Introduction
i
In the second half of the fourth century A.D. the last important battles between Hellenism and Christianity were fought. They were marked on both sides by memorable conversions, great religious controversies, and brilliant polemic. Some of the works that emerged from this struggle gained a lasting and deserved value; on the other hand, the struggle of religions often deteriorated to the level of mere slander, mob violence, and a general viciousness of spirit and action. Against this background the outstanding figures are easy to recognize, for they shine like beacons in a world grown dark and increasingly chaotic. One of these, a representative intellectual member of the local pagan aristocracy in the East who became a Christian bishop, is Synesius of Cyrene.
During the late fourth and early fifth centuries some pagans became Christians, while others remained loyal to the religion of their forefathers. Many in both camps were members of the curial order in the cities and were, because of their urban ideals, education, and social position, the people most familiar with the traditions of classical antiquity. They comprised that group which M. I. Rostovtzeff designated as the city bourgeoisie and identified as the last possessors of the higher culture of antiquity. [1] Many people from other classes and stations in life also found Christianity attractive. They had a need for acceptance, a need to feel they belonged to something lasting and important. But conversions on a mass scale, although lacking the dramatic aspects of the more spectacular individual changes of religion, were due also to the success of many Christian emperors in defeating barbarians and usurpers in times of crisis. [2]
1. SEHRE2 xvi and 533-541. This monograph is based on the authors dissertation for the Ph. D. in history (Yale University, 1974).
2. As one example among many see, e.g., Sozomen HE 8.1. Armenia and the Eastern provinces were at this time overrun by the Huns.
“Rufinus, Prefect of the East, was suspected of having clandestinely invited them to devastate the Roman territories, in furtherance of his own ambitious designs; for he was said to aspire to tyranny. This suspicion led to his being soon after slain; for on the return of the troops from the conquest of Eugenius, the emperor Arcadius, according to custom, went forth from Constantinople to meet them; and the soldiers took the opportunity to massacre Rufinus. These circumstances tended greatly to the extension of religion [ital. J. B.]. The emperors attributed to the piety of their father the ease with which the tyrant had been vanquished, and the insidious and ambitious schemes of Rufinus arrested; and they confirmed all the laws which had been enacted by their predecessors in favour of religion, and bestowed upon the Church fresh tokens of their own zeal and devotion. Their subjects profited by their example; so that even the pagans were converted without difficulty to Christianity, and the heretics united themselves to the Catholic Church”
(tr. Edward Walford, Bohn’s Ecclesiastical Library, London 1905). Cf. Socrates, HE 5.1; Philost. HE 11.3.
1
2
The most impressive conversions to the new religion, however, must have been those of people like Augustine, who, after trying all the philosophical and religious systems of the day, from Neoplatonism to Manichaeanism, became true, believing Christians. They were haunted by Christianity; their increasing sense of sinfulness and worthlessness built to a crisis, during which all the old creeds were found wanting. At that point they totally rejected all past life and values and found a spiritual rebirth in the new religion. All was attributed to the seeming miracle of divine grace. Just when everything seemed lost, and hope abandoned, God came to the rescue, as it were, and they were saved. This total dependence on God and His grace, this insistence that reason and even mystical intuition can only go so far, is emphasized in the Judaeo-Christian tradition—as opposed to a philosophical religion such as Neoplatonism. True, some Hellenes also believed in the efficacy of the gods and were turning to such sacramental systems as theurgy when their spiritual crisis deepened. The doctrines of the theurgists implied an idea of grace, but they never put forth a doctrine as all-encompassing as that of ultimate dependence on divine grace and salvation once and for all (hapax, ephapax, semel) through the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. [3]
An important indication of the historical direction the world was taking in the late fourth and early fifth centuries is the conversion of Synesius of Cyrene. Though he did not possess the spiritual capacities of St. Augustine, nor was his conversion so spectacular,
3. For a discussion of the concept of grace developed by the theurgic Neoplatonists, see Wallis, Neoplatonism, 118-123; later Neoplatonists thought that union with the divine could be achieved only through theurgy, and not, as Plotinus, through pure philosophy. For them the soul had fallen completely into the material world and no part remains in the Intelligible—another Plotinian doctrine they rejected. Consequently, theurgic union with the gods depended upon a kind of grace; however, this was conceived as operative through the structure of the cosmos, not in supernatural terms, as Christian grace. For a view of the deep impersonality of the Platonic religious world in all periods, see Trexler, Studies in the Renaissance 19.36-37; these pages are excellent on the magical side of Ficino and its differences from popular Christianity of the time.
3
he was a learned man deeply and seriously involved in matters speculative and religious, who tried to understand the world and live according to the truth. He received a philosophical education under Hypatia, daughter of the philosopher Theon, and high priestess of Alexandrian Neoplatonism. Synesius’ speculative abilities were not of the first rank, but he understood, accepted, and meditated on the traditional problems of ancient metaphysics, and his works throughout reflect his dedication to the principal doctrines of Hellenic philosophy. What makes him significant is his role as a representative and interpreter of the traditional Greco-Roman aristocracy: even though Synesius lived at a time when the Late Antique transformation had already gone far, he remains important in determining the direction and nature of social change in the Empire, for he achieved both a philosophical and a social rapprochement with the Church. Surely one of the reasons that Theophilus, the bishop of Alexandria, sought Synesius for the episcopate so zealously, in spite of the latter’s reservations concerning certain dogmas, was thereby to add to the prestige of the Church: if the leaders of traditional Hellenism could be recruited for the Church, then who of substance would remain to oppose it?
Synesius is also important for special historical reasons because in him are united the diverse strands of the entire culture of antiquity from beginning to end. He was a Hellene to the core and as loyal to the ancient city-state of Cyrene as he was to the Roman Empire. He was of Dorian lineage and traced his ancestry back to Eurysthenes the Heraclid, who first brought the Dorians into Sparta.
“Such a pure and illustrious pedigree of seventeen hundred years, without adding the royal ancestors of Hercules, cannot be equalled in the history of mankind,” says Gibbon. [4]
Synesius was thoroughly familiar with Homer and the other classical authors and quoted them frequently, if at times imperfectly. [5] His personal life as a retiring country gentleman, whose favorite pursuits were riding, hunting, and meditation, reminds us of Xenophons retirement to his estate in the Peloponnesus—though Synesius is a Neoplatonic Xenophon with a mystical sensibility foreign to the latter. Synesius was also a Hellenistic man who became a citizen of the Oikoumene when he went to study at Alexandria. There he became familiar with a doctrine representing essentially a new synthesis of Platonic, Aristotelian, and Stoic thought, namely Neoplatonism. This philosophy comes at the end of a long school tradition which has its roots in late classical and early Hellenistic thought. In Alexandria, one of its centers of development, were brought together the cultural riches of East and West.
4. Decline and Fall 1.667 n. 117.
5. For an index, in Greek, of quotations from classical authors by Synesius compared with their original sources in facing columns, see Crawford, Appendix D, 522-579.
4
There lived Hellenes, Jews, Egyptians, Phoenicians, and others, along with exponents of every cult and philosophy from the Platonic Judaism of Philo and the Platonic Christianity of Clement and Origen, to Christian Gnosticism and Neoplatonism, not to mention the Chaldaean Oracles and the Hellenic “Gnosticism” of the Hermetica.
Besides being the inheritor of Classical and Hellenistic Greece, Synesius was a man of the Roman Empire. As a member of the curial order he went to Constantinople about the year 399 to request favors for his native city before Emperor Arcadius. He cultivated the friendship of Aurelian, Praetorian Prefect of the East and head of the anti-Gothic party at court. During the crisis in which the Goth Gaïnas became a major threat to the Eastern Empire, Synesius delivered his bold oration On Kingship, in which he called for a Platonic philosopher-emperor and a return to the ideals of the age of the Antonines. His work On Providence is regarded in part as a political allegory of the events of 399-401 at Constantinople, in which the tale of a conflict between Osiris and his brother Typho is a thinly disguised account of the conflict between Aurelian (Osiris) and his brother Caesarius (Typho). [6] Synesius’ entry into the Christian episcopate completes the picture of the ancient world transforming itself into the medieval world in the life of a single figure. Thus, strangely, the life of Synesius, one man of late antiquity, both recapitulates and anticipates all the major themes of antiquity.
