THE EGYPTIAN FOUNDATIONS OF GNOSTIC THOUGHT

Harpocration of Argos (c. 180 C.E.) is noted by Proclus as being a pupil of
Atticus. The members of the Olympian pantheon are referred to as “Archons” and the
demiurge is “head Archon”, akin to Basileides’ depiction of “the great Archon”
(Hippolytus, Refutatio, X,14.6). The very nature of the body and matter is
quintessentially evil for Harpocration, and incarnation into such a state is seen to be
an unmitigated disaster. One can hardly seek a more “gnostic” version of Platonic
thought in the few telling essentials we have from Harpocration. A socio-historical
hermeneutic here must ask how influential these philosophers were – did they break
ground on their own, or were they reflective of a larger ground-swell of public
opinion? Again, the larger focus upon Hellenistic religions must affirm the latter.
The last philosophical figure to be taken up here is the mysterious personage
of Ammonius Saccas of Alexandria (c. 210 C.E.). It is unfortunate indeed that we
have no direct insights available into the teachings of the mentor of Origen and
Plotinus. A strong case can be made, I believe, to link Saccas within the dualist
philosophical trajectory we have thus far delimited.
In the first instance, Porphyry notes that Plotinus, after experiencing
disappointment with various Alexandrian teachers, became quite enthused with
Saccas after being directed to this teacher by a friend. Porphyry notes that,
The friend, understanding the desire of his (Plotinus’) heart, sent him to
Ammonius, whom he had not so far tried. He went and heard him and said to
his friend, “This is the man I was looking for.” From that day he stayed with
Ammonius and acquired so complete a training in philospohy that he became
eager to make acquaintance with the Persian philosophical discipline and that
prevailing among the Indians (Life 3.11-17). 65
Dillon is surely correct in assuming from this that Saccas is highly reminiscent of
Numenius in his incorporation of Persian and Indian elements into his philosophical
outlook. Porphyry in fact mentions that the commentaries of Numenius and Atticus
were read in the school of Plotinus. Of special import in this passage as it continues, is
the hermeneutical emphasis given to Plotinus’ reading of these texts:
But he did not just speak straight out of these books but took a distinctive
personal line in his consideration, and brought the mind (nous) of Ammonius to
bear on the investigations in hand. He quickly absorbed what was read, and
would give the sense of some profound subject of study in a few words and pass
on (Life 14.13-18). 66
This is an intriguing reference, although it is oblique, for the sense is of a
particularly personal insight applied to language, a teachable approach to language
that aims for intuitive insight, and a method that Plotinus acquired from Ammonius
Saccas, his teacher in Egypt. Plotinus elsewhere commends the Egyptians for their
appreciation of sacred sounds as we have noted.
It seems clear that the ostensible anti-Gnostic stance of Plotinus is essentially
reactionary; he had Gnostics in his school and he must have been exposed to Gnostic
65
Plotinus I: Porphyry on the Life of Plotinus and the Order of His Books; Enneads I. 1-9,
trans. A.H. Armstrong (1966; reprint, Loeb Classical, 1989), 9.
66
Plotinus I, 41.