{"id":22,"date":"2026-05-08T10:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-05-08T10:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/?p=22"},"modified":"2026-05-02T12:16:13","modified_gmt":"2026-05-02T12:16:13","slug":"plotinus-myth-and-henadology-reading-between-enneads-v-8-and-iii-5","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/2026\/05\/08\/plotinus-myth-and-henadology-reading-between-enneads-v-8-and-iii-5\/","title":{"rendered":"Plotinus, Myth and Henadology: Reading between Enneads V.8 and III.5"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Plotinus had a persistent interest in myth. His earliest treatise \u2014 I.6 \u201cOn Beauty\u201d \u2014 is littered with quotations from Homer and references to mythic figures (e.g. Narcissus). This interest is particularly apparent in his treatises on Eros and Beauty: the aforementioned I.6 [1], V.8 [31] \u201cOn the Intelligible Beauty\u201d and III.5 [50] \u201cOn Eros\u201d. How is it, then, that such an attentive reader of myth appears to contradict himself in his identifications concerning the hypostases, Intellect and Soul, between V.8.13 and III.5.2-3, 8?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the former, he lays out a clear identification between the three primary hypostases and the three successive rulers of the cosmos as described in Hesiod\u2019s Theogony<\/em>: Ouranos as the One, Kronos as the Nous and Zeus as the Soul. The explicit identification of Kronos with Nous is already prefigured in V.1.4, where Plotinus transposes the mythical idea of the \u2018Golden Age\u2019 of the reign of Kronos from a prehistorical past to the intelligible world itself. In V.1.7, he mentions Zeus being the only one of Kronos\u2019 children not consumed; while in context Plotinus is only making a point about Intellect containing all things, this exceptional position of Zeus becomes, in V.8.13, an indication of Zeus as the Soul: the Soul has proceeded from Intellect and made itself external to Intellect. By the end of V.8.13, summarizing the exegesis of Hesiod in V.8 and built on the earlier allusions to Theogony <\/em>in V.1, the binding of Kronos and transfer of rule to Zeus becomes symbolic of the distinction between the intelligible and sensible worlds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This account stands at odds with Plotinus\u2019 identifications between Gods and hypostases in III.5, wherein he interprets the divine characters from the birth of Eros in Symposium<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He begins in III.5.2 with an analysis of Aphrodite as Soul (employing the distinction from Pausanias\u2019 speech between Ourania and Pandemos \u2013 itself an exegetical maneuver to harmonize Theogony<\/em> 188 with Iliad<\/em> 5:370 and Odyssey <\/em>8:267 \u2013 to talk about different registers of the Soul, the hypostatic Soul and the Soul of the Cosmos, This distinction proves crucial for the conclusions of the treatise concerning Eros as a God and Eros as a Daimon). This identification was already established in VI.9 [9] 9.31, which appears to prefigure III.5\u2019s topic, when he says that \u201cAll Soul is Aphrodite.\u201d Bertozzi rightly, I think, characterizes this as the \u201cleading principle of Plotinus\u2019 exegesis\u201d (Bertozzi 2021, 159) in III.5<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Aphrodite\/Soul reverts to \u2018her father,\u2019 who is Intellect. Plotinus leaves it up to the reader whether to prefer Kronos or Ouranos as the \u2018father\u2019 of Aphrodite. While Kalligas explains this through citing Proclus’ Commentary on Plato’s Cratylus <\/em>110.6-12, where it is explained that Kronos and Ouranos are different types of causes (Kalligas 2014, 513), I am not entirely sure Plotinus’ relatively flexible mythical hermeneutics would make such a technical distinction. Between the two, he appears to prefer emphasizing Kronos as Aphrodite\u2019s father in III.5, given that it fits well with the aforementioned identification of Kronos with Intellect. Plotinus explains that, in reversion, Aphrodite\u2019s\/Soul\u2019s \u2018sight\u2019 of her father gives rise to Eros (drawing a semantic etymological connection between Eros and horasis<\/em>, \u2018seeing\u2019). In III.5.2, Zeus does not really enter the picture. The triadic relationship is between Kronos, Aphrodite, and Eros.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One may be tempted to harmonize these two accounts by analyzing them as referring to two different triads: the account of the successive reigns in Theogony<\/em> as the three primary hypostases, and the account of the birth of Eros as triadic relationship of Intellect, Soul and Eros. This harmonization would<\/em> work, if III.5 ended with its second section. Three challenges emerge in the following sections of the treatise:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Plotinus strongly affirms that Eros is a hypostasis<\/em> in III.3.1-2: \u201cIt is not appropriate to disbelieve that Love is a real existent [hypostasin<\/em>], that is, a Substance produced from a Substance, lesser than the producer, but still a Substance.\u201d (Gerson) [\u1f59\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u03bf\u1f50\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ac\u03c4\u03c4\u03c9 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03c3\u03b1\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f56\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f45\u03bc\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f00\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u03bf\u1f50 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03ae\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9.] (HS). This, at the very least, complicates any distinction which reads the Hesiodic exegesis of V.8 as concerning hypostases proper and III.5 as concerning merely activities within hypostases.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Plotinus affirms that Eros is an activity (energeia<\/em>) of Soul \u2018stretching itself\u2019 toward Good (ie, the One): in III.5.4.21-23: \u201c…if indeed Soul is the Mother of Eros, Aphrodite is the Soul, and Eros is the activity of the Soul stretching herself towards the Good. (My own translation). […\u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1 \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f08\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae, \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f10\u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03b3\u03b1\u03b8\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f40\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2. – because \u1f40\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 is a participle describing \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2, not \u1f14\u03c1\u03c9\u03c2, and being from the deponent verb \u1f40\u03c1\u03b9\u03b3\u03bd\u03ac\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9 needs to be understood in, conceptually as it were, the middle voice, I have rendered this reflexively in English: stretching herself] (HS) This description of Eros brings the Good into picture, frustrating any attempt to read the III.5 exegesis as describing triadic relations posterior to Nous.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Plotinus reintroduces Zeus in III.5.8.1-2, 4-6, given the setting of the myth as told in Symposium<\/em>: \u201cBut who is this Zeus, into whose \u2018garden\u2019 he [Plato] says, \u2018Plenty entered\u2019… But what should we make of these, Zeus and his garden? For we shouldn\u2019t take Zeus as Soul since we have already taken Aphrodite as this.\u201d (Gerson) [\u1f08\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u03af\u03c2 \u1f41 \u0396\u03b5\u03cd\u03c2, \u03bf\u1f56 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u1fc6\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9, \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u1f43\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1fc6\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u1f41 \u03a0\u03cc\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 … \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03af \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0394\u03af\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u1fc6\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd; \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1f72 \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u03b4\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03c4\u03af\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u0394\u03af\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f08\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u03b8\u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2.] (HS) Here it is clearly stated that Zeus cannot, in the context of Plato\u2019s Symposium<\/em>, be interpreted as Soul, perhaps most directly contradicting the account in V.8.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    The basic problem which then emerges concerns the status of Aphrodite and Zeus. There have been some scholarly attempts to bridge the two treatises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Brisson, Pradeau and Flamand (2009, 422 note 156) argue for a \u201cdouble valeur symbolique\u201d for Zeus, who can be both Soul and Intellect. They refer to IV.4.9-10. There is a clear textual reason to do so: both there and in III.5.8.9, Plotinus quotes from Plato\u2019s Philebus<\/em> 30d, where it is said that “… in the nature of Zeus there is on the one hand a royal soul, and on the other a royal intellect …” [… \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc7 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 … \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae\u03bd, \u03b2\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03b4\u1f72 \u03bd\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd \u2026]. Plotinus quotes this in III.5.8 to problematize the simple identification of Zeus with Soul. However, in IV.4.10, Plotinus is making a distinction between ways of speaking of Zeus as the Demiurge and the Soul of the Cosmos. This does not actually help us to understand the context of III.5.8, which is that it appears Zeus (and his garden) have no hypostatic correspondent, given that all<\/em> Soul is Aphrodite: the undescended hypostatic Soul being Aphrodite Ourania, the Soul of the Cosmos being Aphrodite Pandemos, and the individual Souls being the \u201cmany Aphrodites\u201d. Explaining Zeus as a Demiurge, in this particular context, does not really add to the summary exegesis of the myth in III.5.9.