Biography and paradigms of the divine sage

sbae 1 mt > CHAPTER TWO Biography and Paradigms of the Divine Sage Biographers ofLate Antiquity thought divinity to bea distinguishing characteristic of the philosopher. This convicrion can be viewed as an intensification of older philosophical notions of che extent co which men can be divine. Plato, for example, staced in The Republic chat “the lover of wisdom, by keeping company with the divine and orderly, becomes himself divine and orderly in so far as ir is possible for man,” but he qualified this statemene by adding chat “there is much imbalance in all men.” Any man who loves wisdom, chen, is divine because his love places him in harmony with cosmic order; no man, however, is completely divine since we are all prey to human factiousness. Aristotle held a similar opinion. Writing about che life of contemplation, he remarked in the Niconuschean Ethics that consistent practice of such a life is beyond our mortal element: “for it is not in so far as he is man char he will live so, but in so far as something divine is present in hem.” Reason is divine, and the “activity of philosophic wisdom” is divine in comparison with ordinary human life.' Six centuries later, che Neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry could speak of the philosopher as che “priest of the universal god."? Notions of what the philosophic life is, and who is capable of living it, had undergone a great change, such chat the comments of Plato and Aristotle would have seemed gross understatements to their philosophical heirs, the intellectual elite of Porphyry’s time. A more aristocratic idea had replaced their rather egalieartan thoughe that once appriscd of the course of the truly virtuous life, all men could at least aspire toward philosophy, che one divine activity. For Porphyry’s contemporaries, philosophy was a profession limited to a select I, Plate The Republic 300c—d; Ariscode Nivamavheean Ethics Wi7a—b. 2. Porpliyey De abstinentia 2.49: “hu ton eft pasin dean bieren”

group, the teachers of the religious sects and of che philosophical circles, and dedicated to a single end, knowledge of god. | By che chird century, chere was no question that philosophy was an er tially religious endeavor. A passage from che Hermetic treatise As bis states the case succincely: “Philosophy consists solely in tearning to know wie the deity by habicual contemplation and pious devorion. The practical, action-vriented Jife of the human community was denigrated: ic was a who had an assured share in the divine kingdom; he was free to rake what Plotinus, quoting Homer, called true advice: “‘Let us fly to our dear councry,” che realm of the soul.” But the philosopher was not simply a passive figure, content to occupy a saintly periphery in ancient society. He was a man wich a mission, a mission chat was central to life in Late Antiquity: to communicate the divine, and ro 18 “tragi-comedy,” a “shadow of contemplation,” an interior mode of Denk, Pagan and Christian alike subseribed to an untological doctrine char ¢ efinc the real as the degree of one’s assimilation, through contemplation and other salvitic acts, to che divine.” Though all men were thought to contain a divine spark—Sexrus stated that to see God would be to sec eneself"— only a few were sufliciendy aware of it. These laccer were, of course, che sages, whose souls were “God's mirror." As Porphyry remarked, the sage became divine by his likeness to God,” and his contemporaries looked to him as a spiritual doctor and moral guide.” The philosopher, then, was the man 3, Asclepius 12 (Corpus Hermeticum 2.312). See also Maximus ot yee (Das > we nes thar philosophy is che only pure religeon, and Apuleius (De Dog. Plat. 2.7) who u cm s justice wich hotiness. Christians too considered philosophy to he identical 9 heen. Among dhe apologists, Melito of Sardis tin iuschius HE 4,20), Achenagoras (Sup fasta pr Christianis 2), and Justin (Diutyne with Tiyphe ZW.) all regard Christianiey as philosophy. Reading his own convictions Into che past, Justin suggested that che vision of God was rhe true goal of Places philosophy, an opinion trac came to be widely accepted anne all paie losuphers, regardless of their sectarian athltations Dialogue 23-6). But the oy ree à losophy chat alone could lead men back co God was, ol Cour, Chriscianiry ( “ gue t ; , 2.1). Clement of Alexandria had a more complicated definicion: on che one hand, eruc p M losophy was che knowledge transmitted by Christ; oa the scher, Greek philosophy roses so called was simply a preparation for che perfection offered by life as a Christian ( ‘roma ; 1.18.90, 1.3.28). Eusebius used che terin “philosophy” to mean boch Christian doctrine ans the ascetic life (Preparation ercengelica 12.29). Bor furcher cxamples see Gustave Bardy, Me des premiers n siècles,” Revue d'aseétique et et ‘philosophe’ dans le vocabulaire chrétie losophie’ de mystique 25 (April-December, 1949): 97-108. ann mn 4. Porphyry Ad Mareedlam 2; Plotinus linn. 3.8.4. | 5. See, for example, Plorinus Ens, 1.2.6; Clement of Alexandria Stromata 6.113.3: human lite should be directed roward becoming a gud (realizing fully one’s divine potencial). 8. Sextus 450. 7. Plotinus Emm. 1.6.8. 6. Sexrus 416, 9. Porphysy Ad Marceflam 285.20. 10. Sec, for example, Cleinene of Ale sud he had gained who idria, who bell thae che person who imastery over his desires was able co see Gant; being ratsed above the body, that person w war rcentilie N ins] Thoseewhe reach ble world. T! che Himpercept int possess insight fs A " ii, zy ë es 6 sur m this heighe : “friends of God,” become che counsellors and spiritual leaders of orhers (Stramata he filled with che spirit an. 19 protect from the demonic. By che first century A.D, che philosopher — whether he was a roving preacher, a magician-prophet, or an acknowl edged leader of a particular school of thought—had become à holy man in che eyes ofhis fellows, and his prestige was such that admirers were able to make extravagant claims for his abilities,“ Indeed che idea of the holy man became at least as important as the men themselves, for their existence (or, perhaps, their reputations) attested to che gods’ concern for che welfare of humankind. The idea of the philosopher as holy man had a dramatic effect on biographical portrayals of philosophers in the Imperial age. The sage was, of course, a time-honored, traditional paradigm; and we have seen how earlier biographers developed certain literary techniques and modes of presentation that allowed them to concentrate on che ideals suggested by che actual lives of cheir subjects. In lacer biographies by such authors as Philostracus, Porphyry, Eusebius, and lamblichus, che great wisdom and noble character of the philosopher are augmented, and sometimes overshadowed, by specilic qualities and calents linking him co divinity. These “holy” embellishments on the image of the philosopher represent more than a simple application ofa divine veneer, however; they signify a major shift in cultural lues. This shift had several aspects: che flowering of heroic asceticism; the 6,102.2, 7.13.1. 8.19.2, 6.106.2, 7.3.4), Damis' praise of Apollonius ts instructive here: “for when | firsc met with Apollonius here, be ar once struck me as full of wisdom and cleverness and sobriecy and of true enduranc but when E saw chat he alsa had a good memory, and that he was very learned and entirely devoced co love of learning , he became to me something superhuman; and I came cv che conclusion chat ifI stuck to him | should be held a wise man instead of an ignoramus and a dullard, and an educated man insten.| of a savage.” Philosteatus Vite Apollanii 3.43. U, Sextus 311. For a wealth of examples, ser Karl Holl, “Die schriftst ellerische Form «les Griechischen Heiligenlebens," Nene Jahrbücher für klassische Altertum 29 (912): 414-18, 12. Plotinus Fan, 1.6.8. 13. On che claims of boly men, see the sommene of Dio Chrysostom 33.4: “Te se Is CO me thac one often hears about divine men Libeiön anthräpén] who and speak about all things.” y that chey know all rhings

