Ennead III.8 [30], On Nature and Contemplation and the One, chapter 2
ὅτι μὲν οὖν οὔτε χεῖρες ἐνταῦθα οὔτε πόδες…
Nature makes without hands, feet, or levers, and the wax-modeller is the wrong model for it. The chapter's claim is that what makes in nature is a rational form that remains while it gives form to matter: nature is a form, not a compound of matter and form, and the last rational form, the one in the visible shape, is already dead.
What it drew on
Outside the pilot
Behind this chapter stand Aristotle's nature that makes without deliberating (Physics II.8) and the Stoics' craftsmanlike nature. Neither is in this library, which begins with Plotinus; Aristotle enters only as the objector, beside the text. The place above the text is empty because the sources are out of scope, not because they are unknown.
Editorial scope: the fourteen names of the landing chain begin at Plotinus.
The text
porphyrian III.8 · chronological 30 · chapter 2 · volkmann page 332-333
ὅτι μὲν οὖν οὔτε χεῖρες ἐνταῦθα οὔτε πόδες οὔτε τι ὄργανον ἐπακτὸν ἢ σύμφυτον, ὕλης δὲ δεῖ, ἐφ’ ἧς ποιήσει, καὶ ἣν ἐν εἴδει ποιήσει, παντί που δῆλον. δεῖ δὲ καὶ τὸ μοχλεύειν ἀφελεῖν ἐκ τῆς φυσικῆς ποιήσεως. ποῖος γὰρ ὠθισμὸς ἢ τίς μοχλεία χρώματα ποικίλα καὶ παντοδαπὰ καὶ σχήματα ποιεῖ; ἐπεὶ οὐδὲ οἱ κηροπλάσται, εἰς οὓς δὴ καὶ βλέποντες ᾠήθησαν τὴν τῆς φύσεως δημιουργίαν τοιαύτην εἶναι, χρώματα δύνανται ποιεῖν μὴ χρώματα ἀλλαχόθεν ἐπάγοντες οἷς ποιοῦσιν. ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἐχρῆν συννοοῦντας ὡς καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν τὰς τέχνας τὰς τοιαύτας μετιόντων δεῖ τι ἐν αὐτοῖς μένειν, καθ’ ὃ μένον διὰ χειρῶν ποιήσουσιν ἃ αὐτῶν ἔργα, ἐπὶ τὸ τοιοῦτον ἀνελθεῖν τῆς φύσεως καὶ αὐτοὺς καὶ συνεῖναι, ὡς μένειν δεῖ καὶ ἐνταῦθα τὴν δύναμιν τὴν οὐ διὰ χειρῶν ποιοῦσαν καὶ πᾶσαν μένειν. οὐ γὰρ δὴ δεῖται τῶν μὲν ὡς μενόντων, τῶν δὲ ὡς κινουμένων — ἡ γὰρ ὕλη τὸ κινούμενον, αὐτῆς δὲ οὐδὲν κινούμενον — ἢ ἐκεῖνο οὐκ ἔσται τὸ κινοῦν πρώτως, οὐδὲ ἡ φύσις τοῦτο, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀκίνητον τὸ ἐν τῷ ὅλῳ. ὁ μὲν δὴ λόγος, φαίη ἄν τις, ἀκίνητος, αὐτὴ δὲ ἄλλη παρὰ τὸν λόγον καὶ κινουμένη. ἀλλ’ εἰ μὲν πᾶσαν φήσουσι, καὶ ὁ λόγος: εἰ δέ τι αὐτῆς ἀκίνητον, καὶ τοῦτο ὁ λόγος. καὶ γὰρ εἶδος αὐτὴν δεῖ εἶναι καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ὕλης καὶ εἴδους: τί γὰρ δεῖ αὐτῇ ὕλης θερμῆς ἢ ψυχρᾶς; ἡ γὰρ ὑποκειμένη καὶ δημιουργουμένη ὕλη ἥκει τοῦτο φέρουσα, ἢ γίνεται τοιαύτη ἡ μὴ ποιότητα ἔχουσα λογωθεῖσα. οὐ γὰρ πῦρ δεῖ προσελθεῖν, ἵνα πῦρ ἡ ὕλη γένηται, ἀλλὰ λόγον: ὃ καὶ σημεῖον οὐ μικρὸν τοῦ ἐν τοῖς ζῴοις καὶ ἐν τοῖς φυτοῖς τοὺς λόγους εἶναι τοὺς ποιοῦντας καὶ τὴν φύσιν εἶναι λόγον, ὃς ποιεῖ λόγον ἄλλον γέννημα αὐτοῦ δόντα μέν τι τῷ ὑποκειμένῳ μένοντα δ’ αὐτόν. ὁ μὲν οὖν λόγος ὁ κατὰ τὴν μορφὴν τὴν ὁρωμένην ἔσχατος ἤδη καὶ νεκρὸς καὶ οὐκέτι ποιεῖν δύναται ἄλλον, ὁ δὲ ζωὴν ἔχων ὁ τοῦ ποιήσαντος τὴν μορφὴν ἀδελφὸς ὢν καὶ αὐτὸς τὴν αὐτὴν δύναμιν ἔχων ποιεῖ ἐν τῷ γεννωμένῳ.
That there are no hands here, nor feet, nor any instrument either brought in or grown with it, but that there is need of matter on which it will make and which it will make to be in form, is clear, I suppose, to everyone. And we must also take leverage away from nature's making. For what thrusting or what levering makes colours, varied and of every kind, and figures? Not even the wax-modellers — looking at whom people have in fact supposed that nature's craftsmanship is of this kind — can make colours unless they bring colours from elsewhere to the things they make. But they ought to have considered that even in those who practise such arts there must be something that remains within them, by which, remaining, they will make with their hands the things that are their works; and they ought to have gone up themselves to the like of this in nature and understood that here too the power that makes, not through hands, must remain, and remain whole. For it does not need some of itself as remaining and some as moved — matter is what is moved, and nothing of nature is moved — or else the moved part will not be the first mover, nor will nature be this, but the unmoved thing in the whole will. 'The rational form is unmoved,' someone might say, 'but nature itself is other than the rational form, and is moved.' But if they say that the whole of nature is moved, the rational form is moved too; and if something of it is unmoved, this is the rational form. For nature must be a form, and not composed of matter and form: what need has it of matter hot or cold? For the matter that underlies and is worked on comes bringing this with it, or matter that has no quality becomes such by being given rational form. For it is not fire that must come to matter for matter to become fire, but a rational form; and this is no small sign that in animals and in plants it is the rational forms that make, and that nature is a rational form, which makes another rational form, its offspring, that gives something to the substrate but itself remains. The rational form in the visible shape, then, is already the last, and dead, and can no longer make another; but the one that has life, being brother of the one that made the shape and having itself the same power, makes in what is begotten.
λόγος is 'rational form' throughout (glossary). σχήματα is 'figures', kept apart from μορφή 'shape'. The wax-modellers and the levers answer the view that nature works as a craftsman works with tools; the unmoved power that remains while it makes is the thread's central claim about nature. Volkmann prints αὐτ- where the reflexive is meant; the English follows the sense ('itself').
Apparatus
- [Volkmann p.332, l.25; p.333, l.3] ἐφ’ and καθ’ as printed; the transcription encodes the elisions with a combining mark.
- [Volkmann p.333, l.23] γέννημα αὐτοῦ as printed; the transcription normalises to the reflexive αὑτοῦ.
Greek collated line by line against the Volkmann plate (vol. 1, pp. 332–333); every departure of the First1KGreek transcription from the printed page is corrected and recorded in the apparatus.
- Edition
- Volkmann, Leipzig, 1883-1884 — Bibliotheca Teubneriana
- Scan
- archive.org
- Digital base
- Volkmann, Teubner 1883-84 (First1KGreek, CC BY-SA 4.0)
- OCR status
- proofed
- Translator
- Wroot Press draft
In the thread Forms and generation, step i of x.
What drew on it
Marsilio FicinoPlotini opera (Latin translation)Plotini opera, Florence 1492, with the argumentum to III.8translationnode only
Ficino's Latin and argumentum carried this treatise's account of nature to the Renaissance; it waits on plate work in incunable type.
No text is shown here. This witness stands as a node: what it is, where it is, and what it does to the text — nothing quoted that has not been read against the page it is quoted from.
- Edition
- Ficino, Florence, 1492
- OCR status
- none
Thomas AquinasSumma Theologiae, Prima Parsst.1.65.4refutation
Aquinas rejects both the separated Forms and Avicenna's giver of forms: what comes to be is the composite, and bodily forms are drawn out of matter by composite agents. The seminal reasons he keeps are the rational forms of this chapter under Augustine's name.
part.question.article I.65.4 · parts resp., ad 2 · parma page 257-258
Respondeo dicendum, quod opinio fuit quorumdam, quod omnes formae corporales derivantur a substantiis spiritualibus, quas Angelos dicimus. Et hoc quidem dupliciter aliqui posuerunt. Plato enim posuit formas quae sunt in materia corporali, derivari a formis sine materia subsistentibus per modum participationis cujusdam. Ponebat enim hominem quemdam immaterialiter subsistentem, et similiter equum, et sic de aliis, ex quibus constituuntur haec singularia sensibilia, secundum quod in materia corporali remanet quaedam impressio ab illis formis separatis per modum assimilationis cujusdam, quam participationem vocabat. Et secundum ordinem formarum ponebant Platonici ordinem substantiarum separatarum; puta quod una substantia separata est quae est equus, quae est causa omnium equorum, supra quam est quaedam vita separata, quam dicebant per se vitam et causam omnis vitae; et ulterius quamdam quam nominabant ipsum esse, et causam omnis esse. Avicenna vero et quidam alii non posuerunt formas rerum corporalium in materia per se subsistere, sed solum in intellectu. A formis ergo in intellectu creaturarum spiritualium existentibus, quas quidem ipsi intelligentias, nos autem Angelos dicimus, dicebant procedere omnes formas quae sunt in materia corporali, sicut a formis quae sunt in mente artificis, procedunt formae artificiatorum. Et in idem videtur redire quod quidam moderni haeretici ponunt, dicentes quidem Deum creatorem omnium, sed materiam corporalem a diabolo formatam, et per varias species distinctam. Omnes autem haec opiniones ex una radice processisse videntur. Quaerebant enim causam formarum, ac si ipsae formae fierent secundum seipsas. Sed, sicut probat Aristoteles (in 7 Metaph., text. 26 et 27), id quod proprie fit, est compositum. Formae autem corruptibilium rerum habent ut aliquando sint, aliquando non sint, absque hoc quod ipsae generentur aut corrumpantur, sed compositis generatis aut corruptis: quia etiam formae non habent esse, sed composita habent esse per eas; sic enim alicui competit fieri, sicut et esse. Et ideo cum simile fiat a suo simili, non est quaerenda causa formarum corporalium aliqua forma immaterialis, sed aliquod compositum, secundum quod hic ignis generatur ab hoc igne. Sic igitur formae corporales causantur, non quasi influxae ab aliqua immateriali forma, sed quasi materia reducta de potentia in actum ab aliquo agente composito. Sed quia agens compositum, quod est corpus, movetur a substantia spirituali creata, ut Augustinus dicit (3 de Trin. cap. 4 et 5), sequitur ulterius quod etiam formae corporales a substantiis spiritualibus deriventur, non tamquam influentibus formas, sed tamquam moventibus ad formas. Ulterius autem reducuntur in Deum, sicut in primam causam, etiam species angelici intellectus, quae sunt quaedam seminales rationes corporalium formarum. In prima autem corporalis creaturae productione non consideratur aliqua transmutatio de potentia in actum; et ideo formae corporales quas in prima productione corpora habuerunt, sunt immediate a Deo productae, cui soli ad nutum obedit materia tamquam proprie causae. Unde ad hoc significandum Moyses singulis operibus praemittit: Dixit Deus. Fiat hoc, vel illud; in quo significatur formatio rerum per Verbum Dei facta, a quo secundum Augustinum (tract. 1 in Joan., a med., et 1 super Gen. ad litt. cap. 4), est omnis forma, et compago, et concordia partium. Ad secundum dicendum, quod formae participatae in materia reducuntur non ad formas aliquas per se subsistentes rationis ejusdem, ut Platonici posuerunt, sed ad formas intelligibiles vel intellectus angelici, a quibus per motum procedunt; vel ulterius ad rationes intellectus divini, a quibus etiam formarum semina sunt rebus creatis indita, ut per motum in actum educi possint.
