Lessico iconografico-simbolico – Numeri, cifre e figure geometriche: sei

Numeri, cifre e figure geometriche: sei (LS)

Risultati immagini per chi ro

… il crisma, come si sa, è formato dalle due lettere greche chi (X) e ro (P), le prime della parola Christos, il Cristo: essendo composto da un’asta verticale, quella della ro, e da una croce rovesciata, la chi, il crisma costituisce un motivo a sei bracci, col quale si esprime la potenza del Cristo. La chi, però, già di per sé è simbolo di potenza, in quanto indica la regolazione delle cose create, la signoria dell’universo e l’universo stesso nell’ordine dello spazio e nell’ordine del tempo: i primi cristiani, dal canto loro, non avevano tardato a scoprire che, mettendo insieme la coppia chi-ro e la prima e l’ultima lettera dell’alfabeto, alfa e omega (che nell’Apocalisse hanno il significato di principio e di fine), si veniva a formare il verbo archô, la forma greca del latino praesum, impero …


Early Christian Sources of Platonic Geometry: Basil and Gregory

Basil (c.329-79) read philosophy and rhetoric in the young capital of the Eastern Empire, Constantinople, before continuing his studies in Athens with, among others, Julian, the apostate emperor of the Byzantines. It was only later in life, in 364, that he was ordained priest and only seven years before his premature demise that he was consecrated metropolitan of his native Caesarea, whereupon he made his younger brother Gregory (c.335-c.95) bishop of Nyssa. Before his ordination, Basil had spent some time as a hermit studying Origen and when Gregory stayed at his brother’s cell he too studied ‘his master Origen’ along with everything Basil had learned in Athens. On Basil’s death, Gregory came into his own as a churchman and teacher to the extent that he became known as the ‘Father of Fathers’. In 381 he was summoned by the Emperor Theodosius to the Second Oecumenical Council in Constantinople, as a result of which he was recognized as a principal interpreter of the emergent orthodoxy of the Eastern Church.

Of chief interest to this study is Basil’s Hexaemeron, a series of sermons on the 6 days of Creation delivered morning and evening during Lent to a congregation of workmen. As he acknowledges,

I know that many artisans, belonging to the mechanical trades, are crowding around me. A day’s labour hardly suffices to maintain them; therefore I am compelled to abridge my discourse, so as not to keep them too long from their work.

Hexaemeron III.1

Although the sermons are systematically arranged, the final homily which should have described the creation of man seems to end prematurely and was supplemented by Gregory’s treatise De hominis opificio. Such was the importance of Hexaemeron that its teaching quickly spread to the West.
Ambrose produced an adaptation of it which was soon translated into Latin by Eustathius in about 440 and, whether or not this was the work of Basil’s already noted on Alcuin’s shelves at York, a vernacular abbreviation of Hexaemeron was produced in Anglo-Saxon in 969 by Aelfric. As has been remarked elsewhere, the circulation of shortened versions of texts can usually be taken as evidence that such texts had become standard reading. In addition to manuscripts of several of Gregory’s writings surviving from the tenth century onwards, including no less than three of De hominis opificio from the tenth century itself, this same work had already been translated into Latin by John Scotus in the previous century.

At first sight Basil appears largely to repudiate classical philosophy as he recounts how one theory about the origin of the universe became supplanted by another.

Those who have written about the nature of the universe have discussed at length the shape of the earth … all these conjectures have been suggested by cosmographers, each one upsetting that of his predecessor. It will not lead me to give less importance to the creation of the universe, that the servant of God, Moses, is silent as to shapes … Shall I then prefer foolish wisdom to the oracles of the Holy Spirit? … It is this which those seem to me not to have understood, who, giving themselves up to the distorted meaning of allegory, have undertaken to give a majesty of their own invention to Scripture …

Some have said that heaven is composed of four elements … Others have rejected this system as improbable, and introduced into the world, to form the heavens, a fifth element after their own fashioning. There exists, they say, an aethereal body which is neither fire, air, earth, nor water, nor in one word any simple body … But yet another speaker arises and disperses and destroys this theory to give predominance to an idea of his own invention. Do not let us undertake to follow them for fear of falling into like frivolities; let them refute each other, and, without disquieting ourselves about essence, let us say with Moses ‘God created the heaven and the earth’. Let us glorify the supreme Artificer for all that was wisely and skillfully made … Because … the objects which on all sides attract our notice are so marvellous, that the most penetrating mind cannot attain to the knowledge of the least of the phenomenon of this world.

