PLOTINUS

AND

ARTISTIC

THE

THEORY

OF

IMITATION
BY

AUDREY

N.

M.

RICH

remarks
In the opening chapter of his Life ol Plotinus,
Porphyry
of being in the body that he could
that his master was so ashamed
or his native
never bring himself to discuss his birth, his parentage
for
to
sit
his
he
refused
moreover,
consistently
portrait to a
country;
stated
his
and on one particular
occasion
or a sculptor,
d
??
in the following
terms:
? f?s??
?a? ???e? f??e??,
objections
a?t??
???a ?a? e?d???? e?d???? s?????e??
e?d???? ???? pe??t??e??e?,
painter

?ata??pe??
?? d? t? t??
?????? p?????????te???
of the
remind
These sentiments
us, of course,
imitation
set forth in the tenth book of Plato's

a?????at??
?????;
ot
artistic
theory

Republic x). There

in Plato,
the
for whereas
difference,
manufactured
painter is an inanimate

an important
by the
reproduced
model would be
a
wooden
bed, here the proposed
namely
object,
human being, an e?d???? created
the features
of an individual
by
both Plato
nature rather than by the skill of man 2). Nevertheless,
and Plotinus
seem to be making the same point, that the creations
is,

however,

"image"

of the
artist

visual

arts
not

inasmuch
as the
of images"
"images
material
embut a particular
Form,
in what appears to be the view of
a portrait,

are mere
the

copies
of it. Thus,
bodiment

Ideal

?) H. P. R. Finberg, The Filiation of Aesthetic Ideas in the Neoplatonic

School, CQ. 20 (1926), 150: "The objection proves his loyalty to Plato even
of Plato's argument in Rethough it betrays an imperfect understanding
public X." For the Mimesis doctrine in the Dialogues, see R. McKeon,
Literary Criticism and the Concept of Imitation in Antiquity, Mod. Phil. 34
(x936), 1-35; G. F. Else, Imitation in the Fifth Century, Class Phil. 53 (1958),
73"9?; J? Tate, Imitation in Plato*s Republic, C.Q. 22 (1928), 16-23; Plato and
Imitation, ibid. (1932), 161-9; W. J. Verdenius, Mimesis. Plato*s Doctrine of
Artistic Imitation (Leiden, 1949) ; P. M. Schuhl, Platon et Gart de son temps
(Paris, 2i952).
2) It is interesting to observe that Proclus, when discussing the relevant
Platonic passage in his Commentary on the Republic assigns the portrait of
an individual human being to a rank parallel e? f?s????? to that of a painted
bed ?? te???t???.

234

PLOTINUS AND THE THEORY OF ARTISTIC IMITATION

no more

Plotinus,
a wooden
Now

represents
bed reproduces
what
can

we

find

the
Plato

corroboration

"real"

man

than

a painting
of
calls a?t?? e?e???? d est? ????? 1).
in Plotinus5
own writings
for

that he regarded
and sculpture
as
suggestion
Porphyry's
painting
in
that
a
in
that
imitative,
mimetic,
is,
sense,
purely
derogatory
and derivative
? A view of this
they simply copy what is material
seems
to be implied
in Ennead
IV. 3.10,
where
certainly
Plotinus
dim and
distinctly
says that Art imitates
by producing
feeble copies, mere "toys" of little value, and makes use of various
in order to produce
devices
Elsewhere
he speaks
of a
e?d??a2).
sort

as a ?????a 3) which, like a reflection

in water, reproduces
merely the physical
aspect of its original. And if this is not decisive,
we have only, apparently,
to turn to Plotinus'
classification
of the
arts in Ennead
V. 9.11, to be told that painting
and sculpture,
painting

together

with
since

????t??a?
arts Plotinus

the

arts

they
contrasts

of dancing
and mime, must be classed
as
models
in
the
world
of
sense. These
employ

with music which has as its pattern

the
arts like
order, and the productive
intelligible
and carpentry,
he says,
are based
Ideal
which,
building
upon
inasmuch
as
make
use
of
In
this
principles
they
proportions.
passage,
we observe,
and carpentry
the same
painting
appear in precisely
relation
to each other as in Republic X, though
it is interesting
to
of the

