American Philological Association

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, Vol. 100 (1969),
pp. 63-70
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable 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 support@jstor.org.

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 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ENN. 3.9.1, AND

PLOTINUS,
ON THE INTELLIGIBLE

LATER VIEWS
WORLD

JOHN M. DILLON
University
ofCalifornia,
Berkeley

which
Plotinus'shortnoteon theinternal
composition
oftheIntellect,
Porphyry
hasplacedas thefirstof theE7TtlcKEJ0/ElSt 3aopot (Enn. 3.9
[I3]), gave risein laterNeoplatonism
to a varietyof interpretation.
In particular,Amelius Gentilianusand Porphyry,both of them
pupilsand companionsof theMasterformanyyears,seemto have
drawnquite different
conclusions
fromit. They are each criticized
fortheirconclusions
byIamblichus,
andthenbyProclus,eachofwhom
himselftook thepassagedifferently,
bringingthetotalof interpretationsto four. I wish, therefore,
afterrecordingin turnAmelius'
andPorphyry's
doctrine
on theDemiurge,to turnto a detailedexaminationof the shortpassagefromwhichall thisbewildering
variety
appearsto have sprung,'and to considerhow theirvery various
interpretations
couldhavearisenfrom't.2
The stimulus
forthedoctrine,
forPlotinusand Ameliusat anyrate,
was Plat. Tim.39E:
7rTEp oiuv

KaOopf,

vovs~ EvovaagLS

T
Eacg T

TgoLcLTVOs KaU TOUcWTcs

Eu0
o

TLpov,
t

&EVO7)AqEUV

otat
Ka'

TE EVEtUt

KaL

orat,

TOSE oXE-,

I We cannot, of course, ignore the probability that Plotinus' pupils based their
views of his doctrine equally much on unpublished discussionswith the masterAmelius explicitly refersto such in another connection (Procl. In Tim. 2.2I3.9 ff.
Diehl)-but theirpositionsare in factadequatelyderivablefromEnn. 3.9.I.
Porphyry
puts 3.9 among the firstgroup of treatises,writtenbeforehis time,which would mean
that he cannot have participatedin the discussionwhich led to it. Amelius, on the
otherhand, veryprobably did.
2 I am not here concernedwith the occasion for the writingof 3.9.I,
which was the
thesisthatthe Ideas are outsidethe Intellect-a view to which Porphyryhimselfadhered
(Vit. Plot. I8) when he firstarrived in Plotinus' circle. These mattersare discussed
adequatelyby Brehierand Armstrongin the introductionto the tractatein theirrespective editions(Bude and Loeb). Indeed, a look at eitheror both of these editions of
the tractateis recommendedbeforeone proceedsfurther.

This content downloaded from 181.118.153.57 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:46:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

64

JOHN M. DILLON

[I969

as recordedby Proclus(Comm.In Tim.

althoughthemaindiscussion,
I, PP. 305-IODiehl),3is based on Tim.28c, no doubtbecausethat
is wherePorphyry
and Iamblichus,
in theircommentaries,
firstraised
thesubject.
hiscommentary
Let us takeAmeliusfirst. He is theseniordisciple,
(cf. EraIa8y rov'ApeAtov
on theTimaeusprecededthatof Porphyry
O HopoVptoS, Pr. I.306.3
I ?), andhe was veryprobablypresentwhen
the discussion
thatled to Enn. 3.9.1 took place. Porphyrymustbe
to him,ratherthanhe to Porphyry.
takenas reacting
was Amelius'most
For Proclus,the triadof DemiurgicIntellects
distinctive
doctrine. He reportsit in two contexts,apropos of
Timaeus 28C and 39E, whichlatterpassageis the one fromwhich
Plotinustakeshis start. Proclus'evidenceis as follows:(i) In Tim.
I.306.i ff.Diehl (ad Tim.28c):
'A/dAtos
TpE6s,
IuEv

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

I
% C % V
% V
SE OV'TOl, SLOTl O
TOV OVTa, TOV EXOvTaC, TOV oPWvTa.
&taOqEpovUc
el
OYTWS
E,T)
0
0 SE
c
EU1 "
O E)
Ev C)WT
EaTc
To
o
O
o5vcog
VOVSg
EaTtv,
TpTros
EETCV
SEvTepoS
av,IzEv

vo7Trov, EXet
aEVTepOS,

0E

avivyoUv^

&ta Tovro
7TmvWrcosEKEtVOV Kal
E To Trpo avToV Kal IzETEXEt
c C\N 1
V
/ %EV
TO Ev
E avTW T)
0V0'
7TL'
"CU vovg
YS
7
Ev To
Ka) KC
ovros
TptToS
7rag yap
EoUTl

vo07JT() o avTros

EUTLv

EXEt SE

To

Ev

79)

SEvTEpC

Kal

op,a

,
To EXEtv a.V?poS6TEpov.
aTTo
Tpwry
yap TTAELWv?9 aa7TO6aUTsa
oL0Vpy0VS
v0cs
Ka' T0oV
TrOVTOVg OVV TOVg TpE1& Kvag
V7oATat
Ls,
lTap\ Tr4 HlA
vt TpEI& a
Ka' ToV'g 7Tap OpOE- TpE
(PrT

7pWTrov ocu

Ka

OVpavoV
VO

Kat Kpovov, KaUo0aAtFTa

7Tapc

avcrTp

oj,u oapyos o

EaUTv.

"AmeliusconceivestheDemiurgeas triple,and saysthatthereare three

and he who sees.
threeKings,he who is, he who possesses,
Intellects,
which
The firstintellectis reallywhathe is; thesecondis theIntelligible
is in him, but he possessesthe Intelligiblewhich is prior to him, and
in all ways participatessolelyin him, and is for this reason second;
and thirdtoo is what is in him-for all Intellectis identicalwith the
the contentsof the second
linkedto it-but he also possesses
Intelligible
becomes
of-possession
element;fortheintensity
andseesthefirst
Intellect,
and
dimmeraccordingto thedegreeofremoteness. ThesethreeIntellects
with thethreeKingsin Plato (Ep. 2.3 12E),
Demiurgeshe also identifies
ed. E. Diehl, 3 vols. (Leipzig
3 Proclus Diadochus, In PlatonisTimaeumCommentaria,
I904-6).

This content downloaded from 181.118.153.57 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:46:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Vol. IOO]

PLOTINUS,

65

ENN. 3.9.1

and theOrphictriad,Phanesand Uranosand Cronos(fr.96 Kern),and

accordingto him theDemiurgepar excellenceis Phanes."
(2)

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

'A,pAto! ,uEv o0v
yLaALtaa

oUVV(T7)UL

771V rpta'Sa

TYV

VOcov

S77UF0VPytKWV

1~v p~~carwcv, rov

a'7To

TOV'TV

rpcorov ovra KaLAcv airo

70iat"T
At
Pt'SEv'Epov
^aO ,
70
'A-V'"Trov
sort ypov
Tov,
a7To
"Evov'aag"
EXovTa
( ov yap
o1 o,SEVT
CaSrtv
r&o
EP Ev avTcry, Tov oSE Tpt`Tov
pvn
oeepsEp0S, a'AA' ELULL
Ltastwp,'no
CvTa ar
a'rTo'Trovo
oep
TOv

pEv

oSE

wov,

KacopcLv.

"Ameliusreliesparticularly
on thispassagein constructing
his triadof
DemiurgicIntellects,
callingthefirst
'he who is' fromthe'reallyexisting
livingbeing,'thesecond,'he who possesses,'
fromthephrase,'existing
in' (forthe seconddoes not exist,so much as thattheyexistin him),
and thethird'he who sees,'fromtheword 'behold."'
Of the three, ewv perhapspresentsthe mostdifficulty.What does
EXWV possess.? The ideas, we must say, the content
of ro ~CC4ov,
ratherthan ro' CcOovitself The curious statementov yap EUrrtvo0
o

3ev'rEpos,

aAA' Etetrtv

E'v av3rcZ must mean that o E'xawv is no more

than the sum of the e'voviratt'Eca. It is hard to regard o e'Xwvas

consciousat all. As soon as he beginsto contemplatethe ideas within
him, he becomes o Jp6v.
But we mustturnnow to Porphyry(In Tim. I.306.3I f.):
o Hopvptos
aLETa&1rov'AusdAtov

rrjv

,UEV

a ' ^
aVT7/S,

IVX7V
% 0
7TpOS Ov

S1q8tlVpyOV

'77V

v7TEpKo,u0ov
,

EITErUpa7wTrat,

Vo"
0tO/g

aL7ToKaAEL

To avTop0ov,-

rp HAwri'vp UVVq8LV,
rov SE VOV^V
&7p1toUVpyOV,
f

coS

f\

TO

EtvaL

7rapaSEtyfia

Ka-ra Tov^rov
TOvvoV.

" Followingon Amelius,Porphyry,

considering
himselfto be in accord

withPlotinus,callsthehypercosmic
Soul theDemiurge,and itsIntellect,
towardswhichitis turned,
theEssential
LivingBeing,so thattheParadigm
of theDemiurgeis forhimtheIntellect."
Proclus protestsagainstthis. Where, he asks,does Plotinusmake the
Soul the Demiurge? (p. 307.4-5).
This is a question that I hope to
answerin what follows.
Plotinus,as we have said, begins his enquiryfrom a consideration
of Tim.39E (ratherloosely 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 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

66

JOHN M. DILLON
"-or
riv,
EXEtV.

o SflLtkOVpyO,a0VVSptEV
r
a o
o
opa
voKS

Lv

ro 0

[I969
SrF COOV, Kat TO'SE TO%
UT
7Trv

The firstaporiaraisedis: Are theeidelthenpriorto Nous,ifNoussees

them as already onta? In replyingto this,he says, we must firstof
all considerthe possibilitythat the Z8on is 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),and thus Nous
will be beholding objects outside itself. But in that case Nous will
immediatelycognize not reality,but eid6la, which is intolerable.4
We mustthereforeconsiderNous and to Zo6on,Intellectand its object,
as being distinguishedonly in theory:
OiXSEv KWAV'EL, OArov

Vo7Cze,
terp
ETEp

VOT).EL,

9botEV

ETEpLL

OVOV

TL

AEyO1-4EVp, EV ELtvat acqi0b,

O
t
,uev

uovvwS- ov -ro
7raVrcS, a EA Ev

ro0 E
T

vo7prov,

av07C 7ru Ev av7-

8tatpoV' Eva rT

o yap
vooa3v 'Ya

Ka6o0pcs ov

7-o voq7T0rV ExEtV.

"There is nothingin the statementto preventus fromtakingthese

conceptually,
two elementsas one, althoughtheymay be distinguished
if only to the extentthatthereis one elementwhichis cognized,and
anotherwhichcognizes;forPlato doesnot meanthattheelementwhich
butthatit contains
outsideitself,
cognizesbeholdsin anysensesomething
thecognizedelementwithinitself."
The ideas, and ro'o E'-rt ~C-OV,must, then,be in Nous, or absurdities
result. This conclusionwas more fullyworked out later in Enn. 5.5
[32], where therelationof Intellectto theIdeas is theprimaryproblem.
Here it is only thefirstpartof theenquiry. To Zdon,then,is analyzed
Kat
as vovs- EVarEt
Ev
(albeit somewhat tentatively: ov'3Ev KCWAv'Et)
cc rvXt,a,while thevoV^sO3p6V EKE tVOV rOv vov^V is envisaged
EVOT17Tl Kat
as EVEpyEta 'ts- a7T EKEtVOV, OTt VOEt EKEtVOV. This distinction is

importantas a source for two of Amelius' voEs (and Demiurges), the

firstand 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 reasonablydistinguishedfrom Nous qua beholder, especially

if,as was the case with Amelius,one has a weaknessfortriads.
Plotinus,however, does not propose o' E'xwvin 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 thiscriticism.

This content downloaded from 181.118.153.57 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:46:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Vol.

PLOTINUS,

ioo]

ENN.

3.9.1

67

thispassage.Instead,
he produces
another
thirdelement,
possible
to

dianooumenon.5
ro

V,
ro (o

vovis op6v)

oiv

Eart

To

tavo7jOE',"
&aVOri7EV,

'a

7rot7Urat gwuv
SOKElE Ye
Iorulc
yEv7q '-Errapa.
E71tKEKpV/.qLEEVWs
ETEpOV EKELVWVTYV UVO IOtEZV.

EKE

opa,

rV TO

-8

evrpV TC E

^,,,^

.,

avoOVEVOV

" Thisthenisthatbeingwhich'planned'tocreateinthislowerUniverse
whatitseesthere,
thefourclasses
oflivingbeings. He seems,
certainly,
to maketheplanning
distinct
element
fromtheothertwo."
tacitly
So, as he saysin thenextline,we seemtohavethreeelements,
( 4ov
ro'
av'r o u-Eirtv,o vov^s, and ro5 tavoov'1evov. Some, he says,may see
all theseas one, othersas three;it dependshow you look at it. If,
however,one postulateso' 8tavoov',Evovas a distinct
element,what
wouldbe itsrole?
Its role,as it turnsout,would be distinctly
demiurgic.Its taskis
cpyauaGrat
Kat TrovqUratKat LEpt'cratall thosethings
whichvovs
beholdsin ro' Wov. The energiesof Nous are turnedinwardupon
itself;thoseof r(3&cavoov4Levov
are turnedoutward,upon theworld.
A triadhasemerged.
At thispoint,however,we reacha starting
pointforPorphyry's
doctrine. Porphyryequatedthe Demiurgewith the V"rEpKo,ufUos'
vxI, anditsNous withtheAutozoonandtheParadigm. Asbetween
thetwo disciples,
we seetherepresentation
oftwo extreme
views-on
theone hand,an urgeto schematize
each momentof each hypostasis
inthecaseofAmelius;on theother,animpulsetosimplify,
(triadically),
as represented
by Porphyry,
who oftenin thisrespectseemsto look
backto MiddlePlatonism.
At anyrate,Plotinusheregoeson to raiseanotheraporia:

~~~
~ ToYv vov
iS,\~~
6vvarov TpOITOV bLEv CLAAov
,,

E'epov

wE\

Elvat
0
ToYv /IeptuavaT ,uL rov vov^v
EvatE

.ek

oYv IeptuaYTa,
Tpor7ToVo
O
a
/Ev
' yap 7rap aCroLv

/epLaTUEYVa, avT oEvEtvat ToYv/eptuavra, i av0 roVs. ad/Lukpturos/EvEL, ra

E' EoTrt
Ta
' cT' avTov^ EoUt a keptoOEYTr-TraVTa
bvXaL- ,vXrv
EtvaY
1rvv

IyvXd's.
pepLUaorav Ecs TroAAas'

"It ispossible
thatinonewayIntellect
is thedivider
ofpartial
(producer
s We get a clue, however, to Amelius' interpretation
from a passage of Proclus (In

Tim.I.242.23-24): VOiUs~
~vEv
yap

EU1-tT-Ovo-rov, aurOqtS 8E opa T-OaccOTpov, a&cvota

8 stEXEtEv favi-jD - 8cwavop-rov.This is an applicationof what musthave 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 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

68

JOHN M. DILLON

[I969

existences),
whilein anotherthedividingagentis notIntellect;thatto the
proceedfromit,itis thedivider,whileto
extentthatthepartialexistences
the extentthatit itselfremainsundivided,its productsbeing what is
divided-these productsbeing souls-it is the Soul that is the agent
causingdivisionintomanysouls."
And he seems to appeal at thispoint to Tim. 35A, where the creation
of the Soul is connectedwith the creationof divided Nature (rpi'rov
CWI)O
tV

Ef

OlO Kat
o

ov

vov

EV /LEWCO UVVEKEpaoLaUro

ovortaS ELt So etc.):

fr?l tro0 rp&Tov ETvac TOYV/EplUaLOV Kat Ev To TplTo, t,,,

s*
)\
o
b
f
.1 OTt 6lEVO' 7O?,
QL a La-cApa
Z/JV)7s LtEpLUT7Yv
Epyov-71
EvepyELav eXova7sg

EV ,LEepLtu77OVUEL.

"Which is why he saystheseparationis thework of thethirdelement

whichisnota characteristic
and beginsin it,becauseit thinksdiscursively,
of Intellect,but of Soul, possessingas it does a dividingactivitywithin
dividedNature."
Porphyrythushad ample excuse fromthispassageforpositioningSoul
the
as the Demiurge. That Proclus creditsPorphyrywith identifying
Demiurge notjust with vX, but withN V'7TEpKK0'U OS vy (I.307.I),
would seem to indicatethatPorphyry
or7 acqLEEKOSt
hvy' (I.322.I-3),
alreadyhad postulatedan unparticipatedSoul-Monad, to presideover
the psychicorder,the multitudeof partialsouls,a developmentwhich
on othergroundsI would preferto attributeto Iamblichus. We need
not, however, assume that, even if Porphyry used these terms to
describehis Demiurge-Soul,he had developed thewhole systemas we
findit in Proclus.
Iamblichusand Proclus are thus unreasonablein condemningPoras un-Plotinian,at leastas regardstheinterpretaphyry'sinterpretation
from
this
seminalpassage, 3.9.1.
tionsderivable
It remainsto considerProclus' and Iamblichus'own interpretations
of the passage,to appreciatethe fullextentof the ambiguitiestherein
contained.
Proclus declares (1.305.I6 ff.) that Plotinus assumes the Demiurge
70 7)yEyL-ovovv TroV
TO
OV
E'V rco VO7JTq,
to be double (St-r-ros),701v /-kE)v
He
he
commends.
himself
doctrine
which
must, then, take
7Tav,ros,
sCpov being merely
the two Demiurges as vov^sand 8o;itavoo1vSLEvov, -ro
the object of intellection. Nov^s in 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 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Volt

IOO]

ENN.

PLOTINUS,

69

3.9.1

beholdstheIdeasand "divides"themin theUniverse.Again,an

fromthetextas we haveit.
derivable
interpretation
surely
takesthewhole
Iamblichus,
at leastin hisTimaeusCommentary,6
Intelligible
Realmas theDemiurge,
roundly
condemning
Porphyry
ofwi) in 307.16), and
as un-Plotinian
(we mustacceptKroll'sinsertion
claiminghimself
to followPlotinus. Proclusquoteshimas follows:
ovTcog ovortaV Kat TCOV YltyVO/LEVWV apXy7V Kal Ta voirda TOV KOUr-LOV
Ca
~~t
%
to ,
Ov 7E KaovLpEv vo7)1qOV KOU,L0V., Kal
atTlaC
Ooaa
E' TY7 bv'oLra
rc-V
TLOLEOa
Travra
dravT o vvV
vTdvrv,
7TPOv7TaPXELV
T)v

7Tapac8L6Et`/taTa,

v vt)'
0EOSg 67)ILtovpyOS%E'v EVM ovAA3afc3W

4?7T0ovlLEvoS

cavTo%vEXEL.

"Real Existence
and theoriginof createdthingsand theintelligible
oftheUniverse,
whichwe termtheIntelligible
and
paradigms
Universe,
in Nature,
thosecauseswhichwe positas pre-existing
allthings
allthese
theDemiurge
Godwhois theobjectofourpresent
things
search
gathers
intooneandholdswithin
himself."
c

r ov6rCOs
ovdrtawill be -roo
31

1w

*1

Iww

E'F-rt

?^

Cov, while 7yrcov ytyvo1dEvcov

apX7q
1*

and the intelligible

paradigmsof the Universeare the Ideas. Both
of these the beholdingand possessingand apportioningelement
containswithinitself,and one is perfectly
entitled,accordingto
Plotinus,to takethewholecombination
as one or as three(2AMotsc
be
80'6Et -ra' -rpt'a E'v e tvat, .

o' E'a'AAws,voEt zrpt'

aEtvat).

)JLT7TEpElv 7TroAo-t, 7rpoTrEtvcovaLAAOs',

Iamblichustakestheformeralternative.

It mightseemthatfortheDemiurgeto " containwithinhimself"the

whole noeticworldneed not implyidentity
withit, but Proclusis
quite clear,in theprecedingpassage (rTa4v-ra
-rOvvoryov KFo'rov a7ro-

thatthatis whatJamblichus
meant.
This is not thewhole storyof the identification
of theDemiurge
of Plotinus. Amelius,forinstance,
by thesuccessors
derivesanother
triad,
o
and
from
thepassage
o flOVArGEt's, Aoyto'EVOS,
o - apaAagco'v,
In
Tint.30A (Proclus, Tim. I.398.I6 ff.).7 My purpose,however,has
KaAEt- 817tLtovpyo'v),

6 Ap. Proc. In Tim.I.307.I4 ff.D.

Proclusquotes againsthim a much more elaborate
categorizationof theDemiurge whichhe made in an essayHEpt'r- Ev TTcau'p -oOVaJ?o
where,verymuch underthe influenceof the Chaldaean Oracles, he gives
8r9-r)yoplas-,
theDemiurge -r)v 7-pI+nv'v TOlra-p
, V vOEpr
rots
i.).
(I.308.I7
paort v ria
-o8a, L
7 The doctrinesof Theodorus of Asine (I.309.9
if.) and of Syrianus(I.310.3 if.) are
not immediatelyderived, I feel,from 3.9.I.
Theodore elaborateson Amelius' triad,
and Syrianus postulates a Demiurgic Monad presiding over a triad of demiurges.
At thisstage the doctrinehas developed its own momentum.

This content downloaded from 181.118.153.57 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:46:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

70

JOHN M. DILLON

[I969

in thisone instance,
theopenness
of
beenmerelyto demonstrate,
developments
itgaveforfurther
theopenings
Plotinus'
philosophizing,
andtheusemadeoftheseopenings.It reallydoes
byhissuccessors,
oftheresults
ofoneofthediscusseemasifwehave,in3.9.I, a record
tousbyPorphyry
circle,
transmitted
sionsthattookplaceinPlotinus'
statethanthat
tentative
fromPlotinus'papersin a moreunfinished,
of any completedtractate.It is, moretrulythanin thecase of the
workinwhichAmelius
a pieceof" workinprogress,"
finished
tractate,
listingis accurate)
own chronological
had a hand,but (ifPorphyry's
himself8
notPorphyry
8 I am gratefulto Prof. T. G. Rosenmeyer for reading over thispaper, and making
helpfulsuggestionson presentation. One might remarkin conclusion that a proper
study of the philosopher Amelius is an obvious desideratumin Neoplatonic studies.

This content downloaded from 181.118.153.57 on Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:46:52 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions