Platonismo

Plotinus likewise applied himself to the canons concerning the stars, but not 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 mathematician, than of the profound and intellectual 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 investigated 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.

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, Philoco-mus, Demostratus, and Lydus; and openly exhibited certain revelations of Zoroaster, Zostrianus, Nicotheus, 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.” But Amelius wrote forty books against the treatise of Zostrianus ; and Porphyry showed by a variety of arguments 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.

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 Platonist, told to Amelius. 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 uncommonly abstruse, that no one can understand 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 company 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, “ happened to me, when I first heard Plotinus. On which account I 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, Amelius, to dissolve these doubts, occasioned by his ignorance of our opinion.” After Amelius, therefore, had composed no small treatise against the objections of Porphyry, and Porphyry had again contradicted his writings, and was once more answered by Amelius ; “At length,” says Porphyry, “ having scarcely after all these attempts fathomed the depth of Plotinus, I changed my opinion, wrote a recantation of my error, which I recited in his school; considered the hooks 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.”

(NA: If therefore a man of such great sagacity and penetration as Porphyry, and who from the period in which he lived possessed advantages with respect to the attainment of philosophy which are denied to every modern, found so much difficulty in fathoming the profundity of Plotinus, there must 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 understand them is to see them, and to see them is to come into contact with them. But this is only to be accomplished by long familiarity with, and a life conformable to the things themselves. For then, as Plato says, “ 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.)

The testimony of the celebrated Longinus also concerning our philosopher, sufficiently evinces his uncommon excellence and worth; and in the present age will probably 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 honour and veneration? This indeed T have always signified to you, both when present and absent, and when you resided at Tyre, that I could not understand many of the hypotheses of the books of Plotinus ; but that I transcendently loved and reverenced the manner of his writing, the density of his conceptions, and the very philosophic disposition 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 Porphyry, 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 Plotinus. Porphyry has likewise preserved the preface of a book composed by Longinus, inscribed, “ Concerning the End,'1 and dedicated 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 Numenius, Cronius, Moderatus, and Thrasyllus, are not to be compared for accuracy in any part, with the books of Plotinus on the same subjects.“