Introduction
Recent scholarship has witnessed an increasing focus on the late antique, Syrian intellectual context of the Pseudo-Clementine corpus, of which the Greek Homilies or Klementia (Hom.), the Recognitions (Rec.), and the Syriac Pseudo-Clementines are the main extant versions.Footnote 1 These versions most likely date back to a common third-century, but now lost, Grundschrift or “Basic Writing.”Footnote 2 Nevertheless, due to the many differences present within, in addition to various unique literary and philosophical-theological elements, these extant versions merit consideration as unique late antique narratives. Several recent contributions offer comparisons to contemporary Marcionite and Appelean ideas, so-called “Gnostic” texts, medical treatises, Jewish-rabbinic traditions, and apocryphal literature. Additionally, the dynamics of the reception of ancient and late antique philosophy in the Pseudo-Clementines has garnered increasing attention over the years, albeit to a moderate extent.Footnote 3 In light of this, the notion that the Pseudo-Clementine versions depict Christianity as a philosophy in its own right, and more specifically, as a philosophical way of life, merit further attention. Recent contributions informing this approach have been provided by Dominique Côté and Nicole Kelley.Footnote 4 In her doctoral dissertation at Harvard University, Kelley’s general argument posits that the Recognitions present Christianity as a philosophical way of life, “at least in the sense that [the narrative] employs philosophical language and ideas in articulating its vision of the Christian life.”Footnote 5 A few years earlier, Dominique Côté, taking both the Homilies and the Recognitions into account, had already reflected on the notion of philosophy as a “mode de vie” or “art de vivre” in the Pseudo-Clementines and noted that one of the main characters, Peter:
. . . se livre lui aussi à cette “pratique d’exercices spirituels”,Footnote 6 qui implique notamment la prière, les veilles et le végétarisme, et qui constitue, . . . un trait essentiel de l’image du philosophe au début de l’ère chrétienne.Footnote 7
. . . too engages in this “practice of spiritual exercises,” which notably involves prayer, vigils, and vegetarianism, and which constitutes, . . . a defining feature of the image of the philosopher at the beginning of the Christian era.
In this contribution, I aim to elaborate on these remarks, with particular reference to the way in which the character of Peter and his students—who were former students of philosophy—present the correctly-lived life, for example, the lives of Clement and his mother Mattidia, within the framework of an existential and lived Christian philosophy.
I utilize the concept of “lived philosophy” as discussed in Pierre Hadot’s insightful studies on imperial and late antique philosophy,Footnote 8 and additionally, I consider recent insights into “early Christian philosophy.”Footnote 9 Although the Pseudo-Clementines do not convey a theoretical treatise, they are especially conducive to portraying a literary representation of a Christian philosophical way of life (as surpassing other “Greek” philosophical schools and their associated ways of life). Within the narrative, the ego-narrator, Clement of Rome, endeavours to find answers to his existential questions concerning life, death, and his place in the world.Footnote 10 It is Peter who introduces the distressed Clement to the teachings of Jesus, one of the manifestations of the True Prophet.Footnote 11
Moreover, I argue that these teachings are presented by Peter himself as the true Christian philosophy and as a further reflection on the Christian-philosophical life. On several occasions, he propounds the idea of what exactly a true Christian philosophical life should look like, or rather, what Christian philosophy is. Living philosophy entails both comprehending and practising philosophy, and the aim of such a lived Christian philosophical life is to attain two main goals: happinessFootnote 12 and knowledge of the invisible. It concerns “a mode of existing-in-the-world, which had to be practiced at each instant, the goal of which being to transform the whole of the individual’s life.”Footnote 13 This will clearly be the case for Clement, who is in search of truth concerning himself, the soul, the afterlife, and God. Additionally, the lives of other characters will be interpreted in a philosophical manner by Peter and his follower-successors. As such, the first aim of the contribution is to discuss the fundamental role of “Christian existential philosophy” and living philosophy in the Recognitions.Footnote 14 This approach, I argue, unravels a strong unitary thread throughout the Christian novel: Christian truth as translated into existential philosophy.
Furthermore, I will argue that the reception of ancient philosophy, in particular Platonic philosophy, is notable in this regard. I assume that wherever the Pseudo-Clementine versions have passages in common, these passages most likely date back to the hypothetical Grundschrift, but, as I shall make clear, the Recognitions approach the concept of “lived philosophy” in a distinct and original manner, particularly concerning its relationship with Platonic philosophy. The first centuries CE observed a marked resurgence of scholarly activity and dynamic interaction with Plato’s dialogues. Both Christian and non-Christian authors engaged in the reinterpretation of many motifs and philosophical topics from Plato’s works. The relationship, however, between Christian authors and Plato’s legacy is twofold, both explicitly and implicitly. In the writings of most early Christian authors, Plato is regarded as the best of the Greek philosophers,Footnote 15 although he would not have fully received the revealed Logos.Footnote 16
Even though the approach to Plato and his philosophy among early Christian authors has already been extensively studied,Footnote 17 the Pseudo-Clementine novels have largely remained under the radar.Footnote 18 Several scholars in the fields of early Christian literature and/or ancient philosophy have pointed out a number of explicit quotes and vague allusions to the dialogues or letters of Plato.Footnote 19 In this contribution, I will explore these references in addition to several more which have not yet been addressed. Furthermore, apart from the numerous quotes and allusions that have gone unnoticed, the mentioned cases have not received sufficient discussion. This reception mainly concerns, on the one hand, the reception of well-known Platonic images (such as the cave allegory and the myth of the chariot), and quotations that are explicitly linked to Plato in the Recognitions. I argue that these several explicit references and implicit allusions to Plato not only form part of an original Christian philosophical language,Footnote 20 but also play a constitutive function within the narrative arc of the Recognitions and within the discourse of Peter and his followers concerning the lived (Christian) philosophy. In several instances, Peter reinterprets numerous known Platonic myths and motifs in order to present ethical and epistemological claims regarding one’s philosophical-moral stance. Moreover, it will become clear that explicit quotes attributed to Plato are utilized by Peter and his students in order to support their own claim of (Christian) truth regarding physical and metaphysical insights, which are linked to correctness in ethical choices. Every explicit reference to Plato in the Recognitions is considered within this discussion, as well as the reception of multiple Platonic images that I have noticed so far and which were certainly well-known as Platonic.Footnote 21
These are not merely a collection of loose elements of a new Christian philosophical language: the reception of Plato’s philosophy, as I argue in this article, aligns with the late antique philosophical program encompassing ethics, physics, and metaphysics. In the Recognitions, the author offers by means of this reception, a set of crucial hermeneutical tools relevant to these three philosophical areas within a framework of a Christian lived philosophy. Here, the originality of Christian philosophy in relation to the literary framework of the Recognitions becomes apparent. The narrative arc of the Recognitions is fundamentally structured by this original Christian philosophical take on Plato and the philosophical program, building up from ethics towards metaphysics. In other words, Clement’s ego-report is fundamentally philosophical and offers the reader a unifying, philosophical experience from beginning to end.
In addition, I will provide nuance to Jonathan Barnes’ argument concerning the philosophical qualities of the author of the Recognitions. I tend to follow his point of view that florilegia may have been used by the author or redactor, since most of the quotes and allusions were well-known in Antiquity.Footnote 22 Be that as it may, it is nevertheless clear that the way in which Platonic references are used is part of an original, Christian philosophical program in the novel itself. Moreover, since we do not possess the original Greek Recognitions, it should be taken into account that the Latin translator and redactor, Rufinus of Aquileia (344/345–411), might have elevated the philosophical style and expression of the Christian novel. In this article, I endeavour to discuss Rufinus’ Latin version of this Christian novelistic fiction in its own right (intentio operis) and to demonstrate its unity by means of its philosophical program, in which Plato plays a fundamental role.
A Christian Philosophical Way of Life in the Recognitions
Let us first take a brief look at the role of “Greek philosophy” and the philosophical program in the Recognitions. The narrative begins with Clement’s distress and disappointment concerning various “Greek” philosophical schools, who leave his questions on the nature of the soul and the world unanswered. He deems these so-called philosophers as nothing more than eristic Sophists, who conduct endless, disputatious performancesFootnote 23 and deploy various syllogisms to win debates rather than seeking to acquire truth: a theme that already hearkens back to Plato and his view on sophistry.Footnote 24 Nevertheless, this same motif of the dissensus philosophorum Footnote 25 and its negative effect on one’s mental disposition—Clement physically suffers from his unanswered questions—is important to Hellenistic and imperial philosophy.Footnote 26 However, Clement ends up in Caesarea and finds a remedy for his ailment within Peter’s teachings. In contrast to the fiercely criticized “Greek philosophers,” Peter is characterized as the true philosopher, and the teachings of the True Prophet are marked as the true philosophy, presented as a response and answer to Clement’s distressing philosophical quest. Even though Peter is presented as a homo dei without having received formal education,Footnote 27 he acts as a pepaideumenos (a culturally and rhetorically educated person),Footnote 28 is skilled in ars disputandi (the art of dialectical reasoning or argumentation),Footnote 29 and his speech is characterized by its clarityFootnote 30 and brevity (brachylogia).Footnote 31 Above all, he is the true philosopherFootnote 32 and ideal (late antique) philosophical master for his students.Footnote 33
Moreover, the Recognitions are explicitly less harsh in their distinction between philosophy and prophecy than the Homilies. Meinolf Vielberg notes a crucial difference between the two versions in the parallel passages of Rec. 8.7 and Hom. 13.7, when Aquila and Nicetas, Clement’s brothers and students of Peter, explain that they have been educated in the philosophies of the Pyrrhonists and Epicureans.Footnote 34 In the case of the Recognitions, philosophical doctrines are regarded as capable of supporting the Christian faith in its refutation of “gentiles,”Footnote 35 while it is explicitly stated in the Homilies that one should learn philosophy with the sole purpose of refuting it.Footnote 36 This is an important nuance, as Peter and his students will refer to non-Christian philosophical doctrines in order to support their point of view (as we will see in the case of the explicit references to Plato). Hence, this Christian philosophical claim comprises part of a more general response to non-Christian criticisms of Christians’ allegedly uncritical commitment to Scripture and their questioning of ancient tradition.
In this contribution, I examine the philosophical program of ethics, physics, and metaphysics, which implicitlyFootnote 37 forms part of the philosophical life as presented by Peter and his students in the Recognitions and which in fact structures the whole narrative arc. “But,” as Hadot observes, “philosophy itself—that is the philosophical way of life—is no longer a theory divided into parts, but a unitary act, which consists in living logic, physics, and ethics.”Footnote 38 This becomes evident across the many reflections and teachings of Peter and his followers concerning the lives of Clement and his family, where these aspects are strongly interconnected. Nevertheless, we do witness a certain hierarchy in the philosophical program along the narrative arc, beginning with ethics (Rec. 1–7) and building up towards reflections on physics (Rec. 8–9) and metaphysics (Rec. 10). The role of “logic” becomes clear throughout the many teachings and discussions during which the topics of truth, humanity and God are discussed in a step-by-step fashion. In this narrative arc and philosophical program, it is evident that Plato plays a fundamental role.
Adopting a Philosophical Lifestyle: Ethics and the Soul (Rec. 1–6)
Ancient ethics can be defined as concerning “the pursuit of one’s own happiness or well-being and private lifestyle; that is, how we should live to make good lives for ourselves.”Footnote 39 This aim is clearly set out at the beginning of the homodiegetic novel, and reflections on the soul play a profound role in this regard. As mentioned above, Clement finds himself in a state of distress and uncertainty, and based on rational reflections on the soul and the afterlife, decides to adopt a pious and sober lifestyle.Footnote 40 In regard to the afterlife, he specifically refers to “some philosophers” and their opinions about the Pyriphlegethon and the Tartarus, which already hearkens back to Plato.Footnote 41 Clement reflects on his fear of possible punishment in the afterlife, and on the potential reward for one who has led a virtuous life. This fear is not a mere emotional impulse but a rational apprehension that serves to restrain his lust.Footnote 42 Moreover, this reflection about death is also supplemented by thoughts about being remembered and the fear of being forgotten.Footnote 43 This attention on oneself and the reflections about death and forgetfulness are already present amongst non-Christian and Christian-philosophical authors,Footnote 44 and can also be traced back to Plato’s Phaedo, also known as On the Soul in late antiquity.Footnote 45 In this manner, Clement, as a student of philosophy, connects a moral life based on a virtuous praxis to rational reflections about himself, the soul, death, and the afterlife. Clement, however, is still in need of answers to his existential questions. When he arrives in Caesarea, Peter cures his distress by revealing to him the truth concerning his questions: the soul is immortal, as granted by the power of God, and one will be punished or rewarded in the afterlife by this same God.Footnote 46
Furnished with a truth-loving attitudeFootnote 47 and illuminated by the True Prophet’s teachings, the soul gains insight into the path to salvation.Footnote 48 This elucidation, which is particularly significant, is provided by Peter through an adaptation of the Platonic cave allegory. In this first teaching to Clement, Peter discusses the problem of man’s lack of truth and the relationship between humankind and the darkened world. This world is portrayed as a restricted dwelling where people are confined, as though in a prison, from where, they cannot perceive the true sunlight from the outside. Several vices obscure the educational aspect of culture or paideia: bad habits, a misguided disposition, and wicked educational practices have corrupted people’s relationship with the truth. In a similar vein, Socrates explains in the Republic (519a–b) that misguided habits and the like corrupt one’s philosophical nature, and more precisely, “turn down the eye of the soul” (στρέφουσι τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς ὄψιν; 519b).Footnote 49 In this manner, Peter endeavours to illustrate that Clement’s distressed state issues from his unanswered questions. The aim is to overcome this condition by discovering the true answers as they are provided by the True Prophet and his student Peter. Only then will one learn the truth about one’s own condition and one’s relationship with truth and the true divine, God.Footnote 50 This is the first fundamental insight into the Christian philosophical life according to Peter.
Clement’s questions about the soul trigger additional reflections throughout the Recognitions. It is no coincidence that after Peter’s take on the allegory in which the darkened relationship between humankind and God is discussed, a number of disputes about this particular relationship between humans and God follow in Rec. 1–3. How should one reflect about the precise conditions of this relationship? Is there just one God, or is humankind living under the rulership of another less powerful, vengeful, not all-good God? These notions have direct consequences with respect to the aim of one’s life and one’s ethical behavior and choices. These upcoming discussions in Rec. 1–3 between Peter and his opponent Simon are also set in a context in which direct and indirect Platonic reception is palpable. In the case of Simon, we are dealing with some general Platonizing motifs, original to the Recognitions. Simon defends the idea of the captive state of souls, which precede the body, and also considers the body as an impediment to the soul.Footnote 51 In a discussion with Peter on the goodness and justice of God and the potential difference between the unknown Good GodFootnote 52 and the lower, vengeful Creator,Footnote 53 Simon discusses, in Rec. 2.57–60, his view on souls as made by the Good God and brought down as captives into this world. Peter, in turn, refutes the existence of another God and questions the idea of how this God could be almighty while simultaneously allowing the capture of said souls.Footnote 54 With respect to Simon’s characterization in the Recognitions, Platonic philosophy is both indirectly and directly present in the discussions on the soul and the ethical consequences of the soul’s position in the world.Footnote 55 Moreover, Peter’s utilisation of certain theories and discussions demonstrates a heightened engagement with Plato, highlighting hitherto unexamined dimensions of this particular reception.
This becomes clear following the disputes with Simon in Rec. 3.5.7–3.6.2, when Peter further reflects on the role of the soul and elaborates on his adaptation of the allegory of the cave. This passage constitutes part of Peter’s answer to a question from Aquila, one of his students, about the unengendered state of God. In his response, Peter discusses the relationship between God, nature and humankind, and the dynamics of the human soul in relation to the body and the role of the passions. Here, Peter presents a rather ascetic view on the passions and one’s way of life, and offers a clear reference to the idea of the ascension towards the intelligible (“vestigium optimum ad intellegibilium conprehensionem”), guided by the gubernaculum (“utentes animae inmortali gubernaculo”).Footnote 56 The idea of the soul as gubernaculum can be traced back to Plato’s Phaedrus 247c and is used here within Peter’s conception of the lived, philosophical life.Footnote 57 It suffices here to note that this image reflects on the relationship between psychology, an ethical disposition, and the higher aim of the intelligible. It elaborates on Peter’s notion of a correctly lived “Christian philosophical” life, which will guide one’s soul out of the darkened house and towards the true realm. This further progress will be discussed throughout the remainder of the Recognitions, particularly in a fundamental passage in Rec. 7. However, before this crucial passage, during the so-called Tripolis-discourses (Rec. 4–6), and subsequent to Clement’s initial reflections and Peter’s discussions with Simon and teachings to his students, Peter elaborates on his ethical reflections and continues to elucidate on the possible negative consequences of one not choosing the proper, ethical standards towards the furthering of one’s own philosophical life. He discusses the influence of demons on the soul, and how the soul can be purified and sealed by baptism.Footnote 58 Not coincidentally, Clement is baptized at the end of this episode in Rec. 6.15. Baptism purifies the soul and seals this condition. It is the result of ethical choices, and Peter will take the occasion in the next episode to discuss further philosophical progress based on these ethical insights and on his earlier teachings. He does this by propounding Mattidia’s life as an example of his philosophical discourse to his former students’ philosophy.
Ethics and Peter’s Image of the Chariot (Rec. 7)
As noted earlier, Peter does not defend the idea of the soul’s captive state under the rulership of another God, but it is clear that he departs from the idea that one must elevate one’s soul towards the one God. In order to do so, he leverages the Platonic myth of the charioteer, widely known among early Christian authors.Footnote 59 This particular myth is crucial to Peter’s understanding of the Christian philosophical life. This substantial take on the Phaedran imageFootnote 60 is to be situated in the context of the conversion of Mattidia, the mother of Clement, and his discussion of her way of living, the goal of happiness, and the relationship between reason and emotion in regard to the soul. Moreover, this will also represent the ideal ethical aspect in preparation for further insights into physics, and more particularly, metaphysical understandings regarding the invisible world and God. The preparation for this metaphysical insight is already evident at the beginning of the scene, just before Peter offers his adaptation of the image of the charioteer. He literally presents another form of perceiving truth which again takes up his allegory of the house: one’s view is darkened, and one needs to elevate one’s soul in order to truly see.
After leaving Tripolis in the direction of Ortosias and Antaradus, Peter sends the twins Nicetas and Aquila ahead to Laodicea.Footnote 61 Clement is glad that he is not separated from Peter as he considers him to be the “cause of my salvation and knowledge of the truth (quod mihi salutis causa et agnoscendae veritatis).”Footnote 62 In addition, Peter possesses a notable capacity of self-control. It seems as if Clement is afraid that, without Peter’s presence, he may again fall prey to the passion of lust.Footnote 63 This is a dramatic exaggeration, since he had already demonstrated the ability to choose the moral path of temperance at the very beginning of the narrative, based on his reflections about the soul. This point is of course meant to emphasize Peter’s philosophical-ascetic attitude. As Peter continues on his quest, he endures the harshest of travelling conditions and hardships, without need for material wealth, living simply on bread and olives, and possessing only a single tunic and pallium.Footnote 64 This aligns with the Cynic’s mode of life with respect to philosophical dress, independence from unnatural needs, and refusal of luxury and vanity. This mode of life can, in fact, already be traced back to the prime example of Socrates, who succeeded in enduring the hardest of conditions.Footnote 65 Moreover, because of this philosophically inspired lifestyle, Peter is also able—literally—to see things in a different way: “This is sufficient for me (hoc mihi sufficit), because my mind does not regard things present (quia mens mea non ad haec praesentia), but things eternal, and therefore no present and visible thing delights me (sed ad illa quae aeterna sunt aspicit, et ideo nihil me rerum praesentium visibiliumque delectat).”Footnote 66
This lack of “delight” in earthly things is evidenced in Rec. 7.12.Footnote 67 While his students seek to visit the “vine-wood columns of immense size” and the works of Phidias in a “certain temple” on Aradus, it is Peter who demonstrates a different outlook: he is intrigued by the sight of a beggar with deformed hands, sitting at the entrance of the marvellous temple. Peter pays no heed to “earthly beauty,” but rather to the beauty of one’s ethical lifestyle, which may not be immediately visible to the eye. Peter asks the beggar about the cause of her suffering and promises her a certain medicamentum in order to trade this life for another one without pain.Footnote 68 The beggar understands this reference to medicamentum as the only cure for her miserable life: death. It becomes clear that this woman, who eventually turns out to be Clement’s mother Mattidia, has lived her “old” life in an ethical, moral way, exercising control over excessive emotions and avoiding falling victim to (erotic) desire. She has preserved marital fidelity by escaping from the erotic advances of her brother-in-law, but, owing to unfortunate events, she has found herself in the impoverished position of beggar on the island of Arados.Footnote 69 Her life has been a chaste one, and seems to have been an example of anima naturaliter Christiana. Peter’s meeting with her culminates in her subsequent reunion with Clement, and later, with the twins Aquila and Nicetas, who recognize her in Laodicea.Footnote 70 Because of her chaste, virtuous life, she is considered worthy of becoming a Christian and receiving healing treatment from Peter, but first, Peter demands that she fast for at least one day. Interestingly, this period is also presented by Peter as a period of askèsis in the sense of philosophical training of the outer and inner senses.Footnote 71
But let us teach our bodily senses (doceamus autem sensus nostros corporales), which are without us (qui extrinsecus sunt), to be in subjection to our inner senses (servire interioribus sensibus); and not compel our inner senses (et non interferes sensus), which savour the things that be of God (qui quae dei sunt sapiunt), to follow the outer senses (cogamus sequi exteriores), which savour the things that be of the flesh (carnis sunt sapiunt).Footnote 72
The entire scene, including Mattidia’s lifestory as connected to Clement’s life, is seized upon by Peter in order to present Christian teachings and life models as philosophical to his own students, who themselves are former students of philosophy. The idea that Clement’s mother would like to die, but that she is not able to, might also serve to demonstrate that only Christian philosophy can offer her the true medicamentum, namely: the right way of thinking about life and death—again a fundamental and widespread philosophical exercise hearkening back to Plato’s Phaedo, as I also noted earlier in Clement’s case. It is also in this respect that Peter discusses how one should lead one’s own life, train (askèsis) one’s ratio and soul, and gain control over excessive emotions, by means of an adaptation of the well-known Phaedran myth of the charioteer.Footnote 73 Interpreting Matt 5:28–29 and the dangers of a desirous gaze (“If your right eye causes you to stumble, tear it out and throw it away,” NRSVUE), Peter states:
[Jesus’s] meaning is, that the purpose should be cut off (propositum in hoc vult resecari), not the members (non membra), and the causes which allure to sin (et causas quae ad peccandum inliciunt), in order that our thought, borne up on the chariot of sight, may push towards the love of God, supported by the bodily senses; and not give loose reins to the eyes of the flesh as to wanton horses, eager to turn their running outside the way of the commandments (quo cogitatio nostra aspectus vehiculo subvecta ad amorem dei sensibus corporeis innisa contendat nec carnalibus oculis, velut lascivientibus equis et extra mandatorum viam currum declinare cupientibus, relaxet frena et habenas indulgeat), but may subject the bodily sight to the judgment of the mind, and not suffer those eyes of ours (sed revocet aspectum corporis ad arbitrium mentis et oculos nostros), which God intended to be viewers and witnesses of His work, to become panders of evil desire (quos deus operis sui inspectores esse voluit et testes, non patiatur fieri lenones mali desiderii). And therefore let the bodily senses as well as the internal thought be subject to the law of God, and let them serve His will, whose work they acknowledge themselves to be (et ideo cedant legi dei tam corporei sensus quam interna cogitatio et illius voluntati ministrent cuius se opera esse intellegunt).Footnote 74
Here, Peter’s invocation of the charioteer image aligns with the aforementioned therapeutic aim of philosophy, since he aims to offer insight into the structure and good functioning of the soul in relation to one’s body and the good way of life. This also underscores the philosophical character of his teaching and emphasizes the Pseudo-Clementine depiction of the true philosophical life. How should one deal with passions and, more specifically, desires? How can one obtain the true philosophical goal of full happiness and philosophical ascension? This Petrine version of the charioteer-image is certainly striking and shares some points in common with the original, but takes artistic and philosophical liberty with certain original accents regarding topics such as rationality and irrationality, body and emotions (in particular erotic desire), and the theme of epoptics and true sight.
From Erotic Gazing to Contemplating God: From Ethics to Metaphysics
In Plato’s Phaedrus, the character of Socrates offers Phaedrus an original myth of the charioteer from within the framework of the general theme of true love and true philosophy. The myth represents a vivid description of the inner struggles caused by erotic desire and explains how the two horses bound to the chariot react in opposite ways. The good horse restrains itself and obeys the charioteer, while the bad one is enticed and lured away by the passion of lust and pleasures of sex. The goal of the charioteer is to maintain an orderly control over both horses. Whenever the charioteer is struck by a boy’s face and pulls back the reins, the good horse obeys, but the bad horse tends toward the beloved, requiring the charioteer to again exert himself in order to bring the disobedient horse back under control. This image was widely disseminated in the first centuries CE in regard to reflections on the opposition between ratio and emotions, rather than the original Platonic trichotomy of the soul.Footnote 75 This same bipartition, as well as Plato’s original myth, plays an important role in ancient erotic fiction.Footnote 76 Due to the presence of many links to this ancient erotic fiction, it is no coincidence that the Recognitions offer several points of view related to the idea of desire as evoked by sight, eros, and sex in the context of marital (in)fidelity. Peter considers Mattidia’s case to be a true philosophical example of one exercising control over one’s passions, even though she is not presented as a student of philosophy as such. In the case of Peter’s adaptation, he takes the examples of lust and adultery, which represent dangers to Mattidia’s ethical and chaste lifestyle,Footnote 77 and he again takes up the passage of Rec. 7.37.2 concerning the askèsis of inner senses. One must exercise control over one’s emotions, desires, and fears, and Peter, as philosopher, interprets this within a dedicated philosophical framework.
