Repository navigation
Expand file tree
/
Copy pathenneads.1.first.html
More file actions
1290 lines (1270 loc) · 99.1 KB
/
Copy pathenneads.1.first.html
File metadata and controls
1290 lines (1270 loc) · 99.1 KB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<!--PART_TITLE: The First Ennead-->
<!--The Internet Classics Archive by Daniel C. Stevenson, Web Atomics. World Wide Web presentation is copyright (C) 1994-2009, Daniel C. Stevenson, Web Atomics. All rights reserved under international and pan-American copyright conventions, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part in any form. Direct permission requests to classics@classics.mit.edu. Translation of "The Deeds of the Divine Augustus" by Augustus is copyright (C) Thomas Bushnell, BSG.-->
<LINK REV="made" HREF="mailto:classics@classics.mit.edu">
<LINK REV="owns" HREF="mailto:classics@classics.mit.edu">
<STYLE TYPE="text/css">
<!--
A:link {text-decoration:none}
A:visited {text-decoration:none}
A:active {text-decoration:none}
-->
</STYLE>
<SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript">
<!-- begin hiding
function openPopup() {
JSreferer=window.location.href;
popupWindow=window.open('/cgi-bin/popup.cgi','popupWindow','toolbar=no,directories=no,status=yes,menubar=no,scrollbars=auto,resizable=yes,width=320,height=180');
popupWindow.opener=self;
popupWindow.opener.name='opener';
}
// end hiding -->
</SCRIPT>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Set-Cookie" CONTENT="ICA_last_work=Plotinus.enneads; expires=1-Jan-102 00:00:00 GMT; path=/">
<META NAME="description" CONTENT="The Six Enneads by Plotinus, part of the Internet Classics Archive">
<META NAME="keywords" CONTENT="classical, literature, classics, ancient, civilization, books, great books, philosophy, history, Greek, Latin, Roman, Persian, Chinese, Greece, Rome, commentary, pictures, bookstore, CD-ROM, The Six Enneads, Plotinus, Plotinus">
<TITLE>The Internet Classics Archive | The Six Enneads by Plotinus</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="FFFFCC" LINK="990033" VLINK="990033" TEXT="000000">
<DIV ALIGN="CENTER"><TABLE BORDER="0" CELLSPACING="15">
<TR ALIGN="CENTER" VALIGN="CENTER">
<TD ALIGN="CENTER" VALIGN="BOTTOM" NOWRAP><A HREF="/index.html"
onMouseOver="window.status='Go to home page'; return true;" TARGET="_top"><IMG SRC="/Images/home-icon.gif" WIDTH="35" HEIGHT="21" BORDER="0" ALT="Go to home page"></A>
<FONT SIZE="-1"><BR><A HREF="/index.html"
onMouseOver="window.status='Go to home page'; return true;" TARGET="_top">Home</A><BR> </FONT></TD>
<TD ALIGN="CENTER" VALIGN="BOTTOM" NOWRAP><A HREF="/Browse/index-Plotinus.html"
onMouseOver="window.status='Browse a list of titles'; return true;" TARGET="_top"><IMG SRC="/Images/browse-icon.gif" WIDTH="30" HEIGHT="30" BORDER="0" ALT="Browse a list of titles"></A>
<FONT SIZE="-1"><BR><A HREF="/Browse/index-Plotinus.html"
onMouseOver="window.status='Browse a list of titles'; return true;" TARGET="_top">Browse and<BR>Comment</A></FONT></TD>
<TD ALIGN="CENTER" VALIGN="BOTTOM" NOWRAP><A HREF="/Search/index.html"
onMouseOver="window.status='Search texts'; return true;" TARGET="_top"><IMG SRC="/Images/search-icon.gif" WIDTH="19" HEIGHT="29" BORDER="0" ALT="Search texts"></A>
<FONT SIZE="-1"><BR><A HREF="/Search/index.html"
onMouseOver="window.status='Search texts'; return true;" TARGET="_top">Search</A><BR> </FONT></TD>
<TD ALIGN="CENTER" VALIGN="BOTTOM" NOWRAP><A HREF="/Buy/Plotinus.html"
onMouseOver="window.status='Buy books and CD-ROMs'; return true;" TARGET="_top"><IMG SRC="/Images/buy-icon.gif" WIDTH="32" HEIGHT="28" BORDER="0" ALT="Buy books and CD-ROMs"></A>
<FONT SIZE="-1"><BR><A HREF="/Buy/Plotinus.html"
onMouseOver="window.status='Buy books and CD-ROMs'; return true;" TARGET="_top">Buy Books and<BR>CD-ROMs</A></FONT></TD>
<TD ALIGN="CENTER" VALIGN="BOTTOM" NOWRAP><A HREF="/Help/general.html"
onMouseOver="window.status='Get help'; return true;" TARGET="_top"><IMG SRC="/Images/help-icon.gif" WIDTH="26" HEIGHT="26" BORDER="0" ALT="Get help"></A>
<FONT SIZE="-1"><BR><A HREF="/Help/general.html"
onMouseOver="window.status='Get help'; return true;" TARGET="_top">Help</A><BR> </FONT></TD>
</TR>
</TABLE></DIV>
<HR SIZE="1" COLOR="990033" NOSHADE WIDTH="30%">
<BR>
<DIV ALIGN="CENTER"><FONT SIZE="+2"><B>The Six Enneads</B></FONT>
<FONT SIZE="+1"><BR><BR>By Plotinus</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE><B>Commentary:</B> Many comments have been posted about
<U>The Six Enneads</U>.
<BR><BR><B>Download:</B> A
text-only version is <A HREF="enneads.mb.txt"
onMouseOver="window.status='Download text-only version'; return true;">available for download</A>.
<BR><HR SIZE="1" COLOR="990033" NOSHADE><BR>
<A NAME="1"></A><DIV ALIGN="CENTER"><FONT SIZE="+1"><B>The Six Enneads</B></FONT>
<A NAME="2"></A><BR><BR>By Plotinus
<A NAME="3"></A><BR><BR>Written 250 A.C.E.
<BR><BR>Translated by Stephen Mackenna and B. S. Page</DIV>
<BR><DIV ALIGN="CENTER"><TABLE WIDTH="60%" BORDER="0">
<TR VALIGN="TOP">
<TD ALIGN="LEFT" WIDTH="30%" NOWRAP> </TD>
<TD ALIGN="CENTER" NOWRAP><A HREF="enneads.html"
onMouseOver="window.status='Go to table of contents'; return true;">Table of Contents</A>
<BR><BR><FONT SIZE="+1"><B>The First Ennead</B></FONT></TD>
<TD ALIGN="RIGHT" WIDTH="30%" NOWRAP> <A HREF="enneads.2.second.html" onMouseOver="window.status='The Second Ennead'; return true;"><IMG SRC="/Images/rarrow.gif" WIDTH="16" HEIGHT="10" BORDER="0" ALIGN="BOTTOM" HSPACE="5" ALT="Go to next"></A>
</TD>
</TR>
</TABLE></DIV>
<BR>
<A NAME="start"></A>
<A NAME="10"></A><B>First Tractate</B>
<A NAME="11"></A><BR><BR><B>THE ANIMATE AND THE MAN.</B>
<A NAME="12"></A><BR><BR><B>1.</B> Pleasure and distress, fear and courage, desire and aversion,
<A NAME="13"></A>where have these affections and experiences their seat?
<A NAME="14"></A><BR><BR>Clearly, either in the Soul alone, or in the Soul as employing
<A NAME="15"></A>the body, or in some third entity deriving from both. And for this third
<A NAME="16"></A>entity, again, there are two possible modes: it might be either a blend
<A NAME="17"></A>or a distinct form due to the blending.
<A NAME="18"></A><BR><BR>And what applies to the affections applies also to whatsoever acts,
<A NAME="19"></A>physical or mental, spring from them.
<A NAME="20"></A><BR><BR>We have, therefore, to examine discursive-reason and the ordinary
<A NAME="21"></A>mental action upon objects of sense, and enquire whether these have the
<A NAME="22"></A>one seat with the affections and experiences, or perhaps sometimes the
<A NAME="23"></A>one seat, sometimes another.
<A NAME="24"></A><BR><BR>And we must consider also our acts of Intellection, their mode
<A NAME="25"></A>and their seat.
<A NAME="26"></A><BR><BR>And this very examining principle, which investigates and decides
<A NAME="27"></A>in these matters, must be brought to light.
<A NAME="28"></A><BR><BR>Firstly, what is the seat of Sense-Perception? This is the obvious
<A NAME="29"></A>beginning since the affections and experiences either are sensations of
<A NAME="30"></A>some kind or at least never occur apart from sensation.
<A NAME="31"></A><BR><BR><B>2.</B> This first enquiry obliges us to consider at the outset
<A NAME="32"></A>the nature of the Soul- that is whether a distinction is to be made between
<A NAME="33"></A>Soul and Essential Soul [between an individual Soul and the Soul-Kind in
<A NAME="34"></A>itself]. *
<A NAME="35"></A><BR><BR>* All matter shown in brackets is added by the translator for clearness'
<A NAME="36"></A>sake and, therefore, is not canonical. S.M.
<A NAME="37"></A><BR><BR>If such a distinction holds, then the Soul [in man] is some sort
<A NAME="38"></A>of a composite and at once we may agree that it is a recipient and- if
<A NAME="39"></A>only reason allows- that all the affections and experiences really have
<A NAME="40"></A>their seat in the Soul, and with the affections every state and mood, good
<A NAME="41"></A>and bad alike.
<A NAME="42"></A><BR><BR>But if Soul [in man] and Essential Soul are one and the same, then
<A NAME="43"></A>the Soul will be an Ideal-Form unreceptive of all those activities which
<A NAME="44"></A>it imparts to another Kind but possessing within itself that native Act
<A NAME="45"></A>of its own which Reason manifests.
<A NAME="46"></A><BR><BR>If this be so, then, indeed, we may think of the Soul as an immortal-
<A NAME="47"></A>if the immortal, the imperishable, must be impassive, giving out something
<A NAME="48"></A>of itself but itself taking nothing from without except for what it receives
<A NAME="49"></A>from the Existents prior to itself from which Existents, in that they are
<A NAME="50"></A>the nobler, it cannot be sundered.
<A NAME="51"></A><BR><BR>Now what could bring fear to a nature thus unreceptive of all the
<A NAME="52"></A>outer? Fear demands feeling. Nor is there place for courage: courage implies
<A NAME="53"></A>the presence of danger. And such desires as are satisfied by the filling
<A NAME="54"></A>or voiding of the body, must be proper to something very different from
<A NAME="55"></A>the Soul, to that only which admits of replenishment and
<A NAME="56"></A>voidance.
<A NAME="57"></A><BR><BR>And how could the Soul lend itself to any admixture? An essential
<A NAME="58"></A>is not mixed. Or of the intrusion of anything alien? If it did, it would
<A NAME="59"></A>be seeking the destruction of its own nature. Pain must be equally far
<A NAME="60"></A>from it. And Grief- how or for what could it grieve? Whatever possesses
<A NAME="61"></A>Existence is supremely free, dwelling, unchangeable, within its own peculiar
<A NAME="62"></A>nature. And can any increase bring joy, where nothing, not even anything
<A NAME="63"></A>good, can accrue? What such an Existent is, it is unchangeably.
<A NAME="64"></A><BR><BR>Thus assuredly Sense-Perception, Discursive-Reasoning; and all
<A NAME="65"></A>our ordinary mentation are foreign to the Soul: for sensation is a receiving-
<A NAME="66"></A>whether of an Ideal-Form or of an impassive body- and reasoning and all
<A NAME="67"></A>ordinary mental action deal with sensation.
<A NAME="68"></A><BR><BR>The question still remains to be examined in the matter of the
<A NAME="69"></A>intellections- whether these are to be assigned to the Soul- and as to
<A NAME="70"></A>Pure-Pleasure, whether this belongs to the Soul in its solitary
<A NAME="71"></A>state.
<A NAME="72"></A><BR><BR><B>3.</B> We may treat of the Soul as in the body- whether it be
<A NAME="73"></A>set above it or actually within it- since the association of the two constitutes
<A NAME="74"></A>the one thing called the living organism, the Animate.
<A NAME="75"></A><BR><BR>Now from this relation, from the Soul using the body as an instrument,
<A NAME="76"></A>it does not follow that the Soul must share the body's experiences: a man
<A NAME="77"></A>does not himself feel all the experiences of the tools with which he is
<A NAME="78"></A>working.
<A NAME="79"></A><BR><BR>It may be objected that the Soul must however, have Sense-Perception
<A NAME="80"></A>since its use of its instrument must acquaint it with the external conditions,
<A NAME="81"></A>and such knowledge comes by way of sense. Thus, it will be argued, the
<A NAME="82"></A>eyes are the instrument of seeing, and seeing may bring distress to the
<A NAME="83"></A>soul: hence the Soul may feel sorrow and pain and every other affection
<A NAME="84"></A>that belongs to the body; and from this again will spring desire, the Soul
<A NAME="85"></A>seeking the mending of its instrument.
<A NAME="86"></A><BR><BR>But, we ask, how, possibly, can these affections pass from body
<A NAME="87"></A>to Soul? Body may communicate qualities or conditions to another body:
<A NAME="88"></A>but- body to Soul? Something happens to A; does that make it happen to
<A NAME="89"></A>B? As long as we have agent and instrument, there are two distinct entities;
<A NAME="90"></A>if the Soul uses the body it is separate from it.
<A NAME="91"></A><BR><BR>But apart from the philosophical separation how does Soul stand
<A NAME="92"></A>to body?
<A NAME="93"></A><BR><BR>Clearly there is a combination. And for this several modes are
<A NAME="94"></A>possible. There might be a complete coalescence: Soul might be interwoven
<A NAME="95"></A>through the body: or it might be an Ideal-Form detached or an Ideal-Form
<A NAME="96"></A>in governing contact like a pilot: or there might be part of the Soul detached
<A NAME="97"></A>and another part in contact, the disjoined part being the agent or user,
<A NAME="98"></A>the conjoined part ranking with the instrument or thing
<A NAME="99"></A>used.
<A NAME="100"></A><BR><BR>In this last case it will be the double task of philosophy to direct
<A NAME="101"></A>this lower Soul towards the higher, the agent, and except in so far as
<A NAME="102"></A>the conjunction is absolutely necessary, to sever the agent from the instrument,
<A NAME="103"></A>the body, so that it need not forever have its Act upon or through this
<A NAME="104"></A>inferior.
<A NAME="105"></A><BR><BR><B>4.</B> Let us consider, then, the hypothesis of a
<A NAME="106"></A>coalescence.
<A NAME="107"></A><BR>Now if there is a coalescence, the lower is ennobled, the nobler degraded;
<A NAME="108"></A>the body is raised in the scale of being as made participant in life; the
<A NAME="109"></A>Soul, as associated with death and unreason, is brought lower. How can
<A NAME="110"></A>a lessening of the life-quality produce an increase such as
<A NAME="111"></A>Sense-Perception?
<A NAME="112"></A><BR><BR>No: the body has acquired life, it is the body that will acquire,
<A NAME="113"></A>with life, sensation and the affections coming by sensation. Desire, then,
<A NAME="114"></A>will belong to the body, as the objects of desire are to be enjoyed by
<A NAME="115"></A>the body. And fear, too, will belong to the body alone; for it is the body's
<A NAME="116"></A>doom to fail of its joys and to perish.
<A NAME="117"></A><BR><BR>Then again we should have to examine how such a coalescence could
<A NAME="118"></A>be conceived: we might find it impossible: perhaps all this is like announcing
<A NAME="119"></A>the coalescence of things utterly incongruous in kind, let us say of a
<A NAME="120"></A>line and whiteness.
<A NAME="121"></A><BR><BR>Next for the suggestion that the Soul is interwoven through the
<A NAME="122"></A>body: such a relation would not give woof and warp community of sensation:
<A NAME="123"></A>the interwoven element might very well suffer no change: the permeating
<A NAME="124"></A>soul might remain entirely untouched by what affects the body- as light
<A NAME="125"></A>goes always free of all it floods- and all the more so, since, precisely,
<A NAME="126"></A>we are asked to consider it as diffused throughout the entire
<A NAME="127"></A>frame.
<A NAME="128"></A><BR><BR>Under such an interweaving, then, the Soul would not be subjected
<A NAME="129"></A>to the body's affections and experiences: it would be present rather as
<A NAME="130"></A>Ideal-Form in Matter.
<A NAME="131"></A><BR><BR>Let us then suppose Soul to be in body as Ideal-Form in Matter.
<A NAME="132"></A>Now if- the first possibility- the Soul is an essence, a self-existent,
<A NAME="133"></A>it can be present only as separable form and will therefore all the more
<A NAME="134"></A>decidedly be the Using-Principle [and therefore unaffected].
<A NAME="135"></A><BR><BR>Suppose, next, the Soul to be present like axe-form on iron: here,
<A NAME="136"></A>no doubt, the form is all important but it is still the axe, the complement
<A NAME="137"></A>of iron and form, that effects whatever is effected by the iron thus modified:
<A NAME="138"></A>on this analogy, therefore, we are even more strictly compelled to assign
<A NAME="139"></A>all the experiences of the combination to the body: their natural seat
<A NAME="140"></A>is the material member, the instrument, the potential recipient of
<A NAME="141"></A>life.
<A NAME="142"></A><BR><BR>Compare the passage where we read* that "it is absurd to suppose
<A NAME="143"></A>that the Soul weaves"; equally absurd to think of it as desiring, grieving.
<A NAME="144"></A>All this is rather in the province of something which we may call the
<A NAME="145"></A>Animate.
<A NAME="146"></A><BR><BR>* "We read" translates "he says" of the text, and always indicates
<A NAME="147"></A>a reference to Plato, whose name does not appear in the translation except
<A NAME="148"></A>where it was written by Plotinus. S.M.
<A NAME="149"></A><BR><BR><B>5.</B> Now this Animate might be merely the body as having life:
<A NAME="150"></A>it might be the Couplement of Soul and body: it might be a third and different
<A NAME="151"></A>entity formed from both.
<A NAME="152"></A><BR><BR>The Soul in turn- apart from the nature of the Animate- must be
<A NAME="153"></A>either impassive, merely causing Sense-Perception in its yoke-fellow, or
<A NAME="154"></A>sympathetic; and, if sympathetic, it may have identical experiences with
<A NAME="155"></A>its fellow or merely correspondent experiences: desire for example in the
<A NAME="156"></A>Animate may be something quite distinct from the accompanying movement
<A NAME="157"></A>or state in the desiring faculty.
<A NAME="158"></A><BR><BR>The body, the live-body as we know it, we will consider
<A NAME="159"></A>later.
<A NAME="160"></A><BR>Let us take first the Couplement of body and Soul. How could suffering,
<A NAME="161"></A>for example, be seated in this Couplement?
<A NAME="162"></A><BR><BR>It may be suggested that some unwelcome state of the body produces
<A NAME="163"></A>a distress which reaches to a Sensitive-Faculty which in turn merges into
<A NAME="164"></A>Soul. But this account still leaves the origin of the sensation
<A NAME="165"></A>unexplained.
<A NAME="166"></A><BR><BR>Another suggestion might be that all is due to an opinion or judgement:
<A NAME="167"></A>some evil seems to have befallen the man or his belongings and this conviction
<A NAME="168"></A>sets up a state of trouble in the body and in the entire Animate. But this
<A NAME="169"></A>account leaves still a question as to the source and seat of the judgement:
<A NAME="170"></A>does it belong to the Soul or to the Couplement? Besides, the judgement
<A NAME="171"></A>that evil is present does not involve the feeling of grief: the judgement
<A NAME="172"></A>might very well arise and the grief by no means follow: one may think oneself
<A NAME="173"></A>slighted and yet not be angry; and the appetite is not necessarily excited
<A NAME="174"></A>by the thought of a pleasure. We are, thus, no nearer than before to any
<A NAME="175"></A>warrant for assigning these affections to the Couplement.
<A NAME="176"></A><BR><BR>Is it any explanation to say that desire is vested in a Faculty-of-desire
<A NAME="177"></A>and anger in the Irascible-Faculty and, collectively, that all tendency
<A NAME="178"></A>is seated in the Appetitive-Faculty? Such a statement of the facts does
<A NAME="179"></A>not help towards making the affections common to the Couplement; they might
<A NAME="180"></A>still be seated either in the Soul alone or in the body alone. On the one
<A NAME="181"></A>hand if the appetite is to be stirred, as in the carnal passion, there
<A NAME="182"></A>must be a heating of the blood and the bile, a well-defined state of the
<A NAME="183"></A>body; on the other hand, the impulse towards The Good cannot be a joint
<A NAME="184"></A>affection, but, like certain others too, it would belong necessarily to
<A NAME="185"></A>the Soul alone.
<A NAME="186"></A><BR><BR>Reason, then, does not permit us to assign all the affections to
<A NAME="187"></A>the Couplement.
<A NAME="188"></A><BR><BR>In the case of carnal desire, it will certainly be the Man that
<A NAME="189"></A>desires, and yet, on the other hand, there must be desire in the Desiring-Faculty
<A NAME="190"></A>as well. How can this be? Are we to suppose that, when the man originates
<A NAME="191"></A>the desire, the Desiring-Faculty moves to the order? How could the Man
<A NAME="192"></A>have come to desire at all unless through a prior activity in the Desiring-Faculty?
<A NAME="193"></A>Then it is the Desiring-Faculty that takes the lead? Yet how, unless the
<A NAME="194"></A>body be first in the appropriate condition?
<A NAME="195"></A><BR><BR><B>6.</B> It may seem reasonable to lay down as a law that when
<A NAME="196"></A>any powers are contained by a recipient, every action or state expressive
<A NAME="197"></A>of them must be the action or state of that recipient, they themselves
<A NAME="198"></A>remaining unaffected as merely furnishing efficiency.
<A NAME="199"></A><BR><BR>But if this were so, then, since the Animate is the recipient of
<A NAME="200"></A>the Causing-Principle [i.e., the Soul] which brings life to the Couplement,
<A NAME="201"></A>this Cause must itself remain unaffected, all the experiences and expressive
<A NAME="202"></A>activities of the life being vested in the recipient, the
<A NAME="203"></A>Animate.
<A NAME="204"></A><BR><BR>But this would mean that life itself belongs not to the Soul but
<A NAME="205"></A>to the Couplement; or at least the life of the Couplement would not be
<A NAME="206"></A>the life of the Soul; Sense-Perception would belong not to the Sensitive-Faculty
<A NAME="207"></A>but to the container of the faculty.
<A NAME="208"></A><BR><BR>But if sensation is a movement traversing the body and culminating
<A NAME="209"></A>in Soul, how the soul lack sensation? The very presence of the Sensitive-Faculty
<A NAME="210"></A>must assure sensation to the Soul.
<A NAME="211"></A><BR><BR>Once again, where is Sense-Perception seated?
<A NAME="212"></A><BR>In the Couplement.
<A NAME="213"></A><BR>Yet how can the Couplement have sensation independently of action in
<A NAME="214"></A>the Sensitive-Faculty, the Soul left out of count and the
<A NAME="215"></A>Soul-Faculty?
<A NAME="216"></A><BR><BR><B>7.</B> The truth lies in the Consideration that the Couplement
<A NAME="217"></A>subsists by virtue of the Soul's presence.
<A NAME="218"></A><BR><BR>This, however, is not to say that the Soul gives itself as it is
<A NAME="219"></A>in itself to form either the Couplement or the body.
<A NAME="220"></A><BR><BR>No; from the organized body and something else, let us say a light,
<A NAME="221"></A>which the Soul gives forth from itself, it forms a distinct Principle,
<A NAME="222"></A>the Animate; and in this Principle are vested Sense-Perception and all
<A NAME="223"></A>the other experiences found to belong to the Animate.
<A NAME="224"></A><BR><BR>But the "We"? How have We Sense-Perception?
<A NAME="225"></A><BR>By the fact that We are not separate from the Animate so constituted,
<A NAME="226"></A>even though certainly other and nobler elements go to make up the entire
<A NAME="227"></A>many-sided nature of Man.
<A NAME="228"></A><BR><BR>The faculty of perception in the Soul cannot act by the immediate
<A NAME="229"></A>grasping of sensible objects, but only by the discerning of impressions
<A NAME="230"></A>printed upon the Animate by sensation: these impressions are already Intelligibles
<A NAME="231"></A>while the outer sensation is a mere phantom of the other [of that in the
<A NAME="232"></A>Soul] which is nearer to Authentic-Existence as being an impassive reading
<A NAME="233"></A>of Ideal-Forms.
<A NAME="234"></A><BR><BR>And by means of these Ideal-Forms, by which the Soul wields single
<A NAME="235"></A>lordship over the Animate, we have Discursive-Reasoning, Sense-Knowledge
<A NAME="236"></A>and Intellection. From this moment we have peculiarly the We: before this
<A NAME="237"></A>there was only the "Ours"; but at this stage stands the WE [the authentic
<A NAME="238"></A>Human-Principle] loftily presiding over the Animate.
<A NAME="239"></A><BR><BR>There is no reason why the entire compound entity should not be
<A NAME="240"></A>described as the Animate or Living-Being- mingled in a lower phase, but
<A NAME="241"></A>above that point the beginning of the veritable man, distinct from all
<A NAME="242"></A>that is kin to the lion, all that is of the order of the multiple brute.
<A NAME="243"></A>And since The Man, so understood, is essentially the associate of the reasoning
<A NAME="244"></A>Soul, in our reasoning it is this "We" that reasons, in that the use and
<A NAME="245"></A>act of reason is a characteristic Act of the Soul.
<A NAME="246"></A><BR><BR><B>8.</B> And towards the Intellectual-Principle what is our relation?
<A NAME="247"></A>By this I mean, not that faculty in the soul which is one of the emanations
<A NAME="248"></A>from the Intellectual-Principle, but The Intellectual-Principle itself
<A NAME="249"></A>[Divine-Mind].
<A NAME="250"></A><BR><BR>This also we possess as the summit of our being. And we have It
<A NAME="251"></A>either as common to all or as our own immediate possession: or again we
<A NAME="252"></A>may possess It in both degrees, that is in common, since It is indivisible-
<A NAME="253"></A>one, everywhere and always Its entire self- and severally in that each
<A NAME="254"></A>personality possesses It entire in the First-Soul [i.e. in the Intellectual
<A NAME="255"></A>as distinguished from the lower phase of the Soul].
<A NAME="256"></A><BR><BR>Hence we possess the Ideal-Forms also after two modes: in the Soul,
<A NAME="257"></A>as it were unrolled and separate; in the Intellectual-Principle, concentrated,
<A NAME="258"></A>one.
<A NAME="259"></A><BR><BR>And how do we possess the Divinity?
<A NAME="260"></A><BR>In that the Divinity is contained in the Intellectual-Principle and
<A NAME="261"></A>Authentic-Existence; and We come third in order after these two, for the
<A NAME="262"></A>We is constituted by a union of the supreme, the undivided Soul- we read-
<A NAME="263"></A>and that Soul which is divided among [living] bodies. For, note, we inevitably
<A NAME="264"></A>think of the Soul, though one undivided in the All, as being present to
<A NAME="265"></A>bodies in division: in so far as any bodies are Animates, the Soul has
<A NAME="266"></A>given itself to each of the separate material masses; or rather it appears
<A NAME="267"></A>to be present in the bodies by the fact that it shines into them: it makes
<A NAME="268"></A>them living beings not by merging into body but by giving forth, without
<A NAME="269"></A>any change in itself, images or likenesses of itself like one face caught
<A NAME="270"></A>by many mirrors.
<A NAME="271"></A><BR><BR>The first of these images is Sense-Perception seated in the Couplement;
<A NAME="272"></A>and from this downwards all the successive images are to be recognized
<A NAME="273"></A>as phases of the Soul in lessening succession from one another, until the
<A NAME="274"></A>series ends in the faculties of generation and growth and of all production
<A NAME="275"></A>of offspring- offspring efficient in its turn, in contradistinction to
<A NAME="276"></A>the engendering Soul which [has no direct action within matter but] produces
<A NAME="277"></A>by mere inclination towards what it fashions.
<A NAME="278"></A><BR><BR><B>9.</B> That Soul, then, in us, will in its nature stand apart
<A NAME="279"></A>from all that can cause any of the evils which man does or suffers; for
<A NAME="280"></A>all such evil, as we have seen, belongs only to the Animate, the
<A NAME="281"></A>Couplement.
<A NAME="282"></A><BR><BR>But there is a difficulty in understanding how the Soul can go
<A NAME="283"></A>guiltless if our mentation and reasoning are vested in it: for all this
<A NAME="284"></A>lower kind of knowledge is delusion and is the cause of much of what is
<A NAME="285"></A>evil.
<A NAME="286"></A><BR><BR>When we have done evil it is because we have been worsted by our
<A NAME="287"></A>baser side- for a man is many- by desire or rage or some evil image: the
<A NAME="288"></A>misnamed reasoning that takes up with the false, in reality fancy, has
<A NAME="289"></A>not stayed for the judgement of the Reasoning-Principle: we have acted
<A NAME="290"></A>at the call of the less worthy, just as in matters of the sense-sphere
<A NAME="291"></A>we sometimes see falsely because we credit only the lower perception, that
<A NAME="292"></A>of the Couplement, without applying the tests of the
<A NAME="293"></A>Reasoning-Faculty.
