STU D IA A N SELM IA N A PH ILO SO PH IC A TH EO LO G IC A ED ITA A PZO FESSO RIBU S IN STITU TI PO N TIFIC II
S. A N SELM I DE JJRBE
FA SC IC U LU S XXXV I
FO N TIFIC IUM IN STITU TU M S. A N SELM I / RO M A E
1955
TH E EA R LIER A M BIG U A O F SA IN T M A XIM US TH E CO N FESSO R A N D H IS REFU TA TIO N O F O RIG ZN ISM
by
FO LYCA RP SH ERW O O D 0 . S. B. Proleam r ofFaàrology althe Ponellci lnstltute S. Anzelm oeRom e
.
O R B IS C A T H O L lC U S . / H ER D Elt z 2 O M A E z 19 55
N IH IL O BSTAT
Roma ,i' ?lPontiFcio fxx &/ïftzltlS.w4>selp>' .I4ie e. ' /Deamby'ks zglg, t BPRNARDUS K ASrJN A blbas Prï- s 0. S. B .
E Vicariatu U ehfd, di. 2: D ocom bvis zp54.
t Afovslvs 'TRAGIJA
Avcliiep. t7(4:. %4A'idA#., ' Vicrsgsyens
TIPOGRAFIA lqO X '.. VIA DEGLI IW RUSQH L 7.9 -. ROMA
T A B 1+E O kT C O N 1%E N '1*S Pagt
Forew ord . . . Abbreviatious . Bibliography
PAR' r 1:Tke AfzrlzW Ambigua - A .External Deseription The m anuscript tradition The ancient notices The literary form 'rhe recipients The atlversaries . The authorities 'lâhe them es . Tables 1 List. of the A m bigua ' 11 Index of Citations 1II Setipture Itldex . . . . . B . Analysis of the Single D ifliculties
W I XI X III
I
3 5 6 8 8 10 11
15 &7 zl
PART 11:TkeS6jsï/t4/ft)l (?/Origenism Chapter T. M axim us and Origenism A . T he Origenism known to M axim us B . T he l' zundam ental R efutation ...... Chapter II. The Triad : Substance, Pow er Operation . E xcursus I: Tlze Scholiasts of D enis. E xcurstts 11' . Variations in the Triad Chapter 111. Eestasis A .Texts in favor of Eostasis B . The Evagrian in M axim us . C. Syzithesis of M axim ian D octrine Chapter IV . Logos A . The D istirtction: Loges-Tropos . B . Logos and the U nity of Creation Chapter V , K oros A , The O rigenist U se of K oros , B . The Refutatiozt C. Iêixedness . . . D . Sdf-determ ination . Chapter :'1. A pocatmstasis A fterword Indices .
7Z
92 IO3 II7 Izz
Iz8 I37
I49 155 I66 I8I I84 I92 I98 zo5 223 z25
F O R E W O R 17 H aving com pleted a w oyk of m any m onths it Ls at onee helpful for the reader and usefulfor the author to look back again at his ainl in undertakiug the w ork arld in the cottrse follow ed. In M axim ian stuclies one of the outstanding lacks has been.a knowledge ofthe Confessor's w ritings i:4their own context. M en have writteu.of ilis dod rine, and w ritten w ell but taking here a text, there a text on w hiclz to build their stm cture. A nd further the Crnturies have drawn a larger share of attention. I thinl. z of the studies of V iller alzd votl Balthasar,the version of Pegou. But this is a literary form notoriously apt for disguising the writer's ow n position. ltw astherefore that Isaw asan outstanding need of M axlm ian studies an ilw entory, to say the least of the A m big' tta one of the ehie.f w orks of M axim us arld the one in w hiclt lze eould give freer play to his talent of analysis and speculation. But this invelztory m ust first of all be on the literary levelaud give a sum m ary of their a as a group azld each of tllelu singly placed eontent .- the A m bigu' i11their proper coutext,so that the M axim iaztthought could be grasped in its native terrain. This is the explanation of tile first part; .
it eontaius much that should flnd place in an adequate edition oftlle Confessor's works, but also m uch m ore. Readers w ho are less eurieus of these detaits m ay pass tlw m over. b'rom suclta m aterialanalysis ofthe Ambigua severalargum eztts present them selvo for furtller study, plaeed now not against tlze background of our m odern categories,but'of those tllat result from a study ofM axim tls and his m ilieu. O f these argum ents I have chosen one - the reftltation of Origenism - as being one m ore fully and eoherently developed by M axim us him self. M y study then has developecl into a fuller and philosophiealanalysis of A m b 7. From the begirm ing I exd uded from this study a eonsideration of M axim us' doctriue regarding the soul, w hieh is an integral part of his refutatiort of O rigênism 1. This I did becattse it would have
1'lYe import of the rejection ofthe preexistenceofsonlsin tlteform. atlon of the whole antiorigenist position is touched on in note 50 of the tir' st cbapter.
Nqu
Ffwnwoa '
doubled the size of the study and m eant a carefuleom parison with the N yssene doetline - a study'and a com parison whieh, T felt, tould m oze adequately be undertaken in an 1analysis ofthe Quaestionn /1: Thatassium . lt is thus tbat I canle to bypass G regory and
to fliscuss Origenism iztthe light chietly of the De PrfAlcf/zï. ç alzd the 6th centunr eontroversies. H owever in dealing w'ith self-determ inatiou I did introduce eonlparison w itli G regory as well as
with Origen 2. But even here the subject'is only partially dealt w'ith. A fuil treatm ent m ust aw ait a study of the M axim ian anthropology. M y task tllen w as to present the Ozigenism w itll w lkif:b M axim us had to deal - the prim ordial henad of rational creatures - , his outologicalargum ents in refutation thereof and his logos dod rille, w hose fuuction was to preserve w hat tbere w as oftruth irzthe O rigenist speculatitjn. Thus there w ould have been but tw o ehapters, the actual fi1'st and fourth ; but entering into the argum ent of the irst I m et the fact ofecsiasis. The whole doctrine ofm an's attaining unioll w ith God, the iinal and real auity, w ould have rem ained obscure tznle% I sought out M axim us' m ilvd (m this debated poînt 'rhus I fotm d m yself em barked on the third chapter But, w orldng on tllis, it soon beeam e too obvious to be neglkcted that, nam ely, the M axim ian doetrine of ecstasis was basetl on tlle sam e triadie ontology ' as the refutation argum elzts of the lirst eilapter Thus I cam e to .
.
.
.
develope the second chapter on substance powsy tl/t rFafigp. Fbr the logos cloetrine witlz w hich M axim us eudeavors to save an initialideal tm ity - that eiem ent of truth w hich m ay be allowed to the O rigenist m yth - , I felt it better to explairt it insofar ottly as it is corlnected w ith the O rigenist argum ent Y et the distinetion cif esseuce and m ocle, that is ldyog ql fgEtt'ç and vtlörlog 'ûrrtjtlymg, is so pew asive in tlle wim le of tlze M axim ian doctrine ' tllat som e account of it w as neeessary. It is thtts that I planned ' an excursus wllich has ended up as the lirst half of the fourth ehapter There rem ained then only the m inor refutation of the Origem ian koros t' hetn. e to 4eal with The argum ent itself is of little inzportanee' but it raises tw o im portant qupstions, rather anthropolog-' ical then ontological and therefore I beg excuse for the brevity of the treatm ent and the unusttallength of the notes The questions .
.
.
.
: See chapter V lTote 44.
For- avd
raised are how ean the rational creattue essentially tm stttble irt regard to G od by the very'fact of being creature, attain a fixity in God whfch his nature craves and caullote#ect. Ecstasy is tlle answ er on Gocl's part,and this has already bee' a treated ;but on m art's part the freew ill or m ore dosely representing the G reek term ,the selfdeterm ination m ust have its free part to play. H enee tlw third and fouz'th sections of tbe eha 'pter on surfeit. H ere,if m y afm had been to w rite a eonlplete study of A nlb 7. l shoultl have em barked on an analysis of the argum ent against the preexistence of souls. ' W hy 1 have llot done so has already been explained. Instead I have introduced a ehapter o1L the apoeatastasis. If it has little direct eonneetion Avith the text of A m b 7, no mte will questfon its germ aneness to the Origenian them e. ft
aloue oftlleOrigeniau positions hasbeen the object of speeialMaxim ian studies, And m oreover it perm its us to return to the ontologica! leve! ort w hich the llrst chapters of this study m oved. But here T m ust confess it is not the lmst of the ehapters written 'but the first. And the state, ill w hieh I now present it, fs but slightly revised after dealing with the problem of the freewili and Eaving
m etwit.h Gaith'sineptrefereuce to M aximusin his study ofGregory of N yssa. Sueh is the genesis of the presen. t study. If it be worth m uch it w ill be (lue to the eareful presentation of M axim us' ow n texts. H ere I m ay explain m y procedure. Q'itirtg M axim us frequently and at lezlgtb, I suppose that tEbe reader w ill have at lkis disposal the volum es of M igne. The translations are not always the best of
English, yet it is an honest effort at au accutate rendering' .whieh is ilzevitably also an interpretation. 1 have indeed thought it neeessary to avoid giving M axim us m erely in the Greek 'for m y interpzetation of his thought rests on the Gree.k texts only in m y own
uuderstanding of tlzem , representecl in the English vezsions.
It is a custom entirely fitting and just to give thanks at the end ()f q prefaee to those w ho have assisted in the d aboration of a
doctoral study. So then may those professors or authols whose cxlurzcil or studies I have used realize tlm't tlae present w ork is possible only because of theirs. I sense and appreciate this solidarity in the world of learning.M ay it eneourage them to continue.
For6tvord
Ix
raised are how ean the ratiolm l creature essentially tm stttble in regard to God by the very fact of bein. g creature, attairl a svv 'ty frt God which hisnature eraves and cannot effect. E cstasy istlle answ er
on God's partaand.this has already been treated ;bat on m an's part the freewill or m ore closely representing the Greek term the selfdeterm inatifm m ust have its free part to play. H ence the thircl and fourth seetions of the chapter on surfeit. H ere,if m y aim had beert to write a com plete study of A m b 7, I should have em barked on an analysis of tbe argum en. t against the preexistence of souls. W lzy I have not done so has already lyeen explained. lnstead I have introduced a chapter o1l the apocatastasis. If it has little direct conneetion with the text of A m b 7, zio cm e will question its germ aneness to the Origeniatz them e. It
alone ofthe Origenian positiozlshasbeen tlle object ofspecialM axizzliartstadies. A rld rnoreover it perlnits tts to return to ' tbe onttgogical levet on w hieh the lirst chapte: :s of this study m oved. But bere I m ust confess, it is not the last of the chapters written but the first. A nd the state, in w hich I now present it,is but slightly rex-ised after dealing urith the probiem of the freewill alzd having m et w ith Gaith's inept referenee to M axinlus in his study of Gregory of N yssa. Such is the genesis of the present stutly. If it be worth m uch it will be dtte to the careful presentation of M axim us' own texts. H ere I m ay explafzl m y procedure. Citing M axïm us frequently and at length, I suppose that the readef will have at his disposal the voltlm es of M igne. The translations are not always the best of
English, yet it is an honest effort at an acmlrate rendering which is inevitably also an interpretation. 1 have indeed thought it necessary to avoid giving :. $' Iaxim us m erely in th: Greek;for m y interpretation of his tllought rests on the G reek texts only in m y own m lderstanding of tlwm ,represented in the English versions.
It is a eustom entirely fitting and just to give thanks at the e' ad of q prefaee to those w ho have assisted iu the elaboratiotk of a dtx toral study. So tllen m ay those professors or authors whose couneil or studies I have used realize that the present work is possible only 'because of theirs, 1 sense and appreciate this solidarity in the world of learnfng.Afay it ertcotlrage them t() cxm tirlue.
A B B R E V TA T IO N S foz the works of M axim us: Am b = A m biguovum /j#d. >'
Cap ie'
. x= Capéta z5
Qhar
= Centuries 5. / Chavéty
Qom p. Eccl. Computus f; 'cclesiasticus DB D ispute at .f9. fayt4 ep = tvpisiie LA M yst
Libev xz ls çzzfïstfs M ysiagogia
PN Ps 59
Exposition t# ihe OtJR ICkATIIEIR Exlwsition oj psalm J' p
QD
= Qttaestiones etJ-lfofc
ItM
R elatio xv o/. lt;xi. g
Tlzal ' rheop Thoec
= Qaaestiones ad 7'/lt4J/4s&' 5,. :zA? = Quaestiones ad F/ls()#:-#/+;vz Capita Tlœologica :./ Oeconowtiea
TP
= Opuscala Theologica e/ Polem lca
B . for the Pseudo-D enis; QH = D e coelesti plpzhgtzv à' ïl DN = De f . fïzlzxù nom inibus EH = D e ecclesiastica Aï/ly/rtràïl MT = D e Aplzl/ïct4 tlteologia C. other abbreviations: = AB A nalecta f?fz//tzr xtsïglzdz = A CO Aota Ctpscïlïeropz Oeouv ntentcovum (ed. SCHWARYZ) BZ
=
CACI
=
DSp
Byzantimlische Zeï/xtiArf/f Commenlatia i' rl Avisfotelem t' irtz6t;tz (ed.Acad.Borassiea) = D ictionnair' d6 . ç/ifz' ï/zxfzîï/zf assétilue 6t mydfiç-
D 'PC EO G AK L
= D éd ionn@ivr de Fà/oltzp: zr catlnoliq3te = Echos #'OHtw l = BARDENIIEW ER Gesch%t ?ltt' t ffrr A ltltérchléchen . Ei/8-
GCS JTS
= D ie jfAW fi/lïsr l ps chyistiichcn . $'t;Fl1'f//. ç2JJdr = Jouvtlql W Theologioal S/lffïzr. :
LSe
= LIDDSI.L & Seo' rzr Gveek-English Lexison gth edition
Mansi
= Conciliorlsm t4vl/'liasïl' lzfz collestio ed. M ANSI
Oohr OCP
= Oygentalia ClH ïli/ffzzlfT Oviekttalia Chvistiana Prrïtl#ictz
xzz
d bbyo%4ationa PG RA M RE B 1).fjw*.1pi1:1.
Patrologia G#'qetr(z, cuvantt J. P. MIGN/ ar.v s;=
R nvutf tfltzstlbr ffgzï' et #: m yst%que R 6v' tnc des d' tlltft:s lyyztvsfïltts R evue t/fllîïçzçfl R evue #'#J' Jft)9fl esclêsiastique
RHE R SPIITh
= :s==
Rev. ue tfc. ç ssiences phfloq çf a/tàït N f?s
R SR Sth zA M ZkT ll
r=
R ocherohzs #tJ scisnce A'dl/ïjyïtltrla Soholastkk
=
= =
Zeétschrip j#r A sa,q &zl. I 4e ylff œklkstik ZeitscltyiftJfir lt6tthotisclte FAéltlltlp' e:
B I B 1,IO G R A . l'H Xr Tlze following bibliography nim s to relleet tlte base of m odern stutlies on w hich m y own work is grounded. It eoutains therefore practically aI1 the worlcs cited in the coltrse of the dissertation and.som e others which thouglz not citefl ltave been of use i1t the preparation of the w ork.
AltNol/,R.,LeD#sïe de flïf' zçdans 1t4.Plvilosopltze d6./Nf?/ïl.Parisscl (192I). '
BATJHASAR, H . U. von A' fdr/to hry. çï& %nd Jjlystik d6s Stltlrizç. F Pontikus. zAM (4 (z9:$9)'at-4.7. Die GAztu/ïsti/igx Crlllf4A'lfl' l;. Freibm g iB (Die Gn.eent.). K osm isclte Z'ffzsrgï'. wsftu ï- lç. ç tfgA' B d/lfw xdr: H öhs sp# K yisis #e, : gvte-
- -
chischen ' Kof/tlfltfs. b*reiburg iB 1941 (K L). -
-
.
Litsrgie Cosm ique. Paris :947. n 'ench version of tile above.W here poi;siblt I cite both editions otherwise tile French only. Scholéeltweyk des .rtl/lt .D> zelv . ç trtls Skythopolis. Sch :5 (194.0) z6-38.
Pyfssna :/Pepsée../fssczs' l4r ia F/zflo. çtl/ât'ayeligieassde GvgtlïA' e dr .N#. ç. ç'. Paris I94z.
BARDV,G., Lt? /J. ' r/d du rtet't V zt ' s'v d'Ovigèns rJ Justinnen. RSR.Io (I9z(8 e24-5z.
BtlNysFov, J.-1?r. Ovigène T l'/irft/rjtlfaAl (l6 la yAllf/ltnffg th/ologiqae. gv /lrrl4g' c. ç Gaval?eva. Toulouqe 1948, 87-t45.
Btlusss: f,W . A poplttltq tnatA.Ttibirzgen z92. $.
Calqàtrvxs,M. y a. n ScotJîrïgâzl'.Paris 19:3. CaDz. ou,R . Lft /d rzfAldr&sï!Li'ovigéne.Paris 19. 35. .
Cllls&', u alszt. Ph. D ionysiacq. Pm' ' LS I937-z95o.
D. u rMAIS.I.-H . L'œuvye s/ïy'ff? 2zrVc de é; Alan mr Ir C-loAl/esJeltr.N otes . :74r son tftsa pn/tl/#ep:yzz/ et sa sfgzli/itltzfïtp' rl, ZiJ spivIi%elle, Stlpplém ent 1952, : ,I6-2e6.
L a F/ltf(vï' des ( ïLogol : des Clgc lfzffJA' l. ç chez :' l'bfaxim r le Cltlx/:sseur.
RSPh'I*h 36 (1$952) 244-49. La fftlc/rf' atfascétique de s. x 5. faxtme ?zIConjesseur tf'4?. #1, Js le ï(Libey lsre/ïcvs>.ivlnikokl :6 (T953) 17-: $9. Un drlï/# de dAzrt/ltxfdscontnm plaiive: Le covlpze' zzffzïA'zr da #c./sr Noster tfzr s. xsfaxfpzir le f;t)z2/8&s'> A'. RztM 2: (r95: 5) :23-. 59. D:)GUIBSR' ;,J., Une x stla l/rce des../84p.Damascène d& FdeorfAnt/tll' lz.RSR 3 (T9T2)356-68. llzuuflkots,J.aL'Apocatn tasrtlle1's.Cr/gr(?lr' d'.Nys. ç4.RSR 30 (194.9)328-470 Plutonisme t'fThéologie yryyfkvr.Essa.i. çl<' r la (fcp c/rïsd spirit' uelle d6 s.GV -
-
goive (9 N ysse. Paris 1944. OtigLne. Paris 1948.
xw
Biblioqratlty
Dq G ANDIIAAC, M . J ' uvres rol?7/lfpfs. ç dt% .F%tu4#t 7-7% zl#. ç Z kz4ooltqgite. P aris 194:$. DE ïs: m ontanisie. Paris zQI.3. I I LABRIOLI/S P I.a é;A'
IEKAMP Franz, Bie t?rïgzrAlf. çfïstrA'zl StlreIhgkeitên im J8fl/ls/p' /lJahrhundeyt
Ik
tgstf d@s jzyx/f: gllgrmrine Crt/llcfî.M ûnster im W 1899 (Diekam p). splEzt,M .-TIA. D et,ïlt:contem plgtéva . sdlcôspzdz
.
stlrf,. D irys. at the P. Oriental Institute z928, unpublished. 1' )OD17S,E .R , FRoc trs, The E'leAz;nA;/& e/ Tlteology..4 yrvésed F:, v/with rM 1lJJlflc,' rù l'nj/tlffxcfsox antl Cr pzyzai:sllry . Oxiortl z933. D OM éNSKT, B . D ïe.P sycholvgir des N ralexïtès. M iinster lgoo. EHRARD,A .,in K RVML BAVRI,R Geschiclbôe (lel'byz. f-ïfferlfv . M itlKhetl J597 , 37-2r8. PRANKSNBSRG, W . E vagvius J75A;/2z<. s. Berlin z9I2 (1, Nr.). GAI1iI. r, 5.. La trowlta/lffox tl6 la lf& rfl chez fa prgjztpïr: de zvysuT. Paris 1953 G AUTHISR. R .- A. S.M qxime ftlConpssruvctla#syï l/dt pltljrïdrtfdrI'acleFlvvlï,x .
.
Rechetcbss de fAëcp/flgf: ansienne et pz&fffïzfz?lrftl 2z (1954)sl-roo, This. .
article was published too late for use. G' I/IJLLAIFMONT,A.et C. Le tem evévitable des qGnostica R. , )d'Evagye 1: Ponthue. g f â r l ' hi go v v e z / z u Re l z v o ps I4 ' z ( oc t . dec. 19 H .5 2) 1. 56-20. 5. M JSRHARR, AM ' 1. L6 lyfxùg d. l'tvrzïseAz d'E vqgrr J8 P ontéqlxe tf'Ytrlft@6iN ifl. -
-
z5 (z934). 34-93,Ia3-Ti'o. Ignovana fp/iaïe.OCP 2 (1i): . ;6) : 55t-G:z. Plbitautie & la frzgffrdrçy:AflursoithIa cAt vi/d stlon s.z'kft4/rfziv:16 conjesseur .
-
.
R om e 1952-
.
M assimo it conlsssove Enciclopedéa twffo/ft;tz 8 (r952) :07 H szkTl sft zarï-ï Contessopis tftpcognitiane AoAAttprzdztl doêtvlnac. U ls, J., Sancti z -
.
npublished (tissertation irt pllilosophy at the G regoriall 1937.
-
De oilgakq van A' ;z menssheliiktm trdes/ tot God volgrns S, 5/$1 l'blaximqs ( i t m / e s s t l A ' . Bi i dr ag s . n d f e r N a d ev l ands o he ( /klwïyfezl 5 Lz94z) e6o-3o2; 6 .
1943) 64-:23. H orav, K . Amphiiochius ptlx Ikoniunt in çllïae.zr/ Vrthtïltnis zu #t?;z grossstt .
A-fr//ocrozftvx.. l#eipzig l904. H bltN, G . Le m ivoir et ftz n' utk D flt4.*'m odrs :4 connaissaïnce #, D tt.u t:àzrz S.G vlgoive ffr Nysse. RAM EI (1927) jk3-t31. IVANKA, E. von , H ellsnisohes . l4. ?ztf Chytstll. shes :A/' Friihbyzantigischen (;rfslrslebckt. 'W ievt f948. .
-
La signipcation Aïy/tprïgse du (7t?r#' lu Dionysiacum R SR 36 (Jt?49) . 5-z4. Z%;v geistesgasclbichtlichen Eïl?z :)gt&la f zug (Ies Orfjktxisslzvs. BZ 44 (I9j$t) .
-
.
a
zgr-xlot 3. K OCH, H ugo, Pseudo-llionyszos 1/z seinsm ,llzr afe/tzt?lg6ll . vt%n' t Ndl4Fltx/o' p, ï. gptlt52 vnd Jlr fysfdrkraypzr. çex , M ains Igoo. Lbifltrr. td lx, M ichael D issettationes D am asoenicae. PG 94. IgsN-s, lkoger, L'ftnqge Je Iltru cAsa s. Gr/g/is: de J/yss: lksquisse #'sw: dostrine. Bruxelles-p aris xq5x.
lm osEN,Jœ eph,Lngos ltlztf Pneu3na bei kjrzltlé f:p M enschen l':ïM gkimus Conjessov. M ïinster 1fl4x. LossKsr V ladim ir E ssai sf4r la tloologie zàtyi/fklzg de l'E glise d'Or%ent. Paris :944.
Bibliogfathy MARéCHAL,J.,Etades Jtçy la J'oti/ltalogïg des usfn /ïrzzrsat.1l, Paris 1937. MARSH' , b%.S., The Book oj tke H oly v #. N4rplàe(). ç.London 1927. MI(4' IarD,E..SIz' k. ffzxfpz:16 Ctlx/:sldr' l4retf'zljèt7stzlcuft4. :e.R.IAêfge' Al,de Thlol. ro (zqoz) zsp 7z. Mvvrm sltMaNs,J., Evtngn ana Syvïticf:. Louvain I952. Plu solr,J '., Vindoiae fjrAttztitllle.PG 5. Pslt. h C. S. Tlw m ae .r1quipatis . JA hèezçsz B .D ionisii #: D ivinis N 6eiArfxïàl' prd
expositio Ronlae zcpjio.
iNNAïR T H ., L6 P latovtism e !9 s. t' l #gtlzk: dn AW JO PJ:. La Roche-sur-v tm r92. 5.
PLAGNIEUX,J. .S'.GvtlgLil' .ee de Nfzxt zAlze TK ologten.Paris sfl (1952). PRssTl(1It, G . L. God ï,l P atyistic FA()AfjWJ. London 1936.
Pus(2H, H .-CIZ. Ltö /tf. uJ& : m ystit w e shez te P. &:?, 4d()-Dcnys J'-dr/tlpfzjrï/tr et dans la fsztztfïfft ?,z patvistiqve. lffxffzr. s Càvméxtaines :z3.' z, :938. RAHNER, K .. Le ïfzf ?aé/ d'un. (ioctvine tfFs ci' ng sTAz. ç spiritktets chez tlrïjrâsc. RAM J3 (T932) T'3-145. ksss, S., I'he .D, Sentis: .d Treatiste attvibuted to Leontias of ./A' zfyAllïz4pi. JTS 40 (1939) 346-60. RICIU RD, M ., Léonce de Syztzxcc, était-it (vïjvzlïsfpF RE B 5 (194. 7) 31-66. Rootrss, R ., Contemplahbm , a. *'/fzsf, 6t fôztll'rdl ch6z le .là.stl' ? zfffl-. &axy. ç DSp t z (I95z) 1885-1911. Scllw utz rz,E. K yviltos tltm Skytkopolis. Leipzig z6)39. SHEiRwoopa P., N otes op M axim' us tlte fitoz/trdstv. . 4mevican .llflAlïdtlc/fp?p Review J (1q50) 347-56. zln .1nnotated .!M /y-lït;/0/the I' Ftn'ksofM ' aximu. s f7&frCoytlnsov.Rom e I95z. -
SzxKo,T .,D e traditione tlvdzfïoxtx- Gvegoviz N fzzït4v?zrAlf,P avsII de fradï/ïtnïtr gnt iiu cta. Craeoviae 1923.
STA HANOIT. b). Lq cozzrzà/d/sf;e initiale xf$:coyks ,/ d6 l'fllAla d'apos s.Gvdgoiye :88 N ysse ,/ s. zlfcxl-e l'H om ologète. EO 31 (I93z) 304-t5. STIGLMAN-R, J. Das x'1' lV#t?>z;m. tJ;2 dey'Psgp. /tffl-D zt 7Alr)/lzsr cAsp Schyipen. Feldm kirch :895.
.
VILLER,M ,,.dux . çtl' xiztifr. çde Ia ' sjarïfwa/ïfd 46's.A' ftl. vïp' n::l6s tw' utlzzs d'Evagvet Pontique.R AM 1z (ln oj a'56-84, 2. 39-68, . 3. 3z-.36W SISWURM,A.A . Thc N tzfuA'r oj ffvm lp K ' nowlttdgc Kiccc/rffïljrto S.Gr:govy oj N yssa.Diss.W ashington x95rz.
W orœsoN,H.A.,Philo.Qambritlge (Mass.) 1948.
PA R T I
TH E EA RLIER AM BIGU A OI2 M AX IM U S A. Isx' rslkxat/llsseuzyœlox
The M anuscript Trfftff/ït?zl It is w ell know n that the only editlon w e so far possess of the
1mbigua of Maximus,that of Oehler (Ha1le 1857),is based on a
..
single m anuscript of the 13th century. O f it O ehler says: <'Codex Gudianus,quo usus sum l ,..est m em branaceussaeculiX III, . . . est. que tam elegantçr tam que accurate conscriptus ut non solum alii
inde libri possint egregte emendarlatqu. e suppleri,sed.ipse ati Uoe Arfltptsetjw V aoptt T)v opus interpretandum alterius libri auxilium non desiderarem '':. Certainly such an attitude w ould not eontent an editor of texts, neither of our day nor of his;but O ehler w as uot a professional, only an a' m ateur, w ho turnell to an ancient text as a refuge artd solace. So far as I tcnow O ehler's w as the :1' st w ork on the A m bigua after that of Com befls,never to see the light of day. M ter Oebler, the next w ork on the A m bigua is that of tlte Polish A cadem y in
its project concernlng Gregory Nazianzen. In'1914 at Cracow Jan Sajdak published his:Historia Critica sc/ltvïlu/f/rsvletcommenta-
fprzozl Gregoyii Aox effffmzylï. Here (p. 33) he listtxl zo eodiees as containing the w hole or a part of the A m bigua. indicatizzg at tlze sam e tim e the folia of the m anuscripts with the corresponding pages l GutiifInvs grt zec' l:s 3. 9. See the descdption oîtlle m s in 0 .von H slN' sx
MANN (Fk r. Koehler de.scribed the Greek mss) Die fn stfss/irï/fzw dtw ffyrzogtichen BrBrao' rllllc z' u Brolj:e tsif/4/ IV : Dle Gudischen H ss (19z:). 1 S.P.N.JkftzxïAzlïConfeszoyis& vayih tfï//it:ïzfH slocis SS PP Dïpsyyif etflr:jwcly'ïï ad FAovlfzz:zg.s.libram ... x' MA;tlpvim gim ïAl/ep/. ?4As editiit Fm v . O > r:eR.H alis 1857, 'p.vii or PG 9z,Io3o. 'rhis title ls proper to the fkrst 5
Ambigua.(mly. The rest (Am b 6-71) are adHresstxl to Bishop John anfl coucerned exelusively w ith passages from G regory.
z
'
.
lmhe irlrlïer zlA45ig.4
of Oehler's edition. After him Thaddeus Sinko:D 6 FymfïlfpAl: orafïtlszo;z Gregoyii N azianzeni P an S6cunda : D e T' rtztfiffpAl: indirecta
(Cracow I9a3) treats of tlle Ambigua (pp.19-, ' j1),but hms nothing to say of the m anuseripts. After Sinko there is Disdier, who in his ardcle oa the ê'A lia Capita ''gives a list of 26 m anuscripts given over entirely-to M axim us' w ritings :.
80th Sjadak and Disdier worked before the printed catalogues of the Vatican Librazy were available.. Tt m ay stillbe useful therefore to give another provisory list aw aiting the day w hen the m anuscript tradition of the M axim ian corpus and exeerpts m ay adequately be studied. I give three lists, each chronologieally arranged, tlte Erst of m anuseripts coutaining the w hole of 1:0th A m bigua; the second of those few tllat eontain only the second,
thatto Thom as;the third of those containing excerpts only (or
incomplete). z. P aris A rsenal 237 z. P aris M azr ine 561
s. ix s. ix
These b0t. lz are authentic m anuscripts oi Rrigena's version of the A m bigua *.
: $,'raurin.z5 (Pashzi),b V 5 s.xi.G.DeRqndisdeseribing the m ssescam d from the fre of 1904 says tltis m s is dam aged but com pletely legible. Consentini in his inventory of r92z does not m ention tb. ts m s. I a!n not certain that the .4m bigua w ea'e contained in it 1 4, V at gr 15oz s. xi-xii 5. V at gr 504 a. zIf).5 6. A ogelica Iao s. xii 7. Coisl. 9o 's. xii from tlle grçat Laura 8. M onac. gr. 363 s. xii-xiii 9. M arcian. z36 s. xiii zo. Paris. gr. 886 s. xiii Dufresne's codex II. G ud. . gr. 39 s. xiii z2. Vat gr 5o7 a. 1344 Seribe: Dem etrius diaconus K aniskes K abaailas I:J. M onac. gr, 83 s. xv I4. A thos 6055 s. xv from P anteleem on z5. Paris.gr. zo94 s. xv z6. ' V' at gr. 5o5 a. zszo eopietl from V at gr zjoz x7. B arberini gr. 587 a. xvi 'Pizis is m y ow tt datfng.
a M .-Th.DISDISR,EO,3I (1932) z9. 4.See M .CAPPUYNS.Ja % Scotfdgpll..lpal% 1933)pp.163, 165. : For the references see M . RIIIUA1I. D ltépeytoivs des SfNïefkë vds 6t d6s Catalogues (f: àv an%sLwits é' : r'
lrxlsrlyzlIlescyf/e s
3
L1t z, containing Am' b II,that adressed to Thom as z8. Paris. gr. 1097 a. zo55 I9. B arroc. Ia8 s. xl exeunte zo. V atopedi 475 s, xiii zI. A thos 3808 s. xvi zc. A tlm s .3809 s. xvii 23. Paris. gr. 888 s. xvii
List 3,containing excerpt.s (0z'incomplete ms) 24. 'Vat gr zozo by 993 c5. Taatilz. 3.5,b,W 15 s. x exeunte 26. V at gr 51I s. x-xi 27. H ieros. S. Sepulcri 2o s. xi
Scribe Cyriacus
See the note to j 3 Amb 1, letter to John and Nm b 6-10, to col. Iz37D 5 *.
a
28. Colsl. z93 z9. Paris. gr. :9 3o. M onac. gr. 225 3I. Vindob.suppl. gr. II
s. xi s. XE iH s. A v-xv s. xv.
A sim ple ituspection of these lists itldicates at ovw e the im port.
ance of E rigena's version for the text of the A m bigua. It is earlier, by at least a century.th'an any extant Greek text of the w ork O ne would like to know what beeam e of the Greek text ttsed by Erigena. .
H is text of Pseudo-D pnis has been preserved in Pad s.. gr.4, 37. The m aterial would seem stlë cient for soh'dly estabzshing the text of the .4mùïgstz, .
-
Tke Ancienf zkbffkns After this brief report on the m anuseript m aterial for the text of the A m bigua it is pertinent to enquire what ancient w riters m ay have to say. 'lY ere are, to m y knowledge, tw o only: a seventh eentury author and Photius. The anonym ous author of the W ffp et Certamen,writing about 680,gives a notiee of M axim us'literary
% l1z this ms (3(. Sepulchei 2oj Amb I nms from f. 298: (= zo6zA) to 347v (= Amb Io-tI37D5).f.ao4 issupplied by a laterhanda:lo4v having the space of 6 lines blank but w ithout a lacuna. f. :45 is also by a later
hand. ,b0th sitles of the leaf are full, containing f;s elxdg (-1Iz814 ) - xflt %&x ' êetfla (-zz3aBz)inclusive. 346: 2begins witlz' rok evpzdaxovev'v (-ïz35B6). 'rhere is tlzerefore â.lacuna of about a eolnm n ofM igne's text. 347v ends wjth rk w k ttl h oii ù 16 -. 348 is by tlle sam e 1:anfl but from an uaiden.
tiâed part of the m as.
Th* fWWAF .t1mbily. q
4
-
aetid ty 7. After speaking at length of the Quaestioqtes fltf Thalassium the author m entions the A m bigua. H e w rites: '<But indeed one who has m ade the acquaintaaûe of his treatises and hard-w orked
seholia on the great Gregory's writiags willsee this itenl as nothing
less than the former (Tha1). For in these writings sèe know much is Eard to understand and m tlch w hose explanation is far from evident, espeeially what has to do &vith opinions on the theology of
the Trinity. (Maximus) indeed knew the m eanings of these things and by the light of a diviner know ledge brought them out m ore openly, m aking tlie exegesis not only in m ore m ystieal coneepts and contem plations, but also in a preem inent style and exquisite diseourse ''. PhotiusBaceurately relates the 5 D iE eulties ofAm b 11
(Io3z-Io6o)ascontained ffin an epistleaddressed to Thomas.'' .'Itz the seeond, eontinues Photius without m entioning John, he sets
out to make a resumé of passages from xthe theological works? (of Gregory) that had already been elueitated. As to the: by mrans oj the mind's cpFzpgrsïag wifltthe #ds/l' untilf/ldrbdteï ctlsg- r,ile interprets it in a sizztilaz fasllicn,But enough about these.'' N either of these deseriptions is very satisfyring for our purpose. In the drst it is interesting to note what isthoughtworthy ofspeeialrem ark:the p' lace the Blessed Trinity holds in these explanations and the exalted style. The them e of the zlm bigua,as w ill be m ore ed dent later, is the passage from this to the supernal w orld, hence preem inently to the Trinity. 'lîhus the 'frinity is never far from the trend of com m ent. Bttt further, a11 those passages which refer 7 The absence of this llotit:e in the published text h. as been supplied
by R.Dsvlksssss,AB 46 (1928):8-z. 3. The passage to be cited is fourtd ou p. z1,lines II-T9 >âAlâ yie of8àv fsvov &#ETaJ TKç v; togvov âvqypévov év
l6yotç xat'xoig aovqê 'elgtv uiv: ozolloçg aepk Ià xo9 pzyulov rvqyoplov guyyk4ygcxœ lvvvxçûv.xoivœv yàe ôg lgyev T& aollà êécânaxq övvc xat 06 cap:
<%v Dààœgbv L'hovwa xat y4lkgvl ;wc ôoyy4vœv !xETa%xqkrlç lv và T:$;:$leoàoylag,uil4g xatxùv Ev xoésotç Bl:e voèv xltToltyv/ceau êevoxlvaç sk xù 1a$:qk4xseov iycyev.oéx lvvol: pgvov xaL @eœQ(: pvgxtxoxép%, âkli X?L pedoet éxovyspet xGLlöy/ sepsxakketvhv lksyqcçv öslléyevoç, 8 Cod. 194. PCI zo3, 6531)61.
'
: 'Ex :àg âeoloyszqç ovvx:leœg. Por sévvalkç IoS: (s. r. 3) give syJf:rvlfïc tveatisc c/p3/odïf: volunne. The word is fatûiliar to Photius in this
sense. It occurs here.(PG zog. 656A.15) and.shortly above (6. 52A9),referricg to Thal. Also the ' i' e. rb is found enasxréxuxxo lcodf. 193-649A4). Photias however is far from clear'only know ledge of'M axim us' dedicatory
epistle to Jolm (Am b-10G4) enables one to m ake sense of his comment,
ExtrynalDaszd/sf?zl
5
to the m aterialdyad provoke com m ent on how the Triad is attaiaed. 'lY e com m ent on the style need no1 be taken as contradictory to
that of Photius for the Qwantiones ad Tkalassium (eod.I9z-645B), but ratberthat t14e author of tlle Tzeif, delighted in justsuch anagogic considerations and w as m ore sensitive than Photius to the sublime truths expressed and to the eandidness and sim plidty of the author's soul there m anifest. Photius'description ofthe A m bigna to 'rhom asis quite adequate. It is clear that his text w as substantially that w hich m'e now have. The description of the other A m biguq, however, is so coneise that its im port is not d ear. I understaud it thus: M axim us intends to resum e the explanations of passages already given orally at Cyzicus 1û. U nfortunately- Pllotius ' does not enum ezate t%e passages as he had done for Am b II. 'Phe one passage. how ever, whie. h he
singles out as km ilarly interpreted in these lonv r A m bigua, does not oceur there at a11 but only in A m b J. To be sure the doctrine
is found also in the longer .4m bigua. In A m b 3-6 the phrase from G regory serving as a dië culty follow s but a few liaes on an expression alm ost identical to that d ted by Photitts n.
The Literary F prvl The reports of the ancienu on tlle Am bigua being so m eagera and responding in addition to other tllan our m oderrl intentions, it is tim e now to nm ke our own analysis of the earlier A m bigua.
lzirstitisevidentthattheybelong tothatgenuscalledQuqesfiones TfResionsa,1:a form widely used alike in pagan and Christian aatiquity. In fact as a form it seem s to have had two antecedents; the scholastic tedm ique of proposing and solving dië culties in the authors studied and a hortatory form of instruetion in question and answer13, of witich the Loges Jsctr/fclls of M axim us would ve a palm ary exam ple. T hese anteeedents are fused and developed according to tlle exigencies of tlze dië culties put. And tlm ugh at
tim es this lorm m ay seem a mere literary conventiozt,it was able 'e See below. 11 Gltv oRv N Az. or.2g.19 :afklooA.p zo in Am b 3. and or. 38.:3 : 36.32503f.in Am b 36,
1: See H .JORDAN Gsschichte#:Faltchristlichnn Zifere/lm (Ieeipzig I9I1) j 69: D it .. 4/tlA'fde ?zlïldrlf- ; also G . BARDY La Zi/f/rt4ff4A' #dlfdzsç$fe da
jymzesfïchx4a6tXtv/iox. sïoxes. s,4A'l'Ecritur.' m ïpfe in Rev.bib.4z (193z)zzo-zlz. 13 JORDAN,op.cit.,p.410.
6
T/le Earlier A m bigua
to m aintain itself in favor only becatlse it stood in constant contact w ith the thought-habif.s of the people w ho used it,w riters and readers alike and reflects not only the writer's m ethod but also the
sehool's, m ore,the cultivated m an's w ay of treating the m atter in hand. Bardy 14 gives a eoncrete exam ple of this from Plotinus.
It is therefore very justly that Sinko 1:remarks that in these diffe eulties there is preserved for us an im age of studies as hey then ilourished in B yzantine m onasteries.
Sinko is more fully justified in his judgem eatthau the evidence he there sum m arily adduces w ould indicate. For he has m erely listed the sezies of references te the o1d m an whom M ad m us interrogated on various points and referred to the origin of tlze A m bigua
in the discussions between Jolm ,bishop of Cyzietls,and M aximus, ofwhich our textis but the written redaction. 12or the faet ethat this w ork w as Iirst worked out in eom m on discussion is evident not only from M axim us' ow n statem ent in
the ilztroductoorepistle (zo64 B),btlt from many passing referenees throughout the Am bigua, whic. h often indicate to us the preeise bearing of the dië eulty lying behind the passage of Gregory given
as objectofexplanation. Carefulattention to these indications w111 often illum inate that m llipu which we know to have been the baekground of M axim us' w ork. T hese are elem ents eom m on to several or to all of the A m bigua. I w ould insist however that M axim usis alwaysconsciousofcom m enting a text. The problem that draws his attention m ay not be w hol-
ly contained in the text,as I have jtlst hhzted;but whether he be drawn away from the text by som e abusive interpretation or by som e exeessive anagogieal interest, M axlm us w ill alw ays return to the text. 'rhe only exeeption is w hen the text proposed is proposed predsely for the oeeasion it presents of developing the analogieal elem ezzt, for the m ost part already present in Gregory's oration. A n instance of this would be Am b 48 or the series Am b 52-59.
Tk6 .llcf/ïdrzllo Of M axim us' references to the eom position of the A m bigua the hm dam ental one is the introductory letter itself. 'rhere w e
are inform ed that the Bishop Jolm had com m anded M axim us to 14 BARI)V ak't.cif.p.t z: fc and note z. 1: Srxxo p. z4.
set down in writing the substance of their discussions over various
diëcult passages ofGregory the Theologian (Io64B). It Ls a eharge that he,lzowever unfit,m ust accept. So then he will venture som e little in the explanation of Gregory, even though the conciseness of Gregory's style and the denseness of his thought wottld force even the m ost skilled professor or philosopher to long deyelopem ents
(Io65A).
H a&ritlg so prefaced his work it is nattlral tllat at certaaizl in-
tervals Maz mus should address John directly. Twice he does this
iu the singular:at the outset (Amb 6 - Io65B)and irlthe cotlrse of: bne ofthe diëculties (Amb 38 - I3()oC6). 'Phe plttralis the more habitual use. For the nlost pat't these pmssages repeat the sentim ents of the prologue. M axim us is writing under eom m and con-
jecturing rather than aë rrning,and submitting the product of his thought to his reader's betler judgement (Amb If)-I236CI2; 2IIZN B ;4I-I36IA ;4z-I349A ;Va1-I4IgA). It is notewodhy that he submits h1s refutation of Origenism (Amb 7-IIoIC),with diflidence to be sure,but without reference to eonjeeture. H is inteution was really to eonfute. H ere and there also flz the course of his exposi-
tion,Maximusreferstohisconjectaralprocedure. Thusin the Amb 7 just m entioned he transfers the Origenist figtlres for a prim ordial henad to a conjeetural foreshadowing of the future state (Am b
g-Io76A5). CondudingthelirstpartofAmb Io(II93BI4)Maximus reminds tts that his eonsiderations are coajectural. M d twice in the only difliculty draw n from Gregory's poetry he tellsus the sam e
tbirpg (Amb zz-zzjzzyt ,Bg).. There rem ains one passage that seem s to indieate sonleting m ore behind the use of the seeond pergon plural than the reverenee
Maximusfelttowards Bishop Johnl'. I refer to Amb 45 (I352CIz). He there dedares that he w rites nothing but what G od gives 'ffor your nourishm ent, m y good fathers, to the exteut of our ability.'' Is this still'tlle coqventional plural of reverence or does there lie behind it tlze com rzttm ity of Cyzieus? If otle should opt,.with less probability,for the Iirst opiniop,so m aking this passage fallilzwit.h
tlle'others,then this Ior Altw rïs/lzv p,lis ytilla witnerxs to the fundam ental seope of a11 the A m bigual spiritual ediseation ;and as sueh it m ay be recondled with tehe disd ple's reverence w hich M axfm us
felt for John. 'e I'or thkq reference see ep 28-31 an4 m y D ate-list item s x6-zo.
8
T& Eatliv'y zlpllhfgul
Tktf Adversari6s
Anothergroup (Amb Io-ll8oxâ.c;I4-Iz3IAI;39-I3oIB8)cleariy indicates that in transm itting the list of passages from Gregory
John,from tim e to tim e at least,indieated illwhat way they m ade
diëeulty. '1Y e ole ctions advanced in Amb Io and 39 are eeru inly actual diflieulties felt in the Cyzicus cirde or krlown to llave course elsewhere. In other A m bigua tlne existenee ofadversaries and, for the m ost par' t, contem porary adversaries is evident. The very first lines of A m b 7 indicate the O rigenists. though not by nam e;they appear
more opeztly later (Io89BC). In Ainb 4: they oecasion the great digressions on tbe pre- and postexistence of the soul A gainst the defenders of tllis latter opinion M axim us' feelings nm so laigh that .
he addresses them direetly (Amb 42-1336C;I337B). W ho are the certain pzl:s of Am b 15 (IzI6CI.' J), who insist on identifying sight and naturallaw ? If these be the sam e as ihose against whom the long eoncluding digression (I2IgBIo-IzcIB6) is directed,they are the contemporary Origenists. Other (casual) adversadesarerefat-
edinAmbIzandAmbIo(II84B6,refutingtheeternity ofmatterj.
In fact it m ay reason'ably be asked ifthe series ofseetions in Am b Io
on aNrmative theology was tlot oeeasloned i)y a tendency (due to remnants of Hellenic thought?)to deny the fundamentalassertions there put forward as neeessary for Chzistian philosophy 17 Granting this however,it is dear that this is not a polem ie in the serzse of that agaiztst the Origenists of his tim e. .
Tke zd lz lff/lprfn-e. s 'fo pass nowefrom the urm am ed adversaries to'the equally un nam ed sources w hom M axim us cites in expounding the Hght doctrine, 'we firld m ost prom inent an o1d m an. One's first thought,thinking -
on the o1d man ofthe Liber asceticus and ofthe M ystagogla may be that tlzis is only a fctiou, The character of tlle dtations seem
to exdude sueh an hypothesis. They number 7 (Amb a7-Ia65Dff; 17 The M axim iax aiversaries I have saicl arc contem porary. Y et
as one section on Providence (Amb Io-l189. A.:5 to II93BI1) is excerpted and rearranged from N em eslus' de ' pJfza , kom inis 43,44 (PG 4o.' ;'pzBff)
one m ay perhalxs question whether the adversariea are always eontem perary. H ow eve.r the suggestion given ln the text seem s on the w hole m ore probable. -
Extrrnd Desczï/fïn' tr
9
28-IzgzB; cg-lttgzD , ' 35-128817. ' 39-I3OIB; 43-13498, ' 66-1393R). That of A m b z7 is eertainly a deliberate verbatim insertion of the o1d m an's reply. Am b 28 and .39 seem tflbe the sam e;the rest only report his answer. W hat are the characteristics of these replies? Izor the m ost part
they arestraightforward,philologicalexegesisofGregory'stext(Amb 29,39,43,661.TheGregorian'passageofAmb 35 isan open invitation t()use theDioltysian vocabular'y (flxepd:ltàooç réckçj,with,perhaps, a Afaxim iam rephrasing of D N z.1I - 649, The first tw o instances
(Am b z7,z8), however, are distinetly Christologieal(the Gregoriall passageexacted tlzis),asisalso theone eitation ofthe o1d matzin the later Ambigua (Am b 5-Io44B). It is probably futile to conjecture wlm tidso1d m an m ight have been;yet ifany nam e is to be suggested that of Sophronius seem s m ost suitable. Sueh a stp position m ay perhaps reeeive som e color from tlle faet tllat three of the seven re-
ferences coneern Christological questions, in which bophronian intltlence on M axim us is recognized. Fuzther they flrst occur ovet Jlalf w ay through the A m bigua, by bulk, so that one m ay suppose M axim us to have ltad tim e to com e to know Sophronitts after his arrival in Africa and settling in the Sophronian com m unity. There are other anonym ous citations throughout the A m bigua. The frequent they say is too com m on and too indefinite to retain our attention,tltough at tim es the attthor m ay be found.18 Iu A m b Io,
however,tllerefereneesand reporting ofgyacs-illumined V:Al(IIIzD5; II3. 3AIz the saints; II93BI2, ' I204Dfi) are unusually frequent sck that I w onder ifa reference to the Dionysiac tradition is not thence to be inferred. Yoç the D ionysian inlluenee is here m ore pervasively felt than elsew here, as the space given to negative and aë rm ative
theology and even the use of the term cdebyate (égvéœ (lvvgvéfp; IIo8C5;III6Az;11161)5;II28B4)would seem to indicate. Aside from Gregory him self and D enis, there Ls but one other
Christian author eited by name:St Basil (Amb p Io8oD7). Evagdus is exptieitly dted,thouglïnot nam ed,foz his defnition
of end (Amb g-1072C..4). The delinition in Maxim us' use, is of a distinctly Aristotelian flavor (cf.M et. q 2-9941716); so also the definitions of plaee given by cevtain fpAle. s (Amb Io-II8oC), particu-
larly thetbird (cf.Phys.4.4-212a20). The frsttwo areofa provenance that I have not been able to identify . IB See the foregoing note.
Io
Thr E' trdfer x'l-ôkfw The I'hsmes
If now one were to enquire what are the prevailhtg them es m anifest in these D iflicultiès and in the responses of M axim us,one w otlld certainly not err in aë rm ing:the Am bigua are an illustration of that diabasis1% from the tem poral and thepresentto theeverlasting, of the erztirely central plaee that Cllrist and the Incérnatiou
phy in the attaining ofthat goal:partieipation in (ratherthaa visioa of)the Blessed W inity. 'rhese are tite grovmd swezs ofMaxim us' thought to be found in alm ost every A m biguum . There are, in addition, v'arious other eurrents, som e of w hich concur with the grourtd sw ells, others are, as it w ere' urface waves depending on , s som e chance vdnd. N o single A m biguwm is a pure exam ple of any type. It will give som e idea, however, of the variety of m atters eontained in the A m bigua and the frequeney of their oceurrence
if I llere list some of the major them es v'ith the Ambigua where they are fotm d.:: Of tlae Tripity: Am b 23,z4, z5,z6,35,4O, 61;
Christological:Am b z7, z8, 38, 59, 60, , Imgos-christus: Am 1) 37, 4I, 47, 48; anthropological:Am b I5, 3I, 41,42,45,65, ' the Econom y:Am b 3I,33,36,4I,44, propheey2A m b 19, 68, * negative and a/ rm ative theology: Am b 9, Io, I6, zo, cz, 34,47,71; antiorigenist: A m b 7', I5, 42; .
I8,
against otitet errors: A m ' b Iaa 13, 15, 4: 2,* , m erely exegetical:Am b 39,43,64,7o; philologieal: Am b 14, I8, 29, 69. .
.
By these notes,prefatory'to the analysis ofthe sinkle Ambigua,
I have hoped to throw into som e relief the prevailing character-of the M axim ian responses,the existence of contem porary errors which had to be com batted , the m onastic m ilieu in which the responses had their origin,the fundam ental expectation on the part of M axim us'sollicitaztts and on his owm to turzl altto the good ofthesoul. 19 See especially Am b Io altcl Loosen's study. 2@ I have not thought it neeessary to force every A m biguum into a category. M auy pertattt to several. m any also fofm palt of tke grom d sw d l w ithoutlt other noterw orthy eharacteristics. These last are not here llsted.
TS
1
21
Before elltering upon the analysis of the single A m bigua I have ztow only to give a list ofthem w ith a11the explicit eitationsidentiEed.
'fhe Scripture citations (and more obvious allusions)I give in a scxcond table. 80th of these tables em ploy the uwaterial provided by Oehler in his editiortand by the editor of the M igtle reprint;butthese m aterials have been im plem ented and eontrolled. In giving the citations I shall give first the colum n num ber where they m ay be found in M ai m us,the num ber of G regory's oration follow ed by the voium e and colum n num ber in M igne; after the citatiolls of Gregory those '
from Denis (ineluding allusions)willfollow,then the other rare eitations. It is understood of eourse that the colum n num bers for the
A m bigua refer to the G reek M igne votum e 9I.' In tables 11 and IIT
a T placed afterareferenceindieatesthatthepassagecited (Gregory or Seripture)is found in the title (orsubtitle ilzAm b 10),the small
..
t indicates rather an allusion. T A s us I
List of the -4m bigua with citations Am b 6-Io65B-1o68C Am b 7-Io68D-1IoIC
Ps. Denis
Basil Evagrius Am b 8-IxoID -zzosB
D e pauperum am ore or. 14.7 :35.8658 D e pauperum am ore or. :4.7 ::5.86.5C
1o76D/or. :zI.I :35.Io84B, 5-zo zoyrB/or.28.17 :36.48C8-10,5-8 zo8sc/or. 28.17 :36.48C5-8 Io88A/or. 16.9 :3. 5.945C8-12 IogzA/or. 14.7 ::$5.8658 IogzA/or. 14.7 1title xo93AB/or. I4,zo :35.884A zo-Bzz xo93BC/or. I7.4 :35.969C9-1. 5 zog3D/or.38.zz :36.321C4-324.â.2 Iog6A/or. 39.:3 :. 36.34.817z-5 1o73B9/DN 2.q ;3.64883 Io8oB/DN 5.5 :3.820A. lo8zC5/DN 2.5 :3.644A. Io85A8/DN 5.8 :. 3.824. zo8oD/in Isaixm j . 3o (1.1: $):3o.z77C1r-b4 xozzck/Mhylderm ams, MuagyianavSyrigctz p.34..cf. Thal 60-62zzïro. De' pauperum am ore
or. z4.3o /. 35.8978 Am b 9-fxo5C
In laudem A thanasll or. zz.: !3. 5.10848
z2 A m b zo-zrosc-z20.5C Ps. D enis
The E flrzftr A m biglta In laudem A thanasii or. zl,1 :35.:084C II.57( B6/ep 9 :3.zzoq.B lvaaoytwyvvp. :
1y37B15/D N 4.zz :3.7c4B lcoxw a. Cf. M yst 23-;roIQ5
(r88A3/DN :. 3.3 :3.98017 zï88124/1)N 4.lo :: 5.705 afetxç N em esius
zI89.A.15-rIEI3B 1:1de nat.#()p).43,44 :4o.7f ?zBss.
Adstotle?
zI8oC1z Ia/cf. Phys.4.4-2Izazo
A mb 1I-zzosD -zao8A A nlb I2-I2o8B C A m b I: $-z2o8D -IzI2B
.
'
'
.
l'n lauflem Athanasii or. 2I.18 :35.1toxc In laudem A thanasii or. zI.3I :3. 5.11l;'Q ' Theologica I
or. z7.z :36.lZA Am b z4-zt azzB-lz1JD Theologica I or. 27,4 :36.1617 Ps.Denis 12I3CZ/CH :5..5 :3.(?k.33B A m b z5-Iz IôA -Iz2IB Tlleologica 11 or. :8.6 :xr qti.t jac: A m b 16-1zczC-I224A T heologica 11 or, 28.9 :36.36C Am b z(r-12z4B-Izxzc Theologica 11 or. 28.9 :3. 6.: . 47A.'
A m b l8-zzg2k7-Iz,33B A m b zf?-zz( 33C>1ag6D
I2(z8A/or. :8.. 5 :36.. s J28. 5 1z29BC/or. 28.5 :, 36.3213C xctapD/or. c8.z :g6.: $3B9ss.
T heologica 11 or. z8.zo ;36.37C T heologica 11 or. 28.19 :36.528
Am b zo-rza6D-lz4ze 'Theologica 11 or. 28.20 :36.52C
Ps. Denls
Iz4zAjo/M3. A z :: $.997. 1.
Am b 2z-zc4xD-I256C Theologica 11 or. z8.zo T36,53.*
Ia4gD/or. 7.2T :35.781C8-784A8 Aznb 22-:2.56D -1257C Afheologica 11
-
or. 28.2:: :36.5.38
Am b z3-r25. /C-I26IA
Theologica III or. 29.2 :36.768
Ps.Denis
xz6oC/DN 4.14 ::$,j1(aC
Am b z4-rz6;B-za64B Theologica I1I or. 2:.6 :36.81B Am b 25-1264C-12658 Theologica III
A
m b 26-z26542-I2681
or,c9.Ij :36.951 Tkeologlca III
or. 29.:6 :36.964
Tabk I
v
z:
A m b 27-1:68C-1z)'2A
T heologica IV or. 30.8 :36.1z2 $A .
zz69B/or. 30.8 :. 36.1I382-4 Am b z8-. r27zBC Am b
Am b Am b Am b
T lteologita IV or. 30.9 :36.1I:$C z9-zz7zD -I273A Theologica IV or. Jo.II .:. 36.116C xo-lz73A -C Theologiea IV or. : $0.2I :. : 36.I: $:$A 31-1z73D -Ic8IB In N atalicia or. 38,2 ::$6.3I3B 52-1281. B -1z85B In N atalicia or. 38.2 :.36.:13R
Ps.Denis
I285A/EH 2.4 :, 3.4ooB9-CIo
A m b :$a-Ia85C-I288A
In N atalicia or. a8.z :36.3138 A m b 34-1288A.-C In N atalicia or. 38.7 :36.3178 C Am b 35-ra88D -z289B In N atalicla or. 38.9 :36.3.20C .
Ps.Denis
Iz89A/DN 2.II ::.649
A m b 36-za89B-D
In N atalicia or. : $8.:3 :.36.. 325C Am b .57-128917-1c97B ln N atalieia or. 38.17 :36.:$21)D .
.
IzgzDf./or.44.: :36.6088 I-lo A m b .38-Iz97C-I3oIA
In N atalicia or. 38.18 :36,3328
Amb 39-I3oIBC
In sancta Im m ina
or, 39.6 136.34 rA Am b 4o-z3ozD -z3oyc In sancta Im m ina or. .39.8 :36.344%
I3o4B/or.34.8 136.249. *. 2-4 z3ozjc/or.lo.4z 236.4:786-8 Am b 41-r3o4D -IJr(6A In sancta L um ina or. 39.13 :36.34817
( Ps.Denis
1313A/DN z3.2 ;:.977D-980. :. 7
Am b 4z-I3I6A-z. 34pA In sanctum Baptism a or. 40.2 ::6.360C
I3z4o/or.30.20 :36.129061. I336A/ep, Iox,I ;37.18:C .
$49B -D Am b '4.3-t:
In sancturn B aptism a or. 4o.Iz 236.3738 titl' a plus Am b 44-z3491)-I35aA In sactum Baptism a or. 40.33 :36.4058 Am b 45-13.528 -15568 In sanctum Pascha or. 45.8 :36.6:2C
14
Tlw ffprli> Am biguq
Am b 46-:356C-1gs7D
In satlctttm Pa cha or. 45.13 :35.641A. 4.7-135711-13614. In sanetm n Paselza or. 45.14 :. 36.641Q17 4. 8-1361.1.-1365C In sand um Paseha or. 45.:6 :36.645. A. 49-1365C1: In salctum Pascha or. 45.18 :36.648C 50-1368. A.-13690 In sanctum Pu cha .
Amb Amb Am b Amb
.
A m b 5z-z,369C-z3;'2E A m b 52-z37cB C A m b .53-z:7cC-I37ôB
or. 4. 5.:9 :. 36.6498 In sanctum Pascha or. 45.2z :36.6528 In sanctum Pascha or. 45.24 : 36.656C In sanctum Pasch.a or. 45.24 236.6.j6C
A m b 54-1.376C-:3778 Amb Amb Am b Amb Am b
Am b A= b Am b
In sanctum Paseha or. 45.24 :56.656C 5.5-:377C In sanctum Pascha or. 45.24 :36.656D 56-I377D -z38oD In sanctum Pmqeha ' or. 45.24 :36.656D p z38oD -I38zB In saltd um Paseha .q oT. 45.24 :36.657.: 58-1381E -z384 11. In sanetum Pascha or. 45.24 :36.657% 59-1384.1. -C In sanctum Pascha or. 4. 5.24 :36.657.â. 60-:.38417-13850 In sanctum Pascha or. 4. j.25 :36.6578 6:-1385C-z388A. In novam D om iuicam or. 4.4.2 :36.6088 62-:3884 8 In novam D om inieam or. 44.2 :36.608C ..
.
.
I388B/or. zo.z :36.ro5BT3 A m b 63-z3880-13898
In novam D om inicam or. 44.5 :36.6120
1: $88C/or. 44.8 :: $6.61617 A m b 64. -:3898C
In novam D ornlnicam or. 44.8 :36.6168 A' m b 65-13' 891J-131)38 In Pentecosten or. 41.2 ;36.4328 A m b 66-1,3938 -1396.8. In Pentecosten or. 41.4 :36.4.33E .
zag6A/poem ata 11 z v. zo :37.523. 1. A m b 67-I396B-I4o4C In Pentecosten or. 4:.4 :36.433Cf.
Table 11
1. 5
A m b 68-I4o4D -ï4o5C In Pentecosten or. 4:.16 :36.449C Am b 69-:405C17 In H eronem ' or. 25.6 :35.Izo5E Aznb 7o-z4o5B -z4o80 In laudem Basilii or. 43.I :36.4964. A m b 7I-I4o8C-T4I6D Praecepta ad V irgines 37.624
Ps. Denis
Valedictor!-14I7-C Ps. Den. ts
zzjzsA/or,41.:2 :36.44588-14 z4z6CD/or.7.Ig :35.77' /C10-D5 ;415A/DN 4.t. : s::.7IzAIz-B5 z4zgN4-zr/DN 1.. 5.6 :. !.()8zCz5-D6. T A B % s 11
Index of Citations A ristotle? Basil E vagrius Gregtlr.y N mdanzen œ '. 7.19 or. 7.2I or, 14.7
tlr, I4.20 OY. 14.30 kn'. 16.9 0r. I7.4 OT. 2 I.1
or. 2I.18 or. 2l.31 or. 25.6 or, 27.I or, 27.4 or. 28.5 or. 28.6 or. 28.7 or. 28.9
A m b zo-zl8oozz 13 Amb , /-$080D A m b 7-royzC4
35i77Clo-D5
.
3. 5.781Q8-784. &8 35.8658 35.8658 JJ.8&5C 35.865C 35.884A zo-B zz 35.8978 35.94528-12 35.969C9-15 35.10848 35.10848 5-10 zg.zzoxc : $5.1117C 3, 5.zao5B :6.zI zA , 36.161) $.J2( I)5 .3t z6.:JaBC 36..5zC 36.338 9/ . 36.560 36.37*
A nzb Anab Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Amb Am b Am b
7:-1416C D 2:-:249D 6 T 7-Io9zA 7 ?r 7-zogzA t 7-Ioq3A B 8 'r 7-Io88A 7-zo93BC zo T 7-zoy6D xI T zz T 69 'P :3 T 14 'r I7-1228A lzzgB e A m b 15 T Am b zp z2z9D A m b 16 T Am b I7 ' r
16
Tlts Sllrli:r Am bigua
or. 28.Io or. 28.z7
,
or. a8.:9
36.528
or. 28.20 or. 28.:2z
36.52C 36.53A ( 36.538
A m b 18 T A m b I' y ïo77B - 1085C A m b 19 ' r Am b zo ' P A m b 2I Q* Am b z. zT
or. 29.' z or. 29.6 or. 29.15 01,. z9 .x6
36.76/ 36.8rB 36.9311 36.96A.
Am b Am b Am b Am b
z.T :4 z5 26
C)r. 3O.2 o r. .30.8
$ 36.10.58 1: g6.Iz.3A $B a-4 ,36.4I( 36.4.1,3C 36.r:62 : 56.12f.)C6f 36.!.3, 3A
Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b
62-13888 z7 T al'-z26911 z8 T z9 T 4:-1324C 3o T
36.249.1. 2-4
A m b 4o-I3o4B
()r. 38.z
36.3:.38 36.ir:3B 3f..( $13B
or. 38.7 0r. 38.9 or. 38.11 or. 38.13 or. 38.T' ;' or. .38.(8
36,31782 36.320C 36.3::zC4-324A.2 36.325C 3($.3z9D 36.3328
A m b 3I T A m b az T A m b 33 * .P A m b 34 T Am b 35 ' 1% A m b ;r-zo93D A m b 36 T A m b :7 T A m b 38 T
39,6 8 .39. Or. 39.I3 Or. Jg.I. 5
36.311A 36.344A 36.,348D 36.348D 1-5
Am b Am b Am b Am b
39 T 4o T 41 T 7-1096A
Or. 41.2 or. 4o.12
or. 4o.33 or. 40.4 I
:6.3602 36.3738 36.4058 4:78 6-8 ,36.
Am b Am b Am b Am b
4z ' r 43 T, -I349B 44 'r 4o-I3o4C
Or. 4t.z or, 4I.4 Or. 4I.4 C)r. 4I.I2 Or. 41.16
35.4328 36.4338 36.433C6. 36.4458 8-14 36.446)C
Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b
65 T 66 T 67 T 71-r4 I3A 68 T
0r. 43.I
36,496. A
Am b 7o T Aznb .'J7-yz9zD f. Am b 61 T
Or. 30.9 or. 3o.II or. 30.20 Or. 3o.2:! or. 34.8
or. or.
.
Or. 44.I OT. 44.2
36,37C 36.48C5-8 8-zo
.
36.5o8B z-zo 6088 .36.
.
T T 1* T
.
Tabl6 III
17
or. 44.2 or. 44.5 or. 44.8 or. 44.8
:6.608C , 36.&TaC 36.6I6B 36.61617
Am b A lub Am b Am b
tiz 3. * 6.3 3.% 64 '1* 63-1388C
or. 45.8 or. 4. j.1. : J or, 45.14 or. 45.:6
36.632C 36.641. â. 36.64 ëCD ' 36.645.1.
Alnb Am b Am b Am b
45 46 47 48
or.4j.18
36.648C
or. 45.f9
T 1% '. P 1%
Amb 49 T
36.6498
A m b 5o T
or.45.21
36.:528
Amb 5r T
or. 45.24 or. 45.25
36.656C-6574. . 36.6578
A m b 52-59 %' 'T Am b 6o T
ep. xol.I Poem ata IIjr,v. 2o
:J7..I8zC 37.523. 5
Am b 4' a-I$36A A m b 66-1396.1.
Praecepta ad V irgines 37.624 N em esius
Am b 7r '1*
A m b To-:489.1.15-TI93B x1
Pseudo-llenls EH CH
:5.5
DN DN 2.9 D N z.rz D N 4.10 D N 4.t3
DN
4.:4
DN DN 'D N
4.22 5.5 5.8
DN DN DN MT ep
13.: z>.3 13.6 z 9
3.4ooB9-QIo
A m b 32-z285A.
3.3338
A m b 14-12IsC2
3.644A 64814.3 .3. 649 .3. 3.705 3:712A :2-115 3.7+20 3.7248 3.8ao 3.824 3.97711-980A 7 3.98017 3.98:C 15-176 3.997A 3.zzo4B
A m b 7-1081C5 A m b 7-Io7.JB 9 A m b :$5-:289.1. Am b Io-z:88C 4 Am b 7r-:4r3A Am b 23-:260C A m b zo-z:371$15 A m b 7-Io8oB Am b 7-z08.5.A.8 A m b 41-r3I3A A m b lo-l188A : $ V al. I4I7B4-Ir A m b zo-tz4zA lo A m b zo-:1.378 6
T A B J.s I I I
Scyipture fxtf:. v Gs> sls Am b I.7 I.26 Am b Am b t.27 2vz Am b
z.(9)17 Am b 7-lozzD 6p I4o1B 67-I4oIA 67-I4oIR 65-139:C
3.I 5.7.zz.z
Am b Am b Am b Amb
lo-ll56CD 4z-z3444. 42-1344/$. lo-:1450
18
Th6 S dzrlfty A m bigua
(& sesi. ç)
1 Itsovu
:7.5 z. ;.z. / z9.z4 zg.2o,3z 30.31. :9 57. 7 39. 1:4
-
'
Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b ' Vm b . Am b
zo-:zooA.B 4a-I344B 42-z34.48 45-zg5aCD 5z-zagzA 5z-r369C 19-:236C zo-lz3co
Exozm s '
3.2
Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b A l' nb Am b
5. . 5 7.:7 zz.x4.aI,2z a4.33. 17 :6.1% N ro
zo-II48D 4z-Ia44B zo-zzooe 4z-za44B 50-::J68C 5o-za68C 4z-z.34oD 50-1368(2 7-zo85(B 6:-r,385C
A m b Io-l2oIB C
LsvzTzet!s 7.50 A m b Io-zzoob 13.A m b zo-zzozA B 14.38 A m b Io-z1254 .
D SUTERON
' .
' ''
I,5 :.43,44 Iz.9 28.: 3o.z9 32.49 Iosv. e a, tz 5.z 6.1* . 7.18 zo.12
x1.10
A m b zo-zra4D t a m b ag-zapas
' 2 RMG' IJM z.4 . b'4 z4.zos
3 M GUM z7.9 17. 18 :7. 2 3,2: . :8. 38 x9.q
Aanb t$z-z,388A X m b 37-:28917 A m b zo-zz5zB
A m b zo-lz258 e, r . A m b Io-IrzsB A m b 66-:3938 A m b zo-zzzze jy Io-zI2Iu,tx Am. .
' 4
2.I 2.ï1 ao.zs
A= b Am b Amb Am b
10-1124C1* 10-1I6IC 42-1344.1. zo-II.52B
l
25.7%
,
z zo 4. z8
OM IIJM
Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b
Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b
Io-zx64( B 45-13521) p zo/zlA zo-:zzsA zo-zI6IB Io-zzzrD
Io-zzzgo z'o-zzzyD zo-zzzoA t zo-zzzoB 42-:: 54.4.C Io-zzzoc
PsAm 1.4 :6.:5 1é;.z 23.7 26,Io 30.3 41.3 41.7 41.8
A m b 7r-I4I6D A m b 7-:o7gA am : zo- yyaZ.A.e.r A m b 60-1385.â. A m b 10-112IA BT A m b 7-Io8IA A m b 7-Io7,3A A m b 7l-I4o9-A A m b 7I-z4o8D :4:2.& A m b Io-lIz8A A m b 4o-z,: Jo4A B Am b 7I-r4o9D A m b pz-zzjz617 Am b 2z-Ia4ID A m b 4o-ï3p4A' B .
44.3 47.a to .g
zoz.rs 1:8,6
144.3 . PRO> RBIA 4.27 A m b 42-132517 22.28 A m b I3-I2o8D . ECCIA SIAST/S
i.9
Am b . 7I-z4z2D
Table 1II
1:9
IoB
(S .M'cfr/ltz4xsl
8.z
A m b lz-zcosI)
SAPIISNTIA
5.Iz,zo Am b 71-z4z6D SIRACID/S 22.6 O
A m b. z4-zZI3C
sas
13.3 lsAlAs 9.6 53.2
S M -Nxcus 3'I7 Am b 9.42 Am b 16.z,9 Am b 16.19 A itzb
zI-Iz44A Iz-1ao8A 56-:37117 3C 4z-z332C, 1.33:
S LtrcAs 4.:9 A m b 46-z357. 4 8.18 A m b 48-1.36117 9.3 A m b IO-I2oID t .
A m b 3z-I28IC Am b Io-rzszA
BARvc:l . l 3.38 A m b Io-zx48D .
Ezslm zs: :6.:$,4.51),7a A m b 4z-13zoD
Du m r.
9.24 10.30 ,2.23 14.33 15.4 15.8 z5.zz
Amb Am b Am b Am b Amb Amb Amb
zo-z144.C ItA-II53C zo-zzaao Io-zI53C 31-1277. X 3I-zz7' 7A. : Jz-zz77A ,
:6.25 16.24
A m b Io-:I72A Am b 7I-z4I3A
:6.29 23.43 2:.52
A m b aI-Ia53B A m b 4I-I3o9B , 5,3-z:768 A' m b 5: 3-z.:76C
A m b z9-zc: $6C
S M A/ ITHASTJg 5.3 7.6 zo.gs 1:.14 Iz.z8 I4.zo 15.:7s 16.24 z7,a
Am b 51-13728 Am b 5z-z.373D A m b 21-1256. A.
A m b gz-z4I6D
IsltsMu s 5.22 Am b zo-z148C
z.I9
27.32 27.38 28.20
I7.:4 19.:7 21.:2 2 2.,39 24.22 25.zz
A m b Io-zz48B Am b To-zzolD Am b 50-13684.1% A m b zr-zz5.5A Am b 7-3075A. A m b 67-1: $961$C Am b 67-13968C Am b 3a-tz84D A m b Io-z:2517 II6oC z168% A m b ro-zzox.c A m b zo-rzs:. ,j. Am b Iz-zzo8A B A m b 7-lo9zB Am b zo-zz3z.h Am b 7-:08.5C
:6.39
Am b 7-10768
s Ioàxxss I.z I.z4
3.6 6.3: 10.34 z:.26 :4.6 z6.Iz :6.:3 x7.a4 19.39
zo.:l zo.z5 ao,26 zz.ao 2z.a5
Amb Am b Amb Am b Amb Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Amb Amb Am b A xnb Am' b Amb Am b
zo-zIa8A zo-)z28A zo-zz45B zo-zz4olD : ro-rz57A rzo-lza' z.lt 7-IIooc zo-xr4s:B, zz64A 2z-I256A zz-zz56A 60-z: J8.58 55-13772 5p zg8oD zo-zzazc Io-zz3zD 48-1: . 564C az-lzszc 58-zg8IB
2o
F& Earlis'y .4* -
tzltf Epha iosj
M lfus A postror.oRvM 17.28 A m b 7-Io84B A D R ouxli'os 6.zx,z9 A m b 8.zo Am b 8.,35 Am b Io.15 Am b zz.33 Am b I z..: J: A nzb ,2.4 Am b
I.z:$ Am b 7-Io97A, 3z-xz8IA 3.18 A m b 50-:3698 4.I1-16 A m b ' p log6b &s
54-13761: 8-IIo4B Io-l14411 5o-Ig68A T zo-z!9zD 54-1577.%. 4t$-I: J6IA
I AD Qolu le m o s :.:5 A m b'7z-I4o9B z.3o A nlb ' 7-Io8zD 2.z A m b 46-1360.1. 2.9 A m b 7-1076A. 6.16,17 Am b i'-zoggll Io.z1 Am b Io-II49D 12.4,9 A m b 68-14041) r2.11 Am b 2I-r245C 12.27 Am b ' z-Io9aC z2.3o A m b 68-14041: z:J.Iz A m b 7-10771 B 14.24 A m b 68-14058 x4,29 A m b 68-I4o5A B :5.26 Am b ' 7-zoy6A 15.55 A m b 38-I3oIA 2 Ap QoRzpa Hzos A m b zo-zIz9D A m b 2o-zz36D ' P A D G AI/ATM S 2.zo A m b 7-Io76B 3.28 A m b 4I-z3o9A
A D Pm rappsxsss a.8 A m b xo-Iz73B 48-1364C 3.II,Ic A m b 7-Io73A :J.14 A lub 48-1365C 3.zs? A m b lo-1Ia9D
A D Cot/osssysss z.:6 A m b 7-zo77D z.z: A m b 7-zof)7A B 3.5 A m b 49-:3650 T 5:-1372C '
z Ap T Iwlolilm t;:kl a.rtl A m b ;,-Io8jC 4.3 A m b 13-Izo8CD T A D I' llssuAk)os I.Iz A m b zo-IIg3A 4.Iz A m b 7-to7.3A 4.z4. A m 'b 48-:364.1, J'.3 A m b ro-tza7l' ). II4IB , tI4. zC, z:441) I 7.Io A m b 4z-l328C 8,3 A m b Io-zI4oA 8.7 A m b 7-zog;rD 10.1 A m b zz-Iz53C Ix.13, ,39 A m b 7-Io73A zI.c6 A m b Io-zt49B 12.2 Am b 4z-z3g3B C IxtcoBt
4.:5
A m b 7z-z4z6D
A n Spu sros z.8,zo A m b 4z-z:t: 3B
z-zo
(Co1.I.z6)Amb 7.zo97AE
I PET:?. I
:.2.1.
A m b 7z-z4z6D
z.z7-23 A m b ' z-Io96B C z 21 A m b 42-:332C,4.8-136117 I IOANNIS 1364.1. z.z A m b p ro92B
Analysisoj/& Single.D@ fw/./r' fw
21
1l. A Narwysrs olœ Tff:e Szxgr.s D rlflqcltrtllss
A m b 6-zo65B-zoj8C:De lf zlfldrrllzrla1n0r6 - or.14.7:35.8658 Gregory has been speaking of the various treatm ents a m an m ight give his body. H e goes on : 'TIf I spare it as a fellow workery I have then no m eans of fleeing if,s rebellion or of not falling from God,weigkted with bonds that pu. ll or hold down to .
the earth.''
The diflieulty isto distinguish the pulldown and the kold #o&?Al, it being quite tm worthy'of Gregory to have used them symonym ously
(Io65C9). In order to indicate adequately their difference M axim us frst describestlle state from whieh one w ould fall. It is that ofthe m an
pedected irtpraetiee and theory,in virtue and k-nowledge (-Io68A'3), so that anger is converted into love and conetlpiscence into joy. This reference to joy induees a further reference to John exulting in the w om b and D avid before the ark, exultation being a sym bol
ofjoy (-Io68AIo). (These two instanees ofexuitation form thedifieulty in A m b ' j7). 'i'he sense of womb - the present 1ife being .
such i11 com parison weith the future - is developed in a digression.
Thesenseofptdldown is then declared to bethenegligellce ofdivine forearthly things (-Io68C6)and that ofholtlffp:@éztheindiserim inate preference ofthe body to separation from them by virtue(-Io68CIz). 'rhe form er then is said to be of the eontem plative m an,the latter
of tlle practical (-Io68CI7). The conversion of anger into love coneupiseenee into joy is a thouglzt found in various w ays in the Csntuyies pn fl/w d fy. M ore frequently love and self-m astery are presented as the ehecks of anger and eoncupiscence:LA zo,Char 1.65. .4.80, .a m ore direct illustm tioll of our present passage is Char 2.48. Y et there coneupiseence grows into eyos. It is not neeessary here tclpoint out the sim ilarity of M axim us vvith E vagrius, nor yet the dissim ilazity.
Am b 7-zo68D-zzozC:De paupevum (z-t?r: - or.14.7 :35.865C Origenists were knowa to turn passages of Gregory N azianzen to their own advantage. 'fhus the sdzoliast of V at. g' r. 2067 f. 73
(at the head of Gregory's oration on the Nativity) cautions: 'fSee
az
7-/:: lîavlier zfnbbigua
that as you read you are not eaptivated by the doctzine ofthe pre '' 1 existenee, as the Origenists want
-
. . .
.
'Plte qtlestioner pf Barsanvlphitls (d.near 540) says that m any defend the doctzine of preexistence from Gregory of N azianzen, es-
peeially from his orations on the Nativity and Easter (PG 86,897C), neglecting passages that are quite d ear in tlle m atter. Justinian 1
cites such a passage from the De j0 zgt:3 with an explanation of
the Origenistis' alm se. Fulther on 4 he affirm s this practice to ' be com m on and begins a sezies of corrqetive patristie texts with two eitations from Gregory. N one of the passages cited in Bar -
sanupbiussor Justinian G are cited by M aximus save for the conclusion of the last 7, w itieh how ever is there dted for a diderent Ptlrpose. . . Tlzat thett an orthodex com m entator of Gregory slzottld have occasion to eom bat Origenist views is no surprise. Ancl if that '
com m entator writes som e g5 years after Justiniàn's eoademnation of Origenism . it m eans only that the heterodox Origenism , though perhaps without further external histon r, was not yet finished. ' fhe text of Gregory runs:f'W itat is this wisdom that coneerns m e? aud.what is tllis great m ystezy? Is it that H e wills that we, being a portion of God and slipped down from above, lest exalted and lifted up by reasortof our digttity, despise tlke ercator,that we, I say, itz the struggle and fght with the body should ever look to
l'Tim and that this otlr subjoined weakrtess be an edueation for our dignity? ''
Tk 11aisk)l 4j1 cotpla,xat 1:(I.ê) jtéya xo:so Izvgvjtltovl li jofhs'ttttttoktw jg(k Yvxfsç eEov,xat dvfom v le ofwsag, 'tvfl p, q *vl ï x$A, dkltw lxatpùgEvot xtzk geutllply lzevolxtlvatppovmpsv sotiKvltm vtog, N xii xeèg B cf lhta adàn xtlt Izdzn xetk (tN t ' lv (hk I3héaEw,xalshv mn'slevygévnv flcê*utqv rratöayfpytav elvalto: Q kJjtttçog. 1. See SINKO
D e /A'tz#fJ5t)Az,. . . indiresla p. 3 and a6.
Z JIJSTINIAN Adversus OA'2kJ' #ld#&, ACO t. 1I1 tg31: PG 86. 9.S.TB . ô G RSGORV N AZIANZIN , De jsfjr tz,or.2.I7,PG 35.4258 xJ/, ê JUSTINIAN,o#.sit., ACO, t. 111, 205$1: I;G 86. 97sD . 5 Baasu rlpltm s cites G ttsooay N AZ. or. 45.7: PG 3(i,6.32A 7-tz. $ JTJSTINIAN'cites or.2.I7:35.425B/AC0 t.III 19311 PG 86. 9538 ;
or.44.42. 36.6IaA3-z4./z9#8:9531);or.45.7:36,632. :.7-8 z/z953':t)59A;or. z.z8: 35,437A/zo538: 9;'5D ; or. :6.9: 35.945AIc-DI/co6:: p75D ,
.
% Am bip-zo88A responds to or. z6. 9: . 35.p45C8-zz.
Anaiysîs ol/& Sîngleflïlcvlfïfw
aa
W ith such a text proposed to him ,M axim us frst of a11 rd utes tille O rigenist position as suclt and then, still befere any exegesis of Gregory is attem pted, art adequate orthodox m eaaing m ust be
given to the phrase poytion p/ Gotl, so elosely did it seem related to the henad. This constitutes Part One. Part ' rwo intends prim arily to be exega is and begins by placing the rnisinterpreted passage in its context, observing the ftm dam erttal raistake, nam ely the understanding it of m an's gena is rather thau of the w retchedness subsequent thereto. Izour other texts of Gregory are advaneed in support of this and to show that he speaks of m an's origins in anotlter-w ay. 'fhus M axinm s goes on to develope the fundam ental m ystery of m an with the help of eitations from Ephesians, A11 of this gravitates abotlt the phrase:
pcvtio' n n/God. Yet the polemic element has taken too mttch ofhis attention that it can now com pletely drop from viem Tlm s the whole dillieulty ends in a philosophic refutation of the preexistence and postexistenee of souls. Such iu a nutshell is this m ost inlportant D ifllculty ;the detailed artalysis willfollow on the texttm l notes I shall now presetlt, 'Phe num eratiotl of.the Diflk ulties: ffOne ollly energy of God and the w orthy ''; this phrase occurs in the present A m biguum
(Io76Czo). Later M aximus had to explain it. H e there (TP I-33AIO)dtes it as being hlthe seventh chapter ofthe Diëeulticxs of Gregory the great. In fact tlle present A m biguum is the second
ofthose sent to Jolm ;bttt five were later seztt to Tltorrlas and are
found in thevast majority ofm anuscriptsin the firstplace. Therefore one m ay suppose that in M axim tts' own tim e tlle two sets
were joined,so that the present DiKculty is to be reekoned as the seventh.. N aturally the tw o introduetory lettets are not to be reektm ed as dië eulties.
I here subjoin a list of variant readings, some of which are needfulim provem ents of tlle text, and a11 of whicb are attested by one or m ore m anuscripts older than the Gudian which underlies Oehler's text. This list eom prises the m ore notable variants found
fn eollating Amb 7 witllVat.gr.Iroz (V),Monac.gr.363 (M),A14gelica Izo (A). W here variants oceurred I consulted Scotus'vers-
iou (S);Ihavealso noted ThomasGale'svariants (T) and at times Tlzavedistirguished Oehler'sznanuscrip (())from hisprinted text(0). H aving consulfed V and A directly I have at tim es distinr ished
in them two readings t(and p. The 1$ readings may be corrections
24
The A'fvlï:r Am bigua
contem porary wititthe m anuscript or the result ofa posterior coll ation. T do not always attem pt to distinguish Until still other m anttserip'ts have beerteollated it does not seem woe lawltile to glve a list of a11the variants. Jn the present list I give first the reading oftile printed text,after a colon the variants and witnesses W laen VAM or 'f are not found to the right ofthe colon they are presum ed to confirm the printed text S is cited only when in tells positively for one or the other reading. -
.
.
.
Tot$9B 5
êctbv G : ê'Eiov V M A O
B 13 lzrel :Il 'aaôzî ' S'' MA 1o7zA 8
ytvögzvc : yevöpo ct V M A
( B8 M A O :DL VM TG B9 xltam tvotc,v ; xa' :*lalvoçto'VM A B :5 Jœévnvov : J' yévvqxov EX M A xog:A4 K v 'ieöv :'r09 ' êvofiSVM A
B6 dk ... th a/oik :-. S D z lv li@ évtzg' rf: i j 51:) ;l'. 4 5.' t.!.SVM AT zogtu' t8 ' hzfà: ' rcfi' ra rrâv' ctt A@ :(I.m 'r.S' VM . 1p B9 t;f;lô è ...lifiyck :1:7$ôè ...I ;fj6(S'O fzt 176 ofôttgtk Ap' .ofDayoiiVM AU .
1)8
obxoç S : -V M A T
zogpçà
qwstxf;v :qlvtxz: SVM A
zo8oyk.3
ffpedxt -actg :aioiitpscrrf 7wçSVM
B 14 Cg C6 Ds zo8zA.z AJ3
'ztcâ lë uvo ytsl1; 5*% : 14: $2 SVM A x;v A/ :x(û SVM AG ytvesa:V/AP ' .yévstM et ut videtur VaAC luarE' wewtt z tp :lxêxttvçtVM AR :SUM M A S xaldoqi ttfltv SAp :(irtoxtœlm tzow 'VM AG xto 'lttv' rftEtvasAp :xttl'afrrà v?às:vusV; s: xqe'llwx4k 'roïifr TvtltM
:084C14. tkvêklttyrtntnv .évqvgt/zqctv SVMAT Io85Ag B .9
45, $4 : ôt6' rL SVM AT êw axùv : M' evaxév loxtv & (h e& lxv' èg M yog SV M A . sed A 6 ... léyoç etm tinuo suprapungitur
D' 7 ' /lDtrt :OPORTERAT (4ô6$z ') S 1o88A II a' h fzlolag : ' thawktVM A
A14 d' h pv ;qitâzpm NTM A D 3 tizsokaétyel : 4aoltz' tîrœi lw kvopévnv SVM Dg 'ro: Jtéeoç 2r. q6% 'çèv ol8qeov : rpèç 'rù a' ôv 'ro; o. SVM A'P
zo89A5 ' l' v éx qdpov xöoov SV? :'Bv èx w ' iix6oov rpépyvV/M A z3 êa.gâ'ré : la'tx' ôrt' j VM A' .r
:092%
aohlfi : aoDutilSVMA
.
D4 xtttfo' îixounlfiva. tx' j :' rè x.'r' j iW MAPT zo% C6 xuxtk'çh' k Wvim v l'a,:g' n ?t'cùv y.èz.SVM A zo97A 7
pitfhfsvxgç S ; l1to 4, e:1: V M A
B:2 lv rcvetijttm SAp :lv cxIL (sic)VMAU
zlu lysis //tks éiizzr/' lll' lncltltzLs ïzooA. . f
zs
sfpôà p.éàog :% lsè ltfooç SVM
1)9 lpyticœxutAc :lklw géxg,.VMAP IzoIB3 I1ox1)z5 Cz-4 J CT: .
Jllzi : &kV VM AT fbç xtû :&ç V M AT apög Jll' ql(s ...xctF o'twltw :-VM lkléàotasv :lu élElrt-ratV M :defkit S
D etailea A nalysis
PartOne,I:Againstthe henad and on the future state (-Io77Bz5).
Tlgspassage (above,p.zz)many too facilely understaud oftlle henad of rational.beiugs who, coanatural to God, had their abode in him ;but then cam e m otion and their scattering iu bodies m ade izz punislaznent of their form er sins. The absurdity ofsuclzan opin-
ion the following tract willmanifest (-Io69B4). Argument I (Io69B4-Io7zAI()). Theprincipleisstated:nothing capable of motilm rests before it llas attained its tfizmll catlse, the uitimatedesire(Io69B4-I4). Andifitbesaidthatrationalcreatures, tlle em d attained, have in fact seattered 8 there is no answ er to the
objectfon that they w' ottld desert the good zzlf'?l#lC' Jlf??9 (z()W Czz). Ifhowever one says it is possible for them (to adhere firmly to the good) but that they prefer not to for the sake of experiendng the contrary,then elearly the good is no longer good in itself atld the satisfaction of desire; rather the contrary, evil, m ust be reckoned
asa gracethatteachesthegood and isgenerativeoflove (-Io7zAIo).
'rhis argument,though positing thefundamental(teleologeal)prineiple,is rather topical,redudng the answ ers given by the Origenists to their absurd conclusions.
Argument 1 (Io;zAII-DI). Geqesis, logically at least, precedes motion (-Io7zB9). 'Plzis motion is defined (Peripaticians seem tobedted)asa naturalpowe.r passion oroperativeenergy,driving to an end,which isaw' ith regard the lattertw o term s,eitller tlle im -
passible or the self-perfect (-lo72BI3)9. No ereated thing is its own end, beeause not tmcaused'- here isintroduced (Io7zC4f.) a dev ition ofend Arijtotelian in tone (d .Met.fz2-9941:16)butin faet eited fronï Evagrius 1e not only here but also in 'fhal6o-6zIA zo : See the version below p. I85 with note zI. : See the version below p.98. 18 See M ' uirm sltMAlç' s L'vaçeianavSyrfctltz. Ivouvain 1952, p. 34' ,A m b
z6
Tlw Egrlferzfpltrk-
nor self-perfeet, becattse the self-perfect
already unaetuatable
as already complete (the self-perfect is somehow uncaused); nor im passible,because the im passible is infinite. . . 'rherefore no created thing stops m oving short of its first and only cause. There Ls thtts
.
no ground for supposing the breaking-up (gxeôtltAjtöç) ofa primitive henad (-Io7cDI). ' In suppozt of this Seripture witnesses are adduced: M oses Gen. z.jï7; D eut, Iz.9; David - Ps. 16.5. z; Paul - Pl1il. 3.II; , 4I.
Hebr.4.10 (II.39); Christ - Matt.11.28 (-Io73AI4). B.After these Scriptural eitations the conelusion is m ore fully draw n. Tlle natural power, the energy have not yet fotm d their
rest, that is the end, the impassible, the immobile (Io73AI4-B4). l7or Cxod alone is the end, the ped eet, the im passible;it is for the creature-to m ove to that end and to rest his energy there and to
suffer, ''but not to beeom e essentially this unqualiûed '' thing
(-Io73BzI). This suffering, this passion (not in the m oral sense) isexplained (Icc. 3BII-Io76A5),from whieh itiselear,saysMaximus, that the partidpation in the divirte of wlkieh w e speak is ftttute -
and not past (zo76A5-Io). This fihalunion isthen fuztherdescribed with the aid of som e Seripture texts (here èom es the m onenergistpassage, see above p.:a3). There follow yet other considerations on the attainm ent of this end and on the cessation of
m otion (-IozgB9). Up to this point,says M aximas,the diseussion has been on the non existence ofthe henad and on the future state,a discussion based on reason and the Sedptures (-Io77B9-I3); bl lt now f'we being a portion of G od and slipped down from above '' will be treated .
(-Io77Bzg-I5). Pal' t One, II: A refutation of the Origenist interpretation of T'we
being a poztion of God...''(-Io8. 5A6). E' xplanation I (uo8ICII), of the Logos and the logoi. 'Phe logoi preexist united in the Logos. This he cortfrm s with a reference to D enis, probably D N 5.5 (-Io8oBzI). As preexi stent in .
the Logos we are portions 0/ God and realize that union as a consequent of right m otion. T his is closed w ith a eitation from B asil
(-Io8IA5). A1l logoi are not brouglzt into existence together, but som e rem ain in potency tilltheir due tim e. God is ineffably above;
yet the one is m any and the m any one (-zo8zC7). Tbere follows
a condusion (Io8IC7-II).
4nalysis //1ke &Wj# Di @rultirs
.
.
z7
Explanation z (-zo85A6). The W ord of God is substantial virtue;so the solidly virtuous partake of virtue itself,adding likealerss
to image (-Io84AI4). In this is the Apostle's In wkom we iive and movefxzl# ar6 (Acts 1/.28)fultilled by being,well-being,frrdr?'-zz, :lf-&ïlg (-z()84%7). Then in these terms the nzan wlm is a poztlon of God is deserlbed;the description is filled out by introducing the exchange between God and m an in the m ystery of the Incarnatiort1l. 'rhe
siipping ()#.jrom God is charactertzed as a desertion from the true prindple (-Io85A6). Pal4 One,lII:The Dod rine of the l.ogoi Defended.
Maxim us here (Io85A7-C6) ilzserts a defense of his theory (?f
logoi,by referring to Denis(DN 5.8)aad thettto thesehoolofPantainos,m aster of Clem ent. It is odd that the passage ofD N should
contain also a referenee to a philosopher Clem ent (DN 5.9). But if M axim us sim ply refers to Clem ent of Alexandria in tlle w ake of
Denis, why does he use the drcumloeution 'twhich Seotusdid not understand)? And how are we to ex-plain' that in Dettis the thoaght of Clem ent is reckoned inadequate and in M axim tts the reply to the pagan diE culty is cited with approval? 1:. In view ofthispassage there seem s to be lio question of M axim us' im m ediate source for the dod rine of Iogoî. See also D alm ais' article in RSPIZTII 36
(1952) 244-49. Part One,IV :Deseription of the PinalState.
Returning to a passage already cited (at Io77B6-9) Maximus speaks of the fnal conform ation to the divine likeness, adding a developem ent of his ewn to the eitations from Gregory. In tltese
Maximus qualiâes the deifed state as pleasure, sufering (xEïctç). joy;and indeed a joy knowing no surfeit due to fear (-zo89AIo). Part One, V :Cond usion and final Argum ent on Surfeit.
Maximusfrst statesthathe laasgiven a summary proof (against Origenism)by reason ttputrtxmçl,by Seripture and by tlze Fathers. The use ofScripture rtlajcbe seertittsection T tloe zzD-zoggA, .T(y)-6A; theuseofthe Fathersismore eddentin seetion 11(Io8oB-D)andlll (Io85A-C). So Maximus states the points already proved and tllen presents a further argum ent against O rigenism that is agaitlst tlze
11 Tlzis (Amb 7-1084Q,Dz) is a them e touckecl on elsewhe v e;cf.TNal 6' 4-725C ; A m b : $:-zz88A ; A m b 6o-z385B C.
19 See below ckap. IV, note 68.
2. 8
TIw Fadfer ztplN gu
doctrhzeofsurfeit. 'Phis doetrine has already been exeluded (above IA-Io69f),and in expounding the doetrine of m otion and eatd,a positive aeceptation of perpetual desire is given (IB-Io. 73C); 'but only abovein section IV (Io89A5)hastheword surfeititselfoceurred. M axilnus now attacks it directly (Io89BI-C6). F inally M axim us rem arks the futility and deeeitfulness of these O rigenists' but, leaving them nqw to them selves he w ill consider
tlle question in another way (Io89C6-D3). P art T tFp. ' E xegetical
Part Two, 1: Exegesis of Gregory. The passage of Gregory does not refer to m an's genejis but explains the eause of his subsequent w retchedness. This is clear from the context of the
oration (-Iop2BI). A . T o establish this M axim us, i11 a long paraphrase,interprets the thought of G regory. I?irst of ai1 the prim itive state of union and life in God's presence is deseribed w ith the use of the analogy
of the soul's presence to the body (-Io9zCI3),an analogy occurring again below (1IooAB). '
B . Then the counterpart of this bllss,the introduction of death
as punishment for the abuse offreedom is explained (-Io9. ' JA9)'and coniirmed by two eitations (-Io93C3). 'fhe thesis is then repeated (Io93C3-IO). C.M axim us then goes (m :But Gregory speaks of m an's genesis
(f'ofthe power ofthe m ystery in whicilman eam e to be'')in quite another fashion. A n(1 there follow tw o d tations,suë cient to conv-
ince unless the readers be illwitled (-Io96Bz). Part 'fw o, 11:A gain, on how w e are part of God. A . M axim us in eonllrm ation of what he has already said at such
length cites ' în extenso St Paul to the Ephesians I.r7-z' J (-Io97A5) and adds to it other passages from the Ephesians and H ebrews to.
gether w ith his ow n explanation on this '
from poytion ojGtitfto membez'sor' partsofa body, using once m ore (ef.Io92C) tlze analogy of the soul's presenee and vivifying power
in the body (-IIooB9). B . The corollary of tllis is to believe in the im m ortality of souls,
desezting the Origenist doetrine of their preexistence (-IIooC3),
zlxglydis olfâejiingle flfjKcslffss
29
Part Two,IlI: Body and Soul Form a W hole Spedes. This last referenee *is the cue for further autiorigenist polem ic, wholly on the philosophical level, irl which M axim us' concept of
man as a wkole species,either part of the whole having a trausc'en-
dentalrelation to the other isa ehieffactor (-IzoIC9). In.Amb 42 M axim us will treat this question m ore at length.
The briefcondusion (IIoIC9-I3)thanksGod and lliseorrespondettts' prayers for auy suceess; their ow n acum en w ill stp ply any
dejiciency. x A ooso OBsylRvAz rloNs. - The analysis of this A m bigutbm entrain som e few , randon thoughts. First: 1 think it safe to say that even llere tlle autiorigenist elem ent, though form ing the first part and,tllroughout,the bulk of the difliculty,is essentially a digression, as this elem ent definitely is in A m b 15 and 42. M axim us' ehief aim , llis intention, is to eom m erlt Gregory; but to do this he m ust first dear Gregory's ttam e. See the transition from the lirst to the
second part (Io89D).
Second: M axim tls' thought is profoundly teleologieal. 1:1 his very doctrine oî m otion and end he refutes tbe Origenists'theozies, sharply distinguishing the ereature from the ttncreate, It is in this context that is to be placed his doctrine of tlze natural desire
forGod (1sayknolvingly IorGod and not/prtlt6vision 0/t7p#). But to speak oftltis willbe for another tim e and place. Third: If we eom pare the antiorigenist refutation of this Difffeulty with tim t of Atnb z5, we lind there the problem of the henad redueed to a neat form ula' .genesis,sfasis kinesis to be replaced by this otlzer:genesis, ifltvs' :,stasis, The doctritte i!1 either D iflicultl' is the sam e;but it would seem that the reflection provoked by the
redaction ofeurpreseut Diëculty indueed a elarification ofthoujht represented in the form ula of the subsequent refutation. Fourth:lt would be interestiug to eom pare m ore in detail the
sense ofdivine scp/psin this Amb (8.g.Io8oCI5.I092CI3, IO93Dz, Io97cz) and ia LA. In LA it is almost exelusively salvation,llere rather deifeation.
Am b 8-zzozD -xzosB : De #tlfz/fv' lI' #zlamore .- or. 14.30 :35.8978 ''So long as m atter bear disorder in itself as in flux ''. Such isthe dië culty;but Gregory had said in the ftrstpazt ofthe sentence: ''If the evilthey suffer be from God,is not evident so long as...''
3o
Th6Earlorx' lzzlzkx,
W ith this context in m ind M axim us says that tlle intent of this passage is like that of the foregoing. I reff!r tlzis m ore precisely to
his exegesls at the begirming of Part Two (Io89D4). 'M axim us then explains how this state of m isery cam e abous
with the fall (IIo4Az-BIz) and how the provident God uses this state to bring m an baek fzom a love ofpzesentthings (IIo4B13-C4). For there are in fact three generalways God usesin healing our pass-
ions;we are purged despite ourselves;we rejeet evil' or we take theexam pleofanother'sperseveranceand fortitude (IIo4C4-II05A3). W ith all this said by w ay of prefaee M axim us now interprets Gregory as exhorting to have no confdence in bodily health so long as this present life holds and such is the sense of the phrase that
forms the diëculty. (IIo5A3-I5).
'
And there is perhaps a further intent in the inequality and unevenness of present eonditions:lest w e rebelagainst one another arld
that w e m ay supply the wants of som e by the abundance of othe/s,
so giving occasion for placing viztue absoltttely first (IIo5AI5-BIz). Text: IIo4B4; read skins with Ga and S, not bodies with G and 0 . IIo4D I lmst word:delete the N w ith A . 'The idea of a prim itive equality of m en i' s dear to M axim us; here he is eozlsidering it on a m erely m orallevel;in ep Io he explains the reason for political inequality. A t bottom there is not great diferenee between the two form s. '
A m b p xxojc : I' n Jgsfffwr xz lf/laxgsïï - or. zI.I :35.10848 M axim us identifes in this brief explanation the unrelated and the absolute superlative. In the present instance these are said of God;w e touclztherefore on negative theology. A m b zo-zzojc-zzosc: In Jfw A z?l A thanasii -.- or. zI.I ;35.10840
The length of this Ambiguum (5o colum ns of Migne's Greek text)make some sort of division necessary. Now Jolm Seot's ver'
sion gives a subdivisioh as do also the Greek m anuseripts 1 have consulted. Cappuyns *3 thinks these divisions are of Scot him self, against D raeseke;but it is im possibie t6 m aintain such a view givezl the substantially identical sttbdid sions in Greek m anuscripts. In the followiug table I bozrow the subdivision titles of Seot from Cap-
puy' ns (p. I68 n.3) wîo tllere published tlle table ofArsenal237f19 Jean ScotS: rïgâzl:.Louvain-paris 1L% 3,p. :683.
zlnaly. Hs ol/& Single.!)ïtfgwlft' :s
Jz
4r-sr. I slmllgive in the frst eolum n Scot's nam bering,izt a second bis title,in a third the eolum n num ber of M igne. The title
ofOebler (in Migue)willnotbe given and unlessnoted isthe same as that of Vat. gr. I5oz. In m y alld M axinm s' num bering of the A m bigua the present is reckoned as Io in Seot's'as 6.for he does not
translate the later Ambigua (1.5)but,contrary to myselfand Maximus,counts the dedicatory letter to Joim of Cyzicus as number z. Sextum ia ordine capitulum qtlod sie inehoat;
I Ego qtddem non estim o (. Wc) m ultas habet subduisiones .
z:o5 D
c D e nim bo et velam ine.
IzIa A
....
21) (only the title is lacking in Scot) . :$ Quanti motus e i' t' ne et qui
zIzz C . . . zzIaD
4 De transitu pe.r m are zzz7 A varies 5 Speculatio M oyse.s in m ontem . . . . . . . . zI14 7B 6 Speculatio azim orum conspersionis see the text below 7 Specalatio de tramsitu iordatzis . Izk7 C longer 8 Speculatio expugnationis hierieo ë (:zo A (4 Speculatio expugnationis tyri. . . . z1zo C zo Speculatio cdi enm rant gloriam D ei .. .. zzzz A vz Specttlatio in hoc:pater m eus et m ate.r m ea dereliquertm t m e xzzI B xz Sm culatio ln visione helie in choreb zz2z C zk s Speculatio in elbeum . . . . . xx24.C :4. Specalatio in annam et snm uNel iz24 D :5 Speculatio d, e im nlunda clom o . . zzz5 A 16 Speculatio hdie et serapthie vldue . . . xzz. 5 C'
17 Speculatio in transform ationem f' tom ini
1125 D
z8 Speculatio paturil. s et scd pte leg; is . . . . x9 D e qtdnque m odis naturalis contem plationis zo Speculatio in m elchiyedee qnlntuplex . . 2ob zoc 2od 2oe .. . .. . zz Specalatfo fn abraam . . . 2z Speculatio ln m oysen duplex 2zb . . . . .. . .. . . . .. .. 23 Specuhtio quom odo rzaturalis et scripta 1ex jn se ilzviCeDl reciprOclniur . . . . . . . . . . .
z. r28 D zz33 A II37 C Iz4t D z:44 B zz44 C I:44 D xz45 C zz48 A :z49 A
z4 Quo; sancti per legema previdebant gratianl . . 25 Quo; legena et naturaxa superat qui chrhtuml sequitqr .
zx5z B Izsz C
26 Specuiato de eadenz re . . . z7 Speculatio de hleidente in îztrones . . .. :8 Speculatio transgressionl adauz . . . . . .' .
xz53 A ::53 C 1:56 Q
zn Quod sancH ex presentivita intellexerunt futurAmn. ao Quotl sancti non ut nos introductisunt in m ysteria
:z57 B Iz6o A
1149 C
:. 52
The Earlier zte fgfgdz
3I Speculatio in transforuzationern latior sub qua sunt 7L et V 1II theorie .
zz6o B ::65 1J 1165 D Ir68 A
3tb 3Ic
3Id ,3Ie 3If 3ItI 3Ih . .. . .. . . 32 Speeulatio de âne m undi . . ...... :5 Speculatio fle fntuto setulo irk qua d. t easm ate lazato sinu patriarche . . . .' . 34 Speculatio de virtutibus . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
II68 B :168 C 1168 C â168 D z:69 B
.
.
z1(9f? D xz72 D
Qehlev: Alia contem platio in illud: Si crz
(rI76A-Br). These are identieal with Amb 5j (z373D4r376B) and.Amb 63 (r389Bjrespeetiveiy. Tlzey are here clearly out ofplace and are not here found in Vat.gr.r5oz attd other m ss.
Speculatio per quam ex creatura deus intelligitur 1x76 B Speculatio quod principium habet m undus . . . . . . 1I76 D Speculatio essentie quantitatis qualitatis , . . zz77 B varies Apyœobatio qaofl om nia preter deum localia sint. . . II8o 11 Approbatio non pcksse esse infinitum m eter deum . zI8rA Approbatio ni1 esse im m obile pteter deum et de m onade II84 B D e duafle et m onade . . . . no title is the text contained under 4o? Speculatip de cliuina prouidentia . . . . zx88 C Specuh tio de transgressa m ateriali dualitate zz:.3 C lxpositio de passibili anim e ... zz96 C Speculatio adiectionis in uonzen abraham . . . zaoo A Speculatio in m oysen de tollendis calciam entis zzoo (2 Speeulatio in partes hostiarum . . . . . .. Izoo C Sm culatio de differentia lepre iuxta legem :2orA Speculatio i11 fines . .. . . . . . . . . . zzol B Speculatio in hoc: nolite dare sand um canibus IuorD Speculatio de lunatico Izo4 C .
If w e leave aside the defects of Gud.39,reproduced by Oehler, tlm t is the intrusion ofparts of Am b 53 and 63 in Am b Io and the
omission ofthe short j 6# it agrees with the Vat.gr.I5Oz;together .
they agree with the division of Scotk save for further subdivision
in jj z,' zo,zz,:$: antl the omission of the title for j 4I. Except in ja thesesubdivisionsarealready indicated irlthem ain title. 'rhe identity of the divisions therefore is beyond question. Tlle titles as given in Scot's index are often far shorter than those found in the Greek. But for a true com parison text m ust be com pared Avith
Analysij offk Mnglr fhl cllllzks
. ' u
text and index with index. The foregoing table m akes m ost of this quite pln, 'n.
'Phe-se divisions of the Greek original and of the Latin version, which represent substantially the m inor articulations of the text itself,w ill enable tts to see w hat order and shape there is in th1 apparerzt agglom eration of allegorical interpretations; for, despite digressions,there is a coherence to the whole. 12or clarity's sake I shall give here a sum m ary analysis of the
wllole; the reasons for these m ajor articulations will be evident from the subsequent detailed analysis. D îabasis,thatis Transit I L ogos and Theoria - through the m aterial to the intelleetual
jj 1-3 The theologicaland anthropological basis of the diabasis
jj 4-16 The O1d Testament figures of tltis diabasis j 17 A New 'Pestam ent figure:the Transfguration jj 18-27 The nattual aztd written law, represented by the shining elothes of our Lord, are in perfeet karm ony:
jj 18,19 The theologieal and aathropological basis of this harm ony
'
'
jj 2o-ca OT fgures of this harm ony 2 Melchisedech
(Abrahani,Moses) jj z, ' $-zg Abstm et eonsiderations jj 28,:9 appear to be an intrusion,see Iinalnote below.
jj 30,31 Exegesis of the Transfkuration completed jj 32-42 developements of aë nnative theology, represented Lll M oses and E lias of the Transfguration seene. 11 The m aterial dyad and the unity understood ln the 'frinity
(being tlle second part of Gregory'diëcttlt text). j 43 Preliminary exegesis j, 44 Arzthropological basis for tllis exegesis jj 45-51a Scriptttral fkures of thls exegesis j 5Ib Condusion of the whole. W hat in faet has heretofore been lackilzg in M axim ian studies
s precisely sueh an indieation ofthe major artieulations and of the
iheme. The theme of the whole (cf.Loosen's essay) is found in ;he dië eulty itself - the diabasis, the going through or transir. J
M
TW A' tzrfi&'r Ambtklttz
and its m odalities,through m atter and flesh as through a cloud or veil. It is quite evident that G regory is here expressing in a few w ords the whole of the ascetico-m ystical life; and he has done this
referring to reason and eontemplatioq flogos and theoria) without' a m ention of praetice 1:. To absolve Gregory from so grave an om ission, if it be real
and not verbalonly,is the object ofthe first seetion (jI),on how praxis is neeessarily involved in logos. 'rhe sum of M aximus' explanation is that praxis is connoted in reasou or logos. The frst form of tlle explanation, by far the
more fully developed (-IIo9B5),maintains that praxisisofthe body and m anifestative of virtue,not ereative of it, .virtue rather resides
in tlle ordering of reason. 'Phe seeond form (IIo9B5-C6) puts forward the aecustozned division ofreason into tbeoretiealand practieal' therefore he who says reasons says also praxis. The third form
(IIo9C6-IIzzA6), som ewhat more general, atlirms that those still attaehed to m aterial tllings are variable in regard to practieal affairs. K rlowing then the dië cttlty in breaking off from the m aterial, G regory had said : ''T o w hom is it perm itted, passing by reason and contem plation through m atter and the tleshly elem ent
(wîetherit be called doud or veil),to be allied with God...''. The second seetion (j z,IIIaApDe)begins the exegesis proper ofthe passage from Gregory:what is the m eaning of tlle cloud and veil as applied to m atter and the fleshly? It is here that is stated clearly the one term of the trallsit, aam ely attaehm ent to Ilesh
and materialthings (cf.jg28,a9). Such attachment,workingthrough the senses, is pleasure. It is tlze aseetidsm of the virtuuxs whieh is able to free one from it. But tllis very explanation, the entrance of pleasure through the sensible part of tlle soul, requires a further explanation of tlle soul and its functioning - azz explanation fundam ental to a11 tllat
willfollow. This is the third section (j3,IIIzD-III6D). Tlzis explarm tibn is given Srst of all from the m ystiealheights
(II'IzD-xII6A, 3), aecording to the grace-illumined men. The motions of the soulare those of its parts - m ind, reason,sense. The first is sim ple and in im naediate relation w ith God;the second is ana14 On lwaxis and theoyia ill Gtegory see PINAUW H . L6 J/ltzfoxïsm;
de S.G' ?A oïv 46 Nazianze pp. z9o-lga and PI.AGNIETJX,J '.,S.Gr/goïFz de N tlzïtzelz: Thdologon pp. :48-152.
zlAltzlwïsolthes'fsr?e Dimculties
, 34
lytic and seeks the cause of things;the third is synthetic,receivhlg from sensible things som e sym bol of their veasons and referring them to the reason. The real m otio!z however is from tlle lower
to the higher (-III3BIo). There is here introduced the propoztion by w hiclz m aa's ascent, his deification and virtue, is propoltionate
to God's deseent in the Incarnation (I'IIgBIo-Cz)l:. 'rlzese pzindp1es stated, M axim us applies them to the passage through body and w orld, the m hld not being content with the eircum seriptitm
of tlae body,but tending to the in% ity of God (zII3Cz-D6). By way of postseript on the nattlre contem plation, M axifnus declares that holy m en attend to things not so m ueh as to ktlow their m a-
terialcomposition asthatby them they may praise God (III6A3). This'sam e explanation of the m otions of the soul is now given
from a m ore philosopldcalpoint of view . Eac.h elem ent of the sotzl
istwofold:the rnind is intellecttlaland passible (the phantasy);the reason im m anent and transient' ,the sense inteHeetual and sensible. Now the saint.s coneeived that the operations (jf all these m ust be
offered to God (11164.4-15). But this osering pertains to the striving for well-being as alone in our power (being and ever being being in God'sgift alone - this triad ocettrs also in Amb 7,4z,65). H enee the m ind reason and sense are exercised in the way already indieated in the frst explanation and.the soul m ay pass through
thestormy watersofthislifedry-shod (-III6D). erhe passaye fdiabasisjto the intelligible and tlie divine isthem illustrated by a series ofO1d Testam ent incidents,seetions 4-1:6 1e.
W ith j17 beginstheillttstration - theLord'sTransfguration -
.
whieh, w ith the digressions and em beltishm ents it entrains, w ill occupy the rest of tiie 6l'st part,that given to an explanation of the logos and contem plation by w hich, or of the m atter and the fleshly
(cloud and veil) through wllich one attains to God. The second pazt MdII deal with the m aterial dyad. The distinetion of parts is
dearly indicated at the end of j 42 (II9, 5BII-C3). Perhaps one should not say that the T ransfguration oecupies
the rernainder of the Iirst part,up to j 4z,for the seetions dealhlg
with the Transfigtlration come to an end with 3lh (II68D); yet those that follow (jj ga-4z) are developements of the aë rmative 1: A thought found elsewhel' e see tlze references in note Iz.
z: lxcept for j z5 and j : êG a1l these illustrationa are itztroduced lp)z tlle sam e form ula.
Fk Earlier zl-lf éfgfl
theology represented in its two phases (providence and judgement) by the 0T witnesses of the Trausfgaration, M oses and Elias (see j3Ib-II65B and 3Ie-g-II68Bf.). In j17 M aximusbeginsthe explanation ofthe variotts elements of the vision. But com ing to the shining clotbes of our Im rd,he tells us that they represertt both the w ritten and the natural 1aw
(zza8. B5 and 14). This is to aanounce the Jirst great subtheme that wi2 hold his attention up to j: Jz. First there is basic enlargem ent of the perfect harm ony and
coinddenee of the two laws (j18). 'rhe m utttat interehangeability of the written and the natural law . B oth law s teach that God is not w hat or how he is;from them is derived ethioal,naturaland theological philosophy. The written 1aw is potentially identical with tile natural;the natural habitually
with the writtea (-zIz9Bg). In Seripture the words are the clothing,the ideas the flesh or m eat; in the natural 1aw the external
forms the dothingathe reasons (Iogoij the meat. By the one we are eovered,by the other uncovered. And God i)y negation is lzid-
denly manifest and by aKrmation manifestly hidden (-IIa9D8). W itlz two Scripture cvitations the letter and the law of tlle desll is
setagainst the spfrit (1I3zBII). W hence the lession isdrawn that we m ust give chie. f attention to the m eat of Scripture aud nature
(-II3zC7), whie: is then iuterpreted (the literal element and its logos) of the shining garments all4 faee of our Lord on Mt Tabor (-II, 3: J.&4). B ut the natural law is only pereeived in natural contem plation,
whose modes Maximus must now explahz (in j19). The em phasis on the natural 1aw leads to an exposition of the five m odes of natural eontem plation. 'fhey are substance,'m otion,
diferenee,mixtare,position (II33A). Ofthese the first three lead principally to knowledge of God as ereator, provident and judge (-Ir33B6),while the latter two are instructive to virtueand to intimacy with Gcd,forrzled by îvlzieh rzmn becomes God tzz. : ;gB& zzl. Such is the bare statem ent of these m odes; eaeh is now explailzed:
substance indieating the creater (II:$3CI-6); motion manifesting God's providence (IIg3C7-I. 3); and difference pointing out God as wise distributor of natural powers corresponding to the respective
substances (II33CI3-D2). Bttt there are erroneotls views of providence and judgem ent to be exclttded - those of Origen and Eva-
Analysisolf/le SingleDi/l czllfi:s
37
gdus. Maximus seems hea'e (II33D3-II36A4)to be usiug and correcting a text ofE vagrius 17. H oweverM axim ns does not com pletely
deny thatthereisa ctm vertiveprovideneeand a punitivejudgem ent; G ese exist. but pertain to the m oral order, not to the cm tologieal
(Iz36A4-ItJ) - the error of Orken and Evagrius, the doctrine of the henad. Such an error w as for M axim us a palm ary exam ple
of Ih llenic conjusion. The other m odes are then explained: rnixture as com position of our will and virtue (II36AI3) and position (II36B3) as moral reetitude. In addition to these considerations taken singly there are also various com binations and reductions, from .5 to 3,from 3 to z,from z to 1. This last (II36D6-II37Bz) is tlle work of m ixture witieh takes all the five m odes of considering the natural order and in a single consideration transfers them to the m oral, the upshot being a penetration of the hum an, which
rèmains human, by the divine characteristics (IIr Bz-C6). This perfect harm ony is realized above a11 in Christ lzim self and figured preem ineutly in M elcltisedech. H ence theï vefold con-
templation on M elchisedech (jzo-zoe). H ereperhapsM axim uscould have rested hls pen;for the end of aoe (II45BII-I3) responds to j17 (II28AI2), S0 as to give grotlnds for supposing an inclusion. Etzt already (zob, I244A) Maximus llad declared Melcidsedech to be only one of m any exam ples w hose im itation w as salutary,instaneing Abraham and M oses. There follow therefore considerations on
Abraham and Moses (jjzI,aa),whicllare perhaps a posterior addition l8.
Illustrations now eease,but the them em entioned in zob,II44A ,
istaken np again in j z3, beghm ing with a clear allusion to
thetheme (j23 II49CD equals 1144A). ' fhisdidactic developement occupies sections z3-zg. At the end of this last (II56B3-I3)Maxim us deelares t:ese things to be m anifest in the bright clothhzg of our Lord at the 'rransfguration. 'lhllis m arks the end of a division. ' rhere follow two sections,z8,z9,on the fallof A dam and that the present unstable life Ls not the trtle one. They form an aside, 1: Selecta i,l Psalm os, Ps. 138.5: PG zz.z66ICD . On the Isvagrian
autlmrsltip of these eomm entaries see vox'BAtftrlu s.ut Zk'l' h 63 (1939) ' 86 and 181. 14 On these sed ions as additions see atso tlle Snal note below p. 39.
38
Tkr Earlçer zlplskxfl
not entirely foreign to the m atter in hand, btlt m ore germ ane
after j z. W ith jtlo and 31 we return to the Transfkuration. Section 31: is an am pler consideratlon of the m ystery. According to Erigezta it eontains 18 thsorie. 'In the Greek text ten are num bered w-ithout
titles,followed by seven othez' s with titles (3Ib-h). Ifhowever the resttmê (Iz6oCD),prefxed to the ten,ofthe exegesis already given, be cotm ted we will have I8. These considerations are eoneerned ehiefly w'ith the signifcance of M okes and Elias. M ore im portant
for the following seetioas is 31b (II65BC), whidl establishes the 'fransfiguration as signifying b0th the negative and affirm ative theology; and also 3zf,g whieh establish M oses atld Elias as repres-
entative of Providenee and Judgement,the two elem entsofaflirmative theology,
Savefor32-34 (seefinalnote),dealing with the end oftheworld. Lazarus ms illustrative ofit and ofthe need of virtues,the restofthis
Iil' st part, apropos of the seetions mentioned above (3Ih,g,f),is devoted to various aspeets of aë rm ative theology.
j 35 God may be known from creatures. j 36 Everything exeept God has a principle and a com ingto-be.
j 37 Substance, quantity and quality, as being subject to m ore or less, eannot be without beginning.
j, 38 Everything, exeept God,is in place, therefore also in tim e and so tem porally began to be.
j :$9 A quantitative infmite cannot be;and therefore nothing quantltative is without beginning.
j 4o Xverything m oved or what is always qualified l)y sope
substanlial difference cannot be inlinite. ' (j 4I) The dyad is neither principle nor without beginning. Only the m onad is properly principle and w itlzout beginniag.'
j 4z Proof of the universality of God's providence.
Beeause ofthese theologicaldevelopements the conelusion (j4z, II93BII-Cg) refers more naturauy to the rsqson and theory of the title passage than to tlle cloud and r:' JJ w ith w hich the exposition
really beyan and in illustration of which the Transliguration was introduced.
Tite seeond pal4 (jj43-51),in length a little over one tenth of
Analy. ni # /& Sittgl. fN#u'f#,/z'. ç
. >
the whole, is constructed in the sam e m anner as the tirst. M ter
a preliminary exegesis (j43)ofthe Gregerian passage (f
understood in the triad ''),there fojlows an exposition of the philosophicalbasis of the exegesis (j44),namely the divisions of the passible part of the soul: irratiolm l, rational, coneupisd ble, iraseib1e and so on. This passage drew the attention of Cyriae.the scribe of Vat.gr.zozo f.8 va w ho transcribed II96C to II97CI3. I give
the lem ma below (p.4z) as a supplement to M . Richard's article hn6 ghttwilg in Byzantion zo (1950) 191-222. Then com e the Seriptural illustrations of the eonquest of the
dyad (the irasdble and coneupiseible orsimilar pairs),fve from the Old Testament and two from the New (jj45-$Ia). The conclusion ofthe w hole D il calty begins witlzout distinetion of title on Ico4D z. M axim us speaks of the passage tlzrough tllis age to the sum m its of G od,attainable by m an, w hieh are goodness and love. These the saints possessing in their viztue render them solves shining im ages of God's grace. Tllis colw lusion in a rather loose way responds to the frst seetion in widch the harm ony of virtue and contem plation were developed ; eertainly the idea of passage, of transit, is again verbally and really m anifest
(1204D5). FinalAltlfe o. n jj2I,zz;z8,29;32,33,34. In the index of sections placed at the head of this analysis I have already indicated that the tw e sections found in O ehler after
j34 form no part of this Ambiguum . 'rhere are three other cases w here, on intenm l grounds only, the hypothesis of a posterior addition, by M axim us him self,.seem s im possible to exdude. Such an addition,by M axim us him self I m ean,is quite possible as w e have a dear indication that the Iirst A m bigua w ere edited a seeond tim e during M axim us'own life. Oue supposes of course that these ftrst Am bigua with their dedieatory epistle w ere copied out and sent to
JolzlsofCyzicus (this isthe frstedition)before the second Ambigua to Tilom as w ere w ritten. Subsequently the tw o sets of A m biguq
were joined,as is dear from Maximus'own . referenee to the second dië culty of the earlier colleetion as ''the seventh ehapter of the
Diëculties of the g' reat Gregory '' (TP I-33AIo). Such a second editing of the earlier A m bigua gave M axim us an apt occasion for
40
T& Earlier ./1- 5fg1I4
additions to his frst m anuscript, wlzich, though in a general sort of way germ ane to the m ain them e,show signs of being patched on rather than of being of the original weave. The ûrst instance,in sequenee of seetlons not in persuasiveness,
is the consideration on Abraham and M oses (jjzI,2z). At the end of jzo (II$4BII-I, 3) there is a rerniniseence of jz7 (IIz8AIz-BI), which would seem to plm ctuate a first division,the illustrative,on the 'Pransfguratiùn, 'rhe beginning of section :73 then takes up in
a didactie way the theme announeed in zo (II44AIo-B2). 'Phe literary coherenee (of which I think my readers willgrant some to be found ili M axim tls) is doser. But against this is tbat in this passage just eited Abraham and M oses are m entioned,thus pro-
'
viding occasion to give each a separate consideration.
'rhe second instance is jjz8,z9,on the transgression of Adam and on the di:erence betw een the present and the future life. I can discover nothing in tile foregoing considerations which would serve to introduee tlle F all and the subsequent consideration. To be sure,the doctrine of these sections is com plem entary to a11that
Maximus has to say on the diabasis (cf.jz),but from k literary point of view it is here unealled for. And note that with j27,tlle last type in conneetion with the writtertand natural1aw being given,
M axim us comes again explicitly to the Transfguration (zI56B), wltile in j 3o he proposes to complete its exegesis,wizich he had begtm irt j ï7. The two considerations in question @8, z9) seem therefore intruded in this place.
The third instarme is jj32,. 33,34 - on the end of the world, on Lazarus in the bosom Abraham and on virtues. H ere agairzthere is certainly a general sort of germ aneness of these sections to the
argument. The flrlalsection on Mosesand Elias(3Ih)dealtwif.h the end of the Fno ordeying of tllis present world (II69BI,c). Section ' $z may begin the series of eonsiderations on aërmative (natural) ,
theology with a proof of the necessary end of the w orld. Section
35 eontinues this,referring again to the 1in6 tvtferïAl: (II76B5). Certainly then the pair 33,34 appear as intruded;perhapsalso :$z. Yet if these be intrtlsions on an origirtal w hole, their very germ aneness to the general them e perm its one to see how M axim us hirnself w hen his feeling for the coherence of his owm com position had been dulled by the lapse of tim e, eould have inserted these considerations in the second edition. T heir coatent and style are thorouglzly M axim ian.
vsnqiysisoj/;e j(innI6flil7cv//ïrs
4J
Staie //ike 7-rxf For A m b 7 I have collated several m anuscript:; I have not taken the tim e to do this for the other difliculties. Vet it seem s
usefulto give the brief Speculatio fzzf-pz'fgprconslersionis from Vat. gr.1502,f.Ioo rb. The defect of the Gudian m anuscriptissupplied
in the margin,but Oehler eonfessedly om itted the marginalia (see note at eolunm s I:85-86). I take this oeeasion also to fl11in the lacuna at II4oD 5, where
Oehler's eonjeeture is wholly inadequate. I have verifed the reading in both Vat.gr.1502 and M onac.gr. 363. The Latin kere is no longer that of Seotus. To be inserted in Am b Io- after IIIgCzI,taken from Vat.gr.
I5oz,f.Ioorb,Monae.gr.363,f.gov:Oeœ()ttt to9 flpptkov tpvetflm' rog z&v (lliptfnv:- Olil.tt lg ($ àaèg (T xfig (dyfaxov ôt*tziso: èltzyögevog Kok âtrêljgtm kv lv3l Egévov B ctak xogsy hzevog xaxf*t x$v èeq-'
gov (Exod 12.34 *l'è ôelv f;)g ollzqtnqiv x$v xo9 N 'jlz' tv löyov D15vajzLv vqg xpöç vtï atgêqvfk pvàdrrEtv lrcszràox' qgxaêatzv x@ltlvéxlw ovToùg xùv Izàv tzloêql'ùv Tetsyovstxg' aeèç ôè sèv voqxèv xöglzov éDefov-
vag Izvoftxipç èik:doxilo' lva ô/ itv fig xtû yvfécefj?ç lvzeihê:v ' liDn yévfzwxalxatfl rpjv yv4gqv SJE: ô$'llalogyevvhcEêtttxavà Tôv Jpêate sov altAva Tok ë tokg attaEfopev :Supplying the lacuna in A m b Io-II4oD4.5. from Vat.gr.I5oa, Iosrb and M onae. gr.763,94b t lêavdrovç) soç tho9 xtxïxttwt' jgthK(.
.
vag Bv votv âveaétacEv xallx ho: êeof. l7rom the I0t. ll eentury South Italian Vat.gr. zozo, f. 8 va:
lx wîi(holöyov fqöltov th è qlœvfig Md tgov xo: tktœstitov llqyee cstç (, Wt;) ....:t& l' è xa thoç Amb zo-rI96C-II97CI3. Am b zz-xaolD -zzo8A : In JtzffA vlAthanasii
or.zr.18 :,35.II()IC
Tile title raises a question. 'fhe oration ilz praise ofAthanasius, from which the present dië culty is taken,is 42nd in neither of the fam ities of codices whieh Sinko establishes as in the hands of Bishop
John and Maximus. He therefore supposes (p. 28) that originally this title read:from the 4: oratioss of Gregou ,from that in praise of A thanasius.
'Phe ways ofprovidence are explained in the ease of Job. 'fhe wealth he received after all his trials w as sm all in com parison with
42
TI- E'rlrzï:r Am bigna
the eternal reward and was given esped ally lest the little ones be scandalized. A m b Iz-zzo8BC: In Iaudem A tltanasi' i - or. zI.' JI :35.III7C .
Athanasius as the Im rd, is said to have d eaused the tem ple, not w ith a scoarge bttt w ith persuasive w ords. M alicious com m enta-
tors would haveitihettAthanasiusused theapterinstrument. Maxim us sasrs the Lord acts as with a scourge hz pricking cqnsdences through m en's realization of their bad thoughts and deeds; but Athanasitzs,being a weak m an, used speech. A m b zJ-zao8D -zzzzB: Thoologica I - or. z7.k :36.IzA Gregoov's text is:there tzr: som e whose plegrï' à;jrand tongue /ltzpdr
the itch. Maximus gives two explanations (Izo8D-I:zo9C9:Izo9C9IzI2B9). To the frst he adds a cure through reason,against ignoranee.and through salutary labor against pleasure. Sinko (p.a7) sees M axim us here as opposing som e Pauline seholiasts.
A m b z4-zazaB-zzzyD : Theologica I - or. 27.4 :36.1617
M aximus gives diverse explanations of a rhetorical fktlre of Gregoo v. The divisions are IcIaG IzI3A I;I2I3A I-C8;IzI3C8-D Iom A m b zj-zzx6A -zzzzB: Tkeologica 11 - or, 28.6236.3zC T he diflk ulty is to explailz w hat G regory m eans by saying that
sight and the natural1aw teaclzus tiat Gcd is and is the creative and sustainhlg eause of all. 'lNhis M axim us does in a first part
(-Izz6CI5). Bttt some identify sight and natural law; these must be distingulshed, the first pertainl g only to the sense order, the
latter leading far above it (IaI6Dz-IaI7Az). But this naturallaw is corm ected w ith the pereeption of the im m ovable m otion of things.
Thistherefore must be explained (I2I7Az-BIo). In doing thisMaxinms speaks of the triad nature,power and opemtion (:- rgy) and distinguished impulse (tp0()tf)from motion (x(Mnc(g). One may compare Sim plicitls in Catsgorias CA G V III 4zr,29-428,z. This serves as an oceasion for a long digression eom pzising the rest of the dië culty, on how created things m ay be said to operate
orbe operated upon,God alone being self-operating tttt,:w étlynsovl. 'rhus M axim us establishes the parallel triads: generation m otion rest, beginning m iddle end. The eorrespondenee w'ith the other
Xnalysisoj/& Sîngleflfjjjflsx/r/f,. ç
4/
.
triad, nature power operation, is fm plied. Com pare 'IX OK 1.3,4. Itis here tha. t the Aristotelian prineiple of the end is roundly stated, especially I22oA I-5. Com pare Aristotle Phys. 3.6-207 a 14 alzd M et.A I6-Io2Ib29. It is here that von Balthasar found one o'f the tags whieh he set at the head of his essay K osm ische Zfflfrgïr. M axim us now exem plifies' with the soul,an intellective substanee
(rz2oA6-rz2zA4). But the triad is practically now a tetrad. ror after the substanee of the soul there is nzind as power. perceiving
(vöngw)asmotion,and pereeption (vönpta) as operation. Elsewhere in M axim usthis shift is observable;see below ehapter 11 Excursus II. The exam ple allow s M axim us to consider the ultim ate end of iatelleetual m otion, God, and so to refer llis considerations to the refutation of ' tlze Origenian henad wlzicllis a pagan cozlfusion.
Buthow can rest (lt(Igtg)be said ofGod? (lc2IA4-BI). M axim us concludes this im portant digression by denying absolute operation to any creature, allow ing them only that operation
whieh it is given them in their nature to operate (IzzrBI-6). Tilis digression m ust be studied together with Am b 7 and Thoec I.3,4.
'rhe following variaits are gathered exdusively from Vat.gr. zs()z, f.1@2 ra and M onac, gr. 363, f. IV a. Otherwise I ftlllour the sam e procedure as above for Am b 7, p. z3. .
1zI6Az xt' tiv :x' ùv VM A z5 B .5 C6 C8
o' M év : -V M , setl M eo loco habet xal
Ek :-VM ù v :' ço; V M xavah letp.lzévû)v : xaxah lnpp:vtov V M
1)8 vlx piogE ;eo nyahoxs VM DI:z sàv :1:.' diç cdoïiflge' - ywopiwlv xttvtkvo' pvxtttV w v :vhvym fkltkov xatvocv Dtt' tvijç alomicœtzx ywottévqv VM '
xzz7B 8
ôvvavt;v ; ôfrvctve. tM
%
olovô' l jn' va :ottwêf/ol' e VM
(26
xsvovyévcw yevfceog :yeyswjpfvfav yEvéa tog VM
Q7 'y:vécieoç 'eélog ;xKwhsefzv xflog VM C lo' am Elm b : acéevtzt 'V' M C 1o (pvrrtxf;v : t/vgtxf:g V M
D 6 et oë : et o '5v ' rfiç V :El yoîiv ' r%ç M D 1I xvvotlgévew : ysw htévœv VM
I2zoB6 vo/lcœo'lç 're :voflostog tpw kxik fzfni ' ?iç fztttegoaso'qg xtvfmeti k vs VM ( B14 voovyévftw :voovpévtov 6 ê' 1 $' 1$ltytlvsow VPM C9 zz2zA8
ôgxvç : 4 5' t$ V M ' ôévnlm ::' tsvatal '7M
44
lshe fflTlfer zlvnùïgcl
Amb z6-zzzxc-zzzo : Theologica 11 - oz.z8,9 :36.36C .
On the negative epithets predicated of God, tm begotten, im m brtal... M axim us reckons that Gregory is here in polem ic with tlze A rzom aeans, w ho from a privative epithet w ould cond ude to a positive know ledge of G od's essence. B ut definitions are not derived from negations; nor is it possible that there be a predication suited to God alone,apaz't from any relation or operation. A m b x7-Iaz4B -zz;aC: Tlteologica 11 - or. 28.9 :: $6.37A
Maximus observes that the eitation is against heretics lthe Eunomians) and that therefore Gregory builds up the negations that he m ay deprive them of any thought of knowing the essenee
ofGod (Izz4B-D6). He then developes Gregory's application,that is our dlë ettlty with and ignorance of created essences. In a Iirst .
part (Izz4D6-Izz8A8)the predication ofgenerieand speciiie qualities is treated. There follew s a rhetorical passage, asking w hat do w e
know of essences of ereated thl 'mgs (Izz8A8-Icz9AIo). This then iscorroborated by a seriesofdtationsfrom Gregory (Iaz9BI-Iz3zBz). The conclusion (Iz3zBz-C4) is a series of apophatie predieatiens leading from God's hldivisibility to his utdty attd uniqtteness, w lzich is due to God being utterly witlm ut relation; hence it follows that he is ineffable and unknowable l*. Text: The end of the Gregorian text diFers In Oehlerand Vat.
gr. I5()z Maximus' text (Izz5BI0) ofers the possibility of correeting both. zzz4B6
lw cïbpm q xttk tpm t eôgtvov : lvgffy1)awvT(7w yevvotêvo)v xtzk çhêerwogévtkw V : lvltopm ov xttk'fxyvfppEvov xltk TA wopzvov zzzsBxo. .
A m b ze-zz: qzc-zziill: Tkeologica 11 - or. c8.Io :36.37C
Au ironie phrase of Gvegory against Elm oraius needs a little explanation. If the not-being is nowheres the nowhere perlzaps is notat all. Eunom ius'pretention to know God asGod knowshim self is stated azzd ridieuled.
': f)n our ignoranee of created essences see the interesting artiele of
Joseph PtsT'y)R:L'aément ' azktzff/ dgns la /)/lïl/stl/#ï: de S.T' /mppu d'Aquin, Dieu Vivant j t zo (r95r) 35-50. .
ufnaiysis///#c Singl. flfjîcw/fïrs
1j5
A m b z9-Ia33C-xz36D : Tkeologica 11 - or. 28.19 :36.528 M axim us explains the three types ofprophecy to whieh Gregory would be referring. There are visible or audible im ages im pressed
on the mind in a waking state;dreams as Avith Joseph and Daniel ora vision of dirdne thizlgs possible for those who have attairzed the utm ost in detachm ent; and,'thirdly, the im m ediate im pression of
future things upon the saints. 'Phis is Maxim us' eonjectural explanation ;for lae has him self had no experienee in the m atter.
3D 8 read with the corrector of Gud.and M onae.gr..363. Text.at zz.T.
A m b ao-zzjKD -zzgrc: Theologf'ca 11 - or.z8.zo :36.5zC
Gregory speaks of St Paul's rapture to the third heaven and
speaks also of a progress (xtlöo:oç),ofa going up (dvdpcmg),and of an assumption tâvtqqthçl. Maximus then,referring to the Scripture eommentators (?),distinguishes three ways of assigning names:by reason of the essence (man),by reasou of a relation (good man),or by reason of graee or perditiou (f say f/l// yo14 are Godss. In this connection he assertswititgreatdarity thegratuity ofgraee (Iz36DIz3gCz). Opining that Gregory has sueh a division in m ind, M axim us
appliesittoGregory'sthreetermsiu three alternativeforms(I237CzIz4oA4;Iz4oA4-zz;z2zpAzI-B4). There follow two interpretations of tltird keaven (zz4oB4-Iz4oC6-Ia4IA9). This latter explanations involves the three ranks of angels and a certain relative apophatic
knowledge,subsisting from one to the other (I24IA9-B8). H e then returns onee m ore to Gregory's three term s and gives
two further explanations (Iz4IB8-BI5-C8). In these as in the
third explanation (I24oAII)the terms are interpreted of pmetical philosophy, naturaltheory,theologiealm ystagogy. The fm al reference is tp grace.
A m b az-za4zb -zzi6c: Theologica 11 - or.28,20 :. :6.53. A The occasion of this rather longer D ië culty is a phrase ofGreg-
ontwhieh seems to callJohn the Evangelist the forerum ter of the W otd. This being plainly unhistorieal,for explanation one can have recourse only to theory. Bttt first M axim us expresses his tm will-
ingnesstotreatofthesubj, ect,aceeding only to thecommand (Ia4zD-
46
T#: Eerlù'r a' lfnsfgtïtz
Iz44B4). The theoyy tlzen isthe realization thatJohn tlzeEvangelist isforerunnerofChrist,ofthe W ordain a yethighersense (Iz44CI4). In fact the Gospels are a preparation (ctoqgtfpcdç) for the W ord in spixit, as tbe Ivaw was a preparation for the W ord in the flesh
(-Ia45A. ' J). H aving m entioned . trroqetœ cw , M axim us hazards a dictum coneerning it,nam ely that eveo r coneept w hie.h the m ind m ay have difers in nothing from a teaching declarative of what is above it
(Iz45A4-6) But there are 4 Cxospels,4 elements,4 cardinalvirtue-s. 'fhe relations of these with one another are.worked out (-Iz48A3), being situated of eourse in the m aterial or in the intellectual or in tlle spiritual world. There follow s a developem ent relating the r sensesto the4 cardinal virtues,w hieh are in tunl reduced to tw o m ore general vih ues wisdom and m eekness,which latter by som e is called detaehm ent -
(JJ:d*:161) - aud these again to the most general of all,namely to charity (Iz48A6-Ia49BIo). Tlàe soul'sascelztto God just described by way ofthehierarchy ofvirtuesis again reviewed asthe action of the soul and of G od in likening the soul to him self, This then is coltfrm ed by a passage
from Gregory's oration on hisbrother Caesarius (Iz52BI4). After these digressions M axim us returns to the exegesis of the
passagein question,jirstgivinghisresponsetothedilculty (Iz5zCD) and then illustrating it with other exam ples of forenm ners,m en and
things,between the two 'restaments (1252D9 to the emdl. 'rext at 124.5C3 after lm tv the M igne reprint has om itted the foll-
owing words: $ y4,soB' ro lv K' ?ig 8Lavotag xdcpqll(y' r(v. A m b zz-za56D -z257C ) Tltsologica 11 - or. z8.zI :36.538 T he m ultiplieity and difference of things are necessarily correlated. T he senses pereeive this;the m ind perceives it also as a m tlltiplidty and diference ofdivine operations,hleach of which nonetheless God is whole and eom plete - a fact m ost dië cult to urïderstand.
Sinee then the aeceptation) about God are multiple,we learn that God is; in the solution of the problem thus posed, w e learn w hat God is not. M axim us com m ents here on the problem of w hat later w ill be called naturaltheology,first posed in itsacuity in the fouzth century.
Analysis0/the s'fzlg?e Dt' âkosult,ks
4:
Operation (évép.fektx) is here used without a. ny llint of its eontroversial use in Chzistology.
A m b z:-zz57C-zz6zA : Tl-ologica Ill - or.zq-a :37.768 ,cf.A m b z-Io33D-Io36C
Draeseke (BZ :5(1906)141-60) and Pïnault (pp. z28-gz) have treated of this Gregorian text. The dië eulty is Gregory's statem ent about the M onad being m oved to dyad and resting in triad, This is said of the Trinity;but how is there m otion in the Trfnity ? M axim us begins with show ing the essentially m utual relation of m otion and being eaused,the cause being at once the prineiple and the end of m otion aud ofthe things m oved,thougltin diverse wxys. The divine then, as uncaused, is utterly unm oved and im m ovable
(Iz57C-Ic6oAIo). But how does Gregory speak of tlte M onad being nm ved ? Now for exam ple the principle of an art is said to be m oved when it is reduced to application, when, m ore aecurately speaking, tîat prindple m oves the artefact. 'fhus the divilte is unm oved,but as c'atzse receives the predieations,without how ever any passion,ofits effects
(Iz6oAIo-BIz). Ttzconfnnation ofthis DN 4.:4 (zzzC)is freely cited,irzwhich passage God is said to be eros and agape atld also object oferos antl agape;asthefirstheisrnoved,asthesecond ilem oves. H eLsmoved inasrzm ch ashe izrtplants an irrtzrlanezztrelation oflove in those beings
eapable of it (Iz6oBIz-CIc). Of such a sort is Gregory's m eaning. 'fhe being m oved of the Godhead is in the enquirer's rttind. rirst the uuity is preceived, avoiding any shadow of division;theu,lest tlle Godhead be thought to be sterile or to have aeddental qualities, the good is perceived
wit.h tlle word and wisdt)trz or salzctifW ng power - consubstantial and enhypostatic elem ents. For any sueh understanding of did ne
things illuminatiou is neeessary (Iz6oCz2-Ia6IAI).
'
The reference to the fectm dity of the Godhead seem s a eertain
reminiscenee ofDN 4.10 (7o8B4 and Amb z3-Iz6oD. 3,4). Têor Denis the difusion of the good is realized in ereatures;for M axim us it is
llere realized ilztlae pemons of tlle ' lYnity,tllougllbelow tAznb 35:2881. ),seemy comment)hewillspeak ofitaslikewise being realized .
ilz ereatures. 8 0th w ays of speaking are found in Gregory. G regorj''s iniluence in this respect is found also in PN -8PZA B.
48
F& Earlier Am bigua
M axi -m us then adds alzother explanation of m otion in the Gcd lzead, observitlg that the eeonom y of Seripture presents first the
Father,then the Son,then the H ely Ghost (Iz6zAI-I()). A m b z4-za6zB-zz64B : Theologica 11I
or. 29.6 .,36.818
This dië culty asserts the im m ediacy of the thitzg willed, the thing begotten ete.to the willer,the begetter,exduding thus a thirtl thing - the willing,the generation - whic.h wotlld destroy the tm ity of Father and Son. The passage is antiarian. M axim us exem plifies and expounds Gregory from the powers
of the soul. W illing, generation and the like have no objective existenee apal't from the willer, the begetter (-Iz6IDI). W illing,generation ... exist only as a relation betw een the w iller, the begetter and the tlting vvilted,the begotten. 'Phese latter follow
on the willing,the generation,only through the application @w Etgqlopd)of the willer. H ence the lzather and the Son can in no way be separated by a lapse oftim e,nor the Son be son ofthe will-
ing and not of the Father (Iz6ID3-zz64Ar5). But Gregory had added that these things are yet m ore exalted
in God;there perhaps generation is tlle willing to beget. M aximus strongly tm derlines the perhqps and then as rm s that in God there
is only one willl'ng asthereisbutone essenceand nature (-Iz64BIg). Or is it,I question,tlm t Gregory is here speaving of generatioh ad ex/rg,whereas M axim usis thinking only offhat ad ï' afrl?
A m b z5-xz64C-Iz65B: Tlw llogica 11L - or. 29.15 :: $6.938 The dië eulty is a syllogism of the A rians or Eunom ians. To nzake the m atter d ear M axim us reorders G regory's rem arks aud reduces the A rian argum ent m ore patently to absurdity, on the Father being greater than the Son.
Text: at zc64D I, eorrect the M igne reptint, read: faoxeùlzévov for âaoxelglvov. A m b a6.za65C-x268B: Tkeologica III - or. 29.:6 ;36.96A Gregory touehes on t-he Arian dilem m a: is tlze nam e Fatkey taken from the substance or from the operation ? If the frst, tlze divine sabstance cannot be called Son;if the second, then the son
Analysisp/theSfzg/e Dip ultief
49
willobviously be an artefact of the divine operation, an lvéthynlztx ' f' he solution is to deny the dilem m a,F aiker beilzg a nam e of relation
(-Iz6, 5I)4).
But even adm itting the nam e F ather to be of operation, the
consubstantiality of the Son follows nonetheless (-T265DIo). The solution then ties in distingttishing operation as im m anent and thus
the resultofoperation asan objective,substantialenergy (-Ic68AI3) and as transient atl trxfz't a (I268AI3-B2):e. But in faet operation frl the forluer sense carlrlot be applied accurately to G cd , ftlr the
diville generation is properly ineffable (Iz68Bz-II). A m b a7-xa68C-z27zA : Titeologica I' P- - or. 30.8 :36.113.4.
Gregoo- treats of an objection drawn from St John (20.17): M y God and ypzfr God. M axim as repeats three tim es his exposition of G regory's explanation. F ather is said properly only of the rela-
tion of Father and W ord in the Godhead,God is said jmproperly; but Fatker issaid im properly w ith regard eitherto Chzist's hum anity or to us,while God is said properly. But a11m ay be said of Christ
when we consider tlze union (-I268DI3,-Iz6pB5,-Iz69BI2).
This M axim us conflrm s by citing the im m ediately 'subsequellt
passage in Gregory 2: and expounds it (Iz69C2-D5), broadening Gregory's reference to the Arians so as to include thel fonophysites. H ere occurs the lirst reference to the w ise o1d m an and a citation
from him (Ia69D6-Iz7aA3,above p.8)in corroboration ofM aximus' ow n exposition .
Text: at rz69A Io Aligne m isprints lztav for gz g. Am b z& za7zBC: Tkeologica IP' - or.Jo.9 :36.113C Again a Christological dië culty,solved by recourse to the o1d m an, w hose words are again cited verbatim . Life the inheritance ofthe Gentiles,power over allflesh - these are attributed to Christ but also to God; for such things belong to God by nature not by grace. The o1d m an's words distinguisll what is attributed to God and to m an by reason of their nature. 1: See below p.z:ï. 21 GREGORY N AZIANZISN PG :6.II5B 2-6; A m b z7-Iz69B I3-Cz - tlte M ip le reprint places the qtm tation m arks falsely. 4
50
The é' flWfer A m bigua
Am b av-xz7zD -za7gA : Theologica IP- - or. 30.11 :36.1160 ' rltis brief dië culty, not Cllristologieal,solves a possible am biguity not of thought but oflanguage,again referring to the o1d m an. A m b 5o-zz73-A C: Thoologica IF - or.,'Jo.al ::$6.133A .
.
Gregory had said: 'fYou have tlze predieates of the Son; go through them - the exalted ones divinely, the eorporeal ones with com passion;rather a11of them divinely that you m ay becom e God going up from below beeause of him w ho for our sake eam e dow n from above '' sfaxim us transposes this passage into the technical categories with whieh he w as so fam iliar: m ystical contem plation, practieal philosophy; or, better, 170th together w ith grace, which effects a
gnomic alienation (d gnomic emigration in Am b 7-Io76Bz# througlt the pedect cireum cision of tlze m otions of the llesh. This is furtller explained by the paralle.l of flesh and rnind with m atter and form , from which latter the world Ls m ade. Thus through the habit of virtae and knowledge one becom es m atterless and form less because of him ,who,while by natttre being m atterless and form less,for our sake truly cam e in m atter and form . ..R ather allof them divinely ''is given an alternate explanation
(I273CIr)namely through detaehment (tladêELa)whieh springsfrom ovpxdlhka for God and neighbor rendering a m an ready to suqer and give his soul for others.
Am b :z-Iz7yD -zaBIB: In Arafi fcifl - oz. 38.2 :36.3138 .
'TYhe laws of nature are loosed;the upper world m ust be filled Clzrist bids; 1et us not resist ''. These words of Gregory occasion .
V re four distinet responses. 'rhe frst alone considers the passage
in its entirety; the second (zz76Dff) is coneer' ned wit, h the filling ofthe upperworld,asalso isthe fourt. h (Ia8oC);the third (I28oA) is concerned rather wit.h the loosing 'of the laws of nature. 1. The laws (?f nature are loosed - Christ was born of the Virgin,conceiving wititout seed and bearing without loss ofhervirginity
(Iz73D-Iz76Bz). But this is a restoral through the obedience of the seeond A dam of that spiritual m anner of birth w hich w as lost
through the disebediexme of the first Adam and is therefore justly
d- lysvfsp/f* Sïng/, : Difbcultiss
51
a611ing oftheupperworld (I:z76B. 3-CI). Nor1etusresistthis. The first Adam flllQ the lower world through his disobedience,the new Adam far more justly fills the upper world with those who in his likeness are born to incorruption through obedience. So the upper world is filed and a lim it placed on the carnal law of generation. In this sed ion M axim us d early presupposes Gregory of N yssa's doctrine of a double creation: the passions as disordered aud the sex faculties, at least their use, being added to tlze Iiz' st creation in
conseqaeneeofsin. Thisdoctrinerceursin Amb 41 (I3o9AB,I3I3CD) and in Amb 4.2 (I3I7-cI,z34IC); in Thal I (z69AB) Maximus ascribes it to G regory of N yssa and enlarges upon it, at least on the
eVect of the primeval disobedience, in Thal 61 (62811)n. z.Thiseonsideration (Iz76D-Iz8oM )takesthethreeLuean parables - the lost sheep the lost draehm a, the prodigal son - and applies them to the fdling up of the num ber of those lacking ilz heaven. 'rhe interpretation of the num bers - Ioo,Io and z - he leaves to another occasion.
3.Here (Iz8oA-C5)M aximus is wholly coneerned wit.h the laws ofnature. He cites a current (th6y stzy)deânition of ltzzfzoj ' afz/z lfre that is perfect Iiz ty in the logos eorresponding to it. But G od,who apm inted each natare its logos and nom os,operates above nature, yet preserving the proper ad ivity and passivity of the aature. Thus perfect God,he beeam e perfect M an.
4.Maximus here (Ia8oC8-Tc8IB5) summarizes in a loose way what he lzas said about the filling of the upper world,introdudng however som e new ideas,as Christ the firstfruits of our race.
Am b :z-zz8zB-z2% B: I. n N atalicia - or.38.2 36.3138 TrFpr a ckild is èpzw to ' rls and a son is given to zls and J& govsrn-
mentj' . &upon kis s/mlllA r (Is.q.$. Forwith the cross he was lifted up.'' It is this gloss of Gregory ttpon the Scripturetextw hich M axim us sets out to explain. The cross m ay be looked upon from severalpoints ofview - from that of form j from that of cdm position, from that ofthe chaxaracteristic's ofthe parts, from that ofoperation
(energy)and so on. Eaeh ofthese isthen explained (form Iz8ICIz, composition CI5,the parts D Io,energy Ia84A6). 'rhiscom 'position 19 On this doctrine see DANIkI/OU. Platonézmtt ,f théologi6 Ny. rfëvdr, P' 56.
52
T& Earlier x'le glz
isofsubstance,providenee and judgement,which togetherwith their corresponding m anifestations - w isdom know ledge and virtue are creative and preservative of things; it efaees evil and binds a11 to tlzeir proper prindple and cause. W ith this m ust be eom pared a sim ilar but fuller passage on the five eontem plations in A m b Io-rI3. ' JA Iï. B at as m erl i11 ptzblic oë ee have som e special insigrtia by w hich they are know n, so our Lord carried the cross as the insignia of his
governm ent (Iz84AIo-BI5). But there is a further sym bolism . 'fhe shoulders m ean praxis
the cross detachment tthtfêetal (Ic84CD). The lifting ttp on tlze eross is tre establislament of a Christlike state, by which one passesthrough detaehed praetiee to a gnostie contem ptation of na-
ture and so to a theological initiation (mystagogy). This threefold division is confirm ed by a citation from Denis (EH z.4-4()()B9-CIo), in which howevera phrase hasdropped out land IAz' t/vg# tk0s6 fpth6 ptrry Fvsf -4ooC8). A m b 3;.zz85C-zz88A.: In N atalicia - or. 38.2 :36.31,38 dAl# the word éldwtzA?ldrthick. The doetorsaid this,com m entsM ax-
.
imus,either 1) because the W ord simple alld ineorporeal noarishm ent of the angels gives us his teaeidng in w ords alld exam ples
(-I:85DI);or z)because he,the invisible and impalpable,absconds himself izl the visible and palpable (-Ic85DIo);or 3) that,because of our thick m inds.lze uses lettezs and w ords to instnzct us,so that
hemay draw usto union ittproportion to hiscondescension (-Iz88A7). 'rlzis last eom znent does not,in substanee, differ from the filst. The inverse proportion however the deseent of the W ord and the elevation of m aa is one M axim us uses elsew here :: A m b 34-zz88A -C: In N atalicia - or. 38.7 :36.3178C W ith the body of this oration Gregory begins to treat of the knowledge w e m ay have of God. The dië eulty being taken from
these remarys,Maximus has,naturally enoagh,oecasion to explain what negation,w hat aë rm ation signif'y ilt regard to God and how by their e% trast,they m utually supplem ent one another. 13 See above note zz.
A' ndysîs ol/& SingleDimculties
53
A m b ;$-Iz88D -xz8f)B : In ivkftzlïcïq - or.:$8.9 :36.gzoC .
The good has need of difusing itself. In the previous ehapter Gregory had zem arked that his diseourse concerned the Econom y, not the D ivinity. 12or by the Divinity w e m ean Father,Son and
Holy Ghost,not restricting toa sterile unity asthe Jews,noraflirming a further diffusion whieh 'wotlld induee the polytheism of the G reeks. G regory the.n passes on to the diffusion of the good in creation;it isthe frst phrase ofthis subsequent passage that now form s
the object of Maximus' comments. It is clear therefore wlzy he does not here m ake the diffttsion of the good intratrinitarian as be had in A m b z:$.
'Phisdiffusion isa creation thatproeeeds from the will(Ia89AI). The response is reported from the o1d m an' it concludes with an uncertain citation from Denis, whiclz appeals to be a thorough reordering of D N z.II-649. A m b 56-zz8vB-D : I4 i' Matalici' a - or. 38.13 :36.325C .
Gregory rem arks that the seeond fellowship of the W ord with m an is m ue.h m ore astounding thazz the frst. H ow ever great the im age granted m an in creation,it laeked the hypostatie union which was'granted hunlan nature in the Incanzation. 'lY e nature rem ains, of course,utterly unchanged in its being,but receives a divine m axm er of being,w hich it llad not before.
Am b r -zz% D -za97B:In N atalicia - or.. 38.17 :. 56.:$2917 'fNow,I pray,take the eonception;and exult,if not as Jolm from the wom b,at least as D avid at the setting down of the ark ''.
Tn response to this dië culty M axim us flz' st gives a m eùniug to John and David. John is im age ofpenanee,praetiealand gnostic knowledge; D avid of confession, praxis 'and contem plation. A nd eaeh
is a symbol of fixity (tlwo ((4 in their respective eharaeteristics (-Iz9zD7). (In Am b 6 M axim us had introduced the exultatiottof John and David,but only as illustration and enlarging only on the
siguiiicance of the womb -Io68A7-BIo). In second place M axim us cites another passage of Gregory
(or.44.1 :36.6o8BI-Io)inustrative oftlle same basie thought. This passage then gives M axim us the opportunity to explain tlze decwad
54
Th6 E Jclïrr Am big' wa
of contem plations and their successive reduetions. This he introduces as a Scripture eontem platioa. The basic five are:tim e,plaqe, hpm ankind, person,'dignity or profession. To these sueceed practical, natttral, theological. contem plation. Then eom e the present
and future or type and trutlz (arehetype). These then are a11 redueed to the one suprem e Logos from wllom they were allderived
(-Iz93C3). There follows a detailed explanation of the first 5 (-Iz96A5) and of the 3 (zz96BIz) and ofthe z (Tz96Dz). Finally M ad m us repeats briefly the foregöing considerations, with a note
to the esect that providence and judgement correspond to natural and praetiealphilosophy,and applies them once m ore to John and David (-za9gB). 5:. 8 A m b 38-z2p7C-z3ozA ; In .YtZJaIIJ, - or.:$8.r8 :36.3. .
,
-
Gregory had said:fTIfChrist tlee into Egypt,be a fellow refugee with him ; and i. f he tarrx, call him ''. Tlds is but an occasion for M axim us to deyelope allegorical xinterpretations. H e here prefers
tg take Xgypt as vexation (xdxrpelg). Bat he also touclzes on the going up,as from the know ledge of the Incarnate W ord to the glory of the Only-begotten. H e touches also on the resurrection and on the devil's original deeeit of m an through pleasure.
, 3:.6 :J6.J4zA A m b Jp-zrorno ln sancta Z?4/pa'z;, - or. . ,
Gregoryhad wished thattheidol-worshïppersw'orship idols. Som e readers thought Gregory w as wrong in this. M axim us replies,eiting the o1d m an. The pagan eult having been so often refuted,Gregory softens his tone in its regard,that its adherenf.s m ay the m ore easily
be brought to see reason, thefe being no further danger that one be m isled by such a rem ark.
A m b zp-z3ozli-z3ozlc : fn m scffz Lwm îna - or.39.13 :, 36.344% .
rrom purifcation to illum ination, to fulfllnlent of desire, w hich is the knowing of God in three persons. So Gregorya whom M ax-
im us explains, citing two other passages of Gregory to elucidate th6 gv fz/<s/s,fke gyeatest above f/?z gveat. 'Phe dië ettlty thus concenzs
Analysîs0/th6.%lj@ Dimculties
55
Am 6 4I-I3o4D -x:z6A : In sflpcfl fe' lz. AnïAlfI - ot'. 39.13 :36.348D
Innovantur lflflfye .Deus homo jtzcllfs osi. These famous words of Gregory have found their way into the Latin liturgy as antiphon forthe B enedîcttts on the feast ofthe Circum eision. 'rhey have been
theobject ofa study by Iv.Bro!zin EpitsmeridesZïfsrgïcflzr58 (1941.) I4-az. Of them Maximus gives two explanations (-I3I. 3B, I. 3I:$D) with a linalrecommalzdation (I3I6A) to ;nd stilla better one and send it on to him .
The frst explanation is lziglk!y elaborate arld falls into three
parts. 'Phe first (-I3o8Cz)is a general explanation of the five distinctions (these same iive are founcl more briefly in Thal 48-436A8 Thesecond istheirapplication to t>eiucarnatedispensationt-l3lzlk ). The third is considerations from logic on the unity of thimgs in the
nexthigherunivezsal confirm ed by a citation from Denis (-I3I3A9), to whieh isjoined a summary (-I3I3B). The whole first explanation js an eh boration of the following
live distinctions:nam ely,z)between God and ereation,2) between theintelligible and thesensible,3)between heaven and earth,4)between paradise and the inhabited world,5)betwee.n male and fem ale izt man, Man, fundamentally, is apt for joinittg the extremtws of these distinctions together and eventually to bring them to uniou in God. Tlle Iifth distinction is itself the resttlt of sin. The firs;t parttherefore is an explanation of these divisions from I to 5 and of how they m ightprogressively have been overcom e,from 5 to z. This w ould have been tlze ideal; but m an's lirst m ovem ent w as not to God,so that his natural' ,inborn pow er to efec't the union of distilzguished thillgs was perverted rather to their division. Fbr tlzis rea-
son:N aturaeïzlzlpz ptzzlf' l:reffldlfsltomo yt/cffu est,taking upon him se.lf to save that which was lost. M axim us tllen goes through once m ore the five distinctions,from 5 to 1,showing how Christ realized their union. The explaaation being thus fnished, he adds for a tlûrd part a supplem ent on the unity of things itz the tm iversals a unity valid for all that com es after God.
The second explanation (I3I3CD ) of the hm ovation Ls found not only in the fact of G od being bor.n in tim e, lm t that he w as eonceived without seed and born without loss of virginity for his m other.
The question of prim itive m an's asexual condition has already beea touehed on in Am t,3z.
56
Tkef /rr/iw' r A m bigua
Am b 42.z73,76.*.-z,34:,*. : In Sf?Alc//4??, Baptisma - or.4o.z 2g6.g6/C Gregory-m ade a difficulty in tllis oration by speaking of three bid hs, that of the flesh, of baptism , of the resurrection and then
later by speaking of a fourth tthe first,the life-givhlg insulation of Cxen.2.7 -I3I6C6) The response is that he who is close to Gregory's thought will know what he m eans. 12or M axim us tliis fourth is not superfluous but com plem entary to the birth from the flesh and ipterpretative
of tlze divine logoiand tropoi.(I. 3I6CI4). In explanation M axim us introduees a distinction between yJvegkg and yévvngkg, the latter being brought ill with the Iirsttrans-
gression of Adam . Christ the new Adam hl the irst (yévegw) by eondescension assum ed sinlessneo , but not incorruptibitity; in the
seeond he assum ed capacity to sulïer,but not sinfulness (-I3I7AII). W hat is laeking in the lirst, Christ repares by the second ;and
whatin theseeond by the frst (u3I7B3). Sinlessness is the prindple ofincorruptibility,sinfulness of passion and corruption So by his passion Christ renewed incorruptibility
and by his sinlessnas sanctilled the passionate element tàjtadêeml of birtlz (-I3I7C6). N ow lookhlg ata11these together one perceivesthat the distinction between them is m entalonly. In faet genn is and gannesîs are tlte sam e,though genesis logieally precedes gennesis,to which latter
the vital insufllation properly bdongs (-I3I7CI5). Sueh in substance is the frst pazt of the solution. But M axim us has already spoken of the logos of nature and of
the tropos(z3IyCI,5);henow proceedsto enlargeon thepreservation ofthislognsin the Incarrlation and on therenewalofthetrûpos. 'rhe tbem e is the sam e as in the Iirst part and is one already m et w ith
in Amb 31 (-I3zIBI2). N ow here should follow the second pal4 of the solution;but an alternative solution of this fiz' st part m ust first be suggested. Perhaps,says M axim us,this distinguishing into two of tdrth from the flesh was based on the diference of body and sottl in the hum an
composite (I3zIC).
This suggestion ocemsions a first brief digression on the relation
ofbody and souland on the time of their being joined (-I32IDI3c4B),a topi e noted by Maximus hirnself tJs I was saying I. 3zID) .
as haviag already been treated. 'fihe discussion tlzen of the distinct
Analysis t # fk SingleDfltplllffdr s
/7
thoagh simuitaneous origin of body and soul is re-sumed (I3z4CI3z5B4),another passage of Gregory being adduced. This first section is then dosed by setting the threefo1d birth
in parallelwith m an's being brought to being (the twofold genesis
ofman as to body and soul),to well-being (baptism)and to eternal being (resurrection) (-I3z5CI).. But orte nlust interpret Gregory's words accurately. For there are those wilo w ould see in them not a m ental distinctiou only but a tem poral, one,pladng the infusion of our Lord's soul after his
ctmceptitm (z.3; z5CIz).
W ith this M axim us inserts two further, long digressions: that
souls do not preexist bodies (I3z5D-I336B)and that bodies do not preexist their souls (I3. ' $6C-1:345C). These willbe separately analysed. Closiug iinally these digressions, M axim us put.s the seeond pal't
ofthedië culty!why did Gregory join theInearnation with the Baptism ? (-z345D:$). M an,M axim us is repeating his,teaehers,w as m ade in tlle im age
(Elx4v)ofCod,butwastoattain thelikenesst(TlztlltI)trkglonly onbeing born with free-willof the Spirit through the observanee of the com -
mandments (-I345DII).
Tliis w as indeed necessitated by m an's freew ill. Y et inasm ueh as m an, chosing the inferior, was condenm ed to carnal gerleration
(-I348A14),Chzist tmderwent lirst the birth (the Inearnation) and then the baptism , as that by whieh m an is born williztgly in the
Spirit (-I349A4). î-he 7-AF:: iligressions
To the discrinzirtatirzg reader tlle influence of Gregory-of N yssa is espeeially evident in these digressions on the hum an com posite. On the relations between G regory and M axim us see below chap.V note 41 and the references there given.
Digression I (I3azD-I324B):Maximus tells us that he has a1ready touched on this question:the tim e ofthe entrance of the soul into the bedy. H e ean only refer to Am b 7-IIooC6-IIoIA 6.where the sam e question is treated with the sam e argum ents, but m ore difftlsely,as there is in addition a paragraph ortthe neczssary A' /Q &
îltns ofsoulto body (IIoIA6-C9). Maximus'position is clear:man forms a complets s4ccies (el:og Jlov), neither of wllose paz'ts can
58
7-h: iflrlïer z1A>5f?%œ
have a separate exiAtenc. e, tlle soulafter dtxath retaining a nK essary relation to its own body.
Digression z (I3z5D-I336B),against the preexistenee of souls. Referring to his lirst digression M axim us declares that he follows the royal m iddle road avoiding the errors of preexistence and of postexistence by aflirm izlg tlle eoexistenee ofthe parts ofthe hum an
composite from the moment of conception (I3z,D). From this he goes to on deseribe thepresuppositionsoftlzeftrst error, nam ely,that bodies were fotm d for souls in ptm ishm ent of evil eom m itted, so that the w hole visible w-orld , w hich silentiy m anifests G od, has evil as its eause; which world G od waG forced to m ake, having at fi1'st
no intention so to do (z. ' Ja8B9). But in fact there is n'othing adventitious in God; a11 hms been
made aeeording to his foreknowledge (-I3z8D).
'fhe Iogoi ' ofallt11l'ngs,pabt,presezlt and future, preexist im m u tably in G od. They are brought into being, they develope for good or for evil, and, according to the proper disposition of eaeh, they are everlastingly awarded partidpation in or privation of God,who -
is thus theit joy or ptmishment (-x3z9B7). 'Phe doetzlne of tize apoctdastasis,though llot nam ed,is thus exeluded 1ê. The consequences ofthis preexistence ofthe logoiare developed in a sorites,w hieh, a little too broad in its scope, cond udes to the
dilemma:either the finalputting-off (tlaoyéugkg) of human bodies is im possible or ' G od was foreed to create against his wt'll tblngs
whose logoihe did not have from the beginning (-r3z9D6)>. M axim us then developes the eonsequenees of this latter hori't It m eans that created things are w ithout logos and wisdom , the wlzich is nothing else but evil, w hose eharaeterislic is non-existence B ttt in any ease the idea of force being applied to God resultsizlpositing .
.
two pzindples afte' r tile m anner of the M anicheest-l33zlk ). M axim usnow attaeksthisputting-offfrom anotherangle, nam ely from that of the Inearnation. For the Im rd, assum ing our body and taking it back with him to heaven, is the leader and author of our salvation, body ar td soul (-I333A9). But he who thus leads tts to the sum m it of developem ent and perfection eannot him self be such a leader if he neecls hirnself the fnal perfeetion of putting14 Cf. Am b 65-z39217 and see below chap. V I.
n This puttiylg-og is a distinetly Origenistic trait see below cllap 1, .
note '1.
,
Analysisp//& Singlefslcfglfït,s
59
os the body,attizatvery m omerltwhen he is to bring usto perfection (-rg, 33BIz). For the Incarnate Lord,Seripture teaclles,is not only the leader
atld author ofour salvation (H ebr.2.10)but has gone before us by hij exam ple. so that,if there is to be a putting-off,he sim uld have
efeeted if first in himself (-I333DIo).
.
Or again, if w e allow this idea of the ptztting-off, how is the word of Gregory true:that which is united to God is saved,as the
body was united (-Ir 6BI). liinally, why this dogma oj fk ecclesiastical Iaith was not expressed by the rathers in the ereed, M axim us leaves to .others to
explain (I3. 36B). Digression :$ (I336C-I345C),against the preexistenee of bodies. Theproposition thatthe soulcom esto a body already existent (postexistence ofsouls)is m ore easily stated thau proved. I/or the body thus bonl w ould be dead, before the advent of the soul,as laeldng
a principle of life and.of cohesion (-I33gB3). A medical example is here used (1336D2-1337.&6/. But if the em bryo be possessed of som e sort of soul,though not a hum an one,the father is not father
ofa son but ofa horse or ofsome plant (-I337DIz). A graver eonsequence of suelz a position is that G od., who brings
a thing into beiag eomplete (vélatov) aeeording ttl the logos preexistent in him self,would be aectlsed of lack of wisdom and power
(-I34OAIo). The inverse of this charge we have m et with above (I33cAI) in refutation of the preexistezlee of souls. 'rhe proponent.s of postexistenee m ay take fina! refuge in the thought that it.is not fitting for the soulto com e into existence sim ultaneously w ith the staiaed pleasttre of coneeption. Such a view
rexeets on the Creator (ifmarriageis evil,which would here be supposed, then the natural 1aw of generation, and so the law m aker,
is likewise evil)and is the equivalent of Manes'doetrine (-I34oC5). F urther,if it is not fitting for the rational soul to be introdueed at conception,it willnot be so untilthe tim e of the purifcation,forty
da> after birth (-I. 34oD4). Nor can the M osaie 1aw (Ex zI.zc) be an excuse for plaeing the advent ofthe soul 4o days after coneeption ; for M oses does not there indieate the entrance of tlze rational
soul,but the complete formation ofthe embryo (-t34IAI). But far m ore forceful an argum ent - if the soul com es only after 4o days,then the W ord ofGod could nothave assum ed ourflesh through
6o
Th6 Fcff. Am bigua
the interm ediary of a rationals' oul, or, better,united our eom plete
nature hypostatically to him self (-I. 54IB6). Therefore M axim us defends the m iddle doetrine of eoexistenee. opposed equally to either error and confirm ed by the m ystery of the Incarnation, w ltieh w as a renew al not of the togos of our nature
but of its tropos (-I34IC;), Renôwatis then exptained (-1.340 5) and illustrated from mtracles ofthe O1d Testament,whieh a1leoncern the motls (# optwafion not the existrnt :ssfwc: (wfsaoç vfiç êvégyettq - kdyoç siig lhxfitlett)ç I344DIo).Greater than a11sueh renewals is tllat oftheVirgin biz' tlz (-1345A5).' -
A nd Enally the cardinal principle is again asserted that any nature whatsoever com es into being as a com plete essential wllich
knows no alteration or cessation of being (-I345C3). Then the series of digressions is closed (-I345C3-7). Text: Digressions I and z (I3zID-I. 336B) were first published by G alland from a 13th century Venice m anuscript,the M areian.136
(Bibliothrca Izufgr' lf- Patyum ed. Venet. 1781) t. X IV appendix
PP'*53-58). M igne's reprint of Oehler's text has .om itted a dozell words at I.> IDI;they
are:l:e xqtdtrrtlxfû ôtaltévEt)xrzl&llov 3goke)gg(âpasog,xal'8v ylvsval ts xatN!:s(xtd 4llzE:iajd), oç... lvote @m th6 flïgressfoss
Besidesthe passages just analyzed and that ofAmb 7 (IIooC6IIoIA6)M aximus treats oftbe sotll,that it is incorporeal and retains itsproperoperationsafterseparation from the body in ep 6 and 7, .he treats of the com posite, incidentally, in ep. Iz-488D and in ep I3-5I6Df,525D . M axim us'doetrine is clearly not in the Phtonic stream represented by N em esius and Leontius of Byzantium for w hom the soul is a com plete substance w ithout azly necessary relation to the body. In this he is but followhlg Gregory of Nyssa,
whose influenee in these questions I have above (p.57)noted. But an indication of view s sim ilar to his own is to be found nearer than
Gregory. 1 mean Leontius of Jenzsalem . W hat the precise contours of his doetzine raight be is dië cult to say withottt a eareftll
study (an arduous one at that) of his two polem ical works. Yet it is rem arkable that m any ofthe conditionsofthe hum an com posite
1Azfyw:s()//A: Singlr D'rj /ks/ffks
.
-
61
are fotm d stated in his Adversus Aresforffzlt?s I tllough in the words
of tlze adversary (see especially the beginnings of ehapters 1,z,6,
7,9,Iz,1t $,I5,I6,I7,191,and in the Adversussfonopkysitas diflkulty 48 there is fotm d tlle phrase complete natuyai s/rcls. This posftion is clearly akiu to tlzat of Afaxirrztts azld Gregory, thotlgh m ore crass and far less forcibly expressed. It w ill be observed that however m ore or less stringent m ay be the argum ents M axim us advances for his position,the ultim ate basis of his convietion is the
mystery ofthe Incanlation (an example ofthe hzQuence ofrevelation oll philosophy). 'fhe pl. dting-oj of the body Maximus rejects as contral'y to dogm a ; the eternity of punishm ent he asserts w ithout reference to the oflicialteaching ofthe Church;hispositiotlilzregard to the apovatastasis will be seen in detail in the fnal chapter.
A m b 43-134:1$17) I1% stzzlc/lïv; Baptismq
or.4ozlz :36.3731$
Gregory had spoken of tlm se who, with a fever, await the criticaipoint, that,with som e assurance of a prolonged life,they m ay stili further defer tlzeir 'baptism . M axim us explains w hat m edical opinion understands by the crffïctll sweaf.
Am b 44-zJ4pD -r3JaA: ln sanctum Baptisma - or.40.. 3.3:.36.4058 Gregory had said that Christ does not like advantage to be taken
ofhimself in repeatedly forgiving sins. The objeetion is:readiness ever to forgive sins is the ver)r m ark of loving-kiadness. M axim us repliesthat,on the eontrary,a certain unwillingness to forgive again serves as a salutary clzeck on sinnirtg and helps fx one in the doing of good. Am b 4;-z3j.aB-z3;6& In . gtzptl/f/zzl Pascha - or. 45.8 :.36.6320 This dië eulty opens the longest series of com m ents ou passages
taken from any one oration ofGregory (Amb 45-60). 17or the most part they are brief allegorieal interpretations of Scriptural personages connected with the Passion - so the 8 item s taken from the
:4th ehapter (Am b 52-59). The present difllculty has,by way of introduction,an unusually
elaborate apology forM aximus'inadequaey (I35zB-D). He intends however to do prom ptly the little that lae can for the good of his correspondents.
62
TM E Jrfiez Ambigtm
In the passage proposed Gregory had chdraeterized the Iirst m an asnaked in his sim plid ty and in his tm artilieiallife,withoutany
need of dothing. Maximus'frst answer (I35cDIo-I353B) supposes Adam before the fallto have had a bodily tem peram ent diverse from that obtaining after the fall,nam ely,one itlw hich the qualities w ere not eontrary and eornlptive one of the other. In sueh a clm dition he w as im m ortalby graee and needed no d othing eitherfor sham e's
sake (for he possessed detachment,fladthkfz)or forwarmth artd protedion (for he was not subjeet to the extremes of heat and eold). In the setond answer (1.3530-1356.43) Maximus suggests that Gregory proeeeds from the present condition of m an, wldcllis charaeterized by three m otions:thatdeterm iaed by pleasure,tllat determ ined by need,and that determ ined by the leam ing of natural contem plation. N ow tlze frst m an w ould have been above all of these, being detached.by graee and so in im m ediate corttact with God and w ithout need of those things w hich now m ove him . The m aking of a.list of m otives is som ething eom m on enough in M axim us, and searcely ever are they identical See ep 9-4450 and Char 2.3z,33. The third respouse brings in theory and ktlowledgeg astuteness in the exercise of virtue. ' fhe m an w ho would return to the frst .
state of Adam must fmd :imself above allof tllese (I356AB). M axim us adds in eonclusion that there is a still m ore exalted way ofconsidering the dië culty,which sow he willpass over for the reasoa given in the preface. ' '
A m b 46-:556C-:5571): flt sttv f' lt- Paschq - or.45.1:$ ::$6 641% .
Gregory is taking tlle various specifcations of the paschallam b and applying them to our Lord, in the present case it is y6arl. ing.
And Christ Ls yearling as sun of justice. Yoz time is divided into five divisions: day, w eek, m onth. season,year,whieh aredeterm ined by the eireuit of the stm . Sueh is one of tlle m any w ays of under-
standing the passage. Yeayling isfrstexplained (-I357B9); sun W iusfic6next (-I357C3);then tyocssdin. g Sh:' ac: (-I357D2). A m b 47-x357D -z;6zA : In stléfcfzfpl P ascha - or.45 14 :36.641C17 .
It is not at all to be wondered at, says Gregory, if a lam b is sought out for each heusehold. A nd the dië eulty is then to reconcile this with the fact that Christ is one. M axim as does not answer
yllqlydïs a/th6éifly/:lli3îc%dti6s
6)
the objection directly but adapts the saying to one of St Paul:I A fft rplïzld:tf to know notking am ong you lf4/ Ckyist tzA?.ff him crsfcï/lfl
(1 Cor.z.c). Each one,continues Maximus,according to lzis own powerand virtue,crueifeshim selfand is cnlcifed with Christ. There follows a list of Iz ways ia w hich this is done,beginning with the sim ple avoidanee of aetual sin. The last w ays indicate a passage from practicalphilosophy throughy naturalconsideration and the mys-
tagogy p/ tkeologicat, scï:zlctrto tbat sepayative fzzlîfAziï/drfN drs. s attained by nq ation. 'rhis process is,as it w ere, parallelw ith a passage from the EesllofChristto his soul,to hism ind,to his divinity. For Christ becom es the lam b of eacllm an in proportion as each is able to hold and eat ltim , according to the saAring of Paul that the grace of the Spirit is given to eaeh one in the m easure of his faith. Von Balthmsar com m pnts on this passage in connection with
Thoec 1.W fDie Gn.Cent.p.I35f.), Maximus seemsnearerEvagrius in this Am b 47 than in Thoec 1.67.
Am b # -z36zA-z36jC: In sanctum Pasclta - or. 45.16 :, 36.645A Gregory in this Paschal oration is highly allegorieal; M axim us follows suit. 'fThe fleshy and nourishing part of the doctrine together with the intestines and rece-sses of 1he m ind are eaten ' artd sent down for spiritual digestion ''. Stlch a passage is btlt an hzvitation to develope the thougllt of spiritualm anducation,w hieh Afaximus llad expa % ed at tlle end of the lmst dië culty. And in fact
thisisjust what he does and with the same reference to receptivity proportioned to the measure of grace and of Spirit (I364Bzz-z3)a But,a thing that shows that these com m entaries w ere conceived
and wzitten as quite indejendent tmits,Maimus begins this eomm entary with a long disquisition on desire for God,.which is iu fact a prerequisite for this spiritual eating.
'fhis desire and passion (xdêeç,lfzlgl for himself God plaeedin rationalereaturesat the beginnhzg togetller with the power to know llow to attain its fulflm ent. Being m oved by sueh a desire w e are '
dziven to seek to attain him (-I36IBg). knowing this the lovers of truth set as their unique object the knowledge oftrttth asim aged in this world, that when tbe tim e cam e for them to die they m ight pass easily to the future truth . .
In this our God and Savior Jesus Christ helped and lead the way
(-I36ICI4).
64
T& E arlier A m bigua
And God, who gives to him that has, nam ely desire for him , aud is abundantly rieh, does not leave off doing good till he bring
them , always from the less to the greater, to deifeation - Jesus the Xvord of God having gone through a11 the heavens before
us (-I364AI5). Gregory, knowing that we have this natural desire for him , urges us to spiritual eating, eaeh according to the eapacity given
him by the graee oftlze Spirit (-I364BI4). H ere only,half way through the com m entary, M axim us begins to explain hl d' etail this spiritual eating, stal illg w ith tbe head
(I365B3). And there are many otheraspectjunderwhich the Lamb m ay be eaten,changing into him self by tile Spirit those that receive
him (-1. 365C5). A m b 49-:365C 5 : In sanctum P asclba - or. 45.18:36.648C
A brief interpretation of the imitation of Jolm the Baptist,
in conjuction with an allusion to Co1 g.5 on mortifying our members on earth.
A m b 5o-x:68A -z36kC: In sanctum Pascka ' - or. 4. 5.19:36.6498 'Phe text of Gregory contains an allusion to M att 10.9,10 azld to Rom .10.15 - which first M axim us briefly interprets in the sam e
manner as in Amb 49 (-I. 568BIz). ' Phen,with a referenee to the preceding dië culty aud a m ention ofthe Passover,M axim us proposes
an allegorical interpretation ofthe three passovers,that is in Egypt,
in the desel't,in the promised land (-I369AIo). M axim us theu passes these three stages again in rew iew ,putting them irt relation w ith the three degrees of tile spiritual life - the practical,the theoretical,
the theological (-I369C5). A m b 5z.x369C-z372B: fn sanctum Pascha - or.45.z1:36,65z8
In thls dië culty Gregory alludes to Racheland Xia (Gen 31) and to the Israelite exodusfrom Egypt. R aehelthen is the theoretical soul, J.ia the pm ctical, the wise Israelite tlze theorqtical m ind. This is the Erst of a series ofallegoricalinterpretatious ofpeoonages, only in tllis dië culty from the O1d Testam ent, extending through
Andzsis p/theSïsrî:Dimculties
6j
..
Am b 5z-z37zBC: f' n sflscl' u- Pascha - or.45.24 :36.656C This isthe first ofthe seriesof 8 dië cttlties taken from the sam e chapter in Gregory. Of these 7 are allon the type of the foregoing dië culty,that is allegoricalinterpretations of personages. H ere the figtlres are a11 taken from thv resurrection narrative, so that tlle interpretations are m ostly coneerned w ith crucifixion and resurrection,in Christ and in us. This first one dèals with Sim on of Cyrene. A m b 53-xr 2C-zJ76B: In sandum Pascha - or. 45.24 :36. 6560 H ere there are four interpretations of the good and bad thief.
A m b j4-z376C-x3r B: In sd/Alc/' lf' ?l Pascha - or. 45.24 :36.6560
Here there are interpretations of Joseph of Aram athia and of the body of Christ.
A m b J5-z377C: In sanctum P ascka - or.45.24 :($6.65617 A siltgle interpretation of Nicodemus. A m b s6-z377D -z38oB: In sanctum Ptwsc/l, - or. 45.z4:36.6569
M ary,the other M ary,Salom e and Joanna. Here we have tlle prad icaland contem plative life. There are also two considerations on the angels whom the holy w om ezlfouzzd in the tom b ;they represelzt theology and econom y. Am b 5p x38oD -z38zB: In sanctum Pascka - or.45.24* . 36.657A
Two considerations oll Peter and Jolm rllnnittg to the tom b. Peteristhe solidmess offaith and the practioetllife;John the purity of love and the contem plative life. lzt a sense they are rivals, ilt another they are allies.
Am b 5& z3%zB-I3%4A : In sfyncfzrz/l P ascka - oz.45.:4: 36.657A This dië cult)ris ofthe doubting Thom as H e rèpresents every rnartwho has dië culty iltbelievitlg the resttrrection ofthe virtue and .
krlowsdge ofthe W ord that is in him. I'Iisconferxsion is referred to the practieal and contem plative life. There follows a coasider5
66
The FfldfTr Am bigna
ation on the nails, w itnessing to tlze spiritual resurreetion whiclz one does not beneve tiH expeHenced. A m b je.z384A -C; In M zai/vzzl Pascha - or.45.24:.36.657% Tl' iis and the following dil culty eoncern tlte descent of Christ into heH and his ascension. Gregory speaks of a double descent. M axim us then,besides a m entalgoing down Avith Christ to learn the m ystery, explains the frst descent as that to save us w ho are still in thisbody,the seeos. d asthat forthe saving ofthesouls ofthe dead. A second proposal is that the habit and act of itdquit'y reeeive from
the W ord the return to virtue and knowledge. A m 6 6o-x384D -z38jC: In scpcf' lfvl Pqscka - or.45.24:36.6578 This difheulty responds to the foregoing. It treats of m an's aseension in the abundance of know ledge to the very ileights of the W ord,or as an ascent from the prad ieal to the contem plative life, or fulally,as a passage from a consideration of the econom y to that of theology, whereby m an is lifted up to God as m uch as God has torzle dowm to m azl ::
Am b 6z-x3% C-x388A) In novam D om'inicam - or.44.:;36.6088 These are anagogic interpretations ofthetabenm de,qhich Gregory had m eutioned. The lirst intreprets it of tlze E conomy;the second su tes that it m ay be undezstood as an im age of the visible and hw isible world,or ofthe sensible world alone,or ofm an as com posed of body and soul,or,finally,of the soul considered irt itself. 'lxese sam e considerations are fttlly developefl, at least the last, in M yst z-5,as applied to the churchbuilding. 1 The persons of the Trinîty are introdueed in each section ofthis dië culty:the Father as taldng com placenee or,ms rnirtd,as ideating the work;the Son as effeeting it; the H oly Ghost as pedecting it.
Atnb 6z-. r388ABJ In v t?tzzzl Dominkam - or.44.2:36.6080 This is a single anagogic interpretation of D avid as kirzg,that is Câzist izz is two advents. :: This is a proportion m et with before; see above note :1.
Analysisol/& Singlr Dï#icsfl/i:s
67
'
Am b 6ju JE8C-I3% B: In ' aopfl- Dominicam - oz.44.5 : 36.612C
'l'he dilliculty,m ore fully expounded than usual, cousistsin tlkis thatelsewhere Gregory ealls the Sunday ofthe Resurrection the m ost sublim e of allfeasts and here he ealls the N ew Sunday m ore s'ublim e than the sublim e, H ow explain this contradietion ? M axim tls lirst notes that in this sam e oration Gregory had rem arked that one should never stay put, butever advance) H ethen gives three variants of the sam e explanation, nam ely that the first Suzlday denotes the Resurrection, tlze second its com plem ent deifcation.
A m b 64..z9&.)BC: In novam D om inicam - or 44.8 : 36 6168 ,
.
I katetkatfamiliayity tltatpassestkr 'ough f& aiy. 'IAM Sextremely concise plzrase of G regor'y M axim us interprets as said of fem inine
asceties who by looking out the window on passers-by of tlle ofher sex fotm d oecasion of sinning.
Am h 6j-I3% D-zs :B:f' ?lPenteczstsn - ov.41.z:36.4:$28 Gregoz' y,in explaining the Pentecostal num ber, had said that 7 m ultiplied by itselfequalled 50 m inus onq,wlzich on6w as t-aken from the future age,a osm which is at ozlce tlze eighth and the :1st or rather one and everlasthlg;and there the sabbath of souls m ust fm d its terzninus.
And M axim us cornm ents. In Seripture the num ber ' ),has l'nn',y sip zifcatifm s; evn taken as rest it stillhas a.m ultiple gv sfs. H ow ever to avoid overcharging his com m entary he w ill speak only of .
the post exalted (-I39zA3). M axim u. s tlteu expotm dsthe.three m odes of being, tlmt is being,
wem being (or,correlatively ill-being CII,D 9),everlasting well-behzg' whieh lmst gives Erm ness to the nature (-I39zBI5):;. :7 The tllem e of these three m od. es of being is frequent in M axqm us.
Itoccurstwicein Char (3.z3-a5;4.Jz-z3);in Thal64-728. :.;iltAmb 7-zoz3c,
,
A' m b zo-III6B0, Aznb 4z-zaz5B8, r: J29A p B7, :34.8178:; in Thoec zz56. At this chapter von IBAIZHASAR gives a com m entarr. citâng Clem ent of '
Alexahtlrja and Aristotle (Di6 Gn.(Qxf..j z6g). He could there have cited Proclus lElnme%L% 0/ Theology propxsitions 43, 9z, z72, :9a). The second .
Molle, well-being' ,is there in evidence only in prop. 43; but, as D cdds re-
68
Tlv é'/zff' dr .4O krr
And thisisthemystieally blessed Sabbath ofGenesis (-I392CI4) and the eighth and first day (I39zDI3). riaally M axinm s gives tw o other brief consideratio' ns of the
same theme (-I393A5).'Compare 'rhoec 1,37-39 LDie Gn.Cent.jj 151-53), 'rkal 65-756C. co, sffrs - or.41-4 :36.43. 38 A m b 66-z3p3B-z)p6A )ln fdrs/tr ,
Gregory w as laying him self out to eite exam ples of the num ber 7 from the O1d Testam etlt. H e refet-s to Elias raising the widow's
son (3Kings17.18F.whereinfactthenumberis3notg)andthetrial saezifce with the false prophets (3 Kirlgs r8.34). M axim us explainshow the num ber7 iscontained in others. 64 ts a to the 6th power;add the originalunit to this 6 arld you have 7. (7r the:D o itJgtzfl and tztltird fïvlfl:I doubled is z,whieh tripled is6; add the originalunit and you have 7. Ilzthe firstdeeade 7 isa virgin
num ber;it neither begetszloris begotten. Three isthe firstvirsn, for though it begets (6 is its multiplein the decade)it is not begotten. 'rhis Gregory had stated elsewhere. O r,a better explanation: considering the good,1he operatitm of the triad,thatistke cardinal virtues,togetherwith theH oly 'Priad itselfone arrivesatthe virginal7. This diG eulty begius w ith w hat appearsto be a direet quotation from the o1d m an. '
A m b 67u 3p6m z4o4C) In wlzezz/zfw /z,zl - or. 4:.4 :36.4. 3. ' 3Cf. Gregory, explaining the m ystery of num bers, refers to those conu ined in the gospel accounts of the m ultiptieation of loaves
(Matt z4.z. 3-al and z5.3a-J9).
M axim us starts out to give a sum m ary explanation ; for tlle inteltigenee, he says, is already w ell exercised in the theoretical
habit by thjngs already said (I396B). This back-reference to his own work is best satisfied, I tlzink,by tlle long series ofScriptttre fgures taken frozn tke Pasclm l oration,A m b 45-60, m ore especially from Am b 51 on. .
m ar. ka itlhis preface (p.x),tlzisisa theologicaltreatise wlzerem undane and eth cal m atters are touehed on but incidentally. It is perhaps not without signifcance that am ong the -4Aplfg' lw this triad occurs in tlm se wlwre the antioHgenist polem ic is m ost m arketl
Andysis()/th6SingleDiFstdties
62
The good intention to be sum m ary last.s tm til he com es to the lz baskets of M att 14.z0. Of tlkis num ber he gives 8 distinct .
explanations (-I4oIB). Maximus then linishes his explanation of tlte narrative iu M att 14 by a brief tonsideration on the baskets
(I4OIC). 'I'he narrative of M att 15 is m ore briefly (lealt witll. 'Phere are firstzconsideration on the7loavesand the($days (-I4o4A):8. There follows a briefconsideration on the 4ooc,m en antlthen a yet briefe:
one on the 7 baskets of fragznents (-I4o4CIz). The whole fiads its Gnisitin a re-dtation of the final wotds of .
Gregory tilat had served as the diKculty (-I4o4CII-I3). A m b K8-z4o4D -x4ojC: In P rz lsltrctpsf,s - or. 4:.16 :36.449C ,
Gregonehad said:<çthere is a diversity of eharism s, a diversity indigeut of another charism for the discernm ent of tlte
A M axim us refers this to St Paul:t Cor Iz 4,9,xo and I.z.3o (not ets 2.4)the reference given in Migne),that is to prophecy and tbe .
sykeaking witlltongues G t.h thetr subordinate discernm ent of spirits and interpretation The need of these subordhzate eharism s is i1.
lustrated by Montanus and Montanism (I4o5A7f) arzd by further passa 'ges from St Paul (z'Cor. 14) (Piually (I4o5BI3) Gregory's conduding phrase, !oy s/hfsdiscevnment oj JJI: 5F/fe:, is interpreted .
not of the spirits but of the charism : prophecy and the speatn-ng
with tongues are tbe bettez eharism , for tlle diseernm o t and interpretation of w hich are given the charism s of discernm ent of spirit znd interpretation. .
'e This tkteane oftbree days occurs ekqewhere. Tlm l 39 is art explana-
:ion ofthissame text (M att.z5.3z)alztlalso ashere, ofthe three laws (tlle l atutal law tlle written 1aw the spiritual 1aw or the 1aw ()f grace). In rh al :9-39385 Afaxinlus refers, for a Iulley treatnzent to the IliNiculties kom Gregory's Pemtecost oration. The reference catk only be satiss.ed by t m b 67-I4oID , I4o4A. M axim us' m em ory failed him ; the passage in tm b 67 is less thau a third tlze length of the relevant partofThal39. H ow l ver M mxim us did subsequently return to the them e of 3 days and the 3 aws,butstarting from anotlzer Scriptare text (Jonas ,3.3 in Thal 64-724C-
'z8A). 'fhisdilierence ofhlithlïextwillexplain certain variationsin the heme.aslzeideaofnourishmezttizjThal39 and imb 67 antl ita abserce w IYAI 64.
7o
T& Earlierzle irfftz ...
Am b ë -z4o5CD:In S:rpAlr- - or.25.6 :35.Izo5B 'rhis is a briefde6nltion oftwo gram m aticalterm s cfjtl 3qga aud
xtpatrtslzpahzqThe firstisa proposition whose sense iscomplete without further addition ; the second is a proposition needing a further d ause to com plete the sense.
A m b 7o-x4osD -z4oec: In Iaudsm Stzsff/:i - or. 43.1 :, 36.496A The sentenee w hich serves for the preseut difliculty lzas rem ained obscure also to the M aurist editors of Gregory :e. M af m us first
paraphrases tlle seutence just before that eited in the diëeulty, then tlzatofthedilliculty (-I4o8Bz4). Then,referring to a sentence a little furtherup iriGregory'sexorditlm (496A3,4),he givesan a1ternative explanation. In the last line (I4o8C5)he indicates his preference for the frst a. s m ore accurate.
Am b 7z-z4o8G z4z6D: Prarcepta ad Wrgi%rs - 37.624 This is the only dië culty not talcen from Gregory's orations.
Tlt6 kigh I'Ftvff plays in fvdry sort # lbrm . Maximus conjedures 4
explanations. The frst is that this playing' is the m ystery of tlte
Inearnation (-I4IaA). The second explanation supposes the playing of a m iddle between the extrem es. The m iddle is vksible things;the extrem e the invisible;the playing then is tlle pedagogic m azm duction from ,but still through, the visible to the invisible. M avim us illustrates by tlle ways parent.s have of leading their children from sensible to intdleettlalthings. H ere M ad m us institutes aa interesting eom parison
of passages from Gregory alzd Denis (-I4I6A). The third explanation refers to the extrem e evasiveness and instabiiity of m aterial things,by which God leads us to the tllings
that really are (z4z6B). The fouzth explauation is a vadation of the foregoing,referring
now to the transitoriness of human life (I4I6CD). A com mon element in the last ihree explanations is that the present and visible world Ls but as a toy in com parison w ith tile future and invisible one.
a:seeïhe Matuists'note (30)in PG a6.496D.
Andysîs# thewsNplj@ Dlmcullirs
71
Erkena's version of Amb gI-I4I6A3-Dz has a curious histoz' y, related by Paul Lehman in H twmcs . 52 (1917) 1Iau 4. V aledictory -z4z7A -C H aving tinished explaiuing the 66 passages sent him ,M axim us again professes his inadequacy for the task:paucity of intelligence and a sin-douded m ind. Again lle aë rm s that he has proceeded
by way of conjedure rather than assertion (I4I7A5). This applies espedally to the last dië culty,perhaps,w here twice he states that
his eemments are conjectttral (I4I2A3, B7);yet nonethdess to a11 the Ambigua. Sueh ishisintention declared atthe outset (Io6$A3); and it ' is noteworthy that th: aatiorigenist passages of Am b 15 and 42 are consdously digressions. It is further noteworthy that M axim as term l -nates his w ork w ith a dtation from the D N . Of the 9 citations from D enis in these 66 dië culties 7 are from the D N ;'in conclusion M axim us cites from the peroration of the latter work
(DN I3.6-98zCI5-D6), indicating thus, it would seem , not only a com m tm ity of attitttde 'H t. II D enis llut also the souree whence he :ad drawn tbe keenness.of his com m ent and refutation.
PA R T 11
TH E R EFU TA TTON OF OR IGXN ISM CHA/TER I
M AX IM U S AN D O R IOEN TSM A . T I. m O luGSNISM KNow N 'ro M axxMvs
'ro m y knowledge the nam e of Origen occurs but once in the
M aximian corpus,hltlze Rdatio motionis $-IzoAB:when accused of O rigenism and of leadlng others thereto M axim tls anathem atizes O rigen azld all thase like-m inded. Von Balthasar has m ade m anifest M axim us'direet know ledge and ttse of O rigen in his study D ie Gnostisckrn C' eaff/aàl;lze has likewise devoted a few pages in àis K osAzlfsc/l: Liturgi. to the M axim ian eritique of Origenism . It is m y presentpurpose to delineate msnearly as possiblethe physiognom y of the Origenism refuted by M aM m us and to indicate where M axim us m ost probably had contaet w'ith it. 'rhe texts ofM axim us in this regard are the 7th and 15th :4zAl&7 gua. At lizst sight one w ould be tem pted to include also the 4:nd
with its long digressions in refutation of the pre- or postexistence of sottls. But the errors there envisaged are not peeuliar to Origen,
nor is the refutation ofpreexistenee,even ifdireeted against Orkenists, a prim ary refutation of the error tm derlying O rigenism . In the 7th A m biguum itself the preexistence ofsouls,together with their postexistence,istreated only by tlle way,asa corollary oftheexplan-
ation of How we .r: poriions oj God (Amb ;-IIooA-IIo4C). O(1 tlzewhole what M axfmussets out to refttte is above al1the pvîmltive kenad W ratîonalbeings. ThisisOrigenistmyth,entailing,to besure, both the preexistence of souls and for Origen at least an apocatastasis; yet the speculation of the henad once'properly exploded. the
other two dod rines as ro ulting from the frst,collapse of their owm w eight. This is not to say that supported on other bases a doctrine
ofthe preexistence ofsouls or ofan apocatastasis doesnotneed each
Clut/fôr1.M lxï-v, sald Origeis-
75
its ow n refutation ;but it is to say that such a refutation w ill not of necessity be prim arily directed against the O rigenist m yth . W e have
then these two Ambig' ua (7,I5)whieh dealdireetly with the henad of Origen 1.
T& Dilc' ?Wj Tnxtboj G?zgtvy Nazianz6n Tbe Gregorian text for the rth A m biguum , ilz w hieh alone M axim us m akes a frontalattaek on Origenism ,not only ispatient of an Origenist lttterpretatiott,but positively invites it. I have given it
in fullabove (p.za);here 1 repeatthe litigiousphrase' .lzoiytw Sjmç svl'fzg thoil xal dvfpozv (lEfgttvxttg. This seem s to im ply that having onee been a part of God m an fell away and is sue.h no m ore, Yhe prim itive ilenad of rational beings is not diflicult to read into the frst phrase' the seeond w ould indicate the falling away in diverse degrees, on which wasconsequent, in Origen's doctrine,the binding to bodies of a density proportioned
to the degree ofthe fall. In fact the Ialling away reealls a passage ofOrigen,preserved in the Greek in the florilegium attached to Jt1stinian's letter of 543. H ow else,asks Origen :, explain suelz great
variety in the world other than by x?#xokxllov v#g (' t' ztozrrfâgeœç vf' iw otk ôjtoûœg vfig lvd3og flxolpntiuow. And this O rigenian rem iniscence in Gregory, if it truly be such,
is oftllat one place in the DefJz'iAlcï/ïfs where the word kenad witll reasonable certaiaty goes back to O rigen him self 3. 1 In fact ill Am b 4z M axim us does also have in view the Otigenist
doctrine of tlze cleposftion of bodies (Amb 42-:3291)4 and I333Azz; cf anathem a zo in Diekam p p.94,or 'ltheodore ofSeythopolis j Ia PG 86 2 368) .
.
.
and î1zTlzal6o-6z5AB the hettad in its 6th century form is elearly envi> ged. 'rhe Iatter is a m enx m etttion.tlke form er does not toueh tlke m ain question. One m iglzt further ask if there be not a refutation of Origenist doctrine in ep.;-433C. There the error of som e m onks isconsidez' ed who asse: rt tlze
resunw tion-body to be stlbjeet to the same conditions of change and
.
m e-
tabolism as at present ptevail save fo' r the im possibility of flylng. It is .
Theophilus of Alexandria (ep. pasch. I.T: $,15 - amoug Jerome's letters cxp.96,PL 22.783,785)who pre-sents this as olte of Origen's errors nam ely tlm t ' the resun ection will be in bodies of Iike condition w' ith ours. but inc-
luding m ortality. There m ay be som e tzolm eçtion between the error of M nvim us; contem poraries and, tllose im puted to O rlgen over two centuries earlier. but there is not identity. See also chap. V , n. 23. .
: D if Jarfxcï/ëù, z.z.r, GCS, K OSTSHAU Io7lf. 3 The other instances I speak only of the êve.ç xdiv lo'fdxdjv, in tite
74
Th6 x6' /f4/4lfpl 0/ Orskelff-
Given t'he very special Origenist Hng hl Gregory's pkrase,M axim tls could not w ell do otlzer than undertake first a refutation of the henad of rational creatures, A nd this all the m ore so that his adversaries w ere still active, m isleading otlzers by the assum ed patronage of Gregory 4. M al m us' own exposition of the phrase is ftm dam entatly to in'terpret it of the fall into sin and wretchedness, not ofthe fallinto bodies. It does not then referto genesis,the eom -
ing-to-be of m an, as in the Origenist myth (Am b 7-1090D6 and Io% C3-Io).
Anfecedents/()r Summqrizing orkt,Alfsvlin the'Henad N ow our purpose is to see what anteeedents M axim us m ay have had forcencentrating his polem ic in the refutation ofthe henad. To this end it willbe seen,1 believe,to be suflident to eonsider only the seeonct O rigenist eontroversy,tha't iu the 6th century. U nfortunately the wtritings ofthe 6th certtury Origenists are alm ost entirdy
lost. A treatise such as the Book t# H oly f. fïtrrnf/l:t)s m ay illustrate the tem per of som e m onastie cireles,but rem ains outside the m aln stream even of Evagrian-origenist thinking. It w illbe tm necerssary to consider it here :. Y et ms our purpose is not so m ueh to seek out the various form s of Origenist dod rine but rather to see how
theorthddox estim ated aad rejeeted it,thedocumentswedo possess are not entirellr inadequate. I shall review theln in chronological order. D . Pvincipiis are i. tl K oetschau's editîon at p, 159:6 altd. l6oL'; bRt botlt
these are take. n from Justiniazt's letter and anatizemasof55: 5lsee DIEKAMP, p.9zl' and 9z24).whiclz as IiIIKAMP (p.97) points out is concerned with the contem porary Origenist.si!l Palestine. BARDM (RSR Io (I9zo) zz4-5z L 6 /4. 1./. , dt. ç Jo rï atcbôn tf'orijrlAl: et /' I4. ç/ïlï41)) abountls in the same sense. 'flze plzraseology there used canuot be justly cited.as Origen's own. * Am b . ;,-1069A and zo89C6-I5, êrhe ill foaurda %(L * rçpocdlrrt:v of the .
latter passage seetns better underst (1 of the fatlzers under whose nam es thee se m en sheltered their erroneous dod rin. e than of the false teachers th- n- lves.
â 'lxe B ook ol H oly H ieyotheos: this title was added later probably by the author him self due to the iniluentze of the Corpus D ionysiasum . 'l'he m nitlbody,Evagrius carried to extrem es m ay be tlatecl about 5zz-5r6.
See tlze stttdy of HArsHsxm OChr 3o (19:3) I76-2II (fasc.86),based on the eflitlon of P. S. M Axsl. l London 19a7. After the diseovery of the less
expurgated Syriac Evagrius by GUILLAUMONT (Rru. (f: f'H ist. des & lfgions.r42 (:*52) 156-zo5j tlle extrem e. s of Xvagrius lzim self areuncertain.
Chattrr1.M axim bfs JA?,;IOrigenism
1$
Joltn 0/ Scytlopo'kis The Iirst witness is Jolm of Scythopolis in his com m entary on the Pseudo-D enis â. The charaeter of the references and citations of Origem and E vagrius iu this com m entator forbids that one place it in the m ore advaneed stagés of the reerudeseence of Origenism in Palestine,that is sabsequent to the death ef St Sabas in 53z; yet O rigenists are already interpreting the text of D enis in accord w ith their doetrine. Therefore w e m ay rouglaly date these eom m entaries
from the time ofNonnus'entranee into the New Laura ($14)to the death ofSabas (53z)7. The passages iuteresting us now are those com m enting the 6th and gth chapters of the E cclesiastical H ierarcky. The analogy of the heavenly and ecelesiastical hierarehies is not com plete in that in the former there is no order of pttrifed beings (EH 6, 3, 6,-Pt4 .
3.537A),corresponding to the m onastie su te. Denis strongly af-
.
lirm sthat tke angelic orders are stainless;tlzat should one for argum ent's sake allow that som e fell then these are aggregated to tbe group of apostates - the heavenly group rem aining ptlre. Y et even so there is a certain puritication, a Gcd -given illum ination of things not yet known to them ,
As to tbisJolm ofSeythopolislirstnotesthat:''Thereisno stain in any of the heavenly pow ers, as think Origen and those that aecept llis ideas,saying that in proportion to the turning-away each of the heavenly ranks is allotted sueh and such a nam e and order and is bound to a lighter lmdy ill reproof for llis turlling to evil''. Then, having explained Denis'hypothetiea!coneession,he eoncludes:'fLet no one then of Origen's initiates think that the present passage suppoz'ts his perverse opinion, sayittg that there is ever a fall a restoration,and again a fall of the heavenly m inds, as O rigen says in the
lrst book of the De J'riAlcï/ffs: 'So the whole argum ent shows,I think,that every rational (being)ean com e from any other rational
(beilzg) whatsoever.' And shortly,after:'After the consummation ' H . Urâ vtm BALTHASAR Sch I5 (I94ob 33 Das Scholïsxztteyà R s Johannss pt). Ssythopolist indtcates the genuine passages .pertat 'nlng to Origen. These passages ms they occur in the reprlnt of M igne. are PG 4.65CD , 76D -77A, x7zC-I73!B, z' 7:B , z76BC, 337C-34oA , 545C, 5498 . 7 Cb.. M osI fm > , u i 7àtzfcd' tfeAèfssg: et le s#otiàtz/cetftw ixç- : D as Akxd l
vos Chaïktdo. I (Nvûrzburg z95a)p.642,gsves the years 5:z-53z.
76
Tkr Jlr/v/fl/itw oj Orkolfsxl?i
ofallthere is agaizltlze flowfng-away tlxtkle ctgl and fall'':. And he cites Evagrius, Cont. 2.78 and 5.19.
As to the purifeation J' ohn says:f'Note that they advanee in
knowledge and that he doesnot say (he,that is Denis,not the they of the printed text) the demons are purified because of those who say that the dem ons too are saved with the saints,in their m ythol-
ogical apocatastasis *. Clearly John is fam iliar with the Origenist m' yth;but he hms
not com e to speak of it by the technicalterm :the henad t# yational beings. A s 1ze llad occasion to speak of heavenly pow ers and not of m en,there w as no reason for m entioning the preexistence of souls.
'rhe apocatastasis is m entioned by this teehnieal nam e. There is no attem pt to reftlte O rigenism , rather to show that the text of
Denis does not admi of an Origenist interpretation. Tllere is no m ention of Didym us; bttt Evagrius is cited, as we have seen. and
again elsewhere (in CH 7.4 :PG 4.7617);but'irt this latter plaee he is qualifed as impious, perhaps to eounterbalance the seeming approval ofthe person im plied in the approval of this pad icular
citation (unless of course the epitbet bq the addition of som e c/pyist). ' '
8 12or the citations frozn Origen see D e Jlrïv f/lïï. v 1.6.. 3. tK orelpscH' A'c
841*-21) the Greek te' xtwasadded later p.cxxiv. The textofJohn follows: PG 4.z7zCz-8' . ov ep'la llpxl' rlzyl vellv 'rbv:%&v oéeadow tkmdpeam ?p:oktila 'Qmyévqç,Arakoî ' vtk xoG ov ipeovoihvxu,(jlo xovteç,& t xusè x' iv âvcloylav 't' fiç Jrxwcw oa' lg êxem ov vt bv oë avltov xciypivakv vllv ' gollivôe xutôvolzatyltw xllxtqçv êxlqeisaxe, xuk gépam v lvtrêélqx v ltzcroxlpobg,etg auzstlv ' rfiç éttm r yw lat 'stl
xek ov zr zMpw oxfiç. z73A2-zI:M$ o5v xtç ' rêw 'Qvtye'vovg pa e v obéo' êftl 'rè xcpùv lqxèv o' uvqyoe îv % xaxoaltrw ttfrro: öé1'(l,(pe xft w, 5vt (lek zrvtn w xtu âvtixktow , xak e xtia-rfsgtç xt;w ofppavloàv ' yûvmia: vo/v, &% (pnesv *oetye lvng p' èv
lv o Ilet't&èy.qv rsetâ'rtp kh %$,olhtgç. 11eo volvvv h.6w g, o'fp/ak, :elxwts xaç, aëv 1;'n aoxè loykxùv âzB rtttvxèç o' frrtvoco' i?v lm kxo; ôfvtlg' êqp yevém'h t$:* xttt
p' tvlk jktqéttlaâystléytov'1$MeO x?j1atztl im ' réb ç,xtm v f' iaë levslg xfzlxfzsïizrremtç Wvevcu,..1 9 John's text seems to imply that a puzo cation of dem onsis possible yet w itlm ut their salvation. Then D erzis' shrew dness consists in tltis tlzat he avoids m ention of such puriscation altogether lest it give an opening to the Origetdsts. Sucil a pm u eation seem s at ârst sight unthinkable'
but it is the precise sense of QD 1, 3 of wltich I treat at lengtlz in the last chapter, though there the referenee is apparently only to men. Jolm 's text rtm s: PG 4.:7j 5T 881:: xat c' nltelmx t G'rt aeoxdasovo' tv Iakyvtijgkv. xaL1 51::
ôltlpovqç o: héyovgs(&1 . nam lN:lfI. l4- ha%etl xamtloeghu,&(k' to' tx çdov vxttç xz afrçol,g lv 1:t1atp'u' lrr/v Ituêetlolzév' n J,rtoxttlxlo. ttjges$fflâ@ oêtn pe' rfk'rlvtiylfôw
Chaptp 1.M aximust-ffOrigenism
77
Bananuphius Baaanuphius and John the Prophetcome up next forconsideration 19. Barsanuphius, an Egyptian and m onk at G aza w riting in Greek,died at an advaneed age about the year 540. The consultations about O rigen :1 w ill date from the iirst three or fourdecades
of the 6th century. ' rhe replies of Barsanuphius and of John are sim ple:Cut yourselfofffrom sueh devilish doetrine;spend your tim e
seeking out your passions. John,however,does allow tlle reading in Evagrius of what is proftable for the soul. Such an answer is typical,but of little help for our present purpose. W e are grateful tllerefore that the questions are set out at som e length. Their 0ccasion w as the reading of O rigen and D idym us and the Gnostîca
ofXvagrius (89zB). The questioneris first coneerned over the preexistence of souls (nude minds). Seripture knows nothing of it; Origen on Tit' us and E vagrius 1: aë rm that it does not pertain to
ecclesiastiealtradition. In proof that there is no apocatastasis,the questioner quotes the gospel. 'l'he questiolzers insist'for the defenders of these doetrines w ottld involve Gregory N azianz.elz and Gregory of N yssa in their errors. Tile situation is clear. In certain m onastie d rcles the w litings of Origen,D idym us and E vagrius are current;those wile espottse their
peculiar doctrines (preexistence and apocatastasisj seek cover and patronage in the writittgs ofthe Cappadodan G regories. A sitttation
this that the theological events of Justinian's relgn will not have changed in substance and that w ill be found pea isting even in the zt, h century.
Tke Edict (# Justinian 54. ' y If the inform ation on 6th eentury Origenism given us in the w ritings of Barsanuphius m ay be dated only w ithin a few deeades,
thatcontained itlthe edictofJustinian may be dated to the month: Janttary 543'1:. W ith the anathem asofthisedietmay be eonsidered 18See HAVSHSRR, DSp 1 (1937) z255-62. t1 P G 86.892-90:. 12 Cent. 2.64 69: see ( PRANKISNBERG p. l74, I76. 'Phe eitatiotts obviously refer to these cllapters bat diverge fronl the SyTîac text especiatly 2.64.
13 DISKAMP p. 42. conErm ed by S' rslx (AB 62 (1:44) T79) against ScHwu ttz. %.
78
T& Rf%dation ol Orfge/lfls'?x
the abjuration of Theodore of Seythopolis,whieh dates almost Io years later Decem ber B 2 11 In hissttldy ofthe edict Bardy 1:supposesJustiniau to be quite dependent on the libdlus of the m onks Sophronius and Gelasitts,
lnade at the request of Peter of Jerusalem le though tllere can bq
no proofofthis so long as that libdlusisnot to be föund (butwhy should it have been preserved independently, if the em peror took
it overin itis edict?). ror our pttrpose it is enough to see how the
.
edict approaches the O rigenist question. Bardyacom paring the text ofthe letterw ith that oftheOrigenian exeerpts and the linalanathem as,eondudes17 thatsthough in the atlthor's view Ozigen is responsible for sueh errors,yet the docum ent llas ill view the contem porary Orig 'enists;it is their errors that aredam ned in the anathem as. This is a hiddem harm ony and so a m ore forcefuleonfrm ation of what one m ay read in the textitself:frThey stand up for O rigen and his H ellenic,A rian,M anichaeart doetrines,
by which he fellinto the pit. H ow ean'such benum bered with Christians,standing up as they do for the person of him who was eager to pass on H ellenic,M anichaean,Arian aud other heretical stui.'''e 'fhroughout the letter there is a whole series of such passages1*,
the last of whiclz,ilzJustinian's surnmary (207 15),speaks explicitly ofthe Origenists.as ofthe object ofthe letter. The plaees referring to O rigen alonç are for the m ost part an aside, qualifying the doctrine stated as pazt of O rigen's ravings,m yth,or blasphem y a4.
14 The letter to Menn. ms or edict of Justiniam PG 86.945-98917,has been edited by SCRAVARTZ with full annotation of Sctripture alld patrlstic
citations in the 3rd tome of itks Acta (ibAlsïlïtlr' lfza Oocum. (r94o) I89-zz4. I B. &xDV b, as studied this docum ent in llis artide cited above, note 3. The Libetlus of Theodore is to be found in PG 86.232-36.
15 RSR to (z9zo) cz4-sz. 1e Lije oj w Ntzhcxç,cap. 85 ed.SI:I. lWARTZ, Kyyitlos. zglresfi, 1? az 1yt. cit. in note I.5, p. tz39.
1B Lette.r to M ennas,ACO T(11 189*-1901 (PG 86.947)I...'QkjsyévorgTs
sçtk 'e v çEu qvtxt' f,v xlt 'Avetavtxlv xgl M tm y- xtbv om ofiR yydxœv âvtbvm ofzv-
'rttt,6/ Jiv lxelveg elg Istsovov êvfrœozv. ot &è xotofixosaf k êt'vtwzudXpdenlvok o'evtp kêp.e. ïcrtkttkaeogéaov d' vnxoe pzvo:' rè 'Eu sv(tw xalMtwqulœv xttk'AQ6w vfsv xal xk' 6h':lh
B: AeO III I9z32 z9427 1951: zgX , 19831 19914 zo4R. I have omitted.to cite the m entionsofOrigen in the excerpts or in the phrases im mediately explanatortr of tllezru
Clbaptsv1.M aximwz4* Origenism
79
The expository poztion of the letter is therefore elearly directed against the eontem porary Origenists; the decree following upon it
(coz :4-zo8n)and the anathemas are directed against Origen and his w ritings, but only indirectly against the O rigenists 2l. The basis for tlzis indirection, striking the contem porary heretics not in their errors but in their m aster, m ay be seen also in the text of the epistle. ln a passage translated above O rigen is qualifiecl as eager to pass on llis errors This thought recurs wben the .
authorbeginsto diseussOrigen'serrorasto resurrection tzo4 7), Laterin the same context he aërms itas providentialthat Orken did not die a eonfessor,but worshipped idols,lest his follow ers place his errors under a eonfessor's and F ather's patronage. F or O rigen not only taught blasphem ies btlt propagated them through lzis writings
(zo4 33-20. 54). I ratherthin. k that the Origenists ware in the habit of placing thenselves under the protection ofthe A lexandrian rnaster's great.nam e; and the therefore the author of the edict avails llim selfofthe false legend about O rigen's apostasy to eut the ground from under their feet. 'Phe vary phraseology of the edict gives one to understand this. 'Phus at least 6 tim es the Origenists are qualified as standing up for Origen,for his person. for his doctrine :2. It is wortll noting tlzat in Euthym ius'tim e the Origenists w ere m ore num erous i11 the vid nity of C-ae 'sarea 23 wkere Xusebius had worked in the library of Origeniang. Bttt this is not the whole story. Origenists,w hose dod rine w as m atigned - as tlzey m ight say - so' ught also to defend them selves w ith Scripture and patristic passages a1-
leged in stlpportoftbeir doetrines (zo5:1-&5). 'lY e plan therefore ofthe edict is relatively sim ple. After a preIim hlary list of Origen's errox' s,referring them to Plato,and theM ani-
chees (z89-I9IA:),the author begins a reftttation ofthe principa!errors. First comes the preexistenee of souls (19118-193:). On this follow 5 texts,z from John Chrysostom ,:3 from Gregory Nazianzen,
embedded in explanatory argumentation (I9' ql-I973). The whole seetion end. s M'ith the quotation of the parable of Lazants and the rich m an from Lgke I6.I9-z8, cited to show that after death there is :1 Tlzis divergezjce seezns clearly to indicate tlle polnt of suture be-
tween what dependetlon (or:is?)themonastic Iibelluscam posed ' by Soplzronius anllGelasius,and the imperialedict,the em peror being not yet ready to proscribe tlze Origenists in.thelr own persons. % xgoll aov ivxwtolmspo ot: :89:7 19031 : (9zt* rg6R 20.4:: 209 4 zl4'. .
'A L#6 0/ Eutltymius, z6, SCHWARTZ Kyvillos..., 3PL4o'.
TM J?g/A IO oj Orkelf:zzl m em ory of sin,so that ifthe soulhad preexisted three wottld be m em ory of the sin for whieh it was eonfined in a body. 'fhe text of tliis Erst series have been integrated Ndth the argum entation inasm uch as they had been oziginally written without spedal reference to the error now tm der discussion. On them there
followsa second seriescited in eonfirm'ation (197 4-z0315. These are draw n:z from Peter of Alexandria 3 from A thanasius I from B asil
I from Gregory ofNyssa (dehominis p/ï/scïo 28 almostentire PG zl4. 2z9B-Cg, a3zAI-c33B7),2 from Theophilus of Alexandria, 3 passages of Cyrfl's letter (81)to tlle monks of Phoua and flnally 3 excerpts from the Alexandrian bishops' synodical letter against Origen. E xeept for those from A tllanasius and Basil,a11these passages refer direetly to O rigen. 'rhe seeond error sd ected for fefutation is that the stars are anim ate. One passage from Basil is enought to dispose of this
(zo, 514-2o4:). The third error is the com plex ctm nected witla the resurrection. EFirst that the risen bodies willbe bam shaped. 'rhisis exploded with
argument from Scripture texts only (zo4'-:2). 'There follows a digression on Origen and hiserrors,leading to a statem ent of the doctrine that punishm ent willhave an end and tllat the wicked and de-
monswillbereestablished in their former position (zo439-zo51B). Argumentation againststteh a doetrine then follows (zo5l1-M) which is eonfrm ed by z passages from Gregory N azianzen,z from Basil,aud z
from John Chrysostom (z05:4-zccla). These passages were suëciently explicit so as to need no eom m ent.
'
Justinian tlzen opiaes that the foregoing have been enough to '<
reprove the ' impiety of the Origenists'' (zo7z5) and proceeds to give his ozders for the anathema of Ozigen (zo7< zo8:z). Twenty-fourfragnzeutsfrom Origen's worksare added,as itwere
an afterthought (co8:R-zI3l*), to be followed by the ten anathemas (2I3l1-zI4:). From tlle foregoing analysis it is plailz that the preexistenee
ofsoùls and the apocatastasisreceive m ore attention,nextthe animation ofthe stars and the ball-shaped qesurrection bodies. 'rhe list, however, of errors m entioned and anathem atized is longer. Thus first td all are m entiolled 'rrinitarian errors:the Son and the Spirit are infezior to the Father, and that the 8()n cannot see the lzather
tzpt)b: 1% 4-:'ctlznpare excerpts T, VT,VH1);txe. n tlmt tâe divine power is lilnited (1908-17 except II, anathema 8);and tlmt g'eneya
Clutpter1.xsftzxf-ll,antlOrfktrzlù-
8r
and cies.zï' e eoeternalsvith God (19018-19 excerptXI, anathema 8); thenspe tlze m ytll of the fall, joining with bodies, reestablishment atzd possibleotherfalls(1901:-23'txqerptsXII-XVI, X X ,anathem a 8: the correspondances are partial only); that there will be sevem l worlds (1901.:14 elcerpt X II,XII1). The myth ofthe ' mlndsbeing sated and cooled into souls is' stated a zttle later (19111-*2 exeelmt XVIII, anathema 1). Tlz the whole text of the letter (apart the exeerpts and tke anathemas) there is but one referenee to Christ and llis soulas preexistent (198:1-:3 anathema g) 'This one refer.
.
ence and.the apposite text of Athanasius is 4w t the prim e interest
of the author;he uses it merely as an a jt/r/ïprï argument against
thegeneralpreexisteneeofsouls(1994-7). Itisonly irltheanathemas (the exeerptslzyve nothing in tizis regard) that Christology, Christ's
soul,isa m atter ofcomcern. Aaathem as z-4 are devoted to it The animation of the stars, the ball-shaped bodies and the provi cham eterofthe dem ons'punishm ent are m entioned llotin the ini sti oral y Est of etrors, but only in tlte course of refutation as I have alread Lndicated. Com pare respectively exeerpt X X I title y , anat hem a 6; znathem a 5' , anathem a 9. On tlle wizole therefore the anathem as pass over in silen ce a11 rhat the text and excerpts itave to say eoucenling the 'Prinitarian trrors of Origen;the one inddentalreference to the union of natures n Cllrist is reproduced in the znd anathem a, while tise 3rd and 4th tnd tltey alone, are developem ents thereof w ith no basis in 1he, bregoing m atter. .
Tke zlrgfypltw/tz/fbs oj /& Edict Let us now see the type of argum ent used in tlle ediet to refut he preexistem ee of souls and the restoration e . Let us m ako m an f,t
'r i-fljr: and Jïàtwa. u ss (Gen. z.26). Henee if the souls preezst lle body aloneis the image and likenessof God (19119-:4) If pre-, .
xistent souls are given bodies irt punishm eltt for arttecedeut sin, h en they should sin no m ore, as ptlnislfment is intended to prevent '
ht,not to allet it (I9I2:-:a). There follows the general eonclttsion; God fashiened body and sottl together, that is, h. e fashioned taan
erfect '' (I9I'a-35) H ence m en have to render all aceount of their actions done
xrough the body,aecording to tlte Apostle (z Cor 5.10). And it tys precisely through the body (I9I3uI9z9;an argum ertt found in passage of Cyril, eited later). Fttrther souls being spiritual if .
6
82
Th6.& /srfflfïtyn p/Origtm' ism
tlley preexisted, m ust lk '-lztnv where they were and lm w they cazzle
into bodies (I9c9-l4). If one parries that the body alds in discernm ent,then the body is m ade out as the m ore valuable of the two
which is an inanity (I9c'4-18), A preexistentsoulwould know what is good for it;if in the body it learns because ignorant,it did not
foreknow,it did zl()tpreexist (T92&:-2s). Therefore God is tlle unique eattse of body and soul,w hieh he m ade together in his im age and
likeness perfect rnan (I9z:s-3e) :4 Vinally the prophet Zaehary says, so the argum eut conthm es,
that God Iormed f//:spiritoj man t7AlHm lzac. h.12.1). Iftheirsouls preexist t:e prophet sllould kave said constm ining or sending the
spirit of man in him (I9z:1-:: and again later in a citation 2o33-B). There follow s now the Iirst series of patristie texts,interlarded with argum eztt,sucltas:m an was m ade for dom inion over ereatures, he w as plaeed in paradise, he was blessed' how are these points, found in Scripture, to be reeondled with preexistent and foresinning souts? In refuting the Origenistposition that there is an end to punishm ent, the one argum ent advanced is that the Im rd speaks equally
of etem al life and of eternal punishment (Matt.:5.46);and ifthe joys ofeternity are for atime only,the whole ofottrLord'slife and passion and resurreetion are futile (zo5''-al). A sim ple reading through of these argm ents shows that,whatever their exegetical value, they are pzim arfly topical and do no m ore than assert a true doetrine in face of error. The heat't of Origenism is not touehed. It is tnze,ln0th Gregory ofN yssa alld Cyril
ofAlexandria in passages cited (2005,zolaef) affirm the preexistenee ofsoulsto bethecaqse orsouree otOrigert'serrors. Thatisperhaps why the docthne of preexistence occupies the preponderant place in the ediet. lt oceupies it,however,as an anthropologicalproblem ; but as such it is not tlze heart of Origenism . The Christological speculation, grounded in the hypothesis of a preexistent soul of Christ, appears chiefly in the anathem as. In the A mbigua oiM axim tts it is com pletely lackirlg,there not behzg even the tzace of a, refutation.
*E'fhfs thesis (again below I98ê#) is to be notedçthe sim ultaadty of body and soul in m an's com itlg to be is the cart linal polnt in M aximusl
antltropology (seeAmb 4z-r: J2, jD,z34IA-C;d.TP I6-x9zC azzd ep.Ia-5o4A). The 2nd and xrd u athem as taken together im ply thesam e for ourLord.
C/lfl//e:f.M aximusdd># Origenism
83
Thevdoye (# Scythopolis The Iibellus of 'rheodore of Scythopolis stands in close relation
with the anathemas of Jttsthlian's edict2s. Three quarters of it
are identiealwith the latter. Tbree anathem as (4, : r1,Iz) of Tlleodore are without eorrespondent ill tlze ediet. N evettheless, tlte
last (Ia)lilldsa base iu the XVI and 77. X exeerpts,though Theodore rnakes in addition explieit m ention of the passing away of Christ's body. There rem ain therefore the 4th and the 11th which express dod rines not expressed in the edict, nam els that the kingdom of Christ willcom e to an end and that w e shallone day be the equals of Christ,the W ord uuiting him selfto us as he did to ltim that was
born oftheVirgin (PG 86.2. 33,z36). Itwillbenoted thatthisgreater sptxcification of Origenist errors relates particularly to Christ. These points are taken up again in the 12th to 14th anathem as of 55:$.
Leontius t# Byzantium Richard has proved that the bellicose Leontius the H erm it,
atlthor of the: Advêrs' ln Nestorianos Tf Eutyckianos libvi III (PG 86.1268-1396) is to be identifed with the Origeztist colleague of Nonnus,Leontius of Byzantium ,m et with in the Lije ()/ Sabas:* Richard likexvise date.s tllis work betwe% 543 and 545. Veontius anthropology, defning the soul as a.pedec't substante witllout velation to the body,m akes possible a defense of the O rigetlist doetrine ofthe preexistence ofsouls and with that w ould pernzit the Isochdst doctrine. Leontius' strategy w as to give.the appearance of the atm ost ortitodoxy;his w riting therefore giées us no idea of tike O rigertist position.
Cyïil ol Scytkopolis
In this review of6th century Origertist doeumentsI have joined 'rheodore ofSeythopolis Nvith the edict of Justinian,becatuse ofthe
close relation of these doeuments. Similarly I join in discussion Justinian's letter to the synod of 553 M'ith the notiee of CyHl of Scythopolis due to liis interview '? with Cyriacus in the spzing or M D R KAMP, z25-29.
': L6/o' nce t /4 Byxanse,#ltzïf-ilOyigéniste? REB 5 (1947)3:-66;seeespecially .56-60;for the date 5z.
'
:' Lih ol Cyle cis' s, SCHWARTZ, Kyyillos...,22p7-z3I1:.
84
1-h6 l'e/sfe/' kzs p/(ïrigenisn%
sum m er of 546 *. Cyril dotzbtless had notes of this interviem as he had had for his lives of Xuthym ius and Sabasaband wrote from them . The tltry say which he uses eacll tim e to introduee a point of dangerous doctrine, seem s to indieate as m uelt,though naturally one oem uot be ceztain that Cyrii's fnal redaction has not been iniuenced by subsequent developem ents or by the letter to the synod. W ith these docum ents we ean afford to be m ueh briefer. In fact all the poillts of Origezlistrl m erttioned by Cyriacus are fotm d,
though aot at alli1zthe same order,in Justinian,exceptforthe lat-
ter part ofthe third point (zgoet), natnely that as Christ (tllat is,' tlleex/h'ud,notthe seeond Person ofthe Tritlity),fashioned the world, so in the restoration rationalbehlgs,even dem ons,ean fashion eons. Other than this Cyriacus m entions the bam shapedness of the resarrection bodies and their Iinal destruetion,frst of a11 Christ's, the equality of a11 with Christ in the restoration. Such doetrines are said to sprirtg from Pytltagoras,Plato, O ligerty Evagrius, Didlem us. Cyriacus' read ion is entirely in line with that of Barsanuphius. Should lzot these m onlts far rather have attended to the viztuespthe
monastie virtues,and stlbjeeted the body with fastings and prayer
than give themselves to sueh sophistries (23017-:2). 18 TMS inttxrview is dated hkre Ll-ile 0/ Cyviacwg, Kyeiltos...,zzgt-l) within the 5 years of Cyriacus'stay at the grotto ofCharlton,thatLq 542-47
(see the chrottology of Cydacus'life zlzralrf; tlle reckoniag 1s te be made from Jan. 1.449. date of Cydacus'birth). The public retzr (z2911). after which atld on account ofwltich John the Hesythast sent Cyrilto Cyriactzs, willbe the sam e pablic war.which the Origenltsm ade against the ortitodox, as meutionetl ilz txe Lifs oj S' e tz. ç 85 (:9:25. It was after tilis titat the fathea of klze Gteat Laura asked tlteir abbot Cvelasius to m esent their sitaation to tlle em peror. This voyage waa utltlertaken in tNe sum m e.r of
546 (DIRKAMP, 57). The interview then M4ll be izt the spriug-sum mer of J46. Note that by this tim e N onuus antl com pany are reestablishetl in tlte
N ew Xaura. In reckoning the date.s Diekamp is to be followed rather
than Sellwartz tsee . E,STstx,AII 6z (z944) :69-86). Schwartz'lndice: are rather uaclear as to the com ings and goihgs of Cyril. The following is tlte
funllam entalsclteme:Cyrilenters the monastery ofEqtllym iusin Jtlly 544; he remains ftxeclthere,save forvisitsto John the HesyclzastorCyrlacus,tfll passing to tlze New Laura on Pebruary zI,555 (zq91(b4t)afterthe expulsion of the flrigenista itt the autum n of 554. O nly after som e 2 years from tikis
date 40e.s he become a member ofthe Great Laura,early in 55; (8r ). 1: Liln f# Euthymius 6o. Kyyillos.... 82Rff.
Chatto.r1.An xï- tu and Orfgolïs-
85
Justinian to the Synod .z ;.5. ? In the 15 anathem as of Justiaian the ' nous Christology,which wasimplied only by Cyriaeus,is prominent and explieit (anathemas 6,8,9);it Ls a necessary presupposition of the Isoehristic doctrine (anathemas Iz,I3) as also of tlae Protoktistie,which seem s rather to be end saged in the 8th azlathem a. The classical'Origenist m yth , apart from these Christological surchargings, is expressed ratller in the znd and 4th anathem as. It is of interest to note that a11these
errorsare laid to tile charge ofPythagoras,Plato and Origen (Diekamp,9013) or to Pythagoras,Plato and Plotinus (9611) and finally Origen isto be anathematized with the errors (99$. As in the edict so here Evagrit!s attd Did' ym us are ltot nam etl84.neither have the classieal heretics, Arius and M ani, auy place. W itll the Christological aberrations and other oddities he' re condenm ed, we are not coneerned. 'fhey seem scarcely to have ' com e w'ithin M axim us' pun -iew 3l. A t the very end of the letter oecttrs a statem ent of doetrine rephrasiug a thesis m et w ith in the edict: ffBut holy Chureh follow ing the divizle W rit afiirm s that tite soulw as form ed together v'ith tlle body,and not one before, .tlle
other after,aeeordittg to Orken's mischievous doctrine '' (961'-1a' see above p.8z). * W ilat, however, does m ost nearly concern us is the seem ingly increased appreciation of what O rigenism is This is Srst evident .
in the frequent oceurrenee efthe term henad t# rationalbeings. W e llave seen above (p.73)that the term isfound in Origen and iu one of Justinian's exeerpts;yet it rem ained unnoticed and unused. ln our present docum ent,how ever,it oeeurs no less than Io tim es or 6 if we discount the parallels 3z. It is a term which ' G II later serve
:' Evagrius ls itt faet cited (f%xJ. 2,78 and 5.zz - to be corrected from 5.z9) in the 5th anathem a (DG KAM. P 9z1-le and 923-9) but without the siightest indieations of m ovenience. The sam e citations are founc' t
irz John of Scythopolis PG 4.I73A, 'see GTJIIAAUMONT.p.r75 f.Cent.2,z7 isfound in auathema :4.IDISK.tM: p.9517-25 also Cnnt.4.18 in the finalphrase (93B%-*t) of anathema 8 (GTJIIAAIJMONIG p. aoz). 3: Christ and the putting-off of bodies are found togetite/ in Thal 6o-6z5A B ' see above p.75 atld note I. z! The term htnad is found ill the antl, 3r(1 alzd 6th artathem as with
parallels in the letter (DISKAMP,9o:B 911: gzlfj; in anathem a 7 and :4 938,6)51s)without parallels artd in theletterwithoutr parallelin an anathem a (6?1p1%'3V)
86
TA J?#rgNor;oj t7,+ z;*
M axim us as a frequent designation for the O rigenist error 33. N ow the m ere use of sud t a term w ould not be of m uch siguilicaztee unless with it were connected a certain insight into the error. 'Phis is in fact the case.
Jttstinian (or his scribe) says, enum erating the errors: ''And that there willi)e a totaldoing away ofbodies,the Lord frst putting
away his om zbody,alzd (then)allthe rest;atld that allwillbe carH ed tzp again ttl tlze sam e tltzity and becozne m inds,as was the case
in the preexistence...'' (94:1-11). Again, at the end of the 13th anathem a:r'Ifany one say... (tllat)a11willbe on the right hand of God,just like their Christ,as also was the case irttheir m ythic ' preexistence 1et him be anatllema ''(958-1:). And in the 14th:T
(rnl 'nds)only asalso wasthe case in theircrazy preexistente,1et him
be anathema ''(95:2-2$
T he idea underlying these passages, m ore particularly these fm al phrases, is the perfeet com pletion of a eycle. 'fihat sttch is, indeed, the im port of these phrases, the fina.l anathem a witnesses w ith suë d ent clarity: 4.If any one.say that tlze state of m inds will be the sam e as before when they had not yet descended or fallen, so that the beginning is tlze sam e as tlze end.and the end is tlle m eas-
ure of the beginning,1et him be anathema ''(96:-6)84 That this is veritably an insight into the lleart of Origenism w itt not easily be doubted. V on Ivanka 3s in his recent article on 38 The term henatloecurs in Am b 7-Io69A9;reyzllr;zo77B lo' .Io89BI4 A m b Is-lzzooz3y ' I: zzIA 3 - six tim es in all. *1 1 give here tlte Greek text for tize foregoing 4 pa ages. from Dle-
kamp:DIEKAMP,94/18-31'xtttt$n zr.avxel' j k lim 'rf kv ofopâxttw âvltietcw, ttllmo' ë voîixvklfov rw fâ' retl(' iaonlsltfvov mè l kov te lm ,xat ' rGw lotzrf :v ttmivrœv'xtttô' ç4
(ivaxopq ovm ta41, : t'ix vxeag sk 'en 'v (tfrrhv évtBtz xatWvovxctbvtjeç)xq' ë' à xg,t lv x' à zpoihfkla l' bnkztnov...
95a!-13:EI ' rpç âtyet...(tk) rrtkvre. ç lx htltt' f,v O ovrtu 'roîiê' eoîi,xttêtiae: éà atttà'afrrok Xtl%tvög,Gg xcsl lv ' t' fj xap*tti'rtplv pe Euohtévn rwoëatk4et l' t'vsm ft-
vov, tl. ë.
95f+ -*: EI xbG Réyeb... xftt & : e 5: v x' @i p' vêevepalvq 4aS oxaa cafrttktptt fcovvtu
p' évo:m l zvot(o!vôeg),' m ljtla6e xqk lv 'r'zi attk/ (zfrrê)v kqpoêovja'v' (IaklliizrzklE: é' tfrrxttvov J. :'.
'
* (t1-ç:E('rw l' éysk,X t' j tiyto'f' ;lx(' ;3v voGv ' 4 i em ' i 1nm % % rcpo' rdptr, f%; e o' pxlo fzropep' q'xeouv ' h xexarrEzufâzttglv,tk viv (kz' llv ' rhv (yâvllv elvtn v: ' céhzt xtzï A;l>'réàog ' r' lç Jpx' hç p' éxeov Etvex,(L !.
35 VoN IVANKA E.'Zuy geistesgeschioittlichen EfAlo?WxsA;g des OA# :>ïsplss' Bz 44 (z95I) 302.
Chapter 1.M tfxf-' lu tzA?.IîOrigenism
87
Origenism says; ''D ieses zykltsche W eltbild einer ewigen W iederlcehr entkleidet die ehristiiche Xehre... des fiir das Christentum W esentliehsten: des Charakters der einm aiigen, endgiiltigen Entseheidung fiir oderwider Gott ''. Very aptly then he eites Claudian
D6 CoAlslff/fv Stilickonis 11 430): caudam redu' eto ore vorat tacito relegens exordia lapsu. B onnefoy :: attributes the errors of O rigen to a principle, which, if undea tood in the order of finaland eë cient cattsality,is valid,btzt whieh,understood ofthe faetttalbeginning and end ofcre-
atures,is but a speeious justiiication ofthe cyelic coaeept set forth by Ivanka. The prineiple runs: Semper M ïAll similis est #fsis iniffï. s (D6 principiis 1.6.3 Koetschau 79231It is not yet tim e to dress a balanee of Origenism ;but that we
have i!lJustinian's letter of553 an insight,however gropiag,lzowever unreflexive,is eertain. It will be this insight that givo M axim us his start. StSimeon f/ltlF ool Leontius of N aples in Cyprus,a contem porary of M axim us.has lef't us a popular life of St Sim eon the Fool of Em esa. H e there rdates how two m onks,tm able to reae. h a conclusion about the condem nation of O rigen, traveled to Palestine in order to have their question settled by som e w ise m onk there. For response they w ere sent back to Em esa to Sim eon. And lzis response to them was no m ore than an assurance that O rigen perished. W hat had espeeially drawn the attention of these m onks was the usefulness and extent of Origen's Scripture laboz's 37. The TzD 6 Src/f. s,,
Between Simeon,effectively Justinian,and M axim us I know at present ofonly one docum erlt pertinent to our interest in Origem ism : aG BONNEFOV J.-F. La NVJ/IOJ: th/ologiq' ae (f'origlAIa,M êlangss Ca-
rlllcyt' (Toulouse :948) zzJf. :7 I/ïftvS.Simeonis Scfï,jj4o.41(cap.6)PG 93.I7I7'D-I7z:B. Sim eon went to Palestine.1n the tim e ofJustinian anll led,there the monastic lr lfe for z9 y-ears before going to Em esa (BARDSNM wSP.,GAK L V,p.zzrfj. Tlle earliest possible date for this incident is therd ore the year 556.
88
Th6 Sf/ff/cfïtza.oj Ozlkdlfr. wa
the D 6Srctis. Thislittle treatisedates betweerl 57g and 607 sB, The author is eeztainly a 'Pheodore; R ichard :9 tends to attribute it to
Theodore ofRaïthou wlzose Propatask6vewould have appeared some 30 yeal's earlier. This Theodore distinp lishes three errors irt Origeniszn; a subordinationism , for which he adm its no excuse,a preexisteneeaa restoration. T he fallof m inds is explained by tlle rebellion ofthe devil;the expected doctrine ofsurfeit does not here enter
the picture. 'rhe restoration or apocatastasis is stated rather than explained. The refutation is a non-acceptance of the illation tlaat since angels and m en are irltellective and im m ortal, therefore they are' of the sam e uature. G od too is intellective and im m oztal, but is not thereby of the sam e nature as m an. 'l'he inequalities of m en at birth are sim ply the decrees of God,not to be questiorted. Our Theodore then counters with a dië culty;why do hozses have such diferent lots, their souls not preexisting? 'rhe restoration:punish-
m ent is eternal;adrnittedly tlle word aldw tog is used also of a delinite period of tim e; but because of the parity of its predication in M att.25.46 of% th life and punishm ezzt,it rzlust bear the sam e rzlean-
ing ilz either case. The blessed life is unthinkable as subject to a ending;therefore neither does punishm ent èom e to an end. These questions show sttrely a grasp of certain points iu dispute; but the sense of O rigenism has escaped the author. 'l'lle debate undertaken in such a m anner w ould be endless.
M axim us tz' rltf tke Textt# Origen M axim us, then, is dearly in debt to Justinian for his grasp of O rigeuism . That this insight is fundam ental I have indicated by
citing z modem authors (above p.8g). But has Maximus drawn lzis knowledge of Origenism m erely from 6th eentttl'y sources or has he also gone to O rigen him self? N o one w ho is aeqtlainted w itlzvon
Balthasar's work on the Gnostic f7rzrff4dTs (?lYOec)willquestion for a m om ent that at one tim e M axim us did frequent O rigen. Y et from this w e eannot conclude that this frequentation was previous to his redaction of the A ntbigua. The question is a com plicated
z:Rsls, S. JTS 4o (1939) . 35é/; M OMU aR (JFl. 6K , above note p. 642)gives 580-607. 'fhe ' / X''t is found in PG 86.z193-::68. z: D ' rC 1.5 (x946) 284.
Ckqptvv 1.M aximusand O'okez/iszzz
89
one that I cannot attem pt to solve here. Suë ce it to say that
whereastheAm bigua and theQuaestiones ad Tkalassium,on wich the Centuries are dependent, took som e years in their elaboration and com position so also the eollection of sentences w ith w hich w e are now dealing w as not the w ork of w eeks or even of m onths. T here is no thought of questioning.that the Cknturies in their Enal form
are posterior to the Ambigua and the Quaestiones (at least to those portions where dependenee is proven), 'k-et this is not to say that the acquaintanee with Origen m anifest in the Centt4ries is posterior. ()n the e'ontrary, there m ust have been during the elaboration of
the Ambigua alld Quaestiones a considerable time during wlzich Maxim us was colleeting ideas and sentences for the Centuries. But even supposing thefrequentation ofO rigen,m anifest in the C6nturies, began or w as already in eourse when the question of Origenism w as posed in the A m bigua,this would be no proof that M axim us had the text of Origen before him wllile preparing his reftltation. The answerto sueh a question cal be found only in the textof the ref' utation itself. Let us llow turn to this text. D irect rem iniscences, not to say d tations, of O rigen's text fn Am b 7 and :5 I have failed to find. Bt4t it does seem to m e that in eom posiug his refutation M axim us had before his m ind's eye som e principalexpositiotlofthe Ozigenist m srth,if not the text of the D e
Princiiiisitself. M y ground forsaying this is the use ofScripture. For in z crucial points M axim us introduces and uses in an opposite sense those very texts w hieh had served O rigen, and after him of course the Origenists as substarttiation of their error. ln his second argum ent against the henad T
only cause or been established within the ultim ate desire'' (Am b 7-Io7zCII-I4),Maxiznus adduces itl eonfinnation various Sezipture texts. First ofa11from Moses:Taste Altlf t# tke fz'tz oj life. Thisis not a vevbatim eitation but a elear rem iniscence of Gen.2.9 and I7.
To tllis he immediately subjoins this other:F0r 1// fp now ytlFz lmvô /rt?/come f'r/p thatrestand C'l/itm '/awfz which /& Lord i pf/r God ?pj' # p%' '
you (Deut.Iz.9). There follow then Ps.16.5 and 41.3:I skallcry' and b6 AJdW wken tky glory tz//ztzrsJp me. And:M y spfu tkirsted /pr
God,fAtrstrong,f/l: livi' ng on6, .when shall I come Jzl# appeay k/nr: tk6face9/ God. I have givellalso tho e other O1d Testam ent texts tllat M axim us dtes,for othem ise the rem iniscence of Genesis seem s to have no point. But with these otllertexts M axim us gives to un-
qo
7-& Rqutaiion p/ Origenis,
derstand that also that prim itive eom mandment:Taste Alt?foj/& tn oj &/:,poiats to a future satisfaetion - a sense not obvious in ti text itself. W hy then did M axim us piek such an am biguous texl W as it not beeause he knew it to be a text involved itz Origen's ap(
eatastatic developements?In a later section (Chap.VI)I shallila: oecasion to speak m ore at length about M axim us and the tree ( life. W hat I shallhave to say there leaves zzo doubt as to the apocl
tastatiesensegivettthispassage in O rigen. lt isnotim probablethe that M axim us snatehes this arm from the O zigenists.
After the Scripture texts just now referred,M aximus continut ltis diseussion of m otion in relation to the end explains how the en
is attained only when the subject is wholly com prehended by tb w hole, as iron in fire. This,he notes, is conjecturally said ofa ft tttre,not ofan already existent state and is perhaps the explanatio
ofthat subjection ofthe Son to the Father and ofthedestruction( the last eztemy death,ofwhich the Apostle speaks tAm b 7-zo76h' Is it aeeessaty to em phasize how this passage of St Paul fortn the warp and w oof, as it were, of so m ueh of Origen's speculatioz
One has only to glance through the few paragraphsofthe D6 Jrïz
cipiis 3,6,5-9 (Koetschau z68-9I),to be convineed. M y frst example,of itself,is scareely convindlzg;here I thin the im plieation ofthe eitation is evident.so that the inferenee isfutl
justified:Maxim usisusing or explaining correetly texts usurped i an heterodox sense by O rigen. D oes he do tllis beeause he was al quainted w ith such use of these texts in the w ritings of Origen hin? self or only in those of the O rigenists? I can adduce no perem ptor evidenee to solve the question. Sw nm Rt' ? So far then we have seen that M axim us works with a knowledg oftlle O rigenist literature,not im probably ofO rigen him self;but tha
for his analysis of the Origenist virus he is indebted to Justinian He therefore speaks ofthe henad ol rational cyeatures,for it is tlti w hich was at the beginning and m ust be reconstituted onee agais or m any tim es. Thatthe world processbeinitiated som e cause m as be found; this is surfeit w ith the good or a supposititious need c experience ofevilirtorder that the good m ay be appreeiated. Thes
points of eourse we find in M axim us. Bqt the seeond Justinian do cum ent had im plied with suflldent elarity that the base of error 1a'
Chapter1.M aximws JAlffOrigenism
91
it1 insisting that the initial and Iinal condition .or state of thhlgs m tlst be the pam e. To us it would then seem naturalthat M axim tus should have m ade this the startitzg point ofhis refutation It is not so at all. 'Phe whole trend of the direct refutation,after briefly re-
jeeting the doctrine ofthe experienee ofevii,is an ontologicalconsideration ofm otion. W hen later he considers the initialunity of beings in the Logos,in whom they will at the end again be united,he isobviously trying to satisfy the principle ofbeginning and end being alike,for what truth there is in it;but he nowhere direetly adverts to the principle to correct it 4* ' N o,the originality and strength of M axim us' refutation lies in
another direction. Yo have distinguished the Origeniall principle of beghm ing and end w ould have been relatively m ore sim ple and, 1 dpre say, ineffective beeause superlicial. For the Origenist m yth gave a sense to this w orld and.to lm m an destiaies. It proffered an explanation ofthiseosm osand itsvastvariety;how itcam e to befrom a tm itary prineiple and how itwasto return thither. There wasthen necessary not m erely a dialeeticalnon-set luitur,but a realontologieal explanation of m an's nature in regard to the el'td and for the unity of m ankind. In a w orld view was needed to replace the H ellenie error, M axim us does this in tllree w ays that respond to three nlom ents of the Origenist m yth. 'rhe first of these is his doetrine of
4Q 'fhis is perltaps too strongly pttt. It m ay be the m emory Justiniatz's 15th anathem a tsee Mote 34.last text)whfclzeaused M axfm usto reconsider and m odify his ârst phru ing of the pritzciple in the following passage.' Speaking of the virtuous m ali who partieipates sqbstaantial virtue, Christ, M axim us says that sue.h an one '&show s tltat the enfl is the sam e as tlze beginning anll the beginning as the end or rathe. r the begiltning and the entl are tite snm e inasm uclzas the begiuning and the end of everytldng
is believed to be its own intent artd purpose'' (Am b 7-Io84Az-5). 'Phe subseqttent lines show that this skopos is none othe. r than God.him self. he beginning and end not m erely resm rztl one to the other they are ISo t iflentieally one and the sam e thing. Still this passage rem ains isolated,
not in that thls pair (beginning and end) doe.s not frequently oceur t(7ofl begillning and eutl ks bestowe.r oi well-beirlg Amb 7-Io7zC7), but in this near idetttiâcation of beginning and e11(1 w ith the state ofa titing aad not with its cause. And again, if M ax-im us ltad effectively eriticized Origen's use of this prineiple applied to the eonf tions of things,could he so emsily
have accepted (d .'fhal r)Gregory ofNyssa's doctrine ofa double creation (Greg.Nys.d6 hominis tzhf/ît:ft),:6-18 PG 44.177fI).which argues back from the state of man in heaven (M att.tzz.golto the state in paradhe?
gz
l-h.dtT/l&ztfos p/(/riqenistn
the freewill, whieh is totlched on in A m b 7 but not develo 'ped u. 'rhe second is the doctrine of m otion and rest. The tlzird is the doctrine of the Logos. Such is the order in which these argum ents appear in Am b 7, 'if howeverw e putthem in the order oftheir im portance in tile argum entation,w e fnd tlze first in last place alld have then for our study this order. m otion,logos, freewill. M otion follow ed l)y rest as the necessary ontological order betw een these tw o, in this is contained tlle refutation of the heltad; the unity of tlze logoi of things in the Logos,in this isconserved what ofgood there was in the persuasion of an initial and fnal unity in the Origenist m yth;freewill not bound to exercise itself in the experience of evil, bnt fashioned for fixedaess in the good , in this is the union of the saints. B . 'PHS IY NIAAMEXTJG REBUTATION
Ihavejustnow said thatMaximus'main argumentin refutation of Ozigenism is grounded in the doctrine of m otion. W e m ust now see how he com es to relate the doctrine of m otion and the henad of rationalbeipgs. Let us frst enquire how he expounds the henad for refutation and how he first developes the refutation. The Iirst description of the error is triadie. There is given the
lzovyj and têtltjctç of rationalbeings, followed by movement whence the rationals are seattered in the gtmesh of the eorporalworld,prepared to see God 41. W e have therefore the triad: abode, pzppdpldwf, becom ing. M axim us im m ediately argues: as God is im m ovable, so the created is m ovable and m oving to a cause; but the m oved does not eom e to a stop so long asits faeulty of desire-m ovem eat48 does not repose in the ultim ate desirable. Such a conelusion is but the refrain of tlze M axim iam refutation.
41 Amb 7-Io6(X-Io72A; 10761B1:. *1 Am b 7-Io69A 1o-z5; M axim us afltls) ''ior the sake ofbiniing them to ' their bodies in punishm ent of their previous sirls '' which m ust be taken as explanatory ofgenesis. 'fite tlië eulty in the passage is due to the vöv * 6. . t:sw rtttettlxto um v w llieh is quite pnexpected and without furtlzer conse quence in tlle argum ent. '
43 Tfiç xqx*fqlsghv xlvjtrEfl)g v;p K w ptv Amb 7-to69B8f. For Plotilm s m otion is desire. See Enn.3.9.9 line 4 (HSNRY and Scllwyzsp.) and AatNov, Le t/A ïr detr f,u dans 't4 philosophie #F Plotin,p. 88.
Chapter1.Afdlxï-f/dantlOrfg
93
M ter a sttm m ary discussion of surfeit M axim us returns to the
m ain eharge (Io7zA). 'rhe m ytll supposes the movement of the rationals to have oeeasioned the genesis of the world. Tlle order is:kinesis,gtrzldr. sïs. N o,says M axim us,gellesis is coneeived as previous to m ovem ent though chronologieally they m ay be sim ultaneous. 'Phe order therefore . rtm st be : genrsis, kinesis. T he tllird m em berof the original triad is left im plicit ia the verbalform :does
notrepose,come to a stop 44. N ow in Am b 15 there is evident a considerable elarifcation alld so condensation of the question.Gregory had there spoken of the
visible tllings as being welland flrmly fixed arzd as enjoying an im movable movement and a caroeing (...tlxsvzhsrl)ç xtvovpzévokg lz xftï (pepolzévokg - Amb 15 title-lzz6A). Haviag solved tlze diëeulty M axim us launches into a rather bold.digression, as he says, as to whether in regard to the ulziverse this earrying is said of an active
(substance oigûa), or of one acted upon (Amb zs-zzzgBlo). It.is thus that M axim us again developes the ontologieal sequenee. God isthe prineiple ofthe beginning aad the causalend oflzzotion irzrest. Tlle sequenceitselfm ust be:genesis,kinesis,stasis. A fter illustrating
the question with the sokl, M axim us appliesthe doctrine thus elabo-
ratedtotheexclusionofthe henad ofrationals (13.Izzoclo-rzclzv ). N ow this triad isthe exaet converse ofthat with which M axim us
deseribed Origenfsm . W e have on the one hand: jtovj xlvqgtg yévegkç and on the other: yévetrtg xtvngkg gttigtg. H ow did he happen to hit upon it?It seem s dear from the foregoing that his descriptioa of Origenism was not itself enough to induce the eonverse triad. It is only later and in attother connection that the facile phrasing com es to him , rather as a pal4 of his ontology than ofhis polem ie. The pair m otion and rest, as w e s' hall soon see, is a com m onplace in H ellenistic philosophy. But a Iirst thought w ould be to see if M ai m us llas not borrow ed his use of it from D enis. H ow ever, for D enis stasis is the divine iixing of tllings in their proper
esssenee (DN 4.7-7o4C),not at all the end of motion. Maximus knows this sense, but I have found enly one certain instanee of it
(Amb 17-12288145, but ef. Amb 67-I4()IAI2j. Nor do I lind in Proclus'Elementsol Tkeology atzything suggesting theuse that M axim us m akes of this pair. W e shall have to turn elsewhere. 4* See Am b 7-zo69B9, zo7zcla, Io73B I. The term stasis does occur
in Amb 7 (Io85C5)but only in the sense of aedftion.
94
TlteA jwfgfïppzoj'(lrk- f:s-
Plato in the Sophist developes 5 genera or form s:being,m otion, rest, identity. diserence. Plotinus takes these as a com plete list of universal genera 45. It is rather in Plotinus that w e shall find som ething of interest w ith regard to M axim us' doctrine. N ow it is notew orthy that Plotinus m anifests a certain unw il-
liagness to pair motion and hstwithout fudher ado. l7or physical and,generally,m undane m otion has rather as its opposite a stoppl g
(?1:6g1)which indieatesprecisely thelaek ofa certain motion;rest (gxJgtg)is rather to be referred to the world beyond. And hl fact rest is not neeessarily the suppre&sion .of m otion; they m ay eoexist
(Enn. 6.3.zg). Indeed, being,motion and repflse, as categories of thotzght,in a w ay eom penetrate one another. But even here, thought
whieh is motion (viqgkç = xtvngtç)4:does not begin nor terminate initself4: butin thestasis(fA;71.6.2.8). 'l'heultramundaneeharacter ofstasisbecom esvery evident in the traet on eternity and tim e where stgsis, so far as substanee is cozlcerned, is connected w ith eterttity
(.E'AlAl.3.7.z). This rest,wllieh is also end,is very m anifest in the fgttre of the cyclic danee (Enn.6.9.8) line 43 Bréllier) and in the description of rapture (fAlp..6.9.11 line za-z5 Brêhier),though this attahlm ent be described not from a perm anent possession but from a transitory grasp : ''If then one should see him self becorning tids, he po% esses ldm self as a likeness of that thing; and if he should pass over from him self, as the im age to the arehetype, he would
hold the end ofthe journey ''*:. In tlle developem ent of Am b I5, stasis - M axim us takes the soul for his em m ple - is in the infnity about God where m otion,
ceases,giving place to jm ion above mind and reason (IzzoBC). Stasis then elearly belongs to the realm beyond. But there is another text where M axim us also deals with tim e and eternity and there distinguishes an alterative m otion paired w ith a fnite 0 The Sopltist 24.9E-259E , .see A. E . TAVI/OR, Plato f/z: M a' n and his
l' FbA' â (5th ed. London 1948) p. 3881, and Plotiuns Enn. I.z-:. 4e N6nt- -xlwlcsç= t'' tô voeïv xlwlgk nçi'(. E'sAl.6.7.35 line z BRH m R), See A m b I5-Ia2oA9:the soul Izovwct...Z vqtm êà ' rllv vdqow .
47 Thm e must be a term laé(?ctçl to m otion (. E'wx.6.2.8line zo-z: B: R.f)m %Rl. The point is znore clearly m ade elsexhe e: aum;k .%% xwngévp &t ' n eïvm zpê .w ($xvvvtxtst (. E' xx. 5.:.6 line l,f BRkm
ïêow rxe%ôjzoltz:pa èxeûvotltttrtöv,xat stiq)'G' frreïigex y tvobtk dxdw cwèç (kzlvttaov,xéâog (l. v pxp: ' rflg aofpûtzt;.
(7## fzr I.Mfzxï-ss ( :71d Orfg:stfs-
yj
rest, as against an infm ite everm oving rest. 'rhe iirst is connected w ith the fniteness of the w orld, place and tim e, tbe latter w ith et-
ernity t?1Yal 64-757C8-760A). 'fhe signifieance therefore of placirig. the lim it and rest of aetivity in the intinity about God is evident49. Butifnow we turn to Am b 7 w e find evocations ofthis thought, though there the w ord stasis qdoes not occur. Speaking of the sub-
jed ien ofa11to Chzist,in a passage wehave clearly seen to be anti49 'fhe questiol of infinity, 6h 6*(a, as that to wbich orte attains rather tlzan God.him self pertains ratlzer to the negative tlzeologp But
as the texts I have just cited z'aise the question I pet rmit m yself here to give som e referenee and com m ent. Cllar I. roo ancl a.z7 are signiiicant. Then there is a series of passages where Clod is ao m ed to be above infrlit)r
tA. m b Io-zIz3D3, zI68A ,o II88AI4' Am b I5-zc2oC7,9. There m ay be m ore instances in the Am bigua, but I sllpped Am b lo last when I wms
m orq sensitive to this word). Other passage. s propose the inânity of God (or God as infnite) as stretching out m an's desh.e indefinitely (Am b 7Io8$)B I1; TP 1-9A 8, z4CI:). But the A-ety explicit siatez m eut oi Amb I5-I22oBC - tllat the infnity about God, notGod,is the lim ittrr évttçlof .
allcreaturely m otion glving it rest - seem s to be at odds M t.II an ev lier
passage of the same A mbiguum. I translate it (for variations from the
printed text see above p.43 .):d'Restisthe end (I; éh. eç)oftlte naturalm ovem ent of all created thingsk a rest afected indeed., afte, rfthe Ipassing over of lim ited things by inO ity,in which because there is no dtstance every m ovem en. t of things naturally m oved reposes, havittg now ndther where nor how nor to what it m igllt be m oved as AlrfAlg Gotl who teym inates fA:
viwy teyminativeï' néxïl:pojzrt/er:ymotion ,&end and tifiu&e''(I2. I7C6-14:xlvndnç) çkç xùv ôetlovxu xataéxàv vùv x4o,ç 6etoxixùv xtvswsœç iasçejav iEèv gékogéç llxtov lxoveo. 3phen flod is ihe end of creaturely nlotion ' bnt in the'text ârst referred to Gotl is si d.notto be the lim it of creaturely m otion. T here is no contratliction if we take into accotm t the distinction which m ay'be
diseerned between xépag antl téloç (1 d. o not say tlzat it is always observet l) nnm ely that txe ftrst is properly a lim it,a ' termM ation, tlze other a goal to be striven for, to give f'tirection to effod . And in fact in .
the te-xt between the two passages in question it is clear that the noetie activity of m an is tezm inated in tlle things about G od his #' everlasthlgness. inâuitys indeterm inateness goodness, w isdom power. c're-
ative governative and judicative of ereation '' Char I.loo. Eut beyond tlzese is the end Gotl him self and unlon with him in a non-diseumive nonnoetic fashion which is effed ed onl)rby the grace of G od. If m y'rem arks are accurate, firrew ftx for M axim us w ill iztdicate especially the term ef
noetic activity anfl connote only the intuitive eoatemplation or.to hold to tlle M axim ian vocabulary, inepable union. The things aboutGod m ay be found eqaivalently in G regory of N yssa, H om . f. n E c&I..V II PG 44.732A -B . I now only w ould ask have w e here a distinction so develom d that it m ight serve later as a ground for the doctdne of uncreated energies?
96
-
Tlbe R:/f4fàïp' lzolOrk:Alis-
origenist,M axim us eautions that this is not to be taken as the suppression of the freewill but as its aë rm ation,that w hence we have being tllenee also w e m ay desire to have m otion and as a1z inm ge return to the arcltetype, so that the divine operation is a11 in a11
(Am b g-Io76Bzo-CI3)summ arized). 'I'heuse ofthis fgure ofimage and archetype is com m on not only to M axim us and Plotinus but
isfound also in a passage of Gregory twiee cited by M aximus (Am b g-Io77B5-9.Io89C8-II),to wrhom dottbtlesshedirectlyowesthisfigtlre. The non-suppression of the freewill is found paralleled in Plothm s in the non-suppression of m otion by stasis :e. A nd further if for M axim us the divine operation perm eates the hum an so that there
be but one operation (Io76C),Plotinus ean sày that f'Life there is aet (lvéeyEta)ofthe mind ''(Enn.6.9.9.line 17 Bréhier). I have not presented these sim ilarities as indicating a direct influence of Plotinus on M axim us m tw h less a literary dependenee, . but rather to show tlzat the Plotinian use of stasis, as indicating the final end of a1lm otion and desire,is one w hich gives a basis for M axim us' restatem ent of the O rigenist triad. A lld indeed M axim us' argum entation is far from Plotinian ; P lotinus w as still lleld fast by the H ellenic cyclic conceptious.by the fall of the soul from an unem bodied state to which it desired to return 11. ft was precisdy this cycle that M axim us had set him self to break.
Tke C/;W Avgument The question of motion and rest,justnow treated,wasoccasioned m ore espeeially by the developem ent of term s m anifest in A m b
15, .ithasallow ed usto see som ewhat oftlle clim atein which M axim us w orked. B ut now it is tim e to return to the argum ent in A m b 7
(Io72A on). W eshallsee that here his in'spiration is rather Aristotelian,but by a shift of em phasis he rem ains withirz the Plotinian m ilieu to wlzich w e have been but now giving our attention. 'fhe w hole com posite w ill be seen, I think to have a coherence and urgeney of its ow n. M axim us begins. T'A s to things of nlind and sense prodtzced by God, their beeom ing is conceived of before their m otion; for
H DH tgn e' O 'ftm v Elasw J' vttlkpsfysv ' riiç xswitreteg 'r'l)v o'rticnv Enn. 6.3.27 line z8f BRRRM R. O 11 the reconciliatiotl of tlze concepts of stasis and. m otion in that of everlmsting m otfon see below ehapte. r V n. 24. 51 Com pare Eïnn. 4.8.l antl 6.9.8.
ChgptrrI.M aximus4a4/Oyigenism
.
97
motion cannot be before beeonzing '' (Amb 7-logzAzr-l4l. The Origenists had posited: abode, v pffpzl, becom ing. H eve M axim tts proposes:becom ing,m otion. H e does not here attem pt to illustrate what this beeom ing is ::. he assttm es it as his intent is to develope
the idea of m otion with its correlative end. :2 This becom ing or genesis is in fact the creation of things, each ac-
cording to its proper logos. See below where M aXhIIUS begin: to treat of
logos (10. 770). lt has been objected that I here overlook a complete m isunflerstanding of tbe Origenists by M axim us and that thetd ore the argum entatiotl m iscarries. For the Origenists genesis is precisely tlle advent of the preexistent iznm aterial being lnto the body. Such would be tbe .
.
open assertion ofPlotinus (. E'?)s.3,9.3). ' rltis is a partial concept of gênesis,'not the genesis of the thing itself but of a partjeular m ode of its being. M axim us, how ever understands genesis quite tm iversally as he is cateful .
to state: TTas to the things of nllnd and sense produced by God ''(xèv fx êeo' p yEvoltévtov vonxt' ùv ' re xtttclcnhlstbvl. Things of ztzind and sense tllis is the universal Platonic dichotom y, w ith w hidt Origen still worked. But there was for G regory of N ysaa and for M axim us another dielzotom y still m ore fundam ental. W eisw urm expresses it thus: ''To Origen's division of being into 'rô ttlcênxt' w and xth voqvöv Gregory, in order to preclude any kind of identifcatlon of God w it. lz the worltl of spirits adds tlle distinction of xxw söv and &xngxov, i, e,, of the created atzd uncre-
atetl emphmsizing lt very forcefally '' (W slswuu ThsN ll. ?x. y' , 0/ H qma. n K' nowledge... p. 3z). M avimus assum es this disthtctfon here;he (loes not prove it;yethe p' illexplain that the logoioftlzings are fkxed by G od at their creation their com ing to be rather these logni foreverpreexistin God. Bnt a gonesis invold ng a passage from the state of pare spi: rit to that ofa com posite im rolves a change in tlze preexistent Iogosy whic.h is asim pcssible asitis for Cxod to change. I do not txink therefore tltat tûe M axim ian argum ent m iscanies. The H ellenic world-view which he sets out to refute in tlds
Amb 7 is the cyclic view (ef.voN IVANKA cited,above p. 87), which ftrst presupposes a primitive gnity (the henad)ofrationalbeings and in second place, tlze preexistence of lm m an sotlls. M axinm s'm ain efort therefo' re is with the dod Hne of m otion, by which he established and deacribes the liztear m ovem ent of the c eature to God. This view too has its necessary
presuppositlons,chiezy that the subject of m ovem ent is essentially im m utable,whether that subjectbe simple or composite. 'rlzis iseom prelzendetl in the doctrine of the Iogoi. One m ay eavil that M avim us (loes not fzrst treat of w ha. t for us m en is m ost im m ediate and doea logieally precede in eitlzer theory,nam ely whether genesis does m ean tlze com i' ng into a body of an alzeatly existent spirit or the sim ultaneous com ing ilzto being of body anll soul as parts oi a com posite w hole. T his i:a how ever and tem ains a particular question whiclz though logically preceding,would not perm it .
.
the direet treateznent of the opposing viorld-viexgs vzidch preeisely fornâ the dië culty proposed for discussiotl. It is m ore than coincillence then tltat
(/8
T& R6jwtation oj tlrlk:sfswl
It is thus that he com es to dednitions:''This m otion they eall a natural power,pressing on to its own end, or else passion,that is m otion, passing from one thing to another with the im passionate
asend,or elseefective operation with theself-perfect(<ô (IlxovElég) as'end .
And no produced thiug is an erld ill itself, since it is not
self-eausing,sizlce it (the self-eatlsiag:B ttAsalxkov) is unprodueeda without beginning,unm oved as having nowhere to be m oved. ror it surpasses the nature of beings as beiug for the sake of nothing, if,as iadeed is the ease,the definition about it be tzue though he be
an outsiderwho saysit:TM yAlJ istkat/(v tkestlàz ofwkich alltkings are,and bfjoy f& sake oj notking ''(Amb 7-IogzB9-C5). Beforethe translated passage M axim tls has spoken of t14e eon-
ventionaldivisionsofmotion (one,threefold:linear,circularsspiral; the other, twofold : sim ple and com posite, that is of the linear and
eircular). His defnitions respond to these divisions,especially to tl)e second. el' . be sim ple m otion then he éxplains,speaking of end;
the composite m otions he explains (1 have forborne to translate the explanation) izt inverse order, the sslj-psrfect befo're the i?Alpassionate. The M axim ian refutation here starts from the idea of m otion as essentially directed to an em d. But rnotion is only eonceivable as of som e tlting w hich already has com e to be irz its oue unalterable
substanee (o:o(a). W e are then in the presence of this triad:becom ing, m otion, end. W hence ltas M axim us derived it? The ring of the whole is som ewhat Aristotelian; a search in that direction seem s indicated. rirst there is the defm ition of m otion as natvral
>ï)?z):r,later that ofe' nd. I sllallconsider each in turn. N atural pow er,says M axim us, is to be considered either sim ply as m otion to an end, or, com positely wit,h the ends quaEfied,'as
adêog-xtvngtg or as lvéthyesa :tlacslxq. But why does lle assign the dxcêé.g and tlle tzèrorellg as ti'e respeetive qualifed ends (overends) for these motions? It is curious that Aristotle, speaking of the way of acquiring knowledge in a passage at the basis ofthe later
doctrine of species Tx/w ssl fDe Anima 1II 4-4z9aI3-I8), says that the tm derstanding part of the soul, the m ind that is, m ust be âxtt-
leads Afaxînlus (Jknzb 7-zzooC4f) to propose a stringent argnnlent against the preexistence of souls as a ânal corollary of tke aceeptance of the great Clzristiall m ystery:that we are m em bers or a m rtion of Gocl.
Chakt- I.M aximns tzs;l Origenism
99
N g. And Simplicius in his com mentary oa the D6 Anima (Il 54l7ba8,CAG X I,I25'B)with reference to . the above passage of D6
zlAlïp;flIII4,plaees lvétpyekl in relation with the word (lv:m elTjg. Now M axim us generally prefers to illustrate m ovem ent with that
ofthe sottl(ef.Amb I5-I22oA6);not im probably it is noetie motion that he has here principally in m ind. But such m otion, w e have
just seen,Aristotle and his com mentator have put in conneetion with the âxaN g am d abxotellg. Further this noetie xfvnglg or N ék)-
yBq is of the sort whieh is sm onym ous with end (cf. Alexander Aphrod.in M et. IX 3-lo4' 7a3o, CAG I 573). M axim us therefore cotlld easily pass from or rather over this proxlm ate and proper elld to the last end,the overend,of which alone he expressly speaks. I suggest rather than aflirm the above explanation.
'Phe distinction active-passive is surely com mon enough; still the adjeetive :tpttoxtxlj may suggest a Stoic m ediation. Nem esius (De nat.kom .5 - PG 4o,6z5BIIf)speaks of the Stoics as-distinguishing the elem ents into Dpagttxd. and xaêqstxd.. Yet eertainty is im possible so long as the links between M axim us and the philosophers rem ain uncertain or unknow a. T he deinition of end is a d tation. I first sought to verify it in the Azistotelian autlm rs. This searclz, thougla vain, shows vezy clearly how A ristotelian the definition is.
In B 4 ofthe M etqklbysics (999b8:) in propotmding a diëeulty A ristotle w rites: '' But granted beeom ing and m otion, tllere m ust stillbe a linzit;for no m otion is infnite,but eaeh has its end ''. A nd
in V z ofthe Physics(az4bz):''17or every motion isfrom sometbing to s' om ething ''. Later he explains this as from a thilzg to its con-
trary (2z9b29). W dtiug On th6 zkfpfïp' )z H Zïp: Tkings 5 (7oobI5) he says:ffAIIlive things 1)0th m ùve and are m oved for the sake of
something,so that the jor whose sake is for them the limit ofevery motiolz''. In the M etapkysics (xz (994b9f)he says:'''PheIortp/lp. s: sake is end,but such an end as is not for another's sake.but other thiags for it ''. That a11of M axim us'idems in the passage eited above,pave the identifcation of the end with tlze Transeendent,are to be found in A ristotle is evident' ,but if the ideas are there the form of w ords are too diverse to satisfy what M axim us indieates' .a verbal rem iniseence at léast, if not a vtbw rbatim cftatitm of som e author.. 'rhe neares't approach that I have beeu able to :nd is the following from Alexander
zcxl
7-71: lïejtdation o! (l'ïgysfszl
ofAphrodisias (etld 3rd cent.AD),where there ls manifesta greater sim ilarity of language. W e have;
M exauderin M 6t.BZICAG II8I:7rf) Tè ytlp ég 4yaê' èv dkttöv lgl.t t?l o; xdetv l:tk JLla, aivù ôè
Afaxinzus Jknzb 7-Io7aC4f. Tq og pgvtv oé ëvexev s& advva, afsè :è oèhcvôg zvExEv.
oo svtk,v?l :1 toto:tov dàoç. Again M exander, com menting the passage of Aristotle cited above fM 6t. B4),developes just that triad:becoming,motion,limit or end. T he m ilieu of the deo ition,then, is beyond a dotzbt. It is then the m ore piquant to know that the ozdsih r dted is none other tltan Evagrius. The defmition cited form s part of a Gnom e eonsenred in
tile Syriac and published by Mhylderm ans:3. It runs: !*e.N.'*.œ Alw 11 t.,.e :<> ,. -v-ve., 0& :...,*K..J -
The whole Syriac text given by M uylderm ans is a eom pletion of
Gnome cz(PG 4o.Iz69D);in his vet-sion it runs:La En estee à quoi tout est ordonnê,alom que lui-m êm e n'est ordonnê à.rien. Ou bien la Iin est ee pour quoi on fait quelque ehose,tandis que eela n'est
(Iaîtjpour rien Ld'autye).Comprends ainsice'quiest éerit en tête de psaum es, dans 1es livres grees: flPour la filz des psaam es de D avid )), Tllis altenm tive deûnition is akin to the text ofAlexander. It is now tim e to look at M axim us'clzaracterization of this end. W e have seen in the passage tranélated above that the end is the
impassionate (t?) lc ixtlêégl and the self-perfeet h( %)e xoteàk). This twofold eharaeterization eorresponds to the two aspeet of eom posite m otion,considered either as passion or as efective operation. This twofold charaeterization then seem s to be com plete. But as these both are characterizations of the sim ple end.they m ake with that end a triad w hieh ean in ne w ay be predicated oftlle creature. Thus'
no created thing is attend for irself (étlvt'o: séloç) nor self-perfect norimpassionate (Io72C 5 arzd 8). Thesethreeare assignableto God alone: M övov ytlp êEo: l:è xélog Elvas xat s?l téhstov xal K?l th aê' ég
(Io73B4)as unmoved and full and impassionate. Thus the end is presented to tls here in its otllerness,in its tm rd atedness. Y et tbere
13 M' IJ< IG RMANS,J. Evagviana Syrïtwt z Lltibliothèq' ue zfv: M usdon 3x, z9. 51) p.34.
C//zz/fer f.M qximqsttstlOrigenism
IoI
is a possession of the end which is necessary to the creature's perfeetion. This M axim us states in Am b 15 in a septenee which has served von Balthasar as a tag for llis K osm iscke Lïfsfrgi<: '
fect;buttlle repose Lstaszs) ofthe motion ofcreated thingstowards thecause is end for naturaloperations ''(Amb I5-IzaoA). But in the gth Am biguum such neatness of form ulation has not yet been obtained nor perhaps is possible as M axim us has here to balanee the two aspeets of end - that of the end in itself and that
ofthesubjectstending to it. Thusrem auing with thetriadicschem e Maximus continues (in Amb 7):.fit is for ereatures to be m oved to the unorighzate end te rest t'heir operation in the unquantitative per-
fectend tâzrdcfp sE), Eltp vé.àsk)and to suler,but nottobeorbecome substantially,tlle unqualifted; for,to be sure, every subject of be-
coming or ereation is not withouth relations'' (Amb p Io73B7-II). There are in this passage rerniniscenees that eall for attention. The word tlgxExoç which I have rendered udthout z'eltl/ïp' zld, is an im portant w ord arld colw ept in the N eoplatonie system E4 'fhe N eoplatonists apply it to causality through a11 the diverse ranks of being;Denis and M axim us em ploy it,but only as m arking the separation between creator and creature. 'l'he other rem iaiscence Ls still .
m ore obvious. D enis had said of his supposed m aster H ierotheos:
nottp/f/y lsarning 5f41suy ring tffrf' ls: things (DN z.9-648Bzf). And M axim us says that the saint suffers,but does not beeom e, the unqual/ ed, that is God. It is clear that the statem ent ofM axim us is at once stronger and m ore eautions than that of D enis. W e have now seen the substance of M axim us' refutation of the Origenist error. 12or a false placing of m otion, after a prim itive fxing irzthe good - a rnotion that lead to the conzing to be of the corporeal world - , M axim us has substituted a tnte triad, a triad that assum es things irl their nature as they m ay be obsew ed from wltich nature ite derives the m otion to the end. This stnx ture we have seen to be fundam entally ofAristotelian inspiration;tlze rnonner however of coneeiving the end is m ore N eoplatonic, if not Plotinian. Y etthere isno room for supposing a m ere edectic com pilation; the im pact of Christian teaching and m editation has so exalted the 'm anner in which the end is conceived that the whole structure is thereby profoundly m odified. :4 See Dolm s E lem6sts on proposition zzz p. 265.
2o2
7' & Relt4tation # Oyigsnism
H aving said this,it m ay seem that no m ore need be said on this argttm ent. Sueh a supposition is at once right and wrong. 'rhy acute reader will have observ'ed that at the outset of lds argtlm ent
Maximusassumes,quiterkhtly and naturally though withotttexplanation,that gen6sis com es frst. 'rhe fall justifcation d this he gives later in his doctrine on logos,when l)e set.s out to explain how w e are ealled parts of God. It will be enough to deal with itin titat plaee. And agaittthe reader w ill have observed that M aximus
baving said that the creatare sunsys 1ks c/zzgwlA' /t>. fl, irnmediately com m enees an explanation of this suffezing whieh is described as an ecstasis,and is,in faet, a description of the m anner of attaining the end. One carm ot wellavoid considering tllis descziption. Once again tlte reader m ay have wondered does M axim us nowhere develope the eonnectlons between the triad that here fkxes his attention and that other, fts near cousin: substance, powec operatiou. W e have therefore two sections to develope before we m ay treat of the logos. A fter that treatm ent there will yet rem ain for us the argum ent of satiety. I have so far passed over it,though it eom es 5rst in the M axim ialz text, beeause in the true ontologieal strtleture its realcounterpartis subsum ed in the doctrine of m otion, w hereas in tEe erroneous H ellenic triad it is of cd tieal strategic significance - w ithotlt som e such doctrine the henad w ould never break up and there w ould consequently be ne eorporealw orld.
CHAPTSR 11
THE TRIAD:SUBSG NCE POW ER OPERATION The triad genesis, kinesis,, sfftsis, w e have seen, form s the baek-
boneofMaximus'refutation ofthe Orkenist myth. W e have ezldeavored, w ithout too rem arkable sutzerss, to 6nd antecedents for it in the w ritings of the N eoplatonie philosophers. One tiling,how ever,was sttë eiently clear:in Plotinus stasis,responding to kinesis, habitually bore a transm undane sense. V'et this with the other alltecedents,is not at a11suë eient to explain the force of M axim us' argum ent. This force resides in anothertriad,tm derlying the form er.
This other triad is sttbstance, power, operation (of1g(a, 3tsvagttç, lvépyem)whose transposition Ithink it not too m ueh to say, onto the escllatologicalplane - a transposition necessitated by the tezm r of the Origenist m yth .-l results in the'frst-m entioned triad :becom fzlg m ovem ent,rest. The eschatological plane is m anifest as regards stasis; but here w e m ust take esehatological as also com prehendilzg the other eschaton extrem e of existence: com ing-to-be genesis. Indubitably this genesis term inates prim arily in substance, in ousia. So m uch could rsafely be assum ed ' yet it is not necessary so to do. In initiptifzg his argum ent M ai m tts delines the m otion
ensuenton genesis as a natural>()ffl&'F (Amb 7-zo7zB, above p. 98), and therefore proceeding from and inherent in a nature or substanee. Later he will write:..the power is from the substanee and in the
stkbstance''(TP I-3:$BII). Y et 1et us not get ahead of ourselves. W e should first look te the aatecedents of this other triad. I say purposely of the triatl for of any one or two of the term s alone there would be a vast array of texts to review , from the beghm ings of Greek speculation on.
Th6 Anteca ents ol f//e Trîad Thetriad assuch islirstfound in the DeM ys* ïfsofJamblichus in ru ponse to Poa hyry's ninth qûestion:t'In w hat does a daim on diier from a hero or from a soul,as to substancejas to power,as to
Io4
Th6 lkz/sffzzlïel oj Og#dwï&??l
operation ''1. 'l'lle response does nothing to develope the m eaning of the triad. In this, its ârst appearanee, it seem s aceepted as a
com monplace. Again in zrodus' Elements oj Tkeology e we lind: ''Every ihtelligence has its existence, its poteney and its activity in eternity ''. O nee m ore the triad is rather taken forgm nted ; the subsequent exposition however nm nifests the real and logical eonneetion betw eem these tllree term s. There is then no surprise when we lind this triad in thePsettdoA reopagite. T he Grst text, in CH 11.2-284 D says no m ore than that irl a11 divine intelligences these three are distinguishedl substance, pow er, operation. The second,in D N 4.1-693B, appears to equate the three, to hypostatize them , rather than to place them as ordered aspects of one whole, The tllird text,in D N 4.23-7z4 C9, occtlrs in the m idst of the treatise on evil w ith its know n relations
with tlze Prodan D e ' pltzîpz'zfzzi s' ubstantia. In the Prodan text,parallelto the D ionysian at this point,the question turns on the badness
ofthedemons (D6malorum snbst.jj40-44),tobefozowed by similar questions regarding heroes and souls - the very sequence fotm d in Porphyry's qttestion above. N ot urm aturally D enis has om itted to m ention heroes. Y et thougll Proclus supposes the doetrine of
natural operation (...'Tangelus et daemon 'et Deus qui semmdum substantiam sem per ipsius ordinem unusquisque salvare natus est... operantur sem per seeundum naturam quam aeeepit unusquisque ''
j46,p.zI6 ed.Cotlsin) he does not name the triad whieh now oecupies our attention. In faet w e have here to do with a eom m on doetrine,sasceptible
of faeile expression in the triad sbfbstance,power,c'/drrflfit- . It was only subsequently that it seem ed necessazy to explain the m zderlying dod rhte. It is sueh an explanation that we fnd in the printed seholia on D etzis 3. H ere w itla eaeh occurrenee of the triad there
1D6 xsfyslfyïf, s of JAMBIJCJITJS (ed.PARTHSY 1857) P.xxxii: Afdlzœv ljofpoç xakvtqik 'rûvb xc' ryoo tfvv :ldtpé: kpek ' q xgxlk Dfwfvpw ' li xctx'lvétceuw ;
'
The reslxm se ks given on p.67. Por the authenticity of thfs treatise see
the note of R. Rta vss, ArckH istD octtLitf w/P. fz1 z' p (z949) aoz'. 1 PRoclm s, Elnments prop. z69 (ed.Dodds p.:46):Illk voîk lv alf vv: ' oiv ' tv oo lxw ëv bxcl ' r' llv êtsvtv sv )/, q1 T$v /vétcelav. 3 Of the scholia I hez' e dte voN BALTI. IASAR (Seh z5 (1940) z9, :o) m tlicates that ' the two on DN al'e found hz tlze Syriac. I use tlzem here as
' being of Jolm of Scythopolis. Sve the subjoined excursus (pp. IIv-zt) for a discussion of the scholiasts.
:70 //,> 1I.Tàe Triqd:Slis, 5ffdsr,PowerOjzrrz/ft-
Io5
is explidt eom m ent o11and explanation of it*. Irt the first hlstance an illustration stlflices:substance is the nature of iire,power its i1-
luminâtive quality, operation is the power's effeet ttlzrosézeglzal: to illum inate and to bul' n . In the com m ent on the seeond D ionysian passage operations in heaven are said to be hypostatized sub-
stances (lvvxöezatol elgt xal otxrlttl z4oC8). But the fullest treatm ent is the third,where again the exam ple offireisused,though its proper'ty this tizzle is w arm th. O bserve that w hile D eztis does rnention
habit (likç DN 4.23-725A12),John Of Scythopolis develope it,explailling power and operation by the relation obtaining between Gperation and habit.w hieh last ylolle he defm es. Thus a tetrad is im plicit' . substanee, power, habit, operation. N ow it iseuriotls that i11
Myst5-676D and 677C (itistheonly instanceofwhich Ihave knowledge) Maximus employs tlzistetrad,though in quiteanother context. The following,I tllink,m ay be retained from tkdsbriefconsideration of the antecedents of the triad: substanee, pow er, operation. The underlying doctrine, in origin Aristotelian,llas becom e part of the com m on N eoplatonie heritage;the triad as such is Srst found in
the DeJf fysffrrffs ofJamblidms, as a eom monplaee. Johtt ofSeythom lis by hiscom m ent aecented thecasualuse ofit m ade by D enis. M axim us,to m y knowledge, is then the frst to use it extensively. N or is it really surprising that M axim us should so develope the' triad. I1z the letter to the Sieilians,a defense of itis orthodoxy and one of his latest tractatess M az m tzs says:
and the same operation,willand nqtur. (said) of one and the same tord arld God,isnotofthefathersbutofheretfcs ''(TP p-z:$zBlpizl. The historical order, of cotlrse, of the Clzristological heresies thus
referred,isnaturs,operation,will. But M aximuscitesthem in their philosophicalorder e. And wity? ifnot that this order is a reiled ion of our triad:operation,power,substanee. And indeed for M axim us
the w111is of nature,llatural, a power eonserving nature;. 4 CH 1I.2-z84D = PG 4.p3A ; D N 4kT-693B I4 = PG 4.z4oCD ; D N 4.23-724C9 = PG 4.28817. : T P 9 of the years 646-48: iu m y D qte-list item 86.
B Ofmtation m ust here com e ftrst for it is M axim m zseem ing aeceptance
of Monenergism (or Monenergfste) irl th. e letter to Pyrrlztts (ep.rp) wlzfclz fntmA the subject of the imm ediately preceding lines.. T See the deânition cited ln TP :6-:851) (after 643,Date-léstitem 74). It is fotutd also in T P :-451: and.TP r-l2C;itisusec lby StJOHN DAMASCIG
'
.
N. t,Dr ##e oythodoxa 2.22 PG ()4.p4#B.
1c:5
znhe 1è6/1:atïoo of (lrïgesi:af
It will be the. n only of greater interest to see M axim us'uftderstanding ofthe doctrine ofnaturaloperation aud ofthe triad htwhich he sum m arized it at a tim e when he w as not yet,or,at best, but dim ly aware ofthe eontem porary heresies in the refutation of which he w as to use it as his principal w eapen.
Earliey M aximian Us6 p/ th,6 Trit:d 'l' he concisest exprerxsion of the triad: o(,gttl, Dgvagsç,lvépyektt is to be fotm d in *fho ee I,3. I give m y ow n version ; von B althasar gives only a literalsum m ary. The Greek text m ay be seen in the parallels given below . 'fEvery stlbstanee,btinging with it its own lim it an4 detiltitilm
(1;Qog) is of its nature source of the poteney-movement pereeived in it;every natural m ovem ent towards operation, coneeived as after substanee but before operation is a m iddle as naturally situated between the two'and every 'operation,naturally lim ited by its defin-
ition (àdyog)is end ofthe preconceived essentialmovement''. Tlzis dzapter is but an explanation of the preceding one,wtdeh had denied that G od is souree, m iddle or end, às being i' nflritely above substance,power and operation. Of these chapte-rs von Balthasar8says:<'D am it ist des Bekertners ganze Ontologie des W eltseins in grösster K onzentriertlleit ausgesprocllen '', The rest of his eom m ent is concerzled ehie:y
w'ith the static elements ofthis ontology (distance:êsdgrqgtx:espac:v1fwJ). However, though von Balthasar does reeognlzethe antiozigenist import of the ehapter (op. cit.,110) and tlle movement wltieh thestaticeleznentrenderspossible (op.cit.,109),stilllzeslights1 the m ovem ent elem ent, whieh in faet is prim ordial. Apparently von Balthasar was not aware that M axim us had prepared the highly polished concentratedltsss of the frst ten chapters in the looser and m ore laborious A m bigua. Sueh a supposition is reasonable' but a
' V oN BALTHASAR, D ie Gnost. C6nt...p. 109. 9 A n m midence of tb. is false em phmqis is founfl in von Balthasar's para-
phraae oftb. e last clause ofTlzoec I.3 fantld,pé,ey opeu tion...). VoN BAL' rHASAR prints:f<...die w irklichkeit Zielund.Ende der Bewegulzg Lstdam it die Begrenzung d. es W esens in sieh selbst ''. H is insight into M nvîm us .
was conditioned by 1* then reeent study (Ptdseva zlf Pov nsétù of Gregory of N yssa.
Chapto,rII.T& T6atL'Svlsfl' acePow- O/:rt4fïtyM
.
m7
confrontation of cettain of these chapteD (Thoee z.z,3, 1o) with
passages of the Am bigua w ill saë ce to transform the supposition illto convietion.
Coniyontatio' n of Texfs Am b zo-zxh B zo-zz)
T htlcc z.a:
A lvntov yàk) advsfz)ç v'è dxetpov,
..a
Jtktgvoç y&(kllxç@ êBg)xat ob yt),o pxet xou xtvqM vœt vù :% (lxlvqvoç xftt &tepoç, tk zrdm)g ôpty gevov. oftrtag xat :vvdgefz)g xatlvétlyetaç A
éaeeO tva fl:rlEttltt?ç liv.
m b zo-zz84D g-xz85A 5:
Tè ydtl t l. aeteov xaxA ativl' q xat M yov xal ' çetiaov lcvt'v Jxewov, xtlss o' lhcttw , xav.t't ôfvulztv, xav' lvéeystav, xtw'(11. t+0 ' rà alpara, l'à lvfs w àéym xal sè xdvfz),rov' r.
lfrrtxtzKt' t:' q *v (kxvhv xql v?ptéleg. Q fâensov 'f?* xustï :' t %t' v o' llcûav, xtû th w lvtin' rov xatà x' q hv :' tsvalztv, xat xal'à ' r. q %v lvéoyetav (lxeetw aœov,xat &vatqov tïvtalêsv,xll(h fràedxnxov xd' rto év loxk xt' jJaeltjov, xal(' bûôg etagi; 'v Jlnêégvp ov,xavtk xdvva tldeko' tov... Am b zs-z:z7c4-D zo:
T ho ec 1.3*:
(lpxt èà adg' nç xtvn'gefzx qltstfkxiig xt-ityq oigta xùv éavrqgôeov lavs'i ltrtkv fl l'lv xsvovgévflw yéveo'tg ,
crm ekcdyovtm , itlxîlxétpvxev etvttk
fltqi ' :è q g ' n rt' isv xtvovgévttw 'fEvé- ' rfiglalsêEftleothgt-vqçtxN f xlvfsstpl.. cefog çb êEôç rbç ysvgtrkovthyös ;.
Tfq :l:'rfiv yc evngévfzw fpvesx' qg xçwigsfz)ç véàoç ' j gvdctç lcttv,fe xotes'zrdvo g pzexà rhv :tdptttnv :Gv lexeoûopfvfkw $ (l:v:p((1,!# j :tt' i' rù htn' elvtxk :ttlovqpza xlga '
xtllel'atxtvngtç%&v tjmckx&çxtvov-
Izlvaw,o:x Novca lokaùv saotl'e xf; xfk xal zpèg t( xlvqN-vat, Q vôv tlpllovta xal atlm*v tn hv
1cJ9
2>àg lèefqtatîon of(lriqenîsnb
xdc'rlç itjtoxtx'q hv xyvq'cEfz'ç ( 'iaii:ttpftlv a 'lsèv vélog fbg ah sov 'lxotttrlz. Y ho ec 1-10: l'ldcqg o1v 'ft' ,véce. 4 ç xe xal xt4:,,.% 1) xfAv 6vvow xGtjtec4' t'qcxql v' q'gstt'g 'e v iv' rftw dlq4h xGt xéàog' va oç ltrvlv 6 êelsç, (bç N epyfvv,
ltrtïv t$ êE?)ç, J)g li tt' htog yeysvn- 4à), * o' hx auozlov' fsflFce: xat xtk gévœv xal 3c q' N o' p xwovizévttw : &Lka ztllva,o(g aal rj1t(3 tvtjvopd-
xql elg tmzèv vnxv tyxztffptv xoiqgo- Nvtls.flex.?jydy âtr. rsv J)çêqptovpjzévœv. y4g- xaï gstrd' r' rjç, ( bg xEelw ap' lh.
11 a' hto' p. b'* ,T' qgtyxatDi*a'Nog, xtzt Elg a' ôvèv xti advra. Tho ec z.3b:
adcng Dl:(Imtrlx' lç ' rfiv Yvsfzw xt-
rdctl lsà tpvckx' l ap?)ç lvépyesav
v' n'trslt)ç apoEasvoshtxç $ yévecsg, xlvnckt ;,x' hg Itév 'oigttxg pztxextvoxdsng êà ladtre(t 3g zspoextvoeltak ovgévn- xtmisatvoovpévq 3è ' o-ig xtn à pfgtv qe xtvngw. lvethyetag lzertsvng lflxtv,d)ç âpp o' iv El 'o' liv xsvq't7Eftlg zpoEzçLvoEl' rqt xa' rà ' rèv p'écov qmclxf7k :iellqp.-
xaxà pfctv l h '/é'vEgw,xkvq'cEttlg dè gl'v' q- xal rrtiga l'véthyEtq v@ xav' gs' reatvoeikttt xavtï Tfgtv 'n egtdgl/ ;, tztssv löyf p pvgtxf;g xetltyeatgoyévecg Dnàovtiçk xql g' çtictg elvak I zlv'q, téloç lcll vqg ath?l atr' iiç 'rlv iplx.xao sàv ' lhtwltv ('igm'xa- xa'r'qxlvosav o'lhgkfo ot,ç xkvn'frettlç. '
vovjâlljlfzw IX1 (% (. g fpvctxf' ;çMœttp 'yovgtw lxovgat xtz' rtï ' B gégov %qAv xlvqgw .
A m b zo-zzJ7B 8..zo:
o' ù/ v ytkp.(L).o xlêégxnxEv j xtx'rà o 'tftv 'rfiv dvvltw lxdtaov
ô' tlvap,tç ' r tp' t ltutl)g xeùç lvlpye.stw âxtpdpttxoç xtvntFsg. The couviction whieh arises from this confrontation (yetothers could be made,less germane to the presenttopic)isnotofa literary dependence 1:, lm t of a thought and vocabulary m astered throught the labor represented in the discussions tm derlying, and through the effort involved in the com position of the ,fl- ôïgz ltfl. One m ight
perhaps objeet that the Ambigua passages are expositions of the 1: M axim us is quite capable of snch self-copying. 'rhoec z.I %E' 5-zx8oA .See D ate-list.itezn 37a.
Cap
Ckasto'rH .T#6 Triad:Sftùsfl' taz Tbwcr Operativn
109
conciser texts. 'rhis rdation is coneeivable when one rega'rds only the relative length of the confronted texts;when how ever the longer text-s are found not to follow the order, even in a single chapter, of the shorter sueh a relation becom es practically inconeeivable. A nd, furtherm ore the parallelfrom A m b 15 is part and parcel of the antiorigenist argum ent It1 Tho ec I.z, 3, Io this is not directly apparent. The ehapters appear then as a later abstraet not pos.
sibly as an initial sketeh. ' i'his connection with the antiorigenist argum ent gives these ten chapters heightezled im port, introdueing, as they do,tw o centuries devoted to O rigenist doetrine, 'rhey m ust have been so placed at the otltset, in order to sterilize, so to speak, from any germ oftm ozthodoxy,the Origenist ideas to be reproduced in the subsequent chapters. But to retura to our triad. V on Balthasar, noting the absence of the characteristically N yssene term ' . Dtdcvqlm says: ffM axim us fïihrt nur ïiber G regor hinaus die alten aristotd ischen K ategorien fiir diese Seinsbewegung ein ''''. I2or a com m entary on M axim us such em phasis on Gregory seem s to m e exaggerated. 'fhere can be po question that M axim us em ploys the Gregorian eoneept of lim it
and distanee (ôtfigxnjsa) as characteristie of the creature; but this, pritlcipally to give a rational explanation and fram ework to m otion. 'flzisdoctrine ofm otion is largely Aristotelian;by it the false Origenist-Evagrian theses eould be exduded. It is thereforeznot fortuitous
that 6ttietx qyttdoes llot appeaz in this suecint chapter tThoec 1.3), the occasion of von Balthasar'scom m ent,while it doesin the passage of Am b 15 eited above. 'flle M axim ian emphasis falls on m otion, not only in his refutation ofO rigenism bttt in tlze w hole of his phil-
osophico-theological strtld ure. P aralld Tyiads
The triads thelt yévEctg, xlvngtç, trrdgkç and oigtq, ôftvtzjttg, 1.-
éeyeta are properly eorrelative, corresponding to this third'4(q$, gecöaç,séloç. Tlzese several terms corresponé, but certainly are not identical. I have already observed how the first triad eontains
a double eschatological reference (above p. 10. : $). The third m ust also be distinguished. This triad is twice tThoee I.a,4) expressly denied of God;and again it isaffirmed ofhim ('rhoec z.1o). There 11 VON BALTHASAR. D i6 (21$0. ç1. Cent., P. IIO.
zzo
TkeJt#s/z?/ïtw p/ Origênism
is here no contradiction, but a differenee irlthe orders of causality aceording to which tlzese term s'are predicated of creatures and of the creator. Forcreatures tlze form aland m aterialcauses are rather referred;for God the suprem e eë cient eause and last end. In these chapters the distinetion is suflid entfy obvious. lh prad iee how ever there is generally,in the A m bigua, passage in the third term from the e'ssential to the eschatological sense. In one plaee at least the essential sense is very dear:'''Phe naturalpower of each single being is nothing else but the tw deviating m ovem ent
of nature to operation '' (Am b éo-Iz37B8-Io; text given aimve p. zo8). Here operation manifestly oceupies the third position. That tllis operation is also end is lzot m anifest;for M axim us here is defning natural power, and so concludes with operation. But we have already seen M axim us' defm ition of m ovem ent in term s of nat-
ural power. It runs: ''This motion (that following genesis) they call a natural pow er, preasing on to its ow n end or else pmssion, . . .
or else efective operation...'' '(Amb 7-Io7zB9;). 'fhe full
text1: tor our present parpose is at'onee som ewhat disconcerting and very aprom s. D isconeerting, because the m otion term inates '
in its own end (passion oroperation),with indication oftlle overend (if I m ay use tlle term without regard te m odern plul 'osophy);very apropos,'predsely beeause by the indieation of the overend, God him seif, the transition from ozze end to the other, from operation to stasis,is prepared.
W e could then establish a fvefold sequence: 1) God is principle,asereator (:nlzlovtlyög,ysvetnovpydg);z) tlle substance itself is pzinciple ofits motions;3) these motions are the activations ofthe natural powers tending to their goafs;4) the goal,is in one way. the operation itselfor.in another,the result ofthe operation;5)the tendency how ever to the goal is m otivated by G od, the final cause
(téloç, xetltytlatgj). God also intervenes in or supervises the motions;lle does tlzisasprovident ('rhoec z.zo;Amb Io-II33C). Now in M axim us the vocabulary of this sequenee,especially ôfvtlpw and
lvétlyeta (= 3 and 4)isfarfrom rlgid, as he himself aërzrls. f'For stasisisnotthenaturalJperation ofgtmesis,butistheend fornature's
power or operation,or whatever else you would eallit''(Amb I5Tzr;DzI-I3). 'rlle weakest point in the sequence is the fouzth 1: See above Chap. 1, p. 98.
Chapier11.T& Trod:.s'lf& ftlv :PowerOjwr/lïtvl
III
term and its im perm anence under the im paet of the fiftb. In fact it seem s to disappear in A m b 7 w here the fnal rest is spoken of as due to the one operatiou of God and the saints,rather of God alone
(Amb )'-Io76CD). Opeyation,.: 4 Essential M lzlï/drs/tz/fbr pl p/ N ature It w iilnot therefore be out of place here to review som e passages from the .4m bigua where operatioa is dearly an essential m anifee *tion of substance. In expounding an antiarian passage of Gregory there is an opportunity for M axim us to distinguish tw o types of operation. The frst prodaces som ething naturally of the sam e kind
and substance, something quite the same as the producer (Amb 26-I:68AIf). Thism ay beunderstood perhapsofnaturalgeneration or of an im m anent, intelleetual operation 13. M axim us takes it in the latter sense, to render it applitable to the Father, begetting the Only-begotten. The second type of operation nlanufactures
13 'fhis distillction - pf im m anent and transient operation - as to
it.s suistance is m ade by Am s' rottls in the M etapltysiss O 8. zosoaza-t sl. In sum m ary: the ulttm ate w ith som e powera is the use of the faculty M :,IZtlle visualfaculty,sight - anfl nothing derives fl'om the faculty otlze: r than sight. In other cases, there is som e tbing; with thê im usebuilal 'ng . capacity, there is besides the building operation the' resulting hottse. Clearly M axim us does not depend im m edlately from A ristotle. The anovy' m ous scholia and the com m entary of Syrian give no attention to this pmsksage.
ThecommentofAlexanller (QAG I,589f)isextv sîve,butnothing suggests a connection w ltlz 'the w ay M axim us m akes the distinction. In fact his desuiption of the inzm anent lvéeygsœ im plies m ore than a m ere noetic or m ychie operatlon. This m em ber M axim us has anzplified (loubtless so as to rende. r it m ore applieable to the intrattinitadan generation of the W ord. Y etexeept fortltisgeneratlon whaiilzstance of lm m ogezleous,consubstantial
identical production jrom beings can be cited unless this identity be the logicalidem ity of tlze speeies or genus? - Applied to the 'rrînity grievous error would result.- Or would one be better advised despite appearances, to interprbt the present M axim iaa parssage ofthe psyelzic or noetic productlon with reference then to what a later philosophy, also bmsecl on ARISTOTLE
fDe zlxînztz III 4.4zga13-I8),willcall speciese-v/e sstz? 'rhepaasage,understood especially in this latter sense,is of interest for the psychological exposition oftlleTrinity. Butnote that M axim usand Gregory - in M axlm us' O terpretatiotl- m ake use of it only to stop the m ouths of the im pious. There seem s to be no wish to develope tlze thought.
zIz
Tlt6Rtr /o fïezl()/Origenism
from a prejacent material something other than its owé substance (Amb z6-Iz68Az. J-Bz). ' In cornm entilzg another antiariarlpassage of Gregoty, M axim us says; ''12or if we say that the soul's powers,which one m ight well eall a fttliilling of its substalw e, operate in that substance of whieh
they partake,yet (we do) not (say)that they are able to move at all in an effeetive operation apart from the willer's consent... for
tlle deed (dpm v) does not at a11 follew uptm the power when this latter does not have the impulse (1,0afi) of him,whose the power, is,propobing to it the concrete,actual end the power itself lacking
proper existence (llvvxögm voç)'' (Amb z4-Iz6IC2-8, Iz-DI), This passage refers prim arily to the intelleetual faculties; while tllat w hich here follows refers rather to the vital. It is taken from tlze
refutation ofthe preexistence ofbodies: 'fAnd if (the body)be totally bereft cd the soul and its vital pewers, clearly it is dead 3'
(Amb 4z-I336CIz-I4). Thepowersaad operations of the soul are reckoned as esseutially part of the sttbstanee. Of the internal powers, of theught and will, Tve lind a ftlrther determ inatitm in ep. 6.14 W ho irt his senses does not know , w rites M axim us, ''that the neverfailing m ovem ent of the soul about the fair and good isnothing other than a naturaloperation,effed ed with regard to and because of that cause to w hich it owes its being ''
'
(ep 6-4,3aBz-z()), . lzlthe folltpwing letter (ep 7-4368)the metaphysieal im possibility of the soul's substanee ever being cut o;,though
it be but for a time,from its proper eharacteristies (that is the rational and inte/ectual) is roundly aë rm ed. 'I'he soul is thus evet in active exercise of its pow ers. Tt is therefore quite elear tâat neither tlze attainm ent of tlze end norstasisean m ean that a11operation ceases.Itis then oppol-tune to recall M axim us'distinction of stasis,already m et above 11. Tlle stasis of this world of tim e and place is necessarily lim ited,because this is the realm of lim it, B ut this tim ited sfasis reeeives its end at
the adveat of the limitless stasis in wich a11 (alternative) motion rests (Thal65-7, 57CIo-z6oA). This impliesa being in God,an everm oving stasis,a stationary,identiealm otion,an im m ediate and perm anent settiug in the fkrst cause. t: Ep. 6,early. See D qtn-tist item 5. 1: Chap. 1, p. :4.
Cltaptu II.F& Triad:S' lfùs/tzAlc:PowerO/zrlfïf)s
11)
T l' t. Frfl, tf in C/frïstofogïcaf Cokdroveysy The necessities of controversy forced M axim us to plaee yet an other aspect of this doetriue in evidence The first certain antim onenergistie piece is M axim us'reply t() Pyrrhus not yet patriareh, who -
.
had written at some length to'solicit M aximus'adhesion to the /sdrphosof63. 3 lB, Underguise ofrepeating Pyrrhus'doetrine M axim us is carefulto give expression to the necessary principle underlying the w hole question. H e w rites: 'iThat w hieh is m ade up of diverse things nrithout m ixing tbem , by a natm al boad of uniou, both preserves tlleir com ponent natures unchanged and conserves un.
diminished their (several)com ponent powers for the eompletion of a single work '' (ep I9-593BI-5). The principle of the triad is expressed, scarcely m ore; butthen M axim us'pua ose w asto m ollify Pyrrhus,as he later renaarked, not to start a debate It is irtthis sarne vein that in conclusion he asks Pyrrhus to explain the m eanings of lvleyera and the differenee between lvépyetq and èvépyngfx. T he sense is 1o'be attended to, he saxs,not the m ere sound of the w ord This is llot m uch,but itis im portant. The prirtciple is indicated, as also the chief point of difiiculty - aG biguity in the use oflvéeycta. W itllin a year of tilis exehange with Pyrrhtls M axim us had an oppoliunity to express him self m ore at length. A eertain Thom as had asked for an explaaation of dië cult passages; a11 bttt tlte flrst question turn on Christologicalthem es17. It is in the first of these Christological dië eulties that M axinlus, affirrning the natttral oper.
.
ation ofQhrist's humanity,says;<
whiehitisnaturally inborn ''(Amb z-Io' J7CII). Tlzisheimmediately .
puts in generalform :f'For that which is eom m tm iy and generically predicated of a thing is the defmition ofitssubstance, the eom plete lack of w hicll effects the said nature's eorruptiott. since no being
deprived of a natural (constitutive)element remains what it was'' A m b 2-Io37CIzD3). W e have already seen that a naturalpower(or .
1: Fbr the letter (ep.I9)a. 1111the psephos see m y Data-listitem 4z. 1: Am b I-lo3a. See D ldth-lisj item 43. In Am b 5, a thorougiz discussion of the Pseudo-Dionysian ep. 4 to Gaius M axim us does not m emtion .
the falsiâcation (gûav for xcwwivl efeded by Cy' rus in the text of Denis .
(ep.4-:o' ;2Ca),though he cite tby text tAm b 5-to5GB Ioï. It isonly later that he adverts to the fact (TP ;,-8,5A4).and only indirectly at that.
z14
2-#e llel%
operation)not only follows upon the substanee lmtisimmanent in it; here it is further show n to be m anifestative of its stlbst-ance. 'rhis aspeet is yet m ore in evidence in Am b 5. There M axim ussays: f'The only true declaration of a substance is its natural constituent
tovcxqxkxjlpower. One would uot fallshort of the truth in ealling it natttral operation, strictly and prim arily eharaeteristie of the substance as being its specifc m ovem ent, m ore general than any
comprehensive property (l:tötng)belonging to it,apart from whieh there is only non-being,fas,according to ' tbis great doetor (Denis), only non-being has neither movem ent nor existenee ''' (Am b 5Io48A7-BI)18. Tlle shift of em phmsis oceasioned by attention to the M onenergist doctziue is evident. In eonfuting Origenism it was necessaor to give proof that the subsu nce and operation,rather eom ing-to-be and repose,eould notim m ediately succeed one another. The requiréd m iddle term is m ovem ent, a natural pow er; against the M onenergists however it is needfulto show tlmt an operation m ust proeeed from and m anifest its own proper substance. ' fhe doctrine underlyhzg both argum ents is the sam e. The fuzther course of the controversy only served to render M axim us m ore explicit. Thusw e read in the longest antim onotlzelite
tract left us t9; 'ffvery beilzg whatsoever possesses a eonstituént
diferenee (tircvavsxt :tafpopd): it.s congenital motion; this, taken togetherwith the genus,formsthedefinition ofthe subject,by which the tltaiitis and the whatJ7Iisis aeettrately m ade H lown. 80th the hom ogeneity and differenee are unalterably preserved itl relation with those of the sam e or other spedes, This being so,llow is it possible that tlze W ord becom ing m an,while lacking naturalpower
as to the flesh,be ealled perfeet man,or even man at a11''(TP I6aooB8-Cz). 18 This text (Amb 5-zo48A7-Bx)has a donble inteaw t. Tl1, reference to D enis is verlhed itz EH z.z-39zB8. Preceding the citation (the only is from M axlmas) Denis had saifl that in hum an tilings m an m ust exist
before acting (operating)- recallthe adage:agevs ydgsïfzfe nsse - ;and this ixz corroboration of lds statpm ent that one m ust fzrst exist divinely before so aetzng. 'f'hls (listinction. aa we slzall see subsequently, is fam iliar to
Mnvimus in the pair ltkog qrétyEfoç,w f' haoç fatklefllç. A correspondeltce of doctrine is indubitable;but is M axim us indebted uniquely to D enis? 1 think not. D enia strengthens him rather in his grasp of a cloctzine already curzvnt. 1* T P :6-r84, about 643;see llate-listitem 74.
CkatferII.T& T6ad:SubstancePpttzs' rOperafion
I15
It w ould be an error to infer from tke logieal savor of the ar-
gument (the shadow ofthe Porphyrian tree is suG ciently heavr to bepalpable)thattheargumentitselfisintended in thatorder. Maxim us looks to the underlying, ontoloàcal reality. Thus,somewhat .
later, w riting to tbe Sieilians z@ he says; <'H etzce w e recognize one
and the same verily to be b# nature God and m an, not otherwise than by the inborn attributes ttôs/pztaf4 eharacterizing him at onee dil nely and hum arfly - I m eau tlte divine williug and operation
and the human willing and operation of the tvenrlsame,by wâie.lz . and through whieh he seals wllat he w as and what he becam e ''
(TP 9-zzIAz-8). These two passages from antim onothelite doeum ents are sttffcient to show the constaney of the M axim ian doctrine in this as i1l the earlier peliods. But w e need not eontent ourselves w ith sueh a dem onstration. Because of a looseness of voeabula'ry in Am b 7 he had spoken ef one erzergy of God and tlle sahzts - M axirnus -
was foreed to explain llim self. The kernelofthis defense isto aë rm .
that dei:cation is in G od's pow er alone. But to m ake clear w hat this m eans, the dependence of action from power, he expom lds 6. %3
jhrp/ysstlthe triad that eoncerns us. OUT nature does not have the power to deify. ' Poz ffof that of whielkwe do not have the pow ev,
we have neither tlle activity lzpf'qtgl wlkie.h is the fulslment of the naturalpow er. Activity tllen dependson power, power on substance.
17or aetivity (is) from power, aud power from and in substance. There are tilen, as titey say, these three' m utually depem dent: the
empowered, the power,the possible (Mvvdgwov,N vtxrttg, hvtvaxöv). 'fhe em pow ered they eall substance;power, that by w hich w e have the enabling m ovem ent; the possible, that whose realization lies
wi*hl 'vl our power'' (TP I-33B7-Cz)21. The rest of tlzis passage weshallmeetlater,dealing witk ecstasis (Passage VI). 1noterlow only thatthecompletepassageeonfkrmsapointmadeabove (p.IIz), nam ely that stasis and opem tion are com patible.
'' TP 9-xI2;646-48,D gtt-lissitem 86.
11 Maximus is hea'e borrowing (note tlze;thsy w y 33BIz) from NsMssn;s (D, nat- a hominis 34 = PG 4e.74oAI4-R8)and Nemesius from P1utarch. See Nem esius anll Plutarch set in parallel in B. D oMéNsKz D i. JNy/ tgthj'ï: d6s N ,- si' lfxç, p. z48à.
xr6
F& Rehftation p/ Ortkvnnisnm Condusion
The foregoing text. s are stlfficient to show beyond a doubt that with this triad we are in the presence cd one ofthe chiefconstituents of the M axim ian tlm tlght. As a triad he fotm d ft a conlnlonplace,
occurrizlg also in Denis. John of Scythopolis had developed these instances. 'rhe underlying doctrine M axim tts expressly refers to D enis Q:'yetitisnot ofthose doctrinespeeuliarto D enis. U ltim ately the doetrfne fs Aristoteliau. Adhered to rigidly it svould exclude even the pbssibility of hum an participation in a superhum an,im plyilzg direetly not so m ueh tlze denial of a superhum an as its inconceivability for m an. ' Thus we are brought face to faee with the problem of the supernatural, r' ather, for Afaxinlus, of deihcatiolz. Tllis is properly an ecstasis. It is this whieh m ust now retain our attention. That an eestasis is possible witlloat the destruetion of the natural n'ill only be fully m anifest w hen w e eom e to treat of that other foundation ofM axim ian thought: the doctrine oî Logos with its prim ordial distind ion of nafural essences and existrntial
yzlpA q w M yog (pïitnfog,' p öaoç lxdeNfng.
:1 eee above note :8.
Chapter 11.TW Triad.Excunus I
1:17
E xcun us N ote on the Scholiasts of the Pseudo-b enis
(see Cllap. 11 note 3)
In following von Balthasar fDas Schoiienwerk ffts Johannes ptl,l Skytkoholis Sch 15 (1940) 16-38) in attributing certain,indeed the majority ofthe published scholia on Denis to John of Scythopolis, I w ould prefer to add a w ord as to the problem involved. V on Balthasar's work depends on internal critieism - w ith w hich I a1n not here im m ediateiy eoncerned - and on the Syriac version.
Ofthislle says:''Die tiertragung des W erkes von Johannes auf M axim us scheintsich dahersehr friih vollzogen ztlhaben. Im m erhin bleibt uns ein sehr w ertvolles M ittel der U nterseheidung:die syrische
Cbersetzung...'' (,A' /. dt. zz). This Syriae version I have shown elsewhere Lsacris ffAvtfïrf 4 (I95z) 181) to date from the fi1'st half of the 8th century,that is roughly zoo years after John of Scythopolis and 50 to 1O0 years after M axim us. Phoeas bar Sergius, to whom we ow e this revised or new version of Denis and that of the seholia,has given no indi-
eation ofthe age oftheGreek manuseriptls?)from whielzheworked. O ne calm ot therefore suppose that the text and scholia cam e to him in thei' r original form . H ow ever, as Phoeas w as aceustom ed to read D enis in the Sergian version one m ay m ake tw o guesses as to how a Greek copy earne into his hands. Al' t o1d Greek m anuseript was
.
found in one ofthe Edessene libraries and so given him 'or one was brought from the west, and presum ably would have been m ore reeent. T lle only certainty is our ignoranee.
There isa further question. Von Balthasar (ayt.cit.z3)aflirms tlmt Pllocas rendered only a seledion oithe sdzotia. This he bases
onacomparisonoftileSyriacwiththeGreek text (Corderius-Migne). The Greek seholia are m ore num erous,and of tllese he ascribes not
a few on internalgroundsto John. Btlt can we be sure that Phocas '
m ade the seleetion him self and did not ratheè translate all that his Greek m anuscript contained? It was Phoeas' ctiticism of Sergitls
of Reshaina that this latter om itted passages w ithout indicating
zz8
. ' l'hc A' c/v/tzstzzpolOrgàr&wi' vzz?
the fad . N ow Phocas m akes no m ention of having m ade a selec-
tion from the seholia. The naturalpresum pjion tllen isthathe om itted nothittg from the m anuseript before him . This does not pred ade the possibility ofa selectitm llaving beea m ade bJ-som e copyist of the Greek. U ntil tlze scholia fotm tl in the Sydae are textually presented and com pared philologically w ith the others found in the G reek, the argum ent from intenzal, doctrinal criteria rem ains not too stu' e ground.
Ehrhard ti11 Krumbacher Byz. Literaturgesckichteg (189g) I3g and 56) mentions Johtl of Scythopolis as the oldest commentator of Pseudo-D eais,adding that these seholia are now lost. 17or Ehrhard it is M axim us'and his com m entary that established the PseudoA reopagite's position iu the Greek Church. H e m entions also other and later eom m entators;but these, except for George Pachym eres, have only a fugitive eonneetion in our knowledge w ith the Dionysiaca. This aë rm ation of Ehrhird together with the ascription in the M igle reprint of the scholia to M axim us alone has certainly
helped obseure tlle place due to John among the sdtoliasts. In the long lkst of Dionysian editions in Chevalier's D ionysiaca I M axim us'
name oecuzs as the commentator,but John's never. However the first place am ong the scholiasts Lequien clearly vindieated for John
in bis seeoud Damasce' ne Dissertatlon tilz PG 94.281f). He aflirms fibid.z82) that the printed editions bear the alternative ascription ofthe prologtte forthe seholia to John ofSeythopolis.Pearson like-
wise, in his Vindiciaa fgelflfïtzpr X (PG 5.2o3f),speaks at lengtlt of John of Seythopolis as the svholiast of Denis. As other scholiasts Ehrhard (in Krumbaeher,p.I37 and 138)
mentions Germanus I (the seeond meution on p.z38 ofGermanus 11 would be an erzor),a certain Andrew and a George Ifieromnemon. Germ anus,if he contributed anything of note to the scholia,is posterior to Afaxim us. This A ndrew is unknown as a scholiast of Denis
except by tlle reference in a Laurentian codet (Plut.V,cod,xxvi) of the year 1548. Bandfni(Catalogue,:01.1,p.50-52)in giving tlzis .
inform ation says that the scholia are praetieally the sam e as those attributed to M axim us. The George H ierom nrm on would seem to be no other than Pachym eres. Vat.gr.372,contairting the Pachy-
meran paraplzzase, ascribes tlzem to George, 'THieyomnemon of G od's holy great elture.h ...''
'
Between John of Scythopolis then and M axim us we have so far found no basis for supposing a com m entator of D enis. Anastas-
Chapter ff.The Triad. E' xflz lfrsîu f
' . tz4
ius the Sinaite,llowever,speaks of Denis of M exandria.(see tlle treatm ents of Lequien and Pealson refer' r 'ed to above and vottBalth-
asar art.cit.nofe 9). Very likely George ofBaishan (Seythopolis), priest of the great church of Constantinople, is responsible for this m ystiiication. lt is he who, only in the Syriae prologues to D enis, produces as perem ptory evidence of the authenticity of the D ionysiaca a defense ofthis âuthenticity from a letterofDenisofAlexandria. A Gree.k original either has never existed or cannot now be found.
W hat is the date of this George? Stiglm ayr (Das Aulkommen A r Ps.-Dion. .$'cAz'i#,zl (programm reldkirk 18954 p.53) aflirms that he is not only com patriot but also eontem porary w ith John of Scytll-
opolis (Baishan);but lle gives zto reason for assttrning them to be contem poraries. To m e it would seem m ore reasonable to place this falsifteation nearer the frst outside evidenee of its existence
(the said Anastasius) towards the end of the gth century. For George's prefatory rem arks to the letter of Denis of Alexandria
(Br.Mus.Add.IaI$I,f.4f;Orientalzgo6 f.I3b - Iappend a complete translation) show that there hasbeen a continued opposition to the authenticity of the Diosysiaca and thatnow he would produce a perem ptdry argum ent,the letter nam ely of the Alexaadrian Denis
to Pope Sixtus. 'fhe tone ofGeorge'sremarks aswellasthatofthe supposititious letteris quite diverse from that ofJolm . Jolm takes
noteofthe objection drawn from thesileneeofEusebias and Orken. Certainly if he had k' nown of George's work (and aceepted it) he could not have done less than to m ake m ention of it. The verbiage of George's introduetion tells us nothing but that opposition to tEe D ionysiaca had been long and persistent. 'rhe letter of D enis of A lexandria shows, besides an initial aë rm ation of the Areopagite's orthodoxy,an em phasis on the pseudo-historical
events or literary eontaets (Apollophanes, Heliopolis, Polycarp) w hiclz are calculated to assure the authenticity of the D ionysiaca. These latter are precisely the note of that sed iotz of the prologue
(PG 4.2IAIa-C6: lxsk:s :é nvEç... fbg llpkxt?kv ê' Ef' )) not found irz the Syriae. A re these pseudo-historical references part of the originalDionysian text? Pera,in his editiol of StThom as'In librum
DeDivinisNominibus(Rome 1950,p.348 and 8z),speaksofgrounds for an qriginal Dionysian text confated with subsequent interpolr
ations whoseobjectwasto fix the Areopagitic authentidty. Slzould such an hypothesis be justifed w: may here have some elemertts of the falsiscation. There is the possibility of eontrolling tlle ltypo-
.
Izo
The.&#ll/tz/ïos olOrfgTAlï. swl
thesis by m eans of the Sergian venion. Unfortunately m ost of these referenees are in the latter epistles wllich are laeking in Sinai 52. There rem ains the passage on the death of the Blessed Virgin
(DN 3.z-68IC);but this is fotmd in Sinai 5z, quite literally. D enis' use of philosophical, pagan term inology w as cdticized
from the beginning. John of Scytimpolis defends him (PG 4.zopl. The Alexandrian PseudoD enis touches on the them e (M artin,.4AJfllecta Sacra IV (1883)xxiv). In a m ore explieit form it is found in the added note lgvét)v TL (PG-4.I2D). W hen did this latter enter the eorpus of the prologtle? The foregoing rem arkexs perm it . no eertain cond usions. Von B althasar's w ork on the scholia w ill probably retain it-s value; but until w e have the G reek text w hicll underlies the Syriac scholia
presented in ordered form a use of the scholia is rendered diflicttlt to the pointofim possible. The otherurgenttask isthe confrontation of the Sergian version w ith the reeeived text, with the idea of aseertaining possible interpolations.
George oj Baiskan's Apology
Martin,in Pitra's Analecta Sacva IV (1883) 1:/'z-73,414-15 and xxiii, x='v,has printed w itb a Latin versiottthe ffLetter of D enis of A lexaudria to Pope Sixtus '?'irt doing so he gave also a part of G eorge's accom panying rem arks. M aking use of his version,I here give the com plete prefatory m atter attributed to George after
Oriental :a306,f. 131:6-29 and Add. IaI5I f.4 (the m s. used by M artin). ((Iteru. m apologia altera facta a Georgio presbytero ecdesiae m agnae Constantinopolitanae,qui ex civitate Baisan oriundus erat, descriptis illis. - Ponitur additam enti gratia post tractatum ante positum ,Ioannis seholastici apologiam pro scriptis illis diqdnis,quae
'
a quibusdam stultishominibus repudiantur,ac sizlon essent (foetus) doctoris illius m agrli (Dionysii), sed (m era productio) cuiusdam heretici, A polinazis, inquam , aut alius cuiuspiam recentium hereticorum , qui ignoti stm t. Eo quod usque nanc sunt qui inscite repudiant haee D eo cara sezipta, cum absolute non aeeipiunt ea Dio-
nysii,rebas divinis saplentis,(esse),sed inaniter ex cordibus eon4m : non edentes,evom unt ineptias âctitias,hi qui,m ente eapti, proclam ant hom inis stulti ex heretgcis ea esse, aut alius hom inis ignoti ex reeentibus repentibus super terram ,quineque quae dicunt sciunt
-
Cbakte. v If.TI- TdH .Excxrsxs f
' . rtzl
neque quae legunt intelligere queunt. Sunt tam en qui calum niam
haqnc inanem non persequitaat, m ulto minus (talem ) opinionem . 4(Invenim us igitur hom inem ex anteeessoribus qui pariter apologiam seripsit,pro his ae si eo etiam tem pore alii de eisdem stulte disputaverunt, Oportet, ut nobis videtur, quae stm t illius huie
libro praemittere.Addam us.et alia (pro J= legendum !--':puncta?) pro veritate et probationem apertam lzttius apologiae, quae eontradieenda nequit: zeprehensio stultitiae eozum - vani ealum niatores. Legim us enim in seriptis viri sapientis D eum que tim entis, qui eiusdem nom inis est et aequalis illi patri supra nom inato - ex eîs fldem quandam sum ere possum us quae advocata est eorum quae pariter dieenda erunt a nobis contra calum niatorem vanum hunc. D um in 'eo sum us, credibilitate et virtute verba nostra donabim us.
Est enim hoc in m odo )h. Am l the letter follows.
Izz
.
z-Aezèc/ufcffox 0/ (irig6nisnb
é'xcvysf:. s 11 Variations of Sense in the 'Perm s ofthe 'Priad In the course of the above study on the triad oècùw R vaglgy lvéthy6ka, there has been occasion to see how the sectm d and third term were som etim es distind and som etim es taken as praetically sm onym ous, how tlze third term itself w as susceptible of at least 2 senses. elxhis uneeztainty of sense would in any case have been a handicap,but with the peculiar theological situation of the early 7th century it was decidedly a detlirnent to the right developem ent of doctrine. It w illbe useftllthen to dress a list of these vocabulary fluetuations, For the second term then w e find both êévapsg and xlvnctç. 'lahe form er is m ore naturally understood ms a faculty, the latter as an operation. Y et M axim us can speak of m ovem ent to operation
(Thoee I.3, *Amb zo-Iz37BI0).-Maximus has himself distingtti xshed two sense.s of béoye.tft (Amb :a6-Iz6oIzff): the immanent, prodtlcing som ething honlogeneous and consubstantial,altd the transitive,
producing some product outside the operator (above p. 111). In thislattersensethe word lvëyEka can easily stand not only forthe productive operation but also for the product. 'rhe proper word
for this would be not m erely lvyov (ep I9-593B5), which does not so m uch im ply the work,the operation,neeessary for its production,
butlvkm lza or tlptoxélecga (TP IB6CI3f; ep 19-59684). One may ' tabulate these uses thtts:
:g
faculty = use of the faeulty;xtvngtg, lvépyEttt =
vaytç
:vvttvtsv
= use of the faeulty:lvépyeta, xpfqtg = end produetofthe faculty;livéeyeiaylvépm hm ,fh otl eglza
It w illbe fuû her usefulto note that from the tim e of Aristotle
at least a similar range of senses had belonged to lvëyeka. From the Index A ristotslçcus of Bonitz it appears that lvlklyeLa was used in diverse contexts as synonym us, or nearly so, w ith xlvqetç,
Ckapter11.Th6 TFït4fl.Excursm II
zz: #
zefictg,JpâlLg, Nïeléxeka and other'words for form or aet. A lex.
ander in Met.O 3 llo4. zago = CAG 1, 573) gives the fundamental distinetion underlyirlg this disparate agglom erate of equivalents
.
'EvéeyEta is synonym ous w ith the resulting end of an operation or is identifed with the process for attaining that and. This division m ay further be applied to bûth m em bers of a seeond divisiozb based on the nature of the aetivity involved, nam ely an im m anent or a transient activity. See aiso Chap.11 note I3.
CHAPTSR III
ECSTASIS Tlle foregoing ehapters have show n that a treatm ent of ecstasis in M axim us is necessary;this w ould in itself entaila throrouglt-going treatm ent of the whole com plieated and not a little eolltroversial problem in the authors that now ecm eern us In the present study on the M axim ian refutation of O rigenism , however.it is quite out of .
the question. Fil'st it alone form sthe subject ofa stoutvolum e' ,to touch upon it direetly,even in a sm allway, w ould ruin the proportion of the present study;further it w ould require a lirst-hand m astery of
Philo and the Plitonie plûlosophexs (fzom Plotinustlwough Produs). Yet com pletely to neglect the problem w ould be to render largely ineffeetive any stttdy of M axim ian texts concerned w ith this apex of hum att life. I have therefore beeu driven to a sort of tom prom ise .
I present a series annotated texts:first (I)those that tellexplicitly for some ecstasis;then (:)I seek lirst in the 1$vâgrian-tinted Centw rïtr. s t?o Charity atzd then in longer parxsages from tite ztAltèïgutt and .
Quaestionesad Tkalassium,foranythingthatmightaflirrrlindubitably the Evagrian view,wltieh is known for its onlission, nay, rather its exclusion of any thing tbat m ay properly-be calted Tcslt lsfxç(a standiug .
without thing and oneself). I then (3) with the aid of one or two further passages endeavorto draw together the M axilnian doctrine in this question,noting its deficienees and proper eharaeteristics. Thus
I hope to present with som e elarity M axim us'own positioll (orpositions?)iztthis matter,so thatotherswith m ore adequate knowledge in the general question orz whieh these passage toueh m ay draw benefit from the follosving pages. sret,lest m y presentation of M axim us seem to fall aw o -, due to laek of attention to the problem in its m ore generalaspects or perbaps, m ore accurately, lest m y pre-
sentation seern to be prejudiced unfounded or to sttfferfrom ignorance of tlxe larger problem s I here subjoin a longer note$,on the ' The problem underlying the interpretatiolt of the passages dted in m y text is that of the reconciliation of Evagrius and D enis which M axim us
(7//,4*/. 4:111.Ecstasis
:z5
nature of this problem , as it presents itself to the student of
Maxim us,and in the pagesto follow other notes (especially nn.a7, seem s to take for granted.'alld belzind that that of the Telations exlsting between the Evagrian anfl Dionysian doctrines in the Avritings of the two m en them selves. The latter problem is of a still broatler interest inasnm ch as botlzautllors are com m only taketlas types of two diverse tretlds in m y.
sticalflodrine:the inwarcl-looking (imm anentist)and the apophatic (transeendentalist). The problem s are quite (listinct' yet the m 'itings of M axinm s pose them both im periously. ' rhis doubtless is why, in tlle recent discussions of tkeir relatious the problem a have been effectively com pounded into one, Jt w aa V ILLSR in his noted artlclel .4. .. v sources tp Ia xsAl? zïf. ? .çlfïfg da
S.zlz f/ u ïzzld.'Les tz'lspzzs d'llvags' e Ie T'tppfff/zxg. RAM Iz (z9go), w ho not onl)r
.
observed:'$Maxinze estime la mystiqtle d'zvagre tout à.faitd'accord avec celle de D eltys .., Peut-êtte y auraitdl lntérêt à m ontrer eom m ent l'acrco'rd .
s'est fait chez Mtuxim e entre 1es doctlines d'évagre et eelles de l'al tréopajjite ''(avt.ci(.,p.248,n.z4I);but by the whole tenor ofllis article he gave the itnpression that M axim us wms a wllole-hearted diseiple of Evagrius. H atrsllsu , but a few years later took up the suggestion in an article on
Igktoraytce intinie (OCP 2 (19:$6) 35T-36z). The abiding worth oftlais article is the acute analysis of tlle Evagrian and Dionysian concept of the stm unit of tlle eontem plative life. 'Por Xvagrius it is a vision ofthe m ind, puriûecl again to its original state as im age of the B lessed Trinity. ' rhus is attained tlte knowledge ofthe Trinity. For Denis it is an ecstasis a going or a being
outside not only ofthings (which irztleed would not distingttish his doctrirte fvom xtlw Evagrianl but also of onesez.. Qonceptually tilexeiote the views are m utuajly- exelusive:self'd sion ove.r against eestasy. So H ausherr. H is
concluding applicatiou of tltis to M axim us (superposition ofD ionysian term s on an Evagrian idea in Char 3.v(p)issimply to be suppressed ms he himself '
has said in private conversation.
bkor in tltis article he ltas attem pted to
sketch tke pu'yn positions, as Gilson would mqy, of E vagrius and D eztis;ebut to suppose without fullproofthat anotke.r author has taken over not m erely one but both of these pure positions js a gratuitous assum ption rendering
a judicious atld nuaneed study ofsuch an author quite im posaible. N ow the passages I stad. y in m y text - and I trust to have fotm d the chiefpertinent passages - willshow without slzadow of doubtthat M axim us took over neither pure position. That 1 ean.1ay m y ânger on M axim us'
ow'n pure position (should he have one which I do not assum e without evidence) is dnother question to whieh I try to ând an answer in the sual portion ofthis chapter in the final note. So m uch for the first of the problem s. As to the second oftlle problelns - the relations of Evagrius and D enis the analysis of H ausherr m ay- seem to som e a suë eient fm sw er. It is perllaps an answe.r to the what not at all howeve' r to the how or wity. Fbr Evav ius is eoolnlonly reckoned a rtlore tlzau faithful disciple of Origen not lemst in this latter's hypotheses, This,ot course,is tnze and is patent -
zz6
.
Tltr A:/ffftzfieltof Orfgdwïsa
31,43,44.,45,57), as oceasion serves,to keep my treatmentofthe texts in touch w ith the larger problem . in tlze Xvaglian af loption of the Origenist m yth. in his reekoning m otion as evil and source of evil. But whence did Evagrius (lerive lzis doctrine of selfvision as proxim ate m eans for knowletlge of tlze Trinity? N ot from Origen tBousslm Apopbthegmata,p. 294-.304, in his cardul com parison of X vagtius and Origen,m ade w ith the hltent of slm wing X vagrian dependence
nn Origen,(loes not mention this partlûularity of Evar ius'doetrine). If not from Or/geu. tlten likely from that pagan philosophy whose dom lnallce over Origen suggested to him his zm fortunate lzypotheses, TM s is m ore than a guess. The very isteriorization whic.h is concom itant wlth tlze Plotinian ecstasis,Ls ftrst,if I m ay be perm itted the word an enstasis. M ARAeIZ' AI.can write:''Pour s'élever à.l'intuition supérieure du Beau et Bien
il faut se détacher des objet.s ext&ieurs sitA'd/lïzv . s$:A' soi et y...s'établiy tzu centre Alz/ps, tfg l'esprit''(ffltfT, ssur la #sytiAtplt/jrïe dssx' kfys/ïgufv 11 gfmtlvaill 1937) 61). And again further on (p.zoo):'fLe secret de l'extase plotiuienne réside flonc dqnsJsveto' wyactiltf,l'dmea.la frl4ye/dohginelle A sa(>#c.
tion ... ''. I have undezscored that wlliclz m akes evident tke sim ilatiues w ith Evagrlus. The sam e author doe.s him self com pare Ekvagdus and
Plotinus. He m 'ites. f'Entre la llaute contemplatlon d'tvagre et l'extase plotlnienne ily a cette différence eapitale que la prem ière non la seconde suppose une âm e unie à D ieu, 'divinisée F par la grâce sanctiâante; m ais le degré d'izdnzêdiateté de proxindté avec Ilieuaau couronnenlent de la contçm platiolla est décrit de pat't et d'autre d'une m anière fort sem blable: .
un contact une adhérenee uzle alljacence si l'on peut dire qui ne laisse dazzs le ciamp de vision autre cltose que Dieu,sans, néanm ojns, que cette w'ision ait son principe spécifcateur prochain en dehors de l'âm e elle-m êm e ''
(ihïd,,p. Iz5). The theories then of E vagrius show sim ilaritie.s with Plotinus too great to be safely negleeted. H e no lewss tlm n Gregory of N yssa,is not an exclusive dM ple of Origen. There are tllen other currents'in thefr thought currents speciâcally Plothzian.so it w ould seem . Bnt thett who m ore tllan the Pseudo-D en. is was a Chhstian Neoplatonist? There is ârst of all to be xecognizetl D enis' greate. r am nlty W :. IL Proclus who represeng , perhaps, an exteriorization of the Plothtian heritage - yet,lloth Rvagrius arlfl D enis have tlteir roots in tlze N eoplatonist soilt how explain thetr contradietory theories? That is tlte problem . N ow the direct com parison ofEvagrius and Denis Lq peculiarly dië cult. rirst I should like to draw attention to som e literary grotm dsfor t, his (1/iiculty. 'n e literary fonn of the two authorsis com pletely different. hN'agrius is a m ottk, m iting for m ouks atltl em ploys, for the m ost part the sentential form . 'rbtq form due to the concision of the single sentences
and the lae.k of continuity between them (they were hot com pxged to be read through or studied,as a wllole,like a treatie lorbitlany long (levelom m enta. But Denis who does not m rm it any pncroachm ent ofthe m ona-
stlc state on the lzierarchy (cf.EH tùz and 6.: J.r-533BC).writes,if we m ay
Chaptvsr 111.E csiasis
zz7
follow the hypothesis of D ANKA (RSR 36 (1949) z9ff),IN' i' t. IZ an apologtst's .
aim - nam ely to use sm iling the Egyptians. the faslzionable N eoplatonic phtlosophy to exV ess the fundamentaltruths,phil osophic truthsshoult' tI say ?on wllielz Clm stianity rest.s. . l'itis was the easier done as the contem p orar)r N eoplatonism w as also if not prim arily, concerned with the religious problem , ' rhus Denis and Evagrius, though 'concerned at tim es with the s ame t ki ng: the ulttm ate in the life ofm ayer, never approach it in the sam e f .
-
ashlon.
I have brought Evagrlus and D enis doser together by atlverting t
tlteir eom rnon indebtedness to or one m ight say o m beddedness,in the N eo, i platonk traflttfon. One m ay do tbe sam e by calling attention to the eloseness of botll to tlze Cappadocians. F' or Evagrius it is a known fact (BöUs.
.
sx'ts Apopbtàgmtuao p. 292,minim izt's #t;ea' tl it lmwever be neglected?); for D enis it is a zm t anlikely-hypotllesis. Tbe forzn whiclz thîs hym thesis take.s it' k tûe work of Pera G exaggerated; bat he adduce.s m ore evidence for a Cappadocian connection of Denis tltan catz easily be tlism issed wllile .
on tite otller hanfl a literary dependtnce of the Coypus Diosysitztls- on
Pr t hoclus is not proved. D enis therefore ean be datetl from the nliddle of e 5th century, If tltere be anything in thfs second approxim ation, tlze divergence of tile two becom e.s ouly the m m e strildng. The explahation, doubtless i , % n txat ver fdelity of Evagrius te Origen antl the A lexandrian tradition. But why thd, ! they, partimzlaHy Orlgen , s o Tesolutely rejeet alay (loctrine
o ff#è$4/ d'' t4. u tftv/eïle des tifx: se' ns fjlîrfflldlg choz Of ecstasis RAIINSR (& ' e ï g J 1 $ 4 , RAM t z ( t t ) 3 2 J . 1 3 5 a nd not e : 62 ) i t t t l î e ve r y a c t of establisbing th .
.
: is polntssuggests the answer. Tke word the doctz' ine waa stilltoo clzarged wit. lka frantic tone im plyillg an am oralc'onstrahtt repugnant to h freedoaz. um an
svere not the Afontanists his contenlporaries eestatics? (()n the
problem of ecstasis ln tite 2t1(l antl 3rfl centuries see P . DE ' L.xBtuolft, s f-lt
syis. montaniste tparis I9x3) especially pp. z6z-Iz5 and 555-562). V 'et as t o the concept was it not tlte tole of Plotitlus a.lso Odgen's eontem m rat'y
l bargely to purify it from such connotations? Thereafter it eoulfl be adoptetl, y Christaians. But Evagriua stsill would have nolte of it altd aqceptitkg othe.r elem ents of Plotinian dbctrine, as did ltis friend Gregonrof N yssa , e;cised ncstasis and l eft the Plothlian sclzem e m aim ed . To retunz for a m om ent in cond usion, to the concept of ecstwsis Its .
.
characteristic note is the being ()' l4t ol 4m:.$el/. Beilg out metely of tbittgs ithasin common with the Evagrian lx:qe (s), og lxêntzf ;v , , .* 1 ôl og êktcvliyevog lavmoïioccurs in r enfs DN 3.z-68IDj. But m ust otte always wlf .h ncstasis impozt a11the orgiastic connotations wltieh Kocu fBeziehangen. . , p.:35)takescareto underline?Atleast a.farastlte cottcept goes the w qlk .
of Plotinus was to rid it of suc.h connotations a,sreal though the vocabalary = s used to expressit (m ore so illProdus) mny have beeztretaafn.ed f (1im age. rom an earller stage of the word's history. This would seem quite iztdieatkfl in the fnal paragraph of Arnou's description of tlle Plotiaiatt etstasf s
Ic8
Tlte R#vlfI&'tza ol Ork8pf: swl
A . Tsx' l's IN I'gtvoa ov E csTasls
There are four m ajor passages2dealing with ecstasis explicitly and two others 3 whieh,though the w ord does not appear,are dealing w hith the sam e topic: the suffering of the divine. A side from these there are a num ber of other plaees w here tlle w ord oecul's 4. 'l'he ntlm ber and gravity of these passages indicate with suflicient eleanless that w e are in the presenee of a fundam ental them e. M y t' ll-st task w illbe to report on tlleir sense and m eaning. N ow it w ill be noted that the frst tw o passages com e at the trond usioa of their respeetive parts in Am b 7 and in effeet deseribe the eonsum m ation of 'bliss' the first is explieitly referred to the fature ttnion of a11 tbe blessed. Paqsage 1 M axim us w as lead on to a consideratic?n of suiering or passion
by the need which l1e feltto explain theDionysian sltljerstkeunqualf#fW eited shortly before (Aznb 7-Io73B9). The type ofsuffering in question is not corruption but is eongenitalto nature itself. 'fNvhatever com es to be suffers reeeiving m ovem ellt 'as not being self-m otion or self-pow er''s. So m an is m oved of God as beginning and end ' bttt if m oved,m oved i!t l aecord with his nature,that is intellectually.
(ARNOU,Ls tfsrsïr,,.,p.:)82 - tlle lxgxacitg éuv'rofiis thea' e present, though not em phasized). It must further be rememberetl tlzat in Greek dxtrrtzcw is not the purely technicalterm lt has becom e in a m oflern European lan-
guage. It is used ofsach prosaic fhings as the disloeation of a joint (LS: s.p.); the root m eaning of i' ts components are always felt. Tize precise m eattiu. g of ecstasis then w ill depend at lemst as m uch on the context ancl use of each author ms on the w ord's ltistory. ' z A m b 7'-Io7:$C z(3-To76C7; 1.0881)5; A m b zo-lz3' /B II; M yst 25-701B 12. 3 Thal zz-3zoc D ' T P z-3:A zo-,:J6A 2.
4 Amb Io-zI1788 (mtîtpog only); II4oAI5;z1498 (also ' fvöqmç);Amb 2I-za49B7;M yst z4-yz7A' z;'rhoee I.39;Thalprol.-25zBIz (suffering the divine). 5 A m b )'-zo'73(B I4; see T P 28-3524.z3 and below note z9. That this
phrase oceurs agaitl alm ost verbatim in the llispute with Pyrr/la. ç of 645 is signiâeallt. Clearly the M onenergist and M onothelite cireles tenfleflto go too far in this D ionisyan em phasis of the passivity of creatures before divine
action lii vleyes(wl- a tendency from which M axim us lzimself was not free as we shall see in tite sequence of A m b 7.
Chapter 11I.Ecstasis
Iz9
''But ifhe ad s intelligently, he also lovesthe objectunderstood;but ifhe loves,lze also stu ely sufers eestasy tow ards it as ioved 'butifh e sufers,it is clear lle hastens olt;but if he hastens (m , he surely 1. 1:tensifes tlae vehem enee ofthe m otion;aud if he izttensifes tlle vehem ence of m otion,he does not stop tillhe ha.s becom e entire irt the
Svhole loved objeet and is comprehended by the whole, him self wim ingly by ehoiee aeeepting the saving cireumseription ''(Iog3C9-D4) .
W ith the result that he be known by tlze eharacteristits e of the cireum scribing factor, as in the case ofair flled with llght or of irzcan-
descent iron (Icc6A). Itisherethat M axim tts introducestlze already m entioned Scrip-
turetexts (ehap.1,p.89),favored of the Origenists:the subjection of ChHst to the Father and the fnal vietory over death. And this
subjection iseffected through our freewill voluntarily passing wholly outto Godsby ceasing to willaay thiag bttt what Go4 w itts. And then there is this explanation: ''I do not say that is the doing a w ay
ofthe freewill(v?)qbsqoégtov),ratheritset.situpin accord with nature,Iirm a14d im m utable - that is. there is a voluntary outpassing (lxxffcqckç yvfnjzm' lj)that whence being comes tous, thence also w e m ay desire to rece-ive m ovem ent ' as the im age passes over to the archetype,and,like a seal, is wel ladjusted to the slgnet,the archetype, and neitherhasnorcan have anywhere else to be carried or to , speak m fjre expressly and truly, being usable so to wish, ashaving laid hold ofthedivineoperation, nay,rather,becom ing God by deifieation .
and delighted further by tlle beiag outside (W txoxdtmk) of those tllhtgs that naturally belong to it or are thought about it, beeause
ofthe grace oftheSpirit thatconquersitand showsiialoneto lmve God operating hz it, so that there is in a11 one only operation of , God and the worthy ones, rather of God alone, inasm ueh as he, after the m anaer of lt1 goodneqs eatire, pelvades the worthy en-
tirely ''(Io;-6Bzo-Cz3). B aouoê'ij'ft ' j aeptyeiitpov' rp(Io7JD 5). Qf the tôx gfz'ra ofChar z.5c and .
.
3.z. j.
.
'qv'3' A v iplv ' âzrtipxeb.%6 slv> ,xak' rù xlvsïtzêabla/sïv zr,tefloopo (Amb 7-Io. 76B 13f). Thisimplies tlze cycle of progrecxs from a cause anfl return thereto,on wlzich tlle N eoplatonists insisteë in tllc w ake
of Plato against
tristotle. These ideas are evident in Proclus'zztll proposition LElements p. z4 witlt Dotld's com m eut p. z98); lines 18-23 touch more nearly the
x
M axim ian tlzought.
z/
F14 Rdutation p/Origtnism This is the w ell-kuown m onenergistie parxsage. W e shall later
see Maximus'own explanation ofhismeaning (in PassageVI). I'or the pre-sent 1et us note how in the whole eontext M axim us passes
from the s' uâering tke ' lrN sdlf/âtfto a consideration ofthe rdative passivity of eve!'y ereature and how tliis very passivity tends vehe-
meutly and by the exereiseofwilland ehoice (éxovgtfoç ...xtvsà xeoatpegtv Io73D4) to the loved object. The transition from what is w ithin the eom pass of the ereature to that which is beyond it is not here m anifest, .but that tllere has been sueh a transition is dear, especially from the sentence last translated. It is noteworthy that in a11 this there is not the least m ention of contem plation, know ledgea vision. The w hole exposition turns on the activity of the < 118. It istrue thatalm ostim m ediately afterthere issueh m ention. Given the inlinite ttistance between creator and creature,tlle ereature's knowledge of ereatures in the eonsum m ation, will be ended in a partieipation of the inânite,ineom prehensible divhze knowledge .
(Io77AB), But this remains a mere addition, an afterthought. P qssage 11
W ith the text just mentioned Maximus eondudes his formal
refutation of the henad ; he next undertakes to explain ilow w e''are portions of G od, and so expotm ds his doetrine of Logos and Iogoi. Tow ards the end of this he agahz speaks of the consum m ation and explains the divine presence in m an with the im age of the soul's presence in the body.'fhen:'rThe w hole m an is deifed by the grace
of God-m ade-m an, rem aining entirely m an in soul and body by reason of ltis nature and becom ing entfrely G od irt soul attd body by reason of the grace and divine brightness of the blessed glory that quite becom es him , than which there is nothing brighter or
more exalted to be conceived. For what to those tiat are worthy is more an objeet of love than deiliea'tion,in which God,united .to * This prominence of the volitive faeulty (we shall fnd som ething corresponcling tt o itbelow ilz Passage X I) quite apartfrom the verbalM onenergism ,seem scharacteistic ofthe #h century;it certainly favored M onenergism attd M onothelitism and shows that the spidtual tailieu izi which M axim us m ovetl to have been com pound of the contem porary theological
intere.sts as well as of'the monmstic traditiolus (Isvagrian and otherwise).
Ckaptsr III.Ecstasis
Iaz
lbose tllat becom e gods m akes the universe his * becattse ol his goodness. Therefore saeh a state they well nam ed pleasure suf -
feling (xe-ûckg),joy -' (astate characterized)by godly understalzdilzg aud theconsequentfruition ofgladness:pleasure indeed as the end of operatlons in accord w ith nature - for thus tbey defm e pleasure - ;1: susering how ever as an eestâtic pow er, bringing over the sufering thing to the aetive, according to the reason already given in the exam ple of air and light or of fre and iron , and persuadiug that apaTt from this,in nature and in trtttll there is no other bigh point
for things (vflw svrrtw xstpdlakov) - upon wlkich sttffering dispassionatenessnecessarily follows;and tfmallyljoy,ashaving noelement opposed to it eitherin tlze pastorin the future ''(Io88C6-Io89A3)1t .
These tw o passages,though eaeh of a diffevent color are m ani festly parallel. One Iinds the sam e im age of light diffused air and incandescent iron tlle sam e relation of ecstasy aud sufering the , san,e pregccupation w ith the future state alone. But here, rather tllere 'is m enticm of the glorious body;there is distinguished m an's -
-
proper activity and sufering;to this sufering pleasure and joy are joined. Above all,tite tlistinction is far m ore in evidenee between the spllere of natural action and that due uniquely to the divine initiative. Passag. 1II
So far our question of ecstasy and sugnrîng fk dinine has been in relation w itla the doctrine of m otion and the future life.
M other
dië cult text of Gregory willgiveM axim usan oppolunity to eoasider it from quite another angle Gregory had spoken of St Paul's rap.
tureto the third heaven as trogyesskascensionbassumption (rmöo:oç 4vdpaltç, d'tflnj/lç)42 W hat ean the im position of these nam es, .
signify? First M axim us notes 18 a threefold reason for tlle im position of a nam e, as nam ely,indicatitzg a substanee, a relation or a grace
(eonversely,a destm etion). These he exemplffes in man,gptW (or 9 f)n tbisturn of phrase;'rb aiv lttm op rtoka' K'tgt (Io88Cz4), d . PtfotczNus,E' nn. 6.I.2I lille 3 lBréMerl. le Thls pleasure is necessary for perfection. See Am b I5-x2zoAz-5. 11 Tltism ention ofjoy hlfluces a reference to satiety. Izttlle sum m ary placed here by w ay of conclusion M axim us for a second tim e treats of salâety. W e shall study the pa ages later. 1: Theolegica 2 or. z8.2o' 52C . . PG 36. 1: A m b zo-l2.: J6D f.
132
Th6Sfksflfitz;lp/Origenism
6' pfflman.man s' . çgod. #f'fhe beizlg and befng called god,says Maxim us, m an has neither of nature nor from relatiorl'but he btxcom es
and isnamed so by institution (:églg)14 and graee. 17orthe graee ofinstitution fs entirely withoat relations alld has no power wllatsoever in nature receptive 1bofit,since in that case it isno longergrace
but the m anifestation ofan'energy (proeeeding)from naturalpower. A ttd so m oreover the faet w ould be no paradox, should deititratioll result from som e reeeptive power of uature... For the natural power of each thing is nothiug else but the undeviating m ovem ent of nature to its operation. And how deification wculd place tlle deî-
fted man outside himself télletnlw lavw: vèv âeog-vov), if it be eompreheuded in theboundsofnature,I simply do notsee''(Amb zo-zzg/ztzz-ili u )lB, This eonstitutes a theoretical consideration of deification and ecvstasy. H ere,no m ore than in the passages of A m b 7 is there tbe
least suspicion of a phenom enological treatm ent, Bat in our present A m bigu' um M axim us has to apply the foregoing theory to the ease of Paul's rapture. 'rhis gives us som e further darifcations. P rogress indicates an acqaired, voltm tary detaclaznezlt, wlzieh
is a being plaeed outside natural sense activity s'pg xtu* atg/ngtv
fpvgtxfiçlvEg'mltxçRttlyevöpsvovorratheritseonversion intoa spiritual laabit (Amb zt)-Iz. ' J7C6-z, 7). Ascension indicates the leaving of sense objects, as no longer operative or objevt of activity in the subjeet,and the passing over (? h J:p(IcI.ç) the natural knowledge and eonteznplation concerning them (Amb zo-Ia37CI3-Dg). ' A ssumption indicates the subsequent abode and settlem ent in G od. 'Txis. the doctor, Gregory,'appropriately stated in slaowing
11 I have been able to fnd no satisfactory single renclering of ' thégbç. It signiies a positive free act aud so involves a distiuction from , though
notopposition to nature tzpte qzwl. See TP z-3aczI-T. 3 and T-ZS: s. z?. especially III and V 3.
lâ M vftjzsç êezA:vxs (tz37BIf): the atljective is anbiguous. Its form woulfl intlicate a paasive sense;but the eontext here and.elsewhe're ('. PP z-33B' ,'rhal zz-zzfyD' p) exclud, es s' tzclz an interpretatlon. Maximua tbîlzlrs chiesy of an aetive potezley,though the eoncept of a passive potezzcy wms
cun ent1n.Neoplatonism (see,6.g.,Pttotmrs'Elemrnts prop.78 witlzDoddls com m ent p. z4z). See below itl Pauage VIII note 4o. 14 M axim us hea' e alltls that there is an obverse to the m edal. There
is,besides deiication,(lestruetiou and hell. See chapter VIon apostdastasis.
Chaktvw 111.ft7. çlt z. $i. s
133
the apostle suffering, rather than effecting, his assum ption ''17or assum ption is a passion of the assum ed one an operation of lzim .
who assumes'' ($ dvfiàqplg y?p xffêog 1(f:1 xoli ivlllttpâavogévov, lvltlyetq :à xoîi(lvttlagjdvovtoç Am b zo-Ic37D 3-9). ,
.
W e have in these degzees referenves to the various stages of nattlral contem plation and prayer. Jt is only the firial degree which would fully m erit tlze nam e eestasy, as alone being fully passive and so beyond the lim its ofnature.
Passage IP' 'fhe 'passage in M ystagogia 23 adds one new note to what we have already.seen,nam ely the use of m irror as a Ilgure. But thisis in eonzlection with M axim us'use ofD enis;we shallreturn to it later.
l?or the rest,there is a tacit citation of the Dionysian suyering the ffïpiz;:17and a quotation from him 18,in wlzich is contained the reference to m irror. W e m ay therefore pass on to the treatm ent of
suffering and deificatiollthat we find ilzthe 22nd Question forThalassius.
Passage F
Thalassiushad m ade a qqestion out of the text ofSt Paulwhere
hesaysthat the end ofthe ageshave'come upon us (1 Cor.Io.zI) and the supposition underlying Eph. z.r8, nam ely that the riclzes of God willbe m angfest in future ages W hat is to be m ade of this .
apparent antinom y ? O ne of M axim tls'replies is to set this bifuro tion of the ages in parallel with tke correlativ'es aetion and passion, as-e signing to the present ages, in which we now live, all aetivity aad to the future the passive state. The contrast is strong 19and seem s :7 M yst z3-7o1B z3; D N 2.9-6488 3. 'B M yst 23-' /0106-13 = D N 4.zz-724B . 1: In pmsgage 11 we have already m et a strong contrast of activity and
passivlty (.'ecstatic power. aet)g . 36 rtotoîiv Iè M tqov l'vâymltmv#' Amb 7-zo88D6). Here the contrast is expressecl ztotogpw ... atitqogev (T1za1 zz-32oD7,12). Thfs contrmst hasroof.s in the Stoic and Neoplatonlc philœ ophy. Pldlo izad already taken it over: têtov pèv :% 'éje: oîi x?y xotsiv f$tnhêéhuç lzçsw tilpoftn yevi qe ,W ov ôè yevqxoïi ' tù a4trgtw LD6 Ck ef4ïpz, 24 (77) - -COHN-W INDr.A. NP I :895-7; See W orœsox' , H . A., Philo, 11 Iglf(Cam bridge,Mass.1948) from whom I took tll: is reference). Prod us' 8otltprom sition LElemonts. p.74) reads: 'tthe prope. r nature of al1bodies is to be acted upol,aud of all ineorporeals to be agtnts. . .
'' .
Tûe sequel
: -y4
I' hr##f/?4/ït?z;oj()z#lli' . $-
to lack all nuance. A!z attentive reading of tlle explanation of
these two mem bers * 11 modify the first impression. 6*W e are doez's, says M ai m us, insofar as 170th our rtaturally ratlonal power, ereative of virtues, is active and energized :: and our non-relational21 intellectttal pow er,receptive of every know iedge goes througltthe whole world of being and thought?leaving a11ages behind it. And we are sufferezs when, fnishing pedectly writh the
logoi'oîthings (come) from nothing,we have passed on hzignorauce (tlyvfâr fzlg)to the cattse 22ofthings that are and havegiven our native powers rest along with the naturally fnite,beeom ing that which is the achievem ent of no power in nature. 17or no m ade thing of its nature effeets deilieation ; for to give proportionately the graee of deiûcation to beings is native and proper to divine grace alone, illum inating nature w ith a supernatural light and raising it above #
its own limits in exeess of glory ,, (Tha1 2z-: . p oD7-3zIAIz). T hese are stfll pure positions. T hough the parallel verbs of doing and stœ ering are 1:0th.in the present tense yet that som e
uncertainty rest.son the lattermember (perhapssome willnotattain to that sugering) is shown by the subsequent aorist subjunctive. But now finally M axim us adverts to the first Pauline text:tke 6nd
p/ fke ages kave come Sf/pélus. Though we have not yet received the fuluess of Christ's graee, yet the virtues and logoi, w hich m ay be known,are types thereof ffby whic. h God ever wills to beeom e
of the proposftfon qttalifes the prindple for soals but ft rem aîned a dîfli-
culty for the Neoplatontqf.s them selves as Dozms' comm ent (El6ments p.zzyzf)shows. A dimculty notonly forthe pitilosophers,but also for the theologians. 'lY e pattiarell Sergius vvriting to H onorlus assigns operation
in Clzrkst to the tlivinity and.suferi' rlg to the hlzm anity (M ANsr rI.536A zoB8). 'fhis to be sure is a eitatiou from Gregory ofN yssa Lcontea . E'1IAlt?AAz-
ium,111,4,8:Jaeger,vol.II,p.12919-21 = PG 45.gTgAI-7).buttendentious. Pyrrhus holds an analogous pcxsition (see 'PP z8-349C,35aA), The inouence ofthis tentleney on Denks (see espeeially DN z.9-648Bc) and Maxim us (cf.above n.5) in tlle question of divinization is evident. O A't ivupo ... Ivepyovpév' qv (Tha1 2z-zzoD8): cf. Am b :5-:zzzB. zl Nan-vationqlïvoekptkv tkgzéxtaç öévttlav (32oD9): I take this aflverb to mean that the objects as known have only a relation ofreason wlth the created know er. 'Phis w ould be a derogation of the use generally found in
M axim us of applylng trzqelog only to the causal relations of'creator to creature. B ut here w e have to do not with causal but w ith cognitive relations. See above p. Ior. ': See below note 33.
Chapter 11I.Ecstasis
I35
man in the worthy ''(Tha1zz-3zIB7). The perfectiolz then of deifcation (and so ofecstasis)is to be referred to the next world;but there is already a preparation and a foreshadowing of it irz this,in Nrirtue of the Incaruation alzd the active life. P assage V1
Thelastofthese majorpassagesisalso thelatestin date perhaps a full 15 years after Am b 7 z: for which it is an apology. W e have already seen how M axim us had spoken of f'one only operation of
God artd the worthy, rather of God alone '' (above p. Iz9). The eharge that this is a M onenergistic passage, he says, is easily answ ered. H e w as there deseribing the future state of the saints and referred to the deifying action of God,which can be only one and of G od alone. T he reason is sim ple enough : an operation flow s from a pow er, w hich in its turn flows from and is in a substance; hence w hen a eertain pow er is not to be found in a nature neither
isitscorrelative operation. But deification isnot som ething subject to us,but the institution (êJgkç)and grace of God,who,possessing itby nature.iatends that ffhe (God) be perfectly known hEletœç yvtllcêij) and rem ain eompletely uncomprehended (alwvslfk thre vtllqxvoç)'' (TP I-. 33CI3)2*. And Maximus immediately concludes: zzI therefore did not do way with the ztaturaloperation ofthose who
willsufïer this (deifieation),the operation eeasing from its natural functions,nordid I pointit out as only stlsering fruition ofthe good; but I did show the supersubstantial pow er as alone effeetive of de-
ifcation and become (the possession) of the deified by grace '' (TP 1-33014-36A2)25. Tlzis exegesis of his ow n earlier work m ay be aeeepted as perfectly straightforwrard. The beginning of the inezim illated passage runs thus:'fI do not say that this is the doing aw ay oftlze freew ill...''
(above p.Iz9). 'rhe faet remains:there was a deficiency ofexpression, a defieiezlcy for w hich the N eoplatonie diaiectic of suceessive
aKrmations and negations is partly responsible. Itis a jargon that m ust be handled deftly,alld even so, too easily perm its the sim ple 13 Date-iist. j 8o. :4 On this oxym oron com m re Denis ep. 3-10691) ' bdt.
> The lastline (in the Mignereprint)reads;Xg. L3:: xtilpsv ' rf:v ê' frœêévvfzw. 'rllis xth t xtkkk$v m akes no sense' for l' Jz:jr translation t 'therefore I have enlended to:xlt xaxà x4e$v...
136
Th6Relutation 0/Origenism
or the eaptious to m isunderstand it at will. The response stands' , lm t it has occasioned a m ore explicit statem ent concerning nature, pow er, operation : a triad to w hieh I have already devoted Chapter II. Sum mary
The lxxfâengsg yvfllgkxj and the parallel ftecstasis from the things that naturally belong to it or are thought about it '' (tii!xcvticeksf7v (Imetxipg 1;(*qtvjg xat svttlw xttt voovptévow) of the frst pa age seem xather to indicate not the supersession of the sensvs and conseiousness but tlze going out of the soul, partieularly in the volitive faculty, into the reaches beyond its native pow er. The second passage eonned s unm istakably the eestatie power with tlze sttcezing of divine thino with the wlzielzfirst began. In 1:0th cases the divinization is exem plifed 21 by the m anner in which light penetrates air or fre, iron. The third passage, beeause, in the case of
StPaul'srapture,itcom prehendsundertheterm sprogressand ascension the alienations ofthe sensesand otherphenom ena usually assigned
to ecstmsks, makes abtm dantly dear that assumption is something otherand more exalted. But the asswmption is in tlzis instance tlle deifeation, wlkich is eestasis. Titat the alienations and so on are here present is,it seem s properly easual'St Paul's ease requires their ind usion. The order is ftm dam entally that found elsew here in M axim us. 'praetice,theory, theology. This is given explicitly as a sec-
ond, alternative explanation (Amb ao-zz4oAzr-B4l. 'I'he external pherzom ena are indieated,subordinqtely,only with the praetiee and theory. Elsewhere,to m y knowledge,there is zto m ention of them w hatsoever. Ecstasis then for M axim us is a result or a concoznitant of dei-
dcation and meansthat the deifled subjeetis acted upon with efects beyond its natural powers; on the part of the subjeet there is an outgoing of the w ill to G od, w hich is w holly im pregnated w ith the divine w ill. O ther effects, as the suspension of exterior senses, are secondary,non-essential. This distinetion was the easier for M axim us to attain because he considers pzim arily the future state ofthe 1: A m b p zo76A 3; Io88D 8. The esect oi this divtl' te illustration is the possession of the divine lôtfâpuvtf. Com pare G lar 2,52; 3.25. H ere, tltis is only im plied as our passage. s are concerned w ith the future state. where tlze m ention of virtuews is 1- necessary.
Cltav y er11I.Ecstqsis
z: J. 7
blessed,not som e transitory eondition,verified in som e m ystics At the sam e tim e he is able to m anifest with great foree and clarity the perfeet gratuity of tlle gryee of deifcation. The infltlenee of D enis is here evident throughout. but b enis in these qtlestions never acbieved such clarity ; ecstasis as the state of the blessed he does not distinguish from the eestasis rapture of the m ystic; the perfect gratuity ofgrace is not indubitably propounded. M axim us, in the texts so far presented has certainly m ade an advance. .
B .THs E VAGRIAN Ix M AxLsfus W bat then of the texts of Evagrian flavor and infuence? W iil M axim us have had the skill not m erely to adopt but aiso to adapt
the Evagrian texts and doetrine,so that the doctrine just sketched rem ains firm and uncontradicted? A eonvincing answer,if sueh is to be hoped for from an excerpting author like M axim us,willbe found only in a study ofthose works where the Evagrian infuenee is know n to be greatest. If there we Iind not only the lcnown adoption but also sul cient adaptation,the sam e m ay be assum ed w ith som e conlidenceforoecasionalpassagesi1zthe restofhiswork. %Ye havetherefore,tunling to the Centuyies on Charity,to asserxs not m erely the faet of indebtedness to Evagrius:7,but to m easure its deptll in the doctrine of m ind and of nature. l2or it is Evagrius'doctrine in this point by whieh he excludes conceptually the possibiHty of any veritable transcendentalism and renders im possible any use of above wtzf. lfz. e or like phrases to express the gratuity of attainm ent of God. 'fo proeeed m ethodically,I m ust lirst set forth briefly Evagrius'ow n doctrine. In this I shall follow H ausherz and Balthasar:8. '
:7 To sbow such an indebtedness was VILLISR'S m inciple aim in his artkle . , 4$$. : sowrces...; to have sholvn at tlze sem ae tim e the lim lt% of M axim us' Evagrianism was otlt of the question. In fact ke says; <'le fond
pzincipalvient d'zvagre. Qe sont les détails com muns aux deux fxx-ivains qu'ilfaudraitsouli. gne. r''(p.z57). VILLSR haa no doubt that,though M axim us took tout $' pAl systLme from Xvagrius yet he was shrewd enough to
leave asid.e a11that wms heteodox (p.z.q9). Our present question is:did M axim as really take over a11of Xvagrius'sym m .ineluding the key posltion, his concept oftke soul'or did.he not rather take over tlte Evagrian m ychologieal analysis of the spiritual life in whiclz analysis lvagrius brought to its acm e the traditional m onastic wisdom ? Antl Evagrius, no le-ss than
Maximus,aimetl at bting traditional tvr. Lt,stt,p. 260,note z97). :* HATJSHSRR,Ignoya. nsa ix/Alïp, OCP 2 (:936) 35I-6z; a'td V()N BAIfTHASA' R, M etaphysik z- d M ystik tf:s Evagyius f'tlll/ïcxs, ZAM z4 (r939) .
I: J8
Ths Rs/uflzfïos W Orïg:lùs' o
The whole of Evagrius'doctritze need not be here sttm m arized; what charaeterizes it ilz a way peculiar to Evap ius is his concept
ofthe miud (the nude rrtind)as being first created to tiie image and likeness of God,of the Trinity,and in that im age having the native power to reeeive the know ledge of the Blessed 'frirzity. That there w as a subsequent ereation,on accotm t of m otion, an evil thing, tt) which was due 170th the body and the inferior faculties, the irascible and the coneupiseible, is coherent w ith the first position, but 'does not direetly eoneern oui question,exeept that on the reeuperation of its purity,the m ilzd sees itself, its own state alzd eondition, and so
the Trinity. Iat Evagrius speak. 4 .The perfect m ind is that which is easily eapable of receiving essential kuowledge. Cent. 3.Iz Fr. 196. ..
B .The soulis the m ind whieh through negligence fellfrom the M onad and w hich by lack of w atehfulness bas clescended to the rank of practice. Cent. 3.28, from G uillaum ont, see note 28 The sinful soul is the m ind whielz through negligenee fellfrom .
consideration of the hoiy Monad and needs mueh labor to render herself wrorthy of the im age of the holy Trinity from wlzieh she fell Cent. 3.28 Fr. 206.
.
C.'fhe im ake of God is not that in wllieh a sign of his wisdom
may be depicted - a thing that can also be (done)in things made up of the four eleraents - , rather this is the im age of God, that which is capable of receiving know ledge of the holy 'rrinity Cent. :$..52 F r. zlo. .
D .Itis forthe nude m ind to say what is its nature;to thisquery there is now no reply, and izt the end not even tlle query . Csttt. 3.70 17r. 236. E .Blessed is he that com es to unsurpassable ignorattce. Cent. 3.88 12r. 256. 3r-47. M y sum m ary wms com pletetl before I was able to read the GtTlr.L-
,
Arslole 's article: Ls jearf, ntkitable /28. : eGvtostica * tl'f vagve J, Pontiqw ,
Rev.(f, I'hist.des Religions, 142 (19' 52) l56-205. Only pne of tlle texf.s 1 had cited is m entioned in tltis article. Jt is text B Ce. nt. 3.28. I have
inserted a renderilzg of Guillaumont's version (p.183) in m y text. And . note lzow the modifefl version (Fr.)by sm alcing of a sinfulsouleliminates
the transit frorn the ontolo'gieal to the m oral order! u4d édée A//liftvesse de l'olïgtfsïs- e accordiug to G uttm zttlstotç'c (p. v83, tt jt. 194.). Com pare atso Qlzap. I note 30. .
.
Chaktcr I11.Ecstasis
zg9
F .Ifwe possessconcupiseence and angerin com m on with beasts, it should be know n that at the outset of our creation these things were not created together with tls, but cam e in upon the rational nature after m otion. Cent. 6.85 Fr. 416.
G.The kingdom of God (for Evagritts the very sum mit of Christianity) is klzowrledge $f the holy 'frinity,coextensivew4th the m ake-up ofthe m ind,and going beyond its incorruptibility P yacticos I.3-PG 4o.zzzlD . S . Sign of dispassionateness: the m iad begilm ing to see its oqrn luster, rem aining tranquil before the phantom s of sleep and looking serenely on things. Pvacticos z.36-PG 4o. Iz3zA . 1.H e w ho advances in exercise lessens the passions'in eontem plation, ignorance; now of the passions there M; 'M eventually be a com plete corrtp tion, but of ignorance - of one they say there is a lim it, of the other there is none P racticos I.59-PG 40.1236.1.. .
J. W hen the mind,putting off the o1d man, willput on the m an of graee, then also it will see its own state in tlle tim e of prayer,like to a sapplzire or heavenly color... Practicos I,go-PG
4o.Ia44A, 'ef. ep.39 Fr.593 m ed.;Cent.S' l. f#//.2 12r.424; Lib.
from forms ttigoeTl(zl during the time of prayer. De prfl/zbz;: PseudoN ili 11g. L .Blessed is the m ind which during the tim e of prayer is pos-
sosed of perfect insensibility ttlvasclqgtal. De oratione zco. In these excerpts w e m ay see what sets the E vagrian doctrine
apart:that the im age of the frst creation has a native capadty for receiving know ledge of the holy 'Prinity and that this know ledge is as am'p1e as the m ake-up of the soal perm its, w hich m ake-ttp or eondition isseen by the pure m ind as a light, These are the coneepts whieh exdude any idea of ecstasis,a standing outside oneselft The ecstasis, whie.h is a standing outside beings only, would notbe foreign .
to Evagrius' ,i1èfactthe formlessness ofpure prayeris jttst that,but his term for it is rather m igration lx:nptla or rapture 2R. 2: D n oratione 46, 52 . .
z4o
Th6Ae/-fsrfo. no/œ igenism In reviewing the works of M axim us izl order to com pare them
with the precise points of Evagrian doctxine just indicated,it will be best first to point out som e equivalenees in vocabulary. Thus
the migration ofpure prayer llxônjzttl) is found in Char 3.zo and also once or twiee in the verbal form (Char Iyzo, 'z.a8). Rapture also oceurs (Char 1.12a 'z.6 and Amb Io-III3CI;Amb zo-lzgzC.4l. But neither can be reekoned a special favorite with M axim us when
one realizesthatprayer taeogarjloecurs : . 54 timesiu the 4 centuries (puye Jrfzyrr 6 times) and mind (voik) over Ioo times (pure mind 8 times). On the other hand ecstasis does not appear at all. The bl6ss6d passîon jor koly ckayity (Char 3.67,66 z1) does not lill the role of the D ionysian ecstatic eros. The w ord eros does oecur in
Char1.10,11, .2.6,47,48). Buthereitiseonneeted with lxônjzta and with that $funconseiotlsness '' of wlzieh H ausherr speaks in his ar-
ticle (p.35$f) and whieh,tlmuglz Evaglian (text L above), refers rather to that ignoranee of creatures w hich is a condition of pure
prayer than to that ignoranee of G od of whieh Evagritts speaks
(texts E and I above). A pazt from the passages already m entioned w here the w ord
rapturo occurs,there are other chapters expressing the idea. 'fhus in Char 1.11 the m ind,w inging its way to God by pure prayer,gets outside allthings. Again:''H appy the rnirtd that has gone beyond
all things...'' (Char z.I9). And: ffThe suprem e state of prayer is when the m ind passes out of the flesh and the world and rem ains
entirely untouebed in prayer with m atter and forms ''(Char z.6I). T hat the apex of prayer, subsequent to contem plation of creatures,is knowledge of the B' lessed 'Pritlity, there are ehapters of M axim us to teach us. 'fW lzen a m ind is prefectly freed from the passions, th en it travels straight on to the eontem plation of creatur-
es,making its way to the knowledge of the holy Trinity '' (Cllar 1.86). Similar to this are chapters 94 and 97 of the iirst Centuyy; also, tllough som ew hat differently, the 21st and 98th of the seeond. In the fourth Csntuyy the 4gth and 77th chaptersputthe eontem pla-
tion (lhf. t):((4 ofthe 'rrhtity in relation with faith - a point to be noted. 'fhe only other explicit m ention of the Trinity in these
Cent- ies (4.8) emphasizes its simplidty in contrastwith any creature. W ithout such explicit m ention the sam e general thought
fmds expression elsewhere,as in Char 3.99 (the occasion of Haasherr's artide Ignorance .fzI#e;ïtr),iu which the perfect rnind's ''more thatz non-know ing superknowledge of the supenm knowable '' is
CkJ. /f. e.?'ff1.Ecstasis
I4l
through 'ftrue faith ''. H aving touched on this passage so full of paradoxieal superlatives, it is fitting that another from the sam e Cdwfzfyy should be addueed where again there is play of knowledge and ignorance. frT he viztue.s separate the nlind from the passions;
spiritualcontemplation from simple representations (vosIz= a);pure prayer then places it by God.''. 'k'o this fhe following chapter responds poiat for point: ff' I'he virtues are ordered to the e owledge of creatures;this ktm wledge to tlle knower'the H tower to llim who
is known in ignorance and knows beyond knowledge '' (Char 3.44, 45, 'cf.Evagrius Cent. 1.87 I?r. rzz)..Some light will be shed fan these passages when we come to a textfrom the Quaestiones ad Tha-
Iassium (Passage IX below);for the present it is enough to have draw n attention to them .
If then m y analysis of the Centuyies pzl Chayity has been adequate,we have seen that nowhere doesM axim us take over Evagria'n thought to such an extent :ê that the pure or perfeet m ilzd m ay seem to have a power receptive of knowledge of the holy Trinity or that that know ledge is som ehow in correspondence w ith the m akeup of the soul; tlm ch less is there any hint of the soul seeing itself
in prayer. Yet these are precisely the points wlzere the Evagrian thought is form ally in eonflict w'ith D ionysian doetrine B ut M axim us,even in speaking of ecstasis m anifestly ullder D ionysian influences has not takea over, as is,that dod rille; rather at the texast he has transpösed it onto another plane. 'flze question then of the m utual relation of Evagrius and Denês in M axim us rem ains open. That is the point,and that alone, that I w ould here m ake :1, .
D VJI:LSR som etim es does note that M axim us doea not follow Evagrlus .
a11the way'(,.g., p. z5. 5f),but he gives no second thought to the im port of this fact. See the following note.
3tVILV R suggestsanotherway ofidentifying the Evagrianand Maxim tan positiolt itt his com m ent on Qllar 3.97 (p.249)ywhidtspeaks of the
nlind bei' ng jlcl/dlr. /l:tfajtev,b6ing tlipk rrsrnly contovmed to gtzt;: obfeotc,jcontsmAftilïo' )z (z((/g ékûtrrov vt sqrttt p' Eqitttlg' nj za' n'liee ltrrétpxs... =*6% êzacrlm vêqp, a zrm xià.t'yç petctpoptpoîifrlht). Now this, it is suggested,is to be understocd in the Origenîst-lvagrian context of the fall of pure spirits (from the primitive henatl)lnto boclie.s of a coarseness proportioned to the t ' legree
of sltl. HiUSH/RR has epitomized txe Evagrialt theory of knowleQ e
.
com m enting tlle D e tlrtzfïox4, 5o:'
est une assim ilation réelle du connaissant au coltnu '> In a footnote the
î*keA,/u/qffpl 0/Oriqenisnt 'rlle Csntury literature is not a form apt for the eontinued exposition ofa thought allthe m ore so as is the case with the Centuries on Ckarity,w hen the author pretends only to give the product of his
diligent reading (Char prolegue-txoA). If then we want to find M axim us expounding his ow n thouglzt on the question of m ind, nature and pure prayer, w e m ust look where he developes freely such them es. N ow in A m b Io there are tw o such passages,to w hich
we may add espeeially two others from the later Qùaestionn ad Thalassium . B efore introdueing these passages it w ill be w ell to recall the nature of this Am biguum . Its oeeasion was a passage of Gregoa w here the exercise of virtues seem ed entirely neglected in.a de-scription of tlle spiritual life. The dom inant intent ofM ai m us in the w hole of llis long response is to show the necessary harm ony ofvizttte
and knowledge ln the whole ofthe transit tôîtijat/kçl from thislife to the fnal enjoym ent of God. He is then concerned im mediately M'ith spirituallife in this present world and not,as in Am b 7, witlz the state ofthe blessed in heaven. It is thus that we Iind him twiee explaining in detail progress in the exereise of virtues, in
natural contemplation and in theology (in pure prayer):the venr triadic arrabgem ent that is fotm d in Evagrius and the M axim ian Centuries.
sam e author inverts a phrase of Evagrius to obtain a perfed form ulation of the principle:''D i6. 14 ctpxxtzff ce ga>flest'l'intelllgence créée est ce qu'elle
connaît'' (H AIJSHERR Le def/ï// de J'oytzisox d'XvagteîePontiqae,RAM, 15 (:9:4) 82). It is Viller who attributes the same theory of knowledge b0th to E vagrdus aud to M axim us. But thiA is im ptessible itz view of M axim ns' refutation of the henatl of h. is deetrine of the essentially com posite nature
of m an (of body arzd soul of course). To see that the patttwning fz/feg of Char .3.97 îs to be taken not ontologieally but m orally it is enough to read
Char z.5z:''The m ind joined with GGI ...beconzes .wise good...;in a word, it contains in itself practically a11 the divine attdbutes ltN4lztuctl. But w hen it leaves ltim and.goes over to m aterial things, it becom es either like a tlom estic anim al plemqure-loving, or like a wild beast Nghting for tlzese things w ith m en ''. B y chance I have recently hit upon the follow ing lines from the Ptwa-
àlaïkT.4th ode oftlze vigilselvice for Stm day (Rom an edition I885,p.4,3): Mtfatqqpm tsov xll jtsw pgetpotrov lx xuxtaç p.e zçtîdzqç rwùç t'kelhv,göv' q âtqqhd ' oo're m l tlvtthloûto'se Tv((xç ...
Ckapter 111.Ecstasis
z4: . ) P assage V II
'I'lte first3: of these passages (Amb Io-lllzbf) dexrilàes the m otions of the soul as seen by grace-illum ined m en . 'fhey are three: of the m intl, of the reason, of sense. The lirst is sim ple, uninter-
pretable, moving about God in ignoranee ltlyv/tn;fpçl, gaining no kriowledge of God from things because'of his exeeeding excellence; in this m otion the m iud is loosed from its m otion about things and
restsfrom 1ts prop'eroperation (Amb Io-IzIzD7-III:$Az;III3B2-4). Tlle rational m otion perm if.s a causal desnition of the Unkuown and by its own operation acquires a scientific knowledge of things through their Iogoi 8: whieh are then referred to the m ind tA. mb .
Io-III3Az-6,14). The motion ofsense iscom posite and hascontaet with external tblogs and,as from eertain signs, im presses tlle logoi
ofvisible thingsin itself (Amb Io-III3A6-I4). 'fhereis thusa passageasit were from sense-pereeptible thingsto the Ngh eontemplation of creatures in God, to a m tjtion àbout God com pleteiy lacking the eoneeptual furnishings of our eustom ary thought The end result of these grace-directed znotions is that ''m en are deem ed fit through the Spirit to be com rningled entirely M4t.II God and bear .
the image of the lteavenly One,as muG as men m ay '' (Am b Iozzz3Bs-zo). On the whole sue-h a passage as this is alien neitller to Evagritts nor to D enis. Y et if one look closely to the function of the m ind, it m ust be said not to be specifcally Evagrian as there is no hint of the uniorl to be aecom plished in self-vision. Rather the m otion
ofthemind,an ever-motion (Amb Io-Izz3Dz-III6CI),isi. llignoranee t' lyvfôczfplldae to the exceedin'g excellence of the object (ôt(i vtv 3: ' t'oï cotkvtnienee in subezequent referenc'tws I have num beretl tbis .
second group of passages consecutively with those of the fzrst group on ecstasis.
JB Pltocrm s writes (Elemonts prop. It;Dodds p. 1216): ' f1 T(;K tkldttw
yvfvtng lxter hfp' qç lczlv ëoyov See Dodds' citations and comment (z98). The doctrine is com m on. But M axim us can also speak of m oving tm .
knowingly to the eause oftlzings (Tha1cc-aaolil3f;aboveparssageV). This however is but a variant expression for the m ovem entofthe m infl explained in tlle passage now under discussiou. The possibility of tlzis latter lnovem ent is based on the causal knowledge of Gotl, so one m ay speak of
m oving unknowingly '(m otion of the m intl) to the cause known through the m otion oi reason.
I44
TheRdutation ()/Origenism
faw oxjv)and issomething other,oneinfers,than the naturaloperation from w lzich it rests. 'fhese elem ents are D ionysian. But at this point M axim us inserts a passage on God and m an being exam plars one of the other, whieh at a Erst cursory glanee
m ay seem eonneeted with the Evagrian idea of tlle soul's native power as im age to reeeive knowledge of the Trinity. 'rhe paasage n zns:'tTlzey say :4 that G od and m an are exem plars one of another' and that G od m akes llim self m an for m an's sake out of love,so far as m an, enabled by God througlz ellarity,deified ldm self; and that m an is rapt ap by God in m ind to the tm knowable >,so far as m an
has rnanifested through virtues the God by nature invisible ''(Amb Io-III3BIo-C2). Such an invez'se correspondance: Inearnation-deifcation is a them e habitually recurring in M axim us 8e. The very idea of a m utual exem plarity seem s m ore akin to D ertis, yet there m ay be
som ething akin to a passage of'rhal63 (see below Passage X )where M axim us speaké of knowing God from self and self from God. P assage V III
The second passage from Amb Io (II33A-II37C) is a detailed exposition of the ftve m odes of natural contem plation : substance,
motion,digerence, Azlixlllr: (xp(icw) and position (ëég$g),considered singly and in various com binations and,lastly, in tlze ultim ate reduction to one. In the course ofthis exposition the E vagrian prov-
ideuee and judgem ent is distinguished,witbout mention of nam es, and restricted to tlle moral order alone (Amb Io-II33Df)r. 'fhe m entiou of the Blessed Trinity (Am b Io-II36C) geem s out of place in corisiderations of natural contem plation. But here it is in con34 It would be a satisfaction to be able to pierce the anonym ity of this they say. One is rem inded at once of M axim us'own M ystagogia and so of D enis but anything m ore precise than a certain sinlilar turn of thought I have not been able to discover.
35Tize unhnowabl. (Am b Io-zI1:$C1):' r?)m fzloqév so Osm stt and Gud. gv.a$) (1 have cheeked Oehler's readiug on a mfcroâlm ofGucl.. 39);Scotus incognitum ; M onae. gr. 363f. 9ob penult.: ' rè J' yvttmfov - wlticil last is obviously tlze correet reading. 14 I give som e exam ples: A m b 33-1z88A . t$o-I385B ' 'rhal 6z-632A ; ' ep z-464.A ta; 2.5-6r3D . 64-725C, .
:; See in Part One the analysis of Amb fo j z9,above p.37.
Chaptev111.Ecstasis
I45
nection with an initiationa som ething supenzatural3*, yet with the following natural triad as base: being, k ïrg wise, ?W Alg live 3v. W hat now pertains m ore nearly to our interest is the result of tlke Eual redtwtion to olw . In this, I here sum m azize, holy m en im press on them selves, as m uch as m ay be, that logos whieh'flqls the whole m oral world with the diverse form s of virtue, having pttt
an end to a11the logd of beiags and virtttes (cf.Char 1 19),rather .
going on in ignorance to that Tm gos'above all from whom all eam e an4 'rentire, so far as the natural pow er4: witllin them perm its , are entirely united and are, as m ueh as m ay be, so far qualifed by him as to be eharacterized by him alone, like t%e elearest of nzirrors having the form without dim inution of the observant G od's entire,
logos (Lov xo: Nogf-t yvtog êeo: löyov xô Elloç t latpalstxvftlç)manifestby m eans ofhis divinecharaeteristiesz zton e ofthe andettt m arks, by whiçh the hum an elem ent is naturally indicated, being left. a1l giving way to the better, like dazk air wholly transfused with light '' .
(Amb Io-II3gB,translation BzI-C6). Htre again there seem s to be an Evaglian elem ent D oes not .
thisfoym p/thelogos,that appeazs asin a m irror, represent Evagrius'' visitm oftlze Trinity in the soul'ssubstance (textC and G above)? A .
nd.m irror is the very word that Gabriel I' Iorn ûllose som e 25 yeazs
ago to express the im m anent view as opposed to the transeendent and Dionysian do' ttd oz darknn sl*. Y et in this case the word m îrror is properly D ionysian. The phrmse clearnst t # miryors is found in
DN 4.za-7z4B (also in CH 3.:-:65. *6 and in EH z.3.I-397A),where .
O 'Ep,miêqgav (zz36C4). In Am b 2o-I24oB4 p' frngtv is used of tlle there indubitably sapernatural tlteologoal w isdom . 3: See also Thal 13-2968 . Tlze source of the triafl is Proclus tlzrough D , etkis. I take it that tlle ï' ldfillïe' p im plies tevelation : otllerwise M stvlnm s is irt open contradlction w ith lzis own statem ent atso in Am b th zo-xI68AB, at there is u. o trace (Ixyoç) whatsoever of the T'rinity irk ereatiom I l Czave treated fully of tlzese passages in m y introductlon to tlze Centayies on .
..
/llrïty at notes 156-169. 49 That M axim us shoulcl attribute any effectiveness for uniotz to
st zfs' rtz/ powe. v ks a surpdse after the Tepeated ao m ations that dem cation i Ps com pletely beyotltl natural power. See Passage III = d note z5, also u sages V anG VI. 11 H ORN G ., Le m iyoie ,/ la . a. s& , RAM ,8 (z927)zI5-z3z;butthisIp osition haik not been fogowecl by subsequent writers: voN llv tplo ts.ul D Am fxov.Lsvs. Stxe the note of this last in L 'im age & D itf' w t : / va & . t/ Nys Cvrtkoiye se. 1951,p., 3. 31 (on p.: 34) = 2$fuse' u. m Z. O. Wtz. 11.pl, sect.théol. 49. .
ID
146
TàeR6/slffzfït?p olOrigu ïs-
D enis is speaking ofangels. It would indeed be lm zardous from this only to assert that M axim us is here indebted to D enis,but in tlle
M ysttqogia (z3-7oIC) Maxinms cites verbatim tltis very passage, applyiug it not to angels bttt to souls,their eqtlal in honor. The
angelor the soulis said to be the k'lnttge zzzzfî manijntfdion (Elxtbv xqtfptwépœgtç) of God. 'Phis second element we sllall shortly see to be pf dedsive m om ent in the M axim ian doctrine. Pan ags AY
There remain two texts from the Q' ttaestiones 448 Thalanium which should Srst be presented before diseussing the question of introspeetion and ecstasy in M axim us. Tlze frst of these is the :5th question where M axim us endeavors to expound the sense of
St Paul's th6 hsad olgrdlz'yman isChrisfwith hisinjunetion thatthe m en pray.with the head bared and thew om en with thehead covered
(1Cor.11.3W . Maximusfrstlaysdown asfundamental:theapostle was speakm ' g only of those who have faith.' H e then proceeds to
inteo retthe man asrnind,tllewoman assense,fkrstin the practical, then in the throretical and fnally irl the theological orders. ..And again,M az m us says' ,m an is the m ind within m ysticaltheology,hav-
ing Cilristashistmcovered head,thatis the element offaith hùv... köyov xiigaûetztnçlwith theindem onstzable eonceived in ignorauce or. more aceurately stated,known without concepts (âyvdloxteç voogevev...(lvoljl'fz,çytvœlxtsjzsvov)...the rnilld,wlliclzexercises that praisew ozthy,deifyiug privatiou,lying com pletely and preem inentiy above
itself and being '' (Tha1 :z5-332C.3-13)- And later on in the same question,explaining what it is for the m ystie to have his head cov-
ered in prayer,'fSuelzan one,hesays,must,bared ofauy idea (lvvo$q)and knowledge,look without eyes42 upon the veritable God and W ord, distinctly know ing that the privations by exeellenee prove rather to be tzue of God,som ehow indicating the divine aë rm ation
(êég$ç)by the complete denial of beiugs''(Tha1 z5-3:$3CI4-D5). I have presented tlds passage, beeause it was an occasion for M ad m us to speak in an E vagrian m aaner;the threefold division and tlle prom inence of ntind are b0t.h târoughly consonant with E vagHan thought. The preeisions ofthought,therefore, which are here found, are so m uch the m ore valuable. ê: See belov/ note 53.
Chapter 11I.Ecstasis
:zj7 . Passage X
W e are looking for passages of an Evagrian turn;there is ' notle m ore fitting in tllis respect than the follow ing from the rep 'ly to Thalassius'631.d question Again I sum m azize the frst part. The H oly Spirit presides over the puriscation accom plished in fear reverenee and knowledge;it is he who illum ines the Iogoi of thina and givesknowledge thereof;and lle bestowsperfection freely through .
.
simple widsom olz tilose wortlly of deifkation (Thal 63-673Cg-DI). ,
Butin thisbestowal what doe.s the Spirit effeet? M aH m useontinues:
'fleading them im m ediately, in every way (ms far as it is possible for m an), to the eattse of beino : those who are characterized by the divine attributes (t:lflfjtara) ofgoodness,in whieh (xcê*jv)they know themselves from God and God from themselves (!x leo: gàv lqm oiç, 11 lavxf' ;v ôà ydvdilxovxeç sèv êeövl, there being no separatingm edium ' sforfrom wisdom to God there ij uo medium . They w'ill possess unalterable im m utability, sinee a11the media (in which the dangerofsometim es erring in knowledge existed)willbe wholly surpassed by those who w ithoat word or eoncept have been 1ed olz in graee through speechlessness, ineffable silenee and ignorance to the infinitetz and m ore than intinite peak by nature im m m erable
inlinities beyond a11 things'' (Thal 63-673Dz-6;6Aa). ** He6ç tzfrtsv ' riv H etpov xqï lzttixetoov xtâ tizœlvtixtg tlxe mg xqvà tplklv Jaéxstvtt rstivrœv thotsvqm (Thal 63-67317:0f,. cf. T hal 6o-6zzB t und TP I-36A;.). This quite outdoes any thing Denis hms done in piling tlp negatives. D enis does speak itl another connection of i
I%Ft lï/efy injnitejttlwzr e. ç(DN 8.z-88pD). 'Ixe double use of COIEPOg is common in Proclus tKoc1I Beziehungen..., lx 785 but as in Den: is in connection witltentities under Cxdd. 'Ax 4rqç occurs 8 tim rs in D enis but tw ice only of God (CH t3.4-5o4C(i' , EH ' z.3.4-4ooC9). Th1 *$t ctm stttutes, I tltink, a. .
clearintlieation ofa Dionysian inouencein these Q%X dffflv sad Thalassi%m This slzould not be surprising as clearly 'Phalis subsequ
.
entto Amb 11 (Thal :J9-. 3*3B refezs to Am b 65-1389C-13938) whel-e t'he Dionlrsian Inflqenee is m ore tlzan m anifest. I m ay add one or two other instancea. In tXe prologlte (Thal-z5zEI1) M u imus speaks of suntying union V I.II G oG. 'rhe
seeing withouteyes (Tha1 :5-33: 513:. Pzaqage IX ;d note 53) is also a Dio.
nysian plzrase (DN 4.I:-7o8D; MT x.I-997B). I have drawn attention to tlzis particular, for Dlsru lt, in his unpublislled dissertation flh pflq E) t;qt êmpl at i va x ç : c s r xt f vpl do n t e i nam s . Af f 4 i v ï mï ç o nl e s s or i s . Rom ae zqz8 ( O at the rientalInstitutejp.28 note 191),al rms that thereisnoiniluence ofDenis in Thal. And though I = ay lzere indicate the unfounfledness of the a% ertion, yet the diference of tone between Am b and Thal seerns to dem nnll
: /8 .
Th6zk:/vfllfos olOrïg:sïsz
H ere, I think, ifat all,we shallhave discovered M axim usspeak ing on his own as Evagrius. 'IYis knowledge of God from self, i it not tlzat vision of self in which God is seen proportionately t
the soul'som lmake-up (texts D,G,J above)?And thevery relati veneas of sttch a 'veision leavesroom forthat lim itless ignoraneewhid
Evagriusin Practicos 1.59 (textIabove)sayswitlneverpassaway 41 an explanation. N ow Distlier him self rem arl:s that in Thal M axsm us i com m ue cating with his pee.r itlm ysticalm atters so that in a way, he 1et blm self go. On the other hand ill Am b he has often questions of a pllil
osophicalorderto dealwith (Amb 7 I5,42areevldence) in which b. e mus lay down the philosopltical bases for the speeulative tlzeological structulx H eace the philosopftico-theologieal is m ore in evîdenee. And this is oftel
from Denis. Yet in som e of tlte zz 1mbigua (d.g.48 or the series 52-57)tb allegorical and Origenist elem ent is entirely dom inant as in Thal. T b. divergeneie' s tlm s cwreaie no real m oblem . 'Vitisistize m ore reaflily conceiv able if the conchzsion of H .- Ch. .Ptiee: ll (.E.4 ténèbv6' lar lzs/ïç- rAga laT:41440
D enys..., ln Etudes Clïzrpz/lfft4f- d, 23, vol.z (1938)33-53)be acceptet l' tha nam ely tb. e them e of darkness is an artifcial elem ent due to tlze exegesi of tlze ktzown passages ofExodtls and.the Canticle butnot founded in m ys tical expeheuce. If then M axim us who gives but the slightest attentioj to it in Am b zo-zzz788; I14986. passes lt over entirely in Thal there i thence no argttm ent for a lack of Dionysiap inlluence. Tkat influence l above all in tlze establislzm ent of philosophical principles. Titis is m anifez in 'rhoec, tlependent m ore on 'rhal than on Am b aceording to voN BA1f
' rlu sMt (Df4 Gn.Csnt. z55);blzt for the initial decade,see above chap.l p. zofd . Theae rem arks lzowever are only provisory, as there is as ye' no system atlc study of Thal.
44 HArs> p. ltLlknovanceï' a/AsïsjOQP 2 (r9J6) :55,:56:360)cite.s tht Evagrian textthree tim el. In the frst citeation it is suggeasted that Xvagriuk uses a pin'ase not 1l. tq ow ltto expregs ltis own tlzought;in the tllird tlze genu
ineparelzta ofthephraseare suggestetl;thosewho expoultd theLih 0/M osrs Philo, Gregory of N yssa... In any case tlze R vagrian tlxmght wottld bd an ignorance uzllizuitecl because the know ledge that the-re is can neve
u haust the objeet to be known. It is m athematical. On Ute otller lzand there îs a m ystical ignorance (Dionysian one could say) which stp porsa une stv/g dr Arej4cfitm,sogn /'ïvz//ztlq dt?zzdaf'tz- oslr kors tf' érs lois #e l'intelli gence efly-pld- (p. 3s6)- Aze not tbmst laws of tite intelligence,howevet G at neccssity tm de.r which zuan exhts of knowing cotzceptually and witl concepts dependent m aterially at lemst on tlze im ages derivetlfrom witimut Yet forE vagriusisnot tlte utm osthzpurity ofm ind preeisely the overcom inl of titis ncxcessity ? The true location of the difference between Evagrius anf .
D enis w 111 be found not so m uell in the latter's concentration on ecstasi;
as the former'srejeetion ofit better:Evagrius'emphaskson the consequenl role wlziclz vtsion of self is then callecl upon to play. W ith this one sltottk
not om it the Evagdan concept of m otion 1t% bad anll cause of evil.
Cà4/jtv fTT.Ecsstts';s
I49
But this iguoranee creates a diflk ulty in assessing the E vagrialm ess ofthese passages 4s.
It is, so to speak,native in D ertis; yet Xvagrius ean use the term ,though not it w ould seem , as a native expression of his thought. It rem ains then am bivalent 4:. As to thq knowledge of God from self, I w ould note that M aximus accepts the Gregorian position agairzst X unornius, that we do
not properly know the essences of created things (Thal 6o-6z4D; Amb Ig-rzz5D-I228C)and that in the preserzt case itis paired with knowledge ofselffrom God - not,I think, fotm d in Evagriusx Farther this know ledge is here m ade dependent on possessing the divine characteristics. This brings us back to the im age f4p.# manihsfation
wbiell we have met above (PmssageVIIIand V11). A direet treatm ent of this willlead usto a synthesis of M axim us'doctrine in the passages so far discussed.
C. SxrlqlHssls okr M xxrm xx Ilolrrm xE
W lzat is meant by divine tz/fdhzffes (lôkd)g(=l) or ckayacteyistics (yvttletcpmt't,) of goodnesp? A simple statement of what these iditz-flfdz are is found in Char 3.z5. God has eom m unicated four of these to ltis creatures: beixg 6vtw-being, goodness and wisdom . 'l'he two form er are given with lyeisg itself the lattertwo are eonsequent
on proper use ofthe willand judgement. The former is image and by nature,the latter is likenessand by grace 4T. The ever-wem being
and ever-ill-being,of wltic: I shall speak in dealing with the apocatastasis, is of coarse also im plieit in the present chapter. Sucll are the idiom ata 48'from a slightly diferent point of view they are 44 An attem pt to assess'precisely sueh Evagriazzness w ould be futile if b:jr that we w ere to understand tlze quantity of E vagrianness contained irt the M axim ian tum bler; our aim nm st be qnite de erent: to dettvm lue that critical point where the use of the Xvagrian heritage ceaaes to be the use of the Alexandrian ancl m onastie traditfon of whiclz l vagrius was certainly a principalspokesm an atld pa esoverto a dependeltceon Xvagrius tlle system atiwer of Origen's H ellenisticdnspired hypotlzeses, m ixed also witk, N ham , otker strains and certainly V t. II his own speculation. 46 See tlle ârst part of note 44.
*7 One m ay com pare also Char 2.52, cited above note 3z. .
*8The frst to speak of ptwpeyties o/ Go# in a technical sense would seem to have beeu Philo. There is then quâte a lzistory of the concept
touching closely on the que-sfion dfthe uulrnowability of God (the negative theologyj. See W orzsoN's Phiio,II,p. I3off.
No
TkrA' e/f' #/çg/ft?zlojOzr gk4xllçz?;
reckoned as m anifesting the divine and so are rather ealled charaeteristies, gnoyism ata. To see what this'involves, 1et us return to the passages already citedv In Passage VII we saw that ê'God and m an are exem plars
(zçtp a:elyjttzva) one of another... and that m an is rapt up by God in rnind to the unknowable, so far as m an has m anifesfed through virtues the God by nature invisible 4:. Wrhat is this exem plarity
and m anifestation? Justa little abovethe passageeited,in theintro-
duction to Amb Io (see abovep.z4z),Maximus had obsexed that virtue,com pouaded of logos (Mrith the role ofeontrolling the body henee praxîs) and tkeoria, is also manifest through tlle body, though only partially. Virtue, as xtpflxvt: êelt:g ôvvdpzoç, shows -
through the body only some faint suggestiolls (gxsdcptal'tl) of itself. And tttis, not for its ow n sake,but for.those who need to
beformed to virtue by example (xtpaôstyl ztuk) (Amb Io-IIo8BC). l'or virtue is first ofa11a disposition hidden in the deptlasof the soul,
and then appearing in pyaxis through the body (Amb Io-Izo8CI-. 5). 'rhat M axim us speaks here of the m anifestation of virtue in practice as only needful beeause of the unvirtuousand not because of our nature as eom posite of body and soul, is neeessitated by the difli-
culty the Gregozian passage presents (ornission ()f praxîsj. But in fad the m anifestatiou of virtue, in the actual econom y, is quite necesmary for advauee tow ard and attainm ent of God. Advertence
to tltis necessity m ay help to explain M >xim us' use of the phrase
so /tzr as //1, natumal jltlttgr within J& 7Al ptfrmits in Parxsage VIII54 as referring rather to tlle hum an effort for virttte than to the divine qualifyitlg öz present in the sam e context. T lle eharacterizations of the saint by G otl with llis own ckaracteristie.s effect ' sirnultaneously
in the subject the image and AAllzlf/:sffz/ft?' ?sof God. This phrase as I have noted (0n Passage VIII) is Dionysian. The text ilzwhieh it oecttrs (Myst c3-7o1BC) is that forming'Passage IV . W e have therefore the them es of suffering the divine,not being of oneself but of God,and being known from and by tlze God 4: That G011 has m an as his exem pla, r Lq eonceivable only in view of the Incarnation ; this aspect I m ay here om it. :e see uote 4o.
:1 Qv lilying, from the verb aoBûyuset't as here, in tke passisre of the cliville action in adorning with virtue, oecurs in Amb 7-10731)5 (Passage 1);Alnb lo-l1378:4 (the presentinstance)and II4IBz4;ep,:-37: 785; it is used also of creating essences set up w1t. 11 qualities Cbar 4.6.
Chapter f11.Ecsiasis
I5t
who deifies,tile result being that the soul is im age and m irror:a11 - these them es w e have in one passage.
Tlzis im age,then,retlecting God ms in a m irror,is the adorning
ofthesoul(M ysta3)orthe person (Amb Io-II37BC)with the divine idiomata and gnorismata (consisting primarilz in goodness and wisdom )so thatit beeomes an example of virtue an impression of divine power (xtpaxrl)e êelag hvvdttEltv) for othersf 'fhe knowledge of God from self and of self from God,m et w ith in Passage X ,prefaced ms it was by the holy m en being eharad erized by the did ne idiom ata is to be tm derstood then,not in the Evagrian selzse of an entitative setf-vision or vision of the substance of the soul, but ill funetion of the m oral order. 'rhis eharacterization is illustrated by incandescent iron or
light-illumined air (Passages 1, II, VIII); but the whole point of these illustrations custom ary in Christology sz is that the iron and the air,though having tllè characteristics of fire and light, do not entitatively lose their proper characteristics' they are only superseded. P qssage X I
In these regards we are fortunate enoagh to have an exam ple. The saints are itnages and m anifestations. Good. So M axim us,
having expounded the theory (Passage VIII), gives us a case in point: M elchisedech. T ltis illustration extends over tw o colum ns
(Amb Io-II37D-II4IC)so that I have not the willto present it in translation to the reader. The fam ous description of H ebrew s 7.3:
W itlwutfatker,u'if/ltpfzl/motker.7pf//3o' lffgen6alogy: having zldïf/'z,r brginning4)/dayszlarend p/1iy. .lsfflikened totheSon //God & continues a #A' $'ysf/or 6v6r is didded into three,as 1 have plaeed the eolons. The ûrst, the being without, indicates the perfect putting away of natural eharacteristies, eiected through graee in virtue; the second indieates know ledge overcom ing the lim its of tim e and aevum and contem plation surpassing m aterial and im m aterial substanee; tite third, perhaps, indicates the ability to keep unw iuking the eye:3 :: For Pyrrhug M axim us twice explai!ls tlte sim ilar exstm ple of the
incallde-seent sworcl (ep. :9-5938 and. TP z8-a37D ; compare also TP z6-I8oC9). :' T' 4ç... (k ea rlç xct ' &'lç...zplk ' çùv êeùv êvttxeviknre. tx x6 vosvôv öùtjm iwaûpvowrov... (pvlxkltt:(Am b zo-zI4oA5f). Com pare ' Phal 25-. 3331)1:'fKltv6v f'vvoteg xat m fûtpeœç (lvoypdxfl v ôkdv x& J'li qêkvbv ' thèv M yov. This is not
I5z
TkeRr/' ldtllitm p/Origenism
of vittue and of the gaze towards God. '#l7or virtue, I translate, is born to dght nature sl and true contem plation tim e and aevum , in order,thatthe orte m ay rem ain unenslaved to the things bdlievt'd to be after God and undom inated as knowing Cyod alone as parent,
and thattheother (be)tgleircumseribed,abiding in noneofthethings that have beginning and end aud im aging God through itself God,deO itive ofevery beginning.and end,who draws a11the think-
ing hthcvç)ofthose wlvo thtnk to himself ln unspeakabte ecsusy (xfzxrèxfrrfxgtv dlpnTov). 'rbrough these.the divine likenesss: is m anifest (1 m ean through virtue and knowledge)and through them charity unshaken is kept for God ...
'' (Amb Io-II4oApB3).
Tlle rest:6 is mostly a justiiication for nazaing Melchisedech, not from things of nature but from those aeqttired in virtue aud in
contemplation or knowledge. And Enally (Amb Io-Iz4IC)Maximgs says altsaints are in som e w ay im ages of Christ, tlie ardtetype,bvlt M elehisedech preem inently so. Such a ftm ction of the saints in the Cllristian econom y is expressed btzt a little later: f'P' or God placed in the nature of a11 alike the power for salvation, that qach who w ished m ight 1ay hold on divine graee, and, in willing to becom e M elclzisedech and Abraham and M oses, in sllort to transferthe saints to him self,m ight not be bindered,excllanging not nam es and places
but im itating m anners and way of life'' (Am b Ioul44Alo-Bz; cf. 1149C 13f). Lest one'be tem pted to think that such a developem ent on virtueeand knowledge be uniquely due to the dië eulty which was the a contradietion, but to approadt the slm e thought irom two sides: to deny bodily vlsion Ls a m zm ner of afBrl' ning the m etttat Fxarlier in
Tlzal z5 (Ptkssage IX )'Vnvim us had spoken of the reason of faith &0 &oxçsç vomijtevov or more accurately âvofsmç 'fwclox6po ov (3z2C6) that fs the ultim ate in knowledge is non-conce' ptaat Por parallel: in Derlis see K oeE, Beziôlënngen ..., p. z6o.
5: Note this com posite supposition oftpo w for > 116% 4zt4/f4r:' ,itisrathe.r 1: Liksnn z ôjtoûofnç: M axim us is not always consistentin m aintaiqirtg the dksthzction found here azlcl i4 Char 3.25. Etxfûv is not infrequently used alone for tlze sense here given fslzolœfnç. 56 It is intere-sting in tizis n6st to see how prom inellt is txe 'fvépq and it.s conform ation through virtue. 'n is btm gs us close to Passage I w ith its
lxzdlmltaçm fagsx' ti. Above,p.4z,I have been able to snpply the lacuna occurring in tltis rem ainder at zz4oD 5. If gives us another Trinitarian referent'e.
Chattey111.Ecstasis
z54 .
occasion for tlze expositios, I zefer tbe readeT to tbe prefatozy paz-
agraph ofthegreattheologicalwork addressed toM arinus (TP I-9A. f). 12or izt this initial encom ium M axim us reproduces the m ain them es
we have just seen illustrated in M elehisedech. A brief synthesis of M axim us'doctrine,as to the ascent to G od, m ust now be ventured. Tkis ascent proceeds in tw o m utually dependent m anners, in virtue and in knowledge; by the one is expunged that which is due to our fallen nature ill our relations with ourselves and w ith others, tlle erowm ing of w hieh is the passing out of the volitive faculty so as to be w holly taken over by G od ;by the other,sense and rational knowledge being reduced to its source in
the Logos, there is an ignorance, that is, a non-eoneeptual 1t-110wledge which exteads indefnitely. 'rhis transform ation' of m an endows him in eseet, by grace, with the divine characvteristies of goodness aud w isdom . Its fullrealization - the union ofthe blessed with God in heaven - is properly ecstasis, a thing quite beyond aAd above all the native powers of m an. 'rEis too is deiâeation, a suffering oftlzedivine,whieh doesnotrob m an ofhisnaturalpowen , though they be overlaid,transfused w ith the divine. The som etim es
concom itant phenomena of ecstasis in this life (:.g.in the rapture ofStPaul)aresecondary and do not draw Maximus'interest. W hat appears m ore nearly to be the center of M axim us' interest is the m utualharm ony ofviztue and know ledge,by whieh likeness to God is realized in m en. Yhis is a base. Tilere is the iniinite extending
ofdesire (' 1T I-9A8). There is the 'fseeing the true W ord and Gpd witllout eyes ''. But above all there is the aetion of God,drawing the m an from things and self to him selfH. :7 Evagrius Denis M axim us - ifm y m ethod and judgementhave not witlely e-rretl, wlzat m ay we now say oftheirrelations?E vagrius,rèfusing any' ecstasis even purged of frantic and,fatal elem ents fzxed him self in a pm e introspection. (It would have been diK cmlt for him to do otherwise so long
as motion wasforhl 'm evilantlsourceofevil. Denis rejected neitlzerm otion nor ecstmsy, which he found also hz txe Neoplatonlc tradition. W ith him however.ecstasy seem s to be as m uch if not m ore for this life lhan for the next. The pare gratuity of attaining God in vision is not too m anifest in the flux of hissaperlative vu biage. Thesufering of thedivine is not developellin tllesenseofthedistinction oftlze natural autlsupernatural. M avlm us ' isa com pletely faithful disciple of neitber. Tlds kq ta'ue esm cially for E va-
grius,whosedoctrine heseveraltimescorrecta Eprovidence and judgement in tlle moralsense not to be reckoned ontologicz (ef.above n.z8);motion is good; knowledge of God from selfin a moralsense (from the virtues) not
J. 74
TheXd/lflfit?l olOrignnism
from the purified substadceoitlze sottll. Ksstasy he R cepts but place.sby preference, in alz entitative non-phenom enological sense in heavèn. & stasy Lq m ore connected w ith the will than w ith the m ind; the rd ation of w ill atttl m ind in bliss he does not consider. 'rhus there lacks hl his work in tlzks point a perfect harm ony of the elem ents. T his m ay partly be due
to tlle dottble influence of lvagrias anll D enis. I say pavtly because, quite apart from a question of soutce.s there is dië culty in fusing tite two elem enta of m ind and will in a pedeetly izarm onious doetrine of the atts'inm ent öf G od. But if the double initlerzee does aecount izz part for 4 th% defed in the M axim iaa doctrine one eannot say that there has beeu no reconciliation. The Evagrian doctrine hms been pruned of i' ts indigestible elem ents and itas been set in the N eoplatonic sehem e it also pruned of its inacceptable theses. Induences m ay anfl (lo Tem ain. W hat howevet is m ost proper to M axim us
Lstlmtin tlzerethinlring of01(1doctrinalelements,hemanaked to plaeenot (I4relpt($, not ëkptïpg, b%t ë tiztq hl the flrst place. This ks seen in Pa%age X I:virtue and knowlellge com bine to effect liksness and tta establish tk'fdxq and sonship. Tlze sum em e encom ium of the 1aw of grace is precisdy that it teacltes not m el'e-ly to love one auother in spirit bat to lay dow n one's
liie one forthe otlzer ('1Yal 64-7z5C). It is on a simllarnote that Mavim us conelude.s tlze Am bigua, teferring 2 1 to God: xë lv o4ptwt ' j xi 1c%1 yik
ze- à M cqg ôojq opèvtp xdeutoç, xtzt IzA nv tkausvofrv'n w.çw.$:* êvto v, vàv ek tiuliàom fpaqvfkfoatctv.
G IAIAI'SR IV LOGOS
The developem ent of M axim us' antiorigenist argum ent calls now for a treatm ent of lzis doctrirte oflogos. A fulldiscussion of his teaehing in all its aspects is here out of the question. H ow ever because of its im portance in the whole of the M axim ian syntitesis. it seem s good to look som ew hat carefully at the distinction M yogw öaog, in itj developem ent as a theological expression. Of this I shalllirst treat;in a second part 1 shall expound .M axim us'doetrine of the Logos, explahzing the unity of creation in refutation of the henad.
A . 'fl. Is D ls' n xcem ox: AOrOE TYIEQ Z - TPOIIO I Y IIAPZEOI
K arlH oll,in his Amphilochigq rt- Ikoni' um 1,speaks at length ofthe term w dxoç A g éadvymg. Rather baidly the sum ofthese pages is that,though the term isused by Basiland Gregory of N yssa
(not however by Nazianzen)in an untedmical way, Amphilochius, though a little clum sily, m akes it into a technieal T rinitazian term , which was subsequently to be current. (From being in Basila term to express the enigm a of the intratrinitarian relations, it has becom e a help in its solution. Prestige gives som e pages2to it,butw ithout
referenceto Holl'sstudy. Hollremarks (p.z4olthatreeerttly (1904) the question of this term 's origin had frequently been put. H is ow n answ er seem s to have precluded further diseussion. F ttnk how ever, proposlttg the authorkhip of D idym . tts for the Pseudo-B asilian Contra fwAlovlf' lf;zlIV and V 3,gave H ollan'occasion for a note
(p.z451)aë rming that in the tm questionetl works ofDidymus the '
lVolft/, K.,k.4mphilocltivs von Ikonium in seinem Jzw àylfsïs zu tfy,l
gvossen Fdz/htl#?azïaes. T' iibingen 1904. pp. 240-45. : PRssTlGs, G .L, God ï. n Patristic Thought. London z936, pp. 245-44. 3 FUN x, F . X ., K irchengeschichtlicke a' lb/ltzxtfir xxjza und (. r. /z/dA' a s. ?w lpsxgen, II. Paderborn 1899, pp. z9t ff.
I56
Tht e Rdl/t4/afïpAlolOrigençsm
phrase w özçog futftlhfz)ç doesnot oceur. Funk 4 rejoinsby addudng fragm ent IX :, overlooked by H oll, in w itich the phrase is found. It will be useful to review and com plete these stutlies on /@ -
parxis as a basis for understanding the M aximian doctrine. 'lhhq basie sense is sxistence, reality. This is attested in regard to God i11 the frst century before Christ. Tltis sense determ ines also its logical, gram m atical, even m athem atieal uses. It is also used for
yeal #z'o#:r/y e. Of ecdesimstical writers before Basil Prestige dtes Irenaeus and Eusebius7, where dearly this exisience is found with the eonnotation of the thing's beginning or origin. The passage from Athanasius : eited to show the sim ple sense exiztence, m ust
be set off against others where the connotation of orkin is quite patent. 'rhese are to be found in M ueller's Lexicon ZIIAI/AICIs'I Al' lfpl
s.' p.1. l'or instance in Contra a4/pllf/sfzrïf4- I 49Mary and Joseph
are said to be ofone flesh by Txïsfezlc:from pAldrnot by coition. But M ueller ilim self distinguishes only an abstraet sense existentia and a concrete one s' ubstantia. The connotation of origin perceived by
I' Ioll- das M omentdes HQ?.#:71: - is unqtlestionable,btzt not necessarily intended in every use of the word.
Prestige (p. 245) vonjectures tlmt the term was 'frescued by Basil from the sehools of logic ''. Certainly Ityparxîs was used by the com m entators of A ristotle's logie. But its use in A thanasius shows that it had no need of being reseued. If,how ever,he m eans
not the term only but the phrase w öaeg fxdpistoç then I think
ltis conjeeture must be dropped. For I have not fotmd the phrase iu the com m entators edited for the Berlin Academ y. Basilhfnlself presents the first instanee of its use. In his hom ily A gainst f/le Sabelllàns, zzlrïfzs and I/l. a azlAlpplfl
x.9.z:GCS Eusebius IV IKI,OSm RMANNI p. (1711. @ AttHru sltls, ad .4/rös, 4a PG z6.zo36B. 9 ATHANASIUS A dv. A Fplfï' > d' lfAAl, I 4, PG z6.Io9' 7Qzz. le BAsIt,, Cokttea hsWb llicwtu et . ,4H. 1- 7 6t . ,4wtl- cet). s PG 3I.6I3A z3:
xlolzkpexà advl*v xqtxspkxob fo6aov x%ç iaupleœç xo: âylov IlvaéylTog T%v âxlvivvov Kyvotav iveaqvzxGvfœç ôpokoyEiç.
Ckapter IF.Logos
'
I57
the sam e hom ily be speaks of the Son's origin from the I?ather, by
generation (vevvqvôg),btlt the Holy Ghost's isineffable ttlètmtfkl11. If,however, the m ode for the H oly Ghost is unknown,there is no question w hatsoever that the existenee itself is from G od 13. The sense of 170th these passages is contained in one from the Treatlse f)s f/?.y H oly Ghost46 '8. In ttxplaining to Am pbiloehius the m anifold ways in whielz we m ay be said to have knowledge of things he m entions,along with others,'.that according to the m ode ofexistence ''11. The very casualness of this last referenee indieates that the phrase com es easily from his'pen;it m ay stillbe only the faultiness of our doeum entation that deprives us ofprofane exam ples 1:. 'fhere rem ains a passage where the word existence.w ould have been in place,
but for it we find ltypostasisysubstance. It is in Contrq S' lfv pzfzfvl 1 15 14. 'rhe passage llas a double interest:w e ûnd in it clearly tlze sub-
stance ofthe distinetion löyog tpfgEolç-xlifsxog l hxdtlyttx as later developed by M axîm us; artd the exem pliiication in Adam ,whiclt w ill recur in G rego!' y of N yssal', in D idym us ls in Theodoret l9. The
word ' tingensratsd (tlyévvqvov) tam s one's thoughts not to the what but to the how of tlzingsz:. The illustration then follows of the
genealogical tables given by Imke, ending with Adam, wko is t# God. And when oneisasked whatisthe substanee of Adam (otg(a), the reply w ould be, f'not from the eopulation of m an and wom an but form ed by tlle hand of God. But it would be said, fl am not 11 B-igK ,ibid.PG 31.616C. 12 BASII: ep. lo5: PG 3z.5I3A I6.
13 BASIL Lib6r & Spiyita &t zeltîft), 46:PG 32.I52 R. 14 BAszt, ep. 235,2: PG 3a.87zCIo: 'Exst:?l ytke xù ' r' lq yvtllgett àg svop. tt
bakaoà. b ôtapfllvet,xekyvamvôv d lxm ,' rl,ptv xttvè Q ttfltôvj56 :è XI' rR Izéycê'oo A;ù Dà xçt' çlkDévttjm ,' rù tià xa' tà .:* w dzcov x' lç f'rttkàleœç,s?>'è ' rèv zpdvov ' k' ijç yevyflf x elç,46 ôè xtsx'ovlctfm 15 In tlze Stoic fragm ents collected by von Arnim not a few exam ples
of the pair ldyog-w 6rloç are to be founfl(see index underthe latterword); for exam ple III :691: w here l4yoç is a com m und syllogis' trt and K ôztog its sc 'ltem atie repyesentatiozl. The word bzr zithlsg however does not appear
iu tlle index. 14 BAsul, Contva Sx' a. p- ï' lêm 1, 15: PG 29.5458 -548A . 17 GRXGORV or N yssA. C. A$fAl., 1, jj 4:5-97:PG 45.404.
18 PssuDo-BAsm IDr17YMUSI, PG 29.681B. 19 PSSTJDO-JUSTIN (THEODORETI. PG 6.:392C. M B ASII., C. A'14. /,.. 1, 15 : PG 29.5458.
I58
TheX:/f. fffdït)Asn/Origenism
seeking the mode of existettee (rtl4xoç vfig éxocxdgeœl) but the m aterialsubject ofm an,aboutwhich the reply does little to inform m e '.
Tllis happens to us w ith the w ord ungenerattd , being taught thereby the how of G od rather thaa the very nature '':'. That
éxögvtzfykç sezves as a synonym for tirrdplsç is clear from Contra E unom ivm II,where any thought antecedent to the Only-begotten's
hypostasis is said to be im possible,as the hypayxis ofthe W ord of God,who w as in the beginning with God, is above anything conceivable in the line of ancientness 21.
Prestige gives eonsiderable spaee (p.z46f)to the passage from Pseudo-Basil-Didym us:3 where diverse mades (# existence are-exem pliûed in Adam , Eve, Abel and Jesus. H oll (p, 245) merely m entions the pa% age. Only Funk :4 adduces another passage: the
X I fragment on Jolm (I4.z8):Th,6 FdI//leF is grefflfrr tkan I 2à. After exeluding the poKsibitity of quantitative com parison in divinis, llidym us eozttinues: <
modes (are) of the substance (obgtfAv) not of tlle existences. And
especially with regard to theunqualified and bodiless,(the modesi do not diminish the rank (41(a) of consubstantials,granting less orm ore to thisone orto tllat;forthat which is sim pleas to sulxstance and knowledge is connaturally unable to be com pared as to m easure or quantity of size '':6. If now w e take existences as referring to :1 BAsltj C.E un. ..1. r5: PG 29.548. :.11-8 2:.!zt lv guvôvlxtzp' oih (kvêpùç xgl 'rvvcqxùç, tiD.*éx ' t'?ig êslo. ç gE: kt?ùç :jlzaluom jvttk. *Au ' o' lzk 'tèv w éztov
'r' lç ' saoo-rtjcpsfoç latliq'r/,Tzho' st ' ev&v Tl,g,âllstzlsxô xo: (kv' V tr mov xè ahhxèv ' bxoxeipo ov' 11 apllofi.:éto pzavM vetv 8:1 ' t'ijç (kaoxoûeeleç. Togso :è xat jhav mzp.pglve:lx xiig xoB J,yevv'/lxov tpçow-iç x6 ôaeygxoi;' A og pau ev 1k(tivivdlv tfrtsgKv êtötttvxohtéw tg.
z? lu str. ()..E' . l4x..1I: PG 29.5968z5-04: 'AD. 'o' K 'ov' ?iosxe 11% W v' qvatlvvouxxoelpvxfpa x1ç Ie: Afovoysvogq éxogx4ceœç. flqvvôç yie xo9 :vvûpévov E(ç âvxaKdvnmoç köyov lxtvoelolhztAvœvlpc l fxapllg fo9 Qeob ho'sov To9 lv J/x: övvoç ae6ç xöv hs6v e:v:bfcexlu 1: P ssuoo-B Asm a C. Jywp.. IA7: PG 29.68:J2. ': P UNK Icivshangesch. W bh.. 111, :2z.
*$ PG 39.1652C. *6 Dm vMrs n ' agm ent IX : PG 39.z6.. $2C7-:5 : Et êt b fpfllew I zeqovtx
dm txèv rfqvéea & $zrfe âye xog,ô '( Yîèg w m vèg,êee pev Nt' rflw efxnè' v oî w tsaok,o, è v1v érrziey œv xttl pm ltgxtt !. a1 ' e v âaotœv xtzk âgoltlxov, o15x
llaxvofqp ' 6$v âua. v x(Bv ôpoetlcëftw,Tf ' l Elavvov ' ll 'rè p' sllov 'rfpêe ' M xiiiêe zrzwéq xevvvç' oê yikkh aétpvxev 'cè l;v olkxûv xçzl yvosle: J,ztktn-iv, lzéw ov 'q xoaövq'ru ge'/é'o' ovç ovyxptvecm ts.
Ckapter IV.Logos
15t?
ungenerated and geneyated a use conlirm ed in the Basilian passages above eited, the m odes m ust be in .the substanccs, not the one divine substance, but the hum an and divine substance wllich are to be
found in Christ, This is Funk's interpretation (p. 32z),,whieh lle establishes in greater detail. 'rhis being so,ltyparxis is used indirectly ofthe FatherLvngeneyatedjaswellasofthe Son. 'Phe import of this last rem ark will be evident when we trTat of A m philoehius.
GregoorofN yssa uses the term (ixaplj; or the phrase w öaog tlxdtêefm rather frequently. The predominant sense is that found
'
ex-plieity in Clm tra E l4nom ium 111. 6.14 2:: '
existence from the Father''. Once hypostasis serves forkyparxis28. Tlle fullest place how ever is found in the iirst book ::. It is here that we Gnd the eontrast between )x6yoç fyllottw and spdaoç lm de-
leœg. The distinetion is illustrated'with the diverse ltypayxes of A dam and A bel, and then is applied to the T rinity. It is quite clear that betw een B asil and G regory there is idezttity of use eB.
Holl(p.z4zflexpre%ly notes that Gregory does not use the phrase of the ungeneratedness of the lzather; but that how ever unlogieal,
it would seem to be required by -the equality in tlle 'rri/ity. 'Phis step, says H oll,w as to be m ade by Am philocllius. The phrase oeeurs but twiee in thè rem nants of Am philochius' writings:in oration 2.6 and in fragm ent 15 31. 'rhe first is from a
serm on on the Hypapante. In a series ofphrases emphasizing the paradox of tw o natures in Christ, A m pitiloehius says: ffthe sam e lxlth babbling child alzd granting urisdom and speech; the one by 17 J. &. FAG M, II, 18011: P(7 45.. 77. 38. . 19 C;. h'un. 3.6.33 JAPIGRR,ll, 1874:PG 45.781. 1. . .
:9 See note I . 'e For conventence I here tabulate the passages of Gregory in the
order of Jaeger's edition with the received book num ber arld colum n of M igne 45.in seeontl place.
JA/GIR vol.1: T.216 1.495-97 z.4z .&. 3.ô.14 3.6.3.5
: $.6.63
p. 8417
Bk 1-316C
l6If 61:9 z8o:1
1-404 IW 6:$2D 'VI1I-773B
18' 71 197. 1:
VIII-78IA (hypostasis) VIII-y93A (hyparxiswio out reference to the Father).
Ref.Conf.Eun.ga 3(Jc1@ 11-50813 (hypar-tjs) 95 333:1 1I-509A (Tt'4=oç Y' EvWjce. ûlçl' A1 AMem oelm /s PG 39.538 and zza.
z6o
TIV Rfr/sfafït)s 0/Orfgflsfs. m
reason of the birth from a virgin,the other by reason of the incom -
prehensibility of (bis)existence ''!a. 'fhis ofeourse fallsin perfeetly with the use of the term hyparxîs sueh as we have seen it in Basii and G regoo v. The other passage is found in a brief exposition of the faith, taken from Am philoehius' letter to Seleueus. After stating the m utual indwelling of the divine persons, he contitm es: *4I
worship Jesus Chzist eoeternal with the Father as to Godhead,lm t subsequent to the rather as to Godhead in the m ode of essence or
existeaee '' (obx otgtag, o;x éaflpyrzlg rpöaov, veölw ov toB Ilaw èg' xal'& x$v êEtisqta)a3. As Holl (p.z4. 3l remarks,from this there can be no sure eondttsion that hypavxis is referred also to tlw Father. Asto thesense that kyparxishere bears,itis worth noting that A m philocllius, havirtg applied the above to the H oly Ghost, continues:
beghm ings, ever eoexisting (ctwvztdtlmvxtt) with the Father as to tlle G odhead ''a4. In a m om ent w e sball see that Theodoret speaks of tize *'coexistence of the three divine persons ''. rud her on in the sam e exposition Am philoellius says that the consubstantial cannot be aë rm ed of one only persou,but of the F ather,Son and Spirit. '%The differenee,he eontinues,is in the persons, not in thesubstance; for F atker,Son and H oly Ghostare nam es of a m ode of existenee vr
relation (gzéctç),notdireetly @alf7ç) of tlze substanee''>. There ean be no doubt - attention has shifted from the m om ent of origin in w hieh the phrase is applicable only to the originated persons to
tlle (logieally) subsequent relation, whieh, of course, is applicable also to the origillating person. It is tim e to reiect a m om ent on the im port of this extension
oftheterm . Holl(p.z44)seesin theAmphilochian usea confusion ofthe conceptskypostasis,proterty (l:töxqg) and ydation.and thence the dië culty of establishing a real distinetion in one substance. It is,I think,a bit hasty to condttde to a etm fusion of coneepts, in
a cetse of intim ately related V rm s,on the basis of two fragm ents. :1 A M pl. lrmocm r s, PG 39.5.384-7: Tù çt flrè xe' krrftmûov 'tlfxvlkov,' tù (ITè
xgl optplav xct(/,:4g,g.gtwtjxpzsvov. xè pèv,ô. uk'rflv lx Hûkmévov yévvqotv,. z6ôfi :$3.. %6 âxaxtizarrrev .ra ?iç ahrrtiplsçog. B$ AMlqurm cy m vs -P(7 39.1zzB l3-Q1. 14 ztwllyHrvactlt a vs, PG 39.:I2Cz-4. :5 A MPRKT/I?JTTtTS, PG 39.z1aCI4-Iz: 'H êè ôvctqloptk év xvogfiaolç,ofx
lv vîio' trgtt l' 1; livk trlttxùl!,Yîùç xgl Hvsijltq xö f ' ly:ov,vvéaov ' f?xtkeletts litovv fuégett v èvöpuxa,tillv'o' lg oit7taç âalfk .
C/ltz/fc?'fF.Logos
I61
'1Ye dië eulty he sees is that inherent in any Trinitarian theology; nor do I see that it is any the less present irz the B asilian use of the term than in the A m philochian. 'fhe braee of passages, cited to instance the continuance of this coneeptualobscurity, w itness celtainly to tlle extension of tlle phrase to a11three pezsons ofthe Trinity,
butnot to an obscurity. The modeof obtaining Txfs/esce (the translation isPrestige's)constitutesnotonly theproperty,but,tm derstanding property and substance together also the person; and founds the relation. Basiland Gregory ofN yssa, seeing the positive aspect
of se4aog éatipyttx used it only of the Son alld ofthe Spirit;but the Father m ust also have his m ode of existeneea even though it be expressed negatively:the tm originated originator. D idym us and Am philoehius, eontem poraries of Basil alld Gre-
gory,testify to this extended use of xpöxog éxdtjieœg. But there
is more. Gregory in ltis Contra é'lzToplï' l:pl 1. 495-97 (see above p. :57) has dearly stated tha. t the spöaoç lztdtêefoç is correlative to the àéw ç obctqg, illtlstrating identity of nature as being com patible with diverse m odes of obtainirtg existenee in theeaseofAdam and Abel. Basil had dorte a sim l'lar thing in his Confya Flzlpplfz lfI I5,izustrating m'ore at length w ith the sam e exam ple. But here
the corrdative phrases ltkoç obtylt!, g .. seàxog fxdpyœç are not nam ed,but specifted at the beginning ofthe passage and ' at the etd . For the orte we find xl' j x( lgvkv and for the otlzer B dxfpç poxtv 3:. Then at the end Nvith application to God: B ixfa)g vo9 êeot gdn ov
$ e rl)v rllv (pfcrùv. (For the context see above p.157). N ow the distinction p'ut in this way m akes operative a whole range ofA ristoteliaa doetrine in the service of theology - as to tlze
'rrinity,as to the Econom y,as to anthropology. W ithout long searches in subsequent authors only an oceasional instance can be given. Cyril of Alexandria em ploys the term in his dialogues on the Trinity, in one instanee of the tilree persons
equally and in contrast with oicrlfx, and in another of the eternal geueration of the Son s7, 'But if only slight ittstatw es are knom t in 5th century Alexandria, Antioch developes it quite in the sense
of the Cappadodans. 'lAhtts in the Expositio r
stance (H 74oD) is of no interest in tlze present question. 11
I6z
Th6Str/f4ffdïpl H Origenism
15 of Amphilochius38. In tlle Qvaestio' nes :/ responsiones ad prle doxos 139 there is the sam e doctrine, w ith the contrast of àpyog
otglag
w öaoç éadtêEoç, with tlze illustration of Adam , Eve,
Seth. There is som etiting fttrther of n'ote in this passage. It begins: .'G od is one by the coexistence of the three divine persons, difering from one another not by the essenee but by the m odes of existence '':9. And a little ftlrther on Theodoret insists on the unalterability of the M yoç oègtaç4e. The word also occurs in the e' arlier sense of the rzlode of existence of the Stm or H oly tn tlst in
H aenticarum .Ffzsz ? ,/. ftzrlf- Compendium V z,3 4t. The frst instaace in this latter w ork is of som e interest because of the illustration:
fireand itsbrightness. Thebrightness(âaqfyagga)hasitsexiatenee from tlze iire and eoei sts w ith the fire. In easualreadiitg i. ttthe Leontii of 6th eentury Palestine 1have
eom e across som e instances in a Christological sense. Leontius of Jenlsalem in h1s Adversus N estoyianos I Io :: rem arks tltat in
Christ some things happen xag otxevoyltw qtso:... sttltpöt,c p y@ vpdztfp âvalöyfp sfiç lô(aç fjaiestaç.So llis birth was such as oursbut not öyow lxœg.
Iaontius ofByzantittm knows the exac't term , xpöxog éxdpkefzx In the prologue to his A dversus N T, sftlzo Alps 6t FldycàitzAlt)s he set.s down som e conditions for discucxsion : cme m ust frst recognize tlle integral persisteazce of the two natures in Christ after the union, then one can be hlquisitive a'bottt #'their m utualrelation and m ode of existence ''ê:. êrhe term s are present; the exact m ode of thç m ode in question is not evident. Slmuld it be taken of the divhle, of tite hum an nature alone? Or is there som e thought of a tlteandrie.
m ode?'rltisLeontiuspresentstwo otherinstances ofhyparxis. Btzt, 38 Psslm () JUS' fIN, Expositio g:ci ftzl Ftlei. 3: PG 6. l2o9B3-Io. 39 PS/U' DIIJIJSTJN Qtsaestionesetresponsionrsz?. # orthodoxos zgp;PQ & xa92Cz3-I5:Ek âtm v 6 W ùg 11 trttvvatipletxt 'fjv w e v ' A ifav ' flaocltîgki owy'rlv êua spovclv tku lkfzw m>)xîio' ltçq ,tkllft'rek l'iig (r, idl?ltrœq w 4a. 0/. 4: 80th the-setext.s(1m .38.39) are from the Pseudo-lustin. The fzrst LSBON (RH E 26 (x93o) 536-50) has vindicated for 'Pizeodoret;the second Bxkzw (DTC':5 (z946) 3.zz) reckons,in view ofits likeness with the fore-
.
goiug. as m obably of Theodoret. *1 Tnxopoxth'' r, H arv6tic. Fab. Ctpvl#,AlsN' f4al V 2 : 5: PG 83.452C = (1 4539 . 41 Iœ oza nls H m noscm . A dv. N ey/pgfozzsw. I 1o: PG 8ô.. y44zA . *3 L/ONX'HJS BMz.. . J1dv. N fvf. et Z' ll/yc/lïfip.: PG 86.1269C10-15.
C'llc/fer IF'.Lngos
I63
cttrious thing, kyfm xis has here the sense of physis. '''l'lte soul, he says,is circttm scribed by Tf; àdyfll ' rsg fadelefl)g''. And later on,speaking ofuniens;'fsom e even in union preserve xùv vàg éxtjeyq)g hâyov ''44. Such a use m ust, I think, be explahled by the Leontian doctzine of an hypostatlc union of created pedects the body and soul. ' In chronologieat order I should now com e to M axim us, but I perm it m ysetf to pass frst to the Pseudo-cyril w hom I'Ioll, tm der
the name and from the text of John Damnscene, cites for being uncertain in his use of kyparxis. W e have to do with chapters 8-10 of the D 6 sacrosancta Trinitatr4:. In the first passage41 w e .
ftnd moh p/hyparxis used of generatioh and procession as in Basil
and Gregory, Butthe authoralso 'speaksofungeneratednesst&yevvncta), f'wilich, lze says, does not indieate diserence of essence btlt m ode of existenee ''. Later still spealring of generation and
procession,he refersto them as mode(# diserence*7. Then aërtning that a2 iscom m on to the three,alwaysin derivation from tlle Pathery except for ungeneratedness generation and procession he says: ''ror in these hyposu tic propeties alene the three lloly H ypostases
djier from one another, divided l divisibly not by essence but by the charactezistic of each single hypostasis, W e say too that each of the three has a ped ect hypostasis, but that in three perfec't hym postmsesthere isone sim ple essence,m ore than m dect, allperfect*'**. 4: L EONTIUS B vz. ibid.1 ' P G 86.T285. 8 4 I304R 2. 1: Ps>iuDo-c'krjup D 6 sltlrtpw Alc// Tyinitatr 8-10:PG 77. I136-45. PRE.
s' rztj:e çGod ïs Patvistic Tltought.p.z63,cf.p.280)dates the work at the beginning of the 8th centunv. Ds G' IUBSRT (RSR 3 (t9x2) 367) tliscerns a (lem ndence on cap. 26 of the Dooteina T' tz/rlçAl (hence Prestige's datiag)' .
but asthis partof tlze collection m ay wellhave been eytant earlier the date B ut one m ay ask why does the Pseuflo-cyril consisteutly avoid nam b 'ng any of bis som ces? ant. t $:6'4 rrlot lz is therefore t5. e m onothelfte controversy. .4
I)/ GTJIBSIG (p.368)suggest.s ''que noas soyons en présence d'u:tlpseudoépigraphe fabriqué pour1es besoins de la controverse m onothélite ''. But i1z that ease, could not bne restrict the posslble tim e of com position to the periocl of tite polttical dnm inauce of Monotlttlitl 'mm , that is from the tim e
of the fullblown controversy (645) to the 6th ecumenical council (681)? I note that Prestige in his index (p. ( 511)says of this work:Q4not earlier ,
than nliddle 7th century ''. tq Pssvoo-cvm L D: ss.TH s. 8'PG 77.ïx:6C1z-D 4. 47 I PSSUJAO-CVZ RIL D e . :. ç. TgïAz. 9. . 77. zz4oc lz.
48PSEUDO-CMRII.,D6ss.Tvin.9: PG 7z.Iz4oD8-zI4zA2; *Ev ' mét' aui .
'vik pgw kç Iftk (lrloo' ctm xtt' t. g löltsvng::l, tvtfêtpovtrtv tiu ' jktav ftk tlyçfn w gk lao-
z64
TheRejutation t# Origenism *
The proper characteristic then of each person (wltieh is ungeneratedness,and so on) is the mode of existenee. Little wonder tllat shortly after he repeats' . ''W e acknowledge one God, but izl the properties only of the Fatherhood Sonship and Processiolz do we
understand the differeace,as to eattse and eaused (uhsov,ttlvtatdv) and as to the pedection of hylw stasis, that is the m ode of existence ''. 19
'rhe ârst aad last passages cited are those contrasted by H ollO to dem onstrate a laek of darity in the Greek tradltion in the wake of Am philochius. Clarity - the texts speak for them selves - is not lacking. One m ight wish for a further elucidation of how tllere ca. u be three persons itlone substance- alw ays a profound m ystery '
and that Pseudo-Uyril had worked a liu le witlt the concept of re-
lation which wasto be found in Am philochius (see above p.160). M axim us and Logos-Tropos H ow does M axim us fit illto tltis tradition ? 'lY ere are two questions: w hat use of the distinction does he m ake in llis exposition of the T zinity; and: w hat use does he m ake of it ilz general? In som e 4o instanees of the pair M y'oç - litlöaog that I have noted in M axim us, there are but tlzree thett occur in a 'frinitarian eontext. The frst is found in M yst a:. )-7oIA . God is m onad xaxà
xèv rlg obctag lil'otto9 Etvfzl hë ov and triad xcxlkvùv l'oîhaf x éxatyxetv xat f(m cçdvtzs w daov. 'flzis last m em ber with its use of the
verbalform for hypastasis iudieates the way for a sure Trinitezrian
interpretation ofeertain passages. imb 67-14001)f explains monad and triad in the sam e fashion. Am b I-Io36C is cast in the sam e
m old:löyog,elvtzs% r the m onad respond to tpdaog,atk Elvaç,afi)ç fyaitkt/trtç'o:x o' ôig. ,14 êèzpeoxnlpwxlxf p I' lç11$(0ç' H olvdsgttw flkawévcs ôlcttkméàtEvcu. W ttèv / pxqccov ' rêv w e v xEletav dxew ' I h éoxtttxv (...),â3.)? év w kck xtrkefa! ,ç faocxficect yttw o' ûçfltzv t'iaà' lv fzfsoxel' l xcl cr, tzu élesov. 19 Pssuoo-c' k'lta De ss.Frio.zo:PG 77.II44A7-Iz (for completeness d . atso rz,37B):eEva yt) , o' A ù' v 'fwtflcxepev,lv gévabç öà 'rg. k lôçtslmc;t 'r' ijç xs atzw dxntog >, i xfig ' tll6vqxeg,xtlt ' r'fiç dxrroefïcœf zzç,xlx;tk ' ri; xù 4utov xat x6 ft1xyttxèv,xttt e véhaov vlç 'fpxooxfiuetoç,' lhot'rùv vlq ('rrl yfzv w daov,' rjv ôktxtFoetkv l' vvmogysv.
5e H orm, A m pltilocltius. p. c44; PG . 77.1t. 36CIzf artd II44A 7f (notes 46 and 49J.
Ckapter IU.Logos
.
I65
t,t/etudvtxt for the triad. ' fhe Basilian distinction is lzereto the fore.1.
Asan instaneeofhow theverbalform ofkypostasîsm ay beused with hypchstatizing eGect in Trinitarias passages, see Thal I3-z96B and cap ie'3-II78B. Thisdistinction ofessenee and m ode is fundam ental. A s a forceful expression of b0th its m em bers I take the following from Am b 42:T'Every innovation,to speak genelically, lm s naturally to do with the m ode of tlze innovated thing but not w ith the logos of nature; because a logos innovated eorrupts the nature. as not retaiuing unadulterated the logos according to wltieh it exists;but the m ode hm ovated, the logos being preserved ill its nature, m anifests m ira-
culous power'' (Amb 4z-I3jIDI-6). Clearly tbis is a fundam ental law . The expressions of it are freqnent. See, for exam ple, in this sam e dië calty: Am b 4z' .I3cpA ; 13458 .* also Am b 3I-Iz8oA ; A m b I5-IzIgA ; Am b , 56-I289C. A eonsideration of som e of these pms-
sages makes quite evident that the logl)s ()/natursm ay be preselved with a considerable margin of variation in the tropos ol exfs/eAlt):. Yor the physical order titis m ay be seen iu Am b I5-I2I7A :there is the m etaplzysicalessenceentirely im m utableand tllereisthe constaut lltlx ofproperties and aceidents, For tlze m oralorderthe sam e is set forth in Am b 4z-I: $z9A-B 7,which com pletes the docktritle of Am b 7 at Io84BC. H owever in som e passages tltis'divem ity in*the tropos is exp'ressed by a scale of approxim ations to the suprem e Logos, it not being always easy to fx the exaet gradations. I irzstance 'rhala-agz. The enstting laek of transparent luddity is dtte in part to the double, we m ay so speak, preexistent logos of the rational creature - I m ean that which determ hles his essence and that which is his destiny. But I have not here to develope this aspect:2 of the M axim iart dottrineThus the distind ion of logos-tropos is seen already to be of vast im port:it m akes possible the developem elzt of a safe doctrhte of the Trinity, of graee, of divinization. The frst, in M axim us, is confessedly ofa quite seeondary intezest. Theseeond, how ever,is prim ary, but does not stand alone. In fact it depends, as the context of the passage above translated testifes, on the doctrine of'the Incanm tion.
sz See above p. z5g. 53 See below note 62.
I66,
T& Relwtatiottf# Origenism
So now if we seek exam ples of titis distinction in the iaterwzitings w hich hav: e received the im paet of the Christologlcal controversies,the chrity and htdsiveness with w hieh the prindple is e-xpressed are only euhanhuxd, ProceM lng ehronologieally, I instanee the unique Christologieal A m biguum . M axim us states: 'TW e know that one thing is logos
of being and another the mode of qualifed being (ô soîi xfkg slvftkw öxog),the one assuring the nature the otherthe eeonomy '' (Amb , 5-Io5z:6-9). It is repeated sholily thereafter (Io53BII-I4) and the followhzg column (through Io56D) is an applieation of it to the notorius th6andric M :rgy of D enis. From the later controversial w ritinr I eite but one: <'A s being som e thing not as being som e one, each of us principally operates that is as a m an;but as som e one as Peter or Paul he gives form to the m ode of action -- m ore or less hltensively, this way or that he determ ines it as he wills. H ence in the m ode the changeability of persons is klzown in their activity,in tite log*oê the inalterability
of natural operation '' (%*P Io-I37A3-II). There is here qttite d early indicated the cltief point in tlte tlzouenergistie and m oaothelite controversy:willalld operation are ofthe natare; tlte particular is act and choice of the person. It is this
doetrine whieh Maximus made to prevail against Pyrrhus (TP z83o8D) and still that which the Pseudo-cyril has taken over and ckm dsely expressed :3. K nowing the im portanee of the distinction ldyog tpfigEtzu -
p özlog éxdpyfz'g in M axirzms I have endeavored to show its an-
tecedents (some at least) in patristic teaching. An tmderstanding of the doetrine of logos Ls im possible unless this distinction is kept always in m h d. 1 have tlzezlby the foregoiag exposition lightened the explanation w hich I nm st now give of the logos doctrine in tlle
M ai mian arr m ent against Orkenism . B.Looos AND THE U NITY olpCRSATION M y aim is not to expottnd the com plete M axim ian doctrine concerniug logos. A s the Greek word is itself polyvalent, so the docttine attached to it is polym orphous. M y aim ratlteris to adhere
:$ P SICIJDO-QYRK
D 6 ss. TFfAl. 2o : PG 77.l160.
Chattvev IV.Logos
t67
closely to the text of Am b 7 and to the logos doctrine as it is there developed to com plete the reftltation of Origenism . A s the ana'lysis progresses I shallhave occasion to com m ent on the previous studies that turn on the logos doctrine s*. 'fhe M axim ian developem ent of Iogos in A m b 7 Ls intim atdy conditioned by the passage he is com m enting and by the erroneous itlterpretations w hich the Origenists lm d m ade of it. Gregory had said:'fwe,being a portion of God and slipped down from above ''. In this the Origenists had seen their honad and its dispersal consequent on sin. M axim us'could not, as m odertt authors m ay som etim es do,adm it an error in'his author. Tllis author was the F/?, :@logian. Besides there was at the begim lillg som e kit 'zd of unity in
Clzrist (cf.Tiual 6o);and the philosophical problem of the one and the many (underlyillg the Origenist error) also legitimately called for som e answ er. M axim us w as constrained tilerefore to give som e
positive eontent to the phrase portion 0/ God.
But.not oaly this. The rest: slipped down #t)vl above, even as it necessarily im plies som e sort of prim itive union,so it the m ore im periously exaets an explanation not only of that unity but also of the aetual state of m 'm hz regard to that unit'y. 'rhe answer then orz the wimle m ust be theologieal or existentia'1. A m ere philosophkal explanation of lègos will not suë ce :*. It witlnot be nece.ssary here to repeat tlze analysis of the logos
argument that I have given in the frst part of tilis stvdy (above p.z6). W hatI have now to treat ofis found in Amb 7 Pal't One, II,III aztd in Amb 4z Digression z (Amb rIog7C-IO85C;42-132517z336B). rirst note that logos does not staad alone. Mavimus begins: '.W ho, knoweing tha) t by logos attd wisdom thîugs were
*t The only direct study is that oi I.-H .D v l stz s:L@ //lzbri, des r'Iogoi'' dn tirtftzfaAw chez' S . M la vï-, le Cblz/zrsdzr , ze RSPII'IY . 36 (1952) 244-49.
VoN BALTHASA. R has som e interesting ' pages (K L 84-96/71-80; Cyiticism. d6 l'.(4V/Ft4j*gl and IkossKv (Essai .ç1e 1a. Théologie v4yx ç/ïglç: 616 l'Xglï. = d'Oyitmi tparis 1944) pp.90-95, z4o). The notably Origenian (loctrine Logos-P-ée lf;a Logos-soriptuva fwogcw-fu/àiuzfïï;i(cf.Amb 48) - 57111 uot .
enter our present âeld of study anll so neither voN BAI:TEASAR'S D ie (M 0stisohsn (Q Alfueïzrx. 55 It is here that .voé Bwuzllz ksxlps use of tids paasage (K L 87f/73f) is at fault not at all recognizing the antiorigenist cmst of the w hole. N ote
also the mistranslation on p. 88/74: bxslneqpévqt . u the negative theology oftlze Logos is 6xct' ttdod from coltsideration (Amb 7-1081Bzo).
I68
TheR6jutation f# Origenksm
brought hlto beiug from non-being by God...'' (Amb rIo77CIf). This is not a easualphrase;he repeats it t&viee in this ûrst explanation
(Amb 7-1085A5 and C8). He makesa greatpoint ofitin thesecond Digression of Amb 4: (I3z9D). 'l'he inference drawu from thefact : that the world was m ade with logos and wisdonz is that the aet of creatiou was a free ad of the ordered w ill. Doubtless the couple
rests on W isdom 9.z,z:God p/ th6 Flf/ldrs and f-pgff oj msrcy,y'Atl m akestaIltkings by fAy woyd f1, ?7.: by f#y wisdom #f#. W taskîon man... T he com plex of ideas.here involved has its ow n history. Plzilo w as
the fu'st to join Scripturalteaehing with Greek philosophy in regard to the doetrine of the w ord and wisdom 1B. 'rhe direct influenee of Philo on M axinm s is not to be excluded. Von Balthasar57 has found evidence therefore. But the key pbsition here is the idtqzti-
fcation of the Son, the Johanniue Logos, as the place or region of ideas. 'l'his was the work of the M exandrian selmol and is found in Clem ent :,
FirzfExplanation oj Logos Doctrine
'l'his frst explauation (Amb 7-Io77C-Io8:CzI) is developed in a som ewhat cyelic m ovem ent,where the phases save for the fourth,
are marked by dtations. 'lle fil-st phase (I' o7yC-Io8()Az)statestlle m ultiplicity in unity and unity in m ultiplidty, ending witll tlle strong aë rm ation,referred to the Solz and Logos,of Col. 1.16 that 46 On tlte histol'y of the logos dod ritle see e-speeially LSISSGANG, in
PAI/I.Y-W ISSIIWA-KR(:mL. 25 (1926) Ioa5-8I (for H eraelitus 1049, for the
Stoa zo55, for Jewish theology 1069). P.H RINISCH (D6r .Sï%/l$I. çJ Philos tw / 6lQ Jlfysfe clwistlicke ,Eb . vdp çzl, M itnster z9o8. p. 137-39) gives a brief historicalsam m a' ry of tlze doctrine. F' or Philo one m ust now consultW oI.Fsow's treatise: P hilo, vol.Iyehap IV #çG OII the w orld of Ide% , and.the Logos '' and chap. VI,I ''The Im m anent Logos ''. O1i Logos and wisdom
see pages 253-82 and :87-89. W blzsox (p. 2: $If, 239, 287) tleparts from aceeptttl interpretation of Philo in postulating an existence of Logos and pow ers in two stages before the creation of the sensible w orltl that is t'one from eternity as a propezty of God and the other as som etlzing createll by
God ''(p.z39). Iftbks be wellfounded,it should be noted for an eventual history of tlle Palam ite distinetion of essence aztll pow el's. There is som ething sdm ilar iu Psstm o D m cs, D N Iz.6-95.3;cf.K L 93f/78. H VoN BALO ASAR .1ïd6 t7>. Cent. pp. 96-98 adduces two ehapters
('rhoec z.83,8j) whez' e direct dependeuee on Philo seemsindabitable.
'* For thls iflentlfeation see B : klcks. G . Clem ente .4 lessandvino in
E' nciclopediA Cattolica,111. (Città de1Vaticano 1949) I8loa.
Chapt6y %F.Logos
169
all are u eated in him . 'flkis m ultiplidty of things is due to the lim itless digerence and diversity ofthings togetherwith their unconfased individuality. On the other hand the m ultiplicity of essences is seen as one by the uncozlfusing reference of all to the one hypostatlc W ord. It is here that the accent falls on the W ord with the citation from Col. I.16:in wkom aIl things 7zgr: m ade.
The second phase (Io8oAz-BII) developes the presidence of theW ord atthemaking ofa11creatures(thelogoiofallarepreexistent irlthe Logos and are realized aceordiag to llis will)and his presence in them , tkoug: infm itely above, in w hom a11 creatures proportionately participate in God. M axim us is still speaking in Ahe essential
order (therefore not of the existentiak the order of graee), as the speeifkation ofthepyoportionatdy shows,thatisë'aceording to m inda reason, sense, vital m ovem ent or som e habitual ftne-ss ''. It is here that M axim us refers the w hole preeeding doctrine; preexistent
logoiand particv ation of existents in the Logos,to Denis. DN 5.$-7 answ ers very well to the tone of the M axim ian argum ent. It too proceeds on the essential ievel. There ean be no question that M axim us' reference te D enis is veritied' but in this instance there is nothing to iadicate a partieular dependence ofthe Confessor ' fhe one is speaking in anrallusive way of the padicipation of prim e seeondary causes in the first'the other of the partieipation of existent essences itlthe W ord. .
W ith these two phases tlle m ode in which we m ay 'Iy poytions t# God lms been explained;butnow the Gregorian and slipped #o7z?Ar jrom above is instant for reeognition: 'rhe third phase (zo8oBII-
Io8IA5)here givessatisfaction. The anjweristhatwhen the angelic or hum an m otion is wholly in accord with its logos preexistent in God and hasno desire for otherthan its own source,then thatperson
willbe itlGod - lv êEi) ysvjgsvqt:E' kagrian and Maximian phrase for the sum m it of Christian life - nor w ill he slip down from him . 'rhis is a return to aud a reconstitution of the word norm ative of
his creation (t$v xeùg xùv xaê> ôv lxxlcên löyov Jvoêöv vir xtxl tlaoxfzvdnvctv):9. This is quite enough to show that we have now passed from the essential level to the existential w here the supernatural obtains Grst tonsideration. 'rhis transit is doubly asH A m b g-zo8ocz1. T lzis m ay be reckoned as a taeit refutation of the
Origenist apocatastasis by giving an acceptable sense to the term in regard to the consum m auon of things.
z2o
2-Aelbelutation n/Origenizn%
sured by the rderenee to attaining the divineskopos(ro8oCI4,Ir). *1*his skoposrecurs repeateclly in the iirstsections ofthe Liber Ascts ticus, signifyirig the Ineanm te dispensation; but in Tlzal 6o-6zIAB
lkfaximas explal s at lœ ght that the divine skopos is preeisely tke m ystery of Christ, hidden from before the founding of the world.
He defilles this skopos ms an end t'Phal 6o-6zIAIo) in the words of E vagrius that he had used above in Am b 7-zogzc4 B@.
In this Q' uestion 60 Maximus explicity distinguishes the two ordel's. 'fowards the end he says:f'rbr of a truth it was neeessary that the m aker itt'nature of the essence of things should becom e
also theefector(A tovtyöç)by graceofthedeifeation ofthe beings nzade;ia order thatthe giver of being slzould appear also asbestower
(4aetgvtxöç) of ever-wembtxing '* (Thal 6o-6z4D$-9). 'lthe reference' here to bdng and ever-welt-bring leads us to a passage itz Am b 42 where the triad being,well- or im being,ever-bdng is developed at length. I quote it in full:''O f allthîngs that do or w illsubstantially
ex-ist...the logoi,frj'nly fxed,preexistiu God,itlaceordance with which a11tllings are and have become azld abide,ever drawing near through naturalm otion to their purposed B1logoi. ' Ilhey (thethings) o
A
6: 11ïthe secotd pltase, Am b 7-Io8oB4, M a'xim us speaks of the W ord
tt. s recapitulating a11 tllings (Eph, 1.10). In Thal 6o-6zrAz5 the m ystery of Qhrist is the recapitulation. One could therefore object against my inteapretation that already itî tlze secoud ph% e M axim us wxs speaking without distinction of the essentialorde.r anf . l ofthe existential.EutStPaul
also (Rom .I3.9)usesthe word in the cu'rrentgram matiealsenbeofsumm ary. T he w ord fts as ped ectly in a eontext of the essential order as il' tthat of tlte existential. M ore of a proofis neetletl to prove that M axim us in the seeond phase is already in ' the existential order. Undoubtellly it is characteristic oftlze logos doetriue that tlzere is a perfect ease of transition from one order
to tie other - a transition not always ' rem arked perhaps b)r the autlmr lzim self. el Ktz'ri k wt sêfrgtv. Cf.Rom .8.28. M axim us is anxions to prove that there is notlting adventitious in God as the context am ply (lem onstrates. In this context Jw tstàetjtg generally refers to the divine intention with regard
to the ex ential logos and ereation. But in the passage here translate; a
distillction is at least implied between suciz an erssentiallogos (ontologieal ortler) and.a prophetie Iogos (proviiential order) whieh referstotheattaium ent of tlte end,t w ell or i11 everlasttng being. T ltere is thus a basis a hint at a doctrine of predestination. O n the sense of zrptsêecrtç in St. Paul
atlcl for Origen see the artiele Pyédnstination in DTC Iz (t935) 2812 and 1%27 (Otuosx,In Rom ..8.:8 Lib.7,7 and.8). Cf.also the seholion in Ps.Den. CH II.2 - PG 4.93. According to LossKv Llua N tlfït)Al 4e. % 'Anatogies'
Chaptôr IP.Logos
I7I
are rather constrained to being and receive, aceording to the klatl and degree of their eleetlve m ovem ellt and m otion,either well-behtg because of virt'ue and direct prop-ess in regard to the Iogos by which tlley are,or ill-beit'tg because of the vice and m otion out of îarm oay with the logos by which they ' are. Or,to put it coneisely: according to the having or the laek, in tlzeir natural partieipative faeulty, of bim whe exists by ztature com pletely aud unpartidpated and who proffers hilnselfetztire sim ply alld graeiously by reason of lzis lim itless goodness to a11 the woû hy and theunworthy,prodttcing the perm anence of everlasting being as eaeh m an of him self has been and is
(then)disposed. Forthese the respective paûicipation or impartidpation of the very behlg, w em being and ever-being is the inerease
and augment of punishment (rtytû:t)((t) for those rtot able to participate and of enjoyment for those able to participate '' (Amb 42-I3z9AI-Bg) In the above passage the distinetions of the m erely physical and m oral are well m arked. W ithin the latter order M axim us does
not here bring out the dlstinetions between the tlatural and the sttpernatural;he has the existent the supernaturalorder only before llis m lnd's eye. Y et that the distinetion is present in M axim us' thought and im plidtly in this lolzg eitation, other texts witatess as
tlzat from Thal60 ' witllwhiellI V gan'the foregoing paragraph and another from Thal 64-7z4CD ,where M axim us speaks of the natural 1aw in itself. .. T he third phase is d osed w ith a citation frpm B asil's com m entary oa Isaias e2 regarding the trtte Sabbath rest.
The fourth phase of the iirst explanation (Am b p Io8IA5-CII) rehtrns, to enlarge apon som e points already m ade and to repeat
the statement ofthe firstphase. The frstpazt (Amb 7-Io8zA5-B8) m akes 1wo points. 'rlûngs do not al1 exist ia act at ollee,w ith their
idems in God;rather he who is always creator brings thinys into being
in their proper time (ef.from the 2nd phase Io8oA6). The reasoa citezDéusy. s1e Fsdhulo-zlr/t pjltzgf/hfr,Avchivesd'hist.J()tl/r.etlitt.Jx M A 5 (zt)3o) aool,3oz)tlle passage Amb 7-Io84A is to be interpreted in the light oftitis distinction.
'
63 BASIr.,.lzlIsaiamp I (v.J3)j 5o:PG 3O.I7701I-D4. M aximus cites witlz the nam e of the author and treatise. Thls treatise whose Basilian authenticity has been quesh oned w as know n therefore ia the 7th century
lm der Basil's name. See DavttsessE, Rev. bib. 42 (19.33) I4sf.
z' /z
The Relutatil)n (?JOrigenism
is tlmt God and creatures carm ot be together. This presentation iw faulty; the dië culty w hich M axim us urges is the impossibility that there be a eoexistenee of the flnite :8 and in6nite - that is, it would seem ,an etenm lexistence ofthe realized IogoiirtGod. Im sisting then on the incom parability ofthe finite and infnite, and that
tke negative f/lTplpgy of the I' Fbrtf is not here to be considered (Amb pzo8zB8-I$),he repeats the statement ofthefrstphase. Butthis tim e the m ultipliçity in unity - the one togos is m any - is qmatifetl as a creative and conservative procerssion of the one into beings' and the unity in m ultiplieity - the m any logoiare one - is qualifed 4. as a convertive, guiding referenee and providence of the m any to the one, as it were to an am powedul eenter,precontaining the sourcesofit. s raysand gathering them alltogether ''B4. 'rhe additions here,over and above the Erst phase,a11 accentuate the N eoplatonic, the Proclan fgures. The im age of the center and rays is found in :3 In his salm m ary of this finitentss M axim us says;''A11createllthings in their essence and origin (x(tx'oéglt w Ts xat W vsgtv) are lu every wee said to be contairted by thdr proper logoiand by those of outside things .
whte.h relate to them '* (wk tilotç xat xo' q ztekè (tîil; ?t o' llct Tt7v lxvùç ktketg Jrzptudgeva - Amb p ro8IB8-to), As it stant' ls the passage needs further elucidation. This we fnd in Am b z5-I2I7A . There M axim us distinguishes an im m utable and nm table asm cts in tllfngs. The one assures tkat a m aterial thing never varies from its physical property, the essence strictly'the other regards m ovem ent whic.h is a eonstant :t17:at:d reâux m' ovem ent is a plletm m enon of generation ancl corruption. H ere A ristotelian induence is at work;or perhaps im m etliately only that of Gregory of
N yssa fd . W m sw t:w
A . A . The N atave t# H gtman A'xtlypztdz îr fr aooovdiytg
to Saint GAzjr/r'y oj Nyssa Bvashington I95z) diss. p. 72f). Sum marizing M axim us says: f'A11 beings by the logos by whieh they weze brought to being mzd are. are pedectly firm and im m ovable; by tke logchs of tidngs
setn as relatetl to them (-@ It %v aeek tt' frtà ' :stx ovpivœ. e u ytpl, by which the econom y of this universe is wisely held together and, condncted a1l
tbhtgs meve and.are umstable '' lxtmb x5-Izz7Az3-B3). It js after tlzis .
that b.e introduces lzis argum ent against the henad schem atized in the triatl gim esis, kinesis sfttsïs. Tlke kiytesis w hieh he has dlstingnished from an absolutely im m utable ground is also m oral m ovem ent. Tllis distinction is com plem entary to tlzose of tke logos of beings wellor illbeing, and ever belng. '
:4 Amb 7-Io8tC: J-7: xqs?teè x'lp ek nbq ê' yq 'tt' ;v zvokkt' lw l'zturpecm x' i'v 're xak gewtxyo' pxabv dw molzv xthXa, Lxeövottw,Jîgztee ttç d' ex' ùyrtctv' roxvttw ptx' àv
@j xévw ov ' rfiv !1 (lfrroiiE' H se v G g cl,ex4k apoeklqpög xtzk tk rttkm ow ovvayœ'tk ,eV oîaglv 2
Ckaptsr IV.Logos
1g3
D enis, in the chapters to w hich he has already referred and w ill again refer :ô. rinally in a single sentenee ' M axim us gives the substanee of his explanation:''W e are and we are said to be a portion ofGod because ofthe logoi of our being wllich preexistin God;and again w earesaid to be slipped from above because we have not been m oved according to the logos forebeing in God,according to which we cam e to be ''
(Amb pIo8zCpII). 'flle wllole of this Erst explanation has nothing in its elem ents of any oziginality; yet in the whole M axim us has so sittm ted the origin and end of m an that a11 the criticalpoints of doetrine are assured. 'lh e great suppleness of the logos doctrine izl the text of Amb 7 has hhldered as elear an expression of the relation of natttre and grace as westenl theologians usually desire. The whole explanation is sim ilar to, but far preciser than the D ionysian doctriue in DN 5.5-7. This M axim us him setf recognizes in his reference
to Denis at the end of the second phase (Io8oBIo). It isperhaps for tlzis reason that the secxm d explanation he offers is irtspired in
its Erst prinei/e directly from Origen. It mightthusperchance be m ore esective in turniilg tlte Origenists from their elw r.
Second Explanatio. n ol f& Lq os Docfrï-
This second explanation (Alnb 7-I()8zCIT-Io85A6) begins; ''If the one W ord of G od is indubitably the essence of virtue in eaeh m an,...every m an,participating in virtue with a ûxed habit,tm ques-
tionably partieipates in God...'' (Amb pIo8zCI4-D2, D9-II). Now M axim us defends his propositien eiting z Cor. 1.30: Christ ,
' If//la was Antpzf: for ws by Gotl wisdom ,rfgk/ztlifszl,s. s and sanctification, flAI,tf redsmption;and then com menting that Christ is wisdom itself, and righteeusness and holiness itself. pot m erely attributively as
with men:a wise m an... Now Origen,in eomm enting Jolm 1.14, had said: 4'12or the substantial righteousness itself is Christ ''B6. O D N 5.6-8( zIA . See also Tho ec 2.4 w ith the com m ent of vox BM .TRASAR, D ie Gx. Cçnt. zog.
B4 Is i'otzn. (1.14) 6,.40 GCS, Origen IV IPRSUSCRRNI p. I151.1:flyie ulrcoôvxtnoo't 'wq &h ollcsfGôqç Xpuzvtk ltntv Sim ilarly In .làr,vz.lm m . 15.6 GCS Oligen I11 (KLOSIXRMANN) P. 13012;d.also IA; Ioan.(13.2) 32.I1, P,444:,3 and p.44;I, n Islïtl,Azhom .5.IGCS OrigettVIII IBASHRSNSIp.z63à.
Tl%eAtr/lçftzfïo,lt)/Oriqenîsm Of course M axim us m ay not have drawn directly on Origen for this idea e7' the faet rem ains, the thought is thoroughly O rigen's. In
the eontext of the phrase just çited Origex had developml the idea that our righteousness and so on is derived from Chris' t, though not in term s of participation. A nd in fact M axim us passes at once to a consideration of sueh partieipation view ed from a sueeessive grasping of the beginning and end w hich are the sam e com prellended
i:t the skofws of the thing (I'0843.6). Now .4as to the beginning, a man receives'by partidpation the naturalgood (( ly(zê4v) with his behlg; as to the end, he zealously aecom plishes his course tow artls tlle lyeghzning aizd souree, without deviation, by m eans of good will
(yvfûg' q)and choice (atkoalpegw) and from God reeeives deifcation, adding to the naturalgoodness of the imageB. (r@ xttF dxövtz tpftmt xalçlthe elective likeness through the virtues by remson of the implanted transition to and fam iliarity with his own proper beginning
and source ''(Amb 7-Io84A6-I4)G9. Certainly w e have here a fairly distinet elaboration of the process of deiûcation. M axim us w ill now enlarge uporz it, using the
triple distinction we have ourselves just enlarged upon in the iirst explanation. For the foregoing is confirm ed by the Apostle's word:
In plfAzlwe 1iv6 and ' pltm: and havetlf4r being (Acts I7.z8). Now each of these term s M axim us sets in relation with the logos of a m an preexisting in God. Beiug is referred to the logos of being,m ovem ent
to that of wembeing,life'to that of ever-being lAmb pIo84BIrg). Ilz the (liscussion and passages cited above this triple distinction w as abtm dantly evident,yet withottt a hint that it m ight lx referred to the determ hling logoi. 'ro m y knowledge this reference is m ade in tlzis passage only; nor is it overly surprising. For to deal at length with it would be to treat ofpredestination,forw hich M axim us' w hole fram e of m iad and life did not prepa' re him . H abitually he
looked at alltllings from the point of view of the divine skopos the realization of m an in the Incarnate dispensation. The reverse 67 Gregory of N yssa speaks of Tfy svtfpç öv as ufsxiy (lw oönlç. In élswl. V II: PG 44.72417 ult. In a w ord the O rigerzi@n iflea 'm ay also be fotm d izl G tegory' .
*B Image tzptf Iikenrss. The subject has attracted not a few authors in the lmstfew yeaz' s. The M axim ian use doesnot seem to be constant. This
is a190 thejudgementofLoossN (p.4z27). See Qhar3.25;4.70, .to Loossy's references add Thal I-a69A ' Thal 64-728. A.' , T P z8-324D . 89 O n tjzis passage, see above n. 6,.
Ckapter IV.Logos
:75
of this realization,failure and the possibility, the reality of eternal punishm ent;these he recognized but an explanation of them he did not venture. H aving established then the principle of our partid pation in Cbrist through virtue M axim us once m ore developes the them e '
the divine skopcs:<
ever and in a11to effeet the mystery of his embodiment ''(Amb 7Io84CI5-Dz). Thus one is part of God'but to slip dow n from above is lm reasonably to desel't one's proper source and results in a radieal disorder and inseeurity of body and soul,being a choiee of the w orse
in place of the better (Amb g-Io84Dz-Io8$-A6). M aximus'fbjezlse ot Afs Logos Dt/c/rfé;: M axim us has thus fnished his present discussion of the logos doctrine and given an adequate sense to the hlerim lmnted passage from Gregory. H e eould then leave the qtla tion and pass on to
the next part,tlze corroboratjon of the position take!t by eitations from Gregory. But no;lle hms referred his doctritle onee to Denis he now w ants to adduce a passage in eonfirm ation of the doctrine ofthe logoiin itsdynam ic aspect. It is D N 5.8-8240 7@. H ere D enis V@The passage (Amb 7-Io85AI3f) has been frequently discussed (lue to the citation from Pantaenus or (llem ent. T he discussioa hms been sum -
marized by STAEHIJN (GCS Clem ens Alex.III ' (z9o9) p. Lxv). It is neecl1- to go over the grouncl again. H ow ever I nzight note that the phrase
those e o' l:l Panta nous can be un4erstood as periphr% tie for tize m rson nam ed. See tlte article zuw l in Iosê 0 1 :1' exam ples can eœsily be fom l;
in tize work ofCyrilofScytlzopolis (8.g. Vita Euthymiied.SeàtwAztliz (TU 49) p. 281:,4zl7) also in Barsanuphius, his contem m ral'y (PG 86.9ooA8). Gram m atically therefore we m ay understand either Pantaenus or Ilis assoeiates. Clem ent personally is out of the question. If M axizzm s had lheant ltim the whole citeum locution is pointlesj; tlze phrase m otlifying Pantaenus can only serve as explanation of som ething unknow n. N or tlots the fact noted by H araack - tllat P alltaenus left nothing in w riting affect the question ' for doubtless the passage cited w as found as a cita-
tionjn sonze Tzork ofClelnent. As to the extent of the citauon' STXH/IN (0*.cito 224) gives dovzu to asaolqxev (xo85Brc), Probably he Ls rigizt;for it is here that M axim us unm istakably intervexes w ith his two Scripture texts.
But the suggestion
of a break - voN BAIJHASAR IK L 9019/753) speaks of an intervention of
176
Th6Rtr/uftzfft)l otOrigenism
aAirmsthatthelogoiofthîugs are also ealled divinn twi/'/s (ê
Clem ent and Origen are very explleit itt this regard ?2. M axim us too elsew here 7: sim ply refers ereation to the divine w ill. V et it is not in this sim ple and, am ong Christians, universally accepted positiollthat the im poztance of the passage lies;it lies rather irttlze union m ade of t' he Iogoi and the divine wills. W hat was in D euis
an alternative phrase for the paradeigmata of things has becom e a single phrase in the words of a late gth eentury author: '.Eaeh
thing comes to be aecording to God's effective thought'' (g($ttl t' ijv êelqftxhv qtl'o: Vvvotqv)74. In this view the logoi are not, as it were,inert rnodels but the veo -c'reative power of.God,realizing itself in the ereature. W e have already seen how ,in the M axinzian
thought,allis dominated by the divine skoposto such a degree that it is at tim es dië cult to distinguish, in singte pasM ges, the diverse elem ents. 'riiis is m ore than evident in a passage discussing Rom .
1,20: Foy /& invisible things t# him,/r()A?lthe tir:flfït?Al 01 f/l: world, tzr: clsarly s,es, being zfzlsltzs/pcd by J/le thîngs /AgIJ ars v (IA :kis tr/ez'-
' nal /t?:eez'also and divinity. Maxim us com m ents; 'fThe logoi of beings prepared before the ages hz God' he knows how ,behlg in, as .
visible (itisthe eustom of the divine mastersto callthem good u4lJ&) are clearly being seen and tm derstood from the tblngsthat are m ade For all the things m ade by God irz nature, being considered by us .
Hlowingly (yvfptnkxfliç) with due scienee, anrlotuzce to us secretly the logoiaccording to which they eam e to be;and at the sam e tim e
m anifestwith them selvesthe divine skoposin theirregard,according to tlze text: TIV k tzp:zls declare //?z glory t# God and th6 JrzzlflAzlTpf
announces f/l: work t# his /llAlffs (Ps.I8.c). Bttt the etem al power and divinity is tlze Providenee, preservative of things, and the ae-
Maxitn. us - after flvnhxhtx veoo' o' tt: (to8585,SG HXIN, P.22421) is reasom able;lmwever it would be Clem entfntervening to complete the words ùf his m aster. If this be so, the zrpogêéu Eç xal 'rog M yo' tl 'rfl Efloyov has certaiuly m ore m eaning. 7: Cf. IVANKA H ellenisohes axtf Ckvistliches..., p. 44f.
:3 CLsM.AlaX. Pyotvep.63.3 (GCS Clem .Alex.1 S' IAHAIN.p.4816f). ORIGEN,In I Xcgv,I.Ir (GCS Origtm VIII BAISIIRIINS,p.211-7). 7: See for exam ple Am b 7-Io8oA .3 and Am b 42-z3z8C I.
:4 Psstroo-cvm re Ds ss. Tzïa. JI: PG 77.z145C.Jol:x DAMASCSNS de ##: ovthodoxa I 9: FG 94.8374.. Ou Pseutlo-cyril see a' bove note 45.
Ckapter IF.Logos
17;e
compaaying operation deifying the objects ef Providenee'' (Thal z.3-293D-z96AI3),
Once m ore it is evident how allis looked upon from the heights
of the divine skopos. But note, the attainment of that skopos is dependent on Goâ's providential aetivity. 'rhat says a vast dealon the distance there is ' between the initialstate of a m an a hi nd s inalattainm ent:the whole ofthe ascetic life is placed betw eea , the wllole of the Incanm tion. 'rbis,M axim us states plainly in an illum inating text izl Paz'tTwo ofAm b 7. Heretlze skopos,rem aining unchanged, adm its two m odes of realizatiou. ' rhe lirst, the due exerd se of otw natural pow ers in A dam , failing,the seeond in Christ
isbroughtto effect (Am b 7-1097C). N or is the tm ion of logoi and divine rwï#,s whieh M axim us takes
over from D enis so ' d ose that, even in his m v' n exegetieal explanation o f it, he is incapable of suggesting or m aintainhlg a distinction. Th e tw o Seripture texts' tk6 Lt vtf know 7$ï. & oum (z Tim.z,I9), and .
1 /?ltl7F you Alt?f (Matt.7.a3),Maximvts explains:T<'Plle deetive mo
-
vem ent, either according to the will and w ord or fn disaccord with the wi' ll and word of God, prepared each to hear the divine voiee ''
expressed itt these two texts (Amb pro85C3-6) In the wake of t he Dionysian passage it would have been easy to speak only of the di vine w ill to save a11 m en, as if a11 were eventually to be restored to bliss. 'flmt M axim tts does not. despite hfs near identifcatiort of the essential aud providential logos of eacll m an is signz -ïicant , of ltis fundam ental tlzought, wilich does not adm it the Gregorian .
apocatastasis. In this eontext the concise egectlvs tkougkf of the Pseudo-cyril and Jolm Dam ascene would have been (m t of plaee .
I think enough lzas beezt said to illustrate the passag e and ciation ofDenis. W hetheritztite doctdlle ofthe logos (above, Am b
t
g-zo8oB) or in the present eitation,Denis serves more as an author -
ity for a doctrine already received than as a real source f d or the
octrine, I am not eertaiu . Pezbaps m ore as a sottrce in the frst instanee and as an authority in tlte second.
M oh rn comm ents It is therd oTe a reat exaggeration, on the basis of tbis eitation of benis,to draw M axim us entirely in the wake ofthe Pseudo o enis. Thi -
s is appazently w hat Vladim ir Lossky does in his Essai a r l
g
:2
178
.
Tke Aejsfflffo,loiOyïgdwùpl
Tkdologie AAly:lïglf: de l'Eglise dlorfdA$fT5. M axim us certainly often speaks of the beginnilzg and end together,of the logos and its consuzrzm ation in etenzity. To slzc. b tex'ts I have draw n attention. H owever,looldng m ore generatly on his doetrine of logos it is dear that the essential and im m utable logos in creatures is adequately
distinguished from that wkich is subject to ehange and peded ion. M axim us witleven speak ofa distinctlogos for each state of being -
being, wem being, ever-being. The distinction logos oj ' zltzlllr: moh t# existenc67% begiuniug its theologicalhistory as a Trinitarian tet'm , passed on to Christology and so also to express relations of the hum an aud divhte hz the innovated and deifed ereature. 'Phe im portofthis is tm m istakable. It is bonz otlt by the not infrequent
use of logos as referzing to natum l eontemplation and of tropos to the virtues7'. For M axim us then,wlzatever m ay be the case for D enis7% the starting point and the progress to Enal deifieation is well distirtguished and m arked out. H ere one is dealing with the relation and distinction of nature aud grace,of the natural and supernatural orders.
Von Baltho=r'* very justly remarks that a direct eornparisort
of western and 'rrideutine theology with that of the Byzantine doctors in this poh t is im possible,as these latter never used the hypothesis of a state of pure nature iu elaborating the distinction.
But is it entlrely just to suppose,as does von Balthasar,tlmt their doctrine is either an im plieit stage in the developem ent ofthe western doetrine or else has elem ents corztradictory to it? The hlv otlzesis of a state of ptlre nature is so radical in the solution of the whole problem , that a system daborated without it w ould searcely at any point be directly com parable with one based on suellan hypo7: L(lssKv, E ssai..., p. 93. One slm uld recognize that LossKv's proper com petence is w' ith D enis;for M aO m us he depends on voN BALTIIA. -
sAR's Kosmischef-ï/lçtjrfga(Mssai...,p.941).
?: See tlze Srst part of this chapter for a history of this distinction as
a theological term . :7 1 give a few rd erences: 'fhal a:-32IB ; 37-3. 8511; Am b 58-1: J8:Df. 78 LossKv E ssai... p. 9g : ''L a aoEifm de la créatton vhez D enys se trouve si rapprochée de celle (le la tléiiieation que l'on a peine à.flistiaguer entre l'état prim itif des créatttres et leur term e fnal celui de l'unïon avee D ien ''.
79 K L IAj jjïoo.
Cltapter IF.Logos
1;t9
thesis. And ms it rem ains hypothesis O there arey so it seem s to
me,three possibilities:1) a straight orthodoxy,built on the supposition;2) a eorreet doctrine,safeguarding the same points (nothowever with the same appropriateness for eaeh) as those safeguarded l)y the said hypothesis; 3) a dpctrine com prom ising one or more poiuts necessarily to be sateo arded 81, If the hypothesis of a state of pure natm e reaehes the very roots of our present question, the hypothesis which Lossky m akes, aad supposes also to be that of M axim us. nam ely that there is a .
realdistinetion between the inefable divine essenee and the creative divitze eaergies - sueh att hypothesis, I say,is eqttatty farreaehing 8a. It is thus that Imssky says that the logoi are situated not in the di vine essenee but ilz the energies. %*lle grounds of this distinetiotz m ay be as aneieut as Pidlo :8'but its existenee and im port in any single author is not to be castm lly assum ed. 'Co enter now into the question as regards M axim us w ould be to treat it cmsually I can hew ever, as to tlle situation of the logoi, draw attention to two seem ingly contradietory pa% ages, 170th appearing hl tlze course of the argum ent we have been discussing. -
.
In A m b r Io77C M axim us aë rm s with great em phasis tlzat the m any logoi are one Logos,the very Son of God 'fhis irt the Iirst phase. I11 the fourth phase he says that apartfrom the high neg ative tlzeology of the Logos .4, the one logos is m any and the m any .
-
one (Amb ;-Io8IBIo;),arzd goçs on to speak ofthe creative procession of the one to beings. The passages, appeariug in the course of the sam e eontext, can scarcely be contradietory. 'lY e frst then is sim ply cataphatie; the second cataphatie, having Erst m ade the 8: 'Pb. e hypothesis of a state ofpure nature first perhalxs appeared in tlze :.
3t.1lcentur! with W illiam de la Mare;butas an instntmentin theological
speculation lt is userl onl)r from the 16th ceutury arld becom es established itl the selzools only after Baius. See ps Iztlju e S' urxatvvei (Paris 1946) p. Io5 wlth p.2676 and.p. Iz'/. 81 Inasm uch aa tlzis frstpossibility is closely eonnected w I:ICtlte dognlatic deânitions of ' frent the second m ssibility w ill eitller take cognizanee of tlte 'fridentine position a' ntl tru slate it into its owtz views or rem aîn a .
mere play (but not thereby useless) of historieal theology. e1 LossKY', Essai...x p . 91.
8a W orœ soxz P hilo, 1, p. 29g. PERA, in his edition of D N w : i h the c o mme nt a r y of St Tho m a ( Rome 1 95 0) p. : ; 5l f a nd 3 4 $ ) f t . h. aa brought
œ etller som e m atezial itz regard to tlzis question et Setl above note 55.
.
z8o
TkeRfutafion p/Ovigonism
apophatie reserve. But then the sense and im port of this reserve? D oes it sim ply regard the 'rriuae life? 'Phis calm ot be entered into here. Sum m ary
To restate the foregoirtg diseusslon itl a brief paragraplz: M axim us explafns the phrase of G regory: ''w e being a portfon of G od and slipped dow a from above '' by a tw ofold explanation of ihe logos doetrine,identifying and distiugufshing the suprem e Tmgos and the m any logoi 170th on the ontological and on the m orallevel. 'f'his doctrine he fnds in and conflrm s by Denis. The extent of M axim as' dependence on D enis is hard to determ ine in regard to a doetrine so w ide-s'pread as that of the logos. T.rtregard,however. to the identifcation of the logoi with the divine wills M axim us seem s ratller to report tlze doctrine than m ake it a real pazt of his thollght. So m uclz tlle.u for the M axim ian logos doctrine as it appears
in lds rd utation of Grigenism ; lm t there are still other elem ents ilz tbat refutation. Im m ediately after the allegation of the Diony-
sian authority just ztow disctlssed Maximus returns to a dtation of Gregory and exptm nds lzis conception of the fnal state. ' rhis is Pal't One,IV of the analysis and has been used in the chapter on ecstasis. Part One,V lm weve. rbroaehesa new argum ent,a refmtation of one ef the necessary links in the Origeuist position:the doctrine of xépog,sudeit. The followhlg chapter w ill be devoted to it.
CHAFTSR V
K OROS A .'rzu Olucœ zus' r U ss ov K oRos Satiety or surfeit was one of the cN cial points irz the Origenist doetrine. tt serves as a convenient term to indieate the cause for the dispersal of tlle lzenad . It oecurs in 1)0t11the Justinian doc' u-
ments:thatofthelettertoMennas(543)and thatoftheletterto the council $53);and in the frst and secend anathemas respectively'1 ' rhe frst anathem a of 543 reads as follow s: #'If anyone sa . ys that the souls of m en preexist. h sofar as being fk1'stntinds and holy pow ers, but having a sud eit of the divine vision azld turned to the w orse and therefore being cooled witlz regard to the love of God; aad hemce being nam ed souls and sent dow' n into bodies for punish -
m ent's sakk - 1et him be anathem a '' .
Tlte actual phrasing seem s to be of the 6th century :; yet the doctrine of surfeit is found in Origen llim self It will be well frst to give the passage in a trnso ''So then the tm eazding w ork of the Izather and of the Son and of the H oly Ghost being establislzed throughout the diverse degrees of advancem ent, scarcely, if perchatw e at any tim e,aTe we able to look upon the lm ly antl blessed life;ill wllich, when one is able after m any struggles to com e to it , we m ust so abide that no surfeit ofthatgood ever seize tzs. R ather, .
.
1 A0O t 1II z9Il5 and zr3li; D ISKAM/ p. 9c)31 See above Chap. nrl. I3,4.
: K oltrslzl. tA. tp (GCS Origen V :59) has fnserted the 2nd through the
6th anathem asof55J (= DISKAMP p.90)in the text ofD 6Prïzltrf/fïsIf 8 z and suppose.s tsee p.I59 for line z7) that Rufinus'text is to be eompleted from these and from Jerom e. VON BAu ltAsu llowever quite justisab1J refers sonle of the terznùzology to a later tivae (ZK Th 63 (1939) 9,) Tl .
.
us is probably not the case here for the elem euts a're foutzd in D e .!7>.ï' #lc 11 8,3 (p. I57a 158) and.in I 3,8 (p.6c1&f). It is then a condensation ofOrigen tllat we fnti translated in the text.
I8c
TltcA:jw/flfïos olOrfg:zli. çpl
aswe reeeive m ore ofthat blessedness,so them ore itsdesire is spread or increased in usawhile ever m ere ardently and m ore fully we either reeeive or hold the Father aad Son and H oly Ghost. N'et if sudeit som etim es lms laid lmld on one of those w ho are settled in the topm ost and perfeet degree,I do not think that suth an one is at once rem oved,and falls;btlt little by'little aqd gradually he rnust deseertd, so that, i. f a sm all lapse has befallen one, he m ay quiekly repent and returrz to him self, not com pletely collapse, but withdraw his
foot and return to 11ks position aud again be able to establish what had falleu ottt by negled ''8. Tlzis surfeit is som etliiqg to be feared; its advent m eaas alienation from God. That a surfeit of the good is possible is due to the
hm ate zrlutability of zllarl. Origen is qulte dear as to this point. H e m it:s:%.But because these rationalnatures...have been m ade, while before they dïd not exist; for this very fact that they were
not and began to be,they exist as necessarily ehangeable alld.mu-
table things,because whatsoever virtne (power) there was in their substanee was not there aaturaliy but efed ed through the gift of the ereator. That'therefore they are is uot proper to them nor
eterzml,but God-#ven. For,ever-existent they werenotand everytbing that is given ean be tvken away an4 fall baek. The cause ofthe falh'ng baek will be fotm d to be tltis,if tlle rtloverflent of spir-
its be not jtlstly attd well directed. For the ereator granted voluutaz'y and free m ovem ents to m inds ereated by him , by which of course the good eould becom e their own wlzeu it would be m aintained by their own will. But s10t11 aad the boredom of trouble in kéeping the good, as also aversion and negligence of the better 3 De Pvinc. T 3.8 ((7CS Origell V (KOETSQHAU) 6213-637): Ita ergo indesinentierga nosope.re patris et filiiet spiritus sanctiper singulos quosque profectuum gradus instaurato vix si fozte aliquard o inttteri posstlm us sanctam et beatam vitam in qua,cum post agones m ultos in eam perveniri m tuerft ita perdurare debem us ut zzulla um quazn zlos fxm i illius aatietas eapiat, sed quanto m agis d. e illa beatitudine pereipim us tanto m agis in zm bis vel dilatetur eius desiderium vel augeatur dam sem per arclentius etcapaciuspatrem et fzilum ac spiritu. m ve1eapim us ve1tenem us. Siautem aliquaudo satietas cepit aliquem ex 1' ds qui in sum m o perfectoque constitentnt gradu, uott artdtror quod ad subftam quis evacuetur ac decidat
sed paulatinzet per partesdefuere necesse est (ita at ûeripossit interdului si ahquis irkvis lapsus accidedtaut cito resipbcat atque hl se revertatuzls zlon lKnitus ruere, sed revocare pedenl et reO e ad statunzsuunz ac rursus statuere posse id, quod pet neglegentiani fuerat elapsunz.
Ckakier #'.K oros
z83
gave an opening for the fallirig away from the good ''. Aad Origen goes on to explain how this withdrawalfrom the good was the 0ccasion for m aking this variegated, sense-perceptible w orld 4 W ith this reference to the variety of this world as due to t:e .
primitive witlldrawal from the good we rejoin tliat other passage wlzieitwasdted above ia extllainir.g the OrigezlisttlavorofGregory's dil eult passage and in witich the very w ord hnntld occurred :. Is our discussiott of the prim itive henqd of rational creatures tlp to this point we kave seen it ratller in its ontologival aspeet as condensed in the triad:genesis,sfflxWç, kinesis. N ow w e have before us the sam e concept in its m oral aspects e.
'lYe breakup ofthe orkinalunity is due to a surjeit0/th6 gtmfl or to the slotk and bore dom oj /r0' ?4#J: in àeT/fzzg the good;but this in its turn is rendered possible by the faet that the creator gave voluntarios... etiibevos zzmf' lf .: to these m inds. N ow hum an ireedom w as dear, very dear to O rigen, as to all Christians. H e defended .
it at leagth itl his De Prfv ï/ff. ç 111, 1,a defense which Basiland Gregory transcribed in their Philocalia or book of excerpts from Origen. The defense is based largely on the fact ofpraise and blam e, of the existelzce of laws, which necessarily im ply responsibility in the choice of good or evil. Prat thus sum m arizes Origen's teaching:
e'Et iltoHgenlfaisait consisterle libre arbitre,non pasdanslepou4 De farïwc.11 r),z,translatiou ofthe ftrst part whose textxuns;Verum quoniam rationabiles istae naturae quas in itlitio factas supra dtxim us factae sunt cum azlte non essent, hoc ipso,quia non erant et esse coepenm t necessario convertibile.s et m utau les substiterunt quoniam quaecum que illa inerat substantiae earuzn virtus non naturaliter inerat sed beneâcio
eonditoris effeeta. Quofl suut ergo, non est proprium nec sem piterrm m sell a deo datum . N on enim sem pe.r fuit et om ne quod datum est etiam auferri et recedere potest. lLecedendi autenl causa iu eo edt si non recte et probabiliter ditigatur m ottu anim orum V oluutarios etkim et liberos m otus a se conditis m entibus creator indulait quo scilicet bonum in eis propriuul feret,cuzn id voluntate propria servaretur' sed desidia et la% hs taedium in servando bono et aversio ac neglegentia m eliorum initium detlit .
receclendi a bono.
'
: See above, Chap.1 n. 2 and.3. : A word of caution; orztological and m oral mspeets. The diatY ction is facile for us. A fault of Origeu was precisely to confuse tlzese orders .
in tke hum an whole ltlze texts jnst translateâ give eviûence thereof);the work of M axim us was to aFtrm and by the force of his dialectie to m ake the distinction prevail against any pagan cop/fuïtm (cf. A m b 15-1217A 8; also Am b 4z-y:371)6 and A m b 10-I:7613.j. ).
z/
TkeJl/r /f/f/zffbl ojOy' #eAzisA?)
voir d'agir ou de suspendre son acte et de choisir entre plusieurs biens,m ais dans ce que 1es scoh stiques appellent liberté de contrariété dans la facultê d'em brasser le bien ou son eontraire,le 1, 11a1St?. But even surfeit and the consequent withdraw al from the good enters, according to O rigen, into the providential plazl. H e w rites that God perm its som e m ovem ents Tflest perchance,if they always keep their place, tm m oved, they be ignorant that by God's grate aud not by their strengtlkthey are established in that ft nal blessedn e% ''8
It will be useful now to m ake a sum m ary of our own of the
Origenist mytb,lmsed on the passagesjust now dted. The pzinlitive henad is of the rational creatures, whose radieal m utability is grounded itlthe fact oftheir being creatures,arld is m ade efective by their free will, consisting esseatially in the ehoice betw een good aud evil. Thus the very nahzl' e of tlle free will,tlzough it m ay develope hz an ever-expanding desire of the good actually com es to a sudeit of the good and tlm s becom es responsible for the original breakup of the henad; successive sudeits and w ithdrawals ever rem ain possible. at least that tlze creatttres m ny leam their depend-
euce on God's grace. B. '.pHS REFIJTATION It is tim e now to exam ine M axim us' refutation of tllis aspect of Origenism . Tite two passages of Am b 7 that concern sudeit directly are not
long;I shall$ve them therefore entire in translation. In tlle frst passage tile word itse!f does not occur,but the idea is dearly supposed. After the initial description of the he 'nad *, M axim us eontinlzes: '' Bttt they are ignotant how im porxsible are the tldngs they
7 PRAT,Oyiglne,1 Théologien 6tl'dw/kâ/e tpaHs z9o7)p.xxixf(without references). One m ight look at the following passages from the De f'rfxcikéis (with the page.s of Koetschau): I 8, z p. zoo7, 'III 3a5 p. a6z10' IIT 6,7 28915 for the ehoice betweertgchod and evil;I 7,5 p.944 and I 6,3 p, 841*-*1 for the ckange of statea ontologically consequent on the choice of good or evil. 8 D e P rïss. 11 3,, 3 p. I1811-:9) ne forte si inm obilem skm m r teneant
statnm ,ignorent se dei gratia et non sua vlrtute (Jerom e;fortitudine) in illo âne beatitudinis constitiase. : See above G ap.I p.9z.
Cltapter F.K oros
185
suppose and unwozkable their conjeetures,as the eourse ofthe true argum eut, given oceasion w iil prove. tfFor if the divine is im m ovable,as flling all, and everything tlzat passes from not-being is m ovable indeed as im pexed surely to som e cause,then nothing m oved has yet com e to a stop as not yet reposing its power of m ovem ent from desire in the ultirnate
desiralge; for notkdng else is apt to stop what is impelled exeept the appearance of that desirable. H ence nothing m oved has com e to a stop, as not yet attaining the ultim ate desirable, siuce that, not yet appearing,has not stopped the m ovem ent of those that are
impelled to it'' (Amb 7-Io69Bz-z3). Sueh is the fundam ental argum ent, whose m eu physieal aspects M axim us cam e to sum m arize Jn tlle triad gtxssis, kinn is, . sztuf. ç and to whieh we gave our lirst attention 1e. Bat before com ing
to these aspectsM aximus gives lir. st two rejoinders ofthe Origenisg to the above argum ents, with his own answer to the objections. He says (in immediate sequence to the above passage): .'But if they urge next that this has once happened, nam ely that rational beings,being m oved offfrom their station and abode in the ultilnate and only desirable,have got the dispersion,without m inciug words:
what proof is there? - they willprobably (then) suppose that the rational beings willnecessarily lzave t?tf t-nsnitttm the sam e ckanges of position in the sam e circum stancesn. For whatever they have btxen able once to scorn experim entally, no reasoning will prevent 'Q See Chapters 1 and IT. â1 'rhis sentence presents seve al dië culties. I construe it thus:El tkè . ..
xeletllnm is protais. Kg1'%'h( ;... (iatj& tlkg is exepegetical of the ' rogto
of the protasis'it is parasyntactie. This xofivo I unçlerstançl as referring to the pmy lxElvth aœ (jm év im m ediately precedlng or ratlzer to its appearance, which is tke hypothesis tlle protasis of M axhnus' adversaries w hose conqequeuce he explains in the follow ing parasyntactic clanse. 'Phe
apollosisthe.n is formetlby O g tttrro ...fxoe cov'rut. Anotlle' r and.a greater dië ctllty is the unusual sertse of lk êroxtiylzemoç xehzfovct. Scotus understood the words in their aecustom ed several
sknses antl renclered:ex #m :c:#/t) iubent,which in the context m akes no sense at all. I'lence I take xelt,tkn irlits root settse of prrss on ïwl s/: (lzere witk referenee to the argum ent);allfl 11 lroxtîypm og in it,s second sense ofovdey thatis not command but #' l4fin plac6. The phrmse then 14 la4vtiyprtsog ispraetically the equivaleut of an éau ctyytt'ckxf ' f,ç - subsidiarlly. xhh. l. ts untlerstood it fts in pedeetly wlth the re.st of the argum ent as I explatn it in tlte text.
Tlte Rqutgtion p/ Origenism its being forever possible. But, that rational beiags should be so boru. e aboat attd have or hope for no unalterable ground foz thdr .
fxedness in the fair- what else could be m ore pitiable?'' (Amb 7 Io69BI3-CIc). -
.
From this passage we see at once that the Origenistswith who M axim us is de m aling do tkot refute his doetrine of m otion - tlkat to have rest the ultim ate desirable m ust be attained'they sim ply a th ssert e contrary of M axim us' zrtinor. M axim us assum es, in view of tlze m anifold m otions of rational beings, tlmt the end bas not been attahled ;they aë rm that phm itively it had been attained. Agreed then otlthe doctrine of m otion and on the fact of'aetualnon attainm ent of the end M axim us lays bare the consequenee of their position:there catt so never be any perm anent rest in the good. The m ere statem ent of sueh an hypothesis is its owm sttë dentrefutation. H is adversaries then'eounter w ith another subteduge: they coul i d have rem ained jn the good, but they did tlot watkt to Suclz -
.
s the second rejoinder of the Origenists;following directly on the pieee just translated the text runs:'ZBut ifthey shoald say it Fas possible, but not w anted, because of the experienee to be had of the eontrary. And so not for itself as fair, but because of the eontrary the fair willneeessarily be appreeiated by them , not ms natura2y and m operly lovable For all,that is not good in itself and lovable and capable of draw ing all m ovem eat, is not properly fair Fbr this reason neither ean it sgitably retain the de . sire of those that take pleasm e in it. N o,those who are ofsuch a fram e of rnind would fnally address their thanks to the evil, as being taught tlteir duty through it and sttbsequextly having leam ed how to hold their stanee in the fair;and, ifthey knew how to be consistent with them .
-
selves,they would say that it (evil) wms necesharily tlle be 'eoming kenesisj, more usefulthan nature itself, sitzce, accordhtg to them , it is the instruetress of w*hat is littiug and generative of the m ost ptized possessiott of all, I speak of charity , with wrhich all tbings that eom e from God are naturally brought together itl God abidingly
and tm alterably '' (Amb 7-Io69CIc-Io72AIo) 'lxe fkst rejoinder and.reply turns on the question of whether .
a perm atzent fuxedness itzthe good is necessarily tile goal;the seeond
rejoinder supposes that there willalways be the possibility ofehoice between good antl evil;tlze craving for experience is the reason suggested for the ehoiee of evil But M axim us' position is that tlte tiualand entire absorption in the good issueh as to exclude the least .
Cltaptor F.K oros -
.-
-
L- -
-
..- -.
-
187
deviation towards evil. H is m ethod here is a reductio ad tzlsf4rlfllof the position of tlle Origenists. 'Phe positive developm ent 'of his position we shall see later.
I shall now give the second passage olz sttrfeit. 4'lhtor joy, they say, kno!vs neither past grief nor reeeives future surieit 12 from fear 1: asdoespleasure, H euee also the inspired booksand our Fathers. m ade wise by the sam e in the diviae m ysteries, lkave ev-
erywhereaflirmed joy asbeing a nam eindicative ofthe futuretruth. efIf, therefore 14 to speak sttm m arily in m y owat little w ay, it has been showrlby reason,by Scripture and by the Fathers that no ereated thing onee ntoved has com e to a stop uor has received
the release coming to it in view of the divine purpose Lskoposj,and, :2 l'k. f()Al(zt ;.gy. 36: $ and the eorreetor of Vat. gr. l5oz read 'tùv lx ' roïi
xdeov +($f$0:,.But neither the reading of Seotus and Oehler nor this varlaut give a very lueid sense. W hat are we to understand by tkefzf/llvzlsurfeit jA't?nzIear in Oehler's reafling? But ott the other hand what sense is there in 4:jutuys /Jp. rjyom szxy/eï/? W ith pleasure a present fear ofa future surfeit is entirely in place. But itzthe text the word reuclered by Iwtus'e (apociôoxégevovj statzds outsid, e the phrase s' twjett /1.0- feay tjr Jecr jkom slfrjeï/ so that even if one would em end tlze term ination from tlle aceusative to the genitive,it. s position woultl rentler agreem ent wlt. h tlze gettitive d; x xo9 xét?mz im posslble. I have thezefore retainecl Oehler's readiag.
IR That joy is unalloyed by fea' r of loss ordim inution is it seenls, a Stoic doctrine'expressed, however in the fragm eats collected by vox AR-
NIM (m ly by SSNSCA (eP.59s2,VON ARNIM III Io6t3):Scio,inquam ,et voluptatem ..,rem infam em esse et gattdiam nisi sapienti noll contingere. e-st enim anizni elatio sttis borzis vcuisque sdeutis. -- gaudio autem iunctum est non (lewsinere nee in contrarium verti. 'flle kinslzip ofifleasism anifest; but the real eonteu. t Ls vastly diverse. W ith Seneea it is due to conftfltnce in the wise m aa's own gootl works witll M axim us it is infiicqtive ()/th6 fzdfur, /rz4/#,whieh I understanclin a pregnant sense:the fature,stable gzaee-gzvezz union w' itlz (. 7()d. 14 O sHlm R'S plm d uation is m isleading. 1 Place tlle ftrst eom m a after
'rotw v rem oving that after lxt:eog. 'ù For it seem s better to unllerstand M axim us as here sum m arizing his owtz account. Fbr the retd ering of xftx'épè...'cùv pzxpt' w (cf. ep.6-43zBzz)I refer to LS*xlIë.B IV 3. Tlte protasis ls el ' coêmw ..-öç: &ezs
correlatâve ols/ xrlç ...lfjlsoàç, plt' ts the adclitional clause rre ç êè xofrvol . ..
plmpov. These d11 depeud on 8lêaxxa: After M gtëto' v a colon shoald
be phced. The apodpsis btgins ztt ' ik ytie Tite ytk is not here a causal conjunction,but rather a confem atory adverb (d SMY' :I. I Gyesh Grt zix-tzt /er C'ollrgss j zSo3). Tlte grayrlrnatical stractare would be aeater if the am dosis could bedosellwith a fullstop after baoôéltttrëty.kxtfov,butM qxim us trails along witb his prom ised remsotting in two pendent genetive absolutes.
I88
3*k63ddjv/cffps olOyïg:pfs-
in additiou,that it is im practicable tllat the grotm d of the w ortlzy's constancy in God be diverted; how then is it possible - to give som e sm all eorroboratiou of Teasonings to the th4 'ngs already said that those w ho onee com e to exist actually 1: in God should have sufered from insolent surfeit in desire. as every surfeit,by its own essence and defnition, extinguishes the appetite This m ay be established in tw o war . Izor either the appetite, eneom passhlg .
itssubjectsassmall,isextinguished or,dishonoring them asshameful and ugly,is disr jted. In these ways sudeit is engendered. But ittcontrast God,being by nature infinite and honorable, of bis very nature stretches on 1% the appetite witilout lim it fer those who delightin lzim tluough participation . ''A nd if tllis be true, as indeed it is,there was then never the alleged heuad of rational beitzgs, w hich eom ing to a stldeit of its constancy in God, was divided and by its own dispersion brougbt on the m aldng of this world - lest we m ake the good a thing en com passed and dishonored,as being delim ited with a sudeit and as -
bdng thecattse ofsedition (stasisjfortllose whose desire it had not been able to hold lm m oved '' (Amb p zo89A3-C6). This second surfeit Fassage is m ore signiûcant thall m ay at first
skht appear. It is tlle eonelusion (from : 11 Iàrrér /tlr: -Io89AIo) of the first, sum m arizing the foregoing argum entgtion and giving a fnal stroke in a dh'eet attack on 1he sud eit hypothesis. *rhis 1* M xist actaally, 'bstt kjxnxt k yevoplvovç The adverb is doubtless to
be understood in the light of the distinetion: natural essenee - m ode of exiKtence explairzed in the preceding ehapter. lB Stvetckes tla. 'rhe idea of the insatiability of the hum an appeute
for the f'tivine is essential to tlle developem eut of Maximus'thottght (cf the apophatic play ofChar 3.46). Yetthei4ea on a lowerleveljsto befound .
.
in Aiexamdri tfg anim a lïlld m antissa. At the end of the excursus against tlze Stoic doctril' te that virtue is bapplne. ssthe authorargue-s:C rtt'îç NQ e. 5).o' ' f o v r h v â t e' t ' i v ' r o o ' ( de a t h o r s ui e i de ) ' I s a op t i k h t v T t E $ f r ol p @; o â : è y * J rasp , ir a$ 'e v Ctu tt w nvöo ofqog ôè x(xL êat s' M ûtjzovlttç sflkoyov H ystv, 53. s% lp lv. .
ote k 't/i. v xéeog eùDutrtovlttç xat âpslr ' pil ;. :1g 4zratkmv ytke 'e v 'rlàœv ' i ötlqtg xekmh 1aaëlh/ o n afvfbv $ âvtstgold Supplenvntum Ayistoteticum 11 (Berlln :887 ed. Bruns) p. z68D-15). BRUNS (0/) cï/.p.v)is persuadellthat the .
greater part of this com pilation is due to Alexander and is therefore, of the early tltird centurp For the lîterature see USBSRW aG- PRAIX HTSR. Gyundriss d6r Geschicltt. #:r Pkilosophie I1: (z9z6) 179. O11e m ay see a divezse developem ent ofthe sam e doctrine in M I/HASL oF EpHssus'com m en.
tary os the Nichnnm chean Etkics (QAG X 58IRftJ
.
Clbatter F'.K oros
z89
hypothesis,it is true,seem s m ost casually introdtlced,as ineom pati-
b1e with joy, the topic of the preceding section. It is, however, an iltsu nce of that associative developm ent of tlle thought which does not hinder the strength of the logieal strtlcttu' e.'In faet the relations with the frst parssage and with the'whole explicit refuta-
tion of tlàe hellad (Part One,.I-Io7gBu ) are too close to be overlooked.
First, the resum é of tlle points antecedently proved is taken in part alm ost verbatim from the frst passage. Thus the them e that m ovem ent continues untilit attains the end iztw' llich itquiesces: Io89AIz: Io69B7: o' rlöèv st7v yEvnvôv rffllrrexe xlo' pa;fp Dè obsèv xtvofgevo' v ïgvn voépevov N ' t'q Io7. 3A lz:
o' r/3è ' rq-glx5al' cè xtutï B v :dov
oxoaôv laeàdlvo M leftx.
ofxfo ofv oth:ttgfgsg oèêèv st7)'? Yevqrrgv rn*v (ptpclx'q hv êtsvtzlzkv :+ 6c B xaF X rllv xa og xtvovjzl nv lorqcev, oflôà l' n-g lvspyefc?i lrrgtlJGTO .
Thetltemeofconstancy (govlglrqg)inGod respondsfullyto tlzat offixedlzer,s(xaytöTqç)in the flrstrejoinderoftheearlierpassage. zo89A I5:
1069C9:
l'ijg lv ts@ govtgörnrog rf' sv xtl âoydxtk .--hzn:Eplftv ëgElv 1j Qtovlztvaw afpcxlsh M vat%.6 ($a- lâxûytv gdfrtv âlustflhsov vqç N cdpov si) xtllf' ii aqytövnvog. Io89BI5:
Io69CI:
sfiç lv x: ègxdvfp xal jzövtp s xat gowqg xaê' E() povtlzörqvot ;,lgEets' ê, n' xal' riy ôtlsxë llt/Aitrefllg l'
(Cvaç)xdgov âqpogc' ttx'qg lv r:
olxetf. p cxs3at3p.fi s' lv 'ro'p xöglzov paxkvnêévxa x('i loykxtl xèv t/x/ axod e' tlyéveo'tv cvvEto-riytcev.
gpèv Lftâsv.
Another qlem ent of the eonclttding re-sum ê is the infnite exteading of the desire in God. l2or this there is no correspondezzt in the initial passage. But iu his exposition of the m ovem ent to
God (PartOne1 B atIo73CD)there isa fulierdevelopment of this
1
4 .)g
I' heXdl/z l4ïtzfï' pAlojOA' k eVs' -
. .
thought, plaeing irz fttll light tlze voluntary nature of this m otion.
It ' isTh Passage I ofthe texts dealing Avith ocstasy (p Iz8i). .
e coherence and irtterrelatedness of this eonduding passage with the rest of the refutation of Origenism isevident;itdoesnonetheless bring in a new elem ent. It is precisely the direet treat-
ment ofsurleit(xöpoç). Thistreatmettt isofthe briefest:a deflztition, the double m ode of its realization (eac: h itlvoldtlg a lirnited-
ness), the utter inapplicability of sueh a limitedness to our desire for the unlim-ited God. The very brevity aad tm nspareney of the reasoning raises a question. W hy had not M axim us em ployed this argum ent at the beginning, w here, as w e lzave seen, the ideas related with the surfeit coneept w ere already pre-sent? The reason is, I tidnk, twofold. On the one hand the very facileness and effeetiveness of the argttm ent would seem to render ulm ecessary f'urther discussion, leaving thus tm touched the ftm dam ental positions on whieh the ertot zeposed. ()zz the other hand the sud eit concept in the system of Origenism is deânitely an artiftce, a pure unfom lded % sum ption invented , solely to explain the existence of the actual m aterial spirit w orld, as resultirlg from the henad. H ence its superlid ality and. failure to touch the m ainspring of Origen's speculation To have bepm the refutation w ith it w ould have been to m aintaiq the whole argu m ent oa the sam e level of superûdality. It would seem tlierd ore that the surfeit arggm ent com es at the end not m erely by the hazard of association,but also b' y a.profonnd instiuct of the relative im portance of the diverse elem ents of Origenism . T' or the Origenistic speeulation, whether in the m aster him self orin his 6th centul'y pae sans, w as not a sim ple w hole but a com plex of m any elem ents, som e of wltich were far from aceeptable. U nderlying O rigenism is the fundam ental persuasioa that itt the ilegittning there was a prim ordial, existent unity of pure spirits. - H ad -
.
-
.
wotthe Lovd said that in heaven (antlthe end islike the beginniag) .
there was no m arriage but that a11would be like the angels of God?
(M att. za.3of.) - W ith this was another persuasion, not less w ell fixed,that the cltief characteristic,'the essential,of these spizif,s w as their freedom , a freedom of the will consisting necessarily in the choice betw een good and evil, a view apparently eonfrm ed by the g' reater part of the scriptural authority for freedom . Y et it w as im possible not to aecolm t for the present, visible w orld in a11 its variety. So the prim itive m zity w as broken up tllrough the sudeit
Chaptsr F.K oros
I9I
somefeltforthegood,thesuprem egtmd,which tkey enjoyed. K oros thus is a eonvenient d6.s 6x m achina m aking possible the existenee of the present world. It is conceivable ittOrigenism beeause of the m isplacem ent of the essenee of freedom . N ow any speeulative com plex,if it is to have any draw ing pow e.r at all, nm st eontaiu sonle elem ents, at least som e sem blauce of truth. And no refutation of the errors is ultim ately satisfaetol'y unless due w eight is given to these elem ents and sem blances. It was M axim us'task to save,w hat I m ay perhaps term ,the aspirations underlying Origenisni. Thus we have seen that the prim itive unity and the return thereto,wllich is tlle ver' y raison J'J/AZ of the m yth, exacted from M axim us llis developm ents on the Logos and the
logoi,ittwllich the initialunity isideal(eternalpresenee ofthe logoi in the Logosj and tmly the linal unit)rexistezztial17. Motion,physicaland m oral- too ebviousto be neglected - ,M axim us retained, but placed in a sound m etaphysical fram ew ork :the doctrine of an im m utable logos of nature and a'concrete m ode of existence explainiug m ovem ent aecordiug to the artleulations of the triad:sabstance, powec operation. Even in deifcation M axim us does not infringe these principles,a faet m anifest in the term which lle uses to refer to it: ecstasis. At the very begirm ing ofcreaturely m otion M axim us linds him self at once in profound agreem entand disagreem entwith Origea and
the Origenists. Tllisissumm arized in the word vpotrlfi,theessential variability ofthe rational creature. Origen refers tliis to both the
ontologicalalld moralorder (itisthus in eonsequence ofsin thatthe coqmreal world is rendered m ssible i. n >is eyes);for Maximus this variability innate in any crtatare is lintited by the fixity of the logos of nature and for m an, as rational, is a m utability uniquely of the m oralorder,that is of tlle order of hum an acts. But if thîs m utability is innate in m an by his nature,there isalso in the divine gift an ultim ate fixedness in'the good. W ith this gif't is eonnected the indefinite extension of the desire in the iniinite God. These ideas were uot entirely m tknown to Origen lB,btlt the hm er necessities of M s m aster idea, the unity of pure spirfts,forced thenz te ozze side. 17 h' xistential (' xatu' rlxt' ! ' k (zo89B4). Jt is not by chance tllat this w ord ocfm rs in the sam m ary. See notû 15 above. 18 Qf. D e P yinc. 1 g,8 cited above note 3. . for M axim us see p. 1t . ).3 aud 11. z4.
I9c
7-Az Ièefuiation ojOrïg:xis,a
H enee it is no surprise that the doctrine of fxedness in G
i od s m entioned wlzen M axinm s touches on tlle surfeit aspects of Origenism .
But if the Origenistic concept of freedom rem ains untouched a fxation in the good rem ains inconeeivable. It is therefore w ith the greatest em phasis that M axim us, treating of the indeEnite extension of da ire in God, if not in the present fnal sum m at'y but now given in translation , at least in the first of the passages studied above in relation to ecstasis, affirm s both the freedom and the fixation. It is these two aspeets that m ust uow be enlarged upon if our understanding of the M axim ian refutation is to be com m ensurate with the thought of A' Il axitrttls. C. l?xxsoNsss i lixeduess in God cannot l)e understood unless som e 'attention s frst given to that m utability of whieh the fixedness is the cur 'rhe radicalinst e. ability of the created w as a eom m ouplace . W e have seen w hat Origen m ' akes of it. N em esius devotes the 41st chapter ofhis treatise On th6 Nature p/ M an 1Ato explaining freewill. In a
word:A1ltltingsby the ver' y factof their coming to be kenesisjare
m tttable; rational creatttres are m utable fttttber in the pow er th ha ey ve to deliberate and determ ine their own acts. The deliberation is a fact of expezience whieh, unless there is the power of determ inati h on,would be quite illusory. E vilis not in tlte powers, bttt in the abits whieh alone are properly qualilied as good or evil. It is even possillle that som e attendiug only to God, while always endowed with the determ inative power, beeom e im m utable 1:. N em esius was well known to M axim us, but never, I believe , clted by nam e. Gregory ofN yssa, llowever,w asone of his ccmfessed
m asfers. In llis0n f/m M akingp/ M an 16ûr,Gregonraë rms the imnlutability ofthe divine and the necessary m utability of the created ': N o lsszr s= D e eltzlz
delîberatioll (14$ povleakcrêtzl) and znastership of one's aetions (xïkto.v flveal lî zptqct1tw) rtku' t lrr/oftxov'(PG 4o.776A). 1 Gwhich latter is properly ' pactolt'kr ol NvssA.De hominis t //tï/icft? :6: PG 44 z84C17. .
nature. In an aseetic context13thisdiferenee providesm aterialfor.a question:how can m an by nature m utable adhere eonstantly to the good? The answeristhatthe m utability is130t11to good and evil; the rew ard is given only to those w ho strive, hence the m utability Ls in itself an oceasioa for betterm ent, in faetforan indefinite progressin tending for ped ection. The Origenist savor is unm istakable. There is to be sure no positive exelusion of the Origenist possibility of sad eit, but, taken strietly in an ascetie context,that is view ing the stnzggle of this present life only, this w ould not be necessary. M axim us is defnitely in the sam e traditiott;his handling of the m atter, how ever, is quite his ow n. W e are forttm ate itt having a short but explidt treatm ent of M axim us on the fundam entalnotion
ofIrtl()a' kj1?. Afllrming that to eonsiderthe soulasbody (ep 6-4z9B) m akes it im possible to see m an as im age of God,he goes on to expound how God isatonce im m ovableand im m utable'sim ilarly în m xn, the m icroeosm os,one distingukshes the substantial cause of m ovem eut
form the organie existentessence tilaatlklçl ofthe body. Thiseatlse one .*considers as sim ple am ong dispersed elem ents,singie and lim itless am ong the contracted;m utable,ms being m oved, as havitzg an .
object of m ovement;and the eause of titis m utaability of movement one reeognizes to be not the nature, but the judgment,when tlds may have been mistaken '' (ep 6-432A). Tllis would be suë cient;but having touched on the topic M axim us goes on to m ake his owrteoneept ofm tltability m ore dear witll
:1 GREGORV oF Nvss.. t Opee' a zl. çctrfztt(Leiden z95z)*'De perfectiou. e '' ted.JAEGSR) P.2I2f = PG 46.285. 3a E p 6-429Bf. especially 432A./ . T his letter is w holly taken up w itlz argttm ellts against those wlzo say that the soulis not an irtcorporealcreature
in otherwortlsthatitis a body. CoMBz qlêlsthere notes (424 nott i*):'fk'rocedit ve1 m axim e dispatatio haec contra Origezlianos qui sk aninm m vel
corpus ve1 corporisemper coniunetam (etsi tenuior:is substantiae...) e-xi-
stim abant... '' I'cannot how ever find evidence that O rigen or the œ igen ist. s ever held tlze soul to be a body. On tlze contrary, the soul L9 itself -
imm aterial howevet m uch involved in a body. (See R.CADIOTJ La ./' :v'nnesse d'oz%jës, (PaHs 1935) p. z98f; Bam w , Oyigèns in DTC XI (I93z) z535). Inasmuch therefore as Maxim us' arguments are directed against the form er, not tile latter doctrine indicated by Com befts, tlwy seem not to be antiorigenist. Y et the essential instabilty. which the allversarles
ddend 4ep 6-4. 3zBz; tlzese are tho v w wise #les of 4z9D. 5f), is eminently that ofthe Origenists. The clistinctlonsthen regarding x oanh are certainly applicable to the Origertist dispute. See above p. I9z. 13
z94
Tke.Rz/f4/lffos oftlrfjzsù-
regard to those of others. 17or the adversaries in question,he says, m utability w ould be endless nor w ould there be any constancy of
substance. Even further,the everh sting m ovem ent24of tile soulin
regard to the divine would,for them ,be subject to mutation,while in faet that everlasthlg m otion is a natural energy or operation in regard to thefairand the good,by which thesoul attains ped ection.
M utability,on the other halld,is a m ovement in things subject to
our self-disposing will (aètoxptloetx: :6h, 4!z(ut), a movement not in accord w ith nature, a falling olï from the natural operation of
our powezs (ep.6-43zApBI3). For M a< mus then p oa:j.as a moralterm llas a restricted and
pejorative sense. The use of our freewill in turning to God is for him ratlzer a fulfilm ent of nature than an insu nce of its m utability. V et this veor m utability, one m ight alm ost say deviation, rem ains dosely conned ed with the changeableness of the created world. T hese eonnotations are sensible in other instanees of this w ord's use in M axim us K;. 2* TM s evsrlasting ptop
oxymoron daxtvqxoç evo tcl(Amb 67-I4otA12;Yhal 65-760A, 9). Tàere is heze implied the tpkrizyvqjzu so ceatzal jn GltsGoxv o, NyssA (ef. In Escz. VII: PG 44.7:9C4: ' rô .& ôuitrpqpxzo' M è'vKlh. (h' q xdgw lodv antl von BAI.THASAR.Pyhn' nl;e #> . $ïpl). It is present even in the sllm ml 't of lm man bliss:for not being pure act, the fzxed anll beatifying exercise of the soul's powers m ust in som e f% hion be successive. V et one should not suppose that eve-ry instanee of everlasting m ovem ent js a stasis. T he so4t1 as im m ortalis coneeived as a snbstanee inseparable from the exercise of its com
natm 'alenergy (d.ep 7-4. 368 and ep 6-4328;the argument of laoth these texts Ls derived (lrom Plato in tlze Pkaedl'us z45c). 'fhe exercise of this connatm al energy is fully naturalw hen teztding to G od but is not destroyed
when divertetl from lzim but is then termetl m' utability (ep 6-4. ,2/). In a single context of A m b zo on the m ovem em ts of tlze scm l there is tw ice
m ention ofthe everlasung movememtofthe soulin régard to God.(Amb zoxIz3D2 and zzz6Bz5), as also in PN-8(u'C9 and.Thal 25-3334.5, In this latter tlle everlasting movement is qualihed as hnowlsdgdul tàrrununxsl. I hesitate to ' traaslate scientijs because diseursive thought has in the prec '
line.s bee.n excluded. 'ö I give som e instances. In Char 4.9 M axim us contrasting the utter stability antl selfsam eness ofthe creator w ith tlze com posite character of the creatm e,says: <'Every creature is ...always l in.need of divine Providence ms it is not free from m utability ''. In A m b x.j'-I22oC tlle freedom from m utability and alternation is envisaged as accom panying only tlte perfect
Ckaptsr Tr ,r.K oros
e
z95
k
Suclz a passage m ay seem suë eiently dear; and indeed it is
.
B ut there are som e conseqlzences conneeted w ith the Afaxim ian concept of w oa?l w hich still need to be set forth and wbicitsllow
the all-pervasiveness of the idea. In the prologue to the Quaestiosq ad Thalassiu,m M axim us describes in detail the progress of the soul in perfection. H avitzg . m entioned the attainm ent of sim ple
knowledge he goes on:##After this (the simple knowledge)the soul, inmsm ucll as it has gone beyond all things and the thoughts that are connatural to them , is purely loosed from its native power of
thougit and suffers*%the union,a'bove thought,with God himseli, in which receivillg inefably from idm , like a seed, the learning of very trttth,it will no longer be tunzed to sin,there being no longer room for tlle devil to entiee it to evil through ignorance of him w ho is fair in him selfand beautifes allthese able to have a share in him ''
('rhalpro1.-z5zB8-Cz). As so often, M axim us is here speatviog of tlze consum m ntion . But the end is like the beginning - at least the descriptiorss of the end exclude the elem ents'ofthe fall one by one z7. And so M ai m us
in his description ofthe origin of evil (Tha1 prol.-z. 52CD) attributes it to the advent of the igrtorance of God, operating tllreugh a 4efident exerdse of tlte w ill and intellect, aided by the devil's astuteuess 28.
Tpoa'l j then appearsfnally asthe ontologicaleapacity '#oftile creature for a deficient m ovem ent in regard to God. H ence the vmst realization of the creature in God. Tbis Lq also the sense of Thoec 1.8: on
whicizvoN BATAHASAP com ments(j z86). Thesepmqtsagespermit to besure and the pairing of mutability with alteradon lJJ.l' oltzwwl isdicate that ' rkhQ;:' /I refers seeonflarily to the sim ple non-m oralm utability itr tke life of thls w olld. This is preeisely the sense of m utability tzAz# alievalion in a pasmelge of Am b 8-IzosB xo where this is rsaid to be characteristicofthebod,y and, external things, the very persistence of the instability being the only stable
element. Slmilary fxedness lrrtpvdxnçl, usually also havring m oralconnotations,is used onee (ep 42-504A14) ofthe ontological imm utability of the species.
:6 TMS use of sugcv seems an indubitable instance of Djonysiart in flence (cf.DN 2.9-64.88). COMBSFIS'eorrection ofTP I-9A5 (note 4:'r?kIvfJ)ceolç plane ttkerdum est pro yvd:ryt.tt&çJ is to be rejeded. .-
r SeelAm b 67-z4o:A B.
:8 G . HAusTrsu 's pages ou the sazn. e subject, Philauti. p. 75f, 29 The eapaeity as such of course is no sin'its realization eaîm ot be other tlzan sitt. This is above a11 true wlleu we coltsider the ford atber .
I96
The lttrjsfftzfïos ()/Origtxism
im portanee of'flxedness and im mutability as efectively excludiag the realization of sueh a eapaeity. It was a radiealfattltofOrigenism to reader im possible this exclusion ; it was likewise the error
of the advelsaries in ep 6 (ifthey be not themselves some sortof Origenists)%1. . There is,however,a certain diferencebetw-eenftxedness(xayiöx' qç) and immutability t(htle#lal. This latter was to have been properly for the m ind w hat im m ortality was to have been for the body, in God's design for the hum an fao ily zl, It is tllis distinction hlthe gifts ofAdam that perm itied our Imrd to take our m ortal lleslz tp on him self, yet without sin; for he inevitably retained the im m utability of the will. This 'is explained et length in Thal 4z and is referred to elsewhere H.
Adam. Therearetexts however(e/6-432A antlespedally-Amb zo-lto9C6S), where a dtstinction is possible. Our relation to m atter im plies a certain
mutability (111moderztasceticlanguage m ight one say distraction?j because m atter is of itself m ultiplidty. That this m ultiplicity ofm atteris efectively distrad ing from God is the re-sult of the frst sin surely; to overeom e
even this distraction is tlze aim oftheperfect rathertheirtriumpl: t ltlf.also Amb zo-zzzzDlï on tlle motions of the souls). *B See above note 2g. 3: Thal prol-cs7D .
:1 Thal 42-4o5CD; Amb Io-ll65D;Amb 6o-I385BQ . This reply to 'fhalassius occasioned one of M axim us' explanations of his ow n thought
(see WP I-29D). Here tTlzal 42-405175,6)he speaks ofthe immutability or incorruptibility of eleetion in our Lord (tlw o fu/i je lw cëa 'r' lç zseolwégeow). Laje' r he excluded any pcxssibllity of election or of rvo' lg, n in Christ while Inaintainhtg the fult freedom oi the hum an w ill. CoMsllqs' com m ent on the pllraseology of Thal 4z runs: ''paulo latittssum ithoc nom etl k w oi ke l. ç et vth zrpoatoenx:v pro sola libera voluntate, absque defectibilftatis
labe,quae nostrae iam libertaticom ea s est>'(PG 91.29-30 n.14). Thecom m ent is true but I think over-laconie. The texts indicate that we have
here (TP I)atlevelopementof term inology,aecompanying preciser tlzougltt. 'fl' lis ispalallel w tth the c:ase of o flo n which at fwst isafe m efl ofQhrlstin-
sofar a, s it is in aceord with natare (PN -8. 77D and TP 7-8oA of the years 628-30 anflc.642). But already in TP zl of643 or shortly after lzis posi-
tjon is ehanged (TP x6-I9zA z9:A). His final position m ay lye seen in tlze Dispute with Pyrrhus (TP 28-308C)in 645.or itlT P 1 ofthe year 645-46 (TP z-z7C) where ill thj:sertes of hum an acts preeeding an action yvoîp. n .
.
eom es before election. In fad 1:0th.m ohp. n and election presuppose flelib'
eration (/ofhvgtg) and tlzis presupposes ignorance. But ignorance is absolutely im possible in Christ and is excluded in the blessed by the fnlness of knowletlge. It is here suë dent to have indjcatecl these poin' ts' a full consideration oi them belongs to a Chtistological stully.
Chapfvsr 7.Xoyos
197
If immutabîlîty has predominantly an ontological sense, jxedness in m ost of its uses is m oral :3. 'flae noun is of less frequent
oecurrence. W e find it in PN -9ooC; ill Am b Io-II7zA4 there is
the oxymoron ' movementp/ Fxedness,a referenee to that everlasting m otiqn of which sfasis is the ccm ditiorzB4. M ore frequent'how ever
isthe assertion ofthe need fyf a 1ix6d flz litfuntranslerable kabitfzlth6 rp0#,either w ith reference to the strttggle of this life 35or w ith a predorninant reference to hlleaven Be. T here is at tim es an indication of the type of relation that exists betw een these tw o tenns: nam ely, that the lixed virtuous habit illtlze good is an im itation ofthe divine im m utability e?. This certainly is not the least of the divine cllaracteristics. It is the term ofthe reasonings about God that have to do with m otion
and condude to his immovability (flxlvnxov) and henee to ids immutability l#::pEzrtovl. Lqtimately it is that God is his own end (Amb 7-Io;: JB5)and aloneisssll-motion,. s,J/-#a?z/er(Amb 7-z(yM Bz5). H ence one m ay the m ore easily perceive the urgenc'y of M axim us' argum ent against the O rigenists: .'B ut, that rational beings shottld so be borne about and have or hope for no unalterable grotm d for
theirfxednessin the faiz,what else could be more pitiable?'' (Amb 7-Io69C9-Ic)R. W hat, indeed, eould be m ore pitiable? And yet, if m an is essentially free (both Ozigen and M axim us are wholly com m itted to this) and freedom consists in a choice betw een good and evil*9 then the possibility of a surfeit, of a deseA ion of the good, re3: I have above note 25, noted an ontological use of fxedne, ss
(ep 12-5olA);others with the verb especially, could be cited s.g. Am b 42-I. Jz9A 4,f24. 34 See above note z4. O A m b 7-Io8zD I4; A m b 42-x.32IB 6; z35zA Iz; A m b 54-13774.5.
'B Amb 7-:0768 12 Lhabit does not appear); PN-885D. 3? M yst 5-676.1.; cf. A m b ro-zz45A , w here how ever it is not Jxttytös'qç
but tk:kelpta that is found. In tlus study of mntability azld Fxedness I hqve usetl for ' the m ost part only those passages wlzere the words them selves oeeur. It would lm wevem be m isleading to give to understancl that so the topie is exhausted. In evidence I would partlcularly draw attention to ep z,a letter exllorting
to constancy in atlversity ' lwititsom e Stoic traces,ep I-36qC)in widch ottr .
them e is several tim es touched upon. See ep r-364C, 369CD . 37zB. :@ Effectively such is Origen's docwtrine, though pa ages m ay be adduced perham telling in another sense,
198
Th.R:jutfllfo' l. lojOdg:lfs' m
m ains always open. H ence it is that the O rigetdan doctrine of surfeit is not properly excluded unless a suë cielzt doctrine of htltrlrtn freedom be established. I have already drawn attention to this19' we olast now see how Ataxânlus acconlpzsked lt. D . Sszvw ostrsziMtx.u zox 'l'he foregoing treatm ent of surfeit and Exedness has suë eiently shown tite im portance of freedom and it,s inherenee in'the eom plex of eltoice and m ovem ent tewards God. Surfeit M ai m us w holly
rejects;mutability is recognized as a delident ttse of freedom . The foregoiug points have been developed against a baekground of Or igenistic doctrine; but now it is im possible not to present tlhe question of freedom in M axim us against the background of the or tltodox Origenist that was Gregory of N yssa *l. For he, rejeetirtg -
-
#
O See above p. x9z antl p. 1q6 with note 3z.
41 Gvq ovy 0/ Nyssa,or/àfàt?. v otigenistîI clo not intenll to imply tlmt al1 Gregory's speculation is orthodox'he rem ains however a cloctor of the Church. I m ay'perhaps be criticized for not havhtg eonsidered Gregory's position in a11the foregoing chapters, as a pcesible eletnent not only in M axjm us' positiqm but ZSO in that of the Origenists. It w as witlt this pos-
sible criticism in nzind thatfrom the outset(see above p.i'zf)I exeludeclthe anthropological questixm s that ate leiks particularlr Origenist (tim pre- anq post-existenqe of souls) and in whlch above a1lthe irï uence of Gregory is felt. But the developm ent of the refutation of the henad has brought us Nnally to the questiozl of freedom ;a' nd here, as in tite fual chapter on the gpocatastasis,Gregory cattttot be exclttded. That M axim us staltds dose to Gregory of N yssa has always been recognize; but tltese relations have so
jar been ' the object of 11o thorough study. STéZHANOU''S artiele on La fiogvù/exce initial6 ff?, fsorpsettilyI'âm6tf',#r1 s.(iW jrtaïr, de Nrpw ufrrts.M axime t'H omologlte (EO :J4 gzçu zl 304-. 3r5) is rathu a juxtam sition of the tw o authors tlzan a study of their relations. Stéphanou flepentls on the
digressions of Am b 42 attd of Amb 7 (zIoo-lxoz),bat makes no mention of O rigenism irzconnection with M axim us W eiswurm 's(lissertation (pp.485. 5) covez' s nm ch the sam e ground. The analyses of GM TH'S stud,y (La floFztz/l/ïoAl (16 17 libevtê CA:J Grégoitr tf,Nysse, Paris 1953)m anifest a simi.
.
larity with M axim us in the followittg points: m an essentially eom posed of
body antl soul (p.481).the sim ttltaneit)rofthe parts (p.loo,101),tlle relations ofbotly and soulafter death (p.185);the t' riad:nat' tzre motion end. bs Gregorian (p.96,97, IoI,zoz);tile sim ultaneity oi kinesis antl sttnis is also found itl Gregory (p. a05). But ultimately one must allow a fundam entaldiserence betw' een Gregory and M axim us in their relation with 01i-
gen. Gregory,afterall wasnurtured in the best Orjgenisttradition wlzeu
Chapter7.Koyos
I99
koros4e, aë rm sthe neeessity,the practieal necessity at least of an experience of evil as a springboard for the inûnite desire for God. Gaith,in his reeent study of freedom in Gregory,m akes this point very clear. H e w rites:'f11 faut done ehercher sile choix lui-m êm e
independamment des influences étrangeres (the devil's deceit and the seduction of pleasure) ne eontient pas déjà le péehé comm e une ctm dition quasinécessah'e. Elltl'autres term es ils'aglt de savoir sile m ouvem ent libre ascensionnel de l'hom m e en genéral ne eom m mw e pas norm alem ent par une chute ''48
And in speaking ofthis experience Gaith (p.137)cites in part tlle following passage from Gregoov's D6 M prfzffs' . %.lzor the self-
determinative (power)is as Cxod (lcöêE()v). How then tllis power m ight rem ain aud evilbe done away witlz,the wisdom of Cvod fotm d this idea;to 1etm an be ilztlze things he willed,that,tasting the evils wilich he desired and learning by experience 44for what he had e-xchanged them , he m ight willingly turn back through desire to tlze as yet Origen was neithe, r condem ned nor com prom ised by a following of
fana'tic extrem ists from the Palestinian m onasterie.s (Evagritts coulcl then have hatl no great following); M axim us enjoyed no iam ilia' t I mean lio fam ily contact with Origen; he could attain to the m aster otzly tlzrough llis writings laboring unde. r the flisadvantage which the antiorigenist controversies an; conflem nation created for any one (lesiring to profifby Origem 's great 1earning, 'speeulation and devotion. V oN BAt/Tm ts. tlt has shown tlzat M axim us had direct acqnaintattce with Origen' I have showq above how M ae txim us had 6t1z century Origenksm directly in view in refuting the
henafl (ttirectly,ot m ediatdy, that is by the ' zth centtu' y prolongation of the 6th century positions). These are perham relatively sim ple factors. B lzt M axim us knew also Gregory', at once O rigenist and tacit corrector of
Origen; he (Maxim us) utderwent the inâuence of Psettdo-Denis. 'rhese m ake up strands of a tangletl skein. To be of tlse itz identifyiug one or the
otlle. rofthese strandsis suëcient to justify the presen. t essay. 'Po identify and K rt them cm t i. : a work of the futuze.
** GAIIII op.cit.p.2o3;IVANKA,H ellenisnhes1;A&tJ Christliches ïx Frz' iâbyzaydinischsn (Dffftvldlld' ?l (' W ien :948) p.no and.5z'B. 48 G M TII p. :06. 4f One znigllt ask does M xvl 'rntls also end aage tlzis Gregorian doctrine
in his refutation ofthe Origenist doctrine ofsurfeit tsee the passage translatetl above p.186). It would seem aot'M aximus tltere considers spirits M4th full knowledge who because of thek choice and expedence of evil have been equfpped witltbodies;Gregory has in m ittd the actualcolzditfons in which m an fknds llim self.irt which the m isertes of thks life can tur' n one to tite good. V et insofar as Gregory coneeives of m an as rutm lng tke full gam ut of evil necessarily snite anfl so necessarily m eetiug again witk the
' zoo
ThgRnfnu iion 0/Orig6hism
first N essedneoss,putting of, as som e load,whatever has to do with
passion and the irrationat being purifed either in the present life
through prayer and 'tke ascetic life fphilosophia) or after passage hertce through the sm elting of the pttrifying Iire ''4: M ueh is said or im plietl in this ' passage. N ow I w ould note .
that the intent of God's perm ltting sin and evil is to preserve the self-determ inative power which is ltyo Eov. But then there arise
some questions: is the self-determinative (rè txè:ziogtrkov) in the creature to be identifed with apclcltpecw ? And if not, im w are they to be distinguished ? Again, no one denies that sin, sugering and evilcan be powedttl pedagogiealintm m ents for the perception and desire of the good ' yet is it really a neeessity, an ontological necessity, that tlle ereattlre pass through this sehool? According te Gaith the answer to titis latter question is d ev .
He says (p. 106, the sequence of the passage above quoted)2 T$11 nous sem ble que cette idle se dégage de tout le systèm e de Grégoire. Im xtm ateeckg ne devient, selon lui,un choix libre rlel c'est-à-dire un progrè.s continu, que par une aliénation '' Of tlze reh tion ol the self-determ inative and choice he says 48 .
that tktplzb pcûa is a truly spontaneous movem ent from the essence ofthe fgo,by whicllthe person choostxs, realizes its tnle self. 'Plm s
thechoieetrœottltlEtytglin accord witllnattlreis tzue and free,while that contrarg to nature is a slavery
.
'fE But Grego'ry himself in a passage cited by Gaith (p 79)'says: very impulsive choiee taf-itm xtloateEgtg ôejznxtx4) either works .
quite in accord with the good or tends to the opposite ''ê7. 'fhere is therefore an am bigttity hl the use of ip oaltegkg, W e lzave seen above 4: how Ozigen erred in identifying freedom with clzoice. A satisfactory rd utation of O rigenism m ust esect
tltis distittctiolz. It would seem that Gregevy was ndt entirely successful in this respect. lt wi11 be from this poiztt of view that it good, the Afaxhnian argunlent w ould tell but only if Gregory concdved evil as a positive instram ent for teaching the gootl, not as an elem entwhich eventually G sabuses m an of his illusions about appatent gtxds. 4: GREGORY ol? N VSSA D e Jo rfaz'4 PG 46.5248.
48 G AITH op.
Chapter F.ffqros
zoz
will be . m ost profitable to exam irte tlle M axirnian doctrine 49. For no ozze w ho has read w ith attentiozz the M axinzian descriptions of our ascent to God carlfaitto have noticed how it is a reproduetion of the èxfttzctçse so fam iliar and dear to G regoa , that is the right exercise of our choice resulting in the ever non-sating satiety
oî otzr desire wil icllis the fulness offreedozn (Amb g-zo89,zogJcD, Io76B). How wms Maximus to meet the eritieal problem of the semse of Jp oatpeo'kg. Iu the freedom of m an rftlotttoEtytg cannot but be central'it is so in G regory, it is so ilz N em esius :1 It does rlot seem tctbe necessary to dem onstrate llere at length that the w'i11and choice stand at the heartalso ofM axim us'doctrine. It hms been apparent in the m any eitations already m ade. Rather I shall set forth llis use of the terzzt xtlotlly gw and his darifying of the distinctilm betweezt it azld wi11. N ow the critieal il actor in effecting thisdistinction isthe Chdstological. At the outset then I shall give M axim us' brlef defnition
ofthetwotermsilzquestion. Hewrites:'''Phenaturalwill(fïélnjtq tpvo'lxlv) is the essential deslre of tbings corroborative of nature; tlte gnom ic will is the self-chosen im pulse and m ovem ent of remson to one thing or another ''51. The thing above all to note in this disth ction is tlm t the natural w ill belongs to nature, to the logos 49 %fay I note by the way it pertaâns nlore to the next chapter that
tlzis nm biguity in Gregory faeilitated his (loctrine of tlle apocatastasis. E' vil
and so also sin tsee the end of ihe passage translated above from the De Ubr/sïs) purîfies and.so renders m ssible sooner or later the restoration u' ofa11to the prim itive state.Self-determ ination anclchoice L6le /tzt;/o of evil) being too closely idvntified it is (lië cult, if not im possible to preserve the form er without allowing for the universal rectification of the latter. But of thks later. Je M axfm us speaks of fafvqgtg in the verg r proce-ss of clistilzp lislzilzg
choice antl will ('PP z-a4CI3). 51 DOMANSKI B. Die Psychologie d6s Aoplysff:. ç (Mitnster 1900)p,I4O: ,4Das W eâen das Gruntl und den K ernpunkt (Ie-T m enschlichen W tllensfrei-
heit bildet beiNem esiusdasW ahlvermögel ode.r die Vorsâtzlichkeit tzpoaleetrtç)''. H owever Nem esius does a190 tlistiugàish though without m aking any thlng of tlze (listinction betweell clzoice and self-deterznirtative power,theform er presupposing the latter (D ewcfvl'tzhomiyds 41:PG 40.776A).
51 TP z4-z53A. That gzlomic 4d11 here replaees clzoiee (rpocleslw) is the result of controversy. The tw o are not exactly synonp noqs; for
zrtiottte tng is deflzte; (TP I-16C after Nemesius'De nat.hom . 33: PG 4o, 733B tz) a. s ''deliberative appetite of tlzizlgs within our m wer''. But 'fvdmq is relate; to rwoftltœlng as habit to act (TP z-x7C).
coz
T/f. trRelï utatiohg--/Orig-l fjjf -fnj -
-
-
-
of natere,and the grtom ic w iltto the persoa, to tlle troioz ormode of existenee. And as it was the revelation of the Tiinity, frst of all,and then the m ystery of the Incarzlation wkieh enabled the ntind to m ake the distinedon of person and nature,so outside the direct influence ofthe sam e,nothitzg is easier than to neglect it. rorilzthe m ere ereature, wltich w e are, whatever springs from the nattu' al willcan only be efeetive through our own choiee alone. Such cer-
tahlly is the ease w ith M axim us, especially if one considers only lAis vocabulary. It is interestingsand perhaps not entirely without signiieance,
that tlle two azl-ùkslft,where zpouûtpotg is most dearly met,are preeisely those in whieh there is a de:nite exdtzsion ofthe Origenist,
more, of tlle Gregorian apocatastasis53. In eaeh ease there is also found the fundam eutal triad; being, w ell- or im being, ever-being. ' l'he flrst and the last are not within m an's power;tlle m iddle, wlzich is of course not m ere natural goodness but the adoption ef sons involves cltoic' and the action of the Spirit, And thi ks is necessarily' so, beœ use of the f<self-m oving, m asterless power that naturally
is in m arz'' (Amb 42-z345D :3-15). The sam e tllought is found in his treatment ofthe Sabbath (Aml)6$-I39cA),' but there we find also 1he emphatie su tem ent that ever-well-being is not subjeet to the williug of choice (t/eAf1o' Etrrpoaseétysfoç Amb 65-I39zB8). Iz1 these passages thqre is no hint of a distinction between will and choice, unless one m ight, and reasonably iadeed, see sach a hiztt in the eause assigned for the necessary exercise of elzoice in the attaittm ent of w ell-being: nam ely, that there is in m an t'the ianate self-m oving, m asterless pow er ''. Choice then and this m a-
sterlsss #ppzer are not perfectly identieal. Attd masterlns #pkp> is self-determ ination aeeording to the definitien given in TP I 54 Selfdeterm ination Ls in its tttr' n identiftetl with the w ill, and indeed as a prim ary elem ent in 1)0th arclletype and im lge b:. But if thqse texts give som e slight indication that M axim us was aw are of the distinction,it is certain that he did not 1ay too great w d ght upon it. , For itt explaining to Thalassius (Thal 4' z) how .
'
.
ëe ' F' o' r M axim us'treatm ent of this problem see the final chapter :4 '1*P z-17D :f.Power is iunate dom inion over thiugs to be done that .
aresubjectto us;unhinderetldeminion ofthe use ofthingssubjectto us; unenslaved appetite of things sabjeet to us '>. O T P 28-324D 8.
Chapier F.Koros
zo3
Phzist beeam e sin for us and yet did not.know sin,lte speaks indifferently of the corrtlptiolt of choice in A dam and of it.s reetitude in Christ. This is one of the passages for which afterwards he m ust give an explanation. In TP I he observes that if som e of the 1?athers have spoken of ehoice in Cluist,it was in the sense of our essentialappetitive power,narftely ou. r natural will, or was an appro-
priation of our ehoice to the Inearttate God (T P I-a90). It was ia tids sam e m anner that he him self wrote to 'Phalmssius,for in fact
there is izzChristno possible choiee (?.PP I-z9Df). 'rhe Christologicalfaetor has then dearly induced a elariâeation. Choice in the frst treatise to M arinus is defined as a <.deliberative
appetite of things subjed s to us. For, M axim us explains, ehoice is a m ixture,.com potm ded of m any things, being eom posed of ap-
petite,deliberation artd judgement ''(TP I-I6C). 'rizis isaa adapted citation of N em esius s:and is therefore nothing new . W hat is new is the em phatic denial that in Christ there can be any sueh thing as choice. The defrtition as it stands refers to any sort of deliberation,whether it be betw een diverse goods or between good a2nd evll. But certainly it is in this latter w ay that he tends to speak of it. At the end of the apology for the use of choice in regard to Christ,
cited above,Maximussays:''('l'heFathez's)knew trtlly thataschoice regards both, I m ean tlle good and the evil, it pe'rtains to those
who can be moved:wiich to think,m uch,m ore to say of Christ, the Very substanee and source of good, is full of every im piety ''
(TP I-% A). Tt is llot only here that tlze connection of choice with selectfon between good and evil is evident. It is im plicit in the detinition of gnom ic willwith w hich I began. It reeurs in a fuller exposition ofgaom ic willin the treatise on Two W ills. There <'the self-chosen im pulse, esecting the divergence to otte or the other,constitutes
(the gnomic wl11);it is defnitive not of the uature but, precisely, of the person and hypostasis'' ( TP I6-I9zBI3-CI). And agaia a x
little m ore fglly:f'And the httm an willl 'mg in our Savior,even being natural,w as not nude as w-ith us,as ndther was bis hum anity,since by the union it was did nized to tlze lim it.whetlce accurately sinlessness belongs to it. But ottl's evidently is nude alld ia no wise sialess on account of the deviation to this side or that - a deviation
*4 N eMsslus, D e 'I/J. hom . 33: PG 4o.73tiA Tr, y( 33B 1x.
zo4
Th6Rqutation 0/Origenîsm
w hieh does not alter the nature but diverts the m ovem ent, or, to
speak m ore truly, exchanges its mode'' (TP zo-z36D4-I3). W ith these texts before us we are able to line up severaldistine-
tions: the l4yog fpftrefnç, the natural will, nature are on one sideon the other al' e the m ode of existence, gnom ic will and choice,
tlle person. Self-determ ination then and freedom are of the nature prim arily, of the person secondarily , derivatively, '#M s series of distinctions perm its, when confronted with the Origenist and Gregorian, views, the necessary reetifeations. A surfeit of the good properly known becom es strictly inconeeivable, fgr the expeliezlce of evil is i. ri no way a ftlï lm ent of nature EH is properly a spzp.
existence, an tlvtsatzplla 5;. Its experience can not form a necessary ingredient ofouT desi' re for tlle good Witich is oiitselfdesirable.And w hat is m ore since natute and person are not identieal the restora-
tion of nature does not of necessity entail the eom plete restoradon
of every person. èreedom is iaalienably a patt of ltumatt nature; .
in its m erely hum an m ode itisinseparable from thepossibility ofsite nhlg â8, 'in its diviae m ode in Christ it becom es irtdefectibly sinless
(&vtzpzdplv oç). 'rhe perfection of the human will is to attain a fixedness in the good,whieh corresponds to the self-goodness, to the identity of goodness and being irt God T'he desire for the divine .
good,wlliclz is the uaturalwitl izlits most intimate beinj,will be realized existentially only aecording to the cireurnstartces in w lzich eaeh person m ay fnd him self. 'rhe ultim ate 1ot of each wifll sim ilarly be determ ined by the disposition towards the good in which each is set at the tim e of his passage henee This determ ination of lot, then, is on the personalplane, not that of nature. .
Butherewealready touch theproblem ofthe apocatastasis,eoncerztiug w bith the pèrtlnent texts and studiesm ust now be exam ined
,
H A m b 4z-z:32.1.3; cf. Tllal pro1-z.$7A . . 58 Despite the great part that ignorance play' s i1z the genesis of evil
(cf.'rhalprol-aj3cD),the will so at least in the dispute with Pyrrhus (TP ,
z8-3z5A9),'is JwfzlveactN ç.
CHAPTSR V I
A/oczu AsTAszs W e have seen that Maximus very deftnitely rejevtsaud explicitly reftltes the O rigenist errors coneerniug tlze henad, as also tllat ofthe preexlstenee of souls. It w ould seem therefore that a refuta-
tion ofthe apocatastasisortm iversalrestoration,even ofthedamned, would be found in hisatttiorigenistpieces. This isseetltingly not the ease. Certaiuly there is no frontal attack, rto explicit refatation '
bttt is there a definite well-grounded rejeetion? I believe so. But 1et tls lirst see the previous studies in this m atter and then the texts of M axim us. Prsvio' t4s sfllffïes
Irl zvctz M ichatld publisâed his stttdy:S.M axime J: conjesseur et I'az l/pctzffls/tzs:1. After dtittg in Latin a m ultitude of texts,not always to the point,and w ith som e giving a brief com m ent,lte condudes that M axim ns taught the fnal consum m ation of at1 in the good. Vitler1 however, states that M axim us did not take over
the doctrine as found in Evagrius. Grum el3, referring to QD I3, aërms that M axirtius held a mitigated dod rine ofthe apocatastasis. V on B althasar * has later given som e pages to the question ia an
epilogtle to his essay ollthe Confessor's doctdlle. I-fe present.s three
series of-texts:1) those referring to hell and eterual punishment; z) those which speak of the effedive salvatiozt of htlman nature, w ithout so m uch as a hint that tlzere m ight be single exceptions;
and 3)those texts wltich refuse to give a deeper doctrine,that doctrine being,so one reasonably supposes,tlteapocqtastasis. M axirnus' 1 M rcrtltu' t), E. Rru. JAC/ZIZwt r I/JZ-tZJ: (le FW tvtpjrïg zo (z@o2) 257-71. 2 RAM Iz (1930) zlo. 3 II'IV Io (z9a8) 457. : KL 367-721275-78.
$
2o6
ThnX#' ?4/flSt)lW Ch' iy/:1,:-
solution therefore is not doctrinal but practical ' fhe threatening possibility of eternal punishm ent is necessary for tlle bègiltners aa4 .
profcients (and who can gttarantee himselfpedect?);yet the depth of the divine m ercy no one knows, it is better to restrict one's curiosity to the linlits that Scripture perm its. Such is von Balthasar's
exposition of Maximus' doctrine; his own judgement thereon is contained in a footnote 5: .*M axim us w ant. s to tmetiltain 60t11 tlke suceess of the divine plan and the threat of eternaldam nation that hangs over the sinner. H LS solution seem s to give greund forbeliev .
-
ing that this latter is a threat only that could rem ain unrealized '' ln tllis resped it is tlnaeeeptable
.
. . .
.
Only reeently J. Gaïth has iuterm eted the Gregorian tz/mctztastasis in absolute term s :,' and adds that M axim us and Theodore Studite were quite of the sam e opinion. I am not prepared to di-
scurxs his judgement regarding Gregory. but the following study willshow with what haste he passed judgement on Maximus;. Texts Aeltp/flg to the w/' fwfg:pl:zll A tension certainly exists whenever theologians sim ttltaneously m aintaiu, and Catholic theologians cannot but m aintain, the per-
fevtion and universatity of God's saving work in Jesus Christ and tlze reality of unending punishm ent, that is the seem iug failure of saivation. The degree and incidence of this tension vary as its two poles are diversely coneeived and estim ated. Considering once m ore the texts it willbe clear,I hope,that in M axim us the tension w as genuinely m aintained, though he was stitl so im pre% ed witlt the reality and m om ent of'the first pole that he did not develope extensively the opposite elem ent. But the texts...
5 K L 57z/a781. See v()N BM JHASAR'Sown e-stim ateofthislastchapter of K L in D ,6 (;x.Crttt.p. 7,in which lze aligns him selfcom pletely with M ichaud. ' 6 Lq .l,f& #' /J... pp.187'-z9J. Afte.r the resurrection there can be no sim ler leftin eternalpains no sinner leftat all m: sinner; but a11 no exceptions, w ill be saved. .
7 G. &A K op.cit.p.z88,givesltisversion ofM aximus'QD I3-79623-0)1; but he omits the capital phrasp : xtft ofxœg 'tîiâzoo tâgeto; % lzefôle:' tt' bv
âyuit ' iw flzrs oàajkïv Ttk ôrvtiygw.' n. e oversight is a11the more gross in tlzat 'rheoclore,dtktg the wlzole passage, sitlgles out this very phrase for repeti-
tion and emphasis (ep.1G0- PG 99,x5oIA).
Chapter VI,Apocatastasis
'zo;r .
'rhe aë rm ation of the fact of punishm ent of unendhzg dam nation ,even great em phasis upon it, afe sufiiciently conlm on in M axim us. There is first'of a11the exlm rtation to com punction oecupyipg
two thirds of the latter half of the Librr Ascetic' us ILA 9! 27-39). Lack of com punction is due to lack of fearofGod, r'thescorning of
God's fearful judgement as a mere thought''(LA z7-9> C4f). In the Centuries on Charity etevnal Jz lfAlïs/lvlfrzl/ eom es to the fore in Char I.56, 57, ' 2.34. Von Balthasar's caveat against arguing from tids term etnrnalto a concept of tm ending punishm ent to be found izz Gregory of N yssa 8 cannot have the sam e force for M axim as, .
inasmuch as he could not have been unawire how the 6th eentuz'y antiorigenist theologians used the like qualifcation for puztishm ent
and.forlife ti1l Matt.25.46)as eternalas certain proofofthetm elzd'
ingness of punishm ent, since of the unendhlgness of the blessed life there was no possible doubting 8. Elsewhere M axim us speaks
ofa just judgement or condemnation for endless or for itïnite ages orofb0th together:4, 'or ofdestnzction or ofthe 1ot ofthe bad thiefM. A11 these are but passing references. There are how ever four letters dating from before 6z6 to 643,therefere covering the w hole period of M axim us' activity as an mscetical author, wllich contain
deseriptions of death,of the particular and fnaljudgement and of the quality and etendty of the just damnation. I refer to ep 4 on grief,to ep c4 to Constantine,to ep 8 perhaps to Sophroniusand to ep I to the eparch George on hisrecallto Constantinople in 64z '1. Let us gather a few of the phrases that refer m ore particulady to tlze endlessness aud quality of punislzm ent after death. The them e of ep 4 is salutary grief. 'fhe rem em brance of death and tlze constant anticipation of the labor at tlze soul's departure are
eminently ftto arousein ustllissentiment (ep 4-4I6A). Anflfnally, after the opening of the doom sday books, t'those who have their station allotted on the left hand reeeive eternalfre the outer darkness, the sleepless worm , the gnashing of teeth uhdryable tears 8 VON SALYHASAR Pyése*ce P. 584* ,See ZSO G AW II Op. dt. P. 190. : JUSTINIAN, .p1dv. Olïgdlxy;n ad ,V. 18Al:Fl4pl, ACO t. II1 2o5l*ff (PG 86.975). 1: Am b aI-zzszllzo' Thal z1-z93B4 anf' t M yst 14.-69: $84fl Ea: Gtthcrtv .
ckaetpol. g' re xûkâvEàr Evet%' rolç. 11 A m b r zo-za3' z'B ; A rnb 5,3-:37t J: B , z376B .
11ep 4-416. 'ep 24-6z2BC; ep 8-44:11 (etern 'jl hell-flrel; ep :-388C389Cz, l' por the dating see m y D ats-lést.
:zo8
Thtf,& /74f//r' t?A;ojOrigenism
and endless sham e over which every m an condem ned to tm ending torm ent for agesis m ore ae icted titan over allotherform s ofpunisî -
ment put together'' (4I6-D8-4I7Az). In ep 24 he refers to tbe peaee obtained (that over Chosroes in 628) and then exhorting to a right and w orthy use of peace contitm es: z'1et us be m indftll of the bitter aë iction of eonscience that com es to the soulin hellatthe m em ory ofits deedsim donein the body;1et usbe m indfulofthe con -
summation of the entire world ''(6IzBI-4). Then heeomesto the dtxscriptioh of the 1ot of the blessed and the dam ned. These latter' . 'ffor the tm naturah ess oftheir deeds w i11receive the outer darkness the sleeplerss w orm , the tm quenchable iire of gehenna and, m ost
grievouk ofall,sham e ofconscwience that has no end ''(6I:Cg-II)&3 .
' But w ith the years, or perhaps with the gteater poiglzancy of
the situation under which he was writisg this fziend George was
under grave suspidon),Maximus has gained a f'urther insight
He . speaks this tim e in the frst person : '*.A.ll m e! the fearful sham e that willnever have an end except by a citange I becom e free ofm y
m any evits, .ih m e! the m oaning and the'bitter tears. .
.
Instead
of light darkness,in'stead of joy grief,instead ofrehxatien punishm ent and distress willsurely Teceive m e. Aztd then ofa11, tlle m ost nziserable,or m ore tnzly the m ost grievous - in saying it only I am afllkted, how m uch m ore in enduring it: be m erciftll, Chtist, and save us from this ajlliction - the separation from Gqd 14 and from his holy polers,and the fanliliadty with t:edeviland hisevildem ons that abidesfor ever without any expeetation of liberation from tlzese tenible tlzings. For in this world by our evil aetivities we chose willingly and deliberately to be with them ; of necessity to be with them w e shallfairly ezzough be condem ned, tlm ugh unwilling. And m ore pusishing and terzible than any punishm ent, the bdng contiuually w ith haters and hated thisapaz'tfrom torm ents, not to m entiou with them ,and tlze having been separated from the loverand the .
loved one. P'or God judging justly,who by nature is and is called love,isnot hated by the judged; nor does he hate the judged, for
naturally he exists free of passion . As we believe that these things
13 Part of the phrasfng of this passage has been borrowe; from Gregory N azianzen or. 16.9:PQ 3,5.945C. It is a passage citecl again in part in Am b p zo88A . 14 Gregory of N azianzen is also here M axim us' forerunner' see tNe above note.
Chapfer VI-Apocatastasis
zog
reazy and truly will be, 1et us, beloved, not negleet ourselves ''
(ep 1-388D6-8902). M axim us does not speak here conventionally of the pains of hell'he does not repeat m ere phrases,as m ay seem the case in the references giveu earlier. Xret there rem ains to be seen how he * 11 treat certaill problem s resulting from seriptural and. patristic texts
when he is less directly under the infuence oflfisgospelm editations.
Here the great problem is that of the concrde solidarity f?/ the àll- flzl race1: wlzich ,if carried to its lim its,seem s to involve a certain apocatastasis,m ore or less on the fotlowirlg lines:since a11 fell itï A dam all w ill rise and be saved in the new A dam . B tlt even when sueh a doctrine is carried to its extrem es the resulting apoeatastasis, though equally false w ith the O rigenist doctrine, is not the sam e. 'rhe latter is eoherent w itll the doctrine of the henad, preed stenee and a certain eoneept of freedom and neeessarily llows from it;the form er has a real,a true basis,but is a doctrine sugering, as it were from sarcom a,nam ely that no person m ay be coneeived as set perm anently in opposition to the good in Christ l6. I shallnow give those passages whieh seem rnost to favor such a view . It is here that x stichaud was m ost diligent. Am ong the
Quaestiones ad F/lflllssï' lfvlI may refer more particularly to Thal z and I5. In the first the harm onization of the particxular with the general,in the second the ways of God's providenee are dealt with. In quite a num ber of the passages dted by M iclzaud one should note that the m oral elem ent is present, m ostly expressed with the words granted /t? th6 worl/ly or the like U. Tllis is em phasized in the com m entary on Ps.59 '8. H oweverthe fullest iasistence on this aspeet is'found in A m b 3I-Iz73D , w hich deals with a phrmse of Gregory's oration on the N ativity : Tfthe law s of nature are loosed; the upper world m ust be filled; Christ bids, 1et us not resist ''. Tlze second phrase of the pmssage naturally hw ites the doctrine of tlze
concrets solidarity t# m ankind. Nor is it surpdsing that Maximus 15SeeDANI*LOIJ,RSR 3o (z94o)3447forsome literatureorttlzissubject; see also voN Bzktalfasalt,Pq sence p. 58f, especially 58:.
16 See GA. ï' 1% ok. cit. p. z92. In tNe passage cited (PG 4 .z:z6CD) Gregory asserks the incom possibility of e'vil and the divine om n4pre-sence.
I shallretm.n to this toilic below (p.zl8.Thal15). 1:See Thal 22-:JI7Dzo, 32IB7;54-jz5B:z;; 59-609C2; 63-668C8;64pooB 8. 18 Pe 59-8.574. . 14
zlo
TltetAt#fy/llïo@lolOyigenism
hete introduceslhe parables of the lost slzeep, the lost dracbm a and tlle prodigal son The lost elem ent is that whieh lzas fallen from the heavenly choir p arlkind w hose return provides the whole scope of the Incarnation l9. But that M axim us here leaves to a m ore propitious oecasiop the explanation of the num bers 2, Io and Ioo zn is not suë eient grounds fo' r num bering this pa% age am ong those w hieh deliberately refuse to speak on certain more :xfllfefl doctrines It is to these texts that we m ust now give som e attention .
'
.
.
E sottwic Sïlesce? V on Balthasar :'says that texts of the esoteric sort are frequent in M axim us. 'fhis is not quite so. 1 have just indicated.one passage that ought not to be lm m bered w itll them A nother stteh text he sees in Am b 45-13568 . But here again M axim us' reason for not speaking is not a desire to honoy a doctrine in Wftrlc: but to .
pass it ove.r for the prçsent,because he is not equal to the heights of Gregory's teachiug D. O tller pl sages of the sort I do not kuow W e are left then with three really germ ane texts: Thal m olz6oA ; 'l*hal 4g-4IzA z Thal aI-3I6D . Let us begin with tke last; for the other tw o are m ore im portant an4 related one with the other. .
'
.
Question 21 zuns:'rW lzat is the m eaning of:Putting offprincipalities and pow ers etc (Co1.z.15)?Ho 'w ever was he clothed with .
them at all,sinee he was without sin? '' N ow this Sczipture text is ,
one involved hl O rigen's developem eno of the apocatastasis. In
his 8th hom ily on the book of Josue33 Origen writes:'fTlle cross 1: IIANIéLOU. RSR.so (:t)40) : $44, . 2: Am b 3I-1277C1gff.
:t KL 57oI2z7. 2: See ali. io the beg4 -n' nî' ng of A m b 45-1:52B ;tlze tlzird text of'vt'lç B .< -
' rlu s. t' il (.Ymb r384C) mt'lst be a mistaken referenee. At the couneil of Tqorence Bessarion and M ark of Ephesus together fram ed a reply to 1he Iatins. In tllis the phrase honoy ï: rl silentce Ls used to m ean pass ove.r in silence an tm doubted error of atl honored father in this carse the Nyssetw
dodrine of the apocatastasis fFw vologia Orïtrsfcs. ç ï5.71 j z4). ls such a rsense quite exclutled from M axim us ?
:a In Iosue hom .8.3 (GCS IIASHRISNS, Origen V1I)p. 3389-43: Crux Dominx 'nostrise. tu CIZAW gem ina fuit. Mirus tibisermo forta e et novus vitletur quod (lico:crux gem irza fuit hoe est gem ina ratione eonstat et du plici' quia visibiliter quitlem âlius D eî irz earne cruciiixus e-st invisibiliter -
vero in ea crucediaboluscam pvi, gcqpqtibas. slds6t#cfesftz/ïèusAflxm esfc' rtxf .
Ckapttr VI.Apocatastasis
J zzl
ofour Lord Jesus Christ wastwofold ... that is,itis made up double,because visibly indeed the Son of God was eraeified in the qesh,
while invisibly on that (same) cross tlle devilwitk kis JrïAlcï/wfïfïes and #p7z?>s is Exed to the eross'' (cf.Col.c.:r4, 15). At the rnd ' of tlle subsequent developm ent on the apocatastasis Origen returns
to tliis text and joins it to another24:f'l'or wlmt good does it do me if I know that tke king W H ai is /ltzzlgTff on a ff(,f45/: wood? But ifT lcrzow that the pewer oftlle cross is twofold tm which * :,. 1: Christ is hanged in the tlesh and the devilwith his arm y is routed - from understzandizlg the m ystery m y soul is edified. And yet m ore perhaps,to enlarge greatly the scope of the m ystea , on this wood is
understood to be the knowledge'olgood and ol evil (cf.Gen.z.9)on which 1:0th Christ tlte good and 1he evil devil hanged - the evil to perish , the good to'live by power...''.
Maximus then,after giving his interpretation ofthe P' utting (?# principalities tzlfî poweys m anifests his unwillingneu to propagate a11 the interpretations w hich he knows and condudes in tllis wise: ''It w ould be possible otherw ise to consider the sense of this passage, m ore m ystically, m ore exaltedly; but since,as you know ,one should not set down in w rithlg the m ore ineffable of the divine doctrirles, 1et us be content w ith what has been said,enough to hold tlle m ore curious in tlzis m atter. But,'God grazzthzg that w e be ilz onq another's com pany, we shallstudiously exam ine together the Apostle's
mind '' (Tha1 2I-3I6D). Tltis is not a com plete esotezic silenee; M avim us is wm ing to discuss the m eaning of St Paul; the m ore risky interpretation,it is not prudent to ptlblish. The m ol'e m ystzcal sensç m ay vez'y well be som ething akin to that hinted at in the above citations from O rigen;that it is so m ust rem ain a supposition. O n the other hand it is patent that M axim us does not propose to explain such a sense when he and T halarssius m ay be together, lm t to exam ine the
24 ORIGEN loc. 5il. p. 3429-16: N am qttid m ihi pt rodeFt si sd am quchd
ïs gem ino ligno Az. v Gait rvsjp,a n. çzg. çestîK aqtem sciœm duplicem esse virtutem crucis,in qua et Christus itz carne suspeaditur et cliabolus eum suo exercitu trinm phatur ex intelligentia saeram entiaeaificabitur anim a m ea. Et m agis foztasse ut adhuc excelsius Jtm plituflinem m ysterii (Xlatem us in hoc ligno intelligitur esse sséentia èn' aï 6t Antzfï,ixz quo et bontls Christus et cliabolas m alas pependit setl m alum 'quidem ut interiret bonum vero ut viveret ex vM ute ...
.
ztz
Tlb6Ae/uflfïtk. lf)/O' rïgesïs-
m eanhtg of the text itself,in doing which,ofcourse,thiss6ns6would have to be discussed.. Our other two passages are twins;they 1:0th are in reference to the tree of gotd and evil;they both bttry fhe higher teaclling in absolute silence; neither offers the possibility of a subsequent discussion.
In the prologue to 'fhala% ius ('rhalpro1-z53A) M aximus gives a defnition of evil and explains that this failure to tend to tlle end has as its effeet igrtoranee of the cause. From this he passes to self-love and to a long list of viees. H e then begins a second devel-
opment with a derived defnition of evil as ignorance p/ tlbe good cause t# beings. It is from this that he passesto the them eofidolatry, the prefening of the creature to the creator and to that of self-love, m entioning the tree of disobedience, of the knowledge of
good and evil (257AB). 'fhis tree he then explains. 'fhere is a spiritual knowledge of the visible ereation - this is good;a bodily
(understand: sensual) knowledge of this creation is evil (z57CD). H e goes on then to explain why he here dilated on the tree of disobedience: ff' lY us one should here tlzink ofthe tree, in a w ay w ithin the reach of all;the better and m ore m ystic reason being reserved for the m ystival m inds and honored by us ill silenee. I but now m ade m eution,by the way,of tlle tree of disobedienee, as I w anted to show how igrm rance of G od m ade a god of creation, of w hich the
corpoml self-love of mankind is the pafent worship '' (T11a1 prol.z6oA6u5). In anotller qttestiott, however, Thahssius forced M axim tts to deal wit.h the trees of paradise. Thal 4g-4ogDf reads:.*Iftlze tree of life is said to be wisdom itl H oly Seripture,and the work of wisdom is to diseem and know,in what then does the tree ofknowledge
ofgood and evildiffer from the tree oflife?''In response (4IzA-Bz) M axim us frst says that the doctors.of the Church w ere able to say a great deal on the present question, but honored the place rather w itlz silence, thl -nkilzg it better not to deepen the diflleulty when already m ost people could not attain to the depth of the Scriptures;
and even if some did say som ething,srsthavjng tried outthecapaeity oftheirhearers,they leftthegreaterpart unexam ined. ''Therefore,M af m us goes on,I had thought rather to pass over the plaee in silence, exeept I felt it w oald grieve your god-loving soul. So then for your sake I shall say som etbing suitable to alland profte z-
b1e to thegreatand littleofraind ''('rhal43-4IzAI3-Bz), Maximus
Chqpttw VI.Apocatastasis
21. 3
then proeeeds to give lzis explanation. Inasm ueh as there is the tree of life itsopposite can only be that ofdeatlz- the tree ofknow ledge of good and evil. Of these the one is m aker of life,the other
ofdeath (4IzB). The tree oflife iswisdem ,that isaitisrelated with the m ind and reason' ,its opposite therefore is eonnected with irrationality and sense. Or agailz, as m an is m ade up of intelligible soul and sensible body, the tree of life is the rniad of the soul,the
tree of knowledge of good and evil the senses of the body (4IaC). Now the ftm ction ofcertain elem entsisto diseern;the znind between intelligible and seusible,betw een eternal and tem poral;it perstm des to adhere tö tlle form er rather than to the latter, The senses are discerning ofpleasure and paill. If then m an is discerning only ofbodily plea-sure and pain,he eats of the tree ofknowledge of good and evil; if he is discezning the tem poral solely in an intelligible
way,he eats of the tree of life (4IcD ,4I3A). Sueh then is the explanation suitable and proftable for aH. But is there no ltillt of the nature of tlle explanations Jt?, ?;t/re,ff in si/e' lxz other than the surrnise that they are related to the doctrine advanced in the passagesofOrigen dte'd above? Let usread M az m us' Enalw ord to Thalassius. f'So then there is a g' reat diEere-nce between the two trees and betw eeu the discemnm ezzt naturalto each and in the signiiicauce connatural to eaeh. Since the predication of good and of evil is m ade equivocally without distinction, there cau be done Efgreat harm to those wlm read the words of the Spirit unw isely and unrefleetingly. But as you are w ise by g' race you know that what is said sim ply evil is not entirely evil,but evilin a ceztain respect and not evil in another;sim ilarly w hat is said sim ply good is not entirely good,btlt good in a eeztain respect ahd not good in another. And you are preservetlfrom the harm ful equivocation ''
('Phal 43-4I3AI3-B). W hat is the im port of this warning and distinctioq? I do not tllink it lm reasonable to surnzise tlzat the equivoeal predicatiozt referred to has som e thing to do with the dangerousness ofthe deeper explanations in which M axim us refuses to ittdttlge. In fact Origen âz in identifying Christ with the good and the devit w ith evil fails egregiously in the distinctions proposed by M axim us. And in thus failing he constnles his tllesis for the apoeatastasis of the devil.
'J Sée the passage dted fz1note z4.
2z4
Th6A'tr /zl/lfipzzojOrîgenism
This illttm ines som ew hat M axim us'position in regard to the dod zine honored in silence, whose least acceptable aspect is the tem porariness of hell. O rigen's identification leads directly to the w iping ottt of eviland so to tite liberation of all evildoels whatsoever; M axim us' distinction is to serve as a protection. If w e had no other texts than these,von B althasar's interpre-
taf-ion w ould likely lrin by default. But there are other texts,tex' ts which speak direetly or also indirectly of this doetrine. 'rhese, thottgh know n lzeretofore, have not been studied adequately in this eonnection. I shall present then frstxthose texts whieh refer by nam e to tlze apocatastasis, then those whieh are coneerned with the restoration of the powers of the soul.
'
Toxts N aming tlte Apocatastasis Speaking of the word itself,it m ay be worthwhile to note that
in Greek atocatastasis Ls not an exciusively technical term of theology. 'Phus M axim us' uses it of the yearly return of the sun to
the same position (Am b 46-:356178),of the replacement of the ark (Amb 3p zz9zB3),also ofthe return oftheindividualsoulto a dxed oeetlpation,with God,either with the help of pastoral care (TP 77zB8)or withoutit (Amb g-Io8oCII;zo-lzyoAzol. In the eom m entary on the P atsr Aros/fr M axim us proposes 7 item s as the purpose of the prayer 16:theology,adoptiou by gracea equality w ith angels, partid pation in eterzlal life, restoration of nature im passionately in accord w ith itself, the loosing of the 1aw
ofsin,abolition ofthe tyram ly of the devil w ho eontrolled us by deceit. The fifth and seventh ïtem s interest us here. M axim us expounds eaeh as being ' aecom plished in and by our Lord. The restoration :7 of nature to itself is the perfeet and im m ovable aceord of
nature and the deliberate will (yv4!zn). The abolition ofthe devil's tyranny 28 is the effect of the Passion, the deliberately aecepted physieal deatha by w hich the devil is foreed to vom it forth those he has swallowed. I11 these tlses there .is not the slightest hint of
the apocatastasis in its objectionable sense. *e PN -876CI-7. Z? PN -877D-88oxk. :: P N .-88OC.
Ckaptev VI.Apocatastasis
zI5
W e com'e now to the one expticit treaiment of the danmable apocatastasis, the 13t11 of tlle Qu6stions and D oubfs. It m ust be given in its entirety. ''Since Gregory of N yssa very frequently irt his writings,to us who do not understand the depth of his bigh theory, seem s to suggest the restoration, tell us plemse w hat yeu understand of it. <
falle.n under sin,to that (state) in which they were created. Por it is needful that,ms the w hole of nature in the resurrection of the flesh receives im m ortality at the hoped-for tim e,so also the perverted powers of the soul w ith the passage of ages pttt off the m em ory of wickedness im planted in it,and, traversing a11the age. s nor futdl -ng any stUpping place,eom e to G od who has no lim it. Thus by dear
knowledge (àaûyvfpcw) not by partidpation (pO qlg) in the diviae (goods) the soul reeeives (its) powers and is restored to its primitive (state)and the creatorisshown notto be the eause ofsin '' (QD 13-796)'9. W hat is to be said . of this passage? Exam ples of ' the frst sense
ofrestoration I have given above (p.zl4;cf,p.173 and I$z), .the second calls for ao com m ent. In the description of tlze third sem se M axim us is content to sum m arize .Gregory's 21st chapter in the
De hominis tl/ïJcfp (PG 44.201). Bttt whi!e in Gregory the subject of the restoration is the nature of m an or we in M axim us'sum m ary it is only the pow ers of the soul. r ttrther it is not a com plete sum m ary of G regory's doctrine. 'rhe bishop of N yssa envisages,in the coun e of long ages,the restoration not only of tlle w hole hurnnn raee btlt also of the inventor of iniqulty, the devil H. .M 1 this of course is in virtue ef the Incarnation. Or elsew here he speaks ofthe w iping out of iniquity,w hen all wills will be fxed in God :1.
:9 Vat.gy.2o2o f. 691% (anno 9% ) reads aou fqoiifor rlavrtqo' ilin the title; other variants are of no m om ent. Tllis apocatastasis of the powers
is implied in John ef Seytbopolis'see abovq chap.I note 9.' 39 GREGORY obb N vssA, Cattwh. magna j zts: PG 45,6987-C8. :' G REGORV tm N kessa Ik anim a :/ resuv.: PG 4(i.lozA .
cI6
Th6Ae/lftl/ip. llolOrigenism
It w ould seern clear then that M ai m us has m ade llis seiection. H e refers to the restoration of the soul's pow ers beeausq that of the body he has induded ilz the second type of restoration. Ele-
m ent.s which fle sees to be unacceptable to the orthodox doetrine he passes ove' ritzsiteaee rem arkiug only tlzat Gregory gravely abased this dod rine of restoration. That doctrine which he does report he fnds neeerxsary to distinguish. D aniélou 3: suggests that hl this M axim tls is only following a ltint found in Gregory him self. 17or Gregory does say 3::44Eaeh m alzaccording to the eviland the good in wltich he now puts him self,ittthese sam e will he be found afterwards. I/or he who now goes about in im piety, not living in the d ty nor preserving any sign of hum anity in his life but w illfully being wild and a dog - such a rrlan willthen,fallen out of the city above,be punished by dearth of good things ''. Certninly it is no m ore than a hint;nor does it seem necerxsal'y that M axim us should iw indebted to Gregory for it;it has nothing of the precise eharacter of his own distinction 81. W batarewe to m ake of G e M axim ian distinttitm ? It azows to the evildoers izz the afterlife an èagyvfoclg of good things, but not a partidpatioa therein. Com beis qualifed this solution as subtilior ç' ll/plverior. D aniélou explains ltim self izl a note as:T'In thesetexts one m ay see very d early the dissod ation of the apocatastasis, consisting in mz âxtyvœgsg, a ztaking possession of the organizhzg essences ' ch is the suprem e ideal of Platonism ,and the Chri, . . .whi
stian beatitude,which iscommtmion (p1éêE1kç)with a peaonal God ''. 'fhis is a happy insight of Danidou,azzd fortuaately M axim tts ltim self explnins the two sort,s of knowledge wllich m ay be had. 'rlle oneeonsistsin relations,in concepts and isinnocent ofexperience
and actualcontacttaïgênfnçl with the known object; the other,the true ltnowledge is w itlzout coneepts and is an actual, contactual 3: Dlkxlmmu, RSR 3o (1940) g4($. :1 GRSGORV or Nvssa In Psalmos (ps. 58): PG 44.6084.10-83: ...! 5'rt xe :lxlheeov oî Kvêpttlaok xaxti 'rs . 66 rrovqpùv xatzö xeeivrov, l'v ok ëv vpv W vûzvrttt,l'v sok e ' co'ùg Xa. L p' svlï xafrra ysv/jcowm . *0 ytk v' i: iv ô$'âcefkûaç
xfxlp xevtztqxtlsv,p. ';)êppulxa fov v' zizfdlst,BqDè 'r?:v tlvtlvfûatvov z'al 'roiis:tov pfov gcteax% vftTultitmfkw,tl11fï (kxolnptotslzevog :ttkv'lg xeoapéa clg, xttt x' t sf ov yev6jzevoç,osTog xak' rd'rei'rjg 4vla xôlcfpç lxaogfbv lv Lpf / 'rfiw tiw lf:v xokam'hhcrexlm *G See note z5.
3: DAN' llkrvov, RSR 3o (r94o) 547:.
CkaphyVI. Apocatastasis
zl7
partidpation by grace in the known object. The one is oftllis life and fom ents the desire of the seeond;the secend is of the next life
and excludes the mode of knowledge proper to tllis life (Tha1 6o6zID). 'fhe clray FlAltlu/îafgTthen wbich M aximus allowsto restored sinners rem ains ultim ately a discursive knowledge, quite excluding
them from tlle joys ofunion ;*.
Now there are two of the Questians and Doubts (QD Io,73) which touch on the dillieult text of St Paul saved,ye. / so as by /irdr
(I Cor.3.z3-z5). Let us see what they say of the 1ot of sinners. 4:W ith sinners the works are burned,wbile penetrating know -
ledge (dtdyvolc-tg) burns the consciencealessezls the sin,saves tlze m an,penalizes for the lack of virtue in tim es pqst. But ia the future age the works of sin 55411 pass into inexistence , while nattu'e
receives its powers whole,by fre and judgement '' (QD 73-84$06 848A6).
f'Those who do not entirely possess perfection but have sinful
and virtuous acts (J.pzfpsïigav'a xatxtzsopêfâyaxtl),these come to the place ofjudgement and there by compirison ofthe good and mean tfpaflttwl aetïons,tried as it were by fre,i. f indeed the scale of the good weighs heavier,are deared of putishment'' (QD 10-79205793A2)'1. -
N either of tlzese texts seem to refer to eternal dam nation, lm t
rather to the particuh r judgement ensuant on death and to the evezltual aggregatitm to the good. . 17 lm ve already given above
(p.2o7f,from ep 4,a4,1)Maximus'description thereof;buttlle very purpose and fram ew ork of those descriptions kept them within the two tategories of the sheep and the goats of the Lord's parable.
'fhe êtdyvtt lgkgofthe iirstpassagebutheretranslated (QD 73-84507) I would understand in the light of the ybgvœo'tg of ep 4 (4I6Dz). 36The importance of this distinction is only the more manifest hy thesubsequent explanation of contaôt lcttom jgwl which m akestlte relevance of Thal6o to QD T3 ulzm istakable. 'T1)y-cxm tact (1 m ean) the experience by participation in goods above nature '' (Thal 6o-6z4.A5f). 87A+6 tilm ra# 0/ H nisltment: xlmtlkkovw t 'rlg xolétsefag: Com beis: iusta azzizrzatlversicme pronaqae expiabantug. Tn the note ézv. ' jD) ile says; ve1s' uppticiolïèyrlpfzxe;utestaputlH erod.z.v,xabaloeo' o taovqe v â'eêetz l iatov ve1subintellige &(' zsupplicio,jttyAzl puvgantuv. The :td.rather plemses him as m aking tlzis text a witnessfor purgatonu The sense of the Greek seem s to dem mzd the veo iou I have given whicll for that m atter agree.s exeellently with tke context.
a:8
The
&t#lfld zstlAlolOrigenism
a
There is,fudher,in neither passage ofQD mention ofthe elements of everlasting dam nation, no m etttiotl of separatiotk from Cxod no
m ention of xölagsg usually understood of the torm ents of hell Is it that M axim us Xere envisages a eondition, a state, preparatooe to the delinitive aggregation to the sheep or the goats of the parable? H owever in these passages w e do have an enlightenm ent of consdence in regard to m isdeeds, which willbe done aw ay with Of .
.
theremozseand tormentfollowing upon thisenlightenment in QD Io azttl73,there is no m ention; yet in ep 4 there is vivid m ention
The enlightenm ent eneountered izl QD 13 (for itl both QD 13. and 73 the restoration of the soul' s powersis in question) is ofthe ,
intelligence. N ow if M axim us, urtder the reserve of the distind ion of clear
Axtl' tfll:ffg: and tarticiptdion, aceepts the restoration cd the soul's powers and with it the Gregorian argum ent based on the lilnitedness of evil, there is another of Gregonr's argum ents whieh induces the f ull salvation of tlte persistent sitm er, tite absolute wiping out of sin (for Gregory these would be symonymotts), that does not fm d such aceeptanee. I refer to the Gregorian thesis that since God
willbea11in all(1 Cor.:5.a8)therewillbeno placefor any remnaat of sin. ''So that God, he says, w ill not be all in all if there be , any tbllng ieft of evil '''* 'rhis difliculty turns upon the sense ofin all, and precisely these
words Maxim us sets out (111 ' fhal I5-zp7) to explain as they occur
in a text of the book ofW isdom (Sa'p.Iz.I, z;1.4. The sum of hi
s thoughtin this cxm nection is a threefold distiaetion of the Spirit's presence:in creatures as sueh as under the law and as m lder grace Ttale,in eaeh case he tm derlinestlle operation ofthe Spilit in draving. the rational ereature to the good The faet,however rem ains that , M axim us envisages the presence of tlle Spirit as censervative of the creattlre's existence. In this ease Gregory's argum ent for the Enal annilal'lntion of evil and so the eonversion of every single evildo has lost ita er s force. Sins do indeed pass into inexistence;but it does not therefore follow that the sinners pass into btiss Itt this light .
.
Ae G RSGORY 0%* N vssz t f?z kllud. t Cor. 15.28 :P Q 44 1316D r: efzo're f) ofx iv xlssv poxût ivav &xoleupëg v:xqxôv év Ioïg oèotv' . . .W6 :é aâVXG y(vetrNt:xfw W îkv Tok o'lp,' rö t bxl. o' ih'xaï Izevoet:R ' q g éhm logévng ' lirtlv lqqç ' .
flaoêefxvucu Com pare also De (z.9',71t z nt gzsçzA' r. PG 46.Io4B z3.
Chaptev Ff.Apocatastasis
zI9
the precisionsofep z tsee above p.z()8)with.regard to the relatiens of the dazm zed w ith G od have futter signifk ance.
It willbe worthwhile here,before leavillg QD I3,to ask 0urselves w hat M axim usm eans by f'as the w hole of nature in the resurrection of the desh receives im m ortality at the hoped for tim e. so atso the perverted powers of.the soul w ith the passage of ages put off the m em ory of wickedness im planted ilz it, and, traversing all
the ages nor fndittg any stoppîng placeycozne to God who lzas zm lirait ''. W hat especially does M axim us understand by the passage
0/ agesand the t'wtf)# tkeAzleAzit?ry oj wicksdness. F' iz' st I think that here the parallelism should be noted:tzs...in the redlfrAzc/ftèzl,so...
with tk'passag. t# ages. The generalresurrection which restoresthe flesh will be the m easure ofthese ages. But tlle m em ory ofwicked-
ness? (orperhaps0/ evil, xaxlag). In Gregory (PG 44.2oICI0)this m em ory is the m eans of discipline and sobriety. TIILS is also the
sensepfM axim us ia ep 24-6I2Bz,dted above (p.zo8),tlum gllthere he speaks only of the tim e before the general resunw tion, not, as here, of the state of one-tim e sinners at the resurrection.
In QD 73me have seen tllâtin tlze future age,sinful works passing into inexistence,nattue hasitspowersrestored wllole. Is it that
the memory of sin,having done its purifying work (d.also QD 1tj) passes also away (but ofthfs I am not certain),leaving the subject, as the case m ay be,M'i#.IIm ere discursive k' nowledge of God or with a real participation ? As this passage stands then there is a purgation ofthe pow ers of sinners'souls term inating itza elear diseunlve knowledge ofGod - a doetrine aë rm ing less than the Gregorian apocatastasis, yet refraimingfrom any positiveindicationsofthe pains involved in the im -, plied im participation iu the divitze goods. Perhaps,as in Thal43,
Maximus would honor by silence, i1i this sense at least that he rdrains from a fttller explanation ,of the Gregorian doetrine wlzich
ke then could not but reject, Texts Excluding the .4pocatastasis Btlt now a fm al questioa. Are there to be found ill M axim tts'
workspassagesnob merely statiug orsupposing (sueh we have a1ready seen),but positively propoundiag and defendingthefmality of judgement at deat,h for the condition ofhfdividuals in the afterlife? 'lïere are two such among the Ambigua (Amb 42 and 65).
zzo
Thc A:/l/afït):tt# Gyigodsm One m ight perhaps have expected tlm t in A mb 7, where M ax-
im us refutes the O rigo ist henad and declares w hat w ill be the statr
()/ Iuture things (Amb 7-Io77Bz2), he would have openly rejected the apocatastasis. It is not so. H e developes only the state of the
blessed,noting by the way (Io76CII,Iz) that this bliss is for the worthy. H owever the first of the passages now to be considered oecurs ill the digression refuting the doctrine of the preexistence oi souls, at the beginning of w lzicb M axim us expressly rd ers to the O rigenist henad. N othing is adventitious ilz God, as would be the case if souls should enter bodies in punishm ent for sia;
eaclzthing proceeds according to its logospreexistentin God (Amb 4z-I3z8A). 44()f all things, says M axim tîs a little farther on, that do or stlbstantially exist... the logoi,finnly fxed, preexist in God, in aecordanee w ith wlzieh allthings are and havebecom e and abide, ever draw ing near through naturai m otion to theirpurposed logoi. They
(tlle tidngs) are rather constraled to being and receive,aceording to thekind an2 degreeoftheirelectivemovementand motion, either wem being because of virtue aztd direct progress in regard to the logos by w hich they are or ill-being because of the vice and m otion outof harm ony w ith the logos by w hich they are. Or to put it coneisely,aceording to thehaving orthelaek, in theirnaturalparticipative faculty, of ilim w ho exists by nature com pletely and unparticipated and w ho prosers him self entire sim ply and g' raciottsly by reason of ltis lim itless goodness to all, tlle worthy and the tm worthy, producing the perm auenee of everlasting behlg as eaeh m an oflzim self has
been and is (then)disposed. Fbr these the respeetive partieipatioa or im partidpation of the very being,w ell-being and ever-being is the increase and
augmentofpttnishmettt hkgttxt(tl for those notableto participate and ofenjoymentforthose ableto participate''(Amb 4zI3z9AI-Bg). .
The text is of sueh d arity as to need no glosses. Ill view of the
foregoing discussion however it m ay be perm itted to draw attention
to the term pa.rticipation rtlfhitç and its contrary and what each involves. 'fllis eertainly gives further light on that otller pair, la(-
yvfngtg and géld tg, of QD I3. As the two participations m ay be
taken tobequitesynonymous(vGv rlye t'r sv axd voB xw toç Cvroçxv)) and as there is no m iddle term between participa'tion and im partieipation,the clear àv vo ffge or lxtyvœctç, result of the restoration.
Chapter VI.Apocatastasis
22I
rzm st be com patible with im pal idpation aud the punishm ent it '
a:
tom lm rts .
Tlle passage I have justturned into English isnot isolated. In Am b 65 M axim ttssetsout to explain what is the eighth day whieh is alsotheIirst. Itisthegreatday ofthe seeond com ing. H eeonclades
his exposition Fhus: *%The reighth and the Nrst,rather one only fmst-held day, is the pure, allbright presence of G od com iag after m oving things have their rest,w llo:to those who used,by choice in accord with nattu'e,theiresseutialbeing,grants ever-w ell-being by a fam l'h'ar shadng, as alone very being,.ever-beilzg and well-behlg, indwelling entire iu the entire nzan;butwho to those who deliberately used their essential being out of harm ony with nature assigns in fairness ever-im being instead of w em being. For with them of a ctm trary disposition there was no longer place for w ell-being and
after the appearance of the ùbject of search they are eompletely bereft of that m otion l)y w hich the sought is to be m ade m anife'st
tb the seekers ''(Amb 6j-I39aCz4-DI3). 'I'lle whole of this Ambigaum ,of which I have just given the conclusion,is of great hlterest forourpresent question. V oa Balthasar's use of it in com m enting 'fhoec 1.56 4e did not perrnit him to see, at least to m ention,the very defnite ah rm ation of everlasting
ptm isîm entythough the oeeasion (the eighth day,wthe Sabbatil) was propitious for developing an apocatastatie them e. I stated but a short while ago that one looked iu vain ixt the
great polem ic of Am b 7 agairtst the hvnad for a deEnite exclttsion of the apoeatastasis. 'rhe developm ent there on tlze future state is to be understoed for tlze blessed tm ly, for the w oztlzy. If now I draw attention to the fact that this developm ent is in
term s of being, wem being, ever-wem being (Amb 7-Io73C), there eall 1ye little doubt that the explidt passages on ever-ill being supply as with an essential elem ent of the full 'backgrotm d of. M axim us'thought. 39 Thisfrom the negative sid. e explaius lxlm ftàcw Above (p.zz6f) wftlt the aid.of Tkal 6o we have seen that lztiyvçolw is m erely a clear discursive
knowledge. One m ay cite as irlstauee ofthissense Justiu Martyr Apologia 11 ze,6 tGoopsr%Eo p.86):ztpèç 'Noîh:è Ioîi âm flltrrov tt+rok tpagansl :Mk. lùyev lqvaitstq lalyvtt xlnv zpoA eéxefo. 4*. V oN
BALTHASAR D i6 Gx. Cent.p . zz9.
zc2
?oke /?:/./Jlipa ofOzïr:lfsps
conauston W hat results then from our inquisition ozt the apocatastasis in M axim us? The tensiotl - universality of salvation and etentity of dam nation for som e - really exists in the M axim ian theology, since eitlzer pote is m aintained. M aintaiued in their integrity, yes; btvt not w ith that extrem ism and tm reasonable consequeuee that con verts a teatsion ittto an qntinom y and vontradktion. H eavoids even so m uch as a diseussion of the extrem e of apocatastasis - perhaps not only beeause oftlle futility and dangerousness of stw itdiscussions but also because it w ould have necessitated a refutatio , n of Gregory of N yssa,wlm eonfe sedly greatly abused this doctrine. One caa now ,I think, proftably put the question : of what abuye w as Gzegory ef N yssa guilty in hisapoeatastaticdoctrine?The doctrine w llieh M axim us does present, he presents as eceleslastidal tloktrine; and as sueh Theodore Studite found no dië culty in reaf firm ing it alm ost two centuries later. Then as tlzere is the universal resurrectien,this is to be understood not only of the body, lmt atso of the inteileetttalfactllties. It brings with it then a certain knowledge of God, lmt disjoined from communion with him . Gregol'y, how ever, w ent further, teaehiug that even sinners will eventually com m unieate in the diville goods. 'Phe putting off of the m em ory of sins rem ains obscure This is a rather bare description of the state of sinners. 'l'he other passages of M axim us eom plete it. There are the unesdilzg -
-
.
pangs of conseieaee (ep z4-6IzC);the darkness,grid and torment
but above alla the fellow ship w ith the dem ons, w ith the hatefuland, haters, and still m ore the separation from God and his sa 'ints. Between Cxod and the dam ned there is no hate; for G od is essen .
-
tially love;stillthe fredy chosen separation remains (ep I-389AB) .
Sueh a picture cd the fm alstate ofsinners is only w hat M axim us felt it to be in his own m editation as exprtsssed to his fliiend G eorge; he did not intend there to give a theological sketch. W e m ust be content w ith thîs fragm entao r pieture. Still my analysis, if it be not too far from the m ark, gives greater depth to these words by w lzich M axim us confrm s his teaching of perfect charity tow ard
allm en alike:'fTherefore too our Lord and God JesusChrist, m azti-
festiag hischarity forus, sufered forthe whole of m ankirtd and p anted equally to all the lzope ofresurrection, thoagh each individual
makes himselffiteitherforgloz' y orforpunishment '' (Char I.;x). .
A FTE RW O RD Com e alike to the end ofthis essay and of the labor of revision and of m aking the fair eopy, I realize that throughout there has been a lack of theological thought. It has been m y m ethod to endeavor to plaee the w ork of M axim us in its proper historieal fram ew ork' This is necessary, nor is it yet com pletely done. There is .
yet to be studied the import of his anthropology (and his relations with Qregory), his doetrine of aë rmative aud.negative thcxology
(and ltis relationswith Denis and the Cappadocians), the developm ent of his Chzistology in its relations with the 6th centuoeLaontii azld in its reaetion Mitb llis m onophysite 1and M onopllysite rnilieu. As m y own study has been,these too are studies of details and of texts. Undoubtedly; y:t underlying them are there not greater questions of the developm ent of a proper philosophical aw areness
in theology (already pereeptible in Gregory of Nyssa) whieh distingaishes sedulously between the m oral and tlle ontological developing a m etaphysics of being, wllieh the fadle use of triadic.' scbem es cannot disguise. The positions thus m ailztained, the ontologieal, the anthropologieal, are dosely akin to those fam llz 'ar to lls fn the west. W hat theu are the reasons for so greata diFerence in tonality ? I throw out tw o suggestions. The very tenor of the O rigenist reo tation exaeted a preocettpation w ith the last things wholly congenial to m onastic circles. This has m eant that the w hole of theology tends to be view ed under the form ality of the consum m ation of a11 in Christ. It was this that m ade O rigenism still a live issue a century after its eondem nation. Even at the Cotm eil of Florence the purgatorial fre of the Catholies was a dië culty beeause of apprehension for a resuscitation of the Origenht errorâ.
z On tltis monophysite (with sm all -) Ch. MOSLLSR com ments in his note (Epkemerides F/ltlt?ftlgfcl: Lovqn. 29 (19552 655) aeeeptiug Honigm ann's identification of D enys w ith Pete.. r the Iberian.
2 BESSARION Responsio GA' /zlrTJrl/#Fl t%61 jhfMifitllzr- Latinfw*m 4 in .!M trologia (lrïyntalis z5.63:-39.
zz4
Ap6rword Or again,oae m ay say' .M axim us is a m ystietheologian. Grant-
ed; and the m ajority of Byzantl e theologians were just that,nor their works the products of teaching in the schools and tm iversities. Such a situation w as but m ade the securer by the vietory of the Palam ite tendencies in the 14th century. And the authorities that Gregory Palam as especially alleges in the fam ous Tom' us fft#gioriticus? M acarius and D enis' bttt it is M axinltts alone whom he cites :. I cart do no m ore than pose the question. In a word,I tilink students of M axim us w111not com e fully to know their author untila not only recognizing llis sources and forertm ners,they also know wlzat his sueeessors drew from him and how they too ât into a living tradition. 'ro know these things will be in that very fact a help in understanding tlte diferenees between the B yzantine and w estern theologies T o m lderstand these diferenees in their sources and reasons w,111 rettder m ore feasible that, though w e are not ôyöyloltm otyet w e m ay once m ore be ôgöxtgtol4. .
.
* * *
Tile Poreword,written on the Iath of D ecember 195,3' ,-
'fhe Afterword on the 12th of M arch 1954,the feast of Gregory the G reat,the D ialogist.
$ Tom . H ag. PG z5o.I2z8D9 = Am b Io-iz4:A zsf' z2z9C8-D6 = Am b 20-1237. 8 ;T. H . zz3zD 7-xs = Tkoec I. 'so-llolAzI-B8; T . H . :23921.z-12 =w: Thoec :.48 4p-zzooD zp tzorA.4; ef.D iç (7Al. Cen:on '1*hoee 1.48. 4 Cf. ILSI :3-128C,
IN D IC k? #S ' 1. INDEX olp M AxlM us CITA' rIoNS II. INDSX or N AM ES
111. lNp1!x okt SIJBJIX TS 1V . INDEX oF G RSSK W olkras
1. IN DEX OY M AM M U S CITATION S M az m us' works ar'e arranged alphabetically Passages translated are 'distinguished by an asterisk. .
Am b 1-1036Q
164
Am b 2-ro37CII* . . 1o37Cz. z-I)3*
fI3 1I3
Am b 5-zo,f8A7-B z*
II4 I66 I66 1131:
10528 6-9* Io .5: JB I1-14 . Io ,56B Io
Am b 7 -
. . 72f. 1o69A Io-I5 . 924: zo69B z-z3* . . . . z85 zo69B I3-Cz2* 185f.,:8511 zo6gczz-loyzA zo* z86f. 1o69C9-Iz* . I97 1o72A lz-I4* 96f. zozzB
. .
Io3
:o7cB9-C5* 1o72B9ff.* to7zc4f. . . zovzozl-l4* to73B5 . . zo7aB7-II lo73B z4* . to7:BI5 Io73Q 1o7:C7 . . .
98 zxo Ioo 89 I97 Ioz 128 I97 zzI 914:
lo7:Cp-D 4* rog:D 4 ' Io7:D 5
za9 z3o z5o11
zo76A ,076h 5 . . zo76B Io-Qz: . 1o76B zo-C )g* to76CD . . :o76C zI.I2 lo;7AB
9o z362* 96 r29 IzI aao z3o
96 Am b 7-:07785-9 22o zo7yB I2 . . I89 to77B z.3 . '. 167f. zog7CIf.* . . z68 lo7yC-zo8oA 2 I69 zo8oA z-B zz . . Io8oB II-xo8IA 5 I69 zo8ocl; . 2I4 zo8IA 5-E 8 I7I To8IB8-I5 172 Io8xB zoff. I79 zo8zCg-7* , I72 Io8IC7-Ix* . I73 zo8ICz4-D a* I73 Io8zD 9-II* I73 9$10 Io84A z-:* , 1084+ 6-14* . T74 Io84BI-7 . z;4 zo84B C . . z65 1o84CI5-D c* . z75 zo84D a-Io85A 6 z75 Io85A. C8 Iô8 zo85A zJf . :757* zo8,C3-6* . . I77 zo86C6-Io89A3* z3of. 1088C14 131: :088D 6 :3319 1088D 8 . . 1362: zo89A 5-C6* z87f. zo8pB lz g51: Io89C8-Iz 96 zo97C . . . . . z77 llooA -llolo . 7z 19841 A m b 8- ïIo5B zo :94%
A m b Io-tzo8B C . IIo8CI-3
z5o I5o
zz8
Index ()/ M axîmus Citations
19539 Am b Io-zzogc6ff.. IIzzD f. I43 4:1xB 5=lo* T43 zzz3B zo-cz* 144 IIIJCI r4. 4:: zIzzl)c :94. % III6B z5 . 19434 Izz7B 8 . . 1284, 14.7' 12 1IIS3A -II3' /C I44f. Iz:6C4. . . . :a.5e* II37B zz- C6+ ' :45 zz37B 14 z5o:1 Ir37D -z141C 15:f. Iz4oA sf. . I-SIB: Iz4oA 7-B g* :5z zI4oA x5 1284 Io4oA ls Iz8* II4zB r4 . z5z51 lI44A zo-.B 2* z5z :z4s)B 1284 I14986 . :470 zI49CT3f. J52 z:6517 :968: TzpttA 4 !9. 7 zz84B zo-zz zo7 Iz84D 9-z185. 1.3 . log
A m b z5 . -z2I7A
.
.
72 (y I5
12zzck-D zo
Ioyf.
z2z7Ct$-:4* z2z7D zI-I3* IzzoA . . z22oA 2-5 ' IzzoB c zz2zB
954: IIo zoz z3:1: 94 z:4. % .
A m b z7-I2255-:228C
r4' a
A m b ao-I2: $6D f. I2: $7A zc-B I.3* zz37R 6-Io* zz37B8-zo . zzgzB zo 12 .37(26-. 13 . zzlrcza-b ,3 1c37D : 3..4) IzzjoA zo zc4oB 4
r3z Igz Izo 1o8 zaz zaz z3z zazf. zz4 :45:8
.
A m b 21-124987
1z84
r2528 Io
20714
A m b z4-z2($zC.z-8 IZ-D t* ' Am b 26-1:651712:. I268A If. 1268A 13-82 A m j) 3y-zapgo szgo.x .
zo9 165
A m b a:-zz88A .
144:8
A m b 36-:28962 A m b ;' 7-zz92B3
z65
.
A m b 42 .. -1328A.. . . 1329A.:-8 7* 1329* -R 7 1. 32917 . 1336C 12-14* '34ID l-6* :: 5458 13159 13-15* A m b 4s-zastgB A m b 46-z356178
T22 I11
214 72 2z0 .17:,22O I65 I68 I12 I65
165 2O2 z ro
z,4
A m b 53-13738 .
zog11
Am b 6o-I38jB .
1443819631
Am b 65-1:89C-:3f)38 1j;9a.A.. za$)zB 8 zgf pzczzj-D za*
:4. /4: ao2 aoz
za:
Am b 6' Jr-z4.ooD f. I4OZA B
:64 :9527
Am b val-z4I9C .
z.54 I65 1o81B
cap ie,3-I1z8B . .5-1I8oA . Cltarprol- tp6oA . ehar 1.zo I.zI z.zz . t.z9* .
z.z9 z..56 z,57
z4z
z4o z4.o z4o z4o z4.j zo7 zo7
Index t# M aximus Citqtions
.
Char :.7T . . . . . . . . 2z2 1.86* . . . . . I4o 1.94 . . . . . . , . I4o :.97 . . . . . . . . I4o z .lo o * . . . . . . . 9549 2 .6 . . . . , , . . . 14o 2 .z8 . . . . . . . . :4o 2 .34 . . . . . . . . 2O7 'o 2 .47 . . . . . . . . 14 8 1o 2.4 . . . . . q. I . 6z . G y4 4Ia1 2.52 61 . . . .129 , 3 I4O 2.
. . . . . . . ,
3.20 . . . . . . . . I4O
6 6:ç y 9 :5250 3 .25 IQ9 , 13 , 4 ' ' 17469 3.44,45* . . . ' ' . 141 3.66 . . . . . . . . 14o 5.67 . . . . . . . . l40 3.71 . . . . . . . . I4O 3.97 . . . . . . . . I4Iaz
ep a5-6,3s
. . . . . . , z443.
, . . ' ' - . ' ' ' ' I7O 7-39 ' ' ' ' . ' . 2GZ M yst 12. 4-693846. . . . . . zo71Q 23-701A . . 7O'B I3 . 70IB C . ?0ZC6-13 7010 . .
. . . ' .
.. . . .. '* . .
' I64 . . I33 . 15O ' 1332 . I46
24-717*7 . . . . . . 1284 PN 8760 1-7 877D . 89:C9 . gooc .
.. . . .. . .
. . . .
. . . .
, . . .
. . . .
. . . .
2I4 196*% 194:4 I97
PS 59-857* . ' ' . . ' . 2O9
QD 10-79225-793A2* . . 2l7 13-796* . . . . . . . 2I5 13-796. . . . .769 219,22o
.. .. . . ..
. . . .
. . . .
19485 I4o r74* : E40
-
252B1I . . 1281 147*
37zB5 . , . . . . . 1$ 051 388D 6-389C. 2* . . . zo8 :89A 8 . . . . . . , zz2
257A E,2D . . . zI2 26oA 6-z5* . . . zIa vsu ,- z6ga , . . . . . , ::4.
ep z-464A Iz . , . . . . . 1443%
Th< 2-272. . . . . . . . I65
ep 4-416A , . . . . . , . zo7 416D : . . . . . . . zz7 4z6D 8-4I7A z*. . . . zovf,
ThZ II-z93B4 , . . . . . Th al z:-z9:D -z96ztz:* . , 2968 . . . .z4âH T hal 15-297 . . . . . . .
aozle
T uaj a:-o ztks v
ayy
ep 6-4298 . . . . . . . . 19g 43zA * . . . . . . . z9a 4. 32A.8 .I::2, zp4, :94. 24. > 195::
'
73-84526-848A6* . . 2I7 u;y 5-:zoAB . . , . , , 7z z3 I28C . . . . . . . zz4 'rhalprol -2. 52B8-Cz* , . I95
ep T. , . . . . . . . , . 19/1 -
v
LA
4.6. . . . . . . . . :5oE1 4,8. . . . . . . . . I40
.. .. . . ..
'
ep z4-6fzB I-4* . . . . . 2O8 6I2C7-1I* . . . . . 2@8 612C . . . . . . . 22z
3.99 . . . . . . .x4o,zz41 4.9*-. . 4.47 . . 4 .7o . . 4 .77 , .
'
229
, ...
z76f, z65 2I8
eP 7-4368 . . . . . . .1123r94: : ' e 12-501A 14 . . . . . 194:E 1:8 .
Thal 22-317D 10 . . ... . 20911 3209 7-321* 12*. . 134 '
ep I9 . . . . . . . . . . zo, 5B - 593B I-5* . . . , . )FI3 593. 11 . . . . . Izz. I5I5'
j$aoD 8 . , , . . zg4* (. J20D 9 . . . . . zg4ql 3zoD lg . . . . . z4:0
3zoD 7,12
. . . . I3319
'
z Jo
.
Index ol M aximus Citations
Thal zz-azIBg*
zg4f.
3zzB z . Thal 25-.332C.:J-:3* 3.3cC6 .
zo9l7 z<.s z.s1R
333. 1.5 . . k
'rhoec r. ,56 . r . 8:. Z.83.84 2 'I
19434
TP f-9A .
333C :4-175* . I46 333D r . . .z4' ;4s, z5z53
9A 8 :2Q z6C* I7C I7s
T hal 39 3938 ,
14713
T hal . 4.2-.405217
r' p6al
T hal 43-409D . . . . 4I2A I.3-B z* . 4I. 3A I,3-B * Tl lal 54-5258 z4
z12 2Iz zxa aojg7
T lzal 59-6o9Cz Thal 60-62IA R fk'zlA lo 62zB I 6azD 6:417
20917 ï7o v' yo :4,/4: 2z' p
-
149 zm zzg36 85:1
624D 5-9 6z5A .5* 625. *.8
Tizal 5z-. 6: $: ?A :444. T ital 63 668C8 . zog'? 67.3f27-D : . , ï47 67:17:-676.A 2* z4g 6 yaD zof1. :471: 'Ph al 64-7ooB8 . zo9l? 724e13 , , . zyI 7:, 50 :44:6, 1.94 Thal 65-,. /5. /08-760A. p.j z57Czo-76oA zzz .
-
.
.
Titoec 1.2.3.$0
Ioyf.
I .2,4 I .3*. T.3 .
1o9
1 .10 .
Io9
I.39.
.z84
Io6 lzt z
24013 29Cf. . 29D 338 7-C2* 33A 4, . : $: 301I--x,:$ . 332:3* ' ' 33C14-36A 2* 7 .. .36A. 36Cz3f. T P g 45D -
2 2I
194. 3% 169 7 :0810
I53 954: . . . zo .57 . zo! 5z coz 19683 20 2ö4
9549 ZO5 196% 1I5 203 13214 135 )35 I4743 l22
It)V
T P 7-7aBf2 8oA 85A. 4.
T P 9-zzzA a-8* z32B9-:z T P Io-I37A a-zt* . v s y4 yjaa .
T P :6-180(29 . z85D .. t9zA . ,9.3.1. . zqaljzzw z+ 2OOB8-C2* 'rp ao-
as6ru-za
TP c8-3o8C .3o8D (s:4D . 3z. 5A 9 . 3 3, /5 . . 35zA z,3 .
1I5 :05 I66 zo1
15rH (o5? 1963: zo3 JI4f.
zo3f. 195:1 I66 I74O 204* I511: 1281
Intlkx t)/ N ames
z3I IT. IN D EX 0 17 N AM ES
A r.SX&NDSR A PHROD.99f., II1*Y, I23 A MPIH LOCHIUS,155,16o A NASTASIUS 'PHP: SINM T/ Al8.
ANDRSW, Comm entator W Denis I18 A lustrcfrtfls 4: $. 99, t1I A RNIM , H . vf)N 15715 A RNOU, R . 9243 1241 ATHANASIUS I56
BALTHASAR, H . U . V' oN 43, 63, 6827 7z, 75% 88 Ioz xo43 1o6 1069 !09, zI7, 1:$7, 14743 167:: :6. /*: I685: z756% I751* 1.780 I78 :9421 l94O 205,207,20915 2 t(7 22I 2:43. EAxozls'z I18 BARDEIN MISW IR, 0 . 87:7
BARDV G. 513 6, 75% 78, 19323. B ARSANTJPHIUS z2, 77 B ASIL O1?CA/SAREA 9,155, 15bf., I7 1, 183.
B'KM
G. 16858
Ba sAluox az3: B om rz, H . z2z
BoNlirsyov,J. P.87 B oussstt,W . Iz41 Baov, L . 55
BRIJNS,J. 18816 Caolou, R . I9,3%3 CAellvvxs, M . 3o CII: IVAT. J. sR, PH . 1:8 CE LIM SN' . I' OF ALEX ANDRIA z7, 168, I76 QoM lm n s F. 1931* 19518 196BZ'116 ?I7311 : Cvpaztcv s 84:8 Cv' m r.ov AAEXANDRIA 15I CYRIL tàlê SIN A IOPOI'IR 83, I75O xtls OF ANSXANDRIA I13:7 ,G z D v h
DMqltrœov J.5111 14541 2090 21019 zI6.
D/ GCIBBRT,J.16345
D s LatBluotf osz P. 1241 D s L UBAC, H . I7989 lllsNls oF ALSXANDRIA z19 D sNrs ttltll 'SEUDO-A Rb;OPAGITS 3, z1418 )C24. 1. I4844 I5352 I77f., I80 ; f47O ; CH .3.kl z45 ; zz.a zo4; zJ.4 : E H 2.. ( rz4l8;2.3,I.t45 ;. 2.: $.4 I4743; 6.z Iz4l; 6.3.I Ia41; D N a.9 IoI, fz41'4.I zo4 ; $31: I9.5:6' 3.2 1zo ( :.: 4..7 93; 4.rt z474z' 4.: '2 :331: :-15' . 4.23 f04., * 5.5-7 169, 173, '5.6 :730 ' 5.8 I75; 8 .2 I4743; Ir.6 r6856' M T (5521'tp.4 l13'7 I.I 147*8;tp ..3 : D s SEt' rls 87 D svlœ sssE,R .48 17IBâ D uw Mu s oF A LEXANDRIA 84, 155z 157
blsKM m 12 79 D lsozsR,M .*.PH ,2f. :4713
D oDos, E.R 69 7 10151 Iz97 :.331: D oMâxsxz B. zI5:' col'l
DltissKs,J.47 R RRH AR D , A . I18
E RIGENA zf..7z E UNOMIUS GY CMZK US 44 E' tlslm trs oF Cu sxttsA 79, l56 E VAGRIUS PONTICUS 9, 2I, 37, 63, 76f. 84f. 85O Ioo lz4l :.J797
z38f. 1E4In 1481% I5:/7 z05 P IJNK ,F.X . 15.5. z59
GAD H J. 198*1 I99f.,2O6 2oPB G sta slus, m onk 78, 7991 84* G SORGS or B M SHAN II9f. GF/ARGR H I/ROMNEMON, see Pachy-
GSRMANUS 1, patyiaych 1I8 G ILsoN,E . I241 GM GOIW N M IANZBN 75, 77, 79, zzID z3I,155,183,208D ,20811 zIo GR/GORY OlêN YSSA 5I,60 77, 914* :5,:* xz41 z3414 z4844 z55, z57, zgz, :9841 2ol 207, 2I5, 2I8f.
:, 32 -
I' ttdnx of Namos
Editors ofgo
G RUMSI?,V .2o5 G IJILLAUM ON' I', A . and C 74% 8530 f372B
N ONNUS 75, 8428 O SIR SR, F . z z1 :8711 ORIGSN 37.I73, 176, I83, I9If.,19841
coo,214, .DtPvincipiis :,3.8 1823; H ARNACK , A . :7.57: I-IATJSIU RR, 1. 745, 771: fz4z Is7, '4Og I484* I9528 H slxlseH ,P . 1685: H saoo otptTs cz7a7 H lsRo'rHltls 74 H tlzw , K . I.55ff., t64
P AQHVMSRIS z18 PANttzksx' fls z7, 1:51. PsAztstlN , J. I:8
H omq',G.145
Ps1tx,Q.1I9,l7, 7%
.
1.6.2 87, * 2.1.1 73. * 2.3.3 184; 2.8.3 z812, . 2.9.z z8.34. : $.6.5-9 sm a ' f. 4 Iosus 8.a zzof.
IRSNAIUS I5t5 IVANKA, X .VON 86, I241, l7ô71,I9942
Pltlt'o 13319 14841 14918 :68.8 zgq PJIOCAS BAR SFI RGIUS II7 CI' IOW US 4f.
JAMBIJCHUS ïo3
m sjasu g.441: PIXAUVQ K ,34X4
JOHN.béshot t?/ Cyzicus 6.7,3f). JOIIN f/t: Hssyobm t84 JOHN the . I7r6' #/;:/77
PI'AGNY UX'J.3411 PLXYO 85' 94., 19421 PVOYIXUS 85, 94, 1241, ' Enttet'ds
Joltx ov scvwlolyoras 75f., zil4.a
1.:-. 3 940' 3.7.2 94* , 3.9.91 921:,
TI7fg, Joltoax ,H ..51:
4.8.I 9651> . 5,z.6'5 9447;6,z,z13 I3T9' > 6.2.82e-% 94' ' 6.3.27%8 94, 960. '6'7.
JUSIINIAN 22 73, 7711., 85ff. IS1 -
zo7: K OCH ,H . rz4l 14743 15153 L EHM AN'. P. 7I LSISIGANG 1-1.1.685* , L RON' m TJS ol l BYZANTIUM 60 83, IG2 L
SRUSMWM I6z I EONTIIJS (W JI A QT J V N, Y . l :8 L l' W S, R . 14511 L oossN , J. 1 0:9 I74O L ossltY, V. :67*1 I7061 I77f.
35'91Z%'6.9.SO 94,$ 1*31,6 9.91? 96* , 6.9.Iz1n 5 94 ' . 6.9.114>45 94 PITUTARCH 11571 PRAT F . z8.3f. PR>N TIGIS, G.L. 15511., 1634E ' paocfx s E l nme j Theology 6817 7 nts o 1: 93, 104, 129 , 13. 3 , z43pa, :474: psjçtm o- A ra xAxpslz A PHROD. r8816
psstm o Basm , see D idym us -
Psstm o cvltlr: 163, :66, :68* :76::, ï77 Pssvpo- lm zu s,see D sytis ' tauyxx It ()t4. :4, /4a -
.
YARZCXAL' 5. I241
PYRRHUS II3,15Iö2' I66 p vvsaooRAs 85
M MGIN,J.zzo M ICHAFL OF APH SE QSUS 1881: M ICUAUI), E .zo5J zfa9 M M OYLLER,CYI, 751, 88O 7zz31 ' UImRR,G. .156
Rxuxszt K . 1241
M ARSK , P .S . 71B
M TJYLDIRIU NS,J. 1O0
R EES s 8836 S . m chap .o M . 25 3p, 83 88 . R oouss, R . zo41
SABAS 75 SAJDAK,J. 1f.
N sMssrt;s 817 6o 9t pz 1z5û1 19r z 2oz, SCHWARTZ E .7713,7814
zo3
S8NICA 1870
Inifix oj u sx#jTc/s
c, ).)
i
S/RGIUS,patvo t' clt 13: $19 SHsRw ool), P . I17 SIMION 'rls f.Z F' 0(m 87 Snfetacrcs 99 Srx KO, l%. w z, 6, 4If.
Szxttus,popn I:9 SMYTH, H .W . I87:: SolaHao- tls,monk 78,79:1
Sopm toNlus,patviarch 9 SG HLLN, 0 . I751* S' rm x,E.77S
STAPHANOU,E . 19841
S' It IG:MAYR,J. I19
'lNavI.oR, A , E . 944* THEODORE ol? R AITHOU 88 THSODORE ol? SCYTHIIPOLIS 83 T> orlolts STTJDITS 2o6 ' l*HEioD oRs' r z57 'l> ozaHm us oe ALSXANORIA 75k U SBSRW EG, F . 1881% V lu sR, M . 1241, 13727 14139 I4zS1
W m sw tptkM , A .A . 97:2 ::841 W OLIY ON, H .A . ï3319 124. 94* 168:8 I798%
111.INDEX 0F SU BJECTS Abraham 37 Am bigua,seeoncl edition of 39,4I A pocatastasis 71, 76f. 80 88, 2051 A ttirbutes divine 147, 149, z5 l B ecom ing,genesis 97:2 Being,triatlof 6717 I71,zoz,22ï Charity I54,zzz Choice zo !, zo3 in Christ :96:: Christ, substantial virtue !73 Cllristology 1t$6, 19(33: 201-. z03
Conjectures of 3 'faxiulus 7 Contenzplation lzatural z6 Qoclkes of Gregory Nazianzen 41 Creation,double 5I,914b Cyelic view of worlfl process 86,9752 Ileath descriptions of 2ovf.
Denis and Evagrius ' com pared Iz4l, z53:7 .
Desire for Gotl z9,64 -
insatiable :881*
Devil salvRtion of a15 D iabaa' is k J:, ( 3.5
Dionysian vomabulary 9
Ellergies,uncreatcd g.5zê Evagrius,doctrine of 1. 38ff. and Denis com paretl :24.1 I5357 and Plotinus :241 . Evil,experieucc of 9o, z86 Exem plar z.5o Pixedness I92 F reedom atzd surfeit 490, 1f)7 ba Chrlt 2o4 - for ûkigen I83 FreeMdz Iz9, 198,. Genesis 97:2 Gnom ie w ill zor 2c)3
H enatl of rational beings 73, 76,85, 9o -
itlits m oralM peets I83
Ignorance of G od :4844 of created essences I49 Im age and.likeness 1' F4 Im m utability 196 Inftnity 9.54: 1474:
Joy, as Stoie concept 1871:
Judgement,fllalzo6ff. K nowleflge, theory of I4.IB1
Elias 4o,68 End,defned 98,Ioo distingttislze; from term 9. 54%
Iyaw ,written and natural 35 Logos doctrine defense of I75D.
234
Inh
Xogos doctrine, history of z6856 l to expounfl zt pl , neet - - and Origenism r57 , poss ible contradiction in and w esterzt theology z78 Logos-tropos 1555 * c ttse of z5715 , Stoi
Origenist m yth r84, zpo Ozigen's text in M axim us 886.
-
Palam ite tendencies 9541 :68* z24 Participation zz5f., 218 zzo Passage of ages 2zq Plotinus anll Evagrius zz41 Pyaxis and theovia : 54:4
.
-
M axlm usz ' ase ef :646, Logos and c'reation z69 -
-
,
.
.
and the henaclï67 and witlsom ,68
Logoi of ereatures, preexistent $69f.. czo
not eternally realhed in Cxod 17z as divine wllls z75f.
-
% V S' l4biects
.
Prayer T4o Preexistence of souls, see souls Pzeseace of Cvcd in creaturev zI8 Puttishm ent,eternal88 zo7
Rapture I3zf., T4oa z5:J .
.
R est m otion and gaf,
m ultiple zf%ozzzo,z;u,z77
-
Salvation universality of cof; safiftx ' See Jlr/lff M auuscripts of tlze .dm bigua :f. e & 29,91O I7o z74 z77, z8g ''f0#6' readings from zaf ao ga #1 4, se . , , a . konasts of o ex s :ry. 44, 4b, 48, 49, oo, I8;,1z. pu/ gy. se. !.kpttuv ejjatjous, irj the vjm bigua zozo 4:, zrsta: pu /, gp.Jvo;7'ay. S Sepwlclwizo ye , x e pgog ggg p.z7 . M elelziselleelz Jg ' - zG6' *.1.26 81;2.9 z,r.z.p :z 8ç). p 3; 4z >.a g. , -V. 16.5 89; z8.2 Ig6 p. M iror 14 5 .
Y*/. I.4 2I8; 9.r, 2 z68' zz z a'
.
M oses .57 ajo Mb , )8 tion, de tralfne ford M(' axfm us zo9 C*D , and rest 9: - M otiens of tbe soul L4s M otives lists of 4$2 M ovkclel' tt everlastflzg t().4:4
azjj. zacy' za.z j;; j,.yoggs,t y.t y. (ozag. '
M tut' 7*Y3 I771 :5.32 6P8.z: a. 3c1 190, 25.46 82, 88' zop; Luc. z6. o 19-2% 1: 79;Jytl1. T.z. ( z7.,; A ct. zy.a: 174 ;R om . 1.20 I76' I Cov g. za-y5 QTZ; 150.JT . T. 3. 3, * zz.g z46; zj.2éy
.
.
.
.
yyutabilityaof m an z8 ? T8.4. zs y, yq y .
.
N nm es im osition pf zaz , p N aturaleontem plation, m otu s of z44 N aturaloperation in r roclus zo.4 itz M axim us Io -
x atural win zoz 5
old m an ss Operataon im m auent aud transient , 1Iz13 .
- > l' latllzal
genism 7f. , val fdfty of M ' axfm as refutation of ,4,7.' . Orîgeufst knora ao-aa, -
8,
zyjj. ja ctjs.yzo jjy;y yy.y,yyj,tyt y. ,
cw ygjyzu .agyzzo.j g zjx .a,yyy .
à?7' 'H ebt'7.3 à5I s'eisf'ettrelhlatfot 1981. -sjfquivi lliz 2O2 ce, eosterfe a,o
siu wjs ug out ofz,y,-azq
sonda , rïty of m auu : t,u zoo K mis, exercise of powers zzza a zsjl:, - 'f'Om aferidlity of z9a . / pre. aun post-exfstence of zz zg -
79f 8z 976% '' :
' '
Stoic doctrine z qgu zqraa suffer tlte djvi-ue ' yolf'' zz8# za,' I 4% .
suj)e? r-a,ct 1i 5 v3ity coutrastofzgal:
fndex ()/ Gvesk Tsrorffs Supernatural distïllct from natural Traustiguration the 35,tszf. 169/. t7Lj,178 Tree of good auclevilzz2 . T riad aud Christology x4:3f . -- in Origen 92 bting. wise, tzfftz 145 - being, tpéqlî-àheïAzjf e:terlasting being 674: I7. . r aot z zzz 'Pext' im provem eqts in see plfzA2f. :' ' ' Triads am biguity in 1Io nvlêlpt. b . ' Ixrinfty' 44 5, I64f. J . 'rheandric energy t66 'rheology,athrm ative Jsf., ( $8 virtue substantialSIIIB I7.3 ne gat i ve j 494 8 za g , Tom us H agiorilicus zz4 W i11 natural arld gnoznic 2oz
Surfeit 88 9o t)3 generation of I88 ineoncd vable zo4 in Origen î81 -
-
-
-
IN DP:X OF GRSE K W ORD S âstxtvngla 19424 arti lvtog 88
fksozrtcffttTtbv Jwoctpaftw 741
:éou z3z'4 135, 144, I46 ëztmfykg 14.53: 14.559
rkacz et. a 50, .51, 62 ârteteltz 9549 Krœw ov 14743 tkrgoyévEokç 58 &fqew g IoI fkoxévçoç :34:1 âw fs p ttt .53 çtahcâlxtov 98 atrrsvéf/ynlov 42 ulho'rsléç :8 Ioo
vdnBl 43 vtyeqgw 4.: $
6z in qp. rz zob, lo9 :t rvttpkg'zzz ôfwtigkç êexxtxn' ltrzl:
lxe:tm go'ç ( 26 (yxértog zpo, xp4, )76, z87 l' cokzelfzlctg 46
vldoç D xw 57 sl l xflw 57 'rta4êsta 56 êvéeyetu 47, 96, t?8, I1I13 I2z Ia85 i lvéeynp. tt 49, I14 zpolg 63 ' êalyvtocw az5-22o értlvaltç t aol
o' twetoffop; 48 gthltrvtklh tc 5o *
ôlzoftt Aow 57, 1525 : . of?tytct, ' lz. tç, évéeyi:su 1(z: a
aavuoéppcpa 7o xéplg 95* aölog 63 xotdm zsoH
g' ôhtjsttjta 7o oyvvtqs 4
.reoir n' l z9,3H qlooti. 4z tpabgw 1,52n
