The Hellenism of Clement of Alexandria1

R. E. Witt

doi:10.1017/S0009838800014233

The Hellenism of Clement of Alexandria1

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009

R. E. Witt

Show author details

R. E. Witt: Affiliation:
Trinity College, Cambridge

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

In seeking to understand the development of philosophy in later antiquity it is important to take account of Clement of Alexandria, perhaps the first Christian writer to be greatly influenced by the systems of Greece. Accordingly in this article certain aspects of Clement's doctrine will be selected for examination where his obligations to the philosophers have apparently hitherto received insufficient attention. In a valuable paper Mr. R. P. Casey has dealt with many important points, but there is room for further exploration, both by the philological method and by a careful comparison of corresponding ideas in Clement and Plotinus. I am here concerned to stress resemblances rather than to prove, for instance, that any direct connection exists between Neoplatonism and Alexandrian theology. It is nevertheless not irrevelant to mention that Ammonius Saccas, the professor whose lectures both Origen the Christian and Plotinus were to attend, and who, besides being a Platonist, if not the founder of Neoplatonism, was also an apostate Christian, had probably begun to attract attention in Alexandria at the time when Clement was head of the Christian School there, in which perhaps Ammonius himself had been originally educated. There seems nothing to prevent the assumption that Ammonius and Clement were known at least by name to each other, and perhaps the philosopher under whom Plotinus was to study for eleven years had even sat by the side of Clement at the feet of Pantaenus, the erstwhile Stoic and founder of the Catechetical School. However that may be, both Neoplatonism and Alexandrian theology show a markedly similar tendency, and in the Enneads and the Stromateis there are many equivalent features.

Type: Research Article
Information: The Classical Quarterly , Volume 25 , Issue 3-4 , June 1931 , pp. 195 - 204

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838800014233 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Classical Association 1931

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 195 note 2} Harv. Th. Rev. 18 (1925)Google Scholar.

^{page 195 note 3} See an article by Heinemann, F., Hermes, 1926Google Scholar.

^{page 195 note 4} ‘Peut–être même élevé dans l'école des Catéchumènes,’ Ravaisson, , Essai sur la métaph. d' Arist. (1846) II, 372Google Scholar; see also Bidez, , Vie de Porph. 12, 69Google Scholar.

^{page 195 note 5} ‘Clemens in Plato lebt und webt.’ Bousset, , Jüd.-chr. Schulbetr. 227Google Scholar.

^{page 195 note 6} Pr. 64. Contrast Plot. V, i, 8. 9.

^{page 195 note 7} Pr. 66, 4–5. Stählin for Arist. compares De mund. 397b, and for Theoph, . Cic. N.D. I, 35Google Scholar.

^{page 195 note 8} 68, 1.

^{page 195 note 9} Ep. VII, 341c.

^{page 195 note 10} St. V, 77, 1.

^{page 195 note 11} Ibid. VI, 61, 3.

^{page 196 note 1} 72. 4–5.

^{page 196 note 2} Mittl. St. 430, 436. Cf. perhaps Cic. N.D. I, 27.

^{page 196 note 3} Cf. St. VI, 156, 5, where Homer is used as by Epict, . Dis. I, 14, 9Google Scholar.

^{page 196 note 4} Stähl. III, p. 220, 1. 10: κατὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν καὶ ἐν ἑκάστῳ St. VII, 16, 5: ἰδίᾳ τε ἑκάστοις καὶ κοινῇ πᾶσιν, εἷς ὢν σωτήρ.

^{page 196 note 5} Nemes, . N. Hom. 58Google Scholar: ὄλη δι' ὄλον ϰωρεȋ καί τοȗ Φωτος ἑαντῆς καί τοȗ σώματος

^{page 196 note 6} E.g. V, i, 2 (Müll. II, 1431¹⁴). VI, iv. v, passim.

^{page 196 note 7} Cf. the Valentinian, view, Exc.ex. Theod. 17, 1Google Scholar.

^{page 196 note 8} Pr. 98, 4.

^{page 196 note 9} IV, iii, 17. VI, iv, 9. Also Cyr, Hermes. c. Jul. I, 556, BGoogle Scholar.

^{page 196 note 10} If my contention in C.Q. XXIV, 206, is sound. Cf. ἀπαύγασμα Φωτός, Soph. Sal. 7, 25

^{page 196 note 11} The Platonic term, instead of N.T. ἀγάπη (which, however, is used in St. VI, 71, 4. 104, 1), illustrates Clement's belief in an amor intelleciualis Dei.

