A vetus dictum in St.Ambrose

In: Vigiliae Christianae, XXXII - 1978 p. 216 - 219 ——— + ° D SSQa Sa LR ENT an \a AS ù À Whitaker Tf A Pus Ley e {source pythagoricienne] : WHITTAKER J., A vetus dictum in St. Ambros A ais. WHITTAKER J., A vetus dictum in St. Ambrose : VChr XXXII 1978 216-219. | Pour son vetus dictum, unus esto, Ambroise ne s'est sans doute pas inspiré directement de Platon, Resp. 443e1 ou Epinomis 992b6, mais sa source doit être la même que celle de Clément d'Alexandrie, Strom. 1v,23, 151, qui parle d'une origine pvthagoricienne. [186 Viailra 9 \Che; shew at Christ BL rare

Vigiliae Christianae 32, 216-219; © North-Holland Publishing Company 1978 JOHN WHITTAKER Pierre Courcelle has attempted in a recent article! to establish the paternity of the following previously unassigned vetus dictum in St. Ambrose, Ep. ad Vercellensem Ecclesiam 63.60, PL. 16.1204 f.: Vetus dictum est: Assuesce unus esse; ut vita tua quamdam picturam exprimat, eamdem servans semper imaginem, quam acceperit. Quomodo potest unus esse, qui nunc iracundia inflammatur, nunc indignatione gravi exaestuat, nunc vultu excandescit, nunc pallore immutatur, per momenta varius et discolor? Courcelle goes on to assert quite rightly a close relationship between this text and Ambrose, Ep. ad Iustum 7.22, PL 16.911: Et tu ergo ad similitudinem Dei unus esto atque idem: non hodie sobrius, cras ebrius: hodie pacificus, crastina die litigiosus: hodie frugi, crastina die incontinens; mutatur enim unusquisque morum varietate, et fit alter: in quo non agnoscitur, quod fuit, et incipit esse, quod non fuit, sui degener. Then, with the aid of a wide array of supporting texts, Courcelle concludes :? “Le vetus dictum en question, rapporté une fois sous la forme: ‘assuesce unus esse’, l’autre fois sous la forme: ‘unus esto’, me paraît être la parole de Zénon de Cittium: ‘Vis d’une manière conséquente’.” But in spite of the impressive battery of texts which Courcelle cails into service, his conclusion does not carry conviction for two reasons in particular. Firstly, neither Assuesce unus esse nor Unus esto is recognizably a translation or even a paraphrase of Zeno’s tó ÓpoAoyovévos Efv.3 And secondly, illuminating though the material assembled by Courcelle may be,* he has omitted from his account the most important item of 1 “Ambroise de Milan dévot de la monade,” Revue des Etudes Grecques 87 (1974) 144 ff. 2 Op. cit. 146 f. 3 Ambrose was indeed familiar with the Zenonian formula, which he translates thus (De excessu fratris 1.45.1, CSEL 73.234): Est ergo prudentis agnoscere se ipsum, et quemadmodum a sapientibus definitum est, secundum naturam vivere. 4 Of particular relevance amongst the Stoic witnesses assembled by Courcelle are

evidence, namely Clement of Alexandria, Strom. TV.23.151.1 ff.:... 3eög d& Anadng GSupds te Kai avervOduntos Kal où tadty poos À ta deve. <ovK> ÉKKAÏVEL OÙOË ENV CHOPaV À TOV êmudvmôv ÜPYEL OÙTE yap dv nepiméoot tivi dev À tot Beo pois ote pebyer 6 Jes dsıklav, Gonep ovdé Eniduunoen, (va kai äpEn EriYopiag. pootikds odv ë©’ dv Kai Tò IIvdayöpsıov éXéyeto “Eva yevscdoı Kal tov ävIponov dciv”,... ic 68 thy anaSetav JEOULEVOS ÄVIPOTOG ÄXPAVT@G HOVAÖLKÒS yivetat.5 Like Ambrose in both the above texts, Clement deals here with the matter of the control of the emotions. If man could only escape from the mutability wrought in him by emotional disturbance, he too would become one as God is one. Thus both for Clement and for Ambrose the achievement of unity is a form of ôpoiwors Se. We may conclude therefore on the basis of both form and content that the vetus dictum of Ambrose is precisely that quoted by Clement, who identifies it not as of Stoic origin but as a IIv9ayópetov. But the matter does not end here, for Clement’s Tlv$ayépetov has a Platonic background not noted by Stählin or Früchtel ad loc. nor by Courcelle in his treatment of Ambrose. At Rep. 443 D-E Socrates recommends that the various faculties of the soul be brought into a condition of mutual agreement and the individual thereby rendered coppova kai Npnoou&vov. In this state a person may be described as Eva yevönevov Ex TOALOV (Rep. 443 E 1). The identical formula occurs in the Epinomis Seneca, Ep. 114.26 (Nemo nostrum unum esse se cogitat); Ep. 120.21 f. (Homines multi tales sunt qualem hunc describit Horatius Flaccus (I Sat. 3.11-17), nunquam eundem, ne similem quidem sibi... Magnam rem puta unum hominem agere. Praeter sapientem autem nemo unum agit, ceteri multiformes sumus. Modo frugi tibi videbimur et graves, modo prodigi et vani; mutamus subinde personam et contrariam ei sumimus quam exuimus.); Marcus Aurelius, Med. X1.21.1(& um sic Kai 6 abtdc éotiv dei Tob Biov oKonds, oùtoc slg Kai 6 aùròg dr’ SAO Tob Biov etvar où Sbvaraı.); Epictetus, Diss, III.15.13 (Eva oe dei äv9ponov civat, À &ya8ov à kakôv.). But important as such texts may be as illustrations of the stress laid by popular moralists upon singlemindedness (i.e, choosing a goal in life and then adhering to it), they contain no trace of the notion of dp0imo1g $6 which appears prominently in Ambrose and, as we shall see, in Clement of Alexandria. There is no indication that Ambrose was directly influenced by any of the above Stoic texts (there are no significant verbal similarities), but he was certainly familiar with some Stoic ideas not only from his reading of Cicero in particular but also because Stoic ideals were still alive and influential in his day. On the matter of Stoic influence upon Ambrose cf. M. Pohlenz, Die Stoa* I (Göttingen 1970) 445 ff., and G. Madec, Saint Ambroise et la philosophie (Paris 1974) 139 ff. 5 For the presumably Neopythagorean formulation novasırög yiyvecSat cf, also Strom. FV.25.157.2, and H.-J. Krämer, Der Ursprung der Geistmetaphysik (Amsterdam 1964) 245 and 283,

J. WHITTAKER 992 B6f.: & noAA@v Eva yeyovóra. Thus, Plotinus is echoing Plato verbatim, although this is not noted by Henry-Schwyzer ad loc., when he writes (Enn. VI.9.3.20 ff. H.-S.): éni te thy Ev Eavtd dpyûv avaPpeByKévars Kal Ev ÊK TOAAOV yevéodar. Platonic though the notion of Suoiwaoıg Se may be, it does not appear in the above-mentioned passages of the Republic and Epinomis which have provided the terminological inspiration for Clement’s TIpSaydpetov. However, an important step in the direction of the pertinent combination of ideas is effected in Ammonius’ contribution to the discussion which Plutarch puts before us in his De E apud Delphos. wéver ò’ obdeig, says Ammonius (De EF, 392 D-E), ob’ Eotıv sic, GAAG yryvómeda noAAoi, repi Ev TL pAvraopa Kat Kotvòv Expaysiov DANG nepiekavvopévns Kai ölıcdavobong. Erei AG ot adtoi JÉVOVTEG ÉTÉPOLG yaipopev viv, ETEPOLG npótepov, Tavavtia pioüpev À miooünev Kai BavopdCopev Kai wéyopev, AAkoıg 58 ypoueta Adyots GAAOIg nüdecıv, obK 8i006 où Lopg vy où Savoia Ett TV QÜTIV Egovreg; Ammonius goes on to say (De E. 393 B): ob yap ToAAG to Ysidv Eoriv, Os HOV Ekaotos Ek HOPIOV Ötapopöv EV 16.9E01 yiyvouévov, ÉBPOLOUG AavTosanov Kal RaVHyoOpiKGs peuetyuêvov: GAL’ Eveivar det TÔ Sv, Gorep Sv Tò Ev. Since he is concerned to emphasize the gulf that separates man from God, Plutarch does not dwell here upon the possibility of ôpoiwoig Se but rather upon the contrast between the unity of God on the one hand and the mutability produced in man by his shifting emotions on the other. I have drawn attention elsewhere to a number of Neopythagorean features in Ammonius’ discourse.” We may conclude that since Ambrose, like Clement of Alexandria, makes man’s search for unity a form of önoiwcıg Se it is not probable that he was inspired directly or solely by the above-mentioned sections of the Republic and Epinomis. On the other hand, there is, as we have seen, no reason to doubt that his vetus dictum is any other than the precise Ilv9ayoperov quoted by Clement, who presumably had it from some now lost Neopythagorean source. Whether directly or more probably indirectly, Ambrose’s dictum is likely to have come to him from the same source. There is no need to suppose that Ciement was the intermediary, but Ambrose’s immediate source, whatever it may have been, would have made him aware that the sententia in question was either simply a vetus 6 7 Cf. Porphyry, Ad Marcellam 10, p. 16.16 f, Pötscher: eig oeavtnv avußoiverv. In my “Ammonius on the Delphic E,” Classical Quarterly N.S, 19 (1969) 185 ff,

dictum (i.e, anonymous as far as Ambrose was concerned) or specifically Pythagorean.’ St. John’s, Memorial University of Newfoundland A NOTE ON NAG HAMMADI IL 5 “As for these great signs, it was in Egypt alone that they were manifested, not in other lands, as he (it) indicates that it is to the garden of God that it is likened” (trans. G. M. Browne). This is an allusion to the Biblical text at Genesis 13, 10: Tléoa fv rotiouévn … a> 6 napüödsıcog tot Jeoö Kal ds À yi Aiyörtov, The exact phrase 6 napüöcıcog tot YEOD occurs in both texts. The undefined subject is evidently “The Bible” or “the writer of the Bible”. It should be noted that in this section of OnOrgWld the author frequently quotes or alludes to passages in the Old Testament. Thus, some six lines earlier (122.27-28) he fashioned a play on Psalms 22, 7 (or Job 25, 6) and followed that with a quotation of Psalms 91, 13.* Champaign, I. 61820, 1711 Parkhaven Drive * HOWARD JACOBSON For many other Pythagorean references in St. Ambrose cf. Madec, op. cit. 106 ff. For valuable help I am indebted to Professors G. M. Browne and B. Layton.