logo

Suche:

IV

isaac’s place in oriental thought

It is not amazing, but only natural, that Isaac will prove to belong to Hellenism in its "general sense. After what has been said on the relation between Semitic mysticism and Hellenism in the introduction to the translation of the Book of the Dove, it will only be necessary to define Isaac’s place more accu–

i) Book of the Dove, Introduction, p. XCV

3) Title of chapter 70 4) p. 495 sq.

rately. If it is allowed to anticipate the result of the following enquiry, I may state here already, that two systems of Hellenistic thought have especially influenced Isaac’s spiritual attitude: the religious and philosophic school of Alexandria, and the Stoics. Even the form, of Isaac’s thoughts and, consequently of the present book, bears this Hellenistic stamp. A large part of Isaac’s book consists of sentences; again and again he returns to this way of communicating his thoughts, a way already known to the old Greek philosophers but especially trodden by their Hellenistic posterity. One of the chief representatives of the Stoa, Epictetus, has remained popular till to day on account of the sententious character of his Encheiridion, a characteristic which seems to suit the Stoic doctrine excellently. As to the Neoplatonists, Porphyry has written a kind of introduction to the doctrine in the form of sentences. In the same way the Neopythagoraeans had their collections of sentences, ascribed to Pythagoras’). And Johannes Stobaeus has, as it were, reduced Greek literature to a vast collection of sentences. That Christianity followed these examples appears e.g. from the collection made by the monks Antonius and Maximus in the domain of Christian literature in Greek. Finally the Muslims imitated this method of collecting wisdom in a concise form.

But we have to show the close relationship between Isaac and the two forms of Hellenism mentioned above, for the whole series of ideas which make up Isaac’s view of life. The closest relationship will appear to exist between Isaac and Philo. In the second range stand Plotinus and the Stoa.

Apart from any definite ideas, Philo has already an important thing in common with Isaac, viz. his mystic attitude. He is dealing with facts and thought which it is forbidden to communicate to vulgar eyes and ears: Tayra, 2 uiorat, v.iv,y.Qa.p–

f \ V t ’ \ » > ~ , , »/ A

[j.svst t« to–.a., w; tspz ovtco; pjyr/ipm yv’/y–i? tat; sauraiv roxpaas^sfffc xai fjwj&vt tuv a’fiwrwv sxXaXwaTc3). And: <m xsxpdifQut Ssi –rev Kpov TKpi –coy ayswirsw xv.i tojv (Juva^wv a’jio–j pvarw Xoyov 3). And again he speaks of the onceppxm cpd.wKyty.g ’Arfoij;4). And very often he addresses his readers with: 3 juwyrat and speaks in terms borrowed from the language of the mysteries 5). Further Philo, in interpreting the Holy Scriptures, makes conscious use of the allegorical method; the literal sense is to him the form which conceals the mystical sense. This method, as we have seen above, was also applied by Isaac and the Christian mystics in general. How far Philo’s influence goes in this domain, appears from a striking example. Speaking of Isaac’s allegorical method, we have cited above1) his interpretation of the thorns and thistles which the earth produces since man’s fall as the affections ~). This interpretation occurs already in Philo’s Legum Allegoriae. Commenting on the thorns and thistles he says: a>.X« 11" yisTO! xai (BXaoravs* bi Sfpovo; ^UX? 7t^*v T!* xsvto–jvto v.a.1 Ttrpv’ff/ovra a–jT«v ira’Svj a <h« Bru^jSoXwv «Wv5as x/xXyjxav. It is not necessary that Isaac should have read Philo’s works; but, in view of their popularity among the early Christians, it is very probable that portions of them did reach the Syrian’s.

There is another general view of the world which Isaac has in common with Philo, but which is not Philo’s property in particular, viz. Platonic dualism. ,Every apperceptible thing’ says Isaacs), ,fact or word, is the appearance of that which is hidden within’. And the terms apperceptible (rdut\iAea) and intelligible (rdi^–iuAws) are among the commonest in Isaac’s treatises; they occur as frequently in Philo’s works, where also the swops; vo’/ito; and the xdajxo; aisSjjtos are mentioned *). It is worth while to observe here that it is already Philo who maintains that apperceptible things have no reality: . . t« aiaSiqvs. Tixv–a <a; [p.r,] ra npog stkrfetyv bVra5), a doctrine which is also held by our Christian and Muslim mystics who compare this world with a mirror which reflects the only reality, God ,the Being, the Essence (KliuK*, K’Jxoiurs’, 6 c’vtw; »v6), 6 npb$ vktiliiv;j w’v7). In reality the system is monistic. Philo, as regards dualism, proves a true Platonist. ,When the mind elevates itself and becomes initiated in the Lord’s mysteries, it thinks the body something evil and hostile’8). And he even with Plato calls the body a dungeon 9).