When reflecting further on the original myth of the charioteer and Peter’s adaptation of it, one may observe a similar concern. Plato, as well as later authors, discusses an important topic regarding the tension between ratio and emotions: the influence of the act of looking, as we can also note in the case of the Recognitions. For example, in several expressions of the so-called ancient erotic novel, Plato’s original Phaedran myth is utilized for the purposes of further reflection on the act of seeing and desiring as the cause for one’s loss of control over the emotional part of the soul.Footnote 78 Of course, in the Phaedrus, Socrates clarifies that the black horse desires its object of affection and the pleasures of sexFootnote 79 as a result of the act of looking.Footnote 80 This reflection is also expressed in topics and motifs such as receiving the stream of beauty or seeing oneself in the other as if in a mirror.Footnote 81 What is remarkable, however, is that the Recognitionist, in the reference to Plato’s image, seems to assign the vehicle itself a role in that regard, which is not the case in the original, nor in other testimonies of reception of this original. The chariotFootnote 82 seems to represent the body, through which sensory perceptions could influence the soul, or rather the embodied soul.Footnote 83 The vehicle is connected here to the aspectus itself, as part of the bodily or animated carnal senses. In this context, the chariot symbolizes a transition to the material plane: here on earth, one is encouraged to engage in the act of truly looking to uncover authentic signs and tokens of God.
Moreover, the body or embodied state of the soul is also a necessary mediator for true knowledge in this respect, but, at the same time, the body is also a place of danger: the eyes of the flesh can evoke desire in the soul. The matter is one of knowing where to look and what to look at. As in the original Platonic dialogue, as well as in many later adaptations, the image deals with the emotional, psychological effects of the act of looking, in particular desirous looking, or a look that goes unsupervised by ratio or logos. Unregulated desires resulting from one’s view must be resolved, and philosophy acts as a therapeutic means of gaining control over bodily passions. Peter discusses a transformation of one’s gaze: one should not look in an erotic, sexual, or desirous way at the physical beauty of an object. Instead, the true object of one’s gaze should be the divine. In this respect, it is no coincidence that Peter himself sees things differently, as he exemplifies what he preaches. In my point of view, the correct philosophical performance of looking is of crucial importance here, and has, in fact, been overlooked in earlier research.Footnote 84 According to Peter, true vision is part of a philosophical act or existential “performance”: one should examine the world with “different eyes,” and it is therefore no coincidence that this is discussed at the moment when Peter turns his attention towards the disabled Mattidia rather than the physical beauty of a Greek heroine, while his disciples merely visited the temple in order to indulge in the sight of Greek visual beauty.
A Christian, Meta-literary and Philosophical Conversion
This reading also implies a meta-literary reflection: unlike the objectifying gaze depicted in ancient erotic novels, which stem from Phaedran reflections, Mattidia does not serve as the subject of such discourse. Instead, she refrains from being relegated to a mere object of erotic gazing, embodying instead Peter’s curiosity. She emerges as the genuine exemplar of Christian novelistic fiction, devoid of any traces of erotic desire. Mattidia exemplifies the Christian moral code, which, moreover, is founded on one’s free will. One is free to choose the right moral attitude based on rational insights. In her case, for example, she fabricated a dream in order to escape from her brother-in-law’s adulterous advances. Accordingly, she is in perfect control of speech and of action. She does not require the intervention of actual dreams or of fate in order to set aside her own or another’s desires.Footnote 85
Moreover, as I argue, Mattidia also represents the object of reflection of Peter’s Christian-philosophical discourse, in which ethical considerations constitute a crucial step. I do not aim to assert that she herself participates in philosophical discourses and/or that she has been converted by means of philosophical discussions or interpretations. Marie-Ange Calvet-Sébasti rightly argues that this is less so or even not the case in regard to women in the Pseudo-Clementines. Miracles are evident triggers of the definitive conversion of female Pseudo-Clementine characters to Christianity rather than, for example, philosophical debates, as I will discuss in the case of Clement’s father.Footnote 86 But that does not alter Peter’s discourse, according to which Mattidia’s role is discussed in respect to the true, Christian philosophical existential life. She represents a symbol of a Christian lived ethical life. It seems that this philosophical phase can be gained by means of an anima Christiana naturaliter, but this particular anima must be reached by means of rational, moral judgements and habituation.Footnote 87 Sophisticated philosophical insights and logical reflections will become clear during the next steps of the philosophical program: physics and metaphysics.
Of particular interest is that Mattidia’s recognition and conversion take place within the framework of Peter’s philosophical reflections on ethics before the former students of philosophy, Clement, and his brothers. She literally takes on a new identity after first being physically disfigured and after having obscured her own identity. Her ‘I’ or ‘Ego’ is restored and also renewed, since this physical reconstitution and existential conversion must also be philosophically substantiated. The general idea of conversion in relation to philosophy concerning the Pseudo-Clementines (in reference to Clement, but, as I see it, the same applies to Mattidia), has already been discussed by Dominique Côté:
Le cas de Clément dans les Pseudo-Clémentines l’illustre très bien: s’attacher à un sage entraîne de facto le passage par un processus de conversion, car l’acte philosophique ne s’effectue pas seulement “dans l’ordre de la connaissance,” précise Hadot, mais dans l’ordre du “soi” et de l’ “être.” . .. La philosophie devient essentiellement un acte de conversion.Footnote 88
The case of Clement in the Pseudo-Clementines illustrates this particularly well: attaching oneself to a sage entails, de facto, undergoing a process of conversion, since the philosophical act takes place not only “in the order of knowledge,” as Hadot points out, but also in the order of the “self” and of “being.” . . . Philosophy thus becomes, in essence, an act of conversion.
Here, it becomes clear that, taking Peter’s reflections into account, Mattidia is the true example of Peter’s philosophical exposition. Mattidia exemplifies precisely what Peter describes as a Christian philosophical life: her commitment to cogitatio and passions will also lead to further knowledge of eternal life. Peter employs her case-study of existential choices in support of his own Christian philosophical views on life. Remarkably, Peter juxtaposes this particular way of life to the philosophical (philosophando) or humoring (palpando) attempt of seeking to master one’s passions.Footnote 89 Greek philosophy and the medicinal art do not offer true solutions. Only the true Christian life, presented here as a philosophical life, is capable of remedying individuals from excessive passions. From a sociological standpoint, the role of (non-Christian) philosophy and medicine as sources of healing and therapeutic knowledge and expertise for the soul and body, respectively, are subject to scrutiny within an early Christian philosophical framework. Nevertheless, Plato’s philosophy is, in this respect, a source of further inspiration concerning self-mastery and reflection on emotions, temperance, and sexuality. Until now, Christian philosophy hence represents an act of transformation and of moral consciousness.Footnote 90
Moreover, Mattidia must consciously perform this act of transformation and conversion, and also live consciously. Peter explains that emotions and cogitatio entail a perpetual state of consciousness.Footnote 91 In this regard, I would like to note that the act of seeing, knowing what to see, and knowing how to see, in a philosophical, contemplative way, emerges prominently in the Recognitions. I argue that it is no coincidence that this scene of Mattidia’s recognition and conversion, dealing with ethical consciousness, is followed by discussions concerning the act of seeing, reflections on physics and the (epoptical) act of knowing God. It is only through awareness of the self and knowledge of the (moral) self that one can perceive and extract true knowledge of creation, and, subsequently, of the invisible. In this way, the whole structure of ancient philosophy and the three parts can be observed in the narrative: from ethics to physics, theology and epoptics.Footnote 92
Macrocosm and the Self: Physics as Spiritual Exercise (Rec. 8)
Physics constitutes a crucial aspect of the imperial and late antique philosophical program. Moreover, physics itself can also serve as the object of a philosophical category of “spiritual exercises,” as elucidated by Pierre Hadot. This involves contemplating the physis and reflecting on the relationship between oneself as a microcosmic part of the macrocosm, and the restitution of the self within the encompassing totality.Footnote 93 In other words, by being conscious of the cosmos, “. . . we mean the consciousness that we are part of the cosmos, and the consequent dilation of our self throughout the infinity of universal nature.”Footnote 94 This notion is tied to the concept of inhabiting a universe while simultaneously embodying the entirety of the universe. Philosophers engage in both thought and action from a cosmic viewpoint.Footnote 95 The contemplation of nature holds existential meaning, as is also evident in texts of Christian authors.Footnote 96 Furthermore, such a perspective also carries ethical significance: it is aimed at the betterment of humankind. God has created the world in order to serve humanity’s aim of attaining happiness and the contemplation of the invisible, the epoptical aspect of the philosophical program.
In the Recognitions, the contemplation of nature and the cosmos is intended to pave the way to true contemplation of the invisible, or in other words, the whole of being: God. This becomes clear subsequent to Mattidia’s recognition and Peter’s explanation of the philosophical life and the nature of the soul by means of Platonic allusions. An older man enters the stage who turns out to be Faustinianus, Mattidia’s husband and the father of Clement and his twin brothers. Although dressed as a workman, he embodies certain mannerisms associated with philosophers.Footnote 97 His (yet unrecognized) sons note his eloquence, the gravity of his manners, and the calmness of his speech. Prior to his recognition, his three sons—and former students of philosophy—hold several disputes with him by means of the “Greek way” of discussing (“a nobis Graecorum more fuerit disputatum”).Footnote 98 From Rec. 7 onwards, Nicetas and his brothers are no longer characterized as mere students, but as the ideal successors to Peter’s role as teacher.Footnote 99 The contents of the dialogues consist of philosophical issues concerning both physics and metaphysics. Nicetas, on the one hand, discusses topics such as creation, providence and astrological determinism, while Faustinianus rejects any form of divine providence.Footnote 100 Nicetas’s brother, on the other hand, reflects on the idea of free will, the problem of evil, and the invisible on the day after, and later on, Clement concludes with a discussion concerning God and the representation of the divine in Greek theology.Footnote 101 In this respect, the soul’s flight, as explained by Peter in Rec. 3 and 7, aligns with the general philosophical program as it is deployed throughout the sequence of the numerous disputes. This notion also hearkens back to Clement’s initial psychological and mental distress: how and what should the soul really contemplate, and where and how can it find truth.Footnote 102 It is in this manner that the philosophical program is interwoven into the narrative arc.
As deliberated by Nicetas in the presence of his father, the paramount function of the soul is thought,Footnote 103 which guides one to a better understanding of the invisible. It is hence no surprise that Christian philosophers emphasized the relationship between reason and the human soul. Even though these thinkers may not concur on the exact nature of the relationship, they unanimously assert that reason transcends being merely another aspect of human nature. Rather, it moulds human nature and aligns one with the likeness of God, who embodies pure reason. According to Nicetas, the human being is a microcosm, and more specifically, a microcosm with a particular philosophical aim towards the invisible. But before their brother Clement discusses the invisible divine and the direction of human beings towards God in Rec. 9–10, Nicetas and Aquila further reflect on the relationship between humankind, physics, and God in Rec. 8.
Via the Visible: From Physics to Metaphysics
Nicetas and Aquila also refer numerous times to Plato, both implicitly and explicitly, in order to furnish their discussion on the relationship between physics and metaphysics. According to Peter himself, Greek philosophy helps one elevate oneself towards the invisible but does not actually facilitate the attainment of the invisible in itself. Philosophers have knowledge only of what is visible,Footnote 104 which, within an objectivistic framework of epistemology, corresponds to a world of becoming. Thus, philosophers do not have any claim on epistemic authority concerning the divine, the invisible, or in other words, the theological or epoptical component of the philosophical program. From the onset of the discussion with his as of yet unrecognized father, Nicetas contemplates the distinction between the intellectual and invisible as opposed to material, observable matter.Footnote 105 According to Nicetas, mathematical instructions can be useful in this respect, directing one’s mind from the composite and sensible to the simple and intelligible.Footnote 106 Hadot’s remark on the works of Plotinus and Augustine are also evident in this case. The main character will “traverse a certain itinerary in the course of which he will make spiritual progress. . . . One must always approach a philosophical work of antiquity with this idea of spiritual progress in mind. For the Platonists, for example, even mathematics is used to train the soul to raise itself from the sensible to the intelligible.”Footnote 107 This progress also aligns with the goal of the Recognitions in portraying a philosophical way of life. Moreover, the idea of the simple and the composite can be traced to Plato’s dialogues.Footnote 108 According to Nicetas, the world must necessarily have been made by a creator or artisan.Footnote 109 Moreover, Nicetas holds that this idea has received support from many of the Greek philosophers. The Genesis story is thus superior to philosophical theories about the beginning of the world, such as those of Pythagoras and Aristotle, and is also supported by these same philosophers.Footnote 110 It is in this respect that Nicetas quotes the Timaeus 28b.
“For,” says he, “it is visible and palpable, and corporeal (Visibilis enim, inquit, est et palpabilis atque corporeus); but it is evident that all things which are of this sort have been made (omnia autem quae huiusmodi sunt, facta esse constat); but what has been made has doubtless an author, by whom it was made (quod autem factum est, aliquem sine dubio habet auctorem, a quo factum est). This Maker and Father of all, however, it is difficult to discover (hunc ergo, inquit, factorem parentemque omnium et invenire difficile est); and when discovered, it is impossible to declare Him to the vulgar (et inventum vulgo enarrare inpossibile).” Such is the declaration of Plato (haec quidem Plato dicit); but though he and the other Greek philosophers had chosen to be silent about the making of the world (sed et si ipse aliique Graecorum philosophi defactura mundi silere voluissent), would it not be manifest to all who have any understanding (nonne omnibus intellectum habentibus palam esset)?Footnote 111
Plato is explicitly referenced here. The denominator “Father of All” (pater omnium) had been previously employed in Plato’s Timaeus 28C and subsequently adopted by Christian and non-Christian authors. Regarding the quote from the Timaeus, Jonathan Barnes notes: “et si la citation n’est pas parfaite, cela dépend peut-être ou bien de la tradition de Rufin ou bien d’un désir de la part de [Clément] d’éviter le pédantisme (and if the quotation is not exact, this may be due either to Rufinus’s transmission or to a desire on [Clement]’s part to avoid pedantry).”Footnote 112 Pedantic or not, it is Nicetas’s aim to refer to Plato and to interpret his philosophy through a Christian lens, supporting the idea of a creatio ex nihilo, in contrast to Plato’s original intention in the Timaeus. In the Recognitions, God has created the four elements and has brought the world into existence from nothingness.Footnote 113 Another point argued by Nicetas is that the cosmos exhibits a perfectly spherical shape, which supports the notion of an active divine providence.Footnote 114 As Nicetas discusses the structures of the cosmos from Rec. 8.9 onwards, he argues that a distinction must be made between that which is simple and that which is composite. The simple transcends the physical reality, as Plotinus, among others, had previously affirmed regarding the concept of the One. The simple is not subject to dissolution, but is eternal: without beginning or end. The simple is God. The composite, in turn, refers to what is visible, tangible, and corporeal. In other words, the world is composite. Furthermore, the composite also presupposes a creator or artisan, which is the simple, with the latter functioning as the efficient cause of the composite being.Footnote 115 This division can be traced back to Plato’s Timaeus 27–28. While Plato does not truly deal with the concept of the formation of the world in relation to time, Christian authors, including the Recognitionist, do so.Footnote 116 The world has been created and the world is not eternal. It will vanish in time. Nicetas refutes the theory that the world would be unengendered, incorruptible, and one, which seems to refer to theories originating with Parmenides, or rather Melissus. Moreover, the idea that the world would have come into existence by itself and/or by accident (as can be observed in atomistic and Epicurean theories) is unacceptable to Nicetas.Footnote 117 What is acceptable to Nicetas, however, is the idea of the presence of divine providence or providential governance in the universe. The notion that God created all things initially but subsequently relinquished them to the control of fate is refuted. The modality of necessity by means of fate would render free will, virtuous choices and worship of the divine meaningless.Footnote 118 In this respect, Nicetas’s speech is profoundly sophisticated, and replete with many references to Greek philosophy, particularly, to Plato.Footnote 119 It also combines natural philosophical theories with ethical, moral insights concerning one’s way of life and one’s constitution of soul. In this way, as in Greek philosophy, Christian philosophy perceives “physics” as a spiritual exercise too. One must observe and reflect on physics and contemplate nature in order to further oneself towards the higher “singular,” which fits in with Peter’s adaptation of the image of the charioteer and his discussion of Mattidia’s life. Ethics and physics are part of this philosophical program, as are mathematics. The aim of this program is to attain and perceive the invisible.
Metaphysics: Towards the Invisible (and Ineffable)
In this respect, Nicetas has already emphasized the importance of mathematics as a crucial means to enhance one’s understanding of the invisible and the intelligible (the single) based on what one can experience (the composite).Footnote 120 According to Jonathan Barnes, Nicetas here refers to the celebrated aphorism of Anaxagoras (“opsis adèlôn ta phainomena”).Footnote 121 “Aquila would merrily burn all Greek books, which contain nothing but impious notions (rec X xxxviii 2–3). I hear [Clement]’s voice there too. So must Greek learning be rejected entirely and whole-heartedly? Not quite entirely—for there is an exception. Not quite whole-heartedly—for there are a couple of hiccoughs on the way to the bonfire.”Footnote 122 Barnes continues to elaborate that Nicetas’s remark about mathematics “is a small piece of Greek wisdom which is not to be despised.”Footnote 123 Based on previous remarks and the general idea of the Recognitions as envisaging a Christian philosophical way of life, which is discussed by means of Platonic frameworks and tools, I do think we could expand on Barnes’s remark: “a small piece of Greek wisdom” unexpectedly reveals itself to be not so small after all. Moreover, Platonic philosophy in particular is undeniably evident in regard to reflections on the Christian lived philosophical life. Anaxagoras’s quote indeed proves insightful when attempting to reveal what is invisible, but Plato represents the superior choice in this respect. In relation to the other Platonic references, we may also interpret Nicetas’s reflection through a Christian-Platonizing lens, considering the distinctions between the visible and the invisible, the sensible and the intelligent, and the composite and the singular. In light of Peter’s discussion in Rec. 3.5–6 and his reference to the myth of the charioteer, one should contemplate the single and invisible God. This idea finds support in Peter’s remarks in Rec. 3.30.2 and 3.31.5 in that one should fill the mind with thought of God alone, because God is seen by the mind, not by the body. Thus, the chariot, grounded in carnal sense data, is lifted up, and appears to undergo purification (perhaps in disembodied state).
This Platonic character is taken up by Nicetas’s brother, Aquila,Footnote 124 who discusses the principles of the archetypes and forms which constitute the basis of our perceptible reality. This idea, deriving from Plato’s view of the theory of Forms, is also well known among Jewish and Christian authors, including Philo, of course, as well as Clement of Alexandria.Footnote 125 According to Aquila, it is through ethical behaviour and choices, the insights offered by mathematics and the spiritual exercise of contemplating the physical world, that one might reach this next step concerning metaphysics. Moreover, this idea also emphasizes Nicetas’s reflection on human cogitatio as a microcosm of the universe and of God’s rationality. Aquila’s view can best be understood in the context of other Jewish and Christian interpretations of creation and Plato’s theory of the Forms, and, moreover, in this respect, also encourages the progression towards the topic of God. It is no coincidence that God and theories about gods, the divine, mythology, and cosmogony, are discussed in the final books of Rec. 9 and 10 by Clement, his father, and Peter.
Nevertheless, there is a crucial meta-literary caveat when it comes to describing God and the invisible. The invisible is in fact also ineffable (ineffabilis),Footnote 126 but not unknowable.Footnote 127 Simon Magus defends the existence of an unknown Good God, who is superior to the known, God-creator. This is not what Peter argues in the remainder of the narrative. God’s existence can be known, even if God’s true divine character might be incomprehensible to humankind.Footnote 128 Nevertheless, based on the particular spiritual and philosophical exercises throughout the Recognitions and the corresponding ideal philosophical way of life that one should follow, the Recognitionist endeavours to render the ineffable as partly philosophically contemplative or intelligible. Several Platonic allusions refer to this idea of demonstrating how the praxis of such a way of life on an ethical and physical level can lead to the ascension of the soul to the highest level, as a next step in order to achieve the epoptical aim. In this way, the Recognitions seek to kindle a certain philosophical flame within the characters’—and also seemingly within the readers’—souls, given the consciously elaborated structure in the Recognitions for the reader to follow (ethics, Rec. 1–7; physics, Rec. 8; metaphysics, Rec. [end] 8–[beginning] 10). This also seems to be the reason behind why this novel contains, for the most part, direct speech, dialogues, and teachings. The aim is to present not only the transformation from a tragic life to a reunion of lost family members, but also to elucidate the rationale behind the Christian-philosophical attitude and life as interpreted and explained, in a step-by-step manner, by Peter and his followers (and former students of philosophy), and as interpreted by the intended reader, who observes as a participant in the philosophical progress across the teachings and dialogues.
How to Train a Philosophical Attitude
In the final book of the Recognitions, Peter draws an explicit comparison between this philosophical attitude and the Pythagorean approach. Faustinianus asks if he may question Peter: “or is silence enforced, after the manner of the Pythagoreans?” Peter responds that whoever is anxious to learn about God and salvation should ask questions earnestly and diligently.Footnote 129 However, this particular attitude requires exercise, as is underscored several times by Peter himself. For example, in Caesarea, he explains to his students that “sudden change” is difficult, and one has to train oneself first, this training constituting an intensive performance that begins before dawn and ends after sunset. Students need to rise early and make themselves ready to hear Peter’s teachings. This requires mental and physical training, or as Peter asserts: “Sudden change is difficult” (difficilis est subita permutatio). This training aims to fill one’s mind with thought of God alone, which bears continuous repetition and proper sequencing.Footnote 130 Must we consider the “sudden change” in relation to perceiving the metaphysical Beauty in Plato’s Symposium (210e), or the sudden liberation of a prisoner from the cave (Republic 515c)? Or are we perhaps dealing here with the ideal student in Callipolis and his education in mathematics and dialectic, absent any form of a violent pull (Republic 533d)? In any case, it is no coincidence that Peter’s very first teaching is an adaptation of the Allegory of the Cave, whereby Peter emphasizes the idea of correct attitude and training, questioning the validity of the idea of sudden change. By means of this particular adaptation, he discusses how one with the proper, truth-loving attitude needs to look for the True Prophet in order to achieve liberation and acquire true knowledge.Footnote 131 Additionally, the reference to the myth of the charioteer, as well as Peter’s discussion in Rec. 3.5–6, is to be understood in this way. In this respect, the Recognitions do not aim to present a theoretical outline, but rather, to offer a Christian-philosophical attitude and askèsis, as well as the lived experience of a way of life. This idea is revisited in the final book of the Recognitions.Footnote 132
We have already discussed how one should organize one’s ethical disposition in the case of the young, distressed Clement. The latter, who has been a student in philosophical schools, who has been educated by Peter and who has also become his successor, by no coincidence assumes Peter’s role as teacher in a discussion with his father, Faustinianus. The latter was also a student of Simon and also embodies certain philosophical traits, but it transpires that he is merely a deluded student of philosophy. This is apparent not only in his reflections on physics, but also in ethics, and interestingly, Plato’s influence is once again evident. Peter serves as umpire in a discussion between Clement and his father concerning the concepts of evil and of good. Faustinianus, rather ironically and relativistically, interprets several ideas from Plato’s oeuvre in a curious fashion including by making remarks such as that murder would not really be an evil because it frees the soul from the bounds of the body, or that women occupy the category of things common to friends (referring to Laws 739c and Republic 457c–d).Footnote 133 He even concludes with a markedly Socratic reflection: “and I cannot act well unless I first learn what is good (nisi prius didicero quid sit bonum; quod si intellegere potuero).”Footnote 134 Everything begins with the correct disposition and attitude in relation to knowledge: how should one search for truth about oneself and one’s soul, nature, and God. Thus, we find that Clement who initially suffered from a period of distress and was hence educated in the Christian-philosophical-Platonizing teachings of Peter, is now able to himself fill the role of Christian-philosophical teacher, and to refute Faustinianus’s incorrect readings of Plato and straighten out the latter’s ethical insights based on this particular reading.
Concluding Reflection
I would like to present here a concluding reflection on the Recognitions as an original philosophy. One must read and reflect on this particular narrative and philosophical construction, which seems not only to be an entertaining, but also existential exercise in reading philosophy. Aside from the prominent presence of ancient philosophy (specifically Plato), the Recognitions can be interpreted as a narrative concerning Christian philosophy, offering reflections on what philosophy is and how it should be lived. This also forms part of the true essence of ancient philosophy: to provide insight into lived, existential philosophy. In other words, the Pseudo-Clementine narrative constitutes a philosophy in its own right, and reading this narrative constitutes a philosophical, existential, and identity-defining act. Moreover, one could apply a certain remark by Peter to the characters as well as to the intended reader: it is all about a certain attitude, as Peter argues. In Rec. 8.59.3–4, he discusses the necessary and literally illuminating role of the True Prophet in the pursuit of understanding truths about the invisible. The True Prophet only “works in those who seek after that which is profitable to their souls (in his vero qui quod animae suae expedit quaerunt), and kindles in them the light of knowledge (operatur et scientiae lumen accendit).”
This kindling (accendere) of a flame represents a recurring topos, which again can be traced back to Plato himself.Footnote 135 In this way, Peter employs this philosophical topos in order to reinforce the Recognitions’ presentation of the Christian-philosophical attitude that one should have, while at the same time, downgrading the value of Greek philosophy in comparison to the true Christian philosophy-prophecy. Only the True Prophet can reveal the metaphysical or theological truth, not Greek philosophy. The way of life and additional reflections on humankind, nature, and God, as presented in the Recognitions, represent a(n) (early Christian) philosophy in their own right, encapsulating their interpretation of the philosophical agenda and lived philosophy. In fact, the Recognitions present a Christian-philosophical program, supported by Platonic frameworks and hermeneutical tools of reflection. I have hence clarified how the author of the Recognitions (in the version we have today) does not outright reject every facet of Greek paideia from an external perspective. Rather, the author reinterprets elements of this paideia and offers an original early Christian philosophy, presenting the concept of Christian lived philosophy in its own distinct manner. Additionally, I have also argued that this Christian philosophical language and framework serve as the foundational structure of the narrative, providing the reader with a cohesive reading experience throughout the entire work.
