Neopythagoreanism and Negative Theology

This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester]
On: 07 July 2011, At: 12:57

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Symbolae Osloenses
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sosl20
Neopythagoreanism and negative theology

John Whittaker
a
Memorial University of Newfoundland St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada
Available online: 29 Jun 2010
To cite this article: John Whittaker (1969): Neopythagoreanism and negative theology, Symbolae Osloenses, 44:1, 109-125
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00397676908590612
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
NEOPYTHAGOREANISM AND NEGATIVE

THEOLOGY
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester] at 12:57 07 July 2011
BY
JOHN
WHITTAKER
Memorial University of Newfoundland

St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada
The purpose of this paper is to reconsider two suggestions put

forward by H. A. Wolfson1 regarding Albums' mathematical
illustration of the via negationis2:
, , ,
.
It was indicated by E. R. Dodds3 that Albinus' illustration points

to a Neopythagorean source. Wolfson, however, has drawn
attention4 to the similarity between Albinus' statement and the
following passage from Simplicius' lost commentary on Euclid's
Elements, preserved in al-Nairizi's Arabic commentary on the
Elements: Dixit propterea Sambelichius: Punctum ideo negando
Euclides diffinivit, diminutione superficiel a corpore, et diminutione linee a superficie, et diminutione puncti a linea. Cum ergo
1
2
3
4
In his paper ' Albinus and Plotinus on divine attributes' (Harvard Theological
Review 45 (1952), 115 ff.); see further his'Negative attributes in the Church
Fathers and the Gnostic Basilides' (Harvard Theological Review 50 (1957),
145 ff.), and 'Infinite and privative judgments in Aristotle, Averroes,
and Kant' (Philosophy and Phenomenalogkal Research 8 (1947), 173 ff.).
Didasc. 10, p. 165 Hermann.
Proclus: The Elements of Theology (2nd ed. Oxford, 1963), 312.
'Albinus and Plotinus on divine attributes' 118 f.
110
JOHN WHITTAKER
corpus sit tres habens dimensiones, punctus necessario nullum

earum habet, nee habet partem.5
On the basis of this similarity Wolfson argues6 that Albums'
statement 'is only a fragment of a comment on Euclid's definition
of a point which, like the passage of Simplicius, tried to explain
Euclid's negative definition of a point'7. This interesting proposal,
which is supported by Festugire8, even if correct, would not
necessarily affect the validity of Dodds' suggestion, since any
commentary on Euclid that was available to Albinus is likely
to have been Neopythagorean in tone and theologically orientated. However, it must be noted that it in no way necessarily
follows from the fact that Simplicius, in a commentary on Euclid,
expressed himself in terms which are more or less similar to those
of Albinus that Albinus was borrowing verbatim from an already
existing commentary on the Elements. In fact, Wolfson is assuming
that Simplicius is himself here quoting from an earlier commentary on the Elements, and that this commentary, or a previous
commentary of at this point similar content, was available to
Albinus. No doubt Simplicius was heavily indebted to previous
commentators, but it is rash to suppose that Albinus could not
have taken his illustration from any other source than a Euclidean
commentary.
The movement from point to solid figure (i.e., the reverse of
Albinus' illustration) was taught by early Pythagoreans9. We
meet it again, e.g., in Philo10, in Plutarch11, in Sextus Empiricus12,
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Anaratii in decem libros priores Elementorum Euclidis commentant ex interpretatione

Gherardi Cremonensis, ed. M. Curtze (1899), p. 2. 11 ff.
Op. cit., 119.
Wolfson has not explained precisely his view of the relationship between
Albinus and the purported commentary on Euclid. However, one gains
the impression that Wolfson believes that the mathematical illustration of
the via negationis was Albinus' own adaptation of this supposed Euclidean
commentary; cf. loc. cit.
La Rvlation d'Herms Trismgiste, I V Le Dieu Inconnu et la Gnose (Paris,
1954), 314 f.
Cf. G. S. Kirk and J . E. Raven, The Presocratic Philosophers (Cambridge,
1957), 253 ff.
E.g., De opific. 49.
Plat, quaest. 1001 - 1002 A; cf. n. 19 below.
Adv. math. 10. 281.
Neopythagoreanism and Negative Theology
111
in Nicomachus of Gerasa 13 , in Alexander Polyhistor's account

