NEOPLATONISM IN RELATION TO CHRISTIANITY

 

 IV

THE HISTORY OF NEOPLATONISM

 

In the foregoing pages an attempt has been made to give a general sketch of the prevailing conditions of thought, alike in religion and philosophy, in the period immediately preceding the first appearance of Neoplatonism. In the present chapter it is proposed to give a brief account of the external history of the school, together with the names and dates of the great leaders of Neoplatonic thought, and the chief contemporary Christian writers, pointing out the broad relations between Christianity and philosophy at each stage of the history. In this way we may hope to obtain a general impression of the history of the school, which will serve to place the more detailed discussions of the various stages in their true perspective.

The founder of the school was Ammonius Saccas. Of him and of his teaching we have but little information, and of that little, much is by no means certain. According to Porphyry he was born at Alexandria of Christian parents: he was himself a Christian in his younger days, but afterwards reverted to paganism. This account is quoted by Eusebius, who proceeds to say that the story of his apostasy is a fabrication. The Christian writers do not claim Ammonius as an ally, but apparently they are anxious to prevent the apologists of paganism from making capital out of the story that the first great Neoplatonist had been converted from Christianity to the purer faith of his pagan fellow-countrymen. His second name is said to be an abbreviated form of Saccophorus and to be derived from the fact that for some time he made his living as a porter. The dates of his birth and death are both unknown, but he must have begun lecturing in or before 231 AD, since in that year his lectures were attended by Plotinus, the most illustrious of his pupils. The other disciples of Ammonius whose names have been preserved, include Longinus, the rhetorician long supposed to be the author of the treatise De Sublimitate, the great Christian writer Origenes Adamantius, besides another Origenes, and Herennius, of whom nothing further is known. Like Socrates in earlier days, Ammonius wrote no books; and there is even a story that he forbade his pupils to divulge his teaching. It is therefore difficult to form an opinion upon his merits as a philosopher, since we cannot say how far the doctrines of Plotinus were new, and how far derived from his master.

Plotinus succeeded him as the head of the new school. With regard to this philosopher we have a considerable amount of information, since, in addition to a series of fifty-four treatises from his pen, we possess a memoir of him written by Porphyry, his favourite disciple and literary executor. From this document and from the notices in Eunapius, Vitae Philosophorum, we gather the following facts. He was born at Lycopolis in Egypt, about the year 203 AD and he commenced the study of philosophy at the age of 28. After attending the lectures of Ammonius for eleven years, he joined Gordianus' expedition to the East in the year 242, hoping thereby to be able to study the philosophy of Persia. The expedition however was a failure. Gordianus was killed, and Plotinus, after barely escaping with his life, made his way first to Antioch, and soon afterwards to Rome. Herennius and Origenes had already broken the compact to reveal none of their master's teaching: and finally Plotinus, feeling himself no longer bound to observe it, began to frame his discourses on the lectures of Ammonius. Following the example however of his master, he delivered his teaching solely in an oral form until the year 262 AD, when he was persuaded to write twenty-one treatises for private circulation, and in the next six years he wrote twenty-four more. Nine more were written before his death in 269 AD, and the whole series of fifty-four treatises was subsequently arranged and edited by Porphyry, forming the six Enneads which we still possess.

His system has for its object the search for the first principles of the universe, and aims at a systematic exposition of the origin and nature of the world: whilst, side by side with this, comes his practical aim, to enable each individual man to rise to the highest development of his nature, and so to proceed ultimately to immediate union with "the divine." His method is eclectic: indeed there is hardly a branch of Greek or Roman speculation, from which he does not levy some contribution. His teaching however is no mere re-statement of current philosophy: it is a return to the original doctrines of Plato. At the same time these are read in the spirit of the age, so that while some elements are neglected, others are sometimes pressed further towards their logical conclusions than in the dialogues of Plato himself

It is to be noticed that Plotinus does not attempt to establish his fundamental doctrines by argument. The highest knowledge, according to his view, is attained not through logical deduction but by pure intuition: and he therefore enunciates his system without any endeavour to prove it. In so doing he is merely following the fashion of his time. The great popularity of "Mysteries," to which reference has already been made, is an indication of men's readiness to accept mystical teaching about the future state of the soul, upon the bare authority of their instructors; and although there is no evidence that Plotinus encouraged attendance at such rites, it may well be that the form in which his teaching has come down to us, was affected by the prevalence of such "Mysteries" and by the spirit of obedience to authority which it indicates. It is however to be remembered that Plotinus was a speaker rather than a writer, and it is possible that in his lectures he may have adduced arguments which he did not include in his written works.

The system revolves about the idea of a threefold principle, which appears alike in the universe around us and in our own human nature. The Deity Himself is threefold, the second principle emanating from the first and the third from the second. The first principle is variously styled essential Existence, Goodness, Unity: the second is Universal Mind, the creative principle of the world of Ideas, whilst the third is the World-soul. This like Mind is immaterial, but standing as it does between Mind and the material world, it has elected to become disintegrated, and united with the world of phenomena. The objects created by this World-soul are themselves souls of various kinds, including those of men: and these souls are capable either of rising to union with their source, or of sinking to wallow blindly in their material environment. Below this Trinity comes Nature, still a creative principle, but on a lower level, as being directly connected with matter. Creation is effected, according to Plotinus, by a process of contemplation.

The Mind contemplates in The One that which is possible, and by continual contemplation, yet ever with fresh difference, it produces all that truly exists, that is to say the Universe of Ideas. Similarly it is by contemplation that the Soul creates, but, inasmuch as it contemplates The One, not directly but through the medium of the Mind, the objects created by it stand on a lower level than those created by the Mind. And in like manner Nature gives form to formless matter, and thus creates the physical world. Matter is regarded as indestructible, and as existing before the present world. Its existence however is negative rather than positive, for apart from reason it is formless and barren: indeed, the forms which matter assumes in the physical world are in all cases due, not to itself, but to reason. Plotinus argues against those who maintained that Plato's Matter signified empty space, but he agrees with most Platonists in holding that neither the beginning nor the end of the world can be found in time, and that in this sense the universe is eternal. The soul of the universe, like the soul of the individual, is regarded as in some sense bound up with its material surroundings; so that, to a certain extent, it is in a real sense subject to Necessity or Destiny. Rational action however is always from within, so that virtue is always free. The object of the World-soul is so to pervade this universe as to bring all the parts into harmony. But in practice we find discord, resulting in constant change, and the absence of all except mere illusory existence. Men seek for the Good and cannot attain to it, and therefore they become unjust. Evil is a lack of the Good; and, in a universe of separate existences, the presence of good in one place implies its absence in another. Now if the presence of evil in the world be admitted, its prevalence is not difficult to explain. The world is not perfect: it is a mixed universe, and most of the souls which it contains are neither very good nor very bad, but occupy an intermediate position. Nor is it difficult to explain the apparent success of bad men. This is partly due to the inertness of their victims, who deserve to suffer for not attempting to resist their attacks, and it is in part explained by the fact that the wicked are thus led on to reap their own punishment, alike in their moral degradation during their present life, and in its consequences hereafter.

But the problem of the cause of the existence of evil is not affected by these considerations, and the solution which Plotinus offers is perhaps the weakest point in his system. He professes toreject all Gnostic views of the essential inherence of evil in Matter, and to believe in a single supreme deity, at once omnipotent and benevolent. But, when pressed to explain the existence of evil, he is driven to take refuge in Gnostic dualism and Gnostic hatred of things material. The reason that he gives is,that the universe rests on a substratum of matter, the dark principle, incapable of producing anything beyond itself, and therefore incapable of adequately expressing the Good. We may notice that Plotinus' refusal to allow his portrait to be painted, and the shame which he professed to feel at being in the body, are illustrations of the same feeling.

In his psychology Plotinus still adheres to a threefold principle. Man possesses Spirit, Soul, and Body, and thus he has three states of consciousness which correspond to the three spheres of being in the universe. Nor is it surprising to find that the virtues fall into three classes, corresponding to the three spheres of existence. In the lowest class are the "political virtues," which are necessary for all men, their aim being the avoidance of evil. In the second class, to which the philosopher alone can attain, are the "cathartic virtues," whose aim is the destruction of the passions. The third and highest form of virtue lies in mystical union with The One. This is what Plotinus calls Ecstasy, and it is not a faculty, nor yet a habit, but a state of the soul, to which however man can hope to attain but seldom whilst he is in the body. That Plotinus did believe in the possibility of effecting such union even on earth, there is no doubt; for we have Porphyry's statement that he had himself attained to it once, in his sixty-eighth year, and that Plotinus, during the seven years of Porphyry's friendship with him, enjoyed it four times. This teaching about ecstasy carries us beyond i the realm of philosophy into that of pure mysticism. At the same time it is not without its philosophical basis. Plotinus accepted in its entirety the Platonic doctrine of reminiscence, and the state of ecstasy is, neither more nor less than the temporary realisation of the longing which the spirit feels for its return into the world of Ideas.

Such in brief outline is the system of Plotinus. It is clearer and more definite than any that the Neopythagoreans could offer, and the lofty morality to which it leads commands our respect. It derives an added stateliness from the haughty refusal of Plotinus to be drawn into mere recriminations against the upholders of other systems: indeed, it would seem from Porphyry's account that he preferred to leave to his pupils the task of refuting antagonists, as being unworthy of his own attention. At all events it is noticeable that, out of the fifty-four treatises which he wrote, there is but one which is definitely controversial in character, and this is hardly an exception, since it consists for the most part of a dignified recapitulation of his own views, in the expectation that this alone will be sufficient to refute those of his opponents.

  In life and character Plotinus seems to have exercised a peculiar attraction over those with whom he came in contact: it is to be noticed that their enemies do not venture to bring any charge against the personal integrity of either Plotinus or Porphyry: whilst both his generosity and his business capacity are illustrated by his readiness, when need arose, to undertake the guardianship of his friends' children, and by his skilful administration of their property. We are told that he almost succeeded in persuading the Emperor Gallienus to rebuild one of the ruined cities of Campania, and to permit him to have it governed on Platonic principles. That he was not entirely free from the superstitions of his time is shown by the story of Olympius' attempt to compass his destruction by means of the stars. The attempt failed, but Plotinus admitted that it had nevertheless caused him some discomfort.

During the latter part of his life he suffered from an internal malady, for which he refused to undergo any regular medical treatment. He submitted however to massage at the hands of his attendants, who prevented the malady from increasing; but at length, losing their services in a time of pestilence, he grew worse, and died.

2.

The new leader of the Neoplatonic school was a man of Tyrian descent, born in the year 233 AD. His original name was Melek or Malchus; and this title was occasionally applied to him throughout his life. He was however more commonly known by one or other of two Greek translations of his Tyrian name—Basileus or Porphyrius. Porphyry was acquainted in his younger days with the Christian Origen, and, after studying at Athens under Longinus and Apollonius, he came to Rome in 262 AD, where he met Plotinus, and after a short period of opposition became his most enthusiastic disciple. At the end of six years he found himself suffering from melancholy, and seemed to be in danger of losing his reason: but, adopting the advice of Plotinus, he sought relief in foreign travel, and lived for some time in Sicily. Of the details of his later life we know but little: he returned to Rome, where, perhaps as late as 302 AD he married Marcella, a Roman lady, and the widow of a friend. Ten months later he went abroad on what he describes as "business connected with the affairs of the Greeks and the will of the gods." It would seem that he died in Rome in or about the year 305 AD.

Porphyry was a man of great learning, but of no striking originality. As the biographer and literary executor of Plotinus, he made the exposition and defence of his master's teaching the chief work of his life. His own additions to Neoplatonism dealt, for the most part, with the practical bearing of philosophy. Thus he taught that the cause of evil lies not in the body but in the soul, and that the end of all philosophy is holiness. In fact, if Neoplatonism reached its highest perfection in metaphysical speculation under Plotinus, it is Porphyry who marks its highest ethical development. His extant writings are not numerous. The Life of Plotinus has already been mentioned, and his other principal works are a Life of Pythagoras, a vegetarian treatise in four books "De abstinentia ab esu animalium" the "Sententiae" containing some of his expositions of Plotinus, a short tract "de antro Nympharum" an Introduction to the Categories of Aristotle, and two Letters addressed respectively to Anebon and Marcella.

It was apparently the intention of Porphyry to combine direct opposition to Christianity with the attitude of superiority to pagan systems which characterized Plotinus. He wrote an important treatise against Christianity, which seems to have formed one of the most serious literary attacks ever made upon the Church; but his attitude of superiority to the popular religion was not always maintained. There was by this time a growing tendency, especially in the Syrian school of Neoplatonists, to lay stress upon magical or "theurgical" practices; and there are passages in which Porphyry displays a certain sympathy with this tendency. He quotes Philo Byblius to prove that the Greek gods were identical with those of Persia, and he defends the use of images even to the extent of giving a mystical interpretation to the materials of which they were made. But these passages are the exception rather than the rule. Porphyry remains too thoroughly Greek to agree with the Syrian school in considering theurgical rites to be of primary importance: and in the letter to Anebon he makes his protest against them. This document is addressed to an Egyptian priest, and in it Porphyry takes up the position of a critic. He does not question the existence of the gods, but he wishes to be convinced that men are right in assigning them to special localities, or in supposing that they are to be propitiated by special forms of worship. The other side replied by issuing the famous treatise De Mysteriis, though it is uncertain whether this work was known to Porphyry or pub­lished only after his death. In any case the book is definitely styled a reply to Porphyry's letter, and it may almost be considered the official apology of the Neoplatonists for their defence, not merely of paganism in general, but of the actual forms of worship then in vogue.

The writer professes to be an Egyptian priest, but there is no doubt that he is a Greek and moreover a Neoplatonist. He betrays his Greek origin both by his general style and by definite references to sundry points of Greek literature with which a foreigner would hardly be acquainted. His tone of authority is in keeping, not only with his assumed character of Egyptian priest, but also with his position as defender of ritual and mysticism as parts of a divine revelation. The range of topics with which he proposes to deal is startling—Theology and Theurgy, Philosophy, Ethics, and Teleology—but it shows what a variety of subjects had by this time been grouped together under the general head of Neoplatonism.

We cannot here follow the writer in detail, as point by point he discusses Porphyry's letter and parries or refutes one after another of his contentions. His main positions are these. Like Plotinus he holds that the existence of the gods is not in the ordinary sense an object of knowledge, capable of being proved or disproved by logical methods, and of being grasped by the rational faculty. It is rather a matter of which all men have an innate and indefinable consciousness, so that the most that argument and reason can do is to distinguish between the various orders of the gods. They are not to be called corporeal, though their essence permeates all physical nature. Nor have they any need of our sacrifices and prayers, though these have a real value for men, as links of communication with the divine. Now we must offer prayers and sacrifices to the lower divinities because, although worship of The One is infinitely higher and nobler, yet the possibility of attaining to such worship comes to very few and even to them it comes but late in life. Moreover, the lower deities are affected by prayers, and even by threats, provided that these are uttered not by mere laymen but by duly qualified priests. Lastly, it must be remembered that the theurgist is moved by the highest and purest of aims: his constant endeavour is to raise man step by step from his natural state of degradation, till at length he attains to union with the eternal.

This then is the argument brought forward in defence of polytheism and mystical ritual, and it illustrates at once the strength and the weakness of Neoplatonism. It shows how Neoplatonism, when no longer able to produce a teacher capable of following in the steps of Plotinus, or even of Porphyry, could still summon to its aid all that conservatism, which forms so important a factor in the retardation of any religious movement; and how, by affording a quasi-philosophical justification to all forms of pagan worship, it could rally round its standard all who were interested in the preservation of the old system. On the other hand the weakness of Neoplatonism is no less apparent; for the writer of the De Mysteriis has to confess that the highest religion is but for the few, and that with all its boasted comprehensiveness Neo­platonism still lacked the simple universality of the Gospel.

3.

With the death of Porphyry the first chapter in the history of Neoplatonism comes to an end. The early Alexandrian Neoplatonists disappear, and their place is taken by the Syrian school to which reference has already been made. The great representative of this school is Iamblichus, who stands first alike in time and reputation. His importance is shown both by the high position which he enjoyed among his contemporaries and by the respect with which he is mentioned by Proclus a century later. He developed the Oriental side of Neoplatonism, his chief additions being connected with numerical speculations and mysticism. Thus he elaborated a logical series of triads and a theory upon the various orders of the gods. He also made considerable additions to the system of Plotinus1 inventing a new principle styled "The One without participation" which he declared to be superior to The Good, and adding further a series of Intellectual, Supramundane, and Mundane deities, which he made to correspond respectively to Mind, Soul and Nature, though superior to them in each instance. The improvement which he endeavored to bring into the system was twofold. In the first place, there was the refinement which sought to discover principles whose relation to the first principles of Plotinus should be the same as that which exists between the world of ideas and the world of phenomena; and in the second he was clearly anxious to assert the absolute unity of the first principle whilst retaining the triadic arrangement of the whole system. He therefore elevated The One to a position by itself, and completed the trinity of which Mind and Soul were members by the addition of Nature. To the modern mind this fantastic elaboration of metaphysical detail is a mark of declining power, but there is no doubt that it won for Iamblichus the admiration of the philosophers of his day. He is also famous for the attention which he paid to incantations and other theurgical arts. It may however be doubted whether this was not rather characteristic of the age in which he lived than of the man himself. Iamblichus appears to have lived on into the reign of Constantine, and to have died about the year 330 AD.

A Neoplatonist of a very different stamp from those who have been described was Hierocles. He was a man of action rather than a man of thought; and his weapons were more frequently those of the executioner than those of the dialectician. He was born in Caria about the year 275, and we learn from an inscription that he was governor of Palmyra under Diocletian and Maximian. It was perhaps at this period that he became acquainted with Galerius, whom he is said to have urged to persecute the Christians. From Palmyra he was transferred to Bithynia in the year 304 AD, and in the following year he was again removed to Alexandria. His claim to be considered a Neoplatonist indicates the extent to which the school had become the recognised apologists of paganism. His one literary work, of which the name and a few extracts have been preserved, was called "Plain words for the Christians", in which, after bringing forward sundry difficulties and inconsistencies in the Christian scriptures, he appears to have compared the life and miracles of Christ with those of Apollonius of Tyana. The book itself is no longer extant, but we possess a treatise written in reply to it by Eusebius, who declares that the scriptural difficulties had already been sufficiently answered by Origen in his writings against Celsus. Hierocles showed himself throughout a constant enemy of the Christians; and, as governor of Bithynia, he became notorious for the zeal and cruelty with which he carried out Diocletian's edicts for their persecution.

After the death of Iamblichus there is a gap in the line of great Neoplatonists. We hear indeed of Sopater of Apamea, who was put to death by Constantine on a charge of employing magic to delay the arrival of the imperial corn ships; and the names of Aedesius of Cappadocia, Maximus of Ephesus, and Eusebius of Myndus must not be passed over in silence. But there is no teacher of commanding force who stands out pre-eminently as the head of the school.

4.

The next name which arrests our attention is that of the Emperor Julian. More perhaps than almost any other character in history, he has been the victim of circumstance. We speak with respect of Celsus and Porphyry, recognising that, if they were opponents of Christianity, they were nevertheless men of honesty, who tried by fair and open argument to justify their preference for the religion of their ancestors. But of Julian it is difficult to speak without adding the hateful surname of "The Apostate," and without regarding him as a traitor, who persecuted the Church and tried to undo the noble work of Constantine. What that Christianity was which he forsook, and how far he is to be considered a persecutor of the Church, are questions which we do not often attempt to answer. The relation however of Julian to the Church will be more properly considered in the next chapter: we are at present concerned only with his positive teaching as a representative of the Neoplatonic school.

As a philosopher, Julian cannot indeed be placed un the same level as Plotinus, but he is to be regarded as one who, by example and precept, brought no discredit on the school of which he was a member. A follower of Iamblichus, he exhibits the defects of that section of Neoplatonism—a certain lack of clearness of thought and a fondness for mysticism. But it is an exaggeration to say that "it is in the Emperor Julian and his philosophic friends that Neoplatonism goes down to its nadir." Julian was neither a relentless persecutor of the Church, like Hierocles, nor was he lost, like Iamblichus, in tedious elaboration of unintelligible speculation. In both of these respects Julian stands on a higher level than his immediate predecessors. He cleared away much of the useless detail with which Neoplatonism had latterly been encumbered, and if we remember the absolute power which the Emperor possessed, and the hatred which Julian undoubtedly felt against the Church, we cannot but be surprised at the moderation which he displayed in the matter of persecution.

Turning to the details of Julian's system, we notice that he does not explicitly accept Plotinus' trinity of first principles. His view of The One is in strict accordance with that of Plotinus, but he has little to say about the other members of the trinity, and the relation in which they stand to The One and to each other. On the other hand he is more explicit than Plotinus had been upon the subordinate orders of being. Not content with the distinction between the world of Ideas and the world of phenomena, he sub­divides the former by contrasting the Intelligible with the Intellectual, thus obtaining three spheres of being in place of the trinity of first principles which he neglects. He adopts, in fact, Iamblichus' teaching in its main outlines, but simplifies it by omitting the constant repetition whereby Iamblichus had endeavoured to convey a clearer impression of the transcendental purity of his ultimate principles.

According to Julian, the highest sphere emanates directly from The One, and is occupied by the intelligible gods, chief among whom is the Sun,—not the visible centre of the solar system, but his ideal counterpart. In addition to his position as head of the intelligible world, the Sun occupies the same position in reference to the intellectual and phenomenal spheres which The One holds with regard to the intelligible. The place of honour which Julian assigns to the Sun is doubtless due to Oriental influence; and in particular to that of Mithras-worship. This view is corroborated by the confusion which Julian permits himself, consciously or unconsciously, to make between the intelligible sun and the phenomenal. Below the intelligible and intellectual gods we reach the cosmical sphere, wherein subsist the lowest order of gods, the various daemons, good and evil, and the visible world. Matter is regarded by Julian with as much aversion as it is by Plotinus; unless animated by divine essence it cannot even be apprehended by sense, and the union between matter and soul is brought about exclusively for the benefit of the lower principle.

The system of Julian has been described at somewhat greater length than its philosophical importance might seem to warrant, because it represents the final stage reached by Neoplatonism before the end of the struggle with Christianity. A century and three quarters had yet to elapse before Justinian closed the Neoplatonic schools: but after the time of Julian no real effort was made to reconvert the world to paganism. Neoplatonism adopted a more academical dress: its intimate connection with pagan myths and pagan forms of worship was no longer prominent, and it retired to a position of dignified seclusion, far removed from all questions of religious controversy.

There is another gap in the history of Neoplatonism after the death of Julian. The school was not dead, for it reappears in the early years of the fifth century both at Athens and at Alexandria; and there is moreover positive evidence for its persistence during the interval at Rome, where St Augustine passed through a period of attachment to Neoplatonism before his conversion and baptism in 387 AD. But it was in a state of suspended animation. For forty years there was not a single Neoplatonic philosopher of the first rank, the chief names of the period being those of Themistius, Eunapius, and Sallustius the friend of Julian. Themistius however is eminent rather as a rhetorician than as a philosopher, and his speeches, as well as his paraphrases of Aristotle, are still extant: whilst the fame of Eunapius rests not upon his philosophical insight but upon the fact that he is the biographer of the school. Just as the long line of Stoics had already been ended by Marcus Aurelius, so it would almost seem as though Neo-platonism took half a century to recover from the strain of assuming the purple in the person of Julian.

5.

This period of stagnation was followed by the great revival of Neoplatonism which marked the opening years of the fifth century. This revival had two centres of activity, in the universities of Alexandria and Athens. It was essentially academical in character, so that the writings of the last Neoplatonists consist mainly of commentaries on the works of Plato and Aristotle. There was a considerable amount of intercommunication between the two universities, and we find more than one of the philosophers of this period connected with both.

Turning first to the Alexandrian school we are confronted by two striking figures, both of them strangely attractive and strangely different from the various philosophers described above. One is Synesius, the country gentleman, fond of his books yet no less fond of sport, ready, when need arose, to take up the arduous duties of a Christian Bishop, and to wear out his life on behalf of his people and his country. The other is his teacher, Hypatia, perhaps the noblest of those women of culture who grace from time to time the pages of history, who was brutally murdered by the ignorant mob of Alexandria, the victim of blind fanaticism and unproved suspicion.

Of the teaching of Hypatia we know but little: but it may be gathered from the writings of Synesius that she followed in the steps of Iamblichus. With regard however to Synesius we are fortunate in having no lack of materials from which to form our judgment. His philosophy is rather of the popular type. There is a certain vagueness in his expressions which betrays the hand of the dilettante, a vagueness that is especially noticeable in his Hymns. In some respects however he rises far above the Neoplatonism of the fourth century. He explicitly rejects the employment of theurgical arts, and, even before his conversion to Christianity, he has clearly little belief in the pagan gods. The claim which he made for philosophical freedom of thought, before he permitted himself to be consecrated Bishop of Ptolemais, is a matter which will more properly be discussed in the next chapter.

One other member of the Alexandrian school must be mentioned before we leave this part of the subject. This is Hierocles, who was a pupil of Plutarch at Athens, but who afterwards taught at Alexandria. His position is interesting, standing as he does midway between Christianity and the old religion. He softens down the harsher aspects of paganism, urging men, for example, to universal charity, and pointing out the efficacy of prayer. It is interesting too to notice that, in his view, the belief in a future state forms the one argument for morality in the present life. Many of his doctrines are identical with those of Origen,—that, for instance, of the prenatal existence of the soul—and even where he is most distinctively Neoplatonist, his expressions are often very near those of the Alexandrian Fathers. In his extant works Hierocles does not appear to make any direct reference to Christianity, but whether he is to be reckoned as a tacit opponent of the Church, is not clear.

The leader of the Athenian revival was Plutarch the son of Nestorius, whose pupil Syrianus was the teacher of the more famous Proclus. So far as can be judged from the scanty information which we possess about him, Plutarch's philosophy was distinctly Platonic in its tone. He accepted the trinity of Plotinus—The One, Mind, and Soul—and moreover he distinguished the forms immanent in material things from matter itself. Syrianus on the other hand set himself the task of bringing the Aristotelian and Platonic systems into harmony. In his view the works of Aristotle must be studied as a preparation for those of Plato. The same endeavor to reconcile Plato with Aristotle, and indeed to weld the whole of Greek philosophy into one homogeneous system, occupied the energies of Proclus. To enter fully into the details of his teaching would be to trespass beyond the proper limits of this essay, for the direct influence which the Athenian school exercised upon Christianity was but slight. An account however of Neoplatonism which omitted all reference to the last great teacher of the school would be so manifestly incomplete that it will be best to add a few words on the system of Proclus as compared with those of his predecessors.

According to Proclus, all that exists comes into being through a law of "threefold development". Everything has a state of rest from which it issues and to which it returns; for everything is both like and unlike that from which it is derived. By the action of these three, the state of rest, the issuing forth, and the return, the whole system of the universe is gradually developed. With Proclus, as with Plotinus, the ultimate principle is The One, which he defines in language almost identical with that of the first great Neoplatonic writer. From The One however proceed a number of Unities which are gods in the highest sense of the term. Below them come the three spheres of ideal existence, for Proclus, not content with the two divisions already distinguished by Julian, speaks of the Intelligible, the Intelligible-Intellectual, and the Intellectual spheres. From the Intellectual sphere emanates the Psychical, and below that comes the material world. In his teaching upon the lower spheres of existence Proclus follows Plotinus; but in the higher flights of his philosophy his system becomes more intricate even than that of Iamblichus. Proclus is said to have laid the greatest stress upon the proper performance of mystical ritual, but in his extant works he does not stand forward, like Julian or the writer of the De Mysteriis as the champion of such observances. He saw that the day for their official recognition was past, and he felt that to call public attention to the subject would only bring his school into discredit and persecution.

Proclus died in 485 AD and with him the history of Neoplatonism practically closes. He was succeeded by Marinus, whose speculations were chiefly concerned with the theory of Ideas and with mathematics. One or two other names also deserve to be mentioned, such as that of Simplicius of Cilicia, the commentator on Aristotle, and Boethius, who, by his treatise De consolatione philosophiae, his translations from Aristotle and Porphyry, and his commentaries on these and other philosophical works, formed for western scholars, their chief link with Greek philosophy until the revival of Classical studies at the time of the Renaissance

Neoplatonism continued to be taught until 529 AD when Justinian forbade the delivery of philosophical lectures at Athens, and confiscated the property of the Neoplatonic school. The last chapter of the history is well known. Seven Neoplatonists, including Simplicius and Damascius the last head of the school, emigrated to Persia, hoping to find in the East the Utopia which they had sought in vain at Athens. Sadly disappointed they were fain to return, and in 533 .D they were permitted to come back to the Roman Empire, retaining full liberty of belief, though still forbidden to give lectures, or otherwise to propagate their doctrines.

6.

Whilst reserving for a later chapter all detailed discussion of the relations between Neoplatonism and Christianity, it will be convenient at this point to add a few words about the Christian writers who belong to the same period as the various leaders of the school. The principal Greek fathers contemporary with Plotinus and Porphyry were Origen, Gregory Thaumaturgus and Methodius. The importance for our present purpose, of Origen, the pupil of Ammonius and the instructor of Porphyry, can hardly be overrated. His immense grasp of varied knowledge, and his comprehensive breadth of view, are illustrated by the description which Gregory Thaumaturgus has left of the course of instruction which he prescribed for his pupils.

