moreta.s Plotinus, at t
: out here that such a representation of the yyworucos 1s not found in Philo and in peculiar to Clement, but is rather due to the Platonizing restresses the importance o ligious Stimmung ofthe first centuries A.D. The image of the Stoic the Stoic conception of .
+4 sapiens' strongly influenced the pictures which such authors as f hand in De Gig. 51
| Philo, Apuleius, and Plotinus gave of the perfect man. Clement's can be a higher life than description of the yvwortxds is worth comparing with the ana- ; to the kooporoAirns; suc logous descriptions which occur at the end of the first book of \ with the world of the id | Philo's De Providentia,? in the second book of De Platone of Apuq thoughts of God himsel : leius,3 and, as Witt has observed, in the fourth book of the first q bcod Sé dvOpwror iepets Ka Ennead of Plotinus (especially from chapter 4 on) bearing ris mapa TH Koop tv the title [ept eddarpovias.* ? aicOnrov av trepxvipavr
Kaketh. wKnoav, eyypad 6. The highest moral ideal is expressed in Clement not only by moreta.s Plotinus, at t the term d7d8eva, but also by the Platonic formula which occurs
| maintains that the life o in Theaetetus 176 b, spotwors Oe Kard. 70 Svvarov. It represents, | which is connected with | in Clement's thought, the true human réAos.s Compared with which is that of the god it, the Stoic formula dxodovbws rij ddcer Civ, which Clement had rov Tod ayabod dv d£vot 7 adopted in the inferior ethics ofperpro7dBera, is rejected without i karadumev, dAdov S& édX any hesitation: évredfev of Srwikol 76 dxodovbws rH pice Civ
Cait@>... 7) dpotwors, E réQos elvat Soypdricay, Tov Bedv els pdow perovopdoavres ampeT@s, tained in these two passag Strom. ii. 101. 1.6 Just as prerpromdbeva is no longer sufficient in Clement's temporary ado | moral perfection, but must become ddéeia, in the same way the I sequent rejection.
Stoic formula dxoAovOws rH} ducer Civ, which fits the lower ethics, a H. Merki has made a appears to be worthless at the higher ethical level, and must
. pression duotwors Ge in therefore be replaced by dpuoiwors eG. A similar idea can be Greek Christian authors u rf a sine seanieain Clea sents, without any doubt 100-1, does not seem to like very much the presence of Stoic features in Glemen' atte s made { description of the yrwarixds: 'Une inquiétude cependant nous prenden lisant ces
' fempis mace to define lignes, N'avons-nous pas trouvé ailleurs des pensées analogues et des philosophes assumes in the works of 'ad paiens n'ont-ils pas parlé & peu prés dans les mémes termes que Clément? ... Ses
: know exactly what Cle conseils rendent un son qui n'est pas exclusivement chrétien,' entirely satished after rea 1 Plato also, however, has given a similar picture of the philosopher in the i fe satisfied after rea Phaedo (see above, p. 105 n. 2); the way in which he describes the Sixavos in the to uim.° Here I shall second book of the Republic (ii. 361 ¢, cf. p. 68 above) should also be taken into Merki's conclusions and account, "
2 Sce particularly §§ 56, 62, 63, 64, 66, and 69 Aucher, P. Wendland, Philos?
Schrift tiber die Vorsehung, 17 f., has pointed out the Stoic origin of the ideas which q 7 5 Philo also praises the Platon underlie Philo's description of the iustus.
2 2.8 and De Opif. M. 144
3 See particularly §§ 248, 249, 250, 252, and 253 Thomas.
- if 7Z 39 in Die Stoa ii, 184). O 4 See Witt, CQ.25 (1931), 203 n. 13. ace a Philo, which is connect 5 See Clement's eulogy of the Platonic dpofwars in Strom. ii, 100. 3.
© ey later on (see chapter III, 6 Hmpends is Stahlin's correction of the edxperds of L. This correction is ab4 e Merki, 'Onotwors Oe.. solutely necessary, since Clement could never have said rév Bedv els pdow perovo~ pubis ce W. Jaeger's review of pdoavres edmperrdis about the Stoics, against whose materialism he does not conceal
J 'roe in his Scripta Minora ( his polemical attitude (see chapter I, p. 48 above). i | ee Merki, 45-60.
ETHICS * . correspondences between Clement, Philo, and Neoplatonism { the true image of the d which, as far as I can see, Merki has not worked out.
H nb war' eked WAP C The first thing to observe is that Clement is inclined to bring xpany rinov Eyovros), o the word dpoiwors which he found in the Theaetetus into conthe fact that it depends
* E if . f , sas Z necnen iy ith thespoiwors of Gen. a TOU OOREY HA vices | | so that it may always rem kar' euKova THETEPGY Kat SOHO Re ¢ oes not consider the two | This is what Philo implie expressions kar' elxdva and Ka@" Guotwow as synonyms: whereas mean =~
, ed pore y J yenova voov ev uy, S the expression xa' eixéva means for him that man, when he was Say altvire fo énacolovt FS i * :
# created, was given by Goda rational faculty which was a copy Virt. 205 (v. 329. 10ff.). press] i a v i of the divine Logos, the image of God, the expression Kad oléy re #v remind us of dpotwow does not refer, in his opinion, to the natural kinship whereas: the weriterice:. Sd fs .
= - . with God which man has possessed since his creation, but points exaxodovijcavra. tals Too : ae cw — MONO fcuk igs the contrary to the moral pet fection which man must reach
| practical realization of oz during his life by practising virtue. In other words, whereas the the Theaetetus and Genesi eixev is a natural possession of everybody, dpolwars is achieved id By means of a careful \ by means ofpersonal efforts.? That this must have been Clement's
| Merki has shown what, | .
+: se os yi view is shown by the passage of Strom. ii. 131. 5 (i. 185. 23 8), ; Ge: steadfastness (p. 4 where he saaeeco moor 9 thea CHOIwoTs: with the i purity and contemplation dpoiwors of Genesis: todro dé [sc. per ection] év émoripy Tod God (p. 52), separation f dyabos riBera [sc. Plato] Kai ev eopousoer ri pds tov Bedv ; the intellioi a pa Y oe aoa ls "SOM ri PRS eee i with theintelligible realit OLoLMaW drropaivdeevos SiKavov KGL OOLOV era dpovijcews €lvat . j religiousness (p. 54) fo # ody obrws Tues TOV HueTepwv? 76 pev "Kar" eikdva'?® ed0éws Kara
] OVX s NHETEP' i ; absence of needs (p. 56), { ri yeveow eilyndévar Tov dvOpwrov, 76 "kal? dpoiwaw" Sé borepov Among thes : S | as Nelnow dnd rrodaipévew dmo8e i ( P| Among these topics that o kata Thy TeAdelwow péMew arrohapBavew dmodexovrar;
Tiere we ] separation from the sens cannot speak, as perhaps Volker would, of 'platonische Wortlaut I . intelligible realities are c und christlicher Inhalt' or of a 'christliche Umdeutung einer iharelivs. deserved mot } platonischen Formel'; on the contrary, the passage of Theaetetus tempted i armada al
£ ypted in the next chap oe mee sony te feck + tendockeal ; ] (BeBaidrys), religiousness ement was led to consider dpoiwots Fe@ as rodu q arealeancharacteriaty ey Ss PEe e also characteristic of human effort by Philo. Although Philo, in De Opif. M. 71, seems shown. das " ee .
R to regard the expressions Kar <tkova and Kal? dyoiwow as It is especially the con synonyms, in so far as he thinks that Moses added the words
| | that litiks Clement' both al' Suotwow in order to make it clear that human reason was | i See = * Cf. chapter I, p. 15 above.
; reste oe IIL, pp. 163 ff.
Z. os this point sec especially the pertinent remarks of A. Mayer, 6-7. Cf. also auftauchenden Probleme, sad Merki, 53 n. 3.
Clemeris:-eiis ieee 3 The expression rus rar Yperépav refers most probably to the Christian siliee teachers of Clement among whom Pantaenus must be included (cf. Strom. i. 11. 1-2, of Merki's. book, Scripta Micra vol, ii. 8. 18-9. 3).
© Bew-thosgueitan sonal + On the close relationship between philosophy and interpretation of Scripture d See VeLCeei ae see my remarks on pp. 57/1. above.
; 319, and 330 pt ritt und . a I I " a6 ETHICS | - .
« § ae Porphyry, Sent. xxii (p.
Since God is, by his own nature, in dae amla riaN % mpds rev B ' ole the total awafea oS follows that CALS be mCane for Clement ; Idem, De Abst. ii. 43 (1 as the following evidence shows:
Snnbelon Strom. ii. 103.
1 (ii. 169. 24-5): 9 ye way Kaprepta. Kat auTT ets THY | In this way, it is poss by "y "a a > Gelav Spotwow Pidlerat, bv drropovijs dadBevav gona ee . spondences between Cl Strom. iv, 138.
(ii. 309. 11-13): PURE EPUTTS OUTS: or) presence, in all of them er yéyovev dmalelas, oxfjpa Oetov eera ol andbewa; the tendency "
Bet ee v5 it rs} vov TO OLA THY Strom. iv. 147.
1 (ite 313. 14 15): maine ah ree na, .
' and consequently also so +6 Oetov é if » arabh Kat évdpetov yeveoPar. mpos TO Betonee Lee ctw ssiasrrteke nO eboee dndéea. Clement's ethi y .
Vii. 12,3 (ill, 10. 23 f.) : e€oprocovpev DO 'YVYWOT TD Q '
NLR a SE 10E2S reat :
Philo and of Neoplatoni 70 arabes KexTnpEevo.
MPavicea % one Strom. vii. 84, 2 (iii. 60. 5 ff.) : drraBelas, kal? fy 4 redelwors, eopororTaurus, and Albinus wh pern Oe:
( the ethics of perpromdBer Siréiiii Wii, 86; 5 (iii. 61. 32-62. 1): perd yrocews 7a 740 7h yoyuxd But there are some ot dzepptibacbe, els 76 CEoporoscbar don Svvajus 7H dyabdrnrt ris TOO
{ ofduotwors which it is n Oe08 mpovolas.?
| also Christ is das. A ' j men to heal and moder Philo also maintains several times that God is without any nee here the teacher and mo and completely dabjs:5_ this implies that for him as well coe euane : ir > a Strom. v.
94. i.388. dpolwors be@ is one and the same thing with dwd@ea. The met pa a Vsss om t . hee ae oor ' j Pact , ave pwr a a dpotwors which we have observe:
A gas combination af eo a i t .
Strom. vi. 71. 2 (ii. 467. in Clement occurs also in Neopiatonism; MW Strom. vii. 7. 2 (iii. 7. 4) .
P E = yo \ Strom. vii.
Plotinus, Enn. i. 2. 3: viv 8 rovadrqy diddeow rijs uyijs, Kal" jv Strom. vii ihe . te / i f A "
SS n if d (QU. 51. voet te Kal dmrabis obtrws eoriv, et Tis dpoiwaw A€you mpos Oedv, Behe F 5 ete het apxijs, 6 Ktpios 6 diA OUK av apapTravol. a . au Idem, Enn. i. 2. 6: % 3¢ dvdpeta dvdBea Kab? Spotwow rod mpos 0
It is Christ whom men '
Pareret, arabes dv ri ddow.s | dpoiwors with the anabi a | Bidlerar tH SiSackdrw 1 See, for instance, Strom. ii. 40. 1 (ii. 134. 10), ii. 72, 2 (ii. 151, sa th ees (ii.
Twa Kupiaxiy AaBdw ets . ae mn 155+ 15ff.), iv. 151.
4 (ii. 31516 ME),v. 24. 2 (iis 341. 2), Vie 73-6 (Hh a! nN | 5é eLopootcbar omedSo 137. 4
Boden, Mask, cothétschbiers ng DAE. een GW. Butterworth, 778 ' As far as we can sce from t Spolwars beg and dxdBeva re Clements ee ra Fe Pohlenz NGA phil. hist seems to be the only expone 17 (1916), 158 93oe age ae sist Gnostiker... ee 1 dzd@ea instead of perpromdbev Kl. (1943), 166; T.
167-8 That Clemen's q non posse dicit Plato nisi... pur Wytzes, VC9 (1955), 1493 and J. Waszink, Entretiens Hardt ii.
That Clement '| C. Moreschini, Studi sul 'De do views are similar to those of Philo and of Neoplatonism has, however, not been
=. Thig-solecof Christ Lins be pointed out.
Pa Po * A. Koch, ZAM 1932), 363 See. instance, De Opif. M.
8, Leg. Alleg. iii. 2, iii, 81 and 203, De Cher.
» <AM 7 (1932), 363 Cene PO eepel cae key oi, hy DAPI © gat wahren Scelenarzt, dem Heil 46,86, De Sart. Ab C 10% amg ins.
, der affektlosen Liebe den Weg Qi 4h ae 7s 225 saci si ela of Plotinus. q wahren Seelenfrieden weist' ( Per are he Cie eg nine thi fuller reproduced BN POPBRV ase, Seal and Merki, 57-60. Merki, 50 These wore of FloGinupare-faithial peeprocucec:
BY EOE RyRy a ieihNaeheXs quoted above without making p. 20.
16-18). oa ETHICS dvemOdpnror .. . yevéabar Budlovras, Strom. vii. 72. 13 obros jpiv { andea ei elKav i } axnAidwros, Tour mavrt abéver meipatéov e€opovoby Ty | a ; sy a) i .! This helps also to understand the meaning
| emphasis on the autarky Puxiir, Patd. ive 3 a P | cardinal virtues, and on of the following passages: passions by submitting th Strom. iv. 152.
(ii. 315. 25-6): els 58 rH ardBeav Beovpevos 6 j and by obeying the law dvOpartos dxpdvrws povaducds ylverat. eo i As far as the highest ethic Strom. iv. 157. 2 (ii. 318, 5f.): 818 kal 73 els adroy Kal 76 51° adro#
| goes far beyond the limi aricrretik HOADLEY wise ies acl ; bh Bidet i] which seems to have bee Strom. vi. 87. 2 (Hl. 475BES ae era eC: Ti FO SOT
| simple moderation of pas AROMAS | ethical stage, a prelimina It must be remembered that Clement identifies Christ, the Logos,
; ! itself can only be achieve with the povds: both the Logos and the intelligible world which il passions, which alone can for him are one and the same thing are called by him povds.?
By considering perfection Clement, as we shall see later on, found this doctrine in Philo, | ethical stage and by iden who also identifies the intelligible world with the Logos and calls
| the Platonic formula dpo it povds.3 This is the reason why Clement, when speaking about i ment both with Philo the perfection of man, uses such terms as povadiuxds Or povds: points 5 and 6 ofour inqu since Christ, the Logos, is the povds, man must become povadixcds
; And yet there is someth as well in order to reach the dyoiwais with God. The passages i Philo, Middle Platonism, quoted above reproduce therefore nothing more than the doc- | features of Clement's et trine of dpotwors from the point of view ofthe Philonic doctrine, d Philo and of the expone accepted by Clement. i platonism; if Clement's r appears in the ethics of P The whole structure of Clement's ethical system. appear toy
) which the practical achi deeply influenced by the ethical doctrines of Philo, of Middle | and of their destruction | Platonism, and of Neoplatonism. The syneretism of Elatonig,
{ Clement on the one hand, q Stoic, and Aristotelian elements which can be observed in the tradition on the other. Du first four points which have formed the objectof our nq to point out that, for Cle j is practically the same in Clement, in Philo, in Middle Platonism, i the task of healing the * The use ofthe expression eixdy deqAlBwros may menaml pea a , gradually towards perfect 4 Philo also, in describing the highest perfection of man, uses the term povds?
{ origin, by no means suffi see the passages of Quod D. ss ie oy vias der: mei aaah gam q passions and then their t pt ar ema "9 533 Peeing phate with these the divinity itself, i.e. the passages of Philo, It must, however, be remembered that both in Clement and in h against the man, in his ef Philo the terms povds and povadixds hint at the Logos, and not at God, as Volker
For Philo also the divine seems to believe (pp. 532-3). Both for Clement and for Philo God is above the povds (see chapter III, p. 216 below). That for Clement the term povadiuxds hints
{ See pp. 96—7-and 111,above at the Logos is also proved by the fact that the passage of Strom. iv. 157.2 which is 2 For: Phil ules 'the Logos i introduced by the causal preposition bd comes immediately after the passage of (ii, 106. 1-2) warbloner viéy.
\ Strom. iv. 156. 1-2, where the vids is described as wdvra &, .
| i 'j mi ETHICS as we have seen, a most important role in ethics; but even simply means the 'excelle when he is represented as the perpetual source of virtues," he the seers, the poets, and remains still the immanent law of the universe in the Stoic and poipa can scarcely mean a Platonic sense? and consequently is only the ethical norm for tion by which these peopl man ;3 and when he heals human passions, he is scarcely more in the Timaeus as coming than this law and the activity of human reason which is derived
: the contemplation of the from him. For the Christian Clement the Logos, though still universe which enables m accomplishing these functions,* does not limit himself to them: his soul ;? and the philoso he is not simply the impersonal law of vous and of ethics, nor : from the bonds of the bod does he represent only human reason; being one and the same the activity of human ¢pé thing with Christ, his intervention in the human sphere is far in the Philebus, and in the more concrete and personal: he teaches, he educates, he guides, as the highest metaphysic ua P ysical principle he is the za:Saywyés,5 both when he is a metaphy sical Princip ;
2 Nino Gi) CHELS: and after his descent on the earth, when he acts as a historica 2 In the sentence &€ dv énop erson. The Adyos bia rob madaywyod mrapadiSdepevos of which words é€ dy refer to thecontem P i A tes : imply the virtue originated the immediately preceding clause Clement speaks in Paed. iii. 35; 2 1s not simply ee "146 a q to the relationship between the h by the universal Logos of the Porch and of Philo:® the wor ; passage of Timaeus 47 b 6-c 4 is Swot
Sdpevos hint also at the direct an kariSdvres mepiddous xpnoalueba Sid 708 madaywyod mapabiddpevos ovyyeveis éxelvais obaas, drapdroi personal intervention of the Son of God.
; ie dvow dpbérnros peraaxdvres, ppo Also in the case of Plato and of the whole Platonic tradition Sy det venlavniidvas) kuractiuudu ie Fi .
* direct interventi ivi In Timaeus 39 ¢ 7 the Demiu speak of a direct intervention of the divinity : ut is not possible to ape ak
Pl in the Meno, speaks of described as 'the best of the cause in human ethics. It is true that Plato, ena 9 eee , of the intelligible beings', rv von dpery as being granted to some men 6eig polpg;7 that, in the G. Miiller, Zetemata 3 (1951), 81Ti I resents philosophy as coming from heaven ;* and q passages of Timaeus 29a 5-6 an imaeus, 1é rep:
Ricans he task of freeing the Timaeus both with the airia of P that, in the Phaedo, he gives philosophy the tas idea of good which in the Republic > . ert of the Af i p soul from the bonds of the body.? But the dper# of the Meno ovata (Rep. vi. 509 a 4-5, 50 b 8 fe a, é } vois (300 5-7, airla ob gavhy, x r 1 See particularly the passage of De Plant. 121 (ii. 157. 13-14) quoted on p.
Aeyonévn, cf. 30.€ 1, vods Core yé above. x. 897 b 1-2 also the highest princ 2 Not only for the Porch but also for Plato the universe a6 ene is a ' is represented as vods: vodv pay immanent, rational law which is practically one and the Same ANS wae daluova madaywyet wdvra (I fo world-soul : see the evidence quoted in chapter III, p. 210 below. eencenala Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1956).
3 See pp. 75-6, 93-4 above.
; _,* See pp. o) : es vareedl vobs-airia of the Philebus, the vods 5 These functions of Christ appear particularly evident in the EAR RIRNS 3 SER8 "amanent in the universe and pr F tyra
AS 7 at Sidd i radayeF bs for instance, Paed. iii. 9g. 1 (i. 290. 9), wavra 6 Adyos more? Kat SiddoKer Kal ¥ 84 ff, seems to believe; it remain oak ; both fromt he expression mpoaAa 6 On this passage of the Paedagogus see also p. 64 above. say) ape mea | between the world-soul and the vo
Meno 99 € 5-6 and 100 b 2-3. Clement quotes these 'passages of t a : meee:
S considered as an 'image' of the m Strom. v. 83. 2-4. and regards the dper mentioned in them as hinting at ¢ ee antl "97 € 4-5, 898 a 5~6): Plato alway virtue of the perfect Christian (cf. p. 66, above and sponte
1 on io gee out the distinction between the s page); he uses both passages also as evidence insupport of his views abou realities, H. Gérgemanns, Zetema | esoteric character of gnosis (see pp. 144 ff. below). do, NS "Der Nus tritt also erneut 8 Tim. 47 b 1-2.
—_ stacepereneenn arth ret zur Seele gehérigen Funktio { 9° Phaedo 83 a 2-3, ofrw mapadraBodea pirooodia Exoveay abray ri Yuxiy npepa abh, 'ngige Wesenheit zu sein, die | wiuiajuebitrar vil. nen Goegepels "antial identity between the vods
ETHICS ft directly in his fight against pleasures and desires, nor does it — ism appears to be perfe guide him towards moral perfection; like the Logos of the Porch
] that the Son of God c and of Philo, it is only the cause of the harmony of the universe, | of mankind and is als which represents also the pattern of human morals.' A kind of | fecnon y/o the other h guardianship of man is allotted to the inferior astral gods, both
| which Clement, under in the Timaeus and in the tenth book of the Laws;? but this i Neoplatonism, has adop guardianship, as far as the ethical field is concerned, goes scarcely
When we Des from th .
. r a Ce a beyond the task of punishing the transgressors of the law.3 The sented by dzdea and . r| ; maiSeta of the Platonic philosopher is not originated by the conof gnosis, Moral perfecti stant intervention of the divine vods in the human sphere, but which man must satisfy it is simply the result of the activity of human ¢pévnos: the with the help of Christ, divinity helps man only in so far as it drops in him that divine
1S admitted into the hi element which becomes his reason.* These considerations conThe function which Ch cerning Plato are also valid for the whole Platonic school-tradition
! level by enabling man up to Neoplatonism.s Only some utterances ofMaximus of Tyre | | the exact counterpart o seem to recall Clement's Christian conceptions.$ of gnosis. To this most i . e .
' re i A In Clement's conception of Christ the ideal of dmd#eva, which 7] Clement from Philo, Mi the Old Porch had formulated and which both Philo and Neo- | brings him into direct c platonism have inherited, assumes a concrete shape: in the role shall have occasion to c he plays in ethics the synthesis between Christianity and HellenPhilebus, and the vois ofthe tenth book of the Laws, sce R. Hackforth, CQ 30 (1936),
P| 1 On the transcendent yods as cause of the rational order and harmony of the | | universe see particularly Philebus 28¢2-6, 30¢5-7,
Timaeus 30a 5-6, Laws | x. 897 b 1-3, 897 c 4-7 (this vods should not be identified with the world-soul, { about which see chapter III, p, 210 below; on this important distinction between q the transcendent vods and the immanent world-soul in the Philebus, Timaeus, and i '
Laws x sce R. Hackforth, CQ 30 (1936), 4 and 7). As to the conception according J to which the harmony of the universe is the pattern of human morals see the J passage of Timaeus 47 b 6-c 4 quoted above, p. 115 n. 2. Plato's sentence in Laws
| x. 897b 2, wadaywye? rdvra, to which W. Jaeger, Early Christianity and Greek Paideia, 66, draws attention, scarcely implies anything more than this conception
(Plato says that the world-soul radaywyet mdvra since it, in his opinion, is the cause of the harmony of the universe which reflects itself also in human morals).
2 See, for instance, Timaeus 41 d 1-3, Laws x. 900 c g-d 1, 902 ¢ 1-2.
) | 3 See Laws x. 904 € 2-905 b 8, | | 4 See the passage of Timaeus 41 ¢ 7-d 1 quoted in chapter I, footnote 4, p. 23
| f 5 Plutarch, De sera Num. Vind. 550 d-e, expounds the same views about the 9] | close relationship between the harmonyofthe universe and human morals which | | we have noticed in Timacus 47 b 6-c4 (cf. footnote 2, p. 115 above): al 77y
Siw abrds ofros 6 dvip [sc. Plato] dvdyac dol viv dvow ev typiv, dmws tnd Oéas rév ev obpavd depopevar Kat Gatparos domdLeabar kal dyandy eBLouévy 73 edoxnHoY
| 4 Yuy} Kal reraypévov dmexOdvqras Tots dvappdorois Kal mhavyrois mdBeor... AS to Plotinus, see chapter III, p. 171 below.
® Or, xxxviii. 134 a. This passage is quoted in footnote 2, p. 66 above.