s Id the original σύντομος ; but from what follow 5, it is evident that it should be σύντονος „
introduction. xlix
copiousness of words. “ He poured forth
many things, says Porphyry, under the
influence of inspiration; and was wonder¬
fully affected with the subjects he discussed.
The latent dogmas of the Stoics and Peri¬
patetics, are mingled in his writings; and
he has condensed in them the metaphysics
of Aristotle. He was n.ot ignorant of any
geometrical, arithmetical, mechanical,
optical, or musical theorem, though he
never applied these sciences to practical
purposes. The commentaries of the
Platonic philosophers, Cronius, Numenius,
Gaius, Atticus, &c. ; as also of the Peri¬
patetics, Aspasius, Alexander, Adrasius,
&c. were read in his school ; but he bor¬
rowed nothing whatever from these. For
his conceptions were entirely his own, and
his theory was different from theirs. In
his investigations he exhibited the intellect
of Ammonius. He was also rapidly filled
with what he read ; and having in a few
words given the meaning of a profound
theory, he arose. Having once read the
treatise of Longinus 44 concerning princi¬
ples,” he said 44 that Longinus was indeed
a philologist, but by no means a philoso¬
pher/' When in the celebration of Plato's
nativity, Porphyry recited a poem which he
called 44 the Sacred Marriage,”1 and a
1 According to the Orphic theology as we learn from Proclus, that divinity who is the cause of stable power and sameness, the supplier of being, and the first principle of conversion to all things, is of a male characteristic ; but the divinity which emits from itself all-various progressions, separations, measures of life, and prolific powers, is feminine. And a communication of energies between the two, was denominated by this theology a sacred marriage. Proclus adds, “ that theologists at one time perceiving this com¬ munion in co-ordinate Gods, called it the marriage of Jupi¬ ter and Juno, Heaven and Earth, Saturn and Rhea. But at another time surveying it in the conjunction of subordinate with superior Gods, they called it the marriage of Jupiter and Ceres. And at another, perceiving it in the union of
certain person who was present observed
that Porphyry was mad, because many
things were said in the poem mystically
and latently, accompanied with a divine
afflatus, Plotinus openly exclaimed, “ You
have shown yourself at the same time a
poet, a philosopher, and an hierophant.**
On a certain time too, an orator named
Diophanes read an apology for the intoxi¬
cated Alcibiades in the Banquet of Plato,
endeavouring to prove that it was proper
for the sake of learning virtue, that the
lover should expose himself to the object
of his attachment, and not even refuse
venereal congress. But while he was reading
this licentious defence, Plotinus often rose
superior with inferior divinities, they denominated it the marriage of Jupiter and Proserpine/' Vid. Prod, in Tim, et in Parmenid,
from his seat, as if he would suddenly leave
the assembly ; but he restrained himself
till it was finished. However, when he left
the company, he desired Porphyry to con¬
fute the oration. But when Porphyry
requested the orator to lend him his
discourse for this purpose, and was refused,
he answered him from recollection, and
delivered his answer in the presence of the
same auditors as had attended Diophanes.
On this occasion Plotinus was so delighted,
that he often repeated in the assembly.
“ Thus write and you’ll illuminate mankind/’ *
Plotinus likewise applied himself to the canons concerning the stars, but not
1 A line somewhat altered from Homer. The original
a.LK€v τι φοως Δαναοισι γενηαι.
Iliad, 8. v. 282.
3iii
according to a very mathematical mode.
That is, we may presume, he very little
regarded the calculation of eclipses, or
measuring the distance of the sun and
moon from the earth, or determining the
magnitudes and velocities of the planets.
For he considered employments of this
kind, as more the province of the mathe¬
matician, than of the profound and intel¬
lectual philosopher. The mathematical
sciences are indeed the proper means of
acquiring wisdom, but they ought never to
be considered as its end. They are the
bridge as it were between sense and
intellect, by which we may safely pass
through the night of oblivion, over the dark
and stormy ocean of matter, to the lucid
regions of the intelligible world. And he who is desirous of returning to his true
country, will speedily pass over this bridge
without making any needless delays in his
passage. But he more accurately investi¬
gated the doctrine of Astrologers about the
influences of the stars, and not finding their
predictions to be certain, he frequently
confuted them in his writings.
·? g , ,· <'-· , *> r « 1 * ·
At that time there were many Christians
and others, who forsaking the ancient
philosophers became the followers of
Adelphius and Aquilinus. These men
possessed many writings of Alexander
Libycus, Philocomus, Demostratus, and
Lydus ; and openly exhibited certain
revelations of Zoroaster, Zostrianus, Nico-
theus, Allogenes, Mesus, and others of a
like kind. They also deceived many, and
were themselves deceived, asserting that
Plato had by no means penetrated the
depth of an intelligible essence. On this
occasion, Plotinus urged many arguments in
his conferences against these impostors, and
composed a treatise in confutation of their
tenets, which Porphyry inscribed against
the Gnostics/1 But A melius wrote forty
books against the treatise of Zostrianus;
and Porphyry showed by a variety of argu«
ments that the book which they attributed
to Zoroaster was spurious and recent, and
was fabricated by the propagators of the
heresy, in order that their opinions might
pass for the genuine dogmas of the ancient
Zoroaster.
>' i , . l ' .
Porphyry farther informs us, that some
Greeks falsely accused Plotinus of being a
plagiary of the doctrines of Numenius ;
which calumny Tryphon, a Stoic and Pla~
tonist, told to Amelias* On this occasion
Amelius wrote a treatise* inscribed by
Porphyry* on the difference between the
dogmas of Plotinus and Numenius , which he
dedicated to Porphyry* Each of the books
indeed of this truly great man bears such
evident marks of original thought and
singular depth* the execution in each is so
similar* and the conceptions so uncom¬
monly abstruse* that no one can under¬
stand his meaning, and believe him indebted
to the labours of others* Porphyry adds,
that he was likewise considered by many
as a mere trifler, and treated with contempt,
because, says he, they could by no means
understand what he said* Besides, the
manners of Plotinus contributed to produce
and increase this disdain* For he was
foreign from all sophistical ostentation and
pride; and conducted himself, in the com»
pany of disputants, with the same freedom
and ease as in his familiar discourses.
With the superficial and the vain indeed, a
haughty carriage and severe aspect are
considered as the badges of wisdom ; but
nothing in reality is more foreign from its
possession. For true wisdom when it is
deeply possessed, gives affability and
modesty to the manners, illumines the
countenance with a divine serenity, and
diffuses over the whole external form an
air of dignity and ease. Add to this, that
Plotinus did not hastily disclose to every
one the syllogistic necessities which were
latent in his discourse. “ The same thing,”
says Porphyry, i( happened to me, when I
first heard Plotinus. On which account X
kill . INTRODUCTION.
endeavoured to excite him by writing
against him* and striving to show
that intellections are external to intellect”
But after the writings of Porphyry on this
subject were read to Plotinus, he said
smiling : “ It must be your employment,
Amelias* to dissolve these doubts, occa¬
sioned by his ignorance of our opinion*”
After Amelias, therefore, had composed no
small treatise against the objections of Por¬
phyry, and Porphyry had again contradicted
his writings, and was once more answered by
Amelias ; u At length/" says Porphyry,
66 having scarcely after all these attempts
fathomed the depth 8 of Plotinus, I
1 it therefore a man of such great sagacity and penetra¬ tion as Porphyry, and who from the period in which he lived possessed advantages with respect to the attainment of phi¬ losophy which are denied to every modern, found so much difficulty in fathoming the profundity of Plotiuus, there must
changed my opinion, wrote a recantation
of my error, which I recited in his school ;
considered the books of Plotinus ever after
as most worthy of belief, and excited my
master to the ambition of disclosing his
opinions in a more particular and copious
manner/'
The testimony of the celebrated Longinus
also concerning our philosopher, sufficiently
evinces his uncommon excellence and
*■ fc ■· ■ - (·. «ί ,
necessarily be very few at present by whom this can be accomplished. Let no one therefore deceive himself by fancying that he can understand the writings of Plotinus by barely reading them. For as the subjects which he discusses are for the most part the objects of intellect alone* to under¬ stand them is to see them, and to see them is to come into contact with them. But this is only to be accomplished by kmg familiarity with, and a life conformable to the things themselves. For then, as Plato says, <f a light as if leaping from a fire, will on a sudden be enkindled in the soul, and will then itself nourish itself/* See Plato’s 7th Epistle.
worth ; and in the present age will proba¬
bly be more esteemed than the eulogium
of Porphyry In a letter, therefore, which
he wrote to Porphyry desiring him to
come from Sicily into Phoenicia where he
resided, and to bring with him the books
of Plotinus, he writes among other things
as follows : “ These books (meaning those
written by Plotinus) are not moderately
faulty, so that I have no means of using
them, though I desire above measure to
inspect what Plotinus has written on the
soul, and on being.” And again, “ Do not
send these books but bring them with you,
and not these alone, but any others which
may have escaped the notice of Amelius.
For why should I not inquire with the
greatest diligence after the writings of this
man , since they deserve the highest honor
INTRODUCTION. lxi
and veneration ? This indeed I have always
signified to you, both when present and
absent, and when you resided at Tyre, that
I could not understand many of the hypo¬
theses of the books of Plotinus ; hut that I
tramcendently loved and reverenced the
manner of his writing , the density of his
conceptions , and the very philosophic disposi¬
tion of his questions. And indeed I judge
that the investigators of truth ought
only to compare the books of Plotinus with
the most excellent works ”
This testimony of Longinus is the more
remarkable, as, prior to this, he had for a
long time despised our philosopher, through
the ignorant aspersions of others. The
wonderful genius of Plotinus, was indeed
so concealed under the garb of modesty,
that before fame had announced his worth
it was only visible to a penetrating and
sagacious few. But Longinus, says Por¬
phyry, thought the works of Plotinus which
he had received from Amelius incorrect,
through the fault of the transcribers. For
if any, the books in the possession of
Amelius were correct, because they were
transcribed from the manuscripts of Ploti¬
nus. Porphyry has likewise preserved the
preface of a book composed by Longinus,
inscribed, “ Concerning the JEW/* and dedi¬
cated to Plotinus and Amelius, in the
course of which he says of our philosopher,
That Plotinus , as it seems , has more
certainly explained the Pythagoric and
Platonic principles than his predecessors .
For the writings of Numenius9 Cronins ,
Moderatus, and Thrasyllus, are not to be
INTRODUCTION# kill
compared for accuracy in any party with the books of Plotinus on the same subjects ”
If such then is the decision of Longinus
concerning the abilities and writings of this
extraordinary man ; of Longinus* who is
celebrated by one of our first poets* as
“ inspired by all the Nine f and whose
literary reputation is universal ; what
judgment must we form of the philosophic
taste of the present age, when we find that
the very name of Plotinus is known but to
a few, and his works scarcely to any ? The
inference is obvious ; let the reader draw
it and lament. But, says Porphyry, if it
be requisite to employ the testimony of the
wise, who is wiser than a God ? than a
God who truly said of himself:
)xiv
The sands' amount* the measures of the sea, Tho’ vast the number^ are well known to me.
I know the thoughts within the dumb conceal’d, And words I bear by language unreveal’d.8
And this is no other than Apollo, who,
when Amelius inquired of his oracle whither