Alexander of Lykonpolis

Alexander von Lykonpolis (often also Lykopolis , Greek  Ἀλέξανδρος Λυκοπολίτης Aléxandros Lykopolítēs , Latin Alexander Lycopolitanus or Lycopolita ) was an ancient Greek philosopher . He lived in Egypt in the late 3rd century and belonged to the Neoplatonic movement. Posterity will remember him as a staunch opponent of Manichaeism . This religion, which was still very young at that time, was founded in the Persian Sasanid Empire by Alexander's contemporary Mani , had spread westward into the Roman Empire and was also brought to Egypt by missionaries. Alexander's polemic against Manichaeism provides valuable information on its early history; it shows that he was well informed about the opposing teaching. His concern was the defense of the Platonic worldview against novel religious teachings, which he considered confused and irrational.

life and work

Alexander came from Lykonpolis ("City of Wolves"), today's Asyut in Egypt. He is only known from his only surviving work, the pamphlet Against the Teachings of Manis (Pros tas Manichaíou dóxas) . Since, on the one hand, he mentions the death of the founder of the religion Mani († 277), and on the other hand, apparently does not know anything about the persecution of the Manicheans that began in the Roman Empire under Emperor Diocletian , it can be assumed that he wrote his work between 277 and 297.

Alexander probably received his philosophical training in Alexandria . Later he worked - probably in his hometown - as a philosophy teacher. He was a Neo-Platonist whose thinking was also shaped by Middle Platonic ideas. When Manichean missionaries appeared in his circle and successfully promoted their faith among his disciples, he felt it necessary to confront them and refute their teachings. For this purpose he wrote his treatise, the oldest known pamphlet against Manichaeism. It represents an important source for the early Manichaean world of thought, because Alexander apparently had information that he owed to an authentic representation of the Manichaean religion from the point of view of its followers. His remarks on the cosmogony of the Manichaeans, their doctrine of the origin of the world, are particularly valuable .

Individual passages of the traditional text of the treatise seem to have been revised by a Christian.

Alexander's presentation and criticism of Manichaeism

Historical and religious background

The treatise Against the Teachings of Mani was not intended for a wide audience; it is a philosophical technical paper with which Alexander wanted to show the incompatibility of Platonism and Manichaeism. He noted with concern that Mani's ideas were resonating even among philosophers. He tried to stop this development.

Alexander thought Manichaeism was a perverted variant of Christianity. He proceeded from the Manichaean self-understanding; Mani had appeared, among other things, as a continuer and finisher of Christ's mission and had called himself an apostle of Christ. Therefore Alexander began his writing with explanations about "the philosophy of Christians", which he called "simple". He judged Christianity relatively mildly because he saw it as a trivial but helpful teaching for simple minds. This consists mainly of moral instructions with which Christians are overwhelmed without any effort to establish a philosophical foundation of ethical principles. It is only a matter of the practical goal of putting ordinary people on the path of virtue , which is actually achieved. From Alexander's point of view, this is what the original meaning of Christianity was. The lack of a suitable theoretical basis, however, had proven to be disastrous, because ambitious and innovative, but incapable of intellectual clarity, sect founders appeared who introduced new teachings and caused multiple division among Christians. The original simple doctrine has become a hopelessly complex and useless dogmatics . According to Alexander's assessment, Christianity was already in a process of dissolution, which he compared with the decline of the sophistic art of fighting.

Alexander presented the work of Jesus benevolently. He did not regard him as a savior, but as a meritorious teacher of virtues for farmers and craftsmen.

Argument against Manichaeism

The most extreme example of an absurd sectarianism that has emerged from Christian tradition is for Alexander Manichaeism. The Neoplatonic philosopher briefly discusses the life of Mani and the Manichean missionary activity, then he describes the doctrine, after which he turns to refutation. In presenting the doctrine, he emphasizes that Manichaeism defines matter ( hyle ) as “irregular movement” (átaktos kínēsis) , which is a fundamental difference to the Platonic and Aristotelian ideas of matter.

