Sympatheia in Basil of Caesarea's Hexameron: A Plotinian

Hypothesis

N. Joseph Torchia

Journal of Early Christian Studies, Volume 4, Number 3, Fall 1996, pp. 359-378
(Article)

Published by Johns Hopkins University Press

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/earl.1996.0038

For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/9777

Access provided by USP-Universidade de São Paulo (11 Dec 2018 18:38 GMT)
Sympatheia in Basil
of Caesarea’s Hexameron:
A Plotinian Hypothesis

N. JOSEPH TORCHIA

By the fourth century, Christian thinkers had developed a number of detailed

commentaries on the account of creation found in the opening chapters of Gen-
esis. A notable example of this work is found in Basil of Caesarea’s Hexameron,
a series of nine homilies. While Basil claimed to provide a strictly literal inter-
pretation of Genesis, his exposition reveals a reliance upon insights derived
from a range of sources that include Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics. But investi-
gations of its possible Neoplatonic heritage (and more specifically, its Plotinian
background) are relatively sparse. Apparently, portions of only two homilies
(that is, hex. 2.7 and 6.9) have been isolated as indicators of a Plotinian influ-
ence. Accordingly, Basil’s Hexameron offers a potentially fertile source for fur-
ther assessments of the scope of his intellectual dependence upon Plotinus. This
paper undertakes such an assessment within the context of Basil’s discussion of
the act of creation, with a special focus upon his use of the term sympatheia.
While Basil’s interpretation of sympatheia reflects the influence of the Stoic
philosopher Posidonius, it strongly suggests that a Plotinian influence was oper-
ative in the Hexameron (as well as in a number of other works in the Basilian
corpus). In this connection, the paper contends that Basil gained access to the
notion of sympatheia and some closely related insights through the mediation of
Plotinus’ Enneads IV.3.–IV.4.

By the fourth century, Christian thinkers had developed a number of de-

tailed commentaries upon Genesis. A notable example of this work is
found in Basil of Caesarea’s Hexameron, a detailed exposition of the six
days of creation. Basil’s Hexameron comprises nine homilies which were
supposedly delivered during a single Lenten week in C.E. 378, the year of
his death.1 Prominent Church Fathers such as Gregory Nazianzus, Gre-

1. J. C. M. van Winden, “An Appropriate Beginning: The Opening Passage of Saint

Basil’s In Hexaemeron,” in Platonismus und Christentum: Festschrift für Heinrich
Journal of Early Christian Studies 4:3, 359–378 © 1996 The Johns Hopkins University Press.
360 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

gory of Nyssa, Ambrose, and Jerome shed great praise upon these writ-
ings for their penetrating insights.2 When Ambrose acknowledged those
“more expert authors who have precedence over us” in his own rich
Hexameron (IV.3.11), he clearly had Basil in mind.
Basil set out to interpret Scripture in its most literal sense.3 As he af-
firms, “when I hear ‘grass,’ I think of grass, and in the same manner I un-
derstand everything as it is said. . . .”4 In contrast to those who apply the
allegorical method of interpretation, Basil seeks to understand the text be-
fore him precisely “as it has been written.”5 For him, the authoritative
character of Genesis is traceable directly to Moses, an author whose
words of truth are expressed in “the teachings of the Spirit,” and not in
the “persuasive language of human wisdom.”6 Despite this avowed com-
mitment to literal exegesis, however, Basil’s commentary on Genesis re-
veals a reliance upon insights derived from a range of sources that include
Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics. But investigations focusing upon its pos-
sible Neoplatonic heritage (and more specifically, its Plotinian back-
ground) are relatively sparse.7
The paucity of research in this area is evident when we consider that
only small portions of two homilies in Basil’s Hexameron (that is, 2.7 and
6.9) have been isolated as possible indicators of a Plotinian influence.8 Ac-
cordingly, the Hexameron homilies offer a potentially fertile field for fur-
ther assessments of the scope and extent of Basil’s intellectual dependence

Dorrie (Münster Westfalen, 1983), 307. In addition to his nine homilies on the Hexa-
meron, Basil’s exegetical writings include his seventeen homilies on the Psalms, and his
Enarratio in prophetam Isaiam (comprising sixteen chapters).
2. Cf. Gregory Nazianzus, hom. 43. For Gregory of Nyssa’s remarks, see PL 44.61;
for Ambrose’s quotes of Basil, see PL 29.209–210; for Jerome’s remarks, see PL 29.1–2.
3. Basil of Caesarea, hex. 9.1 (SC 26, 2e Edition).
4. hex. 9.1.
5. hex. 9.1.
6. hex. 1.1.
7. The question of Basil’s Neoplatonic background is treated in great detail by John
Rist, “Basil’s ‘Neoplatonism’: Its Background and Nature,” in Paul Jonathan Fedwick,
ed., Basil of Caesarea: Christian, Humanist, Ascetic: A Sixteen-Hundreth Anniversary
Symposium (Toronto, 1981), 137–220. Rist (190ff.) minimizes the extent of the influ-
ence of Neoplatonism upon Basil (both as a student in Athens and as a theologian and
exegete), citing A. Jahn’s Basilius Magnus plotinizans (Bern, 1838) and the elaboration
of the thesis in Paul Henry’s Les Etats du texte de Plotin (Paris, 1938), 159–166.
8. According to Rist, (“Basil’s ‘Neoplatonism,’” 191), Henry contended that Basil
utilized Plotinus in the following manner: (a) EGNaz. uses Enn. V.1 and VI.9; (b) hex.
uses Enn. I.6 and II.8; (c) C.Eun. uses Enn. II.8 and V.1; (d) HFide uses Enn. I.6, V.1,
VI.9; (e) Spir. uses Enn. I.6, I.7, II.9, V.1, V.8, VI.7, VI.9; (f) HFide uses Enn. V.1. This
list was later reduced to Spir. (with Enn. V.1 as a referent) and HFide (with Enn. V.1
and VI.9 as referents).
 TORCHIA/A PLOTINIAN HYPOTHESIS 361

upon the Enneads. This paper will undertake such an assessment within
the context of Basil’s discussion of the act of creation. In this way, I hope
to expand the rather short list of Plotinus’ writings which have been sug-
gested as Basil’s sources. I begin with a brief consideration of his treat-
ment of the opening lines of Genesis, as found in the first and second hom-
ilies of Basil’s Hexameron.

