Neoplatonic origins of the act of being

Review of Metaphysics

Volumn 53, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 383-401

  Bradshaw, David ^a  

^a Department of Philosophy ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040437391     PISSN: 00346632     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Charles Kahn, "Why Existence Does Not Emerge as a Distinct Concept in Ancient Greek Philosophy," in Philosophies of Existence: Ancient and Medieval, ed. Parviz Morewedge (New York: Fordham University Press, 1982), 7-17.
2. Metaphysics 8.2 1043a2; compare 7.17 1041b4-33.
3. Enneads 5.1.7, 5.5.6. (Translations of Plotinus are from the Loeb edition by A. H. Armstrong [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966-88].) Compare John Rist, Plotinus: The Road to Reality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 21-37.
4. Enneads 5.1.7, 5.5.6. (Translations of Plotinus are from the Loeb edition by A. H. Armstrong [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966-88].) Compare John Rist, Plotinus: The Road to Reality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 21-37.
5. e′πaρξισ which he equates with to 8Îvca uuvov; Dubitationes et Solutiones, ed C. Ruelle (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1966), 1:312. A similar use of SoSif is sometimes attributed to Marius Victorinus based on a passing remark about the word imaQXTOTrca in Adversus Arium 3.7, in Marii Victorini Afri Opera Theologica (Leipzig: Teubner, 1976), 153; translations are adapted from Mary T. Clark, Marius Victorinus: Theological Treatises on the Trinity (Washington, D. C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1981). For an example of such attribution, see Charles Kahn, "On the Terminology for Copula and Existence," in Islamic Philosophy and the Classical Tradition ed. S. M. Stern (Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1972), 155. Earlier in the same work, however, Victorinus states explicitly that UÏÏtkSiiçï is equivalent to Ov and signifies "esse with form"; Adversus Arium 2.4.
6. e′πaρξισ which he equates with to 8Îvca uuvov; Dubitationes et Solutiones, ed C. Ruelle (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1966), 1:312. A similar use of SoSif is sometimes attributed to Marius Victorinus based on a passing remark about the word imaQXTOTrca in Adversus Arium 3.7, in Marii Victorini Afri Opera Theologica (Leipzig: Teubner, 1976), 153; translations are adapted from Mary T. Clark, Marius Victorinus: Theological Treatises on the Trinity (Washington, D. C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1981). For an example of such attribution, see Charles Kahn, "On the Terminology for Copula and Existence," in Islamic Philosophy and the Classical Tradition ed. S. M. Stern (Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1972), 155. Earlier in the same work, however, Victorinus states explicitly that UÏÏtkSiiçï is equivalent to Ov and signifies "esse with form"; Adversus Arium 2.4.
7. e′πaρξισ which he equates with to 8Îvca uuvov; Dubitationes et Solutiones, ed C. Ruelle (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1966), 1:312. A similar use of SoSif is sometimes attributed to Marius Victorinus based on a passing remark about the word imaQXTOTrca in Adversus Arium 3.7, in Marii Victorini Afri Opera Theologica (Leipzig: Teubner, 1976), 153; translations are adapted from Mary T. Clark, Marius Victorinus: Theological Treatises on the Trinity (Washington, D. C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1981). For an example of such attribution, see Charles Kahn, "On the Terminology for Copula and Existence," in Islamic Philosophy and the Classical Tradition ed. S. M. Stern (Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1972), 155. Earlier in the same work, however, Victorinus states explicitly that UÏÏtkSiiçï is equivalent to Ov and signifies "esse with form"; Adversus Arium 2.4.
8. e′πaρξισ which he equates with to 8Îvca uuvov; Dubitationes et Solutiones, ed C. Ruelle (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1966), 1:312. A similar use of SoSif is sometimes attributed to Marius Victorinus based on a passing remark about the word imaQXTOTrca in Adversus Arium 3.7, in Marii Victorini Afri Opera Theologica (Leipzig: Teubner, 1976), 153; translations are adapted from Mary T. Clark, Marius Victorinus: Theological Treatises on the Trinity (Washington, D. C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1981). For an example of such attribution, see Charles Kahn, "On the Terminology for Copula and Existence," in Islamic Philosophy and the Classical Tradition ed. S. M. Stern (Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1972), 155. Earlier in the same work, however, Victorinus states explicitly that UÏÏtkSiiçï is equivalent to Ov and signifies "esse with form"; Adversus Arium 2.4.
9. e′πaρξισ which he equates with to 8Îvca uuvov; Dubitationes et Solutiones, ed C. Ruelle (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1966), 1:312. A similar use of SoSif is sometimes attributed to Marius Victorinus based on a passing remark about the word imaQXTOTrca in Adversus Arium 3.7, in Marii Victorini Afri Opera Theologica (Leipzig: Teubner, 1976), 153; translations are adapted from Mary T. Clark, Marius Victorinus: Theological Treatises on the Trinity (Washington, D. C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1981). For an example of such attribution, see Charles Kahn, "On the Terminology for Copula and Existence," in Islamic Philosophy and the Classical Tradition ed. S. M. Stern (Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1972), 155. Earlier in the same work, however, Victorinus states explicitly that UÏÏtkSiiçï is equivalent to Ov and signifies "esse with form"; Adversus Arium 2.4.
10. Edited with French translation in volume 2 of Pierre Hadot, Porphyre et Victorinus (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1968).
11. Parmenides 142b.
12. Anonymous Commentary, 12.22-33; Hadot, 104-106.
13. Anonymous Commentary, 13.17-19; Hadot, 106-108.
14. See Enneads 5.1.8.
15. e α̧παρε′μφατOσ, an alpha-privative meaning "not determinative or indicative."
16. The most important work on Victorinus is Hadot, Porphyre et Victorinus. For Victorinus's role in transmitting the idea of the act of being to Boethius, see also Hadot, "La distinction de l'être et de l'étant dans le De Hebdomadibus de Boèce," Miscellanea Mediaevalia 2 (1963): 147-53 and "Forma Essendi: interprètation philologique et interprétation philosophique d'une formule de Boèce," Les Études Classiques 38 (1970): 143-56. Although Hadot's works are extremely valuable, his interpretation is colored by the fact that he ascribes the Anonymous Commentary to Porphyry. On the basis of this attribution, together with some late and rather sketchy testimonia, Hadot attributes to Porphyry an elaborate metaphysics, few traces of which are to be found in Porphyry's surviving works or fragments. See Hadot, "La métaphysique de Porphyre," in Entretiens Hardt 12: Porphyre (Vandoeuvres-Geneva; Fondation Hardt, 1966), 127-63. Finding traces of this alleged Porphyrian metaphysics in Victorinus, Hadot further adopts as a working hypothesis that whatever appears to be original in Victorinus can be ascribed to Porphyry's influence. The result is to minimize drastically the originality of Victorinus. Recently strong objections have been raised against the ascription of the Commentary to Porphyry, thus clearing the way for a reassessment of Victorinus's role. See Andrew Smith, "Porphyrian Studies Since 1913," Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt II, 36.2 (1987), 717-73 at 727-29 and 739-41, and especially M. J. Edwards, "Porphyry and the Intelligible Triad," Journal of Hellenic Studies 110 (1990): 14-25.
17. The most important work on Victorinus is Hadot, Porphyre et Victorinus. For Victorinus's role in transmitting the idea of the act of being to Boethius, see also Hadot, "La distinction de l'être et de l'étant dans le De Hebdomadibus de Boèce," Miscellanea Mediaevalia 2 (1963): 147-53 and "Forma Essendi: interprètation philologique et interprétation philosophique d'une formule de Boèce," Les Études Classiques 38 (1970): 143-56. Although Hadot's works are extremely valuable, his interpretation is colored by the fact that he ascribes the Anonymous Commentary to Porphyry. On the basis of this attribution, together with some late and rather sketchy testimonia, Hadot attributes to Porphyry an elaborate metaphysics, few traces of which are to be found in Porphyry's surviving works or fragments. See Hadot, "La métaphysique de Porphyre," in Entretiens Hardt 12: Porphyre (Vandoeuvres-Geneva; Fondation Hardt, 1966), 127-63. Finding traces of this alleged Porphyrian metaphysics in Victorinus, Hadot further adopts as a working hypothesis that whatever appears to be original in Victorinus can be ascribed to Porphyry's influence. The result is to minimize drastically the originality of Victorinus. Recently strong objections have been raised against the ascription of the Commentary to Porphyry, thus clearing the way for a reassessment of Victorinus's role. See Andrew Smith, "Porphyrian Studies Since 1913," Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt II, 36.2 (1987), 717-73 at 727-29 and 739-41, and especially M. J. Edwards, "Porphyry and the Intelligible Triad," Journal of Hellenic Studies 110 (1990): 14-25.
18. The most important work on Victorinus is Hadot, Porphyre et Victorinus. For Victorinus's role in transmitting the idea of the act of being to Boethius, see also Hadot, "La distinction de l'être et de l'étant dans le De Hebdomadibus de Boèce," Miscellanea Mediaevalia 2 (1963): 147-53 and "Forma Essendi: interprètation philologique et interprétation philosophique d'une formule de Boèce," Les Études Classiques 38 (1970): 143-56. Although Hadot's works are extremely valuable, his interpretation is colored by the fact that he ascribes the Anonymous Commentary to Porphyry. On the basis of this attribution, together with some late and rather sketchy testimonia, Hadot attributes to Porphyry an elaborate metaphysics, few traces of which are to be found in Porphyry's surviving works or fragments. See Hadot, "La métaphysique de Porphyre," in Entretiens Hardt 12: Porphyre (Vandoeuvres-Geneva; Fondation Hardt, 1966), 127-63. Finding traces of this alleged Porphyrian metaphysics in Victorinus, Hadot further adopts as a working hypothesis that whatever appears to be original in Victorinus can be ascribed to Porphyry's influence. The result is to minimize drastically the originality of Victorinus. Recently strong objections have been raised against the ascription of the Commentary to Porphyry, thus clearing the way for a reassessment of Victorinus's role. See Andrew Smith, "Porphyrian Studies Since 1913," Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt II, 36.2 (1987), 717-73 at 727-29 and 739-41, and especially M. J. Edwards, "Porphyry and the Intelligible Triad," Journal of Hellenic Studies 110 (1990): 14-25.
19. The most important work on Victorinus is Hadot, Porphyre et Victorinus. For Victorinus's role in transmitting the idea of the act of being to Boethius, see also Hadot, "La distinction de l'être et de l'étant dans le De Hebdomadibus de Boèce," Miscellanea Mediaevalia 2 (1963): 147-53 and "Forma Essendi: interprètation philologique et interprétation philosophique d'une formule de Boèce," Les Études Classiques 38 (1970): 143-56. Although Hadot's works are extremely valuable, his interpretation is colored by the fact that he ascribes the Anonymous Commentary to Porphyry. On the basis of this attribution, together with some late and rather sketchy testimonia, Hadot attributes to Porphyry an elaborate metaphysics, few traces of which are to be found in Porphyry's surviving works or fragments. See Hadot, "La métaphysique de Porphyre," in Entretiens Hardt 12: Porphyre (Vandoeuvres-Geneva; Fondation Hardt, 1966), 127-63. Finding traces of this alleged Porphyrian metaphysics in Victorinus, Hadot further adopts as a working hypothesis that whatever appears to be original in Victorinus can be ascribed to Porphyry's influence. The result is to minimize drastically the originality of Victorinus. Recently strong objections have been raised against the ascription of the Commentary to Porphyry, thus clearing the way for a reassessment of Victorinus's role. See Andrew Smith, "Porphyrian Studies Since 1913," Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt II, 36.2 (1987), 717-73 at 727-29 and 739-41, and especially M. J. Edwards, "Porphyry and the Intelligible Triad," Journal of Hellenic Studies 110 (1990): 14-25.
20. The most important work on Victorinus is Hadot, Porphyre et Victorinus. For Victorinus's role in transmitting the idea of the act of being to Boethius, see also Hadot, "La distinction de l'être et de l'étant dans le De Hebdomadibus de Boèce," Miscellanea Mediaevalia 2 (1963): 147-53 and "Forma Essendi: interprètation philologique et interprétation philosophique d'une formule de Boèce," Les Études Classiques 38 (1970): 143-56. Although Hadot's works are extremely valuable, his interpretation is colored by the fact that he ascribes the Anonymous Commentary to Porphyry. On the basis of this attribution, together with some late and rather sketchy testimonia, Hadot attributes to Porphyry an elaborate metaphysics, few traces of which are to be found in Porphyry's surviving works or fragments. See Hadot, "La métaphysique de Porphyre," in Entretiens Hardt 12: Porphyre (Vandoeuvres-Geneva; Fondation Hardt, 1966), 127-63. Finding traces of this alleged Porphyrian metaphysics in Victorinus, Hadot further adopts as a working hypothesis that whatever appears to be original in Victorinus can be ascribed to Porphyry's influence. The result is to minimize drastically the originality of Victorinus. Recently strong objections have been raised against the ascription of the Commentary to Porphyry, thus clearing the way for a reassessment of Victorinus's role. See Andrew Smith, "Porphyrian Studies Since 1913," Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt II, 36.2 (1987), 717-73 at 727-29 and 739-41, and especially M. J. Edwards, "Porphyry and the Intelligible Triad," Journal of Hellenic Studies 110 (1990): 14-25.
21. The most important work on Victorinus is Hadot, Porphyre et Victorinus. For Victorinus's role in transmitting the idea of the act of being to Boethius, see also Hadot, "La distinction de l'être et de l'étant dans le De Hebdomadibus de Boèce," Miscellanea Mediaevalia 2 (1963): 147-53 and "Forma Essendi: interprètation philologique et interprétation philosophique d'une formule de Boèce," Les Études Classiques 38 (1970): 143-56. Although Hadot's works are extremely valuable, his interpretation is colored by the fact that he ascribes the Anonymous Commentary to Porphyry. On the basis of this attribution, together with some late and rather sketchy testimonia, Hadot attributes to Porphyry an elaborate metaphysics, few traces of which are to be found in Porphyry's surviving works or fragments. See Hadot, "La métaphysique de Porphyre," in Entretiens Hardt 12: Porphyre (Vandoeuvres-Geneva; Fondation Hardt, 1966), 127-63. Finding traces of this alleged Porphyrian metaphysics in Victorinus, Hadot further adopts as a working hypothesis that whatever appears to be original in Victorinus can be ascribed to Porphyry's influence. The result is to minimize drastically the originality of Victorinus. Recently strong objections have been raised against the ascription of the Commentary to Porphyry, thus clearing the way for a reassessment of Victorinus's role. See Andrew Smith, "Porphyrian Studies Since 1913," Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt II, 36.2 (1987), 717-73 at 727-29 and 739-41, and especially M. J. Edwards, "Porphyry and the Intelligible Triad," Journal of Hellenic Studies 110 (1990): 14-25.
22. "Omnia per ipsum et in ipso constituta sunt et ipse est ante omnia et omnia in ipso consistunt"; Victorinus, Adversus Arium 1.24.
23. "Omnia per ipsum et in ipso constituta sunt et ipse est ante omnia et omnia in ipso consistunt"; Victorinus, Adversus Arium 1.24.
24. Ad Candidum 27.
25. "Et hic λόγος rerum, per quem creata sunt omnia, universalis potentia continens universaliter omnium res et praestans ad exsistentiam unicuique sua et propria. . . . Imponendo enim infinito terminum rebus ad exsistentiam sui unicuique format rem et intelligentiae infinitate sublata subicit. Est ergo in eo, quod rerum est potentia, ad pariendas efficiendasque exsistentias λόγος. Ex eo autem, quod definit atque concludit unumquidque formam tribuens, oν est iam exsistens, cum fuerit eius, quod est esse, certa forma"; Adversus Arium 4.19.
26. "Ante oν et ante λόγον vis et potentia exsistendi illa est, quae significatur hoc verbo, quod est esse, Graece quod est τὸ εiναι. Hoc ipsum esse duobus accipiendum modis, unum, ut universale sit et principaliter principale, unde in ceteris esse sit, alioque modo esse est ceteris, quod est omnium post vel generum vel specierum atque huiusmodi ceterorum. Verum esse primum ita inparticipatum est, ut nec unum dici possit nec solum, sed per praelationem ante unum et ante solum, ultra simplicitatem, praeexsistentiam potius quam exsistentiam, universalium omnium universale, infinitum, interminatum, sed aliis omnibus, non sibi, et idcirco sine forma. . . . Unde nec oν. Certum enim et iam quiddam est oν, intelligibile, cognoscibile"; Adversus Arium 4.19, Opera, 152.
27. "Ante oν et ante λόγον vis et potentia exsistendi illa est, quae significatur hoc verbo, quod est esse, Graece quod est τὸ εiναι. Hoc ipsum esse duobus accipiendum modis, unum, ut universale sit et principaliter principale, unde in ceteris esse sit, alioque modo esse est ceteris, quod est omnium post vel generum vel specierum atque huiusmodi ceterorum. Verum esse primum ita inparticipatum est, ut nec unum dici possit nec solum, sed per praelationem ante unum et ante solum, ultra simplicitatem, praeexsistentiam potius quam exsistentiam, universalium omnium universale, infinitum, interminatum, sed aliis omnibus, non sibi, et idcirco sine forma. . . . Unde nec oν. Certum enim et iam quiddam est oν, intelligibile, cognoscibile"; Adversus Arium 4.19, Opera, 152.
28. See Parmenides 14.10-16 (quoted below, note 37).
29. ". . . non illegatur ut oν neque ut μὴ oν, sed ut in ignoratione intellegibile, quoniam oν et quoniam non oν quod sua ipsius potentia τὸ oν in manifestationem adduxit et genuit. . . . Quod enim supra oν est, absconditum oν est. Absconditi vero manifestatio generatione est, si quidem et potentia oν operatione oν generat. Nihil enim sine causa in generatione. Et si deus causa est omnium, causa est του̃ oντος in generationem, quippe cum super τὸ oν sit, vicinus cum sit τw oντι et ut pater eius et genitor. Etenim gravida occultum habet, quod paritura est. . . . Quid igitur fuit intus in deo? Nihil aliud quam τὸ oν, verum τὸ, magis autem πpοόν quod est supra generale oν genus, quod supra oντως oντα, oν iam operante potentia"; Ad Candidum 14, Opera, 18-19.
30. ". . . non illegatur ut oν neque ut μὴ oν, sed ut in ignoratione intellegibile, quoniam oν et quoniam non oν quod sua ipsius potentia τὸ oν in manifestationem adduxit et genuit. . . . Quod enim supra oν est, absconditum oν est. Absconditi vero manifestatio generatione est, si quidem et potentia oν operatione oν generat. Nihil enim sine causa in generatione. Et si deus causa est omnium, causa est του̃ oντος in generationem, quippe cum super τὸ oν sit, vicinus cum sit τw oντι et ut pater eius et genitor. Etenim gravida occultum habet, quod paritura est. . . . Quid igitur fuit intus in deo? Nihil aliud quam τὸ oν, verum τὸ, magis autem πpοόν quod est supra generale oν genus, quod supra oντως oντα, oν iam operante potentia"; Ad Candidum 14, Opera, 18-19.
31. For example, Enneals 6.8.18. This principle is a corollary of the theory of two acts, for which see Enneads 5.1.3, 5.1.6, 5.2.1, and 5.4.
32. For example, Enneals 6.8.18. This principle is a corollary of the theory of two acts, for which see Enneads 5.1.3, 5.1.6, 5.2.1, and 5.4.
33. Here I disagree with the accounts of Victorinus in Etienne Gilson, Being and Some Philosophers, 2d ed. (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1952), 31-33,
34. and Rist, Plotinus, 34-36. Both seem to me to take Victorinus's assertion that the Father is τὸ μὴ oν in too literal a fashion.
35. Ad Candidum 17.
36. This distinction between the Father as internal activity and the Son as external activity would appear to be Victorinus's adaptation of the Plotinian theory of two acts, one internal and one external. See particularly the labelling of the two activities as intus and foris at Ad Candidum 21 and Adversus Arium 1.4.
37. This distinction between the Father as internal activity and the Son as external activity would appear to be Victorinus's adaptation of the Plotinian theory of two acts, one internal and one external. See particularly the labelling of the two activities as intus and foris at Ad Candidum 21 and Adversus Arium 1.4.
38. "Sed maior pater, quod ipse dedit ipsi omnia, et causa est ipsi filio, ut sit et isto modo sit. Adhuc autem maior, quod actio inactuosa. Beatior enim, quod sine molestia et impassibilis et fons omnium, quae sunt, requiescens, a se perfecta et nullius egens. Filius autem, ut esset, accepit et in id, quod est agere, ab actione procedens in perfectionem veniens motu efficitur plenitudo, factus omnia, quae sunt"; Adversus Arium 1.13, Opera, 42-43.
39. "Sed maior pater, quod ipse dedit ipsi omnia, et causa est ipsi filio, ut sit et isto modo sit. Adhuc autem maior, quod actio inactuosa. Beatior enim, quod sine molestia et impassibilis et fons omnium, quae sunt, requiescens, a se perfecta et nullius egens. Filius autem, ut esset, accepit et in id, quod est agere, ab actione procedens in perfectionem veniens motu efficitur plenitudo, factus omnia, quae sunt"; Adversus Arium 1.13, Opera, 42-43.
40. "Potentia enim omnia praeexsistens et praeprincipium et ante est quam vere oν. . . . Sed scriptura et omnis intelligentia istum deum et esse dicit et ante ipsum nihil esse, qui et id est, quod est esse, et id, quod operari. Istum deum confitemur et colimus principium omnium, quae sunt. Actione enim sunt, quae sunt. Ante enim actione nondum sunt. Actuosum enim deum accipimus, sicuti: in principio fecit deus caelum et terram. . . . Iste igitur verus deus et solus deus, quia et potentia et actione deus, sed interna, ut Christus et potentia et actione, sed iam foris et aperta. Pater igitur deus, prima actio et prima exsistentia et substantia et principale τὸ oν, actione a se sua sese qui generet. . ."; Adversus Arium 1.33, Opera, 68.
41. "Potentia enim omnia praeexsistens et praeprincipium et ante est quam vere oν. . . . Sed scriptura et omnis intelligentia istum deum et esse dicit et ante ipsum nihil esse, qui et id est, quod est esse, et id, quod operari. Istum deum confitemur et colimus principium omnium, quae sunt. Actione enim sunt, quae sunt. Ante enim actione nondum sunt. Actuosum enim deum accipimus, sicuti: in principio fecit deus caelum et terram. . . . Iste igitur verus deus et solus deus, quia et potentia et actione deus, sed interna, ut Christus et potentia et actione, sed iam foris et aperta. Pater igitur deus, prima actio et prima exsistentia et substantia et principale τὸ oν, actione a se sua sese qui generet. . ."; Adversus Arium 1.33, Opera, 68.
42. Adversus Arium 1.20.
43. For example, Enneads 3.9.9, 5.3.10, 5.3.13, and 5.6.1-5.
44. Enneads 6.8.16 and 18, respectively; cf. 5.4.2.15-19 and 6.7.39.1-4.
45. See above, note 18.
46. The following paragraph is much indebted to John Bussanich, "Plotinus on the Inner Life of the One," Ancient Philosophy 7 (1987): 163-89.
47. Enneads 6.7.35.20-28.
48. Enneads 5.5.7.16-36.
49. Enneads 5.3.14.8-15.
50. Something of a precedent may be found in Plotinus's description of the procession of Intellect from the One as an unformed potentiality which is then given definite being by its halt and turning toward the One (Enneads 5.2.1 and 5.3.11). Even here, however, Intellect comes forth as an external act, not as a further moment in the One's internal act of "looking to himself" and "holding to himself."
51. "Qui cum foras spectat (hoc est autem foras spectare: motum vel motionem esse, quod ipsum hoc illud est se videre, se intellegere ac nosse velle; cum autem se videt, geminus exsistit et intellegitur videns et quod videtur, ipse qui videt, ipsum quod videtur, quia se videt. Hoc est igitur foras spectans, foris genitus vel exsistens, ut, quid sit, intellegat), ergo, si foris est, et si genitus, filius . . ."; Adversus Arium 3.2, Opera, 116.
52. "Qui cum foras spectat (hoc est autem foras spectare: motum vel motionem esse, quod ipsum hoc illud est se videre, se intellegere ac nosse velle; cum autem se videt, geminus exsistit et intellegitur videns et quod videtur, ipse qui videt, ipsum quod videtur, quia se videt. Hoc est igitur foras spectans, foris genitus vel exsistens, ut, quid sit, intellegat), ergo, si foris est, et si genitus, filius . . ."; Adversus Arium 3.2, Opera, 116.
53. For the earlier history of this triad see Pierre Hadot, "Etre, vie, pensée chez Plotin et avant Plotin," in Entretiens Hardt 5: Les sources de Plotin (Vandoeuvres-Genève: Fondation Hardt, 1960), 105-41.
54. "Dicit ergo: ex meo accipiet, quod una motio, hoc est actio agens, Christus est et spiritus sanctus. Et primum est vivere, et ab ipso, quod est vivere, et intellegere. Vivere quidem Christus, intellegere spiritus. Ergo spiritus a Christo accipit, ipse Christus a patre . . ."; Adversus Arium 1.13, Opera, 43.
55. "Dicit ergo: ex meo accipiet, quod una motio, hoc est actio agens, Christus est et spiritus sanctus. Et primum est vivere, et ab ipso, quod est vivere, et intellegere. Vivere quidem Christus, intellegere spiritus. Ergo spiritus a Christo accipit, ipse Christus a patre . . ."; Adversus Arium 1.13, Opera, 43.
56. "Spiritu enim moto a semet ipso, hoc est vitae perfectae in motione exsistentis, volentis videre semet ipsam, hoc est potentiam suam, patrem scilicet, facta est ipsa manifestatio sui, quae generatio est et dicitur, et iuxta hoc foris exsistens. Omnis enim cognoscentia, secundum quod cognoscentia est, foris est ab illo, quod cupit cognoscere. . . . In isto igitur sine intellectu temporis tempore ab eo, quod erat esse, veluti egrediens in inspiciendum ipsum, quod erat, quoniam ibi omnis motus substantia est, alteritas nata cito in identitatem revenit. . . . Nulla igitur deminutione totum semper unum mansit maxime potentificata counitione potentia patrica. Sanctus igitur spiritus motus primus intus, quae sit excogitatio patrica, hoc est sui ipsius cognoscentia. Praecognoscentia[m] enim cognoscentia〈m〉 praecedit. Iuxta istum ergo cognoscentiae modum naturalem foris effecta[m] intelligentia[m] natus est filius, vita factus, non quo non fuerit vita, sed quoniam foris vita magis vita. In motu enim vita"; Adversus Arium 1.57, Opera, 92-3.
57. "Spiritu enim moto a semet ipso, hoc est vitae perfectae in motione exsistentis, volentis videre semet ipsam, hoc est potentiam suam, patrem scilicet, facta est ipsa manifestatio sui, quae generatio est et dicitur, et iuxta hoc foris exsistens. Omnis enim cognoscentia, secundum quod cognoscentia est, foris est ab illo, quod cupit cognoscere. . . . In isto igitur sine intellectu temporis tempore ab eo, quod erat esse, veluti egrediens in inspiciendum ipsum, quod erat, quoniam ibi omnis motus substantia est, alteritas nata cito in identitatem revenit. . . . Nulla igitur deminutione totum semper unum mansit maxime potentificata counitione potentia patrica. Sanctus igitur spiritus motus primus intus, quae sit excogitatio patrica, hoc est sui ipsius cognoscentia. Praecognoscentia[m] enim cognoscentia〈m〉 praecedit. Iuxta istum ergo cognoscentiae modum naturalem foris effecta[m] intelligentia[m] natus est filius, vita factus, non quo non fuerit vita, sed quoniam foris vita magis vita. In motu enim vita"; Adversus Arium 1.57, Opera, 92-3.