I answer that it was the opinion of some that all bodily forms are derived from the spiritual substances we call angels. And some held this in two ways. Plato held that the forms that are in bodily matter are derived from forms subsisting without matter, by way of a kind of participation. For he held that there is a man subsisting immaterially, and likewise a horse, and so of the rest, and that these sensible singulars are constituted from them, in that there remains in bodily matter a kind of impression from those separate forms, by way of a kind of likening, which he called participation. And the Platonists held an order of separate substances answering to the order of forms: for instance, that there is one separate substance which is horse, the cause of all horses; above it a separate life, which they called life itself and the cause of all life; and beyond that one which they named being itself, the cause of all being. Avicenna, however, and certain others did not hold that the forms of bodily things subsist of themselves in matter, but only in intellect. From forms existing in the intellects of spiritual creatures, then — which they called intelligences and we call angels — they said that all the forms in bodily matter proceed, as the forms of things made by art proceed from the forms in the craftsman's mind. And what certain heretics of our time hold seems to come to the same thing: they say that God is the creator of all things, but that bodily matter was formed by the devil and divided into its various species. All these opinions seem to have come from one root: they looked for a cause of forms as though the forms themselves came to be of themselves. But, as Aristotle proves (Metaphysics VII, texts 26 and 27), what properly comes to be is the composite. The forms of corruptible things have it that they sometimes are and sometimes are not, without themselves being generated or corrupted, but by the composites being generated or corrupted; for forms do not have being, but composites have being through them, and to come to be belongs to a thing as being does. And therefore, since like comes to be from its like, the cause of bodily forms is not to be sought in some immaterial form but in some composite, in the way that this fire is generated by this fire. So bodily forms are caused not as flowing in from some immaterial form, but as matter is brought from potency into act by some composite agent. But because the composite agent, which is a body, is moved by a created spiritual substance, as Augustine says (De Trinitate III, chs. 4 and 5), it follows further that bodily forms too are derived from spiritual substances — not as pouring the forms in, but as moving toward the forms. And further, the species of the angelic intellect, which are a kind of seminal reasons of bodily forms, are traced back to God as to the first cause. In the first production of bodily creation, however, no change from potency into act is in view; and so the bodily forms that bodies had in their first production were produced by God immediately, whom alone matter obeys at a nod as its proper cause. To signify this, Moses puts before each work: God said, Let this or that be made; by which is signified the forming of things done through the Word of God, from whom, according to Augustine (Tractates on John 1, toward the middle; and On Genesis according to the Letter I, ch. 4), is every form and fitting-together and concord of parts. To the second, it must be said that the forms participated in matter are traced back not to forms of the same kind subsisting of themselves, as the Platonists held, but to intelligible forms, or those of the angelic intellect, from which they proceed through motion; or further to the reasons in the divine intellect, from which the seeds of forms too were set in created things, so that they might be drawn out into act through motion.
Utrum formae corporum sint ab Angelis. The Respondeo names both positions this thread follows: Plato's separated Forms, and Avicenna's forms in the intelligences, which pour forms into matter as a craftsman's mind does into his work — the giver of forms. Aquinas's answer is Aristotle's (Met. VII.8): what comes to be is the composite, so like comes from like, this fire from this fire. The 'seminal reasons' (seminales rationes) that close the Respondeo are Augustine's term, and the Latin descendant of the rational forms of Enn. III.8 and VI.7. The 'heretics of our time' are the dualists of Thomas's day (Cathars). species is 'species'; forma 'form' (glossary).
Apparatus
- [Parma p. 258, col. a] tamquam proprie causae, as printed; the sense wants propriae ('its proper cause'), and the English follows the sense.
- The article's objections, sed contra, ad 1 and ad 3 are not given here; Parma's 'Concl.' summary is editorial and omitted.
Latin transcribed from the Parma plates (vol. 1, pp. 257-258, leaves n296-n297), both columns read with gutter-safe crops.
- Edition
- Parma, Parma, 1852 — Opera omnia (Parma: Fiaccadori, 1852-73)
- Scan
- archive.org
- Digital base
- Parma vol. 1 (1852), transcribed from the plates (Corpus Thomisticum, finding aid only, not embedded [ruling 5])
- OCR status
- proofed
- Translator
- Wroot Press draft
Avicenna (Ibn Sīnā)Opera (Latin), incl. Liber de philosophia primaLiber de philosophia prima IX (Venice 1508): the giver of formsunnamed borrowingnode only
Forms flow into prepared matter from a separate intelligence, as from a craftsman's mind — the view Aquinas names in the next margin.
No text is shown here. This witness stands as a node: what it is, where it is, and what it does to the text — nothing quoted that has not been read against the page it is quoted from.
- Edition
- Venice, 1508
- OCR status
- none
This page is draft — the English on it has not yet been through review.