We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
The purpose of the present article is to examine the use of Logos as an ontological term in the Plotinian system and to seek to trace its connexion with Stoicism. Although at first the fact that the fundamental meaning metaphysically of Logos for Plotinus is a spiritual activity due, both as created and as creator, to the desire for contemplation may appear to be an obstacle to a close resemblance with the Spermatic Logos of Stoicism, the creative aspect of the elemental Fire, nevertheless abundant and striking similarities in other respects seem to furnish conclusive evidence that the title which I have selected is not mistaken. The full importance of the Plotinian Logos cannot indeed be grasped until the development of the term has been studied not merely in Stoicism but in Philo and early Patristic Literature; for then the common function of Logos in every system, the reconciliation of the transcendent and the immanent views of God, is clearly manifested. But here only a brief indication of the evolution of the Logos doctrine between the diffusion of Stoic thought and the emergence of Neoplatonism is possible. Chief interest will be directed to the use by Plotinus of the spermatic conception, fundamentally Stoic, of a creative Nature which informs and pervades the Cosmos as its immanent Logos.
page 103 note 1 The Plotinian Logos has not been granted, when discussed, the importance which it de serves, and scholars have been too ready to find inconsistencies. So Heinze, , after saying that on the whole Plotinus follows Stoicism, often through the Alexandrians, professes to find about the metaphysical relation of the Logos ‘only unclear and contradictory statements’ (Lehre v. d. Logos, p. 329)Google Scholar. H. F. Mueller, to whom Plotinian scholarship owes much, has well handled the subject (Lehre v. Log. bei Plotin) and, while his treatment is from a rather different angle, I adopt his main position.
page 103 note 2 SVF II 1027. Cic. N.D. II. 10, 28; 33, 86.
page 103 note 3 SVF II. 1074.
page 103 note 4 SVF I. 497; Marc. Aur. IV. 14, 21; VI. 24; VII. 10.
page 103 note 5 SVF II. 828.
page 103 note 6 SVF II. 1051 (so Heinze, , op. cit., p. 90, n. 1Google Scholar).
page 103 note 7 ad Helv. 8, 3.
page 103 note 8 Sen. Ep. 90, 29.
page 103 note 9 Sen. N.Q. III. 29.
page 104 note 1 SVF II. 741.
page 104 note 2 SVF II. 780. 1132.
page 104 note 3 Marc. Aur. VI. 1; IX. 1.
page 104 note 4 Proclus, , SVF II. 717Google Scholar.
page 104 note 5 In Aristotle, (De An. I. i. 403a 25Google Scholar) we meet λóγοι ἔνυλοι, which are ‘forms possessing their essence in matter and being inseparable’ (Philoponus, ad loc.) Cf. Enn. I. 8, 8; VI. 1, 29.
page 104 note 6 Cf.Op. Mun. 20. etc.
page 104 note 7 ‘Goettliche Ideen, die in der Form von gestalteten Kraeften zu Natnrprinzipien werden’ (Meyer, , Gesch v. d. Keimkraft, 46Google Scholar).
page 104 note 8 De Plant. 8. Cf. SVF II. 719.
page 104 note 9 De Cher. 30; De Sacr. 87. Although the Philonic Logos rarely receives material attributes (vide Leisegang, , Heil. Geist, pp. 66, 67Google Scholar), it clearly fails by this fact to be a spiritual concept like that of Plotinus.
page 104 note 10 Ibid.
page 104 note 11 Vide C.Q. XXIV., p. 198, n. 7.
page 104 note 12 Cf. for this notion that artefacta are not (as Plato had said) in imitation of sense-objects, Cic. De Or. 9, Sen. Contr. V. 36, Ep. 58, 21, Dio. Pr. 12, 36, Plot. Enn. V. 8, 1, [Clem.] Recog. 8, 54. It is perhaps Posidonian.
page 104 note 13 Op. Mund. 24.
page 104 note 14 Migr. Abr. 103. Cf. Clem. Strom. V. 3, 16.
page 104 note 15 Cf. C.Q., loc. cit.
page 104 note 16 Vide Plut. ls. et Os. 59; Qu. Conv. VIII. 2, 3, 719; Aristeas, , Ep. ad Philocr. 279Google Scholar.
page 104 note 17 Texte et Trad. III., p. 19.
page 105 note 1 Neoplatonists, 37.
page 105 note 2 Vide e.g. Meyer, , op. cit. 48Google Scholar. The Stoic term is of course used by Martyr, Justin of Jesus (Ap. II. 8. 13)Google Scholar
page 105 note 3 Syr. in Arist, . Met. xiii. 6Google Scholar.
page 105 note 4 Cf. Heinemann, , Plotin, 67Google Scholar.
page 105 note 5 Cf. Bréhier, , Texte et Trad. Notice toEnn. III. 2, 3Google Scholar.
page 105 note 6 The idea is even earlier: Arist, . Anal. Post. I. 10, 76b, 24Google Scholar; Plat, . Soph. 263Google Scholarb.
