KernosRevue internationale et pluridisciplinaire de religion

grecque antique

1 | 1988

Varia

A Hellenistic Legacy: The Foundation for an‘Unorthodox’ World View within the ByzantineTradition

J.B. McMinn

Electronic version

URL: http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/83DOI: 10.4000/kernos.83ISSN: 2034-7871

Publisher

Centre international d'étude de la religion grecque antique

Printed version

Date of publication: 1 January 1988ISSN: 0776-3824

Electronic reference

J.B. McMinn, « A Hellenistic Legacy: The Foundation for an ‘Unorthodox’ World View within theByzantine Tradition », Kernos [Online], 1 | 1988, Online since 31 January 2011, connection on 01 May2019. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/kernos/83 ; DOI : 10.4000/kernos.83

Kernos

Kernos, 1(1988), p. 63-77.

A ｈｅｌｾｅｎｉｓｔｬｃ LEGACY : THE FOUNDATION

FOR AN 'UNORTHODOX' WORLD ,VIEW WITHIN

BYZANTINE TRADITION

(partone)

On one historical point almost aU historians of Byzantinecivilization aregenera11yagreed,namely,thatexternalchangesin theEastduring the time of the EmperorJustinianposethe questionofsurvival of late antiquity and its tradition in the new Byzantineworld. In fact, theymakethe explicit c1aimthat with the rise of themonasticmovement,theannyreform, thec10sureof theuniversities,andthe expansionof the Arabs,the influenceof Hellenisticcultureas a dominatingforce in Byzantinelife cornesto an end1. And, as

H.W. HAUSSIG, A History ofByzantineCivilization, trans".lM. Hussey,NewYork, 1971, p. 48-49, 74, 76-90, 115, 121-128, and 210-233. More thanother historians, HAUSSIG (op. cit., p. 75) presseshis point: «The age ofJustinianis essentiallythe time of transition from the world of late antiquity[Hellenistic period] to that of Byzantium [...]». Corroborating this culturalbreach for one or more of the reasons listed above are the followinghistorians of Byzantine civilization: G. FINLAY, A History of Greece,l,Oxford, 1877, p.277-287; W.G. HOLMES, The Age of Justinian andTheodora: A History of the Sixth Century AD., II, London, 1907, p.438-439; J.B. BURY, History of the Later Roman Empire, II, London, 1923,p.367-370; Ch. DIEHL, History of the ByzantineEmpire, trans. G.B. Ives,Princeton, 1925, p. 12-16, 17-39, and 40; A.A. VASILIEV, History of theByzantine Empire, l, trans. Mrs S. Ragozin, Madison, 1928, p. 174, 184;J. LINDSAY, Byzantine into Europe, London, 1952, p.261-267;S. RUNCIMAN, Byzantine Civilization, London, 1966, p.254-269;J.W. BARKER, Justinian and the Later Roman Empire, Madison, 1966,p.208-210; G.OSTROGORSKY, History of the ByzantineState, trans. J.Hussey, rev. ed., New Brunswick, 1969, p.77; D.l GEANAKOPLOS, Inter-action of the "Sibling" Byzantineand WesternCultures in the Middle Agesand Italian Renaissance (330-1600), New Haven, 1976, p.39-43;C. MANGO Byzantium:The Empire of New Rome,New York, 1980, p.4-5;N. CHEETHAM, Mediaeval Greece,New Haven, 1981, p. 1-23. - The onlyhistorian taking the opposite view, and with whom 1 agree, is NormanHepburn BAYNES (N.H. BA YNES and H.SLL.B. MOSS, Byzantium: AnIntroduction to East Roman Civilization, Oxford, 1948, p. xviii-xx;N.H. BAYNES, ByzantineStudiesand other Essays,London, 1955, p. 1-23,47-48, 70-72, and ｾ Ｖ Ｘ Ｍ Ｑ Ｗ Ｒ Ｌ where he speakstime and again of the Byzantinesas heirs of Hellenistic civilization). - In respect of political thought, SirErnestBARKER (Social and Political Thought in Byzantiumfrom Justinian1

64 B.McMINN

onewouldexpect,theevidenceseemsto justify this c1aim.Thereis,however,entailedin this supposedcultural terminus,a matterofphilosophicalsignificancewhich,1think, raisesa questionaboutthewholesaledisposaIof this cultural influence.It is the allegedrejec-tion ofHellenisticcosmology2.This cornesabout,historiansc1aim,as a consequenceof the emergenceof icon veneration(Le., iconsreveredas receptac1esof divine power) and the concomitantbur-geoning of ecclesiasticalart, both inspired by the monasticmovement3• While not themselveseffecting this change,theseculturalphenomenaprovidethe occasionfor a fundamentalshift intheByzantineconceptionof theuniverse4. Hans-WilhelmHaussig,acontemporaryGermanhistorian,offers what seemsto be a typicalexplanationof this transition:

The iconographicprogrammeandtheform of the interior of a churchwerenot determinedonly by theadoptionof the icon and its artistic

2

3

4

to the late Paleologus, Oxford, 1957, p. 1-25) agrees with BAYNES thatByzantium preservesand cherishesthe inherited political theory of ancientGreece,both Hellenic and Hellenistic. David T. RICE (The Byzantines,NewYork, 1962, p.30) is taking a middling position becausehe thinks that theevidencedoesnot supporteither extremeview.HAUSSIG, op. cit., p.90, 187 and cf. also p.358-359. MANGO, op. cit.,p. 166, and p. 261-265. J. MEYENDORI:F (ByzantineTheology: HistoricalTrends and Doctrinal Themes,New ,::"ork, 1979, p.23-29) questions thealleged disappearanceof the Platonic world view from ByzantineChristianity,but doesnot pursuethe matter. J. LINDSAY (op. cit., p.264) notes the effectof a 'foreign' cosmographyon art, observing that «the original idea of a newcentre,round which the whole universerevolved,did not die away [...] here wetouch the great new formative principle which Byzantine art brings intobeing.»HAUSSIG, op. cit., p. 84-85; MANGO, op. cit., p.259-270, esp. p.261-265, and p.269-270. Here again, RICE (op. cit., p. 130-131) retreats fromthe horos of the argument;LINDSAY, op. cit., p.261-267 and 270-276.MANGO, op. cit., p.151-165 and 166-176; HAUSSIG, op. cit., p.84-90.LINDSA Y (op. cit., p. 271) giving an architectural description of SaintSophia, refers to the astrological epithet pantokrator ascribedto Christ asjudge of the world. AIso, commentingon the Palestine(Jewish) influence onByzantine art, and iconographyin particular, he writes (ibid., p. 267) : «Thestrong forms of a new attitude to life appear.The classicalbasis is there, butchanged,stirred from its decadenceinto a tingling new life by the Syrianbuffet [ ...]. The slumbering element has broken out, awake [...] and thefullness of life [ ...] goes [...] beyond Athenian dreams [ ...]». Cf. alsoR. BYRON, The Byzantine Achievement,New York, 1964, p.201.D.A. MILLER (The ByzantineTradition, New York, 1966, p.78-83) thinksthat the Byzantines were more mindful of their Hellenistic heritage in thissacredart.