BASIL ON THE ACT OF CREATION

Basil’s point of departure is the teaching that “In the beginning God creat-
ed the heavens and the earth” (Gen l.l). In a manner consistent with Divine
omnipotence, God brought the world into being by the mere inclination of
His will, like potters who make vessels without diminishing their art or
their power.9 Such an analogue, of course, must be used with caution. Like
other Christian writers, Basil was critical of any depiction of God’s role as
Creator along Platonic lines as an Artisan or Craftsman.10 Indeed, such a
characterization merely suggests the imposition of a rational plan upon a
material that exists independently of its Creator. From this standpoint, the
creation of the world would amount to no more than a fashioning, where-
by God is reduced to something of a “member of a partnership” and placed
on an equal footing with a preexistent material substrate.11
By virtue of his affirmation that God creates in the most literal sense of
the term, Basil denies that the world and the matter of which it was
formed are coeternal with God. God not only informs matter but creates
“the nature of that which exists.”12 The “nature” in question here con-
stitutes those realities which the mind can grasp only by contemplation—
that is, rational, invisible natures and the entire orderly arrangement of

9. hex. 1.2: ÄWv gàr oÄ kerameùv apò

à th̃v aÃuth̃v tÝqnhv murßa diaplÜsav skeýh, o‰ õte
th̀n tÝqnhn o‰ õte dýnamin exanÜlwsen·
à oÂ
õtw kaì oÄ toũ pantòv toýtou dhmiourgòv,
oÃuq enì
Ä küsmÓ ù sýmmetron th̀n poihtikh̀n ‰eqwn dýnamin, aà llà eÃiv tò aà peiroplÜsion
uÄ perbaßnousan, tŸ̃ ropŸ̃
Ä toũ jelçŒmatov münŸ eÃiv tò eé́˜nai parh́gage tà megÝjh tw̃n
oÄ rwmÝnwn. According to Basil’s interpretation of the act of creation, God does not re-
quire any complicated or laborious process for the expression of His will. The sim-
plicity of the creative act is upheld even when God creates through the agency of the
Word (hex. 3.2).
10. Cf. Theophilus of Antioch, Auto. II.4: Tß dè mÝga, eÃi oÄ jeòv ex à uÄ pokeimÝnhv
Ôulhv epoßei
à tòn küsmon.
11. hex. 2.2: AÂuth gàr chsì, kaì aà üratov tŸ̃ cýsei kaì a à kataskeýastov, ‰apoiov
oÃũsa tù̃
Ó eauth̃v
Ä lügw,
Ó kaì pantòv e‰idouv kaì sqh́matov keqwrismÝnh, h ¾ n paralabẁn
oÄ teqnßthv tŸ̃ eautoũ
Ä socßÓa eà mürcwse, kaì eÃiv tÜxin h ‰ gage, kaì oÔ
utw dià aÃuth̃v
oÃusßwse tà orþmena.
Ä
12. hex. 2.3: ÃEpoßhsen oÄ Jeòv tòn oÃuranòn kaì th̀n gh̃n· oÃuk ex à hmiseßav
Ä
362 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

spiritual creation.13 The visible universe (along with the temporal process
attuned to a changing, corruptible world) was added to what already ex-
isted as a kind of training ground for human souls.14
Basil’s understanding of time as an extension of eternity (hex. 2.8) is
consistent with his view of creation as an orderly arrangement of parts
which contribute to the goodness of all things. Basil’s cosmos is a vast net-
work of distinct but closely interrelated components. God harmonizes
these components for the perfection of the whole:
He joined the whole cosmos, having dissimilar parts, by an unbroken law of
love into one communion and concord (™Olon dè tòn küsmon aà nomoiomerh̃
tugqÜnonta arrŒÃ hktÓ w tinì cilßav jesmw
Ó̃ eÃiv mßan koinwnßan kaì aÄrmonßan
sunÝdhsen), so that things at the greatest distance from one another in place
appear to be united through a universal affinity, that is, sympatheia (™ wste
kaé̀ tà pleĩston aà llŒhlwn tŸ̃ jÝsei diesthküta h Ä nw̃sjai dokeĩn dià t ç̃ v
sumpajeßav).15

ekÜteron,
Ä a
à llà Â
olon oÃuranòn kaì o Âlhn gh̃n, aÃuth̀n th̀n oÃusßan tÓù̃ e‰idei sunei-
lhmmÝnhn. OÃuqì gàr sqhmÜtwn estßn à euÄ rÝthv, aà llà aÃuth̃v th̃v cýsewv tù̃n ‰
ontwn
dhmiourgüv. Basil specifically challenges this thesis in his exegesis of Gen 1.2 that the
earth was invisible and unfinished. In opposition to those who interpret this teaching
as referring to uncreated matter, Basil presents the following argument: if matter is un-
created, then it would be comparable to God, and thereby, it could serve as a standard
against which the Divine Intelligence is measured (hex. 2.2). But even if uncreated mat-
ter was recognized as inferior in respect to God, a serious error still remains. If God
acted upon an inferior preexistent substrate, then the product would be unworthy of
the power and dignity of its Creator. In effect, the inferior material upon which God
was constrained to act would result in the creation of an inferior product (hex. 2.2).
13. hex. 1.5.
14. hex. 1.5, 1.6. For Basil, the Scriptural dictum that God created in the beginning
refers to a beginning according to time. The beginning in question does not pertain to
the start of everything which exists, but encompasses only those visible, empirical re-
alities which emerged after the creation of invisible, spiritual reality. In this regard,
Basil draws a clear distinction between the creation of an eternal, spiritual order ex-
isting outside of time and a visible universe exhibiting temporal process. Basil also in-
terprets the phrase in the beginning in much broader terms, that is, the beginning of
creation as a whole that is prompted by an instantaneous, timeless act on the part of
God. In this respect, the beginning of time is viewed as atemporal, just as the “begin-
ning of the road is not yet the road, and the beginning of the house not yet the house”
(hex. 1.6). Basil could have found an important precedent for this thesis in the Patris-
tic tradition. Origen contends (hom. in Gen. I.11) that “Scripture does not speak here
of a temporal beginning” when it teaches that in the beginning God made heaven and
earth. Instead, the true beginning must be traced to the Divine Word who was with
God before the creation of the visible universe. Earlier, Philo Judaeus had also denied
that Genesis teaches a temporal origin of the world. For Philo, the phrase in the be-
ginning is not construed chronologically, but rather, in terms of an order established
by God for the realization of the good (hom. opif. VII.26–27).
15. hex. 2.2.
 TORCHIA/A PLOTINIAN HYPOTHESIS 363

Through the benevolence of God, then, each part of reality is somehow

linked and harmonized, regardless of its spatial separation. From this
standpoint, the universe constitutes a unified system proceeding from the
action of an ultimate causal Principle. For Basil, the teaching of Genesis
clearly affirmed that the world is causally dependent upon God for its be-
ginning, its intelligibility, and its goodness.16

THE PHILOSOPHICAL SOURCES OF BASIL’S HEXAMERON

Proceeding from this overview of Basil’s theory of creation, let us now con-
sider the question of possible philosophical sources and influences. At the
outset, it is important to recognize that when Basil expounded upon the
opening lines of Genesis, he was working within an intellectual tradition
that can be traced to the very beginning of the Patristic period. By the time
that Basil wrote these homilies, attempts to explicate the act of creation in
terms of a formation of created (but amorphous) matter had become a
commomplace in Christian exegesis. The early Fathers freely drew upon a
Platonic model of creation as a formation or ordering of matter, but adapt-
ed it to suit their own doctrinal requirements. In a very real sense, Basil’s
Hexameron reflects such a shift between two traditions, or as Giet has ob-
served, it encompasses a “double tradition”—that is, the tradition of
Christian exegesis on Genesis and the tradition of Greek philosophical
speculation about the origin and constitution of the world.17
But precisely which philosophical writings exerted a decisive influence
upon Basil in this context? Giet presents an excellent survey of possible
sources, citing Plato (especially, the Timaeus), Aristotle’s cosmological,
geographical, and naturalist writings, and the understanding of finality
and universal order derived from the Stoics (along with Epitomes of clas-

16. While Basil affirms that God is causally responsible for creation, he never casts
this teaching in the language of creation ex nihilo. In this respect, however, his Scrip-
tural referent assumes a real importance. Basil, it must be remembered, relies exclu-
sively upon the teaching of Genesis 1.1, a text where creation ex nihilo appears to have
been assumed by its Priestly writers but not explicitly articulated (as it is in II Mac
7.28). Unlike Theophilus of Antioch and Origen, Basil never refers to II Maccabees
and its depiction of creation in terms of an ontological transition from non-being to
being. Basil’s literal exegesis goes only as far as the text of Genesis permits. But while
Genesis does not explicitly define creation in these terms, it leaves no doubt that God
is the ultimate Cause of everything which exists. And this is precisely the way in which
Basil interprets the text.
17. Stanislas Giet, Basile de Césaree, Homelies Sur L’Hexaéméron (Paris, 1968), In-
troduction, 49: “L’Hexaemeron s’apparente à une double tradition: les commentaires
de la Genèse, et les oeuvres païennes sur l’origine et la constitution du monde.”
364 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

sical philosophers).18 Basil’s Stoic background provides an extremely

promising area for speculation regarding the philosophical elements that
were operative in his Hexameron. An interesting criterion for assessing
this Stoic background is found in Basil’s use of the notion of sympatheia,
the touchstone for our investigation.

SYMPATHEIA: A KEY STOIC REFERENT

As we have seen, Basil held that the components of creation are united
under the influence of Divine love (hex. 2.2). This union finds expression
in sympatheia—the affinity or kinship of all created being. This organic
vision of reality is discernible in Patristic writing as early as Clement’s
Epistle to the Corinthians (c. c.e. 95). For Clement, the harmony observ-
able in nature is an outgrowth of God’s concern for all of creation.19 Such
an emphasis upon the regulation of natural processes and celestial move-
ments reflects a Stoic influence upon the Fathers that was operative from
the Apostolic Age onward.20
The Stoic commitment to a rationally ordered and animated cosmos
was closely aligned with the notion of the sympathetic interaction of
things: if the cosmos is animated, then its parts must be responsive to each
other.21 This thesis assumed a prominent role in the physical theory of the
Stoic philosopher Posidonius. According to Diogenes Laertius, Posidonius

18. Giet, Basile de Césaree, Introduction, 56, 61–63. Giet (69) contends that Basil
used both the Epitomes of classical philosophers, as well as the original philosophical
works on which the Epitomes were based.
19. I Clem. XXI.3. There is strong scholarly support for the contention that
I Clement exhibits a marked Stoic influence in its emphasis upon the operation of Di-
vine Law and the exercise of Providence in the universe. In this connection, see
R. Knopf, Die Lehre der zwölf Apostel in die zwei Klemensbriefe (Tübingen, 1920);
G. Bardy, “Expressions stoiciennes dans la Prima Clementis,” RecSR 13 (1922):
73–85; L. Sanders, L’hellénisme de saint Clément de Rome et le paulinisme (Louvain,
1943); J. J. Thierry, “Note Sur t à elÜqista
à tw̃n zþwn au Chaptre XX de la I Clemen-
tis,” VChr 14 (1960): 235–244. For a critique of this thesis, see W. C. Van Unnik, “Is
I Clement 20 Purely Stoic?” VChr 4(1950): 184.
20. In regard to the scope and extent of Stoic influences upon the Fathers, Gerard
Verbeke (The Presence of Stoicism in Medieval Thought [Washington, D.C., 1983], 5),
offers the following observations: “. . . Stoicism’s . . . influence may already be noticed
in Rome during the second century B.C. and is connected with names such as Panaetius
and Posidonius. Therefore, it is not surprising that Stoicism exercised some influence
on Christian authors at a very early point. Christian moral teaching was influenced by
Stoic categories at an early date. Among Greek Christian writers one may cite Clement
of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and Nemesius of Emesa. Some of their works
were eventually translated into Latin and could be read directly by Western philoso-
phers and theologians. Some Latin Christian writers also passed on the Stoic legacy to
 TORCHIA/A PLOTINIAN HYPOTHESIS 365

held that reason governs every part of the cosmos, a living, self-contained
creature.22 For Posidonius, a phenomenon such as the lunar influence
upon the tides revealed the sympatheia that permeated a hierarchically
arranged universe.23
The influence of Posidonius was wide-ranging, and extended well into
the early centuries of the Christian era. In this connection, Karl Gronau
argued that Posidonius’ lost Commentary on the Timaeus (along with Phi-
lo’s De opificio mundi) provided one of the major sources for the Hexa-
meron tradition, specifically as it found expression in the writings of Gre-
gory of Nyssa and Basil.24 If Gronau was correct in his assessment, then
Posidonius might well have provided the inspiration for Basil’s use of
sympatheia. Posidonius’ understanding of this notion could effectively
complement Basil’s interest in natural phenomena and the orderly arrange-
ment of all aspects of the visible universe. Basil, of course, would have re-
jected the excessively deterministic connotations that sympatheia as-
sumed in Stoic thought. For the Stoics, the sympathetic interaction of
things allowed for the possibility of divination and the prediction of fu-
ture events.25 In Basil’s Christianized version of the concept, however,
sympatheia is the manifestation of God’s providential ordering of creation
into a harmonious whole. In this teleological scheme, each part con-
tributes to the good and completion of the totality.
But the divergence between Stoic thought and Basil’s Christian outlook
raises an important question: did Basil derive his understanding of sympa-
theia directly from Posidonius or was it channelled through other sources?
Indeed, much of what we know about Posidonius’ teaching is based upon

later generations. Among these may be mentioned Tertullian, Lactantius, Saint Jerome,
Saint Ambrose, and Saint Augustine.”
21. John M. Rist, Stoic Philosophy (Cambridge, 1969), 176.
22. Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers VII.139–140.
23. Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy, Volume I, Part II (Garden City,
New York, 1962), 166–167.
24. Karl Gronau, Posidonius und die jüdisch-christliche Genesisexegese (Leipzig-
Berlin, 1914). For a recent assessment of the influence of Philo’s De opificio mundi
upon Basil’s exegetical method in his Hexameron, see David T. Runia’s Philo in Early
Christian Literature (Minneapolis, 1993), 235–241. Criticisms of Gronau’s thesis were
developed by P. J. Levie and Yves Courtonne. According to Levie’s Le sources de la 7e
et de la 8e homelies de saint Basile sur l’Hexaéméron (Musée belge, 1920), the key
source of Basil’s Hexameron (specifically, hex. 7 and 8) was an Epitome of Aristotle,
rather than Posidonius’ Commentary on the Timaeus. In S. Basil et l’Hellénisme (Paris,
1934), however, Courtonne argues that Basil relied upon original philosophical writings
(i.e., Plato’s Timaeus; Aristotle’s cosmological, meterological, and zoological works;
Theophrastus’ botanical writings; Posidonian Stoicism; Plotinian Neoplatonism).
25. John Rist, Stoic Philosophy, 176.
366 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

testimony found in writers with whom Basil would have been acquaint-
ed (that is, Diogenes Laertius, Cicero, Strabo, Seneca, and Galen).26 Like-
wise, the fact that Posidonius exerted such a profound influence upon lat-
er thinkers makes the possibility of such a mediation highly likely.
An important thinker apparently influenced by Posidonius was Ploti-
nus. But this possible line of influence opens the door for some intriguing
speculation in the present context: perhaps Basil did not obtain the no-
tion of sympatheia directly from Posidonius or other Stoic sources; in-
stead, he might have derived it from Plotinus, or, from a familiarity with
Plotinian insights. In this connection, however, Theiler argued that Ploti-
nus’ own understanding of sympatheia was derived from none other than
Posidonius.27 If this were the case, then Basil would have been exposed
to an interpretation of sympatheia which not only bore a definite Stoic
imprint, but which was also decisively shaped by the more sophisticated
metaphysics of Plotinian Neoplatonism. In assessing this hypothesis, let
us first consider Plotinus’ treatment of the concept.

SYMPATHEIA IN PLOTINUS

Plotinus’ interpretation of cosmic sympatheia is an outgrowth of his the-

ory of the unicity of Soul, as found in Enneads IV.3 and IV.4 (the 27th
and 28th treatises, respectively, according to Porphyry’s chronological or-
dering). For him, individual souls and the World Soul are related to the
third hypostasis, that is, Soul in its entirety.28 Plotinus contends that souls
participate in a community of feeling, since they are all derived from the
same source.29 Consequently, souls are never completely separated from
each other, and nothing random can occur among these psychic princi-
ples. For Plotinus, the unicity of Soul is revealed by the harmonious adap-
tation of souls to each other, and by implication, to souls as a totality.
Like the Stoics, Plotinus maintained that the universe constitutes a liv-
ing creature that is united on the basis of shared feelings.30 Accordingly,
that which is spatially distant from something else is really near at hand:
nothing is so distant that it is not close enough to the nature of the living
creature to allow for a mutually shared experience.31 Plotinus supports
26. Paul Edwards, ed., Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Volume 6 (New York/London,
1972), 413b-414b, s.v. “Posidonius,” by Ludwig Edelstein.
27. Willy Theiler, Die Vorbereitung des Neuplatonismus (Berlin/Zürich, 1964),
61–109 (esp. 84–92).
28. Enn. IV.4.32.5–10.
29. Enn. IV.3.8.2–4: ek
à gàr t ç
œ v aÃuth
œv pœ œ
asai oÃusai, ex œÄ kaì hÄ toœ
à hv uo‰ lou, sumpajeœiv.
30. Enn. IV.4.11.1–3, IV.4.33.1–8, IV.5.8.17–19.
31. Enn. IV.4.32.14–18: sumpajèv dh̀ pœan toœuto tò Ôen, kaì wv Ä zwonœÓ Ôen, kaì tò
pürrw dh̀ eà ggýv.
 TORCHIA/A PLOTINIAN HYPOTHESIS 367

this position by means of a physiological analogue: diverse experiences af-

fect the whole of things just as organs or limbs affect other bodily parts
not contiguous or proximate to them.32
Along with the Stoics, Plotinus also viewed the universe as directed by
reason; such rational guidance accounts for the regular, orderly patterns
of celestial bodies. “Like the lyre’s strings plucked in a harmonious fash-
ion,” he asserts, “they sing a song which is naturally in tune. . . .”33
Events in the terrestrial realm, on the other hand, occur in sympathy with
what happens in the heavens.34 These teachings were closely connected
with Plotinus’ conception of magic. As he states, “magic spells work . . .
by sympathy and by the fact that there is a natural affinity of things . . .
alike and an opposition of dissimilar things. . . .”35 In this connection, he
attributed sensory perception to the earth itself. In Plotinian terms, the
earth “hears” human prayers and thereby makes good arrangements on
the behalf of supplicants by a sympathetic response.36 Accordingly, the
magician (through “prayers” or incantations) is attuned to the harmony
of the universe. But such “prayer” is effective only because one part of the
universe is ultimately bound up with every other part.37
Because of these teachings, however, Plotinus’ fidelity to Posidonius
(which Theiler so strongly endorsed) was called into question by Zeller.38
In effect, Zeller suggested that Plotinus severely contaminated Posidonius’
understanding of sympatheia by virtue of his preoccupation with occult
practices. But such a critique must be approached with caution. Plotinus,
it must be remembered, viewed magic in the broader context of his cos-
mic vision. In this regard, his deliberations on sympatheia cannot be di-
vorced from other aspects of his metaphysics. Plotinus’ view of the com-
plimentariness of concord (or love) and discord (or strife) dovetails with
his characterization of the totality of things as one living creature.
This commitment to cosmic unity was further evident in Plotinus’ the-
ory of Providence and his efforts to resolve the problem of evil.39 Ac-
32. Enn. IV.4.19.13–15, IV.4.32.15–21.
33. Enn. IV.4.8.56–58: w  sper qordan en à lýrÓa sumpajw œ v kinhjeœisai mÝlov ¼an
‰a
Ó seian en
à cusikÞ tini aÄ rmonßÓa.
34. Enn. IV.4.34.10–12: lüg w Ó dè ceromÝnwn kaì diacürwn tœ wn sqÝsewn toœ u zwÓœ ou
ginomÝnwn, eœià ta kaì entaœ
à uja toýtwn tœ wn parà hmœÄ in sumpajw œ n pròv tà ekeœ
à i
ginomÝnwn. . . .
35. Enn. IV.4.40.1–4: ¼h tÞ sumpajeßa Ó pecukÝnai sumcwnßan eœÃéíai omoßwn
Ó , kaì tœ
w Ä
kaì enantßwsin
à aà nomoßwn, kaì tÞ twœ n dunÜmewn tw œ n pollœ
wn poikilßÓa eÃiv ¢
en zœwon
Ó
sumteloýntwn.
36. Enn. IV.4.26.
37. Enn. IV.4.41.
38. E. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen, III/I (Leipzig, 1923), 172; III/II (Leipzig,
1923), 686.
39. Plotinus’ theory of Providence is developed in Enn. III.2.47 and III.3.48.
368 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

cording to the Plotinian theodicy, reality is fundamentally good because

it proceeds from the One, the supreme principle of goodness, truth, and
beauty. Still, Plotinus was not oblivious to the apparent evil in the earth-
ly sphere. From his standpoint, such manifestations of disorder neither
impinge upon the goodness of the universe as a whole, nor undermine a
belief in the providential direction of all things to their best possible ends.
In Plotinus’ metaphysical scheme, goodness and rationality must di-
minish in proportion to the degree of separation from the One. By means
of this continuum model, he could explain the seeming inequality of prov-
idential action throughout the universe. For Plotinus, Providence is not
shared on an equal numerical basis, but varies in different places accord-
ing to a law of correspondence.40 In this sense, even things at the very
lowest level of reality can enjoy the benefits of Providence, but only in a
manner commensurate with their position, or in broader terms, their co-
ordination with everything else in the universe of being.

PLOTINUS AND BASIL: A TENTATIVE HYPOTHESIS

On the basis of the foregoing survey, a key question presents itself: to what
extent could Basil have found the inspiration for his Christian under-
standing of sympatheia in a Plotinian framework? At best, such a ques-
tion only allows for a provisional response. Accordingly, I will proceed on
a strictly hypothetical level, assuming that Basil was familiar with at least
Enneads IV.3 and IV.4. If this were the case, then, how promising was
Plotinus’ interpretation of sympatheia for adaptation in Christian terms?
Let us first assess the compatibility between Basil and Plotinus on this top-
ic before considering the extent to which Basil might have been acquaint-
ed with the Enneads.
Clearly, Basil would have rejected Plotinus’ treatment of sympatheia in
connection with magic and occult practices. Equally unacceptable from a
Christian perspective were Plotinus’ depiction of the universe as a living
creature, his theory of the shared experience of all things, and his belief
in the perception of the physical world. But once such objectionable fea-
tures are distilled from his deliberations, we find several elements that ex-
hibit a kinship with sympatheia as it is used in Hexameron 2.2. Like Plo-
tinus, Basil speaks of the harmony of the cosmos in its entirety. For both
thinkers, sympatheia provides a harmonizing of parts in the interest of the
whole. So also, both thinkers view sympatheia as the outgrowth of a uni-
fying bond of love which unites things that are far removed from each
other. According to Basil, “things at the greatest distance . . . in place ap-

40. Enn. III.3.5.1–8.

 TORCHIA/A PLOTINIAN HYPOTHESIS 369

pear to be united.” Plotinus, on the other hand, maintains that “nothing

is so distant in space that it is not close enough . . . to share experience”
(Enn. IV.4.32, 21–23).
But a Plotinian influence upon Basil cannot be proven on the basis of
broad conceptual parallels alone. In the absence of direct quotations from
the Enneads or explicit references to Plotinus, such a reading must remain
highly speculative. In this connection, more convincing grounds for estab-
lishing a Plotinian influence might be found on the basis of terminological
parallels. A search of the Basilian corpus of writings reveals a recurrence of
certain terms that are used in a manner highly compatible with the posi-
tions found in Enneads IV.3–4.41 Accordingly, my contention that Plotinus
provided the inspiration for insights found at Hexameron 2.2 might be re-
inforced by means of a broader examination of Basil’s writings, with a spe-
cific focus upon terminology which suggests a reliance upon the Enneads.

1. The Case for Sympatheia Expanded

A useful starting point in this vein is a reconsideration of the significance
of sympatheia for Basil. Are there any other instances in which he uses the
term in a manner similar to what we find at Hexameron 2.2? A survey of
Basil’s writings reveals a wide range of passages containing sympatheia or
its adjectival forms. Aside from what we encounter in Hexameron 2.2,
however, further evidence for a Plotinian influence upon Basil in this con-
text is rather meager.42 But a glaring exception is found in the seventh

41. This phase of my investigation was reinforced by means of a search of the Basil-
ian corpus of writings through the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG). In this regard,
special thanks must be extended to Mr. Sam Hughes (Department of Classical Studies
of the University of Pennsylvania) for his generous assistance in implementing this re-
search on my behalf. The following citations were derived from a search headed by
the notation “sympathei—in Basil Caesariensis”: hex. 1.2.2; HSp.S. 26.61, 30.78;
EGNaz.[2].2; ENect.cons.[5].1; ENeoc.ec.[28].2,3; EAnc.[29].1; EEusbn.[31].11;
EMon.laps.[45].1; EAtarb.[65].1; EAth.[66].2; EOccid.[90].2; EItal. [92].1;3; ECons.
[101].1; ETars.pb.[113].1; EAmph.[188].7; EAmph. [217].75; E.Eust.[223].2; EItal.
[242].3; EItal.[243].1; EEpiph. [258].1; EOccid.[263].1; EBris.[302].1; Etres.[2].40;
HAtt. at PG 31. 216.19–22; Enarr. in Is. (Trevisan) 1.18.61–62, 5.157.18–19,
5.167.4–5, 7.194.31, 8.223.8–9, 13.259.21–22; HPs. at PG 29.233.48–50; HGrat. at
PG 31.257.47–48; HIul. at PG 31.257.47–48; Asc. at PG 31.1104, 1137, 1152, 1289;
S.Mor. at PG 32.1140, 1217, 1268, 1357. In addition, searches were conducted for ci-
tations containing such closely related terms as harmonia and koinonia. Searches head-
ed by the notations “ermoni—in Basil Caesariensis” and “koinvni—in Basil Cae-
sariensis” yielded an extremely large range of references, too numerous to mention on
an individual basis here. Relevant results of this search have been incorporated into
the discussion which follows.
42. In the vast majority of the places where sympatheia (or its related forms) appear,
the terms assume the ordinary connotations of a sharing of feelings, or a compassion
toward those experiencing misfortune.
370 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

chapter of his Homilia in illud: “Attende tibi ipsi.” Here, Basil enjoins us
to consider the power which the soul imparts to the body, and recipro-
cally, the sympathy whereby the body enables the soul to experience
pain.43 Once again, his remarks find an illuminating referent in Ennead
IV. As Plotinus asserts, “the entire soul perceives the affection in the body
without being affected itself.”44 For both thinkers, the soul constitutes
the directing principle in human nature, while remaining receptive to the
body’s influence, and thereby, sharing its life.
This passage effectively compliments Hexameron 2.2. In both in-
stances, Basil emphasizes that the points of contact between realities of
disparate natures are rooted in a sympathetic bond which ultimately links
all things. In this respect, the interaction of soul and body underscores the
order inherent in the very structure of the universe. Basil also applies this
understanding of cosmic order to the human body alone: in this case, the
organization of bodily parts reflects the same part-to-whole relationship
that is discernible on a universal scale.
God arranged the bodily organs . . . so that the members may care for one
another in the same way, since from the beginning they are conjoined spiritu-
ally by sympathy (katà th̀n pneumatikh̀n koinwnßan th̃v sumpajeßav auà to~iv
uÄ parqoýshv).45

Elsewhere, Basil seems to draw upon Plotinus’ theory of the unicity of

Soul (and its accompanying interpretation of universal sympathy) in an
appeal for ecclesiastical concord. From this standpoint, the members of
the Church are conjoined “as with one soul” (oÄ̃ion uÄ pò yuqh̃v tinov) and
bound into a union of mutual sympathy and fellowship (eÃiv mßan
sumpá́jeian kaì aà kribh̃ koinwnßan sunarmosjÝnta).46

2. Further Terminological Support

A close reading of Basil’s works, however, shows that this vision of cos-
mic unity is not only expressed by means of the term sympatheia. It is also
articulated on the basis of several other terms which likewise find a touch-
stone in Plotinus. According to Hexameron 2.2, sympatheia is the ex-
pression of the Divinely ordained communion (koinonia) and harmony

43. HAtt at PG 31.216.19–22: tßv h Ä aà pò sarkòv pròv yuqh̀n epanioo

à œsa sumpÜjeia·
pw̃v dÝqetai mèn th̀n zwh̀n ek
à th̃v yuqh̃v tò sw̃ma, dÝqetai dè aà lghdünav aà pò toũ sþma-
tov hÄ yuqh́·
44. Enn. IV.4.19.13: pœ asa dè Ÿ à i pÜjov oÃuk aÃuth̀ pajoœusa. For a dis-
Õsjeto tò ekeœ
cussion of Plotinus’ theory of the relation between soul and body, particularly in re-
spect to the experience of pleasure and pain, see H. J. Blumenthal’s Plotinus’s Psy-
chology: His Doctrines of the Embodied Soul (The Hague, 1971), chapter 5.
45. Spir. 26.61 (PG 32.181.25–26).
46. EAnc.[29].1 (PG 32.312).
 TORCHIA/A PLOTINIAN HYPOTHESIS 371

(harmonia) of the different parts of the universe. At the outset, it is inter-

esting to observe that Plotinus himself used sympatheia in conjunction
with at least one member of this pair (i.e., harmonia) in describing the
movement of the celestial bodies. In Ennead IV.4.8, this movement is de-
picted by means of the following analogue: “. . . like the lyre’s strings
plucked in a harmonious fashion, they sing a song which is naturally in
tune” (Âwsper qordan en à lýrÓa sumpajœ wv kinhjeĩsai mÝlov ¼an Õa
Ó seian en
Ã
cusikÞ tini aÄ rmonßÓa).47 Could a familiarity with this particular text have
moved Basil to pair sympatheia with harmonia in a similar fashion? This
theory, I think, finds some support in several passages where Basil de-
scribes the order of the universe on the basis of the “attunement” motif
that assumes such a prominent role in Plotinus’ psychological treatises. In
these places, Basil designates the kinship of things by means of sympa-
theia, harmonia, koinonia, and symphonia (or combinations of these
terms). For all practical purposes, these terms are nearly synonymous in
meaning when they appear in his discussions of the “relatedness” of as-
pects of created reality. Accordingly, my hypothesis regarding the Plotin-
ian background of Basil’s use of sympatheia might be broadened to in-
clude these additional terms as well.
In the portions of the Enneads under scrutiny, we encounter a recurrent
theme. Plotinus regularly emphasizes the “symphonic” harmonization of
the components of the cosmos. In this connection, souls are depicted as
members of a great chorus that “sing with one voice and are never out of
tune.”48 Plotinus’ reliance upon Pythagorean insights here is apparent. It is
likewise evident in his teaching that “the heavenly spheres move musically
and harmoniously” (tò mousikœ wv kaì enarmonßwv).
à 49 Such imagery has di-

rect applicability to Plotinus’ adaptation of the Stoic notion of the universe

as a “single living being.” In Plotinian terms, this “being” must be “ratio-
nal and all in tune with itself” (katà lügon hÄ diÝxodov tœhv zwœhv sýmcwnov
eautÞ
Ä Ôpasa) as a “single harmony and order” (mßa armonßa
a Ä kaì tá́xiv).50
Alternately, Plotinus compares the heavenly circuit to an elaborate ballet in
which individual bodily movements (along with their musical accompani-
ment) must be arranged for the good of the whole performance. Likewise,
celestial movement demands “agreement of activity, affection, and order”
(sumcwnŒian toœ u poioœuntov pròv tò pá́sqon eœÃinai kaß tina tá́xin) which
places each element in an appropriate relation with everything else.51

47. Enn. IV.4.8.56–58.

48. Enn. IV.3.12.25–26 (trans. A. H. Armstrong, LCL 4:75–77).
49. Enn. IV.3.12.26.
50. Enn. IV.4.35.11–12.
51. Enn. IV.4.33.2–4. In depicting the harmony inherent in a universe comprised of
372 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

In a number of Basil’s writings, we find some clear affinities with such

Plotinian insights. Like Plotinus, Basil frequently relies upon Pythagore-
an imagery in his discussions of cosmic unity. In several places, he applies
the “chorus” analogue (that emerges in Ennead IV.3.12) to his discussions
of the created order. In this connection, Hexameron 3.9 extols the lowest
extreme of reality, since it too was “accepted into the common choir of
creation” (eÃiv th̀n koinh̀n th̃v ktßsewv qorostasßan paralhcjeĩsa),
and thus, “harmoniously sings a hymn of praise to the Creator” (Äar-
monßwv sumplhroĩ th̀n uÄ mÓwdßan tÓw̃ poihtŸ̃).52 For Basil, even the arrange-
ment of the elements assumes a melodic character: when each element
mixes with its neighbor and combines with its opposite, “it becomes a
circle and harmonious chorus, everything being in agreement and cor-
responding to one another” (kaì o™ utw gßnetai kýklov kaì qoròv eà na-
rmüniov, sumcwnoýntwn pÜntwn ka`i sustoiqoýntwn aà llh́loiv).53 In this
instance, we find yet another parallel with Plotinus’ depiction of the uni-
verse in choral terms. But a further striking resonance of Plotinian lan-
guage is discernible here as well. According to Ennead IV.4.38, “all things
are woven into one, and are marvelously in tune, and things come from
other things, even if they come from opposites” (pÜnta dà o ™mwv eÃiv ¤
en
sumplÝketai kaì jaumasth̀n th̀n sumcwnßan eÕqei kaì aà pà Õallwn Õ alla,
k¢an aà pà enantßwn
à ÕiŸ).54
For Plotinus, as we have seen, the lyre provides something of a model
of cosmic harmony. In Basil’s Homilies on the Psalms, the harp serves a
similar purpose. In this instrument, he finds a paradigm of the intimate
relationship between creatures and their Creator. For Basil, the body is
like the instrument that is harmoniously attuned to the hymns of God.55
In this respect, the praises of the Lord sung with the harp are simply mu-
sical renderings of the actions of the body in a harmonious manner.56 Ac-
cordingly, those who live in an “orderly and harmonious” fashion pos-
sess an easy path to the things above, just as the harp takes its harmonic

many moving members, Plotinus refers to the pantomimi for purposes of illustration.
These artists provided solo performances of mythological stories to the accompani-
ment of a chorus and orchestra. In this context, Plotinus likens the life of the cosmos
(whereby the parts are moved and continually rearranged in relation to each other) to
the movement of these dancers (who cannot maintain the same position if they are to
follow the pattern of the dance, but nonetheless, contribute to the completion of the
performance).
52. hex. 3.9.
53. hex. 4.5.
54. Enn. IV.4.38.17–20 (trans. A. H. Armstrong, LCL 4:257).
55. HPs. 14 on Psalm 29.1 (PG 29.305.1–6).
56. Hps. 15 on Psalm 32.2 (PG 29.325.3–4).
 TORCHIA/A PLOTINIAN HYPOTHESIS 373