page 105 note 7 Vit. Mos. II. 127. Vide also Albinus, Prol. c. II.ad init. and Apoll. Tyan.ap. Eus.Prep. Ev. 150C Cf. Enn. V. I, 6).
page 105 note 8 Philonic, Leg. All. III. 207)Google Scholar.
page 105 note 9 Enn. I. 2, 3.
page 105 note 10 V. 1, 3; II. 9, 1; IV. 3, 11.
page 105 note 11 The favourite expression is οὐκ ἀποτὲτμηται or, positively, ἐοὴρτηται. Vide Theiler, , Problem. 101Google Scholar.
page 105 note 12 λὸγος in a psychological sense. The context generally decides which of its many meanings in Plotinus the term is to receive, but occasionally e.g. in VI. 7, the choice of a single meaning is difficult. Cf. Theiler, , op. cit. 66, 67Google Scholar.
page 105 note 13 V. 1, 10; II. 9, 8.
page 105 note 14 Cf. V. 1, 7.
page 106 note 15 III. 2, 2. The Noetic Logos, which calls the Sensible World into being (τιθεὶς κὀσμον in IV. 4. 39)) is likened to the Ithyphallic Hermes in III. 6, 19 (cf. Cornut, . Theol. Comp. 16Google Scholar; Porphy, . ap. Eus. Prep. Ev. III. 114Google Scholar; Macr, . Sat. I. 19, 14Google Scholar; Just. Ap. I. 22; and Hippolyt, . Ref.Haer. IV. 48)Google Scholar.
page 106 note 2 V. 9, 3.
page 106 note 3 IV. 3, 5.
page 106 note 4 VI. 2, 5.
page 106 note 5 Cf. also Celsus, (Or. Cont. Cels. 5Google Scholar, 24: ὀ τῶνπάντων λογος ἑστὶν αὺτός ὁ θεὸς.)
page 106 note 6 θεῖος λόγος according to H. F. Mueller, occurs twice in Plotinus: in VI. 1, 26 it is obviously not Plotinus whose view is given, and in I. 6, 2 the term (common in Philo) should not mislead any one to identify λόγος with τὸ ἕν. In III. 2, 18 ἀρχῂ λόγος καὶ πάντα λὀγος is self-explanatory, since the άρχἠ meant is, not τὸ ἕν, but τὰ πάντα in Nous.
page 106 note 7 IV. 7, 2, 5, 9.
page 106 note 8 V. 9, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10.
page 106 note 9 II. 4, 16.
page 106 note 10 I. 8, 9, 11.
page 106 note 11 VI. 3, 7.
page 106 note 12 VI. 1, 29.
page 106 note 13 Op. cit. III. p. 19.
page 106 note 14 III. 6, 12.
page 106 note 15 III. 8, 2.
page 106 note 16 III. 6, 15.
page 106 note 17 IV. 7, 9. For the theory criticized at the end of the chapter cf. Manil. IV. 891; Diog, Bab. fr 30 SVF; Marc. Aur. V. 33.
page 106 note 18 So also are quantities (II. 4, 8E).
page 106 note 19 Cf. Lucret. V. 1095 sqq. 1242. Manilius (perhaps Posidonian) I. 856.
page 107 note 1 VI. 7, 11.
page 107 ntoe 2 Hence arises an inconsistency, purely verbal, between matter which is constantly termed άπαθἑς and the παμπαθἑς of I. 8, 3.
page 107 note 3 VI. 5, 8.
page 107 note 4 III. 7, 11.
page 107 note 5 VI. 7, 7.
page 107 note 6 VI. 7, 14.
page 107 note 7 VI. 2, 6. From V. 7, 3 it is clear that soul contains an infinite number of Spermatic Logoi, which (unlike Noetic Logoi) are not all simul taneously effective.
page 107 note 8 VI. 7, 6; cf. Porph. Sent. 17.
page 107 note 9 III. 3, 4.
page 107 note 10 II. 7, 3.
page 107 note 11 III. 8, 2.
page 107 note 12 ‘The Logos in matter is neither an act of Nous nor contemplation, but a faculty of modifying matter, acting unwittingly (οὐκ εἱδυῖα ὰλλὰδρῶσα μόνον, II. 3, 17).
page 107 note 13 V. 3, 8.
page 108 note 1 Philo, (Op. mund. 43)Google Scholar mentions ‘the spermatic principles in which the Logoi are unseen and hidden’ but are ‘made manifest in due season.’ Clement knows a Logoi ‘secret and invisible’ which is a binding power (Strom. V. 12). If SVF II. 744 is wholly Stoic (Heinze sees the influence of Platonizing Pythagoreans) the Stoic Logoi were conceived as Numbers. For the Pythagorean view cf. Simpl. Arist, . Cat. Schol. in Ar. 67aGoogle Scholar, 38 sqq.
page 108 note 2 V. 8, 3. Cf. what Philo, says in Leg. All. IIIGoogle Scholar. 150 ὁ σπερματικὸς καὶ γεννητικὸς τῶν καλῶν λὸγοςὀρθός.
page 108 note 3 IV. 3, 9.
page 108 note 4 IV. 3, 8.
page 108 note 5 IV. 3, 10.
page 108 note 6 IV. 3, 10.
page 108 note 7 Ibid.
page 108 note 8 IV. 3, 11.
page 108 note 9 III. 8, 7.
page 108 note 10 IV. 4, 11. Cf. Enn. IV. 3, 13; Sen, . N.Q. III. 29Google Scholar(quoted supra), SVF II. 749; I. 98.
page 108 note 11 II. 3. 14E.
page 108 note 12 III, 3, 5.
page 108 note 13 Perhaps this may be a hint from Posidonius: Cf. Philo, , Op. mund. 140Google Scholar, 150; Sen, ep. 90, 6Google Scholar.
page 108 note 14 II. 3, 16. The next sentence is aptly compared by Bouillet with Sen, . De Prov. 5Google Scholar:(Ipseomnium conditor) semper paret, semel iussit.
page 108 note 15 II. 3, 16 ad fin. σεισμός deserves comparison with Orig, . in Ioh. XXVI. 5, 35–8Google Scholar; Clem, , Alex, . Paed. II. x, 94, 4Google Scholar; Albin, . Didasc. 13 (p. 169, I,7 Herm)Google Scholar.
page 108 note 16 Ibid.
page 108 note 17 II. 3, 16.
page 109 note 1 II. 3, 17.
page 109 note 2 Cf. Clement's, δύναμις τού θεού οἷον άπορροια τού λὀγου (Staehlin, iii, 202Google Scholar) (άπορρἑον in Enn. III. 2, 2) and contrast the cruder Philonic notion of a ‘shower of Logoi’ (Leg. All. III. 162).
page 109 note 3 II. 3, 18. I have discussed (C.Q. XXIV. 205–6) the figure of the Sun as source of un diminished giving. Professor Forsey has called my attention to Lucr. V. 281–305, 590–613, and it seems probable that here again we have to reckon with Posidonian influence.
page 109 note 4 Vide Heinze, op. cit. 320.
page 109 note 5 III. 1, 8.
page 109 note 6 VI. 7, 11; IV. 4, 27. Cf. SVF III., p. 90, I, 16. Sen, . N.Q. IIGoogle Scholar. 1.; VI. 16. Posidonius seems to have developed the notion (Reinhardt, , Kosmusu.Symp., p. 108.)Google ScholarCf. Theiler, , op. cit. 61 sqqGoogle Scholar.
page 109 note 7 I am unable to believe that Plotinus opposes ‘eine Herabziehung des Logos in die Sphaere der Naturzeugung.’
page 109 note 8 IV. 3, 12. The Periodic Doctrine here and in IV. 4, 9, V. 7, I, being combined with the Logos-doctrine, seems indubitably Stoic in basis. Professor Heinemann holds that the Stoic doctrine is inconsistent with the Plotinian view that World-Creation is timeless (Plotin, 72). But the fact that the Plotinian Cosmos in an ‘ewige Konstruktion’ which no Stoic Ekpurosis can destroy, allows the adoption of Logoi and Periods. To the objection that every Period needs its appropriate Nous, one Nous only is needed; for the Periods are identical. Cf. with IV. 3, 12 Plut, , Def. Orac. 426AGoogle Scholar; Marc. Aur. VI. I.
page 109 note 9 IV. 3, 15.
page 109 note 10 IV. 3, 16.
page 109 note 11 IV. 4, 39.
page 110 note 1 VI. 8, 17.
page 110 note 2 III. 2, 2.
page 110 note 3 III. 2 16.
page 110 note 4 III. 2, 17.
page 110 note 5 III. 2, 16. Cf. Enn. I. 8, 15; SVF II. 1169; Sen, . N.Q. 7, 23Google Scholar; Ep. 107, 8; Philo, , Qu. Rer. 311Google Scholar; Plut, . Is. et Os. 55, 373dGoogle Scholar.
page 110 note 6 III. 3, I. Cf. Gollwitzer, , Lehre u. d. Willensfreiheit (1901–2)Google Scholar on this passage; ‘The Logos of Providence and its parts are not to be considered as seed-powers, i.e. as producing all from themselves, but as powers which embrace and unite.’
page 110 note 7 III. 3, 4.
page 110 note 8 II. 3, 16.
page 110 note 9 III. 3, 5.
page 110 note 10 IV. 3, 35.
page 110 note 11 Vide SVF II. 1002. Cf. Enn. IV. 4, 45; SVF I. 527; Sen, . Ep. 54, 7Google Scholar; Marc. Aur. III. 4; Plato, , Rep. 379cGoogle Scholar; Laws, 904.
page 111 note 1 A detailed study of the subject, the results of which I hope to produce later, convinces me that in general Stoicism greatly influences Plotinus.
