B IC-NRLF potinos f Qtttf» awtf a CO CM CD THE PHILOSOPHY OF PLOTINOS , 0 NEW YORK THEOSOPHICAL PUBLISHING Co. 244 LENOX AVENUE. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1896, by the DUNLAP PRINTING COMPANY, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington, D. C. THE PHILOSOPHY OF PLOTINOS. INDEX, Page Chapter I. PLATONISM ..." i 1. Plato's Three Realms i 2. The Archetypal World of Ideas 2 3. The World of Matter 3 4. The Universe 3 5. The Rank of Ideas 3 6. The Human Soul 4 Chapter II. ARISTOTELIANISM 6 1. Plato and Aristotle 6 2. The Deity 7 3. The Psychology .- 7 4. The Ethics 8 Chapter III. STOICISM 9 1. Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics 9 2. The Aristotelian Dialectic 9 3. Cosmology 10 4. Ethics : ii Chapter IV. EMANATIONISM 12 1. The Date of Hermes 12 2. Relation to Christianity 12 3. Difference from Platonism 14 4. Hermetic Conceptions 14 5. Cosmology 14 6. Ethics 15 7. Spiritual Destiny 15 Chapter V. AMMONIUS SAKKAS, PLOTINOS, AND THEIR RELATION TO CHRISTIANITY 17 1. Ammonius Sakkas 17 2. Plotinos 17 3. Relation to Christianity 18 4. The Recognition of the Authority of Plato 20 5. Relation to Greek Philosophy 20 Chapter VI. MIKROKOSM AND MAKROKOSM 22 1. The Contemplative Life r . y. . . _v . 22 2. Mikrokosm .r/v1r.'. . . 22 3. Psychology ttS&f^ftttW-JiiU M ' 23 4. Cosmological Import of Psychology 24 146280 INDEX. Page Chanter VII. THE FIRST REALM, THE GOD 26 1. The One and the Many 26 2. The God Above Cognisability 26 3. The Nomenclative Symbol for the Divinity 27 4. The God is the First Cause 27 5. The God's Necessity to Love 27 6. Manner of Begetting 28 7. Relation of Cause and World 28 Chapter VIII. THE SECOND REALM, GOD, COSMIC MIND 30 1. Saturn, the Cognisable Deity 30 2. Identity of Being and Thought 30 Chapter IX. THE THIRD REALM, THE SOUL 32 1. The Trinity : Over-God, Saturn, and Zeus-Rhea 32 2. Co-equality of Souls 33 3. The World-Soul 33 4. The Transcendent Over-Soul 34 5. Inter-relation of Over-Soul and Souls 34 Chapter X. THE FOURTH REALM, REASON 36 1. Individual Mind 36 2. Other World-Souls 36 Chapter XI. THE FIFTH REALM, SENSE 37 1. The Senses of the Over-Soul 37 2. Unity of Souls in the Fifth Realm 37 3. Human Sense-Realm 37 4. Celestial and Physical Senses 38 5. Senses of Animals 39 Chapter XII. THE SIXTH REALM, VITALITY 39 1. The Sixth ivealm 39 2. The Sixth Realm of the Over-Soul 39 3. The Doctrine of Sympathy 39 4. The Beautiful 40 5. Astrology and Vaticination 40 6. Free Will 4i - 7. The Daemon 42 Chapter XIII. THE SEVENTH REALM, MATTER.... 43 1. Evil • 43 2. Uncognisability of Matter 44 3. Intelligibility of Matter 44 INDEX. Hi Page Chapter XIV. REINCARNATION 45 1. Need for Reincarnation 46 2. Justice 46 3. The Three Factors 46 4. Objection from Oblivion 47 5. Objection from Suicide 47 Chapter XV. ETHICS 48 1. Virtue and Vice 48 2. Philosophy of Sin • 49 3. The Path of Enlightenment : 49 4. The Daemon of Conscience 50 5. Ecstasy 51 6. Happiness 52 Chapter XVI. AESTHETICS 54 1. The God, the Over-Beautiful • 54 2. Human Beauty 54 Chapter XVII. PLOTINOS AND PAGANISM 56 1. Pagan Deities 56 2. Monotheism 56 3. Augustine's Debt to Plotinos : 56 4. The Last Light ot Greece 56 CHAPTER I. PLATONISM. i. Plato's Three Realms. — Plato united in his system that which was valuable in the systems of philosophy which preceded his. We may therefore begin immediately with Plato in our prelimi- nary sketch of Greek philosophy. Plato divides existence into two great realms : that which can be felt by the senses, the "sensible" "to aistheton," and that which can be understood, the " knowable," " to noeton." The most cursory examination of the sense-world reveals the prob- lem of the One and the Many : for every object is one, inasmuch as it is an object, yet manifold in its qualities. Which of these is the most fundamental distinction? Earlier Greek philosophy had given various answers to this question ; but none of their conclusions satisfied Plato wholly. Being, " ousia, " as such, could not, thought he, be attributed to any finite thing ; on the contrary, "becoming," "genesis," was a fitting description of the phenomenal world. He proceeded further to reduce this dis- tinction to its Pythagorean terms, the Limited and the Unlimited. As both of these conceptions are united in that of a definite number, so the truth of both the categories of the One and the Many is their unity, their mixture, which fittingly represented the eternal process of Becoming which may be witnessed in the phenomenal world. Unity will apply fittingly to the intelligible world, which alone has true Being, being " existing being, " " reason, " and " ex- istence," " Ontos on, Logos, Ousia." The Manifold, on the contrary, must apply to the formless, odorless, chaotic matter, " hule," of which the world was form- ed. We thus reach a third realm of existence, which, however, can only be distinguished as having existed before the creation or formation of the phenomenal world. Plato thus recognizes three realms of existence : " that which becomes (the sense- world), that in which it becomes (matter), and that from which it is copied (the intelligible world). " God, is the~Father, the reason, the " whence it grows," the " hothen phuetai," of the world ; matter is the mother and nurse, the con- comitant cause, the " En ho gignetai to gignomenon," of the world ; and thus, the world is the offspring of God and Matter. But we must not fail to analyze this intelligible world, this " knowable " " to noeton." The phrase given above, "that from The Philosophy of Plotinos. which it is copied " implies that somebody copies something : that the Deity copies the Ideas or archetypes. There is then, above the intelligible world proper a still higher realm of ex- istence, the Deity : which, in the Pythagorean terminology ad- duced above would be the Mind, the " Nous," the principle or " cause " " aition," of the phenomenal world. We have thus four realms of existence : the Deity, the world ' of Ideas, the world of Sense, and Matter. But as the latter realm has ceased to exist since the creation of the phenomenal world as such, there remain three realms of existence, which are sometimes referred to as the Platonic Trinity : " Nous" or the Deity, the intelligible world of Ideas, and the Sense-world the " sensible," " to aisthetikon." How loose and inaccurate such an appellation is, is clear from the fact that Plato himself did not recognize it. The Sense-world, the supposititious third member of the Trinity, is the only-begotten Son, "Huios mono- genes " of the Deity, the " Eikon tou Theou," "Zoon aidion kai noeton," it is a " second " God, " future " before its genesis. and " created " after it ; a " blessed deity." As the world of Ideas is a " Zoon aidion kai noeton,". an " eternal and intelligible organism," so the world of Sense is a " Zoon ennoun," an " intelligible organism," a reasonable living being, the creating principle of "Nous," Reason, having reduced the chaotic, necessary, and " alogos," irrational Matter to an image of the world of Ideas. Thus the problem of the One and the Many was apparently solved : every object being One, in view of its similarity to the Idea according to which, as a pattern, it has been created ; and Manifold, in view of the formless matter which had been the condition of its origination. 2. The Archetypal World of Ideas. — In explaining what Plato meant by his World of Ideas, we must notice the fact that he accepts the identification of Being and Thought of Parmenides. As a consequence, his " intelligible world " is the world of true existence, and everything exists only inasmuch as it participates in this existence. An Idea is that which makes a horse a horse, and a tree a tree ; in short it is a general notion, an universal, a species or genus, which abides unchanged amidst all the changes of the individuals to which it applies. Hence the world of Ideas is " in the supercelestial place," " En topo huperouranio," be- yond all change, far beyond this world, separate from the ob- jects participating in it. The Ideas are archetypes, "paradigms" " Paradeigmata," of every quality and every thing, many Ideas at times being present in one and the same thing, as "just" and " tall " in a " man." These Ideas are co-ordinate, being distinct entities, although they also rank hierarchically from the highest genus to the lowest species, as they are the existence, being, aim and end of everything subsumed under them. Yet they are passive thoughts, and are without energy ; they are only objects of contemplation, far from the world. Platonism. 3. The World of Matter.— It the Intelligible world, the " One " is real existence, it follows that Matter, the " Many," is nonex- istence. It is therefore absurd to call Plato's philosophical sys- tem a dualism. Matter, " Hule," the indeterminate, has only neg- ative predicates, it lacks form and quality, and cannot be appre- hended by the senses. It can only be space, the form of out- wardness, that is, coexistence and unordered sequence. It is an empty form waiting for a content to be impressed upon it. It is nothing, an abstraction from reality ; yet it is absolute neces- sity, and though not able to oppose the divine power, yet able to mar its works. 4. The Universe. — The Sense- world is the most beautiful world * possible, being framed according to the most perfect of patterns,5 by the best cause. " He was good ; and in a good being no envy in relation to anything ever resides, but being without this he wished everything to become as like himself as possible." We saw that the Sense-world was an " intelligible organism," "Zoon ennoun." It is consequently able to think: and this is the char- acteristic of mind, and mind exists in a soul, and a soul in a body. As the younger should not rule the elder, and mind rules the body, the mind of the world was older than the body of the world. The Universe is therefore a living being, with a rational soul interpenetrating its body. It regulates and harmonizes the world ; for as human bodies partake of the physical Universe, so do human souls proceed from the souls of the Universe. The Universe thus created is formed in two circles with a common centre, in different planes ; the inner circle is subdivid- ed into seven circles moving in directions opposite to that of the outer one. Here we have the fixed stars and the seven planets with their orbits. 5. The Rank of Ideas. — Having explained the nature of Ideas it remains for us to describe the rank and dignity they occupy. All together they form an "intelligible world." an "intelligible place" an "intelligible organism," "Kosmos noetos," a "Topos noetos," a Zoon noeton." The cause of a thing is not the condition of its existence, but its purpose ; and the ultimate purpose of pur- poses is the ruler of all other Ideas, " basileus," the king of heaven, " Dophia, Zeus." Plato combined here the Mind of Anaxagoras, and the Good " /-vgathon," of the Megareans and Sokrates into an " Epekeina tes Ousias," a " somewhat beyond existence" an existence beyond all Being, the Ideas partaking of Being, " ousia." This Being is both Mind and Good : a con- ) scious good Being, the Idea, the absolute Unity excluding all, Manifoldness, a glorious fulfilment of the Eleatic dreams. Such : a conception of the Deity lifts him in a separate realm of exis- tence, above all other Ideas soever. That this was Plato's conception has been much doubted. He, the Creator, has been identified with the Idea of the Good, as both are called by Plato " the best of the intelligible and eter- nally existing beings." He is himself the pattern he copies in The Philosophy of Plotinos. the creation, since he is said to copy an eternal pattern. The world is therefore called a " sensible God," an " image of the in- telligible," and an " image of the eternal gods." Zeller thinks the ideas cannot depend on God without affecting their self-exis- tence ; God cannot be dependent on the ideas, for the same rea- son, and both cannot be co-ordinate without creating a dualism Plato knows nothing of. Consequently, God and the Idea of the Good are identical. This view of Zeller's creates more diffi- culties than it explains ; for it does not account for the language quoted above, and it permits us to ask, why was it the Idea of the Good and not some other Idea which took upon itself the office of a Creator ? Why do not several Ideas create separate universes? And besides, a Creator such as we have described is absolute- ly needed by Plato in his Physics. The Ideas are true existence, and Matter is non-existence ; and both are separate. How shall the rational principle infuse itself into matter to make it a ration- al organism, unless the God who contemplates the Idea, gen- erates them as a poet in himself, and thus, so to speak, incar- nates them ? For Plato has no principle of Emanationism to assist him, as had Aristotle. 6. The Human Soul.— We have seen that the Soul of the Uni- verse began the human souls. Yet we have other accounts of their creation, which set forth that the Creator compounded human souls in the same vessel in which he had compounded the Soul of the Universe, the difference being that the elements used were less pure ; and after creating them, the Creator as- signed to each Soul its appropriate star. Thus the World-Soul and each human soul are sisters, and not related to each other as mother and daughter. Each soul is composed of three parts. The first is reason, " ten logistikon," which has its seat in the head, and is the organ of ± knowledge. Its moderate regulation is the virtue called wisdom,) the opposite of this virtue is the vice, foolishness. The second part of the soul attends to all bodily wants, and its name is the " Epithumetikon." It is the organ of perception, and has its seat in the abdomen (the solar plexus). To this part of the soul God has added, in the liver, an organ of intuitive and presen- timentative knowledge. The moderate exercise of this part of the soul is the virtue " Sophrosune," self-control, and its op- 'posite habits is the vice " Akolasia," intemperance. Lastly, we\ have the third part of the soul, "to Thumoeides" the courageous \ part of the soul, prepared by the secondary deities, presumably the World-Soul, and this is the organ of whose moderate exer- cise is the virtue " Andria," courage, as opposed to the vice " Deilia," cowardice. The fourth virtue, " Dikaiosune," justice, is the right relation between the above three virtues, and when it is exercised towards God, it becomes " Hosiotes," holiness or piety, since it is man's end to resemble God, who is absolutely good. This is happiness. Virtue is the health and order and harmony of the soul, and should therefore be followed irrespec- Platonism. tive of consequences or sanctions ; for to do injustice is worse than to suffer it from another. This philosophy demands the rationality of the entire man. Yet, in a single life on earth, injustice to souls is patent. God is just : consequently this life cannot be all. The soul exists both before and after this life; it transmigrates through all forms according to inexorable justice. If the soul of a wise man erred, his next incarnation would be in the body of a woman ; if the soul persisted in its evil ways, the next incarnation would be that of an animal. If howeyer a soul for several incarnations chose the study of philosophy, it would soon become perma- nently freed from the necessity of reincarnating. Pleasure is not necessarily good : it may indeed be evil ; mod- eration and health of the soul are pleasurable in themselves. Pleasure is in itself antithetically opposed to all true insight. j CHAPTER II. ARISTOTELIANISM. i. Plato and Aristotle. — In order to understand Aristotle it will be advantageous to notice his points of contact with and dif- ference from his great Master. Both were agreed that Matter was indeterminate, the ground of all Plurality, the concomitant cause, the feminine principle, the mother and the nurse of the world. Here they separate. With Plato, Matter is non-existence, emptiness, vo'id, "in which" " En ho.w With Aristotle Matter is incomplete, undeveloped " dunamis " or power and possibility, " Ex hou," "out of which." Matter, according to Aristotle, is much moie real than according to Plato ; the latter's system may be described as a monism ; even though the former's may be interpreted as a dualism. With Plato, the Ideas were transcendent above the World that participated in them. They were self-existent, objectively real. With Aristotle, all objective existence apart from immanence in the things which participated in them was denied them. They are only the essence of the species, energy, " energeia," form. These universals realise themselves in the matter, and particu- larize themselves into things. Matter, or potentiality, and Form, or energy, are so closely united that Reality results from both as a third principle. This their invariable union is " perceptible substance," as the statue which results from the union of the bronze and the shape. In all reality, therefore, we may distinguish the mover and the moved, the active and the passive. Thus all reality is teleologi- cal, having an end or aim to which it moves, as the magnet moves to the steel. A teleological aim is the very reason of mo- tion, and of every change of matter ; which is real existence. We now have a principle which is a satisfactory solution to Plato's unanswered question why the Ideas were impressed in Matter ; for we have here purposive activity, ranging through all the octaves of creation, the moving and the moved principles. This conception which is original to Aristotle is that of de- velopment, with which he finally solved the ever recurring prob- lem of the One and the Many, which Greek philosophy was haunted by, and which Plato only restated in new terms. Reality is thus the essence of the phenomena ; being, " ousia," becomes essence, the " what it might be to exist " " To ti en einai " ; and all appearance is the realisation of essence. The A ristotelianism. mere, inert. " becoming " of Plato has become the living " de- velopment " as soon as a teleological view of it is taken. This self-realization of essence in the Sense-world is called an en- telechy, " Entelechia," which takes place under four principles, Matter, Form, End and Cause. The first two of these principles refer tp things related to each other ; and the latter to individual things. 2. The Deity. — When we ask for the origin of the motion of the moving principles, it is answered that this must again be a moving principle. As, however, we cannot make a regress into the infinite, we musr come to some prime Mover, himself un- moved, that excludes all passivity and potentiality, and is pure activity and energy. This is without Matter, " aneu hules," purus actus, eternal in its motion, simple, continuous, without the limitation of space. Thus the source of movement is found outside of the substances moved. It cannot cause motion, be- cause every end aimed at is an instance of this process, and the prime Mover of the world is its final end, the best, the efficient cause. All reality lies between Matter and the prime Mover after which everything strives and which everything desires. The prime Mover is One, devoid of all multiplicity: therefore immortal, pure, desiring nothing, desired of all. On this account it is the end of scientific cognition ; and because eternal, and eternally desired of all, no unification between God and his world be- yond eternal desire is possible. The divine Mind thinks of itself eternally : in it thinker and thought are eternally one, and at rest ; ^f it thought of creation or of something else it would not be at rest. Human speculation or contemplation of pure thought is the most divine occupation possible to man, re-discovering God in blissful rest. Thus God is the end of human contem- plation, thought of thought. The Deity, according to Plato, was an Idea of Ideas ; accord- ing to Aristotle, it was a self-contained prime Mover of all real- ity, transcendent above his world. And this world lay between himself and Matter, opposed to him, because excluded from him. The name of the Deity of Aristotle is the same as that of Plato, The Good, and The Mind. Aristotle claims to take these names not from Plato but from Anaxagoras, from whose Deity Plato has also borrowed the name of his Idea of Ideas. Yet it is true that the Deity of Aristotle is nearer to that of Anaxagoras than that of Plato ; for the former one was the all-including end of all the "Logoi" of things, the principle of motion in all reality. 3. The Psychology. — The psychology of Aristotle is radically different from that of Plato. Man is a mikrokosm ; his soul unites all the faculties of other orders of living beings. Never- theless, the human soul may be divided into two parts: that which pre-exists and survives the body, and that which dies with it. The former is called " Nous," reason, in general. It is the faculty by which man excels all living beings. The latter is subdivided into five " souls " or planes of consciousness. Each organ ex- ists in view of some end, which is an activity : so the body ex- The Philosophy of Plotinos. ists for the soul. The two lowest " souls " man possesses in common with animals and plants : the " vegetable " and " as- similating " or " reproductive " souls. The difference between plants and animals is that the latter have a common centre or central organ, the heart ; which the former do not possess. With animals, men share the " sensitive," " appetitive," and " loco- motive " souls, which include memory, desire, and self-activity. The reason itself, the distinctively human faculty, may be divid- ed into two parts : the passive and active reason ; the passive " dunamis " is a " tabula rasa " and receives forms ; on the other hand the active " energeia " generates forms and this active rea- son alone has substantial eternal existence. The active " Nous " is represented as divine, although in Aristotle's cosmology we found no place for such a direct unification of soul and God ; since God, rapt up in himself transcended the Universe. In this its highest sphere we must consider Aristotle's psychology and cosmology inconsistent. So far, then, the human soul is composed of seven subordinate souls or planes of consciousness. If however we take the two lowest as only one, then man will be found to have only six con- stituent elements, or counting the body as one, in addition, we will have seven. 4. The Ethics. — As little as Aristotle's cosmology and psycho- logy agree, so little does his system of Ethics agree with either. Plato's Ethics we saw to be intimately connected with his psy- chology. Aristotle is however here the true empiricist ; he finds in Plato's account five virtues ; he adds to them other virtues he finds in other philosophies, without much regard to his psychol- ogy. Besides, he differs from Plato in making a virtue the mean between two extremes, whereas his Master had only known of a virtue and its contradictory vice. The. teleological end of action which Aristotle assumes is happiness, " eudaimonia," the mean habit of human activity. He pretends to deduce it from experience ; but finally assumes it as self-evident. He di- vides his virtues into dianoetic and natural ; but here he forgets to define what the dianoetic virtues are. He only points out various gradations of truth-conception, of which the " Nous," with its immediate grasp of intelligible principles reaches the highest. The good of every being is the rational development of its powers, and as man's characteristic quality is his reason, the dianoetic will be the highest. But we have already remarked that he neglect? to define these all-important virtues. CHAPTER III. STOICISM. 1. Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics. — What Aristotle was to Plato, that the Stoics were to Aristotle. Aristotle denied the trans- cendence of the Ideas beyond their immanence in things ; the Stoics denied the transcendence of Aristotle's Deity, and recog- nized it as only immanent in the world, so that while Aristotle called his Theology " Dialectics," the Stoics called theirs "Phy- sics." Yet the Stoics belong to a later age than either Plato or Aristotle, for with the latter's comprehensive glance all former constructive work was ended. It remained for the Peripate- tics and Academicians, the Stoics and Epicureans, to combine what was given before. Besides, the Stoics and Epicureans were more interested in Ethics, or the practical life, than in theoretic discussions. They preferred to borrow their Dialectic almost ready-made from Aristotle, and their Physics from Herakleitos. In this interest in Ethics they considered themselves followers of Sokrates, looking on him as the pattern of the virtuous wise man. and were the beginners of the movement in philosophy which lasted for several centuries, being characterized by this prefer- ence for Ethics over abstract reasoning. 2. The Aristotelian Dialectic. — Their Dialectic they borrow from Aristotle with the following changes. It is named Logic, be- cause its treats of " Logos," reason, which is already conceived as "implicit" "Endiathetos" and "explicit" "Prophorikos." Logic then is divided into Rhetoric and Dialectic proper ; its business is however only secondary to Ethics, teaching how to avoid errors. Doing away with all but the first four of Aristotle's categories, they reach a criterion of truth, " right reason," " orthos Logos " the quality of compelling assent, logical neces- sity. Knowledge originates from sensation, the mind being a "tabula rasa" at first. Thus, instead of Platonic Ideas or Aristo- telian essence we have reflection or abstraction from these men- tal images or impressions. This shows us that nothing is real except corporeal matter ; the best of reality is nothing but the quality of occupying space. Reality which with Aristotle was the product of four principles, Matter, Form, Efficient Cause and Final Cause, is now the product of only two principles, the active and passive ones, which are inseparable. They do not know anything of a pure " Energeia," or " Nous "; they only know of io The Philosophy of Plotinos. a conscious principle " Reason " or " Logos " connected insep- arably with the universe, just as the human soul or " Reason " or " Logos " is united to the human body. This cosmical force, moving, active, moulding, reasonable, is " Reason," " Logos," and is the Deity. This form-principle is called " Logos," Soul, ether, nature, Zeus, and fire — not destructive, but constructive. Being constructive this divine fire is the womb and grave of all things, containing the rational germs " spermatic reasons," " logoi spermatikoi," of all things. The human soul is of like character with the World-Soul, and the breathing-in of the cool air of the atmosphere assists its generation and preservation. The human soul however, seems to be composed of different elements, the governing force, is " the logical powers," " to logistikon," seated in the breast, the generative function, speech and the five senses. This would make eight component parts, the crudeness of which classification is apparent at first sight. Although the Stoics recognised only two principles, the pass- ive " matter," " He. apoios ousia," and the active, " The God " " Ho Theos," " in which reason exists," yet on the other hand the divine soul is represented as being composed of Hexis, phusis, psuche," " habit," " nature," " soul," and finally " Nous." In this we may trace a faint resemblance to Aristotle's psychology. The formation of the world then took place by change of the divine fire into air and water ; which water separates into earth, water and fire. Earth and water are passive ; the finer air and fire are active. Finally at the end of a definite age, all things are resolved into the divine fire (conflagrative) after which the world will be once more created, the same things as before happening without variation into infinity, without any thing new. This of course brings into the finite spherical world absolute " destiny " " Heimarmene," and " providence," "Pronoia ". Destiny how- ever only related to auxiliary causes so that primary causes re- mained in our own free will and desire, whose actions were fore- seen but not predetermined by providence. As to the immor- tality of the soul, Stoic teachers differed. 3. The Ethics. — The Stoics introduced into the domain of Ethics several new conceptions. In the first place, man was considered only in relation to himself, not in relation to the State of Plato or Aristotle. To live according to nature is not to live according to the nature of others, but according to one's own nature ; the sage need only know himself. Thus the max- im to live harmoniously with reason becomes an exhortation to live harmoniously, in an absolute sense. In the second place, they introduced the conception of Duty, " ofncium ". This does not only regulate a natural impulse, as with Aristotle, but has the power to suppress it. It suppresses all "affective states," "Pathe." fear, trouble, desire and pleasure, as leading only to morbid states, pleasure and pain and therefore worthless. "Apathy " " Apatheia " is consequently the highest human state — in con- tradistinction to the Epicurean freedom from pain. This state Stoicism. 1 1 can be attained by making dominant in one's nature those ele- ments which do not depend on external circumstances, so that the sage is dependent on none but himself, and can be happy even in the bull of Phalaris. The sage is then equal to Zeus, except in the unimportant physical things. Pleasure may legiti- mately follow the activity of the sage, but should not precede it. The sage is perfectly virtuous — for if he has one virtue he will have all the rest — the usual Platonic virtues, the end of man being not contemplation but action. In this account of the four virtues the Stoics seem to have completely lost sight of the rela- tion between them and Plato's psychology, their own psychology being at best very crude. All men are either fools or advancing towards wisdom, which is to live according to nature, making human conduct agree with the all-controlling law of nature, or, as some prefer to put it, the Divine Will. Yet to live in associations is but the means of living for oneself, to attain the chief good ; for the sage is neither husband nor citizen. The wise will live in an ideal state embracing all men as such, dividing wealth and ad- vantages equally to all. Suicide was a legitimate means of end- ing suffering. The Ethics of the Stoics were in later times formulated into maxims by Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, which agree so closely with some of the teachings of the New Testament that they have been charged with plagiarism. Such a charge is only plausible to those who are ignorant of the writings of the earlier Stoics and the natural development of doctrine. The best evi- dence of this is that Marcus Aurelius detested Christianity. And this may have arisen from the fact that while its ethical maxims agreed with his, yet he could not make rational to himself the Incarnation. This sketch of Stoicism would not be complete without mention of their tendency to seek an allegorical meaning be- neath the exoteric sense of the words. Demokritos, Anaxagoras, Aristotle and the Cynics, had already explained the fables of the gods as beautiful allegories, symbolizing spiritual truths. To the Stoics, however, belongs the merit of having done this systematically in relation to all Pagan divinities, recklessly violat- ing the most evident rules of etymology. We will find this allegorical method of interpretation in Philo Judaeus, and after him in the mystics of all ages. CHAPTER IV. EMANATIONISM. 1. The Date of Hermes. — The time in which Hermes Trismeg- istus lived is lost in uncertainty. It is impossible to assume his identity with the traditional Hermes of Egyptian fame. Cas- aubon and L. Menard suppose the writer of the Hermetica to have been an Alexandrian living at the end of the first.and at the beginning of the second century, who may have assumed the name of Hermes for several reasons, either that he thought his doctrines agreed with those of Hermes, or because his dia- logues introduced Hermes as a speaker, just as Plato introduced Sokrates ; or, finally, to gain authority and fame for his works. He must have lived after Philo Judaeus, and Josephus, and have been thoroughly imbued with the writings of Plato. He must have been an early contemporary of Justin Martyr, who refers to his doctrine of the Unity of God, and one of whose writings contains a passage verbally identical with one in thePoemandres, the only complete extant Hermetic work. Besides, Tertullian. 136-216, A. D., mentions him, so that the writer must have lived between the time of Josephus and that of Tertullian. That the Hermetic writings had influence over Ammonius Sakkas, 241 A. D., is rendered possible by mention of him in the works of Asklepios, the reputed grandson of Hermes. Besides, several Hermetic fragments are addressed to an Ammon, who might be Ammonius Sakkas, if these Hermetic fragments were of the times of a disciple of Hermes living in the time of Ask- lepios. 2. Relation to Christianity. — There is no good ground for call- ing Hermes a Christian. The Fathers O quote him whenever his doctrine agrees with theirs, or could be so misunderstood as to fit. their purpose. This fact however, should rather raise the opposite presumption ; for they were endeavouring to support their own opinions by quotations from well-known heathen writers, as for instance Plato and Homer, who were authorities among the heathen. That Lactantius (2) and Cyril of Alexan- dria (3) praised him means little or nothing ; for even the Chris- tian Justin held the Logos to be only a " second God," a doc- trine condemned at Nicaea. If Hermes was familiar with the writings of Philo, he must have also become familiar with the locutions of the Septuagint. which Philo considered inspired. On this ground, therefore, if Emanationism. 13 Hermes is considered a Christian, we must do the like by Philo. The passages which are most often advanced as proofs of the Christianity of Hermes are as follows. " Thou, O Child, send an acceptable sacrifice to The God, Father of all things. But add also, O Child, through the Logos " Dia tou Logou (4)." These words are Philonic in every particular ; especially the name "The God." They cannot therefore constitute acquaint- ance with the Christian dogma of the Trinity. Again, " Tat.— Who is the generator of the regeneration ? Hermes. — The Son of the God, One Man, by the will of the God (B)." Here we see Philonism again, especially in the expression " one man," which refers to the Logos, who must be a man since the human race is in the image of the Logos. -That the " one man " cannot refer to the human body of Jesus is plain because from the follow- ing passage we see that this " one man " existed before the cre- ation of the world, whereas the human body of Jesus only or- iginated several thousand years after it. " But the Father of all things, the Mind, being life and light, began a Man like unto himself, whom he loved as his own child, for he was very beau- tiful, having the image of the Father. For The God loved his own form, and to this delivered over all his own creations (8)." " Of whom sowing, O Father ? — Of the son of the God (7)." Thus the Son is the Organism of all things (8) and the Tool of God's Will (9). It has also been asserted that the following words constitute a reference to the Holy Spirit : " But The Mind, The God, being masculine-feminine, originating life and light, begat by reason another Mind-Creator, who being God of the Fire and Spirit created seven administrators — (10)." This refers to the Logos, and as we shall see these seven administrators are not the seven names of the Spirit but the seven heavens of which the world is composed. It is therefore another name for the Logos, and nothing more. Again, " Immediately from the downborne elements springs forth the Word of The God, to the pure creation of all Nature, and was united to the creative Mind, for it was consubstantial, (Homo-ousios) with it — (")." We thus see that what above appeared to be referred to the third person of the Trinity is here referred to what would be the second ; which is also called " the spiritual Word (12)." Besides, the word "consubstantial," "Ho- mo-ousios " was not used by any Christian writer of repute for more than a century after this, in the days of Athanasius. Con- sequently, Hermes cannot have used this word in the distinc- tively theological meaning, whereas it agreed with his Philonism, that all things were in God, but not God in them. But besides showing negatively that Hermes was' not a Chris- tian, we may show this positively by noticing the fact that he held to doctrines never countenanced by Christian authorities The Deity is masculine-feminine (13), there is a metempsychosis of souls, regeneration is accomplished by silence, and divination is aporoved of (14). 14 The Philosophy of Plotinos. 3. Difference from Platonism.— Hermetic doctrine differs from Platonism in several important particulars. In the first place, we must notice the crude anthropomorphism, by which the first and second orders of existence are likened to the human figure. Plato's conception of the Deity was too exalted to call it anything but " Epekeina tes Ousias," " that which is beyond all Being," " Over-Existence." ^ Plato's highest order oi being was alone Mind, " Nous." Here " Nous " is predicated of the two highest orders of being, with- out making it clear whether there is any difference of degree between them. Hermes limits the transmigration of souls to human bodies, and represents that God saves the souls from " this shame," of being sent into the bodies of animals. Plato in his figurative way seemed to countenance such animal transmigration. 4. Hermetic Conceptions. — In the Emanationism of the author of the Hermetic writings, the Universe is composed of a number of spheres of being, each the image of the other next above it (1B). The highest sphere of being is The God (16), the next is the Logos, the Son of God (17), and beyond him, there are seven successive spheres of Being of which all things in heaven and earth are composed (18). Thus, there are nine spheres of being, each proceeding from the other, in the image of its begettor ; Matter being the outermost (19). When God is considered apart from the world, the latter, including the Logos, is called the Ogdoad C20). Psychology is analogical to cosmology. The soul is divided into four parts (21) : " But the soul of man is carried on in this way. The Mind in the reason, " Logos," the reason in the soul, the soul in the spirit, the spirit in the body." Death is only the retiring of the spirit from the physical body (22). 5. Cosmology. — Although the Hermetic writer speaks of an Ogdoad besides God, he usually sums up all existence in three orders of being, by comprehending the seven spheres proceed- ing from the Logos under the title Soul. Thus we find the so- called Platonic trinity: The God, the World, and the Soul (23). He says: " First The God, Second the World, third the Man ; the World because of the Man, but Man because of the God — Of the entities some indeed are in bodies, some in ideas, but some energies ; but body is in ideas, but idea and energy in body (24)." The first principle, The God, is the beginning and cause of all things (25) ; his name is Logos, the God, the beautiful, the good (28). In the Universe there is nothing which is not in the God; whence neither magnitude, nor place, nor quality, nor figure is about the God. He is the Universe and the Universe is around all things. The second principle is " God," as contrasted with " the God." He is the "first-begotten of God," and the "second God." ("). He is also called " the Logos (*)." The third principle is Soul, which may also be called " God," Emanationism. 15 though in a sense lower than that in which it applied is the second principle (29). The Logos is the archetypal system of ideas C30), and is the Creator, whom the first principle generates, because it is his na- ture to be good, and because he has a passion for good. " For just as a man cannot live apart from life, so neither can the God live without doing the good. For this is as it were Life, and as it were motion of the God, to move all things, and to vivify (81)." " While the First Principle is the Creator in respect to the Second Principle, the Second Principle is the Creator proper C2)." The physical world is of course the body of the World-Soul C33)- 6. Ethics. — The human soul develops by the experiences it gathers in a series of reincarnations (34) which are limited to human bodies by the guardianship of good spirits. "For of The God is this law, to guard a human soul from this so great disgrace C36) " of entering the body of an animal. Between the Soul and the Father is the Logos, or Second Principle, the mediating element, the organ of God's will (36). This is the " prize for souls (37)." " And this is the administra- tion of the Universe, dependent from the nature of the One and pervading it through the Mind of the One. Than which nothing is more divine and energetic, or more unitive of men to the Gods, of Gods to the men. This is the Good Daemon. Blessed the soul which is fullest of this ; unfortunate the soul that is void of this C38)." Man must hate the body, in order to love himself, the Soul C"). Man is attracted to God by contemplation, as iron to the magnet C40). Thus, contrariwise, impiety brings its own punish- ment in darkness and fire '(41). The only evil is ignorance of the Deity C42). And it is possible to discern him through all things by natural knowledge, since everything is his image, re- motely or directly (43). The manner by which the soul reaches its development is the regeneration of silent contemplation, the " silent prayer " of the later mystics. " Accept rational sacrifices pure from soul and heart intent upon thee, O Unspeakable, Ineffable, Invoked by silence C44)." Thus intellectual wisdom lies in silence (4B). " Draw to thyself and it will come ; wish and it becomes. Lay to rest the senses of the body and it will be the generation of the Deity. Purify thyself from the rational avengers of the Matter C46)." The road to be travelled by every soul passes through the twelve signs of the Zodiac (4T) " of the nature indeed, but of all shaped forms." Besides silence, the way to reach God is to wrong no man (48) ; " But the worship of God is one : not to be evil C48)." 7. Spiritual Destiny. — The end of life is to become divine. " For it is possible, O Child, that the soul be deified, placed in the body of man, having beheld the beauty of thy good (M)." "Knowest thou not that thou hast been born The God, and Son of 16 The Philosophy of Plotinos. the One, which also am I? (51)" " But the human soul, not every one but the pious, is a kind of daemonhood and divine; and such a soul, after the departure from the body, having striven the strife of this piety (but strife of piety is to have known the God, and to have wronged no man) becomes wholly Mind (62)." Thus some men are Gods already, and their humanity is nigh to the Deity (53). Transmigration of souls is only the means by which such a deification can be accomplished. " And there, in order, they mount upwards to the Father, and they deliver themselves up to the powers, and becoming powers they become The God. This is the good ending of those who attain knowledge, to be made divine (")•" Again, "Thou seest, O Child, how many bodies we must pass through, and how many choirs of daemons, and continuity and courses of the stars we must accomplish, that we may hasten to the One and Only God (M)." CHAPTER V. AMMONIUS SAKKAS, PLOTINOS, AND THEIR RELA- TION TO CHRISTIANITY. 1. Ammonius Sakkas. — The founder of Neo-Platonism was Ammonius Sakkas, of Alexandria. According to Porphyry and Theodoret, he was the son of Christian parents of humble cir- cumstances, and became a labourer. Soon however he changed his occupation and devoted himself to philosophy. He aban- doned Christianity, as he could not approve of Christian hos- tility to science and speculations. Later in life, he taught phil- osophy with great success, teaching orally, and demanding a promise from his students to keep his doctrines secret. Among his students were the two Origens, Herennius and Plotinos. We only know of his doctrines that he discovered the agreement of Aristotle with Plato, a remark supported by a statement of his doctrines by his disciple Plotinos, who said that he felt himself no more bound by his promise after the heathen Origen and Herennius had broken theirs. 2. Plotinos. — Plotinos always remained silent about his birth- day and place of birth ; he was almost ashamed of having a body, and would not sit for a picture. Yet it is supposed on good authority that he must have been born in 204 or 205 A. D., in Lycopolis, in Egypt. In his twenty-eighth year he became the pupil of Ammonius Sakkas and was so carried away with the greatness of his teacher that he is reported to have said "Teuton Ezetoun," " this is the man for me!" From the time he first met him, he never left his side until the death of Ammonius Sakkas broke up their mutual intercourse, which had now lasted eleven years. Feeling that he had no other ties to bind him to Alex- andria, he determined to go to Persia and India, to learn the wisdom of the East. To accomplish this purpose he had at- tached himself to the army of Gordian which was destined to a campaign in the East ; but when the army broke up, he was forced to return with it to Rome, where he settled as a teacher of philosophy, holding consultations and successfully managing his school till in his sixty-sixth year he died (270 A. D.) As a teacher his success was great, instructing poor as well as rich. The Emperor Gallienus and the Empress Salonina, among others, attended his lectures. This success was due not only to his wisdom but also to his personal influence and power. Above all, he owed much of it to his genuineness and spiritual- ity. During the time that Porphyry lived with him he enjoyed four times the ecstasy which he had preached to others as being the height of human attainment. i8 The Philosophy of Plotinos. According to his wish, Porphyry collected and edited his writ- ings. These consisted of twenty-one earlier, and thirty-three later short essays on various topics. Porphyry gathered these into groups of nine, which he called Enneads. The order in which he placed them was the chronological order of the times when they were written, so that they are not arranged according to the subjects discussed. The style of Plotinos is marred by continual repetitions and very many obscurities of thought and diction, so that a systematic representation of his doctrines is no easy task. As Plotinos considered himself a disciple of Ammonius Sak- kas, we may for practical purposes assume that his writings rep- resent the thought of his Master on all important points. 3, Relation to Christianity. — The system of Plotinos is so beauti- ful and so coherent that Christian writers have not been slow to ascribe all that is good in it to the early Christian training of Ammonius Sakkas. How little such a claim means can be under- stood when we recollect that Clement of Alexandria accused Homer and Plato of stealing their best thoughts from the Jew- ish prophets. Consequently such an explanation of the good elements of Neo-Platonism would not merit any answer if it were not that by such a claim (which is still made to-day) the value of non- Christian philosophy is seriously impaired, and Christianity is credited with more than it deserves. In the first place, Ammonius Sakkas was a mere child when Christian, and left Christianity as soon as he became able to think for himself. Besides, Eusebius (2) distinctly states that he left Christianity on account of its hostility to science and phil- osophy, the very subject of dispute ; and it is well known that converts become the bitterest enemies of their former beliefs. Would it be likely that Amirpnius Sakkas would permit himself to be influenced by Christianity in the very thing on account of which he left it? Not a single word or similarity of expression in the Enneads betrays any acquaintance with the Christian formulations, nor does Plotinos anywhere betray that his doctrines had arisen in opposition to or imitation of Christianity ; he utterly ignores it. And the reason of this is plain ; for the Christians usually be- longed to the lowest and most unphilosophic classes, with a few exceptions ; and it seems almost amusing to think that a man so deeply read in philosophy as Plotinos or Ammonius Sakkas were should borrow all their best doctrines from emin- ently unphilosophic sources. Further, if we examine the state of contemporary Christian philosophy we will see that it is almost without exception a ste- reotyped form of Philonism adapted to the New Testament. There are no original conceptions, and no learning ; Clement's quotations from Greek literature being mostly made up at second hand from cheap anthologies (8). How then could this barren source furnish the acknowledged rich results of Neo- Platonism? Relation to Christianity. ig Besides, none can read the Enneads without seeing that Ploti- nos is thoroughly at home in all Greek philosophy, devoting whole books to the refutation of Aristotle's categories and other tenets, so that we are certain he took all his philosophic material at first hand from philosophy itself. All this, however, is only negative proof ; positive proof is also at hand. The doctrines of Plotinos do not in any case agree with the Christian doctrines, and show no derivation from them. The Christian conception of the Trinity, in its orthodox form, is that all three Persons are co-equal in rank, and all three are separate from the world, and as far from it the one as the other. The Triad of intelligible beings that may be found in Plotinos is God, the Mind, and individual Souls, each hierarchi- cally subordinated to the other, and including the world as phy- cal being in the latter term. Moreover, the whole system of Plotinos is founded on the thought of development of all things from God as emanations ; and anybody who has read the Po- lemic of Irenaeus against what he calls the " decay " of God will not be likely to say that the system of Plotinos had any con- nection at all with Christian dogma, especially since Athanasius insisted so strenuously on the difference between " made " and " begotten " which does not exist in the Plotinic Cosmology. Besides all this, we can account for almost every dogma of Plotinos in earlier Greek philosophy, as he himself acknow- ledges. Nor need the moral earnestness, which is found in Plotinos and which is found in Plato or Aristotle, point to a Christian origin any more than that of the Stoics, from which without a doubt, Plotinos and Ammonius Sakkas drew their inspiration. This brings us to the relation of Plotinos to Philo. That Plotinos had read the works of Philo, is entirely probable, al- though the chaotic eclecticism and syncretism of the latter must have rendered his works repulsive to any but Jews or Christians who were unacquainted with the sources from which Philo drew all that was valuable in his interpretation of the Scriptures. Yet it is very improbable that the relation between the two was more than that both of them drew their inspiration from the same source ; for it would have been a great deal easier for the phil- osophic and consistent Plotinos to draw his material from the original sources, Stoic and otherwise, than to go to a Jewish adaptation and a chaotic eclecticist for what could be1 gotten otherwise with much less trouble. And as a matter of fact, that which separates Plotinos, (his emanational explanation of the derivation of Matter from God,) from Christianity, separates him also from Philo, who never explained that relation. Besides, the language and terminology of the two differ too much to sup- pose any close relation between them. The Logos of Philo is with Plotinos Nous ; and with the latter we cannot find the former's important distinction between the Spoken and Un- spoken Word. 4. The Recognition of the Authority of Plato. — We said above that we could account for all of Plotinos's great conceptions in 20 + The Philosophy of Plotinos. earlier Greek philosophy. Before, however, making this state- ment good, we must notice that whether we think so or not, it is certain that Plotinos either thought so, or affected to think so in every work of his now extant. Plotinos relies upon the authority of Plato in every small de- tail (*). He refers to him as " the philosopher," or even with a mere " he says (5) ; " or even without any sign of quotation as in the famous paragraph on the transmigration of souls which we shall see later (°). If his opinion clashes with that of Plato, he will resort to what to us seems a misinterpretation in order to save Plato from censure (7). He considers that he is re- establishing pure Platonism, and desires to be called a Platonist; if the issue is raised, he will refuse to depart from Plato's norm. Other philosophers are often referred to merely as " the ancients " or " the ancient and blessed philosophers " " Hoi archaioi " or " Hoi archaioi kai makarioi philosophoi (8)." He believes that his teaching concerning the Good, the Mind, and the Soul is Platonic (9) ; but he finds it also in Parmenides, Herakleitos, Anaxagoras and Empedokles ; Anaxagoras is said to be he who through age attained accuracy. He believes (10) that some of the ancients must have known the truth ; the only question remains which of them knew it most, fully. Conse- quently, he feels at liberty to criticise them, as he does Emped- okles and Anaxagoras (n). Worthy of notice is the fact that he claims that the very mar- row of his system is the same as that of Sokrates and Plato : " know thyself " " Gnothi Seauton." He says : " Let us obey the command of the Deity, and learn to know ourselves (u)." This fact might be used to prove that there existed such a thing as an esoteric Platonic doctrine in which the moral element was the prevailing one and which was handed down under oath of secrecy. Many of the Church Fathers look upon this maxim as sufficient guide to salvation and it is remarkable how it meets us everywhere under the same name of being Platonic. At any rate it is certain that the problems of Cosmology, Physics, Poli- tics, and Sociology which were the main topics of exoteric Greek philosophy, are to Plotinos important only inasmuch as they are deductions from his doctrine of the welfare of the soul. 5. Relation to Greek Philosophy. — To Aristotle Plotinos is in- debted partially for his conception of development and emana- tion ; for the transcendence of God, for his psychology, and out- lines or suggestions of cosmology. To Plato, Plotinos owes his Nous (with the Platonic name of God) his conception of the Earth-Soul, his categories, and al- most all his details, as well as the transmigration and destiny of souls. To the Stoics Plotinos is indebted for his exclusive moral interest, and possibly some touches of his conception of the Earth-Soul, though this is very uncertain indeed, in spite of the opinion of Erdmann. To the Emanationist doctrines of writers such as the inditer of Relation to Christianity. ^ 21 the " Hermetica," Plotlnos owes his conception of Emanation, which completed and inter-connected the various stages of the Aristotelian conception of development. To this source, per- haps, Plotinos owes his mysticism, and burning spirituality. Thus we see how much of his system Plotinos owes to former philosophy ; and we need not scruple to admit his claim that he is not an inventor of bold originality, but a high-souled phil- osopher who combined into one system whatever was of value in philosophy before his time. Thus, as Neo-Platonism is the last phase of Greek philosophy, we may look upon his system as that which represents the philosophy of Greece in its noblest and most perfect proportions. CHAPTER VI. MIKROKOSM AND MAKROKOSM. 1. The Contemplative Life. — To Plotinos there is no object worthy of consideration except the Soul. All other subjects are only interesting to him in the measure that they are efficient ac- cessories to this end. " Concerning what would it be worth to speak and think, rather than about the soul ? Let us therefore obey the command of the Deity who commands us to know ourselves ()." To this absorbing topic the first and last Ennead are devoted, and there is no Ennead between these two that does not in some manner, directly or indirectly, refer to the subject again. In order therefore to present the philosophy of Plotinos in its true aspect, we shall be forced to deal with all other matters very summarily, reserving all of our space to the discussion of the nature and destiny of the Soul. • Most of those who have taken in hand an exposition of the views of Plotinos have devoted most of their time to his specu- lative considerations. The reason of this partiality may have arisen both from the fact that being professional philosophers, they have looked upon the system of Plotinos as a system of speculative philosophy ; and also from the fact that Plotinos places the " contemplative " or " theoretic " life as far above the practical life as the real Hercules in Olumpos was above his shadow in Hades (2). For Plotinos the practical life is only the means to attain the theoretic life, and the latter is the aim of the former (3). Yet we must not take this " contemplative " life in the Hegel- ian sense, which demands of the philosopher nothing more than acquaintance with the terms of philosophy, and a habit to think of metaphysical abstractions, which no logician would have dif- ficulty to attain. Besides, such a contemplative life is within the reach of all, whatever their private moral life has been, and is not limited to those who have lived all vices out of themselves. The fact that the contemplative life of Plotinos is exclusively based upon a perfection of the moral life proves it is something more than mere skill in logomachy. The contemplative life is that one in which the soul attains to knowledge of God, face to face, rapt in ecstasy. Such a contemplative life is it that Plotinos seeks. 2. Mikrokosm. — We have seen before that Aristotle was the originator in philosophy of the word " mikrokosm." His con- Mikrokosm and Makrokosm. ception was that man is a universe in miniature, just as the uni- verse is a man enlarged. The advantage of this observation is that if we know the constitution of one of these terms, we will be able to reason to the constitution of the other. Thus in order to know the Universe, we will only have to know ourselves : and if we seek our highest self, we will know God. If man and God be separate, how shall man ever hope for an at-one-ment with God ? Plotinos is not inclined to use the word " mikrokosm " al- though he has the full Aristotelian conception of it. It may be proved that in crediting him with it we are not reading into his system that of Aristotle ; for his Aristotelian psychology, and his continual ascription of psychological terms to the World-Soul assure us that he holds the mikrokosmic theory. We will therefore proceed to give a sketch of his psychology, in order that our investigations in cosmology and theology may become lucid. 3. Psychology. — Every human soul is the unity of the following seven elements : 1. " Ho Theos," The God (4). 2. '* Nous Koinos," Universal Mind 3. "Nous Idios," Individual Mind (6) 4^" Logos, Dianoia," Reason (T). 5? " To Aisthetikon Meros," The psychophysical mechanism/ of sensation (8). Y 6. " To Phutikon Meros," Vegetable life (9): 7- " To Soma," The form, body, matter (l°). In presenting this scheme of psychology we must remember that nowhere does Plotinos give us a complete exposition of it ; but it may be proved satisfactorily that he holds it, since he always speaks of these particular faculties in a consistent man- ner. The first four of these psychological elements compose the " Psuche " or soul ; the later three compose the body, the "Eidolon Psuches " or image of the body (n). The body is furnished to us, as we shall see, by the World-Soul, called the " lunar gods (12)." The Soul is alone ourselves ; it is created by God. It is divided into two parts : the ideal, and rational soul» (18). The rational soul is composed of reason and indi- vidual mind which faculties are realized in almost every soul ; the ideal soul consists of the two highest faculties that are in many souls latent, or undeveloped. The -faculty of reason constitutes the individuality of the Soul, for it has the power of identifying itself with the highest facul- ties or of sinking into the lower. When the soul does sink into the flesh, the higher faculties quiesce, become latent, and may in extreme cases atrophy. Of course, the latent faculties may at some later date be revivified (14). While the soul is incarnate, all the seven faculties are indis- olubly bound together ; and the bond is broken only at death, when the soul abandons the body as an old dress. 24 The Philosophy of Plotinos. In this scheme of psychology are assured both the immanence of the Soul in every part of the body, as the body is " in thei Soul," and the transcendence of the higher faculties of the Soul[ above the body (15). We must remember that for Plotinos to know a thing, and to become one with it were identical terms (19). Therefore we canf become one with whatever we know : and as we have a God-' consciousness, the life of contemplation is the highest of all possible lives for it means that we shall come to know God (20). As a consequence of this we epitomize the universe, when in- carnate, by having organs by which we can come into com- munication with every one of the Seven Realms of which the world consists. Therefore man is " Panta," all (16) ; he is a " Kosmos noetos," an intelligible world (21). The soul is not an aggregate, like a house, but a unity revolving around a centre into which it can draw itself inwards (22). The soul ascends to its highest heights not by addition, or adding itself to God, but by immanent union with him (18). Once the soul has incarnated into the body furnished by the World-Soul, it is an indissoluble unity with it, using it as a tool (22), not being affected by its pains more than the workman is affected by the injuries to his tools (29). Then the soul is like a man standing with his feet in a tub of water (30), reaching down to the very lowest form of being, matter, and being one with or having a faculty to become one with the cosmical Nous and even The God (2a). For we know that the soul is kin to the Cosmical Nous and God, by faculties like them, though at times obscured by being fallen into the flesh (24). Plotinos does not always speak of the various faculties of the soul in detail. He usually assumes the practical distinction, soul and body. The soul is placed between God and the World, so that like an amphibian it lives now here, and then beyond (25) being able at its will to think without and against the will of the body (32). Often, again, he divides the soul into a double self : the inner or true self, that lives in the intelligible world, the " ideal " soul we saw above (2e) ; and the external self that lives in the external world, the " rational " soul just mentioned (")• How the incarnation into the body furnished by the Earth- Soul takes place is not quite clear : the soul is said to emit a kind of light or heat (28) which is probably the celestial spiritual body we shall see more about later on, in the Fifth Realm. This light or heat gives form to the body supplied by the World-Soul, and becomes united to the earthly spiritual body, or perhaps even forms it. 4. Cosmological Import of Psychology. — In order to show forth the relation of the small universe to the large one, we must premise that each separate faculty of man, while bound by an indissoluble tie to the other faculties, exists in a universe of its own. The physical body dwells in a realm of dead matter ; the vege- table soul in a realm of organiq life in which organic life is pos- Mikrokosm and Makrokosm. 25 sible, and so on. Thus all human powers co-exist in the sepa- rate realms for which they are fitted so that in order to become universal we need only open ourselves to the universal (31). These different Realms interpenetrate each other much as the different universes of Messrs. Stewart and Tait, in their interesting book, " The Unseen Universe." The nature of the whole process of existence lies before us in miniature. The First Realm is The God who is above all thinkable perfection and being ; the Second Realm is the Divine Mind, or Nous, which is Divine being and essence, prope~. The third, including the other four, the Realm of soul, which cannot be said to have being, although it possesses existence. These universes interpenetrate each other. The Soul and the World, which is its image, are immanent in God ; and God, in his absolute being transcends all else. The Divine Mind is the image of God ; the individual mind is the image of the Divine Mind ; finally, pro- ceedng similarly through all the lower realms in their turn, the body is the form or image of the vegetable life ; this again is the image or form of the sensual life ; this again is the image of the individual mind. Thus matter is the lowest grade of being ; beyond is that abstraction we may call the darkness of nought, which does not. even exist. While in the mind of Plotinos the immanence and trans- cendence of these Realms is inseparably conjoined, we will be forced, for the sake of clearness in exposition, to consider first each Realm separately, and then to consider the transcendence of God as shown forth in his image, man. CHAPTER VII. THE FIRST REALM, THE GOD. 1. The One and the Many. — In order to understand anything, it is necessary that the mind should receive through sensation and reflection ideas and representations. The more sharply de- fined these are, the more thoroughly understood are they ; and they will be clear in the degree that they are limited by and dis- tinct from other ideas and representations. Ratiocination there- fore necessarily implies a Manifold, which is subsumed under the Unity of the apprehending mind. Unity is therefore more fundamental than Manifoldness. If we should apply these considerations to the Divine Being, we see that Divine thought necessarily implies a Manifold, the duality of thinker and thought, of being and activity (*). As a consequence of this, the Divine activity called Divine Thought cannot be the highest plane of Divine Life. Above the realms of Divine thought must be the realm of the Divine Unity of Apperception, which is above all thought. God is then above all describable thought, above all Divine Thought, above all Divine Life, above all Divine Being (2). The highest cannot be Manifoldness ; it is Unity ; for Mani- foldness is after all only a Manifoldness of Unity (3), and every- thing is itself only because it thus is One (4). God is thus above all Divine Goodness, and even Divine Unity (5), and above Divine Being (6). If we say that God is Goodness, then the thought of this Divine Goodness has its subject and object ; it becomes good by partaking of the quality of goodness. And if it thus needs this quality, if it thus depends on this quality, then it cannot be independent and self-existent Goodness. The same may be said of the Divine Unity and Being. Therefore the simple must precede the compound (7), original being must be independent of derivative being : cause must be independent of effect, and Unity, of Manifoldness (8). God is above all cate- gories of Life, Being, Thought and Activity. The God is then Over-life, Over-being, Over-thought, and Over-activity. In this last point Aristotle was left behind by Plotinos, who could not on logical grounds see his way to call God even " actus purus," pure energy ; God is above even this. That there is a God at all we only know by seeking a first cause of all other causes. God is thus even above the Prime Mover of Aristotle^ 2. The God Above Cognisability. — God is therefore unknowable. He is above all description (9), he is incomprehensible and infin- ite (10). The First Realm, The God. 27 The highest we know does not reach up to him (u). As he is unlimited (") he must be formless, (") and therefore be even above beauty (14). He is above good and honourable qualities (15). Will as a psychological faculty does not exist in God ; for will is a desire of good, of which God has no need or lack, being its fulness (16). In God thinking and willing, that is, over- thinking and over-willing, are the same, as happens even in a form of God so much lower than he as the World-Soul (17)- We have already seen that God is above all activity (18) ; therefore he is at rest while creating (19). Being above thought (20) he is above self-consciousness (21). Of him, therefore, we can only tell what he is not ; no name or conception of him is adequate ("). 3. The Nomenclative Symbol for the Divinity. — Although we cannot describe or give a name to God, we are forced to refer to him in some manner ; by some designation. Plotinos there- fore follows Plato in calling God by his most characteristic quality of Goodness in moral relations, and Unity in metaphysi- cal reflections. God is therefore called "the Good" "Tagathon" (a) and " the One " " To Hen " (24) ; he is often referred to as " the first," for the sake of briefness and technicality in the aetiological argument for his existence. * 4. The God is the First Cause. — Working back from the World to God we find that he is the first cause. As such, he is activity, even is above activity, for he is often called "cause" (25) and "the first" C26). He is above pure activity, without any outside him- self (2T). He is the origin " Arche " of all things ; although he is really above origin (2S) because the word " origin " denotes something which concerns us, not him (29). He may be called the centre of all things, with the same limitation as above (30). 5. The God's Necessity to Love. — If God is so perfect in his self- existence, what can induce him to beget anything at all ? The great argument of Irenaeus against the development or emanation of God into his world was that this was nothing more or less than decay of the Divine Being. This objection is how- ever founded on a gross misconception, induced perhaps by passionate antagonism. If God is perfect, he cannot decay ; if he generates worlds and souls he does it from any other cause than decay or degeneration of his Being (n). Why could not the perfect Being remain alone, without creat- ing or begetting other Beings? Because as every perfect Being on earth seeks to bring forth another, and the being on earth is in the image, faint indeed, of God, so the most perfect of all must beget, giving of himself without envy (32). The world was not made by a chance desire ; nor was it made because of ratiocinative reasons (M) : the nature of himself (34) for it is a physical (that is, a non-argumentative) necessity of his nature to beget. As God's nature is eternal, so are the offsprings of his nature also eternal (M). This necessity of God's nature follows from the fact that God is love, for the nature of Being, whatever its degree, is love. 28 The Philosophy of Plotinos. " The universal soul has an universal love ; each individual soul has its individual love ; and the love of the highest soul is God (36)." Apart from partaking of the Divine Good no things love or are loved (") and the soul by the very constitution of its na- ture loyes God and is ever forced to begin over and over to love him (38). 6. Manner of Begetting. — Love is a sufficient reason for all be- getting ; but the question remains, How does this disinterested love beget? This is a question the wisest have never been able to explain except by the use of illustrations drawn from the natural world. Plotinos likens God to a river which is so full that it overflows its banks ; and the water which has overflowed does the same, extending itself ever in wider circuits (39). This figure must however be taken with caution ; for it should not indicate either a temporal becoming (4"), since creation always takes place from the inner or causal side (41) ; nor should it be understood to be an emanation such as would abstract from the power of the first cause ; the latter remains unmoved and undiminished, while the stream of being flows from him (42). That which proceeds from him ever remains in him ; but he is not in it as if contained by it (43). Plotinos advances the time- honoured illustration of the sun and the ray of light that pro- ceeds from it without diminishing its light or heat (44). These illustrations are to-day no longer intelligible, from the fact that the law of continuity demands that the sun's heat should grow less by just the amount that is substracted from it in the form of the light of the ray, even though the sun's heat be so enormous that the loss be not apparent. Unless therefore we find some other means of explaining the continued self-existence ot God, in spite of his eternal begetting, which is doubtless the case, the whole theory of Plotinos must be said to be yet un- proved. Nevertheless, Plotinos would not suffer alone ; the whole philosophy of Christianity would fall together with his. 7. Relation' of Cause and World. — The details of the process of begetting are as follows : God is the sun which enlightens the Universe (45) and rules all existence with his power (48). He is the centre around which everything revolves (47) ; every little part is organically related to the whole, so that from knowledge of its nature, the nature of the centre may be deduced (48). All creation has a natural longing for the first cause (49) and turns itself towards him as a sunflower to the sun, in the degree that its nature permits it to do so ; arrd'tne excellence of the nature is judged by the power it possesses of turning to the first cause (80). This is the natural instinct of self-preservation ; for inas- much as the creature turns itself to its creator, does it turn itself to its highest good (B1)- The process of begetting may be likened to the natural de- velopment of a plant from a seed (52) and that which is begotten may be called the son of the begettor, the latter thus becoming the father of that which it has begotten (M). The first-begotten is the image of the Begettor, the second-begotten of the First, The First Realm, The God. 29 and so on (M) Unity and Perfection decreasing simultaneously (M). .Each thing is itself inasmuch as it is a Unity, and fulfils its function and nature (6,. (23) r>: 5: 13 Beg.; 6: 2: 12, 17; 6; 7: 38 Beg. (24) 5: 5: 6; 6: 2: 9; 6: 9: 5. <2o) 1: 8: 2; 3: 8: 8; 5: 5: 9; 6: 9: 6. (26) 3: 8: 9; 4; 8: 6; 5: 3: 16; 5:X4: 1; 6: 9: 5. (27) 6: 8: 12, J6, 20; 5: 4: 2. (28) 6: 8: 8. (29) 6: 9: 3 Bud. (30) 6: 9: 8. (31) 2: 9: 4, 8; 3: 2: 1, 2. (32) 3: 2; 2; 3: 3: 7 Beg; 5: 3: 12 Beg; 5: 4: 1; 4: 8: 6; 6: 7: 1, 3; 6: 8: 18 End. (33) 6: 7; 3. (34) 2: 9: 3. (35) 2: 1: 2; 2: 9: 3. (36) 3: 5: 4. (37) 6: 7: 22. (38) 6: 7: 31. (39) 5: 1: 6; 5: 2: 1. (40) 5: 1: 6. (41) 2: 3: 12. (42) 3: 8: 9; 5: 1: 3; 6: 5: 3 Beg; 6: 9: 5; 5: 1: 6. (43) 5: 5: 9. (44) 1: 6: 3; 3: 8: 9; 5: 1: 6; 5: 3: 12, 15. (45) 5: 5: 7; 6: 4: 9; 6: 8: 18. (46) 1: 7: 1; 6: 5: 5; 6: 8: 18. (47) 1: 7: 1; 1: 8: 2. (48) 3: 2: 3: (49) 6: 7: 16. (50) 1: 7: 1; 1: 8: 2; 5: 1: 6; 5: 5: 12; 6: 4: 8; 6: 5: 10. (51) 6: 5: 1. (52) 3: 2: 16. (53) 3: 8: 10; 5: 8: 12. (54) 1: 7: 1; 3: 3: 7; 6: 2: 11; 6: 4: 9. (55) 6: 2: 11; 6: 5: 1. (56) 5: 5: 5; 6: 2: 11; 6: 9: 1. (57) 4: 4: 13. (58) 4: 4: 16. (59) 6: 5: 6. (60) 5: 5: 9; 6: 5: 3, 4, 6: 6: 2: 3; 6: 4: 3, 2; 6: 5: 1. (61) 4: 3: 12; 5: 5: 9; 6: 5: 4. (62) 1: 7: ± (63) 3: 2: 16. (64) 5: 1: 7. (65) 6: 4: 7. (66) 4: 3: 22; 5: 1: 3. (67) 5: 2: 2. (68) 6: 4: 13, 14. (69) 6: 4: 2, 3. (70) 6: 4: 13. (71) 6: 5: 2. (72) 5: 3: 1. (73) 2: 3: 18. CHAPTER VIII. (1) 5: 1: 7; 5: 9: 1-13. (2) 5: 1: 5; 5: 3: 15; 5: 9: 6; 6: 9: 5. (3) 5: 6: 2. (4) 1: 8: 2. (5) 3: 7: 5. (6) 5: 1: 4. (7) 2: 9: 1; 5: 3: 7. (8) 5: 1: 4; 5: 35. (9) 1: 8: 2; 5: 3: 9; 5: 5: 1; 5; 9: 7; 6: 2: 21. (10) 6: 2: 8. (11) 4: 3: 25; r>: 5: 1. (12) 5: 3: 7, 11. (13) 5: 6: 2. (14) 5: 3: 6. (15) 1: 8: 2; 3: 6: 6; 5; 3: 6; 6: 2: 21. (16) 6: 1-3. (17) 6: 2: 2. (18) 6: 2: 20. (19) 6: 7: 8. (20) 6: 7: 13. (21) 3: 2: 1; 5: 8: 3, 4; 6: 7: 15. (22) 6: 7: 8. (23) 6: 7: 9. (24) 5: !>: 11. (25) 5: 1: 4; 5: 8: 4; 6: 2: 21. CHAPTER IX. fl) 1: 8: 2. (2) 2: 9: 2. (3) 2: 9: 9. (4) 2: 9: 13; 4: 3: 10; 6: 5: 10; 6: 7: 42. (5) 5: 1: 7; 5: 2: 1; 5: 8: 12. (6) 2: 1: 7. (7) 4: 3: 14. (8) 4: 3: 17. (9) 4: 4: 25; 5: 8: 12; 3: 7: 10, 12. (10) 4: 7: 13. (11) 3: 9: 1; 4: 1: 1; 4: 2: 1. (12) 1: 1: 13. (13) 1: 9: 1. (14) 4: 3: 18. (15) 4: 3: 17. (16) 4: 9: 4. (17) 4: 9: 5. (18) 4: 3: 16. (19) 4: 3: 5; 4: 8; 3; 5: 7: 1. (20) 4: 3: 5. (21) 3: 2: 18; 4: 3: 6. (22) 3: 2: 18; 4: 3: 6, 15. (23) 3: 2: 4. (24) 4: 7: 13. (25) 4: 7: 12. (26) 5: 1: 2. (27) 4: 4: 9, 10 etc. (28) 6: 5: 9. (29) 4: 9: 1; 2: 9: 7. (30) 4: 3: 20, 21. (31) 2: 2: 2. (32) 4: 3: 2. (33) 5: 1: 3. (34) 4: 4: 1, 2, 5. (35) 3: 4: 4; 3: 9: 2. (36) 4: 4: 24. (37) 4: 4: 6. (38) 4: 3: 25-27, 29-32. 4: 4: 6. (39) 4: 4: 10, 12. (40) 4: 4: 24. (41) 4: 3: 10; 4: 4: 10. (42) 5: 1: 7. (48). 3: 1: 4; 4: 3: 4. (44) 4: 3: 2, 3. (45) 4: 3: 6. (46) 3: 2: 17. (47) 2: 9: 7. (48) 2: 9: 17. (49) 4: 3: 12. (50) 2: 9: 17. (51) 3: 5: 4; 4: 3: 4; 4: 9: 3. Notes. 63 CHAPTER X. (1) 4: 4: 12. (2) 3: 5: 4. (3) 5: 3: 2. (4) 5: 3: 3. (5) 6: 7: 4. (6) 2: 9: 5, 18; 4: 4: 6. (7) 2: 9: 5, 18. (8) 2: 9: 8; 3: 5: 6; 4: 3: 11; 5: 1: 2, 4; 5: 8: 3. (9). 5: 8: 3. (10) 4: 4: 8. (11) 2: 2: 2 End. 4: 4: 6-8, 42, 30. CHAPTER XL (1) 4: 4: 41. (2) 1: 1: 7; 2: 1: 5; 2: 3: 12, 13, 15, 9. 2: 9: 17. 4: 3: 27. 6: 4: r,. 6, 12, 15, 16. (3) 1: 1: 7. (4) 6: 5: 12. CHAPTER XII. ill 5: 1: 7. (2) 3: 5: 2, 8; 5: 8: 13; 6: 8: 6. (3) 3: 8: 4. (4) 2: 1: 5; 2: :.: :». 17, 18; 3: 5: 2, 3, 6; 4: 9: 4; 3: 4. (5) 2: 3: 17; 3: 8: 3; 4: 4: 13. (6) :'.: x: 2, 3. 4: 4: 13. (7) 3: 8: 3. (8) 2: 9: 2; 3: 2: 2; 3: 3: 3; 4: 3: 10; 4: 4: 10: 6: 7: 1, 3. (9) 2: 1: 1-4; 3: 2: 1; 4: 3: 9. (10) 4: 3: 12; 5: 7: 1. (11) '_': !>: 17; 5: 1: 2; 5: 9: 5; Beg; 6: 4: 2; 6: 3: 15. (12) 3: 2: 7; 4: 4: 36. (IX) 4: 4: 45. (14) 3: 2: 16. (15) 2: 9. (16) 2: 9: 4, 8, 13, Beg 17. (17) 2: '.»: r>. 6, 18. (18) 2: 3: 7; 3: 3: 7; 3: 4: 1; 4: 4: 22, 23, 26, 30. (19) 2: 3: 1 U, 8. 13, 16, 26; 3: 1: 6; 4: 4: 31, 34. See 2: 3: 12, 15. (20) 3: 1: 6. (21) 2: .">: 14; 3: 1: 16. (22) 4: 4: 35. (23) 2: 3: 9: 11. (24) 4: 4: 33, 35, 39; 2: :<: 7; 3: 1: 6; 4: 3: 12. (25) 4:4: 34, 39. (26) 2: 3: 7; 3: 1: 6. (27) 4: 3: 12. CJXi 3: 3: 6. (29) 4: 7: 15. (30 4: 4: 6, 39. (31) 3: 1. (32) 3: 2: 1. (33) 2: :!: !>: 3: 1: 9. (34) 6: 8: 2. (35) 6: 8: 2. (36) 6: 8: 3. (37) 6: 8: 3. (38) 6: x: 4. (39) 6: 8: 5. (40) 6: 8: 12. (41) 3: 5: 6. (42) 5: 8: 10 Beg. (43) 3: 5: 6. i44» 4: 4: 43. (45) 4: 3: 18. CHAPTER XIII. il) 6: 9: 3. (2) 1: 8: 5. (3) 1: 8: 11. 2: 4: 13, 14, 16. (4) 1: 8: 11. (5) 1: X: 10. (6) 1: 8: 11; 6: .7: 23; 1: 8: 3. 10-13: 2: 4: 16. (7) 1: 8: 6. (8) 1: X: ;{. (9) 1: 8: 4, 8. (10) 1: 8: 10, 12. (11) 2: 3: 11. (12) 3: 2: 4. (13) 3: •J: r>: (14) 3: 2: 11. (15) 3: 2: 14. (16) 1: 8: 7; 2: 3: 18; 3: 2: 5; 4: 3: 9. (17) 1: 8: 4. (18) 2: 7: 3. (19) 2: 4: 8. (20) 2: 4: 7, 11; 3: 6: 16-18. (21) 2: 4: 8; 3: 6: 7. (22) 2: 5: 5. (23) 3: 8: 10. CHAPTER XIV. (1) 4: 7: 14. (2) 4: 8: 7. (3) 4: 8: 7. (4) _4lj^JL_ (5) 4: 7: 13. (6) 2: 1: 2. (7) 3: 2: 4, 13. (8) 2: 3: 15. (9) 4: 3: 24. (10) 2: 3: 16. (11) Phaedo 82 A. Tim. 91. de Rep. 10: 6: 20. (12) 3: 4: 2. (13) 6: 7: 4. (14) 6: 7: 7. (15) 3: 2: 13. (16) 3: 4: 6, 4: 8: 5. (17) 3: 6: 6. (18) 4: 3: 13, 15. (19) 3: 4: 2. iL'(» 1: 8: 13 (21; 3: 4: 2. (22) 4: 8: 5, 7. (23) 4: 4: 5. (24) 4: 3 17; 4: 7: 18: 4: 8: 4. (25) 3: 2: 12; 4: 8: 5; 5: 1: 1. (26) 4: 3: 13. (27) 4: 8: 5, 6. ii'Xi 1: 1: 10, 12; 1: 10: 6. (29) 4: 7: 14; 4: 18: 5. (30) 4: 3: 25, 27, o2; 4: I: 1-5. (31) 1: 9: 1; 2: 3: 10; 2: 9: 17. CHAPTER XV. (1) (>: 7: 15. (2) 3: 6: 5; 1; 2: 5. (3) 1: 2: 3; 1: 6: 6. (4) 1: 2: 3. (5) 1: •2: 1. (6) 1: 2: 4. (7) 1: 7: 3. (8) 1: 8: 5. (9) 1: 2: 5; 1: 6: 5. (10) 1: 6: r>. (11) 1: 7: 1. (12)JJ:Jh 15. (13) 2: 9: 16. (14) 1:_6: 6. (15) 1: 2: 6, 7 See 1: 6: 6 etc. (16) 1: 1:~9. (17) 1: 1: 12. (18) 1: 8: 13; 2: 3: 17. (19) 1: 8: 14. (20) 1: 8: 15. (21) 4:4: 19. (22) 5: 1: 1. (23) 3: 5: 1, 5: 1: 1. (24) 64 The Philosophy of P latinos. 1: 2: 7; 1: 6: 5. (25) 2: 3: 9, 15. (26) 3: 1: 8. (27) 3: 9: *. (28) 5: 8: 11. (29) 6: 7: 36. (30) 6: 7: 36; 6: 9: 4. (31) 1: 3 Title. (32) 1: 4. 3. (33) 5: 9: 1: (34) 1: 3: 1: (35) 1: 3: 2. (36) 1: 3: 3. (37) 3: 4: 5, 6. (88) 3: 4: 6. (39) 4: 4: 26, 38. (40) 2: 9: 14. (41) 1: 4: 3, 4. (42) 1: 2: 7; 6: 9: 11. (43) 5: 8: 11; 6: 7: 34; 6: 9: 11; 4: 8: 1; 5: 5: 7; 5: 3: 17; 6: 9: 7, 11; 4: 7: 10; 5: 3: 3. (44) 4: 3: 1. (45) 6: 9: 11. (46) 4: 8: 1; 6: 9: 4, 9. (47) 1: 4: 9; 3: 9: 3; 4: 4: 4. (48) 6: 7: 35. (49) 6: 7: 34. (50) 5: 3: 17, 6: 9: 4. (51) 5: 3: 14. (52) 5: 8: 11, See 6: 9: 8. (53) 5: 3: 1; 5: 5: 8; 5: 8: 10, 11; 6: 7: 35; 6: 9: 10, 11. (54) 5: 3: 17; 5: 5: 7, 8; 6: 7: 36. (55) 6: 7: 34. (56) 5: 5: 8. (57) 6: 9:3. (58) 6: 9: 9, 10. (59) 6: 9: 11. (60) 1: 6: 9. (61) 6: 7: 35. (62) 6: 7: 32. (63) 6: 7: 31. See 1: 4: 6. (64) 6: 9: 8. (65) 6: 9: 9. (66) 6: 9: 11. (67) 1: 4: 6. (68) 1: 5: Quest 2. (69) 1: 5: Quest 3. (70) 1: 5: Quest 5. (71) 1: 5: Quest 10. (72) 1: 4: 16. (73) 1: 4: 15. (74) 1: 4: 14. (75) 3: 2: 15. (76) 1: 4: 8. (77) 1: 1: 3. (78) 1: 4: 13. (79) 1: 2: 5. (80) 3: 2: 5. (81) 1: 4: 12. (82) 1: 4: 11. (83) 1: 4: 10. (84) 4: 8: 1. CHAPTER XVI. (1) 1: 6: 9; 5: 8: 3, 8, 13; ,6: 2: 21. (2) 5: 8: 13. (3) 5: 8: 8. (4) 5: 8: 13. (5) 5: 8: 8. (6) 1: 6: 8; 5: 8: 2. (7) 1: 6: 3; 5: 8: 13. (8) 1: 6: 4; 5: 8: 3. (9) It 6: 2, 6. (10) 5: 8: 2. (11) 1: 6: 3.(12) 1: 6: 4. (13) 1: 6: 7. (14) 1: 6: 8. Note from Zeller, with additions. The Father of all Gods Uranus is God; Kronos, who devours his children is the Nous who retains within itself all its active ideas. Xeus, when escaping from him, is the begetting of the Soul beyond the Nous. 5: 8: 12; 5: 1: 4, 7. The tale of Lynkeus describes the trans- parence of the intelligible world, 5: 8: 4. The World-Soul is called Zeus, 5: 5: 3; 6: 4: 6; 2: 3: 31; 5: 8: 10. It is also called Aphrodite, and the double soul is explained as the double Aphroditg, 3: 5: 2, 8; 6: 8: 6; 5: »T 13. Again, Hgre, Dgmeter and Hestia are explained by the World-Soul, as well as Zeus, 4: 4: 27. Apollo is Unity as denying Manifoldness, 5: 5: 6. Hermes is the Logos, 3: 6: 19, which can rise or 8iuk. The sinking of the soul into the entangling flesh is shown by Narcissus, and its flight, by the myth of Ulysses fleeing Circe and Calypso, 1: 6: 8. The story of Prometheus and Pandora explains the world adorned with gifts, 4: 3: 4. As image of the intelligible world the physical world is called the mirror of Dionysios, 4: 3: 12. Minos becoming guest of Zeus is the soul beholding Unity, 6: 9: 7.— TheLower Earth-Soul is also called Rhea, 5: 1: 7. 14 DAY USE RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED LOAN DEPT. This book is due on the last date stamped below, or on the date to which renewed. Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. REC'P UJ- FEE 164 -9 AN KEC'D ID DEI ^TQ-IPM^L. LD 2lA-40m-4,'63 (D6471slO)476B General Library University of California Berkeley YB 236C9 Crw-f/i