Denis O Brien - The Secrets of Ammonius

Plotinus and the Secrets of Ammonius
Author(s): Denis O'Brien

Source: Hermathena, No. 157, Neoplatonica: Studies in the Neoplatonic Tradition,
Proceedings of the Dublin Conference on Neoplatonism (Winter 1994), pp. 117-153
Published by: Trinity College Dublin
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23041392
Accessed: 16-11-2016 06:09 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Trinity College Dublin is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Hermathena
This content downloaded from 189.189.227.228 on Wed, 16 Nov 2016 06:09:28 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Plotinus and the Secrets of Ammonius
Denis O'Brien
I. INTRODUCTION
Plotinus was allyears

spent eleven of 28inyears old before
Alexandria, in thehe was smitten
company of theby philosophy.
most H
learned sch
the day, Ammonius, for us a shadowy figure, who wrote not at all and of w
know next to nothing. After Ammonius' death, Plotinus gave up ten y
teaching and administration in Rome. He was now aged 50, and had still
pen to papyrus for any philosophical purpose. But in the remaining fifteen
his life Plotinus was to produce a body of writings which place him thir
the the most prolific philosophical authors who have survived from the
world, the two others being Aristotle and Plato (in that order).1
So much is well known and (except for one small detail) uncontroversi
so much, you might think, should leave us free to plunge into a reading
Enneads uncluttered by any of the many seemingly insoluble complicatio
bedevil the study of Plato and of Aristotle: the Socratic question, Plato's
dogmata, the strange story of Andronicus of Rhodes and the loss of A
exoteric writings. No such merely extrinsic problems, you may be glad
need stand between the modern reader and a direct study of the complex
obscurities of the philosophy of the Enneads.
But that state of happy innocence I fear may be unfounded. Some of t
plexities and some of the obscurities, especially in Plotinus' earlier writings,
suspect, not from the complexities and obscurities of Plotinus' own thou
expression, but from an external circumstance which inhibited the free
cation of his ideas.
I refer to the agreement by which Plotinus and two other pupils of Am

bound themselves not to reveal the Master's doctrines after his death.
agreement I believe may have cast its shadow over his earlier oral teachi
may cast its shadow still over some of his earlier writings. But the stran
tangled story of the agreement, and of its possible effects, has never, I thi
appreciated to this day. This afternoon, for the first time, its story shall be to
Proceedings of the Dublin Conference on Neoplatonism, 1992
II. THE AGREEMENT
The story of the pact

I print below the text of chapter 3, lines 22 to 35, of Porphyry's
Plotinus, as given by Henry and Schwyzer in their editio maior (there
no changes in the editio minor). I start each sentence on a fresh line
ease of reference.
A translation into English, and a few notes, will be found at the en

chapter.
22-4
Kal OiXiTinou xfjv [SaaiAdav xpaxrjaavxog xEaaapaxovxa yeyovibc; ext)

£tg xf)v ' Pcojxnv avEiaiv.
24-8
'Epevviu xai 'Qpiyevei xal IlXuxivu cjuv8t)xwv yeyovmuv p.r}8ev

exxaAunxeiv xuv 'Ap.p.Mviou Soyp.dxuv a 8rj ev xaic axpoaaEcuv
auxotc avEXExdSapxo, eîeve xal o nXuxivoc auvuv piv xiai xuv
Tipoaiovxov, xrjpuv S£ avExnuaxa xh napb. xou 'Apîuviou Soyjaaxa.
29-30
'EpEvviou 8£ rrptixou x&e auvOnxae napa[3dvxoe, 'OpiyEvnc P-£v

t)xoAou0ei xO cÔdaavxi 'EpEwiu.
30-2
"Eypa(|j£ 6e ou8£v nXfjv x8 «rkpl xuv 6aip.6vwv» auyypap^j.a xai eni

TaAtrivou «"Oxi p.ovog noinxfjc 6 [iaaiX£uc».
32-4
nXuxivoc 8i axpi piv noXAoO ypd<t>cov ou8£v SiexeXeoev, ex 8t xrjg

'A^pxoviou auvoucuac; notoupEvoc; xdc; SiaxpiPag
34-5
xal ouxuc oTiuv exuv 8exa SiexeXeoe, ctuvuv piv xiai, ypaûv 8e oi'jSev.
The oral interpration, the written interpretation

No two people seem to read this passage in the same way. For example,
Richard Goulet is convinced that there was a break in Plotinus' oral teaching:
that there was first a period when Plotinus did not reveal the doctrines of
Ammonius in the lectures which he gave in Rome, and secondly a period when
he did.4 While Dr Schwyzer takes a quite different view. The vow, he thinks,
118
D. O'Brien
covered only written work. Plotinus, and his two confreres, were free to te
doctrines of Ammonius orally; they were not free to write about them.5
But both of those readings of the passage are impossible.
In the penultimate sentence of the passage I have quoted, Porphyry tells u
Plotinus had drawn on the teachings of Ammonius 'for a long time' (ax
ttoAAoO) before he began to write. Richard Goulet has to suppose that th
nonetheless a period before this 'long time' when Plotinus taught in Rom
did not allow himself to exploit the teachings of Ammonius. But if you r
final sentence of the passage quoted you will see that that cannot be so.
that final sentence Porphyry tells us: 'And Plotinus continued in this fash
all of ten years...'6 Those ten years are the ten years from Plotinus' ar
Rome in 244 (the year of Philip's accession to the power imperial) to th
when Plotinus started writing in 254 (the first year of the rule of Gallienus
all of those ten years, Porphyry tells us, Plotinus continued doing what h
to have done in the preceding sentence. For all of those ten years ther
Plotinus drew on the doctrines of Ammonius in the lectures which he
Rome. There cannot therefore have been a period of oral teaching prior to t
years' during which Plotinus drew upon the teachings of Ammonius in t
tures which he gave in Rome.
In slightly more formal terms: the introduction to the final sentence xai
ensures that the temporal reference of StexeAeaev in the preceding sentenc
same as the temporal reference of SieteAecte in the final sentence. The a
expression dypt (lev noAAou in the penultimate sentence has therefore th
reference as oAwv etuv 6exoi in the final sentence.
That conclusion, you may think, paves the way for Schwyzer's interpre
The agreement covered written teaching, not oral teaching. And at first sig
conclusion would seem most appealing, for one might well be tem
conclude that the existence of the agreement explains Plotinus' very late sta
philosophical writer. For all of ten years Plotinus kept to the agreement
promulgate, in written form, the doctrines of Ammonius.
However, Schwyzer's interpretation runs into difficulties of a differen
Porphyry tells us that when Plotinus no longer felt bound by the agreemen
because the agreement had already been broken by his two confreres, Er
and Origen. On Schwyzer's interpretation that will have to mean that Er
and Origen published serious philosophical works before Plotinus did. B
seems almost certain that in fact they didn't.
Thanks partly to Longinus, we know quite a bit about philosophical wr
published in the first half of the third century, and nowhere, but nowhere,
any mention of a work written by Erennius.8
With Origen it is different. Porphyry writes explicitly of two texts publis
Origen, one of them called On daimons, and the other entitled That the
119
the only maker.9 But neither of those two works is a possible candidate for the
publication by which Origen would have revealed, before Plotinus, the secrets of
Ammonius. For we happen to know, from Longinus, that the work On daimons
was a mere literary 'aside', a pastime one might almost say, while Porphyry tells
us explicitly that Origen's second book That the King is the only maker was
published 'under Gallienus', and therefore not before 254, which is the date at
which Plotinus himself began to write.10
In fact I think it very probable that Origen's second book was not written until
the closing years of the reign of Gallienus, for otherwise Longinus would have
referred to it in the survey which he made of philosophical literature in the mid
260s. The fact that in the preface to his work On the end Longinus does mention
On daimons and does not mention That the King is the only maker seems to me
a pretty clear indication that Origen's second book had not been published at the
time that Longinus was writing, and therefore not before 263."
Thus neither of Origen's two books is a possible candidate for a 'literary'
interpretation of the agreement: one of them was not serious enough, and the
other was published too late.
These two interpretations are both of them true, and both of them false
Now I hope you will not think it too perverse of me if, having claimed that the
'literary' interpretation of the agreement is impossible, I now claim that it is none
theless the interpretation, or one of them, which Porphyry himself intended.
When Porphyry first writes of the agreement, he tells us that Plotinus 'stuck to
the agreement, teaching some of those who came forward, but keeping secret the
doctrines of Ammonius'.12 And at the end of the passage he produces a sentence
with exactly the same grammatical form: for ten years, Plotinus 'carried on
teaching' (the same verb: ctuvuv), but without writing anything.13 The grammati
cal structure of both of these sentences is the same: a main verb in the aorist
governs a pair of present participles, linked by the same two particles, p.ev and
8e.14 It would, I think, be impossible for a casual, or even a not so casual reader,
not to pick up the verbal parallel. And it would be impossible therefore not to be
given the impression that Plotinus kept secret the doctrines of Ammonius because
he wrote nothing: xrpwv 61 avexmioxa is explained by Ypd<j>ov 6i ou8ev.151
am therefore faced with the astonishing conclusion that Porphyry does mean his
reader to adopt an interpretation which is nonetheless so unlikely as to be vir
tually impossible. Unlike Erennius and Origen, Plotinus kept to the agreement by
writing nothing. And yet when Plotinus did start writing he was nonetheless, of
the three disciples, the first to do so.
And now, to make matters worse, let me also tell you that the 'oral' interpreta
tion, though impossible, is also in its way correct. When, in the sentence I just
quoted, Porphyry writes that Plotinus kept to the agreement, cmvuv piv xioi xuv
Ttpooiovxwv, xT)puv dvexTiuoxa x& nape* xoO 'A|j.|j.uviou 86y(j.axa, the
120
D. O'Brien
innocent reader can hardly fail to understand: Plotinus taught philosophy to som
of those who came forward, but in doing so he kept to the agreement by
revealing the doctrines of Ammonius.16 And yet, in the final two sentences of
same passage, we leam that, on the contrary, Plotinus did reveal, in his or
teaching, the doctrines of Ammonius, and that he did so 'for all of ten years', i
from the very beginning of the the time that he spent in Rome.17 So that the
interpretation is both the interpretation, or one of them, which Porphyry mean
to adopt, and the interpretation which Porphyry himself, only a few lines later
shows to be impossible.
All most strange. Richard Goulet and H.-R. Schwyzer (to name only two
adopt opposite interpretations of the agreement. So they cannot both be rig
And yet neither of them, it seems, is wrong.
Further inconsistencies
Where do we go from here? Well I am sorry to have to tell you that the worst
is yet to come. The night has to grow still darker before we can hope to see the
light of dawn. For not only does Porphyry contradict himself in his account of the
agreement in chapter three. What he tells us in chapter three also contradicts what
he has to tell us elsewhere in the Life.
In his account of the agreement, Porphyry twice tells us that Plotinus' oral
teaching was limited to 'some <only> of those who came forward' (tick tuv
Ttpooi6vxwv at lines 27-8 is picked up by the simple xicn at line 35). But do you
remember the story of Carterius in the opening chapter of the Lifel There we are
told that anyone who wanted could attend Plotinus' lectures, and that that was
how Carterius was able to paint a portrait of Plotinus without Plotinus' knowing
anything of it. Carterius came to the lectures, which were open to anyone who
wanted to attend, and touched up the portrait in private afterwards.18 The contra
diction is blatant: in chapter three, admission to the lectures is limited to the
chosen few; in chapter one, the lectures are open to all and sundry.19
Of course in this case the answer to the contradiction is an easy one. There was
a change in the rules of admission. The lectures which at first had been given in
semi-private were later thrown open to the public at large.
Now what I find potentially very significant is that there was a similar change
in the practice regarding Plotinus' written work. When Porphyry first came to the
School, in the summer of 263, he found that Plotinus' writings were 'not yet'
given out easily.20 That expression ('not yet', ou8e [...] nu) cannot but imply
that later the writings were made freely available. As with admission to the lec
tures, there was a break in the practice of the school. At first access was limited,
both to the lectures and to the written works. Later, access was free.
The emotional colouring

At this stage, you may be tempted to say: 'So what?' One could imagine a
thousand reasons for a change in the rules of access. There is not the slightest
i
121
indication that such a change had anything at all to do with Ammonius or with
Plotinus' fellow-pupils, Erennius and Origen.
But before you turn away, let me draw on two other details from the Life, and
first from the page I have just quoted, with Porphyry's description of how
Plotinus' treatises were guarded when he first arrived at the school in the summer
of 263. For Porphyry tells us, not only that the writings were not yet given out
'easily'; they were given out exclusively to those who had been carefully selected
beforehand, and even then 'not at all with an easy conscience' (ou8£ euouv
£i8i]tqc;).21 What a strange choice of adverb. Did someone then feel guilty at
letting Plotinus' writings find their way into the hands of even a pre-selected few?
And that same emotional overtone appears elsewhere in the Life, when it is a
question not of Plotinus' writings, but of his lectures. Do you remember the
second time that Origen's name crops up in Porphyry's narrative? He is first
mentioned as one of the three disciples who agreed not to divulge the secrets of
Ammonius.22 Ten chapters or so later he reappears. Plotinus was lecturing in the
school in Rome. Origen appeared unannounced in the lecture room. Plotinus
stopped speaking. Origen begged him to continue. Plotinus went red, and said
that 'the desire to speak dries up in the presence of someone who knows in
advance what it is that one is about to say'.23 If you just think about it, what a
very strange remark that was. How did Origen know in advance what Plotinus
was about to say? And how did Plotinus know that he knew? And why did
Plotinus, because he knew that Origen knew, become so upset that he blushed
and left the room?
If you have not been totally blinded by Porphyry's hagiographical approach to

