On the question of the two Origens

Contents 1. Texts of Porphyry 2. Methodological notes 3. Chronological problems 4. The number of works of Origen from VP 5. About the “error of Porphyry” 6. Other evidence about Origen the Platonist 7. Fr. 7: theology of the two Origens 8. Fr. 10: relation to Homer 9. Fr. 12: demonology 10. Conclusions Bibliography Abbreviations Works of Origen It is believed that Henri de Valois was the first to pose the problem of the two Origens in the 17th century. He suggested that Origen, mentioned by Porphyry in the Life of Plotinus (hereinafter - VP), is not identical to the famous Christian thinker, and, therefore, in the 3rd century. According to R.H., there was also a certain Origen the Platonist, who was a fairly prominent figure in Neoplatonic circles of that time. Henri de Valois's hypothesis sparked a debate that continues to this day. Although most modern researchers share the opinion that there are two Origens, there are also many supporters of the opposite point of view, and among them there are also very authoritative experts on the work of the Christian Origen. Of the major Origenologists of the 20th century who rejected the hypothesis of two Origen, it is enough to mention, for example, R. P. Hanson, F. Kettler or A. Kruzel 2. In my personal opinion, the hypothesis of two Origens is absolutely correct, and in this work I would like to show why this is so. To fully solve this problem, it is necessary to consider two sets of issues. One of them concerns the key text that gave rise to the problem itself, i.e. VP, and its relationship, firstly, with Porphyry’s own review of Origen the Christian 3, and, secondly, with the totality of data known to us concerning the life and work of the latter. In addition, there are a number of texts by other authors 4 where, according to supporters of the hypothesis of two Origens, Origen the Platonist is mentioned, while opponents of this hypothesis should attribute this evidence to Origen the Christian. For brevity, the hypothesis of two Origens will henceforth be referred to as “dualism”, and its supporters as “dualists”. I will call the opposite position “unitarianism,” and its supporters, accordingly, “unitarians.” The VP mentions Origen three times, whose identification poses a problem: 1) 3. 24–35: “After Herennius, Origen and Plotinus made an agreement not to reveal anything from the teachings of Ammonius, which he explained to them in his lessons, Plotinus, like the others, adhered to [it], albeit studying with some of those who came [to him], but keeping the teachings of Ammonius secret. When Herennius was the first to break the treaty, Herennius was followed by Origen. However, he did not write anything except the essay “On Demons” and - under Gallienus - “On the fact that only the King is the Creator.” Plotinus did not write anything for a long time, conducting oral conversations based on the studies of Ammonius" 5 . . 2) 14. 18–25: “When Longinus’s “On the Principles” and “The Lover of Antiquity” were read to him (i.e., Plotinus. - A.S.), he said: “Longinus is a philologist, but not a philosopher.” And when Origen once came to his class, he blushed all over and wanted to get up from his seat; Origen asked him to speak [further], but he said that the resolve weakens when the speaker sees that he is addressing those who already know what he intends to say. And after this short conversation, he got up [and finished the lesson].” 3) 20. 25–47 (quote from Longinus’s treatise “On the Purpose”): “Some [philosophers] tried to express their opinions in writing, leaving posterity [the opportunity] to benefit from them, while others believed that it was enough for them to lead their students to understand their views. Of these, the first type included the Platonists Euclid, Democritus, Proculinus, the one who lived in Troas, as well as Plotinus and his friend Amelius Gentilian, who still teach in Rome; the Stoics Themistocles and Phebion, as well as Annius and Media, who until recently were in the prime of life; and from the Peripatetics - Heliodorus of Alexandria. To the second [belonged] the Platonists Ammonius and Origen, whom I visited for a long time, men whose insight [of mind] was significantly superior to their contemporaries, and in Athens Theodotus and Eubulus, who headed the school [of Plato] (διάδοχοι). And if some of them wrote something, such as, for example, Origen - “On Demons”, Eubulus - “On the Philebus, the Gorgias, and Aristotle’s objections to Plato’s Republic,” then this, perhaps, is not a reason (ἐχέγγυα) to count them among those who developed their teaching [in writing], since they indulged in this activity as something secondary, and the desire to write was not the main thing for them.” In the 3rd book of the treatise “Against Christians” (hereinafter referred to as CChr), Porfiry undoubtedly writes about Origen the Christian: “This absurd approach (i.e., allegorical interpretation of the Bible. - A.S.) can be seen in the example of a man whom I met when I was still very young, who gained great fame and is still famous thanks to the works he left behind, [namely, the example of] Origen, whose fame spread widely among the teachers of this teaching. Having become a student of Ammonius, who in our time has achieved the greatest success in philosophy, he received a lot of useful things from his teacher in terms of experience in the sciences, but in choosing the right life he went in the opposite direction. Ammonius, a Christian, raised by Christian parents, when he came into contact with wisdom and philosophy, immediately turned to a law-abiding lifestyle, and Origen, a Hellene, brought up in Hellenic teachings, fell into barbaric recklessness. Having given himself up to him, he wasted (ἐκαπήλευσεν) both himself and his skills in the sciences, behaving in a Christian and lawless manner in life, and in his opinions about [material] things and the Divine, imitating the Hellenes and introducing Hellenic [teachings] into foreign myths. He always spent time with Plato (συνῆν τε γὰρ ἀεὶ τῷ Πλάτωνι), was familiar with the works of Numenius, Cronius, Apollophanes, Longinus, Moderates, Nicomachus and men famous among the Pythagoreans, also used the books of Chaeremon the Stoic and Cornutus, having learned from which is an allegorical way of [interpreting] the Hellenic mysteries, he applied it to the Jewish scriptures.” 6 2. Methodological notes When comparing these texts of Porphyry, in my opinion, the correctness of F. Schroeder becomes clear, who at one time asserted that in the question of the two Origens, the “burden of proof” should be placed on the Unitarians 7 . If in CChr it is obvious that Porphyry has in mind the famous Christian Origen, then in VP he does not say a word about the Christianity of Origen mentioned there; in addition, he provides a number of data about him that are difficult to reconcile with the biography of the Christian thinker known to us. Therefore, if we simply turn to the data of these texts, the identity of the Origens mentioned in them is not obvious from the very beginning. From this point of view, the attempts of some Unitarians to present the dualist position as a far-fetched speculation that “multiplies entities unnecessarily” 8 are without foundation. On the contrary, dualism quite adequately points to the problem generated by the interpretation of Porfirian texts themselves. Perhaps, by solving this problem, the identity of the two Origens can be proven, but the fact remains that it is precisely this that needs to be proven in the first place. An additional difficulty for Unitarianism arises from the fact that, with one exception, in the texts of Porphyry under consideration it is impossible to find any positive data that would themselves encourage the identification of the two Origen. On the contrary, the fact that many of the VP data, at least at first glance, resist such an identification leads to the fact that almost the entire Unitarian argument takes approximately the following form: “despite what is said in the VP, it cannot be ruled out that it is talking about Origen the Christian.” In other words, Unitarianism has to be justified not on the basis of the VP text, but in spite of it. From this we can draw two conclusions that indicate the initial methodological weakness of the unitarian position. First, even if Unitarians were able to satisfactorily resolve all the difficulties they encounter in the VP text, it cannot help but notice that these difficulties arose entirely as a result of the assumption of Unitarianism itself. Thus, unitarianism, at best, simply solves the problems that it itself created, while the dualist position does not initially create any problems for the interpretation of VP. Secondly, the maximum that Unitarians can claim even with satisfactory solution of all the problems in VP is proof of the possibility of interpreting this text in a Unitarian sense. It will not be possible to substantiate the need for Unitarianism in this case either: even if it turns out that all references to Origen in VP do not contradict our information about Origen the Christian, it does not necessarily follow from this that they should be attributed specifically to him (although the likelihood of this in this case would, of course, be quite high). On the contrary, in the case of dualism, in my opinion, a situation in which one can talk not only about the possibility, but also about the necessity of a dualistic interpretation of VP is quite conceivable. In fact, logically only two options are possible here: either dualism or unitarianism is true. But since it is Unitarianism that is confronted with the VP evidence that contradicts it, it can be considered refuted if it fails to satisfactorily account for the evidence within the framework of its interpretation. Thus, if unitarianism turns out to be wrong, then eo ipso dualism will be true. The above-mentioned exception, which is the only positive argument in favor of Unitarianism that can be extracted directly from the texts of Porphyry, is that in both VP and CChr a certain famous philosopher Ammonius is named as the teacher of the Origens mentioned there. But this argument is problematic from the very beginning. It is clear that in VP Porphyry means Ammonius, who was the teacher of Plotinus, i.e. the so-called "Ammonia Saccas" 9. However, in CChr Plotinus is not mentioned at all, therefore the fact that Ammonius appearing here is precisely Ammonius Saccas, the teacher of Plotinus, is not so obvious and itself needs proof 10. If we also take into account how Porphyry’s statements in CChr are criticized by Eusebius, who quotes them, the situation becomes so complicated that we have to talk about the independent problem of the two Ammonii, which is discussed in the scientific literature no less actively than the problem of the two Origens. The existing positions on this issue in relation to our topic can be reduced to the following versions: 1) there was one Christian Origen who studied with Ammonius Saccas (Unitarianism) 11; 2) there were two Origens, and both studied with Ammonius Saccas 12; 3) there were two Origens, and Origen the Platonist studied with Ammonius Saccas, and Origen the Christian studied with some other Ammonius 13; 4) there were two Origens, but only Origen the Platonist studied with Ammonius Saccas, and the teacher of Origen the Christian could have been a philosopher with a different name 14. Even if it were possible to irrefutably establish the identity of the two Ammonius, it would not necessarily follow from this that in the Ur we are talking about Origen the Christian, since one Ammonius could have had two students named Origen (cf. the second of the versions listed above). Thus, in order to substantiate unitarianism, one should not be distracted by solving the problem of two Ammoniums, which is associated primarily with the identification of Ammonium from СChr. We need to turn directly to the VP text and see whether the data in this text can be attributed to Origen the Christian. The difficulties faced by the Unitarian interpretation of VP can generally be divided into two groups: 1) chronological problems: chronological information about the life of Origen mentioned in VP, which can be directly or indirectly extracted from this text itself, does not fit well with chronological information about the life of Origen the Christian, known to us primarily from Eusebius; 2) historical and literary problems: information about Origen’s literary activities from VR contradicts what we know about the corresponding activities of Origen the Christian. My thesis is that unitarianism can still somehow cope with the first group of problems, but not with the second. 3. Chronological problems The following chronological circumstances prevent the identification of Origen from VP with Origen the Christian: a) in VP. 3 states that Origen wrote the treatise “On the fact that only the King is the Creator” (Οτι μόνος ποιητὴς ὁ βασιλεύς, hereinafter – PB) during the reign of Gallienus, who came to power at the end of 253, while the data from the “Ecclesiastical History” Eusebius allows us to date the death of the Christian Origen to 251–253; b) episodes in VP. 3 and 14 suggest an early acquaintance of Origen with Plotinus, going back to the time when both lived in Alexandria and studied under Ammonius Saccas. But the data of the “Ecclesiastical History,” in turn, allows us to date the final departure of the Christian Origen from Alexandria to 231, and Plotinus began to study with Ammonius Saccas only in 232. Thus, they certainly could not study with Ammonius at the same time, which is also clear from the approximately 20-year difference in age, and they were unlikely to have known each other at all, much less closely; c) Origen's visit to the school of Plotinus, described in VP. 14, could only have taken place in Rome, beginning in 244, but Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History, reports nothing about the Christian Origen's journey to Rome during this period. Let's take a closer look at each of these difficulties. 3a) Death of Origen the Christian and VP. 3 In this case, we are talking about comparing the possible dating of two events - the writing of PB and the death of Origen the Christian. Regarding the dating of PB, Porphyry's statement that this treatise was written ἐπὶ Г αλιήνου (VP. 3.31–32) is interpreted differently. Firstly, a number of interpreters propose not to give the preposition ἐπὶ a temporary meaning and see in it an indication that the treatise was written “for” Gallienus or addressed “to” him. This may be in good agreement with the assumption that PB did not have any philosophical content itself and was something like a panegyric to Gallienus, known for his literary talents. “King” and “Creator” in the title of the treatise in this case point to Gallienus himself 15. However, supporters of such an interpretation, naturally, do not deny that PB was written precisely at the time when Gallienus was already “King”. Another reason for disagreement is that the reign of Gallienus can be understood as different chronological periods: either from the autumn of 253, when Gallienus came to power together with Valerian 16, or from 260, when, after the capture of Valerian, he began to rule independently. Some evidence in favor of the latter option was seen in the absence of mention of Valerian in the formulation of Porphyry 17, although no final conclusions of this kind of argumentum ex silentio can be made 18, especially since in VP. 4. 1 (cf. 5. 2) Porphyry speaks of the 10th year of Gallienus’s reign, again without mentioning Valerian, but clearly referring to their joint reign (since Gallienus ruled independently for only 8 years 19). Finally, D. O’Brien offered a number of arguments that, in his opinion, allow us to date PB to 265–268, i.e. the very end of Gallienus' reign 20. It is clear that the later dating of PB completely excludes the possibility of attributing this text to Origen the Christian, 21 but, in my opinion, there are no decisive arguments in their favor. Thus, it is quite possible that in VP. 3 Porphyry had in mind the reign of Gallienus from the end of 253, but even this option creates difficulties for Unitarianism 22. The fact is that, according to the most obvious and simple interpretation of Eus. HE. VII 1. 1, the death of Origen the Christian dates back to the time of the accession of Gallus after the death of Decius, i.e. to 251: “Decius, who did not reign for even two years and was soon killed along with his children, was succeeded by Gallus. At this [time] (ἐν τούτω) Origen died, having lived seventy years without one [year] (ἑνὸς δέοντα τῆς ζωῆς ἑβδομήκοντα ἀποπλήσς ἔτη)". Moreover, according to the testimony of Photius 23, in the Apology of Pamphilus it was stated that Origen died a martyr's death under Decius (ἐπ ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς Καισαρείας ∆ εκίου ). This opinion, however, can be considered as a hagiographical legend that arose in Origenist circles. Later, Pamphilus' co-author Eusebius discovered Origen's letters written after the Decius persecution 24, and, perhaps on this basis, in HE he abandoned the earlier dating of Origen's death, placing it at the beginning of the reign of Gallus 25. But also 251, supported by HE. VII 1. 1, is inconsistent with the Unitarian interpretation of VP. The difficulty is that the evidence in HE. VII 1. 1 is problematic because it is difficult to agree with the dating of Origen’s birth, which can be indirectly extracted from the HE text itself. According to HE. VI 1. 1, Origen's father Leonidas was beheaded during the persecution against Christians under Septimius Severus. Because in HE. VI 2. 2–3 the height of these persecutions is dated to the tenth year of the reign of Septimius Severus ἔτος ), i.e. by 202 26, and in HE. VI 2.12 states that at the time of the death of his father, Origen was less than 17 years old (ἑπτακαιδέκατον οὐ πλῆρες ἔτος ἄγων), his birth is usually attributed to approximately 185. 27 But if, according to HE. VII 1. 1, Origen died in 251 at the age of 69, he should have been born in 181-182 28. Thus, the lifespan of Origen, reported by Eusebius, does not agree with the dating of his birth and death, obtained from the data given by the same Eusebius. This situation creates two possibilities: a) if we start from HE. VII 1. 1, one can date the years of Origen’s life to 181/182–251, which is incompatible with the writing of the treatise under Gallienus and, therefore, speaks in favor of the dualists 29 ; b) if we proceed from the dating of Origen’s birth based on data from HE. VI, but at the same time accept information about his life expectancy from HE. VII 1. 1, we can assume that he lived from 185/186 to 254/255. 30, and this no longer contradicts the writing of the treatise under Gallienus. This opens the door to a unitarian interpretation of VP. 3 31. Naturally, attempts were made to somehow reconcile the contradictory data from Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History.” Perhaps the most popular way is to reinterpret the expression έν τούτφ from HE. VII 1. 1. A number of researchers pointed out that this expression in Eusebius can be interpreted in an expanded sense, relating it not to the moment of the change of power in 251, but to the entire reign of Gallus up to 253 inclusive 32. In this case, it can be assumed that Origen was born in 185 and died in 253 (although H. Koch suggested 182–184 as a more likely date of birth). True, this means that at the time of his death he was 68, not 69 years old. In this regard, it was proposed to interpret differently the words ἑνὸς δέοντα τῆς ζωῆς ἑβδομήκοντα ἀποπλήσας ἔτη from HE. VII 1. 1: “if we understand... the age data in the sense that Origen died during, and not at the end of his 69th year, then everything fits” 33. But if Eusebius really wanted to say that Origen died at the age of 69, i.e. actually at 68 years of age, then the use of the wording “seventy years minus one [year]” (i.e. complete) is not the most obvious way to convey this relatively simple idea to the reader. More interesting is P. Noten’s attempt to present data on Origen’s 69-year-old age at the time of death as a result of Eusebius’s own conclusions, made on the basis of the sources he had, taking into account certain chronological errors, namely, rounding up to 8 years during the reign of Caracalla 34 . In this case, the contradiction between the data in the text of “Church History” can be removed, but these data themselves lose their reliability. This concerns not only the life span of Origen, but also the year of martyrdom of his father, whom Noten also distinguishes from the martyr Leonidas 35. As a result, Noten comes to the conclusion that the date of Origen’s birth, which he attributes to approximately 185, can only be determined with an error of about two years 36, and the exact date of his death is unknown 37. Of course, Nothen's reconstruction of the sources of Eusebius's biography is in many respects highly hypothetical and has been repeatedly criticized 38 . But the general unreliability of Eusebius as a source on this issue 39 in this case is already clear from the very inconsistency of his data. Therefore, the conclusion that we can determine the years of Origen’s life only with an error of about two years, in my opinion, is completely justified. Researchers who critically evaluate Noten's specific hypotheses 40 come to a similar conclusion. Thus, from a purely chronological point of view, the Unitarian interpretation of VP. 3 cannot be completely excluded, since an error of two years is quite enough for it. For example, P. Beatrice claims that PB was written by the Christian Origen immediately after September 253 41. Personally, I cannot escape the impression that this looks rather far-fetched, since it turns out that Origen, as if on purpose, barely had time to catch the reign of Gallienus in order to write this treatise and then die, but, formally speaking, this is not excluded 42. 3b) The departure of Origen the Christian from Alexandria and the possibility of his acquaintance with Plotinus On the same basis, from the point of view of chronology, it is impossible to completely exclude the acquaintance of the Christian Origen with Plotinus in Alexandria. According to HE. VI 26. 1, Origen left Alexandria in the 10th year of the reign of Alexander Severus, i.e. in 231. In addition to the general approximate nature of Eusebius' dates, Unitarians in this case can refer to the fact that one of the HE manuscripts indicates the 12th year, not the 10th year (i.e. δωδέκατον instead of δέκατον), and this already gives 233 as the date of departure Origen. An additional argument, although very dubious, can be seen in the statement of Eusebius that the Alexandrian bishop Demetrius died only a little later (οὐκ εἰς μακρόν), having been a bishop for 43 years, and, according to NOT. V 22, he became a bishop in the 10th year of the reign of Commodus, i.e. in 190. Thus, the death of Demetrius is dated to 233, and the chronological proximity of this event to the departure of Origen may indicate a later dating of the departure itself 43. In this case, Plotinus, who began studying with Ammonius in 232. 44, had some time to get acquainted with Origen the Christian, especially since, as P. Beatrice rightly notes, the acquaintance itself could have taken place earlier, since, according to VP. 3. 6–14, Plotinus had been looking for a teacher for a long time before he came to Ammonius, and thus came into contact with numerous representatives of the intellectual elite of Alexandria 45 . True, P. Noten, reconstructing the biography of Origen, came to the conclusion that he was practically absent from Alexandria already 2 years before his final departure, namely in 230–231. went to Palestine, winter 231–232. spent in Antioch, where he met with the emperor's mother Julia Mamaea (Eus. HE. VI 21.3), after which he left Alexandria again in the spring of 232 and was unable to return due to the flared-up conflict with Demetrius 46. Even if we do not accept all the details of this reconstruction, 47 it is clear that Origen had the opportunity to meet Plotinus only shortly before his departure. Could a relationship be established that would be sufficient to conclude the agreement described in VP. 3, is a controversial issue 48 . In addition, it is in this case that it is especially obvious that the Unitarian hypothesis makes sense only with the initial assumption that the Christian Origen generally studied with Ammonius Saccas, and this in itself is not a fact. However, in my opinion, it is impossible to completely exclude the very possibility of a unitarist approach in this matter. Approximately the same conclusion can be drawn regarding the time and place of conclusion of the agreement itself. According to V.P. 3. 17–21, Plotinus studied with Ammonius for 11 years, and then left for Persia, enlisting in the army of Gordian III, which should have happened around 243 49. It can be assumed that Ammonius died around this time, and this created the need for a treaty, 50 which was concluded just before Plotinus left Alexandria. From the point of view of Unitarianism, such a possibility is not excluded, since the Christian Origen allegedly returned to Alexandria, but was again expelled by Demetrius' successor Heracles. Indeed, a number of sources mention the conflict between Origen and Herakles 51 , but two controversial questions are connected with them: firstly, is it necessary to think that we are talking about a personal clash between Herakles and Origen directly in Alexandria or about an “absentia” confrontation 52 ; secondly, did this conflict take place immediately after the death of Demetrius, i.e. around 233, or later - in the 40s 53. According to P. Beatrice, Origen's brief return to Alexandria precisely in connection with the death of Ammonius and the conflict with Herakles took place around 242–243. It was then that Origen concluded an agreement with Plotinus and Herennius 54. An alternative option is that Ammonius died during Plotinus’ stay in Persia (cf. O’Brien // VP. II. P. 425) 55, and the agreement was concluded when he had already returned from the trip, i.e. in 243–244 or a little later - either in Athens, where Origen the Christian spent some time during the reign of Gordian III (HE. VI 32.2), and Plotinus could have been passing through to Rome 56, or in Antioch, where Plotinus stopped on the way from Persia (VP. 3.22), or already in Rome itself 57. . 3c) Could Origen the Christian visit Plotinus in Rome starting in 244? Since Plotinus began teaching in Rome after he arrived there from Persia in 244, 58 the Christian Origen must have visited Rome somewhere in the middle or even in the 2nd half to meet him. 40s III century. Eusebius (HE. VI 14.10) mentions only one trip of Origen to Rome, which dates back to the time of Pope Zephyrinus (198–217), i.e., it probably took place in the 1st half. 10s III century. However, he does not provide any evidence that would contradict the possibility of Origen's second trip to Rome in mid. 40s III century. Moreover, the fact that around this period Origen, according to Eusebius (Ibid. VI 36. 3-4), was in correspondence with the Roman bishop Fabian, as well as with the emperor Philip and his wife, suggests that personal affairs, i.e. the desire to justify himself before the Roman see, which at one time sided with Demetrius, could have prompted him to visit Rome at the same time, and the apologetically minded Eusebius might not have mentioned this visit for the reason that Origen’s plans had failed 59 . Thus, in this case, nothing prevents the Unitarians from insisting that Origen’s stay in Rome somewhere in the middle. 40s again “not excluded”. However, P. Beatrice goes too far in this matter when he writes: “From the silence of Eusebius, the erroneous conclusion was drawn that Origen never made this journey. And again the Life of Plotinus, written by Porphyry, comes to the rescue, offering us valuable documentary material that complements the presentation of Eusebius, subjected to tendentious censorship... That this journey was actually undertaken is indisputably proven (sic! - A.S.) by Porphyry's account of the visit that Origen, during this second stay in Rome, paid to the school opened by Plotinus in 244 AD returning from Persia" 60. Of course, there can be no talk of any “indisputable” evidence here. All this reasoning is methodologically incorrect. Use the hypothesis of Origen the Christian's second trip to Rome as an argument for the Unitarian interpretation of VP. 14 is still possible, although such a technique leaves us in the realm of pure speculation. But P. Beatrice does the opposite. He rather sees VP. 14 is undoubted evidence in favor of the hypothesis of a second journey to Rome. In other words, he once again (cf. note 42) falls into petitio principiï instead of proving that in VP. 14, Origen the Christian is mentioned (for this is precisely what is in question), he initially proceeded from this. As far as I can tell, P. Beatrice is also the only researcher who has seen in the description of Origen's visit evidence of Plotinus's hostility to Origen from VP. 14. It is known that, according to Porphyry, when Origen came to Plotinus’ lesson, he blushed and decided to interrupt the lesson, and when asked by Origen to continue, he replied that “the determination weakens when the speaker sees that he is addressing those who already know what he intends to say” (ἀνίλλεσθαι τὰς ?? λέγειν μέλλει ). A little later, he actually stopped. Traditionally, Plotinus’s reaction was interpreted as a sign of deep respect for Origen, 61 seeing in it either a manifestation of timidity of a younger teacher in front of an older and more experienced one, or reluctance to enter into a possible polemic with a colleague in front of his students. In addition, Plotinus’s confidence that Origen already knew the content of his lecture may indicate that Plotinus was expounding some elements of the teachings of Ammonius Saccas, i.e. Origen actually caught him at the moment of violating the agreement from VP.3, which explains his embarrassment 62. The explanation proposed by P. Beatrice is as follows: “Plotinus could not resist demonstrating discontent when he found himself face to face with a Christian priest, whose religious choice he, of course, could not share and with whom he would like to sever all relations” 63 . This hypothetical desire, apparently, did not prevent Plotinus from meeting with Origen several years earlier and concluding with him the treaty mentioned in the Ur. 3. It is clear that in this case, in order to discern signs of discontent in Plotinus’s reaction, one must already think that we are talking about Origen the Christian, i.e. such an interpretation of this story cannot be taken as independent evidence in favor of Unitarianism. The traditional interpretation of this episode seems probable also because in Porphyry’s text it is immediately preceded by Plotinus’s famous skeptical review of Longinus: “Longinus is a philologist, but not a philosopher” (“φιλόλογος μέν”, ἔφη, “ὁ Λογγῖος , φιλόσοφος δὲ οὐδαμῶς "). On the contrary, Plotinus’s deliberate conviction that he himself could not say anything that was not already known or understood by Origen looks like evidence of his recognition of the latter’s philosophical competence. In other words, the juxtaposition of these two stories in Porfiry’s text may indicate their conscious opposition on Porfiry’s part. From this interpretation, of course, it follows that Porphyry tells the story of Origen’s visit to Plotinus’s school, intending to give the reader the impression of Plotinus’ positive attitude towards Origen. The previous analysis, in my opinion, demonstrates that the chronological difficulties associated with the unitarian interpretation of VP are not a decisive argument against it, since they do not allow us to completely exclude its possibility. Of course, this is still a long way from concluding that Unitarianism is in fact true. On the contrary, in each of the cases considered, the dualistic approach is also at least not excluded. Moreover, from the point of view of the so-called "Occam's razor" dualism, it seems to me, is in a more advantageous position. In fact, if we read the text VP on the assumption that it is about Origen the Platonist, different from Origen the Christian, we do not encounter any difficulties and are not forced to put forward any additional theories. But in order for the Unitarian reading of VP to become possible at all, it is absolutely necessary to admit a whole series of hypotheses, for example: a) the hypothesis about the death of Origen the Christian at the beginning of the reign of Gallienus; b) the hypothesis about his acquaintance with Plotinus in Alexandria; c) a hypothesis about his visit to Rome in mid. 40s III century; d) the hypothesis that he studied with Ammonius Saccas, etc. (see below). But since none of these hypotheses can be conclusively substantiated, we are left with a very vulnerable strategy for interpreting the text, which consists of assuming a basic hypothesis (unitarianism), the necessary conditions for which are several other unverifiable hypotheses. I will illustrate this situation with a specific example. If, reading in VP. 3 about the treatise that Origen composed during the reign of Gallienus, we assume that we are not talking about Origen the Christian, but about a different Origen the Platonist, then this assumption does not create any further problems for the interpretation of the text VP and does not contradict the positive data about the life and literary activity of Origen the Christian available in our sources. For even if we admit that the Christian Origen actually lived to see the reign of Gallienus, this only means that, from a chronological point of view, he could have written the RV under Gallienus, but it does not make it absolutely necessary to conclude that he actually wrote it. On the contrary, if when interpreting VP. 3 we proceed from the assumption that this text speaks of Origen the Christian, then in order for such an assumption to become possible in principle, we absolutely need to assume that this Origen actually lived until the beginning of the reign of Gallienus and during this period wrote the RV. But it is impossible to prove such an assumption in a positive way. So in the end we are really dealing with one hypothesis (unitarism), the condition of possibility of which is another unverifiable hypothesis. As an alternative to all this, we can simply assume that in VP. 3 we are talking about Origen the Platonist, and reading the text VP without much difficulty. 4.Number of Origen’s works from VR There are two passages in VP from which it appears that the Origen mentioned there wrote no more than two works. Firstly, according to Porphyry himself, “he wrote nothing except the essay “On Demons” and – under Gallienus – “On the fact that only the King is the Creator”” (VP.3.30–32: τῶν δαιμόνων " σύγγραμμα καὶ ἐπὶ Γαλιήνου "Ὅ τι μόνος ποιητὴς ὁ βασιλεύς "). Secondly, Porfiry quotes the preface to Longinus’s work “On the Purpose”, where Longinus distinguishes two categories of contemporary philosophers: some strive to record their teaching in writing, while others are content with oral communication with their students. Further, Longinus lists the representatives of the main philosophical schools - the Platonists, the Stoics and the Peripatetics - who belong, respectively, to the first or second category. of the second type, he mentions both Ammonius (i.e. Saccas) and Origen. He also notes that some philosophers of this kind, of course, happen to write separate works, but this does not change the matter essentially. As an example, among other things, Origen’s essay “On Demons” is cited (VP. 20. 25–47; see paragraph 1. 3 above). Thus, we have independent evidence from two competent authors who claim that the literary activity of the Origen they mention was extremely insignificant in scope. These evidence can be considered independent, since if the general idea coincides, i.e. ideas about the paucity of Origen's works, they differ in details: Longinus mentions only one of the two works of Origen appearing in Porphyry, and therefore Porphyry obtained information about the second work from some other source or, perhaps, simply read PB personally. This rather obvious consideration should not be neglected, because if the data of these two sources coincided in all details, we could with a high degree of probability assume that Porphyry was entirely dependent on Longinus, i.e. instead of two sources we would actually have one. As for the competence of these authors, in general we are dealing with Origen's contemporaries who moved in Neoplatonic circles and had direct access to information about what was happening there. In addition, Longinus directly states that he communicated with Ammonius and Origen personally for a long time (VP. 20. 36–38: Ἀμμώνιος καὶ Ὠ ριγένης, ο ἶ ς ἡμεῖς τό πλεῖστον τοῦ χρόνου προσεφοιτήσαμεν ). I will try to dispel some doubts about Porphyry’s competence that may arise in connection with the hypothesis that he confused the two Origens in CChr (see paragraph 5). The information from Porphyry and Longinus about the number of Origen’s works from VP comes into sharp conflict with the volume of literary output of the Christian Origen available to us, as well as with the evidence of ancient authors who characterize him as a very prolific writer 64 . That is why it can be said that unitarianism fails to offer a satisfactory interpretation of the data that contradicts it, and therefore should simply be rejected. Let's look at specific Unitarian arguments regarding this issue. The first argument on the part of the Unitarians is that Porphyry and Longinus have in mind exclusively the philosophical writings of the Christian Origen: “I think there is nothing particularly strange in the hypothesis that where Porphyry and Longinus mention the writings of Origen, as if he wrote only one or two of them, they mean his purely philosophical works and do not imply that their words should be attributed to his specifically Christian and theological essays" 65. However, if Porphyry and Longinus do not, so to speak, “count” the Christian writings of Origen because they are not “purely” philosophical, this means that the philosophical writings of the Christian Origen had to be entirely non-Christian in nature for Porphyry and Longinus to consider it possible to mention them. Otherwise, why shouldn’t they classify such a treatise as “On Principles” among philosophical works? Of course, Origen the Christian was a very complex figure, and elements of Hellenistic speculation played a fundamental role in his worldview. However, it is impossible to deny the fact of his deeply Christian self-awareness, which is clear from all his texts. The assumption that a person with such self-awareness could write some specifically philosophical treatises, and even on such “far” topics from the actual religious and theological issues as demonology and, probably, the doctrine of the first principle (see paragraph 7), while completely abstracting from his own faith, for the sake of which he went through torture in the time of Decius (i.e., according to the Unitarians, shortly before writing PB), seems simply absurd. Adhering to such a position does not at all mean defending the view of Origen as a representative of Christian Platonism, for the latter is an integral worldview, to characterize which it is essential to take into account the intertwining of Platonic and Christian components in it. In this case, we get the strange figure of a “double agent” 66, who in some writings was entirely Christian, and in others - entirely Platonist, i.e. the Christian and the Platonic in him existed somehow separately. 