[231]This is sufficiently shown by the fact, which is in other respects to be regretted, that in most accounts of Stoicism the earlier and later elements are viewed as constituting a homogeneous whole.[232]“How am I to eat?” said a man to Epictetus: “So as to please God,” was the reply (Diss.1. 13). The idea is further developed in Porphyry, who says: “God wants nothing” (281. 15): the God who is ἐπὶ πᾶσιν is ἄϋλος; hence all ἔνυλον is to Him ἀκάθαρτον, and should therefore not be offered to Him, not even the spoken word (163. 15).[233]M. Aurelius owed to Rusticus the idea that life required διόρθωσις and θεραπεία (i. 7 and ii. 13).[234]τὸ ὑλακτεῖν, Philostr. 587.[235]The title ofDiss.3. 22, in which the ideal philosopher is described, is περὶ Κυνισμοῦ.[236]H. Schiller,Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, Bd. i. 452.[237]Diss.1. 17. 4, ἐπείγει μᾶλλον θεραπεύειν, the interpolated remark of a student when Epictetus has begun a lecture upon Logic: the addition, καὶ τὰ ὅμοια, seems to show that the phrase was a customary one.[238]Diss.1. 4.[239]Sext. Emp. iii. 239.[240]The Stoics defined wisdom as θείων τε καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων ἐπιστήμην, and philosophy as ἄσκησιν ἐπιτηδείου τέχνης, Plutarch (Aetius),plac. phil.1. 2; Galen,Hist. Phil.5; Diels,Doxogr. Gr.pp. 273, 602.[241]De Abraham.11 (ii. 9);de Joseph.1 (ii. 41);de prœm. et pœn.8, 11 (ii. 416, 418). Philo is quoted because his writings are in some respects as faithful a photograph of current scholastic methods as those of Epictetus. It is also possible that some of the writings that stand under Philo’s name belong to the same period.[242]Quod det. potior.12 (i. 198, 199): sode congr. erud. caus.13 (i. 529);de mut. nom.13 (i. 591).[243]De congr. erud. caus.28 (i. 542).[244]Leg. alleg.3. 6 (i. 91).[245]Quis rer. div. heres.51 (i. 509).[246]M. Aurel. 1. 7.[247]Enchir.47: cf.Diss.3. 14. 4. InDiss.3. 12. 17, part of the above is given as a quotation from Apollonius of Tyana.[248]Diss.2. 18. 27; cf. 3. 2. 1; 3. 12. 1; 4. 1. 81.[249]Nigrin.27.[250]Orat.xx. vol. i. pp. 288 sqq. (Dind.), περὶ Ἀναχωρήσεως.[251]Vol. ii. p 240.[252]Vol. ii. p. 246.[253]Ench.4, 13, 30.[254]The χρῆσις φαντασιῶν is an important element in the philosophy of Epictetus. Every object that is presented to the mind by either the senses or imagination tends to range itself in the ranks of either good or evil, and thereby to call forth desire or undesire: in most men this association of particular objects with the ideas of good or evil, and the consequent stirring of desire, is unconscious, being the result of education and habit: it is the task of the philosopher to learn to attach the idea of good to what is really good, so that desire shall never go forth to what is either undesirable or unattainable: this is the “right dealing with ideas.”Diss.1. 28. 11; 1. 30. 4; 2. 1. 4; 2. 8. 4; 2. 19. 32; 3. 21. 23; 3. 22. 20, 103.[255]ἐφαρμογὴ τῶν προλήψεων τοῖς ἐπὶ μέρους,Diss.1. 2. 6; 1. 22. 2, 7; 2. 11. 4, 7; 3. 17. 9, 12, 16; 4. 1. 41, 44: προλήψεις are the ideas formed in the mind by association and blending.[256]Diss.1. 1. 31; 1. 4. 18; 1. 17. 21; and elsewhere.[257]Diss.1. 4. 23.[258]The distinction between (1) ὄρεξις, ἔκκλισις, the desire to have or not to have, and (2) ὁρμή, ἀφορμή, the effort to do or not to do, is of some importance in the history of psychology. It probably runs back to the Platonic distinction between τὸ ἐπιθυμητικὸν μέρος and τὸ θυμοειδὲς μέρος.[259]Diss.2. 10.[260]1. 9. 6, 13.[261]1. 14. 6.[262]3. 13. 15.[263]1. 14. 6; 1. 17. 27; 2. 8. 11.[264]1. 14. 6.[265]2. 14. 11.[266]2. 8. 12-14.[267]1. 9. 5; 2. 8. 11.[268]1. 9. 4.[269]1. 3. 1.[270]2. 14. 13.[271]1. 6. 13: cf. 1. 29. 29.[272]1. 9. 4; 1. 17. 15; 1. 29. 46, 56; 2. 16. 33; 4. 7. 7.[273]3. 24. 2, 3.[274]3. 24. 3.[275]4. 1. 82, 90, 100.[276]2. 16. 13.[277]1. 24. 1, 2; 1. 29. 33, 36, 46; 3. 10. 7; 4. 4. 32.[278]1. 12. 5, 8; 1. 20. 15.[279]ἕγογνωμονεῖν τῶ θεῷ, 2. 16. 42; 2. 19. 26.[280]εὐαρεστεῖν τῇ θείᾳ διοικήσει, 1. 12. 8; 2. 23. 29, 42.[281]4. 1. 90, 98.[282]3. 24. 95.[283]1. 29. 18; 4. 4. 21.[284]2. 16. 42.[285]Enchir.52:Diss.4. 1. 131; 4. 4. 34: a quotation from Cleanthes.[286]2. 16. 46; 3. 11. 1; 3. 24. 42; 4. 4. 32.[287]1. 9. 16.[288]1. 29. 29.[289]2. 13. 14.[290]3. 24. 97; cf. 3. 5. 8-10, 4. 10. 14 sqq.[291]3. 24. 110-114.[292]Καινὸς νόμος,Barn.2. 6, and note, in Gebhardt and Harnack’s edition.[293]See especially Harnack,die Apostellehre und die Jüdischen Beiden Wege, Leipzig, 1886.[294]Teaching of the Apostles, 1. 4.[295]Teaching of the Apostles, 2. 2-7.[296]Ibid.3. 6-8.[297]Ibid.4. 7, 8.[298]Const. Apost.1. 1, p. 1, ed. Lagarde. This may be supplemented by the conception of Christianity as a new law in Barnabas ii. 6, Justinpassim, Clem. Alex.E. T.i 97, 120, 470: see Thomasius,Dogmengesch, i. 110 sqq.[299]Const. Apost.2. 11, p. 22.[300]Ep. ad Diogn.5.[301]Side by side with the average ethics were the Pauline ethics, which had found a certain lodgment in some.[302]Teaching of the Apostles, 6. 2.[303]Of a type of Gnosticism, Harnack,Dogmengesch. 202.[304]Strom.7. 11.[305]e.g. Euseb.Dem. Ev.3. 6: “Not only old men under Jesus Christ practise this mode ofphilosophy, but it would be hard to say how many thousands of women throughout the whole world, priestesses, as it were, of the God of the universe, having embraced the highest wisdom, rapt with a passion for heavenly knowledge, have renounced the desire of children according to the flesh, and giving their whole care to their soul, have given themselves up wholly to the Supreme King and God of the universe, to practise (ἀσκήσασθαι) perfect purity and virginity.” So also id.de Vit. Constant.4. 26, 29; Sozom. 6. 33, of the Syrian monks.[306]ἀσκητήριον, Socrat. i. 11; distinguished from μοναστήριον,ibid.4. 23, as the smaller from the larger: φροντιστήριον, Evagr. i. 21.[307]Clem. Alex.Pædag.3. 11.[308]P. Ewald,der Einfluss der stoisch-ciceronianischen Moral auf ... Ambrosius, Leipzig, 1881; Dräseke in theRivista di filologia, Ann. v. 1875-6.[309]Theophrastus ap. Simplic.in phys.f. 6 (Diels,Doxographi Græci, P. 479).[310]νόος ὁρῇ καὶ νόος ἀκούει· τἄλλα κωφὰ καὶ τυφλά, quoted in Plut.de fort.3, p. 98,de Alex. magn. fort.3, p. 336, and elsewhere: cf. Lucret. 3. 36; Cic.Tusc. Disp.1. 20.[311]Pseudo-Arist.de mundo, 7, p. 401a.[312]De Isid. et Osir.67, p. 378.[313]Theophrast. ap. Simplic.in phys.f. 6 (Diels, p. 476), πρῶτος τοῦτο τοὔνομα κομίσας τῆς ἀρχῆς: so Hippol.Philosoph.1. 6.[314]Heraclit. ap. Clem. Alex.Strom.5. 14, κόσμον τὸν αὐτὸν ἁπάντων οὔτε τις θεῶν οὔτε ἀνθρώπων ἐποίησεν· ἀλλ’ ἦν ἀεὶ καὶ ἔσται πῦρ ἀείζωον, ἁπτόμενον μέτρα καὶ ἀποσβεννύμενον μέτρα.[315]Lucan,Phars.9. 579.[316]ἀπόῤῥοια, M. Anton. 2. 4: ἀπόσπασμα, Epict.Diss.1. 14. 6; 2. 8. 11; M. Anton. 5. 27: ἀποικία, Philo,de mund. opif.46 (i. 32). The co-ordination of these and cognate terms in Philo is especially important in view of their use in Christian theology:de mund. opif.51 (i. 35), πᾶς ἄνθρωπος κατὰ μὲν τὴν διάνοιαν ᾠκείωται θείῳ λόγῳ, τῆς μακαρίας φύσεως ἐκμαγεῖον ἢ ἀπόσπασμα ἢ ἀπαύγασμα γεγονώς: he considers the term ἐκμαγεῖον to be more appropriate to theology, τῆς τοῦ παντὸς ψυχῆς ἀπόσπασμα ἢ ὅπερ ὁσιώτερον εἰπεῖν τοῖς κατὰ Μωυσῆν φιλοσοφοῦσιν, εἰκόνος θείας ἐκμαγεῖον ἐμφερές,de mutat. nom.39 (i. 612): and he is careful to guard against an inference that ἀπόσπασμα implies a breach of continuity between the divine and the human soul, ἀπόσπασμα ἦν οὐ διαιρετόν· τέμνεται γὰρ οὐδὲν τοῦ θείου κατ’ ἀπάρτησιν, ἀλλὰ μόνον ἐκτείνεται,quod det. pot. insid.24 (i. 209).[317]Phileb.16, p. 28e, νοῦν καὶ φρόνησίν τινα θαυμαστήν: in the post-PlatonicEpinomis, p. 986c, λόγος ὁ πάντων θειότατος.[318]The best account of Plato’s complex, because progressive, theory of matter is that of Siebeck,Plato’s Lehre von der Materie, in hisUntersuchungen der Philosophie der Griechen, Freiburg im Breisg. 1888. The conception of it which was current in the Platonist schools, and which is therefore important in relation to Christian philosophy, is given in thePlacitaof Aetius, ap. Stob.Ecl.1. 11 (Diels, p. 308), and Hippol.Philosoph.1. 19.[319]Plat.Tim.p. 30, πᾶν ὅσον ἦν ὁρατὸν παραλαβὼν οὐκ ἡσυχίαν ἄγον ἀλλὰ κινούμενον πλημμελῶς καὶ ἀτάκτως εἰς τάξιν αὐτὸ ἤγαγεν ἐκ τῆς ἀταξίας.[320]InTim.P. 41, the θεοὶ θεῶν are addressed at length by ὁ τόδε τὸ πᾶν γεννήσας (= ὁ δημιουργός): the most pertinent words are, ἵν’ οὖν θνητά τε ᾖ τό τε πᾶν ὄντως ἅπαν ᾖ, τρέπεσθε κατὰ φύσιν ὑμεῖς ἐπὶ τὴν τῶν ζώων δημιουργίαν, μιμούμενοι τὴν ἐμὴν δύναμιν περὶ τὴν ὑμῶν γένεσιν. The whole theory is summed up by Professor Jowett in the Introduction to his translation of theTimæus(Plato, vol. ii. p. 470): “The Creator is like a human artist who frames in his mind a plan which he executes by means of his servants. Thus the language of philosophy, which speaks of first and second causes, is crossed by another sort of phraseology, ‘God made the world because he was good, and the demons ministered to him.’”[321]λόγοι σπερματικοί, frequently in Stoical writings, e.g. in the definition of the πῦρ τεχνικὸν, which is the base of all things, as given in thePlacitaof Aetius, reproduced by Plutarch, Eusebius, and Stobæus, Diels, p. 306, ἐμπεριειληφὸς πάντας τοὺς σπερματικοὺς λόγους καθ’ οὕς ἕκαστα καθ’ εἱμαρμένην γίνεται. The best account of this important element in later Stoicism is in Heinze,die Lehre vom Logos in der griechischen Philosophie, 1872, pp. 110 sqq.[322]Hence the definition which Aetius gives: ἰδέα ἐστὶν οὐσία ἀσώματος, αὐτὴ μὲν ὑφεστῶσα καθ’ αὑτὴνεἰκονίζουσα δὲ τὰς ἀμόρφους ὕλαςκαὶ αἰτία γινομένη τῆς τούτων δείξεως, ap. Plut.de plac. philos.1. 10; Euseb.præp. evang.15. 45; with additions and differences in Stob.Ecl.1. 12 (Diels, p. 308).[323]The three ἀρχαί are expressed by varying but identical terms: God, Matter, and the Form (ἰδέα), or the By Whom, From What, In view of What (ὑφ’ οὗ, ἐξ οὗ, πρὸς ὅ), in thePlacitaof Aetius, 1. 3. 21, ap. Plut.de placit. phil.1. 3, Stob.Ecl.1. 10 (Diels, p. 288), and in Timæus Locrus,de an. mundi2 (Mullach F P G 2. 38): God, Matter, and the Pattern (παράδειγμα), Hippol.Philosoph.1. 19, Herm.Irris. Gent. Phil.11: the Active (τὸ ποιοῦν), Matter, and the Pattern, Alexand. Aphrod. ap. Simplic.in phys.f. 6 (Diels, p. 485), where Simplicius contrasts this with Plato’s own strict dualism.[324]De mundi opif.5 (i. 5): cf. Plat.Tim.p. 30 (of God), ἀγαθὸς ἦν ἀγαθῷ δὲ οὐδεὶς περὶ οὐδενὸς οὐδέποτε ἐγγίγνεται φθόνος· τούτου δ’ ἐκτὸς ὤν πάντα ὁτιμάλιστα ἐβουλήθη γενέσθαι παραπλήσια αὑτῷ.[325]De cherub.9 (i. 144): cf.ib.35 (i. 162).[326]The most frequent word is δημιουργός, but several others are used, e.g. πλάστης,de confus. ling.38 (i. 434); τεχνίτης,ibid.; κοσμοπλάστης,de plant Noe, 1 (i. 329); κοσμοποιός,ibid.31 (i. 348), οὐ τεχνίτης μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ πατὴρ τῶν γιγνομένων,Leg. alleg.1. 8 (i. 47). The distinctions which became important in later controversies do not appear in the writings which are probably Philo’s own, but are found in those which probably belong to his school: the most explicit recognition of them isde somn.1. 13 (i. 632), ὁ θεὸς τὰ πάντα γεννήσας οὐ μόνον εἰς τὸ ἐμφανὲς ἤγαγεν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἃ πρότερον οὐκ ἦν ἐποίησεν, οὐ δημιουργὸς μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ κτίστης αὐτὸς ὤν: cf. alsode monarch.3 (ii. 216), θεὸς εἷς ἐστι καὶ κτίστης καὶ ποιητὴς τῶν ὅλων.[327]De somn.2. 37 (i. 691).[328]De mundi opif.46 (i. 32): cf.ib.51 (i. 35):quod deus immut.10 (i. 279), and elsewhere.[329]Quod det. pot. ins.24 (i. 208, 209).[330]De profug.36 (i. 575).[331]De mundi opif.5 (i. 5): this is the most explicit expression of his theory of the nature of matter. It may be supplemented byde plant Noe, 1 (i. 329), τὴν οὐσίαν ἄτακτον καὶ συγκεχυμένην οὖσαν ἐξ αὑτῆς εἰς τάξιν ἐξ ἀταξίας καὶ ἐκ συγχύσεως εἰς διάκρισιν ἄγων ὁ κοσμοπλάστης μορφοῦν ἤρξατο:quis rer. div. her.27 (i. 492):de somn.2. 6 (i. 665): οὐσία is the more usual word, but ὕλη is sometimes found, e.g.de plant Noe, 2 (i. 330): the conception underlying either word is more Stoical than Platonic, i.e. it is rather that of matter having the property of resistance than that of potential matter or empty space: hence inde profug.2 (i. 547), τὴν ἄποιον καὶ ἀνείδεον καὶ ἀσχημάτιστον οὐσίαν is contrasted, in strictly Stoical phraseology, with τὸ κινοῦν αἴτιον.[332]De sacrif.13 (ii. 261).[333]The terms λόγοι and ἰδέαι are common. Instances of the other terms are the following: angels,de confus. ling.8 (1. 408), τῶν θείων ἔργων καὶ λόγων οὓς καλεῖν ἔθος ἀγγέλους:de somn.i. 19 (i. 638), ἀθανάτοις λόγοις οὓς καλεῖν ἔθος ἀγγέλους:Leg. alleg.3. 62 (i. 122), τοὺς ἀγγέλους καὶ λόγους αὐτοῦ: δαίμονες,de gigant.2. 2 (i. 263), οὓς ἄλλοι φιλόσοφοι δαίμονας, ἀγγέλους Μωϋσῆς εἴωθεν ὀνομάζειν: so, in identical words,de somn.1. 22 (i. 642): ἀριθμοὶ and μέτρα,quis rer. div. heres.31 (i. 495), πᾶσιν ἀριθμοῖς καὶ πάσαις ταῖς πρὸς τελειότητα ἰδέαις καταχρησαμένου τοῦ πεποιηκότος:de mund. opif.9 (i. 7), ἰδέαι καὶ μέτρα καὶ τύποι καὶ σφραγῖδες: cf.de monarch.6 (ii. 219), τὰ ἄπειρα καὶ ἀόριστα καὶ ἀσχημάτιστα περατοῦσαι καὶ περιορίζουσαι καὶ σχηματίζουσαι.[334]The clearest instance of the identification is probably inde monarch.6 (ii. 218, 219), where God tells Moses that so far from Himself being cognizable, not even the powers that minister to Him are cognizable in their essence; but that as seals are known from their impressions, τοιαύτας ὑποληπτέον καὶ τὰς περὶ ἐμὲ δυνάμεις ἀποίοις ποιότητας καὶ μορφὰς ἀμόρφοις καὶ μηδὲν τῆς ἀϊδίου φύσεως μεταλλομένας μήτι μειουμένας.[335]De mund. opif.6 (i. 5), οὐδὲν ἂν ἕτερον εἴποι τὸν νοητὸν εἶναι κόσμον ἢ θεοῦ λόγον ἤδη κοσμοποιοῦντος:vit. Mos.3. 13 (ii. 154), τῶν ἀσωμάτων καὶ παραδειγματικῶν ἰδεῶν ἐξ ὧν ὁ νοητὸς ἐπάγη κόσμος: sode confus. ling.34 (i. 431): cf. the Stoical definition of λόγος in Epictet.Diss.1. 20. 5, as σύστημα ἐκ ποιῶν φαντασιῶν.[336]De mund. opif.4 (i. 4): the same conception is expressed in less figurative language inLeg. alleg.1. 9 (i. 47), πρὶν ἀνατεῖλαι κατὰ μέρος αἰσθητὰ ἦν τὸ γενικὸν αἰσθητὸν προμηθείᾳ τοῦ πεποιηκότος.[337]δύναμις κοσμοποιητική,de mund. οpif.5 (i. 5); δύναμις ποιητικήde profug.18 (i. 560).[338]Leg. alleg.1. 9 (i. 47), τῷ γὰρ περιφανεστάτῳ καὶ τηλαυγεστάτῳ λόγῳ, ῥήματι, ὁ θεὸς ἀμφότερα (i.e. both heaven and earth) ποιεῖ:quod deus immut.12 (i. 281), λόγῳ χρώμενος ὑπηρέτῃ δωρεῶν ᾧ καὶ τὸν κόσμον εἰργάζετο: more expressly, it is the instrument, ὄργανον,Leg. alleg.3. 31 (i. 106),de cherub. 35 (i. 162).[339]De somn.2. 37 (i. 691).[340]De profug.20 (i. 562),de migrat. Abr.18 (i. 452): cf. Wisdom, 18. 24.[341]De profug.19 (i. 561).[342]ὁ τῶν ὅλων πατήρ,de migrat. Abrah.9 (i. 443); ὁ θεὸς τὰ πάντα γεννήσας,de somn.1. 13 (i. 632), and elsewhere.[343]De ebriet.8 (i. 361).[344]1 Clem. Rom. 33. 3, 4: but it is a noteworthy instance of the contrast between this simple early belief and the developed theology which had grown up in less than a century later, that Irenæus,lib.4,præf.c.4, explains the ‘hands’ to mean the Son and Spirit: “homo ... per manus ejus plasmatus est, hoc est per Filium et Spiritum quibus et dixit Faciamus hominem.”[345]Derivatio: Iren. 1. 24. 3, of Basilides (or rather one of the schools of Basilidians).[346]This is probably the metaphor involved in the common word προβολή, e.g. Hippol. 6. 38, of Epiphanes.[347]The conception of the double nature of God, male and female, is found as early as Xenocrates, Aetius ap. Stob.Ecl.1. 2. 29 (Diels, p. 304); and commonly among the Stoics, e.g. in the verses of Valerius Soranus, which are quoted by Varro, and after him by S. Augustine,de civit. Dei, 7. 9:Jupiter omnipotens regum rex ipse deusqueProgenitor genitrixque deum, deus unus et omnia.So Philodemus,de piet.16, ed. Gomp. p. 83 (Diels, p. 549), quotes Ζεὺς ἄρρην, Ζεὺς θῆλυς; and Eusebius,præp. Evang.3. 9, p. 100b, quotes the Orphic verse:Ζεὺς ἄρσην γένετο, Ζεὺς ἄμβροτος ἔπλετο νύμφη.[348]The Valentinians in, e.g., Hippol. 6. 29; 10. 13: so of Simon Magus,ib.6. 12, γεγονέναι δὲ τὰς ῥίζας φησὶκατὰ συζυγίαςἀπὸ τοῦ πυρὸς.[349]Hippol. 6. 43 (of Marcus), τὰ δὲ ὀνόματα τῶν στοιχείων τὰ κοινὰ καὶ ῥητὰαἰῶναςκαὶλόγουςκαὶῥίζαςκαὶσπέρματακαὶπληρώματακαὶκαρποὺςὠνόμασε.[350]Hippol. 5. 19 (of the Sethiani), πᾶν ὅ τι νοήσει ἐπινοεῖς ἢ καὶ παραλείπεις μὴ νοηθέν, τοῦτο ἑκάστη τῶν ἀρχῶν πέφυκε γενέσθαι ὡς ἐν ἀνθρωπίνῃ ψυχῇ πᾶσα ἡτισοῦν διδασκομένη τέχνη.[351]Hippol. 8. 8 (of the Docetæ), θεὸν εἶναι τὸν πρῶτον οἱονεὶ σπέρμα συκῆς μεγέθει μὲν ἐλάχιστον παντελῶς δυνάμει δὲ ἄπειρον:ibid.c. 9, τὸ δὲ πρῶτον σπέρμα ἐκεῖνο, ὅθεν γέγονεν ἡ συκῆ, ἐστὶν ἀγέννητον. A similar metaphor was used by the Simonians, Hippol. 6. 9 sqq., but it is complicated with the metaphor of invisible and visible fire (heat and flame). It is adopted by Peter in the Clementines,Hom.2. 4, where God is the ῥίζα, man the καρπός.[352]Ibid.8. 8, ... ὁ καρπὸς ἐν ᾧ τὸ ἄπειρον καὶ τὸ ἀνεξαρίθμητον θησαυριζόμενον φυλάσσεται σπέρμα συκῆς.[353]The chief authorities for this theory, which was expressed in language that readily lent itself to caricature, are the first seven chapters of the first book of Irenæus, and Hippolytus 6. 32 sqq.[354]This was especially the view of the Peratæ, Hippol. 5. 13.[355]Notably by Plotinus,Enn.ii. 9. 2-5.[356]The conception appears in Justin Martyr,Apol.i 10, πάντα τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀγαθὸν ὄνταδημιουργῆσαιαὐτὸν ἐξ ἀμόρφου ὕλης:ib.c. 59, ὕλην ἄμορφον οὖσαν στρέψαντα τὸν θεὸν κόσμον ποιῆσαι: but Justin, though he avowedly adopts the conception from Plato, claims that Plato adopted it from Moses.[357]Plutarch,de anim. procreat.5. 3, οὐ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος ἡ γένεσις ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ καλῶς μηδ’ ἱκανῶς ἔχοντος:ibid.ἀκοσμία γὰρ ἦν τὰ πρὸ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου γενέσεως: cf. Möller,Kosmologie, p. 39.
[231]This is sufficiently shown by the fact, which is in other respects to be regretted, that in most accounts of Stoicism the earlier and later elements are viewed as constituting a homogeneous whole.
[231]This is sufficiently shown by the fact, which is in other respects to be regretted, that in most accounts of Stoicism the earlier and later elements are viewed as constituting a homogeneous whole.
[232]“How am I to eat?” said a man to Epictetus: “So as to please God,” was the reply (Diss.1. 13). The idea is further developed in Porphyry, who says: “God wants nothing” (281. 15): the God who is ἐπὶ πᾶσιν is ἄϋλος; hence all ἔνυλον is to Him ἀκάθαρτον, and should therefore not be offered to Him, not even the spoken word (163. 15).
[232]“How am I to eat?” said a man to Epictetus: “So as to please God,” was the reply (Diss.1. 13). The idea is further developed in Porphyry, who says: “God wants nothing” (281. 15): the God who is ἐπὶ πᾶσιν is ἄϋλος; hence all ἔνυλον is to Him ἀκάθαρτον, and should therefore not be offered to Him, not even the spoken word (163. 15).
[233]M. Aurelius owed to Rusticus the idea that life required διόρθωσις and θεραπεία (i. 7 and ii. 13).
[233]M. Aurelius owed to Rusticus the idea that life required διόρθωσις and θεραπεία (i. 7 and ii. 13).
[234]τὸ ὑλακτεῖν, Philostr. 587.
[234]τὸ ὑλακτεῖν, Philostr. 587.
[235]The title ofDiss.3. 22, in which the ideal philosopher is described, is περὶ Κυνισμοῦ.
[235]The title ofDiss.3. 22, in which the ideal philosopher is described, is περὶ Κυνισμοῦ.
[236]H. Schiller,Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, Bd. i. 452.
[236]H. Schiller,Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, Bd. i. 452.
[237]Diss.1. 17. 4, ἐπείγει μᾶλλον θεραπεύειν, the interpolated remark of a student when Epictetus has begun a lecture upon Logic: the addition, καὶ τὰ ὅμοια, seems to show that the phrase was a customary one.
[237]Diss.1. 17. 4, ἐπείγει μᾶλλον θεραπεύειν, the interpolated remark of a student when Epictetus has begun a lecture upon Logic: the addition, καὶ τὰ ὅμοια, seems to show that the phrase was a customary one.
[238]Diss.1. 4.
[238]Diss.1. 4.
[239]Sext. Emp. iii. 239.
[239]Sext. Emp. iii. 239.
[240]The Stoics defined wisdom as θείων τε καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων ἐπιστήμην, and philosophy as ἄσκησιν ἐπιτηδείου τέχνης, Plutarch (Aetius),plac. phil.1. 2; Galen,Hist. Phil.5; Diels,Doxogr. Gr.pp. 273, 602.
[240]The Stoics defined wisdom as θείων τε καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων ἐπιστήμην, and philosophy as ἄσκησιν ἐπιτηδείου τέχνης, Plutarch (Aetius),plac. phil.1. 2; Galen,Hist. Phil.5; Diels,Doxogr. Gr.pp. 273, 602.
[241]De Abraham.11 (ii. 9);de Joseph.1 (ii. 41);de prœm. et pœn.8, 11 (ii. 416, 418). Philo is quoted because his writings are in some respects as faithful a photograph of current scholastic methods as those of Epictetus. It is also possible that some of the writings that stand under Philo’s name belong to the same period.
[241]De Abraham.11 (ii. 9);de Joseph.1 (ii. 41);de prœm. et pœn.8, 11 (ii. 416, 418). Philo is quoted because his writings are in some respects as faithful a photograph of current scholastic methods as those of Epictetus. It is also possible that some of the writings that stand under Philo’s name belong to the same period.
[242]Quod det. potior.12 (i. 198, 199): sode congr. erud. caus.13 (i. 529);de mut. nom.13 (i. 591).
[242]Quod det. potior.12 (i. 198, 199): sode congr. erud. caus.13 (i. 529);de mut. nom.13 (i. 591).
[243]De congr. erud. caus.28 (i. 542).
[243]De congr. erud. caus.28 (i. 542).
[244]Leg. alleg.3. 6 (i. 91).
[244]Leg. alleg.3. 6 (i. 91).
[245]Quis rer. div. heres.51 (i. 509).
[245]Quis rer. div. heres.51 (i. 509).
[246]M. Aurel. 1. 7.
[246]M. Aurel. 1. 7.
[247]Enchir.47: cf.Diss.3. 14. 4. InDiss.3. 12. 17, part of the above is given as a quotation from Apollonius of Tyana.
[247]Enchir.47: cf.Diss.3. 14. 4. InDiss.3. 12. 17, part of the above is given as a quotation from Apollonius of Tyana.
[248]Diss.2. 18. 27; cf. 3. 2. 1; 3. 12. 1; 4. 1. 81.
[248]Diss.2. 18. 27; cf. 3. 2. 1; 3. 12. 1; 4. 1. 81.
[249]Nigrin.27.
[249]Nigrin.27.
[250]Orat.xx. vol. i. pp. 288 sqq. (Dind.), περὶ Ἀναχωρήσεως.
[250]Orat.xx. vol. i. pp. 288 sqq. (Dind.), περὶ Ἀναχωρήσεως.
[251]Vol. ii. p 240.
[251]Vol. ii. p 240.
[252]Vol. ii. p. 246.
[252]Vol. ii. p. 246.
[253]Ench.4, 13, 30.
[253]Ench.4, 13, 30.
[254]The χρῆσις φαντασιῶν is an important element in the philosophy of Epictetus. Every object that is presented to the mind by either the senses or imagination tends to range itself in the ranks of either good or evil, and thereby to call forth desire or undesire: in most men this association of particular objects with the ideas of good or evil, and the consequent stirring of desire, is unconscious, being the result of education and habit: it is the task of the philosopher to learn to attach the idea of good to what is really good, so that desire shall never go forth to what is either undesirable or unattainable: this is the “right dealing with ideas.”Diss.1. 28. 11; 1. 30. 4; 2. 1. 4; 2. 8. 4; 2. 19. 32; 3. 21. 23; 3. 22. 20, 103.
[254]The χρῆσις φαντασιῶν is an important element in the philosophy of Epictetus. Every object that is presented to the mind by either the senses or imagination tends to range itself in the ranks of either good or evil, and thereby to call forth desire or undesire: in most men this association of particular objects with the ideas of good or evil, and the consequent stirring of desire, is unconscious, being the result of education and habit: it is the task of the philosopher to learn to attach the idea of good to what is really good, so that desire shall never go forth to what is either undesirable or unattainable: this is the “right dealing with ideas.”Diss.1. 28. 11; 1. 30. 4; 2. 1. 4; 2. 8. 4; 2. 19. 32; 3. 21. 23; 3. 22. 20, 103.
[255]ἐφαρμογὴ τῶν προλήψεων τοῖς ἐπὶ μέρους,Diss.1. 2. 6; 1. 22. 2, 7; 2. 11. 4, 7; 3. 17. 9, 12, 16; 4. 1. 41, 44: προλήψεις are the ideas formed in the mind by association and blending.
[255]ἐφαρμογὴ τῶν προλήψεων τοῖς ἐπὶ μέρους,Diss.1. 2. 6; 1. 22. 2, 7; 2. 11. 4, 7; 3. 17. 9, 12, 16; 4. 1. 41, 44: προλήψεις are the ideas formed in the mind by association and blending.
[256]Diss.1. 1. 31; 1. 4. 18; 1. 17. 21; and elsewhere.
[256]Diss.1. 1. 31; 1. 4. 18; 1. 17. 21; and elsewhere.
[257]Diss.1. 4. 23.
[257]Diss.1. 4. 23.
[258]The distinction between (1) ὄρεξις, ἔκκλισις, the desire to have or not to have, and (2) ὁρμή, ἀφορμή, the effort to do or not to do, is of some importance in the history of psychology. It probably runs back to the Platonic distinction between τὸ ἐπιθυμητικὸν μέρος and τὸ θυμοειδὲς μέρος.
[258]The distinction between (1) ὄρεξις, ἔκκλισις, the desire to have or not to have, and (2) ὁρμή, ἀφορμή, the effort to do or not to do, is of some importance in the history of psychology. It probably runs back to the Platonic distinction between τὸ ἐπιθυμητικὸν μέρος and τὸ θυμοειδὲς μέρος.
[259]Diss.2. 10.
[259]Diss.2. 10.
[260]1. 9. 6, 13.
[260]1. 9. 6, 13.
[261]1. 14. 6.
[261]1. 14. 6.
[262]3. 13. 15.
[262]3. 13. 15.
[263]1. 14. 6; 1. 17. 27; 2. 8. 11.
[263]1. 14. 6; 1. 17. 27; 2. 8. 11.
[264]1. 14. 6.
[264]1. 14. 6.
[265]2. 14. 11.
[265]2. 14. 11.
[266]2. 8. 12-14.
[266]2. 8. 12-14.
[267]1. 9. 5; 2. 8. 11.
[267]1. 9. 5; 2. 8. 11.
[268]1. 9. 4.
[268]1. 9. 4.
[269]1. 3. 1.
[269]1. 3. 1.
[270]2. 14. 13.
[270]2. 14. 13.
[271]1. 6. 13: cf. 1. 29. 29.
[271]1. 6. 13: cf. 1. 29. 29.
[272]1. 9. 4; 1. 17. 15; 1. 29. 46, 56; 2. 16. 33; 4. 7. 7.
[272]1. 9. 4; 1. 17. 15; 1. 29. 46, 56; 2. 16. 33; 4. 7. 7.
[273]3. 24. 2, 3.
[273]3. 24. 2, 3.
[274]3. 24. 3.
[274]3. 24. 3.
[275]4. 1. 82, 90, 100.
[275]4. 1. 82, 90, 100.
[276]2. 16. 13.
[276]2. 16. 13.
[277]1. 24. 1, 2; 1. 29. 33, 36, 46; 3. 10. 7; 4. 4. 32.
[277]1. 24. 1, 2; 1. 29. 33, 36, 46; 3. 10. 7; 4. 4. 32.
[278]1. 12. 5, 8; 1. 20. 15.
[278]1. 12. 5, 8; 1. 20. 15.
[279]ἕγογνωμονεῖν τῶ θεῷ, 2. 16. 42; 2. 19. 26.
[279]ἕγογνωμονεῖν τῶ θεῷ, 2. 16. 42; 2. 19. 26.
[280]εὐαρεστεῖν τῇ θείᾳ διοικήσει, 1. 12. 8; 2. 23. 29, 42.
[280]εὐαρεστεῖν τῇ θείᾳ διοικήσει, 1. 12. 8; 2. 23. 29, 42.
[281]4. 1. 90, 98.
[281]4. 1. 90, 98.
[282]3. 24. 95.
[282]3. 24. 95.
[283]1. 29. 18; 4. 4. 21.
[283]1. 29. 18; 4. 4. 21.
[284]2. 16. 42.
[284]2. 16. 42.
[285]Enchir.52:Diss.4. 1. 131; 4. 4. 34: a quotation from Cleanthes.
[285]Enchir.52:Diss.4. 1. 131; 4. 4. 34: a quotation from Cleanthes.
[286]2. 16. 46; 3. 11. 1; 3. 24. 42; 4. 4. 32.
[286]2. 16. 46; 3. 11. 1; 3. 24. 42; 4. 4. 32.
[287]1. 9. 16.
[287]1. 9. 16.
[288]1. 29. 29.
[288]1. 29. 29.
[289]2. 13. 14.
[289]2. 13. 14.
[290]3. 24. 97; cf. 3. 5. 8-10, 4. 10. 14 sqq.
[290]3. 24. 97; cf. 3. 5. 8-10, 4. 10. 14 sqq.
[291]3. 24. 110-114.
[291]3. 24. 110-114.
[292]Καινὸς νόμος,Barn.2. 6, and note, in Gebhardt and Harnack’s edition.
[292]Καινὸς νόμος,Barn.2. 6, and note, in Gebhardt and Harnack’s edition.
[293]See especially Harnack,die Apostellehre und die Jüdischen Beiden Wege, Leipzig, 1886.
[293]See especially Harnack,die Apostellehre und die Jüdischen Beiden Wege, Leipzig, 1886.
[294]Teaching of the Apostles, 1. 4.
[294]Teaching of the Apostles, 1. 4.
[295]Teaching of the Apostles, 2. 2-7.
[295]Teaching of the Apostles, 2. 2-7.
[296]Ibid.3. 6-8.
[296]Ibid.3. 6-8.
[297]Ibid.4. 7, 8.
[297]Ibid.4. 7, 8.
[298]Const. Apost.1. 1, p. 1, ed. Lagarde. This may be supplemented by the conception of Christianity as a new law in Barnabas ii. 6, Justinpassim, Clem. Alex.E. T.i 97, 120, 470: see Thomasius,Dogmengesch, i. 110 sqq.
[298]Const. Apost.1. 1, p. 1, ed. Lagarde. This may be supplemented by the conception of Christianity as a new law in Barnabas ii. 6, Justinpassim, Clem. Alex.E. T.i 97, 120, 470: see Thomasius,Dogmengesch, i. 110 sqq.
[299]Const. Apost.2. 11, p. 22.
[299]Const. Apost.2. 11, p. 22.
[300]Ep. ad Diogn.5.
[300]Ep. ad Diogn.5.
[301]Side by side with the average ethics were the Pauline ethics, which had found a certain lodgment in some.
[301]Side by side with the average ethics were the Pauline ethics, which had found a certain lodgment in some.
[302]Teaching of the Apostles, 6. 2.
[302]Teaching of the Apostles, 6. 2.
[303]Of a type of Gnosticism, Harnack,Dogmengesch. 202.
[303]Of a type of Gnosticism, Harnack,Dogmengesch. 202.
[304]Strom.7. 11.
[304]Strom.7. 11.
[305]e.g. Euseb.Dem. Ev.3. 6: “Not only old men under Jesus Christ practise this mode ofphilosophy, but it would be hard to say how many thousands of women throughout the whole world, priestesses, as it were, of the God of the universe, having embraced the highest wisdom, rapt with a passion for heavenly knowledge, have renounced the desire of children according to the flesh, and giving their whole care to their soul, have given themselves up wholly to the Supreme King and God of the universe, to practise (ἀσκήσασθαι) perfect purity and virginity.” So also id.de Vit. Constant.4. 26, 29; Sozom. 6. 33, of the Syrian monks.
[305]e.g. Euseb.Dem. Ev.3. 6: “Not only old men under Jesus Christ practise this mode ofphilosophy, but it would be hard to say how many thousands of women throughout the whole world, priestesses, as it were, of the God of the universe, having embraced the highest wisdom, rapt with a passion for heavenly knowledge, have renounced the desire of children according to the flesh, and giving their whole care to their soul, have given themselves up wholly to the Supreme King and God of the universe, to practise (ἀσκήσασθαι) perfect purity and virginity.” So also id.de Vit. Constant.4. 26, 29; Sozom. 6. 33, of the Syrian monks.
[306]ἀσκητήριον, Socrat. i. 11; distinguished from μοναστήριον,ibid.4. 23, as the smaller from the larger: φροντιστήριον, Evagr. i. 21.
[306]ἀσκητήριον, Socrat. i. 11; distinguished from μοναστήριον,ibid.4. 23, as the smaller from the larger: φροντιστήριον, Evagr. i. 21.
[307]Clem. Alex.Pædag.3. 11.
[307]Clem. Alex.Pædag.3. 11.
[308]P. Ewald,der Einfluss der stoisch-ciceronianischen Moral auf ... Ambrosius, Leipzig, 1881; Dräseke in theRivista di filologia, Ann. v. 1875-6.
[308]P. Ewald,der Einfluss der stoisch-ciceronianischen Moral auf ... Ambrosius, Leipzig, 1881; Dräseke in theRivista di filologia, Ann. v. 1875-6.
[309]Theophrastus ap. Simplic.in phys.f. 6 (Diels,Doxographi Græci, P. 479).
[309]Theophrastus ap. Simplic.in phys.f. 6 (Diels,Doxographi Græci, P. 479).
[310]νόος ὁρῇ καὶ νόος ἀκούει· τἄλλα κωφὰ καὶ τυφλά, quoted in Plut.de fort.3, p. 98,de Alex. magn. fort.3, p. 336, and elsewhere: cf. Lucret. 3. 36; Cic.Tusc. Disp.1. 20.
[310]νόος ὁρῇ καὶ νόος ἀκούει· τἄλλα κωφὰ καὶ τυφλά, quoted in Plut.de fort.3, p. 98,de Alex. magn. fort.3, p. 336, and elsewhere: cf. Lucret. 3. 36; Cic.Tusc. Disp.1. 20.
[311]Pseudo-Arist.de mundo, 7, p. 401a.
[311]Pseudo-Arist.de mundo, 7, p. 401a.
[312]De Isid. et Osir.67, p. 378.
[312]De Isid. et Osir.67, p. 378.
[313]Theophrast. ap. Simplic.in phys.f. 6 (Diels, p. 476), πρῶτος τοῦτο τοὔνομα κομίσας τῆς ἀρχῆς: so Hippol.Philosoph.1. 6.
[313]Theophrast. ap. Simplic.in phys.f. 6 (Diels, p. 476), πρῶτος τοῦτο τοὔνομα κομίσας τῆς ἀρχῆς: so Hippol.Philosoph.1. 6.
[314]Heraclit. ap. Clem. Alex.Strom.5. 14, κόσμον τὸν αὐτὸν ἁπάντων οὔτε τις θεῶν οὔτε ἀνθρώπων ἐποίησεν· ἀλλ’ ἦν ἀεὶ καὶ ἔσται πῦρ ἀείζωον, ἁπτόμενον μέτρα καὶ ἀποσβεννύμενον μέτρα.
[314]Heraclit. ap. Clem. Alex.Strom.5. 14, κόσμον τὸν αὐτὸν ἁπάντων οὔτε τις θεῶν οὔτε ἀνθρώπων ἐποίησεν· ἀλλ’ ἦν ἀεὶ καὶ ἔσται πῦρ ἀείζωον, ἁπτόμενον μέτρα καὶ ἀποσβεννύμενον μέτρα.
[315]Lucan,Phars.9. 579.
[315]Lucan,Phars.9. 579.
[316]ἀπόῤῥοια, M. Anton. 2. 4: ἀπόσπασμα, Epict.Diss.1. 14. 6; 2. 8. 11; M. Anton. 5. 27: ἀποικία, Philo,de mund. opif.46 (i. 32). The co-ordination of these and cognate terms in Philo is especially important in view of their use in Christian theology:de mund. opif.51 (i. 35), πᾶς ἄνθρωπος κατὰ μὲν τὴν διάνοιαν ᾠκείωται θείῳ λόγῳ, τῆς μακαρίας φύσεως ἐκμαγεῖον ἢ ἀπόσπασμα ἢ ἀπαύγασμα γεγονώς: he considers the term ἐκμαγεῖον to be more appropriate to theology, τῆς τοῦ παντὸς ψυχῆς ἀπόσπασμα ἢ ὅπερ ὁσιώτερον εἰπεῖν τοῖς κατὰ Μωυσῆν φιλοσοφοῦσιν, εἰκόνος θείας ἐκμαγεῖον ἐμφερές,de mutat. nom.39 (i. 612): and he is careful to guard against an inference that ἀπόσπασμα implies a breach of continuity between the divine and the human soul, ἀπόσπασμα ἦν οὐ διαιρετόν· τέμνεται γὰρ οὐδὲν τοῦ θείου κατ’ ἀπάρτησιν, ἀλλὰ μόνον ἐκτείνεται,quod det. pot. insid.24 (i. 209).
[316]ἀπόῤῥοια, M. Anton. 2. 4: ἀπόσπασμα, Epict.Diss.1. 14. 6; 2. 8. 11; M. Anton. 5. 27: ἀποικία, Philo,de mund. opif.46 (i. 32). The co-ordination of these and cognate terms in Philo is especially important in view of their use in Christian theology:de mund. opif.51 (i. 35), πᾶς ἄνθρωπος κατὰ μὲν τὴν διάνοιαν ᾠκείωται θείῳ λόγῳ, τῆς μακαρίας φύσεως ἐκμαγεῖον ἢ ἀπόσπασμα ἢ ἀπαύγασμα γεγονώς: he considers the term ἐκμαγεῖον to be more appropriate to theology, τῆς τοῦ παντὸς ψυχῆς ἀπόσπασμα ἢ ὅπερ ὁσιώτερον εἰπεῖν τοῖς κατὰ Μωυσῆν φιλοσοφοῦσιν, εἰκόνος θείας ἐκμαγεῖον ἐμφερές,de mutat. nom.39 (i. 612): and he is careful to guard against an inference that ἀπόσπασμα implies a breach of continuity between the divine and the human soul, ἀπόσπασμα ἦν οὐ διαιρετόν· τέμνεται γὰρ οὐδὲν τοῦ θείου κατ’ ἀπάρτησιν, ἀλλὰ μόνον ἐκτείνεται,quod det. pot. insid.24 (i. 209).
[317]Phileb.16, p. 28e, νοῦν καὶ φρόνησίν τινα θαυμαστήν: in the post-PlatonicEpinomis, p. 986c, λόγος ὁ πάντων θειότατος.
[317]Phileb.16, p. 28e, νοῦν καὶ φρόνησίν τινα θαυμαστήν: in the post-PlatonicEpinomis, p. 986c, λόγος ὁ πάντων θειότατος.
[318]The best account of Plato’s complex, because progressive, theory of matter is that of Siebeck,Plato’s Lehre von der Materie, in hisUntersuchungen der Philosophie der Griechen, Freiburg im Breisg. 1888. The conception of it which was current in the Platonist schools, and which is therefore important in relation to Christian philosophy, is given in thePlacitaof Aetius, ap. Stob.Ecl.1. 11 (Diels, p. 308), and Hippol.Philosoph.1. 19.
[318]The best account of Plato’s complex, because progressive, theory of matter is that of Siebeck,Plato’s Lehre von der Materie, in hisUntersuchungen der Philosophie der Griechen, Freiburg im Breisg. 1888. The conception of it which was current in the Platonist schools, and which is therefore important in relation to Christian philosophy, is given in thePlacitaof Aetius, ap. Stob.Ecl.1. 11 (Diels, p. 308), and Hippol.Philosoph.1. 19.
[319]Plat.Tim.p. 30, πᾶν ὅσον ἦν ὁρατὸν παραλαβὼν οὐκ ἡσυχίαν ἄγον ἀλλὰ κινούμενον πλημμελῶς καὶ ἀτάκτως εἰς τάξιν αὐτὸ ἤγαγεν ἐκ τῆς ἀταξίας.
[319]Plat.Tim.p. 30, πᾶν ὅσον ἦν ὁρατὸν παραλαβὼν οὐκ ἡσυχίαν ἄγον ἀλλὰ κινούμενον πλημμελῶς καὶ ἀτάκτως εἰς τάξιν αὐτὸ ἤγαγεν ἐκ τῆς ἀταξίας.
[320]InTim.P. 41, the θεοὶ θεῶν are addressed at length by ὁ τόδε τὸ πᾶν γεννήσας (= ὁ δημιουργός): the most pertinent words are, ἵν’ οὖν θνητά τε ᾖ τό τε πᾶν ὄντως ἅπαν ᾖ, τρέπεσθε κατὰ φύσιν ὑμεῖς ἐπὶ τὴν τῶν ζώων δημιουργίαν, μιμούμενοι τὴν ἐμὴν δύναμιν περὶ τὴν ὑμῶν γένεσιν. The whole theory is summed up by Professor Jowett in the Introduction to his translation of theTimæus(Plato, vol. ii. p. 470): “The Creator is like a human artist who frames in his mind a plan which he executes by means of his servants. Thus the language of philosophy, which speaks of first and second causes, is crossed by another sort of phraseology, ‘God made the world because he was good, and the demons ministered to him.’”
[320]InTim.P. 41, the θεοὶ θεῶν are addressed at length by ὁ τόδε τὸ πᾶν γεννήσας (= ὁ δημιουργός): the most pertinent words are, ἵν’ οὖν θνητά τε ᾖ τό τε πᾶν ὄντως ἅπαν ᾖ, τρέπεσθε κατὰ φύσιν ὑμεῖς ἐπὶ τὴν τῶν ζώων δημιουργίαν, μιμούμενοι τὴν ἐμὴν δύναμιν περὶ τὴν ὑμῶν γένεσιν. The whole theory is summed up by Professor Jowett in the Introduction to his translation of theTimæus(Plato, vol. ii. p. 470): “The Creator is like a human artist who frames in his mind a plan which he executes by means of his servants. Thus the language of philosophy, which speaks of first and second causes, is crossed by another sort of phraseology, ‘God made the world because he was good, and the demons ministered to him.’”
[321]λόγοι σπερματικοί, frequently in Stoical writings, e.g. in the definition of the πῦρ τεχνικὸν, which is the base of all things, as given in thePlacitaof Aetius, reproduced by Plutarch, Eusebius, and Stobæus, Diels, p. 306, ἐμπεριειληφὸς πάντας τοὺς σπερματικοὺς λόγους καθ’ οὕς ἕκαστα καθ’ εἱμαρμένην γίνεται. The best account of this important element in later Stoicism is in Heinze,die Lehre vom Logos in der griechischen Philosophie, 1872, pp. 110 sqq.
[321]λόγοι σπερματικοί, frequently in Stoical writings, e.g. in the definition of the πῦρ τεχνικὸν, which is the base of all things, as given in thePlacitaof Aetius, reproduced by Plutarch, Eusebius, and Stobæus, Diels, p. 306, ἐμπεριειληφὸς πάντας τοὺς σπερματικοὺς λόγους καθ’ οὕς ἕκαστα καθ’ εἱμαρμένην γίνεται. The best account of this important element in later Stoicism is in Heinze,die Lehre vom Logos in der griechischen Philosophie, 1872, pp. 110 sqq.
[322]Hence the definition which Aetius gives: ἰδέα ἐστὶν οὐσία ἀσώματος, αὐτὴ μὲν ὑφεστῶσα καθ’ αὑτὴνεἰκονίζουσα δὲ τὰς ἀμόρφους ὕλαςκαὶ αἰτία γινομένη τῆς τούτων δείξεως, ap. Plut.de plac. philos.1. 10; Euseb.præp. evang.15. 45; with additions and differences in Stob.Ecl.1. 12 (Diels, p. 308).
[322]Hence the definition which Aetius gives: ἰδέα ἐστὶν οὐσία ἀσώματος, αὐτὴ μὲν ὑφεστῶσα καθ’ αὑτὴνεἰκονίζουσα δὲ τὰς ἀμόρφους ὕλαςκαὶ αἰτία γινομένη τῆς τούτων δείξεως, ap. Plut.de plac. philos.1. 10; Euseb.præp. evang.15. 45; with additions and differences in Stob.Ecl.1. 12 (Diels, p. 308).
[323]The three ἀρχαί are expressed by varying but identical terms: God, Matter, and the Form (ἰδέα), or the By Whom, From What, In view of What (ὑφ’ οὗ, ἐξ οὗ, πρὸς ὅ), in thePlacitaof Aetius, 1. 3. 21, ap. Plut.de placit. phil.1. 3, Stob.Ecl.1. 10 (Diels, p. 288), and in Timæus Locrus,de an. mundi2 (Mullach F P G 2. 38): God, Matter, and the Pattern (παράδειγμα), Hippol.Philosoph.1. 19, Herm.Irris. Gent. Phil.11: the Active (τὸ ποιοῦν), Matter, and the Pattern, Alexand. Aphrod. ap. Simplic.in phys.f. 6 (Diels, p. 485), where Simplicius contrasts this with Plato’s own strict dualism.
[323]The three ἀρχαί are expressed by varying but identical terms: God, Matter, and the Form (ἰδέα), or the By Whom, From What, In view of What (ὑφ’ οὗ, ἐξ οὗ, πρὸς ὅ), in thePlacitaof Aetius, 1. 3. 21, ap. Plut.de placit. phil.1. 3, Stob.Ecl.1. 10 (Diels, p. 288), and in Timæus Locrus,de an. mundi2 (Mullach F P G 2. 38): God, Matter, and the Pattern (παράδειγμα), Hippol.Philosoph.1. 19, Herm.Irris. Gent. Phil.11: the Active (τὸ ποιοῦν), Matter, and the Pattern, Alexand. Aphrod. ap. Simplic.in phys.f. 6 (Diels, p. 485), where Simplicius contrasts this with Plato’s own strict dualism.
[324]De mundi opif.5 (i. 5): cf. Plat.Tim.p. 30 (of God), ἀγαθὸς ἦν ἀγαθῷ δὲ οὐδεὶς περὶ οὐδενὸς οὐδέποτε ἐγγίγνεται φθόνος· τούτου δ’ ἐκτὸς ὤν πάντα ὁτιμάλιστα ἐβουλήθη γενέσθαι παραπλήσια αὑτῷ.
[324]De mundi opif.5 (i. 5): cf. Plat.Tim.p. 30 (of God), ἀγαθὸς ἦν ἀγαθῷ δὲ οὐδεὶς περὶ οὐδενὸς οὐδέποτε ἐγγίγνεται φθόνος· τούτου δ’ ἐκτὸς ὤν πάντα ὁτιμάλιστα ἐβουλήθη γενέσθαι παραπλήσια αὑτῷ.
[325]De cherub.9 (i. 144): cf.ib.35 (i. 162).
[325]De cherub.9 (i. 144): cf.ib.35 (i. 162).
[326]The most frequent word is δημιουργός, but several others are used, e.g. πλάστης,de confus. ling.38 (i. 434); τεχνίτης,ibid.; κοσμοπλάστης,de plant Noe, 1 (i. 329); κοσμοποιός,ibid.31 (i. 348), οὐ τεχνίτης μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ πατὴρ τῶν γιγνομένων,Leg. alleg.1. 8 (i. 47). The distinctions which became important in later controversies do not appear in the writings which are probably Philo’s own, but are found in those which probably belong to his school: the most explicit recognition of them isde somn.1. 13 (i. 632), ὁ θεὸς τὰ πάντα γεννήσας οὐ μόνον εἰς τὸ ἐμφανὲς ἤγαγεν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἃ πρότερον οὐκ ἦν ἐποίησεν, οὐ δημιουργὸς μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ κτίστης αὐτὸς ὤν: cf. alsode monarch.3 (ii. 216), θεὸς εἷς ἐστι καὶ κτίστης καὶ ποιητὴς τῶν ὅλων.
[326]The most frequent word is δημιουργός, but several others are used, e.g. πλάστης,de confus. ling.38 (i. 434); τεχνίτης,ibid.; κοσμοπλάστης,de plant Noe, 1 (i. 329); κοσμοποιός,ibid.31 (i. 348), οὐ τεχνίτης μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ πατὴρ τῶν γιγνομένων,Leg. alleg.1. 8 (i. 47). The distinctions which became important in later controversies do not appear in the writings which are probably Philo’s own, but are found in those which probably belong to his school: the most explicit recognition of them isde somn.1. 13 (i. 632), ὁ θεὸς τὰ πάντα γεννήσας οὐ μόνον εἰς τὸ ἐμφανὲς ἤγαγεν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἃ πρότερον οὐκ ἦν ἐποίησεν, οὐ δημιουργὸς μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ κτίστης αὐτὸς ὤν: cf. alsode monarch.3 (ii. 216), θεὸς εἷς ἐστι καὶ κτίστης καὶ ποιητὴς τῶν ὅλων.
[327]De somn.2. 37 (i. 691).
[327]De somn.2. 37 (i. 691).
[328]De mundi opif.46 (i. 32): cf.ib.51 (i. 35):quod deus immut.10 (i. 279), and elsewhere.
[328]De mundi opif.46 (i. 32): cf.ib.51 (i. 35):quod deus immut.10 (i. 279), and elsewhere.
[329]Quod det. pot. ins.24 (i. 208, 209).
[329]Quod det. pot. ins.24 (i. 208, 209).
[330]De profug.36 (i. 575).
[330]De profug.36 (i. 575).
[331]De mundi opif.5 (i. 5): this is the most explicit expression of his theory of the nature of matter. It may be supplemented byde plant Noe, 1 (i. 329), τὴν οὐσίαν ἄτακτον καὶ συγκεχυμένην οὖσαν ἐξ αὑτῆς εἰς τάξιν ἐξ ἀταξίας καὶ ἐκ συγχύσεως εἰς διάκρισιν ἄγων ὁ κοσμοπλάστης μορφοῦν ἤρξατο:quis rer. div. her.27 (i. 492):de somn.2. 6 (i. 665): οὐσία is the more usual word, but ὕλη is sometimes found, e.g.de plant Noe, 2 (i. 330): the conception underlying either word is more Stoical than Platonic, i.e. it is rather that of matter having the property of resistance than that of potential matter or empty space: hence inde profug.2 (i. 547), τὴν ἄποιον καὶ ἀνείδεον καὶ ἀσχημάτιστον οὐσίαν is contrasted, in strictly Stoical phraseology, with τὸ κινοῦν αἴτιον.
[331]De mundi opif.5 (i. 5): this is the most explicit expression of his theory of the nature of matter. It may be supplemented byde plant Noe, 1 (i. 329), τὴν οὐσίαν ἄτακτον καὶ συγκεχυμένην οὖσαν ἐξ αὑτῆς εἰς τάξιν ἐξ ἀταξίας καὶ ἐκ συγχύσεως εἰς διάκρισιν ἄγων ὁ κοσμοπλάστης μορφοῦν ἤρξατο:quis rer. div. her.27 (i. 492):de somn.2. 6 (i. 665): οὐσία is the more usual word, but ὕλη is sometimes found, e.g.de plant Noe, 2 (i. 330): the conception underlying either word is more Stoical than Platonic, i.e. it is rather that of matter having the property of resistance than that of potential matter or empty space: hence inde profug.2 (i. 547), τὴν ἄποιον καὶ ἀνείδεον καὶ ἀσχημάτιστον οὐσίαν is contrasted, in strictly Stoical phraseology, with τὸ κινοῦν αἴτιον.
[332]De sacrif.13 (ii. 261).
[332]De sacrif.13 (ii. 261).
[333]The terms λόγοι and ἰδέαι are common. Instances of the other terms are the following: angels,de confus. ling.8 (1. 408), τῶν θείων ἔργων καὶ λόγων οὓς καλεῖν ἔθος ἀγγέλους:de somn.i. 19 (i. 638), ἀθανάτοις λόγοις οὓς καλεῖν ἔθος ἀγγέλους:Leg. alleg.3. 62 (i. 122), τοὺς ἀγγέλους καὶ λόγους αὐτοῦ: δαίμονες,de gigant.2. 2 (i. 263), οὓς ἄλλοι φιλόσοφοι δαίμονας, ἀγγέλους Μωϋσῆς εἴωθεν ὀνομάζειν: so, in identical words,de somn.1. 22 (i. 642): ἀριθμοὶ and μέτρα,quis rer. div. heres.31 (i. 495), πᾶσιν ἀριθμοῖς καὶ πάσαις ταῖς πρὸς τελειότητα ἰδέαις καταχρησαμένου τοῦ πεποιηκότος:de mund. opif.9 (i. 7), ἰδέαι καὶ μέτρα καὶ τύποι καὶ σφραγῖδες: cf.de monarch.6 (ii. 219), τὰ ἄπειρα καὶ ἀόριστα καὶ ἀσχημάτιστα περατοῦσαι καὶ περιορίζουσαι καὶ σχηματίζουσαι.
[333]The terms λόγοι and ἰδέαι are common. Instances of the other terms are the following: angels,de confus. ling.8 (1. 408), τῶν θείων ἔργων καὶ λόγων οὓς καλεῖν ἔθος ἀγγέλους:de somn.i. 19 (i. 638), ἀθανάτοις λόγοις οὓς καλεῖν ἔθος ἀγγέλους:Leg. alleg.3. 62 (i. 122), τοὺς ἀγγέλους καὶ λόγους αὐτοῦ: δαίμονες,de gigant.2. 2 (i. 263), οὓς ἄλλοι φιλόσοφοι δαίμονας, ἀγγέλους Μωϋσῆς εἴωθεν ὀνομάζειν: so, in identical words,de somn.1. 22 (i. 642): ἀριθμοὶ and μέτρα,quis rer. div. heres.31 (i. 495), πᾶσιν ἀριθμοῖς καὶ πάσαις ταῖς πρὸς τελειότητα ἰδέαις καταχρησαμένου τοῦ πεποιηκότος:de mund. opif.9 (i. 7), ἰδέαι καὶ μέτρα καὶ τύποι καὶ σφραγῖδες: cf.de monarch.6 (ii. 219), τὰ ἄπειρα καὶ ἀόριστα καὶ ἀσχημάτιστα περατοῦσαι καὶ περιορίζουσαι καὶ σχηματίζουσαι.
[334]The clearest instance of the identification is probably inde monarch.6 (ii. 218, 219), where God tells Moses that so far from Himself being cognizable, not even the powers that minister to Him are cognizable in their essence; but that as seals are known from their impressions, τοιαύτας ὑποληπτέον καὶ τὰς περὶ ἐμὲ δυνάμεις ἀποίοις ποιότητας καὶ μορφὰς ἀμόρφοις καὶ μηδὲν τῆς ἀϊδίου φύσεως μεταλλομένας μήτι μειουμένας.
[334]The clearest instance of the identification is probably inde monarch.6 (ii. 218, 219), where God tells Moses that so far from Himself being cognizable, not even the powers that minister to Him are cognizable in their essence; but that as seals are known from their impressions, τοιαύτας ὑποληπτέον καὶ τὰς περὶ ἐμὲ δυνάμεις ἀποίοις ποιότητας καὶ μορφὰς ἀμόρφοις καὶ μηδὲν τῆς ἀϊδίου φύσεως μεταλλομένας μήτι μειουμένας.
[335]De mund. opif.6 (i. 5), οὐδὲν ἂν ἕτερον εἴποι τὸν νοητὸν εἶναι κόσμον ἢ θεοῦ λόγον ἤδη κοσμοποιοῦντος:vit. Mos.3. 13 (ii. 154), τῶν ἀσωμάτων καὶ παραδειγματικῶν ἰδεῶν ἐξ ὧν ὁ νοητὸς ἐπάγη κόσμος: sode confus. ling.34 (i. 431): cf. the Stoical definition of λόγος in Epictet.Diss.1. 20. 5, as σύστημα ἐκ ποιῶν φαντασιῶν.
[335]De mund. opif.6 (i. 5), οὐδὲν ἂν ἕτερον εἴποι τὸν νοητὸν εἶναι κόσμον ἢ θεοῦ λόγον ἤδη κοσμοποιοῦντος:vit. Mos.3. 13 (ii. 154), τῶν ἀσωμάτων καὶ παραδειγματικῶν ἰδεῶν ἐξ ὧν ὁ νοητὸς ἐπάγη κόσμος: sode confus. ling.34 (i. 431): cf. the Stoical definition of λόγος in Epictet.Diss.1. 20. 5, as σύστημα ἐκ ποιῶν φαντασιῶν.
[336]De mund. opif.4 (i. 4): the same conception is expressed in less figurative language inLeg. alleg.1. 9 (i. 47), πρὶν ἀνατεῖλαι κατὰ μέρος αἰσθητὰ ἦν τὸ γενικὸν αἰσθητὸν προμηθείᾳ τοῦ πεποιηκότος.
[336]De mund. opif.4 (i. 4): the same conception is expressed in less figurative language inLeg. alleg.1. 9 (i. 47), πρὶν ἀνατεῖλαι κατὰ μέρος αἰσθητὰ ἦν τὸ γενικὸν αἰσθητὸν προμηθείᾳ τοῦ πεποιηκότος.
[337]δύναμις κοσμοποιητική,de mund. οpif.5 (i. 5); δύναμις ποιητικήde profug.18 (i. 560).
[337]δύναμις κοσμοποιητική,de mund. οpif.5 (i. 5); δύναμις ποιητικήde profug.18 (i. 560).
[338]Leg. alleg.1. 9 (i. 47), τῷ γὰρ περιφανεστάτῳ καὶ τηλαυγεστάτῳ λόγῳ, ῥήματι, ὁ θεὸς ἀμφότερα (i.e. both heaven and earth) ποιεῖ:quod deus immut.12 (i. 281), λόγῳ χρώμενος ὑπηρέτῃ δωρεῶν ᾧ καὶ τὸν κόσμον εἰργάζετο: more expressly, it is the instrument, ὄργανον,Leg. alleg.3. 31 (i. 106),de cherub. 35 (i. 162).
[338]Leg. alleg.1. 9 (i. 47), τῷ γὰρ περιφανεστάτῳ καὶ τηλαυγεστάτῳ λόγῳ, ῥήματι, ὁ θεὸς ἀμφότερα (i.e. both heaven and earth) ποιεῖ:quod deus immut.12 (i. 281), λόγῳ χρώμενος ὑπηρέτῃ δωρεῶν ᾧ καὶ τὸν κόσμον εἰργάζετο: more expressly, it is the instrument, ὄργανον,Leg. alleg.3. 31 (i. 106),de cherub. 35 (i. 162).
[339]De somn.2. 37 (i. 691).
[339]De somn.2. 37 (i. 691).
[340]De profug.20 (i. 562),de migrat. Abr.18 (i. 452): cf. Wisdom, 18. 24.
[340]De profug.20 (i. 562),de migrat. Abr.18 (i. 452): cf. Wisdom, 18. 24.
[341]De profug.19 (i. 561).
[341]De profug.19 (i. 561).
[342]ὁ τῶν ὅλων πατήρ,de migrat. Abrah.9 (i. 443); ὁ θεὸς τὰ πάντα γεννήσας,de somn.1. 13 (i. 632), and elsewhere.
[342]ὁ τῶν ὅλων πατήρ,de migrat. Abrah.9 (i. 443); ὁ θεὸς τὰ πάντα γεννήσας,de somn.1. 13 (i. 632), and elsewhere.
[343]De ebriet.8 (i. 361).
[343]De ebriet.8 (i. 361).
[344]1 Clem. Rom. 33. 3, 4: but it is a noteworthy instance of the contrast between this simple early belief and the developed theology which had grown up in less than a century later, that Irenæus,lib.4,præf.c.4, explains the ‘hands’ to mean the Son and Spirit: “homo ... per manus ejus plasmatus est, hoc est per Filium et Spiritum quibus et dixit Faciamus hominem.”
[344]1 Clem. Rom. 33. 3, 4: but it is a noteworthy instance of the contrast between this simple early belief and the developed theology which had grown up in less than a century later, that Irenæus,lib.4,præf.c.4, explains the ‘hands’ to mean the Son and Spirit: “homo ... per manus ejus plasmatus est, hoc est per Filium et Spiritum quibus et dixit Faciamus hominem.”
[345]Derivatio: Iren. 1. 24. 3, of Basilides (or rather one of the schools of Basilidians).
[345]Derivatio: Iren. 1. 24. 3, of Basilides (or rather one of the schools of Basilidians).
[346]This is probably the metaphor involved in the common word προβολή, e.g. Hippol. 6. 38, of Epiphanes.
[346]This is probably the metaphor involved in the common word προβολή, e.g. Hippol. 6. 38, of Epiphanes.
[347]The conception of the double nature of God, male and female, is found as early as Xenocrates, Aetius ap. Stob.Ecl.1. 2. 29 (Diels, p. 304); and commonly among the Stoics, e.g. in the verses of Valerius Soranus, which are quoted by Varro, and after him by S. Augustine,de civit. Dei, 7. 9:Jupiter omnipotens regum rex ipse deusqueProgenitor genitrixque deum, deus unus et omnia.So Philodemus,de piet.16, ed. Gomp. p. 83 (Diels, p. 549), quotes Ζεὺς ἄρρην, Ζεὺς θῆλυς; and Eusebius,præp. Evang.3. 9, p. 100b, quotes the Orphic verse:Ζεὺς ἄρσην γένετο, Ζεὺς ἄμβροτος ἔπλετο νύμφη.
[347]The conception of the double nature of God, male and female, is found as early as Xenocrates, Aetius ap. Stob.Ecl.1. 2. 29 (Diels, p. 304); and commonly among the Stoics, e.g. in the verses of Valerius Soranus, which are quoted by Varro, and after him by S. Augustine,de civit. Dei, 7. 9:
Jupiter omnipotens regum rex ipse deusqueProgenitor genitrixque deum, deus unus et omnia.
Jupiter omnipotens regum rex ipse deusqueProgenitor genitrixque deum, deus unus et omnia.
Jupiter omnipotens regum rex ipse deusqueProgenitor genitrixque deum, deus unus et omnia.
Jupiter omnipotens regum rex ipse deusque
Progenitor genitrixque deum, deus unus et omnia.
So Philodemus,de piet.16, ed. Gomp. p. 83 (Diels, p. 549), quotes Ζεὺς ἄρρην, Ζεὺς θῆλυς; and Eusebius,præp. Evang.3. 9, p. 100b, quotes the Orphic verse:
Ζεὺς ἄρσην γένετο, Ζεὺς ἄμβροτος ἔπλετο νύμφη.
Ζεὺς ἄρσην γένετο, Ζεὺς ἄμβροτος ἔπλετο νύμφη.
Ζεὺς ἄρσην γένετο, Ζεὺς ἄμβροτος ἔπλετο νύμφη.
Ζεὺς ἄρσην γένετο, Ζεὺς ἄμβροτος ἔπλετο νύμφη.
[348]The Valentinians in, e.g., Hippol. 6. 29; 10. 13: so of Simon Magus,ib.6. 12, γεγονέναι δὲ τὰς ῥίζας φησὶκατὰ συζυγίαςἀπὸ τοῦ πυρὸς.
[348]The Valentinians in, e.g., Hippol. 6. 29; 10. 13: so of Simon Magus,ib.6. 12, γεγονέναι δὲ τὰς ῥίζας φησὶκατὰ συζυγίαςἀπὸ τοῦ πυρὸς.
[349]Hippol. 6. 43 (of Marcus), τὰ δὲ ὀνόματα τῶν στοιχείων τὰ κοινὰ καὶ ῥητὰαἰῶναςκαὶλόγουςκαὶῥίζαςκαὶσπέρματακαὶπληρώματακαὶκαρποὺςὠνόμασε.
[349]Hippol. 6. 43 (of Marcus), τὰ δὲ ὀνόματα τῶν στοιχείων τὰ κοινὰ καὶ ῥητὰαἰῶναςκαὶλόγουςκαὶῥίζαςκαὶσπέρματακαὶπληρώματακαὶκαρποὺςὠνόμασε.
[350]Hippol. 5. 19 (of the Sethiani), πᾶν ὅ τι νοήσει ἐπινοεῖς ἢ καὶ παραλείπεις μὴ νοηθέν, τοῦτο ἑκάστη τῶν ἀρχῶν πέφυκε γενέσθαι ὡς ἐν ἀνθρωπίνῃ ψυχῇ πᾶσα ἡτισοῦν διδασκομένη τέχνη.
[350]Hippol. 5. 19 (of the Sethiani), πᾶν ὅ τι νοήσει ἐπινοεῖς ἢ καὶ παραλείπεις μὴ νοηθέν, τοῦτο ἑκάστη τῶν ἀρχῶν πέφυκε γενέσθαι ὡς ἐν ἀνθρωπίνῃ ψυχῇ πᾶσα ἡτισοῦν διδασκομένη τέχνη.
[351]Hippol. 8. 8 (of the Docetæ), θεὸν εἶναι τὸν πρῶτον οἱονεὶ σπέρμα συκῆς μεγέθει μὲν ἐλάχιστον παντελῶς δυνάμει δὲ ἄπειρον:ibid.c. 9, τὸ δὲ πρῶτον σπέρμα ἐκεῖνο, ὅθεν γέγονεν ἡ συκῆ, ἐστὶν ἀγέννητον. A similar metaphor was used by the Simonians, Hippol. 6. 9 sqq., but it is complicated with the metaphor of invisible and visible fire (heat and flame). It is adopted by Peter in the Clementines,Hom.2. 4, where God is the ῥίζα, man the καρπός.
[351]Hippol. 8. 8 (of the Docetæ), θεὸν εἶναι τὸν πρῶτον οἱονεὶ σπέρμα συκῆς μεγέθει μὲν ἐλάχιστον παντελῶς δυνάμει δὲ ἄπειρον:ibid.c. 9, τὸ δὲ πρῶτον σπέρμα ἐκεῖνο, ὅθεν γέγονεν ἡ συκῆ, ἐστὶν ἀγέννητον. A similar metaphor was used by the Simonians, Hippol. 6. 9 sqq., but it is complicated with the metaphor of invisible and visible fire (heat and flame). It is adopted by Peter in the Clementines,Hom.2. 4, where God is the ῥίζα, man the καρπός.
[352]Ibid.8. 8, ... ὁ καρπὸς ἐν ᾧ τὸ ἄπειρον καὶ τὸ ἀνεξαρίθμητον θησαυριζόμενον φυλάσσεται σπέρμα συκῆς.
[352]Ibid.8. 8, ... ὁ καρπὸς ἐν ᾧ τὸ ἄπειρον καὶ τὸ ἀνεξαρίθμητον θησαυριζόμενον φυλάσσεται σπέρμα συκῆς.
[353]The chief authorities for this theory, which was expressed in language that readily lent itself to caricature, are the first seven chapters of the first book of Irenæus, and Hippolytus 6. 32 sqq.
[353]The chief authorities for this theory, which was expressed in language that readily lent itself to caricature, are the first seven chapters of the first book of Irenæus, and Hippolytus 6. 32 sqq.
[354]This was especially the view of the Peratæ, Hippol. 5. 13.
[354]This was especially the view of the Peratæ, Hippol. 5. 13.
[355]Notably by Plotinus,Enn.ii. 9. 2-5.
[355]Notably by Plotinus,Enn.ii. 9. 2-5.
[356]The conception appears in Justin Martyr,Apol.i 10, πάντα τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀγαθὸν ὄνταδημιουργῆσαιαὐτὸν ἐξ ἀμόρφου ὕλης:ib.c. 59, ὕλην ἄμορφον οὖσαν στρέψαντα τὸν θεὸν κόσμον ποιῆσαι: but Justin, though he avowedly adopts the conception from Plato, claims that Plato adopted it from Moses.
[356]The conception appears in Justin Martyr,Apol.i 10, πάντα τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀγαθὸν ὄνταδημιουργῆσαιαὐτὸν ἐξ ἀμόρφου ὕλης:ib.c. 59, ὕλην ἄμορφον οὖσαν στρέψαντα τὸν θεὸν κόσμον ποιῆσαι: but Justin, though he avowedly adopts the conception from Plato, claims that Plato adopted it from Moses.
[357]Plutarch,de anim. procreat.5. 3, οὐ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος ἡ γένεσις ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ καλῶς μηδ’ ἱκανῶς ἔχοντος:ibid.ἀκοσμία γὰρ ἦν τὰ πρὸ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου γενέσεως: cf. Möller,Kosmologie, p. 39.
[357]Plutarch,de anim. procreat.5. 3, οὐ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος ἡ γένεσις ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ καλῶς μηδ’ ἱκανῶς ἔχοντος:ibid.ἀκοσμία γὰρ ἦν τὰ πρὸ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου γενέσεως: cf. Möller,Kosmologie, p. 39.