alexandria and her schools-第14部分

快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！


nductive　（for　the　two　expressions　are　nearer　akin　than　most　fancy）；　has　dawned　on　his　soul；　he　will　welcome　lovingly；　awfully；　any　corroboration　from　foreign　schools；　and　cry　with　joy：　　〃Behold；　this　is　not　altogether　a　dream：　　for　others　have　found　it　also。　　Surely　it　must　be　real；　universal；　eternal。〃　　No；　be　sure　there　is　far　more　originality　（in　the　common　sense　of　the　word）；　and　far　less　（in　the　true　sense　of　the　word）；　than　we　fancy；　and　that　it　is　a　paltry　and　shallow　doctrine　which　represents　each　succeeding　school　as　merely　the　puppets　and　dupes　of　the　preceding。　　More　originality；　because　each　earnest　man　seems　to　think　out　for　himself　the　deepest　grounds　of　his　creed。　　Less　originality；　because；　as　I　believe；　one　common　Logos；　Word；　Reason；　reveals　and　unveils　the　same　eternal　truth　to　all　who　seek　and　hunger　for　it。

Therefore　we　can；　as　the　Christian　philosophers　of　Alexandria　did；　rejoice　over　every　truth　which　their　heathen　adversaries　beheld；　and　attribute　them；　as　Clement　does；　to　the　highest　source；　to　the　inspiration　of　the　one　and　universal　Logos。　　With　Clement；　philosophy　is　only　hurtful　when　it　is　untrue　to　itself；　and　philosophy　falsely　so　called；　true　philosophy　is　an　image　of　the　truth；　a　divine　gift　bestowed　on　the　Greeks。　　The　Bible；　in　his　eyes；　asserts　that　all　forms　of　art　and　wisdom　are　from　God。　　The　wise　in　mind　have　no　doubt　some　peculiar　endowment　of　nature；　but　when　they　have　offered　themselves　for　their　work；　they　receive　a　spirit　of　perception　from　the　Highest　Wisdom；　giving　them　a　new　fitness　for　it。　　All　severe　study；　all　cultivation　of　sympathy；　are　exercises　of　this　spiritual　endowment。　　The　whole　intellectual　discipline　of　the　Greeks；　with　their　philosophy；　came　down　from　God　to　men。　　Philosophy；　he　concludes　in　one　place；　carries　on　〃an　inquiry　concerning　Truth　and　the　nature　of　Being；　and　this　Truth　is　that　concerning　which　the　Lord　Himself　said：　　'I　am　the　Truth。'　　And　when　the　initiated　find；　or　rather　receive；　the　true　philosophy；　they　have　it　from　the　Truth　itself；　that　is　from　Him　who　is　true。〃

While；　then；　these　two　schools　had　so　many　grounds　in　common；　where　was　their　point　of　divergence？　　We　shall　find　it；　I　believe；　fairly　expressed　in　the　dying　words　of　Plotinus；　the　great　father　of　Neoplatonism。　　〃I　am　striving　to　bring　the　God　which　is　in　us　into　harmony　with　the　God　which　is　in　the　universe。〃　　Whether　or　not　Plotinus　actually　so　spoke；　that　was　what　his　disciples　not　only　said　that　he　spoke；　but　what　they　would　have　wished　him　to　speak。　　That　one　sentence　expresses　the　whole　object　of　their　philosophy。

But　to　that　Pantaenus；　Origen；　Clement；　and　Augustine　would　have　answered：　　〃And　we；　on　the　other　hand；　assert　that　the　God　which　is　in　the　universe；　is　the　same　as　the　God　which　is　in　you；　and　is　striving　to　bring　you　into　harmony　with　Himself。〃　　There　is　the　experimentum　crucis。　There　is　the　vast　gulf　between　the　Christian　and　the　Heathen　schools；　which　when　any　man　had　overleaped；　the　whole　problem　of　the　universe　was　from　that　moment　inverted。　　With　Plotinus　and　his　school　man　is　seeking　for　God：　　with　Clement　and　his；　God　is　seeking　for　man。　　With　the　former；　God　is　passive；　and　man　active：　　with　the　latter；　God　is　active；　man　is　passivepassive；　that　is；　in　so　far　as　his　business　is　to　listen　when　he　is　spoken　to；　to　look　at　the　light　which　is　unveiled　to　him；　to　submit　himself　to　the　inward　laws　which　he　feels　reproving　and　checking　him　at　every　turn；　as　Socrates　was　reproved　and　checked　by　his　inward　Daemon。

Whether　of　these　two　theorems　gives　the　higher　conception　either　of　the　Divine　Being；　or　of　man；　I　leave　it　for　you　to　judge。　　To　those　old　Alexandrian　Christians；　a　being　who　was　not　seeking　after　every　single　creature；　and　trying　to　raise　him；　could　not　be　a　Being　of　absolute　Righteousness；　Power；　Love；　could　not　be　a　Being　worthy　of　respect　or　admiration；　even　of　philosophic　speculation。　　Human　righteousness　and　love　flows　forth　disinterestedly　to　all　around　it；　however　unconscious；　however　unworthy　they　may　be；　human　power　associated　with　goodness；　seeks　for　objects　which　it　may　raise　and　benefit　by　that　power。　　We　must　confess　this；　with　the　Christian　schools；　or；　with　the　Heathen　schools；　we　must　allow　another　theory；　which　brought　them　into　awful　depths；　which　may　bring　any　generation　which　holds　it　into　the　same　depths。

If　Clement　had　asked　the　Neoplatonists：　　〃You　believe；　Plotinus；　in　an　absolutely　Good　Being。　　Do　you　believe　that　it　desires　to　shed　forth　its　goodness　on　all？〃　　〃Of　course；〃　they　would　have　answered；　〃on　those　who　seek　for　it；　on　the　philosopher。〃

〃But　not；　it　seems；　Plotinus；　on　the　herd；　the　brutal；　ignorant　mass；　wallowing　in　those　foul　crimes　above　which　you　have　risen？〃　　And　at　that　question　there　would　have　been　not　a　little　hesitation。　　These　brutes　in　human　form；　these　souls　wallowing　in　earthly　mire；　could　hardly；　in　the　Neoplatonists'　eyes；　be　objects　of　the　Divine　desire。

〃Then　this　Absolute　Good；　you　say；　Plotinus；　has　no　relation　with　them；　no　care　to　raise　them。　　In　fact；　it　cannot　raise　them；　because　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