189 ii. 4.13.

190 i. 8.15.

191 As thought Plato in his Banquet, p. 211; Cary, 35.

192 As said Plato, Republic, vii. p. 534; Cary, 14.

193 As Plato says in his Phaedrus, p. 246; Cary, 54, 56.

194 As wrote Plato in his Banquet, p. 203; Cary, 28, 29, and see iii. 7.14 and iii. 5.9 as well as iii. 6.14.

195 According to the interpretation of Ficinus.

196 See ii. 4. This is an added confirmation of the chronological order; in the Enneadic order this book is later, not earlier.

197 Again a term discussed by Numenius, fr. ii. 8, 13; and iii; see i. 1.9; iv. 3.3, 30, 31; i. 4.10.

198 We notice how these latter studies of Plotinos do not take up any new problems, chiefly reviewing subjects touched on before. This accounts for Porphyry's attempt to group the Plotinic writings, systematically. This reminds us of the suggestion in the Biography, that except for the objections of Porphyry, Plotinos would have nothing to write. Notice also the system of the last Porphyrian treatises, contrasted with the more literary treatment of the later. All this supports Porphyry's table of chronological arrangement of the studies of Plotinos. This book is closely connected with the preceding studies of Fate and Providence, iii. 1–3; for he is here really opposing not the Gnostics he antagonized when dismissing Amelius, but the Stoic theories on Providence and Fate.

199 See iii. 1.5, 6; iii. 6; iv. 4.30–44.

200 Macrobins. In Somn. Scipionis.

201 Cicero, de Divinatione, i. 39.

202 Julius Firmicus Maternus, Astrol. ii. 23.

203 With Ptolemy's Tetrabiblion, i. p. 17.

204 See iv. 4.31.

205 Discussed in par. 4.

206 This incomprehensibility was no doubt due to Plotinos's advancing blindness and renal affection.

207 Numenius, fr. 32.

208 Cicero, de Nat. Deorum, ii. 46.

209 See iv. 4.32.

210 According to the Stoics: Alex. Aphrod. de Mixtione, p. 141; Cicero, de Nat. Deorum, ii. 32.

211 See iii. 1.4, 7–10.

212 See iii. 1.6.

213 See iv. 4.33.

214 See iv. 4.35; according to the Stoics, see Diogenes Laertes. vii. 140.

215 See iv. 4.32.

216 Seneca, Quest. Nat. i. 1.

217 See iii. 4.2, 4.

218 See ii. 3.13.

219 See iii. 4.3.

220 See iii. 1.8–10.

221 The law of Adrastea; see iii. 4.2; iv. 4.4, 5.

222 Plato, Phaedrus, p. 244–251; Cary, 47–66.

223 See i. 8; ii. 11; iii. 1; vi. 8.

224 Plato, Rep. x. p. 617; Cary, 14.

225 p. 41–42; Cary, 16, 17.

226 See i. 1.7–10.

227 See ii. 1.5.

228 Stoic terms.

229 See ii. 1.8–10.

230 See i. 2.1; vi. 8.

231 See i. 1.7–12; iv. 3.19–23.

232 This is the exact doctrine of Numenius, fr. 53; it logically agrees with the doubleness of matter, Num. 14; of the Creator, Num. 36; and the world-Soul, fr. 16. See note 71.

