Biography as Self-Promotion: Porphyry’s Vita Plotini Jobn B Finamore ‘Tue Unrversity OF lowa Porphyry (234-305 CE) was the student of the Neoplatonist Plotinus (204/5-270 CE). A Neoplaconic philosopher in his own tight, Porphyry also published Plotinus’ Ennead after the latter’ death and appended to them the Vita Plotiné. Porphyry’s composition of che Vita fulfills many purposes, among which is che desire to portray Plotinus as a philosopher and teacher par excellence and as a theios aner, a holy man with a hint of supernatural powers and a healehy dose of asceticism.’ In a recent ANRW volume, Schro~ acter has argued that Porphyry also had another motive: o secure his place in che Plotinian succession? Ic is in this light chat I propose co examine and 1. Porphyry begins ac once, in Vit. Plot. emphasiaing his unusual philosophical cempess- ‘ment, Plotinus was the single most important philosopher ofthe day and was ashamed of ina body: Tearivec 6 x08? pis ysyoudse duhdaoxpar test rev aloxwvousvea im iv cedar tin. He refused co have an image made of himself (forcing Amelius co resort co snbserfuge to have cone made). In chapter 2, we learn of his equanimigy in death, zefusing healdhful enemas and medicines hac contained animal mater; in chapter € that he ace and slept little. As for his role as ing teacher, we learn in chapter 7 the effect he had on his students, all of whom learned much from him and were devoted so him tn chapser [3, we hear how Plarinus’ Ee radiated ‘when he taught and how he combined gentleness. (ro npoonvic) and vigor (zo edvovow) in his replies co questions. Indeed in the samme chapeer comes the tale of his three-day discussion wish Porphyry of the soul’ connection to the body: In chapcer 14, Porphyry expatiares on Plotinus’ learnedness, [com Aristotle through ue Middle Plavonists. As for Plosinus divine qualities, sex chapter 10 (Olympius’ failed magical arvack, and an unnamed Egyptian’s discovery chac in place of a guardian éiucav Plotinus possessed a god) and chapter 22 (Apollo’s 5i-line hexamecer ‘poem on thealorious afeedife for Piosinus’ saul). On this topic, see also H.D. Salfiey, “Pourquoi Porphyre a-vil édieé Plosin?” in Porphyre, La Vie de Plotin, vol. 2, ed. L. Brisson et al. (Pazis, 1992) 31-64, Saffrey dinks thac Porphyry composed she Vitain onder vo “présenter so maitre comme une lumidre pour les générations & venie” (32) and “moncrer la qualité exceptionnelle de Plorin comme professeur de philosophic, qui Va conduic la divinisation” (33). 2. EM. Schroeder, “Ammonius Saccas,” ANRW 36.1 (1987); 493-526. As evidence for Porphyry's concern for “a sccuggle for succession (biaBoxii),” Schtoeder cites Porphyrys lace ar- tival at Plotinus’schoal and “his consistent and self-conscious use ofthe est-petson pronoun (0 intensify his own name” (518). Schroeder then discusses che possbiliy dhac dhe oath of Plocinus, Origen, and Brennius nov re divulge che docacines of Amunanius (Vi, Hoe 3) vis concocted by Porphyry, allowing him co claim knowledge of the eartier lie of Plocinus (518-20). Dionysitts, Vol. XXMI, Dee. 2005, 49-62.50 Jorn F. Finamone inteepret che Viea, [intend to’show chat Porphyry, who came Jate to Plotinus’ schocl, was in competition with Plotinus’ top pupil Amelius and used the Vira to promote himself, at the expense of Amelius, as che crue successor to the philosophy of Plotinus. Before | begin, let me make one point abous the cherotical background of Porphyry's Vira Plotini. As recent works by Patricia Cox, Gillian Clark, and Mark Edwards have shown,? there is a real and definice correspondence between biography and Panegyric, Following che principles of Hermogenes and Menander Rheror, Porphyry clearly intends to praise Plotinus and his way of life. His purpose is propaedeutic, leading rhe reader to adopt the Plotinian philosophy in part because Plotinus is a man worthy of emulation, i am, however, proposing a second purpose ensconced in che Vite. This purpose is more hidden but no less real and imporsanc co Porphyry, for it involves the succession of Plorinus’ philosophical line. Then as now, students fought co lay claim co che magisterial auchoricy of cheir ceachers. Porphycy’s problem lay in defeating Amelius’ claim Amelius came co Romie to study with Plotinus in 245/6 and remained with him until 269, 2 period of twenty-four years.‘ During this rime Amelius, even by Porphyzy’s own evidence, showed himself o be Plorinus best srudenc. Porphyry, by concrast, atrived in 263 and stayed with Plotinus uaril 269. Ie would scom therefore thar if any studenc of Plorinus had claim to the title of “successor,” ir would have been Amelius and nor Porphyry. Yer it was Porphyry who undertook the task of editing and publishing Plorinus’ works. Clearly some explanation was called for, and Porphyry provides ir in che Vira, Never in the Vita does Porphyry openly atcack Amelius. In face, a cussory ceading will suggest char Porphyry is deferencial ro him. A more careful read- ing, however, shows thac chere is an ongoing comparison caking place between the nwo philosophers, and thar Amelius invariably comes up shorr. Although Porphyry had a rherorical basis for using biography ro praise its subject, he is progressing inca terra incognita when he uses biography to praise himself ac the expense of bis rival. Porphyry had access to the “figured problem” of the rhesoricians, in which orarots would ostensibly argue for one point while actually arguing for another. Handbooks do discuss ways of discrediting an opponent in forensic speech, bur hese ways are nor direedly applicable ro praise literature. Arisiorle, for instance, ac Rhetoric 3.15, 141Gb4-8, says: 3. See P Cos, Biography in Late Ansiguity: A Quest forthe Holy Mun (Berkeley, 1983) chapter 5; 6, Clark, “Philosophic Lives and che Philosophic Life: Porphyry and Tamblichus,” in Greek Biography and Pancgyrie in Late Antiquity, 6.7. Haggand P, Rousseau (Berkcley, 2000) 29-515, and MJ. Edwards, “Birch, Death, and Divinicy in Porphyry’s Li of Plorinus,” also in Greek Biography rad Paregyric 52-7 ‘4. On the philosophy of Amelius, see L. Brisson’ “Prosopogeaphie,” in Porphyre, La Vie de Plotin, vol. Led. L. Brisson et af. (Paris, 1992) 65-69.Biocrarny as Ser-Promorion; Pormiivay’s Vira Prorint st Another way of acackingan accuser is greatly to praise a small character trait but chen concisely «0 reproach a grear one, or alter having put forward many good traits to ce- proach: the one thar is conducive co che case a¢ hand. Such are the most skilful and unjust [dertaccors}, for they undertake to harm the good by mixing good and bad traits. Other methods may be found in the Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, such as at 1441b16-18, 19-23, 24-25: You should nor mock he one whom you are discrediting, but rather discuss his life, for [such] words persuade listeners more than mocking does .... Guard against calling shame- fulacts by shameful names lese you attack his character, buc rather discuss such matters tiddlingly (aiviyzarea83s) .... You should use itony when discredicing a person. Porphyry skillfully made use of such rhetorical precepts buc transformed them for use in the Viea. The result is more subtle chan the mechods sug- gested in the handbooks. Porphyry’s rhetorical strategy appears immediately in chapter 2 of che Vita. He refers co himself, with his usual use of the pronoun tye, which adds an impression of authority co his words and a sense of his omnipres- ence (2.31-32)? Tehoureivts 88 atte fy pivd Tloppipies riyxowovév AckuBaien, Sarpipeov,' Akio & iv’ Anapeia ths Zupias, Kaorpikios 82 év Th PeSun’ novos 6 naphy 6 Edooroxtes, While he fic, Plovinus] was dying, | Porphyry happened ca be spending time ac Lily bacum. Amelius was in Apames in Syria, Castricius was in Rome, Eustochis alone vvas present. Plotinus, who was suffering eerribly, had left Rome for the Campanian villa of Zethus, a deceased friend. His disease, possibly diphtheria or tnberculosisS meane chat Plotinus was highly contagious and that no one visited him, ex- cept the doctor Eustochius, who arrived just as Plocinus died. Ac this poine, Porphyry informs us chae he was in Sicily, chae Amelius was in Syria, and chat Castricius’ was in Rame. Thus, no one except Eustochius—not even Amelius—was with Plocinus, and no fault can accach thereby to Porphyry. Another point to notice is chat the Plotinian circle now consists of four people: Porphyry, Amelius, Castricius, and Eustochius. OF chese the wo 5. On Porphyry’s feequent usc of the first person, see Schroeder (above. nove 2) 518 note 142, where he cies 13 instances, buc nor this ane in book 2. Cf A.P. Segond’ noce in Parphyre, La Vie de Plotin 221-22 and G. Clatk (above, nove 3) 35. 6. See M.D. Gemek, “Les Maladies et La More de Plain, 335-53. 7.On Casts, ee Briscon (above, note 4) 89-90. [n chapter 7, Porphyry elisus thacheis 2 devored follower of Plotinus, but one who decided to pursue a politcal career (Vit. 7.2429), in Porphyre.tLa Vie de Plotin2 Jou F Fiwamore philosophers are Posphyry and “Amelius. Thus, the ewo sivals are far from the center of activity at the time of Plotinus’ deaths Icis not uncil chapter 4 chat Porphyry oext mentions Amelius and himself (1-6) Té bexdre> 88 Er Tis Faduivou Boorksias ty’ Tloptiipros fx ths EAAGBos Here “AU ravlou rol "Pobiow yeyouss xarahauBéves lv tov "Auéhtoy derexaibéxetov Bros dyovta Tig pds Thearivey ovvovoias, unSiv 6 neo ypadery tokpipavta mhiy ev oxohien & obbéne els Eady t6 MXibos alee owviero. In the centh year of she reign of Galienus [263 CEH, I Porphyey, having arrived from Greece wich Antonius of Rhodes, came upon Amelius in che eighteenth year of his as- sociacion wich Plosinus. Amelius had not yer dared write anything except notes, which hie had noe yet collected into che total hundeed. In chapters 4-6, Porphyry presents us with che cirles of the fifty-four Enneads and the hree periods of Plotinian scholarship under which they fall. The quotation above, che first words of chapter 4, is therefore a subtle opening salvo in che bactle of che publication over Plotinus’ corpus. It is of no small momenc. The publisher gains a cectain power over all civals. To understand more clearly what Porphyry is about ro do in chaprers 46, we must go to the end of chapter 3, where Aiefius is mentioned. Porphyry tells us that Plocinus wrote nothing for his Brst ren years in Rome (244-253/4 CE, 3.35-36). Amelius actives in 246 CE and remains ewenty-four years (38-42). According to Porphyry, Amelius (43~48) gudonouig. 8 dimepBadkouevos Tau xa’ obtoy Mavreau bid TO xo! axeB6u mdvrar ve Nouunviou koi ypcijor kal auvayaryciv kai oyeBOv' 1é mhciovaExpaBev. axOhia Bix Gv cuvovstiav noroinseves éxaséy nov BiBhio awerae réSu axoNeov, & Odiaidhoug “Houxiea 16) days, dv viov £0er0, rexdprorar. surpassed all of his (Plotinus’] students in love of labor because he had weitten and collected nezrly all of Namenius’ works and had nearly memorized most af them. He made noes frown meetings [of Plarinas’ school}, and he collected (I snppose) one hundred books of chem, which he gave to Hoszilianus Hesyehius of Apainea, whom he adopted as his son. 8, Edwards (above, note 3) poimes out that Plotinus “left Rome voluntacily to spare his friends the aflicrion of his presence” (57). This 100 tends co feee Porphyry frorn blame in being absent, Edwards iscereainly cosrecc chat Porphyry opens the Vita with Plocinus’ death because, for Platonists, lite is a prepasation for deach, 9. On this second oxeBbv, see the note of M.O. Goulet-Cazé in Porphyre, La Vie de Plosin 219-20. There is cerezinly no overwhelming reason to delere it nor to eranslace ic differently from the first oye88v. The resulting sentence is no more odd than many others of Porphysy.Brocrarny as Sez-Promorion: Porpavay’s Vira PLorine 3 The first thing co nove is what Amelius is being praised for. He collects ocher people's works and has an extraordinary memory. It is in this sense that he is uAdTIOVos (labor-loving)."° Amelius can write notes well, but he does not seem to advance beyond this stage. He collected perhaps a hundred books of notes on Plorinus’ lectures, but he did not publish them. ‘This brings us to the opening of chapter 4. Amelius “had not yet dared write anything except these notes.” Plorinus had been writing treatises for ten years before Porphyry arrived and now had completed 21 treatises that had not been circulaced widely (éx6eSopéva dAlyois, 4.14) “We are lef with the impression char Amelius, ducing his years with Plo- tinus before Porphyry's entry into the school, was engaged in time-consum- ing feuitiess tasks. Furcher, if we emphasize Porphyry’s phrase un6év 8 m0 ypadev Tohuhoowra mhiy TEv oxeMleay (“he had dared co write noching, except notes,” 4.4-5), Amelius appears insecure and paralyzed about acting on behalf of Plotinus. In chapter 5, Porphyry lists the twenry-fonr treatises that were written during his six-year scay at che school. These treatises, he rells us, boch Amelius and he pressed Plotinus to write (5.5-7), We notice, however, that it took Porphyry’s presence before Plotinus composed these treatises or even before Amelius could bring himself to prod Plotinus to write. In chaprer 6, Porphyry records the names of the nine treatises wrieten by Plotinus while Porphyry was in Sicily. These ereatises, ir should be nored, Plotinus senc co Porphycy himself (6.3-4; 15=16). There is no mention of Amdlius. Porphyry then assesses the relative merits of the treatises in che three groups. Those in the first group (before Porphyry was ac Rome) and che last group (after Porphyry had lefe) are fonnd wanting compared to those written while Porphyry was in residence. This may he a crue assessment of che treatises’ worth, bnt the underlying message is also clear: Plotinus did his best work when Porphyry was present. Porphyry therefore knew the master in his prime. The fact he knew Plotinus for less time chan Amelius is irrelevant both hecause the cime before he arrived Amelius never attained the station of a crusted and influential student and because Plorinus was still working up to his bese writings. ‘These three chapters on the treatises are followed by a chapter on eleven of Plorinus’ scudenss, beginning with Amelius and ending wich Porphyry. ‘The placement