Neoplatonism.org

Ennead VI.7 [38], How the Multitude of Forms Came to Be, and on the Good, chapter 11

λέγεται δὲ οὐδ’ ὁ οὐρανός…

Are there plants, earth, and fire in the intelligible world? The plant here is 'a rational form set in life', and it comes from a first plant; stones and mountains grow by 'an ensouled rational form crafting from within'. Fire is not made by friction but by a soul able to make fire. This is the thread's clearest statement of the rational forms in nature and the Forms they come from.

What it drew on

Outside the pilot

Behind this chapter stand Plato's soul in each of the elements (Laws X 899b) and the intelligible living being of the Timaeus, and Plato is deliberately outside this library, which begins with Plotinus. 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 VI.7 · chronological 38 · chapter 11 · volkmann page vol. 2, 437-440

λέγεται δὲ οὐδ’ ὁ οὐρανός, καὶ πολλὰ δὲ φαίνεται, οὐκ ἀτιμάσαι τὴν τῶν ζῴων πάντων φύσιν: ἐπεὶ καὶ τόδε τὸ πᾶν πάντα ἔχει. πόθεν οὖν ἔχει; πάντα οὖν ἔχει ὅσα ἐνταῦθα τὰ ἐκεῖ; ἢ ὅσα λόγῳ πεποίηται καὶ κατ’ εἶδος. ἀλλ’ ὅταν πῦρ ἔχῃ, καὶ ὕδωρ ἔχει, ἔχει δὲ πάντως καὶ φυτά. πῶς οὖν τὰ φυτὰ ἐκεῖ; καὶ πῶς πῦρ ζῇ; καὶ πῶς γῆ; ἢ γὰρ ζῇ, ἢ οἷον νεκρὰ ἔσται ἐκεῖ, ὥστε μὴ πᾶν τὸ ἐκεῖ ζῆν. καὶ τί ὅλως ἐστὶν ἐκεῖ καὶ ταῦτα; τὰ μὲν οὖν φυτὰ δύναιτ’ ἂν τῷ λόγῳ συναρμόσαι: ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸ τῇδε φυτὸν λόγος ἐστὶν ἐν ζωῇ κείμενος. εἰ δὴ ὁ ἔνυλος λόγος ὁ τοῦ φυτοῦ, καθ’ ὃν τὸ φυτόν ἐστι, ζωή τις ἐστὶ τοιάδε καὶ ψυχή τις καὶ ὁ λόγος ἕν τι, ἤτοι τὸ πρῶτον φυτόν ἐστιν οὗτος ἢ οὔ, ἀλλὰ πρὸ αὐτοῦ φυτὸν τὸ πρῶτον, ἀφ’ οὗ καὶ τοῦτο. καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνο ἕν, ταῦτα δὲ πολλὰ καὶ ἀφ’ ἑνὸς ἐξ ἀνάγκης. εἰ δὴ τοῦτο, δεῖ πολὺ πρότερον ἐκεῖνο ζῆν καὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο φυτὸν εἶναι, ἀπ’ ἐκείνου δὲ ταῦτα δευτέρως καὶ τρίτως καὶ κατ’ ἴχνος ἐκείνου ζῆν. γῆ δὲ πῶς; καὶ τί τὸ γῇ εἶναι; καὶ τίς ἡ ἐκεῖ γῆ τὸ ζῆν ἔχουσα; ἢ πρότερον τίς αὕτη: τοῦτο δ’ ἐστὶ τί τὸ εἶναι ταύτῃ. δεῖ δὴ μορφήν τινα εἶναι καὶ ἐνταῦθα καὶ λόγον. ἐκεῖ μὲν οὖν ἐπὶ τοῦ φυτοῦ ἔζη καὶ ὁ τῇδε αὐτοῦ λόγος. ἆρ’ οὖν καὶ ἐν τῇδε τῇ γῇ; ἤ, εἰ λάβοιμεν τὰ μάλιστα γήινα γεννώμενα καὶ πλαττόμενα ἐν αὐτῇ, εὕροιμεν ἂν καὶ ἐνταῦθα τὴν γῆς φύσιν. λίθων τοίνυν αὐξήσεις τε καὶ πλάσεις καὶ ὀρῶν ἀναφυομένων ἔνδον μορφώσεις πάντως που λόγου ἐμψύχου δημιουργοῦντος ἔνδοθεν καὶ εἰδοποιοῦντος χρὴ νομίζειν γίνεσθαι, καὶ τοῦτο εἶναι τὸ εἶδος τῆς γῆς τὸ ποιοῦν, ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς δένδροις τὴν λεγομένην φύσιν, τῷ δὲ ξύλῳ τοῦ δένδρου ἀνάλογον τὴν λεγομένην εἶναι γῆν, καὶ ἀποτμηθέντα τὸν λίθον οὕτως ἔχειν, ὡς εἰ ἐκ τοῦ δένδρου τι κοπείη, μὴ παθόντος δὲ τούτου, ἀλλ’ ἔτι συνηρτημένου, ὡς τὸ μὴ κοπὲν ἐκ τοῦ ζῶντος φυτοῦ. τὴν [δὴ] δημιουργοῦσαν ἐγκαθημένην τῇ γῇ φύσιν ζωὴν ἐν λόγῳ ἀνευρόντες πιστοίμεθα ἂν τὸ ἐντεῦθεν ῥᾳδίως τὴν ἐκεῖ γῆν πολὺ πρότερον ζῶσαν εἶναι καὶ ζωὴν ἔλλογον γῆς, αὐτογῆν καὶ πρώτως γῆν, ἀφ’ ἧς καὶ ἡ ἐνταῦθα γῆ. εἰ δὲ καὶ τὸ πῦρ λόγος τις ἐν ὕλῃ ἐστὶ καὶ τὰ ἄλλα τὰ τοιαῦτα καὶ οὐκ ἐκ τοῦ αὐτομάτου πῦρ — πόθεν γάρ; οὐ γὰρ ἐκ παρατρίψεως, ὡς ἄν τις οἰηθείη: ἤδη γὰρ ὄντος ἐν τῷ παντὶ πυρὸς ἡ παράτριψις ἐχόντων τῶν παρατριβομένων σωμάτων: οὐδὲ γὰρ ἡ ὕλη οὕτως δυνάμει, ὥστε παρ’ αὐτῆς: εἰ δὴ κατὰ λόγον δεῖ τὸ ποιοῦν εἶναι ὡς μορφοῦν, τί ἂν εἴη; ἢ ψυχὴ ποιεῖν πῦρ δυναμένη: τοῦτο δ’ ἐστὶ ζωὴ καὶ λόγος, ἓν καὶ ταὐτὸν ἄμφω. διὸ καὶ Πλάτων ἐν ἑκάστῳ τούτων ψυχήν φησιν εἶναι οὐκ ἄλλως ἢ ὡς ποιοῦσαν τοῦτο δὴ τὸ αἰσθητὸν πῦρ. ἔστιν οὖν καὶ τὸ ἐνταῦθα ποιοῦν πῦρ ζωή τις πυρίνη, ἀληθέστερον πῦρ. τὸ ἄρα ἐπέκεινα πῦρ μᾶλλον ὂν πῦρ μᾶλλον ἂν εἴη ἐν ζωῇ: ζῇ ἄρα καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ πῦρ. ὁ δ’ αὐτὸς λόγος καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων, ὕδατός τε καὶ ἀέρος. ἀλλὰ διὰ τί οὐκ ἔμψυχα καὶ ταῦτα ὥσπερ ἡ γῆ; ὅτι μὲν οὖν καὶ ταῦτα ἐν ζῴῳ τῷ παντί, δῆλόν που, καὶ ὅτι μέρη ζῴου: οὐ φαίνεται δὲ ζωὴ ἐν αὐτοῖς, ὥσπερ οὐδ’ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς: συλλογίζεσθαι δ’ ἦν κἀκεῖ καὶ ἐκ τῶν γινομένων ἐν αὐτῇ: ἀλλὰ γίνεται καὶ ἐν πυρὶ ζῷα, καὶ ἐν ὕδατι δὲ φανερώτερον: καὶ ἀέρινοι δὲ ζῴων συστάσεις. γινόμενον δὲ τὸ πῦρ ἕκαστον καὶ ταχὺ σβεννύμενον τὴν ἐν τῷ ὅλῳ ψυχὴν παρέρχεται εἴς τε ὄγκον οὐ γεγένηται μένον, ἵν’ [ἂν] ἔδειξε τὴν ἐν αὐτῷ ψυχήν, ἀήρ τε καὶ ὕδωρ ὡσαύτως: ἐπεί, εἰ παγείη πως κατὰ φύσιν, δείξειεν ἄν: ἀλλ’ ὅτι ἔδει εἶναι κεχυμένα, ἣν ἔχει οὐ δείκνυσι. καὶ κινδυνεύει ὅμοιον εἶναι οἷον τὸ ἐπὶ τῶν ὑγρῶν τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν, οἷον αἵματος: ἡ μὲν γὰρ σὰρξ ἔχειν δοκεῖ καὶ ὅ τι ἂν σὰρξ γένηται ἐκ τοῦ αἵματος, τὸ δ’ αἷμα αἴσθησιν οὐ παρεχόμενον ἔχειν οὐ δοκεῖ. καίτοι ἀνάγκη ἐνεῖναι καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ: ἐπεὶ καὶ οὐδέν ἐστι βίαιον γινόμενον περὶ αὐτό, ἀλλ’ ἕτοιμόν ἐστι διεστάναι τῆς ἐνυπαρχούσης ψυχῆς, οἷον καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν στοιχείων τῶν τριῶν δεῖ νομίζειν εἶναι: ἐπεὶ καὶ ὅσα ἐξ ἀέρος συστάντος μᾶλλον ζῷα ἔχει τὸ μὴ αἰσθάνεσθαι εἰς τὸ παθεῖν. ὥσπερ δὲ ὁ ἀὴρ τὸ φῶς ἀτενὲς ὂν καὶ μένον, ἕως μένει αὐτός, παρέρχεται, τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον πάρεισι καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ κύκλῳ καὶ οὐ πάρεισι: καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ὡσαύτως.

