chapter 16 Plotinus and Platonism Lloyd P. Gerson I Introduction G.W.F. Hegel thought that Proclus was a more authentic interpreter of Plato than was Plotinus because Plotinus was too influenced by Aristotle.1 Proclus himself thought that Plotinus was the leading exegete of “the Platonic revela- tion”.2 Proclus knew perfectly well that, as Porphyry says in his Life of Plotinus, the Enneads are full of “Peripatetic and Stoic doctrines”.3 But Proclus did not think that Plotinus’ exegesis was for that reason less accurate or profound. It is worth reflecting for a moment on the different evaluations of the Enneads by Hegel and by Proclus. Hegel evidently believed that the Aristotelian “elements” in the Enneads compromised or diluted the pure Platonism found, above all, in Proclus’ Pla- tonic Theology. It probably did not occur to Hegel that Aristotle’s objections to facets of Plato’s philosophy or his employment of new technical terms and distinctions could have been made within the framework of Platonism such that one could absorb, endorse, or otherwise employ Aristotle without compromising one’s commitment to Plato. Indeed, even if Hegel considered this possibility, he certainly would not have countenanced a similar explana- tion for Plotinus’ use of Stoicism. There is no question that Plotinus thought himself to be an orthodox Platonist – whatever this meant exactly in the 3rd century CE – and that this orthodoxy was not at all compromised by having recourse to the truth wherever it may be found. That it should be found in Aristotle is perhaps somewhat less surprising than that it should be found among the Stoics. Nevertheless, Plotinus was sensible enough to realize that in the 600 or so years that separated him from Plato, philosophy was not fro- zen or dead. Indeed, though Plotinus believed that Plato was the supreme philosophical master, he also believed that Plato was not the first or the only one to hit on the truth. 1 See Hegel, Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Philosophie, Bd. 19 of Werke in Zwanzig Bän- den. Moldenhauer and Michel (eds.) (1970/1986), 438 and 443. 2 See Théologie Platonicienne. Saffrey and Westerink (eds.) (1968), I 1, 6.16–20. 3 See V.Plot. §14, 5. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/9789004355385_018 plotinus and platonism 317 Unlike Plotinus, modern scholars tend to blur the distinction between what we find in the dialogues of Plato and a general philosophical position or world- view that we name “Platonism”. Hence, it seems strange to ask if Plato was a Platonist.4 Plotinus, of course, does think Plato was a Platonist, that is, a pro- ponent of a venerable systematic philosophical position, but he is quite clear on the distinction between the position and its expression, whether in writing or orally. Precisely because of this distinction, Plotinus does not pay serious attention to the structural integrity of any dialogue. That is, he is willing to cite or allude to three, four, five, or even more dialogues in one argument over a few sentences.5 It is not that Plotinus is oblivious to the dramatic unity of each of the dialogues. Rather, he denies that the dramatic unity in any one case points us to a doctrinal or systematic unity.6 Where, then, does that unity come from? We may, I think, infer from Porphy- ry’s account that it comes principally from the oral tradition to which Plotinus adhered.7 Plotinus received his Platonic doctrine from his teacher Ammonius Saccas, who himself wrote nothing. Plotinus, we are told, vowed to transmit the doctrine he had acquired from Ammonius exclusively in speech. As Porphyry tells it, when one, and then another, of Plotinus’ classmates broke the pledge not to write anything, Plotinus decided that there was no point in his not commit- ting his understanding of Platonism to paper. The period during which Plotinus was teaching in Rome and writing nothing was ten years or so. That means that Plotinus did not write a thing until he was about 50 years old. One can scarcely 4 Strange or not, there are some who ask this question and answer it definitely in the negative. Gadamer (1986), 508 held that “Platon war kein Platoniker” and Ryle (1966), 9–10, averred that “If Plato was anything of a philosopher, then he cannot have been merely a lifelong Platonist”. Similarly, Theiler (1960), 67, held that Plotinus’ Plato is a “Platon dimidiatus” pre- cisely because Plotinus focused on the Platonism, not the exegesis of the dialogues. 5 A good example is IV 8 [6], 1 “On the Descent of Soul into Bodies”, where Phd., Rep., Phdr., Crat., and Tim. are cited in short order in a sort of exegetical parataxis. A bit of Heraclitus and Empedocles are also thrown in for good measure. Also, see IV 8, 1.26–31. Plotinus is here ar- guing for the coherence of his account of Platonism with what is found in the dialogues. See Koch (2013), 67, on the absence of any ordering of the dialogues by Plotinus for the purpose of exposition. 6 Plotinus’ interpretation of Plato is a stellar example of fidelity to the principle found apud Stobaeus, Ecl. II 7.3f, 4a, 49.25–50.1, 55.5–6 that Plato in the dialogues is πολύφωνος but not πολύδοξος. The decisive systematic articulation by Plotinus of the contents of the dialogues, along with the oral teachings seems to have encouraged later Platonists to focus more than Plotinus did on the aim or σκοπός of each dialogue and so examine more closely the dramatic structure of each. 7 See Porphyry, V.Plot. 3.25ff..