SOURCE: Boyd, M. J. “The Chronology in Porphyry's Vita Plotini.” Classical Philology 32, no. 3 (July 1937): 241-57.

[In the following essay, Boyd explains that there is some question about the accuracy of the statements made by Porphyry regarding the chronology of events in his Life of Plotinus, and he theorizes that the author used a particular system of reckoning to arrive at his dates.]

The ultimate source of all our knowledge of the chronological details of the life of Plotinus is the Vita Plotini of Porphyry.¹ Yet, until Professor Oppermann produced his Die Chronologie in Porphyrios' “Vita Plotini,”² no one seems to have attempted to discover the exact meaning of the statements which Porphyry makes in this connection, although very frequent use has been made of these statements.³ The problem was first seriously raised by Dessau when he suggested to Heinemann⁴ that the regnal years by which Porphyry reckons were either the Egyptian or the Syro-Macedonian regnal years. Heinemann accepted this theory⁵ and drew up a table of the most important dates in the life of Plotinus. Finally Oppermann carefully examined all the dates given by Porphyry and concluded that Dessau's theory was correct.

This problem of what the regnal years were which Porphyry employed is the main problem which is raised by the statements which he makes on chronology. But before we consider it there are several other questions which must be settled. First of these is the question whether Porphyry intended his statements on chronology to be as accurate as possible. That he probably did can be seen not only from the care which he devoted to chronological questions in the Chronica and the Historia philosophiae⁶ but from the evidence of the Vita Plotini itself. Here we may draw special attention to two points: (1) Even where a vague method of giving the data might be excusable Porphyry attempts to give it precisely: for example, instead of saying, as he might easily have done, that Plotinus took to philosophy after he had reached maturity, he tells us that he did so in his twenty-eighth year;⁷ (2) in giving the date of an event Porphyry frequently dates it by several different standards of reference; this can be especially seen at the beginning of chapter iv,⁸ where he dates his own arrival at the school of Plotinus by reference to the year of Gallienus, to the number of years that Amelius had been with Plotinus, to the age of Plotinus, and to his own age.

We may assume, then, that Porphyry endeavored to be accurate in his statements on chronology, but it does not follow that all his statements are, in fact, correct. In particular we may be skeptical about his statements on the age which Plotinus had reached when various events took place. Porphyry says in chapter ii⁹ that, according to Eustochius, Plotinus was in his sixty-sixth year when he died, and that from this statement of Eustochius it was concluded that he must have been born in the thirteenth year of Severus. Thus the statement of Eustochius is Porphyry's sole evidence for the age of Plotinus. Eustochius was present when Plotinus died, and it is possible that Plotinus then told him his age, but it seems at least as possible, as Oppermann suggests,¹⁰ that Eustochius, following the regular practice when a man's exact age was unknown, assumed that Plotinus was in his fortieth year when he came to Rome in the summer of 244 and calculated from that that he must have been in his sixty-sixth year at the time of his death.

The second of these preliminary questions is: Did Porphyry, in counting the length of time between two events, count each period of twelve months from the date of the event as a year or did he take the year as beginning at some fixed date and count periods, however short, before or after that fixed date as years? That the latter was the case can be seen from the following passages of the Vita:

τἳ̑ δεκάτῳ δε ἔτει τη̑s Γαλιήνου βασιλείαs ἐγo Πορφύριοs ἐκ τη̑s ‘Ελλάδοs μετὰ 'Αντωνίου του̑ ‘Ροδίου γεγονώs. …

(chap. iv, p. 7, ll. 5 ff.).

sυγγεγονos δὲ αὐτἳ̑ [sc. Πλωτίνῳ] του̑τό τε τὸ ἔτοs καὶ ἐφεξη̑s ἄλλα ἔτη πέντε—ὀλίγον γάρ τι πρότερον τυ̑s δεκαετίαs ἐγεγόνειν ὁ Πορφύριοs ἐν τῃ̑ ‘Ρώμῃ … ἐν δὴ τοι̑s eξ ἔτεσι τούτοιs. …

(chap. v, p. 9, ll. 11 ff.).

ἐν δὲ τῃ̑ Σικελίᾳ διατρίβοντόs μου—ἐκει̑ γὰρ ἀνεχώρησα περὶ τὸ πεντεκαιδέκατον ἔτοs τη̑s βασιλείαs Γαλιήνου—. …

(chap. vi, p. 11, ll. 7 ff.).

Thus Porphyry arrived at Rome in the tenth year of Gallienus, shortly before the end of that year (ὀλίγον γάρ τι πρότερον τη̑s δεκαετίαs)¹¹ and left it again in the fifteenth year of Gallienus. Yet he uses the following phrases of the period between these two events: του̑τό τε τὸ ἔτοs καὶ ἐφεξη̑s ἄλλα ἔτη πέντε and ἐν δὴ τοι̑s eξ ἔτεσι τούτοιs.¹²

Clearly there could not be six periods of twelve months each between just before the end of the tenth year of Gallienus and any time in the fifteenth year. In fact, there are not even five periods of twelve months each between the arrival of Porphyry at Rome and his departure from there. For Gallienus was succeeded by Claudius about March, 268,¹³ and therefore Porphyry's departure must be at latest in March, 268.¹⁴ But his arrival was in the late summer or early autumn of 263, and he would not have completed five periods of twelve months each until well after March, 268. Therefore Porphyry, when he counts the length of time between two events, must take the year as beginning on some fixed date and count periods, however short, before or after that date as years. The question of what this fixed date was will be considered later.

