按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
criticism has been utterly swept away； while their real work； their accurate
editions of the classics； remain to us as a precious heritage。 So it is
throughout history： nothing dies which is worthy to live。 The wheat is
surely gathered into the garner； the chaff is burnt up by that eternal fire
which； happily for this universe； cannot be quenched by any art of man；
but goes on forever； devouring without indulgence all the folly and the
falsehood of the world。
As yet you have heard nothing of the metaphysical schools of
Alexandria； for as yet none have existed； in the modern acceptation of that
word。 Indeed； I am not sure that I must not tell you frankly； that none ever
existed at all in Alexandria； in that same modern acceptation。 Ritter； I
think； it is who complains naively enough； that the Alexandrian
Neoplatonists had a bad habit； which grew on them more and more as the
years rolled on； of mixing up philosophy with theology； and so defiling； or
at all events colouring； its pure transparency。 There is no denying the
imputation； as I shall show at greater length in my next Lecture。 But one
would have thought； looking back through history； that the Alexandrians
were not the only philosophers guilty of this shameful act of syncretism。
Plato； one would have thought； was as great a sinner as they。 So were the
Hindoos。 In spite of all their logical and metaphysical acuteness； they
were； you will find； unable to get rid of the notion that theological
inquiries concerning Brahma； Atma； Creeshna； were indissolubly mixed
up with that same logic and metaphysic。 The Parsees could not separate
questions about Ahriman and Ormuzd from Kant's three great philosophic
problems： What is Man？What may be known？What should be done？
Neither； indeed； could the earlier Greek sages。 Not one of them； of any
36
… Page 37…
ALEXANDRIA AND HER SCHOOLS
school whatsoeverfrom the semi…mythic Seven Sages to Plato and
Aristotlebut finds it necessary to consider not in passing； but as the great
object of research； questions concerning the gods：… whether they are real
or not； one or many； personal or impersonal； cosmic； and parts of the
universe； or organisers and rulers of it； in relation to man； or without
relation to him。 Even in those who flatly deny the existence of the gods；
even in Lucretius himself； these questions have to be considered； before
the question； What is man？ can get any solution at all。 On the answer
given to them is found to depend intimately the answer to the question；
What is the immaterial part of man？ Is it a part of nature； or of
something above nature？ Has he an immaterial part at all？in one word；
Is a human metaphysic possible at all？ So it was with the Greek
philosophers of old； even； as Asclepius and Ammonius say； with Aristotle
himself。 〃The object of Aristotle's metaphysic；〃 one of them says； 〃is
theological。 Herein Aristotle theologises。〃 And there is no denying the
assertion。 We must not then be hard on the Neoplatonists； as if they were
the first to mix things separate from the foundation of the world。 I do not
say that theology and metaphysic are separate studies。 That is to be
ascertained only by seeing some one separate them。 And when I see
them separated； I shall believe them separable。 Only the separation must
not be produced by the simple expedient of denying the existence of either
one of them； or at least of ignoring the existence of one steadily during the
study of the other。 If they can be parted without injury to each other； let
them be parted； and till then let us suspend hard judgments on the
Alexandrian school of metaphysic； and also on the schools of that curious
people the Jews； who had at this period a steadily increasing influence on
the thought； as well as on the commercial prosperity； of Alexandria。
You must not suppose； in the meanwhile； that the philosophers whom
the Ptolemies collected （as they would have any other marketable article）
by liberal offers of pay and patronage； were such men as the old Seven
Sages of Greece； or as Socrates； Plato； and Aristotle。 In these three last
indeed； Greek thought reached not merely its greatest height； but the edge
of a precipice； down which it rolled headlong after their decease。 The
intellectual defects of the Greek mind； of which I have already spoken；
37
… Page 38…
ALEXANDRIA AND HER SCHOOLS
were doubtless one great cause of this decay： but； to my mind； moral
causes had still more to do with it。 The more cultivated Greek states； to
judge from the writings of Plato； had not been an over… righteous people
during the generation in which he lived。 And in the generations which
followed； they became an altogether wicked people； immoral； unbelieving；
hating good； and delighting in all which was evil。 And it was in
consequence of these very sins of theirs； as I think； that the old Hellenic
race began to die out physically； and population throughout Greece to
decrease with frightful rapidity； after the time of the Achaean league。
The facts are well known； and foul enough they are。 When the Romans
destroyed Greece； God was just and merciful。 The eagles were gathered
together only because the carrion needed to be removed from the face of
God's earth。 And at the time of which I now speak； the signs of
approaching death were fearfully apparent。 Hapless and hopeless enough
were the clique of men out of whom the first two Ptolemies hoped to form
a school of philosophy； men certainly clever enough； and amusing withal；
who might give the kings of Egypt many a shrewd lesson in king…craft；
and the ways of this world； and the art of profiting by the folly of fools；
and the selfishness of the selfish； or who might amuse them； in default of
fighting…cocks； by puns and repartees； and battles of logic； 〃