Plotinus, Enn. 3.9.1, And Later Views on the Intelligible World
Transcript of 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
-
8/16/2019 Plotinus, Enn. 3.9.1, And Later Views on the Intelligible World
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/16/2019 Plotinus, Enn. 3.9.1, And Later Views on the Intelligible World
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).
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/16/2019 Plotinus, Enn. 3.9.1, And Later Views on the Intelligible World
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/16/2019 Plotinus, Enn. 3.9.1, And Later Views on the Intelligible World
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/16/2019 Plotinus, Enn. 3.9.1, And Later Views on the Intelligible World
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*
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/16/2019 Plotinus, Enn. 3.9.1, And Later Views on the Intelligible World
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
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/16/2019 Plotinus, Enn. 3.9.1, And Later Views on the Intelligible World
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.
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/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/16/2019 Plotinus, Enn. 3.9.1, And Later Views on the Intelligible World
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