We have seen, that according to Isaac and his fellow–mystics the soul is of a divine nature. This doctrine was familiar to the Platonic school, as well as to the Stoa. It is shared by Philo (3a« tyoyfix). In his commentary on the story of the creation, he comes across the statement that man was created as God’s image. It can hardly be doubted that the old narrator referred this to man’s bodily stature. Philo, on the other hand, argues that this is impossible, for God is incorporeal; the real image of God is the human soul: jj $ sc’xuv X/XsscroK y.cko. rov tv;; "Jrt^vjs v/ysfio’va vow 2).

Exactly the same argument is in Isaac’s book. ,We believe this, that God has not made His image of affectable nature. His image I do not call the body, but the soul, which is invisible. In every image the likeness of the archetype is expressed’3). The last sentence is almost literally in Philo: tv;; cwSpwirou ij>u/»5; xoetoc tov orp/ETUTOv tcv aETEou Xoyov 6nreEX!?i«o06WJjg •*).

But this divine soul dwells in the body and is connected with it. It has to be purified. Isaac’s whole scheme of the way of the mystic, which was expounded above, is already in Philo and the Neoplatonists. Purification consists chiefly in purifying away the affections. God’s spirit does not dwell with man in his vulgar state, the affections have to be banished first: tpaivstau <J’ oil navmypii 6 Xoyo; outg; aXX’ err’ spjjpjv naOtiv w.l xaxtwv 5). They have to be purged away: wKxaBapcu to nxOogs). Isaac compares the affections with dogs lapping up blood at the butcher’s7), Philo with beasts and birds: Qripioig $k xai Trojvof; aiKoui^st 10. rnxSri8). Apathy is the ideal of Philo as well as of Isaac: ixv yap eemxQsux xonaaffl tr,v tyvyiiv TcX/w; diSouftovnasi9).

It is well known that Stoic philosophy condemns the affections in an equally emphatic way.

Still Isaac avows that the affections are destined to be auxiliaries. ,All existing affections are given to be a help to each of the natures to which they naturally belong and for the growth of which they were given by God. The bodily affections are placed by God in the body for the sake of the profit and the growth of the body; and the psychic affections, i.e. the psychic powers for the sake of the growth and the profit of the soul’10). Exactly the same theory is expounded by Philo. He argues that the senses are auxiliaries (fioyOog, r^max.); and that even the four real affections: voluptuousness, desire, sorrow

I) I 156° 2)1 l6> 3) p. 2iapu Cf. 126, 169.

4) I 332 37 5) I ’20 3’ 6) I 72 15 7) P–

8) I 68 « 9) I 85 10) p. 25

and fear, have their utility by which they ,help’ the soul1).

Isaac has elaborately treated the question concerning the nature of the affectionsz). The result is that they naturally belong to the body; but that there is such a close union between body and soul that the latter, though not naturally a a receptacle of affections, participates in them, so that both affections of the body’ and ,affections of the soul’ are frequent expressions in Isaac’s work.

The question is an old one, as Isaac says himself (p. 21). It has been treated at length by Plotinus in the opening chapters of the Enneades. He has answered it in the same sense as Isaac. He argues that the soul is a being of its own and, for this reason, not subject to the affections of the body. Still, the soul being the body’s vivifying partner, there is an influence of the latter on the former; not a direct one, however, but through a kind of medium of a composite nature.

It has been said above3) that Isaac assigns to the soul a middle position between the body and the spirit, and consequently, considers it as being of an ambiguous nature. It is again Philo who has expressed the same view: <h>oiv ^’ovtuv i% wv 75 v7fx,ST£pa <\>vx/i ff’jvarr/], XoyExsv tc km s/’Xiyou *). And Plotinus thinks it the soul’s duty to strip off the bonds which tie it to matter, and to elevate itself unto the spiritual state: r, p.sv ow TsXsw: y.al npo$ vow vsuoiiua fyvffi <*&• xaOapa xoee uk^v ansarpamai6).

It has been pointed out above6) that Isaac is an adherent of the theory of free will and of its consequence, that is man’s capability of abberration. If in this point he is in accord with the main current of early Christianity, it is not to be forgotten that the church itself stands on the basis of Hellenism. Philo speaks of steuQzoia. jtovTsXns ’YJ*/J’Z7) and calls those who love God the highest kings 8). And some of the Stoics °) as well as Plotinus 10) and his school u) defend the same view.

Isaac’s term K&cuJ\–sa betrays its technical character. As a matter of fact the corresponding idea was known to Philo already: Icra p.sv oiv a«t spjuuTVSufees sfjioxXtOTs. KXtvaroti <3£ 6 voug,

I) I, 67 sq. 2) p. 21 sqq. 3) p. XXX sq.

4) II, 24i2’ 5) EtiHcattes, I, 8 § 4

6) p. XXXII sqq. 7) I, 53443

8) II, 452* 9) Epictetus Stnteittiac IX; Diatribae I, I

10) Enneades VI, 8 § I sqq.; Ill, I § 9 sq.; Ill, 3 § 3 sqq.

n) Zeller, Die Philosophic der Griedient, III, 2, p. 769

ts’tj ij.lv TayaSov tots frail 10 xaxov y.noci:pz’fop.?jos l). Epictetus 2) uses the term t«v frjvap.iv sotXmxvjv; Proclus was well acqainted with the idea: Anima igitur habente in substantia eam quae ad ambo inclinationem, to bene dico et to male 3).

How strongly Isaac is dependent upon his Hellenistic teachers, appears also from his doctrine of freedom in connection with the world’s course. As it was pointed out above, he distinguishes between those things which lie within our grasp, which belong to the mind’s customary domain, and those which come from without and are fortuitous. This is the theory of the Stoics; Epictetus’ Manual begins with the theory of t« l<p’ v^w x«i

T« OVX. iff’ ’fip.CV.

Isaac and his teachers, though leaving some room to accidental things, still acknowledge Providence as the power which dominates this world. , There are no accidents happening by chance; by chance there happens nothing to man, neither good, nor evil; there is a Governor who governs the things of this world’ 4) etc. The idea of Providence is Hellenistic indeed 6) and the Syrians even have borrowed the Greek term (rilftinaa).

Mysticism in Western Asia is the offspring of asceticism, which is often considered as being essentially Christian. Our growing knowledge of Hellenism has shown, however, that this view is not true, but that in large circles of the Hellenistic world, asceticism was the preferred attitude of life. In this respect Stoicism, Pythagorism, and Neoplatonism went hand in hand. In connection with the close parallelism between Isaac’s view of life and that of Philo, it is worth while to draw attention to the latter’s asceticism. Those who follow Abraham’s migration ty.g 11 yyp fyus x.y.raij.{io–j<jt, xat t« «t« entfpamown, xat enl/yuen epfias xy.l sv lpYiu.(y. xai <txoto> vrpoj two;

We have seen above7) that according to Isaac man’s spiritual part has to live at the expense of his body. This is Philo’s theory too: uiftsv tov cWvuv ba.va.–y,>, TsSvKsea/isv <?s tov ixsiv&v j5wv is one of Herakleitos’ sentences, which Philo interprets in this sense that he soul’s life is the body’s death ’). And is it not Philo who has erected a monument to asceticism in his De vita contemplativa?

This expression , death of the soul’ which so often occurs in Isaac’s treatises will remind Christian readers of the metaphorical use of the term death so familiar to them from the New Testament. It is again to be accentuated that the idea is not especially Christian, but Hellenistic. Philo repeatedly speaks of the death of the soul 3). And Plotinus was well acquainted with the idea: zal 6 Qxvaxos ayrvj, xai sVt sv tm (7oj|j.aT( pspanTWp.cV/jj sv ii):r, cVri /taTa^ivat xai TiX’/jirSwat aKTv5; xai scsXJo’JOT] iks.i %£i<s6oa sw;

TOUTO

Consequently just as in Isaac, the soul has to vanquish the affections and its own inferior part; it has to overcome matter; it has to be purified 4) [in order to elevate itself unto God, who is light, and to participate of this light: oti vi a

Here mystical knowledge is compared to sight: 6 orsyavsg ottiv cpa<7(; Oio–J 6).

And both Philo and Isaac choose the term sight in order to express [a spiritual reality of deeper in tensity than that which the term audition conveys. Higher faith, says Isaac 7), ,is called faith of sight. Sight is more true than audition’. Philo connects this transition from audition to sight with the change of Jacob’s name into that of Israel. For, according to him, Israel means sight of God. So this name denotes Jacob’s new visual state as being elevated above his auditive state which is symbolized by his old name Jacob for msTOT/pa yap 01^15 wtwv 8).

In many passages of his works Philo describes this highest spiritual state in the form of ecstasy: IvQovfft^ojs yy.p x«t oix s’tz oiimj; sv lawr?, (hovotizs, z’XX’ s’pwTt sypavi’w <k<jo^yihsvyis xoci c’xjus–p.vjv/vag xai avw npo; aurov st’Xxuff/teinjs . . . . 9).

And it is remarkable that the other symbolical denomination of this highest state, the image of drunkenness which is so often used by Isaac1), is also one of the most beloved expressions in Philo: 0–ia. [isOy 3), vv;yoi«<z [j.lOy 3), [J.sQ–si vyjyaXio; *).

I think these examples are of a nature to show that the frame of Isaac’s thoughts is that of Alexandrian philosophy as it is already embodied in Philo. For further details I may refer the reader to the notes to the translation.

Now that we have tried to define Isaac’s relation to Hellenism in its strict sense, we have to say a few words concerning his relation to Syriac mystics. Very little however can be said here, for the simple reason that very little concerning Syriac mysticism is known to us. Of Eastern Syriac mysticism Isaac himself is the chief representative. Of Western Syriac mysticism the great source, the Book of Hierotheos, is still unedited. It would be surprising, if Isaac had not known this work. The few specimens of it which Frothingham published, evoke the surmise of acquaintance on Isaac’s part. Certainty is hardly to be reached here.

Isaac has a remarkable passage describing how the initiated mind acts as new creator. [First he will free this whole world] from its state, so that it is reduced to nothing, analogous to the first state of the body. Then he will elevate himself intellectually beyond the beginnings of the creation of the world, when there was no creation nor anything, no heaven, no earth, no angels, nor any of the created things. Then of a sudden he will bring all things into existence 5) etc.

Compare with this Frothingham’s translation on p. 109 of his book: It6) will then begin, by a new and holy brooding, to create a new world, and will create a new man in its image imageless, and according to its likeness likenessless. It will mete out heaven with its span and will measure the dust of the earth with its measure: it will number the drops of the sea and weigh the mountains in a scale" etc.

The parallelism is striking enough.

Isaac, in several passages, speaks of an esoteric crucifixion. ,And as one who is destined to suffer crucifixion, he accepts the thought of death, and goes forth, as one who does not think that he has any further share in this life’7).

In his chapter on the ascent of the mind, Hierotheos speaks on the cross in this way*): Then proceeding on its way, it reaches the holy place of the Cross: here it understands that it is to endure its passion and suffer crucifixion, in the same manner that Christ suffered; for unless the mind undergoes all that Christ suffered it cannot be perfected–

Perhaps there is also dependency or Isaac’s part in the following passage: ,Everything that, is above another one is concealed from what is beneath it’ 3), as compared with Hierotheos 8): .Every intelligent nature is determined, known and comprehended by the essense which is above it, and determines, knows and comprehends the essence which is below it’.

I seems hardly allowed to increase the number of juxtapositions, because of our fragmentary knowledge of the Book of Hierotheos.

That Isaac was acquainted with the works of Dionysius the Areopagite, appears from his citation (p. 169). It appears also from the passage on p. 187, where the name of Dionysius, however, is not mentioned. I give the translated texts in juxtaposition.

Dionysius (De Coel. Hier. VI, VII).

All heavenly beings are named by theology with nine distinct designations. These our divine initiator divides into three tripartite subdivisions.

He says that, according to the divine scriptures, the most holy thrones, and the Cherubim with many eyes and the Seraphim with many wings (as they are called in Hebrew) occupy the place nearest to God. ’ The second division, he says, comprises powers and lords and magistrates. The third, which comprises the lowest hierarchic class of heavenly beings, consists of angels, archangels and princes.

According to the meaning of the Hebrew, these terms are to be interpreted thus: Seraphs means those who cause heat and fire. Cherubs means magnitude of knowledge and effusion of wisdom.

It is clear that here Isaac’s acquaintance with the works of Dionysius has taken the form of a free citation. And the further explanation of the designations of heavenly beings which Isaac gives, also shows his dependency upon the rest of Dionysius’ seventh chapter.

Finally we have to consider Isaac in his relation to Muslim mystics. The general concordance between Isaac and mystics of the type of Ghazall may appear from the present translation. Here some special points only have to be discussed, which in Muslim mysticism are considered as foreign elements, though their origin is not known. The oldest Muslim mysticism is acquainted with the ahl al–malama, people who reckon disdain as honour and who consequently do not shun the blame of definite faults or crimes being laid to their charge. It appears that Syriac mystics were already acquainted with this spiritual attitude and that in Isaac’s days it possessed the reputation of being old. It appears also that the technical term malama was as such translated from Syriac K&o.\it..

Isaac himself tells us that, when he was young, he felt inclined to follow such practices. When he visited one of the solitaries he said to him that he wished to eat bread in the galery of the Church on Sunday morning. ,Then every visitor will see and despise me’. But the solitary dissuades him, saying among other things: ,The ancient fathers could do such things because of the signs and the forces which were wrought through them and because of the great name and fame they possessed. These things they practised, each of them in order to be despised and blamed, and to obscure the fame of his behaviour and to keep far from him the cause of haughtiness’1). As it is shown by this quotation, it is not only the practice but also the motive which is identical with that of the all al–malama.

P. 76 sq. have very characteristic sayings about k&q^*x.. ,Be despised and rejected in thy own eyes, then thou wilt behold the glory of God within thyself. ,Learn to be disdained while being full of the honour of the Lord, not to be honoured while being injured by ulcers within. Reject honour, then thou wilt be honoured. Do not love it, lest thou be rejected’. ,If thou givest thyself to disdain in order to be honoured, the Lord will confound thee. If thou rejectest thyself for the sake of truth, He will command the creatures to praise thee’.

And finally: ,reA\o.\*x. with discernment is followed by freedom from everything and by disregard of life and by love of men’3). I think these quotations are sufficient to show that the attitude of the ahl al–malama was not original, but taken over from Christian mystics.

One of the terms which appears in the old Sufi works like al–Kushairi’s letter, is al–asbab ,the means’. It appears at once as a technical term, and we have no occasion to observe its growth from its usual significance in this direction. This fact is explained by its being a translation; it is Isaac’s terminology which indicates where al–asbab as a technical term takes its origin: it is a translation of r£ao’ic& which has exactly the same meaning ,the means’ and is used to denote the same idea, viz. earthly help and instruments as opposed to providential care and human confidence in it. I shall give some characteristic passages from Isaac. ,If it be true to thee and thou believest that God has care for thee, thou hast not to think of the body, nor should it be thy care to govern thyself by means of the reiao’iaa.’ 3).

It is especially chapter LI which speaks about rdonASk in such a way as to make clear the full meaning of the term. ,The soul that once, on account of faith, has entrusted itself

2) p. 356

unto God and, under many temptations, has received the taste of faith’s help, does not any longer think of itself, but is made speechless by ecstasy and silence, without being allowed to return unto the means of its knowledge or to make use of them’1) etc. And: ,Never will he that seeks refuge with faith, use Klflo’iaa" 2).

The idea is connected with that of confidence (r£i\Aa&i). A survey of the many passages in which Isaac speaks of it (see the Register s. v. Trust) will easily show to what extent this subject is covered by the $£ of the sufi’s.

But, as I have said above, it is not only in these special points, it is in his whole set of ideas that Isaac appears to be one of those Christian thinkers such as have determined the general character of sufism. In this respect he has one of the first places in the history of sufism.

2) p. 364. Cf. also p. 361, 362, 365, 370