THE OXFORD EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES series includes scholarly volumes o n the t h o u g h t and history of the early Christian centuries. Covering a wide range of Greek, Latin, and Oriental sources, t h e books a r e of interest to t h e o logians, ancient historians, and specialists in t h e classical and J e w i s h worlds. Titles in the series include: Holy City, Holy Places? Christian Attitudes to Jerusalem and the Holy Land in the Fourth Century P. W . L . W a l k e r ( 1 9 9 0 ) Origen and t h e Life of the Stars A History of an Idea A. Scott ( 1 9 9 1 ) E u n o m i u s and t h e Later Arians R. P. Vaggione (forthcoming) The Christology of Theodoret of Cyrus P. B . Clayton (forthcoming) Pelagius: C o m m e n t a r y o n R o m a n s Translated with introduction and c o m m e n t a r y by T. S. de B r u y n (forthcoming) Regnum Caelorum Apocalyptic Literature in the Early Church C. E . Hill (forthcoming) Arnobius of Sicca Concepts of Deity in the Contemporary Pagan-Christian Debate M . B . S i m m o n s (forthcoming)
O R I G E N AND THE L I F E OF THE STARS A History of an Idea A L A N SCOTT
CLARENDON PRESS • OXFORD 1991
Oxford University Press. Walton Street, Oxford 0X2 6DP Oxford New York Toronto Delhi Bombay Calcutta Madras Karachi Petaling Jaya Singapore Hong Kong Tokyo Nairobi Dar es Salaam Cape Town Melbourne Auckland and associated companies in Berlin Ibadan Oxford is a trade mark of Oxford University Press Published in the United States by Oxford University Press, New York ©Alan Scott 1991 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Origen and the life of the stars: a history of an idea Alan Scott. (Oxford early Christian studies) Revision of thesis (Ph.D.)—Yale University, 1988. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Origen—Contributions in cosmology. 2. Stars—Religious aspects— Christianity—History of doctrines—Early church, ca. 30-600. 3. Powers (Christian theology)—History of doctrines—Early church, ca. 30-600. 4. Astronomy, Greek. 5. Cosmology, Medieval. 1. Title. II. Series. BR65.068S39 1991 U3'.092—dc20 90-26226 ISBN 0-19-826462-3 Typeset by Pentacor PLC, High Wycombe, Bucks Printed by Bookcraft (Bath) Ltd., Midsomer Norton, Avon
For my parents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This book is a revised version of m y 1 9 8 8 Yale dissertation, Origen and Astral Souls. I o w e the n e w title (inter alia) to Bentley Layton. M a n y scholars h a v e b e e n very helpful to m e in the course of this project, including Zlatko Plese, Don Westblade, Frederick Norris, Elizabeth Clark, W a y n e Meeks, R o w a n Williams, and Henry Chadwick, as h a v e t h e editorial staff at Oxford University Press. Thanks a r e due above all to m y dissertation adviser, R o w a n Greer. I h o p e m y great debt to scholars such as Cherniss, Crouzel, Festugiere, a n d Theiler (to n a m e a few) is evident in t h e notes and bibliography. All errors a r e m y o w n . I a m also grateful to m y wife Violeta, w h o proofread t h e text, to M r and Mrs C h a n Kim Bing, to M r and Mrs Henry Pierce, and to the Yale University D e p a r t m e n t of Religious Studies. M a n y thanks to the following presses for their kind permission to quote translations from these works: Origen, Contra Celsum, trans. Henry Chadwick (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1 9 8 0 ) ; The Testimony of Truth, NHS 1 5 , trans. S. Giverson and B . Pearson (Leiden: E . J . Brill, 1 9 8 1 ) ; Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. J a m e s Charlesworth (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1 9 8 3 ) ; Origen, On First Principles, trans. G. W . B u t t e r w o r t h (Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith Publ., 1 9 7 3 ) , Alexandrian Christianity, trans. J . E . L. Oulton and Henry Chadwick (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1 9 5 4 ) ; and various works of Philo, trans. H. Colson and G. H. W h i t a k e r , in the Loeb Classical Library Series (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1929-53).
CONTENTS
Note on Citations Introduction
xi xiii
PART I
1 F r o m the Pre-Socratics to Plato a n d his School
3
2 Aristotle
24
3 The Old Stoics
39
PART II
4 The Hellenistic S c h o o l r o o m
53
5 Philo
63
6 The Heavenly P o w e r s
76
Heavenly Powers as Good or as Morally Neutral Heavenly P o w e r s as Morally Evil 7 C l e m e n t of Alexandria
76 83 104
PART ni
8 Origen a n d the Stars
113
9 Stars a n d t h e Resurrection B o d y
150
Conclusion
165
Appendix A: Rufmus as a Translator
168
Appendix B: Origen's Use of the T e r m 'Antizone'
173
Bibliography
175
Index of Scriptural References
185
General Index
187
N O T E ON CITATIONS
Abbreviations follow those collected in t h e Theologische Realenzyklopadie, Abkurzungsverzeichnis (Berlin: W a l t e r de Gruyter, 1 9 7 6 ) . In addition t h e following abbreviations a r e used: B. BG CCAG CIMRM CCel. CH CMAG CS DDG Dev. DK DL DM? GCS K. Kl. LCL NF NH NPNF P. PAS R. Ra. RD
W . A. B a e h r e n s C o d e x Berolinensis Gnosticus Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum, ed. Franz Boll etal. Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithraicae, ed. M . J . V e r m a s e r e n Origen, Contra Celsum Corpus Hermeticum Catalogue des manuscrits alchimiques grecs, ed. J o s e p h Bidez et al. Henri Crouzel/Manlio Simonetti Doxographici Graeci, ed. H e r m a n n Diels. Robert Devreesse, Les Anciens Commentateurs grecs des Psaumes Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker ( 7 t h edn., 1 9 5 4 ) , ed. H e r m a n n Diels and W a l t h e r K r a n z Diogenes Laertius Cicero, De Natura Deorum Griechische christliche Schriftstellern Paul Koetschau Erich K l o s t e r m a n n Loeb Classical Library A. D. Nock/A. J . Festugiere Nag H a m m a d i Nicene a n d Post-Nicene F a t h e r s Series Erwin Preuschen J o a n n e s Baptista Card. Pitra (ed.), Analecta Sacra J . A r m i t a g e Robinson M a x Rauer A. R o u s s e a u / L . Doutreleau
xii
Note on s c
St. TDNT
Citations
Sources chretiennes Otto Stahlin Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New trans. Geoffrey W . Bromiley
Testament,
W i t h a few exceptions, I h a v e used the Greek texts listed in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, ed. Luci Berkowitz and Karl A. Squitier (New York: Oxford University, 1 9 8 6 ) . W h e n m o r e or less the s a m e text was available in the Loeb Classical Library, I used the text in that series. The most important e x a m p l e of this is Philo. All texts are given in translation. All unattributed translations are my own. Following Whittaker, I refer to the a u t h o r of the Didaskalikos as Alcinous rather t h a n as Albinus. This does not affect any of m y conclusions. I h a v e not included a n y M a n d a e a n sources, t h o u g h m u c h material presents itself, because of the dating problems associated with these texts. M a r c e l Borret, SJ (ed.), Origme: Homelies sur Ezechiel, SC 3 5 2 (Paris: du Cerf, 1 9 8 9 ) , appeared too late for m e to use.
INTRODUCTION
Origen is generally recognized as t h e most i m p o r t a n t Greek patristic writer a n d as o n e of t h e best thinkers early Christianity produced. M a n y early Christian writers w e r e influenced by classical ideas, but Origen is r e m a r k a b l e both in t h e e x t e n t of his debt a n d in his ability to c o m b i n e t h e i n h e r i t a n c e of classical antiquity with a n interpretation of Christian scripture. Others t o o k o v e r p a g a n ideas, but few used t h e m so m u c h , a n d perhaps n o n e used t h e m so well. The question of h o w Origen's appropri ation of pagan t h o u g h t should be u n d e r s t o o d is a long-standing problem, and continues to be a source of c o n t r o v e r s y a m o n g historians of t h e period. In this c e n t u r y a n u m b e r of scholars h a v e emphasized Origen's debt t o t h e Platonism of his o w n day a n d consider h i m a 'middlePlatonist'. Discussions of Origen in t e r m s of middle-Platonism h a v e m a r k e d a real a d v a n c e in Origen studies, for m u c h of his w o r k c a n be u n d e r s t o o d only against t h e backdrop of t h e interpretation of Plato w h i c h was c u r r e n t in t h e time b e t w e e n Antiochus of Ascalon (d. c . 6 8 BC) a n d Plotinus (d. AD 2 7 0 ) . A n d yet this is n o t a c a t e g o r y into w h i c h Origen neatly fits. First, it is doubtful if, strictly speaking, t h e r e is s u c h a thing as 'Christian middle-Platonism'. Second, Origen, after all, regarded himself as an interpreter of scripture a n d not as a Platonist, a n d so h e did not h a v e a n y special obligation to stay within a particular philosophical school of t h o u g h t . Like m a n y Christian theologians h e seems to incline naturally t o Platonism, but h e w a s widely 1
2
1
Especially Hal Koch, Pronoia und Paideusis, AKG 22 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1932); recently Robert M. Berchman, From Philo to Origen: MiddlePlatonism in Transition, Brown Judaic Studies 69 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press. 1984). See J . H. Waszink. 'Bemerkungen zum Einflufs des Platonismus im W h e n Christentum', VigChr 19 (1965) 134 n. 10, and Heinrich Dorrie, 'Was ist spatantiker Platonismus?', Platonica Minora, Studia et Testimonia 8 (Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1976), 523 n . 2 7 . For an equally negative appraisal of middlePlatonism in Philo see David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, PhAnt 4 4 (Leiden: E. J . Brill, 1986), 5 0 7 - 1 9 . 2
xiv
Introduction
read in t h e o t h e r m a i n philosophical traditions as well. F u r t h e r , it is important to n o t e that Origen h a d extensive c o n t a c t with J e w i s h apocalyptic literature a n d gnostic Christianity. To read h i m strictly in t e r m s of a n y o n e of his interests a n d influences is therefore to give a skewed version of his work. Plato a n d c o n t e m p o r a r y Platonism have both influenced him, but only as part of a m u c h broader picture. E x a m i n i n g Origen's use of philosophy is a twofold process. One m u s t consider the state of a given problem in Origen's o w n day. Sharply focused questions a r e easier to a n s w e r t h a n blurry ones, a n d Origen lived in a time w h e n philosophical questions w e r e often in a confused s t a t e — t h e genius of his y o u n g e r pagan c o n t e m p o r a r y Plotinus w a s that h e was able to bring so m u c h order out of so m u c h chaos. Origen's task w a s further complic ated by his interest in issues raised by J e w i s h a n d gnostic texts a n d by his desire only to use philosophy within boundaries established by scripture. He was not as successful as Plotinus in addressing the philosophical problems of his day, but this in part was because he was trying to do something w h i c h was m u c h m o r e difficult. After clarifying a particular historical problem, o n e must e x a m i n e t h e use Origen m a k e s of this philosophical inheritance. It m a y be possible to discuss t h e ideas w h i c h h a v e influenced Origen without considering the specific function of these ideas in his theology, but such a n a p p r o a c h , for w h a t e v e r it m a y tell us about Origen's milieu, will n o t tell us m u c h about Origen. Like Philo a n d Clement, Origen certainly has b e e n influenced by Greek philosophy, but his use of t h e philosophical tradition often transforms it into something n e w a n d original (which is w h y Porphyry accuses Origen, in contrast to A m m o n i u s , of betraying his Hellenic education). The present w o r k investigates the view, c o m m o n in antiquity, that stars h a v e souls a n d t h e uses to w h i c h this belief is put in Origen's thought. T h e r e a r e m a n y philosophical c o m m o n p l a c e s w h i c h Origen takes over, but this idea merits closer consideration for a n u m b e r of reasons. First, Plato's teachings about t h e astral gods w e r e of great religious i m p o r t a n c e , but w e r e also highly ambiguous a n d troublesome. His successors put t h e m in a n u m b e r of n e w forms w h i c h w e r e again both important a n d yet ambiguous a n d
Introduction
xv
troublesome. In Origen's day the problem of the n a t u r e and religious function of the stars was universally recognized as a m a j o r topic, but it r e m a i n e d w i t h o u t consensus in m a n y key areas. It was therefore ripe for speculation and representative of the challenge Origen faced in bringing philosophy to bear o n problems of Christian theology. Second, the place of the living star in Origen's thought has not b e e n treated independently since 1 6 6 8 w h e n Pierre Huet included a brief section 'De Astris' in his monumental Origeniana? Origen includes speculations on the life a n d intelligence of the stars in his discussion of several i m p o r t a n t theological issues. T h o u g h it w a s routine for theology a n d a s t r o n o m y to be considered together in pagan philosophy, Origen was the first Christian theologian to do so (aside from Christian gnostics, w h o influenced him in this regard). Origen's speculations on t h e life of the stars w e r e formally a n a t h e m a t i z e d in the sixth c e n t u r y , together with other, m o r e familiar aspects of his cosmology, and this rejection affected the w a y that a s t r o n o m y w a s treated in subsequent Christian theology. 4
Third, t h o u g h questions about the souls of stars n o w look quite whimsical, they w e r e o n c e seriously debated by philosophers. In fact, discussions of the life of the stars w e r e c o m m o n in Hellenistic s c h o o l r o o m s . Origen's ideas o n t h e stars a n d their life is part of a m u c h b r o a d e r philosophical tradition w h i c h is only rarely m e n t i o n e d in t r e a t m e n t s of Greek philosophy. T h o u g h the present w o r k discusses the debates o n t h e n a t u r e a n d function of the living stars as background to Origen's thought, hopefully this topic will also be of m o r e general interest. 5
The aim of this book is to trace the rise a n d development of the idea of living heavenly bodies and to see its use in Origen's theology. The first part will deal with Plato's important specu lations on this topic. A n u m b e r of contradictions a r e inherent in Plato's a t t e m p t to understand the religious i m p o r t a n c e of the stars. Plato's successors, Aristotle, a n d the old Stoics took o v e r parts of this inheritance and set it in a n e w form, but did as m u c h 3
Reprinted in both C. H. E. Lommatzsch's and Migne's editions of Origen's works. The section 'De Astris' is in Lommatzsch Opera, 2 3 . 1 1 5 - 2 5 ; in Migne, PG 17.973-80. ACO 3. 2 1 3 . 27 f.; 4. 1 . 2 4 8 . 1 4 - 1 6 . Aetius DDG 274. 6f.; 4 3 2 . 6 - 8 ; Achilles hag. 13 (40 f. Maass). 4
5
xvi
Introduction
to complicate t h e problem of t h e stars' place in a philosophical cosmology as to solve it. The view of the classic philosophical schools (aside from t h e Epicureans) w a s that the heavenly bodies w e r e alive, but t h e w a y that this w a s t r u e a n d the significance of this life w a s unclear. The second part will consider the ways in w h i c h these problems continue a n d b e c o m e m o r e c o m p l e x in the early empire period, w h i c h is the time of Origen's immediate intellec tual predecessors. Confusions about h o w to talk about the stars c o n t i n u e a n d a r e evident in Philo, w h o s e ideas o n the h e a v e n s are of great i m p o r t a n c e to Origen. T w o types of speculations c o m e into p r o m i n e n c e in this era a n d figure strongly in Origen's speculations o n the i m p o r t a n c e of t h e stars. First, the idea begins to be formulated that t h e h u m a n soul has a 'vehicle' w h i c h is m a d e of a n astral substance. Second, associated with this idea is the view (which has its origins in astrology and in t h e pessimistic interpretation of Plato) that the stars a r e malevolent and h a r m t h e soul before or after death. The part concludes with Clement of Alexandria's cautious appraisal of t h e stars' place in Christian eschatology, since this anticipates s o m e interesting aspects of Origen's work. The final part will investigate Origen's o w n background in a s t r o n o m y a n d astrology, and t h e ambitious use h e m a d e of the concept of living heavenly bodies in his theology. Specifically, attention will be given to t h e i m p o r t a n c e of t h e stars in understanding Origen's cosmology, theodicy, doctrine of t h e Fall, a n d eschatology.
PARTI
1 F R O M THE P R E - S O C R A T I C S TO PLATO AND HIS SCHOOL
In contrast to m a n y o t h e r pre-industrial societies, a formal cult of t h e stars was almost u n k n o w n in a n c i e n t G r e e c e . Aristophanes, Plato, a n d Aristotle regarded their worship as either a n a r c h a i c o r foreign p r a c t i c e , but t h e v e n e r a t i o n of h e a v e n l y bodies, particu larly t h e sun a n d m o o n , w a s n o t u n u s u a l in popular piety. C o m m o n practices always affect intellectual life, a n d Greece w a s n o exception: e v e n in t h e P a r t h e n o n , t h e very symbol of classical A t h e n s , t h e sun and m o o n a p p e a r as g o d s . W e see reflections of this feeling in Sophocles, w h o k n o w s of a v i e w w h i c h m a k e s t h e sun t h e parent of the gods a n d father of all t h i n g s and says that e v e r y o n e worships t h e circuit of t h e s u n . T h e s a m e m a y also h a v e b e e n t r u e of Socrates: X e n o p h o n reports that t h o u g h Socrates h a d little interest in a s t r o n o m y (which h e regarded as impractical), h e argued that stars h a v e soul a n d intellect. Plato goes e v e n further a n d represents Socrates as worshipping at t h e rising of t h e s u n , a n d has h i m say in his Apology that, far from being a n atheist, h e believes t h e stars a r e gods 'like e v e r y o n e else'. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
The
best-known
philosophers
t o take this v i e w w e r e
1
the
See Martin P. Nilsson, Geschkhte dergriechischen Religion (HAW 5. 2; 2nd edn., Munich: Beck, 1955), 1.34. 839 f. For some exceptions see Jacob Bernays, 'Die unter Philons Werken stehende Schrift Ober die Unzerstorbarkeit des Weltalls' AAB (1883), 44, and FrGrHist2a. 168. 3 - 7 . Aristoph. Pax 4 0 6 ; Plato Crat. 3 9 7 c 8 - d 2 : Arist. Metaph. 1 0 7 4 3 9 - 8 , cf. De CaWo 2 8 4 * 1 1 - 1 3 . See Jula Kerschensteiner, Platon und der Orient (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1945), 186. Frag. 1017 Nauck (752 Pearson), cited by Pierre Boyance, Etudes sur le Songe deScipion (Paris: A. Bontemps, 1936), 94. Frag. 672 Nauck (738 Pearson), cf. Oed. Rex 660; Euripides frag. 781 Nauck. Little interest: Mem. 4. 7. 5 f.; soul and intellect: 1.4. 8. Symp. 2 2 0 d 3 - 5 ; cf. Plutarch Vita Pomp. 14 (3. 2. 2 6 2 . 4 - 7 Ziegler). 2 6 d l - 3 . cf. Laws 8 8 7 e 2 - 7 ; Arist. De Caelo 2 7 0 5 - 9 . 2
a
3
4
5
6 7 8
b
b
4
The Pre-Socratics to Plato
Pythagoreans in M a g n a Graecia. They s e e m to h a v e t a k e n a special interest in t h e stars, believing t h a t t h e y a r e g o d s a n d that t h e h u m a n soul c o m e s from h e a v e n a n d r e t u r n s t h e r e at d e a t h . A l c m a e o n of C r o t o n ( c . 5 0 0 B C ) , t h e best attested of t h e P y t h a g o r e a n sources on this topic, apparently affirmed t h e divinity of the s t a r s , a n d proposed t h a t both t h e h u m a n soul a n d t h e heavenly bodies a r e in c o n t i n u o u s m o t i o n , reflecting t h e fundamental relationship w h i c h existed b e t w e e n h u m a n life a n d t h e life of t h e h e a v e n s . 9
1 0
11
1 2
A n d yet this c o m m o n supposition that t h e h e a v e n s w e r e alive w a s increasingly e x a m i n e d , questioned, a n d e v e n rejected as Greek a s t r o n o m y b e g a n its scientific d e v e l o p m e n t o n t h e o t h e r side of t h e Greek-speaking world a m o n g the Ionians. As a result, belief in t h e divinity of t h e stars is conspicuously rare in Greek philosophy b e t w e e n A l c m a e o n a n d P l a t o . W h e n t h e Ionian philosophers speculated about t h e h e a v e n s , t h e y looked u p w a r d , not in r e v e r e n c e , but in a spirit of enquiry. Their naturalistic explanations should n o t be mistaken for t h e scepticism of m o d e r n m a t e r i a l i s t s , but, as Friedrich Solmsen put it, 'Men do not "explain" w h a t t h e y do n o t q u e s t i o n ' , a n d it is significant that t h e Ionians began t o explain t h e n a t u r e of t h e stars. Aetius, probably following T h e o p h r a s t u s , has this report: 1 3
14
15
Thales thinks that the stars are made of earth and fire. Empedocles, that they are fiery bodies from the fiery nature which the air, containing it within itself, squeezed out in the first separation. Anaxagoras, that the surrounding ether is a fiery substance which, by the momentum of its revolution, tore stones from the earth, ignited them, and made them stars. Democritus, that they are rocks. Diogenes [of Apollonia] thinks the stars are like pumice stones, that they are the exhalations of the world, 9
D/K 58 B 1 (449. 16 f.); Epicharmus DK 23 B 8. See Louis Rougier, L'Origine astronomique de la croyance pythagoricienne en Vimmortalite celeste des antes (Cairo: Institut francais d'archeologie orientale, 1933), passim, esp. 8 0 - 2 . Cf. Aristoph. Pax832—4. D/K 2 4 A 12. D/K 2 4 A l a n d 12. As J . B. Skemp notes. The Theory of Motion in Plato's Later Dialogues (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1967), 44. As Charles H. Kahn notes, citing Aristoph. Nub. 140 if., 247 ff., and 367 ff., Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology (New York: Columbia University Press, 1960), 107. See also Gregory Vlastos, Plato's Universe (Seattle: University of Washington, 1975), 22. Plato's Theology, CSCP 27 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1942), 34. 1 0
11
1 2 1 3
1 4
15
5
The Pre-Socratics to Plato
and that they are fiery. Archelaos said the stars are red hot stones set on fire. Anaximander, that they are circular, compacted air, full of fire, periodically emitting flames from their mouths. Parmenides and Heraclitus think the stars are compacted of fire. 16
A n a x i m a n d e r likened t h e sun to a w h e e l filled with fire, while X e n o p h a n e s of C o l o p h o n said it consisted of c o m p a c t e d bodies of fire arising f r o m moist exhalations, or that it w a s a fiery c l o u d . ' A n a x i m e n e s is reported t o h a v e believed t h a t earth, m o o n , a n d stars w e r e b o r n e along o n air currents, a n d t h a t stars a r e kindled mists arising f r o m t h e e a r t h . A n a x a g o r a s ( w h o taught at A t h e n s in the age of Pericles) said that sun, m o o n , and stars w e r e fiery stones, a n d t h a t shooting stars w e r e sparks caused by t h e circular m o v e m e n t of h e a v e n . This naturalism readily c o m bined with a scepticism about t h e traditional gods w h i c h is n o t only evident in t h e o p e n critique of X e n o p h a n e s , but in t h e silence o n religious m a t t e r s of a Thucydides ( w h o is said to h a v e b e e n a student of A n a x a g o r a s ) . T h e precise religious beliefs of t h e Ionian naturalists o r of those w h o a c c e p t e d their teachings o n t h e h e a v e n s is n o t c l e a r , but t h e y w e r e perceived as denying t h e gods, as Aristophanes' play The Clouds m a k e s c l e a r . A n d indeed, scepticism about t h e sanctity of h e a v e n , c o m b i n e d with a loss of faith in t h e traditional gods, caused a crisis in fifth- a n d fourthc e n t u r y BC Greek religion w h i c h is frequently referred t o in t h e literature of t h e p e r i o d . The popular r e a c t i o n t o this w a s t o dismiss those w h o studied 1
1 8
19
2 0
2 1
2 2
2 3
2 4
25
16 1 7
DDG341L
Aetius DDG 3 4 8 . 3 - 7 ; D/K 21 A 32. For stars as derived from moist exhalations see also the report on Thales, DDG 276. 2 0 - 3 . Anaximenes: D/K 13 A 7; cf. ps.-Plutarch DDG 580. 3 - 5 . HippolytusM>G562. 14f.; D/K 59 A 12, cf. 59 A 1. Hippolytus DDG 563. 1 f. D/K 21 B 1 4 - 1 6 . Marcellinus Rhetor Vita Thucy. 22 (lOf. Jones), following Antyllus. This may be a standard charge against those suspected of irreverence since the same claim is made for Euripides, D/K 59 A 7. One story makes Anaxagoras' interest in astronomy a reflection of his piety, D L 2 . 7 (59. 2 3 - 5 Long). See A. B. Drachmann, Atheism in Pagan Antiquity (London: Gyldendal, 1922), 58. See Protagoras D/K 8 0 B 4; Thrasymachus of Chalcedon DK 85 B 8; Critias D/K 8 8 B 25; Aeschylus Agam. 369; Euripides Bacchae 1348, Cycl. 316 ff., and frag. 286 (Nauck); XenophonMem. 1.4. 11, etc. 1 8
1 9
2 0
2 1
2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5
The Pre-Socratics to Plato
6
2 6
t h e h e a v e n s as fools o r w o r s e . Plutarch indicates t h e u n p o p u larity of this naturalism with respect to t h e h e a v e n s , referring h e r e to t h e teachings of A n a x a g o r a s : It was still not talked about and spread only among a few, who received it with some caution rather than giving it much credence. They could not bear the natural philosophers and what were then called the 'stargazers', because they frittered away divinity into irrational causes, unforeseen forces, and necessary occurrences. 27
In t i m e of w a r and political disaster in Athens, this fear and intolerance h a r d e n e d : A n a x a g o r a s was put o n trial for his offence against p i e t y , a n d n e a r t h e beginning of t h e Peloponnesian W a r a decree was passed equating meteorological speculation with A n a x a g o r a s ' a t h e i s m . This c h a r g e w a s included in t h e attack o n Socrates, w h o w a s accused of atheism, of denying t h e divinity of t h e sun a n d m o o n , a n d of introducing n e w g o d s . 28
2 9
3 0
31
A n d yet despite this r e p u g n a n c e , scepticism about traditional views of t h e gods in general, a n d about belief in t h e divinity of t h e h e a v e n l y bodies in particular, w a s widespread in fifth- a n d f o u r t h - c e n t u r y BC A t h e n s . In w h a t is probably his last w o r k , t h e Laws, Plato confirms t h a t t h e popular view of a s t r o n o m y is t h a t it leads t o a t h e i s m , a n d this sentiment is e c h o e d in a dialogue attributed (probably w r o n g l y ) to Plato, t h e Epinomis.* This combined attack o n traditional religion a n d on t h e older v i e w of t h e h e a v e n l y bodies is carried o n into t h e third c e n t u r y by Epicurus ( w h o called himself D e m o c r i t e a n ) . Epicurus, w h o s e religious v i e w s w e r e n o t o r i o u s in a n t i q u i t y , said t h a t t h e sun w a s m a d e of a p o r o u s e a r t h y m a t e r i a l filled w i t h fire, a n d h e denied t h a t a n y of t h e stars o r p l a n e t s m o v e d t h e m s e l v e s or 3 2
3 3
4
3 5
2 6
E. R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1951), 201 n. 64, and Plato Phaedr. 2 7 0 a 3 - 8 . Plutarch Nicias 23 (1. 2. 117. 1 3 - 1 7 Ziegler), with Dodds loc. cit. D/K 59 A 1. D/K 59 A 17. Plato Apol. 2 6 c 5 - d 9 . The charge is false ( 2 6 e 7 - 9 , and Xenophon Mem. 4. 7 ) . Apol. 2 4 c l ; Xenophon Mem. 1. 1; DL 2 . 4 0 ( 7 3 . 1 9 - 2 2 Long). Though controversial, Anaxagoras' writings were available in the market place for 'at most a drachma', Apol. 2 6 d 6 - e 4 . 967al-5. 982d3-7. Democritean: Plutarch Mor. 1108 E (6. 2. 175. 21 f. Pohlenz/Westman); sun: Aetius DDG 350. 2 1 - 3 5 1 . 2; move themselves: DL 10. 77 ( 5 3 0 . 9 - 1 7 Long); Lucretius 5. 7 6 - 9 , 5. 1 1 4 - 1 6 . 2 7
2 8
2 9
3 0
3 1
3 2
3 3
5 4
3 5
The Pre-Socratics to Plato were gods. adTondrov).
36
7
They had c o m e into being 'by chance' (&KO TOO
i7
Socrates k n e w A n a x a g o r a s ' teachings but h a d little interest in t h e m . His student Plato (d. 3 4 7 ) h a d a very different attitude, a n d took seriously t h e theories of t h e Ionian a s t r o n o m e r s . Plato is sympathetic t o astronomical r e s e a r c h , and apparently eager t o take a c c o u n t of n e w discoveries: the existence of celestial poles and A n a x a g o r a s ' discovery that t h e m o o n takes its light from the sun a r e treated as r e c e n t findings in the Cratylus, a n d in the Laws the s a m e is t r u e of the discovery that the w o r d 'planet' is a m i s n o m e r since the planets really do not ' w a n d e r ' (nXavdco) but follow a consistent p a t h . Plato includes in his m y t h at t h e e n d of the Phaedo A n a x a g o r a s ' v i e w t h a t t h e e a r t h is a s p h e r e w h i c h is kept in place by universal h o m o g e n e i t y , a n d the Theaetetus k n o w s that its size is v a s t . The m y t h of E r at t h e e n d of t h e Republic presents a m o d e l of planetary m o t i o n , w h i c h w e shall see w a s a continuing interest to Plato. The Timaeus is t h e chief e x a m p l e (albeit mythological) of Plato's willingness to incorpor ate cosmological speculation in philosophy, and this e x a m p l e proved to be of great i m p o r t a n c e for Hellenistic thought. 3 8
39
4 0
4 1
42
4 3
4 4
And yet Plato follows Socrates in dismissing the i m p o r t a n c e of A n a x a g o r a s a n d the o t h e r Ionians for philosophy. Plato's low opinion of A n a x a g o r a s is n o t a rejection of a s t r o n o m y , but is based o n t h e conviction t h a t A n a x a g o r a s is philosophically 3 6
Robert Philippson, 'Nachtragliches zur epikureischen Gotterlehre', Hermes 53 (1918), 359; Georgios Manolidis, Die Rolle der Physiologie in der Philosophie Epikurs, MPF 241 (Frankfurt-on-Main: Athenaum, 1987), 82. Epicurus Test. 3 8 3 (Usener), cited by Jean Pepin, Theologie cosmique et theologiechretienne (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1964), 69. He is said to have known Anaxagoras' work through Anaxagoras' student Archelaus, Cicero Tusc. 5. 4. 10 (408. 27f. Pohlenz), cf. D/K 59 A 7; little interest: see above n. 6, below n. 60. Poles: 405c9; moon: 4 0 9 a 7 - b l . Plato incorporates the latter idea into his myth of Er, Rep. 6 1 6 e 9 - 6 1 7 a l . Recent: as D. R. Dicks notes, Early Greek Astronomy to Aristotle (Bristol: Western Printing, 1970), 52. 8 2 1 b 5 - 8 2 2 c 5 . This becomes a commonplace, see W. and H. Gundel, 'Planeten bei Griechen und Romern', PW20. 2 (1950). 2 0 2 1 . 108e5; as associated with Anaxagoras: 9 7 d 8 - e l . For the newness of this see Erich Frank, Plato und die sogenannten Pythagoreer (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1923), 184f. That Plato believed this is contested, see CQ 50 (1956) 193, Phron. 3 (1958) 1 2 1 - 5 , 4 ( 1 9 5 9 ) 71 f., 1 0 1 - 1 9 , but also Dicks Astronomy 98. With Anaximander, D/K 12 A 26. 174e2-5. 616c4-617b7; cf. Tim. 38e3-39b2. 3 7
3 8
3 9
4 0
4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
The Pre-Socratics to Plato
8
mistaken since h e explains c a u s a t i o n materially r a t h e r t h a n i d e o l o g i c a l l y . Plato is less c o n c e r n e d with h o w things h a p p e n t h a n with w h y t h e y h a p p e n , a n d for this r e a s o n h e regards a s t r o n o m y as only of s e c o n d a r y i m p o r t a n c e . T h o u g h Plato does associate w i s d o m a n d purity with gazing u p o n h e a v e n , his ideal is n o t t h e a s t r o n o m e r b u t t h e philosopher. Like g e o m e t r y , a s t r o n o m y is a discipline in w h i c h knowledge of w h a t is eternally t r u e c a n be available, but s u c h knowledge is of n o use unless it is first subordinated t o philosophy. Plato has little interest in observational a s t r o n o m y : true a s t r o n o m y is n o t c o n c e r n e d m e r e l y w i t h w h a t is seen in h e a v e n but with t h e understanding of w h a t lies behind w h a t is s e e n . E v e n if t h e Greater Hippias is n o t a g e n u i n e Platonic w o r k , it is faithful t o Plato in depicting t h e learned, p o m p o u s , a n d intellectually shallow Hippias as particu larly e x p e r t in a s t r o n o m y . The destiny of t h e soul is n o t t o look u p o n t h e sensible h e a v e n but u p o n t h e 'superheavenly place', w h i c h is n o t possible for physical eyes but only for t h e s o u l . T h e stars, i n a s m u c h as t h e y a r e visible, do n o t e m b o d y e x a c t knowledge, w h i c h c a n only be grasped by t h e m i n d a n d t h o u g h t . F o r Plato, as also for t h e P y t h a g o r e a n s , a s t r o n o m y was useful chiefly as a m e a n s of understanding w h a t was purely rational. To t h e m i n d w h i c h u n d e r s t o o d properly, t h e r e w a s t r u e h a r m o n y in h e a v e n e v e n if this w a s not possible for t h e material bodies of h e a v e n , e v e n as t h e r e is e x a c t n e s s in g e o m e t r y t h o u g h it is n o t part of a n y m e r e l y visible diagram. This is t h e understanding of sun, m o o n , a n d stars enjoyed by t h e inhabitants of t h e 'true earth' in t h e Phaedo. Thus g e o m e t r y a n d a s t r o n o m y 45
4 6
4 7
4 8
4 9
5 0
51
5 2
53
5 4
53
4 5
Phaedo 9 7 b l - 9 9 c 6 . Crat. 3 9 6 b 7 - c 3 , Rep. 586a l - b 4 . Rep. 527b7f. 529a6-c3. 5 3 0 b 6 - c l . There is a long-standing debate among scholars whether Plato flatly condemns all observational astronomy or whether he means only that one should study real rather than apparent motions. Ivor Buhner-Thomas, 'Plato's Astronomy', CQ 7 8 (1984), 107, gives sources on both sides of this question. The latter position is dominant in the most recent scholarship, see Erkka Maula, Studies in Eudoxus' HomocentricSpheres, CHLSSF 50 (Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 1974), 4, and Dicks, Astronomy, 1 0 4 - 6 . 285b8-cl. Phaedr. 2 4 7 c 3 - d 5 . Rep. 5 2 9 d l - 5 . See Geminus Elem. 1. 1 9 - 2 1 (5Aujac). Cf. the myth of Erin Rep. 617b6f. lllcl-2. 4 6
4 7
4 8
4 9
3 0
5 1
5 2
5 3
5 4
5 5
The Pre-Socratics to Plato
9
are part of t h e necessary training for insight into w h a t immutable and e t e r n a l .
was
5 6
Just as Plato accepts e l e m e n t s of t h e latest a s t r o n o m i c a l r e s e a r c h but n o t t h e philosophical a n d religious implications it w a s sometimes t h o u g h t to h a v e , so t o o before his later writings h e c a n accept t h e popular v e n e r a t i o n of t h e h e a v e n s w i t h o u t taking it altogether seriously. In t h e Republic, Plato does say that t h e craftsman of h e a v e n , like Daedalus, fashioned t h e courses of the stars with t h e greatest beauty p o s s i b l e , a n d at o n e point Plato e v e n goes so far as to refer casually to 'the gods in h e a v e n ' , o n e of w h i c h is t h e s u n , a n d yet h e also openly doubts that t h e visible stars a r e eternal a n d i m m u t a b l e . E v e n in his 'middle period' Plato s h o w s little interest in t h e visible stars a n d planets a n d w i t h observational a s t r o n o m y . In this again h e was similar t o Socrates, w h o by all a c c o u n t s avoided t h e investigation of t h e h e a v e n s a n d c o n c e r n e d himself mainly with ethical q u e s t i o n s . 57
5 8
5 9
60
It is a f u n d a m e n t a l conviction of Plato t h a t t h e presence of intelligence is ipso facto t h e p r e s e n c e of soul, that mind (vovg) m u s t exist in soul (EV y/vxrj). W h e n t h e m a t u r e Plato t u r n e d from the Socratic problem of t h e n a t u r e of virtue to t h e problem of t h e beauty a n d intelligibility of the physical world, he therefore a s s u m e d t h a t t h e universe itself was alive a n d ensouled since m i n d was present in i t . M o r e o v e r , it is t h e n a t u r e of soul in t h e universe to point b e y o n d itself t o its origin in t h a t w h i c h is divine and eternal, a n d increasingly Plato w r o t e as if t h e direction to w h i c h t h e soul pointed w a s u p w a r d . Thus in t h e Phaedrus m y t h w e a r e told t h a t t h e soul h a d its origin above, a n d t h e Olympian gods a r e n o w described in t h e language of a s t r o l o g y . One should n o t interpret this language t o o literally: in t h e Phaedrus t h e Olympians a r e described as invisible (and therefore as n o t 61
6 2
63
56
Theaet. 173e3-174a2. For Plato's interest in geometry in tradition and legend, see Alice Swift Riginos, Platonica, CSCT 3 (Leiden: E. J . Brill, 1976), anecdotes 31 and 9 8 - 1 0 1 . Rep. 5 3 0 a 4 - 6 . cf. 5 2 9 c 8 - d l . Ibid. 5 0 8 a 4 - 7 . Ibid. 530a7-b3. See also his attitude toward the worship of the stars in the Cratylus in n. 2 above. Arist. Metaph. 9 8 7 l - 4 ; Cicero Tusc. 5. 4. 10 (409. 1 - 4 Pohlenz), Acad. 1. 4. 15 (7. l-9Plasberg);ps.-GalenDDG 597f. Soph. 249a4, Phil. 30c9 f., Tim. 3 0 b 2 , 4 6 d 4 - 6 . Phil. 3 0 a 5 - 8 , Tim. 3 6 d 8 - e 5 . See Karl Kerenyi, 'Astrologia Platonica', ARW 22 (1924), 2 4 5 - 5 6 , with Kerschensteiner, Platon, 98 f. 57
5 8 5 9
6 0
6 1
6 2
6 3
b
10
The Pre-Socratics to Plato
simply identical with h e a v e n l y bodies), a n d t h e highest God is explicitly said t o be b e y o n d h e a v e n , but it is nevertheless i m p o r t a n t t h a t Plato r e n e w s t h e a n c i e n t c o m p a c t b e t w e e n t h e h e a v e n s a n d religion. 6 4
65
This is evident in t h e Statesman, o n e of t h e later d i a l o g u e s . Here Plato c o m e s t o grips with a fundamental problem in n a k e d eye a s t r o n o m y , n a m e l y t h e observation t h a t the circuits of t h e planets (i.e. t h e sun, m o o n , a n d five planets visible t o t h e n a k e d eye) h a v e a m o t i o n opposite t o t h e direction of t h e circuits of t h e stars. The m a i n interlocutor, w h o is simply called 'the stranger', explains to t h e y o u n g Socrates that in t h e first era of history God imparts his o w n m o t i o n to the universe, but that t h e r e is a n o t h e r era in w h i c h t h e universe begins t o m o v e in t h e opposite direction u n d e r its o w n p o w e r , since its M a k e r h a s m a d e it b o t h living a n d r a t i o n a l . Thus for t h e first time (if t h e usual chronologies of Plato's w o r k s c a n be t r u s t e d ) , Plato suggests that a n independent rational p o w e r is at w o r k in at least s o m e of t h e heavenly bodies (i.e. t h e planets), a n d that this a c c o u n t s for a n observable p h e n o m e n o n . As is so often t h e case in Plato t h e distinction b e t w e e n m y t h a n d reality is n o t clear, but it is a n i m p o r t a n t step in t h e history of Platonism t h a t a n a c c o u n t of God is c o m b i n e d with a n explanation of heavenly m o v e m e n t . 66
Plato e x p a n d s u p o n this a t t e m p t mythically to u n d e r s t a n d God and t h e world in a w o r k w h i c h was of fundamental i m p o r t a n c e for all subsequent Hellenistic philosophy, t h e Timaeus. T h e dialogue is n a m e d after t h e chief interlocutor, w h o is c h o s e n t o describe t h e generation of t h e world a n d t h e h u m a n r a c e since h e is t h e m o s t learned in their g r o u p in m a t t e r s of a s t r o n o m y a n d t h e n a t u r e of t h e u n i v e r s e . He claims that t h e s u p r e m e beauty of t h e world a n d t h e goodness of its craftsman (the 'demiurge') shows t h a t it h a s b e e n fashioned after t h e p a t t e r n of t h e eternal forms, w h i c h a r e t h e source a n d perfection of all b e a u t y a n d intelligibility in t h e world of b e c o m i n g . The craftsman m a d e t h e 67
6 8
6 4
246c7-dl,247c2-7. Skemp suggests it was written between 366 and 362, about the same time as (probably just before) the Timaeus, see Plato's Statesman (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1952), 17. Most authorities agree that both the Statesman and the Timaeus are relatively late, see Sir David Ross, 'The Order of the Dialogues', Plato's Theory of Ideas (Oxford: Clarendon, 1951), 2 and 10. 269c4-270a8. Tim. 2 7 a 3 - 8 . 2 8 c 5 - 2 9 a 6 , 53b4-7; cf. Arist. Metaph. 9 9 1 2 0 - 3 . 6 5
6 6 6 7
6 8
a
The Pre-Socratics to Plato
11
best w o r l d possible, a n d since that w h i c h lives is superior t o that w h i c h does not, the w o r l d itself is a l i v e , a n d is in fact a g o d . As t h e body of h e a v e n is s u p r e m e a m o n g that w h i c h is visible, so its invisible soul constitutes the best thing in all that has b e e n m a d e . Since h e a v e n , visible or invisible, is the best part of t h e world, Plato c a n use t h e w o r d ' h e a v e n ' (otipavog) as a s y n o n y m for 'world' (Kdapog). 69
7 0
7 1
72
This soul w h i c h p e r m e a t e s t h e cosmos ('World Soul') is divine, but only in a derived a n d secondary w a y since it is n o t eternal but has c o m e into being. It is conceived as intermediate b e t w e e n that w h i c h is corporeal a n d the eternal f o r m s . The body of h e a v e n is, like t h e body of the world, c o m p a c t e d o u t of t h e four e l e m e n t s , but particularly of fire, w h i c h is by its structure t h e m o s t mobile e l e m e n t . As in t h e Statesman, t h e question of h e a v e n l y m o t i o n is linked t o a discussion of h e a v e n l y souls. Stars h a v e t w o types of m o v e m e n t : t h e first is called t h e 'revolution of t h e Same', referring t o t h e daily uniform E a s t - W e s t circuit of t h e fixed stars. As w e h a v e already seen in t h e Statesman, this is a m o t i o n imparted t o t h e star by God rather t h a n o n e w h i c h has its source in the star's o w n i m m a n e n t soul. Thus Plato says the stars are m a d e t o follow the intelligent m o t i o n of W o r l d Soul ('the S u p r e m e ' ) , m e a n i n g that t h e m o t i o n of e a c h is 'controlled by the circuit of the S a m e a n d U n i f o r m ' . This m o t i o n is n o t conceived as the self-moved m o t i o n of a n ensouled body, but a m o t i o n w h i c h is i m p a r t e d t o t h e h e a v e n l y bodies by t h e d e m i u r g e , in w h i c h t h e h e a v e n l y body is carried along o n a revolving c i r c u i t . The o t h e r m o t i o n of the stars is their rotation, w h i c h is the circular m o t i o n proper to W o r l d S o u l . This is again originally a n assigned m o t i o n , but is also explicitly linked t o their intelli gence: 'each o n e always thinks in t h e s a m e w a y about t h e s a m e 7 3
74
75
76
7 7
78
7 9
8 0
6 9
30b4-31al, 32dl, 36e2-5, 6 9 c l - 3 , 92c6-7. 34a8-b9,68el-4. 36e5-37a2. 31b3,92c7-9. The mythological expression of this is that soul is composed of both the same and the different, and both the divisible and the indivisible, Tim. 3 5 a l - 8 . 3 2b3-c2. Mostly fire: 40a2, cf. Epin. 9 8 1 d 7 - e l ; mobile: Tim. 56a2 f. 40a2-b2. 36c2^. See A. E. Taylor, A Commentary on Plato s Timaeus (Oxford: Clarendon, 1928), 147 f. 34al-4. 34al,4. 7 0
7 1
7 2
7 3
7 4
7 5
7 6
7 7
7 8
7 9
8 0
The Pre-Socratics to Plato
12 81
t h i n g s . ' The presence of this second m o t i o n is a sign of their status as divine a n d everlasting living beings, a n d it is this m o t i o n w h i c h is d u e t o t h e star's s o u l . 82
The planets a r e g o v e r n e d by t h e m o t i o n of t h e S a m e a n d by a n additional m o t i o n w h i c h is also i m p a r t e d by t h e d e m i u r g e , t h e m o t i o n of t h e Different. T h e c o m b i n a t i o n of these m o v e m e n t s causes t h e planets to m o v e in a s p i r a l . Thus in contrast to his v i e w in t h e Statesman, Plato n o w states that t h e specific W e s t - E a s t m o t i o n of t h e planets, w h i c h distinguishes t h e m from t h e stars, is due to a force i m p a r t e d by t h e d e m i u r g e r a t h e r t h a n o n e arising f r o m t h e planet itself. The planets a r e also said t o h a v e a n additional m o t i o n w h i c h either reinforces or c o u n t e r s t h e m o t i o n of t h e Different, a n d this m o t i o n a c c o u n t s for variations in planetary s p e e d . Several a n c i e n t c o m m e n t a t o r s a s s u m e t h a t this third m o t i o n m u s t h a v e its source in t h e planet's o w n s o u l . Since Plato does say t h a t t h e planets, like t h e stars, a r e a l i v e , w h i c h is also implicit in t h e tradition, b e g u n by Plato a n d c u s t o m a r y thereafter, t o refer t o t h e planets, n o t simply as Hermes o r C r o n o s , but as belonging to s u c h a god (6 TOV 'Eppov, etc.), this interpretation has t h e a d v a n t a g e of allotting a function to t h e planetary soul. This is especially necessary as it does n o t a p p e a r t h a t h e believes t h a t t h e planets r o t a t e . If this is correct, soul h e r e is still a source of planetary m o t i o n , but only in a n e w and restricted sense. 83
84
85
86
8 7
8 8
The living stars a n d planets play a n i m p o r t a n t role in t h e creation of h u m a n souls. Souls a r e m a d e by t h e d e m i u r g e in n u m b e r s equal to t h e s t a r s . W i t h i n its assigned star t h e soul is t a u g h t t h a t it is subject t o passions but t h a t t h e soul w h i c h is able 8 9
8 1
40a8-bl. Divine: 40b5; soul: as Atticus notes, frag. 6 (58 f., 2 1 - 3 1 des Places). 39a5-b2. 3 6d5-7, 38c7-d6, see Francis MacDonald Comford, Plato's Cosmology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1937), 107 n. 3. For a different opinion see Gregory Vlastos, Universe, Appendix K, 109 f. See Comford, Cosmology, 107 n. 3. 3 8e5f. For sources see W. H. Roscher, 'Planeten', Lexikon der griech. und rom. Mythologie 3. 2 ( 1 9 0 2 - 9 ) , 2 5 2 5 , and W. and H. Gundel, 'Planeten', 2113. The implication presumably is that an invisible god is the source of the visible motion. See Dicks, Astronomy. 131 (with Taylor Timaeus 2 2 6 , to 40b6), against Comford, Cosmology, 119. 41d8. 8 2
8 3 8 4
8 5
8 6
8 7
8 8
8 9
The Pre-Socratics to Plato
13 9 0
to o v e r c o m e t h e m is able to r e t u r n to its native s t a r . After the demiurge m a d e the rational part of the h u m a n soul a n d sowed h u m a n souls in the earth a n d p l a n e t s , the 'young gods' ( w h o include both the stars and p l a n e t s ) fashioned h u m a n bodies, and also m a d e the t w o lower, m o r t a l parts of the h u m a n soul, will (Ovpdq) a n d passion (smOvpi'a), w h i c h they set in the t r u n k . Time c a m e into being with h e a v e n , and its m a r k e r s are the sun, m o o n , a n d the other five p l a n e t s . The succession of days, nights, m o n t h s , a n d years w h i c h w e see in the m o v e m e n t s of the heavenly bodies has t h e n given us not only o u r understanding of time but our concept of n u m b e r a n d the ability to enquire about n a t u r e , w h i c h has in t u r n brought about the greatest gift of heaven, philosophy. Sight was invented so that w e might observe the circuits of h e a v e n a n d so be improved in o u r minds, w h i c h are akin to the stars a n d also rotate, t h o u g h m u c h less p e r f e c t l y . Indeed, h u m a n souls fall well short of the souls in heaven; from the very start h u m a n souls a r e m a d e of a less pure m i x t u r e of W o r l d S o u l . F u r t h e r m o r e , if they live ill a n d inharmoniously this m y t h suggests they might b e c o m e w o m e n in their n e x t incorporation, and if they persisted in evil they could fall into the ignorant condition of the lowest creatures, becoming the souls of birds, animals, a n d f i s h e s . 91
92
9 3
94
95
96
97
98
Plato believes the soul and God are invisible, and h e also stresses that God c a n n o t be spatially l o c a t e d ; to say that God is beyond h e a v e n is not to set h i m in a particularly r e m o t e place, but to say that h e c a n n o t be t h o u g h t of in t e r m s of time a n d space w h i c h h a v e themselves c o m e into being. In light of this, it is surprising h o w physically located higher religious realities a r e : the higher o n e goes physically, the n e a r e r (it would seem) o n e is to God. W e h a v e already seen that t h o u g h h e a v e n is not the ultimate deity, it contains a type of life w h i c h is higher and better 99
9 0
4 1 e l ^ 2 b 5 ; cf. ps.-Galen DDG 614. 8 - 1 0 . 42d2-5. 41a3 f. They are 'young' since they are subsequent to the demiurge. 42d5-el. 69c3-72d8. Time: 3 7 e l - 3 , 38b6f.; markers: 3 8 c 3 - 6 . 47al-b2. 47b5-c4. 4 1 d 6 - 7 . cf. Phaedr. 2 4 8 c 5 - 8 , Phil. 29c 1-3. 42cl—4, 9 0 e 6 - 9 2 c 3 . For transformation into a woman as a punishment see also Laws 9 4 4 d 5 - e 2 . Symp. 2 1 1 a 9 - b l , c f . Parm. 1 3 8 a l - b 6 . 9 1
9 2
9 3
9 4
9 5
9 6
9 7
9 8
9 9
The Pre-Socratics to Plato
14
t h a n t h e life below. In contrast t o earth, t h e r e is n o d i s h a r m o n y in h e a v e n . W e o n e a r t h a r e h e m m e d in by o u r air, w h i c h is thick and turbid, but just a b o v e it is t h e e t h e r (which Plato identifies with t h e visible h e a v e n ) , a region of particularly bright and clear a i r . The heavenly bodies in this higher and p u r e r region perform, at least mythically, a variety of functions in t h e f o r m a t i o n of t h e h u m a n soul, a n d a r e said t o be t h e t h e soul's ultimate goal. A n d yet despite t h e fact t h a t t h e stars a r e gods ( e v e n if 'young gods') Plato does n o t define t h e p r o p e r place of t h e h e a v e n l y bodies in religion until his final w o r k , t h e Laws. 1 0 0
1 0 1
1 0 2
The first w o r d in the Laws is 'god' (Bedc), and the first question that is settled in this dialogue is t h a t gods h a v e instituted t h e laws of A t h e n s a n d Sparta. H u m a n i t y is m e a n t to be ruled by t h e gods m u c h as it in t u r n rules o v e r t h e animals, a n d Plato conceives of law as a m e a n s by w h i c h t h e divine in us c a n control o u r i n h e r e n t capacity for e v i l . He believes that t r u e law is a divine institution, a n d thus c a n speak of 'law' a n d 'god' as almost synonymous. T h e a u t h o r i t y a n d m a i n t e n a n c e of religion in a n ideal state is a m a j o r t h e m e of t h e Laws, a n d t h e results a r e quite chilling. A t h e i s m ( w h i c h especially includes Ionian a s t r o n o m y ) is n o w n o t only foolish but illegal, a n d a m e n a c e to t h e state since proper religious belief strengthens respect for law and a u t h o r ity. T h e elderly A t h e n i a n , w h o has the leading part in this dialogue, says t h a t o n e m u s t first try to c o n v i n c e atheists by a r g u m e n t , t h o u g h h e admits t h e difficulty of mastering his o w n a n n o y a n c e in t h e face of s u c h w i c k e d n e s s . B u t a r g u m e n t is n o t t h e only w e a p o n of this ideal state. Those w h o c a n n o t be persuaded of their e r r o r are to be put in solitary c o n f i n e m e n t a n d , if they persist in their errors, to be put t o d e a t h . Those w h o engage in cultic practices outside of t h e o n e public cult a r e also liable t o t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y . Agnostics, n e c r o m a n c e r s , a n d 1 0 3
1 0 4
1 0 5
106
1 0 7
1 0 8
1 0 0
Theaet. 176a5-7. Phaedo 1 0 9 b 7 - c l . Tim. 5 5 d l - 3 . iavvj713c5-714bl. As Eugene Dont notes, Platons Spatphilosophie und die Akademie, Oesterr. Akad. Wiss., philos.-hist. Kl. 251. 3 (Vienna: Hermann Bohlaus, 1967), 20, citing 741d3-4. Laws 8 8 5 b 4 - 9 . 8 87c7-888a7. . 909a 5 - 8 . 910b8-el. 1 0 1
1 0 2
1 0 5
1 0 4
1 0 3
1 0 6
1 0 7
1 0 8
The Pre-Socratics to Plato
15
o t h e r religious eccentrics a r e subject t o life imprisonment; at death their bodies a r e t o be taken outside t h e city w h e r e it is forbidden for a n y to bury their polluted b o d i e s . It is just as well that Socrates is n o t o n e of the interlocutors in t h e Laws, since h e clearly would h a v e had n o place in Plato's Utopian society. 1 0 9
And w h e r e a s Socrates is credited with bringing philosophy d o w n f r o m h e a v e n , the Laws v e r y definitely puts philosophy back in h e a v e n . In this state in w h i c h religion is tightly controlled, it is said to be excellent a n d profitable for t h e good m a n 'to m a k e sacrifices a n d always to c o m m u n e with the gods by prayers, offerings, and every service of the g o d s ' . W e are also told that h e a v e n h e a r s prayers, and provides blessings a n d curses in response. The A t h e n i a n argues for the existence of t h e gods e consensu gentium, noting w i t h approval t h a t both Greek a n d n o n Greek offer prayers a n d prostrate themselves at t h e rising a n d setting of t h e sun a n d m o o n . At o n e point h e m a k e s a n off h a n d reference t o 'the sun and the other g o d s ' , a n d elsewhere h e contrasts t h e 'visible gods' (the heavenly bodies) to m a n - m a d e images of the g o d s . The planets, the m o o n , a n d t h e span of years a r e g o d s (since time a n d t h e heavenly bodies a r e identical), a n d o n e important body of judges (the svOvvoi) a r e simultaneously priests of Apollo, w h o is identified with the sun. Citizens a r e t o be provided with a m o r e e x a c t knowledge of the m o v e m e n t s of the sun, m o o n , and o t h e r planets in order that the city m a y celebrate its religious festival c o r r e c t l y and that its people m a y u n d e r s t a n d t h e true n a t u r e of planetary movements, n a m e l y that they a r e supremely intelligible, which is a n o t h e r w a y of saying that they are supremely holy. 1 1 0
111
1 1 2
1 1 3
1 1 4
1 1 5
1 1 6
1 1 7
1 1 8
1 1 9
The m o s t important religious function of t h e h e a v e n l y bodies is c o n n e c t e d t o t h e Laws' strong emphasis o n the priority of soul in 1 0 9
909a8-c6. Cicero, Tusc. 5. 4. 10 (409. 1 - 4 Pohlenz), as Willy Theiler notes, Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus, QSGP 10 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1966), 143. 716d6-el. 931cl-dl. 887e2-7. 950d3. 930e7-931a4. 899b 1-8. PfeV. 6 2 a 7 - 9 . n? 9 4 5 4 _ 9 4 6 a l , 9 4 6 b 5 - c 2 , 9 4 7 a 5 - 6 . 809c6-d7. 817e8-818a2. 1 1 0
1 1 1
1 . 2
1 . 3
1 1 4
1 1 5
1 1 6
c
1 1 8
1 1 9
The Pre-Socratics to Plato
16
shaping o u r w o r l d — a familiar Platonic t h e m e in a book t h a t is in m a n y ways unfamiliar. The Ionian philosophers based their views w h i c h w e r e so damaging to religion on t h e assumption t h a t the world h a d c o m e into being not by mind, God, o r skill, but by n a t u r e and c h a n c e . Atheism h a d been the r e s u l t , but in Plato's view it was of the u t m o s t i m p o r t a n c e to realize t h a t this w a s n o t a correct inference. The fundamental principle of t h e c o s m o s is soul, w h i c h is older t h a n body, self-moving, a n d controlling all physical t h i n g s . The universe did n o t c o m e into being as a result of the n a t u r e of certain elements, n o r by s o m e accidental series of events, but by the activity of mind (vooc) working t h r o u g h t h e m e d i u m of soul (yoxrj), a n d t h e perfectly ordered m o v e m e n t of the stars proves t h e existence of the s u p r e m e soul w h i c h directs t h e m . The elderly A t h e n i a n argues that if the h e a v e n l y bodies lacked soul and intelligence, they would n e v e r m o v e in such a n altogether precise m a n n e r . Plato h a d long believed that the m o v e m e n t s of h e a v e n corresponded to m a t h e m a t i c a l law, a n d h e n o w believes that the fact t h a t mind controls the m o t i o n of h e a v e n , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e general a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t t h a t soul m u s t b e older t h a n a n y being with a n unself-moved m o t i o n , constitutes the best proof of t h e existence of G o d . The activity of mind in bringing order t o the world is evident e v e r y w h e r e , but especially in the skies above: n o o n e but a fool could look u p o n h e a v e n a n d r e m a i n a n a t h e i s t . 1 2 0
121
1 2 2
1 2 3
1 2 4
1 2 5
1 2 6
A problem w h i c h Plato acknowledges at this point is t h a t t h e r e are different w a y s t h a t soul c a n be operative in h e a v e n . This w a s evident in t h e Statesman w h e r e h e said t h e older m o t i o n w a s from God but the m o r e r e c e n t m o t i o n c a m e from i m m a n e n t souls; t h e s a m e is also true in t h e Timaeus, w h e r e n o w t h e r e w e r e t w o motions w h i c h s t e m m e d from God (i.e. the motions of t h e S a m e a n d t h e Different) a n d again o t h e r motions w h i c h w e r e ( p r e s u m ably) i m m a n e n t (i.e. stellar rotation a n d specific planetary m o v e m e n t s ) . Taking t h e case of the sun as an e x a m p l e , the
1 2 0
1 2 1
1 2 2
1 2 3
1 2 4
1 2 5
1 2 6
889b 1-C6. See above nn. 33 f. Older: 8 9 6 c l - 3 , 9 6 6 d 9 - e 2 ; self-moving: 8 9 5 e l 0 - 8 9 6 b l ; control: 8 9 6 e 8 - 9 . 897C4-9, cf. 8 8 6 a 2 - 4 . 9 6 7 b 2 - 4 , cf. Epin. 9 8 2 M - 2 . 9 6 6 d 9 - e 4 ; cf. Arist. DePhil. frag. 13 (Ross). 9 6 6 e 4 - 6 ; cf. Cicero DeHar. Resp. 9. 19 (98. 2 2 - 9 9 . 5 Maslowski).
The Pre-Socratics to Plato
17
A t h e n i a n in t h e Laws says t h e r e a r e t h r e e possible w a y s in w h i c h soul d e t e r m i n e s h e r course: Either it exists within this visible spherical body and conveys it in every way, just as our soul carries us about in every way; or, as some teach, from someplace outside it furnishes itself a body of fire or of some air and pushes the body by a bodily force; third, being apart from body but having some other surpassingly wonderful powers, it acts as a g u i d e . 127
The astral soul is either i m m a n e n t o r t r a n s c e n d e n t ; if it is i m m a n e n t it acts directly o n t h e body, if t r a n s c e n d e n t , it acts either t h r o u g h t h e intermediary of a special material body w h i c h it provides itself, o r t h r o u g h s o m e u n k n o w n agency. Plato does n o t m a k e clear at this point t h e n u m b e r of souls in h e a v e n : his usual a s s u m p t i o n is that e a c h h e a v e n l y body h a s its o w n soul a n d is a god, but if in h e a v e n soul transcends its body t h e r e might be only o n e h e a v e n l y s o u l . It is also not clear in t h e Laws (as it was in t h e Timaeus) if stars are gods as well as planets: t h e Laws only explicitly refers to t h e divinity of t h e planets ( w h i c h is t h e v i e w found in t h e Statesman). 1 2 8
O n e thing w h i c h is clear is t h a t t h e astral soul itself is invisible: w e do not look u p o n t h e soul, w e only calculate its m o v e m e n t s m a t h e m a t i c a l l y . As Plato h a d said earlier in t h e Republic, it is not w h a t is seen in h e a v e n w h i c h is i m p o r t a n t , but w h a t is intelligible. Thus, strictly speaking, o n e would e x p e c t Plato t o assert that t h e h e a v e n l y bodies a r e n o t gods, but a r e m e r e l y controlled by gods in s o m e w a y . M o r e specifically, o n e might e x p e c t h i m t o say that t h e visible star o r planet is a body joined eternally t o a soul, w h i c h is h o w h e says h e imagines t h e gods in t h e Phaedrus m y t h . B u t Plato is very elusive in m a t t e r s of r e l i g i o n , a n d in t h e e n d his real opinion is n e v e r clear. W h a t is clear is t h a t h e has n o objection t o calling t h e planets (and s o m e t i m e s t h e stars) gods a n d worshipping t h e m , just as h e includes devotion t o images in t h e religion of t h e state, t h o u g h h e 129
1 3 0
131
1 2 7
8 98e8-899a4. Laws 8 9 8 c l - 5 suggests this possibility (cf. 9 6 7 e l ; also Xenocrates frag. 17 Heinze), a view which Leo Elders accepts as Plato's, Aristotle's Cosmology (Assen: van Gorcum&Co., 1966), 180, but note Plato's ambiguity in 898c7f. 8 98d9-e3. 2 46c6-d2. This is intentional, see V. Goldschmidt, La Religion de Platon, repr. in Platonisme etpensee contemporaine (Aubier: Montaigne, 1976) 13, and Crat. 400d7 f. 1 2 8
1 2 9 1 3 0 1 3 1
The Pre-Socratics to Plato
18
is well a w a r e that t h e i m a g e is only a lifeless representation of a living g o d . P e r h a p s dispensing w i t h t h e stars, like dispensing w i t h t h e Olympians, for w h o m h e h a d little regard a n d yet w h o m h e often included in m y t h a n d e v e n w o r s h i p , w a s t o o drastic a step. F o r Plato saw himself as upholding t h e religious traditions of his a n c e s t o r s , providing a b u l w a r k against t h e t h r e a t posed by t h e social radicals symbolized by Callicles in t h e Gorgias a n d T h r a s y m a c h u s in t h e Republic. He recognized t h e possibility that his pursuit of t h e t r u t h might be labelled a retreat into popular conventions, but in t h e turmoil of f o u r t h - c e n t u r y BC A t h e n s t h e affirmation of tradition h a d its o w n appeal. W i t h regard to t h e stars a n d religion, it appears t h a t his later efforts to i n c o r p o r a t e b o t h a s t r o n o m i c a l a d v a n c e s a n d t h e popular v e n e r a t i o n of h e a v e n into a n a t t e m p t t o rule m a n k i n d by philosophy (since Plato by this point h a d c o m e t o t h e conclusion t h a t rulers w e r e incapable of b e c o m i n g philosophers) affirmed certain aspects of t h e popular tradition w h i c h w o u l d h a v e b e e n h a r d t o defend in philosophical t e r m s . T h e irony is t h a t his emphasis o n t h e worship of t h e stars w a s so m u c h stronger t h a n almost anything in previous Greek religion t h a t it was n o w not Socrates but Plato w h o was 'introducing n e w gods'. 1 3 2
1 3 3
1 3 4
1 3 5
One gauge of t h e i m p o r t a n c e of these speculations o n t h e relation b e t w e e n religion a n d t h e visible h e a v e n s for Plato's t h o u g h t is t h e a m o u n t of interest in t h e m a m o n g his students a n d associates after his death. Unfortunately, aside f r o m t h e Epinomis a n d Aristotle's e x t a n t ('acroamatic') works, w e only k n o w of these speculations in a v e r y f r a g m e n t a r y form. Simplicius, w h o is following a lost w o r k by Sosigenes, w h o in t u r n is using a lost w o r k by Aristotle's pupil E u d e m u s of Rhodes, says that Plato set before those interested in a s t r o n o m y t h e problem of explaining planetary m o v e m e n t in a uniform w a y w h i c h p r e s u m e d their circular m o v e m e n t , a n d that this challenge was a c c e p t e d by E u d o x u s of C n i d u s . E u d o x u s ' pursuit of 1 3 6
1 3 2
Laws 9 3 l a l - 4 . Myth: Phaedr. 246e4ff.; worship: Laws 7 1 7 a 6 - 7 . 8 4 8 d 5 - 7 . Plato com plained about the 'poetic' depiction of the Olympians (Rep. 3 7 7 d 4 - 3 7 8 a 6 ) , but this was of course the only important existing account of them. Z,«H*887d2-e2. Gorgias 482e2-5. In De Caelo (488. 1 8 - 2 4 and 492. 3 1 - 4 9 3 . 5 Heiberg). Some have doubted this report, but in a similar way Philodemus says that Plato suggested problems to mathematicians. Index Herculanensis (15 f. Mekler). 1 3 3
1 3 4 1 3 5
1 3 6
The Pre-Socratics to Plato
19
1 3 7
astronomy w a s joined by m a n y o t h e r m e m b e r s of t h e A c a d e m y . Philipp of Opus w r o t e a variety of treatises o n celestial matters, a n d X e n o c r a t e s of C h a l c e d o n also did six books o n this subject, discussing planetary m o t i o n , t h e difference b e t w e e n stars a n d planets, and t h e shape of s t a r s . Heraclides Ponticus proposed t h e axial rotation of t h e earth, a n d t h o u g h t t h a t M e r c u r y a n d Venus revolved a r o u n d t h e s u n . The discovery of t h e great size of all t h e h e a v e n l y bodies a n d of t h e vast distance b e t w e e n e a r t h a n d t h e stars w a s apparently quite n e w , and t h e r e w a s m u c h debate in t h e A c a d e m y about E u d o x u s ' theories of c o n c e n t r i c spheres, w h i c h helped explain planetary m o t i o n s but could n o t a c c o u n t for differences in planetary bright ness. 1 3 8
1 3 9
1 4 0
1 4 1
1 4 2
The A c a d e m y also followed Plato's lead in speculating o n t h e religious i m p o r t a n c e of t h e h e a v e n s . Like t h e early Aristotle, X e n o c r a t e s t h o u g h t that t h e s u p r e m e God is mind ( v o u c ) , but h e also said that t h e stars a n d planets are g o d s , a n d elsewhere w r o t e that h e a v e n w a s a god a n d the stars w e r e O l y m p i a n s . Heraclides Ponticus also believed t h a t h e a v e n a n d t h e planets were g o d s , a n d his speculations o n t h e origin a n d n a t u r e of t h e soul w e r e probably of great historical i m p o r t a n c e . He apparently took seriously t h e P y t h a g o r e a n v i e w , r e p e a t e d in m y t h i c form in t h e Timaeus, that t h e soul has descended from above. In o n e passage a n o p p o n e n t accuses h i m of teaching t h a t t h e h u m a n race h a s fallen into life f r o m t h e m o o n , a n d this m a y n o t be so very far off target: w e a r e told e l s e w h e r e t h a t h e regarded t h e 143
1 4 4
145
1 4 6
1 4 7
1 4 8
1 3 7
See also DL 8. 89 (435. 8 - 1 0 Long), and F. Lasserre, Eudoxos von Knidos, D 6-17. See Hans Joachim Kramer, 'Die altere Akademie', in Hellmut Flashar (ed.). DiePhilosophie der Antike (Basle/Stuttgart: Schwabe, 1983), 3. 104. See frag. 71 (Heinze), and Kramer, 'Akademie', 57. Axial: frag. 1 0 4 - 8 ; Venus/Mercury: frag. 109 f. (Wehrli). Size: the subject of a treatise by Philipp of Opus, also Epin. 9 8 3 a l - 6 , and Arist. Meteor. 3 3 9 3 4 - 6 ; distance: Arist. Meteor. 3 4 5 l - 4 , De Caelo 2 9 8 1 8 - 2 0 . See Thomas L. Heath, Aristarchus of Santos (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), 2 6 1 . Frag. 15 (Heinze); cf. Plato Phil. 2 8 c 6 - 8 : Arist. Peri Euches frag. 1 and Protreptikos frag. 1 0 (Ross). Frag. 17 (Heinze). Frag. 15 (Heinze). Frag. I l l (Wehrli). For Origen's knowledge of Heraclides see frag. 7 8 (Wehrli). See above n. 10. Heraclides was very much interested in Pythagoras, DL 5. 88 (245. 11 Long). This was common in the Academy, see Frank Plato. Frag. 115 (Wehrli). 1 3 8
1 3 9
1 4 0 1 4 1
b
b
1 4 2 1 4 3
c
1 4 4 1 4 5
1 4 6
1 4 7
1 4 8
a
The Pre-Socratics to Plato
20
1 4 9
heavenly bodies as habitable like the e a r t h , a n d that h e t h o u g h t the soul has descended from t h e Milky W a y . Most important, Heraclides Ponticus seems to h a v e discussed this old concept in physical t e r m s , suggesting that t h e soul's substance was ether or l i g h t . This coupling of light with ether is also evident in his t h e o r y that t h e infinite m e d i u m in w h i c h the stars are set is e t h e r e a l . Heraclides' idea that the h u m a n soul w a s identical to this h e a v e n l y substance marks a significant addition to Plato's view. Plato h a d suggested that t h e r e was s o m e type of kinship b e t w e e n t h e h u m a n soul and the divine but had not precisely identified i t . E v e n the share of the upper part of the soul in W o r l d Soul in the Timaeus is obscured by t h e r e m a r k that t h e h u m a n soul is only c o m p o s e d of W o r l d Soul in a n i m p u r e manner. B u t Heraclides Ponticus believes t h e r e is simply a n identity b e t w e e n t h e essence of h e a v e n above a n d of t h e soul within, an idea w h i c h would be systematically pursued by the Stoics. 1 5 0
151
1 5 2
1 5 3
1 5 4
Emphasis o n the i m p o r t a n c e of t h e heavens is carried to its furthest e x t r e m e in t h e Epinomis, w h i c h is intended (as its title indicates) as a sequel to Plato's Laws. The Epinomis has m a n y parallels in t h e Platonic corpus (especially t h e Laws), a n d stylistically is so close to Plato, e v e n in m i n u t e p o i n t s , that m a n y h a v e regarded it as a n a u t h e n t i c w o r k . However, differences in style, vocabulary, a n d c o n t e n t do exist, a n d o n t h e w h o l e it is easier to explain its similarities as imitations t h a n to argue that its differences a r e p e c u l i a r i t i e s . A n e x a m i n a t i o n of its concept of a n astral cult shows that it has n o t only imitated Plato but put forward n e w ideas of its o w n . 1 5 5
1 5 6
157
The a u t h o r of this w o r k (probably Philipp of O p u s ) 1 4 9
1 5 8
tells us
Frag. 113 f. (Wehrli). Frag. 97 (Wehrli). Ether: frag. 9 9 ; light: frag. 9 8 , cf. 100 (Wehrli), and also SVF 2. 7 8 8 . See PaulMoraux, 'Quinta Essentia', P W 2 4 (1963), 1193f. Frag. 113ac (Wehrli). Rep. 61 le2 f.. Statesman 3 0 9 c l - 3 , Critias 1 2 0 e l - 3 . See n. 97 above. See E. des Places, 'Sur l'authenticite de l'Epinomis', Etudes platoniciennes 1929-1979, EPRO 9 0 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981), 1 0 5 - 1 9 . H. Raeder, F. Novotny, O. Specchia, J . Burnet, A. E. Taylor, J. Harward, E. des Places, A. J . Festugiere, Ch. Mugler, D. R. Dicks. So U. v. Wilamowitz, C. Ritter, W. Jaeger, J. Pavlu, H. Friedrich, W. Theiler, F. Miiller, H. Cherniss, L. Billig, B. Einarson, H. Lier, and L. Taran. DL 3. 37 (137. 1 7 - 1 9 Long); see Kramer,'Akademie', 104. 1 5 0
1 5 1
1 5 2
1 5 3
1 5 4
1 5 5
1 5 6
1 5 7
1 5 8
The Pre-Socratics to Plato
21
as Plato did t h a t m o s t people regard t h e stars as lifeless because of their uniform m o t i o n , but t h a t this is in fact a clear sign of their intelligence. T h e planets do not 'wander', a n d y o u t h s should learn e n o u g h a s t r o n o m y to avoid s u c h a n e r r o r . M a t h e m a t i c a l training is c o m b i n e d w i t h a s t r o n o m i c a l t h e o r y , for n u m b e r is a divine gift w h i c h has b e e n granted t o h u m a n i t y t o be l e a r n e d t h r o u g h t h e observation of h e a v e n l y revolution, and is a prerequisite of w i s d o m . Their precise m o v e m e n t is a proof of universal divine providence a n d of t h e priority of soul to body, as it was also in t h e Laws. T h e divinity of t h e stars a n d of t h e seven planets is b o t h p r e s u m e d a n d stated t h r o u g h o u t t h e dialogue, as it is in m u c h of t h e Platonic corpus. 159
1 6 0
1 6 1
162
A n d yet t h e religious a n d philosophical i m p o r t a n c e of t h e stars n o w goes far b e y o n d anything in Plato. Plato regarded m a t h ematics as a preliminary training for dialectic, a n d included a s t r o n o m y as a b r a n c h of applied m a t h e m a t i c s . He claimed that t h e circular m o v e m e n t of t h e h e a v e n s c a n be a guide t o us in the exercise of m i n d ( v o u c ) , and h e provided a m y t h i c rationale for t h e i m p o r t a n c e of h e a v e n by suggesting that t h e soul m o v e d in a circular fashion in t h e process of making correct j u d g e m e n t s and in k n o w i n g . B u t this did not m e a n the m o v e m e n t of mind o c c u r r e d in s p a c e . T h o u g h Plato believed t h e h e a v e n l y bodies w e r e ensouled, h e at times attributed their m o t i o n s to o t h e r sources besides a n i m m a n e n t soul, a n d still h a d a n o p e n m i n d at t h e e n d of his life o n t h e question of t h e origin of h e a v e n l y motion. T h e stars a r e h o n o u r e d as gods, but Plato retains s o m e ambiguities a b o u t their d i v i n i t y , a n d this is evident in his provisions for t h e public cult, w h i c h a c k n o w l e d g e s Olympians, national gods, d a e m o n s , and h e r o e s — b u t not t h e astral g o d s . 1 6 3
1 6 4
1 6 5
1 6 6
1 6 7
168
1 6 9
1 5 9
Epin. 9 8 2 c 5 - e 4 . 160 9 9 0 c l - 5 , cf. n. 119 above. 9 7 7 b l - d 4 , cf. n. 95 above. 9 9 1 c 6 - d 5 . cf. 9 8 0 d l - 3 ; Laws: cf. nn. 122 f. above, and 9 0 0 c — 9 0 3 a ; antiquity of soul: Tim. 34c4f., Laws 896c 1-3. Propaedeutic: Rep. 5 3 6 d 5 - 8 ; astronomy: see above n. 55. See above n. 96. Tim. 3 7 a 2 - c 3 . 1 6 1
1 6 2
1 6 3
1 6 4
1 6 5
1 6 6 1 6 7
Skemp, Motion, 85.
