A STUDY IN THE HISTORY OF HELLENISM

3. The School of Iamblichus.

 

After the death of Iamblichus, his school dispersed itself over the whole Roman Empire. His most brilliant disciple was Sopater, a man of ambitious temperament, who, as Eunapius expresses it, thought to change the purpose of Constantine by reason. He did in fact succeed in gaining a high position at Court; but in the struggle of intrigue his enemies at last got the better of him, and he was condemned by the Christian emperor to be executed, apparently on a charge of magic. According to Eunapius, he was accused of binding the winds so as to prevent the arrival of the ships on which Constantinople depended for its supply of corn.

Both now and for some time later, philosophers and others who were not even nominal adherents of Christianity could be employed by Christian rulers. Eustathius, another of Iamblichus's disciples, was sent by Constantius on an embassy to Persia. Themistius, who was an Aristotelian, held offices at a later period. The Christians themselves, long after the death of Julian, were still for the most part obliged to resort to the philosophical schools for their scientific culture. The contest in the world, however, was now effectively decided, and the cause represented by the philosophers was plainly seen to be the losing one. Of its fortunes, and of the personalities of its adherents, we get a faithful picture from Eunapius, whose life of Aedesius is especially interesting for the passages showing the feelings with which the triumph of the Church was regarded. Aedesius was the successor of Iamblichus at Pergamum in Mysia. The biographer, it may be noted, distinctly tells us that he had no reputation for theurgy. The marvels he connects with his name relate to the clairvoyance of Sosipatra, the wife of Eustathius. Aedesius educated the sons of Eustathius and Sosipatra; hence the connection. One of them, Antoninus, took up his abode at the Canopic mouth of the Nile, whither came the youth eager for philosophical knowledge. To him again, as to Aedesius, no theurgical accomplishments are ascribed; a possible reason in both cases, Eunapius suggests, being concealment on account of the hostility of the new rulers of the world. Those who put before him logical problems were immediately satisfied; those who threw out anything about "diviner" inquiries found him irresponsive as a statue. He probably did not himself regard it as supernatural prescience when he uttered the prophecy, afterwards held for an oracle, that soon "a fabulous and formless darkness shall tyrannize over the fairest things on earth". The accession of Julian to the empire created no illusion in the most clear-sighted of the philosophers. Chrysanthius, one of his instructors in the Neo-Platonic philosophy, was pressingly invited by him to come and join him in the restoration of Hellenism. Deterred, the biographer says, by unfavorable omens, he declined. The Emperor nevertheless conferred on him, in association with his wife Melite, the high-priesthood of Lydia. This he accepted: but, forewarned of the failure of Julian's attempt to revive the ancient worship, he altered as little as possible during his tenure of office; so that there was hardly any disturbance there when the state of things was again reversed; whereas elsewhere the upheavals and depressions were violent. This was at the time looked upon as an example of his unerring foresight, derived from the knowledge of divine things communicated by his Pythagorean masters. It was added, that he knew how to make use of his gift of prevision; this, no doubt, in contrast with Maximus.

Maximus and Chrysanthius were fellow-pupils of Aedesius, and were united in their devotion to theurgy. When Julian was first attracted to the philosophic teachers of his time, the aged Aedesius had commended him to his disciples Eusebius and Chrysanthius, who were present, and Priscus and Maximus, who were then absent from Pergamum. Eusebius, whose special interest was in logical studies, spoke with disparagement of theurgy, but Julian's curiosity was excited by what he heard. To satisfy it, he visited Maximus at Ephesus, at whose suggestion he sent for Chrysanthius also. Under Maximus and Chrysanthius he continued his philosophical studies. It may have been his interest in theurgy that led him to seek initiation, during his visit to Greece, in the Eleusinian mysteries; though his argument afterwards for being initiated was merely compliance with ancient usage; he treats it as a matter of course that such ceremonies can make no difference to the soul's lot. When he had become Emperor, he invited Maximus with Chrysanthius, and afterwards Priscus, to Court. Unlike Chrysanthius, Maximus, when he found the omens unfavourable, persisted till he got favorable ones. In power, as Eunapius frankly acknowledges, he displayed a want of moderation which led to his being treated afterwards with great severity. He was put to death under Valens, as the penalty of having been consulted regarding divinations about the Emperor's successor. Priscus, we learn, had been from his youth up a person of rather ostentatious gravity and reserve. He was, however, no pretender, but maintained the philosophic character consistently during the reign of Julian; nor was he afterwards accused of any abuse of power. He died at the time when the Goths were ravaging Greece (396-8). Preserving always his grave demeanour, says Eunapius, and laughing at the weakness of mankind, he perished along with the sanctuaries of Hellas, having lived to be over ninety, while many cast away their lives through grief or were killed by the barbarians. During the events that followed Julian's reign (361-363), the biographer was himself a youth. He was born probably in 346 or 347, and died later than 414.

Of the literary activity of the school during the period from the death of Iamblichus to the end of the fourth century, there is not much to say. Many of the philosophers seem to have confined themselves to oral exposition. Chrysanthius wrote much, but none of his works have come down to us. We have reports of the opinions of Theodore of Asine, an immediate disciple both of Porphyry and of Iamblichus. His writing seems to have taken the form chiefly of commentaries. Proclus had a high opinion of him and frequently cites him. We learn that with Plotinus he maintained the passionlessness and uninterrupted activity of the higher part of the soul; and that he defended Plato's position on the equality of the sexes. Dexippus, another disciple of Iamblichus, wrote, in the form of a dialogue with a pupil, a work on the Aristotelian Categories which survives. The book De Mysteriis, long attributed to Iamblichus himself, is now considered only as illustrating the general direction of his schools. Its most distinctive feature is insistence on the necessity and value of ceremonial religion for the mass of mankind, and indeed for all but an inappreciable minority. It is admittedly well-written, as is also the little book of Sallust De Diis et Mundo. This Sallust, as Zeller proved against doubts that had been raised, was certainly the friend of Julian known from the Emperor's Orations and from references in the historians; and the book may have been put forth with a popular aim as a defence of the old religious system now restored and to be justified in the light of philosophy. A noteworthy point in it is the apology for animal sacrifices. As in the De Mysteriis, the higher place of philosophy is saved by the position that the incorporeal gods are in no way affected by prayer or sacrifice or by any kind of ceremony, and are moved by no passions. The forms of traditional religion, it is nevertheless maintained, are subjectively useful to men, and its modes of speech admit of a rational interpretation. The book ends by affirming the position of the Republic, that virtue would be sufficient for happiness even if there were no rewards reserved for it in another life.