The Enneads — trans. Stephen MacKenna

what it saw was such that the contemplation could not be void of effect ; in virtue of that rapture, of its position in regard to its object, of the intensity of its gaze, the Soul conceived and brought forth an offspring worthy of itself and of the vision. Thus ; there is a strenuous activity of contemplation in the Soul ; there is an emanation towards it from the object contemplated ; and Eros is bom, the Love which is an eye filled with its vision, a seeing that bears its image with it ; Eros taking its name, probably, from the fact that its essential being is due to this horasis, this seeing. Of course Love, as an emotion, will take its name from Love, the Person, since a Real-Being cannot but be prior to what lacks this reality. The mental state will be designated as Love, like the Hypostasis, though it is no more than a particular act directed towards a particular object ; but it must not be confused with the Absolute Love, the Divine Being. The Eros that belongs to the supernal Soul must be of one temper with it ; it must itself look aloft as being of the household of that Soul, dependent upon that Soul, its very offspring ; and therefore caring for nothing but the contemplation of the Gods.

Once that Soul which is the primal source of light to the heavens is

p. 58

PLOTINUS

recognised as an Hypostasis standing distinct and aloof, it must be admitted that Love too is distinct and aloof though not, perhaps, so loftily celestial a being as the Soul. Our own best we conceive as inside ourselves and yet something apart ; so, we must think of this Love — as essentially resident where the unmingling Soul inhabits.

But besides this purest Soul, there must be also a Soul of the All : at once there is another Love — the eye with which this second Soul looks upwards — like the supernal Eros engendered by force of desire. This Aphrodite, the secondary Soul, is of this Universe — not Soul unmingled alone, not Soul, the Absolute, giving birth, therefore, to the Love concerned with the universal life ; no, this is the Love presiding over marriages ; but it, also, has its touch of the upward desire ; and, in the degree of that striving, it stirs and leads upwards the Souls of the young and every Soul with which it is incorporated in so far as there is a natural tendency to remembrance of the divine.

; but it, also, has its touch of the upward desire ; and, in the degree of that striving, it stirs and leads upwards the Souls of the young and every Soul with which it is incorporated in so far as there is a natural tendency to remembrance of the divine. For every Soul is striving towards The Good, even the mingling Soul and that of particular beings, for each holds directly from the divine Soul, and is its offspring,

4-

Does each individual Soul, then, contain within itself such a Love in essence and substantial reality ?

Since not only the pure All-Soul but also that of the Universe contain such a Love, it would be difficult to explain why our personal Soul should not. It must be so, even, with all that has life.

This indwelling love is no other than the Spirit which, as we are told, walks with every being, the affection dominant in each several nature. It implants the characteristic desire ; the particular Soul, strained towards its own natural objects, brings forth its own Eros, the guiding spirit realising its worth and the quality of its Being.

As the All-Soul contains the Universal Love, so must the single Soul be allowed its own single Love : and as closely as the single Soul holds to the AU-Soul, never cut off but embraced within it, the two together constituting one principle of life, so the single separate Love holds to the All-Love. Similarly, the individual love keeps with the indini- 5- 5]

LOVE

p. 59

vidual Soul as that other, the great Love, goes with the All-Soul ; and the Love within the AU permeates it throughout so that the one Love becomes many, showing itself where it chooses at any moment of the Universe, taking definite shape in these its partial phases and revealing itself at its will.

In the same way we must conceive many Aphrodites in the All, Spirits entering it together with Love, all emanating from an Aphrodite of the All, a train of particular Aphrodites dependent upon the first, and each with the particular Love in attendance : this multiplicity cannot be denied, if Soul be the mother of Love, and Aphrodite mean Soul, and Love be an act of a Soul seeking good.

This Love, then, leader of particular Souls to The Good, is twofold : the Love in the loftier Soul would be a god ever linking the Soul to the divine ; the Love in the mingling Soul will be a celestial spirit.

l, and Love be an act of a Soul seeking good.

This Love, then, leader of particular Souls to The Good, is twofold : the Love in the loftier Soul would be a god ever linking the Soul to the divine ; the Love in the mingling Soul will be a celestial spirit.

5-

But what is the Nature of this Spirit — of the Supemals in general ?

The Spirit-Kind is treated in the Symposium where, with much about the others, we learn of Eros — Love — bom to Penia — Poverty — and Poros — Possession — who is son of Metis — Resource — at Aphrodite’s birth feast.

But (the passage has been misunderstood for) to taLe Plato as meaning, by Eros, this Universe — and not simply the Love native within it — involves much that is self-contradictory.

For one thing, the universe is described as a blissful god and as self-sufficing, while this “ Love ” is confessedly neither divine nor self-sufficing but in ceaseless need.

Again, this Kosmos is a compound of body and soul ; but Aphrodite to Plato is the Soul itself, therefore Aphrodite would necessarily be a constituent part of Eros, (not mother but) dominant member ! A man is the man’s Soul, if the world is, similarly, the world’s Soul, then Aphrodite, the Soul, is identioal with Love, the Kosmos ! And why should this one spirit. Love, be the Universe to the exclusion of all the others, which certainly are sprung from the same Essential-Being ? Our only escape would be to make the Kosmos a complex of Supernals.

6o

PLOTINUS

Love, again, is called the Dispenser of beautiful children : does this apply to the Universe ? Love is represented as homeless, bedless and bare-footed : would not that be a shabby description of the Kosmos and quite out of the truth ?

6.

What then, in sum, is to be thought of Love and of his “ birth ” as we are told of it ?

Clearly we have to establish the significance, here, of Poverty and Possession, and show in what way the parentage is appropriate : we have also to bring these two into line with the other Supemals since one spirit nature, one spirit essence, must characterise all unless they are to have merely a name in common.

We must, therefore, lay down the grounds on which we distinguish the Gods from the Celestials — that is, when we emphasise the separate nature of the two orders and are not, as often in practice, including these Spirits under the common name of Gods.