Plutarch of Chaeronea and the 1

8/2/2019 Plutarch of Chaeronea and the 1

1/19

Jos Mara Candau Morn | Francisco J. Gonzlez PonceAntonio L. Chvez Reino (editores)

ACTASDEL X SIMPOSIO INTERNACIONAL

DE LA SOCIEDAD ESPAOLADE PLUTARQUISTAS

SEVILLA, 12-14 DE NOVIEMBRE DE 2009


2/19

SEVILLA 2011

PLUTARCO TRANSMISOR

Jos Mara Candau MornFrancisco J. Gonzlez Ponce

Antonio L. Chvez Reino(editores)

ACTASDEL X SIMPOSIO INTERNACIONAL

DE LA SOCIEDAD ESPAOLADE PLUTARQUISTAS

SEVILLA, 12-14 DE NOVIEMBRE DE 2009


3/19

J. M. Candau Morn, F. J. Gonzlez PonCe & a. l. Chvez reino (eds.), Plutarco transmisor, Sevilla, Secreta-riado de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Sevilla, 2011, pp. 401-417 (ISBN 978-84-472-1352-8)

Plutarch of chaeronea

and the Gnostic WorldvieW:

Middle PlatonisM and the naG haMMadi library

Lautaro roiG lanzillotta

In evaluating Plutarchs contacts with the world of Gnosis,

scholars have not so far reached consensus. In fact, it is possi-ble to distinguish two polarized groups, namely those who rejectany trace of Gnostic thought whatsoever and those who recog-nize Gnostic, or at least Dualistic, Gnosticizing views inPlutarch. Instead of simply siding with one or the other posi-tion on the basis of the analysis of this or that motif, the presentpaper proposes a systematic analysis of Plutarchs thought ontheology, cosmology, anthropology, epistemology and ethics thatmay allow a better comparison between his views and the worldof Gnosticism as reflected both by the heresiologists and by

several texts of the Nag Hammadi library.

To call Plutarch a gnostic, then, is, I think,

meaningful, if the term is carefully qualified1.

In their evaluation of the so-called Gnostic or Gnosticizing ideas in Plu-

tarch of Chaeronea, scholars of the last century or so failed to provide a defini-

tive answer regarding meaning, provenance and goal of these views. In fact, the

numerous studies on the issue can be divided into two main groups: those that

firmly claim a Gnostic background for Plutarchs ideas and those that vigor-ously reject any Gnostic affiliation whatsoever. What is lacking in this contro-

versy is a consistent definition of Gnosticism and more clarity concerning its

origins, namely whether or not one can speak of a pre-Christian Gnosticism2.

1 J. dillon, 1990, XIII, p. 216.2 On the early discussion of the issue, see E.M. YaMauChi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism. A Sur-

vey of the Proposed Evidence, Michigan, 1973, pp. 1328, who comments upon both the wide and

narrow definitions of the term Gnosticism and upon the question of the existence of a pre-

Christian Gnosticism. For a more recent discussion of the issue, see M.A. WilliaMs, 1996, andK.L. KinG, What is Gnosticism, London, 2003, both of whom question the term as a category.For different points of view, see M. MeYer, Gnosticism, Gnostics and the Gnostic Bible, in W.


4/19

402 l. roiGlanzillotta

Given that up to the present neither problem has been completely resolved, a

new attempt to approach these Plutarch passages from the same perspective

would be at least as sterile as the preceding efforts.

Therefore, rather than looking for a genealogical dependence between Plu-tarch and Gnosticism, or vice versa, in the following pages I intend to sur-

vey Plutarchs testimony, highlighting the points of contact with the world of

Gnosticism as we are able to judge it today on the basis of both heresiological

works and the Nag Hammadi library. Given that numerous previous approaches

to the subject have randomly focused on this or that motif, I will attempt a sys-

tematic exposition of Plutarchs views that focuses on theology, cosmology, an-

thropology, epistemology and ethics. This systematic approach intends to show

that Plutarchs Gnosticizing views are not the result of haphazard influences,

and that their coherence demands a better explanation of their significance in

his worldview.

Theology

Plutarchs theology ofDe Iside et Osirideand De animae procreatione in Timaeo

reveals clear dualistic undertones3. In addition to the first positive principle and

matter, Plutarch posits, and this is his novelty when compared to Plato, a second,

negative principle, coeval with the One, which is responsible for both evil and

disorder4. This is, of course, Plutarchs evil world soul. Plutarch believes there

is support for the idea in Plato, who asserted that there were two principles, oneis the origin of good () and the other the producer () of the

opposite effect5. As far as the former principle is concerned, it is the rational

principle of the Good, of order and of identity6. The negative principle in turn

is responsible for evil and disorder.

In dealing with the issue U. Bianchi asserts that this dualism is pre-cosmic,

not anti-cosmic, and that it has a clear dialectical nature, since the principles of

Barnstone & M. MeYer (eds.), The Gnostic Bible,Boston, 2003, pp. 116; id., The Gnostic Gospelsof Jesus, New York, 2005, p. xiii; and B. Pearson, Gnosticism as a Religion, in id. (ed.), Gnosti-cism and Christianity in Roman and Coptic Egypt, New York, 2004, pp. 201223.

3 On the issue, J. ries, Plutarque historien et thologien des doctrines dualistes, in J. ries,Y. Janssens & J.M. sevrin (eds), Gnosticisme et monde hellnistique. Actes du Colloque de Louvain-la-Neuve, 11-14 mars 1980,Leuven, 1982, pp. 146-163.

4 J. turner, Sethian Gnosticism and the Platonic Tradition,Qubec, 2001, p. 373.5 In a reference to Pl., Lg. 896d; see Plu., Is. et Os. 370f, when he (Plato) had grown consider-

ably older, he asserts, not in circumlocution or symbolically, but in specific words, that the move-

ment of the Universe is actuated not by one soul, but perhaps by several, and certainly by not

less than two, and of these the one is beneficent, and the other is opposed to it and the artificer ofthings opposed. See F. Ferrari, 1995, p. 77.

6 Is. et Os. 373a, ; 373e, .


5/19

403PlutarChandtheGnostiCWorldvieW

good and evil are opposed to each other from the beginning7. There are howe-

ver, certain passages that seem to raise some doubts about Bianchis statement

regarding the absence in Plutarch of a hypostasierter Demiurge a lesser di-

vine figure in charge of the imperfect world. Thus, for example, Plutarchs shortexposition on Zoroastrism in De Iside et Osiride(369d-370c) in the context of

his attempt to give a foundation to his dualistic view of the universe8. Indeed,

he refers to the view of the wisest of men that there are two gods, rivals as it

were, the one the Artificer of good and the other of evil, but he also asserts that

There are also those who call the better one a god and the other a daemon9, as-

sertion which seems to subordinate the latter to the former.

