XIV 382 The Passionate Intellect De Mysterits,™but there is no suggestion that the gods can do other than respond favourably to correctly formulated supplications. It is here that the late antique theurgist is true to the Hellenic theologi- cal tradition in general in a way which the Christian theologian — or at ‘east a theologian in the tradition of St. Augustine — is not. Iamblichus did not agree with Plotinus and Porphyry that one could attain to union ‘with the divine by theoretical (that is, rational) activity alone,” but he id feel that at all events it was man, and not God, who was in control of the situation, to the extent that, if utterances and acts were correctly performed, with a properly pious intention, divine beneficence must ‘ensue, That seems to me to remain a very basic distinction between the Hellenic and Christian traditions, and it is not an area, I must say, in which I would find the Hellenic tradition wanting. 2 another good passage on this topic is De Myst 11S, wher Iamblichus, while hotly denying the accusation by Porphyry that theugistsseck to impose constraint (anand pon the gods, recognises that if oe presses the right buttons, 010 speak, the gods cannot do oterwise than respond. They are not consined, however, be- caus, being good, they are eaitely pleased to respond. CE De Myst IL: 96-7: "Is not thought (emroia) tha links the theugist othe gods: hers, what would prvent the theoretical philosopher from enjoying theusie Union with thems? But the cas snot 0, Theurgc union is attained only by the perfe- lve operation of ineffable acts concetly performed, acts which are beyond sll under- standing: and by the power ofthe unutrable symbols which are intelligible only to the gods." This may be to some extent a manifesto of irainalism, as has been fe- ‘quently alleged (8. by E.R. Dodésin his edition of Proclas' Elements of Theology (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1933) xx), but its not relly sign of fire of nerve. The {nile romains with man. XV Plotinus and the Chaldaean Oracles This is a topic on which, one would think, there was really very little to be said.? Plotinus never alludes explicitly to the Oracles, Porphyry gives no indication in his Life that his master knew of them, and it seems safe to say that they were not the sort of material to which Plotinus would accord much credence. However, that will not quite do as a conclusion of the question. We know, after all, that Porphyry, at least, had a profound interest in the Oracles, dating back to before his time with Plotinus, and it is hard to believe that Plotinus was allowed to remain quite ignorant of them, even if he was profoundly out of sympathy with their theurgical tone, What I would like to do in this paper, which I have pleasure in dedicating to a great master in this field, is to assemble and consider all the evidence in favour of Plotinus’ having at least read through the Oracles, and deriving in consequence, if not intellectual stimulation, at least some striking turns of phrase. There is in fact a certain number of interesting words and phrases in Plotinus’ vocabulary whose Presence is most plausibly explained, I think, as deriving from this source. ‘One must begin, however, with a caution. In the case of most, if not all, of the words to be considered, since they are predominantly Poetical, there is the possibility of Plotinus’ having derived them from some earlier poetic source (either immediately, or through the mediation of a later prose author of stylistic pretensions, such as Numenius), from which the author of the Oracles may also have in fact, a number of possible Chaldacanisms have been noted by Willy Theiler, in ‘Ammonios der Lehrer des Origenes’, in Forschungen sum Neuplatonismus (Bertin, 1966), p. 4, n.75, end by Edouard. des Places in his collection ofthe Fragments Even these'have been disputed by Pierre Hadot, in H. Lewy, The Chsldacan Oracles sd Theurgy (repr, Pais, 1978, pp. 709-11 Not: When orignlly publi, the Fetes inthis mice were numbered incor, all Sus ot ten rere f ses fr se Rel shou ce at fe ot ea ‘pear on the sme page as the fotie indicat in text. The pbb epolopes for enyncavonence this may enue.xv 132 derived them. While recognizing this possibility in all cases, I would still regard it as the less plausible alternative, though it cannot be disregarded. That said, let us turn to the evidence. We should begin, pethaps, with the one phrase which outside evidence alleges to be Chaldaean in inspiration, and that is the beginning of Ennead 19, the ‘fragment on Suicide’ (ept eaywyfis): Oi« EFdEers, toa pu} ein, “Thou shalt not take it out (sc. your soul), that it may not go (sc. taking something with it).”_ Psellus, as we know2, quotes a metrical? form of this utterance: Mi) Edtns, Wa wT Fxovoa/eEy . . . explicitly ranking it as an Oracle, and saying that Plotimus includes it in his treatise Tlepl_ et\Syov (or édSyov!) EEayorAs.. What are we to make of this? Henry and Schwyzer, in their big edition, are so uncomfortable about it that they make the rather desperate suggestion that perhaps this ‘oracle’ actually derives from Plotinus rather than the other way about, but I think that we may dismiss that possibility. Plotinus, I should say, is plainly quoting something. The format is otherwise too elliptical even for him. ‘Admittedly, he goes on to explain it immediately afterward (Cereioerar yap Exoved T1, tva Kal BAG, 16 Te eGedBetY Lovr neraSivai els Gdov rénov), but this simply reinforces the impression. that the original phrase is an elliptical allusion to something. Why, then, would Plotinus on this occasion deviate from his otherwise (apparently) universal disregard for these theosophical productions? We cannot even suggest, after all, that he picked up this tag from Porphyry—at least if Porphyry’s chronological listing is honest—since this tractate, no. 16 in Porphyry’s list, was composed before Porphyry joined him. What I would like to suggest here is that this impression of Plotinus’ total ignorance of, or disregard for, the Chaldzean Oracles is a misleading one, and that thus there need be n0 great fuss made about this unparalleled quotation, even if we cannot explain exactly why he chooses to quote the Oracles verbatim: (or almost verbatim) only here. A full tally of possible Chaldaeanisms, alphabetically ordered, might comprise, I think, the following: (1) Ayhata (dyhat(u, dyAdioua, dyAaés) ‘splendour’ exegesis 1125d = p.164 in des Places’ Budé ed. of the Oracles. Metrical, at least, when slightly emended by des Places, 4p this they are followed by Armstrong, in his Loeb edition ad lc xv Plotinus and the Chaldaean Oracles 133, This is not a very compelling example, but it should be mentioned for the sake of completeness. Only the adjective aglaos is actually to be found in the extant fragments of the Oracles (Fr. 214, 1 des Places)®: rdvra yap dufpdrom Gob née. dyad 8pa.® but, though the word- family (at least agiaos, aglaia, and the middle/passive of agiaizé) is Homeric’, and Plotinus is quite capable of borrowing it directly from Homer (@s he does many other phrases), the Oracles remain a possibility. For Plotinus, aglaia is most characteristically used of the glory of the noetic realm, eg. II 8, 11,30, tod vod ... €v mdon dyhatg eipévov; IV 3, 17, 21; V 3, 8, 31 (where Soul is made to find satisfaction intiy &v air@ (6c. 7 vg) dyAatav; VI9, 4, 18. Out of ten uses of the word, eight have this reference. Aglaisma (in the plural) is used, similarly (all the usages occurring in one chapter (9) of Enn. III 5), of the logoi of Nous projecting themselves onto Soul, which is called agiaos in the previous chapter (in the guise of Aphrodite) in virtue of this. One of the two uses of the verb also occurs in III 5, 9 (the other one comes from VI 9, 9, 57, in a similar context). Primarily, then, for Plotinus, this word expresses the brilliance of the intelligible realm, and of its projection of itself upon its inferiors. It is almost a technical term. He could, of course, have borrowed it directly from Homer, or even from Pindar (who likes the word), but I think it is a reasonable conjecture that his use of it is an echo of some source nearer at hand, where it had already acquired the restricted sphere of reference which he gives it, The single surviving Chaldaean use of aglaos, Homeric cliché though it is, would seem to bear this out. The gifts of God come ‘to mortals from the noetic world, after all. ) ‘Atoou, ‘dart, swoop’. ‘The Chaldaean pedigree of this verb is unfortunately doubtful. It is actually a conjecture of Kroll’s, although a probable one (fev for }Eev. of the mss. of Proclus, In Remp.), in a quotation which is probably, but not certainly, from a Chaldaean oracle (itis identified by Proclus as an oracular response, at least, at Il 126, 19). The passage runs (Fr. 217, 4-6): All references are to des Places’ Budé edition, Pars, 1971. 5 Chitted by des Places « dubious fragment, though he is confident that i i (Ghaldaean. tis quoted by Didymus the Blind, De Trinitte Ml 28, only as emanating fom hoi «x8, by which he means ‘the pagans’, but the Oracles seem the obvious source, ‘sla drs sof course, «common Homeri formula, offen with dosan ‘Aslaizd im the active is pootical (Aristophanes), but also found in late prose; aglaisma Tay actually have been coined by Aeschylus (Ag. 1912), but is also to be found in latexv 134 Oix Boris omddyvoLow Enigpova Bi}aTO fouiy ‘fbn al mpbs "Ohupmov dmooxeBdoas TéBe oun ev derphueros yuxfs KoGpais TrepbyEooW .. tee eee tettee one has pat one’s confident tsi entrails (sc. one who relies on sacrifices) that, having shaken off this body, one has already leapt* towards Olympus, raised on the light wings of the soul ..." ‘Once again, we have to do with an Homeric word, used also by the tragedians, but very rarely in prose (and only in high-flown passages), ‘but in this Chaldaean context the word has the connotation of darting upwards, to union with divinity. Let us see how Plotinus uses it There are four usages (V 3, 17, 17; V5, 4, 8; VI7, 16, 2; VI8, 19, 8), and in all the context is that of a leap towards the One, or at least ‘upwards’ (pros to and, V1 7, 16, 2, which in the context means ‘towards the One’). Plainly for Plotinus this poetic verb has just that technical connotation which we find in the Oracles passage. The use at the end of the late tractate V 3 is in a particularly hieratic, indeed ecstatic, passage, which ends with the famous injunction, ‘Aphele panta’. @) ‘Auglorouos, ‘having two fronts’. This is a more persuasive example, already picked out as Chaldaean by Theiler (see n. 1 above). Proclus employs the term at In Tim. TI 246, 19, and again ibid. 293, 23, in either case in conjunction with amphiprosopos (in combination with which it forms the latter part of an hexameter), to describe the dual role of the soul, both contemplating the noetic realm and directing itself towards the physical world. In Chaldaean terms, this would refer to Hecate, who fills this role in Chaldaean theology. Des Places, strangely, allows ariphiprosopos the status of a fragment (Fr. 189), but not the closely associated amphistomos (though he mentions it in the apparatus). ‘There can hardly be any doubt, though, that they go together. Plotinus uses the term only once, at Ill 8, 9, 31, but most significantly. He employs it as an epithet of Intellect, with reference to its dual role of proceeding forth to what is below it, and yet reverting ‘upon the One: 4 8a dv vobv lov els robmlow dvaxupetv Kal lov gaurd Agévra res els Bmofey abrod dudlorouoy dura, waxel, el EOL exciva bpd, ui) névra votw Alvat. proctus, in commenting on tis (in Remp. I 126, 2), speaks of a horme ofthe soul towards the upward ascent, which virtually assures the correctness of Krol ‘emendation, | | xv Plotinus and the Chaldaean Oracles 135 “Rather, the Intellect must retum, so to speak, backwards, and give itself up, in a way, to what lies behind it (for it faces in both directions); and there, if it wishes to see that First Principle, it must not be altogether Intellect.” (trans. Armstrong) Here we have to do with not an Homeric term, not even a poetic cone (so far as we know), but one chiefly attested in technical prose contexts, whether zoological, military or geological. However, it was also (as we may gather from Plutarch, Life of Numa, XIX 5) used as a translation of the Latin epithet of Janus, bifrons, and Plotinus was probably aware of that, But the case is good, I think, for seeing his use of it as a verbal echo of its use in the Oracles. (&) “Avéos, ‘bloom.’ Here is a term very characteristic of the Oracles (though perfectly common in the rest of Greek also). In the metaphorical meaning, ‘bloom’ or ‘flower’ (eg. of youth or beauty), it goes back to Homer, and once again is available to Plotinus from that source, or indeed from many others, such as Aeschylus or Pindar, not to mention Plato ‘himself (Symp. 183C, Rep. X 601B). The Oracles propound the doctrine of the anthos mow, ‘the flower of the intellect’, that highest, almost supranoetic aspect of the intellect by virtue of which the One may be apprehended Fr. 1, 1):"Eoww yép 71 vontbv, 8 xpf| ae voeiv véou Sve. (CE.also Fr. 49, 2° Plotinus uses the word twice, the first usage (interestingly, in view of the Chaldaean usage mentioned in n. 9) in connexion with the light of the sun (II 1, 7, 29), but the second (VI 7, 32, 31) in a context nearer to, though not identical with, the technical Chaldaean one (Plotinus’ term for that level of intellect is actually ‘intellect drunk’—nous methustheis tou nektaros, VI 7, 35, 25). In this second passage, speaking of the One, he says Sévayts obv wavrés kahod dvéos Zort, kd\Qos kaMomo16v, which I take to mean, “being the potency of all that is beautiful, it is the flower (thereof), beauty (qua) productive of beauty.” His argument has been that the One can only be termed ‘beautiful’ or ‘Beauty’ in so far as it is the source of beauty. Anthos here has, it seems to me, a rather curious meaning, not really ‘the Quintessence of beauty’, but rather that aspect of beauty which is beyond beauty, which comes close to the meaning of anthos in the Phrase rioow anthei. Iam afraid that anthos is too common a term for 9 "Apart from these instances, the term occurs four times (Fs. 34,2; 35, 3;37, 14; 42,3), in ‘he phrase puros anthos.