By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Plotinos: Complete Works, v. 4 - In Chronological Order, Grouped in Four Periods
Author: Plotinos (Plotinus)
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Plotinos: Complete Works, v. 4 - In Chronological Order, Grouped in Four Periods" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.




    Complete Works

    In Chronological Order, Grouped in Four Periods;

    STUDIES in Sources, Development, Influence;
    INDEX of Subjects, Thoughts and Words.


    Professor in Extension, University of the South, Sewanee;
    A.M., Sewanee, and Harvard; Ph.D., Tulane, and Columbia.
    M.D., Medico-Chirurgical College, Philadelphia.

    VOL. IV

    Eustochian Books, 46-54; Comment.


    P.O. Box 42, ALPINE, N.J., U.S.A.

    Copyright, 1918, by Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie.
    All Rights, including that of Translation, Reserved.

    Entered at Stationers' Hall, by
    George Bell and Sons, Portugal Street, Lincoln's Inn, London.


Whether Animals May Be Termed Happy.[1]


1. The (Aristotelian) ideal of living well and happiness are
(practically) identical. Should we, on that account, grant even to
animals the privilege of achieving happiness? Why might we not say
that they live well, if it be granted them, in their lives, to follow
the course of nature, without obstacles? For if to live well consist
either in pleasure (pleasant passions, as the Epicureans taught), or in
realizing one's own individual aim (the Stoic ideal), then this living
well is, in either case, possible for animals, who can both enjoy
pleasure, and accomplish their peculiar aim. Thus singing birds live a
life desirable for them, if they enjoy pleasure, and sing conformably
to their nature. If further we should define happiness as achieving
the supreme purpose towards which nature aspires (the Stoic ideal), we
should, even in this case, admit that animals share in happiness when
they accomplish this supreme purpose. Then nature arouses in them no
further desires, because their whole career is completed, and their
life is filled from beginning to end.


There are no doubt some who may object to our admitting to happiness
living beings other than man. They might even point out that on this
basis happiness could not be refused to even the lowest beings, such
as plants: for they also live, their life also has a purpose, by
which they seek to fulfil their development. However, it would seem
rather unreasonable to say, that living beings other than humans
cannot possess happiness by this mere reason that to us they seem
pitiable. Besides, it would be quite possible to deny to plants what
may be predicated of other living beings, on the grounds that plants
lack emotion. Some might hold they are capable of happiness, on the
strength of their possessing life, for a being that lives can live
well or badly; and in this way we could say that they possess or
lack well-being, and bear, or do not bear fruits. If (as Aristippus
thought), pleasure is the goal of man, and if to live well is
constituted by enjoying it, it would be absurd to claim that no living
beings other than man could live well. The same argument applies if we
define happiness as (a state of imperturbable tranquility, by Epicurus
called) ataraxy;[2] or as (the Stoic ideal,[3] of) living conformably
to nature.


2. Those who deny the privilege of living well to plants, because these
lack sensation, are not on that account obliged to grant it to all
animals. For, if sensation consist in the knowledge of the experienced
affection, this affection must already be good before the occurrence of
the knowledge. For instance, the being must be in a state conformable
to nature even though ignorant thereof. He must fulfil his proper
function even when he does not know it. He must possess pleasure before
perceiving it. Thus if, by the possession of this pleasure, the being
already possesses the Good, he thereby possesses even well-being. What
need then is there to join thereto sensation, unless indeed well-being
be defined as sensation and knowledge (of an affection or state of the
soul) rather than in the latter affection and state of the soul itself?


The Good would thus be reduced to no more than sensation, or the
actualization of the sense-life. In this case, to possess it, it is
sufficient to perceive irrespective of the content of that perception.
Other persons might assert that goodness results from the union of
these two things: of the state of the soul, and of the knowledge
the soul has of it. If then the Good consist in the perception of
some particular state, we shall have to ask how elements which, by
themselves, are indifferent could, by their union, constitute the
good. Other theories are that the Good consists in some particular
state, or in possession of some particular disposition, and conscious
enjoyment of the presence of the Good. These would, however, still have
to answer the question whether, for good living, it be sufficient that
the being knows he possesses this state; or must he know not only that
this state is pleasant, but also that it is the Good? If then it be
necessary to realize that it is the Good, the matter is one no longer
of the function of sensation, but of a faculty higher than the senses.
To live well, in this case, it will no longer be sufficient to possess
pleasure, but we shall have to know that pleasure is the Good. The
cause of happiness will not be the presence of pleasure itself, but
the power of judging that pleasure is a good. Now judgment is superior
to affection; it is reason or intelligence, while pleasure is only an
affection, and what is irrational could not be superior to reason. How
would reason forget itself to recognize as superior what is posited
in a genus opposed to it? These men who deny happiness to plants,
who explain it as some form of sensation, seems to us, in spite of
themselves, to be really seeking happiness of a higher nature, and to
consider it as this better thing which is found only in a completer


There is a greater chance of being right in the opinion that happiness
consists in the reasonable life, instead of mere life, even though
united to sensation. Still even this theory must explain why happiness
should be the privilege of the reasonable animal. Should we add to
the idea of an animal the quality of being reasonable, because reason
is more sagacious, more skilful in discovering, and in procuring the
objects necessary to satisfy the first needs of nature? Would you
esteem reason just as highly if it were incapable of discovering,
or procuring these objects? If we value reason only for the objects
it aids us in getting, happiness might very well belong to the very
irrational beings, if they are, without reason, able to procure
themselves the things necessary to the satisfaction of the first
needs of their nature. In this case, reason will be nothing more than
an instrument. It will not be worth seeking out for itself, and its
perfection, in which virtue has been shown to consist, will be of
little importance. The opposite theory would be that reason does not
owe its value to its ability to procure for us objects necessary to
the satisfaction of the first needs of nature, but that it deserves
to be sought out for itself. But even here we would have to explain
its function, its nature, and set forth how it becomes perfect. If it
were to be improvable, it must not be defined as the contemplation
of sense-objects, for its perfection and essence (being) consist in
a different (and higher) function. It is not among the first needs
of nature, nor among the objects necessary to the satisfaction of its
needs; it has nothing to do with them, being far superior. Otherwise,
these philosophers would be hard pressed to explain its value. Until
they discover some nature far superior to the class of objects with
which they at present remain, they will have to remain where it suits
them to be, ignorant of what good living is, and both how to reach that
goal, and to what beings it is possible.


3. Dismissing these theories, we return to our own definition of
happiness. We do not necessarily make life synonymous with happiness
by attributing happiness to a living being. Otherwise, we would be
implying that all living beings can achieve it, and we would be
admitting to real complete enjoyment thereof all those who possessed
that union and identity which all living beings are naturally capable
of possessing. Finally, it would be difficult to grant this privilege
to the reasonable being, while refusing it to the brute; for both
equally possess life. They should, therefore, be capable of achieving
happiness--for, on this hypothesis, happiness could be no more than a
kind of life. Consequently, the philosophers who make it consist in the
rational life, not in the life common to all beings, do not perceive
that they implicitly suppose that happiness is something different
from life. They are then obliged to say that happiness resides in a
pure quality, in the rational faculty. But the subject (to which they
should refer happiness) is the rational life, since happiness can
belong only to the totality (of life joined to reason). They therefore,
really limit the life they speak of to a certain kind of life; not
that they have the right to consider these two kinds of life (life in
general, and rational life) as being ranked alike, as both members of
a single division would be, but another kind of distinction might be
established between them, such as when we say that one thing is prior,
and the other posterior. Since "life" may be understood in different
senses, and as it possesses different degrees, and since by mere verbal
similarity life may be equally predicated of plants and of irrational
animals, and since its differences consist in being more or less
complete, analogy demands a similar treatment of "living well." If, by
its life, a being be the image of some other being, by its happiness
it will also be the image of the happiness of this other being. If
happiness be the privilege of complete life, the being that possesses a
complete life will also alone possess happiness; for it possesses what
is best since, in the order of these existences, the best is possession
of the essence (being) and perfection of life. Consequently, the Good
is not anything incidental, for no subject could owe its good to a
quality that would be derived from elsewhere. What indeed could be
added to complete life, to render it excellent?


Our own definition of the Good, interested as we are not in its cause,
but in its essence, is that the perfect life, that is genuine and real,
consists in intelligence. The other kinds of life are imperfect. They
offer no more than the image of life. They are not Life in its fulness
and purity. As we have often said they are not life, rather than its
contrary. In one word, since all living beings are derived from one
and the same Principle, and since they do not possess an equal degree
of life, this principle must necessarily be the primary Life, and


4. If man be capable of possessing perfect Life, he is happy as soon as
he possesses it. If it were otherwise, if the perfect life pertained
to the divinities alone, to them alone also would happiness belong.
But since we attribute happiness to men, we shall have to set forth
in what that which procures it consists. I repeat, what results from
our former considerations, namely, that man has perfect Life when,
besides the sense-life, he possesses reason and true intelligence.
But is man as such stranger to the perfect Life, and does he possess
it as something alien (to his essential being)? No, for no man lacks
happiness entirely, either actually or even potentially. But shall we
consider happiness as a part of the man, and that he in himself is the
perfect form of life? We had better think that he who is a stranger to
the perfect Life possesses only a part of happiness, as he possesses
happiness only potentially; but that he who possesses the perfect Life
in actuality, and he who has succeeded in identifying himself with it,
alone is happy. All the other things, no more than envelope him (as
the Stoics would say), and could not be considered as parts of him,
since they surround him in spite of himself. They would belong to him
as parts of himself, if they were joined to him by the result of his
will. What is the Good for a man who finds himself in this condition?
By the perfect life which he possesses, he himself is his own good. The
principle (the Good in itself) which is superior (to the perfect Life)
is the cause of the good which is in him; for we must not confuse the
Good in itself--and the good in man.


That the man who has achieved perfect Life possesses happiness is
proved by his no longer desiring anything. What more could he desire?
He could not desire anything inferior; he is united to the best; he,
therefore, has fulness of life. If he be virtuous he is fully happy,
and fully possesses the Good, for no good thing escapes him. What he
seeks is sought only by necessity, less for him than for some of the
things which belong to him. He seeks it for the body that is united to
him; and though this body be endowed with life, what relates to his
needs is not characteristic of the real man. The latter knows it, and
what he grants to his body, he grants without in any way departing
from his own characteristic life. His happiness will, therefore, not
be diminished in adversity, because he continues to possess veritable
life. If he lose relatives or friends, he knows the nature of death,
and besides those whom it strikes down know it also if they were
virtuous. Though he may allow himself to be afflicted by the fate of
these relatives or friends, the affliction will not reach the intimate
part of his nature; the affliction will be felt only by that part of
the soul which lacks reason, and whose suffering the man will not share.


5. It has often been objected that we should reckon with the bodily
pains, the diseases, the obstacles which may hinder action, cases of
unconsciousness, which might result from certain philtres and diseases
(as the Peripatetics objected[4]). Under these conditions, they say,
the sage could not live well, and be happy--without either mentioning
poverty and lack of recognition. All these evils, not forgetting the
famous misfortunes of Priam,[5] justify serious objections. Indeed,
even if the sage endured all these evils (as indeed he easily does),
they would none the less be contrary to his will; and happy life must
necessarily be one that conforms to our will. The sage is not only
a soul endowed with particular dispositions; the body also must be
comprised within his personality (as also thought the Pythagorean
Archytas[6]). This assertion seems reasonable so far as the passions
of the body are felt by the man himself, and as they suggest desires
and aversions to him. If then pleasure be an element of happiness, how
could the man afflicted by the blows of fate and by pains still be
happy, even if he were virtuous? To be happy, the divinities need only
to enjoy perfect life; but men, having their soul united to a lower
part, must seek their happiness in the life of each of these two parts
that compose him, and not exclusively in one of the two, even though
it were the higher. Indeed, as soon as one of them suffers, the other
one, in spite of its superiority, finds its actions hindered. Otherwise
we shall have to regard neither the body, nor the sensations that flow
from it; and to seek only what by itself could suffice to procure
happiness, independently of the body.


6. If our exposition of the subject had defined happiness as exemption
from pain, sickness, reverses, and great misfortunes, (we would
have implied that) it would be impossible for us to taste happiness
while exposed to one of those evils. But if happiness consist in the
possession of the real good, why should we forget this good to consider
its accessories? Why, in the appreciation of this good, should we
seek things which are not among the number of its elements? If it
consisted in a union of the true goods with those things which alone
are necessary to our needs, or which are so called, even without being
such, we should have to strive to possess the latter also. But as the
goal of man must be single and not manifold--for otherwise it would
be usual to say that he seeks his ends, rather than the more common
expression, his end--we shall have to seek only what is most high and
precious, what the soul somehow wishes to include. Her inclination and
will cannot aspire to anything which is not the sovereign good. Reason
only avoids certain evils, and seeks certain advantages, because it
is provoked by their presence; but it is not so led by nature. The
principal tendency of the soul is directed towards what is best; when
she possesses it, she is satisfied, and stops; only then does she enjoy
a life really conformable to her will. Speaking of will strictly,[7]
and not with unjustifiable license, the task of the will is not to
procure things necessary to our needs (?) Of course we judge that it is
suitable to procure things that are necessary, as we in general avoid
evils. But the avoiding of them is no aim desirable in itself; such
would rather be not to need to avoid them. This, for instance, occurs
when one possesses health and is exempt from suffering. Which of these
advantages most attracts us? So long as we enjoy health, so long as we
do not suffer, it is little valued. Now advantages which, when present,
have no attraction for the soul, and add nothing to her happiness, and
which, when absent, are sought as causes of the suffering arising from
the presence of their contraries, should reasonably be called necessity
rather than goods, and not be reckoned among the elements of our goal.
When they are absent and replaced by their contraries, our goal remains
just what it was.


7. Why then does the happy man desire to enjoy the presence of
these advantages, and the absence of their contraries? It must be
because they contribute, not to his happiness, but to his existence;
because their contraries tend to make him lose existence, hindering
the enjoyment of the good, without however removing it. Besides,
he who possesses what is best wishes to possess it purely, without
any mixture. Nevertheless, when a foreign obstacle occurs, the good
still persists even in spite of this obstacle. In short, if some
accident happen to the happy man against his will, his happiness
is in no way affected thereby. Otherwise, he would change and lose
his happiness daily; as if, for instance, he had to mourn a son, or
if he lost some of his possessions. Many events may occur against
his wish without disturbing him in the enjoyment of the good he has
attained. It may be objected that it is the great misfortunes, and
not trifling accidents (which can disturb the happiness of the wise
man). Nevertheless, in human things, is there any great enough not to
be scorned by him who has climbed to a principle superior to all, and
who no longer depends on lower things? Such a man will not be able to
see anything great in the favors of fortune, whatever they be, as in
being king, in commanding towns, or peoples; in founding or building
cities, even though he himself should receive that glory; he will
attach no importance to the loss of his power, or even to the ruin
of his fatherland. If he consider all that as a great evil, or even
only as an evil, he will have a ridiculous opinion. He will no longer
be a virtuous man; for, as Jupiter is my witness, he would be highly
valuing mere wood, or stones, birth, or death; while he should insist
on the incontestable truth that death is better than the corporeal
life (as held by Herodotus). Even though he were sacrificed, he would
not consider death any worse merely because it occurred at the feet
of the altars. Being buried is really of small importance, for his
body will rot as well above as below ground (as thought Theodorus of
Cyrene).[8] Neither will he grieve at being buried without pomp and
vulgar ostentation, and to have seemed unworthy of being placed in a
magnificent tomb. That would be smallness of mind. If he were carried
off as a captive, he would still have a road open to leave life, in the
case that he should no longer be allowed to hope for happiness. (Nor
would he be troubled if the members of his family, such as sons (?) and
daughters (and female relatives?) were carried off into captivity. If
he had arrived to the end of his life without seeing such occurrences
(we would indeed be surprised). Would he leave this world supposing
that such things cannot happen? Such an opinion would be absurd. Would
he not have realized that his own kindred were exposed to such dangers?
The opinion that such things could happen will not make him any less
happy. No, he will be happy even with that belief. He would still be so
even should that occur; he will indeed reflect that such is the nature
of this world, that one must undergo such accidents, and submit. Often
perhaps men dragged into captivity will live better (than in liberty);
and besides, if their captivity be insupportable, it is in their power
to release themselves. If they remain, it is either because their
reason so induces them--and then their lot cannot be too hard; or it
is against the dictates of their reason, in which case they have none
but themselves to blame. The wise man, therefore, will not be unhappy
because of the folly of his own people; he will not allow his lot to
depend on the happiness or misfortunes of other people.


8. If the griefs that he himself undergoes are great, he will support
them as well as he can; if they exceed his power of endurance, they
will carry him off (as thought Seneca[9]). In either case, he will
not, in the midst of his sufferings, excite any pity: (ever master
of his reason) he will not allow his own characteristic light to be
extinguished. Thus the flame in the lighthouse continues to shine, in
spite of the raging of the tempest, in spite of the violent blowing
of the winds. (He should not be upset) even by loss of consciousness,
or even if pain becomes so strong that its violence could almost
annihilate him. If pain become more intense, he will decide as to
what to do; for, under these circumstances, freedom of will is not
necessarily lost (for suicide remains possible, as thought Seneca[10]).
Besides, we must realize that these sufferings do not present
themselves to the wise man, under the same light as to the common man;
that all these need not penetrate to the sanctuary of the man's life;
which indeed happens with the greater part of pains, griefs and evils
that we see being suffered by others; it would be proof of weakness to
be affected thereby. A no less manifest mark of weakness is to consider
it an advantage to ignore all these evils, and to esteem ourselves
happy that they happen only after death,[11] without sympathizing with
the fate of others, and thinking only to spare ourselves some grief.
This would be a weakness that we should eliminate in ourselves, not
allowing ourselves to be frightened by the fear of what might happen.
The objection that it is natural to be afflicted at the misfortunes
of those who surround us, meets the answer that, to begin with, it is
not so with every person; then, that it is part of the duty of virtue
to ameliorate the common condition of human nature, and to raise it
to what is more beautiful, rising above the opinions of the common
people. It is indeed beautiful not to yield to what the common people
usually consider to be evils. We should struggle against the blows of
fortune not by affected ignoring (of difficulties, like an ostrich),
but as a skilful athlete who knows that the dangers he is incurring
are feared by certain natures, though a nature such as his bears them
easily, seeing in them nothing terrible, or at least considering them
terrifying only to children. Certainly, the wise man would not have
invited these evils; but on being overtaken by them he opposes to them
the virtue which renders the soul unshakable and impassible.


9. It may further be objected that the wise man might lose
consciousness, if overwhelmed by disease, or the malice of magic.
Would he still remain happy? Either he will remain virtuous, being
only fallen asleep; in which case he might continue to be happy, since
no one claims he must lose happiness because of sleep, inasmuch as
no reckoning of the time spent in this condition is kept, and as he
is none the less considered happy for life. On the other hand, if
unconsciousness be held to terminate virtue, the question at issue is
given up; for, supposing that he continues to be virtuous, the question
at issue was, whether he remain happy so long as he remains virtuous.
It might indeed still be objected that he cannot be happy if he remain
virtuous without feeling it, without acting in conformity with virtue.
Our answer is that a man would not be any less handsome or healthy for
being so unconsciously. Likewise, he would not be any less wise merely
for lack of consciousness thereof.


Once more it may be objected that it is essential to wisdom to be
self-conscious, for happiness resides only in actualized wisdom. This
objection would hold if reason and wisdom were incidentals. But if
the hypostatic substance of wisdom consist in an essence (being),
or rather, in being itself, and if this being do not perish during
sleep, nor during unconsciousness, if consequently the activity of
being continue to subsist in him; if by its very nature this (being)
ceaselessly watch, then the virtuous man must even in this state (of
sleep or unconsciousness), continue to exercise his activity. Besides,
this activity is ignored only by one part of himself, and not by
himself entirely. Thus during the operation of the actualization of
growth,[12] the perception of its activity is not by his sensibility
transmitted to the rest of the man. If our personality were constituted
by this actualization of growth, we would act simultaneously with
it; but we are not this actualization, but that of the intellectual
principle, and that is why we are active simultaneously with this
(divine intellectual activity).


10. The reason that intelligence remains hidden is just because it
is not felt; only by the means of this feeling can this activity be
felt; but why should intelligence cease to act (merely because it
was not felt)? On the other hand, why could the soul not have turned
her activity towards intelligence before having felt or perceived
it? Since (for intelligence) thinking and existence are identical,
perception must have been preceded by some actualization. It seems
impossible for perception to arise except when thought reflects upon
itself, and when the principle whose activity constitutes the life of
the soul, so to speak, turns backwards, and reflects, as the image of
an object placed before a brilliant polished mirror reflects itself
therein. Likewise, if the mirror be placed opposite the object, there
is no more image; and if the mirror be withdrawn or badly adjusted,
there is no more image, though the luminous object continue to act.
Likewise, when that faculty of the soul which represents to us the
images of discursive reason and of intelligence is in a suitable
condition of calm, we get an intuition--that is, a somewhat sensual
perception thereof--with the prior knowledge of the activity of the
intelligence, and of discursive reason. When, however, this image
is troubled by an agitation in the mutual harmony of the organs,
the discursive reason, and the intelligence continue to act without
any image, and the thought does not reflect in the imagination.
Therefore we shall have to insist that thought is accompanied by an
image without, nevertheless, being one itself. While we are awake,
it often happens to us to perform praiseworthy things, to meditate
and to act, without being conscious of these operations at the moment
that we produce them. When for instance we read something, we are not
necessarily self-conscious that we are reading, especially if our
attention be fully centered on what we read. Neither is a brave man
who is performing a courageous deed, self-conscious of his bravery.
There are many other such cases. It would therefore seem that the
consciousness of any deed weakens its energy, and that when the action
is alone (without that consciousness) it is in a purer, livelier and
more vital condition. When virtuous men are in that condition (of
absence of self-consciousness), their life is more intense because it
concentrates in itself instead of mingling with feeling.


11. It has sometimes been said that a man in such a condition does
not really live. (If such be their honest opinion), they must be told
that he does live, even if they be incapable of understanding his
happiness and his life. If this seem to them incredible, they should
reflect whether their own admission that such a man lives and is
virtuous, does not imply that under those circumstances he is happy.
Neither should they begin by supposing that he is annihilated, only
later to consider whether he be happy. Neither should they confine
themselves to externalities after having admitted that he turns his
whole attention on things that he bears within himself; in short, not
to believe that the goal of his will inheres in external objects.
Indeed, such considering of external objects as the goal of the will of
the virtuous man, would be tantamount to a denial of the very essence
(being) of happiness; likewise, insisting that those are the objects he
desires. His wish would undoubtedly be that all men should be happy,
and that none of them should suffer any evil; but, nevertheless, he is
none the less happy when that does not happen. Other people, again,
would say that it was unreasonable for the virtuous man to form such
an (impossible) wish, since elimination of evils here below is out of
the question.[13] This, however, would constitute an admission of our
belief that the only goal of the virtuous man's will is the conversion
of the soul towards herself.[14]


12. We grant, however, that the pleasures claimed for the virtuous man
are neither those sought by debauchees, nor those enjoyed by the body.
Those pleasures could not be predicated of him without degrading his
felicity. Nor can we claim for him raptures of delight--for what would
be their use? It is sufficient to suppose that the virtuous man tastes
the pleasures attached to the presence of goods, pleasures which must
consist neither in motions, nor be accidental. He enjoys the presence
of those (higher) goods because he is present to himself; from that
time on he lingers in a state of sweet serenity. The virtuous man,
therefore, is always serene, calm, and satisfied. If he be really
virtuous, his state cannot be troubled by any of the things that we
call evils. Those who in the virtuous life are seeking for pleasures of
another kind are actually seeking something else than the virtuous life.


13. The actions of the virtuous man could not be hindered by fortune,
but they may vary with the fluctuations of fortune. All will be equally
beautiful, and, perhaps, so much the more beautiful as the virtuous
man will find himself placed amidst more critical circumstances. Any
acts that concern contemplation, which relate to particular things,
will be such that the wise man will be able to produce them, after
having carefully sought and considered what he is to do. Within
himself he finds the most infallible of the rules of conduct, a rule
that will never fail him, even were he within the oft-discussed bull
of Phalaris. It is useless for the vulgar man to repeat, even twice
or thrice,[15] that such a fate is sweet; for if a man were to utter
those words, they are uttered by that very (animal) part that undergoes
those tortures. On the contrary, in the virtuous man, the part that
suffers is different from that which dwells within itself, and which,
while necessarily residing within itself, is never deprived of the
contemplation of the universal Good.


14. Man, and specially the virtuous man, is constituted not by the
composite of soul and body,[16] as is proved by the soul's power to
separate herself from the body,[17] and to scorn what usually are
called "goods." It would be ridiculous to relate happiness to the
animal part of man, since happiness consists in living well, and living
well, being an actualization, belongs to the soul, exclusively. Not
even does it extend to the entire soul, for happiness does not extend
to that part of the soul concerned with growth, having nothing in
common with the body, neither as to its size, nor its possible good
condition. Nor does it depend on the perfection of the senses, because
their development, as well as that of the organs, weights man down,
and makes him earthy. Doing good will be made easier by establishing a
sort of counter-weight, weakening the body, and taming its motions, so
as to show how much the real man differs from the foreign things that
(to speak as do the Stoics), surround him. However much the (earthy)
common man enjoy beauty, greatness, wealth, command over other men,
and earthly luxuries, he should not be envied for the deceptive
pleasure he takes in all these advantages. To begin with, the wise
man will probably not possess them; but if he do possess them, he
will voluntarily diminish them, if he take due care of himself. By
voluntary negligence he will weaken and disfigure the advantages of
his body. He will abdicate from dignities. While preserving the health
of his body, he will not desire to be entirely exempt from disease and
sufferings. If he never experienced these evils, he will wish to make
a trial of them during his youth. But when he has arrived at old age,
he will no longer wish to be troubled either by pains, or pleasures,
or anything sad or agreeable that relates to the body; so as not to be
forced to give it his attention. He will oppose the sufferings he will
have to undergo with a firmness that will never forsake him. He will
not believe that his happiness is increased by pleasures, health or
rest, nor destroyed nor diminished by their contraries. As the former
advantages do not augment his felicity, how could their loss diminish


15. Let us now imagine two wise men, the first of whom possesses
everything that heart can wish for, while the other is in a contrary
position. Shall they be said to be equally happy? Yes, if they be
equally wise. Even if the one possessed physical beauty, and all
the other advantages that do not relate either to wisdom, virtue,
contemplation of the good, or perfect life; what would be the use of
all that since he who possesses all these advantages is not considered
as really being happier than he who lacks them? Such wealth would
not even help a flute-player to accomplish his object! We, however,
consider the happy man only from the standpoint of the weakness of our
mind, considering as serious and frightful what the really happy man
considers indifferent. For the man could not be wise, nor consequently
happy, so long as he has not succeeded in getting rid of all these
vain ideas, so long as he has not entirely transformed himself, so
long as he does not within himself contain the confidence that he is
sheltered from all evil. Only then will he live without being troubled
by any fear. The only thing that should affect him, would be the fear
that he is not an expert in wisdom, that he is only partly wise. As to
unforeseen fears that might get the better of him before he had had
the time to reflect, during a moment of abstraction of attention, the
wise man will hasten to turn them away, treating that which within
himself becomes agitated as a child that has lost its way through
pain. He will tranquilize it either by reason, or even by a threat,
though uttered without passion. Thus the mere sight of a worthy person
suffices to calm a child. Besides, the wise man will not hold aloof
either from friendship nor gratitude. He will treat his own people as
he treats himself; giving to his friends as much as to his own person;
and he will give himself up to friendship, without ceasing to exercise
intelligence therein.


16. If the virtuous man were not located in this elevated life of
intelligence; if on the contrary he were supposed to be subject to
the blows of fate, and if we feared that they would overtake him, our
ideal would no longer be that of the virtuous man such as we outline
it; we would be considering a vulgar man, mingled with good and evil,
of whom a life equally mingled with good and evil would be predicated.
Even such a man might not easily be met with, and besides, if we did
meet him, he would not deserve to be called a wise man; for there would
be nothing great about him, neither the dignity of wisdom, nor the
purity of good. Happiness, therefore, is not located in the life of
the common man. Plato rightly says that you have to leave the earth to
ascend to the good, and that to become wise and happy, one should turn
one's look towards the only Good, trying to acquire resemblance to Him,
and to live a life conformable to Him.[18] That indeed must suffice
the wise man to reach his goal. To the remainder he should attach no
more value than to changes of location, none of which can add to his
happiness. If indeed he pay any attention to external things scattered
here and there around him, it is to satisfy the needs of his body so
far as he can. But as he is something entirely different from the
body, he is never disturbed at having to leave it; and he will abandon
it whenever nature will have indicated the time. Besides, he always
reserves to himself the right to deliberate about this (time to leave
the world by suicide).[19] Achievement of happiness will indeed be his
chief goal; nevertheless, he will also act, not only in view of his
ultimate goal, or himself, but on the body to which he is united. He
will care for this body, and will sustain it as long as possible. Thus
a musician uses his lyre so long as he can; but as soon as it is beyond
using, he repairs it, or abandons playing the lyre, because he now can
do without it. Leaving it on the ground, he will look at it almost with
scorn, and will sing without its accompaniment. Nevertheless it will
not have been in vain that this lyre will have been originally given to
him; for he will often have profited by its use.


Of Providence.[20]


1. When Epicurus[21] derives the existence and constitution of the
universe from automatism and chance, he commits an absurdity, and
stultifies himself. That is self-evident, though the matter have
elsewhere been thoroughly demonstrated.[22] But (if the world do
not owe its origin to chance) we will be compelled to furnish an
adequate reason for the existence and creation of all these beings.
This (teleological) question deserves the most careful consideration.
Things that seem evil do indeed exist, and they do suggest doubts about
universal Providence; so that some (like Epicurus[23]) insist there
is no providence, while others (like the Gnostics[24]), hold that the
demiurgic creator is evil. The subject, therefore, demands thorough
investigation of its first principles.


Let us leave aside this individual providence, which consists in
deliberating before an action, and in examining whether we should or
should not do something, or whether we should give or not give it. We
shall also assume the existence of the universal Providence, and from
this principle we shall deduce the consequences.


We would acknowledge the existence of a particular Providence, such as
we mentioned above, if we thought that the world had had a beginning of
existence, and had not existed since all eternity. By this particular
Providence we mean a recognition, in the divinity, of a kind of
prevision and reasoning (similar to the reasoning and prevision of the
artist who, before carrying out a work, deliberates on each of the
parts that compose it[25]). We would suppose that this prevision and
reasoning were necessary to determine how the universe could have been
made, and on what conditions it should have been the best possible.
But as we hold that the world's existence had no beginning, and that
it has existed since all time, we can, in harmony with reason and our
own views, affirm that universal Providence consists in this that
the universe is conformed to Intelligence, and that Intelligence is
prior to the universe, not indeed in time--for the existence of the
Intelligence did not temporarily precede that of the universe--but (in
the order of things), because, by its nature, Intelligence precedes the
world that proceeds from it, of which it is the cause, type[26] and
model, and cause of unchanged perpetual persistence.


This is how Intelligence continues to make the world subsist. Pure
Intelligence and Being in itself constitute the genuine (intelligible)
World that is prior to everything, which has no extension, which
is weakened by no division, which has no imperfection, even in its
parts, for none of its parts are separated from its totality. This
world is the universal Life and Intelligence. Its unity is both
living and intelligent. In it each part reproduces the whole, its
totality consists of a perfect harmony, because nothing within it is
separate, independent, or isolated from anything else. Consequently,
even if there were mutual opposition, there would be no struggle.
Being everywhere one and perfect, the intelligible World is permanent
and immutable, for it contains no internal reaction of one opposite
on another. How could such a reaction take place in this world, since
nothing is lacking in it? Why should Reason produce another Reason
within it, and Intelligence produce another Intelligence[27] merely
because it was capable of doing so? If so, it would not, before having
produced, have been in a perfect condition; it would produce and enter
in motion because it contained something inferior.[28] But blissful
beings are satisfied to remain within themselves, persisting within
their essence. A multiple action compromises him who acts by forcing
him to issue from himself. The intelligible World is so blissful that
even while doing nothing it accomplishes great things, and while
remaining within itself it produces important operations.


2. The sense-world draws its existence from that intelligible World.
The sense-world, however, is not really unitary; it is indeed multiple,
and divided into a plurality of parts which are separated from each
other, and are mutually foreign. Not love reigns there, but hate,
produced by the separation of things which their state of imperfection
renders mutually inimical. None of its parts suffices to itself.
Preserved by something else, it is none the less an enemy of the
preserving Power. The sense-world has been created, not because the
divinity reflected on the necessity of creating, but because (in the
nature of things) it was unavoidable that there be a nature inferior to
the intelligible World, which, being perfect, could not have been the
last degree of existence.[29] It occupied the first rank, it had great
power, that was universal and capable of creating without deliberation.
If it had had to deliberate, it would not, by itself, have expressed
the power of creation. It would not have possessed it essentially.
It would have resembled an artisan, who, himself, does not have the
power of creating, but who acquires it by learning how to work. By
giving something of itself to matter, Intelligence produced everything
without issuing from its rest or quietness. That which it gives is
Reason, because reason is the emanation of Intelligence, an emanation
that is as durable as the very existence of Intelligence. In a seminal
reason all the parts exist in an united condition, without any of
them struggling with another, without disagreement or hindrance. This
Reason then causes something of itself to pass into the corporeal mass,
where the parts are separated from each other, and hinder each other,
and destroy each other. Likewise, from this unitary Intelligence,
and from the Reason that proceeds thence, issues this universe whose
parts are separate and distinct from each other, some of the parts
being friendly and allied, while some are separate and inimical. They,
therefore, destroy each other, either voluntarily or involuntarily,
and through this destruction their generation is mutually operated.
In such a way did the divinity arrange their actions and experiences
that all concur in the formation of a single harmony,[30] in which
each utters its individual note because, in the whole, the Reason that
dominates them produces order and harmony. The sense-world does not
enjoy the perfection of Intelligence and Reason: it only participates
therein. Consequently, the sense-world needed harmony, because it was
formed by the concurrence of Intelligence and necessity.[31] Necessity
drives the sense-world to evil, and to what is irrational, because
necessity itself is irrational; but Intelligence dominates necessity.
The intelligible World is pure reason; none other could be such. The
world, which is born of it, had to be inferior to it, and be neither
pure reason, nor mere matter; for order would have been impossible
in unmingled matter. The sense-world, therefore, is a mixture of
matter and Reason; those are the elements of which it is composed. The
principle from which this mixture proceeds, and which presides over
the mixture, is the Soul. Neither must we imagine that this presiding
over the mixture constitutes an effort for the Soul; for she easily
administers the universe, by her presence.[32]


3. For not being beautiful this world should not be blamed; neither
for not being the best of corporeal worlds; nor should the Cause,
from which it derives its existence, be accused. To begin with,
this world exists necessarily. It is not the work of a reflecting
determination. It exists because a superior Being naturally begets it
in His own likeness. Even if its creation were the result of reflective
determination, it could not shame its author; for the divinity made the
universe beautiful, complete and harmonious. Between the greater and
lesser parts He introduced a fortunate accord. A person who would blame
the totality of the world from consideration of its parts is therefore
unjust. He should examine the parts in their relation to the totality,
and see whether they be in accord and in harmony with it. Then the
study of the whole should continue down to that of the least details.
Otherwise criticism does not apply to the world as a whole, but only
to some of its parts. For instance, we well know how admirable, as
a whole, is man; yet we grant that there would be justification for
criticism of a separate hair, or toe, or some of the vilest animals, or
Thersites, as a specimen of humanity.


Since the work under consideration is the entire world, we would, were
our intelligence attentively to listen to its voice, hear it exclaim
as follows: "It is a divinity who has made Me, and from the divinity's
hands I issued complete, including all animated beings, entire and
self-sufficient, standing in need of nothing, since everything is
contained within Me; plants, animals, the whole of Nature, the
multitude of the divinities, the troupe of guardians, excellent souls,
and the men who are happy because of virtue. This refers not only
to the earth, which is rich in plants and animals of all kinds; the
power of the Soul extends also to the sea. Nor are the air and entire
heaven inanimate. They are the seat of all the excellent Souls, which
communicate life to the stars, and which preside over the circular
revolution of the heaven, a revolution that is eternal and full of
harmony, which imitates the movement of Intelligence by the eternal and
regular movement of the stars around one and the same centre, because
heaven has no need to seek anything outside of itself. All the beings
I contain aspire to the Good; all achieve Him, each according to its
potentiality. Indeed, from the Good depends the entire heaven,[33]
my whole Soul, the divinities that inhabit my various parts, all the
animals, all the plants, and all my apparently inanimate beings. In
this aggregation of beings some seem to participate only in existence,
others in life, others in sensation, others in intelligence, while
still others seem to participate in all the powers of life at one
time;[34] for we must not expect equal faculties for unequal things, as
for instance sight for the fingers, as it is suitable to the eye; while
the finger needs something else; it needs its own form, and has to
fulfil its function."


4. We should not be surprised at water extinguishing fire, or at
fire destroying some other element. Even this element was introduced
to existence by some other element, and it is not surprising that
it should be destroyed, since it did not produce itself, and was
introduced to existence only by the destruction of some other element
(as thought Heraclitus and the Stoics[35]). Besides, the extinguished
fire is replaced by another active fire. In the incorporeal heaven,
everything is permanent; in the visible heaven, the totality, as well
as the more important and the most essential parts, are eternal.
The souls, on passing through different bodies, (by virtue of their
disposition[36]), themselves change on assuming some particular form;
but, when they can do so, they stand outside of generation, remaining
united to the universal Soul. The bodies are alive by their form, and
by the whole that each of them constitutes (by its union with a soul),
since they are animals, and since they nourish themselves; for in
the sense-world life is mobile, but in the intelligible world it is
immobile. Immobility necessarily begat movement, self-contained life
was compelled to produce other life, and calm being naturally exhaled
vibrating spirit.


Mutual struggle and destruction among animals is necessary, because
they are not born immortal. Their origin is due to Reason's embracing
all of matter, and because this Reason possessed within itself all the
things that subsist in the intelligible World. From what other source
would they have arisen?


The mutual wrongs of human beings may however very easily all be caused
by the desire of the Good (as had been thought by Democritus[37]).
But, having strayed because of their inability to reach Him, they
turned against each other. They are punished for it by the degradation
these evil actions introduced within their souls, and, after death,
they are driven into a lower place, for none can escape the Order
established by the Law of the universe (or, the law of Adrastea[38]).
Order does not, as some would think, exist because of disorder, nor
law on account of lawlessness; in general, it is not the better that
exists on account of the worse. On the contrary, disorder exists only
on account of order, lawlessness on account of law, irrationality on
account of reason, because order, law and reason, such as they are here
below, are only imitations (or, borrowings). It is not that the better
produced the worse, but that the things which need participation in the
better are hindered therefrom, either by their nature, by accident,
or by some other obstacle (as Chrysippus thought that evils happen
by consequence or concomitance). Indeed, that which succeeds only in
acquiring a borrowed order, may easily fail to achieve it, either
because of some fault inherent in its own nature, or by some foreign
obstacle. Things hinder each other unintentionally, by following
different goals. Animals whose actions are free incline sometimes
towards good, sometimes towards evil (as the two horses in Plato's
Phaedrus).[39] Doubtless, they do not begin by inclining towards evil;
but as soon as there is the least deviation at the origin, the further
the advance in the wrong road, the greater and more serious does the
divergence become. Besides, the soul is united to a body, and from
this union necessarily arises appetite. When something impresses us at
first sight, or unexpectedly, and if we do not immediately repress the
motion which is produced within us, we allow ourselves to be carried
away by the object towards which our inclination drew us. But the
punishment follows the fault, and it is not unjust that the soul that
has contracted some particular nature should undergo the consequences
of her disposition (by passing into a body which conforms thereto).
Happiness need not be expected for those who have done nothing to
deserve it. The good alone obtain it; and that is why the divinities
enjoy it.


5. If then, even here below, souls enjoy the faculty of arriving at
happiness, we should not accuse the constitution of the universe
because some souls are not happy; the fault rather lies with their
weakness, which hinders them from struggling courageously enough in
the career where prizes are offered to virtue. Why indeed should we
be astonished that the spirits which have not made themselves divine
should not enjoy divine life? Poverty and diseases are of no importance
to the good, and they are useful to the evil (as thought Theognis).[40]
Besides, we are necessarily subject to diseases, because we have a
body. Then all these accidents are not useless for the order and
existence of the universe. Indeed, when a being is dissolved into its
elements, the Reason of the universe uses it to beget other beings,
for the universal Reason embraces everything within its sphere of
activity. Thus when the body is disorganized, and the soul is softened
by her passions, then the body, overcome by sickness, and the soul,
overcome by vice, are introduced into another series and order. There
are things, like poverty and sickness, which benefit the persons who
undergo them. Even vice contributes to the perfection of the universe,
because it furnishes opportunity for the exercise of the divine
justice. It serves other purposes also; for instance, it increases the
vigilance of souls, and excites the mind and intelligence to avoid the
paths of perdition; it also emphasizes the value of virtue by contrast
with the evils that overtake the wicked. Of course, such utilities
are not the cause of the existence of evils; we only mean that, since
evils exist, the divinity made use of them to accomplish His purposes.
It would be the characteristic of a great power to make even evils
promote the fulfilment of its purposes, to cause formless things to
assist in the production of forms. In short, we assert that evil is
only an omission or failure of good. Now a coming short of good must
necessarily exist in the beings here below, because in them good is
mingled with other things; for this thing to which the good is allied
differs from the good, and thus produces the lack of good. That is why
"it is impossible for evil to be destroyed":[41] because things are
successively inferior, relatively to the nature of the absolute Good;
and because, being different from the Good from which they derive their
existence, they have become what they are by growing more distant from
their principle.


6. It is constantly objected that fortune maltreats the good, and
favors the evil in opposition to the agreement that ought to exist
between virtue and happiness. The true answer to this is that no
harm can happen to the righteous man, and no good to the vicious
man.[42] Other objectors ask why one man is exposed to what is contrary
to nature, while the other obtains what conforms thereto. How can
distributive justice be said to obtain in this world? If, however, the
obtaining of what conforms to nature do not increase the happiness of
the virtuous man, and if being exposed to what is contrary to nature
do not diminish the wickedness of the vicious man, of what importance
(as thought Plato[43]), are either of these conditions? Neither will it
matter if the vicious man be handsome, or the virtuous man ugly.


Further objections assert that propriety, order and justice demand the
contrary of the existing state of affairs in the world, and that we
could expect no less from a Providence that was wise. Even if it were
a matter of moment to virtue or vice, it is unsuitable that the wicked
should be the masters, and chiefs of state, and that the good should
be slaves; for a bad prince commits the worst crimes. Moreover, the
wicked conquer in battles, and force their prisoners to undergo the
extremities of torments. How could such facts occur if indeed a divine
Providence be in control? Although indeed in the production of some
work (of art), it be especially the totality that claims attention,
nevertheless, the parts must also obtain their due, especially when
they are animated, living and reasonable; it is just that divine
Providence should extend to everything, especially inasmuch as its
duty is precisely to neglect nothing. In view of these objections we
shall be forced to demonstrate that really everything here below is
good, if we continue to insist that the sense-world depends on supreme
Intelligence, and that its power penetrates everywhere.


7. To begin with, we must remark that to show that all is good in the
things mingled with matter (and therefore of sense), we must not expect
to find in them the whole perfection of the World which is not soiled
by matter, and is intelligible; nor should we expect to find in that
which holds the second rank characteristics of that which is of the
first. Since the world has a body, we must grant that this body will
have influence on the totality, and expect no more than that Reason
will give it that which this mixed nature was capable of receiving.
For instance, if we were to contemplate the most beautiful man here
below, we would be wrong in believing that he was identical with the
intelligible Man, and inasmuch as he was made of flesh, muscles and
bones, we would have to be satisfied with his having received from
his creator all the perfection that could be communicated to him to
embellish these bones, muscles and flesh, and to make the ("seminal)
reason" in him predominate over the matter within him.


Granting these premises, we may start out on an explanation of the
above mentioned difficulties. For in the world we will find remarkable
traces of the Providence and divine Power from which it proceeds.
Let us take first, the actions of souls who do evil voluntarily; the
actions of the wicked who, for instance, harm virtuous men, or other
men equally evil. Providence need not be held responsible for the
wickedness of these souls. The cause should be sought in the voluntary
determinations of those souls themselves. For we have proved that the
souls have characteristic motions, and that while here below they are
not pure, but rather are animals (as would naturally be the case with
souls united to bodies).[44] Now, it is not surprising that, finding
themselves in such a condition, they would live conformably to that
condition.[45] Indeed, it is not the formation of the world that made
them descend here below. Even before the world existed, they were
already disposed to form part of it, to busy themselves with it, to
infuse it with life, to administer it, and in it to exert their power
in a characteristic manner, either by presiding over its (issues),
and by communicating to it something of their power, or by descending
into it, or by acting in respect to the world each in its individual
manner.[46] The latter question, however, does not refer to the subject
we are now considering; here it will be sufficient to show that,
however these circumstances occur, Providence is not to be blamed.


But how shall we explain the difference that is observed between the
lot of the good and the evil? How can it occur that the former are
poor, while others are rich, and possess more than necessary to satisfy
their needs, being even powerful, and governing cities and nations?
(The Gnostics and Manicheans) think that the sphere of activity of
Providence does not extend down to the earth.[47] No! For all of the
rest (of this world) conforms to (universal) Reason, inasmuch as
animals and plants participate in Reason, Life and Soul. (The Gnostic)
will answer that if Providence do extend to this earth, it does not
predominate therein. As the world is but a single organism, to advance
such an objection is the part of somebody who would assert that the
head and face of man were produced by Nature, and that reason dominated
therein, while the other members were formed by other causes, such as
chance or necessity, and that they were evil either on this account, or
because of the importance of Nature. Wisdom and piety, however, would
forbid the admission that here below not everything was well, blaming
the operation of Providence.


8. It remains for us to explain how sense-objects are good and
participate in the (cosmic) Order; or at least, that they are not
evil. In every animal, the higher parts, such as the face and head,
are the most beautiful, and are not equalled by the middle or lower
parts. Now men occupy the middle and lower region of the universe. In
the higher region we find the heaven containing the divinities; it is
they that fill the greater part of the world, with the vast sphere
where they reside. The earth occupies the centre and seems to be one
of the stars. We are surprised at seeing injustice reigning here below
chiefly because man is regarded as the most venerable and wisest being
in the universe. Nevertheless, this being that is so wise occupies but
the middle place between divinities and animals, at different times
inclining towards the former or the latter. Some men resemble the
divinities, and others resemble animals; but the greater part continue
midway between them.


It is those men who occupy this middle place who are forced to undergo
the rapine and violence of depraved men, who resemble wild beasts.
Though the former are better than those whose violence they suffer,
they are, nevertheless, dominated by them because of inferiority in
other respects, lacking courage, or preparedness.[48] It would be no
more than a laughing matter if children who had strengthened their
bodies by exercise, while leaving their souls inviolate in ignorance,
should in physical struggle conquer those of their companions, who
had exercised neither body nor soul; if they stole their food or soft
clothing. No legislator could hinder the vanquished from bearing the
punishment of their cowardliness and effeminacy, if, neglecting the
gymnastic exercises which had been taught them, they did not, by their
inertia, effeminacy and laziness, fear becoming fattened sheep fit to
be the prey of wolves? They who commit this rapine and violence are
punished therefor first because they thereby become wolves and noxious
beasts, and later because (in this or some subsequent existence) they
necessarily undergo the consequences of their evil actions (as thought
Plato[49]). For men who here below have been evil do not die entirely
(when their soul is separated from their bodies). Now in the things
that are regulated by Nature and Reason, that which follows is always
the result of that which precedes; evil begets evil, just as good
begets good. But the arena of life differs from a gymnasium, where the
struggles are only games. Therefore, the above-mentioned children which
we divided into two classes, after having grown up in ignorance, must
prepare to fight, and take up arms, an display more energy than in the
exercises of the gymnasium. As some, however, are well armed, while the
others are not, the first must inevitably triumph. The divinity must
not fight for the cowardly; for the (cosmic) law decrees that in war
life is saved by valor, and not by prayers.[50] Nor is it by prayers
that the fruits of the earth are obtained; they are produced only by
labor. Nor can one have good health without taking care of it. If
the evil cultivate the earth better, we should not complain of their
reaping a better harvest.[51] Besides, in the ordinary conduct of life,
it is ridiculous to listen only to one's own caprice, doing nothing
that is prescribed by the divinities, limiting oneself exclusively to
demanding one's conservation, without carrying out any of the actions
on which (the divinities) willed that our preservation should depend.


Indeed it would be better to be dead than to live thus in contradiction
with the laws that rule the universe. If, when men are in opposition
to these laws, divine Providence preserved peace in the midst of
all follies and vices, it would deserve the charge of negligence in
allowing the prevalence of evil. The evil rule only because of the
cowardice of those who obey them; this is juster than if it were


9. Nor should the sphere of Providence be extended to the point of
suppressing our own action. For if Providence did everything, and
Providence alone existed, it would thereby be annihilated. To what,
indeed, would it apply? There would be nothing but divinity! It
is indeed incontestable that divinity exists, and that its sphere
extends over other beings--but divinity does not suppress the latter.
For instance, divinity approaches man, and preserves in him what
constitutes humanity; that is, divinity makes him live in conformity
to the law of Providence, and makes him fulfil the commandments of
that law. Now, this law decrees that the life of men who have become
virtuous should be good both here below and after their death; and
that the evil should meet an opposite fate. It would be unreasonable
to expect the existence of men who forget themselves to come and save
the evil, even if the latter addressed prayers to the divinity. Neither
should we expect the divinities to renounce their blissful existence to
come and administer our affairs; nor that the virtuous men, whose life
is holy and superior to human conditions, should be willing to govern
the wicked. The latter never busy themselves with promoting the good
to the governing of other men, and themselves to be good (as thought
Plato[52]). They are even jealous of the man who is good by himself;
there would indeed be more good people if virtuous men were chosen as


Man is therefore not the best being in the universe; according to his
choice he occupies an intermediate rank. In the place he occupies,
however, he is not abandoned by Providence, which ever leads him
back to divine things by the numerous means it possesses to cause
the triumph of virtue. That is the reason why men have never lost
rationality, and why, to some degree, they always participate in
wisdom, intelligence, art, and the justice that regulates their mutual
relations. Even when one wrongs another, he is still given credit
for acting in justice to himself, and he is treated according to his
deserts.[53] Besides, man, as a creature, is handsome, as handsome as
possible, and, by the part he plays in the universe, he is superior to
all the animals that dwell here below.


No one in his senses would complain of the existence of animals
inferior to man, if, besides, they contribute towards the embellishment
of the universe. Would it not be ridiculous to complain that some
of them bite men, as if the latter had an imprescriptible right to
complete security? The existence of these animals is necessary; it
procures us advantages both evident and still unknown, but which will
be revealed in the course of time. Thus there is nothing useless
in animals, either in respect to themselves, or to man.[54] It is,
besides, ridiculous to complain because many animals are wild, when
there are even men who are such; what should surprise us most is that
many animals are not submissive to man, and defend themselves against


10. But if men be evil only in spite of themselves, and involuntarily,
it would be impossible to say that those who commit injustices, and
those who suffer them are responsible (the former for their ferocity,
and the latter for their cowardice.[56] To this we answer that if the
wickedness of the former (as well as the cowardice of the latter) be,
necessarily, produced by the course of the stars, or by the action of
a principle of which it is only the effect, then it is explained by
physical reasons. But if it be the very Reason of the universe that
produces such things, how does it not thereby commit an injustice?


Unjust actions are involuntary only in this sense that one does not
have the will to commit a fault; but this circumstance does not hinder
the spontaneity of the action. However, when one acts spontaneously,
one is responsible for the fault; one would avoid responsibility for
the fault only if one were not the author of the action. To say that
the wicked are such necessarily, does not mean that they undergo
an external constraint, but that their character is constituted by
wickedness. The influence of the course of the stars does not destroy
our liberty, for, if every action in us were determined by the exterior
influence of such agents, everything would go on as these agents
desired it; consequently, men would not commit any actions contrary
to the will of these agents. If the divinities alone were the authors
of all our actions, there would be no impious persons; therefore,
impiety is due to men. It is true that, once the cause is given, the
effects will follow, if only the whole series of causes be given. But
man himself is one of these causes; he therefore does good by his own
nature, and he is a free cause.


11. Is it true that all things are produced by necessity, and by the
natural concatenation of causes and effects, and that, thus, they are
as good as possible? No! It is the Reason which, governing the world,
produces all things (in this sense that it contains all the "seminal
reasons"), and which decrees that they shall be what they are. It is
Reason that, in conformity with its rational nature, produces what
are called evils, because it does not wish everything to be equally
good. An artist would not cover the body of a pictured animal with
eyes.[57] Likewise, Reason did not limit itself to the creation of
divinities; it produced beneath them guardians, then men, then animals,
not by envy (as Plato remarks[58]); but because its rational essence
contains an intellectual variety (that is, contains the "seminal
reasons" of all different beings). We resemble such men as know little
of painting, and who would blame an artist for having put shadows in
his picture; nevertheless, he has only properly disposed the contrasts
of light. Likewise, well-regulated states are not composed of equal
orders. Further, one would not condemn a tragedy, because it presents
personages other than heroes, such as slaves or peasants who speak
incorrectly.[78] To cut out these inferior personages, and all the
parts in which they appear, would be to injure the beauty of the


12. Since it is the Reason (of the world) which produced all things
by an alliance with matter, and by preserving its peculiar nature,
which is to be composed of different parts, and to be determined by
the principle from which it proceeds (that is, by Intelligence), the
work produced by Reason under these conditions could not be improved
in beauty. Indeed, the Reason (of the world) could not be composed of
homogeneous and similar parts; it must, therefore, not be accused,
because it is all things, and because all its parts differ from others.
If it had introduced into the world things which it had not previously
contained, as for instance, souls, and had forced them to enter into
the order of the world without considering their nature, and if it
had made many become degraded, Reason would certainly be to blame.
Therefore, we must acknowledge that the souls are parts of Reason,
and that Reason harmonizes them with the world without causing their
degradation, assigning to each that station which is suitable to her.


13. There is a further consideration that should not be overlooked,
namely: that if you desire to discover the exercise of the distributive
Justice of the divinity, it is not sufficient to examine only the
present; the past and future must also be considered. Those who, in a
former life, were slave-owners, if they abused their power, will be
enslaved; and this change would be useful to them. It impoverishes
those who have badly used their wealth; for poverty is of service
even to virtuous people. Likewise, those who kill will in their turn
be killed; he who commits homicide acts unjustly, but he who is its
victim suffers justly. Thus arises a harmony between the disposition
of the man who is maltreated, and the disposition of him who maltreats
him as he deserved. It is not by chance that a man becomes a slave,
is made prisoner, or is dishonored. He (must himself) have committed
the violence which he in turn undergoes. He who kills his mother will
be killed by his son; he who has violated a woman will in turn become
a woman in order to become the victim of a rape. Hence, the divine
Word[80] called Adrastea.[60] The orderly system here mentioned really
is "unescapeable," truly a justice and an admirable wisdom. From the
things that we see in the universe we must conclude that the order
which reigns in it is eternal, that it penetrates everywhere, even
in the smallest thing; and that it reveals an admirable art not only
in the divine things, but also in those that might be supposed to
be beneath the notice of Providence, on account of their minuteness.
Consequently, there is an admirable variety of art in the vilest
animal. It extends even into plants, whose fruits and leaves are so
distinguished by the beauty of form, whose flowers bloom with so much
grace, which grow so easily, and which offer so much variety. These
things were not produced once for all; they are continually produced
with variety, because the stars in their courses do not always exert
the same influence on things here below. What is transformed is not
transformed and metamorphosed by chance, but according to the laws of
beauty, and the rules of suitability observed by divine powers. Every
divine Power acts according to its nature, that is, in conformity with
its essence. Now its essence is to develop justice and beauty in its
actualizations; for if justice and beauty did not exist here, they
could not exist elsewhere.


14. The order of the universe conforms to divine Intelligence without
implying that on that account its author needed to go through the
process of reasoning. Nevertheless, this order is so perfect that he
who best knows how to reason would be astonished to see that even with
reasoning one could not discover a plan wiser than that discovered as
realized in particular natures, and that this plan better conforms to
the laws of Intelligence than any that could result from reasoning.
It can never, therefore, be proper to find fault with the Reason
that produces all things because of any (alleged imperfections) of
any natural object, nor to claim, for the beings whose existence has
begun, the perfection of the beings whose existence had no beginning,
and which are eternal, both in the intelligible World, and in this
sense-world. That would amount to wishing that every being should
possess more good than it can carry, and to consider as insufficient
the form it received. It would, for instance, amount to complaining,
that man does not bear horns, and to fail to notice that, if Reason had
to spread abroad everywhere, it was still necessary for something great
to contain something less, that in everything there should be parts,
and that these could not equal the whole without ceasing to be parts.
In the intelligible World every thing is all; but here below each thing
is not all things. The individual man does not have the same properties
as the universal Man. For if the individual beings had something which
was not individual, then they would be universal. We should not expect
an individual being as such to possess the highest perfection; for
then it would no longer be an individual being. Doubtless, the beauty
of the part is not incompatible with that of the whole; for the more
beautiful a part is, the more does it embellish the whole. Now the part
becomes more beautiful on becoming similar to the whole, or imitating
its essence, and in conforming to its order. Thus a ray (of the supreme
Intelligence) descends here below upon man, and shines in him like a
star in the divine sky. To imagine the universe, one should imagine a
colossal statue[79] that were perfectly beautiful, animated or formed
by the art of Vulcan, whose ears, face and breast would be adorned with
shimmering stars disposed with marvelous skill.[62]


15. The above considerations suffice for things studied each in itself.
The mutual relation, however, between things already begotten, and
those that are still being begotten from time to time, deserves to
attract attention, and may give rise to some objections, such as the
following: How does it happen that animals devour each other, that
men attack each other mutually, and that they are always in ceaseless
internecine warfare?[62] How could the reason (of the universe) have
constituted such a state of affairs, while still claiming that all is
for the best?


It does not suffice here to answer:[63] "Everything is for the
best possible. Matter is the cause that things are in a state of
inferiority; evils could not be destroyed." It is true enough, indeed,
that things had to be what they are, for they are good. It is not
matter which has come to dominate the universe; it has been introduced
in it so that the universe might be what it is, or rather, it is caused
by reason (?). The principle of things is, therefore, the Logos, or
Reason[64] (of the universe), which is everything. By it were things
begotten, by it were they co-ordinated in generation.


What then (will it be objected) is the necessity of this natural
internecine warfare of animals, and also of men? First, animals have to
devour each other in order to renew themselves; they could not, indeed,
last eternally, even if they were not killed. Is there any reason to
complain because, being already condemned to death, as they are, they
should find an end which is useful to other beings? What objection can
there be to their mutually devouring each other, in order to be reborn
under other forms? It is as if on the stage an actor who is thought to
be killed, goes to change his clothing, and returns under another mask.
Is it objected that he was not really dead? Yes indeed, but dying
is no more than a change of bodies, just as the comedian changes his
costume, or if the body were to be entirely despoiled, this is no more
than when an actor, at the end of a drama, lays aside his costume, only
to take it up again when once more the drama begins. Therefore, there
is nothing frightful in the mutual transformation of animals into each
other. Is it not better for them to have lived under this condition,
than never to have lived at all? Life would then be completely absent
from the universe, and life could no longer be communicated to other
beings. But as this universe contains a multiple life, it produces
and varies everything during the course of its existence; as it were
joking with them, it never ceases to beget living beings, remarkable
by beauty and by the proportion of their forms. The combats in which
mortal men continually fight against each other, with a regularity
strongly reminding of the Pyrrhic dances (as thought Plato[65]),
clearly show how all these affairs, that are considered so serious, are
only children's games, and that their death was nothing serious. To die
early in wars and battles is to precede by only a very little time the
unescapable fate of old age, and it is only an earlier departure for
a closer return. We may be comforted for the loss of our possessions
during our lifetime by observing that they have belonged to others
before us, and that, for those who have deprived us thereof, they form
but a very fragile possession, since they, in turn, will be bereft
thereof by others; and that, if they be not despoiled of their riches,
they will lose still more by keeping them.[66] Murders, massacres, the
taking and pillaging of towns should be considered as in the theatre we
consider changes of scene and of personages, the tears and cries of the


In this world, indeed, just as in the theatre, it is not the soul,
the interior man, but his shadow, the exterior man, who gives himself
up to lamentations and groans, who on this earth moves about so much,
and who makes of it the scene of an immense drama with numberless
different acts (?) Such is the characteristic of the actions of a man
who considers exclusively the things placed at his feet, and outside
of him, and who does not know that his tears and serious occupations
are any more than games.[68] The really earnest man occupies himself
seriously only with really serious affairs, while the frivolous man
applies himself to frivolous things. Indeed, frivolous things become
serious for him who does not know really serious occupations, and
who himself is frivolous. If, indeed, one cannot help being mixed up
in this child's play, it is just as well to know that he has fallen
into child's play where one's real personality is not in question. If
Socrates were to mingle in these games, it would only be his exterior
man who would do so. Let us add that tears and groans do not prove that
the evils we are complaining of are very real evils; for often children
weep and lament over imaginary grievances.


16. If the above considerations be true, what about wickedness,
injustice, and sin? For if everything be well, how can there be
agents who are unjust, and who sin? If no one be unjust, or sinful,
how can unhappy men exist? How can we say that certain things conform
to nature, while others are contrary thereto, if everything that is
begotten, or that occurs, conforms to nature? Last, would that point
of view not do away entirely with impiety towards the divinity, if it
be the divinity that makes things such as they are, if the divinity
resemble a poet, who would in his drama introduce a character whose
business it was to ridicule and criticize the author?


Let us, therefore, more clearly define the Reason (of the universe),
and let us demonstrate that it should be what it is. To reach our
conclusion more quickly, let us grant the existence of this Reason.
This Reason (of the universe) is not pure, absolute Intelligence.
Neither is it the pure Soul, but it depends therefrom. It is a ray of
light that springs both from Intelligence and from the Soul united to
Intelligence. These two principles beget Reason, that is, a rational
quiet life.[69] Now all life is an actualization, even that which
occupies the lowest rank. But the actualization (which constitutes
the life of Reason) is not similar to the actualization of fire. The
actualization of the life (peculiar to Reason), even without feeling,
is not a blind movement. All things that enjoy the presence of Reason,
and which participate therein in any manner soever, immediately receive
a rational disposition, that is, a form; for the actualization which
constitutes the life (of the Reason) can impart its forms, and for that
actualization motion is to form beings. Its movement, like that of a
dancer, is, therefore, full of art. A dancer, indeed, gives us the
image of that life full of art; it is the art that moves it, because
the art itself is its life. All this is said to explain the nature of
life, whatever it be.


As reason proceeds from Intelligence and Life, which possesses both
fulness and unity, Reason does not possess the unity and fulness of
Intelligence and Life. Consequently, Reason does not communicate the
totality and universality of its essence to the beings to which it
imparts itself. It, therefore, opposes its parts to each other, and
creates them defective; whereby, Reason constitutes and begets war and
struggle. Thus Reason is the universal unity, because it could not be
the absolute unity. Though reason imply struggle, because it consists
of parts, it also implies unity and harmony. It resembles the reason of
a drama, whose unity contains many diversities. In a drama, however,
the harmony of the whole results from its component contraries being
co-ordinated in the unity of action, while, in universal Reason, it is
from unity that the struggle of contraries arises. That is why we may
well compare universal Reason to the harmony formed by contrary sounds,
and to examine why the reasons of the beings also contain contraries.
In a concert, these reasons produce low and high sounds, and, by
virtue of the harmony, that constitutes their essence, they make these
divers sounds contribute to unity, that is, to Harmony[70] itself,
the supreme Reason of which they are only parts.[71] In the same way
we must consider other oppositions in the universe, such as black and
white, heat and cold, winged or walking animals, and reasonable and
irrational beings. All these things are parts of the single universal
Organism. Now if the parts of the universal Organism were often in
mutual disagreement, the universal Organism, nevertheless, remains
in perfect accord with itself because it is universal, and it is
universal by the Reason that inheres in it. The unity of this Reason
must therefore be composed of opposite reasons, because their very
opposition somehow constitutes its essence. If the Reason (of the
world) were not multiple, it would no longer be universal, and would
not even exist any longer. Since it exists, Reason must, therefore,
contain within itself some difference; and the greatest difference is
opposition. Now if Reason contain a difference, and produce different
things, the difference that exists in these things is greater than that
which exists in Reason. Now difference carried to the highest degree is
opposition. Therefore, to be perfect, Reason must from its very essence
produce things not only different, but even opposed.


17. If Reason thus from its essence produce opposed things, the
things it will produce will be so much the more opposed as they are
more separated from each other. The sense-world is less unitary than
its Reason, and consequently, it is more manifold, containing more
oppositions. Thus, in individuals, the love of life has greater force;
selfishness is more powerful in them; and often, by their avidity,
they destroy what they love, when they love what is perishable. The
love which each individual has for himself, makes him appropriate all
he can in his relations with the universe. Thus the good and evil are
led to do opposite things by the Art that governs the universe; just
as a choric ballet would be directed. One part is good, the other
poor; but the whole is good. It might be objected that in this case no
evil person will be left. Still, nothing hinders the existence of the
evil; only they will not be such as they would be taken by themselves.
Besides, this will be a motive of leniency in regard to them, unless
Reason should decide that this leniency be not deserved, thereby making
it impossible.[72]


Besides, if this world contain both bad and good people, and if the
latter play the greater part in the world, there will take place
that which is seen in dramas where the poet, at times, imposes his
ideas on the actors, and again at others relies on their ingenuity.
The obtaining of the first, second or third rank by an actor does
not depend on the poet. The poet only assigns to each the part he is
capable of filling, and assigns to him a suitable place. Likewise (in
the world), each one occupies his assigned place, and the bad man, as
well as the good one, has the place that suits him. Each one, according
to his nature and character, comes to occupy the place that suits him,
and that he had chosen, and then speaks and acts with piety if he be
good, and impiously, if he be evil. Before the beginning of the drama,
the actors already had their proper characters; they only developed
it. In dramas composed by men, it is the poet who assigns their parts
to the actors; and the latter are responsible only for the efficiency
or inefficiency of their acting; for they have nothing to do but
repeat the words of the poet. But in this drama (of life), of which
men imitate certain parts when their nature is poetic, it is the soul
that is the actor. This actor receives his part from the creator, as
stage-actors receive from the poet their masks, garments, their purple
robe, or their rags. Thus in the drama of the world it is not from
chance that the soul receives her part.


Indeed, the fate of a soul conforms to her character, and, by going
through with her part properly, the soul fulfils her part in the drama
managed by universal Reason. The soul sings her part, that is, she
does that which is in her nature to do. If her voice and features be
beautiful, by themselves, they lend charm to the poem, as would be
natural. Otherwise they introduce a displeasing element, but which
does not alter the nature of the work.[73] The author of the drama
reprimands the bad actor as the latter may deserve it, and thus fulfils
the part of a good judge. He increases the dignity of the good actor,
and, if possible, invites him to play beautiful pieces, while he
relegates the bad actor to inferior pieces. Likewise, the soul which
takes part in the drama of which the world is the theatre, and which
has undertaken a part in it, brings with her a disposition to play well
or badly. At her arrival she is classed with the other actors, and
after having been allotted to all the various gifts of fortune without
any regard for her personality or activities, she is later punished or
rewarded. Such actors have something beyond usual actors; they appear
on a greater scene; the creator of the universe gives them some of his
power, and grants them the freedom to choose between a great number of
places. The punishments and rewards are so determined that the souls
themselves run to meet them, because each soul occupies a place in
conformity with her character, and is thus in harmony with the Reason
of the universe.[74]


Every individual, therefore, occupies, according to justice, the
place he deserves, just as each string of the lyre is fixed to the
place assigned to it by the nature of the sounds it is to render. In
the universe everything is good and beautiful if every being occupy
the place he deserves, if, for instance, he utter discordant sounds
when in darkness and Tartarus; for such sounds fit that place. If the
universe is to be beautiful, the individual must not behave "like a
stone" in it; he must contribute to the unity of the universal harmony
by uttering the sound suitable to him (as thought Epictetus[75]). The
sound that the individual utters is the life he leads, a life which is
inferior in greatness, goodness and power (to that of the universe).
The shepherd's pipe utters several sounds, and the weakest of them,
nevertheless, contributes to the total Harmony, because this harmony
is composed of unequal sounds whose totality constitutes a perfect
harmony. Likewise, universal Reason though one, contains unequal parts.
Consequently, the universe contains different places, some better, and
some worse, and their inequality corresponds to the inequality of the
soul. Indeed, as both places and souls are different, the souls that
are different find the places that are unequal, like the unequal parts
of the pipe, or any other musical instrument. They inhabit different
places, and each utters sounds proper to the place where they are, and
to the universe. Thus what is bad for the individual may be good for
the totality; what is against nature in the individual agrees with the
nature in the whole. A sound that is feeble does not change the harmony
of the universe, as--to use another example--one bad citizen does not
change the nature of a well-regulated city; for often there is need of
such a man in a city; he therefore fits it well.


18. The difference that exists between souls in respect to vice and
virtue has several causes; among others, the inequality that exists
between souls from the very beginning. This inequality conforms to the
essence of universal Reason, of which they are unequal parts, because
they differ from each other. We must indeed remember that souls have
three ranks (the intellectual, rational, and sense lives), and that
the same soul does not always exercise the same faculties. But, to
explain our meaning, let us return to our former illustration. Let
us imagine actors who utter words not written by the poet; as if the
drama were incomplete, they themselves supply what is lacking, and fill
omissions made by the poet. They seem less like actors than like parts
of the poet, who foresaw what they were to say, so as to reattach the
remainder so far as it was in his power.[76] In the universe, indeed,
all things that are the consequences and results of bad deeds are
produced by reasons, and conform to the universal Reason. Thus, from
an illicit union, or from a rape, may be born natural children that
may become very distinguished men; likewise, from cities destroyed by
perverse individuals, may rise other flourishing cities.


It might indeed be objected that it is absurd to introduce into the
world souls some of which do good, and others evil; for when we
absolve universal Reason from the responsibility of evil, we are also
simultaneously taking from it the merit for the good. What, however,
hinders us from considering deeds done by actors as parts of a drama,
in the universe as well as on the stage, and thus to derive from
universal Reason both the good and the evil that are done here below?
For universal Reason exercises its influence on each of the actors
with so much the greater force as the drama is more perfect, and as
everything depends on it.[77]


But why should we at all impute evil deeds to universal Reason? The
souls contained in the universe will not be any more divine for that.
They will still remain parts of the universal Reason (and consequently,
remain souls): for we shall have to acknowledge that all reasons are
souls. Otherwise if the Reason of the universe be a Soul, why should
certain "reasons" be souls, and others only ("seminal) reasons"?


Continuation of That on Providence.


1. The question (why some reasons are souls, while others are reasons
merely, when at the same time universal Reason is a certain Soul),
may be answered as follows. Universal Reason (which proceeds from the
universal Soul) embraces both good and bad things, which equally belong
to its parts; it does not engender them, but exists with them in its
universality. In fact, these "logoses" (or reasons) (or, particular
souls), are the acts of the universal Soul; and these reasons being
parts (of the universal Soul) have parts (of the operations) as their
acts (or energies). Therefore, just as the universal Soul, which
is one, has different parts, so this difference occurs again in
the reasons and in the operations they effect. Just as their works
(harmonize), so do the souls themselves mutually harmonize; they
harmonize in this, that their very diversity, or even opposition, forms
an unity. By a natural necessity does everything proceed from, and
return to unity; thus creatures which are different, or even opposed,
are not any the less co-ordinated in the same system, and that because
they proceed from the same principle. Thus horses or human beings are
subsumed under the unity of the animal species, even though animals of
any kind, such as horses, for example, bite each other, and struggle
against each other with a jealousy which rises to fury; and though
animals of either species, including man, do as much. Likewise, with
inanimate things; they form divers species, and should likewise be
subsumed under the genus of inanimate things; and, if you go further,
to essence, and further still, to super-Essence (the One). Having
thus related or subsumed everything to this principle, let us again
descend, by dividing it. We shall see unity splitting, as it penetrates
and embraces everything simultaneously in a unique (or all-embracing
system). Thus divided, the unity constitutes a multiple organism; each
of its constituent parts acts according to its nature, without ceasing
to form part of the universal Being; thus is it that the fire burns,
the horse behaves as a horse should, and men perform deeds as various
as their characters. In short, every being acts, lives well or badly,
according to its own nature.


2. Circumstances, therefore, are not decisive of human fortune; they
themselves only derive naturally from superior principles, and result
from the mutual concatenation of all things. This concatenation,
however, derives from the (Stoic) "predominant (element in the
universe"), and every being contributes to it according to its nature;
just as, in an army, the general commands, and the soldiers carry out
his orders cooperatively. In the universe, in fact, everything has been
strategically ordered by Providence, like a general, who considers
everything, both actions and experiences,[81] victuals and drink,
weapons and implements, arranging everything so that every detail finds
its suitable location. Thus nothing happens which fails to enter into
the general's plan, although his opponents' doings remain foreign to
his influence, and though he cannot command their army. If indeed,
Providence were[82] "the great Chief over all," to whom the universe
is subordinated, what could have disarranged His plans, and could have
failed to be intimately associated therewith?


3. Although I am able to make any desired decision, nevertheless my
decision enters into the plan of the universe, because my nature has
not been introduced into this plan subsequently; but it includes me and
my character. But whence originates my character? This includes two
points: is the cause of any man's character to be located in Him who
formed him, or in that man himself? Must we, on the other hand, give
up seeking its cause? Surely: just as it is hopeless to ask why plants
have no sensation, or why animals are not men; it would be the same as
asking why men are not gods. Why should we complain that men do not
have a more perfect nature, if in the case of plants and animals nobody
questions or accuses either these beings themselves, nor the power
which has made them? (This would be senseless, for two reasons): if we
say that they might have been better, we are either speaking of the
qualities which each of them is capable of acquiring by himself; and
in this case we should blame only him who has not acquired them--or,
we are speaking of those qualities which he should derive not from
himself, but from the Creator, in which case it would be as absurd to
claim for man more qualities than he has received, than it would be to
do so in the case of plants or animals. What we should examine is not
if one being be inferior to another, but if it be complete within its
own sphere; for evidently natural inequalities are unavoidable. This
again depends on conformity to nature, not that inequalities depend on
the will of the principle which has regulated all things.


The Reason of the Universe, indeed, proceeds from the universal Soul;
and the latter, in turn, proceeds from Intelligence. Intelligence,
however, is not a particular being; it consists of all (intelligible
beings),[83] and all the beings form a plurality. Now, a plurality of
being implies mutual differences between them, consisting of first,
second and third ranks. Consequently, the souls of engendered animals
are rather degradations of souls, seeming to have grown weaker by
their procession. The (generating) reason of the animal, indeed,
although it be animated, is a soul other than that from which proceeds
universal Reason. This Reason itself loses excellence in the degree
that it hastens down to enter into matter, and what it produces is
less perfect. Nevertheless, we may well consider how admirable a work
is the creature, although it be so far distant from the creator. We
should, therefore, not attribute to the creator the (imperfections of
the) creature; for any principle is superior to its product. So we may
assert that (the principle even of imperfect things) is perfect; and,
(instead of complaining), we should rather admire His communication of
some traits of His power to beings dependent from Him. We have even
reason to be more than grateful for His having given gifts greater
than they can receive or assimilate; and as the gifts of Providence
are superabundant, we can find the cause (of imperfection) only in the
creatures themselves.


4. If man were simple--that is, if he were no more than what he had
been created, and if all his actions and passions derived from the
same principle--we would no more exercise our reason to complain for
his behoof than we have to complain for that of other animals. But
we do have something to blame in the man, and that in the perverted
man. We have good grounds for this blame, because man is not only that
which he was created, but has, besides, another principle which is
free (intelligence, with reason). This free principle, however, is not
outside of Providence, and the Reason of the universe, any more than
it would be reasonable to suppose that the things above depended on
the things here below. On the contrary, it is superior things which
shed their radiance on inferior ones, and this is the cause of the
perfection of Providence. As to the Reason of the universe, it itself
is double also; one produces things, while the other unites generated
things to intelligible ones. Thus are constituted two providences: a
superior one, from above (intellectual Reason, the principal power of
the soul[84]), and an inferior one, the (natural and generative power,
called) reason, which derives from the first; and from both results the
concatenation of things, and universal Providence (or, Providence, and


Men (therefore, not being only what they were made) possess another
principle (free intelligence with reason); but not all make use of
all the principles they possess; some make use of the one principle
(their intelligence), while others make use of the other (principle
of reason), or even of the lower principle (of imagination and
sensation).[85] All these principles are present in the man, even
when they do not react on him; and even in this case, they are not
inert; each fulfils its peculiar office; only they do not all act
simultaneously upon him (or, are not perceived by his consciousness).
It may seem difficult to understand how this may be the case with all
of them present, and it might seem easier to consider them absent;
but they are present in us, in the sense that we lack none of them;
although we might consider them absent in the sense that a principle
that does not react on a man might be considered absent from him. It
might be asked why these principles do not react on all men, since
they are part of them? We might, referring chiefly to this (free,
intelligent, reasonable) principle, say that first, it does not belong
to animals; second, it is not even (practiced) by all men. If it be not
present in all men, so much the more is it not alone in them, because
the being in whom this principle alone is present lives according to
this principle, and lives according to other principles only so far as
he is compelled by necessity. The cause (which hinders intelligence
and reason from dominating us) will have to be sought in the (Stoic)
substrate of the man, either because our corporeal constitution
troubles the superior principle (of reason and intelligence), or
because of the predominance of our passions.

(After all), we have not yet reached any conclusion, because this
substrate of man is composed of two elements: the ("seminal)
reason,"[86] and matter; (and either of them might be the cause). At
first blush, it would seem that the cause (of the predominance of our
lower natures) must be sought in matter, rather than in the ("seminal)
reason"; and that which dominates in us is not ("seminal) reason," but
matter and organized substrate. This, however, is not the case. What
plays the part of substrate in respect of the superior principle (of
free intelligence and reason), is both the ("seminal) reason," and that
which is generated thereby, conforming to that reason; consequently,
the predominant element in us is not matter, any more than our
corporeal constitution.


Besides, our individual characters might be derived from
pre-existences. In this case we would say that our ("seminal) reason"
has degenerated as a result of our antecedents, that our soul has lost
her force by irradiating what was below her. Besides, our ("seminal)
reason" contains within itself the very reason of our constituent
matter, a matter which it discovered, or conformed to its own
nature.[87] In fact, the ("seminal) reason" of an ox resides in no
matter other than that of an ox. Thus, as said (Plato[88]), the soul
finds herself destined to pass into the bodies of animals other than
men, because, just like the ("seminal) reason," she has altered, and
has become such as to animate an ox, instead of a man. By this decree
of divine justice she becomes still worse than she was.


But why did the soul ever lose her way, or deteriorate? We have often
said that not all souls belong to the first rank; some belong to a
second, or even third rank, and who, consequently, are inferior to
those of the first. Further, leaving the right road may be caused
by a trifling divergence. Third, the approximation of two differing
things produces a combination which may be considered a third
somewhat, different from the other two components. (Thus even in
this new element, or "habituation") the being does not lose the
qualities he received with his existence; if he be inferior, he has
been created inferior from the very origin; it is what he was created,
he is inferior by the very virtue of his nature; if he suffer the
consequences thereof, he suffers them justly. Fourth, we must allow for
our anterior existence, because everything that happens to us to-day
results from our antecedents.


5. From first to last Providence descends from on high, communicating
its gifts not according to the law of an equality that would be
numeric, but proportionate, varying its operations according to
locality (or occasion). So, in the organization of an animal, from
beginning to end, everything is related; every member has its peculiar
function, superior or inferior, according to the rank it occupies; it
has also its peculiar passions, passions which are in harmony with
its nature, and the place it occupies in the system of things. So,
for instance, a blow excites responses that differ according to the
organ that received it; the vocal organ will produce a sound; another
organ will suffer in silence, or execute a movement resultant from
that passion; now, all sounds, actions and passions form in the animal
the unity of sound, life and existence.[89] The parts, being various,
play different roles; thus there are differing functions for the feet,
the eyes, discursive reason, and intelligence. But all things form
one unity, relating to a single Providence, so that destiny governs
what is below, and providence reigns alone in what is on high. In
fact, all that lies in the intelligible world is either rational or
super-rational, namely: Intelligence and pure Soul. What derives
therefrom constitutes Providence, as far as it derives therefrom, as
it is in pure Soul, and thence passes into the animals. Thence arises
(universal) Reason, which, being distributed in unequal parts, produces
things unequal, such as the members of an animal. As consequences from
Providence are derived the human deeds which are agreeable to the
divinity. All such actions are related (to the plan of Providence);
they are not done by Providence; but when a man, or another animate or
inanimate being performs some deeds, these, if there be any good in
them, enter into the plan of Providence, which everywhere establishes
virtue, and amends or corrects errors. Thus does every animal maintain
its bodily health by the kind of providence within him; on the occasion
of a cut or wound the ("seminal) reason" which administers the body of
this animal immediately draws (the tissues) together, and forms scars
over the flesh, re-establishes health, and invigorates the members that
have suffered.


Consequently, our evils are the consequences (of our actions); they are
its necessary effects, not that we are carried away by Providence, but
in the sense that we obey an impulsion whose principle is in ourselves.
We ourselves then indeed try to reattach our acts to the plan of
Providence, but we cannot conform their consequences to its will; our
acts, therefore, conform either to our will, or to other things in
the universe, which, acting on us, do not produce in us an affection
conformed to the intentions of Providence. In fact, the same cause does
not act identically on different beings, for the effects experienced
by each differ according to their nature. Thus Helena causes emotions
in Paris which differ from those of Idumeneus.[90] Likewise, the
handsome man produces on a handsome man an effect different from that
of the intemperate man on the intemperate; the handsome and temperate
man acts differently on the handsome and temperate man than on the
intemperate; and than the intemperate on himself. The deed done by
the intemperate man is done neither by Providence, nor according to
Providence.[91] Neither is the deed done by the temperate man done by
Providence; since he does it himself; but it conforms to Providence,
because it conforms to the Reason (of the universe). Thus, when a man
has done something good for his health, it is he himself who has done
it, but he thereby conforms to the reason of the physician; for it is
the physician who teaches him, by means of his art, what things are
healthy or unhealthy; but when a man has done something injurious to
his health, it is he himself who has done it, and he does it against
the providence of the physician.


6. If then (the bad things do not conform to Providence), the diviners
and astrologers predict evil things only by the concatenation which
occurs between contraries, between form and matter, for instance, in a
composite being. Thus in contemplating the form and ("seminal) reason"
one is really contemplating the being which receives the form; for one
does not contemplate in the same way the intelligible animal, and the
composite animal; what one contemplates in the composite animal is the
("seminal) reason" which gives form to what is inferior. Therefore,
since the world is an animal, when one contemplates its occurrences,
one is really contemplating the causes that make them arise, the
Providence which presides over them, and whose action extends in an
orderly manner to all beings and events; that is, to all animals, their
actions and dispositions, which are dominated by Reason and mingled
with necessity. We thus contemplate what has been mingled since the
beginning, and what is still continually mingled. In this mixture,
consequently, it is impossible to distinguish Providence from what
conforms thereto, nor what derives from the substrate (that is, from
matter, and which, consequently, is deformed, and evil). This is not
a human task, not even of a man who might be wise or divine; such a
privilege can be ascribed only to God.


In fact, the function of the diviner is not to distinguish the cause,
but the fact; his art consists in reading the characters traced by
nature, and which invariably indicate the order and concatenation of
facts; or rather, in studying the signs of the universal movement,
which designate the character of each being before its revelation in
himself. All beings, in fact, exercise upon each other a reciprocal
influence, and concur together in the constitution and perpetuity of
the world.[92] To him who studies, analogy reveals the march of events,
because all kinds of divination are founded on its laws; for things
were not to depend on each other, but to have relations founded on
their resemblance.[93] This no doubt is that which[94] is meant by the
expression that "analogy embraces everything."


Now, what is this analogy? It is a relation between the worse and the
worse, the better and the better, one eye and the other, one foot and
the other, virtue and justice, vice and injustice. The analogy which
reigns in the universe is then that which makes divination possible.
The influence which one being exercises on another conforms to the
laws of influence which the members of the universal Organism must
exercise upon each other. The one does not produce the other; for all
are generated together; but each is affected according to its nature,
each in its own manner. This constitutes the unity of the Reason of the


7. It is only because there are good things in the world, that there
are worse ones. Granting the conception of variety, how could the
worse exist without the better, or the better without the worse? We
should not, therefore, accuse the better because of the existence of
the worse; but rather we should rejoice in the presence of the better,
because it communicates a little of its perfection to the worse. To
wish to annihilate the worse in the world is tantamount to annihilating
Providence itself;[95] for if we annihilate the worse, to what could
Providence be applied? Neither to itself, nor to the better; for when
we speak of supreme Providence, we call it supreme in contrast with
that which is inferior to it.


Indeed, the (supreme) Principle is that to which all other things
relate, that in which they all simultaneously exist, thus constituting
the totality. All things proceed from the Principle, while it remains
wrapt in itself. Thus, from a single root, which remains wrapt in
itself, issue a host of parts, each of which offers the image of their
root under a different form. Some of them touch the root; others
trend away from it, dividing and subdividing down to the branches,
twigs, leaves and fruits; some abide permanently (like the branches);
others swirl in a perpetual flux, like the leaves and fruits. These
latter parts which swirl in a perpetual flux contain within themselves
the ("seminal) reasons" of the parts from which they proceed (and
which abide permanently); they themselves seem disposed to be little
miniature trees; if they engendered before perishing, they would
engender only that which is nearest to them. As to the parts (which
abide permanently), and which are hollow, such as the branches, they
receive from the root the sap which is to fill them; for they have
a nature different (from that of the leaves, flowers, and fruits).
Consequently, it is the branches' extremities that experience
"passions" (or modifications) which they seem to derive only from the
contiguous parts. The parts contiguous to the Root are passive on one
end, and active on the other; but the Principle itself is related to
all. Although all the parts issue from the same Principle,[96] yet they
differ from each other more as they are more distant from the root.
Such would be the mutual relations of two brothers who resemble each
other because they are born from the same parents.


The Self-Consciousnesses, and What is Above Them.[97]


1. Must thought, and self-consciousness imply being composed of
different parts, and on their mutual contemplation? Must that which is
absolutely simple be unable to turn towards itself, to know itself? ls
it, on the contrary, possible that for that which is not composite to
know itself? Self-consciousness, indeed, does not necessarily result
from a thing's knowing itself because it is composite, and that one of
its parts grasps the other; as, for instance, by sensation we perceive
the form and nature of our body. In this case the whole will not be
known, unless the part that knows the others to which it is united also
knows itself; otherwise, we would find the knowledge of one entity,
through another, instead of one entity through itself.


While, therefore, asserting that a simple principle does know itself,
we must examine into the possibility of this.[98] Otherwise, we would
have to give up hope of real self-knowledge. But to resign this would
imply many absurdities; for if it be absurd to deny that the soul
possesses self-knowledge, it would be still more absurd to deny it of
intelligence. How could intelligence have knowledge of other beings,
if it did not possess the knowledge and science of itself? Indeed,
exterior things are perceived by sensation, and even, if you insist, by
discursive reason and opinion; but not by intelligence. It is indeed
worth examining whether intelligence does, or does not have knowledge
of such external things. Evidently, intelligible entities are known
by intelligence. Does intelligence limit itself to knowledge of these
entities, or does it, while knowing intelligible entities, also know
itself? In this case, does it know that it knows only intelligible
entities, without being able to know what itself is? While knowing that
it knows what belongs to it, is it unable to know what itself, the
knower, is? Or can it at the same time know what belongs to it, and
also know itself? Then how does this knowledge operate, and how far
does it go? This is what we must examine.


2. Let us begin by a consideration of the soul. Does she possess
self-consciousness? By what faculty? And how does she acquire it? It
is natural for the sense-power to deal only with exterior objects; for
even in the case in which it feels occurrences in the body, it is still
perceiving things that are external to it, since it perceives passions
experienced by the body over which it presides.[99]


Besides the above, the soul possesses the discursive reason, which
judges of sense-representations, combining and dividing them. Under
the form of images, she also considers the conceptions received from
intelligence, and operates on these images as on images furnished by
sensation. Finally, she still is the power of understanding, since
she distinguishes the new images from the old, and harmonizes them by
comparing them; whence, indeed, our reminiscences are derived.


That is the limit of the intellectual power of the soul. Is it,
besides, capable of turning upon itself, and cognizing itself, or
must this knowledge be sought for only within intelligence? If we
assign this knowledge to the intellectual part of the soul; we will
be making an intelligence out of it; and we will then have to study
in what it differs from the superior Intelligence. If again, we
refuse this knowledge to this part of the soul, we will, by reason,
rise to Intelligence, and we will have to examine the nature of
self-consciousness. Further, if we attribute this knowledge both to
the inferior and to the superior intelligences, we shall have to
distinguish self-consciousness according as it belongs to the one
or to the other; for if there were no difference between these two
kinds of intelligence, discursive reason would be identical with pure
Intelligence. Does discursive reason, therefore, turn upon itself?
Or does it limit itself to the comprehension of the types received
from both (sense and intelligence); and, in the latter case, how does
it achieve such comprehension? This latter question is the one to be
examined here.


3. Now let us suppose that the senses have perceived a man, and have
furnished an appropriate image thereof to discursive reason. What will
the latter say? It may say nothing, limiting itself to taking notice
of him. However, it may also ask itself who this man is; and, having
already met him, with the aid of memory, decide that he is Socrates. If
then discursive reason develop the image of Socrates, then it divides
what imagination has furnished. If discursive reason add that Socrates
is good, it still deals with things known by the senses; but that which
it asserts thereof, namely, his goodness, it has drawn from itself,
because within itself it possesses the rule of goodness. But how does
it, within itself, possess goodness? Because it conforms to the Good,
and receives the notion of it from the Intelligence that enlightens
itself; for (discursive reason), this part of the soul, is pure, and
receives impressions from Intelligence.[101]


But why should this whole (soul-) part that is superior to sensation
be assigned to the soul rather than to intelligence? Because the power
of the soul consists in reasoning, and because all these operations
belong to the discursive reason. But why can we not simply assign to
it, in addition, self-consciousness, which would immediately clear
up this inquiry? Because the nature of discursive reason consists in
considering exterior things, and in scrutinizing their diversity, while
to intelligence we attribute the privilege of contemplating itself, and
of contemplating its own contents. But what hinders discursive reason,
by some other faculty of the soul, from considering what belongs to
it? Because, in this case, instead of discursive reason and reasoning,
we would have pure Intelligence. But what then hinders the presence
of pure Intelligence within the soul? Nothing, indeed. Shall we then
have a right to say that pure Intelligence is a part of the soul? No
indeed; but still we would have the right to call it "ours." It is
different from, and higher than discursive reason; and still it is
"ours," although we cannot count it among the parts of the soul. In one
respect it is "ours," and in another, is not "ours;" for at times we
make use of it, and at other times we make use of discursive reason;
consequently, intelligence is "ours" when we make use of it; and it
is not "ours" when we do not make use of it. But what is the meaning
of "making use of intelligence"? Does it mean becoming intelligence,
and speaking in that character, or does it mean speaking in conformity
with intelligence? For we are not intelligence; we speak in conformity
with intelligence by the first part of discursive reason, the part that
receives impressions from Intelligence. We feel through sensation, and
it is we who feel. Is it also we who conceive and who simultaneously
are conceived? Or is it we who reason, and who conceive the
intellectual notions which enlighten discursive reason? We are indeed
essentially constituted by discursive reason. The actualizations of
Intelligence are superior to us, while those of sensation are inferior;
as to us, "we" are the principal part of the soul, the part that forms
a middle power between these two extremes, now lowering ourselves
towards sensation, now rising towards Intelligence.[102] We acknowledge
sensibility to be ours because we are continually feeling. It is not
as evident that intelligence is ours, because we do not make use of it
continuously, and because it is separated, in this sense, that it is
not intelligence that inclines towards us, but rather we who raise our
glances towards intelligence. Sensation is our messenger, Intelligence
is our king.[99]


4. We ourselves are kings when we think in conformity with
intelligence. This, however, can take place in two ways. Either
we have received from intelligence the impressions and rules which
are, as it were, engraved within us, so that we are, so to speak,
filled with intelligence; or we can have the perception and intuition
of it, because it is present with us. When we see intelligence, we
recognize that by contemplation of it we ourselves are grasping other
intelligible entities. This may occur in two ways; either because,
by the help of this very power, we grasp the power which cognizes
intelligible entities; or because we ourselves become intelligence.
The man who thus knows himself is double. Either he knows discursive
reason, which is characteristic of the soul, or, rising to a superior
condition, he cognizes himself and is united with intelligence. Then,
by intelligence, that man thinks himself; no more indeed as being man,
but as having become superior to man, as having been transported into
the intelligible Reason, and drawing thither with himself the best part
of the soul, the one which alone is capable of taking flight towards
thought, and of receiving the fund of knowledge resulting from his
intuition. But does discursive reason not know that it is discursive
reason, and that its domain is the comprehension of external objects?
Does it not, while doing so, know that it judges? Does it not know that
it is judging by means of the rules derived from intelligence, which
itself contains? Does it not know that above it is a principle which
possesses intelligible entities, instead of seeking (merely) to know
them? But what would this faculty be if it did not know what it is,
and what its functions are? It knows, therefore, that it depends on
intelligence, that it is inferior to intelligence, and that it is the
image of intelligence, that it contains the rules of intelligence as
it were engraved within itself, such as intelligence engraves them, or
rather, has engraved them on it.


Will he who thus knows himself content himself therewith? Surely
not. Exercising a further faculty, we will have the intuition of
the intelligence that knows itself; or, seizing it, inasmuch as it
is "ours" and we are "its," we will thus cognize intelligence, and
know ourselves. This is necessary for our knowledge of what, within
intelligence, self-consciousness is. The man becomes intelligence when,
abandoning his other faculties, he by intelligence sees Intelligence,
and he sees himself in the same manner that Intelligence sees itself.


5. Does pure Intelligence know itself by contemplating one of its
parts by means of another part? Then one part will be the subject, and
another part will be the object of contemplation; intelligence will
not know itself. It may be objected that if intelligence be a whole
composed of absolutely similar parts, so that the subject and the
object of contemplation will not differ from each other; then, by the
virtue of this similitude, on seeing one of its parts with which it is
identical, intelligence will see itself; for, in this case, the subject
does not differ from the object. To begin with, it is absurd to suppose
that intelligence is divided into several parts. How, indeed, would
such a division be carried out? Not by chance, surely. Who will carry
it out? Will it be the subject or object? Then, how would the subject
know itself if, in contemplation, it located itself in the object,
since contemplation does not belong to that which is the object?
Will it know itself as object rather than as subject? In that case
it will not know itself completely and in its totality (as subject
and object); for what it sees is the object, and not the subject of
contemplation; it sees not itself, but another. In order to attain
complete knowledge of itself it will, besides, have to see itself
as subject; now, if it see itself as subject, it will, at the same
time, have to see the contemplated things. But is it the (Stoic[104])
"types" (or impressions) of things, or the things themselves, that
are contained in the actualization of contemplation? If it be these
impressions, we do not possess the things themselves. If we do possess
these things, it is not because we separate ourselves (into subject
and object). Before dividing ourselves in this way, we already saw and
possessed these things. Consequently, contemplation must be identical
with that which is contemplated, and intelligence must be identical
with the intelligible. Without this identity, we will never possess
the truth. Instead of possessing realities, we will never possess any
more than their impressions, which will differ from the realities;
consequently, this will not be the truth. Truth, therefore, must not
differ from its object; it must be what it asserts.


On one hand, therefore, intelligence, and on the other the intelligible
and existence form but one and the same thing, namely, the primary
existence and primary Intelligence, which possesses realities, or
rather, which is identical with them. But if the thought-object and
the thought together form but a single entity, how will the thinking
object thus be able to think itself? Evidently thought will embrace
the intelligible, or will be identical therewith; but we still do not
see how intelligence is to think itself. Here we are: thought and the
intelligible fuse into one because the intelligible is an actualization
and not a simple power; because life is neither alien nor incidental
to it; because thought is not an accident for it, as it would be for
a brute body, as for instance, for a stone; and, finally, because
the intelligible is primary "being." Now, if the intelligible be an
actualization, it is the primary actualization, the most perfect
thought, or, "substantial thought." Now, as this thought is supremely
true, as it is primary Thought, as it possesses existence in the
highest degree, it is primary Intelligence. It is not, therefore,
mere potential intelligence; there is no need to distinguish within
it the potentiality from the actualization of thought; otherwise,
its substantiality would be merely potential. Now since intelligence
is an actualization, and as its "being" also is an actualization, it
must fuse with its actualization. But existence and the intelligible
also fuse with their actualization. Therefore[105] intelligence, the
intelligible, and thought will form but one and the same entity.
Since the thought of the intelligible is the intelligible, and as the
intelligible is intelligence, intelligence will thus think itself.
Intelligence will think, by the actualization of the thought to which
it is identical, the intelligible to which it also is identical.
It will think itself, so far as it is thought; and in so far as it
is the intelligible which it thinks by the thought to which it is


6. Reason, therefore, demonstrates that there is a principle which must
essentially know itself. But this self-consciousness is more perfect in
intelligence than in the soul. The soul knows herself in so far as she
knows that she depends on another power; while intelligence, by merely
turning towards itself, naturally cognizes its existence and "being."
By contemplating realities, it contemplates itself; this contemplation
is an actualization, and this actualization is intelligence; for
intelligence and thought[107] form but a single entity. The entire
intelligence sees itself entire, instead of seeing one of its parts
by another of its parts. Is it in the nature of intelligence, such as
reason conceives of it, to produce within us a simple conviction? No.
Intelligence necessarily implies (certitude), and not mere persuasion;
for necessity is characteristic of intelligence, while persuasion is
characteristic of the soul. Here below, it is true, we rather seek to
be persuaded, than to see truth by pure Intelligence. When we were in
the superior region, satisfied with intelligence, we used to think, and
to contemplate the intelligible, reducing everything to unity. It was
Intelligence which thought and spoke about itself; the soul rested, and
allowed Intelligence free scope to act. But since we have descended
here below, we seek to produce persuasion in the soul, because we wish
to contemplate the model in its image.


We must, therefore, teach our soul how Intelligence contemplates
itself. This has to be taught to that part of our soul which,
because of its intellectual character, we call reason, or discursive
intelligence, to indicate that it is a kind of intelligence, that
it possesses its power by intelligence, and that it derives it from
intelligence. This part of the soul must, therefore, know that it
knows what it sees, that it knows what it expresses, and that, if it
were identical with what it describes, it would thereby know itself.
But since intelligible entities come to it from the same principle
from which it itself comes, since it is a reason, and as it receives
from intelligence entities that are kindred, by comparing them with
the traces of intelligence it contains, it must know itself. This
image it contains must, therefore, be raised to true Intelligence,
which is identical with the true intelligible entities, that is, to
the primary and really true Beings; for it is impossible that this
intelligence should originate from itself. If then intelligence remain
in itself and with itself, if it be what it is (in its nature) to be,
that is, intelligence--for intelligence can never be unintelligent--it
must contain within it the knowledge of itself, since it does not
issue from itself, and since its function and its "being" (or, true
nature) consist in being no more than intelligence.[106] It is not
an intelligence that devotes itself to practical action, obliged
to consider what is external to it, and to issue from itself to
become cognizant of exterior things; for it is not necessary that an
intelligence which devotes itself to action should know itself. As it
does not give itself to action--for, being pure, it has nothing to
desire--it operates a conversion towards itself, by virtue of which
it is not only probable, but even necessary for it to know itself.
Otherwise, what would its life consist of, inasmuch as it does not
devote itself to action, and as it remains within itself?


7. It may be objected that the Intelligence contemplates the divinity.
If, however, it be granted, that the Intelligence knows the divinity,
one is thereby forced to admit that it also knows itself; for it
will know what it derives from the divinity, what it has received
from Him, and what it still may hope to receive from Him. By knowing
this, it will know itself, since it is one of the entities given
by the divinity; or rather, since it is all that is given by the
divinity. If then, it know the divinity, it knows also the powers of
the divinity, it knows that itself proceeds from the divinity, and
that itself derives its powers from the divinity. If Intelligence
cannot have a clear intuition of the divinity, because the subject and
object of an intuition must be the same, this will turn out to be a
reason why Intelligence will know itself, and will see itself, since
seeing is being what is seen. What else indeed could we attribute to
Intelligence? Rest, for instance? For Intelligence, rest does not
consist in being removed from itself, but rather to act without being
disturbed by anything that is alien. The things that are not troubled
by anything alien need only to produce their own actualization,
especially when they are in actualization, and not merely potential.
That which is in actualization, and which cannot be in actualization
for anything foreign, must be in actualization for itself. When
thinking itself, Intelligence remains turned towards itself, referring
its actualization to itself. If anything proceed from it, it is
precisely because it remains turned towards itself that it remains in
itself. It had, indeed, to apply itself to itself, before applying
itself to anything else, or producing something else that resembled it;
thus fire must first be fire in itself, and be fire in actualization,
in order later to impart some traces of its nature to other things.
Intelligence, in itself, therefore, is an actualization. The soul,
on turning herself towards Intelligence, remains within herself; on
issuing from Intelligence, the soul turns towards external things. On
turning towards Intelligence, she becomes similar to the power from
which she proceeds; on issuing from Intelligence, she becomes different
from herself. Nevertheless, she still preserves some resemblance to
Intelligence, both in her activity and productiveness. When active,
the soul still contemplates Intelligence; when productive, the soul
produces forms, which resemble distant thoughts, and are traces of
thought and Intelligence, traces that conform to their archetype; and
which reveal a faithful imitation thereof, or which, at least, still
preserve a weakened image thereof, even if they do occupy only the last
rank of beings.


8. What qualities does Intelligence display in the intelligible
world? What qualities does it discover in itself by contemplation? To
begin with, we must not form of Intelligence a conception showing a
figure, or colors, like bodies. Intelligence existed before bodies.
The "seminal reasons" which produce figure and color are not identical
with them; for "seminal reasons" are invisible. So much the more are
intelligible entities invisible; their nature is identical with that
of the principles in which they reside, just as "seminal reasons" are
identical with the soul that contains them. But the soul does not see
the entities she contains, because she has not begotten them; even
she herself, just like the "reasons," is no more than an image (of
Intelligence). The principle from which she comes possesses an evident
existence, that is genuine, and primary; consequently, that principle
exists of and in itself. But this image (which is in the soul) is not
even permanent unless it belong to something else, and reside therein.
Indeed, the characteristic of an image is that it resides in something
else, since it belongs to something else, unless it remain attached to
its principle. Consequently, this image does not contemplate, because
it does not possess a light that is sufficient; and even if it should
contemplate, as it finds its perfection in something else, it would
be contemplating something else, instead of contemplating itself. The
same case does not obtain in Intelligence; there the contemplated
entity and contemplation co-exist, and are identical. Who is it,
therefore, that declares the nature of the intelligible? The power
that contemplates it, namely, Intelligence itself. Here below our eyes
see the light because our vision itself is light, or rather because
it is united to light; for it is the colors that our vision beholds.
On the contrary, Intelligence does not see through something else,
but through itself, because what it sees is not outside of itself.
It sees a light with another light, and not by another light; it,
is therefore, a light that sees another; and, consequently, it sees
itself. This light, on shining in the soul, illuminates her; that is,
intellectualizes her; assimilates her to the superior light (namely,
in Intelligence). If, by the ray with which this light enlightens
the soul, we judge of the nature of this light and conceive of it as
still greater, more beautiful, and more brilliant, we will indeed
be approaching Intelligence and the intelligible world; for, by
enlightening the soul, Intelligence imparts to her a clearer life. This
life is not generative, because Intelligence converts the soul towards
Intelligence; and, instead of allowing the soul to divide, causes the
soul to love the splendor with which she is shining. Neither is this
life one of the senses, for though the senses apply themselves to
what is exterior, they do not, on that account, learn anything beyond
(themselves). He who sees that superior light of the verities sees
much better things that are visible, though in a different manner.
It remains, therefore, that the Intelligence imparts to the soul the
intellectual life, which is a trace of her own life; for Intelligence
possesses the realities. It is in the life and the actualization which
are characteristic of Intelligence that here consists the primary
Light, which from the beginning,[108] illumines itself, which reflects
on itself, because it is simultaneously enlightener and enlightened; it
is also the true intelligible entity, because it is also at the same
time thinker and thought. It sees itself by itself, without having
need of anything else; it sees itself in an absolute manner, because,
within it, the known is identical with the knower. It is not otherwise
in us; it is by Intelligence that we know intelligence. Otherwise,
how could we speak of it? How could we say that it was capable of
clearly grasping itself, and that, by it, we understand ourselves? How
could we, by these reasonings, to Intelligence reduce our soul which
recognizes that it is the image of Intelligence, which considers its
life a faithful imitation of the life of Intelligence, which thinks
that, when it thinks, it assumes an intellectual and divine form?
Should one wish to know which is this Intelligence that is perfect,
universal and primary, which knows itself essentially, the soul has to
be reduced to Intelligence; or, at least, the soul has to recognize
that the actualization by which the soul conceives the entities of
which the soul has the reminiscence is derived from Intelligence. Only
by placing herself in that condition, does the soul become able to
demonstrate that inasmuch as she is the image of Intelligence she, the
soul, can by herself, see it; that is, by those of her powers which
most exactly resemble Intelligence (namely, by pure thought); which
resembles Intelligence in the degree that a part of the soul can be
assimilated to it.


9. We must, therefore, contemplate the soul and her divinest part
in order to discover the nature of Intelligence. This is how we may
accomplish it: From man, that is from yourself, strip off the body;
then that power of the soul that fashions the body; then sensation,
appetite, and anger, and all the lower passions that incline you
towards the earth. What then remains of the soul is what we call the
"image of intelligence," an image that radiates from Intelligence, as
from the immense globe of the sun radiates the surrounding luminary
sphere. Of course, we would not say that all the light that radiates
from the sun remains within itself around the sun; only a part of this
light remains around the sun from which it emanates; another part,
spreading by relays, descends to us on the earth. But we consider
light, even that which surrounds the sun, as located in something else,
so as not to be forced to consider the whole space between the sun and
us as empty of all bodies. On the contrary, the soul is a light which
remains attached to Intelligence, and she is not located in any space
because Intelligence itself is not spatially located. While the light
of the sun is in the air, on the contrary the soul, in the state in
which we consider her here, is so pure that she can be seen in herself
by herself, and by any other soul that is in the same condition.
The soul needs to reason, in order to conceive of the nature of
Intelligence according to her own nature; but Intelligence conceives of
itself without reasoning because it is always present to itself. We, on
the contrary, are present both to ourselves and to Intelligence when we
turn towards it, because our life is divided into several lives. On the
contrary, Intelligence has no need of any other life, nor of anything
else; what Intelligence gives is not given to itself, but to other
things; neither does Intelligence have any need of what is inferior
to it; nor could Intelligence give itself anything inferior, since
Intelligence possesses all things; instead of possessing in itself the
primary images of things (as in the case of the soul), Intelligence is
these things themselves.


If one should find himself unable to rise immediately to pure thought,
which is the highest, or first, part of the soul, he may begin by
opinion, and from it rise to Intelligence. If even opinion be out
of the reach of his ability, he may begin with sensation, which
already represents general forms; for sensation which contains the
forms potentially may possess them even in actualization. If, on the
contrary, the best he can do is to descend, let him descend to the
generative power, and to the things it produces; then, from the last
forms, one may rise again to the higher forms, and so on to the primary


10. But enough of this. If the (forms) contained by Intelligence are
not created forms--otherwise the forms contained in us would no longer,
as they should, occupy the lowest rank--if these forms in intelligence
really be creative and primary, then either these creative forms and
the creative principle fuse into one single entity, or intelligence
needs some other principle. But does the transcendent Principle, that
is superior to Intelligence (the One), itself also need some other
further principle? No, because it is only Intelligence that stands in
need of such an one. Does the Principle superior to Intelligence (the
transcendent One) not see Himself? No. He does not need to see Himself.
This we shall study elsewhere.


Let us now return to our most important problem. Intelligence needs
to contemplate itself, or rather, it continually possesses this
contemplation. It first sees that it is manifold, and then that it
implies a difference, and further, that it needs to contemplate,
to contemplate the intelligible, and that its very essence is to
contemplate. Indeed, every contemplation implies an object; otherwise,
it is empty. To make contemplation possible there must be more than
an unity; contemplation must be applied to an object, and this object
must be manifold; for what is simple has no object on which it could
apply its action, and silently remains withdrawn in its solitude.
Action implies some sort of difference. Otherwise, to what would
action apply itself? What would be its object? The active principle,
must, therefore, direct its action on something else than itself, or
must itself be manifold to direct its action on itself. If, indeed,
it direct its action on nothing, it will be at rest; and if at rest,
it will not be thinking. The thinking principle, therefore, when
thinking, implies duality. Whether the two terms be one exterior
to the other, or united, thought always implies both identity and
difference. In general, intelligible entities must simultaneously be
identical with Intelligence, and different from Intelligence. Besides,
each of them must also contain within itself identity and difference.
Otherwise, if the intelligible does not contain any diversity, what
would be the object of thought? If you insist that each intelligible
entity resembles a ("seminal) reason," it must be manifold. Every
intelligible entity, therefore, knows itself to be a compound, and
many-colored eye. If intelligence applied itself to something single
and absolutely simple, it could not think. What would it say? What
would it understand? If the indivisible asserted itself it ought first
to assert what it is not; and so, in order to be single it would have
to be manifold. If it said, "I am this," and if it did not assert that
"this" was different from itself, it would be uttering untruth. If
it asserted it as an accident of itself, it would assert of itself
a multitude. If it says, "I am; I am; myself; myself;" then neither
these two things will be simple, and each of them will be able to say,
"me;" or there will be manifoldness, and, consequently, a difference;
and, consequently, number and diversity. The thinking subject must,
therefore, contain a difference, just as the object thought must also
reveal a diversity, because it is divided by thought. Otherwise, there
will be no other thought of the intelligible, but a kind of touch, of
unspeakable and inconceivable contact, prior to intelligence, since
intelligence is not yet supposed to exist, and as the possessor of
this contact does not think. The thinking subject, therefore, must
not remain simple, especially, when it thinks itself; it must split
itself, even were the comprehension of itself silent. Last, that which
is simple (the One) has no need of occupying itself with itself. What
would it learn by thinking? Is it not what it is before thinking
itself? Besides, knowledge implies that some one desires, that some
one seeks, and that some one finds. That which does not within itself
contain any difference, when turned towards itself, rests without
seeking anything within itself; but that which develops, is manifold.


11. Intelligence, therefore, becomes manifold when it wishes to
think the Principle superior to it. By wishing to grasp Him in his
simplicity, it abandons this simplicity, because it continues to
receive within itself this differentiated and multiplied nature. It
was not yet Intelligence when it issued from Unity; it found itself
in the state of sight when not yet actualized. When emanating from
Unity, it contained already what made it manifold. It vaguely aspired
to an object other than itself, while simultaneously containing a
representation of this object. It thus contained something that it
made manifold; for it contained a sort of impress produced by the
contemplation (of the One); otherwise it would not receive the One
within itself. Thus Intelligence, on being born of Unity, became
manifold, and as it possessed knowledge, it contemplated itself. It
then became actualized sight. Intelligence is really intelligence
only when it possesses its object, and when it possesses it as
intelligence. Formerly, it was only an aspiration, only an indistinct
vision. On applying itself to the One, and grasping the One, it becomes
intelligence. Now its receptivity to Unity is continuous, and it is
continuously intelligence, "being," thought, from the very moment it
begins to think. Before that, it is not yet thought, since it does not
possess the intelligible, and is not yet Intelligence, since it does
not think.


That which is above these things is their principle, without being
inherent in them. The principle from which these things proceed cannot
be inherent in them; that is true only of the elements that constitute
them. The principle from which all things proceed (the One) is not
any of them; it differs from all of them. The One, therefore, is not
any of them; it differs from all of them. The One, therefore, is not
any of the things of the universe: He precedes all these things, and
consequently, He precedes Intelligence, since the latter embraces all
things in its universality. On the other hand, as the things that are
posterior to Unity are universal, and as Unity thus is anterior to
universal things, it cannot be any one of them. Therefore, it should
not be called either intelligence or good, if by "good" you mean any
object comprised within the universe; this name suits it only, if
it indicate that it is anterior to everything. If Intelligence be
intelligence only because it is manifold; if thought, though found
within Intelligence, be similarly manifold, then the First, the
Principle that is absolutely simple, will be above Intelligence; for if
He think, He would be Intelligence; and if He be Intelligence, He would
be manifold.


12. It may be objected, that nothing would hinder the existence of
manifoldness in the actualization of the First, so long as the "being,"
or nature, remain unitary. That principle would not be rendered
composite by any number of actualizations. This is not the case for
two reasons. Either these actualizations are distinct from its nature
("being"), and the First would pass from potentiality to actuality; in
which case, without doubt, the First is not manifold, but His nature
would not become perfect without actualization. Or the nature ("being")
is, within Him identical to His actualization; in which case, as the
actualization is manifold, the nature would be such also. Now we do
indeed grant that Intelligence is manifold, since it thinks itself;
but we could not grant that the Principle of all things should also be
manifold. Unity must exist before the manifold, the reason of whose
existence is found in unity; for unity precedes all number. It may
be objected that this is true enough for numbers which follow unity,
because they are composite; but what is the need of a unitary principle
from which manifoldness should proceed when referring (not to numerals,
but) to beings? This need is that, without the One, all things would be
in a dispersed condition, and their combinations would be no more than
a chaos.


Another objection is, that from an intelligence that is simple,
manifold actualizations can surely proceed. This then admits the
existence of something simple before the actualizations. Later, as
these actualizations become permanent, they form hypostatic forms of
existence. Being such, they will have to differ from the Principle
from which they proceed, since the Principle remains simple, and that
which is born of it must in itself be manifold, and be dependent
thereon. Even if these actualizations exist only because the Principle
acted a single time, this already constitutes manifoldness. Though
these actualizations be the first ones, if they constitute second-rank
(nature), the first rank will belong to the Principle that precedes
these actualizations; this Principle abides in itself, while these
actualizations constitute that which is of second rank, and is composed
of actualizations. The First differs from the actualizations He begets,
because He begets them without activity; otherwise, Intelligence
would not be the first actualization. Nor should we think that the
One first desired to beget Intelligence, and later begat it, so that
this desire was an intermediary between the generating principle and
the generated entity. The One could not have desired anything; for
if He had desired anything, He would have been imperfect, since He
would not yet have possessed what He desired. Nor could we suppose
that the One lacked anything; for there was nothing towards which He
could have moved. Therefore, the hypostatic form of existence which is
beneath Him received existence from Him, without ceasing to persist
in its own condition. Therefore, if there is to be a hypostatic form
of existence beneath Him He must have remained within Himself in
perfect tranquility; otherwise, He would have initiated movement; and
we would have to conceive of a movement before the first movement,
a thought before the first thought, and its first actualization
would be imperfect, consisting in no more than a mere tendency.
But towards what can the first actualization of the One tend, and
attain, if, according to the dictates of reason, we conceive of that
actualization originating from Him as light emanates from the sun?
This actualization, therefore, will have to be considered as a light
that embraces the whole intelligible world; at the summit of which we
shall have to posit, and over whose throne we shall have to conceive
the rule of the immovable One, without separating Him from the Light
that radiates from Him. Otherwise, above this Light we would have to
posit another one, which, while remaining immovable, should enlighten
the intelligible. Indeed the actualization that emanates from the
One, without being separated from Him, nevertheless, differs from
Him. Neither is its nature non-essential, or blind; it, therefore,
contemplates itself, and knows itself; it is, consequently, the first
knowing principle. As the One is above Intelligence, it is also above
consciousness; as it needs nothing, neither has it any need of knowing
anything. Cognition (or, consciousness), therefore, belongs only to the
second-rank nature. Consciousness is only an individual unity, while
the One is absolute unity; indeed individual unity is not absolute
Unity, because the absolute is (or, "in and for itself"), precedes the
("somehow determined," or) individual.


13. This Principle, therefore, is really indescribable. We are
individualizing it in any statement about it. That which is above
everything, even above the venerable Intelligence, really has no name,
and all that we can state about Him is, that He is not anything. Nor
can He be given any name, since we cannot assert anything about Him.
We refer to Him only as best we can. In our uncertainty we say, "What
does He not feel? is He not self-conscious? does He not know Himself?"
Then we must reflect that by speaking thus we are thinking of things,
that are opposed to Him of whom we are now thinking. When we suppose
that He can be known, or that He possesses self-consciousness, we are
already making Him manifold. Were we to attribute to Him thought, it
would appear that He needed this thought. If we imagine thought as
being within Him, thought seems to be superfluous. For of what does
thought consist? Of the consciousness of the totality formed by the two
terms that contribute to the act of thought, and which fuse therein.
That is thinking oneself, and thinking oneself is real thinking; for
each of the two elements of thought is itself an unity to which nothing
is lacking. On the contrary, the thought of objects exterior (to
Intelligence) is not perfect, and is not true thought. That which is
supremely simple and supremely absolute stands in need of nothing. The
absolute that occupies the second rank needs itself, and, consequently,
needs to think itself. Indeed, since Intelligence needs something
relatively to itself, it succeeds in satisfying this need, and
consequently, in being absolute, only by possessing itself entirely.
It suffices itself only by uniting all the elements constituting its
nature ("being"), only by dwelling within itself, only by remaining
turned towards itself while thinking; for consciousness is the
sensation of manifoldness, as is indicated by the etymology of the word
"con-scious-ness," or, "conscience." If supreme Thought occur by the
conversion of Intelligence towards itself, it evidently is manifold.
Even if it said no more than "I am existence," Intelligence would say
it as if making a discovery, and Intelligence would be right, because
existence is manifold. Even though it should apply itself to something
simple, and should say, "I am existence," this would not imply
successful grasp of itself or existence. Indeed, when Intelligence
speaks of existence in conformity with reality, intelligence does not
speak of it as of a stone, but, merely, in a single word expresses
something manifold. The existence that really and essentially deserves
the name of existence, instead of having of it only a trace which
would not be existence, and which would be only an image of it, such
existence is a multiple entity. Will not each one of the elements of
this multiple entity be thought? No doubt you will not be able to think
it if you take it alone and separated from the others; but existence
itself is in itself something manifold. Whatever object you name, it
possesses existence. Consequently, He who is supremely simple cannot
think Himself; if He did, He would be somewhere, (which is not the
case). Therefore He does not think, and He cannot be grasped by thought.


14. How then do we speak of Him? Because we can assert something about
Him, though we cannot express Him by speech. We could not know Him, nor
grasp Him by thought. How then do we speak of Him, if we cannot grasp
Him? Because though He does escape our knowledge, He does not escape us
completely. We grasp Him enough to assert something about Him without
expressing Him himself, to say what He is not, without saying what He
is; that is why in speaking of Him we use terms that are suitable to
designate only lower things. Besides we can embrace Him without being
capable of expressing Him, like men who, transported by a divine
enthusiasm, feel that they contain something superior without being
able to account for it. They speak of what agitates them, and they thus
have some feeling of Him who moves them, though they differ therefrom.
Such is our relation with Him; when we rise to Him by using our pure
intelligence, we feel that He is the foundation of our intelligence,
the principle that furnishes "being" and other things of the kind; we
feel that He is better, greater, and more elevated than we, because He
is superior to reason, to intelligence, and to the senses, because He
gives these things without being what they are.


15. How does He give them? Is it because He possesses them, or because
He does not possess them? If it be because He does not possess them,
how does He give what He does not possess? If it be because He does
possess them, He is no longer simple. If He give what He does not
possess, how is multiplicity born of Him? It would seem as if only
one single thing could proceed from Him, unity; and even so one might
wonder how anything whatever could be born of that which is absolutely
one. We answer, in the same way as from a light radiates a luminous
sphere (or, fulguration[109]). But how can the manifold be born from
the One? Because the thing that proceeds from Him must not be equal to
Him, and so much the less, superior; for what is superior to unity,
or better than Him? It must, therefore, be inferior to Him, and,
consequently, be less perfect. Now it cannot be less perfect, except
on condition of being less unitary, that is, more manifold. But as it
must aspire to unity, it will be the "manifold one." It is by that
which is single that that which is not single is preserved, and is
what it is; for that which is not one, though composite, cannot receive
the name of existence. If it be possible to say what each thing is, it
is only because it is one and identical. What is not manifold is not
one by participation, but is absolute unity; it does not derive its
unity from any other principle; on the contrary it is the principle to
which other things owe that they are more or less single, according as
they are more or less close to it. Since the characteristic of that
which is nearest to unity is identity, and is posterior to unity,
evidently the manifoldness contained therein, must be the totality of
things that are single. For since manifoldness is therein united with
manifoldness, it does not contain parts separated from each other,
and all subsist together. Each of the things, that proceed therefrom,
are manifold unity, because they cannot be universal unity. Universal
unity is characteristic only of their principle (the intelligible
Being), because itself proceeds from a great Principle which is one,
essentially, and genuinely. That which, by its exuberant fruitfulness,
begets, is all; on the other hand, as this totality participates
in unity, it is single; and, consequently, it is single totality
(universal unity).


We have seen that existence is "all these things;" now, what are they?
All those of which the One is the principle. But how can the One be
the principle of all things? Because the One preserves their existence
while effecting the individuality of each of them. Is it also because
He gives them existence? And if so, does He do so by possessing them?
In this case, the One would be manifold. No, it is by containing them
without any distinction yet having arisen among them. On the contrary,
in the second principle they are distinguished by reason; that is,
they are logically distinguished, because this second principle is an
actualization, while the first Principle is the power-potentiality[107]
of all things; not in the sense in which we say that matter is
potential in that it receives, or suffers, but in the opposite sense
that the One produces. How then can the One produce what it does not
possess, since unity produces that neither by chance nor by reflection?
We have already said that what proceeds from unity must differ from it;
and, consequently, cannot be absolutely one; that it must be duality,
and, consequently, multitude, since it will contain (the categories,
such as) identity, and difference, quality, and so forth.[110] We have
demonstrated that that which is born of the One is not absolutely one.
It now remains for us to inquire whether it will be manifold, such as
it is seen to be in what proceeds from the One. We shall also have to
consider why it necessarily proceeds from the One.


16. We have shown elsewhere that something must follow the One,
and that the One is a power, and is inexhaustible; and this is so,
because even the last-rank entities possess the power of begetting.
For the present we may notice that the generation of things reveals
a descending procession, in which, the further we go, the more does
manifoldness increase; and that the principle is always simpler than
the things it produces.[111] Therefore, that which has produced the
sense world is not the sense-world itself, but Intelligence and the
intelligible world; and that which has begotten Intelligence and
the intelligible world is neither Intelligence nor the intelligible
world, but something simpler than them. Manifoldness is not born of
manifoldness, but of something that is not manifold. If That which
was superior to Intelligence were manifold, it would no longer be the
(supreme) Principle, and we would have to ascend further. Everything
must, therefore, be reduced to that which is essentially one, which
is outside of all manifoldness; and whose simplicity is the greatest
possible. But how can manifold and universal Reason be born of the One,
when very evidently the One is not a reason? As it is not a reason,
how can it beget Reason? How can the Good beget a hypostatic form of
existence, which would be good in form? What does this hypostatic form
of existence possess? Is it identity? But what is the relation between
identity and goodness? Because as soon as we possess the Good, we seek
identity and permanence; and because the Good is the principle from
which we must not separate; for if it were not the Good, it would be
better to give it up. We must, therefore, wish to remain united to the
Good. Since that is the most desirable for Intelligence, it need seek
nothing beyond, and its permanence indicates its satisfaction with
the entities it possesses. Enjoying, as it does, their presence in a
manner such that it fuses with them, it must then consider life as the
most precious entity of all. As Intelligence possesses life in its
universality and fulness, this life is the fulness and universality of
the Soul and Intelligence. Intelligence, therefore, is self-sufficient,
and desires nothing; it contains what it would have desired if it had
not already possessed such desirable object. It possesses the good that
consists in life and intelligence, as we have said, or in some one of
the connected entities. If Life and Intelligence were the absolute
Good, there would be nothing above them. But if the absolute Good be
above them, the good of Intelligence is this Life, which relates to
the absolute Good, which connects with it, which receives existence
from it, and rises towards it, because it is its principle. The Good,
therefore, must be superior to Life and Intelligence. On this condition
only does the life of Intelligence, the image of Him from whom all life
proceeds, turn towards Him; on this condition only does Intelligence,
the imitation of the contents of the One, whatever be His nature, turn
towards Him.


17. What better thing is there then than this supremely wise Life,
exempt from all fault or error? What is there better than the
Intelligence that embraces everything? In one word, what is there
better than universal Life and universal Intelligence? If we answer
that what is better than these things is the Principle that begat
them, if we content ourselves with explaining how it begat them,
and to show that one cannot discover anything better, we shall,
instead of progressing in this discussion, ever remain at the same
point. Nevertheless, we need to rise higher. We are particularly
obliged to do this, when we consider that the principle that we seek
must be considered as the "Self-sufficient supremely independent
of all things;" for no entity is able to be self-sufficient, and
all have participated in the One; and since they have done so, none
of them can be the One. Which then is this principle in which all
participate, which makes Intelligence exist, and is all things? Since
it makes Intelligence exist, and since it is all things, since it
makes its contained manifoldness self-sufficient by the presence of
unity, and since it is thus the creative principle of "being" and
self-sufficiency, it must, instead of being "being," be super-"being"
and super-existence.


Have we said enough, and can we stop here? Or does our soul still feel
the pains of parturition? Let her, therefore, produce (activity),
rushing towards the One, driven by the pains that agitate her. No,
let us rather seek to calm her by some magic charm, if any remedy
therefor exist. But to charm the soul, it may perhaps be sufficient to
repeat what we have already said. To what other charm, indeed, would
it suffice to have recourse? Rising above all the truths in which we
participate, this enchantment evanesces the moment we speak, or even
think. For, in order to express something, discursive reason is obliged
to go from one thing to another, and successively to run through every
element of its object. Now what can be successively scrutinized in
that which is absolutely simple? It is, therefore, sufficient to reach
Him by a sort of intellectual contact. Now at the moment of touching
the One, we should neither be able to say anything about Him, nor have
the leisure to speak of Him; only later is it possible to argue about
Him. We should believe that we have seen Him when a sudden light has
enlightened the soul; for this light comes from Him, and is Himself. We
should believe that He is present when, as another (lower) divinity,
He illumines the house of him who calls on this divinity,[112] for it
remains obscure without the illumination of the divinity. The soul,
therefore, is without light when she is deprived of the presence of
this divinity, when illumined by this divinity, she has what she
sought. The true purpose of the soul is to be in contact with this
light, to see this light in the radiance of this light itself, without
the assistance of any foreign light, to see this principle by the
help of which she sees. Indeed, it is the principle by which she is
enlightened that she must contemplate as one gazes at the sun only
through its own light. But how shall we succeed in this? By cutting off
everything else.[113]


Of Love, or "Eros."


1. Is Love a divinity, a guardian, or a passion of the human soul? Or
is it all three under different points of view? In this case, what is
it under each of these points of view? These are the questions we are
to consider, consulting the opinions of men, but chiefly those of the
philosophers. The divine Plato, who has written much about love, here
deserves particular attention. He says that it is not only a passion
capable of being born in souls, but he calls it also a guardian, and he
gives many details about its birth and parents.[115]


To begin with passion, it is a matter of common knowledge that the
passion designated as love is born in the souls which desire to unite
themselves to a beautiful object. But its object may be either a
shameful practice, or one (worthy to be pursued by) temperate men,
who are familiar with beauty. We must, therefore, investigate in a
philosophical manner what is the origin of both kinds of love.


The real cause of love is fourfold: the desire of beauty; our soul's
innate notion of beauty; our soul's affinity with beauty, and our
soul's instinctive sentiment of this affinity.[116] (Therefore as
beauty lies at the root of love, so) ugliness is contrary to nature
and divinity. In fact, when Nature wants to create, she contemplates
what is beautiful, determinate, and comprehended within the
(Pythagorean) "sphere" of the Good. On the contrary, the (Pythagorean)
"indeterminate"[115] is ugly, and belongs to the other system.[117]
Besides, Nature herself owes her origin to the Good, and, therefore,
also to the Beautiful. Now, as soon as one is attracted by an object,
because one is united to it by a secret affinity, he experiences for
the images of this object a sentiment of sympathy. We could not explain
its origin, or assign its cause on any other hypothesis, even were we
to limit ourselves to the consideration of physical love. Even this
kind of love is a desire to procreate beauty,[118] for it would be
absurd to insist that that Nature, which aspires to create beautiful
things, should aspire to procreate that which is ugly.


Of course, those who, here below, desire to procreate are satisfied in
attaining that which is beautiful here below: namely, the beauty which
shines in images and bodies; for they do not possess that intelligible
Beauty which, nevertheless, inspires them with that very love which
they bear to visible beauty. That is the reason why those who ascend
to the reminiscence of intelligible Beauty love that which they behold
here below only because it is an image of the other.[119] As to those
who fail to rise to the reminiscence of the intelligible Beauty,
because they do not know the cause of their passion, they mistake
visible beauty for that veritable Beauty, and they may even love it
chastely, if they be temperate: but to go as far as a carnal union is
an error, in any case. Hence, it happens that only he who is inspired
by a pure love for the beautiful really loves beauty, whether or not he
have aroused his reminiscence of intelligible Beauty.


They who join to this passion as much of a desire for immortality
as our mortal nature admits, seek beauty in the perpetuity of the
procreation which renders man imperishable. They determine to
procreate and produce beauty according to nature; procreating because
their object is perpetuity; and procreating beautifully because they
possess affinity with it. In fact, perpetuity does bear affinity to
beauty; perpetual nature is beauty itself; and such also are all its


Thus he who does not desire to procreate seems to aspire to the
possession of the beautiful in a higher degree. He who desires to
procreate does no doubt desire to procreate the beautiful; but his
desire indicates in him the presence of need, and dissatisfaction with
mere possession of beauty; He thinks he will be procreating beauty,
if he begets on that which is beautiful. They who wish to satisfy
physical love against human laws, and nature, no doubt have a natural
inclination as principle of a triple passion; but they lose their
way straying from the right road for lack of knowledge of the end to
which love was impelling them, of the goal of the aspiration (roused
by) the desire of generation, and of the proper use of the image of
beauty.[120] They really do ignore Beauty itself. They who love
beautiful bodies without desiring to unite themselves to them, love
them for their beauty only. Those who love the beauty of women, and
desire union with them, love both beauty and perpetuity, so long as
this object is not lost from sight. Both of these are temperate, but
they who love bodies for their beauty only are the more virtuous. The
former admire sensual beauty, and are content therewith; the latter
recall intelligible beauty, but, without scorning visible beauty,
regard it as an effect and image of the intelligible Beauty.[121] Both,
therefore, love beauty without ever needing to blush. But, as to those
(who violate laws human and divine), love of beauty misleads them to
falling into ugliness; for the desire of good may often mislead to a
fall into evil. Such is love considered as a passion of the soul.


2. Now let us speak of the Love which is considered a deity not only
by men in general, but also by the (Orphic) theologians, and by Plato.
The latter often speaks of Love, son of Venus, attributing to him the
mission of being the chief of the beautiful children (or, boys); and
to direct souls to the contemplation of intelligible Beauty, or, if
already present, to intensify the instinct to seek it. In his "Banquet"
Plato says that Love is born (not of Venus, but) of Abundance and
Need,[122] ... on some birthday (?) of Venus.


To explain if Love be born of Venus, or if he were only born
contemporaneously with his mother, we shall have to study something
about Venus. What is Venus? Is she the mother of Love, or only his
contemporary? As answer hereto we shall observe that there are two
Venuses.[123] The second (or Popular Venus) is daughter of Jupiter
and Dione, and she presides over earthly marriages. The first Venus,
the celestial one, daughter of Uranus (by Plato, in his Cratylus,
interpreted to mean "contemplation of things above"), has no mother,
and does not preside over marriages, for the reason that there are none
in heaven. The Celestial Venus, therefore, daughter of Kronos,[124]
that is, of Intelligence, is the divine Soul, which is born pure of
pure Intelligence, and which dwells above.[125] As her nature does not
admit of inclining earthward, she neither can nor will descend here
below. She is, therefore, a form of existence (or, an hypostasis),
separated from matter, not participating in its nature. This is the
significance of the allegory that she had no mother. Rather than a
guardian, therefore, she should be considered a deity, as she is pure
Being unmingled (with matter), and abiding within herself.


In fact, that which is immediately born of Intelligence is pure in
itself, because, by its very proximity to Intelligence, it has more
innate force, desiring to unite itself firmly to the principle that
begat it, and which can retain it there on high. The soul which is thus
suspended to Intelligence could not fall down, any more than the light
which shines around the sun could separate from the body from which it
radiates, and to which it is attached.


Celestial Venus (the universal Soul, the third principle or
hypostasis[126]), therefore, attaches herself to Kronos (divine
Intelligence, the second principle), or, if you prefer to Uranos
(the One, the Good, the first Principle), the father of Kronos. Thus
Venus turns towards Uranos, and unites herself to him; and in the
act of loving him, she procreates Love, with which she contemplates
Uranus. Her activity thus effects a hypostasis and being. Both of them
therefore fix their gaze on Uranus, both the mother and the fair child,
whose nature it is to be a hypostasis ever turned towards another
beauty, an intermediary essence between the lover and the beloved
object. In fact, Love is the eye by which the lover sees the beloved
object; anticipating her, so to speak; and before giving her the
faculty of seeing by the organ which he thus constitutes, he himself
is already full of the spectacle offered to his contemplation. Though
he thus anticipates her, he does not contemplate the intelligible in
the same manner as she does, in that he offers her the spectacle of the
intelligible, and that he himself enjoys the vision of the beautiful,
a vision that passes by him (or, that coruscates around him, as an


3. We are therefore forced to acknowledge that Love is a hypostasis
and is "being," which no doubt is inferior to the Being from which it
(emanates, that is, from celestial Venus, or the celestial Soul), but
which, nevertheless, still possesses "being." In fact, that celestial
Soul is a being born of the activity which is superior to her (the
primary Being), a living Being, emanating from the primary Being, and
attached to the contemplation thereof. In it she discovers the first
object of her contemplation, she fixes her glance on it, as her good;
and finds in this view a source of joy. The seen object attracts her
attention so that, by the joy she feels, by the ardent attention
characterizing her contemplation of its object, she herself begets
something worthy of her and of the spectacle she enjoys. Thus is
Love born from the attention with which the soul applies herself to
the contemplation of its object, and from the very emanation of this
object; and so Love is an eye full of the object it contemplates, a
vision united to the image which it forms. Thus Love (Eros) seems to
owe its name to its deriving its existence from vision.[127] Even when
considered as passion does Love owe its name to the same fact, for
Love-that-is-a-being is anterior to Love-that-is-not-a-being. However
much we may explain passion as love, it is, nevertheless, ever the love
of some object, and is not love in an absolute sense.


Such is the love that characterizes the superior Soul (the celestial
Soul). It contemplates the intelligible world with it, because Love
is the Soul's companion, being born of the Soul, and abiding in the
Soul, and with her enjoys contemplation of the divinities. Now as we
consider the Soul which first radiates its light on heaven as separate
from matter, we must admit that the love which is connected with her,
is likewise separate from matter. If we say that this pure Soul really
resides in heaven, it is in the sense in which we say that that which
is most precious in us (the reasonable soul) resides in our body, and,
nevertheless, is separate from matter. This love must, therefore,
reside only there where resides this pure Soul.


But as it was similarly necessary that beneath the celestial Soul there
should exist the world-Soul,[128] there must exist with it another
love, born of her desire, and being her eye.[129] As this Venus belongs
to this world, and as it is not the pure soul, nor soul in an absolute
sense, it has begotten the Love which reigns here below, and which,
with her, presides over marriages. As far as this Love himself feels
the desire for the intelligible, he turns towards the intelligible the
souls of the young people, and he elevates the soul to which he may be
united, as far as it is naturally disposed to have reminiscence of the
intelligible. Every soul, indeed, aspires to the Good, even that soul
that is mingled with matter, and that is the soul of some particular
being; for it is attached to the superior Soul, and proceeds therefrom.


4. Does each soul include such a love in her being, and possess it
as a hypostatic (form of existence)? Since the world-Soul possesses,
as hypostasis (form of existence), the Love which is inherent in her
being, our soul should also similarly possess, as hypostatic (form of
existence), a love equally inherent in our being. Why should the same
not obtain even with animals? This love inherent to the being of every
soul is the guardian considered to be attached to each individual.[130]
It inspires each soul with the desires natural for her to experience;
for, according to her nature, each soul begets a love which harmonizes
with her dignity and being. As the universal Soul possesses universal
Love, so do individual souls each possess her individual love. But as
the individual souls are not separated from the universal Soul, and
are so contained within her that their totality forms but a single
soul,[131] so are individual loves contained within the universal Love.
On the other hand, each individual love is united to an individual
soul, as universal Love is united to the universal Soul. The latter
exists entire everywhere in the universe, and so her unity seems
multiple; she appears anywhere in the universe that she pleases, under
the various forms suitable to her parts, and she reveals herself, at
will, under some visible form.


We shall have to assume also a multiplicity of Venuses, which, born
with Love, occupy the rank of guardians. They originate from the
universal Venus, from which derive all the individual "venuses," with
the loves peculiar to each. In fact, the soul is the mother of love;
now Venus is the Soul, and Love is the Soul's activity in desiring
the Good. The love which leads each soul to the nature of the Good,
and which belongs to her most exalted part, must also be considered
a deity, inasmuch as it unites the soul to the Good. The love which
belongs to the soul mingled (with matter), is to be considered a
Guardian only.


5. What is the nature of this Guardian, and what is, in general, the
nature of guardians, according to (Plato's treatment of the subject in)
his "Banquet"? What is the nature of guardians? What is the nature of
the Love born of Need (Penia) and Abundance (Poros), son of Prudence
(Metis), at the birth of Venus?[132]

(Plutarch)[133] held that Plato, by Love, meant the world. He should
have stated that Love is part of the world, and was born in it. His
opinion is erroneous, as may be demonstrated by several proofs. First,
(Plato) calls the world a blessed deity, that is self-sufficient;
however, he never attributes these characteristics to Love, which
he always calls a needy being. Further, the world is composed of a
body and a Soul, the latter being Venus; consequently, Venus would
be the directing part of Love; or, if we take the world to mean
the world-Soul, just as we often say "man" when we mean the human
soul,[134] Love would be identical with Venus. Third, if Love, which
is a Guardian, is the world, why should not the other Guardians (who
evidently are of the same nature) not also be the world? In this case,
the world would be composed of Guardians. Fourth, how could we apply to
the world that which (Plato) says of Love, that it is the "guardian of
fair children"? Last, Plato describes Love as lacking clothing, shoes,
and lodging. This could not be applied to the world without absurdity
or ridicule.


6. To explain the nature and birth of Love, we shall have to expound
the significance of his mother Need to his father Abundance, and to
show how such parents suit him. We shall also have to show how such
parents suit the other Guardians, for all Guardians, by virtue of their
being Guardians, must have the same nature, unless, indeed, Guardians
have only that name in common.


First, we shall have to consider the difference between deities and
guardians. Although it be common to call Guardians deities, we are here
using the word in that sense it bears when one says that Guardians and
deities belong to different species. The deities are impassible, while
the Guardians, though eternal, can experience passions; placed beneath
the deities, but next to us, they occupy the middle place between
deities and men.[135]


But how did the Guardians not remain impassible? How did they
descend to an inferior nature? This surely is a question deserving
consideration. We should also inquire whether there be any Guardian in
the intelligible world, whether there be Guardians only here below,
and if deities exist only in the intelligible world. (We shall answer
as follows.) There are deities also here below; and the world is,
as we habitually say, a deity of the third rank, inasmuch as every
supra-lunar being is a divinity. Next, it would be better not to call
any being belonging to the intelligible world a Guardian; and if we
locate the chief Guardian (the Guardian himself) in the intelligible
world, we had better consider him a deity. In the world of sense, all
the visible supra-lunar deities should be called second-rank deities,
in that they are placed below the intelligible deities, and depend
on them as the rays of light from the star from which they radiate.
Last, a Guardian should be defined as the vestige of a soul that had
descended into the world. The latter condition is necessary because
every pure soul begets a deity, and we have already said[136] that the
love of such a soul is a deity.


But why are not all the Guardians Loves? Further, why are they not
completely pure from all matter? Among Guardians, those are Loves,
which owe their existence to a soul's desire for the good and the
beautiful; therefore, all souls that have entered into this world each
generate a Love of this kind. As to the other Guardians, which are
not born of human souls, they are engendered by the different powers
of the universal Soul, for the utility of the All; they complete and
administer all things for the general good. The universal Soul, in
fact, was bound to meet the needs of the universe by begetting Guardian
powers which would suit the All of which she is the soul.


How do Guardians participate in matter, and of what matter are they
formed? This their matter is not corporeal, otherwise they would be
animals with sensation. In fact, whether they have aerial or fire-like
bodies,[137] they must have had a nature primitively different (from
pure Intelligence) to have ultimately united each with his own body,
for that which is entirely pure could not have immediately united
with a body, although many philosophers think that the being of every
Guardian, as guardian, is united to an air-like or fire-like body. But
why is the being of every Guardian mingled with a body, while the being
of every deity is pure, unless in the first case there be a cause which
produces the mingling (with matter)? This cause must be the existence
of an intelligible matter,[138] so that whatever participates in it
might, by its means, come to unite with sense-matter.


7. Plato's account of the birth of Love[132] is that Abundance
intoxicated himself with nectar, this happening before the day of
wine, which implies that Love was born before the sense-world's
existence. Then Need, the mother of Love, must have participated in
the intelligible nature itself, and not in a simple image of the
intelligible nature; she, therefore, approached (the intelligible
nature) and found herself to be a mixture of form and indeterminateness
(or, intelligible matter).[139] The soul, in fact, containing a
certain indeterminateness before she had reached the Good, but
feeling a premonition of her existence, formed for herself a confused
and indeterminate image, which became the very hypostasis (or,
form of existence) of Love. Thus, as here, reason mingles with the
unreasonable, with an indeterminate desire, with an indistinct (faint
or obscure) hypostatic (form of existence). What was born was neither
perfect nor complete; it was something needy, because it was born from
an indeterminate desire, and a complete reason. As to (Love, which is)
the thus begotten reason, it is not pure, since it contains a desire
that is indeterminate, unreasonable, indefinite; nor will it ever be
satisfied so long as it contains the nature of indetermination. It
depends on the soul, which is its generating principle; it is a mixture
effected by a reason which, instead of remaining within itself, is
mingled with indetermination. Besides, it is not Reason itself, but its
emanation which mingles with indetermination.


Love, therefore, is similar to a gad-fly;[140] needy by nature,
it still remains needy, whatever it may obtain; it could never be
satisfied, for this would be impossible for a being that is a mixture;
no being could ever be fully satisfied if by its nature it be incapable
of attaining fulness; even were it satisfied for a moment, it could
not retain anything if its nature made it continue to desire.
Consequently, on one side, Love is deprived of all resources[141]
because of its neediness; and on the other, it possesses the faculty of
acquisition, because of the reason that enters into its constitution.


All other Guardians have a similar constitution. Each of them desires,
and causes the acquisition of the good he is destined to procure; that
is the characteristic they have in common with Love. Neither could they
ever attain satisfaction; they still desire some particular good. The
result of this is that the men who here below are good are inspired
by the love of the true, absolute Good, and not by the love of such
and such a particular good.[142] Those who are subordinated to divers
Guardians are successively subordinated to such or such a Guardian;
they let the simple and pure love of the absolute Good rest within
themselves, while they see to it that their actions are presided over
by another Guardian, that is, another power of their soul, which is
immediately superior to that which directs them, or is active within
them.[143] As to the men who, driven by evil impulses, desire evil
things, they seem to have chained down all the loves in their souls,
just as, by false opinions, they darken the right reason which is
innate within them. Thus all the loves implanted in us by nature,
and which conform to nature, are all good; those that belong to the
inferior part of the soul are inferior in rank and power; those that
belong to the superior part are superior; all belong to the being of
the soul. As to the loves which are contrary to nature, they are the
passions of strayed souls, having nothing essential or substantial; for
they are not engendered by the pure Soul; they are the fruits of the
faults of the soul which produces them according to her vicious habits
and dispositions.


In general, we might admit that the true goods which are possessed by
the soul when she acts conformably to her nature, by applying herself
to things determined (by reason), constitute real being; that the
others, on the contrary, are not engendered by the very action of
the soul, and are only passions.[144] Likewise, false intellections
lack real being, such as belongs to true intellections, which are
eternal and determinate, possessing simultaneously the intellectual
act, the intelligible existence and essence; and this latter not
only in general, but in each real intelligible being (manifesting?)
Intelligence in each idea. As to us, we must acknowledge that we
possess only intellection and the intelligible; we do not possess them
together (or completely), but only in general; and hence comes our love
for generalities. Our conceptions, indeed, usually trend towards the
general. It is only by accident that we conceive something particular;
when, for instance, we conceive that some particular triangle's angles
amount to two right angles, it is only as a result of first having
conceived that the triangle in general possesses this property.


8. Finally, who is this Jupiter into whose gardens (Plato said that)
Abundance entered? What are these gardens? As we have already agreed,
Venus is the Soul, and Abundance is the Reason of all things. We still
have to explain the significance of Jupiter and his gardens.

Jupiter cannot well signify anything else than the soul, since we
have already admitted that the soul was Venus. We must here consider
Jupiter as that deity which Plato, in his Phaedrus, calls the Great
Chief;[145] and, elsewhere, as I think, the Third God. He explains
himself more clearly in this respect in the Philebus,[146] where he
says that Jupiter "has a royal soul, a royal intelligence." Since
Jupiter is, therefore, both an intelligence and a soul, since he
forms part of the order of causes, since we must assign him his
rank according to what is best in him; and for several reasons,
chiefly because he is a cause, a royal and directing cause, he must
be considered as the Intelligence. Venus (that is, Aphrodite) which
belongs to him, which proceeds from him, and accompanies him, occupies
the rank of a soul, for she represents in the soul that which is
beautiful, brilliant, pure, and delicate ("abron"); and that is why she
is called "Aphrodite."[147] In fact, if we refer the male deities to
the intellect, and if we consider the female deities as souls--because
a soul is attached to each intelligence--we shall have one more reason
to relate Venus to Jupiter. Our views upon this point are confirmed by
the teachings of the priests and the (Orphic) Theologians, who always
identify Venus and Juno, and who call the evening star, or Star of
Venus, the Star of Juno.[148]


9. Abundance, being the reason of the things that exist in Intelligence
and in the intelligible world--I mean the reason which pours itself
out and develops--trends towards the soul, and exists therein. Indeed,
the (Being) which remains united in Intelligence does not emanate
from a foreign principle, while the intoxication of Abundance is only
a factitious fulness. But what is that which is intoxicated with
nectar? It is Reason that descends from the superior principle to the
inferior; the Soul receives it from Intelligence at the moment of
the birth of Venus; that is why it is said that the nectar flows in
the garden of Jupiter. This whole garden is the glory and splendor
of the wealth (of Intelligence);[149] this glory originates in the
reason of Jupiter; this splendor is the light which the intelligence
of this Deity sheds on the soul. What else but the beauties and
splendors of this deity could the "gardens of Jupiter" signify? On
the other hand, what else can the beauties and splendors of Jupiter
be, if not the reasons[150] that emanate from him? At the same time,
these reasons are called Abundance (Poros, or "euporia"), the wealth
of the beauties which manifest; that is the nectar which intoxicates
Abundance.[151] For indeed what else is the nectar among the deities,
but that which each of them receives? Now Reason is that which is
received from Intelligence by its next inferior principle. Intelligence
possesses itself fully; yet this self-possession does not intoxicate
it, as it possesses nothing foreign thereto. On the contrary, Reason
is engendered by Intelligence. As it exists beneath Intelligence, and
does not, as Intelligence does, belong to itself, it exists in another
principle; consequently, we say that Abundance is lying down in the
garden of Jupiter, and that at the very moment when Venus, being born,
takes her place among living beings.


10. If myths are to earn their name (of something "reserved," or
"silent") they must necessarily develop their stories under the
category of time, and present as separate many things, that are
simultaneous, though different in rank or power. That is the reason
they so often mention the generation of ungenerated things, and that
they so often separate simultaneous things.[152] But after having thus
(by this analysis) yielded us all the instruction possible to them,
these myths leave it to the reader to make a synthesis thereof. Ours is
the following:


Venus is the Soul which coexists with Intelligence, and subsists by
Intelligence. She receives from Intelligence the reasons[150] which
fill her,[153] and embellishes her, and whose abundance makes us see
in the Soul the splendor and image of all beauties. The reasons which
subsist in the Soul are Abundance[154] of the nectar which flows down
from above. Their splendors which shine in the Soul, as in life,
represent the Garden of Jupiter. Abundance falls asleep in this garden,
because he is weighted down by the fulness contained within him. As
life manifests and ever exists in the order of beings, (Plato) says
that the deities are seated at a feast, because they ever enjoy this


Since the Soul herself exists, Love also must necessarily exist, and
it owes its existence to the desire of the Soul which aspires to the
better and the Good. Love is a mixed being: it participates in need,
because it needs satisfaction; it also participates in abundance,
because it struggles to acquire good which it yet lacks, inasmuch as
only that which lacked good entirely would cease to seek it. It is,
therefore, correct to call Love the son of Abundance and Need, which
are constituted by lack, desire, and reminiscence of the reasons--or
ideas--which, reunited in the soul, have therein engendered that
aspiration towards the good which constitutes love. Its mother is
Need, because desire belongs only to need, and "need" signifies matter,
which is entire need.[155] Even indetermination, which characterizes
the desire of the good, makes the being which desires the Good play
the part of matter--since such a being would have neither form nor
reason, considered only from its desiring. It is a form only inasmuch
as it remains within itself. As soon as it desires to attain a new
perfection, it is matter relatively to the being from whom it desires
to receive somewhat.


That is why Love is both a being which participates in matter, and is
also a Guardian born of the soul; it is the former, inasmuch as it
does not completely possess the good; it is the latter, inasmuch as it
desires the Good from the very moment of its birth.


Of the Nature and Origin of Evils.[156]


1. Studying the origin of evils that might affect all beings in
general, or some one class in particular, it is reasonable to begin by
defining evil, from a consideration of its nature. That would be the
best way to discover whence it arises, where it resides, to whom it may
happen, and in general to decide if it be something real. Which one of
our faculties then can inform us of the nature of evil? This question
is not easy to solve, because there must be an analogy between the
knower and the known.[157] The Intelligence and the Soul may indeed
cognize forms and fix their desires on them, because they themselves
are forms; but evil, which consists in the absence of all goods, could
not be described as a form.[158] But inasmuch as there can be but one
single science, to embrace even contraries, and as the evil is the
contrary of the good, knowledge of the good implies that of evil.
Therefore, to determine the nature of evil, we shall first have to
determine that of good, for the higher things must precede the lower,
as some are forms and others are not, being rather a privation of the
good. Just in what sense evil is the contrary of the good must also be
determined; as for instance, if the One be the first, and matter the
last;[159] or whether the One be form, and matter be its absence. Of
this further.[160]



2. Let us now determine the nature of the Good, at least so far as is
demanded by the present discussion. The Good is the principle on which
all depends, to which everything aspires, from which everything issues,
and of which everything has need. As to Him, He suffices to himself,
being complete, so He stands in need of nothing; He is the measure[161]
and the end of all things; and from Him spring intelligence, being,
soul, life, and intellectual contemplation.


All these beautiful things exist as far as He does; but He is the
one Principle that possesses supreme beauty, a principle that is
superior to the things that are best. He reigns royally,[162] in
the intelligible world, being Intelligence itself, very differently
from what we call human intelligences. The latter indeed are all
occupied with propositions, discussions about the meanings of words,
reasonings, examinations of the validity of conclusions, observing
the concatenation of causes, being incapable of possessing truth "a
priori," and though they be intelligences, being devoid of all ideas
before having been instructed by experience; though they, nevertheless,
were intelligences. Such is not the primary Intelligence. On the
contrary, it possesses all things. Though remaining within itself, it
is all things; it possesses all things, without possessing them (in
the usual acceptation of that term); the things that subsist in it not
differing from it, and not being separated from each other. Each one of
them is all the others,[163] is everything and everywhere, although not
confounded with other things, and remaining distinct therefrom.


The power which participates in Intelligence (the universal Soul) does
not participate in it in a manner such as to be equal to it, but only
in the measure of her ability to participate therein. She is the first
actualization of Intelligence, the first being that Intelligence,
though remaining within itself, begets. She directs her whole activity
towards supreme Intelligence, and lives exclusively thereby. Moving
from outside Intelligence, and around it, according to the laws
of harmony,[164] the universal Soul fixes her glance upon it. By
contemplation penetrating into its inmost depths, through Intelligence
she sees the divinity Himself. Such is the nature of the serene and
blissful existence of the divinities, a life where evil has no place.


If everything stopped there (and if there were nothing beyond the three
principles here described), evil would not exist (and there would be
nothing but goods). But there are goods of the first, second and third
ranks. Though all relate to the King of all things,[165] who is their
author, and from whom they derive their goodness, yet the goods of the
second rank relate more specially to the second principle; and to the
third principle, the goods of the third rank.


3. As these are real beings, and as the first Principle is their
superior, evil could not exist in such beings, and still less in Him,
who is superior to them; for all these things are good. Evil then must
be located in non-being, and must, so to speak, be its form, referring
to the things that mingle with it, or have some community with it. This
"non-being," however, is not absolute non-being.[166] Its difference
from being resembles the difference between being and movement or
rest; but only as its image, or something still more distant from
reality. Within this non-being are comprised all sense-objects, and
all their passive modifications; or, evil may be something still more
inferior, like their accident or principle, or one of the things that
contribute to its constitution. To gain some conception of evil it may
be represented by the contrast between measure and incommensurability;
between indetermination and its goal; between lack of form and the
creating principle of form; between lack and self-sufficiency; as the
perpetual unlimited and changeableness; as passivity, insatiableness,
and absolute poverty.[167] Those are not the mere accidents of evil,
but its very essence; all of that can be discovered when any part of
evil is examined. The other objects, when they participate in the evil
and resemble it, become evil without however being absolute Evil.


All these things participate in a being; they do not differ from it,
they are identical with it, and constitute it. For if evil be an
accident in something, then evil, though not being a real being, must
be something by itself. Just as, for the good, there is the Good in
itself, and the good considered as an attribute of a foreign subject,
likewise, for evil, one may distinguish Evil in itself, and evil as


It might be objected that it is impossible to conceive of
indetermination outside of the indeterminate, any more than
determination outside of the determinate; or measure outside of
the measured. (We shall have to answer that) just as determination
does not reside in the determined (or measure in the measured), so
indetermination cannot exist within the indeterminate. If it can exist
in something other than itself, it will be either in the indeterminate,
or in the determinate. If in the indeterminate, it is evident that it
itself is indeterminate, and needs no indetermination to become such.
If, on the other hand (it be claimed that indetermination exist), in
the determinate, (it is evident that) the determinate cannot admit
indetermination. This, therefore, demands the existence of something
infinite in itself, and formless in itself, which would combine all the
characteristics mentioned above as the characteristics of evil.[168] As
to evil things, they are such because evil is mingled with them, either
because they contemplate evil, or because they fulfil it.


Reason, therefore, forces us to recognize as the primary evil, Evil
in itself.[169] (This is matter which is) the subject of figure,
form, determination, and limitation; which owes its ornaments to
others, which has nothing good in itself, which is but a vain image by
comparison with the real beings--in other word, the essence of evil, if
such an essence can exist.


4. So far as the nature of bodies participates in matter, it is an
evil; yet it could not be the primary Evil, for it has a certain form.
Nevertheless, this form possesses no reality, and is, besides, deprived
of life (?); for bodies corrupt each other mutually. Being agitated
by an unregulated movement, they hinder the soul from carrying out
her proper movement. They are in a perpetual flux, contrary to the
immutable nature of essences; therefore, they constitute the secondary


By herself, the soul is not evil, and not every soul is evil. What
soul deserves to be so considered? That of the man who, according to
the expression of Plato,[170] is a slave to the body. In this man it
is natural for the soul to be evil. It is indeed the irrational part
of the soul which harbors all that constitutes evil: indetermination,
excess, and need, from which are derived intemperance, cowardliness,
and all the vices of the soul, the involuntary passions, mothers
of false opinions, which lead us to consider the things we seek or
avoid as goods or evils. But what produces this evil? How shall
we make a cause or a principle of it? To begin with, the soul is
neither independent of matter, nor, by herself, perverse. By virtue
of her union with the body, which is material, she is mingled with
indetermination, and so, to a certain point, deprived of the form which
embellishes and which supplies measure. Further, that reason should be
hindered in its operations, and cannot see well, must be due to the
soul's being hindered by passions, and obscured by the darkness with
which matter surrounds her. The soul inclines[171] towards matter.
Thus the soul fixes her glance, not on what is essence, but on what
is simple generation.[172] Now the principle of generation is matter,
whose nature is so bad that matter communicates it to the beings
which, even without being united thereto, merely look at it. Being
the privation of good, matter contains none of it, and assimilates to
itself all that touches it. Therefore, the perfect Soul, being turned
towards ever pure Intelligence, repels matter, indeterminateness, the
lack of measure, and in short, evil. The perfect Soul does not approach
to it, does not lower her looks; she remains pure and determined by
Intelligence. The soul which does not remain in this state, and which
issues from herself (to unite with the body), not being determined by
the First, the Perfect, is no more than an image of the perfect Soul
because she lacks (good), and is filled with indetermination. The soul
sees nothing but darkness. The soul already contains matter because she
looks at what she cannot see; or, in the every-day expression, because
the soul looks at darkness.[173]


5. Since the lack of good is the cause that the soul looks at darkness,
and mingles therewith, the lack of good and darkness is primary Evil
for the soul. The secondary evil will be the darkness, and the nature
of evil, considered not in matter, but before matter. Evil consists
not in the lack of any particular thing, but of everything in general.
Nothing is evil merely because it lacks a little of being good; its
nature might still be perfect. But what, like matter, lacks good
entirely, is essentially evil, and possesses nothing good? Nature,
indeed, does not possess essence, or it would participate in the good;
only by verbal similarity can we say that matter "is," while we can
truly say that matter "is" absolute "nonentity." A mere lack (of good)
therefore, may be characterized as not being good; but complete lack is
evil; while a lack of medium intensity consists in the possibility of
falling into evil, and is already an evil. Evil, therefore, is not any
particular evil, as injustice, or any special vice; evil is that which
is not yet anything of that, being nothing definite. Injustice and the
other vices must be considered as kinds of evil, distinguished from
each other by mere accidents; as for instance, what occurs by malice.
Besides, the different kinds of evil differ among each other either by
the matter in which evil resides, or by the parts of the soul to which
it refers, as sight, desire, and passion.


If we grant the existence of evils external to the soul, we shall
be forced to decide about their relation to sickness, ugliness, or
poverty. Sickness has been explained as a lack or excess of material
bodies which fail to support order or measure. The cause of ugliness,
also, has been given as deficient adjustment of matter to form. Poverty
has been described as the need or lack of objects necessary to life as
a result of our union with matter, whose nature is (the Heraclitian and
Stoic) "indigence." From such definitions it would follow that we are
not the principle of evil, and are not evil in ourselves, for these
evils existed before us. Only in spite of themselves would men yield
to vice. The evils of the soul are avoidable, but not all men possess
the necessary firmness. Evil, therefore, is caused by the presence
of matter in sense-objects, and is not identical with the wickedness
of men. For wickedness does not exist in all men; some triumph over
wickedness, while they who do not even need to triumph over it, are
still better. In all cases men triumph over evil by those of their
faculties that are not engaged in matter.


6. Let us examine the significance of the doctrine[174] that evils
cannot be destroyed, that they are necessary, that they do not exist
among the divinities, but that they ever besiege our mortal nature, and
the place in which we dwell.[175] Surely heaven is free from all evil
because it moves eternally with regularity, in perfect order; because
in the stars is neither injustice nor any other kind of evil, because
they do not conflict with each other in their courses; and because
their revolutions are presided over by the most beautiful harmony.[164]
On the contrary, the earth reveals injustice and disorder, (chiefly)
because our nature is mortal, and we dwell in a lower place. But when
Plato,[176] says, that we must flee from here below, he does not mean
that we should leave the earth, but, while remaining therein, practice
justice, piety, and wisdom. It is wickedness that must be fled from,
because wickedness and its consequences are the evil of man.


When[176] (Theodor) tells (Socrates) that evils would be annihilated
if men practised (Socrates') teachings, the latter answers that that
is impossible, for evil is necessary even if only as the contrary of
good. But how then can wickedness, which is the evil of man, be the
contrary of good? Because it is the contrary of virtue. Now virtue,
without being Good in itself, is still a good, a good which makes us
dominate matter. But how can Good in itself, which is not a quality,
have a contrary? Besides, why need the existence of one thing imply
its contrary? Though we may grant that there is a possibility of the
existence of the contrary of some things--as for instance, that a man
in good health might become sick--there is no such necessity. Nor does
Plato assert that the existence of each thing of this kind necessarily
implies that of its contrary; he makes this statement exclusively of
the Good. But how can there be a contrary to good, if the good be
"being," let alone "above being"?[177] Evidently, in reference to
particular beings, there can be nothing contrary to "being." This is
proved by induction; but the proposition has not been demonstrated
as regards universal Being. What then is the contrary of universal
Being, and first principles in general? The contrary of "being" must
be nonentity; the contrary of the nature of the Good is the nature
and principle of Evil. These two natures are indeed respectively the
principles of goods and of evils. All their elements are mutually
opposed, so that both these natures, considered in their totality,
are still more opposed than the other contraries. The latter, indeed,
belong to the same form, to the same kind, and they have something in
common in whatever subjects they may be. As to the Contraries that are
essentially distinguished from each other, whose nature is constituted
of elements opposed to the constitutive elements of the other, those
Contraries are absolutely opposed to each other, since the connotation
of that word implies things as opposite to each other as possible.
Measure, determination, and the other characteristics of the divine
nature[178] are the opposites of incommensurability, indefiniteness,
and the other contrary things that constitute the nature of evil. Each
one of these wholes, therefore, is the contrary of the other. The being
of the one is that which is essentially and absolutely false; that of
the other is genuine Being; the falseness of the one is, therefore, the
contrary of the truth of the other. Likewise what pertains to the being
of the one is the contrary of what belongs to the being of the other.
We also see that it is not always true to say that there is no contrary
to "being," for we acknowledge that water and fire are contraries, even
if they did not contain the common element of matter, of which heat and
cold, humidity and dryness, are accidents. If they existed alone by
themselves, if their being were complete without any common subject,
there would still be an opposition, and an opposition of "being."
Therefore the things that are completely separate, which have nothing
in common, which are as distant as possible, are by nature contrary.
This is not an opposition of quality, nor of any kinds of beings; it is
an opposition resulting from extreme distance, and from being composed
of contraries, thereby communicating this characteristic to their


7. Why is the existence of both good and evil necessary? Because
matter is necessary to the existence of the world. The latter is
necessarily composed of contraries, and, consequently, it could not
exist without matter. In this case the nature of this world is a
mixture of intelligence and necessity.[179] What it receives from
divinity are goods; its evils derive from the primordial nature,[180]
the term used (by Plato) to designate matter as a simple substance yet
unadorned by a divinity. But what does he mean by "mortal nature?"
When he says that "evils besiege this region here below," he means the
universe, as appears from the following quotations[181]: "Since you
are born, you are not immortal, but by my help you shall not perish."
In this case it is right to say that evils cannot be annihilated. How
then can one flee from them?[182] Not by changing one's locality, (as
Plato) says, but by acquiring virtue, and by separating from the body,
which, simultaneously, is separation from matter; for being attached
to the body is also attachment to matter. It is in the same sense that
(Plato) explains being separated from the body, or not being separated
from it. By dwelling with the divinities he means being united to the
intelligible objects; for it is in them that inheres immortality.


Here follows still another demonstration of the necessity of evil.
Since good does not remain alone, evil must necessarily exist by
issuing from the good.[183] We might express this differently, as
the degradation and exhaustion (of the divine power, which, in the
whole hierarchic series of successive emanations weakens from degree
to degree). There must, therefore, be a last degree of being, beyond
which nothing further can be begotten, and that is evil. Just as the
existence of something after a first (Good) is necessary, so must also
a last degree (of being) be necessary. Now the last degree is matter,
and contains nothing more of the First; (and, as matter and evil are
identical,) the existence of evil is necessary.


8. It may still be objected that it is not matter that makes us wicked;
for it is not matter that produces ignorance and perverted appetites.
If, indeed, these appetites mislead us to evil as a result of the
perversity of the body, we must seek its cause, not in matter, but in
form (in the qualities of the bodies). These, for instance, are heat,
cold, bitterness, pungency, and the other qualities of the bodily
secretions; or, the atonic condition or inflammation of certain organs;
or, certain dispositions which produce the difference of appetites;
and, if you please, false opinions. Evil, therefore, is form rather
than matter. Even under this (mistaken) hypothesis we are none the
less driven to acknowledge that matter is the evil. A quality does not
always produce the same results within or outside of matter; thus the
form of the axe without iron does not cut. The forms that inhere in
matter are not always what they would be if they were outside of it.
The ("seminal) reasons" when inhering in matter are by it corrupted
and filled with its nature. As fire, when separate from matter, does
not burn; so form, when remaining by itself, effects what it would if
it were in matter. Matter dominates any principle that appears within
it, alters it, and corrupts it by imparting thereto its own nature,
which is contrary to the Good. It does not indeed substitute cold
for heat, but it adds to the form--as, for instance, to the form of
fire--its formless substance; to figure adding its shapelessness; to
measure, its excess and lack, proceeding thus until it has degraded
things, transubstantiating them into its own nature. That is the reason
that, in the nutrition of animals, what has been ingested does not
remain what it was before. The foods that enter into the body of a dog,
for instance, are by assimilation transformed into blood and canine
secretions, and, in general, are transformed according to the animal
that receives them. Thus even under the hypothesis that evils are
referred to the body, matter is the cause of evils.


It may be objected that one ought to master these dispositions of the
body. But the principle that could triumph over them is pure only if it
flee from here below. The appetites which exercise the greatest force
come from a certain complexion of the body, and differ according to
its nature. Consequently, it is not easy to master them. There are men
who have no judgment, because they are cold and heavy on account of
their bad constitution. On the contrary, there are others who, because
of their temperament, are light and inconstant. This is proved by the
difference of our own successive dispositions. When we are gorged, we
have appetites and thoughts that differ from those we experience when
starved; and our dispositions vary even according to the degrees of


In short, the primary Evil is that which by itself lacks measure. The
secondary evil is that which accidentally becomes formless, either by
assimilation or participation. In the front rank is the darkness; in
the second that which has become obscured. Thus vice, being in the soul
the result of ignorance and formlessness, is of secondary rank. It is
not absolute Evil, because, on its side, virtue is not absolute Good;
it is good only by its assimilation and participation with the Good.



9. How do we get to know vice and virtue? As to virtue, we know it
by the very intelligence and by wisdom; for wisdom knows itself.
But how can we know vice? Just as we observe that an object is not
in itself straight, by applying a rule, so we discern vice by this
characteristic, that it does not comport itself with virtue. But do
we, or do we not have direct intuition thereof? We do not have the
intuition of absolute vice, because it is indeterminate. We know it,
therefore, by a kind of abstraction, observing that virtue is entirely
lacking. We cognize relative vice by noticing that it lacks some part
of virtue. We see a part of virtue, and, by this part, judging what is
lacking in order completely to constitute the form (of virtue), we
call vice what is lacking to it; defining as the indeterminate (evil)
what is deprived of virtue. Similarly with matter. If, for instance,
we notice a figure that is ugly because its ("seminal) reason," being
unable to dominate matter, has been unable to hide its deformity, we
notice ugliness by what is lacking to form.


But how do we know that which is absolutely formless (matter)? We make
abstraction of all kinds of form, and what remains we call matter. We
allow ourselves to be penetrated by a kind of shapelessness by the
mere fact that we make abstraction of all shape in order to be able
to represent matter (by a "bastard reasoning").[185] Consequently,
intelligence becomes altered, and ceases to be genuine intelligence
when it dares in this way to look at what does not belong to its
domain.[186] It resembles the eye, which withdraws from light to see
darkness, and which on that very account does not see. Thus, in not
seeing, the eye sees darkness so far as it is naturally capable of
seeing it. Thus intelligence which hides light within itself, and
which, so to speak, issues from itself, by advancing towards things
alien to its nature, without bringing along its own light, places
itself in a state contrary to its being to cognize a nature contrary to
its own.[165] But enough of this.


10. It may well be asked (by Stoics) how matter can be evil, as it is
without quality?[187] That matter possesses no qualities can be said
in the sense that by itself it has none of the qualities it is to
receive, or to which matter is to serve as substrate; but cannot be
said in the sense that it will possess no nature. Now, if it have a
nature, what hinders this nature from being bad, without this being bad
being a quality? Nothing indeed is a quality but what serves to qualify
something different from itself; a quality is, therefore, an accident;
a quality is that which can be mentioned as the attribute of a subject
other than itself.[188] But matter is not the attribute of something
alien; it is the subject to which accidents are related. Therefore,
since every quality is an accident, matter, whose nature is not to be
an accident, is without quality.[189] If, besides, quality (taken in
general), itself be without quality, how could one say of matter, so
far as it has not yet received any quality, that it is in some manner
qualified? It is, therefore, possible to assert of matter that, it both
has no quality, and yet is evil. Matter is not evil because it has a
quality, but just because it has none. If, indeed, matter possessed a
form, it might indeed be bad; but it would not be a nature contrary to
all form.


11. It may be further objected that nature, independent of all form, is
deprivation. Now deprivation is always the attribute of some hypostatic
substance, instead of itself being substance. If then evil consist in
privation, it is the attribute of the substrate deprived of form; and
on that account it could not exist by itself. If it be in the soul
that we consider evil, privation in the soul will constitute vice and
wickedness, and there will be no need to have recourse to anything
external to explain it.


Elsewhere[190] it is objected that matter does not exist; here the
attempt is to show that matter is not evil in so far as it exists. (If
this were the case), we should not seek the origin of evil outside of
the soul, but it would be located within the soul herself; there evil
consists in the absence of good. But, evidently, the soul would have
nothing good on the hypothesis that privation of form is an accident
of the being, which desires to receive form; that, consequently, the
privation of good is an accident of the soul; and that the latter
produces within herself wickedness by her ("seminal) reason." Another
result would be that the soul would have no life, and be inanimate;
which would lead to the absurdity that the soul is no soul.


We are thus forced to assert, that the soul possesses life by virtue
of her ("seminal) reason," so that she does not, by herself, possess
privation of good. Then she must from intelligence derive a trace of
good, and have the form of good. The soul, therefore, cannot by herself
be evil. Consequently, she is not the first Evil, nor does she contain
it as an accident, since she is not absolutely deprived of good.


12. To the objection that in the soul wickedness and evil are not an
absolute privation, but only a relative privation of good, it may
be answered that in this case, if the soul simultaneously, contain
possession and privation of the good, she will have possessed a feeling
mingled of good and evil, and not of unmingled evil. We will still
not have found the first evil, the absolute Evil. The good of the
soul will reside in her essence (being); evil will only be an accident


13. Another hypothesis is that evil owes its character only to its
being an obstacle for the soul, as certain objects are bad for the
eye, because they hinder it from seeing. In this case, the evil of the
soul would be the cause that produces the evil, and it would produce
it without being absolute Evil. If, then, vice be an obstacle for the
soul, it will not be absolute Evil, but the cause of evil, as virtue is
not the good, and only contributes to acquiring it. If virtue be not
good, and vice be not evil, the result is that since virtue is neither
absolute beauty nor goodness, vice is neither absolute ugliness nor
evil. We hold that virtue is neither absolute beauty, nor absolute
goodness, because above and before it is absolute Beauty and Goodness.
Only because the soul participates in these, is virtue or beauty
considered a good. Now as the soul, by rising above virtue, meets
absolute Beauty and Goodness, thus in descending below wickedness the
soul discovers absolute Evil. To arrive at the intuition of evil the
soul, therefore, starts from wickedness, if indeed an intuition of evil
be at all possible. Finally, when the soul descends, she participates
in evil. She rushes completely into the region of diversity,[191]
and, plunging downwards she falls into a murky mire. If she fell into
absolute wickedness, her characteristic would no longer be wickedness,
and she would exchange it for a still lower nature. Even though mingled
with a contrary nature, wickedness, indeed, still retains something
human. The vicious man, therefore, dies so far as a soul can die. Now
when, in connection with the soul, we speak of dying, we mean that
while she is engaged in the body, she penetrates (further) into matter,
and becomes saturated with it. Then, when the soul has left the body,
she once more falls into the same mud until she have managed to return
into the intelligible world, and weaned her glance from this mire. So
long as she remains therein, she may be said to have descended into
hell, and to be slumbering there.[192]


14. Wickedness is by some explained as weakness of the soul, because
the wicked soul is impressionable, mobile, easy to lead to evil,
disposed to listen to her passions, and equally likely to become angry,
and to be reconciled; she yields inconsiderately to vain ideas, like
the weakest works of art and of nature, which are easily destroyed by
winds and storms. This theory (is attractive, but implies a totally
new conception, that of "weakness" of soul, and it would have) to
explain this "weakness," and whence it is derived; for weakness in a
soul is very different from weakness in a body, but just as in the
body weakness consists in inability to fulfil a function, in being
too impressionable, the same fault in the soul might, by analogy, be
called by the same name, unless matter be equally the cause of both
weaknesses. Reason, however, will have to explore the problem further,
and seek the cause of the soul-fault here called weakness.


In the soul weakness does not derive from an excess of density or
rarefaction of leanness or stoutness, nor of any sickness such as
fever. It must be met in souls which are either entirely separated from
matter, or in those joined to matter, or in both simultaneously. Now,
as it does not occur in souls separated from matter, which are entirely
pure, and "winged,"[193] and which, as perfect, carry out their
functions without any obstacle; it remains, that this weakness occurs
in fallen souls, which are neither pure nor purified. For them weakness
consists not in the privation of anything, but in the presence of
something alien, just as, for instance, weakness of the body consists
in the presence of slime or bile. We shall, therefore, be able to
understand clearly the weakness of the soul by ferreting out the cause
of the "fall" of the soul.


Just as much as the soul, matter is included within the order of
beings. For both, so to speak, there is but a single locality; for it
would be an error to imagine two different localities, one for matter,
and the other for the soul; such as, for instance, earth might be for
matter, and air for the soul. The expression that "soul occupies a
locality different from matter" means only that the soul is not in
matter; that is, that the soul is not united to matter; that the soul
does not together with matter constitute something unitary; and that
for the soul matter is not a substrate that could contain the soul.
That is how the soul is separated from matter. But the soul possesses
several powers, since she contains the principle (intelligence), the
medium (the discursive reason), and the goal (the power of sensation)
(united to the generative and growing powers). Now, just like the
beggar who presents himself at the door of the banquet-hall, and with
importunity asks to be admitted,[194] matter tries to penetrate into
the place occupied by the soul. But every place is sacred, because
nothing in it is deprived of the presence of the soul. Matter, on
exposing itself to its rays is illuminated by it, but it cannot harbor
the principle that illuminates her (the soul). The latter indeed, does
not sustain matter,[195] although she be present, and does not even see
it, because it is evil. Matter obscures, weakens the light that shines
down upon her, by mingling its darkness with her. To the soul, matter
affords the opportunity of producing generation, by clearing free
access towards matter; for if matter were not present, the soul would
not approach it. The fall of the soul is, therefore, a descent into
matter; hence comes her "weakness," which means, that not all of the
soul's faculties are exercised; because matter hinders their action,
intruding on the place occupied by the soul and forcing her, so to
speak, to retrench. Until the soul can manage to accomplish her return
into the intelligible world, matter degrades what it has succeeded in
abstracting from the soul. For the soul, therefore, matter is a cause
of weakness and vice. Therefore, by herself, the soul is primitively
evil, and is the first evil. By its presence, matter is the cause
of the soul's exerting her generative powers, and being thus led to
suffering; it is matter that causes the soul to enter into dealings
with matter, and thus to become evil. The soul, indeed, would never
have approached matter unless the latter's presence had not afforded
the soul an opportunity to produce generation.


15. Those who claim that matter does not exist, will have to be
referred to our extended discussion[196] where we have demonstrated
the necessity of its hypostatic existence. Those who would assert that
evil does not belong among beings would, if logical, thereby also
deny the existence of the good, and of anything that was desirable;
thereby annihilating desire, as well as aversion, and even thought;
for everybody shares desire for the good, and aversion for the evil.
Thought and knowledge, simultaneously, apply to good and evil; thought
itself is a good.


We must, therefore, acknowledge the existence first of Good,
unmixed, and then the nature mingled of good and evil; but what most
participates in evil thereby trends towards absolute Evil; and what
participates in it to a less degree thereby trends towards good. For
what is evil to soul? It is being in contact with inferior nature;
otherwise the soul would not have any appetite, pain, or fear. Indeed
fear is felt by us only for the composite (of soul and body), fearing
its dissolution, which thus is the cause of our pains and sufferings.
The end of every appetite is to put aside what troubles it, or to
forestall what might do so. As to sense-representations (fancy[197]),
it is the impression made by an exterior object on the irrational part
of the soul, a part which can receive this impression only because it
is not indivisible. False opinion rises within the soul because it is
no longer within truth, and this occurs because the soul is no longer
pure. On the contrary, the desire of the intelligible leads the soul
to unite intimately with intelligence, as she should, and there remain
solidly entrenched, without declining towards anything inferior. It is
only because of the nature and power of the Good that evil does not
remain pure Evil. (Matter, which is synonymous with evil) is like a
captive which beauty covers with golden chains, so that the divinities
might not see its nakedness, and that men might not be intruded on by
it; or that men, if they must see it, shall be reminded of beauty on
observing an even weakened image thereof.


Whether Astrology is of any Value.[198]


1. It has been said[199] that the course of the stars indicates what is
to happen to each being; though, it does not, as many persons think,
cause every event. To the supporting proofs hereof we are to add now
more precise demonstrations, and new considerations, for the opinion
held about this matter is no trifle.


Some people hold that, by their movements, the planets produce not only
poverty and wealth, health and sickness, but even beauty and ugliness;
and, what is more, vices and virtues. At every moment the stars, as if
they were irritated against men, (are said to) force them to commit
actions concerning which no blame attaches to the men who commit them,
since they are compelled thereto by the influence of the planets. It
is even believed that the cause of the planets' doing us evil or good
is not that they love or hate us; but that their dispositions towards
us is good or evil according to the localities through which they
travel. Towards us they change their disposition according as they are
on the cardinal points or in declination therefrom. It is even held
that while certain stars are maleficent, others are beneficent, and
that, nevertheless, the former frequently grant us benefits, while the
latter often become harmful. Their effects differ according to their
being in opposition,[200] just as if they were not self-sufficient,
and as if their quality depended on whether or not they looked at each
other. Thus a star's (influence) may be good so long as it regards
another, and evil when it does so no longer. A star may even consider
another in different manners,[201] when it is in such or such an
aspect.[202] Moreover, the totality of the stars exercises a mingled
influence which differs from the individual influences, just as several
liquors may form a compound possessing qualities differing from either
of the component elements. As these and similar assertions are freely
made, it becomes important to examine each one separately. This would
form a proper beginning for our investigation.


2. Should we consider the stars to be animated, or not? If they be
inanimate, they will be able to communicate only cold and heat; that
is, if[203] we grant the existence of cold influences. In this case,
they will limit themselves to modifying the nature of our body,
exercising on us a merely corporeal influence. They will not produce a
great diversity among the bodies, since each of them exercises the same
influence, and since, on the earth, their diverse actions are blended
into a single one, which varies only by the diversity of locality, or
by the proximity or distance of the objects. The same argument would
hold on the hypothesis that the stars spread cold. But I could not
understand how they could render some learned, others ignorant, making
of some grammarians, others orators, musicians or experts in various
arts. How could they exercise an action which would have no relation
to the constitution of the bodies, such as giving us a father, a
brother, a son, or a wife of such or such characteristics, or to make
us successful, or make of us generals or kings?[204]


On the contrary hypothesis, that the stars are animated, and act with
reflection, what have we done to them that they should desire to harm
us? Are they not dwellers of a divine region? Are they not themselves
divine? Nor are they subjected to the influences that make men good
or evil, nor could they experience good or evil as a result of our
prosperity or our misfortunes.


3. In case, however, that the stars injure us only involuntarily, they
are constrained thereunto by the aspects,[205] and their localities. If
so, they should, all of them, produce the same effects when they find
themselves in the same localities or aspects. But what difference can
occur in a planet according to its location in the zodiac? What does
the zodiac itself experience? In fact, the planets are not located in
the zodiac itself, but above or below it, at great distances. Besides,
in whatever location they are, they all are ever in the heaven. Now it
would be ridiculous to pretend that their effects differed according to
their location in the heaven, and that they have an action differing
according as they rise, culminate, or decline. It would be incredible
that such a planet would feel joy when it culminates, sadness or
feebleness when declining, anger at the rising of some other planet,
or satisfaction at the latter's setting. Can a star be better when
it declines? Now a star culminates for some simultaneously with its
declination for others; and it could not at the same time experience
joy and sadness, anger and benevolence. It is sheer absurdity to
assert that a star feels joy at its rising, while another feels the
same at its setting; for this would really mean that the stars felt
simultaneous joy and sadness. Besides, why should their sadness injure
us? Nor can we admit that they are in turn joyous and sad, for they
ever remain tranquil, content with the goods they enjoy, and the
objects of their contemplation. Each of them lives for itself, finding
its welfare in its own activity, without entering into relations with
us. As they have no dealing with us, the stars exert their influence on
us only incidentally, not as their chief purpose; rather, they bear no
relation whatever to us; they announce the future only by coincidence,
as birds announce it to the augurs.


4. Nor is it any more reasonable to assert that the aspect of one
planet makes one joyous, or the other sad. What animosity could obtain
betwixt the stars? What could be its reason? Why should their condition
be different when they are in trine aspect, or in opposition, or in
quadrature? What reason have we to suppose that one star regards the
other when it is in some particular aspect to it, or that it no more
regards it when it is in the next zodiacal sign, though thus really
closer to it?

Besides, what is the manner in which the planets exert the influence
attributed to them? How does each exercise its own particular
influence? How do they all, in combination, exert an influence that
differs from this (particular influence)? In fact, they do not hold
deliberations to carry out their decisions on us, each of them yielding
a little of its individual influence. The one does not violently hinder
the action of the other, nor does it condescendingly make concessions
to it. To say that the one is joyous when it is in the "house" of the
other, and that the latter is sad when it is in "house" of the former,
amounts to saying that two men are united by mutual friendship, though
the former love the latter, while the latter hate the former.


5. The cold planet (Saturn) is said to be more beneficent for us when
it is distant, because the evil that it produces on us is said to
consist of its cold effluence; in which case our good should consist
in the zodiacal signs opposite to us. It is also asserted that when
the cold planet (Saturn) is in opposition to the warm planet (Mars),
both become harmful; yet it would seem that their influences should
neutralize each other. Besides, it is held that (Saturn) likes the day,
whose heat renders it favorable to men, while (Mars) likes the night,
because it is fiery, as if in heaven there did not reign a perpetual
day, that is, a continual light; or as if a star could be plunged into
the shadow (projected by the earth) when it is very distant from the


It is said that the moon, in conjunction with (Saturn) is favorable
when full, but harmful when otherwise. The opposite, however, ought
to be the truth if the moon possess any influence. In fact, when it
presents a full face, it presents its dark face to the planet above it
(Saturn or Mars); when its disk decreases on our side, it increases on
the other; therefore, it ought to exert a contrary influence when it
decreases on our side, and when it increases on the side of the planet
above it. These phases are of no importance for the moon, inasmuch as
one of its sides is always lit. Nothing can result from it but for
the planet which receives heat from it (Saturn); now this one will be
heated whenever the moon turns towards us its dark side. Therefore,
the moon is good for this planet when it is full towards it, but dark
towards us. Besides, this obscurity of the moon for us can be of
importance only for terrestrial things, not for the celestial[203] ...
(?)[206] ... but if, because of its distance, it does not support the
moon, then it must be in a worse predicament; when the moon is full, it
is sufficient for terrestrial things, even when the moon is distant....
Finally, when the moon presents its obscure side to the fiery planet
(Mars), it seems beneficent towards us; for the power of this planet,
more fiery than (Saturn), is then sufficient by itself.


Besides, the bodies of the animated beings which move in the heaven may
be of different degrees of heat; none of them is cold, as is witnessed
to by their location. The planet named Jupiter is a suitable mixture of
fire; likewise with Venus. That is why they seem to move harmoniously.
As to the fiery planet Mars, it contributes its share to the mixture
(of the general action of the stars). As to Saturn, its case is
different, because of its distance. Mercury is indifferent, because it
assimilates itself easily to all.


All these planets contribute to the Whole. Their mutual relation,
therefore, is one suitable to the universe, just as the organs of an
animal are shaped to take part in the organism they constitute.[208]
Take, for instance, a part of the body, such as the bile, which serves
both the whole animal that contains it, and its special organ, inasmuch
as it was necessary to arouse courage, and to oppose the injury of
both the whole body, and its special organ. There had to be something
similar (to bile) in the universe; that something sweet should soften
it, that there be parts that would play the role of eyes, and that all
things should possess mutual sympathy by their irrational life.[209]
Thus only is the universe one, and thus only is it constituted by a
single harmony. How then could it be denied that all these things might
be signs, resulting from the laws of analogy?


6. Is it not unreasonable to assert that Mars, or Venus, in a certain
position, should produce adulteries? Such a statement attributes to
them incontinence such as occurs only among man, and human passion
to satisfy unworthy impulses. Or again, how could we believe that
the aspects of planets is favorable when they regard each other in
a certain manner? How can we avoid believing that their nature is
determinate? What sort of an existence would be led by the planets
if they occupied themselves with each single one of the innumerable
ever-arising and passing beings, giving them each glory, wealth,
poverty, or incontinence, and impelling all their actions? How could
the single planets effect so many simultaneous results? Nor is it any
more rational to suppose that the planets' actions await the ascensions
of the signs, nor to say that the ascension of a sign contains as many
years as there are degrees of ascension in it. Absurd also is the
theory that the planets calculate, as it were on their fingers, the
period of time when they are to accomplish something, which before was
forbidden. Besides, it is an error not to trace to a single principle
the government of the universe, attributing everything to the stars,
as if there were not a single Chief from which depends the universe,
and who distributes to every being a part and functions suitable to
its nature. To fail to recognize Him, is to destroy the order of
which we form a part, it is to ignore the nature of the world, which
presupposes a primary cause, a principle by whose activity everything
is interpenetrated.[211]


7. In fact, we would still have to ask ourselves for the cause of the
events (in our world) even if the stars, like many other things, really
prognosticated future events. We would still have to wonder at the
maintenance of the order without which no events could be prefigured.
We might, therefore, liken the stars to letters, at every moment flung
along the heavens, and which, after having been displayed, continued
in ceaseless motion, so that, while exercising another function in
the universe, they would still possess significance.[212] Thus in
a being animated by a single principle it is possible to judge one
part by another; as it is possible, by the study of the eyes or some
other organ of an individual, to conclude as to his characters, to the
dangers to which he is exposed, and how he may escape them. Just as
our members are parts of our bodies, so are we ourselves parts of the
universe. Things, therefore, are made for each other. Everything is
significant, and the wise man can conclude from one thing to another.
Indeed many habitual occurrences are foreseen by men generally. In
the universe everything is reduced to a single system.[213] To this
co-ordination is due the possibility of birds furnishing us with omens,
and other animals furnishing us with presages. All things mutually
depend from each other. Everything conspires to a single purpose,[214]
not only in each individual, whose parts are perfectly related; but
also in the universe, and that in a higher degree, and far earlier.
This multiple being could be turned into a single universal Living
organism only by a single principle. As in the human body every organ
has its individual function, likewise in the universe each being plays
its individual part; so much the more that they not only form part
of the universe, but that they themselves also form universes not
without importance.[215] All things, therefore, proceed from a single
principle, each plays its individual part, and lends each other mutual
assistance. Neither are they separate from the universe, but they act
and react on each other, each assisting or hindering the other. But
their progress is not fortuitous, nor is it the result of chance. They
form a series, where each, by a natural bond, is the effect of the
preceding one, and the cause of the following one.[216]


8. When the soul applies herself to carry out her proper
function[217]--for the soul effects everything, as far as she plays
the part of a principle--she follows the straight road;[218] when she
loses her way[219] the divine justice subjugates her to the physical
order which reigns in the universe,[220] unless the soul succeed in
liberating herself. The divine justice[221] reigns ever, because
the universe is directed by the order and power of the dominating
principle (the universal Soul).[222] To this is joined the co-operation
of the planets which are important parts of the heaven, either by
embellishing it, or by serving as signs. Now they serve as signs for
all things that occur in the sense-world. As to their potency, they
should be credited only with what they effect indisputably.


As to us, we fill the functions of the soul in accordance with nature
when we do not stray into the multiplicity contained in the universe.
When we do stray therein, we are punished for it both by the straying
itself, and by a less happy fate thereafter. Wealth and poverty,
therefore, happen to us as effects of the operation of exterior things.
As to the virtues and vices, virtues are derived from the primitive
nature of the soul, while the vices result from dealings of the soul
with exterior things. But this has been treated of elsewhere.[223]


9. This brings us to a consideration of the spindle, which, according
to the ancients, is turned by the Fates, and by which Plato
signifies[224] that which, in the evolution of the world, moves, and
that which is immovable. According to (Plato), it is the Fates, and
their mother Necessity, which turn this spindle, and which impress it
with a rotary motion in the generation of each being. It is by this
motion that begotten beings arrive at generation. In the Timaeus[225]
the (Intelligence, or) divinity which has created the universe gives
the (immortal) principle of the soul, (the reasonable soul), and the
deities which revolve in the heaven add (to the immortal principle of
the soul) the violent passions which subject us to Necessity, namely,
angers, desires, sufferings, and pleasures; in short, they furnish us
with that other kind of soul (the animal nature, or vegetable soul)
from which they derive these passions. Plato thus seems to subject us
to the stars, by hinting that we receive from them our souls,[227]
subordinating to the sway of Necessity when we descend here below,
both ourselves and our morals, and through these, the "actions" and
"passions"[228] which are derived from the passional habit[215] of the
soul (the animal nature).[229]


Our genuine selves are what is essentially "us"; we are the principle
to which Nature has given the power to triumph over the passions. For,
if we be surrounded by evils because of the body, nevertheless, the
divinity has given us virtue, which "knows of no master"[223] (is not
subject to any compulsion). Indeed we need virtue not so much when we
are in a calm state, but when its absence exposes us to evils. We must,
therefore, flee from here below;[230] we must divorce ourselves from
the body added to us in generation, and apply ourselves to the effort
to cease being this animal, this composite in which the predominant
element is the nature of the body, a nature which is only a trace of
the soul, and which causes animal life[231] to pertain chiefly to the
body. Indeed, all that relates to this life is corporeal. The other
soul (the reasonable soul, which is superior to the vegetative soul),
is not in the body; she rises to the beautiful, to the divine, and to
all the intelligible things, which depend on nothing else. She then
seeks to identify herself with them, and lives conformably to the
divinity when retired within herself (in contemplation). Whoever is
deprived of this soul (that is, whoever does not exercise the faculties
of the reasonable soul), lives in subjection to fatality.[222] Then
the actions of such a being are not only indicated by the stars, but
he himself becomes a part of the world, and he depends on the world of
which he forms a part. Every man is double,[232] for every man contains
both the composite (organism), and the real man (which constitutes the
reasonable soul).


Likewise the universe is a compound of a body and of a Soul intimately
united to it, and of the universal Soul, which is not in the Body, and
which irradiates the Soul united to the Body.[233] There is a similar
doubleness in the sun and the other stars, (having a soul united to
their body, and a soul independent thereof). They do nothing that is
shameful for the pure soul. The things they produce are parts of the
universe, inasmuch as they themselves are parts of the universe, and
inasmuch as they have a body, and a soul united to this body; but their
will and their real soul apply themselves to the contemplation of the
good Principle. It is from this Principle, or rather from that which
surrounds it, that other things depend, just as the fire radiates its
heat in all directions, and as the superior Soul (of the universe)
infuses somewhat of her potency into the lower connected soul. The evil
things here below originate in the mixture inhering in the nature of
this world. After separating the universal Soul out of the universe,
the remainder would be worthless. Therefore, the universe is a deity if
the Soul that is separable from it be included within its substance.
The remainder constitutes the guardian which (Plato) names the Great
Guardian,[234] and which, besides, possesses all the passions proper to


10. Under these circumstances, we must acknowledge that events are, by
the stars, announced, though not produced, not even by their (lower)
corporeal soul. By their lower part, their body,[235] they produce only
the things which are passions of the universe. Besides, we shall have
to acknowledge, that the soul, even before entering into generation,
while descending here below, brings something which she has by herself;
for she would not enter into a body unless she had a great disposition
to suffer.[236] We must also admit that while passing into a body the
soul is exposed to accidents, inasmuch as she is subjected to the
course of the universe, and as this very course contributes to the
production of what the universe is to accomplish; for the things which
are comprised in the course of the universe act as its parts.


11. We must also reflect that the impressions which we derive from
the stars do not reach us in the same condition in which they leave
them. Just as fire in us is much degenerated from that in the heaven,
so sympathy, degenerating within the receiving person, begets an
unworthy affection. Courage produces in those who do not possess it in
the proper proportions, either violence or cowardliness. Love of the
beautiful and good thus becomes the search for what only appears so.
Discernment, in undergoing this degradation, becomes the trickiness
which seeks to equal it, without succeeding in doing so. Thus all these
qualities become evil in us, without being such in the stars. All the
impressions we receive thereof are in us not such as they are in the
stars; besides they are still further degraded by mingling with the
bodies, with matter, and with each other.[237]


12. The influences proceeding from the stars commingle; and this
mixture modifies all generated things, determining their nature and
qualities.[238] It is not the celestial influence which produces the
horse, it is limited to exercising an influence upon him; for,[239]
the horse is begotten from horse, man from man; the sun can only
contribute to their formation. Man is born from the (seminal logos), or
reason of man; but the circumstances may be favorable or unfavorable
to him. In fact, a son resembles the father, though he may be formed
better or worse; but never does he entirely detach himself from matter.
Sometimes, however, the matter so prevails over nature that the being
is imperfect because the form does not dominate.[240]


13. We must now distinguish, decide and express the origin of various
things, inasmuch as there are some things that are produced by the
course of the stars, and others that are not. Our principle is that the
Soul governs the universe by Reason, just as each animal is governed by
the principle (the reason) which fashions his organs, and harmonizes
them with the whole of which they are parts;[241] now the All contains
everything, while the parts contain only what is individual to them. As
to exterior influences, some assist, while others oppose the tendency
of nature. All things are subordinated to the All because they are
parts of it; by their co-operation, each with its own nature and their
particular tendencies they form the total life of the universe.[242]
The inanimate beings serve as instruments for the others that set them
in motion by a mechanical impulse. Irrational animated beings move
indeterminately; such as horses attached to a chariot before the driver
indicates which direction they are to follow; for they need the whip to
be directed. The nature of the reasonable animal contains the directing
driver;[243] if the driver be skilful, it follows the straight road,
instead of going blindly at chance, as often happens. Beings gifted
with reason and those that lack it are both contained within the
universe, and contribute to the formation of the whole. Those which are
more powerful, and which occupy a more elevated rank do many important
things, and co-operate in the life of the universe where their part is
active, rather than passive. The passive ones act but little. Those of
intermediary rank are passive in regard to some, and often active in
regard to others, because they themselves possess the power of action
and production (the stars, the brutes, and men.[244]).


The universe leads an universal and perfect life, because the good
principles (the star-Souls) produce excellency, that is, the more
excellent part in every object.[245] These principles are subordinate
to the Soul that governs the universe, as soldiers are to their
general; consequently, (Plato) describes this by the figure of
the attendants of Jupiter (the universal Soul) advancing to the
contemplation of the intelligible world.


The beings which possess a nature inferior to the star-Souls, that
is, men, occupy the second rank in the universe, and play in it the
same part played in us by the second power of the soul (the discursive
reason). The other beings, that is, the animals, occupy about the same
rank occupied in us by the lowest (or vegetative) power of the soul;
for all these powers in us are not of equal rank.[246] Consequently,
all the beings which are in the heaven, or which are distributed in
the universe are animated beings, and derive their life from the total
Reason of the universe (because it contains the "seminal reasons"
of all living beings). None of the parts of the universe, whatever
be its greatness, possesses the power of altering the reasons, nor
the beings engendered with the co-operation of these reasons. It may
improve or degrade these beings, but cannot deprive them of their
individual nature. It degrades them by injuring either their body or
their soul; which occurs when an accident becomes a cause of vice for
the soul which partakes of the passions of the body (the sensitive and
vegetative soul) and which is given over to the inferior principle (to
the animal) by the superior principle (the reasonable soul); or when
the body, by its poor organization, hinders the actions in which the
soul needs its co-operation; then it resembles a badly attuned lyre,
which is incapable of producing sounds which could form a perfect


14. Poverty, wealth, glory, and authoritative positions may have
many different causes. If a man derive his wealth from his parents,
the stars have only announced that he would be rich; and they would
have only announced his nobility if he owed his wealth to his birth.
If a man acquire wealth by his merit, in some way in which his body
contributed thereto, the causes of his bodily vigor co-operated in his
fortune; first his parents, then his fatherland, if it be possessed of
a good climate, and last the fertility of the soil.[248] If this man
owe his wealth to virtue, this source should be considered exclusive;
and likewise with the transitory advantages he may by divine favor
possess. Even if his wealth be derived from virtuous persons, still,
in another way, his fortune is due to virtue. If his wealth were
derived from evil men, though by a just means, yet the wealth proceeds
from a good principle which was active in them. Finally, if a man who
has amassed wealth be evil, the cause of his fortune is this very
wickedness, and the principle from which it derives; even those who may
have given him money must be included in the order of its causes. If a
man owe his wealth to labor, such as agricultural work, the causes of
the wealth include the care of the ploughman and the co-operation of
exterior circumstances. Even if he found a treasure, it is something
in the universe which contributed thereto. Besides, this discovery may
have been foretold; for all things concatenate with everything else,
and, consequently, announce each other. If a man scatter his wealth,
he is the cause of their loss; if his wealth be taken from him, the
cause is the man who takes it. Many are the contributory causes of a
shipwreck. Glory may be acquired justly or unjustly. Just glory is due
to services rendered, or to the esteem of other people. Unjust glory
is caused by the injustice of those who glorify that man. Deserved
power is due to the good sense of the electors, or to the activity of
the man who acquired it by the co-operation of his friends, or to
any other circumstance. A marriage is determined by a preference, or
by some accidental circumstance, or by the co-operation of several
circumstances. The procreation of children is one of its consequences;
it occurs in accordance with the ("seminal) reason," in case it meet no
obstacle; if it be defective, there must be some interior defect in the
pregnant mother, or the fault lies in the impotence of the father.


15. Plato[249] speaks of the lots, and conditions chosen by one turn
of the spindle (of Clotho); he speaks also of a guardian who helps
each man to fulfil his destiny. These conditions are the disposition
of the universe at the time of the soul's entrance into the body, the
nature of their body, parents and fatherland; in short, the aggregate
of external circumstances. Evidently all these things, in detail as
well as in totality, are simultaneously produced and related by one
of the Fates, namely Clotho. Lachesis then presents the conditions
to the souls. Finally Atropos renders the accomplishment of all the
circumstances of each destiny irrevocable.


Some men, fascinated by the universe and exterior objects, completely
or partially abdicate their freedom.[250] Others, dominating their
environment, raise their head to the sky, and freeing themselves from
exterior circumstances, release that better part of their souls which
forms their primitive being. As to the latter point, it would be wrong
to think that the nature of the soul was determined by the passions
aroused in her by external objects, and that she did not possess her
own individual nature. On the contrary, as she plays the part of a
principle, she possesses, much more than other things, faculties
suitable to accomplish actions suitable to her nature. Since she is
a being, the soul necessarily possesses appetites, active faculties,
and the power of living well.[251] The aggregate (of the soul and
body, the organism) depends on the nature which formed it, and from
it receives its qualities and actions. If the soul separate from the
body, she produces actions which are suitable to her nature, and which
do not depend from the body; she does not appropriate the credit for
the passions of the body, because she recognizes the difference of her


16. What is the mingled, and what is the pure part of the soul? What
part of the soul is separable? What part is not separable so long as
the soul is in a body? What is the animal? This subject will have to be
studied elsewhere,[253] for there is practically no agreement on the
subject. For the present, let us explain in which sense we above said
that the soul governs the universe by Reason.


Does the universal Soul form all the beings successively, first man,
then the horse, then some other animal, and last the wild beasts?[254]
Does she begin by producing earth and fire; then, seeing the
co-operation of all these things which mutually destroy or assist each
other, does she consider only their totality and their connections,
without regarding the accidents which occur to them later? Does she
limit herself to the reproduction of preceding generations of animals,
and does she leave these exposed to the passions with which they
inspire each other?


Does the "reason" of each individual contain both his "actions" and
"reactions"[215] in a way such that these are neither accidental nor
fortuitous, but necessary?[255] Are these produced by the reasons? Or
do the reasons know them, without producing them? Or does the soul,
which contains the generative "reasons,"[256] know the effects of all
her works by reasoning according to the following principle, that the
concourse of the same circumstances must evidently produce the same
effects? If so, the soul, understanding or foreseeing the effects of
her works, by them determines and concatenates all the events that
are to happen. She, therefore, considers all the antecedents and
consequents, and foresees what is to follow from what precedes.[257]
It is (because the beings thus proceed from each other) that the
races continually degenerate. For instance, men degenerate because in
departing continually and unavoidably (from the primitive type) the
("seminal) reasons" yield to the "passions" of matter.[258]


Is the soul the cause of these passions, because she begets the beings
that produce them? Does the soul then consider the whole sequence
of events, and does she pass her existence watching the "passions"
experienced by her works? Does she never cease thinking of the latter,
does she never put on them the finishing touch, regulating them so that
they should always go well?[259] Does she resemble some farmer who,
instead of limiting himself to sowing and planting, should ceaselessly
labor to repair the damage caused by the rains, the winds, and the
storms? Unless this hypothesis be absurd, it must be admitted that
the soul knows in advance, or even that the ("seminal)[260] reasons"
contain accidents which happen to begotten beings, that is, their
destruction and all the effects of their faults.[261] In this case,
we are obliged to say that the faults are derived from the ("seminal)
reasons", although the arts and their reasons contain neither error,
fault, nor destruction of a work of art.[262]


It might here be objected that there could not be in the universe
anything bad or contrary to nature; and it must be acknowledged that
even what seems less good still has its utility. If this seem to
admit that things that are less good contribute to the perfection
of the universe, and that there is no necessity that all things be
beautiful,[263] it is only because the very contraries contribute
to the perfection of the universe, and so the world could not exist
without them. It is likewise with all living beings. The ("seminal)
reason" necessarily produces and forms what is better; what is
less good is contained in the "potentiality" of the "reasons," and
"actualized" in the begotten beings. The (universal) Soul has,
therefore, no need to busy herself therewith, nor to cause the
"reasons" to become active. For the "reasons" successfully subdue
matter to what is better (the forms), even though matter alters what it
receives by imparting a shock to the "reasons" that proceed from the
higher principles. All things, therefore, form a harmonious totality
because they simultaneously proceed from matter, and the "reasons"
which beget them.


17. Let us examine if the "reasons" contained in the Soul are
thoughts. How could the Soul produce by thoughts? It is the Reason
which produces in matter; but the principle that produces naturally is
neither a thought nor an intuition, but a power that fashions matter
unconsciously, just as a circle gives water a circular figure and
impression. Indeed, the natural generative power has the function of
production; but it needs the co-operation of the governing (principle)
of the Soul, which forms and which causes the activity of the
generative soul engaged in matter. If the governing power of the Soul
form the generative soul by reasoning, it will be considering either
another object, or what it possesses in herself. If the latter be the
case, she has no need of reasoning,[264] for it is not by reasoning
that the Soul fashions matter, but by the power which contains the
reasons, the power which alone is effective, and capable of production.
The Soul, therefore, produces by the forms. The forms she transmits
are by her received from the Intelligence. This Intelligence, however,
gives the forms to the universal Soul which is located immediately
below her, and the universal Soul transmits them to the inferior soul
(the natural generative power), fashioning and illuminating her. The
inferior soul then produces, at one time without meeting any obstacles,
at others, when doing so, although, in the latter case, she produces
things less perfect. As she has received the power of production, and
as she contains the reasons which are not the first (the "seminal
reasons," which are inferior to the Ideas) not only does she, by virtue
of what she has received, produce, but she also draws from herself
something which is evidently inferior (matter).[265] It doubtless
produces a living being (the universe), but a living being which is
less perfect, and which enjoys life much less, because it occupies
the last rank, because it is coarse and hard to manage, because
the matter which composes it is, as it were, the bitterness or the
superior principles, because it spreads its bitterness around her, and
communicates some of it to the universe.


18. Must the evils in the universe be considered as necessary,[266]
because they are the consequences of the superior principles? Yes,
for without them the universe would be imperfect. The greater number
of evils, if not all of them, are useful to the universe; such as
the venomous animals; though they often ignore their real utility.
Even wickedness is useful in certain respects, and can produce many
beautiful things; for example, it leads to fine inventions, it forces
men to prudence, and does not let them fall asleep in an indolent


Under these circumstances, it is plain that the universal Soul ever
contemplates the better principles, because it is turned towards the
intelligible world, and towards the divinity. As she fills herself with
God, and is filled with God, she, as it were, overflows over her image,
namely, the power which holds the last rank (the natural generative
power), and which, consequently, is the last creative power. Above
this creative power is the power of the Soul which immediately receives
the forms from the Intelligence. Above all is the Intelligence, the
Demiurge, who gives the forms to the universal Soul, and the latter
impresses its traces on the third-rank power (the natural generative
power).[268] This world, therefore, is veritably a picture which
perpetually pictures itself. The two first principles are immovable;
the third is also immovable (in essence); but it is engaged in matter,
and becomes immovable (only) by accident. As long as the Intelligence
and the Soul subsist, the "reasons" flow down into this image of the
Soul (the natural generative power); likewise, so long as the sun
subsists, all light emanates therefrom.[269]


The Organism and the Self.[270]


1. To what part of our nature do pleasure and grief, fear and
boldness desire and aversion, and, last, pain, belong? Is it to
the soul (herself),[271] or to the soul when she uses the body as an
instrument,[272] or to some third (combination) of both? Even the
latter might be conceived of in a double sense: it might be either
the simple mixture of the soul and the body,[273] or some different
product resulting therefrom.[274] The same uncertainty obtains
about the products of the above mentioned experiences: namely,
passions,[275] actions, and opinions. For example, we may ask whether
ratiocination[276] and opinion both, belong to the same principle as
the passions; or whether only one of them does; in which case the
other would belong to some other principle. We should also inquire
concerning the nature and classification of thought.[277] Last we
should study the principle that undertakes this inquiry and which comes
to some conclusion about it. But, first of all, who is the agent, who
feels? This is the real starting point: for even passions are modes of
feeling, or at least they do not exist without it.[278]


2. Let us first examine the soul (herself). Is there any difference
between the soul and the soul-essence? If there be a difference,
the soul must be a composite aggregate: and it should no longer be a
matter of surprise that both she and her essence, at least so far as
she admits thereof, together experience the above mentioned passions,
and in general the habits, and better or worse dispositions. But, on
the contrary, if, soul and soul-essence be identical, then the soul
should be a form which would be unreceptive for all these energies of
essence, which on the contrary she imparts to other things, possessing
in herself a connate energy which our reason reveals in her. In this
case we must acknowledge that she is immortal, inasmuch as the immortal
and undecaying must be impassible, giving to others without receiving
anything in return from them; or at least, deriving nothing but from
the superior (or anterior) principles, from which she is not cut off,
inasmuch as they are better.


A being that were so unreceptive to anything external would have no
ground for fear of anything external. Fear might indeed be natural
to something. Neither would she be bold, for this sentiment, implies
shelter from what is terrifying. As to such desires which are satisfied
by the emptying or filling of the body, they belong only to some nature
foreign enough to be emptied or filled. How could she participate in a
mixture, inasmuch as the essential is unmingled? Further she would not
wish to have anything introduced (in herself), for this would imply
striving to become something foreign to herself. She would also be far
from suffering, for how could she grieve, and about what? For that
which is of simple being is self-sufficient, in that she remains in her
own being. Neither will she rejoice at any increase, as not even the
good could happen to her. What she is, she ever will be. Nor could we
attribute to the pure soul sensation, ratiocination or opinion; for
sensation is the perception, of a form or of an impassible body; and
besides ratiocination and opinion (depend) on sensation. We shall,
however, have to examine whether or no we should attribute to the
soul thought; also, whether pure pleasure can affect a soul while she
remains alone.[279]


3. Whether the soul, according to her being, be located in the body,
above or within this latter, the soul forms with the body an entity
called (a "living being" or) organism.[280] In this case, the soul
using the body as a tool is not forced to participate in its passions,
any more than workmen participate in the experiences of their tools. As
to sensations, of course, the soul must perceive them, since in order
to use her instrument, the soul must, by means of sensation, cognize
the modifications that this instrument may receive from without. Thus
seeing consists of using the eyes; and the soul at the same time feels
the evils which may affect the sight. Similar is the case with griefs,
pains and any corporeal exigency; also with the desires which arise
from the soul's need to take recourse to the ministry of the body. But
how do passions from the body penetrate into the soul? For a body could
communicate her own properties to some other body; but how could she do
so to a soul?


Such a process would imply that one individual suffers when an entirely
different individual is affected. There must be a distinction between
them so long as we consider the former the user, and the latter the
used; and it is philosophy,[281] that produces this separation by
giving to the soul the power of using the body as a tool.


But what was the condition of the soul before her separation from the
body by philosophy? Was she mingled with the body? If she were mingled
with it, she must either have been formed[282] by mixing;[271] or she
was spread all over the body; or she was[283] a form interwoven with
the body; or she was a form governing the body[284] as a pilot governs
the ship;[285] or[286] was partly mingled with, and partly separated
from, the body. (In the latter case) I would call the independent
part that which uses the body as a tool, while the mingled part is
that which lowers itself to the classification or rank of instrument.
Now philosophy raises the latter to the rank of the former; and the
detached part turns her away, as far as our needs allow, from the body
she uses, so that she may not always have to use the body.


4. Now let us suppose the soul is mingled with the body. In this
mixture, the worse part, or body, will gain, while the soul will lose.
The body will improve by participation with the soul; and the soul will
deteriorate by association with death and irrationality. Well, does
the soul, in somewhat losing life, gain the accession of sensation?
On the other hand, would not the body, by participation in life, gain
sensation and its derived passions? It is the latter, then, which will
desire, inasmuch as it will enjoy the desired objects, and will feel
fear about them. It is the latter which may be exposed to the escape of
the objects of its desire, and to decay.[287]


We will set aside as impossible the mixture of two incommensurables,
such as a line and the color called white. A mixture of the soul
and body, which must imply their commensurability, would demand
explanation. Even if the soul interpenetrate the body, the soul
need not share the body's passions, for the interpenetrating medium
may remain impassible; as light, which remains such in spite of its
diffusion.[288] Thus the soul might remain a stranger to the body's
passions, though diffused through it, and need not necessarily undergo
its passions.


Should we say that the soul is in the body, as form in matter? In this
case, she is "being," and she would be a separable form. If then[289]
she be in the body as, in the case of the axe, the schematic figure is
in the iron, so as by her own proper virtue, to form the power of doing
what iron thus formed accomplishes, we will have all the more reason to
attribute the common passions to the body, which is[290] an organized
physical tool possessing potential life. For if as (Plato) says[291]
it be absurd to suppose that it is the soul that weaves, it is not
any more reasonable to attribute the desires and griefs to the soul;
rather, by far, to the living organism.


5. The "living organism" must mean either the thus organized body,
or the common mixture of soul and body, or some third thing which
proceeds from the two first. In either of these three cases the soul
will have to be considered impassible, while the power of experiencing
passions will inhere in something else; or the soul will have to share
the body's passions, in which case the soul will have to experience
passions either identical or analogous to those of the body, so that to
a desire of the animal there will correspond an act or a passion of the
concupiscible appetite.


We shall later on consider the organized body; here we must find how
the conjunction of soul and body could experience suffering. The
theory that the affection of the body modifies it so as to produce a
sensation which itself would end in the soul, leaves unexplained the
origin of sensation. To the theory that suffering has its principle in
this opinion or judgment, that a misfortune is happening to ourselves
or some one related to us, whence results disagreeable emotion first
in the body, and then in the whole living organism,[292] there is this
objection, that it is yet uncertain to which opinion belongs; to the
soul, or to the conjunction of soul and body. Besides, the opinion
of the presence of an evil does not always entail suffering; it is
possible that, in spite of such an opinion, one feels no affliction;
as, for instance, one may not become irritated at believing oneself
scorned; or in experiencing no desire even in the expectation of some


How then arise these affections common to the soul and the body? Shall
we then say that desire derives from the desire-appetite,[293] anger
from the anger-appetite, or in short, every emotion or affliction from
the corresponding appetite? But even so, they will not be common, and
they will belong exclusively to the soul, or to the body. There are
some whose origin needs the excitation of blood and bile, and that the
body be in some certain state which excites desire, as in physical
love. On the contrary, however, the desire of goodness is no common
affection; it is an affection peculiar to the soul, as are several
others. Reason, therefore, does not allow us to consider all affections
as common to soul and body.


Is it possible, however, that for example, in physical love, the
man[294] may experience a desire simultaneously with the corresponding
appetite? This is impossible, for two reasons. If we say that the man
begins to experience the desire, while the corresponding appetite
continues it, it is plain the man cannot experience a desire without
the activity of the appetite. If on the other hand it be the appetite
that begins, it is clear that it cannot begin being excited unless the
body first find itself in suitable circumstances, which is unreasonable.


6. It would, however, probably be better to put the matter thus: by
their presence, the faculties of the soul cause reaction in the organs
which possess them, so that while they themselves remain unmoved, they
give them the power to enter into movement.[295] In this case, however,
when the living organism experiences suffering, the life-imparting
cause must itself remain impassible, while the passions and energies
belong wholly to that which receives life. In this case, therefore, the
life will not belong exclusively to the soul, but to the conjunction
of the soul and body; or, at least, the latter's life will not be
identical with the soul's, nor will it be the faculty of sensation,
which will feel, but the being in whom that faculty inheres.


If, however, sensation, which is no more than a corporeal emotion,
finds its term in the soul, the soul must surely feel sensation;
therefore it does not occur as an effect of the presence of the faculty
of sensation, for this ignores the feeling agent back of it. Nor is it
the conjunction of soul and body, for unless the faculty of sensation
operate, that aggregate could not feel, and it would then no longer
include as elements either the soul, or the faculty of sensation.


7. The aggregate results from the presence of the soul, not indeed that
the soul enters into the aggregate, or constitutes one of its elements.
Out of this organized body, and of a kind of light furnished by
herself, the soul forms the animal nature, which differs both from soul
and body, and to which belongs sensation, as well as all the passions
attributed to the animal.[296]


If now we should be asked how it happened that "we" feel, we answer:
We are not separated from the organism, although within us exist
principles[297] of a higher kind which concur in forming the manifold
complex of human nature.


As to the faculty of sensation which is peculiar to the soul, it cannot
be the power of perceiving the sense-objects themselves, but only
their typical forms, impressed on the animal by sensation. These have
already somewhat of the intelligible nature; the exterior sensation
peculiar to the animal is only the image of the sensation peculiar to
the soul; which, by its very essence is truer and more real, since it
consists only in contemplating images while remaining impassible.[298]
Ratiocination, opinion and thought, which principally constitute
us,[299] deal exclusively with these images, by which the soul has the
power of directing the organism.


No doubt these faculties are "ours," but "we" are the superior
principle which, from above, directs the organising but in this whole
we shall have to distinguish an inferior part, mingled with the body,
and a superior part, which is the true man. The former (irrational
soul) constitutes the beast, as for instance, the lion; the latter is
the rational soul, which constitutes man. In every ratiocination, it is
"we" who reason, because ratiocination is the peculiar activity (or,
energy) of the soul.[300]


8. What is our relation with the Intelligence? I mean not the
habit imparted to the soul by the intellect, but the absolute
Intelligence;[301] which, though above us, is also common to all men,
or peculiar to each of them; in other words, is simultaneously common
and individual. Common because it is indivisible, one and everywhere
the same; particular because each soul possesses it entirely in the
first or rational soul. Likewise, we possess the ideas in a double
manner; in the soul they appear developed and separate; in the
intelligence they exist all together.[302]


What is our relation with God? He hovers over the intelligible nature,
and real being; while we, being on the third rank as counted from
thence, are of the undivided universal Soul, which[303] is indivisible
because she forms part of the upper world, while she is divisible in
regard to the bodies. She is indeed divisible in regard to the bodies,
since she permeates each of them as far as they live; but at the same
time she is indivisible because she is one in the universe.


She seems to be present in the bodies, and illuminates them, making
living beings out of them. This occurs not as a mixture of herself and
bodies, but by remaining individual, giving out images of herself,[304]
just as a single face in several mirrors. Of these, the first is
sensation, which resides in the common part, the organism; then come
all the other forms of the soul--forms which successively derive each
from the other, down to the faculties of generation and increase,
and generally, the power of producing and fashioning that which is
different from self--which indeed the soul does as soon as she turns
towards the object she fashions.[305]


9. In this conception of the soul, she will be foreign to the cause of
the evils which the man does and suffers. These refer to the organism,
that common part, understood as above. Although opinion be deceptive,
and makes us commit much evil, and although opinion and ratiocination
both belong to the soul, yet the soul may be sinless, inasmuch as we
are only mastered by the worse part of our nature.[306] Often, indeed,
we yield to appetite, to anger, and we are the dupes of some imperfect
image. The conception of false things, the imagination[307] does not
await the judgment of discursive reason. There are still other cases
where we yield to the lower part of ourselves; in sensation, for
instance, we see things that do not exist, because we rely on the
common sensation of soul and body, before having discerned its objects
by discursive reason.


In this case did the intellect grasp the object itself? Certainly
not; and, therefore, it is not the intellect that is responsible
for the error. We say as much for the "we," according as we will or
will not have perceived the object, either in the intellect, or in
ourselves;--for it is possible to possess an object without having it
actually present.


We have distinguished from things common to soul and body, those
peculiar to the soul. The former are corporeal, and cannot be produced
without the organs, while the latter's occurrence is independent of
the body. Ratiocination[276] is the essential and constitutive faculty
of the real soul, because it determines the typical forms derived from
sensation, it looks, it somehow feels the images, and really is the
dominating part of the soul. The conception of true things is the act
of intuitive thoughts.


There is often a resemblance and community between exterior and
interior things; in this case the soul will not any the less exercise
herself on herself, will not any the less remain within herself,
without feeling any passive modification. As to the modifications and
troubles which may arise in us, they derive from foreign elements,
attached to the soul, as well as from passions experienced by the above
described common part.


10. But if "we" are the "soul," we must admit that when we experience
passions, the soul experiences them also; that when we act, the soul
acts. We may even say that the common part is also "ours," especially
before philosophy separated the soul from the body;[308] in fact, we
even say "we" suffer, when our body suffers. "We" is, therefore, taken
in a double sense: either the soul with the animal part, or living
body; or simply the upper part; while the vivified body is a wild


The real Man differs from the body; pure from every passion, he
possesses the intellectual virtues, virtues which reside in the soul,
either when she is separated from the body, or when she is--as usually
here below--only separable by philosophy; for even when she seems to
us entirely separated, the soul is, in this life, ever accompanied
by a lower[309] sensitive part, or part of growth, which she


As to the virtues which consist not in wisdom, but in ethical habits
and austerities, they belong to the common part. To it alone, also,
are vices to be imputed, inasmuch as it exclusively experiences envy,
jealousy and cowardly pity. Friendships, however, should be referred
some to the common part, and others to the pure Soul or inner Man. In
childhood, the faculties of the composite common part are exercised,
but rarely is it illuminated from above. When this superior principle
seems inactive in relation to us, it is actively engaged towards the
upper intelligible world; and it only begins to be active towards us
when it advances as far as[311] (fancy or representation), the middle
part of our being.


But is the superior principle not "ours" also? Surely, but only when we
are conscious thereof; for we do not always utilize our possessions.
This utilization, however, takes place when we direct this middle
part of our being towards either the upper or lower worlds, and when
we actualize into energies what before was only an (Aristotelian)
"potentiality" or a (Stoic) "habit."


We might define the animating principle of animals. If it be true,
according to common opinion, that animal bodies contain human souls
that have sinned, the separable part of these souls does not properly
belong to these bodies; although these souls assist these bodies, the
souls are not actually present to them.[312] In them the sensation is
common to the image of the soul and to the body;--but to the latter
only in so far as it is organized and fashioned by the image of the
soul. As to the animals into whose bodies no human soul entered, they
are produced by an illumination of the universal Soul.


12. There is a contradiction between our own former opinion that the
soul cannot sin, and the universally admitted belief that the soul
commits sins, expiates them, undergoes punishments in Hades, and that
she passes into new bodies. Although we seem to be in a dilemma,
forcing us to choose between them, it might be possible to show they
are not incompatible.


When we attribute infallibility to the soul, we are supposing her to be
one and simple, identifying the soul with soul essence. When, however,
we consider her capable of sin, we are looking at her as a complex, of
her essence and of another kind of soul which can experience brutal
passions. The soul, thus, is a combination of various elements; and it
is not the pure soul, but this combination, which experiences passions,
commits sins, and undergoes punishments. It was this conception of the
soul Plato was referring to when he said:[313] "We see the soul as we
see Glaucus, the marine deity," and he adds, "He who would know the
nature of the soul herself should, after stripping her of all that is
foreign to her, in her, especially consider her philosophic love for
truth; and see to what things she attaches herself, and by virtue of
whose affinities she is what she is." We must, therefore, differentiate
the soul's life acts from that which is punished, and when we speak of
philosophy's separation of the soul, we mean a detaching not only from
the body, but also from what has been added to the soul.


This addition occurs during her generation, or rather in the generation
of another ideal form of soul, the "animal nature." Elsewhere[314] this
generation has been explained thus. When the soul descends, at the very
moment when she inclines towards the body, she produces an image of
herself. The soul, however, must not be blamed for sending this image
into the body. For the soul to incline towards the body is for the
soul to shed light on what is below her; and this is no more sinful
than to produce a shadow. That which is blamable is the illuminated
object; for if it did not exist, there would be nothing to illuminate.
The descent of the soul, or her inclination to the body, means only
that she communicates life to what she illuminates. She drives away her
image, or lets it vanish, if nothing receptive is in its vicinity; the
soul lets the image vanish, not because she is separated--for to speak
accurately, she is not separated from the body--but because she is no
longer here below; and she is no longer below when she is entirely
occupied in contemplating the intelligible world.


(Homer) seems to admit this distinction in speaking of Hercules, when
he sends the image of this hero into Hades, and still he locates him
within the abode of the deities[315];--it is at least the idea implied
in this double assertion that Hercules is in Hades and that he is in
Olympus. The poet, therefore, distinguished in him two elements. We
might perhaps expound the passage as follows: Hercules had an active
virtue, and because of his great qualities was judged worthy of being
classified with the deities, but as he possessed only the active
virtue, and not the contemplative virtue, he could not be admitted into
Heaven entirely; while he is in heaven, there is something of him in


13. Is it "we" or the "soul" which makes these researches? It is we, by
means of the soul. The cause of this is, not we who consider the soul
because we possess her, but that the soul considers herself. This need
not imply motion, as it is generally understood, but a motion entirely
different from that of the bodies, and which is its own life.


Intelligence[277] also is ours, but only in the sense that the soul is
intelligent; for us, the (higher) life consists in a better thinking.
The soul enjoys this life either when she thinks intelligible objects,
or when the intellect is both a part of ourselves, and something
superior towards which we ascend.


Of the First Good, and of the Other Goods.[317]


1. Could any one say that there was, for any being, any good but the
activity of "living according to nature?"[318] For a being composed
of several parts, however, the good will consist in the activity of
its best part, an action which is peculiar, natural, and unfailing.
Further: as the soul is an excellent being, and directs her activity
towards something excellent, this excellent aim is not merely excellent
relatively to the soul, but is the absolute Good. If then there be a
principle which does not direct its action towards any other thing,
because it is the best of beings, being above them all, it can be this
only because all other beings trend towards it. This then, evidently,
is the absolute Good by virtue of which all other beings participate


Now there are two methods of participation in the Good: the first, is
to become similar to it; the second is to direct one's activity towards
it. If then the direction of one's desire and one's action towards the
better principle be a good, then can the absolute good itself neither
regard nor desire any other thing, remaining in abiding rest, being the
source and principle of all actions conforming to nature, giving to
other things the form of the Good, without acting on them, as they, on
the contrary, direct their actions thereto.


Only by permanence--not by action, nor even by thought--is this
principle the Good. For if it be super-Being, it must also be
super-Activity, super-Intelligence, and Thought. The principle from
which everything depends, while itself depending on nothing else, must,
therefore, be recognized as the Good. (This divinity) must, therefore,
persist in His condition, while everything turns towards Him, just as,
in a circle, all the radii meet in the centre. An example of this is
the sun, which is a centre of the light that is, as it were, suspended
from that planet. The light accompanies the sun everywhere, and never
parts from it; and even if you wished to separate it on one side, it
would not any the less remain concentrated around it.


2. Let us study the dependence of everything on the Good. The inanimate
trends toward the Soul, while the animate Soul trends towards the Good
through Intelligence. As far as anything possesses unity, essence or
form, it participates in the Good. By its participation in unity,
essence and form each being participates in the Good, even though the
latter be only an image, for the things in which it participates are
only images of unity, essence, and form. For the (first) Soul[319]
as she approaches Intelligence, she acquires a life which approaches
closer to truth; and she owes this to Intelligence; thus (by virtue
of Intelligence) she possesses the form of the Good. To possess the
latter, all she needs to do is to turn her looks towards it; for
Intelligence is the next after the Good. Therefore, to those to whom
it is granted to live, life is the good. Likewise, for those who
participate in intelligence, Intelligence is the good. Consequently,
such (a being as) joins intelligence to life possesses a double good.


3. Though life be a good, it does not belong to all beings. Life
is incomplete for the evil person, as for an eye that does not see
distinctly; neither accomplish their purpose. If, for us, life, though
mingled as it is, be a good, even if an imperfect one, how shall we
continue to assert that death is not an evil? But for whom would it be
an evil? This we must ask because evil must necessarily be an attribute
of somebody. Now there is no more evil for a being which, though
even existing, is deprived of life, any more than for a stone (as
they say). But if, after death, the being still live, if it be still
animate, it will possess good, and so much the more as it exercises
its faculties without the body. If it be united to the universal Soul,
evidently there can be no evil for it, any more than for the gods who
possess good unmingled with evil. Similar is the case of the soul which
preserves her purity, inasmuch as he who loses her finds that life, and
not death, is the real Evil. If there be chastisements in Hades, again
is life an evil for the soul, because she is not pure. If, further, we
define life as the union of the soul with the body, and death as their
separation, the soul can pass through both these conditions (without,
on that account, being unhappy, or losing her hold on the Good).


How is death not an evil, if life be a good? Certainly life is a good
for such as possess the Good, (it is a good) not because the soul is
united to the body, but because she repels evil by virtue. (Without
the latter) death would rather be a good (because it delivers us from
the body[320]). To resume: by itself, life in a body is evil; but, by
virtue, the soul locates herself in the good, not by perpetuating the
existing corporeal union, but by separating herself from the body.




    Bouillet. Creuzer. Holstenius.
       =1=       34        34
       =2=        8         8
       =3=        9         9
       =4=       27        28
       =5=       20        20
       =6=       18        18
       =7=       24        25
       =8=       19        19
       =9=        7         7
      =11=       22        23
      =12=       10        10
      =13=       12        12
      =14=       26        27
      =15=        1         1
      =16=        2         2
      =17=        3         3
      =18=        4         4
      =19=        5         5
      =20=        6         6
      =21=       28        29
      =22=       29        30
      =23=       22        23
      =24=       17        17
      =25=       16        16
      =26=       11        11
      =27=       25        26
      =28=       14        14
      =29=       13        13
      =30=       30        31
      =31=       42        43
      =32=       44        45
      =33=       15        15
      =34=       23        24
      =35=       43        44
      =36=       35        35
      =37=       36        37
      =38=       37        38
      =39=       39        40
      =40=       40        41
      =41=       33        36
      =42=       38        39
      =43=       31        32
      =44=       41        42

The order of Bouillet has been left, because the other orders differ
anyway, and because this is the one that Porphyry introduced into the
works of Plotinos. It must, therefore, have been of most significance
to him.



Of Virtues.

I.--There is a difference between the virtues of the citizen, those
of the man who essays to rise to contemplation, and who, on this
account, is said to possess a contemplative mind; those of him who
contemplates intelligence; and finally those of pure Intelligence,
which is completely separated from the soul.

1. The civil virtues consist of moderation in passions, and in
letting one's actions follow the rational laws of duty. The object
of these virtues being to make us benevolent in our dealings with
our fellow-human beings, they are called civil virtues because they
mutually unite citizens. "Prudence refers to the rational part of our
soul; courage, to that part of the soul subject to anger; temperance
consists in the agreement and harmony of appetite and reason; finally
justice, consists in the accomplishment, by all these faculties, of the
function proper to each of them, either to command, or to obey."

2. The virtues of the man who tries to rise to contemplation consist in
detaching oneself from things here below; that is why they are called
"purifications."[323] They command us to abstain from activities which
innervate the organs, and which excite the affections that relate to
the body. The object of these virtues is to raise the soul to genuine
existence. While the civil virtues are the ornament of mortal life,
and prepare the soul for the purificatory virtues, the latter direct
the man whom they adorn to abstain from activities in which the body
predominates. Thus, in the purificatory virtues, "prudence consists
in not forming opinions in harmony with the body, but in acting by
oneself, which is the work of pure thought. Temperance consists in not
sharing the passions of the body; courage, in not fearing separation
therefrom, as if death drove man into emptiness and annihilation; while
justice exacts that reason and intelligence command and be obeyed."
The civil virtues moderate the passions; their object is to teach us
to live in conformity with the laws of human nature. The contemplative
virtues obliterate the passions from the soul; their object is to
assimilate man to the divinity.

There is a difference between purifying oneself, and being pure.
Consequently the purificatory virtues may, like purification itself,
be considered in two lights; they purify the soul, and they adorn the
purified soul, because the object of purification is purity. But "since
purification and purity consist in being separated from every foreign
entity, the good is something different from the soul that purifies
itself. If the soul that purifies herself had possessed the good before
losing her purity, it would be sufficient for the soul to purify
herself; but in this very case, what would remain to her after the
purification would be the good, but not the purification. But the soul
is not the good; she can only participate therein, and have its form;
otherwise the soul would not have fallen into evil. For the soul, good
consists in being united to her author, and her evil is to unite with
lower things."[324]

Of evil, there are two kinds; the one, is to unite with lower things;
the other is to abandon oneself to the passions. The civil virtues
owe their name of virtues and their value to their releasing the soul
from one of these two kinds of evil (of the passions). The purificatory
virtues are superior to the former, in that they free the soul from
her characteristic form of evil (that is, union with lower things).
Therefore, when the soul is pure, she must be united to her author; her
virtue, after her "conversion," consists in her knowledge and science
of veritable existence; not that the soul lacks this knowledge, but
because without her superior principle, without intelligence, she does
not see what she possesses.[325]

3. There is a third kind of virtues, which are superior to the civil
and purificatory virtues, the "virtues of the soul that contemplates
intelligence." "Here prudence and wisdom consist in contemplating
the "beings" or essences contained by intelligence; justice consists
in the soul's fulfilling of her characteristic function; that is, in
attaching herself to intelligence and to direct her activity thither.
Temperance is the intimate conversion of the soul towards Intelligence,
while courage is the impassibility by which the soul becomes
assimilated to what she contemplates, since the soul's nature is to be
impassible.[326] These virtues are as intimately concatenated as the
other (lower forms)."

4. There is a fourth kind of virtues, the "exemplary virtues," which
reside within intelligence. Their superiority to the virtues of the
soul is the same as that of the type to the image; for intelligence
contains simultaneously all the "beings" or essences which are the
types of lower things. "Within intelligence, prudence is the science;
wisdom is the thought, temperance is the conversion towards oneself;
justice is the accomplishment of one's characteristic function;
courage is the identity of intelligence, its perseverance in purity,
concentrated within itself, in virtue of its superiority."[327]

We thus have four kinds of virtues: 1, the exemplary virtues,
characteristic of intelligence, and of the "being" or nature to which
they belong; 2, the virtues of the soul turned towards intelligence,
and filled with her contemplation; 3, the virtues of the soul that
purifies herself, or which has purified herself from the brutal
passions characteristic of the body; 4, the virtues that adorn the
man by restraining within narrow limits the action of the irrational
part, and by moderating the passions. "He who possesses the virtues of
the superior order necessarily (potentially) possesses the inferior
virtues. But the converse does not occur."[328] "He who possesses
the superior virtues will not prefer to practice the lower virtues
because of the mere possession thereof; he will practice them only
when circumstances will invite (it). The objects, indeed, differ with
the kind of virtues. The object of the civil virtues is to moderate
our passions so as to conform our conduct to the laws of human nature.
That of the purificatory virtues is to detach the soul completely from
the passions. That of the contemplative virtues is to apply the soul
to intellectual operations, even to the extent of no longer having to
think of the need of freeing oneself from the passions. Last, that of
the exemplary virtues is similar to that of the other virtues. Thus
the practical virtues make man virtuous; the purificatory virtues
make man divine, or make of the good man, a protecting deity; the
contemplative virtues deify; while the exemplary virtues make a man
the parent of divinities. We should specially apply ourselves to
purificatory virtues believing that we can acquire them even in this
life; and that possession of them leads to superior virtues. We must
push purification as far as possible, as it consists in separating (the
soul) from the body, and in freeing oneself from any passional movement
of the irrational part. But how can one purify the soul? To what limit
may purification be pushed? These are two questions that demand

To begin with, the foundation of purification is to know oneself, to
realize that he is a soul bound to a foreign being, of a different
nature (or, "being").

Further, when one is convinced of this truth, one should gather
oneself together within himself, detaching himself from the body,
and freeing himself entirely from the passions. He who makes use
of his senses too often, though it be done without devotion or
pleasure, is, nevertheless, distracted by the care of the body, and
is chained thereto by sensation. The pains and the pleasures produced
by sense-objects exercise a great influence on the soul, and inspire
the soul with an inclination for the body. It is important to remove
such a disposition from the soul. "To achieve this purpose, the soul
will allow the body only necessary pleasures, that serve to cure her
of her sufferings, to refresh her from her exhaustions, to hinder her
from being importunate. The soul will free herself from pains;[327]
if this be beyond her powers, the soul will support them patiently,
and will diminish them, while refusing to share them. The soul will
appease anger so far as possible; she will even try to suppress them
entirely; at least, if that be impossible, she will not voluntarily
participate therein, leaving the non-reflective excitement to another
(animal) nature, reducing the involuntary motions as far as possible.
The soul will be inaccessible to fear--having nothing further to
risk; even so, she will restrain every sudden movement; she will pay
attention to fear only insofar as it may be nature's warning at the
approach of danger. Absolutely nothing shameful will be desired; in
eating and drinking, she will seek only the satisfaction of a need,
while remaining essentially alien thereto. The pleasures of love will
not even involuntarily be tasted, at least, she will not allow herself
to be drawn beyond the flights of fancy that occur in dreams. In the
purified man, the intellectual part of the soul will be pure of all
these passions. She will even desire that the part that experiences
the irrational passions of the body should take notice of them without
being agitated thereby, and without yielding to them. In this way, if
the irrational part should itself happen to experience emotions, the
latter will be promptly calmed by the presence of reason. Struggles
will have been left behind before any headway will have been made
to purification. The presence of reason will suffice; the inferior
principle, indeed, will respect the higher one to the extent of being
angry with itself, and reproaching itself for weakness, in case it
feels any agitation that disturbs its master's rest." So long as the
soul experiences even moderate passions, the soul's progress towards
impassibility remains in need of improvement. The soul is impassible
only when she has entirely ceased to participate in the passions of the
body. Indeed, that which permitted the passions to rule was that reason
relaxed the reins as a result of her own inclination.


Of Suicide.


2. Nature releases what nature has bound. The soul releases what the
soul has bound. Nature binds the body to the soul, but it is the soul
herself that has bound herself to the body. It, therefore, belongs to
nature to detach the body from the soul, while it is the soul herself
that detaches herself from the body.

3. There is a double death. One, known by all men, consists in the
separation of the body with the soul; the other, characteristic of
philosophers, results in the separation of the soul from the body. The
latter is consequence of the former.


Of Matter.


4. While separating ourselves from existence we by thought beget
nonentity (matter). While remaining united with existence, we also
conceive of nonentity (the one). Consequently, when we separate
ourselves from existence, we do not conceive of the nonentity which is
above existence (the one), but we beget by thought something that is
deceptive, and we put ourselves in the condition (of indetermination)
in which one is when outside of oneself. Just as each one can really,
and by himself, raise himself to the non-existence which is above
existence (the One); so (by separating oneself from existence by
thought), we may reach the nonentity beneath existence.


Of the Impassibility of Incorporeal Things.


5. The name "incorporeal" does not designate one and the same genus,
as does the word "body." Incorporeal entities derive their name from
the fact that they are conceived of by abstraction from the body.
Consequently, some of them (like intelligence and discursive reason)
are genuine beings, existing as well without as within the body,
subsisting by themselves, by themselves being actualizations and
lives; other beings (such as matter, sense-form without matter, place,
time, and so forth), do not constitute real beings, but are united to
the body, and depend therefrom, live through others, possess only a
relative life, and exist only through certain actualizations. Indeed,
when we apply to them the name of incorporeal entities (it is merely a
negative designation), indicating only what they are not, but not what
they are.


6. (1) The soul is a "being" or essence, without extension, immaterial
and incorruptible; her nature consists in a life which is life in

7. (3, end) When the existence of some being is life itself, and when
the passions are lives, its death consists in a life of a certain
nature, and not in entire privation of life; for the "passion"
experienced by this "being" or essence, does not force it into complete
loss of life.

8. (2, 3) There is a difference between the affections of the bodies,
and those of incorporeal things. The affection of bodies consists in
change. On the contrary, the affections and experiences characteristic
of the soul are actualizations that have nothing in common with the
cooling or heating up of the bodies. Consequently if, for bodies,
an affection ever implies a change, we may say that all incorporeal
(beings) are impassible. Indeed, immaterial and incorporeal beings
are always identical in their actualization; but those that impinge
on matter and bodies, though in themselves impassible, allow the
subjects in which they reside to be affected. So when an animal feels,
the soul resembles a harmony separated from its instrument, which
itself causes the vibration of the strings that have been tuned to
unison herewith; while the body resembles a harmony inseparable from
the strings. The reason why the soul moves the living being is that
the latter is animated. We, therefore, find an analogy between the
soul and the musician who causes his instrument to produce sounds
because he himself contains a harmonic power. The body, struck by a
sense-impression, resembles strings tuned in unison. In the production
of sound, it is not the harmony itself but the string that is affected.
The musician causes it to resound because he contains a harmonic power.
Nevertheless, in spite of the will of the musician, the instrument
would produce no harmonies that conformed to the laws of music, unless
harmony itself dictated them.

9. (5) The soul binds herself to the body by a conversion toward the
affections experienced by the body. She detaches herself from the body
by "apathy," (turning away from the body's affections.)


10. (7) According to the ancient (sages) such are the properties of
matter. "Matter is incorporeal because it differs from bodies. Matter
is not lifeless, because it is neither intelligence, nor soul, nor
anything that lives by itself. It is formless, variable, infinite,
impotent; consequently, matter cannot be existence, but nonentity. Of
course it is not nonentity in the same way that movement is nonentity;
matter is nonentity really. It is an image and a phantom of extension,
because it is the primary substrate of extension. It is impotence, and
the desire for existence. The only reason that it persists is not rest
(but change); it always seems to contain contraries, the great and
small, the less and more, lack and excess. It is always "becoming,"
without ever persisting in its condition, or being able to come out of
it. Matter is the lack of all existence; and, consequently, what matter
seems to be is a deception. If, for instance, matter seems to be large,
it really is small; like a mere phantom, it escapes and evanesces into
nonentity, not by any change of place, but by its lack of reality.
Consequently, the substrate of the images in matter consists of a lower
image. That in which objects present appearances that differ according
to their positions is a mirror, a mirror that seems crowded, though it
possesses nothing, and which yet seems to be everything."


11. Passions (or, affections) refer to something destructible; for it
is passion that leads to destruction; it is the same sort of being
that can be affected, and can be destroyed. Incorporeal entities,
however, are not subject to destruction; they either exist or not; in
either case they are non-affectible. That which can be affected need
not have this impassible nature, but must be subject to alteration or
destruction by the qualities of things that enter into it and affect
it; for that which in it subsists is not altered by the first chance
entity. Consequently, matter is impassible, as by itself it possesses
no quality. The forms that enter into and issue from matter (as a
substrate) are equally impassible. That which is affected is the
composite of form and matter, whose existence consists in the union
of these two elements; for it is evidently subject to the action of
contrary powers, and of the qualities of things which enter into it,
and affect it. That is why the beings that derive their existence from
something else, instead of possessing it by themselves, can likewise
by virtue of their passivity, either live or not. On the contrary,
the beings whose existence consists in an impassible life necessarily
live permanently; likewise the things that do not live are equally
impassible inasmuch as they do not live. Consequently, being changed
and being affected refer only to the composite of form and matter, to
the body, and not to matter. Likewise, to receive life and to lose
it, to feel passions that are its consequence, can refer only to the
composite of soul and body. Nothing similar could happen to the soul;
for she is not something compounded out of life and lifelessness;
she is life itself, because her "being" or nature is simple, and is


Of Nature, Contemplation, and of the One.


12. (1) Thought is not the same everywhere; it differs according to the
nature of every "being." In intelligence, it is intellectual; in the
soul it is rational; in the plant it is seminal; last, it is superior
to intelligence and existence in the principle that surpasses all these.


13. (7) The word "body" is not the only one that may be taken in
different senses; such is also the case with "life." There is a
difference between the life of the plant, of the animal, of the soul,
of intelligence, and of super-intelligence. Indeed, intelligible
entities are alive though the things that proceed therefrom do not
possess a life similar to theirs.


14. (8) By (using one's) intelligence one may say many things about the
super-intellectual (principle). But it can be much better viewed by an
absence of thought, than by thought. This is very much the same case as
that of sleep, of which one can speak, up to a certain point, during
the condition of wakefulness; but of which no knowledge of perception
can be acquired except by sleeping. Indeed, like is known only by like;
the condition of all knowledge is for the subject to be assimilated to
the subject.[330]


Of the Nature of the Soul.

15. (1) Every body is in a place; the incorporeal in itself is not in a
place, any more than the things which have the same nature as it.

16. (1) The incorporeal in itself, by the mere fact of its being
superior to every body and to every place, is present everywhere
without occupying extension, in an indivisible manner.

17. (1) The incorporeal in itself, not being present to the body in a
local manner, is present to the body whenever it pleases, that is, by
inclining towards it so far as it is within its nature to do so. Not
being present to the body in a local manner, it is present to the body
by its disposition.

18. (1) The incorporeal in itself does not become present to the body
in "being" nor in hypostatic form of existence. It does not mingle with
the body. Nevertheless, by its inclination to the body, it begets and
communicates to it a potentiality capable of uniting with the body.
Indeed the inclination of the incorporeal constitutes a second nature
(the irrational soul), which unites with the body.

19. (1) The soul has a nature intermediary between the "being" that is
indivisible, and the "being" that is divisible by its union with the
bodies. Intelligence is a "being" absolutely indivisible; the bodies
alone are divisible; but the qualities and the forms engaged in matter
are divisible by their union with the bodies.

20. (2) The things that act upon others do not act by approximation and
by contact. It is only accidentally when this occurs (that they act by
proximity and contact).


Problems About the Soul.


21. (20) The hypostatic substance of the body does not hinder the
incorporeal in itself from being where and as it wishes; for just as
that which is non-extended cannot be contained by the body, so also
that which has extension forms no obstacle for the incorporeal, and
in relation to it is as nonentity. The incorporeal does not transport
itself where it wishes by a change of place; for only extended
substance occupies a place. Neither is the incorporeal compressed
by the body; for only that which is extended can be compressed and
displaced. That which has neither extension nor magnitude, could not
be hindered by that which has extension, nor be exposed to a change
of place. Being everywhere and nowhere, the incorporeal, wherever
it happens to be, betrays its presence only by a certain kind of
disposition. It is by this disposition that it rises above heaven, or
descends into a corner of the world. Not even this residence makes it
visible to our eyes. It is only by its works that it manifests its

22. (21-24) If the incorporeal be contained within the body, it is
not contained within it like an animal in a zoölogical garden; for
it can neither be included within, nor embraced by the body. Nor
is it, compressed like water or air in a bag of skins. It produces
potentialities which from within its unity (?) radiate outwards; it is
by them that it descends into the body and penetrates it.[331] It is by
this indescribable extension of itself that it enters into the body,
and shuts itself up within it. Except itself nothing retains it. It is
not the body that releases the incorporeal as result of a lesion, or of
its decay; it is the incorporeal that detaches itself by turning away
from the passions of the body.


23. (9) Just as "being on the earth," for the soul, is not to tread
on the ground, as does the body, but only to preside over the body
that treads on the ground; likewise, "to be in hell" for the soul,
is to preside over an image whose nature is to be in a place, and
to have an obscure hypostatic form of existence. That is why if the
subterranean hell be a dark place, the soul, without separating from
existence, descends into hell when she attaches herself to some
image. Indeed, when the soul abandons the solid body over which she
presided she remains united to the spirit which she has received from
the celestial spheres. Since, as a result of her affection for matter,
she has developed particular faculties by virtue of which she had a
sympathetic habit for some particular body during life, as a result
of this disposition, she impresses a form on the spirit by the power
of her imagination, and thus she acquires an image. The soul is said
to be in hell because the spirit that surrounds her also happens to
have a formless and obscure nature; and as the heavy and moistened
spirit descends down into subterranean localities, the soul is said
to descend underground. Not indeed that the very "being" of the soul
changes place, or is in a locality, but because she contracts the
habits of the bodies whose nature it is to change location, and to be
located somewhere. That is why the soul according to her disposition,
acquires some one body rather than some other; for the rank and the
special characteristics of the body into which she enters depend on her

Therefore, when in a condition of superior purity, she unites with a
body that is close to immaterial nature, that is, an ethereal body.
When she descends from the development of reason to that of the
imagination, she receives a solar body. If she becomes effeminate, and
falls in love with forms, she puts on a lunar body. Finally, when she
falls into the terrestrial bodies, which, resembling her shapeless
character, are composed of moist vapors, there results for her a
complete ignorance of existence, a sort of eclipse, and a veritable
childhood. When the soul leaves an earthly body, having her spirit
still troubled by these moist vapors, she develops a shadow that
weights her down; for a spirit of this kind naturally tends to descend
into the depths of the earth, unless it be held up and raised by a
higher cause. Just as the soul is attached to the earth by her earthly
vesture, so the moist spirit(ual body) to which the soul is united
makes her drag after her an image which weights down the soul. The soul
surrounds herself with moist vapors when she mingles with a nature that
in its operations is moist or subterranean. But if the soul separate
from this nature, immediately around her shines a dry light, without
shade or shadow. In fact it is humidity which forms clouds in the air;
the dryness of the atmosphere produces a dry and serene clearness.


Of Sensation and Memory.


24. (3) The soul contains the reasons of all things. The soul operates
according to these reasons, whether incited to activity by some
exterior object, or whether the soul be turned towards these reasons
by folding back on herself. When the soul is incited to this activity
by some exterior object, she applies her senses thereto; when she
folds back on herself, she applies herself to thoughts. It might be
objected that the result is that there is neither sensation nor thought
without imagination; for just as in the animal part, no sensation
occurs without an impression produced on the organs of sense; likewise
there is no thought without imagination. Certainly, an analogy obtains
between both cases. Just as the sense-image (type) results from the
impression experienced by sensation, likewise the intellectual image
(phantasm) results from thought.


25. (2) Memory does not consist in preserving images. It is the faculty
of reproducing the conceptions with which our soul has been occupied.


Of Generation and of the Order of Things that Follow the First.


26. When incorporeal hypostatic substances descend, they split up
and multiply, their power weakening as they apply themselves to the
individual. When, on the contrary, they rise, they simplify, unite, and
their power intensifies.

27. In the life of incorporeal entities, the procession operates in a
manner such that the superior principle remains firm and substantial
in its nature, imparting its existence to what is below it, without
losing anything, or transforming itself into anything. Thus that which
receives existence does not receive existence with decay or alteration;
it is not begotten like generation (that is, the being of sense), which
participates in decay and change. It is, therefore, non-begotten and
incorruptible, because it is produced without generation or corruption.

28. Every begotten thing derives the cause of its generation from some
other (being); for nothing is begotten causelessly. But, among begotten
things, those which owe their being to a union of elements are on
that very account perishable. As to those which, not being composite,
owe their being to the simplicity of their hypostatic substances,
they are imperishable, inasmuch as they are indissoluble. When we say
that they are begotten, we do not mean that they are composite, but
only that they depend on some cause. Thus bodies are begotten doubly,
first because they depend on a cause, and then because they are
composite. Souls and intelligence, indeed, are begotten in the respect
that they depend on a cause; but not in the respect that they are
composite. Therefore, bodies, being doubly begotten, are dissoluble and
perishable. The Soul and Intelligence, being unbegotten in the sense
that they are not composite, are indissoluble and imperishable; for
they are begotten only in the sense that they depend on a cause.

29. Every principle that generates, by virtue of its "being," is
superior to the product it generates. Every generated being naturally
turns towards its generating principle. Of the generating principles,
some (the universal and perfect substances) do not turn towards their
product; while others (the substances that are individual, and subject
to conversion towards the manifold) partly turn towards their product,
and remain partly turned towards themselves; while others entirely turn
towards their product, and do not turn at all towards themselves.


30. Of the universal and perfect hypostatic substances, none turns
towards its product. All perfect hypostatic substances return to the
principles that generated them. The very body of the world, by the
mere fact of its perfection, is converted to the intelligent Soul, and
that is the cause of its motion being circular. The Soul of the world
is converted to Intelligence, and this to the First.[332] All beings,
therefore, aspire to the First, each in the measure of its ability,
from the very lowest in the ranks of the universe up. This anagogical
return of beings to the First is necessary, whether it be mediate or
immediate. So we may say that beings not only aspire to the First,
but that each being enjoys the First according to its capacity.[333]
The individual hypostatic substances, however, that are subject to
declining towards manifoldness, naturally turn not only towards their
author, but also towards their product. That is the cause of (any
subsequent) fall and unfaithfulness. Matter perverts them because they
possess the possibility of inclining towards it, though they are also
able to turn towards the divinity. That is how perfection makes second
rank beings be born of the first principles, and then be converted
towards them. It is, on the contrary, the result of imperfection, to
turn higher entities to lower things, inspiring them with love for that
which, before them, withdrew from the first principles (in favor of


Of the Hypostases that Mediate Knowledge, and of the Superior Principle.


31. (1) When one being subsists by dependence on any other, and not
by self-dependence and withdrawal from any other, it could not turn
itself towards itself to know itself by separating from (the substrate)
by which it subsists. By withdrawing from its own existence it would
alter and perish. But when one being cognizes itself by withdrawal
from that to which it is united, when it grasps itself as independent
of that being, and succeeds in doing so without exposing itself
to destruction, it evidently does not derive its "being" or nature
from the being from which it can, without perishing, withdraw, to
face itself, and know itself independently. If sight, and in general
all sensation do not feel itself, nor perceive itself on separating
from the body, and do not subsist by itself; if, on the contrary,
intelligence think better by separating from the body, and can be
converted to itself without perishing, evidently sense-faculties are
actualized only by help of the body, while intelligence actualizes and
exists by itself, and not by the body.


32. (3, 5-7) There is a difference between intelligence and the
intelligible, between sensation and that which can be sensed. The
intelligible is united to intelligence as that which can be sensed is
connected with sensation. But sensation cannot perceive itself....
As the intelligible is united to Intelligence, it is grasped by
intelligence and not by sensation. But intelligence is intelligible for
intelligence. Since then intelligence is intelligible for intelligence,
intelligence is its own object. If intelligence be intelligible, but
not "sensible," it is an intelligible object. Being intelligible
by intelligence, but not by sensation, it will be intelligent.
Intelligence, therefore, is simultaneously thinker and thought, all
that thinks and all that is thought. Its operation, besides, is not
that of an object that rubs and is rubbed: "It is not a subject in some
one part of itself, and in some other, object of thought; it is simple,
it is entirely intelligible for itself as a whole."[334] The whole of
intelligence excludes any idea of unintelligence. It does not contain
one part that thinks, while another would not think; for then, in so
far as it would not think, "it would be unintelligent." It does not
abandon one object to think of another; for it would cease to think the
object it abandoned. If, therefore, intelligence do not successively
pass from one object to another, it thinks simultaneously; it does not
think first one (thought) and then another; it thinks everything as in
the present, and as always....

If intelligence think everything as at present, if it know no past nor
future, its thought is a simple actualization, which excludes every
interval of time. It, therefore, contains everything together, in
respect to time. Intelligence, therefore, thinks, all things according
to unity, and in unity, without anything falling in in time or in
space. If so, intelligence is not discursive, and is not (like the
soul) in motion; it is an actualization, which is according to unity,
and in unity, which shuns all chance development and every discursive
operation.[335] If, in intelligence, manifoldness be reduced to unity,
and if the intellectual actualization be indivisible, and fall not
within time, we shall have to attribute to such a "being" eternal
existence in unity. Now that happens to be "aeonial" or everlasting
existence.[336] Therefore, eternity constitutes the very "being" (or
nature) of intelligence. The other kind of intelligence, that does
not think according to unity, and in unity, which falls into change,
and into movement, which abandons one object to think another, which
divides, and gives itself up to a discursive action, has time as
"being" (or nature).

The distinction of past and future suits its action. When passing from
one object to another, the soul changes thoughts; not indeed that
the former perish, or that the latter suddenly issue from some other
source; but the former, while seeming to have disappeared, remain in
the soul; and the latter, while seeming to come from somewhere else, do
not really do so, but are born from within the soul, which moves only
from one object to another, and which successively directs her gaze
from one to another part of what she possesses. She resembles a spring
which, instead of flowing outside, flows back into itself in a circle.
It is this (circular) movement of the soul that constitutes time, just
as the permanence of intelligence in itself constitutes (aeonial)
eternity. Intelligence is not separated from eternity, any more than
the soul is from time. Intelligence and eternity form but a single
hypostatic form of existence. That which moves simulates eternity by
the indefinite perpetuity of its movement, and that which remains
immovable, simulates time by seeming to multiply its continual present,
in the measure that time passes. That is why some have believed that
time manifested in rest as well as in movement, and that eternity was
no more than the infinity of time. To each of these two (different
things) the attributes of the other were mistakenly attributed. The
reason of this is that anything that ever persists in an identical
movement gives a good illustration of eternity by the continuousness of
its movement; while that which persists in an identical actualization
represents time by the permanence of its actualization. Besides, in
sense-objects, duration differs according to each of them. There is a
difference between the duration of the course of the sun, and that of
the moon, as well as that of Venus, and so on. There is a difference
between the solar year, and the year of each of these stars. Different,
further, is the year that embraces all the other years, and which
conforms to the movement of the soul, according to which the stars
regulate their movements. As the movement of the soul differs from the
movement of the stars, so also does its time differ from that of the
stars; for the divisions of this latter kind of time correspond to
the spaces travelled by each star, and by its successive passages in
different places.


33. (10-12) Intelligence is not the principle of all things; for it
is manifold. Now the manifold presupposes the One. Evidently, it is
intelligence that is manifold; the intelligibles that it thinks do
not form unity, but manifoldness, and they are identical therewith.
Therefore, since intelligence and the intelligible entities are
identical, and as the intelligible entities form a manifoldness,
intelligence itself is manifold.

The identity of intelligence and of intelligible entities may be
demonstrated as follows. The object that intelligence contemplates
must be in it, or exist outside of itself. It is, besides, evident,
that intelligence contemplates; since, for intelligence, to think is
to be intelligence,[337] therefore, to abstract its thought would be
to deprive it of its "being." This being granted, we must determine in
what manner intelligence contemplates its object. We shall accomplish
this by examining the different faculties by which we acquire various
kinds of knowledge, namely, sensation, imagination and intelligence.

The principle which makes use of the senses contemplates only by
grasping exterior things, and far from uniting itself to the objects
of its contemplation, from this perception it gathers no more than
an image. Therefore when the eye sees the visible object, it cannot
identify itself with this object; for it would not see it, unless it
were at a certain distance therefrom. Likewise if the object of touch
confused itself with the organ that touches it, it would disappear.
Therefore the senses, and the principle that makes use of the
senses, apply themselves to what is outside of them to perceive this

Likewise imagination applies its attention to what is outside of it to
form for itself an image of it; it is by this very attention to what
is outside of it that it represents to itself the object of which it
forms an image as exterior.

That is how sensation and imagination perceive their objects. Neither
of these two faculties folds itself back on itself, nor concentrates
on itself, whether the object of their perception be a corporeal or
incorporeal form.

Not in this manner is intelligence perceived; this can occur only by
turning towards itself, and by contemplating itself. If it left the
contemplation of its own actualizations, if it ceased to be their
contemplation (or, intuition), it would no longer think anything.
Intelligence perceives the intelligible entity as sensation perceives
the sense-object, by intuition. But in order to contemplate the
sense-object, sensation applies to what is outside of it, because
its object is material. On the contrary, in order to contemplate the
intelligible entity, intelligence concentrates in itself, instead of
applying itself to what is outside of it. That is why some philosophers
have thought that there was only a nominal difference between
intelligence and imagination; for they believed that intelligence
was the imagination of the reasonable animal; as they insisted that
everything should depend on matter and on corporeal nature, they
naturally had to make intelligence also depend therefrom. But our
intelligence contemplates natures (or, "beings"). Therefore, (according
to the hypothesis of these philosophers) our intelligence will
contemplate these natures as located in some place. But these natures
are outside of matter; consequently, they could not be located in any
place. It is therefore evident that the intelligible entities had to be
posited as within intelligence.

If the intelligible entities be within intelligence, intelligence will
contemplate intelligible entities and will contemplate itself while
contemplating them; by understanding itself, it will think, because it
will understand intelligible entities. Now intelligible entities form
a multitude, for[338] intelligence thinks a multitude of intelligible
entities, and not a unity; therefore, intelligence is manifold. But
manifoldness presupposes unity; consequently, above intelligence, the
existence of unity will be necessary.

34. (5) Intellectual being is composed of similar parts, so that
existing beings exist both in individual intelligence, and in universal
Intelligence. But, in universal Intelligence, individual (entities) are
themselves conceived universally; while in individual intelligence,
universal beings as well as individual beings are conceived


The One and Identical Being Is Everywhere Present As a Whole.


35. The incorporeal is that which is conceived of by abstraction
of the body; that is the derivation of its name. To this genus,
according to ancient sages, belong matter, sense-form, when conceived
of apart from matter, natures, faculties, place, time, and surface.
All these entities, indeed, are called incorporeal because they are
not bodies. There are other things that are called incorporeal by a
wrong use of the word, not because they are not bodies, but because
they cannot beget bodies. Thus the incorporeal first mentioned above
subsists within the body, while the incorporeal of the second kind
is completely separated from the body, and from the incorporeal that
subsists within the body. The body, indeed, occupies a place, and the
surface does not exist outside of the body. But intelligence and
intellectual reason (discursive reason), do not occupy any place, do
not subsist in the body, do not constitute any body, and do not depend
on the body, nor on any of the things that are called incorporeal by
abstraction of the body. On the other hand, if we conceive of the void
as incorporeal, intelligence cannot exist within the void. The void,
indeed, may receive a body, but it cannot contain the actualization of
intelligence, nor serve as location for that actualization. Of the two
kinds of the incorporeal of which we have just spoken, the followers of
Zeno reject the one (the incorporeal that exists outside of the body)
and insist on the other (the incorporeal that is separated from the
body by abstraction, and which has no existence outside of the body);
not seeing that the first kind of incorporeality is not similar to
the second, they refuse all reality to the former, though they ought,
nevertheless, to acknowledge that the incorporeal (which subsists
outside of the body), is of another kind (than the incorporeal that
does not subsist outside of the body), and not to believe that, because
one kind of incorporeality has no reality, neither can the other have


34. (2, 3, 4) Everything, if it be somewhere, is there in some manner
that conforms to its nature. For a body that is composed of matter,
and possesses volume, to be somewhere, means that it is located in
some place. On the contrary, the intelligible world, and in general
the existence that is immaterial, and incorporeal in itself, does not
occupy any place, so that the ubiquity of the incorporeal is not a
local presence. "It does not have one part here, and another there;"
for, if so, it would not be outside of all place, nor be without
extension; "wherever it is, it is entire; it is not present here
and absent there;" for in this way it would be contained in some one
place, and excluded from some other. "Nor is it nearer one place, and
further from some other," for only things that occupy place stand
in relations of distance. Consequently, the sense-world is present
to the intelligible in space; but the intelligible is present to
the sense-world in space; but the intelligible is present to the
sense-world without having any parts, nor being in space. When the
indivisible is present in the divisible, "it is entire in each part,"
identically and numerically one. "If simple and indivisible existence
become extended and manifold, it is not in respect to the extended
and manifold existence which possesses it, not such as it really is,
but in the manner in which (simple existence) can possess (manifold
existence)." Extended and manifold existence has to become unextended
and simple in its relation with naturally extended and simple
existence, to enjoy its presence. In other terms, it is conformable to
its nature, without dividing, nor multiplying, nor occupying space,
that intelligible existence is present to existence that is naturally
divisible, manifold, and contained within a locality; but it is in
a manifold, divisible and local manner that a located existence is
present to "the existence that has no relation to space." In our
speculations on corporeal and incorporeal existence, therefore, we must
not confuse their characteristics, preserving the respective nature of
each, taking good care not to let our imagination or opinion attribute
to the incorporeal certain corporeal qualities. Nobody attributes to
bodies incorporeal characteristics, because everybody lives in daily
touch with bodies; but as it is so difficult to cognize incorporeal
natures ("beings"), only vague conceptions are formed of it, and they
cannot be grasped so long as one lets oneself be guided by imagination.
One has to say to oneself, a being known by the senses is located
in space, and is outside of itself because it has a volume; "the
intelligible being is not located in space, but in itself," because
it has no volume. The one is a copy, the other is an archetype; the
one derives its existence from the intelligible, the other finds it in
itself; for every image is an image of intelligence. The properties of
the corporeal and the incorporeal must be clearly kept in mind so as to
avoid surprise at their difference, in spite of their union, if indeed
it be permissible to apply the term "union" to their mutual relation;
for we must not think of the union of corporeal substances, but of
the union of substances whose properties are completely incompatible,
according to the individuality of their hypostatic form of existence.
Such union differs entirely from that of "homoousian" substances of
the same nature; consequently, it is neither a blend, nor a mixture,
nor a real union, nor a mere collocation. The relation between the
corporeal and the incorporeal is established in a different manner,
which manifests in the communication of "homoousian" substances of the
sense nature, of which, however, no corporeal operation can give any
idea. The incorporeal being is wholly without extension in all the
parts of the extended being, even though the number of these parts were
infinite. "It is present in an indivisible manner, without establishing
a correspondence between each of its parts with the parts of the
extended being;" it does not become manifold merely because, in a
manifold manner, it is present to a multitude of parts. The whole of it
is entire in all the parts of the extended being, in each of them, and
in the whole mass, without dividing or becoming manifold to enter into
relations with the manifold, preserving its numerical identity.[339] It
is only to beings whose power is dispersed that it belongs to possess
the intelligible by parts and by fractions. Often these beings, on
changing from their nature, imitate intelligible beings by a deceptive
appearance, and we are in doubt about their nature ("being"), for they
seem to have exchanged it for that of incorporeal "being," or essence.


37. (5) That which really exists has neither great nor small. Greatness
and smallness are attributes of corporeal mass. By its identity and
numerical unity, real existence is neither great nor small, neither
very large nor very small, though it cause even greatest and smallest
to participate in its nature. It must not, therefore, be represented
as great, for in that case we could not conceive how it could be
located in the smallest space without being diminished or condensed.
Nor should it be represented as small, which conception of it would
hinder our understanding how it could be present in a whole large body
without being increased or extended. We must try to gain a simultaneous
conception of both that which is very large and very small, and realize
real existence as preserving its identity and its indwelling in itself
in any chance body whatever, along with an infinity of other bodies of
different sizes. It is united to the extension of the world, without
extending itself, or uniting, and it exceeds the extension of the world
as well as that of its parts, by embracing them within its unity.
Likewise, the world unites with real existence by all its parts, so far
as its nature allows it to do so, though it cannot, however, embrace
it entirely, nor contain its whole power. Real existence is infinite
and incomprehensible for the world because, among other attributes, it
possesses that of having no extension.