Origen and his followers had much in common with the Neoplatonists. Methodius, on the other hand, was entirely opposed, both to Neoplatonism and to the Origenistic school of Christian speculation, He seems to have been a student of Plato, but he imbibed little of his spirit. He wrote a lengthy reply to Porphyry's attack on Christianity, but this, like the work against which it is directed, we no longer possess. He also wrote more than one treatise against the teaching of Origen, notably against his claim that the Resurrection of the body cannot be interpreted in the sense of a physical resurrection. For Origen himself we are told that he entertained a considerable respect, and the fragments of his writings contain allegorical interpretations of scripture exactly similar to those of Origen.

Of Cyprian and Minucius Felix, the contemporary Latin fathers, little need be said. In the dialogue composed by Minucius Felix, Caecilius, the heathen representative, does not adopt a Neoplatonist attitude. On the contrary, his endeavour to refute the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and to point out the greater durability of the material world, is distinctly opposed to the teaching of the school. Nor need we linger over the name of Cyprian. There are indeed traces of considerable philosophical power in his writings, but he was too much involved in the practical difficulties connected with the administration of his See to pay much attention to the philosophical revival that was taking place in the heathen world. We pass on to the great Christian father who, like Iamblichus and Hierocles, witnessed the persecution under Diocletian and the subsequent triumph of Christianity. Born soon after the year 260 AD and living until 339 AD Eusebius of Caesarea forms a link between the age of Plotinus and the age of Julian. His position with regard to Neoplatonism is twofold. Against Neoplatonists as the apologists of paganism the Christian Bishop wages unceasing war: but with Neoplatonism as an abstract system of philosophy Eusebius the scholar has much sympathy.

During the period of the great Arian controversy the Church was too much distracted by her own theological difficulties to pay much attention to philosophical problems outside her pale. A literary attack on Christianity made by Julian was answered in later days by Cyril of Alexandria, and there are traces in the writings of Athanasius which show that the indirect influence of Neoplatonism upon Alexandrian thought was still considerable.

In the last three decades of the fourth century we find the three Cappadocian fathers, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Basil of Caesarea. As followers of Origen they represent the side of Christian speculation which is most nearly allied to Neoplatonism, and their influence tended steadily towards the absorption by the Church of Neoplatonic doctrines. To the same period belongs Epiphanius, who became Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus in 367 A.D. Among the Latin fathers of this generation there are several whose names ought to be mentioned. There is Hilary of Poictiers who is noticeable as one of the earliest supporters of Origen in the west, and Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, to whose teaching the conversion of Augustine was largely due. Somewhat junior to Hilary and Ambrose, but still belonging to the same period, we find Rufinus the translator of Origen, and the two great theologians of Western Christendom, Augustine and Jerome. All three lived on into the fifth century, and all of them helped to disseminate the knowledge of Christian Platonism in the Western Church.

With the school of Antioch, whose golden age falls in the early years of the fifth century, we are not greatly concerned. Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom, and Theodoret hold a place of their own among the Fathers of the Christian Church, but the trend of their thought was practical rather than philosophical, and they were not greatly influenced by Neoplatonic writers. In the same period we find Synesius, Bishop of Ptolemais, to whom reference has already been made. One other writer must be mentioned before we close—the unknown writer who assumed the title of 'Dionysius the Areopagite'. It will be sufficient at this point to say that these writings bear clear marks of the influence of Proclus, and that they appear to have been composed at the end of the fifth century either at Edessa or under the influence of the Edessene school.

We have now traced the main outlines of the history of Neoplatonism. Its course might almost be taken as an illustration of the law of triadic development enunciated by Proclus. We see it first in the hands of Plotinus, far above all controversy, extending indeed a distant recognition to the pagan system then in vogue, but unfettered by the details, whether of ritual or dogma, which that system implied. We see it next, issuing forth and differing more and more widely from its former self, spending a century in barren controversy and useless persecution. And lastly we see the Return. Neoplatonism desists from the struggle, and becomes once more a lofty system of abstract philosophy, like its first self, and yet unlike, in that its energies are directed less to the perfecting of a system than to the criticism and exegesis of the masterpieces of Plato and Aristotle. And thus its work continued, for though the circle directly affected by Neoplatonism in its last stage was small, yet the influence exerted by the Athenian school was perhaps in the end more important than that of Neoplatonism at any other period of its history. Plotinus may have affected the development of Alexandrian theology; Julian fought nobly for the losing cause of paganism, but it was left to Boethius to store up for future generations the teaching of his more famous predecessors, and to keep the torch of philosophy alight through the dark ages that were to follow.