alexandria and her schools-第16节
按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
se they have nothing in common with it。 Is that your notion？〃 And the Neoplatonists would have； on the whole； allowed that argument。 And if Clement had answered； that such was not his notion of Goodness； or of a Good Being； and that therefore the goodness of their Absolute Good； careless of the degradation and misery around it； must be something very different from his notions of human goodness； the Neoplatonists would have answered indeed they did answer〃After all； why not？ Why should the Absolute Goodness be like our human goodness？〃 This is Plotinus's own belief。 It is a question with him； it was still more a question with those who came after him； whether virtues could be predicated of the Divine nature； courage； for instance； of one who had nothing to fear； self… restraint； of one who had nothing to desire。 And thus； by setting up a different standard of morality for the divine and for the human； Plotinus gradually arrives at the conclusion； that virtue is not the end； but the means； not the Divine nature itself； as the Christian schools held； but only the purgative process by which man was to ascend into heaven； and which was necessary to arrive at that naturethat nature itself beingwhat？
And how to answer that last question was the abysmal problem of the whole of Neoplatonic philosophy； in searching for which it wearied itself out； generation after generation； till tired equally of seeking and of speaking； it fairly lay down and died。 In proportion as it refused to acknowledge a common divine nature with the degraded mass； it deserted its first healthy instinct； which told it that the spiritual world is identical with the moral world； with right； love； justice； it tried to find new definitions for the spiritual； it conceived it to be identical with the intellectual。 That did not satisfy its heart。 It had to repeople the spiritual world； which it had emptied of its proper denizens； with ghosts； to reinvent the old daemonologies and polytheismsfrom thence to descend into lower depths； of which we will speak hereafter。
But in the meanwhile we must look at another quarrel which arose between the two twin schools of Alexandria。 The Neoplatonists said that there is a divine element in man。 The Christian philosophers assented fervently； and raised the old disagreeable question： 〃Is it in every man？ In the publicans and harlots as well as in the philosophers？ We say that it is。〃 And there again the Neoplatonist finds it over hard to assent to a doctrine； equally contrary to outward appearance； and galling to Pharisaic pride； and enters into a hundred honest self… puzzles and self…contradictions； which seem to justify him at last in saying； No。 It is in the philosopher； who is ready by nature； as Plotinus has it； and as it were furnished with wings； and not needing to sever himself from matter like the rest； but disposed already to ascend to that which is above。 And in a degree too； it is in the 〃lover；〃 who； according to Plotinus； has a certain innate recollection of beauty； and hovers round it； and desires it； wherever he sees it。 Him you may raise to the apprehension of the one incorporeal Beauty； by teaching him to separate beauty from the various objects in which it appears scattered and divided。 And it is even in the third class； the lowest of whom there is hope； namely； the musical man； capable of being passively affected by beauty； without having any active appetite for it； the sentimentalist； in short； as we should call him nowadays。
But for the herd； Plotinus cannot say that there is anything divine in them。 And thus it gradually comes out in all Neoplatonist writings which I have yet examined； that the Divine only exists in a man； in proportion as he is conscious of its existence in him。 From which spring two conceptions of the Divine in man。 First； is it a part of him； if it is dependent for its existence on his consciousness of it？ Or is it； as Philo； Plutarch； Marcus Aurelius would have held； as the Christians held； something independent of him； without him； a Logos or Word speaking to his reason and conscience？ With this question Plotinus grapples； earnestly； shrewdly； fairly。 If you wish to see how he does it； you should read the fourth and fifth books of the sixth Ennead； especially if you be lucky enough to light on a copy of that rare book； Taylor's faithful though crabbed translation。
Not that the result of his search is altogether satisfactory。 He enters into subtle and severe disquisitions concerning soul。 Whether it is one or many。 How it can be both one and many。 He has the strongest perception that； to use the noble saying of the Germans； 〃Time and Space are no gods。〃 He sees clearly that the soul； and the whole unseen world of truly existing being； is independent of time and space： and yet； after he has wrestled with the two Titans； through page after page； and apparently conquered them； they slip in again unawares into the battle… field； the moment his back is turned。 He denies that the one Reason has partsit must exist as a whole wheresoever it exists： and yet he cannot express the relation of the individual soul to it； but by saying that we are parts of it； or that each thing； down to the lowest； receives as much soul as it is capable of possessing。 Ritter has worked out at length； though in a somewhat dry and lifeless way； the hundred contradictions of this kind which you meet in Plotinus； contradictions which I suspect to be inseparable from any philosophy starting from his grounds。 Is he not looking for the spiritual in a region where it does not exist； in the region of logical conceptions and abstractions； which are not realities； but only； after all； symbols of our own； whereby we express to ourselves the processes of our own brain？ May not his Christian contemporaries have been nearer scientific truth； as well as nearer the common sense and practical belief of mankind； in holding that that which is spiritual is personal； and can only be seen or conceived of as residing in persons； and that that which is personal is moral； and has to do； not with abstractions of the intellect； but with right and wrong； love and hate； and all which； in the common instincts of men； involves a free will； a free judgment； a free responsibility and desert？ And that； therefore； if there were a Spirit； a Daemonic Element； an universal Reason； a Logos； a Divine Element； closely connected with man； that one Reason； that one Divine Element； must be a person also？ At least； so strong was the instinct of even the Heathen schools in this direction； that the followers of Plotinus had to fill up the void which yawned between man and the invisible things after which he yearned； by reviving the whole old Pagan Polytheism； and adding to it a Daemonology borrowed partly from the Chaldees； and partly from the Jewish rabbis； which formed a descending chain of persons； downward from the highest Deities to heroes； and to the guardian angel of each man； the meed of the philosopher being； that by self…culture and self…restraint he could rise above the tutelage of some lower and more earthly daemon； and become the pupil of a God； and finally a God himself。
These contradictions need not lower the great Father of Neoplatonism in our eyes； as a moral being。 All accounts of him seem to prove him to have been what Apollo； in a lengthy oracle； declared him to have been； 〃good and gentle； and benignant exceedingly； and pleasant in all his conversation。〃 He gave good advice about earthly matters； was a faithful steward of moneys deposited with him； a guardian of widows and orphans； a righteous and loving man。 In his practical life； the ascetic and gnostic element comes out strongly enough。 The body； with him； was not evil； neither was it good； it was simply nothingwhy care about it？ He would have no portrait taken of his person： 〃It was humiliating enough to be obliged to carry a shadow about with him； without having a shadow made of that shadow。〃 He refused animal food； abstained from baths； declined medicine in his last illness； and so died about 200 A。D。
It is in his followers； as one generally sees in such cases； that the weakness of his conceptions comes out。 Plotinus was an earnest thinker； slavishly enough reverencing the opinion of Plato； whom he quotes as an infallible oracle； with a 〃He says；〃 as if there were but one he in the universe： but he tried honestly to develop Plato； or what he conceived to be Plato； on the method which Plato had laid down。 His dialectic is far superior； both in quantity and in quality； to that of those who come after him。 He is a seeker。 His followers are not。 The great work which marks the second stage of his school is not an inquiry； but a justification； not only of the Egyptian； but of all possible theurgies and superstitions； perhaps the best attempt of the kind which the world has ever seen； that which marks the third is a mere cloud…castle； an inverted pyramid； not of speculation； but of dogmatic assertion； patched together from all accessible rags and bones of the dead world。 Some here will； perhaps； guess from my rough descriptions； that I speak of Iamblichus and Proclus。
Whether or not Iamblichus wrote the famous work usually attributed to hi
