Plotinus represent a constant reference in all of Šestov's philosophy. For the Russian philosopher Plotinus is, on the one hand, the one who thought up thesynthesis of Greek philosophy, on the other, the one who first broke with that same tradition precisely when it was at its peak. However, Šestov does lift from the Enneadi certain passages which he marries - as if in a sort of contrapuntal rewriting exercise - to others in which Plotinus seems to contradict himself. What interests Šestov are precisely those discontinuities in the thought of the last great philosopher of old in an anti-Greek function. That of Šestov is once again a marked criticism of Rationalism as creator of an autonomous set of ethics that he judges according to an intellect which everything is subject to. Autonomousethics, affirms Šestov, is a fruit of Greek schools of thought to the extent that it shows distrust for what is mutable, unforeseen and arbitrary, of everything which, in short, is irrational, as it is not inserted in the One/All necessitating, justifying, regulating. In the alternative between Athens and Jerusalem, between the Rationalism and the Bible, Šestov opts to assume a stance, in no uncertain terms, on the side Jerusalem, taking with him the Plotinus of the awakening andheading towards a greater reality capable of overturning the throne occupied for too long by reason. That Plotinus who at a certain point was obliged to say thatin this other dimension "the intellect before God represents a reckless, ungodly apostate" (VI.9.5). That Plotinus, who ultimately, in one of those most particularmoments, realized that he was predestined for something loftier with respect to the world of evil and death.

The religious spirit in Plotinus. Lots of studies from last 30 years have shown similar attitudes and spiritual tendencies in early christian and neoplatonic teachings. But we could not forget that we are dealing here with two major rivals on the intellectual scene of Late Antiquity. Despite commun aspects in plotinian and gnostic doctrines, there are some strong critics in Plotinus works, most of them in Enneads II,9, that let no doubt of the distance between the gnostic and neoplatonic positions on some key issues. This article points out four aspects of the plotinian doctrine that clearly break up with some of the main christian religious attitudes. Plotinus had a positive jugement on the sensible world, he had never expressed contempt towards nature, refused any presomption on religious matters and considered the philosophy as the only way to mistical union with the One.

L'article compare le motif de la contemplation de sa propre image dans une surface réfléchissante chez Plotin avec des motifs semblables que l'on trouvenon seulement dans les récits mythologiques, mais aussi dans les doctrines cosmologiques des systèmes philosophiques, gnostiques surtout, qui sont à la fois proches de Plotin et concurrent, à l'égard de la philosophie plotinienne. En même temps, en analysant deux métaphores mythologiques, dont une se sert du motif de la réflexion dans le miroir (le mythe orphique du démembrement de Dionysos) et l'autre de la réflexion dans l'eau (le mythe de Narcisse), l'article souligne les différences qui séparent la doctrine plotinienne de la descente de l'âme et celle de la chute de l'âme.

Le présent travail se veut avant tout une introduction bibliographique à l'étude de la codicologie et de la paléographie latine en Roumanie. Les quelques 150 études et volumes qui y sont recensés et commentés donnent un tableau des directions d'étude prises par les chercheurs roumains dans ces domaines. Dansl'introduction, les auteurs proposent une évaluation de la recherche paléographique et codicologique roumaine du XXᵉ siècle, tout en suggérant de nouvelles voies à explorer. Dans ce sens, la priorité devrait être donnée à un inventaire des manuscrits médiévaux en écriture latine conservés sur le territoire roumain, cequi débouchera sur la rédaction d'un catalogue général de ces manuscrits. Parallèlement, la recherche codicologique devrait produire des études détailléesdes reliures médiévales et modernes et des autres éléments structuraux du codex. La décoration des manuscrits, qui a déjà attiré l'attention des historiens d'artpar le passé, se doit d'être étudiée de nouveau dans une perspective codicologique et d'histoire du livre manuscrit. Enfin, un autre but est d'imposer un vocabulaire codicologique roumain, conforme aux progrès et innovations terminologiques de la recherche européenne contemporaine.

Is the number an absolute intelligible reality? The author investigates the number and its nature in Plotinus. works trying to solve the following question: what number is considered intelligible - the number in general or the number in particular? Three answers are given over this study. Thus, if the number is generally defined as intelligible (as Plotinus sometimes does), than the number in general is an intelligible reality (a general intelligible number, therefore, exists). On the other hand, if we make a distinction between numbers (the plural) and number (the singular), it seems that, for Plotinus, only the particular number could be considered clearly intelligible, while the number as a generic reality is not so. Actually, the final solution comes out from the agreement between these two divergent theses. This agreement is based on the idea of the total number: a number that is in the same time particular and general, a number which is the object of the final part of the present study.

In this article, I discuss Plotinus. critique of the peripatetic idea of the divine intellect as first principle. As I am trying to show, Plotinus accepts the unity of the intellect as self-thinking, and, even more than Aristotle, he emphasizes this unity. Yet, he insists on the necessity of a principle that is even higher and simpler than the intellect. Eventually, intellect proves to be the unity of a plurality, though it is the most unitary being. I discuss the dual nature of the intellect: both as thinking and as being, intellect is both unitary and plural. Starting from this, I analyze Plotinus' arguments of the absolute one as first principle, above intellect.

Iamblichus has long lived under the shadow of Plotinus. One can easily recognize this from the historiography of the Neoplatonic school starting, for example, with J.J. Brucker's Historia critica philosophiae (1742) and continuing with Hegel and 19th century historians like Simon and Vacherot in France, Kroll and Zeller in Germany. But from Praechter on Iamblichus was acknowledged more and more as an original thinker and the real systematizer of the late Neoplatonic School. We can see more clearly now that the inclusion of theurgy into Neoplatonism does not mean a simple abandonment of philosophy or rational discourse, and that the discipline of textual exegesis does not negate the originality of the commentator. In Proclus, for one, these complementary strains are strongly present. In rebuilding the whole Platonic system, Iamblichus - the Chrysippus of Neoplatonism - skillfully incorporated elements like the Chaldean triads which were unknown to Plotinus, and presented a completely new account of the nature of theology. This feat shows a genius no less impressive, albeit of another type, than the one disclosed by Plotinus himself.

The knowledge of the Greek by the Carolingians was well studied by the modern scholars. This article focuses on the third generation of intellectuals from this period, on their attitude towards Greek language and the ways it was used in the classrooms. Despite the negative view of the Greek knowledge by some of his contemporaries, Sedulius Scottus appears to be an intellectual interested in the Greek thought that he collected from the different Latin sources like Macrobius, for instance. His awareness of the definition of the soul by Plato leads him to state some philosophical ideas as an active principle for the essence of beings and things.

Towards the end of the Byzantine Empire many texts of the Latin Fathers were translated into Greek, beginning with the De Trinitate of Augustine. This flurry of translation spurred discussion on the authority of the Fathers. The Greeks were now confronted with the problem of what one should do when the (presumably infallible) Fathers justify apparent heresy (the Filioque) ? This question became crucial after the Council of Florence and the fall of the Byzantine Empire. What is the definition of a Father? A saint? A disciple? Is it possible to honour a Father and yet refuse to follow him on a particular point of doctrine?