neopythagoreanism and negative theology

8/10/2019 Neopythagoreanism and Negative Theology

1/18

This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester]On: 07 July 2011, At: 12:57Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Symbolae OsloensesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sosl20

Neopythagoreanism and negative theologyJohn Whittaker

a

aMemorial University of Newfoundland St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada

Available online: 29 Jun 2010

To cite this article:John Whittaker (1969): Neopythagoreanism and negative theology, Symbolae Osloenses, 44:1, 109-125

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00397676908590612

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in

connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00397676908590612http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sosl20


2/18

NEOPYTH GORE NISM ND NEG TIVE

THEOLOGY

J O H N W H I T T A K E R

Memoria l

UniversityofNewfoundland

S t.

J ohn s,

Newfoundland, Ca nada

T h e purpose of this paper is to reconsider two suggestions put

forward by H. A. Wolfson

1

regarding Albums' mathematical

illustration of the

via negationis

2

:

, , ,

.

I twas indicated by E. R. Dodds

3

that Albinus' illustration points

to a Neopythagorean source. Wolfson, however, has

drawn

attention

4

to the similarity between Albinus' statement and the

following passagefrom Simplicius' lost commentary on Euclid's

Elements, preserved in alNairizi's Arabic commentary on the

Elements: Dixit propterea Sambelichius: Punctum ideo negando

Euclides

diffinivit, diminutione superficiel a corpore, et diminu

tionelinee a superficie, et diminutione puncti a linea. Cum ergo

1

I n his pape r Albinus and Plotinus on divine attr ibutes

(

HarvardT heological

Review45 ( 1952) ,

115 ff.) ; see further his N egative attributes

in

h e C hurch

Fathers

and the

G no stic Basilides

(Harvard Th eological Review50( 1957) ,

145 ff.), and

Infinite

and

privative judgm ents

in

Aristotle, Averroes,

a n d K a n t (

Philosophy a nd Phenomenalogkal Research8 (1947) , 173 ff.).

2

Didasc.

10 ,

p.

165 H ermann.

3

Proclus: T he

Elements

of T heology

(2nd

ed.

Oxford,

1963), 312.

4

Albinus

and

Plotinus

on

divine attr ibute s 118

f.


3/18

1 1 0 JOHN WHITTAKER

corpus sit tres habens dimensiones,

punctus

necessario nullum

earum habet, nee habet partem.

5

On the basis of this similarity Wolfson argues

6

that Albums

statement is only a fragment of a comment on Euclid s definition

of a point which, like the passage of Simplicius, tried to explain

Euclid s

negative definition of a point

7

. This interesting proposal,

which is supported by Festugire

8

, even if correct, would not

necessarily affect

the validity of Dodds suggestion, since any

commentary on Euclid that was available to Albinus is likely

to have been Neopythagorean in tone and theologically orien-

tated. However, it must be noted that it in no way necessarily

followsfrom the

fact

that Simplicius, in a commentary on Euclid,

expressed

himself in terms which are more or less similar to those

of Albinus that Albinus was borrowing

verbatim

from an already

existing commentary on theElements.In

fact,

Wolfson is assuming

that Simplicius is

himself

here quoting from an earlier com-

mentary on theElements and that this commentary, or a previous

commentary of at this point similar content, was available to

Albinus. Nodoubt Simplicius was heavily indebted to previous

commentators, but it is rash to suppose that Albinus could not

have taken his illustration from any other source than a Euclidean

commentary.

The

movement from point to solid figure

(i.e.,

the reverse of

Albinus illustration) was taught by early Pythagoreans

9

. We

meet

it again, e.g., in Philo

10

, in Plutarch

11

, in Sextus Empiricus

12

,

5

Anaratiiin

decem

libros

priores E lementorum Euclidis comm entant

ex

interpretatione

Gherardi

C remonensis ,

ed. M.

Curtze 1899 ) ,

p. 2.

