^{page 278 note 1} Battenhouse, Roy W., ‘The Doctrine of Man in Calvin and in Renaissance Platonism’, Journal of the History of Ideas, IX (1948), 468, 469.Google Scholar

^{page 278 note 2} Boisset, Jean, Sagesse et Sainteté dans la Pensée de Jean Calvin (Paris: University of France, 1959), pp 255–262.Google Scholar

^{page 278 note 3} Quistorp, Heinrich, Calvin's Doctrine of the Last Things, trans, by Knight, Harold (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1955), pp. 73, 101.Google Scholar

^{page 280 note 1} Rohde, Edwin, Psyche, trans, by Ellis, W. B. (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, Inc., 1925), p. 469.Google Scholar

^{page 280 note 2} Zeller, Edward, Outlines of the History of Greek Philosophy, trans, by Palmer, L. R., rev. by Nestle, Wilhelm (13th ed.; London: Routledgeand Kegan Paul Ltd., 1958), p. 128.Google Scholar

^{page 280 note 3} Metaphysica, 1.6.987 a 34; 13–4.

^{page 280 note 4} Souilhé, Joseph, La Notion Platonicienne d'Intermédiaire dans la Philosophic des Dialogues (Paris, 1919), p. 197.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 1} Robin, Léon, Platon (Paris: Felix Alcan, 1935), p. 176Google Scholar. Cf. Friedlander, Paul, Plato, trans, by Meyerhoff, Hans (New York: Pantheon Books, 1958), p. 43.Google Scholar

^{page 282 note 1} Stocks, J. L., ‘Plato and the Tripartite Soul’, Mind, new series, XIXX (1915), p. 218Google Scholar. Cf. Cornford, F. M., ‘The Division of the Soul’, The Hibbert Journal, XXVIII (October 1929-July 1930).Google Scholar

^{page 282 note 2} Calvin, John, Psychopannychia, in Calvin's Tracts, trans, by Beveridge, Henry, III (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1851), p. 420.Google Scholar

^{page 282 note 3} On Genesis 3.19.

^{page 282 note 4} Argument to Genesis. On Psalm 29.9 Calvin writes, ‘Even philosophers who appeared to approach nearest to the knowledge of God, contributed nothing whatever that might truly glorify him. All that they say concerning religion is not only frigid, but for the most part insipid. It is therefore in his word alone that there shines forth the truth which may lead us to true piety, and to fear and serve God aright.’

^{page 283 note 1} Jaeger, Werner, Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, trans, by Highet, Gilbert, III (New York: Oxford University Press, 1944), p. 260Google Scholar, says that the theory of forms does not appear in the later dialogues, but ‘if we started by saying that the theory of Ideas does not appear in The Laws that should not be interpreted as agreement with the well known modern hypothesis that Plato abandoned it in his old age’. Cornford, F. M., Plato's Theory of Knowledge (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1935), p. 45Google Scholaret passim advances the theory that Plato has not abandoned the doctrine of the forms although he admits that they do not figure directly in the Theaetetus and Sophist. Cornford thinks that Plato is making an attempt to get along without the doctrine of forms in order to make us feel their need!

^{page 283 note 2} The use of in another sense than for the soul of man recurs from Thales to Democritus. It stood for the principle of animation and in its earliest usage may have stood for the principle of motion. Pater, Walter, Plato and Platonism (New York: Macmillan and Co., 1893), p. 61Google Scholar, reflects a common error when he says that for Plato the philosophy of motion is identified with the vicious tendency in things and thought. Cf. Skemp, J. B., The Theory of Motion in Plato's Later Dialogues (Cambridge: University of Cambridge, 1942).Google Scholar

^{page 284 note 1} Solmsen, Friedrich, Plato's Theology (Ithaca: Cornell University, 1942), p. 77.Google Scholar

^{page 284 note 2} Demos, Raphael, The Philosophy of Plato (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1939), p. 80.Google Scholar

^{page 284 note 3} Burnet, John, Platonism (Berkeley: University of California, 1928), p. 119.Google Scholar

^{page 284 note 4} Demos, op. cit., p. 95.

^{page 285 note 1} There have been at least three major interpretations of Plato's philosophy and the doctrine of soul within it. The first, represented by Paul Shorey, holds that the philosophy of Plato is a unity. This means that the dialogues present a unified doctrine of soul in which various sides of one basic theory are turned to light. The second interpretation, suggested by John Burnet, argues that the early and middle dialogues contain the doctrines of Socrates and the later dialogues present Plato's own view. Thus the Phaedo represents the Socratic view of soul while the Phaedrus and Laws are Platonic. The third interpretation, defended by George Grote, contends in general that the dialogues show no over-all systematic development. Plato is a searcher who has not made up his mind. The present writer agrees with Shorey and against Burnet that all the dialogues are Platonic, but with Grote and against Shorey that the differences among the dialogues are not adequately accounted for as one basic doctrine. We may agree with Burnet that the early doctrine is different from the later one, but the middle dialogues present a view which cannot be assimilated into either the early or late position. Thus there are three approaches to a doctrine of soul in Plato's dialogues.

^{page 286 note 1} Miles, Leland, John Colet and the Platonic-Tradition (La Salle, 1961), pp. xiii–xiv.Google Scholar

^{page 286 note 2} Klibansky, Raymond, The Continuity of the Platonic Tradition During the Middle Ages (London: Warburg, 1939), p. 36.Google Scholar

^{page 287 note 1} McLelland, Joseph C., ‘Calvin and Philosophy’, The Canadian Journal of Theology, XI (Jan. 1965), p. 47.Google Scholar

^{page 287 note 2} Barth, Karl, Church Dogmatics, trans, by Thomson, G. T. and Knight, Harold, 1/2 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1956), p. 728.Google Scholar

^{page 287 note 3} Boisset, op. cit., p. 284.

^{page 287 note 4} Arnou, R., ‘Le Platonisme des Pères’, in Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique, XII, 2257–2392.Google Scholar

^{page 287 note 5} Battenhouse, op. cit., p. 470.

^{page 288 note 1} ibid., p. 450.

^{page 288 note 2} On Romans 7.14.

^{page 288 note 3} On Genesis 26.10.

^{page 288 note 4} Battenhouse, op. cit., p. 452.

^{page 288 note 5} On Genesis 36.24.

^{page 289 note 1} On Malachi 1.2.

^{page 289 note 2} Plotinus, , Opera, ed. by Henry, Paul and Schwyzer, Hans-Rudolf, II (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1959), p. 247. Enneads 4.8.7.Google Scholar

^{page 289 note 3} Ficinus, Marsilius, Opera omnia (Basel, 1561), p. 824.Google Scholar

^{page 289 note 4} ibid., p. 375, 658.

^{page 290 note 1} ibid., p. 79.

^{page 290 note 2} Enneads 3.6.6.

^{page 290 note 3} Ficino, op. cit., pp. 416–17.

^{page 290 note 4} Calvin, John, Last Admonition to Joachim Westphal, in Calvin's Tracts, trans, by Beveridge, Henry, II (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1849), 456.Google Scholar

^{page 290 note 5} Jaeger, Werner, The Theology of the Early Greek Philosophers, trans, by Robinson, Edward S. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1947), p. 73.Google Scholar

^{page 290 note 6} Smyth, Herbert Weir, ‘Greek Conceptions of Immortality from Homer to Plato’, Harvard Essays on Classical Subjects (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1912), p. 265.Google Scholar

^{page 291 note 1} On Matthew 22.23.

^{page 291 note 2} Warfield, B. B., Calvin and Calvinism (New York: Oxford University, 1931), p. 337 calls Calvin ‘a dichotomist’.Google Scholar

^{page 291 note 3} On John 16.29.

^{page 291 note 4} Psychopannychia, p. 420.

^{page 291 note 5} On Matthew 27.50.

^{page 292 note 1} Psychopannychia, p. 450. Cf. On Matthew 17.3.

^{page 292 note 2} ibid., p. 441.

^{page 292 note 3} On Genesis 3.19, 2.17.

^{page 292 note 4} On 1 Thessalonians 4.16.

^{page 292 note 5} On Romans 8.10. On Psalm 31.5 Calvin recognises that soul once signified life.

^{page 292 note 6} cf. Niesel, Wilhelm, The Theology of Calvin, trans, by Knight, Harold (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1956), p. 66.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 7} Psychopannychia, p. 478.

^{page 292 note 8} Torrance, T. F., Calvin's Doctrine of Man (London: Lutterworth Press, 1949), p. 26.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 9} Psychopannychia, p. 478.

^{page 292 note 10} Warfield, op. cit., p. 339 thinks that ‘this is doubtless merely a classical manner of speech, adhered to without intentional implication of its corollaries…’.

^{page 293 note 1} Quistorp, op. cit., p. 62, 58.

^{page 293 note 2} On Romans 7.22.

^{page 293 note 3} Doumergue, Emile, ‘Calvin, Le Prédicateur de Genève’, address delivered at the 400th anniversary of Calvin's birth (2nd July 1909), p. 21.Google Scholar

^{page 293 note 4} Psychopamychia, p. 470. Doumergue, , Jean Calvin, Les Homrnes et Us Choses de son Temps, IV (Lausanne: Georges Bridel & Cie, 1910), 309 criticises Schulze for ignoring this fact.Google Scholar

^{page 293 note 5} Barth, Karl says that the union with Christ might be called Calvin's ‘conception of the essence of Christianity’. Church Dogmatics, ed. by Bromiley, G. W. and Torrance, T. F., IV/3, 2 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1962), 551.Google Scholar

^{page 294 note 1} cf. on John 3.7.

^{page 294 note 2} Schulze, Martin, Meditatio Futurae Vitae (Leipzig: Dieterich'sche, 1901), p. 88.Google Scholar

^{page 294 note 3} As Zimmerli, Walther in his edition of the Psychopannychia, 1932, p. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 294 note 4} On Luke 1.75.

^{page 294 note 5} Boisset, op. cit., p. 221.

^{page 294 note 6} On John 1.3.

^{page 294 note 7} Calvin, John, Letters, ed. by Bonnet, Jules, II (Edinburgh: Thomas Constable, 1857). p. 353.Google Scholar

^{page 295 note 1} On Genesis 2.18.

^{page 295 note 2} John Calvin, Excuse de Iehan Calvin a Messieurs les Nicodemites, Calvini Opera, VI, 599.