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    For this reason, I think Marije Martijn is right in disagreeing with Brisson and Pradeau concerning V.8.13.12-19 (which the latter, on the grounds of an epexegetic kai<\/em>, to identify Aphrodite with the Soul of the Cosmos; this claim is also made by Gerson, that \u201cZeus is the hypostasis Soul and Aphrodite the soul of the universe\u201d). She argues that Aphrodite in V.8 must be understood as corresponding to a higher register of Soul, though her alternative proposal \u2013 that \u201cZeus stands for Soul as immanent in Intellect, whereas Aphrodite stands for Soul as Soul\u201d (Martijn 2022, 172) \u2013 does not seem to really follow from the section she cites: while mentioning III.5.8.5-17, she avoids the statement just after that, at III.5.8.20 \u201cAphrodite is the Soul of Zeus\u201d [\u1f21 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u0394\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f21 \u1f08\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03af\u03c4\u03b7] (HS).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    I would propose an alternative way to approach the exegeses of V.8 and III.5. Rather than try to make the identifications in one exegetical circumstance line up with those present in another, we should instead read these identifications as contextual. This would follow from the methodological reflections Plotinus gives concerning reading mythology in III.5.9.24-26:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u0394\u03b5\u1fd6 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bc\u03cd\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03b5\u1f34\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03bf \u1f14\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f03 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u2019 \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u1f44\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1, \u03c4\u03ac\u03be\u03b5\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u1f23 \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03ac\u03bc\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u1ff6\u03c4\u03b1\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \u201cBut myths, if indeed they are going to be myths, must separate temporally their narrative and divide from each other many Beings which exist together, but are distinct from each other by rank or powers\u2026\u201d (Gerson)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Plotinus here is prefiguring techniques of mythical exegesis which will become widespread in later Platonic thinkers (cf. discussion of Olympiodorus in Butler 2005, 35-39). Most important for the present question between V.8 and III.5 is the latter statement: myths \u201cmust divide [diairein<\/em>] from each other many Beings which exist together [polla ton onton homou men onta<\/em>].\u201d Plotinus is here referring to the Gods and other characters which are presented in mythical narratives. Importantly, Plotinus continues to use the plural, onta<\/em>, to indicate that their plurality is not a side effect of the narrative structure of myth; these beings are plural, and exist together [homou<\/em>]. Rather, it is diairein<\/em>, or to separate them from one another, which is necessary for the mythical narrative structure. This point was already highlighted by Wolters in his introduction to his translation and study of III.5 (cf. Wolters 1972, xiv-xv).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    However, I believe this allegorical methodology becomes much clearer if we, unlike Wolters, understand the Gods as \u2018all in each\u2019, as Plotinus explains in V.8.4.6-11 and V.8.9.17-24. In these passages, \u201cwe see many traits of the later technical doctrine of the henads as we find in Platonists like Proclus. The unity of the divine manifold rests in all the Gods being in each<\/em>, rather than in one<\/em>\u2026\u201d (Butler 2016, 147).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    What I would consider a henadological reading of the exegeses presented in V.8 and III.5 would be to work from a starting point that holds the Gods to not be reducible to particular beings, essences or hypostases. Rather, as Plotinus says, \u201cthey are distinct from each other by taxei<\/em> or dunamesi<\/em>\u201d: the Gods\u2019 duties or powers with respect to the structure of the cosmos may be different, but the Gods are not defined by their duties or powers. For Zeus to appear in the exegesis of Theogony<\/em> as the hypostasis Soul, in Symposium<\/em> as Intellect, other times are the Demiurge or as the Soul of the Cosmos as in IV.4.10 \u2013 these are respectively indicated by Plotinus as taxeis <\/em>or dunameis<\/em>. Zeus, himself, precedes any of these descriptions, and as such each description must be understood contextually.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    I believe Plotinus indicates this when, after giving his exegesis of Theogony<\/em>, he says \u201cIf then, speaking in a more familiar way\u201d [\u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c1\u03b9\u03bc\u03ce\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd, V.8.13.16-17] when he reintroduces Aphrodite to the discussion. For Plotinus and for his students, Aphrodite is the \u2018more familiar\u2019 deity, insofar that she is the most mentioned deity in the entirety of the Enneads<\/em> and, it seems, central to Plotinus\u2019 philosophical project and philosophical practice given her role as the Mother of Eros. To use the language Butler 2021 provides in describing relationships between Gods within the henadic manifold from the perspective of the individual, Aphrodite remains for the majority of the Enneads<\/em> in the \u2018devotional regard\u2019, while Zeus is given a \u2018peripheral regard\u2019. Given the polycentric flexibility of a henadological view of divinity, it is possible for one\u2019s regard to shift temporarily. His analysis of Zeus as symbolizing Soul in the context of the successive reigns in the Theogony<\/em> appears to be just that: a shift from peripheral to devotional regard dictated by the contexts of the myth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    References<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Bertozzi, Alberto. (2021), Plotinus on Love: An Introduction to His Metaphysics through the Concept of Eros<\/em>. (Leiden: Brill).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Butler, Edward (2005), \u201cThe Theological Interpretation of Myth.\u201d The Pomegranate: The International Journal of Pagan Studies<\/em> 7:1, 27-41<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Butler, Edward (2016), \u201cPlotinian Henadology.\u201d Kronos Philosophical Journal<\/em> V, 143-159.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Butler, Edward (2021), \u201cPolytheism as Methodology in the Study of Religions.\u201d Oscillations: Non-Standard Experiments in Anthropology, the Social Sciences and Cosmology<\/em>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Flamand, Jean-Marie (Tr.) (2009), \u201cTrait\u00e9 50 (III, 5) Sur l’amour\u201d in Plotin: Trait\u00e9s 45-50.<\/em> Brisson, L. and Pradeau, J.F. (Eds.) (Paris: Flammarion).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Gerson, Lloyd P. (ed.) (2018), The Enneads<\/em>. Boys-Stones, George; Dillon, John M.; Gerson,\u00a0Lloyd P.; King, R.A.H.; Smith, Andrew; Wilberding, James (trs.). (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Henry, Paul and Schwyzer, Hans-Rudolf (eds.) (1964), Plotini Opera<\/em>. (Oxford: Oxford\u00a0University Press). Vol. I<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Kalligas, Paul. (2014), The Enneads of Plotinus: A Commentary (Vol. 1). Fowden, Elizabeth Key and Pilavachi, Nicolas (Trs.) (Princeton: Princeton University Press).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Martijn, Marije (2022), \u201cA Match Made in Heaven: The Metaphysics of Aphrodite in <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Neoplatonic Thinkers.\u201d in Schultz, Jana and Wilberding, James (eds.), Women and the Female in Neoplatonism. (Leiden: Brill) 169-195.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Wolters, Albert Marten. (1972), Plotinus \u201cOn Eros\u201d: A Detailed Exegetical Study of Enneads III.5<\/em>. (Amsterdam: Filosofisch Instituut van de Vrije Universiteit).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Plotinus had a persistent interest in myth. His earliest treatise \u2014 I.6 \u201cOn Beauty\u201d \u2014 is littered with quotations from Homer and references to mythic figures (e.g. Narcissus). This interest is particularly apparent in his treatises on Eros and Beauty: the aforementioned I.6 [1], V.8 [31] \u201cOn the Intelligible Beauty\u201d and III.5 [50] \u201cOn Eros\u201d….<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"pagelayer_contact_templates":[],"_pagelayer_content":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[5,11,8,3,12,9,10],"class_list":["post-22","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-aphrodite","tag-henadology","tag-myth","tag-plotinus","tag-polytheism","tag-symposium","tag-theogony"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22\/revisions\/23"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/guskraus.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}