποστρεφόμενον Resp. 515e2); 10, 7-8 ἰδεῖν οὐ δεδυνημένοι (ἀδυνατοῖ καθορᾶν Resp. 515c9; comp. 516a2-3; 518a5; 532b9-c1); 10, 8 ἀνέχονταί τε καὶ βλέπουσιν (ἀνασχέσθαι θεωμένη Resp. 518c10); 10, 9 ταράττονται (ἐπιταράξεις Resp. 518a2); 10, 10-11 εἰς αὐτὸν … καὶ εἰς τὸ αὐτοῦ (τὸν ἥλιόν τε καὶ τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου Resp.516b1-2); 10, 17 τελευταία, 10, 23 τὸ τελευταῖον (Τελευταῖον Resp. 516b4; τελευταία ibid. 517b8). (i.e. the analogy of the sun and allegory of the cave). 10, 16-25 The difficulty that Harder, Theiler and Cilento have found in understanding 16 ἡ δὲ is due to their misunderstanding of 18 θεάματα. They seem to take it for granted that it must refer to the sight of intelligible entities, which is not the case. These previous sights are the sights within the soul of virtuous men, the sight of the ἀγάλματα within the soul (5, 22-23; comp. IV 7, 10, 42-47), or in the case of gods (= the visible gods), the sight of their own beauty. Plotinus is going back to the idea of 2, 43-46 (comp. 1 6, 9, 13-37, which is the best commentary on V 8, 10, 16-25; at IV 7, 12, 8-9 we find three terms, just as at V 8, 2, 43-46: 1º θεάματα within the soul, 2º the κατανόησις αὐτοεκάστου, 3º ἀνάμνησις as a bridge between 1º and 2º). If we read V 8, 10, 16-25 in the light of the above mentioned passages, there is no difficulty in understanding 16 ἡ δὲ (= αὐτοσωφροσύνη): intelligible Temperance stands here for intelligible Beauty in general, which is seen last, i.e. after one has seen the lower beauty of one’d own virtuous soul. I punctuate 18-22 as follows: … θεάματα (οἱ θεοὶ … διειλημμέναι). Ταῦτα οὖν κτλ . Ταῦτα = 18 θεάματα, 22 οὖν is resumptive after the parenthesis (Denniston2 428-9). If so, then there is no difficulty in keeping the text of the MSS at 23-24: τὸ τελευταῖον (incipit apodosis) ὁρῷ (potential optative) μένον κτλ.: “if then Zeus … sees these sights, he might be able to see …”. The potential optative conveys the idea of “might be able” because the new step requires a new effort (comp. I 6, 9, 23-24 θαρσήσας … ἀτενίσας ἴδε with 10, 12 ἀτενὲς ἰδὼν). 18 οἱ, cf. H-S III p. 406 (though I do not see any anacoluthon). Let me add a final remark on Blumenthal’s account of “anamnesis” (Plotinus’ Psychology). I need not emphasize how much I admire his scholarly research work (his book and his articles). But in his account of “anamnesis” I think he fails to avail

Letters

285

himself of Dodds’ distinction between the soul and the self. It is true that the higher undescended soul remains for ever up there on the top of the mountain. But our self lies often (too often perhaps) very far down at the foot of the mountain. Hence the doctrine of the “flight”, of the “return”, of the “conversion”, of the gradual painful “ascent” and so on. This requires a great exertion and it is here that anamnesis plays an important role, similar to that of Plato’s περιαγωγή in the Republic. It is clear from many passages that Plotinus regards “anamnesis” as a process (or as a turning point in that process) and Blumenthal’s statement that it is replaced by the doctrine of the undescended intelligence cannot, I think, be accepted without some reservation. Perhaps the doctrine of “anamnesis” has not yet received sufficient attention by scholars.

6 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Bilbao, March 25, 1977 Dear Prof. Armstrong, I venture to send you a note on the enigmatic sentence V 7, 2, 12. I send copies to Schwyzer and (in view of his long-standing interest in V7 and V 9) to Blumenthal. I wonder if you will accept my interpretation or even deem it as tenable. I am open to your criticisms, but you need not care to answer. Many thanks for sending me off-prints of your always interesting and scholarly papers. With my best wishes, yours sincerely Jesús Igal PLOTINUS V 7, 2, 12: Οἱ δὲ ἐν ἄλλῃ χώρᾳ πῶς διάφοροι; I used to think that οἱ δὲ ἐν ἄλλῃ χώρᾳ meant “those born in different countries”, and that Plotinus was dealing here with racial or ethnical differences. Since, however, his answer (13-17) is wholly concerned with matter and form in their connection with beauty and ugliness, I am now inclined to think that χώρᾳ must be corrupted, and I propose to read ὥρᾳ in its stead, taking this word in its sense of “beauty” and understanding οἱ ἐν ἄλλῃ ὥρᾳ as elliptic for οἱ ἐν ἄλλῃ ἄλλος ὥρᾳ ἀνθοῦντες: “those (= youths in the prime of life) flowering with different beauties”. The text is thus put in agreement with its context and both the question and the answer become meaningful. The meaning of the question is whether all differences in beauty are to be accounted for simply by a different degree of prevalence of form over matter. The background of the problem set by Plotinus is that passage in the Republic of Plato (V 474d-475a) where the latter explains at length how the ἀνὴρ ἐρωτικός feels equally

286

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

fascinated by all who are in the bloom of youth, no matter how different the type of their several noses and complexions may be. The answer provided by Plotinus hinges on the tacit distinction between different types of beauty and different degrees within a given type of beauty: “In many cases the difference (itself) is beautiful”, that is, in many cases the difference is not simply a matter of degree, but of a different type of beauty and is to be accounted for by a different form. Now 14-15 πολλαχοῦ would seem to imply that “in other cases”, when the difference is one of degree within the same type of beauty, matter can well account for the difference, for a lesser degree of beauty means a greater degree of ugliness and this is to be attributed to matter. In such cases ἡ ὕλη τὸ διάφορον οὐχ ὁμοίως κρατουμένη (13). My conjecture and interpretation is supported by the somewhat parallel passage V 9, 12, 5-10 (Here the Platonic background is more apparent: the reference to different types of noses and complexions seems to be drawn from the above mentioned passage of Plato’s Republic). According to V 9, 12, 5-10 matter can well account for the varieties within the same type of noses or complexions, but different types of noses or complexions are to be accounted for by different forms. There is thus a fundamental agreement, both in thought and in background, between V 7, 2, 12-17 and V 9, 12, 5-10.

7 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Bilbao, June 18, 1977 Dear Prof. Armstrong, Thank you very much for your long letter of June 5 and for your many comments on my conjectures and interpretations. One is never a good judge of one’s own “findings” and I myself am too often rather diffident about them. Still I think that in most cases nothing is lost and much can be gained by submitting them to yours and Schwyzer’s better judgement. Schwyzer has by now read all my notes on the Sixth Ennead and to judge from his own words (his letter May 16: “Ich darf Ihnen jetzt schon sagen, dass ich eine grosse Zahl Ihrer Vorschläge angenommen habe: wenn der Band III Ox. einen Fortschritt gegenüber Band III maior bedeuten wird, dann ist das zum grössten Teil Ihnem zu verdanken”), I gather he has been more impressed by my notes on the Sixth Ennead than by those on IV-V. He is not explicit except for a few cases: “… Ihrem schlagenden τἀκαλλές VI 1, 10, 47”; VI 2, 3, 25: “… Ihr Vorschlag πολύνουν ist paläographisch and philosophisch der beste”; VI 3, 15, 34: “Ihr Vorschlag scheint mir grundsätzlich richtig… Ich möchte vorschlagen: < ὀρθῶς λεκτέον οὐ Σωκράτη >” (I agree with him). He does not agree with my trans-

Letters

287

position at VI 1, 10, 34-35, nor with that at VI 2, 10, 8-10 (on these two passages he has his own “Vorschläge”). As for VI 5, 8, 29-33 (one of the most difficult passages in the Enneads, I think), he remarks: “Ihre Lösung ist noch die beste …”, but finds some difficulties (rightly, I think) against it and plans to put 29-33 (καὶ τόπῳ … αὐτοῦ) between daggers as “locus nondum sanatus”. This has provoked my “New tentative solution” herewith enclosed (I label it “tentative” because, though I feel rather confident about the general lines of my new interpretation, I do not feel equally confident about the details). I find your remark on VI 2, 19, 18-21 (“I think here and in the next chapter P. is working towards a distinction like that of the later Neoplatonists…”) particularly interesting, and if you care to read my note on VI 6, 9, 10-13 you will find that I see in it a foreshadowing of the Iamblichean triad “unparticipated-participated-participant” (indeed my impression is that such a triad is tacitly omnipresent in the whole treatise VI 6): Number-in-itself (unparticipated)-Number in each intelligible Being (participated)-each intelligible Being (participant in Number). In my note on VI 2, 17, 1-2 + 18, 8-15 I only tried to account for what seems to be too obvious on other grounds: that 17, 2 ἐπιστήμη, νοῦς is an intrusive gloss on 18, 8-15 (17,2 ἐπιστήμη, νοῦς looks like a shorthand marginal addition ill-adapted to the text to put it in agreement with itself). It is true that neither νοῦς, nor ἐπιστήμη, nor δικαιοσύνη nor σωφροσύνη are virtues at the level of Intellect, but only παραδείγματα τῶν ἀρετῶν according to the doctrine of I 2, 6, 12 ff., 7, 2 ff. (notice the coupling of σοφία + φρόνησις + νοῦς at 6, 12-13 and of νόησις + ἐπιστήμη + σοφία at 7, 3-4). Nevertheless 17, 1-2 represents not Plotinus’ own, but the opponent’s view. The influence of Aristotle would then be not directly on the doctrine of Plotinus but only indirectly on his treatment of νοῦς + ἐπιστήμη (= σοφία) under the heading ἀρεταί. I wonder if you are satisfied with Henry-Schwyzer’s text at VI 2, 12, 10-11 (comp. 22, 14), at VI 2, 22, 24-25 and with Cilento’s defence (Paideia378 ad locum) of V 5, 7, 12 ἐπέκειτο. Unfortunately in spite of the impressive advance in Plotinian scholarship in the last decades (of which you are one of the pioneers), we still lack a commentary on the Enneads of the typical English tradition (Jebb, Campbell, Adam, Dodds and so on); I think you have said something like this somewhere in one of your reviews. I have the impression that books and papers on Plotinus’ philosophy tend too easily to lose sight of the fact that behind a serious philosophical problem there lies quite often an unsolved textual knot (VI 5, 8, 28-33 is a prominent instance). Also, apart from the Lexicon Plotinianum, a full bibliographical review (in the manner of Cherniss on Plato, Lustrum continuing that of Mariën) is badly needed. My own ambition 378  Vincenzo Cilento (1971). Paideia antignostica. Ricostruzione d’un unico scritto da Enneadi III 8, V 8, V 5, II 9. Firenze: Monnier.

288

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

in this field is very modest: to cast some light on the text of Plotinus and to present the Spanish readers with a fairly good translation of the Enneads and with a clear general introduction to the philosophy of Plotinus. Best wishes for a peaceful fruitful summer rest. I am very glad that your Loeb IV-V will be at last available by autumn next year. Yours sincerely, Jesús Igal PLOTINUS VI 5, 8, 28-33: A NEW TENTATIVE SOLUTION If we are not to leave this passage as a locus desperatus, let me try a new tentative solution: 28-29: I keep now the MSS – ἡ ἰδέα – (Selbstglossierung): by stressing the identity “Fire” = “Idea”, it paves the way for the reductio ad absurdum. 29-30: 30 οὐ παρέξει incipit apodosis (put comma before apodosis, remove it from 29). The whole sentence would make perfectly good sense were it not for the second member of the protasis (καὶ τόπῳ χωρὶς ὂν), which is obviously false (cf. preceding section, particularly 12-16). Kirchhoff was then fundamentally right in inserting a negative adverb. But palaeographically there are other possibilities: 1) (the simplest) ἑαυτοῦ , 2) χωρὶς ὂν, 3) ἑαυτοῦ καί τόπῳ, 4) ἑαυτοῦ καί τόπῳ (καίτοι + participle is used 20 times in the Enneads, 3 times with the negative adverb: II 3, 11, 12; VI 1, 24, 2; VI 7, 19, 14). But the more I reflect on this passage the more I am inclined to think that Plotinus wrote: … ἑαυτοῦ κατὰ τόπῳ κτλ . “… praebens imaginem sui non perinde ac quod loco separatum est”, litotes for “… praebens imaginem sui multo meliore modo quam quod loco separatum est”. This fits in very well with the context: 11 οὐχ οὕτως, 15 μὴ οὕτω, 30 οὐ παρέξει ὡς. For οὐ κατά + accusative of comparison (“not on the same level as”, “not to be compared with”) see Burnet’s important note on Plato Apol. 17 b 6. He takes οὐ κατὰ τούτους ῥήτωρ = ἀμείνον ἢ κατὰ τούτους ῥήτωρ and translates “an orator of a far higher kind than they are”, “too good an orator to be compared with them”. He mentions Hdt. I 121; II 10; Plato Symp. 211 d 3; Gorg. 512b7; Resp. 466b1; Dem. 21, 169 (notice that all or most cases have a verb of perceiving, appearing or seeming as in Plotinus’ θεωρεῖται). In whatever way we insert the negative adverb, Plotinus would be saying that 1º it being the case that intelligible Fire appears producing its images, 2º and it not being the case that it produces them by being separated from them in place, 3º then it will not be the case that it produces them as the sun-ray does. 30-32: Incipit reductio ad absurdum. Plotinus’ argument (30-46) is not cast in the mould of a dilemma, yet there can be little doubt that he has in mind the disjunction of Plato Parm. 131 a 4-5: ἤτοι ὅλου τοῦ εἴδους ἢ μέρους ἕκαστον τὸ μεταλαμβάνον

μεταλαμβάνει;

Letters

289

30-35 deals with the first alternative (comp. 34 φυγεῖν ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ with Pl. Parm. 131b2 and 4-5; cf. Arist. Met. 1039b1-2) and 35-46 with the second. For the disjunction comp. VI 5, 3, 26 ff. (read ἢ, Harder); VI 4, 9 is far more complex; still cf. 16-17; comp. Arist. De Ideis Ross fr. 5, p. 128 two last lines. Bearing this in mind, I suggest 30-32 ἤδη γὰρ εἴη που πᾶν τοῦτο τὸ πῦρ … ᾗ (for ὅπου ἄν cf. VI 4, 1, 5; 11, 19; VI 5, 4, 23; often, but not always, in protasi: Plato Phaedr. 251 e 2; Euthphr. 11 b 8, c 4; Arist. Gen. An. 725a35; comp. Plotinus VI 6, 14, 10). Palaeographically there are other possibilities (not to mention οὗ ἂν + οὗ ἐάν: VI 4, 12, 11-12 and 22; II 2, 1, 48). ἤδη γὰρ εἴη που πᾶν ὅπου ἂν = ἤδη γὰρ εἴη που πᾶν ὅπου ἂν πολλάκις (34 πολλάκις), comp. VI 4, 8, 34 ἤδη γὰρ ἂν πολλάκις που εἴη. In other words, the intelligible Fire would be whole in place in as many places as the sensible fire be in place (30 εἴη is echoed by 32 ᾗ) “by having itself (= the intelligible Fire) generated places out of itself while (or “notwithstanding that”) the Idea itself of itself remains unplaced”. 31 εἰ (τὸ ἓν ἐκεῖνο πῦρ) πᾶν αὐτὸ πολλά states the first alternative of the disjunction (comp. VI 4, 9, 1-5 and 20): “if that one Fire were itself (not “illud” H.-S., but “ipsum”, or better “ipse”, emphatic) whole many”, so that each of these many were the whole, not a part of the whole as in the second alternative (35-46). In that case, that one Fire would be whole, but in place, whole but multilocated. Let me add by the way that this passage has nothing to do with the problem of the existence of Ideas of Individuals. The unwelcome conclusions drawn out by Plotinus do not follow from the hypothesis that there existed individual Ideas of Fire, but from a misconception of how participation takes place. The problem whether the Idea of Fire is simple or complex remains untouched. Had Plotinus put this question to himself, I guess his answer would have been on the lines of the principle stated at V 9, 10, 1-2 and on the basis of Plato Tim. 58 c 5-d 4, viz. that the Idea of Fire is a complex one embracing within itself as many specific Forms as there are specific varieties of fire in the sensible world, neither more nor less. VI 5, 8, 28-33: I grant quite readily that my new “tentative” solution is questionable. While working it out, I was first led to think that 31 αὐτὸ must refer, as you point out, to the sensible fire (on the hypothesis τοῦτο τὸ πῦρ … ᾗ). For this reason I was at first inclined to read 30-32: ἤδη γὰρ εἴη που πᾶν … ᾗ and to think that 31 εἰ πᾶν αὐτὸ (= τοῦτο τὸ πῦρ τὸ ἐν αἰσθήσει) πολλά picks up again the hypothesis of 26-27: Ὄγκος δὲ πολὺς πῦρ τὸ πρῶτον ἔνυλον ὑποκείσθω γενόμενον. The sense would be: “For otherwise (i.e. if the intelligible Fire produced its image as the sun-ray does), the intelligible Fire would be whole in place (που) wherever this whole sensible fire, in case the whole of it is a multiplicity, might be …”. On second thoughts, however, I thought that since 32 αὐτὸ = the intelligible Fire, 31 αὐτὸ = 28 τὸ ἓν ἐκεῖνο πῦρ, taking 31 εἰ πᾶν αὐτὸ πολλά as strictly parenthetic. This led me in turn to conjecture 31 που πᾶν : “For otherwise (i.e. if the intelligible Fire produced its image as the sun-ray does), the intelligible Fire would be whole in place

290

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

wherever this sensible fire (if that one intelligible Fire is itself whole-many) might be, by having itself generated many places out of itself notwithstanding that the Idea itself of itself remains unplaced”. On this hypothesis, εἰ πᾶν αὐτὸ πολλά is to be interpreted in the light of the first member of the disjunction of Plato, Parm. 131 a 4-5: ἤτοι ὅλου τοῦ εἴδους ἢ μέρους ἕκαστον τὸ μεταλαμβάνον μεταλαμβάνει; (each particular sensible fire partakes of the whole intelligible Fire; on this hypothesis the intelligible Fire becomes a multiplicity of wholes thus becoming separated from itself as both Plato and Plotinus argue: Plato ibid. 131 b 2 αὐτὸ αὑτοῦ χωρὶς ἂν εἴη, 4-5 αὐτὴ αὑτῆς χωρίς ἐστιν. Plotinus 34 φυγεῖν ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ). Plotinus 35-46 contemplates the second member of Plato’s disjunction, viz. that each particular sensible fire partakes only of a part of the Idea of Fire.

8 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Bilbao, September 30, 1977 Dear Prof. Armstrong, Thank you very much for your letter of Sept. 7 and your inspiring remarks on the “porphyrianization” of Plotinus by his late pupil. Possibly Porphyry was influenced not only by his own idiosyncrasy, but also by his own personal experience of a Plotinus more distant and magisterial (Vita 10, 36-38; 18, 8-14) than he had been in his early years in Rome (Vita 3, 35-38). As to the mutual acquaintance of Plotinus and the pagan Origen, given the secrecy of Plotinus’ writings, I think that Origen had little chance of getting access to the more mature views of Plotinus, i.e. after the latter had moved from the Middle Platonism of Ammonius (whom he still followed in Rome ca. 244-253: Vita 3, 32-34; cf. 14, 24-25) towards a Neoplatonism of his own. Remember the efforts of Longinus to get up-to-date information. On the whole it is far more likely that Origen wrote his book against Numenius than against Plotinus, and on the other hand the verbal coincidence of Proclus (Origen Weber fr. 7) with Plotinus (VI 9, 2, 5-6) makes me think that both are drawing from the same written source. I have gone through all the passages marked by asterisk in the Oxford ed. vol. II, praef. pp. xiii-xxiv; my impression is overwhelmingly favourable, but there remain a few cases less obvious to me. I send you herewith enclosed a copy of the list I’ve sent to Schwyzer of notes on those passages to which I am most likely to make a brief reference in my Emerita review379 (to be written and sent to the Editor not later 379  Igal did not publish such a review in Emerita. He seems to refer to the study he published in Helmántica (1977).

Letters

291

than early December). Let it be understood that the general tone of my review will be very laudatory. You need not answer this letter: I imagine you will be overbusy with lectures, graduate pupils, Loeb edition and “párerga”; in any case do not worry to reply to my letter and notes point by point. Here the term starts on Oct. 4. All best wishes for a happy stay in Canada far from your “umgebauten Bauernhaus aus dem 17. Jahrhundert”, as I learn from Schwyzer. You were right in suspecting that Schwyzer had not yet considered fully all my notes on VI 6-8. He had “verlegt eine lange Liste”; he has sent me a copy of the two pages of “Aporiai Enn. VI” he sent you on 8 /9/77.380 Yours sincerely, Jesús Igal SOME COMMENTS ON PLOTINI OPERA II (Oxonii, 1977) A) PASSAGES MARKED BY ASTERISK (Praefatio xiii-xxiv) IV 2, 1, 31. Palaeographically, it is hardly possible to decide between πρὸς and πρὸ (Cf. Plotini Opera II praef. p. xiii). Philosophically it is perhaps possible to extract a plausible meaning from either reading. But I “feel” that Plotinus wrote πρὸς = “on the side of” (LSJ A I, 2) so that the next καὶ (καὶ ἐγγύς τι τούτου καὶ ἐν τούτῳ) is explicatiuum rather than “and yet” (Harder “jedoch”, Cilento “e pure”, MacKenna-P. “yet”). (a) The main reason is that Plotinus is contrasting in this treatise not merely two natures (intelligible versus sensible: 1, 8) but also two realms: the intelligible and its realm versus the sensible and its realm (The intention is made clear throughout the treatise: the soul belongs to the realm of the intelligible: 1, 8-10; 1, 41 ff. etc.; of the two intermediates of 2, 52-55, one (= the soul) belongs to the real of the higher (ἓν καὶ πολλά), the other (the sensible qualities or forms) to the realm of the lower (πολλὰ καὶ ἕν), i.e. a fundamentally twofold division underlies the fourfold division of 2, 52-55; finally, in each of the two real there is a primary ruling member and a secondary derived member: 1, 29-31. All this renders πρὸς τοῦ αἰσθητοῦ (= “on the side of the sensible” = “the realm of the sensible”) quite natural and straightforward: in the realm of the sensible as a secondary’ subordinated member. (b) The context of 31-41: Here Plotinus is comparing the two lower degrees with one another in point of divisibility (for even the secondary member is said to be 41 μεριστὸν πάντη, 33-34 μεριστή γε μὴν. In the context the natural meaning of πρὸ would be “prior”, i.e. in the point of divisibility, which would be obviously false. The meaning of “superior” i.e. in rank (Ficinus “super”, Cilento “al di sopra”, Harder 380  Handwritten by Armstrong at the bottom of the page: “I entirely agree with you on VI 2, 5, 4-5 (ibid. 8 πάντη ἓν ἢ αὐτοέν – ‘unum omnino sive unum in se’”.

292

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

“über” …) is less natural both to the context and to the fundamental meaning of the preposition, For the rest it clear that in the doctrine of Plotinus quantity and sensible quality go together and run parallel with one another in their contribution to the constitution of sensible substance II 4, 11, 19-21; the sensible Socrates = colours + figures (VI 3, 15, 3-4 etc., except that “quantity” is prior to “quality” just as matter is prior to quantity (II 4, 12, 1-6). IV 3, 32, 6. Palaeographically, ἐκοινώσε is the lectio difficilior and seems to be slightly better attested than ἐκοινώνησε. Yet the latter yields the better sense and is more suited to the context: Cf. particularly 31, 16-20 which clearly points to ἐκοινώνησε: καθόσον τῇ ἑτέρᾳ τι ἐκοινώνησε = καθόσον τῆς ἑτέρας ὁμιλίας ἔλαβέ ποτε. Comp. Plato, Phaedo 67a3-4…. μηδὲν ὁμιλῶμεν τῷ σώματι μηδὲ κοινωνῶμεν. The nature of such a κοινωνία is explained at 27, 1-6; comp. 31, 6-8 and Arist. Poet 1453b10 3 κοινωνοῦσιν = κοινὸν ἔχουσιν (Bonitz, Ind. 400a39). 31, 18 ποτὲ makes it quite clear that ἐκοινώνησε should not be translated by the present tense (Bréhier, MacKenna-Page). IV 4, 25, 3. Alternatively 3-4 … Τῇδε ψυχῇ … εἶναι· κἂν κτλ . “But to this (particular) soul…”, i.e. the soul in question = the world’s soul. This seems more natural than Theiler’s emendation. IV 6, 1, 28. l think that either τοσούτου δὴ (suspic. Creuzer) or τοσούτου γε (suspic. Kirchhoff) is both palaeographically and stylistically better than τοσοῦδε. For the usage of these two particles with adjectives expressing number, size and intensity cf. Denniston 120. V 8, 2, 9. l still feel uneasy about the deletion of οἷα ὕλη. Helen’s form is a particular form (neither simple nor elementary nor like matter), a compound of figure + something else. But figure as such, figure qua figure, is mere limit, something terminal and, as such, something simple and elementary (cf. VI 7, 13, 3-4), very much like matter (though of course different from, and higher than, matter). Thus the whole passage is coherent: both colour and figure are different from, and higher than, matter; yet both are matter-like colour because by itself’ is shapeless, figure because by itself is terminal, simple, elementary. V 3, 10, 48. My impression is that ὑπάρχει stands for a vivid future (praesens pro futuro: Schwyzer-Debrunner II2 273). Cf. ἐστὶν. B) VARIA. See my notes on V 3, 15, 23-24 and V 5, 7,12.

Letters

293

9 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Bilbao, October 10, 1977 Dear Prof. Armstrong, Here again two new “suggestions” on two loci fere desperati of the Sixth Ennead. Probably they are no more than “suggestions”, but I think it is worth proposing them as clues that may lead you or Schwyzer or some of your pupils to a better solution. I am re-reading now with pleasure and profit some of your basic accounts of Plotinus (“Architecture” and “Cambridge History”).381 Best wishes. Yours sincerely, Jesús Igal PLOTINUS ENN. VI: TWO NEW SUGGESTIONS VI 2, 22, 24-25: sed fortasse locus nondum sanatus (H.-S. apparatus). Both 26 (ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐνέργεια ἐξ αὐτοῦ) and the next sentence (26-28, notice γὰρ) make me think that Plotinus has in mind his well-known doctrine of the διττὴ ἐνέργεια (V 4, 2, 27-30). Rutten, who has well brought out the importance of this doctrine in the thought of Plotinus, makes no reference to this particular passage (Revue Philosophique, 146, 1956, 100-106)382. Bearing this in mind I have been led to suspect that 24-25 μέρη ἐνεργείᾳ is a corruption from μέρη ἐνέργειαι, and that 25 ὄντος is the right but misplaced correction of 25 ὄντες: 23-25 … καίπερ τὰ πάντα ἔχων καὶ ὁ πᾶς (scil. ὤν), καὶ οἱ αὐτοῦ μέρη ἐνέργειαι [ὄντος] αὐτοῦ ὄντος μέρος (μέρους Kirchhoff is unnecessary: μέρος = nominatiuus pro genetiuo, cf. III 7, 3, 23; VI 9, 2, 46 and Simplicius In Phys. 231, 5, the Moderatus passage: οὔσης σκίασμα). The text is thus put in harmony with the context: ᾗ ἐνέργειαι αὐτοῦ / 26 ὡς ἐνέργεια ἐξ αὐτοῦ, μέρη … αὐτοῦ ὄντος μέρος / 25-26 μέρος μέρους383. VI 5, 8, 28-33: 28-30: Εἰ οὖν τὸ ἓν ἐκεῖνο πῦρ ᾗ ἰδέα ἐν πᾶσι θεωρεῖται παρέχον εἰκόνα ἑαυτοῦ, καὶ τόπῳ χωρὶς ὂν [οὐ] παρέξει κτλ . (οὐ καὶ τόπῳ incipit apodosis), 29 dropped by haplography, then misplaced. The meaning of ᾗ ἰδέα (ἐστὶν = qua Idea est, i.e. by acting as a transcendent Idea as opposed to the immanent form i.e. as opposed to 381 

See Armstrong (1940) and (1967) in Armstrong’s bibliography. Christian Rutten (1956). “La doctrine des deux actes dans la philosophie de Plotin”. Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Etranger. 146, 100-106. 383  Igal’s footnote, handwritten: “In support of ἐνέργειαι comp. VI 6, 15, 13-14: Ἐν δὲ τῷ νῷ, καθόσον νοῦς, ὡς μὲν μέρη, οἱ νοῖ πάντες … with ibid 16: ὡς δὲ ἐν νῷ, ὅσα νοῦ ἐνέργειαι”. 382 

294

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

a radiated image descending upon matter) can be gathered from 8, 22-26 (notice 28 οὖν). If then the intelligible Fire is seen to produce its own image by acting as a transcendent Idea, it follows at once (apodosis) that it does not produce it by being locally separated (i.e. from the Idea of Fire) as the visible radiated image is locally separated from its source. 30-33: Read and punctuate 31-32 … εἰ πᾶν αὐτὸ πολλά μὴ ἑαυτοῦ κτλ . μὴ is necessary in view of 8,15-16, which implies that the radiation theory is bound up with the notion that the Idea is separated but in place. Tentative translation of 30-33: “For otherwise that one Fire would already be somehow (identical with) this whole sensible fire, if indeed that whole Fire were to be itself a multiplicity by having itself generated places out of itself while the Idea itself of itself did not remain unplaced”. On the opponent’s theory the intelligible Fire would be assimilated to a radiation sent forth from the Idea of Fire and descending upon matter as the immanent form of sensible fire; it would then become identical in a sense (που) with sensible fire, i.e. not with its matter, but with its immanent form.

10 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Bilbao, March 8, 1978 Dear Prof. Armstrong, I have lately begun to revise my own translation of the fourth Ennead and have in fact revised it up to IV 4, 6. In the course of this revision I have been taking down some notes the most important of which are (unless I am mistaken) the following: IV 1, 17. The reference in such a context to the soul’s vision is puzzling. I suggest ὅρα ὡς, which entails no real departure from the MSS, taking 17 τούτῳ τῷ μέρει with ἐλθοῦσα: “But notice that having come down here with this part (= the lower part), it is by this very part that the soul preserves the nature of her whole”. This should be read in the light of IV 3, 19, 30-34. The higher part is solely “indivisible” whereas the lower is, like the whole soul, both indivisible and divisible. IV 3, 4, 23. MSS ἐπιστροφὴν τὰ τῇδε seems to be supported by 12, 12 τὰ τῇδε ἐπιστρεφομένη. IV 3, 11, 23. Read and punctuate: … ἐφ’ ἑαυτοῦ, οὐ τόποις, καὶ … (καὶ = “and so”, consecutive: because in itself, not in place, it can be with, while being separate). IV 3, 13, 15. I am now inclined to think that these “efflorescentiae in cute” are the growth of hair and feather on the skin (for hair cf. LSJ ἐπανθέω). IV 3, 13, 26-27: Better than H.-S.’s emendation, read ἐν αὐτοῖς χρησαμένοις. Cp. 28-29 ὑπ’ αὐτῶν τῶν ἐχόντων. Simple haplography. IV 3, 18, 16. διαλέγοντα misprint for διαλέγονται.

Letters

295

IV 3, 19, 22. There should be no doubt that the subject of παραλαμβάνει is Plato, not the body, or if not Plato, then the Demiurge. Probably the latter, for the reference is no doubt to Tim. 41 d-e: creation of the divine part of man’s soul, which is prior to the fashioning of the body, out of the same ingredients as the World’s Soul, viz. indivisible essence + divisible essence. Now Plotinus identifies the “indivisible” with Plato’s λογιστικόν and with Aristotle’s rational soul (IV 9, 3, 10-12); the “divisible” he identifies with Aristotle’s sensitive soul and vegetative soul (ib. 12-15; cp. III 4, 6, 39-40), whereas Plato’s spirited and appetitive part is a later accretion, identical with the “other species of soul” of Tim. 69 c 7, produced out of the vegetative soul (III 6, 4, 33-34, which explains IV 3, 19, 23-24: ἔκ τινος τῶν παραληφθέντων). IV 3, 23, 24. Fontes. The omission of Plato Tim. 44 d ss. by H.-S., app. fontium is striking; cp. ib. 70 a 6 ἐκ τῆς ἀκροπόλεως with Plot. IV 3, 23, 2 ἐν ἄκροις. IV 3, 24, 9. ποθεῖν misprint for παθεῖν. IV 3, 25, 12. Probably οὔτε τοῖς ἐν ἀχρόνῳ. Cp. VI 1, 16, 26 and the twin expression ἐν ἀτόπῳ. IV 3, 25, 29-33. A difficult passage. Both 31 ἡκούσῃ as “dativ. commodi” + τὸ ἐνεργεῖν as “accus. respectus” are strange and forceful. I suggest therefore to read and punctuate as follows: 29 ἀλλ’ ἐπειδὴ ἐνταῦθα ἔστιν ἔχειν … ἡκούσῃ, τὸ δὲ ἐνεργεῖν κτλ. (alternatively τό γε ἐνεργεῖν, but δὲ in apodosi is not unlikely): “But since it is possible here, and mainly for a soul that has come here, to have them and yet not act according to them, hence it seems that the ancients have attributed to the souls that have actualized what they have such an accomplished actualization as a memory and recollection”. For ἔστιν (= “it is possible”) with dative + infinitive cp. IV 4, 5, 6-8. I take τὸ ἐνεργεῖν as object accusative and μνήμην καὶ ἀνάμνησιν as predicate accusative. Remove – (H.-S.) at 31. IV 3, 27, 7-8. I take 7 τοῦτο as proleptic of 8 ἡμᾶς. IV 4, 1, 36-38. A timid suggestion for a “locum nondum sanatus” on the hypothesis of a line lost by homoeoteleuton: 36 ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἄλλοις (scil. οὔσῃ), γινομένων ἤδη γὰρ κτλ . “But if the soul’s power is in the other things (intent on things other than the intelligible), then, since a multiplicity arises (viz. in those things), not all the acts of that power are co-existing, for then the object (cp. 2, 5-6) is already of such a kind that (the soul’s power) cannot, if it is one, receive the nature of the multiplicity present in the object, a multiplicity which did not exist before”. (Broken English). IV 4, 3, 7-8: There can hardly be any doubt that the text and punctuation should be as follows: ἡ δὲ φαντασίᾳ αὐτή, οὐ τῷ ἔχειν, ἀλλ’ οἷα ὁρᾷ καὶ οἷα διάκειται (ἡ δὲ = pronominal, “the soul”): “Now she is what she is by virtue of the imagination, not by having it, but in accordance with the kind of things she sees and the kind of disposition she has”. 5-8 is virtually a syllogism: Remembering = Imagining. Imagining = Being. Therefore Remembering = Being. ἡ δὲ introduces the minor premise. No

296

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

reason for emending οἷα διάκειται, for Plotinus is anticipating the distinction of two kinds of memory (cf. 4, 9-10 and 12-13). Best wishes and happy Easter vacation. Yours sincerely, Jesús Igal

11 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Bilbao, March 15, 1978 Dear Prof. Armstrong, Since I have to stop revising my translation until April, I send you notice of a few more notes on IV 4: IV 4, 9, 18: οὐχ ὅτι εἰς τὸ πᾶν has been misunderstood by all except Bréhier: “bien qu’elle s’étende à tout”. Cf. LSJ ὅτι V 1: οὐχ ὅτι = “although” (= “not but that”) when not followed by a second clause. In these cases οὐχ ὅτι = οὐ λέγω ὅτι = I do not mention (though I could mention) that. The point of Plotinus is that the activity is one even though it is directed to the universe, which is multiple (10, 21-22). IV 4, 11, 24: καὶ ταύτην καθόλου εἶναι, οἷον κόσμου (scil. οὔσαν), φρόνησιν κτλ .: “eamque universalem esse, utpote quae mundi est, sapientiam stabilem etc.”. Two points: 1º καθόλου here is predicate, virtually an adjective. Cf. Arist. Met. 1003a5-17 (passim). 2º οἷον κόσμου οὔσαν = ἅτε κόσμου οὔσαν. LSJ οἷος V 3. IV 4, 12, 26-27: Fontes. Cf. Plato, Meno 97d-98a. IV 4, 13, 19: καὶ τὸ φαινόμενον ἀεὶ σύνεσις νοούσης = καὶ σύνεσις νοούσης τὸ φαινόμενον ἀεὶ: “and an understanding by the soul’s intellect of what is ever represented to her”. IV 4, 15, 3-4: Probably an haplography: … φαμεν τῇ ὑποστάσει: “For we say we get time in existence in the activity of the soul and as a result of that activity”. IV 4, 16, 2-4: κἂν εἰ = “even if”. This rules out Beutler-Theiler’s “und wenn sie selber die Dinge in der Zeit schafft”. Henry-Schwyzer’s “subiectum τὰ ποιούμενα” (= “even if the products are in time”, or “even if it is the products that are in time”) is unsatisfactory. I suggest: …τῶν ποιουμένων, κἂν εἰ ἐν χρόνῳ αὐτὴ ποιεῖ κτλ . = “But if there arises in the soul this after this and the before and the after of the products, even if the soul does not itself create them in time, nonetheless she will turn and turn towards the future” (for the syntax cp. Plato Resp. 473a2-3, Prot. 328a8; 353d4-5). For a similar restriction cf. 15, 9-10. The point of the object seems to be that even if the soul’s creative act is not itself in time, the soul must be somehow

Letters

297

or other involved in time, i.e. intentionally, by the presence in her mind of the before and the after. This point is developed more fully in the next objection (11ff.): even if soul is not in time qua creator, she must be involved in time qua supervisor of the accomplishment of the ordering imposed by her creative act. IV 4, 17, 2-3. Perhaps, MSS ἐν χρόνοις τὸ ὕστερον is a corruption from ἐν χρόνῳ εἰς τὸ ὕστερον; Καὶ αἱ ζητήσεις ὡδί (= οὕτως = ἐν χρόνῳ εἰς τὸ ὕστερον). In the individual souls the thoughts and reasonings are in time turned to the future. And her searchings too are. IV 4, 17, 9-10: ἄλλου (= objective, not possessive) ἄλλῳ does not go with καινὰς, but with φαντασίας εἶναι. Since there are many rulers, there arise many adventitious and new representations of one thing in one (of those many) and of another in another. These representations are new for the soul, hence ἐμποδίους (19 πάντη ἀγομένη). IV 4, 17, 12: τούτου = τοῦ κινήματος (11 κινηθῇ) = 13 τοῦ πάθους. IV 4, 17, 29. As a matter of fact Theiler’s emendation is unnecessary. Henry-Schwyzer, apparatus of ed. maior gives the right interpretation. IV 4, 17, 34-35. Fontes. This simile is reminiscent of Plato, Tim. 70a-b. IV 4, 22, 37: ἀρκεῖ γὰρ ἡ τοῦ φρονεῖν (scil. χρεία, supplied from the next clause) [ἴσως γνῶσις], οἷς κτλ. For χρεία (= “advantage”) with genitive cf. Plato Gorg. 480a1-2, Resp. 371e4. It follows that ἴσως γνῶσις is a marginal tentative (cf. ἴσως) interpretation of ἡ τοῦ φρονεῖν by some one who wondered what was the noun to be supplied. With all my best wishes, yours sincerely, Jesús Igal

12 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Bilbao, 22 March, 1978 Dear Prof. Armstrong, I have in fact gone on for a week, and here are the results of my (rather hasty) revision of IV 4, 24-45: IV 4, 24, 17: πανταχῇ ἑαυτοῦ = “ubique sui”. IV 4, 25, 7: αἰσθήσει misprint for αἰσθήσεις. IV 4, 25, 14-15: 14 κατὰ συμβεβηκός (scil. ἐστίν), 15 εἰ δὲ … δι’ ἄμφω (scil. κατὰ συμβεβηκός ἐστιν) κτλ .: “If it should happen that they should, incidentally, turn themselves towards us, then…”. IV 4, 26, 18: ἀλλ’ ἤ (MSS ἄλλοις ἤ) at the beginning of the sentence is strange. I am then inclined to follow Theiler in reading ἄλλως ἤ, yet with a different punctuation and interpretation: … καὶ τῶν γευστῶν ἄλλως; Ἢ κτλ . 18 ἄλλως = μάτην (cf. LSJ and cp. 33, 22, and for the idea cp. 25, 8ff.). Thus understood it is opposed to 19 πρὸς ζῴων πρόνοιαν κτλ. 18 Ἢ = “immo”).