rhythms from that higher realm (tò yalth́rion dè toũto tw̃n aÄ rmonikw̃n
57
rÄ ujmw̃n Õanwjen eÕqei tàv acormÜv).
Ã
In the face of some significant parallels between Basil and Plotinus, a
question arises: do such conceptual and terminological similarities point
to a first-hand acquaintance with Enneads IV.3–4 on Basil’s part? At the
outset, it should be observed that it is entirely feasible that Basil had di-
rect access to these treatises. Porphyry’s edition of the Enneads, it must be
remembered, was available by the beginning of the fourth century—well
before the composition of the Hexameron. But aside from a direct read-
ing of Plotinus, Basil might have drawn upon ideas in circulation among
Christian intellectuals in the latter half of the fourth century. By this time,
Plotinus and other Platonists were exercising a significant impact upon
Christian thinkers.58 This group was comprised of Basil, Gregory of Nys-
sa (Basil’s younger brother), Gregory Nazianzus, and Amphilochius of
Iconium. In this connection, another possibility must be considered: per-
haps Basil derived his knowledge of insights found in Enneads IV.3–4
from the Cappodocian circle of which he was a member.

3. The Wider Cappodocian Circle

Among the Cappodocian Fathers, Gregory of Nyssa offers the most fer-
tile field for investigation in this context:59 It has been suggested, in fact,

57. Hps. 10 on Psalm 1 (PG 29. 213.29–32).

58. In keeping with his rather conservative assessment of the possibility of a Plotin-
ian influence upon Basil, Rist (“Basil’s ‘Neoplatonism,’” 220), contends that Basil may
have become interested in Plotinus toward the end of his life, but his “utterances might
have been similar in content whether or not he read any ‘original’ Plotinus at all.” In
this respect, Rist suggests that Basil’s grasp of the Greek philosophical tradition “need
not entail more than a synthesizing of earlier versions of Platonism and Stoicism.”
59. As in the case of Basil, a TLG search was conducted for appearances of sympa-
theia (or related forms of the term). The following citations were derived from a search
headed by the notation “sympathei—in Gregory of Nyssa”: Ar. et Sab. (F. Mueller edi-
tion) 3.1.78.16–17; mort. (G. Heil edition) 9.9.38.18–19; HQuat. (van Heck edition)
9.119.27–28, 9.126.7–8; Melet. (A. Spira edition) 9.444.11–12; perf. (W. Jaeger edi-
tion) 8.1.197.23–24; inscr. Ps. (J. McDonough edition) 5.32.11–12; Eun. (W. Jaeger edi-
tion) 1.1.4.8–9; Ref. Eun. (W. Jaeger edition) 2.2.186.2–3; hom. Cant. (H. Langerbeck
edition) 6.59.13–14; hom. creat. (H. Horner edition, suppl.) 32.11–12, 35.3–4; hom.
creat. recensio C (H. Horner edition, suppl.) 32a.7–8, 35a.3–4; v. Mos. 1.45.12–13,
1.69.4–5; virg. 4.8.6–7; or. catech. 8; beat. at PG 44.1260.38–39; anim. et res. at PG
46.105.45–46; v. Ephr. at PG 46.837. 49–50, 840.2–3. Searches were also conducted
in Gregory Nazianzus and Amphilochius of Iconium. In response to a search headed by
the notation “sympathei—in Gregorius Nazianzenus,” the following citations were
found: ep. 165.3.2; or. 4.2.5–4.3.1; or. 2 at PG 35.440.19–20; or. 6 at PG 35:725.38–39;
or. 8 at PG 35.816.8–9; or. 8 at PG 35.864.29–30, 873.30–31, 876.34–36; or. 19 at PG
35.1056.35–37, 1060. 11–12; or. 45 at PG 36.661.43–44; carm. at PG 37.794.6–7,
374 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

that it was Gregory himself who familiarized Basil with Plotinus.60 Since
an intellectual link between these thinkers has already been proposed, let
us consider the extent to which Gregory might have been the source of
Basil’s knowledge of the Plotinian conception of cosmic sympatheia. Do
we find any references to sympatheia in Gregory’s writings or other con-
ceptual parallels which reflect an acquaintance with Plotinus? An affirma-
tive answer to this question can further strengthen the Plotinian hypoth-
esis that I have formulated in regard to Basil. In this case, the identification
of relevant Plotinian elements in Gregory would lend credence to the pro-
posal that the Cappodocian circle had exposed Basil to insights that
shaped his use of sympatheia and related terminology.
Gregory displays a clear affinity with Plotinus in his treatment of the
mind/body relationship. This kinship is evident in the De hominis opifi-
cio, in connection with his attempted refutation of materialistic theories
of human nature. According to Gregory (hom. opif. XII.8), the intellec-
tual faculty cannot be limited to any particular place in the body, but pass-
es over the whole “instrument” and touches each of the parts in its en-
tirety. A similar position is found in Ennead IV.3.20, in connection with
Plotinus’ affirmation of the omnipresence of Soul.
In Plotinian terms, Soul is active in every psychic principle which shares
its life. But Soul itself is not contained in any of these principles, in the
way that wine is contained in a jar, or a gallon inserted in a gallon jar.61
Rather, it remains present in its entirety in all its participants, but not as
a part in relation to a whole, or even as a whole that is confined to any
particular place. The De hominis opificio clearly echoes such Plotinian
sentiments. For Gregory, the mind cannot be limited to one part of hu-
mans, but must permeate the whole person; those who depict it as “sur-
rounding” or being “enclosed” in something are relying upon images used
to describe casks or things placed inside each other.62 So too, Gregory
contends that “the mind is not confined to any bodily member, but touch-
es the whole equally.”63 Like Plotinus (as well as Basil), Gregory relies
upon musical analogues in depicting the relationship between these prin-
ciples.64 In this connection, Gregory depicts the operations of the body in
terms of the harmony exhibited by such musical instruments as the flute

841.14, 842.1, 954.8–9. In response to a search headed by the notation “sympathei-in

Amphilochius Iconiensis,” the following citations were found: or. 6.144–45 (Datema
edition); or. 9.20–21 (Datema edition); mesopent. 193 (Datema edition).
60. John Rist, “Basil’s ‘Neoplatonism,’” 218.
61. Enn. IV.3.20.30–34.
62. hom.opif. 15.3 (PG 44.177.22–32).
63. hom.opif. 14.1 (PG 44.173.2–5).
64. hom.opif. 12.8 (PG 44.161.24–26).
 TORCHIA/A PLOTINIAN HYPOTHESIS 375