The third question is: Does Porphyry employ the same system when he is giving the years of a person's life? That he counts the beginning of the current year of a person's life as a year is clear from a comparison of ἦν δὲ ὁ Πλωτι̑νοs τἳ̑ δεκάτῳ ἔτει τη̑s Γαλιήνου βασιλείαs ἀμφὶ τὰ πεντήκοντα ἔτη καὶ ἐννέα (chap. iv, p. 7, ll. 11 ff.). πεντηκοστὸν δὲ ἔννατον ἔτοs ἦγε τότε ὁ Πλωτι̑νοs (ibid., p. 9, ll. 9 f.). Here έν … ἀμφὶ τὰ πεντήκοντα ἔτη καὶ ἐννέα is synonymous with πεντηκοστὸν καὶ ἔννατον ἔτοs ἦγε.

But does Porphyry count each year of a person's life as beginning on the anniversary of his birth or on the same fixed date as he employs in counting the length of time between two events? The only people whose ages Porphyry gives are Plotinus and himself. He may have known the day and month of his own birth, but he certainly did not know those of Plotinus.¹⁵ He knew or supposed that Plotinus was in his sixty-sixth year at the time of his death, but that was all. Yet Porphyry gives the age of Plotinus at various times in his life. He must then have taken some arbitrary date as the beginning of the years of Plotinus' life,¹⁶ and it is exceedingly probable that he took the same date as he took in counting the length of time between two events. In giving his own age he may have followed this system or he may have counted the years of his life as beginning on the anniversary of his birth. In fact, he mentions his own age only twice.¹⁷

Since, as we have seen, Porphyry in giving the age of Plotinus most probably follows the same system as he does in giving the period of time between two events and since in giving the age of Plotinus he uses ordinal and cardinal numbers indifferently, we may reasonably assume that he uses them equally indifferently in giving the length of time between two events.

Now we come to the main problem: What are the regnal years which Porphyry uses as his outside standards of reference in dating the events of the life of Plotinus? There are four chief possibilities: (1) tribunician years beginning on December 10; (2) Syro-Macedonian regnal years beginning in the autumn; (3) Egyptian regnal years beginning on August 29 (30 after leap years); and (4) the years beginning on the dies imperii. In considering these possibilities we must remember that we have not as yet decided at what date those years begin which Porphyry employs in reckoning the length of time between two events. If his regnal years are tribunician or Syro-Macedonian or Egyptian years, in all of which the year begins on a fixed date irrespective of the date of accession of the reigning emperor (except, of course, in the case of his first year), then it would be natural to assume that the beginning of the regnal year is also the beginning of the year which is employed in reckoning the length of time between two events. It is unlikely that, if Porphyry was already employing one fixed date for the beginning of regnal years, he would employ another for the beginning of the other years.

1. That the regnal years which Porphyry employed were not tribunician years may be seen from the following passages:

προση̑λδε δὲ αὐτἳ̑ [sc. Πλωτίνῳ] ὁ 'Αμέλιοs … κατὰ τὸ τρίτον τη̑s Φιλίππου βασιλείαs ἔτοs καὶ ἄχρι του̑ πρώτου ἔτουs τη̑s Κλαυδίου βασιλείαs παραμείναs ἔτη ὅλα συγγέγονεν εἴκοσι καὶ τέσσαρα

(chap. iii, p. 6, ll. 25 ff.).

τἳ̑ δεκάτῳ δὲ ἔτει τη̑s Γαλιήνου βασιλείαs ἐγo Πορφύριοs … καταλαμβάνω μὲν τὸν 'Αμέλιον ὀκτωκαιδέκατον ἔτοs ἔχοντα τη̑s πρὸs Πλωτι̑νον συνουσίαs

(chap. iv, p. 7, ll. 5 ff.).

The third tribunician year of Philip is 10. xii. 245-46. The twenty-fourth year from that (counting inclusively) would only begin 10. xii. 268. But the first tribunician year of Claudius ends 9. xii. 268. Similarly, the eighteenth tribunician year of Amelius' stay with Plotinus would only begin 10. xii. 262, but the tenth tribunician year of Gallienus ends 9. xii. 262.¹⁸ Thus Porphyry cannot have used tribunician years.¹⁹

2 and 3. We have already seen that the suggestion that Porphyry is reckoning either by Egyptian or by Syro-Macedonian regnal years was first put forward by Dessau, taken up by Heinemann, and developed at length by Oppermann. Heinemann²⁰ quotes Dessau as follows:

Die Kaiserjahre, nach denen in der Biographie gezählt wird, schwerlich die römischen, am 1. Januar beginnenden sind,²¹ da man im Bereich des römischen Kalenders nicht nach Kaiserjahren zählte, sondern entweder die am 1. Thot (29. oder 30. August) beginnenden ägyptischen oder die im Herbst beginnenden syrisch-makedonischen.

2. Oppermann, though the main part of his work is devoted to the attempt to prove that by regnal years Porphyry means Egyptian regnal years, nevertheless states that it is impossible finally to decide whether they are really Syro-Macedonian years or Egyptian years.²² He claims that he has been unable to find in the Vita Plotini any date where the reckoning by Syro-Macedonian years would give a different number of years from the reckoning by Egyptian years. But it is clearly impossible to decide this question finally without a knowledge of the exact date on which each Syro-Macedonian year began.²³ Without this knowledge we cannot decide whether the supposition that Porphyry is employing this system would involve him in inconsistencies or not. It does, however, seem improbable that he would employ a system whose area of use was so limited without stating that he is doing so.

3. In addition to the argument suggested by Dessau, Oppermann brings forward the following arguments in favor of the view that Porphyry is employing the Egyptian regnal year beginning on Thot 1 (August 29; after leap years, 30): (a) If Porphyry is reckoning by Egyptian years, then his statements are consistent with one another and with our external knowledge of the chronology of the period. (b) On no other system would this be so (except, of course, the Syro-Macedonian system). (c) Since the Egyptian regnal year always began on the same date (except in the first year of the reign), it would have a decided advantage for a historian who wished to be as precise as possible in his method of dating.