298

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

IV 4, 26, 23-27: A very difficult passage. It cannot be right that 25-26 ὄντος πνεύματος = ὄντος πνεύματος τοῦ φυτικοῦ, nor that 26-27 εἴπερ πνεῦμα = εἴπερ πνεῦμα τὸ φυτικόν, for this would amount to introducing matter into soul. Cilento’s text, on the other hand, renders the syntax very awkward. I suggest therefore taking 24 ἦν as a marginal misplaced correction of 24 ἢ: [ἦν] συγχωρεῖν ἦν, ἐν πνεύματι κτλ.: “concedere erat” rather than “concedendum erat”. At 25 keep MSS text. 25-26 ὄντος πνεύματος = ὄντος πνεύματος τῆς γῆς, 26-27 εἴπερ πνεῦμα = εἴπερ πνεῦμα ἡ γῆ, 25 οὕτως ἔχειν = τὴν γῆν οὕτως ἔχειν τὸ φυτικόν (οὕτως = proleptic of ὄντος πνεύματος): The reasoning is (1) the vegetative power is present in the earth, (2) the vegetative power is present primarily in a vital breath, (3) therefore the earth is a vital breath, (4) therefore the earth is transparent. Strictly (3) does not follow, but only that there must be plenty of vital breath in the earth (for ὄντος πνεύματος cf. Schwyzer384 RE 21, 518, 53ff). IV 4, 27, 15: Probably … ψυχὴν καὶ νοῦν. Γῆν δὴ κτλ ., in agreement with 30, 19 (minuscule γ after ν was easily dropped). IV 4, 28, 8-9: τὸ ἴχνος τὸ ψυχικόν preadicatum, pro subiecto 9 ὁ θυμός, 9 ἕν τι = ἕν τι, ἀλλ’ οὐ δύο as in the case of appetite, cf. 20, 20-21. The answer is given at 28, 47ff. IV 4, 28, 21: Surely αὐτὸ τὸ ὀργίζεσθαι go together. The contrast is between anger itself and a trace of anger. IV 4, 28, 32-33: It looks (on second thoughts) as if we ought to come round, after all, to the MSS πρὸς τὰς κράσεις οὐδενὸς ἄλλου, ἀλλὰ κτλ., taking οὐδενὸς ἄλλου as genitive of cause depending on ὀργάς: Beasts grow angry, in consequence of their temperament, not at anything else, but against what appears to be harmful. For ὀργή with such a genitive cf. LSJ II 3 b, with examples particularly Lysias 12, 20 μεγάλων ἀδικημάτων ὀργὴν ἔχοντες and Xenophon Hell. III 5, 5. For πρός cf. LSJ C I 4 + C III 2). IV 4, 28, 44: Probably κἂν μὴ περὶ κτλ . IV 4, 28, 58-59: Probably … κἂν ἀλόγῳ ἀπαθείᾳ: “even if by and unreasonable lack of gall”. The reference may be to the vicious extreme named by Aristotle ἀοργησία (EN 1108a8). IV 4, 34, 22: Misprint: γον for γοῦν. IV 4, 35, 9: ἑαυτῷ, ἐξανάγκης looks like a misprint for ἑαυτῷ ἐξανάγκης. IV 4, 36, 7-8: Punctuate … καὶ πολὺ μᾶλλον – μᾶλλον δὲ ἴχνος ταῦτα ἐκείνων – ἐν τῷ παντὶ, ἀδιήγητον δὲ κτλ. IV 4, 38, 1-2: 38, 1 Ἅτε οὖν ἐξ αὐτοῦ (scil. ὄντα, subiectum 37, 22 ζῷα). If so, keep MSS text at 38, 2: γίνεται. Καὶ ὅλως ὅσα ἐξ αὐτοῦ ὅσα τε κτλ . IV 4, 41, 11-15: Second thoughts: … λωβησόμενα, οἷον (scil. λωβᾶται, supplied from 9) εἰ πῦρ τις ἐκ πυρὸς λαβὼν ἔβλαψεν ἄλλον, ὁ μηχανησάμενος μὴ ἐλθεῖν (scil. τὸ πῦρ) ᾗ ὁ λαβὼν ἐκεῖνος ποιεῖ (scil. ἐλθεῖν) τῷ δεδωκέναι … εἰς ἄλλο, καὶ (scil. οἷον λωβᾶται) τὸ ἐληλυθὸς κτλ.

384 

See Schwyzer (1951) in Schwyzer’s bibliography.

Letters

299

On this interpretation 11 οἷον goes with 12 ὁ μηχανησάμενος, who is a person different from ὁ λαβών (11-12 εἰ … ἄλλον being an incidental clause). There are two persons: (A) the holder of the first fire, (B) the man who kindles his fire from the former’s fire. The former had planned that the fire should not go where the latter makes it in fact go. Thus (A) is innocent, though in a sense he too, like the fire itself, may be said to have caused harm, viz. by lending fire to the other man, just like the fire causes harm by the subject being incapable of receiving fire. This interpretation has the advantage that it relies on a single slight emendation of the text (see “Appendix on 4, 41, 10-11”). IV 4, 45, 34: Perhaps we ought to emend the text of z385 into κατὰ συνθέσεις (scil. αὐτῶν): “in accordance with their (microcosmic) constitutions”, i.e. in contrast with the heavenly macrocosmic bodies as described in the next lines. Cf. the general principle stated at 45, 4-5. From March 27 to April 2 I shall be absent from Bilbao. Best wishes and happy Easter vacation. Yours sincerely, Jesús Igal APPENDIX ON IV 4, 41, 10-11 It is worth attempting a comparison between the illustration of 10-11 (the spirited faculty) and 11-15 (the fire), for I think that the two are parallel, that they cast light on one another and that both illustrate the same fundamental idea of harm caused praeter intentionem naturae by “inversion of natural order”, or to use Plato’s words, by unnatural misplacement (Tim. 82a2-4: παρὰ φύσιν … τῆς χώρας μετάστασις ἐξ οἰκείας ἐπ’ ἀλλοτρίαν): (1) The spirited faculty: Its natural organ is blood of a certain quality (IV 3, 23, 42-43), and its natural seat is the heart (ibid. 43-45). It is true that blood and bile (accordingly heart and liver) are presented as alternatives throughout IV 4, 28, but IV 4, 41, 10-11 seems to make it clear that the liver is regarded by Plotinus as the unnatural seat of the spirited faculty (the liver is the natural seat of the appetitive faculty: IV 3, 23, 35-42). Actually at IV 4, 28, 73-74 only the heart is mentioned. Accordingly IV 4, 41, 10-11 εἰς ἥπατος φύσιν = ἐκ τῆς καρδίας εἰς ἥπατος φύσιν. On the other hand, the spirited faculty is an outgrowth of the vegetative one (IV 4, 28, 66 ff.), a sort of “trace” of the vegetative power. This leads us to the main points of parallelism between the two illustrations. (2) The parallelism: (a) The first fire is parallel to the vegetative faculty; the second fire (derived from the first) corresponds with the spirited faculty which is a “trace” of the vegetative one. 385  Familia z: Q Marcianus Gr. 242, L Ambrosianus Gr. 667, and G Vindobonensis philosophicus Gr. 102.

300

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

(b) The first man, who planned that the fire should not go to the wrong place, is comparable with soul or nature (= the bearer of the vegetative faculty just as the first man is the bearer of the first fire). (c) The second man who makes the fire go to the wrong place is comparable with bile, which draws the spirited faculty to the wrong place. (d) The wrong place of fire corresponds with the liver. As to the harm caused by such a misplacement, Theiler thinks of jaundice; but Plotinus might have in mind Plato, Tim. 85c2ff: mixture of bile with pure blood as source of a great disease. It seems then that a careful comparison between the two illustrations supports my reading and interpretation of IV 4, 41, 11-15.

13 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Bilbao, April 5, 1978 Dear Prof. Armstrong, Here is my last list of new notes on the fourth Ennead: IV 4, 7, 1. Misprint. Read τὸν θεὸν. IV 6, 1, 37. In support of καὶ δύο cf. further V 5, 11, 4. IV 7, 1, 22-25. I find H.-S.’s interpretation of this passage unconvincing and unnecessarily complicated. Actually 22-23 τὸ δὲ κυριώτατον καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ ἄνθρωπος = 24-25 ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτός. τὸ κυριώτατον (= ἡ ψυχὴ) = subject, αὐτὸς ὁ ἄνθρωπος (= 25 αὐτός) predicate. What follows (23-24) states the reason for the above statement. Punctuate εἴπερ τοῦτο (τὸ κυριώτατον) κατὰ κτλ .: “since this most important part (= the soul) plays the role of form with regard to the body as matter (first hypothesis) or that of the user with regard to (the body as) instrument (second hypothesis)”. I do not think that “pro materia nempe corpore” is right. Rather “pro corpore materia” = “pro corpore tanquam materia”. (It is ὕλην without article that is in appositione ad τὸ σῶμα rather than the reverse). The authority for the first hypothesis are those passages of Aristotle where the latter identifies soul, or form with essence. Cf. besides the passages mentioned by H.-S. app. fontium, Arist. De anima B 1, 412b10 ff.; 4, 415b8-15; Arist., Met. Z 17 (particularly 1041a20-b9, with reference to man). IV 7, 2, 4. Misprint. Read εἰς ὅ τι. IV 7, 5, 51. Misprint. Punctuate ἄρα ἡ ψυχὴ κτλ . IV 7, 6, 10. Misprint. Read εἰς τὸ κτλ . IV 7, 85, 42-43. A difficult passage. H.-S.’s “sicut animalis corpus non generabit animam” is again unconvincing (What does “sicut” mean here?). Punctuate: ἀλλ’ οὖσα, πρὶν καὶ τοῦδε γενέσθαι, οἷον κτλ. (οἷον = τοιοῦτον, οἷον): “…of such a kind that it is not the body that will generate it as the soul of a living being”. οἷον = object

Letters

301

accusative, τὴν ψυχὴν = predicate accusative of effect (comp. the copulative use of φῦναι at V 8, 4, 21), ζῴου depends on τὴν ψυχὴν. In support of this interpretation cf. 46 ποία τίς ἐστιν; Misprints in the fifth Ennead: V 1, 9, 9; V 4, 1, 7; V 8, 3, 8; 9, 1; 10, 29. Unfortunately, in spite of what is said in the Praefatio, I could not take part in the correction of proofs,386 much against the will of Schwyzer. Best wishes. Yours sincerely, Jesús Igal P.s. During my absence I had a good time in the trains working out these notes and doing some “misprint hunting”. Before posting this letter, I have just received [the] offprint of your Dionysius387 paper. Thank you very much. I recommended long ago the Review to the Librarian of this University. ON IV 5-6

5/3/78388 IV 5, 4, 3-4. Read … τὸ φῶς οὐκ ἂν ἀέρος ἄνευ γένοιτο. Cp. 4, 9-10 and 6,1. IV 5, 4, 20. Punctuate … εἶναι, τὸ διεῖργον εἰ ἀφαιρεθείη τοῦτο, ὄψεται· κτλ . IV 5, 4, 29-30. Probably Brinkmann’s rule: τὸ δὲ εἰς τὸ πάσχειν ἡ καὶ ὁπωσοῦν [ἡ ὄψις], διὰ τί κτλ. IV 5, 8, 25. The text as in Henry-Schwyzer is hardly intelligible (What does ἢ μέντοι mean?). It seems better to take 23-26 as an objection, remove the question-mark at 25 and read and punctuate as follows: 25-26 … ἀντιλήψεται, ᾗ μέντοι τὰ ἀντιληπτὰ ἔσται, οὐχ ᾗ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ › ᾗ κτλ . Cp.  26-27: … τὰ ἀντιληπτὰ οὕτως ἀντιληπτὰ κτλ. IV 5, 8, 28. Haplography: εἰ τὸ ποιοῦν ἐκεῖ η ψυχὴ πάντη ἑτέρα. IV 6, 1, 37: καὶ δύο is certainly right, “just two”, “actually two”. Cf. Denniston pp. 316-320, particularly p. 320 initio and example from Homer. IV 6, 3, 37-38. The MSS text is probably right. Cf. LSJ τις A II 10, a. Addenda: IV 3, 18, 14-16. Henry-Schwyzer’s punctuation is unsatisfactory. Punctuate as follows: ἐν μὲν τῷ νοητῷ οὔσας καὶ πάμπαν· σώματα δ› ἐχούσας ἐν οὐρανῷ ὅσα μὲν κτλ. 386  Igal inserts a handwritten note at this point: “Through lack of time. Page himself had to be content with a very hasty revision”. 387  See Armstrong’s (1977) bibliography. 388  This letter does not mention any of three “Notes” that follow it; they have been included here because by early 1978 Igal was working on the notes and revision of his translation of the fourth Ennead, so that they probably were written or sent to Armstrong by this time. This note “On IV 5-6” is the only one of them that is dated.

302

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

καὶ πάμπαν = καὶ πάμπαν ἐν μὲν τῷ νοητῷ οὔσας = ἄνευ σώματος. Cf. IV 5, 1, 5-6: ἄνευ μὲν γὰρ σώματος πάντη ἐν τῷ νοητῷ τὴν ψυχὴν εἶναι. (What is implied is

that it is possible for the soul to be in the intelligible even here, while in body, but not wholly). That πάμπαν = ἄνευ σώματος is supported by what follows: σώματα δ’ ἐχούσας κτλ. 16 ἐκεῖ οὐκ ἂν εἴη (scil. διαλέγονται, supplied from 16 διαλέγονται). 16 ἐκεῖ = ἐν οὐρανῷ, 16 ἐνταῦθα = in the sublunary world. TEXTUAL NOTES ON PLOTINUS

Enn. IV IV 3, 3, 18-19: … πάσας μέντοι εἰδῶν ἰέναι εἰς εἶδος πάντα δυνάμενον μορφοῦσθαι “omnes tamen (scil. perceptiones) ire formarum in formam, in omnia conformabilem”389. At the time I proposed and tried to support this interpretation (Mnemosyne 1969 pp. 366-8390), I took it for granted it would be accepted by every one who cared to consider my reasons. It had come to my mind as self-evident at first glance and at first reading. Now I am puzzled to see that H.-S. III 384, far from accepting it, have relegated it among the “commendationes reiciendae”. Is it that the word-order is unsatisfactory? It still remains a mystery to me why they label it as “reiciendae”. IV 6, 1, 19-21: I am inclined to emend this difficult passage on these lines: 1º I take οὐδέ τῳ as a corruption from οὐδέπω “necdum”, answered by ἤδη (21) “iam”. 2º I take 20-21 βλεπούσης as a mechanical error (repeated from 18) and 20 λαμβανούσης as a correct, though misplaced, marginal correction of the former. 3º The text thus emended I punctuate as follows: 18-21 καὶ πρὸς τὸ ἔξω τῆς ψυχῆς βλεπούσης – ἅτε μηδενός, οἶμαι, τύπου ἐν αὐτῇ γενομένου ἢ γιγνομένου – οὐδέπω σφραγῖδα [ λαμβανούσης] ὥσπερ ἐν κηρῷ δακτυλίου λαμβανούσης. (ἅτε cum gen. abs. LSJ s.u. II). IV 7, 82, 13-14: I propose to read: διεληλυθὸς δὲ διὰ παντὸς τὸ ἐπεμβληθὲν ἐπ’ ἀεὶ σμικρότερον κτλ. “…ad particulas usque minutiores”. (Cf. MS ἐπεὶ)391. IV 7, 14, 9: That H.-S. III 396 should have preferred λυθήσεσθαι λέγεται, to my λυθήσεσθαι λεχθήσεται is again somewhat of a puzzle to me (paleographically my conjecture is better and, syntactically, the future is better fitted to refer to a possible objection and in keeping with the future 10 φήσομεν of the apodosis).392 IV 8, 7, 20-21: I suspect φύσεως τε ἀνάγκῃ καὶ νόμῳ κτλ . IV 3, 13, 15-17: On second thoughts I now think it would perhaps be simpler to leave out and confine ourselves to change the punctuation as follows: … καὶ 389  Handwritten on the left margin by Armstrong: “Theiler better here. What is the forma formarum?” 390  See Igal (1969) in the bibliography of this chapter. 391  Handwritten on the left margin by Armstrong: “Possible”. 392  Handwritten on the left margin by Armstrong: “Ask Schwyzer again. But I’m satisfied with H.-S.”.

Letters

303

ἐπανθήσεις πρότερον οὐκ οὔσας – καὶ περὶ τὰς τῶν δένδρων διοικήσεις – ἐν προθεσμίαις τακταῖς γιγνομένων: “all these – growing of barb and so on – taking place at fixed times”. Comp. in support of this interpretation 13-14 ἐν χρόνῳ ἕκαστον κτλ.393 A NOTE ON PLOTINUS IV 4, 28, 32-33 Read 32 πρὸς τὰς ὁράσεις. I take πρός in both lines as = “in consequence of” (LSJ C III 2; the second πρός at the end of line 33 ed. maior is of course different). The plural ὁράσεις is of the same kind as the plural ὀργάς: an “intensive-iterative” plural (Schwyzer-Debrunner2 pp. 43-44; Lasso de la Vega, Sintaxis Griega I p. 249: “El plural de los nombres abstractos es un plural intensivo-iterativo, y por él se expresan matices de repetición, las distintas manifestaciones concretas (actos, palabras) de la noción enunciada por el abstracto singular”). ἄλλου, as often, is anticipatory (a wellknown idiom: cf. vgr. Adam’s note on Pl. Resp. 434a6 and 518d9-e2394): beasts are aroused to anger by the sight of nothing else, i.e. by the sight of nothing other than what I am about to mention, i.e. by the sight of nothing other than what appears to them to be harmful. This passage is placed in the middle of a tentative dialectical discussion about the genesis of anger: does anger arise from above (= from reason, intelligent perception, rational understanding) or from below (= temperament, instinctive awareness, bodily dispositions, physical painful impressions and so on)? On the one hand (28, 22-28) it would seem that rational understanding is required: 25-26 ὅθεν καὶ αἰσθήσεως δεῖ καὶ συνέσεώς τινος ἐν τῷ ὀργίζεσθαι. But on the other 28, 28-39) it would seem that rational factors play no part in the origin of anger. The solution (28, 39 ff.) is that there are two kinds of anger. And two different processes, one arising from above and the other from below. When Plotinus says that beasts are aroused to anger only by what is represented to them as harmful and not by the sight of anything else, he is suggesting two things: first that beasts do not (or not necessarily) become angry by what is really harmful to them, but only (through lack of understanding) by what appears harmful to them, and second that beasts, through lack of understanding (= σύνεσις), do not become indignant, by the sight of any action or situation, however unjust or offensive it might be in itself, unless it at the same time appears harmful to them (contrast the other kind of anger 28, 43-44 ἄνωθεν δὲ αὖ τὴν ψυχὴν τὴν λογισμῷ χρωμένην φανέντος ἀδικήματος), because the moral quality or the action they can see is hidden from them. My impression is that IV 3, 28, 13-16 lends some support to the above interpretation and conjecture. Notice that the analogy θυμοειδές/σκύλαξ, even though adapted by Plotinus to his own purpose and context, comes from Plato: cf. Resp. 375a2 compared with 375d10 ff. and 440d2-6 (the other passage too is reminiscent of Plato: 393  Handwritten on the left margin by Armstrong: “My own tentative suggestion in letter to Schwyzer written before receiving this”. 394  J. Adam (1899). The Republic of Plato. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (2nd edition edited by D. A. Rees, 1965).

304

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

comp. IV 4, 28, 45-46 with Plato Resp. 440b3, c8, 441a2-3, 442b7-8). In the Plotinian passage the shepherd stands for reason, the ὅρασις of the shepherd for intelligent perception, the dog for the spirited part of the soul, the smell and hearing of the dog stand for instinctive awareness. Thus the anger of the dog (= the spirited part) arises from two sources: from the shepherd’s vision (= intelligent perception, comp. 13 εἶδε τὸν ἀδικήσαντα, 14 ποιμένος ἰδόντος, with IV 4, 28, 44 φανέντος ἀδικήματος) and from below (= the dog’s instinctive awareness of the approaching danger). At first sight it would seem that the two passages, as interpreted by me, are at odds: contrast IV 3, 28, 15 αὐτὸς οὐκ ἰδὼν ὄμμασιν with IV 4, 28, 32 πρὸς τὰς ὁράσεις. But in fact the two passages are agreed because in the latter passage ὅρασις stands for the vision of the eyes: αἴσθησις without σύνεσις, whereas in the analogy passage ὅρασις stands for intelligent perception (αἴσθησις καὶ σύνεσις). This is why in the analogy passage only the shepherd is depicted as “seeing”, because only the shepherd has “understanding”. But with or without σύνεσις, ὅρασις is a chief factor in the origin of anger. The Platonic colour of both passages seems to have escaped the notice of Henry-Schwyzer.

14 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Bilbao, June 10, 1980 Dear Prof. Armstrong, I send you herewith enclosed the first draft of a short essay I have written on a passage that has worried me for long: III 2, 16, 12-28. Before I rewrite it in its final article form, I should like to know your authoritative opinion on my interpretation, whether you think it may be submitted for publication after possible minor corrections or whether it is substantially wrong and ought to be rejected. You may take as much time as you like; I am not in a hurry to see it published and it is unlikely I will come back to it until September or October at the soonest. I should like to hear something from you, whether you still continue to cross over the seas, how is your Loeb edition coming on, and so on. I was very glad to hear of the celebration of your 70th birthday in Oxford last year. I am now working on the general introduction to my translation; this will appear in three volumes in the “Biblioteca Clásica Gredos”, Madrid (the first volume not likely to appear before 1982). Kind greetings and best wishes. Yours sincerely,395 Jesús Igal 395 

Handwritten by Igal at the bottom of the page: “I sent a copy of my essay to Schwyzer”.

Letters

305

15 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Bilbao, June 11, 1980 Dear Prof. Armstrong, I am aware that the sketchy essay I sent you yesterday is incomplete in many ways, especially n. 10. But there are two points that I am particularly sorry to have omitted: (1) One about the meaning of “logos”. Leaving aside many other non-relevant meanings, I wish to emphasize that whereas Plotinus has three different words for three different aspects of Noûs on the level of the second Hypostasis, νοῦς, νόησις, νοητόν, one single word “logos” can stand for the Soul’s Intellect, Intellection and Intelligible Object. (2) A second point about Dr. Blumenthal’s Rome paper396 (referred to by you in your JHS paper397 in honour of Dodds p. 18) on the blurring of the distinction between Intellect and Soul, a thesis that seems to have become or to be becoming fashionable among Plotinian scholars. I must say I have not been convinced by his arguments. In my opinion Plotinus draws a clear-cut distinction between the two: (a) The Intellect of the second Hypostasis is νοῦς θεωρητικός, the Soul’s Intellect is νοῦς τεχνικός (see my essay), (b) the object of the Intellect’s vision is Itself, i.e. the Forms; the object of the Soul’s vision are not the Forms, but the “Logoi”, which are not Forms but copies of Forms (III 5, 9,1-5; V 9, 3, 35-36 ἐγγὺς μὲν ἀληθείας, ἃ δίδωσι ψυχῇ). Or to put it in a more careful way: the Intellect’s gaze is directed to the One, but it never sees the One as the One is; what it sees are its own Forms; similarly, the Soul’s gaze is directed to the Forms (or Intellect), but it never sees the Forms as the Forms are in themselves, it never sees the Intellect as the Intellect is in itself (I leave aside the problem of mystical experience in man’s soul). I have yet to find a text where Plotinus says that the Soul sees the Forms in Intellect as they are. What the Soul sees are actually “logoi”, derived from, but different from, the Forms. And this is also the case of man’s νοῦς καθαρός apart from the rare moments of mystical experience. The fact that the Soul’s intellect as well as man’s pure intellect is intuitive, not discursive, does not imply that their contents are the Forms and not “logoi” derived from Forms. Or if I am mistaken I should like to be shown a text where Plotinus says unambiguously that the World Soul has direct access to the world of Forms.398 396 

See above Blumenthal (1974). Armstrong (1973). 398  Typewritten footnote by Igal: “The reason for both (a) and (b), viz. that the Intellect of Soul is νοῦς τεχνικός and that its intelligibles are “logoi”, not Forms, is at bottom the same: that the Soul’s Intellect is neither unmixed nor self-subsisting”. 397 

306

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

These are the two points I think I ought not to have omitted in my essay. Wishing you a happy and peaceful summer holiday, Yours sincerely, Jesús Igal PLOTINUS ON THE GENESIS AND NATURE OF THE PRIMARY LOGOS (III 2, 16, 12 ff.) 1. Two preliminary remarks. By “primary Logos” I mean the Logos of the higher Soul of the World, identified with higher Providence in this treatise, symbolized by Poros in III 5 and opposed to the lower Logos of Physis and the still lower Logoi of the inanimate world. The main difference between this and the earlier account at the beginning of this treatise (2, 15-18) consists in that the Soul, which had been left in the shadow in the first part, is made to play a prominent role in the second. 2. Outline of the whole section (16, 12-28): A. Negative account (13-14): 1. Not unmixed Intellect 2. Nor self-subsisting Intellect 3. Nor yet the Logos of a Soul pure by nature B. Positive account (14-28): 1. Birth (14-16): a. It depends on Soul b. A sort of irradiation of both (Intellect and Soul) c. The offspring of Intellect and a Soul conformed to Intellect 2. Nature (17-28): a. A mixture of Life and Logos (?) b. An activity of Life: – a movement that is not random – an informing activity – an artistic activity like that of the dancer 3. Not unmixed Intellect nor self-subsisting Intellect. Plotinus is suggesting not that it is not any kind of Intellect, but that it is an Intellect of a different kind (30 νοῦς τις), neither unmixed nor self-subsisting: not unmixed because it is Intellect blended with psychic Life (17 compared with 30), nor self-subsisting because it is in fact the Soul’s Intellect, Intellect immanent in Soul. Let us take the second first: (a) The primary Logos is identical with the Soul’s Intellect. That Logos does not subsist in itself but in Soul is clear from such passages as III 5, 9, 20-21 (οὐκέτι

Letters

307

αὐτοῦ ὤν, ἀλλ’ ἐν ἄλλῳ); cp. ibid. 6-7; 10-11 etc., and above all V 8, 3, 6-9. That it is the

Intellect immanent in Soul, can be shown by the following considerations: 1º The primary Logos is said to be the intrinsic principle of the Soul’s intellection (II 9, 1, 57-63). 2º The rise of both Intellect and Logos in Soul conforms to one and the same pattern (cp. the three Intellects pattern of Alexander of Aphrodisias’ interpretation of Aristotle De An. III 5: Plotinus read this pattern into Plato Tim. 30 b 1-4; cf. IV 8, 1, 41-50; V 9, 3, 20-27). According to this pattern three factors are seen coming into play in both cases: (1) a transcending Intellect, acting on (2) Soul as matter, implants in it (3) an immanent Form. Thus at V 9, 3, 24-35 (1) the transcending Intellect or Demiurge is the “Maker” of Intellect in Soul, (2) Soul plays the role of matter and (3) the implanted Intellect is its Form (cp. 4, 12 ἔμμορφος). In like manner, the transcending and self-subsisting Intellect is the “Maker” of the primary Logos, the beautifying Form which he imposes on Soul as “psychic matter” (V 8, 3, 6-8). Again the still “undefined” and “shapeless” Soul (i.e. Soul as matter) is capable of presenting itself to Intellect and Logos so as to be shaped by them and brought to a better Form (II 4, 3, 1-5). The same pattern is implicit in III 5, 9, 1-23. 3º According to a second variety of the same pattern based on the analogy of sight, (1) Soul qua matter is a potential Intellect which needs be brought to (2) actual intellection by (3) Intellect, the object of its vision (III 9, 5). Compare the rise of Logos in the world Soul at V 1, 3, 16-17: ὅ τε ἐνεργείᾳ λόγος νοῦ αὐτῇ ὁρωμένου. ὅταν γὰρ ἐνίδῃ εἰς νοῦν, ἔνδοθεν ἔχει καὶ οἰκεῖα ἃ νοεῖ καὶ ἐνεργεῖ. Notice the three following points: (a) the world Soul’s νοήματα (= ἃ νοεῖ καὶ ἐνεργεῖ) must be identical with the λογισμοί of line 13 (and these again with the “logoi” of VI 2, 5, 13: we shall come back to these later), (b) ὁ ἐνεργείᾳ λόγος is therefore identical with 13 ὁ νοῦς αὐτης (as a matter of fact the whole passage is reminiscent of V 9, 3-4), (c) ὁ ἐνεργείᾳ λόγος compared with 23 ἡ νοῦ ὕλη, implies that Soul as matter (the psychic matter of V 8, 3) is a potential Logos. (The same pattern implicit in II 3, 18, 9-10; 15-16; 19-21). The same pattern in the genesis of Intellect and Soul (V 2, 1, 9-20). My conclusion is that when Plotinus speaks of the rise of Logos or the rise of Intellect in Soul he is speaking of one and the same thing. (b) The primary Logos is not “unmixed Intellect” but a mixture of Intellect and psychic Life. Logos is the common offspring of Intellect and Soul (15-16), the Intellect acting as Maker and Father and the Soul as Matter and Mother. It is then only natural that Logos should partake in the nature of both its parents (Compare Eros III 5, 7, 1-25). Soul as matter means Soul qua Soul. This explains such paradoxical statements as that Soul, even as matter, is beautiful and simple on one hand (V 1, 3, 23), and that it is born “unshaped” and “imperfect”, on the other (V 1, 7, 40-42, V 9, 4, 8-12) according to the general principle laid down at III 4, 1, 8-10). The reason of the former is that soul qua Soul is a simple substance (IV 7, 11, 1-9), an οὐσία παρ’ αὑτῆς ζῶσα (10-11), μία φύσις ἐνεργείᾳ ζῶσα (18). The reason of the latter is that Soul

308

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

qua Soul is a Form capable of receiving a “better Form” (II 4, 3, 5); Soul as matter is νοοειδής (V 1, 3, 23), that is πεφυκυῖα νοεῖν (III 9, 5). Soul as Soul is then a mixture of Form and indeterminacy: ἀοριστία ἐν εἴδει (III 4, 1, 12-13). Notice that Plotinus, in his summary account of the origin of Logos at III 2, 16, 28-30, substitutes 29 ζωῆς for 15 ψυχῆς, psychic Life, 30 νοῦς τις for 17 λόγον τινά. Being the Son of Intellect and Soul, Logos partakes in the intellective nature of his Father as well as in the psychic nature of his Mother. The conclusion is that Logos is not “unmixed Intellect”, but a blending of Intellect and psychic Life, which is but an image of the Intellect’s Life. 4.399 Nor yet the Logos (or the Intellect?) of a Soul pure by nature. My translation makes it clear that I take 14 ψυχῆς as genitivus poss., καθαρᾶς as predicate, and κατὰ γένος with ψυχῆς καθαρᾶς, not with Logos, as accus. resp. (κατὰ γένος = γένει = φύσει, cf. des Places, Lexique de Platon,400 γένος 1º ad finem). The syntax is somewhat clumsy, but the meaning seems to be clear. The point is not that Logos is not pure Soul, but rather that it is the Logos of a Soul that is pure not by nature, but by virtue of a subsequent “disposition” (16 κατὰ νοῦν διακειμένης), a sort of “second nature” supervening on the Soul as a result of its conversion to, and vision of, Intellect, according to the general principle laid down at III 4, 1, 8-10) (καθαρᾶς = νοερᾶς = ἐνεργείᾳ νοούσης). In the case of Soul, the two stages (ὑπόστασις + τελείωσις) are carefully distinguished by Plotinus (V 1, 3; V 9, 4) Notice V 1, 3, 15-16 ἥ τε οὖν ὑπόστασις … ὅ τε ἐνεργείᾳ λόγος. Cp. III 5, 9, 30-31 παρὰ νοῦ ὑποστᾶσα καὶ αὖ λόγων πληρωθεῖσα, a new proof that ὁ ἐν ψυχῇ λόγος = ὁ ἐν ψυχῇ νοῦς (both are seen arising in the Soul as a result of its τελείωσις). For καθαρά = νοερά + χωριστή (= separated from body) cf. III 5, 2; II 3, 9, 31-47; V 1, 10, 21-23. That Soul qua Soul is not intellective, and consequently not “pure” in this sense, is clear from e.g. V 6, 4, 16: ψυχὴ μὲν γὰρ ἐπακτὸν νοῦν ἔχει (καθαρά then in the metaphysical, not moral, sense, i.e. καθαρά = χωριστή = transcending the body). 5. Yet depending on Soul (14-15). Soul being the Mother and substrate of Logos, the latter depends on it for its birth and its continued existence. Plotinus is availing himself, I think, of the principle laid down by Plato that no Intellect (that is no Intellect except for the Demiurge himself) can come to exist in anything apart from Soul (Tim. 30 b 3; cp. Plotinus IV 8, 1, 45-46). The same principle is applied by Plotinus to the “seminal reasons” or lower logoi (VI 7, 5, 6): οὔτε γὰρ ἄνευ ψυχῆς οὔτε ψυχαὶ ἁπλῶς (ψυχαὶ ἁπλῶς = “souls qua souls”, for soul as such is not yet logos, but substrate or matter with respect to the logoi). Cp. ibid. 3-5 ὄντος τοῦ λόγου οἷον ἐνεργείας τοιᾶσδε, τῆς δὲ ἐνεργείας μὴ δυναμένης ἄνευ τοῦ ἐνεργοῦντος εἶναι. 399  There are two handwritten question marks and an indecipherable comment on the left margin by Armstrong. 400  Paris: Belles Lettres, 1964.

Letters

309

6.401 An irradiation of both (15), or better “a sort of irradiation”. The nature of Logos’ dependence on Soul is now explained in this and the next clause. The word ἔκλαμψις is a metaphor standing for ὅρασις,402 the actual vision of Intellect by Soul or the formal element constitutive of the immanent Logos or Intellect in Soul (supra, 3º, second variety of the above mentioned pattern). This explains why ἐξ ἀμφοῖν, Soul acting as subject and Intellect as object of vision. Cp. V 8, 3, 4-6 and VI 7, 17, 36-42. In III 2, 16, however, in contrast to the other two, the Soul is not reduced to a merely passive receiver of the light from above (the same passive role is apparent in III 5, 9), but here the Soul is made to play an active part in the constitution of Logos. Cp. the genesis of Intellect (V 4, 2, 5-7; V 3, 11; III 8, 11, 1-8). 7.403 The offspring of Intellect and Soul, that is Soul disposed according to Intellect. Cp. the generation of Eros from Poros and Penia and that of the Number-Forms ἐκ τῆς ἀορίστου δυάδος καὶ τοῦ ἑνός (V 4, 2, 7-8; cp. V 1, 5, 15-16). Similarly here Logos is the common offspring of Soul as Matter and Mother and Intellect as Maker and Father. But again, as in the preceding clause, the active role played by Soul is emphasized by the addition of καὶ ψυχῆς κατὰ νοῦν διακειμένης. a reference to ἐπιστροφή as the mediating factor between ὑπόστασις and τελείωσις (III 4, 1, 8-10). The above account shows that Bréhier’s statement (t. III Notice p. 21) that “le logos est non pas immédiatement émané de l’Intelligence” is mistaken: Logos is, we have seen, the immediate and simultaneous product of both Intellect and Soul. Bréhier goes on to say two lines after that “Il est donc subordonné à l’âme”. This is perhaps ambiguous: it is subordinated to Soul in the sense of “depending” on Soul for its existence, but not in the sense of “inferior” to Soul: Logos is the informing principle of Soul and related to it as Form to matter404. Rist too (Road405 p. 102) seems to have missed the real nature of Logos when he says that “Whatever logos may mean to other ancient thinkers, it means to Plotinus that aspect of Soul which by transmitting the creative Forms creates, maintains and orders the visible world”. But if the Soul is to be a transmitter of “Forms”, it must needs first be its receiver (II 3, 17, 14 δεῖ τοίνυν καὶ αὐτὴν παρὰ νοῦ ἔχουσαν διδόναι). In other words, Logos is not merely a transmitter of Forms; it is itself a Form, the very Form of the Soul, identical with the Soul’s Intellect (Rist’s use of the “undescended soul” formula is for the rest

401 

There is a handwritten question mark on the left margin by Armstrong concerning this sec-

402 

Handwritten on the left margin by Armstrong: “No”. There is a handwritten question mark on the left margin by Armstrong concerning this sec-

tion.

403 

tion.

404  Handwritten on the left margin by Armstrong: “The logos here is only in lower soul. The immanent artistic life which is the order of the universe. Too [indecipherable] separation here”. There is also a question mark. 405  John M. Rist (1967). Plotinus: the Road to Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

310

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

inadequate in this context not about man’s soul, but about the World Soul). For the active role of Soul cp. VI 2, 5, 14 (δύναμις = “creative power”). 8. Logos is Life quietly containing a Logos (16-17). Here we are faced with a difficult textual problem. It is unlikely, even if not impossible, that the logical flaw of including the definiendum in the definition is due to Plotinus. More probably this is one of those mechanical repetitions of the same word occurring time and again in the manuscripts through oversight of the copyist. Nor is it likely that Plotinus is giving the same word two different meanings in the same context. The use of the indefinite pronoun in the second case adds to the difficulty. The primary Logos cannot be a certain Logos or a particular Logos, as if it were a member of the genus “Logos” or a secondary ring, not the primary one, in the hierarchical chain of downgrading Logoi. I suggest therefore that Plotinus wrote νοῦν τινα (cp. 30 νοῦς τις): “a certain Intellect”, neither unmixed nor self-subsisting, mixed with and soaked in psychic Life in keeping with its dual origin. Cp. ἡ δὲ τοῦ κόσμου ζωὴ τὸ ἡγούμενον ἐν αὐτῇ ἔχουσα, where τὸ ἡγούμενον = τὸν νοῦν (cf. I 2, 1, 7-9; II 3, 17, 7-8).406 9. Logos as activity of Life (17-28). The composite nature of Logos that has been just proclaimed in the preceding definition becomes now materialized in a set of features portraying it successively as (a) a movement that is not random, (b) informing activity and (c) artistic activity. We need not deal separately with each of these characteristics which present no difficulty and concur with each other as well as with the art analogies (dancer and dramatist passim; general at III 3, 2) in conveying the idea that Logos is thought of by Plotinus as νοῦς τεχνικός (the reference to fire at 18 may well be a stricture on the πῦρ τεχνικόν of the Stoics). The Soul’s Intellect (= the primary Logos) cannot be a purely contemplative Intellect like the second Hypostasis, for “thought alone moves nothing” (Aristotle EN 1139 a 35-6); it is Soul qua Soul that is the principle of movement and life (IV 7, 9, 6-9). But, on the other hand, the movement started by Soul would be random, neither informing nor artistic, were it not that every life and Soul, even the lowest, being endowed with Logos, is a sort of νόησις at different levels (III 8, 8, 12-24; cp. IV 3, 10, 38-9 ζῶσα οὖν ἐν λόγῳ λόγον δίδωσι τῷ σώματι Logos is then νοῦς τεχνικός by combining in itself νοῦς + ζωή.407 10. The primary Logos as νοῦς τεχνικός. Let us now try to round off our portrait of the primary Logos by setting it against the background of the three δημιουργοί distinguished at II 3, 18, 8-22. How are these three Makers related with each other? 406  Handwritten by Armstrong on the left margin: “Not accepted. P[lotinus] can perfectly well use logos in different senses in some contexts; e.g. III. 8, 3, 3-4”. 407  Handwritten by Armstrong on the left margin: “But all action is the secondary [?], spontaneous result of contemplation; III 8, 9 [indecipherable], notably early ch. of VI 7”.