A HELLENISTIC LEGACY

conceptionasrepresentedin frescoandmosaic.Jeonshadalreadybeeninfluencedby the popularreligiouspracticesof pre-ChristianEgypt,and similarly the form and subdivision of iconographicmaterialshowednon-Christianorigins. In such an iconography,developedundermonasticinfluence,Hellenisticcosmologywasabandoned.Theworld was no longerrepresentedas a spherewith a singleheavenlyspace,but an easterncosmologyof the heavenswasadopted,andinparticularan old Jewishconception,which thoughtthat therewereseveralheavensandcorrespondedto anAkkadian-Chaldeantradition,now foundexpressionin themonasticmovement,5.[Halics mine]

65

To be sure,Haussig'sexplanationis not without its truth. It isthe casethat iconographyappearsin earlierpre-Christiancultures,largelyamongthepopularreligiouscuitsin EgyptandAnatolia,andthat in sorneinstancesByzantineiconsbearthis earlierstamp,parti-cularly of sorneastrologicalaspect.It is also true that there is a'Christian'adaptationof an inheritedcosmography,'encouraged'bythe stricturesof the monasticcadre,in which the sphericalheavensare at times picturedunderdomesand that this inheritedcosmo-graphyreflectsMesopotamiansources,in aIllikelihood tracesof theChaldeantradition. Butwhat1 takeexceptionto is that theseastralfeaturesaretreatedasdiscreteborrowingsof alienelements,whetherof Akkadian, Chaldean,Jewish,or 'Christian'apocryphalorigin,and that these transmissionsconstitutea forsaking of an ancientGreekpatrimony.Furthermore, Haussig'scomprehensionof Hel-lenisticcosmology,andthatof otherhistoriansasweIl, is muchtoonarrowandrestrictive.for his argumentto beadmissible,muchlesspersuasive6• To identify this cosmologysimply as Platonic or,latterly, neo-Platonicis too simplistic. Evena casualreview of itscontentduring the late antiqueperiodwill showmuchmorethananeo-Platonicconnection.Indeed,onewill find in this cosmologyanamalgamof 'foreign' elements,preciselythosewhich Haussigandothershave allegedfiltered into the emergingByzantineculture

5

6

HAUSSIG, op. cit., p. 90. R.K. DEKOSKY (Knowledge andCosmos: Deve-lopment and Decline.of the Medieval Perspective,Washington, 1979, p.65-71) shows that Neo-Platonismwas compatiblewith an astrologicalworld viewand that astrologicalcausationwas characteristicof this cosmology.Cf. alsoD.R. DICKS, Early GreekAstronomyto Aristotle, Ithaca, 1970, p.218-219.Cf. infra n. 8.

66 B.McMINN

piecemealfrom the provinces7. It is my contentionthat, far fromabandoningHellenistic cosmology,the Byzantineartist cosmo":grapherfinds all theseastralfeaturesreadyto handin thesynèretisticworld views8of the laterHellenistic ageand appropriatesthem-being the Hellenist that he is - without scrupleof their 'foreign'character,for usein his own 'Christian'schema.

How this cosmologyis spelledout in Hellenistictimesbecomes,1daim, thepaganoptionfor an 'unorthodox'Byzantineworld view.To show, then, that all the astral (pagan)features,which Haussigandothersdaimto havecomefrom separatepagansources,areto befound in thelateantiqueHellenisticcosmology,1shallreconstructinsynoptic fashion this cosmic theory accordingto its two popularreligious expressions:the Stoic and the Gnostic world views9.

7

8

9

HAUSSIG, op. cit., p.35-40; BYRON, op. cit., p.54-57. Cf. Ch. DIEHLS,ByzantineArt, in BAYNES and MOSS,op. GÎt. (n. 1), p.169-170, 176-178,and 185-186; also LINDSAY, op. GÎt., p.216-267.- Yet LINDSAY (op. GÎt.,p. 19) wams againstcalling the movementeastward'orientalisation'or takingthe changesto be a sign of 'oriental influences' becausethey suggest,asscholarshave used them, the prejudiceof moral collapse.The popular Hellenistic world views are a kaleidoscopicsynthesisof Greekphilosophy, Chaldean astrology, and oriental religion, a composite whichbecomes more theological than philosophical. In Early Stoicism, Epicu-reanism, and Plotinianism, purer philosophicalwo,rld views appear,but noneof these systems achieves a wide acceptancein Hellenistic times; cf:E. CAIRD, The Evolution of Theology in the Greek Philosophers,II,Glasgow, 1904, p.59. Those·systemsor cuits sharing in the Stoic worldview are Posidonian Stoicism, Neo-Pythagoreanism,Orphism, EmperorWorship, and Mithraism. Those sharing in the gnostic world view areHermeticism,Gnosticism, Pauline Christianity, Serapism,and Neo-Platonism.Perhapsno distinction should really be made betweenHermeticismand Neo-Platonism,since the Hermetic world view in most instancesis identical withthat of later Neo-Platonists.For a review of this syncretistic tendency,videLB. McMINN, Fusion of the Gods : A Religio-AstrologicalStudy of theInterpretation of the East and West in Asia Minor, in INES, 15(1956),p.201-213. Vide also J.B. McMINN, The Astrological Significance of theGreek Epithet ICoa/-lolCp(x-rœpin Hellenistic Cosmology,unpubl. thesis, TulanUniv., New Orleans, 1960; ID., An Historical Treatmentof the GreekPhrase-ra a'fO!xeîa -roû ICOa/-lov, unpubl. diss., Southern Seminary, Louisville,Kentucky, 1950; G. DE SANTILLANA and H. von DECHEND, Hamlet'sMill:An Essayon Myth and the Frame of Time, Boston, 1969, p. 50, 64, 75, and228; G. DE SANTILLANA, Reflectionson Men and Ideas, Cambridge,Mass.,1968, p.42, 44, 46, and 119; R. THIEL, And There Was Light : The Disco-very of the Universe, trans R. and C. Winston, New York, 1957, p. 18-35,56-65, and 104-108.The term Stoic here refers to what is frequently called the Middle and LaterStoa : that period of Stoic philosophy which shows a marked tendency to

A HELLENISnCLEGACY 67

Both of these'systems'showthedominatinginfluenceof Chaldeanastrologyandastralmysticism,particularly,throughtheprimacyofthe planetsin their dramatic rolesas godsor asdemonicpowerslO•

In conclusion, I shaH offer, briefly, from Byzantine historicalaccounts,whatI considerto beevidenceof this culturalinfluence.

The Stoic World View

«Astrology»,Murray states,«[fans] upontheHeHenisticmind asa new diseasefans upon sorneremoteislandpeople»,and «everyone[is] readyto receivethegerm»l1.TheStoicsasa whole arethefirst to give way to its influence12. Alreadycommittedto a beliefinthe sympathyof an creation13 and to the doctrineof Necessity14,

eclecticism, admitting Platonic and oriental elements in its system anddeparting to this extent from the orthodox Stoicism of Zeno, Cleanthes,andChrysippus.A few representativesare Posidonius,Cicero, Diodorus, Manilius,Seneca, Plutarch,et al.; cf. E. BEVAN, Stoiesand Seepties,Oxford, 1913,p. 85 sq., and F. COPLESTON,A History of Philosophy : Greeeeand Rome,l, London, 1951, p.42l-437; T.R. GLOVER, The Conf/iet of Religions inthe Early Roman Empire, London, 1919, p. 33-112. - By the term gnostie1refer not simply to the speculative systems developing within the earlyChristian Church but also to those Oriental-Hellenistic syncretismswhosecosmic view offers a systematicframework of the ascentof the soul towardgod, i.e., a gnosisof an itinerarium mentis ad deum summum.For thisdistinction of the term, vide Th. WHITTAKER, The Neo-Platonists: A studyin the History of Hellenism, Cambridge, 1918, p.218 sq., and especiallyD.W. BOUSETT, s.v. Gnosis, in RE, VII(1912), c.1502-1532; ID., s.v.Gnostiker,ibid., c.1534-1574; S. ANGUS, The Religious Questsof theGraeeo-RomanWorld, London, 1929, p.376-397.

10 The primacy of the planets in Hellenistic cosmology indicates its Chaldeanheritage.Cf. SCOTT, Hermetiea,ID, p. 372.

Il MURRAY, Five Stages, p. 139; cf. BEVAN, op. eit. (n. 9), p. 115;E.R. DODDS (The Greeksand thelrrational, Boston, 1957, p.245 sq.) takesexception to MURRAY's figure here; cf. also F. CUMONT, Astrology andReligion, p. xix, and M.P. NILSSON, A History of Greek Religion, p.70;A.D. NOCK, Conversion,Oxford, 1952, p. 99-121.

12 As indicated in n. 9, referencehere is to the Middle and Later Stoa. It couldproperly be called Posidonian Stoicism, as representedin Cicero's laterwritings. Cf. also the writings of Diodorus, Manilius, Seneca,and Plutarch;vide BEVAN, op. cit., p. 85.

13 ZENO in CIC., De Nat. Deor., ID, 28; cf. also CIC., De Divinat., II, 34, 124,142. CHRYSIPPUS(Cleomedes)in von ARNIM, Fragmenta,II, p. 170, 32.

14 ZENO (Stobaeus)in von ARNIM, Fragmenta, l, p.24, 28 sq. (el/lUP/lÉVl1);Chrysippus (Alexander Aphrodisias) in von ARNIM, Fragmenta,ID, p. 165,15-18: Éç àvuY1C1lÇ ｾＯｬ￢ etvUt Kul yivEcreUt (seil. àyueo'Ùç il KUKOUÇ); alsoChrysippus(Stobaeus)in von ARNIM, Fragmenta,II, p. 264, 18 sq.

68 B.McMINN

they find in the Chaldean'science'a supportto their pantheisticworld view15, Astrological calculations,enhancedby a supposedantiquity, also intensify their belief in the deity of the stars16 andstrengthentheir generalbelief in prophecyanddivination17, More-over, throughastrologicalfatalism they areable ta accountfor thesufferings of man18; while through astral mysticism they findtemporalrelief from thesesufferingsandalsothe way to personalimmortality19. Chaldeanastrology,therefore,providesa new basisfor the Stoic world view and, consequently,transformsit from aphilosophicalto apopularreligioussystem20, The astrologicalcha-racterof this syncretisticworld view appearsin its pictorial descrip-

15 ZENO and CHRYSIPPUSin DIOG. LAERT., VII, 148; also in von ARNIM,Fragmenta, II, p.305, 26 sq.; CLEANTHES (Aetius) in von ARNIM,Fragmenta,l, p. 120, 38 sq.; also in DIELS, Doxographi, p.302, 15.

16 CLEANTHES in CIC., De Nat. Deor., II, 40-41; ZENO in DIOG. LAERT., VII,144 sq.

17 CIC., De DiYinat., l, 6, concerningZeno, Cleanthes,and Chrysippus.- CIC.,De DiYinat., II, 87 sq., indicates that a11 the Stoics (except Panaetius)accepted the Chaldean art of astral divination and prophecy. VideCHRYSIPPUSin DIOG. LAERT., VII, 149.

18 MANILIUS, Astronomicon,IV, 14 sq. Cf. CUMONT, op. cit. (n. Il),p. 153 sq.; GREENE, Moira, p. 347 sq.

19 CIC., De Republ.,VI, 16-19, trans. C. W. Keyes, LCL. Early Stoicismconsi-dered astral salvation as the retum to the primeval fire; e.g., CHRYSIPPUS(Arius Didymus) in von ARNIM, Fragmenta, II, p. 223, 20; also in DIELS,Doxographi, p.471, 19-20, but cited simply as a teaching of the Stoa. Cf.PLIN., Nat. Hist., VII, 55, trans. H. Rackham,LCL.

20 Although one might reasonablyclaim that Stoic cosmology inherits most ofits salient features from Pythagoras,Plato, and Aristotle, it seems morereasonable,however, to assertthat its world view, reflecting at the beginningthe philosophical characterof its own culture, becomesessentia11yChaldeanand consequentlymore religious than philosophical.Thosescholarswho arguefrom the point of view of Greek influence are NILSSON, op. cit. (n. Il),p. 289-291; BEVAN, op. cit. (n.9), p. 116; GREENE, op. cit., p. 351-354;JAEGER, Aristotle, p. 156, n. l, 162sq., 373 sq.; C.H. MOORE, TheReligious Thought of the Greeks, Cambridge, Mass., 1925, p.187; andE. ZELLER, Outlinesof the History of GreekPhilosophy, trans L.R. Palmer,London, 1950, p.247-255.On the other hand, cf. J. BURNET, Early GreekPhilosophy, London, 1952, p.24, n. 1; F. CUMONT, After Life in RomanPàganism,New Haven, 1922, p.30 sq.; ID., Astrology and Religion, p. 81sq.; and S. ANGUS, The Enyironmentof Early Christianity, London, 1914,p. 186.

A HELLENISTIC LEGACY 69

tion of theworld asa macrocosmandin its theologicalaccountof thesevenplanetsastherulersof theworld21•

TheMacrocosm

The physicalorder. The Stoic world is an immanentphysicaluniversefoundedupon an astrologicaldualismof sublunaryandsuperlunaryparts22. Thesetwo partscontaingradedlevelsof exis-tence,extendingfrom inorganicentities,asin themineraIkingdom,through plants and animaIs up to man and to the superorganicspheresof the planetsand the fixed stars23• In the sublunarypartthere are four zones: the earth, the water, which covers a vastportionof the earth,theair of the atmosphere,andtheupperregionof frre24. Thesefour zonescontainthefour elementsfrom which allsublunaryphenomenaderive25• Thecompositenatureof thesephe-nomenaaccountsfor theirerraticmovementandcontigentexistence.Fromtheouterboundaryline of the fiery zoneextendthe spheresofthe superlunaryworld, viz., the sevenplanetaryspheresand thesphereof the fixed stars.In the first and lowest of the planetaryspheresis the Moon; then above the Moon come the six otherplanets: Mercury, Venus,the Sun,Mars, Jupiter,andSaturn.Theeighthsphere,which markstheboundsof theuniverse,is thecircleof the Zodiacandthe otherfixed stars26. Thesecelestialbodiesare

21 Since the extant accountsof this systemare largely fragmentary, this descrip-tion of the Stoic world view is drawn primarily from J. von ARNIM'sStoicorumVeterumFragmentaandH. DIELS' DoxographiGraeci; otherprimarysourcesof the Middle andLater Stoaareusedalso.

22 Vide CIC., De Nat. Deor., II, 36-58, andpassim; DIOG. LAERT., VII,138-160.N. B. a synopsisof this cosmographyin AUGUST., De Civit. Dei, VII, 6; Deopinione Varronis, Migne (in aIl likelihood the teachingof ｐ ｯ ｳ ｩ ､ ｯ ｮ ｩ ｵ ｳ ｾ ［ cf.BEVAN, OP.. cit., p.43, 107; ZELLER, op. cit., p. 252; FESTUGIERE,PersonalReligion, p.l05-121; COPLESTON, op. cit. (n.9), l, p.423.

23 CIC., De Nat. Deor., II, 36. Cf. COPLESTON,op. cit., l, p.422.24 CIC., De Nat. Deor., l, 103-104; Posidoniusin DIOG. LAERT., VII, 155 sq.;

POSIDONIUS (AlexanderAphrodisias)in von ARNIM, Fragmenta,II, p. 155,32.

25 EPICTETUS,fr. 8, trans.W. A. Oldfather,LCL; DIOG. LAERT., VII, 136-137;142. Cf. PHILO, On the SpecialLaws, l, 266, trans. F.H. Colson, LCL.

26 CIC., De Nat. Deor., II, 51-53; CIC., De Republ.,VI, 17-18. Cf. CHRYSIP-PUS (Nemesius)in von ARNIM, Fragmenta,II, p.'190, 10 sq.; CHRYSIPPUS(Stobaeus)in von ARNIM, Fragmenta,n, p. 168, 32 sq. As regards thevarious ancientorderingsof the planetsand their distancefrom the earth,videSCOTT, Hermetica, II, Oxford, 1925, p.444-445; PHILO, Who is the Heir,224 sq.

70 B.McMINN

composedof ether,a fifth elementpurerandmoredivine than theother four elements27; and unlike sublunaryphenomena,theirmovementis orderlyandtheirexistence,etemal.

Thepsychicalorder. Themacrocosm,however,is not simply aphysical order. It is also an orderof living beings,i.e., psychiccenterswhich occupygradedlevelsof existencein thesublunaryandsuperlunaryspheres28. The ascendingscaleof beingsin the sub-lunary zonesaretheplants,theloweranimaIs,men,the soulsof thedeadwho havenot yetascendedinto theetemelsuperlunaryspheres,and the dreadelementaldemons29• The demonsare in reality thepowersof Chance,which determinethe irregular and disorderlymovementsof aIl sublunarybeings30. In thespheresabovethemoonresidethe astraldeitiesand the soulsof men who haveachievedastralimmortality31. Although thesecelestialbeingsaredivine andetemalpowers,superiorto thecontingentsublunaryspirits, they arealsohierarchicallyordered,in theascendingscaleof deifiedmen,the

27 CIC., De Nat. Deor., II, 39 sq. Cf. DIOG. LAERT., VII, 139; OrphieHymn, V,4 Hermann.

28 POSIDONIUS et al., in DIOG. LAERT., VII, 143. This order may be calledmore properly pan-psychical,reflecting thereby the Chaldeanmotif presentedin the text under the headingof 'The Astrological Role of the Planets'.

29 POSlDONIUS (Sextus Empiricus) in von ARNIM, Fragmenta,II, p.303, 10-22. Although this passageis not clearly stated to be from Posidonius,BEVAN, op. cit., p. 105, ascribesit, with sorne question, to Posidonius;andl follow his lead. Cf. also the passageon Varro in AUGUST., De Civit. Dei,VII, 6, Migne. Conceming the malign characterof the elements,CUMONT(Astrology and religion, p. 122) says : «These elements were not onlydeified: they were themselveshauntedby formidable powers; especially thezone of the air, which envelopsthe earth, was the chosenhome of demons,kindly or malignant beings, who occupied the middle space and served asintermediariesbetweengods and men, superior to the latter, inferior to theformer.» CHRYSIPPUSin CIC., De Nat. Deor., l, 39, considerstheseelementsas gods. On the beings who peopledthe upper air, cf. PHILO, The Confusionof Tongues,IV, 173sq., trans. F.H. Colson, LCL.

30 The Greek term here employed for Chance is '1: 0 (dl't 01H1. '1: 0 V ; videCHRYSIPPUS(AlexanderAphrodisias) in von ARNIM, Fragmenta,II, p. 281,34-38; cf. CIC., De leg., II, 28, trans. C.W. Keyes, LCL. - The notion ofChanceamong the Stoics is a tenuousidea; certainly 'l:UXTI is excludedfromserious consideration.Perhapsthe Aristotelian conceptionof aÙ'l:0llCX'l:OV asan indeterminatecause or spontaneityhas sorne bearing on the Stoic idea;vide GREENE, op. eit.(n. 18), p.320 sq., 325, and 423 n. 56; alsoFESTUGIÈRE, op. cit. (n. 22), p.41; MURRAY, op. cit. (n. 11), p. 128 sq.- Cf. PHILO, On Providence,fr. II, 53, trans. F.H. Colson,LCL.

31 DIOG. LAERT., VII, 151.

A HELLENISnCLEGACY 71

fixed stars,andthe sevenplanets32. Beingsupremeamongthegods,theplanetsarethereforethepowersof divine Necessity33. Throughtheir conjunctionwith the twelve fixed stars,they rule the entiremacrocosm,determiningits unity anddestiny34.

Thus,the Stoic world pictureis a vastmaterialuniversewith nomodesof beingor life outsidethe field of the senses.The whole ofreality is containedwithin «theenvelopeof fiery ether,oneworld,knit togetherby a naturalsympathybetweenaIl theparts35».

ThePlanets

Necessity.Presidingover the Stoic macrocosmare the divineplanets.They are the godspar excellence,the rulersof heavenandearth36• Of course Plat037, Aristotle38, andperhapsPythagoras39,

32 CIC., De Republ.,VI, 17-18. The eclectic characterof Cicero'sworld view in'Scipio's Dream' lends itse1f to an expositionof Neo-Platonism,as seen1aterin MACROB., l, 17-22, Comm. in Somn. Scipion., F. Eyssenhardt;W.H. STAHL (Macrobius : Commentaryon the Dream of Scipio, New York,1952, p.26) writes in his 'Introduction' that «Macrobius had used Cicero'stext merely as a framework upon which to hang Neoplatonic doctrinesgatheredfrom his readings».

33 CIC., De Nat., Deor., II, 51-56 and 88 (Posidonius); cf. CHRYSIPPUS(Stobaeus) in von ARNIM, Fragmenta, II, p.264, 18-21; PHILO, OnProvidence,fr. II, 50.

34 CIC., De Nat. Deor., II, 60 and 51-59. Cf. also CIC., De Divinat., II, 89;POSlOONIUSin DIOG. LAERT., VII, 139, says that 'the heaven'is the rulingof the world. Heavenhererefers,1 think, 10 the spheresof the planetsand thefixed stars in which the deity (Providenceor Necessity)has rus seat; Cf. ibid.,138. The contrasthere betweenunity and destiny may appearmore clearly inthe fol1owing section under the term 'Necessity'.At this point, unity may bedescribedas the causalrelation existing betweenthe parts of the macrocosm,involving both mechanisticand free (psychical) causation.Destiny, on theother hand, his the active force, consciouspurpose,which shapesand deter-mine the characterof unity.

35 BEVAN, op. cit., p. 114.36 MURRAY, op. cit., p. 134 sq.37 PLAT., Epinom.,983 e, 984 d-e; Leg., 899 b, 931 a; Tim., 39 e, 40 b and d;

Rep., 508 a-b.38 ARISTOT. (Stobaeus)in DIELS, Doxographi, p. 450, 9-16.39 PYTHAGOR. (Epiphanius) in DIELS, Doxographi, p.589, 4-6; DIOG.

LAERT., Vill, 27; cf. also the Anonyme Pythagoreerin DIELS, Vorsokratiker,1,449, 16 sq.

72 B.McMINN

asweIl as Aeschylus40 andEuripides41, believethat theplanetsaredivine andetemalbeings42. But this beliefdoesnot seemto havemuchreligious intensity,until Posidoniusof Apamea43, undertheinfluenceof Chaldeanastrology,introducesto the Stoathe divinecosmicrule of the sevenplanets44. Posidonius'theologicalinterestin the planetsspringsfrom his concemfor man45• His hopeis toprovidemanwith a systemwhich will serveasa practicalguideoflife, enablinghim to feel at homein astrangeandhostile universe46•

Theplanetsarenot simply distantpowerswhich regulatemechani-cally the cosmicprocess47. Theyaredeitieswho takean interestin

40 AESCH., Agam.,4-7; 364-366.41 EUR., Hippo/., 530-534.42 DODDS, op. cit. (n. 11), p. 261, considers the divinity of the planets in

Plato as «a piece of imaginativedecoration».43 Posidoniuswas a Stoic philosopher,born in Apamea, Syria, about 135 B.C.,

and died at Rhodes,about 51 RC. In 95 RC. (?), he becameby adoption acitizen of Rhodes,where he taught until his death. Cicero, in his young days,came to Rhodesto study philosophy under him. «A man of immenseknow-ledge and strong religious emotions, he moved the Stoa in the direction ofOriental mysticism»; MURRAY, op. cit., p. 152, n. 52. Vide BEYAN'sexcursus (op. cit., p.85-118) on Posidonius, and also a brief comment inSCOTT,Hermetica,ID, 112.

44 MURRAY, op. cît., p. 133 sq., arguesthat the belief in the divinity of theplanetsdid not reach much religious intensity until it was reinforced by twoalien influences,viz., the ancientworship of the sun and the adorationof thesevenplanets (and it has been argued,vide n. 10, that these influences stemfrom Chaldeanastrology and astral worship). - CUMONT, op. cit. (n. 29),p. 84, states that it was Posidonius who was responsiblefor the alliance ofSemitic tradition with Greek thoughtand that «aboveaIl it was due to him thatastrology enteredinto a coherentexplanationof the world, acceptableto themost enlightenedintellects». Although BEYAN (op. cit., p. 116) remarks thatCUMONT has overstatedPosidonius'incorporation of Syrian religious tradi-tions in Stoic philosophy, he does agree essentiaIlywith CUMONT's thesis.L.R. TAYLOR (Divinity of the Roman Emperor, Middletown, 1931, p.52)also recognizesPosidonius' influence in spreadingastrological ideas amongthe Stoa. It must be admitted here, however, that Posidonius becomesashadowyfigure and that what is frequently attributed to him might simply beaccretionsbrought into Stoicism by his disciples. When, therefore, his nameappears in this chapter in connection with ideas which are not explicitlyascribedto him in the sources,it will he an eponymfor PosidonianStoicism.

45 CIC., De Nat. Deor., n, 154 sq. Cf. also SCOTT,Hermetica,IY, 401.46 BEYAN, op. cit., p.98 sq.47 The EpicureanYELLEIUS in CIC., De Nat. Deor., l, 52 sq., ascrihesto Stoic

theology this mechanicalview of Necessity and descrihesit as an irksomebondagewhich maintainsthe coursesof the stars.

A HELLENISTIC LEGACY 73

man,shapinganddeterminingthroughdivine counselhumandesti-nies. In this capacity they are truly powersof Necessity48. ButNecessityis not thenaturalmechanisticprinciple of determinismofearlyStoic tradition49. It is Destinyor Pate,somethinglessphysical,more like consciouspUlpose- almostidenticalwith Providence50.

As Murray putsit :

It is not Anankêbut Heimarmenê[...] the AÔ'Yoç 'toû ｋ ｣ ｲ ｾ ｯ ｵ Ｌ theNoûçlhôç, theReasonof theWorld or themind of Zeus,ratherdiffi-cult to distinguishfrom Pronoiaor Providencewhich is the work ofGodandindeedthevery essenceof God.51

Necessity,then,is not anexternalandalienforce. It is the inter-naI powerof reasonpervadingthewhole; it is the naturalsympathywhich unitesan things to oneanother,ft O'uJ.L1t<i8eta'twv o)..,rov52.

48 Cf. PHILO, The Migration of Abraham,179. Cf. also ibid. 181. - Although'these men' refer to the Chaldeans,F.H. COLSON indicates in his notes toPHILO's Allegorical Interpretation, trans. G.H. Whittaker, LCL, l, p.478,that this developedthought is Stoic.

49 Zeno and the Early Stoa speak of ｾ ai'da, ｾ q>u(nç and ｾ &'VO:'YKll asequivalent to dfLapfLÉvll (Stobaeusand Plutarch) in DIELS, Doxographi,p. 322; cf. (Plutarch) in DIELS, Doxographi, p.324, as the teaching of theStoics in generalon Necessity.Vide CHRYSIPPUS(AlexanderAphrodisias)invon ARNIM, Fragmenta,III, p. 165, 15-18; CIC., De Nat. Deor., II, 73-168;DIOG. LAERT., VII, 138.

50 Here, as in the Chaldeanastrology, an inconsistencyappearswhich is diffi-cult, if not impossible, to harmonize.Commentingon this problem, GREENE(Moira, p.338) states:«At one time Stoicism seems to be pantheism;atother moments,as in the Hymn of Cleanthes,it is a theistic religion»; videCLEANTHES (Stobaeus)in von ARNIM, Fragmenta, l, p.537. In DIOG.LAERT., VII, 135 sq., God in Stoic terms is referred to as Reason,Destiny,Zeus and many other names.H.A.A. KENNEDY, St. Paul and the Mystery-Religions, New York, 1913, p.9, concludes that «Here, therefore, there ispresenteda religious view of the world, basedon a virtual monotheism,whichcan be traced back to Posidonius'reshapingof the ancient astral worship ofBabylon by meansof Stoic-Platonicconceptions.»This monotheistic aspectis seenin CIC., De Republ.,VI, 26. Yet, again, a polytheismappearsin CIC.,De Nat. Deor., II, 51-58, 77-80, and 154; and his henotheistic aspect, inDIOG. LAERT., VII, 139, where it is said that the ruling god is ether(Antipater of Tyre), the purer part of ether (Chrysippus), the sun (Cleanthes),and the heaven (Posidonius).Cf. CUMONT, op. cit., p. 159.

51 MURRAY, op. cit., p. 129-130.Vide SCOTT, Hermetica, III, 424 sq., on theStoic conceptionof Heimarmene; also A. DIETERICH, Abraxas, Leipzig,1891, p.73-76.

52 CHRYSIPPUS (Cleomedes)in von ARNIM, Fragmenta, II, p. 170, 32; cf.CIC., De Divinat., II, 34, 124, and 142. Also cf. PHILO, On the Creation, 1,

74 B.McMINN

And theplanetsarethe chiefgodsof this divine reason,interpretingto man throughtheir movementsＧ ｴ ｾ ｶ 'trov 8erovëvvouxv53. Thereisno needfor manto fear them. It is only necessarythatherecognizethemas godsof reasonandpurposeandrelatehimselfproperly tothem, by complying with that divine ･ ｴ ｾ ＼ ｸ ｰ ｾ ￩ ｶ ｬ ｬ Ｌ ｣ ｲ Ｇ ｜ Ｉ ｾ ｮ Ｆ Ｘ ･ ｴ ｡ ornp6vota,whoseserviceis perfectfreedom54. Thus he avoidssuf-fering andovercomeshis senseof cosmicestrangement.

Astral divination. As an aid, however, to the avoidanceofimprovident action and to the attainmentof Stoic wisdom55,Posidoniusincludesin his systemthe 'science'of astraldivination:the belief that the future canbe readin the starsby thosewho areskilled to do s056.The traditionalStoic belief in thesympathyof aIlcreationprovideshim with a ready-madebasisfor this manticart57.Yet, he wishes to establishthis belief through scientific means.Traveling to Gades58, he thereobservesthe sympatheticrelationbetween the phasesof the moon and the Atlantic Ocean andconcludesthat the tides of the Oceanaredependentupon the lunarcycle59. If the mooncanregulatethe tidesof the mighty Atlantic, it

113 and 117sq., trans. G.H. Whittaker, LCL; PHILO, Allegorical Interpre-tation, 8; EPICTETUS,l, 14, trans.W.A. Oldfather,LCL.

53 DIOD., II, 30,4, the Cha1deanteaching.Cf. CIC., De Nat. Deor., II, 54 and 77sq.; PHILO, Al/egorical Interpretation,8-9; On the Creation, 1n. Vide, onthe basisof PHILO's, On the Migration of Abraham, 179 and 181, K..NOX, St.Paul and the Church of the Gentiles,p. 51. - Vide also PHILO, The confusionof Tongues,173-174.

54 MURRAY, op. cit., p. 130.55 ｾ ｯ ｣ ｰ ｻ ｡ Ｌ theoretical wisdom, becomesin the main for the Stoic, cpp6vT]O"tç,

practical wisdom; cf. DIOG. LAERT., VII, 92 sq. Emphasisis p1acedupon thewise man (0 0"0cp6ç); amonghis virtues one of primary importanceis that heis a worshipperof the gods. He knows how to servethe gods, is acquaintedwith their rites, makes sacrifices to them, and offers prayers, asking goodthings from them; DIOG. LAERT., VII, 119-124.Cf. PHILO, Every GoodManis Pree, IX, 41-42, trans. F.H. Colson, LCL, where the wise man standsinclose relation with the celestial gods. Posidonius' emphasison astraldivination as a part of Stoic wisdom reflects the astral doctrine of O"ocp{a inPLAT., Epinom.,976-977,passim.

56 CIC., De Divinat., l, 6 and 125-127; cf. Cicero'snegativeassertion(ibid., II,88), which atteststo astral divination among the Stoics; DIOG. LAERT., VII,149. For a limited influence of astral divination (perhaps from Stoicteaching),cf. PHILO, On the Creation, 58-59 and 113.

57 CIC., De Nat. Deor., II, 19; EPICT., l, 14; DIOG. LAERT., VII, 140 and 149.58 STRAB., Geogr., 173 sq., trans. H.L. Jones,LCL.59 Cf. Philo's (A/legorical Interpretation, J, 8 sq.) brief panegyric on the

hebdomad,where the moon is consideredto be the most sympatheticto the

A HELLENISTIC LEGACY 75

must also be able to control the tides in the affairs of men60. Itseems,therefore,only a naturalillustrationof cosmicsympathythatthemovementsof theplanetsshouldbe boundup with the fortunesof man. And nothing is more natural than to supposethat «thewisdomof the Chaldeanshadindeeddiscoveredin the movementsof the planetsthrough the fixed starsthe signswhich'foretold, tothosewho couldreadthemaright, the future destiniesof the world,and indeedof every individual in the world; for aIl were boundtogetherby thatnatural'sympathy',which wasalsoprovidenceandfate an the will of God61». Rence on the grounds of cosmicsympathy Posidoniusacceptsthe Chaldean'science'of astraldivination. But he strengthensit with Platonicpsychology62.As aresult,manandtheplanetsbecomevitally related.

Like theuniverse,manis a quaintmaterialisticdualism,a micro-cosmcomposedof body and soul63. The body, however,is earth-born, beingsimply a compositeof the four sublunaryelements.Thesoul, on the other hand, is a fragmentof the etherealplanetsandthereforedivine64. Thus becauseof this vital relation, man is ablewith greatercertainty to discern through the dispositions and

earthof aIl the planets;also PHILO, The SpecialLaws, II, 140-161,where thesametheme is developed.On the "divine natureof the moon from the Stoicpoint of view, vide CIC., De Nat. Deor., II, 19, 50, 103, and 119.

60 That is to say, man under sublunaryconditions,harassedconstantly by theelements, rises and faIls according to the necessitiesof the moon; cf.MURRAY, op. cit., p. 141, and KNOX, op. cit. (n. 53), p.63. This sort ofsympatheticrelation holds not only in the caseof the moon but also in thecaseof eachof the other planets.

61 KNOX, op. cit., p.63.62 Cf. PHILO, On the Creation, 117 sq.; BEVAN, op. cit., p. 100 sq.;

E. ROHDE, Psyche, trans. W.B. Hillis, London, 1925, p.502, 518-519;DODDS, op. cit. (n. Il); COPLESTON, op. cit. (n. 9), l, p.423. N. B.Greene'srejection (Moira, p.354)of this view of Posidonius.

63 Cf. PHILO, On the Creation, 69, 82, 146 sq., for the macrocosm-microcosmanalogy of Stoicism. N. B. ibid., 117 sq., where the sympathyof the macro-cosm and microcosm is basedon the correspondencebetween the sevenplanets and the sevenlower parts of the soul; cf. the Stoics (Plutarch) inDIELS, Doxographi,p. 410, 25 sq. Aiso vide ROHDE, op. cit., p.497sq.

64 CIC., De Republ., VI, 15. Cf. Hipparchus'statementin PLIN., Nat. Hist., II,95, trans. H. Rackham,LCL; also CIC., De Leg., l, 20-27. The notion of thebond (lh:of!6ç), in man, ZELLER, op. cit. (n. 20), p. 250, uniting him withthe superlunarypart of the macrocosm,derives from PLATO, Tim., 31 c. AsKNOX [op. cit. (n. 53), p.65] puts it: «By means of this amalgamationofthe Timaeuswith the older Stoic tradition, it becamepossible to combineasystemof transcendentalmonotheismwith the pantheismof the early Stoa.»

76 B.McMINN

movementsof theplanetshis own future, whethergoodor m, andtodirectbis courseaccordingly.

Astral mysticism.Astral divination, however,is only a part ofwisdom. It merely provides a way of knowing about the futureaheadof time. It offersnocontrol.overor relief from what the futuremay bring. According to early Stoic tradition, man is alonein hisstruggleswith FortuneandFate.His lot is to endureaH thingsuntildeath,whenhe is absorbedagaininto thecosmicfire from which hecamé5• Thus,facing thedecreesof fate nobly is thepartof wisdom.Concerned,however,with man'spredicament,PosidoniusleadsStoicismto a beliefin astralmysticism: anestheticcontemplationofthe heavensby which manentersinto mystic communionwith thedivine stars66• Theplanetsareno longermerelycosmicrulerswhoimposeon aH theconsequenceof fate or simply far-off visible godswhosemovementsthrough the heavensreveal the counselof thegods.Theyarebeneficentpersona!deitieswho areaccessibleto theirdevoteesthroughdirect communion67• This divine encounterrestson a mysticalpsychologicalexperience.The humansoul, beingaparticleof the planetarynature,is kin to the gods; and the divinereasonwhich enlightenstheluminariesalsoanimatesman68• Estheticcontemplationof the heavensthus becomesa religious contempla-tion69. It arousesin the devoteea 'cosmicemotion'which lifts hissoul in ecstasyand enthusiasminto the presenceof the starrychoir70. Here he gainsdivine strengthto overcomesublunaryills

65 CHRYSIPPUS (Arius Didymus) in von ARNIM, Fragmenta,II, p.223, 20;also in DIELS, Doxographi,p.471, 19-20, cited here simply as a teachingofthe Stoa. Cf. PLIN., Nat., Hist., VII, 55.

66 SENEC., On Benefits,IV, 23, trans. A. Stewart, London, 1887, assertsthat,in spite of other benefits deriving from our dependenceon the sun and moonand the planets,thesestarsarouseour wonder by their heautyand demandouradorationby their majesty. Cf. especiallyCUMONT, op. cit. (n. Il), p. 139-149; FESTUGIÈRE, op. cit. (n. 22), p. 117; DODDS, op. cit., p.247 sq.

67 As mentioned earlier, CUMONT, Astrology and Religion, p. 158 sq., callsattention to a fundamental inconsistencyhere: that astrology in aIl itsdevelopmentsprofessesto he an exact science,but actually remainsa priestlytheology.

68 CIC., De Republ.,VI, 13 and 15.69 CUMONT, op. cit., p. 144 sq. and 200 sq.; FESTUGIÈRE,op. cit., p.117-

118.70 Cf. LUCIAN., De Civil. Bell., l, 45-46, trans.1. D. Duff, LCL; IUL., Orat., IV,

130, trans. W. C. Wright, LCL; St. PAUL, l, Corinth., 12 : 2-4, refers to one(perhapshimself) as having been snatchedup into the third heavenand into

A HELLENISTIC LEGACY 77

andreceivesinsightinto themysteryof theascentof thesou!at deathinto the planetaryspheres.Thu.s man acquiresthrough 'cosmicemotion'whathecouldneveracquirethroughreasonalone,viz., theeschatologicalhope of astral apotheosis71. Astral mysticism,therefore,modifies the obduratecharacterof the planets,makingthemevangelsof salvationandhoperatherthanbearersof sufferingand despair.Under their patronageman can anticipateat deathpersonalimmorality among their spheres72. Knowledgeof thismysteryis indeedthe fullnessof wisdom73.

B.McMINNDepartmentof PhilosophyUniversityof AlabamaAlabama50020U.S.A.

Paradise,where he heardwords unspeakable;cf. also Galat., 1 : 12-18;Acts,9: 1 sq. Vide on St. Paul's and Plotinus' astral apotheosis,MURRAY, op.cit., p. 143; re 'ecstasy'and 'enthusiasm',ibid., p. 131. KENNEDY (St. Pauland the Mystery-Religions,p.202 sq.) notes that ﾫ ｶ ･ ｏ Ｇ ｜ ｬ ･ ｊ ｬ Ｈ ｘ ･ ｊ ｾ Ｖ ｷ ｡ ｳ oftenvirtually synonymous with ËKeJ't(XeJlÇ [...] The astral mysticism, so dear toPosidoniusemploys the method of absorbing contemplation.By its means,communionwith the divinity is possibleof attainment.»

71 CUMONT, Les religions Orientales, p. 265, n.91; DIETERICH, EineMithrasliturgie, p. 179 sq. Cf. PLAT., Epinom.,986 c.

72 CIC., De Republ., VI, 13, 16, and 19. Cf. a passageof Stoic doctrine,attributed by BEVAN, op. cit., p. 108, to Posidonius(Sextus Empiricus) invon ARNIM, Fragmenta,II, p.223-224and p.321, 8-18, where the souls ofthe wise and good man are raised to the stars.

73 Cf. again PLAT., Epinom., 992 a-b. This notion of wisdom may he comparedsomewhatwith Socrates'idea of philosophizing, in PLAT., Phaed., 66c-68b;J. BURNET ed., Plato's Phaedo,Oxford, 1953, as a kind of dying, i.e., deathbeing thoughtof here as the separationof the soul from the body, so that thesoul in its purity might live an unemcumberedlife with God; cf. alsoT. WHITTAKER, The Neo-Platonists,p. 127.