Plotinus' on "Providence (Ennead" III 2-3): Three Interpretations

Author(s): P. Boot
Source: Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol. 36, Fasc. 3/4 (1983), pp. 311-315
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4431252 .
Accessed: 25/06/2014 00:29

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Mnemosyne.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.40 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:29:17 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Mnemosyne, Vol. XXXVI, Fase. 3-4 (1983)

PLOTINUS' ON PROVIDENCE (ENNEAD III 2-3):

THREE INTERPRETATIONS

BY

P. BOOT

It is my intention to offer a revised interpretation of three

passages in Plotinus' treatise On Providence (Ennead III 2 and 3,
number 47 and 48 in the chronological order). The texts are cited
from the editto maior of P. Henry and H.-R. Schwyzer1).

Ill 2 (47) 1, 30-33: a??' ? p?sa ??? a?t?? ?a? pa? ???? ?? evi ??sa
?a? ????sa ???? ?a? t? ????? pa???eta? d??? ?a? pa? a?t? f???? ??
????s??? ???? ?p' ????? ??de ?te??? ?e?e??????? ????? ?a? t?? ?????
?pe?e???????
The translations of t? ????? ... f???? as given by the most impor-
tant translators of Plotinus' Enneads2) are: a) '(intellect) makes the
part the whole and all (i.e. the totality of the ????) bound in friend-
ship with itself'3), (Armstrong, similarly Cilento, Harder, Ficino,
MacKenna); b) '(intellect) makes the part the whole, and every
part is united with itself (Br?hier); c) 'the part makes the whole
bound in friendship with itself (M?ller); d) 'the part reproduces
the whole, and there is in the whole a perfect harmony* (Bouillet).
I am convinced, however, that none of these translations is cor-
rect. The expression d??? ?a? pa? should be taken as a qualification
of t? ?????, for the following reasons. First of all, we have in this

1) P. Henry and H.-R. Schwyzer, Plotini Opera, t. I, Enneades I-III, Paris-

Bruxelles 1951 (= H-S1).
2) A. H. Armstrong, Plotinus EnneadsIII. 1-9, London 1967; M. N. Bouillet, Les
Enn?ades de Plotin, t. 2, Paris 1859, Frankfurt 1968; E. Br?hier, Plotin Enneades, t.
Ill, Paris 1925, 1963; V. Cuento, Plotino Enneadi, Vol. II, Bari 1948; M. Ficino,
Plotini Opera Omnia, Firenze 1492; R. Harder, in: R. Beutler-W. Theiler, Plotins
SchriftenVa, Hamburg 1960; St. MacKenna, Plotinus The Enneads, London 19694;
H. F. M?ller, Die EnneadenPlotins, t. I, Berlin 1878.
3) The intensive pronoun often has a reflexive meaning in the Enneads, cf. H.-R.
Schwyzer, art. Plotinos, in: Pauly-Wissowa's Realencyclop?die, Band XXI, 1 (41.
Halbband), 1951, 19782 (Sonderausgabe M?nchen), Sp. 514.

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.40 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:29:17 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
312 PLOTINUS* 'on providence*

way a meaningful positive counterpart of the preceding negative

qualification ??d? as?e??? t? ?e??s?? (III 2 (47) 1, 28) of the Nous.
Secondly, the word ????? need not be mentally repeated after p?? as
it has been done by Br?hier. Thirdly, there is no change of object of
pa???eta?: t? ????? is object of pa???eta? throughout the passage.
Fourthly, as Matter4) correctly points out (though in a different
connection), the expression d??? ?a? p?? became a common distinc-
tion ever since the discussion in Plato's Theaetetus 203 e ff. . Finally,
as far as the interpretation is concerned, t? ????? pa???eta? d??? ?a?
pa? refers to the fact that in the realm of Nous every part is the whole
and all parts of the Nous, cf. EnneadW 8 (31) 4, 23 and III 2 (47) 14,
15.
So the punctuation and translation of this sentence should be as
follows: ???' ? p?sa ??? a?t?? ?a? pa? ???? ?? ??? ??sa ?a? ????sa ????
?a? t? ????? pa???eta? d??? ?a? pa?, a?t? f????, ?? ????s??? ???? ap'
?????, ??de ?te??? ?e?e??????? ????? ?a? t?? ????? ?pe?e???????:
'but the whole life of it (intellect) and the whole intellect live and
think5) all together in one and make the part the whole and the all,
friends with itself6), one part not separated from another, and not
having become merely other and estranged from the rest*.

