Plotinus, Enn. 3.9.

1, and Later Views on the Intelligible World

Author(s): John M. Dillon
Source: Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association , 1969,
Vol. 100 (1969), pp. 63-70
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2935901

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
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association

This content downloaded from

79.107.198.58 on Fri, 19 Mar 2021 14:49:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PLOTINUS, ENN. 3.9.1, AND LATER VIEWS
ON THE INTELLIGIBLE WORLD

JOHN M. DILLON

University of California, Berkeley

Plotinus' short note on the internal composition of the Intellect, which

Porphyry has placed as the first of the E7TtlcKEJ0/ElSt 3aopot (Enn. 3.9
[I3]), gave rise in later Neoplatonism to a variety of interpretation.
In particular, Amelius Gentilianus and Porphyry, both of them
pupils and companions of the Master for many years, seem to have
drawn quite different conclusions from it. They are each criticized
for their conclusions by Iamblichus, and then by Proclus, each of whom
himself took the passage differently, bringing the total of interpreta-
tions to four. I wish, therefore, after recording in turn Amelius'
and Porphyry's doctrine on the Demiurge, to turn to a detailed exami-
nation of the short passage from which all this bewildering variety
appears to have sprung,' and to consider how their very various
interpretations could have arisen from 't.2
The stimulus for the doctrine, for Plotinus and Amelius at any rate
was Plat. Tim. 39E:

7rTEp oiuv vovs~ EvovaagLS Eacg T o T Eu0 t 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views of his doctrine equally much on unpublished discussions with the master-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 to such in another connection (Procl. In Tim. 2.2I3.9 ff.
Diehl)-but their positions are in fact adequately derivable from Enn. 3.9.I. Porphyry
puts 3.9 among the first group of treatises, written before his time, which would mean
that he cannot have participated in the discussion which led to it. Amelius, on the
other hand, very probably did.
2 I am not here concerned with the occasion for the writing of 3.9.I, which was the
thesis that the Ideas are outside the Intellect-a view to which Porphyry himself adhered
(Vit. Plot. I8) when he first arrived in Plotinus' circle. These matters are discussed
adequately by Brehier and Armstrong in the introduction to the tractate in their respec-
tive editions (Bude and Loeb). Indeed, a look at either or both of these editions of
the tractate is recommended before one proceeds further.

This content downloaded from

79.107.198.58 on Fri, 19 Mar 2021 14:49:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 64 JOHN M. DILLON [I969

although the main discussion, as recorded by Proclus (Comm. In Tim.

I, PP. 305-IO Diehl),3 is based on Tim. 28c, no doubt because that
is where Porphyry and Iamblichus, in their commentaries, first raised
the subject.
Let us take Amelius first. He is the senior disciple, his commentary
on the Timaeus preceded that of Porphyry (cf. EraIa 8y rov 'ApeAtov
O HopoVptoS, Pr. I.306.3 I ?), and he was very probably present when
the discussion that led to Enn. 3.9.1 took place. Porphyry must be
taken as reacting to him, rather than he to Porphyry.
For Proclus, the triad of Demiurgic Intellects was Amelius' most
distinctive doctrine. He reports it in two contexts, apropos of
Timaeus 28C and 39E, which latter passage is the one from which
Plotinus takes his start. Proclus' evidence is as follows: (i) In Tim.
I.306.i ff. Diehl (ad Tim. 28c):

'A/dAtos SE TptrrOV 7mOmE TOv &7,4ltOVpyOV Kac TpEI& VOvSo, /aUtAEas

% V I % V % C -
TpE6s, TOV OVTa, TOV E
OYTWS E,T) 0 el 0 c EU1 " O E) C)WT
IuEv TpTros VOVSg o5vcog EETCV O EaTtv,
vo7Trov, EXet E To Trpo avToV Kal IzETEXEt
c C\ N 1 V / %EV TO E KC 0V0' 7TL' "CU YS 7
aEVTepOS, 0E TptToS EoUTl Ev To Ev avTW Ka) ovros 7rag yap vovg T)
avivyoUv^ vo07JT() o avTros EUTLv EXEt SE To Ev 79) SEvTEpC Kal op,a o
7pWTrov ocu yap TTAELWv ?9 aa7TO6aUTsa , aTTo Tpwry To 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 Ls, (PrT
Ka VO OVpavoV Kat Kpovov, KaUo 0aAtFTa 7Tapc avcrTp oj,u oapyos o
EaUTv.