11

ff.

6

Op. cit., 119.

7

Wolfson has not explained precisely hisview of therelationship between

Albinus

and thepurported

commentary

on

Euclid. However,

one

gains

the impression that Wolfson believes thatthemathematical illustration of

the

via

negationis was Albinus ownadaptation of this supposed Euclidean

commentary;cf.loc. cit.

8

La

Rvlat ion d Herms Trismgiste,IV

Le

Dieu

Inconnu et la

Gnose

(Paris,

1954) , 314 f.

9

C f.

G. S.

Kirk

and

J .

E.

Raven, The

Presocratic Philosophers

(Cambridge,

1957) ,

253 ff.

10

E.g., Deopific.

49.

11

Plat, quaest.

1001 1002A; cf. n.19 below

12

Adv

math.

10 281


4/18

NeopythagoreanismandNegative

Theology

111

in Nicomachus

of

Gerasa

13

,

in Alexander Polyhistor's

account

reproduced

by Diogenes Laertius

14

, in Hippolytus

15

, as well as

in Theoof Smyrna

16

,Iamblichus

17

and the Pythagorean Anon.

Photii

18

.

That

Albinus' illustration is directly related to this

Pythagorean

conception

may be surmised from the

fact

that

Plutarch,

Sextus Empiricus and

Nicomachus

all present, in

Pythagorean

contexts,

not only the movement from point to

solid

figure but also that from solid figure to point

19

. Moreover

the two movements are already presented in combination by

1 3

Introd. arithm.

2. 6. 4.

1 4

8. 25.

1 5

Haer.

4. 51 , PG 16, col. 3119; 6. 23, PG 16, col. 3227.

1 6

p. 97 Hiller.

1 7

Theolog, arithm.

p. 84 de Falco.

1 8

Phot. cod.249, 439 a.

1 9

Plutarch,

Plat, quaest.

1001 1002

,

,

,

'

' '

'

.

,

,

,

( ).

,

' ,

.

Sextus

Empiricus,

Adv. math.

10. 259 ff.

, '

.

'

ix

,

, a

,

. ,

'

,

(

,

, , ),

vat ,

.

Cp. Nicomachus,

Introd. arithm.

2. 6. 7.


5/18


Aristotle

20

, and, as H. J . Krmer has shown

21

, were

probably

commonplace in the Old Academy. Thus

there

is no

need

whatsoever

to suppose as does Wolfson

that

Albinus source

could only have been a

commentary

on Euclid. On the

other

hand

Krmer goes too far in

supposing that

Albinus

mathe-

matical

illustration

was a direct inheritance from the Old Acad-

emy. Albinus

does

not identify the

ultimate

source of reality

with

as Plato apparently did in his lecture on the

Good.

Albinus simply saysthat one can form an impression of the ulti

mate

divinity in the same way as one can form an impression of

th e geometrical point ; he is presenting a mathematical illustra

tion of the

via negationis

but not identifying G od with the One

conceived

in mathematical terms. This in itself renders it unlikely

thatAlbinus' illustration be taken directly from an Old Academic

source.

In all probability we have here rather a Middle Platonic

adaptation of Neopythagorean material which itself in turn built

upon Early Pythagorean and Old Academic concept ions.

A consideration of Clement of Alexandria's formulation of the

mathematical

illustration of the

via negationis

may help to clarify

this point

22

: . . .

'

,

,

,

,

,

,

, '

,

,

,

2 0

M etaph.

1016

b 24 ff.

,

,

,

,

,

' ,

,

,

.

F o r the

progression

fromsolidfigure tomathematical unitseefurther

M etaph. 1028

b 16 ff.

(se. the

Pythagoreans)

,

, ,

.

O n

t h e

s ee be low.

2 1

S e e h i sDer

Ursprung d er

Geistmetaphysik ( A m s t e r d a m , 1 9 64 ) ,

in

p a r t i c u l a r

p p . 105 ff.

2 2

Strom.

5.

1 1 , P G 9 ,

cols .

108

f.


6/18

Neopythagoreanismand Negative

Theology

113

, ,

'

/ , [

,

, '

, ,

,

, , ,

'

,

...

, ' , ,

,

.

T he

question of the relationship between Clement's statement

and that of Albinus must first be considered. We have already

noted

23

that Wolfson seems to regard Albinus' illustration as his

own adaptation of the supposed Euclidean commentary. This

leads him to

suggest

that Clement's statement was borrowed

directly from Albinus (hespeaks of Clement 'paraphrasing Al

binus'

2

*).

However, an examination of Clement's accountshows

that Wolfson must be mistaken.

There

are two main reasons why this must be so. (1) Cle

ment's version introduces the term in place of Albinus'

and the fact that

occurs in Celsus

too

25

in

the same connection

shows

that it was a current Middle

Platonicterm for the procedure in question. (2) Clement includes

a

final stage in the negative regression which has no counterpart

in Albinus:

, ,

' , . (We

shall deal with this point immediately.) Clearly the presence

23

S ee n. 7above.

24

'Negative

attributes

in theChurch

Fathers

and theG nostic Basilides'

(seen. 1

above),

p. 147.

25

C f.

Origen,

Contra Cels.

7.

42 ,

P G

11, col . 1481

; cf.H.

J . Krmer,

op. cit.

(see

. 21above), 105 n. 279.Plotinus, like Albinus,

uses

theterm

:

Em. 6. 7. 36

.Wolfson's assumption ('Albinus and Plo

tinusondivineattributes' (see n. 1above),p. 119)that Plotinuswas

directly

dependent

onAlbinus is

unnecessary.

Theterm in

this

connection

was commonplace in the

Middle Platonic

period;cf.

the latter half

ofthis paper.Furthermore,

there

is noadequate evidence

that

Plotinuswas

familiar with

the writings ofAlbinus; cf.Les

Sources

dePlotin,

Entretienssurl AntiquitClassiqueV (Vandoeuvres-Genve,

I 9 6 0 ) , 4 2 2 .


7/18

11 4 JOHN WHITTAKER

of

the term and the more detailed nature of Clement's

exposition

indicate that his account is independent of that of

Albinus. T he probability is rather that both were recounting

a

familiar doctrine, that Albinus, true to style, presents this

doctrine

in abbreviated form, whereas Clement, also true to

style, puts forward a more elaborate version.

T h e

final stage in Clement's version, to which atten tion has

just been drawn, contains, I believe, some indication of Neo

pythagorean influence, and must therefore be considered in

detail.

T o this passage Sthlin, in his edition of the

Stromata

26

,

cites the following parallels: Aristotle, De anima 409 a 6

.

( =

)

. Anal,

post.

87 a 36

,

.

Nicomachus,Introd.

anthtn.

2. 6. 3, p. 84. 8 f. Hoche (Sthlin s

reference, copied by Casey and Friichtel, is incorrect)

.R . P. C a s e y

2 7

notes

that one should add to Sthlin s list Sextus Empiricus,

Adv.math.10. 281, and this reference is incorporated into Friich-

tel s revision of Sthlin s edition

28

even though the passage

in question is not strictly relevant since Sextus omits the vital

stage of the

.

In fact however Sthlin s list is by

no means complete and the followingadditions

should

be made:

Aristotle,

Metaph.

1016 b 29 ff. (cf. ; 20 above);

Metaph.

1028

b

16 ff. (cf. . 20 above);

Metaph.

1084 b 26 f. (

); Anal. post. 88 a 33 f. ( . . . al

ai

,

a l

)

; Alexander of Aphrodisias' account of Plato's

lectureon the

Good

at Simplicius,

In

phys.454. 24 = = Aristotle,

De

bono fr. 2, p. 115 Ross (

)

; Iamblichus,

Thiolog. arithm.

I , p. 1. 4 de F a l c o (

, );Proclus,In

Eucl.

El. 95.

21 (o

); the Pythagorean Anon.

Photii

at

Phot.

cod.249. 439 a

(

,

26

G C S v o l . 1 5 .

2 7

H a n a r d T h e o l og ic a l

R e v i e w 18 1 9 2 5 ) ,

7 5 . 1 14 .

2 8

G C S

vo l . 5 2 .


8/18

Neopythagoreanismand Negative Theology

115

, , ^

,

,

'

).

Fromthis mass of evidence the

following

emerges. (1) Whether

or not, as Alexander's accountsuggests,the pertinent conception

of the relationship between the and the was

actually presented by Plato in his lecture on the Good, the

frequency withwhich this conception occurs in Aristotle suggests

that it might well

have

been current in the Old Academy

29

.

(2 ) T he evidence of Nicomachus of G erasa, of Iamblichus and

of the Pythagorean Anon. Photii, and in particular P roclus'

statement that the relevant definition of the is Pytha

gorean clearly indicate that in later antiquity the conception

in

question was current first and foremost among Neopytha

goreans. Consequently the probability is that we are here faced

no t

with

a continuity of Academic tradition but rather

with

an

instance of the Neopythagorean

revival

of doctrines current in

the Early Academy. I f this is the case, then the presence in

Clement's account of this conception of the

and the

may be

regarded

as suggestive of Neopythagorean in

fluence thereon.

There is a further indication of Neopythagorean influence

in Maximus of Tyre's brief mention of the

via negationis

30

:

, , ,

, '

, ,

} '

, ,

,

.

T h e

sequence ,

, ,

is

informative.

Festugire

31

compares

the

Hermetic

Exc.

Stob.

6. 19 (III. 39

N - F )

3 2

:

, ,

29

C f. .G a i se r, Piatons ungeschriebene

L e h r e

( S tu t tga r t , 1 9 6 3 ) , 3 5 5 . 64 .

30

D iss. 17 . 11 ,

p.

6 9 D b n e r .

31

O p . c i t . s e e .

8

a b o ve ) , 1 15 .

1.

32

Cf. theH ermet ic Exc. Stob.2 . 15

( I I I .

7

N F )

and 8. 2. 2

( I I I .

47

N F ) .

But see n. 35

below.


9/18

1 1 6

JOHN WHITTAKER

,and suggests that in the Hermetic version

is the equivalent of

in Maximus. I n fact however

and are not equivalents for the Hermetist and Maximus

are presenting to us different shortened versions (cf. Maximus

)of a much longer list of sensible att ribu

tes which Philo has preserved in a Pythagorean co ntext

33

:

, ,

,

,

, , , , .

If, as is

suggested

by the context as well as by the occurrence

elsewhere of the same list

34

, Philo's list is of Neopythagorean

origin then it seems likely that Maximus' illustration and the

Hermetic variant

derive

from some Neopythagorean source.

The widespread influence of the list in question may be judged

not

only from the above evidence but also from the fact that

, ,

occur in combination in theological

contexts

in Albinus

35

, Justin

36

and Origen

36a

. Furthermore, it is

3 3

De opific. 120.

3 4

T h esame list o c c u r s in a Pythagorean c o n t e x t atLydus,De mens. 2. 12,

p. 35 . 2 ff.

Wnsch

and with Anatolius as

source

at Iamblichus, Theolog,

arithm. 7, p. 55. 9 f. de Falco

(this

latterreferenceis not

noticed

by

Wnsch

in

the case of Lydus nor by Cohn and Wendland in the case of Philo).

35

Didasc. 10, p. 164

Hermann

,

,

,

,

,

.

However, unlike Maximus,

Justin

(see . 36 below),

Clem.

Alex, (see p. 113 above), and Celsus, who

criticizes

the Christians

for

attributing , and to G od (cf. Origen,Contra

Cels.

6.

64, PG 11, col.

1 3 9 6 ) ,

Albinus does not deny to his first princip le

but states (loc. cit .) ,

.

Politicus

275 8 f. ( ', ,

, . . . ) might provide

Platonic

authority for Albinus' viewpoint but cf. below on Ph aedr us

247

6 f. I t is doubtful whether Celsus in criticizing the Christians had

the

N eopythagorean list in m ind. T h e

combination

, is

quite common:

cf. Aristotle,De

part.

an i m . 640 b 32 ff. = D K 68

, xa ) ;

Plato, Gorgias465 4, 474 D 4 and 2,Rep.373 6, T heaetetus 163


10/18

Neophagoreanism andNegative Theo logy 117

perh ps

just

possibleth t Clement

had this

same

list in mind

when

he

wrote

at the

close

of the

passage

quoted

above

, , , , , ,

' ,

7

.

But whatever the value of

these

slight

indications of Neo

pythagorean influence,

it has been

adequately demonstrated

10 ; Aristotle,

Eth. Nie.

1118 a 4 andMeteor.372 a 30 ff., cf. further

Bonitz,

Index s.v. ;consecutive sections of the

Planta

of Aetius are

labelled and

(Diels,Doxogr.pp. 312 f.).

Furthermore,Festugire (op. cit. (see n. 8 above), 226 n. 4) has rightly-

stressed the influence of Plato,Phaedrus247 6 f.

x a

(cf. also, asFestugire (loe.

c i t . )

notes, Symp.211 A 5 ff.). The

Phaedrus

passage was a

popular

Platonic

commonplace,

quoted,

e.g., by Origen (

Contra Ce ls .

6. 19, PG 11, col.

1320) and Clem. Alex. (

Strom.

5. 3, PG 9, cols. 32 f.). Festugire (loe.

c i t . ) is however clearly mistaken in referring to the passage of Albinus

quotedat theheadof this footnote as aparaphrase ofPhaedrus247 6 f.

The Phaedrustext was

indeed,

as Festugire remarks, frequently para-

phrased;

cf. Iamblichus,

De myst.

I. 18 (54. 11 ff.), the Hermetic

Exc.

Stob.2 A. 15 (II I. 7 N-F) and 8. 2.2 1 1 1 .47 N-F), C.H. 13. 6 ( II . 202.

14

ff. N-F.) Nevertheless Albinus is clearly

drawing

upon a different

source.

36

Dial,

Tryph.

4, PG 6, col. 484

. . .

. . .,

, , , ,

(cf.

Philo,

De

opific.

120 ,Iamblichus,

Theolog,arithm.7, p. 55. 9 de Falco , Lydus,Demens.

2 . 1 2 ,p.35.4f.W. ).

3 6 a

De

prineip.I. 1. 6, PG 11, col. 125 Non ergo aut corpus aliquod, aut .in

corpore esse putandus est Deus, sed intellectualis natura simplex, . . .

Mens vero ut moveatur vel operetur, non indget loco corporeo ( =

?),

eque

sensibili magnitudine ( = ),vel corporali

habitu ( = )aut colore ( = ),neque alio ullo prorsus indiget

horum quae corporis vel materiae propria sunt. Cp. ibid. I . 2. 2, PG

11 , col. 130 Si ergo semel recte receptum est, unigenitum FiliumDei,

sapientiam

eius esse substantialiter subsistentem, nescio si iam ultra eva

gari sensus noster debeat ad suspicandum, ne forte ipsa ,id

est substantia eius corporeum aliquid habeat,cum

omne

quod corporeum

est,

vel

habitu,

velcolore,vel

magnitudine designetur. Ibid. I. 2. 4, PG 11,

col. 133 Quia hae omnes appellationes ex operibus eius (se. Fil i iDei)

virtutibus nominatae sunt, et in nulla harum vel levi opinione intelligi

corporale aliquid potest, quodvel

magnitudinem

designare videatur, ve lhabitum,

ve lcolorent.

3 7

Seep.

113 above.


11/18

11 8 JOHN WHITTAKER

above that there is no need to regard, as does Wolfson, Albinus'

mathematical illustration of thevia negationisas an adaptation

of a Euclidean commentary. However, this is not to deny that

Albinus and his contemporaries were

aware

of the theological

potentiality of the Elements.Euclidean terminology occurs fre

quently in combination

with

Pythagorean number speculation

in

thewritingsof Philo

38

;

whilst

Hippolytus

39

tells us that the

Naassenes identified the mustard seed of the N.T . (cf., e.g.,

Matth.13. 31 f.)withthe indivisible point a striking instance

of the no doubt Neopythagorean mspired theologicalusageof

the geometrical conception of a point : . . . ,

' ,

,

avcfj . , ,

,

,

, , , r o

.

T h e

also occurs in Hippolytus' account of

Simonian

gnosticism at Haer. 6. 14, PG 16, col. 3214,whilst

atHaer.4 .51 , PG 16, col. 3119 Hippolytus refers to the theological

utilisation of the Pythagorean progression from point to solid

figure

andadds

,

, \

.

I I

T h e

second half of this paper willdealwithWolfsons' discus

sion of the term . With Albinus, Didasc. 10, p. 165 H.

( '

, ,

, ' ,

'

' '

'

38

Cf. , e.g., De

opific.

49a n d 9 8 ;De

Decalog.

24 ff. Ont he phi losoph ica l

i m p o r t a n c e of th eEu cl ide an defs seeDe congr. end.grat. 14 6 f., and

C l e m .

Alex.

Strom. 6.

1 1 , P G 9 , c o l . 3 1 2 .

39

H a e r

5. 9,

P G 16, co l . 3154 .


12/18

Neopythagoreanism and Negative T heology 119

' ,

,

, '

*

0

),and such statements of Plotinus as


13/18


1 9

f.)

.

I t is not true as Wolfson claims

44

that 'in Aristotle, "negation"

in its strictly

technical

sense of a logical negation is contrasted

with the term "privation".'

Strictly

speaking is con

trasted with an d with as at Cat. l i b

17 ff.

,

, , rj ,

.When

however

is used to denote a type of

proposition

(namely, privative), then it is not contrasted with

but

subordinated

to it. Nor

does

the account of

Alexan

der ofAphrodisias to which Wolfson refers

45

giveany indication

that he regarded otherwise than as a subdivision of

16

:

,

.

.

'

,

,

'

(

,

'

), '

. ,

, , ,

, . ,

,

.I t may be added that there is no

specific

Aristotelianterm

to cover the typeof

proposition which

Wolfson

has in

mind,

i.e., 'the wall is not

seeing'.

On the subject of

it may be

noted that Aristotle

seems on occasion to admit the use of

this

term simply as an

equivalent

of

.

At Metaph. 1022 b 22 f. we

read

44

'Albinus and Plotinus on divine attributes', 120.

45

Op.

cit., 120

N .

36. 'Negative attributes in the

Church Fathers

and the

Gnost ic

Basilides', 145 f.

'Infinite

and privative judgments in Aristotle,

Averroes, and

K a n t ,

174.

46

In

M e ta p h .

p. 327. 12 ff. Hayduck.


14/18

Neopythagoreanism and Negative Theology 121

iva ,

f

,

.

Ross,ad lac,claims that the

words

indicate

that in this sense is not identical

with

negation, since

there are some attributes 'which cannot be possessed by any

thing, e.g., (according to Aristotle's doctrine) "actually infinite".'

Ross's interpretation is difficult to maintain in

view

of Metaph.

1046

a 31 ff.

], .,

and

(contra

Ross,

loe. cit.) Metaph.

1055

b 3 ff.

,

,

.The phrase

vsurely covers both

is not actually infinite' (which, according to Ross's inter

pretation, the definition of at Metaph. 1022 b 22 ff.

was intended to exclude ) and, e.g., 'the

wall

is not seeing'.

I t is noteworthy that whenever Aristotle lists the meanings of

it is this broad meaning of the term which

appears

first. I t may be noted further that in thePriorAnalytics

occurs frequently as the equivalent of ; cf., e.g., .

Anal.

pr.25 a 6.

Chrysippus, too, who devoted an entire

work

to the subject

of

and

whose

treatment of the subject

appears

to

have

been more detailed than that of Aristotle, emphasizes the am

biguity

of the term

and admits the priority of the more

general

usage

of the term. After distinguishing and

he c o n t i n u e s

1 8

:

f

,

,

.

f

, ,

,

.

.

Furthermore,

it may be doubted whether

is used,

as Wolfson

argues,

by

Albinus

as an equivalent of

,

47

Cf.

S V F I I .

13 (p. 5. 11).

48

SVF I I . 177 = Simplicius,inArist.Cat.100 Bas.


15/18

12 2 JOHN WHITTAKER

whether in the broad Aristotelian sense or the narrower Wolf

sonian. With reference to Albinus' mathematical illustration

of the via negationisWolfson readily admits

49

, 'The passage as

it stands would seem to deal not with the manner in which we

can speak of God, but rather with the method by which we can

arrive at a conception of G od.' Wolfson seeks to avoid this

major

difficulty by claiming that

50

'what he (sc. Albinus) means

to explain is not only how we can form a conception of God

but also how we can describe God, and, with regard to the latter,

his explanation is that we can describe God negatively, in the

same way as Euclid defines a point negatively.' Now it is no

doubt a corollary to Albinus' statement that we can form a

conception of God by 'abstracting' from Him, that we can

describe Him by means of negative statements. But this in no way

alters the fact that Albinus is here dealing only with the problem

of forming a conception of God. The corollary remains unstated.

Moreover, this same

usage

of and its cognates

(i.e.,to describe an act of thought) is already obvious in Aristotle.

Cf . , e.g.,

M etap h .

1061 a 28 ff.

(

(

,

,

,

,

' ' , .)); M etap h . 1029

a 16 ff. {

^ ,

);

Metaph.

1036 b I ff., where Aristotle is dealing with

th e difficulty of conceiving form without matter, (

o '

).

I t is evident from the above examples that Aristotle's use of

th e relevant terms has exercised influence upon the formulations

of thevianegationiswhich we have been considering. I t is equally

evident that in Aristotle these terms refer to mental acts rather

than to negative statements. Plutarch in the

passage

quoted

49

'Albinusand

Plotinus

ondivineattributes',118.

5 0

Op. cit., 119.


16/18

Neopythagoreanismand Negative Theology 123

in

footnote 19

(

)is clearly influenced by Aristotelian terminology.

The

use of the

verbs

and

(cf.

Metaph.

1061

a

28 ff., cited on p. 122 above) in the context of Clement's version

of the

via negationis

(see p. 112 above) corresponds precisely to

their

Aristotelian usage. Similarly in the version of Maximus

of

Tyre (see p. 115 above)

can refer only to an act

of thought (cf.

. . . ) .

There

is thus no good reason to suppose that in Albums the

phrase

has anything

to

do with negation as such.

I n

the

passage

in question Albinus is concerned purely with

the.problem of forming a conception of God. The matter of

negative statements lies outside the scope of his exposition.

I n

the case of Plotinus the situation is perhaps slightly dif

ferent. At

Enn.

6. 7. 36

(

) the term is clearly

used in the same sense as in Albinus and Plutarch

51

. Plotinus

is referring briefly

to

current and familiar methods of conceiving

the

deity, and in this context, as we have seen,

has

nothing to do with negation

52

. I t should also be noted that

is used frequently by Plotinus in statements dealing

with the

vianegationis.

That what Plotinus had in mind in such

passages

was not negation but a mental process of abstraction

is obvious from the following (Enn.6. 8. 21) : (ofh>y ,

,

,

Here the meaning of

is decided by the contrasted

verb ;

this latter

term, borrowed from mathematics, cannot mean 'assert' and

consequently

in the same context cannot mean 'deny'.

51

I t is by no means as evident as Wolfson c laims (op. cit ., 119 f.) that

Enn.

5. 3. 14 ("

H

,

r

,

,

'

,

, ,

,

, . )is intended as an explanation of .

Neither this latter term nor any of its cognates appear in the

passage

in

question or in its immediate context.

5 2

See pp . 121 f. above.

53

See further

Enn.

5. 3.17 (

) and

Enn.

5.5.13 (

).

E m .

6. 9.. 9

(

) .


17/18

12 4 JOHN WHITTAKER

However, at Enn. 6. 8. 11 Plotinus writes of the One

v

; ,

',

Here, as the

participle indicates, Plotinus is dealing with the matter

of making statements about the One.Brhier translates, Que

peuventalors vouloir

dire

les mots: il lui est arrivpar accident

d tre

ainsi? Comment les dire, quand tout ce qui est dit de

lui n est que ngation? . Though, as Wolfson points

out

54

,

eventually came to be used in the sense of negation,

it is by no means obvious that this was the meaning which

Plotinus had in mind in the present context. T he combination

is Aristotelian and in Aristotle denotes not 'by

negation' but 'by process of abstraction'. Cf.De 432 a 3 ff.

, ,

, ' ,

,

55

. I n

all

probability it was the Aristotelian usage that Plotinus had in

mind in the passage under consideration. Nevertheless it must

be admitted that the combination . . .

,

though not a precise equivalent of 'negations', is not far removed

therefrom.

However, as Wolfson has indicated

58

, is certainly

used in the sense of 'negation' in later literature. I n addition

to the evidence presented by Wolfson it may be noted that

Isidore of Seville,

drawing

on Marius Victorinus, writes (Etymo

log.

2. 29. 9) : Octava species definitionis est, quam Graeci

,Latini per privantiam contrarii eius,

quod definitur, dicunt: 'Bonum est, quod malum non est.

Iustum est, quod iniustum non est,' et his similia. Hoc autem

genere definitionis uti debemus, cum contrarium notum est, ut:

S i bonum est quod prodest cum honstate, id

quod

tale non

est

malum

est.

57

. Here clearly refers to negation,

5 4

A lb inus

a n d

P l o t i nus

o n

d i vine a t t r i bu tes , 129

f. , an d

Nega t i ve a t t r i bu tes

i n

t h e

C h u r c h F a t h e rs

a n d t h e

Gn ost ic Bas i l ides ,

1 4 8

ff.

5 5

Cf. abo

De

anim. 42 9 b 18 and431 b 12.

56

C f.n. 54above.

4 7

T h e r e are further

instances

of this type of

definition

in a

passage

of

Gregory

of

N yssa

(Deanimaet

resurrectione,

PG 46, col. 40) towhich


18/18

Neopythagoreanism and NegativeTheology 125

though not in the narrow Wolfsonian sense. On definition

see further Boethius, Liber de diffini

tione,PL 64, cols. 902 and 904 ff.

Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that

came to be used

in the sense of 'negation', we may conclude that it is not the

case, as Wolfson claims, that Albinus employed the term as an

equivalent of 'negation' (in whatever sense this term may be

used),

and further that it is not likely that Plotinus ever con

sciously used the term in question to imply negation, even

though in his day the development

towards

the new meaning

may well have been underway.

Wolfson refers ('N egative attributes

in the

Church Fathers

and the

G n o s t i c Basilides', 148) :

,

v ,

,

, ,

.

and

are

quite

clearly

intended

as

equivalents.

neopythagoreanism and negative theology

Documents