CERCETĂRI ASUPRA DEMOTICULUI „SAKKAS”

Abstract

W. Theiler has described Ammonius Sakkas as „ein großer Schatten”, the shadow perhaps of a Buddhist monk, an Egyptian philosopher, or even the author of the Areopagite corpus. Certainly, the figure of Ammonius Sakkas remains shrouded in mystery, as does his doctrine, just as the character remains an ”extremely irritating figure for historians of philosophy”. Although initially for Theiler Ammonius was „a great shadow”, relying on the evidence that the Christian Origen had been among Ammoniusʼs listeners and using him as a source for Ammoniusʼ teachings, together with what is known about Sakkas from the texts of Porphyry, Hierocles, and a few other sources, Theiler became convinced that Ammonius was not such an obscure figure. The way in which he reconstructs Ammoniusʼs philosophy is ingenious but not convincing. H.-R. Schwyzer, cautious and critical of the alleged evidence, has shown how little can be known about Ammonius. In his text, Schwyzer gathers the testimony about Ammonius at the beginning of the book. 7 testimonies are taken from Porphyry (6 from the Vita Plotini and one from Adversus Christianos); 6 come from the Christian authors, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Nemesius and Theodoret; one from the pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus; 4 from Hierocles through the Library of Photius, another is taken from Proclus and one from the Neoplatonist Priscian; the last 3 are taken from the writings that the lexiconum Suda dedicated to Ammonius, Plotinus and Origen. These 23 very short texts contain all that we can know about Ammonius Sakkas. What emerges from this study that I propose is that we are denied any trace of certainty regarding the content of Ammoniusʼs teaching and his onomastics: if we know that the family name was Ammonius, I try in the present text to see why his surname or nickname was Sakkas.