The same thesis seems to lie behind De E apud Delphos,which distinguishes

the character and activity of Apollo as unity and the only Artificer, while the

world of change is attributed to the control of some other god, or rather

to some demigod, whose office is concerned with Nature in dissolution and

generation10. Plutarch goes on to describe their antithetical nature by means of

the names of both and the association of the former with unity, light and vis-

ibility and the latter with multiplicity, darkness and invisibility11. In this con-

text, it is interesting that De genio Socratis(591a), perhaps in a Xenocratic vein12,

equates the earth with Hades (590e), and the region between the earth and the

moon with the allotted domain of Persephone (591a, ).

More important is the fact that Plutarch explicitly states that the element of

disorder that acts on matter and originates the irrational motions in the sublu-

nary world is driven here from the region above13. Not only Torhoudt, but also

Griffith and Dillon have expressed their bewilderment for the fact that Plutarch

comes here as close as possible to the world of Gnosticism14. It is therefore per-

haps not out of place to compare Typhon, the irrational part of the world soul

and the disturbing element that alters matter, which is conceived of as confused

and stupid (1014c, ; 1015e; 1016c) and that alone can

only produce appearances,withYaldabaoth, the malignant and stupid demiurge

of theApJohn. Typhons descriptions as irrational and truculent, violent and

7 U. BianChi, Plutarch und Dualismus,ANRW, II 36.1 (1987). pp. 350-65, p. 354. See also P.thvenaz, Lme du monde, le devenir et la matire chez Plutarque avec une traduction du trait De laGense de lAme dans le Time (1repartie),Paris, 1938, pp. 124125.

8 J. hani, Plutarque en face du dualisme iranien, REG,77 (1964) 491525.9 Is. et Os. 369d-e.10 E ap. Delph. 393394. As J. dillon, 1996, p. 191 and 1990, XIII, p. 218, suggests, Plutar-

chs dualism may be due to the influence of his teacher Ammonius, whom he mentions in this sec-

tion of E. ap. Delph.11 E ap. Delph. 394a.12 See R.M. Jones, The Platonism of Plutarch, Chicago, 1916, p. 57, n. 147, who refers to

Xenocrates; see also H. Cherniss, 1968, p. 195, n. d.13 Is. et Os. 373a.13-14, ... .14 A. torhoudt,1942, Chapter II; J.G. GriFFiths, 1970, p. 504; J. dillon, 1996, pp. 204-205.


6/19


obstructive15 and, more importantly, as ignorant and self-deceptive16 recall

Yaldabaoths characterization in numerous Nag Hammadi writings. As the Hy-

postasis of the Archonsputs it: Their chief is blind; [because of his] power and

his ignorance [and his] arrogance he said, with his [power], It is I who amGod; there is none [apart from me]17. Note, moreover, that as Plutarch ex-

plicitly states in De Isidepeople assign to Typhon the most stupid of the do-

mesticated animals, the ass, an animal with which the archontic realm is also

related18.

Consequently, even if, as has repeatedly been pointed out, Plutarch in general

does not go as far asApJohn, since the world ultimately does attain perfection19

once the external intervention awakens the intellectual faculty from its slum-

ber20, this and other cases do seem to allow us to speak of a given devaluation

of material reality and of an hypostasizedfigure in charge of it in Plutarch. He

not only attempts to separate everything that could diminish the perfection of

the divinity by attributing it to a subaltern god, but also explicitly says that it

comes from above ( ), thus subordinating it to the higher realm.

Cosmology

As far as cosmology is concerned, there are conspicuous similarities between

Plutarchs cosmological model, as it emerges both from De animae procreatione

in Timaeoand from De Iside et Osiride, and the cosmology of theApocryphon of

John21

. As mentioned above Plutarchs cosmological model includes three prin-ciples, with the principle of matter () being added to the positive productive

15 Is. et Os. 371b, 371c, 371d, respectively. On Typhon, see J. BouloGne, Typhon: une figure dumal chez Plutarque, in M. Watthee-delMotte & P.-a. deProost (eds), Imaginaires du mal. Actesdu colloque de Louvain-la-Neuve, 19-21 mars 1998, Leuven, 2000, pp. 43-53.

16 Is. et Os. 351f, .17 HypArch(NHC II 4) 86.27-30; 94.19-21; other similar examples in OrigWorld(NHC XIII 2)

103.11-14; GosEg(NHC IV 2) III 58.24-59,1; TestTruth(NHC IX 3) 48.4f; TreatSeth(NHC VII 2)

64.19-26; TrimProt(NHC XIII 1) 43.35-44.2. See G.P. luttiKhuizen, 2006, p. 2.18 See J.G. GriFFiths, 1970, p. 409, with references to C. Bonner, Studies in Magical Amulets,

London, 1950, pp. 135-136. Note, however, that the object referred to by Griffith with the letters

includes a cock-headed god. For an ass-headed god with the same inscription see pages 238-

239. See also ApJohn(BG) 41.19-20 and parallels in which not Yaldabaoth but another archon

named Eloaios is said to have a donkey face (ApJohn[NHC II] 11.28 even uses the Greek term

instead of the Coptic eiw as the other three versions).19 A.H. arMstronG, 1978, p. 105.20

See Plu.,An. procr. 1014c; on which J. dillon, 1990, XIII, p. 218; Z. Plee, 2006, pp. 261-263.21 TheApocryphon of Johnis known in four versions: NHC II 1-32; NHC III 1-40; NHC IV1-49 and BG 8502.1977, on which G.P. luttiKhuizen, 2006.


7/19


principle and to the negative one the latter being identified with the bad

world soul of Platos Laws(896d)22.

In what regards Plutarchs former work, it contains a detailed discussion of

the Timaeus 35a.1-36b.5 that exposes the authors literalist approach to Pla-tos cosmogony23. According to our author24, in the TimaeusPlato distinguished

two stages in the formation of the world, namely a pre-cosmic stage before the

world came to be (Ti. 52d.2-4), and the resulting ordered universe (Ti. 50c.7-

50d.1)25. In his interpretation, the simple soul plays an important role during the

pre-cosmic stage, as it functions as an intermediary between motionless forms

and unqualified matter, in which the soul disperses the images from that world

yonder26 in order that it may become perceptible and corporeal (1013c). What

interests us here is that in spite of its central role the soul cannot produce order

by itself, as a result of which it induces only a disorderly motion on the corpo-

real forms. The fact is that up to this point the only capacity proper to the soul

is sense perception (1024c); its intellective faculty appears to be only in a poten-

tial state, which is described as immobile and impassive27.

22 See, Is. et Os. 369e; 370f. On Plutarchs as a harmonization of Aristotles prime mat-

ter yearning for form moving by itself in the Metaphysics(1034b.5-6) and of Platos pre-cosmic

material principle, the mother of becoming of the Timaeus(53b) in Is. et Os. 370f-371a, see Z.

Plee, 2006, p. 147 note 9.23 In the controversy regarding the literalist and allegorical interpretation of Platos cos-

mogony in the Timaeus, Plutarch sides with Aristotle who, against Xenocrates and Speusippus,insisted that the literal was the only possible interpretation (De coel. 279b.22). For ancient and

modern references to the controversy, see P. Merlan, Greek Philosophy from Plato to Plotinus, inA.H. arMstronG (ed.), Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy, Cambridge, 1970 [1967], p. 48n. 1. See alsoJ. dillon, 1996, pp. 242-244, who quotes John Philoponus, On the Eternity of theWorld145.13ff Rabe, which preserves Calvenus Tauruss rsum of the four standard interpreta-

tions of Platos (in Timaeus28b) to defend the allegorical interpretation. On Plutarch lit-

eralist approach, see H. Cherniss, 1976, pp. 137-149; M. Baltes, Die Weltentstehung des platonischenTimaios nach den antiken Interpreten1, Leiden, 1976, pp. 38-45; id., La dottrina dellanima in Plu-tarco, Elenchos,21 (2000) 245-270; F. Ferrari & L. Baldi, Plutarco, La generazione dellanima nelTimeo, Naples, 2002.

24 An. procr. 1014.25 See F. Ferrari, 1995, p. 87.26 An. procr. 1024c, . That this is, strictly speaking, Plutarchs

own interpretation of Plato has been sufficiently pointed out by H. Cherniss, 1976, p. 232, n. c.On the relationship of Plutarchs elements with the Platonic Timaeus, F. Ferrari, 1996, pp. 47-48.

27 An. procr. 1024c-d, ... and what he calls becoming (...) is nothing other than that being in-

volved in changes and motions which, ranged between what makes impressions and what receives

them, disperses in this world the semblances from that world yonder. For this very reason it was

called divisible and also because it is necessary for that which is perceiving and that which is form-

ing mental images to be divided in correspondence with what is perceptible and with what is im-

aginable and to be coextensive with them, for the motion of sense-perception, which is the souls

own, moves towards what is perceptible without but the intelligence, while it was abiding and im-mobile by itself upon having got into the soul and taken control makes her turn around to him

and with her accomplishes about that which always remains fixed the circular motion most closely


8/19

l. roiGlanzillotta406

The soul therefore is able to transmit ideas, but in spite of its inherent incli-

nation towards the intelligible it cannot engage by itself in an intellectual mo-

tion to attain it28. It is at this point that similarities between Plutarch and the

myth of Sophia in the ApJohnbecome apparent29

: in the same way that in thelatter text Sophias or male partner transforms her into a rational soul30,

Plutarch affirms that an intervention from above, from the superior principle

( ), is neccessary for the soul to activate its dormant intellective

activity (1026e31). After being made rational due to their reunion with their

male consorts, they both achieve similar goals: while Sophia is restored to the

ninth heaven inApJohn32, Plutarchs world soul finally accomplishes its goal of

moving in a circular motion around that which always remains fixed, a motion

that is most closely in contact with real being (1024c-d).

Further support for this comparison comes from Plutarchs Is. et Os., where

Isis and her evil brother Typhon represent both faculties of the pre-cosmic

world soul, the impassive intellectual and the irrational, respectively, while Os-

iris represents the external intellect. As a result of her unconsummated love

of Osiris, originating in the womb of Rhea, Isis gives birth to Horus the Elder,

in Plutarchs words only an image and an apparition of the world to come33.

Due to the lack of a male element, the result could only be a failure: the paral-

lels with Sophias story in the Apocryphon of Johnare evident34. As is also the

case in De animae procreatione in Timaeo, the ordered world will only come into

existence when the impassive intellectual faculty is turned towards the intellect,

namely when Isis is transformed by reason and receives all corporeal and spir-

itual forms35. We see then that Plutarch applies the same model to Isis and Os-

iris that he applied to the relationship between the world soul and the intellect:

there is a relationship between potential intellect and actual intellect and related

to these there are also two stages, namely the pre-cosmic stage and the ordered

universe.

in contact with real existence. For the relationship between soul and matter in this pre-cosmic

stage, see F. Ferrari, 1995, pp. 86-104.28 On the difficulties of this assertion in Plutarch, see F. Ferrari, 1996, pp. 50-51.29 G.C. stead, 1969, p. 101. ContraA.H. arMstronG, 1978, p. 104.30 See below, n. 32.31 See alsoAn. procr. 1024c and 1023c.32 ApJohn(NHC II 1) 13.32-14.13.33 Is. et Os. 373a-c. On the relationship between this imperfect son of Isis and the world of be-

coming, see A. torhoudht, 1942, pp. 3739.34 See ApJohn(BG) 37 and parallels; G.P. luttiKhuizen, 2006, pp. 43-49 rightly points out

that this idea reflects a Hellenistic rather than a Jewish background; on Aristotelian influence on

the notion, see ibid. p. 87 and n. 31; see also below.35

Is. et Os. 372e, ,

.


9/19


Although my intention is not to state a relationship of dependence between

Plutarch andApJohn, there does seem to be a common background behind the

idea that the dormant or potential intellectual element of the soul or Sophia

cannot by itself produce something resembling the divine model36

. As to theformer, the idea of the dormant soul to describe the world-souls lack of intel-

lectual activity and its actualization by an external source, be it the Intellect, the

Father or the , is frequent in Nag Hammadi texts, witness the Authorita-

tive Teachingsmetaphorical description in which the works as a medicine

on the soul or the Teachings of Silvanusin which, more literally, the heavens

light enlightens the in order that this may turn itself toward the light of

heaven37.

In the context of Middle Platonism, the motif also appears in Alcinous. Per-

haps in a reference to Platos Cratylus (400a.8-10), in which Intellect and Soul

confer order upon the bodily nature, Alcinous describes the Father as rousing

up the soul of the world and turning it to himself 38. Commenting upon the

common notion in Plutarch and Alcinous, John Dillon proposes the influence

of the Platonic Politicus(269 ff.), but such a background, as he also admits, pro-

duces more problems than solutions39. In fact, this motif cannot be explained

without Aristotles famous passage in De Anima2.1 on the two modes of the

soul as entelechy40. Aristotle indeed affirms in this passus that the soul is the

entelecheia of the body and distinguishes two senses in which this entelechy

manifests itself. There is the entelechy, which he compares to the exercise of

knowledge and waking; but there is also the souls first entelechy, which is com-

pared to knowledge and sleep.

In what regards the idea of the souls (or Sophias) incapacity to produce

something resembling the divine model by itself, we have the notion, also of

Aristotelian provenance, that the female role in procreation provides the mate-

rial substrate only. As has been pointed out, Aristotles description of unruly

36 On Plutarch, J. dillon, 1990, IV, p. 121, affirms that Isis, it seems, produced a sort of fore-

shadowing of the cosmos of her own, before being filled with by Osiris. For Plutarch, thisonly indicates her desire for Form and order, but it has a curious resemblance to Valentinus myth.

On the ApJohn, see G.P. luttiKhuizen, Traces of Aristotelian Thought in theApocryphon ofJohn, in H.G. BethGe, S. eMMel, K. KinG & I. sChleChter (eds.), For the Children, Perfect Instruc-tion, Boston, 2002, pp. 181-202.

37 SeeAuthTeach(NHC V I,3) 22.24-29 and Teach Silv(NHC VII 4) 103.8-11.38 Alcinous, Didask. 164.42-165.4 (the father fills the cosmic soul with his forms and rouses, in

this way, its intellect. Once the Cosmic souls intellect has been actualized, it confers order on the

material world), ,

,

.39

J. dillon, 1996, pp. 205-206.40 Arist., De An. 412a-413a; on which, see A.P. Bos, The Unanimity of Aristotles On the Souland his Eudemus, forthcoming.


10/19


matter in De Generatione Animaliumas originating the deformity () that

is likely to appear in human reproduction41 might be the background of Sophias

futile attempt at parthenogenesis [which] results in a miscarriage, of the dis-

charge of dark matter (that is her menstrual fluid), the only thing that Sophiacan contribute to generation42. This conception seems also to be behind a couple

of passages of the Corpus Hermeticum, witness the Poimandres, where Physis

or Nature is fecundated by the Anthropos (in fact, by the Logos of the highest

Intellect dwelling in him), or Kore Kosmou where it unites with Ponos43. In-

terestingly, the idea already appears in Philo of Alexandrias De migratione Abra-

hami. After distinguishing three elements in a human being, namely body, soul

and intellect, and affirming the intimate relationship between the nous and the

divine intellect, Philo stresses that the former only produces good results when

inspired by the latter. Otherwise human reason produces imperfect thoughts or

ideas, abortions (), in the words of Philo44, imperfection which also

characterizes Sophias offspring45.

In addition to these major parallels, there is another issue that might be dealt

with in this cosmological section. I am referring to Plutarchs use of the motif,

rather widespread in Gnostic texts, of the archons or doorkeepers who exert a

controlling force in the planetary sphere, impeding the souls free passage to the

divine region. It is well known that according to De genio Socratisthere are four

principles () of all things. Life (), movement (), birth ()

and corruption ()46 are clearly located in the four regions the universe

consists of and the links () between them are described in the following

manner: the first is linked to the second by Unity at the invisible, the second to

the third by the Mind at the sun, and the third to the fourth by Nature at the

41 Arist., GA767b.9-30, comments upon three different levels of unsuccessful reproduction:

as producing either a more general type of human, namely a female, an offspring not resembling

its parents or monstrosity.

42 Z. Plee, 2006, p. 116.43 C.H. 1.12-15 at 14, , ,

, on which L. CerFaux, Un thme demythologie gnostique dans le De Iside et Osiridede Plutarque, CE, 11 (1936) 42-43. See also C.H.

23.10-13 (Kore kosmou) as a result of the union of Physis and Ponos Heuresis is born, who will

invent the ordered Universe. On the role of Heuresis and its comparison with Isis described as

, see A.D. noCK & A.J. FestuGire, 1954, p. 27 n. 46.44 Philo, De migratione Abrahami33-34, .

, , , -

.45

ApJohn(NHC II 1) 10.2-7; BG (2) 37.13-18.46 Gen. Socr. 591b. A complete analysis of the myth in W. haMilton, The Myth in PlutarchsDe genio(589F-592E), CQ, 28 (1934) 175182.


11/19


moon47. What is interesting about this view, however, is that the three Moirai,

daughters of Ananke, have an important role to play in controlling these links

between the different regions. It is significant that, as H. Drrie has pointed out,

they are no longer conceived of as spinning goddesses, but as holders of keys() and, consequently, in charge of the custody of the whole region to

which they are ascribed48. Admittedly a doorkeeper is not the same as a ruler

in the Gnostic sense, but that Plutarch echoes a widespread notion can be seen

in an interesting passage of Origens Contra Celsum, in which Celsus appears to

have used a similar term to describe the Gnostic powers in charge of the astral

region, namely divine doorkeepers ()49.

Anthropology

Some scholars point out a similar Gnostic background to Plutarchs anthro-pology, or, at least, to the most developed form of his various anthropological

schemes. In fact, the famous passage of De facie in orbe lunaeconfidently allows

Sulla to assert the tripartite composition of man, in a way that resembles the

anthropological frame we repeatedly find in Nag Hammadi texts50. Admittedly,

the first steps towards this view can already be seen in De genio Socratis(591d),

in De sera numinis vindicta(564c) and, perhaps, in De virtute morali(441d), but a

clear and distinct separation of the three parts has not yet been fully achieved

in these texts51. In line with Aristotles thought on the issue, De facie in orbe

47 Gen. Socr. 591b, in which the order of the Moirai is Atropos, Clotho and Lachesis. Even if

the order is the same, Fac. lun. 945c places them not in the invisible, the sun and the moon, respec-

tively, but rather in the sun, the moon and the earth. On Plutarch being inspired by Xenocrates,

see below next note.48 H. drrie, 1981, p. 107 and notes 61-64. On the origin of this idea in Xenocrates and on

its further history in the Neo-Platonic doctrine of the hypostases, see H. drrie, Zum Ursprungder Neuplatonischen Hypostasenlehre, Hermes, 82 (1954) 331-342, especially pp. 338-339, which

summarize Plutarchs combination of tradition and innovation: as to the former, Xenocrates al-

ready used them as symbols of the Stufung der Seele und der Welt, associated them to the dif-

ferent levels of the universe and equated these levels with epistemological modes. As to the latter,Plutarchs innovation can be seen in the fact that the Moirai are no more connected to reason,

opinion and perception as in Xenocrates. Consequently, they are no more related to the sun, moon

and earth, but have been rather removed to the invisible region beyond them. According to F.E.

BrenK, An Imperial Heritage: The Religious Spirit of Plutarch of Chaeronea,ANRW, II 36.1(1987), pp. 249-349, p. 275, differently, Plutarchs fantasy comes from Stoic-Poseidonian cosmol-

ogy and contemporary Platonic speculation.49 Origenes, Cels. 7.40; cf. 6.30.50 Fac. lun. 942e.51 In spite of W. haMilton, The Myth in Plutarchs De facie(940F-945D), CQ, 28 (1934)

24-30, and, more recently, of Y. vernire, Symboles et Mythes dans la pense de Plutarque, Paris,

1977, p. 126, who both consider that De geniopresents exactly the same trichotomy as De facie, W.deuse, Untersuchungen zur mittelplatonischen und neuplatonischen Seelenlehre,Mainz, 1985, pp. 46-47,is right in interpreting Timarchus myth as a first step towards the theory exposed in De facie. See


12/19


lunaeclearly distinguishes nous, soul and body52 and asserts that mans intel-

lect is his most divine element53. Most interesting concerning Plutarchs an-

thropology, however, is that he connects it with the motif of the ascent of the

soul54

.After associating mans three constitutive elements with the sun, moonand earth, respectively, Plutarch introduces the motif of mans first and second

death (943a-b). Given that the intellect is mans only immortal part, De facie in

orbe lunae944-945 describes how it leaves behind both bodily and psychic ac-

cretions: the body remains on earth, the soul continues its journey to the moon,

while the intellect, our true self, speeds off to the sun55.

Both aspects of Plutarchs anthropology have clear parallels in Gnostic

thought. The tripartite anthropology is ubiquitous in Nag Hammadi texts such

as theApJohn, theApJamesand the Tripartite Tractate56. At the same time, the

idea of the ascent of the soul is the obverse to the conception of the souls de-scent into the world of movement, as the Three Steles of Sethasserts, echoing

Heraclitus (B 90), The way of ascent is like the way of descent57. The ascent

of the soul is the core of Gnostic eschatology and as such it appears in the story

of Simon and Helena58, in the Hymn of the Pearl in theActs of Thomas, in the

also, in the same line, H. Cherniss, 1968, pp. 200201, n. a. The same is true of the passage in Virt.mor. (441d), sometimes referred to as another example of tripartite anthropology (see H. drrie,1981, p. 109, n. 70), but which in fact implies only a bipartition of the soul without referring to

the separation of soul and intellect.52 On the Aristotelian background to Plutarchs anthropology in De facie, see A.P. Bos, The

Distinction between Platonic and Aristotelian Dualism Illustrated from Plutarchs Myth in de

facie in orbe lunae, in a. Prez JiMnez & F. Casadess(eds), Estudios sobre Plutarco. Misticismo y re-ligiones mistricas en la obra de Plutarco, Madrid-Mlaga, 2001, pp. 5770,passim; id., 2003, p. 280.

53 The Nicomachean Ethicsprovides enough testimony on it: see Arist., EN1177b.26-1178a.2

for the idea that the intellect is mans divine element and that by which he achieves complete hap-

piness; in EN1178a.2-7 the intellect is mans true self; according to EN1179a.22-32, he who lives

according to his intellect is the most beloved of the Gods. Similarly, the Eudemian Ethicsstate that

the intellect is mans highest element and is connected with God: EE 1248a.24-29. See also De

An. 430a.23-25; Metaph. , 1072b.23-26; PA656a.8; 10; 686a.27-28; GA736b.28; 737a.8-11; Protr.

fr. 108 Dring. See P. Moraux, Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Von Andronikos bis Alexander vonAphrodisias, I, Die Renaissance des Aristotelismus im I Jh v. Chr., Berlin-New York, 1973, p. 230, and

additional bibliography in note 24.54 On the issue, F.E. BrenK, The Origin and Return of the Soul in Plutarch, in Relighting the

Souls: Studies in Plutarch, in Greek Literature, Religion and Philosophy, and in the New Testament Back-

ground, Stuttgart, 1998, pp 3-24; seeespecially pp. 13-16.55 Fac. lun. 944f, ,

, .56 SeeApJohn(NHC II 1) 25.17-27.30;ApJames(NHC I 2) 11.35-12.13 and TriTrac(NHC I 5)

119.16-122.12. See also, the same view in TreatRes(NHC I 4) 46.22-24; GosMary(BG 1) 10.14-16;

TeachSilv(NHC VII 4) 92.23-26, on which L. roiGlanzillotta,Acta Andreae Apocrypha: A New

Perspective on the Nature, Intention and Significance of the Primitive Text, Genve, 2007, pp. 222226.57 Steles Seth(NHC VII 5) 127.20-21.58 Iren.,Adv. haer. 1.23,2-4.


13/19


Naassene homily as preserved by Ps.-Hippolytus59, in Valentinianism60 and the

Corpus HermeticumI and X61, and it also lies in the background of numerous

Nag Hammadi texts62.

The similarities between Plutarchs version of the ascent of the soul, and thetripartite anthropology behind it, with Gnostic conceptions are so obvious that

scholars attempted to furnish an explanation. H. Drrie, for example, claimed

that Plutarchs view, in spite of an unverkennbare Affinitt, had nothing to do

with the world of Gnosticism and, in fact, it might proceed from Posidonius

fragments 108 and 110e-k. Admittedly, both fragments deal with the intellects

power of divination when freed from the influence of the senses, but the idea ex-

posed in them is too general to be seen as the impulse behind Plutarchs mo-

tif63. As has been pointed out, the origin of the motif of the ascent of the soul

as we find it in Plutarch and parallel texts should perhaps rather be sought in

Aristotles lost writings, Eudemusor De philosophia64. Moreover, parallels are not

exclusively from the Gnosis, as tripartite anthropology is rather widespread in

late antiquity65, and the ascent of the soul also appears in Philo of Alexandria66

and other Middle-Platonists such as Alcinous67 and Maximus of Tyre68. Under

the influence of this conceptual world, it even reached Clement of Alexandria,

who, as Lilla has demonstrated, seems to echo this view69.

59 Ps.-Hippol., Ref. 5.7,2-9; 36.60 Iren., Adv. haer. 1.6,7; 7.1,5. On the Valentinian myth of Sophia, see G.C. stead, 1969,

pp. 75104.61 See C.H. 1.24-26; 10.16. See A.D. noCK & A.J. FestuGire, 1954, p. 131, n. 57, with refe-

rences to its appearance among the Valentinians (Iren.,Adv. haer. 1.7,1 and Clem. Al., Exc. Theod.

64) and Marcosians of Irenaeus (Adv. haer. 1.21,5).62 SeeApJohn(NHC II) 26.31; GosMary(BG 1) 17.4-5; GosPhil(NHC II 3) 119.13-15; Gos-

Truth (NHC I 3) 24.11-20; 40.30-33; 41.28-29; 42.32; ThomCont(NHC II 7) 139.28-30; ApPaul

(NHC V 2); SopJesChr(III 4) 124.1-9.63 H. drrie, 1981, pp. 97-98, 110. In this he seems to follow W. Bousset, Die Himmelsreise der

Seele, Darmstadt, 1960, pp. 59-62, who, in his turn following R. heinze, Xenokrates, Leipzig, 1892,p. 127, already points to the possible influence of Posidonius. Against the possibility that F 108

deals with the immortality of the soul, see I.G. Kidd, Posidonius, II, The Commentary, I,Testimoniaand Fragments,Cambridge, 1988, pp. 431432.

64 See A.P. Bos, 2003, Chapter X: The Souls Bondage according to a Lost Work of Aristotle,which includes a thorough and convincing analysis of the issue.

65 See on the influence of the tripartite anthropology on Early Christianity, L. roiGlanzil-lotta, One Human Being, Three Early Christian Anthropologies. An Assessment of Acta An-

dreaes Tenor on the Basis of Its Anthropological Views, VChr, 61 (2007) 414444.66 Ph., On dreams22; On giants2; De plantatione4.67 Alcinous, Didask. 180.18-19.68

Max. Tyr., Diss. 11.10; cf. 9.6; 10.2. For his precedents see Pl., Phdr. 246d-247e; Tht. 173e.69 Clem. Al., Strom. 6.108,1, cf. 7.57,5, on which S. lilla, Clement of Alexandria: A Study inChristian Platonism and Gnosticism, Rome, 1971, pp. 181-189.


14/19


Epistemology

Gnosis or knowledge occupies a central place in Plutarchs thought. The

opening chapters of De Iside et Osiridebear sufficient testimony to the fact that

for him knowledge of the divine, so far as it is attainable by men, is the mosturgent issue. On the basis of Plutarchs scanty use of the term, R. Reitzenstein

has surmised that our author here uses the term in a special mystical sense70 and,

as a matter of fact, in this text the character, means and goal of knowledge are

clearly similar to the world of Hermeticism and Gnosis. To begin with, as for

the character of knowledge, it is interesting that in spite of the cultic context,

knowledge is presented here in clear philosophical terms, seemingly expressed

in Plutarchs assertion that the effort to arrive at the Truth, and especially

the truth about the gods, is a longing for the divine71. As the text advances,

ritual, myth and philosophy intermingle to such an extent that one wonderswhether final contact with the divinity results from the Isiatic initiation or from

philosophy72.

As for the means of attaining the knowledge of Him who is the First, the

Lord of All, the Ideal One, Isis is presented as a helper and guide who leads the

mystes along a laborious path to counteract and annihilate the work of Ty-

phon, namely the attachment to the body and the senses: by abstinence from

many kinds of food and from the lusts of the flesh, [which] curtails licentious-

ness and the love of pleasure, and induces a habit of patient submission to the

stern and rigorous services in shrines73

. In spite of the apparent differences be-tween the Isiac cult as presented by Plutarch, in which observance of the ritu-

als brings the individual into contact with the divinity, and Gnosticism, in which

revelation plays the most important role74, there are still clear similarities: once

the Gnostic receives the call from above he must continue his preparation to at-

tain the knowledge of God by leading a pious life, detached from the body and

controlling the influence of the irrational aspects of his soul by means of rea-

son. (See below, section on Ethics.)

As for the goal of knowledge, Plutarch presents this as the apperception of

the conceptual, the pure, and the simple, shining through the soul like a flashof lightning, [which] affords an opportunity to touch and see it but once75. In

this direct contact with divinity we see the mystical aspect again coming to the

70 See R. reitzenstein, 1910, p. 125; as quoted by H.D. Betz, 1972, p. 347.71 Is. et Os. 351e, , ; see also

Alcinous, Disdask. 153.3-9.72 See Is. et Os. 371a, where Plutarch affirms that Platonic philosophy is the hermeneutic key

to the Egyptian myth of Isis and Osiris. See H.D. Betz, 1972, pp. 347354.73

Is. et Os. 352a.74 M. Malaise, 1982, pp. 58-60.75 Is. et Os. 382d.


15/19


fore76, for which Plutarch claims the support of Plato77 and Aristotle78, who,

in his view, call this part of philosophy the epoptic or mystic part, inasmuch

as those who have passed beyond these conjectural and confused matters of all

sorts by means of Reason proceed by leaps and bounds to that primary, simple,and immaterial principle; and when they have somehow attained contact with

the pure truth abiding about it, they think that they have the whole of philos-

ophy completely, as it were, within their grasp79. It is evident that this fusion

of the subject and object of knowledge is also a well-known goal in Gnostic

texts80.

In Plutarchs theosophical exposition, consequently, the spheres of Typhon,

Isis and Osiris are presented as the progressive steps of phronesis, episteme

and theoria. Once the individual, by controlling irrational impulses by means

of reason and abstinence, distances himself from ignorance and self-deception

and he is then able to focus on understanding in order to finally achieve know-

ledge, namely union with the divinity81. The knowledge provided by the mys-

teries of Isis presupposes the principle of like knowing like82, in other words,

the similitude of the subject and object of knowledge which excludes all those

who are not in the know83. This obviously implies an elitism with respect to

knowledge that draws the line between kin () and alien ()that

was well known in Gnostic milieus. The fact that this knowledge is in a way con-

cealed by the divinity, who only grants it to some happy few who really make

the effort to attain it, is also close to the esotericism of the Gnostic worldview84.

As the GosTruthputs it, the Father, or God, retains within himself the knowl-

76 For the Middle Platonic background of the notion, see F.E. BrenK, Darkly Beyond theGlass: Middle Platonism and the Vision of the Soul, in s. Gersh & C. KannenGiesser (eds.), Pla-tonism in Late Antiquity, Notre Dame (University of Notre Dame Press), 1992, pp. 39-60.

77 As possible inspiration for Plutarch, Ph. Merlan, 1963, p. 33 note, refers to Platos Smp.210a; Ep. VII 344b; Phaedr. 250a-251a and Phad. 69c-d.

78 Arist. fr. 10 Ross. The fragment was first claimed as Aristotelian by J. Croissant,Aristote etles mystres, Paris, 1932; see also E. BiGnone, LAristotele perduto e la formazione filosofica di Epicuro,

II, Firenze, 1936, p. 76.79 Is. et Os. 383d-e. On this passage, see the interesting commentary by Ph. Merlan, 1963,

pp. 32-35; see also L. roiGlanzillotta, Bridging the Gulf between Transcedence and Imma-nence in Late Antiquity, in a.a. MaCdonald, M. tWoMeY & G.J. reininK (eds.), Groningen Stu-dies in Cultural Change, V, Learned Antiquity: Scholarship and Society in Near East, the Greco-Roman

World, and the Early Medieval West, Leuven, 2003, pp. 37-51.80 GosTruth(NHC I 3) 24.28-25.19; 42.25-38; StelesSeth(NHC VII 5) 127.12-26; Zost(VIII 1)

131.14-132.14; Marsanes(NHC X 1) 9.29-10.7; see also C.H. 7.2; 10.5; OrChald. 1.5-9.81 Is. et Os. 351f and 375c.82 See C.W. Mller, Gleiches zum Gleichen, Wiesbaden, 1965.83 h. drrie, 1981, p. 30.84

Is. et Os. 351d, God gives to men the other things for which they express a desire, but ofsense and intelligence He grants them only a share, inasmuch as these are His special possessions

and His sphere of activity.


16/19


edge that might make perfect those who came from him. In doing so, he retains

within himself their perfection, granting it to them as a return to him and a per-

fect unitary knowledge85.

Admittedly, the idea of concealment is an old one. Heraclitus had alreadypointed out that the lord whose is the oracle at Delphi neither speaks nor hides

his meaning, but gives a sign86. True, the Delphic motto also

suggested a striving for a self-knowledge conceived of as a first step on the

path towards acquaintance with the divine. This acquaintance, however, was in-

tended to be a reminder that the distance between god and man was unbridge-

able. In Plutarch, knowledge is instead the knowledge of the divine, and this

with a view to self-divinization. In a similar way, the tenth Hermetic tract, called

the Key affirms ... 87, or as the opening words of the Gospel of

Thomasstate: These are the hidden sayings which the living Jesus spoke and

which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down. And he said, Whoever finds the in-

terpretation of these sayings will not experience death88.

Ethics

The view of the material world as a prison is a well-known motif in Plu-

tarch. On divine vengeancerefers to this in a quasi-Gnostic fashion, asserting that

this life is a prison-house affording no removal or escape, although it allows in

the interval much feasting... as when prisoners play at dice or draughts with the

rope hanging overhead89

. One of the possible ways of improving this situationcomes from ethics, insofar as it allows, by tempering all irrational inclinations

in the soul, a detachment from externality that represents a first step towards

complete liberation by means of the intellect. De virtute moralioffers an inter-

esting passage dealing with the internal structure of the soul, consisting of ra-

tional and irrational parts, which assesses in Peripatetic fashion the need for

rational control and the way in which this takes place90.

In the previous section we referred to Plutarchs view of Isis as providing

the guidance that helps the individual to supersede Typhon, namely that part

of the soul which is impressionable, impulsive, irrational and truculent(371b).The combination of a rational life (phronesis) and abstinence from certain

foods and sexual intercourse in order to limit Typhons realm of influence,

85 GosTruth(NHC I 3) 19.3-5.86 Heraclit., VS22 B 93.87 See C.H. 10.9; on which R. reitzenstein, 1910, p. 298.88 GosThom(NHC II 2) 32.15-19.89 Ser. num. vind. 554d, on which H.D. Betz, P.A. dirKse & E.W. sMith, De sera numinis vin-

dicta (Moralia 548A-568A), in H.D. Betz (ed.), Plutarchs Theological Writings and Early ChristianLiterature, Leiden, 1975, pp. 181-235, p. 206.90 Virt. mor. 441d. See above note 51.


17/19


seems to openly facilitate the work of reason the realm of episteme with

which Isis was connected. This step was necessary in order to be able to focus on

the only existent, on the One, the knowledge of which comes, as we saw above,

by direct apprehension. This ethical progress towards the knowledge of godalso has clear parallels in the Corpus Hermeticum. The Hermetic palingenesis,

so well described by Festugire more than fifty years ago91, also provides the in-

dividual with preliminary doctrinal preparation to become detached from the

body such that the nous or intellect is able to receive divine illumination92. As

a matter of fact, in spite of the black and white reports of the heresiologists93

ethics also played a central role in Gnosticism94. In addition to the scintilla ani-

maeand the external call, ethics was also essential during this life, as a means to

supersede the obstacles posed by both body and soul and thus to finally achieve

redemption, as the Teaching of Silvanusor the Sentences of Sextusclearly show95.

As theAuthoritative Teachingillustrates, Gnostics many a time saw life as a con-

test in which they had to learn to despise the delusion of externals in order to

focus on a higher level of reality: He, then, the Father, wishing to reveal his

wealth and his glory, brought about this great contest in this world, wishing to

make the contestants appear, and make all those who contend leave behind the

things that had come into being, and despise them with a lofty, incomprehensible

knowledge, and flee to the one who exists. Asceticism and the rejection of the

world was a central issue in fact, of which theActs of Peter and the Twelve Apos-

tles96 or the GosThom(21b; 58) provide enough testimony97.