Plotinus (mitigated only when Porphyry's own desire for self-advancement gets
in the way), then you will surely have already thought what I am thinking.
Origen's presence so upset Plotinus because Plotinus had been caught flagrante
delictu. Origen knew in advance what Plotinus was going to say, and Plotinus
knew that he knew, because Plotinus did reveal in his lectures, as also in his early
writings, the secrets of Ammonius, despite his professed adherence to the agree
ment not to do so.
Hence the contradictions in Porphyry's acount of Plotinus' role in chapter

three of the Life. We are explicitly told that Plotinus broke the agreement only
because Erennius and Origen had already done so. But in fact the details of the
narrative do not add up. Plotinus' lectures, we at first assume, did not include
what he had learnt from Ammonius, but a few sentences later we are told just the
opposite. We then assume that at least Plotinus kept to the agreement by not
writing anything for ten years; but almost the same turns out to have been true of
Erennius and of Origen. The truth, I therefore suspect, is rather that Plotinus did
reveal the secrets of Ammonius, but that he also made some attempt to limit the
damage, by restricting access, in the early years, both to his lecture courses and to
his writings; so that it was only in the course of time that access to the writings
was made 'easy' and that anyone who wanted to could come to hear him speak.
122
D. O'Brien
Though even then, whatever had passed between him and Origen could still m
Plotinus blush and leave the room when Origen appeared unexpectedly bef
him
An emendation of the text

So much for my reading of the history of the agreement. There remains one
curious detail in the text on which I should welcome your opinion. 'An agree
ment had been entered into by Erennius and by Origen and by Plotinus not to
reveal any of the doctrines of Ammonius, those same doctrines which he had
explained to them in his lectures. '24 "E|ieve xai 6 IlXwTivog.25 How do you
translate those four words? More particularly, how do you translate the xai?
'Even' Plotinus kept to the agreement is surely impossibly disparaging, since it
would clearly imply that Plotinus was prima facie the least trustworthy of the
three. But Plotinus 'too' kept to the agreement is surely impossibly awkward,
since it would no less clearly imply that Plotinus' name had not yet been
mentioned. No wonder that most translators (Armstrong, Brehier, Harder,
Cilento) simply fail to translate the word.26 And yet there it is staring at us from
the printed page (and presumably from the manuscripts).
To ease your bewilderment, allow me to rehearse very briefly the historical cir
cumstances which led up to the agreement.27 Plotinus arrived in Alexandria
when, if he had been bom in 205, he would have been in his 28th year, and so in
232. After a prolonged stay with Ammonius, Plotinus decided he had learnt
enough Greek philosophy to want to find out what was afoot, philosophically, in
Persia and in India, and he therefore attached himself to an expeditionary force
that was due to set out for the East under the personal command of the emperor
Gordian, in 243. Since Porphyry tells us that Plotinus spent eleven years in all
with Ammonius, and since eleven years from 232 takes us to the eve of Gordian's
expedition in 243, this would seem to imply that Ammonius was still living, and
presumably still teaching, when Plotinus set off for India.28 But at the time when
the agreement was set up it seems very probable that Ammonius was dead, or at
least that he was no longer teaching, since the agreement covered those doctrines
which Ammonius 'had explained to them in his lectures' (&vex£x&0apxo).29
The pluperfect tense surely implies that at the time the pact was set up Ammonius
was teaching no longer. It seems probable therefore that the agreement was
concluded after Plotinus had set out for India.
Where then did the agreement take place? Did Plotinus perhaps go back to
Alexandria, to take part in the agreement? That seems a bit far-fetched. Gordian's
expedition came to a sticky end. The emperor himself died, probably assassinated,
in Mesopotamia. Plotinus himself had a narrow escape before reaching the safety
of Antioch, whence he travelled to Rome, arriving in the City in 244, when Philip
was recognised as Augustus by the Senate. Did Plotinus stop off at Alexandria on
his way back from Antioch to Rome? Or did Erennius and Origen obligingly
travel to Rome to meet Plotinus there? Neither eventuality seems particularly
123
Proceedings of the Dublin Conference onNeoplatonism, 1992
plausible. And yet presumably Plotinus met the other two somewhere in order to
take part in the agreement.
Or did he? Look again at that intrusive xai.30 If Plotinus 'also' kept the
agreement, we would expect him not to have been named in the preceding sen
tence. And in the preceding sentence there is—lo and behold!—another xou
which modem translators unfailingly fail to translate: 'Epewtw 8i xal 'Qpiyevei
xal nXcmvu auvBrjxuv yeyovuiuv.. ,31
That double xat ('Epevviw [...] xal 'Qpiyevei xal nXwxivw) is as odd in
Greek as it is in English. Take out the second xai and the name following and all
reads perfectly normally. 'An agreement had been made by Erennius and by
Origen... Plotinus too kept to the agreement.'
Such, I know, is the power of the manuscripts, and so powerful the reaction
against the wantonly excessive emendations of some 19th (and even some 20th)
century scholars (most notably my old friend Miroslav Marcovich in his edition of
Hippolytus' Refutatio), that I doubt if anyone in this room will want to follow me.
But personally, to feel comfortable, I need to have before me a Greek text that
reads coherently and that makes sense historically; and for those two conditions
to be satisfied in chapter three of the Life, I have to suppose that xal riAwxivw in
lines 24 to 25 is an intrusive gloss, added by someone who could just not imagine
that the hero of the tale had not personally taken part in the pact. What Porphyry
in fact wrote, I much suspect, was: 'Epevviw xal 'Qpiyevei auv8r)xc5v
yeyovuiuv... e|ieve xal o IlXwTivoc. Erennius and Origen made the pact.
Plotinus 'too' kept to it, even though Plotinus had been absent from the school
when Ammonius died (or gave up his teaching) and even though he had not
therefore taken part in the pact in person.
Hence, no doubt, a certain laxity in keeping to the exact terms of the agree
ment. Plotinus did reveal the doctrines of Ammonius in his lecture courses and
even, when the day came, in his writings, but not to all and sundry. The writings
were made available, at first, only to a 'few'. And, in the early years, the lectures
and discussions were open only to a limited number of those who wanted to
attend them.32
III. THE SECRET DOCTRINE
The hidden doctrines
I turn now to the second part of my talk, and to the obvious question: w
were the ideas which, as late as 263 (the date of Porphyry's arrival in Rom
were communicated only to a chosen few, and even so only with misgivings?
I am not the first to have asked (more or less) that question. Dodds notes
the 'obvious' answer to identifying the hidden doctrines of Ammonius wou
the One and mystical union with the One.33 An answer which Dodds think
less obviously wrong, although it is an answer part of which has been rev
124
D. O'Brien
recently by Marie-Odile Goulet-Caze.341 am second to none in my admirati

Mme Goulet's study of the academic background to the Life, but I think
Dodds is right on this point. Mme Goulet's answer is based merely on intui
to put things less kindly, it is a mere guess, a shot in the dark.35 And yet
might think, what else have we to go on? Despite the impressive number of
devoted to Ammonius in various publications (most recently Schroeder's ar
in Aufsteig und Niedergang der romischen Welt) we really know next to no
of Ammonius' beliefs; indeed how could we hope for things to be otherw
since Longinus tells us specifically that Ammonius wrote nothing?36 What
sible criterion therefore can enable us to distinguish, within the various treatis
the Enneads, ideas which originated with Ammonius?
For Plotinus is oddly secretive about his contemporaries. At a first glance
'doxographical' introductions to Plotinus' various analyses readjust like w
one finds in Aristotle: a round-up of earlier opinions, criticism and refutat
them, statement of the author's own opinion and argument for it. But there i
crucial difference that whereas Aristotle includes his contemporaries in his
graphical surveys (Eudoxus, Speusippos, Xenocrates), Plotinus, with the not
exception of the Gnostics, does not. Were it not for extraneous informatio
should have no idea that that the opening chapter of the treatise Against
Gnostics (Enn. II 9 [33]: mention of an 'idle' intellect) included a covert crit
of Numenius37, or that the treatise entitled That the intelligibles are not exter
the Intellect (Ennead V 5 [32]) was intended, in part, as an attack on Longin
or that chapter three of that same treatise (the description of those who have
the patience to wait to see the true King) was almost certainly a swi
Origen...39 And in the case of Ammonius, there is nothing to tell us whe
Plotinus may be borrowing or dissenting from him.40
The generation of matter

Nothing, or almost nothing.
There is one region in the philosophical map of the Enneads where studen
Plotinus have long been utterly at odds with one another. It is an issue where
two scholars who have given a lifetime to the study of the Enneads and who m
surely know the text almost by heart (the Reverend Paul Henry of happy mem
and Dr H.-R. Schwyzer) can nonetheless adopt flatly contradictory interp
tions. And yet it is an issue where it is almost impossible to believe that Plo
himself would not have made his mind up.—I refer to the question of the
ration of matter.
It is almost impossible to believe that Plotinus himself should not have k

where he stood on this issue. For at the beginning of his treatise On matte
twelfth in chronological order) Plotinus deliberately states, but with regar
intelligible matter, the two possibilities: either matter is generated, or it is n
Can Plotinus really have ignored that distinction when, in the second half o
125
same treatise, he came to deal not with intelligible matter but with the matter of
the sensible world?
And yet the two scholars I have named come up with totally contradictory
answers to the question of the generation of matter. Henry claims confidently that
the matter of the sensible world was generated.42 And Schwyzer claims, with
scarcely less confidence, that it was not.43 While lesser fry—myself included—
hover in the wings, waiting to take up the cudgels on one side or the other.44
Now that state of affairs is in itself extraordinary enough. But still more extra
ordinary is it if, like me, you think that Plotinus has in fact made his meaning suf
ficiently clear to those who, like Plotinus himself, thought and expressed them
selves in the language of Plato. For if you read the concluding chapter of
Plotinus' treatise On matter with the language of Plato's Sophist ringing in your
ears, then you will at once recognise that matter, the matter of the sensible world,
is, for Plotinus, identified with that part of otherness which is opposed to beirig,
and which therefore, according to the theory of the Sophist, is non-being.45 And
when Plotinus tells you, in his very next treatise (the third chapter of Various
investigations), that non-being is generated, you will at once appreciate that by
this he means, beyond a shadow of doubt, that matter is generated 46 And should
you nonetheless have any lingering doubts they will be dispelled when, in his
next treatise but one (the opening chapter of On the daimon), you read that the
non-being which has been generated, when it takes on form, turns into body.47
For you will at once guess that the form which makes a body is the form of
'bodilyness' (r) CTW^xaxorrjc)- And you will also at once realise that the only
thing which bodilyness can be added to—the only thing in the sensible world
(other than light) from which 'body' can theoretically be absent—is matter 48
Hide and seek
But my purpose this afternoon is not to persuade you of that thesis (which I
have pursued at length elsewhere), but to remind you of the extraordinary game
of hide and seek that Plotinus plays with his reader in the treatises leading up to
his statement of the generation of matter (i.e. in the treatises leading up to Various
investigations and to On the daimon). For in these earlier treatises Plotinus
virtually taunts his reader with the question of what happens in the final stages of
the process of emanation. The One brings intellect into existence. Intellect makes
soul. Soul makes a multiplicity of lower souls, including 'nature'. And nature:
what does nature make? Plotinus twice raises specifically that question 49 And
twice he specifically tells us that the lower soul does make something. She makes
things inferior to herself.50 But each time he raises the question, Plotinus delibe
rately and explicitly postpones telling his reader just what it is that lower soul
produces.51
One answer of course is 'bodies'. But from as early as Plotinus' second trea
tise (On immortality) we are encouraged to think of 'bodies' as not necessarily
the end of the story. For in his second treatise Plotinus tells us explicitly that soul
126
D. O'Brien
makes bodies when she brings to matter a form, the form of bodilyness.52 He
adds that, without soul, 'perhaps there would not even be any matter at all'.53
really possible to believe that the person who wrote those words did not alr
know what he was going to say, only a few treatises later on? Without s
'perhaps there would not be any matter at all'. Indeed not: for soul, as we
very soon be told, generates the non-being which is matter.54
But if Plotinus knew all along what he was going to say, if he knew all
that both types of matter, intelligible matter and the matter of the sensible w
were generated, why on earth did he not say so outright, in his treatise On im
tality and in his treatise On matterl
Amelius
I will give you one very good reason why not: the presence at his side
Amelius.55 Before Porphyry came on the scene, Amelius had been Plotin
closest friend and ally, and he stayed with Plotinus for twenty-four years
from a couple of years after Plotinus' arrival in Rome to the eve of Plotinus' f
illness and death (when possibly he returned to Apamea to escape the troub
Rome consequent upon the death and defeat of Gallienus).56 But Amelius di
turn up on Plotinus' doorstep as a mere novice. When he arrived he was alre
professed philosopher, and in particular a devotee of Numenius. Indeed so
working had Amelius been, and so devoted to Numenius, that he had gat
together and copied out almost everything that Numenius had ever written
an even greater feat—he had learnt most of it by heart.57
Now from many points of view a shift from Numenius to Plotinus migh
seem too drastic. Most people at the time could hardly tell the difference betw
between the two philosophers anyway, so much so that Plotinus was accuse
plagiarising Numenius, and Amelius had later to be given the task of writi
special treatise to show just where the difference between the two philoso
lay.58 And from our point of view it is a great pity that we no longer pos
Amelius' treatise, for the fragments of Numenius, and particularly the fragm
surviving from his treatise On the good, are indeed extraordinarily close
Plotinus both in their thought and in their expression, and nowhere more so t
on the delicate question of the nature of matter, where Numenius introdu
whole string of terms which were to be taken up again and used late
Plotinus.59
But there was one point on which Plotinus and Numenius disagreed. Matter,
for Numenius as for Plotinus, might be disordered, formless, indefinite and even
infinite, but for Numenius matter was definitely not generated. And not only was
it not generated but, from Numenius' point of view, it was mere folly and igno
rance to think otherwise. For Numenius knew that even in his day some people
did already believe in the generation of matter. But according to Numenius that
was only because they had misunderstood one or two old pythagorean texts. The
127
truth, for Numenius, was that the theory of a generation of matter ne mediocriter
quidem institutis hominibus competit. The whole theory was quite unworthy of
anyone with any pretence to philosophical literacy.60
And yet that was the very theory that Amelius had to stomach from his new
friend and guide, Plotinus.
'Emanation integrate'
Plotinus will undoubtedly have done all he could to sweeten that bitter pill. But
for a traditional Platonist, or even for a traditional 'pythagorean', a bitter pill it
will have been. For Numenius believed, not only that matter was evil (noxia,
maligna, in Chalcidius' Latin translation), but that it was inhabited by an evil
soul. 1 How therefore could an evil matter and an evil soul have been generated
by the sovereign good?
The first big change is that, for Plotinus, matter has no evil soul, nor indeed any
'soul' at all. The matter of the Enneads is utterly lifeless and inert, incapable of
possessing life and incapable of giving life.62
Secondly, although matter is evil, its 'evil' is not the same as culpability.
Matter has not 'chosen' to be evil, nor has it become evil by some falling away
from its initial nature. Matter is evil, simply because of what it is, or rather because
of what it is not.63
For Plotinus has here adapted his reading of Plato's Sophist to a carefully
tailored Aristotelian conception of contrariety. The non-being of Plato's Sophist,
that part of otherness which is opposed to being and is therefore non-being, is
nonetheless not the contrary of being. For two terms which are contraries cannot
participate in one another, whereas otherness, like all the other forms, does parti
cipate in being, with the paradoxical result that the Stranger's non-being is
'beingly not being' (ovxwc t6 (jlt^ ov), 'beingly' (ovxwc) because it participates
in being, 'not being' (x6 p.f) ov) because it is nonetheless other than and opposed
to being.64
Plotinus willingly picks up this paradox, but changes one essential feature of it.
The Stranger of Plato's Sophist claims that the non-being which participates in
being cannot therefore be the contrary of being (since no term can participate in
its contrary), whereas Plotinus introduces a distinction. That part of otherness
which is non-being cannot be the contrary of being qua existence (it cannot not
exist); but it can be the contrary of being qua substance. It can be, and it is. Matter
is precisely that part of otherness which is opposed to the 'beings properly so
called, i.e. the forms' (x& ovxa xupiuc. a $b Xoyot), and it is therefore a non
substance, since it is at the furthest possible remove from the category of sub
stance. And being at the furthest possible remove from the category of substance,
it is therefore the contrary of substance (it is here that Plotinus appeals to Aris
totle). Not being for Plotinus thus becomes, not merely (as for Plato, the different
128
D. O'Brien
parts of otherness) 'not just', but 'unjust', not merely 'not good', but 'bad'.
its badness lies in its very nature. It is bad because it is not.
But how then can matter be generated? What is it that can make 'what is
The answer is soul. Not the highest soul, and not the world-soul (in so far as th
two manifestations of soul are differentiated). Not even (for Plotinus) indiv
human souls. But a 'partial' soul, i.e. a soul which has separated itself from
higher soul and which has come to inhabit, and to inform, the world of plan
That soul, 'the soul which comes to be in plants', generates matter, not bec
as in the case of the One, it overflows, nor even, as in the case of Intellect a
the higher soul, because it turns towards the source from which it has origina
but on the contrary, because it has turned away from the higher soul and tow
itself, thus becoming 'increasingly indefinite' (aopicrcoTepa), with the result
its offspring is a total lack of definition or form, and therefore 'non-being' in
sense defined above, a non-being which is the contrary of substance.67
The production of non-being by soul thus brings to a close all possibility
emanation, for matter, in being totally deprived of form, is entirely sterile, so
so indeed that the matter of the sensible world, unlike Intellect or soul or
intelligible matter, cannot itself turn towards its source, but has to be covered
form, and so made body, by a second initiative on the part of the soul whic
made it.68
With so may unusual qualifications and restrictions hedging around the pro
duction of matter by soul, you might almost wonder why Plotinus sought to
introduce such an innovation at all. The reason (or one reason) is I think quite
clearly given at the opening of his treatise On matter, even though, at this point,
Plotinus is writing of intelligible matter, and not of the matter of the sensible
world. If intelligible matter, he says, were not generated, then there would exist
two independent principles and their relation would be haphazard, the product of
chance (xaxft. auvruxiav).69
To avoid a conclusion so contrary to all that Plotinus held most dear, there was
but one way of escape: matter, even the matter of the sensible world, must be
generated, so that—yes, in a sense—matter, utter evil does spring ultimately from
the One. But with all the precautions and qualifications that I have outlined.
Origen's treatise 'That the King is the only maker'

But in my saying so much you may think that I have wandered far from
Ammonius, and from the days which Erennius and Origen and Plotinus spent
together at Alexandria. Even allowing that the presence of Amelius would have
made Plotinus even more acutely aware than he might otherwise have been of the
dangers of a theory of Emanation integrate, what is there to make us think that
such a theory had anything at all to do with Ammonius or with Origen?
Just one thing more.
129
We know that Origen wrote two works, On daimons and That the King is the
only maker. Scholars and historians (Crouzel, Schwyzer, Puech, Dorrie) have
long sought to relate that second title to the controversies of Origen's own day.70
They have thought (and I think rightly) that the 'King' will be the King of Plato's
Second Letter, the supreme principle of the universe.71 And they have therefore
sought to identify, as a potential adversary of Origen, a philosopher, or a group of
philosophers, who denied that the supreme principle was noirjxnc. Favourite
candidates have been Numenius and the Gnostics. And Plotinus too has been
favoured (especially by Dorrie), on the grounds that Plotinus' King, the One, is
not a 'maker'.72 But in all these interpretations there has been one fatal flaw.
Origen's thesis, to judge from his title, is that the King is the only maker. The
contrary to that thesis is not that the King is not a maker, but that the King is not
the only maker. Origen's (for us) unnamed opponent is therefore someone who
believed that the King, the supreme principle, was a maker, but not the only
maker.
And that is precisely the system of Plotinus, who becomes the obvious target
for Origen's treatise not, as Dorrie thinks, because his King (the One) is not a
maker, but because his King (the One) is a maker, but not the only maker. For
Plotinus' theory is precisely that all things do flow from the One, but not directly
so. From the One comes Intellect, from Intellect the soul, from soul a multiplicity
of souls, and from one of these many souls, 'the soul which comes to be in
plants', there arises matter. Soul is thus 'the final maker', noirjxfic Eayaxoc.
Exactly therefore the position which Origen attacks. For Origen the King is the
only maker. For Plotinus there are many makers, and soul is 'the final maker'.73
IV. CONCLUSION
But I am over-running my time.

I would like to conclude, as you may imagine, that Origen's treatise w
were the literary counterpart to his appearance in the lecture room in R
reproach to Plotinus for having broken the agreement not to reveal the s
Ammonius...
But please do not think that I have been blinded by my own rhetoric. I am, I
hope, as sceptical as the next man, and it seems to me that the study of middle
and of neoplatonism is already difficult and complicated enough without clut
tering the ground with mere imaginary and unproved hypotheses.
All I would like to suggest to you this afternoon is that there are strange dis
crepancies in Porphyry's account of the agreement made by Erennius, Origen
and Plotinus not to reveal the doctrines of Ammonius, and that a number of
details in the Life suggest that Plotinus was not as innocent in this affair as Por
phyry, on a superficial reading of his biography, would have us believe.
130
D. O'Brien
And secondly I would like to suggest to you that in the 40s, 50s and 60s of
third century Emanation integrate was not at all the foregone conclusion tha
would prove to be in later neoplatonism.
And finally I would suggest to you that there may be some connect
between those two conclusions. The agreement may have been made to shield
innocent and the ignorant from the full rigours of a theory of Emanation intdgr
That may be the reason why Plotinus fought shy, in some of his earlier treatise
of stating explicitly and emphatically the theory which he nonetheless do
adhere to.
And as a footnote I would suggest to you that Origen may have written h
treatise That the King is the only maker as a reproach to Plotinus either for
having revealed the secrets of Ammonius, or perhaps, more subtly, for hav
distorted what Origen had understood to be the Master's teaching.
PORPHYRY, VITA PLOTINI, 3.22-35
The Greek text is printed at the begining of this chapter
22-4
When Philip seized the power imperial, Plotinus went up to Rome, at the ag
forty.
24-7
An agreement had been entered into by Erennius and by Origen [and by

Plotinus] not to reveal any of Ammonius' doctrines, doctrines which he had
explained to them in his lectures.
27-8
Plotinus too kept to the agreement; he did teach some of those who came forward,
but he kept secret the doctrines which stemmed from Ammonius.
29-30
Erennius was the first to break the agreement, and when Erennius had taken the
first step Origen followed.
30-2
However, he wrote nothing except the treatise On daimons and, under Gallienus,
That the king is the only maker.
32-4
For a long time Plotinus continued to write nothing, while drawing on his studies
with Ammonius for the courses of lectures that he gave.
131
34-5
And that was how he continued for all of ten years, teaching some people, but
writing nothing.
Notes on the translation
Lines 22-4
When Philip seized the power imperial (<t>iA(nnou tt)v jiaai)\e(av xpomj
oavvog)
The choice of verb (xpaxrjaavTog) is a nice reminder that, more than half a
century after the event, Porphyry is still conscious of the dubious circumstances in
which Philip came to power.74
... Plotinus went up to Rome (... elc; rr)v 'Pujirjv avetaiv)

The use of the compound verb (av-etoiv) is not fortuitous: Rome was the
capital of the Empire, and people went 'up' to Rome, just as today people travel
'up' to London from the Home Counties, or montent a Paris if they are coming
from the provinces. This use of the verb does not seem to be recognised in the
standard dictionaries. It should be: see, for example, Epiphanius, Panarion (=
Adversus haereses) xlii 1.7 (ed. K. Holl, GCS n°31 [Epiphanius ii, Leipzig,
1922], p. 94.20-1), and Epictetus, Dissertationes ab Arriano digestae iii 9.1 (ed.
H. Schenkl, in the series Bibliotheca Teubneriana [2nd edn, Leipzig, 1916],
pp. 259.20-260.1).
...at the age of forty (... Tcooapaxovm yeyovwf evq)

This seemingly simple remark triggers off the whole delicate and disputed
question of the chronological system which Porphyry adopted when writing the
Life.
Following a practice widespread in the ancient world, Plotinus is 'aged 40' as

soon as he has entered the 40th year of his age (and not, as we should think, only
when he has completed his 40th year). This explains how Porphyry can claim
that Plotinus was born 'in the thirteenth year of Severus', and so in 205 (Vita
2.34-7), and yet arrive in Rome 'at the age of forty', in the year 'when Philip
seized power', and so in 244. We should think that, in 244, Plotinus would reach
his 39th birthday and would therefore be aged 39 (205 + 39 = 244). But, for Por
phyry, Plotinus, in 244, is in his 40th year and therefore aged 40.
Cardinal and an ordinal numbers are nonetheless not used indifferently in the
Life. For Porphyry claims to know the year Plotinus was bom in, but not the day,
nor even the month of his birth (Vita 2.23-43). He can therefore state quite defi
nitely that, when he first met Plotinus, the Master was 'in his 59th year' (Vita
4.66-8), i.e. in the 59th year from the year of his birth. But he can say only that, at
the time of their first meeting, Plotinus was 'about 59 years of age' (Vita 4.6-8),
132
D. O'Brien
since to know whether he was in fact already 59 years of age Porphyry w

have needed to know the day of his birth.
Admittedly, we may well wonder how, if that is so, Porphyry should be abl
state categorically that Plotinus came to Rome and started teaching 'at the
forty'. But the fact that Plotinus should arrive in Rome and open his School
age traditionally associated with a person's acme cannot fail to rouse unset
doubts about the whole basis for Porphyry's claim to knowledge of Plotinus
of birth, derived, he tells us {Vita 2.23-43), from Eustochius.
However, the whole question of dates and ages in the Vita is one of con
rable complexity, and I do no more than indicate here some of the questions t
have attempted to deal with in my study of the chronology of the Life.
Lines 24-7
An agreement had been entered into by Erennius and by Origen [and by

Plotinus] ('Epevvtu de xal 'Qpiytvei xai FlAuTtvcj ovvdr)xGv yEyovviOv)
I have suggested above that the two words xal riXwxivw are a gloss. Only so
are we able to give their obvious meaning to the words which follow (lines 27-8):
e^jleve xal o IlAtJTlvoc. Erennius and Origen made the agreement; 'Plotinus too
kept to it', although he had not originally been one of the signatories, so to speak.
See also the note on lines 27-8 below.
... doctrines, doctrines which he had explained to them in his lectures (...
Soyimxtov a df) ev taig axpodoeoiv avroic dvexExaOapro)
In the subordinate clause the particle 5rj adds a touch which is slight but signi
ficant. Used frequently with relatives, 8f) adds emphasis and above all precision.
So it is in Plato's Phaedrus, 258E2-4: the pleasures of writing and of conver
sation do not entail suffering as a precondition, 'which is just what all but a few
bodily pleasures do entail' (o 8f) 6Xtyou naoai ai TiEpl x6 auîa r)Soval
EXOuai). So it is also in the Euthydemus, 289D10-E1: 'I thought that somewhere
hereabouts there would come to light the knowledge that we have been looking
for for so long' (... xf)v £niaxr}p.r)v fjv 6f) naXm CtjxoOîev). The 'knowledge'
that has turned up is not any old knowledge, but just the very kind of knowledge
that Socrates and Euthydemus had been pursuing.75
In the translation I have hoped to bring out some of the force of the particle by
simply repeating the antecedent ('doctrines, doctrines which...'). In its context,
the sentence acquires an almost legalistic flavour: the doctrines not to be revealed
are precisely those doctrines that Ammonius had explained in his lectures.
Lines 27-8
Plotinus too kept to the agreement (t/xeve xal o nXorlvog)

As noted above, the xai is all important. Previous translators had simply left
out the word. Alerted (by me) to possible dangers, the authors of the latest French
133
translation in contraria currunt, and make the word mean more than it possibly
can (Plotin, comme les autres.. ,).76 The whole difficulty is avoided if we agree to
suppress xal IIXutivw at the beginning of the sentence (lines 24-7). Only Eren
nius and Origen made the agreement. Plotinus 'too' kept to it, even though he
had not been a party to the actual formulation of the pact. For this use of (jxvw,
see Liddell, Scott, Jones (henceforward L.S.J.), A Greek-English lexicon 9th ed.
(Oxford, 1940), s.v., 16.
...he did teach some of those who came forward (... uvvcjv yxv tlcti t<3v
npoaidvTtJv)
The word ouvwv which, here and below (lines 34-5), I have translated as
'teaching' (and which in the French version is rendered even more formally as
donner un enseignemenP) does not of course properly bear so strict a meaning.
The literal meaning is simply 'associate with', and it is only because the verb is
used specifically of the association of pupil with teacher, or vice versa (L.S.J., s.v.,
II 3), that, in the context of the Life, it can be taken to imply a professional asso
ciation which faute de mieux can be loosely covered by the word 'teaching' (or
'instruction'). In fact, Plotinus' 'teaching' embraced a range of activites a good
deal less formal than attendance at the lecture courses mentioned below (lines 32
4: 5iaxpi3dg). Thus we know that during his summer holidays Plotinus gave up
formal teaching, but continued to 'associate' with his pupils/disciples 'in other
ways' (see Vita 5.3-5: auvovxog 6i ftAAwc £v xaig 6fiiXiaig).78
Plotinus' use of the expression in this sentence is important for our under
standing of the passage as a whole. Brisson claims that Plotinus put off opening
his School until he was joined by Amelius 'in the third year of the reign of
Philip', and so in 246 (cf. Vita 3.38-42).79 But at the end of the passage we find
the same expression (lines 27-8 = lines 34-5: auvuv (jlev xicn) used in a context
which forbids this interpretation. For, at the end of the passage, we are told that
the period when Plotinus 'taught some people' (auvuv fjxv xtot), but wrote
nothing, continued 'for all of ten years' (Vita 3.34-5). Since we are also told, in a
later chapter of the Life, that Plotinus started writing 'from the first year of the rule
of Gallienus' (Vita 4.9-11), and so from 254, the 'ten years' must stretch back
from 254 to 244. This is the year when 'Philip seized power' and when Plotinus
arrived in Rome (Vita 3.22-4). We must therefore conclude that Plotinus started
teaching in the very year that he arrived in the City, and without waiting for
Amelius to join him.8"
Brisson's misunderstanding of the text (Plotinus did not start teaching until
246) is no innocent lapse. Brisson is out to find multiples of 7 in the Life, and
must therefore have Plotinus open his School when he is aged (7x6=) 42
years.81 This, despite the proud claim, in the opening sentence of his chapter, that
he will follow 'un ordre chronologique aussi rigoureux que possible'.82
134
D. O'Brien
... but he kept secret the doctrines which stemmed from Ammonius (... vnp
Avixrwara ra napa tov 'Appovtov ddypara)
A.-Ph. Segonds, in his note on this passage, asserts that the word dvexTr
occurs only twice elsewhere.83 He quotes Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae
309, and Synesius, Epistula 137 (PG 66, col. 1525C = p. 332.27 ed. Garzy
These two references Segonds has lifted (without acknowledgment) from L
and from Lampe respectively.85 There is in fact a third occurrence, listed i
index to Westerink's edition of Olympiodorus' commentary on Plato's Fir
Alcibiades (Olympiodorus 133.2, on Alcibiades 118B5).86
In these three texts the context is of things too deep for words (Olympiodor
or too shameful to bruit abroad (Josephus), or of philosophical convictions
intimately held to be disclosed in casual conversation (Synesius). The wor
thus very much at home in the account of the agreement: the ideas of the
Master were not to be exposed to the common gaze.87
Lines 29-32
Erennius was the first to break the agreement ('Epcvviov Si npurov rote
ouvOijxac napafiavTOc)
If we adopt a 'literary' interpretation of the agreement, we have to suppose that

Erennius broke his promise by publishing some written work. But despite his
place in the British Museum catalogue of printed books, nothing is in fact known
of Erennius, other than what we can read in (or read into) the present passage.88
Lines 30-2
However, he wrote nothing except the treatise 'On daimons' ("Eypaipe Si:
ouSiv to «IIepi r<3v 8a.ip.6vuv>> avyYpappa)
Since the Origen of the Vita 'wrote nothing' except the treatise On daimons
and the treatise quoted below, he cannot therefore be the same person as the
Christian writer of the same name, who was one of the more prolific writers of late
Antiquity.89
It is no less impossible for Porphyry, at the time when he wrote the Vita, to
have thought that the two persons were the same. In an extract from the third
book of his treatise Against the Christians, quoted by Eusebius in the long
account which he gives of Origen's life and works in the sixth book of his His
toria ecclesiastica, Porphyry specifically refers to the Christian Origen as some
one 'still famous because of the writings he has left'.90 It is commonly supposed
that Porphyry wrote the Contra Christianos in the 270s, when he went to live in
Sicily, after leaving Plotinus.91 When Porphyry came to write the Vita Plotini,
some thirty years later, towards the end of his life, he cannot therefore have
135
possibly thought that the Origen of whom he had written, in the Contra
Christianos, that he was 'still famous because of the writings he has left', was the
same person as the Origen of the Vita, whose total bibliography extended to two
items and no more.92
It is true that some of the details given of the Christian Origen in Eusebius'
quotation from Porphyry's Contra Christianos have been thought to clash with
what we are told elsewhere. R. Goulet claims therefore that, at least at the time of
writing the Contra Christianos, Porphyry could have failed to distinguish the
pagan from the Christian Origen.93
But, even at the time of writing the Contra Christianos, it is virtually impos
sible that Porphyry should have simply identified the two Origens. For the point
Porphyry makes in the Life, that, apart from the two titles listed, Origen 'wrote
nothing' is repeated, even more starkly, by Longinus, in the preface to his treatise
On the end, where Longinus specifically includes Origen, author of a treatise On
daimons, among those philosophers who relied on personal contact for the dis
semination of their ideas, and whose writings, if any, were a mere parergon 94
Longinus' preface was written not earlier than 263, and not later than 26 9 95 It
is difficult therefore, if not impossible, to suppose that the preface should not have
been available to Porphyry, who had left Rome for Sicily a year earlier, 'in about
the fifteenth year of the reign of Gallienus' (Vita 6.1-4), in 268, and who, at the
time of his stay in Sicily, was still on the most cordial terms with his former tea
cher and mentor.96 But if Porphyry had read Longinus' preface at the time of his
stay in Sicily, he could not possibly have written, in the Contra Christianos, that
the Origen credited by Longinus with only a single treatise was 'still famous
because of the writings he has left' (cf. Hist. eccl. vi 19.5).97
The dating of the Contra Christianos, it is true, is far from assured. Did Por
phyry perhaps launch his onslaught on the Christians many years after leaving
Plotinus, and so in his old age?98 This revised dating would only make the iden
tification of the two Origens all the more impossible, for it would close the gap
between the Contra Christianos and the Vita Plotini. On this revised dating, Por
phyry's claim, in the Vita Plotini, that the pagan Origen 'wrote nothing' (Vita
3.30-2) would be more or less contemporaneous with his recognition, in the
Contra Christianos, that the Christian Origen was 'still famous because of the
writings he has left' (cf. Hist. eccl. vi 19.5). But both assertions cannot have come
from the pen of the same author, at the same time, without it being obvious that
the two Origens were not the same.
It is of course possible that Porphyry 'confused' the two Origens in the sense
that he allowed what he knew of the pagan Origen to colour what he thought he
knew of the Christian author. But what is not possible, in the light of the passages
quoted, is that Porphyry should have imagined that the two Origens were one and
the same person, either at the time of writing the Vita, or when he wrote the
Contra Christianos."
136
D. O'Brien
... under Gallienus, 'That the king is the only maker' (... ini raAirjvov «"O
lidvoQ noLrjrfic o fiaoi\EV£»)
It seems to me beyond doubt that here, as in innumerable other contex
derived from Plato's Second Letter, the 'King' is the ruler of the univers
With this interpretation of the title, the crucial point, as I have noted, is that
King should be the only maker. Origen's unnamed adversary, or adversar
assuming that there were such, must therefore be supposed to have upheld
doctrine that there were several makers, of whom the King was only one. T
precisely the doctrine to be found in the Enneads.
The totally different meaning of the title, whereby the King was the ru
emperor, and £nl r<x/Unvou means 'for Gallienus', who is therefore being pra
by Origen for his literary achievements as a poet, was upheld until recentl
Luc Brisson.101
Brisson now shifts his ground by claiming that the title was deliberately
guous. 'Les deux interpretations', he writes hopefully, 'pourraient bien etre v
en meme temps.'102 But, if one thinks about it, how could this possibly be so?
Even with the title translated correctly, chronology rears its head again.
In the preface to his treatise On the end, Longinus includes Origen amo
those philosophers who relied on personal contact and who therefore publi
little or nothing (cf. Vita 20.36-47). To make his point, he quotes the titl
Origen's work On daimons, but makes no mention of a second treatise. Th
obvious conclusion to be drawn from Longinus' silence is that, at the tim
writing, Origen's second treatise (That the King is the only maker) had not
been published, or had been published too recently for Longinus to have
word of it.
This conclusion is wholly compatible with what we know of the dating of the
two texts. Porphyry tells us, in the present passage, that Origen's treatise was
written 'under Gallienus' (Vita: 3.31-2: faXinvou), and so between 253 and
268. Longinus' preface (see above) was written subsequently to Porphyry's arri
val in Rome and before the departure of Plotinus and Amelius, and so not earlier
than 263 and not later than 269. If we keep only to these dates, it is entirely pos
sible that Origen's second treatise should not have been written until late in the
reign of Gallienus, after Longinus had written the preface to his treatise On the
end.
R. Goulet would have us think otherwise. In order to support his thesis of a

confusion, in Porphyry's mind, between the pagan and the Christian Origen,
Goulet prefers to suppose that, when Longinus wrote his preface, both Origens
were already dead.103 But there is in fact nothing to tell us that Origen, author of
the treatise On daimons, was dead when Longinus wrote his preface.
Goulet's arguments on this point have little force.104 When Longinus praises
Ammonius and Origen for their intelligence (cf. Vita 20.38-9: dvSpdaiv oux
K 137
oAlyu t£5v xa0' eauxoug etc auveaiv StEveyxoOatv), the use of a past tense
(Steveyxouoiv) does not imply that Origen was dead, merely that Longinus,
writing in the sixties, is referring to philosophers he had known many years
before, as a young man.105 Equally, when Longinus writes (cf. Vita 20.40-1)
wcT7iEp 'QpiyEvei x6 «Ilepi xwv 5aip.6v<jv», this does not at all imply that
he quotes only one treatise as an 'example' of Origen's literary production, deli
berately keeping other titles up his sleeve. In its context, the use of oanep is quite
different. Origen with his single treatise On daimons is quoted as an example of
philosophers who, even if they wrote something, nonetheless did so only on a
quite casual basis and without making writing a focal point of their activity. 06
Longinus' silence is, on the contrary, a good indication that, when Longinus
was writing, Origen was still alive. For if Longinus had known of a second trea
tise by Origen, it would have disingenuous to the point of dishonesty for him not
to have mentioned it at this particular juncture, where he is listing 'famous philo
sophers I have known' (cf. Vita 20.17 sqq.), and specifically classifying them
according to whether or not they wrote anything (cf. Vita 20.25 sqq.). And if
Longinus had no knowledge of Origen's second treatise at the time when he
wrote the preface to his treatise On the end, then by far the most likely conclusion
must be that, at that time, the treatise had not yet been published. It would be
unlikely in the extreme that Longinus, one of the most erudite and widely-read
scholars of his day, should not have known of a second treatise from the hand of
Origen, if such a treatise were already in existence.
Goulet jibs at this conclusion. In particular, he protests that I do him an injus
tice when I quote his sentence:
En 301, Porphyre ne connait de l'Origfene platonicien que deux traitds qui n'ont
pas suffi, d'aprfes Longin, a faire de leur auteur un vdritable philosophe 6crivain.107
Despite Goulet's complaint, I cannot read this sentence ('deux traites qui n'ont
pas suffi, d'apris Longin...') except as implying that Longinus did in fact know
of Origen's second treatise at the time of writing his preface. Which, if it were
true, would make his silence, in the passage quoted in the Vita (cap. 20.36-47),
inexplicable.108
It is true that, a few pages later, Goulet leaves open the possibility that Longi
nus did not know of Origen's second treatise:
Longin dans son Tlcpt tôuc ignorait ou du moins ne mentionnait pas le traitd
d'Orig&ne 6crit sous Gallien.109
The two sentences are inconsistent. In the first sentence quoted Goulet clearly
implies that Longinus did know of Origen's second treatise. In the second sen
tence quoted he explicitly leaves open the possibility that he did not.110
The inconsistency is symptomatic of the dilemma which faces Goulet in his
assumption about the relative dates of Longinus and of Origen. To support his
general thesis (on Porphyry's failure to distinguish the two Origens), Goulet
138
D. O'Brien
wants the pagan Origen well out of the way by the sixties of the third century,
he therefore concludes that he was dead by the time that Longinus came to w
of him in his preface.111 But Goulet is then faced with the awkward fact tha
Origen is to have produced a second treatise before he died, he must have d
so before Longinus wrote the preface to his treatise On the end, and so bef
263. Why then has Longinus not included any mention of the treatise in h
account of Origen? Goulet concludes (in the sentence I last quoted) th
although the treatise had already been published, either Longinus knew not
of it, or he did know of it but for some reason decided not to mention it.112
If Goulet fails to choose between the two arms of this alternative, it is bec
both are equally implausible. Longinus, one of the most erudite men of his
can hardly not have known of a treatise published by someone with whom he
been intimately acquainted and for whose intelligence he had the highest est
(Vita 20.36-9); while had he known of such a treatise, it is quite incredible tha
should have failed to acknowledge its existence in the very passage where h
taking stock of Origen's literary activity (or the lack of it). And yet Goulet i
the uncomfortable position of having to choose one or other of these two v
implausible hypotheses, if he is to avoid the obvious conclusion that Longi
does not mention Origen's treatise because he has not heard of it, and that he
not heard of it because the treatise has not yet been published (or because it
been published too recently for a copy to have found its way to Longinus at
time that he wrote his preface).
I conclude that, whatever the truth about 'Porphyre, Ammonius, les deux
gene et les autres...', two facts stand firm in the kaleidoscopic world of names a
dates surviving from late Antiquity. Neither at the time of writing the Life,
even at the time of writing his treatise Against the Christians, can Porphyry h
simply identified the Origen who was an author manquS with the Christian
gen 'still famous for the writings he has left'. And Longinus, at the time of wri
the preface to his treatise On the end, cannot have known of the existence
second treatise by the pagan Origen.
Lines 34-5
...all of ten years (... oAov etcjv 5exa)

We return to problems of chronology. If we adopt the usual translation of 'ten
complete years', we are committed to finding a period of ten times twelve months
during which Plotinus wrote nothing.113 But since Plotinus arrived in Rome
'when Philip seized power' (Vita 3.22-4), and so in 244, and since Porphyry tells
us later (Vita 4.9-11) that Plotinus started writing 'from the first year of the rule of
Gallienus', and so from 254, we are in trouble. For to make the period from 244
to 254 cover a period of 10 times 12 months, we shall have to suppose that Por
phyry counted from some specific date in the year 244 to at least the equivalent
139
date in 254, and that Plotinus (according to Porphyry) started writing only once
this date had been passed.
This conclusion becomes all the more unlikely when we find that a similar
problem recurs with other periods of 'whole years' that Porphyry mentions in the
Life. Amelius stayed with Porphyry for 'twenty-four whole years' from his arrival
'in the third year of the reign of Philip' to his departure 'in the first year of the
reign of Claudius' (err} oXa [...] ri'xooi xal xeaoapa, Vita 3.38-42), and so
from 246 to 269. Plotinus himself, who arrived in the City 'when Philip seized
power' (Vita 3.22-4), and so two years earlier, in 244, lived there for 'twenty-six
whole years' (eixom xal ef etuv oAwv, Vita 9.20-2), and so presumably left the
City in the same year that Amelius did. In both cases, the years spent in Rome
can be 'whole' years, only if we suppose that Plotinus and Amelius arrived on
the first day of January, in 244 and in 246 respectively, and stayed until the last
day of December of the year 269.
All of which is of course wildly improbable. But, to find my solution to this
problem (encapsulated in the expression 'all of ten years'), the reader will have to
look up my study of the chronology of the Vita.
Denis O'Brien
Paris
Notes
1. All these details are taken from Porphyry's Life of Plotinus, published in a
critical edition in the first volume of P. Henry and H.-R. Schwyzer's edition of the
Enneads, entitled Plotini opera, t. i (Paris/Bruxelles, 1951), in the series Museum Les
sianum series philosophica, n° 33, with an editio minor published in the Scriptorum
classicorum bibliotheca oxoniensis (Oxonii, 1964).—I shall have frequent occasion to
refer to a two volume study of the Life, by several authors including myself, entitled
Porphyre, La Vie de Plotin, t. i, Travaux preliminaires et index grec complet, t. ii,
Etudes d' introduction, texte grec et traduction frangaise, commentaire, notes compli
mentaires, bibliographie, in the series Histoire des doctrines de I'antiquity classique,
n° 6 and n° 16 (Paris, 1982 and 1992).—I have outlined my understanding of the
chronology of the Life in a separate study, and I here take for granted the conclusions
reached there. For example, in stating that Plotinus was aged 50 when he began writing
what were to be the Enneads, I follow what I believe to have been the ancient practice,
adopted by Porphyry in the Life, whereby Plotinus will have been thought of as aged 50
as soon as he reached his 50th year.
140
D. O'Brien
2. The one controversial detail concerns the time of Ammonius' death, a p

which I shall look into in a moment. Doubts have also been cast on whether Ammonius
taught in Alexandria. I find it difficult to take these seriously, but I consider the possi
bility in the final section of my study of the chronology of the Life.
3. Since our meeting in Dublin, a version of my account of the vow of silence has
been published in the second volume of Porphyre, Vie de Plotin (t. ii, pp. 419-59:
'Plotin et le vocu de silence'), but only in a truncated form (see esp. p. 446 n. 35). I am
glad to be able to provide here an unexpurgated account.
4. Porphyre, Vie de Plotin, t. ii, p. 216-17.
5. H.-R. Schwyzer, 'Ammonios Sakkas, der Lehrer Plotins', Rheinisch-West
falische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Geisteswissenschaften, Vortrage G 260
(Opladen, 1983), see esp. pp. 15-19 and 72-8. I shall give here a simplified version of
Schwyzer's interpretation, since Schwyzer's own statement of his thesis I find impossibly
ambiguous. (See the pages entitled 'La rupture du pacte: l'6tude de H.-R. Schwyzer', in
Porphyre, Vie de Plotin, t. ii, p. 455-9.)
6. Vita 3.34-5. I turn to a more precise analysis of the meaning of oAg>v etuv
6exa (translated here as 'all of ten years') in my study of the chronology.
7. Plotinus started writing 'from the first year of the rule of Gallienus' (Vita 4.9
11). I adopt 'postdated' years for the reigns of Gallienus and of Claudius. Gallienus' first
regnal year will be the year 254. His fifteenth regnal year thus becomes the year 268,
and the year following, 269, will be the first year of the reign of Claudius. Details and
explanation may be found in my study of the chronology.
8. Longinus, a contemporary of Plotinus, provides a detailed review of the philo
sophical literature of his day in the preface to his treatise On the end. Porphyry has
incorporated this text verbatim into his Life of Plotinus (Vita 20.17-104). Almost inevi
tably, a Renaissance forgery was attached to the name of Erennius (see my notes on the
translation at the end of this chapter). Longinus' silence is in fact a pretty good guarantee
that Erennius wrote nothing.
9. Vita 3.30-2 (quoted above).
10. Longinus (as quoted by Porphyry in the Vita, 20.40-7) says that Origen's trea
tise On daimons was a mere ndpepYov. I shall have more to say later of his treatise That
the King is the only maker. Plotinus began to write 'from the first year of the rule of
Gallienus' (Vita 4.9-11).
11. This argument depends of course on the dating of Longinus' own treatise On
the end. Since Longinus speaks of Porphyry as already in Rome he must be writing after
Porphyry's arrival in the City in the tenth year of Gallienus, in 263 (cf. Vita 4.1-14 and
5.1-7), and since he also refers to Amelius' being still with Plotinus he must be writing
before Amelius' departure in the first year of Claudius, in 269 (cf. Vita 3.38-42). Inter
nal evidence I think allows us to date publication even more narrowly, to approximately
the years 265/266. See my note 'La date de composition du trait6 de Longin Sur la fin', in
Porphyre, Vie de Plotin, t. ii, pp. 447-54.
141
13. Vila 3.34-5 (quoted above).

14. The two sentences: Vita 3.24-8 and 3.34-5.
15. The two expressions: Ttjpuv dvexnixrra (Vita 3.28) and ypdûv ou5ev
(Vita 3.35).
16. Cf. Vita 3.27-8.
17. Cf. Vita 3.32-5. In the penultimate sentence (Vita 3.32-4), axpi tioAAou
has the same reference as oAwv etuv Sexa, in the final sentence (Vita 3.32-4); see above.
18. Vita 1.4-19; see esp. lines 13-14.
19. The two passages: Vita 3.27-8 (cf. line 35) and Vita 1.13-14.
20. Vita 4.9-16; see esp. lines 14-15.
21. Vita 4.9-16; see esp. line 15.
22. Vita 3.24-32.
23. Vita 14.20-5.

25. Vila 3.27 (quoted in full above).
26. The translations they give are listed in Porphyre, Vie de Plolin, t. ii
7. Bibliographical details will be found in a (would-be) complete bibliogr
editions, translations and commentaries on the Life from 1492 (the editio pr
Ficinus' Latin translation) to 1980, included in Porphyre, Vie de Plotin, t. i, pp.
27. I shall here summarise Vita 3.6-24, taking for granted the dates an
established in my study of the chronology of the Life.
28. The 'eleven years' spent with Ammonius can in fact be calculated eith
Plotinus' 28th year to his 38th year, and so from 232 to 242, or from his 29th y
39th year, and so from 233 to 243 (in either case, counting inclusively). I h
adopted the first of these two possibilities. The second form of calculation
stayed with Ammonius until 243) would mean that Plotinus' eleventh year with
nius was the same as the year that he set out with Gordian for the East: and th
tions of my argument would therefore be only the more compelling.
29. Vita 3.24-7 (quoted above). See also the notes to my translation, at th
this chapter.
30. Vita 3.27 (quoted above).
31. Vita 3.24-5. Even the latest French translation takes account of only one xou,
see Porphyre, Vie de Plotin, t. ii, p. 137 ('Ercnnius, Origfene et Plolin avaient fait
pacte...'). Naturam expellas furca...
32. There were genuine discussions in the School: see especially Vila 13.8-17;
cf. Vila 3.35-8.—Readers may feel at this point that I have shirked any study of the
wider background to the oath. It is of course true that 'secrets', of one sort or another,
were rife in the world of ancient philosophers. Most notorious were the Pythagoreans:
for a recent study, sec L. Brisson, 'Usages et fonctions du secret dans le Pythagorisme
ancien', in Le secret, 'textes r6unis par Philippe Dujardin' (Lyon, 1987), pp. 87-101.
The same desire for secrecy crops up in the most unlikely places. John Dillon reminds us
142
D. O'Brien
of a very curious passage from Sextus Empiricus, Pyrrhoniae hypotoposes

(H. Mutschmann [ed.], Sexti Empirici opera, vol. i, in the series Bibliotheca Teu
ana [Lipsiae, 1912], pp. 60-1), where even Arcesilaus, founder of the Sceptica
demy, is said to have imparted the doctrines of Plato to an inner circle of those who
sufficiently talented and who had passed the test of 'aporeticism'. Jean P6pin (Porph
Vie de Plotin, t. ii, p. 222, on Vita 4.13-16) quotes a similar story of Polemo,
from a passage of St Augustine (Contra Academicos III 17.38), where Zeno is suppos
refused access to the writings of Plato until he had disabused himself of ideas learn
where.—But just how relevant arc such passages to a detailed study of the text o
phyry? For example, Pepin claims that the comparison with Zeno would explai
phyry's having been 'entrusted' with the writings of Plotinus once he had abandone
doctrine, central to the dispute between Plotinus and Porphyry's former teacher L
nus, of the exteriority of the objects of Intellect to Intellect (cf. Vita 18.20). But in
the second passage (Vila 18.20) does not wholly explain the first (Vita 4.9-16): for w
Porphyry says that the writings of Plotinus were 'not yet' made freely available
4.9-16), he is not writing only of himself. The parallel with the passage from Augu
though interesting, is therefore incomplete. Augustine implies that the treatme
imagines as being meted out to Zeno (Polemo's refusal to allow him access t
writings of Plato) was exceptional, whereas, at the time Porphyry is writing of, in
ter four of the Life, just the opposite is the case: access to Plotinus' writings w
exception (the writings were given out only to 'a few', cf. oXiyoic, Vita 4.14), not,
Augustine's imaginary scenario, the rule.—For the passage from the Contra Academ
J. P6pin quotes W.M. Green's edition of the Contra Academicos in the little-kn
series, Stromata patristica et mediaevalia, fasc. 2, Vltraiecti/Antverpiae [Utrech
werp], 1956. Lesser mortals may content themselves with looking up the edition w
Green published fifteen years later in the series, Corpus Christianorum, series l
vol. 29, Turnholti [Turnhout], 1970 (for this passage, see pp. 57.33-58.59).—I mu
leave the subject of secrets and secrecy without warmly recommending an article b
L. Cherlonneix, entitled 'L'intention religieuse de l'«6sot6risme platonicien», 4 pr
d'un certain pacte du secret 6voqu6 par Porphyre dans la Vie de Plotin', publish
Porphyre, Vie de Plotin, t. ii, pp. 385-418. Readers with time on their hands can ba
more than thirty pages of glorious French, secure in the knowledge that they will
nothing, but nothing, which might help them to a more detailed understanding of the
of Porphyry printed at the head of this chapter.
33. E.R. Dodds, 'Numenius and Ammonius', Les sources de Plotin, in the seri
Entretiens sur I'Antiquite classique, n° 5 (Vandocuvres-Gen&ve, 1960), pp. 1-6
pp. 27-8.
34. Porphyre, Vie de Plotin, t. i, pp. 259-61. See also the footnote following this.
35. For Mme Goulet's study of the academic background to the Life, see Marie
Odile Goulet-Caz6, 'L'arri&re-plan scolaire de la Vie de Plotin', in Porphyre, Vie de
Plotin, t. i, pp. 229-327.—In her account of the vow of silence, Mme Goulet recognises
that, as Dodds had also pointed out, belief in the One cannot have been included as part
of the 'contenu doctrinal' of the agreement, since Origen, for one, specifically refused to
143
acknowledge any principle superior to Intellect. (See the text from Proclus' Theologia
platonica, quoted n. 39 below.) Mme Goulet therefore suggests that Ammonius'
'discovery', which the three disciples agreed not to divulge, 'n'entrainait rien de moins
qu'un dfiplacement de la recherche traditionnelle vers une approche d'ordre mystique des
rapports avec les niveaux supdrieurs de la r6alit6' (Porphyre, Vie de Plotin, t. i, p. 260).
But even so loose a formulation can still be no more than an inspired (or uninspired)
guess.
36. F.M. Schroeder, 'Ammonius Saccas', in Aufstieg und Niedergang der romi
schen Welt, ed. W. Haase and Hildegard Temporini, Teil II, Band 36.2 (Berlin/New
York, 1987), pp. 493-526. See in general R. Goulet, 'Ammonius dit Saccas', in
R. Goulet (ed.), Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, t. i (Paris, 1989), pp. 165-8.
Longinus tells us specifically that Ammonius wrote nothing: see the preface to his treatise
On the end (cf. Vita 20.25-9 and 36-47).
37. An 'idle' intellect: see Enn. II 9 [33] 1-2, esp. cap. 1.27-9. Cf. Numenius, fr.
21 ed. Leemans (fr. 12 ed. Des Places). (For references to Numenius, see n 59 below.)
38. The polemical context of Enn. V 5 [32], That the intelligibles are not exterior
to the Intellect, is, I believe, given by what Porphyry tells us in the Life (cap. 18.8 sqq.;
see esp. lines 14-19), and by Longinus' remarks in the preface to his treatise On the end
(cf. Vita 20.90-104).
39. In the procession of divine realities, the true King appears last of all, when
some of the spectators have already gone on their way: see Enn. V 5 [32] 3.8-15. For
Origen's theory, see, for example, the criticisms expressed by Proclus, Theologia plato
nica II 4 (H.D. Saffrey and L.G. Westerink [ed.], Proclus, Th£ologie platonicienne,
livre II, texte itabli et traduit par H.D.S. et L.G.W., in the Bud6 series [Paris, 1974],
pp. 31.2-28).
40. For further details of the texts quoted in the preceding three footnotes, see
Porphyre, Vie de Plotin, t. ii, pp. 448-50, and my contribution to a collection of essays
in honour of Jean Pdpin, 'Orig&ne et Plotin sur le roi de l'univers', in Zo<t>(r)Q [latij
ropef, «Chercheurs de sagesse», in Collection des Etudes augustiniennes, sdrie Anti
quity n° 131 (Paris, 1992), pp. 317-42.
41. Enn. II 4 [12] 2.8-10.
42. When Paul Henry first raises the question he in fact rather fudges the issue (he
talks of a 'relaxed dualism'), but he does later come out cleanly in favour of a generation
of matter. For Plotinus' 'relaxed dualism', see Henry's revised version of 'The place of
Plotinus in the history of thought', printed as a preface to the '3rd' (i.e. the 2nd Faber
and Faber) edition of Stephen MacKenna's translation, Plotinus, the Enneads (London,
1962), pp. xxxv-lxx (see esp. pp. lvi-lvii); reprinted with unchanged pagination in the
4th edition (1969). For what I take to be Henry's later view, see his remarks in Les
sources de Plotin, in the series Entretiens sur I'Antiquitf classique, n° 5 (Vandoeuvres
Gen&ve, 1960), pp. 236-7. (Though printed later, Henry's preface to MacKenna's trans
lation was, I believe, written earlier.)
144
D. O'Brien
43. For H.-R. Schwyzer's view see most notably, 'Zu Plotins Deutung dcr so
nannten Platonischen Materie', in Zetesis, album amicorum [...] aangeboden aan Prof.
E. de Slrycker (Antwerpen/Utrecht, 1973), pp. 266-80 (see esp. pp. 275-6).
44. My own two latest contributions to the puzzle are Plotinus on the origin
matter, an exercise in the interpretation of the 'Enneads', in the series Elenchos,
lana di testi e studi sul pensiero antico, n° 22 (Roma/Napoli, 1991), and Thdod
plotinienne, thdodicde gnostique, in Philosophia antiqua, a series of studies on an
philosophy, n° 57 (Leiden/New York/Koln, 1993).
45. The concluding chapter of Plotinus' treatise On matter: see Enn. II 4 [12]
(lines 1-3 are a deliberate echo of the definition of non-being given by the El
Stranger at Soph. 258E2-3). For the interpretation of Plato's Sophist adopted here
later in this chapter, the reader may like to look up two articles of mine, one in Fre
'Platon et Plotin sur la doctrine des parties de l'autre', Revue Philosophique de la Fra
et de I'Etranger, 116e ann6e, t. 181 (1991), pp. 501-12, and the other in Italian, 'II
esserc e la diversity nel Sofista di Platone', Atti dell'Accademia di Scienze Mor
Politiche di Napoli vol. 102 (1992), pp. 271-328.
46. Enn. Ill 9 [13] 3; see esp. lines 7-16.
47. Enn. Ill 4 [15] 1; see esp. lines 5-17. I identify the 'non-being' (t6 (if) ov) a
'the indefinite' (t6 aopurrov) of Enn. Ill 9 [13] 3 (see lines 9 and 13) with the 'ut
indefiniteness' (aopicmav [...] rtavxeAfi) of Enn. Ill 4 [15] 1 (see lines 11-12).
48. I here combine the two passages just quoted: Enn. Ill 9 [13] 3 and Enn. I
[15] 1. The form which soul confers on her offspring in the first passage (Enn. Ill 9
3, see esp. lines 15-16) I believe is the same as the form which the off-spring of
receives in the second passage (Enn. Ill 4 [15] 1, see esp. lines 14-15), when it 'bec
body'. I have dealt with these two passages in more detail in the two publicat
mentioned earlier (Plotinus on the origin of matter and Thdodicde plotinienne, thdod
gnostique).
49. Enn. V 1 [10] 7.42-9; Enn. V 2 [11] 2.29-31.1 simplify, by giving a single name
('nature') to the lower soul of Enn. V 1 [10] 7.42-9 and to the 'soul which comes to be in
plants' of Enn. V 2 [11] 2.29-31.
50. Enn. V 1 [10] 7.47-8: the soul makes things 'inferior' to herself. Cf. Enn. V 2
[11] 2.30: the soul makes 'that in which she is'.
51. At Enn. V 1 [10] 7.48, Plotinus writes: 'We shall have to speak of that later.'
The reference is picked up at Enn. V 2 [11] 2.30-1, where Plotinus speaks of nonetheless
still needing to make 'a fresh start'. ('Does the soul bring nothing to birth? Yes, she does
bring to birth that in which she is. But we shall have to make a fresh start to see how she
does so.')
52. This is the burden of the opening chapters of the treatise On immortality: Enn.
IV 7 [2] 2-3.
53. Enn. IV 7 [2] 3.24-5.
54. To summarise: the question asked explicitly in Enn. V 2 [11] 2.29-30 ('Does the
soul bring nothing to birth? Yes [fi], she does bring to birth that in which she is') picks
145
up the discussion left hanging at Enn. V 1 [10] 7.48 ('We shall have to speak of that
later'); while the 'further discussion' promised in the concluding lines of Enn. V 2 [11]
2.30-1 ('But we shall have to make a fresh start to see how she docs so') is given in the
two treatises quoted above, Various investigations (Enn. Ill 9 [13] 3) and On the daimon
who has taken charge of us (Enn. Ill 4 [15] 1).
55. The materials relating to Amelius (many of them taken from Porphyry's Life
of Plotinus) have been usefully gathered together by Luc Brisson, 'Amfilius: sa vie, son
ceuvre, sa doctrine, son style', in Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt, ed.
W. Haase and Hildegard Temporini, Teil II, Band 36.2 (Berlin/New York, 1987),
pp. 793-860.
56. Vita 3.38-42.
57. Vita 3.42-8.
58. Vita 17, esp. lines 1-6. Porphyry quotes at length the dedicatory epistle (
17.16-44).
59. The fragments of Numenius have been collected by E.A. Lcemans, Studie o
den Wijsgeer Numenius van Apamea mit Uitgave der Fragmenten, in the scries Acad
royale de Delgique, classe des lettres, n° 37 (Bruxelles, 1937), and by E. des P
(ed.), Numtnius, fragments, texte dtabli et traduit par E. des P., in the Bud6 se
(Paris, 1973). Numenius, as reported by Euscbius, said that matter was aneip
aoptcrroc, aXoyoc, ayvwaxoc;, axaxxoc and oux ov. See Eusebius, Praeparatio e
gelica xv 17.3 (ed. K. Mras, in the scries Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller
ersten Jahrhunderte [henceforward GCS], n° 43.1-2 [Eusebius Werke viii 1-2, 2nd cdn
by E. des Places, Berlin, 1982], vol. ii, p. 382.1-4), printed as fr. 13 Lcemans an
fr. 4a Des Places.—All these features of Numenius' theory can be paralleled in Plot
Matter, for Plotinus, is aneipog- (Enn. II 4 [12] 15), aopicrrog (Enn. II 4 [12] 6.19,
frequently in later passages of the same treatise) and aAoyoc; (Enn. VI 3 [44]
Plotinus too believes that matter is 'unknowable' (cf. ayvuerroe) and 'without or
(cf axaxxoc): see esp. Enn. I 8 [51] 9 and Enn. II 4 [12] 15. While Plotinus also clai
that matter is 'not being' (for example, Enn. Ill 9 [13] 3), though for reasons
radical than that given by Numenius (at the end of the passage quoted: ... o x
e<txt)xev, oux olv Eli) ov).—A (rather unilluminating) study of Numenius has been
lished recently by M. Frede, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt
W. Haase and Hildegard Temporini, Teil II, Band 36.2 (Berlin/New York, 19
pp. 1034-1075; on the question of matter, see esp. pp. 1051-1054.
60. Chalcidius, in Tim. 295 (J.H. Waszink [ed.], Timaeus a Calcidio translat
commentarioque instructus, in Plato latinus iv [Londinii et Leidae, 1962], pp.
298.9); reprinted as testimonium 30 Leemans and as fr. 52 Des Places.
61. These ideas are all to be found in the continuation of the passage alre
quoted from Chalcidius (in Tim. 295-9 (pp. 297.7-301.20 ed. Waszink).
62. The object generated by soul is 'lifeless' (Enn. Ill 4 [15] 1.7: a£cjv). T
concluding half chapter of the treatise On the impassibility of incorporeals (III 6
19.17-41) is entirely given over to a denunciation of the sterility of matter (wi
146
D. O'Brien
contrast of male and female principles calculatcd to make any red-blooded feminist's
stand on end).
63. This is the main burden of Plotinus' treatise On what evils are and where they
come from (Enn. 1 8 [51]).—In this and what follows I shall be giving skeleton references
only. Fuller details may be found in 'Plotinus on evil: a study of matter and the soul in
Plotinus' conception of human evil', first published in the Downside Review 87 (1969),
pp. 68-110, and reprinted with one or two corrections in Le Ndoplatonisme
(Royaumont, 9-13 juin 1969), Colloques internationaux du Centre national de la
recherche scientifique, sciences humaines (Paris, 1971), pp. 113-46.
64. This is the interpretation of the Sophist adopted in the two publications men
tioned earlier (n. 45). The expression I have quoted (ovxuc t6 (if) ov) is taken from the
Eleatic Stranger's 'second' definition of non-being {Soph. 258E2-3). The first—and dif
ferent—definition is given at 258A11-B3. See also 256D8-10 (ovrue oux ov) and 254D1
(ovtgjc \ii) ov).
65. Plotinus repeats (with a significant different in wording) the Eleatic Stranger's
'second' definition of non-being (Soph. 258E2-3) at the beginning of the final chapter of
his treatise On matter (Enn. II 4 [12] 16.1-3). The expression ovruc ov from Soph.
254D1 (see the footnote preceding this) is picked up at Enn. II 5 [25] 5.24. For matter as
the contrary of substance (but not of existence), see chapter six of the treatise On what
evils are and where they come from (Enn. I 8 [51] 6, esp. 17-59).—For the theory of 'the
parts of otherness' given in the Sophist, see 257C5-258A6.—For Aristotle's definition of
contrariety, see his account of Quantity in chapter six of the Categories (cap. 6, 6all
18). Aristotle's definition (esp. al7-18: y&P nXelcrrov AAAriXuv 6iecrrr)xora xCv ev
tO auxO y£vei evavria 6pi(ovrat) is taken up by Plotinus in the chapter of On evils
already referred to (see esp. 6.40-1: ... evavrta xa nAeiarov aXXr)Xuv a^f.crrrixoTa).
Plotinus' theory is not of course the same as Aristotle's (it never is): Aristotle will not
allow there to be any contrary to substance or to individual substances (see esp. Cat. cap.
5, 3b24-4bl9), whereas Plotinus' conception of matter is precisely that it is opposed to
'the beings properly so-called, i.e. the forms' (see the passage already quoted: Enn. II4
[12] 16.1-3).
66. A 'partial' soul: Enn. Ill 9 [13 ] 3.7. The soul 'which comes to be in plants':
Enn. Ill 4 [15] 1.4-5; cf. Enn. V 2 [11] 1.18-21; 2.29-31.
67. See the two main passages already quoted: Enn. Ill 9 [13 ] 3 (aopLoxoxepa,
lines 11-12) and Enn. Ill 4 [15] 1.
68. This is the burden of the same two passages already quoted: Enn. hi 9 [13 ] 3
(6eirrep9t npoaPoXrj, lines 15-16) and Enn. Ill 4 [15] 1. In these two passages there is a
deliberate and specific contrast with what had earlier been written of Intellect (Enn. V 2
[11] 1.9-11), soul (ibid., lines 19-20) and intelligible matter (Enn. II 4 [12] 5.33-5).
69. We return here to the passage I first quoted: Enn. II 4 [12] 2.8-10.
70. I here return to the thesis defended in my article, 'Orig&ne et Plotin sur le roi
de l'univers', in Zo<p(r)Q /laajTopec, «Chercheurs de sagesse», in Collection des Etudes
augustiniennes, sdrie Antiquity, n° 131 (Paris, 1992), pp. 317-42.
147
71. Epist. II, 312E1-4. (The letter is not, of course, authentic.)

72. Dorrie has had several stabs at this thesis (all listed in the article quoted
above). His most recent statement on the subject is in his article 'Ammonios Sakkas',
Theologische Realenzyklopadie, Band ii (Berlin, 1978), pp. 463-71. (Dorrie here writes
specifically, p. 466: 'Der "Konig" [sc. of Plotinus] kann nicht die Funktion des Schop
fers haben.')
73. 'The final maker' (noirixric £<JXaTOC): see Enn. 113 [52] 18.13-14. Signifi
cantly, this treatise falls after the date when Origen had published his treatise That the
King is the only maker. Origen published his treatise 'under Gallienus' {Vita 3.30-2), and
so not later than 268. Ennead II 3 is one of the four treatises sent to Porphyry 'at the
beginning of the second year' of the reign of Claudius, 'soon before Plotinus died' (Vita
6.16-25), in 270.
74. Details arc disputed: according to one version, Philip's predecessor, when
campaigning in the East, was murdered, while still in his teens, with the connivance, if
not at the instigation, of Philip, who tried to spread the rumour, in Rome, that the young
man had died of natural causes. See E. Stein, 'Iulius 386', RE x (1919), col. 755-70
(Philip = Marcus Julius Philippus), and the literature quoted by L. Brisson, Porphyre,
Vie de Plotin, t. i, pp. 77-8 and 135-6; t. ii, pp. 211-12.
75. I have taken these two examples from Hoogeveen and from Dcnniston respec
tively. See H. Hoogeveen, Doctrina particularism linguae graecae, auctore et editore
//.//., t. i ([Leydcn], 1769), pp. 298-9 (cap. XV, sect. VI); J.D. Dcnniston, The Greek
particles (2nd edn 'with corrections', Oxford, 1966), pp. 218-19 (= I 9, i).—See also
Euripides' Ilippolytus, 347: xi to09' 8 8r) Xeyoucnv avGpwiouc; epav; Following the
Oxford text, Dcnniston prints with a comma after avGpconouc, and translates: 'this
unknown thing that men call love'. The comma is removed and the passage is correctly
translated and nicely explained by Barrett, ad loc. (W.S. Barrett [ed.], Euripides, Hip
polytos, edited with introduction and commentary by W.S.B. [Oxford, 1964], p. 224):
'What is it they mean when they say people are... in love?'
76. Porphyre, Vie de Plotin, t. ii, p. 137.
78. On the meaning of oîiXia and on the various (occasionally quite potty) trans
lations proposed of the passage from Vila 5.3-5, sec R. Goulet, Porphyre, Vie de Plotin,
t. i, pp. 216-17.
79. L. Brisson, 'Plotin: une biographic', Porphyre, Vie de Plotin, t. ii, pp. 1-29;
see esp. pp. 6-7.
80. It is true that, on the dating given here, we do, so to speak, have a year to play
with. For the ten years when Plotinus taught, but wrote nothing (Vita 3.34-5), are
probably intended to be the ten years running from 244 to 253 (ten years, counted inclu
sively), while 254 is probably counted as the first year of Plotinus' career as an author.
But the year 'to spare' is not enough to rescue Brisson's interpretation. For on Brisson's
dating we should have to find ten years starting in 246 (the third year of Philip, when
148
D. O'Brien
Amelius joined Plotinus in Rome) and ending in 254 (the first year of Gallienus,
Plolinus started writing). And that is just not possible.
81. See especially Porphyre, Vie de Plotin, t. ii, p. 4 n. 7.
82. Porphyre, Vie de Plotin, t. ii, p. 1. The same (erroneous) dating, but wit
any explanation, is to be found in Brisson's article on Amelius (Aufstieg und Niede
der romischen Welt, ed. W. Haase and Hildegard Tcmporini, Teil II, Band 36
[Berlin/New York, 1987], pp. 793-860; see p. 807).—Of the other multiples of s
which Brisson endeavours to extract from the Life, only one actually exists in the
(Vita 3.6-13): Plotinus was converted to philosophy 'in his 28th year' (4x7 =
Brisson also quotes the incident of the wet nurse when Plotinus was 'in his 8th
(Vita 3.2-6), and Plotinus' age when he started writing, ten years after his arriv
Rome at the age of 40 (Vita 3.22-4; 4.9-11), and so, by deduction, at the age of 50. B
is a mere sleight of hand to claim that, by these two figures, Porphyry means to sp
Plotinus as 7 years old and as (7 x 7 =) 49 years old. For to speak of Plotinus wh
was 'in his 8th year' as '7 years old' is to introduce precisely the distinction of car
and ordinal years which is absent from the Vila. Worse still: if we reduce Plolinus
year' (Vita 3.2-6) by one unit so as to reach the figure 7, then, to be consistent, we
also reduce his '28th year' (cf. Vita 3.6-13) by one unit, and in that case we destroy
solitary example of a multiple of 7 which did prima facie exist in the text.
84. To the reference from Migne, I have added an edition of Synesius' letter
A. Garzya (ed.), Opere di Sinesio di Cirene, Epistole, operette, inni, a cura di A.
the series Classici greci, Autori della tarda antichitd et dell'etd bizantina (To
1989): Epistola 137 = pp. 330-4 (p. 332.27: xa xeioe ovexnucrra). Segonds quot
earlier edition of the letters from the same hand, Synesii Cyrenensis epistolae
recensuit, in the series Scriptores graeci et latini consilio Academiae Lynceorum
(Romae, 1979): Epistola 137 = pp. 237-40 (avexnuaxa, p. 238.15). The let
numbered 136 in the Patrologia, and 137 in Gar/ya's two editions.
85. Lampe = G.W.H. Lampe, A patristic Greek lexicon (Oxford, 1961).
86. See L.G. Westerink (ed.), Olympiodorus, Commentary on the First Alcib
of Plato, critical text and indices by L.G.W. (Amsterdam, 1956), p. 153 (in Inde
Vocabulary and proper names). For the passage there quoted (Olympiodorus 133.
p. 88 Westerink.
87. How odd, incidentally, that the editor of Proclus' commentary on the A
ades should have missed the reference in Westerink's index (see the footnote prece
this), especially since, in Segonds' introduction to his edition and translation of Pr
nearly fifty pages are taken up by a long description of Olympiodorus' commen
including a hefty chunk of translation. See A.-Ph. Segonds (ed.), Proclus sur le Prem
Alcibiade de Platon, t. i, texte etabli et traduit par A.Ph.S., in the Bud6 series (
1985), pp. LXIX-CIV (Introduction 6: Le commentaire d' Olympiodore).
88. See British Museum catalogue of printed books (to 1955), vol. 102 (Lon
1961), col. 365: 'Hcrennius, the Philosopher. Commentarius ad Metaphysica Arist
149
Gr.' The title listed (A. Mai [ed.], Classicorum auctorum e Vaticanis codicibus editorum
tomus ix [Romae, 1837], pp. 513-93: Herennii Commentarius ad Metaphysica Aristo
telis) is a mere cento of texts from later commentators, mainly Proclus and Damascius,
as is demonstrated by E. Heitz, 'Die angebliche Metaphysik des Herennios', Sitzungs
berichte der koniglichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (Berlin,
1899), pp. 1167-1190. See also L.G. Westerink, in the introduction to L.G. Westerink,
J. Combos (ed.), Damascius, Traitd des premiers principes, vol. i, De iineffable el de
I'Un, texte etabli par L.G.W. et traduit by J.C., in the Bud6 series (Paris, 1986), pp. CXI
CIV (Introduction 7: Le pseudo-IIerennius).—Despite its being obviously spurious, I
would nonetheless have been curious to see the editio princeps of Erennius' supposed
commentary, reportedly published at Samosc in Poland in 1604, Simone Simonide inter
prete. (For references, see Praechter, 'Herennios 1', Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopddie
der classischen Altertumswissenschaft VII [1912], col. 649-50.) But I cannot lay my
hands on a copy anywhere in London or in Paris.
89. Epiphanius, Panarion (=Adversus haereses) lxiv 63.8 (p. 501.7-8 ed. Holl),
claims for the Christian Origen the phenomenal total of six thousand titles. Even if this is
a vast exaggeration (see Holl's long and learned note on the passage), the identification of
Epiphanius' Origen with the Origen of the Vita is still impossible.—Texts concerning
Origen's account of daimones, and which may or may not come from his treatise On
daimons, have been assembled by K.-O. Weber, Origenes der Neuplatoniker, Versuch
einer Interpretation, in the series Zetemata, n° 27 (Munchen, 1962). See also H. Lewy,
Chaldaean oracles and theurgy, mysticism, magic and Plalonism in the later Roman
Empire, in the series Publications de I'lnstitul frangais d' archiologie orientate, Re
cherches d'archeologie, de philologie et d'histoire, n° 13 (Le Caire, 1956), pp. 497-508
(Excursus XI: The work of the neoplatonist Origen 'Concerning the demons'). (The so
called 'nouvelle Edition' of Lewy's work 'par Michel Tardieu', published in the series
Etudes augustiniennes [Paris, 1978], is in fact an unchanged reprint, followed by
copious 'Complements' [pp. 513-734] by M. Tardieu, E.R. Dodds, P. Hadot.)
90. Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica vi 19.5 (G. Bardy [cd.], Eusebe de C6sar6e,
Histoire ecclesiastique, livres V-Vll, texte grec, traduction et notes par G.D., in the series
Sources chrttiennes, n°41 [Eusdbe, Histoire eccldsiastique, t. ii, Paris, 1955],
p. 114), quoting Porphyry: ext 6i* xoxaXeXomev airyYpa(i|i.dTuv eudoxtjiouvtoc.
The text from Eusebius is given as fr. 39 in A. von Harnack (ed.), Porphyrius, Gegen die
Christen, in Abhandlungen der koniglich Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch
historische Klasse (Berlin, 1916).
91. Eusebius writes specifically that when Porphyry wrote 'against us' he was
living in Sicily {Historia ecclesiastica vi 19.2 [p. 113 ed. Bardy]). It is therefore com
monly supposed that Porphyry wrote the Contra Christianos when he went to live in
Sicily after leaving Plotinus, 'in about the fifteenth year of the reign of Gallienus', in 268
(see Vita 2.31-2 and 6.1-4). For an alternative dating of the Contra Christianos, see
n. 98 below.
92. Since Porphyry refers to himself, in the Life, as in his 68th year (Vila 23.12
14), and since he was aged 30 when he joined Plotinus 'in the tenth year of the reign of
150
D. O'Brien
Gallienus' (Vita 4.1-9), in 263, he must have written the Life about the turn of the
tury, and so some thirty years after the conventional dating of the Contra Christian
93. R. Goulet, 'Porphyre, Ammonius, les deux Origfene et les autres...', R
d'histoire et de philosophic religieuses 57 (1977), pp. 471-96. Goulet adopts th
ventional dating of the Contra Christianos. He concludes (p. 495): *11 y aurait done
eu deux Origfene, mais un seul dans l'esprit de Porphyre au moment du Contra Chr
nos.' Goulet repeats his thesis in his article on Ammonius in R. Goulet (ed.), Di
naire des philosophes antiques, t. i (Paris, 1989), pp. 165-8; see pp. 166-7.
94. Longinus' preface is transcribed by Porphyry in chapter twenty of the L
For Longinus' account of Origen, see Vita 20.36-47.
95. See n. 11 above. The preface was written not earlier than 263: Longinus re
to Porphyry's studying with Plotinus, and must therefore be writing after the tent
of Gallienus, when Porphyry joined the School (Vita 4.1-14). The prefacc was wr
not later than 269: Longinus refers to both Plotinus and Porphyry as still prese
Rome (cf. Vita 20.32-3: oVte piypi vOv ev rg Pcjjjl^ 6r)p.o<TieuovTEc...), and must t
fore be writing not later than the first year of Claudius, when both Plotinus and A
left the City.—Amelius came to Rome 'in the third year of the reign of Philip
stayed for twenty-four years before leaving 'in the first year of the reign of Clau
(Vita 3.38-42). Plotinus arrived two years earlier, 'when Philip seized power'
3.22-4), and stayed for twenty-six years (Vila 9.20-2). He must therefore have left i
same year as Amelius.
96. Longinus sent Porphyry, when he was still in Sicily, a particularly warm
ter, which is copied out in chapter nineteen of the Life.
97. Goulet expressly recognises (pp. 484-5; see esp. p. 485 n. 42) that, whe
wrote the Contra Christianos, supposedly in the 270s, Porphyry would have al
known Longinus' treatise On the end. Goulet claims nonetheless that, even after re
some of the voluminous works of the Christian Origen, Porphyry could stil
believed that this was the Origen of whom Longinus states that he wrote nothing, o
to nothing (p. 491): 'Porphyrye a-t-il pu, vers 271, penser que l'Orig&ne dont il v
de lire certains ouvrages 6tait ce philosophe, disciple d'Ammonius, dont Longin et P
lui avaient par 16 [...]? II semble que la rdponse soit oui.' To still the reader's ob
qualms, Goulet does eventually write (p. 494): 'On pcut se demander comment il s
que Porphyre ne se soit pas 6tonn<5 de retrouver sous les traits d'un autcur chr
cdl&bre un philosophe qui, selon Longin, n'avait pratiquement rien dcrit. S'est-il im
que Longin avait pass6 sous silence la carri&re chrfiticnne d'Origfene ou meme qu'il
perdu la trace de son ancien maitre? II faut sans doute renoncer & connaltre ce qui
passd dans l'esprit de Porphyre en cette circonstance.' But the fact that we cannot im
how Porphyry could have succeeded in believing that Longinus' Origen was the fam
author of whom he writes in the Contra Christianos seems to me a good enough in
tion that Porphyry never did believe anything of the sort.
98. This is the date which Barnes seeks to establish for Porphyry's work ag
the Christians: see T.D. Barnes, 'Porphyry Against the Christians: date an
151
Proceedings of the Dublin Conference onNeoplatonism, 1992
attribution of fragments', Journal of theological studies n.s. 24 (1973), pp. 424-42; esp.
pp. 433-42.
99. I expect stiff rear-guard action, so perhaps I had better make it doubly clear
that my conclusion holds on either of the two datings proposed for the Contra Christia
nos. (1) When Porphyry was living in Sicily after leaving Plotinus, he presumably
already had available the preface to Longinus' treatise On the end. If this was the time
that Porphyry wrote the Contra Christianos, he cannot possibly have thought that the
Origen 'still famous because of the writings he has left' was the same as the Origen
whom Longinus specifically classed among philosophers who had written nothing, or
next to nothing. (2) If, on the contrary, following Barnes (see the footnote preceding
this), we suppose that Porphyry wrote the Contra Christianos many years later, towards
the end of his life, the conclusion is the same. Porphyry cannot have identified the Chris
tian Origen 'still famous because of the writings he has left' with the Origen of whom he
himself claims, in his Vita Plotini, that he 'wrote nothing' except the two titles quoted.
100. A generous selection of texts is listed by H.D. Saffrey and L.G. Westerink in
their introduction to Proclus, Thdologie platonicienne, livre II, in the Budd series (Paris,
1974), pp. XX-LIX (Introduction 2: Histoire des exegdtes de la 'Lettre II' de Platon
dans la tradition platonicienne).
101. Porphyre, Vie de Plotin, t. i, p. 114. Brisson here translates the title ("Oti
jiovoc; nourrfye 6 PatrtXeuc;) as Que le roi seul est poete. See also pp. 75-6.
102. Porphyre, Vie de Plotin, t. ii, pp. 217-18.
103. R. Goulet, 'Sur la datation d'Origfene le platonicien', Porphyre, Vie de Plotin,
t. ii, pp. 461-3. Cf. Revue d'histoire et de philosophic religieuses 57 (1977), p. 486;
cf. pp. 489-90.
104. Porphyre, Vie de Plotin, t. ii, pp. 461-3.
105. Here, as later in line 50, xa9' Aauxouc restricts the comparison to the 'con
temporaries' of the persons named. The scene has been set at the beginning of the passage
by Longinus' reference to his travels with his parents when he was still a boy (lines 20-1:
etl pxipaxiuv ovtojv r)(j.£3v...).—At line 38, I have written 6Aiyu and not oXfyuv,
following the reading adopted by Henry and Schwyzer in their editio minor (Oxonii,
1964; 'reprinted 1978'). Rather oddly, the reading of the editio minor is reported as
oAtyu and not as oAt'yw in the editio maior of Plotini opera, t. iii (Paris/Bruxelles/
Leiden, 1973), p. 349 (Addenda et corrigenda ad textum et apparatum lectionum,
Emendationes probandae). One can understand that the editors should have decided not
to bother telling us when the manuscripts have an iota subscript and when they do not
(see t. i of the editio maior, p. XXXV); but it is disconcerting to find the same principle
applied to a modern edition, and so to be told (t. iii of the editio maior, p. 349) that the
editio minor has oAiyo when in fact it has oAi'yu.
106. Cf. Vita 20.40-7: xod y&p ei tt toutiov yeyparrrai xicuv, ojcmep 'npiycvei
(jl^v t6 «IIepl tuv 6ai(x6va)v» [...] oux eyeyyua rcpbc t6 [ieT& t£5v ££eipyaa|j£v(jv t6v
Xoyov auToue api0p.eiv &v yevoi-ro.
152
D. O'Brien
107. The original sentence: Revue d'histoire et de philosophie religieuses 5

(1977), pp. 483-4. My quotation of it: Porphyre, Vie de Plotin, t. ii, p. 452. Gou
protest: ibid., p. 462.
108. Goulet is not alone in his error. Dorrie too makes out that Longinus kne
Origen's second treatise. See his article 'Der Konig, ein platonisches Schliisselwor
Plotin mit neuem Sinn erfiillt', in Revue internationale de philosophie, 24e annde,
n° 92 (1970), pp. 217-35. But Dorrie's error is even more incomprehensible, sin
passage he quotes (p. 222) is taken from chapter three of the Life, where Dorrie cla
that Porphyry is quoting from Longinus. There is no earthly reason why this shou
so.
109. Revue d' histoire et de philosophie religieuses 57 (1977), p. 490.

110. Cf. Porphyre, Vie de Plotin, t. ii, pp. 452-3.
111. See Revue d'histoire et de philosophie religieuses 57 (1977), p. 486. See also
Porphyre, Vie de Plotin, t. ii, pp. 462-3.
112. Goulet repeats his position in Porphyre, Vie de Plotin, t. ii, p. 461: 'II est
possible que Longin ait connu ce traitd et n'en ait pas parld. II est possible dgalement qu'il
ne l'ait pas connu.' In order to avoid this being a v£rit£ de La Palice, we do of course
have to supply the silent premiss: Origen's second treatise (so Goulet believes) had
already been published at the time when Longinus was writing.
113. 'Ten complete years': see, for example, A.H. Armstrong (ed.), Plotinus, with
an English translation by A.H.A., vol. i, Porphyry on the Life of Plotinus and the order of
his books..., in The Loeb Classical Library (London/Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1966),
p. 11.
153

Denis O Brien - The Secrets of Ammonius

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Denis O Brien - The Secrets of Ammonius

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Plotinus and the Secrets of Ammonius

Author(s): Denis O'Brien

Plotinus was allyears

I refer to the agreement by which Plotinus and two other pupils of Am

II. THE AGREEMENT

The story of the pact

A translation into English, and a few notes, will be found at the en

Kal OiXiTinou xfjv [SaaiAdav xpaxrjaavxog xEaaapaxovxa yeyovibc; ext)

'Epevviu xai 'Qpiyevei xal IlXuxivu cjuv8t)xwv yeyovmuv p.r}8ev

'EpEvviou 8£ rrptixou x&e auvOnxae napa[3dvxoe, 'OpiyEvnc P-£v

"Eypa(|j£ 6e ou8£v nXfjv x8 «rkpl xuv 6aip.6vwv» auyypap^j.a xai eni

nXuxivoc 8i axpi piv noXAoO ypd<t>cov ou8£v SiexeXeoev, ex 8t xrjg

The oral interpration, the written interpretation

The emotional colouring

If you have not been totally blinded by Porphyry's hagiographical approach to

Hence the contradictions in Porphyry's acount of Plotinus' role in chapter

An emendation of the text

III. THE SECRET DOCTRINE

The hidden doctrines

recently by Marie-Odile Goulet-Caze.341 am second to none in my admirati

The generation of matter

It is almost impossible to believe that Plotinus himself should not have k

Hide and seek

Origen's treatise 'That the King is the only maker'

But I am over-running my time.

PORPHYRY, VITA PLOTINI, 3.22-35

The Greek text is printed at the begining of this chapter

An agreement had been entered into by Erennius and by Origen [and by

Notes on the translation

... Plotinus went up to Rome (... elc; rr)v 'Pujirjv avetaiv)

...at the age of forty (... Tcooapaxovm yeyovwf evq)

Following a practice widespread in the ancient world, Plotinus is 'aged 40' as

since to know whether he was in fact already 59 years of age Porphyry w

An agreement had been entered into by Erennius and by Origen [and by

Plotinus too kept to the agreement (t/xeve xal o nXorlvog)

If we adopt a 'literary' interpretation of the agreement, we have to suppose that

R. Goulet would have us think otherwise. In order to support his thesis of a

...all of ten years (... oAov etcjv 5exa)

2. The one controversial detail concerns the time of Ammonius' death, a p

13. Vila 3.34-5 (quoted above).

24. Vita 3.24-7 (quoted above).

of a very curious passage from Sextus Empiricus, Pyrrhoniae hypotoposes

57. Vita 3.42-8.

71. Epist. II, 312E1-4. (The letter is not, of course, authentic.)

107. The original sentence: Revue d'histoire et de philosophie religieuses 5

109. Revue d' histoire et de philosophie religieuses 57 (1977), p. 490.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi