Alexander of Lycopolis (often also Lycopolis; Ancient Greek Ἀλέξανδρος Λυκοπολίτης, Aléxandros Lykopolítēs; Latin Alexander Lycopolitanus or Lycopolita) was an ancient Greek philosopher, who lived in Egypt during the late 3rd century CE, belonged to the Neoplatonic school and is remembered as a determined opponent of Manichaeism. This then still very young religion had been founded in the Persian Sasanian Empire by Mani, a contemporary of Alexander, had spread westward into the Roman Empire, and had been brought to Egypt by missionaries. Alexander’s polemic against Manichaeism provides valuable information about its early history and shows that he was well informed about the doctrine he opposed. His aim was to defend the Platonic worldview against novel religious teachings which he regarded as confused and irrational.
He was the writer of a short treatise, in twenty-six chapters, against the Manicheans (J. P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, XVIII, 409–448). He says in the second chapter of this work that he derived his knowledge of Manis' teaching apo ton gnorimon (from the man's friend).
The work is a specimen of Greek analytical procedure, "a calm but vigorous protest of the trained scientific intellect against the vague dogmatism of the Oriental theosophies".
Photius says (Contra Manichaeos, i, 11) that he was Bishop of Lycopolis (in the Egyptian Thebaid). This view lived on well into the 19th century, although Louis-Sébastien Le Nain de Tillemont had concluded in 1697 that the author was a pagan and a Platonist. Otto Bardenhewer also opined this in (Patrologie, 234).
Life and work Alexander's place of origin was Lykonpolis (“City of Wolves”), in present-day Asyut in Egypt. Alexander likely received his philosophical education in Alexandria, after which he presumably returned to his hometown, where he worked as a philosophy teacher.André Villey: Alexandre de Lycopolis: Contre la doctrine de Mani, Paris 1985, S. 19f. Vgl. aber die Überlegungen von Hans-Martin Schenke: Marginal Notes on Manichaeism from an Outsider. In: Paul Mirecki (Hrsg.): Emerging from Darkness, Leiden 1997, S. 289–294, hier: 290f. Schenke points out that Alexander may have taught in Alexandria. He was of the Neoplatonist school of thought, though his philosophy was also influenced by Middle Platonism.Pieter Willem van der Horst, Jaap Mansfeld: An Alexandrian Platonist against Dualism. Alexander of Lycopolis’ Treatise ‘Critique of the Doctrines of Manichaeus’, Leiden 1974, S. 8–13; Johannes van Oort: Alexander von Lykopolis. In: Christoph Riedweg u. a. (Hrsg.): Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Spätantike (= Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie. Die Philosophie der Antike. Band 5/2), Basel 2018, S. 1322–1327, hier: 1327.
When well known Manichaean missionaries Papos and Thomas pretended to be students, appeared in his circle and succeeded in converting some of their peers, he considered it necessary to oppose them and refute their doctrines. For this purpose he composed his sole surviving work, Against the Teachings of Mani (Pros tas Manichaíou dóxas), the earliest known polemical work against Manichaeism, and the only testimony to Alexander's existence.Johannes van Oort: Alexander von Lykopolis. In: Christoph Riedweg u. a. (Hrsg.): Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Spätantike (= Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie. Die Philosophie der Antike. Band 5/2), Basel 2018, S. 1322–1327, hier: 1322f. This text was to become an important source for the study of early Manichaean thought, as Alexander apparently drew on reliable information originating from an authentic Manichaean account of the religion.André Villey: Alexandre de Lycopolis: Contre la doctrine de Mani, Paris 1985, S. 107–115.
Despite the continued circulation of early attributions to an Alexander, Bishop of Lyconpolis, who allegedly converted to Manichaeism from paganism, modern research has concluded that Alexander was neither Manichaean nor Christian, but was a pagan philosopher.
Since he refers to the death of the religion’s founder Mani (c. 277 CE) but appears unaware of the persecution of Manichaeans in the Roman Empire under Emperor Diocletian, which began in 297 CE, the composition of his work is generally dated to the period between 277 and 297 CE.André Villey: Alexandre de Lycopolis: Contre la doctrine de Mani, Paris 1985, S. 20–22; Francesco Chiossone (Hrsg.): Alessandro Di Licopoli: Contro i Manichei, Genova 2005, S. 25–27.
Some parts of the transmitted text of the treatise appear to have been revised by a Christian.Mark J. Edwards: A Christian Addition to Alexander of Lycopolis. In: Mnemosyne 42, 1989, S. 483–487.
Alexander’s Presentation and Critique of Manichaeism
Historical and Religious Background The treatise Against the Teachings of Mani consists of three sections: an introduction on Christianity and its decadence, a presentation of Manicheism and a philosophical refutation of Manichaeism. The work serves both as a source on the doctrines of early Manichaeism, confirmed in part by Manichaean texts discovered later, and as an important text on the history of early Neoplatonism. In its time, the text sought to demonstrate the incompatibility of Manichaeism with the main points and major currents of Greek philosophy. He viewed with concern that Mani’s ideas were gaining acceptance even among philosophers, and he attempted to stem this development.André Villey: Alexandre de Lycopolis: Contre la doctrine de Mani, Paris 1985, S. 19f., 33.
Alexander regarded Manichaeism as a very distorted form of Christianity. In doing so, he took the Manichaean self-understanding as his point of departure: Mani had presented himself as a continuer and fulfiller of Christ’s mission, calling himself an apostle of Christ. Accordingly, Alexander opened his treatise with observations on "the philosophy of the Christians", which he characterized as "simple", and considered it a trivial but useful doctrine suited to plain minds. As Alexander described the activity of Jesus, he did not regard him as a savior but as a commendable teacher of virtue for farmers and craftsmen.Siehe dazu Pieter W. van der Horst: 'A Simple Philosophy': Alexander of Lycopolis on Christianity. In: Keimpe A. Algra u. a. (Hrsg.): Polyhistor. Studies in the History and Historiography of Ancient Philosophy, Leiden 1996, S. 313–329, hier: 327–329. In his view, the emphasis of Christianity and Manichaeism on morality and religious concerns coincided with their neglect of philosophical rigor, which Alexander saw as one of their weaknesses. According to Alexander, what began as a simple philosophy eventually had degenerated into a hopelessly convoluted and useless dogmatic system,Alexander von Lykonpolis, Gegen die Lehren Manis 1f., hrsg. August Brinkmann: Alexandri Lycopolitani contra Manichaei opiniones disputatio, Stuttgart 1989, S. 3f. Siehe dazu Pieter W. van der Horst: 'A Simple Philosophy': Alexander of Lycopolis on Christianity. In: Keimpe A. Algra u. a. (Hrsg.): Polyhistor. Studies in the History and Historiography of Ancient Philosophy, Leiden 1996, S. 313–329, hier: 313–319. and had split into multiple factions and sects who could not provide precise philosophical theory for their teachings and therefore nullified them; the leader of one of these sects was Mani. In Alexander’s assessment, Christianity was already in a process of dissolution, which he compared to the decline of sophistic disputation.Alexander von Lykonpolis, Gegen die Lehren Manis 1f., hrsg. August Brinkmann: Alexandri Lycopolitani contra Manichaei opiniones disputatio, Stuttgart 1989, S. 3f.
Against Manichaeism
Representation of the Manichaean myth In his writings, Alexander provides an concise outline of the Manichaean cosmogony and soteriology, consisting of a myth of battle between the principles of god (including and allied with everything good) and matter (including and allied with everything evil). According to the myth, matter wished to conquer the realm of god, who being devoid of all evil could not punish it for trying to do so. As such the soul was sent to unite with matter, so that it would separate from it in the future and cause it to die. The soul was ultimately influenced by matter and imprisoned by it. Out of mercy, God sent a second power, the Demiurge, which created the universe, and the untainted portion of soul became the sun and the moon, while that which had been soiled by matter became the stars and the rest of heaven. The sun and the moon were sent beyond the universe, and everything else, including living things with divine power randomly moving inside them, continually come into being, and die when the divine power leaves them and ascends through a third power from the moon to the sun and finally to God. The role of Jesus within the doctrine is as an "intellect" who liberated a large portion of the soul and whose crucifixion (being nailed to the cross) exemplified the intermingling between matter and the divine power. The belief in this myth dictated vegetarianism and abstinence from procreation, as the birth of children would only continue the human race and delay the liberation of the imprisoned divine power, suicide however was still prohibited.
Alexander points out that Matter in the Manichaean doctrine is not how Plato defines it, as "that which becomes all things when it assumes quality and shape," nor how Aristotle defines it, as "the element in relation to which form and privation occur," rather it is defined by Manichaeans as the random motion in each individual thing.
Refutation of Manichaeism For Alexander, the most extreme example of misguided sectarianism arising from Christian tradition was Manichaeism. After briefly discussing the life of Mani and Manichaean missionary activity, he summarizes its teachings and then proceeds to refute them. In presenting the doctrine, he notes that Manichaeism defined matter (hylē) as "disorderly motion" (átaktos kínēsis), which, he argues, differs fundamentally from Platonic and Aristotelian conceptions of matter.Alexander von Lykonpolis, Gegen die Lehren Manis 2, hrsg. August Brinkmann: Alexandri Lycopolitani contra Manichaei opiniones disputatio, Stuttgart 1989, S. 4f. Siehe dazu Francesco Chiossone: Critica al concetto manicheo di materia in Alessandro di Licopoli. In: Giornale di metafisica 28, 2006, S. 149–166, hier: 151–153.
Before undertaking his systematic critique, he described the dilemma he believed he faced. The doctrine he intended to address was irrational and relied not on arguments but on the authority of scriptures, making it difficult to refute. Instead of a demonstrable chain of reasoning, he found only assertions. A precise philosophical refutation would not reach those who had embraced Manichaeism uncritically; yet if he were to descend to the opponents’ level and employ manipulative techniques, he would fall into the very error he accused them of. To escape this dilemma, he adopted an extremely careful method.