ABSTRACT
§ 1 . Our knowledge of Origen’s views on the soul would have been more extensive and accurate if that voluminous writer had carried out his own programme; for he makes an elaborate statement of the problems awaiting solution, but never wrote the intended treatise. As it is, our information is scattered: the statement of the details in one consecutive account magnifies their importance; yet there are points of interest that deserve to be recorded. In the main Origen continues the work of Clement of Alexandria, but his method of exposition is that of a commentator or a controversialist: he seemed to require as a medium for his thoughts either a text to elucidate or an opponent to refute. What he says is therefore as a rule only that which is relevant to the occasion; the sequel is left to be added on some other occasion when another point is under consideration. It follows that omissions count for nothing: it can never be assumed that Origen disbelieved what he did not say; so long as the fact omitted is not in contradiction to his views it may be assumed that he did not reject it. This will not justify the attribution of anything to Origen over and above what he says; but it is useful to recollect that Origen worked on separate points and assumed a knowledge of current doctrine.
