alexandria and her schools-第17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！


　Iamblichus　and　Proclus。

Whether　or　not　Iamblichus　wrote　the　famous　work　usually　attributed　to　him；　which　describes　itself　as　the　letter　of　Abamnon　the　Teacher　to　Porphyry；　he　became　the　head　of　that　school　of　Neoplatonists　who　fell　back　on　theurgy　and　magic；　and　utterly　swallowed　up　the　more　rational；　though　more　hopeless；　school　of　Porphyry。　　Not　that　Porphyry；　too；　with　all　his　dislike　of　magic　and　the　vulgar　superstitionsa　dislike　intimately　connected　with　his　loudly　expressed　dislike　of　the　common　herd；　and　therefore　of　Christianity；　as　a　religion　for　the　common　herd　did　not　believe　a　fact　or　two；　which　looks　to　us；　nowadays；　somewhat　unphilosophical。　　From　him　we　learn　that　one　Ammonius；　trying　to　crush　Plotinus　by　magic　arts；　had　his　weapons　so　completely　turned　against　himself；　that　all　his　limbs　were　contracted。　　From　him　we　learn　that　Plotinus；　having　summoned　in　the　temple　of　Isis　his　familiar　spirit；　a　god；　and　not　a　mere　daemon；　appeared。　　He　writes　sensibly　enough　however　to　one　Anebos；　an　Egyptian　priest；　stating　his　doubts　as　to　the　popular　notions　of　the　Gods；　as　beings　subject　to　human　passions　and　vices；　and　of　theurgy　and　magic；　as　material　means　of　compelling　them　to　appear；　or　alluring　them　to　favour　man。　　The　answer　of　Abamnon；　Anebos；　Iamblichus；　or　whoever　the　real　author　may　have　been；　is　worthy　of　perusal　by　every　metaphysical　student；　as　a　curious　phase　of　thought；　not　confined　to　that　time；　but　rife；　under　some　shape　or　other；　in　every　age　of　the　world's　history；　and　in　this　as　much　as　in　any。　　There　are　many　passages　full　of　eloquence；　many　more　full　of　true　and　noble　thought：　　but　on　the　whole；　it　is　the　sewing　of　new　cloth　into　an　old　garment；　the　attempt　to　suit　the　old　superstition　to　the　new　one；　by　eclectically　picking　and　choosing；　and　special　pleading；　on　both　sides；　but　the　rent　is　only　made　worse。　　There　is　no　base　superstition　which　Abamnon　does　not　unconsciously　justify。　　And　yet　he　is　rapidly　losing　sight　of　the　real　eternal　human　germs　of　truth　round　which　those　superstitions　clustered；　and　is　really　further　from　truth　and　reason　than　old　Homer　or　Hesiod；　because　further　from　the　simple；　universal；　everyday　facts；　and　relations；　and　duties　of　man；　which　are；　after　all；　among　the　most　mysterious；　and　also　among　the　most　sacred　objects　which　man　can　contemplate。

It　was　not　wonderful；　however；　that　Neoplatonism　took　the　course　it　did。　Spirit；　they　felt　rightly；　was　meant　to　rule　matter；　it　was　to　be　freed　from　matter　only　for　that　very　purpose。　　No　one　could　well　deny　that。　The　philosopher；　as　he　rose　and　became；　according　to　Plotinus；　a　god；　or　at　least　approached　toward　the　gods；　must　partake　of　some　mysterious　and　transcendental　power。　　No　one　could　well　deny　that　conclusion；　granting　the　premiss。　　But　of　what　power？　　What　had　he　to　show　as　the　result　of　his　intimate　communion　with　an　unseen　Being？　　The　Christian　Schools；　who　held　that　the　spiritual　is　the　moral；　answered　accordingly。　　He　must　show　righteousness；　and　love；　and　peace　in　a　Holy　Spirit。　　That　is　the　likeness　of　God。　　In　proportion　as　a　man　has　them；　he　is　partaker　of　a　Divine　nature。　　He　can　rise　no　higher；　and　he　needs　no　more。　　Platonists　had　saidNo；　that　is　only　virtue；　and　virtue　is　the　means；　not　the　end。　We　want　proof　of　having　something　above　that；　something　more　than　any　man　of　the　herd；　any　Christian　slave；　can　perform；　something　above　nature；　portents　and　wonders。　　So　they　set　to　work　to　perform　wonders；　and　succeeded；　I　suppose；　more　or　less。　　For　now　one　enters　into　a　whole　fairyland　of　those　very　phenomena　which　are　puzzling　us　so　nowadays　ecstasy；　clairvoyance；　insensibility　to　pain；　cures　produced　by　the　effect　of　what　we　now　call　mesmerism。　　They　are　all　there；　these　modern　puzzles；　in　those　old　books　of　the　long　bygone　seekers　for　wisdom。　　It　makes　us　love　them；　while　it　saddens　us　to　see　that　their　difficulties　were　the　same　as　ours；　and　that　there　is　nothing　new　under　the　sun。　　Of　course；　a　great　deal　of　it　all　was　〃imagination。〃　　But　the　question　then；　as　now　is；　what　is　this　wonder…working　imagination？unless　the　word　be　used　as　a　mere　euphemism　for　lying；　which　really；　in　many　cases；　is　hardly　fair。　　We　cannot　wonder　at　the　old　Neoplatonists　for　attributing　these　strange　phenomena　to　spiritual　influence；　when　we　see　some　who　ought　to　know　better　doing　the　same　thing　now；　and　others；　who　more　wisely　believe　them　to　be　strictly　physical　and　nervous；　so　utterly　unable　to　give　reasons　for　them；　that　they　feel　it　expedient　to　ignore　them　for　awhile；　till　they　know　more　about　those　physical　phenomena　which　can　be　put　under　some　sort　of　classification；　and　attributed　to　some　sort　of　inductive　law。

But　again。　　These　ecstasies；　cures；　and　so　forth；　brought　them　rapidly　back　to　the　old　priestcrafts。　　The　Egyptian　priests；　the　Babylonian　and　Jewish　sorcerers；　had　practised　all　this　as　a　trade　for　ages；　and　reduced　it　to　an　art。　　It　was　by　sleeping　in　the　temples　of　the　deities；　after　due　mesmeric　manipulations；　that　cures　were　even　then　effected。　Surely　the　old　priests　were　the　people　to　whom　to　go　for　information。　The　old　philosophers　of　Greece　were　venerable。　　How　much　more　those　of　the　East；　in　comparison　with　whom　the　Greeks　were　children？　　Besides；　if　these　daemons　and　deities　were　so　near　them；　might　it　not　be　possible　to　behold　them？　　They　seemed　to　have　given　up　caring　much　for　the　world　and　its　course　…


Effugerant　adytis　templisque　relictis　Di　quibus　imperium　steterat。


The　old　priests　used　to　make　them　appearperhaps　they　might　do　it　again。　　And　if　spirit　could　act　directly　and　preternaturally　on　matter；　in　spite　of　the　laws　of　matter；　perhaps　matter　might　act　on　spirit。　After　all；　were　matter　and　spirit　so　absolutely　different？　　Was　not　spirit　some　sort　of　pervading　essence；　some　subtle　ethereal　fluid；　differing　from　matter　principally　in　being　less　gross　and　dense？　　This　was　the　point　to　which　they　went　down　rapidly　enough；　the　point　to　which　all　philosophies；　I　firmly　believe；　will　descend；　which　do　not　keep　in　sight　that　the　spiritual　means　the　moral。　　In　trying　to　make　it　mean　exclusively　the　intellectual；　they　will　degrade　it　to　mean　the　merely　logical　and　abstract；　and　when　that　is　found　to　be　a　barren　and　lifeless　phantom；　a　mere　projection　of　the　human　brain；　attributing　reality　to　mere　conceptions　and　names；　and　confusing　the　subject　with　the　object；　as　logicians　say　truly　the　Neoplatonists　did；　then　in　despair；　the　school　will　try　to　make　the　spiritual　something　real；　or；　at　least；　something　conceivable；　by　reinvesting　it　with　the　properties　of　matter；　and　talking　of　it　as　if　it　were　some　manner　of　gas；　or　heat；　or　electricity；　or　force；　pervading　time　and　space；　conditioned　by　the　accidents　of　brute　matter；　and　a　part　of　that　nature　which　is　born　to　die。

The　culmination　of　all　this　confusion　we　see　in　Proclus。　　The　unfortunate　Hypatia；　who　is　the　most　important　personage　between　him　and　Iamblichus；　has　left　no　writings　to　our　times；　we　can　only　judge　of　her　doctrine　by　that　of　her　instructors　and　her　pupils。　　Proclus　was　taught　by　the　men　who　had　heard　her　lecture；　and　the　golden　chain　of　the　Platonic　succession　descended　from　her　to　him。　　His　throne；　however；　was　at　Athens；　not　at　Alexandria。　　After　the　murder　of　the　maiden　philosopher；　Neoplatonism　prudently　retired　to　Greece。　　But　Proclus　is　so　essentially　the　child　of　the　Alexandrian　school　that　we　cannot　pass　him　over。　　Indeed；　according　to　M。　Cousin；　as　I　am　credibly　informed；　he　is　the　Greek　philosopher；　the　flower　and　crown　of　all　its　schools；　in　whom；　says　the　learned　Frenchman；　〃are　combined；　and　from　whom　shine　forth；　in　no　irregular　or　uncertain　rays；　Orpheus；　Pythagoras；　Plato；　Aristotle；　Zeno；　Plotinus；　Porphyry；　and　Iamblichus；〃　and　who　〃had　so　comprehended　all　religions　in　his　mind；　and　paid　them　such　equal　reverence；　that　he　was；　as　it　were；　the　priest　of　the　whole　universe！〃

I　have　not　the　honour　of　knowing　much　of　M。　Cousin's　works。　　I　never　came　across　them　but　on　one　small　matter　of　fact；　and　on　that　I　found　him　copying　at　second　hand　an　anachronism　which　one　would　have　conceived　palpable　to　any　reader　of　the　original　authorities。　　This　is　all　I　know　of　him；　saving　these　his　raptures　over　Proclus；　of　which　I　have　quoted　only　a　small　portion；　and　of　which　I　can　only　say；　in　Mr。　Thomas　Carlyle's　words；　〃What　things　men　will　worship；　in　their　extreme　need！〃　Other　moderns；　however；　have　expressed　their　admiration　of　Proclus；　and；　no　doubt；　many　neat　sayings　may　be　found　in　him　（for　after　all　he　was　a　Greek）；　which　will　be　both　pleasing　and　useful　to　those　who　consider　philosophic　method　to　consist　in　putting　forth　strings　of　brilliant　apophthegms；　careless　about　either　their　consistency　or　coherence：　　but　of　the　method　of　Plato　or　Aristotle；　any　more　than　of　that　of　Kant　or　Mill；　you　will　find　nothing　in　him。　　He　seems　to　my　simplicity　to　be　at　once　the　most　timid　and　servile　of　commentators；　and　the　most　cloudy　of　declaimers。　　He　can　rave　symbolism　like　Jacob　Bohmen；　but　without　an　atom　of　his　originality　and　earnestness。　　He　can　develop　an　inverted　pyramid　of　daemonology；　like　Father　Newman　himself；　but　without　an　atom　of　his　art；　his　knowledge　of　human　cravings。　　He　combines　all　schools；　truly；　Chaldee　and　E