"Amelius conceives the Demiurge as triple, and says that there are three
Intellects, three Kings, he who is, he who possesses, and he who sees.
The first intellect is really what he is; the second is the Intelligible which
is in him, but he possesses the Intelligible which is prior to him, and
in all ways participates solely in him, and is for this reason second;
and third too is what is in him-for all Intellect is identical with the
Intelligible linked to it-but he also possesses the contents of the second
Intellect, and sees the first element; for the intensity of -possession becomes
dimmer according to the degree of remoteness. These three Intellects and
Demiurges he also identifies with the three Kings in Plato (Ep. 2.3 12E),

3 Proclus Diadochus, In Platonis Timaeum Commentaria, ed. E. Diehl, 3 vols. (Leipzig

I904-6).

This content downloaded from

79.107.198.58 on Fri, 19 Mar 2021 14:49:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Vol. IOO] PLOTINUS, ENN. 3.9.1 65

and the Orphic triad, Phanes and Ur

according to him the Demiurge par ex

(2) In Tim. 3.103.I8 if. Diehi (ad Tim. 29E):

'A,pAto! ,uEv o0v 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
TOv o sortypov
t wov,, Tov
, At oSE^aO 70 Pt'
SEv'Epov 'A-V'"
EXovTa a7To Trov "Ev
o1 ,SEVT
CaSrtv Ep0S,
o oeeps 'AA' ELULL
a Ltast EP wp,'no
Ev avTcry, r&o Tpt`Tov
Tov oSE pvn ar ooep CvT
KacopcLv.

"Amelius relies particularly on this passage in constructin

Demiurgic Intellects, calling the first 'he who is' from the
living being,' the second, 'he who possesses,' from the phr
in' (for the second does not exist, so much as that they
and the third 'he who sees,' from the word 'behold."'

Of the three, o ewv perhaps presents the most difficu

o EXWV possess.? The ideas, we must say, the content
rather than ro' CcOov itself The curious statement ov
3ev'rEpos, aAA' Etetrtv E'v av3rcZ must mean that o E'xa
than the sum of the e'vovirat t'Eca. It is hard to regar
conscious at all. As soon as he begins to contemplate th
him, he becomes o Jp6v.
But we must turn now to Porphyry (In Tim. I.306.3I

aLETa &1 rov 'AusdAtov o Hopvptos 0tO/g Vo" rp HAwr

rrjv ,UEV IVX7V '77V v7TEpKo,u0ov aL7ToKaAEL &7p1toUVpyOV
a ' ^ % 0 . , % - s f * f\
aVT7/S, 7TpOS Ov EITErUpa7w
S1q 8tlVpyOV Ka-ra Tov^rov T

" Following on Amelius, Porp

with Plotinus, calls the hyper
towards which it is turned, th
of the Demiurge is for him th

Proclus protests against thi

Soul the Demiurge? (p. 30
answer in what follows.
Plotinus, as we have said, b
of Tim. 39E (rather loosely

"NovS," 7/oruv, op,a Evov'aags

This content downloaded from

79.107.198.58 on Fri, 19 Mar 2021 14:49:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 66 JOHN M. DILLON [I969

"-or
riv, SflLtkOVpyO,a0
o r o a o voK
EXEtV.

The first aporia raised is: Are the eidel then prior to Nous, if Nous
them as already onta ? In replying to this, he says, we must first of
all consider the possibility that the Z8on is not Nous but other than
Nous. That which beholds is Nous, so that the Zoon in itself will
not be Nous, but the object of intellection (noe'ton), and 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 consider Nous and to Zo6on, Intellect and its object,
as being distinguished only 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
Vo7Cze, terp uovvwS- ov -ro ,uev vo7prov, ro0 vooa3v
9botEV ETEpLL 7raVrcS, a EA Ev av07C 7ru Ev av7- 7-o vo

"There is nothing in the statement to prevent us from taking these

two elements as one, although they may be distinguished conceptually,
if only to the extent that there is one element which is cognized, and
another which cognizes; for Plato does not mean that the element which
cognizes beholds in any sense something outside itself, but that it contains
the cognized element within itself."