233 See par. 18.

234 Plato, Banquet, p. 202; Cary, 28; Timaeus, p. 90; Cary, 71.

235 See iii. 1.2.

236 That is, to share the passions of the bodies: see iii. 1.2.

237 See iv. 4.38–40.

238 Seneca, Nat. Quest. ii. 32.

239 According to Aristotle, Met. xii. 3.

240 See iii. 1.6.

241 See Cicero, de Nat. Deor. ii. 34.

242 See iv. 4.39, 40.

243 Plato, Phaedrus, p. 248; Cary, 59.60.

244 See iii. 1.8–10.

245 See iv. 4.39.

246 See iii. 4.3.

247 See iii. 1.10.

248 See iii. 1.5.

249 Rep. x. p. 616; Cary, 14; Enn. iii. 4.

250 See iv. 4.30, 40, 43, 44.

251 See i. 4.

252 See i. 2.5.

253 In i. 1; proof of the chronological order.

254 See ii. 9.12; iv. 3.9, 10; negatively.

255 See iii. 3.1, 2; see Seneca, de Provid. 5.

256 See ii. 3.17; iii. 8.

257 See iv. 4.9–12.

258 See ii. 4; Seneca, de Provid. 5.

259 See ii. 9.2; iii. 2, 3. Seneca, de Provid. 5.

260 Or generative reasons, a Stoic term, Seneca, Quest. Nat. iii. 29; see iii. 3.1, 2, 7.

261 Plotinos is here harking back to his very earliest writing, 1.6, where, before his monistic adventure with Porphyry, he had, under the Numenian influence of Amelius, constructed his system out of a combination of the doctrines of Plato (about the ideas), Aristotle (the distinctions of form and matter and of potentiality and actualization), and the Stoic (the "reasons," "seminal reasons," action and passions, and "hexis," or "habit," the inorganic informing principle). Of these, Numenius seems to have lacked the Aristotelian doctrines, although he left Plato's single triple-functioned soul for Aristotle's combination of souls of various degrees (fr. 53). Plotinos, therefore, seems to have distinguished in every object two elements, matter and form (ii. 4.1; ii. 5.2). Matter inheres potentially in all beings (ii. 5.3, 4) and therefore is non-being, ugliness, and evil (i. 6.6). Form is the actualization (K. Steinhart's Melemata Plotiniana, p. 31; ii. 5.2); that is, the essence and power (vi. 4.9), which are inseparable. Form alone possesses real existence, beauty and goodness. Form has four degrees: idea, reason, nature and habit; which degrees are the same as those of thought and life (Porphyry, Principles 12, 13, 14). The idea is distinguished into "idea" or intelligible Form, or "eidos," principle of human intellectual life. Reason is 1, divine (theios logos, i. 6, 2; the reason that comes from the universal Soul, iv. 3.10), 2, human (principle of the rational life, see Ficinus on ii. 6.2); 3, the seminal or generative reason (principle of the life of sensation, which imparts to the body the sense-form, "morphé," 3.12-end; Bouillet, i. 365). Now reasons reside in the soul (ii. 4.12), and are simultaneously essences and powers (vi. 4.9), and as powers produce the nature, and as essences, the habits. Now nature ("physis") is the principle of the vegetative life, and habit, "hexis," Numenius, fr. 55, see ii. 4.16, is the principle of unity of inorganic things.

262 As thought Aristotle, Met. xii, 3.

263 See ii. 9.13.

264 See iv. 4.9–13.

265 See iii. 4.1.

266 This is Numenius' doctrine, fr. 16.

267 See iii. 3.5, 11.

268 Plotinos here makes in the world-Soul a distinction analogous to that obtaining in the human one (where there is a reasonable soul, and its image, the vegetative soul, see i. 1.8–12; iv. 4. 13, 14). Here he asserts that there are two souls; the superior soul (the principal power of the soul, which receives the forms from Intelligence (see iv. 4.9–12, 35), and the inferior soul (nature, or the generative power), which transmits them to matter, so as to fashion it by seminal reasons (see iii. 4.13, 14, 22, 27). Bouillet, no doubt remembering Plotinos's own earlier invectives against those who divided the world-soul (ii. 9.6), evidently directed against Amelius and the Numenian influence, which till then he had followed—tries to minimize it, claiming that this does not mean two different hypostases, but only two functions of one and the same hypostasis. But he acknowledges that this gave the foundation for Plotinos's successors' distinction between the supermundane and the mundane souls (hyperkosmios, and egkosmios). Plotinos was therefore returning to Numenius's two world-souls (fr. 16), which was a necessary logical consequence of his belief in two human souls (fr. 53), as he himself had taught in iii. 8.5. Plotinos objectifies this doubleness of the soul in the myth of the two Hercules, in the next book, i. 1.12.

269 See ii. 9.2.

270 The subject announced in the preceding book, ii. 3.16; another proof of the chronological order. This is a very obscure book, depending on iv. 3 and 4: and vi. 7; on the theory of the three divine hypostases, on his psychology, the soul's relation to, and separation from the body, and metempsychosis. His doctrines of "self" and of the emotions are strikingly modern.

271 See sect. 2.

272 See sect. 3.

273 See sect. 4.

274 See sect. 7, 11.

275 This most direct translation of "pathos," is defective in that it means rather an experience, a passive state, or modification of the soul. It is a Stoic term.

276 "Dianoia" is derived from "dia nou," and indicates that the discursive thought is exercised "by means of the intelligence," receiving its notions, and developing them by ratiocination, see v. 3.3. It is the actualization of discursive reason "to dianoêtikon," or of the reasonable soul ("psychê logikê"), which conceives, judges, and reasons (dianoei, krínei, logizetai).

277 "Noêsis" means intuitive thought, the actualization of intelligence.

278 See sect. 7.

279 See Porphyry, Faculties of the Soul, and Ficinus, commentary on this book.

280 In Greek, "to zoon," "to syntheton," "to synamphoteron," "to koinon," "to eidôlon."

281 See i. 2.5.

282 According to the Stoics.

283 According to Alexander of Aphrodisia.

284 As thought Aristotle, de Anima 2.1; see 4.3.21, and Numenius, 32.

285 A famous comparison, found in Aristotle, de Anima, ii. 1; Plato, Laws, x. p. 906; Cary, 14; and especially Numenius, 32.

286 As Plotinos thinks.

287 iv. 4.20.

288 iv. 3.20.

289 Arist., de Anim. 2.1.

290 According to Aristotle.

291 Phaedo, p. 87; Cary, 82.

292 Similar to the modern James-Lange theory of bodily emotions.

293 See iv. 4.20, 28.

294 See sect. 7, 9, 10.

295 See iv. 3.22, 23.

296 Porphyry and Ammonius in Bouillet, i. Intr. p. 60, 63, 64, 75, 79, 93, 96, 98, and note on p. 362 to 377.

297 Namely, intelligence and the reasonable soul.

298 See Bouillet, i. p. 325, 332.

299 Bouillet, Intr. p. lxxviii.

300 See Bouillet, i., note, p. 327, 341.

301 One of the three hypostases.

302 See Bouillet, i. p. lxxiii. 344–352.

303 Plato, Timaeus, p. 35; Cary, 12.

304 These images of the universal Soul are the faculties of the soul, sense-power, vegetative power, generative power or nature; see iv. 4.13, 14.

305 "Turning" means here to incline.

306 See St. Paul, Rom. for phantasy, or imagination; vii. 7–25.

307 See iv. 3.29–31, also i. 1.9; Numenius, fr. ii. 8, 19; iii. See section 10.

308 See i. 2.5.

309 iv. 3.19, 23.

310 See ii. 9.3, 4, 11, 12.

311 Fancy or representation, i. 4.10; iv. 3.3, 30, 31.

312 See 4.3.19, 23; 6.7.6.7.

313 Plato, Rep. x. p. 611; Cary, 11.

314 For this see 4.3.12, 18; 4.8.

315 Odyss. xi. 602, 5; see 4.3.27.

316 We find here a reassertion of Numenius's doctrine of two souls in man, fr. 53.

317 Bouillet observes that this book is only a feeble outline of some of the ideas developed in vi. 7, 8, and 9. The biographical significance of this might be as follows. As in the immediately preceding books Plotinos was harking back to Numenius's doctrines, he may have wished to reconcile the two divergent periods, the Porphyrian monism of vi. 7 and 8, with the earlier Amelian dualism of vi. 9. This was nothing derogatory to him; for it is well known that there was a difference between the eclectic monism of the young Plato of the Republic, and the more logical dualism of the older Plato of the Laws. This latter was represented by Numenius and Amelius; the former—combined with Aristotelian and Stoic elements—by Porphyry. Where Plato could not decide, why should we expect Plotinos to do so? And, as a matter of fact, the world also has never been able to decide, so long as it remained sincere, and did not deceive itself with sophistries, as did Hegel. Kant also had his "thing-in-itself"—indeed, he did little more than to develop the work of Plotinos.

318 As the Stoics would say.

319 Which is one of the three hypostases, ii. 9.1 and v. 1.

320 We see here Plotinos feeling the approach of this impending dissolution.

321 Arranged by Bouillet in the order of the Enneads they summarize.

322 Passages in quotation marks are from the text of Plotinos.

323 See i. 2.3.

324 See i. 2.4.

325 See i. 2.4.

326 See i. 2.6.

327 See i. 2.7.

328 See i. 2.7.

329 See i. 2.5.

330 See i. 8.1.

331 See 36.38.

332 These are the three divine hypostases, i. 8.2; ii. 9.1.

333 See ii. 2.2.

334 See v. 3.6.

335 See iii. 7.2.

336 See iii. 7.2.

337 A pun on "noein" and "nous."

338 See v. 3.10–12.

339 See v. 6.11, 12, 13.

340 See v. 4.3, 2, 12.

341 See v. 4.4, 9.

342 See vi. 4.9.

343 See vi. 4.16.

344 See iii. 5.7–9. from Plato.

345 See vi. 2; vi. 5.

346 See vi. 5.1.

347 See vi. 4.4.

348 See vi. 5.2.

349 See vi. 5.3, 6.

350 See vi. 5.4.

351 See vi. 8.4.

352 See vi. 5.12.

353 See iv. 8.1.

354 See iv. 8.1.

355 See 23.

356 Stobaeus, Ecl. Phys., i. 52, ed. Heeren.

357 See iv. 3.23.

358 In his book "On the Soul."

359 See i. 1.12.

360 See ii. 6.1.

361 See Ennead, i. 1.

362 Stobaeus, Ecl. Physicae, i. 52, p. 878.

363 Of Human Nature, xv.

364 de Anima, ii. 3.

365 Stobaeus, Eclogae Physicae, i. 52. p. 894.

366 On Human Nature, 2.

367 See Plotinos, ii. 7.1; Porphyry, Principles, 17, 18, 21, 22, 36, 38.

368 See iv. 3.20.