38. Great[340] magnitude is a hindrance for a body, if, instead of
comparing it to things of the same kind, it is considered in relation
with things of a different nature; for volume is, as it were, a kind
of procession of existence outside of itself, and a breaking up of
its power. That which possesses a superior power is alien to all
extension; for potentiality does not succeed in realizing its fulness
until it concentrates within itself; it needs to fortify itself to
acquire all its energy. Consequently the body, by extending into
space, loses its energy, and withdraws from the potency that belongs
to real and incorporeal existence; but real existence does not weaken
in extension, because, having no extension, it preserves the greatness
of its potency. Just as, in relation to the body, real existence has
neither extension nor volume, likewise corporeal existence, in relation
to real existence, is weak and impotent. The existence that possesses
the greatest power does not occupy any extension. Consequently, though
the world fill space, though it be everywhere united to real extension,
it could not, nevertheless, embrace the greatness of its potency. It
is united to real existence, not by parts, but in an indivisible and
indefinite manner. Therefore, the incorporeal is present to the body,
not in a local manner, but by assimilation, so far as the body is
capable of being assimilated to the incorporeal, and as the incorporeal
can manifest in it. The incorporeal is not present to the material,
in so far as the material is incapable of being assimilated to a
completely immaterial principle; however, the incorporeal is present to
the corporeal in so far as the corporeal can be assimilated thereto.
Nor is the incorporeal present to the material by receptivity (in
the sense that one of these two substances would receive something
from the other); otherwise the material and the immaterial would be
altered; the former, on receiving the immaterial, into which it would
be transformed, and the latter, on becoming material. Therefore, when
a relation is established between two substances that are as different
as the corporeal and the incorporeal, an assimilation and participation
that is reciprocal to the power of the one, and the impotence of
the other, occurs. That is why the world always remains very distant
from the power of real existence, and the latter from the impotence
of material nature. But that which occupies the middle, that which
simultaneously assimilates and is assimilated, that which unites the
extremes, becomes a cause of error in respect to them, because the
substances it brings together by assimilation are very different.


39. "It[341] would be wrong to suppose that the manifoldness of souls
was derived from the manifoldness of bodies. The individual souls,
as well as the universal Soul, subsist independently of the bodies,
without the unity of the universal Soul absorbing the manifoldness of
individual souls, and without the manifoldness of the latter splitting
up the unity of the universal Soul." Individual souls are distinct
without being separated from each other, and without dividing the
universal Soul into a number of parts; they are united to each other
without becoming confused, and without making the universal Soul a
mere total; "for they are not separated by limits," and they are not
confused with each other; "they are as distinct from each other as
different sciences in a single soul." Further, individual souls are
not contained in the universal Soul as if they were bodies, that
is, like really different substances (?), for they are qualitative
actualizations of the soul. Indeed, "the power of the universal Soul
is infinite," and all that participates in her is soul; all the souls
form the universal Soul, and, nevertheless, the universal Soul exists
independently of all individual souls. Just as one does not arrive
at the incorporeal by infinite division of bodies, seeing that such
a division would modify them only in respect to magnitude, likewise,
on infinitely dividing the soul, which is a living form, we reach
nothing but species (not individuals); for the Soul contains specific
differences, and she exists entire with them as well as without
them. Indeed, though the Soul should be divided within herself, her
diversity does not destroy her identity. If the unity of bodies, in
which manifoldness prevails over identity, is not broken up by their
union with an incorporeal principle; if, on the contrary, all of them
possess the unity of "being" or substance, and are divided only by
qualities and other forms; what shall we say or think of the species
of incorporeal life, where identity prevails over manifoldness, and
where there is no substrate alien to form, and from which bodies might
derive their unity? The unity of the Soul could not be split up by
her union with a body, though the body often hinder her operations.
Being identical, the Soul discovers everything by herself, because her
actualizations are species, however far the division be carried. When
the Soul is separated from bodies, each of her parts possesses all
the powers possessed by the Soul herself, just as an individual seed
has the same properties as the universal Seed (seminal reason). As
an individual seed, being united to matter, preserves the properties
of the universal Seed (seminal reason), and as, on the other hand,
universal Seed possesses all the properties of the individual seeds
dispersed within matter, thus the parts which we conceive of in the
(universal) Soul that is separated from matter, possess all the powers
of the universal Soul.[342] The individual soul, which declines towards
matter, is bound to the matter by the form which her disposition has
made her choose; but she preserves the powers of the universal Soul,
and she unites with her when the (individual soul) turns away from the
body, to concentrate within herself.

Now as in the course of her declination towards matter, the soul is
stripped entirely bare by the total exhaustion of her own faculties;
and as, on the contrary, on rising towards intelligence, she recovers
the fulness of the powers of the universal Soul,[343] the ancient
philosophers were right, in their mystic phrasing, to describe these
two opposite conditions of the Soul by the names of Penia and Poros,
(Wealth and Poverty).[344]


The One and Identical Being is Everywhere Present In Its Entirety.[345]


40. Better[346] to express the special nature of incorporeal existence
the ancient philosophers, particularly Parmenides,[347] do not content
themselves with saying "it is one," but they also add "and all," just
as a sense-object is a whole. But as this unity of the sense-object
contains a diversity (for in the sense-object the total unity is not
all things in so far as it is one, and as all things constitute the
total unity). The ancient philosophers also add, "in so far as it is
one." This was to prevent people from imagining a collective whole
and to indicate that the real being is all, only by virtue of its
indivisible unity. After having said, "it is everywhere," they add, "it
is nowhere." Then, after having said, "it is in all," that is, in all
individual things whose disposition enables them to receive it, they
still add, as an entire whole. They represent it thus simultaneously
under the most opposite attributes, so as to eliminate all the false
imaginations which are drawn from the natures of the bodies, and which
will only obscure the genuine idea of real existence.


41. Such[348] are the genuine characteristics of the sensual and
material; it is extended, mutable, always different from what it
was, and composite; it does not subsist by itself, it is located in
a place, and has volume, and so forth. On the contrary, the real
being that is self-subsisting, is founded on itself, and is always
identical; its nature ("being") is identity, it is essentially
immutable, simple, indissoluble, without extension, and outside of all
place; it is neither born, nor does it perish. So let us define these
characteristics of the sensual and veritable existence, and let us put
aside all other attributes.

42. Real[349] existence is said to be manifold, without its really
being different in space, volume, number, figure, or extension of
parts; its division is a diversity without matter, volume, or real
manifoldness. Consequently, the real being is one. Its unity does not
resemble that of a body, of a place, of a volume, of a multitude. It
possesses diversity in unity. Its diversity implies both division
and union; for it is neither exterior nor incidental; real existence
is not manifold by participation in some other (nature), but by
itself. It remains one by exercising all its powers, because it holds
its diversity from its very identity, and not by an assemblage of
heterogeneous parts, such as bodies. The latter possess unity in
diversity; for, in them, it is diversity that dominates, the unity
being exterior and incidental. In real existence, on the contrary,
it is unity that dominates with identity; diversity is born of the
development of the power of unity. Consequently, real existence
preserves its indivisibility by multiplying itself; while the body
preserves its volume and multiplicity by unifying itself. Real
existence is founded on itself, because it is one by itself. The
body is never founded upon itself, because it subsists only by its
extension. Real existence is, therefore, a fruitful unity, and the body
is a unified multitude. We must, therefore, exactly determine how real
existence is both one and manifold, how the body is both manifold and
one, and we must guard from confusing the attributes of either.


43. The divinity[350] is everywhere because it is nowhere. So also with
intelligence and the soul. But it is in relation to all beings that it
surpasses, that the divinity is everywhere and nowhere; its presence
and its absence depend entirely on its nature and its will.[351]
Intelligence is in the divinity, but it is only in relation to the
things that are subordinated to it, that intelligence is everywhere and
nowhere (?). The body is within the soul and in divinity. All things
that possess or do not possess existence proceed from divinity, and are
within divinity; but the divinity is none of them, nor in any of them.
If the divinity were only present everywhere, it would be all things,
and in all things; but, on the other hand, it is nowhere; everything,
therefore, is begotten in it and by it, because it is everywhere, but
nothing becomes confused with it, because it is nowhere. Likewise if
intelligence be the principle of the souls and of the things that come
after the souls, it is because it is everywhere and nowhere; because
it is neither soul, nor any of the things that come after the soul,
nor in any of them; it is because it is not only everywhere, but also
nowhere in respect to the beings that are inferior to it. Similarly
the soul is neither a body, nor in the body, but is only the cause of
the body, because she is simultaneously everywhere and nowhere in the
body. So there is procession in the universe (from what is everywhere
and nowhere), down to what can neither simultaneously be everywhere
and nowhere, and which limits itself to participating in this double


44. "When[352] you have conceived of the inexhaustible and infinite
power of existence in itself, and when you begin to realize its
incessant and indefatigable nature, which completely suffices itself,"
which has the privilege of being the purest life, of possessing itself
fully, of being founded upon itself, of neither desiring nor seeking
anything outside of itself, "you should not attribute to it any
special determination," or any relation; for when you limit yourself
by some consideration of space or relation, you doubtlessly do not
limit existence in itself, but you turn away from it, extending the
veil of imagination over your thought. "You can neither transgress,
nor fix, nor determine, nor condense within narrow limits, the
nature of existence in itself, as if it had nothing further to give
beyond (certain limits), exhausting itself gradually." It is the
most inexhaustible spring of which you can form a notion. "When you
will have achieved (?) that nature, and when you will have become
assimilated to eternal existence, seek nothing beyond." Otherwise,
you will be going away from it, you will be directing your glances on
something else. "If you do not seek anything beyond," if you shrink
within yourself and into your own nature, "you will become assimilated
to universal Existence, and you will not halt at anything inferior
to it. Do not say, That is what I am. Forgetting what you are (?),
you will become universal Existence. You were already universal
Existence, but you had something besides; by that mere fact you were
inferior, because that possession of yours that was beyond universal
Existence was derived from nonentity. Nothing can be added to universal
Existence." When we add to it something derived from nonentity, we
fall into poverty and into complete deprivation. "Therefore, abandon
nonentity, and you will fully possess yourself, (in that you will
acquire universal existence by putting all else aside; for, so long as
one remains with the remainder, existence does not manifest; and does
not grant its presence)." Existence is discovered by putting aside
everything that degrades and diminishes it, ceasing to confuse it with
inferior objects, and ceasing to form a false idea of it. Otherwise
one departs both from existence and from oneself. Indeed, when one
is present to oneself, he possesses the existence that is present
everywhere; when one departs from himself, he also departs from it. So
important is it for the soul to acquaint herself with what is in her,
and to withdraw from what is outside of her; for existence is within
us, and nonentity is outside of us. Now existence is present within us,
when we are not distracted from it by other things. "It does not come
near us to make us enjoy its presence. It is we who withdraw from it,
when it is not present with us." Is there anything surprising in this?
To be near existence, you do not need to withdraw from yourselves; for
"you are both far from existence and near it, in this sense that it is
you who come near to it, and you who withdraw from it, when, instead of
considering yourselves, you consider that which is foreign to you." If
then you are near existence while being far from it; if, by the mere
fact of your being ignorant of yourselves, you know all things to which
you are present, and which are distant from you, rather than yourself
who is naturally near you, is there anything surprising in that, that
which is not near you should remain foreign to you, since you withdraw
from it when you withdraw from yourself? Though you should always be
near yourself, and though you cannot withdraw from it, you must be
present with yourself to enjoy the presence of the being from which
you are so substantially inseparable as from yourself. In that way it
is given you to know what exists near existence, and what is distant
from it, though itself be present everywhere and nowhere. He who by
thought can penetrate within his own substance, and can thus acquire
knowledge of it, finds himself in this actualization of knowledge and
consciousness, where the substrate that knows is identical with the
object that is known. Now when a man thus possesses himself, he also
possesses existence. He who goes out of himself to attach himself to
external objects, withdraws also from existence, when withdrawing
also from himself. It is natural to us to establish ourselves within
ourselves, where we enjoy the whole wealth of our own resources, and
not to turn ourselves away from ourselves towards what is foreign to
ourselves, and where we find nothing but the most complete poverty.
Otherwise, we are withdrawing from existence, though it be near us; for
it is neither space, nor "being" (substance), nor any obstacle that
separates us from existence; it is our reversion towards nonentity. Our
alienation from ourselves, and our ignorance are thus a just punishment
of our withdrawal from existence. On the contrary, the love that the
soul has for herself leads her to self-knowledge and communion with the
divinity. Consequently, it has rightly been said that man here below is
in a prison, because he has fled from heaven[353] ... and because he
tries to break his bonds; for, when he turns towards things here below,
he has abandoned himself, and has withdrawn from his divine origin.
It is, (as Empedocles says), "a fugitive who has deserted his heavenly
fatherland."[354] That is why the life of a vicious man is a life that
is servile, impious, and unjust, and his spirit is full of impiety and
injustice.[355] On the contrary, justice, as has been rightly said,
consists in each one fulfilling his function (?). To distribute to each
person his due is genuine justice.


A. On the Faculties of the Soul, by Porphyry.[356]


We propose to describe the faculties of the soul, and to set forth
the various opinions on the subject held by both ancient and modern


Aristo (there were two philosophers by this name, one a Stoic, the
other an Aristotelian) attributes to the soul a perceptive faculty,
which he divides into two parts. According to him, the first, called
sensibility, the principle and origin of sensations, is usually kept
active by some one of the sense-organs. The other, which subsists
by itself, and without organs, does not bear any special name in
beings devoid of reason, in whom reason does not manifest, or at
least manifests only in a feeble or obscure manner; however, it is
called intelligence in beings endowed with reason, among whom alone
it manifests clearly. Aristo holds that sensibility acts only with
the help of the sense-organs, and that intelligence does not need
them to enter into activity. Why then does he subordinate both of
these to a single genus, called the perceptive faculty? Both doubtless
perceive, but the one perceives the sense-form of beings, while the
other perceives their essence. Indeed, sensibility does not perceive
the essence, but the sense-form, and the figure; it is intelligence
that perceives whether the object be a man or a horse. There are,
therefore, two kinds of perception that are very different from each
other; sense-perception receives an impression, and applies itself to
an exterior object; on the contrary, intellectual perception does not
receive any impression.

There have been philosophers who separated these two parts; they called
intelligence or discursive reason the understanding which is exercised
without imagination and sensation; and opinion, the understanding
which is exercised with imagination and sensation. Others, on the
contrary, considered rational "being," or nature, a simple essence,
and attributed to it operations whose nature is entirely different.
Now it is unreasonable to refer to the same essence faculties which
differ completely in nature; for thought and sensation could not depend
on the same essential principle; and if we were to call the operation
of intelligence a perception, we would only be juggling with words.
We must, therefore, establish a perfectly clear distinction between
these two entities, intelligence and sensibility. On the one hand,
intelligence possesses a quite peculiar nature, as is also the case
with discursive reason, which is next below it. The function of the
former is intuitive thought, while that of the latter is discursive
thought. On the other hand, sensibility differs entirely from
intelligence, acting with or without the help of organs; in the former
case, it is called sensation; in the latter, imagination. Nevertheless,
sensation and imagination belong to the same genus. In understanding,
intuitive intelligence is superior to opinion, which applies to
sensation or imagination; this latter kind of thought, whether called
discursive thought, or anything else (such as opinion), is superior to
sensation and imagination, but inferior to intuitive thought.


Numenius, who teaches that the faculty of assent (or, combining
faculty) is capable of producing various operations, says that
representation (fancy) is an accessory of this faculty, that it does
not, however, constitute either an operation or function of it, but
a consequence of it. The Stoics, on the contrary, not only make
sensation consist in representation, but even reduce representation
to (combining) assent. According to them sense-imagination (or
sense-fancy) is assent, or the sensation of the determination of
assent. Longinus, however, does not acknowledge any faculty of assent.
The philosophers of the ancient Academy (the Platonists) believe
that sensation does not comprise sense-representation, and that,
consequently, it does not have any original property, since it does
not participate in assent. If sense representation consisted of assent
added to sensation, sensation, by itself, will have no virtue, since it
is not the assent given to the things we possess.


It is not only about the faculties that the ancient philosophers
disagree.... They are besides in radical disagreement about the
following questions: What are the parts of the soul; what is a part;
what is a faculty; what difference is there between a part and a

The Stoics divide the soul into eight parts: the five senses, speech,
sex-power, and the directing (predominating) principle, which is served
by the other faculties, so that the soul is composed of a faculty that
commands, and faculties that obey.

In their writing about ethics, Plato and Aristotle divide the soul into
three parts. This division has been adopted by the greater part of
later philosophers; but these have not understood that the object of
this definition was to classify and define the virtues (Plato: reason,
anger and appetite; Aristotle: locomotion, appetite and understanding).
Indeed, if this classification be carefully scrutinized, it will be
seen that it fails to account for all the faculties of the soul; it
neglects imagination, sensibility, intelligence, and the natural
faculties (the generative and nutritive powers).

Other philosophers, such as Numenius, do not teach one soul in three
parts, like the preceding, nor in two, such as the rational and
irrational parts. They believe that we have two souls, one rational,
the other irrational. Some among them attribute immortality to both of
the souls; others attribute it only to the rational soul, and think
that death not only suspends the exercise of the faculties that belong
to the irrational soul, but even dissolves its "being" or essence.
Last, there are some that believe, that by virtue of the union of the
two souls, their movements are double, because each of them feels the
passions of the other.


We shall now explain the difference obtaining between a part
and a faculty of the soul. One part differs from another by the
characteristics of its genus (or, kind); while different faculties may
relate to a common genus. That is why Aristotle did not allow that the
soul contained parts, though granting that it contained faculties.
Indeed, the introduction of a new part changes the nature of the
subject, while the diversity of faculties does not alter its unity.
Longinus did not allow in the animal (or, living being) for several
parts, but only for several faculties. In this respect, he followed the
doctrine of Plato, according to whom the soul, in herself indivisible,
is divided within bodies. Besides, that the soul does not have several
parts does not necessarily imply that she has only a single faculty;
for that which has no parts may still possess several faculties.

To conclude this confused discussion, we shall have to lay down a
principle of definition which will help to determine the essential
differences and resemblances that exist either between the parts of a
same subject, or between its faculties, or between its parts and its
faculties. This will clearly reveal whether in the organism the soul
really has several parts, or merely several faculties, and what opinion
about them should be adopted. (For there are two special types of
these.) The one attributes to man a single soul, genuinely composed of
several parts, either by itself, or in relation to the body. The other
one sees in man a union of several souls, looking on the man as on a
choir, the harmony of whose parts constitutes its unity, so that we
find several essentially different parts contributing to the formation
of a single being.

First we shall have to study within the soul the differentials between
the part, the faculty and the disposition. A part always differs from
another by the substrate, genus, and function. A disposition in a
special aptitude of some one part to carry out the part assigned to it
by nature. A faculty is the habit of a disposition, the power inherent
in some part to do the thing for which it has a disposition. There
was no great inconvenience in confusing faculty and disposition; but
there is an essential difference between part and faculty. Whatever
the number of faculties, they can exist within a single "being," or
nature, without occupying any particular point in the extension of the
substrate, while the parts somewhat participate in its extension,
occupying therein a particular point. Thus all the properties of an
apple are gathered within a single substrate, but the different parts
that compose it are separate from each other. The notion of a part
implies the idea of quantity in respect to the totality of the subject.
On the contrary, the notion of a faculty implies the idea of totality.
That is why the faculties remain indivisible, because they penetrate
the whole substrate, while the parts are separate from each other
because they have a quantity.

How then may we say that a soul is indivisible, while having three
parts? For when we hear it asserted that she contains three parts
in respect to quantity, it is reasonable to ask how the soul can
simultaneously be indivisible, and yet have three parts. This
difficulty may be solved as follows: the soul is indivisible in so far
as she is considered within her "being," and in herself; and that she
has three parts in so far as she is united to a divisible body, and
that she exercises her different faculties in the different parts of
the body. Indeed, it is not the same faculty that resides in the head,
in the breast, or in the liver;[357] (the seats of reason, of anger
and appetite). Therefore, when the soul has been divided into several
parts, it is in this sense that her different functions are exercised
within different parts of the body.

Nicholas (of Damascus[358]), in his book "On the Soul," used to say
that the division of the soul was not founded on quantity, but on
quality, like the division of an art or a science. Indeed, when we
consider an extension, we see that the whole is a sum of its parts,
and that it increases or diminishes according as a part is added or
subtracted. Now it is not in this sense that we attribute parts to
the soul; she is not the sum of her parts, because she is neither an
extension nor a multitude. The parts of the soul resemble those of an
art. There is, however, this difference, that an art is incomplete
or imperfect if it lack some part, while every soul is perfect, and
while every organism that has not achieved the goal of its nature is an
imperfect being.

Thus by parts of the soul Nicholas means the different faculties of
the organism. Indeed, the organism, and, in general, the animated
being, by the mere fact of possessing a soul, possesses several
faculties, such as life, feeling, movement, thought, desire, and the
cause and principle of all of them is the soul. Those, therefore, who
distinguish parts in the soul thereby mean the faculties by which the
animated being can produce actualizations, or experience affections.
While the soul herself is said to be indivisible, nothing hinders her
functions from being divided. The organism, therefore, is divisible,
if we introduce within the notion of the soul that of the body; for
the vital functions by the soul communicated to the body must thereby
necessarily be divided by the diversity of the organs, and it is this
division of vital functions that has caused parts to be ascribed to
the soul herself. As the soul can be conceived of in two different
conditions, according as she lives within herself, or as she declines
towards the body,[359] it is only when she declines towards the body
that she splits up into parts. When a seed of corn is sowed, and
produces an ear, we see in this ear of corn the appearance of parts,
though the whole it forms be indivisible,[360] and these indivisible
parts themselves later return to an indivisible unity; likewise, when
the soul, which by herself is indivisible, finds herself united to the
body, parts are seen to appear.

We must still examine which are the faculties that the soul develops
by herself (intelligence and discursive reason), and which the soul
develops by the animal (sensation). This will be the true means of
illustrating the difference between these two natures ("beings"), and
the necessity of reducing to the soul herself those parts of her
"being" which have been enclosed within the parts of the body.[361]

B. Jamblichus.[362]

Plato, Archytas, and the other Pythagoreans divide the soul into three
parts, reason, anger, and appetite, which they consider to be necessary
to form the ground-work for the virtues. They assign to the soul as
faculties the natural (generative) power, sensibility, imagination,
locomotion, love of the good and beautiful, and last, intelligence.

C. Nemesius.[363]

Aristotle says, in his Physics,[364] that the soul has five
faculties, the power of growth, sensation, locomotion, appetite,
and understanding. But, in his Ethics, he divides the soul into two
principal parts, which are rational part, and the irrational part;
then Aristotle subdivides the latter into the part that is subject to
reason, and the part not subject to reason.

D. Jamblichus.[365]

The Platonists hold different opinions. Some, like Plotinos and
Porphyry, reduce to a single order and idea the different functions and
faculties of life; others, like Numenius, imagine them to be opposed,
as if in a struggle; while others, like Atticus and Plutarch, bring
harmony out of the struggle.

E. Ammonius Saccas.



It will suffice to oppose the arguments of Ammonius, teacher of
Plotinos, and those of Numenius the Pythagorean, to that of all those
who claim that the soul is material. These are the reasons: "Bodies,
containing nothing unchangeable, are naturally subject to change, to
dissolution, and to infinite divisions. They inevitably need some
principle that may contain them, that may bind and strengthen their
parts; this is the unifying principle that we call soul. But if the
soul also be material, however subtle be the matter of which she may be
composed, what could contain the soul herself, since we have just seen
that all matter needs some principle to contain it? The same process
will go on continuously to infinity until we arrive at an immaterial


Ammonius, teacher of Plotinos, thus explained the present problem (the
union of soul and body): "The intelligible is of a nature such that it
unites with whatever is able to receive it, as intimately as the union
of things, that mutually alter each other in uniting, though, at the
same time, it remains pure and incorruptible, as do things that merely
coexist.[367] Indeed, in the case of bodies, union alters the parts
that meet, since they form new bodies; that is how elements change into
composite bodies, food into blood, blood into flesh, and other parts
of the body. But, as to the intelligible, the union occurs without any
alteration; for it is repugnant to the nature of the intelligible to
undergo an alteration in its essential nature. It disappears, or it
ceases to be, but it is not susceptible of change. Now the intelligible
cannot be annihilated; otherwise it would not be immortal; and as
the soul is life, if it changed in its union with the body, it would
become something different, and would no longer be life. What would
the soul afford to the body, if not life? In her union (with the body,
therefore), the soul undergoes no alteration.

Since it has been demonstrated that, in its essential nature, the
intelligible is immutable, the necessary result must be that it does
not alter at the same time as the entities to which it is united. The
soul, therefore, is united to the body, but she does not form a mixture
with it.[368] The sympathy that exists between them shows that they are
united; for the entirely animated being is a whole that is sympathetic
to itself, and that is consequently really one.[369]

What proves that the soul does not form a mixture with the body, is the
soul's power to separate from the body during sleep; leaving the body
as it were inanimate, with only a breath of life, to keep it from dying
entirely; using her own activity only in dreams, to foresee the future,
and to live in the intelligible world.

This appears again when the soul gathers herself together to devote
herself to her thoughts; for then she separates from the body so far as
she can, and retires within herself better to be able to apply herself
to the consideration of intelligible things. Indeed, being incorporeal,
she unites with the body as closely as the union of things which by
combining together perish because of each other, (thus giving birth to
a mixture); at the same time, she remains without alteration, as two
things that are only placed by each others' side; and she preserves
her unity. Thus, according to her own life, she modifies that to which
she is united, but she is not modified thereby. Just as the sun, by
its presence, makes the air luminous, without itself changing in any
way, and thus, so to speak, mingles itself therewith, without mingling
itself (in reality), so the soul, though united with the body, remains
quite distinct therefrom. But there is this difference, that the sun,
being a body, and consequently being circumscribed within a certain
space, is not everywhere where is its light; just as the fire dwells
in the wood, or in the wick of the lamp, as if enclosed within a
locality; but the soul, being incorporeal, and not being subjected to
any local limitation, exists as a whole everywhere where her light
is; and there is no part of the body that is illuminated by the soul
in which the soul is not entirely present. It is not the body that
commands the soul; it is the soul, on the contrary, that commands the
body. She is not in the body as if in a vase or a gourd; it is rather
the body that is in the soul.[370]

The intelligible, therefore, is not imprisoned within the body; it
spreads in all the body's parts, it penetrates them, it goes through
them, and could not be enclosed in any place; for by virtue of its
nature, it resides in the intelligible world; it has no locality other
than itself, or than an intelligible situated still higher. Thus the
soul is within herself when she reasons, and in intelligence when she
yields herself to contemplation. When it is asserted that the soul is
in the body, it is not meant that the soul is in it as in a locality;
it is only meant that the soul is in a habitual relation with the body;
and that the soul is present there, as we say that God is in us. For
we think that the soul is united to the body, not in a corporeal and
local manner, but by the soul's habitual relations, her inclination and
disposition, as a lover is attached to his beloved. Besides, as the
affection of the soul has neither extension, nor weight, nor parts,
she could not be circumscribed by local limitations. Within what place
could that which has no parts be contained? For place and corporeal
extension are inseparable; the place is limited space in which the
container contains the contained. But if we were to say, "My soul is
then in Alexandria, in Rome, and everywhere else;" we would be still
speaking of space carelessly, since being in Alexandria, or in general,
being somewhere, is being in a place; now the soul is absolutely in
no place; she can only be in some relation with some place, since it
has been demonstrated that she could not be contained within a place.
If then an intelligible entity "be in relation with a place, or with
something located in a place, we say, in a figurative manner, that
this intelligible entity is in this place, because it tends thither by
its activity; and we take the location for the inclination or for the
activity which leads it thither. If we were to say, That is where the
soul acts, we would be saying, "The soul is there."


Then shone the wisdom of Ammonius, who is famous under the name of
"Inspired by the Divinity." It was he, in fact, who, purifying the
opinions of the ancient philosophers, and dissipating the fancies woven
here and there, established harmony between the teaching of Plato, and
that of Aristotle, in that which was most essential and fundamental....
It was Ammonius of Alexandria, the "Inspired by the Divinity," who,
devoting himself enthusiastically to the truth in philosophy, and
rising above the popular notions that made of philosophy an object
of scorn, clearly understood the doctrine of Plato and of Aristotle,
gathered them into a single ideal, and thus peacefully handed
philosophy down to his disciples Plotinos, the (pagan) Origen, and
their successors.



It was only through long hard work that the writer arrived at
conclusions which the reader may be disposed to accept as very
natural, under the circumstances. It is possible that the reader may,
nevertheless, be interested in the manner in which the suggestion here
advanced was reached.

The writer had for several years been working at the premier edition
of the fragments of Numenius, in reasonably complete form, with
translation and outline. After ransacking the accessible sources of
fragments, there remained yet an alleged treatise of Numenius on
Matter, in the library of the Escoreal, near Madrid. This had been
known to savants in Germany for many years; and Prof. Uzener, of
Bonn, in his criticism of Thedinga's partial collection of fragments,
had expressed a strong desire that it be investigated; it had also
been noticed by Zeller, and Bouillet, as well as Chaignet. If then I
hoped to publish a comparatively reliable collection of the fragments
of Numenius, it was my duty, though hailing from far America, and
though no European had shown enough interest therein to send for a
photographic copy, to go there, and get one, which I did in July, 1913.
I bore the precious fragment to Rostock and Prof. Thedinga in Hagen,
where, however, we discovered that it was no more than a section of
Plotinos's Enneads, iii. 6.6 to end. The manuscript did, indeed, show
an erasure of the name of Plotinos, and the substitution of that of
Numenius. After the first disappointment, it became unavoidable to ask
the question why the monk should have done that. Had he any reason
to suppose that this represented Numenian doctrine, even if it was
not written by Numenius? Having no external data to go by, it became
necessary to resort to internal criticism, to compare this Plotinian
treatment of matter with other Plotinian treatments, in other portions
of the Enneads.

This then inevitably led to a close scrutiny of Plotinos's various
treatments of the subject, with results that were very much unlooked
for. This part that we might well have had reason to ascribe to
Numenian influence, on the contrary, turned out to be by far
more Plotinian than other sections that we would at first have
unhesitatingly considered Plotinian, and, as will be seen elsewhere,
the really doubtful portions occur in the very last works of Plotinos's
life, where it would have been more natural to expect the most genuine.
However, the result was a demonstration of a progress in doctrines in
the career of Plotinos, and after a careful study thereof, the reader
will agree that we have in this case every element of probability in
favor of such a development; indeed, it will seem so natural that the
unbiased reader will ask himself why this idea has not before this been
the general view of the matter.

       *       *       *       *       *

First a few words about the distinction of periods in general.
Among unreflecting people, for centuries, it has been customary
to settle disputes by appeals to the Bible as a whole. This was
always satisfactory, until somebody else came along who held totally
different views, which he supported just as satisfactorily from the
same authority. The result was the century-long bloody wars of the
Reformation, everywhere leaving in that particular place, as the
orthodox, the stronger. Since thirty years, however, the situation has
changed. The contradictions of the Bible, so long the ammunition of
scoffers of the type of Ingersoll, became the pathfinders of the Higher
Criticism, which has solved the otherwise insoluble difficulties by
showing them to rest on parallel documents, and different authors. It
is no longer sufficient to appeal to Isaiah; we must now specify which
Isaiah we mean; and we may no longer refer to the book of Genesis, but
to the Jehovistic or Elohistic documents.

This method of criticism is slowly gaining ground with other works. The
writer, for instance, applied it with success to the Gathas, or hymns
of Zoroaster. These appear in the Yasnas in two sections which have
ever given the editors much trouble. Either they were printed in the
meaningless traditional order, or they were mixed confusedly according
to the editor's fancy, resulting of course in a fancy picture. The
writer, however, discovered they were duplicate lives of Zoroaster, and
printing them on opposite pages, he has shown parallel development,
reducing the age-long difficulties to perfectly reasonable, and
mutually confirming order.

Another case is that of Plato. It is still considered allowable to
quote the authority of Plato, as such; but in scientific matters we
must always state which period of Plato's activities, the Plato of the
Republic, or the more conservative Plato of the Laws, and the evil
World-soul, is meant.

Another philosopher in the same case is Schelling, among whose views
the text-books distinguish as many as five different periods. This
is no indication of mental instability, but rather a proof that he
remained awake as long as he lived. No man can indeed continue to think
with genuineness without changing his views; and only men as great as
Bacon or Emerson have had the temerity to discredit consistency when
it is no more than mental inertia.

There are many other famous men who changed their views. Prominent
among them is Goethe, whose Second Faust, finished in old age, strongly
contrasted with the First Part. What then would be inherently unlikely
in Plotinos's changing his views during the course of half a century
of philosophical activity? On the contrary, it would be a much greater
marvel had he not done so; and the burden of proof really lies with the
partisans of unchanging opinions.

For example: in ii. 4 we find Plotinos discussing the doctrine of two
matters, the physical and the intelligible. In the very next book,
of the same Ennead, in ii. 5.3, we find him discrediting this same
intelligible matter. Moreover, in i. 8.7, he approves of the world as
mixture; in ii. 4.7 he disapproves of it. What do these contradictions
mean? That Plotinos was unreliable? That he was mentally incoherent?
No, something much simpler. By consulting the tables of Porphyry, we
discover of the first two, that the first statement was made during
the Amelian period, and the latter during the Porphyrian. Another case
of such contradiction is his assertion of positive evil (i. 8) and
his denial thereof (ii. 9). The latter assertion is of the Porphyrian
period, the former is Eustochian; while of the latter two, the first
was Eustochian; and the second Amelian. It is simply a case of
development of doctrines at different periods of his life.

       *       *       *       *       *

Let us now examine Plotinos's various treatments of the subject of

The first treatment of matter occurs in the first Ennead, and it may
be described as thoroughly Numenian, being treated in conjunction with
the subject of evil. First, we have the expression of the Supreme
hovering over Being.[372] Then we have the soul double,[373] reminding
us of Numenius's view of the double Second Divinity[374] and the double
soul.[375] Then we have positive evil occurring in the absence of
good.[376] Plotinos[377] opposes the Stoic denial of evil, for he says,
"if this were all," there were no evil. We find a threefold division
of the universe without the Stoic term hypostasis, which occurs in the
treatment of the same topic elsewhere.[378] Similar to Numenius is the
King of all,[379] the blissful life of the divinities around him,[380]
and the division of the universe into three.[381] Plotinos[382]
acknowledges evil things in the world, something denied by the
Stoics,[383] but taught by Numenius, as is also original, primary
existence of evil, in itself. Evil is here said to be a hypostasis in
itself, and imparts evil qualities to other things. It is an image of
being, and a genuine nature of evil. Plotinos describes[384] matter
as flowing eternally, which reminds us unmistakably of Numenius's
image[385] of matter as a swiftly flowing stream, unlimited and
infinite in depth, breadth, and length. Evil inheres in the material
part of the body,[386] and is seen as actual, positive, darkness,
which is Numenian, as far as it means a definite principle.[387]
Plotinos also[388] insists on the ineradicability of evil, in almost
the same terms as Numenius,[389] who calls on Heraclitus and Homer as
supporters. Plotinos[390] as reason for this assigns the fact that the
world is a mixture, which is the very proof advanced by Numenius in 12.
Plotinos, moreover,[391] defines matter as that which remains after all
qualities are abstracted; this is thoroughly Numenian.[392]

In the fourth book of the Second Ennead the treatment of matter is
original, and is based on comparative studies. Evil has disappeared
from the horizon; and the long treatment of the controversy with the
Gnostics[393] is devoted to explaining away evil as misunderstood
good. Although he begins by finding fault with Stoic materialism,[394]
he asserts two matters, the intelligible and the physical. Intelligible
matter[395] is eternal, and possesses essence. Plotinos goes on[396]
to argue for the necessity of an intelligible, as well as a physical
substrate (hypokeimenon). In the next paragraph[397] Plotinos seems
to undertake a historical polemic, against three traditional teachers
(Empedocles, Anaxagoras, and Democritus) under whose names he was
surely finding fault with their disciples: the Stoics, Numenius, and
possibly such thinkers as Lucretius. Empedocles is held responsible
for the view that elements are material, evidently a Stoical view.
Anaxagoras is held responsible for three views, which are distinctly
Numenian: that the world is a mixture,[398] that it is all in all,[399]
and that it is infinite.[400] We might, in passing, notice another
Plotinian contradiction in here condemning the world as mixture,
approved in the former passage.[401] As to the atomism of Democritus,
it is not clear with which contemporaries he was finding fault.
Intelligible matter reappears[402] where we also find again the idea
of doubleness of everything. As to the terms used by the way, we find
the Stoic categories of Otherness or Variety[403] and Motion; the
conceptual seminal logoi, and the "Koinê ousia" of matter; but in
his psychology he uses "logos" and "noêsis," instead of "nous" and
"phronesis," which are found in the Escorial section, and which are
more Stoical. We also find the Aristotelian category of energy, or

In the very next book of the same Ennead,[404] we find another
treatment of matter, on an entirely different basis, accented by a
rejection of intelligible matter.[405] Here the whole basis of the
treatment of matter is the Aristotelian category of "energeia" and
"dunamis," or potentiality and actuality, Although we find the Stoic
term hypostasis, the book seems to be more Numenian, for matter is
again a positive lie, and the divinity is described by the Numenian
double name[406] of Being and Essence ("ousia" and "to on").

We now come to the Escorial section.[407] This is by far the most
extensive treatment of matter, and as we are chiefly interested in it
in connection with its bearing the name of Numenius at the Escorial,
we shall analyze it for and against this Numenian authorship, merely
noting that the chief purpose is to describe the impassibility of
matter, a Stoic idea.

For Numenius as author we note:

a. A great anxiety to preserve agreement with Plato, even to the point
of stretching definitions.[408]

b. Plato's idea of participation, useless to monistic Stoics, is
repeatedly used.[409] Numenius had gone so far as to assert a
participation, even in the intelligibles.[410]

c. Matter appears as the curse of all existent objects.[411] It also
appears as mother.[412]

d. Try as he may, the author of this section cannot escape the dualism
so prominent in Numenius;[413] the acrobatic nature of his efforts in
this direction are pointed out elsewhere. We find here a thoroughgoing
distinction between soul and body, which is quite Numenian, and

e. Matter is passive, possessing no resiliency.[415]

f. We find an argument directed[416] against those who "posit being in
matter." These must be the Stoics, with whom Numenius is ever in feud.

g. Of Numenian terms, we find "sôteria,"[417] God the Father.[418] Also
the double Numenian name for the Divinity, Being and Essence.[419]

Against Numenius as author, we note:

a. The general form of the section, which is that of the Enneads, not
the dialogue of Numenius's Treatise on the Good. We find also the usual
Plotinic interjected questions.

b. Un-Numenian, at least, is matter as a mirror,[420] and evil as
merely negative, merely unaffectability to good.[421] While Numenius
speaks of matter as nurse and feeder, here we read nurse and receptacle.

c. Stoic, is the chief subject of the section, namely the affectibility
of matter. Also, the allegoric interpretation of the myths, of the
ithyphallic Hermes, and the Universal Mother, which are like the other
Plotinic myths, of the double Hercules, Poros, Penia, and Koros. We
find[422] the Stoic idea of passibility and impassibility, although not
exactly that of passion and action. We find[423] connected the terms
"nous" and "phronêsis," also "anastasis." The term hypostasis, though
used undogmatically, as mere explanation of thought, is found.[424]
Frequent[425] are the conceptual logoi of the divine Mind (the seminal
logoi) which enter into matter to clothe themselves with it, to produce
objects. We also have the Stoic category "heterotês,"[426] and the
application of sex as explanation of the differences of the world.[427]

d. Aristotelian, are the "energeia" and "dunamis."[428]

e. Plotinic, are the latter ideas, for they are used in the same
connection.[429] Also the myths of Poros, Penia and Koros, which are
found elsewhere in similar relations.[430]

On the whole, therefore, the Plotinic authorship is much more strongly
indicated than the Numenian.

The next treatment of matter in the Fourth Ennead, is
semi-stoical.[431] The opposite aspects of the Universe appear
again as "phronesis" and "phusis." We find here the Stoic doing and
suffering, and[432] hypostasis. Nevertheless, the chief process
illustrated is still the Platonic image reproduced less and less
clearly in successively more degraded spheres of being. Plotinos seems
to put himself out of the Numenian sphere of thought, referring to
it in abstract historical manner, as belonging to the successors of
Pythagoras and Pherecydes, who treated of matter as the element that
distinguished objects in the intelligible world.

The last treatment of matter[433] seems to have reached the extreme
distance of Numenianism. Instead of a dualism, with matter an original,
positive principle, Plotinos closes his discussion by stating that
perhaps form and matter may not come from the same origin, as there is
some difference between them. He has just said that Being is common
to both form and matter, as to quality, though not as to quantity. A
little above this he insists that matter is not something original, as
it is later than many earthly, and than all intelligible objects. As
to the Numenian double name of the Divinity, Being and Essence, he had
taken from Aristotelianism the conceptions of "energeia" and "dunamis,"
and added them as the supreme hypostasis, so as to form in theological
dialect the triad he, following Numenius and Plato, had always asserted
cosmologically (good, intellect, and soul): "The developed energy[434]
assumes hypostasis, as if from a great, nay, as from the greatest
hypostasis of all; and so it joins Essence and Being."

Reviewing these various treatments of matter we might call the
first[435] Numenian; the next[436] Platonic (as most independent, and
historically treated); the next[437] as Aristotelian; the Escorial
Section as semi-Stoic;[438] as also another short notice.[439] The last
treatment of matter, in vi. 3.7, is fully Stoic, in its denial of the
evil of matter.

How then shall we explain these differences? Chiefly by studying the
periods in which they are written, and which they therefore explain.

       *       *       *       *       *

When we try to study the periods in Plotinos's thought, as shown in
his books, we are met with great difficulties, which are chiefly
due to Porphyry. Exactly following the contemporary methods of the
compilers of the Bible, he undiscerningly confused the writings of
the various periods, so as to make up an anthology, grouped by six
groups of nine books each, according to subjects, consisting first
of ethical disquisitions; second, of physical questions; third,
of cosmic considerations; fourth, of psychological discussions;
fifth, of transcendental lucubrations; and sixth, of metaphysics and
theology.[440] As the reader might guess from the oversymmetrical
grouping, and this pretty classification, the apparent order is only
illusory, as he may have concluded from the fact that the discussions
of matter analyzed above are scattered throughout the whole range of
this anthology. The result of this Procrustean arrangement was the same
as with the Bible: a confusion of mosaic, out of which pretty nearly
anything could be proved, and into which almost everything has been
read. Compare the outlines of the doctrines of Plotinos by Ritter,
Zeller, Ueberweg, Chaignet, Mead, Guthrie, and Drews, and it will be
seen that there is very little agreement between them, while none of
them allow for the difference between the various parts of the Enneads.

How fearful the confusion is, will best be realized from the following
two tables, made up from the indications given in Porphyry's Life of

Porphyry gives three lists of the works of the various periods.
Identifying these in the present Ennead arrangement, they are to be
found as follows:

The works of the Amelian period are now i. 6; iv. 7; iii. 1; iv. 2; v.
9; iv. 8; iv. 4; iv. 9; vi. 9; v. 1; v. 2; ii. 4; iii. 9; ii. 2; iii.
4; i. 9; ii. 6; v. 7; i. 2; i. 3; i. 8.

The works of the Porphyrian period are now vi. 5, 6; v. 6; ii. 5; iii.
6; iv. 3-5; iii. 8; v. 8; v. 5; ii. 9; vi. 6; ii. 8; i. 5; ii. 7; vi.
7; vi. 8; ii. 1; iv. 6; vi. 1-3; iii. 7.

The works of the latest or Eustochian period are: i. 4; iii. 2, 3; v.
3; iii. 5; i. 8; ii. 3; i. 1; i. 7. (For Eustochius, see Scholion to
Enn. iv. 4.29, ii. 7.86, Creuz. 1, 301 Kirchhof.)

A more convenient table will be the converse arrangement. Following
the present normal order of the books in Enneads, we will describe
its period by a letter, referring to the Amelian period by A, to the
Porphyrian by P, and the Eustochian by E. I: EAAEPAEAA. II: PAEAPAPPP.

This artificial arrangement into Enneads should therefore be abandoned,
and in a new English translation that the writer has in mind, the books
would appear in the order of their periods, while an index would allow
easy reference by the old numbers. Then only will we be able to study
the successive changes of Plotinos's thought, in their normal mutual
relation; and it is not difficult to prophesy that important results
would follow.

       *       *       *       *       *

Having thus achieved internal proof of development of doctrines in
Plotinos, by examination of his views about Matter, we may with some
confidence state that the externally known facts of the life of no
philosopher lend themselves to such a progress of opinions more readily
than that of Plotinos. His biographer, Porphyry, as we have seen, had
already given us a list of the works of three easily characterized
periods in Plotinos's life: the period before Porphyry came to him,
the period while Porphyry staid with him, and the later period when
Plotinos was alone, and Porphyry was in retirement (or banishment?) in

An external division into periods is therefore openly acknowledged; but
it remains for us to recall its significance.

In the first place, the reader will ask himself, how does it come about
that Plotinos is so dependent on Porphyry, and before him, on Amelius?
The answer is that Plotinos himself was evidently somewhat deficient
in the details of elementary education, however much proficiency
in more general philosophical studies, and in independent thought,
and personal magnetic touch with pupils he may have achieved. His
pronunciation was defective, and in writing he was careless, so much so
that he usually failed to affix proper headings or notice of definite
authorship.[441] These peculiarities would to some extent put him in
the power, and under the influence of his editors, and this explains
why he was dependent on Porphyry later, and Amelius earlier.[442] These
editors might easily have exerted potent, even if unconscious or merely
suggestive influence; but we know that Porphyry did not scruple to add
glosses of his own,[443] not to speak of hidden Stoic and Aristotelian
pieces,[444] for he relied on Aristotle's "Metaphysics." Besides,
Plotinos was so generally accused of pluming himself on writings of
Numenius, falsely passed off as his own, that it became necessary
for Amelius to write a book on the differences between Numenius and
Plotinos, and for Porphyry to defend his master, as well as to quote
a letter of Longinus on the subject;[445] but Porphyry does not deny
that among the writings of the Platonists Kronius, Caius, and Attikus,
and the Peripatetics Aspasius, Alexander and Adrastus, the writings of
Numenius also were used as texts in the school of Plotinos (14).

Having thus shown the influence of the editors of Plotinos, we must
examine who and what they were. Let us however first study the general
trend of the Plotinic career.

His last period was Stoic practise, for so zealously did he practise
austerities that his death was, at least, hastened thereby.[446] It
is unlikely that he would have followed Stoic precepts without some
sympathy for, or acquaintance with their philosophical doctrines; and
as we saw above, Porphyry acknowledges Plotinos's writings contain
hidden Stoic pieces.[447] Then, Plotinos spent the last period of his
life in Rome, where ruled, in philosophical circles, the traditions of
Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius.

That these Stoic practices became fatal to him is significant when
we remember that this occurred during the final absence of Porphyry,
who may, during his presence, have exerted a friendly restraint on
the zealous master. At any rate, it was during Porphyry's regime that
the chief works of Plotinos were written, including a bitter diatribe
against the Gnostics, who remained the chief protagonists of dualism
and belief in positive evil. Prophyry's work, "De Abstinentia," proves
clearly enough his Stoic sympathies.

Such aggressive enmity is too positive to be accounted for by the mere
removal to Rome from Alexandria, and suggests a break of some sort
with former friends. Indications of such a break do exist, namely,
the permanent departure to his earlier home, Apamea, of his former
editor, Amelius. We hear[448] of an incident in which Amelius invited
Plotinos to come and take part in the New Moon celebrations[449] of
the mysteries. Plotinos, however, refused, on the grounds that "They
must come to me, not I go to them." Then we hear[450] of bad blood
between this Amelius and Porphyry, a long, bitter controversy, patched
up, indeed, but which cannot have failed to leave its mark. Then this
Amelius writes a book on the Differences between Plotinos and Numenius,
which, in a long letter, he inscribes to Porphyry,[451] as if the
latter were the chief one interested in these distinctions. Later,
Amelius, who before this seems to have been the chief disciple and
editor of Plotinos, departs, never to return, his place being taken by
Porphyry. It is not necessary to possess a vivid imagination to read
between the lines, especially when Plotinos, in the last work of this
period, against the Gnostics, section 10, seems to refer to friends of
his who still held to other doctrines.

Now in order to understand the nature of the period when Amelius was
the chief disciple of Plotinos, we must recall who Amelius was. In
the first place, he hailed from the home-town of Numenius, Apamea in
Syria. He had adopted as son Hostilianus-Hesychius, who also hailed
from Apamea. And it was to Apamea that Amelius withdrew, after he
left Plotinos. We are therefore not surprised to learn that he had
written out almost all the books of Numenius, that he had gathered them
together, and learned most of them by heart.[452] Then we learn from
Proclus (see Zeller's account) that Amelius taught the trine division
of the divine creator, exactly as did Numenius. Is it any wonder, then,
that he wrote a book on the differences between Plotinos and Numenius
at a later date, when Porphyry had started a polemic with him? During
his period as disciple of Plotinos, twenty-four years in duration,
Plotinos would naturally have been under Numenian influence of some
kind, and we cannot be very far wrong in thinking that this change of
editors must have left some sort of impress on the dreamy thinker,
Plotinos, ever seeking to experience an ecstasy.

       *       *       *       *       *

In this account of the matter we have restrained ourselves from
mentioning one of the strangest coincidences in literature, which would
have emphasized the nature of the break of Amelius with Plotinos, for
the reason that it may be no more than a chance pun; but that even as
such it must have been present to the actors in that drama, there is no
doubt. We read above that Amelius invited Plotinos to accompany him to
attend personally the mystery-celebrations at the "noumênia," a time
sacred to such celebrations.[453] But this was practically the name of
Numenius, and the text might well have been translated that Amelius
invited him to visit the celebrations as Numenius would have done; and
indeed, from all we know of Numenius, with his initiation at Eleusis
and in Egypt, that is just of what we might have supposed he would have
approved. In other words, we would discover Amelius in the painful act
of choice between the two great influences of his life, Numenius, and
Plotinos. Moreover, that the incident was important is revealed by
Porphyry's calling Plotinos's answer a "great word," which was much
commented on, and long remembered.

       *       *       *       *       *

In thus dividing the career of Plotinos in the Amelian, the Porphyrian,
and Eustochian (98) we meet however one very interesting difficulty.
The Plotinic writings by Porphyry assigned to the last or Eustochian
period are those which internal criticism would lead us to assign to
his very earliest philosophising; and in our study of the development
of the Plotinic views about Matter, we have taken the liberty of
considering them as the earliest. We are however consoled in our
regret at having to be so radical, by noticing that Porphyry, to whom
we are indebted for our knowledge of the periods of the works, has
done the same thing. He says that he has assigned the earliest place
in each Ennead to the easier and simpler discussions;[454] yet these
latest-issued works of Plotinos are assigned to the very beginning of
each Ennead, four going to the First Ennead, one to the Second, three
to the Third, and one only to the Fifth. If these had been the crowning
works of the Master's life, especially the treatise on the First God
and Happiness, it would have been by him placed at the very end of
all, and not at the beginning. Porphyry must therefore have possessed
some external knowledge which would agree with the conclusions of our
internal criticism, which follows.

These Eustochian works make the least use of Stoic, or even
Aristotelian terms, most closely following even the actual words of
Numenius. For instance, we may glance at the very first book of the
First Ennead, which though of the latest period, is thoroughly Numenian.

The first important point is the First Divinity "hovering over"
Being,[455] using the same word as Numenius.[456] This was suggested by
Prof. Thedinga. However, he applied the words "he says" to Numenius;
but this cannot be the case, as a Platonic quotation immediately.

The whole subject of the Book is the composite soul, and this is
thoroughly Numenian.[457]

Then we have the giving without return.[458]

Then we find the pilot-simile as illustration for the relation of soul
to body,[459] although in Numenius it appears of the Logos and the

We find the animal divided in two souls, the irrational and the
rational,[460] which reminds us of Numenius's division into two

The soul consists of a peculiar kind of motion, which however is
entirely different from that of other bodies, which is its own
life.[462] This reminds us of Numenius's still-standing of the Supreme,
which however is simultaneously innate motion.[463]

Referring to the problem, discussed elsewhere, that these Plotinic
works of the latest or Eustochian period, are the most Numenian, which
we would be most likely to attribute to his early or formative stage,
rather than to the last or perfected period, it is interesting to
notice that these works seem to imply other works of the Amelian or
Porphyrian periods, by the words,[464] "It has been said," or treated
of, referring evidently to several passages.[465] Still this need not
necessarily refer to this later work, it may even refer to Plato, or
even to Numenius's allegory of the Cave of the Nymphs,[470] where the
descent of the souls is most definitely studied. Or it might even refer
to Num. 35a, where birth or genesis is referred to as the wetting of
the souls in the matter of bodies.

Moreover, they contain an acknowledgment, and a study of positive evil,
something which would be very unlikely after his elaborate explaining
away of evil in his treatise against the Gnostics, of the Porphyrian
period, and his last treatment of Matter, where he is even willing to
grant the possibility of matter possessing Being. The natural process
for any thinker must ever be to begin with comparative imitation of his
master, and then to progress to independent treatment of the subject.
But for the process to be reversed is hardly likely.

Moreover, when we examine these Eustochian works in detail, they
hardly seem to be such as would be the expressions of the last years
of an ecstatic, suffering intense agony at times, his interest already
directed heavenwards. The discussion of astrology must date from the
earliest association with Gnostics, in Alexandria, who also might have
inspired or demanded a special treatment of the nature of evil, which
later he consistently denied. Then there is an amateurish treatment of
anthropology in general, which the cumulatively-arranging Porphyry puts
at the very beginning of the First Book. The treatise on the First Good
and Happiness, is not unlike a beginner's first attempt at writing out
his body of divinity, as George Herbert said, and Porphyry also puts it
at the beginning. The Eros-article is only an amplification of Platonic
myths, indeed making subtler distinctions, still not rising to the
heights of pure, subjective speculation.

These general considerations may be supplemented by a few more definite
indications. It is in the Eros-article that we find the Platonic
myth of Poros and Penia. Yet these reappear in the earliest Amelian
treatment of matter (ii. 4), as a sort of echo, mentioned only by the
way, as if they had been earlier thoroughly threshed out. Here also we
find only a stray, incidental use of the term "hypostasis," whereas the
Stoic language in other Amelian and Porphyrian treatises has already
been pointed out.

We are therefore driven to the following, very human and natural
conclusion. Plotinos's first attempts at philosophical writing had
consisted of chiefly Numenian disquisitions, which would be natural in
Alexandria, where Numenius had probably resided, and had left friends
and successors among the Gnostics. When Plotinos went to Rome, he
took these writings with him, but was too absorbed in new original
Amelian treatises to resurrect his youthful Numenian attempts, which he
probably did not value highly, as being the least original, and because
they taught doctrines he had left behind in his Aristotelian and Stoic
progress. He laid them aside. Only when Porphyry had left him, and he
felt the increasing feebleness due to old age and Stoic austerities,
did his attendant Eustochius urge him to preserve these early works.
Plotinos was willing, and sent them to Sicily where Porphyry had
retired. And so it happened with Plotinos, as it has happened with many
another writer, that the last things became first, and the first became

       *       *       *       *       *

The idea of classifying the works of Plotinos chronologically,
therefore, has so much external proof, as well as internal indications,
to support it, that, no doubt, in the future no reference will be
made to Plotinos without specifying to which period it refers; and we
may expect that future editions of his works will undo the grievous
confusion introduced by Porphyry, and thus render Plotinos's works
comparatively accessible to rational study.

There are besides many other minor proofs of the chronological order
of the writings of Plotinos, most of which are noticed at the heading
of each succeeding book; but the most startling human references are
those to Amelius's departure as a false friend;[466] to Porphyry's
desire to suicide at his departure,[467] and to his own impending
dissolution,[468] each of these occurring at the exact time of the
event chronologically, but certainly not according to the traditional


Of all fetishes which have misled humanity, perhaps none is responsible
for more error than that of originality. As if anything could be new
that was true, or true that was new! The only possible lines along
which novelty or progress can lie are our reports, combinations, and
expressions. Some people think they have done for a poet if they have
shown that he made use of suitable materials in the construction of
his poem! So Shakespeare has been shown to have used whole scenes from
earlier writers. So Virgil, by Macrobius, has been shown to have laid
under contribution every writer then known to be worth ransacking.
Dante has also been shown to have re-edited contemporary apocalypses.
So Homer, even, has been shown to re-tell stories gathered from many
sources. The result is that people generally consider Shakespeare,
Virgil, or Homer great in spite of their borrowings, when, on the
contrary, the statement should be that they were great because of their
rootage in the best of their period. In other words, they are great not
because of their own personality (which in many cases has dropped out
of the ken of history), but because they more faithfully, completely,
and harmoniously represent their periods than other now forgotten
writers. Therein alone lay their cosmic value, and their assurance of
immortality. They are the voices of their ages, and we are interested
in the significance of their age, not in them personally.

It is from this standpoint that we must approach Plato. Of his
personality what details are known are of no soteriologic significance;
and the reason why the world has not been able to get away from him,
and probably never will, is that he sums up prior Greek philosophy in
as coherent a form as is possible without doing too great Procrustean
violence to the elements in question. This means that Plato did not
fuse them all into one absolutely, rigid, coherent, consistent system,
in which case his utility would have been very much curtailed. The very
form of his writings, the dialogue, left each element in the natural
living condition to survive on its merits, not as an authoritative
oracle, or Platonic pronunciamento, or creed.

For details, the reader is referred to Zeller's fuller account of
these pre-Platonic elements.[471] But we may summarize as follows:
the physical elements to which the Hylicists had in turn attributed
finality Plato united into Pythagorean matter, which remained as
an element of Dualism. The world of nature became the becoming of
Heraclitus. Above that he placed the Being of Parmenides, in which the
concepts of Socrates found place as ideas. These he identified with
the numbers and harmonies of Pythagoras, and united them in an Eleatic
unity of many, as an intelligible world, or reason, which he owed to
Anaxagoras. The chief idea, that of the Good, was Megaro-Socratic. His
cosmology was that of Timaeus. His psychology was based on Anaxagoras,
as mind; on Pythagoras, as immortal. His ethics are Socratic, his
politics are Pythagorean. Who therefore would flout Plato, has all
earlier Greek philosophy to combat; and whoever recognizes the
achievements of the Hellenic mind will find something to praise in
Plato. When, therefore, we are studying Platonism, we are only studying
a blending of the rays of Greece, and we are chiefly interested in
Greece as one of the latest, clearest, and most kindred expressions of
human thought.

If however we should seek some one special Platonic element, it
would be that genuineness of reflection, that sincerity of thought,
that makes of his dialogues no cut and dried literary figments, but
soul-tragedies, with living, breathing, interest and emotion. Plato
thus practised his doctrine of the double self,[472] the higher and
the lower selves, of which the higher might be described as "superior
to oneself." In his later period, that of the Laws, he applied this
double psychology to cosmology, thereby producing doubleness in
the world-Soul: besides the good one, appears the evil one, which
introduces even into heaven things that are not good.

It was only a step from this to the logical deduction of Xenocrates
that these things in heaven were "spirits" or "guardians," both good
and evil, assisting in the administration of human affairs.[473] Such
is the result of doubleness introduced into anthropology; introduced
into cosmology, it establishes Pythagorean indefinite duality as the
principle opposing the unity of goodness.

The next step was taken by Plutarch. The evil demons, had, in Stoic
phraseology, been called "physical;" and so, in regard to matter,
they came to stand in the relation of soul to body. Original matter,
therefore, became two-fold; matter itself, and its moving principle,
"the soul of matter." This was identified with the worse World-soul
by a development, or historical event, which was the ordering of the
cosmos, or, creation.

This then was the state of affairs at the advent of Numenius.
Although his chief interest lay in practical comparative religion, he
tried, philosophically, to return to a mythical "original" Platonism
or Pythagoreanism. What Plato did for earlier Greek speculation,
Numenius did for post-Platonic development. He harked back to
the latter Platonic stage, which taught the evil world-Soul. He
included the achievements of Plutarch, the "soul of matter," and the
trine division of a separate principle, such as Providence. To the
achievement of Xenocrates he was drawn by two powerful interests, the
Egyptian, Hermetic, Serapistic, in connection with the evil demons;
and the Pythagorean, in connection with the Indefinite-duality. Thus
Numenius's History of the Platonic Succession is not a delusion;
Numenius really did sum up the positive Platonic progress, not
omitting even Maximus of Tyre's philosophical hierarchic explanation
of the emanative or participative streaming forth of the Divine. But
Numenius was not merely a philosopher: of this gathering of Platonic
achievements he made a religion. In this he was also following the
footsteps of Pythagoras, who limited his doctrines to a group of
students. But Numenius did not merely copy Pythagoras. Numenius
modernized him, connecting up the Platonic doctrinal aggregate with
the mystery-rites current in his own day. Nor did Numenius shirk any
unpleasant responsibilities of a restorer of Platonism: he continued
the traditional Academico-Stoical feud. Strange to say, the last great
Stoic philosopher, Posidonius (A.D. 135-151) hailed from Numenius's
home-town, Apamea, so that this Stoic feud may have been forced on
Numenius from home personalities or conditions. It would seem that in
Numenius and Posidonius we have a re-enactment of the tragedy of Greek
philosophy on a Syrian theatre, where dogmatic Stoicism died, and
Platonism admitted Oriental ideas.

Apamea, however, had not yet ended its role in the development of
thought. Numenius's pupil, Amelius, had gathered, copied, and learned
by heart his master's works. It was in Apamea that he adopted as son
Hostilianius-Hesychius. After a twenty-four years' sojourn in Rome he
returned to Apamea, and was dwelling there still at the time of the
death of Plotinos, with whom he had spent that quarter of a century.
Here then we have a historical basis for a connection between Numenius
and Plotinos, which we have elsewhere endeavored to demonstrate from
inner grounds.

It was however by Amelius that philosophy is drawn into the maelstrom
of the world-city. Plotinos, in his early periods a Numenian
Platonist, will later go over to Stoicism, and conduct a polemic
with the Gnostics, the Alexandrian heirs of Platonic dualism,
under the influence of the Stoic Porphyry. However, Plotinos will
not publicly abandon Platonism; he will fuse the two streams of
thought, and interpret in Stoic terms the fundamentals of Platonism,
producing something which, when translated into Latin, he will leave
as inheritance to all the ages. Not in vain, therefore, did Amelius
transport the torch of philosophy to the Capital.

       *       *       *       *       *

Let us in a few words dispose of the general outlines of the fate of
the Platonic movement.

Plotinos was no religious leader; he was before everything else a
philosopher, even if he centred his efforts on the practical aspects
of the ecstatic union with God. Indeed, Porphyry relates to us the
incident in which this matter was objectively exemplified. At the
New Moon, Amelius invited him to join in a visit to the mystery
celebrations. Plotinos refused, saying that "they would have to come to
him, not he go over to them." This then is the chief difference between
Numenius and Plotinos, and the result would be a recrudescence of pure
philosophic contentions, as those of Plotinos against the Gnostics.

As to the general significance of Plotinos, we must here resume what we
have elsewhere detailed: that with the change of editors, from Amelius
to Porphyry, Plotinos changed from Numenian or Pythagorean dualism
to Stoic monism, in which the philosophic feud was no longer with the
Stoics, but with the Alexandrian descendants of Numenian dualism, the
Gnostics. Even though Plotinos showed practical religious aspects in
his studying and experiencing the ecstasy, there is no record of any of
his pupils being encouraged to do so, and therefore Plotinos remains
chiefly a philosopher.

The successors of Plotinos could not remain on this purely philosophic
standpoint. Instead of practising the ecstasy, they followed the
Gnostics in theorizing about practical religious reality in their
cosmology and theology, which took on, more or less, the shape of
magic, not inconsiderably aided by Stoic allegoric interpretations of
myths, as in Porphyry's "Cave of the Nymphs."

What Plato did for early Greek philosophy, what Numenius did for
post-Platonic thought, that Proclus Diadochus, the "Successor," did
for Plotinos and his followers. For the first time since Numenius we
find again a comparative method. By this time religion and philosophy
have fused in magic, and so, instead of a comparative religion, we have
a comparative philosophy. Proclus was the first genuine commentator,
quoting authorities on all sides. He was sufficient of a philosopher
to grasp Neoplatonism as a school of thought; and far from paying
any attention to Ammonius, as recent philosophy has done, as source
of Neoplatonism, he traces the movement as far as Plutarch, calling
him the "father of us all," inasmuch as he introduced the conception
of "hypostasis." Evidently, Proclus looked upon this as the centre
of Neoplatonic development, and therefore we shall be justified in a
closer study of this conception; and we may even say that its historic
destiny was a continuation of the main stream of creative Greek
philosophy; or, if you prefer, of Platonism, or Noumenianism, or even
Plotinian thought.

Did Greek philosophy die with Proclus? The political changes of the
time forced alteration of dialect and position; but the accumulations
of mental achievements could not perish. This again we owe to Proclus.
Besides being the first great commentator he precipitated his most
valuable achievements in logical form, in analytic arrangement, in
the form of crystal-clear propositions, theorems, demonstrations, and
corollaries. Such a highly abstract form was inevitable, inasmuch as
Numenius had turned away from Aristotelian observation of nature. Just
like the Hebrew thinkers, who finally became commentators and abstract
theorizers, nothing else was left for a philosophy without connection
with experiment, when whittled down by the keenest intellects of the

This abstract method, still familiarly used by geometry, reappeared
among the School-men, notably in Thomas Aquinas. Later it persisted
with Spinoza and Descartes. However, rising experimentalism has
gradually terminated it, its last form appearing in Kant and Hegel.
Kant's "Ding in sich," reached after abstracting all qualities, is only
a re-statement of Numenius and Plotinos's "subject," or, definition of
matter; and Hegel's dialectic, beginning with Being and Not-being, more
definitely proclaimed by Plotinos, goes as far back as the Eleatics
and Heraclitus, not to mention Plato. However, Kant and Hegel are the
great masters of modern thought; and although at one time the rising
tide of materialism and cruder forms of evolution threatened to obscure
it, Karl Pearson's "Grammar of Science," generous as it is in invective
against Kant and Hegel, in modern terms clinches Berkeley's and Kant's
demonstration of the reality of the super-sensual, thus vindicating
Plotinos, and, before him, Numenius.

It must not be supposed that in thus tracing the springs of our modern
thought we necessarily approve of all the thought of Plotinos, Numenius
or Plato. On the contrary, they were far more likely to have committed
logical errors than we are, because they were hypnotized by the glamor
of the terms they used, which to us are mere laboratory tools. The
best way to prove this will be to appraise at its logical value for us
Plotinos's discussion of Matter, elsewhere studied in its value for us.


We have elsewhere pointed out the hopelessness of escaping either
aspect of the problem of the One and the Many; and that the attempt
of the Stoics to avoid the Platonic dualism by a materialistic monism
was merely a change of names, the substance of the dualism remaining
as the opposition of the contraries, such as active and passive,
male and female, the predominant elements,[474] etc. Plotinos, in
his abandonment of Numenian dualism, and championing of Stoicism,
undertaking the feud with the Gnostics, the successors of Numenius,
must therefore have inherited the same difficulties of thought, and we
shall see how in spite of his mental agility he is caught in the same
traditional meshes, and that these irreducible difficulties occur in
each one of his three periods of life, the Eustochian, the Amelian, and
the Porphyrian.

In the Amelian, he teaches two matters, the physical and the
intelligible, by which device he seeks to avoid the difficulties of
dualism, crediting to intelligible matter any necessary form of Being,
thus pushing physical matter into the outer darkness of non-being.
So intelligible matter is still a form of Being, and we still hold
to monism; as intelligible matter may participate in the good; while
matter physical remains evil, being a deprivation of good, not
possessing it. This, of course is dualism; and he thus has a convenient
pun on the word matter, by which he can be monist or dualist, as
the fancy takes him, or as exigencies demand. This participation,
therefore, does not eliminate the dualism, while formally professing
monism. Therefore Plotinos tries to choose between monism and dualism
by surreptitiously accepting both.

In the Porphyrian period, he rejected the idea of intelligible
matter.[475] Forced to fashion entirely new arguments, he seizes as
tool the Aristotelian distinction between potentiality and actuality,
or energy as dynamic accomplishment.[476] But no logical device can
help a man to pull himself up by his boot-straps. If by Being you
mean existence, then its opposite must be negative, and to speak of
real non-being, as something that shares being, is an evasion. To say
that matter remains non-being, while having the possibility of future
Being, which however can never be actualized, is mere juggling with
words. Even if matter is no more than a weak, confused image, it is
not non-being. If it is a positive lie, it is not non-being. To talk
of a higher degree of Non-being, that is real non-being, is simply to
confuse the actuality intended with the thought of non-being, which
of course is a thought as actually existing as any other. Moreover if
matter is imperishable, it cannot be non-being; and if it possesses
Being potentially, it certainly is not non-existence. The Aristotelian
potentiality could help to create this evasion, but did not remove its
real nature; it merely supplied Plotinos with an intellectual device
to characterize something that would not be actually existing as still
having the possibility of existence; but this is not non-existence. In
another writing[477] of this period Plotinos continues his evasions
about the origin and nature of matter. First, he grants that it is
something that is not original, being later than many earthly, and all
intelligible objects; although, if he had returned to the conception
of intelligible matter, he would have been at liberty to assert the
originality of the latter. Then he holds that Being is common to both
form and matter, as to quality, but not as to quantity. Last, he
closes the paragraph by saying that perhaps form and matter do not come
from the same origin, as there is a difference between them.

In Plotinos's third, or Eustochian period, the same evasions occur.
For instance[478] he limits Being to goodness. Then he acknowledges
the existence of evil things, and derives their evil quality from a
primary evil, the "image of essence," the Being of evil. That he is
conscious of having strained a point is evident from the fact that he
adds the clause, "if there can be a Being of evil." Likewise,[479]
while discussing evil, which is generally recognized because in our
daily lives there is positive pain, and sensations of pain, he defines
evil as lack of qualities. To say that evil is not such as to form,
but as to nature is opposite to form is nonsense, inasmuch as life is
full of positive evils, as Numenius brought out in 16, and Plotinos
acknowledged even in spite of his polemic against the Gnostics.

Finally Plotinos takes refuge in a miracle[480] as explanation of
"unparticipating participation." This is commentary enough; it shows
he realized the futility of any arguments. But Plotinos was not alone
in despairing of establishing an ironclad system; before him Numenius
had, just as pathetically, despaired of a logical dualism, and he
acknowledged in fragment 16 that Pythagoras's arguments, however true,
were "wonderful and opposed to the belief of a majority of humanity."

In other words, monism is as unsatisfactory to reason as dualism. This
was the chief point of agreement between Pythagoras and the Stoics; and
Pragmatism has in modern times attempted to show a way out by a higher
sanction of another kind.

Perhaps the reader may be interested in a side-light on this subject.
Drews is interested in Plotinos only because Plotinos's super-rational
divinity furnishes a historical foundation for Edouard Hartmann's
philosophy of the Unconscious. It would seem, however, to be a mistake
to use the latter term, for it is true only as a doubtful corollary.
If the Supreme is super-conscious, it is possible to describe this
logically as unconscious. But generally, however, unconsciousness is a
term used to denote the sub-conscious, rather than the super-conscious,
and the use of that term must inevitably entail misunderstandings. It
would be better then to follow Pragmatism into the super-conscious,
rather than to sink with Hartmann into the sub-conscious. It was
directly from Plotinos[481] that Hartmann took his expression "beyond
good and evil."

Having watched Numenius, for Platonic dualism; and Plotinos for Stoic
monism, both appeal to a miracle as court of last resort, we may now
return to that result of Platonism which has left the most vital
impress on our civilization, its conception of the divine.


Elsewhere we have seen how Numenius waged the traditional Academic feud
with the Stoics bravely, but uselessly, inasmuch as it was chiefly
a difference of dialects that separated them. In the course of this
struggle, Numenius had made certain distinctions within the divinity,
which were followed by Amelius, but are difficult to trace in Plotinos
because, as a matter of principle, Plotinos[482] was averse to thus
"dividing the divinity." Why so? Because he was waging a struggle
with the Gnostics, who had followed in the footsteps of the Hermetic
writings (with their Demiurge and Seven Governors); Philo Judaeus (with
his five Subordinate Powers); Numenius and Amelius (with their triply
divided First and Second gods);--after which we come to Basilides (with
his seven Powers); Saturninus (with his Seven Angels); and Valentinus
(with his 33 Aeons).

This new feud between Plotinos and the Gnostics is however just as
illusory as the earlier one between Numenius and the Stoics. It was
merely a matter of dialects. Plotinos indeed found fault with the
Gnostics for making divisions within the Divinity; but wherever he
himself is considering the divinity minutely, he, just as much as the
Gnostics, is compelled to draw distinctions, even though he avoided
acknowledged divisions by borrowing from Plutarch a new, non-Platonic,
non-Numenian, but Aristotelian, Stoic (Cornutus and Sextus) and still
Alexandrian (Philo, Septuagint, Lucian) term "hypostasis."

The difference he pretended to find between the Gnostic distinctions
within the Divinity and his new term hypostasis was that the former
introduced manifoldness into the divinity, by splitting Him,[483] thus
allowing the influence of matter to pervade the pure realm of Being.
Hypostasis, on the contrary, wholly existed within the realm of pure
Being, and was no more than a trend, a direction, a characterization,
a function, a face, or orientation of activity of the unaffected unity
of Being. Thus the divinity retained its unity, and still could be
active in several directions, without admixture of what philosophy had
till then recognized as constituting manifoldness. But reflection shows
that this is a mere quibble, an evasion, a paralogism, a quaternio
terminorum, a pun. How it came about we shall attempt to show below.

In thus achieving a manifoldness in the divinity without divisions,
Plotinos did indeed keep out of the divinity the splitting influence
of matter, which it was now possible to banish to the realm of
unreality, as a negation, and a lie. Monism was thus achieved ... but
at the cost of two errors: denial of the common-sense reality of the
phenomenal world,[484] and that quibble about three hypostases without
manifoldness, genuinely a "distinction without a difference."

This intellectual dishonesty must not however be foisted on
Aristotle[485] or Plutarch. The latter, for instance,[486] adopted
this term only to denote the primary and original characteristics
(or distinctions within) existing things, from a comparative study
of Aristotle's "de Anima," and Plato's "Phaedo."[487] These five
hypostases were the divinity, mind, soul, forms immanent in inorganic
nature, "hexis," in Stoic dialect, and to matter, as apart from these

So important to Neoplatonism did this term seem to Proclus, that he
did not hesitate to say that Plutarch, by the use thereof, became "our
first forefather." He therefore develops it further. Among the hidden
and intelligible gods are three hypostases. The first is characterized
by the Good; it thinks the Good itself, and dwells with the paternal
Monad. The second is characterized by knowledge, and resides in the
first thought; while the third is characterized by beauty, and dwells
with the most beautiful of the intelligible. They are the causes from
which proceed three monads which are self-existent but under the form
of a unity, and as in a germ, in their cause. Where they manifest, they
take a distinct form: faith, truth, and love (Cousin's title: "Du Vrai,
du Beau, et du Bien"). This trinity pervades all the divine worlds.

In order to understand the attitude of Plotinos on the subject, we must
try to put ourselves in his position. In the first place, on Porphyry's
own admission, he had added to Platonism Peripatetic and Stoic views.
From Aristotle his chief borrowings were the categories of form and
matter, and the distinction between potentiality and actuality,[488]
as well as the Aristotelian psychology of various souls. To the Stoics
he was drawn by their monism, which led him to drop the traditional
Academico-Stoic feud, or rather to take the side of the Stoics against
Numenius the Platonist dualist and the dualistic successors, the
Gnostics. But there was a difference between the Stoics and Plotinos.
The Stoics assimilated spirit to matter, while Plotinos, reminiscent of
Plato, preferred to assimilate matter to spirit. Still, he used their
terminology, and categories, including the conception of a hypostasis,
or form of existence. With this equipment, he held to the traditional
Platonic trinity of the "Letters," the King, the intellect, and the
soul. Philosophically, however, he had received from Numenius the
inheritance of a double name of the Divinity, Being and Essence. As a
thinker, he was therefore forced to accommodate Numenius to Plato, and
by adding to Numenius's name of the divinity, to complete Numenius's
theology by Numenius's own cosmology. This then he did by adding as
third hypostasis the Aristotelian dynamic energy.

But as Intellect is permanent, how can Energy arise therefrom? Here
this eternal puzzle is solved by distinguishing energy into indwelling
and out-flowing. As indwelling, Energy constitutes Intellect; but its
energetic nature could not be demonstrated except by out-flowing, which
produces a distinction.

Similarly, there are two kinds of heat, that of the fire itself,
and that emitted by the fire, so that the fire may remain itself
while exerting its influence without. It is thus also there: in that
it remains itself in its inmost being, and from its own inherent
perfection, and energy, the developed energy assumes hypostasis, as
if from a Dynamis that is great, nay, greatest; and so it joins the
Essence and the Being. For that was beyond all Being, and that was the
Dynamis of all things, and already was all things. If then it is all,
it must be above all; consequently also above Being. "And if this is
all, then the One is before all; not of an essence equal to all, and
this must be above Being, as this is above intellect; for there is
something above intellect."[489]

This is the most definite statement of Plotinos's solution of the
problem; other references thereto are abundant. So we have a trinity of
energy, being and essence,[490] and each of us, like the world-Soul has
an Eros which is essence and hypostasis.[491] Reason is a hypostasis
after the nous, and Aphrodite gains an hypostasis in the Ousia.[492]
The One is intellect, the intelligible, and ousia; or, energy, being,
and the intelligible (essence).[493] The soul is activity.[494] The
soul is the third God,[495] we are the third rank proceeding from the
upper undivided Nature,[496] the whole being God, nous, and essence.
The Nous is activity, and the First essence. There are three stages of
the Good: the King, the nous, and the soul.[497] We find energy,[498]
thinking and being, then[499] the soul, the nous, and the One. We find
Providence threefold (as in Plutarch)[500] and three ranks of Gods,
demons and world-life.[501] Elsewhere, untheologically, or, rather,
merely philosophically, he speaks of the hypostasis of wisdom.[502]

Chaignet's summary of this is[503] that[504] Plotinos holds that every
force in the intelligible is both Being and Substance simultaneously;
and reciprocally that no Being, could be conceived without hypostasis,
or directed force. Again,[505] the world, the universe of things,
contains three natures or divine hypostases, soul, mind and unity;
which indeed are found in our own nature, and of which the divinest is
unity or divinity.

Let us now try to understand the matter. Why should the word
hypostasis, which unquestionably in earlier times meant "substance,"
have later come to mean "distinctions" within the divinity? For
"substance," on the contrary, represents to our mind an unity, the
underlying unity, and not individual forms of existence. How did the
change occur?

Now Plotinos, as we remember, found fault with the Gnostics in that
they taught distinctions within the divinity.[506] He would therefore
be disposed to remove from within the divinity those distinctions of
Plotinic, Plutarchian, Numenian, or Gnostic theology; although he
himself in early times did not scruple to speak of a hypostasis of
wisdom, or of Eros, or other matter he might be considering. Such terms
of Numenius or Amelius as he seems to ignore are the various Demiurges;
the three Plutarchian Providences he himself still uses. Still, all
these terms he would be disposed to eradicate from within the divinity.

As a constructive metaphysician, however, he could not well get along
without some titles for the different phases of the divinity; and even
if he dispensed with the old names, there would still remain as their
underlying support the reality or substance of the distinction. So he
removed the offensive, aggressive, historically known and recognized
terms, while leaving their underlying substances, or supports. Now
"substance" had become "substances," and to differentiate these it was
necessary to interpret them as differing forms of existence. The change
was most definitely made by Athanasius, who at a synod in Alexandria,
in A.D. 362,[507] fastened on the church, as synonymous with hypostasis
the popular term "prosopon" or "face." That this was an innovation
appears from the fact that the Nicene Council had stated that it
was heretical to say that Christ was of a hypostasis different from
that of the Father, in which case the word evidently meant still the
original underlying (singular) substance. With this official definition
in vogue, the original (singular) substance became forgotten, and it
became possible to speak in the plural, of three faces, as indeed
Plotinos had done.

In other words, so necessary were distinctions in the divinity,
that the popular mind supplied other individual names to designate
the distinctions Plotinos had successfully banished, for Demiurges
and Providences no longer return. Thus more manifold differences
re-entered into the divinity, than Plotinos had ever emptied out of
it, although under a name which the poverty of the Latin language
rendered as "persons," which represents to us individual consciousness
of a far more distinctive kind than was ever implied in three phases
of Providence, or of the Demiurge. Thus the translation into Latin
clinched the illicit linguistic process, and the result of Plotinos's
attempt to distinguish in the Divinity phases so subtle as not to
demand or allow of manifoldness, resulted in the most pronounced
differences of personality. This was finally clinched by Plotinos's
illustration of the three faces around a single head,[508] which
established the idea of three "persons" (masks, from "per-sonare") in
one God.

Not only in the abstract realm of Metaphysics, therefore, is the world
indebted to Greek thought; but even in the realm of religion a Stoic
reinterpretation of Platonism, itself reinterpreted in a different
language has given a lasting inheritance to the spiritual aspirations
of the ages.



Plotinos's date being about A.D. 262, he stands midway between the
Christian writings of the New Testament, and the Council of Nicaea,
A.D. 325. As a philosopher dealing with the kindred topics--the soul
and its salvation,--and deriving terminology and inspiration from
the same sources, Platonism and Stoicism, we would expect extensive
parallelism and correspondence. Though Plotinos does not mention any
contemporaneous writings, we will surely be able to detect indirect
references to Old and New Testaments. But what will be of most
vital interest will be his anticipations of Nicene formulations, or
reflection of current expressions of Christian philosophic comment.
While we cannot positively assert this Christian development was
exclusively Plotinian, we are justified in saying that the development
of Christian philosophy was not due exclusively to the Alexandrian
catechetical school; that what later appears as Christian theology was
only earlier current Neoplatonic metaphysics, without any exclusive
dogmatic connection with the distinctively Christian biography. This
avoids the flat assertion of Drews that the Christian doctrine of
the Trinity was dependent on Plotinos, although it admits Bouillet's
more cautious statement that Plotinos was the rationalizer of the
doctrine of the Trinity.[509] This much is certain, that no other
contemporaneous discussion of the trinity has survived, if any ever
existed; and we must remember that it was not until the council of
Constantinople in A.D. 381, that the Nicene Creed, by the addition of
the Filioque clause, became trinitarian in a thoroughgoing way; and
not until fifty years later that Augustine, again in the West, fully
expressed a philosophy and psychology of the trinity.

To Plotinos therefore is due the historical position of protagonist of
trinitarian philosophy.


Christian parallelisms in Plotinos have a historical origin in
Christian parallelisms in his sources, namely, Stoicism, Numenius and

To Christian origins in Plato never has justice been done, not even by
Bigg. His suggestion of the crucifixion of the just man, his reference
to the son of God are only common-places, to which should be added many
minor references.

The Christian origins in Numenius are quite explicit; mention of the
Hebrews as among the races whose scriptures are important, of Moses
among the great religious teachers, of the Spirit hovering over the
waters, of the names of the Egyptian magicians which, together with
Pliny, he hands down to posterity. He also was said to have told many
stories about Jesus, in an allegorical manner.

The Christian origins in Stoicism have been widely discussed;
for instance, by Chaignet. But it is likely that this influence
affected Christianity indirectly through Plotinos, along with the
other Christian ideas we shall later find. At any rate Plotinos is
the philosopher who uses the term "spiritual body" most like the
Christians.[510] The soul is a slave to the body,[511] and has a
celestial body[512] as well as a spiritual body.[513] Within us are two
men opposing each other,[514] the better part often being mastered by
the worse part, as thought St. Paul,[515] in the struggle between the
inner and outer man.[516]

With Plotinos the idea of "procession" is not only cosmic but
psychological. In other words, when Plotinos speaks of the "procession"
of the God-head, he is not, as in Christian doctrine, depicting
something unique, which has no connection with the world. He is only
referring to the cosmic aspect of an evolution which, in the soul,
appears as educational development.[517] As the opposite of the soul's
procession upwards, there is the soul's descent into hell,[518] or, in
other words, the soul's descent and ascension.[519] This double aspect
of man's fate upward or downward is referred to by Plotinos in the
regular Christian term "sin," as consisting in missing one's aim.[520]
The soul repents,[521] and its duty is conversion.[522] As a result of
this conversion comes forgiveness.[523]


The famous "terrors of Jeremiah"[524] might have come mediately
through the Gnostics, who indeed may have been the persons referred
to as Christians.[525] More direct no doubt was God admiring his
handiwork[526] and the soul breathing the spirit of life into
animals.[527] God is called both the "I am what I am"[528] and "He is
what He ought to be."[528] He sits above the world,[529] as the king of


Plotinos says that it would be a poor artist who would conceive of
an animal as all covered with eyes. There is hardly such a reference
outside of Revelations,[531] to which we must also look for a new
heaven and a new earth.[532] Then we have practically a quotation of
the Johannine prologue "In the beginning was the Logos," and by him
were all things made.[533] Light was in the beginning.[534] We are told
not to leave the world, but not to be of it.[535] The divinity prepares
mansions in heaven for good souls.[536]

Pauline references seem to be that sin exists because of the law.[537]
God is above all height or depth.[538] The vulgar who attend
mystery-banquets only to gorge are condemned.[539] There are several
heavens.[540] The beggarly principles and elements towards which some
turn, are mentioned.[541] The genealogies of the Gnostics are held up
to ridicule.[542] General references are numerous. Diseases are caused
by evil spirits.[543] We must cut off any offending member.[544] Thus
we are saved.[545] In him we breathe and move and have our being.[546]
The higher divinity begets a Son, one among many brethren.[547] As the
father of intelligence, God is the father of lights.[548]

However, the most interesting incident is that scriptural text which,
to the reflecting, is always so much of a puzzle: "If the light that
is in them be darkness," etc.[549] This is explained by the Platonic
theory[550] that we see because of a special light that is within the


General theological references may be grouped under three heads: the
soul's salvation, the procession of the divinity, and the trinity.

As to the soul's salvation, God is the opposite of the evil of
beings,[551] which, when created in honor of the divinity[552] is the
image of the Word, the interpreter of the One,[553] and is composed of
several elements;[554] but it is a fall from God,[555] and its fate is
connected with the "parousia."[556]

This going forth of the soul from God, when considered cosmically,
becomes the "procession of the soul."[557] This is the "eternal
generation,"[558] whereby the Son is begotten from eternity,[559] so
that there could be no (Arian) "ên hote ouk ên," or, "time when he was
not."[560] This is expressed as "light of light,"[561] and explained by
the Athanasian light and ray simile.[562] We find even the Johannine
and Philonic distinction between God and the Good.[563] The world is
the first-begotten,[564] and the Intelligence is the logos of the first
God,[565] as the hypostasis of wisdom is "ousia," or "being,"[566] and
it is the "universal reason."[567]

As to the trinity, Plotinos is the first and chief rationalizer
of the cosmic trinity, which he continuously and at length
discusses.[568] God is father and son,[569] and they are "homoousian,"
or "consubstantial."[570] The human soul (as image of the cosmic
divinity), is one nature in three powers.[571] Elsewhere we have
discussed the history of the term "persons," but we may understand the
result of that process best by Plotinos's simile of the trinity as
one head with three faces,[572] in which the "persons" bear out their
original meaning of masks, "personare." Henceforward the trinity was an
objective idea.


Although mentioned above, special attention should be given to the
parable of the vine and the branches (iii. 3.7.--48, 1088 with Jno.
xv. 1-8), and the divinity's begetting a Son (v. 8.12--31, 571). The
significant aspect of this is that it is represented as being the
content of the supreme ecstatic vision; what you might call the crown
of Plotinos' message. "He tells us that he has seen the divinity
beget an offspring of an incomparable beauty, producing everything
in Himself, and without pain preserving within Himself what He has
begotten.... His Son has manifested Himself externally. By Him, as by
an image (Col. i. 15), you may judge of the greatness of His Father ...
enjoying the privilege of being the image of His eternity."



