MEANING AND HISTORY OF THE LOGOS OF PHILOSOPHY. 261 
being not only an Operative (dnuovpydc), but also a Creator 
(kriarnc) ;* but it is easy to understand, in accordance with 
the tenor of his doctrine, that what he has in view is the 
creation, not of the material, but of the form. It would be 
eratuitous, therefore, to assume that here he contradicts him- 
self. His deepest sense of what was right and fitting forbade 
him to conceive that, in the process of creation, God, who 
ranks alone in intellect and blessedness, had even touched the 
rude and confused material ;+ and therefore he dogmatically 
assumes the mediate operation of incorporeal powers.{ For 
these a mind impregnated with Platonic notions was, of 
course, at no loss for a name: he called them ideas. Being 
Platonically conceived as having a subsistence independent of 
their contact with matter, they are not identical with the 
Aoyor évvAor of Aristotle,§ which were, in fact, but physical 
properties, considered as accounting for phenomena. He does, 
however, name them Adyou as well as idéa, and in their inter- 
mediate agency he finds, in his allegorical application of Scrip- 
ture history, an interpretation of the angelic apparitions therein 
recorded. The atmosphere, however, in his imagination, con- 
tains and actually nourishes innumerable unseen beings of a 
psychic nature,|| some of whom may on occasions manifest 
themselves to mortals in dreams or visions. ‘he materialistic 
tendency which in this product of his lucubrations glaringly 
betrays itself, crops out, moreover, in the casual utterance of a 
distinctly pantheistic thought no less at variance with his 
ordinary language ; for he represents the Almighty as being 
Himself One and the Universe.§ ‘I'he fact is, vagueness and 
confusion were the inevitable result of his attempt to utilise 
Plato and the Stoics as expositors of Holy Scripture; and 
accordingly, as might have been expected, his speculations as 
regards the nature of the Avya vacillate between personal 
agents and forms of thought conceived as hypostatically real 
and objectively operative. 
But it is not only in speculations which play fast and loose 
with archetypal ideas, and even virtually materialise them, 
that Philonism shows itself to have seceded from the funda- 
mental principle of Platonism ; its most striking distinctive 
* De Somn., i. 13. 
t De Victim. offer. 13: “od yap iv Oipic améipov Kai mepuppévnc YANG 
Pate roy tGpova Kai pardpwoy, aA Toic aowparoic Suyapec,”’ kK. T. A. 
{ Ibid. 
§ De Anim., i. 1, 15. The Adyou s7epparioi of the Stoics are virtually 
the same dialectical abstractions, but regarded as productive energies, and 
at the same time as indicative of design. 
|| De Somn., i. 22. 
7 Leg. Alleg. i. 14: “ec (sc. 6 O&d¢) kai rb way abroc wy.” 