See above nn. 66, 76 f., 83, and especially 127. See above n. 59. Goldschmidt, Platonisme, 106. In classical usage the Greek words Saiiuov refers to a divine or semi-divine being who may be either good or evil. In later usage the same word comes to refer exclusively to an evil spirit. I use the word 'daemon' to describe the former, and 'demon' to describe the latter. 1 6 8
1 6 9
The Pre-Socratics to Plato
22
In contrast, t h e Epinomis declares the wise m a n to be, not the philosopher, but t h e a s t r o n o m e r . Like Aristotle, t h e Epinomis erroneously interprets Plato's circular m o v e m e n t of soul in spatial terms, a n d proceeds to identify m i n d with celestial revolution, interpreting Plato's m e t a p h o r in literal t e r m s . At different points it repeats Plato's hesitation a b o u t w h e t h e r t h e astral soul is i m m a n e n t , briefly questions w h e t h e r t h e stars a r e after all divine a n d i m m o r t a l , a n d also considers t h e possibility that t h e stars a r e n o t so m u c h gods as divine images m a d e by t h e gods t h e m s e l v e s . A n d y e t t h e hesitation is only m o m e n t a r y , a n d in v i e w of t h e larger t h e m e s of t h e dialogue is scarcely noticeable. M o r e i m p o r t a n t for future speculations o n t h e stars are its claims t h a t m i n d is t h e i m m a n e n t cause of astral motions a n d t h a t t h e stars a r e e a c h self-moving g o d s . In addition, t h e Epinomis declares t h a t t h e stars o v e r s e e all things ( m o r e t h a n just a m e t a p h o r since in Platonic t e r m s vision is due to t h e emission of a b e a m of light f r o m t h e e y e ) , so t h a t t h e light of t h e stars is a sign of their life a n d providence. Openly indifferent about t h e Olympians, this dialogue n a m e s t h e stars t o g e t h e r with w h a t e v e r is perceived along with t h e m (i.e. their visible n a t u r e ) as t h e greatest of t h e g o d s . T h e view of Plato and of o t h e r m e m b e r s of t h e A c a d e m y that t h e S u p r e m e God is above t h e h e a v e n s , o r is mind or even beyond m i n d , is replaced by a religion of t h e h e a v e n l y bodies. 1 7 0
1 7 1
1 7 2
1 7 3
1 7 4
1 7 5
1 7 6
Cultic language is used t h r o u g h o u t t h e Epinomis as part of a protreptic t o this astral religion. It speaks of h o n o u r i n g t h e stars, h y m n i n g t h e m , a n d of praying to a n d magnifying h e a v e n . The Epinomis attacks t h o s e w h o w o u l d allow t h e h e a v e n l y bodies to be denied t h e festivals, sacrifices, and religious holidays w h i c h 1 7 7
1 7 0
9 8 9 a 6 - b 2 and 9 9 0 a 2 - b 2 , with Leonardo Taran, Academica, MAPS 107 (Philadelphia: MAPS, 1975), 26; cf. 9 9 1 b 5 - c l . Taran, Academica, 59 f. 9 8 3c2, 9 8 1 e 6 - 9 8 2 a 3 , 9 8 3 e 5 - 9 8 4 a l . Probably an incorrect interpretation of Tim. 37c6 f., Taran, Academica, 8 6 . 982el-4,986e6. 9 85e3, cf. 984d6; Platonic theory of vision: Tim. 45b2-d3. Olympians: 9 8 4 d 3 - 5 ; greatest gods: 9 8 4 d 5 - 8 ; contrast Rep. 5 2 6 e 2 - 4 , 532c3-dl. Rep. 5 0 9 b 6 - 1 0 , Phaedr. 247c2, Tim. 51e5f.; Xenocrates frag. 15 (Heinze); Arist. Protr. frag. 10 , Peri Euches frag. 1 (Ross). 984a4, 983e6, 9 7 7 a 2 - 6 , with Jean Pepin, 'Uber das Gebet' in P. Moraux (ed.), Friihschriften des Aristoteles, WdF 2 2 4 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1975), 343. 1 7 1
1 7 2
1 7 3
1 7 4
1 7 5
1 7 5
c
1 7 7
The Pre-Socratics to Plato
23
1 7 8
m a k e u p Greek public v e n e r a t i o n . As A. J . Festugiere notes, it gives n a m e s to t h e stars and planets in part because this would enable o n e to pray to t h e m , and it considers t h e stars to be images of t h e gods in part because a n active Greek cult could not imagine imageless w o r s h i p . A n d thus the m o s t powerful voice urging Greeks to worship t h e stars in the fourth c e n t u r y BC was n o t that of popular religion, but of a philosopher a n d a s t r o n o m e r . M o r e o v e r , t h e a u t h o r of the Epinomis is so skilful in (literally) attaching this treatise to Plato's Laws that he n o t only convinced m a n y m o d e r n scholars that his w o r k was genuine, but h e led even s o m e of the sceptical to consider t h e Epinomis as t h e logical conclusion to Plato's t h o u g h t or t h e nearest equivalent to a Platonic w o r k . B y assuming t h e authority of Plato, the Epinomis did m u c h to increase the i m p o r t a n c e of t h e astral soul and astral religion in Hellenistic philosophy. 1 7 9
1 8 0
1 7 8
98 5dl-986a3. Naming: 9 8 7 b 2 - c 7 (the author is aware that this is an innovation. c7-d2); images: 9 8 3 e 5 - 9 8 4 a l ; A. J . Festugiere, La Revelation d'Hermes Trismegiste (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1954), 2. 205. So Wilhelm and Hans Georg Gundel, Astrologumena, Sudhoffs Arch. 6 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1966), 86, Kurt von Fritz, 'Philippos von Opus' PW 19. 2 (1938), 2366, and Daniel Babut, La Religion des philosophesgrecs. SUP 4 (Paris: Universitaires de France, 1974), 88. A. J . Festugiere writes, 'si YEpinomis n'est pas de Platon mais d'un faussaire—mettons Philippe d'Oponte—ce faussaire est un tres grand homme. un penseur digne de Platon', Les Trois 'Protreptiques' de Platon: Euthydime, Phedon, Epinomis (Paris: Librairie philosophique J . Vrin 1973), 102. 1 7 9
1 8 0
2 ARISTOTLE
Aristotle's view of t h e n a t u r e and religious function of t h e stars is a c o m p l e x problem a n d a challenge to his interpreters. At different points in his c a r e e r , Aristotle at least appears t o talk about t h e m o t i o n of t h e stars in t h r e e different ways. Cicero gives t h e following report w h i c h is t a k e n from o n e of Aristotle's early popular ('exoteric') w o r k s , n o w n o longer e x t a n t : Aristotle, indeed, is entitled to praise for having laid down that everything which moves does so either by nature, necessity, or choice. Moreover, the sun, moon, and all the stars move, but things which move by nature are carried either downwards by their weight or upwards by their lightness, neither of which happens to the stars, since their course is directed around in a circle. And it certainly cannot be said that it is some greater force which makes the stars move in a way contrary to nature, for what greater force can there be? It remains, therefore, to conclude that the movement of the stars is voluntary, and the person who should look upon them would be acting impiously as well as foolishly, if he denied the existence of the gods. 1
It would s e e m t h a t Aristotle has a n o t h e r , very different explanation in the De Caelo. Following t h e views of E u d o x u s , Aristotle believes that a series of c o n c e n t r i c spheres a r e respons ible for heavenly m o v e m e n t . These spheres w e r e m a t h e m a t i c a l concepts for E u d o x u s , but Aristotle believed e a c h o n e was a body (ad>na). Aristotle refers to this substance as 'the first body', or 2
3
1
De Philosophia frag. 21b ( = Cicero DND 2. 16. 4 4 , trans. Francis Brooks (adapted)). The original is as follows: Nec vero Aristoteles non laundandus in eo quod omnia quae moventur aut natura moveri censuit aut vi aut voluntate, moveri autem solem et lunam et sidera omnia: quae autem natura moverentur, haec aut pondere deorsum aut levitate in sublime ferri, quorum neutrum astris contingeret, propterea quod eorum motus in orbem circumque ferretur. nec vero did potest vi quadam maiore fieri ut contra naturam astra moveantur. quae enim potest maior esse? restat igitur ut motus astrorum sit voluntarius. quae qui videat, non indocte solum verum etiam impie fadat, si deos esse neget. 2
De Caelo 2. 8.
3
2 9 3 7 ; cf. Heath. Aristarchus, 217.
a
25
Aristotle 4
'the first element', or ' e t h e r ' , a n d thinks t h a t b o t h t h e spheres and t h e stars within t h e m a r e c o m p o s e d of i t . Stars a r e fixed in their ethereal sphere a n d m o v e n o t by themselves but only as a result of t h e h e a v e n l y m o t i o n , while planetary m o t i o n is considered t o be t h e result of a c o m p l e x series of spherical m o v e m e n t s . The stars a r e not allowed self-movement, for if t h e y m o v e d themselves, as spheres t h e y would either rotate o r roll, but Aristotle brings forward reasons w h y neither of these is possible. T h e p o w e r of i m m a n e n t individual m o v e m e n t w a s also denied t o t h e h e a v e n l y bodies in Plato's c o n c e p t of t h e circuit of the S a m e a n d t h e Different, but n o w Aristotle further denies t h a t t h e h e a v e n l y bodies rotate, a n d special planetary m o v e m e n t s a r e explained by t h e interaction of various spheres. Thus in contrast to Plato h e believes t h a t h e a v e n l y m o t i o n is n o t d u e t o t h e activity of s o u l . Indeed, Aristotle r e m a r k s t h a t t h e life of a soul subject t o s u c h eternal compulsion w o u l d n o t be b l e s s e d . 5
6
7
8
9
10
The n a t u r a l m o t i o n of this first body o r e t h e r is circular a n d e t e r n a l . T h e latter is evident from t h e very etymology of t h e w o r d , for e t h e r (aldr)p) is derived f r o m dei Oeiv, 'always r u n n i n g ' . Aristotle w o u l d appear to h a v e h e r e a n explanation of m o v e m e n t based entirely on n a t u r a l properties: as it is n a t u r a l for the four sublunary elements t o m o v e in straight lines u p a n d d o w n , so o n e would think t h a t Aristotle n o w implies that t h e m o v e m e n t in h e a v e n of t h e first e l e m e n t in a circle is also natural. 11
12
There also appears to be a third, different e x p l a n a t i o n of t h e 4
b
b
The terms are equivalent, see De Caelo 2 7 0 1 0 - 2 5 , Meteor. 3 3 9 1 6 - 1 9 . De Caelo 2 8 9 * 1 1 - 1 5 , Meteor. 3 4 0 6 - 1 0 (cf. Aetius DDG 343 B If.; Arius Didymus DDG 4 5 0 , 16f.; Simplicius In De Caelo (435, 21 f. Heiberg)). By claiming that stars are made of this one substance, Aristotle opposes Plato (who thought the stars were composed of four elements, see ch. 1 n. 74) and Xenocrates (who thought they were composed of two elements, frag. 56 Heinze). Fixed: 2 8 9 3 3 ; not by themselves: 2 9 1 2 7 f.; heavenly motion: 2 9 0 8 f. Metaph. 1074" 1 0 - 1 2 puts the number of spheres at 55. 2 9 0 7 - 2 9 , with Harold Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of Plato and the Academy, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1944), 543. De Caelo 29 l 2 2 - 8 . 2 8 4 1 4 - 3 5 ; Cherniss, Criticism, 540. Epicurus agreed, Cicero DND 1. 20. 52 ( 3 3 1 . 3 Pease, see his note). 2 6 9 2 - 7 , cf. Phy. 2 3 0 1 2 f . Circular motion as eternal: De Caelo 1. 2f., Phy. 265 13-28. 2 7 0 2 0 - 4 , cf. Meteor. 3 3 9 2 5 - 7 ; Plato Crat. 4 1 0 b 6 - 8 . This becomes a commonplace: ps.-Arist. DeMundo 3 9 2 5 ; Achilles Isag. (50. 2 0 - 7 Maass); etc. 5
b
6
b
a
7 8
a
9
a
1 0
a
1 1
a
b
a
1 2
b
b
a
b
Aristotle
26
source of h e a v e n l y m o t i o n in Aristotle's t h e o r y of t h e existence of a m o v e r outside of the h e a v e n s . The possibility of a transcendent m o v e r appears t o be excluded in o n e passage in t h e De Caelo, but four o t h e r passages in this s a m e w o r k presuppose the possibility of such a m o v e r . The idea is w o r k e d o u t at greater length in the Physics a n d the Metaphysics w h e r e it is a r g u e d that t h e eternal m o t i o n of t h e h e a v e n l y bodies is attracted by a prime m o v e r w h i c h is itself u n m o v e d ; this m o v e r must be located in the periphery since this is w h e r e m o t i o n is swiftest. But Aristotle does n o t say h o w such a t h e o r y would be combined with a n explanation of m o v e m e n t based o n the activity of i m m a n e n t soul (as w e saw in De Philosophia) a n d o n the physical n a t u r e of h e a v e n l y bodies (as w e saw in De Caelo). Thus it seems that at different times Aristotle explains h e a v e n l y m o v e m e n t by all t h r e e of the possibilities m e n t i o n e d by Cicero in De Philosophia fragment 2 l b . 13
1 4
15
A different kind of problem is raised by a n u m b e r of passages w h i c h Ross has collected as De Philosophia fragment 2 7 . The m o s t important sections a r e again preserved by Cicero, w h o claims that Aristotle believes that t h e 'fifth n a t u r e ' (which is presumably identical t o w h a t t h e De Caelo calls the first body, t h e first element, o r e t h e r ) , is the e l e m e n t of both the star a n d the h u m a n m i n d (animus). There is n o passage in t h e a c r o a m a t i c corpus w h i c h unambiguously t e a c h e s this, but in t h e De Generatione Animalium Aristotle suggests t h a t within t h e pneuma in h u m a n sperm t h e r e is a psychic material w h i c h is m o r e divine t h a n t h e elements a n d analogous t o the substance of the s t a r s . This is sometimes t a k e n as a later, m o r e cautious version of t h e identification of soul with ether in fragment 2 7 of De Philosophia. The difficulty h e r e is t h a t this claim of a material basis of h u m a n psychology (since e t h e r is a body) is contradicted by n u m e r o u s 1 6
17
13
a
b
279 33- 3. 14 2 7 7 9 - 1 2 , 2 8 8 2 7 - 7 , 2 8 8 2 2 - 3 0 , 31 l 9 - 1 2 . Metaph. 1 0 7 2 l - 1 4 , Phy. 2 5 6 3 3 - 2 5 7 1 3 , 2 6 7 1 6 f . , DeCaelo277 6-9. Moraux ('Quinta' 1172) says against Jaeger (Aristotle, 144 n. 2, see n. 22 below) that there is no evidence that Aristotle ever called ether the fifth element; Jean Pepin disagrees with Moraux, Ideesgrecques sur I'homme et sur Dieu (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1971), 351. 7 3 6 3 3 - 7 3 7 7 . The literature on this passage is considerable: see Paul Moraux, Aristote: Du del (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1965) xl n. 2. b
a
15
b
16
1 7
b
a
b
b
a
a
b
b
b
Aristotle
27
passages in t h e Aristotelian corpus w h i c h claim t h a t t h e soul is immaterial. 18
There a r e t h r e e basic ways of a c c o u n t i n g for these a p p a r e n t contradictions. W e m u s t a s s u m e o n e of t h e following: ( 1 ) that t h e r e is something w r o n g with t h e t e x t of Aristotle (either t h e acroamatic corpus, t h e fragments, or both), (2) that t h e difficulties represent different stages of Aristotle's c a r e e r , in w h i c h h e c h a n g e d his m i n d at various times, o r ( 3 ) t h a t Aristotle is at times u n c l e a r a n d confusing, but n o t self-contradictory. T h e first alternative was c h o s e n in its most e x t r e m e form by Valentine Rose, w h o m a d e w h a t is still the m o s t c o m p l e t e collection of Aristotle's fragments. Rose cut t h e Gordian k n o t a n d a r g u e d t h a t all of t h e so-called e x o t e r i c w o r k s w e r e pseudepigraphic, precise ly on t h e basis of t h e difference b e t w e e n t h e fragments of these works a n d t h e a c r o a m a t i c c o r p u s . This a r g u m e n t has recently b e e n reversed by a few scholars w h o a c c e p t m a n y of t h e e x o t e r i c fragments as g e n u i n e but think t h e a c r o a m a t i c corpus in fact reflects t h e early Peripatetic school r a t h e r t h a n Aristotle h i m s e l f . M o s t scholars w h o reject these views consider t h e problem of t h e Aristotelian t e x t in o n e of t w o ways: ( 1 ) those w h o support a developmental hypothesis believe that t h e a p p a r e n t contradic tions b e t w e e n different w o r k s s h o w the existence of stages in Aristotle's t h o u g h t , a n d contradictions within t h e e x t a n t w o r k s are evidence of interpolations by t h e later Aristotle o n t o his earlier w r i t i n g s ; ( 2 ) those w h o think Aristotle's w o r k is n o t always clear but has not significantly c h a n g e d attack t h e a c c u r a c y of s o m e of t h e reports of t h e e x o t e r i c w o r k s , w h i c h a r e seen as sometimes u n a u t h e n t i c o r as transmitted in misleading ways, a n d 1 9
20
21
1 8
Even in the early, exoteric works: Eudemus frag. 5. 8, Protrepticus frag. 5 f. (Ross); cf. K. Reinhardt, 'Posidonius von Apameia' PW22.1 (1953), 585; G. Verbeke, h'tvolution de la doctrine du pneuma du sto'icisme a S. Augustin (Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1945). 60 n. 157. " Valentine Rose, Aristoteles Pseudepigraphus (Leipzig: Teubner, 1863), already Alexander of Aphrodisias, see R. W. Sharpies, 'Alexander of Aphrodisias', ANRW 2. 36. 2 ( 1 9 8 7 ) , 1180 n. 24. J . Ziircher, Aristoteles' Werk und Geist (Paderborn: F. Schoningh, 1952); cf. also Anton-Hermann Chroust, Aristotle (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973), 2. 227. Even those who doubt this hypothesis agree that marginal notes made by Aristotle himself have been incorporated into the text, see Ingemar During, 'Aristoteles' PWSuppl. 11 (1968) 192. 2 0
2 1
28
Aristotle
explain a p p a r e n t contradictions in t h e e x t a n t w o r k s as t h e result of incorrect interpretation. The d e v e l o p m e n t a l hypothesis d o m i n a t e d scholarship for s o m e t i m e after t h e publication of W e r n e r Jaeger's brilliant a n d provocative book, Aristoteles. T h o u g h disagreeing with J a e g e r in various details, m a n y scholars accepted t h e principle t h a t Aris totle's t h o u g h t u n d e r w e n t serious changes in his o w n lifetime, and t h a t t h e stages of these transitions f r o m different periods c a n be traced across t h e fragments a n d t h e corpus. A n u m b e r of theories about t h e stages of Aristotle's t h o u g h t w e r e sub sequently put forward, a n d these led to t h e publication of several different editions of t h e f r a g m e n t s . 22
23
A n d yet t h e a t t e m p t t o u n d e r s t a n d difficulties in Aristotle's t h o u g h t by t h e assumption that his views c h a n g e d and developed has fallen o n h a r d times in r e c e n t years, in part because this a p p r o a c h h a s b e e n criticized for being methodologically f l a w e d , and also b e c a u s e it has b e e n found t o be unsatisfactory in exegetical detail. Aristotle's concept of heavenly m o v e m e n t , t h e astral soul, a n d astral religion h a v e b e e n a m o n g t h e subjects explained developmentally, but in e a c h case Aristotle's position can be a c c o u n t e d for w i t h o u t r e c o u r s e to theories of a funda m e n t a l c h a n g e in viewpoint. 24
Turning first to t h e question of h e a v e n l y m o v e m e n t , t h e suggestion t h a t t h e early Aristotle believed that stars m o v e b e c a u s e of t h e v o l u n t a r y action of self-moving souls (which, as w e h a v e seen, is t h e position of t h e Epinomis) is problematic. T h e s o u r c e for this is Cicero, a n d this fragment is usually said to h a v e b e e n derived from t h e De Philosophia. H o w e v e r , Cicero also refers to e t h e r (whose existence is t h e basis of a supposedly different explanation) in w h a t a r e t h o u g h t to be fragments of the s a m e d i a l o g u e . M o r e o v e r , in fragment 2 6 ( w h i c h is explicitly f r o m the De Philosophia) Aristotle is said to refer t o e t h e r as a god, 25
2 2
Aristoteles, Grundlegung einer Geschichte seiner Entwicklung (Berlin: Weidmann, 1923), 2nd edn., Aristotle: Fundamentals of the History of his Development, trans. Richard Robinson (Oxford: Clarendon, 1934). W. D. Ross, Fragmenta Selecta (Oxford: Clarendon, 1955); R. Walzer, Dialogorum Fragmenta in Usum Scholarum (Florence: Sansoni, 1934), M. Untersteiner, AristoteleDelia Filosofla (Rome: Edizionidi storia e letteratura, 1963). See During 'Aristoteles', 319, and Hellmut Flashar, 'Aristoteles', in id. (ed.), DiePhilosophiederAntike, (Basle/Stuttgart: Schwabe, 1983), 3. 1 7 7 - 8 5 . Frag. 2 1 , 2 6 f . (Ross). 2 3
2 4
2 5
Aristotle
29 26
w h i c h is in keeping w i t h his discussion of e t h e r in t h e De Caelo. The De Caelo explains t h e circular m o v e m e n t of h e a v e n as t h e result of t h e n a t u r a l m o t i o n of e t h e r , a n d if this w e r e t r u e as well in t h e De Philosophia t h e n t h e circular m o v e m e n t of t h e star w o u l d n o t be due t o a n act of self-moved soul but w o u l d be t h e result of t h e n a t u r a l t e n d e n c y of ether. J a e g e r a n d Solmsen conclude that at t h e time of De Philosophia e t h e r m u s t h a v e h a d a different m e a n i n g so that circular m o v e m e n t at this point could still be regarded as v o l u n t a r y . They believe that a n e w understanding of e t h e r is put forward in t h e De Caelo, w h i c h represents a later stage in Aristotle's t h o u g h t , a n d t h a t t h e t h e o r y of t r a n s c e n d e n t m o v e r s represents a still further stage. This v i e w is possible, but it posits m a j o r shifts in Aristotle's t h o u g h t . 2 7
2 8
Against J a e g e r , a n u m b e r of scholars (led especially by Paul M o r a u x ) h a v e c o m e u p w i t h a n easier e x p l a n a t i o n for these difficulties. T h e y suggest t h a t t h e r e is something w r o n g w i t h t h e w a y Aristotle's text (particularly in Cicero) has b e e n transmitted. B o t h fragments 2 1 a a n d b of t h e De Philosophia a r e in t h e form of a Stoic proof for t h e existence of G o d , and t h e r e is nothing in either section w h i c h could n o t h a v e b e e n affirmed by a Stoic philosopher. Indeed, fragment 2 1 a clearly shows signs of Stoic redaction since it presupposes only four elements while De Philosophia k n o w s f i v e . It also speaks of stars as c o m i n g into being (in aethere astra gignantur), w h i c h is understandable in Stoic t e r m s but is impossible t o reconcile either w i t h De Philosophia fragment 1 8 , w h i c h clearly states t h a t sun, m o o n , planets, a n d stars a r e u n g e n e r a t e d a n d incorruptible, o r w i t h t h e De Caelo. Likewise it is possible that fragment 2 1 b represents n o t so m u c h Aristotle as a Stoic misunderstanding of A r i s t o t l e . 2 9
30
31
2 6
b
See especially 2 7 0 1-24. De Caelo 2 6 9 2 - 7 . Jaeger, Aristotle, 154; Friedrich Solmsen, Aristotle's System of the Physical World, CSCP 33 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1960) 301, 2 8 7 n. 1, and 451. See Andreas Graser, 'Zu Aristoteles Peri Philosophias (Cicero, Nat. deor. II 16, 4 4 ) ' , M H 2 7 ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 17. For a different opinion see David E. Hahm, 'The Fifth Element in Aristotle's De Philosophia: A Critical Re-examination', in John P. Anton and Anthony Preuss (eds.), Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy (Albany, N Y: SUNY, 1983), 2 . 4 0 4 - 2 8 . See Moraux, 'Quinta', 1223, and Bemd Effe, Studien zur Kosmologie und Theologie der aristotelischen Schrift 'Uber die Philosophie', Zet. 50 (Munich: Beck, 1970), 131. 27
2 8
2 9
3 0
3 1
a
Aristotle
30
This misunderstanding b e c o m e s all t h e m o r e explicable in light of t h e subtlety of t h e Aristotelian position. First, as has been n o t e d by c o m m e n t a t o r s o n Aristotle both a n c i e n t a n d m o d e r n , t h e fact that soul does not compel m o t i o n and that e t h e r m o v e s naturally in a circle does n o t e x c l u d e t h e possibility t h a t stars h a v e souls: as A l e x a n d e r of Aphrodisias says, t h e m o t i o n is not enforced but is in a c c o r d a n c e with t h e h e a v e n l y body's o w n will. Since Aristotle rejected t h e idea w h i c h h e (wrongly) attributed t o Plato that mind (vovg) m o v e s spatially in a c i r c l e , it is not surprising that h e a t t e m p t e d to explain t h e m o v e m e n t of h e a v e n by a n o t h e r m e a n s , i.e. by positing a substance existing in h e a v e n with a n a t u r a l circular m o t i o n . That Aristotle did n o t thereby m e a n to imply t h a t h e a v e n w a s lifeless is evident from passages from t h r o u g h o u t t h e a c r o a m a t i c corpus. He writes in t h e Physics, 32
33
There are also some who allege that this world and all the spheres exist by chance . . . This is really quite astonishing. For they say that animals and plants neither exist nor come into being accidentally, but that their cause is either nature or mind or some such thing . . . and yet that heaven and the most divine of what is visible have come to be by chance, and that there is no such cause for them as there is for animals and plants . . . In addition to the inherent strangeness of this claim, it is even more strange that they should say it even when they see nothing happening in heaven by chance, but much occurring accidentally in those things they claim are not accidental, even though of course it should be the other way a r o u n d . 34
T h o u g h h e clearly distinguished b e t w e e n t h e m o t i o n of animals a n d t h a t of lifeless elemental f o r c e s , Aristotle says again a n d again t h a t stars a n d h e a v e n ( w h i c h h e often does n o t differentiate) w e r e living a n d e n s o u l e d . Passages w h i c h a p p e a r 35
36
3 2
Ap. Simplicius In De Caelo (472. 8 - 2 0 Heiberg). See Moraux, 'Quinta', 1199, and also Harry Austryn Wolfson, 'The Problem of the Souls of the Spheres from the Byzantine Commentaries on Aristotle through the Arabs and St Thomas to Kepler', in Isadore Twersky and George H. Williams (eds.), Studies in the History of Philosophy and Religion (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1973), 1 . 2 2 - 5 9 . DeAnima 406 26ff.; Jaegei, Aristotle, 153 n. 2. 1 9 6 2 4 - 5 , see also Part. Anim. 6 4 1 2 0 - 3 ; cf. Plato Soph. 2 6 5 c l - 1 0 . Phy. 2 5 4 3 3 - 2 5 5 7 . Stars: De Caelo 2 9 2 1 8 - 2 1 , 2 9 2 l f.; heaven: 2 7 9 3 0 - b 3 , 2 8 5 2 7 - 3 0 ; cf. Part. Anim. 6 4 1 1 8 - 2 0 . This was recognized by the doxographers, see DDG 305. 8 - 1 3 , 330. 7 - 1 0 , 4 3 2 . 4 - 8 (Aetius), 4 5 0 . 1 2 - 2 0 (Arius Didymus). 3 3
3 4
b
a
b
3 5
b
b
3 6
a
a
b
b
a
a
Aristotle
31 a
to imply that stars do not h a v e souls (such as De Caelo 2 9 1 2 2 — 4 ) need not be interpreted in this s e n s e . Since t h e m o t i o n of t h e stars is eternal a n d immutable, it was n a t u r a l for Aristotle even to refer to h e a v e n , t h e stars, and e t h e r as divine (6siog) or the divine (TO ( M O V ) . T h o u g h this w a s a n impersonal observation (in contrast to Stoic feelings about t h e h e a v e n s at a later d a t e ) , it is a sign of t h e great e s t e e m w h i c h Aristotle had for t h e h e a v e n s and their m o v e m e n t . Aristotle is thus n e v e r inclined to a completely m e c h a n i s t i c understanding of the n a t u r e of the cosmos. 3 7
3 8
If t h e r e is a n astral soul, w h a t is its relation to t h e heavenly ether, a n d w h a t is its p u r p o s e ? Scholars a n c i e n t a n d m o d e r n h a v e suggested t h a t e t h e r should be understood as t h e body in w h i c h t h e soul o p e r a t e s . T h e r e is a perfect adaptation of t h e souls of stars and planets to their ethereal bodies. If this is w h a t Aristotle has in mind, t h e n the astral soul and e t h e r would act in the m a n n e r of soul a n d body, not forming a union, but co-operating (as Aristotle puts it) like a well-ordered s t a t e . 39
4 0
The purpose of t h e soul of the star (or of its s p h e r e — A r i s t o t l e is again imprecise about t h e locus of heavenly soul) is to be attracted to the t r a n s c e n d e n t m o v e r . This o t h e r w a y Aristotle has of discussing h e a v e n l y m o t i o n m a y s e e m like a n e w and super fluous addition, but in fact Aristotle believes that all m o t i o n ultimately depends o n a n e x t e r n a l s o u r c e w h i c h brings it into activity. Developmental interpreters sometimes think this is a relatively late addition to Aristotelian t h o u g h t . This position, defended in t h e past by J a e g e r a n d Solmsen, has recently been supported by Pepin, w h o argues that such a m o v e r c a n n o t be present in t h e De Philosophia since fragment 2 1 b asks w h a t p o w e r can be greater t h a n t h e natural force of t h e star, obviously expecting a negative a n s w e r . Such a conclusion, h o w e v e r , is u n n e c e s s a r y , for t h e Stoic n a t u r e of this rhetorical question is evident in that t h e source of this fragment, Cicero, uses a similar question to prove t h e Stoic view that t h e pervasive heat w h i c h 4 1
3 7
See Cherniss. Criticism, 544 f. Eternal: Metaph. 1073 34f. (stars); divine: De Caelo 2 9 2 2 8 - 2 9 3 2 (stars), 2 8 6 1 0 f . (heaven), 2 6 9 3 0 - 2 (ether), Phy. 196 33f. (heaven), Eth. Nic. 1 1 4 1 3 4 2 (heaven); the divine: Metaph. 1 0 2 6 1 6 - 1 8 (stars). De Caelo 2 8 6 9 - 1 2 (heaven). Cf. DeAnima 4 0 5 3 2 , De Caelo 2 7 0 5 - 7 , Meteor. 3 3 9 2 5 f., De Part. Anim. 6 4 4 2 4 f. Simplirius In De Caelo (116. 2 7 - 1 1 7 . 2 Heiberg). Cherniss. Criticism, 602. Mot. Anim. 7 0 3 2 9 - 2 , cited by Verbeke, Pneuma, 26. Pepin, Idees, 341. 3 8
a
a
b
a
b
a
a
a
b
3 9
4 0 4 1
a
a
a
b
a
b
b
Aristotle
32
42
holds all things together is s e l f - m o v i n g . F u r t h e r m o r e , Cherniss a n d Ross h a v e argued t h a t a t r a n s c e n d e n t m o v e r w a s present e v e n in such early w o r k s as De Philosophia a n d De Caelo. Such a m o v e r is necessary since in Aristotelian t e r m s t h e m o t i o n of t h e h e a v e n s requires a n u n m o v e d being w h o is not part of t h e h e a v e n s . In t h e Metaphysics w e see that this being m o v e s only as t h e object of desire, a n d if this is so t h e n t h e h e a v e n l y body (or sphere) must possess a soul w h i c h is actualized by this m o v e r . The Physics states t h a t it is necessary for this m o v e r t o be either at t h e c e n t r e of t h e world or its c i r c u m f e r e n c e , a n d since speed is proportional t o proximity t o t h e m o v e r , it m u s t be in t h e c i r c u m f e r e n c e . Thus t h e t h r e e options of heavenly m o v e m e n t w h i c h Plato b r o u g h t forward in t h e Laws—the action of im m a n e n t soul, of soul acting in co-ordination with body, o r of s o m e t r a n s c e n d e n t incorporeal a c t i v i t y — a r e n o t seen as t h r e e separate options but as t h r e e aspects of a single p r o b l e m . H o w e v e r , due to t h e c o m p l e x i t y of Aristotle's solution a n d t h e c o m p a c t n e s s of his presentation, it w a s almost inevitable that later interpreters in antiquity w o u l d misunderstand him. 43
4 4
4 5
46
47
4 8
In t h e s a m e m a n n e r , t h e alleged Aristotelian identification of star a n d soul with t h e e l e m e n t e t h e r m a y h a v e arisen from a misunderstanding. It m u s t be said at t h e outset t h a t identification of mind or soul w i t h e t h e r w a s already a n old t h e o r y by Aristotle's day. Diogenes of Apollonia (a c o n t e m p o r a r y of 4 2
DND 2. 11. 31 (619. 1-3 Pease; this is Posidonius frag. 357 Theiler), with David E. Hahm, The Origins of Stoic Cosmology (Columbus: Ohio State University, 1977), 273. For De Phil, see Cherniss, Criticism, 595, and Selected Papers, ed. Leonardo Taran (Leiden: E. J . Brill, 1977), 4 6 3 , with Metaph. 1 0 7 2 2 f., and also Graser, 'Peri Philosophias', 16. This would mean that frag. 21b (see above n. 1) could not be Aristotle's after circumque ferretur, as Effe notes, Studien, 131. For De Caelo see W. D. Ross, Aristotle's Metaphysics (Oxford: Clarendon 1924), 1. cxxxiv. Mot. Anim. 6 9 9 3 2 ff. Metaph. 1 0 7 2 3 - 1 4 . 2 6 7 7 , with W. D. Ross's commentary, Aristotle's Physics (Oxford: Clarendon, 1936), 727f. 2 6 7 6 - 9 , cf. Metaph. 1074 3, De Caelo 2 8 4 5 - 8 , ps.-Arist. DeMundo 397 24ff. This poses something of a problem since Metaph. 1 0 7 2 3 - 1 4 supposes that the mover is not spatially located (cf. also Peri Euches frag. 1, and Sextus' report in SVF 2. 1037), but it will be argued below that the problem does not reflect a change of heart in Aristotle but is an example of the deference he sometimes shows to tradition. The parallel is not exact since the transcendent source of motion is a selfmover in the Laws: Skemp, Motion, 86 f., and Cherniss, Criticism, 591. 4 3
b
4 4
b
4 5
b
4 6
b
4 7
b
b
a
b
b
4 8
33
Aristotle
4 9
A n a x a g o r a s ) believed that e t h e r w a s t h e substance of m i n d , and a variety of P y t h a g o r e a n sources claim that soul is a portion of e t h e r . In addition, Leucippus a n d Democritus said t h a t star and mind or soul w e r e both c o m p o s e d of s m o o t h r o u n d a t o m s , identifiable with s o m e kind of fire or h e a t . It w a s a c o m m o n idea, e v e n if not a n Aristotelian one. 5 0
5 1
Most i m p o r t a n t , this t e n d e n c y w a s later s t r e n g t h e n e d by Stoic psychology, so that t h e coupling of star and soul b e c o m e s r o u t i n e in t h e Hellenistic period. Thus w h e n it is stated in fragment 2 7 of t h e De Philosophia t h a t t h e 'fifth n a t u r e ' (presumably identical t o w h a t De Caelo refers to as t h e first n a t u r e o r e t h e r ) is t h e substance of b o t h star a n d s o u l — i n o t h e r w o r d s , w h e n soul is said to be a certain type of b o d y — w e m a y suspect t h a t Aristotle is again being confused with t h e Stoics. The justification for this assumption is, as w e h a v e seen, that this materialist psychology contradicts n u m e r o u s discussions of t h e soul (in b o t h t h e e x o t e r i c and a c r o a m a t i c works) in w h i c h Aristotle assumes t h a t it is immaterial, while o n t h e o t h e r h a n d t h e v i e w t h a t soul is material is of c o u r s e compatible with S t o i c i s m . F u r t h e r m o r e , Karl R e i n h a r d t notes t h a t w h e n fragment 2 7 b is put in its c o n t e x t , Aristotle is discussed t o g e t h e r with o t h e r philosophers w h o believe that t h e soul is i m m a t e r i a l , so that Cicero's t e x t e v e n as it stands s h o w s signs of t h e immaterialist Aristotelian psychology. 52
53
5 4
That a Stoic philosopher (such as o n e of Cicero's t e a c h e r s ) could h a v e m i s u n d e r s t o o d Aristotle's teaching o n t h e soul is in this case understandable n o t only because of t h e difficulty of his teaching but b e c a u s e Aristotle is in s o m e w a y s close to t h e Stoic position. Aristotle believes that t h e activities of soul a r e put into effect by h e a t . This 'vital h e a t ' is a n agent of g r o w t h in living 4 9
See Solmsen, Theology. 51 f. See Erwin Pfeiffer, Studien zum antiken Sternglauben. Stoicheia 2 (Leipzig: Teubner, 1916), 114. D / K 6 7 A 2 8 ; c f . D L 9 . 4 4 ( 4 5 9 . 1 5 - 1 8 Long), D/K 22 B 36. See Moraux, 'Quinta', 1225, Verbeke Pneuma, 60 n. 157. Moraux also notes how close frag. 27 is to the Stoic view that each soul is a portion of World Soul, Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1984), 2. 29. " 'Poseidonios' 576; cf. H. J . Easterling, 'Quinta Natura', MH21 (1964), 77. Georg Luck suggests Antiochus of Ascalon: Der Akademiker Antiochus (Bern: P. Haupt, 1953), 3 7 - 4 0 ; so also independently John M. Rist, The Use of Stoic Terminology in Philo's Quod Deus (Berkeley: Center for Hermeneutical Studies, 1976), 8. 5 0
5 1
5 2
5 4
Aristotle
34 55
5 6
b e i n g s , a n d t h e higher animals h a v e m o r e of this h e a t . The h e a r t is t h e source of h e a t , a n d t h e size of t h e h u m a n brain is directly linked t o t h e purity of t h e h e a t in t h e region a r o u n d t h e h e a r t . Aristotle is v a g u e about t h e n a t u r e of this h e a t , saying t h a t it is t h e finest (kEnxoxaxov) of t h e e l e m e n t a l bodies, a n d t h a t it should n o t be confused with t h e flame of terrestrial fire, w h i c h is a n i m p u r e a n d m i x e d type of f i r e . M o r e o v e r , h e is inconsistent in his use of t h e w o r d 'ether': h e only adopts it s o m e w h a t hesitantly to refer t o t h e first body in t h e De Caelo, a n d uses it in its older sense of fire in o n e passage in t h e Physics. A Stoic interpreter might c o m e across t h e Aristotelian view that t h e soul has a n i m p o r t a n t relationship t o vital h e a t , see that Aristotle c a n b o t h refer to e t h e r as fire a n d say that t h e soul m a t e r i a l in t h e pneuma of s p e r m is analogous t o t h e astral substance, w h i c h is v e r y close t o t h e Stoic view, a n d a s s u m e t h a t Aristotle simply identifies soul, vital heat, a n d e t h e r . 5 7
58
59
6 0
That this w o u l d b e t h e w r o n g inference is clear since in t h e De Caelo a n d t h e Meteorologia, w h e r e Aristotle asserts t h a t t h e e l e m e n t specific to h e a v e n is ether, h e says that e t h e r lacks all qualities, including h e a t ( w h i c h leads h i m t o conclude t h a t t h e h e a t p r o d u c e d by h e a v e n l y bodies is c a u s e d by friction rather t h a n by r a d i a t i o n ) . H o w e v e r , Aristotle's language about star, soul, fire, a n d e t h e r lends itself readily t o a n i n c o r r e c t Stoic reading. 61
It appears t h e n t h a t b o t h fragments 2 1 a n d 2 7 represent n o t so m u c h Aristotle as a Stoic reading of Aristotle. W i t h regard to 5 5
See Friedrich Solmsen, 'Cleanthes or Posidonius? The Basis of Stoic Physics', MNAW24.9 (1961), 2 7 5 f. Respir. 4 7 7 1 7 . See Friedrich Solmsen, 'The Vital Heat, the Inborn Pneuma and the Aether', JUS 77 (1957), 1 1 9 - 2 3 . Aristotle links the inferiority of women (which he takes for granted) to a natural shortage of this heat. Gen. Anim. 7 7 5 1 4 16, Probl. Phys. 8 7 9 3 3 - 6 . Source: Part. Anim. 6 7 0 2 4 f . ; brain: Gen. Anim. 7 4 4 2 6 - 9 , Franz Rusche, Blut, Leben und Seek, SGKA. E 5 (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schoningh, 1930), 197 n. 3. Cf. Origen In Is. Horn. 6. 5 ( 8 . 2 7 6 . 1 1 - 1 4 B.). Finest: De Caelo 3 0 3 1 3 - 2 1 ; flame: Meteor. 3 5 5 9 - 1 5 ; mixed: Gen. Anim. 7 6 1 I 8 - 2 1 , Rusche, Blut, 2 3 0 . 2 1 2 2 0 - 2 ; cf. Dicks, Astronomy, 261 n. 386. S e e S V F l . 126, Moraux,'Quinta', 1205 f., 1223 f., and Solmsen,'Vital', 123. For a different way in which a Stoic might have misunderstood Aristotle's position see Hahm, 'Fifth Element', 4 2 3 n. 27. De Caelo 2 8 9 1 9 - 3 5 , Meteor. 3 4 1 1 7 - 3 6 (cf. Xenophon Mem. 4. 7. 7; Moraux, Aristotelismus, 574). 5 6
a
a
a
5 7
a
5 8
a
b
a
b
5 9
b
6 0
6 1
a
a
Aristotle
35
h e a v e n l y m o t i o n , Aristotle did believe t h a t stars w e r e ensouled a n d t h a t t h e y w e r e m a d e of ether; h e did distinguish b e t w e e n h e a v e n l y a n d sublunary m o t i o n , a n d denied h e a v e n l y m o t i o n w a s a u t o m a t i c o r m e c h a n i c a l , o r t h a t it w a s compelled c o n t r a r y to t h e n a t u r e of t h e star. The assumption that h e a v e n l y m o t i o n was due t o a n u n m o v e d ethereal soul acting u n d e r its o w n impulse w a s easy t o m a k e , but probably n o t Aristotle's m e a n i n g . In fragment 2 7 , t h e identification of t h e substance of soul with that of t h e star was again easy t o m a k e because Aristotle does use language w h i c h w o u l d suggest s u c h a n interpretation, particularly to a Stoic listener. B u t it is a misunderstanding of Aristotle w h i c h attributed t o h i m s u c h a v i e w of t h e astral soul's activity a n d its relation to t h e h u m a n soul. 6 2
Aristotle has also b e e n represented as believing t h e w h o l e starry h e a v e n w a s as it w e r e a temple, but this again is probably t h e result of a m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g . Aristotle's assessment of a s t r o n o m y is m o r e m o d e s t t h a n that of t h e a u t h o r of t h e Epinomis. Like Plato, h e regards it as a b r a n c h of m a t h e m a t i c s , a n d t h o u g h its subject m a t t e r m a k e s it t h e closest of t h e m a t h e m a t i c a l disciplines to philosophy, it still only e x a m i n e s w h a t is p e r c e p t i b l e . It is t r u e t h a t Aristotle praises A n a x a g o r a s for reportedly saying t h a t h e was b o r n so t h a t h e might look u p o n h e a v e n , but Aristotle does n o t applaud A n a x a g o r a s ' interest in a s t r o n o m y so m u c h as his c h o i c e to live in o r d e r t o seek k n o w l e d g e . In Aristotle's view, t h e e n d of h u m a n life w a s n o t specifically t h e study of t h e h e a v e n s , b u t knowledge of all aspects 63
6 4
65
66
6 2
In this context it should be noted that frag. 2 4 (Ross) of De Phil, which asserts that stars are able to see and hear but lack the other senses, is traceable to neoPlatonic interpretation of Aristotle and not to a lost Aristotelian work, see Effe, Studien, 128 f. n. 6., and Wolfson 'Spheres' 3 4 - 4 0 . Frag. 14a of the De Philosophia (Ross, from Seneca QN 7. 30) is as follows: 'Egregie Aristoteles ait numquam nos verecundiores esse debere quam cum de diis agitur. si intramus templa compositi, si ad sacrificium accessuri vultum submittimus, < s i > togam adducimus, si in omne argumentum modestiae fingimur, quanto hoc magis facere debemus, cum de sideribus de stellis de deorum natura disputamus, ne quid impudenter aut ignorantes afflrmemus aut scientes mentiamur?' Ross assumes this whole text is from the De Philosophia, but Effe notes there is no reason to assume that the words after 'de diis agitur' stem from Aristotle, Studien 98. Phy. \9AHi., Metaph. 1 0 2 6 2 7 . Metaph. 1 0 7 3 3 - 6 ; cf. Theophrastus Metaph. 1 0 5 - 9 . Eth.Eud. 1216 ll-16,Pn>frep.frag. 11 (Ross). 6 3
6 4
6 5
6 6
a
b
a
a
36
Aristotle
of t h e cosmos and of h u m a n life, a goal w h i c h is p u r s u e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e a c r o a m a t i c corpus.
faithfully
Aristotle's views on t h e relation of t h e stars to religion a r e difficult to judge since his religion is almost as elusive as Plato's. Aristotle did n o t e v e n regard piety as a m a t t e r o p e n to discussion: people w h o question w h e t h e r t h e gods ought be h o n o u r e d should be punished r a t h e r t h a n d e b a t e d . A n d yet t h e r e c a n be little doubt that t h e h e a v e n s h a d a significant place in Aristotle's o w n piety, as they did in t h e lives of m o s t of his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . S o m e scholars h a v e g o n e t o o far in limiting t h e i m p o r t a n c e of De Philosophia f r a g m e n t 1 2 , w h e r e Aristotle says t h a t religious belief has its foundation in primitive m a n ' s o b s e r v a n c e of t h e m o v e m e n t of sun a n d stars. They h a v e suggested that this is m e a n t in a strictly historical and anthropological sense a n d is n o t Aristotle's o w n o p i n i o n . This, h o w e v e r , does not explain t h e close parallel this passage has with a n a r g u m e n t of Plato ( w h o m Aristotle probably is following) a n d with Cleanthes ( w h o in t u r n is probably following Aristotle), for w h o m this a r g u m e n t is valid in its o w n t e r m s . Nor does it t a k e into a c c o u n t either Aristotle's deep respect for t h e divine order evident in h e a v e n , or t h e fact t h a t Aristotle regards a r g u m e n t s based solely o n antiquity and tradition as persuasive. Aristotle t h o u g h t that tradition was directly linked to n a t u r e , a n d so h a d great respect for c o m m o n or ancient opinion a n d for religious c u s t o m . As Verdenius notes, this respect for 'natural' opinion is s o m e t i m e s at odds with his o w n exercise of r e a s o n . Thus as w e h a v e seen Aristotle c a n at times speak as if t h e p r i m e m o v e r w e r e physically located at t h e periphery of t h e world, w h i c h is a traditional w a y of speaking about God but is n o t in keeping with his o w n emphasis o n t h e 67
68
6 9
7 0
7 1
7 2
6 7
a
Top. 1 0 5 2 - 9 . Cherniss, Papers, 4 0 3 , Effe, Studien, 7 4 n. 10, Taran, Academica, 148. Lucretius is an example of someone who accepts this as true in a merely historical sense, 5. 1 1 8 3 - 9 3 . Plato Laws 9 6 6 9 - 9 6 7 l ; Cleanthes, SVF1. 528. Part. Anim. 6 4 1 1 8 f . He regards heaven as the best part of the cosmos, ibid. 656 13. Nature: see W. J . Verdenius, 'Traditional and Personal Elements in Aristotle's Religion', Phron. 5 (1960), 57, see also Plato Phil. 16c7f.; opinion: Verdenius, 'Traditional', passim, also Elders, Cosmology, 94; custom: Eudemus frag. 3 (Ross). 'Traditional'59. 6 8
6 9
d
7 0
a
7 1
7 2
e
b
Aristotle
37
73
m o v e r ' s t r a n s c e n d e n c e . Aristotle's respect for t h e past contrib utes to a sense of t h e religious i m p o r t a n c e of h e a v e n even w h e n such a v i e w m a y be in conflict with his o w n philosophy. Therefore, particularly in light of Aristotle's o w n language about t h e stars a n d h e a v e n , t h e r e is n o r e a s o n t o doubt that Aristotle n o t only a c c e p t e d t h e historical validity of t h e traditional v i e w that religion h a d its beginning in t h e e x p e r i e n c e of h e a v e n , but considered this w a y of thinking to be quite proper. Finally, t h e r e is r e a s o n to believe t h a t t h e h e a v e n s w e r e religiously i m p o r t a n t to Aristotle since h e believed t h a t t h e y did play a n i m p o r t a n t role in t h e regulation of sublunary life. The sun's role in terrestrial g e n e r a t i o n is a n obvious e x a m p l e , but not t h e only o n e since t h e m o t i o n s of h e a v e n cause the m o v e m e n t of elemental b o d i e s . It w o u l d a p p e a r t h e n that astral souls in Aristotle h a v e t h e role of d a e m o n s , acting as i n t e r m e d i a t e divine beings w h o a r e m o r e divine t h a n h u m a n s (since they a r e eternal and i m m u t a b l e ) but w h o are still n o t regarded as the highest deity. Aristotle n e v e r actually m a k e s s u c h a n identifica tion, a n d in fact t h e question of t h e ontological relationship b e t w e e n t h e astral gods a n d t h e p r i m e m o v e r is n e v e r discussed. Nor is t h e precise religious status of t h e h e a v e n s e v e r m a d e clear; both questions w e r e of m u c h g r e a t e r interest t o a later age t h a n they w e r e to Aristotle himself. 7 4
75
Aristotle's theories o n h e a v e n l y m o t i o n leave m a n y questions unresolved. M o r a u x asks, if star a n d sphere a r e m a d e of ether, w h i c h does n o t admit of c h a n g e , w h a t is t h e difference b e t w e e n t h e m ? If stars a r e indeed ethereal, w h y do t h e y not m o v e themselves r a t h e r t h a n as part of a s p h e r e ? Is t h e star ensouled or only its s p h e r e ? H o w does a body like e t h e r , w h i c h lacks all qualities, emit light? In the late s e c o n d c e n t u r y AD Aristotle's 7 6
7 3
Sextus Empiricus noted this contradiction. Adv. Math. 10. 33 (310. 6 - 1 8 Mutschmann). Ross calls this 'an incautious expression which should not be stressed', Metaphysics 1. cxxxiv. This would make Aristotle more consistent, but Aristotle speaks in this way several times, once even within a few pages of the more consistent view (see above n. 47); it is also not uncommon for later writers to put Aristotle's mover in the fixed sphere, see Willy Theiler, 'Ein vergessenes Aristoteleszeugnis', Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1970), 3 0 9 - 1 7 . De Gen. et Con. 3 3 6 1 7 - 1 9 , Phy. 1 9 4 1 3 ; cf. Plato Rep. 5 0 9 b 2 - 4 . Meteor. 3 3 9 2 7 - 3 2 , De Gen. An. 7 1 6 1 5 - 1 7 . Moraux, Du del, xlv-xlvi, cii. 7 4
7 5
7 6
b
a
b
a
Aristotle
38
critic Atticus raised o t h e r objections: by positing ether Aristotle created t h e self-contradictory c o n c e p t of a body w h i c h h a d n o q u a l i t i e s . If e t h e r w e r e neither h e a v y n o r light, a n d if it w e r e in its proper place (i.e. on h i g h ) , o n e w o u l d t h e n think that e t h e r w o u l d be motionless r a t h e r t h a n m o v i n g in a c i r c l e . Finally, since bodies w h o s e s o u r c e of m o t i o n is internal a r e alive and those w h o s e source of m o t i o n is e x t e r n a l a r e lifeless, Aristotle's concept of h e a v e n l y m o t i o n deprives t h e stars of l i f e . In strict Aristotelian t e r m s this last objection m a y n o t be true, but it m u s t be said t h a t t h e w a y that Aristotle understands t h e stars to h a v e life is so subtle a n d appears at least o n t h e surface to be so selfcontradictory that not only h a v e s o m e of his interpreters misunderstood t h e sense in w h i c h this w a s t r u e , but s o m e h a v e also erred in t h e o t h e r direction a n d denied that t h e stars h a v e life at all: A l e x a n d e r of Aphrodisias says t h e h e a v e n s c a n n o t be called living 'except in a n equivocal s e n s e ' , a n d several o t h e r a n c i e n t scholars of Aristotle deny t h a t h e believed t h e stars w e r e alive at all. The s a m e is t r u e of t h e interpretation of De Philosophia fragment 2 7 , w h e r e e v e n s o m e Peripatetics understood Aristotle as t h e Stoics w o u l d a n d taught that star a n d soul w e r e m a d e of t h e 'fifth substance' o r e t h e r . F o r a later era w h i c h w a s e v e n m o r e interested in t h e religious i m p o r t a n c e of t h e h e a v e n s t h a n t h e A c a d e m y , Aristotle w a s a n i m p o r t a n t source for t h e u n d e r standing of t h e n a t u r e of t h e astral soul, of ether, a n d of a religion of t h e cosmos. Ironically, it w a s t h e w a y that h e w a s m i s u n d e r stood w h i c h w a s his m o s t i m p o r t a n t contribution to the w a y that t h e astral soul w a s discussed by t h e age of Philo a n d Origen. 77
78
79
80
81
8 2
7 7
Frag. 5 (55 f. 1 5 - 3 2 des Places). Frag. 6 (60. 5 5 - 7 0 des Places). Source of motion: frag. 6 (59. 3 8 - 4 0 ) ; not alive: frag. 6 (58f., 2 1 - 3 1 des Places). Ap. Simplidus In De Caelo ( 4 6 3 . 3 - 6 Heiberg), quoted and translated by Wolfson, 'Spheres', 35. Eudemus ap. Theon of Smyrna (201. 2 3 - 2 0 2 . 2 Hiller). See further A. S. Pease Ciceronis De Natura Deorum (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University 1955), 639. See Tertullian De An. 5. 2 (6. 9 f. Waszink); Macrobius In Somn. Scip. 1. 14. 2 0 (59. 7 f. Willis); Aetius DDG 303. 6 f., Verbeke, Pneuma. 9 2 . 7 8
1 9
8 0
8 1
8 2
3 THE OLD STOICS
Zeno founded t h e Stoic school in 3 0 1 , a n d was succeeded in t u r n by Cleanthes a n d Chrysippus. Their careers span almost all of t h e third c e n t u r y B C , a n d t h o u g h n o n e of their writings survives intact, t h e e n o r m o u s i m p a c t of their teachings is evident in t h e mass of fragments w h i c h h a v e b e e n preserved by later w r i t e r s . T h o u g h t h e opinions of t h e first Stoics w e r e n o t u n i f o r m (Chrysippus in particular seems t o h a v e b e e n i n n o v a t i v e ) , t h e differences b e t w e e n t h e m h a v e b e e n obscured during t h e transmission of their teachings, a n d so t h e resulting philosophy will a p p e a r t o be m o r e of a unified system t h a n it actually w a s . 1
2
T h e Stoics differed from both Plato a n d Aristotle in denying that spiritual activity could a c c o u n t for t h e m a i n t e n a n c e of t h e world. T h e t w o principles w h i c h a r e responsible for all things a r e causal a n d m a t e r i a l , but e v e n t h e causal principle (Adyoc, mind, or God) acts corporeally, since w h a t e v e r arts or is a c t e d u p o n m u s t be a b o d y . Thus God is e q u a t e d w i t h a corporeal sub s t a n c e , but this material w a s n o t passive like Peripatetic o r n e o Platonic m a t t e r . It w a s instead a d y n a m i c a n d productive fire, rexviKdv nvp, w h i c h according t o Cleanthes 'is life-promoting a n d healthful, preserves a n d nourishes a n d increases a n d sus tains all things, a n d e n d o w s t h e m with s e n s a t i o n ' . This fire (also called e t h e r ) e x t e n d s t h r o u g h o u t m a t t e r (or t h e material cause) like h o n e y t h r o u g h a h o n e y c o m b or heat t h r o u g h iron, 3
4
5
6
7
8
1
Collected by J . von Arnim, Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta (Leipzig: Teubner, 1905). See Max Pohlenz, Die Sua (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959), 1.32. SVF2. 303; Seneca Ep. 6 5 . 2 ( 1 7 5 . 2 6 f . Reynolds); see Hahm, Origins, 2 9 . SVF 1. 8 9 f., 1. 98, 2. 3 3 6 , 2 . 3 6 3 , 2 . 387. See SVF vol. 2 section 2. 7 . 4 'Deum esse corpus'. SVF1. 120, 1. 157, 1. 1 7 1 , 2 . 7 7 4 . SVF 1. 5 0 4 (Cicero DND, trans. Francis Brooks), cf. 1. 1 2 0 , 1 . 87. SVF1. 134, 1. 5 3 2 , 2 . 580. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
40
The Old Stoics
making God t h e i m m a n e n t c a u s e of order a n d g r o w t h in plants a n d a n i m a l s . As in Aristotle, p u r e fire is separated from terrestrial fire, but w h e r e a s for Aristotle ether, t h e 'divine body', existed only in h e a v e n , for t h e Stoics it is i m m a n e n t in t h e w o r l d . T h o u g h in a m i x e d state below, it is present in a p u r e state at t h e periphery; h e r e w h e r e it is diffuse it forms h e a v e n , a n d w h e r e it is c o m p a c t e d it forms t h e h e a v e n l y b o d i e s . 9
1 0
11
Plato believed t h a t t h e world w a s a living c r e a t u r e , a n d suggested (at least mythically) t h a t it h a d c o m e t o b e . So also t h e Stoics believed that it was a living a n d rational animal, o n e w h i c h c a m e to be a n d (in contrast to Plato) e v e n passed a w a y , a n d w h i c h w a s a n i m a t e d by G o d . A n y absolute distinction b e t w e e n living and lifeless is false, for all things p a r t a k e of t h e divine life, their passive m a t t e r being quickened by the causal principle. This is t h e m e a n i n g of t h e Stoic assertion t h a t t h e world is G o d . 1 2
1 3
1 4
T h e w a y t h a t this i m m a n e n t activity proceeds is u n d e r s t o o d in different ways by t h e Stoics. Zeno t h o u g h t that r e a s o n a n d intelligence arise from p u r e fire, while soul is m a d e of pneuma, a m i x t u r e of air a n d fire, a n d so is called a 'fiery b r e a t h ' . W o r l d Soul is p u r e fire, a n d w h e r e a s m i n d is a direct result of divine activity, soul for Zeno (as for Plato in t h e Timaeus) is only a less p u r e f o r m of W o r l d Soul. W o r l d Soul exists in a n u n a d u l t e r a t e d f o r m in h e a v e n , a n d thus Z e n o c a n refer t o God both as W o r l d Soul a n d as e t h e r . Cleanthes follows Zeno in distinguishing b e t w e e n soul w h i c h is pneuma a n d W o r l d Soul w h i c h is p u r e f i r e . Again, God is identical w i t h t h e l a t t e r , a n d Cleanthes adds that since t h e sun is t h e largest a n d m o s t i m p o r t a n t body in 1 5
1 6
17
9
1 8
SVF 1. 155, 2. 477, 2. 1027, 2. 1047. Separated: SVF 1. 120; immanent: Achilles hag. 5 (36. 3 f. Maass). Periphery: SVF 1. 115; compacted: 2. 668; pure: 2. 684; Zeno says the stars are made of productive fire, 1. 120. Living: Phil. 3 0 a 5 - 8 , Tim. 30b7. For the question of whether Plato believed in creation in time see E. Zeller, Die Philosophic der Griechen (5th edn., Leipzig: O. R. Reisland, 1922), 2.1. 7 9 1 - 6 . See Pohlenz, Stoa, 1. 4 3 , Boethus frag. 6 (SVF 3, p. 2 6 5 ) , Posidonius frag. 3 0 4 (Theiler), Varro frag. 2 2 6 (Cardauns), etc. For sources see Pease, De Natura. 1. 77 f., 257. Reason: SVF 1. 134; soul: SVF 1. 135 f„ 1. 140. World Soul: 1. 157; ether: 1. 154. God's power extends to the ether, Zeno ap. SVF2. 1021 (p. 305, 21 f.). Pneuma: 1 . 4 8 4 , 1 . 521; fire: 1. 513. SVF 1 . 5 3 0 , 1 . 5 3 2 . 1 . 5 3 4 . 1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
The Old Stoics
41
h e a v e n , the governing part (tftepoviicdv) of W o r l d Soul is t h e sun. Zeno a n d Cleanthes thus distinguish b e t w e e n the sub stance of h e a v e n (creative fire) a n d t h e substance of soul (fire a n d air). 1 9
Chrysippus approached this problem of t h e unity a n d internal c o h e r e n c e of t h e world in a n o t h e r way. Zeno's explanation was that t h e r e w a s a natural tendency to the c e n t r e , a n d that order was preserved by a natural flux of the four elements; these factors kept t h e elements from flying off into the void w h i c h surrounded the c o s m o s . Like Plato, Chrysippus a n d m a n y subsequent Stoic philosophers assert that the world is a n animal, a n d like a n animal it has a soul; this soul ( m a d e of pneuma) has t h e s a m e n a t u r e as the soul of earthly creatures: t h e m i c r o c o s m a n d t h e m a c r o c o s m c o r r e s p o n d . Chrysippus m a k e s this pneuma (rather t h a n creative fire o r mind) t h e active principle o r i m m a n e n t divine p o w e r . Pneuma is still seen as a m i x t u r e of fire and air, a n d n o w it is this pneuma w h i c h p e r m e a t e s t h e c o s m o s and binds together t h e bodies t h r o u g h w h i c h it m o v e s . The h u m a n soul is again c o m p o s e d of pneuma, but it has a wider sense, for pneuma is also operative in things without soul, such as plants a n d s t o n e s . While Plato had explained variation in m a t t e r o n the basis of a distinction in transcendent form, Chrysippus explained it o n t h e basis of a difference in c o n c e n tration of t h e i m m a n e n t pneuma. The h u m a n soul is a particularly hot a n d dry form of pneuma, a n d differences in 2 0
21
2 2
2 3
24
25
26
21
1 9
SVF 1. 4 9 9 ; cf. Zeno SVF 1. 124. The key astronomical position of the sun had long been recognized: see W. Capelle, 'Meteorologie', PW Suppl. 6 (1935), 343. Centre: SVF 1. 99; flux: Cicero DND 2. 33. 8 4 (758. 4 - 7 5 9 . 2 Pease, see his note); void: SVF 1. 9 5 , 2 . 524, etc. Joseph Moreau, L'Ame du Monde de Platon aux stoi'ciens (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1965), 164 n. 7; Festugiere, Revelation, 1. 9 2 - 4 . It may be that this approach in fact goes back to Cleanthes: see Verbeke, Pneuma, 55 and Hahm, Origins, 159. For an emphasis on Chrysippus' role in this see Michael Lapidge, 'Stoic Cosmology', in John M. Rist (ed.), The Stoics (Berkeley: University of California, 1978), 170, 179. Mixture: SVF 2. 1 4 4 - 6 , 3 1 0 , 8 4 1 ; permeates: SVF 2. 441 (p. 145,17), 2. 4 7 3 (p. 154,8), 2. 1027; binds: SVF2. 439f., 2. 441 (p. 145, 1 5 - 1 7 and 3 1 - 4 ) , 2. 4 4 2 (p. 146, 9 ) . The Stoic concept of 'tension' also has an important function here, see SVF vol. 2, section 2. 1. 10. SVF2. 8 8 5 (p. 2 3 8 , 32 f.), 2. 7 7 4 , 2 . 7 7 7 , etc. SVF2. 715f. SVF2. 634, cf. 2 . 4 4 3 . SVF2. 7 1 5 , 2. 787. 2 0
2 1
2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5
2 6
2 7
42
The Old Stoics
intelligence a n d c h a r a c t e r a r e explicable by t h e quality of pneuma present in soul. Thus (in contrast t o Zeno) t h e h u m a n soul c a n be said t o be a portion of t h e o n e W o r l d S o u l . 28
Like Zeno, Chrysippus believes that all t h e elements h a d their beginning in p u r e fire/ether, a n d t h a t this fire is t h e ruling principle (r)yspoviKdv) of t h e world, identifiable with Z e u s . The difference is t h a t n o w e t h e r (as w i t h Aristotle) is strictly located in heaven. This, h o w e v e r , led t o confusion in later writers, b e c a u s e to say t h a t t h e h u m a n soul consists of h o t a n d dry pneuma is to bring it close to fire ( w h i c h is also hot a n d d r y ) , a n d seems to downplay t h e i m p o r t a n c e of air in soul (since air is h o t and w e t ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , pneuma, by being t h e active principle and t h e source of intelligence, has t a k e n o n m a n y of t h e characteristics of pure fire, a n d e v e n within Chrysippus' o w n system pneuma a n d p u r e fire/ether a r e sometimes described in similar w a y s . Inevitably, t h e t w o c o m e to be t r e a t e d as s y n o n y m o u s , e v e n t h o u g h o n e consists of a single e l e m e n t a n d the o t h e r is a m i x t u r e of t w o elements. 2 9
3 0
3 1
3 2
3 3
This confusion about t h e W o r l d Soul and t h e individual soul's relation t o it is reflected in language about humanity's relation ship t o t h e stars. O n e t e n d e n c y in Stoic t h o u g h t w h i c h is n e a r e r to Zeno a n d Cleanthes says t h a t t h e h u m a n m i n d is t h e s a m e n a t u r e as h e a v e n ; a n o t h e r t e n d e n c y closer t o Chrysippus a n d his followers says t h e h u m a n soul is similar to h e a v e n . This distinction (as subtle as e t h e r itself) naturally w a s lost in m a n y later writers, w h o speak of t h e identity of t h e soul with t h e star, or of t h e similarity of m i n d t o star, o r for w h o m t h e r e is n o real distinction b e t w e e n m i n d a n d soul a n d e a c h is in s o m e w a y
2 8
SVF2. 633.
2 9
Beginning: SVF2. 579; ruling: 2. 644, cf. 2. 601; Zeus: 2. 1077; Zeno: SVF 1. 102, 1. 169. Chrysippus: SVF 2. 527 (p. 168, 2 9 f.), 2. 579f., 2. 6 4 2 ; later ps.-Heraclitus Horn. Probl. 2 3 . 5 (28 Buffiere), cf. Plato above ch. 1 n. 101. The question of whether ether and heaven were simply identical was a matter of debate in Stoic circles, SVF2. 555 (p. 1 7 5 , 2 3 ) ; cf. Posidonius frag. 3 3 4 (Theiler). For the qualities of each element see Aristotle De Gen. et Corr. 3 3 1 l - 6 . SVF 2. 580, Philo Her. 135, Hermetic Definitions 2. 1 (2. 363 Mahe), etc. In addition to the dryness of pneuma in the human soul, both ether and pneuma are described as subtle: ether, SVF 2. 688, 2. 579; pneuma, 2. 4 7 3 (p. 155, 33 f.). SVF2.471,ps.-GalenHDG618.22. 3 0
3 1
3 2
3 3
a
The Old Stoics related to t h e stars o r h e a v e n guished).
43
(which
a r e also not
distin
34
T h o u g h t h e r e a r e s o m e problems in t h e Stoic discussion of t h e n a t u r e of t h e soul w h i c h a r e n o t quite w o r k e d out, their a p p r o a c h was able t o explain in physical t e r m s t h e descent a n d ascent of t h e soul w h i c h Plato h a d described mythologically. B o t h fire a n d air a r e h o t by n a t u r e , but since air is also moist it is p r o x i m a t e t o w a t e r , w h i c h is cool by n a t u r e , a n d t h e coolness of w a t e r m a k e s it in t u r n p r o x i m a t e t o e a r t h , so t h a t e l e m e n t a l m o v e m e n t o c c u r s naturally. O u r world c o m e s into being as a result of this unfolding of t h e e l e m e n t s , location in the world for a n y given thing being d e t e r m i n e d by t h e m i x t u r e of their qualities. Again as in Aristotle, e l e m e n t s in their p u r e state f o r m spheres with fire at t h e top of t h e c o s m o s , t h e n air, w a t e r , a n d finally e a r t h . Soul b e c o m e s a t t a c h e d to c r e a t u r e s in t h e world by a process of c h i l l i n g in w h i c h its w e t n e s s (from air) a t t a c h e s it to w a t e r a n d its dryness (from fire) attaches it to earth. Thus v o n A r n i m judges Origen's derivation of t h e w o r d 'soul' (y/vxti) f r o m t h e w o r d 'cooling' (v«3£ic) as S t o i c . All Stoics believe t h a t soul is h o t , e v e n w h e n it is within a terrestrial b o d y (for fire a n d air a r e both h o t ) , so its place in t h e body is inherently unstable. The soul accordingly ascends at death, for w h e n it has b e e n separated from t h e body its n a t u r e is to be b o r n e u p w a r d like a n y h e a t . T h e old Stoics agreed t h a t this state w a s n o t p e r m a n e n t , a n d f u r t h e r m o r e t h o u g h t t h a t t h e soul only rose as far as t h e 35
3 6
37
38
3 9
4 0
4 1
3 4
Identity of soul and star: Hipparchus ap. Pliny NH2. 2 4 . 95 (2. 41 Beaujeu); soul and ether: DL 8. 2 8 (404. 9 Long); mind and star: Cicero De Repub. 6. 15. 15 (129. 2 2 - 5 Ziegler), Cicero in Arist. frag. 27 De Philosophia (Ross); mind and ether: ps.-Apuleius Asclep. (303. 7f. N/F); kinship of mind and star: SVF 2. 1151; of soul and heaven: Achilles Isag. (30. 1 5 - 1 8 Maass), Cicero Tusc. 1. 19. 4 3 (239. 2 1 - 9 Pohlenz). Identification of the soul or mind with ether was an old idea in Greek philosophy, see ch. 2 nn. 4 9 - 5 1 , and the idea that the two are at least related is a commonplace by this point. SVF 1. 102, 2. 5 7 9 - 8 1 , 2. 590; cf. Arist. Part. Anim. 6 4 8 2 ff. Arist. Meteor. 3 5 4 2 3 - 6 ; ps.-Arist. De Mundo 3 9 2 3 5 - 3 9 3 3 ; Manilius 1. 1 4 9 - 7 0 ; SVF2. 527. SVF2. 806. SVF 2. 8 0 8 . For the history of this etymology and the controversy about Origen's use of it see J . H. Waszink, Tertulliani De Anima (Amsterdam: J . M. Meulenhoff, 1947), 330. SVF 1. 135, 3. 305. cf. SVF2. 7 7 9 . etc. SVF2. 821; Posidonius frag. 4 0 0 bd (Theiler). SVF 1. 146; see SVF 2 section 2. 5. 5, 'Anima non immortalis, sed morti superstes'. 3 5
3 6
3 7
3 8
3 9
4 0
4 1
b
b
b
a
The Old Stoics
44 4 2
circuit of t h e m o o n — t h u s t h e v i e w t h a t while the e t h e r of t h e stars is swift a n d rarefied, t h e e t h e r of t h e m o o n is dense a n d slow since it is m i x e d with a i r , for soul (which is fire a n d air) rises t o t h e place w h e r e e t h e r is in c o n t a c t with air a n d is (like the soul) a m i x t u r e . T h e Stoics t h o u g h t of air as dense a n d dark, a n d regarded t h e thicker air n e a r e r t h e earth as H a d e s , while better souls h a d a destiny n e a r e r t h e circuit of the m o o n . T h e soul abides for a time in t h e u p p e r regions of t h e air a n d circulates about t h e earth until its e v e n t u a l d i s s o l u t i o n . So o n c e again t h e soul is related to t h e stars a n d has a destiny a b o v e , but o n c e again t h e e x a c t relationship b e t w e e n star a n d soul is n o t clear, a n d m o r e o v e r n o w physical speculation has t a k e n t h e place of specifically a s t r o n o m i c a l speculation: t h e soul's origin is n o t t h e star b u t t h e m i x t u r e of air a n d fire, a n d since t h e soul is n o t a p u r e substance its destiny c a n n o t quite be h e a v e n . H o w e v e r , as Stoicism w a s c o m b i n e d with Platonism, later Stoics c a m e to t h e conclusion t h a t t h e soul h a d its seat in h e a v e n (or t h e stars) a n d w o u l d rise t h e r e a g a i n . 4 3
4 4
45
4 6
In addition to its lack of clarity a b o u t t h e relationship of t h e h u m a n soul b o t h to W o r l d Soul a n d t o t h e stars. Stoicism (like Aristotle) does not m a k e plain w h a t t h e relationship is b e t w e e n t h e stars a n d t h e h e a v e n l y ether. As in t h e Timaeus, t h e Stoics explain t h e perfectly synchronized m o v e m e n t of t h e stars by o n e m o v e m e n t while that of t h e planets is explained by a n o t h e r . As in Aristotle's De Caelo, e t h e r has a circular m o t i o n ; t h e stars a r e fixed in this e t h e r and revolve with i t . T h e stars h a v e c o m e into 4 7
4 8
4 2
SVF2.812.814. Dense: SVF2. 668, cf. Plutarch De Fac. 935b (5. 3. 64. 2 0 - 5 Hubert/Pohlenz) and SVF 2. 674; mixed: SVF 2. 671, Posidonius frag. 262. 2 8 1 , 3 9 8 (Theiler). Zeno had a different view, SVF 1. 120. Dark: SVF 2. 4 2 9 f., Philo Op. 29; Hades: SVF 2. 4 3 0 . 2. 1076. Cornutus 5 (4. 1 6 - 1 8 Lang), ps.-Apul. Asclep. 2 8 (2. 334f. N/F), Acta Philippi 1 4 4 (86. 2f. Bonnet), ps.-Heraditus Horn. Probl. 23. 9 (29 Buffiere). Dwelling in the air: for sources see Josef Kroll, Die Lehren des Hermes Trismegistos, BGPhMA 12 (Miinster: Aschendorff, 1914), 2 9 5 n. 5. Circulating: SVF 2. 8 1 7 'in modum siderum vagari in aere', also Posidonius frag. 373a (Theiler), Cicero DeRepub. 6. 26. 29 (136. 7-17Ziegler), Marcus Aurelius4. 21 (28. 1 9 - 2 9 . 1 Dalfen). Heaven: SVF 2. 8 1 3 (224. 16), Achilles hag. 1 (30. 1 5 - 1 8 Maass), Seneca Ep. 92. 30 ( 3 5 9 . 2 - 4 Reynolds); stars: Seneca De Otio 5. 5 (202. 1 9 - 2 2 Reynolds). SVF2. 580, 2. 650; later Posidonius frag. 2 8 0 (Theiler). Circular: SVF 1. 101; fixed: SVF 2. 527, 2. 642, 2. 650, ps.-Heraclitus Horn. Probl. 36. 6 (43 Buffiere), Scholia In Aratum (512f. Maass). 4 3
4 4
4 5
4 6
4 7
4 8
The Old Stoics
45
4 9
being in t h e e t h e r , a n d are m a d e of t h e divine a n d creative fire. B u t if t h e stars are c o m p o s e d of a substance w h i c h is e t e r n a l , h o w c a n t h e y be said to h a v e c o m e into being? Or again, a n i m p o r t a n t problem w h i c h neither Aristotle n o r t h e Stoics a n s w e r e d was w h y , if t h e stars w e r e m a d e of ether, t h e y should only m o v e within ethereal spheres and not m o v e themselves. 50
51
This last question is especially puzzling since t h e Stoics clearly regarded t h e stars as ensouled. Zeno said t h a t t h e stars w e r e intellectual and s e n s i b l e , a n d t h e y a r e often p r e s u m e d to be living beings by all t h r e e of t h e oldest S t o i c s . Achilles reports that while t h e Epicureans believe t h e stars a r e i n a n i m a t e , Chrysippus specifically affirmed that t h e y w e r e alive in his book On Providence and the Gods. E l s e w h e r e w e are told that those w h o deny this a r e guilty of nothing less t h a n i m p i e t y , for it is a universal Stoic view that t h e stars a r e gods or a r e d i v i n e . 52
53
54,
55
56
B u t the Stoics a r e n o t clear about w h a t t h e astral soul does. One explanation was (following Plato's Timaeus) t h a t h e a v e n l y m o t i o n w a s due to W o r l d S o u l . A n o t h e r was that since t h e stars are c o m p o s e d of ether, w h i c h is the source of self-motion, heavenly m o v e m e n t is accordingly v o l u n t a r y . B u t w h e n t h e m o v e m e n t of h e a v e n l y bodies was understood on t h e analogy of self-moving souls choosing their o w n m o t i o n , it was inevitable 57
5 8
5 9
4 9
Coming to be: SVF 2. 580. 2. 1049: cf. Achilles Isag. 35. 3 ff. (Maass), Cicero DND2. 1 5 . 4 2 (639. 5 Pease, see his note). SVF 1. 120, 1. 504, 2. 593, 2. 682. SVF2. 682. SVF1. 120 f. SVF 1. 501, 1. 504, 2. 579, 2. 685, 2. 687, 2. 788. SVF2. 687. SVF2. 788; note the similarity to Aristotle De Philosophia frag. 21b—another sign of Stoic influence in its transmission. See Zeller, Philosophie. 3. 1. 194, and also SVF 1. 51, 1. 165, 1. 510, 1. 5 3 0 , 2 . 527 (168. 29 f.), 2. 6 1 3 , 2. 1009, 2. 1027, 2. 1049. For later Stoics see Posidonius frag. 271abc (Theiler); Cicero De Repub. 6. 15. 15 (129. 2 2 - 5 Ziegler); Varro frag. 24 and 226f. (Cardauns); Seneca De Benef. 4. 2 3 . 4 (106. 1-6 Hosius); Sextus Empiricus Adv. Math. 9. 87 (2. 2 3 4 . 8 - 1 0 Mutschmann); Marcus Aurelius 12. 28 (120, 19-21 Dalfen). Cleanthes in SVF 1. 528. Cicero DND 2. 16. 43 (643. 2 f. Pease); Geminus Elem. 12. 23 (67 Aujac); cf. SVF1. 172. Posidonius frag. 2 8 0 , ps.-Plutarch Vita Horn. 105 (7. 386. 3 - 8 Bernardakis), Cleomedes 2. 1 (150. 25 Ziegler); soul as self-moving: SVF 2. 8 0 3 , Cicero De Senectute 7 8 (39. 1 7 - 2 6 Simbeck), cf. Plato Phaedr. 2 4 5 c 5 - 9 . 5 0
5 1
5 2
5 3
5 4
5 5
5 6
5 7
5 8
5 9
46
The Old Stoics 60
that s o m e Stoics would deny that stars m o v e in spheres at a l l . If t h e y w e r e alive, e a c h individual h e a v e n l y body m u s t be respons ible for its o w n m o t i o n , a n d stars m u s t be individual self-moved m o v e r s . This of course flatly contradicts their view that the planets m o v e with the seven spheres while the stars a r e fixed in the eighth and o u t e r m o s t s p h e r e , but t h e r e is n o w a y out of this contradiction until the problem of t h e relationship b e t w e e n t h e stars a n d their spheres is settled. 61
Along these s a m e lines, since e t h e r w a s eternal a n d stars w e r e m a d e of ether, the Stoics could speak at times as if t h e stars w e r e e t e r n a l . H o w e v e r , since stars w e r e also t h o u g h t to h a v e c o m e into being, a n d Aristotle's De Caelo h a d s h o w n that w h a t is generated is also destructible, the stars as part of the world w e r e presumably destructible a n d would r e t u r n to fire at t h e universal c o n f l a g r a t i o n . Plutarch asks Cleanthes h o w w e can treat t h e stars seriously in religious t e r m s if they perish with the rest of t h e w o r l d . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , in purely physical t e r m s , it is difficult to understand h o w stars would be affected by a conflagration since they a r e already a dense a n d p u r e type of fire. 62
63
6 4
A n o t h e r source of confusion to later writers w a s t h e Stoic use of the w o r d 'God', since they employed this w o r d to refer to e t h e r in general, to notable c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of ether such as the stars o r h e a v e n , to the world (since e t h e r o r pneuma was h e r e generally active), a n d to the wise m a n (since ether or pneuma was here not only present b u t especially a c t i v e ) . Origen cites t h e following passage from Herophilus' Stoic Definitions: . . . they say that God is called an immortal, rational, excellent living being, so that every good soul is a God, even if it is contained in a human being. But then in another way they say that God is called an immortal, excellent being living self-existently, so that souls contained in wise human beings are not Gods. And in still another way they say that God is an immortal, excellent living being who has an authority over the administration of the world which is comparable to that of the sun and moon. But in another way he [sic] calls God the first administrator of the
6 0
Cicero DM) 2 . 2 1 . 54—6 (678—83 Pease). SVF 2. 527. SVF2. 6 8 8 , 2 . 1009 (p. 3 0 0 , 2 0 ) . Destructible: see SVF 2 section 2. 2. 9 'Mundum esse interiturum'; into fire: SVF1. 5 1 1 , 2 . 596, Philo Xrt. 107. SVF1. 510. 6 1
6 2
6 3
6 4
The Old Stoics
47
world. In addition to all these they say that God is an incorruptible and unbegotten living being and the first ruler, whom the whole universe has as its place. 65
Within the f r a m e w o r k of Stoic philosophy o n e c a n see h o w all these definitions could be t r u e at t h e s a m e time. T h e Stoic position is that God is always physically present in anything t h r o u g h o u t the entire cosmos since all of it has unfolded from the s a m e primeval divine substance, but t h e divine is present in greater or lesser states of purity. To call something divine is therefore to d e n o t e t h e presence of W o r l d Soul. The stars are particularly i m p o r t a n t gods for t h e simple r e a s o n that the divine substance happens to be present in its pure form h e r e . Therefore, even m o r e t h a n Plato, the A c a d e m y , or Aristotle, it was t h e Stoics w h o gave philosophical support to t h e popular idea that the stars or t h e highest h e a v e n was d i v i n e . A n d yet t h e Stoic presenta tion of the internal relationship b e t w e e n physics a n d theology was so full of difficulties (both real and apparent) that later writers often complained about 'Stoic self-contradictions'. 66
Stoic v e n e r a t i o n of h e a v e n was particularly earnest because of their denial of a n y incorporeal causal principles. While the fundamental religious interest of Plato and Aristotle was fixed on a t r a n s c e n d e n t God, t h e world above had a direct and i m m e d i a t e i m p o r t a n c e for t h e Stoics. They had a direct sense of t h e divine presence, and a n appreciation of heaven which was not dampened (as it was for Platonism) by t h e sense that t h e t r u e God was s o m e h o w e v e n higher. T h e r e is a religious appreciation of the h e a v e n s in Plato and Aristotle, but m o r e t h a n these this was Stoicism's legacy to Hellenistic religion. T h o u g h t h e old Stoics (like Aristotle) w e r e very m u c h interested in older religious beliefs (even allegorizing archaic m y t h s to fit their c o s m o l o g y ) , they w e r e not sympathetic to traditional images and temples, w h i c h t h e y believed w e r e 6 5
Selecta in Psalmos (PG 12. 1 0 5 3 b — 1 0 5 6 a ) ; cf. Pepin, Theologie, 130, Arist. De Philosophia frag. 2 6 (Ross). Thus the Stoic Boethus of Sidon (second century BC) suggests that it was not the whole world which was divine, but strictly the ether or the fixed sphere, presumably since here the causal or active principle was not mixed with the material principle, frag. 2f., 6 (SVF 3 p. 2 6 5 , 5 - 7 , 18 f.). Despite its unorthodoxy this way of thinking would continue in many of the later Stoics, see J . Stobaeus Eel. (1. 38. 1-3 Wachsmuth), Cicero De Repub. 6. 17. 17 (130. 1 9 - 2 2 Ziegler), Cornutus Theol. Graec. 18 (33. 12 f. Lang). 6 6
48
The Old Stoics 6 7
u n w o r t h y of t h e g o d s . Since t h e world w a s a god, vitalized as it w a s by a n i m m a n e n t divine p o w e r , t h e w h o l e world w a s a temple. The stars w e r e citizens of t h e city w h i c h is o u r u n i v e r s e , and t h e y are t h e gods w h i c h unite all h u m a n i t y in a c o m m o n w o r s h i p . Following t h e Epinomis a n d Aristotle's De Philosophia, t h e Stoics argued t h a t religion h a d its origins in primitive m a n ' s e x p e r i e n c e of h e a v e n , a n d according to Cleanthes t h e regularity of astral m o t i o n w h i c h w a s t h e s o u r c e of religious feeling was also t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t proof of t h e existence of t h e g o d s . F o r t h e Stoics it was also a proof of t h e specific divinity of t h e s t a r s , and of divine providence for t h e w o r l d . That t h e h u m a n soul was able to track t h e c o m p l e x a r r a y of h e a v e n l y m o v e m e n t s was seen as evidence that it is a portion of the d i v i n e . Thus observation of t h e stars could s h o w that t h e r e w e r e gods, that t h e stars w e r e gods, that t h e gods (or God) cared for life o n e a r t h a n d w e r e preserving it, a n d that t h e soul was divine. Since t h e Stoic God w a s n o t located only in h e a v e n but w a s i m m a n e n t in t h e world, t h e stars w e r e n o t s u p r e m e deities, a n d t h e y play only a small role in t h e piety of s o m e of t h e greatest Stoic philosophers, such as Epictetus a n d M a r c u s Aurelius. A n d yet t h e Stoics a r e i m p o r t a n t in t h e propagation of astral religion, first because t h e y carry on Plato and Aristotle's emphasis o n the religious i m p o r t a n c e of t h e h e a v e n s , a n d second b e c a u s e their physical theories lend c r e d e n c e t o beliefs that previously h a d b e e n based either o n tradition o r m y t h . 6 8
69
7 0
7 1
7 2
73
7 4
75
Plato's interest in t h e life a n d divinity of t h e stars, w h i c h w a s only part of a deeper a n d m o r e serious religious interest, lived o n in different philosophical guises in t h e A c a d e m y , Aristotle, a n d t h e old Stoics. N o n e of t h e m quite succeeds in providing a convincing 6 7
SVF 1. 146, 1. 2 6 4 , 2 . 1076. See Festugiere. Revelation, 2. 272. See Festugiere, Revelation, 2 . 2 3 3 - 8 , Pepin, Theologie, 289. SVF2. 6 4 5 , 2 . 5 2 8 ( 1 6 9 . 2 5 - 8 ) . See Nilsson, Geschichte, 2. 295 f. SVF1. 5 2 8 , 2 . 1009. SVF 1.528. Cicero DND 2. 1 6 . 4 3 , 2 . 21. 54 ( 6 4 3 . 2 and 678. 2 Pease). Cicero Pro Milone 83 (73. 1 4 - 7 4 . 2 Clark); Seneca De Prov. 1. 2 (1. 8 - 2 . 3 Reynolds); cf. SVF2. 527 (p. 168, 31), 2. 1 1 4 7 , 2 . 1150. Ps.-Plato Axiochus 370b2-c6, with the note in Jackson P. Hershbell's edn. (Chico, Calif.: Scholars, 1981), 18, and also Philo Det. 8 7 - 9 0 . 6 8
6 9
7 0 7 1
7 2
7 3
7 4
7 5
The Old Stoics
49
a r g u m e n t for the stars' divinity: t h e Platonists c a n n o t say h o w such divinities c a n be corporeal; t h e Peripatetic explanation of astral m o t i o n m a k e s it difficult to see h o w t h e stars a r e alive at all, a n d both t h e y a n d the Stoics leave t h e interrelation of ether, spheres, a n d the heavenly m e d i u m in a muddled state. As a result of classical philosophy's speculations, the stars a r e firmly linked to piety in the Hellenistic era, but this relationship is also problematic. The second part will consider h o w the specific insights of these philosophers a n d their specific difficulties a r e understood by sources w h i c h Origen is k n o w n to h a v e used, and by writers w h o s e positions exemplify views with w h i c h Origen shows himself to be familiar.
PART II
4 THE HELLENISTIC S C H O O L R O O M
Unlike Clement, Origen is reluctant to display his interest in classical and c o n t e m p o r a r y learning, and it is only by comparing widely scattered allusions in Origen's bulky corpus that w e c o m e to u n d e r s t a n d the b r e a d t h of his knowledge. It is h a r d to judge silence, and Origen is usually silent about w h a t (besides scripture) he has read. W e h a v e t w o reports about Origen's philosophical b a c k g r o u n d from later (not always reliable) sources. The philo sopher P o r p h y r y , w h o disapproved of Christianity in general a n d Origen in particular, reports t h a t Origen was continually studying Plato, and he busied himself with the writings of Numenius and Cronius, Apollophanes, Longinus, Moderatus, and Nicomachus, and those famous among the Pythagoreans. And he used the books of Chaeremon the Stoic, and of Cornutus. 1
A c e n t u r y later J e r o m e tells us that Origen wrote ten books of Stromateis, in which he compares together the opinions held respectively by Christians and by philosophers, and confirms all the teachings of our religion by quotations from Plato and Aristotle, from Numenius and Cornutus. 2
There c a n be n o doubt that s o m e of these pagan writers listed by Porphyry a n d J e r o m e influenced Origen's teachings o n the n a t u r e of the h e a v e n s . Origen cites C h a e r e m o n the Stoic's treatise on c o m e t s , a n d he s e e m s to h a v e read a good deal of Numenius, w h o was very interested in the relationship of 3
4
1
Ap. Eusebius HE 6. 19. 8, trans. NPNF (2. 115 Bardy). Ep. 70. 4 ( 1 . 705. 1 9 - 7 0 6 . 3 Hilberg), trans. NPNF (slightly adapted). Jerome's friend Theophilus of Alexandria claims that Origen juxtaposed Stoic teachings and scripture (Jerome Ep. 9 6 = SVF2. 6 3 1 ) . CCel. 1. 59 (1. 110. 6 - 9 K.) = Chaeremon frag. 3 (van der Horst). For Chaeremon's interest in astrology see below in this chap. n. 19. See below, ch. 6 n. 51. 2
3
4
54
The Hellenistic Schoolroom 5
a s t r o n o m y t o philosophical teachings on t h e s o u l . T h e frag m e n t a r y n a t u r e of t h e r e m a i n s of these writers m a k e s their influence very difficult to trace. F u r t h e r m o r e , in addition to direct access to Plato, Aristotle, and t h e great Stoic philosophers (especially Chrysippus), Origen n o doubt r e a d m a n y o t h e r middle-Platonic o r middle-Stoic treatises w h i c h a r e n o longer e x t a n t . The discussion of Origen's philosophical b a c k g r o u n d is therefore largely n o t a m a t t e r of detecting specific influences, but of exploring views w h i c h a r e c o m p a r a b l e to Origen's a n d represent a w a y of thinking t h a t m u s t h a v e been familiar t o h i m in s o m e form. The classic w o r k o n Origen's philosophical inheritance is Hal Koch's Pronoia und Paideusis, a n d in a similar m a n n e r this chapter on t h e 'Hellenistic s c h o o l r o o m ' a t t e m p t s t o u n d e r s t a n d Origen's debt to c o n t e m p o r a r y philosophical discussion, focusing specifically on his understanding of t h e life in h e a v e n and its i m p o r t a n c e for life o n e a r t h . C h a p t e r 5 will contain a study of Philo's speculations o n this question, since h e is n o t only a good source for middle-Platonic views, but a writer w h o has h a d a significant a n d direct influence on Origen. 6
It m u s t be said, h o w e v e r , t h a t while studies of Origen's philosophical b a c k g r o u n d h a v e b e e n valuable, such a p p r o a c h e s in t h e past h a v e t e n d e d to be methodologically flawed. Origen is s u c h a n eclectic philosopher t h a t c o n c e n t r a t i o n o n a single body of evidence, s u c h as t h e e x t a n t middle-Platonic corpus, will be t o o one-sided t o be a g e n u i n e a c c o u n t of his intellectual setting. Origen had a strong interest in J e w i s h apocalyptic a n d his w o r k s c o n t a i n m a n y references to this literature. F u r t h e r m o r e , growing up a n d spending t h e early part of his c a r e e r in A l e x a n d r i a , Origen w a s e x p o s e d t o various gnostic speculations w h i c h w e r e a n i m p o r t a n t part of early Egyptian Christianity. He c o m b a t e d t h e Valentinian H e r a c l e o n in a n early c o m m e n t a r y , publicly debated a n o t h e r Valentinian n a m e d Candidus, a n d also k n e w t h e teachings of Dositheus, Simon, t h e Cainites, a n d t h e O p h i t e s . 7
5
Frag. 35 (des Places) = test. 4 2 ( 1 0 0 - 2 Leemans). See also Berchman, From Philo. For the influence of middle-Platonism on Clement of Alexandria see S. R. C. Lilla, Clement of Alexandria (London: Oxford University, 1971). Candidus: see Jerome Apol. Contra Ruf. 2. 19 (55. 7 - 2 2 Lardet). Cf. Adolf von Harnack, Der kirchengeschichtliche Ertrag der exegetischen Arbeiten des Origenes, TU 42. 3 (Leipzig: J . C. Hinrich, 1918), part 2, 7 2 - 6 . Origen also converted a certain 6
7
The Hellenistic Schoolroom
55
These opponents left their m a r k (as opponents always d o ) , and so apocalyptic a n d gnostic speculations on the h e a v e n s will be considered in the sixth chapter. The second part of this book will conclude with a study of Clement of A l e x a n d r i a , a m a n of even wider learning (but less insight) t h a n Origen, and o n e w h o again has strongly influenced t h e w a y Origen t h o u g h t about t h e stars. Great strides w e r e m a d e in a s t r o n o m y during t h e Hellenistic age, and in t h e philosophical s c h o o l r o o m s t h e r e was a broad c o n sensus on t h e n a t u r e of t h e cosmos. The e a r t h is a sphere, remaining motionless at the c e n t r e of the universe, and all t h e other h e a v e n l y bodies w e r e likewise s p h e r e s . Surrounding t h e earth are t h e seven planets (which include sun and m o o n ) , e a c h m o v i n g in its o w n s p h e r e , a n d these in t u r n a r e enclosed by a n eighth sphere containing t h e fixed s t a r s . This general picture of the universe was very c o m m o n , and w o r k e d its w a y into popular philosophy so that calling t h e c o s m o s 'the w h o l e eight' b e c a m e an a d a g e (xapoipia). 8
9
10
11
Aside from t h e E p i c u r e a n s , all the m a j o r philosophical schools in t h e Hellenistic era believed in t h e divinity of t h e s t a r s . E v e n the notorious atheist E u h e m e r u s (fl. 3 0 0 BC) acknowledged that they (at least) w e r e g o d s . A n d yet s u c h a n identification was not without its difficulties. 12
13
14
A p r o b l e m particularly vexing for P l a t o n i s t s was t h e visibility of t h e stars (since divinity was t h o u g h t to be perceptible to t h e mind only and n o t to the senses), a n d this was a frequent topic of Ambrose from Valentinianism according to Eusebius HE 6. 18. 1 (2. 112 Bardy, see his note). Dositheus: see Prin. 4. 3. 2. 6 0 - 4 ; Cainites: CCel. 3. 13 ( I . 2 1 3 . 9f. K.). For the Ophites see ch. 6 n. 127. Cleomedes 1. 8 f. ( 7 2 - 9 0 Ziegler); Ptolemy Math. Synt. 1. 3 ( 7 2 - 6 Heiberg). Theon of Smyrna. (148. 6 f. Hiller), etc. Alcinous (once Albinus) Did. 14 (170. 3 6 - 1 7 1 . 11 Hermann); Apuleius De Platone 1.11 (94. 9 - 1 6 Thomas). Already in Chrysippus, SVF2. 527. Ps.-lamblichus Theologoumena (75. 5f. de Falco, for sources see his note); also J . Bidez and Franz Cumont, Les Mages hellinises (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1938), 1. 173 n. 3. See above ch. 3, n. 56, and also Georg Mau, Die Religionsphilosophie Kaiser Julians (Leipzig: Teubner, 1906), 42. SeeDrachmann, Atheism, 111. I will include neo-Pythagoreanism under Platonism since the two in this era are closely joined, a result of the fascination with Pythagoras in the early Academy. See funher John Whittaker, 'Platonic Philosophy in the Early Centuries of the Empire', ANRW2. 36. 1 (1987), 1 1 7 - 2 1 . 8 9
1 0
11
12
1 3
1 4
The Hellenistic
56
Schoolroom
discussion in Platonic circles. Unfortunately, t h e fullest e x t a n t t r e a t m e n t s of this topic a r e in philosophers w h o a r e later t h a n Origen, n a m e l y Plotinus ( w h o is about t w e n t y y e a r s y o u n g e r ) , Plotinus' student P o r p h y r y , a n d Iamblichus ( w h o is b o r n about t h e t i m e of Origen's d e a t h ) . B e c a u s e of t h e f r a g m e n t a r y n a t u r e of o u r evidence from t h e era prior t o t h e m , it is difficult t o see h o w n e w their w o r k o n this problem was. M u c h of it, h o w e v e r , probably represents longstanding school d e b a t e , a n d so c a n help us u n d e r s t a n d w a y s of thinking w h i c h Origen h a d k n o w n . The s a m e c a n b e said of t h e early fifth-century Platonist Hierocles of Alexandria, w h o h a s m a n y affinities w i t h earlier middlePlatonism in general a n d w i t h Origen in p a r t i c u l a r . There a r e always difficulties a n d risks in arguing from later materials, but their use t o explicate t h e state of previous philosophical discus sion o n astral souls is defensible on t w o grounds: ( 1 ) these materials h a v e close parallels in earlier Platonism, a n d ( 2 ) t h e r e are also parallels a m o n g later figures (especially Hierocles) w h i c h represent separate developments in Platonism with a c o m m o n source in a n earlier period. They therefore m a y be helpful in telling us about t h e state of philosophical debate o n t h e n a t u r e of astral souls in Origen's day. 1 5
16
In his Epistula ad Anebonem P o r p h y r y puts a n u m b e r of questions to a n Egyptian priest. A m o n g t h e questions h e asks a r e : 'By y o u r a c c o u n t h o w will sun a n d m o o n a n d t h e luminaries of h e a v e n be gods if gods a r e only i n c o r p o r e a l ? ' , a n d again, ' w h a t is it w h i c h joins those gods w h i c h h a v e a body in h e a v e n with incorporeal g o d s ? ' This letter is particularly interesting for students of Origen b e c a u s e o n e of Porphyry's m a j o r sources for Egyptology is a Stoicizing interpretation of Egyptian religion by Chaeremon, w h o m w e k n o w has influenced Origen. If o n e 17
1 8
1 9
1 5
This is particularly true of Porphyry, see Waszink, 'Bemerkungen', 130 n. 3, and Dorrie, 'Die Schultradition im Mittelplatonismus und Porphyrios', Platonica 9. Middle-Platonism: Karl Praechter, 'Christliche-neuplatonische Beziehungen', Kleine Schriften, ed. Heinrich Dorrie (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1973), 141 f., also Koch, Pronoia, 2 9 1 , and Theo Kobusch, Studien zur Philosophic des Hierokles von Alexandrien, Epimeleia 27 (Munich: Johannes Berchmans, 1976); Origen: Koch Pronoia 2 9 1 - 3 0 1 . All three think Origen has influenced Hierocles, but see Ilsetraut Hadot, he Probleme du Neoplatonisme Alexandrin Hierocles et Simplicius (Paris: Etudes augustiniennes, 1978). 1. 3 (6. l l f . ed. Sodano); cf. Augustine De Civ. Dei 10. 11, 13. 17, 13. 19 (284. 10-17, 398. 1 9 - 2 1 , 4 0 2 . 3 9 - 5 5 Dombart/Kalb). 1 . 3 ( 7 . 3f. Sodano). 2. 12 (23. 7 - 2 5 . 7 Sodano) = Chaeremon frag. 5 (van der Horst). Like 1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
The Hellenistic Schoolroom
57
supposes, as later P l a t o n i s m usually did, t h a t stars w e r e c o m p o s e d of soul a n d b o d y ,
2 0
of sensible a n d intelligible,
inferior, of ruling a n d r u l e d ,
2 2
21
of superior a n d
o n e w o u l d think t h a t only t h e soul
of t h e star w o u l d be divine a n d n o t its body. O n e r e s p o n s e w a s to say t h a t in t h e case of t h e stars, soul w a s perfectly a d a p t e d to body
2 3
part.
2 4
a n d t h e l o w e r a n d visible part to a h i g h e r
intelligible
The ' s e c o n d a r y ' gods exist t h r o u g h t h e higher invisible
gods, depending o n t h e m as t h e star's r a d i a n c e depends o n t h e star.
2 5
In t h e star t h e divine soul exercises a perfect s u p r e m a c y .
2 6
C h a e r e m o n does n o t s e e m particularly interested in a n y o t h e r gods besides t h e visible o n e s ,
2 7
but s u c h a v i e w w a s u n u s u a l in
philosophers of t h e period, for if t h e s u p r e m e God is a l t o g e t h e r simple a n d is in n o w a y m a d e of ruler a n d r u l e d ,
2 8
it is difficult to
u n d e r s t a n d h o w a n y visible ( a n d t h e r e f o r e material) b o d y could be truly divine. Recognizing this, A l e x a n d r i a n a s t r o n o m e r s b e g a n to refer t o t h e planets by their a p p e a r a n c e r a t h e r t h a n using t h e Porphyry, he seems to have been both attracted by such lore (Chaeremon is said to be an Egyptian priest (frag. 4 van der Horst), while Porphyry shows some interest in hieroglyphics, see J . Bidez, Eos (Brussels: L'Academie royale de Belgique, 1945), 9 1 ) , and yet also repelled, composing works against astrology, which was often associated with Egypt, Ad Aneb. 2. 15 (26. 2 3 - 2 7 . 2 Sodano) = Chaeremon frag. 8 (van der Horst: associated with Egypt: Porphyry ap. Stobalus 2. 169. 2 4 - 1 7 0 . 3 Wachsmith). Porphyry's Ad Aneb. supposedly addresses issues of Egyptian lore, but the discussion has been heavily coloured by philosophical speculations. As often in Hellenistic philosophy, the discussion of 'foreign' wisdom in fact shows the state of a particular Greek philosophical debate. 2 0
Plutarch Defect. Or. 433de (3. 111. 1 6 - 2 5 Sieveking); Plotinus 2. 1 . 2 . 1 6 - 2 1 ; Porphyry De Abst. 2. 37 (103 Bouffartique/Patillon); ps.-Apuleius Asclep. 19 (318 N/F); Augustine De Civ. Dei 10. 2 9 (306. 7 0 - 5 Dombart/Kalb). Apuleius De Deo Socr. 4 ( 1 1 . 1 3 - 1 6 Thomas); Arius Didymus ap. J . Stobaeus Eel. (2. 4 9 . 1 6 - 1 8 Wachsmuth); CH frag. 21 (3. 91 N/F); H. Hepding. AthMitt 32 (1907) 3 5 6 - 6 0 ; cf. Boethus Sidoniusfr. 8 (SVF 3 p. 2 6 7 , 3 - 5 ) . Hierocles In Aur. Pyth. Carm. 2 6 . 1 (111. 3 - 9 Kohler); cf. Alcinous Did. 7 (161. 3 0 - 2 Hermann) and Plutarch's remark that God is either the sun or the lord of the sun, Def. Or. 4 1 3 c (3. 67. lOf. Sieveking). Plotinus 4. 4. 42. 2 4 - 3 0 ; Hierocles In Aur. Pyth. Carm. 26. 1 ( 1 1 0 . 2 2 - 1 1 1 . 9 Kohler). See E. R. Dodds, Proclus: The Elements of Theology (2nd edn., Oxford: Clarendon, 1963), 2 8 3 . Plotinus 3. 5. 6. 1 9 - 2 4 , Iamblichus DeMyst. 1. 17 ( 5 0 - 2 des Places); invisible: Plotinus 5. 1 . 4 . 4 f . , cf. Julian Contra Galil. 65b (3. 336 Wright). Iamblichus De Myst. 1 . 1 7 ( 5 1 . 4 - 6 des Places). Porphyry Ad Aneb. 2. 12 (23. 7 - 2 4 . 6 Sodano) = Chaeremon frag. 5 (van der Horst). Alcinous Did. 10 ( 1 6 5 . 30 Hermann); Maximus of Tyre 2 7 . 8 (330. 5 - 8 Hobein); Numenius frag. 11 (des Places) = frag. 2 0 (137. 2 8 - 3 0 Leemans); Origen In Jo. 1.20. 119 (4. 24. 23 P.); etc. 2 1
2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5
2 6
2 7
2 8
58
The Hellenistic Schoolroom
n a m e s of gods, since t h e mythological associations of t h e older practice w e r e plain to t h e m . If t h e stars a r e divine in so far as t h e y a r e subordinate t o t h e higher divinity, t h e n t h e y a r e divine in the s a m e sense that t h e h u m a n soul is divine. B u t if it is only relation t o divinity w h i c h m a k e s t h e star divine, o n e w o u l d t h e n conclude that it is only t h e ontologically superior invisible god, t h e soul of t h e star, w h o is w o r t h y of worship. If this w e r e so, that w h i c h is visible in h e a v e n would s e e m to be a m a t t e r of indifference—the view of Plato in t h e Republic. In o t h e r words t h e problem r e m a i n s unsolved, and t h e J e w i s h and Christian criticism of t h e philosophers that o n e should only worship God a n d n o t o n e of his dependants in fact t o u c h e s on a w e a k spot in t h e Platonic devotion t o t h e h e a v e n l y bodies. 2 9
The usual c o u n t e r - a r g u m e n t of t h e later Platonists was that t h e y w e r e carrying o n b o t h popular a n d philosophical traditions. T h e J e w i s h a n d Christian refusal t o worship the stars was m e t with scorn by Platonists such as C e l s u s , w h o took such worship for granted. A n d yet since Plato a n d Aristotle s e e m e d t o recognize a deity a b o v e t h e stars, their worship h a d to be m o d e s t o r reserved. Philosophers of this period devised a wide variety of ways of referring to t h e astral gods w h i c h emphasized their intermediate divine n a t u r e w h i c h was superior t o t h e h u m a n condition but inferior t o t h e supremely divine. 30
Most of these ways of talking about t h e h e a v e n l y bodies s t e m m e d from Plato a n d from t h e Epinomis. Plato's practice of saying t h a t t h e planets belonged t o a particular god was very c o m m o n in t h e philosophical s c h o o l s . Already t h e Epinomis raised t h e possibility t h a t t h e stars w e r e images of t h e divine, a n d this was followed by m a n y later a u t h o r s . The m e t a p h o r of t h e 31
3 2
2 9
Franz Cumont, 'Les Noms de planetes et l'astrolatrie chez les Grecs', And 4 (1935), 5 - 4 3 , especially 32. The practice did not catch on, but see ch. 8 n. 2 9 . Celsus ap. Origen CCel. 5. 6 (2. 5. 2 5 - 6 . 8 K.). While Plato regarded the worship of heaven as a foreign practice (above ch. 1. n. 2 ) , in the fifth century the neo-Platonist Proclus said that only foreigners (i.e. Christians) denied this worship: In Crat. 125 (74. 5 - 1 5 Pasquali); cf. also Apuleius De Deo Socr. 3 (8. 2 0 - 9 . 3 Thomas). See above ch. 1. n. 87. For later sources see A. Bouche-Leclercq, L'Astrologie grecque (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1899), 68, and also Plutarch De Gen. Socr. 591c (3. 496. 2 Sieveking). See above ch. 1. n. 172; Plutarch De E 393d (3. 22. 1 3 - 2 3 Sieveking); Iamblichus De Myst. 1. 19 (57. 1 6 - 5 8 . 5 des Places); Hierocles In Aur. Pyth. Carm. 21. li. (120. 2 7 - 1 2 1 . 9 Kohler), Julian Contra Galil. 65b (3. 3 3 6 Wright), Frag. Ep. (2. 1 . 8 9 . 1 6 - 2 0 Bidez); Proclus In Tim. (1. 11. 14f. Diehl). 3 0
3 1
3 2
59
The Hellenistic Schoolroom
stars as a c h o r u s dancing h a r m o n i o u s l y a r o u n d h e a v e n is at least as old as t h e classic tragedians, is m a d e philosophically respect able by Plato a n d t h e Epinomis, a n d b e c o m e s a c o m m o n p l a c e . Plato c o m p a r e d t h e relation of t h e y o u n g gods t o t h e d e m i u r g e as that of children to their father, a n d again following h i m later Hellenistic philosophers refer t o t h e h e a v e n l y bodies as God's offspring o r as y o u n g e r t h a n G o d . Other m e t a p h o r s of Plato w h i c h b e c a m e popular a r e t h e c o m p a r i s o n of God t o a king with his subjects or t o a c o m m a n d e r (crcpcrniydg) w i t h his troops, a n d this is later applied to t h e relation of God to the s t a r s . So although Plato n e v e r clearly stated that the stars w e r e inter m e d i a t e divine beings, his philosophy suggested it and his language s e e m e d to imply it, a n d this c a m e t o be a standard feature of Hellenistic ontology. 3 3
3 4
35
S u c h a n interpretation caused s o m e confusion since t h e r e already existed a n intermediate divine being, t h e d a e m o n , w h o was described in Plato's Symposium and Cratylus, a n d in the Epinomis. Again in t h e Epistula ad Anebonem P o r p h y r y asks, 'what is it w h i c h distinguishes t h e d a e m o n s f r o m t h e visible a n d invisible gods, since t h e visible gods a r e united with t h e i n v i s i b l e ? ' , a question w h i c h b e c o m e s clearer considering t h a t Porphyry (following Plotinus) believes that d a e m o n s (like t h e stars) are f i e r y , and also regards t h e h e a v e n l y God as m a d e of light a n d dwelling in t h e e t h e r . If t h e h e a v e n l y bodies a r e joined with higher, invisible essences so t h a t t h e y a r e gods, w h y 36
37
38
3 9
3 3
Euripides El 467; Plato Phaedr. 247a7, Tim. 40c3. Epin. 982e4f. For an extensive discussion of this theme see James Miller, Measures of Wisdom (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1986). Tim. 42e6f.; Achilles lsag. 5 (35. 7 Maass); Plutarch Def. Or. 433e (3. 111. 2 0 - 2 Sieveking); Maximus of Tyre 2. 10 (28. 8 - 1 0 Hobein). King: Plato Ep. 2. 3 1 2 e l - 3 , Laws 9 0 4 a 6 , Rep. 597e2; applied to stars: ps.Aristotle De Mundo 398 10ff., Celsus ap. CCel 8. 35 (2. 2 5 0 . 1 6 - 2 1 K.); commander: Plato Phaedr. 246e6, later sources see Zeller Philosophie 3. 2. 221 n. 4, Moraux, Aristotelismus, 2. 68, Erik Peterson, Der Monotheismus als politisches Problem (Leipzig: Jakob Hegner, 1935), 4 8 f., and The Book of Thomas the Contender (NH 2. 142. 32). Symp. 202d l l - 2 0 3 a 4 , Crat. 3 9 7 d 8 - e l , Epin. 9 8 4 e l - 3 . For later sources on the intermediate position of daemons see Willy Theiler, Untersuchungen, 486. 1. 3 (7. 5 - 7 Sodano). Iamblichus attempts to answer Porphyry by subordinating daemons to both species of gods in Myst. 1. 2 0 (61—4). Cf. further Augustine De Civ. Dei9. 1 (249. 3 - 1 6 Dombart/Kalb). Porphyry In Tim. frag. 57 (43. 1 - 4 Sodano); cf. De Regressu Animae (32*. 2 1 - 5 and 34*. 10f. Bidez), Plotinus 2. 1. 6. 54. De Simul. 2 (2*. 1-7 Bidez). 3 4
3 5
a
3 6
3 7
3 8
3 9
60
The Hellenistic Schoolroom
c a n n o t t h e s a m e b e said of fiery d a e m o n s ? A n d in fact in t h e early centuries of t h e c o m m o n e r a t h e older philosophical distinction w a s often simply ignored: d a e m o n s a r e a species of g o d s , a n d h e a v e n l y bodies a r e simply a species of d a e m o n s . N i c o m a c h u s of Gerasa ( w h o again w a s a n a u t h o r familiar to Origen) k n o w s t h e identification of planets with angels, w h o at this t i m e a r e often e q u a t e d with d a e m o n s , a n d o n e of t h e magic papyri identifies stars a n d a n g e l s . In t h e g e n e r a t i o n after Origen, t w o of Plotinus' students, Amelius a n d P o r p h y r y , also associate d a e m o n s with heavenly b o d i e s . The lines b e t w e e n stars a n d d a e m o n s h a d n e v e r b e e n clear, a n d t h e situation later g r e w e v e n w o r s e u n d e r t h e influence of t h e i n d e p e n d e n t J e w i s h association of divine epiphanies b o t h w i t h fire a n d with angelic intermediaries. 4 0
4 1
42
43
Because t h e Epinomis, however, definitely subordinates daemons to stars, identification of astral a n d d a e m o n i c soul is only sporadic in Hellenistic literature. Usually d a e m o n s a r e seen as ontologically superior to the h u m a n r a c e but inferior to t h e h e a v e n l y b o d i e s . Beginning with t h e Epinomis t h e y a r e creatures of t h e air m u c h as t h e stars a r e creatures of h e a v e n , a n d this is t h e m o s t c o m m o n philosophical understanding of t h e m t h r o u g h o u t t h e schools. 44
45
Plato h a d laid d o w n t h e principle that God did n o t mingle directly with terrestrial affairs, a n d this b e c a m e o r t h o d o x a m o n g Platonists a n d P e r i p a t e t i c s . T h e function of b o t h d a e m o n s a n d 46
4 0
Porphyry asks Anebo why it was theurgic practice to invoke terrestrial and subterranean beings in the same way as celestial gods, Ep. ad Aneb. 1 . 2 (4. If. Sodano); cf. his De Phil, ex Orac. ( I l l Wolff). Ap. ps.-Iamblichus Theologoumena (57. 6 - 9 de Falco), see Wilhelm Bousset, 'Zur Daemonologie der spateren Antike', ARW 18 (1915), 1 7 0 - 2 , and also Nechepso/Petosiris frag. 33 (Riess). Familiarto Origen: see n. 1 above. PGM 1. 7 4 - 6 . The idea of this piece that the divine stars can take human shape is an old one; see the prologue of Plautus' Rudens. Amelius identifies daemons with planets, ap. Proclus Ad Alcib. (70. 1 0 - 1 5 Westerink); Porphyry identifies them with stars, De Regressu Anim. (34*. 1 0 - 1 2 Bidez). Hierocles In Aur. Pyth. Carm. ( 1 2 1 . 2 ff. Kohler), and ap. Photius Bib. 251 (462 A 1 0 - 1 5 Henri); Apuleius De Platone 1 . 1 1 (95. 8 - 1 5 Thomas); cf. below ps.Plutarch De Fato 9 in n. 52 below. Epin. 984e4f.; SVF 2. 1014; Varro frag. 2 2 6 (Cardauns); Philo Gig. 8f.; ApuleiusDeDeoSocr. 6 (13. 1 8 - 2 0 T h o m a s ) . Symp. 2 0 3 a l f.; Apuleius De Deo Socr. 4. 18 (11. lOff. Thomas); ps.-Aristotle De Mundo 3 9 8 4ff. In contrast, the Stoics identified Providence with nature and fate, SVF I. 176. 4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
4 5
4 6
a
The Hellenistic Schoolroom
61 4 7
t h e astral gods was to serve as agents o r assistants of G o d . As w e h a v e seen, t h e y w e r e t h e satraps of t h e great king, o r t h e lieutenants of t h e s u p r e m e c o m m a n d e r . Plato h a d already included t h e stars in t h e creation of t h e h u m a n r a c e , a n d h a d closely identified time a n d t h e h e a v e n l y b o d i e s . Aristotle believed that t h e heavenly bodies preserved all generation b e n e a t h t h e m o o n , a n d Posidonius a n d o t h e r s t a u g h t that t h e motions of t h e stars are the causes of that w h i c h occurs in the natural w o r l d . As a result, belief that t h e h e a v e n l y bodies affected terrestrial life w a s c o m m o n but ill-defined. 48
4 9
One view w h i c h w a s frequent in Stoic a n d Platonic circles w a s that as t h e stars w e r e i n t e r m e d i a t e a n d subordinate gods, so t h e y regulated a n i n t e r m e d i a t e a n d subordinate providence. The idea as w e h a v e seen is implicit in Plato, Aristotle, a n d t h e A c a d e m y a n d , despite t h e ambiguity of t h e stars' relation t o e t h e r o r God in Stoicism, it w a s t a k e n o v e r by Chrysippus, w h o believed t h a t stars g o v e r n t h e world in a c c o r d a n c e with p r o v i d e n c e . B e c a u s e t h e relationship b e t w e e n t h e stars and t h e h e a v e n s is not w o r k e d out, Posidonius transmits a n o t h e r form of this teaching in w h i c h heaven's circular m o t i o n saves a n d preserves t h e w o r l d . A c o m m o n later expression of this is that t h e r e a r e different grades of providence, n a m e l y p r i m a r y a n d secondary, a n d in s o m e writers tertiary. P r i m a r y providence (that of t h e s u p r e m e God) sees t o t h e beneficial a r r a n g e m e n t of universals, while s e c o n d a r y providence operating t h r o u g h t h e stars sees t o t h e g e n e r a t i o n a n d a r r a n g e m e n t of t h a t w h i c h is m o r t a l a n d particular b e n e a t h t h e m o o n , a n d a tertiary providence is sometimes assigned t o t h e daemons. 50
5 1
5 2
This concept of t h e stars' activity is in part shaped by older ideas on t h e place of h e a v e n in controlling g e n e r a t i o n a n d daily o c c u r r e n c e s such as t h e w e a t h e r , a n d was s t r e n g t h e n e d by t h e g r o w t h in i m p o r t a n c e of astrology in t h e Hellenistic period. M u c h of w h a t was said in older philosophy helped pave t h e w a y for 4 7
Despite the occasional protest that God would not need outside help, see Moraux, Aristotelismus, 2. 67. Above ch. 1. n. 94. For later sources see Pease De Natura 1. 1 8 8 - 9 0 . Arist. De Gen. et Corr. 2 . 1 0 ; Posidonius frag. 2 5 5 (Theiler). SVF2. 527 (p. 1 6 8 , 3 1 ) . Frag. 2 8 0 (Theiler). Ps.-Plutarch De Fato 9 (3. 4 5 5 . 1 8 - 2 4 Sieveking); Apuleius De Flat. 1. 12 (96. 2 - 1 2 Thomas); Nemesius 43 ( 1 2 5 . 2 1 - 1 2 6 . 6Morani). 4 8
4 9
5 0
5 1
5 2
The Hellenistic Schoolroom
62 53
54
a s t r o l o g y , and, despite s o m e vigorous p r o t e s t s , b o t h Stoicism a n d Platonism w e r e t h o u g h t by m a n y of their later represent atives to be compatible w i t h this discipline. The c o m b i n a t i o n of philosophy with astrology r e a c h e s its height in t h e fourth and fifth centuries AD, but it is already present in philosophy before Origen in t h e v i e w that t h e stars m e d i a t e divine o r a c l e s , and particularly in t h e v i e w that the stars exercise control o v e r destiny (eipappevr\). Thus a variety of factors w e r e at w o r k causing t h e stars to be ascribed w i t h important functions c o n c e r n i n g terrestrial life. This in t u r n increased the pressure o n philosophers to give s o m e a c c o u n t of their religious importance. 55
5 3
With regard to Plato, Franz Boll writes, 'Ein Astrolog ist Platon nicht, aber er bahnt doch den Weg, der hernach zur Ubernahme astrologischer Anschauungen durch die Griechen fiihrt', 'Der Sternglaube in seiner historischen Entwicklung', Kleine Schriften (Leipzig: Kohler & Amelang, 1950), 383. For Aristotle cf. above ch. 2, nn. 7 4 - 5 . The Stoic doctrines of sympathy and fate also readily combined with astrology; for Stoic interest in astrology see Moreau, L 'Ante, 169. By Eudoxus ap. Cicero De Div. 2. 87, Panaetius ap. 2. 9 1 - 7 (496 f. and 5 0 3 16 Pease), and especially by Carneades, see Paul Wendland, Die hellenistischrbmischeKultur, HNT 1. 2 (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1912), 109. Alcinous Did. 15 (171. 2 0 - 4 Hermann): ps.-Apuleius Asclep. 38 (2. 349. 9 - 1 5 N/F); Diodorus Siculus 2. 30. 4 (1. 2 1 9 . 2 3 - 2 2 0 . 2 Vogel); cf. Porphyry De Phil, ex Orac. (138 and 166 Wolff). 5 4
5 5
5
PHILO
One philosopher w h o struggles with this problem in a w a y particularly i m p o r t a n t for Origen is Philo of Alexandria. M a n y gaps in o u r understanding of t h e Hellenistic philosophical c o n c e p t of t h e stars a r e filled by h i m because of his strong interest in this problem, a n d b e c a u s e t h e r e is a large corpus of his writings e x t a n t . Philo h a d virtually n o impact o n J e w i s h t h o u g h t , but h e was read with great interest by early Christians w h o w e r e c o n c e r n e d with t h e relationship b e t w e e n scripture a n d p a g a n philosophy. Until recently Philo has b e e n dismissed by scholars as a n unoriginal compiler of s c h o o l r o o m c o m m o n p l a c e s — F e s t u g i e r e frequently uses t h e w o r d 'banalite' in his i m p o r t a n t discussion of Philo's c o s m o l o g y . This, h o w e v e r , is not altogether just: those w h o take part in relatively n e w undertakings (in Philo's case, showing that t h e best of Greek philosophy is already implicit in J e w i s h s c r i p t u r e ) will inevitably be unoriginal in s o m e o t h e r respects. Philo's interpretation of J u d a i s m in n e w t e r m s was a great a c h i e v e m e n t w h i c h stands as a l a n d m a r k in t h e history of theology, a n d r e c e n t scholars h a v e b e e n right in thinking that scholars of t h e past (even giants like Festugiere a n d Dodds) h a v e b e e n unfair to him. 1
2
A n d yet t h e r e is a danger that Philo might be praised m o r e t h a n he deserves. Like m a n y o t h e r philosophers of his day h e is often c o n t e n t t o transmit d o x o g r a p h i c c o m m o n p l a c e s with a m i n i m u m of reflection, a n d indeed with m o r e t h a n a little confusion. He is 'Philo J u d a e u s ' , but h e is also 'Philo of Alexandria', a n d so reflects t h e r a t h e r sorry state of philosophy in his e r a . B o t h aspects of 1
Revelation 2. 5 2 1 - 8 5 . Philo did have predecessors in this project, see Burton L. Mack, 'Philo and Exegetical Traditions in Alexandria', ANRW2. 2 1 . 1 (1984), 242 f., and David M. Hay, 'Philo's References to Other Allegorists', SPh 6 ( 1 9 7 9 / 8 0 ) , 4 2 f. Origen read one of these writers, namely Aristobulus, CCel. 4. 51 ( 1 . 3 2 4 . 1 3 K . ) . 2
64
Philo
Philo's t h o u g h t a r e helpful to students of Origen's cosmology, since Philo's w o o d e n use of his philosophical sources enables us to see t h e outlines of pagan teachings o n t h e stars, a n d his f u n d a m e n t a l respect for J e w i s h scripture shows us t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h Origen is indebted t o Philo in labouring t o reconcile this body of knowledge with biblical traditions. Philo is a key source for o u r understanding of Hellenistic c o s m o l o g y in t h e early e m p i r e period, telling us m u c h a b o u t w h a t m u s t h a v e b e e n t a u g h t about t h e n a t u r e of t h e h e a v e n s in A l e x a n d r i a n classrooms. In Philo o n c e again w e are told that t h e e a r t h is t h e c e n t r e of t h e c o s m o s a n d that t h e r e a r e seven planets enclosed by t h e star-filled fixed s p h e r e . In a couple of passages Philo speaks of t h e existence of nine spheres, but this is only because h e counts t h e earth along with t h e seven planets a n d t h e s t a r s . As in Plato's Phaedrus, t h e fixed sphere of t h e stars m a r k s the b o u n d a r y b e t w e e n t h e c o s m o s a n d t h e purely intelligible world of divinity. Following t h e Peripatetics, Philo distinguishes b e t w e e n terrestrial a n d h e a v e n l y fire, a n d says that t h e stars receive their light from t h e substance of h e a v e n , e t h e r . T h e revolution of t h e stars is (as in Aristotle's De Caelo) traced t o t h e m o v e m e n t of e t h e r . Planetary m o t i o n s a r e explained as in Plato's Timaeus as a c o m b i n a t i o n of t h e m o v e m e n t s of t h e S a m e a n d t h e Different, a n d yet also as in t h e Statesman t h e m o v e m e n t of t h e stars w a s considered t h e result of a n involuntary force while t h e retrograde m o t i o n of t h e planets w a s said t o be due to a v o l u n t a r y (edeXodmog) o n e . T h e stars w e r e m a d e t o give light, t o serve as signs of future events ( t h o u g h n o t to cause t h e m ) , a n d to be t h e source of t i m e a n d n u m b e r . As usual in Hellenistic 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
3
Earth: Mas. 1. 12 (abbreviations follow usage in the LCL edition), Conf. 5; planets: Cher. 22. Congr. 103-5, QG 4. 110. Not an uncommon practice, see Cicero De Rep. 6. 17. 17 (131. 10-13 Ziegler), and later Julian Or. 11 (4), 146c (2. 2. 122 Lacombrade). In all of these one counts from the top so that the earth is the ninth sphere. See Marguerite Harl, Philo d'Alexandrie: Quis rerum divinarum heres sit (Paris: duCerf, 1966), 9 8 n . 2 . Her. 136, Mas. 2. 148. Abr. 157. Receive: QE 2. 80; heaven: QE 2. 73. Philo at one point suggests that the sun is condensed ether, comparable to the Stoic view, Deus 78, cf. ch. 3 n. 11. QG I. 57; it is thus also called the revolution of ether: Plant. 3, Her. 2 8 3 , Somn. 1 . 2 1 . Cher. 22 f. The more complex propositions of the Timaeus on specific planetary motions were ignored. Mos. 2. 148, Op. 5 5 - 6 0 ; not causes: Spec. 1 . 1 3 . 4
5
6 7
8
9
1 0
Philo
65
a s t r o n o m y , the sun was t h o u g h t to be t h e leader of the o t h e r p l a n e t s . The m o o n m a r k e d t h e b o u n d a r y b e t w e e n t h e air and the ether, and, following t h e Stoic view, was said to be a m i x t u r e of 'ether-like and air-like s u b s t a n c e ' . 11
12
Philo agrees with t h e view c o m m o n to Platonic, Peripatetic, and Stoic schools alike that below the m o o n t h e r e is imperfection but above it only p e r f e c t i o n , t h o u g h h e avoids t h e dictum (always attributed to the Peripatetics) that t h e r e is no providence below t h e m o o n . According to Philo, the four elements below t h e m o o n do not exist in a state of purity since t h e y are always m i x e d with o n e a n o t h e r h e r e , but this is not true of h e a v e n w h i c h is accordingly separate, pure, immutable, a n d lacking all evil. God is viewed (as usual in later Platonic and Peripatetic circles) as t h e great but distant king, far r e m o v e d from t h e impurity of e a r t h by the vast e x p a n s e of t h e p u r e h e a v e n , ruling t h r o u g h t h e heavenly bodies and t h r o u g h his o w n divine powers w h i c h are superior to h e a v e n . 13
1 4
15
1 6
1 7
T h o u g h t h e r e was s o m e c o m m o n g r o u n d a m o n g the philo sophers on these issues, Philo recognized t h a t cosmology by his day was a n exceedingly difficult topic. After listing a n u m b e r of the standard s c h o o l r o o m disagreements on t h e n a t u r e of the stars and planets, Philo adds, all these and suchlike points pertaining to heaven, that fourth and best cosmic substance, are obscure and beyond our apprehension, based on guess-work and conjecture, not on the solid reasoning of truth; so much so that one may confidently take one's oath that the day will never come when any mortal shall be competent to arrive at a clear solution to any of 11
Op. 56 f„ Her. 223. See Franz Cumont, 'La Theologie solaire du paganisme romain', MAIBL. E 12. 2 (1913), 4 4 7 - 8 0 . Somn. 1. 145 ( = SVF 2. 6 7 4 ) , see above ch. 3, n. 4 3 . Air as below the moon: Mos. 2 . 1 1 8 , Abr. 2 0 5 . For sources see Wilhelm Bousset, Jiidisch-christlicher Schulbetrieb in Alexandria und Rom (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1915), 29 n. 3, and J . Kroll, Lehren, 175. The idea (not in Aristotle's acroamatic works) is a topos in doxography; to consider only Alexandrian sources see Basilides ap. Hippolytus Ref. 7. 19. 2 (284. 5 - 1 0 Marcovich), Clement of Alexandria Protrep. 5. 66 (51. 2 f. St.), Strom. 5. 90 (385. 19-21 St.); Origen CCel. 3. 75 (1. 266. 2 4 - 8 K.), Horn. 14. 3 In Gen. (6. 124. 6 - 7 B.), In Rom. 3. 1 (PG 14,927b); Cyril of Alexandria (PG 69. 917b). Mixed: QG 3. 6; separate and pure: ibid, and 1. 64, QE2. 73; immutable: QE 4. 8; no evil: Op. 7 3 , 168, QG 4. 157. Decal. 61, QG 3. 34, Prov. 2. 102. Leg. 6. 12
1 3
1 4
1 5
16
17
Philo
66
these problems. This is why the fourth and waterless well was named 'Oath', being the endless and altogether baffling guest of the fourth cosmic region, heaven. 18
A n d y e t despite this recognition of t h e difficulties w h i c h faced t h e investigator of h e a v e n , it is a subject to w h i c h Philo keeps returning. The fascinating but by n o w confused philosophical assessment of h e a v e n is a tar-baby to w h i c h Philo often b e c o m e s stuck. One e x a m p l e is t h e question of w h e t h e r h e a v e n is m a d e u p of o n e of t h e four e l e m e n t s (i.e. fire) o r a fifth e l e m e n t (i.e. e t h e r ) . Philo chooses t h e f o r m e r in t h e passage just quoted, a n d it is evident also in his a c c e p t a n c e of t h e Stoic v i e w that t h e e l e m e n t s a r e a r r a n g e d by their weight in t h e order (from top to b o t t o m ) of fire, air, w a t e r , and e a r t h . This formulation equates h e a v e n with fire, a n d s u c h a view in fact is very c o m m o n in P h i l o . B u t this obviously clashes with Philo's a c c e p t a n c e of t h e Peripatetic v i e w t h a t ether, t h e h e a v e n l y substance, is a separate fifth e l e m e n t . 1 9
20
21
Philo's understanding of h u m a n i t y ' s relation to h e a v e n is also confused. W e saw earlier t h a t Plato's v i e w of this relationship w a s c o u c h e d in m y t h , that Aristotle's language w a s suggestive and misleading, and that t h e Stoic position w a s ultimately u n c l e a r , and t h e situation does n o t i m p r o v e with Philo. He agrees with t h e standard v i e w that t h e best part of a h u m a n being is n o t t h e body w h i c h is m a d e up of t h e four terrestrial elements but c o m e s from h e a v e n , t h e t r u e h o m e of t h e t r u e part of a h u m a n b e i n g . The precise relationship of t h e essence of a h u m a n being t o h e a v e n is a question w h i c h h e addresses frequently but n o t successfully. Philo writes that t h e reasoning part of m a n c o m e s from t h e fixed s t a r s , a n d h e says t h a t soul is m a d e of ether, t h e substance of the s t a r s . E l s e w h e r e Philo says t h e l o w e r soul is blood (since t h e Bible says that blood is life), while t h e reasoning part of t h e soul is 22
23
2 4
1 8
Somn. 1.23 f., trans. LCL. Xer. 33. 115; seech. 3 n. 36. Conf. 157, QG 1. 57, Aet. 107, etc. Her. 2 8 2 . QG 3. 6, 4. 8 (280 Marcus), QE 2. 73, 8 5 , cf. Bousset Schulbetrieb 17. This confusion of fire and ether also occurs in Apuleius, see Stephen Gersh, Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism: The Latin Tradition (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame, 1986), 1. 305. Her. 267, 2 7 4 , Conf. 7 8 , Agr. 6 5 , QG 4. 7 4 , cf. Her. 2 8 0 . 283. Cf. Bousset. Schulbetrieb 11 ff. Det. 8 4 f. LA. 3. 161, Det. 46, Her. 283; cf. JosephusBJ2. 154. 1 9
2 0 2 1
2 2
2 3
2 4
67
Philo 25
m a d e of pneuma. Not surprisingly h e also combines these views, saying that the soul is m a d e of ethereal pneuma (or perhaps something better), or that mind is hot and fiery pneuma. Passing over the loose w a y soul is sometimes used w h e n mind (vovg) is m e a n t , this would m e a n that Philo at times follows those later Stoic interpreters w h o identify ether and pneuma and m a k e t h e m the source of i n t e l l i g e n c e . To say, h o w e v e r , that m i n d is material is impossible for Philo for t w o different reasons: first it is incompatible with a Platonic or Aristotelian psychology, w h i c h has also influenced Philo, a n d second it contradicts his o w n identification of the h u m a n pneuma with the incorporeal breath (pneuma) which God breathed into m a n at creation (Genesis 2: 7 ) . Thus on the o n e h a n d h e denies t h a t mind is pneuma since it must be completely i n c o r p o r e a l , and on the o t h e r h a n d h e also denies that it is a fragment of the ether since it is m a d e of n o created thing but stems directly from that great Pneuma w h o is G o d . As in the Timaeus m y t h , m i n d does not c o m e from the stars, but from the demiurge (or rather the C r e a t o r ) . W e are thus left with a flat contradiction: the best part of m a n both is a n d is not the substance of the stars. Philo uses the language of h e a v e n to describe the n a t u r e and origin of the soul, but in the end is unable to give a satisfactory philosophical exposition of their interrelationship. Due to the c o m p l e x state of the question in his day, it would h a v e been difficult to do so in any case, but this problem b e c o m e s even m o r e confused in Philo's writings. 26
27
2 8
29
3 0
31
Philo is m o r e successful in explaining h o w the soul got from h e a v e n to earth, doing m u c h to h a r m o n i z e t w o different Platonic myths. Plato says in the Timaeus that the soul c o m e s into existence together with all generation as a result of the goodness and lack of jealousy of the demiurge, a n d yet also says in the Phaedrus that not all souls fall, a n d that the souls w h o fall do so in different degrees according to their m e r i t s . Philo interprets the 3 2
25
Det. 8 0 - 3 , Spec. 4. 123.
2 6
Ethereal pneuma or better: Spec. 4. 123; mind is fiery pneuma: Fug. 133f. See ch. 3, n. 34. Loose: also LA. 1 . 9 1 .
2 7
2 8 2 9 3 0 31 3 2
Op. 135, Plant. 19, Her. 56, Det. 86. Somn. 1. 30. Plant. 18. Det. 82, Op. 135.
Tim. 2 9 e l - 3 , Phaedr. 2 4 8 c 3 - 2 4 9 c4; cf. E. R. Dodds, Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1965), 22 f.
68
Philo
Genesis a c c o u n t in t e r m s of b o t h these m y t h s so that t h e c r e a t i o n of t h e w o r l d is g o o d a n d t h e result of divine plan (as in t h e Timaeus), but t h e story of A d a m symbolizes t h e soul's fall b e c a u s e of sin (as in t h e Phaedrus). According t o Philo, originally t h e soul existed w i t h o u t c o r r u p t i o n in h e a v e n , but it t u r n e d a w a y f r o m God a n d so fell t o e a r t h ( w h i c h t h e Phaedrus m y t h calls t h e loss of t h e soul's w i n g s ) . The story of A d a m a n d E v e is transformed into a n a c c o u n t of t h e p r e - e x i s t e n t soul a n d of its sin in h e a v e n . Philo, h o w e v e r , does n o t pursue this i m a g e , a n d indeed in a n u m b e r of passages h e discusses the soul's descent in completely natural terms. In Stoic fashion Philo derives t h e w o r d 'soul' from 'cooling', and h e r e h e does n o t say that t h e soul's descent is t h e result of sin but instead h e follows his Stoic s o u r c e in saying that it is t h e result of t h e soul's m i x t u r e with a i r . Likewise h e has a completely naturalistic explanation of t h e rise a n d fall of t h e e l e m e n t s (including t h e fiery soul) in De Aeternitate Mundi? 3 3
3 4
3 5
b
M o r e o v e r , Philo leaves s o m e ideas a b o u t t h e fall of t h e soul undeveloped: as in Plato's Phaedrus, Philo says that s o m e souls h a v e n o t descended i n t o b o d i e s , but (again like Plato) h e does not say that t h e h e a v e n l y bodies are t h o s e souls w h o h a v e n o t sinned. He does c o m e close to such a view, saying that t h e p u r e h e a v e n l y m i n d of a star differs from a h u m a n m i n d in that t h e f o r m e r is incapable of a n y vice or evil, w i t h t h e result that it eternally r e j o i c e s . T h e y a r e 'naturally liable to correction' but 'in virtue of their e x c e l l e n c e n e v e r destined t o u n d e r g o i t ' . A n d yet h e n e v e r fits t o g e t h e r these speculations o n t h e stars a n d includes t h e m in a c o h e r e n t cosmological m y t h of t h e soul's fall. This h e leaves t o Origen. 37
38
39
The flight of t h e soul t h r o u g h h e a v e n is a c o m m o n t h e m e of Philo's d a y , a n d strongly influenced his cosmology. F o r Philo, as for so m a n y Hellenistic philosophers, t h e i m a g e r y of this 4 0
3 3
QG 3. 11, Her. 2 4 0 . See Henry Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition (Oxford: Clarendon, 1966), 84 with n. 34, dir. 134f. Somn. 1. 31. Aet. 1 0 9 - 1 1 ; cf. SVF2. 555. Gig. 12; Plato Phaedr. 2 4 8 c 3 - 5 . Op. 73; eternally: QG 4. 188. Spec. 1. 19, trans. LCL. Festugiere, Revelation, 2. 531. The classic study is Franz Cumont's 'Le Mysticisme astral dans l'antiquite', BCLAB (1909) 2 5 6 - 8 6 , though his theory that this theme originated in Chaldaean practices has not won acceptance. 3 4
3 5 3 6
3 7
3 8
3 9
4 0
Philo
69
discussion of t h e soul's r e t u r n t o h e a v e n is again t a k e n from Plato's Phaedrus. T h e soul w h i c h t u r n e d a w a y f r o m t h e disorder of this w o r l d a n d w a s devoted t o e t e r n a l t r u t h s w o u l d soar t h r o u g h h e a v e n like t h e winged soul in t h e Phaedrus, c o n t e m p l a t ing b o t h t h e h e a v e n s a n d e v e n t h e supercelestial r e a l i t y . Since in Platonic t e r m s vision implies a u n i o n b e t w e e n t h e observer a n d w h a t is s e e n , t h e soul w h i c h looks u p o n t h e h e a v e n s with understanding is physically joined to t h e stars w h i c h a r e seen. T h e philosophical observer of t h e stars b e c o m e s o n e with this higher reality. 41
4 2
H e a v e n t h e n is t h e best thing in t h e world for o n e t o c o n t e m p l a t e . Philo believes t h a t h e a v e n is t h e greatest of t h e created things, and a place of absolute t r a n q u i l i t y . K n o w l e d g e of h e a v e n is t h e q u e e n of t h e sciences, a n d w a s A b r a m ' s chief o c c u p a t i o n before h e w a s set apart by G o d . Following t h e tradition of t h e Epinomis, o n c e again w e a r e told that n u m b e r a n d philosophy arise from observation of t h e stars' m o v e m e n t s , a n d as in t h e Laws that these astral m o v e m e n t s p r o v e t h e existence of God. T h e m a n n a w h i c h God gives to t h e people in the wilderness ( E x o d u s 16: 4 ) is w i s d o m from h e a v e n . As with t h e Stoics, w e a r e repeatedly told t h a t t h e c o s m o s a n d especially h e a v e n a r e God's t e m p l e — a surprising claim for a J e w t o m a k e at a t i m e w h e n t h e second Temple w a s at t h e height of its glory. 43
4 4
4 5
4 6
4 7
Like all t h e philosophers of his day ( e x c e p t t h e E p i c u r e a n s ) , Philo believes t h a t A n a x a g o r a s ' t h e o r y that stars consist of fiery m e t a l is a n i m p i e t y . The stars a r e n o t collections of lifeless 48
4 1
See Runia, Philo, 2 7 8 . and P. Courcelle, 'Flugel (Flug) der Seele', RAC 8 (1972), 33 f. See below ch. 6 n.8. 4 2
4 3
Delos. 145, Conf. 177.
4 4
Knowledge: Congr. 50, Spec. 3. 2 0 2 ; Abram: Cher. 4. Abr. 7 0 says he was a converted Chaldaean! A number of sources (both Jewish and pagan) say that Abram invented astrology, see Bouche-Leclercq, L'Astrologie, 5 7 8 n. 1. There is an ancient astrologer who called himself Abram extant ap. Vettius Valens 2. 29 f. (92 f. Pingree), and referred to several times by Firmicus Maternus (see the index of the Kroll/Skutsch/Ziegler edn., s.v. Abram). The names of biblical characters were often borrowed for works of this sort, see e.g. the astrological and magical works attributed to Solomon listed by Heeg in CCAG 8. 2 (1911), 139. Epin.: see ch. 1 n. 161; philosophy: Op. 54, 6 0 , Abr. 164, Spec. 1. 3 2 2 ; existence of God: above ch. 1. n. 123, Philo Spec. 1. 34. 4 5
4 6
Mut. 2591
4 7
See Festugiere, Revelation. 2. 538, 568 f.. Op. 55.
4 8
Somn. \. 22, Aet.M.
70
Philo
m a t t e r but are living beings. Philo assumes as a m a t t e r of course both t h a t o u r m i n d consists of a h e a v e n l y e l e m e n t a n d t h a t t h e stars a r e e a c h m i n d . He passes o n t h e Stoic c o m m o n p l a c e t h a t e a c h region of t h e c o s m o s — e a r t h , sea, air, a n d h e a v e n — h a s a life-form t h a t is peculiar t o it: animals to earth, fish t o t h e sea, birds t o t h e air, and t h e stars to h e a v e n . As with t h e Stoics, t h e stars are depicted as citizens of t h e world w h o o c c u p y a higher r a n k t h a n m a n k i n d , a n d h e says t h a t their circuits a r e effortless b o t h because of their p r o x i m i t y to t h e divine n a t u r e a n d b e c a u s e of their superior fiery n o u r i s h m e n t (again a Stoic v i e w ) . The p a g a n topos t h a t t h e stars a r e o n e of several species of rational creatures, related t o us a n d yet superior, is uncritically adopted into Philo's cosmology. 4 9
5 0
5 1
5 2
The difficulty w h i c h p a g a n philosophy h a d distinguishing b e t w e e n stars and d a e m o n s is repeated n o w in Philo with stars a n d angels. In o n e passage Philo follows the usual v i e w w h i c h puts angels ( w h i c h h e equates with d a e m o n s ) below t h e ethereal r e g i o n . T h e stars a r e thus ontologically superior t o t h e angels. He also has a different interpretation in w h i c h t h e angels a r e t h e a t t e n d a n t s of t h e h e a v e n l y bodies. This section is tantalizing, for Philo h e r e refers to these a t t e n d a n t angels as a c h o r u s (xopdg), a w o r d w h i c h h e uses elsewhere to refer t o t h e stars in a c c o r d a n c e with c o m m o n Hellenistic practice, but h e also states that these angels a r e w i t h o u t b o d i e s . Does this m e a n that angels a r e t h e invisible m o v e r s of t h e stars? T h e s a m e m a y also be implied in De Specialibus Legibus, w h e r e t h e stars a r e said t o be t h e 5 3
5 4
55
56
4 9
Gig. 60, Plant. 12, Op. 73.
5 0
Plant. 12, Somn. 1. 135. Gig. 7 f. Cicero attributes this idea to Aristotle in DND 2. 15. 42 = De Philosophia frag. 21a (Ross). But the passage is again heavily Stoicized. see Moraux, 'Quinta', 1213 and 1223; Achilles Isag. (35. 7 - 1 1 Maass); Posidonius frag. 358b (Theiler, cf. his note). The idea then passes into later Platonism: see Plotinus 2. 9. 8. 30: Porphyry In Tim. frag. 8 4 ( 7 7 . 3 0 - 7 8 . 9 Sodano, frag. dub.). It has its origin in Plato Tim. 39e 1 0 - 4 0 a 2 . 5 1
Op. 1431, Conf. 78.
5 2
Prov. 2. 74. This section has survived only in Armenian translation. Aucher's Latin version (published in 1822) is followed here. For problems with the use of the large Armenian Philo corpus ('wildly underestimated by most scholars') see Runia, Philo, 6 3 . 5 3 5 4 5 5
5 6
Somn. 1. 141. Gig. 6 , 1 6 , QG 4. 188. Plant. 14. QG 4 . 1 8 8 assumes the superiority of the stars to the daemons just mentioned. Conf. 174; chorus: Mos. 2. 2 3 9 , 2. 2 7 1 , Cher. 23, Fug. 62, Op. 54, 7 0 , Congr. 51,
Migr. 184; see ch. 4 n. 33.
Philo
71
offering t h a t is m a d e in t h e temple w h i c h is t h e c o s m o s , while t h e angels, w h o again a r e u n e m b o d i e d souls, a r e described as t h e priests of this t e m p l e . Unfortunately, Philo n e v e r is m o r e clear t h a n this in describing t h e relationship of stars a n d angels. 5 7
W h a t is clear is that Philo, like his p a g a n c o n t e m p o r a r i e s , holds the stars a n d planets in high regard. O n a n u m b e r of occasions h e interprets t h e seven m i n o r a h candles ( E x o d u s 2 5 : 3 7 ) as symbolizing t h e seven planets because of t h e role t h e planets play in bringing a b o u t sublunary g e n e r a t i o n . He also goes as far as t o suggest that t h e h e a v e n l y bodies a r e divine images (AydXpaxa). This is understandable in light of his interpretation of r e a s o n as constituting t h e divine i m a g e in h u m a n i t y — i f this is so t h e n it is true a fortiori of angel a n d s t a r — b u t t h e similarity of his language to p a g a n astral religion in t h e Epinomis a n d elsewhere is striking. 58
59
A n d Philo appears just as close to his p a g a n c o u n t e r p a r t s in his depiction of t h e stars as divine. Harry Wolfson attempts t o distance Philo from these passages by noting t h a t Philo often puts these r e m a r k s in t h e third person, a n d h e suggests that Philo is m e r e l y passing along s o m e o n e else's o p i n i o n . This, h o w e v e r , is not c o n v i n c i n g since Philo in fact often refers to t h e stars in this w a y w h e n h e speaks in his o w n voice. T h e stars a r e m o r e divine (fefoc) t h a n w e a r e , a n d t h e y a r e divine souls, o r divine n a t u r e s . T h e stars a r e 'that m i g h t y host of visible gods (alodnm 6eia) w h o s e blessedness from of old has b e e n r e c o g n i z e d ' , a n d referring t o t h e stars as t h e gods perceived by t h e senses is very c o m m o n in P h i l o . In short, Philo does m u c h t o a c c o m m o d a t e himself t o t h e prevailing philosophical climate. His universe is populated by mighty beings w h o , t h o u g h not standing apart from God's sovereignty (as w e shall s e e ) , w e r e nevertheless distinct. 60
61
6 2
6 3
64
6 5
5 7
1.66. QE 2. 78, Her. 2 2 1 , Mos. 2. 102., cf. QE 2. 75 with Marcus's notes. See Runia, Philo, 333. Philo phrases this more cautiously in Op. 82, cf. also Migr. 40. Harry Austryn Wolfson, Philo (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1947), 1 . 3 6 3 - 5 , 3 9 8 . John Dillon reaches this same conclusion for different reasons, 'Philo's Doctrine of Angels', Two Treatises of Philo of Alexandria, Brown Judaic Studies 25 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983), 200. Op. 84, Migr. 184, cf. Abr. 162, Dec. 64. Souls: Gig. 8; natures: Op. 144. Prov. 2. 50, QG 4. 188. Aet. 4 6 , trans. LCL. Spec. 1. 19, Aet. 112, Op. 27, QG 1. 42. 4. 157. 5 8
5 9
6 0
6 1
6 2
6 3
6 4 6 5
72
Philo
s u p e r h u m a n entities. In t h e bustling h e a v e n l y court of late antiquity t h e stars w e r e o n e m o r e set of divine beings, but a particularly i m p o r t a n t o n e b e c a u s e all a c k n o w l e d g e d their p o w e r and i m p o r t a n c e to at least s o m e degree. Philo's respect for t h e visible h e a v e n , so in keeping t h e n with t h e spirit of t h e age, m a d e h i m tolerant of those w h o worshipped h e a v e n . Again a n d again Philo suggests that, t h o u g h astral worship is n o t correct, it is better t h a n t h e worship of images m a d e by h u m a n h a n d s , a n d is in fact part of a divine plan t o m o v e pagans t o w a r d t r u e r e l i g i o n . The worship of h e a v e n is second best t o t h e worship of God, a n d exercises a good influence o n t h e pagan mind. C o m i n g as h e did from a city f a m o u s for its scholarship a n d learning, Philo (like C l e m e n t a n d Origen after h i m ) , emphasizes t h e soul's ( e v e n t h e p a g a n soul's) ability to progress a n d develop t o higher levels of understanding, and t h e recognition of t h e h o n o u r a b l e position occupied by t h e stars was a part of this learning process. It w a s t h e ultimate n a t u r a l a c h i e v e m e n t of all t h a t w h i c h is b e n e a t h t h e m o o n . 66
On t h e o t h e r h a n d , Philo w a s continually a w a r e of possible religious misinterpretation e v e n as h e employed language w h i c h almost invited it. T h r o u g h o u t all his corpus, t h e characteristically J e w i s h fear is expressed t h a t h o n o u r might be given t o t h e c r e a t u r e r a t h e r t h a n t h e creator. Thus although h e agreed that planets did affect t h e life below, h e adopted n u m e r o u s pagan a r g u m e n t s in opposition t o astrology a n d astral d e t e r m i n i s m . He continually emphasizes t h a t aspect of Platonism w h i c h identifies a reality w h i c h transcends t h e stars. The h e a v e n l y bodies a r e exalted a m o n g all creation, but t h e y a r e only second best, o r e v e n third best since t h e y a r e b e l o w t h e purely immaterial a n d intelligible world, w h i c h is in t u r n below G o d . The soul is divinized, n o t by its ascent to e t h e r o r h e a v e n , but only by rising u p to God, w h o is utterly b e y o n d t h e m . A b r a m 67
6 8
6 9
6 6
Dec. 6 6 and the sources collected by Henry Chadwick in 'Philo and the Beginnings of Christian Thought', in A. H. Armstrong (ed.), Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University 1970), 149, cf. 165. See Paul Wendland, Philos Schrift iiber die Vorsehung (Berlin: K. Gaernters, 1892), 2 4 n. 1 and passim. Congr. 51, QG 3 . 4 2 . Rising: QE2. 40; beyond: QG2. 54, QE2.47; see further Harl Quisrerum 121 n. 3. 6 7
6 8
6 9
Philo
73
did study t h e h e a v e n s before t h e divine call, but later h e left this o c c u p a t i o n for the higher w a y of t h e wise m a n and lover of G o d . The individual w h o has gained a t h o r o u g h m a s t e r y of t h e h e a v e n s but not self-knowledge has acted foolishly, for a n interest in h e a v e n for its o w n sake w h i c h does n o t lead t h e individual to a higher understanding is useless. 7 0
71
As if to c o u n t e r his o w n emphasis o n h e a v e n , Philo often takes a w a y its usual prerogatives. He notes that Genesis says that plants w e r e c r e a t e d before h e a v e n , a n d takes this as evidence that sublunary g e n e r a t i o n is not controlled by h e a v e n but directly by God, w h o has a r r a n g e d t h e c r e a t i o n in this s e q u e n c e because of his foreknowledge of t h e error of t h e astrologers in attributing generation to t h e stars instead of to G o d . The destruction of S o d o m a n d G o m o r r a h s h o w e d that it was not h e a v e n or sun w h i c h b r o u g h t a b o u t t h e times a n d seasons, but t h e p o w e r of G o d . At times Philo speaks as if t h e stars w e r e not a u t o n o m o u s but w e r e simply instruments of t h e divine will: 7 2
7 2
He [sc. God] has set each star in its proper circuit as a driver in a chariot, and yet He has in no case trusted the reins to the driver, fearing that their rule might be one of discord, but He has made them all dependent on Himself, holding that thus would their march be orderly and har monious. 74
E l s e w h e r e he suggests that t h e m o v e m e n t s in h e a v e n are simply extensions of God's o w n divine p o w e r . E v e n w h e n h e affirms the a u t o n o m y of the stars, Philo often seems eager to downplay their i m p o r t a n c e . In contrast to God w h o acts completely impassively, t h e sun, m o o n , h e a v e n , and t h e w h o l e world a r e not free (OVK 6'vra aOrE^ouaia) but are subject to a p o w e r w h i c h is 7 5
7 0
Cher. 7. See Walther VSlker, Fortschritt und Vollendung bei Philo von Alexandrien, TU 49. 1 (Leipzig: J . C. Hinrichs, 1938), 183 f., and Monique Alexandre, 'La Culture profane chez Philon', in Roger Arnaldez et al. (eds.), Philon d'Alexandrie (Paris: Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1967), 116. Op. 45 f. Cf. Sibylline Oracles 3. 2 1 8 - 3 0 , with J . J . Collins's note in James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha ("Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), 1. 367. QG 4. 51, cited by Chadwick 'Philo' 139 n. 4, who refers to the Greek fragments in the LCL Philo supplement (2. 217f. Marcus). Cher. 24, trans. LCL (slightly adapted). Cf. Op. 46, QE 2. 55. and also 1 Enoch 43: 1. QE2. 51;cf.Ato. 2. 238. 7 1
7 2
73
7 4
7 5
Philo
74 7 6
b e y o n d their c o n t r o l . Again, after discussing h o w t h e h e a v e n l y bodies provide us with k n o w l e d g e of t i m e a n d n u m b e r a n d i n n u m e r a b l e o t h e r benefits, Philo adds t h a t these operations in n a t u r e 'are invariably carried o u t u n d e r ordinances a n d laws w h i c h God laid d o w n in His universe as u n a l t e r a b l e ' . They rule w h a t is below t h e m o o n , but a r e themselves subordinate to God, acting as his lieutenants (Onapxoi)7 The h e a v e n l y bodies h a v e not c r e a t e d themselves a n d are not self-sufficient, but h a v e c o m e into being by t h e perfection of t h e c r e a t o r . 77
8
7 9
Therefore Philo repeatedly m a k e s plain that it is w r o n g t o worship h e a v e n , in keeping with a longstanding polemic of Hellenistic J u d a i s m . T h o u g h h e is u n s u r e of t h e stars' precise ontological status, h e k n o w s t h a t t h e y a r e part of t h e c r e a t e d o r d e r a n d so o n a footing with us r a t h e r t h a n with God. 8 0
8 1
Let us then reject all such imposture and refrain from worshipping those who by nature are our brothers, even though they have been given a substance purer and more immortal than ours, for created things, in so far as they are created, are brothers, since they have all one Father, the Maker of the universe. 82
A n d so Philo takes a w a y with his right h a n d w h a t h e gives us with his left. He follows t h e c o n v e n t i o n s of his day in h o n o u r i n g the stars, but h e is b o t h t o o good a J e w a n d t o o good a Platonist to take this t o its logical c o n s e q u e n c e s . F o r all their glory, t h e stars are distinctly inferior to God, w h o is above h e a v e n . T h e cosmological inconsistencies w h i c h w e r e present individually in Plato, Aristotle, a n d t h e Stoa c o m e to a c r e s c e n d o in Philo, a n d this h a p p e n s in part b e c a u s e h e is n o t able to criticize a n d correct his t e a c h e r s , a n d b e c a u s e h e has s o m e t i m e s combined his sources in a clumsy w a y , but it has also h a p p e n e d because of his philosophical a n d religious integrity: h e refuses t o put anything 7 6
Cher. 88, Spec. 1. 14. Op. 60 f.. trans. LCL. Spec. 1. 13 f., 19, Conf. 173, QG 4. 51. Cont. 5, Dec. 58. Congr. 51. Ill, Her. 97, Dec. 52f., 66, Deus 62, Conf. 173. Deut. 4: 19; 1 Enoch 8 0 : 7; Wisdom of Solomon 13: 1-3; Apocalypse of Abraham 7: 9; ps.-Clem. Rec. 5. 16. 4 (173. 2 0 - 3 Rehm). For rabbinic sources see Joseph Barbel, Christos Angelos. Theoph 3 (Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1941), 218f., Johann Maier, 'Die Sonne im antiken Judentum', ANRW 2. 19. 1 (1979). 366, 388 f. Dec. 64, trans. LCL. 7 7
7 8
7 9
8 0
8 1
8 2
Philo
75
(even t h e stars) o n t h e s a m e level as God. His efforts a r e of great i m p o r t a n c e for students of Origen, because Origen will follow h i m b o t h in attempting to present a scriptural cosmology, a n d in placing strict limitations o n t h e usual pagan religious under standing of h e a v e n . One idea, h o w e v e r , w h i c h Origen adopts a n d w h i c h is not present in Philo or a n y of the classical philosophical schools is the recognition of the possibility of evil in h e a v e n . This view, w h i c h is of great i m p o r t a n c e for Origen in understanding the place of t h e stars in the divine e c o n o m y , gradually developed in Hellenism, a n d e x e r t e d a great influence o n early Christianity. That t h e heavenly bodies affected t h e life below was a philosophical c o m m o n p l a c e , but o u r sources in the early imperial e r a a r e sharply divided about t h e n a t u r e of this influence. The attempts to r e a c h s o m e evaluation of t h e astral p o w e r s in m o r a l t e r m s a n d t h e subsequent impact of these debates will be the topic of t h e n e x t chapter.
6 THE H E A V E N L Y P O W E R S
HEAVENLY POWERS AS GOOD OR AS MORALLY NEUTRAL W e h a v e already s e e n t h a t interpretation of h o w t h e soul enters u p o n g e n e r a t i o n is a p r o b l e m in this e r a since Plato's Timaeus says that it is t h e result of t h e goodness of t h e d e m i u r g e while t h e Phaedrus links it to t h e sin of t h e pre-existing soul. T h e r e was therefore a good deal of disagreement a m o n g t h e later Platonists about t h e c h a r a c t e r of t h e c o s m o s a n d t h e soul's incorporation. W a s t h e world a n d o u r life part of a divine plan? Those w h o adopted this understanding of Plato interpreted t h e soul's i n c o r p o r a t i o n as providential a n d t h e h e a v e n l y bodies as assist ants t o a kindly design. A n o t h e r interpretation of Plato stressed that this life h a s c o m e about b e c a u s e of sin a n d error, and so took a v e r y different v i e w of t h e c o s m o s . Plato's o w n attitude n o doubt w a s n e a r e r t h e f o r m e r t h a n t h e l a t t e r , but t h e negative understanding of t h e universe is also a n extension of Platonic t h o u g h t , a n d gained a great following. 1
T h e positive interpretation of Plato's discussion of t h e descent of t h e soul in t h e Timaeus interpreted it as a necessity arising o u t of divine g o o d n e s s . Plotinus writes simply in his treatise Against the Gnostics, 'To ask w h y t h e Soul m a d e t h e world, is to ask w h y t h e r e is a Soul a n d w h y a M a k e r m a k e s . ' T h e emphasis of this interpretation, following Plato b o t h in t h e Republic a n d in t h e Timaeus, is t h a t God is i n n o c e n t of a n y evils t h a t beset h u m a n life. The world of generation, w h i c h is m a i n t a i n e d a n d g o v e r n e d 2
3
4
1
C. J . de Vogel, 'Was Plato a Dualist?', Rethinking Plato and Platonism, MnSuppl 92 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1986), 1 5 9 - 2 1 2 . A. J. Festugiere, Revelation, 3. 76, Dodds, Proclus, 305. 2. 9. 8. 1 f., trans. Stephen MacKenna (adapted). Plato Rep. 3 7 9 c 2 - 7 , 617e5, Tim. 42d3f., Alcinous Did. 16 (172; 8 Hermann); Maximus of Tyre 41. 5 (482, 1 ff. Hobein); Plutarch De An. Procr. in Tim. 1015c (6. 151. 1 - 4 Hubert); Hierocles In Aur. Pythag. Car. 25. 15 (109. lOff. Kohler); O f 4. 8 (1. 52. 7f. N/F). For Philo see Volker. Fortschritt, 50. 2
3
4
77
The Heavenly Powers
by t h e stars, m a y be t h e occasion for the soul to be o v e r w h e l m e d by t h e passions, but it is not evil in itself. According to this interpretation, t h e inheritance of m a n k i n d from t h e stars is n o t negative; indeed, u n d e r Stoic influence m a n y claimed that the mind or soul was a portion of t h e celestial e s s e n c e . This view b e c a m e a part of Hellenistic folklore a n d is evident in the mass of epitaphs in antiquity w h i c h express t h e h o p e that t h e departed soul will r e t u r n to its h o m e in the s t a r s . 5
6
Those w h o r e m a i n e d closer to Plato k n e w that the highest part of t h e soul was n o t m a d e of the h e a v e n l y substance. H o w e v e r , the existence of a substance w h i c h literally was on t h e b o u n d a r y b e t w e e n t h e incorporeal noetic r e a l m of God a n d t h e corporeal world of b e c o m i n g helped explain h o w it was possible for t h e incorporeal soul to be joined to t h e corporeal body. T h e stars b e c a m e a m o d e l for h o w humanity's divine rationality was related to t h e irrationality of t h e sublunary world. The belief began slowly to evolve that t h e soul was joined to t h e body t h r o u g h t h e m e d i u m of a n 'astral body'. T h e f u n d a m e n t a l discussion of this question in m o d e r n scholarship is by E . R. Dodds, w h o opposes t h e older scholarly view that this teaching represents a n oriental influence on Hellenistic t h o u g h t a n d explains t h e c o n c e p t of t h e astral body as part of a d e v e l o p m e n t within Greek philosophy. W h a t apparently h a p p e n e d is that a group of eclectic philosophers in t h e second and third centuries AD c o m b i n e d passages in Plato a n d Aristotle w h i c h w e r e very close to t h e Stoic view of the soul. Plato h a d written t h a t corporeal vision occurs as a result of a fine, s m o o t h , n o n destructive fire w h i c h is emitted from the eye a n d combines with light, w h i c h is akin to it, forming a bond b e t w e e n t h e soul and that w h i c h is s e e n . Light t h e n is t h e m e d i u m b e t w e e n soul and the w o r l d . In a n isolated passage Aristotle o n c e suggested that there is a psychic material in t h e pneuma in h u m a n sperm w h i c h 7
8
9
5
See above ch. 3, n. 34. The idea predates Plato, see Euripides Hel. 1016 and frag. 961 (Nauck), the famous inscription at Plataea (CIA 1. 4 4 2 ) , and ch. 1 n. 10, but was further spread by Platonism. The literature on this topic is considerable, see among others A. J . Festugiere, L'Ideal religieux des grecs et Itvangile (2nd edn., Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1981), 1 4 3 - 6 0 . Proclus, 3 1 3 - 2 1 . 7»H.45b4-d3. See also Rep. 5 0 7 e 6 - 5 0 8 a 2 . 6
7 8 9
78
The Heavenly Powers 1 0
is analogous to t h e s t a r s . B o t h these views a r e easily confused with t h e Stoic v i e w that t h e soul is m a d e of e t h e r o r pneuma, a n d that e t h e r and pneuma h a v e s o m e close relationship with e a c h o t h e r a n d with t h e stars (and indeed are often said to be o n e a n d the s a m e ) . The later Platonic astral body t h e o r y suggests that t h e star w h i c h in t h e Phaedrus m y t h acts as t h e soul's vehicle (oxrjpa) is in fact a reference to t h e l u m i n o u s body w h i c h joins the soul a n d t h e physical body. The gap b e t w e e n m i n d a n d m a t t e r is bridged by positing a body of pneuma or light w h i c h is s o m e h o w related to both, just as physical vision unites t h e m i n d to t h e world. 11
It was a n idea w h o s e t i m e h a d c o m e . Heraclides Ponticus already m a y h a v e b e e n working t o w a r d a similar solution in his v i e w that t h e soul's n a t u r e w a s l u m i n o u s , a v i e w followed by Plutarch and o t h e r s . Such a t t e m p t s a r e n o t surprising since t h e ancient association of soul o r m i n d with t h e h e a v e n s continually c a u s e d philosophers to discuss t h e m in t e r m s of a n astral substance. The difficulty for Platonists and Peripatetics w a s t o do so w i t h o u t falling into Stoic m a t e r i a l i s m — a snare into w h i c h Philo stumbled a n d could n o t escape. The v i e w that t h e astral substance was not t h e substance of t h e rational soul but its vehicle retained t h e idea that t h e best part of h u m a n i t y w a s related t o t h e s t a r s — a n opinion n o w shared o n all sides—while preserving a n immaterialist psychology. T h e star, w h i c h is physically visible a n d m o v e s in t h e world of g e n e r a t i o n but w h i c h also is c o m m a n d e d by a purely noetic essence, b e c o m e s t h e paradigm of t h e h u m a n s o u l . 1 2
1 3
15
The identity of t h e first representative of this synthesis is n o t clear. Dodds cites a passage from Galen (late second c e n t u r y AD) as t h e earliest e x t a n t discussion of t h e p n e u m a t i c v e h i c l e , but h e n o t e s similar passages in a variety of writers f r o m a r o u n d t h e s a m e e r a , s o m e of w h o m a r e hard t o d a t e . It seems that t h e 15
1 6
1 0
S e e c h . 2 , n . 17. 247b2, cf. Epin. 986b4. Seech. 1 n. 151. Aetia Rom. et Graeca 2 8 1 b (2. 313. 22f. Titchener), De Sera Num. Vind. 565c (3. 437. 5 - 9 Pohlenz), De hat. Viv. 1130b (6. 2 2 1 . 1 8 - 2 2 Pohlenz/Westman = Heraclides frag. 100 Wehrli); ps.-Clementine Horn. 9. 9. 5 (135. 11 f. Rehm). See Moraux, 'Quinta', 1 1 7 3 , 1 2 4 9 . Dodds Proclus, 316. Ibid. 317, and also Oracula Chaldaica frag. 120 (des Places). The Oracula date from about the same time as Galen. 11
1 2 13
1 4
1 5
1 6
The Heavenly Powers
79
philosophical potential of this idea w e n t largely u n n o t i c e d for a long time. Origen's o p p o n e n t Celsus (CAD 1 7 8 ) k n o w s t h e idea in c o n n e c t i o n with claims about the bodies of ghosts, but dismisses i t , a n d later Plotinus is familiar with the n o t i o n of a n astral body but is n o t particularly i n t e r e s t e d . Only after Origen, in the tradition of interpretation w h i c h begins with P o r p h y r y a n d his student Iamblichus, does Platonism begin to clarify t h e precise n a t u r e of t h e astral body both in h e a v e n a n d existing as the vehicle for t h e h u m a n soul. At this later point, t h e astral soul b e c o m e s a t e n e t in systematic, n e o - P l a t o n i c p h i l o s o p h y . B u t in Origen's day, the c o n c e p t of t h e soul's astral vehicle was still a n intellectual e x p e r i m e n t w h i c h could be developed in several different ways. 17
18
19
A particularly i m p o r t a n t d e v e l o p m e n t in this e x p e r i m e n t is t h e t h e o r y of a planetary c o m p o n e n t in the structure of t h e soul. T h e g r o w t h of interest in astrology in t h e Hellenistic era led to a special emphasis o n t h e influence of t h e planets o n t h e soul, since astrology is very m u c h c o n c e r n e d with t h e effects of t h e various planetary positions o n all generation. T h e part that Plato had assigned to t h e 'young gods' in t h e c r e a t i o n of t h e t w o l o w e r parts of t h e s o u l was seen, as in astrology, as t h e influence of a particular planetary characteristic o n t h e soul as it c a m e into generation. This a p p r o a c h to t h e understanding of the soul's relation to h e a v e n was popular in a variety of philosophically eclectic m o v e m e n t s just before and after t h e beginning of the c o m m o n era. The texts w h i c h are e x t a n t from these m o v e m e n t s could be classified in m a n y w a y s , but t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t o n e for the c u r r e n t problem is b e t w e e n a p p r o a c h e s w h i c h reflect cosmic optimism a n d a n i m p o r t a n t t e n d e n c y to cosmic pessimism. 2 0
The positive interpretation of planetary influence needs little explanation since it is a c o n t i n u a t i o n of the traditional philo sophical understanding of t h e h e a v e n l y bodies as a divinely 17
CCel. 2. 6 0 ( 1 . 183. 7 - 1 6 K.). Dodds. Proclus, 318. Ibid. 319 f. See also Robert Christian Kissling's 'The Ochema-Pneuma of the neo-Platonists and the De Insomniis of Synesius of Cyrene', A / P 4 3 (1922), 3 1 8 - 3 0 ; for Porphyry: Andrew Smith, Porphyry's Place in the Neoplatonic Tradition (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1974), 152-8; for Iamblichus: John F. Finamore, Iamblichus and the Theory of the Vehicle of the Soul (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985); Proclus: J . Trouillard, 'Reflexions sur l'ochema dans Proclus', REG 70 (1957), 1 0 2 - 7 . See ch. 1 n. 93. 1 8
1 9
2 0
80
The Heavenly Powers
ordained part of t h e c o s m o s . To t h e planets w e r e assigned a variety of roles w h i c h preserved this traditional v i e w that t h e y w e r e not to be t h o u g h t of as evil o r inferior. T h e r e are m a n y e x a m p l e s a m o n g t h e Hellenistic philosophers. Iamblichus says that t h e 'older philosophers' think t h a t t h e visible gods, especially t h e sun, purify t h e ascending s o u l , and m a n y Platonists shared t h e idea that t h e planets g u a r d e d t h e h e a v e n s against u n w o r t h y souls a n d aided t h e ascending souls of t h e v i r t u o u s . Some believed t h a t t h e planets e a c h added something of their o w n essence to t h e descending soul, a n d in m a n y cases again t h e planetary effect is either positive or at least n o w o r s e t h a n m i x e d . Plutarch says that t h e m o o n provides t h e individual with soul a n d t h e sun provides him with m i n d , a n d beginning with P o r p h y r y it b e c o m e s c o m m o n in later Platonism to suggest that t h e soul's astral body (or p n e u m a t i c vehicle) w a s from t h e planetary spheres a n d w a s reabsorbed by t h e m in t h e soul's a s c e n t . P o r p h y r y a n d a n u m b e r of o t h e r sources describe o u r inheritance f r o m t h e planets in t e r m s w h i c h a r e neither wholly positive n o r wholly negative. F o r e x a m p l e , P o r p h y r y writes t h a t souls descending from t h e m o o n a r e b o t h h o t - t e m p e r e d a n d gentle. Or again, Servius (late fourth c e n t u r y ) says t h a t t h e natural scientists (physici) t e a c h that w e receive spiritus (i.e. pneuma) f r o m t h e sun, body from t h e m o o n , blood from Mars, inventiveness f r o m M e r c u r y , desire for h o n o u r s from Jupiter, passions f r o m Venus, a n d tears f r o m S a t u r n . O n e H e r m e t i c fragment says t h a t all seven planets a r e in us, since w e receive tears f r o m S a t u r n , birth from Jupiter, speech (Xdyoq) from M e r c u r y , anger from M a r s , sleep from t h e m o o n , desire from 21
22
2 3
2 4
25
2 6
2 1
r^Mniwflap. J . Stobaeus£d. < 1 . 4 5 5 . 1 f. Wachsmuth). Plutarch De Genio Socr. 591c (3. 4 9 6 . 1-8 Sieveking); J . Lydus De Mens. 4. 149 (167. 2 1 - 1 6 8 . 9 Wiinsch). De Fac. 943a (5. 2. 8 2 . 2 2 - 4 Pohlenz); cf. Porphyry Sent. 2 9 (19. 6 - 1 0 Lamberz). Porphyry ap. J . Stobaeus Eel. (2. 171. 2 Wachsmuth), Sent. 2 9 (18. 7 Lamberz), In Tim. frag. 16 (10. 6f. Sodano); reabsorbed: 'followers of Porphyry' in Porphyry In Tim. frag. 8 0 (68. 1 6 - 6 9 . 6 Sodano; for this phrase see Andrew Smith, 'Porphyrian Studies since 1913', ANRW2. 36. 2 (1987), 765 n. 3 0 0 ) . The common source of Proclus In Tim. (3. 6 9 . 1 4 - 2 3 and 3. 355. 9 - 1 8 Diehl) and Macrobius In Somn. Scip. 1. 12. 14 (50. 1 5 - 2 4 Willis) is probably Porphyry: note the attribution of imagination to the sun in Porphyry (Sent. 2 9 , and ap. Stobaeus Eel. 1. 430. 7 - 9 Wachsmuth) and in the parallel Proclus/Macrobius passages. In Tim. frag. 22 (14. 1-6 Sodano). In Aen. 11. 51 ( 2 . 4 8 2 f. Thilo). 2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5
2 6
The Heavenly Powers Venus, a n d l a u g h t e r f r o m t h e s u n . Corpus
Hermeticum
speak
of
the
2 7
81
T h r e e o t h e r passages in t h e soul's
ascent
through
the
h e a v e n l y bodies w i t h o u t suggesting t h a t t h e r e is a n y t h i n g w r o n g w i t h t h e m — t h e y just h a p p e n t o c o m e b e t w e e n t h e soul a n d t h e transcendent G o d .
2 8
T h e r e is evil in t h e world, but t h e r e is n o
indication h e r e t h a t this is t h e fault of t h e planets, w h o a r e h e r e (as in the Timaeus) instruments of a higher purpose w h i c h is good. The
a d h e r e n t s of M i t h r a i s m t a u g h t t h a t t h e ascending
needed
to
deal
with
good
but
somewhat
more
soul
menacing
h e a v e n l y beings. Their appreciation of the planets' fearful p o w e r s may
well
be
linked
to
their strong interest in
astrology.
29
Reinhold M e r k e l b a c h observes t h a t t h o u g h M i t h r a i s m h a s its roots in Persian religion, it h a s b e e n so deeply p e n e t r a t e d by Greek ideas t h a t o n e m u s t speak of it as a n e w religion; h e also n o t e s t h a t its teachings h a v e b e e n particularly influenced Platonism.
3 0
by
That Origen w a s familiar with their t e a c h i n g o n t h e
descent a n d ascent of t h e soul t h r o u g h t h e p l a n e t a r y spheres is a p p a r e n t in o n e of Origen's lengthy citations f r o m Celsus, w h o describes this t e a c h i n g in s o m e d e t a i l .
31
Celsus says t h a t t h e
Mithraic doctrine ( w h i c h h e regards as essentially Platonic) is
2 7
Frag. 2 9 ( 4 . 9 9 N/F). Probably the influence of classical astrology (which again spoke of both positive and negative planetary attributes) is important here: the claim that Saturn brings tears is also in Vettius Valens 1. 1 (2. 7 Pingree, cf. N/F 3. cxcvi). CH 4. 8 (1. 52. 8 - 1 1 ) , 11. 19 (1. 155. 2 - 5 ) , frag. 2 3 . 2 8 (4. 8 . N/F). At a later date, Hermias of Alexandria In Phaedr. ( 1 3 0 . 4 - 7 Couvreur). Mithraic astrology has been much discussed in recent literature, see Michael P. Speidel, Mithras-Orion: Greek Hero and Roman Army God, EPRO 81 (Leiden: E. J . Brill, 1980), Roger Beck, Planetary Gods and Planetary Orders in the Mysteries of Mithras, EPRO 109 (Leiden: E. J . Brill, 1988), and David Ulansey, The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries (New York: Oxford University, 1989). Mithras (Konigstein: Anton Hein, 1984) vii and 2 3 0 - 4 4 . Caution is necessary since most of the literary sources of Mithraism are by Platonists. R. Turcan argues that they have Platonized their material, Mithras Platonicus, EPRO 4 7 (Leiden: E. J . Brill, 1975), but he goes too far: see Beck, Planetary, 81 f. CCel. 6. 22 (1. 92f. K.). Turcan (Mithras, 50) notes that the planets listed by Celsus correspond with the days of the week and not with any of the usual ancient planetary orders, and suggests that they had a non-spatial interpretation and did not imply an ascent of the soul through the heavens. W e shall see that non-spatial use of astronomical imagery does occur in Jewish and gnostic texts. And yet two factors argue against that as an exclusive interpretation (though it is surely part of the picture): (1) the ladder image itself suggests a spatial understanding (cf. e.g. Philo Somn. 1. 1 5 0 - 3 ) , and (2) the parallels of this text with many other texts in which the interpretation is spatial is not likely to be just coincidental. 2 8
2 9
3 0
3 1
The Heavenly Powers
82
symbolized by a ladder with seven gates a n d a n eighth gate on top w h i c h represent t h e seven planets t h r o u g h w h i c h t h e departed soul ascends to r e a c h t h e eighth, fixed sphere. Celsus' a c c o u n t is supported by a good deal of evidence. The seven gates, e a c h associated with a planet, a p p e a r in several M i t h r a i c mosaics, and it is also evident that t h e seven ranks of believers in Mithraism a r e also e a c h associated with a particular p l a n e t . P o r p h y r y adds t h a t a d h e r e n t s carry symbols of t h e planets a n d the h e a v e n l y regions, a n d celebrate t h e ascent a n d descent of t h e soul in mystic r i t e s . Mithras is depicted with t h e planets o n his c a p , and seven i m a g e r y (symbolizing the planets a n d t h e days of t h e w e e k ) is v e r y c o m m o n in t h e c u l t . V e r m a s e r e n a n d Merkelbach h a v e suggested that t h e Mithraic c a v e symbolizes t h e celestial vault, w h i c h is w h y t h e ceiling of the M i t h r a e u m is a r c h e d a n d s o m e t i m e s a d o r n e d with s t a r s . 32
33
3 4
3 5
3 6
The precise c h a r a c t e r of t h e planets in Mithraism is unclear. Presumably t h e planets could aid or hinder t h e ascending soul at d e a t h , and the rites of t h e cult prepared the individual for t h e difficult j o u r n e y back to his t r u e h o m e in t h e stars. Since t h e stars h a v e c o m e into being b e c a u s e of M i t h r a s ' sacrifice of t h e b u l l , t h e y c a n n o t h a v e b e e n simply evil, for in Mithraism t h e c o s m o s is the result of a divine act, not a divine oversight. One of t h e principle w a y s M i t h r a i s m differed from both gnosticism a n d m u c h of later Platonism w a s t h a t it lacked a m y t h of t h e soul's fall into g e n e r a t i o n , a n d with it a sense of heavenly tragedy or 3 7
38
39
3 2
Mosaics: see CIMRM 2 3 9 , 287, 2 9 9 . Seven ranks: see Reinhold Merkelbach, Weihegrade und Seelenkhre der Mithrasmysterien (Opladen: Westdeutscher, 1982), 14, and Mithras, 77. The image of the ladder with seven gates also appears in the Oracula Chaldaica frag. 164 (des Places). De Antro Nympharum 6 (60. 1-4 and 9 - 1 1 Nauck). Turcan, Mithras, 67. There are seven stars on Mithras' cape (CIMRM 2 4 5 , 310, 368, 3 9 0 ) , Mithras is the 'god of seven rays' (CIMRM 101, 126), the cultus at Dura-Europas is reached by seven steps (see Roger Beck, 'Mithraism since Franz Cumont', ANRW2. 17. 4 (1984) 2017 n. 23), etc. M. J . Vermaseren, Mithras, the Secret God (London: Chatto & Windus, 1963), 158; Merkelbach, Mithras. 2 0 1 . Beck, Planetary, 7 8 , says that the Mithraic rite should be seen as the realization of the soul's heavenly ascent rather than its anticipation, but in my view this need not be a case of either/or. Merkelbach, Mithras, 201. Hence Mithras is genitor luminis. See R. Turcan, 'Salut mithriaque et soteriologie neoplatonicienne', in Ugo Bianchi and M. J . Vermaseren (eds.). La soteriologia dei culti orientali nell' impero romano, EPRO 92 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982), 180. 3 3
3 4
3 5
3 6
3 7
3 8
3 9
The Heavenly
Powers
83
error. The w r a t h of the planets was not therefore due t o their native m a l e v o l e n c e , but perhaps w a s reserved for those souls w h i c h h a d n o t purified themselves during their terrestrial life a n d w h i c h h a d not participated in the Mithraic rite o r learned its lore. Completion of the rite w o u l d enable the initiate to pass t h r o u g h the planetary gates t o higher and higher levels of reality, so that the fullest m e m b e r s could go b e y o n d all t h e planetary guardians and enter h e a v e n . 4 0
HEAVENLY P O W E R S AS MORALLY EVIL
(a) Pagan
sources
In o t h e r circles within pagan Hellenistic t h o u g h t , planetary influence o n the soul w a s u n d e r s t o o d in completely negative t e r m s . The e m e r g e n c e of the idea that the stars might be evil p o w e r s w h i c h t h e soul m u s t evade o r defeat is a n event of great i m p o r t a n c e . H e a v e n h a d b e e n t h e o n e place w h i c h t h e older philosophy t h o u g h t w a s free of evil, a n d n o w in m a n y separate groups it c a m e to be regarded as in fact t h e s o u r c e of evil in t h e c o s m o s . The origins of this cosmic pessimism a r e obscure, but t w o w a y s of speaking about t h e stars contributed t o their transformation from mankind's dearest friends t o its bitterest enemies. First, it is probable t h a t t h e g r o w t h in astrology contributed t o a negative appraisal of t h e visible h e a v e n s . This w a s not because of the attitude of the m o r e traditional a n d sophisticated astrologers, w h o a d h e r e d to the older philosophical 4 1
4 0
Cf. 'the Magi' ap. Arnobius Adv. Nat. 2. 6 2 and 2. 13 (97. 2 4 - 7 and 58. 2 0 - 3 Reifferscheid). There are many parallels in gnosticism: see the teachings of the Naasseni with regard to entrance into the 'gate of heaven', Hippolytus Ref. 5. 8 . 4 4 (164. 2 3 2 - 7 Marcovich), and their use of scripture in 5. 8. 18 ( 1 5 8 . 9 3 - 6 Marcovich), or the gnosis of the 'Gnostics' in Epiphanius Pan. 26. 10. 7 (1. 288. 3 7 Holl), and of the Simonians in 21. 2 (1. 2 4 3 . 5 - 1 0 Holl). Cf. also the Book of Jeu 2. 4 4 (103. 1 0 - 1 3 Schmidt/MacDermot), the First Apocalypse of James (NH 5.' 33. 5 34, 2 0 ) , Marcosians ap. lrenatus AH 1 . 2 1 . 5 ( 1 . 2 , 3 0 4 - 6 R/D), the Gospel according to Mary (BG 16. 1 2 - 1 7 . 7 ) , and PGM4. 585 ff. See the famous discussion in Hans Jonas, Gnosis und spatantiker Geist, FRLANT 5 1 , 63 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1934, 1954). Jonas suggests that the theme of an evil heavenly inheritance arose first in pagan sources and then spread to gnosticism, 1. 183 f.; Jorg Biichli argues the reverse, Der Poimandres: Ein paganisiertes Evangelium (Tubingen: J . C. B. Mohr, 1987), 132. The strands are very difficult to separate at this point. 4 1
The Heavenly Powers
84
42
idea that n o n e of t h e h e a v e n l y bodies a r e e v i l . T h e fact that t h e planets h a d various influences did n o t m e a n that t h e y w e r e malevolent; t h e y w e r e all good, but t h e y s o m e t i m e s inadvert ently h a d damaging effects o n t h e life b e l o w as t h e y w e n t a b o u t their d a n c e w h i c h m a i n t a i n e d t h e h a r m o n y of t h e universe. It w a s inevitable, h o w e v e r , that o n c e individual fate w a s believed to be entrusted t o t h e care of t h e h e a v e n l y b o d i e s — a point o n w h i c h b o t h astrology and t h e Hellenistic philosophy (with its c o n c e p t of secondary p r o v i d e n c e ) a g r e e d — t h e fact that h u m a n life has bad luck as well as good w o u l d lead people to question the p o w e r s in h e a v e n . T h e strong emphasis of classical astrologers and s o m e p h i l o s o p h e r s o n t h e inexorability of fate a n d t h e vanity of a t t e m p t s to escape it lends itself t o pessimism. B y great intellectual effort t h e Stoics m i g h t c o n c l u d e that all things (including evils) h a p p e n according t o a n o v e r a r c h i n g , beneficial plan, but a n easier conclusion t o d r a w is that s o m e of t h e h e a v e n l y bodies a r e good a n d others a r e e v i l — a n d t h e m o r e pessimistic one's v i e w of t h e world, t h e m o r e malevolent t h e rulers in h e a v e n . 43
A second factor w h i c h w o r k e d in c o n c e r t with t h e first was t h e negative interpretation of Plato's difficult i m a g e r y o n t h e c r e a t i o n of t h e soul in t h e Timaeus. In this dialogue w e h a v e already seen that Plato said that t h e body a n d t h e t w o l o w e r parts of t h e soul w e r e m a d e by t h e 'young gods', t h e stars a n d planets. There certainly is n o hint h e r e that t h e gods in h e a v e n impart evil t o t h e soul. H o w e v e r , Plato also said elsewhere that t h e body w a s a prison a n d a t o m b for t h e s o u l , a n d suggested t h e possibility of an evil W o r l d S o u l , a n d so it w a s perhaps not a big step for t h e interpreters of Plato t o ignore t h e passages w h i c h h o n o u r t h e h e a v e n l y bodies a n d to decide that t h e stars w h o fashion t h e body a n d the irrational parts of the soul a r e in fact t h e minions of a wicked cosmic soul. T h e body a n d its passions lead us astray, the stars m a d e this body (but n o t o u r t r u e , rational self), 4 4
45
4 2
Julian of Laodicea (CCAG 4. 105. 2 8 - 3 1 ) ; J . Lydus De Mens. 4. 41 (98. 1 4 - 2 1 Wiinsch). Iamblichus devotes a chapter to the defence of the stars' goodness, De Myst. 1. 18 (52. 1 7 - 5 7 . 3 des Places). Nechepso/Petosiris frag. 21 (370 Riess); Vettius Valens 5. 6 (210. 6 - 9 Pingree); Manilius4. 14; SVF2. 932; Seneca QN2. 35. Prison: Phaedo 8 2 d 4 - e 4 , cf. Philolaus 4 4 B 15 (D/K); tomb: Crat. 4 0 0 c l - 9 , Phaedr. 2 5 0 c 4 - 6 , cf. Gorgias493al-3. Laws 8 9 6 d 5 - 9 . 4 3
4 4
4 5
The Heavenly Powers
85
therefore t h e r e is evil at w o r k in h e a v e n . This cosmic evil force imprisons t h e good part of the soul m a d e by t h e t r u e , transcend ent God. A pessimistic Platonism along these lines is easily joined to a pessimistic astrology w h e r e not only one's body but one's entire c i r c u m s t a n c e is g o v e r n e d by pitiless a n d u n a p p r o a c h a b l e h e a v e n l y forces. In his c o m m e n t a r y on the Timaeus, Proclus considers t h e already ancient problem of the m e a n i n g of the Atlantis story, a n d m e n t i o n s s o m e of t h e older interpretations. One group of interpreters t h o u g h t that t h e a c c o u n t of a primeval w a r b e t w e e n A t h e n s and Atlantis was a mythological r e f e r e n c e to certain conflicts w h i c h t o o k place before t h e foundation of t h e world. Proclus continues, And some of these trace the solution to the stars and planets, taking the Athenians as an analogy for the stars and the people of Atlantis as an analogy for the planets. They fight because of the contrary revolution [i.e. of the planets]; but the former conquer because of the one revolution of the world. This, at any rate, is the opinion of the noble Amelius, who strains to take these things in this way because in the Critias the island of Atlantis is clearly said to be divided into seven circles. If anyone else is of the same opinion on these teachings, I do not know it. 46
Amelius is a student of Plotinus, a g e n e r a t i o n y o u n g e r t h a n Origen, but w h e t h e r o r not this interpretation of t h e Atlantis story is solely his (he m a y h a v e b e e n influenced by N u m e n i u s ) , t h e idea of a w a r in h e a v e n by this point is not n e w . Already Philo of Alexandria k n o w s similar views, t h o u g h h e is careful to keep his distance: 4 7
I remember once hearing a man who had applied himself to the study [sc. of the heavens] in no careless or indolent manner say that it is not only men who have a mad craving for glory, but the stars too have rivalry for precedence and consider it right that the greater should have the lesser for their squires. How far this is true or mere idle talk is a question I must leave to the investigators of the upper world. 48
4 6
In Tim. (1. 76. 2 1 - 3 0 Diehl). The passage in question is Plato's Critias 1 1 3 e 6 114c4. Cf. Hans Lewy, Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy, ed. Michel Tardieu (Paris: Etudes augustiniennes, 1978), 4 9 9 - 5 0 2 , above, ch. 4 n. 4 3 , ps.-Heraclitus Horn. Probl. 53. 3 (62 Buffiere), and Plutarch Quomodo adol. poet. 19ef ( I . 38. 1 8 - 2 8 Paton/Wegehaupt/Pohlenz). See below, n. 54, and Porphyry Vita Plot. 3. 4 3 - 5 . 4 7
86
The Heavenly Powers
E v e n as traditionalists reaffirmed t h e classical v i e w t h a t t h e r e w a s a perfect h a r m o n y in h e a v e n , voices in s o m e quarters, especially outside t h e traditional philosophical schools, w e r e beginning to suggest that perhaps things w e r e n o t as tranquil as they seemed. Different thinkers began to suspect that t h e r e was something terribly w r o n g with t h e cosmos. In particular, a n u m b e r of p a g a n writers began to regard t h e beings w h o live in t h e planets o r their spheres as altogether evil. The precise origins of this idea a r e obscure, but t h e second c e n t u r y AD o n c e again seems t o h a v e been t h e critical period of g r o w t h for this t h e o r y . A key figure probably was Numenius, w h o s e views a r e often close to those of t h e Chaldaean Oracles a n d t o gnosticism (especially V a l e n t i n i a n i s m ) , a n d w h o was used b o t h by C l e m e n t of A l e x a n d r i a a n d extensively by O r i g e n . N u m e n i u s ' n a m e ( w h i c h m e a n s 'son of t h e n e w m o o n ' ) m a y indicate that h e w a s r e a r e d in circles w h i c h w e r e sympathetic t o a s t r o l o g y , a n d in a n y case s u c h a n interest is reflected in his philosophy. Proclus ( w h o w a s himself interested in the relation ship b e t w e e n Plato a n d a s t r o n o m y / a s t r o l o g y ) disapproved of t h e w a y h e 'stitches t o g e t h e r Platonic expressions w i t h those of astrology and of mystic rites', a n d Macrobius m e n t i o n s his interpretation of t h e Eleusinian mysteries a n d his attention t o t h e o c c u l t . O n e u n u s u a l aspect of N u m e n i u s ' Platonism was his negative understanding of t h e planetary powers. Numenius believed t h e soul's i n c a r n a t i o n is always a n evil, a n d A e n e a s of Gaza writes t h a t N u m e n i u s a n d several others (probably includ ing Amelius, w h o s e views on Atlantis a r e quoted a b o v e ) say that t h e soul c a n be c o r r u p t e d by irrational powers e v e n before its 49
5 0
51
52
5 3
4 8
Somn. 2. 114 f., trans. LCL. See Turcan, Mithras. 80. Dodds notes that Numenius and Valentinus were in Rome about the same time, i.e. 136—40, Entretiens sur antiquite classique, 5 (Geneva: Fondation Hardt, 1960), 178. Clement Strom. 1 . 2 2 . 1 5 0 ( 2 . 9 3 . 11 St.) = frag. 10 Leemans (130. 2 1 - 3 ) . Origen knows five of Numenius' treatises, see Numenius frag, l c (des Places) = frag. 32 (144. 1 5 - 1 8 Leemans), frag. 2 9 (des Places) = frag. 31 (144. 3 - 1 0 Leemans). I refer to both des Places's and Leemans's editions, since the former has valuable notes, introduction, and translation, while the latter on an important point is (in my view) more accurate (see below). Cf. G. Delling, 'Men', trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, TDNT 4 ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 6 3 8 for other examples. Such births were regarded as auspicious. Proclus: frag. 35 ( 8 6 . 1 4 f . des Places) = test. 4 2 ( 1 0 0 . 1 8 - 2 0 Leemans); occult: frag. 55 (des Places) = frag. 39 (146. 1 9 - 2 6 Leemans). 4 9
5 0
5 1
5 2
5 3
The Heavenly Powers
87
54
i n c o r p o r a t i o n . Iamblichus reports t h a t N u m e n i u s thinks that evil is a t t a c h e d to t h e soul externally from m a t t e r . It appears that he believed t h e planets are t h e forces w h i c h corrupt t h e soul as it descends to e a r t h from h e a v e n . First, N u m e n i u s says t h a t the planets ('the gods w h o direct t h e world of becoming') are m i x e d with m a t t e r , w h i c h he identifies as non-being and t h e source of evil. B e c a u s e of this m i x t u r e with m a t t e r , t h e r e is evil in h e a v e n a m o n g t h e h e a v e n l y bodies (the 'corporeal and generated g o d s ' ) . W h i l e the Stoics placed Tartarus in t h e air, Numenius placed it e v e n higher, in t h e planetary region. Proclus writes that Numenius 5 5
5 6
57
58
says that the fixed sphere is heaven and in it are two openings, Cancer and Capricorn, one the opening of descent for generation and the other of ascent. And he says that the planets are the rivers under the earth, for he has these refer to the rivers and even to Tartarus itself. 59
The evil effects of the planets a r e described in Macrobius' Commentarii in Somnium Scipionis. M a c r o b i u s twice ( 1 . 1 1 . 11 f. a n d 1 . 1 2 ) speaks of t h e soul's descent t h r o u g h planetary spheres, a n d scholars h a v e b e e n divided about w h a t his sources w e r e . L e e m a n s links both passages with N u m e n i u s , but this was denied by Rudolf Beutler, w h o said t h a t this v i e w is n o t compatible with N u m e n i u s ' arithmetical definition of t h e s o u l . He was followed by des Places, w h o accordingly did n o t include in his edition of N u m e n i u s either of these passages w h i c h describe planetary influences in h u m a n generation. H o w e v e r , H e r m a n n de Ley (a student of L e e m a n s ) has s h o w n that Beutler's objections a r e not decisive after a l l . F u r t h e r m o r e , M . A. Elferink has d e m o n strated that these discussions in Macrobius a r e not part of the s a m e a r g u m e n t , a n d suggests t h e y c o m e from different s o u r c e s . 60
61
62
5 4
Always evil: frag. 4 8 (des Places) = test. 4 0 (99. 2 1 - 5 Leemans); corrupted: frag. 4 9 (des Places) = test. 41 (99. 2 6 - 1 0 0 . 4 Leemans); for the textual problem associated with Amelius' name see des Places's note. Frag. 43 (des Places) = test. 35 (98. 1 7 - 2 0 Leemans). Frag. 50 (des Places) = test. 2 6 (89. 1-7 Leemans). Frag. 4a (des Places) = frag. 13 (132. 1 8 - 1 3 3 . 2 Leemans). Frag. 52 (desPlaces) = test. 30 (94. 1 6 - 9 7 . 5 Leemans). Frag.35 (des Places) = test. 42 (100. 1 1 - 1 5 Leemans). T 47 ( 1 0 4 - 1 0 Leemans); Beutler's review of Leemans, Gn 16 (1'940), 114, and 'Numenius', PWSuppl. 7 (1940). 677. Macrobius and Numenius, ColLat 125 (Brussels: Latomus, 1972), ch. 2. Les Descentes de I'ame d'apres Macrobe, PhAnt 16 (Leiden: E . J . Brill, 1968), 35; 3 5
5 6
5 7
5 8
5 9
6 0
6 1
6 2
88 The
The Heavenly Powers present a u t h o r c o m e s t o this conclusion
for a
different
r e a s o n , a n d w o u l d suggest t h a t while 1. 1 2 . 1 4 is perhaps derived from P o r p h y r y , 1. 1 1 . 12 c o m e s from Numenius.
This latter
passage states that t h e soul does not suddenly put on an earthly body from its complete incorporeality, but it swells up little by little through quiet setbacks and a very long decline from its simple and absolute purity to certain growths that derive from an astral body (in quaedam siderei corporis incrementa). For in each of the spheres below heaven it is clothed with an ethereal envelope, so that through the spheres it is gradually reconciled to its association with this garb. And so it passes by as many deaths as it does spheres, and comes to what on earth is called life. 63
As de L e y notes, N u m e n i u s elsewhere refers to t h e swelling of t h e passive part of t h e s o u l , a n d this passage is also compatible with N u m e n i u s ' teaching t h a t t h e planetary region is hell. It is f u r t h e r m o r e incompatible w i t h Porphyry's teachings o n t h e descent of t h e soul, w h i c h does not speak of it as e v i l . Since m a t t e r is evil in Numenius, t h e idea that t h e soul is completely incorporeal before entering into life w o u l d strengthen t h e conclusion t h a t Macrobius' source in 1. 1 1 . 12 is Numenius. On t h e o t h e r h a n d , M a c r o b i u s 1. 1 2 . 1 4 , like P o r p h y r y a n d unlike N u m e n i u s , speaks of t h e soul's i n h e r i t a n c e in m i x e d t e r m s , a n d perhaps is derived f r o m P o r p h y r y . 6 4
65
Evil planetary forces a r e m e n t i o n e d in several o t h e r p a g a n sources. A passage in t h e Latin g r a m m a r i a n Servius cited above m e n t i o n s b o t h good a n d evil planetary p o w e r s , but Servius, like Macrobius, draws o n a variety of sources a n d also preserves a n a n o n y m o u s teaching t h a t t h e planets a r e evil a n d impose a particular vice o n t h e descending soul: when souls descend, they draw with them the sloth of Saturn, the wrath of Mars, the lust of Venus, the yearning for money of Mercury, and the cf. de Ley, Macrobius, 22, who agrees that the two sections are not derived from the same passage, but thinks the doctrines in 1. 11. 12 and 1 . 1 2 both come from Numenius. See also Jacques Flamant, Macrobe et le neo-platonisme latin, EPRO 58 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977), 5 4 6 - 6 5 . 6 3
In Somn. Scip. 1. 11. 12 (47. 2 1 - 9 Willis) = test. 4 7 (105. 1 0 - 1 8 Leemans), not in des Places. Macrobius 51 n. 2. Numenius frag. 52 (des Places) = test. 30 (94, 1 2 - 1 4 Leemans). See above n. 25. 6 4
6 5
The Heavenly Powers
89
desire to rule of Jupiter. These things cause disturbance to the souls so that they are unable to exercise their own power and properties. 66
The late t h i r d - c e n t u r y Christian apologist Arnobius attacks a p a g a n g r o u p w h o t e a c h that evil actions a r e d e t e r m i n e d by t h e h e a v e n s . The identity of t h e sect w h i c h Arnobius attacked has been m u c h debated, but, w h o e v e r t h e y w e r e , according to Arnobius they w e r e interested in Numenius' t e a c h i n g . It is apparent that t h e pessimistic interpretation of Plato favoured by N u m e n i u s was not at all unusual in p a g a n circles. 6 7
68
This is also evident in t h e Corpus Hermeticum, a body of literature representing several different v i e w p o i n t s which are both p a g a n a n d close to gnosticism. The Poimandres says t h a t e a c h individual is given part of t h e planetary essence by t h e seven administrators, a n d y e a r n s t o rise above t h e m to t h e eighth s p h e r e . O n c e again t h e perfection of t h e soul is t h e region of t h e fixed stars. The planets, m a d e of fire a n d air, administer t h e world of sense, a n d their c o n t r o l is called F a t e . Ascending t h r o u g h t h e planetary spheres, t h e soul gives back t h e p o w e r of increase a n d decrease in t h e first sphere (i.e. t h e m o o n ) , evil plotting in the second ( M e r c u r y ) , lust in t h e third (Venus), t h e proud desire to rule in t h e fourth (the s u n ) , impiety a n d audacity in t h e fifth ( M a r s ) , greed for wealth in t h e sixth ( J u p i t e r ) , and malevolent falsehood in t h e seventh ( S a t u m ) , a n d escapes t h e rule of F a t e . The planets exercise a baleful influence o v e r us, a n d o u r ultimate goal is to escape their p o w e r . T h e most traditional p a g a n a p p r o a c h t o t h e h e a v e n l y bodies w a s to regard t h e m as good, but m a n y in t h e Hellenistic era regarded t h e m as having a m i x e d c h a r a c t e r , a n d a few e v e n w e n t so far as to suggest t h a t they w e r e altogether evil (and so 'demons' in t h e Christian sense of t h e word). 69
7 0
7 1
7 2
6 6
InAen. 6. 7 1 4 (2. 98. 21-4Thilo). Adv. Nat. 2. 16 (60. 1 0 - 1 5 Reifferscheid), cf. 2. 2 8 (71. 17f.). 2. 11 (55. 13 Reifferscheid). There have been a number of attempts to classify the tractates of the Corpus Hermeticum, see Karl-Wolfgang Troger's summary in Mysterienglaube und Gnosis in Corpus Hermeticum XIII (Berlin: Akademie, 1971), 5 f. 1. 13 (1. 11. 2 - 5 N/F) and 1. 16 (1. 12 N/F). The date of the Poimandres, is uncertain; Biichli, Poimandres. 207, suggests the mid-third century AD. 1 . 9 ( 1 . 9 . 1 7 - 2 0 N/F). 1.25 (1. 15f. N/F). 6 7
5 8
6 9
7 0
7 1
7 2
90
The Heavenly
Powers
(b) Apocalyptic and gnostic sources It is t h e p h e n o m e n o n called gnosticism w h i c h is especially k n o w n for teaching t h a t t h e r e a r e evil powers in h e a v e n . As has often been noted, t h e w o r d 'gnostic' is unsatisfactory. In m o d e r n scholarship the t e r m (following t h e usage of t h e early heresiologists) often lumps t o g e t h e r u n d e r t h e s a m e heading different individuals a n d groups w h i c h (as Origen himself observed) strongly disagreed w i t h e a c h o t h e r . At this point, t h e terminological problem has n o t yet been resolved, mainly b e c a u s e t h e r e is still n o consensus a m o n g m o d e r n scholars about w h a t this p h e n o m e n o n is a n d h o w it b e g a n . The w o r d 'gnostic' will be used in w h a t follows to describe those groups w h o s e language a n d imagery has b e e n strongly influenced by J e w i s h o r Christian cosmologies, w h o e v e n m o r e t h a n Plato (contrast Origen) a r e d r a w n t o m y t h o l o g y as a m o d e of expression, a n d for w h o m t h e belief t h a t esoteric knowledge (/w»o-tc) delivers t h e individual f r o m evil p o w e r s in h e a v e n is of special i m p o r t a n c e . 7 3
7 4
7 5
Before t h e gnostic understanding of t h e life in t h e h e a v e n l y bodies o r spheres is presented, a digression is necessary to consider t w o topics: ( 1 ) t h e b a c k g r o u n d of gnostic ideas on h e a v e n l y d e m o n s in J e w i s h literature from t h e Hellenistic era with a strong interest in cosmological themes ('Jewish apocalyptic'), a n d ( 2 ) t h e m e a n s by w h i c h gnostic t e x t s m o r e relevant to t h e
7 3
Several Nag Hammadi texts are notable for not reflecting an explicitly Christian theology, but the view that gnosticism ever existed apart from Christianity remains unproved. See further Simone Petrement. he Dieu separe (Paris: du Cerf, 1984), especially 5 7 3 - 6 2 8 , 'Les Ouvrages dits non Chretiens'. In Matth. Comm. Ser. 35 (11. 6 6 . 1 2 - 1 5 Kl.). This is evident within the Nag Hammadi treatises. In contrast to many of the works in this find, the Melchezidek (NH 9) and the Gospel of Truth (NH 1, 2 0 , 1 0 - 1 4 ) are not docetic, the Silvanus (NH 7. 116. 5 - 9 ) warns against denigrating the demiurge, and the Apocryphon of John (NH 2. 22. 1 1 - 1 5 ) regards the serpent as evil. Some have suggested that the teachings of an early gnostic sect can be isolated in a certain group of treatises, many of which were discovered at Nag Hammadi, and that this s e a was foundational for later gnosticism, especially Hans-Martin Schenke, 'Das sethianische System nach Nag-Hammadi-Handschriften', Studia Coptica, ed. Peter Nagel (Berlin: Akademie, 1974), 165-73, and id. 'The Phenomenon and Significance of Gnostic Sethianism', in Bentley Layton (ed.), The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, SHR 41 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981), 2. 5 8 8 - 6 1 6 . If this were true, such a group could arguably be denned as 'gnostic' in a strict sense. And yet questions remain about whether such a group ever existed, see Frederick Wisse, 'Stalking those Elusive Sethians', in Layton, Rediscovery, 2. 5 6 3 - 7 6 . 7 4
7 5
The Heavenly Powers
91
t h e m e of astral souls c a n be separated from texts w h i c h a r e only of s e c o n d a r y i m p o r t a n c e . Discussion of gnosticism, h o w e v e r it is defined, m u s t include s o m e consideration of c o n t e m p o r a r y J e w i s h speculation. This J e w i s h literature (especially 'apocalyptic') is of special interest for the present topic, b e c a u s e in addition t o being integral to t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of gnosticism, Origen o n m a n y occasions refers to J e w i s h apocalyptic texts ( s o m e of w h i c h a r e only k n o w n t h r o u g h his r e f e r e n c e s ) . 76
This body of literature does not explicitly identify t h e h o m e of the soul after d e a t h as t h e stars, but it frequently uses language w h i c h stops just short of s u c h a n identification. F o r e x a m p l e , it is a c o m m o n p l a c e to say that t h e righteous after d e a t h will s h i n e , a practice w h i c h probably is related t o t h e older H e b r e w tradition of linking divine epiphanies w i t h light ( E x o d u s 3 : 2 , D e u t e r o n o m y 4 : 1 5 ) , but w h i c h c a n readily take o n n e w m e a n i n g in a setting in w h i c h theological speculations a r e routinely c o m b i n e d with a s t r o n o m y . Thus w h e n I Enoch says t h e righteous receive 'garments of glory' a n d 3 Baruch says t h e y g a t h e r in ' c h o i r s ' , w e are o n t h e v e r g e of t h e v i e w t h a t t h e souls a s c e n d t o t h e visible h e a v e n s . Again, since angels a r e often described as fiery, it is significant that t h e fate of t h e righteous is linked to that of a n g e l s . So w h e n t h e Testament of Moses says that Israel will be set in t h e stars, o r w h e n 4 Maccabees says t h e s a m e of t h e m a r t y r s , this m a y well be m o r e t h a n m e t a p h o r i c a l . 7 7
78
79
80
81
As t h e r e is a c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n d a e m o n s a n d stars in m a n y Hellenistic p a g a n t e x t s , so t o o in apocalyptic d e m o n s (or angels) and stars a r e often linked, especially in t h e E n o c h literature. H e r e 7 6
Integral: A. D. Nock. 'The Milieu of Gnosticism', Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, ed. Zeph Stewart (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard, 1972), 1. 4 4 6 f., and Kurt Rudolph, Gnosis, trans. Robert McLachlan Wilson (New York: Harper & Row, 1983), 2 7 7 - 8 0 . Origen: see Hamack Ertrag, part 1, pp. 1 7 - 1 9 , part 2, pp. 4 8 - 5 0 . Daniel 12: 3; 4 Mace. 17: 5; 1 Enoch 39: 7; 104: 2; 2 Enoch 42: 5 , 6 5 : 1 0 , 6 6 : 7 ('J'); 2 Baruch 51: 3; 4 Ezra 7: 97; cf. Odes of Solomon 2 1 : 3 . All references to Jewish apocalyptic texts (except Daniel) are taken from Charlesworth (ed.) Pseudepigrapha. I Enoch 62: 15 f.; 3 Baruch 1 0 : 5 . See Barbel, Christos, 2 1 3 - 1 5 , J. Michl, 'Engel I - I V RAC 5 (1962) 85. So also in gnosticism: Hypostasis of the Archons (NH 2 . 9 5 . 9 ) , Iren. AH 2. 1 9 . 6 ( 2 . 2 . 192 R/D). 2 Baruch 51: 10. See further Hans C. Cavallin, 'Leben nach dem Tode im Spatjudentum',>lJv7?lV2. 19. 1 (1979), 267. Test, of Moses 10: 9; 4 Mace. 17: 5 7 7
7 8 7 9
8 0
8 1
The Heavenly Powers
92
82
the angels a r e as n u m e r o u s as the s t a r s , a n d frequently a r e said to regulate their courses a n d h e n c e t h e seasons of t h e y e a r . T h e a u t h o r of 2 Enoch refers t o 'the rulers of t h e stellar orders' a n d 'the angels w h o govern t h e stars and the heavenly c o m b i n a t i o n s ' . In 3 Enoch, t h e r e is a n angel in c h a r g e of e a c h of t h e seven h e a v e n s , while their n u m e r o u s angelic subordinates m o v e t h e h e a v e n l y b o d i e s . The Testament of Adam likewise says t h a t t h e fourth of the six orders of heavenly beings, namely t h e 'authorities', administers all t h e h e a v e n l y b o d y . A n o t h e r c o m m o n i m a g e is the h e a v e n l y body as a chariot pulled by a n g e l s . 8 3
84
85
8 6
87
W h a t is of particular interest is t h e i m p o r t a n c e of t h e idea that t h e r e is conflict in h e a v e n . Occasionally in apocalyptic literature w a r s b e t w e e n t h e stars a r e a sign of t h e world's e n d , a n d it is n o t u n c o m m o n t o see t h e stars described as sinners. According t o 1 Enoch, t h e 'chiefs of t h e stars' a r e said to e r r in their c o u r s e s , and this leads to t h e p u n i s h m e n t of t h e 'seven stars' (i.e. t h e planets), 8 8
89
9 0
And I saw there the seven stars (which) were like great, burning mountains. (Then) the angel said (to me), 'This place is the (ultimate) end of heaven and earth: it is the prison house for the stars and the powers of heaven. And the stars which roll over upon the fire, they are the ones which have transgressed the commandments of God from the beginning of their rising because they did not arrive punctually. And he was wroth with them and bound them until the time of the completion of their sin in the year of mystery.' 91
This apparently m e a n s t h a t t h e seven planets a r e t o be punished for their retrograde rotation. A n o t h e r passage in 1 Enoch w h i c h speaks of the p u n i s h m e n t of t h e stars is m o r e ambiguous,
8 2
1 Enoch A3: 2. J Enoch 75: 3 (the stars are under the angel Uriel); 82: 9 f.; 19: 2 , 4 . 2 Enoch 4 (trans. F. I. Andersen). 3 Enoch 17; cf. 'the spirits of the stars', 46: 1. 4: 4. See 3 Baruch 9: 3 (Slavonic) with H. E. Gaylord's note, 2 Enoch 11: 4, cf. Ps. 67 (68): 5. Sibylline Oracles 5. 5 1 2 - 3 1 ; cf. Re v. 12: 7 f. Origen often cites the Enoch literature, see Klaus Berger, 'Henoch', RAC 14 (1988), 5 3 4 - 6 . 80: 6. 18: 1 3 - 1 6 (trans. E. Isaac). See Isa. 24: 2 1 - 3 , and in the New Testament Jude 13. Cf. also ps.-Clementine Horn. 8. 12 f. (126. 1 6 - 1 2 7 . 11 Rehm). 8 3
8 4
8 5
8 6
8 7
8 8
8 9
9 0 9 1
The Heavenly Powers
93
And I came to an empty place. And I saw (there) neither a heaven above nor an earth below, but a chaotic and terrible place. And there I saw seven stars of heaven bound together in it, like great mountains, and burning with fire. At that moment I said, 'For which sin are they bound, and for what reason were they cast in here.' Then one of the holy angels, Uriel, who was with me, guiding me, spoke to me and said to me, 'Enoch, for what reason are you asking and for what reason do you question and exhibit eagerness? These are among the stars of heaven which have transgressed the commandments of the Lord and are bound in this place until the completion of ten million years, (according) to the number of their sins.' 92
In 3 Baruch the m o o n is said to h a v e b e e n punished by being given its d i m m e r light because it provided Satan with light in E d e n , and the Testament of Solomon suggests that a n evil d e m o n ( n a m e d Onoskelis) travels with the m o o n . The Apocalypse of Abraham reports t h a t the fallen angel Azazel rules the s t a r s . All of these images, but particularly the concept of evil powers w h i c h govern the heavenly bodies, are i m p o r t a n t b a c k g r o u n d to the gnostic c o n c e p t of astral d e m o n s . 9 3
9 4
95
The impact of astrology and also of J e w i s h apocalyptic in giving impetus to a negative interpretation of Plato helps explain gnostic hostility to h e a v e n , but gnosticism's attitude t o w a r d the stars is complicated by other factors specific to it. Gnostic references to heavenly powers are at times intertwined with astrology, n u m e r o l o g y , and its o w n mythology, and in such cases individual heavenly bodies a r e often only of secondary interest. This m a y sound like an odd claim since astrology is c o n c e r n e d with nothing but the m e a n i n g of the stars, a n d gnostic m y t h speaks repeatedly about events in h e a v e n . Astrology, h o w e v e r , is a technique w h i c h describes the significance of stellar p h e n o m e n a for m o r t a l life, and is n o t necessarily interested in w h e t h e r the stars as individuals are good o r bad, or their physical composition, or their ontological relationship to God. Only w h e n astrological teachings are combined with a philosophical interest are the heavenly bodies discussed as living beings. In the absence of such
9 2
9 3
9 4
9 5
21. 1-6 (trans. E. Isaac). Cf. also I Enoch 86 and 88. 9:7. 4: 9; see also 2: 2, 8: 2 - 4 . 14: 6. Rubinkiewicz notes the parallels with I Enoch 1 - 3 6 in Charlesworth,
Pseudepigrapha, 1. 685.
The Heavenly Powers
94
a n interest, t h e stars are seen m e r e l y as t h e instruments of Fate (sifiapfisvr]). S o m e gnostic texts accordingly subordinate t h e h e a v e n l y bodies to this superior p o w e r of F a t e , while o n t h e other h a n d o t h e r texts m a i n t a i n (as t h e philosophers traditionally had) that t h e stars and planets (or their spheres) w e r e vital forces in shaping terrestrial life. The c o n c e r n for t h e visible h e a v e n s is at times further diluted by gnostic m y t h , w h i c h has a spiritualizing t e n d e n c y that is at odds with m o r e physically orientated speculations. Gnosticism will use t h e m e s s u c h as t h e flight of t h e soul t h r o u g h h e a v e n , or astronomically significant n u m b e r s , without necessarily giving t h e m settings w h i c h are physically located. N u m e r o l o g y in this period is especially i m p o r t a n t in w e a k e n i n g t h e astronomical significance of this language. Thus t h e m e s or language w h i c h h a d their origin in a s t r o n o m y in m a n y cases b e c o m e conventional a n d n o longer h a v e a n y real astronomical reference. 9 6
This is evident in t h e w a y that astronomical language is used, a n d again t h e influence of J e w i s h apocalyptic is probably key. P e t r e m e n t suggests that J e w i s h interpretation of t h e seven days of Genesis was of m o r e central i m p o r t a n c e in J e w i s h a n d gnostic speculations on t h e n u m b e r seven t h a n t h e p l a n e t s . Though Petrement's a r g u m e n t is slightly e x a g g e r a t e d — a p o c a l y p t i c texts do at times s h o w a strong astronomical i n t e r e s t — t h i s is a n i m p o r t a n t point w h i c h is b o r n e out in m a n y passages. Specific ally, J e w i s h apocalyptic texts sometimes put God's seat in seventh h e a v e n , but this m a k e s little sense in purely astro n o m i c a l terms: it w a s thus a c o m m o n p a g a n error to believe that t h e God of t h e J e w s , 'the most High', was S a t u r n , the seventh planet a w a y from t h e e a r t h . T h e n u m b e r of the days in t h e 97
9 8
9 9
9 6
7, 8 (7 heavens and an eighth sphere), 12 (from the signs of the zodiac), 2 8 , 30 (the days in a lunar and solar month), 36 (the number of decans), 52 (weeks), 72 (weeks in the Babylonian calender), 360 ( = 72 weeks x 5 days, 12 months x 30 days (i.e. minus the intercalary days), and also 3 6 0 degrees, cf. the Marcosians ap. lien. AH I. 17. 1, 1 . 2 . 2 6 8 R / D ) , a n d 3 6 5 . 9 7 9 8
Separe, 100.
The Book of Baruch ap. Origen Prin. 2. 3. 6. Seventh heaven as the final destiny of the soul: Ascent of Isaiah 8: 14 f., and further Petrement, Separe, 106. Tacitus Hist. 5. 4 (206. 1 0 - 1 5 Halm/Andresen/Kostermann); Celsus ap. CCel. 6. 19 (2. 89. 1 8 - 2 0 K.); J . Lydus De Mens. 4. 53 (110. 7 - 1 0 Wiinsch). Others thought this because the Jews rested on the Sabbath, which in the pagan world was Saturn's day (i.e. because of speculations on the calendar rather than because of speculations on the physical bodies): Tacitus loc. cit., Augustine De Cons. Ev. 1. 2 2 . 3 0 (PL 34. 1055). 9 9
The Heavenly Powers
95
w e e k has b e e n applied by t h e writers of apocalyptic t o t h e h e a v e n s w i t h o u t any c o n n e c t i o n being m a d e b e t w e e n h e a v e n s and planetary circuits: for of course if t h e r e h a d b e e n such a n a w a r e n e s s , God w o u l d h a v e b e e n placed in a higher h e a v e n . A n o t h e r e x a m p l e of this is that t h e n u m b e r of h e a v e n s in apocalyptic and gnostic literature is very often unrelated to planetary p o s i t i o n s . This in t u r n often affected t h e w a y that later literature discussed h e a v e n l y p o w e r s , w h i c h w e r e often n o t tied to particular spheres o r given a n y definite location in h e a v e n . 100
One i m p o r t a n t instance of this is the w a y t h e terms 'heb d o m a d ' a n d 'ogdoad' a r e later used in gnosticism a n d t h e m a g i c papyri. As W a l t e r Scott notes, if these t e r m s referred t o astral p o w e r s , ' h e b d o m a d ' would stand for t h e seven planets, a n d 'ogdoad' would refer to the seven planetary spheres t o g e t h e r with t h e enclosing eighth sphere, but gnostics a n d magicians often use these t e r m s as if t h e y w e r e t h e n a m e of a single h e a v e n l y p o w e r w i t h o u t specific location. F o r e x a m p l e , t h e s e c o n d - c e n t u r y A l e x a n d r i a n Christian Basilides says that t h e A r c h o n of t h e H e b d o m a d is 'Pnzdg ('Spoken') while t h e A r c h o n of t h e Ogdoad is "Apprjrog ( ' U n s p o k e n ' ) . 'Ogdoas' is frequently used as a n a m e of a n evil h e a v e n l y p o w e r in t h e m a g i c papyri. T w o magic formulas q u o t e d by Reitzenstein exemplify this: 101
Child, when you have learned the power of the book you must keep it secret. For in it is the powerful name, which is the name Ogdoas, which directs and administers all, for the angels, archangels, male and female daemons, and all under creation are subordinate to it, a n d again, You must use the great name, which is the name Ogdoas, which administers all things that are according to n a t u r e . 102
'Ogdoas' h e r e does n o t refer t o eight planetary d e m o n s , o r e v e n 1 0 0
e.g. in the Apocalypse of Abraham 19: 9, the stars are all said to be in fifth heaven. In 2 Enoch 11, sun, moon, and stars are all in fourth heaven (for the question of whether the heavenly bodies are thought of as alive in this latter treatise, see F. I. Andersen's note in Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha, 1. 120f.). Cf. The Second Treatise of the Great Seth (NH 7. 58. 1 8 - 2 1 ) . Hippolytus fo/. 7 . 2 5 . 4 ( 2 9 5 . 20 f. Marcovich), cf. 10. 14. 7 f. (392. 3 2 - 8 ) . Richard Reitzenstein, Poimandres (Leipzig: Teubner, 1904), 54 (from PGM 13. 7 4 1 - 6 , 7 5 2 - 4 ) , quoted by Walter Scott, Hermetica (Oxford: Clarendon, 1925), 2. 64f. n. 5. See also the Sophia Jesu Christi 9 5 . 12 f. (230 Till/Schenke), and Sagnard's note to Clement of Alex. Exc.exTheod. 63. 1 ( 1 8 4 - 7 ) . 1 0 1
1 0 2
96
The Heavenly Powers
to a d e m o n in t h e fixed sphere, but has simply b e c o m e a conventional w a y of referring to h e a v e n l y authority. O n c e 'Hebdomad' or 'Ogdoad' refer t o a single entity rather t h a n a group of individual beings, t h e c o n n e c t i o n of this h e b d o m a d or ogdoad to particular planets or spheres b e c o m e s rather hazy. Language which m a y o n c e h a v e h a d a n astronomical m e a n i n g has been transformed into something different. A central part of this process (again with reference to t h e days of t h e w e e k ) was early Christian discussion of the significance of the n u m b e r s seven a n d eight, w h e r e 'eight' b e c o m e s a symbol of perfection because the Christian sabbath is the 'eighth day' replacing the J e w i s h sabbath, which accordingly is a symbol of i m p e r f e c t i o n . The net result is that t h e i m p o r t a n c e of the visible h e a v e n s fades into t h e b a c k g r o u n d , e v e n if it does n o t quite disappear. 103
Thus t w o v e r y different attitudes about t h e h e a v e n s a r e found in t h a t large body of texts w h i c h a r e called gnostic. On t h e o n e h a n d , gnosticism was influenced by astronomical speculation, with the result that s o m e gnostics certainly did link heavenly d e m o n s with definite h e a v e n l y bodies. In these cases, the c o n c e p t of evil powers located in certain stars o r planets is integrated with gnostic m y t h . On the o t h e r h a n d , the idea that such souls inhabit or i n h e r e in certain h e a v e n l y bodies is sometimes only present in a secondary way, overlaid by m o r e central numerological, mythological, o r astrological speculations. Different recensions of the Apocryphon of John exemplify both tendencies. The Apocryphon s t a t e s t h a t the first a r c h o n , Ialtabaoth, brought forth twelve authorities (i^ovaiai). Seven kings w e r e established, o n e over e a c h firmament up to t h e seventh h e a v e n , a n d five over the depth of the abyss. The upper a r c h o n s created seven p o w e r s for themselves, a n d these in t u r n created angels until t h e r e w e r e 3 6 5 in all. This w a s t h e h e b d o m a d of t h e w e e k , w h i c h w a s united in Ialtabaoth's t h o u g h t with seven (of the twelve) authorities, and e a c h of the seven p o w e r s w a s placed over a heavenly firmament. E a c h a r c h o n thus has t w o n a m e s , o n e by w h i c h he is powerful a n d o n e by w h i c h h e c a n be 1 0 4
1 0 3
See Franz Dolger, 'Zur Symbolik des altchristlichen Taufhauses', AuC 4 (1934), 1 6 5 - 8 2 , and Waszink, De Anima. 4 2 9 f. In Origen: In Ps. 118 (21. 2 8 - 3 5 Dev.). NH 2. 10. 27ff. I cite from codex 2. but have checked 3. 4, and the Berlin codex (BG). 1 0 4
The Heavenly
Powers
97
1 0 5
overcome. That this a c c o u n t is c o n n e c t e d with teachings o n t h e existence of planetary d e m o n s is confirmed by parallels of t h e seven masculine n a m e s of t h e seven powers w i t h t h e n a m e s of d e m o n s in Ophite sources, w h e r e t h e association of these d e m o n s w i t h planets is e x p l i c i t . T h e Berlin t e x t of t h e Apocryphon, h o w e v e r , says t h a t t h e first a r c h o n t o g e t h e r with t h e p o w e r s produced Fate (eip.app.evri), and 'bound t h e gods of h e a v e n , angels, d e m o n s , a n d h u m a n i t y t h r o u g h m e a s u r e s , seasons, and times, so that they might be lords o v e r a l l ' . In this recension, w e see that t h e role of specifically planetary o r astral beings is in fact quite h u m b l e , for t h e y a r e subordinated to higher powers w h i c h a r e n o t clearly located. This astrological a p p r o a c h w h i c h subordinates t h e stars to t h e p o w e r s of fate is c o m m o n both in t h e Corpus Hermeticum a n d in g n o s t i c i s m . 106
1 0 7
108
In o t h e r texts astral d e m o n s a r e less i m p o r t a n t simply b e c a u s e t h e y a r e only o n e m y t h a m o n g m a n y . Here allusion m a y be m a d e to h e a v e n l y d e m o n s , but t h e y m a y also h a v e little i m p o r t a n c e . F o r e x a m p l e , in a n untitled w o r k from Nag H a m m a d i ( n o w called On the Origin of the World) t h e r e arise in c h a o s as part of t h e creation seven a n d r o g y n o u s powers of the seven h e a v e n s , e a c h with masculine a n d feminine n a m e s . E a c h is said to dwell in a h e a v e n , a n d so m a y h a v e b e e n t h o u g h t of as planets, but again their leader, t h e d e m i u r g e Ialtabaoth, is called t h e Hebdomad. Since 'Hebdomad' is t a k e n as t h e n a m e of a d e m o n r a t h e r t h a n as a reference to t h e seven planets, it is likely t h a t a n o t h e r m y t h is in effect. Similarly, t h e Valentinians said t h a t t h e s e v e n h e a v e n s 109
1 0 5
That planets have secret names is also asserted in Pistis Sophia 4. 137 (357. 1 0 - 1 7 Schmidt/MacDermot), in CCAG 8. 2. 1 5 4 - 7 , and frequently in the magic papyri, e.g. PGM 1. 1 4 8 - 9 5 . See R. van den Broeck, 'The Creation of Adam's Psychic Body', Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions. FS Gilles Quispel, EPRO 91 (Leiden: E. J . Brill, 1981), 3 8 - 5 7 . Van den Broeck puts the Apocryphon in the tradition of texts in which the soul's pneumatic body is made by the planets. For the Ophites see below n. 128. In codex 2 fate only 'mixes with' the gods, which are not referred to as heavenly (i.e. heaven is not subordinated to the powers), and the first archon acts with the authorities (i.e. the twelve) rather than with the powers, BG 72. 3 - 1 1 (184Till/Schenke),NH2. 2 8 . 1 7 - 3 2 . See CH frag. 12 (3. 61 N/F), 13. 12 (2. 2 0 5 N/F); ps.-Apuleius Asclep. 19 (2. 319. 5 - 8 N/F). frag. 6. 5 (3, 35 N/F): Hermetica ap. J . Lydus De Mens. 4. 7 (70. 20ff. Wunsch), Trimorph. Prot. NH 13. 4 3 . 1 5 - 2 6 ; Clement Exc. ex Theod. 7 0 . 2 (194 Sagnard); Bardesanes ap. Rene Cadiou, Introduction au systeme origene (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1932), 33, and further Nock, 'Hermetica', Essays, 1. 27. NH 2. 101 L a n d 125. 19 ff. 1 0 6
1 0 7
1 0 8
1 0 9
98
The Heavenly
Powers
are noetic angels. O n c e m o r e they a r e subordinated to t h e d e m i u r g e , w h o is called t h e H e b d o m a d , a n d t o a n o t h e r individual w h o is called t h e Ogdoad, w h o is t h e demiurge's m o t h e r Achamoth. In view of the complicated mythologies of these groups, it is h a r d to imagine t h a t w h e n t h e individuals w h o used these t e x t s referred t o t h e d e m i u r g e Ialtabaoth t h e y all t h o u g h t of Saturn, a n d w h e n t h e y referred t o A c h a m o t h t h e y all t h o u g h t of t h e fixed sphere. O t h e r sets of problems a p p e a r to h a v e h a d m u c h greater i m p o r t a n c e . Again, w h e n t h e Valentinian M a r c u s says that e a c h of t h e seven h e a v e n s utters a vowel, a n d these c r e a t e t h e world below, this m a y a p p e a r t o suggest t h a t t h e planets a r e living, demiurgic p o w e r s , but M a r c u s ' t h o u g h t is c o n c e r n e d mainly with n u m e r o l o g y a n d s h o w s little interest in speculations on the planets. 1 1 0
1 1 1
W e h a v e seen (and shall see) m a n y t e x t s w h i c h speak of t h e soul's ascent t h r o u g h t h e seven planets, but it is i m p o r t a n t t o recognize that a n u m b e r of v e r y diverse religious a n d philo sophical concepts h a v e contributed to t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of this t h e m e in t h e Hellenistic e r a , a n d h a v e greatly complicated its analysis. In s o m e t e x t s t h e planets h a v e a n i m p o r t a n t role, but in m a n y others their significance is difficult to determine. 112
T h e Apocalypse of Paul from Nag H a m m a d i illustrates t h e kind of p r o b l e m w h i c h s o m e t i m e s o c c u r s in trying to u n d e r s t a n d gnostic m y t h s in astronomical t e r m s . Paul ascends to t h e third h e a v e n in t h e Spirit (following 2 Corinthians 1 2 : 2-4), a n d t h e n passes toll collectors in t h e fifth and sixth h e a v e n s , again by t h e help of t h e Spirit. These toll collectors cast d o w n t h e souls of those w h o h a d sinned in their earthly lives back into bodies (and so, as in t h e Timaeus m y t h , c o m p e l a transmigration of souls). Finally, in t h e s e v e n t h h e a v e n Paul m e e t s a n old m a n w h o a t t e m p t s to block his p a t h . Instructed by t h e Spirit, Paul delivers a formula a n d t h e n a sign t o t h e old m a n , a n d so is enabled to rise to t h e ogdoad. T h e r e Paul is greeted by t h e twelve apostles. T h e n they rise to t h e ninth a n d t e n t h h e a v e n s a n d Paul greets his fellow spirits, a n d so
1 1 0
Iren. AH I. 5 . 2 (1. 2. 80 R/D), 1. 5 . 4 ( 1 . 2 . 8 4 R/D).
1 1 1
Iren.AHl. 1 4 . 7 ( 1 . 2 . 2 2 6 - 8 R / D ) . See J . Flamant, 'Soteriologie et systemes planetaires', in U. Bianchi and
1 1 2
M. J . Vermaseren (eds.), La soteriologia dei culti orientali neli impero romano, EPRO 92 (Leiden: E. J . Brill, 1982), 2 2 3 .
99
The Heavenly Powers
achieves the ultimate goal of p n e u m a t i c perfection, at w h i c h point t h e treatise e n d s . T h e r e is obviously r o o m h e r e for a n astronomical interpreta tion. Paul's 'third h e a v e n ' of 2 Corinthians is e x p a n d e d to seven, with e a c h h e a v e n guarded by malevolent spirits past w h i c h Paul m a y travel since h e possesses t h e knowledge (yvmmq) of the Spirit. The twelve apostles a r e probably put in t h e ogdoad (rather t h a n in t h e ninth o r t e n t h h e a v e n s , as o n e might h a v e e x p e c t e d ) so that t h e y c a n be identified with the signs of t h e zodiac, a c o m m o n practice in early Christianity, following t h e earlier J e w i s h identification of the zodiac with the twelve p a t r i a r c h s . O n e c a n readily imagine a m y t h i c interpretation in w h i c h a perilous j o u r n e y t h r o u g h t h e seven planets is followed by a happy trip t h r o u g h the twelve signs located in t h e fixed sphere. B u t again t h e r e a r e features w h i c h a r e not part of such a m y t h : t h e o n e d o m i n a n t evil figure is not identified with t h e d o m i n a n t planet, t h e sun, but instead with the J e w i s h God, Daniel's 'ancient of days', located (as often in a p o c a l y p t i c ) , in t h e seventh h e a v e n . The m o s t dangerous figure in h e a v e n is depicted less as a planet, a n d m o r e as t h e H e b d o m a d a n d demiurge, a n d as God of t h e despised Old Testament. A n astronomical m y t h has been overlaid by a n e w and very different m y t h . 1 1 3
114
115
In short, it is often simply h a r d to tell h o w i m p o r t a n t the stars or planets a r e in a given passage. W h e n Saturninus a n d M e n a n d e r say t h e world w a s m a d e by seven angels, do t h e y m e a n t h e p l a n e t s ? W h e n t h e Gospel of the Hebrews says Christ was in Mary's w o m b for seven m o n t h s , does this allude to a descent t h r o u g h the seven p l a n e t s ? W h e n in the History of Joseph the Carpenter J o s e p h travels t h r o u g h seven aeons of darkness, is t h e a u t h o r making a conscious reference to a h e a v e n l y j o u r n e y t h r o u g h t h e evil planets o n t h e w a y to t h e fixed sphere, o r is h e adopting a c o n v e n t i o n a l w a y of speaking about t h e departed soul w h i c h is n o longer c o n n e c t e d with 1 1 6
1 1 7
1 1 8
1 1 5
NH 5. 17. 1 9 - 2 4 . 9 . See Jean Danielou, Primitive Christian Symbols, trans. Donald Attwater (Baltimore: Helicon, 1964), 1 2 4 - 3 5 . See above n. 98. Iren. AH 1 . 2 4 . 1 ( 1 . 2 . 320—2 R/D). Frag. 1 (Hennecke/Schneemelcher, trans. Wilson 1. 163). 2 2 . 1 (18 Morenz). Cf. the soul's ascent through the seven powers of wrath 1 1 4
u
s
1 1 6
1 1 7
1 1 8
in the Gospel of Mary (BG 16. 1 ff.).
The Heavenly Powers
100
speculations o n t h e physical h e a v e n s ? This type of j u d g e m e n t is not easy to m a k e , but it w o u l d appear that in this era astronomical language is often used for purposes w h i c h a r e not astronomical. But e v e n if the role of the visible heavenly bodies is not always clear o r central in gnostic speculation, t h e r e a r e m a n y texts w h i c h do speak openly of astral d e m o n s . S o m e texts, influenced by a m o r e general application of astrological teachings, personify a n d demonize the stars. The Paraphrase of Shem says that Nature gives e a c h of t h e winds a n d d e m o n s a star, a n d t h r o u g h the stars they control life on e a r t h . It also juxtaposes 'demons a n d stars' with 'powers a n d a u t h o r i t i e s ' . Or again, the Valentinian Excerpta ex Theodoto claims that invisible p o w e r s guide the stars a n d specific ally t h e zodiac, a n d that these p o w e r s a r e in s o m e cases good, in o t h e r cases evil, and in o t h e r cases m i x e d . A n early Christian sect called t h e P e r a t a e believed that the stars w e r e gods of destruction, symbolized in scripture by the serpents w h o attacked the Israelites in t h e w i l d e r n e s s . Our world of generation a n d corruption is ruled by e m a n a t i o n s from these evil s t a r s . The book of Elchasai, w h i c h w a s central to a J e w i s h sect in eastern Syria, w a r n s against the p o w e r of evil stars and regulates the group's characteristic baptismal rite in a c c o r d a n c e with astro logical o b s e r v a t i o n s . 119
1 2 0
121
1 2 2
123
1 2 4
125
M o r e c o m m o n o n c e again t h a n t h e t r e a t m e n t of stellar d e m o n s , h o w e v e r , is t h e discussion of planetary d e m o n s , similar to t h e discussion of Mithraic t e x t s above, but n o w (as with N u m e n i u s a n d s o m e of t h e Hermetica) with a distinctly negative interpretation. As m a n y scholars h a v e noted, the idea that t h e soul descends into generation at birth a n d ascends to the fixed sphere at death t h r o u g h evil planetary d e m o n s w h i c h b u r d e n
1 1 9
In this context it should be noted that the aroixeia referred to in Col. 2: 8, 2 0 probably are not evil planetary powers but simply elements, see Eduard Schweizer, 'Slaves of the Elements and Worshipers of Angels: Gal. 4: 3, 9 and Col. 2: 8. 1 8 , 2 0 ' , JBL 107 (1988), 4 5 5 - 6 8 , and Festugiere, L'Ideal, 107 n. 1. NH 7. 27. 25 f. NH7. 34. 7. 6 9 - 7 1 ( 1 9 2 - 4 Sagnard). Cf. also CH 16. 1 4 - 1 6 (2. 236f. N/F). HippolytusRef. 5. 16. 6f. (183. 30-9Marcovich). Ibid. 5. 15. 2f. ( 1 8 1 . 4 - 1 3 Marcovich). Ref. 9. 16 (362. 7 - 2 0 Marcovich). For Origen's knowledge of this group and its literature see Eusebius HE 6. 38 (2. 140Bardy). 1 2 0
1 2 1
1 2 2
1 2 3
1 2 4
1 2 5
The Heavenly Powers
101 125
a n d obstruct it is i m p o r t a n t in g n o s t i c i s m . One gnostic group w h i c h h a d such teachings about planetary d e m o n s was the Ophites, w h o w e r e k n o w n both to Celsus a n d O r i g e n . The Ophites believe t h e r e are seven evil a r c h o n s , w h i c h are e a c h given Hebrew n a m e s and called t h e superior holy Hebdomad. Already w e see that t h e w o r d ' h e b d o m a d ' is given a m o r e literal m e a n i n g , referring to seven beings r a t h e r t h a n o n e . F u r t h e r m o r e Irenaeus says that the Ophites explicitly identify t h e 'holy H e b d o m a d ' with t h e p l a n e t s , and similarly Origen writes t h a t there is a 'sympathy' b e t w e e n the a r c h o n s a n d t h e planets in Ophite t h o u g h t . They are themselves invisible, but e a c h rules in its o w n region in h e a v e n , i.e. in its o w n planetary sphere, controlling life in h e a v e n a n d on e a r t h . Since they are altogether evil, they continually incite m a n k i n d to apostasy, idolatry, and c o n t e m p t for all t h i n g s . The Ophites taught that Christ descended t h r o u g h t h e seven h e a v e n s at t h e time of J e s u s ' baptism disguised as t h e sons of e a c h of t h e a r c h o n s , a n d by degrees took a w a y their p o w e r s . After t h e Resurrection h e r e m a i n e d o n e a r t h for eighteen m o n t h s and passed on knowledge from above to his d i s c i p l e s . This knowledge probably again included t h e formulas w h i c h t h e initiate h a d to recite in order to get t h r o u g h t h e h e a v e n l y gates w h i c h are guarded by these archons. 1 2 7
1 2 8
1 2 9
1 3 0
1 3 1
1 3 2
133
1 3 4
Such j o u r n e y s w e r e not u n c o m m o n in the literature of t h e period. The Pistis Sophia speaks of t h e defence [anoXoyia) w h i c h 1 2 6
W. Anz regarded this as the central characteristic of gnosticism, Zur Frage nach dem Ursprung des Gnostizismos, TU 15. 4 (Leipzig: J . C. Hinrich, 1897), especially 58f. n. 2, though few go this far. On planetary demons see Hans Jonas, Gnosis 1. 1 8 1 - 5 . and Nilsson, Geschichte, 2. 618 f. Origen disapproves of them, CCel. 6. 2 4 (2. 94. 2 2 - 4 K.) and thinks they are few in number, 6. 26 (2. 96. 22f. K.); cf. frag. 47 in 1 Cor. 13: 3 (30. 3 1 - 5 ed. Jenkins), In Matth. Comm. Ser. 33 (11. 60. 3 0 - 6 1 . 1 K l . ) . AH 1. 3 0 . 9 ( 1 . 2 . 376 R/D). CCel. 6. 31 (2. 101. lOf. K.); cf. Wilhelm Bousset, 'Gnosis, Gnostiker' PW7. 2 (1912), 1511. 'per ordinem sedentes in caelo secundum generationem ipsorum, non apparentes, regere quoque caelestia et terrestria . . .', Iren. AH 1. 30. 5 (1. 2. 368 R/D). AH 1. 30. 9 ( 1 . 2 . 376 R/D). A f f l . 3 0 . 1 2 ( 1 . 2 . 3 8 0 R/D). Jesus'baptism: 1.30. 14 (1. 2. 382 R/D). AH 1. 30. 14 ( 1 . 2 . 3 8 2 ^ R/D); cf. ihe Apocryphon of James (NH 1.2. 1 9 - 2 1 ) . See the formulas (in reverse order) ap. Origen CCel. 6. 31 (2. 100. 3 2 - 1 0 2 . 4 K.),and above n. 4 0 . 1 2 7
1 2 8 1 2 9
1 3 0
131
1 3 2
1 3 3
1 3 4
The Heavenly Powers
102
1 3 5
the soul gives before five evil planetary a r c h o n s . In the Ascent of Isaiah (a t e x t w h i c h Origen used), after passing t h r o u g h the top t w o h e a v e n s w h i c h w e r e n o t evil, J e s u s descends t h r o u g h the n e x t five h e a v e n s disguised as the angels of those h e a v e n s , and gives the proper formulas to pass t h r o u g h e a c h of their heavenly gates. Epiphanius reports that a group called the Archontics, w h o use t h e Ascent of Isaiah, h a v e a book called the Harmony w h i c h claims t h e r e a r e a r c h o n s in e a c h of the seven h e a v e n s ruled by 'the shining m o t h e r ' in the eighth, 'as in o t h e r heresies'. This g r o u p believes t h a t the uninitiated soul b e c o m e s the food of these a r c h o n s , but again by giving t h e proper defence (dnokoyia) before t h e m the soul m a y escape a n d rise b e y o n d the h e a v e n s to the ' M o t h e r a n d F a t h e r of all t h i n g s ' . There w e r e instruction books on w h a t the soul should say to the powers in its ascent t h r o u g h t h e h e a v e n s — E p i p h a n i u s refers to a revelation dis course in the Gospel of Philip (apparently different f r o m the Nag H a m m a d i t e x t ) in w h i c h Christ teaches this knowledge to his followers. 1 3 6
137
138
The Testimony of Truth also k n o w s about planetary malevol ence. It says that the 'old leaven' is 'the errant (nkdvri) desire of the angels and the d e m o n s a n d the s t a r s ' . Disapproving of those Christians w h o seek salvation t h r o u g h m a r t y r d o m , the Testimony says that their boasts a r e in fact m a d e 'through the a g e n c y of t h e wandering stars' (the p l a n e t s ) . And it too k n o w s of the inability of evil souls '[to pass by (napdya)] the a r c h o n of [darkness]'. M e n t i o n could also be m a d e of a Christian g e m , described by Reitzenstein ( w h o dates it to the third c e n t u r y AD), in w h i c h a shepherd carries o n e lamb and has six o t h e r lambs at his feet, with seven stars in the sky, w h i c h is probably m e a n t to 1 3 9
1 4 0
141
1 3 5
Defence: 3. 113 (292. 1 2 - 1 4 Schmidt/MacDermot); planets: 4. 136 (356. 2 - 1 4 ) , cf. 1 . 2 2 ( 3 2 . 1 4 - 2 0 ) . 1 0 (2. 6 5 9 - 6 1 Hennecke/Schneemelcher, trans. Wilson); cf. the Epistula Apostolorum 13 (in ibid. 1. 198), The Second Treatise of the Great Seth (NH 7. 56. 21 ff.), Pistis Sophia 1. 7 (12. 1-6 Schmidt/MacDermot), and the Trimorphic Protennoia (NH 13. 49 f.). Origen's use: see In Jesu Nave Horn. 2. 1 (7.297. 1 2 B . ) . Pan. 40. 2 - 8 (2. 82. 14-83. 10 Holl); food: also the Gnostics in 26. 10. 8 (1. 288. 8 f. Holl). Mother: see Bousset 'Gnosis', 1 5 1 3 - 1 5 . Pan. 26. 1 3 . 2 ( 1 . 2 9 2 . 1 3 - 2 0 Holl). NH 9. 29. 1 5 - 1 8 (trans. Giversen/Pearson). 9. 34. 7 - 1 0 (trans, ibid.). 9. 30. 16 (trans, ibid., who note that napdycois here a technical term). 1 3 6
137
1 3 8
1 3 9
1 4 0 1 4 1
The Heavenly
Powers
103
represent Christ t h e Good Shepherd preserving his flock from t h e evil planetary p o w e r s . The reaction of Plotinus to a n u n k n o w n group of gnostics is particularly interesting, since h e m a y h a v e h a d t h e s a m e t e a c h e r as Origen, n a m e l y A m m o n i u s , a n d in a n y case Plotinus h a d a comparable philosophical t r a i n i n g . In his treatise Against the Gnostics Plotinus complains that the gnostics do not call sun, stars, a n d W o r l d Soul their b r e t h r e n , t h o u g h they w e r e willing to do so with t h e v e r y worst p e o p l e . The idea that their souls might be m o r e free from passion a n d m o r e divine t h a n t h e stars outrages Plotinus. The gnostics (he says) claim they a r e better t h a n h e a v e n w i t h o u t having h a d to do anything meritorious, in stark contrast t o the Plotinian v i e w that t h e heavenly bodies a r e t h e clearest image of t h e intelligible w o r l d . They believe t h e r e is a 'tragedy of terrors' in t h e h e a v e n l y s p h e r e s , a n d that learning certain spells w o u l d enable their souls to pass by t h e evil planetary a r c h o n s a n d r e t u r n to their supercelestial h o m e . Plotinus describes their rites: 1 4 2
1 4 3
1 4 4
145
1 4 6
1 4 7
For when they write spells to say to them [the heavenly powers] . . . they are simply uttering charms and enchantments and persuasions in the idea that these powers will obey a call and be led about by a word from any of us who is in some degree trained to use the appropriate forms in the appropri ate way—certain melodies, certain voices, roughly breathed and hissed sounds, and all else to which is ascribed magic potency upon t h e m . 148
Thus Origen w r o t e in a time w h e n m a n y spoke in dread of t h e evil w h i c h awaited us in h e a v e n , a n d especially of wicked planetary powers. A key goal of m a n y influential religious tracts in this setting w a s to provide the initiate with protection from evil forces located in particular h e a v e n l y bodies o r spheres. 1 4 2
Poimandres, 113, Festugiere, L'Ideal, 115, and in general J . Quasten, 'Der gute Hirte in fruhchristlicher Totenliturgie und Grabeskunst', SeT 121 (1956), 373-406. See Porphyry ap. Eusebius HE 6. 19. 6f. (2. 114f. Bardy). Heinrich Dorrie, however, argues that Origen's Ammonius and Plotinus' Ammonius were two separate people: 'Ammonios. der Lehrer Plotins', Hermes 83 (1955), 4 3 9 - 7 7 . 2 . 9 . 18. 1 7 - 2 0 . 2. 9. 5. 1 - 1 6 . Cf. Arnobius Adv. Nat. 2. 19 (63. 1 0 - 1 4 Reifferscheid). 2 . 9. 9. 5 6 - 9 ; clearest image: 2. 9. 4. 2 6 - 3 2 , cf. 2. 9. 13. 1 4 - 2 0 , Porphyry In Tim. frag. 52 (39. 1 8 - 2 7 Sodano). 2.9. 13.6-8. 2. 9. 14. 2 - 8 , trans. Stephen MacKenna (adapted). Hippolytus says that the Carpocratians use incantations, charms, spells, and mediums to gain power over 'the rulers', Hippolytus Ref. 7. 32. 5 (316. 2 4 - 8 Marcovich); cf. Arnobius Adv. Nat. 2. 13 (58. 2 0 - 3 Reifferscheid). 1 4 3
1 4 4
1 4 5
1 4 6
1 4 7
1 4 8
7
C L E M E N T OF A L E X A N D R I A
One test for the i m p o r t a n c e of these views for Origen is to see their influence on Clement of Alexandria, w h o was active in Alexandria during Origen's y o u t h , and w h o also represents a similar theological a p p r o a c h . B o t h w e r e very interested in classical pagan culture ( t h o u g h Origen pursued philosophy m o r e seriously and, in sharp contrast to Clement, virtually ignored literature a n d p o e t r y ) , a n d both used allegory to understand Christian scripture in its terms. O n e of Origen's early writings ( n o w lost) was a Stromateis, w h i c h must h a v e b e e n influenced by Clement's lengthy w o r k of the s a m e title. Eusebius says that Origen was Clement's student, but regardless of w h e t h e r Origen studied u n d e r h i m in s o m e type of school setting (which is open to question), h e certainly has b e e n influenced by h i m theologic ally. 1
In all three of the great Alexandrians, Philo, Clement, and Origen, t h e r e is an attraction to speculations o n the stars, but also a n awareness that these issues are easily misunderstood. There was a great curiosity about cosmological matters, and yet also warnings about potentially dangerous conclusions. This is obvious in Clement, w h o is an u n c o m p r o m i s i n g o p p o n e n t of the Hellenistic religion of the h e a v e n s , particularly in his Protreptikos, w h i c h is addressed to pagans. He attacks A l c m a e o n of Croton for believing that the stars a r e gods a n d alive, and X e n o c r a t e s for suggesting that the planets a n d the cosmos are eight g o d s . The heavenly bodies are not gods but are at best administrators a n d instruments established by God to m e a s u r e t i m e . Like Philo, h e is also a strong o p p o n e n t of astrology. Those w h o say that the 2
3
4
1
Eusebius HE 6. 6 (2. 9 4 Bardy, see his note). Protr. 5. 66 (1. 50. 2 0 - 4 St.), cf. 2. 2 6 (1. 19. 1 2 - 1 6 St.), 6. 67 (1. 5 1 . 2 1 - 3 St.), 10. 102 (1. 7 3 . 2 2 f . St.). 2
}
Strom. 6. 16. 148 (2. 508. 1 St.).
4
Protr. A. 63 (1. 48. 7 - 1 0 St.), 10. 102 (1. 7 3 . 2 2 f . ) .
Clement of
Alexandria
105
stars a r e t h e p r i m a r y cause of g r o w t h a n d c h a n g e in t h e universe take a w a y w h a t is in fact a prerogative of t h e F a t h e r . The stars do n o t cause events, but b e c a u s e of t h e s y m p a t h y w h i c h binds t o g e t h e r all t h e parts of t h e c o s m o s , t h e stars act as signs of w h a t is to c o m e . The claim, so frequently m a d e , that t h e stars a r e powerful a n d deserving of worship is totally false. Therefore Clement not only passes on Philo's view t h a t A b r a h a m began as an astrologer but t h e n p r o c e e d e d to higher insights, h e also suggests that Psalm 18: 3 ( 1 9 : 2 ) , 'night proclaims knowledge to night', indicates t h e teaching of E n o c h that evil angels taught t h e h u m a n race a s t o n o m y , divination, a n d t h e o t h e r dark a r t s . 5
6
7
8
9
The discoveries m a d e in Egypt, especially in this c e n t u r y , of m a n y Coptic gnostic t e x t s w h i c h h a v e survived both persecution and t i m e confirms t h e p o w e r of gnostic (and, at a later point, M a n i c h a e a n ) speculation in early Christian Egypt. This influence is evident in Clement, w h o habitually uses gnostic t e r m i n o l o g y , and indeed calls himself a 'gnostic' m o r e t h a n any o t h e r e x t a n t Christian writer of this e r a . Clement, h o w e v e r , transforms gnostic language, giving it quite a different m e a n i n g (as in fact h e does with ecclesiastical l a n g u a g e ) . In Clement's theology gnostic ideas a r e used like a vaccine: h e transmits a dilute form of t h e m in order to r e n d e r t h e m o r e developed gnostic faith powerless. F o r C l e m e n t could n e v e r be t h e type of gnostic w h o w r o t e a n d used a n y of t h e diverse t e x t s in t h e Berlin a n d Nag H a m m a d i codices, since h e strongly disapproves of t h e radical asceticism practised by groups s u c h as these. He calls himself a gnostic, but at t h e s a m e time a t t e m p t s t o distance himself from 'heresy', a n d this includes all of w h a t m o d e r n scholars w o u l d n o r m a l l y call gnosticism. 10
11
5
Strom. 6. 16. 148 (2. 507. 3 0 - 4 St.). Protr. 1. 5 (1. 5. 3 3 - 6 . 1 St.). The idea is a commonplace, see Moreau, L'Ame, 164, W. and H. Gundel, 'Planeten', 2 3 0 . Eel. Proph. 55 (3. 152. 1 5 - 1 9 St.): neither events nor dreams, cf. Exc. ex Theod. 70. 2 (194 Sagnard). This again is very common in philosophical circles, see Utto Riedinger, Die heilige Schrift im Kampf der griechischen Kirche gegen die Astrologie (Innsbruck: Wagner, 1956), 1 7 7 - 8 2 . Strom. 5. 1. 8 (2. 331. 1-9 St.), 6. 10. 80 (2. 4 7 1 . 2 7 - 3 0 St.), 6. 11. 8 4 (2. 4 7 3 . 20f. St.); see above ch. 5 n. 70. Eel. Proph. 5 3 . 4 (3. 152. 8f. St., citing 1 Enoch 8: 3). Such as yv&aiq. avdnavaig, iyKpdzeia. See n. 12 below. Einar Molland, The Conception of the Gospel in the Alexandrian Theology (Oslo: Jacob Dybwad, 1938), 6. 6
7
8
9
1 0 11
106
Clement of
Alexandria
C l e m e n t believes t h a t t h e r e a r e angels w h o o v e r s e e t h e ascent of souls and see t o it t h a t souls w h i c h a r e still a t t a c h e d t o a desire for material things do n o t r e a c h h e a v e n . To get past these angels, the soul m u s t s h o w s o m e sign of its o w n p u r i t y . This is similar to m a n y gnostic views, and t h e lack of a n y clear c o n n e c t i o n of t h e angels with visible h e a v e n l y p h e n o m e n a is not u n u s u a l in gnostic cosmologies. Now, h o w e v e r , t h e guardians in h e a v e n a r e n o longer evil. B e c a u s e this is so, C l e m e n t avoids t h e assumption that t h e fire w h i c h J e s u s in t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t often says awaits the u n w o r t h y soul is a reference to a physical fire, w h i c h s o m e gnostics identified with t h e h e a v e n l y bodies, saying instead that it was a reference t o t h e fire of w i s d o m . C l e m e n t does n o t see this world or t h e h e a v e n s as d e m o n i c , a n d this is a critical distinction b e t w e e n his theology a n d that of gnosticism. 1 2
1 3
A m o r e i m p o r t a n t influence for Clement's teachings o n t h e stars a r e t h e speculations of c o n t e m p o r a r y philosophical liter ature. Echoes of the Hellenistic schoolroom and of Philo abound in his writings. In Platonic fashion h e regards a s t r o n o m y as a propaedeutic for p h i l o s o p h y (which, turning t h e tables o n t h e philosophers, h e regards as a p r e p a r a t i o n for t r u e k n o w l e d g e ) , and so as leading to t h e k n o w l e d g e of G o d . Like so m a n y of his predecessors, C l e m e n t believes that h u m a n i t y had its origins in h e a v e n , a n d t h a t salvation is a r e t u r n t h e r e . W i t h Philo (and also Justin M a r t y r ) , h e proposes t h a t God allowed t h e pagans to worship t h e h e a v e n l y bodies so that t h e y might be spared from a t h e i s m a n d might h a v e at least s o m e k n o w l e d g e of t h e d i v i n e . Again w i t h Philo, h e passes o n t h e Stoic c o m m o n p l a c e t h a t m a n w a s given a n erect p o s t u r e in order t o c o n t e m p l a t e h e a v e n . As 14
15
1 6
1 7
18
1 9
1 2
See Lilla, Clement, 182 f., who cites 4. 18. 116 (2. 2 9 9 . 1 8 - 2 1 St.) and 117 (2. 299. 24—8 St.). The Christian 'passes through the spiritual beings' onto heaven by his knowledge, Strom. 7. 13. 82 (3. 5 9 . 2 f. St.). Strom. 7. 6. 3 4 (3. 2 7 . 5 - 8 St.), cf. Paed. 1. 6. 4 6 (1. 117. 2 8 - 1 1 8 , 4 St.); gnostics: see Plotinus 2. 9. 13. 9 - 1 4 . Strom. 6. 11. 90 (2. 477. 7 - 1 9 St.), 6. 10. 80 (2. 4 7 1 . 2 7 - 3 0 St.). 6. 14. 108 (2. 487. 1 1 - 1 4 St.). See Walther Volker, Der wahre Gnostiker nach Clemens AlexandrinusTO 57. 2 (Berlin: Akademie, 1952), 86 and 350 n. 2. See Lilla, Clement, 169 f., 172. Origins: Protr. 25. 4 (1. 19. 9 - 1 2 St.); return: Dives 3. 6 (3. 162. 6 - 9 St.). Strom. 6. 14. 110 ( 2 . 4 8 7 . 1 1 - 1 4 St.); Justin Dial. 55. 1 (154 Goodspeed). Strom. 4. 26. 163 (2. 320. 22 f. St., see his note), cf. Seneca Ep. 92. 30 (358. 2 2 - 3 5 9 . 3 Reynolds); Philo: see Runia, Philo, 325. The idea is attacked by Galen, DeUsuPart. 3 . 3 (1. 133. 1 4 - 1 3 4 . 3 Helmreich). 13
14
1 5
1 6 1 7 18
19
Clement of Alexandria
107
in Stoic/Peripatetic cosmology, h e believes that the four elements are a r r a n g e d as spheres and m a k e up the world b e n e a t h the m o o n , a n d accepts the standard classroom view that there are seven h e a v e n s s u r r o u n d e d by a fixed eighth s p h e r e . W i t h s o m e reserve h e e v e n suggests that the fixed sphere borders o n the noetic, superheavenly world of God familiar from Plato's Phaedrus. As part of his a r g u m e n t that p a g a n culture is a preparation for the gospel, Clement interprets the m y t h of E r ( w h o m Clement identifies with Zoroaster) from t h e end of Plato's Republic, a n d suggests (evidently with approval) that Plato m e a n s that the soul at birth descends t h r o u g h the twelve signs of the zodiac and again ascends t h r o u g h t h e m at death. In the standard fashion of c o n t e m p o r a r y pagan philosophy, w h i c h often used the figure of Hercules as a n illustration, Clement also writes that t h e twelve labours of Hercules symbolize the difficulties w h i c h t h e soul m u s t go t h r o u g h before winning freedom from this w o r l d . In a n o t h e r passage, h e says that t h e five stones and t w o carbuncles on the high priest's robe a r e the seven planets, w h i c h are controlled by p o w e r s established by divine providence, a n d that these w e r e responsible for creation. Clement thinks that these p o w e r s a n d creation as a w h o l e are good, w h i c h sounds like the classical Hellenistic teaching that the seven planets a r e benevolent demiurgic p o w e r s . 2 0
21
22
2 3
2 4
A n interest in both philosophical a n d gnostic speculations seems to h a v e led h i m to a n e w interpretation of Christian eschatology w h i c h influenced Origen. It is preserved in the Eclogae Propheticae, w h i c h are a series of notes that w e r e not m e a n t to be published in their present form, but w h i c h by s o m e strange t u r n of events a r e still e x t a n t . A n o t h e r set of notes w h i c h survived along with it, the m o r e famous Excerpta ex Theodoto, w a s apparently a preparation for a w o r k o n Valentinianism, a n d mainly represents Valentinian views. On the other h a n d the Eclogae are r o u g h notes apparently m a d e in preparation for a w o r k on the interpretation of scripture, a n d mostly reflect 2 0 2 1
Strom. 5. 14. 106 (2. 397. 16f. St.).
Strom.4. 25. 159 (2. 318. 2 8 - 3 1 9 . 2 St.). Ibid. Strom. 5. 14. 103 (2. 395. 1 7 - 3 9 6 . 4 St.); Er as Zoroaster: see already Colotes ap. Proclos In Remp. (2. 109. 8 - 1 4 Kroll). Strom. 5. 6. 37 (2. 351. 8 - 1 7 St.. see his note). 2 2
2 3
2 4
Clement of Alexandria
108
Clement's o w n position. O n e passage is particularly interesting. In it Clement says that t h e stars a r e 'spiritual bodies, in c o m m u n i o n with a n d g o v e r n e d by their appointed a n g e l s ' . He follows this with a long interpretation of Psalm 1 8 : 5 ( 1 9 : 4 ) , 'He set his tent in t h e sun.' C l e m e n t denies the gnostic interpretation of H e r m o g e n e s that Christ's body is taken from t h e s u n , and passes on his o w n t e a c h e r P a n t a e n u s ' view that Old Testament p r o p h e c y has a future as well as a past reference, so that this passage in fact looks forward to t h e Resurrection. In the end the righteous all r e t u r n to t h e s a m e unity, w h e r e in different ways t h e y will be, as Clement says, '"gleaming like the sun" [cf. M a t t h e w 1 3 : 4 3 ] , or r a t h e r in the sun, since a ruling angel is in t h e sun'. Here they a r e put in c h a r g e of days with t h e angels w h o are in t h e sun, u n d e r the rule of a c o m m a n d i n g angel (cf. Revelation 1 9 : 1 7 ) , a n d so provide light to the earth. Eventually, h o w e v e r , they progress to 'the first abiding place', t h e place of rest (dvdnavcnc), a n d a r e replaced by those w h o a r e ontologically s u b o r d i n a t e . The identification of t h e heavenly bodies with angels is thus put forward, a n d combined with t w o speculations found elsewhere in p a g a n Platonism, first that the planets might serve as a n intermediate dwelling for the soul on its w a y to its final resting p l a c e , a n d second that the soul might ascend at d e a t h to the s u n . The suggestion that this might represent a stage in the soul's m o r a l progress, w h i c h would c o n t i n u e after death, is apparently Clement's (or perhaps P a n t a e n u s ' ) o w n . It is not certain h o w serious C l e m e n t w a s about this idea that t h e soul ascended to a higher ontological position within t h e sun, especially since in t h e n e x t section h e puts forward a n o t h e r interpretation in w h i c h t h e sun (fjXwg) is taken as a reference to the Hebrew w o r d for God, El, so that the passage in question is interpreted to m e a n 'he set his tent in God'. B u t this adoption of pagan imagery clearly was not a r a n d o m n o t e of Clement's since Origen similarly will propose that the h e a v e n l y bodies (and the different angelic ranks, w h i c h Clement treats in the following 25
2 6
27
2 8
2 9
2 5
5 5. 1 (3. 152. 14f. St.). Cf. also In Epistola ludae frag. (3. 207. 7 - 1 2 St.). Hermogenes: see Hippolytus Ref. 8. 17. 3f. (337. 1 4 - 2 3 Marcovich). Hermogenes' view may be connected with exegesis of 2 Cor. 5: 1-4. Eel. 56 (3. 152f. St.). Calcidius In Tim. 2 0 0 ( 2 2 0 , 1 0 - 1 7 Waszink). Iamblichus De Comm. Math. Sc. 6 (28. 1 - 1 6 Festa), and above ch. 6 n . 2 1 . 2 6
2 7
2 8
2 9
Clement of Alexandria
109
section) might serve as stages o n t h e soul's progress t o its ultimate goal b e y o n d t h e fixed s p h e r e . So although t h e stars a r e not discussed as often in Clement as in Philo, a n d t h o u g h the influence of pagan a n d gnostic astral speculation only surfaces occasionally in his thought, theories on the special place of the heavenly bodies a r e present in non-gnostic Christian circles and waiting for a fuller t r e a t m e n t . This is w h e r e Origen begins his w o r k o n the stars. 3 0
The relation of the soul to the star was a m a t t e r of debate in the Hellenistic period, a n d t h o u g h t h e r e was a wide consensus that the stars represented s o m e p o w e r greater t h a n h u m a n i t y but less t h a n God, t h e r e w a s little a g r e e m e n t o n h o w these beings should be described. The positions of Plato, Aristotle, a n d t h e Stoics o n the physical n a t u r e a n d religious function of t h e stars w e r e in m a n y ways incompatible, a n d the t e n d e n c y of later Hellenistic philosophers to confuse and h a r m o n i z e r a t h e r t h a n resolve these differences complicated efforts to speak of t h e stars in philo sophically c o h e r e n t terms. In t h e second a n d third centuries of o u r era, a n u m b e r of thinkers explained the soul's relation to the stars (which e v e r y o n e presupposed) by claiming that the soul h a d a n 'astral body'. This was c o m p o s e d during the soul's descent into generation, a n d t h e m a n n e r of its composition w a s a m a t t e r of debate. A n optimistic interpretation of Plato saw t h e role of t h e heavenly bodies as essentially positive, a n d this w a s the view of t h e classical tradition of Platonism a n d astrology (and of Mithraism, w h i c h was a cross b e t w e e n t h e t w o ) . This tradition of cosmological interpretation passed o n m a n y of t h e ideas of t h e classical period, w i t h o u t making c o h e r e n t m a n y of t h e proposals that h a d b e e n put forward by t h e great philosophers of t h e past. The stars w e r e h o n o u r e d — o f t e n extravagantly. B u t t h e questions of w h o they a r e a n d w h a t they do r e m a i n e d w i t h o u t consensus or even clear exposition, as P o r p h y r y pointed out in his letter to A n e b o . Hellenistic interpretation of t h e stars w a s further complicated 3 0
See below ch. 9 with n. 57. Note that in the next paragraph, Ed. 57 (3. 154. 5 - 1 3 St.), Clement speaks of the training individuals receive after death for a thousand years from ontologically superior angels. This is again similar to Origen's view.
110
Clement of Alexandria
in this period by a n e w and definitely negative t e n d e n c y in Platonism. This was the path of Numenius, s o m e of the Hermetica, a n d of 'gnosticism', a n d w a s the result of t h e fusion of popular philosophy a n d astrology with a negative appraisal of humanity's place (and options) in the universe. This cosmic pessimism ( w h i c h w a s also strengthened in its polemic against the visible h e a v e n s by s o m e aspects of J e w i s h apocalyptic) w a s a prolific source of cosmological discussion, e v e n t h o u g h the connections of these discussions to visible p h e n o m e n a a r e at times hazy. It clearly w a s a source with w h i c h Origen, in t h e peculiar c o n t e x t of A l e x a n d r i a n Christianity, h a d to c o m e to grips. B u t Origen's intellectual d e v e l o p m e n t is not only a m a t t e r of trends a n d tendencies, but also of individuals. Philo is of great i m p o r t a n c e to Origen because h e combined a great respect for Hellenistic philosophy with J e w i s h religion a n d the interpreta tion of scripture. His e x a m p l e as a n apologist a n d e x e g e t e , his discussions of 'sympathy', his c o n d e m n a t i o n of astrology a n d t h e worship of h e a v e n , a n d yet at t h e s a m e time his essentially pagan cosmological framework, w e r e a n i m p o r t a n t e x a m p l e to Origen. Clement is s o m e w h a t m o r e guarded t h a n Philo in cosmological matters, but is n o less important in t h e development of Origen's o w n views o n the h e a v e n s . Clement is a w a r e of t h e pagan a n d gnostic depiction of t h e stars as either gods o r evil d e m o n s , a n d rejects both. Most important, h e also sees t h e opportunity to incorporate c o n t e m p o r a r y lore o n t h e stars into t h e Christian doctrine of life after death. The views of these t w o Alexandrians together with the speculations o n the h e a v e n s from a wide r a n g e of p a g a n , J e w i s h , a n d gnostic sources provide the background to Origen's theological appropriation of t h e stars, w h i c h will be t h e subject of the third a n d final part.
PART III
8
ORIGEN AND THE STARS
It is o n e of t h e p a r a d o x e s of t h e Christian religion t h a t its saviour is the Logos, o r R e a s o n i n c a r n a t e , a n d yet its doctrines are 'folly to Greeks' and in conflict with t h e wisdom of this world. Christians claimed R e a s o n as their o w n , but had t o defend themselves against p a g a n philosophers w h o w e r e full of s c o r n a n d ( e v e n w o r s e ) of damaging criticisms about t h e Bible a n d its teachings. Justin M a r t y r w o r e t h e philosopher's cloak a n d C l e m e n t of A l e x a n d r i a regarded 'the love of wisdom' as a preliminary stage in t h e p r o m u l g a t i o n of t h e gospel, but it was far m o r e c o m m o n for early Christians t o regard philosophy as a s o u r c e of error a n d heresy. E v e n M a r c i o n a n d t h e gnostics, w h o w e r e often a c c u s e d of being c o m p r o m i s e d by t h e teachings of p a g a n philosophy, frequently attacked it. Scholars h a v e long b e e n interested in Origen's obvious use of t h e classical pagan tradition, but he w r o t e at a t i m e w h e n such expertise was m o r e of a n accusation t h a n a boast, a n d this colours his attitude t o w a r d it. Waszink notes that Origen differs from Philo in n e v e r seeing philosophy as a divine gift to t h e Greeks, a n d from C l e m e n t in n e v e r describing it as a factor within divine p r o v i d e n c e . T h r o u g h o u t his writings Origen was almost instinctively hostile to philosophy, regarding it as a seducer and as inevitably m i x e d w i t h folly. Granted t h e r e is something c o n v e n t i o n a l about this a t t i t u d e — i n fact, s o m e p a g a n 1
2
3
1
Marcionite/gnostic errors are due to philosophy: Hippolytus Ref. 7. 29 (304. 6f. Marcovich) and passim; Tertullian De Praescr. 7 ( 1 . 192 Dekkers). See already in the New Testament Col. 2: 8. For Marcion's attacks on philosophy see Gerhard May, Schbpfung aus dem Nichts, AKG 4 8 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1978), 58 n. 72, and Adolf von Harnack, Marcion (Berlin: Akademie, 1960), 125*. Gnostic attacks: see Carl A. Keller, 'Das Problem des Bosen in Apokalyptic und Gnosis', in Martin Krause (ed.), Gnosis and Gnosticism, NHS 8 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977) 89. 'Bemerkungen' I59f. See Henri de Lubac, Histoire et esprit (Paris: Aubier, 1950), 80f., Henri Crouzel, Origene et la philosophic, ML. T 56 (Paris: Montaigne, 1962), 67 and passim. Like his later opponents, he regarded it as an arrogant enemy to the simplicity of faith. In Sam. Horn. 1. 1 0 ( 8 . 19. 1 4 - 1 9 B . ) . 2 3
Origen and the Stars
114
philosophers struck t h e s a m e p o s e — h i s feelings a b o u t this discipline a r e cooler t h a n Clement's, a n d m u c h cooler t h a n Philo's. F o r Origen philosophy was n o m o r e t h a n a tool within a distinctly Christian theology, a n d its terminology w a s accordingly used in a n e w w a y . 4
In Origen's v i e w t h e only p r o p e r use for philosophy was strictly t o help u n d e r s t a n d s c r i p t u r e , for it was scripture a n d n o t philosophy w h i c h w a s t h e m e a n s to t r u e k n o w l e d g e . Christian apologists h a d always said this, but Origen's most eloquent affirmation of t h e i m p o r t a n c e of scripture w a s t h e a m o u n t of time a n d attention h e gave t o its interpretation. Origen adopts t h e philosophical assumption t h a t t h e stars a r e alive, but w h e n h e does so his m i n d is always on h o w it might help explain t h o r n y biblical passages o r doctrinal problems w h i c h a r o s e out of conflicts in scripture. His overriding interest is in biblical exegesis within t h e c o n t e x t of preaching a n d of practical theological issues. 5
6
A n d yet despite his m i x e d feelings about Hellenistic learning, Origen w a s strongly d r a w n to it. One of t h e best indications of a scholar's interests is t h e c u r r i c u l u m h e prepares for his students, a n d w e a r e fortunate to h a v e a report about Origen's c u r r i c u l u m from his student Gregory T h a u m a t u r g u s . Here Origen devotes considerable attention t o secular learning, including a s t r o n o m y . As usual in a Platonic c o u r s e of education, g e o m e t r y a n d a s t r o n o m y w e r e p r o p a e d e u t i c s t u d i e s — a b o w to a philosophical tradition w h i c h had also b e e n followed by Clement but w h i c h h a d b e e n spurned by Origen's theological predecessor J u s t i n M a r t y r . F o r Origen, h o w e v e r , a s t r o n o m y (like all p a g a n learn ing) was a propaedeutic, n o t t o philosophy, but to t h e study of s c r i p t u r e . T h a u m a t u r g u s says t h a t Origen's knowledge about t h e natural sciences was based partly o n w h a t h e h a d learned, but also o n his o w n discoveries, a n d if this report c a n be trusted, it 7
8
9
4
Crouzel, Philosophie. 186 f. Ibid. 147. In Ps. 36 Horn. 3. 6 (PG 12. 1342cd), In Ps. 6 3 : 6 (PG 12. 1492bc). See Clement in ch. 7 n. 15. Gregory Oral. Pan. 8. 113f. ( 1 4 2 . 1 8 - 2 7 Crouzel); Justin Dial. 2. 4f. (92 Goodspeed). For astronomy and mathematics in philosophical education in this era see Alcinous Did. 7 ( 1 6 1 . 2 8 - 1 6 2 . 2 0 Hermann), Taurus ap. Aulus Gellius Noc. Att. 1. 9. 7f. (56. 1 5 - 2 4 Marshall). Ep. ad Gregorium 1 ap. Philocalia 13. 1 ( 6 4 . 2 1 - 6 5 . 2 R.). Orat.Pan.8. I l l (142. 14Crouzel). 5
6
7
8
9
Origen and the Stars
115
w o u l d indicate t h a t h e h a d a curiosity a b o u t t h e world w h i c h was very rare in t h e early c h u r c h . T h e s e c o n d - c e n t u r y apologist Tatian asks w h a t good it is to k n o w t h e size of t h e earth, t h e position of t h e stars, o r t h e c o u r s e of t h e s u n , ' a sentiment e c h o e d even by C l e m e n t of A l e x a n d r i a , ' but Origen's attitude is v e r y different. His teachings o n t h e elements, m e t e o r o l o g y , c o m e t s , planets, a n d stars display a wide knowledge of c o n t e m porary s c i e n c e w h i c h is all t h e m o r e impressive in light of t h e time h e m u s t h a v e devoted to his scriptural studies a n d his vast literary o u t p u t . As a result of these b r o a d interests, his c o s m o l o g y e n c o m p a s s e s a degree of a s t r o n o m i c a l detail previously u n k n o w n in Christian (including gnostic) theology. 0
1
12
M u c h of this knowledge was mediated t h r o u g h Origen's careful study of c o n t e m p o r a r y philosophical literature. As a n u m b e r of r e c e n t scholars h a v e n o t e d , a n i m p o r t a n t influence o n Origen in these speculations w a s middle-Platonism, a loosely b o u n d and eclectic g r o u p of schools a n d individuals w h o emphasized t h e study of Plato (especially t h e Timaeus) but also d r e w heavily o n Stoic ideas. A n investigation of Origen's c o n c e p t of t h e universe, beginning with t h e h u m a n m i n d and rising t h r o u g h the e l e m e n t s a n d heavenly bodies to t h e highest portion of c r e a t i o n , shows h o w Origen incorporates this pagan philo sophical tradition into a scriptural cosmology. T h o u g h n o o n e has used t h e w o r d 'banalite' t o describe Origen's cosmology (people m a y like o r dislike Origen but t h e y n e v e r find h i m b o r i n g ) , m u c h of Origen's understanding of t h e h e a v e n s is o n c e again a repetition of c o m m o n p l a c e s familiar in Hellenistic schoolrooms. Therefore discussions of Origen in philosophical t e r m s a r e certainly valuable because h e has b e e n influenced by these traditions, e v e n t h o u g h it should be r e m e m b e r e d 10
Oral. 27 (29. 1 3 - 1 7 Schwartz); cf. Tertullian De Praescr. 14 (1. 198f. Dekkers). There are again parallels for this attitude in pagan philosophy, see Marcus Aurelius 1. 17 ( 1 0 . 2 3 Dalfen). Strom. 6. I I . 93 (2. 4 7 8 . 1 4 - 2 1 St.). Meteorology: see In Jer. Horn. 8. 5 (3. 60. 1-16 Kl.); comets: CCel. 1. 58 (1. 109. 2 7 - 1 1 0 , 2 K.); other sciences, mineralogy: InMatth. 10. 7 (10. 7. 2 ff. K l . ) , / n Ps. 118 (67f. Dev.), Jerome [Origen] In Amos 3 (318f. Adriaen), cf. Max Wellmann, 'Die Stein- und Gemmenbucher der Antike', Quellen und Studien zur Gesch. der Naturwissenschaft 4 (1933), 87; zoology: In Jer. Horn. 17. 1 (3. 143f. K l . ) , and further Max Wellmann, Der Physiologus. Philol Suppl. 22 (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1931), 7, D. S. Wallace-Hadrill, The Greek Patristic View of Nature (Manchester: Manchester University, 1968), 31. 11
1 2
Origen and the Stars
116
that h e h a s also b e e n deeply influenced by o t h e r , v e r y different interests. As in Hellenistic philosophy, so for Origen discussion of t h e n a t u r e a n d destiny of t h e soul a n d discussion of t h e physical h e a v e n s a r e intertwined. Following t h e Stoics, Origen speaks about rational souls (voeq o r nvsopaza XoyiKd) in t e r m s of f i r e . He is distinctly Christian in his division of soul in its highest sense into m i n d (voug), w h i c h is fallen a n d capable of sin, a n d a n unfallen portion of mind, n a m e l y spirit (pneuma). He is, h o w e v e r , clearly part of t h e Platonic tradition in regarding this spirit as i n c o r p o r e a l . Origen accepts t h e Stoic understanding of e t h e r as m a d e of s o m e type of material w h i c h is very fine a n d s u b t l e and its v i e w of e t h e r as a p u r e type of fire naturally located at t h e p e r i p h e r y . He distinguishes t h e invisible and u n q u e n c h a b l e fire of p u n i s h m e n t (Isaiah 6 6 : 2 4 , 2 Corinthians 4 : 1 8 ) from t h e material fire familar o n e a r t h , t h o u g h h e does n o t identify this immaterial fire with t h e e t h e r found at t h e edge of t h e c o s m o s . E t h e r is t h e body in w h i c h soul in its higher sense m a k e s its h o m e before the Fall, a n d w h e r e it will m a k e it again after its resurrection f r o m t h e d e a d . This ethereal body is likened (as often) t o fire, a n d t h e ethereal h e a v e n l y body of e.g. t h e sun is said to h a v e t h e s a m e n a t u r e as l i g h t , a view w h i c h is c o n n e c t e d by Origen, as it was in c o n t e m p o r a r y speculations o n t h e astral body, with t h e understanding of t h e h u m a n soul. As with t h e m , the existence of a substance w h i c h was physically located at t h e end of t h e material world a n d o n t h e b o u n d a r y of c o m p l e t e incorporeality helped explain t h e relation of t h e immaterial t o t h e material t h r o u g h t h e m e d i u m of soul. 13
14
15
16
1 7
1 8
19
1 3
See Rusche, B/wf, 417. Mind/spirit: see Stephanus Tauress Bettencourt, Doctrina Ascetica Origenis, StAns 16 (Vatican City: Libreria Vaticana, 1945) 9, Henri Crouzel, Theologie de Vintage de Dieu chez Origene (Aubier: Editions Montaigne, 1956), 131; incorporeal: Prin. 1. 7. 1. 1 0 - 1 4 (CIS). Verbeke, Pneuma, 4 5 3 . Prin. 1. 7. 5. 156 f. (CIS), CCel. 4. 56 (2. 329. 1 1 - 1 6 K . ) . In Prov. 23 (PG 17. 221d), cf. the Peratae ap. Hippolytus Ref. 5. 14. 10 (180. 55 f. Marcovich). In Matth. Comm. Ser. 72 (11. 171. 2 5 - 3 2 K l . ) . See further Pierre Nautin, Origene: Homeliessur Jeremie, SC 232 (Paris: du Cerf, 1976), 174. See below ch. 9 n. 46. Ethereal bodies: see below ch. 9 n. 46; fire: In Rom. 9. 41 (PG 14. 1244a): light: see H. Comelis, 'Les Fondements cosmologiques de l'eschatologie d'Origene', RevSciPhilTheol 43 (1959), 77 n. 139. This makes ether almost immaterial, as Porphyry notes ap. Stobaeus Eel. (1. 430. 6 f. Wachsmuth). 1 4
15
16
17
1 8
19
117
Origen and the Stars
The world within w h i c h soul operates is a unity of h e a v e n a n d e a r t h . Origen therefore rejects t h e Peripatetic doctrine t h a t t h e r e is a fifth e l e m e n t a n d t h a t t h e physical n a t u r e of h e a v e n differs f r o m all t h a t w h i c h is b e n e a t h t h e m o o n , a n d h e asserts t h e traditional e l e m e n t s of earth, air, fire, a n d w a t e r . W i t h s o m e hesitation, Origen suggests that t h e interpretation of J o h n 4 : 3 5 ('there a r e still four m o n t h s before t h e harvest c o m e s ' ) is, with Philo a n d classical philosophy, t h a t t h e four e l e m e n t s a r e a r r a n g e d by weight in spheres b e n e a t h 'the e t h e r e a l n a t u r e ' . The e a r t h is (as usual) at t h e c e n t r e of t h e c o s m o s , w a t e r settles naturally on top of it, t h e n air o n top of w a t e r a n d earth, and fire (in w h i c h is included e t h e r ) on top of air. E l e m e n t s w h i c h a r e not m i x e d with o n e a n o t h e r stabilize naturally in these four regions. Following Peripatetic/Stoic cosmology, t h e four e l e m e n t s pass into o n e a n o t h e r by their n a t u r a l affinity. T h e type of bodies w h i c h a r e formed by t h e c o m b i n a t i o n of t h e e l e m e n t s is o n c e again d e t e r m i n e d by t h e m i x t u r e of qualities (hot, cold, dry, and moist). 2 0
2 1
2 2
Moving from e a r t h to t h e h e a v e n l y regions, w e again see m u c h that is familiar. The h e a v e n l y regions a r e for Origen as for all of his p a g a n c o n t e m p o r a r i e s a place of great beauty. T h e regularity of m o v e m e n t in t h e h e a v e n l y bodies is recognized, a n d as with Plato a n d t h e Stoics it serves as a n a r g u m e n t for t h e existence both of G o d and of divine p r o v i d e n c e . As in Plato and a host of others, t h e planets a r e said t o be w r o n g l y so called since t h e y do n o t really 'err' (nXavdm). Instead, t h e y m o v e in a n orderly w a y in t h e opposite direction of t h e fixed s p h e r e . 2 3
24
2 5
W h a t is surprising is n o t t h e opinions but their Christian setting. Origen is t h e first Christian theologian t o discuss t h e physical composition of t h e stars. W i t h Philo, h e rejects A n a x a goras' c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e stars a r e fiery m e t a l , but h e thinks 2 6
2 0
CCel. 4. 56 (1. 329. 1 1 - 1 6 K.), In Jo. 13. 21. 126 (4. 2 4 5 . 4f. P.). Prin. 3. 6. 6. 1 9 6 - 2 0 5 (C/S). In Jo. 1 3 . 4 0 . 266 (4. 266. 1 3 - 1 8 P.). Philo: seech. 5 n. 19; classical: seech. 3 n. 36. Prin. 4. 4. 6. 2 3 6 - 8 , 2. 1.4. 1 1 0 - 1 4 (C/S). CCel. 8. 52 (2. 267. 1 9 - 2 6 8 . 5 K.). Prin. 4. 1. 7. 188 f. (C/S, Greek), In Ps. 1 ap. Philocalia 2 . 4 ( 3 9 . 9 - 1 2 R.). CCel. 6. 22 (2. 92. 3f. K.), 8. 52 (2. 267. 19f. K.), Philocalia 2 3 . 6 (193. 23 f. R.). Unless otherwise stated, all extracts from the Philocalia are from the third book of Origen's lost Commentarii in Genesim. CCel. 5. 11 (2. 12. 7f. K.); seech. 5 n. 48. 2 1
2 2
2 3
2 4 2 5
2 6
118
Origen and the Stars
t h e y a r e still m a d e of s o m e type of body w h i c h is ethereal in n a t u r e . A n d s o m e of Origen's astronomical knowledge is fairly sophisticated. F o r e x a m p l e , h e is familiar w i t h Hipparchus' t h e o r y t h a t t h e fixed stars m o v e a r o u n d t h e pole of t h e ecliptic o n e degree every o n e h u n d r e d years, a n d that this m o v e m e n t is g o v e r n e d by a separate, ninth sphere located above t h e fixed s p h e r e . Like Philo, h e also k n o w s t h e scientific n a m e of Jupiter, 'the radiant o n e ' (6 cjxxeGcov). It is n o surprise to see t h a t Origen is a w a r e of t h e vast size of t h e c o s m o s , as this again was widely recognized. He is rare a m o n g early Christian writers, h o w e v e r , in knowing h o w to d e m o n s t r a t e this: h e notes that unless t h e stars w e r e very far off, they w o u l d not be seen as being in the s a m e place in t h e h e a v e n s by people w h o w e r e far apart o n t h e e a r t h . Origen's a s t r o n o m i c a l knowledge is only evident in asides t h a t a r e buried in m u c h larger a r g u m e n t s , a n d is all t h e m o r e impressive considering t h a t this w a s only a s e c o n d a r y interest for him. Since Origen saw pagan learning as a preparation for understanding t h e gospel, m u c h of his cosmology c o m e s o u t only incidentally in doctrinal discussion a n d scriptural exegesis. Following t h e v i e w of c o n t e m p o r a r y a s t r o n o m y that t h e sun is t h e leader of t h e o t h e r planets, Origen interprets this in a Christian sense, saying t h a t t h e superiority of the sun illustrates t h e place t h a t t h e Logos has in t h e spiritual w o r l d . Like most Hellenistic philosophers h e realizes that t h e m o o n reflects t h e light of t h e sun, but h e t h e n c o m p a r e s this again a n d again t o t h e C h u r c h ' s relationship to Christ: t h e only light w h i c h t h e C h u r c h has is t h a t given it by t h e Sun of Righteousness, w h o is C h r i s t . Origen passes o n t h e standard scientific v i e w t h a t t h e e a r t h lies at t h e absolute c e n t r e of t h e universe, not set u p o n a n y o t h e r body, a n d c o n n e c t s this w i t h t h e exegesis of J o b 2 6 : 7 ('in t h e m o s t a c c u r a t e copies', h e tells us) that t h e e a r t h rests on nothing but 2 7
2 8
29
3 0
3 1
32
2 7
Prin. 1. 7. 5. 1 5 5 - 7 (C/S), cf. Philo Som. 1. 22, Aet. 47. Philocalia 2 3 . 18 (206. 2 9 - 7 . 6 R.). Prin. 2. 3. 6. 2 7 4 - 8 0 (C/S); Heath, Aristarchus. 172 f. For the ninth sphere see below n. 4 5 . In Jer. Latin hom. 3. 4 (8. 314. 25f. B.). See above ch. 4 n. 2 9 . Philo knows this too, QE 2. 75; cf. also the Ophites ap. CCel. 6. 31 (2. 101. 11 K., referring to Saturn). InMatth. Comm. Ser. 4 9 (11. 102. 2 0 - 5 K l . ) . See Cornells, 'Fondements', 79. In Jo. 1 . 2 5 . 163 (4. 31. 1 0 - 1 4 P.), 6. 55. 287 (4. 164. 19-21 P.), In Gen. Hom. 1. 5 (6. 7. 1 4 - 1 9 B.), In Num. Hom. 23. 5 (7. 217. 24f. B.), In Ezech. Hom. 9. 3 (8. 4 1 1 . 2 2 - 7 B.). See C. Schmitt, 'Lune (Symbolisme)' DSp 9 (1976), 1192f. 2 8
2 9
3 0
3 1
3 2
119
Origen and the Stars 3 3
t h e p o w e r of G o d . Origen is familiar w i t h t h e a d v a n c e s of c o n t e m p o r a r y a s t r o n o m y , but h e only uses t h e m in a highly restricted role. Used in this w a y , p a g a n learning could at times h a v e a n i m p o r t a n t function. A d i c t u m of Origen's scriptural interpretation ( c o m m o n in his day to J e w s , Christians, a n d pagans) was t h a t if t h e literal interpretation of a passage was impossible, a n alleg orical interpretation m u s t be necessary. One of t h e functions of pagan learning for Origen w a s t o help d e t e r m i n e w h a t w a s possible. Interpreting Philippians 2 : 1 0 ('that at t h e n a m e of J e s u s every k n e e should bow, in h e a v e n a n d o n e a r t h a n d u n d e r t h e e a r t h ' ) , Origen said t h a t this c a n n o t be taken literally since 'the experts' h a v e s h o w n t h a t t h e stars a r e s p h e r e s . Or again, t h e stars c a n n o t literally fall f r o m h e a v e n o n t o e a r t h ( M a t t h e w 2 4 : 2 9 ) , b e c a u s e m a n y o r all of t h e stars a r e g r e a t e r t h a n t h e e a r t h , a n d so t h e y could n o t possibly f i t . T h e c u r r e n t state of a s t r o n o m i c a l r e s e a r c h could be ancillary to a n exposition of Christian doctrine. 34
35
A s t r o n o m y a n d astrology a r e of course sharply distinguished in m o d e r n t h o u g h t , but in antiquity t h e t w o words w e r e used interchangeably. M o s t e x p e r t s in o n e t e n d e d also t o be experts in t h e o t h e r — P t o l e m y is t h e classic e x a m p l e . Thus it is n o t surprising t h a t Origen, w h o s h o w s a n interest in a s t r o n o m y , is also familiar with astrology, e v e n t h o u g h h e w a s strongly opposed t o it. He k n o w s astrological t e r m s like zodiac, degree, hour, minute, s e c o n d , c o n j u n c t i o n , meridian, a n d opposite m e r i d i a n . He realizes t h e i m p o r t a n c e of t h e E a s t e r n horizon in casting n a t i v i t i e s , a n d h o w benign planets c a n blunt t h e p o w e r of m a l e v o l e n t o n e s . It is t r u e t h a t most of this information probably c o m e s from philosophical (especially A c a d e m i c ) attacks on astrology, but it is nevertheless u n u s u a l in t h e c o n t e x t of early 3 6
37
38
39
4 0
3 3
InJer.Hom. 8 (3. 55. 1 7 - 2 0 K L ) . De Oral. 31. 3 (2. 397. 4 - 7 K.). cf. In Rom. 9. 41 (PG 14, 1244a). For pagan sources see K.'s note. In Matth.. Comm. Ser. 4 9 (11. 102. 2 5 - 1 0 3 , 6 Kl.); de Lubac Histoire 199. Greater than the earth: see Arist. Meteor. 3 3 9 6 - 9 , Posidonius frag. 261b (Theiler), etc. 3 4
3 5
b
3 6
Philocalia 23. 17 (206. 5 f. and 16f. R.).