Letters

311

a) Intellect and Soul. The Intellect or second Hypostasis is the “primary Maker” (II 3, 18, 14-18) or Demiurge tout court (V 1, 8, 5) in two ways: (1) as being a sort of νομοθέτης πρῶτος, μᾶλλον δὲ νόμος αὐτὸς τοῦ εἶναι (V 9, 5, 28-29), and the primary archetype of the sense world (III 2, 1, 23-26 etc.); (2) and as being the Maker of the primary Logos; hence ἐξ ἑνὸς νοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ λόγου ἀνέστη τόδε τὸ πᾶν (III 2, 2, 23-24). Yet the transcendent Intellect is a purely contemplative one: its βούλησις, which is identical with its νόησις, is perpetually turned towards the Good (VI 8, 6, 36-41; III 8, 11, 23-24; V 3, 11, 1-15). In contrast to it the Soul’s Intellect may well be described with the Aristotelian formula ὀρεκτικὸς νοῦς (EN 1139 b 4) even more truly than Aristotle’s practical intellect, for whereas Aristotle regards intellect and desire as two different faculties (cf. Alex. Aphrod. Suppl. II 1, Bruns 74), in Plotinus the Soul’s “will to create” is identical with its “creative wisdom” (IV 4, 12, 43-48). We are not to imagine (as we might be tempted to, misled by such passages as IV 7, 13, 1-8; IV 8, 3, 21-30; III 7, 11, 15-17) that the Soul’s ὄρεξις, ὁρμή, σπουδή is something added up later to a higher purely contemplative level. Rather the Soul’s creative impulse is but a logical aspect of its Intellect, which is Logos (IV 7, 13, 4-5 προσλάβῃ, προσθήκῃ, IV 8, 3, 23 προσλαβοῦσα should be taken in the logical sense of addition of specific difference = διαφορά, cf. V 5, 13, 10; 23-24; 30; cp. πρόσθεσις in Aristotle; cf. also Plotinus I 8, 5, 16-17.408 In Plotinus there is no trace of there being in the world Soul anything higher than the Logos symbolized by Poros. True, the Soul’s life is described as a contemplative one (III 5, 3, 3-8). But what does the higher Soul reap from such a contemplation of Intellect? The answer is Logoi. Cf. II 3, 18, 8-13. III 5, 9, 17-18 is quite explicit: κομίζεται δὲ τὸ ὑποβεβηκὸς νοῦ λόγον. 19-20 ὁ δὲ λόγος νοῦ γέννημα καὶ ὑπόστασις μετὰ νοῦν. This leads us to the λογισμοί of V 1, 3, 13: καὶ ἐν λογισμοῖς ὁ νοῦς αὐτῆς. I have already that these are suggested identical with the “Logoi” of VI 2, 5, 12-14, the Soul itself being a κεφάλαιον τῶν λόγων (= Πόρος: III 5, 9, 34 οἱ δὲ ἐν αὐτῇ λόγοι πάντες εὐπορία καὶ Πόρος, cp. IV 4, 16, 5-6 πάντες οἱ λόγοι ἅμα). What I am suggesting is that λογισμός does not at V 1, 3, 13 have its usual meaning of “reasoning”, for there is no such reasoning in the world Soul (most fully and explicitly in IV 4, 12), but its unusual one of an “activity” as well as “permanent disposition” derived from Intellect (for this meaning cf. IV 3, 18, 10-12; cp. οἷον ἔμφασιν with III 5, 9, 15-16 οἱ λόγοι ὁ Πόρος … ἐν ἐκφάνσει ἤδη).409 In man’s soul λογισμός in this unusual sense must be identical with the νοῦς described at I 1, 8, 1-2 as ἕξιν τῶν παρὰ τοῦ νοῦ (= ἕξιν τῶν παρὰ τοῦ νοῦ λόγον), and this again with ὁ νοῦς ὁ λογίζεσθαι παρέχων at V 1, 10, 13 (cp. 11, 3 ἑστώς, 6-7 ἀεὶ ἔχοντα τὸ δίκαιον νοῦν ἐν ἡμῖν εἶναι. In the world Soul 408  There are two question marks on the left margin by Armstrong, who also writes: “But III 8, 11, 23-24 νοῦς is ἐφιέμενος or ὀρεκτικός. Everything is, except the One” and “What do you mean by later?”. 409  Handwritten by Armstrong on the left margin: “No: I think it means ‘reasoning’. Hypostasis Soul and our experience of being soul are closely related in this treatise”.

312

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

such a λογισμός which is a permanent activity and disposition derived from above (from Intellect) must be identical the τάξις (= ἡ πρώτη τάξις IV 4, 16, 14-15) of IV 4, 10, 11-14, described as (1) an activity immanent in the world Soul, (2) an image of a higher and permanent wisdom, (3) and itself permanent (cp. III 2, 16, 16 κατὰ νοῦν διακειμένης). In sum, λογισμός = the “world plan” in Soul (12, 33-34). b) Higher Soul and Lower Soul (= Physis).410 A good starting point is provided by Aristotle’s distinction of two stages in artistic activity: planning (νόησις) and production (ποίησις): Met. 1032b15-17. But in Aristotle both are processes: “planning” is a reasoning process (ibid. 6-10); “production” or “making”: Phys. 201b5-15. In Plotinus we may say, on broad lines, that the first stage is assigned to the higher Soul or primary Logos whereas the second is devolved upon the lower Soul (= Physis) or lower Logos, but neither is a process proper. On the other hand, both are two-sided, partly noetic, partly creative. The higher Soul acts by way of command (IV 8, 2, 27-28 κελεύσει κοσμοῦντος ἀπράγμονι ἐπιστασίᾳ βασιλικῇ, but such a command is identical with the commander (IV 4, 16, 11-20) and this again with the “primary order”, which is not a process, as we have seen, but a permanent disposition in the world Soul, identical in fact with the Soul’s “wisdom”. We may then describe the Soul’s creative wisdom as φρόνησις ἐπιτακτική (Aristotle EN 1143a8-10) and the Logoi sent forth into the lower Soul as “injunctions” (II 3, 17, 15-17 ψυχὴ δὲ παρ’ αὐτῆς ἡ μετὰ νοῦν τῇ μετ’ αὐτὴν …, ἡ δὲ ὡσπερεὶ ἐπιταχθεῖσα ἤδη ποιεῖ). In other words, the higher Soul creates τῷ τρέπειν τὴν ἔνυλον … ψυχήν, whereas the latter is itself τρεπτικὴ τῆς ὕλης (II 3, 17, 4-9), τὸ ἔσχατον αὐτῆς πρὸς τὸ κάτω τὸ ποιοῦν τοῦτο εἶναι (18, 12-13). On the other hand, the lower Soul’s “making” is itself two-sided: θεωρία + ποίησις, not two different activities of the same process, but two different sides of the same activity (III 8, 3, 20-23). There seems to be a Platonic background for this profound and original conception: the description of the wisdom of higher Soul as “commanding” seems to be based on Plato’s definition of “royal art” as γνῶσις ἐπιτακτική (Pol. 259-260), whereas the distinction between higher Soul as “commander” and the lower as “maker” may well be based on a remark in the same dialogue and context (259e8-11).

16 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Bilbao, August 18, 1980 Dear Prof. Armstrong, I must thank you very sincerely for your letter (August 7) and your many criticisms on my views, for however negative they may have been, the severe punches you have hammered on my head have at least made me realize that I have either to abandon 410 

Armstrong adds a check mark to this section.

Letters

313

some or most of them (the most probable course) or make a great effort to prop them up. It will take me some time to decide for I am about to leave Bilbao for a short holiday and then, when I’m back, I foresee I’ll be faced with a very urgent task. In the meantime, while I take time to digest your criticisms, I shall make some straightforward comments on your letter, praying you to take them as provisional (I should not bother you any more with these problems were it not for the wish you express towards the end of your letter: “I shall be greatly interested to hear further from you about this”). (A) The Logos problem. After reading your letter and the pertinent section of a French book written by an Argentinian lady, a pupil of Hadot (María Isabel Santa Cruz de Prunes, La Genèse du Monde Sensible dans la Philosophie de Plotin,411 pp. 77-88: by the way, she seems to be unaware you have abandoned your old view on the logos of III 2-3), I am much inclined to agree with you on the interpretation of III 2, 16 (“This logos in this passage is only in the lower soul”), taking τὸ γένος (= κατὰ γένος) with λόγος, not ψυχῆς καθαρᾶς. For the meaning of “pure soul” and its logos, cf. III 3, 5, 16-20 (referred to by Theiler). I have the impression, however, that no one has yet translated III 2, 16, 14 accurately. I venture: “… nor again is by race (= by birth = by nature) the logos of pure soul”; probably τὸ γένος is an anticipation of 16 γεννησάντων, in which case the meaning is that, being the offspring of Intellect and pure Soul, it cannot be the logos of pure Soul, it must be a lower logos. The Argentinian lady even goes as far as to say (p. 88) that “le logos, au sens strict, est l’âme inférieure” (yet Plotinus makes much of his distinction of higher and lower logos). I was led (or misled) to take 15 ἔκλαμψις as a metaphor for ὅρασις (= νόησις) by Plato’s famous passage (Ep. VII 344b7): ἐξέλαμψε φρόνησις … καὶ νοῦς, coupled with my conviction that the higher logos is identical with the Soul’s intellect (you make no comments on this) and Plotinus’ V 1, 3, 16 (the actual logos arises when the Intellect is seen by Soul which when coupled with III 9, 5 implies that logos is ὅρασις (= νόησις). There still remain some doubts in my mind arising from: (a) III 2, 16, 26-30, implying that this logos is a mixture of Life and Intellect (the negatives οὔτε … οὔτε fall upon μία + εἷς, not upon ζωὴ + νοῦς τις; (b) and from the fact that this logos seems to be the same that is later likened to a poet, a general (all this suggests Intellect) and the “great Leader” (III 3, 2, 13-14), ὁ μέγας ἡγεμών, reminds me at once of IV 4, 10, 4 τὸ ἡγεμονοῦν τοῦ παντός, certainly the higher World Soul with its wonderful wisdom in contrast to the “physis” of IV 4, 13.412 (B) The problem of the “blurring” of Intellect and highest Soul. Here I may have reacted too strongly against the blurring theory partly by my conviction that such theory does away with the doctrine of V 6, a central one in the system of Plotinus, partly by the fact that at least some of the texts and arguments advanced in favour of 411 

412 

Paris: PUF, 1979. Handwritten footnote by Igal: “Your remark on III 8, 3, 13-14 (Loeb) is quite convincing”.

314

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

the blurring have failed to convince me. Of the texts listed by you in your letter, V 3, 4, VI 4, 14, 17-22 and VI 2, 14, 12-34 seem to me doubtful; VI 7, 36 is strictly mystical and VI 5, 7, if taken at its face value, seems to be in flat contradiction with, e.g., I 2, 4, 20-29 (possibly I 1, 8, 1-8 as well as the doctrine of Αὐτοσωκράτης, which I do not deny, shows the way to reconciliation). As to III 4, 3, 21-27, let me say that in spite of Proclus and so many outstanding scholars, I feel bound to suggest that I see nothing here or in its parallel passage (6, 21-23 in the same treatise) compelling us to make Plotinus say that each of us is an intelligible universe in the sense of the World of Forms. In the first place, notice (a) that Plotinus does not use the article, he does not say καὶ ἐσμὲν ἕκαστος ὁ κόσμος νοητός; (b) that κόσμος may mean no more than “orderly system”, “orderly disposition” (cp. 6, 23 διάθεσιν); (c) and that νοητός (opp. αἰσθητός) may mean no more than “transcendent”. The point of Plotinus is, I think, that each of us is “an orderly system of transcending powers” (= the soul’s powers, higher and lower) and in this sense “an intelligible (= transcendent) universe”, so that this is explanatory of the preceding 21-22 ἔστι γὰρ καὶ πολλὰ ἡ ψυχὴ καὶ πάντα κτλ. In the second place, notice that 24-25 τῷ δὲ ἐσχάτῳ αὐτοῦ shows that even the lower powers of soul, “its ultimate fringe” in your translation, form part of that “intelligible universe”. In sum, “intelligible universe” here is not = “the World of Forms” (the case of IV 7, 10, 35 is different but should probably be understood in the light of I 1, 8, 1-8 + I 2, 4, 25-29). I agree there is a certain telescoping of hypostases in VI 4-5 as well as in IV. 7, 9-10, but the reason for it is, I think, that it serves the purpose of those treatises to lay emphasis on what the Soul has in common with Intellect: both are οὐσίαι, both are ἀμέριστοι and both are “one-and-many”. Yet even when the soul is in the intelligible, ἔχει φύσιν μερίζεσθαι (IV 1, 8-9), which implies a real difference in nature even at that level. My general attitude to Plotinus here as elsewhere is one of great cautiousness. For instance I do not yet know how to reconcile III 7, 11-12 with IV 4, 10-17, nor the doctrine of division in space as extrinsic to soul with the doctrine of time (which implies division) as intrinsic to soul in III 7, 11-12. This may be due to my ignorance of Plotinus’ deep meaning. The fact is that I do not dare to say they are incompatible with each other. I turn now to consider some of Blumenthal’s arguments (Plotino e il Neoplatonismo413): p. 207 “These words (i.e. V 1, 3, 21-23) suggest significantly that in the last resort the difference between the two hypostases may be one of definition only”. But this is hardly credible. “Otherness” in Plotinus, as in Aristotle, λέγεται πολλαχῶς: there is the otherness of intelligible matter with regard to the first Principle (II 4, 5, 28 ff.), the otherness of sense matter with regard to being (II 4, 16, 1-4), the otherness between peers: between Form and Form (V 1, 4, 39-40) or between two seminal reasons (V 9, 6, 13-15), the otherness of the individual fallen soul with regard to universal Soul (V 1, 1, 4) and the otherness between one term and its next best, which are separated by mere otherness (i.e. there is no other term between them): such is the otherness between the 413 

Blumenthal (1974).

Letters

315

One and Intellect and that between the Intellect and Soul: V 1, 6, 49 ὅτι μετ’ αὐτὸν καὶ μεταξὺ οὐδέν, ὡς οὐδὲ ψυχῆς καὶ νοῦ, 53 ὡς τῇ ἑτερότητι μόνον κεχωρίσθαι (I forgot to mention the otherness between Intellect and Intelligibles: V 1, 4, 37-38). At V 1, 3, 21-23, by adding ὡς ἐφεξῆς μέντοι καὶ ὡς κτλ., Plotinus makes it quite clear he is thinking of an otherness of the last type (between one term and its next best) and if we put this and IV 7, 13, 1-6 (notice 4-5 ἐφεξῆς ἐκείνῳ τῷ νῷ ὄν) together, it becomes clear that the otherness consists in the addition (logical rather than physical) of ὄρεξις (the Soul’s intellect = νοῦς ὀρεκτικός). This explains IV 8, 3, 21-23. In my opinion it is a mistake to look upon νόησις and ὄρεξις in higher Soul as two different levels: rather they are two different aspects. – Blumenthal, p. 209 “if the hypostasis Soul lacks discursiveness there is nothing in its mode of apprehension which makes it any different from Nous”. But it does not follow that there is no difference in object: this is the real issue. Blumenthal, pp. 210-211 (on IV 3, 18, 10-12): “What this super-λογισμός could be is not at all clear”. I think it becomes clear, in man’s soul, in the light of V 1, 10, 12-13 + 11, 1-7, and, in the World Soul, in the light of IV 4, 10, 11-14. My impression is that much (I cannot yet say whether all) of what Blumenthal says shows only that Soul at its highest has much in common with Intellect. With this I agree, but I think that the blurring-theory would go farther. The distinction between “mystical” and non-mystical passages is, in my opinion, all important (not, however, between “mysticism” and “philosophy”, as you put it), because I do believe there is something in man’s soul (I am not sure whether it is in the World Soul too) whereby it is potentially identical not only with Nous, but also with the One. As a matter of fact the best definition I know of the mystical experience in Plotinus is that of Dodds414 (Class. Quart. 1928, p. 141, though I am not sure he still maintained it in his later years): “the momentary actualization of a potential identity between the Absolute in man and the Absolute outside man”. (I do not believe in the so-called “theistic” interpretation). To put an end to this rather long letter, I shall add some remarks on the text of VI 4-5. I do not remember having sent you or Schwyzer many textual notes on these two treatises and of these only two (to judge from the Lexicon Plotinianum) have been accepted by Henry-Schwyzer: VI 4, 2, 40 συνίοι (Lex. Plot. 975, 3) and VI 5, 7, 10 οἷον πρόσωπα [πολλὰ] εἰς τὸ ἔξω πολλά (Brinkmann’s rule: Lex. Plot. 914, 6-7). Another conjecture which seemed to me rather obvious (VI 5, 11, 13 ταύτῃ γὰρ αὖ ἑτέρᾳ μετρηθήσεται) has not been accepted by Henry-Schwyzer. They read now (Lex. Plot. 1094, 7) ταύτῃ γὰρ αὖ ἑτέρα μετρηθήσεται. I failed to convince Schwyzer on VI 5, 12, 5-6 οὐ γὰρ ἐκεῖ ὕλην (scil. ἔχει, cp. 10 οὐχ εὑρήσεις ἐκεῖ). On the difficult VI 4, 3, 15-16, I start now with Theiler’s text and interpretation. This is all I can remember. Add a note on the sources of VI 5, 8, 8-9: this comes, no doubt, from an interpretation, indeed a 414  E. R. Dodds (1928). “The Parmenides of Plato and the Origin of the Neoplatonic One”. Classical Quarterly, 22, 129-142.

316

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

misinterpretation, of Plato Tim. 51a7-b1 (perhaps through Aristotle, Phys. 209b11-13. Cf. Ross ad locum, p. 566, first four lines. Plotinus interprets Plato’s μεταλαμβάνον τοῦ νοητοῦ in the sense of 8, 1-2 τὴν τῆς ὕλης τῶν εἰδῶν μετάληψιν (cf. 9 τὸ τῆς μεταλήψεως λεγόμενον). But the really difficult passage is VI 5, 8, 28-35, on which I have changed my views several times. The last conjecture I sent to Schwyzer was, as far as I can remember, 32 μὴ ἑαυτοῦ, but I don’t think he was persuaded. I wonder if you have arrived at a definite conclusion. As to VI 5, 10, 44-45, I never proposed to read ὥστε διοίσει ᾗ γελοιοτέρα, which is possible though the preceding εἰ οὕτως ἕν, ὡς αὕτη makes me think that ὥστε διοίσει = ὥστε οὐχ οὕτως ἕν ἔσται, ὡς αὕτη. Schwyzer, as you may know well, has already sent the manuscript of vol. II to Oxford, but there is little hope that it will be published soon. For the last few weeks I have been furiously attracted by a problem usually somewhat neglected by Plotinian scholars: the oracle of Vita 22, and here, too, I am afraid I am beginning to toy with some “odd” ideas. My impression is that there is much Plato and even some Plotinus to be read between the lines, and this raises the problem of its authorship. I tend to think it was versified by Amelius, not however as a forgery, but with the approval and under the supervision of the Delphian priests (???). Best wishes. Yours sincerely, Jesús Igal

17 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Bilbao, August 19, 1980 Dear Prof. Armstrong, Before I leave Bilbao tomorrow morning (I’ll be back by the end of this month) I wish to state as precisely as I can what my position is with regard to the “blurring” problem. For it has come to my mind as an afterthought that possibly we are saying at bottom the same thing even if we do not speak the same language. I take as a starting point, I 1 (the last word of Plotinus on man). Notice that in this treatise (8, 1-2) he defines very neatly what he means by the intellect of man’s soul: it is an ἕξις τῶν παρὰ τοῦ νοῦ, therefore the permanent possession not of intelligible Forms, but of contents derived from the Intellect, viz. the logoi, copies of Forms, not Forms (III 5, 9, 1-8). On the other hand, this intellect so defined is the soul’s intellect at its highest; it is not the reasoning intellect, but the intuitive intellect (this is clear from V 1, 10, 12-13 + 11, 1-6; 11, 6 ἀεὶ ἔχοντα recalls I 1, 8, 2 ἕξιν.415 But although this intuitive intellect 415  Typewritten footnote by Igal: “We ought not to confuse two different things: (a) intuitive intellect and (b) intellect whose contents are Forms. In my opinion, the soul’s intellect at its highest is intuitive, but its contents are “logoi” of the Forms, not Forms”.

Letters

317

whose contents are “logoi”, not Forms, is the soul’s intellect at its highest, it is not the highest level of man’s soul. There are still two levels above this level in accordance with Plotinus’ early and late doctrine of the presence of the three Hypostases in man’s soul (early doctrine V 1, 10, 1-6; late doctrine: I 1, 8, 1-10). We possess the second Hypostasis in two ways (I 1, 8, 3-6) and we possess the Forms in two ways (ibid. 6-8). We possess the second Hypostasis not only as something κοινόν, but also as something ἴδιον. I take this to mean that there is a level in man’s soul forming parts of the structure of soul, akin to the second Hypostasis and beyond the soul’s intellect proper. Similarly there is a level in man’s soul forming part of the structure of soul and akin to the One (VI 9, 4, 28 συγγενεῖ, V 1, 11, 13 τῷ γὰρ τοιούτῳ τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν: this something akin to the One is the very “centre” of man’s soul (VI 9, 8, 19-20; 10, 17). Now the presence in man’s soul of a level akin to the second Hypostasis does not imply any blurring of the distinction between Intellect and Soul; the level akin to the second Hypostasis is part of the structure of soul but different from the level of the intellect of soul, whose contents are “logoi”, not Forms, in the same way as the presence of a lower level (sensitive and vegetative) in man’s sou1 does not imply any blurring of the distinction between higher and lower soul and in the same way as the presence of a level akin to the One (the soul’s centre) does not imply any blurring of the distinction between the One and the Soul. Now all these levels present in man’s soul and forming part of its structure are in fact powers of one and the same nature (II 9, 2, 6): the soul is a simple entity and there is no break, no discontinuity, within the soul; yet the levels are different from one another. I turn now to the distinction, to which I attach much importance, between “mystical” and “non-mystical” passages (not between “mysticism” and “philosophy”, for mysticism is part of the philosophy of Plotinus): it is owing to the presence in soul of the two highest levels (the level akin to the One and the level akin to Intellect) that the soul is potentially identical with the Intellect and even with the One, and the actualization of that potentiality (a momentary actualization) consists in what we call “mystical experience”, which, as you have shown very well, takes places on two levels. On a first level, the soul becomes actually identical with Intellect, it becomes the world of Forms; on a second level, it becomes identical with the One. I have no doubt that VI 7, 36, 10-27 describes the two stages of mystical experience; but it does not follow there is a blurring of the distinction between the Intellect and the Soul any more than between the One and the Soul. Let me add by the way that the linguistic arguments of Arnou and Rist in favour of the so-called theistic interpretation have been satisfactorily disposed of by Mamo416 (The Significance of Neoplatonism: I had arrived at the same conclusion long ago). Let me add 416  Plato Mamo (1976). “Is Plotinian Mysticism Monistic”. In R. B. Harris (ed.), The Significance of Neoplatonism. New York: SUNY Press, 1976, pp. 199-215. Igal is possibly referring to R. Arnou’s Le désir de Dieu dans la philosophie de Plotin (Paris: Alcan, 1921), 289-249, and J. M. Rist’s Plotinus. The Road to Reality, 226-227.

318

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

another argument not mentioned (as far as I remember) by Mamo: on the theistic interpretation, there is “union”, not “identification”; but if this is true, it means there is still a residuum of “otherness” in man’s soul barring it from identification; now Plotinus makes it quite clear that there is no otherness in the One and no otherness either in man’s soul during the mystical experience (VI 9, 8, 32-5); if there were a residuum of otherness, this would mean that the process of “simplification” had not yet been completed. Against Arnou and Rist, the analogy of two geometrical centres (not dots) points to the same conclusion: two centres are two indivisibles, there is no otherness between the two, so that when and so long as they coincide they are one and the same centre. (Mamo is probably right in rejecting the disjunction monism/theism). The distinction between World soul and man’s soul is also to the point, for I do not remember any “mystical” passage in connection with the World Soul nor any text asserting the presence in the World Soul of the two highest levels (the level akin to the One and the level akin to the Intellect) as forming part of the structure of the world soul. I wonder if I have succeeded in stating clearly my position (writing in a foreign language is always a handicap). I wonder if you have heard from Schwyzer of the agreement we reached about one year ago on the text and sources of IV 3, 23. The Lexicon Plotinianum has recorded two last-minute emendations of mine: IV 3, 25, 12 (οὔτε τοῖς ἐν ἀχρόνῳ) and IV 4, 33, 14 (καταπιεζομένου, making Theiler’s transposition unnecessary). At IV 4, 28, 32 I give up now my old ὁράσεις and stand by the MSS text making οὐδενὸς ἄλλου depend on τὰς ὀργὰς ἔχωσι, not on τὰς κράσεις. At IV 4, 22, 37 I strike out ἴσως γνῶσις as a stupid gloss taking ἡ τοῦ φρονεῖν = ἡ τοῦ φρονεῖν χρεία (anticipated ellipsis). At IV 8, 5, 16 ff. I follow Harder not Theiler. At IV 8, 2, 27 I read τὸ μὲν καθόλου. At IV 8, 4, 36 I read διαιρεῖ αὖ τὰ ἐκ τοῦ κτλ . At IV 5, 8, 29 I see an haplography: εἰ τὸ ποιοῦν ἐκεῖ η ψυχὴ πάντη ἑτέρα. Another haplography at IV 3, 13, 26-27 ἐν αὐτοῖς χρησαμένοις (Cp. 28-9 ὑπ’ αὐτῶν τῶν ἐχόντων). IV 4, 27, 15 … ψυχὴν καὶ νοῦν. Γῆν δὴ (Cp. 30, 19). At IV 4, 16, 2-3 I am inclined to read κἂν εἰ ἐν χρόνῳ αὐτὴ ποιεῖ. More questionable (in fact not accepted by Schwyzer: this does not mean he has accepted all my other conjectures; except the first two, on the others I do not know) is my new interpretation of the difficult IV 4, 41, 11-15.417 Best wishes. Sincerely yours, Jesús Igal

417  Handwritten by Armstrong at the top of the page: “When I received this I was thinking about an answer to your first which would have been on very much the same lines (different levels [indecipherable]…”.

Letters

319

18 TO A. H. ARMSTRONG Bilbao, February 28, 1983 Dear Prof. Armstrong, I received with gratefulness and pleasure your letter of Febr. 19 together with an offprint of “Two Views on Freedom”,418 published too late to be included in your Plotinian and Christian Studie.419 I appreciate very much the kind judgement you pass on my sketchy account of “El Uno-Bien”420 (I had to manage with a limited space for my introduction). I am glad to see you are at last finishing your translation of Plotinus, which is the best existing as far as it goes and has also been the most useful for my own translation even if occasionally, only occasionally, I might have departed from it. There is in fact a place where my translation must seem queer at first sight because I have departed from all translations known to me and from the obvious meaning of the Greek text: I 8, 6, 36-37, where I take ἢ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ εἴδει … ἢ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ γένει to mean “either in the same (subject) in species or in the same (subject) in genus”, for the reasons stated very succinctly in the corresponding note (p. 319, n. 29). I discover in your paper on VI 8, 7 the two qualities that are always present in all your writings: your wide learning (Greek Philosophy and Christian Thought) and a readiness to tackle with the most difficult problems of Plotinian philosophy. Coming to the central point of your article (leaving aside your many valuable suggestions), I must confess I find some difficulties in accepting your interpretation of the “over-bold logos” as paraphrased by you (pp. 401-2). Since this is so important for the understanding of VI 8, it will be as well to state briefly and honestly my arguments. Your paraphrase contains two parts: (a) “Your Good happens to be good…”, (b) “But the God in whom we believe…”. Now, to take the second first, my impression is that in his long discussion of the “over-bold logos” (chaps. 7-19) Plotinus is not concerned in the least with refuting the (b) point. This may seem strange in view of 21, 5-7 (the text quoted by you in your note 37); yet 21, 5-7 is not an answer to (b), but to a different ad hominem objection against the Plotinian doctrine of God’s self-creation (this hypothetical objection is stated at 21, 1 and has nothing to do with (b) of your paraphrase). If I have not misunderstood the structure of VI 8, the discussion of the “over-bold logos” ends with chap. 19, so that the τις of 20, 1 is no longer the holder of the τολμηρὸς λόγος, but a hypothetical ad hominem opponent. As for the point (a) in your paraphrase, it is difficult to see why this objection, which 418 

Armstrong (1982). Armstrong (1979). 420  Igal refers to his account of the One-Good in the introduction of his translation of the Enneads (1982). 419 

320

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

in your interpretation amounts to a sort of ad hominem argument, should be called by Plotinus a τολμηρὸς λόγος. It is understandable that he should call so the doctrine of a man who holds that “God is the product of chance”, but not the ad hominem objection of a man who argues “Your God is the product of chance”. The successive restatements of the “over-bold logos” (9, 1-6 and 10, 1) point in the direction of a man who believes not that “God does just what he likes” (point b of your paraphrase), but that he must act in accordance with what he happens to be. The concluding remarks (notice 19, 6 τολμήσειε, 8 τολμῶν) suggest too that the opponent’s boldness consists in believing that God is the product of chance. When I shall come to VI 8 in my translation I shall examine more carefully this problem. Meantime I am inclined to think that the “over-bold logos” is a doctrine diametrically opposed to the conclusion stated by Plotinus at 7, 6-11, viz. that the Good is above free will as the cause of free will. The “over-bold logos” holds that far from being above free will God himself is a product of chance. This explains Plotinus’ immediate reaction (7, 16-24): such a doctrine does away with free will and the opponent himself would seem to be a man unacquainted with the very notion of free will. This can hardly apply to Hippolytus and his followers. This is, briefly and in a friendly way, a statement of my present reaction to the central thesis of your paper. Since I remember having discussed with you the problem of IV 4, 28, 32-3421, it may be convenient to inform you that I have given up my old conjecture ὁράσεις (βράσεις still sounds to me as odd as ever). Now I keep the MSS text: “and since beasts become angry, in consequence of their temperaments, not at anything else, but against…”. I.e. I take οὐδενὸς ἄλλου to depend directly on τὰς ὀργὰς ἔχωσι. Cf. Lysias 12, 20 μεγάλων ἀδικημάτων ὀργὴν ἔχοντες, among other examples. For πρός “in consequence of” and then “against” see LSJ III 2 and C I 4. I am now beginning to get ready the second vol. of my translation. I know that Ferwerda too is preparing a translation into Dutch, so that the wishes of Amelius (Vita 17, 27-28) are being fulfilled more and more. An article of mine on the Oracle of Vita 22 will appear some time in Emerita.422 Yours truly,423 Jesús Igal

421 

Handwritten by Armstrong at the top of the page: “Look at IV 4, 28 when proofs come”. Igal (1984). 423  Handwritten by Igal at the bottom of the page: “P.S. Your address, as in your letter, is not coincident with that of your envelope. I send you therefore a [indecipherable]”. 422 

Textual Notes on the Enneads

321

6.3. Textual Notes on the Enneads Foreword Suzanne Stern-Gillet While every effort has been made to order chronologically and thematically the abundant material found in the Igal documents that A.H. Armstrong kept for future reference, his unsystematic archiving method inevitably resulted in gaps and loose sheets severed from what must have been their anchor in the correspondence. However unfortunate these gaps are, they do not detract from the value of Igal’s suggestions.

A Textual Notes on Ennead V V 1 7, 4-35 I have dealt at great length with this passage in my Emerita paper424 (Emerita 1971, pp. 129-157). I will mention a few points: 4-6:425 It is, I think, to be regretted that HS III p. 397 have sided with Harder, Hadot and others in taking τὸ ἕν as the subject of ἑώρα. This cannot be right, for: 1º The vision expressed by ἑώρα must be the same vision as that expressed by ἡ δὲ ὅρασις αὕτη νοῦς. Notice αὕτη. This theory makes Plotinus say that the self-vision of the One is identical with the Intellect. But this is nonsense in Plotinian philosophy. The Intellect would then be identical with the One, or else we ought to say that the self-vision of the One is different from the One, which again is nonsense in Plotinian philosophy. The One “sees” itself, as it were, as One. The Intellect sees the One not as One. 2º It is the common doctrine of Plotinus that the Intellect (that is νοῦς ἀτελής) becomes νοῦς τέλειος by seeing the One, though not as One. This is just the gist of the whole passage. Cf. V 3, 11 and within this same treatise 6, 47-48. It follows that the subject of ἑώρα is νοῦς (scil. νοῦς ἀτελής, to be supplied from 3 τὸ γενόμενον). The change of subject is not unprecedented in Plotinus or elsewhere in Greek prose writers, and in our case is to be explained, I should say, by the dialogue style of the passage. Ἀλλ’ οὐ νοῦς ἐκεῖνο. Πῶς οὖν νοῦν γεννᾷ; is the objection of an hypothetical opponent, to which Plotinus answers by taking up the same subject as in lines 14 (for a similar change of subject and similarly explainable on grounds of dialogue styles cf. V 3, 10, 5-6, where the One is the subject to ὁρᾷ + δεῖται in spite of the preceding νοῦς).

424  425 

Igal (1971). Handwritten by Armstrong on the left margin: “Generally agrees with my translation”.

322

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

(It does not follow that 6, 18 does not refer to the One. The context and subject matter is there quite different: it refers to the first genesis of the Intellect, not to its conversion to the One). 7-8: αἴσθησιν γραμμὴν καὶ τὰ ἄλλα. Textus sanus. The sentence is, of course, incomplete, yet left unfinished by Plotinus himself (not as a “Notiz”: Harder’s theory is groundless because Plotinus never reread his own writings, Vita 8, 1-4), because by saying καὶ τὰ ἄλλα = “et cetera”, he thought his readers (= his intimate pupils at that time, Vita 4, 14-16) would supply the four remaining terms of the well-known analogy he had explained to them in the immediately preceding treatise (VI 9, 8). The sense is: αἴσθησιν γραμμήν, νοῦν κύκλον, τὸ ἓν δὲ κέντρον ληπτέον. 8-9:426 Ἀλλ’ ὁ κύκλος τοιοῦτος οἷος μερίζεσθαι· τοῦτο δὲ οὐχ οὕτως. Here again we have the objection of an hypothetical opponent (dialogue style) trying to turn the geometrical analogy against Plotinus himself by pointing out that, although the circle is multipliable by nature, the centre (I take τοῦτο = τὸ ἓν δὲ κέντρον, the last of the six terms analogy) is not so, suggesting thereby that, although the Intellect is multipliable by nature, it will not in fact be multiplied owing to the absolute indivisibility of its object. To this objection Plotinus answers by pointing out that, although the One is absolutely indivisible in itself, yet it is the δύναμις πάντων at the same time, hence multipliable as the object of the Intellect. This is the gist of lines 9 ff. 9-10: Ἢ καὶ ἐνταῦθα ἓν μέν, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἓν δύναμις πάντων. This is the beginning of Plotinus’ answer. The sense is: “Yes indeed, even here (i.e not only in the case of the geometrical circle, but also in the case of the metaphorical one), the centre is one (= indivisible), yet (it is not any “one”, but) that One which is a universal power” (indivisible in itself, yet virtually a universe and seen as a universe by the Intellect, as Plotinus proceeds to explain 10-11). δύναμις πάντων is not predicate, but in appositione ad τὸ ἕν. The sense is not: “it is one, but the One is a universal power”, but “it is one, yet that One which is a universal power” at the same time. 11-17: I take the syntactical structure of these difficult lines to be as follows: Ἐπεὶ I) καὶ παρ’ αὐτοῦ ἔχει ἤδη οἷον συναίσθησιν τῆς δυνάμεως 1) ὅτι δύναται οὐσίαν – αὐτὸς γοῦν δι’ αὐτὸν καὶ ὁρίζει τὸ εἶναι αὐτῷ τῇ παρ’ ἐκείνου δυνάμει – 2) καὶ ὅτι οἷον μέρος ἕν τι τῶν ἐκείνου καὶ ἐξ ἐκείνου ἡ οὐσία II) καὶ ῥώννυται παρ’ ἐκείνου III) καὶ τελειοῦται εἰς οὐσίαν κτλ . The γοῦν clause in parenthesi (for which see Denniston2 p. 453) is the key to the understanding of the whole passage. The usual force of that particle is in that it produces a fact as a confirmation of a previous statement. Now the fact exhibited by the parenthetical clause is that the Intellect itself by itself (H.-S. II apparatus take δι’ αὐτὸν = “ob seipsum”, but this is wrong. It means “per se ipsum”) marks 426 

Handwritten by Armstrong on the left margin: “Doubtful”.

Textual Notes on the Enneads

323

off for itself its own being, of course, thanks to the power it receives from above). This amounts to saying that the Intellect begets its own essence, which is Plotinian doctrine (the Intellect is self-constitutive. Cf. 28-30). This gives us the clue we need for the solution of the difficult problem of the subject of both 13 δύναται and 12 ἔχει.427 The subject in both cases is no other than νοῦς = νοῦς ἀτελής = ἀτύπωτος ὄψις). The Intellect can beget its own essence thanks to the power received from the One. Moreover it is instinctively led to beget it, that is, to turn round to watch the One, by a sort of vague self-consciousness both of the power it has received to beget it and of the fact that the essence it will beget for itself is a sort of portion to be extracted from the One (comp. 11 οἷον σχιζομένη with 14 οἷον μέρος. σχιζομένη = participium medium “breaking them off for itself” from the One, because the essences it begets for itself are but “portions”, as it were, from the One. τῆς δυνάμεως 12 is proleptic of 13 ὅτι δύναται. οἷον συναίσθησιν does not necessarily argue that it refers to the One. It only means that it is not consciousness proper (which belongs to νοῦς τέλειος), but a sort of vague consciousness, an “instinctive awareness”, I should say, characteristic of the “Intellectus incoatus”, that is, of the Intellect in its state of ἀτύπωτος ὄψις (this instinctive awareness is also referred to at V 3, 11, 6-7, 8-9 and 11-12). The object of this self-consciousness is twofold: a) of its own power to produce its own essence, b) of the fact that it is from within the One that it will extract its own essence. Thanks to this self-awareness, the Intellect turns to the One (ἐπιστροπή), sees the One, thereby begetting its own essence and becoming one and many at the same time. Thus the problem raised at 5 πῶς οὖν νοῦν γεννᾷ; is solved and the full meaning of Plotinus’ answer becomes quite lucid: Ἢ ὅτι τῇ ἐπιστροφῇ πρὸς αὐτὸ ἑώρα· ἡ δὲ ὅρασις αὕτη νοῦς. 13: καὶ ὁρίζει. Here καί is climactic: the Intellect is even capable of marking off its own being for itself, and that by itself. Plotinus implies that the Intellect is “self-constitutive” (αὐθυπόστατος, as Proclus would say), acting by virtue of a power received from the One, but not as a mere blind instrument in the hands of the One. Now the γοῦν clause makes no sense on the hypothesis that the subject of both ἔχει and δύναται – or of either of them – is the One. It is true that the One has the power to beget the essence of the Intellect (in a sense different from the sense in which the Intellect is capable of begetting its own essence). Likewise it is true that the One possesses a sort of self-consciousness. But the fact that the Intellect is self-constitutive is no proof of that. Rather it is an indicium that leads us to believe that the Intellect possesses a sort of instinctive natural awareness by which it is instinctively led to ἐπιστροπή. In sum, self-constitutiveness implies self-awareness. V 3, 1, 21-22 ὁ δὲ νοῦς τούτων κτλ . The simplest way of putting this text aright is by changing ὁ into εἰ: εἰ δὲ νοῦς τούτων γνῶσιν ἔχει ἢ μή κτλ . The corruption of εἰ

427 

Handwritten by Armstrong on the left margin: “Probably right – change made in translation”.

324

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

into ὁ is easier to explain palaeographically than the loss of the former. νοῦς without article passim in the Enneads. V 3, 2, 23-25 At this stage of the treatise Plotinus is putting questions. He is not yet giving answers. The question whether the dianoetic faculty is self-reflective or not is dealt with in ch.4, having first dealt with the previous question πῶς τὴν σύνεσιν ἴσχει in ch.3. Moreover in ch. 4 he allows to the dianoetic faculty a sort of self-reflexion (see comments on 4, 1-10). Hence H.-S’s 24 καὶ αὐτό; Ἢ οὔ cannot stand and the punctuation should be altered as follows: … ἆρα ἐπιστρέφει ἐφ’ ἑαυτὸ καὶ αὐτό ἢ οὔ, ἀλλ’ ὧν δέχεται τύπων ἐφ’ ἑκάτερα τὴν σύνεσιν ἴσχει; Καὶ πῶς κτλ.428 The problem raised, but left open for the moment, is whether the dianoetic faculty is self-reflective or merely limits itself to understand what comes to it from both the Intellect above and the senses below. V 3, 3, 33-34 My reading of this passage is as follows: ἆρ’ οὖν καὶ διανοούμεθα οὕτως καὶ διὰ νοοῦμεν οὕτως; taking the second καί as explicatiuum and the whole sentence καὶ διὰ νοοῦμεν οὕτως as an etymological explanation of διανοούμεθα οὕτως. The emendation I propose is commended: 1º 6, 20-22: καὶ τῇ ὀνομασίᾳ ὑποσημαίνοντες νοῦν τινα αὐτὸ (= τὸ διανοητικόν) εἶναι ἢ διὰ νοῦ τὴν δύναμιν καὶ παρὰ νοῦ αὐτὸ ἴσχειν. From this passage it is clear that for Plotinus διανοεῖσθαι = διὰ νοῦ νοεῖν and this in turn suggests that at 3, 33-34 he is thinking of an etymological explanation. 2ºAgain the emendation I propose is suggested by parallelism with the preceding sentence, where the reading ought probably to be Καὶ γὰρ αἰσθανόμεθα δι’ αἰσθήσεως κἂν ἡμεῖς οἱ αἰσθανόμενοι. δι’ αἰσθήσεως is answered by (in my reading) by διὰ . 3º Parallelism with the following sentence (containing two members): Ἢ αὐτοὶ μὲν οἱ λογιζόμενοι καὶ νοοῦμεν τὰ ἐν τῇ διανοίᾳ νοήματα αὐτοί, where λογιζόμενοι answers to διανοούμεθα, and νοοῦμεν to νοοῦμεν. V 3, 4, 1-10 This is a very difficult passage on which I am trying to cast some light. Two questions are treated here: a) the two types of conformity with the Intellect and b) the two types of self-knowledge in the dianoetic faculty. The two types of conformity with the Intellect are not to be equated with the two types of self-knowledge. Rather the scheme is as follows: I) First type of conformity with the intellect: this is an objective non-reflective conformity given to man’s soul by nature. It does not imply self-knowledge. II) Second type of conformity with the intellect. This consists in that the dianoetic faculty (= the soul proper) knows the Intellect and, through the Intellect, it knows all things, and therefore also knows itself. This is a reflective type of conformity with the Intellect, which in turn gives rise to two types of self-knowledge:

428 

Handwritten by Armstrong on the left margin: “Sent this Schwyzer”.

Textual Notes on the Enneads

325

1) first type of self-knowledge: consists in that the dianoetic faculty, by knowing the Intellect, knows itself. 2) second type of self-knowledge: consists in that the dianoetic faculty, by knowing the Intellect and by knowing itself through the Intellect, knows also its own conformity with the Intellect. If we bear in mind the above given clue we are able to understand the text of the MSS except that it must be corrected at four places: 1) 1-4 Here I am inclined to take 3 ἢ οἷον as a marginal correction of 2 ἢ τοῖς οἷον (Brinkmann’s rule). Thus we get: κατ’ ἐκεῖνον δὲ διχῶς, ἢ [τοῖς] οἷον γράμμασιν ὥσπερ νόμοις ἐν ἡμῖν γραφεῖσι [ν ἢ οἷον] πληρωθέντες αὐτοῦ ἢ καὶ δυνηθέντες ἰδεῖν καὶ αἰσθάνεσθαι παρόντος. Each type of the two is expressed neatly by a participle: a) first type of conformity with the Intellect by being filled up with Intellect by means of the laws inscribed on the soul by the Intellect (see 4, 21-22). b) second type of conformity with the Intellect by knowing the Intellect. This second type leads in turn to two types of self-knowledge. 2) 4-5 These lines have been put aright by Beutler-Theiler by means of Brinkmann’s rule: Καὶ γινώσκομεν δὲ αὑτοὺς τῷ τοιούτῳ ὁρατῷ τὰ ἄλλα μαθεῖν [τῷ τοιούτῳ] κτλ. 3) 7 Here the text should be altered into ἢ κατ ’ ἐκεῖνο γινόμενοι, so that it should agree with 9-10 τὸν γινώσκοντα ἑαυτὸν κατὰ τὸν νοῦν ἐκεῖνον γενόμενον, as I will try to explain. 4) 8 τὸ μὲν γινώσκοντα (Rpc429) is unavoidable and palaeographically good, ν and μ being practically identical in minuscule writing (haplography). All the other changes (those introduced by Stark430 and accepted by H.-S. III are to be rejected). The two types of self-knowledge are clearly defined by Plotinus at 8-10, so that we must try to interpret the difficult lines (4-7) in the light of the easier ones (8-10). Now the first type of self-knowledge according to 8-9 is τὸν μὲν γινώσκοντα τῆς διανοίας τῆς ψυχικῆς φύσιν. This squares with 5-7 ἢ καὶ τὴν δύναμιν τὴν γινώσκουσαν τὸ τοιοῦτον μαθόντες αὐτῇ τῇ δυνάμει (knowledge of the dianoetic faculty by the dianoetic faculty itself thanks to its knowledge of the Intellect). 4-5 Καὶ γινώσκομεν δὲ αὑτοὺς τῷ τοιούτῳ ὁρατῷ τὰ ἄλλα μαθεῖν: this does not express the first type of self-knowledge, but the common condition (= self-reflective conformity with the Intellect) which gives rise to the two types of self-knowledge expressed by 5-7 ἢ … ἢ. The second type of self-knowledge is neatly defined at 9-10 τὸν δὲ ὑπεράνω τούτου, τὸν γινώσκοντα ἑαυτὸν κατὰ τὸν νοῦν ἐκεῖνον γινόμενον. This squares with 7 provided a) we read ἢ κατ ’ ἐκεῖνο γινόμενοι (scil. μαθόντες, supplied from 6): “by 429  According to Henry-Schwyzer’s sigla, this refers to the manuscript Vaticanus Reginesis Gr. 62 post correctionem. 430  R. Stark (1961). “Emendationes Plotinianae”. Museum Helveticum, 18, 226-8.

326

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

knowing that we conform ourselves with the Intellect”. For μανθάνω with participle construction cf. LSJ s.u. III 2. If we accept Stark’s conjectures it is impossible to put 4-7 in agreement with 7-10. V 3, 4, 21-22 I take 22 καὶ ὁ γράψας as a correct marginal correction of the wrong ἐκεῖ ὁ γράφων (for ὁ γράψας cf. Vita 19.15 τῶν γὰρ γραψάντων τοσαύτη σπάνις). ἔχον … ὡς καὶ ὁ γράψας (scil. ἔχει). Perhaps we should accept Harder’s ὧν and take ἔχον … τὰ πάντα … ὡς καὶ ὁ γράψας (scil. ἔχει) as a partitive construction. V 3, 6, 33 My reading here: ἀνόητος δὲ νοῦς οὐκ ἄν ποτε εἴη· ἀνάγκη κτλ .: “Intellectus sine intellectione exsistere nequit. Immo necesse est…”. V 3, 8, 10-11 The following correction is, I think, unavoidable: … ὅθεν καὶ ἑαυτοῦ ἐστι καὶ αὑτῷ, or better perhaps κἀν αὑτῷ. Cf. the following τοῦτο δ’ ἐὰν μὴ ἄλλου γένηται καὶ ἐν ἄλλῳ and the Arabic text (Ep. de Sc. Diu. 87: “comes to belong to mind”, “is borne on it”. V 3, 8, 32-34 Brinkmann’s rule ought to be used here to remedy the text: αὕτη γὰρ ἔξω βλέπει καὶ [οὐ μᾶλλον] αἰσθάνεται· ὁ δ’ ἐκεῖνο τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀληθῶν λαβὼν οἷον βλέπει μᾶλλον τὰ ὁρατά, ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον. οἷον βλέπει underlines the paradox that it sees not the visible, but the opposite (scil. of the visible = the invisible). For οὐ μᾶλλον … ἀλλά … cf. LSJ ἀλλά I 3. V 3, 10, 4-5 The simplest way of correcting this passage: δεήσει πάλιν ἄλλου. Τί οὖν; οὐ δεήσει πάλιν (scil. ἄλλου) ἐπέκεινα τούτου; Or, if we presume a crasis οὑπέκεινα τούτου; The latter is lectio difficilior. The choice ought perhaps to be decided on palaeographical grounds. In either case it has the advantage of supplying with a subject both δεήσει and 5 ὁρᾷ. 6 οὗτος takes up the masculine. V 3, 10, 29-30 The trend of the argument requires Καταμανθάνει τοίνυν ἑαυτὸ τῷ ποικίλον ὀφθαλμὸν εἶναι καὶ ποικίλων χρωμάτων. η and καί written in compendio are sometimes confused. Plotinus is stating the conclusion (τοίνυν) of the preceding argument (23-29) that both the thinking subject (23-25) and the known object (25-29) should be multiple. V 3, 10, 46 The usual interpretation is that the One is the subject of δεήσεται. Surely this is a mistake. 46 Εἶτα introduces the second of two arguments per reductionem ad absurdum, the first of which begins at 41. The trend of thought (39 ff.) is as follows: The thinking mind should think a variety of objects. For otherwise431: 1º there would be no self-thinking, which is absurd (41-46); 2º the thinking mind would have no need of thinking, which again is absurd (46 ff.). The subject then to be supplied at 46 is 40 τὸ νοοῦν. V 3, 10, 50 ἀδιάφορον is unavoidable. To take διάφορον in the sense of “quod prorsus differt ab omnibus” (H.-S. II) is out of place here, for what matters is the 431 

Handwritten by Armstrong on the left margin: “Mention as possible in note”.

Textual Notes on the Enneads

327

contrast with the “self-evolving” (51). The “undiversified” by undergoing no variety is permanent, whereas the “self-evolving” becomes multiple. V 3, 11, 10-11 Text and punctuation as follows: καὶ οὕτως ὡς νοῦς εἶδεν αὐτό, καὶ τότε ἐγένετο ἰδοῦσα ὄψις – τοῦτο δὲ ἤδη νοῦς –, ὅτε ἔχει καὶ ὡς νοῦς ἔχει. 10 οὗτος is a mechanical error (that is repeated mechanically from 9), This sort of mechanical errors is not infrequent in the Enneads. The new punctuation brings out the correlation τότε/ὅτε. τοῦτο δὲ ἤδη νοῦς = “hoc est, iam intellectus” (explicatiuum). 10 ὡς νοῦς (for ὡς γνοὺς) is necessary to put the text in agreement with both 4 and 11. The sense of 10 thus emended is: “and in this way (i.e. by becoming many from one) saw it in the manner of an Intellect”. V 3, 11, 13-14432 My ἐνδεόμενος, recorded by H.-S. III pp. 400 among the “commendations reiciendae” has the twofold advantage of being in agreement with what precedes and with what follows: a) with what precedes: the point of 11, 1-12 is that the Intellect ever and ever fails in trying to catch the One; b) with what follows: the Intellect becomes νοῦς κτλ . if, and only if, it fails to see the One as One; the Intellect’s shortcoming in its endeavour to see the One as One is the necessary condition of its essential constitution. Cf. III 8, 11, 23-24 καὶ ἐφιέμενος ἀεὶ καὶ ἀεὶ τυγχάνων, where τυγχάνων = V 3, 11, 13 λαβών, ἐφιέμενος ἀεί = ἀεὶ δὲ ἐνδεόμενος. V 3, 12, 2 Τὸ γὰρ πλῆθος οὐ συνθέσεις. The nominative is all right, not so the plural. I propose therefore Τὸ γὰρ πλῆθος οὐ σύνθεσις. 11 σύνθεσις speaks for the nominative, but does not commend the plural. V 3, 12, 14-16 I propose Ἀλλ’ ἐξ ἑνὸς … προελθεῖν, ἤδη μέν τι κτλ . V 3, 12, 17 … ἀεὶ θήσονται (suspicantur H.-.S II in apparatu) is, I should say, a very good hint. Unless: τὰς ἐνεργείας μὲν οὔσας ἀεὶ καὶ ὑποστάσεις ἀεὶ κτλ . V 3, 12, 22-25 ποιήσασαι, ποιήσασαι δὲ is a mechanical error for ποιήσασαι, εἰάσασαι δὲ. 25 ἃς παραχωρῆσαν is a corruption from ἃς παραχωρήσαν. The text thus emended makes good sense: the first apodosis begins at 22-23 τὸ δεύτερον, the second at 24 τῷ δευτέρῳ. V 3, 15, 13-4 … κἂν ἐκ πολλῶν ᾖ, οὔπω ἐστὶν ὄν εἴποι τις αὐτό. αὐτό demands the predicative construction and forbids us to turn ἐστὶν ὄν into “ἐστὶν ὄν”. I propose therefore to read thus: οὔπω ἐστὶν ὃ τι εἴποι τις αὐτό (according to the well-known Greek idiom οὐκ ἔστιν ὅστις = οὐδείς). Alternatively οὔπω ἐστὶν ὃ εἴποι κτλ . But I think that the MSS ὄν comes from ὃ τι. V 3, 15, 14-15 The text is, I should say, quite sound: “Etiam si quis possit dicere id quod unumquodque est, ideo dicit quia unumquodque eorum est unum atque etiam eadem causa (qua est unum)”, i.e. participationis causa, cum unumquodque, 432 

Handwritten by Armstrong on the left margin: “Possible, ask Schwyzer”.

328

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

ab Uno participando, fiat simul et unum et id quod est. καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ ἔτι adds a new point. The first point implied the Plotinian doctrine that each thing is what it is by being one. The new point implies the equally Plotinian doctrine that each thing is what it is by virtue of the same principle by which it is one. Plotinus proceeds to mention participation (15-16). V 3, 15, 27433 ὅπως in direct questions is a characteristic, though not a frequent, feature of later Greek (LSJ s.u. A IV). It does not then seem unsafe to read: Ὅπως

δὲ ἐκεῖνο ἀρχὴ τῶν πάντων;

V 3, 16, 21-22 My reading and interpretation of this difficult passage: Τὸ γὰρ ὡσαύτως (scil. ἡμῶν) ζητοῦμεν ὂντῶν ἀγαθῶν, ᾗ πρότερον ἐκεῖνο, οὗ μὴ ἐξίστασθαι δεήσει, ὅτι ἀγαθόν. ἡμῶν is supplied from the first person plural of ζητοῦμεν. “Inmutabilitatem nostram (i.e nobis) tum quaerimus quando iam boni summus. (i.e. non antea quam boni sumus), qua tenus illud (= bonum) prius est (scil. inmutabilitate), ex quo (ex bono) discedere haud oportebit eo quod bonum est”. Immutability, if it is not coupled with the good, is not an immutability to be sought for. The good is prior to immutability. V 3, 16, 24 ἐπὶ τούτου = ἐπὶ νοῦ. Plotinus is speaking throughout of the immutable life of the Intellect. V 3, 16, 30-31 Punctuate as follows: οὔτε νοῦ ἀποστατεῖ, αὐτάρκης οὖν (incipit apodosis. Cf. Denniston2 p. 428 for οὖν in apodosi). At 29 both reading and punctuation should probably he altered thus: καὶ ζωὴ ἐναργὴς καὶ τελεία, πᾶσα ἐν κτλ . V 3, 17, 8-9434 My reading καὶ ὅτι ἕκαστον τοῦ αὐτοενὸς μετείληφε, καὶ μετέχει τοῦ ἑνός, οὐκ αὐτοέν. “Unumquodque, quia ab Uno ipso participauit, ab unitate quoque participat, non est Unum ipsum”. This is not tautological. Plotinus means that each thing, by participating in the One, becomes other than the One and other than its own unity (the unity it possesses is not identical with the thing itself). V 5, 4, 27 By altering καὶ μένουσα οὐ μένει into καὶ μένουσα οὗ μένει the sense is made quite plain, yet pointless. The oxymoron (a favourite figure with Plotinus) turns into a platitude. Hence Beutler-Theiler’s emendation, accepted by H.-S. (p. 402), is difficult to accept. It is preferable to realize that Plotinus is playing on two different usages of μένω: 1) “to keep self-identical”, while giving rise to others (a usage present everywhere in the Enneads), and 2) “to keep alone” by not giving rise to others. This latter usage is found vgr. at V 1, 6, 6-7, where it is said that the One did not keep alone, but gave rise to a manifold number of Beings: ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἔμεινεν ἐκεῖνο ἐφ’ ἑαυτοῦ, τοσοῦτον δὲ πλῆθος ἐξερρύη. Cf. οὐκ ἀνεχόμενον ἐφ’ ἑαυτοῦ μένειν, ἀλλ’ ἕτερον ποιοῦν (V 4, 1, 28).

433 

434 

Handwritten by Armstrong on the left margin: “Possibly adopt this punct.”. Handwritten by Armstrong on the left margin: “Unlikely in context”.

Textual Notes on the Enneads

329

καὶ μένουσα οὐ μένει = “eadem manens, sola non manet”, “manens (scil. eadem

secum ac diuersa a numeris quos gignit), non manet (scil. sola, sed numeros gignit)”. Oxymora in the Enneads are frequent. V 6, 1, 2-4 2-3 τὸ δὲ πρότερον λεχθὲν βούλεται καὶ αὐτό, ἀλλ’ ἧττον δύναται. αὐτό is nominative. The sense is βούλεται καὶ αὐτό (scil. φεύγειν τὸ δύο εἶναι), ἀλλ’ ἧττον δύναται. This is clear from the contrast between 2 μᾶλλον and 3 ἧττον as well as from the trend of thought. 3-4 παρ’ αὐτῷ μὲν γὰρ ἔχει ὃ ὁρᾷ. This accounts for the fact that even the other-thinking mind tries to avoid duality by being united with its object as much as it can. 4 ἕτερόν γε μὴν ὂν ἐκείνου. This accounts for the fact that the other-thinking mind cannot get rid of duality. Two reasons are given: a) whereas the self-thinking mind by thinking itself has itself as its own object, the other-thinking mind by thinking some other has its object as other than itself. b) whereas the self-thinking mind by thinking itself has its object as of itself, the other-thinking mind by thinking some other has its object not as of itself, but as of “that other” (ἐκείνου, which refers to 1 ἄλλο2). That the text is sound and ought not to be altered with H.-S. III p. 403, is certain to me by comparison with line 10, where the same idea is repeated though in a negative way: ὅτι ὃ νοεῖ οὐκ ἔχει ὡς αὑτοῦ, ὥστε οὐδ’ αὐτό. 4 ἕτερον is then accusative. V 6, 2, 12-13 The question mark ought to be removed: Τότε οὖν τέλεον, ὅταν ἔχῃ. V 6, 3, 15-20 17-18 οὐ δυναμένου is a mechanical error (repeated from 15). But there still remain two difficulties: 16-17 οὐδ’ ὑφεστηκότος τινὸς ἑνὸς ἁπλοῦ ὑφ’ ἑαυτοῦ τὸ συγκείμενον ἐκ πολλῶν, which does not make sense, and 19 πῶς ἂν τὸ ἐκ πάντων εἴη σύνθετον, which is odd. Both of them may be solved by one stroke if we make use of Brinkmann’s rule by deleting 16-17 τὸ συγκείμενον ἐκ πολλῶν and by reading 19 πῶς ἂν τὸ ἐκ πάντων εἴη σύνθετον κτλ .: “quo modo id quod ex pluribus constat (elementis) potest exsistere ex cunctis (suis elementis) compositum, cum ex non exsistentibus sit conflatum?”. Let me add two further remarks, one palaeographical, the other stylistic: 1º συγκείμενον ἐκ πολλῶν makes a 19 letters line which was first inadvertently omitted, then added at the margin (preceded by τό) and finally reintroduced into the text in the wrong place (Brinkmann’s rule). 2º In the preceding lines (12-15) we twice find a contrast between ἁπλοῦν and τὸ συγκείμενον ἐκ πολλῶν: 12-13 οὐκ ἄρα ἁπλοῦν αὐτὸ ἔσται, οὐδὲ τὸ συγκείμενον ἐκ πολλῶν ἔσται. 13-15 τό τε γὰρ οὐ δυνάμενον ἁπλοῦν … τό τε συγκείμενον ἐκ πολλῶν… If then we accept the above proposed emendation, we get the same contrast for the third time: the protasis begins with 15 Ἑκάστου γὰρ ἁπλοῦ…, and the apodosis with 19 πῶς ἂν τὸ κτλ .

330

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

V 6, 4, 4-5 I like much better H.-S.’s II (apparatus) interpretation of Καὶ εἰ οὐδέν, ὅτι μηδὲ ἄλλο, ἔτι ἄλλο νοῦς τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ than H.-S.’s III Καὶ νοεῖ οὐδέν… – ἔτι is, I think, elliptic and pregnant. The sense is “en iterum nouum argumentum, nam aliud est intellectus atque unum”. V 6, 4, 8-9 If we accept οὕτω δεῖ καὶ ἐν ᾧ μετ’ ἄλλου τὸ ἐνυπάρχον ἁπλοῦν, καθ’ αὑτὸ τοῦτο ἁπλοῦν εἶναι (text accepted by H.-S. III p. 404), the analogy becomes blurred. In the first part of the analogy (protasis) it is stated that the one-with-another immanent in number two cannot be the one-in-itself (= the arithmetical unity), but that there must exist a one-in-itself before the one-with-another. After such a contrast in the protasis, I cannot believe that there should be no explicit mention of the One-in-itself in the apodosis. First of all, I believe that the second ἁπλοῦν (9) is a mechanical error for ἁπλῶς. On the other hand, the greatest difficulty of this passage lies in that there are too many possibilities of emendation: οὕτω δεῖ καὶ ἐν ᾧ μετ’ ἄλλου τὸ ἔν, ὑπάρχειν ἁπλοῦν καὶ αὑτὸ τοῦτο ἁπλῶς εἶναι κτλ. … ἁπλοῦν καθ’ αὑτὸ τοῦτο ἁπλῶς εἶναι οὕτω δεῖ καὶ , ἐν ᾦ κτλ. … καὶ ἐν ᾧ μετ ’ ἄλλου τὸ ἔν ὑπάρχοι, κτλ . V 6, 6, 11-13 12 σαφέστερον + 13 ἡ διπλῆ φύσις are to be struck out of the text as marginal glosses, the former of 11 μᾶλλον, the latter of 12 τοῦτο. V 6, 6, 24-26 Another possibility: … ἐπιοῦσιν ἄνθρωπος καὶ νόησις ἵππου καὶ ἵππος κτλ. This has the twofold advantage of corruption by homoeoteleuton and of chiasm. V 6, 6, 29-30 I propose: Ἀλλ’ ἐπέκεινα οὐσίας ὄν δεῖ καὶ τοῦ νοεῖν ἐπέκεινα εἶναι. V 7, 1, 3-5 H.-S.’s (III p. 404) “secundum id, qua anima, singula sic quoque dicuntur illic esse” is unintelligible to me. An easy way of healing this passage: Ἢ εἰ μὲν ἀεὶ Σωκράτης καὶ ψυχὴ Σωκράτους, ἔσται Αὐτοσωκράτης, καθὸ ἡ ψυχὴ καθέκαστα καὶ ἐκείνως λέγεται ἐκεῖ. “Indeed, if Socrates is always existent and. if the soul of Socrates is always existent, then Socrates-in-itself will be existent, whereby (= by which name, i.e. by the name “Socrates-in-itself”) we mean that the soul (of Socrates) exists There both individually and there-wise (= in a transcendent way)”, It seem clear to me that the two predicative adverbs καθέκαστα καὶ ἐκείνως are nothing but an explanation of the compound name Αὐτο-σωκράτης, the first part of which (Αὐτο-) expresses transcendence, the second (-σωκράτης) expresses individuality. In other words, there will be Ideas of individuals. V 7, 2, 8-12 This is a very difficult passage To begin with, it is written throughout in the dialogue style. Indeed, the whole chapter 2 is written in this manner. The hypothetical opponent had argued: 7 Ὅταν δὲ ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν γονέων διάφοροι; Plotinus had answered: 7-8 Ἢ διὰ τὴν οὐκ ἴσην ἐπικράτησιν.

Textual Notes on the Enneads

331

There follow the difficult lines. I think it quite likely that 8 εἰ ἐν τῷ is a corruption from ἔνι ἔξω: Ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖνο, ὅτι οὐκ ἔνι ἔξω φαίνεσθαι ὁτὲ μὲν κατὰ τὸ ἄρρεν τὸ πλεῖστον, ὁτὲ δὲ κατὰ τὸ θῆλυ. Comp. 19 εἴπερ ἔνι … ἔξωθεν φαίνεσθαι. Plotinus, after having said Ἢ διὰ τὴν οὐκ ἴσην ἐπικράτησιν, goes on as follows: “But that (i.e. ἡ οὐκ ἴση ἐπικράτησις) is because (is due to the fact that) the greatest part of the logos – sometimes of the logos deriving from the male, at other times of the logos deriving from the female – is unable to come to light”. ἔξω φαίνεσθαι = (practically) κρατεῖν τῆς ὕλης (comp. 11 κρατεῖ δὲ τῆς ὕλης κτλ.). Then Plotinus goes on: Ἢ κατὰ τὸ ἴσον μέρος ἔδωκεν ἑκάτερος κτλ.: “Sane uterque partem ex aequo impertiit etc.”. We could get an equally good meaning (perhaps even a better meaning) by reading 10 …κατὰ τὸ θῆλυ ᾗ κατὰ τὸ ἴσον κτλ .: “quatenus uterque partem ex aequo tribuit etc.”. 10-12 ἀλλ’ ὅλον μὲν κτλ . μέν = concessiuum, so that we may freely translate 10-12 as follows: “quatenus uterque partem ex aequo impertiit, sed quaaquam uterque totam suam partem eaque intus (= within the logos) manet tamen…”. What follows (12-17) does not, I think, refer to children born from the same parents in different countries, but to racial differences. The hypothetical opponent seems to have in mind the fact that a barbarian vgr. may be as beautiful as a Greek. The difference between them cannot in this case be attributed to a greater or lesser prevalence over matter, but to different “logoi”. This is granted by Plotinus: 17-18 Ἀλλ’ ἔστωσαν διάφοροι οἱ λόγοι. V 8, 1, 7 I think it is unsafe to rely on the Arabic text (which is not a translation proper) for the addition of . The Arabic text may well be trying to render explicit what is implied by 8 τοῦ μὲν … τοῦ δὲ… V 8, 2, 6-9 H.-S. III p. 404: “locus neque ab H.-S.1 neque ab ullo alio affatim explicates”. May I venture the following explanation? The question raised is: Where does corporeal beauty come from? The answer is: Not from matter (that is, not from the material element or menstrual blood afforded by the mother), nor from colour, nor from shape. 6-7 Οὐ γὰρ δὴ τὸ αἷμα καὶ τὰ καταμήνια. καί = explicatiuum: “Not the blood, that is, not the menstrual blood”. The hypothesis that corporeal beauty might arise from the menstrual blood is dismissed at once since it was supposed that menstrual blood was the matter of the living body. Does then corporeal beauty arise from such formal elements as colour or shape? Plotinus’ answer is: No! 7-9 ἀλλὰ καὶ χρόα κτλ .: But even colour, although different from menstrual blood, and shape are either nothing but something shapeless, or, like a surrounding contour, something elementary and matter-like? a) colour is different from menstrual blood in the sense that whereas the latter is a material element, the former is a formal one.

332

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

b) “either nothing but something shapeless”: this refers to colour, which is shapeless by itself (hence matter-like) and must be limited by figure. c) “or, like a surrounding contour, something elementary and matter-like”: this refers to shape. Shape is something elementary and matter-like because matter is the receptacle of form and shape is nothing but surrounding contour. In sum, corporeal beauty cannot arise 1) from menstrual blood, which is the material element of living bodies, 2) nor from colour, which is not material, yet is matter-like being shapeless, like matter, by itself, 3) nor from shape, which is not material either, yet is matter-like, being like matter a surrounding receptacle. For the idea that colour must be limited by figure, see Plato Meno 76 a. V 8, 2, 19 ἀλλ’ εἰς ἓν οὗτος. A difficult passage. For my interpretation (not recorded in Plotini Opera III, but which I still believe to be the true one) see Mnemosyne 22, 1969, pp. 376-7.435 V 8, 9, 23 I suspect οὐδὲ ἕκαστον οἷον δύναμις κτλ . V 9, 12, 1-3 Εἰ δὲ ἀνθρώπου ἐκεῖ καὶ λογικοῦ ἐκεῖ καὶ τεχνικοῦ καὶ αἱ τέχναι νοῦ γεννήματα οὖσαι, χρὴ δὲ καὶ τῶν καθόλου λέγειν τὰ εἴδη εἶναι, οὐ Σωκράτους, ἀλλ’ ἀνθρώπου. χρὴ δέ incipit apodosis: this has been accepted by H.-S.III p. 407 for it is senseless to say 11, 25-26 Καὶ περὶ μὲν τεχνῶν καὶ τῶν κατὰ τέχνας ταῦτα and then go on to bring in again the same question, For δέ in apodosis meaning “then” cf. LSJ II, 1. For the nexus between antecedent and consequent we must bear in mind: 1º τέχναι: here = τέχναι proper + ἐπιστῆμαι. This is clear from ch. 11. Whether we accept my conjecture (rejected by H.-S. III) καὶ αἱ τέχναι νοῦ γεννήματα οὖσαι or not, the sense of νοῦ γεννήματα οὖσαι is made quite clear in ch. 11 and by ch. 7, 1-6, where two kinds of ἐπιστῆμαι (= τέχναι) are found: a) those of the sensibles and b) those of the intelligibles, which are described as παρὰ νοῦ εἰς λογικὴν ψυχὴν ἐλθοῦσαι (= νοῦ γεννήματα οὖσαι). 2º ἐπιστῆμαι of this latter type are said be identical with their objects 7, 6-7 εἰσὶν αὐτὰ ἕκαστα ἃ νοοῦσι. Comp. V 4, 2, 48 καὶ ἡ ἐπιστήμη δὲ τῶν ἄνευ ὕλης τὰ πράγματα. 3º the antecedent is a summary of chs. 9-11. Given then the identity ἐπιστῆμαι = πράγματα, and the Aristotelian doctrine that the sciences are of the universals, Plotinus feels entitled to conclude in the apodosis that χρὴ δὲ καὶ τῶν καθόλου λέγειν τὰ εἴδη εἶναι. The sense of this is not: “Man muss aber hervorheben, dass es Ideen nur vom Allgemeinem gibt” (Harder), nor “Il faut dire qu’il y a des idées des universaux” (Bréhier), nor “It must be observed that the Ideas will be of universals” (MacKenna-Page), but: “then we must say that the Ideas of the universals are There”. 4º οὐ Σωκράτους, ἀλλ’ ἀνθρώπου. These words, since they form part of the consequent, are not to be taken as an absolute denial of the existence of Ideas of individuals, but they are partly epexegetic, partly restrictive: 435 

Igal (969).

Textual Notes on the Enneads

333

a) partly epexegetic of the meaning of τῶν καθόλου τὰ εἴδη. The sense is: “By the Ideas of the universals I mean such Ideas as that of Man, not such as that of Socrates”. b) partly restrictive, the restriction falling however not upon the existence of the Ideas of individuals, but upon the logical necessity of asserting their existence once the antecedent has been admitted. The admission of the antecedent does not entail the admission of the existence of Ideas of individuals. The question is then left open and Plotinus, accordingly, turns by a fresh start to tackle with the problem of the existence of Ideas of individuals from a different angle: Ἐπισκεπτέον δὲ περὶ ἀνθρώπου, εἰ καὶ ὁ καθέκαστα.436 My conclusion is that Plotinus at V 9, 12, 2-3 neither asserts nor denies the existence of Ideas of universals in the intelligible world. He leaves the question open and it is partly solved in the following lines, partly in V. 7. V 9, 12, 4-5 Here I accept Vitringa’s 5 ὅ τι: τὸ δὲ καθέκαστον ὅ τι μὴ τὸ αὐτὸ ἄλλο ἄλλῳ: “individuals, whenever they are not (specifically) identical, then one (Form) there exists for one (individual) and another (Form) for another (individual)”, implying that whenever two individuals are (specifically) identical, then one and the same Form exists for both, not one for each of them. Plotinus illustrates this distinction with two examples (noses and complexions): there is only one Form for all snub noses because all snub noses are (specifically) identical, only one Form for all aquiline noses because all aquiline noses are (specifically) identical, whereas for (specifically) different noses (snub, aquiline) there exist different Forms.

B Handwritten notes437

1. IV 7, 85, 41-43 (Soul) ἔστιν οὐσία οὐ παρὰ τὸ ἐν σώματι ἱδρῦσθαι τὸ εἶναι λαμβάνουσα, ἀλλ’ οὖσα πρὶν καὶ τοῦδε γενέσθαι, οἷον ζῴου οὐ τὸ σῶμα τὴν ψυχὴν γεννήσει. Soul belongs to reality: it is an independent being or entity: it does not receive its existence as a result of being established in a body, but possesses this existence even before it came to belong to a particular body: that means (οἷον) – adds the scholiast – that the body of an animate thing could generate its soul. The last clause draws out the meaning of the previous one: the soul does not get its existence from 436  Igal’s footnote: “Blumenthal’s ὃ καθέκαστα does not, I think, well account for the sequence of thought: Plotinus, after stating that the Idea of Man is there, but that it does not follow therefrom that the Idea of Socrates is there, goes on asking himself with regard to man (περὶ ἀνθρώπου), whether καὶ ο καθέκαστα is there. The natural interpretation of καί (coming after οὐ Σωκράτους, ἀλλ’ ἀνθρώπου) may be paraphrased as follows: Ἐπισκεπτέον δὲ περὶ ἀνθρώπου, εἰ (οὐ μόνον ὁ καθόλου ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλὰ) καὶ ὁ καθέκαστα (ἄνθρωπος) = εἰ οὐ μόνον Ἀυτοάνθρωπος, ἀλλὰ καὶ Ἀυτοσωκράτης. The contrast throughout is between the Idea of Man and the Idea of Socrates”. 437  This set of notes is the only one handwritten.

334

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

the fact of being in this particular body – in other words, this body (this body that has a soul) will not produce this soul out of itself. οἷον … γεννήσει should be deleted. 2. V 1, 10, 24-27

καὶ ἡ παρακέλευσις δὲ τοῦ χωρίζειν οὐ τόπῳ λέγεται … ἀλλὰ τῇ μὴ νεύσει καὶ ταῖς φαντασίαις καὶ τῇ ἀλλοτριότητι τῇ πρὸς τὸ σῶμα. Read ταῖς φαντασίαις and compare III 6, 5, 24-25: τὸ δὲ χωρίζεσθαι τῇ μὴ πολλῇ νεύσει καὶ τῇ περὶ τὰ κάτω μὴ φαντασίᾳ.

The injunction to separate soul from the body (Plato, Phaedo 67c6) does not involve spatial separation (cf. I 8, 6, 9-12). We achieve it by refusing to attend to the body, by having no imaginings (which inevitably relate to the body) and by practising estrangement from (in relation to) the body. 3. V 3, 10, 45-46 (sc. τὸ νοοῦν) διχάσει γὰρ αὐτὸ ἑαυτό, κἂν σύνεσιν δῷ τὴν σιωπήν. Read σιωπῶσαν. Intelligence will divide itself, even if it produces consciousness without speech. In other words, the act of intelligence implies a subject and an object, even though, on occasion, it issues in a form of consciousness which does not express itself in speech.

4. V 3, 12, 22-25 I write this sentence as I believe it should be read: εἰ δ’ αὐταί εἰσιν αἱ πρῶται ἐνέργειαι τὸ δεύτερον ποιήσασαι, ποιήσασαι δὲ ἐκεῖνο [ο] πρὸ τούτων τῶν ἐνεργειῶν ὂν ἐφ’ ἑαυτοῦ, μένειν, τῷ δευτέρῳ τῷ ἐκ τῶν ἐνεργειῶν συστάντι τὰς ἐνεργείας [ας] παρεχώρησαν. The two cases of dittography were noticed by Kirchhoff and Ficino respectively. I adopt Kirchhoff’s παρεχώρησαν for παραχωρῆσαν. I retain ποιήσασαι, ποιήσασαι δὲ because the repetition seems to be pointed and not un-Plotinian: VI 7, 13, 28-29 μὴ νοῦ ἐνεργήσαντος, ἐνεργήσαντος δὲ ἀεὶ ἄλλο μετ’ ἄλλο. For ἐῶσιν, which I insert, compare IV 2, 1, 26 ἐῶσιν αὐτὸ ἐφ’ ἑαυτοῦ μένειν; V 5, 12, 49 ἐφ’ ἑαυτῶν ἐᾶσαι εἶναι. Plotinus’s critics maintain in this chapter (12, 14 ff.) that, although plurality presupposes unity, the plurality in νοῦς does not entail a transcendent unity, but simply the immanent unity of νοῦς itself. This unity is (logically) prior to the activities of νοῦς. The critics are prepared (like Plotinus himself) to regard the activities as for ever unchanging (I read in line 17 ἀεὶ θήσονται with H.-S. ed. min.). But if they are entities, they will be different from that from which they derive, because, while that will remain simple, what derives from it will, taken by itself (ἐφ’ ἑαυτοῦ Kirchhoff), be a multiplicity – a multiplicity dependent on that unity (cf. line 26). The question is: does the unity act – from whatever cause – and do the multiple activities arise

Textual Notes on the Enneads

335

as a consequence of this act (or action)? If so, there is multiplicity (the multiplicity of activities) in that unity as well as in its product. On the other hand (and here our sentence begins), if these are the primary activities and if they (without any action on the part of the first principle) produce the second principle, and in producing it allow the first principle, as being prior to the activities, to remain in itself, then the critics have conceded our point, which is that the activities belong to the second principle, which is constituted by the activities. They have conceded our point inasmuch as, if the activities are produced without any action by the first principle, that principle is one thing and its derivative activities are another (i.e. there is a complete and utter distinction between the first and second principles). The alternative would be that for νοῦς not to be the primary activity (or the hypostasis consisting of the primary activities), but Plotinus goes on to demonstrate that this is precisely what νοῦς is; it is the first activity, and the One is inactive (note especially lines 33-36). 5. V 6, 2, 11-14 οἱ γὰρ ἔχει (sc. νοῦς) ὁ τὸ νοεῖν ἄνευ τοῦ νοητοῦ. τότε οὖν τέλεον, ὅταν ἔχῃ; ἔδει δὲ πρὸ τοῦ νοεῖν τέλεον εἶναι παρ’ αὑτοῦ τῆς οὐσίας. Read ἔδει δὲ πρὸ τοῦ νοεῖν. Intelligence cannot function without an intelligible object, and is therefore complete only when it has an object. (The change of subject desired by Cilento followed by H.-S. is surely [indecipherable], as also is the interrogative: τέλεον must refer to νοῦς, or, improbably, to νοεῖν. Theiler’s emendation τέλεος seems to be required. It is in the next sentence that the subject changes, and this change must be indicated.) But there would have to be something (i.e. the One) which is complete before the exercise of thought and simple as a result of its own essential character. That which is to have perfection will accordingly not wait for thought (i.e. the act of thought) to make it perfect: it does not need thought, because its self-sufficiency is prior to thought; and so it (the One) will not think. Cf. V 4, 1, 5 δεῖ μὲν γάρ τι πρὸ πάντων εἶναι ἁπλοῦν. (The phraseology may also be illustrated by V 3, 16, 1 and V 9, 4, 13-15, though in these examples τι refers to νοῦς.) 6. V 6, 4, 3-4

καὶ ὅλως οὐδὲν πάρεστιν αὐτῷ· οὐκ ἄρα πάρεστιν αὐτῷ τὸ νοεῖν. Καὶ εἰ οὐδέν, ὅτι μηδὲ ἄλλο. H.-S. ed. min. doubtfully accept Volkmann’s emendation νοεῖ for εἰ. The man-

uscript reading may be sound. Nothing at all is present to the Good, therefore thinking is not present. And if (as we say) nothing is present to it, this is because, quite apart from τὸ νοεῖν, there is nothing else which is present to it. The Good transcends everything.

336

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

7. V 8, 10, 16-17

ἡ δὲ ἐπὶ πᾶσι περὶ πᾶν τὸ οἷον μέγεθος αὐτοῦ ἐπιθέουσα τελευταία ὁρᾶται. What is last seen (in the ὑπερουράνιος τόπος of the Phaedrus) is not the σωπρόσυνη of the previous sentence, as ἡ δὲ would suggest, but, as is made quite clear in lines 23-24, ἐπὶ πᾶσιν ὅλον τὸ κάλλος. Theiler therefore proposes τελευταία, and this could be supplied by Plato, Resp. 517b8 ἐν τῷ γνωστῷ τελευταία ἡ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ἰδέα ὁρᾶσθαι, which Plotinus may have had in mind, though he is not thinking of the Good. But a more evocative word seems to be called for, such as αἰγλή or αἰγή or ἀγλαΐα: each of these is used by Plotinus in the present treatise, at 4, 8 and 10, 7 and 12, 7 respectively. Perhaps we should read τελευταία ἀγλαΐα ὁρᾶται. Cf. VI 2, 21, 11-12. 8. VI 7, 16, 30-31 … νοεῖσθαι φωτὶ τῷ ἑαυτοῦ εἰς τὰ ὄντα καὶ εἰς τὸν νοῦν παρέχων. Read εἰς τὸν νοῦν παρέχων. The whole passage is a comment on Plato, Resp. 508 e-509 a. The Good is the cause of being and of intelligence and is an illumination analogous to that of the Sun – an illumination for the things “seen” in that light and for the seer: but is it not the realities (i.e. the things seen) nor is it intelligence (i.e. the seer), but it is the cause of the things seen (the intelligibles) and provides for the realities (the intelligibles) to be cognised by means of its own (the Good’s) light and for the intelligence to have power of cognising (by this same light). 9. VI 9, 7, 17-21 … πάντων τῶν ἔξω ἀφεμένην δεῖ ἐπιστραφῆναι πρὸς τὸ εἴσω πάντη, μὴ πρός τι τῶν ἔξω κεκλίσθαι, ἀλλὰ ἀγνοήσαντα τὰ πάντα καὶ πρὸ τοῦ μὲν τῇ διαθέσει, τότε δὲ καὶ τοῖς εἴδεσιν, ἀγνοήσαντα δὲ καὶ αὑτὸν ἐν τῇ θέᾳ ἐκείνου γενέσθαι. For διαθέσει read αἰσθήσει. Sleeman made the opposite connection at I 8, 12, 4. In order that it may see the supreme One, the soul must be made formless, a blank. Nothing must lurk within it which could hinder its being filled with the light from the first principle. To continue as above: – This means that the soul (or “we” – I prefer Kirchhoff’s emendation ἀφέμενον in view of ἀγνοήσαντα) must abandon everything external and turn completely inwards. We must pay no attention to anything outside us, but must arrive at a total lack of knowledge. This lack of knowledge, this state of ignorance, must be achieved in three areas successively – sense-perception, intelligence which is identical with the Forms, and the (inmost) self. (These are for Plotinus the stages in the soul’s progressive emancipation, and they are all characterised in this treatise: sense-perception at 3, 18-20 and 25-32; intellectual knowledge at 3, 1-3 (where knowledge of being, which depends on the Forms, is pronounced difficult, though less difficult than knowledge of the formless One); self-knowledge and its essential abandonment

Notes for answer to Igal from Armstrong’s papers

337

at 10, 14-17 and 11, 4-7). Only after this threefold abnegation (this triple renunciation of knowledge) can we enjoy the vision of the One. Compare also for the argument VI 7, 34, 2-4 ἐπεὶ καὶ ψυχή, ὅταν αὐτοῦ (sc. the One or Good) ἔρωτα σύντονον λάβῃ, ἀποτίθεται πᾶσαν ἣν ἔχει μορφήν, καὶ ἥτις ἂν καὶ νοητοῦ ᾖ ἐν αὐτῇ. Also V 5, 6, 17-21.

6.4. Notes for answer to Igal from Armstrong’s papers438 IV 4. 28. 32. κράσεις ἀλλ’ οὐ Bréhier adopted, but ask Igal for further particulars of ὁράσεις (supported by IV 3, 28, 10–21: there may well be a connection). V. 1. 7. 5–6 and ff. Igal should be satisfied with my notes on this passage (following him very closely in his expl. of the “crux”). Otherwise I have taken full account of his IV-V Enn. notes + generally agree with Schwyzer. VI 1–3 All notes bearing on tr. + interpretation but not requiring alterations (Many of the interpretations seem to me clearly right) of text will be carefully taken into account. Where I don’t mention a suggestion, I stay with H–S without much doubt at present. VI. 1. 1. 7–12. Probably right: replace δέ after γένη + alter punctuation. " " 5. 1–3. Probably right – replace transposition. " " 5. 12–14. I.’s interpretation quite probably right ‹τὸ› συσσ. possibly but not certainly necessary and I don’t quite see need for addition. " " 6. 26. Not absolutely convinced. VI 1. 9. 25–26. ὡς ‹εἶδος› ἓν may be right here: probably adopt. VI 1. 10. 32–36. The transposition certainly makes things much cleaner– shall probably adopt it. " " " 43–44. Again, probably a right application of Brinkmann’s observation. " " 10. My doubts even greater than Igal’s! VI 1. 11. 26–8. ‹καὶ λειότης› Sleeman quite probably right. VI 1. 12. 37–38. Worth considering, but μετέβαλε not absolutely impossible, shall think again. VI 1. 15. 5–13. Perhaps right about περὶ τὴν οὐσίαν in l. 11, but not sure whether other alterations are necessary – shall not make them unless S. approves. VI 1. 19. 40–41. καθ ἃ attractive + prob. right. VI 1. 20. 8. Better sense, but MSS possible. VI 1. 21. 7–16. ἰὸν not quite necessary. VI 1. 21. 7–16. Accept interpretation and, probably, repunctuation. 438  These notes are written by Armstrong. However, we decided to place them in Igal’s section, as they can be better understood here.

338

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

VI 1. 26. 26–28. αὐτοένωσις attractive – may accept. VI 1. 29. 34. μόριον ψυχῆς for μόνον ψυχὴν seems v. probable – shall accept. VI 2. 2. 44–46. Right, shall keep MSS text. VI 2. 3. 25. τὸ πολύνουν brilliant completely satisfied palaeographically + philosophically – additional notes + comparisons will be most useful for tr. + notes " 5. 4–7. Excellent – accepted with much relief. " 8. 18–19. Accepted. VI 2. 13. 26–28. μᾶλλον δὲ ὑποστάσεως, ὕστερον κατ ’ ἐπινοίας θεωρητέον (supplementary notes) probably right. VI 2. 17. 1–2 + 18. 8–15 Interesting, but not quite enough reason for deletion, considering the peculiar prominence given to ἐπιστήμη in 17–18+ the fact that νοῦς here is not a virtue, and it is not in the least clear to me that ἐπιστήμη + νοῦς = σοφία – Plotinus is most unlikely to be being Aristotelian on this point at this point. But ἐπιστήμη in P. needs a good deal of further study – cf. the strange position of αὐτοεπιστήμη in V 8. 4. 39–42. " 18. 17. MSS γένος probably right (see suppl. notes). VI 2. 19. 18–21. I think here + in the next chapter Plotinus is working towards a distinction like that of the later Neoplatonists between ἀμέθεκτον – μετεχομένον – μετέχον cf. Proclus Elements of Theology 23–24 and Dodds’s comm. ad loc. My text + interpretation will depend on how I work this out. " 21. 38–39. Accepted. " " 59. ἐκείνῳ ‹νῷ› seems likely to be right – but P. could just possibly leave it to be understood. But ἐκεῖ νῷ (letter of Ap. 30) does seem best solution. VI 3. " 3. 11–12 and 25–26. Both accepted. I’s εἰ better placed than Theiler’s. " 7. 34–35. This seems almost certainly right. Accepted. " 11. 26–28. Agreed + accepted. " 14. 20–23. Agreed + accepted. " 23. 31–33. Possibly right: not quite sure yet. General observations. I think P. is capable of being odder + especially more elliptical, than Igal does. Without denying the likelihood of fairly frequent homoioteleuton, I’m not so confident as Igal that one can detect where it occurs + insert the missing line with any confidence. I think his additional applications of Brinkmann’s Observation often right. Also, his tendency to replace καί by καθ’ (κατά).

Obituaries

339

6.5. Obituaries Father JESUS IGAL ALFARO, S.J.439 14-I-20–24-III-1986 On Monday March 24th, we received the unexpected news of the death in hospital of Father Jesús Igal. He had died early that morning. It was exactly two months since he had first gone into the Policlínica de San Antonio: a growth in his stomach had led the doctors to deem surgery necessary. Despite all their efforts, on Sunday evening, March 23rd, the physicians related the gravity of his condition, and Father Igal, fully conscious and lucid, received the Rites for the Dying. During the early hours of Monday, he died of heart failure. Father Igal was born on 14 January 1920 in the town of Carcastillo, part of administrative district of Tudela, in the province of Navarre. His family was deeply religious and at an early age, he came under the influence of a teacher who was a great admirer of the Society of Jesus and whose fervent apostolic work involved sending boys who might have a priestly vocation to the Apostolic School at the Xavier Castle. The young Jesús Igal arrived there around 1930. It was there that he would endure the vicissitudes of the Second Republic, with the dissolution of the Society of Jesus, and the closure of the School at Xavier. The Apostolic School reopened, with no delay, continuing its educational life in the city of Sanguesa in an old building attached to the Church of the Saviour, affectionately called the “Goterosa” (“the Droplet”). When he was fifteen, Jesús Igal, along with sixteen other candidates, entered the Novitiate of the Jesuit Province of Loyola in Tournai (Belgium) directed by the Novice Master, Father Severino Azcona. It was there he began the study of rhetoric, which he would complete in 1940 in Loyola, by then restored to the Society of Jesus. In 1941, he went to Collegium Maximum (the Jesuit Faculties of Philosophy and Theology) at Oña in Burgos, where he took his year of liberal arts and three years of philosophy. Afterwards he did the usual three year Regency at the High School of Nuestra Señora de la Antigua in Orduña. In 1948, he returned to the Collegium Maximum at Oña for his first year of theology. That same year, the former Province of Castile was divided into Western and Eastern Castile. The scholastic, Jesús Igal, as from Navarre, was listed in the Catalogue of the latter Province. In 1949, he was sent to Heythrop College, England where, besides perfecting his English, he did the remaining three years of Theology; it was there on 8 September 1950 that he received priestly ordination. After doing Tertianship in Gandía (Valencia) in 1952, under the direction of Father Francisco Segarra, he returned to England to study Classics at Oxford Uni439  Necrología in the notes of the Loyola Province of the Society of Jesus, pp. 5-6, translated from the Spanish by Audrey Brassloff.

340

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

versity for four years, where he was awarded the degree of Master of Arts with highest honours. Back in Spain in 1958, he began his long teaching career – thirty-two full years dedicated to teaching. First, in the Novitiate of Veruela from 1958 to 1963, teaching rhetoric and Greek. Later, in the Juniorate of St. Stanislaus in Salamanca, he taught the “Perficit” course and the Greek and Latin classics, from 1964 to 1968. In 1968, he was assigned to the Philosophy Faculty at Loyola, to teach the history of ancient philosophy, Greek and Aristotelian texts. At the same time, he taught courses in Comillas University and in the Juniorate at Salamanca. In 1969, he became an assistant editor of Pensamiento, a journal of philosophical research and information. He was assigned to the Ecclesiatical University of Deusto in 1971, where he was appointed tenured Professor in the Philosophy Faculty, teaching the history of ancient philosophy, Greek, etc. In 1976, he was named co-editor of Pensamiento, a post that he resigned in 1985. From 1982, he was Full Professor in the Faculty of Philosophy and Sciences of Education (FICE) in the same University of Deusto. In addition to his involvement with Pensamiento, as just mentioned, first as an assistant and later co-editor, he also contributed many articles relating to Plotinus and classical antiquity which appeared over the years in journals dedicated to the classics: Perficit, Helmantica, Mnemosyne, Emerita, Estudios Clasicos, Cuadernos de Filologia Clásica, etc. To these must be added several monographs of major importance, written with the same care and attention that his specialty demanded: La cronología de LA VIDA DE PLOTINO por Porfirio (Publicaciones Deusto, 1972), 130 pp, “Vida de Plotino y las Enéadas I y II.” Intro., Trad. y Notas (Editorial Gredos, Madrid 1982), 238 pp, Plotino: Enéadas III y IV. Intro., Trad., y Notas (Gredos, Madrid. 1985), 560 pp. He was good-natured, perhaps somewhat shy, helpful and pleasant with everyone; he enlivened conversation with a wealth of anecdotes and jokes about teachers, friends and students, whom he remembered with great affection, so that there was a humorous air about him. Completely dedicated to his teaching ministry, he gave us invaluable examples of charity and caring. A detail from his last days: on the list of “meal servers” for March, Father Igal had put his name down to serve the community for Sunday, March 30th, Easter Sunday. The Lord in his mysterious ways chose to summon him a few days earlier, so that, as the blessing at meals phrases it, “He may make him a partaker of the heavenly banquet”. May he rest in peace!

Obituaries

341

IN MEMORIAM: JESÚS IGAL ALFARO Unexpectedly, in the Policlínica de San Antonio in Bilbao, Profesor Jesús Igal, S.J. died on 24 March of last year, 1986. He was co-director of our journal, Pensamiento, from 1976 to 1985. Born in Carcastillo, near Tudela, Navarre, on 14 January 1920, he entered the novitiate of the Society of Jesus at Tournai, Belgium, at 15 years of age. He received the humanistic formation of the Jesuits there and later at Loyola, Spain. He studied philosophy in the Faculty of Philosophy of the Society of Jesus, at Oña, Burgos, and theology at Heythrop College in England, where he was ordained priest in 1950. After an interruption of his studies in Spain, at Gandia, he returned to England, where he studied classical letters for five years at Oxford and obtained the degree of Master of Arts. In this field of classics, he was engaged for a decade teaching younger Jesuits in different centers of the Jesuit Order, in Veruela and Salamanca. From the year 1968, until his death, he taught the history of ancient philosophy in the faculty of philosophy at Loyola, then at Deusto and at the faculty of philosophy of Comillas University in Madrid, without abandoning for several years teaching Classics in Salamanca. J. Igal’s classical formation as a philologist reached perfection in his strong propensity to seek the underlying philosophical currents of whichever author his scholarly life caused him to study. He fulfilled this investigative approach in his studies on Plotinus, the translation of whose works took up most of his time. The notice of his death has had an unqualified resonance and depth in the intellectual world, most concretely in the field of Plotinian studies. The appreciative testimonials of the confidence placed in his work abound, especially for the completion of the translation of Enneads V and VI: “The best current translation,” wrote Al Wolters; and “the most capable of bringing to completion” the editio minor of Plotinus of Henry-Schwyzer. Many of his emendations and suggestions have already been incorporated in the edition of these two scholars. In Spain, Gredos brought out the first two volumes of the Enneads in their Biblioteca Clásica, volumes 57 (1982) and 88 (1985). In Deusto, his La cronología de la vida de Plotino de Porfirio came out earlier in 1972. Accompanying this principal work, J. Igal had a fruitful collaboration with a variety of classical journals, such as Emerita, Estudios Clásicos, Helmántica, Cuadernos de Filología clásica, Mnemosine, Perficit. Finally we need to mention the man and professor; a model in his role as teacher, tenacious, human, ready to encourage initiatives from his original insight, which he guided and supported generously giving of his time, simple and agreeable in his appearance and affability. May he rest in peace! Luis Martínez Gómez440

440 

Translated by Gary Gurtler. See bibliography.

342

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

6.6. Bibliography of J. Igal Richard Dufour

Biography Centro Documentación Filosofía Hispánica. Igal Alfaro, Jesús (Biografía). Retrieved 12 October 2018, from http://www.saavedrafajardo.org/CentroDocumDiazAbad. aspx?letra=I&autor=IGALALFAROJesus&idAutor=1009200

Books (1972). La Cronología de la Vida de Plotino de Porfirio. Bilbao: Publicaciones de las Universidad de Deusto. (1982). Porfirio, Vida de Plotino; Plotino, Enéadas, I-II. Introducciones, traducciones y notas. Madrid: Gredos. (1985). Plotino. Enéadas, Libros III-IV. Introducciones, traducciones y notas. Madrid: Gredos. & Periago Lorente, M. (1996). Porfirio, Vida de Pitágoras – Vida de Plotino / [Orfeo], Argonáuticas – Himnos Órficos. Traducción y notas Miguel Periago Lorente (Vida de Pitágoras – Argonáuticas – Himnos Órficos) y Jesús Igal (Vida de Plotino). Buenos Aires: Planeta DeAgostini. (1998). Plotino, Enéadas, Libros V-VI. Introducciones, traducciones y notas. Madrid: Gredos. Posthumous edition.

Papers (1967). El Concepto “Physis” en la República de Platón. Pensamiento, 23(92), 407-436. (1968). Observaciones al Teeteto Platónico (152d-157c). Helmantica, 19(58-60), 247275. (1969). Adnotatiunculae in Plotinum. Mnemosyne, 22(4), 356-377. (1970). Dos Notas al Tratado Sobre los Números de Plotino. Estudios Clásicos, 14(61), 453-472. (1970). Porfirio, Vida de Plotino y orden de sus escritos. Introducciones, traducciones y notas. Perficit, 2(32-33), 281-323. (1971). Commentaria in Plotini “de Bono sive de Uno” librum (Enn. VI,9). Helmantica, 22(67-69), 273-304. (1971). La génesis de la inteligencia en un pasaje de las Eneadas de Plotino (V,1,7,435). Emerita, 39, 129-157. (1972). Una Nueva Interpretación de las Últimas Palabras de Plotino. Cuadernos de Filología Clásica. Estudios Griegos e Indoeuropeos, 4, 441-462. (1973). Observaciones al Texto de Plotino. Emerita, 41(1), 75-98. (1975). Notas al Texto de Plotino y Moerbeke. Helmantica, 26(79-81), 299-309.

Bibliography of J. Igal

343

(1975). Sobre Plotini Opera III de P. Henry y H.-R. Schwyzer. Emerita, 43(1), 169-197. (1977). Observaciones a las Enéadas I-II de Plotino: Texto y Fuentes. Helmantica, 28(85-87), 241-252. & Rohatyn, D. A. (1977). Kierkegaard Sobre el Argumento Ontológico (Tradujo del inglés J. Igal). Pensamiento, 33(205-211). (1978). El Dímil del Marinero en Aristóteles. De anima II,1,413a 8-9. In Actas del V Congreso Español de Estudios Clásicos (Madrid 20 al 25 de abril de 1976) (pp. 595598). Madrid: Sociedad Española de Estudios Clásicos. (1979). Aristóteles y la Evolución de la Antropología de Plotino. Pensamiento, 35(138139), 315-346. (1981). The Gnostics and “The Ancient Philosophy” in Porphyry and Plotinus. In H. J. Blumenthal & R. A. Markus (Eds.), Neoplatonism and Early Christian Thought: Essays in Honour of A. H. Armstrong (pp. 138-149). London: Variorum Publications. (1984). El Enigma del Oráculo de Apolo Sobre Plotino. Emerita, 52(1), 83-115.

Reviews (1967). Vanier, Jean (1965). Le Bonheur, Principe et Fin de la Morale Aristotélicienne. Paris: De Brouwer. Pensamiento, 23(91), 353-354. (1968). Theiler, W. (1966). Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus. Berlin: De Gruyter. Pensamiento, 24(93-94), 129-130. (1969). Neumann, Harry (1968). The Unpopularity of Epicurean Materialism: An Interpretation of Lucretius. The Modern Schoolman, 45, 299-311. Pensamiento, 25(97-98-99), 332. (1969). Schaper, Eva (1968). Aristotle’s Catharsis and Aesthetic Pleasure. Philosophical Quarterly, 18, 131-143. Pensamiento, 25(97-98-99), 334-335. (1970). Hyland, Drew A. (1968). ‘Erôs’, ‘Epithymía’, and ‘Philia’ in Plato. Phronesis, 13, 32-46. Pensamiento, 26(101), 123. (1970). Prini, Pietro (1968). Plotino e la Genesi dell’Umanesimo Interiore. Roma: Abete. Pensamiento, 26(102-103), 338-339. (1970). Whittaker, J. (1968). The “Eternity” of the Platonic Forms. Phronesis, 13, 133144. Pensamiento, 26(101), 123. (1971). Dumont, Jean-Paul (1969). Les Sophistes: Fragments et Témoignages. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Pensamiento, 27(106), 234-235. (1971). Witte, Bernd (1970). Die Wissenschaft vom Guten und Bösen: Interpretation zu Platons “Charmides”. Berlin: De Gruyter. Pensamiento, 27(106), 233-234. (1973). Buchner, H. (1970). Plotins Möglichkeitslehre. München und Salzburg: Anton Pustet. Pensamiento, 29(114-115), 377. (1973). Henry, P. & Schwyzer, H.-R. (1973). Plotini Opera III (editio maior): Enneas V. Paris: De Brouwer. Pensamiento, 29(114-115), 374-376.

344

Jésus Igal S.J. (1920-1986)

(1973). Roloff, D. (1970). Die Grossschrift III, 8 – V, 8 – V, 5 – II, 9. Berlin: De Gruyter. Pensamiento, 29(114-115), 377-378. (1974). Trouillard, Jean (1972). L’Un et l’Âme selon Proclos. Paris: Belles Lettres. Emerita, 42(1), 222-223. (1975). Pro, D. F. (1971). Temas y Motivos del Pensamiento Griego. Buenos Aires: Amancay. Pensamiento, 31(123), 335-336. (1976). Dillon, J. M. (1973). Iamblichi Chalcidensis in Platonis Dialogos Commentariorum Fragmenta. Leiden: Brill. Emerita, 44(1), 209-210. (1977). Smith, A. (1974). Porphyry’s Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition: A Study in Post-Plotinian Neoplatonism. Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Pensamiento, 33(129), 100-101. (1978). Brun, Jean (1976). Le Retour de Dionysos. Paris: Les Bergers et les Mages. Pensamiento, 34(134), 222-223. (1978). Henry, P. & Schwyzer, H.-R. (1977). Plotini Opera, II (editio minor): Enneades IV-V. Oxonii: ex typographeo Clarendoniano. Pensamiento, 34(134), 224-225. (1978). Kessler, Matthias (1976). Aristoteles’ Lehre von der Einheit der Definition. München: Johannes Berchmans. Pensamiento, 34(134), 222. (1978). Lamberz, E. (1975). Porphyrius: Sententiae ad Intelligibilia Ducentes. Leipzig: Teubner. Emerita, 46(1), 211-212. (1978). Saffrey, H. D. & Westerink, L. G. (1974). Proclus: Théologie Platonicienne, livre II. Texte établi et traduit. Paris: Belles Lettres. Emerita, 46(1), 212-214. (1978). Sarri, Francesco (1975). Socrate e la Genesi Storica dell’Idea Occidentale di Anima. Roma: Abete. Pensamiento, 34(134), 223-224. (1980). Charrue, J.-M. (1978). Plotin, Lecteur de Platon. Paris: Belles Lettres. Emerita, 48(2), 354-356. (1980). Glibert-Thirry, A. (1977). Pseudo-Andronicus de Rhodes: “ΠΕΡΙ ΠΑΘΩΝ”. Édition critique du texte grec et de la traduction latine médiévale. Leiden: Brill. Pensamiento, 36(143), 366-367. (1980). Henry, P. & Schwyzer H.-R. (1977). Plotini Opera, II (editio minor): Enneades IV-V. Oxonii: ex typographeo Clarendoniano. Emerita, 48(1), 136-137. (1980). Migliori, M. (1976). Aristotele: La Generazione e la Corruzione. Introduzione e commento. Napoli: Luigi Loffredo. Pensamiento, 36(143), 365-366. (1981). García Bazán, F. (1978). Gnosis: La Esencia del Dualismo Gnóstico. 2.a ed. Buenos Aires: Castañeda. Pensamiento, 37(145), 112. (1981). Schwyzer, H.-R. (1978). Plotinos. In H. Gärtner (Ed.), Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Vol. Suppl. 15, pp. 310-328; 1676). Stuttgart: Alfred Druckenmüller Verlag. Emerita, 49(1), 215-216. (1982). Bouffartigue, J. & Patillon, Michel (1979). Porphyre: De l’Abstinence, t. II, livres II et III. Texte établi et traduit. Paris: Belles Lettres. Emerita, 50(1), 202. (1982). Cappelletti, A. J. (1979). Ensayos Sobre los Atomistas Griegos. Caracas: Sociedad Venezolana de Ciencias Humanas. Pensamiento, 38(149), 94.

Bibliography of J. Igal

345

(1982). Moreau, J. (1979). Stoïcisme, Épicurisme, Tradition Hellénique. Paris: Vrin. Pensamiento, 38(149), 93. (1983). Szlezák, Thomas Alexander (1979). Platon und Aristoteles in der Nuslehre Plotins. Basilea-Stuttgart: Schwabe & Co. Emerita, 51(1), 170-172. (1984). Sleeman, J. H. & Pollet, G. (1980). Lexicon Plotinianum. Leiden: Brill. Emerita, 52(1), 165-167. (1986). Armstrong, A. H. (1984). Plotinus with an English Translation. Vols IV-V (Enneads IV-V). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Pensamiento, 42(168), 498. (1986). Brisson, Luc (1983). “Platon 1975-1980”. Avec la collaboration d’Hélène Ioannidi. Lustrum, 25, 31-320. Pensamiento, 42(168), 476. (1986). Henry, P. & Schwyzer H.-R. (1982). Plotini Opera, III (editio minor): Enneas VI. Oxonii: ex typographeo Clarendoniano. Emerita, 54(1), 155-156. (1986). Krämer, Hans (1982). Platone e i Fondamenti Della Metafisica: Saggio Sulla Teoria dei Principi e Sulle Dottrine non Scrite di Platone con una Raccolta dei Documenti Fondamentali in Edizione Bilingue e Bibliografia. Introduzione e traduzione di Giovanni Reale. Milano: Vita e Pensiero. Pensamiento, 42(167), 319-320. (1986). Pelletier, Yvan (1983). Les Attributions (Catégories): Le Texte Aristotélicien et les Prolégomènes, D’Ammonios d’Hermeias. Présentés, traduits et annotés. Montréal: Bellarmin. Pensamiento, 42(167), 321. (1986). Velásquez, Oscar (1982). Anima Mundi: El Alma del Mundo en Platón. Santiago de Chile: Ediciones Universidad Católica de Chile. Pensamiento, 42(168), 485.

Obituaries Martínez Gómez, L. (1987). In Memoriam: Jesús Igal Alfaro. Pensamiento, 43(169), 121. n.a. (1987). Chronique générale – décès: Jesús Igal Alfaro s.j. Revue Philosophique de Louvain, 85(66), 277-278.

Chapter Seven

Miscellaneous

7.1. Émile Bréhier (1876-1952) Luc Brisson Born on April 12, 1876, Émile Bréhier441 died on February 3, 1952. He studied under both Victor Brochard, a scholar of ancient philosophy (Platon et les sceptiques grecs) and Henri Bergson, whose classes at the Collège de France he attended together with the poet Charles Péguy. After teaching in several secondary schools (19001909), Émile Bréhier taught at the University of Rennes (1909-1911), then at Bordeaux (1912-1919), and, finally, at the Sorbonne (until 1946), except for a spell in Cairo (1925) and later in Rio de Janeiro (1936). In 1941, he succeeded Henri Bergson at the Académie des sciences morales et politiques. He was the brother of Louis Bréhier (1868-1951), a historian of the Byzantine world442 and of Christian art.443 A great soldier, wounded in the First World War (his left arm had to be amputated), Bréhier carried out an intense intellectual activity. His work dealt with Philo,444 the Stoics,445 Plotinus,446 and Schelling.447 Not only did he publish a seven-volume edition and translation of the Enneads (1924-1938) into French, he also wrote a seven-volume Histoire de la philosophie (1926-1932) as well as several other books and articles. In what follows, I shall focus on his edition and translation of the Enneads, published by Les Belles Lettres. In the Introduction to his edition-translation of the Enneads, Bréhier stressed the difficulties involved in the establishment of the text. As he explained, the difficulties are of two orders: First, Plotinus, who had poor eyesight, wrote without much concern for spelling (see Vita Plotini 8, 1-6). To prepare his edition of the Enneads, Porphyry corrected the manuscripts (ibid., 24, 1-5) and placed the fifty-four treatises which he claimed 441  See the obituary published in the Revue philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger, 142, 1952, 161-163. 442  Le monde byzantin, 1947-1950, 3 vol. 443  L’art chrétien, son développement iconographique des origines à nos jours, 1918. 444  Les idées philosophiques et religieuses de Philon d’Alexandrie, 1907: thèse principale de Doctorat; followed by Philon, Commentaire allégorique des saintes lois après l’œuvre des six jours, texte et traduction, 1909. 445  La théorie des incorporels dans l’ancien stoïcisme, 1907, thèse complémentaire de Doctorat, followed by Chrysippe, 1910. 446  La philosophie de Plotin, 1928. 447  Schelling, 1912.

348

Miscellaneous

to have in his possession in the systematic order in which they appear today: the Enneads, six groups of nine treatises, divided into three volumes. The first volume contained Enneads I, II and III, which deal with ethics and physics; the second contained Enneads IV and V, which deal with Soul and Intellect; and the third volume, Ennead VI, which deals with the One. It must be borne in mind, however, that Porphyry’s edition came out thirty years after Plotinus’ death. It is important to note that Bréhier did not have a sound edition of the text insofar as most of the manuscripts are relatively recent and not independent of each other. The oldest manuscripts date from the 12th and 13th centuries, a millennium later that the edition of Porphyry. A comparison between the readings from these manuscripts and the quotations from Plotinus found in other authors reveals that the manuscripts contain many mistakes, mistakes that are the same in all of them, from which it can be inferred that the manuscript tradition is uniform and defective. This was noted by Bréhier, who carefully collated the Parisinus A, a manuscript from the 14th century, and the Parisinus B, a manuscript from the 15th century, both kept in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris. In his critical apparatus, Bréhier also took account of the corrections he found in the translation made by Marsilio Ficino and in several scholars of the Renaissance, by which time there was renewed interest in translations of Plotinus. Bréhier’s critical apparatus also contains variants taken from the manuscripts that he himself collated as well as those found in the editions by Creuzer (1835) and Müller (1878). Finally, he also took account of variants taken from quotations by various authors of Antiquity. His critical apparatus, rich for the time, needs to be read as follows: the reading adopted in the text appears at the beginning of each entry, followed by the variant(s) which come after the colon. If the adopted reading is not followed by the mention of any manuscript, this is because it is found in all the manuscripts except those mentioned. If the adopted reading is followed by the mention of one or more ­manuscript(s), this is because it is found only in the manuscript(s) in question, and the variants that follow indicate the reading(s) of other manuscripts. When the mention of a manuscript is followed by the name of an editor, it is to be understood that it is a conjecture by that editor. Finally, additions to the text are indicated by angled brackets and suppressions by square brackets; these are repeated in the apparatus, followed by the name of the editor who proposed them. Bréhier is more conservative than Volkmann (1884). As can be seen, Bréhier’s edition is essentially second-hand, for it goes back to the edition by Creuzer (1835), a disciple of Hegel, upon which it improves. Of course, the quality of Bréhier edition, which was good for its time, cannot be compared to that of Paul Henry and Hans-Rudolph Schwyzer, which remains a model of its kind that will not soon be replaced. Bréhier’s translation is written in limpid French. It is easy to follow and pleasant to read, and, in my view, not inferior to MacKenna’s magnificent English transla-

Émile Bréhier (1876-1952)

349

tion. Nevertheless, it must be borne in mind that the translation was done quickly and that it contains several errors, some of which impede the understanding of a number of passages. In his review, Roger Miller Jones448 drew up a list of such errors for the Life of Plotinus and for the first Ennead. These mistakes were corrected in subsequent editions. The main interest of Bréhier’s work, apart from its stylistic excellence, comes from his Notices. This is so for the following two reasons. First, Bréhier was probably the first to understand that Plotinus platonizes Stoicism. This viewpoint was natural for Bréhier, who had spent part of his life studying Stoicism. It is regrettable that the specialists who, from the mid-20th century, have taken an interest in Stoicism appear not to have understood the importance of his interpretative stance. Second, the Notices provided for each tractate show the influence that Bergson’s philosophy had on Bréhier. Bergson was himself interested in Plotinus.449 At the beginning of his article “Images plotiniennes, images bergsoniennes”, Émile Bréhier makes highly interesting remarks on the two philosophers’ type of argumentation: I am convinced, for my part, that the image, as used by Bergson and Plotin is, in their way of philosophizing, the only way to keep philosophical thought active, and does not subordinate it to “cutting up reality along the lines one must follows to act comfortably on it” (La Pensée et le Mouvant, p. 41) and “here, comparisons and metaphors will suggest what cannot be expressed. This will not be a detour; one will only head straight for the goal” (Ibid., p. 52). The worst thing to do would be what Bergson’s opponents tried to do in the past, namely, to take his images and metaphors for dogmas, whereas their very purpose is to prevent dogmatization. And this is certainly the danger of Bergsonism, according to those for whom nothing exists except subjective impressions and universal concepts.450

Only this kind of attitude can allow us to escape dogmatism and the dictatorship of the concepts of logical argumentation. Lastly, a signal quality of Bréhier’s translation lies in the fact that it successfully brings out the dialogue Plotinus maintained with his auditors.

448 

Classical Philology 23 (2), 1928, 196-200. Maurice de Gandillac, “Le Plotin de Bergson”, Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie 23 (2) 1973, 173-183; Pierre Magnard, “Bergson interprète de Plotin”, in Bergson naissance d’une philosophie [Actes du Colloque de Clermond-Ferrand 17-18 Novembre 1989], Paris, PUF, 1990, 111-119; Rose-Marie Mossé-Bastide, Bergson et Plotin, Paris, PUF, 1959; Christian Rutten, “La méthode philosophique chez Bergson et chez Plotin”, Revue Philosophique de Louvain (58)1960, 430-452; Jean Trouillard, “Sagesse bergsonienne, sagesse plotinienne”, in Bergson et nous, 307-320; Lydie Adolphe, La contemplation créatrice (Aristote, Plotin, Bergson), Paris, 1951; La dialectique des images chez Bergson, Paris, PUF, 1951: thèse principale et thèse complémentaire; Jean Foubert, “Mystique plotinienne, mystique bergsonienne”, Les Études Bergsoniennes (10), 1973, 6-71. 450  Émile Bréhier, “Images plotiniennes, images bergsoniennes” [1949], dans Études de philosophie antique, Paris, PUF, 1955, 306-307. 449 

350

Miscellaneous

To conclude this assessment of Bréhier’s translation. Let its literary qualities be celebrated as well as the philosophical depth of the Notices that precede them, while acknowledging that the Greek text he edited and translated does not reach the level of that of Henry and Schwyzer. It is appropriate also to insist on the fact that Bréhier’s reading of the Enneads is informed by a remarkably broad philosophical culture. As such, it provides a useful contrast with the approach of Plotinian specialists who focus on the logic of the argument in this or that treatise and write for select colleagues.

7.2. Willy Theiler (1899-1977) Gerard O’Daly When the first volume of Henry and Schwyzer’s editio maior of Plotinus appeared in 1951 Willy Theiler, Professor of Greek in Berne since 1944, hailed it as “the big event of recent years for the historian of ancient philosophy”. He repeated his enthusiastic approval of Paul Henry’s exhaustive investigations of the manuscript tradition and transmission of Plotinus’ text in Études plotiniennes I and II, noting that the new Plotinus edition aimed at a full account of the manuscript readings. At the same time he drew attention to the editors’ conservatism, and their reluctance to admit all but the most obvious emendations and conjectures into the text. Quoting their assertion in the preface that the reader should “assume that wherever we make no comment, we believe that we have understood the transmitted text”, Theiler adds, somewhat playfully: “actually, only now that the transmission [of the text] is clear, is making conjectures a pleasure. Hitherto one did it with a bad conscience”.451 Theiler, of course, had been attempting for many years to solve difficulties in Plotinus by emendation and conjecture, and had published a selection of his proposals in an appendix to his book Die Vorbereitung des Neuplatonismus.452 And when Richard Harder died in 1957, having completed only the first volume of his revised Meiner edition of Plotinus, accompanied by the Greek text en face, Theiler, together with Rudolf Beutler, was appointed editor of the remaining volumes, and thereby had the opportunity, which he fully exploited, to produce a text rich in conjectures. Reviewing the first three volumes of A. H. Armstrong’s Loeb Plotinus, Theiler notes that in the treatise on eternity and time (III 7), 25 pages long in the Henry-Schwyzer Oxford text, there are 65 differences between his text and that of Armstrong, who generally follows the Oxford edition.453 What is playing out in the contrasting editorial approaches of Henry-Schwyzer and Theiler is a continuation of the debate on appropriate method in textual criticism that 451  Theiler’s review of Henry-Schwyzer I: Museum Helveticum 8 (1951), 317-18. His reviews of Henry’s Études plotiniennes I and II: Byzantinische Zeitschrift 41 (1941), 169-76 and 42 (1942), 206-8. 452  W. Theiler, Die Vorbereitung des Neuplatonismus (Berlin, 1930); reprinted with additional foreword (Berlin and Zurich, 1964). 453  Anzeiger für die Altertumswissenschaft 22 (1969), 159-61, here 160.