To deal with these arguments in turn:

a) If we suppose that Porphyry is reckoning by Egyptian regnal years, all the dates which he gives are consistent with one another and with our external knowledge of the chronology of the period,²⁴ except in the case of those events which are dated by the years of Claudius II. Speaking of the death of Plotinus, Porphyry says:

ἀφη̑κε τὸ πνευ̑μα ἔτη γεγονώs, ὡs ὁ Εὐστόχιοs ἔλεγεν, ἦξ τε καὶ ἦξήκοντα, του̑ δευτέρου ἔτουs τη̑s Κλαυδίου βασιλείαs πληρουμένου … ἀναψηφίζουσι δὲ ἡμι̑ν ἀπὸ του̑ δευτἦρου ἔτουs τη̑s Κλαυδίου βασιλείαs εἰs τοὐπίσω ἔτη ἦξ τε καὶ ἐξήκοντα ὁ χρόνοs αὐτἳ̑ τη̑s γενέσεωs εἰs τὸ τρισκαιδέκατον ἔτοs τη̑s Σευήρου βασιλείαs πίπτει

(chap. ii, p. 4, ll. 29 ff.).

Since Claudius acceded about March, 268,²⁵ his second Egyptian year would be 29. viii. 268—28. viii. 269. Septimius Severus acceded 13. iv. 193²⁶ and so his thirteenth Egyptian year would be 29. viii. 204—viii. 205. But from 204/5 until 268/9 is only sixty-five years, whereas according to Porphyry the period between the thirteenth year of Severus and the second of Claudius is sixty-six years. To get over the difficulty Oppermann refers to a number of papyri which reckon as the second Egyptian year of Claudius, not 268/9 as the coinage does, but 269/70. He claims that Porphyry is following the system of the papyri, not that of the coinage.

The papyri to which Oppermann refers are: Strassburg Pap. 7, 8, 10, and 11;²⁷ Leipzig Pap. Inv. 483;²⁸ Oxyr. Pap. IX 1208, 11, and XIV 1698. That these papyri do make 269/70 the second year of Claudius cannot be disputed. Strauss. 7 and 8 are part of a series of receipts for φόροs προβάτων. In No. 7 the date Hathyr 9 (November 5) of the first year of Claudius follows Phamenoth 24 of the fifteenth year of Gallienus. Here by the first year of Claudius must be meant 268/9, for Hathyr is the third month of the Egyptian year and so would not occur in the period March, 28. viii. 268. This papyrus gives Claudius three years, and then No. 8 begins with the first year of Aurelian. Number 10 is a lease dated Phaophi 19 (October 16) in the first year of Claudius. Here, again, this cannot be the year March, 28. viii. 268, for Phaophi is the second month of the Egyptian year. Number 11 is a payment order for the rent due under the lease in No. 10. One part of it is dated Phamenoth 7 and the other Phamenoth 14 of the first year (of Claudius). This again indicates that in these two papyri the first year of Claudius must be 29. viii. 268/9.

Leipzig Pap. Inv. 483, which possibly refers to a frumentatio, is dated March 6 in the first year of Claudius, which is most probably the year 29. viii. 268/9, for Claudius acceded only about March, 268. Oxyr. Pap. XIV 1698 is dated to Thot 13 (September 10) of the first year of a third-century emperor, most probably Claudius, and so bears out the same theory. Oxyr. Pap. IX 1208, dated to the seventh year of Diocletian and the sixth of Maximian, contains an affirmation of the validity of a contract dating from the previous year. In it are the following words: 11. [[ἦ] ἀπολέλυπεν ‹ἀπολέλοιπεν› δι[αθ]ήκῃ τἳ̑ β(ἔτει) Κλαυδίου, ὃ ἐγέ[νετο] α(ἔτοs) Αὐρηλιανου̑, [μ]ηνὶ Τυ̑βι.

Here Claudius is given only two years, his second being the same as the first of Aurelian. The second year must then be 269/70, and Claudius is given only two years in order to reconcile the chronology with the official system.

All these papyri, then, date the first Egyptian year of Claudius as 29. viii. 268/9, whereas the coins date it as March, 28. viii. 268. Oppermann supposes that Porphyry is employing the same system as the papyri. But, before agreeing to this theory, we must notice that in the case of all the papyri quoted, except Oxyr. IX 1208, the date was written at or near the time when it was current, and therefore these papyri at any rate are not necessarily evidence for the use of a system retaining this confusion of dates at a later period. Moreover, in Oxyr. IX 1208 the date quoted in section 11 was presumably actually written on the will referred to and the mention of it here may very well be merely a copy from that (possibly the words ὃ ἐγέ[νετο] α[ἔτοs] Αὐρηλιανου̑ were added on the drawing-up of the affirmation to remove any doubt about what was meant by the second year of Claudius), and therefore here, too, the papyrus does not prove that this system of reckoning was in common use at a later date.

The confusion in Egypt about the chronology of Claudius may well have been due, as Oppermann suggests,²⁹ to the confusion caused by the reigns of Zenobia and Vaballathus. But this confusion would surely have been cleared up and only the official system of chronology, as given in the coins, employed by the time Porphyry wrote the Vita Plotini, that is, not earlier than the year 28. viii. 300/1 on Oppermann's own reckoning.³⁰ Porphyry may then have been preserving the papyri version of the date of the accession of Claudius, but, failing any evidence for the use of this version at so late a date (with the exception of the very doubtful evidence of Oxyr. Pap. IX 1208), it seems very unlikely. But since we cannot prove that he did not use it, we cannot on this ground definitely reject Oppermann's theory that Porphyry is using Egyptian years.

b) We shall later show the failure of Oppermann's claim that no other system of reckoning except the Egyptian makes the dates given by Porphyry consistent with one another and with our external knowledge of the chronology of the period.

c) The fact that the Egyptian year always began on the same date is an argument in favor of Porphyry's having used it, but is of no very great weight in itself.

We have not, then, been able to disprove Oppermann's contention that Porphyry is using Egyptian years, though we have been able to cast serious doubt upon it.

4. Finally, we have to consider the possibility that Porphyry was reckoning by the year beginning on the dies imperii of the emperor. Oppermann claims to have proved this impossible,³¹ but in doing so he has made the assumption that, if by regnal years Porphyry meant the years beginning on the dies imperii, he must also have used the same year in counting the period of time between two events. But this does not necessarily follow. In the three cases which we have considered, where the regnal year always begins on the same fixed date, it would be natural to suppose that the same year would be used for this latter purpose. But if the regnal years which Porphyry employed did not begin on a fixed date, but on a different date for each emperor, the situation is very different. If he employed this same year in counting the period of time between two events, it would make his account hopelessly confused. For, when he gave the length of time between two events, it would not merely be the first and the last years which would be of uncertain length, but a number of years in the middle of the period would be so too. Against the use of the year consisting of each period of twelve months after the event (the last year not necessarily consisting of the full twelve months) as the basis for counting the period of time between two events, there would be the objection that in many cases Porphyry cannot have known the exact date on which an event took place (a difficulty which is not so serious when the unit is the year, not the month, as in this case). In these circumstances it would not be surprising if Porphyry, in counting the length of time between two events, took some fixed date as the beginning of the year. If we suppose that for this purpose he chose the first of January,³² then all the dates which he gives are consistent with one another and with our external knowledge of the chronology of the period.

The first statement which Porphyry makes on the chronology of Plotinus is:

[sc. Πλωτι̑νοs] ἀφη̑κε τὸ πνευ̑μα ἔτη γεγονώs, ὡs ὁ Εὐστόχιοs ἔλεγεν, ἦξ τε καὶ ἐξήκοντα, του̑ δευτέρου ἔτουs τη̑s Κλαυδίου βασιλείαs πληρουμένου. …³³ ἀναψηφίζουσι δὲἡμι̑ν ἀπὸ του̑ δευτὲρου ἔτουs τη̑s Κλαυδίου βασιλείαs εἰs τοὐπίsω ἔτη έξ τε καὶ ἦξήκοντα ὁ χρόνοs αὐτἳ̑ τη̑s γενέσεωs εἰs τὸ τριsκαιδέκατον ἔτοs τη̑s Σευήρου βασιλείαs πίπτει

(chap. ii, p. 4, ll. 29 ff.).

Since Claudius II was proclaimed emperor about March, 268, his second regnal year on this system would be about March, 269/70. Plotinus, then, must have died shortly before March, 270; and sixty-six years before this, counting inclusively, is 205. Septimius Severus was proclaimed emperor 13. iv. 193, and so his thirteenth year would be 13. iv. 205/6. Porphyry, having calculated that Plotinus was born sometime in 205 and wishing to express this in terms of the regnal years of Septimius Severus, would naturally say that he was born in the thirteenth year, which is the year which most nearly coincides with 205.

The next chronological statement which contains a reference to external events is Γορδιανου̑ δὲ του̑ βασιλέωs ἐπὶ τοὺs Πέρσαs παριέναι μέλλοντοs δοὺs έαυτὸν τἳ̑ στρατοπέδῳ συνεισeει ἔτοs ἤδη τριακοστὸν ἄγων καὶ ἔννατον (chap. iii, p. 6, ll. 1 ff.). It would be natural to suppose that Plotinus joined the forces of Gordian after they had reached Syria, that is, probably early in 324. If Plotinus was in his thirty-ninth year in 243, he must have been born in 205 and this agrees with our foregoing conclusion:

καὶ Φιλίππου τὴν βασιλείαν κρατήσαντοs τε σσαράκοντα γεγονos ἔτη εἰs τὴν ‘Ρώμην ἄνεισιν

(ibid., ll. 7 ff.).

Philip acceded in March, 244, and Plotinus most probably came to Rome before the end of that year. If Plotinus was in his fortieth year in 244, he must have been born in 205, and this again agrees with our earlier conclusions.

καὶ οὕτωs ὅλων ἐτω̑ν δέκα διετέλεσε, συνoν μέν τισι, γράφων δὲ οὐδέν

(ibid., ll. 20 ff.).

ἀπὸ μέντοι του̑ πρώτου ἔτουs τη̑s Γαλιήνου ἀρχη̑s προτραπεὶs ὁ Πλωτι̑νοs γράφειν τὰs ἐμπιπτούσαs ὑποθέσειs (chap. iv, p. 7, ll. 14 ff.).

If Plotinus came to Rome in 244, his tenth year there would be 253. The first year of Gallienus is (?) September, 253/4. Therefore, there is no inconsistency here.³⁴

προση̑λθε δὲ αὐτἳ̑ ὁ 'Αμέλιοs τρίτον ἔτοs ἄγοντι ἐν τῃ̑ ‘Ρώμῃ κατὰ τὸ τρίτον τη̑s Φιλίππου βασιλείαs ἔτοs καὶ ἄχρι του̑ πρώτου ἔτουs τη̑s Κλαυδίου βασιλείαs παραμείναs ἔτη ὅλα συγγέγονεν εἴκοσι καὶ τέσσαρα

(chap. iii, p. 6, ll. 25 ff.).

If Plotinus came to Rome in 244, his third year there would be 246 (which largely coincides with the third regnal year of Philip). Amelius' twenty-fourth year with Plotinus would then be 269. The first year of Claudius is about March, 268/9. Here, too, there is no inconsistency.³⁵

τἳ̑ δεκάτῳ δὲ ἔτει τη̑s Γαλιήνου βασιλείαs ἐγo Πορφύριοs ἐκ τη̑s ‘Ελλάδοs μετὰ 'Αντωνίου του̑ ‘Ροδίου γεγονos καταλαμβάνω μέν τὸν 'Αμέλιον ὀκτωκαιδέκατον ἔτοs ἔχοντα τη̑s πρὸs Πλωτι̑νον συνουσίαs

(chap. iv, p. 7, ll. 5 ff.).

ἦν δὲ ὁ Πλωτι̑νοs τἳ̑ δεκάτῳ ἔτει τη̑s Γαλιήνου βασιλείαs ἀμφὶ τὰ πεντήκοντα ἔτη καὶ ἐννέα

(ibid., ll. 11 ff.).³⁶

ἐγo δὲ Πορφύριοs τὸ πρω̑τον αὐτἳ̑ συγγέγονα αὐτὸs oν τότε ἐτω̑ν τριάκοντα

(ibid., ll. 13 ff.).

The tenth year of Gallienus is (?) September, 262/3. If Amelius arrived at the school of Plotinus in 246, his eighteenth year with him would be 263. If Plotinus was in his fifty-ninth year in 263, he must have been born in 205. If Porphyry was in his thirtieth year in 263, he must have been born in 234 (i.e., supposing that he counted the years of his own life as beginning on the first of January).

συγγεγονos δὲ αὐτἳ̑ του̑τό τε τὸ ἔτοs καὶ ἐφεξη̑s ἄλλα ἔτη πέντε—ὀλίγον γάρ τι πρότερον τη̑s δεκαετίαs ἐγεγόνειν ὁ Πορφύριοs ἐν τῃ̑ ‘Ρώμῃ

(chap. v, p. 9, ll. 11 ff.).³⁷

ἐν δὲ τη̑ Σικελίᾳ διατρίβοντόs μου—ἐκει̑ γὰρ ἀνεχώρησα περὶ τὸ πεντεκαιδέκατον ἔτοs τη̑s βαsσιλείαs Γαλιήνου—ὁ Πλωτι̑νοs γράψαs πέντε βιβλία ἀπέστειλέ μοι ταυ̑τα

(chap. vi, p. 11, ll. 7 ff.).³⁸

ταυ̑τα μὲν οὑν τἳ̑ πρώτῳ ἔτει τη̑s Κλαυδίου πεμπει βασιλείαs

(ibid., ll. 22 ff.).

If Porphyry came to Plotinus in 263, his sixth year with him would be 268. The fifteenth year of Gallienus is (?) September, 267/8. The first year of Claudius is about March, 268/9, and so Plotinus would have had time to write these essays and send them to Porphyry in the first year of Claudius.

In all these statements, then, we do not involve Porphyry in any inconsistency if we suppose that by regnal years he means the years beginning on the dies imperii of the reigning emperor and that the years which he employs in counting the period of time between two events are the years beginning on the first of January.

If this was the system of reckoning which Porphyry employed, then the other events which he dates, without reference to any external system of chronology, are dated as follows: προσφοιτα̑ν μὲν γὰρ τῃ̑ τροφἳ̑ καίπερ εἰs γραμματοδιδασκάλπυ ἀπιόντα ἄχριs ὀγδόου ἔτουs ἀπὸ τη̑s γενέσεωs ὄντα (chap. iii, p. 5, ll. 15 ff.). If Plotinus was born in 205, his eighth year would be 212: εἰκοστὸν δέ καὶ ὄγδοον ἔτοs αὐτὸν ἄγοντα ὁρμη̑σαι ἐπὶ φιλοσοφίαν (ibid., ll. 20 ff.). The twenty-eighth year of Plotinus would be 232: ἦνδεκα γὰρ ὅλων ἐτω̑ν παραμένων τἳ̑ 'Αμμωνίῳ συνεσχόλασε (ibid., p. 6, ll. 4 f.).

Porphyry does not tell us exactly when Plotinus came to Ammonius or exactly when he left him. He must have come some time not earlier than 232, and he must have left at latest early in 243 (the year probably in which he joined the expedition of Gordian): διὸ εἴκοσι καὶ ἦξ ἐτω̑ν ὅλων ἐν τῃ̑ ‘Ρώμῃ διατρίψαs … (chap. ix, p. 15, ll. 24 f.). If Plotinus came to Rome in 244, he must have left it in 269.³⁹ ἳ̑δὴ καὶ ἐγo Πορφύριοs ἅπαξ λέγω πλησιάσαι καὶ ένωθη̑ναι ἔτοs ἄγων έξηκοστόν τε καὶ ὄγδοον (chap. xxiii, p. 31, ll. 32 ff.). If Porphyry was born in 234, his sixty-eighth year would be 301. This gives us the terminus post quem for the writing of the Vita Plotini.

There is, then, no inconsistency involved if we suppose that Porphyry is reckoning on this system, whereas, if we suppose that he is employing either tribunician years or Egyptian regnal years, there are inconsistencies (though in the case of the Egyptian years there is a plausible way of getting over the inconsistency). There is, thus, on this ground a fair degree of probability that Porphyry used this system.

But it may be objected that there is no evidence for a general use of such a system in the ancient world.⁴⁰ This is a difficulty, but not, I think, a very serious one. It is obvious that Porphyry wished to give an account of the life of Plotinus in which the dates would be as exact as possible, and we may assume that he also wished this account to be understood as widely as possible. There would then be several external standards of reference which he might have used in giving dates; he might have used consular years, or tribunician years, or the Egyptian or the Syro-Macedonian regnal years, or the years beginning on the dies imperii. There would be objections of greater or less weight against all of these: consular years would be intelligible only if the reader had a very good memory or had a calendar of some sort in front of him (they were really only suitable for use in purely annalistic works); tribunician years perhaps, in the third century at any rate, did not always begin on the same date;⁴¹ both the Egyptian and the Syro-Macedonian regnal years (if Porphyry considered the possibility of their use at all) were probably employed only in a limited area of the empire; and the year beginning on the dies imperii began on a different date for each emperor. If Porphyry did consider all these alternatives, he may easily have rejected consular years because of the knowledge required for their comprehension and the Egyptian and Syro-Macedonian years because of the limited area of their use. That would leave him with tribunician years and the dies imperii years. Since there may have been no fixed date for the beginning of the tribunician year in all cases in the third century and since the date of an emperor's accession would be more likely to be known than the date on which he received the tribunicia potestas, Porphyry may for that reason have rejected tribunician years in favor of the years beginning on the dies imperii. On the probabilities of the case, then, it would seem most likely that Porphyry would use the dies imperii years or possibly the tribunician years. But we have already seen that he did not use tribunician years; so here, too, the probability is in favor of the dies imperii years. It is possible that Porphyry himself invented the details of the system.

Possibly a further argument in favor of this system may be found in chapter v of the Vita:

συγγεγονos δέ αὐτἳ̑ του̑τό τε τὸ ἔτοs καὶ ἐφεξη̑s ἄλλα ἔτη πέντε—ὀλίγον γάρ τι πρότερον τη̑s δεκαετίαs ἐγεγόνειν ὁ Πορφύριοs ἐν τῃ̑ ‘Ρώμῃ, του̑ Πλωτίνου τὰs Tερινὰs μὲν ἄγοντοs ἀργούs. …

(p. 9, ll. 11 ff.) (cf. chap. iv, p. 7, ll. 5 ff.).

τἳ̑ δεκάτῳ δὲ ἔτει τη̑s Γαλιήνου βασιλείαs ἐγo Πορφύριοs ἐκ τη̑s ‘Ελλάδοs μετὰ 'Αντωνίου του̑ ‘Ροδίου γεγονώs. …

This is the only place in the Vita where Porphyry makes any direct reference to any of the systems of chronology which we have considered. The decennial festival of Gallienus fell about September, 263, on the tenth anniversary of the accession of Valerian.⁴² If Porphyry is using Egyptian years, του̑τό τε τὸ ἔτοs will have to mean “what was left of the tenth Egyptian year of Gallienus, that is, the year ending 28. viii. 263.” But if the decennalia fell in September, 263 (i.e., after the end of the tenth Egyptian year of Gallienus), it is surely unlikely that Porphyry, in order to explain more fully what he meant by του̑τό τε τὸ ἔτοs, would say that he arrived in Rome at little before the decennalia (which on this account would occur in the next year). Of course, it is possible that the parenthesis has no special reference to the context, but then why refer to the decennalia at all?

The statement would be much more natural if we assumed that Porphyry is using the system of reckoning which we have suggested. Then του̑τό τε τὸ ἔτοs is a year (not necessarily a full year of twelve months) beginning some time in the tenth year of Gallienus and ending on the next thirty-first of December. But this might be either the year ending 31. xii. 262 or the year ending 31. xii. 263 and so, to make it clear just what year he means, Porphyry says that he arrived shortly before the decennial festival, that is, the end of Gallienus' tenth year. This would show that by του̑τό τε τὸ ἔτοs was meant the year from his arrival in August or September, 263, until 31. xii. 263.

In the same passage there is a further point which increases the probability that Porphyry is using the system which we have suggested, not the Egyptian regnal years: Porphyry states (presumably as the reason why he arrived in Rome only a short time before the decennalia) that Plotinus did not conduct the school in the summer; yet Porphyry did apparently attend the school of Plotinus in the tenth year of Gallienus.⁴³ Is it not more probable that Plotinus would resume his teaching after rather than before the twenty-eighth of August? If it were after the twenty-eighth of August, then it would be in the eleventh Egyptian year of Gallienus, though, until some time in September, it would still be in the tenth dies imperii year.

If it was for the reason which we have suggested that Porphyry referred to the decennalia, then there is possibly a similar reason for the use of πληρουμένου in giving the date of Plotinus' death: ἀφη̑κε τὸ πνευ̑μα … του̑ δευτέρου ἔτουs τη̑s Κλαυδίου βασιλείαs πληρουμένου (chap. ii, p. 4, ll. 29 ff.). Before we could count back sixty-six years from the date of Plotinus' death, we should have to know whether he died in that part of Claudius' second year which fell before 31. xii. 269 or in the part after that date.

Again, there are various other minor points in the language of the Vita which might best be explained on the assumption that Porphyry is employing the system which we have suggested: ἦν δè ὁ Πλωτι̑νοs τἳ̑ δεκάτῳ ἔτει τη̑s Γαλιήνου βασιλείαs ἀμφὶ τὰ πεντήκοντα ἔτη καὶ ἐννέα (chap. iv, p. 7, ll. 11 ff.).⁴⁴ Here ἀμφί seems strange. If Porphyry means that Plotinus was in his fifty-ninth year, why does he say “about his fifty-ninth year”? There is a plausible explanation: On our system the tenth year of Gallienus is (?) September, 263/3, and the fifty-ninth year of Plotinus is 263. The two years, then, do not exactly coincide, and that may be the reason why Porphyry uses the vaguer phrase ἀμφὶ τὰ πεντήκοντα ἔτη καὶ ἐννέα. Plotinus was in his fifty-ninth year during most of the tenth year of Gallienus, but not during the whole of it.

Possibly there may be a similar explanation for περί in chapter vi, p. 11, ll. 7 ff.: ἐκει̑ γὰρ ἀνεχώρησα περὶ τὸ πεντεκαιδέκατον ἔτοs τη̑s βασιλείαs Γαλιήνου. Porphyry has said just above (chap. v, p. 11, ll. 1 f.): ἐν τἳ̑ έξαέτει χρόνῳ τη̑s παρουσίαs ἐμου̑. He may here be thinking rather of his own sixth year at Rome and, since that does not exactly coincide with the fifteenth year of Gallienus, he uses περί. In this case, however, the explanation is not so convincing.

These minor points increase the probability of Porphyry's having used the system which we have suggested. But a definite proof seems to be impossible. All that we have been able to do is to show that the balance of probabilities seems to be in favor of our system.

Notes

1. Referred to in this article by the pages of Volkmann's edition (Plotini Enneades …, Vol. I [Teubner, 1883]).

2. The second essay in his Plotins Leben (“Orient u. Antike,” Vol. VII [1929]). I am throughout greatly indebted to this work of Professor Oppermann.

3. E.g., by Lucas Holstenius, Porphyrii. … (Cambridge, 1655); Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs: Dioclétien, n. xxiii; Fabricius, Bibl. Graec., ed. Harles (1796), p. 676; Creuzer et Moser, Plotini Enneades (Paris, 1855), pp. xviii ff.; Richter, Neoplatonische Studien, I (1864), 62; Zeller, Philos. d. Griechen, III, Part II, 520 ff.

4. Apparently either verbally or by letter. Dessau's words (which are quoted below) do not appear in any of his published works.

5. Heinemann, Plotin (1920), p. 240.

6. The fragments of the Chronica are published by Müller, FHG [Fragmenta Historicum Graecorum], III, 688-727; the fragments of the Historia philosophiae by Nauck, Porphyrii opuscula (Teubner, 1886).

7. Vita Plotini (chap. iii, p. 5, ll. 20 ff.): εἰκοστὸν δὲ καὶ ὄγδοον ἔτοs αὐτὸν ἄγοντα ὁρμη̑σαι ἐπὶ φιλοσοφίαν.

8. Chap. iv, p. 7, ll. 5 ff.

9. Quoted below, on pp. 247 f. The statement of Eustochius may have been made verbally or possibly in a life of Plotinus prefixed to his edition of the Enneads (for this edition see P. Henny, Recherches sur la préparation évangelique d'Eusèbe et l'édition perdue des œuvres de Plotin (Bibliothèque de l'école des hautes études, 1935).

10. Op. cit., pp. 55 f.

11. Oppermann shows (op. cit., pp. 46 ff.) that the arguments advanced by Wickert (Pauly-Wissowa, XIII, 353) to show that the decennalia took place about September, 262, not September, 263, are invalid. If the decennalia took place about September, 263, then Porphyry's arrival must be placed shortly before the end of the tenth year of Gallienus, whether by the tenth year we mean the tenth Egyptian year or the tenth year from the accession (counting each year as beginning on the dies imperii). Chap. v, p. 9, ll. 11 ff. is discussed further … [later in] this article.

12. Cf. chap. v, p. 11, ll. 1 f.: ἐν τἳ̑ ἐξαέτει χρόνῳ τη̑s παρουsσίαs ἐμου̑. …

13. Cf. Vita Claudii iv. 2.

14. If by regnal years Porphyry meant Egyptian regnal years, then he might count the fifteenth year of Gallienus as continuing after his death until 28. viii. 268, being followed by the second year of Claudius. In fact, Oppermann, as we shall see below, argues that not only does the fifteenth year of Gallienus run on until 28. viii. 268, but that it is followed by the first year of Claudius. But even if the fifteenth year does continue until 28. viii. 268, in order to give Porphyry five periods of twelve months each at Rome, we should have to suppose that his departure was at the very end of that year. But the probabilities are against this supposition. It is improbable that an event which is dated simply to the fifteenth year of Gallienus should have taken place at the very end of that year. But, above all, Porphyry himself tells us (chap. xi, p. 17, ll. 19 ff.) that the reason for his leaving Rome was that Plotinus, discovering that he was meditating suicide, sent him away. It is surely very much more probable that Porphyry meditated suicide during the session of the school than that he did so immediately after the summer vacation as we should have to suppose in order to place his departure at the end of the fifteenth year of Gallienus. (For the summer vacation of the school see chap. v, p. 9, ll. 14 f.)

15. Chap. ii, p. 5, ll. 7 f.: οὔτε δὲ τὸν μη̑να δεδήλωκέ τινι καθ' ὃν γεγένηται, οὔτε τὴν γενέθλιον ἡμέραν.

16. It is not inconceivable, of course, that Porphyry supposed that all those events in reference to which he gives Plotinus' age took place at very much the same time of the year, and that for that reason he did not assume any arbitrary beginning for the years of his age. This, however, seems highly improbable.

17. Chap. iv, p. 11, ll. 13 f.; chap. xxiii, p. 31, ll. 32 ff.

18. Philip acceded about March, 244; Claudius about March, 268; and the years of Gallienus were counted as if he had acceded at the same time as Valerian, i.e., in the autumn of 253.

19. Cf. Oppermann, op. cit., pp. 32 ff.

    If we supposed that Porphyry, while using tribunician years as his regnal years, at the same time used the years beginning on the first of January for reckoning the period of time between two events, there would be no inconsistency here. But we should have to suppose that Amelius arrived with Plotinus between 10. xii. 245 and 31. xii. 245 (his twenty-fourth year with Plotinus would then be 268). And this supposition becomes even more difficult to accept when we consider that, in order to reconcile with one another the statements which Porphyry makes about the death, age, and birth of Plotinus (chap. ii, p. 4, ll. 29 ff.), we should again have to suppose that Plotinus was born between 10. xii. 204 and 31. xii. 204.

20. Heinemann, op. cit., p. 240 n.

21. That the regnal years are not the years beginning on the first of January can be seen from a consideration of chap. ii, p. 4, 30 ff. of the Vita. Porphyry says that Plotinus died toward the end of the second year of Claudius, in his sixty-sixth year, and that from this it was concluded that he must have been born in the thirteenth year of (Septimius) Severus. But if by regnal years Porphyry meant the years beginning on the first of January, the thirteenth year of Severus would begin 1. i. 205 and the second of Claudius would end 31. xii. 269; i.e., the maximum number of years for the life of Plotinus would be sixty-five, not sixty-six as the Vita says.

22. Op. cit., p. 40, n. 3.

23. Dessau (quoted above) says simply “Die im Herbst beginnenden syrisch-makedonischen [Jahre].” On the whole question of Syro-Macedonian years see W. Kubitschek, Grundriss der antiken Zeitrechnung (1928), pp. 70 ff. and Nachträge.

24. Cf. Oppermann, op. cit., passim.

25. Vita Claudii iv. 2.

26. According to Hasebroek, Untersuchungen zur Gesch. des Kaisers Septimius Severus, pp. 18 f.

27. Ed. Preisigke (1912-20).

28. Cf. Wilcken, Chrestomathie. …, p. 503.

29. Op. cit., p. 37, referring to A. Stein, Archiv f. Papyrusforschung, VII (1924), 30 ff.

30. Op. cit., p. 53, arguing from the statements in the Vita, chap. xxiii, p. 31, ll. 32 ff. (see infra).

31. Op. cit., p. 35, n. 1.

32. The first of January had, of course, been for long the beginning of the civil year. On that date the consuls entered upon office; cf. Fast. praen. (the first of January), CIL [Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum], I², 231: [ann]us no[uus incipit], quia eo die mag(istratus) ineunt; quod coepit p[(ost) R(omam)] c(onditam) a(nno) 601 (= 153 b.c.). Cf. Mommsen, CIL, I, 296. Whether the date here given for the change to the first of January as the beginning of the civil year is correct or not is irrelevant to our present purposes.

33. Chap. vi, p. 11, ll. 23: ἀρχομένου δὲ του̑ δευτέρου [sc. ἔτουs], ὅτε καὶ μετ' ὀλίγον θνήσκει.

34. Porphyry, of course, does not say that Plotinus began to write in his tenth year at Rome. It would be most natural to assume that he means that Plotinus began to write in his eleventh year, i.e., 254, most of which falls in the first year of Gallienus.

    For ὅλων cf. chap. iii, p. 6, l. 4, and chap. ix, p. 15, l. 24. In the second of the examples here referred to the word cannot possibly mean “entire” and in the first it most probably cannot. But in all the passages where it occurs in this usage in the Vita the meaning “in all” would be very suitable. It is possibly used in the same sense by Eusebius (e.g., Hist. eccl. vi. 34: '′Ετεσιν δὲ ὅλοιs ἦξ Γορδιανου̑ τὴν ‘Ρωμαίων διανύσαντοs ἡγεμονίαν). But cf. Lawlor Eusebiana, pp. 198 f.

35. If our system of reckoning is correct, Amelius must have left Plotinus in the early part of 269. It might possibly be objected that he would be most likely to leave in the summer, when Plotinus suspended his teaching (chap. v, p. 9, ll. 14: του̑ Πλωτίνου τὰs θερινὰs μὲν ἄγοντοs ἀργούs, συνόντοs δὲ ἄλλωs ἐν ταίs ὁμιλίαιs).

    But we know that Plotinus finally left Rome in 269 (chap. ix, p. 15, ll. 24 f.) and that he did so because of his illness (chap. ii, p. 4, ll. 14 ff.). There is, then, no reason to suppose that Plotinus continued teaching until the summer of 269 and no reason to assume that Amelius remained in Rome until the summer. There is, therefore, no objection against our theory here.

36. Cf. chap. iv, p. 9, ll. 9 f.: πεντηκοστὸν δὲ καὶ ἔννατον ἔτοs ἦγε τότε ὁ Πλωτι̑νοs (for ἀμφί see below, p. 257).

37. Cf. chap. iv, p. 9, ll. 15 f.: ἐν δὴ τοι̑s ἦξ ἔτεσι τούτοιs, and chap. v, p. 11, ll. 1 f.: ἐν τἳ̑ ἐξαέτει χρόνῳ τη̑s παρουsσίαs ἐμου̑ Πορφυρίου. On the decennalia see below, pp. 255 f.

38. On περί see infra, p. 257.

39. See n. 34.

40. I do not feel sure that a careful examination of other historians might not produce evidence for such a system. In particular I think that Eusebius in the Historia ecclesiae may possibly have had some such system in mind.

41. E.g., “L. de Regibus,” Historia, VI (1932), 604-11.

42. Cf. n. 18.

43. Cf. chap. iv, init., p. 7; ibid., fin., p. 9; and chap. v, init., p. 9. It is noticeable, however, that in none of these passages does Porphyry say in so many words that he joined Plotinus in the tenth year of Gallienus; all he says is that he arrived in Rome in the tenth year. If we were to suppose that he joined Plotinus in the eleventh year, it would be only on our system that we could explain the remarks which he makes about the number of years which he spent with Plotinus.

44. Cf. chap. iv, p. 9, ll. 9 f., quoted above, n. 36.