How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs
By
De Lacy O'Leary
D.D.
First published in Great Britain in 1949
by Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
Reprinted three times.
This edition first published in 1979
by Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
39 Store Street, London WC1E7DD,
Broadway House, Newtown Road,
Henley-on-Thames, Oxon RG91EN and
9 Park Street, Boston, Mass. 02108, USA
Printed in Great Britain by
Caledonian Graphics
Cumbernauld, Scotland
ISBN 0 7100 1903 3
Assyrian International News Agency
Books Online
www.aina.org
Contents
The usual language of Syria and Mesopotamia was Aramaic, a language akin to, but by no means identical with, Hebrew. The name Aram signifies bighland, and Aramaic generally was the language of the higher country in the north and in the hinterland, whilst Hebrew was used in the lowlands and came closer to the Phoenician language used on the littoral. But Aramaic had a good many dialects, as it spread over a ver wide area. In later times one important dialect, or group of dialects, developed amongst the Christian population of Syria and Mesopotamia, with its centre at Edessa, came to be known as Syriac, and this Syriac-Aramaic1 was the chief medium by which Greek culture was passed on to the peoples of the Near East, In oriental lands communities most often rest on a religious basis: nations are only temporary groups formed for political purposes, religions form social groups which share a common cultural life, economic structure, literature and art. As a rule the barrier between men of different religions is more definitely marked than that between members of different political states.
In the middle of the second century B.C., when the Parthians conquered Mesopotamia, the Seleucid state was decadent, wom out by a long and futile struggle to get control of Egypt. The Parthians did not follow up their conquest, because by that time they were being attacked in their eastern provinces by Mongolian tribes, and had no military resources to spare for the west. But there was a third power close at hand which was able to take advantage of the weakness of Syria, Armenia under an ambitious monarch Tigranes, and he conquered Syria in 83 B.C. But by this time a new power had appeared on the shores of the Mediterranean, the Roman Republic, not a conquering power like that of Alexander, but a rather narrowrninded democracy whose chief aims were to carry on trade successfully and make sure of safety at home. For safety the Romans gradually carried out the conquest of Italy, then they tried to exercise a kind of protectorate over all the other countries around the Mediterranean, and to check any one which tended to interfere with its safety or commerce. Conquest and expansion were forced on Rome by circumstances, and were undertaken by Rome only when foreign rivals threatened its security or its commerce by commercial rivalry like Carthage or by piracy on the seas over which Roman commerce passed, as was the case with Pontus.
Italy, a long narrow peninsula with a protracted coast line necessarily depended on sea power for its own security as well as for international trade, though that received only a tardy and grudging recognition in Rome. Gradually it was perceived that the freedom and prosperity of Italy, which included that of Rome, depended on control of the Middle Sea, and necessitated a check on the formation of any great power along its shores which could intercept sea communications. An attempt at founding such a power was made in 168 B.C., when the Seleucid Antiochus Epiphanes made an attempt to conquer Egypt. He was camped before the walls of Alexandria when an envoy arrived from Rome warning him to retire, and that he reluctantly did. Rome was already a formidable power, and the SeIeucid considered it wiser not to challenge it. Next, Mithridates VI of Pontus formed imperial ambitions. He occupied Asia Minor, massacred a number of Roman citizens, and then invaded Greece, whilst Pontic pirates ranged over the eastern Mediterranean. The Romans had no wish to interfere in eastern politics, but this forced them to do so, and the Mithridatic War followed, which the Romans under Pompey brought to a successful conclusion in 83 B.C., These events forced Rome into the tangled political strife of what we now call the Levant, and in 8I B.C. they were still further drawn in when Alexander II of Egypt died and left his kingdom by will to the Roman people.
Syria had by then long ceased to be a danger. Parthian control had passed away from Mesopotamia and Syria, as the Parthians had to deal with threatening pressure on their own eastern borders. Under the degenerate Seleucids Syria was near a state of Anarchy. The real masters of the country were the Arab tribes, many of them roarning the country as brigands, others settling down in lands they conquered and forming native states.
Pompey had just completed the Nfithridatic War when the last Seleudd monarch Antiochus Asiaticus came to the throne, and thought expedient to obtain formal recognition from Rome. To his request Pompey replied that Rome would not recognize any monarch who could not keep his country in order, and by now it was obvious--ihat the Seleucids could not do this. So in 65 B.C. Syria was annexed and made a Roman province under a legatus whose first duty was to defend the frontier against the Parthians, Pompey determining that the River Euphrates should be recognized as the frontier. But the Arab states formed along the eastern borders of Syria were left alone, and so the larger state known as Nabataea, though in 63 Pompey led an expedition against the Nabataean capital Petra. Thus Syria passed out of Greek Seleucid control and became part of the Roman Empire. Politically it was a change, but culturally there was no change, the influence of Rome was as definitely Greek as that of the Seleucids had been. The cultural life of Syria and Mesopotamia went on unaffected by the political change and from that time forward it was the Romans who brought Greek influence to bear on the Near East.
When Syria became a Roman province it was secured against the immediate menace of its two oriental neighbours, Parthia and Armenia. Roman arms protected the border and sometimes crossed victoriously into enemy territory. But with this began a long series of wars lasting for some seven centuries, in which the frontier frequently shifted according to the fortunes of war. There was a debatable territory between the Tigris river and the Libanus mountains, which was sometimes GreecoRoman, sometimes Parthian or Persian, and these political vicissitudes had their effect on the cultural life of the area involved.
The Emperor Augustus recognized the Euphrates frontier and allowed the Arab states to remain without interference, and so matters continued until the accession of Trajan, though the trade route through Mesopotamia was practically closed because the Parthians were unable to control the tribesmen along the border. Trajan decided to carry Roman authority farther east and to bring the disordered border lands into a more satisfactory condition, and to effect this in A.D. 115 conquered Mesopotamia and made it a Roman province. The following year he invaded Parthia, advanced to the Tigris, occupied Adiabene in northern Mesopotamia and made it a province under the name of Assyria, took Seleucia the chief Greek colony on the Tigris and the Parthian capital Ctesiphon Close by, and went on as far as the mouth of the Tigris, but was called back by the news that Mesopotamia in his rear had revolted. That revolt he put down, burning Seleucia and Edessa, but died on 8th August, 117. His policy was reversed by his successor Hadrian, who gave back Mesopotamia and Assyria and resumed the Euphrates frontier, whilst Armenia which had also been annexed ceased to be a Roman province but remained a vassal state.
As soon as Antonius Pius died in 161, the Parthians invaded Armenia and placed an Arsacid prince on its throne, then they invaded Syria and defeated the Roman army there. This forced the Romans to act, and Verus, who was co-emperor with Marcus Aurelius, went east to command the army in person in 162. Though the Parthians stubbornly defended the Euphrates, the Romans at length broke through, advanced into Mesopotamia, besieged Edessa and Dausara, and approached Nisibis the frontier fortress, then took and destroyed the Parthian capital Ctesiphon. But the victorious army brought back the plague with it, and from that many perished. At the end of the campaign Rome secured the western half of Mesopotamia, the prince of Edessa became a Roman vassal, and the town of Harran was made free under Roman protection.
In 194 Septimus Severus led a Roman army into Mesopotamia, the whole of which he made a Roman province, as it had been under Trajan: Nisibis was made the capital of this province, and Edessa was allowed to continue as a vassal state. But in 198 the Parthians resumed hostilities and advanced into Mesopotamia, sweeping all before them until they reached Nisibis to which they laid siege. The Emperor Severus had started his return journey but this recalled him: he rescued Nisibis and proceeded into Parthia where he took Seleucia and Ctesiphon from which the Parthian king escaped with a few horsemen, leaving the royal treasure for the Romans.
This defeat told severely on the Parthians and brought about a revolt in 211, which ended in dethroning the Arsacici dynasty and restoring a kingdom of Persia under the rule;of the Sasanid family which claimed descent from the ancient Achaemenid kings. In the east political movements most often have a religious bearing, and this Sasanid revolution was associated with a revival and reform of the Mazdean religion2. Anciently the Persian kings had belonged to a priestly caste, and were regarded, as endowed with a divine spirit, but the Parthian monarchs were not of this privileged order. In the course of the first century of the Christian era, it would appear, some of the Parthian rulers had tried to lead a religious reformation, but their caste inferiority had hindered their efforts. Since then religious observances had been relaxed: the sacred fire had been allowed to go out (Moses of Chorene, Hist. Amen., ii, 94), the fire had been defiled by the fact that the bodies of the dead had been burned contrary to Mazdean religious law (Herodian, iv, 30), and the priestly caste of Magi had fallen into disrepute (Agathias, ii, 26). No doubt the impression was that a restoration of the old senii-divine monarchy would bring about a revival of national greatness.
The Sasanid placed on the restored Persian throne was Ardashir, and one of his first acts was to hold a general council which dealt with internal divisions which had caused the Mazdean religion to separate into several sects, and so to form an established state church. On the one side the religious revival which had been gathering force for some years was completed, and on the other side the king undertook to restore the military prestige of the country which had suffered so great an eclipse under the later Arsacids.
From 224 to 241, Ardashir was occupied in putting down the adherents of the displaced Arsacid dynasty, but in the course of that period, in 23o, he sent a challenge to Rome demanding of the Emperor Severus that all the territory which had ever been in the hands of Persia should be restored to him, Syria, Asia Minor, and Egypt, and at the same time made preparations for the invasion of Syria. This, of course, was a declaration of war. But Ardashir was unable to proceed further immediately, as he had not yet effectually reduced the proArsacid party, then in 241 he died, leaving the kingdom and the war to his son Shapur (241-272). The outbreak of war was hastened by events in Armenia, where king Khusraw, a member of the Arsacid family who had been placed on the Armenian throne by the Romans, was assassinated by emissaries of Shapur. The Armenian nobles, however, refused to support Shapur, and declared in favour of Khusraw's younger son, Tiridates, who was a ward of Rome. Then Shapur occupied Armenia and Tiridates fled to the Romans. From Armenia the Persians overran Mesopotamia, Cappadocia, and Syria, where they took and plundered Antioch, but were held up before Edessa. Then the Emperor Gordian advanced against the Persians, defeated them, and drove them back. This restored Romari rule as far as the Tigris, and Gordian proceeding farther threatened the Persian capital Ctesiphon. But Gordian was murdered in 244, and his successor Philip made a peace which gave Armenia to Persia, Mesopotamia to Rome.
