This new French translation of Treatise III.8 [30] by Bertrand Ham is the 21st volume in the series Les Écrits de Plotin founded by Pierre Hadot in 1988. (Ham has already published a translation of V.3 [49], to which his PhD thesis was devoted, in this series.) In accordance with the principles of this collection, the volume is made up of an introduction, a translation, and a commentary. The work is also accompanied by six indices: Plotinus’s citations, Plotinus’s texts, ancient authors, modern authors, Greek terms, and a general index.
III.8 [30], entitled by Porphyry On Nature, Contemplation and the One, supports the thesis that all things contemplate and are produced by contemplation. Ham divides the treatise as follows. First, Plotinus deals with the degrees of contemplation (1.18–8.48). In this first part, we see the justification of this thesis by going back from nature (1.18–4.31), then the soul (4.31–7.27), and, after a summary and some evidence (7.1-27), to the perfect contemplation of the Intellect (8.1-48). In the second part, the subject is not long contemplation but of the One as Good (9.1–11.45), which is presented as beyond the Intellect (9.1–10.35) and as the father of the Intellect (11.1-45). The author proposes a detailed plan of the treatise (pp. 35-37), showing the thematic differences. This plan is indicated in the translations as well and tends to fragment the presentation of the text.
One of the particularly thorny points concerns the coherence of the distinction of these two main parts, since the notion of contemplation disappears completely in the second part. However, Ham suggests that the so-called Harder hypothesis can explain that point: in fact, a large part of the introduction defends that hypothesis by highlighting Plotinus’s anti-Gnostic polemic in III.8 [30], a point supported by reference to an unpublished lecture given at the Collège de France (p. 10). He also relies heavily on another unpublished lecture, by Pierre Hadot,[1] according to which the whole of III.8 [30] – V.5 [32] is preparation for II.9 [33] (p. 9), which would be the climax of the tetralogy (p. 10). It is surprising, however, to see Ham argue that Harder’s thesis has definitively “imposed itself”:[2] this claim is part of a more general problem with this work, which is that it takes very little account of publications after the 2000s (in fact the bibliography includes only one title published later than 2000).
Ham’s justification for reading all these works together as a tetralogy begins from two observations: one about the difference between Plotinus’s tone, which begins with a call to play a game (παίζοντες), and that of the Gnostics, which is tragic (p. 11); the other about Plotinus’s insistence on rest, silence, and tranquility, which contrasts with the way the Gnostics expressed themselves (p. 12). However, the passage referred by Ham (II.9 [33], 6.7-8) does not mention that point, but only the Gnostics’ tendency toward neologisms.
Ham’s first argument concerns Plotinus’s use, at III.8 [30], 2.6, of the Platonic term κηροπλάστης (see Timaeus 74c6), which apparently is meant as a criticism of the Gnostics’ literal understanding of the activity of the demiurge of Timaeus.[3] Three further arguments (pp. 13-18) concern what Ham calls polyphony, taking up a notion developed by Oswald Ducrot: repetition by Plotinus of the terms of his opponents for irony or refutation (p. 13). These arguments are based on Plotinus’ use of terms derived from Valentinian prose.[4] However, Ham is more convincing about the use of these terms in II.9 [33] than in the Gnostic treatises themselves.
Before his translation (p. 39), Ham indicates 14 modifications in his text with respect to HS2, all of which come from HS,3 the name he gives to the addenda to HS2. (This is usually referred to as HS4.) The translation is clear and closely follows the Greek text. On the whole, the translation does not contrast radically with others in French. However, Ham opts for translation choices that are not always the most traditional. Thus, 2.17 and 18, he translates τὸ κινοῦν Πρώτως literally by “ce qui meut d’une manière première.” He explains this translation in his commentary (p. 85), arguing that this is not a reference to Aristotle’s Prime Mover. Other choices in Ham’s translation are stimulating, especially that of πᾶς, particularly when it is used in the plural and with an article. Plotinus uses the expression τὰ πάντα numerous times in Chapter 9, and Ham translates this “le tout” rather than “toutes les choses,” which allows him to emphasize the unity of the Intellect and the fact that Intellect is not only all things but also a totality. Although this choice is not literal and gives a more abstract turn to French than it has in Greek, it allows Ham to insist on what he calls “l’uni-totalité” (p. 159) of the Intellect. Further examples in Chapter 9 are l. 39: ἀρχὴ νοῦ καὶ τῶν πάντων (“principe de l’Intellect et de tout”); ll. 39-40: οὐ γὰρ ἀρχὴ τὰ πάντα, ἀλλ’ ἐξ ἀρχῆς τὰ πάντα (“car le tout n’est pas principe, mais le tout vient d’un principe”); ll. 44-45: Εἰ δέ τις οἴοιτο αὐτὸ τὸ ἓν καὶ τὰ πάντα εἶναι (“Si quelqu’un croit qu’il est l’Un et tout”); and ll. 53-54: Καὶ οὕτως οὐδὲν τῶν πάντων, ἀλλὰ πρὸ τῶν πάντων (“Et ainsi il n’est rien du tout, mais avant le tout”).
Another choice of translation may seem more problematic. At 9.21, Ham translates ὑπερβαίνω by “transcender.” However, this choice may seem questionable insofar as it is a relatively recent notion and one that is highly loaded conceptually.[5] Moreover, it does not do justice to the composition of the verb, which is important. “Être au-dessus” might seem better, all the more so since Plotinus also twice uses the preposition ὑπέρ in Chapter 10 (ll. 3 and 31), where Ham translates it as “au-dessus”. Finally, it should be noted that the transliteration of some Greek terms is a bit misguided. We read on pp. 67-68: “Intellect (Kro-nos), beau garçon (koros) et satiété (koros).” Now, although Ham’s intention is to point out a parallel with another text, as he explains in a note, this could be misleading because it leads one to think that the Greek text has Κρόνος (Kronos), not νοῦς (nous).
In accordance with the editorial line of Les Écrits de Plotin, the translation is followed by a commentary structured by the titles present in the translation. In this commentary, Ham follows the text closely and draws many parallels within Plotinus and with other ancient authors. The commentary is also written in a fluent way and is very readable. I am going to focus mainly on some points concerning the anti-Gnostic purpose of the treatise that I think are interesting or that could lead to a debate.
First of all, Ham proposes an interesting parallel between III.8 [30], 2 and V.8 [31], 1, where it is written that the same kind of beauty is present in nature and in art. That element plays a key role Ham’s hypothesis that the four texts make up a single treatise. There is another passage that has the same goal in the prosopopoeia of nature: “Car, de ma mère et de ceux qui m’ont engendrée, j’ai la « passion ».”[6] Ham identifies in this text the Gnostic thesis called “la passion de la mère,” according to which the “éon Sagesse-Achamoth” has fallen (p. 97). However, the use of genealogical terms to characterize souls[7] is not exceptional in Plotinus, and it does not seem that this reference is self-evident.
Ham also rightly points out that Plotinus takes up the Stoic distinction between logos endiathetos and logos prophorikos when he uses the verb προφέρω in Chapter 6 (l. 22). His analysis could have benefited from reference to an article by Christian Tornau which shows that the distinction is essential for Plotinus’ theory of double activity.[8] Moreover, Tornau notes that Plotinus uses this distinction on several occasions.[9] The use of this vocabulary in a non-Gnostic context serves as an objection to Ham’s statement that “l’emploi massif dans ces lignes (6, 22-27) [du verbe προφέρω] relevait d’une intention polémique visant l’utilisation chrétienne et gnostique du concept de « profération » ou « prolation » (prophora) à propos de la génération d’entités divines” (p. 116).
In conclusion, we can be pleased with this new volume in Les Écrits de Plotin, which proposes new considerations on behalf of integrating the treatise within the so-called Grosschrift. However, we can also regret that its scholarship does not draw more on the Plotinian studies of the last 20 years.[10]
Notes
[1] “Les traités 30-33 constituent-ils un grand écrit dirigé contre les gnostiques ?”, talk in “Thèmes et problèmes du Traité 33”, Collège de France, juin 2005.
[2] For example, in the new edition and translation of the so-called Grosschrift, J.-M. Narbonne writes: “This beautiful unanimity [about the existence of Grosschrift] is no longer appropriate today” (Plotin, Œuvres complètes II.III, Paris, Belles Lettres, 2021, p. xv; my translation). Of course, Ham did not have access to this recently published work, but Narbonne’s observation is based on recent scholarship that was available to him.
[3] Although not acknowledged, this point has in fact already been made: see e.g. J.-F. Pradeau, note 12 in Plotin, Traités 30-37, Paris, Flammarion, 2006, p. 53.
[4] The evocation of the so-called “passion of the mother” (III.8 [30], 4.7-12); the use of the verb συζεύγνυμι, which means to couple (III.8 [30], 9.5-13); and the multiple uses of the verb προφέρω (III.8 [30], 6.21-29).
[5] Moreover, this is a notion often used in the commentary, cf. “comme origine et comme fin transcendantes” (p. 143), “la transcendance de l’Un-Bien” (p. 146), “la transcendance de l’Un” (p. 146), “unité transcendante” (p. 147, x2), “la transcendance de l’Un” (p. 161), “sa transcendance” (p. 163, x2), “une transcendance” (p. 165), “la transcendance” (p. 167).
[6] III.8 [30], 4.10-11.
[7] Cf. IV.3 [27], 6.13 and II. 9 [33], 18.16.
[8] Tornau, Christian, “Wissenschaft, Seele, Geist: zur Bedeuteung einer Analogie bei Plotin (Enn. IV 9, 5 und VI 2, 20)”, Göttinger Forum für Alterumwissenschaft, I, 1998, pp. 92-95.
[9] Cf. I.2 [19], 3.27-30 and V.1 [10], 3.6-9.
[10] It should also be noted that the volume unfortunately contains many typographical mistakes.