67 However, the main drawback of this Unitarian argument lies, again, in its methodological flaw. Why should we even think that Origen the Christian had any “purely” philosophical works, by the standards of which even “On the Elements” is not a sufficiently philosophical text? Solely because it must be assumed for a unitarian interpretation of VP? There are simply no other arguments or data in favor of this. In particular, it is well known that both titles are from VP. 3 are absent from the very lengthy, although probably not exhaustive, list of the works of the Christian Origen, which Jerome cites in the 33rd letter 68. Thus, we again see that the unitarist approach leads to a multiplication of unverifiable hypotheses, and in this case, to a kind of vicious circle: the hypothesis according to which Porfiry is in VP. 3 means Origen the Christian, becomes possible only if we accept the hypothesis that the latter wrote some specifically philosophical works, but this second hypothesis, in turn, is not based on anything other than the fact that it is very necessary for the first hypothesis 69. Another Unitarian argument is that Porphyry allegedly speaks only of those writings of the Christian Origen in which the doctrine of Ammonius Saccas was revealed 70 . Porphyry indeed speaks of two of Origen's works immediately after the story he tells about the agreement, according to which Plotinus, Herennius and Origen agreed not to divulge the teachings of Ammonius. Having mentioned that Herennius was the first to violate this agreement, Porphyry puts Origen in second place and in this regard specifically stipulates that he wrote only two works. From here, it seems to me, it is quite possible to conclude that these two works really revealed the doctrine of Ammonius to some extent, but this, of course, does not mean that Porphyry’s formulation “he wrote nothing except the work “On Demons” and - under Gallienus - “On the fact that only the King is the Creator”” obviously suggests that this Origen could have had some other works that did not disclose the doctrine of Ammonius. In other words, Unitarians offer a hypothetically possible, but not at all necessary, interpretation of Porphyry's text, implying that instead of saying "he wrote nothing" we should actually read something like "he wrote nothing divulging the doctrine of Ammonius." Of course, this hypothetical interpretation cannot be verified for the elementary reason that the text does not directly say anything of the kind. Such an interpretation, among other things, will be justified only if we exclude Porphyry’s understanding of this passage, according to which the mention of Origen’s two works is still not directly related to his violation of the treaty 71 . But the most significant drawback of this Unitarian argument is that it does not explain in any way the independent testimony of Longinus, who does not at all connect the statement about the small number of Origen's works with the story of the treaty, but directly states that he wrote little because he belonged to the category of philosophers who preferred oral teaching 72 . Another argument of the Unitarians is that for one reason or another it was advantageous for Porphyry to remain silent about Christian writings, and indeed about Origen’s Christianity in general. For example, P. Beatrice, based on the hypothesis he put forward about the conflict between Plotinus and Origen the Christian, writes the following: “That is why, while in his treatise against Christians, written under the direct influence of Plotinus, Porphyry makes harsh judgments about the Christian exegetical activity of Origen, in the Life of Plotinus, written about thirty years later, he limits himself to mentioning only two philosophical works Origen - namely, the treatises “On Demons” and “On the fact that only the King is the Creator” - which by that time had become part of the tradition of the Neoplatonic school, completely silent about the conflicts that darkened the relationship between the two famous representatives of this very school. This harmonizing tendency of the “Life of Plotinus” is very reminiscent of a similar historiographical approach of Eusebius of Caesarea ... "73 Naturally, if we assume that the VP is talking about Origen the Christian, we have to admit that Porphyry is deliberately silent about everything that has to do with his Christianity, because in the text of the VP one cannot find the slightest hint that the Origen mentioned there is a Christian. Those. we are again faced with a situation already familiar to us: the Unitarian hypothesis turns out to be possible only if we admit an additional hypothesis about the motives for which Porphyry allegedly remains silent about Origen’s Christianity, but this second hypothesis is not based on any independent data, but solely on the fact that it is needed for the first hypothesis. Probably, in the case of Longinus, we will have to admit that he also had some motives not to mention Origen’s Christianity, but, on the contrary, to directly qualify him as a “Platonist”, and in the formal, “school” sense of the word (for, as was shown above, this characteristic appears in the context of the classification of philosophers according to the main philosophical schools). It is worth noting, however, that P. Beatrice generally ignores the problem of silence in relation to Longinus (although he mentions his testimony - Beatrice 1992. P. 356), and the specific motive of silence attributed to Porphyry by him is rather vague, since it is not entirely clear why the fact that Plotinus allegedly harbored ill will towards Origen the Christian should have motivated Porphyry keep silent both about this ill-will itself and about the Christian writings of Origen. If Porphyry, for example, did not want to discredit Plotinus with a story about his contacts with a Christian (which hardly makes sense to assume in view of the mention in VP. 16 of Christian Gnostics who attended Plotinus’ school), it would have been much more natural for him to either not mention the Christian Origen at all in VP, or just openly talk about Plotinus’s negative reaction to this dubious from the Platonic point of view "orthodoxy" figure. What is the general expediency of that hypothetical “harmonizing tendency” that P. Beatrice speaks of? In any case, he contradicts himself when he claims that Porphyry is “completely silent about the conflicts” between Plotinus and the Christian Origen, since he himself, as we have seen, reveals evidence of such a conflict in the episode of VP.14. But when specifically applied to information about the number of Origen’s works, this hypothesis of silence has another significant drawback: even if we assume that it is correct, it still does not explain anything, since Porphyry’s phrase does not at all remain silent about Origen’s other works, but directly denies their existence. We could talk about silence if Porfiry had simply given the names of these two works in his text, without stipulating in any way whether Origen had other works or not. But Porfiry precisely claims that Origen had no other works. Longinus' statements also come down to this. Therefore, to present the matter as if these authors are simply silent about other works of Origen means to misinterpret the data of the text. It is absolutely impossible to assume that Porfiry and Longinus actually deny the very existence of these works. In this case, two options are conceivable: they do this either out of ignorance or deliberately. The first option is excluded because Longinus, as we have seen, claims a close acquaintance with Origen from VP (VP. 20. 36-38), and if he was Origen the Christian, Longinus could hardly have been unaware of his Christian works 74 . Porphyry certainly knew about them, since in CChr he himself characterizes Origen the Christian as “a man... who gained great fame and is still famous thanks to the works he left behind” (Eus. HE. VI 19. 5. 2–4: ἀνδρὸς ... σφόδρα εὐδοκιμήσαντος καὶ ἔτι δι ᾽ ὦ ν καταλέλοιπεν συγγραμμάτων εὐδοκιμοῦντος), and from the context in which Origen’s allegorism in the interpretation of the Bible is criticized, it is quite obvious that we are talking about Christian and, above all, exegetical writings of Origen. The second option makes no sense, because, one might ask, what sense could there be in denying the existence of something that is either already widely known or can easily be recognized (and above all, from another text by Porfiry himself)? It is worth remembering that Origen the Christian was indeed a kind of celebrity, with whom even representatives of the imperial families who were more or less sympathetic to Christianity communicated (Ibid. VI 21.3; VI 36.3). Even if we assume that Eusebius (Ibid. VI 18–19) overemphasizes or simply exaggerates the degree of fame of Origen the Christian among pagan philosophers 75, it still follows from the Unitarian hypothesis that Origen the Christian communicated with Ammonius Saccas, Plotinus, Herennius, Longinus, attended Plotinus’s school in Rome, and wrote purely school Platonic treatises which, according to Beatrice’s statement quoted above, “became part of the tradition of the Neoplatonic school,” i.e. was not at all an unknown figure in Neoplatonic circles. In such a situation, it would be simply impractical and pointless to assert a deliberate lie about him. If you think about it, similar considerations can be put forward against the hypothesis of silence in general, not necessarily in its application to data on the number of Origen’s works. The question can be put this way: did Porphyry and Longinus expect that the Origen they write about will be identified by their readers as a Christian Origen? Obviously yes, because, from the point of view of the Unitarian hypothesis, there was simply no other Origen to whom their stories could be attributed. But then, one might ask, what is the point of stubbornly keeping silent about his Christianity if readers will still understand that we are talking about a famous Christian? 76 From all this it follows that Unitarianism is simply not able to offer any convincing interpretation of the information about the number of Origen’s works from VP. But if a theory encounters data that it is unable to explain, then this theory must be abandoned, especially since there is an alternative theory that does not create similar problems. However, the dualistic hypothesis, in my opinion, also has some flaws. True, it is not inherent in dualism as such, but only in one of its versions and is not associated at all with the text of VP, but with a quotation from CChr by Eusebius, where Porphyry, having mentioned that Origen the Christian studied with the outstanding philosopher Ammonius, states: “Ammonia, a Christian, raised by Christian parents, when he came into contact with wisdom and philosophy, immediately turned to a law-abiding lifestyle, and Origen, a Hellene, brought up in Hellenic teachings, fell into barbaric recklessness” (Eus. HE. VI 19.7). This characterization of Origen the Christian as "a Hellene, educated in Hellenic teachings" (Ἔ λλην ἐν Ἔ λλησιν παιδευθεὶς λόγοις) seems to imply that he was not a Christian from birth, and thus thus contradicts the Eusebius version of his biography. Moreover, Eusebius himself emphasizes this contradiction and accuses Porphyry of outright lying (Ibid. VI 19. 9–10). Based on the dualistic hypothesis, some researchers considered Porphyry's statement to be a consequence of his mistake, which consisted in the fact that he simply confused Origen the Christian with Origen the Platonist. There are two versions of what exactly Porphyry's mistake could have been, and both, although in different ways, appeal to another Porphyry statement in the CChr, according to which he personally met with the Christian Origen while still very young (Ibid. VI 19. 5. 2–3 ᾧ κἀγώ κομιδ ῇ νέος ὢ ν ἔτι ἐντετύχηκα ). According to the first version 77, in his youth Porfiry actually met Origen the Platonist, and then, having become acquainted with the work of Origen the Christian, he decided that it was Origen the Platonist he had once met who later converted to Christianity. This idea was reflected in CChr. By the time of writing VP, Porfiry had already realized his mistake, perhaps thanks to reading PB. According to the second version 78, in his youth Porphyry actually met with the Christian Origen. Then, finding himself in Plotinus’s school and hearing there about Origen the Platonist, with whom Plotinus studied under Ammonius Saccas, he decided that this was Origen the Christian, whom he personally knew, apparently having converted to Christianity after communicating with Plotinus and Ammonius. Porphyry wrote CChr, still in this error, but by the time of the creation of VP he had already distinguished between two Origens and therefore in this last text he had in mind exclusively the Platonist Origen. It is worth noting that both versions considered are based on the traditional dating of the works of Porphyry, according to which the treatise CChr was written c. 270 in Sicily, and VP - at the very beginning of the 4th century, i.e. in about 30 years. If we accept the hypothesis that CChr was written much later, perhaps just at the beginning of the 4th century. before the start of the Domitian persecution 79, then all speculations of this kind will turn out to be much less probable, for then it will turn out that Porphyry is mistaken in CChr and not mistaken in VP at approximately the same period of his life. However, the main drawback of the Porfiry error hypothesis, in my opinion, is that, based on dualistic premises, it at the same time undermines dualism itself, presenting Porfiry as an incompetent source. Indeed, dualism originally arose precisely in connection with the interpretation of VP, and it is this Porfirian text that is the main argument in favor of this hypothesis. But if we assume that in CChr Porphyry himself confused Origen the Christian with Origen the Platonist, then it turns out that we want to build a hypothesis about the existence of two Origens, based on the texts of the author, who himself did not really distinguish between these Origens. Therefore, from a methodological point of view, the variant of the dualistic position that does not imply an error on the part of Porfiry is preferable. F. Schröder 80 already quite rightly insisted that such an option is possible in principle. I would like to give a number of other arguments in favor of this. First of all, it is worth mentioning that Porphyry’s admission of error is not the only possible explanation for his characterization of the Christian Origen as “a Hellene brought up in Hellenic teachings.” Some researchers believe that Porfiry is not mistaken at all, but reports completely reliable information about the non-Christian origin of Origen the Christian. M. Hornshoe, who especially insisted on this version, was a supporter of an extremely critical approach to Eusebius as a source on the biography of Origen the Christian. He believed that Eusebius did not have any reliable information about Origen's childhood, and all his stories about the incredibly pious and gifted child prodigy (Eus. HE. VI 2.7-11) are nothing more than hagiographical legends, devoid of any historical value 81. Regarding the controversy between Porphyry and Eusebius M. Hornshoe 82 pointed out that Porphyry is not at all interested in deliberate misinformation about the non-Christian origin of Origen, since it presupposes an unfavorable story for him about an outstanding pagan intellectual who converted to Christianity, but Eusebius is just very interested in presenting Origen as an impeccable Christian literally “from the cradle” (Ibid. VI 2.2), and even descended from Christian ancestors (Ibid. VI 19.10). In favor of Origen's non-Christian origins, they also referred to the pagan name given to him at birth (“born of Horus”) 83, but this is a weak argument, since in that era and in Christian families they often gave names that were etymologically derived from the names of pagan gods 84. Another indirect argument is that the persecution of 202, during which Origen’s father died, was directed primarily against Christian converts, i.e. OK. 185, when Origen was born, his family may still have been non-Christian 85 . But even if we admit this possibility, it, in my opinion, explains little, since the essence of Porphyry’s statements in CChr is not simply that Origen’s family was non-Christian at the time of his birth, but rather that he received a completely non-Christian upbringing, and then independently converted to Christianity, which is already more difficult to reconcile with the conversion and, especially, the martyrdom of his father, by the time of which he himself was already a Christian 86. According to the alternative hypothesis, Porphyry is not mistaken because he does not mean to say that Origen came from a non-Christian family or was not a Christian from birth. The words “Ἔ λλην ἐν Ἔ λλησιν παιδευθεὶς λόγοις” should be understood as an indication of the good traditional education received by Origen, despite his Christian origin and, in general, his deep roots in ancient culture. However, Porphyry clearly imposes on the reader a chiastic contrast between “Origen, a Hellenic man brought up in Hellenic teachings,” but who subsequently fell into “barbarian folly,” and “Ammonia, a Christian, raised by Christian parents,” but then turned to a “law-abiding way of life,” and this contrast makes sense only if Porphyry actually implies Origen’s doctrinal conversion from paganism to Christianity 87. True, there is a point of view that Ammonius, according to Porphyry, did not renounce Christianity at all, but only moved away from orthodoxy 88 . This interpretation seems rather far-fetched to me. In particular, if Porphyry wrote these words, fully admitting that Origen was a Christian all his life, then what does his expression “fell into barbaric recklessness” actually mean? τόλμημα )? Indeed, in this case, Origen initially adhered to “barbaric recklessness,” and did not “fall into” it after he was “educated in Hellenic teachings” 89. Rather, the above-mentioned chiasmus could be interpreted as a more or less conscious exaggeration on the part of Porphyry, who, for polemical purposes, sought to build a rhetorically attractive contrast between Ammonius and Origen 90 . In my opinion, even if we assume that the Eusebius version of Origen’s biography is correct at this point, i.e. that he really was a Christian from childhood, and Porfiry’s information about his independent conversion is erroneous 91, the hypothesis of Porfiry’s error in the spirit of G. Derry or R. Goulet is still not absolutely necessary. To be more precise, in this case it would be necessary to distinguish between two mistakes of Porfiry. The first error is indeed present in the text itself and lies in the incorrect information given by Porphyry about the non-Christian period in the life of the Christian Origen. The second mistake is that Porfiry confused two historical figures - Origen the Christian and Origen the Platonist. The assumption of this second error is a hypothesis that allows us to explain the first error. But we have no reason to consider such an explanation as the only possible one: we may well make Porfiry’s first mistake without making the second. As a concrete alternative to the hypotheses of G. Derry and R. Goulet can assume, for example, that Porphyry, who personally met the Christian Origen, took away from this meeting the impression of him as an intellectual deeply immersed in pagan culture in general and the philosophical tradition in particular. This is indicated by his famous enumeration of the pagan authors that Origen read, perhaps indicating that Porphyry personally saw Origen's library or otherwise obtained this information from direct communication with him 92 . From this point of view, it might seem quite natural to Porfiry that such a person did not come from a Christian environment, but converted to Christianity from paganism 93 . I insist here on this hypothesis only to the extent that it shows that there may be quite conceivable alternatives to the assumption of Porphyry's error, in the sense of G. Derry or R. Goulet. It follows that one can adhere to a dualistic position without presenting Porphyry as such an incompetent author that at a certain period of his life he did not distinguish between the two Origens at all and, even in СChr, was essentially a “unitarian” 94 . In general, it should be noted that the hypothesis of Porphyry’s error in any case cannot be considered as a necessary prerequisite for dualism. It's just the opposite. To admit that Porphyry could have confused the two Origens, one must obviously think that there were two of them 95. Perhaps one of the motivations for Unitarianism is that some Unitarians sincerely believe that the dualistic hypothesis at all arose only as an attempt to solve the problem created by Porphyry's statements in CCr. This seems to be evidenced by the following words of P. Beatrice: “the contrast between the information of Porphyry and the critical commentary of Eusebius seemed to numerous researchers to be resolvable only if one resorted to an excessive hypothesis about the existence of two different Origens, a pagan and a Christian” 96. If this were the case, dualism would of course have to be rejected for simply “multiplying entities unnecessarily.” But such an assumption is completely wrong. No one would deliberately invent a second Origen in order to resolve the contradiction between Porphyry and Eusebius in such a complex and artificial way. In fact, the need for a dualistic hypothesis, as I tried to show above, stems primarily from problems associated with the interpretation of VP. As for the question of Porphyry’s error, it is connected with the contradiction between CChr and NOT and represents a separate problem that can generally be left aside when resolving the issue of two Origens. After all, this problem exists both under the assumption of dualism and under the assumption of unitarianism. If we assume that in VP Porphyry had in mind Origen the Christian, this will not explain to us why in CChr he, contrary to Eusebius, claims that Origen the Christian was a pagan from birth. Conversely, any solution to this problem does not affect the interpretation of VP. Whether we admit that Porphyry is mistaken and Origen the Christian was a Christian from birth, whether we admit that he is right and Origen the Christian was originally a pagan who only later converted to Christianity, all this in itself does not speak either in favor of the fact that VP means Origen the Christian. 6. Other evidence about Origen the Platonist In addition to Porphyry and Longinus, a number of ancient authors mention a certain Origen, whom dualists regard as a Platonist philosopher, different from a Christian thinker. The relevant evidence was collected and analyzed in the already mentioned monograph by K. Weber 97. My purpose in this work is not to analyze in detail all of these texts as such, but solely to discuss how the data they contain can influence the solution to the question of the two Origens. From this point of view, in my opinion, fragments 7, 10 and 12 are of greatest interest, which will be discussed in detail below. Some additional information can be extracted from other fragments. Firstly, in fr. 4 98 Eunapius calls a certain Origen, as well as Ameria (Amelia) and Aquilina, fellow students of Porphyry 99 and speaks of the “lack of grace” (τὸ ἀκύθηρον) in their writings. K. Weber saw in this characteristic an argument in favor of dualism, since the style of Origen the Christian in many cases testifies to a good command of the art of rhetoric. The fact that Origen the Platonist may not have attached much importance to the formal side of literary activity is indirectly confirmed by a number of fragments (fr. 9, 13, 14; cf. 11), where he, contrary to Longinus, insists that Plato in his writings did not strive for rhetorical embellishments for their own sake, but used them solely for the sake of adequate expression of his thoughts. 100 Secondly, in fr. 5 101 Photius describes the work of Hierocles “On Providence,” whose books contained an excursion into the history of ancient philosophy, mainly Platonic. In particular, the 6th book reached “as far as Ammonius of Alexandria, whose most famous listeners were Plotinus and Origen” (173a20–21: τῶν γνωρίμων οί ἐπιφανέστατοι Πλωτῖνός τε καὶ Ὠ ριγένης ). All these philosophers, according to Hierocles’ characterization, were supporters of the absolutely correct, from his point of view, thesis about the agreement of Plato and Aristotle. The 7th book was dedicated to representatives of the Platonic tradition, starting with Ammonius Saccas, i.e. Plotinus, Origen, Porphyry, Iamblichus and their followers up to Plutarch of Athens, the teacher of Hierocles himself. All of them, as Hierocles claims, are in complete agreement with Platonic philosophy in its pure form (173a39–40: συν ᾴ δουσι φιλοσοφί ᾳ). In fr. 6 102 the opinion of Hierocles is again cited that Ammonius was the first to demonstrate the essential unity of Platonic and Aristotelian teachings 103 and “transmitted philosophy, freed from disagreements, to all his listeners, especially the best of those who communicated with him - Plotinus, Origen and those who came after them” (461a36-39: ἀστασίαστον τὴν φιλοσοφίαν παραδέδωκε π ᾶ σι τοῖς αὐτοῦ P Thus, Origen, mentioned in these fragments, appears as a thinker who fits entirely into contemporary Platonic tradition. This general impression is, in my opinion, reinforced by all the exegetical fragments taken from Proclus, which as a whole show to what extent the Origen they speak of was immersed in discussing the small details and stylistic nuances of Plato's texts (cf. fr. 8-16). However, this kind of argument in favor of dualism is not decisive and is of a secondary nature. 7. Fr. 7: Theology of the Two Origens Fr. 7 contains a number of information about the theological doctrine of Origen the Platonist: “That the One is the beginning of everything and the first cause and that everything else is secondary in relation to the One, I think, has become obvious from what has been said above. But I am surprised at the other interpreters of Plato, at all those who allowed the kingdom of Mind (τὴν νοερὰν βασολείαν) among beings, and did not honor the inexpressible superiority and the being of the One that goes beyond the whole, and, of course, most of all - Origen, who was brought up in the same teachings as Plotinus μετασχόντα παιδείας ). Indeed, after all, he also stops at Mind and the very first being, and the One, [located] on the other side of every mind and every being, omits ?? ὄντος ἀφίησι ). And if [he had not mentioned Him] as surpassing all knowledge, every concept and every application [of thought], we would not say that he does not reach agreement with Plato, and sins against the nature of things. If [he does this] because [in his opinion] the One is completely devoid of existence and substance, and the best is the Mind, and because the first being and the first unity are one and the same (ὅ τι παντελῶς ἀνύπαρκτον τὸ ἕ ν καὶ ἀνυπόστατον καὶ ὅ τι τὸ ἄριστον ὁ νοῦς καὶ ὡ ς ταὐτόν ἐστι τὸ πρώτως ὂ ν καὶ τὸ πρώτως ἕ ν ), then neither we agree with him on this, nor Plato would accept [him] and count him among his followers. I think this teaching is too alien to Platonic philosophy and is full of peripatetic innovations” 104. This text suggests that the Origen mentioned in it spoke out against the concept of an absolutely transcendent principle beyond the mind and essence, such as Plotinus' One, and believed that at the top of the metaphysical hierarchy is the truly existing in the Platonic sense, which is also a rational essence, i.e. in Plotinian metaphysics corresponding to Mind. For brevity, we will conditionally designate the first (Plotinian) concept of origin as apophatic, and the second (Origenian) as essentialist. It is worth correlating with this fragment the title of one of the works of Origen the Platonist mentioned by Porphyry - “On the fact that only the King is the Creator” (Ὅ τι μόνος ποιητὴς ὁ βασιλεύς), although it remains questionable whether in French. 7 directly retells the contents of this treatise 105. It is very likely that the “King” that Origen spoke about in this case is a metaphorical designation of the first principle 106, going back to a popular saying in Neoplatonism from the so-called. Plato's 2nd letter: "... everything gravitates towards the king of everything (τὸν πάντων βασιλέα) and everything is done for his sake, he is the cause of everything beautiful. The second gravitates towards the second, and the third towards the third” 107. In this case, the main idea of ​​Origen's treatise was to attribute to the first principle, i.e. in this case - Umu (cf. νοερὰν βασιλείαν in fr. 7), demiurgic functions 108 - another point in which Origen’s theological views sharply diverged from the apophatic concept, since the absolute transcendence of the first principle or the One in Plotinian metaphysics excluded that it itself could appear in role of the demiurge. The mind, which performed this function according to Plotinus, was no longer the first principle, occupying only second place in the metaphysical hierarchy after the One (see: Plot. Enn. V 1.8 precisely in connection with the quotation from Plat. Epist. 2 (sp.). 312e). However, already Numenius 109 anticipated this Neoplatonic tendency, distinguishing between the supreme “idle” God (τὸν μὲν πρῶτον θεὸν ἀργόν), whom he also calls “king” (βασιλέα), and the demiurge ( τὸν δημιουργιὸν δὲ θεὸν), so that Origen's treatise could be directed either against Numenius or against Plotinus, but perhaps against both. This is, in general terms, the standard interpretation of Origen's theology from fr. 7, accepted by both dualists and unitarians 110 . From a Unitarian point of view, all this is quite compatible with the views Origen the Christian, in favor of which three arguments can be given. The first is that in some texts, Origen the Christian formulates precisely an essentialist concept, treating the Divinity as a rational substance, and not an absolutely transcendent principle on the other side of mind and essence. For example, in PA (I 1. 6. 10–14 Koetschau) God is characterized as mind: “Therefore, God should not be considered as a kind of body or [being] in a body, but as a simple intelligent nature (intellectualis natura simplex), not allowing in itself any addition (adjunctionis), so as not to believe that there is anything greater or lower in Him, but that He is in all respects a monad and, so to speak, a genad 111, the mind (mens) and the source from which all rational nature or mind springs" 112. The definition of God as an entity can be found, for example, in CJ. XX 18. 159, where Origen, again referring to the idea of ​​God as a corporeal nature, declares: “These are the opinions of people who in their dreams did not imagine an invisible and incorporeal nature, which is an essence in the proper sense (φύσιν ἀόρατον καὶ ἀσώματον ... ο ὖ σαν κυρίως οὐσίαν)". However, in these places, Origen's main task is to polemicize against the materialist interpretation of the Divinity as a corporeal nature. It is for this purpose that he insists in the most general sense that God is an intelligent substance or nature 113 . As a result, one may get the impression that Origen unambiguously adheres to the essentialist concept of origin, but a number of other places where, along with it, he directly mentions or discusses the apophatic concept 114 can significantly correct such an impression. First of all, there are cases when, simultaneously with essentialist Origen uses apophatic language, which goes back to the classic passage in this regard from Plat. Resp. 509b8–10 115, as if pointing to some possibility of thinking about God in an even more sublime way, but without making a final choice in its favor. An example here would be CJ. XIX 6. 37: “No one thinks of God and contemplates Him, and after that the truth, but first the truth, in order to thereby come to see the essence or the transcendent power and nature of God (ἐνιδεῖν τ ῇ οὐσί ᾳ ᾒ τ ῇ "; Wed CC. VII 38. 1–4: “But we, saying that the God of all is mind or that He is beyond mind and essence, simple, invisible and incorporeal λέγοντες ε ἶ ναι ἁ πλοῦν καὶ ἀόρατον καὶ ἀσώματον τὸν τῶν ὅ λων θεόν), let us declare that God is comprehended by none other than those who are created in the image of this mind.” In C.J. XIII 21. 123 Origen distinguishes three ideas about God: “Because many [people] made many statements about God and His essence, so that [1] some said that He was of a corporeal nature, subtle and similar to ether, [2] some that He was incorporeal (τινὰς δὲ ἀσωμάτου), and [3] others that He was beyond the essence dignity and strength ( καὶ ἄλλους ὑπερέκεινα οὐσίας πρεσβεί ᾳ καὶ δυνάμει ), we should see if we have starting points in the Divine Scriptures in order to say something about the essence of God." In the context of the problem that interests us, this place can be perceived as evidence that Origen distinguishes the apophatic idea of ​​the Divine [3] from the essentialist one, which corresponds in this case to the characterization of God as an incorporeal nature [2]. In the following text of CJ Origen does not dwell on this distinction in detail, but he does so in CC. VI 64. 14–28: “But God is not involved in the essence, for they rather participate in Him than He participates ( μ ᾶ λλον ἢ μετέχει), and those who have the “spirit of God” are involved in Him. And our Savior does not partake of righteousness, but the righteous partake of Him, who is righteousness. The question of essence is great and difficult to consider, especially if it is essence in the proper sense (ἡ κυρίως οὐσία), unchangeable (ἑστῶσα) and incorporeal: it is necessary to establish whether God (πότερον) is on the other side of essence with dignity and power He imparts essences to those whom He bestows according to His Word, and the Word Himself, or He Himself, is the essence (ἢ καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν οὐσία), but by nature is called invisible in the saying referring to the Savior: “Who is the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15), - where the word “invisible” means “incorporeal.” It should also be asked whether it should not be said that the essence of essences and the idea of ideas, and the beginning (οὐσίαν μὲν οὐσιῶν ... καὶ ἰδέαν ἰδεῶν καὶ ἀρχήν) is The only begotten [Son] and the Firstborn of every creation, and His Father and God are beyond all this θεόν)". All these statements of the Christian Origen, in my opinion, show that he never made a definite choice between apophaticism and essentialism and did not exclude the possibility of considering God the Father as a transcendental Deity located on the other side of mind and essence 116. But Origen from fr. 7 is characterized as a thinker who completely abandoned the apophatic interpretation of the origin ( ὄντος ἀφίησι), so we can state a noticeable discrepancy between fr. 7 and the position of Origen the Christian, which was much more complex and ambiguous 117. The other two possible arguments for Unitarians are rather of a secondary nature. One of them is that the attribution of demiurgic functions to the beginning, manifested in the thesis “only the King is the Creator,” is quite natural in the context of creationism, of which Origen the Christian was a supporter. Thus, this treatise could represent a kind of “philosophical defense of orthodoxy” 118. Of course, Origen adhered to the creationist doctrine, if we mean his belief that God created everything that exists from nothing 119. Therefore, speaking hypothetically, it cannot be denied that he could have devoted a separate treatise to this doctrine, although we have no positive evidence that he actually did so. But to admit that PB was such a treatise means to admit that Origen, a Christian, defended Christian positions in it too. In this case, all the arguments that Porfiry in VP mentions only “purely philosophical” and not Christian works of Origen (see paragraph 4) lose all meaning. The third argument, again related to the name PB, boils down to the fact that the Christian Origen also has the metaphor “King” applied to the Divine. Already K. Weber 120, despite his dualism, admitted this without giving specific examples, and P. Beatrice 121 refers in this regard to CJ. I 28. 191 sq., where Logos is called “King”, and Greg. Thaum. Or. Pan. 4.35; 6.82, where the “King of all” is the Creator. Content-wise, the second example looks more successful, since the expression “King of everything” is a more complete analogy to the wording from Plat. Epist. 2 (sp.). 312e, rather than simply “King,” and it is referred to God the Father rather than to the Logos. But still, we are not talking about the text of the Christian Origen himself, but about the work that came out of his school. Regarding P. Beatrice's reference to CJ. I 28. 191 sq., then, firstly, the very fact that it refers to the Logos, and not to God the Father, is quite significant in the subordinationist context, since from this point of view it cannot be said that the term “King” is applied here directly to the highest Deity. Secondly, it is quite obvious that in this case Origen the Christian uses a metaphor of Christian and biblical origin, appealing in particular to the text of Ps. 71, 1–2 (CJ. I 28.193). How this proves that he could well have written a treatise whose title included a similar metaphor borrowed from the Platonic tradition, I do not know. It seems to me that the only argument in favor of such a possibility would be the discovery in the word usage of the Christian Origen of precisely the Platonic metaphor “King” as applied to the original principle, and the Platonic origin of such a metaphor could be confidently stated if Origen used it, explicitly referring to some Platonic text. As far as I know, Origen actually quotes Plat once. Epist. 2 (sp.). 312e (CC. VI 18. 7–13 in a quotation from Celsus), but does not comment on this passage on its merits. As an alternative, one could assume that, by mentioning the “King” in the title of his treatise, the Christian Origen also used not Platonic, but biblical or Christian metaphors. But this would be an unnecessary argument in favor of the Christian character of this “purely philosophical” work and would not fit well with the standard interpretation of the theological views of Origen from the French outlined above. 7, which involves an appeal to Plat. Epist. 2 (sp.). 312e as its constituent element. 8. Fr. 10: relation to Homer Fr. 10 testifies to an unambiguously positive, if not enthusiastically biased, attitude of Origen the Platonist towards Homer. This may seem somewhat unexpected in the light of the well-known criticism of poets in general and Homer in particular in Plato's Republic, but, as K. Weber demonstrates, it fits perfectly into the general tendency towards the “harmonization” of Plato and Homer, which, with some exceptions, was characteristic of the Neoplatonic tradition and was motivated by the desire of the Neoplatonists to discover an anticipation of the “true” Platonic philosophy, as they understood it, in the earliest stages of the development of Greek culture 122. The specific reason for the manifestation of this tendency in this case is the interpretation of Plat. Tim. 19d. In this place, Plato’s Socrates, having previously expressed a desire to hear a description of how citizens of a perfect state will wage war, says: “... I admit that I myself am not able to utter a worthy word of praise to men and the state (τούς ἄνδρας καὶ τὴν πόλιν ἱκανῶς ἐγκωμιάσαι ). And in my case there is nothing surprising here. But I came to the same opinion regarding poets, both those who lived long ago and those of today ( καὶ περὶ τῶν νῦν ὄντων ποιητῶν ). It’s not that I don’t respect the race of poets, but it’s clear to everyone that a tribe of imitators will most easily and best reproduce what they were raised in, and what turns out to be outside the adopted way of life for everyone (ἐκτὸς τῆς τροφῆς) is difficult to reproduce well in deeds, and even more difficult in speeches.” Text fr. 10, describing Origen's reaction to this passage, is as follows: “This statement became a matter of difficulty for Longinus and Origen: did [Socrates] include Homer among the poets [he mentioned], saying “I have come to the same opinion” not only about “present” - there is nothing unusual in that - but also about “long-lived” poets? So, says Porphyry, Origen, shouting, blushing and sweating, spent three whole days, repeating that this question and this difficulty are very great, and trying with all his might to show that [poetic] imitation in Homer is sufficient for [depicting] virtuous actions. Who, they say, is more eloquent (μεγαλοφωνότερος) than Homer, who, even introducing the gods into battles and battles, does not fail in imitation, but with a sublime style (ὑψηλολογούμενος) achieves conformity with nature [described by him] subject? This is his objection. And Porphyry in response says that Homer is able to endow the passions with greatness and sublimity and give impressive weight to [military] deeds ( πράξεις), but is not able to convey the dispassion of reason and active philosophical life" 123. Unitarianism suggests that these data are quite compatible with what we know about Origen the Christian, 124 since the SS, the only Origen text that mentions Homer, contains several positive characteristics of this author. Indeed, in the SS. IV 91. 8 Homer is characterized as an “amazing” or “admirable” poet (ὁ ἐν ποιήσει θαυμαστὸς Ὅ μηρος), and in the SS. VII 6. 27–28 - as “the best of poets” (ὁ τῶν ποιητῶν ἄριστος Ὅ μηρος), moreover, sharing some correct, from the point of view of Origen the Christian, demonological concepts, i.e. who recognized the existence of evil demons (SS. VII 6. 37: πονηρούς τινας δαίμονας) 126. A positive assessment can also be considered the mention that “Homer evokes admiration among the majority, preserving the characters of the heroes as he originally presented them” (SS. VII 36. 30–31: Ὅ μηρος μὲν ἐν πολλοῖς θαυμάζεται , τηρήσας τὰ τῶν ἡρώων πρόωπα , ὁποῖα αὐτὰ ὑπέθετο ἀπ ᾽ ἀρχῆς ). Although in this case we are talking more about stating a widespread reaction to Homer’s work, Origen himself does not dispute it. However, in my opinion, the cited passages from the SS do not prove anything, since they relate exclusively to the formal assessment of Homer as a writer 127. If the Christian Origen did not question his widely accepted status as the greatest poet in Greek literature and paid tribute to the literary merits of his works, this is not enough to identify him with the zealous apologist of Homer depicted in Fr. 10 128. In the end, Plato, who considered it necessary to ban the works of Homer in an ideal state, simultaneously recognized him as the first of "tragic poets" (Plat. Resp. 607ä Ὅ μηρον ποιητικώτατον ε ἶ ναι καὶ πρῶτον τῶν τραγ ῳ δοποιῶν; cf.: Ibid. 595c; 598d) and did not at all deny the aesthetic merits of his poems (Ibid. 387b; 607d). The relative approval of certain views or doctrines that the Christian Origen found in Homer, such as the recognition of the existence of evil demons, etc. 129, also does not represent anything out of the ordinary and fits perfectly into the “borrowing theory” 130, standard for Christian authors of that era. Even more significant is that in the text of the SS one can also find critical statements about Homer. As a rule, dualists 131 refer primarily to the SS. IV 36. 30–32: “Plato quite rightly expels Homer and those who write such poems from his state as corrupting the youth” (Εὐλόγως ‹ ο ὖ ν › ἐκβάλλει τῆς ἑαυτοῦ πολιτείας Πλάτων ὡ ς ἐπιτρίβοντας τούς νέους τὸν Ὅ μηρον καὶ τούς τοιαῦτα γράφοντας ποιήματα ). The counter-argument of the Unitarians 132 boils down to the fact that for a number of philological reasons (inconsistency with the context, the supposedly unusual meaning of the verb ἐπιτρίβω for Origen, etc.) this phrase can be considered as a later insertion 133 . Even if we agree with this assumption, the negative position expressed in this phrase appears in two more places in the SS, although not in such an overt form. In SS. IV 50 Origen, characterizing pagan myths as extremely impious (31: ἀσεβέστατα), declares: “Therefore Plato deserves gratitude for expelling 134 from his state such myths and similar poems” (34–35: Διόπερ οὐκ ἀχαρίστως ὁ Πλάτων ἐκβάλλει τῆς ἑαυτοῦ πολιτείας τούς τοιουσδὶ μύθους καὶ τὰ τοιαδὶ ποιήματα ). I see no reason to think that this general approval of Plato’s proposed ban on wicked and immoral myths and poems about gods in a perfect state may not extend to Homer, who was in this regard a constant object of Plato’s criticism 135 . SS. VII 54. 12–18 confirms this impression: “I wonder if Celsus now praises Orpheus out of a desire to argue with us and in order to humiliate Jesus, and, if he had read his wicked myths about the gods, would he not have rejected these poems as worthy of expulsion from a well-ordered state even more than Homer’s (ὡ ς μ ᾶ λλον καὶ τῶν Ὁ μήρου ἄξια ἐκβάλλεσθαι τῆς καλῆς πολιτείας ). After all, Orpheus told much worse things about the so-called gods than Homer ( θεῶν Ὀρφεύς ἢ Ὅ μηρος)". From here, it seems to me, it follows quite obviously that the Homeric poems, in Origen’s opinion, really deserve to be expelled from the ideal state for the immoral myths they contain, although to a lesser extent than the works of Orpheus. Thus, if Origen from fr. 10 acts as an ardent defender of Homer even against the rather modest criticisms only implicitly implied in Plat. Tim. 19d, and, in particular, positively assesses the moral pathos of Homer's poems in relation to the depiction of valiant deeds ( ἐστιν ἡ παρ ᾽ Ὁ μήρ ῳ μίμησις ) 136, then Origen the Christian, as can be seen from the above quotes, treated Homer in a Platonic way, i.e. recognized his greatness as a poet, but condemned the immorality of the myths he told. The following passage from the SS makes clear that for Origen the Christian, the positive moral role of early Greek poetry and philosophy, including Homer, is highly problematic, especially when compared with the influence of the Christian religion: “We must understand who, according to the desires of Celsus, we must follow, so as not to be left without ancient teachers and holy men. He refers us to the divinely inspired, as he puts it, poets, sages and philosophers, without naming their names, and, promising to indicate the leaders, he speaks vaguely: “divinely inspired poets, sages and philosophers.” If he named them all by name, then it would seem correct to us to object that, in order to mislead us, he gives us as leaders those who are blind to the truth, or, if not completely blind, then, in any case, are mistaken regarding many true teachings. For if he desires that the divinely inspired poet be Orpheus, or Parmenides, or Empedocles, or even Homer himself, or Hesiod, then let him who wishes to show how those who use such guides better carry out their course and benefit in the affairs of this life than those who, for the sake of instruction from Jesus Christ, abandoned all images and statues, and even every Jewish superstition, and through the Word of God turned to one God, the Father of the Word” (SS. VII 41. 1–18). These words, in my opinion, leave no doubt that Origen the Christian was very far from that reckless enthusiasm for Homer, whose spirit reigns in France. 10. It is difficult for me to understand why Origen the Christian would even defend Homer, let alone do it with such zeal as described in Fr. 10 137. It is also worth noting that, according to Origen from fr. 10, the pagan gods are a subject about which the poet must speak “eloquently” (μεγαλοφωνότερος, ὑψηλολογούμενος), and he praises Homer precisely because he manages to find an appropriate form for such sublime content. This position is quite natural for a pagan, but rather strange for the Christian Origen, who saw the pagan gods as simply evil demons (cf. note 126). Fr. 12 contains some information about the demonology of Origen the Platonist. The fact that one of Origen's two treatises, according to VP. 3 and 20, was dedicated specifically to demons, speaks of the importance of this topic for him, but information from fr. 12 is too meager to judge his demonological concept as a whole. By itself fr. 12 apparently goes back not to the treatise “On Demons”, but to data preserved in the Neoplatonic tradition on how Origen the Platonist interpreted some passages from Plato’s “Timaeus” (cf. note 105). In this case, the subject of discussion is the myth of the war between the Athenians and the inhabitants of Atlantis (Plat. Tim. 23d-25d). In his “Commentary on Timaeus,” from which the fr. 12, Proclus, listing a number of allegorical interpretations of this myth by various Platonists, in particular mentions that some Platonists, for example Amelius, associated this myth with the planets and fixed stars, “others - with the opposition of certain demons, for some of them are better, and others are worse; some have superiority in numbers, others in strength; some gain the upper hand, while others lose, as Origen believed ( ἀμεινόνων, τῶν δὲ χειρόνων, καὶ τῶν μὲν πλήθει, τῶν δὲ δυνάμει κρειττόνων, καὶ τῶν μὲν κρατούντων, τῶν δὲ κρατουμένων,ὥ σπερ Ὠ ριγέης ὑπέλαβεν); still others - with discord between some more worthy souls, students of Athena, and other [souls] who participated in the creation and are close to the god who oversees the creation. The defender of this interpretation is Numenius. And the fourth, combining, as they think, the opinions of Origen and Numenius, said that [we are talking about] the opposition of souls and demons, since demons draw [souls] down, and [themselves] souls strive upward. They understand “demon” in three ways. They say that there is a genus of divine demons, [a genus of] demons “by position” (κατὰ σχέσιν), which consists of individual souls who have reached a demonic destiny, and another [kind of demons] that is bad and destroys souls (τὸ δὲ πονηρὸν ἄλλο καὶ λυμαντικὸν τῶν ψυχῶν ). It is these last demons who initiate such a war with souls during their descent into the world of formation (ἐν τ ῇ εἰς τὴν υένεσιν καθόδ ῳ). And what the ancient theologians attributed to Osiris and Typhon or Dionysus and the Titans, this, they say, Plato, out of piety, applies to the Athenians and the inhabitants of Atlantis. He conveys that before the descent into solid bodies [there is] a confrontation between souls and material demons, which he placed in the west. After all, the West, as the Egyptians said, is a place of harmful demons. This is the opinion of the philosopher Porphyry: it would be surprising if he asserted something different from the legend of Numenius” 138. According to this text, Origen the Platonist recognized the existence of both good and bad demons (τῶν μὲν ἀμεινόνων, τῶν δὲ χειρόνων) 139, i.e. adhered in this regard to a position very common in Platonism 140. It is this circumstance that is the most obvious argument against the possibility of identifying Origen from fr. 12 with Origen the Christian. Of course, the demonological ideas of the latter contained a number of specific and not entirely “orthodox” features, which at the same time may seem typologically close to certain aspects of Platonic demonology. This concerns, first of all, the idea of ​​the possibility of the transition of intelligent creatures, including demons, from one rank of the spiritual hierarchy to another 141. But what is completely Christian and at the same time a fundamentally important feature of the demonology of Origen the Christian is his conviction that demons, while they are demons, can only be evil, and there are no “good” demons. In CC, Origen repeatedly insists on this, polemicizing with the Platonic ideas of Celsus: “Celsus, as if he had not read our Holy Scriptures, answers himself, as if on our behalf, that, according to us, there is some other kind of angels descending from God to do good to people, and argues that, apparently, we would call them demons. He does not see that the name “demons” is neither neutral, like “men,” among whom there are some decent and some bad, nor positive, like [the name] “gods,” applied not to evil demons, or to statues, or to animals, but by those who have recognized the inherent nature of the Divine - to truly more divine and blessed [beings]. And the name “demons” is always applied to evil forces [located] outside the grosser body ( wandering, disturbing people and drawing [them] from God and the super-heavenly [beings] to things here" (CC. V 5. 17–31); “So, since some people are worthy, and others are bad, why they say that the first are “God’s”, and the second belong to the devil, but angels are “God”, and some belong to the evil one, demons are not [designated] in two ways, for it is definitely stated about all of them that they are bad (δαίμονες δὲ therefore we will say that the statement of Celsus is false, who declared: “If there are some demons, then it is obvious that they are God’s.” Or let him who wishes prove that the distinction concerning [good and bad] men and angels is not a sound doctrine, or that [something] similar can be reasonably proved in relation to demons” (CC. VIII 25. 15-23) 142 . One can, of course, say that the discrepancy between Christian and Platonic demonology that appears here does not go beyond the scope of a purely terminological dispute: both Christians and Platonists accepted the existence of good spiritual beings who are intermediaries between God and people, as well as the cosmos as a whole. At the same time, Christians insisted that such creatures should be called not “demons”, but “angels” 143, while Platonists considered it possible to call them “demons”, although they could also use the term “angels” 144. However, for our topic it is essential that Origen the Christian so stubbornly insists on Christian usage, which presupposes the existence of only bad demons, while Origen from the French. 12 recognizes not only bad demons, but also good ones 145. The main results of this work can be formulated in the form of the following theses: 1) A comparison of the chronological data concerning Origen the Christian and Origen from the VP does not completely exclude the possibility of the Unitarian hypothesis; 2) But the data on the number of Origen’s works from VP allow this to be done, since they do not find any satisfactory explanation in the context of Unitarianism; 3) Dualism as a strategy for interpreting VP is preferable to unitarism (even in the case of chronological data from paragraph 1), since, unlike the latter, it is not a hypothesis, the very possibility of which depends on the assumption of many other unverifiable hypotheses; 4) The point of view of some dualists, according to which in CChr Porphyry confused Origen the Christian with Origen the Platonist, is neither a necessary element nor a necessary prerequisite for dualism as such; 5) Additional evidence in favor of dualism can be extracted from a number of fragments of Origen the Platonist, collected in the edition of Karl Weber. Lukomsky 2001 – Prokl. Platonic theology / Transl. L. Yu. Lukomsky. St. Petersburg, 2001. Savrey 2006 – Savrey V. Ya. The Alexandrian school in the history of philosophical and theological thought. M., 2006. Tsurkan 2002 – Tsurkan A. V. Origen: the problem of interaction between religion and philosophy. Novosibirsk, 2002. Aujoulat 1986 – Aujoulat N. Le Neo-Platonisme Alexandrin: Hierocles d’Alexandrië Filiations intellectuelles et spirituelles d’un neo-platonicien du V siècle. Leiden, 1986. Baltes 1997 – Baltes M. Is the Idea of ​​the Good in Plato’s Republic beyond being? // Studies in Plato and the Platonic Tradition. Essays Presented to J. Whittaker / Ed. M. Joyal. Aldershot, 1997, pp. 3–23. Bardenhewer 1908 – Bardenhewer O. Patrology: the Lives and Works of the Fathers of the Church. Freiburg im Breisgau; St. Louis, 1908. Barnes 1970 – Barnes T. D. Origen, Aquila and Eusebius // Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. Vol. 74. 1970. P. 313–316. Barnes 1973 – Barnes T. D. Porphyry Against the Christians: Date and the Attribution of Fragments // JThS. Vol. 24. 1973. P. 424–442. Barnes 1984 – Barnes T. D. Some Inconsistencies in Eusebius // JThS. Vol. 35. 1984. P. 470–475. Beatrice 1992 – Beatrice P. F. Porphyry’s Judgment on Origen // Origeniana Quinta/Ed. R. J. Daly. Leuven, 1992, pp. 351–367. Berchman 1992 – Berchman R. M. Origen on The Categories: A Study in Later Platonic First Principles // Origeniana Quinta / Ed. R. J. Daly. Leuven, 1992, pp. 231–252. Bidez 1913 – Bidez J. Vie de Porphyre, le philosophe néo-platonicien. Gand; Lpz., 1913. Bienert 1978 – Bienert W. A. Dionysius von Alexandrien. Zur Frage des Origenismus im dritten Jahrhundert. B., 1978. Bienert 1997 – Bienert W. A. Origenes im Werk des Epiphanius von Salamis // StPatr.Vol. 32.1997.P.239–257. Böhm 2002 – Böhm T. Origenes – Theologe und (Neu-)Platoniker. Oder: Wem soll man misstrauen – Eusebius oder Porphyrius? // Adamantius. Vol. 8. 2002. P. 7–23. Bruns 1977 – Bruns J. E. The “Agreement of Moses and Jesus” in the “Demonstratio Evangelica” of Eusebius // VC. Vol. 31. 1977. P. 117–125. Cadiou 1935 – CadiouR. Lajeunesse d'Origène. Histoire de l'école d'Alexandrie au début du III siècle.P., 1935. Carriker 2003 – Carriker A. J. The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea. Leiden; Boston, 2003. Castagno 2004 – La biografia di Origene fra storia e agiografia. Atti del VI Convegno di Studi del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la Tradizione Alessandrina / A cura di Adele Monaci Castagno. Verucchio, 2004. (Biblioteca di Adamantius;1a). Chadwick 1953 – Origen. Contra Celsum / Transl. with Intr. and Notes by H. Chadwick.Camb.,1953. Corsini 1968 – Commento al Vangelo di Giovanni di Origene / A cura di E. Corsini. Torino, 1968. Cox 1983 – Cox P. Biography in Late Antiquity: A Quest for the Holy Man. Berkeley, 1983. Crouzel 1956 – Crouzel H. Origène et Plotin, élèves d’Ammonius Saccas //Bulletinde Littérature Ecclésiastique. Vol. 31. 1956. P. 193–214. Crouzel 1958 – Crouzel H. Notes critiques sur Origène (I) // Bulletin de Littérature Ecclé-siastique. Vol.59.1958. P.3–7. Crouzel 1985 – Crouzel H. Origène. P., 1985. Crouzel 1991 – Crouzel H. Origène et Plotine. P., 1991. Daniélou 1948 – Daniélou J. Origin. P., 1948. Daniélou 1961 – Daniélou J. Message évangélique et culture hellénistique aux II-e et III-e siècles. Tournai, 1961. Dechow 1988 – Dechow J.F. Dogma and Mysticism in Early Christianity. Epiphanius of Cyprus and the Legacy of Origen. Mercer UP, 1988. Dodds 1960 – Dodds E. R. Numenius and Ammonius // Les Sources de Plotin (Entretiens sur l’antiquite classique V; Fondation Hardt). Genève, 1960. P. 1–32. Dorival 1992 – Dorival G. L’apport d’Origène pour la connaissance de la philosophie grecque // Origeniana Quinta / Ed. R. J. Daly. Leuven, 1992, pp. 189–216. Dörrie 1976 – Dörrie H . Platonica minora. Munich, 1976. Edwards 1993 – Edwards M.J. Ammonius, Teacher of Origen // Journal of Ecclesiastical History. Vol. 44. 1993. P. 169–182. Edwards 2002 – Edwards M.J. Origen Against Plato. Ashgate, 2002. Fedou 2003 – Fedou M. La référence à Homère chez Clément d’Alexandrie et Origène // Origeniana Octava. Vol. 1/Ed. L. Perrone. Leuven, 2003, pp. 377–384. Ferber 2003 – Ferber R. L’idea del bene è o non è trascendente? Ancora su epekeina tês ousias // Platone e la tradizione platonica. Studi di filosofía antica / A cura di M. Bonazzi, F. Trabattoni. Milano, 2003, pp. 127–149. Festugière 1966 – Proclus. Commentaire sur le Timee. Vol. 1/Trad. et notes par A. J. Festugière. P., 1966. Goulet 1977 – Goulet R. Porphyre, Ammonius, les deux Origènes et les autres... //RHPhR. Vol. 57. 1977. P.471–496. Grant 1971 – Grant R. M. Early Alexandrian Christianity // Church History. Vol. 40.1971. P. 133–144. Grant 1972 – Grant R. M. The Stromateis of Origen // Epektasis. Melanges offers à J. Daniélou / Ed. J. Fontaine, Ch. Kannengiesser. P., 1972. P. 285–292. Grant 1980 – Grant R. M. Eusebius as Church Historian. Oxf., 1980. Hadot 1968 – Hadot P. Porphyre et Victorinus. 2 Vols. P., 1968. Hadot 1978 – Hadot I. Le probleme du neoplatonisme Alexandrin: Hierocles et Simplicius. P., 1978. Hadot 2004 – Hadot I. Studies on the Neoplatonist Hierocles / Transl. from the French by M. Chase. Philadelphia, 2004. Hanson 1954 – Hanson R.P.C. Origen's Doctrine of Tradition. L., 1954. Harnack 1904 – von Harnack A. Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius. Bd.2. Lpz., 1904. Hornschuh 1960 – Hornschuh M . Das Leben des Origenes und die Entstehung der alexandrinischen Schule // Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte. Bd. 71. 1960. S. 1–25,193–214. Junod 2004 – Junod E. L’Apologie pour Origène de Pamphile et Eusèbe et les devéloppements sur Origène dans le livre VI de l’Histoire ecclésiastique // Castagno 2004. P. 183–200. Kettler 1972 – Kettler F. H. War Origenes Schüler des Ammonios Sakkas? // Epektasis. Melanges offers à J. Daniélou / Ed. J. Fontaine, Ch. Kannengiesser. P., 1972.P.327–334. Kettler 1977 – Kettler F. H. Origenes, Ammonios Sakkas und Porphyrios // Kerygma und Logos. Festschrift C. Andresen / Hrsg. v. A. M. Ritter. Göttingen, 1979.S.322–328. Kobusch 1976 – Kobusch T. Studien zur Philosophie des Hierocles von Alexandria. Untersuchungen zum christlichen Neuplatonismus. Munich, 1976. Koch 1932 – Koch H. Paideusis und Pronoiä Studien über Origenes und sein Verhältniss zum Platonismus. B.; Lpz., 1932. Lamberton 1989 – Lamberton R. Homer the Theologian: Neoplatonist Allegorical Reading and the Growth of the Epic Tradition. Berkeley, 1989. Langerbeck 1957 – Langerbeck H. The Philosophy of Ammonius Saccas // The Journal of Hellenic Studies. Vol. 77. 1957. P. 67–74. Louth 1990 – Louth A. The Date of Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica // JThS. Vol. 41.1990. P.111–123. Mikoda 1992 – Mikoda T. A Comparison of the Demonologies of Origen and Plutarch // Origeniana Quinta / Ed. by R. J. Daly. Leuven, 1992, pp. 326–332. Nautin 1977 – Nautin P. Origène savie et sonoeuvre. P., 1977. Norelli 2004 – Norelli E. Il VI Libro dell'Historia Ecclesiasticä appunti di storia della redazione. Il caso dell'infanzia e dell'adolescenza di Origene // Castagno. 2004. P.147–174. Praechter 1912 – Praechter K . Christlich-neuplatonische Beziehungen // BZ. Bd. 21.1912. P.1–27. Ridings 1995 – Ridings D. The Attic Moses: The Dependency Theme in Some Early Christian Writers. Goteborg, 1995. Ressa 2000 – Origene. Contro Celso / A cura di P. Ressa. Brescia, 2000. Schibli 2002 – Schibli H. S. Hierocles of Alexandria. Oxf., 2002. Schott 2005 – Schott J. M. Porphyry on Christians and Others: “Barbarian Wisdom”, Identity Politics and Anti-Christian Polemics on the Eve of the Great Persecution // Journal of early Christian Studies. Vol. 13. 2005. P. 277–314. Schroeder 1987 – Schroeder F. M. Ammonius Saccas // ANRW. II. 36, 1. 1987. S.493–526. Schwyzer 1983 – Schwyzer H. R. Ammonios Sakkas, der Lehrer Plotins. Opladen, 1983. Schwyzer 1987 – Schwyzer H. R. Proklos über den Platoniker Origenes // Proclus et son influence / Ed. G. Boss, G. Seel. Neuchâtel, 1987, pp. 44–59. Stead 1977 – Stead G. C. Divine substance. Oxf., 1977. Theiler 1966 – Theiler W. Ammonios, der Lehrer des Origenes // Forschungen zum Neu-platonismus. B., 1966. S.1–45. Weber 1962 – Weber K. O. Origenes der Neuplatoniker. Münch., 1962. Whittaker 1969 – Whittaker J. Ἐπέκεινα νοῦ καὶ οὐσίας // VC. Vol. 23. 1969. P. 91–104. Wifstrand 1942 – Wifstrand A. Die wahre Lehre des Kelsos // Bulletin de la société royale des lettres de Lund. 1941–42/5. S. 391–431. 1. Publications, dictionaries and reference books ANRW – Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt / Hrsg. v. H. Temporini, W. Haase. B.; N. Y., 1972-. DPhA – Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques / Sous la direction de R. Goulet. P., 1989-. FGrH – Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker / Hrsg. v. F. Jacoby u.a. B., 1923-. RE – Paulys Real-Enzyklopädie der classichen Altertimswissenschaft / Hrsg. v. G. Wissowa u.a. Stuttgart-Münch., 1894–1973. SHA – Scriptores Historiae Augustae / Ed. E. Hohl. Lpz., 1955. V.P. I-II – Porphyre. La Vie de Plotin. Vol. I-II/Ed. L. Brisson, M.-O. Goulet-Cazé, R. Goulet, D. O'Brien etc. P., 1982–1992. Epiph. Pan. – Epiphanius. Panarion (Adversus haereses). Eus. HE – Eusebius. Historia ecclesiastica. Eus. Praep. Ev. –Eusebius. Praeparatio evangelica. Eunap. Vitae Sophist. – Eunapius. Vitae Sophistarum. Genn. Devir. ill. – Gennadius massiliensis. De viris illustribus. Greg. Thaum. (sp.) Or. Pan. – Gregorius Thaumaturgus. In Origenes oratio panegyrica. Hier. Apol. Ruf. – Hieronymus. Apologia contra Rufinum. Hier. Devir. ill. – Hieronymus. De viris illustribus. Hier. Epist. – Hieronymus. Epistolae. Hom. Il. – Homerus. Ilias. Iambl. De Myst. – Iamblichus. De mys teriis. Just. 1 Apol. – Justinus Martyr. Apologia prima. Just. Dial. – Justinus Martyr. "Conversation with Tryphon the Jew". Phot. Bibl. –Photius. Bibliotheca. Phot. Interrog. – Photius. Interrogationes decem cum totidem responsionibus. 2. Names of authors and titles of their works Alex. Lyc. De Placit. Manich. – Alexander Lycopolitanus. Tractatus de placitis Manichaeorum. Alex. Aphr. In Met. – Alexander Aphrodisiensis. In Aristotelis metaphysica commentaria. Amm. Marc. Res Gestae – Ammianus Marcellinus. Res Gestae. Apul. Apol. – Apuleius. Apologia. Athen. Suppl. – Athenagoras. Legatio sive Supplicatio pro Christianis. Clem. Alex. Protr. – Clemens Alexandrinus. Protrepticus. Clem. Alex. Str. – Clemens Alexandrinus. Stromata. Epiph. De mens. et pond. – Epiphanius. De mensuris et ponderibus. Plat. Epist. – Plato. Epistulae. Plat. Leg. – Plato. Leges. Plat. Resp. – Plato. Republica. Plat. Tim. – Plato. Timaeus. Plot Enn. – Plotinus. Enneades. Porph. CChr. – Porphyrius. Contra Christianos. Porph. Hist. Phil. – Porphyrius. Historia philosophiae. Porph. In Parm. – Porphyrius. In Platonis Parmenidem commentaria. Porph. In Tim. – Porphyrius. In Platonis Timaeum commentaria. Porph. VP – Porphyrius. Vita Plotini. Procl. In Parm. – Proclus. In Platonis Parmenidem commentaria. Procl. In Tim. – Proclus. In Platonis Timaeum commentaria. Procl. Theol. Plat. – Proclus. Theologia Platonica. Ps.-Dion. De Div. No. – Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita. De divinis nominibus. Syr. In Met. – Syrianus. In Aristotelis metaphysica commentaria. Theod. Graec. Aff. Cur. – Theodoretus Cyrrhensis. Graecarum affectionum curatio. CJ – Commentarii in evangelium Joannis. Exp. Prov. – Expositio in Proverbia. PA – P ερὶ ​​ἀρχῶν; De principiis. PE – P ερὶ ​​εὐχῆς ; De oratione. Sel. Ps. – Selecta in Psalmos. PG. 20. Col. 563–564, n. 17. At least in the early period of his activity (Crouzel 1956), since in his review book on Origen (Crouzel 1985. P. 31) he refrains from making a definite judgment on this matter. The work of R. P. Hanson and F. Kettler is cited later in the article. See: Eus. HE. VI 19. 4–8. Translations here and below are mine, unless otherwise stated. – A.S. See: Schroeder 1987. S. 500, 502. For example, from the point of view of R. Cadiou, to admit a second Origen means “to introduce a new name into history without reason” (Cadiou 1935. P. 258: ajouter gratuitement un nom nouveau à l’histoire). The nickname “Sakkas” itself does not appear in either Porphyry or Eusebius, and is reliably recorded in sources only from the 5th century. first in Theodoret, and then in Suda (Theod. Graec. Aff. Cur. 6.60; Suda. 182, s.v. Ὠ ριγένης and 1640, s.v. Ἀμμώνιος). Already in the 4th century. it occurs in Ammianus Marcellinus (Amm. Marc. Res Gestae. XXII 16. 16), but this may be the result of interpolation (Dörrie 1976. pp. 350–351; Schwyzer 1983. pp. 81–82). See also: Goulet // DPhA. Vol. 1. P. 168, where the hypothesis is expressed that Theodoret attributed this nickname to Ammonius by mistake. For more details see: Schwyzer 1983. pp. 81–85. Contrary to the opinion of some researchers. Compare, for example: Daniélou 1948. P. 88–89; Crouzel 1956, pp. 194–195; Theiler 1966. S. 1; Dörrie 1976. S. 353. In relatively recent literature, Böhm 2002. S. 15–18 especially emphasizes the identity of the Ammonians as an argument in favor of the identity of the Origens Theiler 1966; Schroeder 1987; Tsurkan 2002. Dörrie 1976; Edwards 1993. Goulet 1977; Dorival 1992. The problem of the two Ammonius arises for the following reason: in CChr, Porphyry claims that Origen's Christian teacher Ammonius converted from Christianity to paganism. Eusebius, on the contrary, declares that this Ammonius always remained a Christian and wrote the work “On the Agreement of Moses with Jesus” and others (HE. VI 19.10; about this work, see: Brun s 1977). Many researchers believe that Porphyry meant Ammonius Saccas, and Eusebius mistakenly decided that he was talking about some Christian writer Ammonius known to him (for example, Hornschuh 1960. S. 14; Goulet 1977. P. 481–482; cf. Dörrie 1976. S. 352–354, who suggests that it was from this Ammonius that Origen the Christian actually studied, and Porphyry mistakenly identified him with Ammonius Saccas). Presumably this Christian writer could be either Bishop Ammonius of Thmuis, or a certain Ammonius, who compiled a set of four Gospels (Goulet 1977. P. 481, n. 27; Schwyzer 1983. S. 20, Anm. 17). The alternative is to attribute Eusebius's data to Ammonius Saccas himself, turning him into a Christian (Langerbeck 1957, pp. 68–69; Weber 1962, pp. 36–38). Researchers who admit that in CChr Porphyry confused the two Origens and therefore attributed a pagan upbringing to Origen the Christian (see paragraph 5), also consider the information reported by Porphyry about the apprenticeship of the Christian Origen with Ammonius Saccas as the result of this error (Dörrie 1976. P. 354; Goulet 1977. P. 495 ; Dorival 1992. P. 201–202; Vol. 5. P. 812–813). But Origen the Christian himself mentions that he visited a certain teacher of philosophy, without naming him (in an autobiographical letter quoted in HE. VI 19.13), and in this case this teacher should not be identified with Ammonius Saccas, i.e. he could be called anything. G. R. Schwyzer, without sharing this hypothesis about Porphyry’s error, also speaks out against identifying the teacher of philosophy from Origen’s letter with Ammonius Saccas, while admitting that Origen could have been a listener of the latter, although not a close student (Schwyzer 1983. S. 32–39; cf.: Schroeder 1987. S. 504–508). Finally, it can be assumed that Porphyry himself does not mean Ammonius Saccas by the Christian teacher Origen. Edwards 1993 suggests Ammonius the Peripatetic, mentioned in the quotation from Longinus in VP, for this role. 20. 49–52. See generally: VP. II. P. 218. Edwards 2002. P. 55 even speaks of “the obvious tenor of the sycophantic title” in this regard. This hypothesis about the possible content of Origen’s treatise is found already in A. de Valois (PG. 20. Col. 564d). Kettler 1977. S. 324. On the dating of the accession of Gallienus cf.: Wickert // RE. HBd. 25. Col. 352–353; Goulet // VP I. P. 196. Nautin 1977. P. 198, n. 27; also Edwards 2002. P. 55, which for some reason dates the beginning of Gallienus’ independent rule to 263 Weber 1962. S. 18; Böhm 2002. S. 19. Compare: Hanson 1954. P. 8, n. 3. D. O’Brien’s hypothesis (O’Brien // VP. II. P. 452) boils down to the fact that in the quotation from Longinus’s treatise “On the Purpose” given by Porphyry, from two works of Origen, named by Porphyry himself, only “On Demons” is mentioned, i.e. Longinus was not aware of the existence of the PB when he wrote On the Purpose, and this is because the PB had probably simply not been published yet. Since "On the Purpose" can be dated somewhere around 265-268. (cf.: Goulet-Cazé // VP. I. P. 273), the most plausible situation seems to be the situation in which Longinus wrote “On the Goal” c. 265, and PB was written after this, but before the end of Gallienus' reign. It seems to me that R. Goulet’s objection is quite justified that the context in which Longinus mentions “On Demons” does not imply that he would necessarily have mentioned the 2nd treatise of Origen, even if he knew about it (Goulet // VP. II. P. 461–463; cf.: Weber 1962. S. 43, Anm. 1). Schwyzer 1983. S. 19 and 1987. S. 53–54 considers both options - both that Longinus did not know about PB, and that he simply did not consider it necessary to mention it - as possible. None of the Unitarians, as far as I know, tries to use for their own purposes the implausible version of Epiphanius, according to which Origen the Christian lived in Tire for another 28 years after the persecution of Decius (Epiph. De mens. et pond. 507-518 Moutsoulas; cf.: Idem. Pan. 64. 3. 3, which simply states that Origen lived in Tire for 28 years, but it is not specified exactly when). On Epiphanius' error, see Nautin 1977, pp. 212–213; Dechow 1988. P. 126. For criticism of Epiphanius’s version of Origen’s biography, see: Dechow 1988. P. 125–138; Bienert 1997. R. Cadiou, solely to defend the correctness of Unitarianism, suggested reading A ίλιάνου instead of G αλιήνου, meaning Roscius Aelian, consul of 223 (Cadiou 1935. P. 259, n. 3), but 1) this has no basis in the manuscript tradition (Schroeder 1987. S. 497; Edwards 2002. P. 55); 2) this means that the writing of PB took place earlier than the conclusion of the contract from VP. 3, which contradicts the most natural interpretation of this text (cf. Weber 1962. S. 24, Anm. 4). Phot. Bibl. 118.92b14–19. Eus. HE. VI 39.5; cf.: Hier. Devir. ill., 54; Phot. Bibl. 118.92b22–24. Nautin 1977. P. 27. There is a theory that it is necessary to distinguish at least 2 editions of HE (see generally Louth 1990). In this case, it can be assumed that the 1st edition, like Pamphilus’ Apology, contained the story of Origen’s martyrdom under Decius, while the discovery of Origen’s letters already influenced the 2nd edition of HE (see: Grant 1980. P. 10–21, 77–83, esp. 78–79). However, a number of researchers, while acknowledging the existence of several editions of HE, deny that Eusebius ever seriously accepted the martyrdom of Origen (for example, Barnes 1984. P. 474–475: in the Apology, written after the 1st edition of HE, Pamphilus and Eusebius could present Origen as a martyr in the sense that he died around 252, but as a result of suffering under Decius of torture; Junod 2004. P. 189–190, 197–198: perhaps Pamphilus himself did not share at all, but only mentioned the legend of martyrdom) The indication of a specific year of reign is in itself ambiguous, since, firstly, it can appeal to different calendar systems (Roman, Egyptian or Syrian-Macedonian), and, secondly, it does not exclude the possibility of the so-called “post-dating”, in which the first year of reign is considered not the year in which the emperor ascended the throne, but the first year in which he reigned from beginning to end (for these and other difficulties of this kind, see: Goulet // VP. I. P. 194–195). Septimius Severus began to reign in June 193. Weber argues against “post-dating” in the case of Eusebius and defines the tenth year of Severus’s reign as 202/203, i.e. counts the years from the moment of his accession to the throne (Weber 1962. P. 19; cf. Barnes 1970. P. 314). According to Goulet // VP. I. P. 219, Eusebius is guided by the Roman calendar, in which the year begins on January 1, i.e. in HE. VI 2. 1–2 refers to the calendar year 202. This dating is initially approximate, since the text of the Ecclesiastical History itself does not directly say that Origen’s father was executed precisely in the 10th year of the reign of Severus. This is only a conclusion from the fact that in HE. VI 2. 1–2 first speaks of the height of the persecution in the 10th year of the reign of the North, and then in HE. VI 2. 6 tells the story of a letter that Origen wrote to his father, who was already in prison, and finally to HE. VI 2. 12 mentions his age of 16 at the time of his father’s execution. Thus, the text itself, in my opinion, creates the impression that Origen’s father was executed when the 10th year of the reign of Severus had already arrived, but at the same time does not exclude that this could have happened, for example, one or two years later. If Origen was born in 181, then he would have turned 70 in 251, but he could have died before his birthday. If Origen was born in 182, he would have turned 69 in 251 and 70 in 252. For example, Dörrie 1976. S. 355 clearly accepted 251 as the date of Origen's death. Compare, for example: Bardenhewer 1908. P. 136–137. Compare: Hanson 1954. P. 8: Origen was born in 186 and died in 255; Kettler 1972. S. 332, Anm. 47 and 1977. S. 323: Origen died in 254, and Eusebius's data on his death are erroneous; Böhm 2002. S. 22: Origen died in 253–255. Harnack 1904. S. 542; cf.: Koch // RE. HBd. 35. Col. 1037. 50 sq. It is hardly possible to assume that the approximate nature of Eusebius’s formulation could extend to 254, since if Eusebius attributed the death of Origen to the beginning of the reign of Gallienus, he would have to mention it rather in HE. VII 10. 1, where he talks about the next change of government. Wenn man. die Altersangabe so versteht, dass Orígenes im Verlauf und nicht nach Vollendung seines 69 Jahres gestorben sei, geht die Rechnung auf (Weber 1962. S. 19). Compare: Nautin 1977. P. 27, 98–100. Ibid. P. 441; cf.: P. 412: after June 251 See eg Norelli 2004. Wed. in general Hornschuh 1960, and in connection with dating – Grant 1971. P. 135. Compare: Crouze l 1985. P. 18–19 “Just after September 253” (Beatrice 1992. P. 361). Nevertheless, the specific argument of P. Beatrice in this case, as in a number of others, contains a petitio principii. He writes about VP. 3: “Since it is based on direct, personal experience, again Porphyry’s information appears more credible than the confused narrative of Eusebius who placed the death of Origen rather under Gallus, in about 251–252. [Since Porphyry's information is based on direct personal experience, it again seems more reliable than the confused account of Eusebius, who placed the death of Origen more likely in the time of Gallus, around 251–252]” (Beatrice 1992. P. 361). From these words it follows that P. Beatrice initially considers VP. 3 as a source concerning Origen the Christian, when this is precisely what needs proof. The mention of "personal experience" is also quite strange. It can only hint at a personal meeting of Porphyry with Origen the Christian (cf.: Eus. HE. VI 19.5), but how does it follow that this meeting took place precisely in 253, immediately before the death of Origen, when he allegedly wrote his “philosophical testament” (as P. Beatrice calls PB - philosophical testament)? P. Beatrice himself on p. 352 notes that we cannot accurately determine either the place, time, or duration of this meeting, and suggests that it most likely took place in 248–250, i.e. before the persecution of Decius, but on page 361 he refers it to the time after the persecution and actually turns Porphyry into a constant student of Origen. So in Hanson 1954. P. 2–3 and Crouzel 1985. P. 19, but compare: Hornschuh 1960. P. 201, Anm. 80; Bienert 1978. p. 71, where the death of Demetrius is dated to 231–232, and Weber 1962. p. 39, where the beginning of the bishopric of Herakles is dated to 231. According to V.P. 2. 29–31; 3. 6–14; see: Brisson // VP. II. P. 2, 4 Beatrice 1992. P. 358. Although it is worth considering that a long search for a teacher is a stereotype of ancient philosophical biography, cf.: VP. II. P. 207 ad locum. The assumption of P. Beatrice that it was Origen the Christian could turn out to be the very friend who, according to VP. 3. 6–14, brought Plotinus to Ammonius, is already a kind of “fiction” (cf. Böhm 2002. S. 20). P. Beatrice's reference to Theodoret (Theod. Graec. Aff. Cur. 6.60), who claimed that Plotinus studied with “our Origen” (i.e. Christian Origen) (Beatrice 1992. P. 359), does not make much sense, since this is a relatively late source and the degree of its reliability is naturally more problematic than that of the data Porphyry or Eusebius. In particular, Theodorit’s information does not fit well with the above-mentioned passage from VP, from which it is clear that Ammonius was the only teacher who satisfied Plotinus, and Plotinus’s friend, who recommended Ammonius to him, did not at all claim this role. In addition, there may be a certain ideological tendency behind Theodoret's statements, since the desire to present Plotinus as a disciple of a Christian theologian fits well with the perspective of Theodoret's “borrowing theory”, according to which, if some amount of truth can be found in the works of pagan authors, this is explained by their dependence on the biblical text (cf. Ridings 1995, pp. 218, 225). It is also possible that he simply misinterpreted the data of Porphyry and Eusebius. It is worth remembering that Eunapius (Vitae Sophist. 4. 2. 1) fell into the exact opposite error: he considers Origen from VP to be a student of Plotinus (apparently based on a misunderstanding of VP. 14, cf.: Brisson, Goulet // DPhA. Vol. 5. P. 805; Weber 1962. S. 44, Anm. 3), but, from the point of view of Unitarianism, this testimony must also be attributed to Origen the Christian In particular, the meeting with Mameya is often attributed to the period before the conflict with Demetrius (cf. Crouzel 1985. P. 37), possibly to 218–219. (Bardy // DTC. T. 11 (2). P. 1491; Koch // RE. HBd. 35. Col. 1039. 60 sq.). Schroeder 1987. pp. 498–500 speaks out strongly against it and sees this as the main argument against unitarianism; cf. Weber 1962. S. 18, 22; Schwyzer 1983. S. 22–23. For some chronological complexities, see: Goulet // VP. I.P. 196, n. 3; P. 206–207, 210, n. 1; Brisson // VP. II. P.5. That Ammonius was dead at the time of the conclusion of the treaty is sometimes also inferred from the plusquampeifectum ἀνεκεκάθαρτο in VP. 3. 26–27 (O’Brien // VP. II. P. 424). Genn. Devir. ill. 34; Phot. Interrog. 9 // PG. 104. Col. 1229bc; ACO. 3. P. 197, 202–203; Wed Nautin 1977. P. 166; Bienert 1978. S. 101. The vaguest evidence for this is the passages from the letter of Peter of Alexandria quoted in the ACO. 3. P. 197. 30–31, where it is only stated in the most general way that the “blessed bishops” Herakles and Demetrius suffered many trials from the “mad Origen.” Gennadius states that, according to Theophilus of Alexandria, Origen "was defrocked, expelled from the church and forced to flee the city by the ancient fathers and above all by Heracles (ab antiquis patribus et maxime Heracla fuisse et presbyterio dejectum et ecclesia pulsum et de civitate fugatum)." According to some researchers, this evidence can only mean that Herakles simply confirmed the action of those measures that had already been taken against Origen by Demetrius, for which Origen himself did not have to be present in Alexandria (cf. Weber 1962. S. 22, who, however, believes that this is the only source of information about the conflict with Heracles; Schroeder 1987. S. 499). However, Photius clearly means that Herakles expelled Origen directly from Alexandria and even made a special trip to Thmuis, where Bishop Ammonius again allowed Origen to preach (cf. Crouzel 1985. P. 45–46). In excerpts from the conciliar letter of the Egyptian bishops against Origen (ACO. 3. P. 202. 20 - 203. 2) it is said that Herakles “plucked him out like a truly bad seed from good wheat” (ἐκ μέσου τοῦ καλοῦ when he started deliver blasphemous sermons. Moreover, according to the source, this happened even before the time when Origen settled in Caesarea. In my opinion, it is quite obvious that most of these texts are referring specifically to the personal conflict of Heracles with Origen in Alexandria. Nautin 1977. P. 168 considers all information concerning the direct expulsion of Origen by Heracl to be erroneous, assuming, among other things, that Gennadius, referring to Theophilus, has in mind the same letter of the Egyptian bishops that is quoted in the ACO. Bienert 1978. S. 100 admits that Origen simply did not have time to leave Alexandria during Demetrius’s lifetime and therefore was first expelled by Herakles. E.g. Bardy // DTC. T. 11 (2). P. 1492 and Koch // RE. HBd. 35. Col. 1040, 20 sq. leaned towards the first option, and Nautin 1977. P. 386–387, 437–438 – towards the second, dating the conflict with Irakl approximately 245–248. But none of them had in mind Origen's personal return to Alexandria. Beatrice 1992. P. 359, 366, n. 71; Böhm 2002. S. 21 speaks in this regard about 243–244. It is worth mentioning that, according to the hypothesis of D. O’Brien himself, Plotinus was not present at the conclusion of the treaty and joined it later, and then was the first to violate it, which Porfiry in VP tries in every possible way to hide (O’Brien // VP. II. P. 213–214). Crouzel 1985. P. 55. If I understand A. Crouzel correctly, in the latter case the conclusion of the treaty could have taken place at about the same time as Origen's visit to the study of Plotinus according to VP. 14. R. P. Hanson held similar views, but, based on the fact that the Christian Origen did not go to Rome in the 40s, he set both episodes in Athens, where Plotinus would then have been teaching. Brisson // VP. II. P. 6–7 dates only the arrival to Rome to 244, and the beginning of teaching to 246, while Goulet-Cazé // VP. I. P. 232, 257 speaks of the opening of the school already in 244. Compare: Cadiou 1935. P. 257; Beatrice 1992. P. 360. In addition, it is possible that it was at this time that Origen actually traveled from Athens to Nicopolis in Epirus, where he discovered another Greek. version of the New Testament (HE. VI 16.2), and P. Beatrice suggests that he ended up in Nicopolis just on his way to Rome (Beatrice 1992. P. 359). Nautin 1977. P. 435–436 admits that Origen intended then to go to Rome, but is not sure whether he carried out his intention. However, the discovery of this version of the New Testament is sometimes attributed to the time of Origen’s early trip to Rome, attested by Eusebius (cf. Carriker 2003. P. 4). Beatrice 1992. P. 360: “It has been deduced, wrongly, from Eusebius’ silence that Origen never made this journey. Once again, the Life of Plotinus, written by Porphyry, comes to our aid, offering us precious documentary material which completes Eusebius’ tendentiously censored narration... But that this journey was effectively undertaken is demonstrated in an indisputable manner by Porphyry’s tale of the visit that Origen, during this second Roman stay, made to the school that Plotinus had opened in 244 on his return from Persia.” Beutel // RE. HBd. 35. Col. 1034. 15 sq. For these and other versions, see: O’Brien // VP. II. P. 440–441; Weber 1962. S. 28–29, 43, Anm. 4. The breach of contract explanation does not apply if Schwyzer 1983. pp. 15–16 is correct in holding that the contract extended only to the publication of works. “.. .Plotinus couldn’t help showing his annoyance at being confronted with a Christian priest whose religious choice he certainly couldn’t share and with whom he would have wanted to break every relationship” (Beatrice 1992. P. 360). Epiph. Pan. 64. 63; Hier. Apol. Ruf. 2.22; Idem. Epist. 33. “It is not, I think, too strange an hypothesis to assume that where Porhyry and Longinus refer to Origen’s works as if he only wrote one or two, they intend his purely philosophical works, and do not mean their words to apply to his specifically Christian and theological works” (Hanson 1954. P. 10). Compare: Dorrie // TRE. Bd. 2. S. 467–468. For a similar argument, see also Schwyzer 1983, pp. 23–24. R. Cadiou's assumption that we could be talking about some separate books from other works of the Christian Origen, for example, “Stromat” or “On the Elements” (Cadiou 1935. P. 255), does not explain why Porphyry mentions individual parts of Origen’s Christian works and at the same time denies the existence of the rest of his writings. It is worth noting that in the case of the chronological difficulties of Unitarianism, the situation is somewhat different. For example, the hypothesis that Origen the Christian died already under Gallienus objectively follows from the problematic dating of Eusebius and makes sense in itself, regardless of the problem of two Origens Bohm 2002. S. 22–23; cf.: Savrey 2006. P. 440 See: Goulet-Cazé // VP. I.P. 259; O'Brien // VP. II. P. 436–437; cf. Schroeder 1987. S. 500–501. Böhm 2002. S. 17 mentions only a similar statement of Longinus in relation to Ammonius and notes in this regard that “Longinus’ statements can also be understood in the sense that writing anything was not the intention and main goal of Ammonius (man kann die Äusserungen Longins auch dahingehend verstehen, dass es nicht die Intention und das primäre Ziel des Ammonius gewesen ist, etwas zu schreiben)", and, therefore, he could still write some works. But such logic does not apply to such a prolific author as Origen the Christian. It is significant that Longinus mentions precisely one of the works also mentioned by Porphyry, and not any other of the numerous works of the Christian Origen, and this choice in this case cannot be explained by the fact that supposedly we are talking only about works revealing the doctrine of Ammonius. This is most naturally explained by the fact that Longinus had little choice: if he wanted to give an example of Origen’s work, he could only choose between two treatises (unless, of course, we assume that he was generally unaware of the second treatise mentioned by Porphyry - cf. note 20). It may also be noted that if one tries to reconcile this second Unitarian argument with the first, additional problems may arise, since there is a hypothesis about the Christianity of Ammonius Saccas himself (see especially Langerbeck 1957). If we assume that this hypothesis is correct, Origen could not have written “purely philosophical” works of non-Christian content, revealing in them the teachings of Ammonius (however, T. Boehm himself seems to admit that Ammonius could be somehow connected with Christianity). Beatrice 1992, pp. 362–363; italics mine. – A. S. Compare: Savrey 2006. P. 441. Wed. in this regard, a completely fair statement by L. Brisson: “it is absolutely inconceivable that Longinus, a student of Origen, could say (c. 268) that this Platonist wrote only one or two works, if we were really talking about a prolific church author, moreover, so well known [.il est absolument impensable que Longin, élève d’Origène, ait pu dire (vers 268) que ce Platonicien n'avait écrit qu'un ou deux ouvrages, s'il est vrai qu'il s'agissait du proli¬fique auteur ecclésiastique si bien connu par ailleurs]" (Brisson // VP. I. P. 114). Compare: Goulet 1977. P. 478, esp. n. 19; Schwyzer 1983. pp. 30–31. I note, by the way, that the assumption that Porphyry and Longinus (as well as Proclus, Eunapius and Hierocles, quoted by Photius - see paragraphs 6-9) write about Origen the Christian, without a word hinting at his Christianity, seems to me much more strange than the assumption that they write about Origen the Platonist, but at the same time do not take the trouble to distinguish him from the famous Christian with the same name (this argument for unitarianism is offered by Crouzel 1956, p. 198; Idem 1985, p. 31). There is no particular reason to think that they necessarily had to do this, since the readership of that era, interested in Platonic literature, could well understand exactly who they were talking about. See Barnes 1973, pp. 433–442; Schott 2005, pp. 285–287. Goulet 1977. P. 491, n. 57 speaks out against this. Schroeder 1987, p. 502. For a unitarian critique of this hypothesis, see Kettler 1972. Hornschuh 1960. S. 6 et passim. This attitude towards Eusebius as a source for the biography of Origen has since been supported by many researchers (for example, Grant 1971. P. 133–135; Cox 1983. P. 69–101; Castagno 2004; cf. also: Koch // RE. HBd. 35. Col. 1037. 20 sq.; 1038. 1 sq.). E.g. Kettler 1972. S. 330. Compare: Schwyzer 1983. S. 20, Anm. 14; Crouzel 1985. P. 21, n. 11; Bardy // DTC also spoke out against this. T. 11 (2). P. 1489. Crouzel 1985. P. 23; Schroeder 1987. S. 503 – with reference to SHA Vita Severi. 17.1; Wed Koch // RE. HBd. 35. Col. 1037. 30 sq.; Kettler 1972. S. 330. Cp.: Goulet 1977. P. 482, n. 30. Schwyzer 1983. S. 20 believes that Origen could indeed have been born into an originally pagan family that later converted when he was still a child, and Porphyry’s mistake lies in allowing his independent conversion Compare: Goulet 1977. P. 482, n. 29. Cf.: Langerbeck 1957. P. 68. For criticism, see: Kettler 1972. P. 331. For example, P. Beatrice states that Porphyry in CChr makes no claims about Origen's pagan origins and later conversion to Christianity, but "rather wants to contrast the positive influence that philosophy had on Ammonius, inducing him to turn to a lifestyle compatible with the norms of pagan society, with the paradoxical behavior of Origen, who ended up wasting his impressive knowledge of Greek philosophy, applying them to the strange fables of the Jewish scriptures. The difference between Ammonius and Origen, so strongly emphasized by Porphyry, consists therefore in their different use of Greek culture and nothing more” (Beatrice 1992. P. 353). Does this mean that Porphyry’s expression “fell into barbaric recklessness” only indicates that Origen began to apply to the Bible an allegorical method of interpreting texts borrowed from the Greek philosophical tradition, and Origen’s original Christianity itself, from Porphyry’s point of view, is not “barbaric recklessness” and could be quite compatible with a “law-abiding way of life”? This rhetorical aspect is emphasized, along with other possibilities, by Crouzel 1958. P. 4 and Dörrie 1976. P. 354 and others. Goulet 1977. P. 482 considers this all the more obvious since in a passage from Origen’s autobiographical letter (apud Eus. HE. VI 19.13), which mentions how he began to visit a certain teacher of philosophy (who is not necessarily identified with Ammonius), this event clearly refers to the moment when he himself was a Christian. Cf.: Bidez 1913. P. 13. The mention in this list of Longinus, who was a younger contemporary of the Christian Origen, has long been considered a problem. Beatrice 1992. P. 355–357 sees in this an additional argument in favor of the identity of the two Origen. However, Carriker 2003. P. 91–92, 127, in my opinion, convincingly shows that before 250, i.e. Around the time of the possible meeting with Porphyry, the Christian Origen could well have acquired the works of Longinus in Athens or even in Alexandria. Compare: Dodds 1960. P. 31, n. 1 – about Porphyry: “From the knowledge of pagan philosophy displayed by Origen the Christian, whose works he knew well but whom he had met only once in boyhood, Porphyry mistakenly inferred that he was a convert from paganism; he did not confuse him with Origenes (sic! – A.S.) the Pagan. [From the knowledge of pagan philosophy exhibited by the Christian Origen, whose works he knew well, although he had met him only once in his boyhood, Porphyry erroneously concluded that he was a convert from paganism; he did not confuse him with Origen the pagan.]”; close to this - Weber 1962. S. 38; Nautin 1977. P. 201–202. As E. Dodds hints, in addition to the personal meeting, another reason for Porfiry’s possible mistake could be his acquaintance with the works of the Christian Origen, testifying to the author’s deep knowledge of ancient philosophy (cf. Grant 1972. P. 286 and Goulet 1977. P. 485–486, where in this regard the similarity between the list of philosophers whom, according to Porfiry, he read Origen, and the authors on whom Origen relied in the lost Stromata, according to Hier. Epist. 70. 4). Of course, in this case, he still shows a certain incompetence by attributing a pagan upbringing to Origen the Christian, but for the dualistic hypothesis this is not of decisive importance. From the point of view of dualism, it is only important to show that Porphyry, despite particular errors, can well be considered as the author who always distinguished between the two Origens. It is also worth noting that, in contrast to the version proposed here, a hypothesis in the spirit of G. Derry or R. Goulet assumes the incompetence of Porphyry in the biography of not only Origen the Christian, but also Origen the Platonist. Therefore, in my opinion, the following judgment of A. Kruzel cannot be considered correct: “Certes, pour supposer un seul Origène, il faut admettre, que Porphyre, sur l’un ou l’autre point, s’est trompé, mais pour en supposer deux il faut aussi accepter des erreurs de Porhyre. [Of course, to assume that there was one Origen, one must admit that Porphyry was mistaken in one way or another, but to assume that there were two, one must also accept errors on Porphyry’s part.]” (Crouzel 1985. P. 31). In an extreme case, from a dualistic point of view, one can assume that Porphyry was mistaken regarding the original paganism of the Christian Origen, but admitting this mistake is not at all a condition for the possibility of dualism as such. Beatrice 1992, pp. 351–352. Eunap. Vitae sophist. 4. 2. 1. Thus, Eunapius considers this Origen to be a student of Plotinus (cf. note 45). If this text refers to the Christian Gnostic Aquilinus from VP. 16, then this mistake of Eunapius is not the only one (see: VP. I. P. 61–62). See Weber 1962, pp. 31–33. Phot. Bibl. Cod. 214. 173a5 sq. Becker. Phot. Bibl. Cod. 251.461 a32 sq. Becker. Some researchers, pointing to the sometimes very harsh characteristics of the Peripatetics and Aristotle personally, found in the works of the Christian Origen (cf. SS. 2.12; 2.21; 3.75), use this kind of statements by Hierocles as an argument in favor of dualism (Weber 1962. p. 29; Schwyzer 1983. p. 23). At the same time, there are attempts to show the significant dependence of the Christian Origen on Aristotle (see, for example: Langerbeck 1957. P. 72–73; Edwards 1993. P. 180–181; specific references by Origen to Aristotle are listed by Dorival 1992. P. 195). The situation is aggravated by the fact that Christian influence on Hierocles has been hypothesized in the scientific literature (Praechter 1912; Kobusch 1976; Aujoulat 1986; against Hadot 1978 and 2004; Schibli 2002), and in such a context it may seem more natural to attribute data from Fr. 5 and 6 to Origen the Christian (as already done by Koch 1932. p. 296; see also Theiler 1966, where specific doctrinal parallels are drawn between Hierocles and Origen the Christian, which, according to the author, go back to Ammonius as a common source). Procl. Theol. Plat. II 4 // Vol. 2. P. 31. 2–22 Saffrey-Westerink. I have somewhat expanded the text of the fragment compared to K. Weber’s version, which does not include the first phrase from the quote I cited Dorrie 1976. S. 258, 341, Anm. 106, 355 was in favor, and Weber 1962. S. 46 and Schwyzer 1987. S. 49 were against it. A possible source for this and other fragments of Origen taken from Proclus may be Porphyry's commentary on the Timaeus, which has survived only in fragments. I have already mentioned that, according to an alternative interpretation, by “King” Origen meant Gallienus (cf. note 15; against this, for example, Weber 1962. S. 74, Anm. 1). On the other hand, it can be assumed that Origen’s work combined a theological treatise and a panegyric in honor of the emperor (VP. II. P. 217–218; DPhA. T. 5. P. 805). Plat. Epist. 2 (sp.). 312e1–4 (translated by S. P. Kondratiev). In the time of Origen, this passage from Plato's 2nd letter was a popular text, quoted both by pagan (Celsus apud Orig. CC. 6. 18; Apul. Apol. 64; Alex. Aphr. In Met // P. 59. 31; 63. 24 Hayduck) and Christian authors, who found in it an anticipation of their own Trinitarianism (Clem. Alex . 6, 68, 5; Str. 10. 1; Suppl. 1. 6–7; Daniélou 1961. P. 106–107 suggests that already in the 2nd century. this text was included in philosophical anthologies. For the Neoplatonic reception of this text, see: Plot. Enn. I 8. 2. 27–32; V 1. 8. 1–8 Henry-Schwyzer (cf.: V5. 3; VI 7. 42); Porph. In Tim. 2.Fr. 51.65–69 Sodano; Fr. 15–16 // Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker / Hrsg. v. F. Jacoby u.a. B., 1923–1958; Porph. Hist. Phil. Fr. 17 Nauck; compare: Eus. Praep. Ev. 11.20. However, already in authentic Platonic texts the metaphor “king” can be used as a designation of a deity, and does not require contextual clarification, at least within one phrase. So, in Resp. 597e2, where it is said about the tragic poet that he “stands in third place from the king and from the truth” (translated by A. N. Egunov; cf. Greek ἀληθείας πεφυκώς ;), it is possible to understand that by “king” God is meant only based on a broader context (cf. also Plat. Leg. 904a6). For the use of this metaphor in Platonism, see Dorrie 1976, pp. 390–405. "Creator", or ποιητής, is also seen as an allusion to Plat. Tim. 28c3. Numenius. Fr. 12. 12–14 Des Places Eus. Praep. Ev. 11.18. Compare: Beutel //RE. HBd. 35. Col. 1034. 50 sq.; Weber 1962. P. 74, 90–91; Dörrie 1976. S. 341, 394–395; Schwyzer 1983. pp. 76–77 and 1987. pp. 47; Beatrice 1992. P. 361. Rufinus' translation preserves the Greek. the terms μόνας and ἑνάς. Wed. R.V. Svetlov in: Lukomsky 2001. P. 564, where this place is erroneously indicated as PA. 1. 1.2. Wed: PE. 27. 8, where Origen compares the two meanings of the term οὐσία - Platonic (spiritual nature) and Stoic (matter), and in exactly the same way as in CJ. XX 18.159, characterizes the first as the “proper” meaning of this word (ή μέντοι κυρίως οὐσία). In this regard, Stead 1977. P. 139 notes that there is “the Platonic use of ούσία as a collective term, in contrast to γένεσις denoting “unchangeable (genuine and therefore immaterial) reality.” See Whittaker 1969, pp. 92–93. Good is not the essence, but on the other side of the essence, exceeding it in dignity and power" ( τῆς οὐσίας πρεσβεί ᾳ καὶ δυνάμει ὑπερέχοντος ). The interpretation of this Platonic phrase poses a problem in itself. Some scholars believe that the characterization of the Good as being beyond the essence in terms of dignity and power means that the Good itself still remains an idea or essence (e.g., Baltes 1997). Others tend toward an apophatic interpretation, arguing that the Good completely transcends the realm of entities or ideas (e.g., Ferber 2003). Whittaker 1969, p. 92 and Stead 1977, p. 168 show that uncertainty in the choice between apophaticism and essentialism is in principle characteristic of the literature of the Middle Platonic period, including Christian authors. Whittaker 1969. P. 93 also believed that at times Origen modified apophatic formulations in the spirit of Plat. Resp. 509b8–10 in such a way that God (CJ. XIII 21.123) or Logos (CJ. XIII 26.152) turn out to be transcendent not so much in relation to the essence as such, but thanks to their essence - in relation to all other essences, which in itself is compatible with essentialism (cf. Berchman 1992. P. 32). But in the case of CJ. XIII 21. 123 J. Whittaker relied on the reading proposed in GCS (Orígenes Werke IV // Bd. 10. P. 244. 19–22) πρεσβεί ᾳ καὶ δυνάμει, bringing this passage into line with the distinction between two types of essence in PE. 27.8 (see note 113), while restored in SC. 222. P. 96. 4–5 (see n. 1 ad locum) the handwritten version of καὶ ἄλλους does not give such a meaning, but in CJ. XIII 21. 152 we are talking about the Logos, which, according to CC. VI 64. 14–28 can be characterized as an entity in contrast to the completely transcendent God the Father. In general, the fact that within the framework of the apophatic alternative, only God the Father could act as a transcendental Deity for Origen, and the Logos turned out to be a kind of analogy to Plotinus’s Mind, means that the version of apophatism he considered is essentially subordinationist in nature. It is not surprising that interpreters who speak out against Origen’s subordinationism also seek to level out his apophaticism (cf. Crouzel 1991, pp. 172–173). On Origen's hesitations in this matter, see also: Corsini 1968. P. 133, n.17; 460, no. 7; 573, n. 9. Dörrie 1976. S. 258 came to a similar conclusion on the grounds that in the SS. VII 42 sq. Origen the Christian does not object to the apophatic theology of Celsus. Essentialist concept in the spirit of French. 7 in 3 places Procl. In Parm. (P. 1065. 3; 1070. 17 Cousin; P. 64. 1 Klibansky-Labowsky) is attributed to some nameless Platonists, and it can be assumed that in this case Origen the Platonist is meant (see: Schwyzer 1987. P. 51–53), although the second of these passages can also be attributed to Porphyry (Hadot 1968. Vol. 1. P. 258–259). Böhm 2002. S. 8–15, on the contrary, tries to show the similarity of Origen’s theology from fr. 7 and Origen the Christian. He attributes to the Christian Origen “the dialectical definition of the speculative οὐσία on the other side of οὐσία" (Ibid. S. 10: dialektische Bestimmung einer noetischen oñoía jenseits der oñaía), meaning that he allegedly interpreted the expression from Plat. Resp. 509b in an essentialist spirit, i.e. as an indication of a higher essence that transcends other essences only in relation to dignity and strength. But, in my opinion, from the above quotations it is clear that Origen does nothing of the kind; rather, he simply reproduces Plato’s textbook formulation, which, as we have seen, itself allows for different interpretations (cf. note 115). Such attempts to harmonize the apophatic and essentialist statements of Origen (cf. also Berchman 1992. P. 232, 236) are unconvincing if only because in CJ. XIII 21. 123 and SS. VI 64. 14–28 Origen himself distinguishes and contrasts apophaticism and essentialism as alternative concepts, and does not at all try to reconcile them. An additional argument in favor of Unitarianism Böhm 2002. S. 13 sees in the fact that in addition to the texts of the Christian Origen, a quotation from Plat. Resp. 509b supposedly occurs only in the description of the position of Origen the Platonist in Proclus and in another place in Eusebius (cf. Ibid. S. 12, where this researcher tries to reconstruct the hypothetical conceptual relationship between this Platonic passage and fr. 7). But directly in fr. 7, where Proclus expounds the position of Origen the Platonist, there is only the expression ὄντος, which, although consistent with the spirit of Plato’s statement, is not at all a quotation from Plat. Resp. 509b (however, it is found somewhat lower in the text - cf.: Procl. Theol. Plat. // Vol. 2. P. 32. 20–22 Saffrey-Westerink). Moreover, much more literal formulations borrowed from this Platonic phrase (ἐπέκεινα τῆς οὐσίας and πρεσβεί ᾳ καὶ δυνάμει) can be found in many authors (for example, Just. Dial. 4. 1; Alex. Lyc . De Placit. Manich. 26. 37 Brinkmann; Plot. Enn. I 7. 1. 19–20; I 8. 6. 28; V 1. 8. 7–8; V 4. 1. 10; V 4. 2. 38–42; V 6. 6. 29–30; VI 7. 40. 26; VI 8. 16. 34; VI 8. 19. 13; VI 9. 11.42 Henri-Schwyzer; Porph. In Parm. Fr. 12. 23; 14. 3–4 Hadot; Iambl . De Myst. 1. 5. 3; Syr . In Met. // P. 166. 5–6 Kroll; Ps.-Dion. De Div. Nom. // P. 109. 16; 17 Suchla and others), so its popularity in this era is beyond doubt. “Une défense philosophique de l’orthodoxie” (Cadiou 1935, p. 255). Compare: Crouzel 1958. P. 7. Compare: Weber 1962. S. 106 and PA. II 1. 4; C.J. I 17. 103; the question of the eternity of creation according to Origen is more complex, cf.: PA. I 2. 10; I 4. 3–5; III 5. 3. Beatrice 1992. P. 366, n. 82. Procl. In Tim. Vol. 1. R. 63. 24–64. 11 Diehl. According to F. Kettler, described in fr. Episode 10 involves a personal meeting between the Christian Origen and Longinus and Porphyry and took place in Tire c. 252–253 (Kettler 1977, pp. 324–326). Beatrice 1992. P. 357 suggests that Fr. 10 reflects the earlier discussions of Longinus with the Christian Origen, which the latter told Porphyry in a personal meeting, which took place either in 248–250. (P. 352), or approx. 253 (cf.: P. 361). Schwyzer 1987. S. 49–50, being a dualist, believes that this fragment reflects Porphyry’s personal memories of the dispute between Longinus and Origen the Platonist in the period from 250 to 263. Compare: Kettler 1977. S. 327; Beatrice 1992. P. 357; and also Weber 1962. S. 31, despite its dualism. However, in this case, Origen refers to the interpretation he found in some Pythagorean work of the story of the plague that Apollo sent to the Greek army near Troy (Hom. Il. 1. 8 sq.). Dorival 1992. P. 193 and Ressa 2000. P. 509, n. 22 believe that Numenius could be the source of Origen. In general, in the Platonic and neo-Pythagorean tradition, the existence of evil demons, along with good ones, has been recognized at least since the time of Xenocrates (Andres // RE. Suppl. III. Kol. 297), and often this idea was used in the interests of theodicy, since the immoral actions of the gods of traditional religion could be attributed to these demons (Ibid. Kol. 307–308). To Origen, this might have seemed consonant with the widespread idea in early Christianity that all pagan gods in general are evil demons (cf. Origen himself: SS. V 2; V 35; VII 69). It's funny that F. Kettler (Kettler 1977. S. 325) explains the physical condition of Origen from fr. 10 as evidence of the disturbed health of Origen the Christian after torture under Decius. However, there are enough indications in the text that the Origen described there attached very great importance to the defense of Homer (with which F. Kettler himself agrees on p. 327), and in their light it is quite natural to understand the words “screaming, blushing and sweating” as a sign of Origen’s passion for the issue under discussion (cf. Schwyzer 1983. S. 24, Anm. 24; Schroeder 1987. S. 508). See: Kettler 1977. S. 327 For Christian interpretations of Homer, see Daniélou 1961, pp. 73–102 (and further reading indicated on pp. 3–4); Lamberton 1989. pp. 44–82; Fédou 2003, pp. 377–384. Origen several times in the SS reproduces the key thesis for the theory of borrowing that Moses is older than Homer (IV 21; VI 7; VI 43). Compare: Schwyzer 1983. S. 24; Schroeder 1987. S. 508. Compare: Kettler 1977. S. 328 This was first argued by Wifstrand 1942. S. 418, and without regard to the problem of the two Origens. He is supported by Chadwick 1953. P. 212. Fédou 2003. P. 381 ignores this criticism Literally οὐκ ἀχαρίσως ὁ Πλάτων ἐκβάλλει can be translated “Plato, without showing ingratitude, expels”, etc. In this sense, Ressa 2000. P. 331 translates: non perché sia ​​ingrato Platone scaccia etc., - explaining in the note. 181 that Plato's potential "ungratefulness is that he does not take into account the pleasure given by the stories of poets" (L'ingratitudine di Platone consiste nel non tener conto del diletto procurato dai racconti dei poeti). In SC. 136. P. 315 Borret offers the option “not just by ill will” (n’est-ce point par simple mauvais vouloir); Wed L.S.J., s.v. ἀχαρίστως. In any case, this expression implies approval of Plato's position towards the poets on the part of Origen. Wed: Plat. Resp. 377d; 378d; 379cd; 383a; 387b; 388ab; 389a; 389e-390c; 390e-391c; 595bc; 598d-600e; 605c; 606e-607a. Festugière 1966. Vol. 1. P. 98–99 translates this phrase as follows: “... the imitative art of Homer has great power to motivate courageous actions” (l’art imitatif d’Homère a grande force pour induire aux actions de courage). In my opinion, the text is not so much about the moral impact of Homer’s poems on listeners, but about the adequacy of poetic “imitation”, i.e. about Homer's ability to find the appropriate form for the object he depicts. This is confirmed by further context, in which Origen gives a specific example of Homer having precisely this ability in the case of the depiction of gods participating in battles. Another criticism of Homer is contained in the SS. VIII 68, where Origen, in connection with a quotation from the Iliad given by Celsus (Hom. Il. 2.205), rejects the “Homeric doctrine” (32: ὁμηρικὸν δόγμα) that royal power is bestowed on the monarch by Zeus. Origen often criticizes certain views, as an illustration of which he cites Homeric quotations (for example, SS. IV 91, 94; VII 6; cf. Schwyzer 1983. S. 24, Anm. 27). Procl. In Tim. // Vol. 1. P. 76. 30–77. 24 Diehl. It could be argued that since the text is not just about “good” and “bad” but about “better” and “worse” demons, theoretically speaking, Origen could well think that some demons are slightly better than others, but that by and large all demons as a whole are bad (which, as we will see, would be more consistent with the position of Origen the Christian). But we should not forget that we are talking about an allegorical interpretation of the war between the highly virtuous Athenians (cf.: Plat. Tim. 24d4–5: πάσ ῃ τε παρὰ πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὑπερβεβληκότες ἀρετῇ) and the arrogant inhabitants of Atlantis (Ibid. 24e2–3: δύναμιν ὕ βρει πορευομένην ). In addition, in the idea presented below about the three types of demons, according to the characterization of Proclus, combining the position of Origen and Numenius, the entirely “bad and soul-destroying” kind of demons again differs both from the originally “divine” demons and from the individual souls that have become demons See in general: Andres // RE. Suppl. III. Kol. 296–297, 301–322. See, for example: Mikoda 1992, where the demonological concepts of the Christian Origen and Plutarch are compared. The same position is manifested in a number of places CC: “... there are still some bad people, not only people, but also angels and all demons” (CC. VIII 15. 33–34: ἄνθρωποι ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄγγελοι καὶ πάντες δαίμονες “Whoever wants, let him justify the words of Celsus and show how not some divine angels of God, but demons, whose whole race is evil ( δαίμονες, ὧ ν ὅ λον τὸ γένος ἐστὶ φαῦλον), appointed to manage all of the above” (CC. VIII 31. 17–20); “For us who claim that all demons are evil ( ναι φαύλους), not a demon - the One who turned so many to God, but God the Word and the Son of God” (CC. VIII 39. 12–14). Wed. also CC. III 37. 24–29, where it is stated that the evil forces themselves, due to their delusion, proclaim themselves gods and good demons. On the relationship between demons and angels and people, see also: Exp. Prov. //PG. 17. Col. 165a, 216d; Sel. Ps. //PG. 12. Col. 1416d. Wed: CC. IV. 24. 24–26, where Origen in this regard contrasts Platonic and Christian usage: “either, as you say, good demons, or, as we usually call them, angels of God” (εἴτε, ὡ ς, ὑμεῖς φατε, οἱ ἀγαθοὶ δαίμονες εἴτε ,ὡ ς ἡμῖν ἔθος ὀνομάζειν , οἱ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄγγελοι ). Eg Celsus in CC. VII 68. 9 Borret; cf.: Andres // RE. Suppl. III. Kol. 111–113. Compare: Edwards 2002. P. 55.