War broke out again in 258. At that time the Roman Empire was under the Emperor Valerian and his son Gallienus. Shapur repeated his former tactics of 241, and Valerian prepared to invade Persia. He occupied Cappadocia, the Persians retiring before him, but the plague played havoc with the Roman army, and delayed it too long before entering Mesopotamia. Near Edessa some time in 259-26o, the exact date cannot be determined, he met the Persians and was totally defeated, both he and his army taken prisoners. He remained a captive in the hands of the Persians until his death in 267. The Persians then swept through Syria and captured and plundered the city of Antioch. The only check they received was from a self-appointed commander named Callistus, who sailed with ships from the harbours of Cilicia and went to the relief of Pompeiopolis, which the Persians were besieging, killed several thousand men, and took possession of Shapur's harem. This caused the Persian king to turn back and hasten home, paying to Edessa all the plunder he had taken from the Romans for permission to pass unmolested through their territory. During this retirement, the Persians were harassed and suffered heavy losses at the hands of Odaenathus, King of Palmyra. After this, two leading Romans, the Callistus who had relieved Pomeiopolis and Macrianus the army paymaster, renounced allegiance to Valerian's son Gallienus, and proclaimed Macrianus' two sons, Fulvius Macrianus and Fulvius Quietus, as joint emperors (261). These two were.recognized in Egypt and the east, with the exception of Palmyra, which remained loyal to Gallienus. But Fulvius Macrianils went west, and fell in battle with another pretender, whilst Fulvius Quietus was betrayed by Cantus and put to death by Odaenathus. Thus unexpectedly Palmyra and its ruler Odaenathus became dominant factors in the politics of the Near East.
As the captives were free to follow their own religion they enjoyed greater religious freedom under Persian rule than they were officially permitted at that time in the Roman Empire, for those who were Christians were allowed to build and maintain churches, whilst within the Roman jurisdiction Christianity was still liable to persecution. At Yaranishahr, which was one of the camp cities assigned the captives, they had two churches, in one the liturgy was celebrated in Greek, in the other the Syriac language was used (Chron. de Seert, ed. Scher, in P.O., iv, 220-1).
There is a tradition that the Bishop of Antioch, Demetrianus, was one of the captives, and was asked by his fellow-prisoners to act as their bishop, retaining the title of Bishop of Antioch, but this he refused: then the Catholicus Papa made him bishop of Jundi-Shapur and gave him the first place at the consecration of a catholicus, which was the title given to the Bishop of Seleucia as primate of the Persian Church. But this tradition is based on Mare's Liber Turis (P- 7), a late work and one which "fourmille d'invraisemblances et d'anachronismes"(Labourt, Le Christianisme dans 1'em.pire Perse, 2o, note 1). The writer seems to have supposed that the Bishop of Antioch (not yet called Patriarch) was one of the dignitaries of the imperial court, which could hardly have been the case under Valerian, and that the church at that early date already was fully organized with patriarchs, archbishops, and metropolitans, all a post-Nicene development.
After 260, Odaenathus assumed the title of king, and occupied the position of an independent viceroy under the more or less nominal suzerainty of Rome. In 264, he crossed the Euphrates, relieved Edessa, and recaptured Nisibis and Harran (Carrhae) from the Persians, then marched into Persia and attacked Ctesiphon. For the time he was independent and important, only nominally under Roman authority. But in 266-7 he was murdered, not as was suggested, at the instigation of a jealous Roman government, but by a treacherous nephew influenced by a private quarrel.
At Odaenathus' death the government of Palmyra was assumed by his widow Zenobia, who thereby claimed to rule over Egypt and Asia, though in fact her power was limited to Syria and Arabia. She made an attempt to enforce her authority in Egypt, and in face of a sturdy opposition, conquered the country, whilst in Asia she extended her authority to Chalcedon in front of Constantinople. Whatever profession of loyalty to Rome there might be, Palmyra had become a rival and hostile power. In 270 Aurelian (270-75), an energetic and capable prince, dislodged the Palmyrenes from Egypt and went to Syria, thence advancing eastwards towards Palmyra. The Palmyrenes were defeated with heavy loss on the banks of the Orontes near Antioch, and again when they made a stand at Hemesa, then the Romans marched across the desert to Palmyra itself. At this Zenobia lost her nerve, and fled to seek refuge with the Persians, but was overtaken and brought back a prisoner; whereupon Palmyra surrendered (272). Next year it revolted, but Aurelian turned on it with unexpected rapidity, took the city, and destroyed it. Thus Roman rule was restored in Syria.
Meanwhile Shapur I of Persia had died (271), and was succeeded by his son Hormuz 1, who had only a brief reign of one year and ten days, and was followed by Bahrain I (272-273). In his days appeared the heretic Mani, founder of the Manichaean sect, and the king had him executed as an offender against the Mazdacan religion. Either he was crucified at Jundi-Shapur, or his body was flayed after death and the stuffed skin exposed on the gate of that city, in any case there was a connection with Jundi-Shapur (at-Tabari, Ann. ii, go; Scher, Chron. de Siert, P.O. iv, 228). In 273 Bahrain sent help to Zenobia, but not sufficient to save her, and by this provoked the enmity of Rome, but he was not prepared for war, and sent an embassy to conciliate. The Emperor Aurelian (270-275), however, was determined to enter on a war with Persia to wipe out the disgrace of Valerian, and this was popular with the Roman people, but before action was taken Aurelian was murdered (275).
Bahram I had been followed on the Persian throne by two other kings of the same name, Bahram II (273-276) and Bahram III (276-293). These were succeeded by Narsai (293-302).
After various vicissitudes in the Roman Empire, Diocletian ascended the imperial throne in 284. In the course of his reign, in 296, Narsai declared war against Rome under pretext of enforcing his claim to Mesopotamia and Armenia. Diocletian sent his colleague Galerius, and this time the Romans won a decisive victory, and in 298 a satisfactory peace was concluded, by which the River Aboras was recognized as the boundary between the two states, five provinces beyond the Tigris were ceded to Rome, and the pro-Roman prince Tiridates was confirmed as King of Armenia.
Constantine, who succeeded Diocletian in 3o6, reigned until 327, and Shapur II (309-370), who had become king of Persia, observing the many difficulties gathering around Rome, in 359 invaded Mesopotamia and besieged Amida, which he took after a long siege. It was inevitable for Rome to interfere again, more especially because repeated efforts had been made to capture the great frontier fortress of Nisibis. In 362, the Emperor Julian, at the head of a large army, invaded Persia, but this enterprise turned out ill; he himself was slain, his army was defeated, and it was only with great difficulty that his successor jovian rescued its remnants. After this disaster the Romans were compelled to purchase peace on very unfavourable terms, and the five provinces ceded to Rome in 298 had to be restored.
It was under Hormuz that Jundi-Shapur had ceased to be a royal residence, and gradually became a heap of ruins. Shapur II, his successor who repelled Julian's invasion, took many prisoners in his war with the Romans, and "left the land of the Romans bringing away with him captives whom he settled in the lands of 'Iraq, al-Ahwaz, Persia, and the cities built by his father. He himself built three cities, and called them after his own name. One of these was in the land of Maisan, and was called Sod Sabur, now it is called Der Mahraq. The second, in Persia, is still called Sabur. He rebuilt Jundi-Shapur which had fallen into ruins, and called it Anti-Shapur (Andochia Saporis)... the third town is on the banks of the Tigris, and he called it Marw Haber, now called Akabora "(Scher, Hist. Nestorienne (Chron. de Slert) in P.O. iV, 22i). Later writers such as Abu 1-Farag, often refer to Shapur II as the founder of Jundi-Shapur, but the more correct view seems to be that the city was founded by Shapur 1, that it fell into decay when the court left the vicinity in the days of Hormuz II, and that it was rebuilt by Shapur II.
So far the diffusion of Hellenism was the work of the Seleucids, then of the Romans. Now a new factor appears. In the fourth century the eastward spread of Hellenism became the deliberate task of the Christian Church, which at that time identified itself with the Roman Empire. From this point the political history of Rome may be laid aside and attention concentrated on the outspread of Christianity.
POLITICAL events had brought western Asia a good deal under Greek influence. There had been some centuries domination of the Seleucid kings of Syria and, though the later rulers of that dynasty were inefficient and weak, the earlier ones had been otherwise. Public business had been carried on in Greek, and all who aspired to share in the administration had to learn and use Greek. No doubt this Hellenization was superficial, we know that it was so, but it left its impress. Then came Roman rule, which brought no new culture but rather reinforced the already existing Greek influence. Finally came the Christian Church, which was more definitely Greek in its influence than either the Seleucid kings or the Roman State, and after the time of Constantine the Roman government and the Christian Church worked hand in hand.
But the Greek culture which was thus introduced, was not that of Athens. Its focus was Alexandria in Egypt. It was not Hellenic, but Hellenistic. No doubt the culture of Alexandria evolved naturally and indeed inevitably from that of the older Greece, but it took a rather different direction. Philosophy as it was down to the age of Plato began to specialize in natural science under the guidance of Aristotle, and ultimately concentrated itself in medicine, astronomy, and mathematics. All these were treated as phases of natural science, and philosophy dealt with the underlying realities of which these specialized sciences were regarded as aspects. Its aim was to get the key to the natural order which, it was believed formed one great harmonious whole, and the means to be employed in the inquiry was outlined by the strict use of logic. This, of course, meant that the methods used in science held good in theology also, and this assumption caused the Church to be a missionary of Greek intellectual culture as well as of the Christian religion.
The City of Alexandria had been founded by Alexander the Great in 323 B.C. Its site was already occupied by the Egyptian town of Rakote (ñáêï“å) and this continued to be the name of the city in the Egyptian vernacular Coptic. When Alexander's empire was divided amongst his generals, Egypt was secured by Ptolemy Soter, and remained in the hands of the Ptolemaic dynasty until it was taken over by the Romans. Ptolemy Soter made Alexandria his capital, and did much to render it the focus of Greek culture and scholarship. He founded there the Museum which before long became.a kind of Hellenic university, a rival of the older schools of Athens. Apparently there had been a kind of congregation of sages in the temple of Heliopolis before this, and these sages removed to the new foundation which thus became an heir of the wisdom of the Egyptians. But the Egyptian element seems to have been absorbed in the Greek atmosphere, so that Alexandria was the heir of Athens rather than of Heliopolis. Still, the Greek world of Alexandria lost the exclusiveness which had marked Atbenian thought. It took a cosmopolitan character and showed a marked leaning towards oriental thought. In spite of its professed exclusiveness, earlier Greek culture had not been quite free from oriental influences, and much that appears in Greek life and thought can be traced back to Egypt and Babylon. Again, it must be noted that although Alexandria became so prominent in the development of later Greek thought, such development was not confined to it; it was not local, nor even national, but cosmopolitan. The Egyptians themselves never reckoned Alexandria as a part of Egypt; to them it always was a Greek colony, the headquarters of the alien race which garrisoned and ruled Egypt.
