^ viz. In water, a mirror, and a dream.
ON THE IMPASSIVITY OF INCORPOREAL NATURES. 95 present with the subject, as to impart something to it from itself.
IX. It must therefore be assumed, that one thing is present with another, and that one thing is in another, not according to one mode only. But sometimes together with being present, it causes that with which it is present to be better or worse, accompanied with permutation; as is seen to be the case in the bodies of animals; and at another time, it makes it to be as it were better or worse, without that being passive with which it is present, as is said to be the case in the soul. Sometimes, also, this takes place in such a way as when a figure is imprinted in wax, where there is neither any passion, so as to cause the wax to be something else when the figure is present with it, nor any defect in the wax, when the figure is destroyed. Light, also, does not produce a change in quality of the figure about that which is illuminated- Nor does a stone, when it becomes cold, possess any thing besides frigidity, from that through which it is cold, while it remains a stone. And what does a line [viz. the extension of length] suffer from coloui*? Nor, in my opinion, does a superficies suffer any thing from it, but perhaps the subject body. Though what can this suffer from colour? For it is not proper to say that a thing suffers when something is [merely] present with it; nor when it is invested with form. If, howeveri some one should say that mirrors, and in short diaphanous substances, suffer nothing from the images that are seen within them, he will not adduce an unappropriate para- digm. For the forms which are in matter are images, and matter is still more impassive than mirrors. Hence heat and cold are ingenerated in it, but do not heat [or refrigerate] it. For to be heated and refrigerated, pertains to quality leading the subject from one quality to another.
It is requisite, however, to consider, whether frigidity is 96 SELECT WORKS OF PLOTINUS.
not the absence and privation [of lieat]: but qualities entering together into matter, many of them act on each other, or rather are contrarily affected. For what can fragrance effect in sweetness; or colour in figure? Or what can that which belongs to one genus effect in another? Whence especially credibiUty may be obtained, that a thing may be in that which is different from it, without injuring by its presence that with which it is present. As, there- fore, that which is injured is not injured by any thing of a casual nature, so neither does that which is changed and which suffers, suffer by any thing indiscriminately. But contraries only suffer from contraries, other things being unchanged by others; so that those things in which there is no contrariety, do not suffer by any thing of a contrary nature. Hence, it is necessary if any thing suffers, that it should not be matter, but something which is a composite of matter and form, or in short, that it should be at one and the same time many things. But that which is alone, and separate from other things, and which is entirely simple, will be impassive to all things, and will be inclosed in the middle of all things, acting on each other; just as when in the same house certain persons strike each other, neither does the house suffer any thing from the blows, nor the air which is in it. But the forms which are in matter, perform such things as they are naturally adapted to perform. Matter itself, however, is much more im- passive than such qualities in it, which by not being con- traries are impassive with reference to each other.
X. In the next place, if matter suffers, it is necessary that it should possess something from the passion, and that this should either be the passion itself, or that it should be disposed differently from what it was before the passion was produced in it. Hence, another quality acceding after the former, the recipient will no longer be matter, but matter with a certain quality. If, however.
ON THE IMPASSIVITY OF INCORPOREAL NATURES. 97 quality ^ itself should fail, leaving something of itself of an effective nature, the subject will in a still greater degree become something else; and proceeding after this manner, the subject will be something besides [mere] matter, and will be manifold and multiform. Hence, it will no longer be the universal recipient, since it will be an impediment to the multitude of things which accede to it, and matter will no longer remain, and therefore will not be incor- ruptible. So that if it is necessary that matter should be as it was from the first, it ought thus to be always the same, since to assert that it has been changed is not to preserve it the same. Farther still, if in short every thing which is changed in quality ought, remaining in the same form, to be changed according to accidents, and not essen- tially; — if, therefore, it is requisite that what is changed in quality should remain, and that part of it which suffers is not that which remains, one of two things is necessary, either that matter when changed in quality should depart from itself, or that not departing from itself it should not be changed in quality. If, however, some one should say, that it is changed in quality, yet not so far as it is matter; in the first place, indeed, he cannot assign what that is according to which it is so changed; and in the next place, he must confess that thus also matter itself is not changed in quality. For as in other things which are forms, it is not possible that they can be essentially changed in quality, since their essence consists in this [i.e. in being forms], thus also, since the being of matter is to exist as matter, it cannot be changed in quality so far as it is matter, but it must necessarily remain what it is. And as there form itself is unchanged in quality, so likewise here it is necessary that matter itself should be immutable.
^ Quality is that which imparts what is apparent in matter, and which is the object of sense.
H 98 SELECT WORKS OF PLOTINUS.
XI. Whence, also, I think that the divine Plato [in the Timseus], having formed the same conception rightly says, that the things which enter into and depart from matter, are imitations of beings; the words entering into and departing, not being used by him in vain. For he wished to direct our attention to the mode in which matter participates of forms. It also appears that the doubt how this participation is effected, is not what many prior to us conceived it to be, viz. how forms proceed into matter, but rather how they subsist in it. For it seems to be truly wonderful, how these forms being present with matter, it nevertheless remains impassive; especially since the forms which enter it suffer from each other. Accord- ing to Plato, however, the entering forms expel those which entered prior to them, and passion is in the com- posite from matter and form; yet not in every composite, but in that which is in want of the acceding or departing form; and which indeed in its composition is defective by the absence of a certain form, but is perfect by the pre- sence of it. But matter does not possess any thing more whatever as an accession to its composition, by the entrance of any thing into it. For it does not then become that which it is through the form that enters, nor is it less by the departure of this form. For it remains that which it was at first. To the natures, indeed, which require ornament and order, it is useful to be adorned; and to these ornament may accede without transmutation, as is the case with things which we surround with decoration. If, however, any thing is so adorned as to have the orna- ment connascent, it will be requisite that what was before void of beauty, should be changed in quality, become dif- ferent from what it was, and from being deformed be beautiful. If, therefore, matter being deformed is ren- dered beautiful, it is no longer that base thing which it was before; so that in being thus adorned, it loses its ON THE IMPASSIVITY OF INCORPOREAL NATURES. 99 subsistence as matter, and especially if its deformity is not accidental. But if it is so deformed as to be deformity itself, it will not participate of ornament. And if it is so evil, as to be evil itself, it will not participate of good. Hence it does not participate in such a way as some fancy it does, viz, by being passive, but after another manner, which is that of appearing to participate. Perhaps, too, according to this mode the doubt may be solved, how, since matter is evil, it can aspire after good, because it does not through the participation cease to be what it was. For if what is called the participation of matter subsists after this manner so that it remains as we say the same, unchanged in quality, and is always that which it is, it will no longer be wonderful, how being evil it participates of good. For it does not depart from itself. But because it is indeed necessary it should participate, it participates after a certain manner as long as it exists. In conse- quence, however, of remaining that which it is, and the mode of participation preserving it [in its own proper nature] it is not injured in its essence by that which thus imparts something to it. And it appears not to be less evil on this accoimt, viz. because it always remains that which it is. For if it truly participated of, and was truly changed in quality by the good, it would not be naturally evil. So that.if some one should say that matter is evil, he will assert what is true, if he says it is impassive to the good, which is the same thing as to say, that it is entirely impassive.
XII. But Plato having formed this conception of matter, and not admitting that participation in it, is as if form was generated in a subject, and imparted to it morphe, so as to become one composite, the things which it partici- pates being co-transmuted, and as it were co-mingled, and co-passive, — ^Plato, therefore, not being willing to adopt such a mode of participation as this, but desiring to show 100 SELECT WORKS OF PLOTINUS.
how matter remaining impassive possesses forms, inyesti- gated a paradigm of impassive participation, without which it is not easy to show what those things especiallj are, which when present preserve the subject one and the same. He likewise excites many doubts, while hastening to obtain the object of his enquiry, and besides this, wishing to represent to us the vacuity of subsistence in sensibles, and that the region of the resemblance of reality is very ample. Supposing, therefore, that matter by figures produces passions in animated bodies, while at the same time it has itself none of these passions, he indicates by this the stability of matter; enabling us to collect by a syllogistic process that matter neither suffers, nor is changed in quality by these figures. For in these bodies indeed [which are the objects of sense], and which receive one figure after another, perhaps some one may say a change in quality is effected, asserting that the mutation of figure is an homonymous alliation.^ Since matter, however, has neither any figure, nor any magnitude, how can it be said that the presence of figure, in whatever way this may take place, is alliation, though it should homo- nymously be said to be so? If, therefore, some one adopting this conception of Plato as legitimate, shoidd assert that the subject nature [i.e. matter] does not possess any thing in such a way as it is thought to possess it, he will not speak absurdly. In what manner, however, does matter possess forms, if you are not willing to admit that it possesses them as figures? But the hypothesis of Plato indicates as much as possible the impassivity of matter, and the apparent presence of images in it, which are not [in reality] present.
Perhaps, however, we ought first to speak further about the impassivity of matter. Plato, therefore, teaches us that we ought to be led by usual appellations to the con- ^ i.e. A change in quality.
ON THE IMPASSIVITY OF INCORPOREAL NATURES. 101 sideration of its passivity, as when he says it becomes dry, or ignited, or moist, &c. and receives the forms of air and water. For the assertion that it receives these forms, mitigates the force of the other assertion, that matter is ignited and becomes moist. He likewise manifests when he says that matter receives forms, that it is not itself invested with morphe, but that the morphse are in the same state as when they entered into matter; and that the term ignited is not properly applied to matter, but rather fire in generation, or becoming to be. For it is not the same thing for fire to be in generation, and for a thing to be ignited. For to be ignited is indeed effected in another thing, in which there is also passivity. But how can that which is a part of fire, be itseK ignited? For this would be just the same as if some one should say, that the statue proceeded through the brass, or fire through matter, and besides this ignited it. Farther still, if that which accedes is reason or a productive principle, how will it ignite? Shall we say on account of figure? But that which ignited already consists both of matter and figure. How, therefore, can it consist of both, unless it becomes one from both? Or shall we say that though it becomes one, yet not from two things having passions in each other, but acting upon other things? Does this, therefore, arise from the agency of both, or from one of them causing the other not to fly away? When, however, a certain body is divided, how is it possible that matter also should not be divided? And matter when it is divided being passive, how is it possible it should not suffer by this very passion? Or what hinders us from asserting for the same reason that matter is corrupted? Since when body is corrupted, it must be shown why matter likewise is not corrupted. In answer to this, how- ever, it may be said, that what suffers and is divided is a magnitude of a- definite quantity, but in that which is not 102 SELECT WORKS OF PLOTINUS.
magnitude, the passions of magnitude are not ingenerated. And, in short, the passions of body are not inherent in that which is not body; so that those who make matter to be passive, must also admit it to be body.
XIII. It is likewise requisite that they should attend to the manner in which they say matter flies from form. For how can it fly from stones and rocks by which it is comprehended? For they will not say that it sometimes flies from form, and sometimes does not. For if it flies by its own will, why does it not always fly from it? But if it abides from necessity, there is not any time in which it is not invested with a certain form. The cause, how- ever, must be investigated why each matter has not always the same form, and this must be in a still greater degree investigated in the forms which enter into matter. How, therefore, is matter said to fly from form? Is it by itB own nature, and always? But what else will this be, than that never departing from itself, it so possesses form as if it never possessed it, or if this is not admitted, they will not be able to assign any probable reason in defence of what they assert. Plato also calls matter the receptacle and nurse of all generation. And the receptacle and nurse indeed, are different from generation; but that which is changed in quality is in generation. Since, likewise, the receptacle and nurse are prior to generation, they will also be prior to alliation. Add too, that they will preserve matter in an impassive state; as also will the assertion that each thing has an apparent subsistence in that in which it is ingenerated, and that it departs from thence as from a receptacle and seat. The impassivity of matter, likewise, is preserved by the assertion that it is the place of forms; for this does not ascribe any passion to it, but investigates another mode of subsistence. What, there- fore, is this mode? Since, indeed, a nature of this kind ought not to be any one of, but to fly from every essence ON THE IMPASSIVITY OF INCORPOREAL NATURES. 103 of beings, and to be entirely different from them; for they are reasons or productive principles, and have a real existence; — this being the case, it is necessary that matter in consequence of this difference should preserve the safety which it is allotted, and should not only be unreceptive of beings, but also if there is a certain imitation of them, that it should even be destitute of familiarity with this resemblance. For thus it will be entirely different from beings, since otherwise, being conversant with a certain form, and becoming something else in conjunction with it, it would cease to be different from beings, and to be the receptacle of all things; for it would not be the recipient of any thing. It is necessary, however, that matter should remain the same, while forms enter into it, and that it should be impassive during their egress from it, in order that they may always enter into and depart from it. But that which enters, enters as an image, and not being itself real, enters into that which is void of truth and reality. Does it, therefore, truly enter? But how is it possible it should be truly received by that to which it is not in any respect lawful to par- ticipate of truth, in consequence of its being false? Hence, it falsely proceeds into that which is false, and becomes similar to an object in a mirror, as long as the object is beheld within it. For with respect to matter, if you take away [real] beings, none of those things which are now seen in the sensible region, would for the smallest space of time be apparent. The mirror, therefore, of which we have just spoken, is perceived by us; for it is itself a certain form. Matter, however, not being itself any form, is not itself seen; for otherwise, it would be requisite that it should be seen by itself prior to the forms that it appa- rently contains. But it suffers something of the same kind as the air when illuminated, which is then also in- visible, because it could not be seen without being ilium i- 104 SELECT WORKS OF PLOTINUS.
nated. Hence the objects which are seen in mirrors, are believed not to have an existence, or to have it in a less degree, because that which contains them is visible, and itself remains while the objects depart. But matter is not itself perceived, neither when it has, nor when it is without forms. If, however, it was possible for the objects from which mirrors are filled to remain without being seen, yet no one would doubt the reality of the objects which are seen in them. Hence, if there is something in mirrors, sensibles also will be in matter. But if there is nothing [in reality] in mirrors, but objects have only an apparent subsistence in them, in matter also it must be said, forms have a resemblance of subsistence. The cause of this appearance, likewise, must be ascribed to the hypostasis of beings, of which beings themselves always truly par- ticipate, but non-beings not truly; since it is not proper that they should subsist in such a manner as they would, if they had an existence, and being had not.
XIV. What then, matter not existing, would nothing have a subsistence? Nothing except beings; ^ just as neither would an image have any existence, unless there was a min-or, or something of this kind. For that which is naturally adapted to subsist in another thing, cannot exist when that thing is not. For this is the nature of an image to be in something different from itself. For if any thing departs from the producing causes of its existence, it may indeed subsist without being in another thing. But since [true] beings remain, if there is a representation of them in something else, it is necessary there should be another thing imparting a seat to that which does not truly accede.'^ And this by its presence and audacity, and * The words ovdiv irapa ra ovra ai*e omitted in the oiiginal; but ''^m the version of Ficiniis evidently ought to be inserted.
^'^ of Trapkxti Tif ovK kXOovTi in this place, it is necessary » r^ ipTfag oifK IXGovrt, ON THE IMPASSIVITY OF INCORPOREAL NATURES. 105 as it may be said, mendicity and poverty, is as it were compelled to receive. It is however deceived, by not re- ceiving [truly], in order that its poverty may also remain, and that it may always be a mendicant. For according to the fable, after it once had a subsistence, it began to beg; the fable indicating by this the nature of it, which consists in being destitute of good. It does not, however, beg to receive those things which the giver has to bestow, but is satisfied with whatever it may receive; so that this also indicates that what is apparent in it is different [from reality]. Its name, likewise, [which is Penia or Poverty] signifies that it is not filled. And the assertion that it was connected with Plenty,^ does not signify that this connection was with [real] being, nor with satiety, but with a certain artificial thing, i.e. with the wisdom of a phantasm. For since it was not possible for that to be entirely without the participation of being, which is in any respect external to it;. for it is the nature of being to produce beings; but that which is entirely non-being is unmingled with being; — this being the case, an ad- mirable thing is effected, which participates, and yet in a certain respect does not participate of being, and which also in a certain respect possesses something from proximity to being; though by its own nature it is incapable of being as it were conglutinated with it. Hence it becomes