3 7
Ibid. 23. Ibid. 23. Ibid. 23. Ibid. 23.
3 8
3 9
4 0
18(207. 14(202. 17 (206. 18 (207.
9 f. R.). 18f. R.). 9 - 1 2 R.). 9 - 2 0 R.).
Origen and the Stars
120
Christian polemic t h a t Origen has a n informed opinion a b o u t t h e astrological views h e opposes. The r e a s o n his interest in t h e visible h e a v e n s was only s e c o n d a r y w a s t h a t h e believed a m o r e i m p o r t a n t reality was to be found above t h e stars. In t h e tradition of Plato's Phaedrus, Origen refers to a celestial vault a n d to a purely noetic supercelestial r e g i o n . Origen regards this as t h e fourth m a j o r portion of t h e world (along with h e a v e n , e a r t h , a n d t h a t w h i c h is b e l o w the e a r t h ) ; Psalm 1 4 8 : 4f., w h i c h speaks of t h e w a t e r s a b o v e h e a v e n that praise t h e n a m e of t h e Lord, is a reference to this supercelestial r e g i o n . In contrast to t h e Valentinians, this invisible a n d superheavenly world w a s seen as part of o u r o w n universe a n d as c r e a t e d by G o d . T h e highest h e a v e n s a r e t h e s u p r e m e portion of this world, but a r e still part of c r e a t i o n a n d subordinate to God's w i l l . 41
4 2
4 3
44
Origen refers to this region above t h e visible h e a v e n ( w h i c h h e o n c e again regards as a ninth sphere above t h e eighth, fixed sphere) as t h e celestial e a r t h (terra coeli), w h i c h is t h e inheritance of t h e b l e s s e d . This is t h e e a r t h of Genesis 1: 1 w h i c h God c r e a t e d in t h e beginning, while t h e earth w e inhabit is t h e 'dry land' c r e a t e d o n t h e third day according t o Genesis 1: 1 0 . So t o o the h e a v e n above t h e ninth sphere is t h e h e a v e n c r e a t e d o n the first day, while t h e fixed sphere ( w h i c h is also called 'heaven') is the f i r m a m e n t m a d e o n t h e s e c o n d day. T h e r e a r e thus t w o earths a n d t w o h e a v e n s . This is t h e solution h e offers t o t h e ambiguity of t h e Christian t e r m 'heaven', w h i c h in scripture is used b o t h in a physical a n d in a spiritual sense. 45
4 6
This brief description of Origen's v i e w of t h e physical universe s h o w s that his affirmation of t h e life of t h e h e a v e n s is part of a wide-ranging series of speculations o n cosmology a n d o n t h e world's e l e m e n t a l forces. It is w i t h Origen above all o t h e r 4 1
CCel. 7. 4 4 (2. 196. 1-5 K.), cf. 5 . 4 4 ( 2 . 4 7 . 2 9 - 4 8 . 1 ) and 6. 19 (2. 89. 3 2 - 9 0 . 18 K.). In Ezech. Hom. 1. 15 (8. 339. 1 7 - 2 1 B.), CCel. 6. 2 0 (2. 91. 3 - 8 K.). See Philo, above ch. 5 n . 18. See Henri Crouzel and Manlio Simonetti, Origene: Traite des principes, SC 253 (Paris: du Cerf, 1978), 2. 151 n. 32. In Ezech. Hom. 1. 15 (8. 339. 18-21 B.). In Ps. 36 Hom. 5. 4 (PG 12. 1362d-1363a); cf. Porphyry ap. Stobaeus (2. 170. 11 Wachsmuth). Ninth heaven: see above n. 28. Prin. 2. 3. 6, 2 8 6 - 9 4 , . In Ps. 36 Hom. 2. 4 (PG 12. 1333a), cf. In Gen. Hom. 1. 2 (6. 3. 2 - 4 B . ) , / « Atom. Hom. 26. 5 ( 7 . 2 5 1 . 3 1 - 2 5 2 . 1 B.). 4 2
4 3
4 4 4 5
4 6
Origen and the Stars
121
Christian writers of t h e patristic period t h a t t h e cosmos c o m e s a l i v e — n o t only in t h e literal sense w h i c h is t h e focus of t h e present w o r k , but in t h e figurative a n d g e n e r a l sense t h a t t h e physical cosmos b e c o m e s a n i m p o r t a n t a r e a of speculation within Christian theology. T h e failure of this a p p r o a c h to win a c c e p t a n c e in later ecclesiastical tradition had i m p o r t a n t c o n s e q u e n c e s in t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of Christian theology w h i c h , after Origen as before h i m , t e n d e d m o r e strongly t o separate theology from physics a n d astronomy. Origen's contribution is therefore impressive a n d unique. F o u r reservations, h o w e v e r , m u s t be m a d e about his combination of physical and theological speculations. First, Origen's w o r k has b e e n misrepresented in t h e past b e c a u s e of a n unsatisfactory use of t h e fragments (so-called) of his De Principiis. In particular his w o r k has often b e e n t r e a t e d as if it w e r e intended t o be systematic a n d definitive in cosmological m a t t e r s , a n d this is doubtful. M a n y scholars in this c e n t u r y h a v e n o t e d that t h e w o r d 'system' is n o t t h e right t e r m to c h a r a c t e r i z e Origen's w o r k . Origen does h a v e a consistent sense of theological direction in his speculations o n t h e h e a v e n s . In particular, J o h n Dillon notes t h e ongoing i m p o r t a n c e of t h e idea of a c o s m i c fall a n d r e t u r n in Origen's t h o u g h t This, h o w e v e r , is t o o general a c o n c e p t to be t h e basis of a system. F u r t h e r m o r e , as w e shall see, Origen had very little interest in t h e internal consistency of his proposi t i o n s — a n d that, after all, is not t h e attitude of t h e truly systematic. S u c h a n a p p r o a c h w o u l d h a v e required m o r e time a n d theological p r e c e d e n t t h a n Origen h a d (his m o s t i m p o r t a n t predecessors after all w e r e Philo a n d C l e m e n t — t h e former often strays into self-contradiction a n d t h e latter's magnum opus is quite literally a ' P a t c h w o r k ' ) . Later thinkers influenced by Origen m a y h a v e h a d a m o r e internally consistent ( a n d radical) cosmology w h i c h w a s inspired by t h e De Principiis, but t h e a c c o m p l i s h m e n t s of Evagrius in t h e fourth c e n t u r y a n d later of s i x t h - c e n t u r y Origenist m o n k s should not be confused with Origen's o w n 4 7
4 8
4 7
Walther Volker, Das Vollkommenheitsideal des Origenes, BHTh 7 (Tubingen: J . C. B. Mohr, 1931), 83 n. 3, and Crouzel, Philosophic, 1 9 5 - 2 0 5 , against E. de Faye, Hal Koch, and Hans Jonas. See further appendix A. 'Looking on the Light: Some Remarks on the Imagery of Light in the First Chapter of the Peri Archon', in Charles Kannengiesser and William L. Petersen (eds.), Origen of Alexandria (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame, 1988), 2 1 6 n . 1. 4 8
122
Origen and the Stars
views. Origen was a theologian w h o w a s n o t so m u c h working f r o m a n overall m a s t e r plan as putting his ideas t o g e t h e r as h e w e n t a l o n g — a style n e a r e r t h a t of St Augustine t h a n that of St T h o m a s . This seems to h a v e b e e n true e v e n in t h e De Principiis (allegedly t h e showpiece of Origen t h e systematic Platonist): Dillon observes that Origen himself seems to h a v e t h o u g h t of this w o r k not as a self-contained unity but 'as a collection of e s s a y s ' . 49
Second, Origen w a s far f r o m regarding himself as a free thinker in cosmological m a t t e r s . He describes himself as a m a n of t h e C h u r c h (vir ecclesiasticus) a n d , as de Lubac notes, frequently uses phrases like 'rule of the C h u r c h ' , 'faith of t h e C h u r c h ' , 'teaching of t h e C h u r c h ' , 'tradition of t h e C h u r c h ' , e t c . As w e shall see, this causes Origen to limit s o m e of his speculations a n d to adapt others to doctrinal a n d scriptural r e q u i r e m e n t s . T h e r e w e r e thus m o r e controls o n t h e direction of his w o r k t h a n either his ancient e n e m i e s o r s o m e m o d e r n admirers w o u l d like t o admit. 50
5 1
Third, it is i m p o r t a n t t o observe t h a t Origen himself is acutely a w a r e that his cosmological speculations a r e innovative, and h e frequently expresses his views hesitantly. He writes t h a t unless h e h a d b e e n called by Christ t o m a k e his theological enquiries, h e would h a v e w i t h d r a w n from t h e m , conscious as h e w a s of his o w n lack of sufficient spiritual i n s i g h t . Before discussing the question of w h e t h e r h e a v e n is part of this world, Origen r e m a r k s that t h e m a t t e r is t o o high for a h u m a n being t o c o m p r e h e n d . Before asking if God is glorified m o r e in himself t h a n in t h e Son, h e says that t h e question is bold a n d beyond his a b i l i t i e s — o n e could multiply e x a m p l e s . It is true t h a t Origen c a n n o t resist speculating o n all of t h e questions a b o u t w h i c h h e has so gravely w a r n e d us ( h e r e again h e is like St A u g u s t i n e ) , but this does n o t m e a n that the warnings a r e simply conventional: h e m e a n s these flights of intellect o r fancy t o be t a k e n as speculation a n d n o t as d o g m a . Origen (like I r e n a e u s ) felt t h a t m a n y questions could only be decisively a n s w e r e d in t h e n e x t life, believing t h a t , since t h e visible world w a s only a n i m a g e of a n intelligible a n d invisible 52
5 3
54
4 9
'Remarks' 2 1 7 , citing In Rom. 7 . 1 5 (PG 14. 1145a).
5 0
In Luc. Hom. 16 (9. 97. 2 8 - 9 8 , 2 Ra.), In Jesu NaveHom. 9. 8 (7. 353. 17 B.).
5 1
De Lubac, Histoire, 56 and 62. In Gen. ap. Pamphilus Apol. Praef. (PG 17. 544b). See further Henri Crouzel, Origen, trans. A. S. Worrall (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989), 1 6 4 - 6 . Prin. 2. 3. 6. 2 4 9 - 5 8 (C/S). In Jo. 32. 28. 349 f. (4. 4 7 3 . 2 5 - 3 4 P.). 5 2
5 3
5 4
Origen and the Stars
123
o n e , m a n y problems could be b e t t e r u n d e r s t o o d w h e n w e w e r e in t h e k i n g d o m of t h e h e a v e n s . This also w a s t r u e of theories o n t h e life of t h e stars: 5 5
When . . . the saints have reached the heavenly places, then they will clearly see the nature of the stars one by one, and will understand whether they are living beings or whatever else may be the c a s e . 56
Origen recognizes a n u n c e r t a i n t y h e r e w h i c h h e does not allow in o t h e r doctrinal issues. This brings us to t h e fourth point, w h i c h is t h a t Origen weighs his t e a c h i n g s very differently, putting forward m a n y ideas as conjectures, a n d it is s o m e t i m e s difficult t o k n o w h o w seriously h e takes these views. T h o u g h Origen certainly t h o u g h t t h e stars are alive, it should be stated at t h e outset t h a t t h e r e is s o m e r o o m for doubt in his m i n d . He notes t h a t t h e tradition does n o t m a k e clear w h e t h e r t h e stars h a v e life o r n o t , a n d e l s e w h e r e h e says that J o b 2 5 : 5, 'the stars a r e n o t clean in his sight', proves that t h e stars a r e capable of sin 'unless this is a h y p e r b o l e ' . T h e v i e w t h a t t h e stars possess life is n o t o n e to w h i c h Origen feels completely committed. 5 7
58
Along these s a m e lines, it is also i m p o r t a n t t o recognize that Origen's speculations a r e often prefaced by t h e frank admission that h e is only expressing his o w n opinion in a m a t t e r w h i c h is still o p e n t o question. Origen t h o u g h t t h e r e w a s n o h a r m in discussing possible a n s w e r s t o questions n o t fixed by d o g m a ( a n attitude strongly contested by his o p p o n e n t s ) . At t h e beginning of a passage w h e r e h e directly discusses t h e question of w h e t h e r sun, m o o n , a n d stars a r e living a n d rational, w h e t h e r their souls c o m e into existence with their bodies o r pre-exist, a n d w h e t h e r their souls will leave their bodies at t h e end of t h e age, Origen admits that his enterprise is adventurous, and asks for indulgence: It is true that to inquire into these matters seems somewhat daring, yet impelled as we are by a keen desire to ascertain the truth, we see nothing unreasonable in examining and testing, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, all that lies within our p o w e r . 59
5 5
In Ps. 38. 7 (PAS 3. 3 0 ) , In Ps. 118 (68. 41 f. Dev.), In Rom. 5. 9 (PG 14. 1044c), Irenaeus/ltf 2. 28. 3 ( 2 . 2 . 2 7 4 R/D). Prin. 2. 11. 7. 2 4 1 ^ 1 (C/S), trans. Butterworth (slightly adapted). Prin. Praef. 10. 186 f. (C/S). cf. Pamphilus Apol. 9 (PG 17, 607b). In Jo. 1. 35. 2 5 7 (4. 4 5 . 2 4 f. P.). Prin. 1. 7. 3. 7 1 - 8 2 (C/S), trans. Butterworth. 5 6
5 7
5 8 5 9
Origen and the Stars
124
A w a r e that h e was almost unique a m o n g ecclesiastical Christians in his serious theological interest in a s t r o n o m y a n d in his view t h a t t h e stars w e r e alive, Origen often hedged his speculations a n d c o n c e d e d the tentative n a t u r e of his conclusions. C o m p a r e d to t h e gnostic a n d Valentinian speculations w h i c h w e r e eagerly e m b r a c e d in second- a n d third-century Alexandria, Origen's cosmology (like Clement's) is restrained. Scholars ancient and m o d e m regard h i m as a bold a n d innovative thinker, but m u c h of his energy is spent w a r n i n g against e v e n m o r e daring proposals. Like Philo, Origen is accordingly a thinker w h o s e praise of h e a v e n — b y this point a standard feature of philosophical treatises—is circumspect a n d at times e v e n diffid ent. Origen points out that at t h e Incarnation Christ b e c a m e a h u m a n being r a t h e r t h a n a n y o t h e r c r e a t u r e because h e h o n o u r e d t h e h u m a n r a c e before all others, even before all t h e life in h e a v e n . Similarly, h e writes that t h e light of t h e stars, t h o u g h w o r t h y in its o w n right, only c a m e into existence on t h e fourth day of creation a n d is not to be confused with the t r u e light w h i c h has c o m e into t h e world, Jesus Christ, w h o enlightens the s o u l . Referring to the motif of the heavenly j o u r n e y w h i c h is so strong in s o m e of t h e apocalyptic a n d gnostic literature, Origen says concerning Ephesians 4 : 10 that Christ's ascent to h e a v e n is mystical r a t h e r t h a n s p a t i a l . His u n d e r standing of t h e stars a n d their i m p o r t a n c e is m o r e conservative t h a n that of m a n y of his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . 6 0
61
62
F u r t h e r m o r e , Origen often ends u p being less radical t h a n the initial t e n d e n c y of a particular a r g u m e n t . F o r e x a m p l e , discussing t h e opening verses of Genesis, Origen remarks that only h e a v e n , earth, sun, m o o n , stars, and h u m a n i t y a r e directly m a d e by God, while everything else in creation is m a d e at God's c o m m a n d . He notes also h o w r e d e e m e d h u m a n i t y is h o n o u r e d by being promised that it will shine like the sun a n d the m o o n . He sees it as a m a r k of the h u m a n race's greatness that it is put o n the s a m e footing as such exalted parts of c r e a t i o n . W e s e e m to be o n the verge of that Hellenistic v e n e r a t i o n of t h e h e a v e n s that C u m o n t called 'astral mysticism'. Then, h o w e v e r , Origen immediately 63
6 0
6 1
6 2 6 3
In Jo. 1. 26. 175 (4. 32. 2 7 - 9 P.). In Jo. 1 . 2 5 . 161 (4. 30. 3 1 - 3 1 , 5 P.). In Jo. 19. 2 2 . 145 (4. 323. 2 7 - 3 1 P.). In Gen. Horn. 1. 12 (6. 14. 1 6 - 1 5 . 3 B.).
Origen and the Stars
125
shifts his g r o u n d a n d notes that it is the h u m a n being (or rather, as h e goes on to say, the inner, incorporeal h u m a n being) w h o is m a d e in t h e i m a g e of God, a n d that this h o n o u r is not attributed to h e a v e n , earth, sun, or m o o n . 6 4
This caution e x t e n d e d to t h e w a y h e assessed astronomical theories in light of biblical revelation. It has not always b e e n n o t e d h o w often scriptural teachings p r e v e n t e d Origen's accept a n c e of a n aspect of pagan cosmology. He writes that 'some' believe that t h e r e are seven h e a v e n s , a n d appeals to t h e Apocalypse of Baruch for s u p p o r t , but h e doubts t h e scriptural basis of this very c o m m o n teaching (2 Corinthians 1 2 : 2 was a sticking point), and usually prefers with Paul to set their n u m b e r at t h r e e . 65
6 6
F u r t h e r m o r e , m a n y of Origen's ideas flew in t h e face of the usual honours which the ancients had given the stars. Origen reports that even some Christians regard sun, m o o n , and stars as i m m u t a b l e and everlasting, w h i c h is the almost universal pagan philosophical view, but h e r e m a r k s that t h e y c a n n o t be eternal since they are c r e a t e d a n d visible, neither of w h i c h w o u l d be possible in that w h i c h is e t e r n a l . Psalm 1 1 8 ( 1 1 9 ) : 8 9 says that t h e W o r d of t h e Lord endures 'until t h e age' a n d n o t 'until t h e age of t h e ages' or 'until t h e age of t h e age' (other c o m m o n scriptural idioms), because after this age in w h i c h w e n o w live ' h e a v e n a n d earth will pass a w a y ' ( M a t t h e w 2 4 : 3 5 ) . Recalling t h e tradition of the Epinomis that t h e stars are t h e guardians of divine providence, Origen says that the eyes of the God's heavenly w a t c h m e n are o n t h e poor (Psalm 10 ( 1 1 ) : 4 ) , but h e t h e n promptly denies that this is t r u e in any physical s e n s e . Origen believes the stars and planets are alive, but h e holds something back; h e is not cautious e n o u g h to satisfy his later opponents, but his speculations on t h e stars w o u l d n o t h a v e h o n o u r e d t h e h e a v e n l y bodies e n o u g h to please c o n t e m p o r a r y p a g a n philosophers. 5 7
6 8
69
6 4
1. 13 (6. 15. 4—13 B.). Prin. 2. 3. 6. 2 6 8 - 9 4 (C/S). For the relation of what Origen was reading to the extant apocalypse (now called 3 Baruch) see H. E. Gaylord in Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha, 1. 655 f. See C/S Principes, 2. 152 n. 34, and P. A. Recheis. Engel, Tod und Seelenreise, TeT4(Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1 9 5 8 ) , 9 5 n. 115. Prin. 1 . 7 . 2 . 4 6 - 5 1 . 3 . 6 . 4 . 114f. (C/S); cf. In Rom 8. 11 (PG 14. 1192b). InPs. 118 (51. 1 7 - 2 0 Dev.). InPs. 10. 4(PG 12. 1197c). 6 5
6 6
6 7
6 8 6 9
126
Origen and the Stars
A n d yet e v e n w h e n o n e acknowledges t h a t Origen's a p p r o a c h is n o t systematic, t h a t his proposals a r e often tentative, a n d t h a t frequently his devotion t o scripture overrules a philosophical c o m m o n p l a c e , p a g a n cosmological traditions nevertheless play a n i m p o r t a n t role in Origen's t h o u g h t . A danger t h a t Origen's admirers h a v e always faced is that their efforts t o defend his o r t h o d o x y m a y lead t h e m to portray Origen as fundamentally u n t o u c h e d by Hellenistic speculation a n d (despite a p p e a r a n c e s ) theologically t a m e . This, h o w e v e r , is just as false as t h e a p p r o a c h w h i c h sees h i m as nothing but a n o t h e r Hellenistic Platonist. Origen w a s deeply influenced by a variety of Hellenistic philo sophical speculations, a n d used this inheritance to ask questions w h i c h h a d n e v e r b e e n asked before in t h e history of Christian theology. The composition a n d life of t h e stars h a d a firmly established place in p a g a n philosophy a n d religion, e v e n if their role w a s not always clearly understood, a n d Origen (like Philo) w o u l d try t o understand t h e m in his a t t e m p t t o lay o u t a biblical cosmology. Origen follows Plato in seeing m o v e m e n t as a sign of- the presence of rationality, but (like Plato in the Laws) Origen realizes that rationality c a n be present in different ways. He accordingly divides m o v e m e n t into t h r e e categories: ( 1 ) t h e lifeless m o t i o n of t h a t w h i c h is m o v e d externally, ( 2 ) soul in a lesser sense, such as t h e g r o w t h of plants, or the m o v e m e n t of elements (as in fire's u p w a r d m o t i o n , earthquakes, winds, a n d w a t e r c u r r e n t s ) , a n d ( 3 ) soul in its higher sense: t h e m o r e sophisticated, self-movement of living creatures, w h o n o t only m o v e 'by themselves' but ' t h r o u g h t h e m s e l v e s ' . 70
71
Origen refers t o both t h e first a n d third categories of m o v e m e n t in his discussion of elemental a n d astral m o v e m e n t s at several points, without coming to a definite conclusion. Following the Stoic c o n c e p t of a W o r l d Soul, Origen says that t h e world is a great a n i m a l which is maintained by t h e i m m a n e n t p o w e r of God. Several scriptural passages w h i c h speak of God's presence in h e a v e n a n d o n earth a r e adduced as evidence. Here, as often, Origen interjects a n o t e of caution: 'I think' (puto) that t h e world is held t o g e t h e r by God 'as if by a single p o w e r ' (quasi ah una 7 0
See above ch. 1 n. 127.
7 1
DeOrat. 6. 1 (2. 311. 1 6 - 3 1 2 . 1 0 K . ) .
Origen and the Stars
127
72
virtute). It w a s c o m m o n philosophical practice to say that t h e elements h a v e s o u l s , a n d Origen follows this view, and also passes along t h e opinion of certain others ( w h o are u n n a m e d ) that veins of metals and stones possess a vital force, and that fire a n d perhaps w a t e r are e n s o u l e d . Since divine j u d g e m e n t is truly universal, scriptural references to t h e j u d g e m e n t and sin of t h e e a r t h presuppose that it is alive. 73
74
And so it will be that on Judgement Day not only humanity but also the universe will be judged; indeed, 'all creation groans and grieves' [Romans 8: 2 2 ] . If 'all creation groans and grieves', and furthermore earth, heaven, ether, and whatever are under the heavens and also above them are a portion of creation, and all creation 'will be freed from the slavery of corruption to the freedom of the glory of the sons of God' [Romans 8 : 2 1 ] , who knows whether the earth also, according to its own nature, is accountable for some s i n ? 75
W e shall see t h a t Origen m a k e s this s a m e type of a r g u m e n t on behalf of t h e idea that t h e h e a v e n l y bodies sin, a n d h e r e again t h e scriptural reference to sin presupposes a fortiori t h e possession of life a n d soul. Moving u p from elemental m o v e m e n t s to higher forms of life, t h e s a m e principle holds true: self-movement a n d life do not arise from body but from s o u l . Like Philo, Origen in s o m e passages links t h e lower soul with blood, in a c c o r d a n c e with the H e b r e w idea that blood is life. He explained t h e ensouled self-movement of insects and sea c r e a t u r e s as arising from a different type of blood w h i c h did not h a p p e n to be red in c o l o u r . He is, h o w e v e r , t o o good a Platonist to link all soul with something so unabash edly material. He explains that if t h e equation that blood is life 76
7 7
7 2
Prin. 2. 1 . 3 . 6 0 - 8 1 (C/S). Alcinous Did. 15 (171. 1 3 - 1 8 Hermann); Varro frag. 2 4 (Cardauns); Celsus ap. CCel. 8. 31 (2. 2 4 6 . 1 9 - 2 2 K.). The elements are also personified in Judaism, see Recheis, Engel, 4 5 , Jub. 2. 2. Elements: CCel. 8. 31 (2. 246. 2 6 - 2 4 7 . 1 K.); see below n. 81. Veins: Prin. 3. 1. 2. 2 9 - 1 8 (Latin). 2 1 - 3 4 (Greek), De Oral. 6. 1 (1. 311. 1 9 - 3 1 2 . 1 K.). A passage attributed to Origen suggests that when Psalm 76: 17 (77: 16) says that the waters have seen God, 'the waters' signify rational natures. In Ps. 7 6 (PAS 3. 108). This passage, however, is probably from Evagrius, see Marie-Josephe Rondeau, 'Le Commentaire sur les Psaumes d'Evagre le Pontique', OCP 26 (1960), 339. In Ezech. Hom. 4. 1 (GCS 8. 3 6 1 . 4 - 1 3 ) . 7 3
7 4
7 5
7 6
CCel. 6. 4 8 (2. 120. 1-3 K.).
7 7
Prin. 2. 8. 1 . 2 2 - 3 1 (C/S).
Origen and the Stars
128
w e r e generally m a d e , t h e r e s u r r e c t e d soul could n o t live outside of t h e t o m b a n d so could n o t 'be with Christ' after d e a t h (Philippians 1: 2 3 ) . F u r t h e r m o r e , Paul h a d said (1 Corinthians 1 5 : 2 0 ) that flesh and blood could not inherit t h e kingdom of h e a v e n . Therefore w h e r e it is linked with rational soul 'blood' m u s t be u n d e r s t o o d in a spiritual sense. This is a n i m p o r t a n t distinction, since Origen c o n c e d e s t h a t t h e e t h e r e a l living beings in h e a v e n also do n o t h a v e blood in t h e ordinary physical w a y . In like m a n n e r , t h e ethereal, psychic bodies of angels a n d of h u m a n i t y in t h e R e s u r r e c t i o n a r e n o t identical with physical m a t t e r , a distinction w h i c h will be discussed below. On t h e borderline b e t w e e n H e b r e w a n d Greek, physical a n d spiritual, Origen hesitates. Soul is blood, but it is also something m o r e ; t h e e t h e r of star a n d soul is m a t e r i a l , but in a sense t h a t is so subtle that t h e f r a m e w o r k of his immaterialist Platonic psychology is unaffected. 7 8
7 9
8 0
Origen has a n o t h e r , rather different e x p l a n a t i o n of m o v e m e n t in o t h e r passages ( w h i c h again indicates h o w unsettled his opinion is in these m a t t e r s ) . Along with positing a l o w e r soul t o explain elemental m o v e m e n t s , Origen a c c o u n t s for t h e m by suggesting t h a t t h e y a r e g o v e r n e d by spiritual powers: But as for my own opinion, I think it should also be boldly said about those powers which have taken on the administration of this world that it is not by fortune or chance that one power presides over the germinations of the earth and trees, another adequately accounts for (exhibeat) springs and rivers, another presides over rains, another over winds, one over sea animals and another over terrestrial animals, or over each of the individual things which grow from the earth. In each one of these there are ineffable mysteries of the divine economy so that everything is divided according to its own rank and according to the duty assigned to each power. For the apostle Paul says the following, 'Are not all ministering spirits sent to serve those who receive the inheritance of salvation?' [Hebrews 1: 1 4 ] . 81
In o n e passage, Origen toys with the idea, familiar in J e w i s h a p o c a l y p t i c , that t h e h e a v e n l y bodies likewise a r e guided by a n 82
7 8
Entretien d'OrigeneavecHeraclide (23. 1 2 - 1 5 Scherer).
7 9
InPs. 1. 5 (PG 12. 1096a). See below n. 96.
8 0
8 1
In Jesu Nave Horn. 23. 3 (7. 444. 5 - 1 5 B.), see also CCel. 8. 31 (2. 246. 2 6 -
247. 2 K.). See ch. 6 nn. 8 3 - 7 . 8 2
Origen and the Stars angel. He discusses this at l e n g t h in o n e
129 of his homilies
on
Jeremiah: 'How long will t h e e a r t h m o u r n , a n d t h e grass of e v e r y field w i t h e r b e c a u s e of t h e wickedness of its inhabitants' [ J e r e m i a h 1 2 : 4 ] . T h e p r o p h e t h e r e speaks as if t h e e a r t h w a s alive w h e n h e says t h e e a r t h m o u r n e d b e c a u s e of t h e wickedness of those w h o walked u p o n it. F o r e a c h of us t h e e a r t h either ' m o u r n s ' o r rejoices, for either it m o u r n s 'because of t h e wickedness of its inhabitants' o r rejoices b e c a u s e of t h e v i r t u e of its inhabitants. In e a c h of us t h e n this s a m e e l e m e n t (ormxslov) either rejoices o r grieves, a n d if it is so for t h e e a r t h it is also t r u e for t h e o t h e r e l e m e n t s . Similarly I shall say: t h e r e is w a t e r a n d a n angel in c h a r g e of w a t e r [Revelation 1 6 : 5 ] , so t h a t I m a y also describe t h e e a r t h w h i c h is grieving a n d t h a t w h i c h is n o t grieving. F o r it is n o t t h e body e a r t h t h a t grieves 'because of t h e wickedness of its inhabitants', b u t u n d e r s t a n d t h a t for t h e administration of t h e u n i v e r s e a n angel is assigned for t h e e a r t h , a n d a n o t h e r for t h e w a t e r s , a n d a n o t h e r for air, a n d a fourth for fire. T h u s rise u p by r e a s o n t o all t h e o r d e r t h a t is in animals, in plants, a n d in t h e h e a v e n l y stars. A n angel is assigned t o t h e sun, a n d a n o t h e r to t h e m o o n , a n d
t o t h e stars. These angels, w h o m w e a c c o m p a n y as long as w e a r e o n t h e e a r t h , either rejoice o r grieve w i t h us w h e n w e s i n . 83
Taken seriously, this w o u l d m e a n that t h e h e a v e n l y bodies (and t h e e l e m e n t a l forces), like o t h e r objects strictly m o v e d externally, w e r e n o t alive at all. They w o u l d n o t h a v e a soul, but w o u l d be controlled by a being w h o did h a v e a soul (the first type of life of the three enumerated above). Such a view would prevail in Christian theology, but n o t in Origen's o w n
eventually thinking.
His usual u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e h e a v e n l y bodies is t h a t t h e y h a v e their o w n s o u r c e of life ( t h e third c a t e g o r y of life listed a b o v e ) . F o r Origen, t h e m o v e m e n t of t h e stars is t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t evidence for this life. In light of p a g a n speculations, t h e following a r g u m e n t to p r o v e that t h e stars a r e living a n d rational is by this point v e r y familiar:
8 3
In Jer. Hom. 10. 6 (3. 76. 8 - 2 6 K l . ) . In SC 2 3 2 , Origene: Homelies sur Jeremie. ed. Pierre Husson and Pierre Nautin (Paris: du Cerf, 1976), 4 1 0 , the editors conjecture 'others', so that the last line would be translated 'another to the moon, and others to the stars'. Klostermann's conjecture ('another'), however, agrees with the ancient Latin translation, and is in line with Origen's suggestion that one angel watches over an entire element; moreover, there is precedence in Platonism to suggest that a single soul could govern multiple heavenly bodies, see above ch. 1 n. 128.
130
Origen and the Stars
And since the stars move with such majestic order and plan that never have we seen their course deflected in the slightest degree, is it not the height of stupidity to say that such order, such exact observance of rule and plan, is accomplished by things without r e a s o n ? 84
T h e o r d e r of t h e stars is m a d e possible by divine c r e a t i o n (as is t h e o r d e r of h u m a n rationality), but it is maintained by t h e heavenly bodies a n d their souls. This rationality of h e a v e n l y m o v e m e n t w a s a w e a p o n in his battle against Christian heretics w h o denied t h e goodness of creation. These opponents (Marcionites and Valentinians) cited scripture to p r o v e t h a t t h e world was evil. In his c o m m e n t a r y on Genesis Origen replied t h a t t h e t e r m 'world' (Kdafiog) is used in several different w a y s in scripture: Through not knowing that the term 'world' can be used as a homonym, people have fallen into the most impious opinions concerning the Creator: I mean those who have not cleared up the question in what sense 'the world is in the power of the evil one' [1 John 5: 19], and have not realized that the 'world' there denotes earthly and human affairs. Supposing the 'world' to be literally the complex whole of heaven and earth and things therein, they exhibit the utmost audacity and impiety in their conceptions of God, for with all their efforts they cannot show how the sun, moon, and stars, with all their wonderful orderly movements, are 'in the power of the evil o n e . ' 85
Similarly, discussing J o h n 1: 1 0 , 'the world (Kdcrfiog) did n o t k n o w h i m , ' Origen r e m a r k s t h a t . . . it is foolish to say that the world here means the whole compounded of heaven and earth and that which is in them, as if someone would say that the sun, moon, chorus of stars, and the angels in the whole world did not recognize 'the true light', and in their ignorance preserved the order assigned them by G o d . 86
Thus in several different c o n t e x t s Origen adopts t h e traditional philosophical v i e w t h a t t h e orderly m o t i o n of stars a n d planets was proof of their i m m a n e n t intelligence a n d high ontological status. Other i m p o r t a n t a r g u m e n t s for t h e life of the stars a r e also d e d u c e d f r o m scripture: t h e stars a r e said t o receive divine Prin. 1. 7. 3 . 9 3 - 8 (C/S), trans. Butterworth. Philocalia 14. 2 (69, 6 - 1 6 R.), trans. George Lewis (adapted). InMatth. 1 3 . 2 0 ( 1 0 . 2 3 5 . 2 2 - 3 3 Kl.);cf. Test. Naphtali 3 . 2 .
Origen and the Stars
131
c o m m a n d s , and c o m m a n d s a r e only m a d e to living a n d rational b e i n g s . Origen gives Isaiah 4 5 : 1 2 , 'And I h a v e c o m m a n d e d all t h e stars,' as a n e x a m p l e . He also points to J e r e m i a h ' s description of t h e m o o n as t h e q u e e n of h e a v e n as additional proof, suggesting that t h e scriptural idea that t h e m o o n rules t h e night as t h e sun rules t h e day is n o t simply a m e t a p h o r . The Bible says that sun and m o o n praise God, a n d t h e fact that t h e y are able to praise is proof that t h e y possess free w i l l . W h e n in Philippians 2 : 1 0 Paul says that every k n e e in h e a v e n shall b o w t o God, this m e a n s that sun, m o o n , stars, a n d angels are subject to t h e worship of G o d . To c o u n t e r t h e pagan philosopher Celsus' charge that Christians stripped all dignity a w a y from sun, m o o n , and stars, Origen quotes Psalm 1 4 8 : 3 f . ( L X X ) , 'Praise h i m sun and m o o n ; praise h i m all y o u stars a n d light, praise h i m y o u h e a v e n s of h e a v e n s , ' t o s h o w that t h e Bible recognizes t h e w o r t h of astral a n d planetary l i f e . Their visible light is t h e w o r k of God, but t h e intellectual light w h i c h t h e y possess probably (his caution surfaces again) c o m e s from their o w n free w i l l . Here as with t h e elements, free will a n d culpability for sin a r e a fortiori signs of life a n d rationality, so t h a t t h e f r e e d o m of t h e h e a v e n l y bodies puts t h e m on t h e s a m e footing as h u m a n beings. 87
8 8
8 9
90
91
92
93
T h o u g h believing t h a t t h e h e a v e n l y bodies a r e spiritually c o m p a r a b l e to h u m a n i t y , Origen n e v e r doubts that t h e stars h a v e a m u c h happier life. Following a long philosophical tradition, Origen thinks that t h e life of t h e rational bodies in h e a v e n m u s t be o n e of great p e a c e a n d order, in contrast to t h e troubles w h i c h plague t h e life below: it m u s t be said c o n c e r n i n g t h o s e o n e a r t h , t h a t certain impressions arising f r o m a t t e n d a n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n d u c e o u r instability o r inclination to t h e w o r s e c o u r s e , so as to do o r say s u c h a n d s u c h things. B u t in regard to t h o s e in h e a v e n , w h a t impression c a n arise to divert o r r e m o v e from t h a t c o u r s e w h i c h is beneficial t o t h e u n i v e r s e a n y of t h o s e beings w h o possess a soul t h a t is perfected by r e a s o n a n d alien t o t h e influence
8 7
8 8
8 9
9 0
9 1
9 2 9 3
Prin. 1. 7. 3. 8 3 - 5 (C/S), In Rom. 9. 41 (PC 14. 1244a). Prin. 1.7. 3 . 8 5 f. (C/S). Prin. 1.7.2. 3 5 - 8 and 1.7. 3 . 9 8 f . (C/S). De Oral 7 (2. 315. 2 8 - 3 1 6 . 4 K.), cf. CCel. 8. 67 (2. 2 8 3 . 19 K.). InRom.9.41 (PG 14. 1244a).
CCel. 5. 13 (2. 14. 9 - 2 3 K.), De Oral. 7 loc. cit. CCel. 5. 10 (2. 11. 1 5 - 1 8 K.).
Origen and the Stars
132
of these impressions, and make use of a body whose quality is ethereal and absolutely p u r e ? 94
Occasionally, Origen seems to suggest in a traditional philo sophical m a n n e r t h a t this s e r e n e life is a m a r k of ontological superiority, and t h u s that w e a r e inferior to t h e h e a v e n l y b o d i e s . E l s e w h e r e , t h o u g h , in keeping with his emphasis o n t h e s u p r e m e dignity of h u m a n i t y in creation, h e suggests that this serenity is n o t t h e result of natural superiority but simply of circumstance: 95
There are more pains and a more precarious life for beings of flesh and blood than there are for those who are in an ethereal body, and if the luminaries of heaven put on earthly bodies they would not complete the life here free from danger and sin. 96
Origen's position is n u a n c e d : t h e stars a r e living a n d rational, and t h e y lead a n orderly a n d undistracted life, but t h e y a r e still creatures, and indeed t h e biblical understanding of Creation a n d the I n c a r n a t i o n s h o w that in s o m e w a y s their dignity is c o m p a r a b l e t o (and even less t h a n ) that of h u m a n i t y . Plato h a d spoken of the stars as gods and (at least mythically) as in s o m e sense the soul's m a s t e r . Origen agrees that t h e y a r e alive, but brings t h e m d o w n ontologically m u c h n e a r e r o u r o w n level. This n e w understanding of t h e stars' rank is evident in his polemic against t h e worship of h e a v e n . Like Philo, Clement of Alexandria, a n d Justin M a r t y r , Origen c o n c e d e s that t h e worship of sun, m o o n , a n d stars is a superior error to that of worshipping g r a v e n i m a g e s , but h e leaves n o doubt of his opposition t o a religion of t h e h e a v e n s . He adopts A c a d e m i c a r g u m e n t s t o s h o w that this practice does n o t m a k e a n y s e n s e , adding that since sun, m o o n , a n d stars pray t o God, it did not m a k e sense t o pray t o them. W h i l e showing as m u c h s y m p a t h y to t h e widespread p a g a n practice as h e could, h e retained God's claim to undivided 9 7
98
9 9
9 4
De Orat. 7 (2. 316. 1 1 - 1 9 K.), trans. Oulton. See also Philo ch. 5 n. 4 3 ; Posidonius frag. 400b (Theiler); Seneca Ad Marc. 2 6 . 4 (165. 7 - 1 1 Reynolds); Apuleius De Deo Socr. 12 (20. 8 - 1 5 Thomas); Plotinus 2. 3. 3. 2 1 - 5 , 2. 9. 8. 35; Porphyry De Regressu An. (32*. 2 3 - 5 Bidez). CCel 5. 11 (2. 12. 2 2 - 9 K.). Ontological superiority would also appear to be implied by the passage quoted above in this chapter, see n. 85. In Jo. 1 . 2 5 . 173 (4. 32. 1 4 - 1 7 P . ) . In Jo. 2. 3. 27 (4. 56. 2 3 - 7 P.); see ch. 7 n.18. CCel. 5. 7 (2. 7. 8 - 2 6 K.), with the note in Henry Chadwick's translation, 268 f. CCel. 5. 11 (2. 12. 1 1 - 1 6 K.).Exh. Mart. 7 (1. 9. 9 f. K.). 9 5
9 6 9 7
9 8
9 9
Origen and the Stars
133
worship a n d rejected the a d o r a t i o n of t h e physical h e a v e n s w h i c h was the c o m m o n inheritance of c o n t e m p o r a r y philosophy. As part of his attack on the widespread v e n e r a t i o n of t h e stars, Origen focuses on the contrast b e t w e e n t h e sensible and t h e noetic in h e a v e n — a contrast w h i c h was t h e s o u r c e of s o m e e m b a r r a s s m e n t to adherents of t h e Platonic 'astral m y s t i c i s m ' — to m a k e absolutely certain that t h e stars and God c a n n o t be confused. Origen claims on the a u t h o r i t y of the Old T e s t a m e n t that 'the t r u e things all h a v e t h e s a m e n a m e as the earthly things w h i c h are m o r e generally given these n a m e s , ' a n d as e x a m p l e s refers to t h e true Light, w h i c h differs from t h e visible h e a v e n , a n d the 'sun of righteousness' (Christ), w h i c h differs from t h e visible sun. The sun, m o o n , and stars only give light to the earth, but the t r u e light, w h o is t h e Saviour, illumines t h e m i n d . When scripture calls God 'light' (1 J o h n 1 : 5 ) , corporeal light is used as a m e t a p h o r for that w h i c h is invisible and incorporeal, and to ascend to God o n e m u s t go b e y o n d that w h i c h is m e r e l y visible. In thus rejecting t h e worship of t h e h e a v e n l y bodies, Origen is part of a long tradition in J e w i s h a n d Christian apologetic. 1 0 0
1 0 1
102
103
A n d yet denying that t h e h e a v e n s w e r e divine led to a n e w type of difficulty. Like all his c o n t e m p o r a r i e s , Origen thinks that t h e universe was filled with rational, spiritual beings w h o had powers and responsibilities w h i c h w e r e m u c h greater t h a n anything in t h e h u m a n race. Like his predecessors in Hellenistic philosophy, h e divides these beings into angels (the J e w i s h a n d Christian equivalent of a d a e m o n ) a n d h e a v e n l y bodies without making clear h o w these t w o groups w e r e related to e a c h other, a problem w h i c h w o u l d persist in Augustine's t h e o l o g y . Each ( o n c e again) w a s seen as s o m e h o w a n i n t e r m e d i a t e being b e t w e e n t h e h u m a n race and God. Having rejected the worship of these beings, Origen was faced with t h e problem of giving s o m e theological a c c o u n t for this situation. W h y w e r e s o m e 1 0 4
1 0 0
CCel. 7. 31 (2. 182. 9 - 1 3 K.), trans. Chadwick: cf. Philo Spec. 4. 192. In Jo. 1.25. 160 f. (4. 30. 2 9 - 3 1 , 5 P.), Prin. 1. 1. 1. 1 4 - 2 4 (C/S). In Jo. 1 3 . 2 3 . 1 3 9 ( 4 . 247. 7 - 9 P.); ascend: see below ch. 9 nn. 6 7 - 7 1 . See Aristides Apol. 6 (119 f. Vona); Theophilus of Antioch Ad Aut. 35 (84 Grant); Lactantius Inst. 2. 5. 6 ff. (1. 115. 9 - 1 2 1 . 18 Brandt); Odes of Solomon 16: 1 4 - 1 9 , Constitutiones Apost. 5. 12. 1 f. and 5 ( 2 6 6 - 9 Funk). Jewish: see also ch. 5 n. 81. Aug. Enchir. 58 (37. 2 6 - 3 0 Scheel). 101
1 0 2 1 0 3
1 0 4
Origen and the Stars
134
beings, such as angels a n d stars, e n d o w e d with superior faculties and a m o r e blessed life? Origen's a n s w e r was that t h e differing positions in w h i c h all creatures found themselves w a s a c o n s e q u e n c e of sins t h a t t h e y c o m m i t t e d before they w e r e b o r n . B e c a u s e every rational being is created free, t h e r e exists within e a c h o n e the possibility of ontological a d v a n c e or decline, a n d t h e exercise of these choices explains one's c u r r e n t state in l i f e . W i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of Christ, all t h e pre-existent souls fell a w a y from God in varying degrees. Pre-existent merits o r sins establish t h e position of e a c h o n e in t h e w o r l d , a v i e w w h i c h Origen defends o n several occasions with reference to t h e biblical a c c o u n t of J a c o b a n d E s a u , w h e r e God is said t o favour J a c o b e v e n before h e w a s born. Life m a y a p p e a r to be unfair, but merit is in fact m o r e i m p o r t a n t in establishing t h e status of t h e individual t h a n a p p e a r a n c e s w o u l d suggest. Evil does n o t c o m e from either God a b o v e us o r m a t t e r b e l o w us, but strictly from t h e i m p r o p e r use of our f r e e d o m , a n d t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s of o u r decisions c a u s e beings t o e n t e r u p o n higher o r l o w e r estates in t h e w o r l d . 105
1 0 6
1 0 7
1 0 8
1 0 9
1 1 0
After birth as before it, souls a r e ontologically transformed in a c c o r d a n c e with ethical decisions. T h e free exercise of t h e will enables t h e soul to b e c o m e angelic e v e n in this life (Origen's influence o n t h e Christian ascetic tradition is key o n this p o i n t ) , or t o b e c o m e m o r e bestial: t h e r e is a possibility of noetic rising or falling for t h e s o u l . Depending o n its choices, t h e soul either b e c o m e s m o r e like flesh o r m o r e like spirit (pneuma). In n o case does it r e m a i n stable: life is a process in w h i c h w e either 1 1 1
112
1 0 5
Prin. 2. 9. 6. 1 9 0 - 5 (C/S). See further Jonas. Gnosis. 2. 191. Prin. 2. 6. 3. 9 6 - 1 0 6 . 2. 6. 5. 1 5 9 - 7 6 (C/S); cf. In Rom. 5. 9 (PG 14. 1044a). For sources on the different consequences of different falls see Pepin, Theologie, 324f. n. 1. For precedent for this in paganism see Plato above ch. 5, n. 32; for the later period, Cicero Consolatio frag. 8f. (Mueller), cited by Pierre Boyance 'La Religion astrale de Platon a Ciceron', REG 65 (1952), 337 n. 3. In Jo. 2. 31. 1 9 1 - 2 (4. 89. 2 - 1 6 P.). Prin. 1. 7. 4. 1 1 9 - 3 6 , 3. 1. 21 f. 9 3 0 ^ 1 4 (C/S); Cadiou, Introduction, 30. Not God: CCel. 6. 55 (2. 126. lOf. K.); not God or matter: CCel. 4. 6 6 (1. 336. 24—31 K.); free will: In Jer. Horn. 1 7 . 4 ( 3 . 148. 1 - 9 K 1 . ) . In Jer. Horn. 8. 2 (3. 58. 5 - 1 0 K.I.), In Luc. Horn. 2 0 (9. 123. 1 6 - 1 2 4 . 6 Ra.), In Lev. Horn. 12. 2 (6. 457. 1-4 B.). In Jo. 19. 22. 144 (4. 323. 24—6 P.). Jacques Dupuis, SJ, L'Esprit de I'homme: Etude sur I'anthropologic religeuse d'Origene. ML. T 62 (Toulouse: Desclee de Brouwer, 1967), 180. 1 0 6
1 0 7
1 0 8
1 0 9
1 1 0
1 1 1
1 1 2
Origen and the Stars
135
1 1 3
b e c o m e m o r e like God o r less like h i m . The r e d e m p t i o n of t h e soul is the point w h e n it is transformed into spirit (pneuma). 114
As this world is a m o r a l testing g r o u n d for t h e h u m a n soul, so also it is for angelic souls. B o t h p a g a n philosophy a n d J e w i s h biblical exegesis (particularly of Genesis 6 ) h a d concluded t h a t ontological superiority did not necessarily m e a n moral superiority. A n g e l s / d a e m o n s could be evil as well as p o w e r f u l . Origen Christianized this communis opinio. Temptation and m o r a l decision are t h e universal condition of rational creatures, and e a c h of t h e m , even t h e superior ones, had fallen into s i n . J u d e 6, w h i c h speaks of t h e i m p r i s o n m e n t of evil angels, a n d Revelation, w h i c h r e p r o a c h e s t h e angels w h o a r e set o v e r t h e seven c h u r c h e s , p r o v e that e v e n beings w h o a r e superior t o h u m a n i t y are n o t w i t h o u t g u i l t . The differences a m o n g angels a n d d e m o n s w h i c h w e a r e described in scripture a r e n o t t h e result of their essence at c r e a t i o n but of m o r a l ( a n d i m m o r a l ) decisions freely m a d e . 1 1 5
1 1 6
1 1 7
1 1 8
Just as it is a mistake to think that all h e a v e n l y beings a r e good, so it is equally e r r o n e o u s t o think t h e y a r e all in t h e s a m e location or all doing t h e s a m e task. According t o Origen t h e r e a r e angels in every part of t h e c o s m o s , a n d t h e responsibilities they h a v e a n d t h e attitudes t h e y take to the h u m a n race differ widely. Following C l e m e n t of A l e x a n d r i a a n d t h e c o m b i n e d traditions of Platonism, J e w i s h apocalyptic, a n d gnosticism, Origen t h o u g h t that a n angel stood w a t c h o v e r every n a t i o n , a n d h e believes 1 1 9
1 2 0
1 1 3
See Dupuis, L 'Esprit, 4 3 - 5 1 . InLuc.Hom. 36 ( 9 . 2 0 7 . 1 5 - 1 8 Ra.), Prin. 2. 8. 3. 1 0 9 - 1 1 (C/S). Pagan: already Xenocrates frag. 2 4 (Heinze) = SVF 2. 1104; Jewish: see Gerald Bostock, 'The Sources of Origen's Doctrine of Pre-existence', in Lothar Lies (ed.), Origeniana Quarta. (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1987), 2 6 1 . In Rom. 3. 1 (PG 14. 924c). Jude: In Rom. 3. 6 (PG 14. 939b); Revelation: In Luc. Hom. 13 (9. 80. 2 0 - 8 Ra.), In Num. Hom. 20. 3 (7. 194. 1 5 - 1 8 B.) and 2 0 . 4 (7. 197. 8 - 1 4 B.). Prin. 1. 5. 3. 131-7, 1. 8 . 4 . 1 2 5 - 6 0 , 1. 6 . 2 . 6 4 - 8 4 (C/S). In Ezech. Hom. 1. 7 (8. 331. 30 B.). Cf. Proclus In Tim. (3. 306. 1 5 - 1 8 Diehl), DeMagia ap. CMAG 6. 149. 28 (see Festugiere, Revelation, 1. 1 3 4 - 6 ) . Clement Strom. 6. 17. 157 (2. 513. 6f. St.), 7. 2. 6 (3. 6. 16ff. St.); Porphyry In Tim. frag. 1 7 ( 1 1 . 7 - 9 Sodano); Iamblichus DeMyst. 5. 2 5 (236. 6 - 8 des Places); Origen Prin. 3. 3. 3. 1 0 1 - 4 (C/S). In Jo. 13. 50. 333 (4. 278. 1 9 - 2 2 P.), CCel. 5. 3 0 (2. 32. 8 - 1 9 K.). Jewish: see Jean Danielou, 'Les Sources juives de la doctrine des anges des nations chez Origene', RSR 38 (1951), 1 3 2 - 7 . Gnostic: On the Origin of the World (NH 2. 105. 1 4 - 1 6 ) , Basilideans ap. Irenaeus AH. 1. 2 4 . 4 (1. 2. 3 2 6 R/D). 1 1 4 1 1 5
1 1 6
1 1 7
1 1 8 1 1 9
1 2 0
Origen and the Stars
136
that these responsibilities are h a n d e d out according to merit; the s a m e holds t r u e for those angels w h o w a t c h o v e r individual souls and t h e e l e m e n t s . Again as in J e w i s h apocalyptic, the angels t o o a r e accountable for their acts at t h e Last J u d g e m e n t , w h e r e t h e y will be r e w a r d e d o r punished according to their merits in keeping h u m a n beings from t e m p t a t i o n and s i n . 1 2 1
1 2 2
The theological result of this was that God could n o t rightly be accused of injustice for any of t h e evils that beset l i f e . Evil is entirely t h e result of decisions m a d e within t h e created order, and is not from God. This interest in theodicy is also noticeable in Plato and subsequent Hellenistic p h i l o s o p h y , but was especially important to Origen because the problem of t h e origins of evil was often a source of conflict a m o n g early C h r i s t i a n s . F u r t h e r m o r e , Origen's astrological opponents h a d a n influential e x p l a n a t i o n for t h e presence of evil in t h e world in their t h e o r y of t h e workings of Fate. It was therefore of t h e utmost i m p o r t a n c e to explain h o w evil was possible in a world m a d e and ruled by God. 123
124
125
F o r Origen, a correct evaluation of t h e place of the stars in t h e divine e c o n o m y was critical to t h e p r o p e r understanding of this problem, and a w r o n g assessment was a n i m p o r t a n t obstacle to belief in t h e doctrine of creation. He asks h o w it is possible if creation is ruled by Providence that 'some inherit a happier lot' (aliis nascendi sors felicior evenit), a n d w h y the various peoples of t h e world h a v e such diversity in their condition at b i r t h . Here and elsewhere Origen acknowledges that t h e vastly different conditions a n d societies into w h i c h people are b o r n affect every aspect of their lives, a diversity w h i c h astrologers claimed was due to t h e rule of different h e a v e n l y p o w e r s . Origen is also well a w a r e of h o w t h e disciples of M a r c i o n , Valentinus, and Basilides a r g u e that t h e existence of various types of life in 1 2 6
1 2 7
1 2 1
InJesu Nave Horn. 23. 3 ( 7 . 4 4 3 . 5 - 4 4 4 . 16 B.). In Num. Horn. 11. 4 (7. 82. 1 6 - 2 5 ) , 20. 4 (7. 197. 5 - 8 ) . 24. 3 (7. 231. 2 1 - 5 B.), In Luc. Horn. 35 (9. 198. 1 7 - 2 3 Ra.). Jewish apocalyptic: see Petrement, Separe, 86. Prin. 3. 5 . 4 . 1 3 5 - 7 (C/S). Seech. 6,n. 4. Tertullian De Praescr. 7. 5 (1. 192. 15f. Dekkers); cf. ps.-Clem. Rec. 3. 75. 6 (145. 1 0 - 1 3 Rehm). For theodicy in Origen see Koch, Pronoia, 9 6 - 1 6 2 . Prin. 2. 9. 5. 152 f.. 164f. (C/S). See also CCel. 5. 27 (2. 27 f. K.), Philocalia 23. 16 (205. 4 - 1 6 R.), Prin. 2. 9. 3. 6 9 - 9 2 , 4. 3. 10. 2 6 5 - 7 1 (Latin), 2 6 3 - 7 (Greek). 1 2 2
1 2 3
1 2 4 1 2 5
1 2 6
1 2 7
137
Origen and the Stars
h e a v e n is additional proof that t h e cosmos was not fashioned by a good creator: They ask how it is consistent with the righteousness of God who made the world that on some he should bestow a habitation in the heavens, and not only give them a better habitation, but also confer on them a higher and more conspicuous rank, favoring some with a 'principality', others with 'powers', to others allotting 'dominions', to others present ing the most magnificent seats in the heavenly courts [i.e. the angels Paul calls 'Thrones'], while others shine with golden light and gleam with starry brilliance, there being 'one glory of the sun, another of the moon, and another glory of the stars, for one star differeth from another star in glory' [1 Corinthians 15: 4 1 ] . To sum it up briefly, they ask what reason there could be, supposing that God the Creator lacks neither the will to desire what is good and perfect nor the power to produce it, that when creating rational natures, that is, beings of whose existence he himself is the cause, he should make some of higher rank and others of second and third and many still lower and less worthy d e g r e e s ? 128
In a theological c o n t e x t in w h i c h the stars w e r e either regarded as the cause of evil in this life or as proof that t h e affairs of this cosmos w e r e not justly arranged, it was necessary to s h o w the true place t h e stars occupied in God's creation. Before Origen, s o m e had pictured t h e stars as good, others as neutral, a n d still others as completely evil. Origen set forth a n e w understanding of t h e stars in w h i c h their c u r r e n t exalted position w a s t r a c e d to their superior merit, but their possession of corporeal bodies w a s explained by positing s o m e type of preexistent sin of their souls. W e h a v e already seen that Origen argues with s o m e hesitation in his c o m m e n t a r y o n J o h n that J o b 2 5 : 5, 'the stars a r e not clean in his sight' shows that the stars h a v e indeed s i n n e d , a n d he repeats the s a m e a r g u m e n t at greater length a n d without hesitation in De Principiis: 1 2 9
Now Job appears to show that not only is it possible for the stars to be subject to sins, but that they are in fact 'not clean' from the pollution of sin. For he writes as follows: 'The stars also are not clean in his sight.' This is certainly not meant to refer to the brightness of their body, as if, for example, one were to say that a certain garment was not clean. Were it to be understood thus, an injurious reflection would undoubtedly be us pyfa j . 9. 5. 1 3 7 - 5 1 (C/S), trans. Butterworth. At least some Marcionites are interested in astrology, see Cadiou, Introduction, 106. See above in this chap. n. 58. 1 2 9
Origen and the Stars
138
cast upon the Creator by the charge that there was something unclean in the brightness of their body. For if the stars are unable either by their own diligent efforts to assume for themselves a clearer body or by their slackness a less pure one, why are they blamed for being 'not clean', since they would receive no praise even if they were c l e a n ? 130
Origen apparently t h o u g h t a good deal of this a r g u m e n t a n d r e p e a t e d it in o t h e r w o r k s . As t h e different positions of h u m a n beings and angels a r e d e t e r m i n e d by t h e degree of severity in previous sin, so t o o it appears t h a t for Origen t h e various a r r a n g e m e n t s of t h e stars h a v e t h e s a m e cause. In o n e passage Origen says that in this world 'supercelestial beings' differ in position a n d brightness according t o their use of free will, but h e t h e n quotes as evidence 1 Corinthians 1 5 : 4 1 , w h i c h refers to sun, m o o n , a n d s t a r s . His m e a n i n g is n o t altogether clear, since 'superheavenly beings' refers to creatures w h o exist in t h e region above t h e fixed sphere a n d so n o t t o sun, m o o n , a n d stars. Thus w h e n J e r o m e accuses Origen of teaching t h a t t h e h e a v e n l y bodies give light in different degrees according to their s i n s , he puts forward this v i e w m o r e clearly t h a n Origen did. B u t t h e r e can be little doubt that this is substantially a n accurate representa tion of w h a t Origen t h o u g h t . This s a m e v i e w appears to be t h e thrust of a n o t h e r passage from De Principiis quoted a b o v e , and Origen is close t o s u c h a v i e w in a homily o n J o s h u a . H e r e h e refers t o t h e distribution of t h e stars as inexplicable, a n d t h e n writes that as t h e stars a r e in different parts of h e a v e n , so t h e children of A b r a h a m inherit a different l o t . Since Origen refers elsewhere to t h e different fates of t h e children of A b r a h a m in a discussion of h o w variety in position is traceable to free decisions of t h e w i l l , it w o u l d a p p e a r that h e t h o u g h t of t h e distribution of t h e stars in t h e s a m e w a y . 1 3 1
1 3 2
1 3 3
1 3 4
1 3 5
1 3 6
As w i t h t h e angels, so t o o t h e stars' capacity for evil could b e great. W e saw above t h a t t h o u g h t h e stars a r e fallen, t h e y a r e 1 3 0
Prin. 1. 7. 2. 5 8 - 7 0 (C/S), trans. Butterworth. In Rom. 3. 6 (PG 14. 940d). In his note to Prin. 1. 7. 2, Crouzel adds Jerome In Eph. 1 (PL 26. 4 9 3 ) , which was very likely taken from Origen's commentary. Prin. 2. 9. 3. 6 3 - 9 ; free will: 2. 9. 6. 1 9 0 - 2 0 7 (C/S). Ep. 124. 4 (3. 99 Hilberg). Augustine repeats the charge in his Contra Prise, et Orig. 9 (175. 2 8 9 - 9 5 Daur). In this ch. n. 130. In Jesu Nave Horn. 2 5 . 4 (7. 4 5 7 . 1-21 B.). 1 3 1
1 3 2
1 3 3
1 3 4
1 3 5
1 3 6
Prin. 2. 9. 5f.
Origen and the Stars
139
often seen as being ontologically superior t o h u m a n i t y . In a couple of passages, h o w e v e r , d e m o n i c beings a r e identified as stars w h o sinned a n d fell from their great heights t o their present wicked condition. In t w o different passages Origen speaks of this fall of t h e stars in v e r y strong a n d d r a m a t i c terms. In e a c h passage h e is c o m m e n t i n g o n Isaiah 1 4 : 1 2 , w h i c h exclaims 'How the m o r n i n g star, arising at d a w n , fell from h e a v e n ! ' In his c o m m e n t ary on Ezekiel, Origen suggests that Satan, w h o according to L u k e fell f r o m h e a v e n ( 1 0 : 1 8 ) , is a fallen star, a n d t h e r e d e e m e d will take his place ' a m o n g t h e stars of h e a v e n ' (cf. Genesis 1 5 : 5). In a scholion w h i c h is probably by Origen t h e r e is a very similar interpretation. C o m m e n t i n g o n Revelation 1 2 : 7 - 9 , w h i c h says t h a t Michael a n d his angels cast d o w n t h e d r a g o n a n d his angels f r o m h e a v e n , Origen writes: 1 3 7
Do y o u n o t see t h a t t h e d r a g o n fought w i t h t h e angels, a n d w h e n h e w a s h a r d - p r e s s e d h e w a s t h r o w n d o w n f r o m h e a v e n . As h e fell h e d r e w w i t h h i m a third of t h e stars. t h e s e stars w e r e divine p o w e r s w h i c h h a d revolted w i t h h i m , a n d t h e y w e r e b o r n e d o w n w i t h t h e d r a g o n , as Isaiah said, 'How t h e m o r n i n g star fell from h e a v e n ! ' 1 3 8
All t h e stars visible in t h e sky a r e less evil t h a n t h e h u m a n race, but a third of t h e d e m o n s had also o n c e been stars. Their superior ontological status enabled t h e m to e n t e r into a m o r e blessed state, or t o fall into a m o r e w r e t c h e d o n e . E v e n for t h e two-thirds of t h e stars w h i c h did n o t fall as far as Satan, t h e r e still w a s a loss of a n original h a r m o n y w i t h God. The m o s t obvious result of this for b o t h h u m a n i t y a n d stars w a s t h e type of bodies in w h i c h w e w e r e incorporated. C o r r u p t i o n is possible because of t h e bodies w e possess; but the inner person w h o is m a d e according to t h e image of God is incorruptible, incorporeal, and i n v i s i b l e . In h e a v e n a visible a n d tangible 139
1 3 7
InEzech. 12. 2 ( 8 . 4 4 4 . 1 8 - 2 1 B.). Scholia in Apocalypsem 38 (15. 1—4 Turner). Turner notes (vs. Harnack) that a word is needed to govern the infinitive and conjectures eiKdg. In light of Origen's caution in such matters this seems plausible. Irenaeus has the same interpretation, AH 2. 31. 3 (2. 2. 330 R/D). Incorruptible: In Rom. 7 (PG 14. lllOab); incorporeal: In Gen. Horn. 1. 13 (6. 15. 1 1 - 1 3 B.). It is important to see that Origen tends to use the word 'incorporeal', not in its strict sense, but only to indicate the absence of an earthly body. Thus he can equate 'incorporeal' with 'invisible', Prin. 3. 6. 7. 2 2 4 , see Herwig Gorgemanns and Heinrich Karpp, Origenes vier Biicher von den Prinzipien (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1976), 117 n. 2 3 . and C/S, 1 3 8
1 3 5
Principes, 4. 144 n. 41.
Origen and the Stars
140
body (as opposed to incorporeality) is a sign of a l o w e r ontological status. It is because of this principle t h a t Origen writes that t h e incorporeal p o w e r s in h e a v e n a r e t r u e , but t h a t those visible o n earth and corporeal a r e w h a t t h e Letter to t h e Hebrews ( 9 : 2 4 ) calls 'imitations of t h e t r u e ' a n d n o t 'the t r u e ' . Satan fell from his body of light to a body of this world, w h i c h is w h y Satan is called t h e Prince of this world ( J o h n 12: 3 1 ) . 1 4 0
1 4 1
The stars a n d planets a r e bodies of light, as Satan w a s before his fall, a n d like h u m a n i t y a r e n o t as b o u n d u p with t h e m e r e l y corporeal a n d material as Satan, but in their o w n w a y these h e a v e n l y beings a r e also tied to bodies and subject to their limitations. Denying that it is possible to h a v e a body a n d n o t to be subject to 'the r e p r o a c h of angels' m e n t i o n e d in J o b 4 0 : 19 ( L X X ) , Origen suggests t h a t t h e soul of t h e sun w a s placed in a body t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e rest of creation against its will, a n d t h a t those w h o a r e in t h e body unwillingly do t h e things of t h e body. Or again, h e says elsewhere that t h e sun is n o w subject to c o r r u p t i o n a n d needs to be freed from its b o n d a g e . 1 4 2
1 4 3
This did n o t m e a n (as Origen's e n e m i e s would c h a r g e ) that h e believed t h e body w a s nothing m o r e t h a n a p u n i s h m e n t , a v i e w w h i c h Origen specifically denied. The physical world (including t h e body) w a s a gift of P r o v i d e n c e given t o help train rational creatures so that they might regain their lost sanctity, for as the possession of body increased t h e t e m p t a t i o n t o sin, it also provided t h e opportunity for virtue, a n d also a c t e d as a n aid t o the s o u l . As e v e n o u r thick a n d tangible bodies w e r e given to us as a c o n s e q u e n c e of sin ( e v e n if t h e y a r e n o t intrinsically evil), so t h e visible bodies of stars and planets probably w e r e given to these souls after t h e y h a d t u r n e d a w a y from God. Origen does consider t h e possibility that God m a d e t h e bodies of t h e stars at t h e s a m e time as their souls, but definitely inclines t o t h e v i e w that their spirit (spiritus) w a s placed in t h e stars after t h e c r e a t i o n 1 4 4
1 4 5
1 4 0
In Cant. Horn. 2 (8. 160. 1 8 - 2 0 B.); Recheis, Engel, 85. Prin. 1. 5. 5. 2 7 0 - 8 (C/S). Evagrius says of demons, 'leur substance est coextensive avec la substance du monde,' KG 4. 35, trans, (from the Syriac) Guillaumont p. 151. InJo. 1. 1 7 . 9 8 f . (4. 2 1 . 2 1 - 7 P.). Exh.Mart. 7 (1. 9. 1 1 - 1 4 K . ) . Opponents charge: Epiphanius Pan. 64. 4. 6 (2. 4 1 1 . 4f. Holl, see his note); denied: CCel. 4. 6 6 (1. 3 3 6 . 2 8 - 3 0 K.). The world a gift: In Jo. 19. 20. 132 (4. 321. 2 3 - 5 P.); train: Prin. 3. 5. 4. 131: virtue: see in this ch. n. 96; aid: InJud. Horn. 6. 5 (7, 5 0 2 , 2 4 f . ) . 141
1 4 2
1 4 3
1 4 4
1 4 5
Origen and the Stars
141
of their bodies. Intending t o p r o v e this from scripture, h e cites various passages in w h i c h infants h a d received divine favour w h e n t h e y w e r e still in t h e w o m b . Arguing t h a t God w o u l d be unjust or s h o w favouritism (cf. R o m a n s 9 : 1 4 , 2 : 1 1 ) if this w e r e arbitrary, h e says that this proves t h e p r e - e x i s t e n c e of souls, a n d that w h a t r e a s o n a n d scripture say holds t r u e for h u m a n beings m u s t also hold t r u e for heavenly l i f e , so that the assignment of this body also to a higher type of soul is t h e result of sin. Origen argues frequently that t h e current usefulness of t h e stars in identifying t h e times a n d t h e seasons is their consciously expressed p e n a n c e for these pre-existent misdeeds, a topic w h i c h will be discussed in g r e a t e r detail below. Stars, like people, w e r e rational beings w h o h a d sinned a n d for w h o m their present bodies w e r e fashioned as a result of their sin, a n d this life w a s a time in w h i c h t h e y , like h u m a n i t y , a t t e m p t e d t o r e c a p t u r e t h a t m o r e spiritual life w h i c h h a d b e e n enjoyed by t h e m before t h e foundation of t h e world. 1 4 6
147
Since Origen believed that t h e stars w e r e free rational beings w h o h a d fallen into sin, it is not surprising that h e included t h e m in his doctrine of Redemption: It would indeed be absurd to say that he [sc. Christ] tasted death for human sins and not for any other being apart from man who had fallen into sin, such as the s t a r s . . , 1 4 8
Christ's blood w a s shed not only for h u m a n i t y but also for 'the c h u r c h of t h e first-born' w h i c h is in t h e h e a v e n s (Hebrews 1 2 : 23). The crucifixion is twofold: t h e r e is Christ's visible sacrifice as a h u m a n being for o t h e r h u m a n beings, a n d a n invisible sacrifice for all of rational creation. This is t h e m e a n i n g of Origen's claim that Christ c a m e as a h u m a n being to save h u m a n beings and as a n angel to save a n g e l s : Christ's sacrifice was 1 4 9
1 5 0
1 4 6
Gen. 25: 2 2 - 6 ; Luke 1: 41; Jer. 1: 5. Prin. 1. 7. 4. 1 0 4 - 4 0 (C/S). InJo. 1 . 3 5 . 2 5 7 (4. 4 5 . 2 4 - 7 ) . H e goes on to cite J o b 2 5 : 5. In Lev. Horn. 1. 3 (6. 284. 2 1 - 2 8 5 . 5 B.). See further Barbel, Christos, 2 8 9 97, and Marcel Borret's note in Origene: Homelies sur le Levitique (Paris: du Cerf, 1981), 1. 363 f. This is not a separate sacrifice, or one that would have to be repeated, as Origen's enemies charged: see CIS, Principes, 2. 148 f. n. 24. In Jo. 1 . 3 1 . 2 1 7 (4. 38. 3 0 - 3 P.), In Gen. Horn. 8. 8 (6. 8 3 . 1 2 - 1 4 B.); d. the catena on Hebrews, no. 363 in Hans Urs von Balthasar, Origen: Spirit and Fire, trans. Robert J . Daly, SJ (Washington, DC: Catholic University, 1984), and Jerome In Eph. I. 1 (PL 26. 4 9 3 ) ; see also the Valentinian Gospel according to Philip 23 (NH 2. 57. 2 7 - 5 8 . 2), and Pistis Sophia 1. 7 (12. 2 - 6 Schmidt/MacDermot). 1 4 7
1 4 8 1 4 9
1 5 0
Origen and the Stars
142
c o s m i c in n a t u r e a n d included all t h e beings in h e a v e n a n d in t h e regions above h e a v e n , as well as those o n e a r t h . Therefore Origen says t h a t w h e n w e read that t h e gospel is to be declared to t h e w h o l e universe (Koafioq, M a r k 16: 5 ) , w e m u s t u n d e r s t a n d that this includes t h e e a r t h a n d all of t h e h e a v e n s . 1 5 1
A n d yet, despite t h e fallen condition of t h e stars and their n e e d for redemption, Origen regards t h e stars visible in t h e sky (i.e. a n d n o t those w h o h a v e fallen a n d b e c o m e d e m o n s ) as in n o w a y a m e n a c e t o t h e h u m a n race. This does n o t m e a n that t h e r e w e r e n o malevolent forces located above. Like m a n y of his c o n t e m p o r aries, Origen believed t h a t forces located above inspect t h e ascending soul and, u n d e r certain c i r c u m s t a n c e s , w o u l d p r e v e n t it f r o m reaching its h e a v e n l y g o a l . In a homily o n Numbers, Origen w o n d e r s if t h e ascending soul will struggle with evil p o w e r s in h e a v e n , a n d says that t h e 'spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly regions' (Ephesians 6: 12) must yet be c o n q u e r e d in spiritual b a t t l e . He also alludes t o this in o n e of his homilies on J o s h u a : 1 5 2
1 5 3
1 5 4
You have heard who they are whom you must drive out of the heavenly places by war and by force so that you may be able to receive these places of the kingdom of the heavens as your legitimate inheritance. 155
In his c o m m e n t a r y o n Luke Origen has a n interpretation w h i c h is influenced by t h e m y t h of t h e soul's ascent t h r o u g h evil h e a v e n l y p o w e r s . He writes that t h e tax-collectors w h o c o m e t o be baptized by J o h n t h e Baptist in L u k e 3: 12 a r e the Prince of this world a n d his minions, w h o scrutinize t h e ascending soul t o see 'if t h e r e is anything in it that is their o w n ' , i.e. t o see if t h e ascending soul is still b o u n d t o that w h i c h is material a n d worldly. Since Satan a n d o n e - t h i r d of the stars w e r e 'borne d o w n ' by their sins a n d n o 1 5 6
151
In Jo. I. 15. 87 (4. 19. 20—3 P.). In Ezech. Horn. 7. 3 (8. 3 9 3 . 8 - 1 3 B.), Exh. Mart. 4 8 ( 1 . 4 4 . 6 - 1 4 K.). In Num. Horn. 27. 4 (7. 262. 1 6 - 1 8 B.). In Num. Horn. 7. 5 (7. 47. 5 - 1 9 B.). In Jesu Nave Horn. 12. 1 (7. 368. 9 f. B.). See Jerome Ep. 124. 11 ( 3 . 1 1 3 . 2 6 114. 6Hilberg). In Luc. Horn. 2 3 (9. 144. 16-21 Ra.); similarly In Ps. 3 6 Horn. 5. 7 (PG 12. 1366bc), In Ps. 118 (29 Dev.), and Clement of Alex, (see Ra.'s note). See also above in this ch. n. 141. The same term which Origen uses for 'tax-collectors' (xsX&vai) is used in a number of gnostic sources: The First Apocalypse of James (NH 5. 33. 5 - 3 4 . 20); the Apocalypse of Paul (NH 5. 20. 17); the Acts of Thomas 148 (257. 11 f. Bonnet); and in the gnostic-influenced ps.-Macarius Aegyptius Horn. 4 3 . 9 (290. 1 3 4 - 9 Domes). 1 5 2
1 5 3
1 5 4 155
1 5 6
Origen and the Stars
143
longer h a d a body of light but a body of this world, t h e y lived in a region below h e a v e n . In t h e following passage, in w h i c h Origen assures a congregation familiar with stories about t h e terrors in t h e h e a v e n s , the implication is t h a t these evil powers are located in the air and fire w h i c h s u r r o u n d t h e earth b e n e a t h h e a v e n . After describing h o w the waters of t h e J o r d a n river parted to allow t h e people to cross into the promised land, Origen continues: And you should not be surprised when these things are related to you about an earlier people. It is to you, Christian, who through the mystery of baptism have crossed the river Jordan, that the word of God has promised a way much better and higher: it promises you a journey and passage through the air itself. For hear Paul when he says of the righteous, 'we shall be taken up in the clouds to meet Christ in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord' [I Thessalonians 4: 17]. There is nothing at all that the righteous person should fear: every creature serves him. Hear finally how God, again through the prophet, makes him a promise, saying, 'if you should pass through fire, the flames would not harm you, for I am the LORD your God' [Isaiah 43: 2 ] . 1 5 7
There w e r e d e m o n s above, but they w e r e not stars (at least n o t any longer). Instead, c o m p a r a b l e to t h e Stoic view, t h e d o m a i n of these evil powers was in t h e p r o x i m i t y of t h e earth. In passages w h i c h explicitly refer to h e a v e n l y bodies, Origen is always of t h e opinion that t h e y neither cause events below t h e m o o n n o r are a s o u r c e of w o e to h u m a n i t y . Origen is familiar with t h e tradition w h i c h makes t h e h e a v e n l y bodies w r o n g d o e r s , and strongly opposes it. Several times h e quotes Psalm 7 2 ( 7 3 ) : 9 against Basilidean and Valentinian opponents: 'they h a v e set their m o u t h s against h e a v e n . ' The Gospel of M a t t h e w itself links t h e m o o n with t h e d e m o n i c possession that causes epilepsy ( 1 7 : 1 5 ) , but Origen, citing this passage, goes to great lengths to s h o w t h a t this is n o t in fact due to t h e h e a v e n l y body but to t h e cunning of d e m o n s w h o observe t h e m o v e m e n t s of t h e m o o n a n d also of t h e stars a n d plan their o w n evil deeds accordingly: 1 5 8
1 5 7
In Jesu Nave Horn. 4. 1 (7. 308. 9 - 1 7 B.). InMatth. Comm. Ser. 2 8 ( I I . 51. 8 - 1 1 K l . ) , / « Titum (PG 14. 1305a), d. In Rom. 2. 14 (PG 14. 916d). In Gen. Horn. 3. 5 (6. 4 6 . 1 8 - 2 3 B.). The Matthew passage singles out the followers of Basilides. The Titus passage refers to those who believe in various types of soul, which suggests the Valentinians. 1 5 8
Origen and the Stars
144
And all those who claim that the cause of all disasters upon earth (whether generally or individually) correlates with the position of the stars say that 'there is injustice on high.' And such people truly 'have set their mouth against heaven' by saying that some of the stars are harmful and others are beneficent, when no star has been made by the God of the universe to do evil, at least according to Jeremiah as it is written in Lamentations [3: 3 8 ] , 'Evils and good do not come from the mouth of the LORD.' It is probable that this unclean spirit which causes what is called epilepsy (oe\riviaofids) observes the configurations of the moon in order to work upon the person who has been handed over to it for certain reasons and who has not made himself worthy of angelic protection. In precisely the same way other spirits and demons attend to the configurations of the other stars, so that not only the moon but also the other stars are reviled by those who claim 'there is injustice on high.' 159
The h e a v e n l y bodies are not intrinsically evil, but c a n be used for evil purposes by d e m o n i c powers. In this m a n n e r also t h e devil at t h e end of days will transform himself into a n angel of light (2 Corinthians 1 1 : 1 4 ) a n d deceive m a n y by pretending to be t h e sun. 1 6 0
Origen thus denies t h e i m p o r t a n t c o n t e m p o r a r y belief that t h e planets o r stars w e r e malevolent. As part of t h e divine creation their n a t u r e is good. He also opposed t h e c o m m o n astrological assumption that their 'effluences' (dndppoiai) cause affairs b e n e a t h t h e m o o n . Since o n e of t h e charges m a d e against Origen by later o p p o n e n t s w a s t h a t h e believed in a s t r o l o g y , it is i m p o r t a n t to n o t e that Origen frequently refers to this discipline and its practitioners a n d always denies their c l a i m s . In addition to a series of philosophical a r g u m e n t s d r a w n from A c a d e m i c 161
1 6 2
1 6 3
1 5 9
In Matth. 13. 6 (10. 194. 1 3 - 1 9 5 , 10 K l . ) , from the Greek, cf. Jerome In Matth. 1 (PL 26. 33c); already Tatian Or. 9 (10. 3 - 1 0 Schwartz). For the view that the moon causes epilepsy see Franz Cumont, L'Egypte des astrologues (Brussels: Fondation egyptologique Reine Elisabeth. 1937) 169 n. 1. In Matth. Comm. Ser. 49 (11. 103. 7 - 1 5 K l . ) , interpreting Matt. 24: 29. See ps.-Thessalus of Tralles 1 (61. 7f. Friedrich); Porphyry Introductio 12 (CCAG 5. 4. 199); the 'Sacred Book of Hermes to Asclepius', ed. Ruelle in RPh 32 (1908) 2 5 0 . 7; CHfrag. 23. 6 4 (4. 20. 27f. N/F); PGM 12. 254; etc. So Theophilus of Alexandria in Jerome Ep. 92, and one anonymous citing another ap. Photius B * . 117. K. quotes both passages in his edition of Prin. at 3. 3. 3. In Gen. Horn. 14. 3 (6. 124. 8 f. B.), In Exod. Horn. 7. 2 (6. 207. 1 7 - 1 9 B.), In Num. Horn. 12. 4 (7. 106. 5 - 7 B.), In Jesu Nave Horn. 7. 4 (7. 331. 1 2 - 1 5 B.), In Ezech. Horn. 1. 10 (8. 333. 2 7 f . B.)., In Jer. Latin Horn. 3. 4 (8. 314. 3 - 2 1 B.) InMatth. 1 3 . 6 ( 1 0 . 195. 1 3 - 1 6 K l . ) . 1 6 0 1 6 1
1 6 2
1 6 3
Origen and the Stars
145 1 6 4
sources which questioned the plausibility of astrological c l a i m s , Origen says t h a t belief in astrology destroys t h e free will a n d so eliminates a n y possible merit o r b l a m e for actions, a n d so a n y belief in a righteous j u d g e m e n t of G o d . The determinism presupposed by astrology would e m p t y all m e a n i n g o u t of Christ's R e d e m p t i o n , t h e efforts of t h e apostles, h u m a n e n d e a v o u r , a n d prayer, and would m a k e God u n j u s t . 1 6 5
1 6 6
The stars, h o w e v e r , had t o o strong a position both in c o n t e m p o r a r y philosophy a n d in t h e popular imagination to play n o role w h a t s o e v e r in shaping t h e life below. C o n n e c t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e m o o n a n d t h e m o v e m e n t s of tides, or b e t w e e n t h e positions of stars a n d t h e seasons, h a d long since b e e n m a d e , a n d this lent m u c h credibility t o astrological claims. T h e belief that o n e could foretell t h e future by studying t h e h e a v e n s was c o m m o n w i s d o m in A l e x a n d r i a , t h e h o m e of s u c h influential astrologers as Nechepso/Petosiris a n d Ptolemy. A n d e v e n later w h e n h e p r e a c h e d in Caesarea, Origen w a s a w a r e that m a n y in his c o n g r e g a t i o n consulted astrologers r o u t i n e l y . Among both intellectuals and t h e u n l e a r n e d , c o m p l e t e disbelief in astrological t h e o r y was scarcely credible in t h e third c e n t u r y . 1 6 7
A middle c o u r s e , h o w e v e r , was available. Following Philo, Clement, a n d t h e Platonic t r a d i t i o n , Origen believed that t h e stars could act as signs of future events w i t h o u t causing t h e m . He Christianizes this view, saying t h a t t h e stars w e r e signs of all t h a t h a p p e n s in a c c o r d a n c e with Genesis 1: 1 4 , 'let t h e m be for signs,' and J e r e m i a h 1 0 : 2 , 'be n o t dismayed at t h e signs of h e a v e n . ' This w a s c o m b i n e d w i t h his conviction that all things in this w o r l d w e r e traceable, n o t t o F a t e , but t o free will or t o t h e dictates of Providence. W e s a w a b o v e that Origen believed that d e m o n s w a t c h e d t h e phases of t h e m o o n in order t o plan their o w n misdeeds and so malign t h e m o o n , and this w a s possible because t h e r e w a s a relationship (the Stoics would say a 'sympathy') b e t w e e n events in h e a v e n a n d t h e position of t h e stars. Incidents o c c u r r i n g o n e a r t h h a v e regular c o u n t e r p a r t s in 1 6 8
1 6 9
1 6 4
1 6 5
1 6 6
1 6 7
See Philocalia 2 3 . 16 f. (204. 1 6 - 2 0 7 . 23 R.). Ibid. 23. I ( 1 8 7 . 2 4 - 1 8 8 , 29 R . ) a n d 2 3 . 2 (189. 1 8 - 2 2 ) . Ibid., and frag. 49 In Jer. to verse 36: 8 (3. 2 2 3 . 1 3 K 1 . ) . In Jesu Nave Horn. 7 . 4 ( 7 . 3 3 1 . 1 2 - 1 5 B.). See also Philocalia 2 3 . 1 ( 1 8 7 . 2 0 -
4R.). 1 6 8
See ch. 5, n. 10 and ch. 7 n. 7.
1 6 9
Philocalia 23. 15 (204. 8 - 2 1 3 R.).
Origen and the Stars
146
h e a v e n a n d v i c e - v e r s a — n o t b e c a u s e o n e causes t h e o t h e r but b e c a u s e e a c h is part of a single w h o l e . This is t h e e x p l a n a t i o n for Jacob's reference t o 'reading t h e pages of t h e s k y ' : t h e stars a r e 'heavenly writings' w h i c h angels a n d divine p o w e r s c a n r e a d . This is also probably t h e m e a n i n g of Origen's obscure reference to t h e good deeds recorded o n 'the Gospel written on h e a v e n l y tablets' w h i c h c a n be read by all w h o a r e w o r t h y to k n o w all things. Astrology is the mistaken use of this correlation b e t w e e n h e a v e n a n d earth; o n e w h i c h (following / Enoch a n d C l e m e n t ) is abetted by fallen a n g e l s . 1 7 0
1 7 1
1 7 2
1 7 3
There is a proper use for t h e signs of t h e h e a v e n s , a n d that is t o refer to t h e m in order to keep track of t h e c h a n g e of seasons. In response to Celsus, Origen defended t h e Stoic idea t h a t t h e w h o l e universe h a d b e e n m a d e for t h e benefit of h u m a n i t y , and he t h o u g h t that this w a s also t r u e for t h e physical h e a v e n s . Along with earth, sea, winds, a n d rain, so t o o h e a v e n , sun, m o o n , a n d stars w e r e given by God t o serve m a n k i n d . Like m o s t of his pagan c o n t e m p o r a r i e s , Origen a s s u m e d that t h e association of different stars in t h e sky with different seasons m e a n t t h a t t h e stars caused the seasons a n d t h e changes in t h e w e a t h e r that t h e y brought. This also m e a n t t h a t t h e h e a v e n l y bodies p r o d u c e all of t h e fruits of t h e e a r t h for t h e h u m a n race t o e n j o y . Thus t h e stars h a d a central role in daily h u m a n affairs, t h o u g h only in regulating t h e natural world a n d n o t in o u r m o r a l a n d spiritual life. O t h e r Christian writers h a d t h e s a m e i d e a , but for Origen this service w a s t h e result of a n i m m a n e n t a n d conscious act, a n d n o t simply of P r o v i d e n c e working directly t h r o u g h t h e stars. Origen believed that t h e universe w a s full of rational beings w h o w e r e either well-disposed t o h u m a n i t y (angels) o r h a t e d it ( d e m o n s ) , and t h e starry h e a v e n s w e r e a m o n g t h e beneficent 1 7 4
1 7 5
1 7 6
1 7 7
1 7 0
Ibid. 23. 15 and 19, quoting a lost Jewish apocalyptic work, the Prayer of Joseph, see J. Z. Smith ap. Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha, 2. 6 9 9 - 7 1 2 . Ibid. 23. 2 0 (209. 2 3 - 6 R . ) ; c f . Plotinus2. 3. 7 . 4 - 1 3 . 3. 1.6. 1 8 - 2 4 . In Jo. 1. 11. 6 8 (4. 16. 3 1 - 4 P.). For precedent in Jewish apocalyptic see Cecile Blanc's note in Origene: Commentaire sur Saint Jean, i, SC 120 (Paris: du Cerf, 1966), 95. Philocalia 2 3 . 6 (193. 3 1 - 1 9 4 . 4 R.). see ch. 7 n. 9. CCel. 4. 7 4 ( 1 . 343. 1 4 - 3 4 4 . 16K.). In Num. Horn. 24. 2 (7. 2 2 9 . 2 8 - 2 3 0 . 2 B.). In Rom. 7. 4 (PG 14. 1111c), In Jesu Nave Horn. 2 3 . 3 (7. 4 4 4 . 5 - 1 3 B.); pagan: Varro frag. 2 6 (Cardauns), Celsus ap. Origen CCel. 5. 6 (2. 6. 3 - 5 K.). See W. Gundel, 'Astronomie', RAC1 (1950). 835. 1 7 1 172
1 7 3
1 7 4 1 7 5
1 7 6
1 7 7
Origen and the Stars
147
powers. T h e y carried out (literally) m u n d a n e tasks, helping t o preserve order a n d continuity in t h e world so t h a t life could prosper a n d t h e opportunity could b e present for those w h o w e r e m o r t a l a n d fleshly to strive after that w h i c h was higher a n d better. At this point w e see that t h r e e of Origen's innovative speculations o n t h e stars w e r e : ( 1 ) they w e r e sinners w h o a r e n o w doing p e n a n c e for pre-existent vices, ( 2 ) their bodies a r e t h e h e a v i e r a n d m o r e material c o n s e q u e n c e of sin, a n d ( 3 ) their m a i n t e n a n c e of t h e c o r r e c t progression of t h e seasons t h r o u g h the rational m o v e m e n t of their bodies was their conscious service to h u m a n i t y . All t h r e e a r e repeatedly referred t o in Origen's exegesis of R o m a n s 8: 2 0 , 'the creation w a s subjected t o vanity, n o t of its o w n will, but b e c a u s e of h i m w h o subjected it in h o p e . ' Origen cites this passage in discussions of t h e function of h e a v e n l y bodies m a n y different times, in works both early a n d late in his c a r e e r . The following passage is representative: 1 7 8
For indeed 'the creation was subjected to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who subjected the same in hope', so that sun, moon, stars, and the angels of God should fulfil an obedient service for the world; and it was for those souls which on account of their excessive spiritual defects required these grosser and more solid bodies and also for the sake of those others for whom this arrangement was necessary that the visible world was instituted. 179
E l s e w h e r e Origen suggests that t h e 'vanity' t o w h i c h c r e a t i o n is subjected is a r e f e r e n c e to t h e bodies w h i c h t h e stars h a v e t o put on. Only at t h e m o m e n t of t h e 'revelation of t h e sons of God' ( R o m a n s 8: 1 9 ) , i.e. t h e Redemption, will t h e h e a v e n l y bodies be freed from this t a s k . 1 8 0
1 8 1
Origen's opinion o n this is n o t fixed. He o n c e again prefaces o n e of these discussions w i t h t h e admission t h a t this is only his
1 7 8
DeMart. 7, Prin. 1. 7. 5, 2. 9. 7, 3. 5. 4, In Rom. 7. 4, CCel. 5. 13, cf. In Rom. 9. 4 1 , In Num. Hom. 28. 2. DeMart. is an early work, CCel. a late one. See further Paul Lebeau, 'L'lnterpretation origenienne de Rm. 8. 1 9 - 2 2 ' , Kyriakon, FS Johannes Quasten, ed. Patrick Granfield and Josef A. Jungmann (Miinster: Aschendorff, 1970), 1 . 3 3 6 - 4 5 . Prin. 3. 5. 4. 1 1 6 - 2 2 (C/S); trans. Butterworth (slightly adapted). Cf. Jerome Contra Jo. 17 (PL 2 3 . 385bc); Augustine Comm. Orosii 3 (162. 1 2 1 - 5 Daur). Prin. 1.7. 5. 1 5 5 - 7 (C/S). Ibid. 1 6 4 - 7 5 (C/S), DeMart. 7 ( 1 . 9 . 1 0 - 1 4 K.). 1 7 9
1 8 0 1 8 1
148
Origen and the Stars
opinion,
1 8 2
a n d it is p e r h a p s significant t h a t n o n e
of
these
discussions o c c u r s in a homily: t h o u g h t h e doctrinal differences b e t w e e n t h e homilies a n d his m o r e esoteric w o r k s h a v e b e e n e x a g g e r a t e d in the past, it is t r u e that Origen is s o m e w h a t m o r e reserved writings.
in 1 8 3
his
public
addresses t h a n in
his
more
private
He keeps r e t u r n i n g t o this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , a n d yet
clearly it is a n issue w h i c h h e is still weighing. One m a r k of h o w flexible Origen w a s in his i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of R o m a n s 8 : 2 0 is t h a t at o n e point h e appears t o suggest t h a t t h e service r e n d e r e d by t h e stars a n d planets w a s n o t p e n a n c e but a noble sacrifice: for a n t e c e d e n t causes a different position of service is p r e p a r e d by t h e C r e a t o r for e a c h o n e in p r o p o r t i o n t o t h e degree of his merit, w h i c h depends o n t h e fact t h a t e a c h , in being c r e a t e d by God as a m i n d o r rational spirit, h a s personally gained for himself, in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e m o v e m e n t s of his m i n d a n d t h e disposition of his h e a r t , a g r e a t e r o r less s h a r e of m e r i t , a n d h a s r e n d e r e d himself either lovable o r it m a y b e hateful t o God. W e m u s t also n o t e , h o w e v e r , t h a t s o m e beings w h o a r e of higher m e r i t a r e o r d a i n e d t o suffer w i t h t h e rest a n d t o p e r f o r m a d u t y to t h o s e b e l o w t h e m , in o r d e r t h a t by this m e a n s t h e y t h e m s e l v e s m a y b e c o m e sharers in t h e e n d u r a n c e o f t h e C r e a t o r , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e Apostle's o w n w o r d s , 'The c r e a t u r e w a s m a d e subject t o vanity . . .' [etc.]. 1 8 4
This w o u l d suggest that t h e labours of t h e h e a v e n l y bodies w e r e n o t a p e n a n c e i m p o s e d o n t h e m by God, but a freely c h o s e n service. Origen r e m a r k s t h a t this might be specifically t r u e of t h e sun, c o m m e n t i n g o n Philippians 1 : 2 3 : F o r I consider t h a t t h e s u n m i g h t say t h a t it w a s a finer thing t o b e dissolved a n d b e w i t h Christ; for it is m u c h better. A n d w h e r e a s P a u l adds: ' B u t t o abide in t h e flesh is m o r e needful for y o u r sakes,' t h e s u n m i g h t say: 'To abide in this h e a v e n l y body is m o r e needful for t h e sake of t h e revealing of t h e children of God.' A n d t h e s a m e m a y b e said of t h e m o o n a n d t h e rest of t h e h e a v e n l y b o d i e s . 1 8 5
1 8 2
Prin. 1. 7. 5. 155 (C/S). Exaggerated: Erich Klostermann, 'Formen der exegetischen Arbeiten des Origenes', ThL 72 (1947), 2 0 5 ; reserved: Franz Heinrich Kettler, Der urspriingliche Sinn der Dogmatik des Origenes, BZNW 31 (Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 1966), 9, R. P. C. Hanson, Origen's Doctrine of Tradition (London: SPCK, 1954), 77. Prin. 2. 9. 7. 2 4 5 - 5 6 (C/S), trans. Butterworth. Prin. 1. 7. 5. 1 8 3 - 9 1 , Greek fragment (almost identical) in C/S, Principes, 2. 112, trans, (from the Greek) Butterworth. 1 8 3
1 8 4
1 8 5
Origen and the Stars
149
Such a n interpretation again suggests that the stars a r e not sinners, a n d (here as w e saw earlier) that they are ontologically superior to h u m a n i t y . This v e r y different understanding of h o w the usefulness of the stars has c o m e about shows h o w ready Origen was to entertain completely n e w speculations. His m e t h o d was not to create a cosmological system, but in matters of cosmology to leave n o idea w h i c h scripture would allow to go unexplored. Origen's usual position is that stars h a v e the place they do in t e m p o r a l life because of their o w n pre-existent sin, but it w a s a m a t t e r in w h i c h h e was ready to try out n e w speculations. Origen's cosmology is thus h a r d to pin down, w h i c h is w h y h e has b e e n so often misunderstood by both friend a n d foe. Origen's understanding of the resurrected h u m a n soul is a n o t h e r aspect of his cosmology w h e r e his general drift is clear but his final positions are not fully w o r k e d out. His theories on the n a t u r e of the life after death a r e o n c e again subtle and controversial, a n d o n c e again his views a r e explicable in t e r m s of the life already possessed by the stars. This is one of Origen's most important appropriations of speculations on the life of the heavens, and will form the subject of the n e x t chapter.
9
STARS AND THE RESURRECTION BODY
As w e h a v e seen, Origen does believe t h a t t h e stars a r e alive, a n d in fact his v i e w is o n e of a series of Origenist views that is formally a n a t h e m a t i z e d by t h e e m p e r o r J u s t i n i a n . B u t Origen was i n n o v a t i v e — a n d so c o n t r o v e r s i a l — i n a wide r a n g e of c o s m o logical problems, a n d his views o n t h e stars figure in m a n y of t h e m . A b o v e all, his discussion of t h e resurrection body w a s a n extraordinarily difficult subject in w h i c h his speculations w e r e often closely interrelated with his discussions of t h e n a t u r e and life of t h e heavenly bodies. 1
The doctrine of t h e resurrection of t h e body is n o t put forward either consistently o r clearly in t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t . W h i l e s o m e passages suggest t h a t t h e body w e n o w possess will be resuscit ated o n t h e Last Day, others h a v e a different p e r s p e c t i v e . This o t h e r view is evident in 1 Corinthians 1 5 : 3 4 - 5 4 , a very important passage for Origen, w h e r e Paul says t h a t t h e resur rected body is n e w a n d spiritual, a n d stands in relation to o u r present body as a seed does to its fruit. Against t h e claim t h a t t h e resurrected body w o u l d be simply identical t o t h e physical body w e n o w h a v e , Origen cites Paul's w o r d s t h a t t h e body after death w o u l d n o t be t h e s a m e as o u r body, 'for flesh and blood c a n n o t inherit t h e kingdom of God; neither does c o r r u p t i o n inherit incorruption' (1 Corinthians 1 5 : 5 0 ) . T h e body w e receive at d e a t h will n o t n e e d food a n d drink but will be w h a t Paul called a 2
3
1
Anathema 6 from Justinian's Ep. ad Mennam of 543 (ACO 3. 2 1 3 . 27 f.), and anathema 3 of his letter to the council of 553 (ACO 4. 1. 2 4 8 , 1 4 - 1 6 ) . On the other hand, the charge that Origen taught that the resurrection body would be spherical like the stars is based on a later misunderstanding, see A. J. Festugiere, 'De la doctrine "origeniste" du corps glorieux spheroide', RevSciPhilTheol 4 3 (1959)81-6. Resuscitated: Matth. 27: 52 f., John 11: 4 4 . In John 20: 27 Jesus' resurrected body, like the ghost of Hector in Aeneas' dream, still bears the wounds he received in life. See on the other hand Luke 23: 4 3 , 2 Cor. 5:8, Phil. 1: 23 f. CCel. 5. 19 (2. 2 0 . 1 4 - 1 6 K.), and often, see Biblia Patristka. ed. J. Allenbach et al. (Paris: Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1980), 3. 406 f. 2
3
Stars and the Resurrection
Body
151
4
'spiritual body' (1 Corinthians 1 5 : 4 4 ) . F r o m a n early point a wide variety of Christian writers w h o w e r e subsequently accused of heresy denied a physical r e s u r r e c t i o n a n d affirmed spiritual interpretations of this d o c t r i n e . B y Origen's day t h e tension b e t w e e n a physical and a n entirely spiritual c o n c e p t of resur rection h a d n o t b e e n fully w o r k e d o u t , but t h e latter view as it had b e e n formulated by various groups (mostly 'gnostic') had b e e n repeatedly c o n d e m n e d by developing ecclesiastical Christi anity, of w h i c h Origen viewed himself as a loyal son. 5
6
Origen's most searching investigations of this problem w e r e u n d e r t a k e n in his role as a Christian apologist, since t h e antiChristian polemicist Celsus delighted in pointing out t h e difficult ies entailed by t h e doctrine of a physical r e s u r r e c t i o n . It was the sort of challenge t h a t Origen could n o t resist. Acknowledging that this was o n e of t h e m o s t perplexing Christian d o c t r i n e s , Origen a t t e m p t e d to steer a middle course b e t w e e n t h e views of 'simple' Christians t h a t t h e r e s u r r e c t e d body was n o different from o u r physical body (his opposition t o Chiliasts w a s a factor h e r e ) , and the beliefs of a n u m b e r of groups accused of heresy w h o h a d a purely spiritual or figurative interpretation of this d o c t r i n e . Origen t h o u g h t t h a t both sides w e r e w r o n g . Thus h e accepted m a n y of t h e criticisms of t h e idea of a purely physical resurrec tion, a n d yet also rejected t h e spiritualism of various Christian heresies. He suggested that w h a t w o u l d be raised on t h e resurrection at t h e Last Day w o u l d n o t be t h e physical body (which is always in a state of flux), but its form or principle 7
8
9
10
4
Prin. 2. 11. 2. 2 7 - 3 6 (C/S). The Gospel of Philip 21 (NH 2. 56. 2 6 - 5 7 . 2 2 ) , The Testimony of Truth (NH 9. 36. 2 9 - 3 7 . 5); opposed already in 2 Tim. 2: 18, and frequently thereafter in the heresiologists. See further H.-M. Schenke, 'Auferstehungsglaube und Gnosis', ZNW59 (1958), 1 2 3 - 6 . Tertullian suggested that the martyr rose immediately to heaven, while ordinary believers slept until the Last Day. See Henri Crouzel, 'Mort et immortalite selon Origene', BLE 79 (1978), 188. CCel. 5. 14 (2. 15. 4 - 7 K.); cf. Methodius De Res. 1. 2 0 (242 ff. Bonwetsch). CCel. 7. 32 (2. 182. 2 0 - 3 K.). See Jon F. Dechow, 'Dogma and Mysticism in Early Christianity', Ph.D. dissertation (University of Pennsylvania, 1975), 322, J . N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (5th edn., San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), 4 7 1 ; chiliasts: see C/S, Principes, 2. 2 2 8 - 3 0 . Accepted: see Henry Chadwick, 'Origen, Celsus, and the Resurrection of the Body', HTR 41 (1948), 8 3 - 1 0 2 ; rejected: see Leonhard Atzberger, Geschichte der christlichen Eschatologie innerhalb der vornicanischen Zeit (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1896), 4 3 1 . 5
6
7 8 9
1 0
152
Stars and the Resurrection Body 11
{siSog). This principle is t h e c o n t e n t of t h e soul (particularly t h e rational soul), and it is this a n d n o t t h e body w h i c h is both m a d e in t h e i m a g e of God a n d g r a n t e d eternal l i f e . The body as a m e r e l y physical entity passes into corruption, but its principle ( w h i c h is identified with w h a t Paul calls t h e 'seed' of t h e r e s u r r e c t e d body, 1 Corinthians 1 5 : 3 8 ) b e c o m e s t h e foundation of its n e w l i f e . Thus Origen could affirm that h e believed in t h e resurrection of t h e body w e n o w h a v e , since this principle w o u l d be t h e essence of all t h a t o u r body truly is, lacking only that w h i c h is subject to g r o w t h o r decay. 12
13
1 4
It w a s a subtle explanation, a n d its debt t o Platonism is obvious. Unfortunately for Origen, his later opponents would d e m a n d plainer teachings w h i c h w e r e less philosophically orientated and further r e m o v e d f r o m gnostic spiritualism. They insisted t h a t t h e resurrected body be seen as identical t o o u r present material b o d y , a n d their w o r k w a s v e r y influential in later controversies o v e r Origen's theology. The r e s u r r e c t e d body was n o t a spiritual or h e a v e n l y body, but t h e s a m e material o n e w h i c h h a d sensation a n d suffered pain in t h e present life. This later view, w h i c h was formulated in conscious opposition t o Origen a n d his admirers, follows t h e first t e n d e n c y in N e w T e s t a m e n t theology, exemplified by Lazarus c o m i n g forth f r o m t h e t o m b , a n d does relatively little with t h e Pauline view. T h e p r o p o n e n t s of this view, h o w e v e r , preferred facing t h e difficulties of teaching a n entirely physical r e s u r r e c t i o n t o t h e subtleties a n d dangers of a m o r e spiritualizing interpretation. 1 5
J e r o m e a n d Justinian claimed t h a t Origen t a u g h t a completely spiritual doctrine of t h e r e s u r r e c t i o n in w h i c h all souls w o u l d eventually revert to a state of c o m p l e t e incorporeality, but this is i n a c c u r a t e . Origen does in fact refer t o those w h o think that rational beings c a n live apart f r o m t h e b o d y , but does n o t affirm 1 6
11
CCel. 5. 23 (2. 24. 4 - 6 K.); Methodius ap. Eustathius Engast. 2 2 , quoted by Dechow in Lothar Lies (ed.), Origeniana Quarta (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1987), 407; see also below n. 4 4 . CCel. 8 . 4 9 (2. 2 6 5 . 2 - 6 K.). CCel. 5. 23 (2. 24. 1-3 K.), In Rom. 5. 10 (PG 14. 1050b), and often, see C/S, Principes, 2.231 n. 14. In Matth. 17. 2 9 (10. 6 6 8 . 9 - 2 4 K L ) , Prin. 3. 6. 6. 203 f. (C/S). Christ rose 'cum ipso corpore quod susceperat ex Maria', De Res. 2 ap. Pamphilus Apol. 7 (PG 17. 595b); cf. Methodius DeRes. 1 . 2 0 (242. 5 - 7 Bonwetsch). Epiphanius^MC. 82. 3 (1. 1 0 3 . 2 ^ H o l l ) . Prin. 2 . 3 . 3 . 1 0 0 - 2 9 (C/S); for Jerome/Justinian see C/S, Principes, 2. 145 f. 12 13
1 4
1 5 16
153
Stars and the Resurrection Body
their view. E l s e w h e r e h e raises t h e prospect of a completely incorporeal e x i s t e n c e as o n e of t h e t w o possibilities of t h e state of the soul in t h e resurrection (along with t h e possession of a n ethereal body a n d i n h e r i t a n c e of a blessed life in a separate, s u p e r h e a v e n l y r e g i o n ) , w i t h o u t ruling out this o p t i o n . Since as a Platonist h e regarded t h e rational part of a h u m a n being as incorporeal, a n d since h e t h o u g h t t h e c r e a t i o n of t h e c o r p o r e a l world w a s a c o n s e q u e n c e of s i n , it is easy t o see h o w J e r o m e , Justinian, a n d m a n y m o d e r n scholars could r e a c h t h e conclusion that Origen believed that t h e soul was once completely incorporeal, fell into body because of sin, a n d w o u l d r e t u r n t o incorporeality at t h e soul's r e t u r n t o pre-lapsarian h a r m o n y , t h e djcoKatdaramg. 1 7
1 8
B u t fundamentally this w a s n o t Origen's view, b e c a u s e h e regarded it as a n essential characteristic of a n y created rational n a t u r e t h a t it exist in a body, a n d a n essential aspect of t h e divine n a t u r e t h a t it n o t exist in a body. S u c h a position is for Origen a theological necessity, enabling h i m to affirm simultaneously b o t h his doctrine of t h e soul a n d t h e Christian doctrine of creation. His reasoning goes like this. Origen believes in typical Platonic fashion t h a t diversity in t h e w o r l d does n o t exist apart from b o d i e s . It is only t h e p r e s e n c e of m a t t e r w h i c h enables things t o be divided into c l a s s e s . Rational beings as s u c h w e r e therefore of o n e n a t u r e a n d h a d n o v a r i a t i o n , a n d w o u l d h a v e n o n e o n t h a t day ' w h e n all a r e o n e ' . T a k e n t o its logical conclusion this w o u l d necessitate a substantial identity b e t w e e n a n y form of rationality a n d t h e s u p r e m e rational being, God. A n d in fact Origen allows t h a t t h e r e is a 'certain kinship' b e t w e e n t h e rational soul a n d G o d . B u t h e explicitly denies t h e identity of the t w o , for God a l o n e is completely simple while everything 19
20
2 1
22
2 3
2 4
2 5
17
Prin. 2. 3. 7. 3 2 8 - 3 0 (C/S), and Volker, Vollkommenheitsideal. 128. See above ch. 8 nn. 14 and 145. Prin. 2. 1 . 4 . 9 3 1 . (C/S). Prin. 3. 6 . 4 . 1 2 6 - 3 0 (C/S). See Clement Exc. ex Theod. 11. 3 (82 Sagnard). Prin. 3. 5 . 4 . 133 f. (C/S). Prin. 2. 9. 6. 1 8 5 - 9 0 , 4 . 4. 9. 3 5 0 - 9 (C/S), In Jo. 2. 23. 146 (4. 79. 2 1 - 3 P.), In Cant. Hom. 2 (8. 147. 21 f. B.). Prin. 3. 6. 4. 1 3 0 - 3 (C/S). Exh. Mart. 4 7 (1. 4 2 . 29f. K.), Prin. 1. 1. 7. 2 5 2 - 6 (C/S), cf. In Lev. ap. Philoc. 1. 3 0 (36. 5 - 8 R.); Clement Protrep. 2. 25 (1. 18. 2 9 - 1 9 . 1 St.). For Philo see Runia P«i7o341. In Jo. 13. 2 5 . 149 (4. 2 4 9 . 5f. P.); cf. Clement Strom. 2. 16. 7 4 (2. 152. 6f. St.). Even Origen's critic Augustine concedes this, De Civ. Dei 11. 2 3 (341. 8f. Dombart/Kalb). 1 8 1 9
2 0 2 1
2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5
Stars and the Resurrection Body
154
w h i c h exists as part of the c r e a t e d order is composite a n d m u l t i p l e . This includes rational n a t u r e s , w h i c h do not exist from eternity but h a v e b e e n c r e a t e d ex nihilo by G o d . God is a n incorporeal unity, while rational creation is always a corporeal multiplicity. This is a fixed part of Origen's t h o u g h t — s o fixed that h e (like Philo) uses the w o r d 'incorporeal', not to refer to t h e soul's c o m p l e t e independence from body, but its i n d e p e n d e n c e from a n earthly b o d y . 26
2 7
2 8
It is possible to separate mentally h u m a n rationality from its material setting (that is w h y t h e r e is a 'certain kinship' b e t w e e n o u r r e a s o n a n d the divine), but embodied existence is always t h e actual state for a rational c r e a t u r e . But if it is impossible by any means to maintain this proposition, namely, that any being, with the exception of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, can live apart from a body, then logical reasoning compels us to believe that, while the original creation was of rational beings, it is only in idea and thought that a material substance seems to have been produced for them or after them, yet never have they lived or do they live without it; for we shall be right in believing that life without a body is found in the Trinity alone. 29
This passage has b e e n considered by s o m e a n interpolation by Rufinus, but Origen's v i e w t h a t t h e soul h a d a n ethereal body is confirmed by his later e n e m y Methodius. Basing his opinion o n Origen's w o r k ( n o w lost) De Resurrectione, Methodius cites Origen as writing that the soul at d e a t h has a material vehicle (dxmia) a n d g a r m e n t (nepipok^). Like o t h e r Platonic c o n t e m p o r a r i e s , Origen considered t h e possibility that t h e soul w a s placed in a vehicle w h i c h was akin to the bodies of stars. This w a s the only body of the soul before its incorporation a n d after its d e p a r t u r e from the body of flesh. Thus for Origen, e v e n creatures with a 30
31
2 6 2 7
In Jo. 1.20. 119 (4. 119. 2 3 - 6 P.),
Orat. 2 1 . 2 (2. 345. 17 K.).
Prin. 1. 4. 5. 87f., 1. 7. 1. 1 0 - 1 4 ; ex nihilo: 1. 3. 3. 5 6 - 6 8 C/S, In Jo. 32. 16. 187 ( 4 . 4 5 1 . 2 6 - 8 P., quoting the Shepherd of Hermas). See above ch. 8 n. 139; Philo: see Dillon, 'Angels', 201. Prin. 2. 2. 2. 2 4 - 3 2 (C/S), trans. Butterworth. See also 1. 6. 4. 1 7 5 - 8 2 , 4. 3. 15. 4 8 1 - 9 6 , In Ex. Horn. 6. 5 (6. 197. 8 B.), and Henri Crouzel. 'La Theme platonicien du "vehicule de l'ame" chez Origene', Didask. 7 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 2 2 8 , and Crouzel, 'Mort', 26. Methodius De Res. 3. 18 ( 4 1 5 . 1 - 4 Bonwetsch), cf. CCel. 2. 6 0 (1. 183. 7 - 1 0 K.), 1 Cor. 15: 53, 2 Cor. 5: 2—4; for apocalyptic literature, see Cavallin, 'Leben', 302. Pre-existent body: see Crouzel, 'Vehicule', 232 f. 2 8
2 9
3 0
3 1
Stars and the Resurrection Body
155
higher ontological status t h a n h u m a n s in this life, such as t h e r e d e e m e d at t h e resurrection o r angels, h a d bodies. A n d h e r e w e see t h a t t h e soul's body is u n d e r s t o o d in astral t e r m s . F o r Origen, bodies ontologically superior to o u r earthly bodies w e r e identified as ethereal, like t h e stars. Now, since t h e bodies of stars w e r e regarded as a result of sin, this w o u l d pose a p r o b l e m if Origen w e r e truly 'systematic'. Presumably t h e resurrected h u m a n soul (or, for t h a t m a t t e r , t h e souls of stars after t h e y h a d finished their p e n a n c e in this c o s m o s ) w o u l d require a better body t h a n a n astral o n e if t h e astral body itself w e r e a c o n s e q u e n c e of sin. B u t this difficulty apparently n e v e r o c c u r r e d t o Origen. The philosophical tradition w h i c h identified t h e stars as superior to h u m a n i t y w a s so strong it w a s perhaps n a t u r a l t o speak of higher forms of life in these t e r m s . T h e e x c e p t i o n to this of c o u r s e w a s God. Origen writes that s o m e ( m e a n i n g t h e Stoics) say t h a t God h a s a subtle a n d ethereal body, but that this is absurd. God is a completely incorporeal spirit (pneuma)} It is also i n c o r r e c t t o say this about t h e i n c a r n a t e Christ: Origen writes t h a t s o m e heretics claim that Christ w a s i n c a r n a t e d in a body t a k e n f r o m t h e stars, but t h a t this contradicts t h e p r o p h e c y of Zechariah ( 3 : 3 ) , w h o said t h a t ' J o s h u a [i.e. J e s u s — t h e n a m e s a r e t h e s a m e in Greek] was clothed w i t h filthy g a r m e n t s . ' 'Filthy g a r m e n t s ' c a n only apply t o t h e h u m a n body, n o t to a n astral body, so o n e a r t h Christ's body h a d a n earthly n a t u r e . Against his gnostic opponents, Origen thus insists t h a t Christ t o o k o n t r u e flesh in t h e Incarnation. 2
3 3
34
On t h e o t h e r h a n d Christ's resurrection body, t h o u g h it truly w a s a body, did n o t h a v e a n earthly n a t u r e but again a n ethereal a n d divine o n e . The destiny of this body is t o dwell 'in e t h e r and t h e realms a b o v e i t ' . Origen interpreted M a t t h e w ' s version of 3 5
3 6
3 2
In Jo. 1 3 . 2 1 . 1 2 3 - 5 ( 4 . 2 4 4 . 1 9 - 2 4 5 . 3 P.). In Luc. Horn. 14 (9. 8 6 . 7 - 1 8 Ra.), In Ps. 18 (PG 12. 1242 f.), cited by Harnack, Marcion, 4 1 8 * (who identifies it with either Apelles or Hermogenes). Cf. In Rom. 9. 2 (PG 14. 1210c), Prin. 1 Praef. 8. 167 (C/S), In Gal. (PG 14. 1295bc). See ch. 7 n. 26. InMatth. Comm. Ser. 9 2 ( 1 1 . 2 0 8 . 1 5 - 1 7 K l . ) . CCel. 3. 41 ( 1 . 2 3 7 . 1 5 - 1 8 K.); cf. Clement of Alexandria In Ep. Ioh. Prima (3. 210. 1 3 - 1 5 St.). Both writers feel the weight of the criticism, which is later expressed in Porphyry, that Christ could not have entered heaven with a material body: Contra Chr. frag. 35 (Harnack, from Macarius Magnes). 3 3
3 4
3 5
3 6
CCel. 3 . 4 2 (1. 238. I K . ) .
Stars and the Resurrection Body
156
J e s u s ' entry into J e r u s a l e m (in w h i c h J e s u s is said t o ride b o t h a colt a n d a n ass into t h e city) as a r e f e r e n c e to J e s u s ' reception into t h e spiritual J e r u s a l e m t o g e t h e r with his corporeal v e h i c l e . W h e n h e appeared t o his disciples his b o d y w a s in a n inter m e d i a t e stage a n d so h a d its physical w o u n d s from t h e cruci f i x i o n . In its fully r e s u r r e c t e d state, h o w e v e r , Christ's body was n o t limited by t h e constraints of t h e life of this world: h e h a s t h e n , as Origen put it, 'the condition of a soul u n c o v e r e d by a n y body'. Christ in h e a v e n h a s a body, but n o t o n e w h i c h interferes with his knowledge of God, a n d so h e escapes t h a t i g n o r a n c e w h i c h is a n inevitable c o n s e q u e n c e of m a t e r i a l i t y . 37
38
39
40
Likewise angels a r e said t o h a v e l u m i n o u s a n d h e a v e n l y bodies. E v e n d e m o n s , depite their m o r a l inferiority, lack t h e thicker bodies w h i c h w e p o s s e s s . Since Origen suggested b o t h that angels sin a n d t h a t r e s u r r e c t e d h u m a n souls might take t h e place of fallen d e m o n s in h e a v e n , h e might h a v e b e e n e x p e c t e d to suggest t h a t r e s u r r e c t e d h u m a n souls inherited a body superior to t h a t of d e m o n s , but this again n e v e r w a s r e g a r d e d as a p r o b l e m by Origen. 41
42
4 3
Instead, Origen simply assumes t h a t a n y being w h i c h lives in h e a v e n m u s t h a v e a h e a v e n l y body. For it is necessary for the soul that is existing in corporeal places to use bodies appropriate to those places. Just as if we became aquatic beings, and had to live in the sea, it would no doubt be necessary for us to adopt a different state similar to that of the fish, so if we are to inherit the kingdom of heaven and to exist in superior places, it is essential for us to use spiritual bodies. This does not mean that the form (siSog) of the earlier body disappears, though it may change to a more glorious condition, as did the form of Jesus, Moses, and Elijah, which did not differ in its transformation from what it had been before. 44
3 7
In Matth. 16. 19 (10. 538. 30ft.),quoted by Crouzel, 'Vehicule', 2 3 0 . See also In Ps. 15. 9 ap. Pamphilus Apol. 7 (PG 17, 600a). CCel. 2 . 6 2 (1. 184. 1 1 - 1 7 K . ) . Ibid. (1. 184. 13), trans. Chadwick. InMatth. 13. 17 (10. 2 2 4 f. Kl.), cited by Cornells,'Fondements', 66. In Matth. 17. 30 (10. 6 7 1 . 1 9 - 2 1 Kl.). Cf. Clement Exc. ex Theod. 12. 2 (82 Sagnard). CCel. 5. 5 (2. 5 . 2 0 K . ) . Sin: see above ch. 8 nn. 1 1 6 - 1 8 ; take the place: In Ezech. Horn. 13. 2 ( 8 . 4 4 4 . 1 5 - 1 8 B.). Origen In Ps. 1. 5 ap. Methodius De Res. 1. 22. 4f. (246, 3 - 1 1 Bonwetsch), trans, (up to 'glorious condition') by Chadwick in his Contra Celsum 4 2 0 n. 7. The authenticity of this is confirmed by a parallel in Pamphilus, Apol. 7 (PG 17. 599ab). 3 8
3 9
4 0 4 1
4 2
4 3
4 4
Stars and the Resurrection Body
157
Origen is n o t quite sure about t h e n a t u r e of this body, but thinks it is s o m e special type of m a t t e r , characterized by its subtlety a n d p u r i t y . This r e s u r r e c t i o n body of h u m a n beings is n o t distin guished from t h e body of Christ, or angels, o r d e m o n s , but o n c e again is described as ethereal (aiOspioq), h e a v e n l y (o&pdvioq), o r l u m i n o u s (adyosiSrjq)—terms w h i c h Origen uses i n t e r c h a n g e ably. 45
46
W e see h e r e t h a t while r e s u r r e c t i o n bodies a r e apparently n o t exactly stars, t h e y a r e described as similar t o t h e m . Origen followed t h e tradition of c o n t e m p o r a r y J e w i s h literature in referring to souls shining after death. As t h e r e a r e different degrees of brightness in h e a v e n so t h e r e a r e different states of righteousness, a n d h e writes t h a t h e hopes to be c o m p a r e d only with a d i m m e r star a n d n o t w i t h t h e m o o n or o n e of t h e brighter stars, since t h e latter c o m p a r i s o n w o u l d m a k e h i m look b a d . A n d yet it is only at t h e beginning of t h e blessed life t h a t t h e r e d e e m e d shine with a different light, for in t h e end t h e y shine with t h e s a m e light, n a m e l y t h a t of t h e sun, in a c c o r d a n c e with Matthew 13: 4 3 . Thus c o m m e n t i n g o n this s a m e verse elsewhere Origen c a n say: 4 7
4 8
In this life human nature is able to progress so far that at the Resurrection of the dead it may equal not only the glory of the stars but even the shining of the sun, as it is written 'the just will gleam like the sun in the kingdom of God' [Matthew 13: 4 3 ] . 4 9
At a n o t h e r point Origen speaks of t h e citizens of t h e h e a v e n l y J e r u s a l e m as those w h o h a v e a s c e n d e d into h e a v e n by their w a y of life a n d w h o h a v e b e c o m e a multitude of stars praising G o d . He combines this with t h e Platonic view that t h e souls of the wicked r e m a i n visible a n d are m u r k y a n d black, concluding that 5 0
4 5
Unsure: Prin. 1. 6. 4. 1 8 2 - 7 (C/S); special: CCel. 4. 57 (1. 330. 7 - 1 1 K.), De Oral. 26. 6 (2. 363. 22 K.), InMatth. Comm. Ser. 50 (11. 109. 3 K l . ) ; subtle: Prin. 2. 3. 3. 1 0 9 - 1 2 , 3. 6. 4. 106f. (C/S). See previous note, and also: heavenly: In Num. Hom. 15. 3 (7. 135. 23 f. B.); ethereal: CCel. 3. 4 2 (1. 238. 1 K.), In Matth. 17. 2 9 (10. 667. 12 f. K l . ) , Prin. 2. 3. 7. 336; luminous: In Matth. 17. 3 0 (10. 6 7 1 . 17-21 K l . ) , Prin. 2. 10. 8. 267 (C/S), cf. Procopius of Gaza InGen. 3 . 2 1 (PG 87. 1 . 2 2 1 ) . In Ezech. Hom. 9. 4 (8. 412. 8 - 1 9 B.). InMatth. 10. 3 (10. 3. 1 8 - 4 . 4 K 1 . ) . In Num. Hom. 2. 2 (7. 12. 1 7 - 2 1 , cf. 13. 3 - 6 ) , DeRes. 2 ap. Pamphilus Apol. 7 {PG 17. 596b), Prin. 2. 3. 7. 337, 3. 6. 8. 2 4 0 f. (C/S). InPs. 147 (PAS 3. 359). 4 6
4 7
4 8 4 9
5 0
158
Stars and the Resurrection Body
as t h e souls of t h e righteous b e c o m e m o r e lucid, t h e souls of t h e wicked b e c o m e d a r k e r . Like the portrait of Dorian Grey, o u r physical condition always corresponds to the state of o u r m o r a l life. In t h e future life as in this o n e , o u r ontological status is a reflection of o u r m e r i t s . 51
5 2
This life and t h e life after death are a m o r a l challenge a n d opportunity. They a r e a challenge b e c a u s e m o r a l failure m e a n s ontological decline a n d t h e assumption of a thicker a n d m o r e earthly body. It is also a n opportunity, because t h e soul was able to learn m o r e about w h a t it should be like and so i m p r o v e its o w n ontological state. W a l t h e r Volker, t h e great scholar of A l e x a n drian theology, entitled his book on Philo Fortschritt und Vollendung, 'Progress a n d Perfection', but t h e s a m e words also s u m m a r ize Origen's eschatology. T h e life of t h e soul is a j o u r n e y in w h i c h it learns about God, and a completion in w h i c h it k n o w s God. Seen in a different w a y , t h e r e are t w o j o u r n e y s for t h e soul: o n e an inward j o u r n e y in w h i c h it ascends t h r o u g h t h e different 'grades of perfection' that a r e part of this life (an i m p o r t a n t idea for later m o n a s t i c i s m ) , a n d a second in w h i c h it traverses t h e ' m a n y abiding places' ( J o h n 14: 12) of God, a n d is continually illumined by W i s d o m at e a c h stage, until it reaches the 'father of lights' ( J a m e s 1: 1 7 ) . C o n c e r n with t h e first j o u r n e y — t h a t of t h e i n w a r d life and t h e m o r a l decisions of t h e soul's free w i l l — dominates Origen's theology, as Volker rightly emphasized in his monograph on Origen. A n d yet Origen could n o t resist speculating on the soul's j o u r n e y at d e a t h out of this c o s m o s and into the heavens. In fact t h e t w o w e r e closely linked in his mind: t h e inward j o u r n e y of ethical decision m a d e it possible for the soul to cross t h e barriers w h i c h separated it from God, a n d t h e soul in h e a v e n in t u r n learned m o r e about God and about its o w n true destiny. If the soul was virtuous e n o u g h in this life, it h a d nothing to fear f r o m t h e h e a v e n s , w h e r e indeed it w o u l d receive n e w opportunities to b e c o m e like God. In this j o u r n e y t o o t h e r e 5 3
54
5 1
Plato: Phaedo 81c4-d4: Origen: CCel. 7. 5 (2. 156. 2 5 - 3 0 K.), Prin. 2. 10. 8. 2 6 5 - 7 3 (C/S); cf. Basil (PG 29. 372). Prin. 2. 10. 3. 1 1 0 - 1 6 (C/S), Henri Crouzel, 'L'Hades et la Gehenne selon Origene', Gregorianum 59 (1978), 318, and id., 'Differences entre les ressuscites selon Origene', Jenseitsvorstellungen in Antike und Christentum, JAC suppl. 9, ed. TheodorKlausereta/. (Miinster: Aschendorff, 1982) 108. In Num. Hom. 27. 6 (7. 264. 5 - 1 2 B.). Vollkommenheitsideal 15, and passim. 5 2
5 3
5 4
159
Stars and the Resurrection Body
w e r e different levels of a c h i e v e m e n t a n d so different levels of glory a m o n g those w h o ascended t o h e a v e n . As t h e stars differed in their shining according t o their merits, so t o o t h e r e w a s n o t o n e fixed destiny for t h e soul after d e a t h but m a n y different ways in w h i c h it might travel. 5 5
As a first stage in this j o u r n e y , t h e soul would go to 'paradise', w h i c h is located o n e a r t h . Origen describes this paradise as 'so to speak, a lecture r o o m or school for souls' in w h i c h souls a r e taught about t h e future (i.e. about h e a v e n ) in a m u c h clearer w a y t h a n w h a t is available to us in this life, w h e r e knowledge is only in part a n d w e see t h r o u g h a glass dimly (1 Corinthians 1 3 : 2 ) . Origen continues: 5 6
If anyone is pure in heart and of unpolluted mind and well-trained understanding he will make swifter progress and quickly ascend to the region of the air, until he reaches the kingdom of the heavens, passing through the series of these 'abiding places' [cf. John 14: 2 ] , if I may so call them, which the Greeks have termed spheres, that is, globes, but which the divine scripture calls heavens. In each of these he will first observe all that happens there, and then learn the reason why it happens; and thus he will proceed in order through each stage, following him who has 'entered into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God', who has said, 'I will that, where I am, they also may be with me' [John 17: 2 4 ] . Further, he alludes to this diversity of places when he says, 'In my Father's house there are many abiding places.' 57
This passage is obscure for a n u m b e r of reasons. First, it is h a r d to see w h a t Origen m e a n s w h e n h e says this paradise is o n earth, especially since elsewhere h e locates paradise in h e a v e n . Second, it is n o t clear e x a c t l y w h a t relation t h e soul will h a v e t o t h e living spheres. In t h e section following this o n e , h o w e v e r , Origen says t h a t perhaps t h e resurrected souls will learn if t h e h e a v e n l y bodies are alive or n o t , so it is probable that Origen sees this ascent t h r o u g h t h e h e a v e n s as a n opportunity for t h e 5 8
5 9
5 5
Prin. 2. 1 0 . 2 . 6 7 - 7 2 (C/S). Prin. 2. 11. 6. 2 1 4 - 2 4 (C/S) trans. Butterworth, cf. In Matth. Comm. Ser. 51 ( I I . 114. 1 7 f . K l . ) . Prin. 2. 11. 6 . 2 2 4 - 3 5 (C/S), trans. Butterworth. See Crouzel's note, C/S, Principes, 2. 2 5 0 . This cannot be the 'true earth' located in the ninth sphere, since Origen says the soul goes from this paradise located on earth up through the spheres. Cf. above ch. 8 n. 56. 5 6
5 7
5 8
5 9
160
Stars and the Resurrection Body
soul t o learn about t h e life in the h e a v e n s , t o w h i c h t h e resurrected soul is n o w closely related by n a t u r e . In o n e of t h e homilies h e delivered o n t h e B o o k of Numbers, Origen addresses t h e issue of w h a t t h e soul learns a n d w h e r e it goes after death. For the Lord spoke of the 'abiding places' which the soul would inhabit when it put off the body, or rather when it put on again its own body, when he said in the Gospel, 'In my Father's house are many abiding places. Truly I would say to you, I go and prepare an abiding place for you' [John 14: 2 ] . There are 'many abiding places' which lead to the Father. What is the reason and profit for the soul to abide in each of these places, and how much instruction or illumination it will receive, only the 'Father of the age to come' [Isaiah 9: 6] knows. He says of himself, T am the door, no one comes to the Father except by me' [John 10: 9 ] . Perhaps in each of these 'abiding places' he becomes a door for each soul, so that the soul may 'enter' through him and 'leave' through him, and 'find pasture' [John 10: 9 ] , and again go into another, and then another abiding place, until it comes to the Father himself. 60
Here w e see that e n t r a n c e t o t h e heavenly abiding places is c o n n e c t e d with the soul's release from its earthly body and its assumption of a n astral body. The soul is n o w fit for life in the stars, w h i c h as in the Timaeus a r e seen as places of instruction. Origen's debt to c u r r e n t speculations is particularly evident in t h e imagery both h e r e a n d in t h e Contra Celsum of a gate t h r o u g h w h i c h the soul m u s t pass, a n idea also shared by Numenius, Mithraists, a n d m a n y g n o s t i c s . 61
Origen differed f r o m these groups, h o w e v e r , in stressing t h a t passage t o a higher w a y of life was gained not t h r o u g h esoteric knowledge but in a c c o r d a n c e with individual m o r a l effort. This is evident in a r a t h e r dense passage in Origen's Commentarium Series in Evangelium Matthaei. Here Origen discusses t h e difference b e t w e e n M a r k 1 3 : 2 7 , w h e r e the elect a r e g a t h e r e d 'from the peaks of earth to t h e peak of h e a v e n ' , a n d M a t t h e w 2 4 : 31 w h e r e the elect a r e g a t h e r e d 'from t h e peaks of the h e a v e n s to their limits'. He suggests t h a t this process of gathering happens sequentially. First t h e elect a r e g a t h e r e d in a c c o r d a n c e with their w a y of life o n earth, o r rather, since they a r e n o t g a t h e r e d simply 6 0
In Num. Horn. 27. 2 (7. 2 5 8 . 2 7 - 2 5 9 . 8 B.); cf. Clement Exc. ex Theod. 26. 2 (112 Sagnard). 6 1
CCel. 6. 23 (2. 93. 26 K.>. See ch. 6 n. 40.
Stars and the Resurrection Body
161
from t h e earth but 'from t h e peak of t h e earth', in a c c o r d a n c e with their highest earthly a c h i e v e m e n t s . If a person's attitude was not simply earthly but indeed a h e a v e n l y attitude h a d taken hold in him, this attitude did not c o m e about from t h e 'peak of h e a v e n ' but from its 'peaks', since each h e a v e n h a d both t h e beginning of a n education a n d its perfections. So after the highest m a n n e r of living o n earth, t h e m a n n e r of living of the first h e a v e n took hold of a person. This h a p p e n e d w i t h t h e second a n d third h e a v e n s as well. So t h e m a n y beginnings of w a y s of living in the various h e a v e n s are also 'limits', i.e. perfections, a n d from these beginnings a n d limits God gathers his e l e c t . God's gathering is thus interpreted as closely linked to t h e exercise of free will and to ethical a c h i e v e m e n t . In e a c h h e a v e n l y sphere t h e r e is a certain level of mind a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g to be attained, a n d o n c e that is r e a c h e d t h e soul is ready to e n t e r the n e x t heavenly sphere. The Christian promise of h e a v e n is understood o n analogy to Origen's o w n school, w h e r e students w e n t t h r o u g h a p r o g r a m m e of various studies o n the w a y to their study of divine wisdom. It is a tribute to Origen's interest in education a n d to his o w n dedication to teaching that h e could think of n o better w a y of describing h e a v e n . 62
63
O n c e the soul attained the heavens, w h a t kind of life would it find t h e r e ? It m a y s e e m odd n o w to talk about w h a t the living stars w e r e like, but t h e question w a s addressed by a writer as sophisticated as Origen's y o u n g e r c o n t e m p o r a r y P l o t i n u s . Origen's views o n this a r e not clearly stated, a n d it is likely that they a r e n o t entirely w o r k e d out. T h e r e a r e , h o w e v e r , s o m e hints that Origen t h o u g h t of t h e stars as h e a v e n l y cities. In a homily o n J o s h u a , Origen quotes Hebrews 12: 2 2 , 'you h a v e c o m e to M o u n t Zion a n d to the city of t h e living God, the heavenly J e r u s a l e m ' , a n d writes that t h e earthly Zion a n d J e r u s a l e m a r e only a type a n d image of t h e celestial places w h i c h h a v e these n a m e s in their truest sense. This also holds t r u e for the 'cities of J u d a e a ' w h i c h will be the dwellings of t h e servants of God (Psalm 6 8 : 3 6 ( 6 9 : 3 5 ) ) . A n d t h e n Origen refers to these cities as t h e ' m a n y abiding 64
6 2
Comm. Ser. 51 (11. 115. 3 - 2 3 K l . ) . Prin. 2. 11. 7. 261 f. (C/S), cf. 1. 6. 3. 1 3 1 - 4 9 . In good Platonist fashion Origen does not distinguish between intellectual and moral achievement: spiritual knowledge of God is the same as love. In Prov. 6 (PG 17. 176d). Plotinus4. 3. 18. 1 3 - 1 9 ; 4. 4. 5. 1 5 - 2 2 ; 4. 4. 30; 4. 4. 4 1 . 6 3
6 4
Stars and the Resurrection Body
162
6 5
places' of J o h n 1 4 : 2 . Since elsewhere h e refers to the 'abiding places' as h e a v e n l y spheres, it seems that h e t h o u g h t of t h e h e a v e n l y J e r u s a l e m as in s o m e sense related to the stars. A belief that t h e visible h e a v e n s a r e in s o m e sense identifiable with h e a v e n l y cities also appears to be behind a train of thought in his homilies on Numbers. Here after s o m e earlier r e m a r k s a b o u t the soul's ascent t h r o u g h the ' m a n y abiding places' of h e a v e n , Origen interprets Psalm 1 4 6 ( 1 4 7 ) : 4 , w h i c h says that the Creator has given t h e stars their n a m e s , to m e a n that at s o m e future point w e might k n o w t h e t r u e n a m e s of t h e stars and constellations, of w h i c h o u r present knowledge is but a s h a d o w a n d copy (cf. Hebrews 5: 8 , 1 E n o c h 8 2 : 1 0 - 2 0 ) . A little later h e adds that t h e question of w h e t h e r t h e stars a n d constellations c a n be called a city in h e a v e n w a s o n e about w h i c h h e did not d a r e speak w i t h c e r t a i n t y . As so often Origen holds something back, but h e at least seems to h a v e pondered the idea that the stars w e r e not simply abiding places in the soul's ascent but, comparable to the views of Heraclides Ponticus, w e r e celestial habitations. 66
The soul passes t h r o u g h t h e visible h e a v e n s , and yet every soul ultimately has a higher destiny. E a r t h , h e a v e n , sun, a n d visible light c a n n o t be 'that w h i c h eye has not seen' (1 Corinthians 2 : 9 ) , and so it is necessary for the soul to press on to still higher h e a v e n s . The end of t h e righteous soul is likened to Plato's m y t h in t h e Phaedrus in w h i c h t h e soul passes out of this world and contemplates t h e superheavenly r e a l i t i e s . In this superh e a v e n l y r e a l m 'God is keeping a n d storing in himself far greater w o n d e r s t h a n a r e seen by sun, m o o n , a n d t h e choir of stars, a n d e v e n by t h e holy a n g e l s . ' As usual Origen leaves r o o m for differences in a c h i e v e m e n t a n d speaks of t w o superheavenly goals. Those w h o ascend a b o v e t h e visible h e a v e n s but w h o s e a d h e r e n c e to that w h i c h is intelligible and incorporeal is not firstrate will receive t h e 'land of t h e living' (Psalm 2 6 ( 2 7 ) : 1 3 ) o r t h e 'earth of h e a v e n ' w h i c h is located in t h e ninth, starless s p h e r e . 6 7
68
69
7 0
6 5 6 6
In Jesu Nave Hom. 2 3 . 4 ( 7 . 4 4 4 . 2 0 - 4 4 6 . 9 B.).
In Num. Hom. 28. 2 (7. 281. 3 4 - 2 8 2 . 6; 283. 2 1 - 3 B.). In Num. Hom. 9. 8 (7. 6 5 . 3 1 - 6 6 . 4 B.), In Rom. 7. 5 (PG 14. 1117c); these are nos. 998 and 999 in Balthasar. Origen. CCel. 6. 59 (2. 129. 2 7 - 1 3 0 . 6 K.). Exh. Man. 13 (1. 13. 2 3 - 3 0 K.), trans. Chadwick. In Num. Hom. 21. 1 (7. 200. 1 1 - 2 2 B.), Prin. 2. 3. 6. 2 7 4 - 8 9 , 2. 3. 7. 3 3 7 - 4 8 (C/S). See above ch. 8 nn. 2 8 and 45. 6 7
6 8
6 9
7 0
Stars and the Resurrection Body
163
E l s e w h e r e Origen also refers to this inferior destiny as 'the kingdom of the heavens', a n d contrasts it with t h e 'kingdom of God' w h i c h is for those w h o h a v e achieved p e r f e c t i o n . In either event the resurrected soul has a higher goal t h a n the m e r e physical h e a v e n s , w h o s e glory is de-emphasized in c o m p a r ison to that of r e d e e m e d h u m a n i t y . Thus e v e n t h o u g h Origen speaks of t h e soul as having a n ethereal body, h e explicitly denies that it receives t h e form of sun, m o o n , o r s t a r s . The soul's destiny is higher t h a n that of t h e visible bodies, a n d so it will h a v e a n e v e n m o r e glorious b o d y . H u m a n i t y is, in t h e end, m o r e important t h a n t h e stars, a n d it is probably for this r e a s o n that Origen did not feel t h e need to explain w h a t t h e destiny of t h e living heavenly bodies w o u l d be. Presumably o n c e they h a d finished their service of marking t h e times a n d seasons t h e y t o o would rise to a better condition, but Origen does not provide a n y m o r e information o n this. 71
72
7 3
Or at least a n y m o r e information w h i c h w e k n o w about, for m u c h of Origen's corpus is lost. In his De Principiis Origen says that h e writes m o r e about the 'earth of h e a v e n ' in his c o m m e n t a r y o n G e n e s i s , but t h e passage is n o longer e x t a n t . It is e v e n m o r e discouraging to read J e r o m e ' s letter to Vigilantius w h e r e h e advises his friend to discard Origen's c o m m e n t a r y o n J o b (again n o longer e x t a n t ) since in that w o r k Origen has opinions about the stars a n d the h e a v e n s w h i c h a r e unacceptable to t h e C h u r c h . A n d yet e n o u g h has survived to provide t h e m a i n points of Origen's teachings o n t h e life of the stars a n d their relationship to h u m a n i t y . 74
7 5
The stars a n d planets a r e e a c h living a n d rational creatures, w h o s e bodies a r e ethereal a n d m a d e of light. They a r e selfmoving beings, spherical, of vast size, a n d located far from the earth a n d yet still within o u r o w n cosmos. Origen agrees with earlier philosophical traditions that their precise m o v e m e n t is a tribute both to their o w n intelligence a n d to divine providence. Scriptural references to h e a v e n l y bodies worshipping God a n d
7 1
7 2
7 3
7 4
7 5
In Ps. 36 Horn. 5. 7 (PG 12 1 3 6 5 d - 1 3 6 6 a ) . Origen DeRes. 2 ap. Pamphilus ylpo/. 7 (PG 17. 5 9 6 c - 5 9 7 a ) . Prin. 3. 6. 4. 1 0 6 - 1 0 (C/S). Prin. 2. 3. 6 . 2 8 9 - 9 1 (C/S). Ep. 6 1 . 2 . 4 ( 1 . 5 7 8 . 4 - 6 Hilberg).
164
Stars and the Resurrection Body
praying are n o t just m e t a p h o r s , since like all rational creatures they a r e part of God's creation a n d subordinate to his will. And yet they too a r e sinners and stand in need of divine redemption. Their presence in bodies is linked to pre-existing sins, a n d this also affects both the brightness with w h i c h they n o w shine a n d their particular place in the sky. Satan and his evil angels a r e stars w h i c h h a d sinned especially badly and fallen into e v e n lower types of bodies, but the planets a n d stars visible in the evening sky did n o t sin as m u c h . In contrast to the d e m o n s , n o w they a r e doing p e n a n c e for their sins by providing the times a n d seasons for the earth, a n d they will do so until the end of time. They certainly do not cause events o n earth, but they c a n serve as signs of the future, a n d this and the cunning of d e m o n s has lent credence to astrology. W h e n h u m a n beings rise from t h e dead, they ascend t h r o u g h the heavens. The resurrection body is ethereal and luminous, like the bodies of stars, a n d resurrected h u m a n i t y visits heavenly bodies, to w h i c h they (it would seem) h a v e a physical kinship. The heavenly spheres a r e places of instruction for h u m a n souls, a n d are also tentatively likened to cities. Resurrected souls, h o w e v e r , h a v e a higher destiny, and eventually go beyond the fixed sphere ('the firmament') and ascend to a higher earth, the 'earth of heaven', or e v e n above that to the true h e a v e n . Since stars only m e a s u r e out t h e seasons until the Last Day, and since they too a r e included in the R e d e m p t i o n of Christ, their destiny is probably thought of in the s a m e w a y , t h o u g h Origen does not address this point.
CONCLUSION
E x a m i n a t i o n of the starry h e a v e n s is usually regarded as impractical use of t h e intellect. The ancient story of Thales stumbling into a well as h e looked u p o n t h e stars sums u p t h e j u d g e m e n t of popular pre-Socratic opinion. B u t t h e study of t h e impractical a n d t h e unlikely often has far-reaching implications, a n d the astronomical advances of a few sophisticated Ionians h a d a profound philosophical a n d religious impact in their day. Plato recognized that their a s t r o n o m i c a l discoveries h a d b e e n a source of intellectual a n d social c h a o s , a n d by a n impressive tour deforce m a d e a n e w interpretation of a s t r o n o m y part of t h e quest for t r u e wisdom. Correctly understood, t h e stars w e r e proof of a higher design in the cosmos; they w e r e w o r t h y of a w e , a n d perhaps e v e n of devotion. The impact of this a p p r o a c h o n subsequent Greek philosophy a n d religion w a s e n o r m o u s , a n d lasted d o w n to Origen's day. Plato's influence in discussing that w h i c h w a s u n s e e n in t e r m s of that w h i c h was visible in t h e night sky is evident in t h e attention w h i c h philosophy gave to the h e a v e n s in the Hellenistic period. The difficulty w a s that t h e r e w e r e already contradictions in Plato's philosophical understanding of t h e stars. Later thinkers in different schools c a m e up with different solutions to t h e problem of t h e relationship of observable heavenly p h e n o m e n a to religion and the soul, but by this point it was a case of pouring n e w wine into old skins. After Plato, t h e problems i n h e r e n t in a n astral theology w e r e not so m u c h solved as jumbled. Origen's assessment of t h e stars' p r o p e r place in t h e world w a s complicated by his interest in traditions outside of t h e traditional Hellenistic schools. He selectively used a b r o a d assortment of ideas o n the stars in response to a n u m b e r of pressing theological controversies. T h e visible h e a v e n s h a d a n i m p o r t a n t place in Origen's theodicy, w h i c h was designed to offset t h e attacks m a d e against t h e Creator of t h e world by Marcionites a n d others. The stars w e r e e x a m p l e s of t h e i m p o r t a n c e of free m o r a l decisions, and proof that t h e s a m e divine laws held t r u e n o t only across t h e whole h u m a n race but e v e n across all rational beings. While
Conclusion
166
agreeing with p a g a n t h o u g h t that the stars had a significant impact o n terrestrial life, h e limited this influence to t h e regulation of t h e n a t u r a l order, a duty w h i c h they p e r f o r m e d in their p e n a n c e for pre-existent sins. One of his m o s t controversial decisions was to adopt t h e old idea that t h e r e was a relationship b e t w e e n t h e astral soul and t h e h u m a n soul t o g e t h e r with c o n t e m p o r a r y discussions of t h e soul's body to help explain t h e knotty Christian doctrine of the resurrection of t h e dead. Here h e c o m b i n e d Pauline views o n the spiritual n a t u r e of t h e resurrection with speculations o n the star's body a n d o n t h e role of t h e h e a v e n l y bodies in instructing t h e soul after death. A l t h o u g h t h e relative lack of interest in the visible h e a v e n s in scripture limited his speculations o n t h e soul's h e a v e n l y j o u r n e y to a certain degree, he thus also fit Platonic ideas o n t h e soul's r e t u r n to t h e stars into a Christian eschatology. A m b r o s e of Milan carries o n Origen's v i e w that t h e stars are alive, but the idea is rejected e v e n by such admirers of Origen as Basil t h e Great and Didymus t h e B l i n d , and this hostile attitude was not unusual a m o n g later writers, especially in t h e E a s t . T h e most intellectually rigorous criticisms w e r e m a d e by the sixthc e n t u r y A l e x a n d r i a n Christian J o h n Philoponus, w h o b o t h denied the life of t h e stars a n d claimed (against Aristotle) that heavenly events w e r e g o v e r n e d by the s a m e physical principles as those o n e a r t h . His insights, h o w e v e r , did n o t h a v e m u c h influence. Instead, t h e r e s u r g e n c e of Aristotelian philosophy in t h e Middle Ages put intelligences back in t h e spheres for a time, a n d n o less a thinker t h a n T h o m a s Aquinas believed that t h e h e a v e n l y bodies had (in a restricted sense) a rational s o u l . Only gradually w e r e t h e h e a v e n s emptied of life a n d their m o v e m e n t s analysed in purely m e c h a n i c a l t e r m s , science as it w e r e returning to the Ionians. 1
2
3
4
5
6
1
PL 16. 1121 f. Basil Hex. 3. 9 (PG 2 9 . 75a); Didymus Trin. 1. 32 (214. 1-8 Honscheid); cf. Gregory Naz. Oral. 38. 9, 4 5 . 5 (PG 36. 320cd, 629b). Cyril of Alex. (PG 74. 952b); Sophronius (PG 87. 3501cd); John of Damascus (PG 94. 885ab). Denied: Opif. 6. 2 (233. 13 f. Reichardt); claimed: see S. Sambursky, The Physical World of Late Antiquity (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1962), ch. 6. See Wolfson, 'Souls', 48. See Richard C. Dales, 'Medieval De-Animation of the Heavens,' JHI (1980), 5 3 1 - 5 0 . 1 owe many of the references in nn. 2 f. of the conclusion to this article. 2
3
4
5
6
Conclusion
167
The ancient assumption that t h e stars a r e living beings has n o w passed away, but just as the sea retains its fascination even t h o u g h Poseidon n o longer dwells in it, so t o o the celestial regions w i t h o u t their ancient gods. K a n t declared his a w e at t h e starry h e a v e n s above a n d the m o r a l law within, recognizing in e a c h case that w e a r e in t h e presence of something great. The m o d e r n age n o longer believes that the stars h a v e souls, but astronomical progress has n o t robbed t h e m of their p o w e r . The farthest created things, o u r o w n nearest self, these t w o r e m a i n mysteries to us. Observing both w e a r e indeed o n the b o u n d a r y of a n o t h e r land.
APPENDIX A
R U F I N U S AS A T R A N S L A T O R
It is impossible to discuss any aspect of Origen's cosmology without addressing the textual problems associated with his De Principiis, which is extant in a Latin translation made by Origen's admirer Rufinus in 398 (roughly 175 years after the treatise was first written). Over the years much good evidence has been excluded and many doubtful assertions have been accepted because of the way the critical text of De Principiis has been assessed in modern scholarship. This appendix intends to justify the use that has been made of Rufinus' translation in the present work. Origen has always had a penchant for attracting both powerful friends and powerful enemies. Among modern scholars he has had virtually no enemies and among medieval ones he had very few friends, but opinion in antiquity was sharply divided. In his own day he was supported against charges of heresy by bishops in Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia, and Achaia, and was also driven from his native city of Alexandria and was under attack throughout much of his life. In the two centuries after his death many composed apologies on his behalf, but he remained the target for charges of heresy. After he was strongly criticized by the influential heresiologist Epiphanius, Origen was once again the focus of a great theological debate at the end of the fourth century. Indeed, the period was marred by an odium theologicum so intense that even St Augustine (no gentle campaigner in doctrinal disputes) voiced his misgivings. 1
2
3
4
The controversy began when a friend of Rufinus asked him to translate De Principiis into Latin to help him refute the arguments of astrologers. Origen's detailed attacks on astrology (based mostly on earlier Academic criticisms) were of unassailable orthodoxy—in fact a long anti-astrological extract from his commentary on Genesis is preserved in two fourth-century anthologies. Even though De Principiis in fact says little about astrology, Rufinus agreed, and made the work a 5
1 2 3 4 5
Jerome Ep. 33. 5 ( 1 . 2 5 9 , 6 - 8 Hilberg). In Jo. 6. 2. 8 - 1 0 ( 4 . 1 0 7 . 2 4 - 1 0 8 . 13 P.), In Luc. Horn. 25 ( 9 . 1 5 1 . 7 - 1 4 Ra.). Pamphilus/Eusebius, see also Photius Bib. 92 B 5 - 7 (2. 90 Henry). Ep. 7 3 . 6 ( 2 . 2 . 2 7 1 . 1 - 1 0 Goldbacher). In Eusebius' Praeparatio Evangelica, and Basil and Gregory's Philocalia.
Appendix A: Rufinus as a Translator
169
counter-attack in the attempt to prove Origen's orthodoxy. Rufinus had recently argued in a work entitled De Adulteratione Librorum Origenis that heretics had interpolated errors into the text of Origen, and in his preface to De Principiis he claimed that this is especially true in this work. He added that wherever he had found in the text anything contrary to the faith he had omitted it, referring specifically to teachings on the Trinity— perhaps the single most damaging charge against Origen at the time was that he was a proto-Arian. Rufinus judged such passages to be interpolations and substituted views from elsewhere in Origen's corpus. Rufinus also wrote that he attempted to clarify Origen's more obscure passages, and so added a few things to the text—not of his own, but again from other works of Origen. After Rufinus' translation appeared, Jerome complained that Rufinus' version was inaccurate. He said that Rufinus (once his friend but now his bitter enemy) had added things of his own and had suppressed things offensive to the faith. Jerome accordingly made a new, 'more literal' translation (no longer extant) which he gave to a friend. He also cites extracts from De Principiis in his various attacks on Rufinus (he found that attacking Origen was the most effective way of injuring his contemporary opponent). These reports together with charges later made by Justinian and other enemies of Origen have often been seen by modern scholars as correctives to Rufinus' work and as providing the key to Origen's true beliefs. Since Origen's opponents often single out the De Principiis as a heretical w o r k , and since these opponents accuse Origen of having views which are not found in Rufinus' edition of the De Principiis, increasingly scholars came to question the integrity of Rufinus' translation. The prevailing scholarly opinion until recently has been that 6
7
8
9
10
11
12
6
Praef. 3 . 4 2 - 8 (C/S). Epiphanius Pan. 64. 4. 2-4 (2. 4 1 0 . 3 - 7 Holl, see his note), Jerome Ep. 84. 4 (2. 125. 2 1 - 1 2 6 . 2 Hilberg). One purpose of Basil/Gregory's Philocalia was to clear Origen on this point, Socrates HE4.26 (PG 67. 529b). Praef. 2. 36f., 3. 5 4 - 6 4 (C/S). Jerome Apol. ContraRuf. 1.71. (6-8Lardet). Ep. 8 3 (2. 120 f. Hilberg) and Ep. 8 5 . 3 (2. 136. 1 4 - 1 3 7 . 4 Hilberg). So Hans Jonas concludes 'dais der unverfalschte spekulative Origenes nicht in dem uns erhaltenen De Principiis, d. h. dem Rufinschen Texte, sondern in den verstreuten haeresimachischen Fragmenten und Lehrtexten zu finden ist, denn eben das Spekulative war zugleich das Heterodoxe', Gnosis 2. 78, cited here from Ulrich Berner, Origenes, Enrage der Forschung 147 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche, 1981), 4 9 . For Epiphanius' and Theophilus' use of De Prin. see Dechow, 'Dogma', 2 5 8 and 4 2 6 . Marcellus of Ancyra was also offended by Prin., see ap. Eusebius Contra Marc. 1. 4 (4. 2 2 . 2 9 - 2 3 . 13 K l . ) , as was Justinian, who includes numerous extracts from Prin. in his formal attack on Origen, the Ep. ad Mennam (PG 86. 1. 945d—990d). 7
8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
Appendix A: Rufinus as a Translator
170
Rufinus himself interpolated Origen's text and suppressed and rewrote controversial passages—Rufinus' translation is 'ein Werk absoluter Willkur' according to Griitzmacher, who is quoted with approval by Koetschau. The original sense of the cosmology set forth in De Principiis had to be reconstructed by piecing together the charges of Origen's various fourth- and sixth-century opponents and forming a coherent system (it was presumed that Origen had one). The crowning achieve ment of this effort is Koetschau's edition of De Principiis (GCS 2 2 , 1913), which prints along with the text of Rufinus a wide variety of sources which either explicitly or (in Koetschau's view) implicitly refer to teachings allegedly once in De Principiis but suppressed by Rufinus. The impart of this edition was enormous. Many scholarly works in this century have made claims about Origen's teachings based on the Koetschau edition, and when one looks up the passage in question one discovers that it is not written by Origen but by one of his opponents, or even by someone who does not refer to Origen at all but is assumed to oppose a view that Origen once had. Koetschau's deservedly high reputation as a philologist and the status of the GCS series in scholarly circles ensured the widespread influence of these editorial decisions. The impact of this new text in English-speaking circles was furthered by a translation of this edition into English by G. W. Butterworth, who retained Koetschau's collection of the fragments and (if anything) even strengthened its strong editorial bias against Rufinus. Radical scepticism about Rufinus' text had become a widespread scholarly assumption. The first major challenge to this assumption was Gustave Bardy's Recherches sur I'histoire du texte et des versions latines du De Principiis d'Origene in 1 9 2 3 . Bardy investigated Rufinus' work as a translator against extant Greek passages (mostly in the Philocalia), and noted that there was little evidence to support Koetschau's radical conclusions. Rufinus' work is often periphrastic, 'but in the end he translates, and on the whole it is very much Origen's thought that he expresses'. After the Second World War, an extensive Greek portion of Origen's commentary on Romans was published. This work too had previously 13
1 4
15
1 3
Praef., p.cxxx. Koetschau himself says that Rufinus' translation '1st im einzelnen so wenig zuverlassig, daB sie stets der controlle bedarf, um benutzbar zu werden', p.cxxviii; so too Eugene de Faye, Origine: Sa vie, son ceuvre, sa pensee, BEHE. R 37 (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1923) 1. 227. MemTravFacCath25 (Paris: Edouard Champion, 1923). Recherches, 206. More recently Gdrgemanns/Karpp write concerning Rufinus' translation of Prin.: 'Dennoch scheint die Theologie des Origenes im ganzen nicht verfalscht zu sein, nur ihre kuhnsten Formulierungen sind beseitigt oder umgebogen', Prinzipien, 4 3 . See also Volker, Vollkommensheitsideal, 17. Annie Jaubert writes concerning Rufinus' translation, 'Dans l'ensemble, elle donne l'impression d'une longue paraphrase, mais non d'une paraphrase inexacte', Origine: Homilies sur Josue, SC 71 (Paris: du Cerf, 1960), 8 2 . 1 4
15
171
Appendix A: Rufinus as a Translator
only been available in Rufinus' Latin translation, and so should have contained at least some evidence of his allegedly radical textual alterations, but again this was not found to be s o . Another important event was the publication in 1958 of Evagrius Ponticus' Kephalaia Gnostica (in Syriac translation). This text and the renewed study of fourth- and sixth-century Origenist monasticism led many to conclude that Origen's opponents in this later period were in large part directing their criticisms against contemporary followers of Origen rather than against Origen himself. It would appear that later Origenists did make his work more systematic, and were at times much more adventurous in their cosmological speculations. Their opponents tended to read these tendencies into Origen's writings, often without justification. As with so many other controversial figures in history, Origen is frequently associated with views that are a caricature of his real position, because this is what his enemies saw or wanted to see. 16
17
18
Increasingly scholars (with some exceptions) have concluded that Rufinus' work, though not a strict translation by modern standards, has suppressed little for doctrinal reasons, and is generally a more reliable guide for Origen's cosmology than the fragments in the Koetschau edition. It would appear that Rufinus has changed some of Origen's language to bring it into line with later views of the Trinity (as Rufinus himself admits), but there is little reason to think that major changes have been made in his cosmology. Jerome's complaints about the translation must be viewed in light of his bitter hatred of Rufinus, and his less than scrupulous treatment of theological opponents. His evidence cannot be dismissed, and indeed is often of great value, but should only be used with due caution. Charges made by other opponents also must be examined in light of both their theological settings (often polemical), and the reliability of the source. 19
20
Henri Crouzel has been a leader in this approach to Rufinus' text of De Principiis, and together with Manlio Simonetti has edited a new edition of the text with these presuppositions. I chose to use their edition (which 1 6
See Henry Chadwick, 'Rufinus and the Tura Papyrus of Origen's Comment ary on Romans', JThS NS 10 (1959), 10-42; Eric Junod, Origene: Philocalie 21-27 (Paris: du Cerf, 1976), 91. See already von Balthasar, Origen, 366 n. 1. A. Guillaumont. Les Six Centuries des 'Kephalaia gnostica', PO 2 8 . 1 (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1958). See A. Guillaumont, Les 'Kephalaia Gnostica' d'Evagre le Pontique, PatSor 5 (Paris: du Seuil, 1962). Already Bardy Recherches 79. See appendix B. Setting: for the fourth-century controversy see Dechow 'Dogma'; for both eras see Guillaumont, Les 'Kephalaia'. Even a literal correspondence between Jerome and Justinian is not a sure indication that a teaching stems from Origen, see Crouzel, 'L'Apocatastase chez Origene', in Lothar Lies (ed.), Origeniana Quarta (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1987), 2 8 4 , against Kettler, Sinn, 28. 1 7
1 8
1 9
2 0
172
Appendix A: Rufinus as a Translator
is in the Sources chretiennes series), though I have continued to use the other standard GCS editions, which cover a large portion (but not all) of Origen's corpus. Koetschau was a great scholar and editor, and his Latin text of Rufinus, though updated, has not been radically emended by Simonetti in the C/S edition. For this reason it was possible to continue to use the (excellent) Butterworth translation, though in each case it has been compared to Gorgemanns/Karpp's German and Crouzel's French translation, and has in a few cases been modified (as signalled in the notes). The use of the C/S edition is mainly intended to indicate a different attitude toward Rufinus' translation and the fragments collect ed by Koetschau than the one that has been dominant in much of this century's discussions of Origen's cosmology.
APPENDIX B
A N O T E ON O R I G E N ' S U S E O F T H E T E R M 'ANTIZONE'
1
In his letter to Avitus Jerome reports the following as one of Origen's three conjectures in the De Principiis about the possible destiny of the soul. The fixed sphere and everything in it will be dissolved, and that by which the antizone itself is contained and surrounded will be called the 'good earth' (Matthew 13: 8 ) . The other sphere which surrounds this same earth in its circuit and which is called 'heaven' will be the home of the saints. The fixed sphere is the eighth sphere, the ninth is apparently both Hipparchus' starless sphere and also the 'celestial earth', and the tenth is the higher and greater of the two heavens. What is puzzling here is the 'antizone' beneath them. As Crouzel notes, the word dvTifeavi; is nowhere else attested in Greek literature. It is apparently an 'ami' zone because it moves in a direction opposite that of the ninth sphere. Crouzel says that the antizone is either the fixed sphere, moving from East to West, or the fixed sphere and the planets, which have this same overall direction despite their additional West-East movement. A passage in Origen's Commentariorum Series in Evangelium Matthaei throws some light on this question. Here Origen says that the 'middle zone' is the area between the earth and the planetary region. This probably indicates that the planets are part of the antizone. There are evidently three zones beneath the celestial earth and so in the world of becoming: the topmost is an antizone which encompasses the planets and the fixed sphere; the second is a middle zone which includes the area between the earth and the planetary region (i.e. the air and the ether). I know of no reference to the third zone, which must be beneath 2
3
4
5
1
Ep. 124. 5 (3. 102. 2 6 - 1 0 3 . 6 Hilberg). Rufinus omitted this passage, probably because he found it irrelevant or puzzling (or both). See ch. 8 n. 2 8 and 4 5 . 2
3 4
Principes. 2. 1 5 7 n . 43.
11. 1 0 2 . 2 1 f . K l . Following the Stoics it is common to say that the world consists of heaven and earth (since they did not admit anything beyond them), Posidonius frag. 3 3 4 (Theiler), Philo Aet. 4. 5
174
Appendix B: A Note on
'Antizone'
the 'middle zone', nor what such a zone would be called. Presumably it would include the earth and underworld. In Greek science 'zones' {C,wvai) refer both to regions on earth and to their counterparts on the celestial sphere. Heavenly zones refer to the intervals between the planets, and are commonly used to denote one of the seven planetary spheres. In Origen's passage in the Commentariorum Series, the Greek word t^avr] (which must lie behind the Latin zona) refers to one of only three regions. The question then is the background of this otherwise unattested word dvnfriwj (which Origen probably did not coin) and its unusual usage. The ultimate background may well be astrological, for Origen had a good knowledge of astrological vocabulary. Hippolytus attributes a division of the universe into three parts to 'the astrologers'. First is the region of the signs of the zodiac, called an immovable world, presumably not only because it is the 'fixed' sphere but also because it is above Fate. Second is the planetary region, which extends as far as the moon, and below this is our world. Here the seven planets are treated as one entity, which is not unusual in astrology or magic. The division of the universe is different from that in Origen, but one could see how the planetary region might be called an ivn^covn, since it moves in a direction opposite that of the fixed sphere. The same word then perhaps was applied by Origen to the antizone's relationship to the ninth sphere when he too divided the cosmos into three parts. 6
7
8
9
10
Such a division may have been adopted by Origen because it could be used in exegesis of 2 Corinthians 12: 2. At a few other points Origen talks about the three parts of the universe under highest heaven, but he describes its sections differently, and he evidentiy was uncertain how to describe these heavens. This indecision no doubt was due in part to the relative novelty of such a teaching, since a threefold division of the cosmos conflicted with the more familiar division of the cosmos into seven planetary regions and the fixed sphere. 11
12
6
GeminusfVem. 16. 12 (78 Aujac); Strabo2. 5. 3 ( I . 2. 81. 1 5 - 1 7 Aujac); Philo
Her. 147. 7
Achilles Isag. 2 9 (62. 2 0 - 3 Maass). So Porphyry De Phil, ex Orac. 141; Vettius Valens 1. 10 ( 2 5 . 19 f. Pingree); Zosimus of Panopolis On the Letter Omega 1 (16. 2 ) . 9 (28, 10 Jackson); J. Lydus De Mens. 3. 12 (54. 1 0 - 1 2 Wiinsch); etc. Hippolytus Ref. 5. 13. 1 ( 1 7 4 . 1 - 1 7 5 . 8 Marcovich). PGM 1 3 . 2 1 3 - 2 6 ; Vettius Valens 6. 7 (245. 25 f. Pingree). In In Gen. Hom. 2. 5 he divides the cosmos into subterranean, earthly, and heavenly (6. 3 6 . 2 - 5 B.); see further the sources in ch. 8 n. 6 6 . Though this is not unheard of in pagan circles, see Lewy Chaldaean 137. 3 7 6 , and at a later date Theodore of Asine test. 30 (Deuse). 8
9
1 0
1 1
1 2
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
ALEXANDRE, MONIQUE, 'La Culture profane chez Philon', in Roger Arnaldez et al, (eds.), Philon d'Alexandrie (Paris: Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1967), 1 0 5 - 3 0 . ANZ, WILHELM, Zur Frage nach dent Ursprung des Gnostizimus, TU 15. 4 (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich, 1897). APELT, MATHILDA, De Rationibus quibusdam quae Philoni Alexandrino cum Posidonio intercedunt (Leipzig: Teubner, 1907). ARMANTAGE, JAMES WALTER, 'Will the Body be Raised? Origen and the Origenist Controversies', Ph.D. Dissertation (Yale University, 1971). ATZBERGER, LEONHARD, Geschichte der christlichen Eschatologie innerhalb der vornicdnischen Zeit (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1896). BALTES, MATTHLAS, 'Zur Theologie des Xenokrates', in R. van den Broek et al. (eds.), Knowledge of God in the Graeco-Roman World, EPRO 112 (Leiden: E. J . Brill, 1988), 4 3 - 6 8 . BALTHASAR, HANS URS VON, Origen: Spirit and Fire, trans. Robert J. Daly, SJ (Washington, DC: Catholic University, 1984). BARBEL, JOSEPH, Christos Angelos, Theoph 3 (Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1941). Note: a much abbreviated edition of the same work was published in the same year by Wilh. Postberg. BARDY, GUSTAVE, Recherches sur I'histoire du texte et des versions latines du De Principiis d'Origene, MemTravFacCath 25 (Paris: Edouard Champion, 1923). BECK, ROGER, 'Mithraism since Franz Cumont', ANRW 2. 17. 4 (1984), 2002-115. Planetary Gods and Planetary Orders in the Mysteries of Mithras, EPRO 109 (Leiden: E. J . Brill, 1988). BERCHMAN, ROBERT M., From Philo to Origen: Middle-Platonism in Transition, Brown Judaic Studies 69 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1984). BERNER, ULRICH, Origenes, Ertrage der Forschung 147 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981). BETTENCOURT, STEPHANUS TAURES, Doctrina Ascetica Origenis, StAns 16 (Vatican City: Libreria Vaticana, 1945). BEUTLER, RUDOLF, 'Numenios', PWSuppl. 7 (1940), 6 6 4 - 7 8 . BLANC, CECILE, 'L'Angelologie d'Origene', StPatr 14 (1971), 7 9 - 1 0 9 . Origine: Commentaire sur Saint Jean, SC 120, 157, 222, 2 9 0 (Paris: du Cerf, 1 9 6 6 - 8 2 ) .
176
Bibliography
BORRET, MARCEL, SJ, Origene: Homilies sur le Levitique, SC
286-7
(Paris: du
Cerf, 1 9 8 1 ) .
BOSTOCK, GERALD, 'The Sources of Origen's Doctrine of Pre-Existence', in Lothar Lies (ed.), Origeniana Quarta (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1 9 8 7 ) , 259-64.
BOUCHE-LECLERCQ, A., L'Astrologiegrecque (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1 8 9 9 ) . BOUSSET, WILHELM. 'Gnosis, Gnostiker', PW7. 2 ( 1 9 1 2 ) , 1 5 0 2 - 4 7 . 'Die Himmelreise der Seele',ARW4 ( 1 9 0 1 ) , 1 3 6 - 6 9 and 2 2 9 - 7 3 . Jiidisch-christlicher Schulbetrieb in Alexandria und Rom (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1 9 1 5 ) . 'Zur Daemonologie der spateren Antike', ARW18 ( 1 9 1 5 ) , 1 3 4 - 7 2 . BOYANCE, PIERRE, 'Etudes philoniennes', REG 7 6 ( 1 9 6 3 ) 6 4 - 1 1 0 . Etudes sur le Songe de Scipion (Paris: A. Bontemps, 1 9 3 6 ) . 'La Religion astrale de Platon a Ciceron', REG 6 5 ( 1 9 5 2 ) 3 1 2 - 4 9 . BOCHLI, JORG, Der Poimandres: Ein paganisiertes Evangelium. W U N T 2 7 (Tubingen: J . C. B. Mohr, 1 9 8 7 ) . CADIOU, RENE, Introduction au systeme d'Orig'ene (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1932).
La Jeunessed'Origene (Paris: Gabriel Beauchesne, 1 9 4 5 ) . CAPELLE, PAULUS, De luna, stellis, lacteo orbe animarum sedes (Halis Saxonum: E. Karras, 1 9 1 7 ) . CAVALLIN, HANS C , 'Leben nach dem Tode im Spatjudentum', ANRW 2. 19. 1 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ,
240-345.
CHADWICK, HENRY, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition (Oxford: Clarendon, 1 9 6 6 ) . 'Origen, Celsus, and the Resurrection of the Body', HTR 4 1 ( 1 9 4 8 ) , 83-102.
Origen: Contra Celsum (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1 9 6 5 ) . 'Philo and the Beginnings of Christian Thought', in A. H. Arm strong (ed.), The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1 9 7 0 ) , 1 3 7 - 5 7 . 'Rufinus and the Tura Papyrus of Origen's Commentary on Romans', JThS NS 1 0 ( 1 9 5 9 ) , 1 0 - 4 2 . 'St Paul and Philo of Alexandria', BJRL 4 8 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 2 8 6 - 3 0 7 . CHARLESWORTH, JAMES, H., (ed.). The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1 9 8 3 ) . CHERNISS, HAROLD, Aristotle's Criticism of Plato and the Academy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1 9 4 4 ) . The Riddle of the Early Academy (Berkeley: University of California, 1945).
Selected Papers, ed. Leonardo Taran (Leiden: E. J . Brill, 1 9 7 7 ) . CHROUST, ANTON-HERMANN, Aristotle (London: Routledge &• Kegan Paul, 1973).
Bibliography
177
CORNELIS, H., 'Les Fondements cosmologiques de l'eschatologie d'Origene', RevSciPhilTheol43 (1959), 3 2 - 8 0 and 2 0 1 - 4 7 . CORNFORD, FRANCIS MACDONALD, Plato's Cosmology (New York: Harcourt, Brace 6-Co., 1937). COURCELLE, P., 'Fliigel (Flug) der Seek', RACS (1972), 2 9 - 6 5 . CROUZEL, HENRI, SJ, Bibliographie critique d'Origene, IP 8 and 8a (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1971, 1982). 'Differences entre les ressuscites selon Origene', Jenseitsvorstellungen in Antike und Christentum, JAC suppl. 9, ed. Theodor Klauser et al. (Munster: Aschendorff, 1982), 1 0 7 - 1 6 . 'L'Hades et la Gehenne selon Origene', Gregorianum, 59 (1978), 291-331. 'Mort et immortalite selon Origene', BLE 79 (1978), 1 9 - 3 8 , 8 1 - 9 6 , 181-96. Origen, trans. A. S. Worrall (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989). Origene et la 'connaissance mystique', ML. T 56 (Toulouse: Desclee de Brouwer, 1961). Origene et la philosophie (Paris: Editions Montaigne, 1962). 'La Theme platonicien du "vehicule de l'ame" chez Origene', Didaskalia 7 (1977), 2 2 5 - 3 7 . and SIMONETTI, MANLIO, Origene: Traite des principes, SC 252, 253, 2 6 8 , 2 6 9 (Paris: du Cerf, 1 9 7 8 - 8 0 ) . CUMONT, FRANZ, 'Les Anges du paganisme', RevHistRel 72 (1915), 1 5 9 - 8 2 . 'Le Mysticisme astral dans l'antiquite', BCLAB (1909), 2 5 6 - 8 6 . 'Les Noms de planetes et l'astrolatrie chez les Grecs', AnCl 4 ( 1 9 3 5 ) , 5-43. 'La Theologie solaire du paganisme romain', MAIBL. £ 1 2 . 2 ( 1 9 1 3 ) , 447-80. DALES, RICHARD C , 'Medieval De-Animation of the Heavens', JHI 41 (1980), 5 3 1 - 5 0 . DANIELOU, JEAN, Philon d'Alexandrie (Paris: Artheme Fayard, 1958). Primitive Christian Symbols, trans. Donald Attwater (Baltimore: Helicon, 1964). 'Les Sources juives de la doctrine des anges des nations chez Origene', RSR 38 (1951), 132-7. DECHOW, JON F., 'Dogma and Mysticism in Early Christianity', Ph.D. Dissertation (University of Pennsylvania, 1975). Now a monograph from Mercer University Press (Atlanta, 1988), in the NAPS Mono graph Series. DE LEY, HERMAN, Macrobius and Numenius, ColLat 125 (Brussels: Latomus, 1972). DES PLACES, EDOUARD, Etudes platoniciennes, 1929-1979, EPRO 9 0 (Leiden: E . J . Brill, 1981).
178
Bibliography
Numenius: Fragments (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1973). Syngeneia, EeC 51 (Paris: C. Klincksieck, 1964). DEVREESSE, ROBERT, Les Anciens Commentateurs grecs des Psaumes, SeT 2 6 4 (Vatican City: Apostolica Vaticana, 1970). DICKS, D. R., Early Greek Astronomy to Aristotle (Bristol: Western Printing, 1970). DILLON, JOHN, 'Looking on the Light: Some Remarks on the Imagery of Light in the First Chapter of the Peri Archon', Origen of Alexandria: His World and his Legacy, in Charles Kannengiesser and William L. Petersen (eds.), (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame, 1988), 2 1 5 - 3 0 . The Middle Platonists (London: Duckworth, 1977). 'Philo's Doctrine of Angels', in David Winston and John Dillon (eds.). Two Treatises of Philo of Alexandria, Brown Judaic Studies 25 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983). DODDS, E. R., The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley: University of California, 1951). '- Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1965). Proclus: The Elements of Theology. (2nd edn., Oxford: Clarendon, 1963). DOLGER, FRANZ, 'Zur Symbolik des altchristlichen Taufhauses', AuC 4 (1934), 1 5 3 - 8 7 . DORIVAL, GILLES, 'Origene et la resurrection de la chair', in Lothar Lies (ed.), Origeniana Quarta (Innsbruck: Tyrolia, 1987), 2 9 1 - 3 2 1 . DORRIE, HEINRICH, Platonica Minora, Studia et Testimonia 8 (Munich: Wilhelm Funk, 1976). DRACHMANN, A. B., Atheism in Pagan Antiquity (London: Gyldendal, 1922). DUPUIS, JACQUES, SJ, L'Esprit de I'homme: Etude sur I'anthropologic religeuse d'Origene, ML. T 62 (Toulouse: Desclee de Brouwer, 1967). DURING, INGEMAR, 'Aristoteles', PWSuppl. II (1968), 1 5 9 - 3 3 6 . EASTERLING, H. J . , 'Homocentric Spheres in De Caelo', Phron. 6 (1961), 138-53. 'Quinta Natura', MH 21 (1964), 7 3 - 8 5 . EDELSTEIN, LUDWIG, 'The Philosophical System of Posidonius', AJPh 57 (1936), 2 8 6 - 3 2 5 . EFFE, BERND, Studien zur Kosmologie und Theologie der aristotelischen Schrijt Ober die Philosophic', Zet. 50 (Munich: Beck, 1970). ELDERS, LEO, Aristotle's Cosmology (Assen: van Gorcum & Co., 1966). ELFERINK, M. A., La Descente de I'dme d'apres Macrobe, PhAnt 16 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968). ELSAS, CHRISTOPH, Neuplatonische und gnostische Weltablehnung in der Schule Plotins, RGVV 34 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1975). FESTUGIERE, A. J . , 'De la doctrine "origeniste" du corps glorieux spheroi'de', RevSciPhilTheoUl (1959), 8 1 - 6 . DES PLACES, EDOUARD,
Bibliography
179
L'Ideal religieux des grecs et I'Evangile (2nd edn., Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1981). La Revelation d'Hermes Trismegiste: vol. 1. L'Astrologie et les sciences occultes (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1950); vol. 2. Le Dim cosmique' (1954); vol. 3. Les Doctrines de lame (1953); vol. 4. LeDieu inconnuetla gnose (1954). FLAMANT, J . , 'Soteriologie et systemes planetaires', in V. Bianchi and M. J . Vermaseren (eds.). La soteriologia dei culti orientali nelT impero romano EPRO 92 (Leiden: E. J . Brill, 1982), 2 2 3 ^ 2 . FLASHAR, HELLMUT, 'Aristoteles', in Hellmut Flashar (ed.), Die Philosophie derAntike (Basle/Stuttgart: Schwabe, 1983), 3 . 1 7 5 - 4 5 7 . FOERSTER, WERNER, " 'Aartfp, "Aazpov", trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, TDNT 1 (1964), 1 6 9 - 7 1 . FRANK, ERICH, Plato und die sogenannten Pythagoreer (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1923). FRITZ, KURT VON, 'Philippos von Opus', PW19. 2 (1938), 2 3 5 1 - 6 6 . GERSH, STEPHEN, Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism: The Latin Tradition (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame, 1986). GIROD, ROBERT, Origene: Commentaire sur I'Evangile selon Matthieu, SC 162 (Paris: du Cerf, 1970). GOGLER, ROLF, Zur Theologie des biblischen Wortes bei Origenes (Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1963). GOLDSCHMIDT, V., Platonisme et pensee contemporaine (Aubier: Editions Montaigne, 1976). GORGEMANNS, HERWIG, and KARPP, HEINRICH, Origenes vier Biicher von den Prinzipien (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1976). GOTTSCHALK, H. B., Heraclides of Pontus (Oxford: Clarendon, 1980). GRASER, ANDREAS, 'ZU Aristoteles Peri Philosophias (Cicero, Nat. dear. I I 1 6 , 44)',Mtf 27 (1970), 1 6 - 2 7 . GRY, LEON, 'Sejours et habitats divins d'apres les Apocryphes de l'Ancien', RSPhTh 4 ( 1 9 1 0 ) , 6 9 4 - 7 2 2 . GUILLAUMONT, A., Les 'Kephalaia Gnostica' d'Evagre le Pontique, PatSor 5 (Paris: du Seuil, 1962). GUNDEL, WILHELM, and GUNDEL, HANS GEORG, Astrologumena, Sudhoffs Arch. Suppl. 6 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1966). 'Planeten', PW20. 2 (1950), 2 0 1 7 - 8 5 . GUTHRIE, W. K . C , 'Introduction', Aristotle: On the Heavens (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1939). HAHM, DAVID E., 'The Fifth Element in Aristotle's De Philosophia: A Critical Re-examination', in John P. Anton and Anthony Preus (eds.), Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy (Albany, NY: SUNY, 1983), 2. 4 0 4 28. The Origins of Stoic Cosmology (Columbus: Ohio State University, 1977).
180
Bibliography
HARL, MARGUERITE, 'Cosmologie grecque et representations juives dans l'oeuvre de Philon d'Alexandrie', in Roger Arnaldez et al. (eds.) Philon d'Alexandrie (Paris: Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1967),.189-205. 'Introduction', Philo d'Alexandrie: Quis rerum divinarum heres sit (Paris: du Cerf, 1966). Origene: Philocalie 1-20, SC 302 (Paris: du Cerf, 1983). HARNACK, ADOLF VON, Der kirchengeschichtliche Ertrag der exegetischen Arbeiten des Origenes, TU 42. 3-4 (Leipzig: J . C. Hinrich, 1918). HEATH, THOMASL., Aristarchusof Samos (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913). HEINE, RONALD E . , Origen: Homilies on Genesis and Exodus, FaCh 71 (Washington, DC: Catholic University, 1982). HEINZE, RICHARD, Xenokrates (Leipzig: Teubner, 1892). HUET, PIERRE, Origeniana, in C. H. E . Lommatzsch, Origenis Opera Omnia (Berlin: Haude & Spener, 1846), vols. 2 2 - 4 . HUSSON, PIERRE, and NAUTTN, PIERRE, Origene: Homilies sur Jeremie, SC 232, 238 (Paris: du Cerf, 1 9 7 6 - 7 ) . JAEGER, WERNER, Aristotle: Fundamentals of the History of his Development, trans. Richard Robinson (2nd edn., Oxford: Clarendon, 1934). JAUBERT, ANNIE, Origene: Homilies sur Josui, SC 71 (Paris: du Cerf, 1960). JONAS, HANS, Gnosis und spatantiker Geist, FRLANT 51, 63 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1 9 3 4 , 1 9 5 4 ) . JUNOD, E „ Origene: Philocalie 21-27 (Sur le libre arbitre), SC 2 2 6 (Paris: du Cerf, 1976). KAHN, CHARLES H., Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology (New York: Columbia University, 1960). KEHL, ALOIS, 'Gewand (der Seele)', RAC10 (1978), 9 4 5 - 1 0 5 2 . KELLY, J . N. D., Early Christian Doctrines (5th edn., San Francisco: Harper &Row, 1978). KERSCHENSTEINER, JULA, Platon und der Orient (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1945). KETTLER, FRANZ HEINRICH, Der urspriingliche Sinn der Dogmatik des Origenes (Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 1966). KLOSTERMANN, ERICH, 'Formen der exegetischen Arbeiten des Origenes', ThL 72 (1947), 2 0 3 - 8 . KOCH, HAL, 'Origenes', PW18. 1 (1942), 1 0 3 6 - 5 9 . Pronoia undPaideusis, AKG 22 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1932). KRAMER, HANS JOACHIM, 'Die altere Akademie', in Hellmut Flashar (ed.). Die Philosophic der Antike (Basle/Stuttgart: Schwabe, 1983) 3 . 1 - 1 5 0 . KROLL, JOSEF, Die Lehren des Hermes Trismegistos, BGPhMA 12 (Munster: Aschendorff, 1914). KROLL, WILHELM, Die Kosmologie des Plinius (Breslau: Marcus, 1930). KUBEL, PAUL, Schuld und Schicksal bei Origenes, Gnostikern und Platonikern (Stuttgart: Calwer, 1973).
Bibliography
181
LAPIDGE, MICHAEL, 'Stoic Cosmology', in John M. Rist (ed.), The Stoics (Berkeley: University of California, 1978), 1 6 1 - 8 6 . LEBEAU, PAUL, 'L'Interpretation origenienne de Rm. 8. 19-22', Kyriakon, FS J. Quasten, ed. Patrick Granfield and Josef A. Jungmann (Miinster: Aschendorff, 1970), 1. 3 3 6 - 1 5 . LEWY, HANS, Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy, ed. Michel Tardieu (2nd edn., Paris: Etudes augustiniennes, 1978). LILLA, S. R. C , Clement of Alexandria (London: Oxford University, 1971). LUBAC, HENRI DE, Histoire et esprit (Paris: Aubier, 1950). MAAS, ERNST, Die Tagesgbtter in Rom und den Provinzen (Berlin: Weidmann, 1902). MANSFELD, J . The Pseudo-Hippocratic Tract Peri Hebdomadon ch.1-11 and Greek Philosophy (Assen: van Gorcum, 1971). MAU, GEORG, Die Religionsphilosophie Kaiser Julians (Leipzig: Teubner, 1906). MEHAT, ANDRE, Origene: Homilies sur les Nombres SC 2 9 (Paris: du Cerf, 1951). MERKELBACH, REINHOLD, Mithras (Konigstein: Anton Hain, 1984). Weihegrade und Seelenlehre der Mithrasmysterien (Opladen: Westdeutscher, 1982). MERLAN, PHILIP, Kleine philosophische Schriften, ed. Franciszka Merlan (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1976). MICHL, J . , 'Engel I-rV', RAC 5 (1962), 5 3 - 2 0 0 . MILLER, JAMES, Measures of Wisdom (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1986). MOIXAND, EINAR, The Conception of the Gospel in the Alexandrian Theology (Oslo: Jacob Dybwad, 1938). MOIXER, WILHELM, Geschichte der Kosmologie in der griechischen Kirche bis auf Origenes (Halle: 1860, repr. Frankfurt am Main: Minerva, 1967). MORAUX, PAUL, Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1984), vol. 2. 'Einleitung', in P. Moraux (ed.), Friihschriften des Aristoteles, WdF 2 2 4 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1975). 'Introduction', Aristote: Du del (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1965). 'Quinta Essentia', PW24 (1963), 1 1 7 1 - 2 6 3 . MOREAU, JOSEPH, L'Ame du monde de Platon aux stoiciens (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1939). NAUTIN, PIERRE, Origene: Sa vie etson ceuvre (Paris: du Cerf, 1976). and NAUTIN, MARIE-THERESE, Origene: Homilies sur Samuel, SC 328 (Paris: duCerf, 1986). NILSSON, MARTIN P, Geschichte der griechischen Religion, HAW 5. 2. vols. 1, 2 (2nd edn., Munich: C. H. Beck, 1961). NOCK, ARTHUR DARBY, Essays on Religion and the Ancient World, ed. Zeph Stewart (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1972).
Bibliography
182
NOCK, ARTHUR DARBY, Sallustius: Concerning the Gods and the Universe (Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1 9 6 6 ) . PEASE, ARTHUR STANLEY, 'Caeli Enarrant', HTR 3 4 ( 1 9 4 1 ) , 1 6 3 - 2 0 0 . Ciceronis De Natura Deorum (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1955).
PEPIN, JEAN, Idees grecques sur I'homme et sur Dieu (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1971).
Theologie cosmique et theologie chretienne (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1 9 6 4 ) .
PETREMENT, SIMONE, he Dieu separe (Paris: du Cerf, 1 9 8 4 ) . PFEIFFER, ERWIN, Studien zum antiken Sternglauben, Stoicheia 2 (Leipzig: Teubner, 1 9 1 6 ) .
POHLENZ, MAX, DieStoa (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1 9 5 9 ) . PRAECHTER, KARL, Kleine Schriften, ed. Heinrich Dorrie (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1 9 7 3 ) .
RECHEIS, P. ATHANAS, Engel, Tod und Seelenreise, TeT 4 (Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1 9 5 8 ) . REINHARDT, K., 'Poseidonios von Apameia', PW22. 1 ( 1 9 5 3 ) , 5 5 8 - 8 2 6 . REITZENSTEIN, RICHARD, Poimandres (Leipzig: Teubner, 1 9 0 4 ) . RIEDINGER, UTTO, Die heilige Schrift im Kampf dergriechischen Kirchegegen die Astrologie (Innsbruck: Wagner, 1 9 5 6 ) . RONDEAU, MARIE-JOSEPHE, 'Le Commentaire sur les Psaumes d'EVagre le Pontique', OCP 2 6 ( 1 9 6 0 ) , 3 0 7 - 4 8 .
Ross, W. D., Aristotle's Metaphysics (Oxford: Clarendon, 1 9 2 4 ) . Fragmenta Selecta (Oxford: Clarendon, 1 9 5 5 ) . ROUGIER, LOUIS AUGUSTE PAUL, L 'Origine astronomique de la croyance pythagoricienne en I'immortalite celeste des ames (Cairo: Institut francais d'archeologie orientale, 1 9 3 3 ) . RUNIA, DAVID T., Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, PhAnt 4 4 (Leiden: E . J . Brill, 1 9 8 6 ) . RUSCHE, FRANZ, Blut, Leben und Seek, SGKA. E 5 (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schoningh, 1 9 3 0 ) .
SAMBURSKY, S., The Physical World of Late Antiquity (London: Routledge & KeganPaul, 1 9 6 2 ) .
SCHWEIZER, EDUARD, 'Slaves of the Elements and Worshipers of Angels: Gal. 4 : 3 , 9 and Col. 2 : 8 , 1 8 , 2 0 ' , JBL 1 0 7 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , 4 5 5 - 6 8 .
SKEMP, J . B., The Theory of Motion in Plato's Later Dialogues (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1 9 6 7 ) . SMITH, ANDREW, 'Porphyrian Studies Since 1 9 1 3 ' , ANRW2. 3 6 . 2 ( 1 9 8 7 ) , 717-73.
SOLMSEN, FRIEDRICH, Aristotle's System of the Physical World, CSCP 3 3 (Ithaca, N Y : Cornell University, 1 9 6 0 ) . 'Cleanthes or Posidonius? The Basis of Stoic Physics', MNAW 24. 9 (1961), 265-89.
Bibliography
183
Plato's Theology, CSCP 2 7 (Ithaca. NY: Cornell University, 1 9 4 2 ) . 'The Vital Heat, the Inborn Pneuma and the Aether', JHS 7 7 ( 1 9 5 7 ) , 119-23.
SORABJI, RICHARD, Time, Creation and the Continuum (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1 9 8 3 ) .
SVOBODA, KAREL, La Demonologie de Michel Psellus (Brno: Filosoficka fakulta, 1 9 2 7 ) .
TARAN, LEONARDO, Academica, MAPS 1 0 7 (Philadelphia: MAPS, 1 9 7 5 ) . TAYLOR, A. E., A Commentary on Plato's Timaeus (Oxford: Clarendon, 1 9 2 8 ) . THEILER, WILLY, Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus, QSGP 1 0 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1 9 6 6 ) .
Poseidonios: Die Fragmente, TK 1 0 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1 9 8 2 ) . Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1970).
TORJESEN, KAREN J o , Hermeneutical Procedure and Theological Method in Origen's Exegesis, PTS 2 8 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1 9 8 6 ) . TURCAN, ROBERT, Mithras Platonicus, EPRO 4 7 (Leiden: E. J . Brill, 1 9 7 5 ) . TUROWSKI, EDMUND, Die Widerspiegelung des stoischen Systems bei Philon von Alexandria (Borna-Leipzig: Robert Noske, 1 9 2 7 ) . ULANSEY, DAVID, The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries (New York: Oxford University, 1 9 8 9 ) .
VAN DEN BROECK, R., 'The Creation of Adam's Psychic Body', Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions, FS Gilles Quispel, EPRO 9 1 (Leiden: E . J . Brill, 1 9 8 1 ) 3 8 - 5 7 .
VAN DER HORST, PIETER WILLEM, Chaeremon, Egyptian Priest and Stoic Philosopher, EPRO 1 0 1 (Leiden: E . J . Brill, 1 9 8 4 ) . VERBEKE, G., VEvolution de la doctrine du pneuma du sto'icisme a S. Augustin (Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1 9 4 5 ) . VERDENIUS, W. J . , 'Plato and Christianity', Ratio 5 ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 1 5 - 3 2 . 'Platons Gottesbegriff', Entretiens sur Vantiquite classique 1 (Geneva: fondation Hardt, 1 9 5 4 ) , 2 4 1 - 9 2 .
'Traditional and Personal Elements in Aristotle's Religion', Phron 5 (1960), 56-70.
VLASTOS, GREGORY, Plato's Universe (Seattle: University of Washington, 1975).
VOGEL, C. J. DE, Greek Philosophy, vol. 2 (Leiden: E. J . Brill, 1 9 6 7 ) . 'Was Plato a Dualist?', Rethinking Plato and Platonism, MnSuppl 9 2 (Leiden: E . J . Brill, 1 9 8 6 ) , 1 5 9 - 2 1 2 .
VOLKER, WALTHER, Fortschritt und Vollendung bei Philo von Alexandrien, TU 4 9 . 1 (Leipzig: J . C. Hinrichs, 1 9 3 8 ) . Das Vollkommenheitsideal des Origenes, BHTh 7 (Tubingen: J . C. B. Mohr, 1 9 3 1 ) .
Der wahre Gnostiker nach Clemens Alexandrinus, TU 5 7 . 2 (Berlin: Akademie, 1 9 5 2 ) .
184
Bibliography
WALLACE-HADRILL, D . S, The Greek Patristic View of Nature (Manchester: Manchester University, 1968). WASZINK, J. H., 'Aether', RAC1 (1950), 1 5 0 - 8 . 'Bemerkungen zum EinfluB des Platonismus im friihen Christentum', VigChr 19 (1965), 1 2 9 - 6 2 . Tertulliani De Anima (Amsterdam: J. M. Meulenhoff, 1947). WENDLAND, PAUL, Die hellenistisch-rdmische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zu Judentum und Christentum, HNT 1. 2 (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1912). Philos Schrift iiber die Vorsehung (Berlin: K. Gaertners, 1892). WHITTAKER, J., 'Platonic Philosophy in the Early Centuries of the Empire', ANRW2. 36. 1 (1987), 8 1 - 1 2 3 . WINSTON, DAVID, Logos and Mystical Theology in Philo of Alexandria (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1985). WOLFF, GUSTAVUS, Porphyrii de Philosophia ex Oraculis Haurienda (Berlin: Iulii Springeri, 1856). WOLFSON, HARRY AUSTRYN, Philo (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1947). 'The Problem of the Souls of the Spheres from the Byzantine Commentaries on Aristotle through the Arabs and St. Thomas to Kepler', in Isadore Twersky and George H. Williams (eds.). Studies in the History of Philosophy and Religion (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University, 1973), 1 . 2 2 - 5 9 . ZELLER, E., Die Philosophic der Griechen (5th edn., Leipzig: O . R. Reisland, 1922).
INDEX OF SCRIPTURAL R E F E R E N C E S
OLD TESTAMENT Genesis 1: 1 120 1: 10 120 1: 14 145 2 : 7 67 1 5 : 5 139 2 5 : 2 2 - 6 141 n. Exodus 3 : 2 91 1 6 : 4 69 25: 37 71 Deuteronomy 4 : 1 5 91 4: 19 7 4 n . 1 2 : 3 91 n. Job 25:5 123,137 26:7 118
40: 19 140 Psalms 1 1 : 4 125 1 9 : 2 105 19:4 108 27: 13 162 6 9 : 3 5 161 7 3 : 9 143 77: 16 1 2 7 n . 1 1 9 : 8 9 125 1 4 7 : 4 162 1 4 8 : 3 - 4 131 1 4 8 : 4 - 5 120 Isaiah 9:6 160 14: 12 139 2 4 : 1 - 3 92 n. 43:2 143
4 5 : 12 131 6 6 : 2 4 116 Jeremiah 1:5 141 n. 1 0 : 2 145 1 2 : 4 129 Lamentations 3:38 144 Daniel 7 : 2 2 99 1 2 : 3 91 n. Zechariah 3:3 155 4 Maccabees 1 7 : 5 91 n. Wisdom of Solomon 13: 1-3 74
NEW TESTAMENT Matthew 1 3 : 8 173 13:43 108,157 17: 15 143 21:5 156 2 4 : 2 9 1 1 9 , 1 4 4 n. 24: 31 160 2 4 : 3 5 125 27:52-3 150n. Mark 13:27 160 16: 5 142 Luke 1:41 141 n. 3: 12 142 1 0 : 1 8 139 23:43 150n. John 1: 10 130 1 0 : 9 160 11:44 150n.
12:31 140 14: 2 1 5 9 - 6 0 , 162 14: 12 158 1 7 : 2 4 159 20:27 150n. Acts 4:35 117 Romans 2: 11 141 8: 19 147 8:20 147-8 8:21 127 8:22 127 9: 14 141 1 Corinthians 2:9 162 1 3 : 2 159 1 5 : 2 0 128 1 5 : 3 8 152 15:41 137 1 5 : 4 4 151
15: 50 150 2 Corinthians 4:18 116 5 : 1 - 1 108 n. 5:8 150n. 1 1 : 1 4 144 12:2 125,174 1 2 : 2 - 4 98 Ephesians 4: 10 124 6: 12 142 Philippians 1: 23 128,148 1:23-4 150 2:10 119,131 Colossians 2:8 113n. 1 Thessalonians 4: 17 143 2 Timothy 2:18 151n.
186 Hebrews 1: 14 128 5 : 8 162 9 : 2 4 140 1 2 : 2 2 161 1 2 : 2 3 141
Index of Scriptural James 1: 17 158 1 John 1:5 133 5: 19 130 Jude 6 135
References 13 92 n. Revelation 1 2 : 7 - 8 92 n. 12: 7 - 9 139 16: 5 129 19: 17 108
GENERAL
Abram (Abraham) 6 9 , 7 2 , 7 4 n „ 9 3 , 9 5 n . , 105, 138 Academy: New 62 n., 119, 132, 1 4 4 - 5 , 168 Plato's 1 8 - 2 3 , 4 8 , 55 n. 61 Alcmaeon of Croton 4 Alexander of Aphrodisias 27 n„ 3 0 , 3 8 Ambrose 166 Amelius 5 6 , 8 5 - 6 Ammonius Saccas 103 Anaxagoras 5 - 7 , 33, 3 5 , 6 9 , 1 1 7 angels 6 0 , 7 0 - 1 , 9 1 - 3 , 9 5 - 9 , 1 0 2 , 1 0 5 - 6 , 108, 1 2 8 - 3 1 , 1 3 3 - 4 1 , 144, 1 4 6 - 7 , 1 5 5 - 7 , 162, 164 Antiochus of Ascalon 33 n. apocalyptic, Jewish 9 0 - 4 , 9 9 , 1 0 5 , 110, 128 Origen'suse 54, 9 2 n . , 125, 1 3 5 - 6 apokatastasis 153 Aristophanes 3, 5 Aristotle 3 , 1 8 - 1 9 , 2 2 , 2 4 - 1 0 , 4 2 - 8 , 5 3 - 4 , 58, 6 1 , 64, 66, 74, 77, 109, 166 De Caelo 2 4 - 6 , 3 1 - 4 , 4 4 , 6 4 De Philosophia 2 4 , 2 6 , 2 8 - 9 , 3 1 - 4 , 35 n., 3 6 , 3 8 , 4 5 n . , 4 8 Arnobius 89 astrology 9 , 6 0 - 1 , 7 9 , 8 1 , 8 3 - 6 , 9 3 - 4 , 97,100,109-10,119,136,137n., 1 4 4 - 5 , 174 opposition to 7 2 - 3 , 1 0 4 - 5 , 1 4 4 - 6 , 164, 168 astronomy 3 - 4 , 6 - 1 0 , 1 4 , 1 8 - 1 9 , 2 1 , 35, 4 4 , 5 4 - 5 , 57, 65, 86, 9 1 , 96, 9 8 - 9 , 100, 1 0 5 - 6 , 1 1 4 - 1 5 , 1 1 8 - 1 9 , 121, 1 2 4 - 5 , 165 atheism 3 , 6 , 1 4 , 1 6 , 5 5 , 106 Atticus 12 n., 38 Augustine 1 2 2 , 1 3 3 , 1 6 8 Bardy, Gustave 170 Basilides 9 5 Basilideans 1 3 6 , 1 4 3 Beutler, Rudolf 87 Boethus of Sidon 4 7 n.
INDEX
Boll, Franz 62 n. Butterworth, G. W.
170,172
Celsus 5 8 , 7 9 , 8 1 - 2 , 1 0 1 , 1 3 1 , 1 4 6 , 151 Chaeremon 53, 5 6 - 7 , 8 6 Chaldaean Oracles 8 6 Cherniss, Harold 32 Chrysippus 3 9 , 4 1 - 2 , 4 5 , 5 4 , 6 1 Cicero 2 4 , 2 6 , 2 8 - 9 , 3 1 , 3 3 Cleanthes 3 6 , 3 9 - 1 2 , 4 6 , 4 8 Clement of Alexandria 53, 5 5 , 7 2 , 8 6 , 1 0 4 - 9 , 1 1 3 - 1 5 , 121, 124, 132, 135,145-6 Corpus Hermeticum 8 0 - 1 , 8 9 , 9 7 , 1 0 0 , 110 Crouzel, Henri 1 7 1 - 3 cult, astral 3 , 5 , 1 5 - 1 8 , 2 0 - 3 , 2 8 , 3 5 7,48,124 opposition to 5 - 7 , 5 8 , 7 4 , 1 2 3 - 4 , 133 daemon 2 1 , 3 7 , 5 9 - 6 1 , 7 0 , 9 1 , 9 5 , 133,135 de Ley, Hermann 8 7 - 8 Democritus 4 , 6 , 33 demon 8 9 - 9 3 , 9 6 - 7 , 1 0 0 - 2 , 1 0 6 , 1 3 5 , 139-10, 142-6, 156-7,164 Dillon, John 1 2 1 - 2 Diogenes of Apollonia 4, 3 2 - 3 Dodds, E. R. 6 3 , 7 7 - 8 effluences 153 Elchasites 100 elements 1 6 , 2 5 - 6 , 30, 3 2 - 4 , 37, 4 1 - 3 , 6 5 - 6 , 68, 70, 107, 115, 136 life 1 2 6 - 9 number 1 1 , 2 9 , 6 6 , 117 qualities 117 Elferink, M. A. 87 Epicurus 6 - 7 Epicureans 4 5 , 5 5 , 6 9 Epiphanius 1 0 2 , 1 6 8 ether 4 , 1 4 , 2 0 , 2 5 - 6 , 2 8 - 3 5 , 3 7 - 4 0 , 4 2 , 4 4 - 6 , 4 7 n . , 4 9 , 59, 61, 6 4 - 7 ,
General Index
188
ether (Cont.) 70, 72, 78, 88, 1 1 6 - 1 8 , 1 2 7 - 8 , 132,153-5,157,163-4 Eudemus of Rhodes 18, 38 n. Eudoxus of Cnidus 1 8 - 1 9 , 2 4 Euhemerus 55 Evagrius Ponticus 1 2 1 , 1 2 7 n . , 140n., 171 Fate 8 4 , 8 9 , 9 7 , 1 3 6 , 1 7 4 see also astrology Festugiere, A. J . 23 n., 63 gnosticism 5 4 - 5 , 8 2 , 8 3 n., 8 6 , 8 9 - 9 1 , 9 3 - 1 0 3 , 1 0 5 - 9 , 1 1 3 , 115, 124, 135, 142 n., 1 5 1 - 2 , 1 5 5 , 1 6 0 Gregory Thaumaturgus 114 Heraclides Ponticus 1 9 - 2 0 , 7 8 , 1 6 2 Hermogenes 1 0 8 , 1 5 5 n. Herophilus 46 Hierocles of Alexandria 56 Hipparchus 1 1 8 , 1 7 3 Iamblichus 56, 59 n., 7 9 - 8 0 , 8 4 n., 8 7 Irenaeus 1 2 2 , 1 3 9 n. Jaeger, Werner 2 8 - 9 , 3 1 Jerome 1 3 8 , 1 5 2 - 3 , 1 6 3 , 1 6 9 , 171, 173 John Philoponus 166 Justin Martyr 1 0 6 , 1 1 3 - 1 4 , 1 3 2 Justinian 1 5 0 , 1 5 2 - 3 , 1 6 9 Koch, Hal 54 Koetschau, Paul
170-2
Lubac, Henri de 122 Macrobius 8 6 - 8 Marcion 113 Marcionism 130, 136, 137n., 155n., 165 Mithraism 8 1 - 3 , 1 0 0 , 1 0 9 , 1 6 0 moon 3, 5 - 8 , 1 0 , 1 3 , 1 5 , 1 9 , 2 4 , 2 9 , 44, 46, 5 5 - 6 , 61, 65, 7 2 - 4 , 8 0 - 1 , 86, 8 9 , 9 3 , 1 0 7 , 1 1 7 - 1 8 , 1 2 3 - 5 , 129-33, 137-8, 143-4, 145-6, 147-8 Moraux, Paul 2 9 , 3 7 Nicomachus of Gerasa 5 3 , 6 0 Numenius 5 3 , 8 5 - 9 , 1 0 0 , 1 1 0 , 1 6 0
Ophites 5 4 , 9 7 , 1 0 1 Origen: apocalyptic, see apocalyptic, Origen's use astronomy 1 1 4 - 1 9 DePrincipiis 1 2 1 - 2 , 138, 163, 168-72 descent of soul 4 3 , 1 1 6 , 1 3 4 , 140 exegete xiii, 1 1 4 , 1 1 9 gnosticism, opposition to 5 4 , 1 2 0 , 124, 130, 1 3 6 - 7 , 143, 151, 155, 160 gnosticism, use of 5 4 - 5 , 1 3 5 , 1 4 2 n., 160 incorporeality 1 3 9 - 4 0 , 1 5 2 - 5 meteorology 115 n., 146 philosophy, opposition to 1 1 3 - 1 4 , 125,155 philosophy, use of xiii, 5 3 - 4 , 1 1 5 21, 126, 1 2 9 - 3 3 , 1 3 5 , 145, 1 5 1 - 1 , 157-8 systematic theologian 1 2 1 - 2 , 1 5 5 , 170 Redemption, doctrine of 1 4 1 - 2 , 1 4 7 Resurrection, doctrine of 1 5 0 - 6 3 teacher 1 1 4 , 1 6 1 tradition, use of 1 2 2 - 3
Pantaenus 108 Pepin, Jean 31 Peratae 100 Philipp of Opus 1 9 - 2 0 Philo of Alexandria 3 8 , 6 3 - 7 5 , 78, 8 5 , 1 0 4 - 6 , 110, 1 1 3 - 1 4 , 1 1 7 - 1 8 , 121, 124, 1 2 6 - 7 , 132, 145, 154 planets 6 - 7 , 9 - 1 0 , 1 2 - 1 3 , 1 5 - 1 9 , 2 1 , 23, 2 5 , 29, 3 1 , 4 4 , 46, 55, 5 7 - 8 , 60, 6 4 - 5 , 7 1 - 2 , 7 9 - 8 9 , 92, 9 4 104, 1 0 7 - 8 , 115, 1 1 7 - 1 9 , 1 3 0 - 1 , 140, 144, 148, 1 6 3 - 4 Plato 3 - 1 , 6 - 2 3 , 2 5 , 30, 32, 3 5 - 6 , 3 9 41,43,45,47-8, 53-4, 58-61, 62 n., 64, 6 7 - 9 , 70 n., 74, 7 6 - 7 , 79, 84, 86, 8 9 - 9 0 , 9 3 , 107, 109, 1 1 5 , 1 1 7 , 1 2 0 , 126, 132, 136, 162, 165 Epinomis (ps.-Plato) 6 , 1 8 , 2 0 - 3 , 2 8 , 35, 4 8 , 5 8 - 6 0 , 69, 7 1 , 125 Laws 6 , 1 4 - 1 8 , 2 0 - 1 , 2 3 , 126 Phaedrus 9 , 1 7 , 6 4 , 6 7 - 9 , 7 6 , 7 8 , 107, 120, 158, 162 Statesman 1 0 - 1 2 , 1 6 - 1 7 , 6 4
General Index Timaeus 7 , 1 0 - 1 3 , 1 6 - 1 7 , 1 9 - 2 0 , 4 0 , 4 4 - 5 , 64, 6 7 - 8 , 76, 8 1 , 8 4 - 5 , 98, 115, 160 Plotinus 56, 5 9 - 6 0 , 76, 7 9 , 8 5 , 1 0 3 , 161 Plutarch 6 , 4 6 , 7 8 , 8 0 Pneuma 2 6 , 3 4 , 4 0 - 2 , 4 6 , 67, 7 7 - 8 , 80, 116, 1 3 4 - 5 , 155 Porphyry 53, 56, 57 n., 5 9 - 6 0 , 7 9 - 8 0 , 82, 88, 109, 155 n. Posidonius 61 Proclus Diadochus 58 n., 8 5 - 7 providence 2 1 - 2 , 4 5 , 4 8 , 6 1 , 6 5 , 7 6 , 107, 113, 117, 125, 136, 1 4 4 - 6 , 163 Pythagoreanism 4 , 8 , 1 9 , 33, 53 Reinhardt, Karl 33 Rose, Valentine 27 Ross,W.D. 26, 32, 37 n. Rufinus 1 5 4 , 1 6 8 - 7 2 Scott, Walter 95 Servius 8 0 , 8 8 Simonetti, Mario 1 7 1 - 2 Socrates 3 , 6 - 7 , 9 - 1 0 , 1 5 , 1 8 Solmsen, Friedrich 31 Sophocles 3
189
Stoicism 2 0 , 2 9 , 3 1 , 3 3 - 5 , 3 8 - 4 9 , 5 3 4, 56, 60 n., 6 1 - 2 , 6 5 - 7 0 , 7 4 , 7 7 8, 84, 87, 1 0 6 - 7 , 109, 1 1 5 - 1 7 , 126, 143, 1 4 5 - 6 , 155 sun 3, 5 - 1 0 , 1 3 , 1 5 - 1 6 , 1 9 , 2 4 , 2 9 , 3 6 - 7 , 4 0 - 1 , 4 6 , 5 5 - 6 , 6 5 , 73, 8 0 1 , 8 9 , 9 9 , 103, 108, 1 1 5 - 1 6 , 118, 1 2 3 - 5 , 1 2 9 - 3 3 , 1 3 7 - 8 , 140, 144, 1 4 6 - 8 , 157, 1 6 2 - 3 Tatian 115 Tertullian 151 n. theodicy 7 6 - 7 , 136, 165 Thomas Aquinas 1 2 2 , 1 6 6 Valentinianism 5 4 , 8 6 , 9 7 - 8 , 1 0 0 , 107, 120, 124, 130, 136, 143 n. vehicle, astral 7 7 - 9 , 1 0 9 , 1 1 6 , 1 5 5 - 6 Verdenius, W. J . 36 Volker, Walther 158 Waszink,J.H. 113 Wolfson, Harry 71 Xenocrates of Chalcedon 1 9 , 2 5 n., 104 Zeno 3 9 - 4 2 , 4 4 n., 45 zones, astronomical 1 7 3 - 4