conflation (and confusion) of several modes of “philosophic cv cluding miracle- and magic working, prophecy, and the more na Dust nevertheless the important point that conceptions of divinity to occupy a more inodest god/ike status. There was in fact a complex battery ofcharacteristics of the for reporting idealiscic embroiderings on historical hives Biogen) ce an important tool, along with apology, in the prose 0 oe and pagans; and, finally, the special techniques that biograp vy tra ions used co portray character were refined and, ina sense, seen ved in other words, biography now included certain necessary igre ee . In this chapter, we will examine the new diving image of the poner ver and che cultural significance ofthe emergence and popularity 0 ms igure. The chapter chat follows will document in detail how the ideal che divine philosopher transformed, and was transformed by, biography. ideal. Plotinus reportedly achieved union with (or illumina tion divine source four times during his life, and Origen, whom E‚ R. called a “mystic manqué,” stated thar “often, God is my witness, operative in the divinification of philosophers. The idea chat wise men were somehow divine was not simply a hement of the biographers’ imagination; nor was the mantle of holiness forced wor philosophers. There is some evidence that philosophers were is uw ane Ny recipients of this new honor, Apollonius of Tyana, for cuales Mi ; " ae was "superior to most men.”* Origen, the great biblical megen implied that he possessed che grace of che mind of Christ when ne rae N “ u race scriptural interpretation demanded that grace. Alt wur es mm mations of immortalicy” on the part of the philosophers chemselves are pd reflections of the opinions that their biographers recorded, they illustre “ ellonus À p + 44;A:: 14 . AI “tr 5 ard ane "Otherr men r cu as a zul. . even as them ne { am superior t to ede is ıampertanr to pote that rhe s The€ equal 15. Origen De 2 2 1 trate a my 1 language and d ın se surhentitey ol Apu bonus’ fercers is disy ulead. 49-56, Vi, 337-40. princepiss 4.2.3. ie som of # H ads | ziehDLunt | K ind some tthex OSE mea, l DOT an Edouard Norden, Agnes: Then: Unteruehienger B.G. ‘Teubner, WID, pp. val = SCC mengeschichte Retigtiter Rede (Leipzig: Dodds I have felt with what I was seeking.” This ideal of identification with God was not, however, The Character of the Holy Philosopher by) the that the Bridegroom was approaching me and he was, as far as may be, me; then he suddenly vanished, and I could not find M holy man antiquity." Stories that were circulated and written down about heroes, demigods, magicians, prophets, healers, and the like provided a copious depository of traits chat might signify divinity, It should be nored, however, that in this period the idea char men could be divine did noe include absolute identification with the supreme god, whether he be Zeus, che Neoplatonic One, or the Christian God. Pagans and Christia ns agreed thac the supreme god was incorporeal, unchanging, and incapabl e of mixing with the material realm, Identification wich this god was certainl y an “ graphical framework within which co satirize holy men; biography ‘ere create and promote the myth of the holy man and was nor simp a vehicle N thought from which biographers were free to choose: Morton Smich has remarked upon the veritable “mob of divine or deified men" known to Graeco-Roman on the literary scene: the biographical genre came to be close y associ aware that other men considered him a pod, and he himself je ieved t differed. For some che claim of actual godhood could be made, while others were ness of supertor intellection; and the wholesale allegiance of both pagans chanwes sor and Christians co the new holy personality cult. kn ij made. ts represen also pher The appearance of the divine philoso with holy sages—so closely, in fact, chat Lucian of Samosata ‘ os | 2t che factor usually Much more common was the concern to demonstrate the extent ofa man's assimilation to God, or how he was godlike. The traits selected to depict the philosopher's divine stacus became literary motits, and biographers used various combina tions ofthese mocits, depending upon the degree of divinity being claimed for che specifie philosopher. Two basic cypes ofdivine philosopher—chose who were said to be gods or sons of gods, and those who were godlike— were current in biographies in Late Antiquity. Before distinguishing between these two types in detail, however, I will draw a brief composite image of the biographers’ vision ofthe divine philosopher in order to show which traits among the many available ones came to typify his character, Chief among these characteristics is wisdom. Generally he ts shown co 16. Smith, “Profegomena cto a Discussion of Arcralogi es, Divine Men, the G pels, and Jesus,” /BL 90 (June 197 1): 18. 17, CH, Talberc, “The Concept of Immorcals i 1 Mecliterraocan Anriquity," JBL 94 (September, 1975): 419.21; Dodds, Hagen and Christian on an Age vf Anxtety (New York: WW, Norton, 1970), pp. 118~ 19. 18. Porphyry Vita Pfatim 23; see Plocinus Ena, 4.81, Origen Hom. in Dolds. Ragin und Christian on an Age of Auxsety, p. 98. Cant. | 7. quoted ro

ı cts M early from a: very ding n and understan possess superior gifts of perceptio exl allegorica of es profunditi the d age. Origen, for example, understuo + es egesis of scriptural texts "while still a boy and applied himself wich that 2. “excessive zeal”" chat was later to earn him the nickname “Adamantius. | } ; . j . mse 7 1 7 Similar was the child Apollonius, who “showed great serengeh of memory and power of application” and soon surpassed his teacher. as ua that the greatness of the man must have been already evident in the c in wa 1 popular biographical convention, stemming back co Xenophon, w nee childhood and education as important features in his portrayal of Agesilaus character, In portraits of divine philosophers, however, there is mr chan simply a hint of future grandeur in the child; rather, his wisdom is ‘ realy fully developed. This may explain why che accounts of the young P ai os pher's education, which follow the revelation vl his youthful sagacity, seein somewhat superfluous. The point of his education seems primarily to x a kind of discipline, the fine tuning of an already overpowering ince ligence.”? The child is immersed in studies both sacred and secular c var are che foundation of che mature sage's philosophy. Philostracus statement about Apollonius illustrates this point of view: “Apollonius however ve like the young cagles who, as long as they are not fully fledged, 1 y a ongst re their parents and are trained by them in flight, but who, as soon as t ey a able to rise in the air, outsoar the parent birds." Bur anocher piso cie Apollonius’ life runs counter to chis statement and shows instead me pur losopher's freedom from the need for conventional education. As 1 po 0 nius is about to depart for Babylon, his pupil Damis offers himse se guide, claiming chat his facility with languages will ease the sage’s way ° this Apollonius replies, “L understand all languages ‚though I never carne a single onc.”" This is surely an unqualified alırınation ol the phi oop her superhuman intelligence and stands in stark contrast to passages in icating the wise child's educational needs. Whatever the biographer s mente these ambiguous stories of che philosopher's education really serve to highN light the ewo sides of the philosopher's aacur which are sometimes difhhi to part in due is which men, other to superiority his reconcile: cule co rusel:ìus A -Y, " Me Gti ih Jeu De vir Hl Si and Ep. Ber. U; Epiphanius Hereses 64.01; Photius Library US. 21. Philostracus Vite Apullomi UT. 22. lamblichus Vite Pythagorice 211-12, Eusebius HE 6,2.7-10. 23. Philoseratus Vite Afmilmii U? 24. Ibid, LD. 23 great wisdom, and his humanity, which suggests chat he must have passed through the various stages of life like ocher men. Another feature of the divine sage’s wisdom is his extraordinary insight into human nature. Pythagoras, for example, scrutinized potentia l disciples by relining the methods of physiognomy and was thereby able co perceive che dispositions ofthe candidates’ souls.” Plotinus’ perception was so acute that he was able to turn the magical attacks ofa secret enemy back on the perpetrator.” Porphyry actribuces to him a “surpassing degree of penetration into character,” a talent from which Porphyry himself benefite d, since Plocinus had at one time perceived his student's increasing desire for death and advised a rest, thus saving him from suicide.“ The emphasi s chat biographers place on their herves’ wondrous insighe is intended ro point to divinity: a priest of Asclepius replies to Apollonius’ careful Socratic questioning char it is just at ehis point thar che gods excel men, “for che latter, because oftheir frailty, do not understand cheir own concerns , whereas the gods have che privilege of understanding the affairs of both men and themselves."” It is not therefore surprising to find chat divine philosophers possess this talent. The philosopher does not, however, use his talent simply to judge lesser men. He is credited with a real sympathy and concern for the welfare of his fellows. Origen's philanchropy placed him in a particularly dangero us position, and chat may account in pare for che lame he received as a result. He gave comfort and encouragement to Christian martyrs caughe in the Alexandrian persecutions ofthe early chird century. Since several of the martyrs had apparently been converted by Origen, he no doubt felt responsi ble for bolstering cheir courage to witness for their new-found faith, and he risked the fury of “the heathen mulcicude” co do so." Pychagoras also took a personal interest in his disciples. He devised medicines and melodies char soothed the soul and administered these in the evening to promote “pleasing dreams” and in the morning to free his students from “nocturnal corpor.” “ Porphyry reports an extraordinary kindness of Plotinus: he agreed to take in the children of "many men and women on che approac h of death” and to oversee cheir education and manage their property, His home muse 23. Porphyry Vite Pythagente 13; lamblichus Vita Pythagorica UT. 26, Perphyry Vita Pfosine WO. 27. Ibid, LE Note che similar example of unmasking an evil character by Apollonius in Philosteatus Wits Apedfenis 1.10, 28. Porphyry Vira Plorini U. 29. Philostracus Vire Apolfonit 1.11. 30. Kusebius HR 6,3. 1-6. 31. lunblichus Vite Pytfurgoriea 15.64—65.

have been an orphanage of sorts, yet ie would be incorrect to picture Plocinus as a harried social worker, for Porphyry noces that though he shielded su many from the worries and cares of ordinary life, he never, while awake, relaxed his intent concentration upon the incellece. _ | A final, perhaps more prosaic, indication of the philosopher s wisdom is his desire to communicate it. Philosophers are teachers; divine philosophers are proselytizers, and their teaching net only touches but changes the lives of their disciples. Origen converted the heachen by his teaching, and was reportedly so successful in one case thar the student, Heraclas, pecan bishop of Alexandria.” Eventually Origen had so many students in his course of “divine studies” that he had co abandon his instruction of secular literature. Describing his popularicy, Eusebius nores that his students “did not give him time to breathe, for one batch ol pupils after another kept Plotinus persuasive: frequeacing from morn to night his lecture room.” members of Roman several ness as a teacher was so great that he converted by Pythagoras, surpassed far was feat this but officialdom to philosophy,” who once captured “more than two thousand men” by a single lecture and not only converted politicians but took on the legislative role himself, handing down laws co several Italian cities.” Origen remarked in his Against Celsus chat the real defense of the holy man lies in che lives of his genuine disciples.’ Biographers agreed that one of the important measures ofa philosopher’s stacure was the quality and quantity of his disciples. 1 he philosopher's holiness might be described as effusive, and biographies of divine philosophers give considerable attention co worthy heirs and imitators of che philosophical masters. One of lamblichus hyperboles illustraces this point well. He asserts that as a result of the studies chac Pythagoras _ inscitured, “all Icaly was filled with philosophers.” " The biographers’ conception of the divine philosopher and his circle of 32. Porphyry Vita Pline). 33, Eusebius HE 6.3.2, u he 25 disciples resembles a universe in miniature, with che philosopher ac the center radiating che light of wisdom in the form of faithful followers. This suggests that the philosopher wielded real power, His wisdom did not die with him but lived on in adherents co the ideal that he so successfu lly embodied. Untathomable knowledge was not the sole component of the holy philosopher model, however; nor could this wisdom by itself qualify pher's character as his wisdom and one chat serves as che foundatio n of all he is able to accomplish. The trait that complements the philosopher's wisdom is his devotion co an ascetic lifestyle. From a perusal of biographies about holy philosophers, ic is apparent chat the men described have static personalities at best; haly philosophers never change. Apart from the biographers’ interest in types of men rather chan in individuals as such,” what accounts for the philosopher's constant espousal of the whole company of virtues? How is he sustained in his perfectio n? Philostratus gives us a clue when, reflecting on the fact chat Apolloni us was true ro his mission in such far-flung places as Echiopia and Achaia, he says, “hard as it is to know oneself, I myself consider it still harder for the Sage to remain always himself, for he cannot ever reform evil nacures and improve them, unless he has first trained himself never to alter in his own person. . . . a man who is really a man will never alter his nature.” ® The wellspring of the sage’s perfect self-knowledge, which enables him never to change, is his asceticism, which in Lace Antiquity connotes not mere “training” buc a renunciation of worldly values and bodily deprivati on, if not actual abuse. By the late first century a.p., che profession ofphilosuphy and an ascetic mode ofliving were firmly linked in the popular mind and in the thinking ofthe intelligentsia as well.” Epictetus, for example, found it necessary to chide both those who indulged in extreme forms ofself-discipline and those who encouraged the practice by admiring it.” Philosophers themselv es 6.3.8, 6.15. Sec also 6.8.6; Origen “devoted his whole time unriringly to che advised philosophical seekers co follow an ascetic discipline: Sexcus asserted divine seudies and his pupi 35. Porphyry \ a Elaine 7. 36, Porphyry Vite Pythagueae 20- 22. ved by Eusebius in his Cantr Hivrorlem 4. VW. Origen Contre Colsum pracf. 2. This view of his biography to 24, lamblichus Vite Pytlutgerice 29.166. lamblichus devotes ar least half Priessnig, Die A. See disciples. his in on Lived virtues Pythagorean how of discussions ,” Brzuntenische Zeuschrift 30 ( 192 »: lirerarische Form der Späcantiken Ubilosophensomane 26-27, foraderailed classification of topics. Eusebius also devotes large sections uf HE G to episodes in the lives of some of Origen’s pupils. See especially HE 6.4-5. 1:21--22, who notes thac popular teadition is preserved in the rememberin g of historical personalities, which are subjected eo a kind of “homogenizing” process when they are made to conform to à type. 40. Philoscratus Vita Apotlone 6.35. “Al, For general discus ofsions ascericism sce Bieler, ORION ANHP, 1:60—73, and Dodds, Tagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety, pp. 1-36. 42. Epictetus Das, 3.12. V4, Ibid, a man for that divine status. In fact there is a trait as basic to the holy philoso- 39, See Bieler, OLIOS ANUP, 2 vols. (Vienna: Bacl tandlung Oskar Hôfels, 1935- 36)

that true piety was founded on self-control; Maximus of Tyre's advice was to shun worldly preoccupation if one wanted to find the good; and in the classes; they seemed shameless, and half-educated, vulgar, jesting; beggars for money, beggars for attention, parasites on patrons or petitioners at the door, clustered at temples or on street corners in cities; loudmourhed shouters of moral saws driven toa life of sham by poverty.” Much in che biogra- 26 Hermetica, knowledge of the good can come only with che inhibition of all the senses.” Philostratus, supporting the kind ofchinking that Epictetus had earlier deplored, stared admiringly chat Peregrinus Proteus was “one of those who have the courage of cheir philosophy, so much so chat he chrew himself into a bonfire ac Olympia. “Un his biography of Peregrinus Proteus, Lucian provides ample evidence of the popular admiration, even veneration, thac this kind of “ascetic” display provoked. It is probable thac a major purpose of his biography was to expose the pretentious and vainglorious origins ofthe cult and oracle established in Peregrinus’ name after his death and to ridicule che “fools and dullards” so “wonderstruck” that they were willing to deity a charlatan on the illegitimate basis of a spectacular ascetic feat." Lucian's withering jibes at the showy asceticism of the simpleminded or unscrupulous philosopher provide the best testimony to che boom in a type of ascetic philosopher that his era experieuced,"” Ramsay MacMullen’s description of the type is a good distillation of Luctan's view: “identified by their long hair, beards, bare leet, grimy rags, staffs and knapsacks; by their supercilious bearing, paraded morals, scowling abuse against all men and 3, Sextus RGa; Corpus Hermeticnin WS. Vi. Philostracus VitweSopbesterum 563. In “The Volatilizacion of Peregrinus Proteus,” Ameriof Philelogy 67 (1946): 334-45, Roger Park suggeses char Peregsinus’ "volacilizaconJournal tion” was not simply for norarieuy, as Lucian thinks (De morte Peregrine 42), but may have been based on certain Neoplaconic doctrines on the soul. The notion of being “commingled with ether” (De morte Peregrini 33) may be based on the Heraclitean fragment that Porphyry preserves to the eftere chat “che dey soul is wisest” (Heraclitus fr. 118 Diels-Kranz, in Porphyry De autre nympharum U}. The idea of riding “upan che wings of fire” (De morte Peregrins 6) suggeses “the Neoplaconi: doctrine of achèner, a kins of fiery envelope which enclosed the soul, protected ie, and served as a vehicle for ascene.” For Jurther discussion of these doetrines, sec E. R. Dodds, ed, and crans., Practus: The Elements of Theology, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), p. 304 and Appendix IL Even if Peregrinus’ self-immolation did have philosophical justification, ie is cerrainiy the most extreme form vf ascetic witness tu one’s philosophical integrity. 45. Lucian De morte Perrgrint 3) 10. For a discussionof Lucian’s motives, see Marcel Caster, Lacten et be pensée religiense de son tempe Waris: Societé l'Edition" Ler Belles Lettres,” 1937), pp. 237-46. 4G, See Lucian The Cynic, esp. 1, 14, 17, 19; Alexander, De sorte Peregrine, compare Lucian's for Sale with the witness of several men to their own agonized searches for the Phifosophies “crue” philosophy: Justin Dialogue with Triple: Plotinus as reported by Porphyry Vita Plorini % Clement in Clementine Homilies, and the Cynic hero in Lucian’s Mewipfus. 27 phers’ portraits of the holy philosopher's asceticism accords with Lucian's picture, alchough of course theirs are refined portrayals, divested of che sarcasm and satirical pungence of Lucian's The divine philosopher's asceticism has two aspects, The first is an exteflor one, which enables him to be identified publicly. Eusebius says chat Origen persevered “in the most philosophic manner of life,” and this is what his discipline consisted in: fascing; limiting sleep, which he took not en a couch but on the Hoor; going barefoot: living “in cold and nakedness” (i.e., extreme poverty); refusing che “numbers” of admirers who sought to share their goods with him; and eating a scanty diec, which actually injured his health. These feats were accompanied by Origen’s avoidance of “everything chat might lead co vouchful lusts”; he spent his entire day teaching (“ labors of no light character”), and for most of the night he engaged in his studies of scripture." The picture Porphyry gives of Plocinus is much the same: he disapproved of eating animal flesh and took very lictle food, “often not even a piece ofbread,” and neglected sleep in order not to interrupt his conremplations.” Plotinus was actually ashamed of his body, considering ic something “nor worth looking at, and refused medical creatment for his illnesses." ‘That Plocinus practised whac he preached is confirmed by his treatise “On Well-Being.” Here he states that the good man is not a mixture of body and soul, nor is well-being measured by bodily health or beauty. “Ie is absurd co maintain chat well-being extends as far as che living body, since well-being is the good life, which is concerned with the soul and is an activity of che soul.” In order to make clear the face that che real man reposes tn the soul, Plotinus actually advises “a sort of counterpoise on the ocher side.” One should make the body worse, to highlight the soul." With 47, Ramsay MacMullen, Enemter of the Roman Order (Cambridge: Harvard Universiey Press, 1966), p. 59. 48. Eusebius HE 6.3.9-L2. 49. Porphyry Vita Photinus >, 50. Ibid, 1-2. SL. Plotinus Ean. Le, ll, Note that ac the end of this teeatise, Plotinus softens lris language by acopeing the metaphor ofa musician playing a lyre: che wise man “will care for and bear wich that which is joined to him (the bady} as long as he can, like a musician with his lyre, as long as he can use it; if he cannor use ic he will change to another, or give up using the lyre and abandua che activities directed co it. ‘Then he will have samething else ta do which foes not need the lyre, and will let it lie uneegarded beside him while he sings without an

respect to actual physical deprivation and injury, Origen and Plotinus are exemplars of an extreme ascetic ideal noc characteristic of Pythagoras and Apollonius, though these laccer are similar in respect co the other physical characteristic ofall the holy philosophers under discussion. The philosophical basis for chis abstention is expressed explicitly by Porphyry, who manifestations of the holy saye’s ascetic style of life.” soul, originally a spiritual being, now exists, through some faule, in a corporeal prison. By denying it corporeal sustenance, it is brought closer co One scholar has characterized the ascetic attempt to master the body a “Hagrant antithesis to the norms of civilized life in che Mediterrancan.”” What is the point of ic all? The most obvious reason is for identification. As Luctan's Cynic notes, his style of dress enables him co keep the kind of company he chooses, and to live the quice philosophical life. Ignorant men and “fops,” not understanding what his dress and appearance mean, will shun him, which is all che becter. esThe sage's style of life identities him to those who know and desire what che philosophic life is, and ic excites admiration for him. Both Eusebius and Philostracus make a direct connection becween the sage's ascetic lifestyle and the admiration for him which his followers express.” Asceticisin places che philosopher in che public eye and advertises the value of his profession. But che sage’s physical withdrawal from che ways ofthe world is not just for the purpose of public relations; it is also a sign of his freedom, The more he retreats from che society around him, the freer he is from the passions thar bog down and befuddle lesser minds. His spirit is liberated, and this gives him the rare ability to exercise his wisdom in communication with the gods.” This idea points co the other, interior or spiritual, aspect of the divine sage’s asceticism, because the sage’s physical withdrawal is simply che outer manilestation of certain philosophical convictions. The abstention from eating meat is a widely actested ascetic practice, instrument. Yee che instrument was not given him at che beginning without good reason. LE has used it often up till now” (Enz. 1.4.10). 52. See Philoseratus Vite Apadfonii LB: “he deetined co live upon a Hesh dier, on the ground chac it was unclean, and also that ıc made che mind gross; so he partook oaly ofdried fruits and vegerables. . . . he cook ro walking withouc shows Ly v ay of adornment aod clac hemself on linen caiment . . . and he ler bis hair grow Tong and lived in che Temple.” See also Porphyry Vita Pythagoras 7, 34-45. $3. Peter Brown, The Wardd of Late Antiquity (London: Thames and Hudson, 1970, pp. 97-98, Note that Brown applies this statement ro the Christian holy men; it is truc of the pagan sages as well. 54. Lucian The Cynic WJ. 55. Philosceaeux Vita Apolfouts 1.8; Euscbius HE 6.3.13. 56. See the discussion by A. ). Festugière, "Sur une nouvelle é rica’ de Jamblique,” Ree. Er. Gree. 50 (1937) 2492-94. av du ‘De Vira Pycha 29 thoughe that meat-eating bound the soul more closely to the body, The its former spiritual self.” Abstention from meac, chen, is a rite of purity; as Apollonius notes, one should avoid meat because it is “unclean” and dulls the mind.” A clear picture of ascetic dietary practices in general is given in the biographies of Pythagoras. Porphyry describes Pythagoras’ vegetarian diet in detail and remarks thac, as a consequence, his health was consistently good. He did not fluctuate between good health and disease, and his soul “always revealed chrough his appearance che same disposition.” ” The point is chat Pythagoras, because of his ascetic discipline, was not subject to passions ofche body and chus was not prevented from “familiarity wich che gods." The Pychagorean view of dietary asceticism, which nourishes che body for the good ofa correspondingly harmonious soul, is in contradiction to the kind of ascetic self-rorture Origen and Plotinus were said to engage in, which Jed co actual physical injury, Eusebius’ portrait may be simply a stylized effort co show Origen going one step further chan even che most famous ascetics, but Porphyry's picture is so detailed that it seems to be an actual (historical) description, Plocinus himself staces that when the sage finds himself in pain, “he will oppose to it the power which he has been given for the purpose." Perhaps he exemplifies chat hostility co che material world which manitescs itself in abuse of the body; in this respect he is akin more co the desert fachers chan co his philosophical contemporaries. The whole course of ascetic practices is based on the idea that only by 57. Porphyry De abstinentia L 30, discussed by Anthony Meredith, “Ascecicism—Christian and Greek," JTS. N.S., vol. 27, pt. 2 (October, 1976), p, A19 and n. L lamblichus agreed that “certain foods are hostile to the reasoning power, and impede its true energy,” Vita Pythagwict 6.68. Sve also Porphyry Vite Pythagore 46. 58. Philoseracus Wits Apulfanti LB. Sec also Bieler, GEION ANUP, 1263-64. 59. Porphyry Vire Pythagarue 34-35. 60. tamblichus Vita }'yehagorica 24.106. GL. Plotinus Enn. 1.4.14. 62. Dodds, Ragan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety, pp. 27-30. Dodds gives the following racher gloomy examples of his chesis thac hostility againse che material world was incrajected, caking the farm of bodily abuse: Gospel of Thamas UO: "Woe to the flesh that hangs upon che soul! Woe co che seul chat hangs upon che flesh?” ; C opus hermeticum 7.2: the body “che dark gaol, the living death, the corpse revealed, che comb we carry about with

withdrawal from che world of che senses can che soul commune with the divine presence”: one highlighting che charismatic, miracle-working figure, the “pre-Socraric shaman type”; che other emphasizing che moral and intellectual virtues ofche philosophical type, which “resists the admixture of teratological accounts.” He states furcher: | 30 spiritual realm, which Nurnenius described as “a kind of divine desolation."* Asceticism was, in effect, a salvation from the body. The holy philosopher's great wisdora will bring him no benefit unless he is first purified. The genuine philosopher is united to God by his abstinence; it is on the basis of this union chat his ocher virtues are nourished.” We have seen chat che holy philosopher was typically wise and typically ascetic. His wisdom was revealed noc only in his communion with che gods, but also in his communion wich men. He was the teacher par excellence whose instruction shaped the lives it touched, and he was the good shepherd, taking responsibility for the well-being of his disciples. His asceticism was based on the conviction that a body purified of material dross freed the soul to engage in divine concemplations. This inner puricy had superhcial connotations as well since holy sages adopted habits ofdress, eating, and uncommonly heavy work schedules, all of which idencified cheir station in society. These traits came together in biographies to form a pattern, a blueprint for the type of che divine philosopher. It is an ideal type, a picture of perfection, and it is difficult, if noc impossible, co discern eicher the extent to which che biographers have molded their heroes co fit che type or the extent to which the heroes themselves actually imitated the ideal. Nevertheless, the image of the divine philosopher presented in biographies ts a coherent one, at least with respect to che traits just discussed. However, there were ether traits that were not held in common. Study of these craits shows chat chere were actually cwo major types, or paradigms, subsisting under the general appelation of holy sage. This discrimination between ditfering notions ofdivine il presence and cheir corresponding semi-literary forms is basic to this study. In order to creare the complete aggregace portrait of the “divine man,” it was necessary for Hellenis tic authors like Philostrarus and Porphyry to superimpose these contrast ing images and to mix the forms in a way similar to the editorial work of the authors of the gospels of Mark and John. Largely because of the continuing vitality of the Plaronic image of Socrates, auchors like Plutarch, Lucian, and Celsus are able to resist such synerecism. _ This view of the origin and development of literary images of the holy man is ditficule to accept for several reasons. The first concerns Tiede's use of sources to document the two contrasting images ofthe holy man. At times € appears ven a.to referhe to holy y men men in n awwideide variety variety of of sources; at other times he. ainly means to discuss biographies of holy men, which are clearly formu lated literary " y works we rks marked mark by aniintentio ionali nality, a conscio i us Creative pur-. pose not found in random reporting of tidbits about assorted “holy” characcers. He notes the existence of “semi-literary forms but does noc say what they may have been, nor how they might have influenced che formation of images of the holy man. In either case, however, whethe r one considers che ‘tradicions” or the biographies in which che images were given coherent literary expression, his notion that two images of the holy man— one a philosopher, the other a magician or miracle worker— developed separat ely Biographical Paradigms of the Divine Philosopher In The Charismatic Figure as Miracle Worker, David Tiede asserts chat che traditions about divine wise men fall into two categories: chose describing the rarional, philosophical (gure and those describing the miracle worker. He maintains that the origins of these two traditions are “discrete,” that early in the Hellenistic period chere were ewo “competing conceptions of and merged only as a result of“syucretism” at a much later time (the second century A.D.) is incorrect. In fact, Ticde's own analysis ofche first cwo holy men he chooses to discuss, Pythagoras and Empedocles, contradicts his opening assertions. In the case of Empedocles, Tiede admits that it seems likely thac he actually did “unice the roles of shaman and scientist in his own person and quotes with approval E‚ R. Dodds’ statement in The ,” Greeks and the Irrational (p. 146) that “Empedocles represents nor a new buc a very old type 64, Porphyry De Abisinentia 2.49. See Mer-dith, "Ascericism— Christian and Greek,” pp. 65, David Tiede, The Charinnaet: Figure as Miracle Worker, SBL Dissertation Series | (Missoula, Montana: Society ufBiblicat Literacure, 1972), pp. 5, 29, 22, 40. 66. Ibid, pp. 41-42. 67. Ibid, p. 20. 63. Numenius as quoted by Eusebius Prueperraten Erengelica 11.22.

33 of personality, the shaman who combines che still unditferentiated funeras the philosopher was eroded or corrupted by the image of the miracle tions of magician and naturalist, poet and philosopher, pr vacher, healer, * According to Tiede, however, the likelihood thar and public counsellor." worker." The carliest testimonies we have show chat Pythagoras’ repucacion was established first on the basis of his miracles; in his case, the image of the miracle worker was later combined wich che philosophical image.” goes on to state that the source for Diogenes Laercius’ portrait of Empedocles was apparently Heraclides’ collection of legends, which gave a shawise man and miracle man were in constant competition concerns evalua- Empedocles was both philosopher and magician does not contradict his thesis because Empedocles’ combination uf these roles was “personal. He manistie interpretation of Empedocles, and adds chat there are “less paradoxographical” options for understanding Empedocles. Aristotle, Satyrus, and Lucrecius all praise his more “rational” gifts and creat him as a philosopher. Bue what does chis prove? le ts noc really too surprising to find a person like Heraclides, known to be a “collector of absurdities, emphasizing che miraculous or fantastic aspects of an unusual individual like Empedocles, nor is it surprising to find philosophers praising philosophical virtues. The fact that che personal biases of Empedocles’ interpreters are reflected in the way chey chose co remember him says nothing about the original differentiation between the philosopher and the miracle worker. The most one can say on the basis of such evidence is chat divinity lies in the eye of the beholder. And, despite what later interpreters thought, Empedoin his poems suggest thar in fact he and other cles’ assertivns abour himself carly holy men were omnicompetent, and char philosophy and magic were not competing bur complementary characteristics. The case for Pythagoras is much the same. [ie was pictured as pee a ” philosopher and a miracle worker as early us che tourch century Be, a Fact that disproves che notion that a synchecic or syneretistic portrait of Pythagoras did not appear until the work of Apollonius. Tiede is correct in pointing co disagreements about Pythagoras’ integrity. 7 Hermippus characcerized his wonderworking as a charlaran's tricks, whereas Callimachus defended both his miraculous abilities as well as his superior intellect. ke is not correct, however, to suggest that che more rational picture of PychagoGS. Id. 69. Ibid., p. 24. oo and the Irrational! Berkeley: University of Calilornia E Tess, 70. See E. R. Dodds, Vie Greeks 1951), pp. 145--4G. For the fragments of Empedovtes, see H. Diels, Fragmente der Vorun sbratiker (Berlin, 931), 1:27G- A75. TL. Isidore Lévy, Recherches sur les sonries de fa légende de Pythagore (Paris: Editions Ernest Leroux, 1926), pr. 22-36. _ 72. Tiede, The Chariumatte Figure, pp. Wi 23. 73. Lévy, Recherches sur les snserves de fa légende de Pythigwe, pp. 30-12, A further point against che untenable suggestion chat conceptions of tions of Socrates after his death. Tiede assercs that the “moral and rational image” of Socrates that Plato created provided che criterion by which other interprétations ofSocrates were judged “incorrece.""” Yet Placo himself artribuced parc of Socrates’ status as a wise man to “irrational” sources: Socrates pursued his quest for truth at the behest ofthe god and through oracles and dreams; his daimon was “divine and spiritual” and “the signal of God.” Subsequenc portraits of Socrates emphasize this aspect even more heavily so char che voice becomes an actual divine being." What, then, of the rational image that shows the miraculous aspect to be incorrect? Tiede’s documentation of the continuing influence of che rational Socratic image on succeeding holy man portraits is insufficient, and it does not help to explain why, for example, the mantic and wise figure of Pythagoras, nut Socrates, came to hold the position of honor among Neoplatonists; nor is his thesis aided by the critique of Plato himself found in che Pyrhagoras biographies.” Clearly, Tiede's argument that the divine philosopher of Graeco-Roman biographies is simply an aggregate of two distinct ancestors, one revered for his intellect, the other for his magical talents, does not provide an adequate basis for precise evaluation of the image of che divine philosopher, We have seen that in all biographies ofdivine philosophers, che heroes hold some characteristics in common. However, there are also important differences. 74. Tiede, The Chariomatic Figure, p. 22. 75. Lévy, Recher her sur les sources de la légende de Pythagare, pp. 1-22. 70, Tiede, The Ghariematie Figure, p. 60. 77, Placo Apoligy 33C, HIC, iVA—B. 78. See llucarch De genio Surnitis 580-382, and Apulvius De dev Secratis 157-67. For a discussion of Apuleius’ treatment of Socrates’ daemon sce Jean Beaujeu, vd. and rrans., Apulie: opuscutes philosophiques Waris: Société d'Édirion "Les Belles Lettres,” 1973), D 73. See Porphyry Vite Pytbagone: 54; Plate and his fotlowers “took as cheir own the fruitful elements" of Pythagoras’ philosophy; lamblichus Vite Pysburgorisa 27,131: Plato plagiarized Pythagoras’ political theory, and 30.167: Plaro learned the principle ofjustice from Pythagoreans.

As we will see, the biographers of Late Antiquity presented two distinct paradigms of the divine philosopher, and a dichoromy between “miracle” and “incelleee” does not distinguish chem sufficiently. The two paradigms are best differentiated by the degree of divinity actributed to the specific philosapher, One paradigm, followed by Philostratus (Life ofApollonius), Porphyry (Life of Pythagoras), and lamblichus (Pythagorean Life), characterizes the divine philosopher as a sun of god. The other, followed by Porphyry (Life of Plotinur) and Eusebius (“Life of Origen”), actributes only a godlike status to the divine philosopher.” The essential decision as to whether the philosopher is a son of god or simply godlike determines the specifics of the biographical characterization.” Tiede would make miracle working or trafficking in magic che basic differentiation among holy men. buc we shall see chat the attribution of miracle- or magic working is a characteristic secondary to che more basic category “son ofgod.” In biographies, philosophers who are sons of god are distinguished from their godlike fellows by their birch stories, which provide chem with divine parentage. Just before the child was born, Apollonius’ mother was visited by che god Proteus in the form ofan Egyptian daemon who claimed that she would bear Proteus, although another story, also reported by Philostracus, states that Apollonius’ countrymen believed him to be a son of Zeus. Apollonius’ birth was attended by swans or, according to the story that Philostratus prefers, by a thunderbolt, whose descent and ascent signified "che great distinction to which che sage was to attain . . . and how he should transcend all things upon earth and approach che gods.” “ The wonders accompanying his birch lend credence, in the opinion of Philostracus, to traditions acclaiming Apollonius as a true son of god. Porphyry begins his biography of Pythagoras wich accounts of various SU. In “The Concept of Immorrals in Meditcreancan Antiquity,” Talbert makes a similar distinction between "immorrals” and thers andres, basel primarily on the divine birth and taal assumption of che former. In biographies, the distincrions between the ewo models are more complex, SL That cherc were” degrees” of divinicy a human being mighr atrain, ag a “s“scale” of divinity along which a given man might be lovated, was a popular idea, especially in carly Neoplatoni circtes. lu De defects sravndoram AVIB-C, Plutarch even imagines chat one could slide up and down on the scale, “a continual promotion and demotion,” as John Dillon has remarked in The Middle Phatonists Arhaca: Cornell University Press, 1977), p. 219. Biographers, however, were nor concerned te slide cheir precise ranking on the scale. 42. Philoscratus Vite Apolfanit 1.56. foes up and down buc rather to establish Paradigms of the Divine Sage 35 historians concerning the historical identity of Pythagoras' father Mnesarchus, but ends his discussion of Pythagoras’ patrimoay by remarking chat Apollonius’ biography shows Pychagoras to be the son of Apollo and only nominally the son of Mnesarchus.”* Porphyry himself has found, und quotes, confirmation of this in “one of the Samian poets,” and adds furcher support to che connection with Apollo by relating the story linking Pythagoras with Abaris, priest of the Hyperborean Apollo. Abaris guesses Pythagoras co be the Hyperborcan Apollo incarnate, and Pythagoras confirms his guess by showing him his golden thigh.” Porphyry's account of Pythagoras’ divine lineage is magnified by lamblichus. In his Pyrhagorean Life, a brief genealogy is developed, in which Pychagoras’ line is traced back to Ancacus of Samos, said to be a son of Zeus, though lamblichus is not sure whether this descent was credited to him because of his virtue or “a certain greatness of soul."* Tamblichus explains that reports about Pychagoras’ noble birth were due tu his descent from Ancaeus, and he implies that these reports were eventually mythologized, so chat Pythagoras came to be considered a son of Apollo.” This is how he accounts for che quotation from the Samian poet to which Porphyry had also referred. Although lamblichus seems unwilling to give historical credence to the idea ofa god uniting with a human woman, he does not want to relinquish Pychagoras’ divine status. He concludes that “no one disputes the fact that the soul of Pythagoras was sent down to men on the authority of Apollo, Pythagoras being either a companion of the god or related to this god ina more incimate (familial) way.”” Tamblichus’ opinion about Pythagoras’ status becomes clearer in his version of che Abaris story. As in Porphyry’s 83. Porphyry Vire Pythagorae 1-2. Fuceher support for che nominal facherhood of Mnesarchus may be found in che divine child legend in Vits Pythagore 10, This story, which Porphyey has taken from Antonius Diogenes, The Wonderful Things Beyond Thule, is about a wondrous child whom Mnesarchus finds during his cravels and adapts as his son. As Porphycy cclaces che stocy, Maesarchus names this child Astraeus and raises him along with his acher sons, one of whom ts Pychagoras, who lacer udopes Astracus as Ais son. ‘The story scams confused. Was it originally intended co explain bow Mnesarchus came to be Pythagoras’ father, and was the child ar first identified as Pychagoras himsell? The name Asrracus (start y} would seem to fir well wich lacer conceptions of Pychagoras’ astrological discoveries. 84. Porphycy Vita Pythagevar 28. 85. lamblichus Vite Pythayorica 2,3. 86. Tantblichus Vite Pythageria 2.4~5. The poctic passage states rhat Pychagoras was che offspring of Pythais and Apollo: “Pychais, the most beautiful of the Samians, brought foreh Pythagoras for Apollo, friend of Zeus.” 87. Ibid, 2.89,

version, the revelation of the golden chigh confirms Abaris’ conjecture that Pythagoras was Apollo. But lamblichus appends to chis a passage that sounds very much like a “christological" interpretation. ol Pychagoras: Genesis about the birthday of Pharaoh, and has explained that the common 36 Pythagoras tells Abaris that he has come toto che world for the care and well-being of men, and that he took on a human form Cantbräpomorphos) so that men would not be so astonished and unseceled by his “surpassing excellence” (10 häüperechon) chat they avoided his teaching.” Thus in lamblichus’ biography Pychagoras is at che very least a soul sent from Apollo's realm, and at most a god descended from Apollo. In all chree of these biographies of a son ofgod, che authors throw some doube on the idea ofthe actual physical generation of the philosopher from a ged, perhaps to be fair to historical sourees (which obviously preserved differing views of each hero's divinity), perhaps to rerain the hero's humanity and tu avoid che notion of a corporeal god so repugnant to pagans. However, the fact remains that the miraculous birth stories are reported and later confirmed by other evidence of divine origins. It is instructive to note that Porphyry's presentation ofa divine Pythagoras, although qualified bya profusion of contliceing reports of parentage, was clearly perceived and magnified by lamblichus. And the point of Philostratus’ portrayal of Apollonius was discerned much later by che biographer Eunapius, who remarked that Philostratus should have citled his work noc The Life of Apollonins but The Visit of God 10 Mankind.” The biographies using the godlike paradigm for the divine philosopher do not present miraculous birth stories; nor is there even a hint of his generation from a god. Origen's life story begins wich bis childhood. Except for one anecdote from his youth, we do not meet Plotinus until he isa young inan engaged in an agonized search for the true philosophy. Why this difference? Plocinus and Origen's lack of divine origins can be explained by reain philosophical convictions of the philosophers themselves. A statement in Porphyry's biography of Plotinus gives us an intriguing clue: no one knew when Plotinus was born because he refused to celebrate his birthday. This refusal sternmed from his rather gnostic shame of being in a body, which also led him to avoid discussing his parents and place of birth, Similar feelings were expressed by Origen. In his Commentary on Matthew, he states: “A certain author has observed before us whac has been recorded in SS. Ibid, 19.92. 8). Eunapius Live of the Philosuphers and Napkısıı 154. 90, Porphyry Vire Platine 1-2. 37 man, being fond of the circumstances of his birth, celebrates his birthday, Bur in no writing do we find a birthday being celebrated by a righteous man.” Elsewhere he creats birth in an even more derogatory manner, asserting that the saints nor only do not celebrate their birthdays ; chey curse che day they were born.""2+ This is a telling example ofthe alienated feeling thar was one of the juscificarions for the ascetic lifestyle discusse d earlier, Clearly if che body is a jail for che soul, one would not want to celebrate the anniversary ofthe imprisonmenc. If Eusebius was a faichful follower of his mencor's strictures, he could noc give a glamorous account of Origen’s birth in his biography, for by Origen’s own admission chat would place him in the company of sinners, and that is the last thing Eusebius wants to do. The same can be said of Porphyry. The philosophical bias against birthdays , symbols of human corporeality, could have prevented che fabrication of marvelous birch stories for these two philosophers. This is, however, only a partial explanation and not wholly convinci ng when che dynamics of biography writing are considered. The biographical process of creating an ideal character out of the historical data ofa man's life suggests thar it is the philosophical and historical stance of the biograph er, rather chan of the subject himself, chat dominates che composition of the biography. As Aristoxenus’ scurrilous biography of Socrates illustraces, there was no biographical “ethic” chat might have prevented the creation of stories about Origen and Plotinus for the purpose ofhighlighting or bringing into focus certain facets of their characters. In uther words, there was nothing to prevent either Porphyry or Eusebius from initiating a myth; after all, che mythologizing process has to start somewhere, Althoug h che origin ofa myth is difficult co trace, we have seen a good example of how a myth grows in famblichus’ elaboration of Porphyry's version of Pythagor as’ divine birth. Ie is possible, of course, chat since Porphyry and Eusebius considered themselves heirs in a philosophical sense to Plotinus' and Origens work, their biographies reflect a continuity from mentor to student chat macle their characterizations more straightforward, less mythological. However, the fact thar Porphyry wrote two biographies of divine philosophers that use very dillerenc standards for assessing and portraying character was not an historical accident or a slip ofthe biographical pen. It is most probable chat in cheir biographies of Plotinus and Origen, Porphyry and DL. Origen Commentary on Matthew 10,2 92. Origen Homilies ax Leviticus 8.3.

Eusebius are portraying a type of the divine philosopher chac differs from sponses of their disciples. In Apollonius’ case, as Sinith has observed, rhe sage's favorite form ofself-identification is an “lam” (egö eimi) pronounces ment: he is, simply, Apollonius.” Tantalizing clues of what this might mean are scattered throughout the biography. His pupil and traveling companion Damis ac first regards Apollonius as a daemon, but later finally 38 the numinous, savior-like posture of Pythagoras or Apollonius. Another diflerence between these cwo paradigms concerns the extent to which the divine philosopher can be known and identified. As Jonathan Smich has pvinted out, what is most characteristic of the philosopher who is considered to be a son of god is that he is sti generis, in a class by himself. Because he occupies this special, sacred territory, which is inaccessible to others, he is misunderstood and wrongly classified by both enemies and disciples alike.” Philostracus' Life of Apollonius provides good examples of both the elusive identity and the misconceptions of the sage who is a son of god. Philostrarus begins his biography with a brief pacan of praise to Pychagoras, emphasizing his contact with, and good favor among, the Olympian gods. The reader learns from later passages chat Apollonius considered himself to be a votary of Pythagoras, had vowed to live the Pythagorean life, and called Pychagoras his “spiricual ancestor.” In spite of this apparent identification of Apollonius with Pythagoras, however, Philostratus does not intend this little introduction te be an indirect eulogy to Apollonius chrough praise of the figure he emulated. It is intended rather to define in a positive way what Apollonius was noc, for we read in che following chapter chat Apollonius was in fact more divine than his “spiritual ancestor.” Apollonius, then, was greater chan Pythagoras. What does chis tell us about him? Philostratus does not say but continues instead with comments on what Apollonius was not: he was noc a magician, nor a “sage of an illegitimace kind,” nor a false prophet. Similar misconceptions obscured the identity of Pythagoras. lamblichus notes that “some celebrated him as che Pythian, but others as the Hyperborean Apollo, some again considered him as Pacon, ochers as one of the daemons that inhabit che moon, and others as one of che Olympian gods who sometimes appear in human form." As elusive as the conflicting views of oucsiders (who remain largely anonymous) are the self-revelations of the sons of god themselves and the reunderstands Apollonius to be divine and superhuman—although even after this supposed realization he continues co be amazed by Apollonius’ freedom from human convention.” Apollonius himself speaks in riddles and parables,” although he was able to communicate effectively even while keeping the ritual five-year Pythagorean silence,” and is fond of making enigmatic statements about himself.“ He is fundamentally a free spirit, able to command respect among the most diverse groups and to break through the usual human boundaries of language and custom. Most of all, Apollonius possesses power, as even the most formidable of Roman officials are forced to admic."” In spite of Philosteatus’ long, rambling narrative, Apollonius’ true nature is never really classified adequately, He is the changeling, as his early identification with Proteus suggested. His life is simply a series of episodes, from which the reader receives momentary glimpses of Apollonius’ effect on ocher men. The only lasting impression is one of superhuman power, and perhups this, more chan any of his marvelous acts, is what defines Apollonius’ character. Pythagoras’ special position in the cosmic scheme of things is stated more explicitly, lamblichus relares one ofthe Pythagoreans’ greatest secrets, preserved by Aristotle in his work on Pychagorean philosophy: three kinds of rational, living beings exist—gods, men, and beings like Pythagoras." Pythagoras is thus in a class by himself, and tags like “child (son) of god” (ho 97. Jonathan Z. Smith, “Good News Is No News: Arecalogy and Gospel,” p. 28. See Philostratus Vita Apedfonii 1.21; 6.9, | 98. Philostratus Visa Apollonié 1.19: 7.38: 7.41. 99, Ibid., 1.20, 4.9, 6.11, 100. Ibid, 1.15. IL, Ibid, 1,21: Inan interview, a Babylonian sattap asks Apollonius, “Wheace do you 93. Jonathan Z. Smith, "Good News & No News: Arecalogy and Gospel,” Chrestianity, Judaism, end Other Grea-Roman Cults, ed. Jacob Neusner, 4 vols, (Leiden: E. J. Bill, 1975), vol, 1: New Testament, pp. 24-27, 94, Philostrarus Vite Afollonsi 1.7; AIG. 95. Phileseratus Vita Apollonii 1.2: “more divinely chan Pychagoras he wooed wisdom and seared above tyrants.” 96. lamblichus Vita Pythagorica 6.30. 39 came tous, and who sene you?" as if he was asking questions ofa spirit. And Apollonius replied: ‘I have sent myself, co see whecher I can make men of you, whether you like te or not.’ He asked a second time who he was to come trespassing like chat into the king's counery, and Apollonius said: Al che earth is mine, and I have a right to go all over it and chrough ic” | 102, Ibid., 9.44, che scatemene by Tigellinus, “you ate Goo powerful to be controlled by me.” 103. lamblichus Vite Pythagorica 6.31.

theou pais) and “divine daemon” (darmón rhetos) are really Al inadequate means 1 Platonic predecessors, which formed a basic component of the sessions of af pinpeinting his character.” As in Apollonius’ case, the reader is presented wich a cacalog of acts and sayings chat illustrate bur do not exhaust the figuee’s richness. One can document Pythagoras’ oracular speech, his of Platonic philosophers is suggested by his enemies’ charge chat he simply knowledge of the odyssey of his own soul, and his unique understanding of the “heavenly harmonies of the cosines,” "? but eventually one can only say, wich Porphyry, chat “ten thousand orher things yet more marvelous and more divine are cold about the man... . ‘To put it bluntly, about no one else have greater and more extraordinary things been believed." "” Once again, what remains is a potent impression vf an “unspeakable, unfachomable divine nature’ 7 that hovers just beyond the reach of mortal comprehension, By contrast, che godlike philosopher is not shrouded in such deep mystery. Origen and Plotinus are not pictured as phenomena in spiritual, moral, and intellecrual worlds of their own creation. They are rather squarely placed in philosophical traditions that validate and help to identify chem. In a later chapter I will discuss whether the “schools” ro which they belonged were really as cohesive as the biographers suggest, bur ic is sufticient here to point out that Eusebius and Porphyry have described a diadaché, a philosophical chain ofsuccession from teacher to student, within which Origen and Plotinus are placed and thereby identified. It is true, of course, chat Apollonius’ and Pythagoras’ teachers are also enumerated; but we they constitute a diverse, largely anonymous group ("the Chaldeans,” “the Magi,” “che Egyptian priests”) and they certainly do not form a scholastic Plotinus’ school.” His fame as a vital and prominent link in the succession plagiarized Numenius, one of the giants of sccond-century Platonic and Neopythagorean philosophy." Buc it is bese attested by his wricings. which are given conspicuous attention in Porphyry's biography." Origen, too, is shown as a schoolman. Eusebius pictures him as successor to Clement of Alexandria and Pancaenus in che leadership of the Alexandrian catecherical school and, later, as founder ofthe Caesarean school in which Eusebius himself had seudied.'” Like Porphyry, Eusebius shows his hero as safeguard and brilliant interpreter of his inherited philosophical tradition, and he also devotes a large part of his biography to lists and brief discussions ofthe philosopher's writings." For the question ofthe philosopher's identity, it is important to note chat not only are Origen and Plotinus located in specific scholascie traditions but also char their lasting, personal contributions in the form of treatises and students are clearly emphasized. Both Eusebius and Porphyry are careful co identify che students and successors of each philosopher; they leave no doubt abour che striking personal impact of the philosopher's reaching and the scholastic continuity it ensured. | There is no such clarity concerning che effect of Apollonius and Pychayoras. Their impact is universal but vague,“ and the content of their public teaching consists of bland, commonplace ethical and metaphysical doctrines.* However, the popular morality chat they preach co che world is tradition. in Apollonius and Pythagoras’ case the educational background serves more as a praeperatio, a demonstration of the sage's intellectual flexibilicy, and proof of his comprehensive grasp of sacred knowledge. Origen really a mask, for hidden from general view are their private mysteries into which only an inner circle of disciples is initiated, There ts no such and Plotinus, however, are not portrayed as philosophical eclectics. ‘They Plata, see Plurarch Qaeest. conv. 717B. Ie was a practice of philosophical schools in general to honor birrhdays of founders and appearances of guardian daemons, See PW 13, vols. are located in specifie traditional positions, albeit special ones, for they are the figures who have given their respective schools focus and fame. Plotinus, pupil of the middle Platonist Ammonius, is shown to be che heir, ultimarely, of Socrates and Plato. Porphyry says that Plotinus celebrated the traditional anniversaries of their birthdaces, and made plans to found a city of philosophers, called Platonopolis, governed by Plato's Laws.” iK More important, ; however, was his study of the commentaries of his 104. Ibid., 2.10, 3.16. 105. Ml, 7.44, 14.63, 15.65, 106. Porphyry Vite Pythagoras 28-29. 107. lamblichus Vite Pythagora 15.65. 108. Porphyry Vite Platini 2, 12. On birrhday celebrations in che Acadenıy for Socrates and 135-1149, sv. Gencthlios bemera, by W. Schenide. 109, Porphyry Vita Posen: $4, HO, Ibid, 17-18, 21. TL Ibid, 1-6, 24-26, 112. Euscbius HE 6.3.3, 6.6.1, 6.26, 113. thi, 6.19, 6.3.9 11; lists of works: 6.16, 6.24—25, 6.28, 6.32, 6.46, 6.38. Et. Ibid, @.4-5, 6.30, 6.40-42, 44. phycy Vite Platini A5, 7,9, 16-17. 46 (Dionysius); 6.4.1-2, 6.15 Herachas). Por- 15. Bor example, all Greece “Mocks” to hear Apollonius (Phitostracus Vita Apollinit 8.15), and Pychagoras is able to convert and reform entire cities (Porphyry Via Pythagorae 2-22). 116. Nore che long sectivas in lamblichus’ Vite Uythaporice devored to such copies as prety (28.13-4- 56), justice (30.167 -86), courage (32.214- 28), aad friendship ($3. 22940), (17. Philostracus Vite Apellaar: 1.16: “At suprise he performed certain cites by himself, rices

dichotomy in the teaching of Plotinus and Origen, who are portrayed throughout their biographies as exponents ofa particular philosophy to a sessed ofa spirit of high order, bur what distinguishes them so sharply from Pychagoras and Apollonius is chat they are never elevated beyond the con- 5 Biography and Tradition particular group. Nor are their protound philosophical discoveries obscured by “arcane symbols” in the Pyrhagorcan manner, since their thoughts were recorded in writing. In shore, the phz/osophical characterizations of godlike sages do noc deal in enigma and allusion; in this respect che character of godlike philosophers is subject to rational scruciny, In the same way that Origen and Plocinus are not elusive in the intellectual realm, they are also not part of an ontological category char excludes other men. They are not members of that mysterious middle category of beings neither god nor man. They are men, but they are special men. Porphyry begins his account of the revelation of Plocinus’ special nature with che statement that “Plotinus certainly possessed by birth something more chan other men.” “* The story concerns Plocinus’ encounter wich an Egyptian priest who wanted to evoke Plotinus’ “companion spirit” (ofkefos daimòn). “When the spirit Léon daimonr] was summoned to appear a god Libeon} came and not a being of the spirit order, and the Egyptian said, ‘Blessed are you, who have a god for your spirit and not a companion of the 43 fines of mortalicy. Certainly they are “first among men,” buc never more than chat; they do not ascend to the same height ofdivinity as the philosophers who are characterized as sons of god. A final distinction remains to be made between our two models of the divine philosopher. Sons of god work miracles; the godlike types do not. We have seen that miracle working is noc the primary distinguishing factor between these two types; that factor is rather the mode ofpresentation, One type remains essentially incomprehensible throughour che biographical characterization and is not really contained within the historical era with which he is assuciated. The power of his presence transcends the particularities of history. The other type is more closely associated with che human community; he is a man, although a remarkable one, and is more zasıly understood because his activities can be placed within definite historical frameworks. Miracle working is one more instance of the son ofgod's supernatural abilities: just as he is able to dominate men, so also is he able co dominate nature. This dominion takes ewo forms: the manipulation ofnatsubordinate order.” '" The idea of a companion spirit or indwelling daeural phenomena, and the healing of mental and physical disease. Pythagomon was not, of course, a startling one; ic appears as early as Hesiod and was tas, for example, is able to communicate with bears, oxen, birds, and rivers, quell violent weather, and appear in far-distant places on che same day. made “morally and philosophically respectable,” as E. R. Dodds remarks, by Plato, for whom che daemon was che rational "spiric-guide” in men.” That Plotinus’ daemon turned vue to be “of the more godlike kind” (6% theioterûn daimonén), as Porphyry describes it, was unusual; his spirit was in the highest rank possible for a human being." Origen, too, was specially blessed. Time and cime again, he is protected by “divine and heavenly providence” and deemed worthy of divine aid and grace that save his life—Lusebius says "it is impossible to say how often” — so that he might continue in his “excessive zeal and boldness for che word of Christ.” ** Even more revealing of his stature is the divine spirit (/heion Preuma) chat dwelt in his brease.”" We Clearly, like Plotinus, Origen was poswhich be only communicated co those who had disciplined chemselves by a four years’ spell of silence.” HB. Porphyry Vita Platint 10, 119. Ibid., 10. 120. Dockls, The Greebs tad the rational, pp. 42 IZL Ibid... Appendix II, pp. 28991. 122. Euschius HE 6.2.4, 6.3.5, 6.3.7, 6.2.13. 123. Ibid., 6.2.11. Apollonius heals plague-stricken people, raises a woman from che dead, exorcizes demons, and so on.” Miracle stories like these are able to convey ina dramatic, colorful way the overwhelming power of che particular figure, This may be why ancienc and modern scholars alike have seized upon them as demonstrations of the numinous. They give power an almost tangible reality. Biographers using the model ofthe son of god did not, however, emphasize miracle stories to che extent that some modern scholarship might lead one to believe." They are simply part of che total range of characteristics marshaled in the attempt to define the nature of the son of god. In chis chapter we have seen chat by che second century A.D., the philosopher had come to be considered a holy figure with spiritual and intellectual powers that far surpassed chose of ordinary men. He was a figure for whom 124. Porphyry Vire Pythagrse 23-25, 27, 29, 125. Philostratus Vite Apeffanii 4.10, 4.45, 4.20, 126. See Smith's discussion in “Prolegomena toa Discussion al Arecalogies, Gospels, and Jesus,” pp. 188.98, Divine Men, the

the term “divine” was appropriate. But “divine” was a much-abused term. Comparison of the biographies devoted te these divine philosophers shows that there were two major types of divinity ascribed to philosophers. To call Pythagoras or Apollonius divine was ca suggest chat he was a son of god, pussessed of miraculous, prophetic, and incellectual powers lar beyond human capacity. To call Origen or Plotinus divine was to suggest char he was an especially gifted man, blessed by God, whose status was achieved by the CHAPTER THREE Literary Aspects of Biography purity and steadfastness of his devotion ro philosophical tradition and to the reasoning faculty. Ie is apparent chat there were two very different conceptions of a philosopher's holiness, and when chese conceptions were applied in biographies, two different kinds ofcharacterizations emerged. In biographies of sons of god, we have not an idealized account of che fife of an historical personality, but impressions ofa powertul, personal presence remembered and amplified through time. In biographies of godlike philosophers, in concrast, we have idealized accounts of men whose hiscorical identity was ac least partially protected by the survival of their written works in the very scholastic circles of which cheir biographers were a parc. ri Dent My LATE Biographies of holy philosophers were creative historical works, promoting models of philosophical divinity and imposing chem on historical figures thought to be worthy ofsuch idealization, The stereorypical rraits that the biographies used to develop the models—in other words, the contents of the texts— were discussed in che preceding chapter. but an adequate understanding of these texts calls for an explication of cheir literary form also. Scholarship devoted co a licerary analysis of biographies of Graeco-Roman holy men has focused primarily on attempts to define a genre chac these biographies represent. Untortunarely, the literary heritage bequeathed to Graeco-Roman authors by classical and Hellenistic authors has been largely IN NT vS Y neglected in chis search for genre, since the search has concentrated on later biographies primarily to determine whether chey are later representatives of a genre within which che gospels might be placed. For che most part, these discussions of genre have deale with content, that is, wich recurring details in biographies of divine men, and che question of form has been either neglected or assumed to be identical wich content. Clearly form and content are closely connected, and neither can be discussed fruiefully in isolation. However, scholars have been so preoccupied with determining che provenance of materials about che divine man and with tracing the amazing proliferation of traditions chac they have attempted to impose organizing patterns on the traditions concerning the tbeios «ner (holy man) without really considering the structural elements of che supposed literary form itself, If che quescion of literary form, and its function, is to be addressed L Older studies include Richard Reitzenstein, Hellenistische Wandererzdhlungen (Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1906); A. Priessnig, "Die biographische Form der Plotinvica des Porphycias und das Anteniosleben des Athanasios,” Byz. Zeitichr. Ki (1970: 1-5; and idem, "Die literarische Form «ler Spätaneiken Philosophenromanc,” Byz, Zeitschr. 30 (1929): 23-30, For a list of more recent studies sve sh. 1, a. 1.