A REVIEW OF AUTHORITIES.
The student will at once perceive that though the Simon of the _Acts_
and the Simon of the fathers both retain the two features of the
possession of magical power and of collision with Peter, the tone of the
narratives is entirely different. Though the apostles are naturally
shown as rejecting with indignation the pecuniary offer of the
thaumaturge, they display no hate for his personality, whereas the
fathers depict him as the vilest of impostors and charlatans and hold
him up to universal execration. The incident of Simon's offering money
to Peter is admittedly taken by the fathers from this account, and
therefore their repetition in no way corroborates the story. Hence its
authenticity rests entirely with the writer of the _Acts_, for Justin,
who was a native of Samaria, does not mention it. As the _Acts_ are not
quoted from prior to A.D. 177, and their writer is only traditionally
claimed to be Luke, we may safely consider ourselves in the domain of
legend and not of history.
The same may be said of all the incidents of Simon's career; they
pertain to the region of fable and probably owe their creation to the
Patristic and Simonian controversies of later ages.
The Simon of Justin gives us the birthplace of Simon as at Gitta, and
the rest of the fathers follow suit with variation of the name. Gitta,
Gittha, Gittoi, Gitthoi, Gitto, Gitton, Gitteh, so run the variants.
This, however, is a matter of no great importance, and the little burg
is said to-day to be called Gitthoï.[78]
The statement of Justin as to the statue of Simon at Rome with the
inscription "SIMONI DEO SANCTO" has been called in question by every
scholar since the discovery in 1574 of a large marble fragment in the
island of the Tiber bearing the inscription "SEMONI SANCO DEO FIDIO," a
Sabine God. A few, however, think that Justin could not have made so
glaring a mistake in writing to the Romans, and that if it were a
mistake Irenaeus would not have copied it. The coincidence, however, is
too striking to bear any other interpretation than that perhaps some
ignorant controversialist had endeavoured to give the legend a
historical appearance, and that Justin had lent a too ready ear to him.
It is also to be noticed that Justin tells us that nearly all the
Samaritans were Simonians.
We next come to the Simon of Irenaeus which, owing to many similarities,
is supposed by scholars to have been taken from Justin's account, if not
from the _Apology_, at any rate from Justin's lost work on heresies
which he speaks of in the _Apology_. Or it may be that both borrowed
from some common source now lost to us.
The story of Helen is here for the first time given. Whether or not
there was a Helen we shall probably never know. The "lost sheep" was a
necessity of every Gnostic system, which taught the descent of the soul
into matter. By whatever name called, whether Sophia, Acamôth, Prunîcus,
Barbêlo, the glyph of the Magdalene, out of whom seven devils are cast,
has yet to be understood, and the mystery of the Christ and the seven
aeons, churches or assemblies (_ecclesiae_), in every man will not be
without significance to every student of Theosophy. These data are
common to all Gnostic aeonology.
If it is argued that Simon was the first inventor of this aeonology, it
is astonishing that his name and that of Helen should not have had some
recognition in the succeeding systems. If, on the contrary, it is
maintained that he used existing materials for his system, and explained
away his improper connection with Helen by an adaptation of the
Sophia-mythos, it is difficult to understand how such a palpable
absurdity could have gained any credence among such cultured adherents
as the Simonians evidently were. In either case the Gnostic tradition is
shown to be pre-Christian. Every initiated Gnostic, however, must have
known that the mythos referred to the World-Soul in the Cosmos and the
Soul in man.
The accounts of the _Acts_ and of Justin and Irenaeus are so confusing
that it has been supposed that two Simons are referred to.[79] For if he
claimed to be a reïncarnation of Jesus, appearing in Jerusalem as the
Son, he could not have been contemporary with the apostles. It follows,
therefore, that either he made no such claim; or if he made the claim,
Justin and Irenaeus had such vague information that they confused him
with the Simon of the _Acts_; or that the supposition is not
well-founded, and Simon was simply inculcating the esoteric doctrine of
the various manifestations or descents of one and the same Christ
principle.
The Simon of Tertullian again is clearly taken from Irenaeus, as the
critics are agreed. "Tertullian evidently knows no more than he read in
Irenaeus," says Dr. Salmon.[80]
It is only when we come to the Simon of the _Philosophumena_ that we
feel on any safe ground. The prior part of it is especially precious on
account of the quotations from _The Great Revelation_ ([Greek: hae
megalae apophasis]) which we hear of from no other source. The author of
_Philosophumena_, whoever he was, evidently had access to some of the
writings of the Simonians, and here at last we have arrived at any thing
of real value in our rubbish heap.
It was not until the year 1842 that Minoides Mynas brought to Paris from
Mount Athos, on his return from a commission given him by the French
Government, a fourteenth-century MS. in a mutilated condition. This was
the MS. of our _Philosophumena_ which is supposed to have been the work
of Hippolytus. The authorship, however, is still uncertain, as will
appear by what will be said about the Simon of Epiphanius and Philaster.
The latter part of the section on Simon in the _Philosophumena_ is not
so important, and is undoubtedly taken from Irenaeus or from the
anti-heretical treatise of Justin, or from the source from which both
these fathers drew. The account of the death of Simon, however, shows
that the author was not Hippolytus from whose lost work Epiphanius and
Philaster are proved by Lipsius to have taken their accounts.
The Simon of Origen gives us no new information, except as to the small
number of the Simonians. But like other data in his controversial
writings against the Gnostic philosopher Celsus we can place little
reliance on his statement, for Eusebius Pamphyli writing in A.D. 324-5,
a century afterwards, speaks of the Simonians as still considerable in
numbers.[81]
The Simon of Epiphanius and Philaster leads us to speak of a remarkable
feat of scholarship performed by R.A. Lipsius,[82] the learned professor
of divinity in the university of Jena. From their accounts he has
reconstructed to some extent a lost work of Hippolytus against heresies
of which a description was given by Photius. This treatise was founded
on certain discourses of Irenaeus. By comparing Philaster, Epiphanius,
and the Pseudo-Tertullian, he recovers Hippolytus, and by comparing his
restored Hippolytus with Irenaeus he infers a common authority, probably
the lost work of Justin Martyr, or, may we suggest, as remarked above,
the work from which Justin got his information.[83]
The Simon of Theodoret differs from that of his predecessor only in one
or two important details of the aeonology, a fact that has presumably
led Matter to suppose that he has introduced some later Gnostic ideas
or confused the teachings of the later Simonians with those of
Simon.[84]
The Simon of the legends is so entirely outside any historical
criticism, and the stories gleaned from the _Homilies_ and
_Recognitions_ are so evidently fabrications--most probably added to the
doctrinal narrative at a later date--and so obviously the stock-in-trade
legends of magic, that not a solitary scholar supports their
authenticity. Probably one of the reasons for this is the strong
Ebionism of the narratives, which is by no means palatable to the
orthodox taste. In this connection the following table of the Ebionite
scheme of emanation may be of interest:
GOD.
(The One Being, the Principle of all things.)
______________________________________^___________________________________
/ \
SPIRIT. MATTER.
| The Four elements.
| (This mixture produces)
| |
| |
THE SON. THE DEVIL.
(The Leader of the future cycle.) (The leader of the present cycle.)
| |
| |
GREAT THINGS. LITTLE THINGS.
(Heaven, light, life, etc.) (Earth, fire, death, etc.)
| |
| |
ADAM. EVE.
(Truth.) (Error.)
\________________ _______________/
\ /
MAN.
(The union of Spirit and Body, of Truth and Error.)
________________/ \_______________
/ \
INFERIOR MEN. SUPERIOR MEN.
Ishmael. Isaac.
Esau. Jacob.
Aaron. Moses.
John the Baptist. Jesus.
Antichrist. Christ.
\_____________________________________ ___________________________________/
V
GOD.
(Completion, rest.)[85]
There remains but to mention the curious theory of Bauer and the
Tubingen school. It is now established by recent theological criticism
that the Clementine writings were the work of some member or members of
the Elkesaites, a sect of the Ebionites, and that they were written at
Rome somewhere in the third century. The Elkessaeans or Elkesaites
founded their creed on a book called _Elkesai_, which purported to be an
angelic revelation and which was remarkable for its hostility to the
apostle Paul. As the _Recognitions_ contain much anti-Paulinism, Bauer
and his school not only pointed out the Ebionite source of the
Clementine literature, but also put forward the theory that whenever
Simon Magus is mentioned Paul is intended; and that the narrative of the
_Acts_ and the legends simply tell the tale of the jealousy of the elder
apostles to Paul, and their attempt to keep him from the fullest
enjoyment of apostolic privileges. But the latest scholarship shakes its
head gravely at the theory, and however bitter controversialists the
anti-Paulinists may have been, it is not likely that they would have
gone so far out of their way to vent their feelings in so grotesque a
fashion.