The Museum was founded by Ptolemy Soter who attached a library, but it was the generosity of his successor Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-247 B.C.) which enriched this until it became the greatest library of the ancient world, and this by itself went far to make Alexandria a gathering place of the learned.
The new cosmopolitan Greek life which developed after the days of Alexander had many sides. It produced its own class of literature, and evolved a scientific literary criticism. It carried forward philosophy, often on rather new lines. It produced new research in medicine, astronomy, mathematics, and other branches of science. All these were inter-related, for all show a kindred spirit, and all evolved naturally from the culture of the older Greece. But, as a matter of convenience, it will be well for us to concentrate our attention on three leading branches, philosophy, medicine, astronomy, and mathematics, these two last regarded as one because closely allied and developed at the hands of the same persons.
Aristotle the philosopher had been Alexander's tutor, but his life was more connected with Athens than with Alexandria. Yet his influence permeated Greek thought, and was mainly responsible for directing it towards natural science and mathematics, though this scientific tendency had a precedent in earlier philosophy.
The latest type of Greek philosophy, and one which had very great influence on Greek thought when it came into contact with the Arabs, was that known as neo-Platonism. This school of philosophy was fond of tracing its beginnings back to the senii-legendary Pythagoras (580-500 B.C.?), a native of Samos or of Tyre who, if not the pupil of Thales, at least visited him and was influenced by him. Thales is said to have studied mathematics and physical science in Egypt, and Pythagoras is described as following in his footsteps and going to Egypt and receiving instruction there from the priests. Amongst other things he learned from these priests the doctrine of transmigration (cf. Herdt. ii, 123)- On returning home he found that Samos was under the tyrant Polycrates, and thereupon rmgrated to Magna Graccia, ultimately settling at Croton. There he established a school in the form of a confraternity, following Egyptian precedent. This fraternity possessed all its goods in common, and kept all its teaching secret from the outside world, which caused it to be regarded with suspicion, as a secret society with potential subversive political tendency. So the fraternity experienced rough treatment and Pythagoras escaped to Tarentum, then to Metapontum. The community was broken up, but continued as a philosophical group for some two centuries, though no longer preserving secrecy about its tenets. The rule of secrecy was first broken by Philolaus (circ- 400 B.C.), in fact such secrecy was altogether alien to Greek thought. After the fourth century B.C., when Philolaus disclosed its esoteric doctrine, the Pythagorean school declined in prominence. Pythagorean schools or clubs in Magna Graecia had assumed a political character, strongly antidemocratic in their tone, and at some period in the course of the fourth century there was a rising against them during which the cities of Magna Graccia became a scene of murder, armed rebellion, and disorder of every kind (Polybius, ii, 39; Strabo, viii, 7, 1; Justin, xx, 4)- Plato shows tendencies towards Orphic and Pythagorean ideas, especially in the later treatises. Tle Old Academy was more Pythagorean than Plato, but the New Academy turned in a different direction. Whether the doctrine of the immortality of the soul came from Egypt through a Pythagorean medium is not clear, but most of the Greeks who accepted that doctrine were in touch with Pythagoreanism.
About 100 B.C. there was a revival of Pythagoreanism and a number of pseudonymous treatises appeared purporting to describe Pythagoras' teachings, including a set of poetical maxims which were called "the Golden Verses of Pythagoras It does not seem that the Pythagorean school ever took root in Rome. In this maturer Pythagorean teaching the soul was regarded as consisting of three parts, nous, thumos, and phrenes, only the first of these immortal. All nature was regarded as being alive, animated by heat, and the sun and stars as centres of heat were esteemed to be gods. The movements of the heavenly bodies are harmoniously adjusted by number, an idea of Egyptian origin, and so certain numbers have a sacred character, e.g. io which represents the sum of a pyramid of four stages, 4ù3ù2--1=10. This consideration of numbers appears again in Philo and later philosophers. All these ideas recur again in the later neo-Platonic philosophers, whose influence was felt by the Arabs. From the beginning Pythagorean teaching was much concerned with mathematics, its geometry chiefly interested in measuring areas. The Athenian Sophists turned to the geometry of the circle which the Pythagoreans had neglected. This revived Pythagoreanism exercised great influence in later Athens, and apparently in Alexandria as well. Neo-Platonists knew Pythagorean teaching in this later form. Both Porphyry and lamblichus, leading neo-Platonists, wrote lives of Pythagoras. In itself neo-Platonism was a perfectly natural and logical development of Greek thought, not an oriental intruder. It was eclectic, but so were most of the later philosophies, and combined the systems of Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics under the mgis of Pythagoras. It received its clear definition in the teaching of Plotinus and his disciples.
The Neo-Pythagorean philosopher Numenius of Apamea (circ. 160-180 B.C.), whose teaching is known by citations in Busebius (Praep. Evang., xi, 10; xviii, 22; xv, I 7), and a few other references (e.g. Porphyry in Stob., Eccl. i, 836) must be regarded as a precursor of neo-Platonism. He was the first Greek philosopher to show any sympathy with Hebrew religion, describing Plato as Moses speaking in Attic (Clement Alex., Strom. i, 342; Eusebius, Praep. Evang. xi, 10). He shows very plainly a tendency to religious syncretism such as is strongly marked in the neo-Platonists, but is not confined to them, indeed it seems to have been widely prevalent in the second century and after.
The neo-Platonic school had its parent in Ammonius Saccas or Saccophorus, so named because he had been a carrier in his youth. Very little is known of his life. The chief source of information is Porphyry cited by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 6, I9, 7), who states that he was a native of Alexandria and a Christian educated by his parents in the faith, but when he began to study philosophy he changed his opinions and became a pagan, though this last statement Eusebius denies (ib. 6, 16, 9). It has been suggested that Eusebius confuses him with another Ammonius, his contemporary and also an Alexandrian who was the editor of a Diatessaron giving the gospel according to St. Matthew with parallel passages from the other gospels, the basis of what afterwards were known as the Ammonian sections. Hieronymus (de vir. must. 55) says, "de consonantia Moysi et lesu opus elegans et evangelicos canones excogitabit". Apparently there were two contemporary persons, both of Alexandria and both called Ammonius. According to Longinus and Porphyry our Ammonius refrained from writing any books, following the precedent of Pythagoras, but the other Ammonius was the author of several works. Amongst the pupils of Ammonius were Origen, Plotinus, Herennius, Longinus the critic, Heracles, Olympius, and Antoriius, but these may not all have been pupils of the same Ammonius. Porphyry says that his teaching was kept secret, also a Pythagorean idea, that he bound his pupils by oath not to disclose it, but that vow was broken first by Herennius, then by Origen. There were two Origens, one the well-known Christian writer, the other a pagan philosopher, both Alexandrians and contemporary, but the Christian Origen and Heracles may have been the pupils of the other Ammonius who composed the Diatessaron. As to Ammonius' teaching, Hierocles (apud Photius) says that he endeavoured to reconcile Plato and Aristotle, but that was the aim of all the later Alexandrians. Nemesius, a bishop and neoPlatonist of the later fourth century, gives two citations, one from both Numenius and Ammonius, the other from Ammonius alone, both about the nature of the soul and its relation to the body. If it be true that Ammonius did not leave any writings, these references can only represent traditions about his teaching. The association with Numenius is significant.
Plotinus was an Egyptian, a native of Lycopolis or Siut, now known as Assiout, where he was born about A.D. 200 (Eunatius, Vit. Soph. P. 6; Suidas, sub voc., puts his birth at Nicopolis). He attended the school of Alexandria, but was dissatisfied with the teaching he heard there, until a friend took him to hear Ammonius Saccas. On hearing his lecture, Plotinus decided that he had found the right teacher. He was then in his twentyeighth year, and remained with Ammonius eleven years. Undoubtedly the meeting with Ammonius was a turning-point in Plotinus' life and gave the clue to his doctrine. But Arnmonius wrote no books, nor did he make any effort to publish his teaching, preferring to instruct in private and u;ider a pledge of secrecy. One result of Ammonius' teaching was to make Plotinus anxious to obtain more accurate information about the beliefs of the Indians and Persians. Reverence for, and interest in, oriental thought was characteristic of the Alexandrian school and this was inherited by the neo-Platonists. In order to gratify this desire Plotinus joined the Emperor Gordian's expedition to Persia in 242, an expedition which turned out ill and resulted in the emperor's death, and Plotinus had difficulty in reaching Antioch in safety. He then went to Rome, being at the time forty years of age, and there lectured for ten years and had many hearers, some of them senators and other leading citizens. But for long he followed Ammonius' example and taught privately, writing and publishing nothing. Then in 254, he began to write, and in 263 Porphyry became one of his hearers, introduced by Ametius who had been his hearer for twenty-four years, and remained with him six years. Plotinus had written twenty-one books of his Enneads when Porphyry met him, during the six years they were together he wrote twenty-four more, which Porphyry considered his best work, and in the brief remainderofhislifehewroteninemore. He died in 269, having completed his 69th year. His death took place during a visitation of plague, but was not due to the pestilence. Apparendy he became ill because he was deprived of the ministrations of his personal attendants who had been carried off by the plague. Finding himself ill, he retired to Campania to a house bequeathed to him by the Arab physician Zethus, who had been one of his pupils, and there finished his life in peace.
Later neo-Platonists often associated themselves with the revival of paganism then in progress, as did his pupil Amelius, but Plotinus himself stood aloof. The Enneads have come down to us rearranged and revised by his pupil Porphyry who, however, outlines another arrangement disposing the books in chronological order, and by that arrangement the development of Plotinus' thought is made clearer.
Though Plotinus was educated at Alexandria, his teaching was developed and delivered in Rome. At one time neo-Platonism was regarded as essentially Alexandrian, but this is an overstatement, if not altogether untrue, though the system contains elements which appear also in the Alexandrian Jew Philo, in the Gnostics who seem to have been of Egyptian origin, and in the Alexandrian Christians Clement and Origen. It was indeed eclectic, though claiming to be Platonism. It had a religious syncretism akin to that which appears in Plutarch and Maximus of Tyre, and which seems to have been very widely prevalent at the time.
