In Enneads III.5.8, in the course of offering a symbolic exegesis of the birth of Eros in Plato’s Symposium, Plotinus makes a curious and obscure allusion:
καὶ γὰρ εἰ κατὰ μὲν τὸν νοῦν τοὺς ἄρρενας τάττομεν τῶν θεῶν, κατὰ δὲ τὰς ψυχὰς αὐτῶν τὰς θηλείας λέγομεν, ὡς νῷ ἑκάστῳ ψυχῆς συνούσης, εἴη ἂν καί ταύτῃ ἡ ψυχὴ τοῦ Διὸς ἡ Ἀφροδίτη πάλιν μαρτυρούντων τούτῳ τῷ λόγῳ ἱερέων καὶ θεολόγων, οἳ εἰς ταὐτὸν Ἥραν καὶ ’Αφροδίτην ἄγουσι καὶ τὸν τῆς Ἀφροδίτης ἀστέρα ἐν οὐρανῷ Ἥρας λέγουσιν (Henry-Schwyzer III.5.8.17-23)
“For if among the Gods we assign (tattomen), on the one hand, the masculine to Intellect and, on the other hand, the feminine to their Souls, we say such that each Intellect is united (sunousēs) with a Soul, then in this way Aphrodite would be the Soul of Zeus, as witnessed often in the testimony of priests and theologians, who believe Aphrodite to be the same as Hera, and say the star of Aphrodite [i.e. the planet Venus] in heaven is Hera’s.” (My translation).
While Gerson gives a reference in a footnote to the Pseudo-Aristotelian treatise, De Mundo 2.392.a28 for the identification of the planet Venus with the Goddess Hera, this doesn’t seem to address the broader sense of the Plotinus’ allusion. Particularly noteworthy I think is the sense of “priests and theologians,” categories which [Pseudo-]Aristotle does not really fit. Kalligas gives a much broader, and admittedly more speculative answer, but one which I think is grounded in Plotinus’ vocabulary:
“[Plotinus] invokes a general exegetical principle for the allegorical interpretation of myths, according to which male gods symbolize intellects, while female deities stand for souls; hence—we may conclude—“sacred marriages” symbolize the union, which is to say the conformation, of the (lower) psychical functions to the dictates of the intellect. The archetype of such a hieros gamos was taken in antiquity to be the marriage of Zeus to Hera, which appears to have been endowed with a special significance in the Orphic tradition […] Perhaps for this reason, and certainly because of the reference to priests and theologians (cf. my comment on 2.1–6), Kern included the present passage in his collection as Orph. fr. 351, placing it among the spurious or doubtful ones. On the other hand, Chrysippus had attempted—according to a number of testimonies (see SVF 2:1071–74)—to interpret allegorically, as a piece of cosmological symbolism, a rather risqué depiction of the divine couple. We know that similar beliefs circulated within [Plotinus’] circle, and that Porphyry, indeed, had marshaled all of his inspiration in composing a poem on this theme [in Vita Plotini 15.1-6] … It was easy to identify Hera, as “goddess of marriage” and “leader of the bridal procession” (numphagōgos) (see Plut. fr. 157.2), with Aphrodite (cf. Paus. III 13.9), especially in her cosmological dimension […]” (Kalligas 2014, 529-530)
Kalligas is right to point to the symbolism of the motif of the divine marriage (hieros gamos) both based on the content of this passage (describing each God as paired with a Goddess) and the particular vocabulary used: sunousēs implying union in the sense of sun-ousia but also sexual union. This symbolism frames his inquiry into possible origins for Plotinus’ allusion. While elsewhere, Kalligas notes that “of all the theologoi of antiquity, the principal and most distinguished was unquestionably Orpheus” (Kalligas 2014, 511), here he presents it as one possibility among others.
I would argue the Orphic explanation is stronger than allusion to Chrysippus in this instance.
Firstly, Plotinus very rarely uses the word theologos. It is applied in III.5.2.2 to Plato and others, and it is used in the presently discussed passage. Notably these are both in the same chronologically late treatise (50, one of the last Plotinus wrote). To make sense of these rare usages, I think we must take the perspective of Lambeton, who Kalligas references for the aforementioned primary status of Orpheus, when he says “throughout the tradition [of Neoplatonic allegorical interpretation] ὁ θεολόγος, without explanation, is most likely to refer to Orpheus” (Lamberton 1986, 27).
Secondly, Porphyry appears to follow this habit of Neoplatonic authors, and uses the unqualified term theologos in reference to Orpheus in De Abstentia 2:36 (cf. Malamis 2025, 444 who cites Bernabé 2013, 122):
“But for the gods within the heaven, the wandering and the fixed (the sun should be taken as leader of them all and the moon second) we should kindle fire which is already kin to them, and we shall do what the theologian says. (4) He says that not a single animate creature should be sacrificed, but offerings should not go beyond barley-grains and honey and the fruits of the earth, including flowers. ‘Let not the fire burn on a bloodstained altar’, and the rest of what he says, for what need is there to copy out the words?” (Clark 2000)
Thirdly, while Porphyry’s interest in the divine marriage motif (Vita Plotini 15.1-6) could have a Stoic provenance (as Kalligas seems to suggest), I think in the context of Porphyry’s extant works this could also be read as an Orphic influence. Recall that in the fragments of Porphyry’s On Cult Statues, there is an extended quotation of the “Rhapsodic Hymn to Zeus” attributed to Orpheus (a shorter version of which is quoted in Pseudo-Aristotle’s De Mundo 401a.20-401b.9). In this hymn, it is said that
Ζεὺς ἄρσην γένετο, Ζεὺς ἄμβροτος ἔπλετο νύμφη
“Zeus has a masculine nature; Zeus is an immutable bride.” (Martiana, “Porphyry, On Cult Statues”)
I also agree with Martiana, that we “need not assume On Cult Statues is pre-Plotinian”, that is, that Porphyry wrote such a text prior to meeting and studying with Plotinus. It is entirely plausible he wrote such a work during his studies with Plotinus. The possibility of Porphyry’s interest in Orphic material influencing Plotinus is made more likely by the lateness of III.5.
When we compare the phrasing of the Rhapsodic Hymn as quoted by Porphyry, which employs the mythic motif of the divine marriage to describe two aspects of Zeus, to Plotinus’ allusion to Philebus 30d1-2, we can see a clear picture of how he is combining Orphic and Platonic references in his treatise on Eros: “in Zeus there on the one hand a royal Soul, and on the other hand a royal Intellect” (My translation; ἐν τῷ Διὶ εἶναι βασιλικὴν μὲν ψυχήν, βασιλικηὸν δὲ νοῦν; HS III.5.8.10-11). In the Rhapsodic Hymn, Zeus is conceived of as containing both masculine and feminine principles, which Plotinus reads as Intellect and Soul. This accords with Plotinus’ general understanding of Soul as undescended. However, this would not itself be helpful in the exegetical context (cf. Vasilakis 2015) of III.5: interpreting the birth of Eros in Symposium, given the variety of dramatic characters beyond Zeus. Therefore, Plotinus argues that, in this context, we should assign [tattomen] Aphrodite to the role of Soul and “in this way would be the Soul of Zeus”. Plotinus concludes this section by anticipating a possible objection, that Hera would more clearly fit the category of the “royal Soul” in Zeus and mythical divine marriage, through allusion to the “priests and theologians” – this allusion, I believe, must refer to some body of Orphic logoi, because Plotinus is trying to justify his exegetical approach to Symposium as at the same time grounded in the Platonic and Orphic traditions.
That is to say, he wants his interpretation of the birth of Eros to accord obviously with the Platonic tradition which transmits the myth (this is, after all, an exegesis of Symposium), but also those texts attributed to Orpheus which have shaped his reading of the myth.
This body of Orphic logoi we likely do not possess today, as it is unlikely to refer to the collection of Orphic Hymns we possess.
Nevertheless, if we posit that such a body of literature likely influenced the extant Orphic Hymns, we could survey the Hymns for similar descriptions of Hera and Aphrodite as possibly indicating identifications in the earlier body of Orphic literature to which Plotinus alludes.
Working from Malamis’ 2025 edition of the Orphic Hymns, can see regal depictions of Aphrodite in 46.3 “crowned Aphrodite” (εὐστεφάνου … Ἀφροδίτης) and 55.15-16 “…whether you be on Olympus, queen goddess, joyful, fairfaced…”(…εἴτ’ ἐν’ Ὀλύμπωι ἐσσί, θεὰ βασίλεια, καλῶι γήθουσα προσώπωι…). Compare these to descriptions of Hera as “all-queen” in 16.2,9 (παμβασίλεια). Similarly, we can compare motherly depictions of Aphrodite as “engendering all, all that’s in heaven, and the rich-fruited earth and the depth of the sea” (γεννᾶις δὲ τὰ πάντα, /ὅσσα τ’ ἐν οὐρανῶι ἐστι καὶ ἐν γαίηι πολυκάρπωι / ἐν πόντου τε βυθῶι) in 55.5-7 to those of Hera as “birth of all” in 16.4 (παντογένεθλε).
While not definitive proof Plotinus is drawing his theological identification of Hera and Aphrodite from Orphic sources, what we know (theologos is a term late Platonists preferred to use for Orpheus; Porphyry follows this custom; Porphyry quotes a hymn attributed to Orpheus which thematically resonates with Enneads III.5.8 in a work which may have been written during his time spent studying with Plotinus; Porphyry composed a hymn himself on the subject of the divine marriage) I think paints a picture of Plotinus as certainly exposed to Orphic concepts either directly or mediated through Porphyry. When this is coupled with similarities between epithets of Aphrodite and Hera in the extant Orphic Hymns, I believe we can postulate Plotinus was familiar with a body of literature attributed to Orpheus which likely influenced the surviving collection.
References
Clark, Gillian (tr) (2000), Porphyry: On Abstinence from Killing Animals. Sorabji. Richard (ed.). (London: Bloomsbury)
Gerson, Lloyd P. (ed.) (2018), The Enneads. Boys-Stones, George; Dillon, John M.; Gerson,
Lloyd P.; King, R.A.H.; Smith, Andrew; Wilberding, James (trs.). (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Henry, Paul and Schwyzer, Hans-Rudolf (eds.) (1964), Plotini Opera. (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Vol. I
Kalligas, Paul. (2014), The Enneads of Plotinus: A Commentary (Vol. 1). Fowden, Elizabeth Key and Pilavachi, Nicolas (Trs.) (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Lamberton, Robert (1986), Homer the Theologian: Neoplatonic Allegorical Reading and the Growth of the Epic Tradition. (Berkeley: University of California Press).
Malamis, Daniel (Tr.) (2025), The Orphic Hymns: Poetry and Genre, with a Critical Text and Translation. (Leiden: Brill).
Martiana, Gaia. (Tr.), Porphyry, On Cult Statues,” Sartrix (blog) https://sartrix.wordpress.com/porphyry-on-cult-statues/
Vasilakis, Dimitrios (2015), “Love and Myth in Plotinus’ Enneads, III.5”, Diotima 43:68-75