Not even the heaven, it is said — and many things appear in it — disdained the nature of every kind of living being; for this universe too has all things. From where, then, does it have them? Has it, then, all the things that are here — are they there? Or all that has been made by rational form and according to form. But when it has fire, it also has water, and by all means it has plants too. How, then, are plants there? And how does fire live? And how earth? For either it lives, or it will be there as if dead, so that not everything there lives. And what, at all, are these things there? Plants, then, could be fitted to the account; for the plant here too is a rational form set in life. If, then, the enmattered rational form of the plant, by which the plant is, is a life of a certain kind and a soul of some sort, and the rational form is some one thing, then either it is the first plant or it is not, but before it there is the first plant, from which this one too comes. For that is one, and these are many, and from one of necessity. If so, that one must live much before, and be itself this very thing, plant; and from it these live secondarily and thirdly, and after its track. But earth — how? And what is being earth? And what is the earth there that has life? Or first, what is this earth — that is, what is being, for it? There must be some shape here too, and a rational form. There, in the case of the plant, even its rational form here was living. Is it so in this earth too? Or, if we took the most earthy things begotten and moulded in it, we should find here too the nature of earth. The growths and mouldings of stones, then, and the inner shapings of mountains as they spring up, we must think come about by all means through an ensouled rational form crafting from within and giving form; and this is the form of earth, the one that makes, as in trees what is called nature, while what is called earth is analogous to the wood of the tree; and the stone cut out is as if something were cut from the tree — not when it has suffered this, but while still attached, like what is not cut from the living plant. Having found, then, that the crafting nature seated in the earth is a life in a rational form, we should easily be persuaded from here that the earth there is living much before, a rational life of earth, earth itself and earth primarily, from which the earth here too comes. And if fire too is a rational form in matter, and the other things of this kind, and fire does not come from chance — for from where? Not from rubbing, as one might think, for rubbing happens when there is already fire in the universe and the bodies rubbed have it; nor is matter so potentially fire that fire comes from it — if, then, what makes must make according to rational form, as shaping, what would it be? Or it is a soul able to make fire; and this is a life and a rational form, the two one and the same. This is why Plato says there is a soul in each of these, in no other way than as making this sensible fire. The fire-making thing here, then, is a kind of fiery life, a truer fire. The fire beyond, then, being more fire, would be more in life: fire itself, then, lives. The same account holds of the others, water and air. But why are these not ensouled, as earth is? That they too are in the universal living being is plain, I suppose, and that they are parts of a living being; but life does not show in them, just as it does not in earth either — though there it could be inferred from the things that come to be in it. But living beings come to be in fire too, and in water more plainly, and there are compositions of living beings in air. Each fire, coming to be and quickly quenched, passes by the soul in the whole, and does not become a mass that remains so as to show the soul in it; and air and water likewise. For if they were somehow made firm according to nature, they would show it; but because they had to be diffused, they do not show the soul they have. And it may be as with the liquids in us, such as blood: flesh seems to have soul, and whatever of the blood becomes flesh, but the blood, since it affords no perception, does not seem to have it. Yet it must be in it too, since nothing forced happens to it, but it is ready to separate from the soul present in it; and so we must think it is with the three elements. For even those living beings composed more of air have this: they do not perceive so as to be affected. As air passes by the light, which is unyielding and remains, for as long as the air itself remains, so it passes by the soul around it and does not pass by it; and the others likewise.

λόγος is 'rational form' throughout (glossary), except 'the account' (ὁ λόγος, ordinary sense) and 'the same account' at the end of the fourth paragraph. ζῷον is 'living being'. The chapter states the tier of the rational forms (λόγοι): the rational form in a plant or a stone 'crafts from within', and has a living first plant and a first earth before it. 'A soul in each of these' is Plato, Laws X 899b. The opening sentence is disputed: whether 'many things appear' belongs to the heaven or to the argument is not settled by the Greek, and the English keeps the parenthesis. Volkmann brackets δὴ and ἂν as deletions; the English follows the text without them.

Apparatus
  • [pp.438, 439] The transcription encodes the elisions δύναιτ’, καθ’, ἀφ’ (three times) with a combining mark; the printed elisions are restored.
  • [p.438, l.18] τίς αὕτη· τοῦτο δ’ ἐστὶ as printed; the transcription puts a stop after τοῦτο.
  • [p.438, l.21] ἆρ’ as printed; the transcription reads ἆῤ.
  • [p.439, l.1] Volkmann brackets δὴ as a deletion in τὴν [δὴ] δημιουργοῦσαν; the transcription drops the brackets.
  • [p.439, l.12] παρ’ as printed; the transcription reads παῤ.
  • [p.439, ll.18-19] τὸ ἄρα ἐπέκεινα πῦρ μᾶλλον ὂν πῦρ μᾶλλον ἂν εἴη ἐν ζωῇ is one sentence on the plate; the transcription puts a full stop after the first πῦρ, which cuts the argument in two.
  • [p.439, l.31] Volkmann brackets ἂν as a deletion in ἵν’ [ἂν] ἔδειξε; the transcription drops the brackets.

Greek collated line by line against the Volkmann plate (vol. 2, pp. 437-440); 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 vi of x.

What drew on it

Marsilio FicinoPlotini opera (Latin translation)Plotini opera, Florence 1492, with the argumentum to VI.7translationnode only

Ficino's Latin carried this treatise 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
Anonymous (Theology of Aristotle)Theology of Aristotle (Enneads IV-VI paraphrase)The Theology of Aristotle (Arabic, ed. Dieterici 1882), which paraphrases parts of Enn. VI.7; the place answering this chapter is not yet locatedparaphrasenode only

The Arabic paraphrase through which Plotinus's intelligible world reached Islamic and then Latin philosophy under Aristotle's name.

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
Dieterici, Leipzig, 1882 — Arabic text; German translation 1883
OCR status
none
Attribution
Stated: Aristotle. Critical: Plotinus (Porphyrian-circle paraphrase, al-Kindi circle). Transmitted under Aristotle's name; critically an Arabic paraphrase of Plotinus's Enneads IV-VI made in the al-Kindi circle, not an Aristotelian work at all.
Thomas AquinasSumma Theologiae, Prima Parsst.1.115.1refutation

Plotinus: fire is made by a soul able to make fire, not by rubbing. Aquinas: this fire is made by this fire, by contact, and only a separate form of fire would cause all burning.

part.question.article I.115.1 · parts resp. · parma page 439

Respondeo dicendum, quod sensibiliter apparet aliqua corpora esse activa. Sed circa corporum actiones tripliciter aliqui erraverunt. Fuerunt enim aliqui, qui totaliter corporibus actiones subtraxerunt. Et haec est opinio Avicebron in libro Fontis Vitae, ubi per rationes quae tactae sunt, probare nititur, quod nullum corpus agit, sed omnes actiones quae videntur esse corporum, sunt actiones cujusdam virtutis spiritualis quae penetrat per omnia corpora; ita quod ignis, secundum eum, non calefacit, sed virtus spiritualis penetrans per ipsum. Et videtur haec opinio derivata esse ab opinione Platonis. Nam Plato posuit omnes formas quae sunt in materia corporali, esse participatas et determinatas, et contractas ad hanc materiam; formas vero separatas esse absolutas, et quasi universales. Et ideo illas formas separatas dicebat esse causas formarum quae sunt in materia. Secundum hoc ergo quod forma quae est in materia corporali, determinata est ad hanc materiam individuatam per quantitatem, ponebat Avicebron, quod a quantitate, prout est individuationis principium, retinetur et arcetur forma corporalis, ne possit se extendere per actionem in aliam materiam; sed solum forma spiritualis et immaterialis, quae non est coarctata per quantitatem, potest effluere per actionem in aliud. Sed ista ratio non concludit quod forma corporalis non sit agens; sed quod non sit agens universale. Secundum enim quod participatur aliquid, secundum hoc est necessarium quod participetur id quod est proprium ei; sicut quantum participatur de lumine, tantum participatur de ratione visibilis. Agere autem, quod nihil est aliud quam facere aliquid actu, est per se proprium actus, inquantum est actus. Unde et omne agens agit sibi simile Sic ergo ex hoc quod aliquid est forma non determinata per materiam quantitati subjectam, habet quod sit agens indeterminatum et universale; ex hoc vero quod est determinata ad hanc materiam, habet quod sit agens contractum et particulare. Unde si esset forma ignis separata, ut Platonici posuerunt, esset aliquo modo causa omnis ignitionis. Sed haec forma ignis quae est in hac materia corporali, est causa hujus ignitionis, quae est ab hoc corpore in hoc corpus; unde et fit talis actio per contactum duorum corporum. Sed tamen haec opinio Avicebron superexcedit opinionem Platonis. Nam Plato ponebat solum formas substantiales separatas; accidentia vero reducebat ad principia materialia, quae sunt magnum et parvum; quae ponebat esse prima contraria; sicut alii rarum et densum. Et ideo tam Plato, quam Avicenna in aliquo ipsum sequentes, ponebant quod agentia corporalia agunt secundum formas accidentales, disponendo materiam ad formam substantialem; sed ultima perfectio, quae est per inductionem formae substantialis, est a principio immateriali. Et haec est secunda opinio de actione corporum, de qua supra dictum est, qu. 45, art. 8, cum de creatione ageretur. Tertia vero opinio fuit Democriti, qui ponebat actionem esse per effluxionem atomorum a corpore agente et passionem esse per receptionem eorumdem in poris corporis patientis. Quam opinionem improbat Aristoteles (in lib. de Gen., text. 75 et seq.). Sequeretur enim quod corpus non pateretur per totum et quod quantitas corporis agentis diminueretur ex hoc quod agit; quae sunt manifeste falsa. Dicendum est ergo, quod corpus agit secundum quod est in actu, in aliud corpus secundum quod est in potentia.

