NEOPLATONISM IN RELATION TO CHRISTIANITY

 

 II

EARLIER SYSTEMS OF GREEK PHILOSOPHY

 

It will be well in the present chapter to describe the general state of philosophy in the period immediately preceding the rise of Neoplatonism, and to point out the earlier sources from which many of the Neoplatonic doctrines were derived. In order to secure these two objects it will be best, first to give a short account of the various stages of Greek philosophy with which we are here concerned, marking the appearance of each distinctive point of teaching as it arises, and then to take a rapid survey of the general condition of philosophy in the early years of the third century. No attempt however will be made to give an exhaustive catalogue of all the great philosophers or even of all the various schools, for such a list would seem to lie outside the province of the present essay.

The first school of Greek philosophy occupied itself with speculations upon the origin and constitution of the physical world. This primitive Ionian school, instituted by Thales far back in the seventh century, continued to exist until late in the fifth century before Christ. The majority of its members need not detain us. Their aim was to discover the material out of which the physical world was fashioned, a material which the earlier members of the school sought in a single primary substance, the later ones in a number of different elements. At the same time there may here and there be traced signs of the beginnings of something more than merely physical speculation. Thus Heraclitus of Ephesus, in addition to his famous aphorism on the universal prevalence of constant change, also propounded some sort of teaching on the subject of a Logos. Heraclitus recognised no transcendent deity, so that his Logos must not be in any way associated with the Jewish conception of the "Word of God." It is eternal and self-subsisting, and seems to represent the "rational self-evolution of the world," the law of progress by means of constant strife. The name Logos was apparently selected, as being less encumbered with human and material associations than "nous".

We seem here to have the first beginning of the conception of an universal Reason which occupies so prominent a position in later philosophy. There is not sufficient evidence to make clear the details of Heraclitus' teaching:—whether for instance the Logos was possessed of consciousness, and again whether it was identical with the fire which Heraclitus declared to be the primary substance. It is perhaps most probable that the system of Heraclitus was a refined form of pantheism, and that his Logos was not possessed of the consciousness which Plotinus claimed for his Mind (nous); but it is impossible to speak with certainty.

Heraclitus is said to have flourished about the year 500 BC, and the same date is assigned to the birth of the only other member of the Ionian school to whom it is necessary to refer. This was Anaxagoras of Clazomenae, whose doctrine of the universal Mind (nous) so completely overshadowed the speculations of Heraclitus upon the Logos, that this use of the term Logos almost disappeared from Greek philosophy, until it was revived five centuries later by Philo.

This universal Mind of Anaxagoras, whether strictly immaterial or composed of the subtlest form of matter, is clearly distinguished from the rest of the universe. It is conceived as infinite and self-subsisting, free alike from external mixture and external control. It possesses universal knowledge and pervades and governs all things that have soul. In the original foundation of the world it plays a smaller part than might have been expected, appearing only as giving rise to the first revolution which produced the combination of objects as they are now known to us; but, in the organic world, it is the vital principle, in which plants as well as animals have a share.

The sixth century before Christ witnessed the rise of two other schools of Greek philosophy, both of which left their mark upon the system with which we are concerned. The first of these schools was founded by Pythagoras, who laid stress upon the influence of Number, and who was perhaps the earliest Greek exponent of the doctrine of transmigration of souls. The mystical form of his teaching had a great attraction for the philosophers who immediately precede the rise of the Neoplatonists and although there are few traces of his influence in the writings of Plotinus, yet the lives of Pythagoras composed by Porphyry and Iamblichus, and the abundant references to him in their other writings, are sufficient evidence of the esteem in which he was held by the later Neoplatonists.

The other school of pre-Socratic philosophy to which reference has been made is that of the Eleatics. Its principal members were Xenophanes, Parmenides, Zeno, and Melissus; and their chief contribution to philosophy consisted in speculations upon the nature of Being. They were impressed with the inability of the human mind adequately to grasp the true nature of the deity. The protest of Xenophanes against anthropomorphic conceptions of the gods need not detain us, but a few words may be said with regard to the positive teaching of the school. In their view the essence of Being consists in unity and immutability, and its attributes are described by a series of paradoxes. It is at once neither finite nor infinite, neither movable nor immovable; it had no beginning and it will have no end. In addition to this doctrine of Being, the Eleatics also asserted what may perhaps best be called the positive non-existence of Non-Being, the dark principle which lies at the root of all the changing phenomena of the world in which we live.

There are but few direct references to the Eleatic school in the writings of the Neoplatonists, though Plotinus twice mentions Parmenides with respect, but the indirect influence which they exerted was very considerable. If it is in the writings of Heraclitus and Anaxagoras that we have to look for the first speculations upon Mind, it is in those of the Eleatics that we find the germ of Plotinus' teaching about "The Good."

The next name that arrests our attention is that of Socrates. Of the vast influence exercised by this philosopher over the whole of subsequent Greek thought there can be no doubt, but it was an influence due rather to the methods which he employed than to the actual details of his teaching. Like Ammonius Saccas, the founder of the Neoplatonic school, Socrates was not a writer; and it is moreover necessary to distinguish his authentic teaching from that which is merely put in his mouth by Plato. In Xenophon's Memorabilia however we are fortunate enough to possess materials which are free from Platonic influence, and from a comparison of the two portraits the following particulars may be gleaned.

Socrates appears to have been the first thinker to introduce the doctrine of a divine purpose in creation. The world has been designed by the gods for the use of man, to whose needs many ordinances are clearly subservient. Thus man derives advantage from the alternation of day and night, from the existence of the lower animals and of fire; whilst the gods' special care for him is manifest in the gifts of human intellect and ingenuity, as well as in the provision of oracles for his guidance. The precise relation between the divine and the human is less clearly expressed. The human soul is said to partake of the divine nature, as the body partakes of the physical elements. But Socrates is here involved in the difficulty which Anaxagoras had felt before him. He regards the deity as personal—believing perhaps in one supreme God with a number of inferior and local deities beneath him—and at the same time he holds that man's soul is a part of God. To this problem he has no satisfactory answer to give; but the perception of the difficulty is the first step towards its solution, and the participation of man in the divine nature explains and justifies his endeavour to know God.

From Socrates we pass on to his great disciple whose philosophy Plotinus and his school professed to revive and develope. The great addition made by Plato to Greek speculation was his doctrine of Ideas. These are to us only abstract notions, and yet they are eternal realities. They are, as it were, the Genii of the various general notions, exempt from all space limitations, but capable of motion, possessed of life and intelligence, belonging to a world of real being.

The Ideas are not all on the same level: there are various ranks to be distinguished among them, and the highest of all is the Idea of "The Good."

The universe in which we live falls short of the perfection of the world of Ideas. It has been created by the good God in order to express his goodness; but fashioned as it is out of indeterminate matter, it does not entirely or adequately fulfil that purpose. There cannot however be more than one such universe, for this one, despite its imperfections, is the best that can be made. It is pervaded by a Soul and is, in fact, a rational being.

Now the creator is incapable of making anything that is imperfect. He therefore creates the lesser deities and points out to them the need of mortal creatures. They then proceed to create the bodies, whilst he creates the souls, one for each star, ready to be assigned to mortal bodies as need arises. The soul therefore is divine in origin and in nature: it exists before the body as well as after it. Like the soul of the universe, the soul of the individual forms a link between the world of phenomena and the Ideas, and even while in the body it has from time to time flashes of recollection of its former life in the higher sphere. In the tenth book of the Republic there is to be found a doctrine of transmigration of souls; but it is not clear how far this is to be taken seriously, and how far it is only a picturesque addition to the myth in which it occurs.

The schools which professed to be the guardians of Plato's philosophy, and which are known as the Old, Middle, and New Academy, need not detain us. They do not in any real sense bridge the gulf between Plato and Plotinus, nor are there many references to them in the writings of the Neoplatonists. Their doctrines are often directly opposed to those of the Neoplatonists, or deal with entirely different subjects. Thus in the Old Academy Speusippus taught that "The Best", although the first in rank, is the last of the Ideas in order of development, a doctrine which Plotinus would never have accepted; whilst Heraclides devoted himself to astronomy. Xenocrates is said to have connected the Ideas with numbers, thereby showing a tendency towards Pythagoreanism such as is also noticeable in the Neoplatonist Iamblichus. The Middle Academy, alike in its early period under Arcesilas and in its later one under Carneades, was almost entirely sceptical in its views; but in the New Academy there was a return to more dogmatic teaching, and Antiochus of Ascalon made an attempt to combine the teaching of Plato with certain Aristotelian and Stoic doctrines, which resembles the eclectic syncretism of the Neoplatonists.

Of the vast system of Aristotle it is impossible here to give a detailed account. His work was essentially that of a systematizer. He took the great principles of Plato and endeavoured to show how they could be made to explain the phenomena of the world around us. In order to do this it was necessary to define clearly the mutual relations of the Platonic elements, which Aristotle accordingly considered in two groups. In the first group he placed "The Good," together with the Ideas, which he regarded as being contained within the mind of The Good, and not, as Plato had held, as having an independent existence. In the second group he placed indeterminate matter, and with it the same Ideas as have been already mentioned in the first group. The next step was to find the means whereby the lifeless mixture of Ideas and Matter should become instinct with life, and this he found in Motion, derived from the Ether that fills the vault of heaven, whose revolutions enable the Ideas to unite with the formless matter, and thereby cause the world to come into being.

The position of matter in the system of Aristotle is thus different from that which it occupies in the writings of Plato. It is no longer a purely negative principle, but capable of direct union with the Ideas. In this particular case, Plotinus was led by the Oriental tendencies of his age to follow Plato, and indeed to go beyond Plato in his abhorrence of things material, but in other respects the teaching of Aristotle had a very real bearing upon the Neoplatonic system. The incident mentioned by Porphyry of Plotinus bidding Amelius to reply to Porphyry's pamphlet on the theme "That things intelligible have their subsistence outside Intelligence" shows that in this instance, where Porphyry, and in all probability his teacher Longinus, followed Plato, Plotinus had adopted an Aristotelian attitude: and, in the writings of the later Neoplatonists, commentaries upon the works of Aristotle and treatises upon his relation to Plato are of frequent occurrence.

The tendency of Greek philosophy after the time of Aristotle was to become practical rather than speculative. The subjects with which the Stoics and Epicureans occupied themselves were the relations of philosophy to religion, and above all the quest of that indifference to things external which alone could arm the individual with calmness and fortitude under all circumstances. The Epicureans we may pass over. Beyond accepting in its entirety the atomic theory of Democritus, they made no attempt to discover the final cause of the creation and government of the world; and they exercised no influence on the later systems with which we are concerned. Even the traces of speculation that still remained among the Stoics showed that the current of men's thought had taken a new direction. Their conceptions of the ultimate principles had become materialised. The universe was regarded as a living being, endowed with the highest reason, and the existence of an ideal world beyond it was no longer held.

The importance of the Stoics in the history of philosophy is considerable. When Greek philosophy was transplanted to Rome, it was Stoicism that found the new soil most congenial, as the long list of famous Stoics during the first two centuries of the Empire bears witness. But the Neoplatonic revival in the third century was, in reality as well as in name, a reaction to the earlier system of Plato, and owed little or nothing to Stoic speculation. Indirectly however the severe Stoic teaching upon morality paved the way for the lofty mysticism of Plotinus, and it is of interest to note that the Stoics were the first school to develope the system of allegorical interpretation. Mystical interpretations of special points had already been given by Democritus and by Metrodorus of Lampsacus, as well as by some of the Cynics; but the method had not before been systematically applied to the whole field of popular superstition.

Under the Roman Empire Stoicism continued to be the dominant philosophical system until the latter half of the second century of the Christian era. But before discussing the schools that took its place, we must turn back for a moment, to trace the rise of a new stream of speculation, which had begun to exercise a considerable influence upon the general current of men's thought. We cannot here enter fully into the origin either of the Jewish colony at Alexandria, or of the philosophical school which it produced. Suffice it to say that the Alexandrian Jews entered readily into the intellectual life of the place: they welcomed Greek philosophy as a further revelation in the light of which the records of the Old Testament received a new meaning. In particular the personifications of the Word and Wisdom of God, which had been described with gradually increasing clearness by the writers of some of the later books of the Old Testament, now found a counterpart in the conceptions of Plato and the other Greek philosophers. These conceptions the Jewish writers developed in the light of the strong and pure monotheism of their own religion, and thus gave rise to the Jewish-Alexandrian school of philosophy. The most distinguished representative of this school was Philo, whose period of literary activity seems to have closed about the year 40 AD. He can hardly be called a great or original thinker: his system lacks cohesion and is often self-contradictory: but he is a writer of real importance, since he marks the first beginnings of a return from Stoic and Aristotelian teaching towards Platonic philosophy. It is however correct to say that "Philo inaugurated Neoplatonism". Nearly two centuries had yet to elapse before Plotinus took up the study of philosophy, and it is difficult to find, between Philo and Ammonius Saccas, a series of philosophers sufficiently connected to deserve the name of a school. He was rather a forerunner, the effects of whose work were not immediately visible, though destined in after years to be of the greatest importance.

The teaching of Philo is mainly given in the form of comments upon various texts out of the Old Testament. To this peculiarity of form may in part be ascribed the inconsistencies and general lack of cohesion to which allusion has already been made. By adopting it, Philo deprives himself of the opportunity for giving a single exposition of his whole system, and he is moreover led into the habit of expounding each verse to the best of his ability, regardless of what he may have said on the same subject in connexion with another passage.

A few words may be added on the points at which the teaching of Philo approximates most closely to that of the Neoplatonists. Foremost among these stand his conceptions of God, the Logos, and the Powers. Philo is never tired of asserting the existence and the unity of God, in opposition to the views of atheists and polytheists alike. God however is incomprehensible. He is one, He is simple, He is unchangeable, and He is eternal; but beyond these somewhat negative attributes, man is unable to describe Him, and even the patriarchs were ignorant of His Name. The similarity of this doctrine to Plotinus' conception of The One is obvious. It would seem that Philo derived it, not from Plato nor yet entirely from the Old Testament, but rather from the Old Testament read in the spirit of Plato.

The mediator between God and Man is the Logos. The titles under which He is mentioned indicate the high position which He held in Philo's system. He is called the First-born Son of God, the Eldest Angel, the Archangel, the Name or the Image of God, and again, Man in the Image of God. At the same time it is not easy to determine the precise conception that Philo wishes to convey. The Logos is described in one passage as at once the source and the sum of the Powers; elsewhere as the intelligible world, the sum of the Angels or of the Ideas and again as the divine spirit. At one time He seems to have a distinct personality, at another, merely to express the relation in which God stands to the world. The fact is that Philo deals throughout in metaphors rather than definitions. He has not formed, in his own mind, a perfectly distinct conception of the Logos, and the description which he gives is somewhat confused in consequence.

The same criticism may be passed upon Philo's account of the Powers. At one time he seems to regard them as personified attributes of the Supreme Being, whether in His aspect of Creator, when we speak of Him as God, or of Ruler, when we call Him Lord. At another time he approaches very closely to the Platonic conception of the Ideas, on the model of which the world around us was created, whilst in a third group of passages he identifies the Powers with the Angels. It may be noticed that Philo seems here to hover between Platonic and Aristotelian teaching, and that he anticipates the position adopted by Plotinus. He follows Plato in assigning an actual existence to the Ideas, and in speaking of the intelligible world: but, like Plotinus, he also adopts a definitely Aristotelian position when he places the Ideas within the Logos.

With regard to cosmology, Philo accepts the teaching of Plato. He explicitly rejects both the Aristotelian view that this world had no beginning and will have no end, and that of the Stoics, who believed that the present order of things would one day be destroyed by fire. He maintains that the world was created, and thus had a beginning, but that, once created, it is eternal. He adds moreover, like Plato, and for the reasons which Plato adduces, that there can be no other physical world than that in which we live. It is in the highest degree improbable that God would create a world inferior or even similar to this one, and it is equally clear that if He had been able to create a better, He would already have done so. One other point in Philo's teaching demands a word in passing. He distinguishes four classes of "ecstasy." The first is ordinary madness. The second consists of sudden astonishment such as that with which Isaac was filled when Esau claimed his blessing. The third class he describes as the calm state of the reason which resembles the deep sleep which fell upon Adam: whilst to the fourth class belongs the inspiration of the prophets, which Philo himself professes to have at times experienced. It is to be remarked that the "ecstasy" of Plotinus is not identical with the fourth or highest class, but is more nearly akin to the third in Philo's series. This example illustrates the characteristic difference that runs through the whole systems of Plotinus and Philo, for the latter never permits himself to be so far carried away by his philosophy as to forget that he is a Jew, or to enunciate doctrines inconsistent with his interpretation of the Old Testament scriptures.

It should be added that Philo is not entirely free from the Pythagoreanism which contributes so large a share to the philosophy of the first four centuries after Christ. To the modern reader, his mystical speculations on the subject of number appear to be meaningless and fantastic, but they are thoroughly, characteristic of the age in which they are written. Numerical mysticism does not play a prominent part in the philosophy of Plato, although instances of it are to be found, but out of those who endeavoured in after years to revive his teaching, there were few who succeeded in resisting the attraction which speculation of this kind seems to have exercised.

Another "fore-runner," who still hardly deserves the title of Neoplatonist, was Plutarch of Chaeronea. He too was opposed to Stoic doctrines and drew his inspiration from the writings of Plato. He held that there are two first principles, God and Matter, the giver and the receiver of form respectively, and between them, the Ideas, or patterns according to which the world was made. For Matter, though not in itself good, is indifferent, and is evil only in so far as it is permeated by the evil principle which is the cause of all disorder, and to which Plutarch gives the title of the World-soul. The system of Plutarch is less elaborate and less thorough than that of Plotinus, though in some respects he directly anticipates the doctrines of the Neoplatonists. He definitely maintains, for example, the existence of both gods and daemons, and in his explanation of the "daemon" of Socrates, he clearly takes up the position afterwards adopted by Plotinus, that the true philosopher should base his teaching not upon logical deduction but on direct intuition.

It only remains to enumerate the chief philosophers who occur in the century immediately preceding the appearance of Ammonius Saccas. After the time of Marcus Aurelius, the popularity of Stoicism declined, and Neopythagoreanism became the most fashionable form of philosophy. It was characterized by a love of numerical speculation and a somewhat vague mysticism, based on the study of writings, authentic or spurious, attributed to Pythagoras and his school. The most illustrious name in this period is that of Numenius of Apamea, whose famous description of Plato as the Attic Moses illustrates at once his ignorance of the true character of Plato and Moses alike, and his desire to illustrate the affinity that exists between all seekers after truth, to whatever nationality or religion they may belong. It is however more important for our present purpose to notice that Numenius distinguished three gods—the first subsisting in undisturbed self-contemplation, the second and third being the creator and the creation respectively. He also recognised a twofold division of the human soul, into rational and irrational elements. Of these, the former contemplates the deity, whilst the latter renders the soul capable of union with a material body.

The second century also witnessed the rise of a school of sceptics, of whom Sextus Empiricus was the most considerable; and mention must also be made of Celsus, the great antagonist of Origen. The Sceptics however need not detain us, and though Celsus is said to have been a Platonist, the extant fragments of his work contain but little constructive philosophy.

It is scarcely necessary to say more about the general condition of the world of thought at the beginning of the third century. There was no teacher of commanding genius, and no school that could lay claim to any degree of originality or creative power. We find on all sides an appeal to antiquity, which meets us in the realms of religion and philosophy alike, and contributes to the popularity both of Egyptian worship and of Pythagorean teaching. But the appeal was shallow and uncritical, and the results were correspondingly barren. Authority took the place of argument, and progress was held to consist in tedious elaboration of detail. Orientalism too exercised a strange fascination over men's minds. Philostratus described how Apollonius of Tyana had journeyed to India, to converse with the Brahmins and other wise men of the East, and it is probable that there were others, besides Plotinus, who endeavored to follow his example. Above all, the spirit of syncretism, whose influence in matters of religion has already been mentioned, was no less powerful in the region of philosophy. The aim of the philosophers was to unite the teachings of all the great masters of old; to reconcile Plato with Stoicism, Aristotle with Pythagoreanism and by a judicious combination of these diverse elements, to arrive at a system which should represent, not the teaching of this or that school, but the accumulated wisdom of the human race.