We have, elsewhere, pointed out the historic connections between
Numenius and Plotinos. Here, it may be sufficient to recall that
Amelius, native of Numenius's home-town of Apamea, and who had
copied and learned by heart all the works of Numenius, and who later
returned to Apamea to spend his declining days, bequeathing his copy
of Numenius's works to his adopted son Gentilianus Hesychius, was the
companion and friend of Plotinos during his earliest period, editing
all Plotinos's books, until displaced by Porphyry. We remember also
that Porphyry was Amelius's disciple, before his spectacular quarrel
with Amelius, later supplanting him as editor of the works of Plotinos.
Plotinos also came from Alexandria, where Numenius had been carefully
studied and quoted by Origen and Clement of Alexandria. Further,
Porphyry records twice that accusations were popularly made against
Plotinos, that he had plagiarized from Numenius. In view of all this
historical background, we have the prima-facie right to consider
Plotinos chiefly as a later re-stater of the views of Numenius, at
least during his earlier or Amelian period. Such a conception of the
state of affairs must have been in the mind of that monk who, in the
Escoreal manuscript, substituted the name of Numenius for that of
Plotinos on that fragment[573] about matter, which begins directly
with Numenius's name of the divinity, "being and essence."[574]


Let us compare with this historical evidence, that which supports the
universally admitted dependence of Plotinos on his teacher Ammonius.
We have only two witnesses: Hierocles and Nemesius; and the latter
attributes the argument for the immateriality of the soul to Ammonius
and Numenius jointly. No doubt, Ammonius may have taught Plotinos in
his youth; but so no doubt did other teachers; and of Ammonius the only
survivals are a few pages preserved by Nemesius. The testimony for
Plotinos's dependence on Numenius is therefore much more historical, as
well as significant, in view of Numenius having left written records
that were widely quoted. The title of "Father of Neo-platonism,"
therefore, if it must at all be awarded, should go to Numenius, who had
written a "History of the Platonic Succession," wherein he attempts
to restore "original" Platonism. This fits the title "Neo-platonism,"
whereas the philosophy of Ammonius, would be better described as an
eclectic synthesis of Platonism and Aristotelianism.


Of course we shall admit that there are differences between Plotinos
and Numenius, at least during his Porphyrian period; this was
inevitable while dismissing his Numenian secretary Amelius,[575] a
friend "who had become imbued with" such doctrines before becoming the
friend of Plotinos, who persevered in them, and wrote in justification
thereof. We find that the book chronologically preceding this one is v.
5, on the very subject at issue between Amelius and Porphyry. Plotinos
took his stand with the latter, and therefore against the former,
and through him, against Numenius; and indeed we find him opposing
several Gnostic opinions which can be substantiated in Numenius: the
creation by illumination or emanation,[576] the threefoldness of the
creator,[577] and the pilot's forgetting himself in his work.[578]

But, after all, these points are not as important as they might seem;
for in a very little while we find Plotinos himself admitting the
substance of all of these ideas, except the verbiage; he himself
uses the light and ray simile, the "light of light;"[579] he himself
distinguishes various phases of the allegedly single intelligence,[580]
and the soul, as pilot of the body incarnates by the very forgetfulness
by which the creator created.[581]

Further, as we shall show, during his last or Eustochian period after
Porphyry had taken a trip to Sicily to avoid suicide, he himself was
to return to Numenian standpoints. This may be shown in a general way
as follows. Of the nine Eustochian essays[582] only two[583] betray no
similarities to Numenian ideas, while seven[584] do. On the contrary,
in the Amelio-Porphyrian period,[585] written immediately on Amelius's
dismissal, only six[586] are Numenian, and six[587] are non-Numenian.
In the succeeding wholly Porphyrian period,[588] we have the same equal
number of Numenian[589] and non-Numenian[590] books. An explanation of
this reversion to Numenian ideas has been attempted in the study of the
development in Plotinos's views. On the whole, therefore, Plotinos's
opposition to Numenius may be considered no more than episodic.


As Plotinos was in the habit of not even putting his name to his own
notes; as even in the times of Porphyry the actual authorship of much
that he wrote was already disputed; as even Porphyry acknowledges
principles and quotations were borrowed, we must discover Numenian
passages by their content, rather than by any external indications.
As the great majority of Numenius's works are irretrievably lost,
we may never hope to arrive at a final solution of the matter; and
we shall have to restrict ourselves to that which, in Plotinos, may
be identified by what Numenian fragments remain. What little we can
thus trace definitely will give us a right to draw the conclusion
to much more, and to the opinion that, especially in his Amelian
period, Plotinos was chiefly indebted to Numenian inspiration. We
can consider[591] the mention of Pythagoreans who had treated of the
intelligible as applying to Numenius, whose chief work was "On the
Good," and on the "Immateriality of the Soul."

The first class of passages will be such as bear explicit reference to
quotation from an ancient source. Of such we have five: "That is why
the Pythagoreans were, among each other, accustomed to refer to this
principle in a symbolic manner, calling him 'A-pollo,' which name means
a denial of manifoldness."[592] "That is the reason of the saying, 'The
ideas and numbers are born from the indefinite doubleness, and the
One;' for this is intelligence."[593] "That is why the ancients said
that ideas are essences and beings."[594] "Let us examine the (general)
view that evils cannot be destroyed, but are necessary."[595] "The
Divinity is above being."[596]

A sixth case is, "How manifoldness is derived from the First."[597]
A seventh case is the whole passage on the triunity of the divinity,
including the term "Father."[598]

Among doctrines said to be handed down from the ancient
philosophers[599] are the ascents and descents of souls[600] and the
migrations of souls into bodies other than human.[601] The soul is a

Moreover, Plotinos wrote a book on the Incorruptibility of the
soul,[603] as Numenius had done;[604] and both authors discuss the
incorporeity of qualities.[605]

Besides these passages where there is a definite expression of
dependence on earlier sources, there are two in which the verbal
similarity[606] is striking enough to justify their being considered
references: "Besides, no body could subsist without the power of the
universal Soul." "Because bodies, according to their own nature,
are changeable, inconstant, and infinitely divisible, and nothing
unchangeable remains in them, there is evidently need of a principle
that would lead them, gather them, and bind them fast together; and
this we name soul."[607] This similarity is so striking that it had
already been observed and noted by Bouillet. Compare "We consider that
all things called essences are composite, and that not a single one
of them is simple," with "Numenius, who believes that everything is
thoroughly mingled together, and that nothing is simple."[608]


As Plotinos does not give exact quotations and references, it is
difficult always to give their undoubted source. As probably Platonic
we may mention the passage about the universal Soul taking care of all
that is inanimate;[609] and "When one has arrived at individuals, they
must be abandoned to infinity."[610] Also other quotations.[611] The
line "It might be said that virtues are actualizations,"[612] might
be Aristotelian. We also find:[613] "Thus, according to the ancient
maxim, 'Courage, temperance, all the virtues, even prudence, are but
purifications.'" "That is the reason that it is right to say that
the 'soul's welfare and beauty lie in assimilating herself to the
divinity.'" This sounds Platonic, but might be Numenian.

In this connection it might not be uninteresting to note passages
in Numenius which are attributed to Plato, but which are not to be
identified: "O Men, the Mind which you dimly perceive is not the
First Mind; but before this Mind is another one, which is older and
diviner." "That the Good is One."[614]

We turn now to thoughts found identically in Plotinos and Numenius,
although no textual identity is to be noted. We may group these
according to the subject, the universe, and the soul.


God is supreme king.[615] Eternity is now, but neither past nor
future.[616] The King in heaven is surrounded by leisure.[617] The Good
is above Being;[618] the divinity is the unity above the "Being and
Essence;[619] and connected with this is the unitary interpretation
of the name A-pollo,[620] following in the footsteps of Plutarch.
Nevertheless, the inferior divinity traverses the heavens,[621] in
a circular motion.[622] While Numenius does not specify this motion
as circular,[623] it is implied, inasmuch as the creator's passing
through the heavens must have followed their circular course. With
this perfect motion is connected the peculiar Numenian doctrine of
inexhaustible giving,[624] which gave a philosophical basis for the old
simile of radiation of light,[625] so that irradiation is the method
of creation,[626] and this is not far removed from emanationism. This
process consists of the descent of the intelligible into the material,
or, as Numenius puts it, that both the intelligible and the perceptible
participate in the ideas.[627] Thus intelligence is the uniting
principle that holds together the bodies whose tendency is to split
up, and scatter,[628] making a leakage or waste,[629] which process
invades even the divinity.[630] This uniting of scattering elements
produces a mixture or mingling,[608] of matter and reason,[631] which,
however, is limited to the energies of the existent, not to the
existent itself.[632] All things are in a flow,[633] and the whole all
is in all.[634] The divinity creates by glancing at the intelligence
above,[635] as a pilot.[636] The divinity is split by over-attention to
its charges.[637]

This leads us over to consideration of the soul. The chief effort
of Numenius is a polemic against the materialism of the Stoics,
and to it Plotinos devotes a whole book.[638] All souls, even the
lowest, are immortal.[639] Even qualities are incorporeal.[640]
The soul, therefore, remains incorporeal.[641] The soul, however,
is divisible.[642] This explains the report that Numenius taught
not various parts of the soul,[643] but two souls, which would be
opposed by Plotinos in his polemic against the Stoics,[644] but
taught in another place.[645] Such divisibility is indeed implied
in the formation of presentation as a by-product,[646] or a "common
part."[647] Moreover, the soul has to choose its own demon, or guardian
divinity.[648] Salvation as a goal appears in Numenius,[649] but not
in Plotinos, who opposes the Gnostic idea of the "saved souls,"[650]
though elsewhere he speaks of the paths of the musician,[651]
lover[652] and philosopher[653] in reaching ecstasy.[654] Still both
Gnostics and Plotinos insisted on the need of a savior.[655] Memory
is actualization of the soul.[656] In the highest ecstasy the soul is
alone with the alone.[657]


This comparison of philosophy would have been much stronger had we
added thereto the following points in which we find similar terms and
ideas, but which are applied differently. The soul is indissolubly
united to intelligence according to Plotinos, but to its source with
Numenius.[658] Plotinos makes discord the result of their fall, while
with Numenius it is its cause.[659] Guilt is the cause of the fall of
souls, with Plotinos,[660] but with Numenius it is impulsive passion.
The great evolution or world-process is by Plotinos called the "eternal
procession," while with Numenius it is progress.[661] The simile of
the pilot is by Plotinos applied to the soul within the body; while
with Numenius, it refers to the logos, or creator in the universe,[662]
while in both cases the cause,--of creation for the creator,[663] and
incarnation for the soul[664]--is forgetfulness. There is practically
no difference here, however. Doubleness is, by Plotinos, predicated
of the sun and stars, but by Numenius, of the demiurge himself,[665]
which Plotinos opposes as a Gnostic teaching.[666] The Philonic term
"legislator" is, by Plotinos, applied to intelligence, while Numenius
applies it to the third divinity, and not the second.[667] Plotinos
extends immortality to animals, but Numenius even to the inorganic
realm, including everything.[668] While Numenius seems to believe in
the Serapistic and Gnostic demons,[669] Plotinos opposes them,[670]
although in his biography[671] he is represented as taking part in the
evocation of his guardian spirit in a temple of Isis.

We thus find a tolerably complete body of philosophy shared by Plotinos
and Numenius, out of the few fragments of the latter that have come
down to us. It would therefore be reasonable to suppose that if
Numenius's complete works had survived we could make out a still far
stronger case for Plotinos's dependence on Numenius. At any rate, the
Dominican scribe at the Escoreal who inserted the name of Numenius in
the place of that of Plotinos in the heading of[672] the fragment about
matter, must have felt a strong confusion between the two authors.


To begin with, we have the controversy with the Stoics, which,
though it appears in the works of both, bears in each a different
significance. While with Numenius it absorbed his chief controversial
efforts,[673] with Plotinos[674] it occupied only one of his many
spheres of interest; and indeed, he had borrowed from them many
terms, such as "pneuma," the spiritual body, and others, set forth
elsewhere. Notable, however, was the term "hexis," habituation,
or form of inorganic objects,[675] and the "phantasia," or
sense-presentation.[676] Like, them, the name A-pollo is interpreted as
a denial of manifoldness.[677]

Next in importance, as a landmark, is Numenius's chief secret, the name
of the divinity, as "being and essence," which reappears in Plotinos in
numberless places.[678] Connected with this is the idea that essence is


It is a common-place that Numenius was a Pythagorean, or at least
was known as such, for though he reverenced Pythagoras, he conceived
of himself as a restorer of true Platonism. It will, therefore, be
all the more interesting to observe what part numbers play in their
system, especially in that of Plotinos, who made no special claim to
be a Pythagorean disciple. First, we find that numbers and the divine
ideas are closely related.[680] Numbers actually split the unity of the
divinity.[681] The soul also is considered as a number,[682] and in
connection with this we find the Pythagorean sacred "tetraktys."[683]
Thus numbers split up the divinity,[684] though it is no more than fair
to add that elsewhere Plotinos contradicts this, and states that the
multiplicity of the divinity is not attained by division;[685] still,
this is not the only case in which we will be forced to array Plotinos
against himself.

The first effect of the splitting influence of numbers will be
doubleness,[686] which, though present in intelligence,[687]
nevertheless chiefly appears in matter,[688] as the Pythagorean
"indefinite dyad."[689] Still, even the Supreme is double.[690] So
we must not be surprised if He is constituted by a trinity,[691] in
connection with which the Supreme appears as grandfather.[692]

If then both Numenius and Plotinos are really under the spell of
Pythagoras, it is pretty sure they will not be materialist, they will
believe in the incorporeality of the divinity,[693] of qualities;[694]
and of the soul[695] which will be invisible[696] and possess no
extension.[697] A result of this will be that the soul will not be
located in the body, or in space, but rather the body in the soul.[698]

From this incorporeal existence,[699] there is only a short step to
unchangeable existence,[700] or eternity.[701] This, to the soul, means
immortality,[702] one theory of which is reincarnation.[703] To the
universe, however, this means harmony.[704]

There are still other Pythagorean traces in common between Numenius
and Plotinos. The cause that the indeterminate dyad split off from the
divinity is "tolma," rashness, or boldness.[705] Everything outside
of the divinity is in a continual state of flux.[706] Evil is then
that which is opposed to good.[707] It also is therefore unavoidable,
inasmuch as suppression of its cosmic function would entail cosmic
collapse.[708] The world stands thus as an inseparable combination of
intelligence and necessity, or chance.[709]


Platonic traces, there would naturally be; but it will be noticed that
they are far less numerous than the Pythagorean. To begin with, we
find the reverent spirit towards the divinities, which prays for their
blessing at the inception of all tasks.[710] To us who live in these
latter days, such a prayer seems out of place in philosophy; but that
is only because we have divorced philosophy from theology; in other
words, because our theology has left the realm of living thought,
and, being fixed once for all, we are allowed to pursue any theory
of existence we please as if it had nothing whatever to do with any
reality; in other words, we are deceiving ourselves. On the contrary,
in those days, every philosophical speculation was a genuine adventure
in the spiritual world, a magical operation that might unexpectedly
lead to the threshold of the cosmic sanctuary. Wise, indeed, therefore,
was he who began it by prayer.

Of other technical Platonic terms there are quite a few. The lower is
always the image of the higher.[711] So the world might be considered
the statue of the Divinity.[712] The ideas are in a realm above the
world.[713] The soul here below is as in a prison.[714] There is a
divinity higher than the one generally known.[715] The divinity is in
a stability resultant of firmness and perfect motion.[716] The perfect
movement, therefore, is circular.[717] This inter-communion of the
universe therefore results in matter appearing in the intelligible
world as "intelligible matter."[718] By dialectics, also called
"bastard reasoning,"[719] we abstract everything[720] till we reach the
thing-in-itself,[721] or, in other words, matter as a substrate of the
world.[722] Thus we metaphysically reach ineffable solitude.[723]

The same goal is reached psychologically, however, in the ecstasy.[724]
This idea occurred in Plato only as a poetic expression of metaphysical
attainment; and in the case of Plotinos at least may have been used as
a practical experience chiefly to explain his epileptic attacks; and
this would be all the more likely as this disease was generally called
the "sacred disease." Whether Numenius also was an epileptic, we are
not told; it is more likely he took the idea from Philo, or Philo's
oriental sources; at least Numenius seems to claim no personal ecstatic
experiences such as those of Plotinos.

We have entered the realm of psychology; and this teaches us that that
in which Numenius and Plotinos differ from Plato and Philo is chiefly
their psychological or experimental application of pure philosophy. No
body could subsist without the soul to keep it together.[725] Various
attempts are made to describe the nature of the soul; it is the extent
or relation of circumference to circle.[726] Or it is like a line and
its divergence.[727] In any case, the divinity and the soul move around
the heavens,[728] and this may explain the otherwise problematical
progress or evolution ("prosodos" or "stolos") of ours.[729]


There are many other unclassifiable Numenian traces in Plotinos. Two of
them, however, are comparatively important. First, is a reaffirmation
of the ancient Greek connection between generation, fertility of birth
of souls and wetness,[730] which is later reaffirmed by Porphyry in
his "Cave of the Nymphs." Plotinos, however, later denies this.[731]
Then we come to a genuine innovation of Numenius's; his theory of
divine or intelligible giving. Plato had, of course, in his genial,
casual way, sketched out a whole organic system of divine creation
and administration of this world. The conceptions he needed he had
cheerfully borrowed from earlier Greek philosophy without any rigid
systematization, so that he never noticed that the hinge on which all
was supposed to turn was merely the makeshift of an assumption. This
capital error was noticed by Numenius, who sought to supply it by a
psychological observation, namely, that knowledge may be imparted
without diminution. Plotinos, with his winning way of dispensing with
quotation-marks, appropriated this,[732] as also the idea that life
streams out upon the world in the glance of the divinity, and as
quickly leaves it, when the Divinity turns away His glance.[733]

Other less important points of contact are: the Egyptian ship of
souls;[734] the Philonic distinction between "the" God as supreme, and
"god" as subordinate;[735] the hoary equivocation on "kosmos;"[736] and
the illustration of the divine Logos as the pilot of the world.[737]



We must focus our observations on Plotinos as a philosopher. To
begin with, we should review his successors, Porphyry, Jamblichus,
Sallust, Proclus, Hierocles, Simplicius;[738] Macrobius;[739] Priscus;
Olympicdorus and John Philoponus.[740]

Among the Arabian philosophers that follow in his steps are Maimonides
and Ibn Gebirol.[741]

Of the Christian fathers we first have two who paraphrased, rather than
quoted him.

St. Augustine by name quotes i. 6; iii. 2; iv. 3, and v. 1; he
paraphrases parts of i. 2; ii. 1; iii. 6, 7; iv. 2, 7; vi. 5, 6.[742]
St. Basil so closely paraphrases parts of Plotinos in his treatise on
the Holy Spirit,[743] his letter on the Monastic Life,[744] and his
Hexameron,[745] that Bouillet prints the passage in question in deadly

Other Christian Plotonic students were Gregory of Nyssa, Synesius,
Dionysius the Areopagite, Theodorus, Aeneas of Gaza, Gennadius;[746]
Victorinus;[747] Nicephorus Chumnus;[748] and Cassiodorus.[749]

Thomas Aquinas also was much indebted to Plotinos; and after him came
Boethius, Fénélon, Bossnet and Leibnitz (all quoted in Bouillet's work).

We have frequently pointed out that Plotinos' "bastard reasoning"
process of reaching the intelligible was practically paraphrased by
Kant's dialectical path to the "thing-in-itself." This dialetic, of
course, was capitalized by Hegel.

Drews has shown that Edouard von Hartmann used Plotinos'
semi-devotional ecstasy as a metaphysical basis for his philosophy of
the Unconscious.

It is, of course, among mystics that Plotinos has been accorded the
greater honor. His practical influence descended through the visions
and ecstasies of the saints down to Swedenborg, who attempted to write
the theology of the ecstasy; and the relation between these two,
Swedenborg and Plotinos should prove a fertile field for investigation.


Summarizing, he formed a bridge between the pagan world, with its
Greco-Roman civilization, and the modern world, in three departments:
Christianity, philosophy, and mysticism. So long as the traditional
Platonico-Stoical feud persisted there was no hope of progress; because
it kept apart two elements that were to fuse into the Christian
philosophy. Numenius was the last Platonist, as Posidonius was the last
Stoic combatant. However, if reports are to be trusted, Ammonius was an
eclecticist, who prided himself on combining Plato with Aristotle. If
Plotinos was indeed his disciple, it was the theory eclecticism that
he took from his reputed teacher. Practically he was to accomplish it
by his dependence on the Numenian Amelius, the Stoic Porphyry, and
the negative Eustochius. It will be seen therefore that his chief
importance was not in spite of his weakness, but most because of it.
By repeatedly "boxing the compass" he thoroughly assimilated the best
of the conflicting schools, and became of interest to a sufficiency
of different groups (Christian, philosophical and mystical) to insure
preservation, study and quotation. His habit of omitting credit to
any but ancient thinkers left his own work, to the uninformed--who
constituted all but a minimal number--as a body of original thought.
Thus he remains to us the last light of Greece, speaking a language
with which we are familiar, and leaving us quotations that are


While therefore providentially Plotinos has ever been of great
importance theologically, philosophically and mystically, we cannot
leave him without honestly facing the question of his value as an
original thinker. It is evident that his success was in inverse ratio
to originality; but we can also see that he could not have held
together those three spheres of interest without the momentum of a
wonderful personality. This will be evident at a glance to any reader
of his biography. But after all we are here concerned not so much
with his personality as with his value as an original thinker. This
question is mooted by, and cannot be laid aside because of its decisive
influence on the problem of his dependence of Numenius. The greater
part of the latter's works being irretrievably lost, we can judge only
from what we have; and as to the rest, we must ask ourselves, was
Plotinos the kind of a man who would have depended on some other man's
thoughts? Is he likely to have sketched out a great scheme and filled
it in; or rather, was he likely to depend on personal suggestion,
and embroider on it, so to speak. Elsewhere we have demonstrated a
development of his opinions, for instance, about matter. Was this due
to progressiveness, or to indefiniteness? The reader must judge for


His epilepsy naturally created an opportunity for, and need of a
doctrine of ecstasy; which for normal people should be no more than
a doctrine, or at least be limited to conscious experiences. Even
his admirer, Porphyry, acknowledges that he spelled and pronounced
incorrectly.[750] He acknowledged that without Porphyry's objections he
would have nothing to say. He refrained from quoting his authorities,
and Porphyry acknowledged that his writings contained many Stoic
and Aristotelian doctrines. It was generally bruited around that his
doctrines were borrowed from Numenius,[751] to the extent that his
disciples held controversies, and wrote books on the subject. His style
is enigmatic, and the difficulty of understanding him was discussed
even in his own day. He was dependent on secretaries or editors; first
on Amelius, later on Porphyry, who does not scruple to acknowledge
he added many explanations.[752] Later, Plotinos sent his books to
Porphyry in Sicily to edit. No doubt the defectiveness of his eyesight
made both reading and writing difficult, and explains his failure
to put titles to his works; though, as in the case of Virgil, such
hesitation may have been the result of a secret consciousness of his
indebtedness to others.


Punning has of course a hoary antiquity, and even the revered Plato
was an adept at it--as we see in his Cratylos. Moreover, not till a
man's work is translated can we uncover all the unconscious cases
of "undistributed middle." Nevertheless, in an inquiry as to the
permanent objective validity of a train of reasoning, we are compelled
to note extent and scope of his tendency. So he puns on aeons;[753]
on science and knowledge;[754] on "agalmata";[755] on Aphrodite,
as "delicate";[756] on Being;[757] on "koros," as creation or
adornment";[758] on difference in others;[759] on idea;[760] on heaven,
world, universe, animal and all;[761] on Vesta, and standing;[762] on
Hexis;[763] on inclination;[764] on doxa;[765] on love and vision;[766]
on "einai" and "henos;"[767] on "mous," "noêsis," and to "noêfon";[768]
on paschein;[769] on Poros;[770] on Prometheus and Providence;[771]
on reason and characteristic;[772] on "schesis" and "schema";[773]
and "soma" and "sozesthai";"[774] on suffering;[775] on thinking,
thinkable, and intellection;[776] on "timely" and "sovereign."[777]
It will be noted that these puns refer to some of the most important
conceptions, and are found in all periods of his life. We must
therefore conclude that his was not a clear thinking ability; that he
depended on accidental circumstances, and may not always have been
fully conscious how far he was following others. This popular judgment
that he was revamping Numenius's work may then not have been entirely
unfounded, as we indeed have shown.

Nevertheless, he achieved some permanent work, that will never be
forgotten; for instance:

1. His description of the ecstatic state.

2. His polemic against the Aristotelian and Stoic categories.

3. His establishment of his own categories.

4. His allegoric treatment of the birth of love, the several Eroses,
Poros and Penia, and other myths.

5. His building of a Trinitarian philosophy.

6. His threefold spheres of existence, underlying Swedenborgian

7. His aesthetic theories.

8. His ethical studies of virtues and happiness.

9. His restatement of Numenius's arguments for the immateriality of the


The reader may be interested in a few maxims selected from Plotinos'
works which may be of general interest.

1. We develop toward ecstasy by simplification of Soul.

2. We rise by the flight of the Single to the Single, face to face.

3. We contain something of the Supreme.

4. The Soul becomes what she remembers and sees.

5. Everything has a secret power.

6. The best men are those who have most intimacy with themselves.

7. The touch of the good man is the greatest thing in the world.

8. Every being is its best, not when great or numerous, but when it
belongs to itself.

9. There are two men in us, the better and the worse.

10. The secret of life is to live simultaneously with others and

11. God is the author of liberty.

12. Concerning what would it be most worth while to speak, except the
Soul? Let us therefore know ourselves.

13. Without virtue, God is but a name.

14. The object of virtue is to separate the soul from the body.

15. We can never become perfect, because he who thinks himself so has
already forgotten the supreme divinity towards which he must hasten.

16. The world was created by a concurrence of intelligence and

17. The Soul is the image, word, and interpreter of the One.

18. The divinities though present to many human beings often reveal
themselves only to some one person, because he alone is able to
contemplate them.

19. To act without suffering is the sign of a great power.

20. Only virtue is independent.

21. We are beautiful when we know ourselves.

22. The Soul is the child of the universal Father.

23. True happiness is being wise, and exercising this within oneself.

24. To become again what one was originally is to live in the Superior

25. The desired goal is not to cease failing, but to grow divine.

26. Virtue demands preliminary purification.

27. Our effort at assimilation should be directed not at mere
respectability, but at the gods themselves.

28. One should study mathematics in order to accustom oneself to think
of incorporeal things, and to believe in their existence.

29. Soul is not in body, but body in Soul.

30. The Soul's higher part remains in heaven.

31. We should not leave the earth, but not be of it.

32. The object of life is not to avoid evil, or copy the good, but to
become good.

33. Dying, to Eustochius: "I am awaiting you, in order to draw the
divine in me to the divine in all."


[1] It is significant that the subject of the first treatise of
Plotinos, after the departure of Porphyry, should treat of happiness
as the object of life. These may have been the arguments he advanced
to persuade Porphyry to abstain from suicide (to which he refers in
sections 8, 16), and, rather, to take a trip to Sicily, the land of
natural beauty. He also speaks of losing friends, in section 8. The
next book, on Providence, may also have been inspired by reflections
on this untoward and unexpected circumstance. We see also a change
from abstract speculation to his more youthful fancy and comparative
learning and culture.

[2] Diog. Laert. x.; Cicero, de Fin. i. 14, 46.

[3] Cicero, de Fin. 11, 26.

[4] See Arist. Nic. Eth. vii. 13; Sextus Empiricus, Hypotyp. Pyrrhon,
iii. 180; Stob. Ecl. ii. 7.

[5] Arist. Nic. Eth. i. 10, 14.

[6] Stob. Floril. i. 76.

[7] See vi. 8.

[8] In Plutarch, of Wickedness, and in Seneca, de Tranquil, Animi, 14.

[9] De Providentia, 3.

[10] De Provid. 5.

[11] Aeschylus, Seven Against Thebes, 327.

[12] The vegetative soul, the power that presides over the nutrition
and growth of the body; see iv. 3.23.

[13] See i. 8; also Numenius, 16.

[14] i. 2.4.

[15] Cicero, Tusculans. ii. 7.

[16] The animal; see i. 1.10.

[17] See i. 1.8, 10.

[18] See the Theataetus, p. 176. Carv. 84; the Phaedo. p. 69, Cary, 37;
the Republic, vi. p. 509; Cary, 19; x. p. 613, Cary, 12; the Laws, iv.
p. 716, Cary, 8; also Plotinos i. 2.1.

[19] See i. 9.

[20] A Stoic confutation of Epicurus and the Gnostics. As soon as
Porphyry has left him, Plotinos harks back to Amelius, on whose
leaving he had written against the Gnostics. He also returns to
Numenian thoughts. Bouillet notices that here Plotinos founded himself
on Chrysippus, Marcus Aurelius, and Epictetus, and was followed
by Nemesius. This new foundation enabled him to assume a rather
independent attitude. Against Plato, he taught that matter derived
existence from God, and that the union of the soul and body is not
necessarily evil. Against Aristotle, he taught that God is not only
the final, but also the efficient cause of the universe. Against
the Stoics, he taught that the human soul is free, and is a cause,
independent of the World Soul from which she proceeded. Against the
Gnostics, he insisted that the creator is good, the world is the best
possible, and Providence extends to mundane affairs. Against the
Manicheans, he taught that the evil is not positive, but negative, and
is no efficient cause, so that there is no dualism.

[21] Diog. Laert. x. 133.

[22] See iv. 2.4; vi. 7; see Plato, Philebus, p. 30, Cary, 56; Philo,
Leg. Alleg, vi. 7.

[23] Lactantius, de Ira Dei, 13.

[24] Ireneus, Ref. Her. ii. 3.

[25] As in vi. 7.1.

[26] Philo, de Creatione Mundi, 6.

[27] As the Gnostics taught; see ii. 9.1.

[28] As was held by the Gnostics, who within the divinity distinguished
potentiality and actuality, as we see in ii. 9.1.

[29] See ii. 9.3. 8.

[30] Numenius, 32.

[31] Plato, Timaeus, p. 48, Cary, 21. Statesman, p. 273, Cary, 16;
Laws, x. p. 904, Cary, 12.

[32] See ii. 9.2.

[33] From Aristotle, de Anima, 2.

[34] This is the Aristotelian psychological scheme.

[35] Clem. Al.; Strom. v. p. 712; Stobaeus, Ecl. Phys. i. p. 372, 446.

[36] iv. 8.12; Plato, Tim. p. 41. 69; Cary, 16, 44.

[37] Stob. Ecl. Eth. ii. 7.

[38] iii. 2.13.

[39] p. 253; Cary, 74.

[40] Sen. 526.

[41] According to Plato's Theaetetus, p. 176, Cary, 83; Numenius,16.

[42] Seneca, de Provid. 2.

[43] In his Republic, ix. p. 585, Cary, 10.

[44] See iii. 1.9.

[45] See iv. 3.12.

[46] See iv. 3.5.

[47] Gregory of Nyssa, Catech. Orat. 7.

[48] As thought Sallust, Consp. Cat. 52.

[49] Republic x. p. 620; Cary, 16; Numenius, 57.

[50] As said Sallust, Conspiration of Catiline, 52.

[51] As thought Epictetus, Manual, 31.

[52] In his Republic, vi. p. 488; Cary, 4.

[53] Marcus Aurelius. Thoughts, xi. 18.

[54] As thought Cicero, de Nat. Deor. iii. 63. 64.

[55] As thought Philo, de Prov. in Eus. Prep. Ev. viii. 14.

[56] According to Plato, in the Sophist and Protagoras, and the Stoics,
as in Marcus Aurelius. Meditations, vii. 63.

[57] As did the writer of Revelation, iv. 6.

[58] In his Timaeus, p. 29e, Cary, 10.

[59] As said Chrysippus in Plutarch, de Comm. Not. adv. Stoicos, 13.

[60] Mentioned by Plato in his Phaedrus, p. 248, Cary, 59; Republ. v.
p. 451, Cary, 2; and in the famous hymn of Cleanthes, Stobaeus Ecl.
Phys. i. 3.

[61] Like the figure of the angel Mithra; see Franck, LaKabbale, p. 366.

[62] As Hierocles wondered, de Prov. p. 82, London Ed.

[63] In the words of Plato's Timaeus p. 48; Cary, 21; and Theaetetus,
p. 176; Cary, 84; Numenius, 16.

[64] Almost the words of John i. 1.

[65] In the Laws, vii. p. 796, Cary, 6; p. 815, Cary, 18; and Philo, de
Prov. in Eus. Prep. Ev. viii. 14.

[66] As thought Epictetus in his Manual, 2, 6.

[67] In his Philebus, p. 48, Cary, 106.

[68] As thought Epictetus in his Manual. 8.

[69] See iii. 8.

[70] Numenius, 32.

[71] Plato, Banquet, p. 187, Cary, 14.

[72] Marcus Aurelius, Medit. ii. 13.

[73] As thought Marcus Aurelius, in his Thoughts, xii. 42.

[74] See iv. 3.24.

[75] In his Manual, 37.

[76] See iv. 1.9-12.

[77] Marcus Aurelius, Medit. vii. 9; Seneca, Epist. 94.

[78] Numenius, iii. 7.

[79] This image was later adopted by Swedenborg in his "celestial man."

[80] In close proximity to note 45, another distinctly Johannine

[81] Stoic ideas.

[82] As Plato said in his Phaedrus, p. 247, Cary, 56.

[83] See i. 8.2.

[84] See ii. 3.17.

[85] See ii. 3.13. Ficinus's translation.

[86] A Stoic term.

[87] Plato, Timaeus, p. 42, Cary, 17; see also Enn. ii. 3.10. 11, 15,

[88] Timaeus, p. 42, 91, Cary, 17, 72, 73.

[89] See ii. 3.13.

[90] Alcinous, de Doctrina Platonica, 26.

[91] Gregory of Nyssa, Catech. Oratio, 7; Dionysius Areopagite, Divine
Names, 4.

[92] See ii. 3.7.

[93] See iii. 2.6.

[94] Plato, Timaeus, p. 31c, Cary, 11.

[95] See Numenius. 14.

[96] Clem. Al. Strom. v. 689.

[97] In this book we no longer find detailed study of Plato, Aristotle
and the Epicureans, as we did in the works of the Porphyrian period.
Well indeed did Plotinos say that without Porphyry's objections he
might have had little to say.

[98] Porphyry, Principles of the theory of the Intelligibles, 31.

[99] Olympiodorus, in Phaedonem, Cousin, Fragments, p. 404.

[100] Ib., p. 432.

[101] Ib., p. 418.

[102] Ib., p. 431.

[103] John Philoponus, Comm. in Arist., de Anima, i. 1.

[104] See iii. 6.1.

[105] By a triple pun, on "nous," "noêsis," and "to noêton."

[106] Porphyry, Principles, 32.

[107] By a pun.

[108] See John i. 4, 9.

[109] This anticipates Athanasius's explanations of the divine process.

[110] See v. 1.4.

[111] Porphyry, Principles, 26.

[112] The Eleusynian Mysteries, Hymn to Ceres, 279; see vi. 9.11.

[113] See v. 3.14.

[114] In this book Plotinos harks back to the first book he had
written, i. 6, to Plato's Banquet and Cratylos. Porphyry later agreed
with some of it. Like St. John, Plotinos returns to God as love, in
his old age. His former book had also been a re-statement of earlier

[115] See iii. 5.6.

[116] See i. 6.2, 3.

[117] See i. 6.3, 7.

[118] Plato, Banquet, p. 206-208, Cary, 31, 32.

[119] Plato, Banquet, p. 210, Cary, 34, sqq.

[120] Porphyry, Biography of Plotinos, 15.

[121] See i. 3.2.

[122] See sect. 5, 6.

[123] Plato, Banquet, p. 185, Cary, 12, 13.

[124] By Plato, in his Cratylus, p. 396, Cary, 29, 30; interpreted to
mean "pure Intelligence."

[125] This is the principal power of the soul; see ii. 3.17.

[126] See v. 8.12, 13.

[127] Plotinos thus derives "eros" from "orasis," which, however
far-fetched a derivation, is less so than that of Plato, from "esros,"
meaning to "flow into," Cratylos, p. 420, Cary, 79, 80.

[128] For this distinction, see ii. 3.17, 18.

[129] For the two Loves, see v. 8.13, and vi. 9.9.

[130] See iii. 4.

[131] See iv. 9.

[132] Plato, Banq. 203: Cary, 29.

[133] In his Isis and Osiris, p. 372, 374.

[134] See i. 1.

[135] Plato, Banquet, p. 202, Cary, 27, 28; Porphyry, de Abst. ii. 37,

[136] In section 4.

[137] Plato, Epinomis, p. 984, Cary, 8; Porphyry, de Abst. ii. 37-42.

[138] See ii. 4.3.

[139] See ii. 4.3.

[140] An expression often used by the Platonists; see the Lexicon
Platonicum, by the grammarian Timaeus, sub voce "oistra."

[141] See Plato, Banquet, p. 203, Cary, 29.

[142] See iii. 4.6.

[143] See iii. 4.3.

[144] A Stoic distinction.

[145] P. 246, Cary, 56.

[146] P. 28, Cary, 50.

[147] Didymus, Etym. Magn. p. 179, Heidelb. p. 162, Lips.

[148] Timaeus Locrius, of the Soul of the World, p. 550, ed. Gale,
Cary, 4.

[149] Origen, c. Cels., iv. p. 533.

[150] "logoi."

[151] Proclus, Theology of Plato, vi. 23.

[152] As the generation of the world, in Plato's Timaeus, p. 28, 29,
Cary, 9; and the erecting into separate Gods various powers of the same
divinity, as Proclus said, in his commentary thereon, in Parm. i. 30.

[153] ii. 3.17; ii. 9.2.

[154] Pun on "Poros" and "euporia."

[155] See ii. 4.16.

[156] See books ii. 3; ii. 9; iii. 1, 2, 3, 4, for the foundations
on which this summary of Plotinos's doctrine of evil is contained.
To do this, he was compelled to return to Plato, whose Theaetetus,
Statesman, Timaeus and Laws he consulted. Aristotle seems to have been
more interested in natural phenomena and human virtue than in the
root-questions of the destiny of the universe, and the nature of the
divinity; so Plotinos studies him little here. But it will be seen that
here Plotinos entirely returns to the later Plato, through Numenius.

[157] As thought Empedocles, 318-320.

[158] i. 6.2.

[159] i. 8.7.

[160] i. 8.3.

[161] As thought Plato in his Laws, iv. p. 716; Cary, 7, 8.

[162] As thought Plato in his Philebus, p. 28; Cary 49, 50.

[163] See v. 1; vi. 9.2.

[164] Numenius, fr. 32.

[165] As said Plato, in his second Letter, 2.312.

[166] See iii. 8.9; iv. 7.14; vi. 4.2; vi. 9.2.

[167] As held by Plato in the Parmenides and First Alcibiades.

[168] See ii. 4.8-16.

[169] It is noteworthy that Plotinos in his old age here finally
recognizes Evil in itself, just as Plato in his later work, the Laws
(x. p. 897; Cary, 8) adds to the good World-soul, an evil one. This,
for Plotinos, was harking back to Numenius's evil world-soul, fr. 16.

[170] In his First Alcibiades, p. 122; Cary, 37.

[171] See i. 1.12.

[172] This means created things, which are contingent and perishable;
see ii. 4.5, 6.

[173] See ii. 4.10-12. This idea of irradiation is practically
emanationism; and besides Plotinos's interest in orientalism (Porphyry
Biography, 3), it harks back to Numenius, fr. 26.3; 27a.10.

[174] Held by Plato in his Theaetetus, p. 176; Cary, 84, 85; and
Republic, ii. 279; Cary, 18, and of Numenius, fr. 16.

[175] See i. 2.1.

[176] In the Theaetetus, p. 176; Cary, 84, 85.

[177] Numenius, fr. 10; Plato, Rep. vi. p. 509b; Cary, 19.

[178] As Plato suggested in his Philebus, p. 23; Cary, 35-37.

[179] Numenius, fr. 17.

[180] Mentioned by Plato in the Timaeus, pp. 28, 30, 38; Cary, 9, 10,

[181] From the Timaeus, p. 41; Cary, 16, 17.

[182] See i. 2.1; i. 6.8.

[183] That is, the relative inferiority of beings which, proceeding
from each other, become more and more distant from the good; see ii.
5.5; ii. 9.8, 13; v. 1; Philo, Leg. Alleg. ii. p. 74.

[184] See i. 8.1.

[185] ii. 4.12.

[186] Numenius, fr. 26.3.

[187] Diog. Laertes vii.

[188] See ii. 6.

[189] ii. 4.13.

[190] i. 8.15.

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

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

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

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

[195] According to the interpretation of Ficinus.

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

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

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

[199] See iii. 1.5, 6; iii. 6; iv. 4.30-44.

[200] Macrobins. In Somn. Scipionis.

[201] Cicero, de Divinatione, i. 39.

[202] Julius Firmicus Maternus, Astrol. ii. 23.

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

[204] See iv. 4.31.

[205] Discussed in par. 4.

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

[207] Numenius, fr. 32.

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

[209] See iv. 4.32.

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

[211] See iii. 1.4, 7-10.

[212] See iii. 1.6.

[213] See iv. 4.33.

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

[215] See iv. 4.32.

[216] Seneca, Quest. Nat. i. 1.

[217] See iii. 4.2, 4.

[218] See ii. 3.13.

[219] See iii. 4.3.

[220] See iii. 1.8-10.

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

[222] Plato, Phaedrus, p. 244-251; Cary, 47-66.

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

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

[225] p. 41-42; Cary, 16, 17.

[226] See i. 1.7-10.

[227] See ii. 1.5.

[228] Stoic terms.

[229] See ii. 1.8-10.

[230] See i. 2.1; vi. 8.

[231] See i. 1.7-12; iv. 3.19-23.

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

[233] See par. 18.

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

[235] See iii. 1.2.

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

[237] See iv. 4.38-40.

[238] Seneca, Nat. Quest. ii. 32.

[239] According to Aristotle, Met. xii. 3.

[240] See iii. 1.6.

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

[242] See iv. 4.39, 40.

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

[244] See iii. 1.8-10.

[245] See iv. 4.39.

[246] See iii. 4.3.

[247] See iii. 1.10.

[248] See iii. 1.5.

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

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

[251] See i. 4.

[252] See i. 2.5.

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

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

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

[256] See ii. 3.17; iii. 8.

[257] See iv. 4.9-12.

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

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

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

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

[262] As thought Aristotle, Met. xii, 3.

[263] See ii. 9.13.

[264] See iv. 4.9-13.

[265] See iii. 4.1.

[266] This is Numenius' doctrine, fr. 16.

[267] See iii. 3.5, 11.

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

[269] See ii. 9.2.

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

[271] See sect. 2.

[272] See sect. 3.

[273] See sect. 4.

[274] See sect. 7, 11.

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

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

[277] "Noêsis" means intuitive thought, the actualization of

[278] See sect. 7.

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

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

[281] See i. 2.5.

[282] According to the Stoics.

[283] According to Alexander of Aphrodisia.

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

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

[286] As Plotinos thinks.

[287] iv. 4.20.

[288] iv. 3.20.

[289] Arist., de Anim. 2.1.

[290] According to Aristotle.

[291] Phaedo, p. 87; Cary, 82.

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

[293] See iv. 4.20, 28.

[294] See sect. 7, 9, 10.

[295] See iv. 3.22, 23.

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

[297] Namely, intelligence and the reasonable soul.

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

[299] Bouillet, Intr. p. lxxviii.

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

[301] One of the three hypostases.

[302] See Bouillet, i. p. lxxiii. 344-352.

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

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

[305] "Turning" means here to incline.

[306] See St. Paul, Rom. for phantasy, or imagination; vii. 7-25.

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

[308] See i. 2.5.

[309] iv. 3.19, 23.

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

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

[312] See 4.3.19, 23;

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

[314] For this see 4.3.12, 18; 4.8.

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

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

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

[318] As the Stoics would say.

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

[320] We see here Plotinos feeling the approach of this impending

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

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

[323] See i. 2.3.

[324] See i. 2.4.

[325] See i. 2.4.

[326] See i. 2.6.

[327] See i. 2.7.

[328] See i. 2.7.

[329] See i. 2.5.

[330] See i. 8.1.

[331] See 36.38.

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

[333] See ii. 2.2.

[334] See v. 3.6.

[335] See iii. 7.2.

[336] See iii. 7.2.

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

[338] See v. 3.10-12.

[339] See v. 6.11, 12, 13.

[340] See v. 4.3, 2, 12.

[341] See v. 4.4, 9.

[342] See vi. 4.9.

[343] See vi. 4.16.

[344] See iii. 5.7-9. from Plato.

[345] See vi. 2; vi. 5.

[346] See vi. 5.1.

[347] See vi. 4.4.

[348] See vi. 5.2.

[349] See vi. 5.3, 6.

[350] See vi. 5.4.

[351] See vi. 8.4.

[352] See vi. 5.12.

[353] See iv. 8.1.

[354] See iv. 8.1.

[355] See 23.

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

[357] See iv. 3.23.

[358] In his book "On the Soul."

[359] See i. 1.12.

[360] See ii. 6.1.

[361] See Ennead, i. 1.

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

[363] Of Human Nature, xv.

[364] de Anima, ii. 3.

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

[366] On Human Nature, 2.

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

[368] See iv. 3.20.

[369] See ii. 3.5.

[370] See iv. 3.20.

[371] In his treatise on Providence; Photius, Biblioteca, 127, 461.

[372] i. 1.8; Num. 10.

[373] i. 1.10.

[374] 25.4.a.

[375] 38; 53.

[376] i. 8.1; Num. 16.

[377] i. 8.2.

[378] in v. 5.1.

[379] Num. 27.a.8.

[380] 27.b.10.

[381] Num. 36,a.

[382] In i. 8.3.

[383] Num. 16.

[384] i. 8.4.

[385] 11.

[386] Num. 16.

[387] Num. 15.16.

[388] i. 8.6.

[389] 16.

[390] i. 8.7.

[391] 1.8.10.

[392] 18.

[393] ii. 9.

[394] ii. 4.1.

[395] ii. 4.5.

[396] ii. 4.6.

[397] ii. 4.7.

[398] Num. 32, 18.

[399] Num. 48.

[400] Num. 14.

[401] i. 8.7, with ii. 4.7.

[402] In ii. 4.15, 16.

[403] heterotês.

[404] ii. 5.

[405] In ii. 5.3.

[406] Num. 20.

[407] iii. 6.6 to end.

[408] iii. 6.12.

[409] iii. 6.11, 12.

[410] 33.

[411] iii. 8.13.

[412] iii. 6.19.

[413] iii. 6.11.

[414] iii. 6.9.

[415] iii. 6.7, 18; with Num. 12, 15, 17.

[416] iii. 6.6.

[417] iii. 6.13; Num. 12; 30.

[418] iii. 6.18; v. 1.1, etc.

[419] iii. 6.6, 13; see ii. 5.3, 5.

[420] iii. 6.14.

[421] iii. 6.11, as against Num. 14, 16.

[422] In iii. 6.6, 8, 10.

[423] In iii. 6.6.

[424] iii. 6.7, 13; see ii. 5.5.

[425] iii. 6.13, 6, 16, 17, 18.

[426] iii. 6.15.

[427] iii. 6.19.

[428] iii. 6.15.

[429] In ii. 5.5.

[430] v. 1.7; iii. 5.6.

[431] iv. 4.13.

[432] In iv. 4.15.

[433] vi. 3.7.

[434] v. 1.7.

[435] i. 8.

[436] ii. 4.

[437] ii. 5.

[438] iii. 6.

[439] In iv. 4.13.

[440] Life of Plotinos, 24, 25.

[441] Vit. Plot. 4, 5, 13, 17.

[442] Ib. 6.

[443] 26.

[444] 14.

[445] 17, 18, 21.

[446] 1, 2, 7.

[447] 14.

[448] 10.

[449] See Daremberg, s. v.

[450] 18.

[451] 17.

[452] 3.

[453] As may be seen in Daremberg's Dictionary of Antiquities, s. v.

[454] Ib. 24.

[455] In c. 8.

[456] c. 10.

[457] 48. Plot. i. 1.2, 12, etc.

[458] Enn. i. 1.2; Num. 29; i. 1.7.

[459] i. 1.3; see Num. 32.

[460] i. 1.7, 12.

[461] 53.

[462] i. 1.13.

[463] 30.21.

[464] i. 1.12.

[465] iv. 8, or even iv. 3.12-18.

[466] 2.9.10.

[467] 1.4.8, 16.

[468] 1.7.3.

[469] Porphyry, Biography 2.

[470] Cave of the Nymphs, 54.

[471] Plato, p. 147.

[472] Rep. iv. 9.

[473] Plut. Def. Or. 17.

[474] To hegemonikon. Enn. ii. 4.2.

[475] ii. 5.3.

[476] ii. 5.5.

[477] vi. 3.7.

[478] In i. 8.3.

[479] In i. 8.10.

[480] 3.6, 14.

[481] 1.8, 13.

[482] 2.9.2.

[483] Num. 26.

[484] Enn. iii. 6.6, 7.

[485] de Mund. iv. 21.

[486] Chaignet, H. Ps. d. G., v. 138.

[487] Proclus, in Parm. vi. 27.

[488] Energeia and dynamis.

[489] 5.1.7, 19.

[490] iii. 5.3.

[491] Ib. 4.7.

[492] Ib. 9.

[493] v. 3.5.

[494] i. 4.14.

[495] iii. 5.6.

[496] 1.1.8.

[497] i. 8.2.

[498] In i. 4.10.

[499] In ii. 9.1.

[500] iii. 3.4.

[501] iii. 2.11.

[502] i. 4.9.

[503] H. Ps. d. Gr. iv. 244.

[504] Enn. vi. 4.9.

[505] Chaignet, ib., iv. 337; Enn. v. 1.7, 10.

[506] ii. 9.1, 2.

[507] See McClintock and Strong, B. T. & E. Encyclopedia, s. v.

[508] Enn. vi, 5.7.

[509] vi. 2.8, 9.

[510] See iv. 4.26; vi. 7.12, 13.

[511] See i. 8.4.

[512] See iv. 2.15.

[513] See iv. 3.9.

[514] See vi. 4.14; vi. 5.6; i. 1.9.

[515] Rom. vii. 7.25.

[516] See v. 1.10.

[517] See iv. 8.5, 6, and iv. 7.13, 14, and iii. 6.14.

[518] See i. 8.13

[519] iv. 3.11.

[520] vi. 1.10.

[521] ii. 1.4.

[522] v. 1.1, v. 4.2, v. 8.11, i. 4.11, v. 1.7, vi. 8.4, iv. 8.4.

[523] i. 1.9 and 12.

[524] x. 2, Enn. ii. 9.13.

[525] Biography, 16.

[526] See v. 8.8.

[527] See viii. 5.12.

[528] See vi. 8.9.

[529] See vi. 7.17.

[530] See v. 5.3.

[531] Rev. iv. 6; see iii. 2.11.

[532] See ii. 9.5; Rev. xxi. 1.

[533] See iii. 2.15.

[534] See v. 3.8.

[535] See i. 8.6.

[536] See iv. 3.6; Jno. xiv. 2.

[537] See iii. 2.4, and Rom. iii. 20.

[538] See vi. 8.15, and Rom. viii. 39.

[539] See v. 5.11, and 1 Cor. xi. 22.

[540] See ii. 1.4, and 2 Cor. xii. 2.

[541] See vi. 2, and Gal. iv. 9.

[542] See ii. 9.6, and i. Tim. 1.4.

[543] See ii. 9.14, and Mark vi. 7.

[544] See v. 3.17, and Mk. ix. 43, 45.

[545] See v. 9.5, and Mt. xxiv. 13.

[546] See vi. 9.9; vi. 5.12, and Acts xvii. 28.

[547] See v. 8.12, and Heb. ii. 11-17

[548] See vi. 7.29, and Jas. i. 17.

[549] Luke xi. 13.

[550] See i. 6.9; ii. 4.5.

[551] v. 5.13.

[552] ii. 9.4.

[553] iv. 3.11.

[554] ii. 9.5.

[555] iv. 8.9.

[556] v. 9.4.

[557] See iii. 8.4; iv. 2.1; vi. 7.8.

[558] See ii. 4.5; v. 7.3; vi. 8.20.

[559] See vi. 6.11.

[560] See vi. 8.20.

[561] See iv. 3.17; vi. 4.9.

[562] See v. 3.15.

[563] See vi. 7.1.

[564] See v. 2.1.

[565] See v. 1.6.

[566] See i. 4.9.

[567] See iii. 8.3.

[568] See vi. 2.8, 9.

[569] See iii. 8.10; ii. 9.2.

[570] See iv. 7.10; v. 1.4; vi. 7.2.

[571] See ii. 9.2.

[572] See vi. 5.7.

[573] iii. 6.6 to end.

[574] N. 20.6.

[575] ii. 9.10.

[576] i. 8.4; ii. 9.2, 10; vi. 7.5, with N. 26.3.

[577] ii. 9.6, with N. 36.

[578] iv. 3.17, with N. 26.3.

[579] v. 3.9; v. 5.7; vi. 5.5.

[580] ii. 9.1; but see ii. 9.8; iv. 8.3, etc.

[581] iv. 3.17.

[582] 46-54.

[583] 49, 50; or, 22%.

[584] 46-48, 51-54; or, 88%.

[585] 22-33, 12 books.

[586] 23, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33; or, 50%.

[587] 22, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30; or, 50%.

[588] 33-45, 12 books.

[589] 34, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44.

[590] 35, 36, 40, 41, 42, 45.

[591] v. 1.9.

[592] v. 5.6; N. 42, 67.

[593] v. 4.2 and N. 15-17.

[594] v. 8.5; v. 9.3; vi. 6.9; and N. 20.

[595] i. 8.6; i. 4.11; iii. 3.7; and N. 16, 17.

[596] vi. 8.19; and N. 10; 32.

[597] v. 1.6; with N. 14.

[598] v. 1.9; with N. 36, 39.

[599] vi. 4.16; iv. 3.11.

[600] N. 54.

[601] N. 49a.

[602] vi. 5.9; and N. 46.

[603] iii. 6.

[604] N. 44.

[605] ii. 7.2; vi. 1.29; and N. 44.

[606] In meaning at least.

[607] iv. 7.2, 3; and N. 44.

[608] iv. 7.2, 3; v. 9.3; N. 40.

[609] Philebus, in iv. 3.1.

[610] vi. 2.21.

[611] i. 2.6; v. 3.17; iii. 4.

[612] vi. 3.16.

[613] i. 6.6.

[614] N. 31.22; 33.8.

[615] iv. 8.2; i. 8.2; v. 5.3; vi. 7.42; and N. 27a. 8.

[616] v. 1.4, and N. 19.

[617] v. 8.3; ii. 9.3, 8.

[618] i. 8.6 and N. 10.

[619] vi. 2.2 and N. 14.

[620] vi. 5.6 and N. 42, 67.

[621] v. 8.3; iii. 4.2; N. 27a. 8.

[622] iii. 8.8; iv. 3.1, 8; vi. 8.7; and N. 27b. 9.

[623] Still, see 30.

[624] iv. 8.2; vi. 9.9; N. 29.

[625] iii. 2.4; v. 1.6; v. 5.7; and N. 29.18.

[626] i. 8.4; ii. 9.2, 10; vi. 7.5 and N. 26.3; 27a. 10.

[627] vi. 5.6; and N. 37, 63.

[628] iv. 7.1; vi. 5.10; and N. 12.8.

[629] vi. 4.10; vi. 5.3; ii. 9.7; with N. 12, 22.

[630] v. 8.13; and N. 26.3.

[631] iii. 2.2; with N. 16, 17.

[632] iii. 1.22; iv. 2.1, 2; iv. 7.2; and N. 38.

[633] ii. 9.7; v. 6.6; vi. 5.3; and N. 12, 15, 22, 26.3.

[634] iv. 3.8; vi. 7.3; and N. 48.

[635] iv. 3.11; with N. 32.

[636] iv. 3.17, 21; with N. 32.

[637] iv. 3.17; with N. 26.3.

[638] iv. 7; and N. 44.

[639] N. 55.

[640] ii. 7.2; vi. 1.29; and N. 44.

[641] iv. 7.3; vi. 3.16; and N. 44.

[642] ii. 3.9; iii. 4.6; and N. 46, 52, 56.

[643] Still, see i. 1.9; iv. 3.31; vi. 4.15; and N. 53.

[644] i. 1.12; ii. 3.9; ii. 9.2; iv. 3.31; iv. 2.2; and N. 53.

[645] iv. 3.31; with N. 32.

[646] N. 52.

[647] i. 1.10; iv. 7.8; v. 8.3.

[648] iii. 4.4; and N. 15.

[649] N. 15.

[650] ii. 9.5.

[651] i. 3.1.

[652] i. 3.2.

[653] i. 3.3.

[654] v. 9.1.

[655] iv. 4.10; with N. 12.

[656] iv. 3.25; with N. 25.

[657] ii. 9.11; i. 6.7; vi. 7.34; vi. 9.11; with N. 10.

[658] iv. 8.8; and N. 51.

[659] iv. 8.1; and N. 62a.

[660] iv. 8.1; quoting Empedocles; N. 43.

[661] iv. 2.2; and N. 27b.

[662] iv. 3.21; and N. 32, 36, 16.

[663] N. 26.

[664] iv. 3.17.

[665] ii. 3.8; iii. 3.4; N. 36, 53.

[666] ii. 9.6.

[667] v. 9.5; and N. 28.

[668] iv. 7.14; and N. 55, 56.

[669] 61, 62a.

[670] ii. 9.14.

[671] 10.

[672] iii. 6.6 to end.

[673] 14, 15, 16, 17, 44.

[674] vi. 1, and passim.

[675] ii. 3.16; ii. 4.16; ii. 5.2; and N. 55.

[676] i. 8.15; i. 1.9; i. 4.10; iv. 3.3, 30.31; vi. 8.3; iv. 7.8; and
N. 2, 3, 4.7 and 24.

[677] vi. 5.6; and N. 42, 67.

[678] All of ii. 6; iii. 6.6; iii. 7.5; iii. 8.9; iv. 3.9; iv. 3.24; v.
3.6, 15, 17; v. 4.1, 2; v. 5.10, 13, 55; v. 8.5, 6; v. 9.3; vi. 2.2, 5,
6, 8, 9, 13; vi. 3.6, 16; vi. 6.10, 13, 16; vi. 7.41; vi. 9.2, 3.

[679] v. 9.3; and N. 21, 22.

[680] v. 4.2; and N. 10; vi. 6.9; and N. 34.

[681] vi. 6.9; N. 10, 21.

[682] v. 1.5; vi. 5.9; vi. 6.16; and N. 46.

[683] vi. 6.16; and N. 60.

[684] vi. 2.9; and N. 26.

[685] vi. 4.2.

[686] ii. 4.5; iv. 8.7; v. 5.4; and N. 36b.

[687] iv. 3.1; v. 4.2; and N. 36c?

[688] ii. 5.3; and N. 14, 16, 26.

[689] v. 4.2; v. 5.4; and N. 14.

[690] ii. 9.1; and N. 25.

[691] iii. 8.9; iii. 9.1; v. 1.8; and N. 36, 39.

[692] v. 5.3; and N. 36, 39.

[693] i. 3.4; and N. 10, 13.

[694] ii. 4.9; ii. 7.2; vi. 1.29; vi. 3.16; and N. 44.

[695] iv. 9.4; and N. 44.

[696] iii. 4.1; and N. 44.

[697] iv. 6.7; and N. 44.

[698] iv. 3.20; and N. 12, 44.

[699] N. 20.

[700] N. 21.

[701] iii. 7.3, 5; and N. 19.

[702] N. 55, 56; 57.

[703] iii. 4.2; and N. 57.

[704] i. 8.2; iii. 2.16; iv. 7.14; vi. 6.16; vi. 7.6; and N. 32.

[705] v. 1.1; and N. 17, 26.

[706] vi. 5.3; vi. 7.31; and N. 11, 15, 16, 17, 12.7, 22, 26.

[707] i. 8.3; v. 5.13; and N. 15, 16, 49b.

[708] i. 4.11; i. 8.6, 7; ii. 3.18; iii. 2.5, 15; iii. 8.9; and N. 16,
17, 18.

[709] i. 8.7; iii. 2.2, N. 15, 17. Alexander of Aphrodisia taught this
world was a mixture; ii. 7.1; iv. 7.13.

[710] iv. 9.4; v. 16; and N. 26.

[711] Plotinos passim; N. 25.

[712] vi. 1.23; and N. 18. Also vi. 9.10, 11.

[713] Passim; N. 10, 37, 63.

[714] v. 8.1; and N. 43.

[715] iii. 9.3; and N. 31.

[716] vi. 2.7; vi. 3.27; and N. 19.4, 20; 27a; 30.

[717] iii. 7.3; iv. 4.33; and N. 30.

[718] ii. 4.2-5; ii. 5.3; v. 4.2; and N. 26.

[719] ii. 4.12; etc.

[720] ii. 4.6; and N. 11, 18.

[721] ii. 6.2; and N. 12.8; 18.

[722] ii. 4.10; and N. 12, 16, 17.

[723] v. 1.6; vi. 9.10, 11; and N. 10.

[724] vi. 4.2; vi. 9.3; and N. 10.

[725] iv. 7.3; and N. 13, 27, 44.

[726] iv. 4.16; and N. 46.

[727] Might it mean an angle, and one of its sides?

[728] iii. 4.2; and N. 27.

[729] iv. 8.5, 6; and N. 27b.

[730] v. 9.6; and N. 23.

[731] v. 1.5.

[732] vi. 7.17, 36; vi. 9.9; and N. 29.

[733] iii. 4.2; iv. 3.11; v. 8.3; v. 1.2; and N. 27b.

[734] iii. 4.6; and N. 35a.

[735] vi. 7.1; and N. 27a, b.

[736] Creation or adornment, ii. 4.4, 6; iv. 3.14; and N. 14, 18.

[737] i. 1.3; iv. 3.17, 21; and N 32.

[738] Bouillet ii. 520.

[739] ib. ii. 584.

[740] ib. ii. 607.

[741] ib. ii. 597.

[742] ib. ii. 561.

[743] B. iii. 638-650.

[744] ib. 651-653.

[745] ib. 654-656.

[746] Bouillet ii. 520.

[747] ib. ii. 562.

[748] ib. ii. 585.

[749] ib. ii. 588.

[750] Biog. 8, 13.

[751] Biog. 17, 18.

[752] Biog. 24.

[753] iii. 7.1, 4.

[754] v. 8.4.

[755] v. 8.5, 6.

[756] iii. 5.8.

[757] vi. 3.8.

[758] i. 8.7; ii. 4.4; iii. 8.11; iv. 8.13; v. 9.8. 4.4; iii. 8.11; v.
8.13; v. 9.8. 1.11.

[762] v. 5.5.

[763] vi. 1.23.

[764] ii. 9.4.

[765] v. 5.1.

[766] iii. 5.3.

[767] v. 5.5.

[768] v. 3.5, 6.

[769] vi. 1.15.

[770] iii. 5.9, 10.

[771] iv. 3.14.

[772] iv. 7.4; ii. 6.2; iii. 2.17.

[773] iv. 4.29.

[774] v. 9.5.

[775] iv. 9.3.

[776] vi. 1.18.

[777] vi. 8.18.


Of the two numbers in the parenthesis, the first is the chronological
book number, the second is the reference's page in this translation.


  Abandonment by Providence, even of the mediocre, impossible, iii. 2.9

  Ability or desire is the limit of man's union with the divinity, v.
    8.11 (31-569).

  Absolute Beauty is a formless shape, vi. 7.33 (38-754).

  Absolute Evil is the goal of the degenerate soul, i. 8.15 (51-1163).

  Absolute Existent is preceded by contingent, vi. 1.26 (42-881).

  Abstraction is method of reaching divinity, vi. 8.21 (39-811).

  Abstraction of qualities ends in thing-in-itself, ii. 4.10 (12-207).

  Abstraction of the form produces thought of infinite, vi. 6.3

  Abundance and Need, myth of, iii. 6.14 (26-375).

  Abundance (Poros), myth of, iii. 5.2-10 (50-1125 to 1140).

  Academy, vi. 1.14, 30 (42-863, 888).

  Accidents are received by the soul from matter, v. 9.14 (5-117).

  Accidents, is the fifth physical category of Plotinos, vi. 3.3

  Accomplishments are only temporary crutches for development, i. 4.16

  Accretion, foreign, is the nature of ugliness, i. 6.5 (1-48).

  Accretions to soul, and body, are removed from soul by philosophic
    "separation," i. 1.12 (53-1204).

  Action and experience does not include prediction with its
    responsiveness, and is underlayed by transmission, reception, and
    relation, vi. 1.22 (42-874).

  Action and experiencing, Aristotelian category, vi. 1.15 (42-863).

  Action and passion iii. 3.2 (48-1078).

  Action and reaction form but a single genus, vi. 1.19 (42-870).

  Action and suffering cannot be separate categories, but are subsumed
    under movement, vi. 1.17 (42-866).

  Action does not figure among true categories, vi. 2.16 (43-920).

  Action is natural on both wholes and parts, iv. 4.31 (28-487).

  Action, uniform, is exerted by body and varied by the soul, iv. 7.4

  Actions, some appear imperfect when not joined to time, vi. 1.19

  Actions do not control freedom of will and virtue, vi. 8.5 (39-779).

  Active life predisposes to subjection to enchantments, iv. 4.43

  Activity of soul is triple: thought, self-preservation and creation,
    iv. 8.3 (6-125).

  Actors good and bad, are rewarded by the manager: so are souls, iii.
    2.17 (47-1072).

  Actual, everything is actual in the intelligible world, ii. 5.3

  Actual matter cannot be anything, as it is non-being, ii. 5.2, 4
    (25-343 to 347).

  Actuality and potentiality, iii. 9.8 (13-225).

  Actuality and potentiality are inapplicable to the divinity, ii. 9.1

  Actualization, continuous, constitutes Intelligence, iv. 7.13 (18),
    (2-84); iv. 8.6, 7 (6-129, 130).

  Actualization is a far better category than doing or acting, vi. 1.15

  Actualization is prior to potentiality (devolution), iv. 7.8 (11),

  Actualization of soul in life, is the sole use of its existence, iv.
    8.5 (6-127).

  Actualization, single and simple, iv. 7.12 (17), (2-83).

  Actualization when appearing is harmonized to its seminal reason, vi.
    3.16 (44-960).

  Actualizations are none of bodies that enter into a mixture, iv. 7.8
    (10), (2-72).

  Actualizations are the condition of Intelligence, because its thought
    is identical with its essence, v. 9.3 (5-104).

  Actualizations, permanent, form the hypostasis, v. 3.12 (49-1111).

  Actualizations, relative, are sensations, not experiences, iv. 6.2

  Acuteness may destroy excessive ecstatic vision, v. 8.11 (31-570).

  Administration by Jupiter does not imply memory, iv. 4.9 (28-453).

  Admiration of his handiwork, by the Creator, refers to the
    world-model, v. 8.8 (31-564).

  Admiration of the world, by Plato, supplements his hatred of the
    body, ii. 9.17 (33-633).

  Adrastea, law of, is justice, ii. 3.8 (52-1173); iii. 2.4, 13
    (47-1049 to 1062).

  Adulteries not produced by planet-positions, ii. 3.6 (52-1171).

  Adumbrations of superior principles, i. 6.8 (1-52).

  Advantages resulting from ecstasy, v. 8.11 (31-570).

  Aeon Jesus, is unaccountable, ii. 9.1 (33-601).

  Aeon, see eternity, throughout, iii. 7.1 sqq (45-985).

  Aesthetic sense appreciates beauty, i. 6.2 (1-42).

  Affection and weaknesses of man subject him to magic, iv. 4.44

  "Affection of matter," definition of soul; if such, whence is she?
    iv. 7.3.d (2-59).

  Affections are common to soul and body; not all are such, i. 1.5

  Affections caused by incorporeal's affective part, iii. 6.4 (26-357).

  Affections, derivation of qualities from them is of no importance,
    vi. 1.11 (42-857).

  Affections of soul, like a musician playing a lyre, iii. 6.4 (26-358).

  Affections produced by "tension" in lyre-strings, iv. 7.8 (2-75).

  Age, pun on "aeons," iii. 7.4 (45-992).

  Aggregate, composite, see "combination," i. 1.1 (53-1191).

  Aggregate individual, formed by uniting of soul and body, i. 1.6

  Aggregate of molecules could not possess life and intelligence, iv.
    7.2, 3 (2-57).

  Agriculture, v. 9.11 (5-114).

  Aid to magnitude-perception, is color-difference, ii. 8.1 (35-681).

  Air and fire, action of, not needed by Heaven, ii. 1.8 (40-826).

  Air contained in intelligible world, vi. 7.11 (38-720).

  Air not necessary, even for hearing, iv. 5.5 (29-523).

  Air, relation to light, iv. 5.6 (29-524).

  Air, useless as transmitting medium, iv. 5.3 (29-519).

  Alexander of Aphrodisia's theory of mixture, iv. 7.2, 8 (2-58, 72);
    iii. 1.7 (3-96).

  Alienation, v. 1.10 (10-190).

  All in all, iii. 8.8 (30-543); iv. 3.8 (27-402).

  All is intelligence, vi. 7.17 (38-729).

  All things are united by a common source, vi. 7.12 (38-721).

  All things, how the same principle can exist in them, vi. 4.6

  All things, is the soul, iii. 4.3 (15-236).

  All things, transcended by their principle, v. 2.1 (11-193).

  Alone with the alone, i. 6.7 (1-50); vi. 7.34 (38-757); vi. 9.11

  Aloneness of Supreme, v. 1.6 (10-182).

  Alteration, definition of, vi. 3.22 (44-973).

  Alteration, not constituted by composition and decomposition, vi.
    3.25 (44-978).

  Alteration of soul, Stoic conception, opposed, iii. 6.3 (26-355).

  Alternate living in Intelligence and world, by soul, iv. 8.4 (6-126).

  Alternate rising and falling of soul when in body, iii. 1.8 (3-97).

  Amphibians, souls are, iv. 8.48 (6-126).

  Analogy explains prediction, iii. 3.6 (48-1086).

  Analogy only allows us to attribute physical qualities to the
    Supreme, vi. 8.8 (39-785).

  Analysis, contingency is eliminated in, vi. 8.14 (39-798).

  Analyze, object of myths, iii. 5.10 (50-1138).

  Anger localized in the heart, iv. 3.23 (27-426); iv. 4.28 (28-481).

  Anger-part of earth, iv. 4.28 (28-482).

  Anger-part of soul explained, iii. 6.2 (26-354).

  Anger-power, does not originate in body, iv. 4.28 (28-481).

  Anger-trace of the soul, originates in growth and generative power,
    iv. 4.28 (28-481).

  Animal, existing is intelligence (Plato) iii. 9.1 (13-220).

  Animal nature formed by light of soul, i. 1-7 (53-1198).

  Animal nature, how it is generated, i. 1.12,(53-1205).

  Animal, relation of, to human nature, i. 1.7 (53-1199).

  Animal, the living, i. 1.5 (53-1196).

  Animal, what is it, i. 1.1 (53-1191).

  Animals, all are born from essence, vi. 2.21 (43-929).

  Animals, are they happy? i. 4.1 (46-1019).

  Animals, distinction to the whole, i. 1.7 (53-1199).

  Animals, do they possess right to living well, i. 4.2 (46-1020).

  Animals, four kinds, seen in intelligence, iii. 9.1 (13-221).

  Animals, individual and universal, exist later than number, vi. 6.15

  Animals, irrational, must exist within intelligence, vi. 7.8 (38-713).

  Animals, lower nature of, ridiculous to complain of, iii. 2.9

  Animals, many are not so irrational as different, vi. 7.9 (38-714).

  Animals, their animating principle, i. 1.10 (53-1204).

  Animated, universe was always, iv. 3.9 (27-404).

  Animating principle of animals, i. 1.11 (53-1204).

  Answers, how they come to prayers, iv. 4.41 (28-505).

  Antechamber of good is intelligence, v. 9.2 (5-104).

  Anterior things can be only in lower principles, iv. 4.16 (28-461).

  Anteriority in intelligible, is order not time, iv. 4.1 (28-443).

  Anxiety absent from rule of world by soul, iv. 8.2 (6-122).

  Aphrodite, see Venus, pun on, iii. 5.8 (50-1137).

  Apollo, name of Supreme, v. 5.6 (32-584).

  Apostasy of soul from God, v. 1.1 (10-173).

  Appearance, by it only does matter participate in the intelligible,
    iii. 6.11 (26-369).

  Appearance, magnitude is only, iii. 6.18 (26-381).

  Appearance, makes up unreal sense objects, iii. 6.12 (26-371).

  Appearance of intelligence in the intelligible, v. 3.8 (49-1102).

  Apperception-unity, iv. 4.1 (28-442).

  Appetite is the actualization of lustful desire, iv. 8.8 (6-132).

  Appetite keeps an affection, not memory, iv. 3.28 (27-435).

  Appetite located in combination of body and soul, iv. 4.20 (28-468).

  Appetite not simultaneous with desire, i. 1.5 (53-1197).

  Appetite noticed only when perceived by reason or interior sense, iv.
    8.8 (6-132).

  Appetite, when swaying soul, leaves it passive, iii. 1.9 (3-98).

  Apportionment of spirit, iv. 7.8 (2-68).

  Appreciation of self, v. 1.1 (10-174).

  Approach, how the body approaches the soul, vi. 4.15 (22-309).

  Approach impossible in connection with non-spatial intelligible
    light, v. 5.8 (32-587).

  Approach of soul to good, by simplification, i. 6.6 (1-50).

  Approach to Supreme is sufficient talk of Him, v. 3.14 (49-1114).

  Approach to the First, manner of, v. 5.10 (32-591).

  Approach to the soul, which is lowest divine, v. 1.7 (10-186).

  Approaching of soul's rejection of form, proves formlessness of the
    Supreme, vi. 7.34 (38-756).

  Archetype of the world, the intelligible is, v. 1.4 (10-178).

  Archetype, universal, contained by intelligence, v. 9.9 (5-112).

  Archetypes, vi. 5.8 (23-322).

  Aristotelian category of When? vi. 1.13 (42-860).

  Aristotelian distinction, actuality and potentiality, ii. 5.1

  Aristotle was wrong in considering rough, rare and dense qualities,
    vi. 1.11 (42-857).

  Art intelligible, creates the artist and later nature, v. 8.1

  Art makes a statue out of rough marble, v. 8.1 (31-552).

  Artificial movements, vi. 3.26 (44-980).

  Artist of the universe is the soul, iv. 7.13 (2-84).

  Arts, auxiliary, which help the progress of nature, v. 9.11 (5-115).

  Arts, dependent on the soul, v. 9.14 (5-118).

  Arts, most achieve their own ends, iv. 4.31 (28-488).

  Arts, some, merely earthly, others more intelligible, v. 9.11 (5-114).

  Ascended soul, not even, need be divided, iv. 4.1 (28-442).

  Ascension of sign, absurd, ii. 3.6 (52-1171).

  Ascension of soul in ecstasy, vi. 9.11 (9-170).

  Ascension to Divinity, iv. 7.10 (2-79).

  Ascension towards divinity, process of life, i. 6.7 (1-50).

  Ascent cannot stop with the soul, why? v. 9.4 (5-106).

  Ascent of life witnessed to disappearance of contingency, vi. 8.15

  Ascent of the soul psychologically explained, vi. 4.16 (22-310).

  Aspects and houses, absurdity, ii. 3.4 (52-1168).

  Assimilation depends on taking a superior model, i. 2.7 (19-267).

  Assimilation of matter, not complete in earthly defects, v. 9.12

  Assimilation to divine, key of vision to ecstasy, i. 6.9 (1-53).

  Assimilation to divinity, is flight from world, i. 2.5 (19-263).

  Assimilation to divinity, is soul's welfare and beauty. i. 6.6 (1-49).

  Assimilation to divinity results only in higher virtues, i. 2.1

  Assimilation to Supreme, by homely virtues, indirectly, i. 2.3

  Astrologers make cosmic deductions from prognostication, iii. 1.2

  Astrological influence is merely an indication, iv. 4.34 (28-494).

  Astrological influence, partly action, partly significance, iv. 4.34

  Astrological power not due to physical soul, iv. 4.38 (28-501).

  Astrological system of fate, iii. 1.5 (3-92).

  Astrological theories absurd, ii. 3.6 (52-1171).

  Astrological views of Venus, Jupiter and Mercury, ii. 3.5 (52-1169).

  Astrologically, divine would be blamed for unjust acts, iii. 2.10

  Astrology confuted, leaves influence of world-soul, iv. 4.32 (28-490).

  Astrology replaced by natural production of souls, iv. 4.38 (28-501).

  Astrology replaced by radiation of good and characteristic figures,
    iv. 4.35 (28-498).

  Astrology reveals teleology, ii 3.7 (52-1172).

  Astrology, signs only concatenations from universal reason, iv. 4.3

  Astrology, truth of, judgement of one part by another, ii. 3.7

  Athens, vi. 1.14 (42-863).

  Atomism, does not demand a medium for vision, iv. 5.2 (29-516).

  Atoms, iii. 1.2 (3-88).

  Atoms do not explain matter, ii. 4.7 (12-204).

  Atropos, ii. 3.15 (52-1182).

  Attachment to centre constitutes divinity, vi. 9.8 (9-163).

  Attention, condition of perception, v. 1.12 (10-191).

  Attracting all things, does the power and beauty of essence, vi. 6.18

  Attribute, fourth physical category of Plotinos, vi. 3.3 (44-937).

  Attributing qualities to good, would degrade it, v. 5.13 (32-595).

  Audacity not in higher soul, see boldness, i. 1.2 (53-1192).

  Audacity the cause of human apostasy, v. 1.1 (10-173); v. 2.2

  Author of this perfection must be above it, vi. 7.32 (38-752).

  Autocracy of divinity, vi. 8.21 (39-810).

  Aversion for ugliness, explains love of beauty, i. 6.5 (1-47).

  Avoid magic enchantments, how to, iv. 4.44 (28-510).

  Avoidance of passions, is task of philosophy, iii. 6.5 (26-358).

  Bacchus, mirror of, iv. 3.12 (27-409).

  Ballet, vi. 9.8 (9-165); vi. 2.11 (43-912).

  Ballet dancer, iii. 2.17 (47-1071).

  Bastard, reason goes beyond corporeity, ii. 4.12 (12-212).

  Bastard reasoning, is abstraction reaching thing in itself, ii. 4.10,
    12 (12-207, 212); i. 8.9, 10 (51-1156); vi. 8.8 (39-786).

  Bath-tub, simile of, vi 9.8 (9-163).

  Beauties, moral, more delightful than sense-beauties, i. 6.4 (1-46).

  Beautification, by descent upon object of reason from divine, i. 6.2

  Beautiful, inferior to good, v. 5.12 (32-593).

  Beautiful, most things, such only by participation, i. 6.2 (1-43).

  Beautiful, nothing more could be imagined than the world, ii. 9.4

  Beautiful, the Supreme, of three ranks of existence, vi. 7.42

  Beautiful, what is its principle, i. 6.1 (1-41).

  Beauty, v. 1.11 (10-189).

  Beauty absolute, is a formless shape, vi. 7.33 (38-754).

  Beauty and good, identical, i. 6.6 (1-51).

  Beauty and power of essence attracts all things, vi. 6.18 (34-678).

  Beauty appreciated by an aesthetic sense, i. 6.3 (1-43).

  Beauty belongs to men, when they belong to and know themselves, v.
    8.13 (31-574).

  Beauty classified along with the relatives, vi. 3.11 (44-952).

  Beauty comes from form imparted by originator, v. 8.2 (31-553).

  Beauty consists in kinship to the soul, i. 6.2 (1-42).

  Beauty consists in participation in a form, i. 6.2 (1-43).

  Beauty does not figure among true categories, vi. 2.17 (43-920).

  Beauty does not possess extension, iv. 7.8 (2-69).

  Beauty, emotions of, caused by invincible soul, i. 6.5 (1-46).

  Beauty essential is Supreme, the shapeless shaper, and the
    transcendent, vi. 7.33 (38-754).

  Beauty external, appreciation of, depends on cognition of interior
    beauty, v. 8.2 (31-554).

  Beauty external, partial, does not mar beauty of universe, ii. 9.17

  Beauty, highest conceivable, is the model, v. 8.8 (31-564).

  Beauty, if it is a genus, must be one of the posterior ones, vi. 2.18

  Beauty inferior to good, i. 6.9 (1-54).

  Beauty in last analysis is intelligible, v. 8.3 (31-555).

  Beauty in nothing if not in God v. 8.8 (31-564).

  Beauty intelligible, v. 8 (31).

  Beauty intelligible, does not shine merely on surface, v. 8.10

  Beauty interior, could not be appreciated, without interior model, i.
    6.4 (1-45).

  Beauty is creating principle of primary reason, v. 8.3 (31-555).

  Beauty is immortal, iii. 5.1 (50-1124).

  Beauty is inherent wisdom, v. 8.2 (31-554).

  Beauty is symmetry, acc. to Stoics, opposed, i. 6.1 (1-41).

  Beauty is unseen, in supreme fusion, v. 8.11 (31-570).

  Beauty, love for, explained by aversion for opposite, i. 6.5 (1-47).

  Beauty makes being desirable, v. 8.9 (31-565).

  Beauty model, is intelligence, hence very beautiful, v. 8.13 (31-573).

  Beauty not in physical characters, but in color form, v. 8.2 (31-553).

  Beauty of body need not imply attachment thereto, ii. 9.17 (33-634).

  Beauty of daily life reviewed, in sight, sound, science and morals,
    i. 6.1 (1-40).

  Beauty of soul is as the matter to the soul, v. 8.3 (31-555); 6.6

  Beauty of world, even added to, iv. 3.14 (27-412).

  Beauty primary, chiefly revealed in virtuous soul, v. 8.3 (31-555).

  Beauty, shining, highest appearance of vision of intelligible wisdom,
    v. 8.10 (31-568).

  Beauty that is perceivable is a form, beneath super beautiful, v. 8.8

  Beauty transition from sense to intellectual, i. 6.2 (1-43).

  Beauty visible, is effect and image of the intelligible, iii. 5.1

  Becoming, v. 1.9 (10-187).

  Begetter of intelligence must be simpler than it, iii. 8.8 (30-542).

  Begetter of intelligence reached by intuition, not reason, iii. 8.8

  Begetting, eternal, is the world, ii. 9.3 (33-604).

  Begetting, lower forms of, due to seminal reasons, iii. 8.7 (30-541).

  Begetting Son, by Supreme, result of ecstasy, v. 8.12 (31-572).

  Beginning, Heaven has none, proves its immortality, ii. 1.4 (40-818).

  Begotten, nothing is in universal soul, vi. 4.14 (22-307).

  Begotten what is, not seminal reason, contains order, iv. 4.16

  Being, v. 1.5, 8 (10-181 and 186).

  Being, above intelligent life, iii. 6.6 (25-360).

  Being, actualized, less perfect than essence, ii. 6.1 (17-245).

  Being and actualization, constitute self-existent principle, vi. 8.7

  Being and essence identical with unity, vi. 9.2 (9-149).

  Being and quiddity earlier than suchness, ii. 6.2 (17-248).

  Being cannot be ascribed to matter, vi. 3.7 (44-944).

  Being cannot precede such being, ii. 6.2 (17-248).

  Being contains its cause, vi. 7.3 (38-704).

  Being desirable because beautiful, v. 8.9 (31-566).

  Being distinguished into four senses, vi. 1.2 (42-839).

  Being, every one, is a specialized organ of the universe, iv. 4.45

  Being in the intelligible is generation in the sense-world, vi. 3.1

  Being is very wisdom, v. 8.4, 5 (31-559).

  Being loves essence as entire, vi. 5.10 (23-325).

  Being lower form of, possessed by evil, i. 8.3 (51-1145).

  Being of a soul, iv. 1. (4-100).

  Being of a thing displayed by its energy, iii. 1.1 (3-87).

  Being physical, is that which is not in a subject, vi. 3.5 (44-941).

  Being physical, principle of all other things, vi. 3.4 (44-940).

  Being present everywhere entire, only solution of a puzzle, vi. 5.3

  Being primary and secondary, divided by no substantial differences,
    vi. 3.9 (44-949).

  Being supra lunar, is deity, in intelligible, iii. 5.6 (50-1132).

  Being supreme, not dependent on it, therefore above it, vi. 8.19

  Being the basis of judgment, in things participating in being, vi.
    5.2 (23-315).

  Being universal, description of, vi. 4.2 (23-286).

  Being, universal, is undividable, vi. 4.3 (22-288).

  Beings, all are contemplation, iii. 8.7 (30-542).

  Beings, all contained by intelligence generatively, v. 9.6 (5-109).

  Benefits are granted to men through the world-soul's mediation, iv.
    4.30 (28-486).

  Better nature of man, not dominant because of subconscious nature,
    iii. 3.4 (48-1081).

  Bewitched, gnostics imagine intelligible entities can be, ii. 9.14

  Beyond first, impossible to go, vi. 8.11 (39-791).

  Bile, fulfils unique role in universe, ii. 3.5 (52-1171).

  Birds, overweighted like sensual men, v. 9.1 (5-102).

  Birth of subordinate deities, inhering in Supreme, v. 8.9 (31-566).

  Birth of subordinate divinities does not affect power of Supreme, v.
    8.9 (31-565).

  Birth of time reveals nature, iii. 7.10 (45-1005).

  Blamed for its imperfections, the world should not be, iii. 2.3

  Blank, mental, differs from impression of shapeless, ii. 4.10

  Boast of kinship with divinities, while not being able to leave body,
    ridiculous, ii. 9.18 (33-637).

  Bodies added, introduce conflicting motions, ii. 2.2 (14-231).

  Bodies, classification of, vi. 3.9 (44-948).

  Bodies classified, not only by forms and qualities and specific
    forms, vi. 3.10 (44-950).

  Bodies could not subsist with power of universal Soul iv. 7.3 (2-60).

  Bodies, different kinds of, why souls take on, iv. 3.12 (27-410).

  Bodies, even simple, analyzed into form and matter, iv. 7.1 (2-56).

  Bodies, human, more difficult to manage than world-body iv. 8.2

  Bodies of souls, may be related differently, iv. 4.29 (28-485).

  Bodies simple, could not exist, without world-soul iv. 7.3 (2-60).

  Bodies, souls descend into, why and how? iv. 3.8 (27-401).

  Body, activated only by incorporeal powers, iv. 7.8 (2-70).

  Body alone visible, reason why soul is said to be in it, iv. 3.20

  Body and soul, consequences of mixture, i. 1.4 (53-1194).

  Body and soul forms fusion, iv. 4.18 (28-465).

  Body and soul mixture impossible, i. 1.4 (53-1195).

  Body and soul primitive relation between, i. 1.3 (53-1194).

  Body and soul relation between iv. 3.19 (27-418).

  Body, anger-power, does not originate in it, iv. 4.28 (28-480).

  Body as rationalized matter, ii. 7.3 (37-696).

  Body can lose parts, not the soul, iv. 7.5 (2-63).

  Body cannot possess virtue, iv. 7.8 (2-69).

  Body cannot think, iv. 7.8 (2-68).

  Body contains one kind of desires, iv. 4.20 (28-468).

  Body cosmic, perfect and self-sufficient, iv. 8.2 (6-122).

  Body could not have sensation, if soul were corporeal, iv. 7.6 (2-65).

  Body differs from real man, i. 1.10 (53-1202).

  Body, does the anger-power originate in it? iv. 4.28 (28-480).

  Body, even simple, composed of form and matter, iv. 7.1 (2-56).

  Body exerts a uniform action; soul a varied one, iv. 7.4 (2-62).

  Body, eyes of, to close them, method to achieve, i. 6.8 (1-52).

  Body grows a little after departure of soul, iv. 4.29 (28-485).

  Body has single motion, soul different ones, iv. 7.5 (2-62).

  Body, how it approaches the soul, vi. 4.15 (22-309).

  Body in soul, not soul in body, iii, 9.3 (13-222); iv. 3.22 (27-423).

  Body is composite, therefore perishable, iv. 7.1 (2-56).

  Body is instrument of the soul, iv. 7.1 (2-56).

  Body is not us but ours, iv. 4.18 (28-465).

  Body part of ourselves, i. 1.10 (53-1203); iv. 7.1 (2-56).

  Body is proximate transition of the soul, iv. 3.20 (27-420).

  Body is tool and matter of soul, iv. 7.1 (2-56).

  Body is within soul, iv. 3.20 (27-419).

  Body managed by reasoning hence imperfectly, iv. 8.8 (6-132).

  Body management, only one phase of excursion of procession, iv. 8.7

  Body needs soul for life, iv. 3.19 (27-418).

  Body never entirely entered by the soul, iv. 8.8 (6-132).

  Body not a vase for the soul, iv. 3.20 (27-420).

  Body not constituted by matter exclusively, iv. 7.3 (2-60).

  Body of demons is air or fire-like, iii. 5.6 (50-1133); ii. 1.6

  Body of elements, common ground of, makes them kindred, ii. 1.7

  Body penetrated by soul, but not by another body, iv. 7.8 (2-72).

  Body relation to soul, is passage into world of life, vi. 4.12

  Body, separation of soul from it, i. 1.3 (53-1193).

  Body sick, soul devoted to it, iv. 3.4 (27-395).

  Body, superior and inferior of soul, related in three ways, iv. 4.29

  Body, the soul uses as tool, i. 1.3 (53-1193).

  Body throughout all changes, soul powers remain the same, iv. 3.8

  Body used for perception makes feeling, iv. 4.23 (28-475); iv. 7.8

  Body, will of stars, do not sway earthly events, iv. 4.34 (28-494).

  Body's composition demands the substrate, ii. 4.11 (12-209).

  Body's elements cannot harmonize themselves, iv. 7.8 (2-75).

  Body's size nothing to do with greatness of soul, vi. 4.5 (22-293).

  Boldness, see Audacity; i. 1.2 (53-1192).

  Bond of the universe is number, vi. 6.15 (34-670).

  Born philosophers alone, reach the higher region, v. 9.2 (5-103).

  Both men, we always should be, but are not, vi. 4.14 (22-308).

  Boundary of intelligible, location of soul, iv. 8.7 (6-131).

  Brains, seat of sensation, iv. 3.23 (27-425).

  Brothers of Jupiter unissued yet, v. 8.12 (31-572).

  Brutalization or divinization is fate of three men in us, vi. 7.6

  Calypso, i. 6.8 (1-53).

  Capacity, limits participation in the one, vi. 4.11 (22-302).

  Care divine, exemption from certain classes, heartless, ii. 9.16

  Care for individual things, draws soul into incarnation, iv. 8.4

  Career of the soul, what hell means for it, vi. 4.16 (22-312);

  Castration indicates sterility of unitary nature, iii. 6.19 (26-385).
    v. 8.13 (31-573).

  Categories, v. 1.4 (10-180); v. 3.15 (49-1116).

  Categories, Aristotelian and Stoic, vi. 1.1 (42-837).

  Categories, Aristotelian neglect intelligible world, vi. 1.1 (42-831).

  Categories cannot contain both power and lack of power, vi. 1.10

  Categories cause one to produce manifoldness, v. 3.15 (49-1116).

  Categories, four of Stoics, evaporate, leaving matter as basis, vi.
    1.29 (42-885).

  Categories, if where and place are different categories, many more
    may be added, vi. 1.14 (42-862).

  Categories, movement and difference applied to intelligence, ii. 4.5

  Categories of Plotinos do not together form quality, vi. 2-14

  Categories of Plotinos, five, why none were added, vi. 2.9 (43-907).

  Categories of Plotinos, six, ii. 4.5 (12-202); ii. 6.2 (17-248); v.
    1.4 (10-180); vi. 2.1, 8, 9 (43-891, 904).

  Categories of quality, various derivatives of, vi. 3.19 (44-967).

  Categories of Stoics enumerated, vi. 1.25 (42-878).

  Categories, physical, fourth and fifth, refer to the first three, vi.
    3.6 (44-943).

  Categories, physical, of Plotinos, enumerated, vi. 3.3 (44-937).

  Categories, separate, action and suffering cannot be, vi. 1.17

  Categories, single, could not include intelligible and sense being,
    vi. 1.2 (42-839).

  Categories, six, from which all things are derived, v. 1.4 (10-180).

  Categories, sources of characteristics, in intelligible, v. 9.10

  Categories, unity is not one, arguments against, vi. 2.10 (43-910).

  Categories far better than doing or acting actualization, vi. 1.15

  Categories, having cannot be, because too various, vi. 1.23 (42-876).

  Categories of something common is absurd, vi. 1.25 (42-878).

  Categories, why movement is, vi. 3.21 (44-971).

  Cause absent, in Supreme, v. 8.7 (31-563).

  Cause coincides with nature in intelligible, vi. 7.19 (38-735).

  Cause, everything has, iii. 1.1 (3-86).

  Cause, is Supreme, of Heraclitus, iii. 1.2 (3-88).

  Cause, of affections, though corporeal, iii. 6.4 (26-356).

  Cause of procession of world from unity, v. 2.1 (11-193).

  Cause, suitability of, puts Supreme beyond chance, vi. 8.18 (39-806).

  Cause ultimate, is nature, iii 1.1 (3-87).

  Cause why souls are divine, v. 1.2 (10-175).

  Causeless origin, really is determinism, iii. 1.1 (3-86).

  Causes, any thing due to several, ii. 3.14 (52-1180).

  Causes for incarnation are twofold, iv. 8.1, 5 (6-119, 128).

  Causes of deterioration, iii. 3.4 (48-1083).

  Causes of things in the world, possible theories, iii. 1.1 (3-86).

  Causes proximate are unsatisfactory, demanding the ultimate, iii. 1.2

  Causes ulterior always sought by sages, iii. 1.2 (3-88).

  Cave, Platonic simile of world, iv. 8.1, 4 (6-120, 126).

  Celestial divinities, difference from inferior, v. 8.3 (31-556).

  Celestial light not exposed to any wastage, ii. 1.8 (40-827).

  Celestial things last longer than terrestrial things, ii. 1.5

  Centre is father of the circumference and radii, vi. 8.18 (39-804).

  Centre of soul and body, difference between, ii. 2.2 (14-230).

  Ceres, myth of soul of earth, iv. 4.27 (28-480).

  Certain, conception limiting objects, vi. 6.13 (34-663).

  Chains bind soul in incarnation, iv. 8.4 (6-126).

  Chains, golden, on captive, as beauty is on matter, i. 8.15 (51-1163).

  Chains that hold down Saturn, v. 8.13 (31-573).

  Chance, apparent, is really Providence, iii. 3.2 (48-1078).

  Chance banished by form, limit and shape, vi. 8.10 (39-789).

  Chance, cause of suitability and opportunity, puts them beyond it,
    vi. 8.17 (39-804).

  Chance could not cause the centre of circular of intelligence, vi.
    8.18 (39-804).

  Chance does not produce supreme being, vi. 8.11 (39-792).

  Chance is not the cause of the good being free, vi. 8.7 (39-783).

  Chance, men escape by interior isolation, vi. 8.15 (39-800).

  Chance, no room for in Supreme, assisted by intelligence, vi. 8.17

  Chance, Supreme could not possibly be called by any one who had seen
    it, vi. 8.19 (39-807).

  Change, how can it be out of time, if movement is in time, vi. 1.16

  Change, is it anterior to movement? vi. 3.21 (44-972).

  Change must inevitably exist in Heaven, ii. 1.1 (40-813).

  Changeable, desires are, iv. 4.2 (28-469).

  Changeableness, self-direction of thought is not, iv. 4.2 (28-444).

  Changes of fortune, affect only the outer man, iii. 2.15 (47-1067).

  Changes of the body, do not change soul powers, iv. 3.8 (27-402).

  Changes, ours, world-souls unconscious of, iv. 4.7 (28-450).

  Chaos, usual starting point, causes puzzle of origin of God, vi. 8.11

  Character, human, result of former lives, iii. 3.4 (48-1083).

  "Characteristic, certain," a spiritualization of terms, ii. 4.1
    (12-197); v. 1.4 (10-180).

  Characteristic, if anything at all, is a reason spiritual, v. 1.4

  Chariot, God traverses heaven in one, iv. 3.7 (27-399).

  Chastisement of souls psychologically explained, vi. 4.16 (22-310).

  Chemical mixture described, iv. 7.8 (2-72).

  Chief, the great Jupiter, third God, iii. 5.8 (50-1136).

  Choir of virtues (Stoic), vi. 9.11 (9-170).

  Choosing is essence of consciousness, iv. 4.37 (28-500).

  Chorus, see Ballet, vi. 9.8 (9-165).

  Circe, i. 6.8 (1-53).

  Circle, iii. 8.7 (30-543); v. 1.7, 11 (10-184, 191).

  Circular movement is that of soul, vi. 9.8 (9-162, 164); ii. 2.1
    (14-227); iv. 4.16 (28-462).

  Circular movement of heavens, ii. 2.2 (14-230).

  Circulating around heavens, iii. 4.2 (15-234).

  Cities haunted by divinities, vi. 5.12 (23-332).

  Classification of purification, result of virtue, i. 2.4 (19-260).

  Climate, a legitimate governing cause, iii. 1.5 (3-93).

  Close eyes of body, method to achieve ecstasy, i. 6.8 (1-52).

  Closeness to divinity, permanent result of ecstasy, v. 8.11 (31-570).

  Clotho, ii. 3.15 (52-1182).

  Coelus, (Uranus), v. 8.13 (31-573).

  Co-existence of unity and multiplicity demands organization in
    system, vi. 7.10 (38-716).

  Cognition, how it operates, v. 5.1 (32-575).

  Cognition of intelligible objects, admits no impression, iv. 6.2

  Cold is not method of transforming breath into soul, iv. 7.8 (2-68).

  Collective nouns prove independent existence, vi. 6.16 (34-672).

  Combination begotten by the soul, its nature, vi. 7.5 (38-708).

  Combination contains one kind of desires, iv. 4.20 (28-468).

  Combination is a physical category, vi. 3.3 (44-937).

  Combination of body and soul, appetites located in, iv. 4.20 (28-468).

  Combination of soul and body as mixture, or as resulting product, i.
    1.1 (53-1191).

  Combination, see Aggregate, 1.11.

  Combination, third physical category (53-1191). of Plotinos, vi. 3.3

  Commands himself, Supreme does, vi. 8.20 (39-809).

  Common element, growth in increase and generation, vi. 3.22 (44-975).

  Common ground of the elements make them kindred, ii. 1.7 (40-824).

  Common part, function of, i. 1.10 (53-1203).

  Common to soul and body, not all affections are, i. 1.5 (53-1197).

  Communion of ecstasy, vi. 9.11 (9-170).

  Communion with the divine, as of Minos with Jupiter, vi. 9.7 (9-162).

  Comparative method of studying time, iii. 7.6 (45-996).

  Complaining of the world, instead of fit yourself to it, ii. 9.13

  Complaint, grotesque to wisdom of creator, iii. 2.14 (47-1063).

  Complaint of lower nature of animals ridiculous, iii. 2.9 (47-1059).

  Complement of being called quality only by courtesy, vi. 2.14

  Composite aggregate, see combination, i. 1.2 (53-1191).

  Composite is body, therefore perishable, iv. 7.1 (2-56).

  Composite of form and matter is everything, v. 9.3 (5-104).

  Compositeness not denied by simplicity of the intelligent, vi. 7.13

  Compositeness of knower not necessarily implied by knowledge, v. 3.1

  Composition and decomposition are not alterations, vi. 3.25 (44-979).

  Composition and decomposition, explanation of, vi. 3.25 (44-978).

  Comprising many souls makes soul infinite, vi. 4.4 (22-291).

  Compulsory, memory is not, iv. 4.8 (28-451).

  Concatenation from universal reason are astrological signs, iv. 4.38

  Concatenation in all things is the universe, v. 2.2 (11-196).

  Concatenation of causes is Chrysippus's fate, iii. 1.2, 7 (3-89, 96).

  Conceiving principle is the world-soul, iii. 9.1 (13-221).

  Concentricity of all existing things, v. 3.7 (49-1101); v. 5.9

  Conception, true, is act of intuition, i. 1.9 (53-1202).

  Conformity to the universal soul, implied they do not form part of
    her, iv. 3.2 (27-389).

  Connection between sense and intelligible worlds is triple nature of
    man, vi. 7.7 (38-711).

  Connection with infinite is Chrysippus's fate, iii. 1.2 (3-89).

  Consciousness, iii. 9.9 (13-226).

  Consciousness, constituted by timeless memory, iv. 3.25 (27-429).

  Consciousness depends on choosing, iv. 4.37 (28-500).

  Consciousness, etymologically, is sensation of manifoldness, v. 3.13

  Consciousness is not a pre-requisite of happiness or virtue and
    intelligence, i. 4.9, 10 (46-1033).

  Consciousness is unitary, though containing the thinker, ii. 9.1

  Consciousness, local and whole, relation between not applicable to
    soul, iv. 3.3 (27-392).

  Consciousness of higher soul-part dimmed by predominance or
    disturbance of lower, iv. 8.8 (6-132).

  Consciousness of self, lost in ecstasy, v. 8.11 (31-569).

  Consciousness, unity limits principles to three, ii. 9.2 (33-602).

  Consciousness would be withdrawn by differentiating reason, ii. 9.1

  Contemplating intelligence, is horizon of divine approach, v. 5.7

  Contemplating the divinity, a Gnostic precept, ii. 9.15 (33-630).

  Contemplation, v. 1.2, 3 (10-175, 177); v. 3.10 (49-1106).

  Contemplation, aspired to, by even plants, iii. 8.1 (30-531).

  Contemplation, everything is, iii. 8 (30).

  Contemplation, goal of all beings, iii. 8.7 (30-540).

  Contemplation, immovable results in nature and reason, iii. 8.2

  Contemplation includes nature and reason, iii. 8.2 (30-533).

  Consequence of derivative goods of third rank, i. 8.2 (51-1144).

  Consequences of mixture of soul and body, i. 1.4 (53-1194).

  Constitution, of universe, hierarchical, vi. 2.1 (13-892).

  Consubstantial, v. 1.4 (10-180).

  Contemplation, constitution of even lower forms, iii. 8.1 (30-531).

  Contemplation of intelligence, demands a higher transcending unity,
    v. 3.10 (49-1106).

  Contemplation of itself made essence intelligence, v. 2.1 (11-193).

  Contemplation only one phase of excursion of procession, iv. 8.7

  Contemplation the goal of all kinds and grades of existence, iii. 8.6

  Contemplation's preparation is practice, iii. 8.5 (30-538).

  Contemporaneous is life of intelligence, iii. 7.2 (45-989).

  Contemporary are matter and the informing principles, ii. 4.8

  Contingence applicable to Supreme, under new definition only, vi. 8.8

  Contingence not even applies to essence, let alone super-essence, vi.
    8.9 (39-787).

  Contingency, disappearance of, witnessed to by ascent of life, vi.
    8.15 (39-801).

  Contingency illuminated in analysis, vi. 8.14 (39-798).

  Contingent existence, precedes absolute, vi. 1.26 (42-881).

  Continuance need not interfere with fluctuation, ii. 1.3 (40-816).

  Continuity between nature and elements, there is none, iv. 4.14

  Continuous procession, necessary to Supreme, iv. 8.6 (6-129).

  Contraries, are those things that lack resentments, vi. 3.20 (44-968).

  Contraries passing into each other, Heraclitus, iv. 8.1 (6-119).

  Contraries teach appreciation, iv. 8.7 (6-131).

  Contrariness is not the greatest possible difference, vi. 3.20

  Contrary contained in reason, constitute its unity, iii. 2.16

  Conversion effected by depreciation of the external and appreciation
    of herself, v. 1.1 (10-174); see v. 1.7.

  Conversion of soul towards herself, only object of virtue, i. 4.11

  Conversion of souls, iv. 3.6, 7 (27-397, 399); iv. 8.4 (6-126).

  Conversion of super-abundance, back towards one, v. 2.1 (11-194).

  Conversion produced by purification, i. 2.4 (10-261).

  Conversion to good and being in itself depends on intelligence, vi.
    8.4 (39-778).

  Conversion towards divinity, result of ecstasy, v. 8.11 (31-570).

  Co-ordination of universe, truth of astrology, ii. 3.7 (52-1173).

  Corporeal, if soul is, body could not possess sensation, iv. 7.6

  Corporeity is nonentity because of lack of unity, iii. 6.6 (26-362).

  Corporeity not in matter of thing itself, ii. 4.12 (12-212).

  Correspondence of sense-beauty, with its idea, i. 6.2 (1-43).

  Cosmic intellect, relation with individual, i. 1.7 (53-1199).

  Counterfeit implied by true good, vi. 7.26 (38-743).

  Courage is no longer to fear death, i. 6.6 (1-49).

  Courage of soul's anger part explained, iii. 6.2 (26-354).

  Creation by divinity glancing at intelligence above, iv. 3.11

  Creation by foresight, not result of reasoning, vi. 7.1 (38-699).

  Creation by mere illumination, gnostic, opposed, ii. 9.11 (33-621).

  Creation drama, the world-soul could not have gone through, ii. 9.4

  Creation is effusion of super-abundance, v. 2.1 (11-194).

  Creation limited to world-soul because nearest to intelligible world,
    iv. 3.6 (27-397).

  Creation of sense-world, not by reflection, but self-necessity, iii.
    2.2 (47-1044).

  Creation of world, how it took place, v. 8.7 (31-562).

  Creation, why denied human souls, iv. 3.6 (27-397).

  Creative is the universal soul, not preservative, ii. 3.16 (52-1183).

  Creative motives, ii. 9.4 (33-605).

  Creator admires his handiwork, v. 8.8 (31-564).

  Creator and preserver, is the good, vi. 7.23 (38-740).

  Creator and world, are not evil, ii. 9 (33).

  Creator is outside of time, iii. 7.5 (45-994).

  Creator so wise that all complaints are grotesque, iii. 2.14

  Creator testified to, by the world, iii. 2.3 (47-1047).

  Creator's universality, overcame all obstacles, v. 8.7 (31-562).

  Creator's wisdom makes complaints grotesque, iii. 2.14 (47-1063).

  Credence of intelligence in itself, v. 5.2 (32-578).

  Crimes should not be attributed to the influence of sublunary
    divinities, iv. 4.31 (28-489).

  Criticism of world is wrong, v. 8.8 (31-565).

  Culmination, ii. 3.3 (52-1165).

  Cup, cosmic, in Plato, iv. 8.4 (6-127).

  Cupid and Psyche, vi. 9.9 (9-166).

  Curative, the, is a prominent element of life, iii. 3.5 (48-1084).

  Cutting off every thing else, is means of ecstasy, v. 3.7 (49-1121).

  Cybele, iii. 6.19 (26-385).

  Daemon helps to carry out chosen destiny, iii. 4.5 (15-239).

  Daemon is next higher faculty of soul, iii. 4.3 (15-235).

  Daemon is the love that unites a soul to matter, iii. 5.4 (50-1130).

  Daemon may remain after death or be changed to Daemon superior to
    predominating power, iii. 4.6 (15-239).

  Daemon of souls is their love, iii. 5.4 (50-1130).

  Daemon's all, born of Need and Abundance, iii. 5.6 (50-1131).

  Daemons and deities, difference between, iii. 5.6 (50-1131).

  Daemons are individual, iii. 4 (15).

  Daemons both related and independent of us, iii. 4.5 (15-239).

  Daemons even in souls entering animal bodies, iii. 4.6 (15-240).

  Daemons follow Supreme, v. 8.10 (31-567).

  Daemon's guidance does not hinder responsibility, iii. 4.5 (15-238).

  Daemons in charge of punishment of soul, iv. 8.5 (6-128).

  Dance, prearranged, simile of star's motion, iv. 4.33 (28-492).

  Darkness, existence of, must be related to the soul, ii. 9.12

  Darkness, looking at, cause of evil of soul, i. 8.4 (51-1147).

  Death, after, colleagues in government of world, iv. 8.4 (6-125).

  Death, after, discursive reason not used, iv. 3.18 (27-416).

  Death, after, judgment and expiation, iii. 4.6 (15-240).

  Death, after, man becomes what he has lived, iii. 4.2 (15-234).

  Death, after, memory may last, if trained, iii. 4.2 (15-234); iv. 4.5

  Death, after, rank depends on state of death, i. 9 (16).

  Death, after, recognition and memory, iv. 4.5 (28-447).

  Death, after, soul goes to retribution, iii. 2.8 (47-1056).

  Death, after, where does the soul go, iii. 4.6 (15-240); iii. 2.8

  Death, at, memories of former existences are reproduced, iv. 3.27

  Death better than disharmony, iii. 2.8 (47-1057).

  Death, how the soul splits up, iii. 4.6 (15-241).

  Death is only separation of soul from body, i. 6.6 (1-50).

  Declination, ii. 3.3 (52-1165).

  Decomposible, soul is not, merely because it has three parts, iv.
    7.14 (2-84).

  Decomposition and composition are not alteration, vi. 3.25 (44-979).

  Decomposition and composition, explanation of, vi. 3.25 (44-978).

  Defects, not in intelligible world, v. 9.14 (5-117).

  Defects such as limping, do not proceed from intelligence, v. 9.10

  Degeneration of races, implied by determinism, ii. 3.16 (52-1184).

  Degeneration of soul is promoted by looking at darkness, i. 8.4

  Degrees, admitted of, by quality, vi. 3.20 (44-970).

  Degrees, different, of the same reality, are intelligence and life,
    vi. 7.18 (38-732).

  Degrees of ecstasy, vi. 7.36 (38-760).

  Deities and demons, difference between, iii. 5.6 (50-1131).

  Deities, second rank, are all visible super-lunar deities, iii. 5.6

  Deliberating before making sense-man intelligence did not, vi. 7.1

  Deliberation in creating of world, gnostic opposed, v. 8.7, 12
    (31-561, 571).

  Delphi, at middle of earth, vi. 1.14 (42-862).

  Demiurge, how the gnostic created it, ii. 9.12 (33-623).

  Demon, chief, in intelligible world is deity, iii. 5.6 (50-1132).

  Demon is any being in intelligible world, iii. 5.6 (50-1133).

  Demon is vestige of a soul descended into the world, iii. 5.6

  Demon, the great, Platonic, ii. 3.9 (52-1176).

  Demoniacal possession, as explanation of disease wrong, ii. 9.14

  Demons, among them, those are loves that exist by a soul's desire for
    good, iii. 5.6 (50-1132).

  Demons have bodies of fire, ii. 1.6 (40-823); iii. 5.6 (50-1133).

  Demons have no memories, and grant no prayers; in war life is saved
    by valor, not by prayers, iv. 4.30 (28-486).

  Demons, no crimes should be attributed to, iv. 4.31 (28-489).

  Demons not born of souls, generated by world-soul powers, iii. 5.6

  Demons, psychology of, iv. 4.43 (28-507).

  Demons, why not all of them are loves, iii. 5.6 (50-1132).

  Demons, why they are not free from matter, iii. 5.6 (50-1133).

  Demonstration absent in Supreme, v. 8.7 (31-563).

  Demonstration of divinity defies, i. 3.1 (20-269).

  Depart from life by seeking beyond it, vi. 5.12 (23-331).

  Deprivation, in soul, is evil, i. 8.11 (51-1158).

  Deprivation is matter, and is without qualities, i. 8.11 (51-1158).

  Derivatives of category of quality, vi. 3.19 (44-967).

  Descartes, "Cogito, ergo sum," from Parmenides, v. 9.5 (5-108).

  Descend, how souls come to, iv. 3.13 (27-410).

  Descend, intelligible does not, sense-world rises, iii. 4.4 (15-237).

  Descent from intelligible into heaven by souls leads to recognition,
    iv. 4.5 (28-447).

  Descent from the intelligible world enables us to study time, iii.
    7.6 (45-995).

  Descent into body, does not injure eternity of soul, iv. 7.13 (2-83).

  Descent of soul, causes, as given by Plato, iv. 8.1 (6-121).

  Descent of soul into body, iii. 9.3 (13-222); iv. 8.1 (6-120).

  Descent of the soul, is fall into matter, i. 8.14 (51-1161).

  Descent of the soul, procedure, vi. 4.16 (22-311).

  Descent of the soul, psychologically explained, vi. 4.16 (22-311).

  Descent, souls not isolated from intelligence, during, iv. 3.12

  Description of intelligible world, v. 8.4 (31-557).

  Description of universal being, vi. 4.2 (22-286).

  Desirability of being in its beauty v. 8.10 (31-568).

  Desirable in itself, is the good. vi. 8.7 (39-783).

  Desire not simultaneous with appetite, i. 1.5 (53-1197).

  Desire of soul, liver seat of, iv. 4.28 (28-480).

  Desire or ability, only limit of union with divinity, v. 8.11

  Desire to live, satisfaction of, is not happiness, i. 5.2 (36-684).

  Desires are physical, because changeable with harmony of body, iv.
    4.21 (28-469).

  Desires, double, of body and of combination, iv. 4.20 (28-468).

  Desires, function, relation of, to the vegetative power, iv. 4.22

  Destiny chosen, helped by Daemon, iii. 4.5 (15-239).

  Destiny conformed to character of soul, iii. 4.5 (15-238).

  Destiny of man, gnostic, is demoralizing, ii. 9.15 (33-629).

  Destiny of souls, depend on condition of birth of universe, ii. 3.15

  Destroyed would be the universe, if unity passed into the manifold,
    iii. 8.10 (30-547).

  Destruction of soul elements, does it imply disappearance? iv. 4.29

  Detachment as simplification of ecstasy, vi. 9.11 (9-170).

  Detachment of soul at death, how arranged naturally, i. 9 (16).

  Detachment of soul by death voluntary, forbidden, i. 9 (16).

  Detailed fate not swayed by stars, iv. 4.31 (28-488).

  Details, fault in, cannot change harmony in universe, ii. 3.16

  Determinate form, v. 1.7 (10-184); v. 5.6 (32-584).

  Determinateness, impossible of one, v. 5.6 (32-584).

  Determination demands a motive, iii. 1.1 (3-86).

  Determination of future implied by prediction, iii. 1.3 (3-90).

  Determinism implies degeneration of races, ii. 3.16 (52-1184).

  Determinism, really, under causeless origin, iii. 1.1 (3-86).

  Determinism supported by materialists, iii. 1.2 (3-88).

  Deterioration, causes of, iii. 3.4 (48-1083).

  Development natural of essence to create a soul, iv. 8.6 (6-129).

  Deviltry confuted, leaves influence of world-soul, iv. 4.32 (28-490).

  Devolution (Platonic world scheme, intelligence, soul, nature), iv.
    7.8 (2-69).

  Diagram of universe, iv. 4.16 (28-462).

  Dialectics, i. 3 (20-269); ii, 4.10 (12-206); vi. 3.1 (44-934); i.
    3.4 (20-272); i. 8.9 (51-1156).

  Dialectics, crown of various branches of philosophy, i. 3.5 (20-273).

  Dialectics, how to conceive infinite, vi. 6.2 (34-644).

  Dialectics is concatenation of the world, i. 3.4 (20-272).

  Dialectics neglects opinion and sense opinions, i. 3.4 (20-272).

  Dialectics not merely instrument for philosophy (Aristotle), i. 3.5

  Dialectics not speculation and abstract rules (Epicurean), i. 3.5

  Dialectics science of (judging values, or) discovery, amount of real
    being in things, i. 3.4 (20-273).

  Dialectics staying in intelligible, v. 1.1 (10-173).

  Dialectics three paths, philosopher, musician and lover, i. 3.1

  Dialectics two fold, first ascent to intelligible and then how to
    remain, i. 3.1 (20-269).

  Dialectics without it, lower knowledge would be imperfect, i. 3.6

  Differ, souls do, as the sensations, vi. 4.6 (22-294).

  Difference and identity, implied by triune process of categories, vi.
    2.8 (43-905).

  Difference between celestial and inferior divinities, v. 8.3 (31-556).

  Difference between human and cosmic incarnation, iv. 8.3 (6-123).

  Difference, greatest possible, is not contrariness, vi. 3.20 (44-968).

  Difference of Supreme from second, is profound, v. 5.3 (32-580).

  Difference, or category, v. 1.4 (10-180).

  Differences, minor, derived from matter, v. 9.12 (5-115).

  Differences of color, aid to discriminate magnitudes, ii. 8.1

  Differences of soul, retained on different levels, iv. 3.5 (27-396).

  Differences of things, depend on their seminal reasons, v. 7.1

  Differences, some are not qualities, vi. 3.18 (44-965).

  Differentials of beings, are not genuine qualities, vi. 1.16 (42-853).

  Difficulties of understanding, clear to intelligence, iv. 9.5 (8-146).

  Dimension and number are so different as to suggest different
    classifications, vi. 2.13 (43-916).

  Diminished, essence is not, though divisible, vi. 4.4 (22-290).

  Dione, iii. 5.2 (50-1126).

  Disappearance of form, implies that of size, ii. 8.1 (35-682).

  Disappearance of soul parts, does it imply destruction, iv. 4.29

  Discontent, divine, and transforms virtues, homely into higher, i.
    2.7 (19-267).

  Discontent, divine, supplement of homely virtues, i. 2.7 (19-267).

  Discord, cause of incarnation, iv. 8.1 (6-119).

  Discursive reason, v. 1.10, 11 (10-189); v. 3.14 (49-1115); v. 5.1
    (32-575); v. 9.4 (5-106).

  Discursive reason cannot turn upon itself, v. 3.2 (49-1091).

  Discursive reason, its function, v. 3.1 (49-1090).

  Discursive reason, why it belongs to soul, not to intelligence, v.
    3.3 (49-1093).

  Discursive reason's highest part, receives impressions from its
    intelligence, v. 3.3 (49-1092).

  Disease, as demoniacal possession wrong, ii. 9.14 (33-627).

  Disharmony, vice is, iii. 6.2 (26-352).

  Disharmony with laws of universe, worse than death, iii. 2.8

  Displacement, movement is single, vi. 3.24 (44-977).

  Disposition, difficulty of mastering these corporeal dispositions, i.
    8.8 (51-1154).

  Distance from a unity is multitude and an evil, vi. 6.1 (34-643).

  Distance from the Supreme, imperfection, iii. 3.3 (48-1080).

  Distinction between spiritual, psychic and material, due to ignorance
    of other people's attainments, ii. 9.18 (33-637).

  Distinction in intelligibles, (good above beauty), i. 6.9 (1-53).

  Distinguish, object of myths, iii. 5.10 (50-1138).

  Distinction, Philonic, between the God, and God, vi. 7.1 (38-697).

  Distinguishing of being, quality and differences absurd, vi. 3.18

  Distraction by sensation, makes us unconscious of higher part, iv.
    8.8 (6-132).

  Divergence from Plato, forces Plotinos to demonstrate categories, vi.
    2.1 (43-891).

  Diversity from same parents depends on manner of generation, v. 7.2

  Diversity of relations of all things connected with the first, v. 5.9

  Divided, not even the ascended soul need be, iv. 4.1 (28-442).

  Divided, time cannot be without soul's action, iv. 4.15 (28-460).

  Divine sphere, limited by soul, downwards, v. 1.7 (10-186).

  Diviner, duty of, is to read letter traced by nature, iii. 3.6

  Divinities begotten by actualization of intelligence, vi. 9.9 (9-168).

  Divinities begotten by silent intercourse with the one, vi. 9.9

  Divinities celestial and inferior, difference between, v. 8.3

  Divinities contained in Supreme, dynamically, by birth, v. 8.9

  Divinities haunt the cities, vi. 5.12 (23-332).

  Divinities hidden and visible, v. 1.4 (10-178).

  Divinity absent only, for non-successful in avoiding distraction, vi.
    9.7 (9-161).

  Divinity and also the soul is always one, iv. 3.8 (27-400).

  Divinity constituted by attachment to centre, vi. 9.8 (9-163).

  Divinity distinguished Philonically, the God, and God, vi. 7.1

  Divinity, resemblance to, in soul's welfare, i. 6.6 (1-49).

  Divinity within us, single and identical in all, vi. 5.1 (23-314).

  Divinization, as Cupid and Psyche, vi. 9.9 (9-166).

  Divinization of brutalization, is fate of three men in us, vi. 7.6

  Divisible, all bodies are fully, iv. 7.8 (2-68).

  Divisible and indivisible can soul be simultaneously, iv. 3.19

  Divisible and indivisible is soul, iv. 2.2 (21-279).

  Divisible beings, existence of, iv. 2.1 (21-276).

  Divisible intelligence is not, v. 3.5 (49-1096).

  Divisible is essence though not diminished, vi. 4.4 (22-290).

  Divisible of soul, mixture and double, ii. 3.9 (52-1176).

  Divisible soul is not unifying manifold, sensation, iv. 7.6 (2-65).

  Divisibility, v. 1.7 (10-184).

  Divisibility, goal of sense, growth and emotion, iv. 3.19 (27-418).

  Divisibility of soul in vision of intelligible wisdom, v. 8.10

  Division, between universal soul and souls impossible, iv. 3.2

  Division, characteristic of bodies not of soul, iv. 2.8 (21-276).

  Dominant, better nature is not, because of sub-consciousness, iii.
    3.4 (48-1081).

  Double cause of incarnation, motive and deeds, iv. 8.4 (6-125).

  Double, Hercules symbolizes the soul, i. 1.12 (53-1206).

  Doubleness of everything, including man, vi. 3.4 (44-938).

  Doubleness of soul, reasons and Providence, iv. 6.2 (41-832); iii.
    3.4 (48-1081).

  Doubleness of souls, suns, stars, ii. 3.9 (52-1175).

  Doubleness of wisdom, i. 2.6 (19-265).

  Doubleness of world soul, ii. 2.3 (14-233).

  Doubleness, see "pair", or "dyad", of every man, ii. 3.9 (52-1176).

  Doubt of existence of divinity, like dreamers who awake, to slumber
    again, v. 5.11 (32-592).

  Drama as a whole, iii. 2.17 (47-1071).

  Drama of life, parts played badly by the evil, iii. 2.17 (47-1072).

  Drama, simile of, allows for good and evil within reason, iii. 2.17

  Dream of the good is form, vi. 7.28 (38-745).

  Dream of the soul is sensation, from which we must wake, iii. 6.6

  Dreamers who wake, only to return to dreams like doubters of
    divinity, v. 5.11 (32-593).

  Driver and horses, simile of, Platonic, ii. 3.13 (52-1179).

  Dualism breaks down just like monism, vi. 1.27 (42-883).

  Duality (form and matter) in all things, iv. 7.1 (2-56).

  Duality of every body, ii. 4.5 (12-200).

  Duration has nothing to do with happiness, i. 5.1 (36-684).

  Duration increases unhappiness, why not happiness? i. 5.6 (36-686).

  Duration of happiness does not affect its quality, i. 5.5 (36-685).

  Duration of time, as opportunity, is of importance to virtue, i. 5.10

  Dyad, or doubleness, v. 5.4 (32-581).

  Dyad, see "pair," vi. 2.11 (43-914).

  Earth and fire contained in the stars, ii. 1.6 (40-822).

  Earth can feel as well as the stars, iv. 4.22 (28-471).

  Earth contains all the other elements, ii. 1.6 (40-823).

  Earth exists in the intelligible, vi. 7.11 (38-718).

  Earth feels and directs by sympathetic harmony, iv. 4.26 (28-477).

  Earth, model of the new, gnostic, unreasonable, ii. 9.5 (33-608).

  Earth, postulated by Plato, as being basis of life, ii. 1.7 (40-823).

  Earth senses may be different from ours, iv. 4.26 (28-478).

  Earth, what passions suitable to it, iv. 4.22 (28-471).

  Earthly events, not to be attributed to stars, body or will, iv. 4.35

  Earth's psychology, iv. 4.27 (28-479).

  Ecliptic's inclination to equator, v. 8.7 (31-563).

  Ecstasy as divine spectacle, vi. 9.11 (9-169).

  Ecstasy as intellectual contact with sudden light, v. 3.17 (49-1120).

  Ecstasy described, iv. 8.1 (6-119).

  Ecstasy ends in a report of seeing God beget a Son, v. 8.12 (31-571).

  Ecstasy ends in fusion with divinity, and becoming own object of
    contemplation, v. 8.11 (31-570).

  Ecstasy ends in "rest" and "Saturnian realm," v. 8.11 (31-570).

  Ecstasy ends in vision which is not chance, vi. 8.21 (39-807).

  Ecstasy, experience of, i. 6.7 (1-50).

  Ecstasy has two advantages following, self-consciousness and
    possession of all things, v. 8.11 (31-570).

  Ecstasy illustrated by secrecy of mystery-rites, vi. 9.11 (9-169).

  Ecstasy in soul does not think God, because she doesn't think, vi.
    7.35 (38-759).

  Ecstasy is possession by divinity, v. 8.10 (31-567).

  Ecstasy, land-marks on path to, i. 6.9 (1-54).

  Ecstasy, mechanism of, v. 8.11 (31-569).

  Ecstasy, permanent results, v. 8.11 (31-570).

  Ecstasy results in begotten son forming a new world, v. 8.12 (31-571).

  Ecstasy, simplification, super beauty and virtue, vi. 9.11 (9-170).

  Ecstasy, the degrees leading to God, vi. 736 (38-760).

  Ecstasy trance (enthusiasm), vi. 9.11 (9-169).

  Ecstasy, trap on way to, v. 8.11 (31-570).

  Ecstasy, way to approach, first principle, v. 5.10, 11 (32-591).

  Ecstasy, when experienced, leads to questions, iv. 8.1 (6-119).

  Ecstasy's last stage, vision of intelligible wisdom, v. 8.10 (31-568).

  Ecstasy's method, is to close eyes of body, i. 6.8 (1-52).

  Ecstatic vision of God, chief purpose of life, i. 6.7 (1-51).

  Ecstatic, subsequent experiences, vi. 9.11 (9-190).

  Education and training, memory needs, iv. 6.3 (41-835).

  Effusion of super-abundance is reation, v. 2.1 (11-194).

  Effects, differences in, limited to intelligibles, vi. 3.17 (44-964).

  Egyptian hieroglyphics, v. 8.6 (31-560).

  Elemental intermediary soul, also inadmissible, ii. 9.5 (33-607).

  Elemental process demands substrate, ii, 4.6 (12-203).

  Elements and nature, there is continuity between, iv. 4.14 (28-459).

  Elements are also individual, ii. 1.6 (40-823).

  Elements are kindred, through their common ground, the universe body,
    ii. 1.7 (40-824).

  Elements, earth contains all, ii. 1.6 (40-821).

  Elements, principles of physicists, iii. 1.3 (3-89).

  Elements of body cannot harmonize themselves, iv. 7.8 (2-74).

  Elements of essence can be said to be one only figuratively, vi. 2.10

  Elements of universe, simultaneously principles and general, vi. 2.2

  Elements terrestrial, do not degrade the heaven, ii. 1.6 (40-823).

  Elevation of soul gradual, v. 3.9 (49-1106).

  Eliminated, is contingency in analysis, vi. 8.14 (39-798).

  Emanations of a single soul, are all souls, iv. 3 (27).

  Emanations of light from sun, v. 3.12 (49-1112).

  Emanations of universal soul, are individual souls, iv. 3.1 (27-388).

  Emanations, sense and growth tend towards divisibility, iv. 3.19

  Emigration of soul should not be forced, i. 9 (10).

  Emotion at seeing God, sign of unification, vi. 9.4 (9-155).

  Emotions, James Lange, theory of refuted, i. 1.5 (53-1196).

  Emotions of beauty caused by invisible soul, i. 6.5 (1-46).

  Enchantments, an active life, predisposes to subjection to, iv. 4.43

  Enchantments, magic, how to avoid them, iv. 4.44 (28-509).

  Enchantments, wise men escape all, iv. 4.43 (28-507).

  End and principle, simultaneous in Supreme, v. 8.7 (31-563).

  End of all other goods is the Supreme, i. 7.1 (54-1209).

  Entelechy, soul is not, iv. 2.1; iv. 7.8 (21-276, 2-74-77).

  Energy, displayed, constitutes a thing's being, iii. 1.1 (3-86).

  Ennobled and intellectualized is soul, scorning even thought, vi.
    7.35 (38-757).

  Enthusiasm of ecstasy, vi. 9.11 (9-169).

  Entire essence loved by being, vi. 5.10 (23-325).

  Entire everywhere is universal soul, vi. 4.9 (22-300).

  Entire soul, fashioned whole and individuals, vi. 5.8 (23-322).

  Entire soul is everywhere, iv. 7.5 (2-63).

  Entities earthly, not all have ideas corresponding, v. 9.14 (5-117).

  Entities incorporeal, impassibility, iii. 6.1 (26-351).

  Enumeration of divine principles, vi. 7.25 (38-742).

  Enumeration, successive, inevitable in describing the eternal, iv.
    8.4 (6-127).

  Epicurus, iv. 5.2 (29-516).

  Epimetheus, iv. 3.14 (27-412).

  Equator to Ecliptic, inclination, v. 8.7 (31-563).

  Erechtheus, iv. 4.43 (28-508).

  Eros, Platonic myth interpretation of, iii. 5.2 (50-1125).

  Eros, son of Venus, iii. 5.2 (50-1125).

  Escape all enchantments, how the wise men do, iv. 4.43 (28-507).

  Escape, how to, from this world, i. 6.8 (1-52).

  Escoreal fragment, introduction to, iii. 6.6 (26-360).

  Essence alone, possesses self existence, vi. 6.18 (34-678).

  Essence and being, distinction between, ii. 6.1 (17-245).

  Essence and stability, distinction between. vi. 2.7 (43-903).

  Essence and unity, genuine relations between, vi. 2.11 (43-911).

  Essence, by it all things depend on the good, i. 7.2 (54-1209).

  Essence cannot become a genus so long as it remains one, vi. 2.9

  Essence derives its difference from other co-ordinate categories, vi.
    2.19 (43-923).

  Essence divisible if not thereby diminished, vi. 4.4 (22-290).

  Essence elements can be said to be one only figuratively, vi. 2.10

  Essence entire loved by being, vi. 5.10 (23-325).

  Essence, ideas and intelligence, v. 9 (5-102).

  Essence, indivisible and divisible mediated between by soul, iv. 2

  Essence indivisible becomes divisible within bodies, iv. 2.1 (21-277).

  Essence indivisible, description of, iv. 2.1 (21-277).

  Essence intelligible, is both in and out of itself, vi. 5.3 (23-316).

  Essence is not contingent let alone super-essence, vi. 8.9 (39-788).

  Essence is the origin of all animals, vi. 2.21 (43-928).

  Essence, location for the things yet to be produced, vi. 6.10

  Essence made intelligible by addition of eternity, vi. 2.1 (43-892).

  Essence more perfect than actualized being, ii. 6.1 (17-247).

  Essence must be second in order to exist in ground of first, v. 2.1

  Essence not stable though immovable, vi. 9.3 (9-153).

  Essence not synonymous with unity, vi. 2.9 (43-908).

  Essence, number follows and proceeds from, vi. 6.9 (34-655).

  Essence of soul derives from its being, adding life to essence, vi.
    2.6 (43-900).

  Essence one and identical is everywhere, entirely present, vi. 4

  Essence relation to being, v. 5.5 (32-583).

  Essence unity must be sought for in it, vi. 5.1 (23-314).

  Essence's power and beauty, is to attract all things, vi. 6.18

  Essential number, vi. 6.9 (34-657).

  Eternal being, cares not for inequality of riches. ii, 9.9 (33-616).

  Eternal generation, iv. 8.4 (6-127); vi. 7.3 (38-703); vi. 8.20

  Eternal must have been the necessity to illuminate darkness, ii. 9.12

  Eternal revealed by sense objects, iv. 8.6 (6-130).

  Eternally begotten, is the world, ii. 9.3 (33-603).

  Eternity added to essence makes intelligible essence, vi. 2.1

  Eternity and perpetuity, difference between, iii. 7.4 (45-991).

  Eternity and time, iii. 7 (45-985).

  Eternity as union of the five categories, iii, 7.2 (45-988).

  Eternity at rest, error in this, iii. 7.1 (45-987).

  Eternity exists perpetually, iii. 7. introd. (45-985).

  Eternity, from, is providence the plan of the universe, vi. 8.17

  Eternity has no future or past, v. 1.4 (10-179); iii. 7.4 (45-992).

  Eternity is immutable in unity, iii. 7.5 (45-993).

  Eternity is infinite, universal life, that cannot lose anything, iii,
    7.4 (45-992).

  Eternity is sempiternal existence, iii. 7.5 (45-993).

  Eternity is the model of its image, time, iii. 7. introd. (45-985).

  Eternity is to existence, as time is interior to the soul, iii. 7.10

  Eternity is to intelligence, what time is to the world-soul. iii.
    7.10 (45-1007).

  Eternity kin to beauty, iii. 5.1 (50-1124).

  Eternity not an accident of the intelligible, but an intimate part of
    its nature, iii. 7.3 (45-989).

  Eternity of soul, not affected by descent into body, iv. 7.13 (2-83).

  Eternity of soul proved by thinking the eternal, iv. 7.10 (2-81).

  Eternity, relation of, to intelligible being, iii. 7.1 (45-986).

  Eternity replaces time, in intelligible world, v. 9.10 (5-113).

  Eternity, see Aeon and pun on Aeon, iii. 7.1 (45-986).

  Evaporation, explains a theory of mixture, ii. 7.2 (37-694).

  Evaporation, both Stoic and Aristotelian refuted, ii, 7.2 (37-695).

  Everything is composite of form and matter, v. 9.3 (5-105).

  Everywhere and nowhere is Supreme, inclination and imminence, vi.
    8.16 (39-801).

  Evil, absolute, goal of degeneration of the soul, i. 8.15 (51-1163).

  Evil, an evil is life without virtue, i. 7.3 (54-1210).

  Evil are doers, who play their parts badly in drama of life, iii.
    2.17 (47-1071).

  Evil as an obstacle to the soul, i. 8.12 (51-1159).

  Evil as infinite and formlessness as itself, i. 8.3 (51-1145).

  Evil cannot be possessed within the soul, i. 8.11 (51-1158).

  Evil constituted by indetermination, success and lack, i. 8.4

  Evil creator and world are not, ii. 9 (33-599).

  Evil effects of suicide on soul itself, i. 9 (16-243).

  Evil even is a multitude, vi. 6.1 (34-643).

  Evil external and internal, relation between, i. 8.5 (51-1149).

  Evil, how sense-objects are not, iii. 2.8 (47-1055).

  Evil implied by good, because matter is necessary to the world, i.
    8.7 (51-1152).

  Evil in itself, i. 6.6 (1-49).

  Evil in itself is the primary evil, i. 8.3 (51-1146).

  Evil in the soul, explained by virtue as a harmony, iii. 6.2 (26-352).

  Evil inseparable from good, iii. 3.7 (48-1088).

  Evil is consequence of derivative goods of third rank, i. 8.2

  Evil is no one vice in particular, i. 8.5 (51-1148).

  Evil is soul's rushing into region of diversity, i. 8.13 (51-1161).

  Evil is the absence of good in the soul, i. 8.11 (51-1157).

  Evil is weakness of the soul, i. 8.14 (51-1160).

  Evil, its nature depends on that of good, i. 8.2 (51-1143).

  Evil, lower form of good, iii. 2.7 (47-1053); vi. 7.10 (38-716).

  Evil, nature of, i. 8.3 (51-1144).

  Evil, necessary, is lowest degree of being, i. 8.7 (51-1152).

  Evil, neutral, is matter, vi, 7.28 (38-746).

  Evil, none unalloyed for the living people, i. 7.3 (54-1210).

  Evil of the soul, explanation, i. 8.15 (51-1163).

  Evil only figurative and antagonist of good, i. 8.6 (51-1150).

  Evil possesses a lower form of being, i. 8.3 (51-1145).

  Evil primary and secondary defined, i. 8.8 (51-1155).

  Evil, primary and secondary, of soul, i. 8.5 (51-1148).

  Evil primary, is evil in itself, i. 8.3 (51-1146).

  Evil primary is lack of measure, (darkness), i. 8.8 (51-1154).

  Evil secondary, is accidental formlessness (something obscured), i.
    8.8 (51-1155).

  Evil secondary, is matter, i. 8.4 (51-1146).

  Evil triumphed over, in faculties not engaged in matter, i. 8.5

  Evil universal and unavoidable, i. 8.6 (51-1150).

  Evil, victory of, accuses Providence, iii. 2.6 (47-1052).

  Evils are necessary to the perfection of the universe, ii. 3.18

  Evils even if corporeal, caused by matter, i. 8.8 (51-1153).

  Evil, nature and origin of, i. 8 (51-1142).

  Evils, origin of, i. 1.9 (53-1201).

  Evils, that the sage can support without disturbing happiness, i. 4.7

  Evolution impossible (from imperfect to perfect), iv. 7.8 (2-73).

  Examination, for it only are parts of a manifold unity apart, vi. 2.3

  Examination of self, i, 6.9 (1-54).

  Examination of soul, body must first be dissociated, vi. 3.1 (44-934).

  Excursion down and up, is procession of intelligence, iv. 8.7 (6-131).

  Excursion yields the soul's two duties, body management and
    contemplation, iv. 8.7 (6-131).

  Exemption of certain classes from divine care, heartless, ii. 9.16

  Exile, gnostic idea of, opposed, ii. 9.6 (33-609).

  Existence absolute precedes contingent, vi. 1.26 (42-881).

  Existence, all kinds and grades of, aim at contemplation, iii. 8.6

  Existence, category, v. 1.4 (10-180).

  Existence, descending, graduations of, iv. 3.17 (27-415).

  Existence, how infinite arrived to it, vi. 6.3 (34-645).

  Existence in intelligible, before application to multiple beings, is
    reason, vi. 6.11 (34-659).

  Existence of darkness may be related to the soul ii. 9.12 (33-625).

  Existence of divisible things, iv. 2.1 (21-276).

  Existence of first, necessary. v. 4.1 (7-134).

  Existence of intelligence, proved, v. 9.3 (5-104).

  Existence of manifoldness impossible, without something simple, ii.
    4.3 (12-198).

  Existence of memory alter death, and of heaven, iv. 4.5 (28-447).

  Existence of matter is sure as that of good, i. 8.15 (51-1162).

  Existence of object implies a previous model, vi. 6.10 (34-658).

  Existence of other things not precluded by unity, vi. 4.4 (22-290).

  Existence, primary, will contain thought, existence and life, ii. 4.6
    (12-203); v. 6.6 (24-339).

  Existence real possessed by right thoughts, iii. 5.7 (50-1136).

  Existence sempiternal is eternity, iii. 7.5 (45-993).

  Existence the first being supra-cogitative, does not know itself, v.
    6.6 (24-340).

  Existence thought and life contained in primary existence, v. 6.6

  Existing animal of Plato differs from intelligence, iii. 9.1 (13-220).

  Experience and action, underlying transmission, reception, and
    relation, vi. 1.22 (42-875).

  Experience does not figure among true categories, vi. 2.16 (43-920).

  Experience necessary to souls not strong enough to do without it, iv.
    8.7 (6-131).

  Experience of ecstasy leads to questions, iv. 8.1 (6-119).

  Experience of evil yields knowledge of good, iv. 8.7 (6-131).

  Experiences, sensations are not, but relative actualizations, iv. 6.2

  Experiment proposed, ii. 9.17 (33-633).

  Expiation is condition of soul in world, iv. 8.5 (6-128).

  Expiations, time of, between incarnations, iii. 4.6 (15-240).

  Extension is merely a sign of participation into the word of life,
    vi. 4.13 (22-306).

  Extension, none in beauty or justice, iv. 7.8 (2-69).

  Extension, none in soul or reason, iv. 7.5 (2-63).

  Extensions, soul was capable of, before the existence of the body,
    vi. 4.1 (22-285).

  External and internal relation of evil, i. 8.5 (51-1149).

  External circumstances cause wealth, poverty and vice, ii. 3.8

  Exuberant fruitfulness of one, (see super-abundance), v. 3.15

  Eyes implanted in man by divine foresight, vi. 7.1 (38-697).

  Eyes impure can see nothing, i. 6.9 (1-53).

  Eyes of body, close them, is method to achieve ecstasy, i. 6.8 (1-52).

  Face to face, vision of God, i. 6.7 (1-50).

  Faces all around the head, simile of, vi. 5.7 (23-320).

  Faculty, reawakening of, is the memory, not an image, iv. 6.3

  Faith absent in Supreme, v. 8.7 (31-563).

  Faith in intelligible, how achieved, vi. 9.5 (9-156).

  Faith teaches Providence rules the world, iii. 2.7 (47-1054).

  Fall into generation, due to division into number, iv. 8.4 (6-126).

  Fall into generation may be partial and recovery from, possible, iv.
    4.5 (28-448).

  Fall not voluntary, but punishment of conduct, iv. 8.5 (6-127).

  Fall of the soul as descent into matter, i. 8.14 (51-1161).

  Fall of the soul due to both will and necessity, iv. 8.5 (6-128).

  Fall of the soul due to guilt, (Pythagorean), iv. 8.1 (6-120).

  Fate, according to Stoic Chrysippus, iii. 1.2 (3-89).

  Fate detailed, does not sway stars, iv. 4.31 (28-489).

  Fate, Heraclitian, constituted by action and passion, iii. 1.4 (3-91).

  Fate is unpredictable circumstances, altering life currents, iii. 4.6

  Fate, mastery of, victory over self, ii. 3.15 (52-1182).

  Fate, may be mastered, ii. 3.15 (52-1182).

  Fate, obeyed by the soul only when evil, iii, 1.10 (3-98).

  Fate of the divisible human soul, iii. 4.6 (15-241).

  Fate of three men in us, is brutalization or divinization. vi. 7.6

  Fate, possible theories about it, iii. 1.1 (3-86).

  Fate spindle, significance of, ii. 3.9 (52-1171).

  Fate, the Heraclitian principle, iii. 1.2 (3-88).

  Father, v. 1.8 (10-186); v. 5.3 (32-580).

  Father, dwells in heaven, i. 6.8 (1-53).

  Father of intelligence, name of first, v. 8.1 (31-551).

  Fatherland, heaven, i. 6.8 (1-53).

  Faults are reason's failure to dominate matter, v. 9.10 (5-113).

  Faults come not from intelligence, but from the generation process,
    v. 9.10 (5-113).

  Faults in the details cannot change harmony in universe, ii. 3.16

  Faults of the definition, that eternity is at rest while time is in
    motion, iii. 7.1 (45-987).

  Faults of the soul, two possible, motive and deeds, iv. 8.5 (6-128).

  Fear of death, overcoming of, is courage, i. 6.6 (1-49).

  Feast, divinities seated at, meaning, iii. 5.10 (50-1139).

  Feeler, the soul implied by sensation i. 1.6 (53-1198).

  Feeler, who is the, v. 1.1 (53-1191).

  Feeling is perception by use of body, iv. 4.23 (28-475).

  Feelings, modes of passions, i. 1.1 (53-1191).

  Fidelity, kinship to one's own nature, iii. 3.1 (48-1077).

  Field of truth, intelligence evolves over, vi. 7.13 (38-723).

  Figurative expressions, reasoning and foresight are only, vi. 7.1

  Figure, spherical and intelligible is the primitive one, vi. 6.17

  Figures have characteristic effects, iv. 4.35 (28-498).

  Figures pre-exist in the intelligible, vi. 6.17 (34-675).

  Fire and air, action of, not needed by heaven, ii. 1.8 (40-826).

  Fire and earth contained in the stars, ii. 1.6 (40-821).

  Fire, and light celestial, nature, ii. 1.7 (40-825).

  Fire contained in intelligible world, vi. 7.11 (38-719).

  Fire image of, latent and radiant, v. 1.3 (10-177).

  Fire, though an apparent exception, conforms to this, ii. 1.3

  First and other goods, 1.7 (54-1208).

  First does not contain any thing to be known, v. 6.6 (24-339).

  First does not know itself, being supra-cogitative, v. 6.6 (24-339).

  First, existence of, necessary, v. 4.1 (7-134).

  First impossible to go beyond it, vi. 8.11 (39-791).

  First must be one exclusively, making the one supra-thinking, v. 6.3

  First principle has no need of seeing itself, v. 3.10 (49-1106).

  First principle has no principle, vi. 7.37 (38-762).

  First principle has no thought, the first actualization of a
    hypostasis, vi. 7.40 (38-766).

  First principle is above thought, v. 6.26 (24-338).

  First principle may not even be said to exist, is super-existence,
    vi. 7.38 (38-763).

  Fit itself, the soul must to its part in the skein, iii. 2.17

  Fit yourself and understand the world, instead of complaining of it,
    ii. 9.13 (33-625).

  Five physical categories of Plotinos, vi. 3.3 (44-937).

  Five Plotinic categories, why none more can be added, vi. 2.9

  Fleeing from intelligence, rather than intelligence from soul, v.
    5.10 (32-591).

  Flight from evil, not by locality but virtue, i. 8.7 (51-1152).

  Flight from here below, i. 2.6 (51-1150); ii. 3.9 (52-1175); i. 6.8
    (1-52); iv. 8.5 (6-128).

  Flight from here below, if prompt, leaves soul unharmed, iv. 8.5

  Flight from world is assimilation to divinity, i. 2.5 (19-263).

  Flight is simplification or detachment of ecstasy, vi. 9.11 (9-170).

  Fluctuation need not interfere with continuance, ii. 1.3 (40-816).

  Flux, heaven though in, perpetuates itself by form, ii. 1.1 (40-813).

  Flux of all beauties here below, vi. 7.31 (38-751).

  Followers of the king are universal stars, ii. 3.13 (52-1179).

  Foreign accretion is ugliness, i. 6.5 (1-48).

  Foreign sources, derived from modification, i. 1.9 (53-1202).

  Foreknowledge of physician like plans of Providence, iii. 3.5

  Foresight and reasoning are only figurative expressions, vi. 7.1

  Foresight by God of misfortunes, not cause of senses in man, vi. 7.1

  Foresight, eyes implanted in man by it, vi. 7.1 (38-697).

  Foresight of creation, not result of reason, vi. 7.1 (38-698).

  Form and light, two methods of sight, v. 5.7 (32-586).

  Form and matter in all things, iv. 7.1 (2-56).

  Form and matter intermediary between, is sense-object, iii. 6.17

  Form as model, for producing principle, v. 8.7 (31-562).

  Form being unchangeable, so is matter, iii. 6.10 (26-368).

  Form difference of matter, due to that of their intelligible sources,
    vi. 3.8 (44-946).

  Form, disappearance of, implies that of size, ii. 8.2 (35-682).

  Form exterior is the overshadowed, inactive parts of the soul, iii.
    4.2 (15-235).

  Form improves matter, vi. 7.28 (38-745).

  Form in itself, none in the good, vi. 7.28 (38-746).

  Form is not quality but a reason, ii. 6.2 (17-248).

  Form is second physical category of Plotinos, vi. 3.3 (44-937).

  Form is the dream of the good, vi. 7.28 (38-745).

  Form of a thing is its good, vi. 7.27 (38-744).

  Form of a thing is its whyness, vi. 7.2 (38-702).

  Form of forms, vi. 7.17 (38-731).

  Form of good borne by life, intelligence and idea, vi. 7.2 (38-732).

  Form of good may exist at varying degrees, vi. 7.2 (38-732).

  Form of the body is the soul, iv. 7.1, 2 (2-57).

  Form of unity, is principle of numbers, v. 5.5 (32-583).

  Form of universe, as soul is, would be matter, if a primary
    principle, iii. 6.18 (26-382).

  Form only in the sense-world, proceeds from intelligence, v. 9.10

  Form substantial, the soul must be as she is not simple matter, iv.
    7.4 (2-61).

  Former lives cause present character, iii. 3.4 (48-1083).

  Formless shape is absolute beauty, vi. 7.33 (38-754).

  Formlessness in itself and infinite is evil, i. 8.3 (51-1145).

  Formlessness of one, v. 5.6 (32-584).

  Formlessness of the Supreme shown by approaching soul's rejection of
    form, vi. 7.34 (38-756).

  Forms of governments, various, soul resembles, iv. 4.17 (28-464).

  Forms rational sense and vegetative, iii. 4.2 (15-234).

  Forms, though last degree of existence, are faint images, v. 3.7

  Fortune, changes of, affect only the outer man, iii. 2.15 (47-1067).

  Freedom, for the soul, lies in following reason, iii. 1.9 (3-97).

  Freedom of will, and virtue, are independent of actions, vi. 8.5

  Freedom of will, on which psychological faculty is it based? vi. 8.2

  Friends of Plotinos, formerly gnostic, ii. 9.10 (33-620).

  Functions, if not localized, soul will not seem within us, iv. 3.20

  Functions, none in the first principle, vi. 7.37 (38-762).

  Fund of memory, partitioned between both souls, iv. 3.31 (27-439).

  Fusion forms body and soul, iv. 4.18 (28-465).

  Fusion with the divinity, result of ecstasy, v. 8.11 (31-569).

  Future determined, according to prediction, iii. 1.3 (3-90).

  Future necessary to begotten things not to the intelligible, iii. 7.3

  Gad-fly, love is, iii. 5.7 (50-1134).

  Galli, iii. 6.19 (26-385).

  Garden of Jupiter is the reason that begets everything, iii. 5.9

  Garden of Jupiter, meaning of, iii. 5.10 (50-1138).

  Genera and individuals are distinct, as being actualizations, vi. 2.2

  Genera exist both in subordinate objects, and in themselves, vi. 2.12

  Genera, first two, are being and movement, vi. 2.7 (43-902).

  Genera of essence decided about by "one and many" puzzle, vi. 2.4

  Genera of the physical are different from those of the intelligible,
    vi. 3.1 (44-933).

  Genera, Plotinic five, are primary because nothing can be affirmed of
    them, vi. 2.9 (43-906).

  General, simile of Providence, iii. 3.2 (48-1078).

  Generation, common element with growth and increase, vi. 3.22

  Generation eternal, iv. 8.4 (6-127); vi. 7.3 (38-703); vi. 8.20

  Generation falling into, causes trouble, iii. 4.6 (15-241).

  Generation in the sense-world, is what being is in the intelligible,
    vi. 3.2 (44-935).

  Generation is like lighting fire from refraction, iii. 6.14 (26-376).

  Generation is radiation of an image, v. 1.6 (10-182).

  Generation of everything is regulated by a number, vi. 6.15 (34-670).

  Generation of matter, consequences of anterior principles, iv. 4.16

  Generation of the ungenerated, iii. 5.10 (50-1138).

  Generation, from the good, is intelligence, v. 1.8 (10-186).

  Generation's eternal residence is matter, iii. 6.13 (26-373).

  Generatively, all things contained by intelligence, v. 9.6 (5-109).

  Gentleness, sign of naturalness as of health and unconsciousness of
    ecstasy, v. 8.11 (31-570).

  Genus, another, is stability, vi. 2.7 (43-903).

  Genus divides in certain animals, iv. 7.5 (2-63).

  Genus, there is more than one, vi. 2.2 (43-895)

  Geometry, an intelligible art, v. 9.11 (5-115).

  Geometry studies quantities, not qualities, vi. 3.15 (44-958).

  Giving without loss (a Numenian idea), vi. 9.9 (9-165).

  Gluttonous people who gorge themselves at the ceremonies and leave
    without mysteries, v. 5.1 (32-592).

  Gnostic planning of the world by God, refuted, v. 8.7, 12 (31-561,

  God cannot be responsible for our ills, iv. 4.39 (28-503).

  God not remembered by world-soul continuing to be seen, iv. 4.7

  God's planning of the world (gnosticism) refuted, v. 8.7 (31-561).

  God relation with individual and soul, i. 1.8 (53-1200).

  Golden face of Justice, i. 6.4 (1-45).

  Good absolute, permanence chief characteristic, i. 7.1 (54-1209).

  Good, all things depend on by unity, essence and quality, i. 7.1

  Good and beauty identical, i. 6.6 (1-50).

  Good and one, vi. 9 (9-147).

  Good as consisting in intelligence, i. 4.3 (46-1024).

  Good, as everything tends toward it, it tends toward the one, vi.
    2.12 (43-914).

  Good, as supra-cogitative, is also supra-active, v. 6.6 (24-340).

  Good as supreme, neither needs nor possesses intellection, iii. 8.10

  Good cannot be a desire of the soul, vi. 7.19 (38-734).

  Good cannot be pleasure, which is changeable and restless, vi. 7.27

  Good consists in illumination by the Supreme, vi. 7.22 (38-737).

  Good contains no thought, vi. 7.40 (38-766).

  Good does not figure among true categories, vi. 2.17 (43-922).

  Good, even if it thought, there would be need of something superior,
    vi. 7.40 (38-767).

  Good, form of, borne by life, intelligence and idea, vi. 7.18

  Good for the individual is illumination, vi. 7.24 (38-740).

  Good has no need of beauty, while beauty has of the good, v. 5.12

  Good, if it is a genus, must be one of the posterior ones, vi. 2.17

  Good, implied by scorn of life, vi. 7.29 (38-748).

  Good implies evil because matter is necessary to the world, i. 8.7

  Good, in what does it consist, iv. 1.

  Good, inseparable from evil, iii. 3.7 (48-1088).

  Good, intelligence and soul, are like light, sun and moon, v. 6.4

  Good is a nature that possesses no kind of form in itself, vi. 7.28

  Good is a simple perception of itself; a touch, vi. 7.39 (38-764).

  Good is creator and preserver, vi. 7.23 (38-740).

  Good is free, but not merely by chance, vi. 8.7 (39-783).

  Good is not for itself, but for the natures below it, vi. 7.41

  Good is intelligence and primary life, vi. 7.21 (38-737).

  Good, is it a common label or a common quality? vi. 7.18 (38-733).

  Good is not only cause, but intuition of being, vi. 7.16 (38-728).

  Good is such, just because it has no attributes worthy of it, v. 5.13

  Good is superior to all its possessions, as result of its being
    supreme, v. 5.12 (32-595).

  Good is superior to beautiful and is cognized by mind, v. 5.12

  Good is super-thinking, v. 6.5 (24-338).

  Good is super-thought, iii. 9.9 (13-225).

  Good is supreme, because of its supremacy, vi. 7.23 (38-739).

  Good is desirable in itself, vi. 8.8 (39-783).

  Good is the whole, though containing evil parts, iii. 2.17 (47-1070).

  Good is lower form of evil, iii. 2.7 (47-1053).

  Good leaves the soul serene, beauty troubles it, v. 5.12 (32-594).

  Good may accompany the pleasure, but it is independent of it, vi.
    7.27 (38-745).

  Good may neglect natural laws that carry revolts, iii, 2.9 (47-1057).

  Good, multitude of ideas of, vi. 7 (38-697).

  Good must be superior to intelligence and life, v. 3.16 (49-1117).

  Good not to be explained by Aristotelian intelligence, vi. 7.20

  Good not to be explained by Pythagorean oppositions, vi. 7.20

  Good not to be explained by Stoic characteristic virtue, vi. 7.20

  Good of a thing is its intimacy with itself, vi. 7.27 (38-744).

  Good only antagonistic and figurative of evil, i. 8.6 (51-1150).

  Good, Platonic discussed, vi. 7.25 (38-741).

  Good related to intelligence and soul as light, sun and moon, v. 6.4

  Good, self-sufficient, does not need self consciousness, vi. 7.38

  Good, slavery of, accuses Providence, iii. 2.6 (47-1052).

  Good, study, vi. 7.15 sqq., (38-726).

  Good superior to beauty, i. 6.9 (1-55).

  Good supreme, Aristotelian, vi. 7.25 (38-742).

  Good the first and other goods, i. 7 (54-1208).

  Good, therefore also supra-active, v. 6.5 (24-338).

  Good, true, implies counterfeit, vi. 7.26 (38-743).

  Goods, all, can be described as a form, i. 8.1 (51-1142); i. 6.2

  Goods, independence from pleasure is temperate man, vi. 7.29 (38-747).

  Goods of three ranks, i. 8.2 (51-1144).

  Goods, Plato's opinion interpreted in two ways, vi. 7.30 (38-749).

  Goods, supreme as end of all other ones, i. 7.1 (54-1208).

  Gorge with food, v. 5.11 (32-592).

  Governing principle, Stoic, iii. 1.2, 4 (3-89, 91).

  Governments, soul resembles all forms of, iv. 4.17 (28-464).

  Gradations, descending of existence, iv. 3.7 (27-415).

  Grades of thought and life, iii. 8.7 (30-540).

  Grand Father supreme, v. 5.3 (32-581).

  Grasp more perfect, increases happiness, i. 5.3 (36-685).

  Gravitation, iv. 5.2 (29-517).

  Greatness of soul, nothing to do with size of body, vi. 4.5 (22-293).

  Grotto, Empedoclean simile of world, iv. 8.1 (6-120).

  Group, v. 5.4 (32-581).

  Group unites, all lower, adjusted to supreme unity, vi. 6.11 (34-660).

  Groups-of-four, or tens, Pythagorean, vi. 6.5 (34-649).

  Growth, common elements with increase and generation, vi. 3.22

  Growth, localized in liver, iv. 3.23 (27-426).

  Growth power, relation of to the desire function, iv. 4.22 (28-470).

  Growth, sense and emotions, tend towards divisibility, iv. 3.19

  Growth-soul derived from world-soul, not ours, iv. 9.3 (8-143).

  Guidance of Daemon does not interfere with responsibility, iii. 4.5

  Guilt cause of fall of souls, (Pythagorean), iv. 8.1 (6-120).

  Guilt not incurred by soul in toleration, iii. 1.8 (3-97).

  Gymnastics, v. 9.11 (5-114).

  Habit intellectualizing, that liberates the soul, is virtue, vi. 8.5

  Habit, Stoic, ii. 4.16 (12-218); iv. 7.8 (2-73).

  Habit, Stoic, as start of evolution to soul, impossible, iv. 7.8

  Habituation, ii. 5.2 (25-345).

  Habituation, active, immediate, and remote, distinction between, vi.
    1.8 (42-849),

  Habituation or substantial act is hypostasis, vi. 1.6 (42-845).

  Habituation, Stoic, must be posterior to reasons as archetypes, v.
    9.5 (5-108).

  Habituations are reasons which participate in form, vi. 1.9 (42-850).

  Hades, chastisements, i. 7.3 (54-1210).

  Hades, what it means for the career of the soul, vi. 4.16 (22-312).

  Happiness according to Aristotle, i. 4.1 (46-1019).

  Happiness as sensation, does not hinder search for higher, i. 4.2

  Happiness defined, i. 4.1, 3 (46-1019, 1023).

  Happiness dependent upon interior characteristics, i. 4.3 (46-1023).

  Happiness, does it increase with duration of time? 1.5 (36-684).

  Happiness has nothing to do with duration, i. 5.1, 5 (36-684, 685).

  Happiness has nothing to do with pleasure, i. 5.4 (36-685).

  Happiness in goal of each part of their natures, i. 4.5 (46-1026).

  Happiness increased would result only from more grasp, i. 5.3

  Happiness is actualized wisdom, i. 4.9 (46-1033).

  Happiness is desiring nothing further, i. 4.4 (46-1026).

  Happiness is human (must be something), i. 4.4 (46-1025).

  Happiness is not the satisfaction of desire to live, i. 5.2 (36-684).

  Happiness, lack of blame on a soul that does not deserve it, iii. 2.5

  Happiness not increased by memories of the past, i. 5.9 (36-689).

  Happiness of animals, i. 4.2 (46-1020).

  Happiness of plants, i. 4.1 (46-1019).

  Happiness of sage not diminished in adversity, i. 4.4 (46-1026).

  Happiness, one should not consider oneself alone capable of achieving
    it, ii. 9.10 (33-619).

  Harm, none can happen to the good, iii. 2.6 (47-1051).

  Harmony as a single universe, ii. 3.5 (52-1170).

  Harmony cannot be reproduced from badly tuned lyre, ii. 3.13

  Harmony is universe in spite of the faults in the details, ii. 3.16

  Harmony posterior to body, iv. 7.8 (2-74).

  Harmony presupposes producing soul, iv. 7.8 (2-75).

  Harmony (Pythagorean), soul is not, iv. 7.8 (2-74).

  Harmony sympathetic, earth feels and directs by it, iv. 4.26 (28-477).

  Hate of the body by Plato, supplemented by admiration of the world,
    ii. 9.17 (33-633).

  Hate, virtue is a, iii. 6.2 (26-352).

  Having as Aristotelian category, vi. 1.23 (42-876).

  Having is too indefinite and various to be a category, vi. 1.23

  Head, seat of reason, iv. 3.23 (27-425).

  Head, with faces all round, simile of, vi. 5.7 (23-320).

  Health is tempermanent of corporeal principles, iv. 7.8 (2-71).

  Hearing and vision, process of, iv. 5 (29-514).

  Heart, seat of anger, iv. 3.23 (27-426).

  Heaven, ii. 1 (40-813).

  Heaven, according to Heraclitus, opposed, ii. 1.2 (40-815).

  Heaven, existence of, iv. 4.45 (28-512).

  Heaven needs not the action of air or fire, ii. 1.8 (40-826).

  Heaven possesses soul and body and supports Plotinos's view, ii. 1.2

  Heaven, souls first go into it in intelligible, iv. 3.17 (27-415).

  Heaven, there must inevitably be change, ii. 1.1 (40-813).

  Heaven, though influx perpetuates itself by form, ii. 1.1 (40-813).

  Heavens after death, is star harmonizing with their predominant moral
    power, iii. 4.6 (15-239).

  Heavens do not remain still, ii. 1.1 (40-814).

  Heaven's immortality also due to universal soul's spontaneous motion,
    ii. 1.4 (40-818).

  Heaven's immortality due to its residence, ii. 1.4 (40-817).

  Heaven's immortality proved by having no beginning, ii. 1.4 (40-819).

  Helen, iii. 3.5 (48-1085).

  Helena's beauty, whence it came, v. 8.2 (31-553).

  Hell, descent into, by souls, i. 8.13 (51-1160).

  Hell in mystery teachings, i. 6.6 (1-49).

  Hell, what it means for the career of the soul, vi. 4.16 (22-312).

  Hells, Platonic interincarnational judgment and expiation, iii. 4.6

  Hell's torments are reformatory, iv. 4.45 (28-512).

  Help for sub-divine natures is thought, vi. 7.41 (38-768).

  Help from divinity, sought to solve difficulties, v. 1.6 (10-182).

  Heraclidae, vi. 1.3 (42-840).

  Hercules as double, symbolizes soul, i. 1.13 (53-1206).

  Hercules, symbol of man, in the hells, i. 1.12 (53-1206); iv. 3.27,
    31 (27-433, 440).

  Heredity a legitimate cause, iii. 1.6 (3-94).

  Heredity more important than star influence, iii. 1.6 (3-94).

  Hermaphrodite, or castrated, iii. 6.19 (26-385); v. 8.13 (31-573).

  Hermes, ithyphallic, iii. 6.19 (26-385).

  Hierarchy in universe (see concatenation), v. 4.1 (7-135).

  "Higher," or "somewhat," a particle that is prefixed to any Statement
    about the Supreme, vi. 8.13 (39-797).

  Higher part of soul sees vision of intelligible wisdom, v. 8.10

  Higher region, reached only by born philosophers, v. 9.2 (5-103).

  Higher stages of love, v. 9.2 (5-103).

  Higher things from them the lower proceed, i. 8.1 (51-1142).

  Highest, by it souls are united, vi 7.15 (38-726).

  Highest self of soul is memory's basis, iv. 6.3 (41-832).

  Homely virtues are the civil, Platonic four, i. 2.1 (19-257).

  "Homonyms," or "labels," see references to puns; also, vi. 1.2, 10,
    11, 23, 26; vi. 2.10; vi. 3.1, 5.

  Honesty escapes magic, iv. 4.44 (28-509).

  Honesty results from contemplation of the intelligible, iv. 4.44

  Horizon of divine approach is contemplating intelligence, v. 5.8
    (32-586); v. 8.10 (31-567).

  Horoscopes do not account for simultaneous differences, iii. 1.5

  Houses and aspects, absurdity of, ii. 3.4 (52-1168).

  How to detach the soul from the body naturally, 1.9 (16-243).

  Human beings add to the beauty of the world, iv. 3.14 (27-412).

  Human life contains happiness, i. 4.4 (46-1025).

  Human nature intermediate, iv. 4.45 (28-511).

  Human nature relation to animal, i. 1.7 (53-1199).

  Human organism studied to explain soul relation, iv. 3.3 (27-393).

  Human soul and world-soul differences between, ii. 9.7 (33-611).

  Hypostases that transmit knowledge (see the new title), v. 3

  Hypostasis, v. 1.4, 6 (10-180 to 184).

  Hypostasis are permanent actualizations, v. 3.12 (49-1111).

  Hypostasis as substantial act, iii. 4.1 (15-233).

  Hypostasis is a substantial act or habituation, vi. 1.6 (42-845).

  Hypostasis not in loves contrary to nature, iii. 5.7 (50-1134).

  Hypostasis of love, iii. 5.2, 3, 7 (50-1125, 1127, 1133).

  Hypostasis of ousia, v. 5.3 (32-581).

  Hypostasis the first actualization of first principle has no thought,
    vi. 7.40 (38-766).

  Hypostatic existence, vi. 6.9, 12 (34-655, 661); vi. 8.10, 12
    (39-790, 793).

  Hypostatic existence of matter proved, i. 8.15 (51-1162); ii. 4

  Idea named existence and intelligence, v. 1.8 (10-186).

  Ideas and numbers, identification of, vi. 6.9 (34-656).

  Ideas, descent of, into individuals, vi. 5.6 (23-320).

  Ideas, different, for twins, brothers or work of art, v. 7.1 (18-252).

  Ideas imply form and substrate, ii. 4.4 (12-199).

  Ideas, intelligence and essence, v. 9 (5-102).

  Ideas, multitude of, of the good, vi. 7 (38-697).

  Ideas not for all earthly entities, v. 9.14 (5-117).

  Ideas of individuals, do they exist v. 7.1 (18-251).

  Ideas of individuals, two possible hypotheses, v. 7.1 (18-251).

  Ideas or reasons possessed by intellectual life, vi. 2.21 (43-927).

  Ideas participated in by matter, vi. 5.8 (23-321).

  Identification, unreflective, memory not as high, iv. 4.4 (28-445).

  Identity and difference implied by triune process of categories, vi.
    2.8 (43-905).

  Identity, category, v. 1.4 (10-180).

  Identity of thought and existence makes actualizations of
    intelligence, v. 9.5 (5-107).

  Identity, substantial, inconsistent with logical distinctness, ii.
    4.14 (12-214).

  Ignorance of divinity, v. 1.1 (10-173).

  Ignorance illusory because overnatural gentleness, v. 8.11 (31-570).

  Ignores everything, does God, being above thought, vi. 7.38 (38-763).

  Illumination, creation by mere gnostic, opposed, ii. 9.11 (33-622).

  Illumination of darkness must have been eternal, ii. 9.12 (33-624).

  Illumination, the good is, for the individual, vi. 7.24 (38-740).

  Illustrations, see "Simile."

  Image, v. 5.1 (10-174); v. 8.8 (31-564).

  Image bound to model by radiation, vi. 4.10 (22-300).

  Image formed by the universal beings, is magnitude, iii. 6.17

  Image in mirror, iv. 5.7 (29-528).

  Image of archetype is Jupiter, begotten by ecstasy, v. 8.12 (31-572).

  Image of intelligence is only a sample that must be purified, v. 3.3

  Image of its model eternity is time, iii. 1, introd. (45-985).

  Image of one intelligence, v. 1.7 (10-184).

  Images do not reach eye by influx, iv. 5.2 (29-516).

  Images external produce passions, iii. 6.5 (26-358).

  Imagination, iv. 3.25 (27-428).

  Imagination, both kinds, implied by both kinds of memory, iv. 3.31

  Imagination does not entirely preserve intellectual conceptions, iv.
    3.30 (27-437).

  Imagination is related to opinion, as matter to reason, iii. 6.15

  Imagination, memory belongs to it, iv. 3.29 (27-436).

  Imagination, of the two, one always overshadows the other, iv. 3.3

  Imitation of the first, v. 4.1 (7-135).

  Immaterial natures could not be affected, iii. 6.2 (26-354).

  Immanence and inclination is the Supreme, vi. 8.16 (39-801).

  Immortal, are we, all of us, or only parts? iv. 7.1 (2-56).

  Immortal as the One from whom they proceed, are souls, vi. 4.10

  Immortal soul, even on Stoic hypothesis, iv. 7.10 (2-80).

  Immortality does not extend to sublunar sphere, ii. 1.5.

  Immortality in souls of animals and plants, iv. 7.14 (2-84).

  Immortality of heaven also due to universal soul's spontaneous
    motion, ii. 1.4 (40-818).

  Immortality of heaven due to its residence there, ii. 1.4 (40-817).

  Immortality of heaven proved by having no beginning, ii. 1.4 (40-819).

  Immortality of soul, iv. 7 (2-56).

  Immortality of soul proved historically, iv. 7.15 (2-85).

  Immovability of Intelligence necessary to make it act as horizon, v.
    5.7 (32-586).

  Impassible, and punishable, soul is both, i. 1.12 (53-1204).

  Impassible are world soul and stars, iv. 4.42 (28-506).

  Impassible as the soul is, everything contrary is figurative, iii.
    6.1 (26-351).

  Impassible, how can the soul remain, though given up to emotion, iii.
    6.1 (26-351).

  Impassibility of incorporeal entities, iii. 6.1 (26-351).

  Impassibility of matter depends on different senses of participation,
    iii. 6.9 (26-366).

  Impassibility of the soul, iii. 6.1 (26-350).

  Imperfection, cause of distance from the Supreme, iii. 3.3 (48-1080).

  Imperfections are only lower forms of perfections, vi. 7.10 (38-716).

  Imperfections of world should not be blamed on it, iii. 2.3 (47-1046).

  Imperishable is world, so long as archetype subsists, v. 8.12

  Imperishable, no way the soul could perish, iv. 7.12 (2-82).

  Imperishable soul, even by infinite division, iv. 7.12 (2-83).

  Importance to virtue, not, duration of time, i. 5.10 (36-689).

  Impossible to go beyond First, vi. 8.11 (39-791).

  Impression admits no cognition of intelligible objects, iv. 6.3

  Impressions on seal of wax, sensations, iv. 7.6 (2-66).

  Improvement of the low, destiny to become souls, iv. 8.7 (6-131).

  Improvement of what is below her, one object of incarnation, iv. 8.5

  Impure eye can see nothing, i. 6.9 (1-53).

  Inadequacy of philosophical language, vi. 8.13 (39-797).

  Inanimate entirely, nothing in universe is, iv. 4.36 (28-499).

  Incarnation, difference between human and cosmic, iv. 8.3 (6-123).

  Incarnation of soul; its object is perfection of universe, iv. 8.5

  Incarnation of soul manner, iii. 9.3 (13-222).

  Incarnation of soul not cause of possessing memory, iv. 3.26 (27-431).

  Incarnation, study of, iv. 3.9 (27-403).

  Incarnation unlikely, unless souls have disposition to suffer, ii.
    3.10 (52-1177).

  Incarnations, between, hell's judgment and expiation, iii. 4.6

  Incarnation's purpose is, self-development and improvement, iv. 8.5

  Inclination and immanence is the Supreme, vi. 8.16 (39-801).

  Inclination of equator to ecliptic, v. 8.7 (31-563).

  Incomprehensible unity approached only by a presence, vi. 9.4 (9-154).

  Incorporeal entities alone activate body, iv. 7.8 (2-70).

  Incorporeal entities, impossibility of, iii. 6.1 (26-350).

  Incorporeal matter, ii. 4.2 (12-198).

  Incorporeal objects limited to highest thoughts, iv. 7.8 (2-78).

  Incorporeal, the soul remains, vi. 3.16 (44-962).

  Incorporeal qualities, ii. 7.2 (37-695); vi. 1.29 (42-885).

  Incorporeality of divinity, vi. 1.26 (42-880).

  Incorporeality of intelligible entities, iv. 7.8 (2-78).

  Incorporeality of matter and quantity, ii. 4.9 (12-206).

  Incorporeality of soul must be studied, iv. 7.2, 8 (2-57, 68).

  Incorporeality of soul proved by its penetrating body, iv. 7.8 (2-72).

  Incorporeality of soul proved by kinship with Divine, iv. 7.10 (2-79).

  Incorporeality of soul proved by priority of actualization, iv. 7.8

  Incorporeality of virtue, not perishable, iv. 7.8 (2-69).

  Incorruptible matter exists only potentially, ii. 5.5 (25-348).

  Increase, common element, with growth and generation, vi. 3.22

  Increased happiness would result only from more grasp, i. 5.3

  Independent existence proved, by the use of collective nouns, vi.
    6.16 (34-672).

  Independent good from pleasure is temperate man, vi. 7.29 (38-747).

  Independent principle, the human soul, iii. 1.8 (3-97).

  Indeterminateness of soul not yet reached the good, iii. 5.7

  Indetermination of space leads to its measuring movement, iii. 7.12

  Indigence is necessarily evil, ii. 4.16 (12-218).

  Indigence of soul from connection with matter, i. 8.14 (51-1160).

  Indiscernibles, Leitnitz's doctrine of, v. 7.1 (18-254).

  Individual aggregate formed by uniting soul and body, i. 1.6

  Individual relation with cosmic intellect, i. 1.8 (53-1200).

  Individual relation with God and soul, i. 1.8 (53-1200).

  Individuality in contemplation weakens soul, iv. 8.4 (6-125).

  Individuality possessed by rational soul, iv. 8.3 (6-124).

  Individuality, to which soul does it belong? ii. 3.9 (52-1175).

  Individuals, descent of ideas into, vi. 5.6 (23-320).

  Individuals distinct as being actualizations, vi. 2.2, (43-894).

  Indivisible, v. 3.10 (49-1107).

  Indivisible and divisible is the soul, iv. 2.2 (21-279).

  Indivisible essence becomes divisible within bodies, iv. 2.1 (21-277).

  Indivisible essence, description of, iv. 2.1 (21-277).

  Indivisible is the universal being, vi. 4.3 (22-288).

  Indivisibility, v. 1.7 (10-184).

  Indumeneus, iii. 3.5 (48-1085).

  Ineffable is the Supreme, v. 3.13 (49-1112).

  Inequality of riches, no moment to an eternal being, ii. 9.9 (33-616).

  Inertia of matter aired by influx of world soul, v. 1.2 (10-175).

  Inexhaustible are stars, and need no refreshment, ii. 1.8 (40-827).

  Inferior divinities, difference from celestial, v. 8.3 (31-556).

  Inferior nature, how it can participate in the intelligible, vi. 5.11

  Inferior natures are helped by souls descending to them, iv. 8.5

  Inferiority of world to its model, highest criticism we may pass, v.
    8.8 (31-565).

  Influence of stars is their natural radiation of good, iv. 4.3

  Influence of universe should be partial only, iv. 4.34 (28-494).

  Influx movement as, vi. 3.26 (44-980).

  Influx of world-soul, v. 1.2 (10-175).

  Infinite and formlessness in itself is evil, i. 8.3, (51-1145).

  Infinite contained by intelligence as simultaneous of one and many,
    vi. 7.14 (38-725).

  Infinite explained as God entirely present everywhere, vi. 5.4

  Infinite, how a number can be said to be, vi. 6.16 (34-673).

  Infinite, how it arrived to existence, vi. 6.2, 3 (34-644, 645).

  Infinite is conceived by the thoughts making abstraction of the firm,
    vi. 6.3 (34-646).

  Infinite is soul, as comprising many souls, vi. 4.4 (22-291).

  Infinite may be ideal or real, ii. 4.15 (12-217).

  Infinite, what is its number, vi. 6.2 (34-644).

  Infinity, how it can subsist in the intelligible world, vi. 6.2

  Infinity of number, due to impossibility of increasing the greatest,
    vs. 6.18 (34-676).

  Infinity of parts of the Supreme, v. 8.9 (31-566).

  Infra-celestial vault of Theodore of Asine ("invisible place") v.
    8.10 (31-567); ii. 4.1 (12-198).

  Inhering in Supreme, is root of power of divinities, v. 8.9 (31-566).

  Initiative should not be overshadowed by Providence, iii. 2.9

  Insanity even, does not justify suicide, i. 9 (16).

  Inseparable from their beings are potentialities, vi. 4.9 (22-298).

  Instances of correspondence of sense beauty with its idea, i. 6.3

  Instrument of soul is body, iv. 7.1 (2-56).

  Intellect, cosmic relation with individual, i. 1.8 (53-1200).

  Intellect did not grasp object itself, i. 1.9 (53-1201).

  Intellection neither needed nor possessed by good, iii. 8.11 (30-549).

  Intellection would be movement or actualization on Aristotelian
    principles, vi. 1.18 (42-867).

  Intellectual differences between world-soul and star-soul, iv. 4.17

  Intellectualized, and ennobled is soul, scorning even thought, vi.
    7.35 (38-757).

  Intellectualizing habit that liberates the soul is virtue, vi. 8.5

  Intellectual life possesses the reasons or ideas, vi. 2.21 (43-927).

  Intelligence, always double as thinking subject and object thought,
    v. 3.5, 6 (49-1096); v. 4.2 (7-136); v. 6.1 (24-334).

  Intelligence and life mus be transcended by good, v. 3.16 (49-1117).

  Intelligence and life only different degrees of the same reality, vi.
    7.18 (38-732).

  Intelligence and soul contained in intelligible world, besides ideas,
    v. 9.13 (5-116).

  Intelligence as a composite, is posterior to the categories, vi. 2.19

  Intelligence as demiurgic creator, v. 1.8 (10-186).

  Intelligence as matter of intelligible entities, v. 4.2 (7-136).

  Intelligence as vision of one, v. 1.7 (10-185).

  Intelligence assisting Supreme, has no room for chance, vi. 8.17

  Intelligence begets world-souls and individual souls, vi. 2.22

  Intelligence cannot be first, v. 4.1 (7-135).

  Intelligence category, v. 1.4 (10-180).

  Intelligence conceived of by stripping the soul of every
    non-intellectual part, v. 3.9 (49-1104).

  Intelligence consists of intelligence and love, vi. 7.35 (38-758).

  Intelligence contains all beings, generatively, v. 9.6 (5-109).

  Intelligence contains all intelligible entities, by its very notion,
    v. 5.2 (32-578).

  Intelligence contains all things conformed to the good, vi. 7.16

  Intelligence contains the infinite as friendship, vi. 7.14 (38-725).

  Intelligence contains the infinite as simultaneous of one and many,
    vi. 7.14 (38-725).

  Intelligence contains the universal archetype, v. 9.9 (5-112).

  Intelligence contains the whyness of its forms, vi. 7.2 (38-732).

  Intelligence contemplating, is horizon of divine approach, v. 5.7

  Intelligence could not have been the last degree of existence, ii.
    9.8 (33-614).

  Intelligence destroyed by theory that truth is external to it, v. 5.1

  Intelligence develops manifoldness just like soul, iv. 3.5 (27-396).

  Intelligence did not deliberate before making sense-man, vi. 7.1

  Intelligence differentiated into universal and individual, vi. 7.17

  Intelligence, divine nature of, i. 8.2 (51-1143).

  Intelligence does not figure among true categories, vi. 2.17 (43-921).

  Intelligence dwelt in by pure incorporeal souls, iv. 3.24 (27-427).

  Intelligence evolves over the field of truth, vi. 7.13 (38-723).

  Intelligence, good and soul related by light, sun and moon, v. 6.4

  Intelligence has conversion to good and being in itself, vi. 8.4

  Intelligence, how it makes the world subsist, iii. 2.1 (47-1043).

  Intelligence, how though one, produces particular things, vi. 2.21

  Intelligence, ideas and essence, v. 9 (5-102).

  Intelligence identical with thought, as far as existence, v. 3.5

  Intelligence, image of one, v. 1.7 (10-185).

  Intelligence implies aspiration, as thought is aspiration to the
    good, iii. 8.11 (30-548).

  Intelligence implies good, as thought is aspiration thereto, v. 6.5

  Intelligence in actualization, because its thought is identical with
    its essence, v. 9.5 (5-107).

  Intelligence in relation to good. i. 4.3 (46-1024).

  Intelligence is all, vi. 7.17 (38-729).

  Intelligence is goal of purification, i. 2.5 (19-263).

  Intelligence is matter of intelligible entities, v. 4.2 (7-136).

  Intelligence is the potentiality of the intelligences which are its
    actualizations, vi. 2.20 (43-925).

  Intelligence itself is the substrate of the intelligible world, ii.
    4.4 (12-199).

  Intelligence, life of, is ever contemporaneous, iii. 7.2 (45-989).

  Intelligence, like circle, is inseparably one and many, iii. 8.8

  Intelligence may be denied liberty, if granted super-liberty, vi. 8.6

  Intelligence, multiplicity of, implies their mutual differences, vi.
    7.17 (38-730).

  Intelligence must remain immovable to act as horizon, v. 5.7 (32-586).

  Intelligence not a unity, but its manifold produced by a unity, iv.
    4.1 (28-443).

  Intelligence not constituted by things in it, v. 2.2 (11-196).

  Intelligence not ours, but we, i. 1.13 (53-1206).

  Intelligence passes from unity to duality by thinking, v. 6.1

  Intelligence potential and actualized in the soul, vi. 6.15 (34-669).

  Intelligence primary knows itself, v. 3.6 (49-1099).

  Intelligence proof of its existence and nature, v. 9.3 (5-104).

  Intelligence ranks all else, v. 4.2 (7-136).

  Intelligence relation to intelligible, iii. 9.1 (13-220).

  Intelligence's existence proved by identity of its thought and
    essence, v. 9.3 (5-104).

  Intelligence shines down from the peak formed by united souls, vi.
    7.15 (38-726).

  Intelligence supreme, is king of kings, v. 5.3 (32-579).

  Intelligence's working demands a supra-thinking principle, v. 6.2

  Intelligence that aspires to form of good is not the supreme, iii.
    8.11 (30-548).

  Intelligence thinks things, because it possesses them, vi. 6.7

  Intelligence unites, as it rises to the intelligible, iv. 4.1

  Intelligence, which is free by itself, endows soul with liberty, vi.
    8.7 (39-983).

  Intelligence world, in it each being is accompanied by its whyness,
    vi. 7.2 (38-702).

  Intelligent life beneath being, iii. 6.6 (26-361).

  Intelligent animals are distinct from the creating image of them, vi.
    7.8 (38-712).

  Intelligible animals are pre-existing, vi. 7.8 (38-712).

  Intelligible animals do not incline towards the sense-world, vi. 7.8

  Intelligible beauty, v. 8 (31-551).

  Intelligible believed in by those rising to the soul, vi. 9.5 (9-156).

  Intelligible contains the earth, vi. 7.11 (38-718).

  Intelligible does not descend; sense-world rises, iii. 4.4 (15-237).

  Intelligible entities are not outside of the good, v. 5 (32-575).

  Intelligible entities are veritable numbers, vi. 6.14 (34-668).

  Intelligible entities contained by very motion of intelligence, v.
    5.2 (32-578).

  Intelligible entities do not exist apart from their matter,
    intelligence, v. 4.2 (7-138).

  Intelligible entities eternal and immutable, not corporeal, iv. 7.8

  Intelligible entities, gnostics think they can be bewitched, ii. 9.14

  Intelligible entities higher and lower, first and second, v. 4.2

  Intelligible entities must be both, identical with and different from
    intelligence, v. 3.10 (49-1108).

  Intelligible entities not merely images, but potentialities for
    memory, iv. 4.4 (28-446).

  Intelligible entities presence implied by knowledge of them, v. 5.1

  Intelligible entities return not by memory, but by further vision,
    iv. 4.5 (28-447).

  Intelligible entity what, and how it is it, vi. 6.8 (34-654).

  Intelligible essence, both in and out of itself, vi. 5.3 (23-316).

  Intelligible essence formed by adding eternity to essence, vi. 2.1

  Intelligible eternity in not an accident of, but an intimate part of
    its nature, iii. 7.3 (45-989).

  Intelligible has eternity as world-soul is to time, iii. 7.10

  Intelligible, how participated in by inferior nature, vi. 5.11

  Intelligible in it, cause coincides with nature, vi. 7.19 (38-735).

  Intelligible in it, stability does not imply stillness, vi. 3.27

  Intelligible line exists in the intelligible, vi. 6.17 (34-674).

  Intelligible line posterior to number, vi. 6.17 (34-674).

  Intelligible man, scrutiny of, demanded by philosophy, vi. 7.4

  Intelligible matter, ii. 4.1 2 (12-197, 198); iii., 8.11 (30-548).

  Intelligible matter composite of form and matter, ii. 4.4 (12-200).

  Intelligible matter is not potential, ii, 5.3 (25-345).

  Intelligible matter is not shapeless, ii. 4.3 (12-198).

  Intelligible matter is shaped real being, ii. 4.5 (12-201).

  Intelligible matter, why it must be accepted, iii. 5.6 (50-1132).

  Intelligible number infinite because unmeasured, vi. 6.18 (34-676).

  Intelligible numbers, vi. 6.6 (34-651).

  Intelligible parts of men unite in the intelligible, vi. 5.10

  Intelligible Pythagorean numbers discussed, vi. 6.5 (34-649).

  Intelligible relation to intelligence, iii. 9.1 (13-220).

  Intelligible remains unmoved, yet penetrates the world, vi. 5.11

  Intelligible, shared by highest parts of all men, vi. 7.15 (38-726).

  Intelligible, spherical figure the primitive one, vi. 6.17 (34-675).

  Intelligible terms, only verbal similarity to physical, vi. 3.5

  Intelligible, to them is limited difference in effects, vi. 3.17

  Intelligible unity and decad exist before all numbers, vi. 6.5

  Intelligible, what is being in it is generation in the sense-world,
    vi. 3.2 (44-935).

  Intelligible world and sense-world, connection between man's triple
    nature, vi. 7.7 (38-711).

  Intelligible world archetype of ours, v. 1.4 (10-178).

  Intelligible world contains air, vi. 7.11 (38-720).

  Intelligible world contains beside ideas, soul and intelligence, v.
    9.13 (5-116).

  Intelligible world contains earth, vi. 7.11 (38-718).

  Intelligible world contains fire, vi. 7.11 (38-719).

  Intelligible world contains water, vi. 7.11 (38-720).

  Intelligible world, could it contain vegetables or metals, vi. 7.11

  Intelligible world is model of this universe, vi. 7.12 (38-720).

  Intelligible world, description of, v. 8.4 (31-557).

  Intelligible world has more unity than sense-world, vi. 5.10 (23-327).

  Intelligible world, how infinity can subsist in, vi. 6.3 (34-645).

  Intelligible world, in it everything is actual, ii. 5.3 (25-346).

  Intelligible world is complete model of this universe, vi. 7.12

  Intelligible world, man relation to, vi. 4.14 (22-308).

  Intelligible world, stars influence is from contemplation of, iv.
    4.35 (28-496).

  Intelligible world, we must descend from it to study time, iii. 7.6

  Interior characteristics necessary to happiness, i. 4.3 (46-1023).

  Interior life, rather than exterior, is field of liberty, vi. 8.6

  Interior man, v. 1.10 (10-189).

  Interior model, cause of appreciation of interior beauty, i. 6.2

  Interior vision, how trained, i. 6.9 (1-53).

  Intermediary between form and matter, are sense-objects, iii. 6.17

  Intermediary body not necessary for vision, iv. 5.1 (29-514, 515).

  Intermediary elemental soul, also inadmissible, ii. 9.5 (33-607).

  Intermediary of reason is the world-soul, iv. 3.11 (27-407).

  Intermediary position of Saturn, between Uranus and Jupiter, v. 8.13

  Intermediary sensation, demanded by conceptive thoughts, iv. 4.23

  Intermediate is human nature, suffering with whole, but acting on it,
    iv. 4.45 (28-511).

  Intermediate is the soul's nature, iv. 8.7 (6-130).

  Intermediate sense shape on which depends sensation, iv. 4.23

  Internal and external evil, relation between, i. 8.5 (51-1149).

  Internecine war is objection to Providence, iii. 2.15 (47-1065).

  Internecine warfare necessary, iii. 2.15 (47-1065).

  Interpenetration of everything in intelligible world, v. 8.4 (31-557).

  Interpreter of reason is the world-soul, iv. 3.11 (27-407).

  Interrelation of supreme and subordinate divinities dynamic (birth)
    or mere relation of parts and whole dynamic? v. 8.9 (31-566).

  Intimacy of itself is the good of a thing, vi. 7.27 (38-744).

  Intuition, omniscient, supersedes memory and reasonings, iv. 4.12

  Intuitionally, the soul can reason, iv. 3.18 (27-417).

  Intuition's act is true conception, i. 1.9 (53-1202).

  Involuntariness to blame spontaneity, iii. 2.10 (47-1060).

  Irascible part of earth, iv. 4.28 (28-481).

  Irrational claims of astrologers, iii. 1.6 (3-95).

  Isolated, pure soul would remain, iv. 4.23 (28-473).

  James-Lange theory of emotions refuted, i. 1.5 (53-1196).

  James-Lange theory taught, iv. 4.28 (28-480, 481).

  Jar, residence or location of generation is matter, ii. 4.1 (12-197);
    iii. 6.14 (26-376); iv. 3.20 (27-420).

  Jealousy does not exist in divine nature, iv. 8.6 (6-129).

  Judgment and soul, passibility of, iii. 6.1 (26-350).

  Judgment, mental, reduces multitude to unity, vi. 6.13 (34-664).

  Judgment of one part by another, truth of astrology, ii. 3.7 (52-1172).

  Judgment of soul and other things in purest condition only, iv. 7.10

  Judgment of soul condemns her to reincarnation, iv. 8.5 (6-128).

  Judgment, time of, between incarnations, iii. 4.6 (15-240).

  Jupiter, v. 1.7 (10-185); v. 8.1 (31-552); v. 8.10 (31-568); iii. 5.2
    (50-1126); v. 5.3 (32-580); v. 8.4 (31-558); iv. 3.12 (27-409); vi.
    9.7 (9-162).

  Jupiter, as demiurge, as world-soul, and as governor, iv. 4.10

  Jupiter life's infinity destroys memory, iv. 4.9 (28-453).

  Jupiter the greatest chief, or third God, is the soul, iii. 5.8

  Jupiter, two-fold, celestial and earthly, iii. 5.2 (50-1126).

  Jupiter, Venus and Mercury, also considered astrologically, ii. 3.5

  Jupiter's administration above memory, iv. 4.9 (28-453).

  Jupiter's garden is the reason begets everything, iii. 5.9 (50-1137).

  Jupiter, two-fold, celestial and earthly, iii. 5.2 (50-1126).

  Justice, v. 1.11 (10-190); v. 8.4, 10 (31-557, 567); i. 6.4 (1-61).

  Justice, absolute, is indivisible, i. 2.6 (19-265).

  Justice does not possess extension, iv. 7.8 (2-69).

  Justice extends into past and future, iii. 2.13 (47-1062).

  Justice, golden face of, vi. 6.6 (34-652); i, 6.4 (1-61).

  Justice incarnate, is individual, i. 2.6 (19-265).

  Justice is no true category, vi. 2.18 (41-923).

  Justice, like intellectual statue, was born of itself, vi. 6.6

  Justice not destroyed by superficiality of punishments, iii. 2.15

  Justice of God vindicated by philosophy, iv. 4.30, 37 (28-486, 500).

  Justice seated beside Jupiter, v. 8.4 (31-558).

  Juxtaposition, ii. 7.1 (37-691); iv. 7.3 (2-59).

  Kinds of men, three, v. 9.1 (5-102).

  King of kings, v. 5.3 (32-579).

  Kings, men are, v. 3.4 (49-1094).

  King, universal, stars followers of, ii. 3.13 (52-1179).

  Kinship divine, recognition of, depends on self-knowledge, vi. 9.7

  Kinship of human soul with divine, v. 1.1 (10-173).

  Kinship to world-soul shown by fidelity to one's own nature, iii. 3.1

  Kinship with beautiful world scorned by gnostics, ii. 9.18 (33-635).

  Kinship with depraved men accepted, ii. 9.18 (33-636).

  Know thyself, iv. 3.1 (27-387); vi. 7.41 (38-769).

  Knowledge of better things, cleared up by purification, iv. 7.10

  Knowledge of good attained experience of evil, iv. 8.7 (6-131).

  Knowledge of intelligible entities implies their presence, v. 5.1

  Knowledge, true, shown not by unification, not revelation of divine
    power, ii. 9.9 (33-617).

  Kronos, of Uranus, iii. 5.2 (50-1126).

  Label, is good, a common quality or a common label, vi. 7.18 (38-733).

  Lachesis, ii. 3.15 (52-1182).

  Land marks on path to ecstasy, i. 6.9 (1-54).

  Last degree of existence could not have been existence, ii. 9.8

  Last stage of soul-elevation, is vision of intelligible wisdom, v.
    8.10 (31-567).

  Law, natural directs soul. ii. 3.8 (52-1173).

  Law of the order of the universe, why souls succumb to it, iv. 3.15

  Laws, natural, which carry rewards, may be neglected by good, iii.
    2.8 (47-1055).

  Leakage (flow of or escape), ii. 1.6, 8 (40-822); v. 1.6 (10-182);
    vi. 5.10 (23-327); v. 1.6 (10-182).

  Leakage, none in radiation of soul (see wastage), vi. 4.5, 10
    (22-293, 301); vi. 5.3 (23-317).

  Leakage, none with celestial light, ii. 1.8 (40-784).

  Leave not world, but be not of it, i. 8.6 (51-1150).

  Leibnitz, theory of indiscernibles, v. 7.2 (18-254).

  Legislator, intelligence, v. 9.5 (5-108).

  Leisure in life of celestial Gods, v. 8.3 (31-556).

  Lethe, iv. 3.26 (27-432).

  Letters in which to read nature, iii. 3.6 (48-1087).

  Letters in which to read nature, are stars, ii. 3.7 (52-1172); iii.
    1.6 (3-95).

  Liberation of soul effected by virtue as intellectualizing habit, vi.
    8.5 (39-779).

  Liberty, vi. 8 (39-773).

  Liberty depends on intelligence, vi. 8.3 (39-777).

  Liberty, does it belong to God only, or to all others also? vi. 8.1

  Liberty lies in following reason, iii. 1.9, 10 (3-97, 98).

  Liberty may be denied to intelligence, if granted super-liberty, vi.
    8.6 (39-781).

  Liberty must be for men, if it is for the divinities, vi. 8.1

  Liberty not for the depraved who follow images, vi. 8.3 (39-777).

  Liberty refers to the interior life, rather than to the exterior, vi.
    8.6 (39-781).

  Liberty would be destroyed by astrology. iii. 1.7 (3-96).

  Life and intelligence could not inhere in molecules, iv. 7.2 (2-58).

  Life and thought, different grades of, iii 8.7 (30-540).

  Life changed from an evil to a by virtue, i. 7.1 (54-1208).

  Life, drama of, roles played badly by evil, iii. 2.17 (47-1071).

  Life interpenetrates all, and knows no limits, vi. 5.12 (23-330).

  Life is actualization of intelligence, vi. 9.9 (9-165).

  Life is below good, iii. 9.9 (13-225).

  Life is perfect when intelligible, i. 4.3 (46-1024).

  Life is presence with divinity, vi. 9.9 (9-165).

  Life of intelligence is ever contemporaneous, iii. 7.2 (45-989).

  Life, thought and existence, contained in primary existence, ii. 4.6
    (12-203); v. 6.6 (24-339).

  Life's ascent, witness to, is disappearance of contingency, vi. 8.15

  Light abandoned by source does not perish, but is no more there, iv.
    4.29 (28-484); iv. 5.7 (29-526).

  Light and fire celestial, nature of, ii. 1.7 (40-825).

  Light and form, two methods of sight, v. 5.7 (32-586).

  Light as actualization is incorporeal, iv. 5.7 (29-527).

  Light celestial, not exposed to any wastage, ii. 1.8 (40-826).

  Light emanates from sun, v. 3.12 (49-1112).

  Light emitted by the soul forms animal nature, i. 1.7 (53-1198).

  Light exists simultaneously within and without, vi. 4.7 (22-295).

  Light from sun exists everywhere, vi. 4.6 (22-296).

  Light in eye, v.7 (32-586); v. 6.1 (24-334); iv. 5.4 (29-500).

  Light intelligible, v. 5.8 (32-587).

  Light intelligible is not spatial, has no relation to place, v. 5.8

  Light intermediary is unnecessary, being a hindrance, iv. 5.4

  Light is composite of light in eye and light outside, v. 6.1 (24-334).

  Light, is it destroyed when its source is withdrawn or does it follow
    it? iv. 5.7 (29-526).

  Light, objective and visual, mutual relation of, iv. 5.4 (29-520).

  Light, objective, does not transmit by relays, iv. 5.4 (29-522).

  Light, relation to air, iv. 4.5, 6 (29-524).

  Light, visual, not a medium, iv. 5.4 (29-522).

  Lighting fire, from refraction, generation illustrates, iii. 6.14

  Limit lower, of divine things, the soul, v. 1.7 (10-186).

  Limit of union with divinity, desire or ability, v. 8.11 (31-570).

  Limitless is supreme, vi. 7.32 (38-753).

  Limits, none known by life, vi. 5.12 (23-330).

  Line intelligible, posterior to number, vi. 6.17 (34-674).

  Liver, location of growth, iv. 3.23 (27-426).

  Liver, seat of soul's desire, iv. 4.28 (28-480).

  Lives, former, cause human character, iii. 3.4 (48-1083).

  Living being, no evil is unalloyed for it, i. 7.3 (54-1210).

  Living well not explainable by reason, i. 4.2 (46-1022).

  Living well not extended to all animals, i. 4.2 (46-1020).

  Localization of soul open to metaphysical objections, iv. 3.20

  Location does not figure among true categories, vi. 2.16 (43-919).

  Location for the things yet to be produced is essence, vi. 6.10

  Location of form (see residence), iii, 6.14 (26-376).

  Location of soul is principle that is everywhere and nowhere, v. 2.2

  Location of world is in soul and not soul in body, iv, 3.9 (27-405).

  Logos, intermediary, also unaccountable, ii. 9.1 (33-601).

  Logos, form of, character, role and reason, iii. 2.17 (47-1071).

  Lost wings, has soul, in incarnation, i. 8.14 (51-1161).

  Love as God, demon and passion, iii. 5.1 (50-1122).

  Love as recognition of hidden affinity, iii. 5.1 (50-1122).

  Love based on unity and sympathy of all things, iv. 9.3 (8-142).

  Love causes, four, divine, innate notion, affinity and sentiment of
    beauty, iii. 5.1 (50-1123).

  Love, celestial, must abide in intelligible with celestial soul, iii.
    5.3 (50-1128).

  Love, higher, is celestial, iii. 5.3 (50-1128).

  Love, how transformed into progressively higher stages, v. 9.2

  Love is a gad-fly, iii. 5.7 (50-1134).

  Love is both material and a demon, iii. 5.10 (50-1140).

  Love is both needy and acquisitive, iii. 5.7 (50-1134).

  Love is not identical with the world, iii. 5.5 (50-1130).

  Love, like higher soul, inseparable from its source, iii. 5.2

  Love, lower, beauty, celestial, v. 8.13 (31-573).

  Love, lower, corresponding to world-soul, iii. 5.3 (50-1128).

  Love must exist because the soul does, iii. 5.10 (50-1139).

  Love, myth of birth, significance, iii. 5.10 (50-1139).

  Love of beauty explained by aversion for ugliness, i. 6.5 (1-47).

  Love possesses divine being, iii. 5.3 (50-1127).

  Love, working as sympathy, affects magic, iv. 4.40 (28-503).

  Love or Eros, iii. 5 (50-1122).

  Love that unites soul to good is deity, iii. 5.4 (50-1130).

  Love that unites soul to matter is demon only, iii. 5.4 (50-1130).

  Lover, divine, waits at the door, vi. 5.10 (23-325).

  Lover, how he develops, v. 9.2 (5-103).

  Lover, how he is attracted by beauty of single body, i. 3.2 (20-271).

  Lover, how he uses to intelligible world, i. 3.2 (20-271).

  Lover, simile of, in seeing God, vi. 9.4 (9-155).

  Lovers are those who feel sentiments most keenly, i, 6.4 (1-46).

  Lover's beauty in virtues transformed to intellectual, i. 3.2

  Lover's beauty transformed into artistic and spiritual virtues, i.
    3.2 (20-271).

  Loves contrary to nature are passions of strayed souls, iii. 5.7

  Loves implanted by nature are all good, iii. 5.7 (50-1136).

  Loves in the evil charged down by false opinions, iii. 5.7 (50-1136).

  Lower form of being possessed by evil, i. 8.3 (51-1145).

  Lower forms of contemplation, iii. 8.1 (30-531).

  Lower natures, good is for them, not for itself, vi. 7.4 (38-706).

  Lower things follow higher, i. 8.1 (51-1142).

  Lowest degree of being is evil, hence necessary, i. 8.7 (51-1146).

  Lyceum, vi. 1.14, 30 (42-862, 888).

  Lynceus, whose keen eyes pierce all, symbol of intelligible world, v.
    8.4 (31-558).

  Lyre, badly tuned, cannot produce harmony, vi. 3.13 (44-961); ii.
    3.13 (52-1180).

  Lyre played by musician, like affections of the soul, iii. 6.4

  Lyre, simile of striking single cord, vi, 5.10 (23-326).

  Made himself, divinity has, does not cause priority, vi. 8.20

  Magic, based on sympathy, iv. 9.3 (8-142).

  Magic enchantments described, iv. 9.3 (8-142).

  Magic, escaped by honesty, iv. 4.44 (28-509).

  Magic occurs by love, working as sympathy, iv. 4.40 (28-503).

  Magic power over honesty, iv. 4.44 (28-509).

  Magic power over man by its affections and weakness, iv. 4.44

  Magnanimity interpreted as purifications, i. 6.6 (1-49).

  Magnitude an aid to differences of color, ii. 8.1 (35-681).

  Magnitude is an image formed by reflection of universal beings, iii.
    6.17 (26-380).

  Magnitude is only appearance, iii. 6.18 (26-381).

  Magnitude of matter derived from seminal reasons, iii. 6.15 (26-377).

  Magnitude, why could the soul have none, if it filled all space, vi.
    4.1 (22-285).

  Magnitudes and numbers are of different kind of quality, vi. 1.4

  Man as soul subsisting in a special reason, vi. 7.5 (38-707).

  Man in himself, vi. 7.4 (38-706).

  Man is defined as reasonable soul, vi. 7.4 (38-706).

  Man is perfected through his evils, ii. 3.18 (52-1187).

  Man produces seminal reason, ii. 3.12 (52-1178).

  Man, relation of, to the intelligible world, vi. 4.14 (22-308).

  Man's triple nature is connection between sense and intelligible
    world, vi. 7.7 (38-711).

  Management of body by reasoning, of world by intelligence, iv. 8.8

  Manager, rewards and punishes, good and bad actors, iii. 2.17

  Managing part of soul, discredited, iv. 2.2 (21-280).

  Manicheans, wine divided in jars theory of reflected, iv. 3.2, 20

  Manifold contains unity of manner of existence, vi. 4.8 (22-296).

  Manifold could not exist without something simple, v. 6.3 (24-336).

  Manifold, how intelligence became, v. 3.11 (49-1108).

  Manifold, how it arises from the one Intelligence, vi. 2.21 (43-926).

  Manifold, if it passed into unity, would destroy universe, iii. 8.10

  Manifold is unity of apperception, iv. 4.1 (28-442).

  Manifold not explained by supreme unity, v. 9.14 (5-1116).

  Manifold, nothing, could exist without something simple, v. 6.3

  Manifold of intelligence produced by unity, iv. 4.1 (28-443).

  Manifold unity, only for examination are its parts apart, vi. 2.3

  Manifoldness, v. 3.16 (49-1118).

  Manifoldness contained by universal essence, vi. 9.2 (9-149).

  Manifoldness developed by soul, as by intelligence, iv. 3.6 (27-398).

  Manifoldness must pre-exist, vi. 2.2 (43-894).

  Manifoldness of any kind cannot exist within the first, v. 3.12

  Manifoldness of unity, vi. 5.6 (23-321).

  Manifoldness produced by one because of categories, v. 3.15 (49-1116).

  Manifoldness, why it proceeded from unity, v. 2.1 (11-193).

  Manner of existence determines how unity is manifold, vi. 4.8

  Many and one inseparably, is intelligence, iii. 8.8 (30-543).

  Many and one, puzzle of decides genera of essence, vi. 2.4 (43-898).

  Marriages, presided over by lower love, iii. 5.3 (50-1129).

  Mars, relations to Saturn illogical, ii. 3.5 (52-1169).

  Mass is source of ugliness, v. 8.2 (31-554).

  Master, even beyond it, is the Supreme, vi. 8.12 (39-793).

  Master of himself power is the Supreme, vi. 8.10 (39-790).

  Masters of ourselves are even we, how much more Supreme, vi. 8.12

  Mastery of these corporeal dispositions is not easy, i. 8.8 (51-1154).

  Material, gnostic distinction of men, ii. 9.18 (33-637).

  Materialism, polemic against, iv. 7 (2-56).

  Materialists cannot understand solid things near nonentity, iii. 6.6

  Materialists support determination, iii. 1.2 (3-88).

  Mathematical parts not applicable to soul. iv. 3.2 (27-389).

  Matter acc. to Empedocles and Anaximander, ii. 4.7 (12-204).

  Matter alone could not endow itself with life, iv. 7.3 (2-60).

  Matter an empty mirror that reflects everything, iii. 6.7 (26-363).

  Matter and form in all things, iv. 7.1 (2-56).

  Matter and form intermediary between is sense object, iii. 6.17

  Matter as deprivation still without qualities, i. 8.11 (51-1157).

  Matter as mirror, not affected by the object reflected, iii. 6.7

  Matter as mother, nurse, residence and other nature, iii. 6.19

  Matter as residence of generation. iii. 6.13 (26-373).

  Matter as substrate and residence of forms, ii. 4.1 (12-197).

  Matter as the infinite in itself, ii. 4.15 (12-216).

  Matter, born of world-soul, shapeless, begetting principle, iii. 4.1

  Matter, both kinds, relation of, to essence, ii. 4.16 (12-219).

  Matter cannot be affected, as cannot be destroyed, iii. 6.8 (26-365).

  Matter cannot be credited with being, vi. 3.7 (44-944).

  Matter cannot be the primary principle, vi. 1.26 (42-881).

  Matter contained in the soul from her looking at darkness, i. 8.4

  Matter contemporarily with the informing principle, ii. 4.8 (12-206).

  Matter, corporeal and incorporeal, ii. 4.1 (12-198).

  Matter, cult of implies ignoring soul and intelligence, vi. 1.29

  Matter derives its being from intelligibles, vi. 3.7 (44-944).

  Matter, descent into, is fall of the soul, i. 8.14 (51-1161).

  Matter, difference from form, due to that of intelligible sources,
    vi. 3.8 (44-946).

  Matter existed from all eternity, iv. 8.6 (6-130).

  Matter, first physical category of Plotinos, vi. 3.3 (44-937).

  Matter, how to see the formless, a thing of itself, i. 8.9 (51-1156).

  Matter (hypostatic), existence as undeniable as that of good, i. 8.15

  Matter, if primary, would be form of the universe, iii. 6.18 (26-382).

  Matter, impassible, because of different senses of participation,
    iii. 6.9 (26-366).

  Matter, incorporeal (Pyth. Plato, Arist.), ii. 4.1 (12-198).

  Matter, incorruptible, exists only potentially, ii. 5.5 (25-348).

  Matter, intelligible, ii. 4.3 (12-198); ii. 5.3 (25-345); iii. 5.7

  Matter, intelligible, entities to reach sense-matter, iii. 5.7

  Matter, intelligible, is not potential, ii. 5.3 (25-345).

  Matter, intelligible, why it must be accepted, iii. 5.6, 7 (50-1133).

  Matter is born shapeless, receives form while turning to, ii. 4.3

  Matter is both without qualities and evil, i. 8.10 (51-1156).

  Matter is bottom of everything, ii. 4.5 (12-201).

  Matter is cause of evils, even if corporeal, i. 8.8 (51-1153).

  Matter is disposition to become something else, ii. 4.13 (12-214).

  Matter is improved by form, vi. 7.28 (38-745).

  Matter is incorporeal, ii. 4.9 (12-206).

  Matter is nonentity, i. 8.5 (51-1148).

  Matter is non-essential otherness, ii. 4.16 (12-218).

  Matter is not a body without quality, but with magnitude, vi. 1.26

  Matter is not being and cannot be anything actual, ii. 5.4 (25-347).

  Matter is not composite, but simple in one, ii. 4.8 (12-205).

  Matter is not wickedness, but neutral evil, vi. 7.28 (38-746).

  Matter is nothing actually, ii. 5.2 (25-343).

  Matter is physical category, vi. 3.3 (44-937).

  Matter is real potentially, ii. 5.5 (25-348).

  Matter is relative darkness, ii. 4.5 (12-201).

  Matter is secondary evil, i. 8.4 (51-1155).

  Matter is unchangeable because form is such, iii. 6.10 (26-368).

  Matter left alone as basis after Stoic categories evaporate, vi. 1.29

  Matter magnitude derived from seminal reason, iii. 6.15 (26-377).

  Matter may exist yet be evil, i. 8.11 (51-1158).

  Matter, modified, is Stoic God, vi. 12.7 (42-881).

  Matter must be possible because its qualities change, iii. 6.8

  Matter necessary to the world; hence good implies evil, i. 8.7

  Matter not in intelligible world, v. 8.4 (31-557).

  Matter nothing real actually, ii. 5.4 (25-347).

  Matter of demons is not corporeal, iii. 5.7 (50-1135).

  Matter participates in existence, without participating it, iii. 6.14

  Matter participates in the intelligible, by appearance, iii. 6.11

  Matter, participation of, in ideas, vi. 5.8 (23-321)

  Matter possesses no quality, ii. 4.8 (12-205); iv. 7.3 (2-59).

  Matter qualified as seminal reasons, vi. 1.29

  Matter rationalized is body, ii. 7.3 (37-696).

  Matter received forms until hidden by them, v. 8.7 (31-562).

  Matter, relation of, to reason, illustrates that of opinion to
    imagination, iii. 6.15 (26-377).

  Matter, since cannot be destroyed, cannot be affected, iii. 6.8

  Matter things mingled, contain no perfection, iii. 2.7 (47-1053).

  Matter's generation, consequence of anterior principles, iv. 8.6

  Matter's primitive impotence before generation, iv. 8.6 (6-130).

  Mechanism of ecstasy, v. 8.11 (31-569).

  Medicine, v. 9.11 (5-114).

  Mediocre, evil men even, never abandoned by Providence, iii. 2.9

  Mediation of soul between indivisible and divisible essence, iv. 2

  Mediation of world-souls, through it, benefits are granted to men,
    vi. 4.12, 30 (28-457, 486).

  Medium cosmologically necessary, but affects sight only slightly, iv.
    5.2 (29-517).

  Medium needed in Platonism, Aristotelianism, Stoicism, iv. 5.2

  Medium not needed in Atomism and Epicurianism, iv. 5.2 (29-516).

  Medium of sight, Aristotle's unnecessary iv. 5.1 (29-515).

  Medium, though possible, hinders organs of sight, iv. 5.1 (29-514).

  Medium, untroubled, is the world-soul, iv. 8.7 (6-130).

  Medium's absence would only destroy sympathy, iv. 5.3 (29-519).

  Medium's affection does not interfere with vision, iv. 5.3 (29-520).

  Memories not needed, unconscious prayer answered by Stars, iv. 4.42

  Memories of the past do not increase happiness, i. 5.9 (36-689).

  Memory, iv. (27-428).

  Memory and reasoning, not implied by world-soul's wisdom, iv. 4.12

  Memory and reasoning suspended by omniscient intuition, iv. 4.12

  Memory and sensation iv. 6 (41-829).

  Memory and sensation, Stoic doctrines of, hang together, iv. 6.1

  Memory acts through the sympathy of the soul's highest self, iv. 6.3

  Memory, actualization of the soul, iv. 3.25 (27-429).

  Memory belongs to divine soul, and to that derived from world-soul,
    iv. 3.27 (27-433).

  Memory belongs to imagination, iv. 3.29 (27-433).

  Memory belongs to the soul alone, iv. 3.26 (27-432).

  Memory, both kinds, implies both kinds of imagination, iv. 3.31

  Memory definition depends on whether it is animal or human, iv. 3.25

  Memory does not belong to appetite, iv. 3.28 (27-434).

  Memory does not belong to the power of perception, iv. 3.29 (27-435).

  Memory does not belongs to the stars, iv. 4.30 (28-441).

  Memory impossible to world-souls to whom there is no time but a
    single day, iv. 4.7 (28-450).

  Memory inapplicable to any but time limited beings, iv. 3.25 (27-428).

  Memory is not identical with feeling or reasoning, iv. 3.29 (27-436).

  Memory limited to souls that change their condition, iv. 4.6 (28-448).

  Memory may be reduced to sensation, iv. 3.28 (27-434).

  Memory needs training and education, iv. 6.3 (41-835).

  Memory, none in stars, because uniformly blissful, iv. 4.8 (28-452).

  Memory not an image but a reawakening of a faculty, iv. 6.3 (41-833).

  Memory not as high as unreflective identification, iv. 4.4 (28-445).

  Memory not, but an affection, is kept by appetite, iv. 3.28 (27-434).

  Memory not compulsory, iv. 4.8 (28-451).

  Memory not exercised by world-souls and stars' souls, iv. 4.6

  Memory not intelligible because of simultaneity, iv. 4.1 (28-441).

  Memory of soul in intelligible world, iv. 4.1 (28-441).

  Memory peculiar to soul and body, iv. 3.2 (27-430).

  Memory, possession of, not caused by incarnation of soul, iv. 3.26

  Memory problems depend on definition, iv. 3.25 (27-429).

  Memory, timeless, constitutes self-consciousness, iv. 3.25 (27-429).

  Memory when beyond, helped by training here below, iv. 4.5 (28-447).

  Memory would be hindered if soul's impressions were corporeal, iv.
    7.6 (2-66).

  Men are kings, v. 3.4 (49-1094).

  Men both, we are not always as we should be, vi. 4.14 (22-308).

  Men escape chance by interior isolation, vi. 8.15 (39-800).

  Men non-virtuous, do good when not hindered by passions, iii. 1.10

  Men of three kinds, sensual, moral and spiritual, v. 9.1 (5-102).

  Men seek action when too weak for contemplation, iii. 8.4 (30-536).

  Men sense and intelligible, difference between, vi. 7.4 (38-705).

  Men, three in each of us, vi. 7.6 (38-708).

  Men, three in us, fate of them is, brutalization or divinization, vi.
    7.6 (38-709).

  Men, three kinds of, v. 9.1 (5-102).

  Mercury, Jupiter and Venus, also considered astrologically, ii. 3.5

  Metal is to statue as body to soul, iv. 7.8 (2-76).

  Messengers of divinities are souls incarnated, iv. 3.12, 13 (27-409);
    iv. 8.5 (6-127).

  Metaphorical is all language about the Supreme, vi. 8.13 (39-795).

  Method of creation, ii. 3.17 (52-1186).

  Method of ecstasy is to close eyes of body, i. 6.8 (1-52).

  Methods of dialectic differ with individuals, i. 3.1 (20-269).

  Methods of participation in good, i. 7.1 (54-1208).

  Metis or prudence (myth of), iii. 5.5 (50-1130).

  Microcosm, iv. 3.10 (27-406).

  Migrating of soul psychologically explained, vi. 4.16 (22-310).

  Minerva, vi. 5.7 (23-321).

  Minos, vi. 9.7 (9-162).

  Miracle, matter participates in existence, while not participating in
    it, iii. 6.14 (26-376).

  Mire, unruly, soul falls into, when plunging down, i. 8.13 (51-1160).

  Mirror, iv. 3.30 (27-437); iv. 5.7 (29-528).

  Mirror empty, reflects everything like matter, iii. 6.7 (26-363).

  Mirror, simile of, i. 4.10 (46-1034).

  Misfortune and punishment, significance of, iv. 3.16 (27-414).

  Misfortune, experience of, does not give senses to man, vi. 7.1

  Misfortune foreseen by God, not cause of human senses, vi. 7.1

  Misfortune none too great to be conquered by virtues, i. 4.8

  Misfortune to the good only apparent, iii. 2.6 (47-1051).

  Mithra, simile of, used, iii. 2.14 (47-1064).

  Mixture, consequences of soul and body, i. 1.4 (53-1195).

  Mixture, elements are not, but arise from a common system, ii. 1.7

  Mixture explained by evaporation (Stoic), ii. 7.2 (37-694).

  Mixture limited to energies of the existent, iv. 7.2, 8 (2-58, 68).

  Mixture of intelligence and necessity, i. 8.7 (51-1152).

  Mixture of soul and body impossible, i. 1.4 (53-1194).

  Mixture of soul divisible, ii. 3.9 (52-1176).

  Mixture of unequal qualities, ii. 7.1 (37-693).

  Mixture that occupies more space than elements, ii. 7.1 (37-693).

  Mixture, theory of, of Alexander of Aphrodisia, ii. 7.1 (37-691); iv.
    7.2 (2-58).

  Mixture to the point of total penetration, ii. 7 (37-691).

  Modality, should not occupy even third rank of existence, vi. 1.30

  Model, v. 8.8 (31-564).

  Model for producing principle, is form, v. 8.7 (31-561).

  Model, image bound to it by radiation, vi. 4.10 (22-300).

  Model, interior, cause of appreciation of interior beauties, i. 6.4

  Model of reason, is the universal soul, iv. 3.11 (27-407).

  Model of the old earth, gnostic, ii. 9.5 (33-607).

  Model of the universe is intelligible world, vi. 7.12 (38-720).

  Model, previous, object's existence implies, vi. 6.10 (34-658).

  Model, superior, method of producing assimilation, i. 2.7 (19-267,

  Modesty is part of goodness, ii. 9.9. (33-616).

  Modification derived from foreign sources, i. 1.9 (53-1202).

  Modified matter, is Stoic God, vi. 1.27 (42-881).

  Molecules could not possess life and intelligence, iv. 7.2 (2-57).

  Monism of the Stoics breaks down just like dualism, v. 1.27 (42-883).

  Moon, limit of world-sphere, ii. 1.5 (40-820).

  Moon, sun and light universe like, v. 6.4 (24-337).

  Moral beauties, more delightful than sense-beauties, i. 6.4 (1-45).

  Moral men, v. 9.1 (5-102).

  Moral men become superficial, v. 9.1 (2-102).

  Moralization, iv. 4.17 (28-464).

  Moralization decides government of soul, iv. 4.17 (28-464).

  Mortal, either whole or part of us, iv. 7.1 (2-56).

  Mother, nurse, residence and other nature is matter, iii. 6.18

  Motion, how imparted to lower existences, ii. 2.2 (14-231).

  Motion is below the One, iii. 9.7 (13-225).

  Motion of fire, is straight, ii. 2.1 (14-228).

  Motion of soul is circular, ii. 2.1 (14-229).

  Motion, single, effected by body, and different ones by soul, iv. 7.4

  Motion spontaneous, of universal soul, immortalizes heaven, ii. 1.4

  Motions, conflicting, due to presence of bodies, ii. 2.2 (14-231).

  Motions, different, caused by soul, iv. 7.5 (2-62).

  Motive, essential to determination, iii. 1.1 (3-87).

  Motives of creation ii. 9.4 (33-605).

  Movement, v. 1.4 (10-180).

  Movement and rest, destruction also inapplicable, ii. 9.1 (33-600).

  Movement and stability exist because thought by intelligence, vi. 2.8

  Movement another kind of stability, vi. 2.7 (43-903).

  Movement cannot be reduced to any higher genus, vi. 3.21 (44-971).

  Movement, circular of the soul, iv. 4.16 (28-462).

  Movement divided in natural, artificial and voluntary, vi. 3.26

  Movement does not beget time, but indicates it, iii. 7.11 (45-1009).

  Movement for sense objects, vi. 3.23 (44-976).

  Movement, how can it be in time if changes are out of time, vi. 1.16

  Movement is a form of power, vi. 3.22 (44-973).

  Movement is active for, and is the cause of other forms, vi. 3.22

  Movement, is change anterior to it? vi. 3.21 (44-972).

  Movement measured by space because of its indetermination, iii. 7.11

  Movement measures time, and is measured by it, iii. 7.12 (45-1011).

  Movement of combination, vi. 3.25 (44-978).

  Movement of displacement is single, vi. 3.24 (44-927).

  Movement, of its image time, is eternity, iii. 7, int. (45-985).

  Movement of the heavens, ii. 2 (14-227).

  Movement of the soul is attributed to the primary movement, iii. 7.12

  Movement, persistent, and its interval, are not time, but are within
    it, iii. 7.7 (45-999).

  Movement, three kinds, ii. 2.1 (14-227).

  Movement, under it, action and suffering may be subsumed, vi. 1.17

  Movement, why it is a category, vi. 3.20 (44-971).

  Multiple unity, iv. 9.1 (8-139).

  Multiple unity, radiation of, v. 3.15 (49-1115).

  Multiplicity could not be contained in the first, vi. 7.17 (38-729).

  Multiplicity demands organization in system, vi. 7.10 (38-716).

  Multiplicity of intelligences implies their natural differences, vi.
    7.17 (38-730).

  Multitude, how it precedes from the One, v. 9.14 (5-116); vi. 7

  Multitude is distance from an unity, and is an evil, vi. 6.1 (34-643).

  Multitude of ideas of the good, vi. 7 (38-697).

  Muses, v. 8.10 (31-569); iii. 7.10 (45-1005).

  Music makes the musician, v. 8.1 (31-552).

  Musician educated by recognizing truths he already possesses, i. 3.1

  Musician, how he rises to intelligible world, i. 3.1 (20-270).

  Musician led up by beauty, i. 3.1 (20-270).

  Mutilation of Saturn typifies splitting of unity, v. 8.13 (31-573).

  Mysteries, v. 3.17 (49-1120).

  Mysteries, ancient, their spiritual truth, vi. 9.11 (9-169).

  Mysteries purify and lead to nakedness in sanctuary, i. 6.6 (1-50).

  Mystery of derivation of Second from First, v. 1.6 (10-181).

  Mystery rites explain secrecy of ecstasy, vi. 9.11 (9-169).

  Mystery teachings of hell, i. 6.6 (1-49).

  Myths explained by body's approach to the soul, iii. 5.10 (50-1138).

  Myths, object of, is to analyze and distinguish, iii. 5.10 (50-1139).

  Myths of ithyphallic Hermes, iii. 6.19 (26-385).

  Myths of Need and Abundance, iii. 6.14 (26-375).

  Myths, see Abundance, Need of, iii. 6.14 (26-375).

  Nakedness follows purification in mysteries, i. 6.6 (1-50).

  Names of Supreme approximations, v. 5.6 (32-584).

  Narcissus, i. 6.8 (1-52); v. 8.2 (31-554).

  Narcissus followed vain shapes, i. 6.8 (1-52).

  Natural characteristics, derived from categories in intelligible, v.
    9.10 (5-113).

  Natural law, by it all prayers are answered, even of evil, iv. 4.42

  Natural movements, vi. 3.26 (44-980).

  Nature and elements, there is continuity between, iv. 4.14 (28-459).

  Nature, and origin of evils, i. 8 (51-1142).

  Nature as weaker contemplation, iii. 8.4 (30-535).

  Nature betrayed, but not affected by stars, iii. 1.6 (3-95).

  Nature, capable of perfection as much as we, ii. 9.5 (33-607).

  Nature, cause coincides with it in intelligible, vi. 7.19 (38-735).

  Nature contemplation in unity, iii. 8 (30-542).

  Nature, contrary to loves, are passions of strayed souls, iii. 5.7

  Nature dominates in plants, but not in man, iii. 4.1 (15-233).

  Nature first actualization of universal soul, v. 2.1 (11-194).

  Nature is immovable as a fall, but not as compound of matter and
    form, iii. 8.2 (30-533).

  Nature is ultimate cause, iii. 1.1 (3-87).

  Nature law directs soul, ii. 3.8 (52-1173).

  Nature, lowest in the world-soul's wisdom, iv. 4.13 (28-458).

  Nature of divine intelligence, i. 8.2 (51-1143).

  Nature of evil, i. 8.3 (51-1144).

  Nature of intelligence proved, v. 9.3 (5-104).

  Nature of soul is intermediate, iv. 8.7 (6-130).

  Nature of Supreme, i. 8.2 (51-1144).

  Nature of universal soul, i. 8.2 (51-1144).

  Nature posterior to intelligence, iv. 7.8 (2-78).

  Nature reason is result of immovable contemplation, iii. 8.2 (30-533).

  Nature, relation of animal to human, i. 1.7 (53-1199).

  Nature sterility indicated by castration, iii. 6.19 (26-384).

  Nature, Stoic name for generative power in seeds, v. 9.6 (5-110).

  Nature, to what part belongs emotions? i. 1.1 (53-1191).

  Nature's mother is universal reason and father the formal reasons,
    iii. 8.4 (30-535).

  Nature's progress aided by auxiliary arts, v. 9.11 (5-114).

  Necessary, begetting of Second by First, v. 4.1 (7-135).

  Necessary things are those whose possession is unconscious, i. 4.6

  Necessity, characteristic of intelligence, v. 3.6 (49-1100).

  Necessity does not include voluntariness, iv. 8.5 (6-127).

  Necessity, Heraclitian, iii. 1.4 (3-91).

  Necessity mingled with reason, iii. 3.6 (48-1080).

  Necessity of continuous procession to Supreme, iv. 8.5 (6-129).

  Necessity of existence of the First, v. 4.1 (7-134).

  Necessity of illumination of darkness must have been eternal, ii.
    9.12 (33-623).

  Necessity, spindle of, Platonic, iii. 4.6 (15-242); ii. 3.9 (52-1171).

  Nectar, iii. 5.7 (50-1133).

  Nectar is memory of vision of intelligible wisdom, v. 8.10 (31-569).

  Need and Abundance, myth of, iii. 6.14 (26-375).

  Need, or Poros, iii. 5.2, 5, 6, 7, 10 (50-1125 to 1135).

  Negative necessary to a definition, v. 5.6 (32-584).

  Neutral evil is matter, vi. 7.28 (38-746).

  New things, unnoticed, their perception not forced, iv. 4.8 (28-450).

  New world arises out of Jupiter begotten by result of ecstasy, v.
    8.12 (31-572).

  Night objects prove uselessness of sight medium, iv. 5.3 (29-519).

  Non-being is matter, cannot be anything actual, ii. 5.4 (25-347).

  Nonentity has intelligent life beneath being, iii. 6.6 (26-360).

  Nonentity is matter, i. 8.5 (51-1150).

  Normative element of life, is Providence, iii. 3.5 (48-1084).

  Noses, pug, and Roman, due to matter, v. 9.12 (5-115).

  Nothing is contained in One; reason why everything can issue from it,
    v. 2.1 (11-193).

  Notions, scientific, are both prior and posterior, v. 9.7 (5-110).

  Nowhere and everywhere is Supreme, inclination and imminence, vi.
    8.16 (39-801).

  Number and unity proceed from the One and many beings, vi. 6.10

  Number as universal bond of universe, vi. 6.15 (34-670).

  Number can be said to be infinite, vi. 6.19 (34-674).

  Number, category, v. 1.4 (10-180).

  Number exists for every animal and the universal animal, vi. 6.15

  Number follows and proceeds from essence, vi. 6.9 (34-655).

  Number is not in quantity, vi. 1.4 (42-842).

  Number, posterior to, is intelligible line, vi. 6.17 (34-674).

  Number, what is it to infinite? vi. 6.2 (34-644).

  Number within is the number, constituted with our being, vi. 6.16

  Numbers, vi. 6 (34-651).

  Numbers and dimensions are so different as to demand different
    classification, vi. 2.13 (43-916).

  Numbers and ideas, identification of, vi. 6.9 (34-656).

  Numbers and magnitudes, are of different kinds of quantity, vi. 1.4

  Numbers are not quantity in themselves, vi. 1.4 (42-842).

  Numbers form part of the intelligible world, vi. 6.4 (34-647).

  Numbers, intelligible, are identical with thought, v. 5.4 (32-582).

  Numbers intelligible, difficulties connected with, vi. 6.16 (34-671).

  Numbers must exist in the primary essence, vi. 6.8 (34-654).

  Numbers participated in by objects, vi. 6.14 (34-667).

  Numbers, principle is unity's form, v. 5.5 (32-583).

  Numbers, Pythagorean, intelligible discussed, vi. 6.5 (34-649).

  Numbers, quantitative, v. 5.4 (32-583).

  Numbers, regulated generation of everything, vi. 6.15 (34-670).

  Numbers, soul as v. 1.5 (10-187); vi. 5.9 (23-324).

  Numbers split the unity into plurality, vi. 6.9 (34-656).

  Numbers, two kinds, essential and unitary, vi. 6.9 (34-657).

  Numbers, veritable, are intelligible entities, vi. 6.14 (34-668).

  Numenian name of Divinity, Essence and Being, v. 9.3 (5-104); v. 8.5
    (31-560); vi. 6.9 (34-656).

  Numerals, veritable, of the man in himself, are essential, vi. 6.16

  Nurse, mother, residence and other nature is matter, iii. 6.19

  Object itself did not grasp intellect, i. 1.9 (53-1201).

  Objective justice and beauty to which we are united, v. 1.11 (10-190).

  Objective world subsists even when we are distracted, v. 1.12

  Objects existence implies a previous model, vi. 6.10 (34-658).

  Objects outside have unitary existence, vi. 6.12 (34-662).

  Objects participate in numbers, vi. 6.14 (34-667).

  Obstacle to divinity is failure to abstract from Him, vi. 8.21

  Obstacle to the soul is evil, i. 8.12 (51-1159).

  Obstacles lacking to creator, because of his universality, v. 8.7

  Omnipresence explained by possession of all things, without being
    possessed by them, v. 5.9 (32-589).

  One, v. 4; v. 4.2 (7-134, 136).

  One and Good, vi. 9 (1-47).

  One and many, like circle, is intelligence, iii. 8.8 (30-543).

  One and many, puzzle of, decides genera of essence, vi. 2.4 (43-898).

  One for Supreme, is mere negation of manifold, v. 5.6 (32-585).

  One, independent of the one outside, vi. 6.12 (34-661).

  One is all things, but none of them, v. 2.1 (11-193).

  One is everywhere by its power, iii. 9.4 (13-224).

  One is formless, v. 5.6 (32-585).

  One is nowhere, iii. 9.4 (13-224).

  One is super-rest and super-motion, iii. 9.7 (13-225).

  One not absolute, but essentially related to one examined, vi. 2.3

  One not thinker, but thought, itself, vi. 9.6 (9-160).

  One present without approach, everywhere though nowhere, v. 5.8

  One related in some genera, but not in others, vi. 2.3 (43-896).

  One so far above genera is not to be counted, vi. 2.3 (43-895).

  One, the soul, like divinity, always is, iv. 3.8 (27-402).

  One within us, independent of the one outside, vi, 6.12 (34-661).

  Opinion as sensation, v. 5.1 (32-576).

  Opinion, in relation to imagination, illustrates that of matter to
    reason, iii. 6.15 (26-377).

  Opinions, false, are daughters of involuntary passions, i. 8.4

  Opportunity and suitability, cause of, put them beyond change, vi.
    8.18 (39-806).

  Opposition, ii. 3.4 (52-1168).

  Opposition among inanimate beings (animals and matter), iii. 2.4

  Optimism right, v. 5.2 (32-579).

  Order, cosmic, is natural, iv. 3.9 (27-404).

  Order exists only in begotten, not in seminal reason, iv. 4.16

  Order in the hierarchy of nature, ours cannot be questioned, iii. 3.3

  Order is anteriority in the intelligible, iv. 4.1 (28-443).

  Order, priority of, implies conception of time, iv. 4.16 (28-461).

  Organ, the universe, every being is, iv. 4.45 (28-510).

  Organs alone, could be affected, iii. 6.2 (26-354).

  Origin and nature of evils, i. 8 (51-1142).

  Origin, causeless, really is determinism, iii. 1.1 (3-86).

  Origin of God, puzzling, by our starting from chaos, vi. 8.11

  Origins of evil, sins and errors, i. 1.9 (53-1201).

  Otherness is characteristic of matter, ii. 4.13 (12-214).

  Ours is not intelligence, but we, i. 1.13 (53-1206).

  Ours, why discursive reason is, v. 3.3 (49-1093).

  Outer man, only, affected by changes of fortune, iii 2.15 (47-1067).

  Pair, vi. 7.8; vi. 2.11; v. 1.5; vi. 7.39.

  Pair or dyad, v. 5.4 (32-582).

  Pandora, iii. 6.14 (26-375); iv. 3.14 (27-412).

  Panegyrists, who degrade what they wrongly praise, v. 5.13 (32-596).

  Pangs of childbirth, v. 5.6 (32-585).

  Paris, iii. 3.5 (48-1085).

  Part in scheme, soul must fit itself to, iii, 2.17 (47-1071).

  Partake of the one according to their capacities, vi. 4.11 (22-302).

  Partial only should be the influence of universe, iv. 4.34 (28-494).

  Participation by matter in the intelligible, only by appearance, iii.
    6.11 (26-369).

  Participation can be only in the intelligible, vi. 4.13 (22-306).

  Participation in good, two methods of, i. 7.1 (54-1208).

  Participation in sense-objects by unity is intelligible, vi. 6.13

  Participation in the world of life is merely a sign of extension, vi.
    4.13 (22-306).

  Participation, method of, inferior in intelligible, vi. 5.12 (23-329).

  Participation of matter in existence and opposite, iii. 6.4 (26-357).

  Participation of matter in ideas, proves simile of head with faces,
    vi. 5.8 (23-321).

  Participations, difference of senses of, allows matter to remain
    impassible, iii. 6.9 (26-366).

  Partition of fund of memory between the two souls, iv. 3.31 (27-439).

  Parts, actual division in, would be denial of the whole, iv. 3.12

  Parts can be lost by body, not by soul, iv. 7.5 (2-63).

  Parts divisible and indivisible, in the whole of a soul, iv. 3.19

  Parts, in incorporeal things, have several senses, iv. 3.2 (27-390).

  Parts, as wine in jars, Manichean theory, rejected, iv. 3.20 (27-421).

  Parts, mathematical, not applicable as a soul, iv. 3.2 (27-390).

  Parts of a manifold unity are a part only, for examination, vi. 2.3

  Parts of Supreme, mere, subordinate divinities, denied, v. 8.9

  Parts, physical, term limited, iv. 3.2 (27-389).

  Passage into world of life is body's relation to the soul, vi. 4.12

  Passibility of judgment and of soul, iii. 6.1 (26-350).

  Passing of intelligence from unity to duality, by thinking, v. 6.1

  Passion as category (see action), vi. 1.17 (42-866).

  Passional changes in body, not in passional part of soul, iii. 6.3

  Passional love elevating, though open to misleading temptations, iii.
    5.1 (50-1124).

  Passionate love twofold, sensual and beautiful, iii. 5.1 (50-1122).

  Passions affect soul differently from virtue and vice, iii. 6.3

  Passions arise from seminal reasons, ii. 3.16 (52-1184).

  Passions felt by soul, without experiencing them, iv. 4.19 (28-466).

  Passions, how they penetrate from the body into the soul, i. 1.3

  Passions involuntary are mothers of false opinions, i. 8.4 (51-1147).

  Passions, modes of feeling, i. 1.1 (53-1191).

  Passions not caused by soul, ii. 3.16 (52-1184).

  Passions of strayed souls are loves contrary to nature, iii. 5.7

  Passions of universe produced by body of stars, ii. 3.10 (52-1177).

  Passions reduced external images, iii. 6.5 (26-358).

  Passions, Stoic theory of, opposed, iii. 6.3 (26-355)

  Passions, their avoidance, task of philosophy, iii. 6.5 (26-358).

  Passions, what suitable to earth, iv. 4.22 (28-471).

  Passive, really, is soul, when swayed by appetites, iii. 1.9 (3-98).

  Path of simplification to unity, vi. 9.3 (9-152).

  Path to ecstasy, land marks, i. 6.9 (1-54)

  Penetration into inner sanctuary, yields possession of all things, v.
    8.11 (31-570).

  Penetration of body by soul, but not by another body, iv. 7.8 (2-72).

  Penetration of body by soul proves the latter's incorporeality, iv.
    7.8 (2-72).

  Penetration, total, impossible in mixture of bodies, iv. 7.8 (2-72).

  Penetration, total, mixture, to the point of, ii. 7 (37-691).

  Penia, or need, myth of, iii. 5.25 (50-1130)

  Perception of new things, not forced, iv. 4.8 (28-450).

  Perception of the Supreme, its manner, v. 5.10 (32-591).

  Perfect happiness attained when nothing more is desired, i. 4.4

  Perfect is primary nature (Plotinic); not goal of evolution (Stoic),
    iv. 7.8 (2-73).

  Perfect life consists in intelligence, i. 4.3 (46-1024).

  Perfect life, its possession, i. 4.6 (46-1027).

  Perfection not to be sought in, material things, iii. 2.7 (47-1053).

  Perfection of a picture make shadows necessary, iii. 2.11 (47-1060).

  Perfection of the universe, evils are necessary, ii. 3.18 (52-1187).

  Perfection of universe, object of incarnation, iv. 8.5 (6-128).

  Perfection's author must be above it, vi. 7.32 (38-752).

  Perishable is body, because composite, iv. 7.1 (2-56).

  Permanence, the characteristic of absolute good, i. 7.1 (54-1209).

  Perpetuates itself by form, does heaven, through influx, ii. 1.1

  Perpetuity and eternity, difference between, iii. 7.4 (45-991).

  Persistence of changeable, iv. 7.9 (2-78).

  Perspective, ii. 8 (35-680).

  Perspective, various theories of, ii. 8.1 (35-680).

  Persuasion, characteristic of soul, v. 3.6 (49-1099).

  Perversity of soul induces judgment and punishment, iv. 8.5 (6-128)

  Pessimism wrong, v. 5.2 (32-579).

  Phidias sculpts Jupiter not from sense imitation, v. 8.1 (31-552).

  Philonic distinction between God, and the God, vi. 7.1 (38-697).

  Philosopher, being already virtuous, needs only promotion, i. 3.3

  Philosopher, how he rises to intelligible world, i. 3.3 (20-271).

  Philosopher is already disengaged and needs only a guide, i. 3.3

  Philosophers born, alone reach the higher region, v. 9.2 (5-103).

  Philosophers, how they develop, v. 9.2 (5-103).

  Philosophers justify justice of God, iv. 4.30 (28-486).

  Philosopher's mathematics followed by pure dialectics as method of
    progress, i. 3.3 (20-272).

  Philosopher's method of disengagement is mathematics as incorporeal
    science, i. 3.3 (20-271).

  Philosopher's opinions about time to be studied, iii. 7.6 (45-995).

  Philosophy contains physics, ethics, i. 3.5 (20-273).

  Philosophy exact root of psychology, ii. 3.16 (52-1183).

  Philosophy lower part of dialectic, i. 3.5 (20-273).

  Philosophy separates soul from her image, vi. 4.16 (22-310).

  Philosophy's task is avoidance of passions, iii. 6.5 (26-358).

  Phoebus inspires men to interior vision, v. 8.10 (31-569).

  Physical categories are matter, form, combination, attributes and
    accidents, vi. 3.3 (44-938).

  Physical categories of Plotinos, vi. 3 (44-933).

  Physical genera of, are different from those of the intelligible, iv.
    3.1 (27-387).

  Physical life, can it exist without the soul? iv. 4.29 (28-485).

  Physical, not mental being, affected by stars, iii. 1.6 (3-95).

  Physical powers do not form a secondary quality, vi. 1.11 (42-856).

  Physical qualities applied to Supreme only by analogy, vi. 8.8

  Physical soul, production due to, not astrological power, iv. 4.38

  Physical souls, various, how they affect production, iv. 4.37

  Physical terms, only verbal similarity to intelligible, vi. 3.5

  Physical theories, absurd, iii. 1.3 (3-89).

  Physically begun, spiritual becomes love, vi. 7.33 (38-755).

  Physician's fore-knowledge, simile of Providence, iii. 3.5 (48-1085).

  Picture of the structure of the universe, ii. 3.18 (52-1187).

  Picture, perfection of, demands shadow, iii. 2.11 (47-1060).

  Picture that pictures itself is universe, ii. 3.18 (52-1188).

  Pilgrim soul is in the world, ii. 9.18 (33-635).

  Pilot governs the ship, relation of soul to body, i. 1.3 (53-1194);
    iv. 3.21 (27-422).

  Place has no contrary, vi. 3.12 (44-954).

  Place or time do not figure among true categories, vi. 2.16 (43-919).

  Place or where is Aristotelian category, vi. 1.14 (42-862).

  Planet calculations, ii. 3.6 (52-1171).

  Plant positions producing adulteries, absurd, ii. 3.6 (52-1171).

  Planning of the world by God, refuted, v. 8.7 (31-561, 563).

  Plants, do they admit of happiness, i. 4.1, 2 (46-1019 to 1021).

  Plants even aspire to contemplation, iii. 8.1 (30-531).

  Plato departed from, in categories, vi. 2.1 (43-891).

  Plato not only hates body, but admires world, ii. 9.17 (33-633).

  Plato uncertain about time, iii. 7.12 (45-1012).

  Platonic basis of anti-gnostic controversy, v. 8.7 (31-561).

  Plato's authority, restored, v. 1.8 (10-186).

  Plato's language doubtful, iii. 6.12 (26-372); vi. 7.30 (38-749).

  Pleasure an accessory to all goods of the soul, vi. 7.30 (38-749).

  Pleasure, because changeable and restless, cannot be the good, vi.
    7.27 (38-745)

  Pleasure, good's independence from, is temperate man, vi. 7.29

  Pleasure may accompany the good, but is independent thereof, vi. 7.27

  Pleasure strictly, has nothing to do with happiness, i. 5.4 (36-685).

  Pleasures of virtuous men are of higher kinds, i. 4.12 (46-1036).

  Plotinos forced to demonstration of categories by divergence from
    Plato, vi. 2.1 (43-891).

  Plotinos's genera of sensual existence, iv. 3 (27-387).

  Poros or Abundance, myth of, iii. 5.2, 5 (50-1125 to 1131).

  Possession by divinity is last stage of ecstasy, v. 8.10 (31-569).

  Possession of perfect life, i. 4.4 (46-1026).

  Possession of things causes intelligence to think them, vi. 6.7

  Potential, intelligible matter is not, ii. 5.3 (25-345).

  Potentialities are inseparable from their beings, vi. 4.9 (22-298).

  Potentiality and actuality not applicable to divinity, ii. 9.1

  Potentiality, definition of, ii. 5.1 (25-341).

  Potentiality exists only in corruptable matter, ii. 5.5 (25-348).

  Potentiality explains miracle of seeds containing manifolds, iv. 9.5

  Potentiality producing, not becoming, is the soul, ii. 5.3 (25-345).

  Poverty caused by external circumstances, ii. 3.8 (52-1174).

  Power and beauty of essence attracts all things, vi. 6.18 (34-678).

  Power, lack of, cannot fall under same categories as power, vi. 1.10

  Power, master of himself, really is the Supreme, vi. 8.10 (39-788).

  Power of divinities lies in their inhering in the Supreme, v. 8.9

  Powers though secret, in everything, iv. 4.37 (28-500).

  Practice is only a preparation for contemplation, iii. 8.6 (30-538).

  Prayed to, sun as well as stars may be, iv. 4.30 (28-486).

  Prayers, all made in accordance with natural law, answered, iv. 4.42

  Prayers answered by stars unconsciously, iv. 4.42 (28-505).

  Prayers, how they are answered, iv. 4.41 (28-505).

  Prayers of even the evil are answered, iv. 4.42 (28-506).

  Predict, stars do, because of souls imperfection, ii. 3.10 (52-1177).

  Prediction implies that future is determined, iii. 1.3 (3-90).

  Prediction, not by works, but by analogy, iii. 3.6 (48-1080).

  Prediction, with its responsiveness, do not fall under action and
    experience, vi. 1.22 (42-875).

  Predisposition of active life subjection to enchantments, iv. 4.43

  Predisposition to magic by affections and weaknesses, iv. 4.44

  Predominant soul part active while others sleep and (see managing
    soul) appear exterior, iv. 2.2 (21-279); iii. 4.2 (15-234).

  Predominating part, Stoic, iii. 3.2 (48-1078).

  Predominating principle directs universe, ii. 3.8 (52-1173).

  Preparation for contemplation is practice, iii. 8.6 (30-538).

  Preponderance spiritual method of becoming wise, i. 4.14 (46-1037).

  Presence of God, everywhere entire, explained as infinite, vi. 5.4

  Presence of intelligible entities implied by knowledge of them, v.
    5.1 (32-575).

  Presence the one identical essence everywhere, entirely, vi. 4

  Presences, different kinds of, vi. 4.11 (22-302).

  Present, eternal, v. 1.4 (10-179).

  Preservative not, is universal soul, but creative. ii. 3.16 (52-1183).

  Preserver and creator is the good, vi. 7.23 (38-740).

  Preserving, begotten Son, as result of ecstasy, v. 8.12 (31-571).

  Priam, misfortunes of, i. 4.5 (46-1027).

  Pride is folly, ii. 9.9 (33-618).

  Primary essence, numbers must exist in it, vi. 6.8 (34-654).

  Primary evil is evil in itself, i. 8.3 (51-1146).

  Primary evil is lack of measure, i. 8.8 (51-1155).

  Primary evil of soul, i. 8.5 (51-1148).

  Primary existence will contain thought, existence and life, ii. 4.6
    (12-203); v. 6.6 (24-339).

  Primary movement said to underlie movement of soul, iii. 7.12

  Primitive one is a spherical figure and intelligible, vi. 6.17

  Primitive relation between soul and body, i. 1.3 (53-1194).

  Principle, a supra-thinking, necessary to the working of
    intelligence, v. 6.2 (24-334).

  Principle and end simultaneous in Supreme, v. 8.7 (31-563).

  Principle, independent, is human soul, iii. 1.8 (3-97).

  Principle of all, though not limited thereby, is the one, v. 3.11

  Principle of beauty, what is it? i. 6.1 (1-40).

  Principle one self-existent constituted by being an actualization,
    vi. 8.7 (39-784).

  Principle, primary, matter cannot be, vi. 1.26 (42-879.)

  Principle, simultaneous, above intelligence and existence, iii. 7.2

  Principle, super-essential, does not think, v. 6.1 (24-333).

  Principle, the first, must be one exclusively, which would make
    thought impossible, v. 6.1 (24-335).

  Principle, the first, thinking, is the second principle, v. 6.1

  Principle, the second, the first thinking principle, is, v. 6.1

  Principles, divine, enumerated, vi. 7.25 (38-741).

  Principles limited to three, ii. 9.2 (33-602).

  Principles, lower, contain only anterior things, iv. 4.16 (28-461).

  Principles, single, of universe, ii. 3.6 (52-1171).

  Priority not applied in the divinity because he made himself, vi.
    8.20 (39-808).

  Prison of soul, is body, iv. 8.11 (6-120).

  Priority of soul to body, iv. 7.2 (2-58).

  Privation is nonentity, adds no conceit, ii. 4.14 (12-215).

  Privation of form of matter, ii. 4.13 (12-213).

  Privation of qualities; not a quality, ii. 4.13 (12-213).

  Privation relative is impossible, i. 8.12 (51-1158).

  Process, vi. 3.1 (44-933); iv. 8.6 (6-129).

  Process from unity to duality, v. 6.1 (24-338).

  Process, natural, only affected by starvation, ii. 3.12 (52-1178).

  Process of purification of soul and its separation from body, iii.
    6.5 (26-359).

  Process of soul elevation, v. 3.9 (49-1106).

  Process of unification, v. 5.4 (32-581).

  Process of vision and hearing, iv. 5 (29-514).

  Process of wakening to reality, v. 5.11 (32-592).

  Process, triune, also implies identity and difference, vi. 9.8

  Processes of ecstasy by purification, i. 6.6, 8, 9 (1-49).

  Procession by it, soul connects indivisible and divisible essence,
    iv. 2.1 (21-276).

  Procession, continuous, necessary to the Supreme, iv. 8.6 (6-129).

  Procession from one of what is after it, v. 4 (7-134).

  Procession is effusion of super-abundance, v. 2.1 (11-194).

  Procession is universal, from first to last, v. 2.2 (11-195).

  Procession of intelligence is an excursion down and up, iv. 8.7

  Procession of soul, iv. 8.5 (6-128).

  Procession of the world-soul, iii. 8.5 (30-537).

  Procession of world from unity, cause. v. 2.1 (11-193).

  Procreation, he not desiring it, aspires to higher beauty, iii. 5.1

  Procreativeness inherent (see radiation, exuberant, super-abundant),
    v. 4.1 (7-135).

  Prodigal, return, i. 6.8 (1-53).

  Prodigal son, v. 1.1 (10-173).

  Produced by stars, which is and what is not, ii. 3.13 (52-1178).

  Producing potentiality, not becoming, is the soul, ii. 5.3 (25-346).

  Production due to some physical soul not astrological power, iv. 4.38

  Production of the things located is essence, vi. 6.10 (34-657).

  Progress possible, argument against suicide, i. 9 (16-243).

  Progressively higher stages of love, v. 9.2 (5-103).

  Progressively, world-soul informs all things, iv. 3.10 (27-406).

  Prometheus, iv. 3.14 (27-412).

  Prometheus of flight leaves soul unharmed from incarnation, iv. 8.5

  Proofs for existence and nature of intelligence, v. 9.3 (5-104).

  Proportion, Stoic principle of beauty, not ultimate, but derivative,
    i. 6.1 (1-41).

  Providence accused by slavery of good and victory of evil, iii. 2.6

  Providence, chief of all, iii. 3.2 (48-1079).

  Providence consists of appointed times in life, should be observed,
    i. 9 (16-243).

  Providence does not abandon even the mediocre, iii. 2.9 (47-1058).

  Providence does not explain prediction but analogy, iii. 3.6

  Providence, double, particular and universal, iii. 3.4 (48-1081).

  Providence embraces everything below, iii. 2.7 (47-1054).

  Providence, fore knowledge of, like unto a physician, iii. 3.5

  Providence is normative element of life, iii. 3.5 (48-1084).

  Providence is not particular, because world had no beginning, iii.
    2.1 (47-1043).

  Providence is prevision and reasoning, iii, 2.1 (47-1042).

  Providence is unpredictable circumstance changing life, iii. 4.6

  Providence may appear as chance, iii. 3.2 (48-1078).

  Providence, objection to by internecine war, iii. 2.15 (47-1064).

  Providence problems solved by derivation of reason from intelligence,
    iii. 2.16 (47-1068).

  Providence should not overshadow initiative, iii. 2.9 (47-1057).

  Providence, the plan of the universe is from eternity, vi. 8.17

  Providence, twofold, exerted by twofold soul, iv. 8.2 (6-122).

  Prudence interpreted as purification, i. 6.6 (1-49).

  Prudence or Metis, myth of, iii. 5.5 (50-1130).

  Psychic, gnostic distinction of men, ii. 9.18 (33-635).

  Psychologic elements, sensation, faculties of generation and
    increase, and creative power, i. 1.8 (53-1200).

  Psychologic elements, soul gives life to, i. 1.8 (53-1200).

  Psychological effect of vision of intelligible wisdom, v. 8.10

  Psychological faculty, on which is the freedom of will based, vi. 8.2

  Psychological questions, iv. 3 (27-387).

  Psychological study of, outline, iv. 2.1 (21-276).

  Psychological theory of quality, vi. 1.12 (42-858).

  Psychology, common part, its function, i. 1.10 (53-1203).

  Psychology, does ratiocination belong to same principles as passions,
    i. 1.1 (53-1191).

  Psychology (every man double), composite animal, real man or
    reasonable soul, ii. 3.9 (52-1176).

  Psychology, exact root of philosophy, ii. 3.16 (52-1183).

  Psychology, explanation of anger parts, courage, iii. 6.2 (26-354).

  Psychology, inquiring principle, i. 1.1 (53-1191).

  Psychology obeys the precept "Know thyself," iv, 3.1 (27-387).

  Psychology of demons, iv. 4.43 (28-507).

  Psychology of earth, iv. 4.27 (28-479).

  Psychology of sensation, iv. 3.26 (27-430).

  Psychology of vegetative part of soul, iv. 4.28 (28-481).

  Psychology thought, its nature and classification, i. 1.1 (53-1191).

  Pun between science and knowledge, v. 8.4 (31-559).

  Pun on aeon, as age or eternity, iii. 7.1 (45-986).

  Pun on "agalmata," v. 8.5, 6 (31-560).

  Pun on Aphrodite, as delicate, iii. 5.8 (50-1137).

  Pun on being, intelligible, vi. 3.8 (44-947).

  Pun on creation and adornment, ii. 4.4 (12-214); i. 8.7 (51-1152).

  Pun on difference in others, ii. 4.13 (12-214).

  Pun on "dii" and "diken," v. 8.4 (31-558).

  Pun on "doxa," v. 5.1 (32-578).

  Pun on Egyptian hieroglyphics and statues (see "agalmata").

  Pun on "eidos" and "idea," v. 9.8 (5-111); vi 9.2 (9-149).

  Pun on "einai" and "henos," v. 5.5 (32-584).

  Pun on forms and statues, v. 8.5 (31-560).

  Pun on heaven, world, universe, animal and all, ii. 1.1 (40-814).

  Pun on Hestia, and standing, v. 5.5 (32-584).

  Pun on Hesis, vi. 1.23 (42-877).

  Pun on "idea" and "eidos," see "eidos."

  Pun on inclination, ii. 9.4 (33-605).

  Pun on "koros," iii. 8.11 (30-550); v. 8.13 (31-573); v. 9.8 (5-111);
    iv. 3.14 (27-412); i. 8.7 (51-1152).

  Pun on love and vision, iii. 5.3 (50-1128).

  Pun on "nous," "noesis," and "to noeton," v. 3.5 (49-1096 to 1099).

  Pun on "paschein," experiencing, suffering, reacting, and passion,
    vi. 1.15 (42-864).

  Pun on Poros, iii. 5.9, 10 (50-1140).

  Pun on Prometheus and Providence, iv. 3.14 (27-412).

  Pun on reason and characteristic, iii. 6.2 (17-248); iv. 7.4 (2-61).

  Pun on "schesis" and "schema," iv. 4.29 (28-484).

  Pun on "Soma" and "sozesthai," v. 9.5 (5-109).

  Pun on suffering, iv. 9.3 (8-143).

  Pun on thinking, thinkable and intellection, vi. 1.18 (42-868).

  Pun on timely and sovereign, vi. 8.18 (39-806).

  Pun on unadorned and created, see "koros," i. 8.7 (51-1152).

  Pun on Vesta and Hestia, v. 5.5 (32-584).

  Punishable and impassible, soul is both. i. 1.12 (53-1204).

  Punishment follows perversity of soul, iv. 8.5 (6-128).

  Punishments and misfortunes, significance of, iv. 3.15 (27-414).

  Pure thoughts is that part of the soul which most resembles
    intelligence, v. 3.8 (49-1102).

  Purification clears up mental knowledge, iv. 7.10 (2-80).

  Purification, content of virtues, i. 6.6 (1-49).

  Purification in mysteries, leads to nakedness, i. 6.6 (1-50).

  Purification of soul like man washing off mud, i. 6.5 (1-48).

  Purification produces conversion, and is used by virtue, i. 2.4

  Purification of soul process involved, iii. 6.5 (26-359).

  Purification's goal is second divinity intelligence, i. 2.6 (19-264).

  Purification limit is that of the soul self-control, i. 2.5 (19-263).

  Purity, condition of remaining in unity with the divinity, v. 8.11

  Purpose of life, supreme, vision of God, i. 6.7 (1-50).

  Puzzle of one and many decides of the genera of essence, vi. 2.4

  Puzzle of origin of God due to chaos being starting point, vi. 8.11

  Puzzle of soul being one, yet in all, iv. 3.4 (27-394).

  Quadrature, ii. 3.4 (52-1168).

  Qualities, sqq. vi. 1.10 (42-852).

  Qualities admit of degrees, vi. 3.20 (44-970).

  Qualities are accidental shapes of being, ii. 6.3 (17-250).

  Qualities are acts of being, ii. 6.2 (17-249).

  Qualities are incorporeal, vi. 1.29 (42-885).

  Qualities, because they change, matter must be passible, iii. 6.8

  Qualities classified as body and of soul, vi. 3.17 (44-963).

  Qualities, distinction between qualities and complements of being,
    ii. 6.1 (17-245).

  Qualities, genuine, are not differential beings, vi. 1.10 (42-853).

  Qualities, modal and essential, distinctions between, ii. 6.1

  Qualities more essential than quantity, ii. 8.1 (35-680).

  Qualities not all are reasons, vi. 1.10 (42-854).

  Qualities not formed by union of four Plotinic categories, vi. 2.15

  Qualities of sense, among them belong many other conceptions, vi.
    3.16 (44-961).

  Qualities, some are differences, vi. 3.18 (44-965).

  Qualities, some differences are not, vi. 3.18 (44-966).

  Qualities, their derivation from affection is of no importance, vi.
    1.11 (42-857).

  Qualities, ugly, are imperfect reasons, vi. 1.10 (42-855).

  Quality, ii. 6 (17-245); iv. 7.5, 9, 10 (2-62 to 80).

  Quality and matter form body, according to Stoics, iv. 7.3 (2-59).

  Quality and thing qualified, relation between, vi. 1.12 (42-858).

  Quality, by it all things depend on the good, i. 7.2 (54-1209).

  Quality, by it, being differences are distinguished, vi. 3.17

  Quality, category, various derivatives of, vi. 3.19 (44-967).

  Quality consists of a non-essential character, vi. 1.10 (42-855).

  Quality differences cannot be distinguished by sensation, vi. 3.17

  Quality, intelligible and sense, difference between, ii. 6.3 (17-249).

  Quality is good, a common label or common quality, vi. 7.18 (38-733).

  Quality is not a power but disposition, form and character, vi. 1.10

  Quality is only figurative name for complement of being, vi. 2.14

  Quality none in matter, ii. 4.7 (12-204); iv. 7.3 (2-59).

  Quality none in matter which is deprivation, i. 8.11 (51-1157).

  Quality not a primary genus, because posterior to being, vi. 2.14

  Quality not in matter is an accident, i. 8.10 (51-1157).

  Quality, one, partaken of by capacity and disposition, vi. 1.11

  Quality, physical need of supreme only by analogy, vi. 9.8 (9-164).

  Quality, psychological theory of, vi. 1.12 (42-858).

  Quality, secondary, not formed by physical powers, vi. 1.11 (42-856).

  Quality, shape is not, vi. 1.11 (42-857).

  Quality, according to the Stoics, vi. 1.29 (42-885).

  Quality, there is only one kind, vi. 1.11 (42-856).

  Quality, various terms expressing it, vi. 3.16 (44-960).

  Quality, whether it alone can be called similar or dissimilar, vi.
    3.15 (44-959).

  Quality-less thing in itself, reached by abstraction, ii. 4.10

  Quantity, vi. 1.4 (42-841).

  Quantity a secondary genus, therefore not a first, vi. 2.13 (43-915).

  Quantity admits of contraries, vi. 3.11 (44-953).

  Quantity, Aristotelian criticized, vi. 1.4 (42-841).

  Quantity, as equal and unequal, does not refer to the objects, vi.
    1.5 (42-845).

  Quantity category, v. 1.4 (10-180).

  Quantity, continuous and definite, have nothing in common. vi. 1.4

  Quantity, definition of, includes large and small, vi. 3.11 (44-952).

  Quantity, different kinds of, in magnitudes and numbers, vi. 1.4

  Quantity, discrete, different from continuous, vi. 3.13 (44-955).

  Quantity, elements of continuous, vi. 3.14 (44-955).

  Quantity, if time is, why a separate category, vi. 1.13 (42-861).

  Quantity in number, but not number in quantity, vi. 1.4 (42-842).

  Quantity in quantative number, v. 5.4 (32-582).

  Quantity is incorporeal, ii. 4.9 (12-207).

  Quantity is speech, 1.5 (42-844).

  Quantity less essential than quality, ii. 8.1 (35-680).

  Quantity not qualities studied by geometry, vi. 3.15 (44-958).

  Quantity, time is not, vi. 1-5 (42-844).

  Question, not to be asked by our order in nature, iii. 3.3 (48-1079).

  Quiddity and being earlier than suchness, ii. 6.2 (17-248).

  Quintessence, ii. 1.2 (40-815); ii. 5.3 (25-346).

  Radiation joins image to its model, vi. 4.10 (22-300).

  Radiation of an image is generation, v. 1.6 (10-182).

  Radiation of good is creative power, vi. 7.37 (38-761).

  Radiation of light, v. 5.7 (32-586).

  Radiation of multiple unity, v. 3.15 (49-1115).

  Radiation of stars for good, explains their influence, iv. 4.35

  Radii centering, to explain, soul unifying sensations, iv. 7.6 (2-65).

  Rank, v. 4.2 (7-136); v. 5.4 (32-581).

  Rank after death, depends on state at death, hence progress must be
    achieved, i. 9 (16-243).

  Rank of souls, iv. 3.6 (27-397).

  Rank, souls of the second, universal rank, are men, ii. 3.13

  Rank third, of existence, should not be occupied by modality, vi.
    1.30 (42-887).

  Rank third of souls, ii. 1.8 (55-1200).

  Ranks in the Universe reasonable for souls to be assigned thereto,
    iii. 2.12 (47-1061).

  Ranks of existence, three, ii. 9.13 (33-626); iii. 3.3 (48-1079);
    iii. 5.9 (50-1138); vi. 4.11 (22-302); vi. 5.4 (23-318).

  Ranks of existence beneath the beautiful, vi. 7.42 (38-770).

  Ratiocination, has no place even in the world-soul, iv. 4.11 (28-455).

  Ratiocination, souls can reason intuitionally without, iv. 3.18

  Rationalized matter, body as, ii. 7.3 (37-696).

  Reaction or suffering, definition of, vi. 1.21 (43-872).

  Reactions, need not be passive, but may be active, vi. 1.21 (42-870).

  Real man and we, distinctions between, i. 1.10 (53-1202).

  Real man differs from body, i. 1.10 (53-1203).

  Reality, same different degrees of, are intelligence and life, vi.
    7.18 (38-732).

  Reason and form possessed by everything, ii. 7.3 (37-696).

  Reason as a whole, vi. 5.10 (23-326).

  Reason as derived from intelligence, iii. 2.16 (47-1068).

  Reason cannot be deduced from atoms, iii. 1.2 (3-88).

  Reason, differentiated, would deprive the soul of consciousness, ii.
    9.1 (33-602).

  Reason discursive is not used during discarnation, iv. 3.18 (27-416).

  Reason divine is to blame, iv. 2.10 (47-1059).

  Reason followed, is secret of freedom, iii. 1.9 (3-97).

  Reason has no extension, iv. 7.5 (2-64).

  Reason in head, not in brain, iv. 3.23 (27-425).

  Reason, its influence is only suggestive, i. 2.5 (19-264).

  Reason no explanation of living well, i. 4.2 (46-1022).

  Reason not resulted in foresight of creation, vi. 7.1 (38-697).

  Reason not sufficient explanation of living well, i. 4.2 (46-1022).

  Reason or ideas possessed by intellectual life, vi. 2.21 (43-927).

  Reason, seminal iv. 7.2 (2-58).

  Reason, seminal, produces man, ii. 3.12 (52-1178).

  Reason that begets everything is Jupiter's garden, iii. 5.9 (50-1137).

  Reason, total of the universe, ii. 3.13 (52-1178).

  Reason unites the soul divided by bodies, iv. 9.3 (8-142).

  Reason, universal, is both soul and nature, iii. 8.3 (30-533).

  Reason used only while hindered by obstacles of body, iv. 3.18

  Reasonable for souls to be assigned to different ranks, iii. 2.12

  Reasoning absent in Supreme, v. 8.7 (31-563).

  Reasoning and foresight are only figurative expressions, vi. 7.1

  Reasoning and memory not implied by world-soul, wisdom, iv. 4-12

  Reasoning and memory superseded by world-soul's wisdom, iv. 4.12

  Reasons are the actualization of the soul that begets the animal, vi.
    7.5 (38-707).

  Reasons, double, iii. 3.4 (48-1081).

  Reasons, not all are qualities, vi. 1.10 (42-854).

  Reasons, unity constituted by contained contraries, iii. 2.16

  Reception, transmission, relation, underlies action and experience,
    vi. 1.22 (42-874).

  Receptivity accounts for divinity's seeing by individuals, vi. 5.12

  Receptivity determines participation in the one, vi. 4.11 (22-331).

  Receptivity is limit of participation in divine, iv. 8.6 (6-129).

  Reciprocal nature of all things, iii. 3.6 (48-1080).

  Recognition of divine kinship depends of self knowledge, vi. 9.7

  Recognition of each other by souls, descending from intelligibles
    into heaven, iv. 4.5 (28-447).

  Redemption of world by world-soul, v. 1.2 (10-175).

  Reduction to unity, v. 3.6 (49-1099).

  Reflection, not, but self-necessity, cause of creation of
    sense-world, iii. 2.2 (47-1044).

  Reflects everything, does the empty mirror of matter, iii. 6.7

  Reformatory, are hell's torments, iv. 4.45 (28-511).

  Refraction, lighting fire from, illustrates generation, iii. 6.14

  Refreshment not needed by stars, which are inexhaustible, ii. 1.8

  Refutation of James Lange theory, i. 1.5 (53-1196).

  Reincarnation is result of soul-judgments, iv. 8.5 (6-128).

  Rejection of form of approaching souls proves formlessness of the
    Supreme, vi. 7.34 (38-756).

  Relation, vi. 1.6 (42-845).

  Relation between external and internal, i. 8.5 (51-1149).

  Relation is a habit or manner of being, vi. 3.27 (44-981).