reproduced by Diogenes Laertius 14 , in Hippolytus15, as well as
in Theo of Smyrna 16 , Iamblichus17 and the Pythagorean Anon.
Photii 18 . That Albinus' illustration is directly related to this
Pythagorean conception may be surmised from the fact that
Plutarch, Sextus Empiricus and Nicomachus all present, in
Pythagorean contexts, not only the movement from point to
solid figure but also that from solid figure to point 19 . Moreover
the two movements are already presented in combination by
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Introd. arithm. 2. 6. 4.
8. 25.
Haer. 4. 51, PG 16, col. 3119; 6. 23, PG 16, col. 3227.
p. 97 Hiller.
Theolog, arithm. p. 84 de Falco.
Phot. cod. 249, 439 a.
Plutarch, Plat, quaest. 1001 1002
,
,
,
'
' ' '
.

,
, ,
(). ,
' ,

.
Sextus Empiricus, Adv. math. 10. 259 ff.
, '

.
' ix
, , a
,
. ,
' ,
( ,

, ,
),
vat ,
.
Cp. Nicomachus, Introd. arithm. 2. 6. 7.
112
JOHN WHITTAKER
Aristotle20, and, as H. J . Krmer has shown21, were probably

commonplace in the Old Academy. Thus there is no need
whatsoever to suppose as does Wolfson that Albinus' source
could only have been a commentary on Euclid. On the other
hand Krmer goes too far in supposing that Albinus' mathematical illustration was a direct inheritance from the Old Academy. Albinus does not identify the ultimate source of reality
with as Plato apparently did in his lecture on the Good.
Albinus simply says that one can form an impression of the ultimate divinity in the same way as one can form an impression of
the geometrical point; he is presenting a mathematical illustration of the via negationis but not identifying God with the One
conceived in mathematical terms. This in itself renders it unlikely
that Albinus' illustration be taken directly from an Old Academic
source. In all probability we have here rather a Middle Platonic
adaptation of Neopythagorean material which itself in turn built
upon Early Pythagorean and Old Academic conceptions.
A consideration of Clement of Alexandria's formulation of the
mathematical illustration of the via negationis may help to clarify
this point 2 2 : . . . ' ,
,
,
, ,
, , '
, , ,
20
21
22
Metaph. 1016 b 2 4 ff. ,

, ,
, ,
' ,
, ,
.
For the progression from solid figure to mathematical unit see further
Metaph. 1028 b 16 ff. (se. the Pythagoreans)
, , ,
.
O n the see below.
See his Der Ursprung der Geistmetaphysik (Amsterdam, 1964), in particular
pp. 105 ff.
Strom. 5. 11, P G 9, cols. 108 f.
113
, ,
'
/ , [
, , '
, , , , , ,
' , ...
, ' , ,
, .
The question of the relationship between Clement's statement
and that of Albinus must first be considered. We have already
noted 23 that Wolfson seems to regard Albinus' illustration as his
own adaptation of the supposed Euclidean commentary. This
leads him to suggest that Clement's statement was borrowed
directly from Albinus (he speaks of Clement 'paraphrasing Albinus'2*). However, an examination of Clement's account shows
that Wolfson must be mistaken.
There are two main reasons why this must be so. (1) Clement's version introduces the term in place of Albinus'
and the fact that occurs in Celsus too 2 5
in the same connection shows that it was a current Middle
Platonic term for the procedure in question. (2) Clement includes
a final stage in the negative regression which has no counterpart
in Albinus: , ,
' , . (We
shall deal with this point immediately.) Clearly the presence
23
24
25
See n. 7 above.
'Negative attributes in the Church Fathers and the Gnostic Basilides'
(see n. 1 above), p. 147.
Cf. Origen, Contra Cels. 7. 42, PG 11, col. 1481 ; cf. H. J . Krmer, op. cit.
(see . 21 above), 105 n. 279. Plotinus, like Albinus, uses the term
: Em. 6. 7. 36

. Wolfson's assumption ('Albinus and Plotinus on divine attributes' (see n. 1 above), p. 119) that Plotinus was
directly dependent on Albinus is unnecessary. The term
in
this connection was commonplace in the Middle Platonic period; cf.
the latter half of this paper. Furthermore, there is no adequate evidence
that Plotinus was familiar with the writings of Albinus; cf. Les Sources
de Plotin, Entretiens sur l'Antiquit Classique V (Vandoeuvres-Genve,
I960), 422.
114
JOHN WHITTAKER
of the term and the more detailed nature of Clement's

exposition indicate that his account is independent of that of
Albinus. The probability is rather that both were recounting
a familiar doctrine, that Albinus, true to style, presents this
doctrine in abbreviated form, whereas Clement, also true to
style, puts forward a more elaborate version.
The final stage in Clement's version, to which attention has
just been drawn, contains, I believe, some indication of Neopythagorean influence, and must therefore be considered in
detail. To this passage Sthlin, in his edition of the Stromata26,
cites the following parallels: Aristotle, De anima 409 a 6
. ( = ) . Anal,
post. 87 a 3 6 , .
Nicomachus, Introd. anthtn. 2. 6. 3, p. 84. 8 f. Hoche (Sthlin's
reference, copied by Casey and Friichtel, is incorrect)
. R . P. Casey 2 7
notes that one should add to Sthlin's list Sextus Empiricus,
Adv. math. 10. 281, and this reference is incorporated into Friichtel's revision of Sthlin's edition28 even though the passage
in question is not strictly relevant since Sextus omits the vital
stage of the . In fact however Sthlin's list is by
no means complete and the following additions should be made:
Aristotle, Metaph. 1016 b 29 ff. (cf. ; 20 above); Metaph. 1028
b 16 ff. (cf. . 20 above); Metaph. 1084 b 26 f. (
) ; Anal. post. 88 a 3 3 f. ( . . . al
ai ,
al ) ; Alexander of Aphrodisias' account of Plato's
lecture on the Good at Simplicius, In phys. 454. 24 == Aristotle,
De bono fr. 2, p. 115 Ross (
) ; Iamblichus, Thiolog. arithm. I, p. 1. 4 de Falco (
, ); Proclus, In Eucl. El. 95.
21 (o
); the Pythagorean Anon. Photii at Phot. cod. 249. 439 a
( ,
26
27
28
G C S vol. 15.
Hanard Theological Review 18 (1925), 75 . 114.
G C S vol. 5 2 .
115
, , ^
, , '
).
From this mass of evidence the following emerges. (1) Whether
or not, as Alexander's account suggests, the pertinent conception
of the relationship between the and the was
actually presented by Plato in his lecture on the Good, the
frequency with which this conception occurs in Aristotle suggests
29
that it might well have been current in the Old Academy .
(2) The evidence of Nicomachus of Gerasa, of Iamblichus and
of the Pythagorean Anon. Photii, and in particular Proclus'
statement that the relevant definition of the is Pythagorean clearly indicate that in later antiquity the conception
in question was current first and foremost among Neopythagoreans. Consequently the probability is that we are here faced
not with a continuity of Academic tradition but rather with an
instance of the Neopythagorean revival of doctrines current in
the Early Academy. If this is the case, then the presence in
Clement's account of this conception of the and the
may be regarded as suggestive of Neopythagorean influence thereon.
There is a further indication of Neopythagorean influence
in Maximus of Tyre's brief mention of the via negationis30 :
, , ,
, '
, ,
} '
, , , . T h e sequence ,
, , is informative.
Festugire31 compares the Hermetic Exc. Stob. 6. 19 ( I I I . 39
N - F ) 3 2 : , ,
29
30
31
32
Cf. . Gaiser, Piatons ungeschriebene Lehre (Stuttgart, 1963), 355 . 6 4 .

Diss. 17. 11, p . 6 9 D b n e r .
Op. cit. (see . 8 above), 115 . 1.
Cf. the Hermetic Exc. Stob. 2 . 15 (III. 7 N-F) and 8. 2. 2 (III. 47 N-F).
But see n. 35 below.
116
JOHN WHITTAKER
, and suggests that in the Hermetic version

is the equivalent of in Maximus. In fact however
and are not equivalents for the Hermetist and Maximus
are presenting to us different shortened versions (cf. Maximus
) of a much longer list of sensible attributes which Philo has preserved in a Pythagorean context 3 3 :

, , ,
, , , , , .
If, as is suggested by the context as well as by the occurrence
elsewhere of the same list34, Philo's list is of Neopythagorean
origin then it seems likely that Maximus' illustration and the
Hermetic variant derive from some Neopythagorean source.
The widespread influence of the list in question may be judged
not only from the above evidence but also from the fact that
, , occur in combination in theological
contexts in Albinus35, Justin 3 6 and Origen 36a . Furthermore, it is
33
34
35
De opific. 120.
T h e same list occurs in a Pythagorean context at Lydus, De mens. 2. 12,
p. 3 5 . 2 ff. Wnsch and with Anatolius as source at Iamblichus, Theolog,
arithm. 7, p . 5 5 . 9 f. de Falco (this latter reference is not noticed by Wnsch
in the case of Lydus nor by Cohn and Wendland in the case of Philo).
Didasc. 1 0 , p . 1 6 4 H e r m a n n

,
,
, ,
,
. However, unlike Maximus, Justin (see . 36 below),
Clem. Alex, (see p. 113 above), and Celsus, who criticizes the Christians
for attributing , and to God (cf. Origen, Contra Cels.
6. 64, P G 11, col. 1396), Albinus does not deny to his first principle
but states (loc. cit.) ,
. Politicus 275 8 f. ( ',
,
, . . . ) might provide
Platonic authority for Albinus' viewpoint but cf. below on Phaedrus
247
6 f. I t is doubtful whether Celsus in criticizing the Christians had
the Neopythagorean list in mind. T h e combination , is
quite common: cf. Aristotle, De part. anim. 640 b 32 ff. = D - K 68
, xa ) ;
Plato, Gorgias 465
4, 474 D 4 and 2, Rep. 373
6, Theaetetus 163
Neophagoreanism and Negative Theology
117
perhaps just possible that Clement had this same list in mind
when he wrote at the close of the passage quoted above
, , , ,
, ,
' , 7.
But whatever the value of these slight indications of Neopythagorean influence, it has been adequately demonstrated
36
36a
37
10; Aristotle, Eth. Nie. 1118 a 4 and Meteor. 372 a 30 ff., cf. further
Bonitz, Index s.v. ; consecutive sections of the Planta of Aetius are
labelled and (Diels, Doxogr. pp. 312 f.).
Furthermore, Festugire (op. cit. (see n. 8 above), 226 n. 4) has rightlystressed the influence of Plato, Phaedrus 247
6 f.
xa (cf. also, as Festugire (loe.
cit.) notes, Symp. 211 A 5 ff.). The Phaedrus passage was a popular Platonic
commonplace, quoted, e.g., by Origen (Contra Cels. 6. 19, PG 11, col.
1320) and Clem. Alex. (Strom. 5 . 3 , PG 9, cols. 32 f.). Festugire (loe.
cit.) is however clearly mistaken in referring to the passage of Albinus
quoted at the head of this footnote as a paraphrase of Phaedrus 247 6 f.
The Phaedrus text was indeed, as Festugire remarks, frequently paraphrased; cf. Iamblichus, De myst. I. 18 (54. 11 ff.), the Hermetic Exc.
Stob. 2 A. 15 (III. 7 N-F) and 8. 2. 2(111. 47 N-F), C.H. 13. 6 (II. 202.
14 ff. N-F.) Nevertheless Albinus is clearly drawing upon a different
source.
Dial,
Tryph. 4, PG 6, col. 484 . . . . . .,
, , , ,
(cf. Philo, De opific. 120
, Iamblichus,
Theolog, arithm. 7, p. 55. 9 de Falco , Lydus, De mens.
2.12, p. 35.4f. W.
).
De prineip. I. 1. 6, PG 11, col. 125 Non ergo aut corpus aliquod, aut.in
corpore esse putandus est Deus, sed intellectualis natura simplex, . . .
Mens vero ut moveatur vel operetur, non indget loco corporeo ( =
?), eque sensibili magnitudine ( = ), vel corporali
habitu ( = ) aut colore ( = ), neque alio ullo prorsus indiget
horum quae corporis vel materiae propria sunt. Cp. ibid. I. 2. 2, PG
11, col. 130 Si ergo semel recte receptum est, unigenitum Filium Dei,
sapientiam eius esse substantialiter subsistentem, nescio si iam ultra evagari sensus noster debeat ad suspicandum, ne forte ipsa , id
est substantia eius corporeum aliquid habeat, cum omne quod corporeum
est, vel habitu, vel colore, vel magnitudine designetur. Ibid. I. 2. 4, PG 11,
col. 133 Quia hae omnes appellationes ex operibus eius (se. Filii Dei)
virtutibus nominatae sunt, et in nulla harum vel levi opinione intelligi
corporale aliquid potest, quod vel magnitudinem designare videatur, vel habitum,
vel colorent.
Seep. 113 above.
118
JOHN WHITTAKER
above that there is no need to regard, as does Wolfson, Albinus'

mathematical illustration of the via negationis as an adaptation
of a Euclidean commentary. However, this is not to deny that
Albinus and his contemporaries were aware of the theological
potentiality of the Elements. Euclidean terminology occurs frequently in combination with Pythagorean number speculation
in the writings of Philo 3 8 ; whilst Hippolytus39 tells us that the
Naassenes identified the mustard seed of the N.T. (cf., e.g.,
Matth. 13. 31 f.) with the indivisible point a striking instance
of the no doubt Neopythagorean-mspired theological usage of
the geometrical conception of a point: . . . ,
' ,
,
avcfj . , ,
, ,
, , , r o .
The also occurs in Hippolytus' account of
Simonian gnosticism at Haer. 6. 14, PG 16, col. 3214, whilst
at Haer. 4.51, PG 16, col. 3119 Hippolytus refers to the theological
utilisation of the Pythagorean progression from point to solid
figure and adds ,
, \
.
II
The second half of this paper will deal with Wolfsons' discussion of the term . With Albinus, Didasc. 10, p. 165 H.
( ' , ,
, ' ,
'
' '
'
38
39
Cf., e.g., De opific. 4 9 and 9 8 ; De Decalog. 2 4 ff. O n the philosophical

importance of the Euclidean defs see De congr. end. grat. 146 f., and
Clem. Alex. Strom. 6 . 11, P G 9, col. 312.
Haer. 5. 9 , P G 16, col. 3154.
119

' ,
,
, '
*0), and such statements of Plotinus as <5
' (Enn. 6. 9. 3) in mind, Wolfson claims 41
that 'both Albinus and Plotinus use the term aphairesis in the
technical sense of Aristotle's apophasis'. , Wolfson explains42, 'refers to a proposition which is negative in quality,
and in such a proposition the negation of the predicate is possible
even of a subject of which that predicate never could be affirmed,
as, for instance, the proposition "the wall is not seeing".' This
is, of course, perfectly true, but when Wolfson gives the impression
in his discussion43 that it is only this latter type of proposition
(e.g., 'the wall is not seeing') to which the term correctly refers he is introducing a limitation of the concept of
for which .there is no Aristotelian basis, is
Aristotle's general term for negation (cf. De interpr. 17 a 25 f.
), and or,
more correctly perhaps, (Metaph. 1056 a 24)
is a subdivision thereof; as Aristotle puts it (Metaph. 1011 b
40
41
42
43
Didasc. 8, p . 163 . ' (se. )

. At the opposite end of the scale of being Philo declares (De
praem. 30) ' '
, ' '
,
. Cp. Clem. Alex, (see pp. 122 f. above)
. , . Cp. Corpus Hermeticum 4. 5 (I. 51.5 f.)
.
'Albinus and Plotinus on divine attributes', 121.
Op. cit., 120.
Cf., e.g., 'Negative attributes in the Church Fathers and the Gnostic
Basilides' 145 f., in particular the following (op. cit., 146) : 'Accordingly,
with reference to God, both Albinus and Plotinus maintain that the negation of any predicate of God does not mean that its opposite can be predicated of Him; it rather means the exclusion of God from the universe
of discourse of the predicate in question. In other words, the negative
attributes of God are what Aristotle calk technically 'negations' and
not what he calls technically 'privations'.'
120
JOHN WHITTAKER
19 f.) .
I t is not true as Wolfson claims 4 4 that 'in Aristotle, " n e g a t i o n "
in its strictly technical sense of a logical negation is contrasted
with the term "privation".' Strictly speaking is contrasted with and with as at Cat. l i b
17 ff. ,
, , rj ,
. When however is used to denote a type of
proposition (namely, privative), then it is not contrasted with
but subordinated to it. Nor does the account of Alexander of Aphrodisias to which Wolfson refers45 give any indication
that he regarded otherwise than as a subdivision of
16 :
,
.

' ,
,
' (
, '
), '
. ,
, , ,
, . ,
,
. It may be added that there is no
specific Aristotelian term to cover the type of proposition which
Wolfson has in mind, i.e., 'the wall is not seeing'.
On the subject of it may be noted that Aristotle
seems on occasion to admit the use of this term simply as an
equivalent of . At Metaph. 1022 b 22 f. we read
44
45
46

Op. cit., 120 N. 36. 'Negative attributes in the Church Fathers and the
Gnostic Basilides', 145 f. 'Infinite and privative judgments in Aristotle,
Averroes, and Kant', 174.
In Metaph. p. 327. 12 ff. Hayduck.
121
iva ,
f , .
Ross, ad lac, claims that the words indicate
that in this sense is not identical with negation, since
there are some attributes 'which cannot be possessed by anything, e.g., (according to Aristotle's doctrine) "actually infinite".'
Ross's interpretation is difficult to maintain in view of Metaph.
1046 a 31 ff.
], ., and (contra Ross, loe. cit.) Metaph.
1055 b 3 ff.
, ,
. The phrase v surely covers both
is not- actually infinite' (which, according to Ross's interpretation, the definition of at Metaph. 1022 b 22 ff.
was intended to exclude!) and, e.g., 'the wall is not seeing'.
It is noteworthy that whenever Aristotle lists the meanings of
it is this broad meaning of the term which appears
first. It may be noted further that in the Prior Analytics
occurs frequently as the equivalent of ; cf., e.g., .
Anal. pr. 25 a 6.
Chrysippus, too, who devoted an entire work to the subject
of " and whose treatment of the subject appears to have
been more detailed than that of Aristotle, emphasizes the ambiguity of the term and admits the priority of the more
general usage of the term. After distinguishing and
he continues 1 8 :
f ,
,
.
f , ,
,
.
.
Furthermore, it may be doubted whether is used,
as Wolfson argues, by Albinus as an equivalent of ,
47
48
Cf. SVFII. 13 (p. 5. 11).

SVF II. 177 = Simplicius, in Arist. Cat. 100 Bas.
122
JOHN WHITTAKER
whether in the broad Aristotelian sense or the narrower Wolfsonian. With reference to Albinus' mathematical illustration
of the via negationis Wolfson readily admits49, 'The passage as
it stands would seem to deal not with the manner in which we
can speak of God, but rather with the method by which we can
arrive at a conception of God.' Wolfson seeks to avoid this
major difficulty by claiming that 5 0 'what he (sc. Albinus) means
to explain is not only how we can form a conception of God
but also how we can describe God, and, with regard to the latter,
his explanation is that we can describe God negatively, in the
same way as Euclid defines a point negatively.' Now it is no
doubt a corollary to Albinus' statement that we can form a
conception of God by 'abstracting' from Him, that we can
describe Him by means of negative statements. But this in no way
alters the fact that Albinus is here dealing only with the problem
of forming a conception of God. The corollary remains unstated.
Moreover, this same usage of and its cognates
(i.e., to describe an act of thought) is already obvious in Aristotle.
Cf., e.g., Metaph. 1061 a 2 8 ff. ( '
(
,
,
, ,
' " ' , .)) ; Metaph. 1029
a 16 ff. {
^,
) ; Metaph. 1036 b I ff., where Aristotle is dealing with
the difficulty of conceiving form without matter, (
o '
).
It is evident from the above examples that Aristotle's use of
the relevant terms has exercised influence upon the formulations
of the via negationis which we have been considering. It is equally
evident that in Aristotle these terms refer to mental acts rather
than to negative statements. Plutarch in the passage quoted
49
50

Op. cit., 119.
123
in footnote 19 (
) is clearly influenced by Aristotelian terminology.
The use of the verbs and (cf. Metaph. 1061
a 28 ff., cited on p. 122 above) in the context of Clement's version
of the via negationis (see p. 112 above) corresponds precisely to
their Aristotelian usage. Similarly in the version of Maximus
of Tyre (see p. 115 above) can refer only to an act
of thought (cf. . . . ) .
There is thus no good reason to suppose that in Albums the
phrase has anything to do with negation as such.
In the passage in question Albinus is concerned purely with
the.problem of forming a conception of God. The matter of
negative statements lies outside the scope of his exposition.
In the case of Plotinus the situation is perhaps slightly different. At Enn. 6. 7. 36 (
) the term is clearly
used in the same sense as in Albinus and Plutarch 51 . Plotinus
is referring briefly to current and familiar methods of conceiving
the deity, and in this context, as we have seen, has
nothing to do with negation52. It should also be noted that
is used frequently by Plotinus in statements dealing
with the via negationis. That what Plotinus had in mind in such
passages was not negation but a mental process of abstraction
is obvious from the following (Enn. 6. 8. 21) : (ofh>y ,
, ,

Here the meaning of
is decided by the contrasted verb ; this latter
term, borrowed from mathematics, cannot mean 'assert' and
consequently in the same context cannot mean 'deny'.
51
52
53
I t is by no means as evident as Wolfson claims (op. cit., 119 f.) that Enn.
5. 3. 14 ("H,
r , , '
, , , ,
, .) is intended as an explanation of .
Neither this latter term nor any of its cognates appear in the passage
in question or in its immediate context.
See pp. 121 f. above.
See further Enn. 5. 3.17 ( ) and Enn. 5 . 5 . 1 3 ( ).
Em. 6. 9.. 9 (
) .
124
JOHN WHITTAKER
However, at Enn. 6. 8. 11 Plotinus writes of the One v

; ,
', Here, as the
participle indicates, Plotinus is dealing with the matter
of making statements about the One. Brhier translates, 'Que
peuvent alors vouloir dire les mots: il lui est arriv par accident
d'tre ainsi? Comment les dire, quand tout ce qui est dit de
lui n'est que ngation?'. Though, as Wolfson points out54,
eventually came to be used in the sense of negation,
it is by no means obvious that this was the meaning which
Plotinus had in mind in the present context. The combination
is Aristotelian and in Aristotle denotes not 'by
negation' but 'by process of abstraction'. Cf. De
432 a 3 ff.
, ,
, ' ,
, 55. I n
all probability it was the Aristotelian usage that Plotinus had in
mind in the passage under consideration. Nevertheless it must
be admitted that the combination . . . ,
though not a precise equivalent of 'negations', is not far removed
therefrom.
However, as Wolfson has indicated 58 , is certainly
used in the sense of 'negation' in later literature. In addition
to the evidence presented by Wolfson it may be noted that
Isidore of Seville, drawing on Marius Victorinus, writes (Etymolog. 2. 29. 9): Octava species definitionis est, quam Graeci
, Latini per privantiam contrarii eius,
quod definitur, dicunt: 'Bonum est, quod malum non est.
Iustum est, quod iniustum non est,' et his similia. Hoc autem
genere definitionis uti debemus, cum contrarium notum est, ut:
'Si bonum est quod prodest cum honstate, id quod tale non
est malum est.'57. Here clearly refers to negation,
54
55
56
47
'Albinus and Plotinus on divine attributes', 129 f., and 'Negative attributes
in the Church Fathers a n d the Gnostic Basilides', 148 ff.
Cf. abo De anim. 429 b 18 and 431 b 12.
Cf. n. 54 above.
There are further instances of this type of definition in a passage of
Gregory of Nyssa (De anima et resurrectione, PG 46, col. 40) to which
125
though not in the narrow Wolfsonian sense. On definition

see further Boethius, Liber de diffinitione, PL 64, cols. 902 and 904 ff.
Nevertheless, in spite of the fact that came to be used
in the sense of 'negation', we may conclude that it is not the
case, as Wolfson claims, that Albinus employed the term as an
equivalent of 'negation' (in whatever sense this term may be
used), and further that it is not likely that Plotinus ever consciously used the term in question to imply negation, even
though in his day the development towards the new meaning
may well have been underway.
Wolfson refers ('Negative attributes in the Church Fathers and the

Gnostic Basilides', 148) : ,
v ,
,

, ,
.
and
are quite clearly intended as equivalents.

Neopythagoreanism and Negative Theology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Neopythagoreanism and Negative Theology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester]

On: 07 July 2011, At: 12:57