Hexaemeron IX.1, I.11

Basil seems intent here on keeping the minds of his workaday congregation upon simple devotion. He lived, after all, at the time of violent religious disputes such as those caused by Julian’s apostacy and Valens’s Arianism, and
both needed to be answered by an insistence on orthodoxy, particularly concerning the Holy Trinity, rather than by raking over old arguments about classical cosmogony. In fact, it was Basil himself who has been credited with precipitating the end of the Arian dispute, to be ratified soon after his death at the Council of 381 in the presence of his brother. Given the determination to hold the line on orthodoxy which this indicates, Basil is hardly likely to have encouraged cosmological speculation from his own pulpit, especially since he considered such matters to be above the heads of his artisan audience. Certainly the tradition of teaching he inherited from Clement and Origen of knowledge being reserved for the educated, leaving faith to the uneducated, would seem to support this. Indeed, it will be shown that the early Church actually developed its liturgy in a way that protected its innermost secrets from the uninitiated.

Ambiguity in this passage over the fifth essence being ether still seems unabated for, although Basil appears to dismiss it here, when dealing elsewhere with God’s command, ‘Let there be light’, he refers to it as a matter of course.

Up it sprang to the very aether and heaven. In an instant it lighted up the whole extent of the world … For the aether also is such a subtle substance and so transparent that it needs not the space of a moment for light to pass through it … With light the aether becomes more pleasing …

Hexaemeron III. 3

Here it is surely the fifth essence, being distinct from the elements and yet associated with heaven. Later in the same homily, the implication again must surely be that ether is the substance surrounding the 7 planets which therefore fills the universe.

These circles, they say, carried away in a direction contrary to that of the world, and striking the aether, make sweet and harmonious sounds, unequalled by the sweetest melody …

Hexaemeron III.3

That such matters may sometimes be implied is clear from his treatment of the elements:

… ‘In the beginning God made heaven and earth.’ … Thus, although there is no mention of the elements, fire, water and air, imagine that they were all compounds together, and you will find water, air and fire, in the earth … Do not ask, then, for an enumeration of all the elements; guess, from what Holy Scripture indicates, all that is passed over in silence.

Hexaemeron 1.7

The underlying view here seems clearly to be Platonic as well as Christian, as it is when Basil deals with the divine order and the sensible and intelligible worlds.

… ‘In the beginning God created.’ What a glorious order!

It appears, indeed, that even before this world an order of things existed of which our mind can form an idea, but of which we can say nothing, because it is too lofty a subject for men who are but beginners and are still babies in knowledge. . . . The Creator and the Demiurge of the universe perfected His works in it, spiritual light for the happiness of all who love the Lord, intellectual and invisible natures, all the orderly arrangement of pure intelligences who are beyond the reach of our mind and of whom we cannot even discover the names.

Hexaemeron I.2, 5

You will finally discover that the world … is really the school where reasonable souls exercise themselves, the training ground where they learn to know God; since by the sight of visible and sensible things the mind is led, as by a hand, to the contemplation of invisible things.

Hexaemeron I.6

This anagogical doctrine of the path that leads from the sensible to the intelligible, or from the material to the spiritual, was not only a logical corollary of Plato’s world of Forms but, of importance to this study, it also justified religious art and architecture, as Suger was to write in explaining the design of his abbey of St Denis in the twelfth century.

Gregory’s completion of his brother’s Hexaemeron seems similarly Platonic.