and lyre. “The music of the human instrument,” he asserts, “is a com-
mingling of the flute and lyre, joining with one another, in the same way
as singing in unison.”65
Gregory’s analysis of the relationship between the parts of the body pro-
vides an added suggestion of a familiarity with Plotinian insights on his
part. In the Contra Fatum, he refers to a philosophical position which rec-
ognizes a “certain mutual sympathy of things” (mßa tßv estin
à en
à toĩv oÃ̃usi
sumpÜjeia), whereby “the universe coheres from every part,” just as the
body exhibits a certain agreement of all members in harmony with each
other.66 Is not such language highly reminiscent of Plotinus’ contention
(Ennead IV.4.19, IV.4.13–15, IV.4.32.15–21) that different experiences
affect the totality of things by mutual sympatheia in the way that some
bodily organs affect others not proximate to them? In the De perfectione,
Gregory adopts a similar line of reasoning in explaining the unity of a
body composed of distinct components: since the head has the same na-
ture as the body, “there is a unity of each part in relation to the whole”
(kaì mßa tßv esti
à tw̃n kajà e olon çÄ sumcuia) which
Ôkaston melw̃n pròv tò Ô
allows for a “complete sympathy of all the individual parts” (pròv tà
mÝrh tÓ̃w pantì th̀n sumpÜjeian).67
While these parallels do not necessarily provide any firm proof of Gre-
gory’s knowledge of Plotinus, they do demonstrate a consonance with the
latter’s ideas. Accordingly, it can be said that a writer with whom Basil
was personally acquainted might have provided a conduit to certain Plo-
tinian insights that were relevant to his discussions of the harmony of the
universe. In this respect, we find sufficient evidence to assume (at least
with some probability) that Enneads IV.3–4 were known to the Cap-
podocian circle.

A SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

This paper has proposed the following hypothesis: perhaps Basil derived
his interpretation of sympatheia from Plotinus, rather than from a direct
reading of the Stoic philosopher Posidonius (as Karl Gronau’s study
would suggest). If Posidonius exerted an influence on Plotinus (as Theil-
er maintained), then Basil’s knowledge of this key Stoic concept might well
have been mediated through the Enneads. Let us review the supporting
evidence for this contention.

65. hom.opif. 9.3 (PG 44.149.23–26).

66. fat. 152 M. (W. Jaeger edition 3.2, 37.15). (It should be noted that this partic-
ular treatise was not included in the range of Gregory’s works found in the TLG
Canon.)
67. perf. 273 M. (W. Jaeger edition 8.1, 197.23–24).
376 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

First, we find a number of striking conceptual parallels between Basil’s

discussion of sympatheia at Hexameron 2.2 and the language and insights
that we encounter in Enneads IV.3–4. In view of the fact that Plotinus’
Enneads (or reliable testimony to Plotinus) were available by the time that
Basil wrote his Hexameron, such conceptual parallels can offer helpful in-
dicators of a Plotinian influence. Basil’s use of sympatheia at Hexameron
2.2 provides an interesting case in point. But as I have already stressed,
such a claim must remain highly tentative in the absence of more explic-
it internal evidence. Accordingly, I next turned to a broader range of writ-
ings from the Basilian corpus.
An examination of additional sources reinforces the supposition that
Basil’s use of sympatheia indicates a Plotinian inspiration. On the one
hand, sympatheia or its variant forms appear in a number of other pas-
sages which likewise display some interesting affinities with the language,
imagery, and motifs of Enneads IV.3–4. On the other hand, Basil uses
some closely related terminology (i.e., harmonia, koinonia, symphonia)
which also assume a prominence in Plotinus’ discussions of cosmic unity.
Basil’s apparent knowledge of Plotinus, however, was not necessarily the
result of a direct reading of these treatises. By virtue of his closeness to
Gregory of Nyssa (both personally and intellectually), it is realistic to as-
sume that Basil could have been exposed to relevant Plotinian teachings.
In this regard, indications that Gregory himself was familiar with the con-
tent of Enneads IV.3–4 warrants such an assumption.

CONCLUSION: AN ASSESSMENT OF BASIL’S USE

OF ENNEADS IV.3–4

But it was not simply Plotinus’ use of this isolated concept that would
have appealed to Basil. In point of fact, sympatheia was used by any num-
ber of writers with whom Basil would have been acquainted.68 By the
same token, one writer rarely (if ever) influences another on the basis of
a single idea or solitary passage. Rather, “influences” operate in much
broader terms; on the one hand, they reveal the spirit or tenor of their
68. Cf. Plato, Tim. 32A; Cleomedes, De motu circ. I.I.4.8 Ziegler; Sextus Empiri-
cus, Adv. math. IX 5 C. phys. I.78–80. Likewise, the possible influence of Philo Ju-
daeus cannot be overlooked. Philo (Migr. 32.179–179) describes the astronomical the-
ory of the Chaldeans in terms of an establishment of a harmony between earthly and
heavenly things, whereby the universe is depicted according to the laws of musical pro-
portion, as a “perfect concord or symphony produced by a sympathy between parts
that are spatially separated, but related as housemates” (t h̀n emmelestÜthn
à sumcw-
nßan toœu pantòv epideiknýmenoi
à tÞ twn
œ merœ wn pròv Õ
allhla koinwnßÓa kaì sumpajeßÓa
tüpoiv mèn diezeugmÝnwn, suggeneßÓa dè oÃu di wkismÝnwn).
Ó
 TORCHIA/A PLOTINIAN HYPOTHESIS 377

source; on the other hand, they enter into the very fabric of the recipient’s
thought. What would have attracted Basil, then, was the context in which
Plotinus used sympatheia. As we have seen, Plotinus fully integrated this
concept into a metaphysics of participation whereby all things share in
the diffusiveness of the One. In this respect, the Plotinian universe is per-
meated with rationality and goodness on all levels. This optimistic out-
look must be considered in conjunction with several other features that
were highly amenable to adaptation in a Christian context: first, the no-
tion of a good and providential Godhead; second, an extremely positive
understanding of reality as a whole; third, an emphasis upon the ratio-
nality and intelligibility of the universe; fourth, the idea of an order of love
proceeding from an ultimate causal principle wherein all things are har-
monized for the common good.
If Plotinus did influence Basil in regard to his use of sympatheia, then
this influence should be discernible in a wide range of writings. Indeed,
Basil’s incorporation of such a deterministic notion into his supposedly
literal interpretation of Genesis says something significant about his rela-
tionship to the Greek philosophical tradition in general. In this connec-
tion, it is interesting to observe the way in which Basil uses this rather
alien idea (at least from a Christian perspective). In my estimation, this
usage reveals certain metaphysical presuppositions regarding creation
which are more akin to what we find in Enneads IV.3–4 than any other
source. Basil, as we have seen, attaches great importance to the harmony
of creation as a whole. This harmony not only encompasses things that
are spatially distant, but ontologically disparate as well. In this sense, he
depicts creation in terms of a hierarchical arrangement of spiritual and
visible reality. Such an arrangement presupposes a continuity between the
eternal and temporal modes of being. This understanding of creation
stands in marked contrast to those dualistic outlooks which would define
reality in terms of a tension between radically opposing principles.
In the final analysis, Hexameron 2.2 can be viewed as a highly illumi-
nating passage for probing the scope and extent of Basil’s receptivity to
Plotinus. A Plotinian reading of Basil’s commentary on the creation ac-
count of Genesis can open the way for a richer appreciation of the un-
derstanding of reality that emerges throughout the Basilian corpus. In a
very real sense, then, this passage provides a window into Basil’s writings
which reveals a marked Plotinian dimension in his discussions of the har-
mony, order, and unity of the cosmos.

N. Joseph Torchia teaches at Villanova University.