Plotinus. Asger Ousager

of Plotinus as apolitical, I set out to present all existing evidence and indications for a political philosophy in Plotinus.

      The benevolent Providence consisting of material conditions and political circumstances behind the development of Plotinus’ quite comprehensive philosophy is discussed first. According to Plato’s broad definition of politics as the art (technê) of the soul, Plotinus’ philosophy is no doubt political. It implies references to the One as the king and to Providence as the general and the legislator, all of which are presented as ideals for human social conduct and legislation in a sensible world at war with itself. Although it is not straight away manifested in the social order, there is an order relying on the basic inequality of the merits and value of persons according to their descents and ascents. Plotinus’ views on the acquisition of power and wealth are likewise spiritualised but indicate, after all, some conservative and libertarian values against, for instance, the abstract egalitarianism of the Gnostics. These conservative values encompass an adherence to the rule of law and opposition to tyrannical imperialism. He presents the ideal of a mixed constitution with elements of kingship, aristocracy and democracy.

      The basic element that distinguishes the political philosophy of Plotinus from that of Plato as well as Aristotle is the emphasis he places on natural authority, mutual cooperativeness and the immense potential of everybody, even slaves. His political philosophy deals with the theoretical relation noted in previous parts of the book between determinism and freedom as manifesting itself in the corresponding practical relation between oppression and liberation. A tension pointed out within Plotinus’ system is, in the end, the opposition between the pressure for historical development on the one hand, and the eternal, ahistorical structure of the henological hierarchy on the other.

      On the basis of different suggestions to interpretation of the so-called Plotinus sarcophagus, the book closes with a brief survey of the archaeological evidence for the direct social and political impact of Plotinus’ thought in his own age.

      * * *

      The study describes an arc beginning in the particular bodily self, with its apex in the ascent to the absolute and culminating in the consequences of enlightened descent.

      With references, I argue that Plotinus is presenting an updated, systematic interpretation of certain patterns in Plato’s thought, an interpretation that is neither unintelligible nor unintelligent. A few sharp logical principles traditionally ascribed to Leibniz are shown to be valid in an interpretation of Plotinus, simply because these principles established so pedagogically by Leibniz in modern philosophy were ingenuously deduced from Plotinus. An understanding of this quite simple but far-reaching logic is essential if the systematic concerns of Plotinus are to be properly understood.

      In this study, I draw upon extensive research already carried out by other scholars, without which the conclusions of the present book would have been that much harder for me to draw. A treatment of some remaining thorny issues in present Plotinus scholarship has proven indispensable in order to reach well-founded conclusions. Another related reason for me to consult many researchers is that, within any branch of knowledge, any criticism is more useful than neglect.

      While appreciating the decisive advice of my domestic mentor, Professor Karsten Friis Johansen at the University of Copenhagen over the years, my thanks go also to Professors Mary Margaret McCabe and Richard R.K. Sorabji for their comments on previous editions of the last part, but most of all to Doctor Peter S. Adamson, who emerged from the mist in time to become my supervisor for the whole PhD thesis. It was revised for re-presentation, freely drawing on the constructive recommendations of both my examiners, Doctor Peter Gallagher, Heythrop College London, and Professor Dominic J. O’Meara, University of Fribourg, Switzerland. Publication of the treatment of mainly political and social aspects of Plotinianism was encouraged by Professor Peter Brown, Princeton University, New Jersey. Subsequently, the manuscript was obligingly commended for publication in the series of Aarhus Studies of Mediterranean Antiquity by Professor Per Bilde and Doctors Anders Klostergaard Petersen and Jens Krasilnikoff, Chairman of the Centre for the Study of Antiquity. Concurrently, it was accepted into the series of Acta Jutlandica by the Learned Society under guidance of its president, Professor Niels Henrik Gregersen. Professor Niels Hannestad, also at Aarhus University, brought a needed critical stance to the last, archaeological chapter.

      For essential contributions to revising my English I am furthermore indebted to David Levy, Anne Harrow, Devin Henry and, last but definitely not least, Julian Thorsteinson, the principal linguistic reviser of the book. To ease reading, all Greek (and Russian) words, including quotes and titles of modern publications, have been transliterated and all Greek and Latin words, except for common expressions and titles of sources, have been translated.

      Publication with a final linguistic revision of the manuscript has been supported by the Danish Research Council for the Humanities. The original thesis submitted at King’s College in 2001 was made possible due to a generous grant from the Danish Research Academy and to Goodenough College, which gave me shelter the last two years while in London. This book, however, is dedicated to my loving parents, who supported me all the way through.