Conclusions

It is time to draw some conclusions. It seems clear that labelling Plutarch a

Gnostic seems to be overstating the case, but it is undeniable that the points of

contacts with the world of Gnosis are too numerous to be dealt with as erratic

influences or contacts. Indeed, the preceding systematic analysis of Plutarchs

thought intended to show that Gnostic or Gnosticizing ideas were not isolated

91 A.J. FestuGire, La Rvlation dHerms Trismgiste,IV, Le Dieu inconnu et la gnose, Paris,1953, pp. 200-257.

92 M. Malaise, 1982, p. 58.93 See Iren.,Adv. haer. 1.13,3; 1.6,3-4; 1.25,3.94 See already F. Wisse, Die Sextus-Sprche und das Problem der gnostischen Ethik, in a.

BhliG & F. Wisse (eds.), Zum Hellenismus in den Schriften von Nag Hammadi,Wiesbaden, 1975,pp. 55-86; see also, K. rudolPh, Die Gnosis: Wesen und Geschichte einer sptantiken Religion, Gttin-gen, 19903, pp. 261-293; M. desJardins, Sin in Valentianism, Atlanta, 1990; M.A. WilliaMs, 1996;and, now, P.L. tite, Valentinian Ethics and Paraenetic Discourse: Determining the Social Function ofMoral Exhortation in Valentinian Christianity, Leiden, 2009.

95

See TeachSilv(NHC VII 4) 113.33-114.6.96 Acts Pet. 12 Apost. (NHC VI 1) 5.19-6.8.97 See alsoAuthTeach(NHC VI 3) 26.8-26.


18/19


motifs in his work. The recurrent appearance of Gnostic elements in the five

aspects of his thought analysed in this paper, namely theology, cosmology, an-

thropology, epistemology and ethics, shows, in our view, that they occupy a more

fundamental place in Plutarchs thought than scholars are ready to admit.On the other hand, it has also become apparent that for most of Plutarchs

so-called Gnosticizing views there is always a precedent in Greek philosophy,

mainly in Plato or Aristotle, and that Plutarchs interpretation has often par-

allels in the context of Middle Platonism. In order to evaluate Plutarchs rela-

tionship to the world of Gnosticism we should therefore rather pay heed to the

context in which these views appear and to the way he deals with them. From

this perspective it is interesting to note, for example, that the Gnosticizing ap-

plication of philosophical ideas especially turns up in Plutarchs allegorical in-

terpretation of myths be it Plato or the Isiatic cult, and this might, to a

certain extent, be seen as a first step toward the situation we find in Gnosticism,

namely the creation of myths in order to expose philosophical and theological

tenets.

In the case of Plutarch, consequently, the line between the labels pre-gnos-

tic or proto-gnostic coined more than forty years ago at the Messina confer-

ence is more tenuous that has been traditionally accepted: true, his dualistic

conceptions might be seen as pre-gnostic, but his systematic application thereof

in the allegorical interpretation of myth seems to prefigure attitudes toward

myth and philosophy which we find in a developed fashion in second century

Gnosticism.

It seems undeniable that in general Plutarch always remained a Platonist phi-

losopher strongly influenced by Aristotle and that he never went as far as Gnos-

tics in denying the status of being to visible materiality. However, the efforts by

scholars to demonstrate this point, already show that there is something impor-

tant going on in Plutarchs thought which we should try to unveil. The right

evaluation of Plutarchs testimony is essential, not only for an understanding

of several important issues in Middle-Platonism but also for a better under-

standing of the formation and first development of Gnosticism, which we only

know from its mature products98.

r

arMstronG, A.H., Gnosis and Greek Philosophy, in B. aland (ed.), Gnosis: Festschriftfr Hans Jonas, Gttingen, 1978, pp. 87-124.

98

I would like to express my gratitude to the several colleagues that read different drafts ofthis paper. Especial thanks are owed to G. P. Luttikuizen and A. P. Bos, who enriched it with nu-

merous comments and suggestions.


19/19


Betz, H.D., Ein seltsames mysterientheologisches System bei Plutarch, in C.J.BleeKer, S.G.F. Brandon & M. siMon (eds.), Ex orbe religionum: Studia Geo Widen-

gren, Leiden, 1972, pp. 347-354.

Bos, A.P., The Soul and its Instrumental Body: a Reinterpretation of Aristotles philosophy ofLiving Nature, Leiden, 2003.

Cherniss, H., The Face on the Moon, in Plutarchs Moralia, XII, Cambridge, Mass., 1968.

, On the Generation of the Soul in the Timaeus, Plutarchs Moralia, XIII, Cambridge,Mass., 1976.

dillon, J., The Golden Chain. Studies in the Development of Platonism, Aldershot, Hamp-shire, 1990.

, The Middle Platonists, New York, 19963 [1977].

drrie, H., Gnostische Spuren bei Plutarch, in R. vanden BroeK & M. J. verMaseren(eds.), Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions Presented to Gilles Quispel on the Oc-

casion of his 65th Birthday, Leiden, 1981, pp. 92-116.Ferrari, F., Dio idee e materia. La struttura del cosmo in Plutarco di Cheronea, Naples, 1995.

,La generazione precosmica e la struttura della materia in Plutarco, MH, 53 (1996)44-55.

GriFFiths, J.G., Plutarchs De Iside et Osiride, Cambridge, 1970.

luttiKhuizen, G.P., Gnostic Revisions of Genesis Stories and Early Jesus Traditions, Lei-den, 2006.

Malaise, M., Isisme et gnosticisme, in Gnosticisme et monde hellnistique. Actes du Col-loque de Louvain-la-Neuve, 11-14 mars 1980,Leuven, 1982, pp. 47-60.

Merlan, P., Monopsychism, Mysticism, Metaconsiousness. Problems of the Soul in the Neoaris-totelian and Neoplatonic Tradition, The Hague, 1963.

noCK, A.D., & A.J. FestuGire, Corpus Hermeticum, IV, Fragments Extraits de Stobe, Paris,1954.

Plee, Z., Poetics of the Gnostic Universe: Narrative and Cosmology in the Apocryphon ofJohn, Leiden, 2006.

reitzenstein, R., Hellenistische Myterienreligionen, ihre Grundgedanken und Wirkungen,Berlin-Leipzig, 1910.

stead, G.C., The Valentinian Myth of Sophia, JThS, 20 (1969) 75-104.

torhoudt, A., Een onbekend gnostisch systeem in Plutarchus De Iside et Osiride, Leuven,

1942WilliaMs, M.A., Rethinking Gnosticism: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category,

Princeton, NJ, 1996.

Plutarch of Chaeronea and the 1

Documents

Transcript of Plutarch of Chaeronea and the 1