Willy Theiler (1899-1977)

351

had divided scholars since the early nineteenth century. Its extreme version is wittily characterized by E. J. Kenney’s comment on the contrast between two scholars active in the middle of that century, J. N. Madvig and C. G. Cobet: “Madvig’s basic premiss [is] that the transmitted text should be adhered to unless it is demonstrably corrupt or at least gives cause for grave suspicion. Cobet by contrast treats the MSS as guilty until they are proved innocent.”454 But whereas Henry and Schwyzer are very much in the Madvig tradition, and commendably so, it would be inaccurate to see in Theiler a latter-day Cobet. Theiler was fully aware of the pitfalls of the conjectural approach, and of the need to bring scholarly expertise to its practice. It involves immersion in the language, style, and content of the author one is editing, as well as the wider cultural context of the text, and, because it is an interpretation of the text, it requires the sound judgement that makes interpretation credible. At the same time it acknowledges that our texts of ancient authors have a complex history that distorts as well as preserves. Henry, Schwyzer, Theiler, and Armstrong all share this historical awareness. It enriches our understanding of Plotinus that they deal in different ways with it: Schwyzer’s repeated reconsideration of textual difficulties, even after the publication of both editions of Plotinus, is as valuable a testimony to the unending task of interpretation as are Theiler’s speculative suggestions. Theiler never conceals the speculative nature of his research. This is as true of his Quellenforschung as it is of his textual criticism. The search for sources of tendencies and doctrines, particularly in the development of Platonism from the first century CE onwards, was one of the driving-forces of his research. He was particularly attracted to this search as a means of reconstructing doctrines where the direct literary evidence is lost: hence his attempt to identify the origin of the post-Platonic view that the Forms are thoughts of a divine mind, a view that is referred to by Seneca but evidently does not originate with him. Theiler proposes Antiochus of Ascalon as the originator of this major recasting of Plato’s thought.455 The proposal is intended to be plausible rather than dogmatic. In his influential and controversial study Porphyrios und Augustin (1933), published just before Paul Henry’s Plotin et l’Occident, Theiler argued for the dominant influence of Porphyry in Augustine’s reception of Neoplatonism. In doing so, he applied the following working principle (Arbeitssatz): If in a Neoplatonist later than Plotinus a teaching [Lehrstück] appears that in content, form, and context is comparable to one found in Augustine, but not to the same degree to one in Plotinus, it may be considered to be Porphyry’s.456 454  E. J. Kenney, The Classical Text: Aspects of Editing in the Age of the Printed Book (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1974), 118. 455 Theiler, Vorbereitung, 1-60. 456  W. Theiler, Porphyrios und Augustin, in Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus (Berlin, 1966), 160-251, here 164 (first published Königsberg, 1933).

352

Miscellaneous

This working principle was intended to reveal evidence of otherwise lost texts of Porphyry, and Theiler’s argument depended on identifying subtle differences between Plotinus and the Neoplatonist doctrines that Augustine received. Henry, on the other hand, argued that Plotinus’ Enneads were Augustine’s source. Pierre Courcelle’s later analysis of both positions, and of a wider range of Augustine texts, especially his City of God, concluded that neither Plotinus nor Porphyry was Augustine’s exclusive source, and most scholars since then have tended to find both Plotinian and Porphyrian elements in Augustine’s Neoplatonism.457 What is revealing about the application of the principle quoted above is its exploitation of Augustine to construct a lost chapter in the history of post-Plotinian Neoplatonism. The principle itself is not a dogmatic assertion: rather, it is intended to provide a reference-frame for what is, in effect, an empirical, historically-oriented survey of Platonist doctrines. At the same time, Theiler remained confident of the correctness of his conclusions. In the foreword to the reprint of his study some thirty years later, he explains why he has not gone into objections to his arguments: “the philological demonstration was from the outset conclusive.”458 Theiler’s style is as distinctive as his method. It is compressed, packed with references, difficult to read. A reviewer of his study of Pindar’s style and metre called it Telegrammstil. This is no less true of his important work on Homer and Aristotle. His approach is relentlessly analytical. In Aristotle’s works, especially the Politics and the ethical writings, he is chiefly interested in identifying the history of their composition through an analysis of their structure.459 My contact with Theiler between 1965 and 1977 began as a doctoral student, continued in assisting him in the completion of the index volume of the Plotinus edition, and, after I had left Berne, lasted through correspondence and visits until the month of his death. His knowledge of the texts was formidable and his criticism often sharp, but he was a sympathetic supervisor, and the kindest of mentors. Above all, he allowed me to develop a thesis on Plotinus’ concept of the self that did not obviously follow his own research interests and method. He was enthusiastic about John Rist’s Plotinus when it appeared in 1967, because it identified and rigorously discussed problems of philosophical interpretation. He admired scholarship that did not shrink from difficulties in the text: one of his favourite phrases was Jakob Burckhadt’s “ces terribles simplificateurs”, applying to certain kinds of scholar the great historian’s reference to politicians. His praise was often limited to “nicht schlecht” (“not bad”), and this idiom was already typical of the young Theiler, as an 457  P. Courcelle, Late Latin Writers and their Greek Sources (Cambridge, Mass., 1969), 165-96 (English translation by H. E. Wedeck of Les lettres grecques en Occident de Macrobe à Cassiodore, 2nd edn., Paris, 1948). 458  Forschungen, viii. 459  His publications on Homer, Pindar, and Aristotle are collected, with other studies, in his Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur (Berlin, 1970).

Willy Theiler (1899-1977)

353

amusing anecdote in a memoir by Otto Skutsch, who was a student in Kiel in the later 1920s, reveals: Willy Theiler was there too, as a young assistant, in his first academic job. I remember particularly a junior seminar with [Felix] Jacoby and [Eduard] Fraenkel. And there Fraenkel made a significant remark. Everybody was struck dumb with admiration, but one unmistakably Swiss voice broke the silence: “Nit so dumm” (“Not so silly”). That was Willy Theiler.460

One has to bear in mind Theiler’s age (late twenties), as well as the assumed self-importance of many German university professors at the time, in order to appreciate this intervention. Two projects came to dominate Theiler’s later research. He had famously described Ammonius Saccas, Plotinus’ inspirational philosophical teacher, as “a great shadow”; for Ammonius, like Socrates, had written nothing. Now, building on the evidence that the Greek Christian writer Origen had, some twenty years before Plotinus, also been among Ammonius’ students, and using him as a source for Ammonius’ teaching, along with what is known of Hierocles of Alexandria’s On Providence, and several other sources (including Porphyry), Theiler became convinced that Ammonius was not such a shadowy figure after all. His reconstruction of Ammonius’ philosophy is ingenious, but it did not prove persuasive. Hans-Rudolf Schwyzer, in a later cautious, critical study of the purported evidence, showed how little can be known about Ammonius.461 The other, larger project was an edition of the fragments of Posidonius, which occupied Theiler to the end of his life. He had argued in Die Vorbereitung des Neuplatonismus that Posidonius was an important figure in the development of Platonism that culminated in Plotinus. His edition, building on the research of Karl Reinhardt, admits a large number of testimonies where Posidonius is not explicitly named. In this it differs radically from the edition of L. Edelstein and I. G. Kidd, which printed only the attested evidence: the first edition of their texts volume was available to Theiler. In his foreword, Theiler stresses the provisional nature of the evidence of the “extended Posidonius” that he presents. Even if one is not persuaded that the evidence invariably points to Posidonius, the 400 pages of notes, collecting a massively wide range of evidence, are a rich contribution to the history of the

460  O. Skutsch, “Recollections of Scholars I Have Known”, edited by A. Bierl and W. M. Calder III, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 94 (1992), 387-408, here 392. Theiler dedicated Vorbereitung to Fraenkel and Jacoby. 461  W. Theiler, “Ammonios der Lehrer des Origenes”, in Forschungen, 1-45, and “Ammonios und Porphyrios”, in Untersuchungen, 519-42. H.-R. Schwyzer, Ammonios Sakkas, der Lehrer Plotins (Opladen, 1983).

354

Miscellaneous

development of Hellenistic and later philosophical teachings, especially in physics and ethics.462 Theiler often described his research as a ‘game’, stressing that the pleasure it gave was first acquired from the teaching and supervision of the Basle Hellenist Peter Von der Mühll. He conveyed this speculative and analytical delight in his conversation. What did the texts he analysed mean to him personally? He rarely spoke of this, but something of the importance of Plotinus to him is discernible in his 1944 Berne inaugural lecture, and in his paper, delivered in Rome in 1970, on Plotinus as the fulfilment of ancient philosophy.463

7.3. Bertram Samuel Page (1904-1993) Michael Atkinson In 1971, when I had finished my first degree, I decided that I wished to continue with research into the Classics. Accordingly, I embarked on (what was then) a BPhil in Classics and had to choose one Greek and one Latin topic. In Latin I chose to look at Propertius 4, and of the Greek options I chose Plotinus. No one had ever chosen Plotinus before, and its inclusion among the topics for the BPhil dated from the time when E. R. Dodds had been Regius Professor of Greek. My tutor at Oxford, the late Donald Russell, put me in touch with Tony Page, who had retired to live in Oxford after leaving his post as librarian at Leeds. Tony then became my supervisor when I switched from studying for a BPhil to studying for a DPhil (Propertius and Plotinus were uneasy bedfellows). Tony’s life as an eminent librarian is well documented in his obituary in The Independent (November 20 1993). It is as a Plotinian scholar that I knew him. The first thing he asked me to do was to read the whole of Plotinus and then to write an essay on Plotinian metaphysics. It was he who suggested that the subject of my DPhil should be a commentary on Ennead V 1. Tony had first become interested in late philosophy when he studied at Birmingham under Dodds. By the time I knew him, he was steeped in Plotinian thought. He had already revised MacKenna’s translation, and he had a comprehensive knowledge of The Enneads; I learnt more from him than I could easily have learnt from anyone else in Oxford. He had a well thumbed edition of Plotinus (Kirchhoff’s, I

462  W. Theiler (ed.), Poseidonios: Die Fragmente, 2 vols. (Berlin and New York, 1982). L. Edelstein and I. G. Kidd (edd.), Posidonius, vol. 1: The Fragments (Cambridge, 1972; second edition, 1989), vol. 2, i and ii: The Commentary (Cambridge, 1988). 463  W. Theiler, “Plotin und die antike Philosophie”, Forschungen, 140-59, first published in Museum Helveticum 1 (1944), 209-25; “Der Platonismus Plotins als Erfüllung der antiken Philosophie”, in Plotino e il Neoplatonismo in Oriente e Occidente, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Quaderno n. 198 (Rome, 1974), 147-58. For Theiler’s career see T. Gelzer, Gnomon 50 (1978), 502-6.

Bertram Samuel Page (1904-1993)

355

think) whose pages were covered in marginalia. His comments on the early stages of my work were extremely helpful, and never unkind or hypercritical. Supervisions at his house in Headington were always followed by tea, prepared by Olga, his wife. And on one occasion we sat and listened to the slow movement of Bruckner’s seventh symphony which reminded Tony of Plotinus’ “flight of the alone to the Alone”. I was lucky to have known him: he was both a scholar and a gentleman.

I LETTER FROM B. S. PAGE TO E. R. DODDS Leeds, August 1464 My dear Dodds, It was very good of you to let me see your review of H. and S. I think it is entirely just. The work qua recension is beyond praise, and such no Greek author is now from this point of view better edited. But, as Housman said of Lindsay’s Martial, you have got to make your own text. You have demonstrated this, and the instances you have chosen are fair and typical. Indeed, you have avoided citing the real shockers like 1, 8, 6, 41 and Vita 9, 11-12. As for expression, the only sentence I think one could possibly cavil at is the last sentence in the first paragraph of p. 5. Wouldn’t the alternative question be rather on these lines: “Or did he – a scholarly writer himself, as we know from his own writings – think it suitable that Plotinus’ text should be disfigured by such crudities?” (Of course, the fundamental question is whether one should make both Plot. and Porph. ridiculous for the sake of upholding the infallibility of their scribes.) I have got enormous pleasure out of helping H. and S. and on the palaeographical side. I think there is no doubt that their work is as definitive as such work can be. They know my views about the constitution of the text. Indeed, in a moment of indiscretion I said I had a slight hankering after the ratio-et-res-ipsa school – a remark which brought a prompt and somewhat pained reply from Schwyzer. However, they considered many suggestions of mine with great patience, though I soon came to see that there was a divergence of principle which had to be accepted. I hope they will let me do my bit of donkeywork with vols. 2 and 3. By the way, the reference near the foot of your p. 5 should be 2, 4, 16, 14. (What an awful system of references). I tried without success to induce them to print in their

464  The year is missing, but must be 1952 or early 1953, as Dodds’s review of the first volume of the editio maior, mentioned in the letter’s first sentence, was published in 1952 (The Classical Review 2, 165-168).

356

Miscellaneous

inner margins the page numbers of the ed. Pr., as in Creuzer: here it would be 169 F 3, which I think for this sort of purpose would be an improvement. Yours ever, B.S. Page

II PAGE’S REMARKS ON THE EDITIO MAIOR465,466 I 1 2 27 καὶ πάθους : ἀπαθοῦς Enn. I 2 4 4 ‹ἡ ἐν τῷ καθαίρεσθαι· τὸ γὰρ κεκαθάρθαι› 57 ‹πρὸς αὐτὸ› 612 ‹καὶ φρόνησις› Ι 3 2 10 τέχναις : τεχνίταις Ι 4 6 21 ζητεῖ‹ται› I 6 9 15 βάθρῳ (Plato) : καθαρῷ I 8 3 25 [τί δὲ μέτρον μὴ ἐν τῷ μεμετρημένῳ] 5 30 θεοῖς : θέσις 7 7 ἐκ θεοῦ του : εἰ θεῶτο 8 26 οἵπερ : ὑπὲρ 9 15 [πᾶν εἶδος] 10 15 μὴ‹ν› 12 4 διάθεσιν : αἴσθησιν ΙΙ 3 6 8 τοι‹όν›δε 12 11–32 [τὸ δὲ πρὸς ἡμᾶς … μία ἁρμονία] Out of place here/probably II 4 9 11 τὸ : τι (see note) 16 14 † II 5 1 9 τῷ οὐ : οὐ τω II 6 1 38 [οὐ] (see note!) II 7 1 10 ἑκατέρου : ἑκατέρας (see note) 2 16 † II 8 1 47 ‹ὅ τι› (male) II 9 16 49 μεμιμημένον (Plato) : μεμιγμένον 18 13 †

465  A case of serendipity: The page reprinted below was found by the late Michael Frede in a copy of the editio maior that he purchased at Thornton’s, when it still traded in Oxford. Having realised that the book had been B.S. Page’s private copy in which he had inserted additional textual remarks, Michael Frede gave a photocopy to me, who was then in the process of translating the Enneads into modern Greek (Paul Kalligas). 466  Transcribed by Emanuel Zingg.

Bertram Samuel Page (1904-1993)

III 1 1 24 [ἢ] 1 28 ἐπὶ τὰδε : ἔπειτα δὲ 3 23 ποιήσει : ποιήσεσι ΙΙΙ 2 1 37 ἀσύμφορον : ἀσύμφοροι 11 12 εἰ εὐνομίᾳ : αἱ εὐνομίαι 14 28 ‹εἰ›σι 18 19 δὴ : δὲ III 4 6 32 ‹τὸ› III 5 2 8 ‹ Ἀφροδίτης φήσιν αὐτὸν γενέσθαι ἀλλ’ ἐν› 2 22 [ὅτι ἦν φύσεως] 3 16 ἐπωνυμίαν : ἐπιθυμίαν III 6 4 28 παθὸν : παθόντα 5 8 ἀπαθῶς : ἀπαθοῦς 12 14 [ταύτην] 13 39 [ἐν]ὁρᾶται III 6 14 10 ἅρπαξ : ἅπαξ 17 2 [ἀλλὰ καὶ εἴ τι μίμημα

αὐτῶν καὶ τούτου ἄμοιρον εἰς οἰκείωσιν εἶναι] III 7 2 22 αἰῶνα : χρόνον 3 25 [τοῦ] 6 15 [τὸ] 6 25 ἔκτασιν : ἔκβασιν 9 66 ἄλλο : ἀλλὰ 9 70 αὖ : ἂν 12 13 μέλλον : μᾶλλον 13 17 ἐδήλουν : ἐκδηλοῦν

13 50 † 13 65 [τοῦτο τοίνυν τὸ πρώτως] III 8 6 19 λόγοι ἐν : λέγοιεν 8 18 ἐναργεστέρα : ἐνεργεστέρα 9 31 ἐκεῖ[να] III 9 9 1 νοεῖ … ὄντος : θεοὶ … ὄντες

357

358

Miscellaneous

7.4. Evanghelos Roussos (1931-2016) Paul Kalligas After studies in philosophy at the University of Athens from 1951 t0 1955, he obtained an A. von Humboldt scholarship to study at the University of Bonn. He received his PhD from the Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki in 1968 for a dissertation on ‘Ο Ηράκλειτος στις Εννεάδες του Πλωτίνου’ (“Heraclitus in the Enneads of Plotinus”), which was published in Athens the same year. He subsequently worked on various projects related to Presocratic philosophy and Mythology, as a Research Fellow of the Academy of Athens. He has published numerous articles on Presocratic philosophy in Modern Greek. Among his publications are: a) Heraklit-Bibliographie, Darmstadt (Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft) 1971. b) A series of volumes containing annotated editions of the fragments of the Presocratics (Athens – Stigmi editions) Vol. 1: Historical Introduction (1999) Vol. 2: Heraclitus (2000) Vol. 3: Parmenides (2002) Vol. 4: Empedocles (2007). c) A facsimile edition of his collection of fragments of Pherekydes of Syros (Athens 2010).

A REVIEW OF THE EDITIO MAIOR BY EVANGHELOS ROUSSOS467 Plotini Opera. Tomi I-III. Ediderunt P. Henry et H.-R. Schwyzer: Paris / Bruxelles / Leiden, De Brouwer / Brill 1951-1973, lviii/418 + liii/501 + xlvii / 464 p. (Museum Lessianum. Series philosophica 33-35).

The editio maior of Plotinus’ works – an exemplary critical edition of an ancient text, the preparation of which has spanned the career of the co-editors, the Belgian P. Henry and the Swiss H.-R. Schwyzer – has now been completed with the publication of the third and last volume. The first volume, which contains three of the six Enneads of Plotinus, that is, twenty-seven of his fifty-four books, together with a biographical introduction by Porphyry, Plotinus’ pupil and first editor, On the Life of Plotinus and the Order of His Books, was published almost twenty-five years ago. In 1964, it came out 1964 as an editio minor in the Oxford Classical Texts series (Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis). The second volume, which contains Enneads IV and V, 18 more tractates, together with G. Lewis’ English translation of some excerpts of Plotinus’ text that have also been transmitted through Arabic manuscripts, was published in 1959. The third volume contains the nine books of the last Ennead. 467 

Translated from the Greek by I.-F. Viltanioti.

Evanghelos Roussos (1931-2016)

359

Like the other volumes, it contains a rich bibliography, printed before the text itself as well as additions to the first and second volumes (addenda at tomum primum ed alterum), four indices, including an index of proper names (index nominum), an index of words first attested in Plotinus (index vocabulorum quae apud Plotinum primum leguntur), an index of authors more recent than Plotinus (index testium) and an index of Plotinus’ sources as collected by the editors in the critical apparatus (index fontium). In 1960, H.-R. Schwyzer told the author of this review, who was then investigating the possibilities for the compilation of a Lexicon Plotinianum, that such lexicon had already been compiled by H. J. Sleeman and that it was scheduled to be published as the fourth volume of the present edition. We should thus wait for the forthcoming Lexicon Plotinianum, which will altogether crown this superb edition. The work as a whole took much longer than the declared twenty-five years if, in addition to the preparation of the first volume, one takes into account the numerous essays on the critical edition of Plotinus’ text that the two editors had already published separately, though in parallel, in the nineteen thirties, prior to collaborating on this edition. The preparation of the text is based on the exhaustive critical and comparative investigation of both the direct and the indirect manuscript tradition. The very exhaustiveness of that work guarantees the superiority of the present edition over all earlier ones, from Creuzer’s (Oxford 1835) to Bréhier’s (Paris 1924-1938). The text is paginated with great clarity on paper of excellent quality: the book title, either in its entirety or – when the interlinear space is insufficient – abbreviated, stands at the upper part of the right-hand side, while the tractate, chapter and lines of the text contained in the page, figure on the on the left-hand side. The text is divided into chapters, which are marked by a change of paragraph as well as numbering in bold while smaller characters indicate the numbering of the lines in groups of five. Within the text, each word drawn from the writings of other authors, which Plotinus uses and quotes, is typed in expanded spacing, whereas every word that the Neoplatonist interprets or comments upon is printed within quotation marks. At the bottom of the page are the apparatus, which we will discuss in more detail later. Each of Plotinus’ 54 books opens on a new page, on the top of which there is – above the work’s title –the number of the Ennead to which the published book belongs, the number of the book within the Ennead and, in parenthesis, the number of the book according to the chronological order of composition. (For non-specialists, it is noteworthy that we owe to Porphyry both the numbering of Plotinus’ books in the Enneads, that is, in groups of nine books each, and the chronological ordering). The apparatus, which, as mentioned, are placed at the bottom of the page, are in five sections: the first mentions the manuscripts classified into families; the second (apparatus testium) the testimonies of later authors concerning Plotinus’ text; the third (apparatus fontium) the references to earlier texts, to which Plotinus alludes

360

Miscellaneous

or which he quotes in his text; the fourth (apparatus marginalium) all kinds of notes or marks in the margins of the manuscripts; and the fifth (apparatus lectionum) the various writings of the codices and the philologists’ corrections or propositions. These apparatuses are significantly enriched by 82 additional densely printed pages contained in the third volume (328-410) and supplementing the first and second volumes. These addenda ad tomum primum et alterum are divided into the following chapters: Corrigenda in the – Latin, of course, – prolegomena (corrigenda ad praefationes); additional testimonies (testes addendi) listed according to the order of the Ennead, the book, the chapter and the line of the text; additional sources ( fontes addendi), according to the same order as well; addenda and corrigenda to the text and to the apparatus of the writings, that is, to the fifth apparatus (addenda et corrigensa ad textum et apparatum lectionum), where a distinction is made – per page and consistently following the order of the text – between the approved corrections (emendationes probadae) and the proposals that must be rejected (commentationes reiciendae). Finally, a fifth chapter concerns the corrigenda in the English translation of the Arabic Plotinus (corrigenda ad Arabica). Judging from the names of Harder, Beutler, Theiler, Dodds, Hadot, and Cilento, which are recurrent in the pages of the addenda, one realizes that the bulk of this part is mainly due to critical research material of the two last decades, after the edition of the two first volumes. The exemplarily organized four tables that close the third volume are very didactic and particularly useful. The second table contains Plotinus’ neologisms, which, grouped together on a couple of pages, offer an interesting overview of Plotinus’ contribution to philosophical terminology. In this table, we find: compound terms which contain the stem –αὐτός αnd which are current in contemporary metaphysics, such as αὐτονοῦς, αὐτοουσία, αὐτοψυχή, αύτοζωή, αὐτοκακόν, and αὐτοεπιστήμη; compounds such as συμπροφαίνεσθαι, συναπογεννᾶν, συνεθισμός, and συσσημαντικός, which indicate Plotinus’ initiative to establish a composite, more expressive and more accurate, terminology; verbs that can replace an entire sentence, such as λογοῦσθαι, νοοῦσθαι, and χρονοῦν; meaningful nouns, such as δυνάμωσις, γοήτευσις, φρόντισις, and τριγωνότης, or adjectives, such as φιλιακός. The above are sufficient to show that Plotinus’ new vocabulary has enriched philosophical language with dozens of new terms and has contributed to its vigour, its flexibility, and its capacity for expressing complex notions, which are indispensable in contemporary philosophy. The table of testimonies sheds light on Plotinus’ presence in the writings of Christian and Byzantine authors, while the even richer table of sources is indicative of Plotinus’ philosophical and literary background. The reviewer’s non-published essay Early Hellenism as a Source in Plotinus’ Thought (Ὁ πρώιμος Ελληνισμός ὡς πηγὴ στὴ σκέψη τοῦ Πλωτίνου) enables us to conjecture that, in the future, through the increasing number of such specialised studies, these tables will acquire even greater dimensions.

Evanghelos Roussos (1931-2016)

361

Some remarks and suggestions on specific aspects of the text and of the apparatus aim, not at downplaying the importance of the contribution, but at helping limit to the mimimum the – inevitable, after all – shortcomings and imperfections in the case of a second edition. Thus, in I 6, 7, 14, one should read πῶς δ᾽ἀν ἐκπλαγείη. In II 9, 9, 19, πόλει διδούσῃ ἑκάστῳ τὴν ἀξίαν, let us write κατ᾽ ἀξίαν, option that may be justified by the following passages: II 9, 9, 76, III 2, 17, 49, III 3, 4, 52-53, IV 7, 8, 37, and IV 8, 5, 20. In III 2, 1, 32, instead of αὐτῷ φίλον, let us opt for αὑτῷ φίλον, version supported by Creuzer and justified by φίλον αὑτῷ in III 3, 3, 7, within the same book. Moreover, in IV 5, 8, 18, let συμπαθὲς αὐτῷ be corrected into συμπαθὲς αὑτῷ, in accordance with IV 4, 35, 9. In IV 8, 1, 16, ὡς δέον ἴσως παρ᾽ αὐτῷ ζητεῖν, instead of παρ᾽ αὐτῷ (i.e. τῷ Ἡρακλείτῳ), we should accept Heintz’s reading παρ᾽ αὑτῶν (i.e. ἡμῶν), which has been adopted by Harder in his edition and by the reviewer468 and which is imposed by the meaning of the text, since it is obvious that Plotinus alludes to Heraclitus’ Fr. 101, ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν (see also V 9, 5, 31). This is further confirmed by Plotinus’ following phrase, namely ὥσπερ καὶ αὐτὸς [sc. ὁ Ἡράκλειτος] ζητήσας εὗρεν. The meaning is that, like Heraclitus, who sought knowledge within himself, we also should seek knowledge within ourselves (not in the work of Heraclitus, who εἰκάζειν ἔδωκεν ἀμελήσας σαφῆ ἡμῖν ποιῆσαι τὸν λόγον). Finally, in VI 2, 8, 5, we will have to follow Kirchhoff and read ἴδε δὲ νοῦν [καὶ] καθαρόν. Among the other, less significant, corrections and additions that should be made, the most important are: I 1, 5, 35 ἄρξεται ; 6, 5, 46 ἀλλοτρίου 8, 5, 32 ἄνθρωποι 15, 7 ὄρεξις ΙΙ 4, 8, 10 ἀραιόν, 6, 1, 50 οὐσία ; 3, 7 Ἐνέργειαι ΙΙΙ 8, 3, 19 θεώρημα· 6, 39 ἔξω, ΙV 3, 3, 4 ἀλλ᾽ ἔξω 4, 7 Ἀλλ᾽ εἰ 17, 9 ἄλλα 21, 20 πρόσθεν· 25, 36 λεγομένη 26, 45 οὐδέ τινα ΙV 4, 20, 19 ἄρξαντι 28, 22 σωματικαῖς 468 

E. N. Roussos, Heraclitus in Plotinus’ Enneads [in Greek], Athens 1968, 17.

362

Miscellaneous

V 1, 1, 35 εὑρεῖν. 2, 6 ἃ ζῆν 3, 2, 24 ἀλλὰ 6, 4, 21 ἐν ἄλλῳ· 9, 14, 14 σύνθετα VI 1, 10, 23 ἧττον 3, 1, 23 γὰρ 4, 4, 2 πανταχοῦ 8, 22 ἕξει 7, 3, 2 οὔτε 28, 17 Ἀλλ᾽ ἆρά γε 9, 5, 7 κοινωνήσασα 11, 7 εἰκόνα. The editors did not need to consider ἀγλάισμα in III 5, 9, 9 and ἀποτετειχισμένα in II 9, 3, 20 as indicating Plotinus’ sources and to attribute these terms to Aeschylus’ Agamemnon 1312 and to Aristophanes’ Birds 1576 respectively. Ἀγλάισμα derives naturally, without evoking Aeschylus, from ἀγλαΐα and ἀγλαΐζειν, which Plotinus uses very often, while ἀποτετειχισμένα presents no specificity – either with respect to terminology or in connection with the meaning of the text – which would render a reference to Aristophanes plausible. Besides, in the entire work of Plotinus, no other reference to these poets has been spotted so far; the contrary would at least offer some indirect justification for the abovementioned references. In V 8, 4, 40-42, ἡ αὐτοεπιστήμη ἐνταῦθα πάρεδρος τῷ νῷ τῷ συμπροφαίνεσθαι, οἶον λέγουσι κατὰ μίμησιν καὶ τῷ Διὶ τὴν Δίκην, which the editors take as a reference to the orphic fragment 158 Kern, must not be correlated with the orphic hymn 62, 1-2 (=Fr. 23 Kern), to which refers Dodds,469 or with Hesiod’s Works and Days 256-257 or with Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus 1381-1382, as Müller470 and Cilento471 suppose, or with Plato’s Laws IV 716 a (= orph. Fr. 21), as Dorrie472 proposes, or with Pseudo-Demosthenes’ Against Aristogeiton I 11 (Orph. Fr. 23), as Dodds473 points out. There are two other passages to which no one has payed attention so far, and which belong to authors who are chronologically much closer to Plotinus, namely Plutarch’s Alexander 52 and Arrian’s Anabasis of Alexander 4, 9, 7. The correlation with these two passages is necessary given the fact that they alone provide the term πάρεδρος, which is contained in Plotinus’ much-discussed excerpt. Finally, the place of I 4, 8, 1 – 2, τὸ δὲ 469  In the volume Les sources de Plotin, Vandoeuvres – Genève, Fondation Hardt 1957, 318 (Entretiens sur l’antiquite classique 5). 470  H. F. Müller, Plotinische Studien, “Hermes” 52 (1917) 151. 471  V. Cilento, Mito e poesia nelle Enneadi de Plotino, in the volume Les sources de Plotin, 293 and 3000. 472  In the same volume, p. 317. 473  Ibid. 318.

Evanghelos Roussos (1931-2016)

363

τῶν ἀλγηδόνων – ἐξοίσουσι, must be connected with – the equally chronologically

closer to Plotinus – Epicurean Diogenes of Oenoanda, Fr. 42 Chilton, rather than with Epicurus’ fragments 447-448 Usener. Beyond these remarks and additions, which concern sources of Plotinus already acknowledged, it would also be possible to make some additions concerning aspects so far neglected in research. These additions shed some more light on the problem of Plotinus’ relationship with the early Greek world, yet without exhausting the topic, since, as mentioned above, a comprehensive study on the matter is under preparation. Thus, we can consider the term ἀμφαγαπάζεται in II 2,2,13 as reminiscent of Homer’s Il. 16, 192 and the term εὐθημοσύνη in IV 4,6,16 and VI 8,17,7 as reminiscent of Hesiod’s Works and Days 471. The expression ἀδελφοὺς προσεννέπειν in II 9,18,18 may be taken to evoke κασιγνήτας προσεννέπω in Pindar’s Isthmian 6,24-25 Maehler and, likewise, σοφός τις ὁ μαθὼν ἐξ ἄλλου ἄλλο in II 3,7,12 to evoke ἕτερος ἐκ ἑτέρου σοφὸς in Bacchylides’ Fr. 5,1, while σκύλαξ τῇ ὀδμῇ ὀρίνοιτο may be taken to be the quotation of an ancient proverb. As for the phrase οὐδέν έστιν ὃ ἄμοιρόν έστι ψυχῆς in I 8,14,37, we can refer to Thales’ testimonies 22 and 23. The following expressions can be correlated to πῦρ ἀείζωον and to ἁπτόμενον-ἀποσβεννύμενον μέτρα in Heraclitus’ Fr. 30: τὸ πῦρ ἐστιν έν μέτρῳ (II 9,3,5); πῦρ ζῇ (VI 7,11,6); πῦρ ζωή τις πυρίνη (46) and ζῇ ἄρα και αὐτὸ τὸ πῦρ (48). The expression ἓν πάντα in II 6,1,8-9, III 1,4,20, VI 5,1,26 and 5,10 could be considered as an echo of Heraclitus’ Fr. 50. The term χρησμοσύνην in I 8,5,25 can perhaps be associated with Heraclitus’ Fr. 65; τάς τε ἀνθρωπίνας σπουδὰς ἁπάσας παιδιὰς οὔσας in III 2,15,35-36 with παίδων ἀθύρματα (τὰ ἀνθρώπινα δοξάσματα) of the dubious Heraclitean Fr. 70; the expressions τῷ ὅλῳ – συνεργὸν in II 3,16, 44 and συνεργοῦντα τοῖς κατὰ φύσιν γιγνομένοις in II 9,13,15-16 with the equally dubious Fr. 75, συνεργοὺς τῶν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ γινομένων; and, perhaps, the phrase ὁ καλὸς οὕτος κόσμος σκιὰ καὶ εἰκὼν in III 8,11, 29 with ὥσπερ σάρμα εἰκῇ κεχυμένον ὁ κάλλιστος κόσμος in Fr. 124. Regarding νοῦς ὁρᾷ in III 9,1,1, V 3,8,18, and in V 8,3,27, besides Plato’s Timaeus 39 e, it is worth mentioning Epicharmus’ Fr. 12. The phrase ἀτρεμήσει – ἡ ψυχὴ in I 1,9,23 can easily be connected with Parmenides’ ἀτρεμὲς ἧτορ in Fr. 1,29 (cf. 8,4). In VI 7,12,18, καὶ οὐκ ἔστι μὴ εἶναι can be regarderd as a reference to Fr. 2, 3 (second half of the line). The term ἀνώλεθρον in II 5,5,34 and IV 7,9,11 may have been borrowed from Fr. 8, 3. Furthermore, ἐκποδὼν δὲ ἡμῖν ἔστω γένεσις in V 1,6,19 may be rendering the phrases τὼς γένεσις μὲν ἀπέσβεσται and γένεσις καὶ ὄλεθρος τῆλε μάλ᾽ ἐπλάχθησαν of the same fragment, lines 21 and 27-28 respectively, while τὸ σφοδρὸν τῆς ἀνἀγκης may be a Neoplatonic equivalent of κρατερὴ Ἀνάγκη in line 30. Additionally, οὐκ ἔνεστιν ἀλήθεια, ὰλλὰ δόξα in V 5,1,62-63 may echo ἐν τῷ σοι παύω πιστὸν λόγον – ἀμφὶς ἀληθείης δόξας δ᾽ἀπὸ τοῦδε in lines 50-51 of the same fragment, which has generally been much used by Plotinus. Concerning στυγέουσιν οἱ θεοὶ in V 1,2,27, next to Homer’s Y 65, the reference to Empedocles’ Fr. 115,12 would not be irrelevant. It would be useful to juxtapose the claim κόλλαν γὰρ εἶναι τῇ γῇ τὴν ὕδατος ὑγρότητα in II 1,6,25-26 with

364

Miscellaneous

Archelaus’ Fr. 1a. The well-known μέτρον πάντων in I 8,2,3 is perhaps an allusion to Protagoras’ Fr. 1. Let οὗ δὴ ἆθλα ἀρετὴς πρόκειται in III 2,5,4 be associated with Thucydides’ 2,46, the use of which by Plotinus is attested elsewhere as well (cf. the Index fontium). In IV 4,40,6-7, γόης καὶ φαρμακεὺς is taken from Plato’s Symposium 203d, a passage that Plotinus used extensively. Finally, we would say that, if it has not another source, the phrase μηδ᾽ ἐν ούρανῷ γάμοι in III 5,5,18-19 evokes ἐν γὰρ τῇ ἀναστάσει οὔτε γαμοῦσιν οὔτε γαμίζονται from the Gospel of Matthew 22, 30. At the same time, it is noteworthy that the expression φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς in IV 3,17,13-14 and VI 4,9,26-27 was transmitted from Plotinus to the Nicaean Creed. The obvious aim of such observations is to make some useful additions to an undoubtedly monumental work, not to disparage the editors, for exhaustiveness as regards all the topics relevant to the relationship of Plotinus’ work with all earlier and posterior Greek passages was not only practically impossible but also beyond the scope of their editorial task. Yet, these observations offer further support to the view that ancient philosophy in its entirety is admirably encapsulated in Plotinus: its various elements are attested in the Neoplatonic text either as historical knowledge or as influences or as critical attitude. Thus, we can better realize the need of specialist studies focusing on Plotinus’ sources and influences, so that we may get to know in depth, not only Plotinus’ relation to the Greek past, but also the survival of his writings and their influence on later thought. For such studies, the starting point will always be this edition. Reading through the work now that is has been completed, I cannot avoid a glimpse of sadness when reflecting that only few late and even classical Greek authors have been fortunate enough to be the object of such a superb edition. Athens Evanghelos N. Roussos

Index Locorum The Index Locorum does not cover bibliographies in this book and registers only ­ancient authors. With the exception of Plotinus’ treatises, the index does not register generic references to works of other authors [for example, generic reference to an Ennead, e.g., I 1 is included; generic reference to Plato’s Symposium is not included]. References to the Enneads appear in different forms throughout the book (1 1 1; I 1, 1; I, 1, 1 etc.), but in the Index we follow the style used by Henry and Schwyzer in the Editio Minor. AESCHINES 2. 117

266

AESCHYLUS Agamemnon 1312

362

ALCINOUS Didaskalikos 282n23 ALEXANDER OF APHRODISIAS Suppl. (Mantissa) II. 1, 74 Bruns 311 ANAXAGORAS A41. 19-20 283 B1116 ARCHELAUS Fr. 1a

364

ARISTOPHANES Birds 1576

362

ARISTOTLE De Anima 412a22-27273 412b10ff.300 415b8300

De Ideis Fr. 5 Ross 289 De Somno 454b32ff.273 Fragments Fr. 202 Rose 116 Generation of Animals 725a35289 Metaphysics 983b18-21116 984a5-7116 984a8116 984a11-13116 1003a5-17296 1028b3-6116 1032b6-10312 1032b15-17312 1039b1-2290 1041a20-b9300 1072b1790 1074b1890 Nicomachean Ethics 1102b7-8273 1108a8298 1112a18-30269 1139a35-36310 1139b4311 1143a8-10312

366

A Text Worthy of Plotinus

Physics 184b22-24116 201b5-15312 209b11-13316 Poetics 1453b10292 ARISTOXENUS Fr. 35

116

ARRIAN Anabasis 4. 9. 7

362

AUGUSTINE Confessions III. 11 VII. 24 IX Retractationes I. 1. 3

93n187 27 28, 43

BACCHYLIDES Fr. 5, 1

93 363

DEMOCRITUS A37116 DEMOSTHENES 21 (In Mid.). 169 25 (In Arist.) 11

288 362

DIOGENES OF OENOANDA Fr. 42 Chilton

363

EMPEDOCLES B17116 B115. 12 363 B115. 14 146 EPICARMUS Fr. 12

363

EPICURUS Fr. 447-448 Usener

363

EURIPIDES Fragments (Nauck) 578276 641120 EUSEBIUS Preaparatio Evangelica XI. 6 XV. 10. 1-9 XV. 22. 1-67 GOSPELS Mark 10:18 Matthew 19:17 Matthew 22:30

87 11 11 197 197 364

HERACLITUS B11117 B30363 B50363 B65363 B70363 B75363 B82 116, 117 B83117 B101361 B113116 B115116 B124363 HERODOTUS I. 121 II. 10

288 288

HESIOD Works and Days 256-257362 471363

Index Locorum

HOMER Iliad 16, 192 20, 65

363 363

HORACE Epist. 1. 1. 74

106

LYSIAS 12. 20

298, 320

NUMENIUS Test. 34 (= 42 dPl.)

94

OLYMPIODORUS In Gorgiam (Norvin) 2. 240. 20

93

ORIGEN Fr. 7 Weber ORPHICS Fr. 21 Kern Fr. 23 Kern Fr. 158 Kern

362 362 362

PARMENIDES B1. 29 B2. 3 B8. 3 B8. 5 B8. 6 B8. 21 B8. 25 B8. 27-28 B8. 30 B8. 50-51

363 363 363 116 116 363 116 363 363 363

PINDAR Isth. 6. 24-25 Ol. 8. 21-22

363 134

367

PLATO Apology 17b6288 Cratylus 38787 398b143 431e-432a277 432d8-9277 Critias 109c1117 Crito 50e-6-7278 Euthyphro 11b8289 Gorgias 480a1-2297 521b7288 Hippias Maior 289a 116, 117 Laws 716a362 745c6-7267 896c9263 Letters (VII) 344b7 313 Meno 76a332 97d-98a296 Parmenides 131a4-5 288, 290 131b2 289, 290 131b4-5 289, 290 Phaedo 67a3-4292 67c6334 69c-d2n22 75d7-11278 Phaedrus 247a94 247e-248a2n22

368

A Text Worthy of Plotinus

251e2289 253b-c2n22 262b2-3278 Philebus 33b2-4270 33e3278 65a1-2267 Protagoras 328a8296 353d4-5296 Republic 371e4297 375a2303 375d10ff.303 402b7277 402c6277 413a6-8278 434a6303 440b3304 440c8304 440d2-6303 441a2-3304 442b7-8304 466b1288 472d4-7281 473a2-3296 474d-475a285 476c7277 508-50989 508d1284 508d5284 508e-509a336 509b90 515c9284 515e2284 516a2284 516a2-3284 516a7277 516b1-2284 516b4284 517b8 139, 284, 336

518a2284 518a5284 518c10284 518d9-e2303 532b9-c1284 Sophist 218c7-d 2 276 248e53 265b2277 266b6277 266c7277 266d7277 Statesman 259-260312 259e8-11312 286a7-b2276 306d1277 Symposium 202d13-e1264 203D364 203d6120 208a4-5278 211d3288 216d4-217a2282 Theaetetus 176a-b2n22 184d3-4128 189e6275 206a5-8275 207a-208b277 208a9-10275 208b4-5275 Timaeus 29e94 30b1-4307 30b3308 39e363 39e7-9 259, 260 41d-e295 44dff.295 51a7-b1316

Index Locorum

58c5-d4289 69c7295 70a-b297 70a6295 82a2-4299 85c2ff.300 88b110 92c87 PLOTINUS I. 1. I. 1. 2. 27 I. 1. 5 I. 1. 5. 12-21 I. 1. 5. 13 I. 1. 5. 15-16 I. 1. 5. 17-18 I. 1. 5. 18 I. 1. 5. 35 I. 1. 8. 1-2 I. 1. 8. 1-8 I. 1. 8. 1-10 I. 1. 9. 23 I. 1. 12. 3 I. 2. 1 I. 2. 1. 7-9 I. 2. 4. 4 I. 2. 4. 16-23 I. 2. 4. 20-29 I. 2. 6. 12-13 I. 2. 7. 2-4 I. 3. 1 I. 3. 1. 1-5 I. 3. 2. 10 I. 3. 4-6 I. 3. 4. 18-20 I. 3. 5. 9 I. 3. 5. 17-18 I. 3. 6. 3 I. 3. 6. 12-13 I. 3. 6. 15

109 356 70 109 109 109 109, 110, 111n203, 118 117 134, 361 311, 316 314 317 363 109, 110 2n23 310 356 282 314 287 287 93 92 356 276 276 276 276 134 276 276

I. 3. 6. 16 I. 3. 13. 17 I. 4 I. 4. 1. 1-2 I. 4. 6. 21 I. 4. 7. 24 I. 4. 10 I. 5 I. 5. 1. 3 I. 5. 7. 11 I. 5. 7. 12 1. 5. 10. 7 I. 6 I. 6. 3. 17 I. 6. 3. 26-27 I. 6. 3. 27 I. 6. 5. 46 I. 6. 6. 27 I. 6. 7. 2 I. 6. 7. 14 I. 6. 8. 4-5 I. 6. 8. 16 I. 6. 8. 21-27 I. 6. 9. 15 I. 6. 9. 23-24 I. 6. 9 I. 6. 9. 13-37 I. 7. 1. 18 I. 7. 1. 27-28 I. 7. 3. 1-3 I. 8. 2. 3 I. 8. 3. 25 I. 8. 5. 14 I. 8. 5. 16-17 I. 8. 5. 25 I. 8. 5. 30 I. 8. 5. 32 I. 8. 6. 9-12 I. 8. 6. 36-37 I. 8. 6. 41 I. 8. 7. 7

369

276 117 5 362 356 43 266 84, 85, 93 121 121 121 121 8, 84, 225 110 109, 110 111n203 361 138 92 134, 361 93 93 93 356 94 28, 93 284 111n203 111n203 258 364 356 121 311 363 356 361 334 319 121, 355 356

370

I. 8. 8. 26 I. 8. 9. 15 I. 8. 10. 15 I. 8. 12. 4 I. 8. 14. 37 I. 8. 14. 51 I. 8. 15. 7 I. 8. 15. 26 I. 9 I. 9. 1. 14 II. 1. 2. 9-10 II. 1. 4 II. 1. 5. 14-15 II. 1. 6. 23-24 II. 1. 6. 25-26 II. 2. 1. 48 II. 2. 2. 13 II. 2. 2. 20-22 II. 3. 6. 8 II. 3. 7. 12 II. 3. 9. 31-47 II. 3. 10. 6-7 II. 3. 11. 12 II. 3. 12. 11-32 II. 3. 13. 17 II. 3. 13. 7-8 II. 3. 16. 44 II. 3. 17. 4-9 II. 3. 17. 14 II. 3. 17. 15-17 II. 3. 18. 8-13 II. 3. 18. 8-22 II. 3. 18. 9-10 II. 3. 18. 12-13 II. 3. 18. 14-18 II. 3. 18. 15-16 II. 3. 18. 19-21 II. 4 II. 4. 1 II. 4. 3. 1-5 II. 4. 3. 5

A Text Worthy of Plotinus

356 356 356 336, 356 363 110, 111n203 361 121 120 52 278 114 281 283 363 289 363 91 356 363 308 118 288 356 148 310 363 312 309 312 311 310 307 312 311 307 307 95 114 307 308

II. 4. 5. 28ff. II. 4. 8. 10 II. 4. 9. 11 II. 4. 11. 19-21 II. 4. 12. 1-6 II. 4. 15 II. 4. 16. 1-4 II. 4. 16. 14 II. 5 II. 5. 1. 9 II. 5. 5. 34 II. 6. 1. 7-8 II. 6. 1. 8-9 II. 6. 1. 38 II. 6. 1. 50 II. 6. 3. 7 II. 7. 1. 1 II. 7. 1. 10 II. 7. 2. 16 II. 8. 1. 47 II. 9 II. 9. 1. 1-8 II. 9. 1. 57-63 II. 9. 2. 6 II. 9. 3. 5 II. 9. 3. 20 II. 9. 5. 14-15 II. 9. 9. 19 II. 9. 9. 30-42 II. 9. 9. 36 II. 9. 9. 66-67 II. 9. 9. 67 II. 9. 9. 68 II. 9. 9. 76 II. 9. 13. 15-16 II. 9. 16. 49 II. 9. 18. 13 II. 9. 18. 18 III. 1. 1. 24 III. 1. 1. 28 III. 1. 3. 23

314 134, 361 356 292 292 271 314 355, 356 113, 118 356 363 146 363 356 134, 361 361 135 356 356 356 129 279, 280 307 317 363 134, 362 283 134, 361 87 87 146 146 146 361 363 356 356 363 357 357 357

Index Locorum

III. 1. 4. 20 III. 2-3 III. 2. 1. 23-26 III. 2. 1. 32 III. 2. 1. 37 III. 2. 2. 23-24 III. 2. 3. 39-41 III. 2. 5. 4 III. 2. 9. 31-38 III. 2. 11. 12 III. 2. 13 III. 2. 14. 28 III. 2. 15. 35-36 III. 2. 16 III. 2. 16. 12-13 III. 2. 16. 12-28 III. 2. 16. 14 III. 2. 16. 14-15 III. 2. 16. 15 III. 2. 16. 15-16 III. 2. 16. 16 III. 2. 16. 16-17 III. 2. 16. 17 III. 2. 16. 17-28 III. 2. 16. 26-30 III. 2. 16. 28-30 III. 2. 16. 30 III. 2. 17 III. 2. 17. 1 III. 2. 17. 49 III. 2. 18. 19 III. 3. 2 III. 3. 3. 7 III. 3. 4. 52-53 III. 3. 5. 13-14 III. 3. 5. 16-20 III. 3. 6. 15 III. 3. 6. 30-31 III. 4. 1 III. 4. 1. 8-10 III. 4. 1. 12-13

363 145, 162, 197, 313 311 134, 361 257 311 258 364 106 357 196 357 363 313 304 306 308, 313 308 309, 313 307, 308 312, 313 310 307 310 313 308 306, 310 197 146 361 357 310 361 361 258, 313 313 267 258 231 307, 308, 309 308

III. 4. 3. 21-27 III. 4. 3. 22 III. 4. 5. 16-17 III. 4. 6. 21-23 III. 4. 6. 24-25 III. 4. 6. 32 III. 4. 6. 39-40 III. 5 III. 5. 1. 34-65 III. 5. 2 III. 5. 2. 8 III. 5. 2. 22 III. 5. 3. 3-8 III. 5. 3. 16 III. 5. 5. 18-19 III. 5. 7. 1-25 III. 5. 7. 17-18 III. 5. 7. 24 III. 5. 9 III. 5. 9. 1-5 III. 5. 9. 1-8 III. 5. 9. 1-23 III. 5. 9. 6-7 III. 5. 9. 9 III. 5. 9. 15-16 III. 5. 9. 17-18 III. 5. 9. 19-20 III. 5. 9. 20-21 III. 5. 9. 23-29 III. 5. 9. 30-31 III. 5. 9. 34 III. 5. 9. 53-54 III. 6 III. 6. 4. 28 III. 6. 4. 33-34 III. 6. 5. 8 III. 6. 5. 24-25 III. 6. 5. 25 III. 6. 12. 14 III. 6. 13. 39 III. 6. 14. 10

371

314 92 118 314 314 357 295 89, 144, 145, 306 282 308 357 357 311 357 364 307 281 119, 141 309 305 316 307 307 363 311 311 311 306 273 308 311 281 113, 118, 148, 191 357 295 357 334 138 357 357 357

372

III. 6. 14. 17 III. 6. 17. 2 III. 7 III. 7. 1. 20-24 III. 7. 2. 22 III. 7. 2. 23 III. 7. 3. 25 III. 7. 4. 1 III. 7. 6. 9 III. 7. 6. 15 III. 7. 6. 25 III. 7. 9. 66 III. 7. 9. 70 III. 7. 11 III. 7. 11-12 III. 7. 11. 15-17 III. 7. 12. 13 III. 7. 13. 17 III. 7. 13. 50 III. 7. 13. 65 III. 8 III. 8. 1. 10-11 III. 8. 2. 3 III. 8. 3. 2 III. 8. 3. 3-4 III. 8. 3. 13-14 III. 8. 3. 19 III. 8. 3. 20-23 III. 8. 4 III. 8. 4. 5 III. 8. 4. 24 III. 8. 4. 43 III. 8. 5. 7 III. 8. 5. 9-10 III. 8. 5. 12 III. 8. 5. 13 III. 8. 5. 29 III. 8. 5. 31 III. 8. 6. 19 III. 8. 6. 27 III. 8. 6. 39

A Text Worthy of Plotinus

142 357 350 282 357 293 357 123 120 357 357 357 357 199, 231 314 311 357 357 357 357 8, 67, 84, 129 121 121 281 310n406 313 361 312 161n257 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 122 357 122 361

III. 8. 8 III. 8. 8. 7 III. 8. 8. 12-24 III. 8. 8. 18 III. 8. 8. 18-19 III. 8. 9 III. 8. 9. 24-25 III. 8. 9. 31 III. 8. 10. 5 III. 8. 11 III. 8. 11. 1-8 III. 8. 11. 3-4 III. 8. 11. 23-24 III. 8. 11. 24 III. 8. 11. 29 III. 9. 1 III. 9. 1. 1 III. 9. 1. 2 III. 9. 5 III. 9. 7. 5-6 III. 9. 9. 1 IV. 1. 8-9 IV. 1. 15 IV. 1. 16 IV. 1. 17 IV. 2 IV. 2. 1. 8 IV. 2. 1. 8-10 IV. 2. 1. 26 IV. 2. 1. 29-31 IV. 2. 1. 31 IV. 2. 1. 31-41 IV. 2. 1. 41 IV. 2. 2. 52-55 IV. 3 IV. 3. 3. 4 IV. 3. 3. 18-19 IV. 3. 3. 19-20 IV. 3. 4. 7 IV. 3. 4. 23 IV. 3. 4. 31-33

199, 232 199 310 357 122 53, 310n406 122 357 122 197 309 123 311, 311n408, 327 123 363 53, 88 135, 363 128 307, 313 278 357 314 140, 141 231 294 XII 291 291 334 291 291 291 291 291 15, 50, 128 361 302 128 361 294 146

Index Locorum

IV. 3. 9. 38 IV. 3. 9. 13-14 IV. 3. 10. 38-39 IV. 3. 11. 23 IV. 3. 12. 12 IV. 3. 13. 13-14 IV. 3. 13. 15 IV. 3. 13. 15-17 IV. 3. 13. 16-17 IV. 3. 13. 26-27 IV. 3. 13. 28-19 IV. 3. 17. 9 IV. 3. 17. 13-14 IV. 3. 18. 1-22 IV. 3. 18. 10-12 IV. 3. 18. 14-16 IV. 3. 18. 16 IV. 3. 19. 22 IV. 3. 19. 23-24 IV. 3. 19. 30-34 IV. 3. 21. 20 IV. 3. 23 IV. 3. 23. 2 IV. 3. 23. 9-15 IV. 3. 23. 24 IV. 3. 23. 35-42 IV. 3. 23. 42-43 IV. 3. 23. 43-45 IV. 3. 24. 9 IV. 3. 24. 25 IV. 3. 25. 12 IV. 3. 25. 29-33 IV. 3. 25. 36 IV. 3. 26. 45 IV. 3. 27. 1-6 IV. 3. 27. 7-8 IV. 3. 28. 10-21 IV. 3. 28. 13-16 IV. 3. 28. 15 IV. 3. 31. 6-8 IV. 3. 31. 16-20

126, 130 17 310 294 294 303 294 302 126 294, 318 318 361 364 74 311, 315 301 294, 302 295 295 294 361 318 295 74 127, 295 299 299 299 295 127 318 295 361 361 292 295 337 303 304 292 292

IV. 3. 30 IV. 3. 32. 6 IV. 4 IV. 4. 1-8 IV. 4. 1. 36 IV. 4. 1. 36-38 IV. 4. 2. 5-6 IV. 4. 3. 7-8 IV. 4. 4. 9-10 IV. 4. 4. 12-13 IV. 4. 5. 6-8 IV. 4. 6 IV. 4. 6. 16 IV. 4. 7. 1 IV. 4. 8. 14 IV. 4. 8. 22-23 IV. 4. 8. 47-49 IV. 4. 9. 18 IV. 4. 10-17 IV. 4. 10. 4 IV. 4. 10. 11-14 IV. 4. 10. 21-22 IV. 4. 11. 24 IV. 4. 12 IV. 4. 12. 26-27 IV. 4. 12. 33-34 IV. 4. 12. 43-48 IV. 4. 13 IV. 4. 13. 19 IV. 4. 15. 3-4 IV. 4. 15. 9-10 IV. 4. 15. 11ff. IV. 4. 16. 2-3 IV. 4. 16. 2-4 IV. 4. 16. 5-6 IV. 4. 16. 11-20 IV. 4. 16. 14-15 IV. 4. 17. 2-3 IV. 4. 17. 9-10 IV. 4. 17. 11 IV. 4. 17. 12

373

266 292 15, 50, 128 71 141 295 295 295 296 296 295 294 363 300 148, 149 127 127 296 314 313 312, 315 296 296 311 296 312 311 313 296 296 296 297 318 296 311 312 312 297 297 297 297

374

A Text Worthy of Plotinus

IV. 4. 17. 13 297 IV. 4. 17. 34-35 297 IV. 4. 20. 19 361 IV. 4. 20. 20-21 298 IV. 4. 22 196 IV. 4. 22. 12 148 IV. 4. 22. 37 297, 318 IV. 4. 24-25 297 IV. 4. 24. 17 297 IV. 4. 25. 3-4 292 IV. 4. 25. 7 297 IV. 4. 25. 8ff. 297 IV. 4. 25. 14-15 297 IV. 4. 26. 18 127, 297 IV. 4. 26. 19 297 IV. 4. 26. 23-27 298 IV. 4. 26. 24-25 141 IV. 4. 27. 15 298, 318 IV. 4. 28 299, 320n421 IV. 4. 28. 8-9 298 IV. 4. 28. 13-14 304 IV. 4. 28. 21 298 IV. 4. 28. 22 361 IV. 4. 28. 22-28 303 IV. 4. 28. 29-30 303 IV. 4. 28. 32 127, 128, 304, 318, 337 IV. 4. 28. 32-33 298, 303, 320 IV. 4. 28. 39ff. 303 IV. 4. 28. 43-44 303 IV. 4. 28. 44 298, 304 IV. 4. 28. 45-46 304 IV. 4. 28. 47ff. 298 IV. 4. 28. 58-59 298 IV. 4. 28. 66ff. 299 IV. 4. 28. 73-74 299 IV. 4. 29. 55 14n65 IV. 4. 30. 19 298, 318 IV. 4. 33. 14 318 IV. 4. 33. 22 297 IV. 4. 34. 22 298 IV. 4. 35. 9 298, 361

IV. 4. 36 50 IV. 4. 36. 3-4 257, 258 IV. 4. 36. 7-8 298 IV. 4. 37. 22 298 IV. 4. 38. 1-2 298 IV. 4. 40. 6-7 134, 364 IV. 4. 41. 10-11 299 IV. 4. 41. 11-12 299 IV. 4. 41. 11-15 298, 299, 300, 318 IV. 4. 45. 4-5 299 IV. 4. 45. 34 299 IV. 5 71, 128 IV. 5. 1. 5-6 302 IV. 5. 4. 3-4 301 IV. 5. 4. 20 301 IV. 5. 4. 29-30 301 IV. 5. 7. 35 141, 255 IV. 5. 8. 18 361 IV. 5. 8. 23-26 301 IV. 5. 8. 25 301 IV. 5. 8. 25-26 301 IV. 5. 8. 28 301 IV. 5. 8. 29 318 IV. 5. 8. 36 145 IV. 6 127, 128 IV. 6. 1. 18 302 IV. 6. 1. 19-21 302 IV. 6. 1. 28 292 IV. 6. 1. 37 300, 301 IV. 6. 1. 37-38 301 IV. 6. 3. 74-75 277 IV. 6. 3. 70 146 IV. 7 XI, 11, 12, 14, 44, 47, 107, 128 4 IV. 7. 1-8 . 28 11 IV. 7. 1. 21-25 107 IV. 7. 1. 22-25 300 IV. 7. 1. 25 87 IV. 7. 2. 4 300 IV. 7. 3. 1-5 107 IV. 7. 5. 19-20 129 IV. 7. 5. 51 300

Index Locorum

IV. 7. 6. 10 300 IV. 7. 7. 6 129 IV. 7. 8. 28 11 IV. 7. 8. 37 361 IV. 7. 8². 13-14 302 IV. 7. 8511 IV. 7. 85. 18 138 IV. 7. 85. 41-43 138, 333 IV. 7. 85. 42-43 300 5 IV. 7. 8 . 49 11 IV. 7. 9-10 314 IV. 7. 9. 6-9 310 IV. 7. 9. 11 363 IV. 7. 10. 35 314 IV. 7. 10. 42-47 284 IV. 7. 11. 1-9 307 IV. 7. 11. 7 129 IV. 7. 11. 10-11 307 IV. 7. 11. 18 307 IV. 7. 12. 8-9 284 IV. 7. 12. 8-10 282 IV. 7. 13. 1-6 315 IV. 7. 13. 1-8 311 IV. 7. 14. 9 129, 302 IV. 8 71, 92, 115, 128, 231 IV. 8. 1. 1-11 92, 93 IV. 8. 1. 12-13 115 IV. 8. 1. 16 361 IV. 8. 1. 16-17 134 IV. 8. 1. 19 146 IV. 8. 1. 41-50 307 IV. 8. 1. 45-46 308 IV. 8. 1. 48-50 260 IV. 8. 2. 27 318 IV. 8. 2. 27-28 312 IV. 8. 3. 21-23 311, 315 IV. 8. 3. 26 13 IV. 8. 4. 36 318 IV. 8. 5. 16ff. 318 IV. 8. 5. 20 361 IV. 8. 6 230

IV. 8. 6. 10-23 IV. 8. 6. 13 IV. 8. 7. 20-21 IV. 8. 8. 16 IV. 9 IV. 9. 3. 10-12 IV. 9. 5 IV. 9. 5. 12ff. IV. 9. 5. 14-15 V. 1 V. 1. 1 V. 1. 1. 2 V. 1. 1. 4 V. 1. 1. 27 V. 1. 1. 35 V. 1. 2. 6 V. 1. 2. 10-25 V. 1. 2. 17 V. 1. 2. 27 V. 1. 3 V. 1. 3. 7-12 V. 1. 3. 13 V. 1. 3. 15-16 V. 1. 3. 16 V. 1. 3. 16-17 V. 1. 3. 21-23 V. 1. 3. 23 V. 1. 4 V. 1. 4. 13 V. 1. 4. 37-38 V. 1. 4. 39-40 V. 1. 5. 6-19 V. 1. 5. 15-16 V. 1. 5. 17-18 V. 1. 6. 6-7 V. 1. 6. 18 V. 1. 6. 19 V. 1. 6. 19-22 V. 1. 6. 28-37 V. 1. 6. 49 V. 1. 6. 53

375

94 94 302 139 128 295 273 273 273 93, 145, 225, 282 199 282 314 282 362 362 74 139 363 308 95 307, 311 308 313 307 314, 315 307, 308 89 138 315 314 95 309 265 328 90, 139, 322 363 273 95 315 315

376

V. 1. 7 V. 1. 7. 4-35 V. 1. 7. 5 V. 1. 7. 5-6 V. 1. 7. 6 V. 1. 7. 7-8 V. 1. 7. 8-9 V. 1. 7. 9-10 V. 1. 7. 10-11 V. 1. 7. 14 V. 1. 7. 11-17 V. 1. 7. 12 V. 1. 7. 13 V. 1. 7. 28-30 V. 1. 7. 40-42 V. 1. 7. 48 V. 1. 8 V. 1. 8. 1-2 V. 1. 8. 5 V. 1. 9. 9 V. 1. 10. 1-6 V. 1. 10. 12-13 V. 1. 10. 21-23 V. 1. 10. 24-27 V. 1. 10. 26 V. 1. 11. 1-6 V. 1. 11. 1-7 V. 1. 11. 3 V. 1. 11. 5-15 V. 1. 11. 6-7 V. 1. 11. 13 V. 2. 1. 1-11 V. 2. 1. 9-20 V. 2. 2. 27 V. 3 V. 3. 1. 21-22 V. 3. 2. 23-25 V. 3. 2. 24 V. 3. 3. 33-34 V. 3. 4 V. 3. 4. 1-4

A Text Worthy of Plotinus

89 321 90, 323 337 139 322 322 322 322 323 322 323 323 323 307 87 2 146 311 301 92 315, 316 308 334 137, 138 316, 317 315 311 92 311 317 95 307 94, 282 225 323 324 362 324 314 325

V. 3. 4. 1-10 V. 3. 4. 4-5 V. 3. 4. 4-7 V. 3. 4. 6 V. 3. 4. 7 V. 3. 4. 7-10 V. 3. 4. 8 V. 3. 4. 8-10 V. 3. 4. 21-22 V. 3. 6. 20-22 V. 3. 6. 33 V. 3. 6. 47-48 V. 3. 8. 10-11 V. 3. 8. 18 V. 3. 8. 32-34 V. 3. 8. 53 V. 3. 10. 4-5 V. 3. 10. 5-6 V. 3. 10. 6 V. 3. 10. 23-29 V. 3. 10. 29-30 V. 3. 10. 40 V. 3. 10. 41-46 V. 3. 10. 45-46 V. 3. 10. 46 V. 3. 10. 46ff. V. 3. 10. 48 V. 3. 10. 50 V. 3. 10. 51 V. 3. 11 V. 3. 11. 1-12 V. 3. 11. 1-15 V. 3. 11. 4 V. 3. 11. 6 V. 3. 11. 6-7 V. 3. 11. 8-9 V. 3. 11. 9 V. 3. 11. 10-11 V. 3. 11. 11-12 V. 3. 11. 13 V. 3. 11. 13-14

324 325 326 325 325 326 325 325 325, 326 324 326 321 326 363 326 139 326 321 326 326 326 326 326 334 138, 326 326 292 326 327 309, 321 327 311 327 139 323 323 327 327 323 327 132, 327

Index Locorum

V. 3. 12. 2 V. 3. 12. 14ff. V. 3. 12. 14-16 V. 3. 12. 17 V. 3. 12. 22-25 V. 3. 12. 26 V. 3. 12. 27 V. 3. 12. 33-36 V. 3. 13. 6 V. 3. 14. 8-16 V. 3. 14. 11 V. 3. 15. 13-14 V. 3. 15. 14-15 V. 3. 15. 15-16 V. 3. 15. 23-24 V. 3. 15. 27 V. 3. 16. 1 V. 3. 16. 21-22 V. 3. 16. 24 V. 3. 16. 29 V. 3. 16. 30-31 V. 3. 17. 8-9 V. 4. 1. 5 V. 4. 1. 7 V. 4. 1. 8-12 V. 4. 1. 18 V. 4. 1. 24-26 V. 4. 1. 28 V. 4. 1. 35 V. 4. 2 V. 4. 2. 5-7 V. 4. 2. 7-8 V. 4. 2. 12-21 V. 4. 2. 15-18 V. 4. 2. 18 V. 4. 2. 27-30 V. 4. 2. 27-33 V. 4. 2. 36-37 V. 4. 2. 48 V. 5 V. 5. 1. 1-4

327 334 327 327, 334 138, 146, 327, 334 334 88 335 88 92 148, 149 327 327 328 292 328 335 328 328 328 328 328 335 301 279 90 88 328 88 89, 90 309 309 88 88n183 90 293 88, 95 88 332 129, 274, 275 278, 279

V. 5. 1. 62-63 V. 5. 2. 4-9 V. 5. 2. 10 V. 5. 3. 3-4 V. 5. 4. 6-8 V. 5. 4. 7 V. 5. 4. 9-10 V. 5. 4. 19-20 V. 5. 4. 27 V. 5. 4. 31-33 V. 5. 6. 4 V. 5. 6. 17-21 V. 5. 6. 28 V. 5. 7-8 V. 5. 7. 12 V. 5. 7. 12-14 V. 5. 8. 4-8 V. 5. 9. 16 V. 5. 10-11 V. 5. 12. 35-37 V. 5. 12. 49 V. 5. 13 V. 5. 13. 10 V. 5. 13. 23-24 V. 5. 13. 30 V. 5. 13. 34 V. 6 V. 6. 1. 1 V. 6. 1. 2-4 V. 6. 2 V. 6. 2. 11-14 V. 6. 2. 12-13 V. 6. 2. 12-14 V. 6. 2. 14-15 V. 6. 3. 12-15 V. 6. 3. 15-20 V. 6. 4. 3-4 V. 6. 4. 4 V. 6. 4. 4-5 V. 6. 4. 5 V. 6. 4. 8-9

377

363 279 279 259 279, 280 279, 280 280 280 328 280 279 337 279 284 287, 292 283 284 87 284 274 334 279 311 311 311 148 313 329 329 88 335 329 138 138 329 329 335 138 138, 330 261 330

378

A Text Worthy of Plotinus

V. 6. 4. 16 V. 6. 4. 21 V. 6. 6. 11-13 V. 6. 6. 24-26 V. 6. 6. 29-30 V. 7 V. 7. 1. 3-5 V. 7. 1. 9-10 V. 7. 2. 5-12 V. 7. 2. 7-8 V. 7. 2. 8 V. 7. 2. 8-12 V. 7. 2. 10-12 V. 7. 2. 11 V. 7. 2. 12 V. 7. 2. 12-17 V. 7. 2. 13 V. 7. 2. 13-17 V. 7. 2. 14-15 V. 7. 2. 17-18 V. 7. 2. 19 V. 7. 3. 6-12 V. 8 V. 8. 1-11 V. 8. 1. 5-6 V. 8. 1. 7 V. 8. 1. 11 V. 8. 1. 21 V. 8. 1. 27-28 V. 8. 1. 30-32 V. 8. 1. 38-40 V. 8. 2. 6-9 V. 8. 2. 9 V. 8. 2. 19 V. 8. 2. 33 V. 8. 2. 38-41 V. 8. 2. 43-46 V. 8. 2. 46 V. 8. 3-12 V. 8. 3 V. 8. 3. 1-6

308 362 330 330 330 285, 333 330 148 283 330 331 330 331 331 131, 285 286, 331 286 285 286 331 331 74 8, 129, 275 284 282 331 281 281 281 281 282 131, 331 133, 292 332 282 282 284 282 282 307 282

V. 8. 3. 4-6 V. 8. 3. 6-8 V. 8. 3. 6-18 V. 8. 3. 8 V. 8. 3. 12 V. 8. 3. 27 V. 8. 4. 8 V. 8. 4. 9-10 V. 8. 4. 18-19 V. 8. 4. 19-21 V. 8. 4. 21 V. 8. 4. 21-23 V. 8. 4. 39-42 V. 8. 4. 40-42 V. 8. 5. 15 V. 8. 5. 15-25 V. 8. 5. 22-23 V. 8. 6 V. 8. 6. 1 V. 8. 6. 1-15 V. 8. 6. 3 V. 8. 6. 3-5 V. 8. 6. 6 V. 8. 6. 7 V. 8. 6. 7-9 V. 8. 6. 8 V. 8. 6. 9-10 V. 8. 6. 9-12 V. 8. 6. 11-12 V. 8. 6. 12-13 V. 8. 6. 12-15 V. 8. 6. 13-14 V. 8. 6. 15-18 V. 8. 6. 18-19 V. 8. 7. 4 V. 8. 7. 12-14 V. 8. 7. 24-26 V. 8. 7. 25-26 V. 8. 7. 43-44 V. 8. 8. 3 V. 8. 8. 4

309 307 282 301 283 363 336 281, 283 283 108, 283 301 281, 283 338 134, 362 276 276 284 135, 274, 275, 278 276 275 277 277 277 276 276, 277 276, 277 278 276, 277 278 278 276, 277 278 275, 276 276 283 283 283 284 276 132 132

Index Locorum

V. 8. 8. 11-12 V. 8. 8. 20 V. 8. 9. 1 V. 8. 9. 23 V. 8. 10. 4ff. V. 8. 10. 4-10 V. 8. 10. 6 V. 8. 10. 7 V. 8. 10. 10-11 V. 8. 10. 16-17 V. 8. 10. 16-25 V. 8. 10. 17 V. 8. 10. 19 V. 8. 10. 23 V. 8. 10. 23-24 V. 8. 10. 29 V. 8. 10. 32 V. 8. 11. 1-9 V. 8. 12. 7 V. 8. 12. 17 V. 8. 13 V. 9 V. 9. 2. 24-25 V. 9. 3-4 V. 9. 3. 16 V. 9. 3. 20-27 V. 9. 3. 24-35 V. 9. 3. 35-36 V. 9. 4 V. 9. 4. 8-12 V. 9. 4. 12 V. 9. 4. 13-15 V. 9. 5. 13 V. 9. 5. 28-29 V. 9. 5. 31 V. 9. 6. 13-15 V. 9. 7. 1-6 V. 9. 7. 6-7 V. 9. 9-11 V. 9. 9. 3-8 V. 9 10. 1-2

278 277 301 332 284 284 284 336 284 138, 336 284 284 283 284 138 301 139 132 336 278 89 285 142 307 141 307 307 305 308 307 307 335 148, 149 311 361 314 332 332 332 260 289

V. 9. 11 V. 9. 11. 10-11 V. 9. 11. 13 V. 9. 11. 25-26 V. 9. 12. 1-3 V. 9. 12. 2-3 V. 9. 12. 4-5 V. 9. 12. 5-10 V. 9. 14. 14 VI. 1-3 VI. 1 VI. 1. 1-10 VI. 1. 1. 2 VI 1. 1. 7-12 VI. 1. 3 VI. 1. 3. 13-14 VI. 1. 5. 1-3 VI. 1. 5. 12-14 VI. 1. 6. 26 VI. 1. 9. 25-26 VI. 1. 1- VI. 1. 10. 23 VI. 1. 10. 32-36 VI. 1. 10. 34-35 VI. 1. 10. 43-44 VI. 1. 10. 47 VI. 1. 11. 26-28 VI. 1. 15. 2 VI. 1. 15. 5-13 VI. 1. 19. 32 VI. 1. 19. 40-41 VI. 1. 20. 8 VI. 1. 21. 7-16 VI. 1. 24. 12 VI. 1. 26. 26-28 VI. 1. 29. 34 VI. 2 VI. 2. 2. 44-46 VI. 2. 3. 25 VI. 2. 5. 4-5 VI. 2. 5. 4-7

379

332 132 132 332 332 333 333 286 362 114, 257, 337 114 81 116 116 267 337 337 337 337 337 362 337 287 337 286 337 148 337 142 337 337 337, 338 288 338 338 120 338 286, 338 137, 143, 291n380 338

380

VI. 2. 5. 8 VI. 2. 5. 9 VI. 2. 5. 12-14 VI. 2. 5. 13 VI. 2. 5. 14 VI. 2. 8. 5 VI. 2. 8. 18-19 VI. 2. 8. 45 VI. 2. 9. 21 VI. 2. 10. 8-10 VI. 2. 11. 8-9 VI. 2. 11. 15-16 VI. 2. 13. 26-28 VI. 2. 14. 12-34 VI. 2. 16. 1 VI. 2. 17. 1-2 VI. 2. 18. 8-15 VI. 2. 18. 17 VI. 2. 19. 18-21 VI. 2. 21. 11-12 VI. 2. 21. 38-39 VI. 2. 21. 59 VI. 2. 22. 1ff. VI. 2. 22. 14 VI. 2. 22. 23-25 VI. 2. 22. 24-25 VI. 2. 22. 26-28 VI. 3 VI. 3. 1. 23 VI. 3. 3. 11-12 VI. 3. 3. 25-26 VI. 3. 7. 34-35 VI. 3. 11. 21-22 VI. 3. 11. 24 VI. 3. 11. 24-25 VI. 3. 11. 26-28 VI. 3. 13. 12 VI. 3. 14. 20-23 VI. 3. 15. 3-4 VI. 3. 15. 34 VI. 3. 19. 25

A Text Worthy of Plotinus

291n380 143 311 307 310 361 338 143 143 287 280 280 338 314 148 287, 338 287, 338 338 287, 338 336 338 338 260 287 293 287, 293 293 120 362 338 338 338 262 117 116 338 142 338 292 286 143

VI. 3. 19. 30 143 VI. 3. 23. 31-33 338 VI. 4-5 81, 93, 314, 315 VI. 4. 1. 5 289 VI. 4. 2. 40 315 VI. 4. 3. 15-16 315 VI. 4. 4. 2 362 VI. 4. 4. 24-15 116 VI. 4. 8. 22 362 VI. 4. 8. 34 289 VI. 4. 9. 1-5 289 VI. 4. 9. 16-17 289 VI. 4. 9. 20 289 VI. 4. 9. 26-27 364 VI. 4. 11. 19 289 VI. 4. 12. 11-12 289 VI. 4. 12. 22 289 VI. 4. 14. 17-22 314 VI. 5. 1. 26 363 VI. 5. 3. 26ff. 289 VI. 5. 4. 23 289 VI. 5. 5. 4 116 VI. 5. 5. 10 363 VI. 5. 6. 3 116 VI. 5. 7 314 VI. 5. 7. 10 315 VI. 5. 7. 10ff. 145 VI. 5. 8. 1-2 316 VI. 5. 8. 8-9 315 VI. 5. 8. 9 316 VI. 5. 8. 11 288 VI. 5. 8. 15 288 VI. 5. 8. 19-20 283 VI. 5. 8. 22-26 294 VI. 5. 8. 26-27 289 VI. 5. 8. 28 294 VI. 5. 8. 28-33 137, 287, 288, 289, 293 VI. 5. 8. 28-35 316 VI. 5. 8. 29-33 143, 287 VI. 5. 8. 30-33 294 VI. 5. 8. 30-35 289

Index Locorum

VI. 5. 8. 30-46 VI. 5. 8. 34 VI. 5. 8. 35-46 VI. 5. 9. 14 VI. 5. 10. 12 VI. 5. 10. 44-45 VI. 5. 11. 13 VI. 5. 12. 5-6 VI. 5. 12. 10 VI. 5. 12. 32 VI. 6 VI. 6. 1. 2-3 VI. 6. 1. 26 VI. 6. 3. 8 VI. 6. 5. 7-9 VI. 6. 5. 12 VI. 6. 5. 45 VI. 6. 6. 5-19 VI. 6. 6. 26 VI. 6. 7. 1 VI. 6. 7. 8-9 VI. 6. 7. 10-14 VI. 6. 7. 14-15 VI. 6. 7. 15 VI. 6. 9. 10-13 VI. 6. 9. 21 VI. 6. 10. 1-4 VI. 6. 10. 32-33 VI. 6. 10. 38 VI. 6. 10. 39 VI. 6. 11. 29-33 VI. 6. 12. 28 VI. 6. 12. 32 VI. 6. 13. 21 VI. 6. 13. 24-45 VI. 6. 13. 46 VI. 6. 14. 9-13 VI. 6. 14. 10 VI. 6. 14. 13 VI. 6. 14. 45 VI. 6. 14. 46-50

288 290 289, 290 115, 116 116 316 315 315 315 147 84, 120, 143, 287 259, 271 259 259 259 259 259 259 259 259 259, 260 260 260 260 260, 287 261 261 261 261 261 261 142 142 142 280 261 261 289 262 262 262

VI. 6. 15. 12-13 VI. 6. 15. 13-14 VI. 6. 15. 16 VI. 6. 16. 20-22 VI. 6. 18. 42-43 VI. 6. 18. 49 VI. 7 VI. 7. 1. 39-42 VI. 7. 1. 42-25 VI. 7. 1. 45 VI. 7. 1. 48-49 VI. 7. 2. 25 VI. 7. 2. 46-48 VI. 7. 3. 2 VI. 7. 3. 4-5 VI. 7. 5. 3-5 VI. 7. 5. 6 VI. 7. 6. 11-13 VI. 7. 6. 24-26 VI. 7. 6. 26-35 VI. 7. 6. 32 VI. 7. 7. 5-6 VI. 7. 7. 6 VI. 7. 7. 7-8 VI. 7. 7. 11 VI. 7. 7. 12 VI. 7. 7. 23-28 VI. 7. 7. 29-30 VI. 7. 7. 30-21 VI. 7. 8. 1 VI. 7. 11. 6 VI. 7. 12. 18 VI. 7. 13. 3-4 VI. 7. 13. 28-29 VI. 7. 14. 11-12 VI. 7. 14. 11-18 VI. 7. 14. 20 VI. 7. 15. 31-32 VI. 7. 16. 30-31 VI. 7. 16. 32-33 VI. 7. 17. 36-42

381

262 293n383 293n383 261 116 142 137, 310n407 262 262 142 12 142 262 362 26 308 308 263 263 263 143 264 264 264 264 264 264, 271, 272 272 271 264 363 363 282 334 271 264 116 265 139, 265, 336 265 309

382

VI. 7. 18. 2 VI. 7. 18. 21-23 VI. 7. 18. 25 VI. 7. 18. 27-28 VI. 7. 19. 14 VI. 7. 20. 4 VI. 7. 23. 2 VI. 7. 24. 18-21 VI. 7. 26. 1-6 VI. 7. 27. 11-12 VI. 7. 28. 3 VI. 7. 28. 9-12 VI. 7. 28. 14-15 VI. 7. 28. 15 VI. 7. 28. 17 VI. 7. 28. 17-18 VI. 7. 28. 18 VI. 7. 28. 18-19 VI. 7. 28. 23 VI. 7. 28. 24 VI. 7. 30. 31-32 VI. 7. 30. 35-39 VI. 7. 32. 11 VI. 7. 32. 12 VI. 7. 34. 2-3 VI. 7. 34. 25-26 VI. 7. 35 VI. 7. 35. 2 VI. 7. 35. 27-30 VI. 7. 36 VI. 7. 36. 6-10 VI. 7. 36. 10-27 VI. 7. 36. 22 VI. 7. 36. 24 VI. 7. 37. 22-23 VI. 7. 38 VI. 7. 38. 15 VI. 7. 39. 2 VI. 7. 39. 13-14 VI. 7. 39. 19

A Text Worthy of Plotinus

265 265 265 265 288 116 148 265 265 266 266, 267 266 267 267 362 267 267 267 267 267 267 267 267 89, 267 337 266 84 88 273 314 89 317 89 89 267 89 142 89 267 89

VI. 7. 39. 25-26 267 VI. 7. 40. 5 89 VI. 7. 40. 7-8 267 VI. 7. 40. 15 267 VI. 7. 40. 49-50 267 VI. 7. 41. 6 89 VI. 7. 41. 10 267 VI. 7. 41. 11 267 VI. 8 89, 116, 137, 225, 228 VI. 8. 1. 2-3 268 VI. 8. 1. 34-39 268 VI. 8. 1. 39-44 268 VI. 8. 2. 2-5 269 VI. 8. 2. 8-9 269 VI. 8. 2. 9 269 VI. 8. 4 269 VI. 8. 4. 37-40 269 VI. 8. 4. 39 279 VI. 8. 5. 17 269 VI. 8. 5. 44 269 VI. 8. 6. 12 269 VI. 8. 6. 36-41 311 VI. 8. 6. 37-38 269 VI. 8. 6. 42 260 VI. 8. 7 319 VI. 8. 7. 6-11 320 VI. 8. 7-19 319 VI. 8. 7. 5-6 270 VI. 8. 7. 11-15 89 VI. 8. 7. 12 90 VI. 8. 7-21 90 VI. 8. 7. 16-24 320 VI. 8. 7. 29-30 137, 269, 270 VI. 8. 8. 9-13 270 VI. 8. 9. 1-6 320 VI. 8. 9. 19 270 VI. 8. 9. 30 270 VI. 8. 10. 1 270, 320 VI. 8. 10. 2-3 270 VI. 8. 10. 4-5 270

Index Locorum

VI. 8. 11. 19-20 VI. 8. 12. 4-6 VI. 8. 12. 19-20 VI. 8. 12. 28-30 VI. 8. 12. 36-37 VI. 8. 12. 37 VI. 8. 13-21 VI. 8. 13. 1-3 VI. 8. 13. 1-5 VI. 8. 13. 2-3 VI. 8. 13. 4 VI. 8. 13. 5-8 VI. 8. 13. 7 VI. 8. 13. 10 VI. 8. 13. 12-16 VI. 8. 13. 16-20 VI. 8. 13. 17-18 VI. 8. 13. 41 VI. 8. 13. 47-50 VI. 8. 13. 49 VI. 8. 14. 19 VI. 8. 14. 42 VI. 8. 15. 1 VI. 8. 15. 13-14 VI. 8. 15. 14 VI. 8. 15. 29 VI. 8. 16. 13 VI. 8. 16. 24 VI. 8. 16. 31 VI. 8. 16. 32 VI. 8. 16. 34 VI. 8. 17. 4 VI. 8. 17. 7 VI. 8. 17. 17 VI. 8. 17. 22 VI. 8. 18. 25-30 VI. 8. 18. 36 VI. 8. 18. 39-40 VI. 8. 19. 6 VI. 8. 19. 8

270 269 270 270 270 90 89 270 84 88 89, 90 90 90 90 270 270 271 90 84 90 271 90 84, 90 271 271 90 90 90 90 90 90 271 363 90 271 271 271 271 320 320

VI. 8. 20. 15 VI. 8. 21. 1 VI. 8. 21. 5-7 VI. 8. 21. 16 VI. 8. 21. 25 VI. 8. 21. 32 VI. 9 VI. 9. 1. 4-8 VI. 9. 2. 5-6 VI. 9. 2. 46 VI. 9. 3. 1-3 VI. 9. 3. 18-20 VI. 9. 3. 25-32 VI. 9. 4. 16 VI. 9. 4. 28 VI. 9. 5. 7 VI. 9. 5. 20-29 VI. 9. 5. 23 VI. 9. 7. 2 VI. 9. 7. 4 VI. 9. 7. 5 VI. 9. 7. 17 VI. 9. 7. 17-21 VI. 9. 7. 19 VI. 9. 7. 20 VI. 9. 8 VI. 9. 8. 1-10 VI. 9. 8. 1-22 VI. 9. 8. 19-20 VI. 9. 8. 32-35 VI. 9. 9-10 VI. 9. 9. 30-36 VI. 9. 10. 10 VI. 9. 10. 14-17 VI. 9. 10. 17 VI. 9. 10. 19 VI. 9. 11. 4-7 VI. 9. 11. 7 VI. 9. 11. 21 VI. 9. 11. 36

383

271 319 268, 319 271 91 91 93, 94, 116, 258 280 290 293 336 336 336 92 317 362 259 149 137 142 148 139 336 137, 139 138 322 93 92 92, 317 318 93 274 148 337 317 117 337 362 277 134

384

A Text Worthy of Plotinus

Epistola de Scientia Divina 87326 Theologia Aristotelis VIII. 42 265 VIII. 147 139 X. 176-178 277 X. 177 278 X. 178 278 PLUTARCH De Is. 57.374d142 Alexander 52 362 PORPHYRY Life of Plotinus 2. 26-27 51 3. 32-34 290 3. 35-38 290 4. 14-16 322 7. 20 111 8. 1-4 322 8. 1-6 347 9. 11 148 9. 11-12 355 9. 13 148 10. 36-38 290 142 14. 3 148 14. 4-5 273 14. 24-25 290 17. 27-28 320 19. 15 326 18. 8-14 290 22 316, 320 22. 13-15 145 232 23. 16 92 24. 1-5 347 26. 32-37 15n71 Sentences 30. 17-19 265 322n23

POSSIDIUS Life of Augustine XXVIII43 PROCLUS Elements of Theology 23-24338 180235 In Parm. 1. 711-712 232 8. 1081-82 237 Platonic Theology I. 25. 61 237 I. 25. 61-63 237 I. 25. 193-194 237 III. 8 195 PROTAGORAS Fr. 1

364

PSEUDO-DIONYSIUS Divine Names V. 1 XI. 6

196 196

SENECA Ep. 41. 5

95

SIMPLICIUS In Phys. 231. 5

293

SOPHOCLES OC 1382 OT 968

134, 362 139

STOBAEUS Anth. IV. 1. 49

116

Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta III. 213. 22-23 277

Index Locorum

THALES OF MILETUS A22-23363

XENOCRATES Fr. 60

THUCYDIDES 2. 46

XENOPHON Cyropaedia 5. 3. 26 Hellenica 3. 5. 5 Memorabilia 2. 3. 3

364

VICTORINUS Adversus Arium IV43

385

116

266 298 270

Index Nominum Achard, M. 6n38, 9, 10n50, 11n55, 12 and n58, 14n67, 17, 20n Adam, J. 303n394 Adamson, P. 6n42, 17 Adolphe, L. 349n449 Aeschylus 134, 266, 362 Albinus 66n154, 259 Alcibiades 282, Alcinous 2 and n23, 4 Alexander of Aphrodisias 101, 190n308, 191, 259, 307, 311 al-Farabī 15 al-Himsī, 15 Al Kindī 6, 15 Allen, M.J. B. 3n28, 17, 19, 20 Amelius 14 and n67, 71, 167, 188, 193n312, 259, 316, 320 Ammonius Saccas 170, 290, 353 Anatolius 196, 197 Anawati, G. 71 and n164 Anaxagoras 116, 283 Anselm, St. 166 Antiochus of Ascalon 64, 351 Aouad, M. 17 Apollinarius of Ephesus, Chalcedon 78 Aquinas, Thomas St. 8n46, 27, 82n176, 168, 188, 212, 236, 260 Archelaus 364 Aristophanes 134, 362 Aristotle/Aristote/Aristóteles 1, 2, 7, 15, 18, 49n117, 62, 67, 76, 86, 87, 91, 95, 96, 101, 115, 116, 159, 161, 164, 165, 172, 190n308, 191, 192, 192n311n, 193, 194, 196, 202, 203, 204, 209, 211, 212, 218, 223, 240, 243, 257, 258, 268, 269, 273, 273n368, 277ns372, 373, 281, 287, 295, 298, 300, 307, 310, 311, 312, 314, 316, 332, 343, 344, 345, 349n449, 352 and n459

Aristoxenus 116 Arius 34n94 Armstrong, A.H. passim, XIII, XV, XVI, XVII, XIX, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXIX, 159-220 Armstrong, Bridget (granddaughter) see Turner, Bridget Armstrong, Christopher J. R. (son) (also Anthony) XV, XVII, 54 and n126, 56, 60, 77, 80, 83, 85, 163n272, 164, 170, 174-184 Armstrong, Deborah (Wilson)(wife) 24, 82, 85, 161 Armstrong, Dorothy (sister) 160 Armstrong, John (brother) 160-61 Armstrong, Julian (son) 84 Armstrong, Nicolette (daughter) 65, 71 Armstrong, Porphyry (cat) 24, 56 and n133, 65, 71, 73, 82 Armstrong, Ronald (brother) 160 Armstrong, Teresa (daughter) 174 Armstrong (Turner) Bridget (granddaughter) XV, XVII Armstrong, W. A. (father) 160-61 Arnou, R. 29 and ns85-86, 50, 91, 225 and n329, 249, 317 and n416, 318 Arrian 134, 362 Atkinson, M. XVI, 10, 139, 145, 157, 219, 255, 256, 354-55 Atherton, J. P. 202, 220 Atticus 197, 218, 259 Aubin, P. 55, 249 Aubry, G. XIV Aubrius, J. 6

388

A Text Worthy of Plotinus

Augustine, St. 25 and n76, 27, 28, 37 and n100, 38, 43, 47, 55ns131-132, 58 and n139, 60ns144 and 146, 70, 81 and n175, 87, 93 and n187, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 164, 165, 166, 168, 203, 204, 205, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 216, 217, 218, 221, 226, 232 and n342, 236, 351 and n456, 352 Austin, R. G. 165 Bacchylides 363 Bain, D. XVI Badawi, N. 54, 56 Balaudé, J-F. XIV Balthasar, von U. 83n179 Baracat, J. XV, 257 Bardenhewer, O. 8n46, 17 Barth, K. 46, 105, 220 Basile de Caesarée 20, 47 Baxter, J. H. 56 and n131 Becker, O. 88, 155 Beierwaltes, W. XII, 149-53, 157, 167, 188, 208, 219, 226 and n332, 227 Benz, E. 89 Bergson, H. x, 35, 39, 241, 247, 347, 349 and ns449-450 Berkeley, G. 7 Bessarion, Cardinal 36 Beutler, R. XIII, 12, 16, 74, 81, 84, 113, 118, 121, 156, 215, 216, 350, 360 Beutler-Theiler 113, 118, 120, 121, 280, 296, 325, 328 Bidez, J. 35, 100 Bierl, A. 353n460 Biron, J.-L. 26n80 Blake, W. 7 Blondel, M. XII, 39, 99, 101, 221, 224, 226, 228, 229, 238, 240, 242, 243, 245, 246, 250

Blumenthal, H. J. XXVII, 11 and n54, 13 and n61, 17, 85, 165, 166, 171, 186 and n307, 192n311, 193, 197, 201, 209, 224, 249, 250, 259 and n361, 282 and n376, 284, 285, 305 and n396, 314 and n413, 315, 333n436, 343 Bodart, C. and B. (neighbours of Henry) 45 Bodart, E. and C. (nephews and nieces of Henry) 45 Boethius/Boèce 87, 166, Bonitz, H. 277 and n372, 292 Boot, P. 145, 157, 256 Borg, George Sir 179 Borne, E. 68 and n158 Bouillet, M.-N. IXn2, 9, 16 Boulad-Ayoub, J. 227 Bouyer, L. 68 and n159, 71, 205 Boys-Stones, G. 17 Bradley, F. H. 92 Bregman, J. 173, 187, 188, 210 Bréhier, E. X and ns4-6, XI, XVII, 8-9, 16, 29n85, 33, 35, 36, 37, 42, 66, 67, 76, 89, 90-94, 107, 108, 117, 127, 131, 133, 140, 143, 151, 162, 227, 274, 280, 292, 296, 309, 332, 337, 347-50, 359 Bréhier, L. 347 Brethren of Purity 15 Brentano, F. 7 Breton, S. 238, 231, 249 Brassloff, A. 339n439 Brisson, L. Xn6, XIV, XVII, 14n69, 17, 18, 20, 28n82, 143, 209, 219, 223-24, 240, 250, 345-50 Brochard, V. 347 Brown, P. 187 Browning, R. 189 Brucker, J. XVI, 4-5, 7, 18 Bruckner, A. 355

Index Nominum

Brunner, E. 46, 105 Brunner, F. 155, 244, 246 Bruno, Giordano 6, 8n46, 18 Burckhadt, J. 352 Butler, C. Dom OSB 79 Calcidius 166 Calder, W. M. 353n460 Capelle, B. Dom OSB 33 Carabine, D. 190 Carcopino, J. 35 Caruana, Dr. Archbishop of Malta 178-79 Casaglia, M. 17 Catana, L. XVI, 1, 3n29, 4ns30-32, 5n33, 7, 7n44, 8n46, 18, 162n267 Cayré, F. 60-61n146 Chadwick, H. 166 Charbonneaux, J. 35 Chase, M. 234n348 Chautard, O.C. S. O., Dom 24 Chavasse, N. 82 and n177 Cherniss, H. Xn9, XII, 6n38, 10n49, 10n52, 11, 12n60, 18, 26, 40-41, 40n105, 48, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 133, 136, 167, 287 Christ 3, 179, 184 Cilento, V., X, XII, XIX, 12, 16, 53, 55 and n130, 58, 66, 73 and n166, 76, 78, 94, 115, 125, 128, 129, 130, 132, 138, 141, 155, 156, 212, 215, 262, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 287 and n378, 291, 298, 335, 360, 362 and n471 Cilento-Mariën 55 and n130, 58 Clarke, Sr. Mary T. R.S.C.J., 34 and n95, 166 Clement of Alexandria 90, 214, Cobet, C. G. 351 Coleridge, S. M. 7, 122 Combès, J. 221, 222 and n325, 240, 247, 251 Congar, Y. 82 and n176, 83

389

Conway, A. 7 Corbishley S.J., T. 65 and n152 Cornea, A. 17 Cornford, F. M. 161n261, 186, 191, 212 Corrigan (Glazov-), E. XVII, 171, 172, 173 Corrigan, K. XV, 4n30, 5, 6n38, 16n73, 18, 31n89, 159, 160n252, 167n290, 168n294, 171, 173, 190-201, 193n312, 200n319 Corrigan, S. XVI Corvin, M. 37 Cosimo de’ Medici 5, 53n124 Courcelle, P. de XXVII, 25, 352 and n457 Cousin, V. 9, 237, 248 Cousins, E. 170 Cox, P. 187 Creuzer, F. IX, 8-9, 10, 14, 16, 35, 37, 42, 66 and n156, 117, 122, 132, 151, 271, 292, 348, 356, 359, 361 Creuzer-Moser 8, 9 Cripps, A.S. (Armstrong’s uncle) 160, 200-201 Cripps, E. (Armstrong’s mother)160 Croiset, M. 35 Cross, F. L. 33, 54 and n127, 61, 62, 63 Crouse, R. 168 Cudworth, R. 7 Cynics 164 Cyrille/Cyril d’Alexandrie 36, 47, 224 Damascius 226, 227, 235 and ns352-353, 240 D’Ancona, C. 5n34, 6n38, 6n42, 11n56, 14n66, 14n69, 15 and n70, 15 and n72, 18, 19 Daniélou, J. 43, 83n179, 130, 211, 213, 217 d’Armagnac, S.J., 53 Darras-Worms, A-L. XIV Décarie, V. 223 De Gandillac, M. 53 and n123, 74, 214, 349n449

390

A Text Worthy of Plotinus

Denniston, J. D. 258, 265, 270, 284, 292, 301, 322, 328 Des Places, E. 308 and n400 Dewey, J. 58 Dickinson, E. 7 Didot, M. A-F. 9 Diller, H. 115 and n210 Dillon, J. M. XIV, 17, 20, 65-66n154, 157, 195-196, 197, 219, 261 and n363, 344 Diogenes Laertius 3, 144, 145 Diogenes of Babylon 115 Diogenes of Oenoanda 363 Dionysius, the Areopagite 196, 200n139 Dodds, E. R. IX and n1, IX n3, X, Xn8, Xin10, XII, XVI, XVII, XIX, 9, 10, 10n50, 14, 19, 55, 41n107, 45, 48, 49n118, 55, 56, 58, 65, 65n154, 73, 73n166, 75, 76, 78, 79, 81, 92, 94, 101, 106, 106n198, 109, 114, 114n208, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 133, 159-160, 159n249, 160n250, 161n261, 171, 185187, 188, 189, 199, 212, 213, 214, 215, 227, 228, 234, 235, 247, 248, 254, 255, 259, 273 and n369, 283, 285, 287, 305, 315 and n414, 338, 354, 355, 355n464, 360, 362ns369 and 472, Dörrie, H. XIX, XXVII, 14 and n68, 19, 78, 79, 111, 115, 125, 156, 208, 214, 216, 243, 362 and n472, d’Ouince S.J., R. 92 and n153 Doull, J. 168, 169 Dufour, R. Xin 12, XVI, 29n84, 30, 48n115, 50n119, 62n150, 72n165, 79n172, 98, 153, 203, 232n343, 238n356, 239, 342 Durand de, G-M. 224 Dussaud, R. 35 Edelstein, E, 353 Eliot, T.S. 171 Emerson, R.W. 7, 8

Empedocles 116, 146, 358, 363 Epicharmus 363 Epictetus/Epictète 91, 201 Epicureans 164, 170, 204, 345, 363 Epicurus 201, 363 Eriugena, John Scotus 60n144, 166, 204, 208, 209, 217, 243, 251 Eudorus/ Eudore of Alexandria 76, 95, 195, Euripides 120, 160n250 Eusebius/Eusèbe de Césarée XI, 7, 14, 18, 19, 20,28, 28n82, 36, 37, 42, 44, 47, 48, 96, 99, 107, 138, 146, 155, 156, 167 Eustochius XI and n11, 14 and ns65, 67, 17, 19, 20, 28 and n82, 36, 44, 47, 48, 53, 96, 99, 107, 167, Evans, C. 65 Faggin, G. 9, 16, Farrington, B. 161n261 Fasseur, O. 45 Ferroni, L. 28-29n82 Ferwerda, R. XVI, 17, 26n80, 86n181, 144, 145, 146, 216, 248, 320 Festugière, A. J. OP 41 and n107, 73, 74, 75, 102, 211, 213, 227, 238, Fichte, J. G. 8, 20 Ficino, M./Ficin/Ficinus XI, 1-11, 1ns18-20, 2ns24-26, 3ns27-28, 5n35, 16, 16n73, 17, 18, 19, 20, 42, 52, 53, 53n124, 101, 126, 129, 131, 132, 136, 151, 168n291, 271, 283, 291, 334, 348 Findlay, J. N. 166 Finnegan S.J., J. 51 Firmicus Maternus 38, 43, 98 Folliet, G. 60-61 and n146 Foubert, J. 349n449 Fouke, D. 8n46, 19 Fox, N. 167 Fraenkel, E. 353 Frede, M. 356n465

Index Nominum

Fulton Brown, Mrs. 55 Gandillac, de M. 53 and n123, 74, 214, 349n449 Galpérine, M.-C. 235 and n353 Gerard of Cremona 8n46 Gauthier, R. A. 268 Gersh, S. 16n73, 18, 210, 251 Gerson, L. P. 4n32, 17, 19, 166 Ghellinck, de, J. 36 and n98, 47 Gigon, O. 115 and n211 Gijsel, J. 41 Giles of Rome 8n46 Gilliot, C. 71n164 Gilson, E. 223 Glazov-Corrigan, E. see Corrigan (Glazov-) Gnostics 73, 208, 226, 343 Goethe, J. W. 8 Gort, Lord John V.C. 179 Goulet, R. 12n58, 17, 19 Goulet-Cazé, O. 14n66, 14n69, 15n70, 19, 155 Grant, K. XV Gruscher, Dr. 71, 72 Guarcia Gual, C. XVI Guerard, C. 229 Guidelli, C. 17 Gurtler, G. XVI, 13n62, 253, 341n440 Guthrie, K. S. ixn2 Gysi, Abbess Maria 201, 201n322 Hadot, I. 201, 219, 229-230 Hadot, P. X and n7, XIV, XIX, 17, 24-25, 26n80, 33-34, 33n93, 41n107, 55, 73n166, 78, 79, 81, 82, 85, 97, 99, 125, 201, 215, 216, 222, 223, 223n326, 224 and n328, 226, 227, 229, 234 and n348, 236, 237, 247, 248, 249, 313, 321, 360 Hampton, A. 7n45, 20 Hankey, W. Xn6, 159n249, 162n265, 202, 227 and n336, 229

391

Harder, R. X, Xns7-8, XIII, XIX, 12, 16, 37, 40, 42, 48, 50, 56, 66, 73, 73n166, 74, 76, 77, 78, 81, 88, 106, 113, 114, 118, 121, 122, 123, 128, 131, 132, 138, 141, 143, 156, 215, 216, 217, 264, 278, 282, 284, 289, 291, 318, 321, 322, 326, 332, 350, 360, 361 Hardt, von, H. XIX, 73, 73n166, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81n174 Harris, Baine R. 259 Harrison, S. 186 Hayworth, Z. XVI Haubtmann, P. 43 Hegel, G. W. F. 8, 9, 168, 169, 348 Helios 196 Henry, Jean (brother) 60 Henry, J. (nephew) 60 Henry, Paul, senior (father) 23 Henry (sisters?) 60 Henry, S.J., P. passim, X, XI, XII, XV, XVI, XVII, XIX, 23-102 Henry, Pierre (brother) 24, 60 Henry-Vandenbroeck, A. (mother) 23 Heraclitus 114-117, 115n211, 134, 135, 358, 361, 363 Hermes Trismegistos 1, 41n107, 211, 213 Herodotus 288 Hesiod/ Hésiode 89, 362, 363 Heumann, C. A. 3, 3n29, 4, 18, 20 Hicks, R. D. 273n368 Hierocles of Alexandria 353 Hitler, A. 46, 179, 180 Hoffmann, P. 226 Holland, J. 179, 180, 184n305 Hölderlin, J. C. F. 8 Homer/ Homère 35, 352 Horton, Nellie 174, 178, 181, 182 Houde-Sauvé, R. 224 Housman, A. E. 171 Huby S.J., J. 38 Hume, D. 58 and n138

392

A Text Worthy of Plotinus

Hippolytus 320 Iamblichus/Jambliche 94, 187-189, 209, 213, 227, 228, 229, 232, 234n346, 243, 245, 251, 261 Ibn Ezra 15 Ibn Gabirol 15 Ibn Sīnā [Avicenna] 15 Igal, J. passim, XII-XIII, XV, XVI, 253-345 Iglesia de la, Alex 254n358, 255 Ikhwān al-Sa fāʾ 15 Inge, W. 33 Inge, W. R. 33, 87, 210 Abū Ish ̣ āq al-Mūʿ taṣ im, Caliph 15 Ivanka, von E. 60 and n145, 61, 62, 211, 216 Jackson Knight, W. F. 74 Jacoby, F. 353 Jaeger, W. 49n117, 91, 150, 213 Jerome/ Jérôme, St. 33-34, 35, 43 Jerphagnon, L. 238n356, 239, 244, 251 John XXXIII Pope 82, 82n176, 83n179 Jones, R. M. xn4 Julian, the Apostate 188 Jung, C. (Jungian)154, 189, 198, 232n344 Kalligas, P. XIV, XVI, 10, 12 and n59, 14n67, 17, 20, 28n82, 145-149, 255, 256, 356n465, 358 Kant, I. 8 Keats, P. B. 7 Kelly, J. 65 Kenney, E. J. 351 Kenney, J. 172, 173 Kesselring, Field Marshall 179 Kidd, I. G. 353 Kiefer, O. 9, 146 King, R. 17 Kirchhoff, A. 8, 9, 10, 13, 16, 42, 107, 121, 122, 127, 138, 141, 142, 152, 255, 256, 265, 268, 269, 282, 282, 292, 293, 334, 336, 354-355, 361 Klibansky, R. 213, 224, 224n327 Kneale, M. 274 and n371

Koch, J. 61 and n147 Kolnai, A. 57 and n137 Koros 89 Kraye, J. 21 Kristeller, P.O. 20, 91, 136, 152, 166, 225, 225n330 Kroiewicz, A. 16 Kronos 89 Kuchinski, G.M. 232 and n344 Kusch, O. 72 Labriolle, de, P. 35 Lacombe, O. 94 Lafarge, S.J. J. 44 and n112 Lambrecht, J. 26n80, 31, 31n89, 86n181 Lauer, P. 37 Laurens, P. 5n35, 19 Laval, P. 35 Leemans, E.-A. 74, 75, 76, 78 Leibniz, G. W. 8, 8n46, 19, 246 Leroux, G. 221 Leroy (Le Roy, E.) 35 Letocha, D. 227 Levie, J. 37 Levi-Strauss, C. 39 Lewis, C. S. 41 Lewis, G. 14-15, 29, 51, 67, 71, 71n164, 74, 75, 79, 81, 96n189, 99, 136, 153, 247, 358 Leys S.J., Fr 55, 70 Liebeschütz, H. 165 Lindsay, W. M. 355 Linguiti, A. 17 Lloyd, A. C. 165, 166, 192 and n311 Long, A. A. 159 and n247, 160 and n253, 161n258, 163n271, 164 and n275, 165, 165n277, 166-167 and n284, 170-171 and ns298-300, 302 Longfellow, H. W. 32 Longinus 14n67, 20, 290 Louth, A. 199n317 Lubac, de, H. 83 and n179 Luke, H. Sir 175, 184n305

Index Nominum

Luther 6, 104 Lysias 298 MacDonald, R. 33 and n92 MacKenna, S. IX, IXn3, Xn8, 9-10, 16, 17, 27, 37, 42, 55, 56, 61, 65, 69, 72, 74, 77, 90, 94, 97, 100, 101, 121, 132, 146, 156, 168, 213, 214, 215, 217, 247, 248, 291, 292, 332, 348, 354 MacKenna (S)-Page (B.S) 17, 65, 72, 292, 348 Macrobius 166 Madvig, J. N. 351 Magnard, P. 349n449 Malta 174-184 Mamo, P. 317and n416 Manchester, P. 172 Mandouze, A. 58 and n139, 59 Marcus Aurelius/ Marc Aurèle 91, 223 Markus, R. A. 81, 165, 166, 203, 343 Maréchal, S.J. J. 35 Maria, Mother, see Gyrsi Marien, A. XVI, 31 Mariën, B. 12, 55 and n130, 58, 156, 287 Marnius, C. 6 Marouzeau, J. 35 Marrou, H-I. 52 and n121, 68, 70, 213 Martial 355 Martin, A. J. 6 Mascall, E. 33 Maximus the Confessor, St. 166 Mazon, P. 35 Meijering, E. P. 198 and n316 Meridier, L. 35 Merlan, P. 55, 58, 59, 70, 161n261, 166, 195, 213, 232 Miguez, A. 16 Mill, James 5 Miller Jones, R. 349 Mizuchi, M. 17 Moderatus of Gades 95, 293 Molière, J-B. P. 189

393

Monica/ Monique, St. 43 Montesoro, D. 6 More, H. 7 Moriani, F. 17 Moser, G. H. 8, 9, 16 Moses 1 Mossé-Bastide, R-M. 349n449 Moutsopoulos, E. 238 Mühll Von der, P. 354 Müller, H. F. 8, 9, 10, 16, 42, 131, 143, 146, 348, 362 and n470 Narbonne, J-M. Xn6, XIV, 227 and n336, 228 and n339, 239, 256 Narbonne (J-M)/Achard (A)/Ferroni (L) 6n38, 9, 10n50, 11n55, 12 and n58, 14n67, 17, 20 Nemesius, Bishop 166 Nicholas of Cusa 8n46, 53n123 Nicotheos 78-79n171 Nock, A. D. 48 and n116 Noirot, C. 226n331 Novalis [G.F.P. Von Hardenberg] 7, 20 Numenius 76, 94, 290 O’Brien, D. XV, XVII, 155, 190, 190n309 O’Brien, E. IXn2 O’Daly, G. J. P. XIn13, XVI, XVII, XXVII, 12, 16, 25n75, 159n247, 173, 350 O’Daly, U. 173 Ogle, N. 173 Olympiodorus/ Olympiodore 93 O’Meara, J. J. 57, 60 and n144, 209, 212, 232 and n342 O’Meara, D. XIV, 6 and ns39, 43, 190, 208 Ordine, N. 226n331 O’Shea, H. 190 Orbilius 163 Origen 57, 152, 155, 156, 164, 210, 211, 215, 247, 290, 353, 353n461 Origen, pagan 290 Orpheus 1 Ouranos 89

394

A Text Worthy of Plotinus

Page, A. (Tony) 354-355 Page, B.S. (Bertram Samuel) IX, XVI, 17, 45, 53, 55, 56, 65, 72, 73, 74, 75, 78, 79, 106, 127n222, 128, 137, 138, 139, 141, 144, 149, 167, 199, 213, 214, 292, 301n386, 332, 354-57, 356n465 Page, O. (Olga) 355 Page, T.E. ix Palla Strozzi 5 Panofsky, E. 26 Paul VI Pope 78n170, 83n179 Pearson, B. 228 Peck, A. 161 Pelling, C. 186 Péguy, C. 347 Pépin, J. 29 and n83, 48n115, 70 and n163, 78, 102, 125, 143, 145, 151, 155, 167, 216, 217, 224, 226, 227n333, 238, 247, 256 Périon, J. 6 Pepler O.P., C. 56 and n134, 61, 63 Perna, P. 6, 16, 117, 151 Persephone 163 Pétain, P. Maréchal 35 Phanes 230 Philo 164, 166, 211, 219, 347 and n444 Philoponus, J. 12 Pimander 1 Pincherle, A. 55 and n132 Pindar 172 Pinsent, J. 166 Planella, E. XV, 57n135 Plato passim 1-5, 7, 20, 21, 27, 35, 41, 45, 53, 60n145, 70, 74, 76, 82, 86, 87, 89, 91, 92, 95, 96, 99, 101, 102, 115, 116, 117, 132, 143, 153, 154, 159, 164, 166, 169, 171-172, 173, 191, 195-198, 199, 202, 204, 205, 212, 213, 216, 218, 219, 224, 232, 239, 243, 246, 249, 250, 251, 257-336 passim, 342, 343, 344, 345, 347, 351, 356, 362, 363, 364 Plotinus passim

Plotinus Arabicus 6n42, 8n46, 11, 14, 14n66, 15, 17, 18, 26, 48, 51, 53, 66, 67, 69, 71, 71n164, 74, 75, 77, 79, 81, 96n189, 99, 126, 136, 139, 150n243, 151, 153, 167, 247, 253, 326, 331, 358, 360 Plutarch 197, 215, 362 Pollet, G. 12, 29, 41-42, 44, 54n128, 83, 112, 135, 139, 140, 345 Popkin, R. 72, 102 Porphyry XIVn16, 1-5, 2n23, 7, 9, 11, 14, 14n65, 15, 15n71, 18, 20, 25, 25n76, 28 and n82, 48, 97, 103, 107, 135, 170n301, 188, 193n312, 203, 232 and n342, 234n346, 249, 253, 265, 273, 290, 343, 344, 347-353 passim, 358, 359 Posidonius 95, 353, 354n462 Possidius 43 Pradeau, J.-F. XIV, 17 Pringle, A. G. 69 Proclus XII, 1, 8, 8n46, 41n107, 91, 96, 144, 155, 159 and n249, 185, 192, 194, 195, 197, 199, 200n319, 212, 215, 221, 222-224, 227, 228-229, 231-234, 234n346, 235, 235n349, 236, 237, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 248, 249, 251, 290, 314, 323, 338, 344 Prometheus 163 Propertius 354 Pseudo-Demosthenes 362 Puech, H.C. 35, 56, 73, 76, 77, 77n169, 78, 78n171, 81, 129 Puelma, M. 142 and n239 Pythagoras 1, 116 Quinn (formely Shaw) P. XXVI Rahl, A. 60 Ramsay-MacDonald, J. 33 and n92 Ramus, P./ Pierre de la Ramée 6 Ratzinger, J. 68n159, 83n179 Ravindra, R. 170 Reinhardt, K. 115 and n209, 353 Reverdin, O. 81 and n174

Index Nominum

Richard de Saint Victor 93 Rist, J. M. XXVII, 14n67, 20, 166, 216, 309 and n405, 317 and n416, 318, 352 Rivet, P. 68 Robinson, H. 192n311, 209 Robinson, R. 65, Robinson, Rowlan Mrs 66, 67, 70, 74 Rosenthal, F. 67, 74, 126, 136 Ross, W. D. 289, 316 Rowse, C. 65, 80 Roy du O. 85 Ryan, W. F. 21 Rousseau, OSB, O. 52 and n122 Roussos, E. XVI, 10, 54n128, 112, 114, 116, 117, 133, 136, 145, 147, 358-359, 361n468, 363, 364 Ruelle, C. E. 235 and n352 Ruysbroeck, J. 70 Russell, D. F. 185, 186, 354 Rutten, C. 248, 293 and n382, 349n449 Saffrey, H.–D. O.P. 1n18, 5n36, 6 and ns3738, 20, 143, 195, 229, 234 and n346, 235 and n349, 235 and n350, 238, 344 Santa Cruz, M. I. XVI, 85, 313 Scalichius, P. 6 Sceptics 164 Schelling, F. W. J. 8, 347 and n447 Schleiermacher, F.D.E. 172 Schmidt, C-B. 21 Schuhl, P-M. 224 and n328, 239, 244, 247 Schwyzer [E]-Debrunner [A] [Griechische Grammatik] 292, 303 Schwyzer, Andreas. (son) 46 Schwyzer (Schiller, Charlotte), Lotti (wife) 30, 46 Schwyzer, Eduard (father) 46 Schwyzer, H.-R. passim, X, XI, XII, XIII, XV, XVI, XVII XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX, XXXI, 46, 103-157 Schwyzer, Martin (son) 46

395

Schwyzer, Vreneli (daughter) 46 Scutiatores, J. 5 Sēdash, T. G. 17 Segar (family) 61 and n149 Segarra, F. Fr 339 Segonds, A.-Ph. 143, 226 and n331, 234m346, 238, 239 Seneca/ Senèque 95, 351 Shakespeare, W. 32, 41, 172 Shaw, G. XVI, 170n296, 187, 188, 221, 228, 236, 236n355, 237 Shaw, T. XVI Sheldon-Williams, I. P. 166, 217 Shiro, Papas George 178 Simon, J. 9 Simplikios/Simplicius 44, 201, 219, 283, 293 Skutsch, O. 353 and n460 Sleeman, J. H. 12, 29, 33, 41, 44, 54, 54n128, 59, 61, 62, 63, 66, 67, 70, 112, 135, 136, 139, 154, 162n266, 163 and n268, 260 and n362, 269, 279, 336, 337, 345, 359 Smiley, T. 57 and n136, 58 and n138, 59 Smith, A XIV, 17, 166, 344 Socrates 292, 330, 333, 333n436, 363 Sophocles 139, 173, 202, 362 Spiegel, N. 17 Spinoza, B. B. de 8, 92, 239, 243, 244, 246 Stark, R. 325n430, 326 Stern-Gillet, S. IX-XIV, XV-XVII, 23, 31, 31n89, 48, 85, 167, 171, 185, 221, 321 Steucho, A. 7 Stock, M. O.P. 165 and n276 Stoics 2, 11, 95, 97, 103, 115, 116, 162, 164, 198, 277, 310, 347, 347n445, 349 Stray, C. 186 Strycker, de E. 40, 75, 81, 101, 125, 154, Sydenham, Floyer 5 Syrianus 192, 194, 195, 196, 197 Tanaka, N 17

396

A Text Worthy of Plotinus

Tangh, H. 45 Tanogashira, Y. 17 Tarrant, H. 65-66n154 Taylor, A. E. 163 and ns269-270 Taylor, R. C. 21 Taylor, T. 9n2, 1, 4-5, 6, 7, 8n46, 18, 201 Teilhard de Chardin 40, 68, 68n158, 68n160, 74, 76, 78, 83n179, 97 Tennyson, A. 32 Tertullian 164, 218 Thales 363 Theiller, W. XI, XIn13, XIII, XVII, XIX, XXVII, 12, 13, 16, 25, 25ns75-76, 36, 37, 44, 73, 73n166, 76, 78, 81, 84, 113, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 130, 135, 137, 139, 142, 143, 156, 167, 215, 216, 247, 248, 259, 275, 278, 279, 280, 284, 292, 296, 297, 300, 302, 313, 315, 318, 325, 328, 335, 336, 338, 343, 350-354 (and ns451-453, 455-456, 458-463), 360 Théodoret de Cyr 36, 47, Thoreau, H. D. 7 Thucydides 113n206, 134, 364 Tiedemann, F. 7 and n45 Todd, R. 160n251, 161n260, 161-162n260 Tomm, J. 222n324 Torstrik, A. 277 and n373 Tresmontant, C. 67 and n157 Trinkaus, C. 2n21, 21 Trouillard, J. XII, XV, XVI, XXVI, XXVII, 81, 86n182, 159, 188, 195, 198, 208, 221-25, 344, 349n449 Turner, Bridget (née Armstrong, granddaughter of AHA) 24, 60, 174, 179, 180, 181, 184 Upanishads 162 Vacherot, E. 9 Van Akoleyem, M. 45 Van der Linden, J-M. 45 Van der Valk, M. 14n69, 21 Van der Vorst, S.J. C. 34, 36, 42

Van Dorpe, B. 43 Van Ingelgem, T. 45 Vandenbroeck, A. (Henry’s mother) 23 Vega de la, L. 303 Veng, J-S. 193, 197 Verdenius, W. J. 206, 235 Veuillot, Cardinal 43 Victorinus, Marius 24, 33-34, 33n93, 34n95, 38, 43, 55, 82, 83, 85, 97, 98, 99, 100, 166, 216, 247, 249 Viltanioti, I.-F. XVI, 358n467 Vitringa, A. 127, 131, 333 Vogel de C. 53 and n125, 73, 74, 75, 83, 135, 144, 154, 207, 232 Volkmann, R. 9, 16, 42, 107, 151, 264, 278, 335, 348 Walker, D. P. 1n19, 21 Wallis, R. T. 8n47, 85, 210, 217, 250 Walzer, R. 166 Waters, V., Bishop 82 Waugh, E. 161 Wedeck, H. E. 352n457 Welsh, P. 39, 40 Westerink, L. 12n58, 120, 144, 166, 167, 168 and n293, 195, 224, 234n346, 235n349, 239, 248, 344 Whitman, W. 7 Wiggins, D. 57n137 Wilberding, J. 17 Williams, B. 57n137 Wilson, C. 183 Witt, R.E. 65 and n154, 95 Wolters, A. M. 142, 144, 145, 216, 248, 256, 341 Wordsworth, W. 7 Xenocrates 115, 116, 134 Xenophon 266, 270, 298, Zeller, E. 91, 91n185, Ziegler, K. 298n384 Zimmerman, F. W. 15n70, 21 Zingg, E. XVI, 356