^{page 196 note 12} Pr. 117, 2.

^{page 196 note 13} I, 51, 1.

^{page 196 note 14} E.g. Ben. I, 10, V, 17 (after discounting rhetoric).

^{page 197 note 1} IV, viii, 1.

^{page 197 note 2} Like Plotinus (III, vi, 5E), overfeeding of the body is held by Clement to corrupt the pneuma around the soul (Paid. II, 17, 3. Cf. St. VI, 52, 2. 136, I. II, 115, 3 sqq. Cf. Herm. X, 13,16). For Clement's ascetic view see St. VII, 79, 6. IV, 9, 4. But against the Gnostics Clement, no less than Plotinus, , stresses mens sana in corpore sano (St. IV, 17, 4 sqqGoogle Scholar. IV, 22, 1).

^{page 197 note 3} St. I, 72, 4.

^{page 197 note 4} Chalc, . in Tim. 295Google Scholar. Like Plutarch and Atticus, Clement deduces a Platonic belief in a Devil, (St. V, 92, 5)Google Scholar.

^{page 197 note 5} Cf. Eus, . Pr. Ev. 537cGoogle Scholar.

^{page 197 note 6} St. II, 74. Else God were μερικῶς ἁμαρτάνων.

^{page 197 note 7} See Hatch, , Infl. of Greek Ideas on Church, p. 274, n. 2Google Scholar. Cf. Exc. ex Theod. 50, 2.

^{page 197 note 8} SVF III, 246.

^{page 197 note 9} St. VII, 88, 5.

^{page 197 note 10} IV, vii, 15. Cf. IV, iv, 28 (Müll. II, 67³⁴).

^{page 197 note 11} St. VI, 113, 3. VII, 101, 4.

^{page 197 note 12} Ibid. IV, 149, 8. See also Theiler, , Problemata, I, 109Google Scholar.

^{page 197 note 13} E.g. Albinus, , Didasc. 165, 1. 5Google Scholar, Herm. Apuleius, Apol. 64 ad fin.

^{page 197 note 14} For Plot. in relation to Clem cf. Casey, p. 75 sqq., in relation to Theiler, Albinus, op. cit. 57Google Scholar.

^{page 197 note 15} St. V, 71, 3.

^{page 197 note 16} See Theiler, , op. cit. 57Google Scholar. Enn. III, viii, 10E. V, iii, 17E. V, v, 13. VI, vii, 38. VI, viii, 21.

^{page 197 note 17} ‘Nemo nouit Deum,’ Sen. Ep. 31, 10.

^{page 197 note 18} St. V, 71, 3.

^{page 197 note 19} Casey is right (I think) in doubting the truth of Dr. Inge's assertion that Clement feels an objection to placing God beyond Reality. (This in spite of St. IV, 162, 5.) Pantaenus had already taken this step (Stählin, III, p. 224, 1. 20).

^{page 198 note 1} Plut. 393c, 354. Numen, . Macrob, . Sat. I, 17, 65Google Scholar. Plot. V, v, 6. Cratyl. 405c (cited by Bury, , C.R. XXXIII, 45Google Scholar) is different.

^{page 198 note 2} St. I, 164, 3.

^{page 198 note 3} St. V, 82, 1.

^{page 198 note 4} III, viii, 9. Cf. VI, ix, 3: γνῶσις ε;ἴδεσιν ἐπερειδομένη, and0 VI, ix, 6.

^{page 198 note 5} St. V, 71, 1.

^{page 198 note 6} See Reitzenstein, , Hellen. Myst. 235, 306Google Scholar.

^{page 198 note 7} 370c. λογὸς περινοητικός is Hermetic.

^{page 198 note 8} Qu. D. Imm.78. What follows in § 79 may be influenced by Posidonius.

^{page 198 note 9} IX, 32. XI, 1.

^{page 198 note 10} VI, ix, 11. Cf. IV, viii, 7E.

^{page 198 note 11} Cf. Pr. 68, 5.

^{page 198 note 12} The term first appears in Theophilus, II, 15.

^{page 198 note 13} I, viii, 2. V, i, 8. VI, vii, 42.

^{page 198 note 14} Apol. I, 60. Cont. Cels. VI, 18.

^{page 198 note 15} Hippolyt, . Elench. VI, 37Google Scholar.

^{page 198 note 16} Geffcken, , Zwei gr. Ap. 212Google Scholar(on Athenagoras, , Presb. 23)Google Scholar. Apul, . Apol. 64Google Scholar.

^{page 198 note 17} St. VII, 9, 2. Cf. Enn. V, iii, 15: τὸ μὴ ἔν τῷ ἑνὶ σώζεται. Procl, . Inst. Theol. 13Google Scholar (Select Passages XXI, Dodds).

^{page 198 note 18} II, ix, 8, 9. Ill, ii, 3. V, i. 4. See also Herm. XV, 17.

^{page 198 note 19} St. VII, 78, 6. Enn. Ill, iv, 3. Clement (after Philo, , De fort. 9)Google Scholar regards the σπονδαȋος as μεθόριος between a mortal and an immortal nature (St. II, 81, 2). For Plutarch the demons are ὤσπερ ἐν μεθορίῳ θεῶν καί ἀν θρώπων (416c), and for Plotinus the soul is μεθόριος ὂμορος, between the Sensible and the Intelligible World (Enn. IV, iv, 3, E. IV, viii, 7), with which cf. Nemesius, , N. Hom. 14Google Scholar. , Hipp.El. VI. 23, 2Google Scholar, etc., ‘medioximi,’ , Apul.Plat I, 95, 7Google Scholar.

^{page 198 note 20} Gig. 6, 7.

^{page 198 note 21} On the relation to Posidonius, see Bousset, , op. cit., pp. 18–20Google Scholar.

^{page 199 note 1} According to Casey, they are ‘the first pieces of early Christian literature that assume the existence of an educated Christian public.’

^{page 199 note 2} St. I, 87, 3. The whole passage that precedes this deserves attention.

^{page 199 note 3} Ibid. I, 150, 4. Clement's harmonization of Judaism and Hellenism is helped by his free indulgence in the allegorical method, so dear to the Alexandrians. The symbolism of the O.T., he holds (St. V, iv. vii), resembles the Egyptian use of hieroglyphic (cf. Plot. V, viii, 6).

^{page 199 note 4} Eus, . H.E. VI, 14, 7Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 5} Eus, . Pr. Ev. 540bGoogle Scholar

^{page 199 note 6} I, 1, 1.

^{page 199 note 7} Symp. 210e.

^{page 199 note 8} Gal. 3, 24–5.

^{page 199 note 9} Ep. 110, 1.

^{page 199 note 10} 7, 8, Dübn. See also Theiler, , op. cit. 135Google Scholar, n. 1, where references to the Hermetica are given.

^{page 199 note 11} V, ix, 2.

^{page 199 note 12} VI, ix, 4. Cf. also VI, vii, 36.

^{page 199 note 13} II, 22.

^{page 199 note 14} St. V, 6, 3.

^{page 199 note 15} Presb. 20. See Hatch, , op. cit. 265Google Scholar.

^{page 200 note 1} Numenian (Eus, . Pr. Ev. 539dGoogle Scholar).

^{page 200 note 2} Posidonian? Cf. De Mund. 397b 23. Plot. Müll. I, 249³. II, 207¹⁷. 346²⁸.

^{page 200 note 3} The same word (see Plato, , Pol. 272eGoogle Scholar) is used by Numenius (Eus, . Pr. Ev. 537dGoogle Scholar) and Maximus 17, 6. Cf. also Protr. 68, 3.

^{page 200 note 4} St. VII, 5, 2 sqq.

^{page 200 note 5} The Holy Spirit is ἒν καὶ τύ αὐτύ πανταϰοȗ (Paid. I. 42, 1) and ἀμέρως μεριζόμενος (St. VI, 138, 2). Cf. Enn. IV, i, 1. IV, ii, 2.

^{page 200 note 6} This phrase or a variation of it occurs e.g. I, i, 2. I, vii, IE. II, iii, 7. II, ix, 3E. III, v. 4. IV, iii, 9, 12B. IV, iv, 29E. IV, ix, 5. V, i, 6. VI, ii, 22. VI, iv, 3, 10, 14. VI, v, 12. VI, ix, 9. Cf. also Epict, . Dis. I, 5, 9Google Scholar. Hermet. XII, 9. Philo, , Gig. 25Google Scholar.

^{page 200 note 7} Athanas, Exp. Fid. 2Google Scholar, on the impossibility of imagining τρεȋς ύπστάσεις μεμερισμένας.

^{page 200 note 8} C.Q. XXIV, 206–7. Cicero, (Off. I, 51Google Scholar) has the following: ‘Omnia autem communia hominum uidentur ea, quae sunt generis eius, quod, ab Ennio positum in una re, transferri in multas potest: Homo, qui erranti comiter monstratuiam, / quasi lumen de suo lumine accendat, facit, / nihilominus ipsi lucet. cum illi accenderit.’ Admittedly this fragment has a striking resemblance to the passages which I have argued must go back to a common source. But Ennius does not enunciate the complete doctrine of sunlight, which in my view was first developed by Posidonius.

^{page 200 note 9} Cf. Enn. IV, iii, 4.

^{page 200 note 10} St. VII, 21, 7.

^{page 200 note 11} St. VII, 47, 6.

^{page 200 note 12} N.H. , Matth., p. 133–4 (58), 138 (60)Google Scholar.

^{page 200 note 13} Cf. the probably Posidonian doctrine, Cleom, . Propr. Mot. Cael. II, 4, 102Google Scholar, and for light in air Enn. I, i, 4 (μήτι πάσϰειν τά έκείνον πάθη, ὣσπερ καὶ τό ϕῶς). IV, iv, 14, 18, 29. iii, 10, 22. Max. Tyr. 34, 2 (where the theory serves to illustrate that soul is ἀνακραμένη with body). , Eus.D.E. 168a, 314CGoogle Scholar.

^{page 200 note 14} Reading θȋîος.

^{page 200 note 15} See note 12.

^{page 200 note 16} Cont. Cels. VI, 70.

^{page 200 note 17} Num. Hom. VI, 70.

^{page 200 note 18} Just. Ap. 61c, 128. Tat. Or. 5. Ath. Presb. 18. Tert. Ap. 31. Prax. 8, 13E, 22. Alex, . Cont-Munich. 17Google Scholar.

^{page 201 note 1} All. Leg. III, 162. Cf. Hermet. XVIII, 11.

^{page 201 note 2} Paid. I, 41, 3. St. I, 37, 2.

^{page 201 note 3} 7, 25: ἀπόῤῥοια τῆς τοῦ παντοκράτορος δόξης εǀλικρινής. Cf. ὰκροβολισμοɭ, Numen.

^{page 201 note 4} Max. Tyr. 4, 7. (ὰποῤῥῥ ο ή). Plut. 375b but 930e. Athenag, . Presb. 10. 24Google Scholar. Marc. Aur. II, 4. Cf. also Marc. Aur. XII, 2. Sen. Ep. 120, 14: ‘mens Dei, ex qua pars et in hoc pectus mortale defluxit.’ Cf. further Philo, , Aet. Mund. 88Google Scholar, and Enn. II, i, 7.

^{page 201 note 5} The Plotinian νοττός λόγος (cf. C.Q. XXV, 105) is the Life in Nous (ζώη ἦν έν αύτῷ, VI, vii, 8, with which cf. Fourth Gospel I, 4).

^{page 201 note 6} St. V, 38, 7.

^{page 201 note 7} St. V, 16, 3. VI, 156,5–6.ἐπὶνοια is of interest: Posid. (Diog. Laert. VII, 135, and Dox. Gr. 458) distinguishes κατ' ἐπὶνοιαν καί καθ' ύπόστασιν (found in Alex. Aph., Sext. Emp., Orig., SVF II, 488). Dox. Gr. 448, seems verbally Posidonian (not Aristotelian: see Socr, . H.E. III, viiGoogle Scholar). Notice Plotinus' question (VI, vi, 9): ἆρ' οὖν τῆ ἐπινοίᾳ καί τῇ ἐπιβολῇ; ῇ καἁ τῇ ύποστάσει.

^{page 201 note 8} St. VI, 141, 7–142, 4. 159, 4 (Stähl. quotes Philo and Aristoboulos). For ‘eternal generation’ in Plotinus VI, viii, 20: γεννήσει άἲδῳ. Enn. II, ix, 3. III, ii, 9. V, i, 6. VI, vii, 3.

^{page 201 note 9} Cf. III, 4, 3E: οἷον απόῤῥοιαν II, iii, 11. III, v, 3. V, iii, 12: οἷον ῥνεῖσαν ἐνέργειαν. III, 2, 2: τὸ γὰρ ἀποῤῥέον ὲκ νοȗ λόγος. Also VI, vii, 22: Ψνϰήν λαβοῦσαν εìς έαυτήν τήν έκεῖθεν άποῤῥοήν. But II, i, 8: τίς ᾶν τρόπος άποῤῥοῆς γένοιτο. See also Dieter, Abrax. 196, 4Google Scholar.

^{page 201 note 10} cf. Hatch, , op. cit. 264, 266, nGoogle Scholar. 1. Clem, . St. III, i, 1Google Scholar. V, 126, 2. Plot, Enn. VI, iv, 3Google Scholar.

^{page 201 note 11} st. V, 88, 2.

^{page 201 note 12} pr. 68, 2 cf. Stähl. III, 210, 1. 10: ‘uirtutes eiusdem filii, sicut radius solis usque adhaec infima loca pertransiens,’ and pp. Exc. ex Theod. 2, 2. άποῤῥοῆς was used by the Peratae (Hipp, . El. V, 15, 2Google Scholar, etc.).

^{page 201 note 13} The passage preserved by Photius is given by Stähl. III, 202. See also Hastings, , Diet. Rel. Eth. IV, 834Google Scholar. Pohlenz, , Zorn Gottes, 60Google Scholar.

^{page 201 note 14} Roughly Clement's Logos = the Plotinian Nous.

^{page 201 note 15} Enn. V, iii, 15. VI, vii, 14E, etc.

^{page 201 note 16} St. IV, 156, 2.

^{page 201 note 17} IV, ii, 1. Ill, viii, 7. IV, iii, 2, 17. VI, ix, 8. VI, v, 5. V, i, 7, II. IV, iv, 16. VI, vii, 18. VI, viii, 18. See also Alex, . Aph, . De An. 63, 8Google Scholar, Bruns.

^{page 201 note 18} VI, viii, 18. Cf. VI, v, 12B.

^{page 201 note 19} praef, . Nat. Qu. 13Google Scholar.

^{page 202 note 1} Used by Gnosticism to denote the Absolute (Hippol, . El. VI, 37Google Scholar. Iren, . adv. Haer. I, 1Google Scholar). See also Hatch, 251.

^{page 202 note 2} St. V, 81, 3. Cf. II, 5, 4, and έγκολπίσαθαι in Enn. I, iv, 6.

^{page 202 note 3} St. I, 97, 4. Cf. VI, 155, 3, pp. VI, 160, 2.

^{page 202 note 4} Gig. 25.

^{page 202 note 5} IV, iii, 2. IV, ix, 5. VI, iv, 4E (cf. Porph, . Sent. 37Google Scholar). V, viii. 4 seems to point to Plato, , Phaedr. 247DGoogle Scholar.

^{page 202 note 6} Or. Princ. I, 1, 3. Alex, . Lye, . Cont. Manich. 164Google Scholar Brinkm.

^{page 202 note 7} Plat, Theaet. 176BGoogle Scholar. Hebrews, 7, 3.

^{page 202 note 8} Cf. νοῦς and Ψѵϰή in Piotinus.

^{page 202 note 9} St. II, 5, 5.

^{page 202 note 10} st. VII, 37, 2.

^{page 202 note 11} E.g. (references to Müller's edit.) I, 9, 25. 18. 20. 48, 1. 137, 23. II, 132, 19. 177, 4. 199, 28. 411, 26. 440,21.446,9.450,25 (cf. 11, 113, 13 with Strom. VI, 85, 5. Pr. 68, 2. Plat, . (Symp., 212aGoogle Scholar, etc.).

^{page 202 note 12} E.g Sallustius, ch. 16. 17.

^{page 202 note 13} So Theiler, , op. cit. 101–2, 135Google Scholar. Notice Plutarch 382, 588–9. Albinus, , Didask. 169, IGoogle Scholar. 22, Herm.

^{page 202 note 14} See Schmekel, , op. cit. 265Google Scholar, n. 1. Arnim, v. includes the passage as SVF II, 852Google Scholar.

^{page 202 note 15} St. V, 133, 7. Here I take occasion to point out the striking similarity in the conception of stellar influence between Ennead II, iii, 7. Ill, i, 5, and Ecl. Proph. 55, 1. Exc. ex Theod. 70.

^{page 202 note 16} Plut. 589B. Enn. IV, iii, 18.

^{page 202 note 17} St. VII, 37. Pp. VI, 34, 3.

^{page 202 note 18} Cf. St. VII, 49, 7, with Enn. V, viii, 11.

^{page 202 note 19} St. VI 156, 5. Marc. Aur. has ὁ θεός πάντα τὰ ἡγεμοικὰ γνμνὰ ὁρᾷ (XII, 2. Cf. IX. 34. X, 1).

^{page 202 note 20} Max. Tyr. 17, 9, has ὄλον άθρόον άθρόᾳ συνέοει.

Plot. III. viii, 9. V, v, 7, has

V, v, 10: άθρόως ό προσβάλλων.

^{page 202 note 21} Paid. I. 28, 1. Sen, . Ep. 94Google Scholar. 5. 18. Max. Tyr. 16, 3. Enn. V, v, 7.

^{page 202 note 22} Paid. I, 30, 2. cf. Max. Tyr. 17, 11. Enn. V, v, 7–8.

^{page 202 note 23} To Professor Dodds here as on many other points I have been much indebted.

^{page 203 note 1} E.g. Malachi 3, 7. Matth. 18, 3 (cf. Strom. III, 88, 1).

^{page 203 note 2} St. V, 80, 9. Cf. IV, 9, 5.

^{page 203 note 3} Pr. 88, 2.

^{page 203 note 4} St. IV, 151, 2. Following occur (a) a punon θεȋν and θεός. Cf. Plat, Crat. 397dGoogle Scholar. Protr. 26,1; Plut, Mor. 375Google Scholar. 880B; Ocell. Luc, p. 20, l. 9, Harder; pp. Theoph, . ad Autolyc. I, ivGoogle Scholar. (b) An ‘anchor’ simile which Theiler (146, n. 2) traces back to Posidonius (but cf. Hebrews, 6, 19).

^{page 203 note 5} St. VII, 44, 5. 68, 1.

^{page 203 note 6} VIII, 34. 48. IX, 42.

^{page 203 note 7} Ep. 41. Epistrophe in Epictetus is found often meaning ‘cura,’ sometimes in its philosophic sense (Ench. 10. 41. Dis. I, 4, 18; III, 16, 15; 22, 38–9; 21, 23; 23, 16. 37; IV, 4, 7).

^{page 203 note 8} Didask. 165², 169³².

^{page 203 note 9} 16, 3.

^{page 203 note 10} Orig, Cont. Cel. 8, 63Google Scholar, and cf. Tert. Orat. 3.

^{page 203 note 11} Porph, Sent. 7Google Scholar, Momm, , etc., ad Marc. 24Google Scholar. Cf. De Abst. I, 29: είς τόν ǒντως ἑαντὸν ὰναδρομή, where Reitzenstein (Hell. Myst. 184) sees ‘starke Benutzung östlicher religiöser Begriffe,’ on the ground that the idea of ‘das Selbst, das Ich’ cannot be expressed in Greek. But in fact Porphyry's expression is by no means exceptional: see Prus, Dio. Or. XX, 8Google Scholar (ἡ είς έαντὀν ἀνα ϰώρησις) and Marc. Aur. VI, 11. VII, 28. VIII, 48. See further for epistrophe Sallustius 4 and 14. Procl. Inst. Th. 31. In Tim. 65. In Alcib. 103a.

^{page 203 note 12} Enn. VI, ix, 7. See Vit. Plot. S ad fin. 9, ἡ πρός τόν νοȗν τάσις, and Enn. I, ii, 4. 6E. I, iv, 11E. I, vii, I. II, ii, 3. II, iv, 5E. III, iv. 4. III, vii, 12. IV, iv, 2. 37. V, i, 12. V, ii, 1. V, iii, 1.6. 13. 16. V, iv, 2. V, viii, 11. VI, vii, 16. 31. 37. VI, viii, 6. VI, ix, 2. Theiler connects epistrophe both with Antiochus of Askalon (op. cit. 42) and with Posidonius (ibid. 149).

^{page 203 note 13} Ennead I, iv deserves to be studied along with the later Stromateis in this connexion. For Clem, . (St. V. 16, 5Google Scholar) and Marc. Aur. (VI, 8) the perfect man ‘creates himself.’

^{page 204 note 1} For an unfavourable view see Hast, Dict. Rel. Eth. 11, 702Google Scholar.

^{page 204 note 2} DrInge, (Hast, op. cit. I, 314)Google Scholar finds ‘an ardent and impetuous imagination joined to a serene soul and a clear intelligence.’

^{page 204 note 3} Ibid., p. 308. If so, perhaps comparison may be made with the absence of all specific mention in the Enneads of the Stoics, who for all that influence the Plotinian system profoundly.

^{page 204 note 4} Cl. Phil. XXI, 98, in a searching investigation, which must be reckoned with in any discussion of Posidonius, and in which doubt is thrown on the conclusions reached by Schmekel. But even if many of the arguments in Schmekel's pioneer work are invalidated, there seems enough evidence to show that some of the leading ideas in later philosophy go back to the platonizing Stoicism which Posidonius originated.

Article contents

The Hellenism of Clement of Alexandria1

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests