plotinus, enn. 3.9.1, and later views on the intelligible world

8/16/2019 Plotinus, Enn. 3.9.1, And Later Views on the Intelligible World

1/9

merican Philological ssociation

Plotinus, Enn. 3.9.1, and Later Views on the Intelligible WorldAuthor(s): John M. DillonSource: Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 100 (1969),pp. 63-70Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2935901 .

Accessed: 07/03/2014 16:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.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 [email protected].

.

American Philological Association and The Johns Hopkins University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 181.118.153.57 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:46:52 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhuphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2935901?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2935901?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup


2/9

PLOTINUS,

ENN. 3.9.1, AND

LATER

VIEWS

ON THE INTELLIGIBLE WORLD

JOHN

M. DILLON

UniversityfCalifornia,erkeley

Plotinus' hort ote n the nternalompositionf the ntellect,hich

Porphyry asplaced s thefirst f the

7TtlcKEJ0/ElSt

3aopot (Enn. 3.9

[I3]), gave rise n laterNeoplatonismo a varietyf

interpretation.

In

particular, melius Gentilianus nd Porphyry, oth

of them

pupils

nd companions f the Master ormanyyears, eem to

have

drawn

quite differentonclusions rom t. They are

each criticized

for heir

onclusionsy amblichus,ndthen y

Proclus,

achofwhom

himselfook thepassagedifferently,ringing hetotal f interpreta-

tionsto four.

I

wish, therefore,fter ecordingn

turnAmelius'

and

Porphyry'soctrinen theDemiurge, o turn o a

detailed xami-

nation f the short assagefromwhich ll this

bewildering ariety

appears o have sprung,' nd to consider ow

theirvery various

interpretationsouldhavearisen rom

t.2

The stimulusor hedoctrine,orPlotinus nd

Amelius t anyrate,

was

Plat. Tim. 9E:

7rTEp oiuv

vovs~

EvovaagLS Eacg

T oEu0

tLpov,

otat

TE

EVEtUt KaL

orat,

KaOopf,

TgoLcLTVOs

KaU

TOUcWTcs &EVO7)

AqEUV

Ka'

TOSE

oXE-,

I

We

cannot, of

course,

ignore

the

probability that

Plotinus'

pupils based

their

views of

his

doctrine

equally

much on

unpublished

discussions

with the

master-

Amelius

explicitly

refers o

such in

another

connection

Procl.

In

Tim.

2.2I3.9 ff.

Diehl)-but their

positions

re in fact

dequately

derivable

fromEnn.

3.9.I. Porphyry

puts

3.9

among the first

roup

of treatises,

ritten

efore

his

time,

which would mean

that he cannot

have

participated n

the discussion

which

led to it.

Amelius, on the

other

hand, very

probably

did.

2

I

am

not here

concernedwith the

occasion forthe

writing

f

3.9.I, which

was

the

thesis

hat

he deas

are

outside he

ntellect-a

view

to which

Porphyry imself dhered

(Vit.

Plot.

I8) when he first

rrived

n

Plotinus'

circle. These

matters

re

discussed

adequatelyby

Brehier

nd

Armstrong

n the

ntroduction

o

the tractate n

their

espec-

tive

editions

Bude and

Loeb).

Indeed, a

look at

eitheror

both of these

editions of

the

tractate s

recommendedbefore

one

proceeds further.


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/9

64

JOHN

M. DILLON

[I969

although he

maindiscussion,

s recorded yProclus Comm.

n Tim.

I,

PP.

305-IO

iehl),3 s basedon Tim.

28c,

no doubtbecause

hat

is wherePorphyrynd amblichus,n their ommentaries,irst aised

the ubject.

LetustakeAmelius irst.

He is the enior

isciple, is ommentary

on

the

Timaeus receded hat

f Porphyry

cf.

EraIa

y

rov

ApeAtov

O

HopoVptoS,

Pr.

I.306.3

?), and he was very

robably resent hen

thediscussionhat ed to Enn.3.9.1

took

place. Porphyrymustbe

taken

s

reacting

o

him, ather

hanhetoPorphyry.

For Proclus, he triad f Demiurgic ntellects as Amelius'most

distinctive octrine. He

reports t

in

two

contexts, propos

of

Timaeus

28C

and

39E, which

atter assage s the one

from

which

Plotinus akes

his

start. Proclus'

vidence

s as follows: i)

In

Tim.

I.306.i

ff.

iehl ad Tim.

8c):

'A/dAtos SE

TptrrOV

7mOmE TOv

&7,4ltOVpyOV

Kac

TpEI&

VOvSo,

/aUtAEas

%

V

I

% V

% C

-

TpE6s,

TOV

OVTa,

TOV

EXOvTaC,

TOV

oPWvTa.

&taOqEpovUc

SE

OV'TOl,

SLOTl O

OYTWS E,T) 0 l 0

c

EU1 " O E) C)WT

IuEv

TpTros VOVSg o5vcog EETCV

O

EaTtv, o

SE

SEvTepoS EaTc IzEv To Ev

av,-

vo7Trov,

EXet

E To

Trpo

avToV

Kal

IzETEXEt

7TmvWrcosEKEtVOV Kal

&ta

Tovro

c

C\

1

V

/ %EV TO E KC 0V0' 7TL' "CU YS 7

aEVTepOS,

0E TptToS

EoUTl

Ev To Ev avTW

Ka)

ovros

7rag

yap

vovg

)

avivyoUv^

vo07JT()

o

avTros

EUTLv

EXEt

SE To Ev

79)

SEvTEpC

Kal

op,a

o

7pWTrov

ocu

yap

TTAELWv

?9

aa7TO6aUTsa

,

TTo Tpwry

o

EXEtv

a.V?poS6TEpov.

TrOVTOVg OVV TOVg TpE1&

v0cs

Kvag

oL0Vpy0VS

V7oATat

Ka' T0oV

lTap\

Tr4

HlA

vt

TpEI&

a Ka' ToV'g 7Tap OpOE-

TpE

s,

(PrT

Ka

VOVpavoV

Kat

Kpovov, KaUo

0aAtFTa

7Tapc

avcrTp

oj,u

oapyos o

EaUTv.

"Amelius

onceives

he

Demiurge

s

triple,

nd says

hat

here re

three

Intellects,

hree

Kings,

he who

is, he who possesses,

nd

he who

sees.

The

firstntellect

s

really

what

he

is;

the

econd s

the

ntelligible

hich

is in

him,

but

he

possesses

he Intelligible

hich

s prior

to

him,

and

in all

ways participates

olely

n

him,

and

is for

this reason

second;

and

third

oo is

what

s in him-for

all Intellect

s

identical

with

the

Intelligible

inked

o it-but

he also possesses

he

contents

f the

second

Intellect,ndsees hefirstlement; or he ntensityf possessionecomes

dimmer

ccording

o

the

degree

fremoteness.

These hree

ntellects

nd

Demiurges

he

also identifies

ith

the

three

Kings

n Plato Ep.

2.3

12E),

3

Proclus Diadochus,

In Platonis

Timaeum

ommentaria,

d.

E.

Diehl, 3

vols.

(Leipzig

I904-6).




4/9

Vol.

IOO]

PLOTINUS,

ENN.

3.9.1

65

and

the

Orphic

riad,

hanes nd

Uranos

and Cronos

fr.

6

Kern),

nd

according o him the

Demiurge

ar

excellence

s

Phanes."

(2) In

Tim.

.103.I8 if.

Diehi

(ad Tim.

9E):

'A,pAto

,uEvo0v

771V

rpta'Sa

TYV

S77UF0VPytKWV

VOcov a'7To

TOV'TV

yLaALtaa

oUVV(T7)UL 1~v

p~~carwcv,

rov

pEv

rpcorov

ovra

KaLAcv

airo

70iat"T

ypov

,

,

t

aO

70

t'

'A-V'"

Ov

o

sort t

wov,

Tov oSE

SEv'Epov EXovTa

a7To

Trov

"Evov'aag"

(

ov

yap

o1

,SEVT

Ep0S,

'AA'

ELULL

EP

p,'no r&o

pvn

ar

o

aSrtv o

oeeps

a

Ltast Ev

avTcry,

Tov

oSE

Tpt`Tov

ep

CvTa

a'rTo'

rov-

KacopcLv.

"Ameliusreliesparticularlyn thispassage n constructingistriadof

Demiurgic

ntellects,

alling

he

firsthe

who

s' from

he

really

xisting

living

being,'

he

second, he

who

possesses,' rom he

phrase,

existing

in'

(for

the

second does

not

exist,

o

much as

that

they

xist n

him),

and the

thirdhe

who sees,'

from

heword

behold."'

Of

the

three, ewv

perhaps

presents

he most

difficulty.

What

does

o EXWV

possess.?

The

ideas,

we must

say,

the

content

f

ro

~CC4ov,

rather

than

ro' CcOov

tself

The

curious

statement

v

yap

EUrrtv

0

3ev'rEpos, aAA'

Etetrtv

E'v av3rcZ

must mean

that

o

E'xawv

is

no

more

than

the sum

of

the

e'vovirat

'Eca. It

is

hard

to

regard

o

e'Xwv

s

conscious

t all.

As

soon

as

he

begins to

contemplate

he deas

within

him, he

becomes

o Jp6v.

But

we

must

turn

now

to

Porphyry

In

Tim. .306.3I

f.):

aLETa

&1

ov

AusdAtov

Hopvptos

0tO/g

o"

rp

HAwri'vp

UVVq8LV,

rrjv

,UEV

IVX7V

'77V

v7TEpKo,u0ov aL7ToKaAEL

&7p1toUVpyOV,

ov

SE

VOV^V

a ' ^ % 0

. ,

%

-

s f * f\

aVT7/S,

7TpOS

Ov

EITErUpa7wTrat,

To

avTop0ov,

coS

EtvaL

TO

7rapaSEtyfia

S1q

tlVpyOV

Ka-ra

Tov^rov

Ov

voV.

"

Following

n

Amelius,

orphyry,

onsidering

imself o

be in

accord

with

Plotinus,

alls

he

hypercosmic

oul the

Demiurge,

nd

ts

ntellect,

towards

hich

t s

turned,

he

ssential

iving

Being,

o that

he

aradigm

of

the

Demiurge s

for

him

the

ntellect."

Proclus

protests

gainst

his.

Where, he

asks,does

Plotinus

make the

Soul theDemiurge? (p.

307.4-5).

This is a questionthat hope to

answer n

what

follows.

Plotinus, s

we have

said,

begins

his

enquiry

from

a

consideration

of

Tim.

9E

(rather

oosely

quoted):

"NovS," 7/oruv,

op,a

Evov'aags

ISE'aS E'v

7r)o o0

E(artL

,ov

Etl'a

8tEVo0)7




5/9

66

JOHN M. DILLON

[I969

riv,

o r

o

a

o

voKS

opa

Lv

ro

0

SrF

COOV,

Kat

TO'SE TO%

7Trv

-or

SflLtkOVpyO,a0VVSptEV

UT

EXEtV.

The firstporia aiseds: Are the

eidel

hen rior o Nous, fNoussees

them as already onta

In

replying o

this,he says, we

must first f

all consider the possibility hat the

Z8on

s not Nous but

other than

Nous. That which beholds is Nous,

so that the Zoon

in itselfwill

not be Nous, but

the object of intellection

noe'ton),

nd thus Nous

will

be

beholding objects outside itself.

But

in

that case Nous will

immediately

cognize not reality, but

eid6la, which is

intolerable.4

We must therefore onsiderNous and to

Zo6on,

ntellect nd its object,

as being distinguished nly in theory:

OiXSEv

KWAV'EL,

OArov

TL

C

AEyO1-4EVp,

EV ELtvat

acqi0b,

8tatpoV'

Eva

rT

VOT).EL,

ETEp

OVOV

O

t

O V T

E

'Ya

o7Cze,erp

uovvwS-

ov

-ro

uev

vo7prov,

o0

vooa3v

o

yap

Ka6o0pcs

ov

9botEV

ETEpLL

7raVrcS,

a

EA

Ev

av07C 7ru

Ev

av7-

7-o

voq7T0rV

ExEtV.

"There

is nothing n the statement

o

prevent

s from

taking

these

two

elements

s

one, although hey

may be distinguishedonceptually,

if only to theextent hatthere s one elementwhich s cognized, nd

anotherwhich

ognizes;

orPlato

does

notmean

that

he lement

which

cognizes

eholds

n

any

ense omething

utside

tself,

utthat

t

contains

the

cognized

lementwithin tself."

The ideas,

and

ro' o

E'-rt ~C-OV,must, then,be in Nous,

or

absurdities

result.

This

conclusion

was more fullyworked out later

n

Enn.

5.5

[32], where therelation

f

ntellect o

the deas

is

the

primary roblem.

Here it sonly thefirst artoftheenquiry. To Zdon,then, sanalyzed

(albeit

somewhat tentatively:

ov'3Ev

KCWAv'Et)

s

vovs-

Ev

VarEt

Kat

EVOT17Tl

Kat

c

rvXt,a,

while

the

voV^s-

3p6V

EKE

tVOV

rOv

vov^V

is

envisaged

as EVEpyEta

'ts-

a7T

EKEtVOV,

OTt

VOEt EKEtVOV.

This

distinction

is

important

s a

source

for

two of

Amelius'

voEs

(and

Demiurges),

the

first

nd the third,

cv and o

o(p65v.

The

second

vovs-,

o

E'Xcov,

is,

however, readily

deducible

from

the

conclusion

that

Nous

possesses

the Zoon within

it

(6v

avro

. .

-.ro

vor-rov

ExEtv).

Nous

qua possessor

can be

reasonablydistinguished

romNous

qua

beholder, especially

if,

as

was

the

case with

Amelius,

one

has a

weaknessfor triads.

Plotinus,

however,

does not

propose

o'

E'xwv

n so

many

words

in

4Porphyry's

equating

of rO

o

E'art

4Cov

with the Paradigm

and with

Nous

(see

above) would

be

open

to this riticism.




6/9

Vol.

ioo]

PLOTINUS,

ENN.

3.9.1

67

this

assage.

nstead, e

produces

nother

ossible

hird

lement,

o

dianooumenon.5

V,

.

tavo7jOE',"

'a

-8

^,,,^

.,

ro

ro (o

vovis

op6v)

oiv

Eart To

&aVOri7EV,

a

EKE

opa,

ev

pV

E

C

Iorulc

7rot7Urat gwuv

yEv7q

'-Errapa.

SOKElE

Ye

rV

TO avoOVEVOV

E71tKEKpV/.qLEEVWsTEpOV

EKELVWV

TYV

UVO IOtEZV.

"

This hens

that

eingwhich

planned' ocreate

nthis

owerUniverse

what

t sees

here,

he our

lasses

f

iving

eings.

He

seems,

ertainly,

to

make he

lanninglement

acitly

istinct

rom

he

ther

wo."

So,

as

he

says

n

thenext

ine,we seem

o

have

hree

lements,

o'4ov

av'r

o

u-Eirtv,

o

vov^s,

and

ro5

tavoov'1evov. Some, he says,may see

all

these

s one,

others s

three; t

depends ow

you look

at it.

If,

however,

ne

postulates

'

8tavoov',Evov

s

a

distinct

lement,

hat

would

be its

role?

Its

role,

s

it

turns

ut,

would

be

distinctly

emiurgic. ts

task

s

cpyauaGrat

Kat

TrovqUrat

Kat

LEpt'crat

ll

those

hings hich

ovs

beholds n

ro'

Wov.

The

energies

fNous

are

turned

nward

pon

itself;hose f r(3

&cavoov4Levov

returnedutward, pon theworld.

A

triad as

emerged.

At this

point,

however,we

reach

starting

oint

for

Porphyry's

doctrine.

Porphyryquatedthe

Demiurge

with

the

V"rEpKo,ufUos'

vxI,

and ts

Nous

with he

Autozoon

ndthe

aradigm.

As

between

the wo

disciples, e

seethe

representation

f

two

extreme

iews-on

theone

hand,

nurge o

schematize

ach

moment f

each

hypostasis

(triadically),

n

the ase

f

Amelius; n

the

ther,

n

mpulse o

simplify,

as

represented

y

Porphyry,

ho

often

n this

espect

eems o

look

back

toMiddle

Platonism.

At

any

rate, lotinus

eregoes on

to raise

nother

poria:

,\~~

~~~ ~

I

I

,

k

E\

\

^

.e

iS

6vvarov

TpOITOV bLEv CLAAov

oYv

vov

Elvat

oYv

IeptuaYTa,

Tpor7ToVo

E'epov

ToYv

/IeptuavaT

,uL

rov vov^v

EvatE

'Ev

yap

7rap

aCroLv

a

/epLaTUEYVa, avT oEvEtvat

ToYv

eptuavra, i av0

roVs.

ad/Lukpturos

/EvEL,

ra

'

cT'

avTov^

EoUt

a Ta

keptoOEYTr-TraVTa

E'

EoT

t

bvXaL-

,vXrv

EtvaY

1rvv

pepLUaorav

Ecs

TroAAas'

yvXd's.

"It

is

possiblehat

n

one

way

ntellect

s

the

divider

producer

f

partial

s We

get a

clue,

however,

to

Amelius'

interpretation

rom

a

passage

of Proclus

In

Tim.

.242.23-24):

VOiUs~

vEv

ap

EU1-t

-O

o-rov,

aurOqtS

8E

opa T-O

ccOTpov,

a&cvota

8

stEXEt

v

favi-jD

-

8cwavop-rov.

his s an

application

f

what

must

have been

Amelius'

formulation.

To'

8avoov'ilEvov

is

then

o

VOV^S

YwOV.

3*




7/9

68

JOHN

M. DILLON

[I969

existences), hile

n anotherhe

dividing

gent s not

ntellect; hat o

the

extent hat hepartial

xistences

roceed rom

t, t s thedivider,

hile

o

the extent hat t itself emains ndivided,ts products eingwhat is

divided-these

products

being

souls-it is the Soul

that

s the agent

causing

ivision

ntomany ouls."

And

he seems to appeal

at this

point to Tim.

35A,

where

the creation

of

the

Soul

is

connected

with

the creation

of divided

Nature (rpi'rov

Ef

CWI)OV

EV

/LEWCO

UVVEKEpaoLaUro

ovortaS

ELt

So

etc.):

OlO

Kat

fr?l

tro0

rp&Tov

ETvac TOYV

EplUaLOV

Kat Ev To

TplTo,

OTt

6lEVO

7O?,

,

1

'

o

ov vov Epyov-71 a

L

La-cApa

Z/JV)7s

LtEpLUT7Yv

vepyELav

eXova7sg

EV ,LEepLtu77

OVUEL.

"Which is why

he

saysthe separations

the work

of the third lement

and begins

n

t,

because

t thinks

iscursively,hich

s not

characteristic

of

Intellect,

ut of

Soul, possessing

s it

does a dividing

ctivity ithin

divided

Nature."

Porphyry

hus

had ample excuse from his

passage

forpositioning oul

as theDemiurge. That Procluscredits orphyrywith dentifyinghe

Demiurge

not

ust

with

vX,

butwith V'7TEpKK0'U

OS

vy

(I.307.I),

or7

acqLEEKOSt

hvy'

I.322.I-3),

would

seem

to

indicate

hat

Porphyry

already

had

postulated

n

unparticipated

oul-Monad,

to

preside

over

the

psychic

rder,

he multitude

f

partial

ouls,

a

development

which

on

other

grounds

would

prefer

o attribute o

Iamblichus.

We need

not, however,

assume

that,

even

if

Porphyry

used these

terms to

describehisDemiurge-Soul,he had developedthe whole system swe

find

t

in

Proclus.

Iamblichus

and

Proclus

are thus unreasonable

n

condemning

Por-

phyry'snterpretation

s

un-Plotinian,

t least s

regards

he

nterpreta-

tions

derivable

fromthis eminal

passage,

3.9.1.

It

remains

o consider

Proclus' and

Iamblichus'

own

interpretations

of the

passage,

to

appreciate

he

full extent

of the

ambiguities

herein

contained.

Proclus

declares 1.305.I6

ff.)

that

Plotinus assumes the

Demiurge

to

be

double

(St-r-ros),

01v /-kE)v

'V

rco

VO7JTq,

OV

70

O

7)yEyL-ovovv

TroV

7Tav,ros,

which

doctrine

he

himself

commends.

He

must, then,

take

the

two

Demiurges

as

vov^s

nd

8o

itavoo1vSLEvov,

-roCpov

being

merely

the

object

of

intellection.

Nov^s

n

contemplating

ro-cpov

produces

the

ideas,

the

content

of

the

Intelligible

Realm,

-ro-

3tavoov'/0LEvov




8/9

Volt IOO]

PLOTINUS,

ENN.

3.9.1 69

beholds he deas

nd "divides"

hem n theUniverse.

Again,

n

interpretationurely

erivable

rom

he ext

s we have

t.

Iamblichus,t eastnhisTimaeus ommentary,6akes hewhole

Intelligibleealm s

the

Demiurge,oundlyondemningorphyry

asun-Plotinianwe

must

ccept

Kroll's

nsertionf

wi)

in

307.16),

and

claiming imselfo follow

lotinus.

Proclus

uotes

him s

follows:

T)v

ovTcog

ovortaV

Kat

TCOV

YltyVO/LEVWV apXy7V

Kal

Ta

voirda

TOV

KOUr-LOV

Ca ~~t % to ,

7Tapac8L6Et`/taTa, Ov

7E

KaovLpEv

vo7)1qOV

KOU,L0V.,

Kal Ooaa

tTlaC

7TPOv7TaPXELV

TLOLEOa

rc-V

E'

TY7

bv'oLra

vTdvrv,

Travra

dravT o vvV

4?7T0ovlLEvoS

0EOSg

67)ILtovpyOS%

'v EVM

ovAA3afc3Wvt)' cavTo%vEXEL.

"Real Existencend the

origin

f

created

hings

nd the

ntelligible

paradigms

f he

Universe,

hich e

term he

ntelligible

niverse,

nd

those auses hich

we posit

s

pre-existing

ll

things

n

Nature,

ll these

things

he

Demiurge

odwho s the

bject

four

present

earch

athers

into ne ndholds

within imself."

c

31

1w

I

*1

I

3

ww

?^

1*

r ov6rCOs

vdrtawill

be

-ro-

E'F-rt

Cov, while 7y cov

ytyvo1dEvcov

pX7q

and the ntelligiblearadigms f theUniverse re the deas. Both

of these the

beholding

nd

possessing

nd

apportioninglement

containswithin

tself,

nd one

is

perfectlyntitled, ccording o

Plotinus, otake

hewhole

combination

s one

or as three

2AMotsc

e

80'6Et

-ra'

-rpt'a

E'v

e

tvat,

.

)JLT7TEp

Elv

7TroAo-t,

7rpoTrEtvcov

LAAOs',

o' E'a'AAws,

voEt

zrpt'

Etvat).

Iamblichus

akes he

former

lternative.

It

might

eem

hat or he

Demiurge o

"

contain

within imself" he

whole noeticworldneednotimply dentity ith t,butProclus s

quite clear,

n

the

precedingpassage

rTa4v-rarOv

oryovKFo'rov

a7ro-

KaAEt-

817tLtovpyo'v),

that hat

s

whatJamblichus

eant.

This is

not the

whole

story f the dentification

f theDemiurge

by

the uccessorsf

Plotinus.

Amelius,

or

nstance,

erives

nother

triad,

o

flOVArGEt's,

Aoyto'EVOS,

and

o

-

apaAagco'v,

rom hepassage

Tint.

0A (Proclus,

n

Tim.

I.398.I6

ff.).7

My

purpose, owever, as

6

Ap.

Proc. In

Tim.

.307.I4

ff. .

Proclus

quotes

against

him a

much

more elaborate

categorization

f

the

Demiurge

which

he made n an

essay

HEpt'

r-

Ev

TTcau'p

-oOV

J

o

8r9-r)yoplas-,

here,very

much

under

the

nfluence

f

the

Chaldaean

Oracles,

he

gives

the

Demiurge

-r)v

7-pI+nv'v

rots

Olra-p

paort

r

, V

a

vOEpr

L

-o8a,

(I.308.I7

i.).

7

The

doctrines f

Theodorus of

Asine

I.309.9 if.) and of

Syrianus

I.310.3 if.) are

not

immediately

derived,

feel, from

3.9.I.

Theodore

elaborateson

Amelius'

triad,

and

Syrianus

postulates

a

Demiurgic

Monad

presiding

over a

triad of

demiurges.

At this

tage

the

doctrine

has

developed

its own

momentum.




9/9

70

JOHN M. DILLON [I969

been

merely o demonstrate,

n

this ne instance,

heopennessf

Plotinus'hilosophizing,

he penings

tgave or urtherevelopments

byhis uccessors,nd he semade fthese penings.treally oes

seem

s f

wehave,

n

.9.I,

a recordf he esultsf

neof he iscus-

sions hat ook lace

n

Plotinus'

ircle,ransmitted

ousbyPorphyry

from lotinus'

apers

n

a more

unfinished,entative

tate han hat

of

any completed

ractate.

t

is,

more

truly

han

n

the

case

of the

finishedractate,piece f"

work

n

progress,"

ork

n

whichAmelius

had a hand,but ifPorphyry's

wn chronological

isting

s

accurate)

notPorphyryimself8

8

I

am grateful o Prof.

T. G. Rosenmeyer

for readingover

thispaper,

and making

helpful suggestions

n presentation.

One

might remark

n conclusion

that a proper

study

of the philosopher

Amelius

is

an

obvious

desideratum

n

Neoplatonic

studies.

Thi d l d d f 181 118 153 57 F i 7 M 2014 16 46 52 PM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

plotinus, enn. 3.9.1, and later views on the intelligible world

Documents