The works of Synesius tell us a great deal about his philosophical, political, and religious attitudes. He has left us several works in different genres which, taken together, give us a fairly good picture of the man and his activities. It is especially enlightening to read his prose and his correspondence together, as his 157 letters often supply the key to his more abstract thought. For example, Ep. 105, written on the eve of his election to the episcopate, contains a clear statement of his views on philosophy as opposed to Christian dogma.
Not unlike Julian, Synesius was as much a man of letters and a rhetorician as a philosopher. Although he preferred to think of himself as a philosopher, many scholars have judged him (as they have Julian) to be basically a rhetorician who studied philosophy and was familiar with its basic tenets. [7] At any rate, Synesius held literature and the cultivation of a literary style in high regard.
6. There is a question whether Typho represents Caesarius or Gaïnas. For a discussion of scholarly opinion on this and other matters pertaining to the De Providentia, see Fitzgerald, Essays and Hymns 2.409-413.
7. Cf. Marrou in Conflict, ed. Momigliano, 131.
5
He complained bitterly of those who would sacrifice good prose style on the altar of metaphysical speculation. [8]
Synesius painted his own portrait as a man of diverse interests who avoided all forms of excess, whether Greco-Roman or Christian. Yet study of his works and conflicts reveals a troubled soul seeking to reconcile his historical position with his need to know and to experience the truth. A striking contrast divided the public man—his civic spirit, broad interests, and philosophic attitudes—-from the inner man, whose yearning for the life of the soul and spiritual transcendence found expression in some of the best metaphysical poetry of late antiquity. [9]
Some scholars believe they discern a slow drift toward Christian belief in the thought of Synesius, finally culminating in an acceptance of Christian dogma. Others leave the case of Synesius without having resolved all its conflicts and ambiguities. I intend to demonstrate that Synesius was a Platonic “philosopher-bishop” whose acceptance of Christianity was provisional and remained secondary to his commitment to Neoplatonism.
The full range of traditional controversy, leaving until later a commentary on individual points, can be seen in the dozen chief interpreters of Synesius’ conversion. Even in summary they reveal thq complexity and ambiguity of our subject.
Ancient scholars writing after the death of Synesius, mostly Christians of the early medieval period, tend to assert that because of his sterling character he was given the light of grace, which enabled him to resolve the serious philosophical doubts he held with respect to orthodox doctrine. Evagrius, the Church historian, believed that the conversion of Synesius was completed by the action of grace. [10] The Byzantine Pratum Spirituale depicts Synesius convincing a learned pagan named Evagrius of the very dogma he himself called into doubt. [11] Following Portus, Pétau tries to demonstrate that the Hymns actually show a systematic development toward Christian orthodoxy, his main thesis being that the works of the Holy Spirit brought Synesius closer, step by step, to the one true revelation through the invisible action of grace. [12] Much doubt has been cast on this view by Wilamowitz: he points out that Synesius’ Hymns were similar in inspiration to the pagan Hymns of Proclus.
8. Ep. 154, 1553A-1556A; cf. also Ep. 101, 1472D. For a discussion of the philosopher as a well-rounded man rather than a complete ascetic, see Glover, 339f.
9. Cf. Misch, V. 2 593-599; orig. Gesch. d. Autobiog. For a thorough and accurate treatment of the dating and authenticity of the Hymns, see Lacombrade, Synésios 170-198; see Wilamowitz, 295 ad fin. See now also Les Hymnes, ed. Lacombrade.
10. Evagrius HE 1.15.
11. Pratum Spirituale, Cap. 195.
12. PG 66.1021-1026.
6
His generally accepted rejection of Hymn X—the most Christian of the lot—as spurious has also created serious difficulties for the plausibility of such views as Pétau’s.
Gibbon, ever glad to find allies of enlightenment and rationalism in religion, draws us a picture of Synesius as a nonbeliever who entered the church for social and political reasons. [13] Gardner believes that after the pagan temples closed Synesius was able to fulfill his religious needs in churches and that he identified (according to long-standing orthodoxy) the gods with angels, ceasing to view them as objects of worship in themselves. [14] This scheme is logical, but whether Synesius really made these accommodations is questionable.
Among the moderns, Wilamowitz sees Synesius more as a political than as a religious convert—as having never abandoned his basic Neoplatonic tenets although he accommodated himself to Christianity in some respects. He reconciled himself only with those aspects of Christianity close to his philosophical notions (e.g., he understood the doctrine of the Trinity well because it was based on Neoplatonism, as was most Christian theology). “But the teaching, life and death of Jesus were without significance for him”; nor did the entire Jewish inheritance of Christianity, including Paul, exist for him. The Christ near to him in his living presence was the Demiurge active in the creation and in whom the World Soul and human soul had their being. Even as a bishop he relied more on metaphysics than on the gospel. According to Wilamowitz, Theophilus needed Synesius for the sake of the Pentapolis; for this reason his philosophical heterodoxy could be tolerated. Though Wilamowitz makes many valid points, he does not draw a complete picture of Synesius’ intellectual development. For instance, he does not deal with Synesius’ blending of Chaldaean with Christian theological doctrines in the Hymns. [15]
Geffcken believes that Synesius moved from Hellenism to Christianity without a drastic act of conversion. He unified the two confessions, Neoplatonic and Christian, which, according to Geficken, were extremely close as long as both sides were flexible enough to avoid dogmatic quibbling. Synesius was atypically active and practical and “did not live in the everyday world as a sexless Neoplatonic dreamer.” His going over to Christianity did not follow the pattern of a true conversion; as a Hellene he was no enemy of the Christians, but only shook his head at visions of the Christian life which the man of culture in him could not acknowledge.
13. Decline and Fall 1.667-668.
14. Gardner, 111.
15. Wilamowitz, 272ff; see esp. 286 and 295.
7
Christianity never became a living force for him as it did somewhat earlier for Marius Victorinus; “thus for us Synesius is neither a noted philosopher, nor one of the eminent Bishops of his age.” Like Wilamowitz, Geffcken presents a good review of the evidence and reaches many sound conclusions, but he does not go far enough in discussing the method and significant implications of Synesius’ spiritual development. [16]
Fitzgerald sees Synesius as a practical mind and not a “mystic” like the other Neoplatonists: he was a doer more than a thinker, a soldier, a Lacedaemonian, and a man of action. He was by his very objective and contemplative nature, however, an idealist and a dreamer, prepared to make a transition that seems to us extraordinary. If we could go back to Alexandria where philosophic and religious currents crossed, where friend and foe were often indistinguishable, we would better understand how Synesius became a Christian. His position vis-à-vis Christian doctrine is much like that of certain modernists in the Church, who, besides attempting to accommodate the views of science, have incorporated many Neoplatonic views; they also see great similarities between Plato, Paul, the Fourth Gospel, and so on. “What is really disconcerting to the student of Synesius is not so much his mingling of pagan imagery with Christian theology as his apparent ignorance or studied neglect of Christian theology, and his silence in reference to any of the works of the Greek Fathers of the Church.” Fitzgerald’s description of the atmosphere at Alexandria is helpful, as are his extensive introduction and notes to his translations, but his distorted view of Neoplatonism causes him to draw a false picture of the conversion of Synesius. In addition, since much research on the Chaldaean Oracles was completed after he wrote, he often mistakes Chaldaean conceptions for those of Valentinian and Basilidean Gnosis. [17]
Theiler attempts to demonstrate how the Chaldaean Oracles influenced Synesius in the composition of his Hymns and helped him toward a Christian conception of the Trinity. [18] Hadot elaborates this theme by trying to illustrate how Marius Victorinus and Synesius were able to move from Neoplatonism to a position close to orthodox Trinitarianism by means of a Porphyrian interpretation of the Oracles. [19] Both scholars have gone far in tracing the path by which those Neoplatonists mentioned by St. Augustine in Ep. 118 reached Christianity, while others, according to St. Augustine, descended to theurgy and magic.
16. Geffcken, 215-221; see esp. 215 and 221.
17. Fitzgerald, Essays and Hymns 20-102, see esp. 99; and Letters 11-69.
18. Theiler, Orakel 1-41.
19. Hadot, Porphyre et Victorinus 461-474.
8
I intend to demonstrate that a Porphyrian interpretation of the Oracles was the basis for Synesius’ general method for resolving not only the problem of the Trinity, but nearly all theological issues as well. [20]
Lacombrade sees the case of Synesius as a kind of “pilgrim’s progress.” He moved systematically toward Christianity but did not have time to arrive at full conversion. Thus his case cannot be finally decided. Helpful in organizing our study of Synesius is Lacombrade’s presentation of three hypotheses which might explain his conversion. The first theory, which follows Druon, suggests that Synesius moved from paganism into the Christian Church by means of a slow and regular evolution. The second, according to Wilamowitz, puts Synesius’ Christianity in such close contact with Greek philosophy that Christ and the Demiurge are in every way assimilated. The third, since Synesius affirms that his philosophy and religion are complementary, asserts a trust in his statements and speaks of an exceptional but real unity of culture. Lacombrade himself favors the third alternative. But we will see that the second is closer to the truth. [21]
Marrou studies Synesius in the context of Alexandrian Neoplatonism. Like Lacombrade, he sees him slowly moving in a Christian direction; however, for him Synesius is a transitional figure who lived in an age when orthodoxy was not yet firmly fixed: efforts such as his will not bear fruit until the great synthesis of Neoplatonism and Christian orthodoxy is accomplished by the sixth-century Christian Neoplatonists of Alexandria. [22] Like Lacombrade, Marrou neglects the central importance of the Oracles to Synesius’ method of synthesis. Lemerle thinks that Synesius never really was converted, but remained a narrow pagan of his time, like Symmachus, who did not understand the new age. [23] The evidence demonstrates that this is far too narrow a view of Synesius’ personality and religious sensibility. Kurt Treu says that the evidence allows for diametrically opposite views. Strictly speaking, this may be true, but if we are to understand Synesius and his age, we must make enough sense of the sources to escape suspension of judgment in a skeptical epoché. [24]
There is thus a different Synesius for every scholar. Let us trace his spiritual development to clarify, if possible, its nature, meaning, and significance, both for Synesius and for his Greco-Roman world.
20. On the Commentaries on the Oracles, see Theiler, above, p. 7.
21. Lacombrade, Synésios 274—280.
22. Marrou, in Conflict 128-150; see also REG 65.474-484. The opinions of Marrou will be fully discussed in the section on Ep. 105 (below pp. 155fr).
23. Lemerle, Rev. de Phil. 79.228-230.
24. Treu; cf. esp. p. 26 n. 3, and p. 54 (comm, on 245, 12-15).
9
ii
The traditional view of the relationship between Hellenic thought and Christian doctrine does not provide an appropriate framework for an interpretation of Synesius’ religious position.
Christians discussed the relationship of Greek philosophy to their religion, at least from the time of Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria in the second century A.D. In the tradition of the Fourth Gospel, Justin believed that Christ was the Logos of whom all men partook. Those who have lived according to the Logos are Christians. Thus even pre-Christian Greek philosophers such as Socrates and Heraclitus could be claimed as “proto-Christians.” [25] Clement, the first Christian philosopher, believed that philosophy could serve as a preparation for perfection in Christ. [26]
But Clement and his followers were also critical of Greek philosophy. A Christian could philosophize, but Christ the Logos was still the measure of truth. In his Protrepticus, Clement criticizes the pre-Socratics’ confusion of physical principles with divinity as remaining close to idolatry; e.g., Thales’ substrate of physical reality, water, is little better than Poseidon. [27] Some philosophers are recognized for attempting to adduce a higher principle than a physical arche: Anaximander’s to apeiron is mentioned and Anaxagoras is cited for placing nous above all principles. He rejects Stoic hylozoistic pantheism as abhorrent and criticizes Aristotle for turning the World Soul into God and denying that Providence extends to the sublunary realm: this is self-contradictory, since Aristotle thought that the World-Soul descends to the sublunary; thus Aristotle is found to deny that divine Providence is coextensive with itself.
Clement considers Plato an exception among the Greek philosophers. [28] He cites the demiourgos of the Timaeus and the Basileus of Epp. VII and II in order to demonstrate his essential monotheism. The Hellenes are not without hope. But Plato, who derived his wisdom from many places, admits barbarian wisdom is superior to Greek (Phaedo). In fact, his idea of God comes from Moses and the Hebrews. Clement goes on to cite other examples from Greek philosophy and poetry that can be harmonized with Christian monotheism. Indeed, the Logos Himself educated the Greeks in philosophy.
25. Justin Martyr, Apology 11.13.
26. Clement, Stromateis, PG 8.816A.
27. Clement, Protrepticus, PG 8.164B; for this section in general cf. PG 8.163B-176B and 180B-185C; Stromateis, PG 8.816B-817B.
28. Clement, Protrepticus, PG 8.172B-176B; Stromateis, PG 8.912B-913B.
10
Thus Hellenic philosophy is part of the preparatio evangelica and contains much that is worthwhile. A good Christian could philosophize as long as he realized that Christianity determined the truth.
Clement is here building on a tradition that began with Philo Judaeus, if not earlier. Philo interpreted the Septuagint in Greek philosophical terms and justified his claim that he was adhering to Judaism on the grounds that Plato, Pythagoras, and the other Greeks derived their wisdom from Moses. The Philonic tradition became so strong that, by the second century A.D., the pagan Middle Platonist Numenius of Apamea could say that Plato was “Moses speaking Attic.” The best in Greek philosophy was already part of Christian tradition. A Christian could think philosophically as well as praise those Greeks who were in agreement with his doctrine.
Clement’s successor Origen was a great systematic thinker. In his hands Christianity assumes the character of a philosophical system (at least in the De Principiis). He also attempts to refute the philosophical critique of Christianity (in the Contra Celsum) and thereby establish Christianity on philosophical as well as theological grounds. [29]
By the fourth century Christians in the East began to associate the Christian life and Christian theological speculation with philosophia. Platonic or not, they felt that it was their tradition. Gregory of Nyssa made Neoplatonism the handmaiden of his mystical theology: in his mind the two were as one. [30] Probably John Chrysostom was the first Church Father to employ the term philosophia with a purely Christian connotation. For him the word tends to mean the Christian way of life. In a late letter he mentions a young theology student as practicing true philosophia. [31] Gregory of Nazianzus could accept a classical culture and literary education which was primarily rhetorical, but also included some philosophy. Yet his basic outlook closely associated true philosophia with Christian theology and the Christian life, especially the monastic life.
But the case of Synesius is quite different from those of his Christian predecessors and contemporaries such as St. Augustine and the Cappadocians. He did not identify classical culture with rhetoric and letters; neither did he tend to equate philosophy with Christianity. (Nor on the whole did Augustine in the West, but that was because of his idiosyncratic development: he had read Greek philosophy and the libri platonici before his complete conversion.) [32] Thus Synesius did not equate the theoretikos bios with Christian monasticism as Gregory of Nazianzen sometimes did. He neither used philosophy as a means of expressing Christian truths from a Platonic angle,
31. Laistner, 53.
32. Confessions 7.9.13 (137.7-138.5), 8.2.3 (154.16-28).
11
nor considered Christian revelation a superior authority needed to complement, correct, complete, and ultimately transcend philosophical speculation. Religion per se (in our sense) was at best an imaginative, symbolic, and allegorical expression of realities that could only be fully understood by means of philosophy—albeit a philosophy with its own mystical and symbolic content: Neoplatonism. Indeed, the distinction between philosophy and religion often becomes confused and difficult because of the religious aims and nature of Neoplatonism itself. For Synesius, Neoplatonism was both the true way to salvation and that to which revealed (or any) religion was subordinated if there was a clash on doctrinal or ultimate questions. Late antique sages viewed Neoplatonism as the crowning achievement of classical culture, as its highest and most characteristic expression. Contrary to the Church Fathers, Synesius saw rhetoric and philosophy as two aspects of the same culture of Hellenism. His position probably represents the best possible resolution of the classical-Christian conflict from the point of view of the Neoplatonic philosopher. That it was not adopted by the Church is hardly surprising. He was not really a convert, but rather one who had accommodated himself to the new religion. Yet his stance is not without historical importance, for it illuminates the motives that led to the Hellenization of Christianity, and it is, moreover, closely related (as a mirror image) to that form of Renaissance Neoplatonic syncretism which was in part responsible for the paganization and secularization of European thought.
Thus the religious development of Synesius is to be approached from an entirely different direction than that appropriate to the study of the relationship of Christianity and classical culture in the thought and faith of the Church Fathers. The inclusion of his works in the Patristic corpus should not mislead us. He did not come from a Christian family, nor did he undergo an experience of conversion to become a convinced Christian. Much less was he a Christian educated in the pagan schools, who had to work out a new relationship to a classical culture not without its attractions. On the contrary, Synesius, coming from the opposite camp, tried to find a way to make Christianity fit the classical framework. As we shall see, some of the results of his attempt were interesting and perhaps unexpected.
Synesius, then, was never a Christian in the commonly accepted sense of that term, even by fourth- and fifth-century standards. Nor did he ever intend to be one. He accepted the Church as an institution, but on his own terms. Christian doctrine interested him only insofar as it was compatible with Neoplatonism and not vice versa. To the extent that it was incompatible, it was bad philosophy, at best a kalon pseudos subject to allegorical interpretation, as were the old Greek myths.
12
Synesius states this openly in Ep. 105—a letter in which he reformulates Plato’s old idea of the philosopher-king into the new idea of the “philosopher-bishop.” [33] This position may also be seen in the Hymns, On Providence, On Dreams and other works. We may ask if there is any proof that he ever abandoned it. It seems that a careful reading of the evidence would indicate that he did not.
Synesius did not share the common attitudes towards Greek philosophy that the Church Fathers began to develop from the time of Justin Martyr in the second century A.D. For example, even at their most Platonic, Clement of Alexandria and Origen distinguished themselves from the pure Hellenes. The positions of Augustine and the Cappadocians vis-à- vis Greek philosophy and classical culture were more complex and somewhat ambivalent because of the heightened conflict of religions and the development of dogmatic theology from the mid-third century through the Constantinian-Theodosian age.
The position of Synesius the Hellene and philosopher-bishop differed completely. He did, however, accept Christianity de facto. Thus, he was forced to take a stand with respect to dogma and revealed religion. For this reason we cannot simply equate his religious position with that of Hellenes such as Porphyry or Julian, who interpreted religion philosophically without acknowledging any conflict between “reason” and “revelation.” It is also difficult to compare Synesius to any Christian thinker of late antiquity. Although his ideas are similar to theirs on certain questions, his overall world view is different. Furthermore, when their ideas do coincide, it is usually because Christianity had become Hellenized.
Are there, then, any thinkers from the other great revealed religions with whom it is possible to compare him? A brief look at the philosophers of the Islamic world will be of help. [34] The basic attitude of many early Islamic thinkers toward Greek philosophy and religion was universalist: truth was not determined by any specific revelation or notion. Yet some Islamic thinkers modified the Neoplatonic-Aristotelian world-view to accommodate it to the basic tenets of Islam. Others either identified philosophy and religion, or maintained the primacy of reason. For example, the religious Al-Kindī affirmed the creation of the world out of nothing and the resurrection of the body on the day of judgment. But Ar-Rāzī rejected revelation and asserted that the supernatural powers of the prophets were suspect: they disagree with each other and contradict themselves.
33. See below Ch. VII, 155ff.
34. For the following section I have consulted Walzer, Greek into Arabic.
13
The three revealed traditions cause unhappiness and wars, whereas philosophy is the true path to salvation. Avicenna equated the two. To quote Walzer:
He also assesses the relation between Islam and philosophy in a way which reminds us of the Neoplatonic attitude to Greek religion: he neither subordinated philosophy to revelation—nor did he give in to Islam by upholding the primacy of revelation. Avicenna identified Islam and philosophy as it were and maintained that Islam could not be adequately understood except in terms of philosophy. [35]
After Avicenna, Averroës, in the spirit of a philosopher-king (or philosopher-bishop!), maintained the basic truths of philosophy: Islam and the Law were popular presentations of these truths, meant to make them understandable to the masses and maintain the social order. But it would be rash to say that Averroës simply broke with the tenets of Islam. For example, he was critical in his adoption of ideas from Plato’s Republic. There are indications that he makes use of it to better illuminate the sharīa or Law, [36] yet he does speak of Plato in the following way: the multitude can know something of speculative truths, not through demonstration, but only through persuasive argument; e.g., what Plato calls “right belief,” (orthe doxa) as opposed to true knowledge [37] (Summary of Plato’s Rep. 24.14-23). This latter is the province of philosophers. Thus Islam, as popularly understood, is analogous to truth as popularly understood by the non-philosophers in Plato’s Republic.
Before Averroës and Avicenna, Al-Fārābī insisted on the superiority of philosophy and the primacy of reason. Islam was not to be discarded, but interpreted philosophically and accorded a similar function in society to that of the traditional religion in Plato’s Laws. In addition, the Imam, or successor of the prophet, was to rule as a philosopher-king.
Synesius shared certain attitudes with Avicenna, but his ultimate position is closest to those of Al-Fārābī and Averroës. More Platonistic than Aristotelian, he favored allegorical interpretation, reconciliation of philosophy and religion, and a mystical approach to spiritual matters. Thus much of the actual content of his thought is similar to that of Avicenna (as is Porphyry’s). But unlike Porphyry he had to deal with Christianity and thus he clearly states that “dialectical demonstration” is the final arbiter of religious truth. It might be added that this principle and approach are even more important than what he actually believed (e.g., if someone proved philosophically the Creation of the world in time, Synesius could accept it). For these reasons, the ideas of Synesius are, at bottom, in almost perfect agreement with those of Al-Fārābī:
35. Walzer, “Early Islamic Philosophy” 668.
36. Averroës, On Plato’s Republic xxiv.
37. Ibid. xxvf.
14
for him the position of Christianity in society was indeed similar to that of the traditional religion in Plato's Laws: to be observed as an integral part of the social order and provide a popular and palatable idea of divinity. The idea of the Imam as philosopher-king fits well (in different ways) the conceptions of the Roman Emperor as philosopher-king and the Synesian philosopher-bishop. Finally, Synesius like Al-Fārābī resolved to maintain the primacy of reason.
To sum up: it is possible to understand the religious position of Synesius Only if we discover the proper framework with which to approach the problems involved. Once this has been done, we can arrive at a reasonably intelligible historical picture, one not completely without ambiguities, but generally preferable to those which have been suggested to date. Thus the reversal of the categories usually used for the study of Christianity and classical culture, and even a suggestive and incomplete comparison of Synesius with thinkers outside the Christian tradition are sound procedures.
A brief look at the basic orientation of a representative sample of some of the important recent literature on Christianity and classical culture will help to put this viewpoint into perspective.
Jaeger, in his Early Christianity and Greek Paideia, tried to show that Christians absorbed classical learning, so that by the fourth century it was possible to speak of a Christian humanism. [38] Cochrane and Marrou have demonstrated that the Fathers and especially Augustine both absorbed and transformed classical culture and created a new synthesis. [39] Pelikan, in his Christian Tradition, discusses these questions with great learning as well as feeling for the subtlety of the issues. Ladner, in his Idea of Reform, has made extensive comparisons between the two cultures. He has shown (among other things) the connections between pagan and Christian imperial and reform ideologies. More recently, Peter Brown has demonstrated the importance of the slow reorchestration of themes which had their roots in the religious koine of the Hellenistic world. [40] The new age began to emerge only after a long process of cultural change which culminated in the crisis of the third century and the religious struggles of the fourth century.
More specifically related to our topic: Cherniss has argued persuasively that Gregory of Nyssa was basically a Neoplatonist rather thinly disguised as a Christian. [41]
38. Passim, esp. 3-12 and 100-102.
39. Cochrane, Christianity and Classical Culture, see esp. Pt. III; Marrou, S. Augustin.
40. The Making of Late Antiquity 7-11 et passim.
15
Daniélou has taken the opposite position: Gregory was a Christian who expressed himself in Platonic language, the intellectual koine of late antiquity. [42]
But Synesius has not found his Daniélou. This is not surprising, since he was unique in his world. For this reason, it is necessary to discover an approach that will enable us to put him in the correct historical perspective. Only in this way will we clear up the confusion that has surrounded this enigmatic personality.
41. The Platonism of Gregory of Nyssa.
42. Platonisme et théologie mystique.