Mystery is neither a set of abstruse doctrines to be taken on faith nor a secret prize for the initiated. Mystery is a referential openness into the depths of a particular tradition, and into conversation with other traditions. The referential openness is fleeting. As Plotinus said, as soon as one thinks one has it, one has lost it. It is glimpsed only in the interstices of the text, in the tension between the saying and the unsaying.483
I have argued that there were certain typical themes which characterised a Pla- tonist perennialism discernible across a wide spectrum of second-century Platonist thought. The significance for Plotinus of this line of argument will become clear in the present chapter. Plotinus, like Plutarch, Numenius, and Celsus, believed in the wisdom of the ancients, and the Enneads show a thoroughgoing deference and cul- ture of respect toward the canonic sages of the past. But most importantly for this thesis, Plotinus applies a hermeneutic of enigma and esoteric meaning to this tra- dition in a way which seems to have been unprecedented and innovative: like the Middle Platonists he finds wisdom hidden in myths and rituals, but unlike them, he also unearths it, with the same methodology, in Plato.
The tradition to which Plotinus allies himself has an ‘open’ side - the realm of philosophical dialectic, the disputes and liberties proper to a culture of parrhêsia and the ‘republic of letters’ of Græco-Roman Hellenism484 - but there is no corner of Plotinian philosophy which is not also informed by an esoteric privileging of knowl- edge. This chapter will help to nuance and complete our picture of the ‘open’ aspects of Plotinus’ project with a contextualised understanding of the ways in which the
483Sells 1994, 8.
484The role of Hellenism in Plotinian philosophic silence is discussed 144 ff. below. 135
practice of esoteric reading and writing define his relationship to, or construction of, a perennial tradition.
The Plotinian Idea of Tradition
In light of the well-known remark of Plotinus, cited at the beginning of the pre- vious chapter, that he is not an innovator but an exegete of the ancients, and of the evidence presented subsequently for a widespread Platonist tradition of perennial- ism, it will come as no surprise that Plotinus may profitably be described as a Platon- ist perennialist. While my formulation of Platonist perennialism is in some respects new, the fact that Plotinus saw himself as indebted to an immemorial tradition is well known.485 What remains is to investigate the contours of this putative tradition in the Enneads, with special emphasis on its esoteric aspects.
To begin with, we must take into account the fact that Plotinus’ writings are deeply classicising: there is no explicit reference to anyone later than Epicurus in the Enneads,486with one important exception to be discussed below. As far as the En- neads are concerned, the philosophic tradition has been silent for nigh on six hundred years. But we know from Porphyry that Plotinus’ philosophic seminar made exten- sive use of near-contemporary authors, especially Middle Platonists and Aristote- lean commentators; Cronius, Numenius, Alexander of Aphrodisias, and others.487 To modern eyes, then, Plotinus was engaged with theories and debates current in his time; he was in fact part of quite contemporary developments in philosophy.488 We know that he was accused of plagiarising the works of the second-century Nume- nius; this is evidence, again, for a contemporary style of thought in his philosophy as seen by his contemporaries.489 His presentation, however, grounds itself exclu- sively in authors and traditions of the distant past. The Enneads are presented as in
485Various sides to the question of Plotinus’ self-definition in terms of perennial tradition have had
important treatments by Eon 1970; Charrue 1978; Hadot 1987b, to which the following discussion is indebted.
486Noted by Charrue 1978, 33. 487Porph. Plot. 14.
488Cf. Dillon 1977, 414. 489Porph. Plot. 17.
THE PLOTINIAN IDEA OF TRADITION 137
dialogue with the ancients.
The Ancients in Plotinus. When Plotinus refers to ‘the ancients’, οἱ παλαιοί, he is referring primarily to philosophers of the Classical period;490the Presocratic philoso- phers are sometimes distinguished as the ‘very ancient’ (οἱ πάνυ παλαιοί)491 and the ‘archaic’ (οἱ ἀρχαίοι).492 As mentioned above, Pythagoras and Pherecydes seem to straddle the two periods in Platonist eyes, and are sometimes seemingly grouped among theologoi as well. Plotinus’ vagueness makes it difficult to draw solid lines between different classes of ancient predecessors, nor is there much evidence that Plotinus himself drew such lines.493 But the appellation ‘the ancients’ in Plotinus never serves merely to indicate a period in history; it indicates not only the respect for antiquity that we would expect from a classicising writer, but also a philosophical lineage behind which lies a unanimity of doctrine.494 Proof of this may be found in the fact that the Stoics whom Plotinus wishes to refute, and the Epicureans whom he heartily attacks, are never, as far as I can see, included among the ancients; instead, their views may be refuted precisely by the the contrasting views of the ancients.495
The ancients constitute an ancient tradition, a school of thought. Their doctrines include the Platonist theory of forms,496 and other teachings, which we might call common Platonist-Pythagorean topoi, such as the immortality of the soul and metempsy- chosis.497 Plotinus also finds in the ancients his doctrine of the transcendent, inef- fable one beyond being, the doctrinal point which is most commonly seen as the
490An ‘ancient account’ (παλαιὸς λόγος) or similar formulation is sometimes cited which would seem
to refer rather to non-philosophical traditions of truth (e.g. the doctrine that the virtues are purifica- tions which, from the context, is intended as an evocation of mystery tradition [I.6[1]6.1-5]), echoing Plato’s similar references to ‘ancient accounts’ (e.g. Phd. 69 c3-d2). ‘The ancients’, as such, seems always to refer to philosophers.
491VI.1[42]1-2, probably citing Thales, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, and
Democritus, although doctrines rather than names are given.
492As at V.1[10]9.
493The τοῖς πάλαι σοφοῖς of Ennead V.1[10]6.4-2-8 are presumably Pythagoreans; cf. IV.3[49]14.5 for
enigma in Pythagoras and his followers. Plotinus’ vagueness with regard to tradition is discussed below.
494Cf. Charrue 1978, 19. 495E.g. VI.1[42]30.28 ad fin. 496V.8[31]5.24-5.
497VI.4[22]16.4-8: Embodiment, descent and ascent at fixed periods, judgements, and metempsy-
essential ‘Neoplatonist’ position,498a point returned to below. Merlan goes as far as to formulate a concrete lineage of philosophic predecessors for Plotinus: ‘It becomes obvious that for Plotinus Anaxagoras, Parmenides, Heraclitus, Empedocles, Plato, and Aristotle belong to the same αἵρεσις, whose founders were Pythagoras and Phere- cydes.’499 With the problematic exception of Aristotle, these names will be uncontro- versial to Plotinian scholars;500while he never defines his lineage in such a straight- forward manner, Plotinus clearly sees himself as part of a tradition of thinkers some- thing very like that outlined by Merlan.501 We find hints of a historical approach in the Enneads which, when taken together, indicate the belief in a decadence in human affairs; philosophy and knowledge of the truth have been in decline ever since the most ancient times,502 and Plato is represented, not as the originator, but as a final iteration, of the pristine tradition of truth.503
The ancients, for Plotinus, have a special status vis à vis philosophical disputa- tion: in propounding a doctrine, Plotinus tells us, it is important to show that it is in agreement with that of the ancients, ‘or at least not in disagreement’.504 But Plot- inus is aware that this may be difficult, as the ancients can contradict one another. Introducing an inquiry into the nature of time and eternity, Plotinus says:
. . . the statements of the ancients on these matters differ one from the other, and it may be that the commentaries on these [statements] also differ; thus we leave off and reckon it sufficient, if asked, if we are able to say what they [the ancients] thought, happy to be freed from further inquiry. One must suppose that certain of the ancient
498V.1[10]6.4-2-8; VI.8[39]19.12-19.
4991969, 7. The italics are Merlan’s; Aristotle’s interesting place in the Plotinian lineage is addressed
in Appendix C.
500A glance at the index fontium in the edition of Henry and Schwyzer shows their presence in the
Enneads. The Presocratic philosophers, especially, tend to be used in a superficial and anecdotal way by Plotinus; his knowledge of their texts may have been based in florilegia of his time rather than in their full works (so Schwyzer, Real Encyclopaedie XXI, col. 572 s.v. ‘Plotinos’). Nevertheless, there is no doubt that Plotinus respected them and saw them as members of the ancient tradition, although he found their ‘archaic’ manner of expression lacking in clarity (see 140 below).
501Cf. Charrue 1978, 19, citing the specific authors mentioned at V.1[10]8 & 9; V.1[10]9.1.1 (discussed
below); IV.8[31]1.
502II.3[20]16.26-29: οἷον ἄνδρες ἄλλοι πάλαι, νῦν δὲ ἄλλοι, τῷ μεταξὺ καὶ ἀναγκαίῳ τῶν λόγων εἰκόντων
τοῖς τῆς ὕλης παθήμασι(the logôn in question are the formative principles of men’s souls, rather than discourses or accounts; see Appendix D, 280).
503Cf. Charrue 1978, 20-21. 504VI.4[22]16.4-7. Cf. III.6[1]2.5-8.
THE PLOTINIAN IDEA OF TRADITION 139
and blessed philosophers have found the truth. But which of them especially achieved this, and how we might attain to understanding concerning these matters, it is right to enquire.505
This passage encapsulates well the role of the active philosopher pursuing truth in the tradition; presented with an authoritative philosophical corpus, his role is to seek and explicate within it.
It is thus Plotinus’ belief that certain ancients fell short of a complete exposi- tion of the truth; this is not to say that they were wrong, only that they possessed a greater or lesser degree of completeness in their understanding or presentation. The long philosophic survey at V.1[10]8-9 supports this reading. Having discussed Plato’s (Plotinian) theory of three primary hypostases, Plotinus concludes with the famous passage cited at the beginning of the last chapter (p. 95 above), linking his thought with that of the ancients, and citing Plato as proof of this identifica- tion (V.1[10]8.1-14). He then goes on to discuss Parmenides, noting that Parmenides in Plato’s dialogue speaks more clearly (ἀκριβέστερον) about the one than the his- torical Parmenides (ibid. 14-27), Anaxagoras, who also lacks clarity ‘on account of his archaic character’ (δι΄ ἀρχαιότητα), Empedocles, and Heraclitus (V.1[10]9.1-7), all of whose accounts of the one differ. In each case, Plotinus mentions the degree to which these philosophers ‘got it right’: Anaxagoras knew that the one was separate and intelligible, while Heraclitus knew that bodies were subject to constant change and coming-to-be. Finally, Aristotle is discussed: his conception of noetic heavenly spheres, which, for Plotinus, divide up the noetic ‘in a different way from Plato’ (ibid. 11-12), is criticised as ‘positing a plausible scenario, but one which is not philosoph- ically necessary’ (ibid. 12: τὸ εὔλογον οὐκ ἔχον ἀνάγκην τιθέμενος). Plotinus criticises Aristotle’s view in a vigorous manner until line 28; a close reading of the text, how- ever, shows that Plotinus shies away from saying that Aristotle is simply wrong, although this is essentially his message here.
505III.7[45]1.9-16: ...τὰς τῶν παλαιῶν ἀποφάσεις περὶ αὐτῶν ἄλλος ἄλλας, τάχα δὲ καὶ ἄλλως τὰς αὐτὰς
λαβόντες ἐπὶ τούτων ἀναπαυσάμενοι καὶ αὔταρκες νομίσαντες, εἰ ἔχοιμεν ἐρωτηθέντες τὸ δοκοῦν ἐκείνοις λέγειν, ἀγαπήσαντες ἀπαλλατόμεθα τοῦ ζητεῖν ἔτι περὶ αὐτῶν. Εὑρηκέναι μὲν οὖν τινας τῶν ἀρχαίων καὶ μακαρίων φιλοσόφων τὸ ἀληθὲς δεῖ νομίζειν· τίνες δ΄ οἱ τυχόντες μάλιστα, καὶ πῶς ἂν καὶ ἡμῖν σύνεσις περὶ τούτων γένοιτο, ἐπισκέψασθαι προσήκει. Unsurprisingly, it is Plato who has especially achieved this understanding, travelling under the name of παλαιοῖς καὶ μακαρίοις ἀνδράσιν (ibid. 7.10-12).
The final lines of Section 9 elucidate the whole procedure:
Thus, those of the archaic thinkers (τῶν ἀρχαίων) who are most close- ly aligned with Pythagoras and his followers and with Pherecydes were in greatest possession of this nature [sc. the nature of the one]; however, some of them worked these matters out in their own ac- counts, while others demonstrated them not in [written] accounts, but in unwritten discussions, while still others did not deal with them at all.506
The first important point to note from these passages, and in all of Plotinus’ explicit engagements with his tradition, is the culture of humble politeness with which the philosopher should approach his predecessors. Even Aristotle is treated with kid gloves, although Plotinus plainly feels he is wrong in his teachings on the plane- tary spheres. This is in line with the widespread culture of canonicity and respect for canonical authors’ authority in philosophic matters outlined in the preceding chapter, and is understood by Plotinus as part of the basic comportment and ‘good manners’ of a late antique philosophic practitioner; the Gnostics whom he attacks in Ennead II.9 are said to be ‘unphilosophical’ precisely for breeching this practice of decorum.507 Due reverence for the tradition is thus a prerequisite for approaching traditional materials in a proper way.
We also note, however, that Plotinus is quite comfortable criticising the Preso- cratic philosophers for a lack of clarity, due to their ‘archaic character’; ἀκριβεία is mentioned here and elsewhere as the chief way in which Plato excels over his pre- decessors.508 Elsewhere, Pythagoras is described as unclear ‘because he wrote po- etry’, again, a reference to the use of expository methods lacking in accuracy by the truly ancient sages, although we do not know which pseudo-Pythagorean work is
506V.1[10]9.27 ad fin.
507See II.9[33]6.23, 26-7, 36, where Plotinus roundly berates the Gnostics for their breach of prop-
er philosophic comportment in maligning the ancients. His attack here is specifically aimed at the Gnostic’s lack of the proper philosophic approach; in essence, at their ‘appalling manners’ (see ibid. 14.11-13; 6.43-52).
508After a survey of the unclear Presocratics Heraclitus, Empedocles, and the enigmatic Pythagoras
and his school, the ‘divine Plato’ is adduced as the best authority for matters relating to the descent of the soul into bodies (IV.8[31]1.23-26). Cf. V.1[10]8.24, where Plato’s Parmenides is more clear than the historical Parmenides. Cf. Athanassiadi 2006, 97 n. 80.
THE PLOTINIAN IDEA OF TRADITION 141
meant.509 On a rhetorical level, then, Plato is set apart from the Presocratics not on account of a greater possession of the truth, but on account of a facility for expressing it clearly; Pythagoras and Pherecydes constitute the yardstick of truth in the passage under discussion. It should be noted, of course, that certain early philosophers were also simply not of the Plotinian haeresis; Democritus, for example, is not one of the Ancients.510
We note further the reference to orality in the closing lines of the passage, which goes a long way toward providing a mechanism for harmonising the seemingly conflicting views of the Presocratics: they may have elucidated the metaphysical truth in unwritten conclaves (synousiais), much as Pythagoras, Plato, and Plotinus’ own teacher Ammonius, had done. They may also not have examined a particular problem or set of problems. We may adduce the reference to ‘hidden expression’ of the truth among the ancients cited in the last chapter: Plotinus is an exegete of an- cient ideas which were expressed long ago, but not openly.511 Esoteric hermeneutics provide a key to doctrinal unanimity among the ancients.512
The Perennial Wisdom in Plotinus. As we have seen, Platonist perennialism, while a philosophic movement, did not concern itself solely with philosophers. The scattered references to belief in ancient sages, lawgivers, and theologians among the Middle Platonists serves to contextualise the Enneads in this respect, where we find similar beliefs, often implicit, informing Plotinian discourse. It is clear from the Enneads that the ancient philosophers are not the only source of truth; Plotinus often
509IV.8[6]1.21-23. Cf. Maximus of Tyre’s view of philosophic history, whereby the ancient poets wrote
philosophy ‘wrapped up’ in poetic finery, but moderns, having lost the poetic subtlety of their for- bears, laid the previously-hidden doctrines bare (IV.3), or Plutarch’s comparable view of the history of philosophy (n. 327 above).
510The sole exception which I have found to this rule occurs at VI.1[42]1.1 ff., where οἱ πάνυ παλαιοί
clearly refer to such thinkers as Democritus and other materialists. This would seem to be a simple slip from Plotinus’ usual practice of confining the name ‘ancients’ to thinkers notionally associated with the great tradition that he espouses.
511V.1[10]8.10-12, cited 95 above.
512Appendix C provides additional discussion of the importance of esoteric reading for Plotinus’
reads traditional stories from Hellenic mythology,513 as well as the ritual heritage of the mystery cults,514 as containing hidden philosophical truths. Plotinus follows Platonic and Platonist precedent in referring to παλαιοὶ λόγοι as sources of truth to be discussed alongside the later contributions of philosophers.515 These institutions, in Plotinus as in the earlier perennialists, hide esoteric philosophic doctrines that were concealed by their wise founders from the unlettered and unphilosophic masses.
We might expect to find in Plotinus a group of sages responsible for these acts of hiding, as in the Middle Platonists, and we do so in occasional references scattered throughout the Enneads. Plotinus refers to sophoi who hid messages in the institu- tions which they founded. It is notable that, in Plotinus, these sages are often priests or other sacred practitioners. Sometimes these sages are theologoi, who, filling out the few brief references in Plotinus with what we have seen in Plutarch, may be under- stood as proto-philosophic religious founder-figures or theological poets.516 While Homer and Hesiod are never explicitly called theologoi in the Enneads, Homer’s pres- ence in particular is notable as one of Plotinus’ favourite sources, and Homer speaks in enigma.517 Theologoi are mentioned, in one passage, alongside priests (hierôn), both understood as having relevant opinions on philosophic matters;518it is unclear where the priests end and the theologians begin, but sophoi, theologoi, and hiereis taken together undoubtedly comprise an ancient class of religious specialists with
513E.g. IV.8[31]1.21 (cf. Hes. Op. 60-89. Theog. 521); III.5[36]2.24: V.8[31]4.25-6; V.2[11]22;
VI.2[19]22.1.1 & 13; VI.8[39]19.1.14; III.7[45]13.10. See Eon 1970, 273; Charrue 1978, 25; Boys-Stones 2001, 147. On myth in Plotinus, see generally Cilento 1960.
514VI.9[9]11.1 ff. (quoted in full 14 above); cf. I.6[1]6.1-5 (quoted in full n. 515 below); III.6[1]19.25-27.
Cf. Stroumsa 1996a, 21.
515I.6[1]6.1-5:῎Εστι γὰρ δή, ὡς ὁ παλαιὸς λόγος, καὶ ἡ σωφροσύνη καὶ ἡ ἀνδρία καὶ πᾶσα ἀρετὴ κάθαρσις
καὶ ἡ φρόνησις αὐτή. Δίο καὶ αἱ τελεταὶ ὀρθῶς αἰνίττονται τὸν μὴ κεκαθαρμένον καὶ εἰς ῞Αιδου κείσεσθαι ἐν βορβόρῳ διὰ κάκην φιλον·cf. e.g. Pl. Phd. 69 c3-d2.
516E.g. III.5[36]2.2: περὶ δὲ τοῦ ὃν θεὸν (τὸν ῎Ερωτα) τίθενται...θεολόγοι καὶ Πλάτων κτλ. The context
is a discussion of the treatments of erôs in the Symposium of Plato; here Plato’s invented myths are notionally assimilated to a more ancient theological tradition.
517I.6[1]8.18-20. Edwards notes (2000, 27 n. 148) that Homer is the second most quoted author in the
Enneads, after Plato. Plotinus interprets a passage from the Odyssey philosophically at I.6[1]8.16-21 (see Lamberton 1989, 106-7). Lamberton notes that a passage from Homer specifically condemned by Plato (R. II.381d) is quoted by Plotinus with approval (VI.5[23]12.31-2), an ‘instance - however mild - of defensive interpretation’ (Lamberton 1989, 98-9). Put another way, this is an example of the authority of the theologians (Homer) in dialogue with that of the ancients (Plato), and of the former actually trumping the latter.
THE PLOTINIAN IDEA OF TRADITION 143
access to the perennial wisdom and an interest in hiding its truths within religious institutions.
This wisdom, then, may be found in the teletai of mystery religions,519and often transmitted by religious specialists.520 Discussing the nature of matter, which for Plotinus is essentially a negative, sterile lack of qualities, contrasted with the fecun- dity of the logoi which arise in soul from its noetic nature, Plotinus suggests that, ‘It was for this reason, I think, that the ancient sages, [communicating] esoterically and secretly in the mystery rites (μυστικῶς καὶ ἐν τελεταῖς αἰνιττόμενοι), portrayed the archaic Hermes with his member always ready for the work of procreation’, the ithy- phallic Hermes indicating the generative nature of the noetic logos.521 Again, in an elaborate exposition of the philosopher’s encounter with the transcendent one be- yond intellect, drawing heavily on cultic traditions, Plotinus uses the statues which stand before a temple sanctuary as symbols of intellect, as seen by the philosophic aspirant, and then passed by in the course of the ascent toward the unpredicated, unrepresentable one. ‘These [statues] are images; and therefore it is transmitted es- oterically by the wise among the interpreters of holy things how that god [intellect] is seen; and a wise priest who understands the enigma may make the contemplation real by entering the sanctuary.’522 The architectural conventions of traditional Hel-