Ill 9, 15-18: ?pe? ??d' a?t?? ?pe?e????s??

2 (47) p?t?, dp?? ??-
???te? a?a??? ??????t? t?? ?????, dp?? a?t??? ? ?p??e????e???, ???a
f?????s??, ??? t?? a?a??? pa?' a?t?? f??ta?*
In this sentence Plotinus explains why 'it is not lawful for those
who have become wicked to demand others to be their saviours and
to sacrifice themselves in answer to their prayers, nor, furthermore,
to require gods to direct their affairs in detail,..., or good men .. to
be their rulers' (III 2 (47) 9, 10-15, transi. Armstrong).
The text as it has been transmitted is, however, problematical. A
partial solution is offered by Beutler7), who reads dp?? a?t???

4) P. P. Matter, Zum Einfluss des Platonischen 'Timaios' auf das Denken Plotins,
Winterthur 1964, 27 n. 22.
5) Cf. H.-R. Schwyzer, art. cit., Sp. 518.49-52: 'Manchmal steht ein Partizip,
wo man ein Verbum finitum erwarten sollte, III 7, 12, 4. IV 6, 3, 27. VI 6, 18, 42.
IV 7, 13, 8-13.'
6) I.e. the whole and the all of the Nous. The expression a?t? f???? is the positive
counterpart of the preceding negative qualification &te ??ast?? (i.e. every part of
the Nous) ?? ?p?spas???t?? t?? d??? (III 2 (47) 1, 29-30).
7) R. Beuder-W. Theiler, Plotins SchriftenVb, Hamburg 1960, 347.

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.40 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:29:17 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 plotinus' 'on providence' 313

and +3
is followed
<e?> f| ?p??e????e??? by H-S2 8). H-S1 and
Sleeman and Pollet9), who do not read the addition of Beutler,
make t? a??e??, to be supplied from ?????te?, subject of ? and take
a?t?G? to refer to the ?a???. But this interpretation is (rather) im-
probable, since it is rather strained to supply t? a??e?? from ?????te?
even in the Greek
Plotinus writes. So the addition of Beutler is, in
my opinion, to be preferred and dp?? a?t?G? <e?> ? ?p??e????e???
must be translated as 'who (i.e. the ?????te? a?a???) would care that
it should be well with them (i.e. t?? ?????, the rest of mankind)'
(transi. Armstrong).
There remains, however, the question of how to interpret dp??
?????te? a?a??? ??????t? t?? ?????. All important translators have
taken ?????te? a?a??? to be the subject of ??????t?, e.g. Armstrong:
'for they themselves (i.e. the wicked) have never taken any trouble
to see that there should be good rulers of the rest of mankind'. This
is a probable interpretation. I submit, however, that the passage
gains more point if we take ?????te? a?a??? ??????t? t?? ????? to be
the predicate of the subject of ??????t?. The subject, then, would be
the ?a???, as is also to be expected for grammatical reasons, because
they are the subject of preceding ?pe?e????sa? and following
f?????s??. Thus the sentence more pointedly means that they not
only have never taken any trouble to become good rulers of the rest
of mankind themselves, but even are envious if anyone naturally
becomes good by himself.
So the translation of this sentence
should run as follows: 'for they
themselves have never
any taken
trouble to see that they themselves
should be good rulers of the rest of mankind, who would care that it
should be well with them, but they are envious if anyone naturally
becomes good by himself.

Ill 3 (48) 6, 13-15:

?a? d?a????e?? ??? a?t?? ?? d??ata? p?????a? ?a?
t? ?at?
p?????a? ????? ?a? a? t? ?p??e??e??? dsa d?d?s?? e?? t?
?p??e??e??? pa?' a?t??.
The words t? ?p??e??e??? ... a?t?? have caused problems to the
translators: Bouillet doesn't even translate the words e?? t?

8) H-S2: The editto minor: P. Henry-H.-R. Schwyzer, Plotini Opera, t. I, Enneades

I-III, Oxford 1964; H-S3: The Addenda ad Textum, in: P. Henry-H.-R. Schwyzer,
Plotini Opera, t. Ill, Enneas VI, Bruxelles-Leiden 1973.

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.40 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:29:17 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
314 plotinus' 'on providence'

?p??e??e??? pa?' a?t??. Armstrong translates this passage incorrect-

ly: 'and he (i.e. he who contemplates things which are being mixed
and continually go on being mixed, III 3 (48) 6, 13) cannot himself
distinguish providence and what is according to providence clearly
on the one side, and on the other the substrate and all that it gives to
what results from it'. He deletes the second ?p??e??e???, following
Br?hier. H-S2 + 3 and Beutler-Theiler10) do the same. Kirchhoff11)
proposed to read ?????e??? instead of the second ?p??e??e???, in ac-
cordance with the translation 'quod fit' of Ficino. Cilento agrees
with Kirchhoff. Sleeman and Pollet12) mention the fact that Henry
and Schwyzer, following Igal, now want to read dsa <te> d?d?s??
e?? t? ?p??e??e??? pa?' a?t??.
In my opinion, however, the reading of H-S1 should be main-
tained. In the preceding lines Plotinus has made a distinction be-
tween the origins of the sensible universe (i.e. the logos and matter)
and the providence watching over it. Providence contributes the
logos or Form to the formed thing in this universe. The formed
substrate (t? ?p??e??e??? ?? p?p?asta?: III 3 (48) 4, 31-32) is called
t? ?at? p?????a? as distinct from p?????a, because there is also a con-
tribution of matter to the formed substrate. So, in my opinion,
there has to be a correspondence between p?????a and t? ?at?
p?????a?, on the one hand, and t? ?p??e??e???*1 and t?
between
?p??e??e???15. This
correspondence is possible only, if we interpret
t? ?p??e??e???* as unqualified matter, and t? ?p??e??e???15 as the
formed substrate13). A good parallel for these interpretations of
?p??e??e??? is to be found at Ennead III 6 (28) 8, 19-21 : ?? ?p??e?????
d? pa? ??t? p??est? ?? a?t? t? pa?' a?t?? d?d??a?: 'but
t? ?p??e?????,
in a (qualified or formed) substrate, everything (every quality) is
present in the (unqualified) substrate (i.e. unqualified matter) in
such a way as to give something from itself to it (i.e. to the un-
qualified substrate)'. The above mentioned interpretation of t?

9) J. H. Sleeman and G. Pollet, Lexicon Plotinianum, Leiden-Leuven 1980, s.v.

?p??e?e?s?a?.
10) R. Beuder-W. Theiler, op. cit. (n. 7), 365.
11) A. Kirchhof?, Plotini Opera(secundum ordinem chronologicum), vol. I, Leip-
zig 1856.
12) J. H. Sleeman and G. Pollet, op. cit., s.v. p?????a.
13) For these meanings of ?p??e??e???, cf. J. H. Sleeman and G. Pollet, op. cit.,
s.v. ?p??e?s?a? c and d.

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.40 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:29:17 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 plotinus' On providence' 315

?p??e??e??? dsa d?d?s?? e?? t? ?p??e??e??? may be implied in the ex-

planation of H-S1: 'quae substratum alteri substrato dat', but their
explanation doesn't make altogether clear whether they take
Plotinus to mean just one kind of substrate or two. Igal's emenda-
tion, followed by Henry and Schwyzer, is not correct, because mat-
ter doesn't contribute to the Form which rests upon the formed
substrate but to the formed substrate itself.
Thus we must come to the following translation of the mentioned
passage: 'all that the substrate (matter unqualified) gives to the
(formed) substrate from itself.14)

Amsterdam, Free University

14) I wish to express my thanks to Prof. A. H. Armstrong and Prof. D. M.

Schenkeveld for their remarks at an early draft of this article. The responsibility for
these interpretations is only mine.

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.40 on Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:29:17 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions