Plotinus’ aim, in Ennead IV 6 (41), is to show that sensation and memory, defined as « a sort of force », are basically active. The originality of this thesis is emphasized by setting it in contrast with the traditional model of perception, which compares soul to a writing tablet. Against this model, Plotinus states that sensations are not impressions on the soul and hence that memories are not retentions of impressions, because no impressions were formed beforehand. Actually, the coherence of this theory depends on a passage from the first chapter (ll. 19-21), the text of which seems to be corrupt in the manuscript tradition. All editors and translators of the Enneads have faced this problem. This essay proposes to revert to the text proposed by Henry and Schwyzer in their editio maior (Paris – Brussels 1959) : ... οὐδέ τῳ σφραγῖδα λαμβανούσης, ὥσπερ ἐν κηρῷ δακτυλίου βλεπούσης. Their textual correction is the most plausible from a palaeographical point of view and the best as far as the overall meaning is concerned. Consequently, the text later published by Henry and Schwyzer in their editio minor (Oxford 1977) is rejected, because its acceptance would produce an inconsistency in Plotinus’ theory about sensation and memory.
Taormina, D.p. (2018). Les sensations ne résultent pas d’une impression dans l’âme : une difficulté textuelle chez Plotin, Sur la sensation et la mémoire (Enn. IV 6 [41] 1, 19-21). REVUE DE PHILOLOGIE, DE LITTERATURE ET D'HISTOIRE ANCIENNES, XCII(1), 85-99.
Les sensations ne résultent pas d’une impression dans l’âme : une difficulté textuelle chez Plotin, Sur la sensation et la mémoire (Enn. IV 6 [41] 1, 19-21)
Taormina, Daniela Patrizia
2018-01-01
Abstract
Plotinus’ aim, in Ennead IV 6 (41), is to show that sensation and memory, defined as « a sort of force », are basically active. The originality of this thesis is emphasized by setting it in contrast with the traditional model of perception, which compares soul to a writing tablet. Against this model, Plotinus states that sensations are not impressions on the soul and hence that memories are not retentions of impressions, because no impressions were formed beforehand. Actually, the coherence of this theory depends on a passage from the first chapter (ll. 19-21), the text of which seems to be corrupt in the manuscript tradition. All editors and translators of the Enneads have faced this problem. This essay proposes to revert to the text proposed by Henry and Schwyzer in their editio maior (Paris – Brussels 1959) : ... οὐδέ τῳ σφραγῖδα λαμβανούσης, ὥσπερ ἐν κηρῷ δακτυλίου βλεπούσης. Their textual correction is the most plausible from a palaeographical point of view and the best as far as the overall meaning is concerned. Consequently, the text later published by Henry and Schwyzer in their editio minor (Oxford 1977) is rejected, because its acceptance would produce an inconsistency in Plotinus’ theory about sensation and memory.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Taormina_Rph 92-1.pdf
solo utenti autorizzati
Tipologia:
Documento in Post-print
Licenza:
Copyright dell'editore
Dimensione
447.68 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
447.68 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.