No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
The famous passage (Enn. V. 8. 1) in which Plotinus declares that fine art, so far from simply reproducing nature, ‘goes back to the Reason-principles from which nature herself emanates,’ has hitherto been generally regarded as a tacit criticism of Plato's teaching, and as an original contribution to the philosophy of art involving a rupture with the entire previous tradition of Greek aesthetic theory. Yet Plotinus introduces it, not as if he were proclaiming a new gospel, but almost casually, as a subordinate link in his discussion of Intelligible Beauty. And though his respect for Plato was not the half-superstitious reverence of the later Neoplatonists, he was at all times more zealous to walk in Plato's footsteps than to correct or criticize him, tacitly or otherwise. Moreover, can it be said with certainty that his doctrine is in itself opposed to Plato's? That question can be answered only by a detailed examination of Plato's theory of art—a task which I hope to accomplish elsewhere. In the present article, postponing all enquiry into the relation between these two aesthetic theories, I shall endeavour to show that the teaching of Plotinus was not a sudden innovation, but the natural and indeed inevitable outcome of preceding thought.
page 148 note 1 Cf. Bosanquet, , History of Aesthetic, p. 114Google Scholar; Inge, , The Philosophy of Plotinus, Vol. II., pp. 214–5, 246Google Scholar; Dodds, , Select Passages illustrating Neo-platonism, p. 104Google Scholar; etc.
page 149 note 1 Suidas, s.v. Telephus.
page 149 note 2 28–29b.
page 149 note 3 Sallust, de Diis et Mundo, c. 3.
page 150 note 1 Eusebius, , H.E. VI. 19Google Scholar.
page 150 note 2 Homiliae in Canticum Canticorum: Migne, P.G., Vol. XIIIGoogle Scholar., cc. 172–175.
page 150 note 3 Life of Apollonius, VI. 19.
page 150 note 4 Poetics, c. 4.
page 150 note 5 Porphyry, Life of Plotinus, c. 1.
page 150 note 6 Ib., c. 15.
page 150 note 7 Ib., c. 14.
page 150 note 8 lb., c. 20.
page 151 note 1 Proclus, , Commentary on the Timasus, 20 D, ed. Diehl, , Vol. I., p. 63Google Scholar.
page 151 note 2 Ennead I., ed. Bréhier, , Paris, 1924, p. 4Google Scholar.