I answer that it is plain to the senses that some bodies are active. But about the actions of bodies some have erred in three ways. For there were some who took actions away from bodies altogether. This is the opinion of Avicebron in the book Fons vitae, where by the reasons touched on above he tries to prove that no body acts, but that all the actions which seem to be those of bodies are actions of a certain spiritual power which penetrates through all bodies; so that fire, on his view, does not heat, but a spiritual power penetrating through it does. And this opinion seems to be derived from the opinion of Plato. For Plato held that all the forms that are in bodily matter are participated and determined, and contracted to this matter, while the separate forms are absolute and, as it were, universal. And so he said that those separate forms are the causes of the forms in matter. Taking it, then, that the form in bodily matter is determined to this matter individuated by quantity, Avicebron held that the bodily form is held back and confined by quantity, as the principle of individuation, so that it cannot extend itself by action into other matter; only a spiritual and immaterial form, not confined by quantity, can flow out by action into another. But this reasoning does not conclude that the bodily form is not an agent, but that it is not a universal agent. For in the measure that something is participated, in that measure what is proper to it must be participated; as, however much of light is participated, that much is participated of the character of the visible. Now to act, which is nothing other than to make something in act, is proper to act as such, in so far as it is act. Hence too every agent produces its like. So, from being a form not determined by matter subject to quantity, a thing has it that it is an undetermined and universal agent; and from being determined to this matter, it has it that it is a contracted and particular agent. Hence if there were a separate form of fire, as the Platonists held, it would in some way be the cause of all burning. But this form of fire, which is in this bodily matter, is the cause of this burning, which passes from this body into this body; hence such action takes place by the contact of two bodies. And yet this opinion of Avicebron goes beyond Plato's. For Plato held only the substantial forms to be separate, and traced accidents back to material principles, the great and the small, which he held to be the first contraries, as others held the rare and the dense. And so both Plato, and Avicenna following him in some respect, held that bodily agents act by their accidental forms, disposing matter for the substantial form, but that the final perfection, which comes by the bringing in of the substantial form, is from an immaterial principle. And this is the second opinion about the action of bodies, of which we spoke above, q. 45, a. 8, when creation was treated. The third opinion was that of Democritus, who held that action takes place through an outflow of atoms from the acting body, and being acted on through their reception in the pores of the body acted on. Aristotle refutes this opinion (On Generation, texts 75 and following). For it would follow that a body is not acted on through the whole of it, and that the quantity of an acting body would be diminished by its acting; both plainly false. It must be said, then, that a body acts in so far as it is in act, upon another body in so far as that is in potency.

Utrum aliquod corpus sit activum. The article's main target is Avicebron (Ibn Gabirol), Fons vitae, not Avicenna; Avicenna enters in the third paragraph, as holding with Plato that bodies only dispose matter while the substantial form comes 'from an immaterial principle' — the giver of forms. The fire example answers Enn. VI.7.11 directly: Plotinus says fire is made by a soul able to make fire, not by rubbing; Aquinas says this fire is made by this fire, by contact. 'Every agent produces its like' (omne agens agit sibi simile) is the axiom Proclus states as El. 28. 'The great and the small' is Plato's material principle as Aristotle reports it (Met. I.6).

Apparatus
  • [Parma p. 439, col. a] agit sibi simile Sic ergo: no full stop printed; supplied in the English only.
  • The article's objections, sed contra and replies are not given here; Parma's 'Concl.' summary is editorial and omitted.

Latin transcribed from the Parma plates (vol. 1, p. 439, leaf n478), 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

This page is draft — the English on it has not yet been through review.