Neoplatonism.org

Liber de causis, proposition 6

Intelligentia est substantia quae non diuiditur.

Bardenhewer's own vocabulary check is the interesting fact here, not a variant reading: the Latin's substantia and El. 171's Greek οὐσία are kept apart across both benches on purpose (the glossary's rule holds 'substance' for the Latin, 'essence' for the Greek), so the two lemmata never read as verbal twins even though the proposition is a near-exact match. The section's plate note also records a heading easy for a mechanical splitter to miss, since '§ 6.' sits mid-page with no surrounding whitespace — worth knowing before trusting any automated section boundary drawn from this stretch of the scan.

What it drew on

ProclusElements of Theologyel.171paraphrase

'§ 6 deckt sich mit § 171 des Lehrbuches' — Bardenhewer's table names this proposition as the section's source.

prop 171 · creuzer page 254

Πᾶς νοῦς ἀμέριστός ἐστιν οὐσία. εἰ γὰρ ἀμεγέθης καὶ ἀσώματος καὶ ἀκίνητος, ἀμέριστόν ἐστι. πᾶν γὰρ τὸ ὁπωσοῦν μεριστόν, ἢ κατὰ μέγεθος, ἢ κατὰ πλῆθος, ἢ κατὰ τὰς ἐνεργείας ἐστὶ μεριστὸν ἐν χρόνῳ φερομένας· ὁ δὲ νοῦς κατὰ πάντα αἰώνιος, καὶ ἐπέκεινα σωμάτων, καὶ ἥνωται τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ πλῆθος. Ἀμέριστος ἄρα ἐστίν. Ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἀσώματος ὁ νοῦς, ἡ πρὸς ἑαυτὸν ἐπιστροφὴ δηλοῖ. τῶν γὰρ σωμάτων οὐδὲν πρὸς ἑαυτὸ ἐπιστρέφεται. Ὅτι δὲ αἰώνιος ἡ τῆς ἐνεργείας ταυτότης πρὸς τὴν οὐσίαν· οὕτω γὰρ δέδεικται πρότερον. Ὅτι δὲ ἥνωται τὸ πλῆθος, ἡ πρὸς τὰς ἑνάδας τὰς θείας τοῦ νοεροῦ πλήθους συνέχεια. Αἱ μὲν γάρ εἰσι πρῶτον πλῆθος· οἱ δὲ νόες μετ᾽ ἐκείνας.

Every intellect is an undivided essence. For if it is without magnitude, and incorporeal, and unmoved, it is undivided. For everything that is divided in any way at all is divided either according to magnitude, or according to multiplicity, or according to its activities as these are borne along in time; but intellect is in every respect eternal, and beyond bodies, and the manifold in it is unified. It is therefore undivided. That intellect is incorporeal is shown by its reversion upon itself, for no body reverts upon itself. That it is eternal is shown by the identity of its activity with its essence, for this has been shown earlier. That its manifold is unified is shown by the continuity of the intellectual manifold with the divine henads. For the henads are the first manifold, and the intellects come after them.

Source of LdC 6 (Bardenhewer: '§ 6 deckt sich mit § 171 des Lehrbuches'). Creuzer's note (6) records that the printed edition had a lacuna here which he filled from codex A — as at El. 88, so the supplement must not be presented as uncontested. Note (8) quotes THOMAS TAYLOR'S 1816 English directly ('or an account of energies, which are borne along with the flux of time'), which means Creuzer's apparatus is itself a witness to the Taylor reception and can be cited on that margin. Phase 3 translation notes. (a) Editorial supplement, do not read as uncontested text: Creuzer's note (6) reports the printed edition as reading 'καὶ ἀσώματον *** ἄν ὁπωσοῦν' and says he filled the gap from codex A. On the text as it now stands the supplement runs across the words rendered 'and unmoved, it is undivided. For everything that is divided in any way at all', and πᾶν itself ('everything') is Portus's conjecture for the edition's ἄν. Three editorial hands are therefore in that clause; the English translates it because Creuzer prints it, and the crux page must say whose it is. (b) πλῆθος is 'manifold' where it names a thing (the manifold in intellect, the first manifold) but 'multiplicity' in the phrase κατὰ πλῆθος, where it names a respect of division alongside magnitude — a departure from the wording used at El. 138, made for readability and logged in the Phase 3 report. (c) νοερός is 'intellectual' here and at El. 173.

Apparatus
  • (5) A. ρο.
  • (6) In editione lacuna: καὶ ἀσώματον *** ἄν [l. πᾶν Portus] ὁπωσοῦν. Eam explevi ex cod. A. quocum facit Patricius.
  • (7) A. ἢ κατὰ πλ. ἢ κατὰ μεγ.
  • (8) An φαινομένας? Schw. Ego in vulgata acquiesco, cum propter cap. 170 ubi de intellectu ipso dicitur: εἰ γὰρ μεταβήσεται, tum quia Plotinus p. 583 A. de idea ita: ἆρα οὐκ εἶδος πανταχοῦ τοῦτο, ἧκον δὲ ἐπὶ γινόμενον κτλ. Nec Patricii codex aliam lectionem offerre videtur, quando Taylorus ita vertit: »or an account of energies, which are borne along with the flux of time.«
  • (9) A. καὶ γίνεται. — Ad rem cf. Plotinum p. 325 sqq.

creuzer_numeral=ροα΄

Edition
Creuzer, Frankfurt, 1822 — Initia philosophiae ac theologiae ex Platonicis fontibus ducta, Pars III
Scan
archive.org
OCR status
none
Translator
Wroot Press draft
Anonymous (Kalam fi mahd al-khair)Kalam fi mahd al-khair (Arabic Liber de causis)§ 6, Bardenhewer 1882, Arabic texttranslationnode only

The Arabic through which the Greek reached the Latin. Node only per ruling 6: no Arabic text is carried in the pilot.

No text is shown here. This witness stands as a node: what it is, where it is, and what it does to the text — nothing quoted that has not been read against the page it is quoted from.

Edition
Bardenhewer, Freiburg, 1882 — Arabic text with Latin and German translation
Scan
archive.org
OCR status
none
Attribution
Stated: Aristotle (in the wider doxographic tradition that also produced the Theology of Aristotle). Critical: Anonymous compiler, excerpting and paraphrasing Proclus's Elements of Theology. Bardenhewer's edition itself untangles the Kalam from any Aristotelian ascription, but the work circulated in the same Arabic doxographic environment as the (pseudo-)Aristotelian Theology and was read there as part of the Aristotelian corpus before Bardenhewer traced its propositions to Proclus. This is one of the five named disputed-attribution cases in PHASES.md Phase 1 step 4.

The text

prop bardenhewer 6 · pattin prop 6 · bardenhewer page 169-170

Intelligentia est substantia quae non diuiditur. quod est quia si non est cum magnitudine neque corpus neque mouetur, tunc procul dubio non diuiditur. et iterum omne diuisibile non diuiditur nisi aut in multitudinem aut in magnitudinem aut in motum suum. cum ergo res est secundum hanc dispositionem, est sub tempore, quoniam non recipit diuisionem nisi in tempore. et intelligentia quidem non est cum tempore, immo est cum aeternitate, quapropter facta est altior et superior omni corpore et omni multitudine. quod si inueniatur in ea multitudo, non inuenitur nisi quasi res existens una. cum ergo intelligentia sit secundum hunc modum, penitus diuisionem non recipit. et significatio quidem illius est reditio sui super essentiam suam: scilicet quia non extenditur cum re extensa, ita ut sit una suarum extremitatum secunda ab alia. quod est quia cum uult scientiam rei corporalis, extenditur cum ea, et ipsa stat fixa secundum suam dispositionem: quoniam est forma a qua non pertransit aliquid. et corpora quidem non sunt ita. et significatio quod intelligentia non est corpus neque diuiditur eius substantia et operatio eius, est quod utraeque sunt res una. et intelligentia quidem est multa propter bonitates quae adueniunt ei a causa prima: et ipsa quamuis multiplicetur per hunc modum, tamen quia adpropinquat uni, fit unum et non diuiditur. et intelligentia quidem non recipit diuisionem, quoniam est primum causatum quod causatum est a causa prima, et unitas est dignior ea quam diuisio. iam ergo uerificatum est quod intelligentia est substantia quae non est cum magnitudine neque corpus neque mouetur per aliquem modorum motus corporei: quapropter facta est supra tempus et cum aeternitate, sicut ostendimus.

Intellect is a substance which is not divided. This is because, if it is not with magnitude, and is not a body, and is not moved, then beyond doubt it is not divided. And again, everything divisible is divided only either into multitude, or into magnitude, or into its own motion. When, therefore, a thing is in this disposition, it is under time, since it does not receive division except in time. But intellect is not with time; rather it is with eternity, and therefore it was made higher and above every body and every multitude. And if a multitude is found in it, it is found only as a thing existing as one. Since, then, intellect is in this manner, it receives no division at all. And the sign of this is its reversion upon its own essence — that is, because it is not extended along with an extended thing, so that one of its extremities would be second to another. This is because, when it wants knowledge of a corporeal thing, it is extended along with that thing, while it itself stands fixed according to its own disposition, since it is a form from which nothing passes away. But bodies are not so. And the sign that intellect is not a body, and that its substance and its operation are not divided, is that both are one thing. And intellect is many because of the goodnesses which come to it from the first cause; and although it is multiplied in this way, yet because it draws near to the One it becomes one and is not divided. And intellect does not receive division, since it is the first caused thing caused by the first cause, and unity is more worthy of it than division. Now, therefore, it has been verified that intellect is a substance which is not with magnitude, nor a body, nor moved in any of the modes of bodily motion; and therefore it was made above time and with eternity, as we have shown.

⚠ Confirms the provenance file's flag that §6's heading OCRs oddly: on the plate '§ 6.' stands alone at p.169 line 25, immediately followed on the next line by 'Intelligentia est substantia quae non diuiditur.' with no visual break from §5's closing 'sicut ostendimus.' two lines above — the heading is easy for a mechanical splitter to miss because it sits mid-page with no extra whitespace. Section confirmed plate-side across the p.169/170 break (leaves n194-n195). ⚠ The eins/eius error recurs a third time: 'diuiditur eins substantia et operatio eins' for 'diuiditur eius substantia et operatio eius' — now clearly a running OCR habit before 's', not an isolated slip. Corrected from the plate. Apparatus not captured. Phase 3 translation notes — the section that answers El. 171. (a) substantia is 'substance', as the glossary requires, where El. 171's οὐσία is 'essence'. The two lemmata therefore do not read identically in English — 'Intellect is a substance which is not divided' against 'Every intellect is an undivided essence' — and that is deliberate: the difference is in the texts, and the glossary fixes each language's own word. (b) reditio sui super essentiam suam is rendered 'its reversion upon its own essence', holding the glossary's 'reversion' for the ἐπιστροφή / conversio / reditus family, so El. 171's 'its reversion upon itself' and this clause read as one argument. (c) multitudo is 'multitude' here and throughout the Latin; El. 171's parallel list has πλῆθος, rendered 'multiplicity' in that phrase. Different words, kept apart. (d) The clause 'neque diuiditur eius substantia et operatio eius ... utraeque sunt res una' answers El. 171's 'the identity of its activity with its essence'.

Apparatus
  • (1) [p.169] 27 corpus est α
  • (2) [p.169] 28 diuiditur, uerum omne dissimile β: diuiditur, alias et iterum esse diuisibile b
  • (3) [p.170] 1 sub hac dispositione b β ‖ tunc est α
  • (4) [p.170] 2 quando für quoniam a
  • (5) [p.170] 3 in für das erste cum b β
  • (6) [p.170] 4 sublimior für superior b β ‖ omni corpore, omni tempore α: omni tempore a
  • (7) [p.170] 5 quia für quod a ‖ non inuenitur multitudo nisi quod α
  • (8) [p.170] 6 sit für existens b β ‖ uero für ergo b β
  • (9) [p.170] 6—7 penitus secundum hunc modum b β
  • (10) [p.170] 7 diuisionem penitus α ‖ istius b β
  • (11) [p.170] 8 sui für suam a
  • (12) [p.170] 9 secunda est ab a b α
  • (13) [p.170] 10 non extenditur α β
  • (14) [p.170] 11 sed für et α
  • (15) [p.170] 14 eius operatio et ipsius substantia b β ‖ utraque b β: uterque α ‖ una res b β
  • (16) [p.170] 15 et fehlt b β
  • (17) [p.170] 16 modum hunc b β
  • (18) [p.170] 17 quod für quia b β ‖ est für fit α
  • (19) [p.170] 17—18 fit non diuisibilis. intelligentia (ohne et) b β ‖ et ita intelligentia α
  • (20) [p.170] 19 prima causa a α ‖ dignior est ohne ea b β
  • (21) [p.170] 20—21 substantia est α
  • (22) [p.170] 21 magnitudine corporali b β
  • (23) [p.170] 22 modum α ‖ corporum b β
  • (24) [p.170] 23 et fehlt b β
Edition
Bardenhewer, Freiburg, 1882
Scan
archive.org
OCR status
none
Translator
Wroot Press draft

What drew on it

Thomas AquinasSuper Librum de causislectio VII (Parma vol. 21)commentarynode only

Aquinas's Lectio VII expounds this section, one ahead of Bardenhewer's § 6 in his own numbering (see § 5). Node only per ruling 9: this lectio is OCR, not plate-verified.

No text is shown here. This witness stands as a node: what it is, where it is, and what it does to the text — nothing quoted that has not been read against the page it is quoted from.

Edition
Parma, Parma, 1852-1873 — Opera omnia (Parma/Vives)
Digital base
Saffrey 1954 base text (Corpus Thomisticum); Parma/Vives 19th-c. text is the actual PD ingestion source (Corpus Thomisticum, finding aid only, not embedded [ruling 5])
OCR status
none

What is not here

  • Bardenhewer's compare list for this section (El. 15, 16, 169) is Creuzer's and his own internal cross-referencing within the proof, none of which is among the pilot's thirteen seeded Proclus units, so it is not carried as a margin entry.
  • No Albert block has been located for this section — Phase 2's search of Liber II, Tractatus I for 'intelligentia est substantia quae non dividitur' found nothing, and it is left honestly unacquired rather than attached to a nearby chapter on the strength of proximity.

This page is draft — the English on it has not yet been through review.