 Sorabji’s conjecture has attained something like a consensus among scholars (e.g., Hadot 2015, 29) and is quite possibly correct. There is still room for doubt, however. It is not clear that Ammonius and his school rejected or downplayed theurgy; Olympiodorus (in Phd., Lect. 8, sec. 2) puts theurgy on the highest level of virtue: philosophy can make us Intellect, while theurgy can unite us with the intelligibles, so that we act paradeigmatically (cf. Blank 2010, 659–660). Still, as Sorabji says (2016c, 47), he apparently addressed his students as if they were all Christians, and without the volatile mix of pagans, Christians, and those who were wavering, the danger of Ammonius’ day was absent; Ammonius would have had much more reason to agree to keep theurgy out of his classroom after the riots of 486 and persecution of 489. If on the basis of its absence from his commentaries on Aristotle we say that Ammonius de-emphasized theurgy or kept it to himself, he appears to have done so consistently throughout his career, so that this cannot be used as evidence of any forced change in his teaching. Did he, then, agree to continue doing what he had been doing all along? Perhaps the mere fact of Ammonius’ willingness to approach and make an agreement with Peter was enough to justify the disdain of Damascius.