The ideas, and ro' o E'-rt ~C-OV, must, then, be in Nous, or absurdities
result. This conclusion was more fully worked out later in Enn. 5.5
[32], where the relation of Intellect to the Ideas is the primary problem.
Here it is only the first part of the enquiry. To Zdon, then, is analyzed
(albeit somewhat tentatively: ov'3Ev KCWAv'Et) as vovs- Ev EVarEt Kat
EVOT17Tl Kat cc rvXt,a, while the voV^s- O3p6V EKE tVOV rOv vov^V is envisaged
as EVEpyEta 'ts- a7T EKEtVOV, OTt VOEt EKEtVOV. This distinction is
important as a source for two of Amelius' voEs (and Demiurges), the
first and the third, o 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 reasonably distinguished from Nous qua beholder, especially
if, as was the case with Amelius, one has a weakness for triads.
Plotinus, however, does not propose o' E'xwv in 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 criticism.

This content downloaded from

79.107.198.58 on Fri, 19 Mar 2021 14:49:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Vol. ioo] PLOTINUS, ENN. 3.9.1 67

this passage. Instead, he produces a

dianooumenon.5

ro ro V, . op6v)
(o vovis tavo7jOE'," 'a a -8
oiv Eart To &aVOri7EV, ^,,,^
EKE opa, ev rpV.,
E TC
Iorulc 7rot7Urat gwuv yEv7q '-Errapa. SOKElE Ye rV TO avoOVEVOV
E71tKEKpV/.qLEEVWs ETEpOV EKELVWV TYV UVO IOtEZV.

" This then is that being which 'planned' to create in this lower Universe
what it sees there, the four classes of living beings. He seems, certainly,
to make the planning element tacitly distinct from the other two."

So, as he says in the next line, we seem to have three elements, ro' ( 4ov
av'r o u-Eirtv, o vov^s, and ro5 tavoov'1evov. Some, he says, may see
all these as one, others as three; it depends how you look at it. If,
however, one postulates o' 8tavoov',Evov as a distinct element, what
would be its role?
Its role, as it turns out, would be distinctly demiurgic. Its task is
cpyauaGrat Kat TrovqUrat Kat LEpt'crat all those things which vovs
beholds in ro' Wov. The energies of Nous are turned inward upon
itself; those of r(3 &cavoov4Levov are turned outward, upon the world.
A triad has emerged.
At this point, however, we reach a starting point for Porphyry's
doctrine. Porphyry equated the Demiurge with the V"rEpKo,ufUos'
vxI, and its Nous with the Autozoon and the Paradigm. As between
the two disciples, we see the representation of two extreme views-on
the one hand, an urge to schematize each moment of each hypostasis
(triadically), in the case of Amelius; on the other, an impulse to simplify,
as represented by Porphyry, who often in this respect seems to look
back to Middle Platonism.
At any rate, Plotinus here goes on to raise another aporia:
,\~~ ~~~ ~ I I ,, k wE\ \ ^ .e
iS 6vvarov TpOIT
E'epov ToYv /Iep
/epLaTUEYVa, avT
' cT' avTov^ EoU
1rvv pepLUaorav E

"It is possible th

s We get a clue, h
Tim. I.242.23-24): VO
8 stEXEt Ev favi-jD
formulation. To' 8a
3*

This content downloaded from

79.107.198.58 on Fri, 19 Mar 2021 14:49:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 68 JOHN M. DILLON [I969

existences), while in ano

extent that the partial e
the extent that it itself remains undivided, its products being what is
divided-these products being souls-it is the Soul that is the agent
causing division into many souls."

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)O tV EV /LEWCO UVVEKEpaoLaUro ovortaS ELt So etc.):

OlO Kat fr?l tro0

t ,rp&Tov
,, f ETvac
b oTOYV
) \/EplUaLOV
\ \ , \ Kat s
Ev *
To *
TplTo,
.1 OTt
' 6lEVO 7O?,
o ov vov Epyov-71 a QL L
EV ,LEepLtu77 OVUEL.

"Which is why he says th

and begins in it, because i
of Intellect, but of Soul,
divided Nature."

Porphyry thus had amp

as the Demiurge. That P
Demiurge not just with
or7 acqLEEKOSt hvy' (I.3
already had postulated a
the psychic order, the m
on other grounds I wou
not, however, assume t
describe his Demiurge-So
find it in Proclus.
Iamblichus and Proclus
phyry's interpretation as
tions derivable from thi
It remains to consider
of the passage, to appre
contained.
Proclus declares (1.305.
to be double (St-r-ros), 701v
7Tav,ros, which doctrin
the two Demiurges as vov
the object of intellectio
the ideas, the content o

This content downloaded from

79.107.198.58 on Fri, 19 Mar 2021 14:49:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Volt IOO] PLOTINUS, ENN. 3.9.1 69

beholds the Ideas and "divides" them in the Universe. Again, an

interpretation surely derivable from the text as we have it.
Iamblichus, at least in his Timaeus Commentary,6 takes the whole

Ca ~~t % to ,
Intelligible Realm as the Demiurge, roundly condemning Porphyry
as un-Plotinian (we must accept Kroll's insertion of wi) in 307.16), and
claiming himself to follow Plotinus. Proclus quotes him as follows:

T)v ovTcog ovortaV Kat TCOV YltyVO/LEVWV apXy7V Kal Ta voirda TOV KOUr-LOV
7Tapac8L6Et`/taTa, Ov 7E KaovLpEv vo7)1qOV KOU,L0V., Kal Ooaa atTlaC
7TPOv7TaPXELV TLOLEOa rc-V E' TY7 bv'oLra vTdvrv, Travra dravT o vvV
4?7T0ovlLEvoS 0EOSg 67)ILtovpyOS% E'v EVM ovAA3afc3W v vt)' cavTo%v EXEL.

"Real Existence and the origin of created things and the intelligible
paradigms of the Universe, which we term the Intelligible Universe, and
those causes which we posit as pre-existing all things in Nature, all these
things the Demiurge God who is the object of our present search gathers
into one and holds within himself."
c 31 1w I *1 I 3 Iww ?^ 1*

r ov6rCOs ovdr
and the intelligible paradigms of the Universe are the Ideas. Both
of these the beholding and possessing and apportioning element
contains within itself, and one is perfectly entitled, according to
Plotinus, to take the whole combination as one or as three (2AMotsc be
80'6Et -ra' -rpt'a E'v e tvat, . . )JLT7TEp Elv 7TroAo-t, 7rpoTrEtvcov aLAAOs',
o' E'a'AAws, voEt zrpt' aEtvat). Iamblichus takes the former alternative.
It might seem that for the Demiurge to " contain within himself" the
whole noetic world need not imply identity with it, but Proclus is
quite clear, in the preceding passage (rTa4v-ra -rOv voryov KFo'rov a7ro-
KaAEt- 817tLtovpyo'v), that that is what Jamblichus meant.
This is not the whole story of the identification of the Demiurge
by the successors of Plotinus. Amelius, for instance, derives another
triad, o flOVArGEt's, o Aoyto'EVOS, and o - apaAagco'v, from the passage
Tint. 30A (Proclus, In Tim. I.398.I6 ff.).7 My purpose, however, has

6 Ap. Proc. In Tim. I.307.I4 ff. D. Proclus quotes against him a much more elaborate
categorization of the Demiurge which he made in an essay HEpt' r- Ev TTcau'p -oOV aJ ?o
8r9-r)yoplas-, where, very much under the influence of the Chaldaean Oracles, he gives
the Demiurge -r)v 7-pI+nv'v rots TOlra-p paort r , v V ia vOEpr L -o8a, (I.308.I7 i.).
7 The doctrines of Theodorus of Asine (I.309.9 if.) and of Syrianus (I.310.3 if.) are
not immediately derived, I feel, from 3.9.I. Theodore elaborates on Amelius' triad,
and Syrianus postulates a Demiurgic Monad presiding over a triad of demiurges.
At this stage the doctrine has developed its own momentum.

This content downloaded from

79.107.198.58 on Fri, 19 Mar 2021 14:49:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 70 JOHN M. DILLON [I969

been merely to demonstrate, in this one instance, the openness of

Plotinus' philosophizing, the openings it gave for further developments
by his successors, and the use made of these openings. It really does
seem as if we have, in 3.9.I, a record of the results of one of the discus-
sions that took place in Plotinus' circle, transmitted to us by Porphyry
from Plotinus' papers in a more unfinished, tentative state than that
of any completed tractate. It is, more truly than in the case of the
finished tractate, a piece of" work in progress," work in which Amelius
had a hand, but (if Porphyry's own chronological listing is accurate)
not Porphyry himself8
8 I am grateful to Prof. T. G. Rosenmeyer for reading over this paper, and making
helpful suggestions on presentation. One might remark in conclusion that a proper
study of the philosopher Amelius is an obvious desideratum in Neoplatonic studies.

This content downloaded from

79.107.198.58 on Fri, 19 Mar 2021 14:49:42 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms