Nn Ls (ax ALEXANDRIAN PLATO: NIST AGAINST DUALISM. “Alezander of Tyoopolis! Treatise ‘Critique ofthe Doctrines of Manichaet TRANSLATED, WITH AN INTRODUCTION AND NOTES P. W. vaw pen Honsr J. Maxsrenn Tsrzopvenox « : 2 1. Alexander in Modern Scholarship; Tho Provost Translation 2, Alexander and Manichacian, 3. Alerander and the History of Neoplatoniam re O 4. Biblograghy of Alesundriana =... a “Camngoe ov mms Docmsss oF Masiouamve” 5. 2 PL. Tatrdnetion . 8 Christian Philoophy 48, — The Deeudones of Christian Philoropby 31. PL 2.Menlohaciam 7 2 ‘ani 88, — Synopas of Man's Dostines 82 Ph. 8. Refutation of Manishaci, 8 ‘The Irrational Character of Maal's Doetrinen 58. — The Two Prinesles of Mant (xp. hie Concept of Matte) criticized. 59. — Moni's Metter cannot bbe Random Motion 63. —Should 4 Third Prasiple be aeumed? 68. — Are he Prineiplea Carpoceal or Incorporal? 67. — What male Matter move in God T 63. — Matter not wholly Evil, God aot whally Good? 00, — What i the Status of the Diviae Power? 72. — Contradictions in Bisnis CConeaption of Heil 73. — Pleseure and Desire 78, — Le Moral Povgrest ‘posible 7B. —"Tho Statna ofthe (Fits!) Divine Power 80: — The (Pit) Divine Power in Relation to Matter 81.—The Status of the Seeand Pawor 88. — Contradictions in the Conception of the Second Power; Sun and Moon 84. — Objoetonssgalast Maa's Doctsne of Sun and Noon 86. — The (Origin of Man 88. — Christ ae Tatellect; The Crucifixion 91. — Msishseat -Ascetism 94, — "The Fire; The Destuotion of the Univers 95 Tae , 98B6AL AMIS. a 2 AN ALBXANDRIAN PLATONIS? AGAINST DUALISM Isropuction 1. Alezander in Modern Scholarship; The Present Translation ‘The anti-Manichaean treatise of Alexander of Lyoopolis has for o Jong time been neglected, The latest edition, by Brinkmann [2),* 1895, had a very limited circulation, and the only translation into a modern Ianguage, by Hawkins [I], 1868, was doomed to oblivion by its being published in a collection of miscellancous texts in a volume of the Ante- Nicene Christian Library. Ouly a very small part of the treatise, viz, Ch, IEIV containing Alexander's synopsis of Mani’s doctrines was printed in some recent anthologies of Gnostic and Manichaean texts.* ‘Therefore, in scholarly discussion the treatise as a whole hardly played fa part, Soaeder (6) and Reitzenstein (8,10,11] shazply debated the value of the treatise for the reconstruction of the so-called ‘Urform’ of the Manichaean system, but this discussion too was practically 1 ‘The mumbeze betwaen bracketa rfer to the bibliography (p. 47-48) 1 Big, the Oreck tot ip A. Adam, Pov aon Monichaivans, Tern 21060. 64.50, and trenton ia R Hardt, Die Gnosia,Weven wad Zougnisey, Salzburg 1967. 262-254, eis important to point out thes thees anthologies, following Brinkisnn's division of tho tons omit the wezence to Menishacen allgoviealintospretation ab the end of thls ction (p- 8,511 Br). See below, p- 88,210 Manichacan attempts to ee the allegorical Iothod ave aiid repeatedly, of. Below, p. 67 n. 209, p88 n, 212, p. 70:. 218, p. OB 388. 2 Schade ws ofthe opinion that Alexander weed an acsount of Mani wayatem wition by oas of Maia early popils, and that the Crook plllowphest terme wee in thot tecount originated with Baa hime (hat of below, p. 64 n.192,p. 65. 190), Reitzen fala, howerer, asserted that Alexarde’® goureo was a secondary inerpeatio Noo Dlolonoa f the Monichacan system and that, cascquently, Alexander is of no use for ‘ho sweonstruction ofthe orginal form of Man!'s doctrines, Harcder[9} supported Sebacder ‘The tenth appear to ls tomohece in between : Alexander lnew Manis doctrines from ‘holatte'senly followers and ots the dleassions in his own philosophic! mien (= below, pf n, 102) He gives «philosophically coloured, but reliable account of early ‘Moniohastom. ‘This dinagreement between Schacder and Roiteenstan was not an isolated cose. [Afir thie joint publication Studien swan aniken Syrkretiemns (1920) they broke with ee another became of growing differcios of epinio on the role of the Greek elements Sr tenlobacom, Professor Colpe, who wrote us very instructive letter (dated 20-6 1078) bout the buckground of the etssigement between these two solar, sys : “Det “Anphilloge Reitzenatein wolto gegen Bade aeles Leben ales ranch haben wad der AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISM 3 limited to Ch. ILIV. To the rest of the treatise, the philosophical refutation of Mani's doctrines, hardly any serious attention has ever been paid. Only the Italian scholar Riggi [19] recently tried to demon: strate on the basis of this refutation that Alexander was a erypto- Christian and not the heathen Platonist he has been generally held tobes ‘It is our purpose to bring to the notico of theologians and historians of ancient philosophy the whole treatise by publishing here an English translation that is based on the critical edition of Brinkmann [2]. Hawkins’ [1] translation is based on an obsolete edition of the text and also unreliable for other reasons. We hope to make the treatise ‘more accessible in this way until suok time as a new edition of the Greck ‘ext will appear.” Tait Sacer alos gxhich — prgcoligeh mus man das wohl Bet been lt sstewinet ger Denomination earn um ict fm enon fehlchn Geel Kins betngs a gen". Fombly to ntrpetain of Alea’ tetiee wo the firing yt thr egret {Feth(3) a0 tpn 1 Rabo 18 I sew snt ving, eee well senate io sty apna athe ight of City opin Ch, Ban Ch SVT p24 Bs Tel in ft, adaption fe ve hh at ben fff te in let cyt any Ptru an op of get Thi teen vy het fh was wm pnt Me's Peal Cae est) od ly tare enna atin wo pbs ene sin libry Te ice ented hy this iw wee ft BY A ier dle andras 108, RET, 1804, 1202, who gaye above on author “uss leanat mus dure eine Yonaye wad gece Seta Nps vr Mnyelo Slr, or ach Yor tn Sti 2onClcetom vata uh he” to um sent Yon Ohri™ W, Sohid =O. thn ke dr green Laer Uy Nano 14, itm Di laps th yew On th we olen tees sgn in Bekenntetn(2h anda Phar reise ed dine of alan Bn Frm Pen 1, Vee i 2a nto Lorre hl pod ert of Fomine Crores om nvinimem I, Pate 10% Baio pice, Wah We ha wena i ‘Paris 1867, 411-448). Brinktnann’s [2] hel ton. CeO. Bardreves Geode ain teeter 7H Prtog*189 (cp Dat 1), 10 oe tenses the pw eon aeotaned by Rly {181 wt ot be pb Regi hint wittn wine eter ded £20018 ne4 Ax ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST ACAINST DUALISM Departures from Brinkmann’s text havo, as @ rule, been indicated, We have tried to produce sensible rendering, though the Greek is often hard to understand, and the toxt occasionally corrupt or ine complete, To facilitate the perusal of the treatise, we have divided it, into three parts while chapter-headings have been added (see Table of Contents, above p. 1). ‘The interpretation ofa text of this nature presents special difficulties, since several disciplines are involved, oi. the study of Karly Christian ity, that of Manichaeism and that of the History of Greek Philosophy. Accordingly, our division of responsibilities has been the following. Parts 1 and 2 of this Introduction, “Alexander in Modem Scholar- ship” (including pt. 4, the Bibliography printed at p. 47-48) and “Alex ander and Manichacism”, were written by P. W. van der Horst, who moreover hopes to publish a separate study of Alexander's attitude towards Christianity in one of the future fascicles of this Journal. Further study of Alexander's importance as an early witness to Mani- ‘chavisin we leave for specialists in this field. Part 8 of the Introduction, “Alexander and the History of Neoplatonism”, was written by J. Mansfeld. ‘The translation of Brinkmann’ lext is tke result of our joint efforts, as are the departures from it and the suggested solutions to some of the difficulties it presents to the translator. Of the an- notations those coneeming questions related to the philosophical aspeats of Alexander's troatise were written by J. Mansfeld. Those concerning Early Christianity and Manichaeism are by P. W. van der Horst, who also wrote tho notes related to the philological problems which we tried to solve together. 2. Alexander and Manichacism ‘An estimation of the value of Alexander's treatise for Manichaean. studies we would, as alzeady said, prefer to leave to scholars more feompetent in this field. One thing is clear ; Alexander is an early ‘witness to Mani's influence in Bgypt, for it was some years before 300 A.D. that he went to war against the xaworoula (Ch. II, p. 416 Br) of Manichasisin.* But he presents only a bare outline of Manis rich “See Dibelive (14) 270, Goinkmann [2], pe NIIL IT dates the tention at the end of Ax AURXANDRIAN PLATONIGT AGAINST DUALESN 5 eosmogony and oteriology. In accordance with the tone and si Of the rest of his treatise he gives a vory concise report of the Mani Ghacan myth of the great combat between the two antagonistie prin- Giples, God and Maticr. It is clear, however, thot his knowledge of Manicbacism is not exhaustively presented in the short a¢count in (h, ILTY, for afterwards, in the refutation, he often gives additional jnformation concerning details of Manichaean doctrine.* In this myth the two principles, Light and Darkness (or God and Matter), originally separated, beeame involved in a eombat, The ““Us- mensch" (in Alexander, the “(First) Power” or Soul”), sent into this war by the Father of Light, is overwhelmed and taken captive. Thus particles of light get bound in the realm of darkness. Then God sends the “Living Spirit” (in Alexander, the “(Second) Power” or “Demi- urge”) to Bberate the Primal Man, and this Spirit creates the universe jin such a way that afterwards the “tertins legatus” (in Alexander, the “(Third) Power”) can accomplish the task of liberating the particles of light. The evil powors create the first human being after the image of this legate in order to imprison the light-substance in man. Next, Jesus is sent to man in order to bring him the gnosis. Such x. message had also been brought to other men by Abraham, Buddha, Zarathnstra and Paul; the last of this series, Mani, is the “Seal of the Prophets”. By an ascetic way of life the followers of Mani help to gather again ‘tho light-particles, and, when this process is completed, the cosmic drama will end with the conflagration of the universe. Then the total separation of Light and Darkness will have been re-established." {Be eink tery or the eganng ofthe fourth, Alesonder ays (Ch. Hy YEA Be) {Bet the new dotrine was ony vey seen (below, p 82, 18H bang to Resp by pupile of Mani himself He probably wrote his tretiae before the anti Ach $2 of th emporor Diocletian (207 AD). RAL Geant, Moniche and Chron én Mind end arly Fourth Cenuren, in x Ez Orbe Religion, Stulia Geo Wieagren Ulota, Leen 1972, T, 430-49, points out (48!) thet Maiehacan mieonorea wero So eae EVE Aeaty ofr the yor 26 bt in Tay, a fron we now, no Tore BAT CF ao P. Browns he Difaion of Manibi le Roman Empire in SN nd Soy in he A of Sink pene, Lande 187, 618, fh. AIL. p 18 1020; Ch, XY, p28, 8275 Ch. RVI, p88, 1s Ch. XVII, 2%, 8.115 Ch, XXII, p34, 89; Ch. XXIV, p. 4, 1821 Be ‘Execllent short accounts of the Manichacan ejatem may be found in og. Ht. P.6 AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISM Very interesting for etudents of Manichaeism is the fact that 0 carly witness as Alexander presents Mani as a Chistian Lereti, ‘This is now confiemed by the data of the ew Greek Mani-codex in Cologne. 3. Alexander and the History of Neoplatonism 1. The importance of Alexander's treatise is not limited to its being an early Greek source for the doctrines of Mani. Equally important is the fact that it argues against these doctrines, point by point, from 1 philosophical point of view. ‘Alexander's own philosophical position is that of a Platonist. He does not impress one as an original philosopher, but as 2 middling follower ot representative of a philosophical tzadition or school. Such. people must have been rather numerous at all times: itis only accidents or rathor the specific objective of his work which has rescued Alex: ander’s name from oblivion. The importance of his treatise for the history of Neoplatonism derives from its having survived at all. It affords a glimpse of what was Imown and taught in the philosophical citeles of Alexandria some years before 300 A.D. ‘The existence of a philosophical school or tradition at Alexandxia at this time is proved by the reference, p. 8, 14-5 Br., to those who studied philosophy with or together with Alexander (rwas_7d¥ weayodaxérow ‘uly é 7G $udooodei»). That we may consider Alex ander as a professional philosopher also follows from his remarks, in Pololaky, Manichaismes, RE Suppl. VI, 1985, 240-271, and, more up to date, in C Cole Manichdiames, Religion im Geschickte wad Gegenwart TV3 (1001), 714-722. 3 Be th report by A. Hensichs — 1. Koenen, Bin grichlscher Bani-Codes, Ze Popyr, Bpig. 8, 1070, 07-216, Christians and Gnostic were, to be true, repeatedly mized up by no-Chrlstions, eg. by the philophers Cellos (Orig. C. Cele. ¥, 615 ‘VE. 24 if) and Porphyry (¥. Plt, 16). Bat for Manichaelam che Chistian origin hos now been definitely proved by the new codex of Calogne Cf. Hensichs - Koenen, 0.6. 40 Mn wird. die chtitichen Elemente im Blanichtinus nicht mebe als sokund Zula des weolishen Manishaisesus abn duufon; so sandan an der Wiege der mani- chaiechen Ricoh, ... Do KiehenSterhatten von ihrem Stendpunkt ove vig recht ‘vonn ee den Mancha la cine helticho Hirose behanlten”. CF alt RN, Bey The Cologne Grack Coles about Moi, Ez Orbe Ray I, 324429. AN ALENANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISM 1 ch I, about the low scientific level of Christian philosophy and his somplaints, ia Ch. VI, about the unscientific charaoter of Manichavism: J interest in philosophy is more than casual. Moreover, the brief fand rather indirect way in which, as a rule, philosophical doctrines fae used or referred to reveals that he assumes his readers, among thom of course the fellow-philosophers converted to Manichaeism thowld be counted,%* to be philosophically educated people. ‘The polemical nature of the treatise has as one of its consequences ‘hat it is not easy to gauge where exactly, as a philosopher, Alexander himself may have stood. His method may be compared to that of allegorical interpretation: he tries to make sense of the Manichaean cosmelogioal myth and religious doctrines by so to speak translating these into Grock philosophical concepts. However, he only succeeds jin making nonsense of Manichaeism in this way — which, of course, is what he had set out to achieve. In theory at least, such a method permits him who uses it to adduoe ideas which he does not necessari suubsoribo to himselZ. However, certain points of doctrine are unmistak- ably Alexander's in the sense that he explicitly states them to be correct, while his acceptance of other points is entailed by the fact that he clearly takes them for granted. I have accordingly tried to look for such points. Though the polemical nature of the treatise makes itnot very easy to reconstruct a systematical picture so that a number cf lacunas and uncertainties romain, a rough impression of the philo- tophical viewpoint represented by Alexander can be pieced together. 2. Pracchter correctly says of Alexander: “dass er nicht Christ, onder Neuplatoniker war, geht aus dom Traktat doutlick hervo:". He also correctly compares him with Hierocles of Alexandria {about 400 A.D.): “vie Hicrokles,(lisst) er die priexistierende Materie fallen... Von fiber dem weltschaffenden (ott anzusetzenden Hypostason ist bai "Toran, Hla, LC ; lcs, Cam. rp I Mash, apn ta ts one's tte nto he deh nr abe date pow py me te Daj Ne eran fee ain ae ee src Tn fo that cota of hs Eppes hve ae nets ihn altar tive for wing he tai Snr mien pot 'nspired Plot, Br. I, 9, of. Harder[9}. . CE bw eT 200 a8 2 25, p. 95 m. 888.8 AN ALEXANDSIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISIL Alexander sowenig wie bei Hierokles die Rede”.#* Praechter argued that this peculiar view of matter is to be explained as being influenced by the Chuistian concept of cveatio ex nil which, as we shall see, is not correct. He does not refor to the affinity between Alexander ‘and the pagan Origen, Plotinns’ fellow-pupil in the sehool of Ammonius Saceas, who likewise rejected the assimption of a further hypostasis ‘above the domiurgic Intellect." Nor does he refer to the important links with Middle Platonist doctrines, esp. those of the so-called “School of Gaius”, which ace characteristic of some of Alexander's arguments, 2s follows from og. his diseussion of incorporeals and his doctrine of human responsibility. Furthermore, we shall find that in certain important respects, Alexander's position is indistinguishable from that of Plotinus andJor Porphyry, especially that of Porphyry, although chronology would perhaps make us expect the opposite. On the other hand, the hard core of his philosophy cannot be reconciled with that of Plotinus and/or Porphyry. This suggests that the resemblances may bbe explained on the basis of common inheritance. Unavoidably, wwe think of Ammonius Saccas. Theiler has reconstracted the latter's xystom hy eampating the Christian Origen, who studied with Ammo- nius Saceas, and Hierocles, and by adding that Porphyry, when- ever doviating from Plotinus, went back to the doctrines of Ammonius for which the lecture-notes of a cortain Theodotus were his chief sourer,1? Theiler tends to minimize the importance of the pagan Origen, and also tends to avoid the problem of Porphyry’s personal contribution to the doctrines attributed to Ammonius by Nemesius of Emesa, who uscd Porphyry’s Symmilta Zetemata. If Porphyry's Ammonius is the same as the Ammonius whose lectures, as Priscian ‘ells us, were preserved by this Theodotus? Nemesius eannot but have found his Ammoniana in Porphyry, since also Priseisn refers to 2+ [oy 644. (aon Seu KO. Waber, Origen der Nevpladonster, Manchen 1882, passim. 1 Ammanius end Porphyrioe (1060), rope in + Untersuchungen xr antihen Litera, ‘Becin 1970, 519% 5 Ammonia der Lever dea Origen (the Christian), i: Forchangen sem Neupladonlomus, Borin 1008, 1 3 Cf Thole, Porch, Newpl 37-28, [AN ALEXANDRIAN FLATONIST AGAINST DUALISM 9 ‘the lation’s Syrim. Zet3® Moreover, certsin of Hierocles’ expressions, fs we shall see, are reminiscent of the pagan Origen. However wal Ghoven Thoiler’s heuristic principle may be as to the reconstruction of Ammonis’ system, it has its hazards, for it Porphyry, who supposed- Iy went bak to Ammonius, i at the same time one of our important spurees of Ammoniana, the reasoning tends to be circular. ‘Theiler fdoos not discuss the sources of Hierocles, perhaps again because he rinimizes the importance of the pagan Origen, ‘The period between Ammonius Saceas and the pagan Origen on the one hand and the Alexandrion Platonists from about 400 A.D. on- ‘wanls on the other has always been considered as the dark period of ‘Alexandrian philosophy. Marroa conjectured that philosophy must have continued to bo taught in Alexandria.*! Alexwnder’s reference to his fellow-philosophers (above, p. 6) proves Marrow to be right. Moreover, Longinus in the preface to « book published about 265 A.D. mentions the pagan Origen, who at that time had not yet published his most important book, as an outstanding teacher of philosophy (ap. Porph., V. Plot, 19}. Hierocles expreasis verbis refers to “the followers” of the pagan Origen.*? Alexander's philosophical affinities ‘aro with both the pagan Origen and Hierocles. Hence, his treatise may be considered as the only non-missing link between these two Alexandrian philosophers, and as evidence of the continuity of an Alexandrian philosophical tradition. Tts importance for the history of Neoplatonic philosophy lies in its affording a 8ds yor 708 ord con- temporary to Plotinus and Poxphyry. Its philosophieal point of view isin certain important respects very close to the system of Ammonius Adniticd by ‘Thiler, Forsch. Newpl. 2; of H. Deere, Porphyriae’ ‘Sym Belenota’ Msohen 1950, 846, 100 CE eg A.C. yd, in: A. H. Armatcong (il), Phe Cambridge Hi line maton (el), Phe Cambie Bisory of Later Geek ad Barly Medial Phnophy, Cambie 100, 73-23 + "tho Platonls seek tas lok in oleate tine Pins we there lah 40" farron, Sysesiueof Cyrene and Alecandrian Noplatoniom, i: A. SMoulliane (24), The Conflict tenor Paganism on yin 2 te span nd Christi the dh Cet, Oxford 1963 (120 1), © CE, Theiler, Porach. Now. 38. S 4p. Phot, p. 400458-30 B., Mheriny xt ‘Opres nal rir és dnd 100 ee 1 Thor nat “Opeyte nad win 92 dad roves10 AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATOSIST AGAINST DUALISM Saooas as reconstructed by Theiler. A discussion of the problem of the reconstruction of the latter system must, however, be postponed until another oocasion. 3. Alexander is a Neoplatonist : he is familiar with a theory of hhypostatic origins which, to him, is the “true doctrine”.*4 Praechter already pointed out that this theory is remarkable in that no hypostases are assumed above the demiurgic God.* This ean be formulated more preciscly. Alexander’s supreme principle is not a totally transoendent One, asin Plotinus. Nor is it Plotinian One which has shed some of the marks distinguishing it from the other perfoot hypostases, as in Porphy= zy (Lam not only thinking of the faithful follower of Plotiqus who sprote the Starting-points toward the Inteligibles, but also of the original 1maotaphysician who endeavoured to reconeile the doctrine of Plotinug swith that of the Chaldaeon Oracles by identifying the Plotinian One with the Chaldwan ‘Fathor’ and by uniting Intellect with the Father before it produces itself out of the Ono)" Alexander's fist principle is called Novis, ie. Tntellect, and it is in relation to “that Intelleat™ (axcivov rév Nody, p. 10, 3-4 Br.) that all things are capable of coming into being hypostatically.*” He nowhere speaks of this Intellect as boing One or as being in whatever way united with a One, though it is without parts (ef. p. 24, 14 ff, Br.) simple (dod) and incorpo real (not gaqarucds), ef. p. 17, 8%, 24, 14 ff. Br. At p. 9, 21-10, 4 Bre he calls it God (Geés) and productive cause (r8 nourxér atrioy), Th is beyond being in so far as God is said to be n0 (rv énénewa odotass -p. 89, 18 Br.) and it is hard to arrive at a proper understanding of it (p. 17, 10-13 Br). Among its produets matter is to be counted, for which see below. Alexander whole-heartedly approves of the Christian 2p. 24, 189 Br 8 Myer xard re Ely8H SéEav dn aa Uebis heres 108 hod troardons city; p. 10, 3-4 Bra ey Saoorios Emeydien yinetan adira! sp Gecbow ry Nose 28 Ch hows, p78 1 Yor Porphyry e-called “Yeescoping ofthe hypostates” seo Lop 0,287 ff fot Porphyry asthe ialerpneter ofthe Chaldean Oracles 00D, Hadot,Porphyredt Viorinady 4 Pari 1965, exp. 06, 260, and Zo mitapyeigue de Porphyre in: Rats. Hardt XI, VandosusrenGentve 1960, 196.6, 142% 27 f, above, a. 24. AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIS? AGAINST DUALISH u doctrine *? in so far as it assumes that the productive eauso is the first 1d cause of all things (73 moijrixéy atroy rysedbrarov MBereas xal npeaBidraroy Kat mévrov atriov rv dvrwr, which exéreas Grorres dy dnoSéLawro, p. 8, 0-7 Br), ‘This conception of the first principle as an incorporeal, simple, divine, productive Tntellect which is beyond being and hard to know jaclose to the various conceptions of such Middle Platonists as Albinus, Maximus of Tyre, Celsus and Numenius.?* That the first principle is ‘he cause of all things can be paralleled from Plotinus and Porphyry, # svho however do not speals of it as Intellect. The theory of hypostases (ef, p. 24,19 Br.) is not Biddle Platonist, though the so-called “principle of undiminished giving” found in Numenius (whose words axe echoed by Alexander) and even earlier! may be considered as 8 precursor of principle an¢ Pees csctureron nouccs arene ad pcs pas Se See ep armenia Rese ee sso xxi ie, Sthuyzer, Plotinar, B78 4ub d. : Egat12 AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISM ‘the Neoplatonist concept of emanation, The closost parallel to Alox- ander is found among the meagre remains of the Neoplatonist: Origen, Plotimus’ fellow-pupil, who visited the latter ia Rome, and who published his principal work, Only the King i Demiurge, about 209 A.D2 (On pévos rans § Baotdets, Porph., Y. Plot. 3 = Orig, gt. 2 Weber). As this title shows, Origen held the demiurge to be the supreme principle. To Proclus’ dismay, he stated it to be Intellect (In Plat. theal. IL, 4, p. 89 £8. Portas = fit. 7 Weber). As W, Jaeger suggested, the book may have been critical of Plotinus; if so, it may have defended what its author believed was the authentic thought of Ammonius Steoas. This is also suggested by the fact that enother of the latter's pupils, Antoninus, likewise considered Intellect as the supreme principle.** Understandably, it has been said of the pagan Origen that he continues the traditions of Middle Platonism; ® Alex: ander's position is exactly similar, Tn this eonnection, the fact that he says that “in all fairness, no one will take exception” to the Christian view that the productive cause is the first principle ete, deserves special attention. Before he met Plotinus, Porphyry in his On Divine Tnager identified the deminegie Intellect with the king of the universe, ‘2 position which is not different from that of the pagan Origen.# In his equally pre-Plotinian Philosophy from Oracles he stated that the 8° Of Theiler, Moreh. Moupl $8 Vemesion von Emuze, Beclin 101, 65 LH. Ditviy Ammonioe der Leber Plone, Wenmes 88, 1980 (48 em Proc Is Tis, Typ. 154, 4 Dish 135 Bag. AH, Armstrong, in: Combr. Hit, 100; H, Dorci, in: Eatrot. Hawdt Vs 48, -rnos contention that this eoutitoss reaction against Ammonis Saccas donct fllo®- Ariasteony ibd, 198-200 suggest thot Pltinn theory ofthe One isan original develop: ‘ment which maybe was at fell to be much by Plotinus himself, which isnot very kel ole that at Ben. V(7}. 2, an carly treatie, Potinus awkwardly speaks of the aber of his enpreme prticiple, which not Intellect, in terms borrowed from Pat's eset tionofthedeminrge at Pim. 425, pdroror dyn aoro8 Hae, H. Dérte, “Y= doraeess Noch, Ak. Gott 1906 2, 7H. ‘8 CE W. Theiler, Farach, Nenpl, 258 o Die Chateaecken Oratel wd. Hynnen det ‘Syocson (1942), 66; P. dot, Cations de Porphgre chee Augustin, R. Ex. Ang. 1000; {200 ME), 214.218 and ns 3, who refers to H, Kemg, Chaldacon Oracle and Theergys L2 (aire 1956, For the text of TZ. dyaksiran so J. Bile, La Vie de Porphyrt, Gant 1018) -epe Hildeshcins 1968, *7 AY AUBNANDRIAN FLATONISE AGAINST DUALISM. 13 God of the Hebrews is the equivalent of the highest principle.*” In his Plotinian interprotation of the Chaldaean Oracles, however, he took ‘xcoption to this identifieation and said that the demiurge of the uni- arse (2dv ry Shww Snyciovpyss) equivalent to the God of the Hebrews je the second principle Alexander's words reveal that he either did not know Porphyry’s later (ve, Plotinisn) view or had sound doctrinal reasons for rejecting it, just as the pagan Origen may have rejected ‘the metaphysies of Plotinus. 4, We have already observed that, in Alexander, the divine In- tellect is also the cause of matter. It is worth our while to go into this question more closely. ‘Alexander defines matter by using a Middle Platonist formula :** matter, taken in itself and absolutely, is neither body nor something Aefinitely incorporcal” (Blws yap wal” airy per 4 Shy otre odd Carer otre dxpifiis dodiparér 1, p. 10, 19-20 Br)? His descriptions of matter as the undetermined X which receives the forms and the ‘qualities echo similar descriptions in the Middle Platonists.** There no evidence of any Middle Platonist’s having argued in favour of a de- ivation of matter from the first principle itself. Alesander, how- ever, admits that God may perhaps be conceived as being hoth active and passible, since in relation to that Intellect all things are capalile of coming into being hypostatically (Ch. VI, the beginning : matter should not be viewed as hoth active and passible, alihough it should not be forgotten that in relation to God ete., xairor ob Seoycvou rod Head apis 78 dmoreMopara Ohys, év droordees Swvauévuv mivtuy yiyrea- 2 ce tat te Bb Lavy. 780.45, 322 88; Hotes Tle, Fos Nop 258 ay 2 Ann, Did, 8p. 103,67 HL 4S tre nop By cn of donor, Bi Botna: Apu, De doom. Pat, p 81011 Thoms. nqeeerpream rqee sane Rerzrtm; Herons op Tut Ae lem. p S421 Was, oe opr BRE Morori Av eta Go, Zs Tip 1,10 W. Cea inthe (le Pisoni attest of Pat's doctrines, ppl, 1,1, 8p. 1040201 Wend Pi Bh Be roc grt ena keyg ype oon sl Mh ooclaPotow oxiyara nai xéryres yeolton eg : £2 Te fh tem in Aland ttn, hr ate tl, p22 ow, p58 185, pO 3, pS. 10 8, pT a OLiu AN ALBXANDRIAN PLATOMIST AGAINST DUALISM AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINS? DUALISHE 15 sxumenivs. The doctrine that matter is “born from the Futher” was dhe found in tho Chaldaenn Oracles (published during the reign of Marcus Aurelius) and approvingly cited by Porphyry. Tt is also found in the Christian apologist Tatian, Or, ad Grace, 8 (probably prished somewhat later than 170 A.D,),* who says that matter Fegenerated and produced by the deminrge of all things (yevqz) you Be ind rod Gv rdvrar Bnywopyod poBeBAqndn).*® Tt is fot a Middle Platonist doctrine. The only approximation to euch a ve activity of the first principle is found in Plutarch, Quaest. Gas npds exetvor rév Nod, p. 10, 2ff. Br). At p.24, 21 M2. Br. wo read that “God is the cause of all the other things” (besides soul) “whiek. come into being..., without being dependent on any pre-existent matter in any way” (rai av @\Mwy dndvrur rév yeroudeun alros eyéiee 10 olBty tye povrapyosons xpooBenfets). He also says that Manis positing of two independent principles would entail that “another mate ter will come into being for God” (ér¢épa ris Ty 70 ed tmoorhoeray p. 10, 9 Br). This is a far ery from Plato's theory in the Timaeus, followed by all Middle Platonists, according to which matter or rather “tho receptacle of becoming” is already there from eternity beforo the deminrge starts organizing it. There ean be no coming into being from what is not, or, in eg. Plutarch’s words, “the becoming is nob from non-being, but from what is neither good nor sufficient” (ob yap. bx 708 a} doros # yévects, AN ek Tod yh Kaas jaf8? tkavds Exovros, De an. procr. 1014 B). Ht will be recalled that Praechter spoke in this connexion of influence of the Christian doctrine of ereatio ex mihilo, and it perhaps be objected that Alexander is not explicit about the of matter. However, u eloser look reveals iat Alexander indoud ie a cretion of matter by God out of Himself, and that wo should distin guish this conception from that of ereatio ex niilo. ‘A derivation of matter from the first principle was first taught 1s fac as we know, in Pythagorean cizcles in the second cent. B wwe also find it in Eudorus (first cent. B.C) and Moderaius of Gad (first cent. A.D.).!* Such Pythagoreans were sharply criticized gonerat 42 ‘he derivetion of yale matter fom the one by “some Pythagorcens" i ejected by Numonive ap. Cale, In Tim, p. 297, 16298,8 Waatink = fgt 62, p. 95, 18M. des ‘Place, Sce further below, 1. 6, i fine. “Tyas, Mens, 17541, Wansch (worpoveey ne Typ) 3 Pornbyry’s approval ep. ‘Aeneas Gaza, Thoophr, p81 Boke CE Thee, Forck, Neuplat. V70130 (= Porphgrise teed Augutin (193) 1017) Se aio Or, Chad ft. 34, 1 dor Places, fer (fom the Coucce of sources” of “Father drafafana yeas coorouDou Uys. CE. also Lewy, AIS, The doetuiue of gonorsted matter iz alo found in the snoxsmous hymn x7 in the socond book of his Pil frow Or., Welll, Pah, Phil ex 8: ef. Lewy. oc. 70-80. 149, © Sco A. Elze, Tatian und seine Thelapie, Gbttingon 1060, 44, Hee, 06. 204. ae forset}y demonstrated Tatin’s dapendenes on Greek culewral traditions, He also uses bie dependence on Fltoniat and Stoie philasophy, 204F, 634, 886 Hie ‘omparison {ibd 64) between Tatisn’s God and Albinoe’ Fest Inlet i, howoven, incorrect (above, p11. 28); moreover, ATbinus Itallet ereate aither World. Sosl WCE, lso ih. 12, Lrjy Shy B8 adap Sd vod Boot apoBeBigudow. Ele, oa. 84 given ‘ho pores for thie cousepsion hoch in viw of bis thesis conerming Tasan's aspen ence on Greck philosophy he might have refered to ‘some’ Bythagoreane. That God (estes malier and doos co out of Himelf isnot in ustin, Hire, refines to Ibe . "etiz’s view as Gnoetie; onthe other hand A. Orbe, Eutndioe Valentinianay, 1, Remas 1853, 085. hos Tstian sympathize wth Volentings. ar in Valentina, matter ts not Meth ek an ete efter we ee of. alo J. Ratanger, Emavaton, RAC IV, 190, 12106), ft Plots out that Goth Just, Dial. 61 and Tatian, 05, innocently we i ofthe produ. Teagan eee is oge is abeady Ia Rome, se H. Die, Emotion, Zi wap Tite tim gatntiten Denker, Parsi (1194), 129), For Joti’ aad Soe eet o8 weinihed sving ot dependent on Philo ef. belo p 16m. 47 Anne be the cxf pagce in HJ. Kstmer, Der Uroprang der Oattmdaplgnt, we taanits 1004, 319.521, om the Neopythagoreon origin of the eonecpt of emsnation {oud ia Potinws and tho Gaosties; itd. $22 8.486 onthe early Apolegits, whom he "5 tobe influenced by the Stoe ae will The anonymous Pythogoreans of Alexander Polyhistor ap. Digg. Lat, VIII, 25 th6 ythegorcing Pstonst(ef. Thole, Unf. ont, Lit 488-489, 402.405) Eudoras ap. Simply Tw Phy, p, 181, 39-94 D, and Modsoatus of Gales ap. Porph. ap. Simp, thd. p.231, 5 D,, farther developing Plato's “unwritten doctrines” shoat the One ond the Taller tnfnate Dyed, derived matter, though no, it score, slvays eonsible matter, fom th One. CL hele, Unters ant, Lit 810, Forck, Neupl 25,4142, Liao. 253 fhy C.F dB Vogel, Pythagoras and Barly Puhogoroniem, Assen 1968, 207 Hf, and Phifowphi Te id. 1070, 3787. Ph, Merlan, Monismue end Duatismus bei eivigen Platonierm, i € Parasia, Feteohe, J. Hirachborges, Prnkfurt/M. 1065, 1454 bas chown in how i thoes tes Pytsgoresn could base themselves upon’ monietic tendencies in eacice Pythagoresaiom.16 AN ALRXANDBIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISN lat, 1001 BC, which, however, doos not concern matter but soul, ‘which is not a pioce of established doctrine but a topic of discussion. Dérrie has shown that Plutarch, when speaking of Giod as the “ong of whom” and “from whom” soul becomes rational World-Soul, the “out of whom", “in whom” and ‘towards whom” the cosmological process occurs — a conception which has its antecedents in « religious thought.‘ This Stoic ‘Prinzipienreihe’, by the way, may bg doth active and passible, Plutarch, Le, even says that the organiz World-Soul, qua organized, is part (uépos) of God. Albinus, on the oth hhond, represents tho orthodox tradition of Middle Platonism when contending that the first God has no parts(p. 105, 12 H.otre ds Bhoy Eyov rid yadpn).s We have alrearly noticed Numenius’ opposition to the ‘Pythagorea view. That three different conceptions about mattor were indedd discussed in the Middle Platonist schools of the second cent. is firmed by Hermogencs, the Christian horotie and follower ef the M Platoniets 4? who is criticized by Tertullian. Hermogenes distingnish three possibilities :* “God either made things out of Himself 48 This in veelooked by Dotrie ee next 1). 4, Derro, Pripsiionen wad Melephysié, MA. 26, 1960, 217 E. Potarch’s poi ny he compar to that of Palo, who onaldere matte as wngonerated, Dut who aa ‘ht the Logs ie prodzend by Goss eT, oc. 104105 n 8,100. Dori, 0. 2244 sexcilently pointed out that compared to Philo, Platarch is “nook im Stadivm Experimentieena”, Apparently, Pbil's conception ofthe origin of the Logos fnene Saatin, Dial, 6, where we also fin 4 fucther development of Philo’ formulation of “principle of wadimsniehed giving” (f abovo, p. 1m. la; oa thes points, dust {allowed by Tovian, Or. ad Grae. 5) “8 Albinas saleeoomt . 185, 1 Mf #. thet tho First Intlact “sited all things Dime” (arévines ira deed) ut first sight recalls Pratarch's euggestion, Albinus oaly discusses tho Fist Tneleot ia relation to the WorlSoul; i Abin do rot find th concept of emanation bat only that of éiarpady- Cl. J. Manse, Theta#h 1, 1072, 79. — Alhinun ejecta the Mla of a God having parts since the pat is pot 6) the whole (p. 165, 31-2 KE) of, Manuel, 9. 68 n. 2 “a CE. Je, Wasuioh, Obeeraatone on Tovtllon's Treatise Against Hermodes Vig, Chr, 8, 1965, 1206; Teralian, Mhe Treatise Againt Hermogencs, te. end ane J. 1, Wasting, Ancient Chastion Writers 24, London 1969, 3 # CE Weasia 1958, 105.106. AN ALEXANDEIAN PLATONISE AGAINST DUATISIC a ‘gut of nothing or out of something else” (doméwum de semetipso face cuncta au de rihilo aut de aliquo, Adv. Herm. p. 16,11 ff. Was- viok); this “something else” is matter. Hormogones rejected the first ‘pvo possibilities and, following Middle Platonist orthodoxy, accepted the third.#* His refutation of the first possibility, 0, that represented for us by the Chaldaeen Ovacles, Tatian ® and certain Pythagoreans, jg, as Waszink has pointed out, conducted by purely logical means :»* ‘hen creating things out of Himself, God would have parts eto. Compare ‘AThinus’ statement that God has no parts ‘The really important thing is that Hermogenes’ dialectical di explicitly distinguishes eroation “out of Himself” from ereatio ex nifilo (tho latter, a8 we have seen, is also rejected by e.g, Plutarch). Alexander at Ch, XVIII, p. 25, 16 ff. uses the familiar ontological argument that ‘ou nhat three posite and the prefered solution canbe pahlled fom Metho eof Olympae(d. $11 A.D}, Delid.arh.23,wbute he "fllowercf Valentin ting the cool om ata ase all hing devi fae God (, 8p. SD, § Bonweleh,& aati fra yer, lie eaten ib abd and another teen psncplnos to God elvan. I shuld he nate, boweves thot hen Ie nxt rejects the fist posiiity, we. orstion "out of incl, he doe so nat ao Henge, on purdylopeal gro, bt bees ofthe exience fei The essay eh on th ater ba, Hetogeor’ rata ir reeting th won pris, ry ie, Nin’ Vina reeds om Gol Hil Aor itana ent reatio nitil:hene, be pl forthe aseungtinn of 2 fomon suingina of gear it harassing in a purely Mill Patoit way (9. 194, 311 By dein Bree ral dexguariren aos ain, npr Bf roias wai Sriaras pony cao 6 3B 160. UB. deros seta Sx below, p 2 n 05 ood p89 835). Wemayay thes Method Valerian undergoes a puntos sntamorphis + afore being Pac tin, to har aealy besos «over oft de Phones, Hi lo ito tat ofthe thie person of cho dialogue, Method “eu 2 ¥ logue, Methane Tn Ch fthodies answer that the Valentinian’ diem ie ttditonal one and anounces hat ho wil state i mrtg TH state both his and the fond”. He himlf argues in favour of eratio ex Shop te Hol ech tat Morgen thinks epeiliy of Tut, ot mi lee] for of hic argument ndieats that be fle bck ona Mid Plato Moon ant Iesoul bead ta Fata, Ora Graig on iaporng Prag Pitt 81, who wld up msn of Pile, Dee 2) ba pen of the that Gages sa bing eerd paps, ob wank zone, while ibd 15 he se et composite. Hovever, ‘Tatinn docs not spesk of matter in terms af vo 91.03 nard doco ‘ agg xe droconfy. On Tatian'sdocene cf, Ble, oe 6, 718 AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALIS® gt ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISM 19 “it is impossible for any existing thing to perish into what is for what is not does not exist”.** He omits the other half of this viz, that what is cannot come to be from non-being (cf. the abow quotation from Plutarch) since his argument lc. is only coneerne with passing away, but cannot but have adhered to the thesis ag whole. This exchides ereatio ex nihil (Hermogenes’ second possibility Wo may conclude that Alexander, when speaking about a God who ‘maybe hoth aotive and passible and in relation to whom all hypos ‘come into being, bas indeed in mind a “creation out of Himself should be pointed out that at p. 7, 9 Br. it is said that Man's matter creates man “out of itself” (26 abrf), Le. acts as if it were God, Furthermore, at p. 24, 144f, Alexander explicitly rejects the it that the finst ‘Power’ (— soul) is a part (uépos) of God, for this wo ‘make God composite and eorporcal, snd it is exactly this notio of o ‘part’ of God which he contrasts, ibd. p. 24, 16 ff. with that the hypostatic origin of things while Cod ‘remains’ (rd & Bef tos roi bod Snoordvess elvis). ‘Accordingly, the theory of the hypostatic origin of soul and mat from Tntellect found in Alexander anowera the objections of Middle Platonists as had rejected the notion of a God having p ‘The introduction of the concept of hypostasos % permits choice than that made by Hermogenes, while the concept of “er out of Himself” is not the samo as that of ereatio ex nihilo, Tt is necessary to follow Theiler, who argues that the conception of mat created by a demiurgic first God which he attributes to Ammon Saccas was derived by the latter from the Chaldaeam Oracles.** Althougl this possibility cannot be excluded, also the other pazallels enumerated above should be taken into account, sagan doctine that matter isthe principle of evil and that not the Faest hint of @ possible connection of matter andl ovil isto be found fo tho whole troatise. In view of his theory of the origin af matter out arGod Himsel, this is understandable, 5, Alexander's views on matter cau be partly paralleled from Plotinus ‘and, expecially, Porphyry. The differences are, however, oqually im- portant. We shall also see that Alexander and Porphyry concur in so far a3 oortain differences from Middle Platonist doctrines are found in both. Ja Plotinus, we find two views of matter which cannot be easily reconciled, is. that of matter as the last of generated things and that of matter as evil. At Enn, TE 4 12}, 16, 25 matter is said to be wholly evil (rdvr9 eaxés). In the late treatise On the Origin of Evil, Ena, 18 [Sl] he states that matter is a negative principle; though not being in any way substantial, it ia a privation or absence of the good (18, 11; the viewpoint of II 4, 16 is similar). This complete ack (rarrehjs eWesfis) of the good is the absolule evil since it has no part of the good whatsoever (f Dy. 13 wavvehda mune poDejclian Eyue dyed potpav I 8, 5, -14).* In one of his earliest treatises, on the other and, he formulates a dilemma which leaves open the possibility that matior is the final term in the process of transcendental eavsation; Be thio vexy reason, it must share in tho good (Brn. 1V 8 (6,0). At mare pers BTS Seal crotes around it » eile of derinoe jn iit mote positive viow of matter appears to be more prominent Tau Gator treatises, Tt should be noticed that in thoso trentses, Pon a todet ofthe ist principe but of «lower hypestasis7 inter tne sting tendency to conser matter as evil ix taal naaty the views of How Middle Patonsts who conneted evil(wo know that he continued to lecture on Numenius), Cf elow, 9. 82 n 398 ——— 5» Cf below, p. 86 u 20, p. 80 n. 98a, p. 91m. 97 52% That God ig without pats isan importaat doctrine for Alosanes of. Below, 1.1083 Soe CF the dnilae arguments of Dori, Emanation 148, who however only dl ‘Neeplatoniathypostate a compared to Gnostic emanation. 1 Foyach, Neapl 8, 41-42, See P. Henry. in 7 ave Sion od. Harder Be GSE Mater, Foret Pong Pe a 28.953, Wnteet. Halt Vy 247; of also Armstrong, oc 257; Plains tle - Theiler, VE, Hanbur 1971, 15% Newpl. 24,‘ay ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISM 21 20 S ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISM fhe Christian view) goes back to Ammonine Saccas.© Bek je any ease, remarkably similar to that of Alesaudes, who, oa dhe other hand, is significantly differont from Porphyry in adopting the Middle Platonist definition of matter as neither coxporeal not incoxpore- while Porphyry, following Plotinus(e.g. Enn, U1 4[12} 9. 4-5) stated io be incorporcal (dowuarov, ap. Philop., De aet, mud. p. 547, 10 Robe), Aloxander also differs from Porphyry in that, as we have al- rend noticed, he does not connect matter and evil. “Another close parallel between Aloxander’s and Porphy ceptions of master consists in their rejection of the random motion af ‘matter. Alexander at length refutes what he says is Mani's definition of matter, sc. “random motion” (éraxros. sionows, p. 5, 8; 10, 5; 26, 1 Br). Now Plato, Tim. 30 a, had said that the demiurge took over and onganized “all that was visible, which was not at rest, but moving in confusion and at random” (név dsov jv épardv ... ody How xlav dyov AMA worjteror mhyjupehds ak dricras), while at Tim. 53 he had spoken of the ‘traces’ (‘yrn) of the elements contained inthe randomly moving receptacle, Notwithstanding such authoritative parullols, Alexanvier oven riclienlos Moni's definition. This is all tho more significant since this random motion of matter is found in all Middle Platonists.«© A possible reason for Aloxander’s tacit rejection of the Middlo Platonist view is the fact that, with the important exception of Albinus, most Middle Platonists associated the random. ‘motion of matter with its being evil, or with the evil soul ombedded Inmatter: we may refer to Plutarch, Atticus and Nuauenias.9” Alexender’s sofutation of Mani's definition starts with the argument though it should be stressed that unlike these he does not 6 ‘matter as an independent principle. His ea with the Christian ereatio ex nfhilo. Tt is not exactly the “out of self”-doctrine deveribed above either, for Plotinus’ first pring {and also his second) is only related to what is immediately belo ‘We may considor it as some sort of refinement of the “out of Hims doctrine The discrepancies in Plotinus’ conceptions of matter may help explain why Porphyry, who doseribes matter as a principle of (Sent, 30, 2, p. 16, 6-7 Mommert eaxot # Tq) and as absolnte sharply from @ p.8, 2M; Menfes ravrds roi Svros, p. 8, 7-8 ML). also adh a far more positive view. In his Commentary on the Timaecus ® Porpl argued against euch Middle Platonists as Atticus, who posited a phi ity of principles, ei2., God, matter {and ideas), He distinguished Father from the demiurge by having the former produes “the wh cout of himself” (f° cavrod year 76 dior, ap. Proch, In Ta p. 300, 1ff. Diehl) and having the latter receive matter from som thet He euduined Ube ductsine of the Ohukdaean Oractes that is “bom from the Father”.*? Consequently is the “out of Tlimself”-doctrine discussed above. Theiler assumes Porpliyry’s view of created matter (which Theiler does not dist 8 Cf AH, Wenn, peeiee (Clos Fs Tiny Landoa-Laiden 1802, p. CHET Porgl Ame 68-0 (© Publ aftr the death of Amollus (eR. Beutler, Porpiyria, RE NXT, 281) is a tine whon Porplyny al definitively boeome a Sllowor of Plotaus A Js, the numer Middle Potonkt clemeuts ia Celeiins whieh are probsbly fous Poephyes's Commentary (on Porphyry as Cali p LXAIN tf, NC#E and J. don Boo? Cabiive on Pet Hie Doctrine oid 5 Leiden 1970} shoud be acvonntd for by Porphyy'«dexographie eal J.C. ML xa ‘en, in the “supplements notes” table Calinx on Mauer, Hs Devine and (Usiden 158), Hd, 1965, 248 fF, though admitting thet Porphyry Je often Oak score, explins cortaln Mite Pltonitelomunts a Calis by referring to Port pre-Plosiian posi in view of the date of the Commentary, woweres, o refer 8 Forsch, Nou. 40 $f shore, p. 19 and ibd. n. 38, she en sos: eg. Albus, Dida. pe 167, W18 Hes ib, 169, 4.5 1, whore Meet Sementioned; Attions, ap, Proc! Zn Tim. p. 265.27; 981, 275304, 37 Dt 1 Fe da dos Places = Bunch, PB XV, 819, mater Grea, 1888 dracon Tegmte ft 82 des Pinos = Cala, Ia Tim. p. 290,18 W, taconite fnsteet mith De Lei. $098.$718, De un. procr. IISC; Aton, op. Prot, Ze Tn Lp. 20, 10,53 eo 3,10, 7 DN 2 ‘ a 81,27 D.; Numenus, fg, 2 dea Phiees Nunes isnot wholly cone Porpbyey’sdonogrplie habia Po CE Tiller, Farah, Neopl [7180 (= Porgh Aug. MAT who sho a Bog ggg He (28 19) bk ho md wth th i Wt cer prune gant by Diol Beat Benoit roves at random (300, 12-13 W) cf Wasi, Porph #2 CL above, p. 15 0 $4,2 AN ALENANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALI AN ALEXANDRIAN FLATONIST AGAINST DUALISIE 23 to the irregular motion of the Manichaean First ‘Power! = Soul embedded in matter (ivupthws s’peoBat, p. 6, 17 ff. Br.) may betray that bis arguments derive from a refutation of some of the Middle Piatonist views mentioned above. ‘To sum up : Alexander's views on generatet| matter are somewhat similar to those of the younger Plotinus, and atrikingly similar to those of Porphyry. He is, however, more consistent than either of these jn absolutely refusing to consider matter as evil. ‘This is not accidental ‘asa matter of Jact, that matter eannot be evil since it is generated by ‘that matter cannot be motion, sinee motion is inseparable from moving object © and objects presuppose matter which has b informed * (Ch. VI, p. 10, 23 ff, Br.) As soon as fire ete. ean be spa Of, shape has been given to matter; in that ease, says Alexander, “4 is it possible for matter to be the random motion of the elements (nas of dare raiv aroryein 4 dreveros xlomors # Oy, p- 10, 25g Br). This is obviously zeminiscent of the ‘traces’ of the elements moving about in Plato’s receptacle, To this it should be added 4 Alexander's Middle Platonist definition of matter contains an additig element which I now quote for the first timo : matter is not “s conere God is one of his chiof arguments against the Manichacans, who te individual object cithor” (oiire dvds 168e 74° p. 10, 20 Br) considered matter as an evil, autonomous principle. His definition ‘of matter differs from that of Plotinus and Porphyry iu being largely a Middle Platonist one, Though the possibility of Porphyrian influences pon Alexander's couception cannot be excluded @ priori, such an ‘concrete object, hence cannot be motion. influence does not explain the differences. Hence, one is tempted to ‘Now Porphyry, in a rather forced interpretation of Plato's formulate an ‘Arbeitssata’ in the manner of Theiler: whenever Porphyry took exception to the conception of matter as suggested at Tim. 8 and Alexander differ from Plotinns and at the same time agree with one another, @ common dependence on Ammonius Saccas should be to above. He argued thot Plato's formala “all that is visible” entail seriously pondered. ie., not a compositum of matter and form, This connects up well Alexander's statement that motion is inseparable from moving abjee and that: moving objects presuppose informed matter : matter is m 6. Another argument, at least at first sight, in favour of a possible influence of Porphyry is Alexander's use of the theory of the proper Places of the elements and of natural and unnatural motion in order to refute Mani’s thesis that matter (the ‘below’) went upwards towards the abode of God and did so of its own accord (Ch. VIII, p. 13, 20-14, 12. Br}, This theory of place and motion, first suggested by Plato as being in motion. See Philoponus, De act. mund. p. 546, 8-041, R,, from which I quota : “Porphyry... says that it is not matter whi together with the traces, moves in confusion and at: random, but th here you have already the bodies composed of matter and form (5 yoo TE... 08 civ Dqy dna perd rev your 75 ayepeds arderas mvotjevov, ... adi td By ef Glys wai eTBous ender cdyara). The conceptual parallel with Alexander is striking indas On the other hand, Alexander devotes a soparate argument to: refutation not so much of matter as motion, but as random mo see Ch, VIL, p. 11, 10-12, 24 Br.7 Furthermore, his casual refer bp 98,18 Do, Alone ayn tat “those who hae ter wis abot them” ta the Pons tnd matter to either assy nese hat wach crn lati th af cng sla p18, 2122; 2,8 Br. Tt woul flow tot Alesander, ‘rag Mina rcteing the later, ao xpath eiinacy of the fre stn, Hn. 188 10 mea of argue lye a favor of tho on esteee imac, for whe Harder «Bouter « Thllr refer to Art's Inereation Fate recep alo Perky reltees to toon sore p20 il 195100 ght in pointing ot that ia Arte and eg Numenun ter a opposed {2 og ut goes oof in anining tha hi pin tht wae coneere one ‘etn Cleon, om, 8 6-0 angus that late hd defied tute wy ch MY have boen deduced from such statements of Avltotle as ore quoted by Lilla. © Originally, an Aratotlian doctsine; ef, below, p. 62-288. 8 CE Aristotle, Ply. Hf, 1: gion asthe prneple of motion is inherent in phyB things end living beng, Aristotelian terminology, of below, p- 627,320. 19 CE alo Cale, In Tim. p. 803, 17. W. and Wastiak ad GE below, . 63 n. 230, p- 65, 248, n, 200.a AN ALEXANDREAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISO in the Timacts * and developed into a full-grown theory by Aristotlea ‘was incorporated into the Stoic systom.7 Tt is found in a number suuthors, for instance in Philo, who in his On the Bternity of the Waiver used (or used a book which used) Aristotle’s lost work On Philosophy, in Cicero who perhaps derives from Posidonius,7* and in may) others both before and after Alexander.?? ‘We happen to know that Porphyry argued against the Christi doctrine of the resurrection of the body by means of the theory of th proper places of the elements (dgainst the Christians ft. 35 Harnack) Tt has been argued * that the anonymous author, quoted by Ane qustine,* of an argument agoinst the resurrection of the body which not only uses the theory of proper place and natural motion but is, to its details, elosely parallel to the parallel accounts in Philo Gieora,* is no one but Porphyry + Ausustine may have been as an anonymons compilation partly based upon the Ayainst the Christie 2 Tia. fe, 81b, Soe alan below, p. G4 n Beg. Coe, 76x28 fF, 10616 A; Pye. WEA, 208b10.20, 4814.16. Te ae duel by Theoprastos, of Sons 88 (Dat, p, 326 8 Dil) and ap, Wil, De ad 135.136, evo, SVP T, 895 Chrscipnee, SPF I, 27. See slao Diog. Latet, VIL 18 STF I, 680; At. Pe. 1. 12,4 (Dox. p. $11, 8A Dy q ™ Dead, wand. 28-94 — I, loos et. 19 Rees ef. so bel, 116, Son B- Ey ar Theol mid Rosmolgie der Avital Script Uber di Piles XD 1, 97,109; 1,48, 15-16, 18. 2, Reishasat, Poacianas, KE XXTT, 1953, 056 An eatesive lit given ly AS, Pour fn he note on in, NDT, 7,108 (ra Tp Cambridge Ma, 1955, 245) A important reference ia Patch, De fac §H 9 28a, who ars at length agains the Ste ehoor’ of atu plts witont, ower completly reeting i. lun De pri. frig 921). Soo Efe, 188 and Hh, Cs reanns, nt om Patra Dit Defi, eer 100,91 av. Hsnnack, Porpyraa "Sogn te loiter”, Ab Pros. Ak, 1816 1 (Ber 1s, 6102 ay J Ropin, Titi eanequeethsopieehréenns Pala 1964, 28-481 Pit eine ty a eagzeton of P Cure C8. Charlo, Late Latin Writes and bir Greek Sours, Cambridge Ba. 1808 185 9,176, 21021 rs #9 ects. Det XI 6; NUL, 11; Gens it TE 1 1,8 Blin, 0.428 Hn. 3. AN AUEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISO 2 qs? Thus, a parallel between Alexander's argument against the josurroetion of matter against God and Porphyry’s argument against the resurrection of the body eannot be denied. In view of the fact that the theory of proper place and natural motion is a common-place one, however, this parallel does not prove that Alexander depends upon Porphyry. To this it must be added that the argument against Zeno’s doctrine of fire * which he quotes in Ch, XIV recalls the similar anti- Stoic views adduced by Philo in the above-mentioned treatise. 17, Praechter’s comparison between Alexander and Hierocles of ‘Alexandria has been quoted ahove.s? Hierocles studied with the Neoplatonist Plutorch of Athens, who died, at a very advanced age, in 431 or 492 A.D. Plutarch of Athens, interpreting the Parmenides of Plato, held that the first three hypostases are God — the One, Intelleot and Soul (Beds = &, vods, Yuyr, Procl. In Parm. VI, 27-80, p. 1058, 21%. Cousin).** Hierocles, on the other hand, as appears from tho extracts and abstracts of his On Providence and Euman Iiberty found in Photine’ Library argued against: those Platonisis who had not preserved a proper notion of the deniiurgic God (p. 460b 25.25 Bekker, from the beginning of the work). He held that the supreme principle is a domiurgio Intellect,** of, p. 462b 18-19 B. “Intellect, being the leader of all, God the cause of the universe o(r09 za advraw ‘iyouérou wai OcoG rav Shuv Gvros airfou), p. 461, 18-21 B., “the God and Father who is their maker is king of all, and this fatherly Kingship of his is providence” (mdvraw &€ faaedew rév romyriy airdy Bebv nai warépa, xal raiiryy iv narpovojuxiyy Baothelay abrot apSvowaw). The same view is found in his Commentary on the Golden Verses of the Pythagoreans, where he speaks of the “demiurgic Tntellect ‘and divine Will which eternally produces all things and overlastingly reserves them, and the lawful order deriving from the Father of the ‘Universe and demiurge” (3. Snjuoupyenés vods wal Geta Bovdyans # 8 Dd. a0 3 CE below, p74, 204 and 285, ” 5.78 2GE Beatle, Petarch oon Alten, RE NXT, 51, 070.071, CE Theiler, Borech, Mevplat. 10,26 AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISA AiBlas mpodyoucn ri wdvra wat eis del Braceitoura, réfis 62 Braue 4 ded 708 warps trav Sav xai Syacovpyod, p. 28, 12-15 M ‘The echoes of the title of the pagan Origen’s Only the King is De are obvious. Hierocles’ view of the relation between God and m also parallels that of Alexander, ef. ap. Phot, p. 46166 ff. B., “God, . the demiurge, ... is Lord of the whole visible and invisible orda arrangement of the universe, which eame to be out of no prior suba tum whatsoever; for his Will suffices as to the hypostasis of thin Ludavois re at dpavots Staroojsjacos, ex wnBevds Tpodmoneyicva yeyernuérns: dpxedy yap 78 éxelvou Rona els tréoramey rip Srro). Even the notion that God's will is @ sufficient om ‘of hypostasis can be paralleled in Alexander, who says, p. 24, 16 Br,, that according to the true doctrine God would have made Deeause ho wanted to do so (ry Sivazu radirqy éroinoer Bou’ 6 Beds). We need no longer follow Pracchter * by assuming Hierocles’ views are influenced by Christian conceptions, separate principle of evil (Zn Carm, Aur, p. 71, 11 ML, xab obBév kaxdv dpxs, ore érumoxeysiins ofre Huber xr.) ‘The conception of a demiurgic Intellect causing matter is not fou © Cf. F, Heinemann, doxmonioe Saline wn die Ureprang der newplatoniachen H tovenehre Heras O1, 1020, 19; Dodds, Nar. and Are. 28. CL ako Thilo, Fork. Newptat. 28, who however alducs parla which do a refer to the asative will of God, bat to Go's wll as cause of structure; Lilla, 0 tuduces the Christian Paotacaus ap. Clan fet. 48 S16hlln. An early pralel for creative will of God iz found in Hine 11 of ehe anonymous hyn mentioned abovs, PTS 1.4, Soe aso Movderatue of Gades, ap. Simpl, Jn Pigs p. 251, 6 D- Pox hy naias Mayes i rhe yc A kavro8 in Beran asorfoneb oh Hat, Porph 131, (9), passim, © OL Pracehtes 0.6 1-19; Theiler, Porch. Tapa. 2, rho supposes tha ‘Saccae argued ogainst Gnostce such ax Marcon ( would be fosinating bo eo ‘Alexander's anti Masishasins with Amimonius ausumed ant-Gnosticlm, but eit be pustued hero of. however below, p. 60m, 205). Pachter tc, who had also ds Alexander, auggestl that Hieroles’ view too may be anti Manichseans eto Hiersles presumed anti-Msnichaeantem has become 0 certainty for Couresll, atin Writers 320-321 AN ALEANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISM ar ‘plutarch of Athens or in his pupils Syziaaus and Proclus. Tt has heen inted out (by E. Evrard) * that these other pupils of Plutarch Eynificantly differ from their master in being largely influenced by Tenlichus.®> Evrard explains this difference by refering to the jnfluences of the milieux where these two etudied before following Phutarch's lectures.* A similar independence on Hierocles’ partis fully nderstandable; we may assume that he remained true to the traditions of his native town. This would explain his similarities with the pagan Origen and with Alexander as well as his differences from Porphyry ‘aud later Athonien Neoplatonism, Since certain of his most significant Similarities with Alexander (and the pagan Origen) are precisely those points of view in respect of which Hierocles, Alexander and Origen differ from Porphyry, we may again think of Ammonius Saceas as a possible common source, The points of difference can be traced to Plotinus, which makes those points on which Porphyry differs from PPlotinns and agrees with Alexander and Origen even more significant, Tt should be added that, in Hierocles’ view, Ammonius Saccas is tho key figure in the history of Platonism.+ 8, The theory of incorporeals and the relation of incorporeals to bodies found in’ Alexander is not that of Plotinus and Porphyry. At Ch, VILL, p. 13, 10-14, 17 Br. Aloxander asks if Mani’s two uk timate principles, God and matter, are to be considered as (2) both ‘nvorporeal (dssya7a), (b) the one corporeal, the other incorpoveal or (©) both corporeal (oxipara), and triumphantly shows that neither of hese assumptions fits the Manichaean doctrine of the arrival of aiter in the house of God (of. p. 5, 16 Br). As to the first possibility, Alexander points out that “when both Are ineorporeal, neither one can be in the other 4 — except pethaps in the manner of grammatical knowledge being in the soul” (et cv yap % te ato de Parte toe ob gins du Mla Aine, Ant ‘Class. 28, 1960 (108 ff, 301 ff " me * 0. Sor Os aa 2 Ap. Ro, pa 840; hgh. B + Ctl, p.m 308,28 AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISM AN ALDXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISM 29 dadpara éxdrepn, obStrepor év aiterdéoy, hiv et pe} Ss ypq peru &v soy}, p. 13, 11-14 Br). Tn respect of ultimate principles, Rowever, such a suggestion would be absurd, Nor ean the one be j the other as in a void," since the essence of the void is nothingness (5 wiSeo, p. 18, 17 Br), ic. Mani would contradict himself by deprive §ng one of his ultimate principles from being. Nor, Alexander gbes om, can they be in ono another in the manner of attributes (ouppePnndea, P- 18, 17 Br), for when both are of an attributive nature they can he. nowhere at all : when bereft of substance (ateia), attributes cannok. be anywhere at all, since “substance is a kind of vehicle supporting the attributes” (Syqya yép Saxep coriy tmoBeBiyscvor rots comer Prxdoer # oboia).t** Howover if we assume that the one is corporeal, the other incorporeal, then, Alexander says, “if the one” (sc. the cue. considered incorporesi) ‘‘is minglod with the other, it chould bOeRea soul or intellect or attribute. For itis only in this way that ineoxpoxeahs are capable of mingling with bodies” (ed 8 wduerae rd Erepov 7 Exdpe, i uxt vos ooBePryxds dv ein -obres yap psvor rd deebpara ros oxdaot wépcort wiyrusbas, p. 14, 15-18 Br), Plotinus expressis rerbis says that it is a novelty #° and so to speak apologizes for bringing it up at all (et yor) mpd Sdfav raw Ee colons 76 heyépevor Acyew aagcarepov, Enn, IV 8, [6], 8, 1-2). It Ghoul be emphasized that soul, while being in Intellect, yet remains soul, This distinguishes Plotinus’ view from that of Numenius, fgt 42 dos Places (= Iambl. ap. Stob. I, p. 458, 3-4 Wachsmuth-Hense), according to which the human soul is absorbed by its origins after doa, while smother view atéributed to Numenius by Tamblichus, that of the presence of the intelligibles in soul (fgt. 41 des Places = ap.Stob. I, p.305, 5-21 W.-H.) is the opposite of Plotinus’ novel view = in that the latter speaks of the presence of the lower in the higher, not of the higher in the lower.!? Iamblichus correctly says that Plotinus does not agree with Numenins all the way. He also says that Porphyry did not make up bis mind about this question and that he sometimes ‘explicitly disagreed with Numenins, and at other times accepted his view as being the traditional one (rapaBofecoy dva®ev), Since Tam- blichus is not more explicit, itis difficult to exactly interpret his remark about Porphyry. We know, however, that Porphyry followed Plotinus in hia Syma. Zet% to the extent of otating that intelligibles — in corporeals are either within themselves or in the inteligibles which are above them, o,f, tou is in itself when ratiocinating, in Intellect when intelligizing (ap. Nemes., De nat. hom. 3, p. 135, 6 ff. M. voyrd Yap rea dv voqreis wal rérois dort, H yap ev éavrots % ev rots Snxcpresidvors vonrots. abs 4 yu) ore pau dv daved doer, bre doyi- Grae, mor’ 88 ev 7H vG, Srav vof cf. also Sent. 16, p. 5, 7 M). Porphyry accepted Plotinus’ viow that embodied soul can be in Intellect however, his words do not permit us to conclude that like Plotinus he believed some part of soul to be always in Intellect in an unconscious ‘way, though this possibility cannot be altogether excluded. Anyhow, 9. I shall first concentrate upon Alexander's apodictic denial of the: possibility for an ineorporeal to be in another incorporeal. The position: of Plotinas and Porphyry is the exact opposite Plotinus held that no soul, not even the embodied human soul, is en= tirely within the sensible sphere, ut that on the eontrary soul to some extent always remains in the rogion of tho intelligible, ‘This is Bit so-called theory of the unconsciows,** expressed in ternts of the presen of the lower hypostasis in the higher. Cf. Enn. IV 8 [6], 8, 3, Zore aiiris év 7@ vonré det and ibd. 7, 2; of. also ibd. IV 7 [2], 9-10, where he speaks of soul as being both in itself and above itself. The ever lasting presence, to some extent, of soul in Intellect of course provides | ‘the ontological foundation for Plotinus’ theory of ekstasis, of Ente 1V 7 [3], 10, 91-32 anc 40, ibd. 12, 7-8, OF this theory of the tmeonsei “OF H. Din, Pop. $2108 108 8 ata ar: nL ali te Pas 15 A629 Pia gat he prs he higher ystos in ouvn,Zan YAO) 1039 ess sion Sneemaptne sie n eomoog. Hane Zens whol apie ithe Haden, Perph Pi I 96 an tert mea qc ben 2 "Ct Dies indametlepeitn Ppl 89-0 4 Ch. below, p. 67 n. 200 10 CE below, p. Fm. 122, p. GO 5, 3 89 CL Ph, Merlan, Mysticiom Monopeyhism Melaconsiousncs, Den Haag 186% 18 and the references ibd, m230 AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATOMIST AGAINST DUALISIE his exposition in Oa the Way in which Embryos are Ensoulea, 12, p, 10ff, Kalbfleisch has it that Intellect only enters the embodied soul af later age, and from outside, just as the leading soul enters the body at the moment of birth. Perhaps Tamblichus has this passage in mind when speaking of Porphyry’s adheronce to the traditional view, Porphyry Lo, refers to Plato and to Aristotle's nods which enters outside. Darrie has rightly argued that this conception of soul in Intel is unique, and typical of Plotinus and Porphyry. Significant Theiler’s attempts to find parallels in Hierocles and the Christ Origen 1° cannot be considered successful ; in Hierocles, there is m parallel for the prosence of intelligibles in other intelligibles, while the only perallel in the Chistian Origen which at first sight lool acceptable (De ovat, p. 819, 4 ff. Koetschau) deals not with the presen of the embodied inteligizing soul in Intellect but is about the mystic ‘union ‘” of praying soul and Spirit. It should also he noticed that the theory about incorporeals attributed to Ammonius Saccas by Poxph ry ap. Nemes. p. 129, 9 ff. is given as Ammonius’ solution to soul-berly problem, and contrasts inteligibles with those entities which are fit to receive them in a manner which suggests that the rece entities are not themselves intelligibles. ‘This makes Alexande denial of the presence of one incorporeal in another all the more i portant. It even has a polemical ving, as if inspired by a critique Plotimus’ innovation, and may owe its formulation to the book of sure that it was not held by Ammonius Saccas or any of the lat 108 Cf. Hot, Porph Vit , 188, who mages the influence of Alexander Apheodisias. However, he does not distinguish sharply enongh between the especti conceptions of Potinss and Pomphsry, — Seo also bel, p. 2.05 m. 880, 381, 382. 108 Porph, SH 68 fF, 196, Cf. the review by Armstrong, CLR. 10, 1960, 20-221. 96 Porch, Neuph 38:31. ‘7 For Origo's myatolm of. oJ, Quaston, Patroogy, 2, Uteetit ete. 1953, 108 GE, Dorrie, Porph. BE 65, Theiler, Poach. Newpl 86 4, Unter ant. Zit. 6 sovepte the whole passage in Needus ge pure Ammonive, but T thik Doei's ‘eutiogs view (oe which ef. slo won, 430) i t be preferred. 00 CE above 9. p 1 AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISM 31 ‘other pupils. It is, as we have seen, also an innovation compared with the idoas of Numenins. I would like to suggest that a theory comparable to Alexander's axiom may have been held by Ammonius Saccas; jt would in any case havo agrocd very well with the system of a reality jn compartments (“Schottensystem")" reconstructed for the latter by Theiler FHowever this may be, the difference between the refined theory of the presence of one incorporeal in another represented by Plotinus and Porphyry and the categoric denial of the possibility of such a presenco hy Alexander is of eracial significance ‘Also significant is Alexander's exception, vi, that of grammatical knowledge being in the soul. Both Peripatetics and Middle Platonists held soul to be an incorporeal.'" They defended this conception against the Stoies by criticizing the Stoie theory that the soul is like a quality (roxérqs) in being a body which as such is capable of total mixture (xpiews 6'éhov, pigs) with another body. Alexander's exception reals the Stoio idea that knowledge is a certain state, or being qus- lified, of the leading part of the soul, ie, a body mingled with another body.t## A Platonict eannot but consider knowledge oa incorporeal, but he is prepared to admit the presence of such an ineorporeal in the inoorporeal soul, Tt is the doctrine of o.g. Albinus that soul, which has Jmowledge of all things, should contain all things, ic. hoth intelligibles and (strangely, for the soul is an incorporeal, Didase. 25, p. 177, 19 HL.) sensibles, toe Didase. 14, p. 169, 16 ff. H.4¢ Alexander theorizes on the saute level as such Middle Platonists. Note, however, that his concep- tion appears to be a more Stoicized one than that of Albinus in that hhe apparently restricts himself to objects of cognition integrated into the knowing soul itself. 10. We have already noticed that Alexander avcepts the mixture of the incorpozeals soul, intellect and attribute with body. That is to 2° Forsch, Nevpl 30, 1 Ge: Dori,Porph 82 170 M8 Bg, SVPT, 142, 618, 1 407; 1, 148 Brag. BM Reeoe, The Scie Conch of Quality, SIPh TS, 1967 (104, $182; SP M8 CE Donne, Parph, 82 19032 AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DVALISM say, Alexander accepts the above-mentioned Stoic theory of mixtun but substitutes incorporeals for the Stoic eorporeals. Also in this Tespoeg Alexander's views are significantly different from those of Ploti and Porphyry. Though it would be correet to state that both Plotiny and Porphyry’s conceptions of the relation between soul and ba hhave been decisively influenced by the conceptual structures of St physics, they do nat, as Alexander, place soul on the same level as the attribute, Furthormore, Plotinus rejeeted the mixture of soul and bod while Porphyry expressis verbis put this mixture on a wholly diferent Iovel. Plotinus of course defends the inoorporeality of the soul. Altho when speaking about its connexion with the body, he again and uses terms borrowed from Stoic physies, eg. when saying that soul “completely penctrates” the body, he eays that it does so as incorpore and he explicitly rejects "a mixture of soul and body (Ewe. 11 (53), 45 ibd, he critically discusses the possibility of its being ‘interwoven! Biarhaxelaa, deanenhéOuu — with tho body). Ab Enn. 1V 8 (27) 26 ff. he says that soul is not in body as in a substratum (drroneijoo for this would make soul a stato (7400s) of the cubstratumi, as colour and form. Tbd. 92, 1 f. he compares the presence of soul in bad to that of light in air which, being present, “is at the same time n0l present and which being present throughout” (Stoic language) “dae not mingle with anything” (wai yap ad wal rodro rapsy ob srdpea at 81 Stow mapiv ober piyverat). Poxphyzy explicitly denies that the union of incoxporeal soul body can be put on one and the same level with the various forms a mixture as distinguished by Stoic physics : itis “not blend or mi oor combination or juxteposition, but a different way ... transoondig) those (unions) which fall within the sphere of sensation” (Sent, & 2 For losin, of A. Grocer, Plotinur and the Bois, Leiden 1972, 18 Porphyry, Dorris, Porph. SZ 2673, 160 U6 CL AINM. Rich, Body and Souls the Philosophy af Potna in: Anton I (ody, Bzaaye dn Ancient Grech Phiosoph, Albany N-Y. 1 (620), 626628. Grae Le, hus cllesten passage whens Plsls oppoars to sympathize with the nota sminiure as auch, but omits En, 1 [6], Por Plotinus attempts to construst an ent connecting goul and body ac tho srtiela of Rich. AN AUBXANDRIAN PLATONIS? AGAINST DUALISM 33 p.2, 104. M. ofre oly updns @ wis 9 avvoBos § mapdBeass, dX Frepos tpin0s . raadv (Se. Kowanny) ... emPeBpadis rév xd ry Slabqow mrzoundn). In the Sym, Zet. soul is said to be of a transoon- dental and metaphysieal nature and to ‘unite’ with body in a manner hich so %0 speak makes it both have and eat its cake : it is as if Jningled, but retains its own nature, as if only juxtaposed. At Sent. 4,p. 1, J21f, M.he denies that incorporeals are mixed with (ovyiepraras) podios as to their hypostasis and essence, In his treatise On...Hmbr., be likewise discusses the unin between the vegetative soul and the body and that between vegetative soul and higher soul by manipulating the Stoic vocabulary of physical mixture, Contrary to what one would expoot when coming from the Seut., however, he this time does not ‘efcain from using the term “total? mixture, though this is immediately (qualified as not entailing the destruction of the proper natures of its constituents (rs dounpbdprov 8° Shuw rpderews, 10, 6, p.47, 27 K.).36® bd. 10, 5, p. 47, 22 K. he again uses the term ‘mixture’, but qualifies this mixture as being of « divine and paradoxal kind (rij Belay execonvy rpiow Kai mapdBotov). We may conchide that Porphyry in principle prsfere to avoid tho torm ‘mixture! (xpdots) hocanse of ita physical and Stoie connotations and that, when using i, he immediately makes clear thet he does so in an entirely new sense, In the Symm. Zet, hho uses the term ‘union’ (Zoors) ; the divine and paradoxical mixture of soul and body is sub specie of the One; ef. also ‘unite’ (doivra:), On... Embr. p. 47, 23 Kt? Certain Middle Platonists already argued against the Stoic theory of the mixture of corporeal soul and bovly. An argument to this effect has beon proserved by both Caleidius and Nemesius;™* it refutes the Stoie conception of physical mixture etc. of eorporeals, but allows for ‘Ute This has been avesoo aro who denies the term pon es hed by Dari, who denon the term apo to Porphyry B* On inwous and xpiz of. alan K. Kalbflesch, Die neeplatonic ~ dy K. Kalbflesiok, Die nenplatonieche Deeln 1805, 14 Groese, 117 fh ectoh wschriekene Schrift Ts Tabpwr oar Gxboxotra i EuSpue, ADK. Ak ~ Pho term Suoer itself eppaaca ta be of Stale provenience of. eg, ot ung Uy DUtie, Porph 82 80%, — Note that Phtereh, Quoc. Plat, 10011 speak ‘wixize of World Soul and world (below, p. 40)oe AN ALEXANDRIAN FLATONIST AGAINST DUALISM soul's penetration of the body in the way of an incorporeal quality (Cale. 227, p. 242, 20 ff. W., proprium vero est hoc eius naturae quae sine corpore, wt dulcedinia quae pervadit melleum corpus, ut lucis corpus aéreum penetrat). Te will be recalled that Plotinus comp: the presence of soul in body to that of light in air, just as Calcidius, Dut that on the other hand he refused to consider soul as a state of substratum. The argument in Caleidius, however, by giving as its off example “sweetness in honey” accepts an equivalence between. Sou and attribute. #9°Though we may owe the preservation of this Midd Platonist argument to the doxographic zeal of Porphyry, I belie that Waszink’s suggestion 2 that it was Porphyry himself who ean strected it out of an anti-Stoie argument of the Peripatetic Alexander of Aphrodisias (who comes after the Middle Platonist period) need no bbe accepted.198 Dérrie was right in stating that Porphyry himself not have put attribute and transcendental soul on the same level ‘a matter of fact, this is confirmed by a fragment of Poxphyry's On i Sout, ap. Kuseb., PR XV, 11, TI, p. 374, 9 #. Mras : “to compare so to heaviness or singular and unchanging corporeal qualities, in aco ance with which the aubstratum is either moved or qualified in such such @ way, is to be mistaken” (76 58 Bapiryre drreuxdZew hy due morse nae pavoerdéor nati duunfrows owyarvedis, wat? &s # neveira 4 notov cori 73 tinoxelpevov, denenreondros 4p Kir-h.) d ‘To this it should bo added that already before Alexander of Aphro disias, cortain authoritative Middle Platonists actually argued again the Stoio doctrine of the oorporeality of tho qualities with the help of Peripatetic concepts. This can be ilhustrated ftom Albinus, whe Didescalicus incorporates largo chunks of Peripatetic doctrine ‘the canon of Platonist philosophy. The Peripatetic vocabulary used (qualities, preserved under Galen's name, which may be dated to second cent. A.D. It is also found in our Alexander. ume Dara, Porph. SZ TO4f, saya the link Detween Calo and Plot je verbal socidental, not genetic. He eorecty lat the differences. But Pltinss deab with em problems whieh ooaupicd the Middle Platonists, NP (sce p. 97, ad) 12) Porph. SE 36; cf, also Ammonis 180 Perph. 82.35; ef sto Ammonios, $51 1m yd. J, Westenberger, Galen gui fet de qualtatibus incor paris balun, 1906, Cf below, p35 2.125. AN ALEXANDEIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALIOC 35 We have slready notiood that Alexander denies that Manis first principles, iincorporeas, ate able to mingle in the manner of attributes {couBefqxéra, p. 13, 17 Br), for then they would be without substance {ovoca) which is the “vehicle of the attributes” # (p. 18, 17-20 Br). “Again, at p. 14, 17 Br. he states that the incorporeal attribute (oyyBe- Beds), just as soul, mingles with body. The Stoies, however, did not speak of attributes, but of qualities (nowdrqres) : Alexander's distino- tion between substance and attributes is (ultimately) Aristotelian.t# Albinus’ treatise testifies to the incorporation into Platonism of those Peripatetic concepts : Didase. 5, p. 156, 21-23 HL. he says that it is the purpose of dialects to look first at substance, next at the attributes; ibd. 6, p. 159, 84-85 H. he affirms that Plato, in the Parmenides and lsowhore, discusses the ten (Aristotelian }) categosies, which implies ‘that he held nine of theso to bo attributes of substance.*** His refutation of the eorporeality of the qualities formally equates (Stoie) quality (codes) and (Peripatetio and Middle Platonist) attribute (cuppe- Pyxés), Didese. 11, p. 166, 15-16 H. 4 8% moidr9s ody" Soxeluevor, GUE comPePrxds.® This formal equation, by the way, also explains "ee This curious metaphor shoul probaly be explained on the basis of the conneetion Ietween the arguments agsinet corporeal qualities and corgosel soul (for whlah of, shove, p. 84), or the Syyaa in this contest we shoul think not so much of the sous ‘utr body, but of Pat's humoraus desorption of the body a8 the yquc ofthe head fontalning the rational soul at Tim. dil, which ie quite sriooly sited All Didase 23, p. (70, LL15 HE. Ta tal the mntion of ata 48 “auppertiag” the aitibuies is not Jncomprchensble; for a deserption of similar nature, Aviat, Met, 1009610, 4028.20. D. 24. Mackinnon, diseusing Aristtl's Coneption of Suditanc (in: B. Bam Prowah (o., New Lasrys in Plato and Arie, Londos 1865, 108) pointe ovt that the ‘alr ems “cho els, ch vel that Bern he quite boi asides and ag Of Hed. Krbwes, Platoniomas wad llniticke Phowphie, Belin WM, 624, ‘ud ep. 43, 308 on Aristotle's own distinction between substance nnd nesidents; see kod. Manse, Thita-P 1, 1972, 63.2, where innsggonted thatthe Stois themelves Meeady adapted Avistate’s theory. 2A CER, Witt Alnus 66 Sepak Mansi Le Por parallels in Dept incorp seep. 2, 9113 8, $A 3, 205 SN 5. 16,1810 W. he wae tho terminology of attbation when speaking of sity qualifying another quality p16, 17-19 W. refers to Arsttle's division of beings ‘enees and ates36 AN ADPXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISAT ‘Ax ALBXANDRIAN PATONISY AGAINST DUALISM 37 gaif it were a body. In view of this, it is only natural to look for an gati-Stoic background of this argument as well. ‘In his synopsis of the cosmological myth, Alexander speaks of the ‘cividing wp of the divine Power over matter” (riy Setay Sivayuur papiteatoe cs Tiv Typ, p. 8, 9 Br). His diseussion of this point in Gh, XX to some extent looks like a blend of two different arguments, sinoo be criticizes the Manichaeans both for “making the divine Power into something corporeal and entting it up just as those parts” (romaricjy aoiodrres ry Belay Bianqur wa réuvovres see that in that passage he wises the term ‘quality’ in completely nabdiep 2 pep , p. 28, 2 ff. Br.) and for treating it as different, se, ethical senses! which confiems our enlysis of the aga tnatter (din). Tt vill be zecalled that the Middle Platonist definition of ‘attribute’ in the present context. of mattor which Alexander elsewhere makes his owa defines matter ‘Porphyry 8" however, did not speak in these Middle Platonist tern as that which is neither corporeal nor incorporeal.#* However, in the He significantly restricts the use of ‘attribute’ by defining it as “ present passage Alexander continues : “for why should not the divine Which comes and goos without entailing the destruction of the sul Power he matter also, if itis (a) passible and divisible throughout and stratum’ (Zsag., p. 12, 26 Busse, oupfefpeds 8€ dover 6 yiverae wm (b)if one of its parts becomes sun and enother moon?” (Bnd vi zip oly” dwoyiveras ywpis tix 700 Umoxerpévou Oops), and speaks of aul hy 4 Data. Btvaqus, eb 34 éorw wabhyr) wal Biasperiy Bid adoys adh stantial or rather ossontisl ‘quality’ as being united to substance (bd al 7d ply r abriis yiverat hos, 74 8 cedofen; p. 28, 46 Br). He 7-95, 18 #6. By, wduudiens meade qees. appeals ta his definition of matter ax the sncletirnsined ontity which ‘To sum up : Alexander, in accepting the mixture of the incorpo becomes all sorts of determined things by receiving the qualities and sen, intellect and atixibute with body does co in a way. whieh shapes; if, now, different things such as sun and moon come to be from fully explained feom a Middle Platonist point of view. Unlike Plotinl the divine Power as from a single substratum (ds dg" dds Sroxeypévov, and Porphyry, ho in this eontext puts soul and attribute on the 6 P. 28, 10-11 Br), why should not this substratum beoome all other lovel. He apparently has no qualms about using the term ‘mixti things as well? But thea the divine Power is matter, qualified according (uiéis) which Plotinus rejects and Porphyzy cithor rejects or uses in ai to the shapes (Dy ... npds 74 oxrjuara woworpéry, p. 28, 14-15 Br.) explicitly new sense. Unlike Plotinus and Porphyry, he denies i Teshould be pointed out that Alexander elsewhere, when defining or incorporeals may be in other ineorporeals, though making an excep deseribing matter, does not describe it as “passible and divisible darabjecta of thought integrated in the soul, throughout’, but ouly speaks of its being determined by the shapes and ‘alities.¢* In the present passage, this divisibility is not only attri bated to matter, but to body as well. In view of the distinction be- ‘vee body and matter which he makes elsewhere, their combined fteatment in the present passago is unexpected, but is made easier by their common attribute, viz, dividbility. Although the arguaent Sguinst the divine Power as ‘matter’ chiefly depends upon matter as — why Alexander does not deem it to be neocssary to replace the tem ‘quality’ in the teaditional Middle Platonist definitions of matter Whig have heen refarred to above. In the present context, however, term ‘attribute’, besides being just as traditional in the antics arguments which he uses as is the term ‘quality’ in his partly Stoig definition of matter, also better suits bis polemical purpose, Tr to remember, likewise for a polemical purpose, the orthodox: 11, Alexander argues against the Manichaean view of the mixtuT of soul and matter; not becsuse he objects against such @ mi itself (see above), but because the Manichacans treatsoul, an incorpo 28 CE below, p48. 227 Potinus positon (Pan. IL 4, O2 Quality end Porm) i not Middle Platonic snd appears to take ae its starting pint the sort of dificalies which have die ‘thoea-Di 1, 1972, 67 EL * OF. above, p 1, (Cf, telow, p. 68 n, 188 and the other notes reftcr to ibd88 AN ALBXANDRIAN FLATONIST AGAINST DUALIBM thoad ib, determinable, the combination of the aspects of determinal ity and divisibility is made palatable because according to the Mf chaean view, parts of this ‘matter’ become different things. Furthermore, both the lack of distinetion between matter and by and the connexion between the former's divisibility and its d minability can be illuminated by addueing Stoic views. According. Diog. Laért,, VIL, 160 (ef, SVF I, 87; 11, 816, 482; TTT, Ant, Apollod. 4) the Stoies spoke of substance (odeia) and matter (Ay) 1a two-fold sense, wit., as helonging to all things and as belonging tg individual things; body is finite or determinate substance (obala .g ‘rerepagpérn). Again, substance or matter in the primary oF univer sense (also called substratum, bxoee(uevoy,!™ e.g, SVF IL, S74) is th out of which anything whatsoever comes to be (e€ fs ériBqme: plverai). Teis passible (radyr4), otherwise this coming to be would be imposible. Hence, it is infinitely divisiblo (roy ets &merpow). Cb pus argued that bodies are infinitely divisible too (ra odjuara el areipov réuveobar, SVF U, 482 = Adt., I, 6, 4). Tt is this infin divisibility which explains total mixture (Diog. Laért. VII, 15 11, 479), is that of the divisibility iy present passage, did not distinguish between matter and body in resp of divisibility. Alexander's terminology bere is Stoic. His palo function like (Stoic) body or like (Stoic) primary matter are no lon dealing with incorporeal soul."** 199 Cf, brow, p. 02.68 n. 254. 48 CE also Be gua. fn, p. 6, 12 W. 1 Tn Nemes De nat Rom. 2, p. 69, Off, p. 110, 512, 73. an srgument is £0 rinse the Manichsean doctrine that all roals aro ane and that soul lp paceelled siiong th individual ehings and Beings. while the particles finally unite again the whole of sosl. Dire, Porph. S2 149-144 suggests thot this pansage deriv Porphyry, since cortain technical terms (rareacpuariendone, . OD, 8, p. 110, 89 Auclaces psplfates, p11, 4M.) are typoally Plotinisn. He furthermore e8y% 142 2 chat "do plemiache Kewalimung die Maniehter.. von vornherein aut Por AY ALEXANDRIAN PLaTONIST AGAINST DUALISN. 39 ‘This reduction of the Manichacan doctrine of “soul divided up over spatter” to the misguided manipulation of a Stoie theory also helps to explain another point. In Ch, XVII, Alexander says that “it would have pou better tosay that, just asina lyre which produces disorderly sounds ‘the coming of Jarmony brings every thing into concori, 60 also the divine pote Mowevr he cm sarap lady in Pato Porm Ma, Soph, sere mie Hn 9, ails nM Deb. 3, p18, 2, he iy Be sca compry easel tin haan ody ob rope eer re Wigs pon cerengnatinc deo yet Brlermor, A. Orie, In re. SEIT dey tT 152104 alo MoS, Vel 1,008) demons ha the te sate von” seedy Chet Sons 1, 15 ¥, HR, 3. For se Stent thn he plete gh te Manca el poo of Tors 2 Seay Dura tee uo orton oe fret Heccharen nso incre Tuy rom (hve done ear 200 AD, ch above pS. & Hf Die eogetin Fona'beascpalin, Gn clon tint Alcea of Lyopalt wa lfunead by Ponty woul etimost erp Hoyever oot nia weve topeame tha the tal riche agement in-Nemoso, en deste Porphyry, eo Ink tok and bre At pO the deine te iy of Sl tated te"ibe Moncacos aod ater" ese “other are nat mentee tp. 10, 83 Puig woe Sento eon veces om mena poses by mune jute Poti dos when Bon TV, 2(27 1 he anges gant toe who ed to cue vor ofthe wnt feu Hay Styne a corel fer to he Sin SFI TE 4b he sglof ein dines omy ht i opiats ined srgoumia drved fom Pan. Av a mate fac Pte hime tlre Saal elo apna sense ee eg H, Benth, Son Wa Sol ond nda Soult Pinus ns Ze Nepal oyenony Pais 17, 880, hough tot inthe ‘athe ede wy af hs pup Amo, who wpld the muse! entiy Fal sk comb Dean ap Stop 28 1. WHE. Fess, erm rom 0 on he ity f nln Moin ln Grae 3021), Coe scent crtindlnny may have wthel erpry. ni i Pn ee naming ppc in tat aia Nero led nt an, poly Bese he Manion dete of te green iter of wal fm he ee he omer tthe Tanominn tens, which ha i ht ever ore vue a attain wold (4p 10636. Te eu fortermee Me poeta he gine Nees oy Stns the aime arlene Hy not ter, wile Alene fr fo hy 1a not pene tht Rene’ enone wala ts egal form deste punt {bec the retarn oh human eral tho Wes Soul ma Stledotin of SPP 1,0, S12, thet yan ered by a Neopian ho acted nna he Peta who cameo heft St wpe fare slants i ‘stpetatin of Nees’ acgemest woul fal fter dann of Semen ‘cut and ey hehe sas ot nied al anche caso40 AN ALENANDRIAN PLATONISE AGAINST DUATISM Power when mingled with matter has brought into it some order ins of its inheront disorder, (an order) which is suitably conforming to, divine company..." (p. 26, 1 ff. Br. wathoy 8& fy, waBllrep ent ij dndpuoora pchydovons 7) dpuorta eMovoa rd dv Spwoopecvor de yaoaro, otra 82 puxPetoay rip Oelay Sérauw ri drderey nerfocs Sxep Carly nar’ aizois ¥} thy — dink ris evodnys dxoowias Koyo ‘rund adrij eneseBerndvan nai dei émbetven 108 Below yspou éxdgeoy) As a matter of fact, the Stoie immanent Logos or World-Soul hs one of its tasks the informing of matter and the preservation of natural order In Plato, the World-Soul which is responsible for preservation of the natural order is stretched out through the whol universe (Tim. 34h 6d vavzds re érewev)," though unlike its aulaptation it iea produet of the domiurge. In certain Biddle Platonist, wwe find some sort of blend of the Platonie and Stoie notions (the main difference being that in the Platonists, soul is dependent on a higher principle). In Phutareh, the World-Soul is said to be a “power...blended with” the world (Quaest, plat. 1001B Sévapus dyxéeparce 76 rexvuaBév) AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAENST DUALISM. a ‘orders’ the universe (p, 165, 3-4 H. S:axoojet). Furthermore, a ‘power’ reprosenting the supreme God which penetrates all things and acts as a harmony by bringing concord among the opposites is already found in the Stoicizing ps.-Aristotelian treatise De mundo. ‘These parallels aptly illustrate hoth the ideas and the language ¥* of the present passage in Alexander. His sympathy for “what it would have been better to say” shoul not only be explained as a Stoicizing omendation of a Manichaean viow : the full Stoic theory is in certain important respects the same as that held by certain Middle Platonists, Tdo not know if we may impute this view to Alexander himself. His reference to the ‘divine company” suggests that he is also thinking of ‘those higher functions of the World-Soul which are so prominent in the Tim. Should we take him to mean that some sort of lower part of the World-Sonl embedded in matter looks towards a higher part which manifests itself in the orderly movements of the heavenly bodies ?° In what way can such a notion be reconciled to that of a demiurgic Intellect? It is true that at p. 93, 8-9 Br. Alexander states that Intellect as such is wholly above soul.t!3 Perhaps we may assume that soul ‘to some extent acts as the instrument of Intellect. As to the cnntradio- while we also find a Logos which establishes a harmony of opposites (De [sid 873D 76 nav 4 Mayos Biepuoodueros axiuquvor ef dovupibvene Exolqoe). Attious fgt. 8 Bandry identifies (Platonic) World-Soul and (Stoic) Logos or Physis,!*? while in Albinus, the Platonic World-Soul tion, something similar is found in Plutarch, who at Quacst. Plat. 1 5, 96020 rv de Ala oferta. gece Sppeia = yi ve aay sald Sar oiperdeBexdounce a Bd vnaeBfewoa Bate, Ore ogee Squoeprfecon Ted. @, OSI4 pe 88 be nian (0. the heavenly bw) dpe revue ype nad bee Uf ada repr ml est ook, wen ‘riner ole been doyde0oe (cs aed Welow, p71 2. 27). Psy, theater of ‘De mend a nfluened yy Pythngoreans who may have been reader of tke Timaru Onsval = hernony as ythagorean dotine ad Seated ae such in Plato. WK Guthrie, Gr. Ph. 1 S07; onthe Tin. above, p. AO 194, Inmblehon, Dean. tn, Stob. Lp 2 W-H, peaking ofeou as harmony 38: oj Be ouanhropegy ‘io at diperor 709 aiparo8 noled BG noes vox [Marans nal Ldeyapian np setcina, Festgite, erm Priem. 3, 291-252 evggecte thet tis dossine Gan eel fran intcrpetation of Tim. Sabo, whore “lee tence In alse de Ame do moade re Frlentont es dintantcs dos pantie & atte 32 On Boys zo also Ulow,p. Stn. 181, wher evidence le addueed to show that ‘he natlon of w cosmologial "per" may have bee ther common: place NC: the quotation fom De mund 350415, abore m 188 Whey weer ‘tls Alexander's Bos gon (Phd. 247 ce elo p71 29) WC. below, p 0 m Se ce ee ca ae porate nes, lee eer ore eae2 AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINSY DUALISM OOLBC says that God informs matter, but states ibd. 10034 thag this task is executed by the World-Soul. However, this must remi hypothetical; it is safer and in itself sulficient to limit oneself to the negative side of Alexander's argument. 12, In a well-known article, Thoiler reconstructs a Middle Platonist Aoctrine,1* to be attributed to the so-called school of Gains, which was developed as an alternative to the Stoic doctrine that human liberty and responsibility are restricted to our attitude towards the inexorable course of events, or that human liberty only manifests itself when what we want to do turns out to be what fate had in store for us. Gains (if we may think of him) and his followers argued that the relation betwoon fate and human liberty is, logically speaking one of entailment, which is why in certain of our sources (ps~-Plit., De fat. 510B, Norws., De nat. hom. 38) this doctrine is designated aa the ex hypotkescos (£ twoBoceos, “by entailment”) doctrine. Wo free to choose between p and g, but p inevitably entails 2, while inevitably follows upon g (réperov — consequens, originally a techn, of Stoic: logic). Tt appears that this entailment-doctrine, which Tacitus and Albinus are our earliest sources,** pertained ‘exposition in the famous myth of Er, Rep. X) and to the cha ‘building options which are part of our everyday lives. It also occurs Hierocles, who however emphasizes that what happens during a life has argued that this emphasis on the former life which he also find in the Christion Origen should be traced back to Ammonius Saceas, who modified the original entailment-doctrine in order to justify divi 4 Tacitus und die ante Schickealslebre (1048), repr. Forsch, Nenplat. 48 148 Following A. Geteke, Eine pleomieche Quale der Neupatoniamt, Bhs Me 1886, 200 ff, who first compared ys, Pvt, Cale, and Nemes, auggestod the shoo! Galus and lasisted upon the snti-Staie character of the doctrine, C 18 Porseh.Neplel. 67,70 f, 80 f. On suck Midalo Platonist views on husoam 1 sponsibility ond thoi influence upon Jen and Clement wee Andreamn, 0, 186 Lill, 0.8. 42, 0.51 144 Another ently gourc Is Tustin, pol I 48, 240 Theil, Forck. Nexplal 88. cf. Andresen, 0.6180. AN AMEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISIC 43 providence.!# However probable this may be, it is unlikely that ‘smmonins Saceas (if we may think of him) jgnored the importance of empirical options : punishment would not be just if during a former life certain options had not been within our reach, while a certain amount of freedom is our only hope of doing better next time. ‘The entailment-doctrine is also found in Alexander, who however does not speak of the consequences of former lives and hence appears +o be closer to the original Middle Platonist doctrine than to the same doctrine in a modified form which Theiler attributes to Ammonius Saceas, In his earlier article, Theiler rightly referred to the importance of character-formation in Peripatetic and Epicurcan ethical theory 2 ‘the Middle Platonist doctrine belongs in the some intellectual climate, He also addueed Plato, Laws X, 903-04, which, describing the workings of divine providence, leaves room for ordinary human responsibility by pointing out the importance of character (Fes) and quality (wotov).1¢ However, he quoted no parallels in order to prove that this important passage had indeed been used by the author or authors of the entail- ment-doctrine, Alexander's arguments show that this must actually hhave been the ease. They also make clear that the explanation of the allegory of the cave in Rep. VIL, which deals with our empirical options, was among the loci Platowict used by the author or authors of the entailment-dostrine, In Ch, XVI, p. 22, 28-24, 1 Br, Alexander argues against the Mani- chaean doctrine that certain people, i. the so-called elect, are already good. What, then, about the others? What about the pretensious of Mani, the best of the good, that ho is capable of making other people better? Interestingly, this passage reads like an attack agsinst the Stoic doctrine of the ideal Sage. Blani is called spoudaios, just like the Stoic good man, Two arguments dineoted et the Manichaean Sage are originally anti-Stoic arguments, At. 23, 11-12 Br. Alexander says that Mani's theory of human goodness implies that we could become good even while we are asleep (yevoinela yép dv waBesBorres oovSato), 18 ied, 19 rg Sete 1-78 Por Ryieoros as follower of Aristotle inthis respect of, D.J. Fale, Studien inthe Grech tonite, Princeton 1967, 184, Ce alo below, p. SI m. 74, "ibd T0715 Hos: S08, WO4AB; weton + 9OAKT, 02“ AS ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISM ‘The same argument is used by Plutarch against the Stoic paradox that one may occasionally attain sage-hood unconsciously : “one could go to bed a bad man, and wake up being a Sexe” (xaraBaplérra daphoy duveypeota copév, SVP TIT, 639). Again, Alexander points out that ‘Mani’s absurd doctrine implies that certain people “would be in possession of their proper good even when spending their time in whoring” (eat yap kaAvBovjuevoe abv vais ératpas 78 olxeiov Exoiey Gv dyaBév), That intercourse with harlots does not infringe upon the goodness of tho Sage is one of the Stoic paradoxes, of. SVE II, 755, 758. These parallels are important in view of the fact that the entail ment-doctrine was developed as an alternative to a Stoic doctrine, Furthermore, Alexander again and again points out that Mani= chaeism abolishes the need for education and punishment.” When Aisenssing the problems of theodiey, he says (p. 21, 17-28 Br) that Mani has nothing to say in xespect of “acts of intemperance and wronge doings ete.” (dohaaias xat dBixias wal may drv0dv rowbroy) note withstanding the experiential fact that edueation and law (4, waCdeoais seal & wdpos) have boon instituted as aids against human misbe haviour + “edlue ich ‘tries to pravent sich things from one curring among men, and Jaw, which punishes whoever is convicted of having committed an evil deed” (¥ pav ravdevois exdporriovsa 708 py8é ro1wirdv rept robs dufipdimous aupPatvew, b vouos BE ressipot pos riv ddévra ty run raw dBueyutrer dvra). Bo also in Ch. XIV, ‘where he says that if “education and conversion towards the better” (5 maidevois wad ¥ nepapwy) ¥ edrian, p. 23, 16:17 Br.) are able to make some people virtuous, all may become so, “It would have beet far better to say that wisdom has beeu given to men by God as aft instrument, in order that it may gradually turn towards the good what, by being endowed with sense-pesception, they have gat througlt desire and pleasure, and take away from these the entailed evil” (p. 25, 22. Be., esp, rodro mark pxpdr eis 78 dyaldv mepedyoua 78 néperov Sromov & airdv doy). The terms ‘conversion’ and 149 Similar complaints aginst the Stoice are found in the Mfidile Pitonite, Anvvesen, oe: 184K. Theiler, Portch, Xevpat, 67 explales tho ned for a theory difereat Irom that of the Siss by pointing out thet “muan aof peaktiche Padagogi: nicht rt richer asa) AN ALENANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISM 45 ‘turning-around’ (wepiaywy}, repudyouva) recall the passages in Pla to's Rep. VIL, where it is said that man, the prisoner in the eave, should be “turned around” : at S1ée, the prisoner's head is turned (mepedyew ray aixa), at 518d, the “art of conversion” (reye) ... rs mepea- ‘jurris) is discussed in connexion with the edueation of philosophers,» ab D2]e the “conversion of the soul” (Jayris. meptayay7{) is mentioned ; at 5150-519 the possibilities for being either good or bacl are said to depend on conversion, for which education should pave the way. Also jn Alexander, education is all-important, His remark about the neeessity cof overruling sense-perception is likewise paralleled in Plato. ‘That it is indeed the entailment-doctrine whictt we find in Ales {s proved by his reference to the “entailed evil” (x6 éxéuevov Sronov). ‘An at first sight very puzzling remark in an earlier chapter, p. 18, 1 Br. “it is quatity which holds sway over vice and virtue” (awias 3? ral dperis fyendy Zorw mocd7qs) can be fully explained in the con- text of the entailment-doctrine and proves, moreover, that the passage from Lawes X adduced by Theiler was actually used.15#* The diseussion in Ch. T, with its underlining of the importance of the formation of charactor (jos) also bolongg within this oontoxt. Fusthormoro, tho disoussion of desire and pleasure as bound up with sense-perception (Ch. XV) which precedes the criticism of Manichsean ethies in Ch. XVI from which we have just been quoting ends with the remark that man is endowed with both sense-perception and judgement (p. 22, 21-22 Br. ai afofecfas rai xpivery Buvdsevos), or rather with the faculty of rational discrimination («pivew},+# and that, though potentially wise food, he is liable to destroy his eapacity for goodness (p. 22, 24 Br, nai dvdues cogis ... dxodaBiby 76. ‘iow 81, xaranare In Hierocles, education, law and punishment are also mentioned. At Phot. p. 405814 B. wo read that “human laws will not be instituted __1 Ch one of Albinus defsitions of philosophy, p. 189,241 H... wepeavery’ duets Ae’ ecnaroe, én r8 vor jae rpeoyay wal daar 18 At Las 80808, «2, JBauf and dein ae end to fluence human voltion, eee Taller, Foch, Neuplt. 70. 4858 Of, above, p. AB aud, 148 non 182 CE also below, p60, 109, 170, p. 5m. 178,174 © Cf Theiler, Forsch, Newplat. 78 118. Ta Albinus, ap. Ini. ap. Sob. Typ. 374, 81M Well couts ethical choies plas: of. slo Didawep. 178, 92,1) iva rational one Se, Danafeld, Thata-Pi 1, 1972, 784 nder46 AN ALBXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISM. in vain” (03 pdrqw ... vbpor wefsovear rots dv@pcsrors), At p. 469q 11 B,, the educative aspect of divine judgement is emphasized (0 .- radayoyn6 i), while at p. 172b44 B. it is said that we free to choose, but that punishment is a correction of this choice. Hene ‘though in Hierocles everything has been put sub specie of the divi certain traces of the importance of empirical choice still remain. 13, Tt has already been pointed out above * that Alexander speaks of the Christian doctrine of God as a productive first eause in approvi terms. This is in Ch. 1, where he also admits that Christian ethic however unseientifie it may be, to some extent succeeds in mali people pious (p. 9, 15-16 Br. rir eivefeias yaparrip cvilives ath zots #cow)..% Porphyry, on the other hand, was an enemy of Christian. ity, think of bis treatise Against the Christians in fifteen books. Ho emphatically denied that Christians can be pious (edveBes)2=¢ ander however even 0 to speak defends Christian orthodoxy 37 against the aberrations of Mani. He is, as a matter of fact, rath wellinformed about Christianity. This shows that Alexander ia @ roprosontative of the epiritual and intellectual climate of Alexandsta, where Christians, since the days at least of Pantacnus and Clement in ‘the latter part of the second cent. A.D., studied Greek philosophy, where the Christian Origen followed the lectures of Ammonius Saci where agaia, about 400 A.D., the Christian Synesiue of Cyrene studied pegan philosophy, and where, on the other hand, the philosophers, in the fifth ond sixth centuries A.D., wore, contrary to their Atheni collegues, tolerant of Christianity or even, ‘themselves. 14. T would like to conclude this discussion (in whieh only the points of primary importance which I have been able to discover have bee touched upon) by again pointing out that Alexander is of ominent 4 p10. 186 Cf alco below, p. 80m. TL. 38 See H. Deere, Die Schuliradtion im Mielplaloniamas und Porphyrios, Batre Hardt X11, 21.95, 1 Of, shore, p. 3 ond. 6. AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISM a jmportones as a source for the history of Neoplatonism as a whole, fand of its Alexandrian variety in partioular. In a number of crucial fospects, his independence from his contemporaries Plotinus and Porphyry has, in my view, been established. Ho argues against the Mavichacans from a Platonist 7° point of view, olten treating his opponents as if they were some sort of erypto-Stoies. This, at least, js what is suggested by the originally anticStoie arguments which he brings into the field, e.g. those related to the corporeality of so and to human responsibility. Such a point of view would also explain why Alexander occasionally saddles his opponents with Stoie points of view which to us may appear rather far-fetched, such as Zeno’s theory of fire in Ch. XII and the doctrine of things to be preferred and not to be preferred in Ch. XIX, p. 16 ff. Br3* We may end with ‘Theiler’s words about what happened after the final victory of Platonism in the second half of the third Cent. A.D. : “Als Disputiengerite gleieh- sam blicben dio Meimungen der anderen Schulen im Platonismus er halten’”.16 4 Rillingeaphy of Alexandriana 18 (IS.B, Hawking, Preive of Aleannder, Bishop of Lacopalis, On the Tenels of the Maniehacas in + Ante-Niocne Christan Library yl. XIV : The Weitngs of Metho- dive, ae, Edinburgh 1860, 280.268, [2] Alexendcé Loenptitani contra Dawichort opiniones disputes, ed, A, Brinkmann, Leipzig 1805 (important introduction. 1B) K. Praeshter, Civslichnenplatoniache Lesiehangen, Uyeantinsehe Zeitschrift, 21 (912,127, ep. 94 TALK, Grom, Posidonios und die jdichchrisiche Genessexegse, Leipeg-Beelin 1914, 253-284 ‘27 Alecander is, moreover, Platonist for whom largo parts of Asetotelian doe ‘tine base heecme incorporated into Platonst philosophy «the line of the “School of Gaius” and, apparently, Ammonios Sacens. CE Tatsod.p. 22,9. 23-24, p. 94-38 and p, 2 883,00, p. 80 m1, p.35.m.125, 2-125, p.55-a 188, p. 8 0.213, p59 216, p62 2.220, 0.295, 0.284, p. 8 n.295, m.290, pO 24H, p G5 n, 248 200, p. 74m, 208 p78 U1, p83 n, 340, p 92-94 n. 380-382, p. 95-n, 300, 18 CE below, p. TH. 20, 8 Ch Bolom, p. 84.548; of. seo p. 6 0.251, Forse. Neup.p. VIL Woxss ako this af eg. Elppolytus, sho refutes hereties 1 entifyng their doctines with those of notable pogan pilorophers. 1 Listing ony iter deling with Alesander48 AN ALEXANDIIAN PLATONISE AGAINST DUALISN AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISH 2 6] F. Wherweg - K. Pracohtes, Dis Phlonplve de Attu, Borin 193610 Daring 1960), 644 (61 HH. Schaeder, Crform wy Forblduagen dee manickaieken Syates, Vovteg der Hiliotbele Waring 1928-25, Leieiy-Derin 1927, 65-157, exp. 1068, 114. Geltoken, Der wogeng da gelekick nimiechon Heidentune, Heleloorg (cope. Darmstade 1965), 72. IS} K Reituonstin, Die Vorgechichte der cbvinichen Tanfe, Leipsg-Reslin 19p (vepe: Barstadt 1067), 9105. 191, Hanes, Pvémate H, Piologus 85 (1990), 247-250. (10) R. Reltzenstein, Aennader von Lylepels, Plilelogus $0 (1981), 188-198, [21] R.Retzcnntein, ine wortioos and eine wertole Ubericferung ber den Manish Nachtiohten von der Gesllahate dor Wisuaseafton su Céttiagan 1931, Dist, Kise, 28.58 [12] Bs de Labrie, Le réaction paivane, Parla 1994, 817 [13] L.troje, Zo Begrif tracror wie fei Paton ed Mani, Museum Hels et (1988), 90-113, 1M] M. Dieting, esandér vou Lytopois, Reallexikon fur Antike und Christentum 11980), 270-271, lis) F. Diele, Alaxander aoa Eylopolie, Religion ia Cwshichto und Cogoawate J figsn, 230. 106) A. Orbe, Fatudlos Falestiniaace T, Romas 1958, 277. [17] If, Diwric, Porphyrio’ *“Syumitte Zelomate’, Zetemata 20, Machen 195, LIS) Bak. Dodds, Tumenias and Ammon tn: Las Sources de Phin, ats, Hand Vandocaevs-Genéve 1900, 10 116, Migei, Gna fsimonianen del “korygma” cristiano in eerndro di Li Salesianom St (1969), 561-028. precise statements of the Christians about God 1 are concerned it Jemeins ambiguous. ‘The endeavours in this direction amount to the gsrumption that the productive eause is the most honourable, the most portant and the cause of all beings,%#"¥5 an idea to which, in all fairness, no one will take exception. In ethies too they avoid the more difficult problems 1? such as what is ethical and what is intellectual Pion, Be fy Assen 1970, 19 and Het duemaninme ow atin doracke aoktergrond, ‘Arean 1968, 18 n. 33, 26 0, 65, For Goodie and elf eee below, 1, I171,— The uplencss of Christian philoophy not only pertains to its uncomplicated and popular Chote Uef. leo py 1218 Bry Bur aloo to tho fost that it couslata malay of et bis Ja Ch. W Alexander complains about the Christina lack of lagi. CE, Lato, 1. Wp. 82. 212. 1 dapfeordpuw Nip wel Dood cf also 9. $, 4B Bes xe. ward rb yor dspelae ce Gpurnnéion, At pA, TVHE Te, lssande says that too preci argument wil fail ‘to soning those capable of being seduced by Manichasim: ot p. 17, 194%, Br. ho eaps ‘thst to pho, ax agpint an, that God i simple is too pels an agua 185 6-qsoyrad aur muizarorroror eal mpeeBiraroy eal réimuy ein rp Bera, ef: Introd, p. W012, p46. That the more important thiage are"oids” aa general Grak eentineat, cf BA. van Groningen, In the Crip of the Past, Leidon 1058, pasin snd 0g Arist, Met D33U82.98, where a dinousion of tho fit principlee pasted by the most Ancient thooloians ond philespharestatoe ryudearor 9 apceéraroe (posi, this Alot is of Harly Pyehogoroun ovigin, De Vogel, Pythagoree 74, 25). To seme extent, Alezonder’sdeseription echoes that of the Kea of the Geil in Plato's epubi, whieh, olng the eowe of the being aad the being knows of the othor ideas, 6 beyond being spoof wal Bonde (S091). Cole ap. Orgy, C. Cale. VHL, 45, interpreting this passage {rom the Hep in an original way (Dorrie, Tv. d. Kel, BS, ef wbove, po Ul m2) sys tht tho euproie prineiple yond being nn thought is thocffiient ease (aoe, Doel, 0.0.4) of Leng, thonght ete: he calle it asop a8 well. Ps. Pat, De flo 5733 ates that | dvurdra apdona 8 xpeofranoy dndenun,Albines tit Intel ie mirdp *B efoto savy, Vidas. 1, p. 161, 85.36 8. Nomenins' ist God is both xpeoBirepce tnd ofsor (gt. LO dea Plas. Tt should ale be reealed that at, 286, the demlarg> ls atnes of becoming, nt 298 dpnoroe "© Foc the Christian concept of Gal a3 aru afar wr Serer which fs eocoplable to Alexander of, eg. deta NVI, 24 5 bls roefoas nov ado wok mica rbd airy ‘ lllenising variation of Teninh NLL, 0s of Epletstus IV, 3, 6. Se aleo above, ps IL 2.25, and Porphyry on the Gad uf tie Hsien above pe B13 M8 Cf Tatrod, p 10-11, M7 Tm the folowing passage, Alexander eiticiats Christin ethice fm the point of ier of one wi is foliar wlth the ethlel haniook litatine exempta bythe ‘xotpts from Arina Didyames in Stotinens and sted hy Sl Giusta, { Zoseyrfé di tice, Torino 1962, 11 ibd. 1067. Fur the adoption of Stic otbies by the Middle Platoalets Cerguz oy tHe Docraxss o Mx Brinkmann, ‘The philosophy of the Christians is a simple philosophy:* Tt is P-&Ch.1 chiefly devoted to ethical instruction, while in so far as relatively 2-11 Xpananie Goole dn naderat. A.M, Malingsey, Philorophi, Head groupe de moe dane fa iteatereqrecque den Préocraliquee ax IV sileaprte JC OHI, deseinee the various meanings of "philosophia in Christian snd son-Christl writer 6946, 99 In Hellenistic times, o shif. towards & more ethiee) nd rig ap (already profigued in Plato) is cleaely visible, 63 ff, 69% CC. also De Vo60 AS ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISME AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISM. Dt vvirtwe *## and the whole subject of dispositions and affections." Heng they merely devote themselves to ethical exhortation,” without layi down the principles according to which each individual virtue be acquired, but indiscriminately heaping up precepts of a rath ponderous nature. Ordinary people listen to these precepts and, as y ‘ean see with your own eyes, make great progress in virtue, and 4 stamp of pioty 27 is imprinted on thoir characters, stimula: ting? the moral disposition "9 which grows from this sort of habitua- tion 1*4and leading them by degrees towards the desire of the good." Since this simple philosophy has been split up into numerous fac- tions by its later adherents, the number of issues has increased just as in sophistry,?* with the result that some of these men became even more skilful und, 80 to speak, more prone to creating issues than others. Indced some of them, in the long run, became leaders of sects.!°7 Consequently, ethical instruction declined and grew dim, since none of ‘those who wanted to be leaders of sects was able to attain theoretical precision and since the common people became more inclined to internal strife. For there was no norm or laws on the basis of which isones could be decided. ee Lils, 0. 60. - Tho simplicity of Christian othios ix aluo mentioned by Celis Orig, C. Cele. I, 45 VIL, 68:5, but to Cols this affords grounda for soverty, Alessador is lenient, Ws fic} and Dayar) dperd. Aveoeding to Asti, Flac, prosem. 3 (= SVP Th ‘tho Sties held that. dgerdr wB6-yonxundras pss, donvey Poely Aajvef. Albay Didase. 29, p. 182, FE HL. muakes a dstnetion between oye ual al ep ‘duienépor (ne en) euwerdcn 66 dpa). Avisttle distinguished etwoan ed (aot Topea’, but) dianoetial virtue; che authenticity of EY 110860 Repu dy ‘whieh ia unigoe in Avzttl, is doubtful. 19 "The ayatematiedicuason of fy and nlp appears to have been a regular Testu of ethioal treatises, as my stil be gathored from Arius Didymos.ap, Stob I, p. 38 3. 99, 18-99, 11, WIL Such epstematization seems to have been typically Stoic (Cita 0.8 1, 211 #8, 110 rep bcoBtrucy vdeo, ‘The Byputttiis topos (nt toe confused withthe e= thessoedoctrne of fate, bore, Introd p. 42 Is originally par of the Stole system and concerned with the giving of practical advice ofan clementary mature, in which way & husband should behave to bis wife, See Glusta, oe. T 101 fy 1, 927 425ff, Zeno's pupil Aristo of Chios rected the typ tops as being below the dignity (of philosopher and ssi that it was only usefl for eduostors (SVE T, $50, 257) 1 lod ate Tntrd, p40. Tn Stole thle, ea. ew uecondary virtue abo ta iucwso (Acive Did, SVP TI, 208) and defined as dmorn Bey Beparelas ib . 64, 40:), In tho Christian author Justia, the eancpte of piety and philosophy ‘conjoined, pod 1,2, 1, pl 2 15, 568 Malingroy oc 118-124-126, Oa se “allan ageee-plte” ap “iow commun Bermatiqua” eve AJ. Festogitre, Herm, Trism. 2 Dies: covnigue, Paris 1049, 213. Am intersting though not complete parallel to pasiago fe Stob., Herm, Bae. ILB, Corpur Herm. Gd. et trad. Nock - Festagie, Paris 1954, 12, where tis aud shat plety without philcenphy fs Incomplete, but #h hoover plilceophizee pw clocrer énip nderaw 22 Bnunupy ~ 6 i xia Spake ojos. Hieron, Jn Car ear. p.24,17 ff Mallac, commenting upon deandrout para Deois ne iin, sayR that sande vie dyeray Spends dow 4 clot, mp8 les aioe rp dimbopir Fyowras he expling, ibd. p. 24, 17-3, 13 3, thot we Ie to venerate the Goda because cheno dative theie being ad theie onlr from the fi ante, of, the demiurgle Intellect which ercted thom (eo Tntcody . 25 $8); 0 below, p Btn. 176 "3 dvolonmpsn, polly a zomlniaance of Plat'a seventh Epil 34le-d, de woe emovoias probs o elfens, ofan dod raphe yBjoarror easlis dz, o 79 deh ‘yosqney abrd dard Hbq epéde. Sou B. R. Dosis, Pagans and Christians nan Age of “Anziet, Cambrige 1985, £8. Fo other possibe echoes ofthe seventh piste of. below, pti. 282, 18 dor, eb alan. 8, 2 Br. ry r08 love xareonsne (above, p.50 n. 160), For the Platonie and Middle Platonst theory f feof Tatrod. p. 42M 1 ourifen. That Zonqas, Hor nd nddnow are of eral importance in the xequiting of rirtoe ian Aritotolion doctiae which was adopted By Antiochus ond Arius Diymaue and aftr theor by the Middle Platonst, se Lilla 0, OT 1 Cf. also above, p- 3. For Albiows, see Didose 90 and RB. Witt hinus 90. > A good parallel ta the activity of Chrintian teoahere, whe by iaflueasing poople'y chacncters reader them cioeBeis, is eTorded by Hieroclee’ description of the activity of lato’ philonophecstatesman, op. Phot p 45441-40949 B, rd rin delpcnu Ered ‘es a (leo in Alex.) dae cis Sane eiBigera ody (ef. ebndfaas) sacjoner 4 7p des das, tree (ellos. p. 815 yopaur)& Bar rapa dnd dela yacht neo ‘iyuaveGinpason. CL algo boty p. 60-0. 17, Foe the eeltion listwecn the ees of ietoces and thowe of Alexander ace Inti. p28, p. 4548. 2 ey rots nares +a pale from the history of philosophy. ae ibst there wee many sects i Keypt eapilly various Gaotis ones lk the Paslideana, the Valentinans, tho Carmoratans ten iw wellimowm fat. Seo eg I Manes, Rechiplavtgter wnd Keto i at Cheer, Tubingen #106, 9-68 he Nog Marra texts area slear testimony to the flourishing sectaranisn in Fat (08 Alexauivinn Christianity as a whole in the Feet these cantusee a R.A. Grant, Barly Atesandrien Chvitianity, Church History 40 (1971), 139-144 1 Gh above, p44 a. 162, n, 108,cu cH AN ALEXANDEIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISIC ‘And as in all eases there is nothing which ambition, when it into excess, does not harm, so also in this ease : as each of them step tosurpace his predecessor by the novelty of his doctrines, they com this simple philosophy into a hopelessly complicated and inoffeetug thing An example of this tendency is the man named Manichseus,t39 Persian by birth, whose astonishing doctrines, in my opinion, surpass those of all the others. This newfangledness of his hes bm recently #3 come to the fore. The first expounder of his doctrines to vit us was a man called Papos, after whom came Thomas," again some others after both of these, Manichaeus himself is said. Shapur the Persian king during his mili offended Shapur in some way, he was put to desth.1*4 - being good aud matter evil, the measure of God's goodness far sumpas sing that of the evilness of matter.1** He doos not speak of matter Plato's sense, whieh would mean defining it. as that which becom © Cf ahve, pe AS 0. 162. 10 0 n Meni ne Christin heretic ace above, p. GH 8 of wifdng of above, p.5 08 2 On these nates see Brinkman [2] p. XT. 12 Valcianas vs emperor fom 253-280 A.D.; the Sassanid king Shapur T fiom e, 240272/8 A.D. Mani lived from 21627 A.D. 0 Un fee ae king Hala {who pt Mani to det, 1 youn ch ahve, Be 2 3 1s gpg « Orv hlloaapleal temtnatogy. 26 Ou mutter are Toteed, p13 Aw ALEXANDRIAN PLaTONIST AGAINST DUALS 53 all things when it assumes quality and shape, — which is why Plato falls it “allreceiving” and “mother” and “nurse”, — nor in Anistatle’s seuse, namely as the element in relation to which form and privation occur. Ho means something entively different, for it is the random motion within each individual thing which he ealls matter.**® On the side of God aro arranged other powers ‘% as auxiliaries, all good. and jn the same fashion others on the side of matter, all ovil. Brightn Tight and the Above, all theso are with God; amurk, darkness and the 18 BL Bhs Nes aif Ip hdr, np mice yopanlens frae My andre it axes — 84 rnb (Pim, B10) wal urna {Tm SOL) el Be (Ti. 0 vad — St rend, 98 snarl 8 Dos wal ofp (Kp. 1901718102, ioe, 107001840). aye not nthe Tim. Roush fe ote. axe device ae soo AB: the expose mentioned Pin. Al be Alewaners Sonia acs Dots otha Mans which st copied by the things enasig he sepals (im. Ach "The fe t integer Pts repose nf toeoring se msiter ws rte, ea Ca {061819 (now, p62. 295) The ers ia Sok, of Se lanofld, ThitcPi 2 fal Tio, p. SLA An early xa of th syne ox Platono-aretottianStoe formula em Avot ap Ce, 4. ps1. tek ontan sae ala specie qu arent me qe atin quando, un omnia expres tue ee an et. For spp a Middle toni we Lillo 6 1896 For the dvsiotlian ead fen — Oy — ordre ae alo Ati T (@n,p, 288087 D), Cate. In Tin. 967, . AOL, 10 W. Soe factor blow p62 1.204, , 03 295. 85 $5, n.95, p87», 91 This panege, with es explic vefeence to Plato and Arte, wat he sabe of Uectydieunin tetween Seeder 9], 100, Titenten (11, 2906 ad ak RIEL CE. above, p20. 3) Es however, lar that here, ag ckeebere, Alesoner ‘es Greek pllosophionleoneta in order to aaalyae and iisiee Maicncisn oe ebm. p 10, n.192 p. 850 196) _ The Acotalian end Patni elements which ao rather neatly spate thn stage aro Blended in such passages a p16, 111, 2nd 38, 9 Bes ace blo, p 2 3285. 20, 251, ne 255 9, 29h 88 8295, p- 8, 2 51. 35% Ua Cae, In Ti 285, . 286,61. W.Arstol’'s teary of mater iad san i fl ort ty Plt (Ariat) cies senetia eu sit pacar oie oto Mati dats Sensideraione. eat ccna ee Van Wiad, 78 3 See nurodp. 21 Here, Alexander speak ofthe motion wilh each india {hing thi refuaton, Ch, VI . 10, 26:20 Br, where le args tht tion fe win ‘he moving objet Eleewhee he more secncly 933tht matters ie random muti ‘fines (p10, 5 Ie) or thatthe ero of matte random tion p, 25,38 26 1 Br) 18 Seda Eps or the concep of Ba te 10 gual) fea of ergy of an ie (6.78; on the Stowe soneent of ality ted in Alexander's 7 88 aubictan |ch. OI Be. p.BBr ot AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISI AN ALIXANDRIAN PLATONIST AOAINST DUALISIC 85 a defiled vessel is often due to the condition of the vessel itself,» fo something happens also to Soul embedded! in matter when, contrary to its real nature, itis debased so as to participate in evil. Then God veas filled with pity for Soul’s plight and sent another power which ‘go call Demiurge.!* When this power hed arrived and had put its jhand to creating the universe, then that part of tho other power which yhad suffered nothing untoward as a result of the mixture was separated from matter, ond this first part of the other power became sun and ‘moon, while that part which had become moderately evil came to be the stars and the whole of the heaven. The part of matter from which sim and moon baa been separated was driven past the bounds of the universo, and this is fire, buming, yet dark and without light, similar to night. Within the other elements and tho plants and other living beings which divell within these clements,!*? the divine power which is mixed with them moved about at random.t2 For this reason, then, the universe came into being, and within it the sun and the moon, which by means of the coming into being and passing away of things fist, a aceon and third 8dsaqs (of. Introd. p. 0. The eanception of the Bd continually separate the divine power from matter and send it on its rgially Stoies the ies that God remains aloo and is represented by his Band way toward (od ‘vecame © religious common-plaoo in later antiquity, see M.P. Nilson, Gialiche d "For, apart from the Demiurge, there is another power™* which, ieckiocen Religion 1, Minehen 1961, 64 ff. The compas gents withthe Persian kiog and hie servant, pase, De mundo 381 f. auite poplar. Phil's doetzine that the fonetions of the Jewish God wee Sluis HLA, Wolion, Philo 1, Cambridge Ma. 1945, 2284. and index ea. power) th by an expression in the LIX, i obviously influenced by Sticsn. CE fi ‘Tyr. 1, 8 Da. on the Seneps Bet Api, De Pot. 11, p- 9, 74 Tha on ‘mudiczinat; Plat, De Jee On. 7, 378A. on the Bindaean Snovpycn: there ate a parallels in tho Corp. Herm. and in Mrobius, Sat. I, 17, See tho historic! ure in AJ. Festogiore, orm, Trsm, 3, 168 f2, 188 ("Pulssances hypostacs ot minis de Die’ 19 iy 64° tua (us, Ores") naloeudne Ye. Tho fiat power isthe "Ps Man", called ‘Soul in certain Manichacan tots to (ee Introd, p 6). Aloxende's wa possily imply that his spokesmen eithor didnot uo tho word ‘sul or ued it messy explain things $0 posible convert, Bore probably, however, Alezander sss the ‘sol! thinkng ofthe Work!-Soal, moviog at random, which according to some 3a Platina is embedded in sitter (00 Tats, p. 21 n. 68). Ch. below, py 17-18 Bt ‘hore he say ofthis repr that it duos peo 199 Bee Tato, p. 31 484 dain re moan nop + Alexander thinks ofthe doctriae that only ike sorta with ike, though he hotds that an incoporet oul may mingle with body (2 1 16:17 Br). CE. Introd p81 Below are with matter. God has desires, but these too are good, matter as well, but all of these are evil. Once upon a time matter grew desitous of reaching the region abox, dominion and to expel God, God, however, though being determin to punish it, could find no evil by means of which this punishme So he sent a certain power,’% which we eall Soul,2# towards matte which was to mingle with it throughout." And a future soparati from this power would be the death of matter. In this way the mixture of soul and matter, ie, of a thing dissimilar with a thing dissimilar, was achieved by God’s providence. Whon it was mixed with im Soul became affected hy matter, For just as a change of the contents, 1 aceeus the Manichasaa supseme Goal doce not descend himsel, but send do 198 caren yap be dah Gyre woh + Atlas Phys. 210024 gives pd yet at one ofthe fort of Ae te A. Philo, De migr. dr. 129 mentions the body’ ae the dye fron); of. also Mare. Aste. I, 3,6 X, 95,2, Alesaader of Aphrodisiac, Dean. p. 113, S01 B.cfoce the de & dryely aa tho Srrueof soul So Sehuyaer, Pll. S74and Dacre, Porph. SZ 80-81, er Plotinus’ and Poephyry' rejetion ofthe body a the soul's fee Bon, IV 3 (27), 20 (cf, Hander- Beutler Theiler of, £) aad Sent 98, p- 12, 108 5 sce Derria, Le. — ‘The easly parallels show that Alexander sacs a traditional comparison ote, however, that uallke Plots and Porphyry he doos not rejoct the notion of the ody asa vex as such : Man's mistake sto make the weasel corrapt I eal clear that Alexander is aleesdy exten! of Maal in the eymopei. 1p Suis Ce, Gresks") eadotjer Syucapyée sf. the similar use of oy above P. 54 n, 192. This (eoond) power ie called the “Living Spirit” in Manichacan toxts (Intro. p. 5) "8 Por tho lving ings within enc of the element of. Cie, IED Il, 16, 42 — Ariat, De phil Fel. 21 Rose; Ast. V, 20, 1 = De pil gt. 220 Ross, A feature ofthe somulogi- ‘al socounts montioned Tatrod. p. 28-253 of. Pépla, TMol 458. “88 Cf. ators, p. 54. 192 and Intod, p. 2h ‘This third) powor is the gould “tertusIogatu t Introd, BB.56 AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIS! AGAINST DUALISN having descended towards the Inminesity of the sun, fulfils this task this is quito evident indeed, and, so to Speak, elear to the blind. Rap at each inerease the moon receives the power which is separated frogy ratter ancl dusing this time it is filled with it; and when it has becom full, it transmits it to the sun as it wanes, ‘The sun, again, passes ‘on to Gorl; and when it has done this, again receives that: part af Soul which has migrated towards it sinee the Jest full moon; and similarly, having reecival it, permits it to pursue its spontaneon fight. towards Govl, Such is the sun's continual labor: Tn the sun an image *° is visible, whick resembles the form of mam this image spurred the ambition of matter, so that it created man out of itself in conformity with its total mingling with the power. Hene tan has some portion of Soul alreaiy by himself. This form, howeven, ‘made a great eontribution to man’s having a greater share in the divi power than the other mortal beings, man himself being an image of divine power. Christ is an Intellect. Whon at some time he arrived #4 from ples above, he liberated the greatest part of the above-mentioned ‘power, so that it could get on its way towards God. And finally throngh his erucifixion that Christ provided us with the kmovled that the divine power too is fitted into, or zather nailed to,™* mat inilar way. ince it is Gld’s decree that matter shall perish, one has to al from cating any animals, and should rather eat vegetables *0 and all 2 cindsa sof below, ch, NEVE, p. $2, 10M Be 2m G€ ain sin thie way, matter canulatos God (eE farad, p18). Foe this om sic activity of Monicharan mutter ace alo Ch. XNIIT, pH, 8:0 Be. aad p. 41 3706 18 tones yp aie Oeiee Bnduaur eee + of. below, Ch, NXTIT and p. 85 1 867.572. One has to herp in mind thet the fintementioned divine power Is the Priaul Sian, whetses the second-miedtioned is the “tortee legate”; sce Hs Sehonke, Dz Gat Mena’ in der nora, ttingen 1062, 1141 29 wee Bt Npcrdn eles rie sf, below, Ch. NNIV, p94, 184. Be 20 Iq Alsons account Ht is ak ees whi etage of the myth Chae appes (fH, Waldsehmide = WW, Lente, Die Sellang Joo fs Rauiehain, ADL. Prous. 1026, pie KI, Bestia 126, 19, 9) dnererpoa + “eel i. Agqava. On the Ekesuite origin of this Manichacen custom see Henvichs Kocnem Mani-Cofee, 143 AN ALIXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISM or the other things that are without feeling. One has to abstain from snetriage and love-making and the begetting of children, lest, because {if the succession of the race, the power should dvrell in matter for a Jonger time, One should not, by committing suicide, briug about an ‘artificial purification of the stains inflicted upon the power by the admixture of matter.2"4 Such are their chief tenets. Sun and moon they honour most of all, rot as gods, but as the means by which it is possible to attain to God. They say that when the divine power has been truly separated, the outer fire will collapse and burn up both itself and whatever is left of matter. ‘The more cultivated among them, who are not unfamiliar with Greek mythology, eall to our memory parts of our own tradition. They quote ‘the mysteries, comparing the dismemberment of Dionysus by the Titans to the dividing up, in their own teachings, of the divine powor over matter.*”* They also zefer to the battle of the giants as told in our poetry, which to their mind proves that the poets were not ignorant of the insurrection of matter egainst (od? mmbote in his refutation doce Alexander object to Man's prohibition of suicide, 1 thin wa alin a Batonio tiem, CF. Phardo 62 ff, Plat, Fa. 10 (16), and for whe relevant literature P. W. van der Horst, 4 Pagan Patonist ond a Civitan Plott on Suicide, Vig, Chis, 26 (1971, 289 8. 7 aby ce Dene of, however, below p. Hl, 17 Br Ta tho present passage Alexander ‘cles 4a icgynerty which fg almost incomprehensible to « Gresk philosophers tp. 11, 17 Br, fe speaks fromthe pont of view of suak » philonpher. The bait that ‘the heavenly bodiet reall sud divin, which ceouze leesdy in augment of Alsmacon ‘€ Croton (en, 450 TLC), wan a very wide-spread one in the ancient world. It ia wall Jnown ftom tho Tinacus, wus adopted by the Stoo aud veey much alive in the circles influenced by the Stoa ofthe Roma Empice 2% pestecdas aly rip Dey sof Inte, p. 31 40) Alexander's epoletmen use the allegorical method which woe popular among Grek philosophers (of J. Péqin, Rythe of ligne, Aubiee 1058). The ovapaynbs of Dionysus is mentioned sleo BF Nunnioe, txt 47, p. 108, 20 $F. Lemans (not in dos soe), the war of tho giante against the gods by Cols, ap. Orig, C. Cele. Vip 2. (elsu, tba 1,17; V, 48 and TV, 50 says that the éxeaclerpne amnong the Christians tey ‘hit hae at allegorsing,Alasonder returns tothe evbject of allagory at Ch. X, p. 10, Off, Br.s XXV, p. 7, 18-8, 2 Be. (the giant): also Ch. XXILL, p. 38, 10H Be. Sea fother below, p. $87. 212, p. 70 n, 275, id Introd, p. 7.poBr 58 AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISH I, for one, do not wish to deny that theso doctrines are capable of influencing the minds of those who uncritically accept this the especially since deceitful expositions of this kind were successful making converts out of certain fellow-philosophers of mine. Ac though having taken the decision to show up this mumbo-jumbo for what it is, Iam at a loss how to proceed.2"* For their assumptions not expressed in a generally acceptable ratiocinative form; hence serutiny of these assumptions is out of the question. Nor are there an proofs to be found which would be based on postulates, whioh renders it impossible to consider what these postulates would entail=i® Ty. pphilosophize by means of apodictic utterances turns out to be a oon; using their old and new soriptures (which they believe to divinely inspiced) #4 as underpinnings, they express their private doctrines as a conchision drawn from these, and they are of the opinion that such conclusions admit of a refutation if, and only if, it he 20 At thie point, Brinkmann’ text continues without an alin, but the allogor examples obviously conclude tho exposition of Man's doctrine, while Alexanders {Jadgement an oxpreaed in the provnt section obviously applis to thin exposition 68 & hole. CE above, p. 2.2. Bee Inte, p 6 "HF Seo Introd, p. 7, Alexander's objection is that the Manichacens have no 9 loge and aclentifie method. This may be put next to his remark in Ch. I, where he ‘that Christin philosophy (end Manichacism, secording to Alexander, is a Chitin onsite mainly of ethios. Aceordingly, it ix ot eurpelang that the arguments agains Alessnder osos traditionally an PTO, 26, p. 72, D8). That Christin do not eae fo ‘Perer-133 Galen, De pale. iff. VI, $79 KOhn; spd in tho fagment of Gal < bby R, Walter, alow on Jee and Chsitians, Oxford 1040, 16+ of alo Lillo, oc. 119m. 1 isintersating to obnecre tht Client who puts trust in Sriptar on the seme Tevel ‘ith in scientific deminstration argues In favour of ellogorioa interpretation — whi is exaetly what Alesander rejects In tho osge of Manichaciem (see below, p. 70:2, 270) Seotlons (Am Pr Ma, BF) and “postnlate’s dpyal daoBeieat oonaenuey| 2 Asmumptiona (ts, Pst, 00-1008) ace Asietotlion tomas 7B dagueoe, “whats ental too term. See further below, m. 215. "81 eecmreoree, evidently borrowed from 2 Timothy II, 16. AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISI 59 that something is said or done by them which does not follow from these scriptures. The role attributed by the philosophers of the Greeks to the postulates, namely the underived propositions ® upon which proofs are based, is represented among thess people by the voice of the prophets.*!* Under these circumstances, since all normal rules are abandoned and the assertions which T mentioned before are put forth without any form of proof, and since, on the other hand, we have no option but to answer by means of reasonable arguments and to refrain from opposing other, more plausible or more deceptive, suggestions, ‘our attack is more difficult than it would otherwise be and even more anmanageable in so far as arguments of a rather complex nature have to be offered. There are two possibilities : either our arguments aro too precise,*"" and then they will possitly be incomprehensible to those who have already been won over by these people without argu- ‘ment; ot they are of an even more deceptive nature, and therefore vulnerable to the same sort of eriticismn as the ideas of our opponents, for they will appear to hove been woven from the same cloth. Conse- quently, we should proceed in the most careful way, and shall really need Gods help when expounding onr argument 2* Manichaeus posits two principles, God and matter. I? he does s0 1 npndeue Sos (An. Pot, Lo} ae equally Arson, Hoc the tern ted by Alexa of Alas, Dla. 7, 111, whlh abo party exoua Pate Pad lotelOle, fp. SI: Bd re Sempra tl drobumeunn nor 2 are Beco al dudes spordnar § 8d Sratlcandnabon tale nara Sd of. ao Lillo. 12212 20 Thin exprenion, jot a Bbenoos (8 vay ated gine th Crane i pot, Clement’ oard i ths eget vw shoes p88. 212 27 OL above p02 108 5 The investi af Go lp when tng fel ene woltAnown ary devon ape he peng refered fo in Brinkmann note ad and exp. Pato, Tin, Bob Te ako Fgura found ln Neogaon 3 Certain tourecemgget tht a eomparble do Milt See Thovphr, Phe pg # Dis (be. 38, 214), shows that this ongument was nat tho Manichseana. For be ascribed to Plato ‘Pato appoaceo posit108, 60 AN ALEXANDNIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISH in order to distinguish between heing and becoming, his assumption ‘would be less mistaken. For in that ease, neither would matter form itself, and so avoid the contradiction of being both active and pass bles® nor would similar contradictions — which it is perhaps illegiti. mate even to mention — be attributable to the productive cause, although % it showld not be forgotten that God is wholly independent of matter as to his works, since in relation to that Intellect all things. are capable of coming into being hypostatically.* If, on the other ‘hand — as seems to be his real meaning — matter is the random motion inherent in things two remarks must be made. First, that he seems tobe ignorant of the fact that he attributes reality to another producti principle as well, though it be only the cause of evil. Second, that, does not seem to observe what is entailed by his assumption, eiey. that if both God and matter have to be assumed as being absolat real, another matter will come into being # for God, in order # each % productive principle be provided with an underlying mat of its own, In that case, however, he will stand convioted in our ¢} of having introduced four principles instead of two. The corollary thie division is equally ampzing. For if God, in his view, amenimks t ‘oro prlnelples (io doy) the eubstrate ox matter which be ose receptacle, the ‘2s cause end mover whieh he connects with the power of the god and the god von it hyn — v8 BE da ofr nol vedere). Thoopheastas probably combi ‘ich petages as Arist, ft, 98761922, hero Plato's tro ulkimate principles ar re ‘ely forma and “materia an the latter ia designated aa the Greatsand Saal, and 200bIL-17 wher I Is dont with the ‘spac’ of the Tn, Thoophrartns’ words shed by Diog. Usd, IIT, 09 and Alexander Aphr, ap. Simpl. Zn Pye p45 See aloo Waszink, Oteret...Hermoy. 150 and Don Boot, o.. 88.87 218 yrmdguvon ro rte dooxeniion + of. Tim, 27d, Celsus ap. Origy C2 VIL, 45 (Dorrie, Tht, Kets $8). The Stoice distinguished between God an moiedy and matter as wioyor, eo SY 1, 85; fr he Sto Zaun se panible and mmatedal cf. SPF HL, 145, See however Tn p.ts.t8 122 goign afren Amro, p. 10-19. 5 See Introd, p. 18. 124 See on this passage e9 « whole Tntrody p13 ff Saoroera:the “trae dntrin” (Tatrod, p10 dn. 24) cence that Go prod haypostaen, If thers is & preexistent matter which i independent of God, Cod will rnevertiloas produce onotior matter. Sue furor Introd, pe Lt 2% Eternally existnt and independent matter, being God's equal, will prodao® snothor maticr. AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATONISE AGAINST DUALISN él what is good, and if he wishes to assume God’s opposite as real, why then does he refrain from opposing to him what is evil in the same spanner as certain Pythagoreans have done ? For eertainly this Pytha- gorean theory is easier to acoopt; the Pythagoreans speak of two principles, good and evil, which are continually at war, while the good prevails, since all things must perish if evil were to gain the upper jhand.**” For matter in itself and taken absolutely is neither body nor = Tho Pythagorean table of oppoitn ap. Arsty Mtaph, 080682 jv nxin tnong it pits of upponien; cal SALE (= Arist, nd 0837 it 1108029). In tho Pythagoras doctrine ap AGEL 3, 18 {Gop 308,81. D,} Get the goed is oppo to ex See W. K. C Gath, Or Ph. L HS, Alexander's rfernes to « cortntous war Detrees good aud ell i ineerestings tince() the cnkinuous we Between the opposites looks Hercitenn rather than Phe ovens, ed 2) the theory that both god an evi are seat i geely fund tho orm that te nin af vil i the wane comeequonce of Gh god's need of ile pe (6 the famous ettement fn Plato, The 176s ofr” coeur xd mend Sa hoey errno pip 98 dy dt aes doen, echo’ in one form or enothee by ‘host Gres phileophorgxopping With the poles of ev). dl) Ths Phagesan’ theory of good and ei i ins! up by both Nasnnivs (ap. Clef. 52 des Plot) ad ‘torch (Def. Oo, 48, 3100 #) witha slienoe to Heracles Numenies, ep. Cale In Tin. p. 298, 24. W. follows “Pythagoras who sid that antler ew, ad pana Herc (ond Plat), p. 298, IEW. properague Namen teadal Horclitom sx _pebenentom Honersm, gu pice intrtun a8 eke mais ita, gud non ine ere mn sbi dlr placer, siguidem ses, quae malorom font ty eerminarce, (Platnemecidem Namen leat, quod dese mdi avis outuna te, Plats, totes severe! Hersclitas sayings, mnang which the rks of Homer ako cited hy Nomening, nest refer t9 Hmposols,ohd, a SOE, gives the Pythagorun tab of ppostes; Anasagoras and Aslattle re sleg mentioned, ond at STEP Plato's two World Sons ae deoribed. The Herckwan rfrece ia Pltarch onespnding to ths in Namenius runs sel re wi “Opgpor einen (Il. 18, 100) Be ve ce foo Be? Shipman deehedoslnBiren fet 1 niovow yes norsppeon du pyas nel deer Suis py vo éybee (he Goes not know that he ie evens th og ofall lng, fr these have that ongin imate and opposition”); of. VS 29492, 22F9S. Te aceme ‘rotabe that both Plitarch and Numtnive depend ona doxographivl survey af theorize ‘fev. which inthe former fe presorve in a aor complete form shan inthe later. oc a snllar dozographicnccount in Plutarch cf. De em. pro, 1028 BC) 2 Tho ‘ar between good and evils an important feature of Pires ateouat in Des ef Ory £43, 3008 Bacio drenahn Bear: A SLA nob Bi vin dad 6. Ben) Biiorr, pit re Belvora de Bopoyoden, Plotarch, jos ws Alexander, say that te god, however eels 0, STIA of lp leaPenir Seca, IN is Booms 7 oe dnb. CE aio De ons proc. IOUS, whe he tye cf dry (soul thepALBr e AN ALBXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALIBM something definitely ineorporeal # nor just a concrote thing.” by it is something indefinite, and it becomes definite upon the reception. of form} for example, whom it receives the form of the pyramid becomes fire, when that of the octaedron, air, when that of the ico ron, water, when that of the eube, carth.#% In that case, how isi possible for matter to be the random motion of the elements = itself itis dovoid of substance, for motion is bound up with the mo object; ® however, matter does not seem to he of this nature, bi rather the first substratum #4 and thet which is without. strug Dut this seoms doubtial. However, Numenius op. Cale, J» To. p. 300, 16.02 Wa that secordng to "Pythagoras (hom be fal justi’ Platonium aprocs with the dagma Pythagoras, Tpaao te Wall to World Sons, to Atos and Plutarch war ening im harmon). "hi evene lating to th conflation of the Eythngreen and Heracitean cfoppetes owe orton spate Asan referee, Noto Shagh Pi say Inve roar hime Pythgorean (Wain, orzo. 339) in any nee, widely donated neh (st 4 Loony nt in dee Plc) 521 A Mid Pato formol efter, p18 and 29. 48) se m+ Atotlan Slo, 0 Cat, 2, 3, 100, Th oe wl a bland satire fom. Cnt, 2 EU ajuorr ne peolafeion 13 aos yr dpe, of. labore, 1. 188, This time Alexander usez the term elfos in ita Aristotelian sense (for Spor. Below pt. 2). That matter nando be por anno oper tony ‘echo of the platonizing “Pythagorean” theory mentioned Inteod., p. 14-15. See also Nt Ineo fh. 59 den Pas, ep Cal, Dn Tm, 2, 207, O10 Ws dil indrmintam, eta ag verso 207 128 Ws formar (eB sanitretar Miter ab dipors Po, Bam 14 (12) 3 and 6 he wellknown theory of the Zinevar, 83, 55s, lo Albis, Dido He 1 168, 100. HS ala ow, p87 98. 4 2 See Introd, p20 25 j win oh woman = of Art, Phys 200, thre i no motion sae fiom tings bd. 0951514 fer jinn dG verre For Alexander's object lot eater an moving tod, p22 1d epivo bonchay +. Arie yt 10s, 20 the Rypotsineon st 1o2ast” Awe 4p. thy 3 tpmordnoeisoor adore (Alesander's cacao AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIGT AGAINST DUALISM. 63 ture and that from which all ese derives.#*Since, however, matter is ‘therandom motion assumed by Manichaeus, one must ask: wasit always gonnected with the moving object, or was it ever separate from this abject? For, if it ever were to bo in itself, it would be non-existent, as there is no motion without a moving object. But if it were to be always in the moving object, then also in this case two principles will exist, via. that which moves and thet which is moved.” To which of these should the vote he given that we may posit it as the first substance after God? Furthermore, the word ‘random’, which also figures in their definition of matter, should be considered as absolutely unacceptable, for this word can only be used with some plausibility when matter is not spoken of at all, Indeed, which of the various kinds of motion should matter be considered to represent Reetilinear motion ? Or circular motion Or motion in the sense of change Or in thet of coming into being and penshing 1 29 ‘eden is siguicant, though his addition of the 7é8e 7 to the Middle Platonst Formula — above, p. 62 n. 229 — may be a substltutlon). In the Stos, Aypoteimenon is the frst ontegory (SVE II, 909, 970); the drow Bky ie xpirey Groner of leo Diog. Ladet. VIL, 139 (SPF I, 8, 408; 11, 300) and SVP TK, 405, 762. Plots, Ewa. 1,412), 1 cera to the starve guactiontes np Deyoutvy thy tmaneluete reat Sebo Br Ngores elias newbs rsa ro» Moyo wep abe ndores Myowow. 2 ppiyuerov sf. Aviat, Cal SOBDIS.10 udluors yp By ra Bévasro doles (00.78 Seamus) xabénep & 78 Tesniy phyporron rb norboses Phys, 18¥a11 Bonet } ofale ron dione Say cos 78 spirar évinapyer txdony SppiOworor wai? éavrd; Hd. 10K BRT dour of 08 dpptulaon nA 20 6g’ of rd Qa tho wae ofthe proposition 2nd i negular; normally, the Platoaiet Prepositional 'Prinzpieneibe' qualifies mstier as the #f of, of. W, hile, Die Vorbee ‘lung des Neeplatoniemeas, 1094, Borin Zisioh *1004, § .; Pépia, o., 602, For Alex Ander's use of & ef above, p 66. 201, 87 So. chat whieh moves the objet (as some cort of soul embedded within it) and he thing moved, £99 Bee Tutte p. 2. 18 Aittotla distinguishes between (1) locomotion (asin Alex wa’ ean #4 ‘dapopyronj, (2) change (Mdeiwers, a6 in Alex), (@) coming lato boing and passing64 AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISM Cirenlar motion is orderly, and so much so, that itis rightly attributed to the order of the universe.*# Even on their own assumptions it would be wrong to call that motion irregular whieh is typical of the sun and ‘the moon, heavenly bodies which aloue among the gods * they profess to revere, Rectilinear motion perhaps? But also rectilinear motion. has its limit, viz, the arrival of something at its proper place For any earth-like substance has finished moving whenever it; takes hold of the earth*# (Just as each animal and plant stops growing whenever it’ has roached its proper term. Consoquently, it would be more way Géoene and Yond, ae kx Aloe) and (4) growth snd doeoy (alfyewr and $y which a suc is notin Alpe but nevertheless iol to at p. 1,21 Br, abgerducer, ‘Theve four Made of motion geour in the extogorce of wpaeo (2). quality (2). eutane (@) sud quantity 4, CE Phys 11, 15%, 200682-2019105 V, 1-3. Te the Gh book ofthe Phy, thang in respect of (is exehided from the concept of motion: Pato, Laue 0 Inchded coming int bulag sd passing away’ among tho kinds of motien. "40 The cicoilar movement of the heavens wos a general tonct nang Grok phils sopra; 200 og- Dodd, Pug. ond Chris, 8 aad M. P. Nilson, Phe Now Conception ofthe Universe in Late Oreck Paganian, Branos 44 (1946), 20. See also below, p76 p.8T n. $58 21 Cf. above, p. ST n. 20%. 12 5 ro Blow rénow rede + the proper place, auzival at which torminatae astural motion of elemental bodies, is called by Aristotle airod (ag. Cot. 310402 (ot olor réeee oF — gu (ea Phys, 2OSDT, 20035). In Aisttla, tho for xéros not the proper place, but that completely occupied by & given objet (Phyo ‘The tem Shor wn In the Asstotlan senso of skees rdnas intended by Ale focoure Tim S70, Bdarqeey a rad y&aur daderao + wiffy ward zézor Bw Beh ‘is Beyoutrae win, Tei not found in the eosmalgical aesountsrefrred to Tuco 1p 2-25. Honce, Alrxander (or Lis cures) isnot wholly dependent on the second information provided by these accounta. “Toe réeor acon ao at py 38, 12 Dry Delow; p- 96. 392. 200 nderg yp 7S yin nérovvan muotueras av ris éeihyras, cf. Ploy De mun. 85, 18 Gv mtna rb yedbn, xd dvpaibne, maveppcres — 1 8 Zari eqn 88 sp ward ow — fa yp) Sd Bos dro SeyBv Corare nel jet re oie tl bpm Angst, Con ad Litt If, Ltvras pare. period tran, quo venions cessed famnguam fr feo suo. f 2 ge ve Udo wa dor (ee, stnauran) aifansyavos Bros 708 Blow Spov (m= ems cf, above p 022. 230) flere, That ving beings stop growing, i. reach the teint ofthc movement, whet thei form hae ben completely soaizd is of eouree plac? of Aviatoelian dostrine(W. D. Ross, Aristo, London 1066, 63) "Tho ets of living tines | the end oftheir development, Just the eo of elemental bodins (Cot, 310898 £9) tecmines at which place they have to stop. 12 Be, AN ALEXANDRIA TLATONIST AGAINST DUALISM 65 setsonabls to consider this motionlesmess of elements and living things as being the death of matter than to accept the impossible end # of matter dreamt up by the Manichacans). Furthermore, motion in the sense of coming into being and perishing cannot even be imagined in a manner which suits their assumption, for they hold matter to be unborn.2# Ii, on the other hand, they intend to attribute motion to matter in the sense of change — which is the most probable interpretation of their intention, since they say that changes of character #7 and evils in the soul are eaused by matter — it is worth our while to investigate what this may possibly mean.: For motion, changing itself, will always begin at the beginning, and go on to reach the middle, and in ‘this way arvive at the end. But it will not stop upon arriving at the end — if, that is to say, change is its essence — but return again, by the same road, to the beginning, and similarly go from there to the ‘end, and never stop doing this. For instance, if change were to occur along the line AC, B being equidistant from A and C, then the change vill start from A and arrive at B, and going from the extreme point #* Ctowande B it will at a oortain time arrive at A, and this gooa on for ever and ever. Similarly, when the change starts from black (grey being the middle and white the other extreme), again it would go from ‘here to groy and similarly to black.* If, on the other hand, white would be the starting-point of change, the route traversed would be ‘the same. If, as would follow from their assumption, matter is the eause of evil through change, it should be objected that our examples Lave already demonstrated that it is not any more a cause of evil than of 8 Se, that ouused by the separation of Soul and matter. Matter belng one of tho tro principles. 8 joe Introd, p. 42 ME and shove, p50. 160. 8 The following rather eclentific loking onalyis of the mechanies of motion, with 4s uso of aymbols, recalls simile diseussions in Aristotle's Physics, ng. book VAL ant VIM pewsin. 1 nd 10 depou 708 DP, — of. below, n, 200, in fine gg Pe He Aat, Pigs, 220016: cavedy ip xpron vi were mis a dndrspa & weresite, ol de faved pd eso Aevedn ed ploy, nak evecd els dab et as be Be panos eis daub os abs Rend rb deals * 18 yp woot aps Cavan Ryeed as “Oy SeppisBe 66 AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISM. good. Let evil be the starting-point of change; then naturally change takes place from this through the indifferent ** towards the good. Or, should the starting-point be taken from the good, again change oceurs by way of the indifferent, the samo principle explaining motion towards either of those extremes, However, the above argument is, after all, superfluous, since all motion pertains to quantity, while itis quality which holds sway over vice and virtue;#* and we know that quantity and quality do not belong to the same category.#* Ate God and matter the only principles, or does he admit a third fone, which should be in betwoen these twot For if there is nothin in betwoon, these principles remain self-contained and do not anit For it has been well said that, for the extremes to mingle, there has to be something in between in order to bind them together." But, 51 Ad ete Buogdpar + nouteal thiags, between good and bed. Stole terminology SV I, 4115 IIH, 70, 17-128. Se0 alo p. 84. 348, iq ast We read AM dod 700 dat dor, n@hv vobw Bid nae daar insta the me's il” dr rot dynos, nur rina Bel rar Bad spe § dp. Beinknann's Arastc emendation, suggested in his app rit is uneceseary (p. 12,22. Br). 199 sion... imo rep rb meade, wanlas Bé nal dperi pede dor oh Aristotle, of cous, adnltod aioe In the category of soto (shove, p. OF s. 20 ‘Alexanders romark must be explained on the basa of the Middle Paton cx hypot Aoetrine of fate, See Introd. p. 42. For his axa of ayuSePoude instond of zoérye Intro, p85: (the exeeption ishis wo of wosrgs in to tenitlonal definition of mat 4 p-5,4ani p.28,9.10,2) 28 Cf. Into, p96, 288 Ses chasdv plow Baus vara ew + teansferred from Plato's deseription the creation of the elements, mn. 316 (ef. alan Albinus, Didae. 12, the Seode Inthe cosmological accounts mentioned Introd. p. 2 ens, 188 Alexane's anganient about the station between two independent principles be parly paralleled fevan Mth, De ib, ar. 5.8: i God and matter are eopsrated, te nut of necessity be eomethng la between (8 yp. 188, 0:7 Be 6 eel eB Sal (ri) ded door Gufondpaw — ef tho similar remack: sbout Valeatinun’ Byte td Sig fa Teen Adv, hae, Tl, 1,2}. One ofthe absurd consnquences ofthese prin ea Be. AW ALEKANDEIAN FLATONIST AGAINST DUALIS or if something else is assumed as real, then, again, this third principle has to be necessarily either incorporoal or corporeal, and, conse- uently, tas out to be not nocessary. For if each is incorporeal, neither can be in the other — ex- copt pethaps ia the manner of grammatical knowledge being in the soul.### But in regard to God and matter such a conception is absurd, Or is the one within the other as in a void, just as some people hold the void to surround the universe 2#° Thon the other principle is without reality, or the essence of the void is nothingness. Perhaps in the manner of attributes ! & Our first objection is that this is impossible, for they cannot, when bereft of substance, be anywhere, since substance is a kind of vehicle * supporting the attributes. If each is a body, then of necessity they are both heavy or Doth light or both intermediate between heavy and light, or one of ‘them is heavy or one of them is light or one of them is intermediate.* If, thon, they are both heavy, they will of necessity be compacted,s# and the same holds good also when they are both light and both inter- mediate. If, on the other hand, they differ from one another, the one being not separate would be thut God is in mattor ax in place (ef below, 2. 250) tnd vie voran(6, 1). As to its exeeution, however, Methodius angonsent wholly lacs the ‘hanscesstiosonUlined shove, Tteod. ps $3 0 CE the nxt section. 2 For Alosando'steostment of inoonporeas, ef trod. 27 88 CE. Introd, p. 8 BH? Thebitoies, eg Zeno, SFE I, $9, p. 27, 20-30 ris ral monn pov bv dcp ners SVB 1, 84 (ABtius) Zan nal of dn atrod Ea B obrod (tho univers) Gran (ee ‘ev ci 73 pr ends cae dpquiayecroey Digg. Latte. VIE, 1, wee 08 doineron 28 Ct Inteod, . 27 8 Seqya so. above, p. 5 n. 122 ME This dentin of weight snd lightnoss depends on the theory of motion and Proper place already encouatated before (ef. Intra, p. 225), [0 Me adopt one of Brinkmann’s alternative readings, oyumay instead of the ms oie xdon (13, 23 Br).Ch TN Be 68 AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUATISAE will be absolutely separated from the other. For there is one place for what is heavy and another for what is intermediate and another for what is light 4 up for what is light, down for what is heavy, and for the other what is between top and bottom, The bottom of sphere is at its centre, for from the centre towards the whole superiog region up till the upper surface the distanes is the same everywhere, Ani, again, all heavy abjects from sll direetioné fly towards the contr jplace.2# Which is why I could not suppress a grin when T heard that matter moving in its random way ~ for that is what would be natura for matter — arrived at the region of God, which is the light ‘he brilliant and so on.23 If the one is a body and the other incorporeal, then, fim only that which is body will be movable; next, if they are uumingle each will be separate according to its own nature; but if the one is ‘mingled with the other, it should be either soul oF intelleet or attri bute# For it is only in this way that incorporeals ingle with bodies. <:1What mute Matter move against God ?>+ cause ? For the below and tho darkness, as they say, are in accord with the natuze of matter, whereas the above and the light are net in avcordance with this nature, Consequently, at that time its moti went ayainst its nature, and something happened to it compa ‘to what happens to a stone or a clod of earth when it is thrown up 2 Cf, p. 64m. 285, p67 2. 262, 3 4 commonplace ides, connected with the aborementioned theory of mo and place. Cf, Che ND TT, 45, 116116 1 wetura ad medi rapt conse ent ‘oingore ide trae wear et, wl oaibus eva pavtibus in eediun vrgetibus G Cutem mein infin ée apace es ote. Many parallela axe quoted by Pease a Tey S744, anc by Grom, Powid. 58.54, ¢8. Zeno ap. Arius Did, SFE 1, 9, p27, 27 CCheyeipps ap. Arina Di, SVP TE, 527, p. 108,90 28 Cf. above, Ob. Wp. 5, 1-13 Be. 28 CE. above, Introd, P27 fy 31M 2 ala lidar m5 5 Bor re do Hr PGi n 2% Alesandee fy somewhot ore explicit than the “parallel cosmo! focounts The stone is given ax aa example in Art, Phys. 268631 (ld. 4 7h ff, the quotation from Philo, sbovs AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISM 09 Objects such as these, of course, which have become light through the force of the thrower, remain on high only for a short time, and then fall down to the same place again. Well, who made matter light so that it rose to the upper region? For through itself and by itself it could not produce this motion, which is against its nature, In order to be raised to the upper place it has to wait for an outside force, just as the stone and the clod. But they admit nothing next to matter, except God. 80 it is clear what follows from this argument, iz, that according to them God by force and coercion lifted matter upwards to himself. Furthermore, if matter is evil, its strivings cannot but be wholly evil themselves. Striving after evil is bad, striving after good quite excellent, Well, if matter longed for brillisnee and light, its longing was not bad, just as it would not be bad either, for someone living in evil, ever to long for virtue at a later time.*# It is the opposite which is blamable, as when some excellent man were to become desirous of what is bad; just as if they were to say that God strives after the evils eonnocted with matter. Por the goods of God are not to be con- ceived of as a kind of wealth or much land or much gold which, when changing hands among ?* men, imply a diminution of the former ‘owner. If an image of these should be thought of at all, one would do well, I believe, to adduco wisdom and the sciences.?% Just as neither (sterestingy) in ethical eonteste, EH 122000, EN 110520 fof. also peAvket AE 18éa5, 8 ar ef the quotation om Philo, p. 64. 24 Pit Fas. 9201 ant eg, Ade BB 122000 on the upwards motion of a stone: oibisore mij rare yh lo 2 Which i, of coures foreign to a propor concoption of God, who dacs not set contrary to nate, ef, Pain, Thiel. 444 7 Nan is capable of moral improveatety of, Uelow, Cla XV, 2 We twad dot instead of tho mas dn8 (p16, 1 Br} 2 Brinkmann corey adduces Nomonine et. 14 des Pace, who ikowineeoatrante human goods uch aa money et, with divine goods such at knowledge, which, when given, to not entail» diminishing of thelr source of provonionee. CE shore, pe IL. 31° a Bs 10,47 and des Places notes, Num od, 1. The exainpe of communicated knowledge 4 already in Philo, De Gig, 25.26,OX Br 70 AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISM wisdom nor seience nor those who are possessed of thom are diminisha whenever someone else comes to share in them, so it is not ressonabl either to assume that God would take offence #4 ab matter for str after what is good — that is to say, if, as they hold, it indeed hank after goo’. They surpass by far the mythographers who are responsible the castration of Uranus or who wrote about the schemings agai Kronos by his son, who wanted to gain possession of his fathor dominion, or who, again, have Kronos swallow his sons and then have a regular war of matter against God, but they do not even mean allegovically,?” as c.g. Homer did, who, in his Iliad, describes pleasure on account of the war of the gods against each other, thereby hinting at the fact that the universe is constructed ont of uneq elements, which are fitted together and both victorious and vineible 24 #oorfoa sof. bolow, Ch. X, p17, 9.4 Be, and p. 71 n 278 9 jd radra pron BC trorias Aiyuew. Though the apparent smsthologoal story entail that i hou be allegrized (oe ep. Pépin, Porplire is too ortde to stand allegorical interpretation (for Manichuean allegorial atts Hfahove, Ch-V, p. 8,40 Br. nd p. 67 n.208, below p. 95 . 388). Actually, Aloxand Manichaean myth, Lean attempt at lleoseal interpretation (eee Introd, p 7), Si truths ought 10 be statate in philosophical toms; analysis, howeree, hue revealed ony Sngonsctencles and abzurditis, a that there ie no trth behind Ue myth. Hence A fnde's remark that the Manichacane do aot speak 5 Gmoveiar (for which eaneept Pépia, Mylle ef AIL, $5.87), Alexandee’s attitude socalle thot of Caue viss-vis Christians, Orig. ©. Cole. 1V, 48, 1V, 80 den Boi ofa aMyrapior dented ray @ Errugus ebplorora psuudodéyres (se Pepin, Mytle el AIL. 447 HE, Dodds, Pag. and 150). His teansferenco of o traditionally anti-Christian argument to Manicheeiam finilar to that indieated above, p. 58 n. 212, p, $9 n. 216, below, p. 72 n. 294. Porphyry, Again the Chr. fet. 38 H. was an enemy of Chritlan allegoress a5 (of alm Dérrio, Ammoniee 645... we TL XX. 1 This allegorioal Interpretation (“war ofthe clomente") may go back to the Pres cratic scholar Theagenes of Rheginm, V8 6, 4 though i should be noted that the i formation is drived from Borphgcy. Seo Bépin, Myth of All. 99, 167 Tt was, in any cate,» Sie allegorenin of Herat, lle, ot 82-5, An intereeting pazallel to AN ALBXANDRIAN PLATONISE AGAINST DUALISW a ‘The reason I say this is that T know for a fact that people of this sort, whenever deficient in proofs, bring togother from all sides certain matters? derived from poetry to use them as a defence of their private doctrines. However, they would not have done so if they had ever consulted any author you would like to suggest with any amount of care. Furthermore, all that is evil has heen driven far from the divine company, most ofall jealousy and anger.*?# The Manichaeans, however, tadmit these in relation to God, sinee they affirm that he planned the above-mentioned stratagem against matter on account of its longing for the good. By what means within his power, however, could God hhave wanted to punish matter? For to say that God is of a simple? nature would be @ more procise * statement than their assumptions seom to allow, and the explanation of the correct notion of God is not ‘as easy as that of other subjects for itis not possible to demonstrate ‘thisnotion merely by means of argament, hut only through considerable effort and training However this may be, we all know for @ fact fonder 26 donuolae vbr xéouor ouyacefae, Youomtan xpi Eikpia is in ps.Atish ‘De mundo 8, 30689 rondo dpe eonkargce & ao, b3 ff de weNAG av aa pola 2 drape Beery VBE. Tee nav dvrmlan les yigeras wal de roMroo nereht oh esudenon, oe de 7Or Spi, B25 HE Br raw doaraardcem mpdoeu dpi ‘a Becbougve Spwovia. Thi, 906820 this is illustrated from Heraclitus (VS 22610 Tring quoted); ef Alexander's macvraw ve nol sayder. Seo forther above p. Bl {2 n. 297 and, for other aspects of the parallel with De mundo, pe él. 138. © Wo soa dna Inston of fa (p. 10, 22 Br). 7 aid 06 Onin xop00 (of bows, p- 1 and ibd. 140) devas 6 Eos nel & ns + the fosuous "Wandenaitat™ frum Plato, Phawdr. 247s (which has forara, bat (Philo, De fuge eS. 74). Soe W.C.¥an Unnik, De genie van Godin de oud chests ‘eateur, Med. Kon, Ned. Ak. 30,2, Amsterdam 1073, 48. See also below, p. 89m. 34. 180 That God is dedots a's common notion in Middle Patonism, og. Nam. fgt. UL es Placer, Albinae, Didow. 10, p. 186, 6.6 H. Seo Lill, o.. 218. Brinkmann apily duces Pato, Rep. 80d = God, being diate, eannot ba the cause of evil fr ethers. 281 CF, abot, p40. 168 £82 Cf, above, p. 111.29, The formals $ nfs diolas rosrov ibys ody ce wept 26 Day ether reals Plato's eoventh Epil, 340 fopde yp olBquae don de Ske wal ara. CF also Tim, 280 roe jb of moxie nal wovdpa 7088 rod rare (the Demiorge, tw Alexander the supremo God) eipev re Zeyor wel eldora et mdoror diver Myeo. tee Diese, Tht, Kele. A142. CE also Lil, 0.0 215 BE wahMr seers nol miro + of the quotation from the seventh Epil,ob XI Pe paste 2 AN ALPXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISM that anger and the desire for vengeance against matter are emotions asa which acquire substance in connection with whoever is 0 disposed, But emotive conditions of this kind are absurd oven in connection with the ood man,2#* let alone in connection with the good itself, < What is the Status of the Divine Power > Our argument in its course now touches upon other matters. Sina they say that God sent down a power towards matter, it is worth our while to investigate whether this power, in respect of the good, is diminished as compared to God or whether it is equal. For if it is diminished, what is the cause of this? For, according to Manichaeus, nothing which is in the vicinity of God partakes ” of matter, and he introduces only one good, namely God, and one evil, namely matter, If, however, it were equal, for what reason would God be commandi as if he were a kind of king, and why wonld matter have shouldered this unwanted toil? Abo in relation to matter, it will be a problem stove 1 172 (fx nae ovnutis) el the remarks concerning the cdueation of # phifeophens Rep. 98h cep. S04 ody rar avBéores rvgréen§ yepvadonae (ot Ode, the Iden uf the Good is yéyoraw py). Tor ne andl vor. ad the edoeation of the slilsophera cf lap Tatto, p. 49. ial § ve myopic Spfie «. mily Corde + for doy} and ober By a Toeauad ot in eeaeon but inthe lower arta of the soul ef, Albious, Didac, 32, p18 22. Hs ou this onoeption among Middle Platoaiet generally a0 Lill, 2. ST. Ce 4p Orig, Cale. IV, 71 says thot the Christians, attributing Saf to God, otebute idpenea . rGBp to lil, Pan had spoken without hesitation of Go's anges, om | 1,18 (I, Boblene, Dis Stoo, I, Gottingen 81965, 40, bt many’ Christians dino ike oatwtbute doy and other ap to Ged snd explaized them eway (Polen, a. 415 410); to Cement of Akexundin, God i dul, Strom. IL, 72,2511, 81; 1V, 72 Lilly ‘90.217. — Alexander we a tadisonally ant! Christian weapon ayaingt Mani cf, abar® 1. 58, 212, p.69-n, 216, pO a, 275, — Alexander's wording reeals a Stole define ston of doo, of STF TTT, 305 doy a2 énBuula rob miupfooatar (ef. also tb, SOO hd. 996 as emote racer 25 (Clog Prats TT 19 (= SVE 1,430) asnquam sapiens érsetur, Nov i imate iam concnect: proprio enim et ial cxpere, a qua ineous venta, quam maine Golecem inavere. Ch loo SY IL, 444, That the wise good man la det ica oid dopa, ©, SVP T, 4495 TH, 48 (= Digg. Lar. VIL, 117) dad de oop, CE also Pollens. 0.8. 411 1 pereger : Platonie tertinology. AN ALEXANDRIA PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISM 3 whethor its powers are equal or less in respect of evil. For if they are less, they cannot but be less evil. Hence they would have to he such by partaking **? of the goods for if there are two evil things, the lesser vil, of necessity, has come to be in this condition by partaking of the good. But they donot admit any good at all in connection with matter! There is also another difficulty, of course. For if, in respeet of evil, some other power surpasses mattcr which rules, then that other power will be more capable of command, For in Manichaeus’ opinion, the greater evil is first in eommand in the dominion of matter, - The statement “God sent down a power towards matter” * is given without any proof whatsoever, and is in no way plausible. Nevertheless, also this statement has to be dealt with ig the appropriate ‘way. As the cause of this occurrence they give what follows : “In order that nothing be bad and all things good, the power had to minglo with matter (comparable with the athletes who, when locked together, prevail againet their oppononts) * in order to vanquish matter and to stop it from being”. But I belleve that it is much more reverential ‘and in conformity to the superiority of God to strike out matter from among the existing things * right from the start. But this, I think, they did not want to admit because of the fact that even at present 297 pardon of, p72. 286. 180 Alexander returas to this question below, Ch. XVII, He First diseusesy at rome Jengeb, the ethloat abwardtte ontalld by tho reazon given by the Maniehaeane for tho Aegcont of soul rs, hati is ent dose inorder to eliminate evi. In Ch. XVII, be pits ont the abeurditice flloning from the erudo Maniehacan conception of the mingling of woul ond matter; this aspect is only briefly touched upon in the present cates’, ein the simile rogording the athlete, 0 Cf, abate, p68, 212, 6 jyBens vp Bhauee 19 Dy mark robe Bigs role dy nd eayrhdeceDar nar wontonéove robe derndlou. The simile is rother apt: oyunldacota ins telnial term, ‘nthe Feld of wrestling, uti eal used of tha boing interwoven ofthe aol th the berly cf Arist. Dean, S00H28 ef, als At. 1,7, 2). Plato, Tin, Ge unt Baracoa ‘when speaking of tho soul a intrwoven with mater (ef. above, p40 n. 138). Seo sao Philo, De by 101 (gucted by Dirrie,Porpk. SZ n. 3} ster the teem =n is usc and abore, pL. 198 2 Ch. above, p. 29m.p18 Be rs AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AcAINST DUALISME 4 certain ovil exists. which they hold to be matter. For all this, they cannot stop things from heing bad, even if one were to concede tha some things do not change for the worse. A reasonable diminishis of evil should somehow be perceptible, if we are to have better hope, for the future. For it has been well argued against the theory of of Citium, who said : “The universe will be destroyed by fire, Every. ‘thing which burns, shall bun up its *% fuel. Hence will not the Which is fir, buen its fuel 2”, which entailed, as he believed, “that universe would be destroyed by fire” # — well, a subtle thinkers is said to have argued against Zeno as follows : “What I for one have seen yesterday and a year ago and along time ago, and what I similarly see today, Ido not sce to have suffered ** at all through the fire of th sun. But in the course of time some little damage should have beon done if we are to beliove that the whole universe will ever be destroyed by firo”. The same kind of answer is also valid against the theory of 2” al rin nande .brdpyow + the problem of theodiey. CE. sbove, p. 61 n, 22m, Uelow, p75. 290, p. 172.310. 4290 A word euch ae Gr should be inserted, of, forthe text, Brinkmann in opp. ete spd Below, 2.208. 204 rhe Zines 708 Kirlar.. Mpoe, 8seo8 a deruputjoeree » Hey t @y 38 iyov What, again, is the origin of pleasure and desire? For these they. call evil par excellence; pleasure and dosire constitute their principal reasons for hating mattor. That these axe found only in living beings endowed with sense-perception and that only those beings whieh possess sense-porception of some kind partake of desire and pleasure, is, of course, clear. For what sort of perception of pleasure and pain is there in a plant, and what in earth, water or air? The demons "4 — assuming that these are beings endowed with sense- perception — enjoy for pethaps just this reason that which according to custom is offered to them when sacrifices are made, and for this very reason, perhaps, they atv vexed when they are given nothing, while itis impossible to coneeive of any such feeting in relation to God. Those who say “Why do living beings feel pleasure and desire?” should rathor inquire why these are endowed with sense-perception,® or ‘why they stand in need of food. For those beings which, a2 we know, aze immortal and whieh are exempt from decay and growth, such as the sun and the moon and the other heavenly bodies, though being endowed with perception, are beyond pain or pleasure, and hence do not come under this inquiry. Mlan, however, is eapable both of sonse-perception and discrimination." and potentially wise — since he has the power 3 ofp nde beopiour onan el rf re Avaya + the importance of the Aisinton forthe eoneption af divine providence may’ Be guuged fro the Zack tha ir plays an important part im Cale’ daemon of Fate (for which wn nove B20 60) fa Tim 145, 9.188, 19, W. Wasik ade. quotes some pall Sons pe Pla De fea, Cf. Don Bot, 2. 97 {3 Sor ond Gm ate dependent on sone-peeoption Introd, p. 45 5% Ther, the Blpoes are the (both indy and annals) gods of the and ‘Greck pantheon, Tho supreme God is eo of nda and Soran bo wan of der of above, p72. 284 11285 286 According to Asta Dean 41461 ds Sor what plentat coral of wee perepton. Me Ch above, p. 4B. 188. AS ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISN 9 of becoming such — but, having roocived what belongs to him, ho tramples it underfoot.2'7 < But we should retum to our original question : ** in what sense actually, is it sid that God sent the divine power down towards matter Yor if the divine power existed eternally and neither God nor mati ‘are eonceiver! as being prior to it, then, we may infer, Manichaeus have to assume three principles, and perhaps the number of principles will in no time appear to be even quite considerable. If, on the of ‘hand, it came into being at a later time, what is the reason why it does not share in matter? If, however, itis part *" of God, then first of all ‘they make out God to be composite * and corporeal, which is odd 8s voll as impossible, If, on the contrary, itis God who created this po 29% goa ag ow +f rominkgoont of Pato, Prt, 221, where technical ona i int tosmian because he i Zoos (7 121), the quotation is xo to span transpored 281 18 éniparor drome #860 Tateod . 42, p-B 58 Which, ineietally, Alexander believes tn be impossible (above, p75 n. 200% 5° he oriin ofthis carlos let of peofseinz ofthe mon in Jesu’ compen (Csberme ‘are not mentioned i obscure, One ix reminded af some of the Syaowpyo Soaraiee aed to talk with ‘20 Cf. above, Ch I ‘0 Formulated Ch. XUL p18, 11, Bes Cf, above, p 73.298, 1 Cf Tate, p16, pS {8t einderoy cf owe, p. TI n.280 and Takeo, p. 36, p18 AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISM al and it does not share in matter, I find it hard to believe that neither Manicheaus nor his followers paid any attention to the fact that, if God created this power of his own free will — as in the true doctrine ‘those entities which come next in order, while God remains, are said to be hypostases — absolutely nothing would keep him from becoming. ‘the cause of all the other things which come into being as well, without being dependent on any pre-existing matter in any way.2 ssi, Such are the evident absurdities inherent in this view, which also generates the following problems. Was it natural for the power to stream into ®4 matter, or was this against its nature ? If the latter, in what way then did tho mixture take place? If, hawever, this hap- pened according to its nature, then, I think, it would positively have ‘boon eternally connected with matter. If this be assumed, why do ‘they speak ill of matter when from the beginning this is blended with the divine power? Also, in which way shall matter, the divine power being blended with it from the beginning, perish, when, if this ever happens, the power will have disappeared? For the power preserves ‘what is good, and it is more reasonable to assume that it is the cause cof some other good for those in which it is present, than to assume that it should bring destraction or some other evil upon them. Bs, This is what the clever point they make amounts to : just as wo see ‘that, when the soul is separated from the body, the body itself perishes, £5 On this important passage cf Introd, p. 10fE, p. Hf 54 js da: for drape CfTluonea) a ¢ termine delgnating emanation of Darss, Enanaton, passim, and Lilla, es. 17 ff. Alexander provides sn exatnple for the related otion of “influeneo” which Dirsio danica to Greek thowght. Tn Method, De lib, arb erppcie and droppala ace apparently aynooymous, of 3, 9, ps 168, OAL B, from otter apa defpinos Soups rh wards Ib 0, 8, 109, 12 By v8 word €f Soppoias nfs (eo. matte. 35 Again, the argument of motion roel (ow and ward om; ef. Introd, ps 22-25. SCE, Plato, Rep. 0080 rb wiv dnoDy wal Bagezer ele xb namie cm, v8 Bb Sov nal icdods 3 Syadie. Ta poe Aret. De undo, with ie sigan and ypieally Flatonie and post-Pletonie theory that the kostos is something good, we read that the Bogs of God (of. above p. 41, 138, p. 101) La asponelble forthe oun of ‘ivere (20603,82 AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATOMIST AGAINST DUALISM. to slso, when the power has departed from matter, that which remaing ‘matter — will fall apart and vanish*? But, frst, they do not. perceive that it is impossible for any existing thing to perish into what | is not, for what is not does not exist, The dissolution occurs when the constituent corporeal parts undergo some sort of change and are dispersed, so that some of thom return to earth, some of them to air and some of them to another clement.3** Next, they do not remember ‘that matter has boon defined by them as random motion, That which is moved by itself» and has motion not as a property but for its essence — how can it be reasonable to affirm that, when the power has departed, this self-moving entity stops from being what it was already before the power desconded upon it? They do not perceive th difference, viz., that each body which does not share in soul is | 298 ody sie dre xe Sera oly tir corr dlpetes es x8 sh v8 vp) bob era Beacecbatiren Brn pine x peraoh rau oer buds bra, dave oy, heey de 188 le dpm Bee Do w+ tho Tamoes tot of post Pae Toenidcan Preswertio philorophy. he ontological thesis i inwseed Dy AM PA 191ag3 ff, which ie tranlated by Cladus, In Tim. 278, p.280, 9-287, 6 Ws of Van Winden,o.. 744 Waasink (ef. above, p20. 6) argos that a Clete his gut ack to Porphyry. The seerons to the satura of the elements to their Hin, which ip ‘ot in Calon in thi content, recalls wach Aristottion patages us Phy. 204028 rors & of dow, nok Baers cs voir, aad GO 226010 (on Rmpedodey| ed re | ru eipwees nai ds & Zara eras, Tho explanation of death a6 the rearing Tome of the cements xplclyexpresod forte ft time by Hmpadode, PS 81489 and [Hipp Sa, Hom. 2,00. W Miller, leche 2 teicher, Wiesbaden 1965, 48,14. ‘Theontlogel tenet wa eld by Eplons an wel of. 0. By. a Het, p. Dios, Lab 1X, 38-89, end inthe donogeaphical Iterator, ap. Put, Strom. (Des, p- 681,11 ff De For the Soin ace Asins Did ft. 27 (Dos. pe 462, 1-15 D.) rw pvp (2 ea) ero Sun nal y(n. $l) eb Bra. endpravae. For the dill Seg. Ryley, Rol te. 88 Binary wide np Hale * 13 yp Baldy drsedyre = Hitoe it not nesowery to thi of Porphyry ax the only preaibe scare for this [ce ofentlogea! information, Thi imprston is outiazed by Gaon, De meth ma Kp. H, 1037, 2 Ky who alley, stnong tone teeta which were gnarl held 98006 shot pllonphens aaa’ dbo, p- 98,10), the axiom wiv? & Sas rod BE rob pS Gros ofS obra 88 ral rb Bees pr ee 73 rhe br Be Surthee Tato. p. 17-18. 298 This alludes to Plato's deviniion of wool axa albmoving entity (Paadr 245 0% Lave 815 br 2 Hap eaags 2 AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISM 8 motionless — for even plants possess a soul, sc. a vegetative soul ## — hile they affiria the essence itself of matter to be motion, though sandom, It would have been better to say that, just as in a lyre which produces disorderly sounds the coming of harmony brings everything into concord, so also the divine power when mingled with the random motion — to wit, according to them, matter — has brought into it some order instead of its inherent disorder, (an ordet) which is suitably conforming to the divine company, and goes on doing so.*® For in what way did Manichacus himself become capable of apprehending ‘these things and by what means did he ever deal with them ? Wor they concede that he too was a blend of matter and the power included therein. Now he either said these things by means of the random motion he possessed — in that case his doctrine cannot but he wrong; or else he did so by means of the divine power he possessed — thon his teaching is ambiguous : in so far as it originates ftom the divine power, it shares n truth; but in so far os, originating from the random motion, it partakes of the other part, it turns into untruth, If, however, we had been told that the divine power hestows order ‘upon matter at present even as it did formerly, #44 this would have heen a cloverer statement and a much greater contribution to the trust- worthiness of Manichasus’ teachings. However,*# as one may reoall, “God sent down a second power” ‘What: has beon said concerning the earlier power applies to this one as well; and the absurd consequences entailed by their theory concern- ing this first power of theirs can also be pointed out in the present ease. How can one possibly accept another power beyond the first ? Because, one may ask, for what reason after all did God refrain from 8 doruciy done fe Ariat, Am 417695, 414039 ate alo below, x. 386) Por another eho of Aristotle's paychology ef. above, p= 78. $13, blow, p 05m, 30 #4 Ch abo, p. 25, 141 Br. and p. TH 278 $2 Of Introd, p. 3948, 9 Brinkmann unnecessarily brackets dnd rfe Ander ashe (9. 26, 15 Br) + éedoyqoey wal secu ch Intra, p. 80 ff %# Dani dou not ay that “soul” i Demiurge, but introduces another power84 AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALASOE sending down one power eapable of everything Or is it only thy intellect of man whichis adjustable in relation to all possible purpose so that the same intellect may bo a geometer's, an astronomers or a carpenter's and so on? And would it then have been too difficult fog God to find such a power as would have sulfced him for al things, gg that he would not want both a first and a sesond ? For what reasoa i the second a demiurzical power and the first of a more passible nature, so that it is fit to be mingled with matter ? For in this case ale Tail to see the reason for a hierarchy of goodness, and fo the superior ty in rexpect of goodnes, if, indeed, there was no evil in tho owe cof God.2t For if enly God is good and only matter is evil, the other things should of necessity be said to he in between, ie. between good and evil. But in their system some sort of outstanding creator is en= countered in the middle region, as they say that the second poweris demiurgial cause and the first mingled with matter. Hence these mage perhaps be compared to the “things to be preferred” and “not t be prefered’, mentioned by certain moze reeent philosophers in tl theory of things neither good nor evil.* ** parts. For why should not the divine power be matter also, if itis passible and divisible throughout and if one of its parts becomes sun and another moon ? (For these, they say, consist of the divine power in its pure state). But this is cexacily what we said to be the property of matter, wis., thatitis nothing in itself and reecives the shapes and the qualities, and in this way becomes all the things whieh are determinate. Now, if only sun and moon came into being from the divine power as if from a single substratum,* and if sun and moon are different ftom one another, why should nat this power become something else as well? But if it may become all things, the conclusion is evident, vi., that the divine power itself is matter too, being qualitatively determined in relation to the shapes it receives But if that which originates from the divine over is nothing but sun and moon, then that which is contained in all beings is sun and moon too, and each of the stars is sun and moon (or merely matter), and each of the animals living on dry land and each of the birds and of the amphibians Kikewise. ‘That such things ‘would not even be acceptable to those who work the mechanical won- ders of the puppet-theatre will, I trust, be clear to everyone. ‘Let us tum to the next points, though our road is nob straight, but even more diffioult than that which has been passed. For they say + that nothing untoward has occurred to sun and moon for all theit ‘mingling with matter. And yet they cannot explain why the other parts of the divine power have become worse in ways contrary to their proyer nature. For if the divine power, also when still being in itso, 38 CE. Inteod, p57 380 With due hesitation, we propote to Toad caBéinsp dey , otherwice the sentenco ean bacdly bo translated. 88 § Déyouar Bu rs Dye do 7 pyBée we oFeay ual! Coury Bexoudey BE sal nop seubrras aire yiyeatan 18 Bupiouire + of aborts Introd p. 134% 188, p. 62,280, m,281, and, for maar as ‘acting’, above p. 291,72. 8 bs Seocagion (ef. above, p. 62m. 24): wl, being corpoesl, Sumetions a8 ruatter 29 apés v8 exsuave-nowwéig + Being qualitatively deteisined by the shapes is the Droptium of matter, ef above, p58 n 188, p- 62m. 28,86 AN ALEXANDRIA FLATONIST AGAINST DUALISY. had beon so constituted that one partof it was beautiful and another part even more beautiful, exsctly as the mythical Hippocentaurs ** were ‘men as far as their breast and horses for the rest —both being beantiful animals but man being more beautiful — so also in relation to the divine power one may think of one part of itas being eminently beauti- fal and of the other part as somewhat less in this respect; and also ay regards matter, part of it would be somchow excessively evil, other parts different from one another — ch. xxnt pe, They say that both sun and moon separate the divine power ftom p.30 Bs, matter bit by bit and transmit ft to God, the moon receiving it within itself from the time when it is new until when it is full, and then giving it to the mun, which sends it on towards God, ‘They would not have been.in this plight, had they, at least occasion~ 288 Brinkman wrongly inserts wal before xard rie nav Tew. wafer (p. 29, 6 Bre 1385 “and also an. efferent": Brislemana assumes to Iacunas, but it in auficent ‘to assume ane; We hove supplied the words . 888 As. fo seadoza, but Hp should be excised (p. 23, 19 Br). {97 The dosbsful xpdeoue, of course, of Man's God of. aboro, p. 5, 25 Be. pub. AN ALBXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISat 87 ally, attended the lectures of astronomers;*#* then they would not have been unfamiliar with the fact that the moon (which according to some does not possess a light of its own) is illuminated by the sun, ani that the configurations of the moon are conditioned by its distance from the sun, and that it becomes full whenever it ia distant from the sun one hundred and eighty degrees, and that it is in conjunction whenover it moves in the same degree with the sun, Furthermore, how is it to be explained that the souls, being 2 many and being separated from such diverse ereatures— they would, indeed, be those of the world itself and of animals and plants and nymphs and demons, and among these those of winged animals and of land animals and of amphibians — are not # discerned by the sight, but that in the moon one single body continually appears to us as being the same at all times? Aud what of the continuity of this body? When the moon is half full, it appears a3 a semi-circle, and when the moon is in its second or third quarter it appears as gibbous.* Again, how are the souls taken up towards tho moon, and what then is their shape ?¢ For if this ehape is light, like fire, it would be more likely that the souls would reach the npper limit-than thal they would get only as far as the ‘moon. If, on the other hand, this shape is heavy, it is absolutely im- possible for them to reach the moon. What sense does it make for the first souls to arrive at the moon if they are not sont on towards the sun immediately, but have to wait until the moon is full and the other souls have arrived? Moreover, during the time when the moon, from having been full, decreases, whore doos the power that is separated remain until the moon, having bean emptied of the former souls, receives a new wave of immigrants, just as @ depopulated city does? 48 Alexander contrasts Grosk sciontifio culture with tacbarlan euperctiton, FIs {ellow-phillosophaes should not have fallen into this tap. 189

Suxphorrc is (ght) suggeeted by Drinkrnann(p. 30, 17) 599 de, has owadror at tho end ofthis sentence (p 9,21 Br), whichis unéranslatable in this context; we have omitted I, 90) exon itis unnecesary to follow Brinkmann, who conjectures dyuor. Alex ander goes of to nak (p. $1, 28 Br, below) ifthe soul i x08 hor. ole 0p oops. For the oxjuara orn of the elements of above, Ch. Vig p10, 42. Br, and p. 63 a. 188, P. 02 n, 250, p. 85 m. 361. Light elements move astuclly upwards, heavy elements Aownwards, cf. Tnttodp. 28.25. A few lines before, Alezander har scovand Mani of ‘usking coal Into something eorporel and mated ef. p. 65m. 252, n. 359)pm Be ob, XXII Br, 88 AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATOSIST AGAINST DUALISM. Should not some sort of magazine, where the souls assemble and any prepared for thei joumey to the moon, have beon marked off m seine ‘part of the earth or of the clouds or of some other place ? ‘There is another difficulty as well. For what possible reason does thy moon not become full immediately, or for what reason does it wait ‘exactly a fortnight ? Tt is not the least amazing thing among those that ‘have been pointed out that never within the memory of man the moon hhas become full in less than a fortnight, but that this did not even happen during the cataclysm in Dencalion’s time and even less in Phoroneus’ time, when, so to speak, everything upon earth perished, and, consequently, the power happened to be separated from matter to a quite large extent. Apart ftom this, it would have been proper to take also the fertilities and infertlities of gencrations and also their death into consideration ** since these do not occur according to a fixed pattern, the regular order of full moons and wanings should not hhave been so strictly presorved either. Not wholly beside the point is also the following argument, tia, that, if the divine power contained within matter is infinite, the cone tinnons Iahours of stm and moan are of no avail with megane to ite rowing less; since when something definitely finite *is taken away from it, that which remains is still infinite. If, on the other hand, itis finite, it should have heen perceptible in the course of so long a time to what extent this power had, in the long run, grown less in the worlds but all things remain as they were.%# Is it not more fantastic than any myth ® when they say that man is ‘a produet of matter copied from the image which is visible in the sun ?”* ‘51 cf, bore, Ch. NITY, Ch, XTV. 151 That things below the moon do aot more at regularly the hoarealy bodies hemalien ie & commonplhoe of Greek thought afar Arloots, See eg, Dodds, Page and Chr. 6, 344 We read dnovenepunuéiou with the me. instead of Brinkmann's dni nerepanudit (0-336. 8 dd dire pols pds ef above, p. TA ne 205, p 75m 268, 108 Cf, ahoxe, p 10.275, 107 on this difficult pacmge, of above, Che TV, p 6 22 fy p Off Be, These hs AN ALEXANDRIAN PLATONIST AGAINST DUALISN 88 For images, as you know, aro copies of the archetypal Forms.** Buti they allow the image to ben the sun, where, then, is the original 2! af- tor which this image of theirs has been moulded 1 For they will not say, of course, that that man himself is the real man. nor that the divine poser is the real man; for they mingle this with mattor, and they say that the image has heen observed in the sum, which, as they say, eame into being at a later time in consequence of the separation from mat- tera% Nor will they say that the demiurgic eause is the zeal man; for this, they say, has been sont down to save the divine power, and should, according to them, be assumed by all means to be prior to the sun, since stm and moon were separated from matter only in consequence of its arrival; and they say that the image has been seen in the sun.o” oid, 7. 7, 1218 Br, that man He the nage (ches) of divine power (probably the “hia, s0¢p,65-n, 100) and, p. 7, 104 De, that man posseres more ‘cou than other living beings. Tue Polat of Alexander's (sther dogmatic) eticin seems to he that, ince (1) every image isthe imege of an ideal protatype (napaBernia) and (2) none of ‘he powers i a oat prototype og (3) mone of the divine powers eat be Che ual ‘of man, Alexander's translation’ of the Manichacan torm exéy in Patonie concept san sttempt to alogrize — The argument of Alexander can to come extent be iustrated Dy adducing one of Albin” proofs for the existense of trancoendent ideas, Didase 8, p. 163, 10 H “ia general ll things thet eoae into teing intentionally ht vo ome Into balug In relation to something, fom whieh they arould come to be something dived from fomething ele, jest eg my image (on) comes from me; then the origina! (para eB yndutoe nar éluey made 7 3b mopibecna eigma) bas to havea prior existene=" eoPidoe 3p Bede pleolas, a Carep dad cide reper, di dx det Hh ea Be spntnorcia 1 leds Bad alow nv dprerdrem +: the only ceference to exemplary Platonic ideas In Alexander; ch. 360 (rapieriels ne 370 (bv Sivas d8purer. 30 028 Ge ia np caboe naraeinovnr, mod 78 mapdBenyens Th the image iim the sun, the prototype should not be In the sun, CE. alo n. 307, fv fine. 20 ob yp Bj ard ye vr Gelpieron eveus viv das depot elms, Probably, sists 6 dodpuoros i he “thin” power ef above, p58, a. 190), who desomde upon the fn. Since the anichacans appoar t9 aay he ean eed, he eannot be Beare Spares {7 Sop e tho anton’ of the ann, én whieh tho Smiaz i wales Ronee i canna be 4s ors 2 Probably, Alexander meant that the Manichacan domlurge (= ‘sceon” powee) sannet be takes into considerntion,becatae the Manichaeans themaclves do nat connect