In conclusion of this Part let us take a general review of our
authorities with regard to the life of Simon and the immoral practices
attributed to his followers, including a few words of notice on the lost
Simonian literature, and reserving the explanation of his system and
some notice of magical practices for Part III.
I have distinguished the Simon of the fathers from the Simon of the
legends, as to biography, "by convention" and not "by nature," as the
Simonians would say, for the one and the other is equally on a mythical
basis. It is easy to understand that the rejection of the Simon of the
legends is a logical necessity for those who have to repudiate the
Ebionite Clementines. Admit the authenticity of the narrative as regards
Simon, and the authenticity of the other incidents about John the
Baptist and Peter would have to be acknowledged; but this would never
do, so Simon escapes from the clutches of his orthodox opponents as far
as this count is concerned.
But the biographical incidents in the fathers are of a similar nature
precisely to those in the Clementines, and their sources of information
are so vague and unreliable, and at such a distance from the time of
their supposed occurrence, that we have every reason to place them in
the same category with the Clementine legends. Therefore, whether we
reject the evidence or accept it, we must reject both accounts or accept
both. To reject the one and accept the other is a prejudice that a
partisan may be guilty of, but a position which no unbiassed enquirer
can with justice take up.
The legends, however, may find some excuse when it is remembered that
they were current in a period when the metal of religious controversy
was glowing at white heat. Orthodox Christians had their ears still
tingling with the echoing of countless accusations of the foulest nature
to which they had been subjected. Not a crime that was known or could be
imagined that had not been brought against them; they naturally,
therefore, returned the compliment when they could do so with safety,
and though in these more peaceful and tolerant days much as we may
regret the flinging backwards and forwards of such vile accusations, we
may still find some excuse for it in the passionate enthusiasm of the
times, always, however, remembering that the readiest in accusation and
in putting the worst construction on the actions of others, is generally
one who unconsciously brings a public accusation against his own lower
nature.
This has been well noticed by Matter, who writes as follows:
"There is nothing so impure," says Eusebius, "and one cannot
imagine anything so criminal, but the sect of the Simonians goes
far beyond it."[86]
The bolt of Eusebius is strong; it is even too strong; for one can
imagine nothing that goes beyond the excess of criminality; and
Eusebius, belonging to a community who were just escaping from
punishments into which accusations no less grave had caused them to
be dragged, should not perhaps have allowed himself to speak as he
does. But man is made thus; he pursues when he ceases to be
pursued.[87]
All societies that have secret rites and a public position, as was the
case with all the early communities of Christians and Gnostics, have had
like accusations brought against them. The communities of the Simonians
and Christians may or may not have been impure, it is now impossible to
pronounce a positive opinion. The important point to notice is that the
accusations being identical and the evidence or want of evidence the
same, condemnation or acquittal must be meted out to both; and that if
one is condemned and the other acquitted, the judgment will stand
condemned as biassed, and therefore be set aside by those who prefer
truth to prejudice.
So eager were the fathers to discredit Simon that they contradict
themselves in the most flagrant fashion on many important points. On the
one hand we hear that Samaria received the seed of the Word from the
apostles and Simon in despair had to flee, on the other hand Justin, a
native of Samaria, tells us, a century after this supposed event, that
nearly all the Samaritans are Simonians. The accounts of Simon's death
again are contradictory; if Simon perished so miserably at Rome, it is
the reverse of probable that the Romans would have set up a statue in
his honour. But, indeed, it is a somewhat thankless task to criticize
such manifest inventions; we know the source of their inspiration, and
we know the fertility of the religious imagination, especially in
matters of controversy, and this is a sufficient sieve wherewith to sift
them out of our heap.
I must now say a few words on Simonian literature of which the only
geniune specimens we can in any way be certain are the quotations from
the _Apophasis_ of Simon in the text of the _Philosophumena_.
That there was a body of Simonian scriptures is undoubtedly true, as may
be seen from the passages we have quoted from the _Recognitions_,
Jerome, Pseudo-Dionysius and the Arabic Preface to the Nicaean Council,
and for some time I was in hopes of being able to collect at least some
scattered fragments of these works, but they have all unfortunately
shared the fate of much else of value that the ignorance and fear of
orthodoxy has committed to the flames. We know at any rate that there
was a book called _The Four Quarters of the World_, just as the four
orthodox gospels are dedicated to the signs of the four quarters in the
old MSS., and that a collection of sentences or controversial replies of
Simon were also held in repute by Simonians and were highly distasteful
to their opponents. Matter[88] and Amélineau[89] speak of a book by the
disciples of Simon called _De la Prédication de S. Paul_, but neither
from their references nor elsewhere can I find out any further
information. In Migne's _Encyclopédie Théologique_,[90] also, a
reference is given to M. Miller (_Catalogue des Manuscripts Grecs de
l'Escurial_, p. 112), who is said to mention a Greek MS. on the subject
of Simon ("un écrit en grec relatif à Simon"). But I cannot find this
catalogue in the British Museum, nor can I discover any other mention of
this MS. in any other author.
At last I thought that I had discovered something of real value in
Grabe's _Spicilegium_, purporting to be gleanings of fragments from the
heretics of the first three centuries A.D.,[91] but the date of the
authority is too late to be of much value. Grabe refers to the
unsatisfactory references I have already given and, to show the nature
of these books, according to the opinion of the unknown author or
authors of the _Apostolic Constitutions_ (Grabe calls him the
"collector," and for some reason best known to himself places him in the
fourth century[92]), quotes the following passage from their legendary
pages.
"Such were the doings of these people with names of ill-omen slandering
the creation and marriage, providence, child-bearing, the Law and the
Prophets; setting down foreign names of Angels, as indeed they
themselves say, but in reality, of Daemons, who answer back to them from
below."
It is only when Grabe refers to the Simonian _Antirrhêtikoi Logoi_,
mentioned by the Pseudo-Dionysius, which he calls "vesani Simonis
Refutatorii Sermones," that we get any new information.
A certain Syrian bishop, Moses Barcephas, writing in the tenth
century,[93] professes to preserve some of these controversial retorts
of Simon, which the pious Grabe--to keep this venom, as he calls it,
apart from the orthodox refutation--has printed in italics. The
following is the translation of these italicized passages:
"God willed that Adam should not eat of that tree; but he did eat; he,
therefore, did not remain as God willed him to remain: it results,
therefore, that the maker of Adam was impotent."
"God willed that Adam should remain in Paradise; but he of his own
disgraceful act fell from thence: therefore the God that made Adam was
impotent, inasmuch as he was unable of his own will to keep him in
Paradise."
"(For) he interdicted (he said) Adam from the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil, by tasting which he would have had power to judge between
good and evil, and to avoid this, and follow after that."
"But (said he) had not that maker of Adam forbidden him to eat of that
tree, he would in no way have undergone this judgment and this
punishment; for hence is evil here, in that he (Adam) had done contrary
to the bidding of God, for God had ordered him not to eat, and he had
eaten."
"Through envy (said he) he forbade Adam to taste of the tree of life, so
that, of course, he should not be immortal."
"For what reason on earth (said he) did God curse the serpent? For if
(he cursed him) as the one who caused the harm, why did he not restrain
him from so doing, that is, from seducing Adam? But if (he cursed him)
as one who had brought some advantage, in that he was the cause of
Adam's eating of that good tree, it needs must follow that he was
distinctly unrighteous and envious; lastly, if, although from neither of
these reasons, he still cursed him, he (the maker of Adam) should most
certainly be accused of ignorance and folly."
Now although there seems no reason why the above contentions should not
be considered as in substance the arguments employed by Simon against
his antagonists of the dead-letter, yet the tenth century is too late to
warrant verbal accuracy, unless there may have been some Syrian
translation which escaped the hands of the destroyers. The above quoted
specimen of traditionary Simonian logic, however, is interesting, and
will, we believe, be found not altogether out of date in our own
times.[94]
Finally, there is one further point that I have reserved for the end of
this Part in order that my readers may constantly keep it in mind during
the perusal of the Part which follows.
We must always remember that every single syllable we possess about
Simon comes from the hands of bitter opponents, from men who had no
mercy or toleration for the heretic. The heretic was accursed, condemned
eternally by the very fact of his heresy; an emissary of Satan and the
natural enemy of God. There was no hope for him, no mercy for him; he
was irretrievably damned.[95] The Simon of our authorities has no
friend; no one to say a word in his favour; he is hounded down the
byways of "history" and the highways of tradition, and to crush him is
to do God service. One solitary ray of light beams forth in the fragment
of his work called _The Great Revelation_, one solitary ray, that will
illumine the garbled accounts of his doctrine, and speak to the
Theosophists of to-day in no uncertain tones that each may say:
Methinks there is much reason in his sayings. If thou consider
rightly of the matter, [Simon] has had great wrong.[96]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 78: M.E. Amélineau, "Essai sur le Gnosticisme Égyptien,"
_Annales du Musée Guimet_, Tom. xvi. p. 28.]
[Footnote 79: Mosheim's _Institutes of Ecclesiastical History_ (Trans.
etc., Murdock and Soames; ed. Stubbs 1863), Vol. I., p. 87, note, gives
the following list of those who have maintained the theory of two
Simons: Vitringa, _Observ. Sacrar._, v. 12, § 9, p. 159, C.A. Heumann,
_Acta Erudit. Lips._ for April, A.D. 1727, p. 179, and Is. de Beausobre,
_Diss. sur l'Adamites_, pt. ii. subjoined to L'Enfants' _Histoire de la
Guerre des Hussites_, i. 350, etc. Dr. Salmon also holds this theory.]
[Footnote 80: _Dict. Christ. Biog._, art. "Helena," Vol. II, p. 880.]
[Footnote 81: _Hist. Eccles._, ii. 13.]
[Footnote 82: _Quellenkritik des Epiphanios_.]
[Footnote 83: _Cf._ Dr. Salmon's art. "Hippolytus Romanus," _Dict.
Christ. Biog._, iii. 93, 94.]
[Footnote 84: _Histoire Critique du Gnosticisme_, Tom. i. p. 197 (1st
ed. 1828).]
[Footnote 85: _Les Bibles, et les Initiateurs Religieux de l'Humanité_,
Louis Leblois, i. 144; from Uhlhorn, _Die Homilien und Recognitionen_,
p. 224.]
[Footnote 86: _Hist. Eccles._, ii. 13.]
[Footnote 87: _Op. cit._, i. 213.]
[Footnote 88: _Op. cit._, ii. 217.]
[Footnote 89: _Op. cit._, 32.]
[Footnote 90: Tom. xxiii, "Dictionnaire des Apocryphes," Vol. II.,
Index, pp. lxviii, lxix.]
[Footnote 91: _Spicilegium SS. Patrum ut et Haereticorum Saeculorum post
Christum natum, I, II et III_; Johannes Ernestus Grabius; Oxoniae, 1714,
ed. alt., Vol. I., pp. 305-312.]
[Footnote 92: P. 306.]
[Footnote 93: _Comment. de Paradiso_, c. i., pp. 200, _et seqq._,
editionis Antverpiensis, anno 1567, in 8vo.]
[Footnote 94: Grabe is also interesting for a somewhat wild speculation
which he quotes from a British Divine (apud Usserium in _Antiquitatibus
Eccles. Britannicae_), that the tonsure of the monks was taken from the
Simonians. (Grabe, _op. cit._, p, 697.)]
[Footnote 95: In the epistle of St. Ignatius _Ad Trallianos_ (§ 11),
Simon is called "the first-born Son of the Devil" ([Greek: prototokon
Diabolou huion]); and St. Polycarp seems to refer to Simon in the
following passage in his Epistle _Ad Philipp._ (§ 7):
"Everyone who shall not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh,
is antichrist, and who shall not confess the martyrdom of the cross, is
of the Devil; and he who translates the words of the Lord according to
his own desires, and says there is neither resurrection nor judgment, he
is _the first-born of Satan_."]