  Relation is an appendage existing only among definite objects, vi.
    2.16 (43-919).

  Relation of good, intelligence and soul like light, sun and moon, v.
    6.4 (24-337).

  Relation primitive between soul and body, i. 1.3 (53-1194).

  Relation, Stoic, category confuses the new with the anterior, vi.
    1.31 (42-888).

  Relations are simultaneous existences, vi. 1.7 (42-848).

  Relations, are they subjective of objective? vi. 1.7 (42-847).

  Relay of sensation from organ to directing principle, impossible, iv.
    7.7 (2-67).

  Relay transmission, iv. 2.2 (21-280); iv. 5.4 (29-522).

  Relays in spreading light, v. 3.9 (49-1105).

  Remember itself, the soul does not even, iv. 4.2 (28-443).

  Remembers, soul becomes that which she does, iv. 4.3 (28-445).

  Reminiscences of intelligible entities, v. 9.5 (5-107).

  Repentances of gnostics, opposed, ii. 9.6 (33-608).

  Repugnance natural to study of unity, vi. 9.3 (9-15).

  Resemblance lacking, makes contraries, vi. 3.20 (44-970).

  Resemblance of intelligible to earthly based on the converse
    (Platonic), v. 8.6 (31-561).

  Resemblance to divinity is soul's welfare, i. 6.6 (1-49).

  Resemblance to divinity, result of homely virtues, i. 2.1 (19-257).

  Resemblance, two kinds, effect and cause or simultaneous effects, i.
    2.2 (19-258).

  Residence and substrate of forms to matter, ii. 4.1 (12-197).

  Residence demanded by forms, against Moderatus of Gades, ii. 4.12

  Residence, mother, nurse or other nature is matter, iii. 6.18

  Residence of eternal generation is matter, iii. 6.13 (26-373).

  Residence of form is matter as image of extension, ii. 4.11 (12-210).

  Residence of universal soul is heaven, immortalizing it, ii. 1.4

  Responsible for our ills, Gods are not, iv. 4.37 (28-500).

  Responsible, spontaneity not affected by involuntariness, iii. 2.10

  Responsibility depends solely on involuntariness, vi. 8.1 (39-774).

  Responsibility not injured by guidance of Daemon, iii. 4.5 (15-238).

  Responsibility not to be shifted from responsible reason, iii. 2.15

  Rest, v. 1.4 (10-178); v. 3.7 (49-1101).

  Rest and motion below one, iii. 9.7 (13-225).

  Rest and movement distinction also inapplicable, ii. 9.1 (33-600).

  Rest, as category, iii. 7.1 (45-987); vi. 2.7 (43-903).

  Rest consists of change, iv. 8.1 (6-119).

  Rest, intelligible, the form by which all consists, v. 1.7 (10-184).

  Rest of Heraclitus, description of ecstatic goal, vi. 9.8 (9-165);
    vi. 9.11 (9-170).

  Resultance of causes is anything, ii. 3.14 (52-1181).

  Results of ecstasy, remaining close to divinity, v. 8.11 (31-570).

  Retirement of soul is to superior power, v. 2.2 (11-195).

  Retribution divine, all are led to it by secret road, iv. 4.45

  Return of prodigal, i. 6.8 (1-52).

  Return of soul to intelligible by three paths, i. 3.1 (20-270).

  Return of soul to its principle on destruction of body, v. 2.2

  Revealers of the eternal, are sense-objects, iv. 8.6 (6-130).

  Revelation of divine power expresses true knowledge, ii. 9.9 (33-617).

  Rewards may be neglected by good, iii. 2.8 (47-1055).

  Rhea, iii. 6.19 (26-385); v. 1.7 (10-185).

  Riches, inequality of no moment to an eternal being, ii. 9.9 (33-616).

  Ridiculous to complain of lower nature of animals, iii. 2.9 (47-1059).

  Ridiculous to expect perfections, but deny it to nature, ii. 9.5

  Right of leaving world reserved by wise men, i. 4.16 (46-1039).

  Rises to the good, does the soul, by scorning all things below, vi.
    7.31 (38-750).

  Roads, secret, leads all to retribution, iv. 4.45 (27-511).

  Rocks have greatest nonentity, iii. 6.6 (26-361).

  Rush of soul towards the one, v. 3.17 (49-1120).

  Same principle, how can it exist in all things? vi. 4.6 (22-295).

  Same principle, how various things can participate, vi. 4.12 (22-303).

  Same thing not seen in the Supreme by different persons, v. 8.12

  Sample is only thing we can examine, v. 8.3 (33-555).

  Sample that must be purified, is image of intelligence, v. 8.3

  Sanative element of life, is Providence, iii. 3.5 (48-1084).

  Sanctuary, inner, penetrations into, resulting advantage of ecstasy,
    v. 8.11 (31-569).

  Sanctuary of ecstasy, i. 6.8 (1-52); i. 8.7 (51-1152); v. 8.4
    (31-557); vi. 9.11 (9-169).

  Sanctuary of mysteries, i. 6.6 (1-50).

  Satiety does not produce scorn, in the intelligible, v. 8.4 (31-558).

  Satisfaction of desire to live is not happiness, i. 5.2 (36-684).

  Saturn, v. 1.7 (10-185); v. 8.13 (31-573); iv. 4.31 (28-489).

  Saturn and Mars, relations are quite illogical, ii 3.5 (52-1169).

  Saturn held down by chains, v. 8.13 (31-573).

  Saturnian realm, vi. 1.4 (10-178).

  Scheme, part in it soul must fit itself to, iii. 2.17 (47-1071).

  Science does not figure among true categories, vi. 2.17 (43-920).

  Science is either a movement or something composite, vi. 2.18

  Science is present in the whole, potentially at least, v. 9.8 (5-111).

  Science is the actualization of the notions that are potential
    science, vi. 2.20 (43-925).

  Science, part and whole in it not applicable to soul, iv. 3.2

  Science's, greatest is touched with the good, vi. 7.3 (38-760).

  Scorn not produced by satiety in the intelligible world, v. 8.4

  Scorn of life implies good, vi. 7.29 (38-748).

  Scorn of this world no guarantee of goodness, ii. 9.16 (33-630).

  Scorning all things below, soul rises to the good, vi. 7.31 (38-750).

  Sculptor, v. 9.3 (5-104).

  Seal of wax, impressions on, are sensations, iv. 7.6 (2-66).

  Second must be perfect, v. 4.1 (7-136).

  Second necessarily begotten by first, v. 4.1 (7-135).

  Second rank of universe, souls of men, ii. 3.13 (52-1180).

  Secondary evil is accidental formlessness, i. 8.8 (51-1154).

  Secondary evil is matter, i. 8.4 (51-1146).

  Secondary evil of soul, i. 8.5 (51-1148).

  Secrecy of mystery-rites explains ecstasy, vi. 9.11 (9-171).

  Secret powers in everything, iv. 4.37 (28-500).

  Secret road, leads all to divine retribution, iv. 4.45 (28-511).

  Seeing God without emotion, sign of lack of unification, vi. 9.4

  Seeking anything beyond life, departs from it, vi. 5.12 (23-331).

  Seeming to be beautiful satisfies, but only being good satisfies, v.
    5.12 (32-594).

  Seems as if the begotten was a universal soul, vi. 4.14 (22-307).

  Seen the Supreme, no one who has calls him chance, vi. 8.19 (39-807).

  Self autocracy, vi. 8.21 (39-807).

  Self-consciousness can exist in a simple principle, v. 3.1 (49-1090).

  Self-consciousness consists of becoming intelligence, v. 3.4

  Self-consciousness is not needed by self-sufficient good, vi. 7.38

  Self-consciousness is more perfect in intelligence than in the soul,
    v. 3.6 (49-1098).

  Self-consciousness result of ecstasy, v. 8.11 (31-570).

  Self-control is assimilation to divinity, i. 2.5 (19-263).

  Self-control limited by soul's purification, v. 2.5 (19-263).

  Self-development, one object of incarnation, v. 8.5 (31-559).

  Self-esteem, proper, v. 1.1 (10-173).

  Self-existence possessed by essence, vi. 6.18 (34-678).

  Self-glorified, image of a trap on way to ecstasy, v. 8.11 (31-569).

  Self is the soul, iv. 7.1 (2-57).

  Self-luminous statues in intelligible world, v. 8.4 (31-558).

  Self-sufficiency of supreme, v. 3.17 (49-1120).

  Self-victory over, mastery of fate, ii. 3.15 (52-1182).

  Seminal reason, ii. 6.1 (17-246); iii. 1.8 (3-97).

  Seminal reason does not contain order, iv. 4.16 (28-461).

  Seminal reason harmonizes with its appearing actualization, vi. 3.16

  Seminal reason produces man, ii. 3.12 (52-1178).

  Seminal reasons, v. 8.2 (31-553); v. 7.1 (18-252).

  Seminal reasons, as qualified matter would be composite and
    secondary, vi. 1.29 (42-886).

  Seminal reasons, cause of difference of things, v. 7.1 (18-251).

  Seminal reasons cause the soul, ii. 3.16 (52-1184).

  Seminal reasons may be contrary to soul's nature, but not to soul,
    vi. 7.7 (38-710).

  Sensation, v. 1.7 (10-184).

  Sensation and memory, iv. 6 (41-829).

  Sensation and memory, Stoic doctrines of, hang together, iv. 6.1

  Sensation as dream of the soul, from which we must wake, iii. 6.6

  Sensation cannot distinguish quality differences, vi. 3.17 (44-963).

  Sensation cannot reach truth, v. 5.1 (32-576).

  Sensations cause of emotion, iv. 4.28 (28-482).

  Sensation equivalent to good, i. 4.2 (46-1021).

  Sensation depends on sense-shape, iv. 4.23 (28-473).

  Sensation, external and internal, i. 1-7 (53-1199).

  Sensation implies the feeling soul, i. 1.6 (53-1198).

  Sensation, intermediary, demands conceptive thought, iv. 4.23

  Sensation is limited to the common integral parts of the universe,
    iv. 5.8 (29-529).

  Sensation must first be examined, iv. 4.22 (28-472).

  Sensation not a soul distraction, iv. 4.25 (28-477).

  Sensation not in head, but in brain, iv. 3.23 (27-425).

  Sensation, psychology of, iv. 3.26 (27-430).

  Sensation relayed from organ to directing principle impossible, iv.
    7.7 (2-67).

  Sensation taken as their guide, Stoic's fault, vi. 1.28 (42-884).

  Sensations are actualizations, not only in sight, but in all senses,
    iv. 6.3 (41-835).

  Sensations are not experiences but relative actualizations, iv. 6.2

  Sensations as impressions on seal of wax, iv. 7.5 (2-66).

  Sensations distract from thought, iv. 8.8 (6-132).

  Sense beauties, less delightful than moral, i. 6.4 (1-44).

  Sense beauty, transition to intellectual, i. 6.3 (1-45).

  Sense being, common element, in matter form and combination, vi. 3.4

  Sense growth and emotions lead to divisibility, iv. 3.19 (27-418).

  Sense objects are intermediate between form and matter, iii. 6.17

  Sense objects, how are not evil, iii. 2.8 (47-1055).

  Sense objects, men, v. 9.1 (9-148).

  Sense objects, motion for, vi. 3.23 (44-976).

  Sense objects reveal eternal, iv. 8.6 (6-130).

  Sense objects unreal, made up of appearance, iii. 6.12 (26-371).

  Sense organs, sense better without medium however passible, iv. 5.1

  Sense power of soul deals only with external things, v. 3.2 (49-1091).

  Sense qualities, many other conceptions belong among them, vi. 3.16

  Sense shape, like tools, is intermediate, iv. 4.23 (28-473).

  Sense world created not by reflection but self-necessity, iii. 2.2

  Sense world has less unity than intelligible world, vi. 5.10 (23-322).

  Sense world, the generation in it, is what being is in the
    intelligible, iv. 3.3 (27-392).

  Senses, not given only for utility, iv. 4.24 (28-475).

  Senses not given to man, from experience of misfortune, vi. 7.1

  Senses of earth may be different from ours, iv. 4.26 (28-478).

  Sentiments, most keenly felt, constitute people lovers, i. 6.4 (1-46).

  Separation of soul from body, enables soul to use it, i. 1.3

  Separation of soul from body is death, i. 6.6 (1-49).

  Separation of soul from body, process involved, iii. 6.5 (26-359).

  Separation refers not only to body but accretions, i. 1.12 (53-1204).

  Sex alone would not account for differences of things, v. 7.2

  Shadows necessary to the perfection of a picture, iii. 2.11 (47-1060).

  Shape is not a quality, but a specific appearance of reason, vi. 1.11

  Shape is the actualization, thought the form of being, v. 9.8 (5-111).

  Shape received from elsewhere, v. 9.5 (5-107).

  Shapeless impressions of, differ from mental blank, ii. 4.10 (12-207).

  Shapeless shaper, essential beauty and the transcendent to Supreme,
    vi. 7.33 (38-754).

  Sight, ii. 8 (35-680).

  Sight, actualize as thought, v. 1.5 (10-181).

  Sight and thought form but one, v. 1.5 (10-181).

  Sight, sense of, does not possess the image seen within it, iv. 6.1

  Sight, two methods of, form and light, v. 5.7 (32-586).

  Significance of punishments and misfortunes, iv. 3.16 (27-414).

  Silence, v. 1.2 (10-175).

  Simile from lighting fire from refraction, iii. 6.14 (26-376).

  Simile of abstraction, triangles, circles, iv. 7.8 (2-69).

  Simile of badly tuned lyre cannot produce harmony, ii. 3.13 (52-1180).

  Simile of captive in golden chains--matter, i. 8.15 (51-1163).

  Simile of cave and grotto, iv. 8.1 (6-120).

  Simile of center and circular intelligence, vi. 8.18 (39-804).

  Simile of choral ballet, vi. 9.8 (9-165).

  Simile of circles, v. 8.7 (31-563); iv. 4.16 (28-462).

  Simile of clear gold, admitting its real nature, iv. 7.10 (2-81).

  Simile of cosmic choric ballet, vi. 9.8 (9-165).

  Simile of Cupid and Psyche, vi. 9.9 (9-167).

  Simile of drama of life, allows for good and bad, iii. 2.18 (47-1072).

  Simile of face in several mirrors, i. 1.8 (53-1200).

  Simile of foreknowledge of physician to explain Providence, iii. 3.5

  Simile of guest and architect of house, ii. 9.18 (33-635).

  Simile of head with three faces all round, vi. 5.7 (23-320).

  Simile of light in air, as soul is present in body, iv. 3.22 (27-423).

  Simile of light remaining on high, while shining down, iv. 8.3

  Simile of light, sun and moon, v. 6.4 (24-337).

  Simile of love that watches at door of the beloved, vi. 5.10 (23-325).

  Simile of man fallen in mud, needing washing, i. 6.5 (1-48).

  Simile of man with feet in bath tub, vi. 9.8 (9-163).

  Simile of mirror, i. 4.10 (46-1034).

  Simile of mob in assembly, vi. 4.15 (22-310).

  Simile of net in the sea for universe in soul, iv. 3.9 (27-405).

  Simile of opinion and imagination illustrates relation between matter
    and reason, iii. 6.15 (26-377).

  Simile of overweighted birds, sensual man, v. 9.1 (5-102).

  Simile of peak, formed by uniting of souls, vi. 7.15 (38-726).

  Simile of pilot governing the ship, i. 1.3 (53-1194).

  Simile of platonic vision theory to explain simultaneity of unity and
    duality, v. 6.1 (24-333).

  Simile of prearranged dance as star's motion, iv. 4.33 (28-492).

  Simile of radii around centre, iv. 2.1 (21-277).

  Simile of radii centering, to explain unifying sensations, iv. 7.4

  Simile of radii meeting in centre, i. 7.1 (54-1209).

  Simile of ray from centre to circumference, iv. 1 (4-100).

  Simile of science explains whole and part, iii. 9.3 (13-222); iv. 9.5

  Simile of seal on wax, iv. 9.4 (8-144).

  Simile of seed to explain unity of essence in many souls, iv. 9.5

  Simile of spring of water, iii. 8.1 (30-547).

  Simile of striking cord of a lyre, vi. 5.10 (23-326).

  Simile of sun and light, vi. 5.5 (23-319).

  Simile of the sun's rays, vi. 5.5 (23-319).

  Simile of the tree of the universe, iii. 8.10 (30-547).

  Simile of vine and branches, v. 3.7 (48-1088).

  Simile, Platonic, of drivers of horses, ii. 3.13 (52-1179).

  Simple and not compound is the Supreme, ii. 9.1 (33-599).

  Simple bodies, their existence demands that of world-soul, iv. 7.2

  Simple is the soul; composite the body, iv. 7.3 (2-59).

  Simple nothing is, v. 9.3 (5-104).

  Simple, without something simple nothing manifold could exist, ii.
    4.3 (12-199).

  Simple's existence necessary to that of one, v. 6.3 (24-336).

  Simplification, approach of soul to good, i. 6.6 (1-50).

  Simplification as path to unity, vi. 9.3 (9-152).

  Simplification of ecstasy, super beauty and super virtue, vi. 9.11

  Simplicity of principle, insures its freedom of action, vi. 8.4

  Simplicity the intelligent, does not deny compositeness, vi. 7.13

  Simplicity the intelligible, implies height of source, vi. 7.13

  Simultaneity of end and principle in Supreme, v. 8.7 (31-563).

  Simultaneity of everything in the intelligible world, iv. 4.1

  Simultaneity of the intelligible permits no memory, iv. 4.1 (28-441).

  Simultaneous giving and receiving by world-soul, iv. 8.7 (6-132).

  Simultaneous of one and many, intelligence contains the infinite as
    vi. 7.14 (38-725).

  Simultaneous unity and duality of thought, v. 6.1 (24-333).

  Simultaneous within and without is vi. 4.7 (22-295).

  Sin and justice, not destroyed by superficiality of misfortunes, iii.
    2.16 (47-1067).

  Sister beneficent, is world-soul to our soul, ii. 9.17 (33-633).

  Situation, as Aristotelian category, vi. 1.24 (42-877).

  Slavery of good, accuses Providence, iii. 2.6 (47-1062).

  Socrates, i. 8.7; iii. 2.15; iv. 3.5; ii. 5.2; vi. 2.1; vi. 3.6, 15.

  Socrates (as representative man), v. 1.4 (10-179); v. 7.1 (18-251).

  Solid things, nearest nonentity, iii. 6.6 (26-361).

  Solution of puzzle is that being is everywhere present, vi. 5.3

  "Somewhat," a particle to modify, any statement about the supreme,
    vi. 8.13 (39-797).

  Son, begotten by supreme, report of ecstasy, see pun on "koros," iii.
    8.11 (30-550); v. 8.12 (31-571).

  Soul, after reaching yonder does not stay; reasons why, vi. 9.10

  Soul alone possesses memory, iv. 3.26 (7-432).

  Soul and body consequences of mixture, i. 1.4 (53-1194).

  Soul and body form fusion, iv. 4.18 (28-465).

  Soul and body mixture impossible, i. 1.4 (53-1195).

  Soul and body, primitive relation between, i. 1.3 (53-1194).

  Soul and body, relation between, vi. 3.19 (27-418).

  Soul and intelligence, besides ideas, contained in intelligible
    world, v. 9.13 (5-116).

  Soul and judgment, passibility of, iii. 6.1 (26-350).

  Soul and relation with God and individual, i. 1.8 (53-1200).

  Soul and soul essence, distinction between, i. 1.2 (53-1192).

  Soul and we, the relation between, i. 1.13 (53-1206).

  Soul as divisible and indivisible, iv. 2.2 (21-279).

  Soul as hypostatic actualization of intelligence, v. 1.3 (10-177).

  Soul as number, v. 1.5 (10-180).

  Soul becomes what she remembers, iv. 4.3 (28-445).

  Soul begets her combination, its nature, vi. 7.5 (38-708).

  Soul begets many because incorporeal, iv. 7.4 (8-144).

  Soul being impassable, everything contrary is figurative, iii. 6.2

  Soul both divisible and indivisible, iv. 1 (4-100).

  Soul can penetrate body, iv. 7.8 (2-72).

  Soul cannot be corporeal, iv. 7.8 (2-70).

  Soul cannot be entirely dragged down, ii. 9.2 (33-603).

  Soul cannot lose parts, ii. 7.5 (2-63).

  Soul cannot possess evil within herself, i. 8.11 (51-1158).

  Soul capable of extension, vi. 4.1 (22-286).

  Soul celestial of world, iii. 5.3 (50-1128).

  Soul, circular movement of, iv. 4.16 (28-462).

  Soul, combination as mixture or resultant product, i, 1.1 (53-1191).

  Soul conforms destiny to her character, iii. 4.5 (15-238).

  Soul contains body, iv. 8.20 (27-421).

  Soul-difference between individual universal, iv. 3.7 (27-399).

  Soul directed by natural law, ii. 3.8 (52-1173).

  Soul divisible, mixed and double, ii. 3.9 (52-1176).

  Soul does not entirely enter into body, iv. 8.8 (6-132).

  Soul does not even remember herself, iv. 4.2 (28-443).

  Soul double, iii. 3.4 (48-1081); iv. 3.31 (27-438).

  Soul descended into world vestige of, is Daemon, iii. 5.6 (50-1132).

  Soul distraction, sensation is not, iv. 4.25 (28-477); iii. 4.6

  Soul divisible, how she divides at death, iv. 1 (4-100).

  Soul entire, fashioned whole and individuals, vi. 5.8 (23-322).

  Soul essence derives from her being, vi. 2.6 (43-900).

  Soul exerts a varied action, iv. 7.4 (2-62).

  Soul feeling implied by sensation, i. 1.6 (53-1198).

  Soul feels passions without experiencing them, iv. 4.19 (28-466).

  Soul gives life to psychologic elements, i. 1.8 (53-1200).

  Soul, good and intelligence related to light, sun and moon, v. 6.4

  Soul governs body as pilot the ship, i. 1.3 (53-1194).

  Soul, greatness of, nothing to do with size of body, vi. 4.5 (22-293).

  Soul has double aspect, to body and to intelligence, iv. 8.7 (6-131).

  Soul has no corporeal possibility, hence incorporeal, iv. 7.2 (2-57).

  Soul has to exist in twofold sphere, iv. 8.7 (6-130).

  Soul has various motions, iv. 7.5 (2-62).

  Soul, healthy, can work, iv. 3.4 (27-395).

  Soul, herself, body-user and combination of both, i. 1.1 (53-1191).

  Soul, how can she remain impassible, though given up to emotion, iii.
    6.1 (26-350).

  Soul, how she comes to know vice, i. 8.9 (51-1155).

  Soul human, as independent principle, iii. 1.8 (3-97).

  Soul human, when in body, has possibilities up or down, iv. 8.7

  Soul, if she were corporeal body, would have no sensation, iv. 7.6

  Soul, immortal, i. 1.2 (53-1192).

  Soul, impassibility of, iii. 6.1 (26-350).

  Soul imperishable, iv. 7.12 (2-82).

  Soul in body as form is in matter, iv. 3.20 (27-421).

  Soul in body as whole in a part, iv. 3.20 (27-421).

  Soul in the body as light in the air, iv. 3.22 (27-423).

  Soul, individual, born of intelligence, vi. 2.22 (43-929).

  Soul intelligence, good are like light, sun and moon, v. 6.4 (24-337).

  Soul, intermediary elemental, also inadmissible, ii. 9.5 (33-607).

  Soul invisible, cause of these emotions, i. 6.5 (1-46).

  Soul is a definite essence, as particular being, vi. 2.5 (43-900).

  Soul is a number, vi. 5.9 (23-324); v. 1.5 (10-180).

  Soul is a simple actualization, whose essence is life, iv. 7.12

  Soul is a simple (substance) the man himself, iv. 7.3 (2-59).

  Soul is a whole of distinct divisible and indivisible parts, iv. 3.19

  Soul is all things, iii. 4.3 (15-236).

  Soul is artist of the universe, iv. 7.13 (2-84).

  Soul is both being and life, vi. 2.6 (43-901).

  Soul is both punishable and impassible, i. 1.12 (53-1204).

  Soul is double (see Hercules), iv. 3.31 (27-438).

  Soul is everywhere entire, iv. 7.5 (2-63).

  Soul is free by intelligence, which is free by itself, vi. 8.7

  Soul is formed governing the body (Aristotle), i. 1.4 (53-1195).

  Soul is formed inseparable from body (Alexander of Aphrodisia), i.
    1.4 (53-1195).

  Soul is in body as pilot is in ship, iv. 3.21 (27-422); i. 1.3

  Soul is individuality, and is form and workman of body, iv. 7.1

  Soul is infinite as comprising many souls, vi. 4.4 (22-296).

  Soul is located, not in body, but body in soul, iv. 3.20 (27-423).

  Soul is matter of intelligence (form), v. 1.3 (10-178).

  Soul is neither harmony nor entelechy, iv. 7.8 (2-74).

  Soul is partly mingled and separated from body, i. 1.3 (53-1193).

  Soul is prior to body, iv. 7.8 (2-74).

  Soul is substantial from one being, simple matter, iv. 7.4 (2-61).

  Soul is the potentiality of producing, not of becoming, ii. 5.3

  Soul, its being, iv. 1 (4-100).

  Soul leaving body, leaves trace of life, iv. 4.29 (28-483).

  Soul light forms animal nature, i. 1.7 (53-1198).

  Soul, like divinity, is always one, iv. 3.8 (27-402).

  Soul like face in several mirrors, i. 1.8 (53-1200).

  Soul may be said to come and go, iii. 9.3 (13-223).

  Soul may have two faults, iv. 8.5 (6-128).

  Soul must be one and manifold, even on Stoic hypotheses, iv. 2.2

  Soul must be stripped of form to shine in primary nature, vi. 9.7

  Soul must first be dissected from body to examine her, vi. 3.1

  Soul must fit herself to her part in the scheme, iii. 2.1, 7

  Soul necessary to unify manifold sensations, iv. 7.6 (2-65).

  Soul needed by body for life, iv. 3.19 (27-418).

  Soul not decomposable, iv. 7.1, 4 (2-84).

  Soul not evil by herself but by degeneration, i. 8.4 (51).

  Soul not in body as part in a whole, iv. 3.20 (27-421).

  Soul not in body as quality in a substrate, iii. 9.3 (13-222).

  Soul not in body, but body in soul, iv. 4.15 (28-460).

  Soul not in time, though her actions and reactions are, v. 9.4

  Soul not the limit of one ascent, why? v. 9.4 (5-106).

  Soul obeys fate only when evil, iii. 1.10 (47-1060).

  Soul of the unity, proves that of the Supreme, vi. 5.9 (23-323).

  Soul originates movements, but is not altered, iii. 6.3 (26-355).

  Soul power everywhere, localized in special organ, iv. 3.23 (27-424).

  Soul power revealed in simultaneity of control over world, v. 1.2

  Soul powers remain the same throughout all changes of body, iv. 3.8

  Soul pristine, precious, v. 1.2 (10-176).

  Soul, psychological distinctions in, i. 1.1 (53-1191).

  Soul pure, would remain isolated, iv. 4.23 (28-473).

  Soul puzzle of her being one, yet in all, iv. 3.4 (27-394).

  Soul, rational, if separated what would she remember? iv. 3.27

  Soul receives her form from intelligence, iii. 9.5 (15-224).

  Soul related to it might have been darkness, ii. 9.12 (33-625).

  Soul remains incorporeal, vi. 7.31 (38-750).

  Soul rises to the good by scorning all things below, iv. 3.20

  Soul said to be in body because body alone is visible, vi. 7.35

  Soul scorns even thought, she is intellectualized and ennobled, iv.
    3.4 (27-395).

  Soul, sick, devoted to her body, iv. 4.1 (28-441).

  Soul, speech in the intelligible world, ii. 9.2 (33-603).

  Soul split into three, intelligible, intermediary and sense-world.

  Soul symbolizes double Hercules, i. 1.13 (53-1206).

  Soul, the two between them, partition the fund of memory, iv. 3.31

  Soul, three principles, reason, imagination and sensation, ii. 3.9

  Soul, to which of ours does individuality belong, ii. 9.2 (33-603).

  Soul, triune, one nature for three powers, iv. 9.5 (51-1163).

  Soul unharmed, if her flight from here below is prompt enough, i.
    7.26 (1-50).

  Soul unity does not resemble reason unity, as it includes plurality,
    vi. 2.6 (43-901).

  Soul, universal, is everywhere entire, vi. 4.9 (22-300).

  Soul uses the body as tool, i. 1.3 (53-1193).

  Soul unconscious of her higher part, if distracted by sense, iv. 8.8

  Soul will not seem entirely within us, if functions are not
    localized, iv. 3.20 (27-419).

  Soul's action divided by division of time, iv. 4.15 (28-460).

  Soul's activity is triple: thinking, self-preservation and creation,
    iv. 8.3 (6-125).

  Soul's affection compared to lyre, iii. 6.4 (26-357).

  Souls all are one in the world soul, but are different, iv. 9.1

  Souls all have their demon which is their love. iii. 5.4 (50-1129).

  Souls are as immortal as the one from whom they proceed, vi. 4.10

  Souls are plural unity of seminal reasons, vi. 2.5 (43-899).

  Souls are united by their highest, vi. 9.15 (38-726).

  Souls as amphibious, iv. 8.4 (6-126).

  Soul's ascension to eligible world, ii. 9.2 (13-222).

  Soul's bodies may be related differently, iv. 4.29 (28-485).

  Souls can reason intuitionally without ratiocination, iv. 3.18

  Souls cannot lose parts, iv. 7.5 (2-63).

  Soul's condition in higher regions, iii. 4.6 (15-240).

  Soul conforms destiny to her character, iii. 4.5 (15-238).

  Soul's conformity to universal, proves they are not parts of her, iv.
    3.2 (27-389).

  Soul's descent into body, iii. 9.3 (13-222).

  Soul's desire, liver seat of, iv. 4.28 (28-480).

  Soul's destiny depends on condition of birth of universe, ii. 3.14

  Souls develop manifoldness as intelligence does, iv. 3.5 (27-396).

  Souls differ as do the sensations, vi. 4.6 (22-294).

  Souls, difference between, iv. 3.8 (27-400).

  Souls, do all form a single one, iv. 9 (8-139).

  Soul's dream is sensation, iii. 6.6 (26-363).

  Souls first go in Heaven in the intelligible world, iv. 3.17 (27-415).

  Souls form a genetic but not numeric unity, iv. 9.1 (8-146).

  Souls that enter into this world generate a love demon, iii. 5.6

  Soul's highest part always remains above body. v. 2.1 (11-194).

  Soul's highest part, even whole, sees vision of intelligible wisdom,
    v. 8.10 (31-568).

  Souls, how they come to descend, iv. 3.13 (27-410).

  Soul's immortality, iv. 7 (2-56).

  Soul's incarnation is for perfection of universe, iv. 8.5 (6-127).

  Souls incorporeal dwell within intelligence, iv. 3.24 (27-427).

  Souls, individual, are the emanations of the universal, iv. 3.1

  Soul's instrument is the body, iv. 7.1 (2-56).

  Soul's lower part, in sense world, fashions body, v. 1.10 (10-190).

  Souls may be unified without being identical, iv. 9.2 (8-140).

  Soul's mediation between indivisible and divisible essence, iv. 2

  Soul's memory in intelligible world, iv. 4.1 (28-441).

  Soul's mixture of reason and indetermination, iii. 5.7 (50-1133).

  Soul's multiplicity, based on their unity, iv. 9.4 (7-843).

  Soul's nature is intermediate, iv. 8.7 (6-130).

  Souls not isolated from intelligence during descent, iv. 3.12

  Souls of stars and incarnate humans govern worlds untroubledly, iv.
    8.2 (6-123).

  Souls of the second universal rank are men, ii. 3.13 (52-1180).

  Soul's powers differ and thence do not act everywhere, iv. 9.3

  Soul's primary and secondary evil, iii. 8.5 (30-538).

  Souls prognosticate but do not cause event, ii. 3.6 (52-1171).

  Soul's purification and separation, iii. 6.5 (26-359).

  Soul's relation to body is that of statue and metal, iv. 7.8 (2-176).

  Soul's relation to intelligence is that of matter to form, v. 1.3

  Souls resemble various forms of governments, iv. 4.17 (28-464).

  Souls retain unity and differences, on different levels, iv. 3.5

  Soul's separation from body enables her to use the body as tool, i.
    1.3 (53-1193).

  Souls show kinship to world by fidelity to their own nature, iii. 3.1

  Soul's superior and inferior bodies related in three ways, iv. 4.29

  Souls that change their condition alone have memory, iv. 4.6 (28-448).

  Souls united, intelligence shined down from the peak formed by them,
    vi. 7.15 (38-726).

  Souls united to world-souls by functions, iv. 3.2 (27-392).

  Souls weakened by individual contemplation, iv. 8.4 (6-125).

  Soul's welfare is resemblance to divinity, i. 6.6 (1-49).

  Souls, why they take different kinds of bodies, iv. 3.12 (27-410).

  Source, common, by it all things are united, vi. 7.12 (38-721).

  Source, height of, implied by simplicity of the intelligible, vi.
    7.13 (38-722).

  Sowing of soul in stars and matter, iv. 8.45 (6-127).

  Space, 5.1, 10.

  Space, corporeal, iv. 3.20 (27-420).

  Space has nothing to do with intelligible light, which is
    non-spatial, v. 5.7 (29-526).

  Space, result of procession of the universal soul, iii. 7.10

  Space said to measure movement because of its determination, iii.
    7.11 (45-1011).

  Species destroyed by fundamental unity, vi. 2.2 (43-894).

  Spectacle Divine in ecstasy, vi. 9.11 (9-170).

  Spectator of vision becomes participator, v. 8.10 (31-569).

  Speech is a quantity, vi. 3.12 (44-954).

  Speech is a quantity, classification of, vi. 3.12 (44-954).

  Speech of soul in the intelligible world, iv. 4.1 (28-441).

  Spherical figure, intelligible is the primitive one, vi. 6.17

  Spindle of fate (significance), ii. 3.9 (52-1174); iii. 4.6 (15-242).

  Spirit and its apportionment, iv. 7.8 (2-69).

  Spirits inanimate, i. 4.7 (2-56).

  Spiritual becomes love, begun physically, vi. 7.33 (38-755).

  Spiritual body, ii. 2.2 (14-231).

  Spiritual gnostic distinction of men, ii. 9.18 (33-637).

  Spiritual men, v. 9.1 (5-102).

  Splendor, last view of revelation, v. 8.10 (31-567).

  Splitting of intelligible principle, ii. 4.5 (12-202).

  Splitting of unity typified by mutilation of Saturn, v. 8.13 (31-573).

  Splitting up of soul at death, iii. 4.6 (15-241).

  Spontaneity not affected by irresponsible, iii. 2.10 (47-1060).

  Stability and essence, distinction between, vi. 2.7 (43-903).

  Stability and movement exist because thought by intelligence, vi. 2.8

  Stability another kind of movement, vi. 2.7 (43-903).

  Stability, distinction from, vi. 3.27 (44-980).

  Stability does not imply stillness in the intelligible, vi. 3.27

  Stability of essence only accidental, vi. 9.3 (9-153).

  Standard human cannot measure world soul, ii. 9.7 (33-612).

  Star action mingled only affects already natural process, ii. 3.12

  Star-soul and world-soul intellectual differences, iv. 4.17 (28-463).

  Stars affect physical, not essential being, iii. 1.6 (3-95).

  Stars and world-soul are impassable, iv. 4.42 (28-506).

  Stars answer prayers unconsciously, iv. 4.42 (28-505).

  Stars are inexhaustible and need no refreshment, ii. 1.8 (40-827).

  Stars are they animate?

  Stars are they inanimate?

  Stars, as well as sun, may be prayed to, iv. 4.30 (28-486).

  Stars, body or will do not sway earthly events, iv. 4.35 (28-495).

  Stars by their body produce only passions of universe, ii. 3.10

  Stars contain not only fire but earth, ii. 1.6 (40-821).

  Stars do not need memories to answer prayers, iv. 4.42 (28-505).

  Stars follow the universal kind, ii. 3.13 (52-1179).

  Stars have no memory, because uniformly blissful, iv. 4.42 (28-505).

  Stars influence is from contemplation of intelligible world, iv. 4.35

  Stars motion compared to a prearranged dance, iv. 4.33 (28-492).

  Stars natural radiation of good, explains their influence, iv. 4.35

  Stars predict because of soul's accidents, ii. 3.10 (52-1177).

  Stars serve as letters in which to read nature, iii. 1.6 (3-95).

  Stars, souls govern worlds untroubled by, iv. 8.2 (6-123).

  Stars sway general but not detailed fate, iv. 4.31 (28-487).

  Stars, what is and what is not produced by them, ii. 3.13 (52-1178).

  Statue, art makes out of rough marble, v. 8.1 (31-551).

  Statue, composite of form and matter, v. 9.3 (5-504).

  Statue, essential beings as statues, v. 8.4 (31-558).

  Statue, heating of statue by metal only indirect, vi. 1.21 (42-874).

  Statue, justice as self born intellectual statue, vi. 6 (34-653).

  Statue, metal is not potentiality of statue, ii. 5.1 (25-342).

  Statue, purified cleans within herself divine statues, v. 7.10 (2-81).

  Statue, shining in front rank is unity, v. 1.6 (10-182).

  Statue, soul is to body as metal is to statue, iv. 7.8 (2-76).

  Statues at entrance of temples left behind, vi. 9.9 (9-170).

  Statues of palace of divinity, vi. 7.35 (38-758).

  Sterility of nature indicated by castration, iii. 6.19 (26-385).

  Still, why the heavens do not remain, ii. 9.1 (40-814).

  Stillness, not implied by stability in the intelligible, vi. 3.27

  Stoic explanation of beauty, symmetry, opposed, i. 6.1 (1-41).

  Stoic four categories evaporate, leaving matter as basis, vi. 1.29

  Stoic God is only modified matter, vi. 1.27 (45-881).

  Stoic relation category confuses new with anterior, vi. 1.31 (42-888).

  Stoics, v. 9.4 (5-106).

  Stoics' fault is to have taken sensation as their guide, vi. 1.28

  Stones growing while in earth, iv. 4.27 (28-479); vi. 7.11 (38-718).

  Straight line represents sensation, while the soul is like a circle,
    v. 1.7 (10-184).

  Straight movement, vi. 4.2 (22-288); ii. 2.12 (14-231).

  Studied world must be just as one would analyze the voice, vi. 3.1

  Study of time makes us descend from the intelligible, iii. 7.6

  Sub-conscious nature hinders dominance of better-self, iii. 3.4

  Subdivision infinite of bodies, leads to destruction, iv. 7.1 (2-56).

  Subject, one's notion does not come from subject itself, vi. 6.13

  Sublunar sphere, immortality does not extend to it, ii. 1.5 (40-820).

  Sublunary divinities, crimes should not be attributed to, iv. 4.31

  Substance as Stoic category would be split up, vi. 1.25 (42-878).

  Substantial act or habitation is hypostasis, vi. 1.6 (42-845).

  Substrate, iii. 3.6 (48-1087).

  Substrate and residence of forms, is matter, ii. 4.1 (12-197).

  Substrate demanded by process of elements, ii. 4.6 (12-203).

  Substrate needed by composition of the body, ii. 4.11 (12-209).

  Substrate not common to all elements, being indeterminate, ii. 4.13

  Subsumed under being in essence not everything can, vi. 2.2 (43-893).

  Successive enumeration inevitable in describing the eternal, iv. 8.6

  Succumb to the law of the universe, why many souls do, iv. 3.15

  Suchness, ii. 7.2 (37-701). (Whatness.)

  Suchness later than being and quiddity, ii. 6.2 (17-248).

  Suffering and action cannot be separate categories, vi. 1.17 (42-866).

  Suffering of most men physical, virtuous man suffers least because
    most suffering is physical, i. 4.13 (46-1036).

  Suffering part of virtuous man is the higher, i. 4.13 (46-1036).

  Suggestive is influence of reason, i. 2.5 (19-264).

  Suicide, i. 9 (16-243).

  Suicide breaks up the appointed time of life, i. 9 (16-244).

  Suicide unavailable even to avoid insanity, i. 9 (16-244).

  Suitability and opportunity, cause of, puts them beyond chance, vi.
    8.18 (39-806).

  Sun and ray, simile of, v. 5.7 (32-587); v. 3.9 (49-1105).

  Sun as well as stars, may be prayed to, iv. 4.30 (28-486).

  Sunlight exists everywhere, vi. 4.7 (22-296).

  Sunrise only image for divine approach, v. 5.8 (32-588).

  Superabundance, manner in which all things issue from one, v. 2.1

  Super-beauty and super-virtue, vi. 9.11 (9-170).

  Super-beauty of the Supreme, v. 8.8 (31-564).

  Super-being achieved in ecstasy, vi. 9.11 (9-170).

  Super-essential principle does not think, v. 6.1 (24-333).

  Super-essentiality and super-existence of Supreme, v. 3.17 (49-1119).

  Super-existence and super-essentiality of Supreme, v. 3.17 (49-1119);
    v. 4.2 (7-137).

  Super-existence of first principle, vi. 7.38 (38-763).

  Super-form is uniform unity, vi. 9.3 (9-152).

  Super-goodness is Supreme, vi. 9.6 (9-160).

  Superior principle not always utilized, i. 1.10 (53-1203).

  Superior would be needed if the good thought, vi. 7.40 (38-767).

  Super-liberty may be attributed to intelligence, vi. 8.6 (39-782).

  Super-master of himself is the Supreme, vi. 8.10 (39-790).

  Super-rest, super-motion, super-thought is the one
    super-consciousness and super-life, iii. 9.7, 9 (13-226).

  Super-virtue, soul meets absolute beauty, vi. 9.11 (9-170).

  Supra active, the good is, as supra-cogitative, v. 6.6 (24-338).

  Supra cogitative, the good as, is also supra-active, v. 6.6 (24-338).

  Supra-thinking principle does not think, necessary to working of
    intelligence, v. 6.2 (24-334).

  Supremacy is the cause of the good, vi. 7.23 (38-739).

  Supremacy of good implies its supremacy over all its possessions, v.
    5.13 (32-595).

  Supreme admits of no reasoning, demonstration, faith or cause, v. 8.7

  Supreme, all language about it is metaphorical, vi. 8.13 (39-795).

  Supreme as a spring of water, iii. 8.10 (30-547).

  Supreme as being as being and essence, v. 3.17 (49-1119); v. 9.2
    (7-149); v. 4.2 (7-138); v. 5.5 (32-584); v. 5.5 (32-585).

  Supreme, assisted by intelligence would have no room for chance, vi.
    8.17 (39-804).

  Supreme banishes all chance, vi. 8.10 (39-789).

  Supreme being not produced by chance, vi. 8.11 (39-793).

  Supreme beyond chance because of suitability, vi. 8.17 (39-806).

  Supreme can be approached sufficiently to be spoken of, v. 3.14

  Supreme can be attributed contingence only under new definition, vi.
    8.9 (39-787).

  Supreme can be attributed physical qualities only by analogy, vi. 8.8

  Supreme cannot aspire higher, being super-goodness, vi. 9.6 (9-159).

  Supreme commands himself, vi. 8.20 (39-809).

  Supreme consists with himself, vi. 8.15 (39-800).

  Supreme could not be called chance by any one who had seen him, vi.
    8.19 (39-807).

  Supreme, every term should be limited by some what or higher, vi.
    8.13 (39-797).

  Supreme formlessness shown by approaching soul's rejection of form,
    vi. 7.34 (38-756).

  Supreme inevitable for intelligence that is intelligible, iii. 8.9

  Supreme intelligence is king of kings, v. 15.3 (32-580).

  Supreme intelligence, nature of, i. 8.2. (51-1144).

  Supreme is both being and whyness, ii. 7.2 (37-707).

  Supreme is entirely one, does not explain origin of manifold, v. 9.14

  Supreme is essential beauty, the shapeless shaper and the
    transcendent, vi. 7.33 (38-754).

  Supreme is everywhere and nowhere, is inclination and imminence, vi.
    8.16 (39-801).

  Supreme is ineffable, v. 3.13 (49-1113).

  Supreme is limitless, v. 7.32 (38-753).

  Supreme is potentiality of all things, above all actualization, iii.
    8.10 (30-546).

  Supreme is super-being, because not dependent on it, vi. 8.19

  Supreme is the good, because of its supremacy, vi. 7.23 (38-739).

  Supreme is the power, really master of himself, vi. 8.9 (39-788); vi.
    8.10 (39-790).

  Supreme is will being and actualization, vi. 8.13 (39-795).

  Supreme must be free, as chance is escaped by interior isolation, vi.
    8.13 (39-795); vi. 8.15 (39-800).

  Supreme must be simple and not compound, ii. 9.1 (33-599).

  Supreme named Apollo, v. 5.6 (32-584).

  Supreme not intelligence that aspires to form of good, iii. 8.10

  Supreme of three ranks of existence is the beautiful, vi. 7.42

  Supreme one only figuratively, vi. 9.5 (9-157).

  Supreme principles must then be unity, intelligence and soul, ii. 9.1

  Supreme, proven by the unity of the soul, vi. 5.9 (23-323).

  Supreme super-master of himself, vi. 8.12 (39-793).

  Supreme unity adjusts all lower group unities, vi. 6.11 (34-660).

  Supreme would wish to be what he is, is such as he would wish to be,
    vi. 8.13 (39-796); vi. 8.15 (39-800).

  Swine, simile of the impure, i. 6.6 (1-49).

  Sympathy between individual and universal soul due to common origin,
    iv. 3.8 (48-1088); v. 8.12 (31-571).

  Syllables a quantity, vi. 3.12 (44-954).

  Symmetry, earthly, contemplates universal symmetry, v. 9.11 (5-114).

  Symmetry, Stoic definition of beauty, opposed, i. 6.1 (1-41).

  Sympathetic harmony, earth feels and directs by it, iv. 4.26 (28-477).

  Sympathy, cosmic, ii. 1.7 (40-824).

  Sympathy, does not force identity of sensation, iv. 9.3 (8-142).

  Sympathy implies unity of all beings in lower magic enchantment, iv.
    9.3 (8-152).

  Sympathy, love working as, effects magic, iv. 4.40 (28-503).

  Sympathy of soul and body, iv. 4.23 (28-473).

  Sympathy of soul's highest self, basis of memory, iv. 6.3 (41-832).

  Sympathy or community of affection, Stoic, iv. 7.3 (2-59).

  System, co-existence of unity and multiplicity, demands organization
    in, vi. 7.10 (38-716).

  Taming of body, i. 4.14 (46-1037).

  Theology revealed by astrology, ii. 3.7 (52-1172).

  Telescoping, of intelligible entities, v. 9.10 (5-113).

  Temperament of corporeal principles, is health, iv. 7.8 (2-71).

  Temperament, soul as mixture, iv. 7.2 (2-58).

  Temperance, gate of ecstasy, i. 6.9 (1-53).

  Temperance interpreted as purification, i. 6.6 (1-49).

  Temperance is not real category, vi. 2.18 (43-923).

  Temperate man is good's independence from pleasure, vi. 7.29 (38-747).

  Temples of divinity, explained by psychology, iv. 3.1 (27-387).

  Temporal conceptions implied by priority of order, iv. 4.16 (28-461).

  Tending towards the good, all things tend towards the one, vi. 2.12

  Tension, Stoic, iv. 7.13 (2-83); iv. 5.4 (29-522).

  Terrestrial things do not last so long as celestial ones, ii. 1.5

  Testimony, to its creator by world, iii. 2.3 (47-1047).

  The living animal, i. 1.5 (53-1126).

  Theodore, from P1ato's Theatetus, i. 8.6 (51-1150).

  Theodore of Asine, his infra celestial vault (invisible place), v.
    8.10 (31-567); ii. 4.1 (12-198).

  Theory of happiness consisting in reasonable life, i. 4.2 (46-1022).

  Thing in itself, differs from nonentity, ii. 4.10 (12-207).

  Thing in itself, qualityless, found by abstraction, ii. 4.10 (12-207).

  Things good is their form, vi. 7.27 (38-744).

  Think, body cannot, iv. 7.8 (2-68).

  Thinking in conformity with intelligence, two ways, v. 3.4 (49-1094).

  Thinking is perception without help of the body, iv. 7.8 (2-68).

  Thinking ourselves, is thinking an intellectual nature, iii. 9.6

  Thinking principle, the first, is the general second, v. 6.2 (24-335).

  Thinking principles--which is the first, and which is the second? v.
    6.1 (24-335).

  Third principle is soul, iii. 9.1 (13-221).

  Third rank of existence should not be occupied by modality, vi. 1.30

  Thought and life, different grades of, iii. 8.7 (30-540).

  Thought actualization of light, v. 1.5 (10-181).

  Thought as first actualization of a hypostasis is not in first
    principle, vi 7.40 (38-766).

  Thought as touch of the good leads to ecstasy, vi. 7.36 (38-760).

  Thought below one and Supreme, iii. 9.7, 9 (13-226).

  Thought beneath the super essential principle, v. 6 (24-339).

  Thought distracted from by sensation, iv. 8.8 (6-132).

  Thought implies simultaneous unity and duality, v. 6.1 (24-333).

  Thought in first principle would imply attributes, and that
    manifoldness, v. 6.2 (24-336).

  Thought is actualized intelligence, v. 3.5 (49-1097).

  Thought is beneath the first so intelligence implies the latter, v.
    6.5 (24-338); v. 6.2, 6 (24-339).

  Thought is inspiration for good, v. 6.5 (24-338).

  Thought is integral part of intelligence, v. 5.2 (32-579).

  Thought is seeing the intelligible, v. 4.2 (7-138).

  Thought is the form; shape the actualization of being, v. 9.8 (5-111).

  Thought, life and existence, contained in primary existence, v. 6.6

  Thought made impossible only by the first principle being one
    exclusively, v. 6.3 (24-335).

  Thought, one with sight, v. 1.5 (10-181).

  Thought, self direction of, is not changeableness, iv. 4.2 (28-444).

  Thought, the means by which intelligence passes from unity to
    duality, v. 6.1 (24-333).

  Thoughts, conceptive, demand intermediary sensation, iv. 4.23

  Thoughts, contrary to rights, possess real existence, iii. 5.7

  Thoughts, highest, have incorporeal objects, iv. 7.8 (2-68).

  Three kinds of men, v. 9.1 (5-102).

  Three men in each of us, vi. 7.6 (38-708).

  Three principles, v. 6.2 (24-334 to 337); v. 1.10 (10-189).

  Three ranks of existence, vi. 4.11 (22-302); v. 1.10 (10-189); v.
    6.2 (24-335); iii. 3.3 (48-1077); iii. 5.9 (50-1138); vi. 1.30
    (43-887); vi. 7.6 (38-708).

  Three spheres, v. 1.8 (10-186).

  Threefold activity of soul, thought, self-preservation and creation,
    iv. 8.3 (6-125).

  Time and eternity, iii. 7 (45-985).

  Time arose as measurement of the activity of the universal soul, iii.
    7.10 (45-1005).

  Time as motion, errors in, iii. 7.1 (45-987).

  Time becomes, iii. 7, int. (45-985).

  Time can be increased, why not happiness, i. 5.7 (36-687).

  Time cannot be divided without implying soul's action, iv. 4.15

  Time, considered as motion, as moveable or as something of motion,
    iii. 7.6 (45-996).

  Time, if it is a quantity, why a separate category? vi. 1.13 (42-861).

  Time included action and reaction of soul, not soul itself, iv. 4.15

  Time is also within us, iii. 7.12 (45-1014).

  Time is as interior to the soul as eternity is to existence, iii.
    7.10 (45-1008).

  Time is measured by movement and is measure of movement, iii. 7.12

  Time is no interval of movement (Stoic Zeno), iii. 7.7 (45-999).

  Time is not a numbered number (Aristotle), iii. 7.8 (45-1000).

  Time is not a quantity, vi. 1.5 (42-844).

  Time is not an accident or consequence of movement, iii. 7.9

  Time is not begotten by movement but only indicated thereby, iii.
    7.11 (45-1009).

  Time is not motion and rest (Strato), iii. 7.7 (45-1000).

  Time is not movement, iii. 7.7 (45-997).

  Time is not the number and measure of movement (Aristotle), iii. 7.8

  Time is present everywhere, as against Antiphanes and Critolaus, iii.
    7.12 (45-1013).

  Time is the length of the life of the universal soul, iii. 7.11

  Time is the life of the soul, considered in the movement by which she
    passes from one actualization to another, iii. 7.10 (45-1005).

  Time is the model of its image eternity, iii. 7 int. (45-985).

  Time is the universe, iii. 7.1 (45-986).

  Time is to the world-soul, what eternity is to intelligence, iii.
    7.10 (45-1007).

  Time joined to actions to make them perfect, vi. 1.19 (42-868).

  Time must be studied comparatively among the philosophers, iii. 7.6

  Time none, only a single day for world-souls, iv. 4.7 (28-450).

  Time or place do not figure among the categories, vi. 2.16 (43-919).

  Time, Plato uncertain about it, iii. 7.12 (45-1012).

  Time replaced by eternity in intelligible world, v. 9.10 (5-113).

  Time's nature will be revealed by its birth, iii. 7.10 (45-1005).

  Toleration by soul, without guilt, iii. 1.8 (3-97).

  Tomb of soul is body, iv. 8.1, 4 (6-126).

  Tool, body uses the soul as, i. 1.2 (55-1194); iv. 7.1 (2-57).

  Tools are intermediate, like sense shape, iv. 4.23 (28-473).

  Torments of hell are reformatory, iv. 4.45 (28-448).

  Total reason of universe, ii. 3.13 (52-1179).

  Touch, the good is a simple perception of itself, vi. 7.39 (38-764).

  Touched with the good is the greatest of sciences, vi. 7.36 (38-760).

  Trace of life, left by soul when leaving body, iv. 4.29 (28-483).

  Trace of the One, is the being of souls, v. v. 5 (32-583).

  Traditions of divinity contained by the world, ii. 9.9 (33-616).

  Training and education, memory needs, iv. 6.3 (41-835).

  Training here below help souls to remember when beyond, iv. 4.5

  Training of interior vision, i. 6.9 (1-53).

  Trance of ecstasy, vi. 9.11 (9-169).

  Transcendence of good over intelligence and life, v. 3.16 (49-1117).

  Transcendent, v. 3 (49-1090).

  Transcendent shapeless shaper and essential beauty is supreme, vi.
    7.33 (38-754).

  Transcending unity demanded by contemplation of intelligence, v. 3.10

  Transition of sense-beauty to intellectual, i. 6.3 (1-45).

  Transmigration, animals into animals, plants, birds, eagles and
    soaring birds and bee, iii. 4.2 (15-235).

  Transmigration, two kinds, into human or animal bodies, iv. 3.9

  Transmission, reception, relation underlies action and experience,
    vi. 1.22 (42-874).

  Transparency of everything in intelligible world, v. 8.4 (31-558).

  Trap on way to ecstasy, v. 8.11 (31-569).

  Traverse heaven, without leaving rest (celestial divinities), v. 8.3

  Tree of the universe, simile of, iii. 8.10 (30-547).

  Triad is limit of differentiation, ii. 9.2 (33-602).

  Triangles equal to two, iii. 5.7 (50-1136).

  Triangles, material and immaterial, explain trine relations, vi. 5.11

  Trinity, compared to light, sun and moon, i. 8.2 (51-1144); vi. 7.6
    (38-708); vi. 7.7 (38-711); iv. 8.4 (6-125); vi. 7.42 (38-770); vi.
    2.8 (43-905); iv. 7.13 (2-84); iii. 4.2 (15-234).

  Triune, v. 6.4 (24-337).

  Triune, soul, one nature in three powers, ii. 3.4 (52); v. 1
    (10-173); ii. 9.2 (33-602).

  Triune play implies also identity and difference, vi. 2.8 (43-905).

  True good, implies counterfeit, vi. 7.26 (38-743).

  Truth external to intelligence, a theory that destroys intelligence,
    v. 5.1 (32-576).

  Truth, field of, intelligence evolves, vi. 7.13 (38-723).

  Truth self-probative; nothing truer, v. 5.2 (32-579).

  Two-fold soul exerts two-fold providence, iv. 8.2 (6-122).

  Two-fold sphere in which soul has to exist, iv. 8.7 (6-130).

  Two, not addition to one, but a change, vi. 6.14 (34-666).

  Ugliness, aversion for, explains love for beauty, i. 6.5 (1-47).

  Ugliness consists of formlessness, i. 6.2 (1-43).

  Ugliness is a foreign accretion, i. 6.5 (1-48).

  Ugliness is form's failure to dominate matter, i. 8.9 (51-1156).

  Ugliness is predominance of matter, v. 7.2 (18-253).

  Ugliness of men due to lowering themselves to lower natures, and
    ignoring themselves, v. 8.13 (31-574).

  Ulysses, i. 6.8 (1-52).

  Unalloyed is no evil for the living people, i. 7.3 (54-1210).

  Unattached, condition o wise man, i. 4.1, 7 (46-1029).

  Unavoidable and universal evils are, i. 8.6 (51-1149).

  Uncertainty in location of good and beauty, i. 6.9 (1-53).

  Unchangeableness of form and matter, iii. 6.10 (26-368).

  Unconsciously do stars answer prayers, iv. 4.4 (28-505); iv. 4.2

  Unconsciousness does not hinder virtue, handsomeness or health, i.
    4.9 (46-1033).

  Unconsciousness of oneself in ecstasy, v. 8.11 (31-570).

  Unconsciousness of soul intelligence and one does not detract from
    their existence, v. 1.12 (10-191).

  Undefinability of unity (referred to by feelings), vi. 9.3 (9-151).

  Understand and fit yourself to the world instead of complaining of
    it, ii. 9.13 (33-625).

  Undisturbed is the world-soul by the things of sense, iv. 8.7 (6-131).

  Unhappiness increased by duration, why not happiness? i. 5.6 (36-686).

  Unharmed is the soul by incarnation, if prompt in flight, iv. 8.5

  Unification does not reveal true knowledge, ii. 9.9 (33-617).

  Unification process, v. 1.5 (10-180); v. 5.4 (32-581).

  Unification with divinity result of ecstasy, v. 8.11 (31-570).

  Uniform action, exerted by body, iv. 7.4 (2-62).

  Uniform in itself is unity and super-form, vi. 9.3 (9-152).

  Unincarnate souls govern world untroubledly, iv. 8.2 (6-123).

  Unique (Monad), v. 5.4 (32-581); v. 5.13 (32-595).

  Unissued brothers of Jupiter, vi. 8.12 (31-572).

  Unitary are intelligibles, but not absolute unity, vi. 5.4 (32-581).

  Unitary is consciousness, though containing thinker, ii. 9.1 (33-601).

  Unitary number, vi. 6.9 (34-656).

  United are all things by a common source, vi. 7.12 (38-721).

  United are souls, by their highest, vi. 7.15 (38-726).

  United souls, intelligence shines down from the peak formed by them,
    vi. 7.15 (38-726).

  Unities, different kinds of, v. 5.4 (32-582).

  Uniting of highest parts of men in intelligible, vi. 5.10 (23-327).

  Uniting of intelligence, as it rises to the intelligible, iv. 4.1

  Uniting soul and body forms individual aggregate, i. 1.6 (53-1197).

  Unity, v. 1.6 (10-182); v. 5.4 (32-581).

  Unity above all; intelligence and essence. vi. 9.2 (9-149).

  Unity absolute, is first, while intelligence is not, vi. 9.2 (9-150).

  Unity, abstruse, because soul has repugnances to such researches, vi.
    9.3 (9-151).

  Unity an accident amongst sense things, something more in the
    intelligible, vi. 6.14 (34-666).

  Unity and essence, genuine relations between, vi. 2.11 (43-911).

  Unity and number precede the one and many beings, vi. 6.10 (34-659).

  Unity as indivisible and infinite, vi. 9.6 (9-158).

  Unity is the self-uniform and formless super form, vi. 9.3 (9-152).

  Unity, by it all things depend on the good, i. 7.2 (54-1209).

  Unity, by thinking intelligence passes to duality, v. 6.1 (24-333).

  Unity, co-existence of, demands organization in system, vi. 7.10

  Unity, contained in sense objects, is not unity itself, vi. 6.16

  Unity, contemplation in nature, iii. 8 (30-531).

  Unity does not even need itself, vi. 9.6 (9-159).

  Unity, everything tends toward it as it tends toward the good, vi.
    2.12 (43-914).

  Unity, fundamental of genera, would destroy species, vi. 2.2 (43-894).

  Unity, greater in intelligible than in physical world, vi. 5.10

  Unity, if passed into the manifold, would destroy universe, iii. 8.10

  Unity, imparted by soul is not pure, vi. 9.1 (9-147).

  Unity, incomprehensible, vi. 9.4 (9-154).

  Unity in manifoldness, vi. 5.6 (23-320).

  Unity into plurality split by numbers, vi. 6.9 (34-656).

  Unity is in the manifold by a manner of existence, vi. 4.8 (22-296).

  Unity is intelligible, though participated in by sense-objects, vi.
    6.13 (34-664).

  Unity is not intelligence, its manifold produced by a unity, iv. 4.1

  Unity, lack of, causes corporeity to be nonentity, iii. 6.6 (26-362).

  Unity, multiple, radiation of, v. 3.15 (49-1115).

  Unity must be sought for in essence, vi. 5.1 (23-342).

  Unity must exist in the intelligible before being applied to mutable
    beings, vi. 6.11 (34-659).

  Unity necessary to existence of all beings, especially collective
    nouns, vi. 9.1 (9-147).

  Unity not category, are arguments against, vi. 2.10 (43-910).

  Unity not mere numbering, but existence, vi. 9.2 (9-149).

  Unity not synonymous with essence, vi. 2.9 (43-908).

  Unity of apperception, iv. 4.1 (28-442).

  Unity of being does not exclude unity of other beings, vi. 4.4

  Unity of reason constituted by contained contraries, iii. 2.16

  Unity of soul, does not resemble reason unity because it includes
    plurality, vi. 2.6 (43-901).

  Unity of soul not effected by plurality of powers, iv. 9.4 (8-143).

  Unity of soul retained on different levels, iv. 3.5 (27-396).

  Unity of souls based on their multiplicity, iv. 9.4 (8-143).

  Unity of Supreme entailed by its being a principle, v. 4.1 (7-134).

  Unity of Supreme only figurative, vi. 9.5 (9-157).

  Unity of the soul proves that of the Supreme, vi. 5.9 (23-323).

  Unity of will, being an actualization, is the Supreme, vi. 8.13

  Unity only for its examination are its parts apart, vi. 2.3 (43-897).

  Unity passing into manifold would destroy universe, iii. 8.10

  Unity reigns still more in the good, vi. 2.11 (43-912).

  Unity self-sufficient, needing no establishment, vi, 9.6 (9-159).

  Unity indefinable, referred to by feeling, vi. 9.3 (9-154).

  Unity, why world proceeded from it, v. 2.1 (11-193).

  Unity's form is principle of numbers, v. 5.5 (32-583).

  Universal and unavoidable evils are, i. 8.6 (51-1149).

  Universal being, description of, vi. 4.2 (22-286).

  Universal being is indivisible, vi. 4.3 (22-288).

  Universal being, stars followers of, ii. 3.13 (52-1179).

  Universal, second rank, souls of men, ii. 3.13 (52-1180).

  Universal soul, first actualization of essence and intelligence, v.
    2.2 (11-194).

  Universal soul is everywhere entire, vi. 4.9 (22-300).

  Universal soul may not be judged by human standards, ii. 9.7 (33-611).

  Universal soul's motion, immortalized heaven, ii. 1.4 (40-817).

  Universality of creator overcame all obstacles, v. 8.7 (31-562).

  Universe, ii. 1 (40-813).

  Universe and deity if include separable soul, ii. 3.9 (52-1176).

  Universe animated by world-soul, iv. 3.9 (27-404).

  Universe as a single harmony, ii. 3.5 (52-1170).

  Universe, birth of, destiny of souls depend on, ii. 3.15 (52-1182).

  Universe depends on single principle, ii. 3.7 (52-1117).

  Universe, diagram of, iv. 4.16 (28-462).

  Universe, hierarchical constitution, vi. 2.2 (43-892).

  Universe is harmony in spite of the faults in the details, ii. 3.16

  Universe like light, sun and moon, v. 6.4 (24-337).

  Universe moves in circle, and stands still simultaneously, ii. 2.3

  Universe, nothing in it inanimate, iv. 4.36 (28-499).

  Universe passions produced by body of stars, ii. 3.13 (52-1178).

  Universe, perfection of, evils are necessary, ii. 3.18 (52-1187).

  Universe picture, that pictures itself, ii. 3.18 (52-1188).

  Universe, plan of, is from eternity, Providence, vi. 8.17 (39-803).

  Universe specialized, organ of, every being is, iv. 4.45 (28-510).

  Universe would be destroyed if unity passed into the manifold, iii.
    8.10 (30-547).

  Universe's influence should be partial only, iv. 4.34 (28-494).

  Universe's total reason, ii. 3.13 (52-1178).

  Unjust acts unastrological theory blame divine reason, iii. 2.10

  Unmeasured, is intelligible number infinite, vi. 6.18 (34-676).

  Unnoticed are many new things, iv. 4.8 (28-450).

  Unreflective identification not as high as memory, iv. 4.4 (28-445).

  Unseen is beauty in supreme fusion, v. 8.11 (31-570).

  Uranus, see Kronos, iii. 5.2 (50-1127).

  Uranus (Coleus), v. 8.13 (31-573).

  Utility not the only deciding factor with the senses, iv. 4.24

  Utilized, superior principle not always, i. 1.10 (53-1203).

  Varied action, exerted by soul, iv. 7.4 (2-62).

  Variety may depend on latency of part of seminal reason, v. 7.1

  Variety of world-soul's life makes variety of time, iii. 7.10

  Vase for form, see residence, see jar, iv. 3.20 (27-420).

  Vase is the body, iv. 3.7 (27-399).

  Vase of creation of Timaeus, iv. 3.7 (27-399).

  Vault, Theodore of Asine's infra celestial, ii. 4.1 (12-198); v. 8.10

  Vegetables not irrational and rooted in the intelligible, vi. 7.11

  Venus, iv. 3.14 (27-412); iii. 5.18 (50-1136); ii. 3.5, 6 (52-1170).

  Venus as subordinate nature of world-soul, v. 8.13 (31-573).

  Venus beauty, whence it came, v. 8.2 (31-553).

  Venus is world-soul, iii. 5.5 (50-1131).

  Venus, Jupiter and Mercury also considered astrologically, ii. 3.5

  Venus, mother of Eros, iii. 5.2 (50-1125).

  Venus, or the soul is the individual of Jupiter, iii. 5.8 (50-1137).

  Venus Urania, vi. 9.9 (9-167).

  Vesta, pun on, represents intelligence, v. 5.5 (32-583).

  Vesta represents earth, iv. 4.27 (28-480).

  Vestige of soul descended into world is demon, iii. 5.6 (50-1132).

  Vice as disharmony, iii. 6.2 (26-352).

  Vice caused by external circumstances, i. 8.8 (51-1154); ii. 3.8
    (52-1174); iii. 1 (3-86); vi. 8 (39-773).

  Vice, how soul comes to know it, i. 8.9 (51-1155).

  Vice is deprivation in soul, i. 8.11 (51-1157).

  Vice not absolute but derived evil, i. 8.8 (51-1155).

  Vices, intemperance and cowardliness comes from matter, i. 8.4

  Victory over self is mastery of fate, ii. 3.15 (52-1182).

  Vindication, God's justice by philosophy, iv. 4.30 (28-487).

  Vine and branches, simile of, iii. 3.7 (48-1088).

  Violence, proof of, unnaturalness, as of sickness, v. 8.11 (31-570).

  Virtue affects the soul differently from other passions, iii. 6.3

  Virtue an intellectualizing habit that liberates the soul, vi. 8.5

  Virtue as a harmony, iii. 6.2 (26-352).

  Virtue as harmony explains evil in soul, iii. 6.2 (26-352).

  Virtue belongs to soul, not to intelligence of super-intelligence, i.
    2.2 (19-259).

  Virtue can conquer any misfortune, i. 4.8 (46-1031).

  Virtue changes life from evil to good, i. 7.3 (54-1210).

  Virtue considered a good, because participation in good, i. 8.12

  Virtue consists not in conversion but in its result, i. 2.4 (19-261).

  Virtue consists of doing good when not under trials, iii. 1.10 (3-98).

  Virtue derived from primitive nature of soul, ii. 3.8 (52-1174).

  Virtue does not figure among true categories, vi. 2.17 (43-920).

  Virtue independent of action, vi. 8.5 (39-779).

  Virtue is good, not absolute, but participating, i. 8.8 (51-1155).

  Virtue is soul's tendency to unity of faculties, vi. 9.1 (9-1147).

  Virtue not corporeal, iv. 7.8 (2-69).

  Virtue not possessed by body, iv. 7.8 (2-69).

  Virtue of appetite explained, iii. 6.2 (26-354).

  Virtue the road to escape evils, i. 2.1 (19-256).

  Virtue, without which, God is a mere word ignored by gnostics, ii.
    9.15 (33-629).

  Virtues, i. 2.

  Virtue's achievement makes this the best of all possible worlds, ii.
    9.8 (33-615).

  Virtues are only purifications, i. 6.6 (1-49).

  Virtues are symmetrical in development, i. 2.7 (19-267).

  Virtues, Aristotelian, rational, i. 3.6 (20-274).

  Virtues, by shaping man, increase divine element in him, i. 2.2

  Virtues cannot be ascribed to divinity, i. 2.1 (19-256).

  Virtue, choir of, Stoic, vi. 9.11 (9-170).

  Virtues, discussion of, is characteristic of genuine philosophy, ii.
    9.15 (33-621).

  Virtues exist through incorporeality of soul, iv. 7.8 (2-70).

  Virtues, higher, are continuations upward of the homely, i. 2.6

  Virtues, higher, imply lower but not conversely, i. 3.7 (19-266).

  Virtues, higher, merge into wisdom, i. 2.6 (19-265).

  Virtues, homely, assimilate us to divinity only partially, i. 2.3

  Virtues, homely (civil, prudence, courage, temperance, justice), i.
    2.1 (19-257).

  Virtues, homely, produce in man a measure and proportion, i. 2.2

  Virtues, homely, to be supplemented by divine discontent, i. 2.7

  Virtues, homely, yield resemblance to divinity, i. 2.1 (19-256).

  Virtues, how they purify, i. 2.4 (19-261).

  Virtues, lower, are mutually related, i. 2.7 (19-266).

  Virtues must be supplemented by divine discontent, i. 2.7 (19-267).

  Virtues, natural, yield only to perfect views, need correction of
    philosophy, i. 3.6 (20-275).

  Virtues, Platonic, homely and higher, distinguished, i. 2.3 (19-260).

  Virtuous actions derived from self, are free, iii. 1.10 (3-99).

  Virtuous man can suffer only in the lower part, i. 4.13 (46-1023).

  Virtuous man is fully happy, i. 4.4 (46-1026).

  Virtuous man is he whose highest principle is active, iii. 4.6

  Virtuous men do right at all times, even under trials, iii. 1.10

  Virtuous will only object conversion of soul towards herself, i. 4.11

  Vision and hearing, process of, iv. 5 (29-523).

  Vision does not need intermediary body, iv. 5.1 (29-514).

  Vision further, recall intelligible entities not memory, iv. 4.5

  Vision interior, how trained, i. 6.9 (1-53).

  Vision not dependent on medium's vision, iv. 5.3 (29-520).

  Vision of God, ecstatic supreme purpose of life, i. 6.6 (1-49).

  Vision of intelligible wisdom, last stage of soul progress, v. 8.10

  Vision, theory of, ii. 8 (35-680); iv. 7.6 (2-65); v. 5.7 (32-586);
    v. 6.1 (24-334); vi. 1.20 (42-872).

  Visual angle theory of Aristotle refuted, ii. 8.2 (35-682).

  Voice as one would analyze it, so must the world be studied, vi. 3.1

  Voice used by demons and other inhabitants of air, iv. 3.18 (27-417).

  Voluntariness not excluded by necessity, iv. 8.5 (6-127).

  Voluntariness, the basis of responsibility, vi. 8.1 (39-774).

  Voluntary movements, vi. 3.26 (44-980).

  Voluntary soul detachment forbidden, i. 9 (16-245).

  Vulcan, iii. 2.14 (47-1064).

  Wakening to true reality content of approach to Him, v. 5.11 (32-592).

  Warfare, internecine, necessary, iii. 2.1, 5 (47-1064).

  Washing of man fallen in mud, simile of purification, i. 6.5 (1-48).

  Wastage, none in heaven, ii. 1.4 (40-818).

  Wastage of physical body, and matter, ii. 1.4 (40-819).

  Wastage, see leakage, vi. 5.10 (23-327).

  Wastage, see leakage, none in celestial light, ii. 1.8 (40-826).

  Water, contained in the intelligible world, vi. 7.11 (38-720).

  Way to conceive of first principle, v. 5.10, 11 (32-592).

  Wax seal, impressions are sensations, Stoic, iv. 7.6 (2-66); iii. 6.9
    (26-366); iv. 6.1 (41-829).

  We and ours, psychological names of soul, v. 3.3 (49-1094).

  We and ours, psychological terms, i. 1.7 (53-1199).

  We and the real man, distinctions between, i. 1.10 (53-1202).

  We and the soul, relation between, ii. 1.3 (53-1194).

  We, not ours, is intelligible, i. 1.7 (53-1199).

  Weakening of incarnate souls due to individual contemplation, iv. 8.4

  Weakness and affection of man, subject him to magic, iv. 4.44

  Weakness of soul consists of falling into matter, i. 8.14 (51-1160).

  Weakness of soul is evil, i. 8.4 (51-1147).

  Wealth caused by external circumstances, ii. 3.8 (52-1174).

  Weaning of the soul from the body, iii. 6.5 (26-359).

  Welfare of soul is resemblance to divinity, i. 6.6 (1-49).

  Whatness, vi. 7.19 (38-735).

  Whatness and affections (quiddity) of being distinguishes between,
    ii. 6.2 (17-248).

  Where or place is Aristotelian category, vi. 1.1, 4 (42-862).

  Whole and individuals fashioned by entire soul, vi. 5.8 (23-322).

  Whole is good, though continued mingled parts, iii. 2.17 (47-1070).

  Whole of divisible and indivisible parts, human soul is, iv. 3.19

  Whole, reason is a, vi. 5.10 (23-326).

  Whyness is form, vi. 7.19 (38-735); vi. 7.2 (38-732).

  Whyness of its forms contained by its intelligence, ii. 7.2 (38-732).

  Will be, not are in one, all things, v. 2.1 (11-193).

  Will, freedom of, on what is it based, vi. 8.2 (39-775).

  Will of the one, vi. 8 (39-773).

  Wings of souls lost, iv. 3.7 (27-399).

  Wings, souls lose them when falling, iv. 8.1 (6-120); i. 8.14

  Wisdom and prudence, first are types; become virtues by contemplation
    of soul, i. 2.7 (19-267).

  Wisdom derived from intelligence, and ultimately from good, v. 9.2

  Wisdom does not imply reasoning and memory, iv. 4.12 (28-456).

  Wisdom, established by spiritual preponderance, i. 4.14 (46-1037).

  Wisdom, highest, nature lowest in world-soul's wisdom, iv. 4.12

  Wisdom, intelligible, last stage of soul-progress, v. 8.10 (31-567).

  Wisdom is very being, v. 8.5 (31-559).

  Wisdom none the less happy for being unconscious, i. 4.9 (46-1032).

  Wisdom of creator makes complaints grotesque, iii. 2.14 (47-1063).

  Wisdom of soul alone has virtue, i. 2.6 (19-265).

  Wisdom seen in divine, v. 8.10 (31-568).

  Wisdom, two kinds, of soul and of intelligence, i. 2.6 (19-265).

  Wisdom universal, permanent because timeless, iv. 4.11 (28-456).

  Wise man, description of his methods, i. 4.14 (46-1137).

  Wise man, how he escapes all enchantments, iv. 4.43 (28-507).

  Wise man remains unattached, i. 4.16 (46-1039).

  Wise man uses instruments only as temporary means of development, i.
    4.16 (46-1040).

  Wise men, two will be equally happy though in different fortunes, i.
    4.15 (46-1038).

  Withdrawal within yourself, i. 6.9 (1-54).

  Wonderful is relation of one (qv.) to us, v. 5.8 (32-588).

  Word prophoric and innate, v. 1.3 (10-177).

  Word, soul as and actualization of intelligence, v. 1.3 (10-177).

  Workman of the body, instrument is the soul, iv. 7.1 (2-56).

  World and creator are not evil, ii. 9 (33-599).

  World as eternally begotten, ii. 9.2 (33-603).

  World body, why the world-soul is everywhere present in it, vi. 4.1

  World contains traditions of divinity, ii. 9.9 (33-616).

  World imperishable, so long as archetype subsists, v. 8.12 (31-572).

  World intelligible, everything is actual, ii. 5.3 (25-346).

  World is deity of third rank, iii. 5.6 (50-1132).

  World must be studied, just as one would analyze the voice, vi. 3.1

  World not evil because of our sufferings, ii. 9.4 (33-606).

  World not to be blamed for imperfections, iii. 2.3 (47-1046).

  World, nothing more beautiful could be imagined, ii. 9.4 (33-606).

  World, objective, subsists, even when we are distracted, v. 1.12

  World, outside our world would not be visible, iv. 5.8 (29-529).

  World penetrating by intelligence that remains unmoved, vi. 5.11

  World planned by God, refuted, v. 8.7 (31-561).

  World sense and intelligible, are they separate or classifiable
    together, vi. 1.12 (42-860).

  World-soul activity, when measured is time, iii. 7.10 (45-1005).

  World-soul and human soul, differences between, ii. 9.7 (33-612).

  World-soul and individual souls born from intelligence, vi. 2.22

  World-soul and star soul, intellectual differences, iv. 4.17 (28-463).

  World-soul and stars are impassible, iv. 4.42 (28-506).

  World-soul animated by universe, iv. 3.9 (27-404).

  World-soul basis of existence of bodies, iv. 7.3 (2-60).

  World-soul begotten from intelligence by unity and universality, v.
    1.2 (10-175).

  World-soul creates, because nearest the intelligible, iv. 3.6

  World-soul creative, not preservative, ii. 3.16 (52-1183).

  World-soul contains universe as sea the net, iv. 3.9 (27-405).

  World-soul could not have gone through creation drama, ii. 9.4

  World-soul does not remember God, continuing to see him, iv. 4.7

  World-soul, earth can feel as well as stars, iv. 4.22 (28-471).

  World-soul exerts influence apart from astrology and deviltry, iv.
    4.32 (28-490).

  World-soul glorifies man as life transfigures matter, v. 1.2 (10-176).

  World-soul has no ratiocination, iv. 4.11 (28-455).

  World-soul, how idea of it is reached, ii. 9.17 (33-633).

  World-soul, in it, wisdom is the lowest and nature the highest, iv.
    4.12 (28-458).

  World-soul inferior, ii. 2.3 (14-233).

  World-soul informs all things progressively, iv. 3.10 (27-406).

  World-soul is to time what intelligence is to eternity, iii. 7.10

  World-soul, length of its life is time, iii. 7.11 (45-1008).

  World-soul mediation, through it are benefits granted to men, iv.
    4.30 (28-486).

  World-soul, nature of, i. 8.2 (51-1144).

  World-soul participates to create world only by contemplation, and is
    undisturbed thereby, iv. 8.7 (6-131).

  World-soul, Plato is in doubt about its being like the stars, iv.
    4.22 (28-470).

  World-soul procession, iii. 8.5 (30-537).

  World-soul procession results in space, iii. 7.10 (45-1006).

  World-soul remains in the intelligible, iii. 9.3 (13-223).

  World-soul simultaneously gives and receives as untroubled medium,
    iv. 8.7 (6-131).

  World-soul unconscious of our changes, iv. 4.7 (28-450).

  World-soul unconscious of what goes on in it, iii. 4.4 (15-237).

  World-soul, why it is everywhere entirely in the world body, vi. 4

  World-souls and individual souls inseparable, because of functions,
    iv. 3.2 (27-392).

  World-soul's creation of world is cause of divinity of souls, v. 1.2

  World-soul's existence, basis of that of simple bodies, iv. 7.2

  World, this is the best of all possible, because we can achieve
    virtue, ii. 9.8 (33-615).

  World, to be in it but not of it, i. 8.6 (51-1150).

  World's testimony to its creator, iii. 2.3 (47-1047).

  Zodiac, ii. 3.3 (52-1165).

Plotinos, his Life, Times and Philosophy

By _Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie_, _A. M._, Harvard, _Ph. D._, Tulane.

This is a lucid, scholarly systematization of the views of Plotinos,
giving translation of important and useful passages. It is preceded by
a careful indication and exposition of his formative influences, and a
full biography dealing with his supposed obligations to Christianity.
Accurate references are given for every statement and quotation. The
exposition of, and references on Hermetic philosophy are by themselves
worth the price of the book.

Dr _Harris_, U.S. Commissioner of Education has written about it in the
highest terms. Dr. _Paul Carus_, Editor of the _Open Court_, devoted
half a page of the July 1897 issue to an appreciative and commendatory
Review of it. Among the many other strong commendations of the work are
the following:

    From _G. R. S. Mead_, Editor _The Theosophical Review_, London:

    It may be stated, on the basis of a fairly wide knowledge of
    the subject, that the summary of our anonymous author is the
    CLEAREST and MOST INTELLIGENT which has as yet appeared. The
    writer bases himself upon the original text, and his happy
    phrasing of Platonic terms and his deep sympathy with Platonic
    thought proclaim the presence of a capable translator of
    Plotinos amongst us....

    To make so lucid and capable a compendium of the works of
    so great a giant of philosophy as Plotinos, the author must
    have spent much time in analysing the text and satisfying
    himself as to the meaning of many obscure passages; to test
    his absolute accuracy would require the verification of every
    reference among the hundreds given in the tables at the end
    of the pamphlet, and we have only had time to verify one or
    two of the more striking. These are as accurate as anything
    in a digest can rightly be expected to be. In addition to
    the detailed chapters on the seven realms of the Plotinic
    philosophy, on reincarnation, ethics, and æsthetics, we have
    introductory chapters on Platonism, Aristotelianism, Stoicism,
    and Emanationism, and on the relationship of Plotinos to
    Christianity and Paganism.

    Those who desire to enter into the Plotinian precincts of the
    temple of Greek philosophy by the most expeditious path CANNOT
    do BETTER than take this little pamphlet for their guide; it
    is of course not perfect, but it is undeniably THE BEST which
    has yet appeared. We have recommended the T.P.S. to procure
    a supply of this pamphlet, for to our Platonic friends and
    colleagues we say not only YOU SHOULD, but YOU MUST read it.

    HUMAN BROTHERHOOD, NOV. 1897, in a very extended and most
    commendatory review, says: TOO GREAT PRAISE COULD HARDLY
    BE BESTOWED upon this scholarly contribution to Platonic

_Net price, cloth bound, post-paid, $1.31._

Transcriber's Notes:

Punctuation and spelling were made consistent when a predominant
preference was found in this four-volume set; otherwise they were not

Simple typographical errors were corrected. Inconsistent capitalization
has not been changed.

Ambiguous hyphens at the ends of lines were retained.

Infrequent spelling of "Plotinus" changed to the predominant "Plotinos."

Several opening or closing parentheses and quotation marks are
unmatched; Transcriber has not attempted to determine where they belong.

Page 1030: The opening parenthesis in "(Nor would he be troubled if the
members" either has no match or shares one with a subordinate phrase.
Such "sharing" occurs elsewhere in this four-volume set.

Page 1059: "(the former for their ferocity," has no matching closing

Page 1188, footnote 268 (originally 71): The opening parenthesis in
"(the principal power of the soul," has no match, or shares one with a
subordinate phrase.

Page 1218: The opening quotation mark just before 'He who possesses the
virtues' has no matching closing quotation mark.

Page 1262: The opening quotation mark just before 'The intelligible is
of a nature' has no matching closing quotation mark.

Page 1265: The opening quotation mark just before 'be in relation with
a place,' has no matching closing quotation mark.

Page 1318: The opening quotation mark just before 'Being and Essence;'
has no matching closing quotation mark.

Page 1327: The first few lines were misprinted, with the sub-heading
"IMPORTANCE IN THE PAST." in the middle of the first paragraph and part
of a word missing from that paragraph. This eBook attempts to correct

Concordance Issues:

Entries in the Concordance have not been systematically checked for
accuracy; some errors have been corrected, but others probably remain.
Detected errors are noted below.

Page ii: "Alone with the alone... 1-550" corrected to 1-50.

Page v: "Beauty consists in kinship to the soul... 1.42." corrected to

Page vi: "Being and actualization... 30-784" corrected to 39-784.

Page viii: "Castration", second reference, "v. 8.13 (31-573)." does not
belong here.

Page xvii: "Effusion", last word "reation" could be "reaction" or

Page xxix: "Incorporeality of soul proved by its... 2.72." corrected to

Page xxxii: "Intelligence's existence proved... 50-104." corrected to

Page xxxiv: "Judgment of one part by another... 52-472." corrected to

Page lviii: ""Somewhat," a particle to modify... 31-797" corrected to

Page lviii: "Soul and relation with God", reference to "i." was
misprinted as "ii."

Page lviii: "Soul conforms destiny to her character... 53-238."
corrected to 15-238.

Page lx: "Soul split into three" has no reference.

Page lxii: "Spectator of vision becomes participator... 34-569"
corrected to 31-569.

Page lxii: "Stars are they animate?" has no reference.

Page lxii: "Stars are they inanimate?" has no reference.

Page lxiv: "Supreme intelligence, nature of... 51-144." corrected to

Page lxviii: "Unity, contained in sense objects... 24-671" corrected to

Page lxxii: "We and ours, psychological names of soul" was missing part
of reference; reconstructed by Transcriber based on page reference.

Footnote Issues:

In these notes, "anchor" means the reference to a footnote, and
"footnote" means the information to which the anchor refers. Anchors
occur within the main text, while footnotes are grouped in sequence at
the end of this eBook. The structure of the original book required some
exceptions to this, as explained below.

The original text used chapter endnotes. In this eBook, they have been
combined into a single, ascending sequence based on the sequence in
which the footnotes (not the anchors) occurred in the original book,
and placed at the end of the main text, just before the Concordance.

Four kinds of irregularities occurred in the footnotes:

1. Some footnotes are referenced by more than one anchor, so two or
more anchors may refer to the same footnote.

2. Some anchors were out of sequence, apparently because they were
added afterwards or because they are share a footnote with another
anchor. They have been renumbered to match the numbers of the footnotes
to which they refer.

3. Some footnotes have no anchors. These are noted below.

4. One footnote was misprinted beyond repair, and the next three
footnotes were missing. These are noted below.

Page 1076: Footnote 61 (originally 42) has no anchor; the missing
anchor would be in page range 1062-1064.

Page 1121: Footnote 100 (originally 4) has no anchor; the missing
anchor would be in page range 1091-1093.

Page 1121: Footnote 103 (originally 7) has no anchor; the missing
anchor would be in page range 1094-1097. Anchor 99 (originally 3) on
page 1094 could be the missing anchor, as that number also is used on
page 1091.

Page 1188: Footnote 210 (originally 13) has no anchor; the missing
anchor would be on page 1171 or 1172.

Page 1189: Footnote 226 (originally 29) has no anchor; the missing
anchor would be on page 1174 or 1175.

Page 1253: Footnote 329 (originally 9) has no anchor; the missing
anchor would be in page range 1219-1226.

Page 1287: Footnote 469 (originally 98) has no anchor; the missing
anchor would be on page 1287.

Page 1313: Chapter number is "VII." but there is no earlier "VI."

Page 1333: Footnote 758 (originally 21) appears to be misprinted, and
the next three footnotes 759-761 (originally 22-24) are missing.

*** End of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Plotinos: Complete Works, v. 4 - In Chronological Order, Grouped in Four Periods" ***

Doctrine Publishing Corporation provides digitized public domain materials.
Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians.
This effort is time consuming and expensive, so in order to keep providing
this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties,
including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Doctrine Publishing
Corporation's ISYS search for use by individuals, and we request that you
use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort
to Doctrine Publishing's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a
large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of
public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Keep it legal -  Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for
ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because
we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States,
that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries.
Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we
can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is
allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Doctrine Publishing
ISYS search  means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world.
Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About ISYS® Search Software
Established in 1988, ISYS Search Software is a global supplier of enterprise
search solutions for business and government.  The company's award-winning
software suite offers a broad range of search, navigation and discovery
solutions for desktop search, intranet search, SharePoint search and embedded
search applications.  ISYS has been deployed by thousands of organizations
operating in a variety of industries, including government, legal, law
enforcement, financial services, healthcare and recruitment.