is relevant: these are the two most important students. There were doctors, politicians, a poet, a rhetorician, and even a politician who gave up all his worldly goods (Rogatianus, to whom Porphyry devotes the longest 10. On the derogatory nacure of "philo-” words when compared to “philosophy.” see below on giotirms (in Vis. 10).4 Jorn F. Fixamone account by far, 7.31~46), bue there were no philosophers of the caliber of Amelius and Porphyry. Of Amelius we learn (7.25) that he and his family (Gentilianus) hailed from Tuscany, that Plotinus punned on his name by calling him “Amerius” (“indivisible”) rather than Amelius (“indifferent”). ‘Then, in the account of the next student, the doctor Paulinus (5~7), Porphyry says that Amelius called him “Mikkalos” (Mixxaos, “the very small”),!" The juxtaposition of the two plays on a person's name is instructive. Whereas Plotinus bestows on Ameliusa name more fitting fora philosopher, Amelitis derides Paulinus for his failures. Amelius again comes up short and appears petty. Further, Plato uses the verb yeAetéea for the care that a philosopher should give to living the proper kind of life. Porphyry hints that even in name Amelius is not philosophically correct."* Ax the end of chapter 7, Porphyry says this of himself (49-51): “Eoxs 6 xal iui Tloppiprov Tupiov Gvra év tois uéioratEraipov, bv Xai SiopBoiy aitod 16 ovyypapuara!” HElou, He [Plotinus) held me Porphyry the Tyrian among his best friends, and he deemed me worthy even to edi his writings. The contrast with the earlier passage on Amelius could hardly be starker. Porphyry was a top student, one so respected as to be entrusted with the master’s own writings." The composition of chapter 7, with the contrast between Amelius’ derogarory wordplay at the beginning and Porphyry’s ac- ceptance of the honor of editing Plotinus’ words at the end, again displays Porphyry’s subtle use of thetoric, Amelius hada talent for playing with words, but Plotinus chose Porphyry as publisher of his serious work. Porphyry continues to juxtapose Amelius and himself in the Life of Ploti- nus. In chapter 16, we are told that Plotinus left it to Amelius and Porphyry to complete his attack on the Gnostics (Enn., 2.9). 11. On the pun, see Brisson (above, note 4) 97-98. Amelius construes the name “Paulinus” as the diminutive of the Latin paulus. The Greek word Mixxaos “est le diminutif de uirxos, Cest-dire uixpos, en béotien et en dorien.” 12, For the Greck verb ueherées, see expecially Phd. 67e4-5: oi Op8c5 grRooogoiivres Girofujoreiv uedevédo1 (“They correctly do philosophy who practice dying”). This i, of course, one of the key tenets of Platonic philosophy; see the contrast between the unphilosophical and philosophical lives at81e3 and 82a10-b3 (where the noun form, ushémn, is used). 13, On the meaning of obyypayu, “writings intended for publication inside and outside of the school,” see M.O. Goulet-Cavé, “LArriére-Plan Scolaire de la Vie de Plotin” in Porphyre, La Vie de Plotin 271-72. 14, Porphyry claims that Plotinus selected him as “arranger and editor” in 24.2~3! Emi 8 bts Thy SiGragiv xal thy SidpSeso1v raw BiBAicav roigioBan fuiv Emétpeyev.Blograrty as SuLr-ProMOTION: PorrHYRY’s Vert PeoTin 5s _Amelius, suiting againse the book of Zostrianus, put forth as many as Forey books. [ Porphyry published many refurations of the book of Zoroaster, proving chat the book ‘was a comiplete fabrication and new, devised by those organizing the doctrine wo encour- age the belief chac che teachings that they chose ro esteem were these of Zoroaster, who tived tong ago (16.2-18). On the face of ic, both of Plosinus’ students are carrying on his legacy, and this perception is in fact true, Porphyry, however, also insinuates that whereas Amelius is a prolific weiter (perhaps too much so—we are reminded of his one hundred books of Plotinian tecture notes), ic was Porphyry who went beyond mere voluminous writing to bare the essential nature of che Zoroas- rian books: they were frauds. Even when Porphyry praises Amelius and indeed quores him at length, there is sill an argument under the surface about who is che rightful heir of Plorinus. In chapter 17, we find chat when unnamed Greeks accused Plotinus of plagiarizing Numenius, Amelivs wrote a defense of Plocinus, which he dedicated co Porphyry (17.1-15)." Porphyey chen quoces Amelivs lerter to him (16-44). As Acmscrong has pointed our,” “Amelius’s style cheoughoue chis lercer is excessively pompous and high-flown.” Amelius says chat he has made use of Porphyry’ suggestion in writing the work. Further, Amelius claims thae for lack of rime he wrote the work almose haphazardly in three days and thar Porpbyry will correct any etrors, Although it is cercain chae Amelius wrote the letter in a humorous vein, showing offhis rhetorical style and clever wordplay, che effecr of the lecter in the Visa is ro make Porphyry look the serious scholar, closer to Plotinus, who can fand no doube will) correct any of Amelivs’ errors. 15. Bven though the Nag Hammadi corpus contains a treatise Zostrianne, there is line season to hold thar dhis is the teeatise that Amelius and Porphyry possessed, One gets the inspeessiga chat thece were numerous “books of Zoroaster” available ac that cimne, Inde, itis even possible thar our Zetirians was writen by somneane familias with Plotinian metaphysics, For che date of Zoscrianus, see R, Majercik, “The Existence-Life-lotellece Triad in Gnosticism and Neopfavonism,” CQ 42 (1992): 488 and J.F. Floamore, “lamblichus, the Sethians, and Marsanes,” io Gnostic ane? Lazer Plesonior, 6d, }. Tamer and R. Majercik (Atlanta, 2000) 226-27, nove 5, 16, The fact that Amelius wrote che work bur that boch he and Porphyry tiled it (Eneypayouer, 17.5) may also be a claim of partial eredie for che whole work on Porphyry parc, We note again in chis anecdore Amelius’ love for wordplay, dedicaring is to “Basileus.” since Porphyry Syrian nase, Mateus, means “king,” Ametius was clearly 2 philasopher who delighted in words and puns. fn this cas, teres no pejorative iment on Ameliu® part. Longiney refers to Poxphyry as “Basileus" as well at 20.91, . 17. AH. Armsuong, Plaines, Ennead, Vol. 1, rev, (Cambridge, 1989) 48-48, noce 1. See also the nore of L. Brisson and A.D. Segonds in Porphyre, La Vie de Plorin 276, who cat! che eayle "grandiloguent” and point our chat the pastage lacks hiatus. See L. Brisson, “Amélius: Vig, Deuvee, Doctrine,” ANRI 2.36.2 (1987): 853.56 Jouw F Finamore In chapret 18, Porphyry tells che story of his fest entry into Plotinus school, when he failed co comprehcod how the Ineligible object existed within the Intellect (18.8-23). Plotinus assigned Amelius the task of com recting the new pupil’s error, In a series of three papers, the two students argued dhe topic until at last Porphyry recanted and never again doubred Plotinus’ docttines, On the surface, chis again seems like a story shat elevates the knowledgeable Amelius, buc the final lines suggest another interpreta- tion (18.20-23): From chat time on | crusted in Plotinus’ books and I kepe urging che master bimself coward an ambition of complecing his doctrines and writing chem more fully, Ploinas roo urged Amelius to wriee.! ‘We notice how Porphyry cakes che lead in urging Plotinus co wsite. He ani- maces Plotinus, who in turn motivates Amelius. The debate between Porphyry and Amelius is therefore pivotal. The torch has passed co 2 new generation. Yes, Pocphyry was young and misguided ac Eirsr. Yes, Amelius had knowledge of the arguments of Plotinus to straighten the newcomer out, Bue now the ‘newcomer has supplanted che old champion. Porphyry sers the whole school in motion, bringing it back to the worthy goal of writing and publication, a goal ro which (Porphyry implies) Amelius has nor applied himself The importance of Pocphyry as the upholder and defender of Plocin- ian philosophy continues in chapters 19-21, where Porphyry introduces Longinus, the ocher leading Platonic philosopher of his day, In chapcer 19 Porphyry quotes a letcer from. Longinus to Porphyry himseif, in which he requests better manuscripts of Plocinus’ Greek chan those of Amelius and in which he ranks Plorinus’ writings as “among chose in the highest repute” (ueta 1Gv EAdoyipesTéresv, 19.41), although Longinus himself does nor agree with all of Plotinus’ doctrines. The importance of chis chapter does vot lie in Longinus’ criticism of Amelius, for Porphyry will defend Ame- lug manuscript-copying skills (but not his philosophy, we nore) in chapter 20.” Rather, Porphyry is establishing his credentials as a leading Placonise 18. Lretain che MSS. reading (AuOuov cis re auyyp&eiw mpouuboy énoine:y), as R. Goulee argues, in Porphyre, La Vie de Plotin 128 and 281. The edicors print the costection of Henry and Schwyzct! AuéArov sis to ovyypégew mpovuBov Enoinos ("L coo have urged Amelius co write"). If his ceadingis accepced, Porphyry is taking credit for spuering on both Plouinus and Amelins. A chird possibility is the conjecture of Cherniss (accepted by Armstrong): Auétos tis vo ouyypadey mpdpufov Eroina:y ("Amelius coo urged [Plotinus] ro write”). In this case, Amelius joins wich Porphyry in encouraging Plotinus, bne Porphyry is the prime mover. 19, “He [Longinus] seemed to be mistaken about the manyscripts which he pos- sessed, having received them from Amelius, because he did not understand the accustomed expression of the man [i.e., of Plotinus]. For in no wise would any other manuscripts be berter than those edited by Amelins, since they are taken from Plotinus’ own wric- ings” (20.5-9). For the eccentricities of Plotinus’ style and method of writing, see Vit. 8.Brocrapny as See-PROMOTION; Porpuyry’s Viz4 PLoting S7 himself by showing the deference extended ro him by Longinus, his former veacher. In chapter 20, Porphyry quores from Longinus’ Tlepi Téhous (“On Ends”), a response to Plorinus and Amelius. In this very long extract (20.17-~-104), Longinus ranks Plotinus and Amelius together (both “now engaged ar Rome,” of ve péxpt viv év Ti ‘Pedi Snuostevovres, 32, so when Amelins was Plotinus’ seudent) as philosophers who publish (25-33) and who have wrivven originally on many topics (69-71). Longinus says char Plotirms has a clarity beyond orher Plaronists (71-76), and says the following, about Amelius (76-80): Armelius chooses to follow in his footsteps, holding many of che same doctrines, but ‘is verbose in discussion and led by a citcuitous way of expression (ri Ths épunveios TepiBoAG} 10 4 style opposed co his Here Longinus criticizes Ametius’ style, nor the substance of his writings, which are basically Plorinian, The term “circuirousness” (meptBodg, 79) is in Hermogenes and is defined as “a statement which does noc allow us knowl- edge of some element in a speech in its simplicity, but racher forces us to connect it 10 other clements.”” This is @ problem that we have encountered earlier. Amelius rends toward verbosity and indirection in his style. This passage comments on Amelius’ way of chinking and writing, and ultimately on his philosophy, as we shall see shortly. Porphyry then raises an area of difference berween his former teacher Longinus and Plotinus concerning the placement of the Intelligible objects in che Intellect. Alchough Longinus continues co chink chat che objects exist outside ebe Intellect, he says that Porphyry “has written a good deal in imication of Plotinus” (o08' arév dAtya mempaynareuugvon Kate THY Titcorivou pipnaty, 20.91-92). In chapter 21, Porphyry tepeats both of Longinus assertions about Ame- ius’ and his styles of wriring (21.9-16) and then gives what he sces as the conclusion to be drawn ftom Longinus’ lerter (16-23): He composed chese masters in this way because he saw chat 1 completely shunned Amelins’ unphilosophical method of cigcuicousuess and looked to writing in. the manner of Pleciaus. Such a man who is frst in judgment and is accepred as such now, ‘writing abour Plorinus, sbows sufficiently that if { Posphyry could have met wich him (since he had invited me), he would nox have written against thase things which be had undertaken co write before understanding the doctrine. 20. See the note of A-P. Segonds in Porphyre, La Vie de Plotin 289. 21. See the nore of AP Segonds in Porphyre, La Vie de Plotin 292,58 Jouw F. Finamore, Amelius' “clrcuitousness” (nepiBokh, 17) is now condemned as “unphilo- sophical.” Porphyry, on the contrary, writes appropriately in Plocinus’ style. ‘The conclusion is unmistakable. The philosophical heic of Plotinus cannot be the unphilosophical Amelius who does not properly imicare his mascet (in writing or, we are to infer, in philosophy) but Porphyry, Plocinus’ crue imitacor.? Thus, for Porphyry, Longinus’ letters demonstrate chat he, Porphyry, is the superior student and that he could have himself have won Longinus over to Plocinus’ side, as of course the leteets of Amelius had not. Further, although Longinus expressed esteem for Amelius, ic was co Porphyry chat he addressed his letcer and ftom Porphycy that he sought information about Plotinus’ philosophy. ‘These are the places in the Vita where Porphyry and Amelius ace placed in close juxtaposition. These passages Jead us from Porphyry's entry into the school, to his embtacing of Plotinian philosophy, to his cole as primary motivaroc of Plotinus’ writings, and (ultimately) co his role as the foremost philosopher of his day (as tecognized by thar great man, Longinus) and as heie to Plorinus’ doctrines. There remain chree passages in which Ametius appears alone, alchough Porphyry brings himself on the scene in the im- mediately following chapter Amelius makes his first appeacance in chapter 1, in the context of Plotinus refusal co have a portrait made of himself, Amelius has che painter Catterius visic Plotinus’ lectures and chen draw Plotinus from memory. Again, this seems a harmless enough cale. Ameliusis disobeying che wishes of his master, buc she cesule is a fine portrair thac posterity would not otherwise have had The anecdote is meant to show Plotinus’ othec-worldliness, and so ic does. Ic also puts Amelius into the role of the tricky slave, and given Porphycy's propensity to accentuate Amelius’ foibles, chis can be no accident. Further, the fist appearance of Amelius contrasts vividly with that of Porphyzy. After Plotinus has contracted a debilitating disease, Porphyry wrices (2.10—12): ‘While { Porphyry was present, no such disease had arisen, but when I went away, it increased so much chat... Porphyty goes on wo relate the symptoms recorded by Eustochius. The point is probably nor chat Porphyry’s presence was salurery for Plotinus (although the idea may be implied), bur rather thar Porphyry had kepe coneact wich 22. “Imitation” is imporcanc in philosophy as well asin style. The goal of Platonic philoso- phy as “imitation of god” Gpoieois Cd, Tht. 1765). Since the holy man stands in place of god, his life coo isa pactern far imitation. Thus, Porphyry’ imitation of Plocinus would extend, beyond seyle of writing and into the philosophical life.Biocrapisy as Ser-PRoMOTION: Porpuyey’s Vita PLO7INE 9 his teacher and was in sympathy with him, If Amelius was the wily slave, Porphyry is che dutiful son, caring for Plotinus’ well-being and secking information from Euscochius about his last moments. There is a related poine here as well, Amelius is shown concerned with an image of Plotinus, As any reader of the Republic knows, images fall very Jow in the scale of being in Platonic philosophy. In Plotinian philosophy, che realm of marter is the pale imitation of the Incelligible world and the One itself. Our minds should be raised higher toward that true reality. On this basic cenet of philosophy Amelius again fails to make the grade. We will rerurn co this poine shortly. In chapter 10, after the stories of Olympius’ thwarred efforts of magic against Ptotinus and of the anonymous Egyptian’s priest's decermination thac Plotinus had a god for a guardian spirit, Pocphyry relates this rale of Amelius (10.33-38): Since Amelius as fond of sacrifices and went around co ternples ar the new moon and at festivals, he once asked Plocimus to accompany him. Plotinus said: “Te is right that they come to me, not To them.” From what sort of knowledge he thus urcered chese lofty words we aurselves could nor knew and did not dare ask him, ‘The poine of the story, most probably, is chac according to Plorinian phi- losophy we have the gods—and indeed al) the cosmos—within ourselves. Access to chem is open and available to all, if we know how to look. There is, therefore, no need for Plorinus to visit a temple to find diviniry.® Thus, Plo- tinus’ words indicate a ccuch about Plorinian philosophy, one which Amelius should have gtasped but did not. In this light che adjective $:ho8ums (“fond of sactifices,” 33), the first word in the anecdote, takes on special importance. What Amelius should be is 1200405, i.e., taking in Plotinian philosophy and learning the ecue nacure of ascent. Insicad he is engaged in the supersti- tions of the masses. Porphyry may have in mind here the famous distinction of the Republic (476a9—b9) between the lovers of spectacle (prhoBs&uoves) who “delight in beautiful sounds and colors and shapes” but not in the Forms themselves, as philosophers do. Amelius is in the wrong camp. Posphyry gives us an example of correct philosophical arcitude in the next chapret (11.1119). When Porphyry is pondering suicide, Plotinus tells him thar his desire arises nor from a rational decision (éx vospas KaTaoTacees, 11.14} but from melancholy. Plotinus bids him go away to recuperate, and imimediarely Porphyty sets out for Lilybaeum. In this anecdore Plotinus sug- 23. On this passage, see L. Brisson, “Plotin et la Magie: Le Chaiptre 10 de la Vie de Plotin par Porphyre,” in Porphyre, La Vie de Platin 472-75 and Edwards fabove, nite 3) 65. 24 Thus I cannot agree with Brisson (above. nore 23) 472 nove 31 chac the word as i is used here “es. un cerme indifférent d'un point de wue moral en grec ancien.”60 Jonn F, Fisamore. gests a rational course of action and Porphyry accedes, whereas in chapter 10, Amelius did not cake to heart Plotinus’ teachings Finally, in chaprer 22, which contains Apollo's oracle on the post-mor- tem existence of Plotinus’ soul,2* we read this bare seaternenc about Amelius (22.8-12): For when Amelius asked where the soul of Plotinus had gone, Apollo, who had said of Socrates “Socrates was the wisest of all men,” replied in so many and such words (listen!) .... (The words of the oracle immediately follow.) On che face of i, this is a straightforward account of the acrions of a dutifal Amelius. Amelius asks about Plotinus’ fate, and Apollo provides proof that Photius’ soul fives on in Neoplatonic bliss, where other Plotinian philosophers suay follow. But the reference to the Oracle about Soctates poiuts another way. Amelius is being placed into the role of Chaetephon, who had asked Apollo who was wiser than Socrates (Apod, 29a). Now Chactephon, while performing an imporcant task in relation to Socrates’ future careet, was himself of little importance to the hisrory of Socratic and Platonic philosophy. Asnelius, like Chaerephon, brings to light important informacion (chrough Apollo, not chrough himself), but (also like Chaerephon) his engagemenc in the philosopher's enterprise is not essential to the task. Ie was Plato, Socraces’ other scudent, who (in effect) published his teacher’s philosophy. This pucs Porphyry into the role of Plato, siuce i¢ was he and not Amelius who published Plotinus’ writings. A passage from che following chapcer (23,7-18) sheds more light on the mattet, Not only bad Plorinus attained a heavenly bliss after death, buc even while alive he had achieved union with che One four times. Porphyry can- noc help but adding (12-14) 1 Porphyry. now in my 68th year, state chat J once approached and united with (the One|. Poor Amelius, ic would seen, never did. Again che conceast is significant. Amelius reported news of Plotinus’life after death, buc Porphyry experienced once what che master had achieved four cimes before. Ic is Porphyry, nor Amelius, who has assumed responsibility for continuing Plotinus’ philoso- 25. On this oracle, see L. Brisson and j.M. Flamand, “Structure, Consenu et Intentions de LOracle D'Apollo (VP 22)" and R. Gouler, “Sur quelques interprétations récentes de LOsacle DrApollon,” in Parphyre, La Vie de Plotin 565-602 ans) 603-17, respectively 26. Ir should be noted chat Porphyry was presene in the school when Plotinus had bis four encounters: VP 23 and 8,19-20.Brocrapxy as Sete-Paomorion: Porpuyary’s Vita Promnr oO phy, not only by editing the Ennead: but also by continuing the practical application of chat philosophy in his life. Porphyry lives the Plotinian life, albeit in a lesser degree than Plocinus himself. Note the contrasc here, at the end of the Vita, with chapter one, in which Amelius had Carverius surreptitiously paint a portraie of Plotinus Amelius, as we saw, was concerned with the oucward physical image of the philosopher:** Porphyry at the end continues co live the philosophic life of the divine Plocinus, ‘Thus, at rhe end of the Vite (24.2~5) Porphyry can make his final claim co the right to be the publisher of Plorinus’ ereatises: He (Plocinus] himself turned ro me to arrange and edit his books, and I promised him while he was alive and 1 told other friends that J would do so, We note that Plociaus named Porphyry, not Amelius, his edicor. Porphyry portrays himselfas the dutiful seudene, obedient to Plotinus, who will benelic his philosophical friends by editing Plocius’ works. He is the spitinual son of Plotinus, the one true heir to his philosophy.” Porphyry mentions Amelius in nine chapeers of the Vita (1,3, 4,5, 7, 10, 16, 18, and 21). Porphyry never attacks Amelius directly, buc rather throagh innuendo and studied juxtaposition with himself shows Amelius’ weaknesses in contrasc to Porphyry’s own strengchs. Porphyry constructs a picture of Amelius as a plodding, prolix pedanr who writes many volumes adding up to litcle. He is superstitious and coo fond of wordplay. In every comparison, tacit or explicit, Porphyry shows hieaseif surpassing Amelius. Porphyry’s strategy in the Vita is subde. It builds slowly as the work pro- gresses. In the end, the reader can conclude only chat Plotinus chose wisely when he selected Porphyry as his successox.®” 27. A fact that Porphyry will remind us of agsin in the nexe chapter (24.25). 28. The portraic is even fucther removed from reality since Careers based ic on his mental recollection of what Plotinus looked like. Ici chus an image of an image of Plotinus, which is itself a mere material image of che rue Plotinus (1.1618). Cp. Rep. X.595a-602b. 29. There are ewo further references co Porpliyry himself, both of which are incended ro show Plotinus’ regard for him. In Vit. 13.10-17, he relates thar he and Plorinus engaged its a three-day discussion on hove che soul was present to che body. In Vit. 15.1-21, Poxphyty gives shree related anecdotes. First (1-6), Plorinus praises Porphyry’s poem “The Sacred Marriage.” Second (6-17), Platinus encrusts Porphyry with che refutation of Diophanes. Third (18-21), Dlosinus has Posphyry respond w Eubulus’ questions on Platonie philosophy. There isa steady ‘movement upward, as Porphyry first shows himself a master poce and interpreter of matters divine, chen a correct interpreter of Plato's Sympasivon, and finally 2a auchoriry on Placonism ‘geoerally. For a comparison of the first pwo passages in chapter 15, see A-P. Segond’ note in Posphyre, La Vie de Plotin 268. 30. L would like co thank Fredesick Schroeder and Cazol Poster for reading an eater deaft cof my paper and making excellent suggestions. Any remainiug mistakes are mine alone,