<A NAME="294"></A><BR><BR>The Intellectual-Principle has held aloof from the act and so is
<A NAME="295"></A>guiltless; or, as we may state it, all depends on whether we ourselves
<A NAME="296"></A>have or have not put ourselves in touch with the Intellectual-Realm either
<A NAME="297"></A>in the Intellectual-Principle or within ourselves; for it is possible at
<A NAME="298"></A>once to possess and not to use.
<A NAME="299"></A><BR><BR>Thus we have marked off what belongs to the Couplement from what
<A NAME="300"></A>stands by itself: the one group has the character of body and never exists
<A NAME="301"></A>apart from body, while all that has no need of body for its manifestation
<A NAME="302"></A>belongs peculiarly to Soul: and the Understanding, as passing judgement
<A NAME="303"></A>upon Sense-Impressions, is at the point of the vision of Ideal-Forms, seeing
<A NAME="304"></A>them as it were with an answering sensation (i.e, with consciousness) this
<A NAME="305"></A>last is at any rate true of the Understanding in the Veritable Soul. For
<A NAME="306"></A>Understanding, the true, is the Act of the Intellections: in many of its
<A NAME="307"></A>manifestations it is the assimilation and reconciliation of the outer to
<A NAME="308"></A>the inner.
<A NAME="309"></A><BR><BR>Thus in spite of all, the Soul is at peace as to itself and within
<A NAME="310"></A>itself: all the changes and all the turmoil we experience are the issue
<A NAME="311"></A>of what is subjoined to the Soul, and are, as have said, the states and
<A NAME="312"></A>experiences of this elusive "Couplement."
<A NAME="313"></A><BR><BR><B>10.</B> It will be objected, that if the Soul constitutes the
<A NAME="314"></A>We [the personality] and We are subject to these states then the Soul must
<A NAME="315"></A>be subject to them, and similarly that what We do must be done by the
<A NAME="316"></A>Soul.
<A NAME="317"></A><BR><BR>But it has been observed that the Couplement, too- especially before
<A NAME="318"></A>our emancipation- is a member of this total We, and in fact what the body
<A NAME="319"></A>experiences we say We experience. This then covers two distinct notions;
<A NAME="320"></A>sometimes it includes the brute-part, sometimes it transcends the brute.
<A NAME="321"></A>The body is brute touched to life; the true man is the other, going pure
<A NAME="322"></A>of the body, natively endowed with the virtues which belong to the Intellectual-Activity,
<A NAME="323"></A>virtues whose seat is the Separate Soul, the Soul which even in its dwelling
<A NAME="324"></A>here may be kept apart. [This Soul constitutes the human being] for when
<A NAME="325"></A>it has wholly withdrawn, that other Soul which is a radiation [or emanation]
<A NAME="326"></A>from it withdraws also, drawn after it.
<A NAME="327"></A><BR><BR>Those virtues, on the other hand, which spring not from contemplative
<A NAME="328"></A>wisdom but from custom or practical discipline belong to the Couplement:
<A NAME="329"></A>to the Couplement, too, belong the vices; they are its repugnances, desires,
<A NAME="330"></A>sympathies.
<A NAME="331"></A><BR><BR>And Friendship?
<A NAME="332"></A><BR>This emotion belongs sometimes to the lower part, sometimes to the
<A NAME="333"></A>interior man.
<A NAME="334"></A><BR><BR><B>11.</B> In childhood the main activity is in the Couplement
<A NAME="335"></A>and there is but little irradiation from the higher principles of our being:
<A NAME="336"></A>but when these higher principles act but feebly or rarely upon us their
<A NAME="337"></A>action is directed towards the Supreme; they work upon us only when they
<A NAME="338"></A>stand at the mid-point.
<A NAME="339"></A><BR><BR>But does not the include that phase of our being which stands above
<A NAME="340"></A>the mid-point?
<A NAME="341"></A><BR><BR>It does, but on condition that we lay hold of it: our entire nature
<A NAME="342"></A>is not ours at all times but only as we direct the mid-point upwards or
<A NAME="343"></A>downwards, or lead some particular phase of our nature from potentiality
<A NAME="344"></A>or native character into act.
<A NAME="345"></A><BR><BR>And the animals, in what way or degree do they possess the
<A NAME="346"></A>Animate?
<A NAME="347"></A><BR><BR>If there be in them, as the opinion goes, human Souls that have
<A NAME="348"></A>sinned, then the Animating-Principle in its separable phase does not enter
<A NAME="349"></A>directly into the brute; it is there but not there to them; they are aware
<A NAME="350"></A>only of the image of the Soul [only of the lower Soul] and of that only
<A NAME="351"></A>by being aware of the body organised and determined by that
<A NAME="352"></A>image.
<A NAME="353"></A><BR><BR>If there be no human Soul in them, the Animate is constituted for
<A NAME="354"></A>them by a radiation from the All-Soul.
<A NAME="355"></A><BR><BR><B>12.</B> But if Soul is sinless, how come the expiations? Here
<A NAME="356"></A>surely is a contradiction; on the one side the Soul is above all guilt;
<A NAME="357"></A>on the other, we hear of its sin, its purification, its expiation; it is
<A NAME="358"></A>doomed to the lower world, it passes from body to body.
<A NAME="359"></A><BR><BR>We may take either view at will: they are easily
<A NAME="360"></A>reconciled.
<A NAME="361"></A><BR>When we tell of the sinless Soul, we make Soul and Essential-Soul one
<A NAME="362"></A>and the same: it is the simple unbroken Unity.
<A NAME="363"></A><BR><BR>By the Soul subject to sin we indicate a groupment, we include
<A NAME="364"></A>that other, that phase of the Soul which knows all the states and passions:
<A NAME="365"></A>the Soul in this sense is compound, all-inclusive: it falls under the conditions
<A NAME="366"></A>of the entire living experience: this compound it is that sins; it is this,
<A NAME="367"></A>and not the other, that pays penalty.
<A NAME="368"></A><BR><BR>It is in this sense that we read of the Soul: "We saw it as those
<A NAME="369"></A>others saw the sea-god Glaukos." "And," reading on, "if we mean to discern
<A NAME="370"></A>the nature of the Soul we must strip it free of all that has gathered about
<A NAME="371"></A>it, must see into the philosophy of it, examine with what Existences it
<A NAME="372"></A>has touch and by kinship to what Existences it is what it
<A NAME="373"></A>is."
<A NAME="374"></A><BR><BR>Thus the Life is one thing, the Act is another and the Expiator
<A NAME="375"></A>yet another. The retreat and sundering, then, must be not from this body
<A NAME="376"></A>only, but from every alien accruement. Such accruement takes place at birth;
<A NAME="377"></A>or rather birth is the coming-into-being of that other [lower] phase of
<A NAME="378"></A>the Soul. For the meaning of birth has been indicated elsewhere; it is
<A NAME="379"></A>brought about by a descent of the Soul, something being given off by the
<A NAME="380"></A>Soul other than that actually coming down in the declension.
<A NAME="381"></A><BR><BR>Then the Soul has let this image fall? And this declension is it
<A NAME="382"></A>not certainly sin?
<A NAME="383"></A><BR><BR>If the declension is no more than the illuminating of an object
<A NAME="384"></A>beneath, it constitutes no sin: the shadow is to be attributed not to the
<A NAME="385"></A>luminary but to the object illuminated; if the object were not there, the
<A NAME="386"></A>light could cause no shadow.
<A NAME="387"></A><BR><BR>And the Soul is said to go down, to decline, only in that the object
<A NAME="388"></A>it illuminates lives by its life. And it lets the image fall only if there
<A NAME="389"></A>be nothing near to take it up; and it lets it fall, not as a thing cut
<A NAME="390"></A>off, but as a thing that ceases to be: the image has no further being when
<A NAME="391"></A>the whole Soul is looking toward the Supreme.
<A NAME="392"></A><BR><BR>The poet, too, in the story of Hercules, seems to give this image
<A NAME="393"></A>separate existence; he puts the shade of Hercules in the lower world and
<A NAME="394"></A>Hercules himself among the gods: treating the hero as existing in the two
<A NAME="395"></A>realms at once, he gives us a twofold Hercules.
<A NAME="396"></A><BR><BR>It is not difficult to explain this distinction. Hercules was a
<A NAME="397"></A>hero of practical virtue. By his noble serviceableness he was worthy to
<A NAME="398"></A>be a God. On the other hand, his merit was action and not the Contemplation
<A NAME="399"></A>which would place him unreservedly in the higher realm. Therefore while
<A NAME="400"></A>he has place above, something of him remains below.
<A NAME="401"></A><BR><BR><B>13.</B> And the principle that reasons out these matters? Is
<A NAME="402"></A>it We or the Soul?
<A NAME="403"></A><BR><BR>We, but by the Soul.
<A NAME="404"></A><BR>But how "by the Soul"? Does this mean that the Soul reasons by possession
<A NAME="405"></A>[by contact with the matters of enquiry]?
<A NAME="406"></A><BR><BR>No; by the fact of being Soul. Its Act subsists without movement;
<A NAME="407"></A>or any movement that can be ascribed to it must be utterly distinct from
<A NAME="408"></A>all corporal movement and be simply the Soul's own life.
<A NAME="409"></A><BR><BR>And Intellection in us is twofold: since the Soul is intellective,
<A NAME="410"></A>and Intellection is the highest phase of life, we have Intellection both
<A NAME="411"></A>by the characteristic Act of our Soul and by the Act of the Intellectual-Principle
<A NAME="412"></A>upon us- for this Intellectual-Principle is part of us no less than the
<A NAME="413"></A>Soul, and towards it we are ever rising.
<BR><BR>
<A NAME="414"></A><B>Second Tractate</B>
<A NAME="415"></A><BR><BR><B>ON VIRTUE.</B>
<A NAME="416"></A><BR><BR><B>1.</B> Since Evil is here, "haunting this world by necessary
<A NAME="417"></A>law," and it is the Soul's design to escape from Evil, we must escape
<A NAME="418"></A>hence.
<A NAME="419"></A><BR><BR>But what is this escape?
<A NAME="420"></A><BR>"In attaining Likeness to God," we read. And this is explained as "becoming
<A NAME="421"></A>just and holy, living by wisdom," the entire nature grounded in
<A NAME="422"></A>Virtue.
<A NAME="423"></A><BR><BR>But does not Likeness by way of Virtue imply Likeness to some being
<A NAME="424"></A>that has Virtue? To what Divine Being, then, would our Likeness be? To
<A NAME="425"></A>the Being- must we not think?- in Which, above all, such excellence seems
<A NAME="426"></A>to inhere, that is to the Soul of the Kosmos and to the Principle ruling
<A NAME="427"></A>within it, the Principle endowed with a wisdom most wonderful. What could
<A NAME="428"></A>be more fitting than that we, living in this world, should become Like
<A NAME="429"></A>to its ruler?
<A NAME="430"></A><BR><BR>But, at the beginning, we are met by the doubt whether even in
<A NAME="431"></A>this Divine-Being all the virtues find place- Moral-Balance [Sophrosyne],
<A NAME="432"></A>for example; or Fortitude where there can be no danger since nothing is
<A NAME="433"></A>alien; where there can be nothing alluring whose lack could induce the
<A NAME="434"></A>desire of possession.
<A NAME="435"></A><BR><BR>If, indeed, that aspiration towards the Intelligible which is in
<A NAME="436"></A>our nature exists also in this Ruling-Power, then need not look elsewhere
<A NAME="437"></A>for the source of order and of the virtues in ourselves.
<A NAME="438"></A><BR><BR>But does this Power possess the Virtues?
<A NAME="439"></A><BR>We cannot expect to find There what are called the Civic Virtues, the
<A NAME="440"></A>Prudence which belongs to the reasoning faculty; the Fortitude which conducts
<A NAME="441"></A>the emotional and passionate nature; the Sophrosyne which consists in a
<A NAME="442"></A>certain pact, in a concord between the passionate faculty and the reason;
<A NAME="443"></A>or Rectitude which is the due application of all the other virtues as each
<A NAME="444"></A>in turn should command or obey.
<A NAME="445"></A><BR><BR>Is Likeness, then, attained, perhaps, not by these virtues of the
<A NAME="446"></A>social order but by those greater qualities known by the same general name?
<A NAME="447"></A>And if so do the Civic Virtues give us no help at all?
<A NAME="448"></A><BR><BR>It is against reason, utterly to deny Likeness by these while admitting
<A NAME="449"></A>it by the greater: tradition at least recognizes certain men of the civic
<A NAME="450"></A>excellence as divine, and we must believe that these too had in some sort
<A NAME="451"></A>attained Likeness: on both levels there is virtue for us, though not the
<A NAME="452"></A>same virtue.
<A NAME="453"></A><BR><BR>Now, if it be admitted that Likeness is possible, though by a varying
<A NAME="454"></A>use of different virtues and though the civic virtues do not suffice, there
<A NAME="455"></A>is no reason why we should not, by virtues peculiar to our state, attain
<A NAME="456"></A>Likeness to a model in which virtue has no place.
<A NAME="457"></A><BR><BR>But is that conceivable?
<A NAME="458"></A><BR>When warmth comes in to make anything warm, must there needs be something
<A NAME="459"></A>to warm the source of the warmth?
<A NAME="460"></A><BR><BR>If a fire is to warm something else, must there be a fire to warm
<A NAME="461"></A>that fire?
<A NAME="462"></A><BR><BR>Against the first illustration it may be retorted that the source
<A NAME="463"></A>of the warmth does already contain warmth, not by an infusion but as an
<A NAME="464"></A>essential phase of its nature, so that, if the analogy is to hold, the
<A NAME="465"></A>argument would make Virtue something communicated to the Soul but an essential
<A NAME="466"></A>constituent of the Principle from which the Soul attaining Likeness absorbs
<A NAME="467"></A>it.
<A NAME="468"></A><BR><BR>Against the illustration drawn from the fire, it may be urged that
<A NAME="469"></A>the analogy would make that Principle identical with virtue, whereas we
<A NAME="470"></A>hold it to be something higher.
<A NAME="471"></A><BR><BR>The objection would be valid if what the soul takes in were one
<A NAME="472"></A>and the same with the source, but in fact virtue is one thing, the source
<A NAME="473"></A>of virtue quite another. The material house is not identical with the house
<A NAME="474"></A>conceived in the intellect, and yet stands in its likeness: the material
<A NAME="475"></A>house has distribution and order while the pure idea is not constituted
<A NAME="476"></A>by any such elements; distribution, order, symmetry are not parts of an
<A NAME="477"></A>idea.
<A NAME="478"></A><BR><BR>So with us: it is from the Supreme that we derive order and distribution
<A NAME="479"></A>and harmony, which are virtues in this sphere: the Existences There, having
<A NAME="480"></A>no need of harmony, order or distribution, have nothing to do with virtue;
<A NAME="481"></A>and, none the less, it is by our possession of virtue that we become like
<A NAME="482"></A>to Them.
<A NAME="483"></A><BR><BR>Thus much to show that the principle that we attain Likeness by
<A NAME="484"></A>virtue in no way involves the existence of virtue in the Supreme. But we
<A NAME="485"></A>have not merely to make a formal demonstration: we must persuade as well
<A NAME="486"></A>as demonstrate.
<A NAME="487"></A><BR><BR><B>2.</B> First, then, let us examine those good qualities by which
<A NAME="488"></A>we hold Likeness comes, and seek to establish what is this thing which,
<A NAME="489"></A>as we possess it, in transcription, is virtue but as the Supreme possesses
<A NAME="490"></A>it, is in the nature of an exemplar or archetype and is not
<A NAME="491"></A>virtue.
<A NAME="492"></A><BR><BR>We must first distinguish two modes of Likeness.
<A NAME="493"></A><BR>There is the likeness demanding an identical nature in the objects
<A NAME="494"></A>which, further, must draw their likeness from a common principle: and there
<A NAME="495"></A>is the case in which B resembles A, but A is a Primal, not concerned about
<A NAME="496"></A>B and not said to resemble B. In this second case, likeness is understood
<A NAME="497"></A>in a distinct sense: we no longer look for identity of nature, but, on
<A NAME="498"></A>the contrary, for divergence since the likeness has come about by the mode
<A NAME="499"></A>of difference.
<A NAME="500"></A><BR><BR>What, then, precisely is Virtue, collectively and in the particular?
<A NAME="501"></A>The clearer method will be to begin with the particular, for so the common
<A NAME="502"></A>element by which all the forms hold the general name will readily
<A NAME="503"></A>appear.
<A NAME="504"></A><BR><BR>The Civic Virtues, on which we have touched above, are a principle
<A NAME="505"></A>or order and beauty in us as long as we remain passing our life here: they
<A NAME="506"></A>ennoble us by setting bound and measure to our desires and to our entire
<A NAME="507"></A>sensibility, and dispelling false judgement- and this by sheer efficacy
<A NAME="508"></A>of the better, by the very setting of the bounds, by the fact that the
<A NAME="509"></A>measured is lifted outside of the sphere of the unmeasured and
<A NAME="510"></A>lawless.
<A NAME="511"></A><BR><BR>And, further, these Civic Virtues- measured and ordered themselves
<A NAME="512"></A>and acting as a principle of measure to the Soul which is as Matter to
<A NAME="513"></A>their forming- are like to the measure reigning in the over-world, and
<A NAME="514"></A>they carry a trace of that Highest Good in the Supreme; for, while utter
<A NAME="515"></A>measurelessness is brute Matter and wholly outside of Likeness, any participation
<A NAME="516"></A>in Ideal-Form produces some corresponding degree of Likeness to the formless
<A NAME="517"></A>Being There. And participation goes by nearness: the Soul nearer than the
<A NAME="518"></A>body, therefore closer akin, participates more fully and shows a godlike
<A NAME="519"></A>presence, almost cheating us into the delusion that in the Soul we see
<A NAME="520"></A>God entire.
<A NAME="521"></A><BR><BR>This is the way in which men of the Civic Virtues attain
<A NAME="522"></A>Likeness.
<A NAME="523"></A><BR><B>3.</B> We come now to that other mode of Likeness which, we read,
<A NAME="524"></A>is the fruit of the loftier virtues: discussing this we shall penetrate
<A NAME="525"></A>more deeply into the essence of the Civic Virtue and be able to define
<A NAME="526"></A>the nature of the higher kind whose existence we shall establish beyond
<A NAME="527"></A>doubt.
<A NAME="528"></A><BR><BR>To Plato, unmistakably, there are two distinct orders of virtue,
<A NAME="529"></A>and the civic does not suffice for Likeness: "Likeness to God," he says,
<A NAME="530"></A>"is a flight from this world's ways and things": in dealing with the qualities
<A NAME="531"></A>of good citizenship he does not use the simple term Virtue but adds the
<A NAME="532"></A>distinguishing word civic: and elsewhere he declares all the virtues without
<A NAME="533"></A>exception to be purifications.
<A NAME="534"></A><BR><BR>But in what sense can we call the virtues purifications, and how
<A NAME="535"></A>does purification issue in Likeness?
<A NAME="536"></A><BR><BR>As the Soul is evil by being interfused with the body, and by coming
<A NAME="537"></A>to share the body's states and to think the body's thoughts, so it would
<A NAME="538"></A>be good, it would be possessed of virtue, if it threw off the body's moods
<A NAME="539"></A>and devoted itself to its own Act- the state of Intellection and Wisdom-
<A NAME="540"></A>never allowed the passions of the body to affect it- the virtue of Sophrosyne-
<A NAME="541"></A>knew no fear at the parting from the body- the virtue of Fortitude- and
<A NAME="542"></A>if reason and the Intellectual-Principle ruled- in which state is Righteousness.
<A NAME="543"></A>Such a disposition in the Soul, become thus intellective and immune to
<A NAME="544"></A>passion, it would not be wrong to call Likeness to God; for the Divine,
<A NAME="545"></A>too, is pure and the Divine-Act is such that Likeness to it is
<A NAME="546"></A>Wisdom.
<A NAME="547"></A><BR><BR>But would not this make virtue a state of the Divine
<A NAME="548"></A>also?
<A NAME="549"></A><BR>No: the Divine has no states; the state is in the Soul. The Act of
<A NAME="550"></A>Intellection in the Soul is not the same as in the Divine: of things in
<A NAME="551"></A>the Supreme, Soul grasps some after a mode of its own, some not at
<A NAME="552"></A>all.
<A NAME="553"></A><BR><BR>Then yet again, the one word Intellection covers two distinct
<A NAME="554"></A>Acts?
<A NAME="555"></A><BR><BR>Rather there is primal Intellection and there is Intellection deriving
<A NAME="556"></A>from the Primal and of other scope.
<A NAME="557"></A><BR><BR>As speech is the echo of the thought in the Soul, so thought in
<A NAME="558"></A>the Soul is an echo from elsewhere: that is to say, as the uttered thought
<A NAME="559"></A>is an image of the soul-thought, so the soul-thought images a thought above
<A NAME="560"></A>itself and is the interpreter of the higher sphere.
<A NAME="561"></A><BR><BR>Virtue, in the same way, is a thing of the Soul: it does not belong
<A NAME="562"></A>to the Intellectual-Principle or to the Transcendence.
<A NAME="563"></A><BR><BR><B>4.</B> We come, so, to the question whether Purification is
<A NAME="564"></A>the whole of this human quality, virtue, or merely the forerunner upon
<A NAME="565"></A>which virtue follows? Does virtue imply the achieved state of purification
<A NAME="566"></A>or does the mere process suffice to it, Virtue being something of less
<A NAME="567"></A>perfection than the accomplished pureness which is almost the
<A NAME="568"></A>Term?
<A NAME="569"></A><BR><BR>To have been purified is to have cleansed away everything alien:
<A NAME="570"></A>but Goodness is something more.
<A NAME="571"></A><BR><BR>If before the impurity entered there was Goodness, the Goodness
<A NAME="572"></A>suffices; but even so, not the act of cleansing but the cleansed thing
<A NAME="573"></A>that emerges will be The Good. And it remains to establish what this emergent
<A NAME="574"></A>is.
<A NAME="575"></A><BR><BR>It can scarcely prove to be The Good: The Absolute Good cannot
<A NAME="576"></A>be thought to have taken up its abode with Evil. We can think of it only
<A NAME="577"></A>as something of the nature of good but paying a double allegiance and unable
<A NAME="578"></A>to rest in the Authentic Good.
<A NAME="579"></A><BR><BR>The Soul's true Good is in devotion to the Intellectual-Principle,
<A NAME="580"></A>its kin; evil to the Soul lies in frequenting strangers. There is no other
<A NAME="581"></A>way for it than to purify itself and so enter into relation with its own;
<A NAME="582"></A>the new phase begins by a new orientation.
<A NAME="583"></A><BR><BR>After the Purification, then, there is still this orientation to
<A NAME="584"></A>be made? No: by the purification the true alignment stands
<A NAME="585"></A>accomplished.
<A NAME="586"></A><BR><BR>The Soul's virtue, then, is this alignment? No: it is what the
<A NAME="587"></A>alignment brings about within.
<A NAME="588"></A><BR><BR>And this is...?
<A NAME="589"></A><BR>That it sees; that, like sight affected by the thing seen, the soul
<A NAME="590"></A>admits the imprint, graven upon it and working within it, of the vision
<A NAME="591"></A>it has come to.
<A NAME="592"></A><BR><BR>But was not the Soul possessed of all this always, or had it
<A NAME="593"></A>forgotten?
<A NAME="594"></A><BR><BR>What it now sees, it certainly always possessed, but as lying away
<A NAME="595"></A>in the dark, not as acting within it: to dispel the darkness, and thus
<A NAME="596"></A>come to knowledge of its inner content, it must thrust towards the
<A NAME="597"></A>light.
<A NAME="598"></A><BR><BR>Besides, it possessed not the originals but images, pictures; and
<A NAME="599"></A>these it must bring into closer accord with the verities they represent.
<A NAME="600"></A>And, further, if the Intellectual-Principle is said to be a possession
<A NAME="601"></A>of the Soul, this is only in the sense that It is not alien and that the
<A NAME="602"></A>link becomes very close when the Soul's sight is turned towards It: otherwise,
<A NAME="603"></A>ever-present though It be, It remains foreign, just as our knowledge, if
<A NAME="604"></A>it does not determine action, is dead to us.
<A NAME="605"></A><BR><BR><B>5.</B> So we come to the scope of the purification: that understood,
<A NAME="606"></A>the nature of Likeness becomes clear. Likeness to what Principle? Identity
<A NAME="607"></A>with what God?
<A NAME="608"></A><BR><BR>The question is substantially this: how far does purification dispel
<A NAME="609"></A>the two orders of passion- anger, desire and the like, with grief and its
<A NAME="610"></A>kin- and in what degree the disengagement from the body is
<A NAME="611"></A>possible.
<A NAME="612"></A><BR><BR>Disengagement means simply that the soul withdraws to its own
<A NAME="613"></A>place.
<A NAME="614"></A><BR><BR>It will hold itself above all passions and affections. Necessary
<A NAME="615"></A>pleasures and all the activity of the senses it will employ only for medicament
<A NAME="616"></A>and assuagement lest its work be impeded. Pain it may combat, but, failing
<A NAME="617"></A>the cure, it will bear meekly and ease it by refusing assent to it. All
<A NAME="618"></A>passionate action it will check: the suppression will be complete if that
<A NAME="619"></A>be possible, but at worst the Soul will never itself take fire but will
<A NAME="620"></A>keep the involuntary and uncontrolled outside its precincts and rare and
<A NAME="621"></A>weak at that. The Soul has nothing to dread, though no doubt the involuntary
<A NAME="622"></A>has some power here too: fear therefore must cease, except so far as it
<A NAME="623"></A>is purely monitory. What desire there may be can never be for the vile;
<A NAME="624"></A>even the food and drink necessary for restoration will lie outside of the
<A NAME="625"></A>Soul's attention, and not less the sexual appetite: or if such desire there
<A NAME="626"></A>must be, it will turn upon the actual needs of the nature and be entirely
<A NAME="627"></A>under control; or if any uncontrolled motion takes place, it will reach
<A NAME="628"></A>no further than the imagination, be no more than a fleeting
<A NAME="629"></A>fancy.
<A NAME="630"></A><BR><BR>The Soul itself will be inviolately free and will be working to
<A NAME="631"></A>set the irrational part of the nature above all attack, or if that may
<A NAME="632"></A>not be, then at least to preserve it from violent assault, so that any
<A NAME="633"></A>wound it takes may be slight and be healed at once by virtue of the Soul's
<A NAME="634"></A>presence, just as a man living next door to a Sage would profit by the
<A NAME="635"></A>neighbourhood, either in becoming wise and good himself or, for sheer shame,
<A NAME="636"></A>never venturing any act which the nobler mind would
<A NAME="637"></A>disapprove.
<A NAME="638"></A><BR><BR>There will be no battling in the Soul: the mere intervention of
<A NAME="639"></A>Reason is enough: the lower nature will stand in such awe of Reason that
<A NAME="640"></A>for any slightest movement it has made it will grieve, and censure its
<A NAME="641"></A>own weakness, in not having kept low and still in the presence of its
<A NAME="642"></A>lord.
<A NAME="643"></A><BR><BR><B>6.</B> In all this there is no sin- there is only matter of
<A NAME="644"></A>discipline- but our concern is not merely to be sinless but to be
<A NAME="645"></A>God.
<A NAME="646"></A><BR><BR>As long as there is any such involuntary action, the nature is
<A NAME="647"></A>twofold, God and Demi-God, or rather God in association with a nature of
<A NAME="648"></A>a lower power: when all the involuntary is suppressed, there is God unmingled,
<A NAME="649"></A>a Divine Being of those that follow upon The First.
<A NAME="650"></A><BR><BR>For, at this height, the man is the very being that came from the
<A NAME="651"></A>Supreme. The primal excellence restored, the essential man is There: entering
<A NAME="652"></A>this sphere, he has associated himself with the reasoning phase of his
<A NAME="653"></A>nature and this he will lead up into likeness with his highest self, as
<A NAME="654"></A>far as earthly mind is capable, so that if possible it shall never be inclined
<A NAME="655"></A>to, and at the least never adopt, any course displeasing to its
<A NAME="656"></A>overlord.
<A NAME="657"></A><BR><BR>What form, then, does virtue take in one so
<A NAME="658"></A>lofty?
<A NAME="659"></A><BR>It appears as Wisdom, which consists in the contemplation of all that
<A NAME="660"></A>exists in the Intellectual-Principle, and as the immediate presence of
<A NAME="661"></A>the Intellectual-Principle itself.
<A NAME="662"></A><BR><BR>And each of these has two modes or aspects: there is Wisdom as
<A NAME="663"></A>it is in the Intellectual-Principle and as in the Soul; and there is the
<A NAME="664"></A>Intellectual-Principle as it is present to itself and as it is present
<A NAME="665"></A>to the Soul: this gives what in the Soul is Virtue, in the Supreme not
<A NAME="666"></A>Virtue.
<A NAME="667"></A><BR><BR>In the Supreme, then, what is it?
<A NAME="668"></A><BR>Its proper Act and Its Essence.
<A NAME="669"></A><BR>That Act and Essence of the Supreme, manifested in a new form, constitute
<A NAME="670"></A>the virtue of this sphere. For the Supreme is not self-existent justice,
<A NAME="671"></A>or the Absolute of any defined virtue: it is, so to speak, an exemplar,
<A NAME="672"></A>the source of what in the soul becomes virtue: for virtue is dependent,
<A NAME="673"></A>seated in something not itself; the Supreme is self-standing,
<A NAME="674"></A>independent.
<A NAME="675"></A><BR><BR>But taking Rectitude to be the due ordering of faculty, does it
<A NAME="676"></A>not always imply the existence of diverse parts?
<A NAME="677"></A><BR><BR>No: There is a Rectitude of Diversity appropriate to what has parts,
<A NAME="678"></A>but there is another, not less Rectitude than the former though it resides
<A NAME="679"></A>in a Unity. And the authentic Absolute-Rectitude is the Act of a Unity
<A NAME="680"></A>upon itself, of a Unity in which there is no this and that and the
<A NAME="681"></A>other.
<A NAME="682"></A><BR><BR>On this principle, the supreme Rectitude of the Soul is that it
<A NAME="683"></A>direct its Act towards the Intellectual-Principle: its Restraint (Sophrosyne)
<A NAME="684"></A>is its inward bending towards the Intellectual-Principle; its Fortitude
<A NAME="685"></A>is its being impassive in the likeness of That towards which its gaze is
<A NAME="686"></A>set, Whose nature comports an impassivity which the Soul acquires by virtue
<A NAME="687"></A>and must acquire if it is not to be at the mercy of every state arising
<A NAME="688"></A>in its less noble companion.
<A NAME="689"></A><BR><BR><B>7.</B> The virtues in the Soul run in a sequence correspondent
<A NAME="690"></A>to that existing in the over-world, that is among their exemplars in the
<A NAME="691"></A>Intellectual-Principle.
<A NAME="692"></A><BR><BR>In the Supreme, Intellection constitutes Knowledge and Wisdom;
<A NAME="693"></A>self-concentration is Sophrosyne; Its proper Act is Its Dutifulness; Its
<A NAME="694"></A>Immateriality, by which It remains inviolate within Itself is the equivalent
<A NAME="695"></A>of Fortitude.
<A NAME="696"></A><BR><BR>In the Soul, the direction of vision towards the Intellectual-Principle
<A NAME="697"></A>is Wisdom and Prudence, soul-virtues not appropriate to the Supreme where
<A NAME="698"></A>Thinker and Thought are identical. All the other virtues have similar
<A NAME="699"></A>correspondences.
<A NAME="700"></A><BR><BR>And if the term of purification is the production of a pure being,
<A NAME="701"></A>then the purification of the Soul must produce all the virtues; if any
<A NAME="702"></A>are lacking, then not one of them is perfect.
<A NAME="703"></A><BR><BR>And to possess the greater is potentially to possess the minor,
<A NAME="704"></A>though the minor need not carry the greater with them.
<A NAME="705"></A><BR><BR>Thus we have indicated the dominant note in the life of the Sage;
<A NAME="706"></A>but whether his possession of the minor virtues be actual as well as potential,
<A NAME="707"></A>whether even the greater are in Act in him or yield to qualities higher
<A NAME="708"></A>still, must be decided afresh in each several case.
<A NAME="709"></A><BR><BR>Take, for example, Contemplative-Wisdom. If other guides of conduct
<A NAME="710"></A>must be called in to meet a given need, can this virtue hold its ground
<A NAME="711"></A>even in mere potentiality?
<A NAME="712"></A><BR><BR>And what happens when the virtues in their very nature differ in
<A NAME="713"></A>scope and province? Where, for example, Sophrosyne would allow certain
<A NAME="714"></A>acts or emotions under due restraint and another virtue would cut them
<A NAME="715"></A>off altogether? And is it not clear that all may have to yield, once Contemplative-Wisdom
<A NAME="716"></A>comes into action?
<A NAME="717"></A><BR><BR>The solution is in understanding the virtues and what each has
<A NAME="718"></A>to give: thus the man will learn to work with this or that as every several
<A NAME="719"></A>need demands. And as he reaches to loftier principles and other standards
<A NAME="720"></A>these in turn will define his conduct: for example, Restraint in its earlier
<A NAME="721"></A>form will no longer satisfy him; he will work for the final Disengagement;
<A NAME="722"></A>he will live, no longer, the human life of the good man- such as Civic
<A NAME="723"></A>Virtue commends- but, leaving this beneath him, will take up instead another
<A NAME="724"></A>life, that of the Gods.
<A NAME="725"></A><BR><BR>For it is to the Gods, not to the Good, that our Likeness must
<A NAME="726"></A>look: to model ourselves upon good men is to produce an image of an image:
<A NAME="727"></A>we have to fix our gaze above the image and attain Likeness to the Supreme
<A NAME="728"></A>Exemplar.
<BR><BR>
<A NAME="729"></A><B>Third Tractate</B>
<A NAME="730"></A><BR><BR><B>ON DIALECTIC [THE UPWARD WAY].</B>
<A NAME="731"></A><BR><BR><B>1.</B> What art is there, what method, what discipline to bring
<A NAME="732"></A>us there where we must go?
<A NAME="733"></A><BR><BR>The Term at which we must arrive we may take as agreed: we have
<A NAME="734"></A>established elsewhere, by many considerations, that our journey is to the
<A NAME="735"></A>Good, to the Primal-Principle; and, indeed, the very reasoning which discovered
<A NAME="736"></A>the Term was itself something like an initiation.
<A NAME="737"></A><BR><BR>But what order of beings will attain the Term?
<A NAME="738"></A><BR>Surely, as we read, those that have already seen all or most things,
<A NAME="739"></A>those who at their first birth have entered into the life-germ from which
<A NAME="740"></A>is to spring a metaphysician, a musician or a born lover, the metaphysician
<A NAME="741"></A>taking to the path by instinct, the musician and the nature peculiarly
<A NAME="742"></A>susceptible to love needing outside guidance.
<A NAME="743"></A><BR><BR>But how lies the course? Is it alike for all, or is there a distinct
<A NAME="744"></A>method for each class of temperament?
<A NAME="745"></A><BR><BR>For all there are two stages of the path, as they are making upwards
<A NAME="746"></A>or have already gained the upper sphere.
<A NAME="747"></A><BR><BR>The first degree is the conversion from the lower life; the second-
<A NAME="748"></A>held by those that have already made their way to the sphere of the Intelligibles,
<A NAME="749"></A>have set as it were a footprint there but must still advance within the
<A NAME="750"></A>realm- lasts until they reach the extreme hold of the place, the Term attained
<A NAME="751"></A>when the topmost peak of the Intellectual realm is won.
<A NAME="752"></A><BR><BR>But this highest degree must bide its time: let us first try to
<A NAME="753"></A>speak of the initial process of conversion.
<A NAME="754"></A><BR><BR>We must begin by distinguishing the three types. Let us take the
<A NAME="755"></A>musician first and indicate his temperamental equipment for the
<A NAME="756"></A>task.
<A NAME="757"></A><BR><BR>The musician we may think of as being exceedingly quick to beauty,
<A NAME="758"></A>drawn in a very rapture to it: somewhat slow to stir of his own impulse,
<A NAME="759"></A>he answers at once to the outer stimulus: as the timid are sensitive to
<A NAME="760"></A>noise so he to tones and the beauty they convey; all that offends against
<A NAME="761"></A>unison or harmony in melodies and rhythms repels him; he longs for measure
<A NAME="762"></A>and shapely pattern.
<A NAME="763"></A><BR><BR>This natural tendency must be made the starting-point to such a
<A NAME="764"></A>man; he must be drawn by the tone, rhythm and design in things of sense:
<A NAME="765"></A>he must learn to distinguish the material forms from the Authentic-Existent
<A NAME="766"></A>which is the source of all these correspondences and of the entire reasoned
<A NAME="767"></A>scheme in the work of art: he must be led to the Beauty that manifests
<A NAME="768"></A>itself through these forms; he must be shown that what ravished him was
<A NAME="769"></A>no other than the Harmony of the Intellectual world and the Beauty in that
<A NAME="770"></A>sphere, not some one shape of beauty but the All-Beauty, the Absolute Beauty;
<A NAME="771"></A>and the truths of philosophy must be implanted in him to lead him to faith
<A NAME="772"></A>in that which, unknowing it, he possesses within himself. What these truths
<A NAME="773"></A>are we will show later.
<A NAME="774"></A><BR><BR><B>2.</B> The born lover, to whose degree the musician also may
<A NAME="775"></A>attain- and then either come to a stand or pass beyond- has a certain memory
<A NAME="776"></A>of beauty but, severed from it now, he no longer comprehends it: spellbound
<A NAME="777"></A>by visible loveliness he clings amazed about that. His lesson must be to
<A NAME="778"></A>fall down no longer in bewildered delight before some, one embodied form;
<A NAME="779"></A>he must be led, under a system of mental discipline, to beauty everywhere
<A NAME="780"></A>and made to discern the One Principle underlying all, a Principle apart
<A NAME="781"></A>from the material forms, springing from another source, and elsewhere more
<A NAME="782"></A>truly present. The beauty, for example, in a noble course of life and in
<A NAME="783"></A>an admirably organized social system may be pointed out to him- a first
<A NAME="784"></A>training this in the loveliness of the immaterial- he must learn to recognise
<A NAME="785"></A>the beauty in the arts, sciences, virtues; then these severed and particular
<A NAME="786"></A>forms must be brought under the one principle by the explanation of their
<A NAME="787"></A>origin. From the virtues he is to be led to the Intellectual-Principle,
<A NAME="788"></A>to the Authentic-Existent; thence onward, he treads the upward
<A NAME="789"></A>way.
<A NAME="790"></A><BR><BR><B>3.</B> The metaphysician, equipped by that very character, winged
<A NAME="791"></A>already and not like those others, in need of disengagement, stirring of
<A NAME="792"></A>himself towards the supernal but doubting of the way, needs only a guide.
<A NAME="793"></A>He must be shown, then, and instructed, a willing wayfarer by his very
<A NAME="794"></A>temperament, all but self-directed.
<A NAME="795"></A><BR><BR>Mathematics, which as a student by nature he will take very easily,
<A NAME="796"></A>will be prescribed to train him to abstract thought and to faith in the
<A NAME="797"></A>unembodied; a moral being by native disposition, he must be led to make
<A NAME="798"></A>his virtue perfect; after the Mathematics he must be put through a course
<A NAME="799"></A>in Dialectic and made an adept in the science.
<A NAME="800"></A><BR><BR><B>4.</B> But this science, this Dialectic essential to all the
<A NAME="801"></A>three classes alike, what, in sum, is it?
<A NAME="802"></A><BR><BR>It is the Method, or Discipline, that brings with it the power
<A NAME="803"></A>of pronouncing with final truth upon the nature and relation of things-
<A NAME="804"></A>what each is, how it differs from others, what common quality all have,
<A NAME="805"></A>to what Kind each belongs and in what rank each stands in its Kind and
<A NAME="806"></A>whether its Being is Real-Being, and how many Beings there are, and how
<A NAME="807"></A>many non-Beings to be distinguished from Beings.
<A NAME="808"></A><BR><BR>Dialectic treats also of the Good and the not-Good, and of the
<A NAME="809"></A>particulars that fall under each, and of what is the Eternal and what the
<A NAME="810"></A>not Eternal- and of these, it must be understood, not by seeming-knowledge
<A NAME="811"></A>["sense-knowledge"] but with authentic science.
<A NAME="812"></A><BR><BR>All this accomplished, it gives up its touring of the realm of
<A NAME="813"></A>sense and settles down in the Intellectual Kosmos and there plies its own
<A NAME="814"></A>peculiar Act: it has abandoned all the realm of deceit and falsity, and
<A NAME="815"></A>pastures the Soul in the "Meadows of Truth": it employs the Platonic division
<A NAME="816"></A>to the discernment of the Ideal-Forms, of the Authentic-Existence and of
<A NAME="817"></A>the First-Kinds [or Categories of Being]: it establishes, in the light
<A NAME="818"></A>of Intellection, the unity there is in all that issues from these Firsts,
<A NAME="819"></A>until it has traversed the entire Intellectual Realm: then, resolving the
<A NAME="820"></A>unity into the particulars once more, it returns to the point from which
<A NAME="821"></A>it starts.
<A NAME="822"></A><BR><BR>Now rests: instructed and satisfied as to the Being in that sphere,
<A NAME="823"></A>it is no longer busy about many things: it has arrived at Unity and it
<A NAME="824"></A>contemplates: it leaves to another science all that coil of premisses and
<A NAME="825"></A>conclusions called the art of reasoning, much as it leaves the art of writing:
<A NAME="826"></A>some of the matter of logic, no doubt, it considers necessary- to clear
<A NAME="827"></A>the ground- but it makes itself the judge, here as in everything else;
<A NAME="828"></A>where it sees use, it uses; anything it finds superfluous, it leaves to
<A NAME="829"></A>whatever department of learning or practice may turn that matter to
<A NAME="830"></A>account.
<A NAME="831"></A><BR><BR><B>5.</B> But whence does this science derive its own initial
<A NAME="832"></A>laws?
<A NAME="833"></A><BR>The Intellectual-Principle furnishes standards, the most certain for
<A NAME="834"></A>any soul that is able to apply them. What else is necessary, Dialectic
<A NAME="835"></A>puts together for itself, combining and dividing, until it has reached
<A NAME="836"></A>perfect Intellection. "For," we read, "it is the purest [perfection] of
<A NAME="837"></A>Intellection and Contemplative-Wisdom." And, being the noblest method and
<A NAME="838"></A>science that exists it must needs deal with Authentic-Existence, The Highest
<A NAME="839"></A>there is: as Contemplative-Wisdom [or true-knowing] it deals with Being,
<A NAME="840"></A>as Intellection with what transcends Being.
<A NAME="841"></A><BR><BR>What, then, is Philosophy?
<A NAME="842"></A><BR>Philosophy is the supremely precious.
<A NAME="843"></A><BR>Is Dialectic, then, the same as Philosophy?
<A NAME="844"></A><BR>It is the precious part of Philosophy. We must not think of it as the
<A NAME="845"></A>mere tool of the metaphysician: Dialectic does not consist of bare theories
<A NAME="846"></A>and rules: it deals with verities; Existences are, as it were, Matter to
<A NAME="847"></A>it, or at least it proceeds methodically towards Existences, and possesses
<A NAME="848"></A>itself, at the one step, of the notions and of the realities.
<A NAME="849"></A><BR><BR>Untruth and sophism it knows, not directly, not of its own nature,
<A NAME="850"></A>but merely as something produced outside itself, something which it recognises
<A NAME="851"></A>to be foreign to the verities laid up in itself; in the falsity presented
<A NAME="852"></A>to it, it perceives a clash with its own canon of truth. Dialectic, that
<A NAME="853"></A>is to say, has no knowledge of propositions- collections of words- but
<A NAME="854"></A>it knows the truth, and, in that knowledge, knows what the schools call
<A NAME="855"></A>their propositions: it knows above all, the operation of the soul, and,
<A NAME="856"></A>by virtue of this knowing, it knows, too, what is affirmed and what is
<A NAME="857"></A>denied, whether the denial is of what was asserted or of something else,
<A NAME="858"></A>and whether propositions agree or differ; all that is submitted to it,
<A NAME="859"></A>it attacks with the directness of sense-perception and it leaves petty
<A NAME="860"></A>precisions of process to what other science may care for such
<A NAME="861"></A>exercises.
<A NAME="862"></A><BR><BR><B>6.</B> Philosophy has other provinces, but Dialectic is its
<A NAME="863"></A>precious part: in its study of the laws of the universe, Philosophy draws
<A NAME="864"></A>on Dialectic much as other studies and crafts use Arithmetic, though, of
<A NAME="865"></A>course, the alliance between Philosophy and Dialectic is
<A NAME="866"></A>closer.
<A NAME="867"></A><BR><BR>And in Morals, too, Philosophy uses Dialectic: by Dialectic it
<A NAME="868"></A>comes to contemplation, though it originates of itself the moral state
<A NAME="869"></A>or rather the discipline from which the moral state
<A NAME="870"></A>develops.
<A NAME="871"></A><BR><BR>Our reasoning faculties employ the data of Dialectic almost as
<A NAME="872"></A>their proper possession for they are mainly concerned about Matter [whose
<A NAME="873"></A>place and worth Dialectic establishes].
<A NAME="874"></A><BR><BR>And while the other virtues bring the reason to bear upon particular
<A NAME="875"></A>experiences and acts, the virtue of Wisdom [i.e., the virtue peculiarly
<A NAME="876"></A>induced by Dialectic] is a certain super-reasoning much closer to the Universal;
<A NAME="877"></A>for it deals with correspondence and sequence, the choice of time for action
<A NAME="878"></A>and inaction, the adoption of this course, the rejection of that other:
<A NAME="879"></A>Wisdom and Dialectic have the task of presenting all things as Universals
<A NAME="880"></A>and stripped of matter for treatment by the Understanding.
<A NAME="881"></A><BR><BR>But can these inferior kinds of virtue exist without Dialectic
<A NAME="882"></A>and philosophy?
<A NAME="883"></A><BR><BR>Yes- but imperfectly, inadequately.
<A NAME="884"></A><BR>And is it possible to be a Sage, Master in Dialectic, without these
<A NAME="885"></A>lower virtues?
<A NAME="886"></A><BR><BR>It would not happen: the lower will spring either before or together
<A NAME="887"></A>with the higher. And it is likely that everyone normally possesses the
<A NAME="888"></A>natural virtues from which, when Wisdom steps in, the perfected virtue
<A NAME="889"></A>develops. After the natural virtues, then, Wisdom and, so the perfecting
<A NAME="890"></A>of the moral nature. Once the natural virtues exist, both orders, the natural
<A NAME="891"></A>and the higher, ripen side by side to their final excellence: or as the
<A NAME="892"></A>one advances it carries forward the other towards perfection.
<A NAME="893"></A><BR><BR>But, ever, the natural virtue is imperfect in vision and in strength-
<A NAME="894"></A>and to both orders of virtue the essential matter is from what principles
<A NAME="895"></A>we derive them.
<BR><BR>
<A NAME="896"></A><B>Fourth Tractate</B>
<A NAME="897"></A><BR><BR><B>ON TRUE HAPPINESS.</B>
<A NAME="898"></A><BR><BR><B>1.</B> Are we to make True Happiness one and the same thing
<A NAME="899"></A>with Welfare or Prosperity and therefore within the reach of the other
<A NAME="900"></A>living beings as well as ourselves?
<A NAME="901"></A><BR><BR>There is certainly no reason to deny well-being to any of them
<A NAME="902"></A>as long as their lot allows them to flourish unhindered after their
<A NAME="903"></A>kind.
<A NAME="904"></A><BR><BR>Whether we make Welfare consist in pleasant conditions of life,
<A NAME="905"></A>or in the accomplishment of some appropriate task, by either account it
<A NAME="906"></A>may fall to them as to us. For certainly they may at once be pleasantly
<A NAME="907"></A>placed and engaged about some function that lies in their nature: take