58. Compare the following passage in the Commentary: "It [the One] is one and simple in its first form ((Greek small letter script kappa)ατὰ τὴν vπαpξιν (Greek small letter script kappa)αὶ ζωὴν (Greek small letter script kappa)αὶ τὴι νόηιν), 'it itself' taken in itself, a power or rather to name it properly an unspeakable and inconceivable grace. But it is rieither one nor simple in existence and life and thought ((Greek small letter script kappa)ατὰ τὴν πpώτην ιδέαν). The thinker and that which is thought are the same in existence, but the thinker, when Intellect comes forth from Existence to become the thinker, so that it may return to the intelligible and behold itself, is Life. Hence it is infinite in life. All are actsrjas Existence the act is immobile ((Greek small letter script kappa)ατὰ τὴν μὲν τὴν vπαpξιν Eστω̃σα aν εiη n ε+ (Latin small letter a + Combining comma above)νpγεια), as Thought the act has turned toward itself (ει+ (Latin small letter a + Combining comma above)ς αυτὴν στpαφει̃σα), as Life it has come forth from Existence (ε+ (Latin small letter a + Combining comma above)(Greek small letter script kappa) τη̃ς υπάpξεως ε+ (Latin small letter a + Combining comma above)(Greek small letter script kappa)νεύσασα)"; 14.10-26.
59. St Jerome, De Viris Illustribus, trans. E. C. Richardson, in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1983), 3:381.
60. Adversus Arium 1.61-4.
61. See David Bell, "Esse, Vivere, Intelligere: The Noetic Triad and the Image of God," Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 52 (1985): 6-43. should add that the influence of the Anonymous Commentary was even more negligible than that of Victorinus. There has been some speculation that, since the Plotiniana Arabica cite Porphyry as a source, the authors of these works had access to the Commentary. As Cristina D'Ancona Costa has observed, however, the Plotiniana and the Liber de Causis (which derives partly from them) make no use of the Commentary's central distinction between τὸ εoναι and τὸ oν, and in fact the ontology of these works can be fully explained by reference to Plotinus and Proclus. See Cristina D'Ancona Costa, Recherches sur le Liber de Causis (Paris: Vrin, 1995), 138-47.
62. See David Bell, "Esse, Vivere, Intelligere: The Noetic Triad and the Image of God," Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 52 (1985): 6-43. should add that the influence of the Anonymous Commentary was even more negligible than that of Victorinus. There has been some speculation that, since the Plotiniana Arabica cite Porphyry as a source, the authors of these works had access to the Commentary. As Cristina D'Ancona Costa has observed, however, the Plotiniana and the Liber de Causis (which derives partly from them) make no use of the Commentary's central distinction between τὸ εoναι and τὸ oν, and in fact the ontology of these works can be fully explained by reference to Plotinus and Proclus. See Cristina D'Ancona Costa, Recherches sur le Liber de Causis (Paris: Vrin, 1995), 138-47.
63. See Pierre Courcelle, Late Latin Writers and Their Greek Sources (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1969), 280-81.
64. Translation adapted from The Theological Tractates and the Consolation of Philosophy, ed. and trans. H. F. Stewart, et al. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973).
65. See Adversus Arium 4.19 (quoted above, note 15).
66. Adversus Arium 2.4.
67. Presumably, then, there can be only one simple thing. Boethius does not draw this conclusion, but neither does he say anything that would contradict it.
68. In light of his known interest in Neopythagoreanism, it is possible that Boethius was influenced at this point by the Neopythagorean identification of the first principle with the Monad that imposes limit, sameness, and unity on the Indefinite Dyad (and hence stands in the relation of form to the Dyad). The case for such an influence has been argued by Sarah Pessin, "Boethius and the Neoplatonic Good: Hebdomads and the Nature of God in the Quomodo Substantial," Carmina Philosophiae (Journal of the International Boethius Society), forthcoming.
69. Hadot, "Forma Essendi," 152.
70. Hadot, "La distinction" (cited above, note 11);
71. compare the survey of contemporary interpretations of De Hebdomadibus in Ralph McInerny, Boethius and Aquinas (Washington, D. C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1990), 161-98. My account differs from that of Hadot in its interpretation of the forma essendi.
72. Hadot, "Forma Essendi," 154-5.
73. For example, Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles 2.9.4: "Ergo suum agere est suum esse."