symmetry

notice

that whereas Plato speaks of the carpenter

Bed, Plotinus,
who, like most of the later
not admit Ideas of artefacta,
is content
simply to
ductive
arts are based on intelligible
principles,
Ideal

t??a? p??s????ta?.
It seems then that
Enneads

themselves

there
both

is a certain

amount

as referring
Platonists

to the

4), did
that
the
say
pro?a?' ds?? s???e-

of evidence

in the

to bear out what

Porphyry
implies about
and
to
arts,
suggest that Plotinus
shared the traditionally
"Platonic"
view of artistic imitation
as it
appears in Republic X. But the matter cannot simply be left there,
his master's

attitude

to the visual

?) Rep. X. 597a?
2) Cp. Plato, Polit. 288c 1-10; Laws X. 889c 6-d 2 ; Epinomis 9750! 2-9.
3) Enn. VI. 2.22.
4) Cp. Albinus, Epit. IX. 2; Proclus, Comm. in Tim. Vol. I, p. 344 (Diehl) ;
Syrianus, Comm. in Arist. Met. 999b 12.

PLOTINUS AND THE THEORY OF ARTISTIC IMITATION

235

that Plotinus
for it is perfectly
clear from other evidence
did not,
a
work
art
as
a
of
bare copy
invariably
any more than Plato, regard
world. In fact, the
of something
existing
already in the phenomenal
distinctive

of

contribution

Plotinus

of the

his

in

artist's

the

of

field
to

is
aesthetics
base his work

ability
recognition
precisely
but upon his own conception
not upon a material
of the
model,
in V. 9.11, that sculpIdeal. Thus, in spite of his earlier statement
arts which employ
ture is to be ranked with the imitative
material

models, we find him taking great pains to point out in V. 8.1, that
his famous
when
statue
the sculptor
of Zeus,
Phidias,
making
model
not
with
reference
to
worked,
any particular
(p??? ??d??
Zeus
be
like
what
but
would
if he chose
"by apprehending
a?s??t??)
between
to us". The similarity
the view
visibly manifest
of art implied
here and that which appears in the second chapter
of Cicero's Orator, has, of course, been frequently
commented
upon ;
with the remark of Philostratus
so also has its obvious connection
x)
to become

to

the

effect

imitation
that

that

it

is

rather
"imagination"
(fa?tas?a)
the sculptor
in his task. Such links

than

which guides
prove
of art is certainly
not peculiar
to
"imagination"
theory
it goes back, in fact, at least as far as Cicero who probably
it from a Greek source now no longer known. This means

the

Plotinus;
borrowed

X had clearly been chalof Republic

we should
of Plotinus,
or perhaps
long
lenged
had long been recognized.
alternative
rather say, that a possible
the old,
We cannot say that the new theory completely
supplanted
set side by side.
since in Seneca we even find the two alternatives
then,

that

An artist
manent
habeat
concepit

the

????s?? theory
the time
before

or an imhe implies,
model,
"nihil autem ad rem pertinet
utrum foris
mental
design:
an intus quod ibi ipse
ad quod referat
oculos
exemplar
et posuit" 2).
can

use either

an external

?) Vit. Apoll. VI. 19.2. See W. R. Inge, The Philosophy of Plotinus, Vol. II,
216; B. Bosanquet, A History of Aesthetic, 114; J. E. Sandys, Orator, 9; A. H.
Armstrong, Plotinus, 170.
2) Epist. 65.7. It is possible that Plato himself was originally responsible
for this distinction between Mimesis proper and "Imagination" in the sphere
of artistic creation. For he remarks significantly in Rep. 472d that a painter
can make a sketch to illustrate his conception of an ideally beautiful human
being (???? a? e?'? ? ?????st?? ?????p??) even if he is unable to prove that

PLOTINUS AND THE THEORY OF ARTISTIC IMITATION

236

if this

But

distinction

had

creation

already
a little difficult

perhaps
consists.

between

been

made

two
before

to see wherein

modes
of artistic
possible
it is
the time of Plotinus,
the originality
of his view

be briefly answered.
The question
Whereas
can, however,
in Cicero, Seneca and Philostratus,
the artist's immanent
exemplar
is something
as we would say, a mere concept
purely "imaginary"
based on his memory
of the physical
the sculpworld, in Plotinus,
in so far as it is to be
is more solidly grounded
tor's "imagination"
as a vision of Ideal Beauty.
interpreted
based merely
upon some insubstantial
of "the immaterial
fact, an imitation
the soul

Phidias

creates

is not

mental
Ideal

but is, in
figment,
world, of the ???t? in

a ?????a
x), or, as Plotinus
puts it himself,
e? t? a?s??t?
t?? e? ???se? ?e?????? 2). Even on this high level then,
Art will still be, in a sense, a ????s?? but a ????s?? that dispenses
with a sensible
and works straight
from the
altogether
pattern
Idea.

of the

What

should

We

Plotinus

artist"

recognizes

not,
the

however,

conclude

possibility
discards
the theory
automatically
he realizes that in some
Rather,

thereupon

that

of an idealistic

simply

type
of material

because
of art, he
imitation

cases, in portraiture,
altogether.
for instance,
a model is indispensable,
and that to some extent the
or sculptor
will always be dependent
painter
upon it. But though
Plotinus
to
admit
there
are
this,
appears
signs that he is not by
with the term e?d???? e?d??? ? as a comprehenany means satisfied
sive description
of a work of imitative
art. This is clear from the fact
that he takes great care to make a distinction
between
a work of
art and

i.e. reflections
and shadows.
In
types of "images",
of a painted
he
it
is
not
the
model,
portrait,
suggests
3),
t? e?d?? t? ?e?????????, that actually gives rise to the representation,
but the artistic
the particular
of colours
process,
arrangement
the

other

case

worked

out

In the case of reflections

or shadows,
by the painter.
hand, it is the archetype
which, by its mere presence,
the image
of a tree casting
its
(one need only think

on the other
produces

such a person actually exists. That Plato did, in fact, recognize an idealistic
type of art distinct from the merely mimetic, has been convincingly argued
by P. M. Schuhl, J. Tate and W. J. Verdenius. See p. 233, note 1.
1) P. V. Pistorius, Plotinus and Neoplatonism, 150.
2) Enn. II. 9.16.
3) Enn. VI. 4.10.

PLOTINUS AND THE THEORY OF ARTISTIC IMITATION

237

on water, as an example),
and an image of this type only
there. A painting,
however,
persists so long as its original is actually
it may be, has an autonomous
existence
once comimage though
either by the presence
or the absence
pleted, and is quite unaffected
of t? e?d?? t? ?e?????????.

reflection

Thus
the

Plotinus

visual

imitative

because
passive
greater
of the

to
prepared
arts differ from

seems

admit

that

other

types

are created

they

of

mirroring
permanence

archetypes
out this
pointing
Plato's
suggestion

the

of
products
of images,
first,
and not by a mere

by a conscious
process
and
because
objects;
secondly,

and can exist

in their

have
they
own right independently
in fact, that in
suspect,

We
they
represent.
Plotinus
distinction,
may be tacitly
criticizing
X that the artistic
in Republic
method
is ana-

logous to the mirroring of objects in a glass; he may also be thinking

where works of art are put into the
of the passage in the Sophistx)
other
as
the
same category
at
types of e?d??a without
any attempt
A less veiled
the e?d????
attack
discrimination.
e?d????
upon
reserved for Ennead V. 8.1. Here Plotinus
makes
theory is, however,
to the ????s?? doctrine
it clear that he has no objection
as such.
because
The arts should not be disparaged
nature, he
they imitate
other objects".
also imitate
In other
things
says, since ''natural
in so far as it is an
words, the natural world itself is an imitation,
to
the
condemn
of
Hence,
image
Intelligible.
????s?? is to condemn
in the process
nature
itself
which
the very method
of
adopts
creation.

But

Plotinus
though
on to insist that

the ????s?? theory

in this
justifies
the mimetic
arts do not simply
re-

he goes
of the objects
the visible
they copy; rather they
aspect
produce
from which the natural objects derive".
"run back to the principles
is clear ; an artist or sculptor need not produce a mere
His meaning
not on the outward
of his
e?d????. By concentrating,
appearance

way,

he is capable
of proon its inner, intelligible
essence,
no further removed
from truth
that is logically
ducing something
than the natural object itself. He imitates
simply what nature has
but

model,

imitated
This

before

means

that

?) 239a 6-7.

him, the Idea which makes the object

what he creates is, like its model, none

what

it is.

other

than

PLOTINUS AND THE THEORY OF ARTISTIC IMITATION

238

of the intelligible
a representation
order, not a mere image of an
would
Pistorius
even
of saying
In
fact,
go to the extent
*)
image.
of Socrates,
that in Plotinus'
view, a work of art, e.g. a portrait
stands actually
higher in the scale of reality than its model, in this
himself. This is because it imitates
"the Idea of
Socrates
case, than
the

Socrates,
pointed

out

But against
this it should
???t?? of the man".
"the Idea of Socrates"
that for Plotinus
would

be
be

It is therefore
himself
imitates.
what Socrates
difficult
precisely
as some higher kind
to see how a portrait of him could be regarded
In any case, Plotinus
makes it perfectly
clear that as far
of reality.
is not alive, is one
the very fact that a portrait
as he is concerned,
for looking
upon it as less, not more, than the living
to
it
2). In fact, he even goes so far as to
represent
being
purports
that
is alive is actually
to a
that
something
preferable
ugly
say
a
which
does
remark
not
bear
statue
out
beautiful
the
certainly
3),
reason

good

that a work of art is superior to a work of nature.

suggestion
we may conclude
about the relative
status of portrait
Whatever
in Plotinus'
there is no doubt
that he has
and model
scheme,
the whole meaning
of the term ????s??. Whether,
revolutionized
he completely
abandoned
the e?d???? e?d????
as Finberg
suggests4),
view of art after writing Ennead V. 8, is, however,
open to question.
to
Certainly it still seems to be implied in VI. 2.22, which, according
in
of
is
later
order
the
chronology,
composition.
Porphyry's
Perhaps
answer

is simply
out
terminology
there
the

that

Plotinus

continued
to his

of mere

to employ
master.
But

the

Platonic

in any

case,
loyalty
is no real inconsistency.
Plotinus
might well have recognized
of three different
levels
of artistic
achievement:
possibility

at one extreme,
of Phidias
who

type of art exemplified

by the work
a sensible
but
an
immaterial
pattern
at
the
lower
end
of
the
the
work
of
artists
who
aimed
Idea;
scale,
more than a bare semblance
of some archetype
at nothing
in the
sense-world;

the idealistic

imitated

and

between

not

these

two

extremes,

an

intermediate

?) Op. cit. p. 150.

2) Enn. VI. 2.7.
3) Enn. VI. 7.22.
4) 0^>. c??. p. 150. For a similar view, see E. De Keyser, La Signification
de Gart dans les Enn?ades de Plotin (Universit? de Louvain. Receuil des
Travaux d'Histoire et de Philologie, 4e s?rie, Fase. 7, 1955), 43.

PLOTINUS AND THE THEORY OF ARTISTIC IMITATION

239

with material models, yet refrained

type which, while not dispensing
from concentrating
and atupon the mere physical
appearance
to express
the inner nature of the person or thing it retempted
Now it is an interesting
observation
that it is precisely
presented.
this

which best fits the type of art with which

description
himself would be most familiar.
Roman portrait
sculpture
of the third century after Christ particularly
the inward
emphasised
last

Plotinus

as opposed
to the outward
the
form, and in representing
meaning
the same
body as a mere foil for the soul, made in its own medium
in his, namely,
assertion
as Plotinus
fundamental
that Spirit is
Hence we need feel no surprise
that Plotinus
prior to Matter1).
of
with
the
shows
dissatisfied
traditional
signs
being
????s??
All round him he would have had concrete
evidence
that a
theory.
'
work of art is not a bare 'image of an image" but a ?????a e? t?
no less expressive
t?? e? ???se?, ?e?????? 2), a symbol
of the
a?s??t?
Ideal

world

a guide

than

the Zeus of Phidias,

to the recollection

Cambridge,

Girton

(??????s??)

and in every
of the truth

way

as effective

3).

College.

?) See H. P. L'Orange, The Antique Origin of Mediaeval Portraiture

Congressus Madvigiani, Copenhagen, 1957), 56 and 62.
2) Enn. II. 9.16.
3) ibid.

(Acta