THE EGYPTIAN FOUNDATIONS OF GNOSTIC THOUGHT

stance Admittedly, we are dealing with a mélange here, and things are not neat and
tidy so diffused were these inter-penetrating strands of thought. But Dillon’s rather
typical Classical Studies emphasis of “Aristotelianism and Stoicism” does not do
justice to the larger picture he has presented. By a rough measure, I would note that
over 3/4 of these philosophers can be situated upon the “dualist and skeptic”
trajectory, while the rest display “monist/stoic” propensities. These philosophical
colourations are fairly evenly distributed throughout the eastern Mediterranean.
“Aristotelianism” is present in varying doses, as is Stoic method, often without worldaffirmation
in the usual Stoic manner. Skepticism and Dualism are obviously not held
in high regard in Dillon’s rather Hegelian vision of high-Philosophy taking root from
this “lowly” Middle Platonic soil. 12
Apart from this, there are almost no connections
made in this work between the philosophical divergencies under discussion and the
socio-political backdrop that gave rise to them. The sacking of Athens in 88 B.C.E.,
the rise of Roman hegemony in the eastern Mediterranean and its effects upon
philosophical/mythological speculation, the acute Graeco-Egyptian fusion underway
in Alexandria, the widespread turning to dualist cosmologies in this time period, of
which Middle Platonism is but one exemplar – to say these factors are marginalised in
this book is to be guilty of understatement oneself.
In opposition to the implicitly orientalist tenor of this stance (the Orient is
responsible for dualism and a general muddying of the water) with its accompanying
pro-Stoic/Aristotelianism occidental bias (the best of what is modern and western
came from this purer trajectory), I would note that the potent tradition of Skeptical
thought was instrumental in “deconstructing” various religious and philosophical
dogmas of the time, and in facilitating a more “pluralist” approach to “Truth” and
“Knowledge” in the Greek cities of the eastern Mediterranean, especially Alexandria.
Of course all of this would require a spirited defence of skeptical and sophistic
developments – that their philosophical influence was indeed profound – and this
cannot be undertaken here. The antipathy between what might be called objectivism
vs. subjectivism or perspectivism, is imbued in Plato’s reactionary obsession with the
Sophists in his dialogues. Dualist thought in this philosophical mode goes straight
back to Plato as well, in particular the Timaeus. It is distinctly present in Presocratic
thought as well, in the speculations of Empedocles and Parmenides in particular as we
have seen. This trajectory, loosely defined as such for its distinct dualist propensities,
must be studied in association with all other dualist systems which existed at this
time.
We shall be briefly examining the following philosophers:
Thrasyllus (c. 14-37 C.E.) from Egypt (Alexandria), he became
court philosopher of Tiberius in Rome.
Ammonius (c.40 C.E.) from Egypt
Plutarch (c. 85 C.E.) from Chaeroneia
Numenius (c. 150 C.E.) of Apamea (Syria)
Albinus (c. 153 C.E.) of Smyrna
Atticus (c. 176 C.E.) in Athens
Harpocration (c. 180 C.E.) of Argos
12
And Dillon’s omission of Skeptical thought here is the more inexplicable given the praise he
accords their methods at a few junctures in his work; eg., “Scepticism... which had produced
so much excellent philosophizing (by modern standards) under Arcesilaus and Carneades in
the New Academy,” The Middle Platonists, 105.