Before starting the systematic criticism, he describes the dilemma in which he sees himself. The doctrine with which he wants to grapple is irrational, it is not based on arguments, but on the authority of scriptures. Therefore it is difficult to falsify. Instead of evidence that could be checked, one only finds allegations. If he presented a precise scientific refutation, he would not reach those who had uncritically joined Manichaeism. However, if he goes to the level of the opponent by using an irrelevant technique of influencing, he will fall into the very same mistake that he accuses them of. In order to escape the dilemma, he decided to proceed very carefully.

First of all, his philosophical polemics are directed against the Manichaean dualism , against the assumption that there are two opposing and equal original principles, the good God and the matter, understood as the unalterably evil principle of darkness, which are in conflict with one another. Among other things, he argues that in this case, if both are real, creating original principles, each of them would need its own matter as a passive substrate . This would already require four principles, which Mani did not recognize. Moreover, if matter is irregular motion according to the Manichaean doctrine, it presupposes the existence of something in motion, namely the elements . But then it is unclear what the second primal principle is, the mover or what is moved by it. Alexander rejects the dualistic basis of the opposing worldview from his monistic point of view; According to his conviction, matter can also be traced back to the divinity and therefore not to be regarded as bad. More resolutely than other Neoplatonists, he refuses to associate matter with bad. He suggests that either it corresponds to the nature of the supreme principle to pour itself into matter, or it contradicts it. In the first case, matter, as the product of the absolutely good, could not be bad; in the second, the two original principles could never have been mixed up.

In addition, he argues that a “random” change is not possible in the area of ​​matter, since this characteristic cannot be attributed to any of the different types of change. Rather, every change proceeds according to law. Furthermore, the interaction between the two original principles assumed by Mani can only come about if a third mediating principle exists between them, since otherwise they would have nothing to do with each other. But then the question should be asked whether the third principle is physical or incorporeal. In both cases it cannot act as a mediator and is thus superfluous. The question of corporeality or incorporeality also arises with regard to the two principles of Mani. However you answer them - both principles are incorporeal or both are physical or one is physical and the other is incorporeal - every possible answer leads to an absurd consequence within the framework of the Manichaean system.

Even the Manichean claim that God sent a power (dýnamis) down to matter in order to put an end to evil must lead to absurd conclusions according to Alexander's argument. From an empirical point of view, he countered her that there were no recognizable effects of this alleged process.

Alexander considers the Manichean assumption ridiculous that an evil power could be able to face God as an equal opponent, to rise to his kingdom and attack it. From the point of view of the philosopher, there can be no reason why an evil principle would wage a fight against the good, and in principle it would not be able to do so either. If there were a realm of absolutely bad, it would inevitably have to be powerless, chaotic and self-contained; otherwise it would have some good features. The absolutely bad would have neither a motive to approach the realm of the good nor the necessary strength and ability to act purposefully. Every need to deal with the good in some way is an expression of striving in the right direction and to that extent good. An impulse directed in this way can only originate from the good principle and could therefore in principle not arise in an area of ​​absolute evil. So in a consistently dualistic structured world model like the Manichaean there can be no contact between the two opposing principles and thus no conflict between them.

Moreover - according to Alexander - God cannot be at war with matter, since otherwise properties would have to be ascribed to him which are incompatible with his goodness. Thus, from the Manichaean side, anger and the need to punish hostile matter are assumed. Such impulses can, however, be ruled out for a virtuous person; It is all the more absurd to attribute it to God as the absolute good.

Alexander contrasts the linear world and historical view of the Manicheans with his cyclical one. While for the Manicheans the world in which people live is drawing to a close - the final victory of the good principle - it is eternal for the Platonists and the Aristotelians. Alexander asserts that the assumption of a gradual historical progress for the better finds no support in experience, rather - if one starts from the biblical story - the evil has not diminished since the beginning of the world. Just as, according to Jewish and Christian tradition, Cain slew his brother Abel , so there is still murder in the present and the wars have not decreased. Since no historical development for the better is discernible anywhere, the evil cannot be explained as a temporary phenomenon in a cosmological process, and the expectation that it will decrease in the future and eventually disappear is illusory. Moreover, Manichaeism is contradicting itself, since on the one hand it considers a progress for the good of individual individuals and the whole of humanity to be possible and on the other hand it assumes an irregular movement of evil matter which produces badness. Such a movement would either have to ruin progress again or stop when it is completed. The latter, however, contradicts the nature of a Manichaean matter.

Alexander sees numerous inconsistencies in the cosmology and cosmogony of the Manicheans, which he goes into in detail. He accuses them of making claims in this area even though they know nothing about astronomy. Instead of making their theses plausible, they contented themselves with presenting their model without any evidence. It is characteristic of such people to quote mythological poetry when they lack arguments.

reception

In the 9th century, Byzantine scholars, including in particular the Patriarch Photios I of Constantinople , dealt with the work of Alexander on current occasions. At that time, Emperor Basil I fought the Paulicians , a Christian movement that was in sharp opposition to the hierarchy of the Orthodox Church . The Paulicians, whose theological views were condemned as heretical , were considered the spiritual heirs of Manichaeism. Therefore, an extensive collection of relevant anti-Manichaean texts was put together, which was intended for the emperor. This also included Alexander's polemic. It is thanks to this occasion that Alexander's treatise has been preserved. The entire handwritten tradition is based on a single Byzantine codex , which was made in the late 9th or early 10th century and is now in the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana in Florence.

Photios erroneously claimed that Alexander was a Christian and Bishop of Lykonpolis. In doing so he gave the ancient pagan Neo-Platonist theological authority. The mistake of Photius was still widespread in the early modern period and into the 19th century; in the 18th volume of Mignes Patrologia Graeca , which appeared in 1857, was printed against the teachings of Manis as the work of a church writer. Although the church historian Louis-Sébastien Le Nain de Tillemont recognized in 1696 that this was a pagan author, this insight was slow to gain acceptance.

The first edition was published in Paris in 1672. The editor was François Combefis, who also did a Latin translation. The text was distorted by numerous omissions and corruptions . A usable edition did not appear until 1895; it was created by August Brinkmann and is still relevant today.

In modern research Alexander is recognized as an original thinker who developed his own system and subjected the revelation beliefs of his opponents to a philosophical criticism. He is also credited with the fact that - in contrast to the often hateful anti-Manichaean polemics of church authors - he remained objective despite the sharpness of the differences of opinion. However, it is also pointed out that his image of Manichaeism differs considerably from the authentic teaching of Mani. This applies in particular to the doctrine of redemption, in which Alexander assumed that the Manichaeans had a fatalism similar to stoic ideas .

Text output

• August Brinkmann (Ed.): Alexandri Lycopolitani contra Manichaei opiniones disputatio . Teubner, Stuttgart 1989, ISBN 3-519-01024-0 (reprint of the 1895 edition; online )

Translations

• Pieter Willem van der Horst, Jaap Mansfeld : An Alexandrian Platonist against Dualism. Alexander of Lycopolis' Treatise 'Critique of the Doctrines of Manichaeus' . Brill, Leiden 1974, ISBN 90-04-04157-5 (English translation with introduction)
• André Villey: Alexandre de Lycopolis: Contre la doctrine de Mani . Les Éditions du Cerf, Paris 1985, ISBN 2-204-02238-1 (French translation with introduction and detailed commentary)

literature

• Maria Vittoria Cerutti: Il mito manicheo tra universalismo e particolarismi regionali. La testimonianza di Alessandro di Licopoli . In: Annali di Scienze Religiose 7, 2002, pp. 225-258
• Francesco Chiossone: Critica al concetto manicheo di materia in Alessandro di Licopoli . In: Giornale di metafisica 28, 2006, pp. 149-166
• Johannes van Oort: Alexander of Lykopolis. In: Christoph Riedweg et al. (Ed.): Philosophy of the Imperial Era and Late Antiquity (= Outline of the history of philosophy . The philosophy of antiquity. Volume 5/2). Schwabe, Basel 2018, ISBN 978-3-7965-3699-1 , pp. 1322-1327, 1425 f.
• André Villey: Alexandros de Lycopolis . In: Richard Goulet (ed.): Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques , Vol. 1, CNRS, Paris 1989, ISBN 2-222-04042-6 , pp. 142-144