In Plotinus' teaching the Monad is presented as the Supreme God, the ultimate source of all good and order. God is immanent, but is also transcendent. Between God and the world is the World Soul, the creator whose work is not altogether good and orderly, whilst the phenomenal world itself is unsubstantial and unstable. It is very much like the Gnostic attitude towards the problem of evil: the Creator whose work is obviously imperfect, is a subordinate, not the Supreme God, and therefore not perfect. Knowledge may be obtained by sense-perception, by inference from sense-perception, but the highest and best knowledge is that receive directly by inspiration.
Neo-Platonism, substantially the doctrine of Plotinus' Enneads, though developed by his successors, exercised a powerful influence over the Graeco-Roman world for several centuries. Books IV-VI of the Enneads, in an abridged Syriac translation, circulated amongst Syriac-speaking Christians, especially the Monophysites, as the "Theology of Aristotle "and were accepted as genuinely Aristotelian by the earlier scholars of Baghdad, before the time of al-Kindi, and were still so accepted by many for long afterwards. It is easy to see how such material contributed to a pantheistic and mystical tone of thought such as is apparent in Muslim philosophy.
Porphyy (b. 233, died after 301) was a Syrian, his original name Malchus meaning "king" or "royal", which he changed at the advice of his teachers to Basileus, then to Porphyry. He studied at Athens under Longinus, Ammonius' disciple, then at Rome in 263 under Plotinus. After a visit to Sicily he returned to Rome and gave expository lectures on the philosophy of Plotinus. He married Marcella, a friend's widow, simply for the sake of educating her children. At the time there were many sects which produced spurious apocalyptic works which they attributed to various distinguished authorities of ancient times, and with some of these Porphyry was led into controversy, especially against a book published under the name of "Zosimus" and purporting to give an account of the religious tenets of the Persians. This work he showed to be a recent forgery, and in doing so applied sound principles of criticism. The inquiry led him into controversy With the Christians, and for several centuries his writings were viewed by the Christians as the most serious attack made upon their faith. Only fragments of his work in this direction are preserved by Christian apologetical writers, but it is clear that his method of treatment was by way of historical criticism as already developed in the school of Alexandria. In one treatise, De antro nympharum, he applied the method of allegorical interpretation to the story of Ulysses' visit to the cave of the nymphs in Homer, Odyss. 13, I 08-1 I2As a writer, Porphyry was distinguished by a clear insight into the meaning of the literary work he examined, and had an exceptionally lucid manner of stating that meaning. His Isagoge or introduction to the Categories of Aristotle was used for many centuries in east and west as the clearest and most practical manual Of Aristotelian logic, indeed that logic was to a great extent popularized by the excellence of its presentation in the Isagoge. His "Sententiae"represent his exposition of Plotinus, again lucidly expressed but much preoccupied with his ethical teaching. He wrote a history of philosophy, of which his extant Life of PYthagoras no doubt formed a part. Like many neo-Platonists he was a vegetarian and ascete, which accorded with the tradition inherited from Pythagoras, as appears in the life of Apolloniu. s of Tyana, a religious and mor-al reformer of the first century. One of his treatises, De abstinentia, deals with this ascetic ideal. He does not recommend abstinence from flesh for all, admitting that it is unsuitable for soldiers and athletes, but commends it to those who are occupied with philosophy: he disapproves the offering of animal victims in sacrifice, which he regards as a barbarous survival of the days when men had false ideas about the gods and as akin to human sacrifices which were obsolete since the days of Hadrian, animal sacrifices being in many cases a commutation of older human sacrifices. Animals have some measure of reason, and so have certain rights, they do not exist solely for the service of men. Abstinence from flesh food was practised by the Essenes, by the Egyptian priests, and by the Indian Sarmanoi, by which he denotes Buddhist priests about whom he obtained information from the Syrian Bar Daisan who had contact with an Indian embassy proceeding to Rome (Porphyry, De abstinentia, 4, i8). He repudiates the doctrine of transmigration of souls which to many people had nade Pythagoreanism ridiculous. He was the author also of several works on psychology and mathematics.
lamblichus (d. circ. 320), a native of Cocle-Syria, was Porphyry's pupil in Rome and succeeded him as leader of the neo-Platonists. He was credited with supernatural powers, and it was said that at his devotions he was raised in the air and transfigured. His pupils asked him if this were true, and he laughed, and said that there was no truth in it Whatever, As a writer he was inferior to Porphyry, with defects in style and often obscure, but the Emperor Julian considered him the equal Of Plato, "a thinker who is inferior to him in time, but not in genius, I refer to Iamblichus of Chalcis" (julian, Oral. 4, "On the Sun King," 146 A), and for some time, it appears, he had a great vogue. He wrote a treatise tracing philosophy back to Pythagoras, and of this some portions survive, including a life of Pythagoras. His Logos Proireptikos is an exhortation to philosophy which consists largely of extracts from Plato, Aristotle, and neo-Platoriic writers. Besides these works he composed three mathematical treatises.
At the death of Iamblichus in 33o, his school dispersed, but he had a successor in Aedisius at Pergamum in Mysia, who educated the sons of Eustathius, a noble Roman who was sent on an embassy to the Persian court. By that time the Roman Empire was professedly Christian, and the philosophers who adhered to paganism had to keep their religious sympathies secret. Amongst Aedisius' pupils was the Emperor Julian, who made an attempt to revive decaying paganism, but without permanent result. The great hope of the pagan party lay in the neo-Platonists. At the beginning of the fifth century Hypathia (d. 415) expounded neo-Platonic doctrines at Alexandria, but for the most part Alexandrian thought was not much attached to neo-Platonism. The same teaching was continued after her by Hierocles (circ. 415-450), a pupil of Plutarch of Athens (d. 481), who seems to have been responsible for introducing neo-Platonism into Athens which from his time forward became its home. Plutarch was succeeded at Athens by Syrianus of Alexandria. After him came Proclus (410-485) a native of Constantinople who received his education at Alexandria, then continued at Athens under Plutarch and Syrianus. He was the author of a treatise on "Platonic Theology "and of one called "Theological Elements ", which contains a statement of the doctrine of Plotinus modified in a form which supplied the philosophical ideas of the later neo-Platonists, so that he ranks next after Plotinus as an authority of their system. At that time the school of Athens, the home of neo-Platonism, was secretly pagan and conscious of the precarious character of the tolerance which it enjoyed. One of his pupils was Marinus, who wrote his biography.
The last head of the academy of Athens was Damascius a native of Damascus as his name denotes, but educated at Alexandria, then at Athens. He professed to accept the Aristotelian doctrine of the eternity of matter, in contradiction to the accepted Christian tenet of creation, and for this was viewed disapprovingly by the Emperor Justinian. But this was merely the climax of a growing antagonism of the imperial authorities for what was generally felt to be a nursery of paganism. Justinian's ideal was a centralized and united empire, in complete conformity with the ruling prince in religion and in everything else. Official disapproval led to a species of persecution of all philosophers in 528, and in the following year the school of Athens was closed and its endowments confiscated. Of the deprived professors seven, including Damascius, migrated to Persia and were welcomed by Khusraw, who was an ardent admirer of Greek philosophy and science. This migration seems to have taken place in 532. The seven philosophers expected to find an ideal state under the rule of a philosopher king, but were quickly disillusioned and discovered that an oriental tyranny could be worse than the severity of Justinian, and begged to be allowed to go back. Khusraw tried to induce them to remain, but used no compulsion, and -when they did return took care to insert a clause in the treaty made with Justinian securing them complete liberty of conscience and freedom from molestation when under Roman rule. This return took place in 533.
Although the school of Athens was closed the philosophers who had been trained there continued to teach and both they and their pupils produced written works. Chief amongst these late neo-Platonists were Ammonius and John Philoponus. Ammonius was a pupil of ProcIus and compiled a commentary on the Isagoge of Porphyry which became the standard Greek authority and was afterwards adopted by the Nestorians. John Philoponus (circ- 530), a pupil of Ammonius, was a later commentator on the Isagoge and his exposition was preferred by the Monophysites.
The fame of Euclid (before 300 B.C.), one of the earliest scholars of Alexandria, did much to make the Museum a home of mathematical studies. His leading work, the Elenzents, probably contains a good deal which is not original, but is of great value as a summary of the knowledge of geometry acquired by the Greeks from the time of Pythagoras to his own days, arranged systematically and in logical sequence, a model method of statement, though more rigorous than is usual with modern r4athematicians. Other works are attributed to him, some doubtful. Amongst them was a treatise on optics, probably apocryphal, which was used by the Arabs.
Aristarchus (d. circ. 230 B.C.), of Samos, the astronomer, was a teacher at Alexandria. He was the first to show how to find by means of the Pythagorean triangle the relative distances of sun and moon from the earth, though his result is not even approximately correct owing to the defective character of the instruments used. He also made the conjecture that the sun, not the earth, is the centre of the universe, a theory confirmed by Copernicus in the sixteenth century A.D. In this he does not seem to have had many followers, but his suggestion was not altogether forgotten and is mentioned by al-Biruni (C. A.D. 1000), who, however, did not adopt it.
Eratosthenes (d. circ. I94 B.C.) was a distinguished scholar of Alexandria and the leading geographer of antiquity. He devised a method of measuring the circumference and diameter of the earth, which was afterwards put into practice by the khalif al-Ma'mun in 829 and repeated a few years later. To do this he noted that at noon at Syene (Assouan) the sun was directly in the zenith, but at the same time in Alexandria it was 7° 12' south of the zenith, and from this concluded that Alexandria was 70 12' north of Syene on the earth's surface. Knowing that the distance between the two places was 5,000 stadia, and as 7° 12' is one-fiftieth of the full circle Of 360° he calculated that the earth's circumference must be 50 by 5,000 stadia, i.e. 250,000 stadia, but altered that to 252,000 stadia so as to have 700 stadia exactly to a degree, thence computing its diameter to be equivalent to 7,850 miles of our measurement, and this is correct within fifty miles. He further stated that the distance between the tropics is eleven eighty-thirds of the circumference, making the obliquity of the ecliptic 23° 51' 20".
Archimedes (d. 212 B.C.), the friend of Eratosthenes, was not directly connected with Alexandria but his work, especially in mechanics, was known to and used by the Arabs.
Apollonius (circ. 225 B.C.), of Perga,was educated at Alexandria and applied himself to conic sections in which he used the names ellipse, parabola, and hyperbola. The work in which he dealt with this was in eight books, the first four of which are extant in Greek, the next three. in an Arabic translation, and the last book is lost. The first four books, like Euclid's Elements, are a digest of material already known arranged in systematic order, books V to VII contain a good deal of new material due to his own research. He also composed other works on geometry.
Nicomedes (circ. 180 B.C.) was a writer of minor importance who is best known as the inventor of the conchoid curve by means of which an angle can be trisected.
Diocles (circ. 180 B.C.) invented the cissoid or "ivy shaped curve which enables a cube to be duplicated, and studied the problem proposed by Archimedes of bisecting a sphere by a plane so that the volumes of the segments may be in a given ratio.
Hypsicles (circ. 180 B.C.), of Alexandria, may have been the author of what is known as the fourteenth book of Euclid, containing seven propositions on regular polyhedra. He also investigated polygonal numbers and certain indeterminate equations. In astronomy he introduced the division of the circle into 36o degrees and their subsequent sexagesimal divisions, though this he adopted from work already done by the Babylonian astronomers. The work of Hypsicles was translated into Arabic by Qusta b. Luqa, and afterwards revised by al-Kindi.
Hipparchus (d. circ. 125 B.C.) was not directly connected with Alexandria, but worked chiefly at Rhodes. He was the founder of scientific astronomy, which necessitated the measurement of angles and distances on a sphere, and in doing this he laid the foundations of spherical trigonometry. He worked out a table of chords, double sines of half the angle which was in use until the Indian system of calculating by sines was introduced by the Arabs. Plane trigonometry did not appear until later. He also made a catalogue of 850 fixed stars which marks the beginning of astronomy proper.
Heron (circ. A.D. 50), of Alexandria, was the inventor of several machines and wrote on dioptrics, mechanics, and pneumatics. Much of his mathematical work was concerned with the mensuration of land. He gives a formula for the sides of a triangle which may be represented as
A = v(s(s - a)(s - b)(s - c))
where s = a + b + c.
In his geometry appears the rule which we express as--
c = (n/4) cot(180°/11)
where n = number of sides of a polygon of area A and side s, and where c=A/s2
He was able to solve the equations which we represent as
ax2 + bx = c
Heron was translated into Arabic by Qusta b. Luqa (mechanics).
Menelaus (circ. A.D. 100) wrote on the sphere and spherical triangles, also six books on calculating chords. He states the theorem that if the three sides of a triangle are cut by a transversal, the product of the lengths of three segments which have no common extremity is equal to the products of the other three. Menelaus was not directly connected with Alexandria, but is known to have taken astronomical observations in Rome.
Nicomachus (circ. A.D. 100) also had no direct connection with Alexandria. He wrote a treatise on music and two books on arithmetic, possibly a compendium of a larger work now lost.
Marinus (circ. 100 A.S.), of Tyre, was a geographer who improved on the methods of Hipparchus. He located places by the use of two co-ordinates, latitude and longitude, but his work has not come down to us, most of it no doubt incorporated in that of Ptolemy.
Claudius Ptolemy (circ. A.D. 140-160) taught both in Athens and Alexandria. His chief work was known as the Ìáèçìá“éêçò óìõ“Üîåùò âéâëéïí ðñù“ïí. He wrote another ó²í“áîéò and therefore the Arabs called the principal treatise ç ìåãéó“ç and placing the Arabic article before the name made it almajest. He gives a summary of all earlier work on the size of the earth and the exact position of certain places. He further developed Hipparchus' table of chords and extended the use of sexagesimal fractions. His work in astronomy has been justly compared with that of Euclid in geometry, it gave an ordered and logical summary of all that had been done so far. He increased Hipparchus' catalogue Of 850 fixed stars to 1,022. In astronomy he took the earth as the centre of the universe and planned a complicated system of cycles, eccentrics, and epicycles to account for the movements of the heavenly bodies. This system apparently held good to a certain point, then it was detected to be unsatisfactory by Arab astronomers and efforts were made to correct it, the best known being that of the "new astronomy "which arose in Andalus (Arab Spain) in the eleventh century, but no correction produced a completely satisfactory result until the whole was completely replanned after Copernicus proved that the sun is the centre of our system and that the earth and other planets revolve around it. He was also the author of a work on astrology, the Tetrabiblos, which had a good deal of influence over Arab thought. A good deal of his work was translated into Arabic by Yusuf al-Haijaj, the Teirabiblos by Abu Yahya al-Batriq, whilst his geography formed the basis of al-Khwariznii's Book of the Image of the Earth which reproduced his maps in a modified form.
Diophantus (circ. A.D. 250), of Alexandria, was the author of an arithmetic in thirteen books of which six survive, a treatise on polygon numbers of which part is extant, and a collection of propositions which he called porisms. The first of these deals with the theory of numbers and includes an algebraical treatment of arithmetical problems. In solving determinate equations he recognized only one root, even when both roots are positive. He treats also some indeterminate equations and certain cases of simultaneous equations. He did not exactly invent algebra, but prepared the way for it by a treatment of arithmetic which anticipated algebra. His work influenced both Indian and Arab mathematicians, but neither followed him with sufficient confidence to make full use of the path he opened. It was not until the rediscovery of his work in sixteenth century Europe that full advantage was taken of his methods and so a foundation was laid of modern algebra.
Pappus (circ. 300), of Alexandria, wrote eight "books of mathematical collections", of which the first two are lost, but the remaining six are extant. Of these six, Book III deals with proportion, inscribed solids, and duplication of the cube; Book IV, spirals and other plane curves; Book V, maximum and isoperimetric figures; Book VI, the sphere Book VII, analysis; and Book VIII, mechanics.
Hypatia (d. 4I5), of Alexandria, daughter of the mathematician Theon, is said to have written a commentary on an astronomical table of Diophantus, possibly not the distinguished mathematician already mentioned, and on the conics of Apollonius, but neither of these survive.
Proclus (d- 485) studied at Alexandria and taught at Athens. He wrote many books, including a paraphrase of portions of Ptolemy, a work on astrology, another on astronomy, and a commentary on the first book of Euclid's Elements.
The history of Greek medicine proper begins with Hippocrates, of Cos, who died in 257 B.C., and his "Aphorisms "always remained a leading text-book for practitioners. This collection of aphorisms was amongst the early medical works translated into Arabic by Hunayn ibn Ishaq, who was able to use the Greek text. There is an anonymous Syriac translation which has been published by Pognon (Leipzig, 1903), but its date does not appear.
In the later period of the school of Alexandria the medical works of Galen (d. A.D. 200) were established as the recognized authority, and a selection of his treatises formed the official curriculum for medical study. This curriculum was reproduced at Emesa and Jundi-Shapur and Syriac versions were prepared for the use of Syriac-speaking students, Many of those Syriac translations were made by Sergius of Rashayn, but were afterwards revised by Hunayn ibn Ishaq and his companions in the Dar al-Hikhma at Baghdad, or were supplanted by new versions prepared at that academy. This translation into Syriac preceded the preparation of Arabic versions, but went on for some time side by side with translation into Arabic. Galen himself had practised at Rome, but his studies were made at Smyrna, Corinth, and Alexandria.
The chief Greek medical writers after Galen were:-
Oribasius (born circ. 325) was a friend of the Emperor Julian and the person whom Julian selected to be the confidant of his dissatisfaction with Christianity and determination to revert to paganism. This letter (Julian, Epist., xvii) was probably written in 358. He was with Julian in Gaul and accompanied that prince's unfortunate expedition into Persia where he was present at his death in 363. After his return from Persia his property was confiscated by Valentinian and Valens, though the reason -for this is not clear. He was then banished to a land of barbarians ", but this could not have been for long as he returned in 369. Three of his medical works are extant, one of these was a Synopsis dedicated to his son Eustathius in nine books, and this was translated into Arabic by Hunayn ibn lihaq and was known to 'Ali 'Abbas. It is quoted by Paul of Aegina.
Aetius (end of the fifth century) was a physician who practised at Constantinople. Nothing is known of his life, even the date of his activity is unknown, but he is supposed to have lived in the later fifth century as he refers to Cyril of Alexandria, who died in A.D. 444 and to Petrus Archiater who was physician to Theodoric, King of the East Goths. He was a Syrian of Amida. He was the author of a medical compendium in sixteen books, now divided into four groups. His work does not contain much original matter, but its contents are well chosen. He was the first Greek physician to give serious attention to spells and incantations.
Paul of Aegina, probably of the late seventh century. Nothing is known of his life. Suidas says that he was the author of several medical works. Of such works one only is extant and is known as The Seven Books on Medicine. This was translated by Hunayn ibn Ishaq and was in great repute amongst the Arabs, especially as an authority on obstetrics, for which reason he was surnamed al-qawabil "the accoucheur by them.
Aaron, priest and physician, of Alexandria, is another about whose life no information is available. He was the author of a Pandects or Syntagma, which is said to have been translated into Syriac by a certain Gosius. This Gosius has been identified with Gesius Petaeus who lived in the days of the Emperor Zeno (474-491). The late Syriac writer Bar Hebraeus states that Aaron composed thirty books which were translated by Sergius, of Rashayn, who added another two books, but Steinschneider holds that these additional books were the work of the translator who made the Arabic version, a Persian Jew named Mesirgoyah. Aaron's works circulated amongst the Arabs and had a considerable influence on Arab medicine.
THE Christian Church in its earlier period was essentially a Hellenizing force. Its language was Greek and its first outspread was amongst those who were Greek in speech and culture, if not in race. Even in Rome itself it used Greek, as appears from the fact that the early Christian Roman writers, Clement, Hermas, Hippolytus, and others wrote in Greek. Greek is the language generally used in the earlier catacomb inscriptions, and seems to have been that employed in the primitive Roman liturgy, though the Greek phrases now surviving in that liturgy were added later, probably in the fifth century, the Kyrie eleison introduced by St. Gregory at a still later date (John the Deacon, Vita S. Gregorii, ii. 2o, P.L. lxxv, 94). This prevailed until well into the fourth century when Constantine removed the imperial government to New Rome (Constantinople). The churches of Gaul also were Greek-speaking, though not to so late a period, and the province of Africa, afterwards the home of Latin Christianity, seems to have had a primitive Greek phase, if Aub6 is right in regarding the Greek text of the Acts of the Martyrs of Scillite discovered by Uesener in i88i as the original (Aub6, Etude sur un nouveau texts des acres des Martyrs Scillitains, Paris, i88i): Greek seems to have been largely used in second century Carthage. All this shows that Christianity spread first through the urban commercial population round the Mediterranean whose lingua franca was Greek. It was only later that it penetrated into the hinterland and reached the vernacular-speaking populations of Egypt, Syria, Italy, Gaul, and Africa. Greek was an international language and Christianity appeared as an international religion.
It is of course true that Christianity claimed a Jewish origin, for "salvation is of the Jews" (St. John iv, 22), but it developed in an atmosphere of Hellenistic Judaism, such as produced Philo of Alexandria, who used his Old Testament in Greek, not in Hebrew.
The Diaspora or Dispersion of the Jews began after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 588 B.C., when many of them found a refuge in Egypt. The Babylonians were conquered by the Persians under Cyrus in 538, and Cyrus permitted the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the restoration of its temple. But many of the Jews who had migrated to other lands did not want to go back to Palestine, finding much better openings elsewhere, and this was especially the case with those who had gone to Egypt, where they had formed several populous and flourishing colonies. When Alexander founded Alexandria in 332 he invited Jews to his new city and assigned them one out of the three regions into which it divided (Josephus, c. Apionem, 2 -4; Bell. 7ud. 2.18-7). These Egyptian Jews, however, formed an integral part of the Jewish community, recognized the jurisdiction of the High Priests, and paid regular tribute to the temple at Jerusalem. Although under the rule of the Seleucid monarchs of Syria, they retained their own laws and religion without interference to the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.), who began trying to Hellenize them and to introduce the worship of Greek deities in Jerusalem. This resulted in a revolt led by the Maccabees which Antiochus was unable to put down. At the beginning of his reign Antiochus deposed the High Priest Onias III and put his brother Jason in his place, then substituted a younger brother Menelaus or Oriias IV, who procured the murder of Onias III. Onias V, the son of the murdered ex-High Priest, fled to Egypt to escape the sacrilege and disorder produced by Antiochus' policy and with him went some adherents who esteemed him to be the legitimate High Priest. They were well received by Ptolemy Philometor (181-146 B.C.), who gave them a disused Egyptian temple at Leontopolis, and there they constructed a replica of the temple at Jerusalem and duly observed the daily sacrifices and other rites. This temple at Leontopolis remained in use until the temple at Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70, and then it was closed. Although a sanctuary of the Egyptian Jews this local temple never attained the prestige of the temple at Jerusalem, to which tribute)was sent from Egypt as from other countries of the dispersion. Probably it was in connection with this temple that a Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, was made, apparently by gradual stages, the translation of the five books of Moses in a rather crude vernacular such as was used in Egypt and which has its parallel in many of the Egyptian papyri, and this translation was made early enough to be used by Demetrius (as cited in Clemens Alex., Stom., i, 21, and Eusebius, Praep. Evang., ix, 21, 29), who probably lived under Ptolemy Philopator (222-205), whilst the historical and prophetical books were translated later in more literary form, and the latest books, Ecclesiastes and Song, in an improved and more literal style. The legend of Seventy Elders who made the translation under Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-247 B.c.), based on the spurious letter of Atisteas to his brother Philocrates, is unhistorical. Probably the whole translation was not completed before the early years of the Christian era. Philo of Alexandria does not quote from Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Song, Esther, Lamentations, Ezekiel, or Daniel, nor does the New Testament quote from Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song, or certain of the Minor Prophets.
Beginning with the revolt of the Maccabees there was a strong anti-Hellenist reaction in Palestine which seems to have spread abroad amongst the Jews of the Dispersion in the early years of the Christian era. It was part of the nationalist movement which inspired the Jewish revolt that culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem. This reaction returned to stricter observance of Hebrew tradition, to the use of the Hebrew language, and to the older idea of complete separation from the "gentiles". This reaction was the parent of Rabbinical Judaism. In this stricter Judaism it was no longer tolerated to read the scriptures publicly in the synagogue in the Greek language, the observance of the rite of circumcision and all other legal ordinances was punctiliously enforced and any familiar intercourse with pagans or the "uncircumcised" was absolutely forbidden. The Mosaic law was made stricter by rabbinical glosses.
The rivalry between this stricter traditional party and the Taxer Hellenistic Jews of the Dispersion had its repercussion in the Christian community. There were at first two parties, judaistic Christians who wanted all converts to be circumcised and subject to the whole Mosaic law, and Hellenistic converts who demanded no more than the acceptance of the Christian faith. The controversy between these two parties is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. In the end the judaistic party disappeared altogether, for the judaistic Christians which appear later in the Antioch of St. John Chrysostom belonged to a heretical sect which deliberately tried to revive Jewish usages. Possibly it may be said that Christianity is the heir of Hellenistic Judaism, the irxheritor of that monotheistic moral religion which so well suited the trend of Hellenistic thought.
The Christian Church received the Old Testament, but used it as subordinate to the New. The prophecies were treated as referring to Christ, its moral teaching as preparatory to a fuller revelation in the gospel. As the Greek converts greatly outnumbered the Jewish ones, it is not surprising that Greek education, which implied Greek philosophy, very soon began to permeate Christian teaching. Indeed it had already influenced Jewish thought as can be seen in several books of the apocrypha, such as Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, which bear the impress of Stoic thought. In this, as in many other respects, Christianity only continued the logical evolution of Hellenistic Judaism. In this adaptation of Christianity to gentile thought the leader was St. Paul whose epistles had a great influence on the formation of Christian doctrine and its approximation to current Greek philosophy. Like the Hellenistic Jews the Christians used the Old Testament only in its Greek version, and the earlier formulation of its doctrine was expressed in terms borrowed from Greek plfflosophy. Thus from the beginning the Christian Church was shaped to be the teacher of Greek intellectual culture as well as of evangelical doctrine. Later, when controversies arose within the Church, these too were expressed in Greek philosophical terms and fought out according to philosophical principles.
Religion may be concerned only with ritual, which is the case with most primitive religions, concerned only with sacrifices and the due performance of sacred rites. A later stage is reached when religion becomes a moral agency, which begins perhaps with the observance of tabus. Last comes the development of speculative theology, itself a form of philosophy which seeks to explain why things are as they are and to account for man's place in the universe. The ancient Egyptian religion seems to have reached this final stage in its later days, but in Greek thought philosophy had superseded or absorbed religion, and it was in a society where philosophy had practically replaced religion that Christianity was evolved. The old Greek and Roman religions, purely ritual and very largely magic, had no living influence and held their ground only as traditional survivals to which people were attached by long association. Morality was absorbed in philosophy as well as speculation on man's place in the universe, indeed his duty was essentially involved in the reason for his existence. Thus Christianity was presented rather as a philosophy which set itself to unravel the problem of existence. Undoubtedly it borrowed a good deal from the mystery religions with which it had certain similarities, but the dominating influence in the evolution of Christianity was the current attitude of the Hellenistic world towards religion, which was a philosophical attitude. In fact philosophy had replaced religion in the older sense.
Although the Church inherited the Jewish scriptures and followed the synagogue precedent in its liturgy, it definitely broke with Judaism, and the break was clearly seen by the Jewish authorities. Judaism was reverting to the ritualism of the past and to national exclusiveness; Christianity advanced into a freer and more open atmosphere for which Alexander's Conquests had cleared the way. It was a centrifugal movement, Judaism going farther towards the right, Christianity towards the left. The Jews aimed at a reformation by complete reversion to the past, which always is the professed aim of religious reformation. They regarded the,Christians with aversion as pressing on more recklessly on the path of laxity which they esteemed the cause of their own decadence. At a later period Jewish philosophers and scientists made a valuable contribution to intellectual culture, but that was in days when they were under Arab rule. No such tendency appears in the older Jewish academies of Sora and Pumbaditha where interest was concentrated in law and ritual observances.
The early Church, as pictured in the Acts of the Apostles and the epistles of St. Paul, undoubtedly had a missionary spirit. But that missionary spirit first appears as resulting from persecution. It is related that the first "scattering"of Christian teachers from Jerusalem took place when persecution followed the martyrdom of St. Stephen. Very often in after times a similar reason led to the preaching of Christianity in new districts. Probably the British Church owed its origin to refugees from the persecution which broke out in Lyons and Vienna. Persecution was not the only cause of the outspread of Christianity, but it was one cause, Bud perhaps a leading one.
Jewish opposition appears plainly in the narrative of the Acts, and Jewish antagonism seems to have been the principal cause of many, but not all, the earlier persecutions of the Church. The first actual persecution of Christians as a community took place in Rome under Nero, certainly instigated by Jews who were powerful at court. After this there were outbreaks of popular antagonism in many parts, especially in Asia Minor where Christians were numerous, and in some of these outbreaks Jewish influence seems to have been active. Under Trajan some attempt was made to regularize the policy to be followed in dealing with the Christians. When Pliny was governor of Bithynia he found many Christians there and a good many disturbances took place for which they were blamed. Pliny had had experience of legal administration in Rome, but apparently had had no contact with cases connected with Christians, as such cases came before the Praefectus Urbis or his deputy. He sought the Emperor's guidance, and Trajan replied in letters which gave a precedent for dealing with persons charged with practising this unauthorized religion. It was decided that Christianity was a crime deserving of death, but it was not permitted to make search for Christians and informers against them incurred penalties. At a later period Domitius Ultianus compiled a treatise, De offido proconsulis, of which the seventh book gave a summary of anti-Christian legislation. This work would have given us a complete view of the attitude of Roman law towards the Christians, but unfortunittely only a few extracts survive, the most important is Lactantius' indignant criticism (Lactantius, Instit., v, 11, 12). The subject remains obscure, which is to be regretted as undoubtedly persecution, or at least liability to persecution, was a strong motive causing Christians to go outside the Roman Empire, and so one of the chief causes of the spread of Christianity.
Some light is given by Hippolytus' account of Callistus, a Christian slave who was entrusted by his master, also a Christian, with funds to open a bank, but went bankrupt. He tried to recover loans from debtors, amongst them some Jews, and was alleged to have disturbed a synagogue in his efforts to get hold of them, and for thus disturbing the worship of a legally authorized community was brought before a judge. Obviously the Jews worked hard to get him accused of Christianity by bringing this out incidentally in the evidence: they could not bring it as a direct charge for fear of incurring the penalties attached to laying information. Callistus was sentenced as a Christian and condemned to labour in the Sardinian mines, but after some time was included,in a pardon obtained by Marcia, the concubine of the Emperor Commodus, who either was herself a Christian or very well disposed towards the Christians. (Whole incident in Von Dollinger, Hipollytus und Kallistus, ch. viii.) All through the third century Christian interest was strong at court (cf. Eusebius, H.E., vi, 34; vii, 10) The effective cause of the violent but brief persecutions under Decius and Diocletian towards the end of that century was that the Christians had become too powerful, practising their religion too openly and building large churches. Before Decius they had been protected by Roman law in holding property and the subterranean cemeteries of Rome, covering considerable areas, were their acknowledged property from the time of Pope Zephyrinus (202-219): it was an innovation when Decius tracked down Christians even in their cemeteries and seized their property. Persecution was occasional and spasmodic, usually provoked by non-religious motives, but there was a liability to persecution, and this undoubtedly led to some Christians going outside the Roman frontiers, or at least moving to a province where persecution was comparatively rare. The first beginnings of the British Church seem to have been due to fugitives from persecution in Gaul, and that church was by no means the only one which traced its origin to refugees.
The desire to be safe from the liability to persecution seems to have been responsible for the formation of a flourishing church in Mesopotamia outside the Roman Empire. This Mesopotamian Church, chiefly about Edessa, lived its own life in a comparatively free atmosphere, and developed its own style of church building and, apparently, its own system of discipline. Later, when the empire became Christian and the Catholic Church was directed by Greek bishops, much of this local Mesopotamian development was suppressed with a high hand, but the fact remains that some of the earliest extant evidence of church organization and building belongs to the area just across the eastern frontier of the Roman Empire. This Mesopotamian area had experienced Greek influence under the Seleucids. Greek influence was brought to bear by the Romans whose frontier towards Parthia swayed back and forth from time to time and who always had political interest in the border lands. But it was the Church more than anything else which brought about the Hellenization of that area across the frontier.
As it grew in prosperity the Church produced literature. In Alexandria, as might be expected, some of its earliest writers appeared, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others, and about A.D. 180 Hegesippus travelled about the Mediterranean world investigating evidence for the apostolical tradition of the Church's teaching and institutions. Shortly before Ms time Justin Martyr shows a Christian teacher trying to combine current philosophy and Christian doctrine. By the end of the second century Christianity was not merely strong in the number of its adherents but well reinforced by its literary output and its co-operation with philosophy. Christian literature was in Greek, the earliest vernacular Christian literature which came after was produced in Syriac and its classical standard was the dialect of Edessa, much earlier than any Christian material in Latin. Throughout the.Church generally the Old Testament was known only in its Greek translation, as had been the case with the Egyptian Jews in the days of Philo of Alexandria, and presumably with the Hellenistic Jews generally. Vernacular versions of the Old Testament are mostly translated from the Greek Septuagint, the older Syriac version alone shows an independent source which is closer to the Hebrew original. It may well be, however, that the Masoretic text which became the authorized version of the Old Testament represents a text selected from earlier divergent and varied texts, so that the Septuagint and its versions sometimes at least go back to an older form which has been rendered obsolete in Hebrew by the acceptance of a standardized text.
Although the Christian Church traced its origin from the Jewish synagogue, it appears in history in a structure organized, not on Jewish lines, but on lines following the structure of the Roman Empire. This began before the Church had received formal toleration, but became more pronounced after toleration had brought the Church into closer relations with the secular State. It was in 313 that the Emperor Constantine granted formal toleration to the Christian religion and in 325 summoned the first general council at Nicaca to define disputed points in Christian doctrine and regulate discipline. From that time forward the Church was protected and to some extent controlled by the State, though it was not until the days of Gratian (368) that it was recognized as the established religion.
In its earlier days the Church consisted mainly of urban congregations, over each a bishop with supporting group of presbyters. But gradually it spread out into the rural areas and congregations were added in outlying parts with presbyters only, each attached in discipline to a neighbouring bishop. Thus territorial dioceses were formed as the Church expanded from the cities which had been its earlier home. Already in Nicene times these territorial units were gathered together into confederations, like civil provinces, each known as a diocese, the name having a much wider scope than it now possesses. In the Eastern Church there were four such dioceses, the Orient, Pontus, Asia, and Thrace. These were divided into eparchics, each with one or two metropolitans. Thus Asia comprised the eparchies of Ephesus, Sardis, Smyrna, and Pergamum. The chief bishop or metropolitan of each eparchy came to be known as an archbishop. In the end there was a general recognition of the primacy of the great churches of Rome, Antioch, and after some hesitation Alexandria. Afterwards for sentimental reasons Jerusalem was conceded similar rank, though in fact subordinate to Antioch. The council of Chalcedon (canon 28) terminated the independence of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace and put them under the bishop of Constantinople which was thus raised, in spite of protests, to equality with Antioch and Alexandria. The bishop of these greater groups of churches was called patriarch, a name in frequent use in the post-Nicene age, but not formally recognized by any conciliar decree until the ninth century.
The Mesopotamian Church across the frontier was regarded as within the diocese of Antioch, but at an early date its chief bishop received the title of Catholicus, a title already employed by Constantine in writing to the Bishop of Carthage, and used in the civil administration for a procurator or deputy of a provincial governor. This title is used by Procopius (ii, 25) for the head of the Persian Church and ultimately became the perquisite of the Bishop of Seleucia. After the Nestorian schism the bishops of Seleucia appropriated it as the distinctive title of the head of the Nestorian community.
From the Nicene age onwards the Church was steadily organizing itself on lines similar to those already employed in the civil administration of the empire, though the areas of provinces, dioceses, and eparchies was not in all cases identical with those of the civil structure. Thus organized as a kind of replica of the Roman Empire it very efficiently and thoroughly assimilated the Christian communities, not only of Mesopotamia but also of Persia, to Hellenistic standards. Such standards applied to social organization prepared the way for Greek culture. The Christian religion, unlike some of the older religions, was not based on ritual observances alone, nor entirely on rules of moral conduct. The Greek influence it inherited came from that later Greek thought in which religion was absorbed in philosophy. Christianity set a body of theological doctrine in the forefront: ritual observances were designed as expressions of that body of doctrine, and morality also was built up on a basis of doctrinal teaching. All this doctrine was strongly Coloured by philosophy, much of it was simply philosophy expressed in theological terms. The philosophy thus adopted and utilized by the Christian Church was that philosophical teaching current in the Greek world during the earlier centuries of the Christian era, the eclectic philosophy which professed to be derived from Plato
and Aristotle. Such philosophy guided and directed the controversies raised in the Church by Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and others. The problems debated were suggested by philosophy, the conclusions reached were the results of philosophical treatment. Perhaps the most salient point is the complete adoption of the Aristotelian logic as the means of investigation and argument. However much Christian sects differed in their tenets, all alike accepted the Aristotelian logic as the method to be employed in investigation and solution.
Thus the Christian Church remodelled the communities of its converts in conformity with the social structure of the Roman Empire, grouping Persians, Arabs, and other Orientals according to a system of dioceses and provinces which was copied from the imperial administration, and promulgated amongst them educational standards which reproduced those established in Alexandria. The chief source of scientific and philosophical material received by the Arabs came through Christian influence.
It has been disputed whether Muhammad owed most to Jewish or Christian predecessors, apparently he owed a great deal to both. But when we come to the 'Abbasid period when Greek literature and science began to tell upon Arabic thought, there can be no further question. The heritage of Greece was passed on by the Christian Church.
NISIBIS lay within the territory ceded to Rome in 298. As it then became a frontier town commanding the main route between Upper Mesopotamia and Damascus, the Romans fortified it very strongly. Probably there already were Christians there, as in so many parts of Mesopotamia, and some few years later, in 300 or 30I, it was recognized as an episcopal see, its first bishop Babu, who was succeeded by Jacob. The town had a great many Jewish inhabitants also and possessed a Jewish academy founded by R. Judah ben Bathyra, an eminent tanna seventeen of whose halakoth are quoted in the Mishna. Probably there were three persons of this name, father, son, and grandson: the first living whilst the Temple was still standing in Jerusalem, the last contemporary with R. Akiba, with whom he is said to have had controversies. Apparently the Jews suffered severely when the Romans took the town, and it is probable that this involved the end of their academy, at any rate it is not mentioned afterwards.
Bishop Jacob attended the Council of Nicaea in 325 and subscribed its decrees. Not long after that council Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, founded a school at Antioch in imitation of the great school of Alexandria, and his example was followed by Bishop Jacob who founded a similar school at Nisibis, with the special purpose of spreading Greek theology amongst Syriac-speaking Christians, whose theology and the arrangement of whose churches, as Strzygowski points out, did not conform to the accepted standards of the Catholic Church. He placed a presbyter named Ephraem in charge of this academy. Ephraem became a celebrated teacher and raised the school of Nisibis to great fame. Not only so, but he was also distinguished by his literary work. He was not the first to Write in Syriac, but in later ages he was always regarded as the standard authority for classical Syriac. Whilst he presided over the school at Nisibis he composed poems which became the models of Syriac verse. He is said to have presided over the school for a period not far short of sixty years, presumably he was quite a young man when he was appointed, and the end of the school was by no means the end of his career. The chronology, however, is not altogether clear.
The school at Antioch had a chequered history. Cornparatively early in its career, in 331, Eustathius himself was sent into exile and left the school in the hands of Flavian, who took as his associate Diodorus, an ascete who had long been his intimate friend. All these three, Bishop Eustasius, Flavian, and Diodorus were prominent in controversy with the Arians, a prominence responsible for many of the troubles which came upon the school of Antioch, for at the time the A.rians had much political power, and that became more so after the death of Constantine in 337. The school, however, continued until 379 when Diodorus became Bishop of Tarsus: in 381 he was one of the bishops who consecrated Flavian to the see of Antioch. When Diodorus was raised to the episcopate the school dispersed, but one of its teachers, named Theodore, continued teaching a few members who adhered to him until 392, when he was made Bishop of Mopseustia. Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopseustia came to be regarded as the leading theologians of the Syrian Church, the Greek speaking church dependent on Antioch, and their writings which, of course, were in Greek, were taken as the bulwarks of the faith in Syria. Greatly revered as teachers of orthodoxy their teaching differed in method from that in vogue in the school of Alexandria, and it would seem that such difference in scholastic method was accentuated by a racial jealousy between the Syrians and Egyptians, for certainly there was a rivalry, not altogether friendly, between Antioch and Alexandria. No one could have suggested any doubt as to the orthodoxy of these two distinguished theologians, but later ages suspected them of having sown unintentionally the seeds of Nestorianism, and some incautious expressions used by Theodore were seized upon as suspect of implied Nestorianism and so were formally condemned at the fifth General Council held at Constantinople in 553.
Meanwhile Nisibis also had its troubles. Bishop Jacob died probably soon after 34I when he was visited by Milles, Bishop of Susa in Persia. Not long after this came Julian's unfortunate expedition against Persia, and after its disastrous end in 363 the five provinces acquired by the Romans in 298 had to be handed back to Persia. In the war which ended thus calamitously Ephraem, the head of the school of Nisibis, had taken a leading part in defending the city against the Persians and, as the city now passed into Persian occupation, he felt it impossible to remain there and fled to Edessa.
No doubt there were many other refugees and Ephraem, as an unknown fugitive, had to undertake menial labour to earn his daily bread. For some time at least he found employment as an attendant in the public baths. But friends discovered him and encouraged him to resume teaching, and thus a Christian school was established at Edessa. The school of Nisibis had not migrated to Edessa, it had simply scattered when Nisibis fell into the hands of the Persians, but as its head resumed his work in Edessa there was a continuity between the two schools and that of Edessa may be considered as a revival of the school of Nisibis. Ephraem lived twelve years after the fall of Nisibis and died in 375. Not all that period was spent in teaching; besides his literary work he seems to have travelled and to have spent some time as a hermit. After his death the school had a prosperous career. Its teaching was carried on in Syriac, the Syriac of Edessa being reckoned as the literary dialect of Syrian Christians.
In 412 Rabbula was appointed Bishop of Edessa. He was the son of a converted pagan priest of Kerinesrin (Chalcis) and a man of considerable energy. The school was under a teacher named Ihibha or Hibha, whose name is rendered in Greek as Ibas. Some while before this there had been a revival of learning which seems to have commenced in Asia Minor, probably in Cappadocia, and reached the Syriac-speaking community in the course of the fifth century. It seems to have been connected with an ecclesiastical development which centred at Caesarea in Cappadocia. From St. Gregory Thaumaturgus and onwards the church there attained a great reputation as a model in matters liturgical (cf Brightman, Eastern Liturgies, Appendix N, pp. 521-8), which culminated in a revised liturgy produced by St. Basil (d- 379), which became the established rite of Constantinople and still remains the principal liturgy of the Orthodox Greek Church. The second Greek liturgy, in more general use, bearing the name of St. John Chrysostom (d. 407), is simply an abridged form of the liturgy of St. Basil, whilst there is a third form, wrongly ascribed to St. Gregory (d. 604), which also is based on St. Basil. Of these the full liturgy of St. Basil is now used only on the Sundays of Lent (except Palm Sunday), Maunday Thursday, the eves of Christmas, Epiphany, and Easter, and on St. Basil's day (1st January): that of St. Gregory is used on weekdays in Lent. This liturgical development was a byproduct of an extensive and influential wave of cultural influence which spread out from Cappadocia to Byzantium, and then passed onwards through the Oriental churches into Asia. Edessa, as the metropolis of the Syriac-speaking Church and the focus of the Syriac phase of Hellenistic intellectual life, became the distributing centre of the Cappadocian renaissance.
Nisibis was taken by the Persians in 363, and Ephraem, who had been its head, fled to Edessa. As a refugee he had to earn his livelihood in a humble way and entered the service of a bath-keeper, but devoted his spare time to teaching and reasoning with those who cared for his company. One day when he was thus occupied he was overheard by an aged hermit who had come down from his hermitage to visit the city, and who rebuked him for being still interested in earthly knowledge. This caused Ephraem to retire to the mountains and spend some time in a hermitage meditating, reading, and literary composition, which bore fruit in some of his hymns and poems. At that time a revival of learning which greatly influenced the Church was in progress in Cappadocia, especially associated with Basil of Caesarea, ard this induced Ephraem to travel to Cappadocia and visit Basil, perhaps going to Egypt, the "holy land "of monasticism, on the way. Before long, however, the news that Edessa was disturbed by the teaching of various heresies arising out of the teaching of Bar Daisan who had lived in that city in the second century, caused him to return and resume his teaching. Later he again retired to the hermit life, but this time was recalled by the news that Edessa was suffering from a severe famine, and by his presence and exhortations he succeeded in inducing the wealthier citizens to give generously to the relief of their more indigent neighbours. His death took place not long afterwards in 373. Considering these interruptions of the ten years of his sojourn in Edessa we can hardly regard him as organizing and directing a school there, but it appears that his influence gave impetus and direction to the group of disciples who gathered round him, and after his visit to Cappadocia this meant that they were brought into touch with the Cappadocian renaissance.
Ephraem's most prominent pupil was Zenobius Gaziraeus, a deacon of Edessa, who wrote against the Marcionites and was the teacher of Isaac of Antioch. At first the school of Edessa seems to have been an informal group, so that it is hardly possible to describe Ephraem as its first head and Zenobius as his successor. But out of this group gradually developed what became a well-known academy, though it had no official and formal foundation like the schools of Nisibis and Antioch. It might, of course, be reckoned as a continuation of the school of Nisibis closed in 363, as it was commenced and guided by one who had been the official head of the Nisibis school, but there was no migration of teachers and students which could justify its being regarded as a colony of Nisibis.
There is plain evidence of work done at Edessa in the later fourth century in translation from Greek into Syriac. The manuscript, Brit. Mus. Add. 12150 of date 411, contains Syriac translations of the Theophania and Martyrs of Palestine of Eusebius, and of Titus of Bostra's discourses against the Manichaeans, whilst a St. Petersburg manuscript Of 462 contains a Syriac version of the Ecclesiastical Histoty of Eusebius. (The Syriac version of the Theophania, edited by S. Lee, London, 1842, trans. Camb., 1843; of the Martyrs of Pal., ed. trs. W. Cureton, London, 1861; of the Eccles. Hist., by W. Wright and N. McLean, Camb., 1898; of Titus of Bostra, P. de Lagarde, Berlin, 1859.) Internal evidence shows that these texts have passed through the hands of a succession of scribes, so must have been made some time before 411 and 462 respectively, Eusebius died in 340, Titus of Bostra in 371, so the translations into Syriac may have been made during the authors' lifetime, or very shortly afterwards, as was the case with the letter of Cyril, of Alexandria, "On the true faith in our Lord Jesus Christ to the Emperor Theodosius," which Rabbula, the Bishop of Edessa, translated into Syriac as soon as he received a copy from its author.
The school was well established and of good repute amongst the Syriac-speaking community of Mesopotamia and Persia and most of Persian bishops were its alumni when in 41 I - 1 2 Rabbula was appointed Bishop of Edessa, and about the same time or soon afterwards Hibha (Ibas) was made head of the school. The works of Theodore of Mopseustia, and Diodorus of Tarsus, were then the standard theological authorities of the Syrian Church, and Hibha made a Syriac version of Theodore's work for use at Edessa and then, as the terminology and logic of that work offered difficulties to oriental students, he also made a Syriac translation of the Isagoge of Porphyry, which was the usual introduction to logic, and of Aristotle's Hermeneutica. These translations cannot be identified, but translations of Aristotle's Hermeneutica and Anatytica Priora as well as of Porphyry's Isagoge, with commentary attached exist, made by Probus, who is described as presbyter, archdeacon, and chief physician of Antioch, which seems to be contemporary and it may well be that the version of the text is that of Hibha. 'Abdyeshu' bar Berikha (thirteenth to fourteenth century) speaks of Hibha, Kumi, and Probus as contemporaries and all translators of Aristotle. Of Kumi's version nothing is known. Early in the sixth century, therefore, these works on logic were known at Edessa in Syriac versions. (Syriac vers. of Porphyry, ed. A. van Hoonacker in J.A., xvi, 70-160; Aristotle's Hermeneutica, ed. G. Hoffmann, Leipzig, 1869, 2nd ed. 1878; Analytica, ed. J. Friedmann (Erlanger Dissert.), Berlin, 1898.)
In 428 Nestorius3, a monk of Antioch, was made Patriarch of Constantinople, an outsider chosen to avoid inflaming the strong faction spirit prevailing in the capital, which would have been the inevitable result of appointing a local candidate. Nestorius brought with him a brother monk of Antioch Anastasius. Both of these were products of the school of Antioch, trained in the theology of Theodore and Diodorus. Before long a sermon preached by Anastasius was made the subject of a complaint to the Patriarch. The objection laid was that Anastasius denied the applicability of the term Theotokos to the Blessed Virgin Mary, asserting that she was the mother only of the human body of Christ. To some extent the question was one of psychology: Does the soul enter into man at birth, or is it. present before birth? Orthodox fathers have differed in their inswer. If the reasonable soul does not enter into the body until birth, it might be assumed that the Logos, the Divine Person of Christ, would not have entered his body whilst it was as yet only an animal body, not human until the reasonable soul was added. Anastasius teaching was not that of Diodorus and Theodore, for they do not seem to have dwelt upon this point. To the populace the refusal of the title Theotokos to the Blessed Virgin seemed blasphemous and passion was inflamed. Beneath this were the rival tendencies to Antioch and Alexandria. Antioch inclined towards what we may call a semi-rationalist treatment of theology, Alexandria towards an allegorical and mystical treatment, and the Alexandrian school had a strong outpost in Constantinople.
When complaint was made to Nestorius he defended Anastasius and the controversy became embittered. As it raged in the capital city, other churches intervened, opposition to Nestorius being stirred up by Cyril the Patriarch of Alexandria. At length the Emperor intervened and a general council was held at Ephesus in 431 at which Nestorius was deprived and excommunicated. But many Syrians disapproved of this decision, repudiated the council, and separated from the orthodox Church. These separatists were known as Nestorians.
The Christian school at Edessa, trained in the theology of Diodorus and Theodore, generally supported Nestorius, although there was a strong minority opposed to his teaching. It became the focus of Nestorianism and in this had Hibha as leader. At first the bishop Rabbula took the Nestorian position, but he was won over by Cyril's arguments and stood out against the teaching prevalent in the school. At his death in 435 Hibha, the head of the school and a prominent Nestorian, was appointed bishop and the policy of Rabbula was reversed.
In the controversy raised about Nestorius his leading oppo