Now all is beautiful and good that is closely related to the First Good … If, then, … that which is truly good is one, and the mind itself also has its power of being beautiful and good, in so far as it is in the image of the good and beautiful, and the nature, which is sustained by the mind, has the like power, in so far as it is an image of the image, it is hereby shown that our material part holds together, and is upheld when it is controlled by nature; and on the other hand is dissolved and disorganized when it is separated from that which upholds and sustains it, and is dissevered from its conjunction with beauty and goodness.

De hominis opificio XII.11

Although, like his brother, Gregory sometimes appears to refute a conventional Platonic doctrine, it reappears later albeit in slightly altered
guise. For example, in referring to humans as a microcosm of the universe, he

… how unworthy of the majesty of man are the fancies of some heathen writers, who magnify humanity as they supposed, by their comparison of it with this world! for they say that man is a little world, composed of the same elements with the universe.

De hominis opificio XVI.1

Yet when he answers:

In what then does the greatness of man consist, according to the doctrine of the Church? Not in his likeness to the created world, but in his being in the image of the nature of the Creator.

De hominis opificio XVI.2

surely he is simply equating Creator and created with Origen’s own distinction between the intelligible and sensible worlds. His description of rational man certainly appears purely Platonic:

Now since man is a rational animal, the instrument of his body must be made suitable for the use of reason …

De hominis opificio VIII.8; cf. Plato, Timaeus 44D

Likewise, in another treatise, Plato’s world of Forms lies just beneath the surface as Gregory celebrates the liberal arts as the path to virtue. A virtuous man is one who,

… has been led to the apprehension of a Master of the creation; he has taken the true Wisdom for his teacher, that Wisdom which the spectacle of the Universe suggests; and when he observed the beauty of this material sunlight he had grasped by analogy the beauty of the real sunlight….

Has a man who looks at such spectacles procured for himself only a slight power for the enjoyment of those delights beyond? Not to speak of the studies which sharpen the mind towards moral excellence, geometry, I mean, and astronomy, and the knowledge of the truth that the science of numbers gives, and every method that furnishes a proof of the unknown and a conviction of the known, and, before all these, the philosophy contained in the inspired Writings, which affords a complete purification to those who educate themselves thereby in the mysteries of God.

De infantibus praemature abreptis 377-8

Once again it may be seen that the doctrines of Plato and Clement are conveyed in the importance given by Gregory to education and purification as preparations for the ‘apprehension of a Master of the creation’ and ‘the spectacle of the Universe’. Part of this apprehension is to be gained in the understanding of numbers:

… number is nothing else than a combination of units growing into a multitude in a complete way … accordingly, in order that we may be taught by Holy Scripture that nothing is unknown to God, it tells us that the multitude of the stars is numbered by Him, not that their numbering takes place as I have described, [for who is so simple as to think that God takes knowledge of things by odd and even, and that by putting units together He makes up the total of the collective quantity?] … For to measure quantity by number is the part of those who want information. But He who knew all things before they were created needs not number as His informant. But when David says that He ‘numbers the stars’, it is evident that the Scripture descends to such language in accordance with our understanding, to teach us emblematically that the things which we know not are accurately known to God.

Contra Eunomium librum II 293

Autore: Nigel Hiscock
The Wise Master Builder. Platonic Geometry in Plans of Medieval Abbeys and Cathedralsl
: Ashgate
Luogo: Aldershot
Anno: 2000
Pagine: 56-61

Early Christian Sources of Platonic Geometry: Clement of Alexandria (1)

It was the cultural crucible of Alexandria that initiated early Christianity to Platonic thought. In the first century of the new era, the writings of Philo Judaeus, a Greek-speaking Jew, attempted the conciliation of the Hellenic and Judaic traditions of learning, a process continued by Clement (c.150-c.215) in the next century. As a Greek philosopher and convert to Christianity, Clement compared both traditions with each other and with the emergent teachings of Christianity. As a result, he was the first to appreciate how much the writings of Plato and the evangelists John and Paul had in common. Recognized as the leading Christian scholar of his day and the foremost exponent of natural philosophy from the Christian point of view prior to Augustine, Clement was able to produce the synthesis of classical and Christian thought which gave birth to Christian Platonism. This was developed by his most famous pupil, Origen, and provided the theological foundations for the writings in the East of the Cappadocian Fathers as well as for Augustine in the West. Although it has to be admitted that Clement’s own work might not have been read much in the middle ages, his teaching was nevertheless to reach the West through Cassian’s adaptations in the fifth century which were soon to be consulted by Benedict himself. Through Origen’s writing, it was also to reach Ambrose in Greek and thence Augustine, along with translations by Rufinus, some of which were also known to Augustine. The result of this was to be the permanent acceptance of Christian Platonism by the Latin Church. In these early centuries, it not only answered the pagan reaction of Porphyry and Julian, it also gave Christian faith its intellectual content and, such was its enduring appeal, it was to reach its culmination in the cathedral school of Chartres nine hundred years after Clement died.

Clement’s forum was the Didascaleon, or Catechetical School, in Alexandria of which he became head. It had only recently been opened by Pantaenus, also a Christian convert and a Pythagorean, with the purpose of promoting Christian studies for educated converts in opposition to the paganism of Alexandria’s Museum and the esoteric cabalism of the Gnostics. Accordingly, the methods of classical philosophy were applied to a curriculum
which included philosophy, mathematics and scripture. Education was the path to knowledge, or gnosis,
which led to freedom. The union of knowledge with ‘right reason’ led to virtue just as the union between the human and divine spirit resulted in love. Thus Plato’s three-part division of rational, moral and natural philosophy found its place in Clement’s school.

For the uneducated, a state of grace was still possible through the acceptance of faith but from them, however, gnosis should be concealed:

For Plato also thought it not lawful for ‘the impure to touch the pure.’ Thence the prophecies and oracles are spoken in enigmas, and the mysteries are not exhibited incontinently to all and sundry, but only after certain purifications and previous instructions.

Clement, Stromateis V.4

… even those myths in Plato . . . are to be expounded allegorically, not absolutely in all their expressions, but in those which express the general sense. And these we shall find indicated by symbols under the veil of allegory.

Stromateis V.9

Clement found as much authority for obfuscation in the scriptures:

But since this tradition is not published alone for him who perceives the magnificence of the word; it is requisite, therefore, to hide in a mystery the wisdom spoken, which the Son of God taught. . . . because, ‘even now I fear,’ as it is said, ‘to cast the pearls before swine, lest they tread them underfoot, and turn and rend us’ (Matthew VII.6). For it is difficult to exhibit the really pure and transparent words respecting the true light, to swinish and untrained hearers. For scarcely could anything which they could hear be more ludicrous than these to the multitude; nor any subjects on the other hand more admirable or more inspiring to those of noble nature.

Stromateis 1.12

In retrospect, such determined concealment of gnosis from the uninitiated might arguably be confused with the secret societies of the Gnostics themselves, particularly since Clement often refers to the followers of ‘the true philosophy’ as Gnostics. However, this would be a modern misperception, since Clement had simply decided to combat Gnosticism with his own invention of Christian Gnosticism. When he writes:

Then [the Preaching of Peter, an apocryphal book] adds: ‘Worship this God not as the Greeks’ – signifying plainly, that the excellent among the Greeks worshipped the same God as we, but that they had not learned by perfect knowledge that which was delivered by the Son.’

Stromateis VI.5 [my italics]

Clement makes clear his regard for gnosis as ‘perfect knowledge’, as opposed to the arcane superstitions of the Gnostics.

Clement’s three main works constitute a progression in which the acquiring of gnosis leads to an understanding of Logos, the Word. Protreptikos exhorts the reader to renounce paganism; Paedagogus instructs him in Christian ethics; whilst the major part is Stromateis, a miscellany of essays devoted to a higher knowledge of God and his creation. In these works he repeatedly refers to and quotes from Timaeus and other Dialogues as well as scripture. Of the Protreptikos and Paedagogus,
a tenth-century manuscript has been noted in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris together with an eleventh-century manuscript of Stromateis in the Laurentian Library in Florence.

The origins of philosophy are succinctly stated by Clement:

From Pythagoras Plato derived the immortality of the soul; and he from the Egyptians.

Stromateis VI.2

However, the composition of the universe and the nature of the 4 elements had, even since Aetius, become somewhat muddled. Although he writes:

And indeed the most elementary instruction of children embraces the interpretation of the four elements ….

Stromateis V.8

And Athamas the Pythagorean having said, ‘Thus was produced the beginning of the universe; and there are four roots – fire, water, air, earth: for from these is the origination of what is produced’. . . .

Stromateis VI.2

he continues,

Empedocles of Agrigentum wrote:

‘The four roots of all things first do thou hear – Fire, water, earth, and ether’s boundless height: For of these all that was, is, shall be, comes.’

Stromateis VI.2

Nevertheless, despite an apparent confusion between ether and air here, Clement himself seemed clear enough in his previous chapter when he repeated the colours associated with the 4 elements – blue for air, purple for water, scarlet for fire and linen for earth.
Interestingly, this reveals that the atmospheric elements are chromatically – as well as physically and geometrically – related to each other and distinct from the element earth. For just as fire can cause water to evaporate into air and cooling can cause water to condense in air, so the purple of water is a synthesis of the red and blue of fire and air and their geometric solids are also relations of each other in that they are each enclosed by the regular triangle, quite distinct therefore from the colour and cube of earth. Plato’s relation of the macrocosm of the universe to the microcosm of the human also seems preserved by Clement, particularly when it is remembered that the number 10 was equated with perfection.

And the perfect inheritance belongs to those who attain to ‘a perfect man,’ according to the image of the Lord.

And there is a ten in man himself.

Stromateis VI.14, 16; see also V.6

In this passage, Clement then refers to the 5 senses and adds to them another 5, namely power of speech, power of reproduction, spirit received through creation, rule of the soul, rule of the Holy Spirit through faith.

Thus the Platonic Christian appears complete, the conjunction of the two traditions seeming to be effortless.

If then we consider, virtue is, in power, one. But it is the case, that when exhibited in some things, it is called prudence, in others temperance, and in others manliness or righteousness. By the same analogy, while truth is one, in geometry there is truth of geometry; in music, that of music; and in the right philosophy, there will be Hellenic truth. But that is the only authentic truth, unassailable, in which we are instructed by the Son of God.

Stromateis 1.20

The synthesis of the two traditions was evidently derived at least partly from the belief that Plato himself had had sight of certain scriptures. Several of Clement’s essays are devoted to the theme of Greeks borrowing from Hebrews, or of the two traditions at least coinciding. Nevertheless they were still distinguishable:

Rightly, then, to the Jews belonged the Law, and to the Greeks Philosophy, until the Advent ….

Stromateis VI. 17

That scripture associated the Law with 10 is evident above all in the Decalogue, or Ten Commandments. More than being a mere list of rules, however, the Commandments were regarded as an image of heaven and, in this aspect, they are to be identified with the same Pythagorean number of perfection. As Clement writes:

But law is the opinion which is good, and what is good is that which is true, and that which is true is that which finds ‘true being,’ and attains to it. … In accordance with which, namely good opinion, some have called law, right reason, which enjoins what is to be done and forbids what is not to be done. . . . That ten is a sacred number, it is superfluous to say now.

Stromateis 1.25, VI. 16

Therefore just as the equation of the law with perfection appears safe so, it seems, can references to law and perfection be equated with 10.

Autore: Nigel Hiscock
The Wise Master Builder. Platonic Geometry in Plans of Medieval Abbeys and Cathedralsl
: Ashgate
Luogo: Aldershot
Anno: 2000
Pagine: 50-54