Remarks

1. ^ André Villey: Alexandre de Lycopolis: Contre la doctrine de Mani , Paris 1985, pp. 20-22; Francesco Chiossone (ed.): Alessandro Di Licopoli: Contro i Manichei , Genova 2005, pp. 25-27.
2. ^ André Villey: Alexandre de Lycopolis: Contre la doctrine de Mani , Paris 1985, p. 19f. See, however, the considerations of Hans-Martin Schenke: Marginal Notes on Manichaeism from an Outsider . In: Paul Mirecki (ed.): Emerging from Darkness , Leiden 1997, pp. 289-294, here: 290f. Schenke indicates that Alexander may have taught in Alexandria.
3. ^ Pieter Willem van der Horst, Jaap Mansfeld: An Alexandrian Platonist against Dualism. Alexander of Lycopolis' Treatise 'Critique of the Doctrines of Manichaeus' , Leiden 1974, pp. 8-13; Johannes van Oort: Alexander of Lykopolis. In: Christoph Riedweg et al. (Hrsg.): Philosophy of the Imperial Era and Late Antiquity (= Outline of the History of Philosophy. The Philosophy of Antiquity. Volume 5/2), Basel 2018, pp. 1322–1327, here: 1327.
4. ↑ Johannes van Oort: Alexander von Lykopolis. In: Christoph Riedweg et al. (Ed.): Philosophy of the Imperial Era and Late Antiquity (= Outline of the History of Philosophy. The Philosophy of Antiquity. Volume 5/2), Basel 2018, pp. 1322–1327, here: 1322f.
5. ^ André Villey: Alexandre de Lycopolis: Contre la doctrine de Mani , Paris 1985, pp. 107-115.
6. ^ Mark J. Edwards: A Christian Addition to Alexander of Lycopolis . In: Mnemosyne 42, 1989, pp. 483-487.
7. ^ André Villey: Alexandre de Lycopolis: Contre la doctrine de Mani , Paris 1985, pp. 19f., 33.
8. ↑ Alexander von Lykonpolis, Against the teachings of Manis 1f., Ed. August Brinkmann: Alexandri Lycopolitani contra Manichaei opiniones disputatio , Stuttgart 1989, p. 3f. See Pieter W. van der Horst: 'A Simple Philosophy': Alexander of Lycopolis on Christianity . In: Keimpe A. Algra u. a. (Ed.): Polyhistor. Studies in the History and Historiography of Ancient Philosophy , Leiden 1996, pp. 313–329, here: 313–319.
9. ↑ Alexander von Lykonpolis, Against the teachings of Manis 1f., Ed. August Brinkmann: Alexandri Lycopolitani contra Manichaei opiniones disputatio , Stuttgart 1989, p. 3f.
10. ↑ See also Pieter W. van der Horst: 'A Simple Philosophy': Alexander of Lycopolis on Christianity . In: Keimpe A. Algra u. a. (Ed.): Polyhistor. Studies in the History and Historiography of Ancient Philosophy , Leiden 1996, pp. 313–329, here: 327–329.
11. ↑ Alexander von Lykonpolis, Against the teachings of Manis 2, ed. August Brinkmann: Alexandri Lycopolitani contra Manichaei opiniones disputatio , Stuttgart 1989, p. 4f. See also Francesco Chiossone: Critica al concetto manicheo di materia in Alessandro di Licopoli . In: Giornale di metafisica 28, 2006, pp. 149–166, here: 151–153.
12. ↑ Alexander von Lykonpolis, Against the teachings of Manis 5, ed. August Brinkmann: Alexandri Lycopolitani contra Manichaei opiniones disputatio , Stuttgart 1989, p. 8f. See Richard Harder : Prismata . In: Philologus 85, 1930, pp. 243-254, here: 247 ( online ); Pieter W. van der Horst: 'A Simple Philosophy': Alexander of Lycopolis on Christianity . In: Keimpe A. Algra u. a. (Ed.): Polyhistor. Studies in the History and Historiography of Ancient Philosophy , Leiden 1996, pp. 313–329, here: 319f.
13. ^ Francesco Chiossone: Critica al concetto manicheo di materia in Alessandro di Licopoli . In: Giornale di metafisica 28, 2006, pp. 149–166, here: 157.
14. ↑ Alexander von Lykonpolis, Against the teachings of Manis 17, ed. August Brinkmann: Alexandri Lycopolitani contra Manichaei opiniones disputatio , Stuttgart 1989, p. 25. Compare André Villey: Alexandre de Lycopolis: Contre la doctrine de Mani , Paris 1985, p. 283f.
15. ↑ Here follows Alexander's considerations of Aristotle ; see Francesco Chiossone: Critica al concetto manicheo di materia in Alessandro di Licopoli . In: Giornale di metafisica 28, 2006, pp. 149–166, here: 157–159.
16. ↑ Alexander von Lykonpolis, Against the teachings of Manis 8, ed. August Brinkmann: Alexandri Lycopolitani contra Manichaei opiniones disputatio , Stuttgart 1989, p. 13.
17. ↑ Alexander von Lykonpolis, Against the teachings of Manis 8, ed. August Brinkmann: Alexandri Lycopolitani contra Manichaei opiniones disputatio , Stuttgart 1989, p. 13f. Cf. Francesco Chiossone: Critica al concetto manicheo di materia in Alessandro di Licopoli . In: Giornale di metafisica 28, 2006, pp. 149–166, here: 159–161.
18. ↑ Alexander von Lykonpolis, Against the teachings of Manis 11f. and 17, ed. August Brinkmann: Alexandri Lycopolitani contra Manichaei opiniones disputatio , Stuttgart 1989, pp. 17-19, 24. Cf. André Villey: Alexandre de Lycopolis: Contre la doctrine de Mani , Paris 1985, pp. 251-261, 279-289.
19. ↑ Alexander von Lykonpolis, Against the teachings of Manis 8-10, ed. August Brinkmann: Alexandri Lycopolitani contra Manichaei opiniones disputatio , Stuttgart 1989, pp. 14-16. See André Villey: Alexandre de Lycopolis: Contre la doctrine de Mani , Paris 1985, pp. 242-249.
20. ↑ Alexander von Lykonpolis, Against the teachings of Manis 10, ed. August Brinkmann: Alexandri Lycopolitani contra Manichaei opiniones disputatio , Stuttgart 1989, p. 17. Cf. André Villey: Alexandre de Lycopolis: Contre la doctrine de Mani , Paris 1985, pp. 249-251.
21. ↑ Alexander von Lykonpolis, Against the teachings of Manis 12, ed. August Brinkmann: Alexandri Lycopolitani contra Manichaei opiniones disputatio , Stuttgart 1989, p. 18f. See André Villey: Alexandre de Lycopolis: Contre la doctrine de Mani , Paris 1985, p. 261.
22. ↑ Alexander von Lykonpolis, Against the teachings of Manis 16, ed. August Brinkmann: Alexandri Lycopolitani contra Manichaei opiniones disputatio , Stuttgart 1989, p. 23.
23. ↑ Alexander von Lykonpolis, Against the teachings of Manis 10 and 22, ed. August Brinkmann: Alexandri Lycopolitani contra Manichaei opiniones disputatio , Stuttgart 1989, pp. 16f., 30. For a criticism of this aspect of Manichaeism, see André Villey: Alexandre de Lycopolis: Contre la doctrine de Mani , Paris 1985, pp. 247–249, 290-307. See Richard Reitzenstein : Alexander von Lykopolis . In: Philologus 86, 1931, pp. 185-198 ( online ).
24. ^ Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. 9.23. For the manuscripts and the role of Photios see André Villey: Alexandre de Lycopolis: Contre la doctrine de Mani , Paris 1985, pp. 13f., 47f.
25. ^ For the history of research in this regard, see André Villey: Alexandre de Lycopolis: Contre la doctrine de Mani , Paris 1985, pp. 16-19; Pieter Willem van der Horst, Jaap Mansfeld: An Alexandrian Platonist against Dualism. Alexander of Lycopolis' Treatise 'Critique of the Doctrines of Manichaeus' , Leiden 1974, p. 3 and note 5.
26. ^ On the textual criticism, see Carlo M. Lucarini: Per il testo di Alessandro di Licopoli . In: Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 153, 2010, pp. 413–415.
27. ^ Pieter Willem van der Horst, Jaap Mansfeld: An Alexandrian Platonist against Dualism. Alexander of Lycopolis' Treatise 'Critique of the Doctrines of Manichaeus' , Leiden 1974, p. 47; André Villey: Alexandre de Lycopolis: Contre la doctrine de Mani , Paris 1985, pp. 33-47, 274-278.

This article was added to the list of articles worth reading on February 22, 2013 in this version .