Chıistopher Stead
Doctrine and Philosophy in Early Christianity
Alius, Athanasius, Augustine
Ashgate VARIORUM Aldersh...
99 downloads
1246 Views
5MB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
Chıistopher Stead
Doctrine and Philosophy in Early Christianity
Alius, Athanasius, Augustine
Ashgate VARIORUM Aldershot
Burlington USA Singapore Sydney
1
This edition copyright © 2000 Christopher Siead Published in the Variorum Collected Studies Series by Ashgate PubtishingL imited Gower House, Croft Road, Aldershot, Hampshire GU11 3HR Great Britain
Ashgate Publishing Company 131 Main Street, Burlington, Vermont 05401-5600 USA
CONTENTS Introduction
Asbgate website: http://www ashgate com
I
ix-xviii
Greek Influence on Christian Thought
ISBN 0-86078-830-X
175-185
Early Christianity Origins and Evolution to AD 600 festschrift in Honow ofW.HC Frend, ed I Hazlett London 1991
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data Stead, G.C (George Christopher), 1913 Doctrine and Philosophy in Early Christianity: Arius, Athanasius, Augustine (VariorumCollected Studies Series; CS224) 1 Christianity-Philosophy. 2 Philosophy, Ancient. 3 Theology, Doctrinal-History-Early Church, ca 30-600 Title. 189
II
The A p p r o p r i a t i o n of the Philosophical Concept o f G o d by Early Christian Theologians: W Pannenberg's Thesis Reconsidered English Translation of Die Aufnahme des philosophischen Gottesbegriffs W. Pannenberg's neu bedacht', Theologische Rundschau Tubingen,
III US Library of Congress Control Number: 00-100058
VIII
1 Oxford,
1994
Patrística
32
Leuven
.39-52 1997
of Theological
Studies
36
153-157 Oxford,
198.5
The W o r d ' F r o m N o t h i n g ' Journal
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences - Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39 48-1984 ( g ) ™
24-36 45 pt
A r i u s on God's ' M a n y W o r d s ' Journal
VII
Studies
Was A r i u s a Neoplatonist? Studio
VI
140-150
Abramowski
A r i u s in M o d e r n Research lour nal ofTheological
V
These 1986
M a r c e l Richard on M a l c h i o n and Paul of Samosata Logos Festschrift in Honour of Luise ed HC Brennecke et al Berlin, 1993
IV
of Theological
Studies
671-684 49, pt
2 Oxford
1998
The A r i a n Controversy: A New Perspective EPMHNEYMATA CEp\n\\'Z\)\xa%a) Festschrift in of Hadwig Horner, ed H Eisenberger: Heidelberg 1990
Printed by St Edmundsbury Press, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
V A R I O R U M C O L L EC T ED S T U D I E S SERIES CS684
i
Í-18
51-59 Honour
CONTENTS
CONTENTS
vi
IX
K n o w l e d g e of G o d i n Eusebius and Athanasius The Knowledge of God in the Greco-Roman World, ed J Mansfeld et al Leiden, 1989
X
Athanasius' Earliest W r i t t e n W o r k Journal of Theological Studies 39, pt 1 Oxford
XI
229-242
Athanasius als Exeget
Christianae
St Athanasius on the Psalms Vigiliae Christianae 39 Leiden 198.5 W h y N o t Three Gods? The L o g i c of G r e g o r y o f
A u g u s t i n e ' s P h i l o s o p h y of B e i n g The Philosophy of Christianity, ed G Vesey. 1989
PUBLISHER'S NOTE
71-84 Cambridge
1-14
Publication
Augustine's Universe Fir st Publication A u g u s t i n e ' s De Maghtro:
1-13
A Philosopher's V i e w
63-73
Signum Pietatis Festchrist in Honour of Cornelius Petrus Mayer, ed. A Zumkeller. Würzburg, 1989 A u g u s t i n e ' s De Maghtro: XIX
This v o l u m e contains x v i i i + 294 pages
149-163
The I n t e l l i g i b l e W o r l d i n P l a t o n i c T r a d i t i o n , First
XVIII
1-7
65-78
M a r i u s V i c t o r i n u s and A u g u s t i n e
XVII
255-269
1982
Studien zu Gregor von Nyssa und der christlichen Spätantike, ed H R Drobner and C Klock (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 12). Leiden 1990
XVI
D i v i n e S i m p l i c i t y as a P r o b l e m for O r t h o d o x y The Making of Orthodoxy. Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick ed R Williams Cambridge 1989
Index
233-250 36 Leiden,
Nyssa's T r i n i t a r i a n D o c t r i n e
XV
XXI
The Scriptures and the Soul o f C h r i s t i n Vigiliae
XIV
303-320
174-184
Athanasius
XIII
L o g i c and the A p p l i c a t i o n o f Names to G o d El 'Contra Eunomium I en la producción literaria de Gregorio de Nisa, ed L F. Mateo-Seco and I L Bastero Pamplona, 1988
76-91 1988
Christliche Exegese zwischen Nicaea und Chalcedon ed. J. van Oort and U. Wickert Kampen Neth 1992 XII
XX
A n Addendum
A u g u s t i n e , the Meno and the Subconscious M i n d Die Weltlichkeit des Glaubens in der Alten Kirche Festschrift in Honour of Ulrich Wickert, ed D Wyrva et al Berlin, 1997
1-2 339-345
The articles in this volume as in all others in the Variorum Collected Studies Series, have not been given a new, continuous pagination In order to avoid confusion and to facilitate their use where these same studies have been refer red to elsewhere the original pagination has been maintained wherever possible Each article has beengiven a Roman number in order of appearance, as listed in the Contents above This number is repeated on each page and is quoted in the index entries
INTRODUCTION
I have collected i n this volume the most important of the papers that I published in 1985-1997, as a sequel to m y Doctrine and Illusion in the Christian Fathers (Aldershot, Variorum, 1985) M o s t of them deal with three notable theologians o f the 4th-5th century, as my title suggests B u t I start w i t h the beginnings o f Christian doctrine, and thereafter f o l l o w a chronological order The fust two pieces turn on the influence of Greek philosophy on early Christian doctrine. To begin w i t h , I have deliberately chosen a very simple i n troductory essay; well-informed readers w i l l find nothing new, except perhaps the choice o f philosophers who need to be considered The discussion that f o l lows is inevitably much more complex, as it involves the Greek philosophers' views o f the nature o f God, and is prompted by the w o r k o f the well-known dogmatic theologian Wolfhait Pannenberg, set fotth in an essay w h i c h has been reproduced i n English i n his Basic Questions in Theology. This has been quoted w i t h evident approval by English writers, and may w e l l be still influential. I have examined it very closely, as Pannenberg's reputation demands, and have concluded w i t h reluctance that, although he makes some good points, his conclusions as to the philosophers' views o f God's nature and their influence, are incoherent, i f not self-contradictory The critical tone o f my paper cannot be mistaken; but no answer has reached me, either (so far as I am aware) i n print or by private communication; for that matter, Pannenberg's essay itself remained virtually unchallenged, apart f r o m the indignant ('temper amentvolV) reply b y Professor de Vogel and an excellent short summary by Professor Ritter The paper is complex, but ends with a summary w h i c h states m y own conclusions i n simple terms The third essay considers the testimony concerning Paul o f Samosata, Bishop o f Antioch, 260-268 Paul is conventionally written off as a heretic, but on two quite different grounds: first, that he was an Adoptionist, holding that Jesus Christ was a mere man, inspired like other good men by the H o l y Spirit (according to Eusebius H.E.I 29, 'he strutted about i n the abominable heresy o f Attemas'); alternatively, that he was a Sabellian, denying that G o d is a real Trinity o f Persons What is certain is that he was an able disputant, and was only dislodged f r o m his see by a powerful group of Alexandrian-type theologians, who had to engage a professional rhetorician named Malchion to put their case. They gained the upper hand; Paul was condemned and discredited; and the
X
INTRODUCTION
Paulianists, his professed followers, had very little influence But how much do we really k n o w of his teaching? Eusebius does not report it in detail, though he expatiates on Paul's alleged misconduct B u t he does tell us that Paul's debate w i t h M a l c h i o n was taken down by stenographers, in w h i c h case it may have been accessible i n Eusebius' time However, an essay by the redoubtable Marcel Richard has argued that 'stenographers' is a mistranslation; they were in fact simply 'spies', w h o gave their o w n version o f his teaching I give evidence to show that Richard himself has mistranslated the critical term, and that Eusebius really d i d report that stenogr aphers were present, In that case we can make a slightly more confident approach to the 'fragments' of Paul, especially those drawn from the debate w i t h Malchion, i n which he seems to speak for himself The whole material has been carefully edited by G Bardy, and again by Henri de Riedmatten, w h o argues for its substantial authenticity. I think myself that Paul was a much more interesting theologian than his detractors allege. This is too complex a question to be considered i n detail here; but it does involve a problem o f the highest theological importance, namely the divinity of our L o r d , and the question whether his real human sufferings impair, or contrariwise reveal, that divinity Moreover, the victory o f the Alexandrian party had momentous consequences for the shaping of Christian doctrine They were concerned above all things to uphold the Tohannine avowal that Hhe Word became flesh'; the complementary truth that 'God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the L a w ' was to them o f less account. They were thus inclined to argue that the acknowledged sufferings of Christ were something external to his real nature; Tesus had no natural human soul; its place was taken by the i n d w e l l ing W o r d ; i n Athanasius' phrasing, his sufferings impinged only on his flesh The absence o f a human soul was clearly stated by Apollinaris, and officially condemned; but i n Cyril of Alexandria and others this human soul was given little more than formal recognition; Christ had one nature only, and that was divine Thus the Monophysites obtained a commanding position in the Eastern church; the Chalcedonian doctrine of Christ as 'true God and true man', o f two natures united i n this single individual ('hypostasis'), was either rejected or so much diluted in the interests of concord that its significance was lost. The Monophysites drew away some of the best elements i n the Eastern church, and the schism still continues in being. I n the f o l l o w i n g pages you w i l l f i n d five essays devoted to Ar ius, five to Athanasius, and five to Augustine This neat and symmetrical arrangement is i n fact misleading, since the fortunes o f A t ius and of Athanasius are closely connected Right down to c 1950 it was customary to treat Athanasius as a fully trustworhy source for the period f r o m 318 to 3 73, when he died aged about 75 years Modern scholarship has brought about a reassessment of his conduct, his controversial politics and even of his theology; while his conception o f Arius, and o f the theologians w h o m he scornfully nick-named 'Ariomaniacs' is now
INTRODUCTION
xi
seen to be prejudiced and misconceived Even Athanasius' defenders have accepted his 'forceful' treatment of the opposing party. Many modern scholars go much further. Richard Hanson, in a lively survey of fourth-century theology ('The attainment o f orthodoxy in the Fourth Century A D ' , in The Making of Orthodoxy: Festschrift in Honour of Henry Chadwick, ed Rowan Williams) refers to his 'unscrupulous violence', highlighted by two papyrus letters discovered i n the 1920s (ibid , p 151) A n d the so-called 'Ariomaniacs' were i n fact a diffuse collection o f theologians w h o distrusted the Nicene term 'consubstantial', homoousios, as suggesting an identity o f the Father and the Son, and who expressly stated that they were not followers of Arius Further, my o w n studies have shown that even where Athanasius' theology was sound - and i t very often is so - the arguments he used against these opponents often rely upon ambiguous phrases and faulty inference; this w i l l be shown i n paper s V I and V I I of this collection Perhaps his pr incipal weakness as a theologian was to share the perspective o f the 'Alexandrians' already mentioned; his occasional r efer ences to Chr ist's human soul are quite insufficient to make his position clear M y papers X I I and X I I I have some bearing on this subject 'Insufficient' because his attribution of the Lord's sufferings to his 'flesh', understood i n a broad sense, ignores the agony o f mind which the Gospels attest, and makes him far too much like a Stoic sage A n d in any case the two passages which have been quoted i n his favour only hint indirectly at a soul; w h i l e Athanasius' alleged authorship o f the Contra Apollinarem has been disproved by m y o w n review o f George Dragas's edition {Journal of Theological Studies 39 [1988], 250-53). Needless to say, much o f Athanasius' teaching is very good indeed; his little w o r k on the Incarnation has always been acclaimed as a masterpiece The next two pieces, nos I V and V, deal w i t h A r i u s ' theology, but in very different idioms. N o I V is a fairly straightforward examination o f A r i u s ' teaching as it appears to me; it was written to be delivered at Mainz, at Gerhard M a y ' s k i n d suggestion, and was repeated b y invitation at Heidelberg and Marburg No. V is a detailed critique o f the remarkable theory proposed, w i t h all due caution, by D r Rowan Williams, to the effect that Arius was an up-to-the minute student o f the Neoplatonists, including even his near-contemporary Iamblichus, as w e l l as Porphyry Despite m y admiration for Dr W i l l i a m s ' wideranging scholarly and devotional works, I have to say that the evidence he propounds for this particular view is w h o l l y inadequate The next two essays consider two A r i a n pronouncements w h i c h were held up for ridicule by 'orthodox' theologians, f o l l o w i n g Athanasius I have argued that both the phr ases attr ibuted to A r i u s ar e patient o f a number of different interpretations; and there is no evidence at all that Ar ius understood them i n the objectionable sense, or senses, fathered upon them by his critics The first is a fairly simple point; the Bible represents God as speaking to his people o n many different occasions, and o f course using different phrases as the occasion
XI)
INTRODUCTION
demands There is no evidence that A l i u s himself thought that the divine Word was comparable to these occasional pronouncements; on the contrary, though he states that the Word was created, in accordance w i t h Proverbs 8:22 L X X , he clearly regarded him as an 'only-begotten Son', to be described in Isaiah's phrase as 'mighty G o d ' , though personally distinct f r o m 'the God' and Father o f all, as w e l l as flom all other creatures and words The next piece, no V I I , is longer and more substantial The phrase that the W o r d is ' f r o m nothing' is capable o f various meanings; several o f these were used in malam partem by critics intent upon showing that A r i u s ' teaching was blasphemous or absurd In my opinion, b y far the most likely meaning o f the phrase as used by Arius conveyed the doctrine that the Word, being in a carefully guarded sense 'a creature', was not created by God's imposition of order on a pre-existing unformed matter, as several Greek philosophers had held; rather, in the beginning, before time began, only God the Father existed This doctrine resembles that taught by Irenaeus, and by Tertullian (in the beginning God was Deus, but was not Dominus, since there was nothing for him to dominate) B y A r i u s ' time i t had become accepted doctrine that God created ex nihilo. A n d the doctrine that the Son was coeternal w i t h H i m , though widely accepted, had not yet become a requirement for orthodox belief. Even the Nicene Creed o f 3 8 1 , which we commonly use today, contents itself w i t h the phrase 'begotten of his Father before all w o r l d s ' ; not, o f course, the rendering 'eternally begotten o f the Father', which has been ignorantly intruded into the Creed by the authors of the Anglican Alternative Service Book There is thus a good deal o f evidence that A r i u s ' teaching has been m a l i ciously caricatured by his opponents, though I do not o f course think it defensible in toto; also that his treatment, and that of his followers by Athanasius and his adherents, was harsh and unchristian I sought to express this opinion in simple and dramatic terms by a piece o f pure invention; though I could also say that it has precedents in the practice o f ancient historians, who even when they knew what was actually said on a given occasion were often prepared to substitute a composition of their own, reflecting their own awareness o f the speaker's character and circumstances M y little piece does not even profess to report what Arius, or an Arian, said on any particular occasion; but I think I have expressed his opinions as discovered f r o m a careful study o f what was said of him, especially by Athanasius in his De Synodh; and have given f u l l references to the relevant passages. This piece was delivered at a session of the Patristic Seminar at Cambridge, and was well received; though my intention o f reading it w i t h a perfectly dead-pan expression was not sufficiently w e l l maintained to take in the more alert o f my hear er s, whose suspicions in any case should have been aroused by my failure to indicate the provenance o f the supposed A n a n document I had hoped the proverb dulce est desipere in loco w o u l d suffice to teveal my intentions to my readers; but it seems that truth w o r n lightly is less familiar in
INTRODUCTION
xiii
Germany, for example, than I had thought; German scholars are accustomed to discuss a serious subject w i t h unrelieved gravity, at least in print, though in spoken lectures and in conversation they can display a delightful humour Nos I X and X I are short pieces both written by invitation for conferences, and can I think be left to speak for themselves The case is different with the more controversial no X M y close stylistic examination of the letters'Evöq ocoumof; and ' H V TOfiwv E7uarj[i.£t(i)a£i\iaxoq, is i n f a c t t h e w o r k o f A t h a n a s i u s T h i s also affects L o r e n z ' s a r g u m e n t , since he c o u l d c l a i m t h a t o n s o m e p o i n t s t h e t e s t i m o n y of A t h a n a s i u s is c o n f i r m e d b y t h a t o f A l e x a n d e r B u t t h e i r a g r e e m e n t is m u c h r e d u c e d i f w e a d m i t t h a t o n l y t h e l o n g e r l e t t e r , ' H fyiXapxoq, w a s a c t u a l l y c o m p o s e d b y A l e x a n d e r L o i e n z cites i t m u c h less, a n d i t s a g r e e m e n t w i t h A t h a n a s i u s is i n d e e d m u c h less close T h e l i n g u i s t i c a r g u m e n t s f o r m y v i e w , I s t i l l t h i n k , are i r r e f u t a b l e ; i f s o m e scholars h a v e b e e n s c e p t i c a l , i t is m a i n l y because m y v i e w c o n f l i c t s w i t h a c o m m o n v i e w o f A t h a n a s i u s ' a c t i v i t y , n a m e l y t h a t h e w r o t e n o t h i n g u n t i l after h e became b i s h o p i n 328; w h e r e a s I p r e s e n t h i m as w r i t i n g a n i m p o r t a n t d o g m a t i c letter at t h e age o f l i t t l e m o r e t h a n t w e n t y ; i n C h a r l e s Kannengiesser's w o r d s , I make h i m a sort o f theological M o z a r t ! A c c o r d i n g l y , n e x t t o t h e letters of A r i u s himself, o u r most r e l i a b l e s o u r c e is t h e Thalia f r a g m e n t s o f de Synodis 15 W e have s o m e f o r t y - t w o lines w r i t t e n i n rather c r u d e verse. I w a s w r o n g i n t r y i n g t o i d e n t i f y t h e i r m e t r e as anapaestic; since t h e n Professor M . L W e s t has d e s c r i b e d i t as S o t a d e a n , w h i c h agrees w i t h A t h a n a s i u s ' r e m a r k s i n t h e ' F i r s t O r a t i o n ' a n d elsewhere B u t a m e t r i c a l s t r u c t u r e , w h a t e v e r i t b e , suggests t h a t A r i u s ' t e x t has b e e n p r e s e r v e d w i t h o u t s u b s t a n t i a l c h a n g e I m y s e l f see these l i n e s as a sequence o f d i s c o n n e c t e d f r a g m e n t s ; A t h a n a s i u s has i n f a c t selected those l i n e s w h i c h g i v e a n o p e n i n g t o c r i t i c i s m , so t h a t a l m o s t a l l o f t h e m c o r r e s p o n d t o o b j e c t i o n s w h i c h h e has d e v e l o p e d e l s e w h e r e I t is m o s t u n l i k e l y t h a t A l i u s c o u l d have w r i t t e n a t h e o l o g i c a l p o e m i n w h i c h e v e r y l i n e w a s o f f e n s i v e to o r t h o d o x sentiment; b u t i f t h e i e were inoffensive lines, i t w o u l d s u i t A t h a n a s i u s ' p u r p o s e t o o m i t t h e m W h a t t h e n was t h e e x t e n t o f t h e o r i g i n a l p o e m ? W e h a v e n o m e a n s o f k n o w i n g I f pressed f o r a n a n s w e r , I w o u l d c o n s i d e r i t u n l i k e l y t h a t i t was less t h a n r o o lines 01 m o r e t h a n 500; b u t I m u s t e m p h a s i z e t h a t t h i s is mere conjecture, 9
T h e d o c t r i n a l i m p o r t a n c e o f t h i s f i n d i n g is t h a t t h e Thalia fragments p r o v i d e a check o n Athanasius' t e s t i m o n y , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e ' F i r s t O r a t i o n ' , c h a p t e r s 5 a n d 6, w h i c h has l o n g b e e n t a k e n
8
9
JTS
32 (1982), 98-106.
IV ARIUS
28 t o b e t h e best source A t o n e p o i n t i t is c o m p l e t e l y c o n f i r m e d : A l i u s does i n d e e d , i n h i s o w n w o r d s , p r o c l a i m t h e i n f e r i o r i t y of the Logos a n d his substantial unlikeness t o t h e Father i n just the w a y t h a t A t h a n a s i u s c o n d e m n s ; t h o u g h n o d o u b t h e also p r a i s e d t h e F a t h e r i n lines w h i c h w e h a v e l o s t A t another p o i n t A t h a n a s i u s is c l e a r l y at f a u l t ; A l i u s d e s c r i b e s t h e m a n y STtivotai o f t h e S o n i n t e r m s w h i c h r e s e m b l e O r i g e n ' s ; t h e s j t i v o i c a are f u n c t i o n a l t i t l e s o f d i g n i t y B u t A t h a n a s i u s t r e a t s these eTtivoioci as m e r e fictions or p r e t e n c e s , a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e w o r d w h i c h is p o s s i b l e i n itself b u t e n t i r e l y u n j u s t i f i e d i n t h i s c o n t e x t I t is a d i s c o n c e r t i n g t h o u g h t t h a t A t h a n a s i u s insists o n a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w h i c h w i l l later b e f o u n d i n E u n o m i u s , w h e r e a s A r i u s agrees w i t h S t B a s i l . I n g e n e r a l , o n e m i g h t s u m m a r i z e t h e p o s i t i o n b y saying t h a t A t h a n a s i u s has s l i g h t l y , b u t p e r s i s t e n t l y , e x a g g e r a t e d t h e extent of A l i u s ' u n o r t h o d o x y N o apology can t u r n A r i u s into a C h r i s t i a n F a t h e r B u t h e is n o t h i n g l i k e t h e v i l l a i n t h a t t r a d i t i o n has m a d e o f h i m ; a n d at c e r t a i n p o i n t s , w h e r e h e m a d e u n w i s e p r o n o u n c e m e n t s , h e w a s later w i l l i n g t o r e t r a c t t h e m . 1 0
B u t c a n m y r e a d i n g o f t h e Thalia be c o n f i r m e d o n critical g r o u n d s ? I a m n o t aware t h a t t h e r e w a s w i d e s p r e a d dissent f r o m m y 1978 paper N e v e r t h e l e s s t h e r e are t w o scholars at least w h o h o l d s t r o n g l y d i s s e n t i n g v i e w s , w h i c h I w i l l a t t e m p t t o discuss F i r s t , m y greatly respected f r i e n d Charles Kannengiesser m a i n tains the t r a d i t i o n a l v i e w t h a t o u r p r i m e source f o r A r i u s ' teaching is t h e ' F i r s t O r a t i o n ' , c h a p t e r s 5 a n d 6; b u t h e has p r o p o s e d an e n t i r e l y n o v e l e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e de Synodis m a t e r i a l H e sees i t as a n a r t i s t i c c o m p o s i t i o n d i s p l a y i n g a u n i f i e d s t r u c t u r e , w h i c h I m y s e l f c a n n o t detect. I t seems t o m e t o c o n t a i n a n u m b e r o f f r e s h starts a n d u n e x p l a i n e d t r a n s i t i o n s , as w a s o b s e r v e d l o n g ago b y Bardy, a n d as I h a v e a l r e a d y agreed A s to its content, K a n n e n g i e s s e r t h i n k s t h a t i t is a r e f o r m u l a t i o n o f t h e o r i g i n a l Thalia, m a d e s h o r t l y b e f o r e A t h a n a s i u s w r o t e t h e de Synodis, b y a w r i t e r w h o was m o v i n g t o w a r d s a n e o - A i i a n p o s i t i o n T h i s v i e w , I b e l i e v e , is w h o l l y d i s p r o v e d b y m e t r i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s T h e o r i g i n a l Thalia was c o m p o s e d i n v e i s e , as A t h a n a s i u s r e p o r t s B u t t h e v e r s i o n o f i t p r e s e n t e d i n h i s ' F i r s t O r a t i o n ' is a l m o s t e n t i r e l y u n m e t r i c a l I t m u s t therefore have diverged t o some extent f r o m 1 1
1 2
1 3
Cf U r k 6 z; Alexander, U r k u . 4 6 C Kannengiesser, Holy Scripture and Hellenistic Hermenéutica (Berkeley California, 1982), 14-20; R- C Gregg (ed.) 'Arianism' PMS 11 (1983), 59-78; E . Lucchesi and H D. Saffrey (eds.) Memorial A J Festugiére (Geneve, 1984), 1 0
11
143-Si Lucien, 255—7. 7 7 ^ 3 8 ( 1 9 8 7 ) , 199-201 1 2
1 3
IN MODERN
RESEARCH
29
t h e o r i g i n a l t e x t . Y e t w e are t o l d t h a t a later w r i t e r b o t h r e f o r m u l a t e d A r i u s ' verses w i t h a n e w t h e o l o g y i n m i n d a n d r e i n t r o d u c e d t h e o r i g i n a l m e t r e W h e t h e r h e based h i s w o r k o n t h e o r i g i n a l text or o n A t h a n a s i u s ' p a r a p h r a s e , s u c h a p r o c e d u r e defies b e l i e f Kannengiesser's account m i g h t perhaps be t h o u g h t more acceptable i f t a k e n i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e analysis o f t h e ' F i r s t O r a t i o n ' i t s e l f p r o p o s e d i n h i s Athanase, Eveque et Ecrivain, which suggests t h a t c h a p t e r s r - r o are a later a d d i t i o n , c o m p o s e d p e r h a p s i n t h e 350s ( o p . c i t p. 402). T h i s w o u l d m a k e t h e m r o u g h l y c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s w i t h t h e m a j o r w o r k s i n w h i c h A t h a n a s i u s cites a n u m b e r o f d o c u m e n t s verbatim A n d t h e s o l i t a r y appearance of 6u,oo6atOt; at i . 9 c o u l d b e s i m p l y e x p l a i n e d o n t h e h y p o t h e s i s of a later date B u t , as I h a v e a r g u e d w h e n r e v i e w i n g t h e b o o k i n t h i s j o u r n a l (36 r ^ 9 8 5 ) , 226 f ) , t h e s u b t r a c t i o n o f c h a p t e r s 1-10 ( w i t h 3 0 - 3 4 a n d p a r t s o f B o o k i i ) does n o t leave a c o n v i n c i n g remainder K a n n e n g i e s s e r argues f o r h i s r e d a t i n g o f c h a p t e r s r - 1 0 o n the g r o u n d t h a t t h e i r c o n t e n t is n o t d i s c u s s e d i n t h e later c h a p t e r s , w h i c h are m a i n l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h A s t e r i u s B u t t h i s f a c t , I t h i n k , can be s i m p l y explained w i t h o u t r e s o r t i n g t o theories of disloc a t i o n I f t h e ' F i r s t O r a t i o n ' a p p e a r e d , as w e agree, d u r i n g Athanasius' Second Exile, i t w o u l d be natural for h i m t o begin w r i t i n g w i t h the A l e x a n d r i a n situation i n m i n d and make A l i u s h i s p r i n c i p a l t a r g e t . B u t b e f o r e l o n g h e w a s at R o m e i n t h e c o m p a n y o f M a r c e l l u s , w h o h a d p r o v o k e d a f u r o r e b y his a t t a c k o n A s t e r i u s ; i n f a c t t h i s w o r k , a n d t h e r e p l i e s b y E u s e b i u s of Caesarea, w e r e a m a j o r cause o f s t r a i n e d r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n R o m e a n d t h e East. A s t e r i u s ' t h e o l o g y t h e r e f o r e m u s t h a v e b e e n a c t i v e l y d e b a t e d at R o m e , as w e l l as M a r c e l l u s ' a t t a c k , a n d A t h a n a s i u s ' s h i f t of o b j e c t i v e s is t h e r e b y e x p l a i n e d S e c o n d l y , D i R u d o l f L o i e n z has d o n e m e t h e h o n o u r o f subj e c t i n g m y rg78 p a p e r t o v e r y c a r e f u l d i s c u s s i o n ; he t r e a t s i t , i n d e e d , w i t h r e s p e c t , besides o f f e r i n g v a l u a b l e c o r r e c t i o n s Y e t for a l l i t s a c u i t y a n d l e a r n i n g , h i s paper s h o w s signs o f piecemeal c o m p o s i t i o n H e begins b y stating his v i e w o f A l i u s , u s i n g the t r a d i t i o n a l m a t e r i a l a n d t h e w e l l - k n o w n e i g h t headings H e t h e n deals v e r y f u l l y w i t h m y c r i t i c a l w o r k , a n d accepts some o f m y a r g u m e n t s ; b u t t h i s does n o t l e a d h i m t o reconsider t h e rather c o n s e r v a t i v e a c c o u n t o f A r i a n i s m t h a t h e has p r e v i o u s l y g i v e n H i s conclusion is presented i n notably moderate terms: 'Athanasius' reports contain i m p o r t a n t i n f o r m a t i o n , w h i c h should n o t b e d i s r e g a r d e d A r i a n i s m is n o t a n i n v e n t i o n o f o r t h o d o x p o l e m i c s ; a n d A r i u s is n o t t o b e b r a c k e t e d w i t h E u s e b i u s o f Caesaiea ' B u t t h i s sentence leaves i m p o r t a n t t r u t h s u n s a i d
IV ARIUS
30 A t h a n a s i u s ' i n f o r m a t i o n is o f c o u r s e i m p o r t a n t a n d w o u l d be i n d i s p e n s a b l e i f w e h a d n o b e t t e r sources b y w h i c h t o c o r r e c t i t B u t at c e r t a i n p o i n t s , I h a v e a r g u e d , w e have b e t t e r sources, w h i c h e n a b l e us t o d e t e c t t h e e l e m e n t o f m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t h a t r u n s t h r o u g h so m u c h o r t h o d o x p o l e m i c s , a n d so c o m e closer t o t h e r e a l A l i u s D r L o i e n z ' s i m p r e s s i v e c o n s t r u c t i o n is n o t f u l l y r e l i able because i t uses m a t e r i a l f o r w h i c h , u n f o r t u n a t e l y , s u c h c o r r e c t i v e s are l a c k i n g . I agree, o f c o u r s e , t h a t A l i u s m a d e p r o v o c a t i v e c l a i m s w h i c h E u s e b i u s a v o i d e d ; b u t n e i t h e r o f t h e m was w h o l l y c o n s i s t e n t or w h o l l y i n t r a c t a b l e T h e c o m p a r i s o n is i n t r o d u c e d , p r e s u m a b l y , because L o r e n z t h i n k s I h a v e b e e n t o o k i n d t o A r i u s B u t he s u r e l y w i l l n o t c l a i m t h a t I h a v e b e e n careless i n s c r u t i n i z i n g t h e evidence? T h i s account m u s t suffice; i t cannot be stretched t o include a detailed discussion o f texts W e t u r n , then, to the remaining topics, t h e i n t e n t i o n s o f A r i u s a n d h i s antecedents. H e r e D r L o r e n z makes the f o l l o w i n g four points. A r i u s derives his v i e w o f the L o g o s f r o m Origen's teaching on t h e soul of t h e L o g o s , r a t h e r t h a n t h e L o g o s h i m s e l f 2 I n O r i g e n , t h i s s o u l gains d i v i n e status b y a d o p t i o n . 3 A r i u s i n t h e Thalia declares t h a t t h e S o n was a d o p t e d 4. T h i s is c o n f i r m e d b y A l e x a n d e r ' s r e p o r t ( U r k 14 35 f ) w h i c h links A l i u s w i t h Paul of Samosata I t m a y be convenient to begin w i t h a r e m a r k o n the t e r m ' a d o p t i o n i s m ' , since L o r e n z has a t t r i b u t e d t h i s v i e w t o t h e A r i a n s . E n g l i s h scholars s p e l l t h e w o r d w i t h a s e c o n d ' o ' , ' a d o p t i o n i s m ' , so t h a t i t has n o a p p a r e n t c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e h e r e t i c a l A d o p t i a n i l i k e E l i p a n d u s . . I n pr actice i t suggests t h a t s o m e o n e a t t a i n s a status w h i c h is n o t h i s b y n a t u r e t h r o u g h h i s o w n m o r a l e f f o r t a n d a c h i e v e m e n t . I t seems t h a t t h e G e r m a n t e r m Adoptianhmus gives m u c h t h e same i m p r e s s i o n . B u t a h i g h e r status n e e d n o t be gained b y a d o p t i o n ; s o m e m e n b e c a m e R o m a n e m p e r o r s s i m p l y b y seizi n g power o n the s t r e n g t h of their m i l i t a r y prestige Conversely, if a d o p t i o n takes p l a c e , i t n e e d n o t be a response t o r e c o g n i z e d m e r i t N o r m a l l y , o f c o u r s e , i t w i l l take place o n t h e d o u b l e g r o u n d of m e r i t i n t h e past a n d p r o m i s e f o r t h e f u t u r e B u t a d o p t i o n w h e r e t h e r e is n o p r o m i s e is p o s s i b l e ; one m i g h t i n sheer p i t y adopt a hopelessly d i f f i c u l t c h i l d A d o p t i o n o n performance only is also u n l i k e l y ; y e t a k i n g m i g h t a d o p t a n h o n o u r e d c o u n s e l l o r , say, o n h i s d e a t h b e d , so as t o cheer h i s last h o u r s w i t h t h e t h o u g h t that his c h i l d r e n w o u l d enjoy royal honours T h e n o r m a l situation is a d o p t i o n ex praevius mentis, r a t h e r as S a m u e l j u d g e d t h a t D a v i d w o u l d make a good king 1
B u t i f t h e essential p o i n t is t h a t s o m e o n e a t t a i n s d i v i n i t y b y
IN M O D E R N
RESEARCH
31
his o w n effort, w e need a better t e r m ; i n E n g l i s h w e m i g h t perhaps speak o f ' p r o m o t i o n i s m ' , i n G e r m a n perhaps of Verbesserungstheologie; this w o u l d correspond w i t h Athanasius' accusations t h a t A r i u s c o n c e i v e d C h r i s t ' s goodness i n t e r m s o f 7tpoKOTtfi a n d fi&k%i(OGic, I t h i n k t h e r e m u s t be s o m e t r u t h u n d e r l y i n g these charges; b u t w e c a n n o t be s u r e , since at this p o i n t t h e r e is n o f i r s t - h a n d e v i d e n c e t o p r o v i d e a check o n the o p p o n e n t s ' r e p o r t s W h a t c a n b e said w i t h s o m e assurance is t h a t i t is m o s t u n l i k e l y t h a t A r i u s t h o u g h t o f s a l v a t i o n e x c l u s i v e l y i n e x e m p l a r i s t t e r m s A l m o s t a l l C h r i s t i a n t h i n k e r s e m p l o y a var iety o f c o n c e p t s a n d s y m b o l s t o i n t e r p r e t t h e m y s t e r y o f our s a l v a t i o n A n A r i u s w h o r e l i e d o n one alone is h a r d l y a c r e d i b l e figure. 1 4
L e t us t u r n , t h e n , t o t h e s u g g e s t i o n t h a t A r i u s ' v i e w o f the L o g o s derives f r o m Origen's treatment o f the soul of Christ. Lorenz provides a very careful and well-documented study, w h i c h c a n n o t be f u l l y c o n s i d e r e d i n t h i s p a p e r ; b u t I w i l l s u m m a r i z e i t as f o l l o w s r
F o r O r i g e n , t h i s s o u l , l i k e o t h e r s o u l s , is a c r e a t e d b e i n g ; t h o u g h its c r e a t i o n m u s t b e seen as a t i m e l e s s c o n d i t i o n 2. L i k e o t h e r s o u l s , i t has f r e e w i l l , a n d can act e i t h e r f o r the better or t h e w o r se 3. B u t t h e s o u l o f Jesus c o n s i s t e n t l y adheres t o t h e L o g o s i n l o v e , a n d so b e c o m e s t o t a l l y f u s e d w i t h h i m i n one s p i r i t . 4 T h i s s o u l t h e r e f o r e receives a l l t h e h o n o r i f i c t i t l e s t h a t o r i g i n a l l y belonged to the Logos, 5 T h e L o g o s assumed this soul i n order to become incarnate B u t t h e L o g o s r e m a i n s d i s t i n c t , a n d is u n a f f e c t e d b y t h e h u m a n emotions that attach to his soul. 6
T h i s soul's p e r s i s t e n c e i n w e l l - d o i n g is h e l d o u t to m a n k i n d as a n e x a m p l e f o r us t o f o l l o w . D r L o r e n z t h e n argues, i n a m u c h b r i e f e r p a r a g r a p h , t h a t A r i u s ' t e a c h i n g r e p r o d u c e s t h e p a t t e r n j u s t set o u t I f i n d this argument impressive and largely convincing N e v e r t h e l e s s t h e r e are s o m e r e s e r v a t i o n s t h a t n e e d to be m a d e r. O r i g e n ' s a c c o u n t is n o t as c o n s i s t e n t as L o r e n z m a k e s o u t . I n s o m e c o n t e x t s h e e m p h a s i z e s t h e t o t a l f u s i o n o f t h e s o u l of C h r i s t w i t h t h e L o g o s ; t h e y b e c o m e 'one s p i r i t ' , t h e y n e e d n o t be s e p a r a t e l y n a m e d , a n d so o n E l s e w h e r e , he d r a w s clear d i s t i n c t i o n s : t h e s o u l is a n i n s t r u m e n t o f t h e L o g o s ; t h e s o u l is passible, In some unpublished notes I have summarized Athanasius' salvation doctrine under some twenty headings Exemplaiist teaching is widespread For Origen, see Princ iv.4 4, p 354-26 F o r Athanasius, EF 2. 5, 10.7, Bp Marc 13 (of Christ's earthly life); also c Ar iii 20 (ureoypttuiioc, from r Pet 2: 21) of Christ's unity with the Father 1 4
IV 32
ARIUS
the Logos impassible M o r e o v e i , O i i g e n is u n c l e a i as t o t h e m o m e n t at w h i c h t h e i r u n i o n takes place I n t h e de Principiis ü 6.3, i n R u f i n u s ' t r a n s l a t i o n , i t takes place principaliter; Lorenz paraphrases i t ' v o n A n f a n g der S c h ö p f u n g a n h ä n g t sie u n z e r t r e n n l i c h d e m S o h n G o t t e s a n ' , etc B u t i n C- Cels i i . 9 i t is u n i t e d 'after t h e I n c a r n a t i o n ' . H o w t h e n was i t before? W a s i t n o t y e t i n b e i n g , or n o t y e t o b e d i e n t ? 1 5
1 6
T h e r e is a c o m p l i c a t i o n h e r e O i i g e n h o l d s t h a t our a c t i o n s are f r e e , b u t y e t are f u l l y f o r e s e e n b y G o d I d o n o t m y s e l f t h i n k t h i s c o n j u n c t i o n is p o s s i b l e ; b u t for t h e m o m e n t l e t us accept i t . I t does n o t t h e n f o l l o w t h a t a g o o d a c t i o n e t e r n a l l y f o r e s e e n b y G o d ensures u n c h a n g i n g goodness. I t m i g h t b e n e g a t e d b y another a c t i o n w h i c h G o d e q u a l l y foresees B u t undeviating goodness f o r e seen b y G o d is q u i t e a n o t h e r m a t t e r . T h e r e is n o u n c e r t a i n t y here w h i c h needs t o be d i s p e l l e d I t m a y b e t h a t A t h a n a s i u s has missed t h i s p o i n t H e argues, a b s u r d l y I t h i n k , t h a t o n t h e A r i a n v i e w t h e S a v i o u r d i d n o t b e c o m e L o g o s u n t i l h e h a d p e r f o r m e d the good w o r k s w h i c h secured his d i v i n i t y T h i s is l i k e s a y i n g t h a t D a v i d d i d n o t b e c o m e k i n g u n t i l he h a d succeeded i n r u l i n g w i s e l y , as S a m u e l f o r e t o l d 1 7
2 S o m e o f O r i g e n ' s a s s u m p t i o n s are c l e a r l y n o t shared b y A l i u s , a f a c t w h i c h c o u n t s against L o r e n z ' s e m p h a s i s o n his dependence A r m s clearly d i d believe i n G o d ' s total f o r e k n o w l e d g e ; t h i s p l a y s a n i m p o r t a n t p a r t i n his c o n c e p t i o n o f t h e Son's m o r a l c o n d i t i o n , as free i n p r i n c i p l e b u t u n d e v i a t i n g i n f a c t H e c l e a r l y d i d n o t b e l i e v e i n t h e e t e r n i t y of G o d ' s c r e a t i v e a c t i o n , a n d of t h e c r e a t u r e s t h e m s e l v e s T i m e is p a r t o f t h e order of c r e a t i o n , a n d o u t s i d e t h e t e m p o r a l o r d e r s u c h w o r d s as ' b e f o r e ' and 'after' become obscure and uncertain i n their application N e v e r t h e l e s s A r i u s insists o n a s s e r t i n g t h e p r i o r i t y of G o d over h i s c r e a t u r e s , i n c l u d i n g e v e n h i s S o n , w h o is p r i o r t o a l l t i m e , y e t ajcpovocx; ysvvriBeic; orco T O Ö jcaTpoc; O Ö K f\v npö too
IN M O D E R N R E S E A R C H
3.3
yswriQfivai H e r e L o r e n z v e r y perceptively points out observat i o n s b y O r i g e n w h i c h d o n o t square w i t h his g e n e r a l p i c t u r e , b u t are n o t u n l i k e A r i u s ' o p i n i o n s 3. T h e r e is o n e o b v i o u s o b j e c t i o n t o L o r e n z ' s v i e w A l i u s p l a i n l y believed i n the pre-existence of the L o g o s , t h o u g h n o t i n h i s e t e r n i t y ; t h i s is s h o w n b y h i s l i t e r a l acceptance of P r o v . 8: 22 B u t he c a n n o t h a v e b e l i e v e d i n t h e pre-existence o f souls. For Peter of A l e x a n d r i a is k n o w n t o have a t t a c k e d O r i g e n ' s d o c t r i n e at t h i s p o i n t , a n d A t h a n a s i u s repeats h i s c o n d e m n a t i o n I f Arius h a d accepted t h a t d o c t r i n e , i t is s u r e l y i n c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t Athanasius should have missed the o p p o r t u n i t y to c o n d e m n h i m 1 8
1 9
2 0
I f is o f c o u r s e a c o m m o n o p i n i o n t h a t A r i u s d i d n o t a c k n o w l e d g e any s o u l i n Jesus. B u t I d o n o t r e l y o n t h i s o p i n i o n O u r o n l y f i r m e v i d e n c e f o r i t is a s t a t e m e n t b y E u s t a t h i u s o f A n t i o c h But A l i u s m u s t have f o u n d s o m e m e a n s o f i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e N e w T e s t a m e n t passages w h i c h refer t o C h r i s t ' s s o u l . H e c o u l d w e l l h a v e a c c e p t e d O r i g e n ' s d i c t u m : ' W h e n S c r i p t u r e wishes t o i n d i cate a n y s u f f e r i n g or t r o u b l e t h a t a f f e c t e d h i m , i t uses t h e w o r d " s o u l " , as w h e n i t says " N o w is m y s o u l t r o u b l e d " ' , a n d so o n O i i g e n t h u s dissociates t h e L o g o s f r o m s u f f e r i n g A t h a n a s i u s carries t h i s process f u r t h e r , a n d assigns t h e L o r d ' s s u f f e r i n g s t o his ' f l e s h ' H e c o u l d t h u s c o m p l a i n t h a t t h e A r i a n exegesis o f such texts associates t h e L o g o s t o o closely w i t h s u f f e r i n g ; he does n o t , a n d p i e s u m a b l y c o u l d n o t , c o m p l a i n t h a t the A r i a n s f a i l t o g r a n t the Logos a soul 2 1
T o s u m m a r i z e : A r i u s ' d o c t r i n e of t h e L o g o s was i n d e e d i n f l u e n c e d b y O r i g e n ' s v i e w s o n t h e s o u l o f C h r i s t . B u t one m u s t n o t s u p p o s e w h a t a careless r e a d i n g o f L o r e n z m i g h t easily suggest, t h a t he s i m p l y a d a p t e d O r i g e n ' s t e a c h i n g H e p l a i n l y d i v e r g e s at a c i u c i a l p o i n t , over t h e p i e - e x i s t e n c e o f souls i n g e n e r a l ; a n d he has n o c o n c e r n t o i n s u l a t e t h e L o g o s f r o m s u f f e r i n g T h e t r u t h is rather that O i i g e n expressed a n u m b e r of sharply divergent views; A r i u s adapted some and rejected others to f o i m his o w n synthesis. 22
Origen seems to hold both (i) that the soul of Christ is by nature like other souls, and so permanently distinct from the Logos, and (ii) that its moral union is unshakeable, so that it is permanently united For (i): it is created by the Logos, Print 171, Lorenz n 208 By nature intermediate: flesh/spirit, Co Rom 1 7 45; flesh/deity, ibid 1 7 55, Pnnc ii 6.3. So can do good or evil, Print Ü 6 5, Lorenz n 226, 235 Not by nature God, Cels n 9 init, cf. Princ ii 6. 5 Doesn't change its (created?) essence Cels iv 18 For (ii): It is united to G o d by its free choice, Princ ii 6, iv 4 4 (35413), Cels v 39; but its obedience has become second nature, Princ ii 6 5; it is so fused that it need not be distinguished or separately named, Cels vi 47, Princ iv 4 4 and tr 37; it is in substance divine, Princ ii.6 6 For the notion of acquired substance or 'second nature' see my Divine Substance p 148 n 18 'Christusseele' 38 C Ar . i 38 , s
1 6
1 7
I shall deal r a t h e i b r i e f l y w i t h L o i e n z ' s t h i r d p o i n t H e detects a n act o f a d o p t i o n i n t h e w e l l - k n o w n c o u p l e t f r o m A r i u s ' s Thalia: a p % f j v x o v u i o v s0riKs i d i v yevvTiTuiv 6 a v a p ^ o t ; K a i f i v e y K e v etc; t r i d v eautcp TOV8S t e K v o T r o i f j a a c ; Urkunde 6 4. 'Christusseele' 38 n 223 O n time see R Williams Arius p 122 nn 55, 56; also 'Christusseele' 38 n 218 ref Princ ii 9 1 p. 164 1, eiuvoouuevn 4pxn Peter: Leontius of Byzantium c Monoph , Fr in Routh Rel Sacr iv.50. Athanasius ad Epict. 8, Vit. Ant 74. F r 15, de Riedmatten p roo. It was of course upheld by some later Arians So Lorenz, 'Christusseele' 38 n 223. 1 8
1 9
2 0
21
2 2
34
A R I U S IN M O D E R N
A r g u m e n t n a t u r a l l y arises o n t w o p o i n t s : does TSKVOTTOIGVV m e a n 'to b e g e t ' o r ' t o a d o p t ' ? A n d does t h e c o u p l e t refer t o t w o separate d i v i n e acts, or t o a s i n g l e act w i t h a d o u b l e d e s c r i p t i o n ? L o r e n z t h i n k s that the first line denotes the begetting of the Son, and the s e c o n d r e f e r s t o a s u b s e q u e n t act o f a d o p t i o n But this interpreta t i o n is d i r e c t l y c o n t r a d i c t e d b y a p h r a s e i n A l i u s ' letter to A l e x a n d e r , Urkunde 6 3: t h e S o n r e c e i v e d f r o m t h e F a t h e r h i s l i f e and being and his d i g n i t i e s , w h i c h the Father b r o u g h t i n t o being s i m u l t a n e o u s l y w i t h h i m , t a t ; &6t,<xq fJuvuTcoaxficravTOt; auxtp xoo Ttaxpoc,. O f c o u r s e t h e o l o g i a n s c a n be i n c o n s i s t e n t , as I have s h o w n ; b u t I d o u b t i f A l i u s w o u l d have c o n t r a d i c t e d h i m s e l f at this vital p o i n t i n a carefully phrased dogmatic letter. 2 3
T h e r e r e m a i n s t h e q u e s t i o n of P a u l o f S a m o s a t a W e m a y start f r o m s o m e a c k n o w l e d g e d facts L u c i a n was h i g h l y r e g a r d e d b y A r i u s a n d h i s s y m p a t h i z e r s . L u c i a n is d e s c r i b e d as a successor of P a u l b y A l e x a n d e r o f A l e x a n d r i a ; t h o u g h t h i s r e p o r t lacks c o n f i r m a t i o n A r i u s is p o r t r a y e d b y A t h a n a s i u s as s h a r i n g t h e e r r o r s o f P a u l , b u t w e have n o s u r v i v i n g s t a t e m e n t b y A r i u s i n his favour. M y d i f f i c u l t y i n f o l l o w i n g D r L o r e n z is t h a t at a c r u c i a l p o i n t A r i u s seems t o have a g r e e d w i t h P a u l ' s accusers, r a t h e r t h a n w i t h Paul himself Certainly we must n o t make the mistake of t h i n k i n g t h a t , w h a t e v e r h i s accusers b e l i e v e d , P a u l a l w a y s t o o k t h e o p p o s i t e v i e w T h e r e a r e , i n f a c t , several p o i n t s o f a g r e e m e n t Paul's accusers a p p a r e n t l y h e l d a p l u r a l i s t i c t h e o l o g y r e s e m b l i n g t h a t of D i o n y s i u s o f A l e x a n d r i a . P a u l a g r e e d w i t h t h e m t o t h e e x t e n t of m a k i n g t h e L o g o s a d i s t i n c t p e r s o n a l b e i n g , i d e n t i f i a b l e w i t h the divine W i s d o m , and substantially distinct f r o m the Father. T h e m a i n p o i n t of d i f f e r e n c e was t h a t t h e accusers h e l d t h a t t h e d i v i n e W i s d o m was s u b s t a n t i a l l y p r e s e n t i n t h e m a n Jesus, or essentially u n i t e d w i t h h i m P a u l c o m p l a i n e d t h a t t h i s was e q u i v a l e n t t o m a k i n g t h e t w o i d e n t i c a l , so t h a t t h e h u m a n s u f f e r i n g s o f Jesus i m p i n g e d i r e c t l y o n t h e d i v i n e W i s d o m . H e h i m s e l f d r e w a sharp distinction between the divine Logos and the m a n b o r n of M a r y ; y e t he p r o t e s t e d t h a t h e h a d a n a d e q u a t e c o n c e p t of t h e i r u n i o n , w h i c h a v o i d e d t h e e r r o r of m a k i n g t h e m i d e n t i c a l T h e m a n Jesus was n o t p i e - e x i s t e n t ; o n t h e o t h e r h a n d h i s c o m i n g was foreseen and appointed b y the Father B u t t h i s s h a r p d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e L o g o s a n d t h e m a n is w h o l l y f o r e i g n to A r i u s ' t h o u g h t I f we t h i n k that he used the h u m a n sufferings o f C h r i s t t o p r o v e the i n f e i i o r i t y of the Logos, t h i s argues s o m e t h i n g l i k e a s u b s t a n t i a l u n i o n b e t w e e n t h e m ; we 2 3
Better in R. Williams Arius
p 102, n
40
RESEARCH
35
h a v e s h o w n t h a t h e d i d n o t use t h e s o u l , or t h e flesh, of C h r i s t as a n e f f e c t i v e b a n i e r b e t w e e n t h e m ; t h i s is t h e t r u t h u n d e r l y i n g E u s t a t h i u s ' c o m p l a i n t B u t t h e lack o f a n adequate d i s t i n c t i o n also e x p l a i n s t h e f a c t t h a t i t w a s p o s s i b l e t o m i s i e p i e s e n t A r i u s as a follower of Paul One of t h e m appeared t o believe i n a m a n guided m e i e l y b y e x t e r n a l i n s p i r a t i o n ; t h e o t h e r i n a passible L o g o s t o o m u c h e n t a n g l e d i n h u m a n l i m i t a t i o n s . B o t h t h e n were accused, though on totally different grounds, of making Christ a mere man I have h a d t o p r e s e n t P a u l ' s o p i n i o n s b r i e f l y a n d d o g m a t i c a l l y , i n a f o r m a p p r o p r i a t e t o a l e c t u r e . I h a v e c o n s u l t e d t h e t e x t s as p r e s e n t e d b y de R i e d m a t t e n , w h i c h I b e l i e v e t o be a u t h e n t i c , t h o u g h n o d o u b t selective A n d I h a v e t r i e d t o a v o i d some c o m m o n m i s c o n c e p t i o n s . I r e m e m b e r m y p u p i l s at O x f o r d asking m e w h e t h e r I t h o u g h t P a u l a n a d o p t i o n i s t 01 a S a b e l l i a n T h e answer I s h o u l d h a v e g i v e n is t h a t t h e s e are n o t t r u e a l t e r n a t i v e s ; b u t b o t h are p o l e m i c a l s t a t e m e n t s w h i c h a i e e x t r e m e l y r e m o t e f r o m t h e facts. P a u l n o d o u b t a t t a c h e d i m p o r t a n c e to t h e h u m a n acts o f Jesus, i n s t e a d o f m a k i n g h i m a m e r e m o u t h p i e c e o f the d i v i n e W i s d o m B u t he d i d n o t make h i m s i m p l y an i n s p i r e d man P a u l ' s W i s d o m f i g u i e is a s u b s t a n t i a l b e i n g , she has a d i g n i t y w h i c h m u s t be u p h e l d , she d w e l l s i n t h e m a n Jesus as i n a t e m p l e O n c e these facts are a d m i t t e d , t h e c h a r g e o f S a b e l l i a n i s m also collapses. W h e i e t h e n does L u c i a n fit i n t o t h e p i c t u r e ? H e r e I a m less certain; b u t I w i l l make a suggestion I start f r o m the f o l l o w i n g facts A r i u s r e g a r d e d L u c i a n as a r e s p e c t e d teacher N e x t , the v i e w s o f t h e L u c i a n i s t p a r t y s h o w s o m e r e s e m b l a n c e t o t h o s e of P a u l ' s accusers. B u t t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y b i s h o p s o f A n t i o c h , P h i l o g o n i u s a n d E u s t a t h i u s , ar e o p p o s e d t o t h e L u c i a n i s t s , t h o u g h t h e y are n o t , o f c o u r s e , p r e p a r e d to d e f e n d t h e m e m o r y o f P a u l . A t s o m e t i m e , t h e n , t h e r e m u s t have b e e n a r e v e r s a l o f t h e o l o g i c a l t r a d i t i o n at A n t i o c h . B u t w e d o n o t h e a i of a n y b r e a k i n the e p i s c o p a l succession I t m a y b e , t h e i e f o i e , t h a t B i s h o p D o m n u s , w h o succeeded P a u l , was n o t a n o u t r i g h t o p p o n e n t , b u t a n u n c o n t r o v e r s i a l figure c a l c u l a t e d t o appeal t o m o d e r a t e m e n o n b o t h sides T h i s w o u l d e x p l a i n w h y t h e a m b i t i o u s a n d i n f l u e n t i a l Paul left b e h i n d h i m no strong b o d y of s y m p a t h i z e s , b u t o n l y a quite i n s i g n i f i c a n t gr o u p o f P a u l i a n i s t s 2 4
For a telling defence see M Simonetti 'Per la Rivalutazione di alcnni Testimonianze su Paolo di Samosata', RSLR 24 (1988), 177-210. H e criticizes M. Richard's attack on the reliability of the fragments, in 'Malchion et Paul de Samosate, L e témoinage d' Eusébe de Cesarée', Eph Theol Lov 35 (1959), 325 ff I hope to reinforce this criticism; see H C Brennecke et al (edd ), Logos, Festschrift fur Luise Abramowski, Gottingen 1993, 140—50 2 4
IV
V
36 A s for L u c i a n , i f he r e a l l y was e x c o m m u n i c a t e d for the duration o f t h r e e episcopates, h i s f a l l m u s t h a v e t a k e n place v e r y soon after P a u l ' s e x p u l s i o n W e m a y see h i m , t h e n , as a n u n c o m p r o m i s i n g p l u r a l i s t , s t r o n g l y opposed t o P a u l , w h o w a s c o n d e m n e d because h e r e f u s e d t o accept t h e p o l i c y o f peace a n d a c c o m m o d a t i o n B y r e p r e s e n t i n g h i m as a successor t o P a u l , B i s h o p A l e x a n d e r means no m o r e t h a n t h a t he was t h e n e x t p r o m i n e n t troublemaker A l e x a n d e r n e e d e d t o g a i n t h e s u p p o r t o f E u s t a t h i u s a n d h i s allies, w h o w o u l d n o t altogether approve o f his p l u r a l i s t i c T r i n i t y , w i t h i t s b a r e l y - c o n c e a l e d d o c t r i n e o f t h r e e hypostases; so h e takes t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o d i s s o c i a t e h i m s e l f f r o m t w o teachers w h o m E u s t a t h i u s is sure t o d i s l i k e B u t w e n e e d n o t accept h i s i n s i n u a t i o n t h a t t h e t w o a g r e e d w i t h each o t h e r
Was Ar ius a Neoplatonist?*
2 5
Dr. R o w a n W i l l i a m s is h i g h l y respected b o t h as a theological scholar and as a master o f Christian spirituality; he has added to his distinction b y accepting the B i s h o p r i c o f M o n m o u t h ; he is moreover a personal friend, w h o has done me the honour o f dedicating to m e his b o o k o n A r i u s , published i n 1987 a n d w i d e l y regarded as the best overall study o f that much maligned theologian, I t is therefore w i t h some hesitance that I undertake to criticize a theory p r o pounded i n that book, namely that A l i u s was influenced b y Neoplatonist thinkers, i n c l u d i n g Plotinus, P o r p h y r y and l a m b l i c h u s , besides Anatolius a n d others I must appeal t o Proverbs 2 7 : 6 ' F a i t h f u l are the wounds o f a f r i e n d ' , recalling A r i s t o t l e ' s p a i n f u l resolve to c r i t i c i z e his f r i e n d s ' convictions (N..E 1.6) I t is unnecessary t o add that Dr. W i l l i a m s himself is a splendid exemplar of controversy conducted w i t h courtesy and i m p a r t i a l judgement. 1
I n a r g u i n g t h i s case, I h a v e d i v e r g e d a l i t t l e f r o m m y p r i n c i p a l t h e m e . M y p u r p o s e has b e e n t o a r g u e t h a t t h e t r a d i t i o n a l estimate o f A r i u s is t h e r i g h t o n e H i s m a i n c o n c e r n w a s t o u p h o l d t h e u n i q u e d i g n i t y o f G o d t h e F a t h e r i n t h e face o f a t t e m p t s t o g l o r i f y t h e L o g o s , as h e t h o u g h t , u n d u l y . T h i s i n t e r e s t is a b u n d a n t l y a t t e s t e d i n h i s s u r v i v i n g f r a g m e n t s I t is a l l o w a b l e , i f rather s t r a i n e d , t o say t h a t h i s m a i n i n t e r e s t w a s C h r i s t o l o g y . B u t t h e i d e a t h a t h e w a s m a i n l y c o n c e r n e d t o p r o p o u n d an exemplar ist t h e o r y o f s a l v a t i o n f i n d s l i t t l e or n o s u p p o r t i n h i s s u r v i v i n g f r a g m e n t s I v e n t u r e t o t h i n k t h a t w e have seen t h e e n d o f a m o s t interesting episode i n t h e h i s t o r y o f A r i a n scholarship; a n d that after D r L o r e n z n o scholar o f e q u a l d i s t i n c t i o n w i l l c o m e f o r w a r d to support this theory
The book was foreshadowed b y an article published i n the Journal of Theological Studies for A p r i l 1983, pp. 56-81, entitled "The L o g i c of A r i a n i s m ' T h e t w o presentations agree i n the m a i n ; and a reference to the article made early i n the book (p 31) may be quoted as an introduction to W i l l i a m s ' thesis, as i t is entirely typical o f his blend of cautious assertion w i t h b o l d theorizing. ' L i k e w i s e ' , he writes, although (Arius) is described as a skilled dialectician , w e cannot w i t h confidence reconstruct a philosophical education I f he was, as has been argued' — i n the article, of course — 'indebted to certain currents i n revived Aristotelianism and lamblichus' version o f Neoplatonism, he could have encountered such teaching i n Syria around 300, when lamblichus himself was teaching at A n t i o c h and Apamea' This, however modestly propounded, is a startling h y p o thesis; i t suggests that A r i u s , whose philosophical education is considered u n certain, consulted lamblichus, whereas his contemporary Eusebius, w h o is w e l l k n o w n as a student o f Greek philosophy, never even mentions lamblichus either i n his Praeparatio Evangélica or i n any other w o r k that I can discover 2
I agree with Bardy (Lucien 48) in seeing Lucian as an opponent of Paul, and in not pressing the sense of Alexander's 8ia8s£auevoc; (Urkunde 14 36) to indicate a formal succession (Lucien p 51 n 66); but I see no need to imagine two Lucians, which would rob Alexander's remark of its point in seeking to discredit a teacher revered by his Arian opponents 2 5
Part of this paper has already appeared in a Spanish version in D Ramos-Lisson et al (edd ), El Diálogo Fe-Cultura en la Antigüedad Cristiana (Pamplona. 1995), the record of a symposium held there under the auspices of the Faculty of Theology I am most grateful both for their generous hospitality and for permission to print ' Arius Heresy and Tradition By Rowan Williams (London 1987) The evidence is late: Socrates, H.E , 1.5, Sozomen, HE, Í 15.. Perhaps more significant is Constantine's reference to his profession of belief 'worked out in bold and extremely detailed terms', o-ofSapwc; root; icai \xáXa áKpipok; ¿^ncncT|uéva, Opitz Urk 34, § 8. 2
V
V
40
Was Arius a Neoplatonist ?
The article puts forward three points i n favour of Neoplatonic influence o n A l i u s , each of them based o n a phrase to w h i c h he took exception The fust, at p. 5 8 , turns on the description o f the Son as 'integral to his Father's substance', xr\q xou Ttaxpoc; ouatac; 1610c;, w h i c h in Anus* opinion as Williams presents it w o u l d reduce the Son to a mere impersonal property or attribute The second, at p 6 3 , springs from the phrase uepoc; 6u.ooucn.ov, where Williams adduces a parallel in Iamblichus de mysteriis, illustrating the objectionable view that both Son and Father participate i n a prior divine ousia, w h i c h thus would be divisible and negate the divine simplicity This objection is w e l l k n o w n ; but the suggested parallel drawn f r o m Iamblichus is new and surprising The third point i n the article, at p 6 6 . begins from A n u s ' protest against the doctrine that Father and Son are equal i n rank, w h i c h he says w o u l d result i n t w o ingenerate'beings, 8i>o dyevv u x a Williams discusses this i n relation to the concept o f participation, u s x o x f l , as expounded by Aristotelian scholars; but I must postpone any detailed analysis The book does not reproduce the first t w o arguments that I have mentioned, though i t refers to t h e m and makes i t clear that W i l l i a m s was prepared to u p h o l d i n 1 9 8 7 the conclusions he had put out i n 1 9 8 3 I n their place we f i n d t w o n e w suggestions The first begins w i t h an excellent review o f ancient theories o f creation, and o f the Son's role i n i t W i l l i a m s adverts to the term Suae,, the D y a d , as applied to the Son, and tries to explain i t b y c i t i n g numerological treatises b y Anatolius and Iamblichus I t h i n k this is far-fetched, and prefer simpler explanations The second argument discusses the relation between G o d and his Logos, and i n particular the Son's l i m i t e d knowledge o f the Father, w i t h A n u s ' surprising comment that the Son does not k n o w his o w n ousia, let alone the Father's Here W i l l i a m s finds a background i n Plotinus' f i f t h Ennead; once again I remain unconvinced 3
In the third place the b o o k contains a chapter headed ' A n a l o g y and Particip a t i o n ' , w h i c h developes the t h i r d argument already presented i n the article W e m a y say that W i l l i a m s ' argument for Neo-platonic influence o n A r i u s is presented under f i v e headings, and i t w i l l be convenient to discuss them i n the f o l l o w i n g order: ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) , the first t w o points f r o m the article; ( 3 ) and (4), the first t w o points f r o m the b o o k ; and lastly, the concluding point f r o m b o t h w o r k s , w h i c h correspond closely enough to allow o f a single discussion ( 1 ) W i l l i a m s begins b y n o t i n g that A r i u s condemned the phrase ioioc; ir\q ouaiac;, w h i c h he says was 'current i n Alexander's c i r c l e ' as applied to the Logos I t w o u l d , he says, present the Logos as an idion o f the Father i n terms of A r i s t o t e l i a n l o g i c , and thus reduce h i m to a mere impersonal property. W i l l i a m s names Porphyry's hagoge as a l i k e l y source for this deduction, and adds the comment ' G i v e n A r i u s ' reputation for expertise i n l o g i c , i t seems perfectly possible that he was familiar w i t h the hagoge'*
I agree that the phrase was current i n Alexander's c i r c l e : but I d o not t h i n k it originates w i t h Alexander I t is n o t found i n his s u r v i v i n g texts Moreover Alexander seems concerned to m i n i m i z e the difference between the Father a n d the Son w h i l e emphasizing the real distinction between them They are x f j bnoaxdoei Suo asic/\ but the S o n is exactly l i k e the Father (£|i(pepfjc;) , l a c k i n g only the attribute &yevvr|xoc; T h e epithet tSioc; of course appears, notably in § 3 2 w h i c h cites Romans 8 : 3 2 B u t tStoc; xf\c, ouaiac, is especially characteristic o f Athanasius, and consorts w i t h his profoundly suggestive b u t m u c h less l o g i c a l v i e w w h i c h recognize the distinctness o f the L o g o s as S o n but also makes h i m integral to God's being as his Wisdom. Alexander no doubt c o u l d accept such teaching; but his o w n emphasis is perceptibly different. 6
7
It seems to me, rather, that the phrase embodies a reaction against A r i u s ' formulations, real or supposed; a reversal o f W i l l i a m s ' explanation Arius w r o t e in his Thalia the words: tStov ouSev e ^ s i t o o Oeou K a 9 ' UTtoaxamv iSioxnxoc;, an e n i g m a t i c phrase to w h i c h w e must r e t u r n Alexander paraphrases t h i s sentence i n § 1 3 of his letter *H tpiXapxoc;: ouxs y a p tpuast uioc; xic; £axt x o u 0 e o u , 9 a a i v , ouxe xivd e x w v ISioxTixa npbc, auxov, and the same charge is often repeated b y Athanasius i n looser and more polemical expressions, as i n c. AY. 1 6 , 6 Xoyoc; dAAoxpioc; p e v K & I dvournoc; Kaxd Jtdvxa xfjc, x o u Traxpdc; ouaiac; K a i ISIOTTIXOC; £ a x i v The words d v o p o i o c , . . xrjc; . ouaiac; read l i k e a response to A r i u s ' next f o l l o w i n g line ouSe ydp £ a x i v looq, a\,\* ouSs 6 u o o u a t o c ; auxto So far f have been presenting a f a i r l y minor disagreement w i t h W i l l i a m s o n the o r i g i n of the phrase 1810c, xfjc; ouaiac. The case i s very d i f f e r e n t when I t u r n to his comments o n the adjective 1810c; together w i t h its neuter form t S t o v or xo i'8tov; for his argument is gravely weakened b y a failure to distinguish between them. O n ISioc; he writes as f o l l o w s : "The point is s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d : d i v i n e properties are eternal and impersonal O f course G o d 'has' aocpia a n d A-oyoc;, but they are qualities belonging to his substance Thus to say that t h e Son is iSioc, to G o d is to reduce the Son t o being an impersonal quality A r i u s , i n short, is quite clear about the meaning of iStoc;; i t relates only to a q u a l i t y predicated o f a substance' W i l l i a m s then refers to P o i p h y r y ' s hagoge, where he says A r i u s c o u l d have f o u n d a discussion of the meaning of iStoc;, ' m a k i n g i t abundantly clear that iSioc; cannot be used o f something which is a substance i n its o w n r i g h t ' ; moreover a debt t o Porphyry m i g h t account f o r Constantine's reference to the A r i a n s as ' P o r p h y r i a n s ' 8
W i l l i a m s does not make it quite clear whether he h i m s e l f accepts the extraordinary doctrine that he attributes t o P o r p h y r y and A r i u s O f course 1810c;,
5
6
1
J
Op cil p 31, cf 189 196,223 llh S n s 34 (1983), p 60
4 1
7
8
Letter H (pUctpxo^, in Opitz Utk 14, § 38; cf §§ 15, 16, 52 Ibid. § 4 7 : cf § 38 Ibid § 19; cf § 47 I ThS 34 pp 59-60; cf Opitz Urk 33.
V
V
42
Was Arius a Neoplatonist ?
being an adjective, does not ordinarily name a substance; but i t is normally 'used o f a substance' when i t is applied to a substance; w e need l o o k no further man Romans 8:32, 'God spared not his o w n S o n ' ; and the N e w Testament provides many other examples; i n St M a t t h e w alone w e find 'his o w n c i t y ' , 'his o w n country', 'his o w n field', 'his o w n slaves' There is no evidence whatever that A l i u s would have rejected this usage W i l l i a m s , then, has misled us b y careless formulation The adjective iStoq is essential to his argument, w h i c h begins f r o m the phrase I'Siog tfjc; oucrlag B u t he assumes that Porphyry's use o f i t is dictated b y what he says about its neuter f o r m TO i S t o v . H e refers to P o r p h y r y ' s Isagoge; but the connection with 'impersonal qualities' is made b y turning to another work, where equality, TO I'CTOV, is said to be an i S i o v o f the category of quantity . T h i s , I concede, is a quality: but if W i l l i a m s had followed up the hagoge passage a l i t t l e further, he would have found Porphyry giving examples of the i S i a of mankind, namely laughter, and turning grey-haired i n o l d age. These appear to be, respectively, an activity and a passive affection: i t would be a misuse o f language to call them impersonal qualities. 9
A r i u s does i n fact use the neuter form t 5 i o v i n the Thalia mentioned:
verse already
LOIOV otj8ev s^ei -coo 9eoi) K<X9' unooraorv ISiornTOC, ou5e yap taxiv icroi;, ou8e &uoo6o"io yap k£ 2
avrfjs
-r) ifivxfj rrjv TOV oiop.aTo$ I S n ^ i o u p y e i voiv ouS'
I K rot) p.r) OVTOS,
See R. P C Hanson, 'Who taught e£ OVK OVTCUV, in R C Gregg (ed ), Ariamsm (Philadelphia, 1985), pp. 79-83; R Lorenz, Arius Judaizant? (Gottingen, 1979) (hereafter Af), pp 38 f ; G C Stead, 'The Platonism of Arius', JTS, NS, 15 (1964), 25 f. Iren., Haer, 2 1 0 4; Tertullian, adv Herm. 2 1; Methodius, Autex 2 9, p 150; Athanasius, Deer 25 1
2
VII
VII 672
673
dXX €K acofiaros
CLT&KTOV Kal do-x-qparioTov
acou-a Teraypevov)
3
There
are s l i g h t v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e w o r d i n g : l £ OVK OVTOJV is t h e f o r m w h i c h o c c u r s i n M e t h o d i u s ; T h e o g n o s t u s has t h e v a r i a n t ex p.7/ ovrvov, w h i l e P l u t a r c h ' s €« rati [nj ovros is u s e d o c c a s i o n a l l y b y A r i u s ' opponents. W e m a y n o t i c e i n A r i u s ' l e t t e r t h e s l i g h t l y a p o l o g e t i c t o n e of ' W e spoke t h u s ..'; a n d i n f a c t t h e r e is a f l a w i n his l o g i c ; b y o p t i n g f o r e£ OVK OVTOJV he e x c l u d e s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e L o g o s is I K f?eoii: t h e reason g i v e n is t h a t ZK deov w o u l d i m p l y t h a t he is piepos 6eov, t h u s r a i s i n g w e l l - f o u n d e d o b j e c t i o n s t o a n y d i v i s i o n or d i m i n u t i o n o f t h e G o d h e a d . A r i u s m a y w e l l be f o l l o w i n g O r i g e n loc. c i t . {non enim dicimus .. partem aliquam substantiae dei in filium versum) w h i l e i g n o r i n g t h e c o r r e c t i o n s w h i c h O r i g e n hastens t o a d d : t h e g e n e r a t i o n of t h e L o g o s does n o t i n v o l v e c o r p o r e a l passions, b u t r e s e m b l e s t h e g e n e r a t i o n of (an act o f ) w i l l f r o m t h e m i n d I n h i s o t h e r w r i t i n g s A l i u s a l l o w s — i n d e e d insists on—e/c 0€ov: so e g Thalia 1 31 ( A t h Syn 15, O p i t z 243 1 12) w h i l e m a i n t a i n i n g h i s p r o t e s t against a n y p h y s i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of i t (Urk 6 §5). T w o o b s e r v a t i o n s are n e e d e d t o e x p l a i n t h e b a c k g r o u n d of the p h r a s e ' f r o m n o t h i n g ' . F i r s t t h e r e is t h e w e l l - k n o w n c o m m o n p l a c e ex nihilo nihil fit, w h i c h o r i g i n a t e s q u i t e e a r l y i n G r e e k p h i l o s o p h y . P o s s i b l y i t s f i r s t o c c u r r e n c e is P a r m e n i d e s f r 8 ( S i m p l i c i u s Phys. 145 i f f ) . . oi)b" I K jj,fj kovros
cf>ao8ai o' ouoe voeiv, 'iuTIV OTTOJS OVK
kdoow
ov yap c£ar6v ouSe vo-qrov €OTlV
nor shall I allow thee to say or to think ' f r o m that which is not'; for it is not to be said or thought that it is not [Or perhaps, more logically, 'for non-existence cannot be described or conceived'] C o m p a r e Empedocles ft r r , [ A r i s t o t l e ] M X G €« re yap ovBafi eoVros ap^avov
eon
2, 975
b r,
yzveaQai
Fot coming into being f r o m that w h i c h i n no way is, is inconceivable N o d o u b t t h e p r i n c i p l e w a s w i d e l y accepted. I t m a y h a v e b e e n c h a l l e n g e d b y w r i t e r s w h o refer t o a b e i n g w h o is avToyevr/s or avToyev(v)T}Tos, t w o w o r d s r e n d e r e d m L S J as ' s e l f - p r o d u c e d ' a n d ' s e l f - g e n e r a t e d ' B u t these m i g h t r e f e r t o a n e t e r n a l g e n e r a t i o n , w h i c h w o u l d n o t e n t a i l t h e e m e r g e n c e of s o m e t h i n g f r o m n o t h i n g A l t e r n a t i v e l y avroyev-qs at least m i g h t m e a n ' u n i q u e i n k i n d ' , an
' i n d i v i d u a l species' ( c f p-ovoyev-qs)', i t can be u s e d , p e r h a p s c o n f u s e d l y , o f a b e i n g w h o is c e r t a i n l y n o t t h e p r i m a r y source (see e g l i e n haer 1 29 2, c i t e d i n P G L ) H o w e v e r i n Orac Sibyl f r 1 17 G o d is avroyevrjs ctyevrjTos, p r e s u m a b l y ' u n i q u e a n d u n d e i i v e d ' N e v e i t h e l e s s t h e p r i n c i p l e ex nihilo nihil was p i o b a b l y r o b u s t e n o u g h to w i t h s t a n d s u c h r a r i f i e d o b j e c t i o n s Secondly, i m p o r t a n t clarifications were made b y A r i s t o t l e , who n o t e s the a m b i g u i t y o f ydveodai, either ' c o m i n g i n t o b e i n g ' absol u t e l y , or ' c o m i n g t o be s u c h a n d s u c h ' I n De Generatione et Corruptione 1 3 , 3 i 7 b 2 f f , h e a p p e a l s t o suggest a n o b j e c t i o n to the former concept: el yap airXCbs curat yevecrts, arrXojs av yivono Xtyeiv on
rial
TO pi] ov
I K prj 'ovros, aior
a\rj8es av e'n?
n's pev yap yeVeois ex pi] OVTOS TWOS, oiov
€K pr) XevKDV Tj prj KaXov, ij Se awAij e£ a^Aiis pr/ OVTOS
W e may translate, rather freely: If there is a case of coming-to-be in an absolute sense, s o m e t h i n g w o u l d c o m e to be f r o m that w h i c h is n o t h i n g , so that it w o u l d be t r u e to say that there are things to w h i c h ' n o t h i n g ' a p p l i e s ; for b e c o m i n g s u c h
and
s u c h p r o c e e d s f r o m w h a t is not s u c h and s u c h , e g w h a t is not w h i t e or not b e a u t i f u l ; but a b s o l u t e b e c o m i n g p r o c e e d s f r o m absolute not-being
T h e a b s u r d i t y lies n o t so m u c h i n t h e last p h r a s e as i n t h e sugg e s t i o n t h a t t h e r e are t h i n g s t h a t are n o t , m a d e i n t h e w o r d s u n d e r l i n e d , a n d i n d e e d s u g g e s t e d b y t h e p h i a s e k£ OVK OVTWV N e v e r t h e l e s s A r i s t o t l e h o l d s t h a t n o t h i n g comes t o be i n a n absol u t e sense, i e. f r o m w h a t is n o t , f o r t h e r e is no s u c h t h i n g (cf.. op cit 317 b 12); i t is a m i s t a k e t o say t h a t n o t - b e i n g exists (Phys 1 3, 187 a 2). A n d i f w e d o say t h a t a s u b s t a n c e X o r i g i n a t e s f r o m w h a t is n o t X , t h i s m u s t be q u a l i f i e d as ' p o t e n t i a l l y t h o u g h not a c t u a l l y X ' ; see Gen. et Con- 317 b 7-26 F u r t h e r c l a r i f i c a t i o n is o f f e r e d b y A r i s t o t l e ' s w e l l - k n o w n t h e o r y o f f o u r causes, w h i c h sheds l i g h t o n t h e a m b i g u o u s p r e p o s i t i o n ex. T h e b r i e f r e s t a t e m e n t i n Metaph 1 3, 983 a 26 f f , r u n s as follows: 4
r d atria Aeyercu rerpa^ajs, cov piav pev alriav ap.£v eivai rijv ovaiav feat TO TI Yjv elvcu Ktvrjaews.
krepav 8e rrjv vXrjv Kal TO urroKeipevov, rpirrjv oe odev 7) a-PX ? 1
rerdprrjv
Se
TO OV kvzxa Kal rtvyadov (TGXOS yap yeveaetos t a i
Kivr/oews rrdarjs TOUT* kariv) Now
t h e i e are four r e c o g n i z e d k i n d s of cause
is the essence or essential n a t u r e of a t h i n g
O f these we hold that one another is the matter or
1 myself find it unconvincing; it fits somt cases, e g a plant emerging from a s t t d ; but quite often if X comes into being, all that is required is the pre-existent factors which make X possible; they need not be consolidated into some supposed *X existing potentially' 4
R. Loren2, Die Chtistusseelc im Arianischen Strdit', ZKG rg83 r-51 (hereafter Christusseele'), 47 n 282; cf G Verbeke, L'Evolution tie la doctrine du pneuma du stoichme a St Auguitin (Louvain, 1945), p 261 n 104 J
vndpxei
VII 675
674 substrate; the t h i r d is the source of m o t i o n ; and the f o u r t h is .. the purpose or good; for this is the end of every generative or motive process T h i s passage was accessible t o f o u r t h - c e n t u r y C h r i s t i a n w r i t e r s , as t w o b r i e f p a r a p h r a s e s o f i t are g i v e n b y C l e m e n t o f A l e x a n d r i a (str 8.18. i a n d 28.2) a n d a n o t h e r is q u o t e d f r o m A l e x a n d r i a o f A p h r o d i s i a s ' De Fato b y E u s e b i u s ( P E 6 9.1) B u t w e s h a l l f i n d that anti-Arian writers were liable t o ignore Aristotle's careful distinctions I f we n o w r e t u r n t o t h e t h r e e f o l d scheme of d e r i v a t i o n , i t w i l l be seen t h a t P l u t a r c h at least a p p l i e s i t i n a m a n n e r w h i c h does n o t c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e p r i n c i p l e ex nihilo nihil, since i t specifies t h r e e w a y s i n w h i c h t h e s o u l m i g h t act; i n each case, t h e r e f o r e , t h e s o u l s u p p l i e s a m o t i v e cause. A n d i t is s u r e l y a r g u a b l e t h a t A n u s ' use o f t h e s c h e m e e m b o d i e s a s i m i l a r a s s u m p t i o n H e c a n t h u s a r g u e t h a t t h e L o g o s is ' f r o m n o t h i n g ' w i t h o u t d e n y i n g t h a t he w a s m a d e by God the Father o u t o f n o t h i n g I n d e e d t h i s is clearly h i s view. Since he holds that t h e L o g o s is, i n a carefully q u a l i f i e d sense, a c r e a t u r e , h e c a n a p p l y t o h i m t h e d o c t r i n e o f c r e a t i o n a c c e p t e d b y second- a n d t h i r d - c e n t u r y F a t h e r s i n o p p o s i t i o n to t h e Platonist v i e w that G o d made t h e universe o u t of p r e v i o u s l y e x i s t i n g u n f o r m e d m a t t e r A n d t h i s is a d m i t t e d b y p r o N i c e n e c o n t r o v e r s i a l i s t s , w h o o b j e c t t o h i s use o f t h e t e r m s ' c r e a t i n g ' a n d ' m a k i n g ' i n place o f ' b e g e t t i n g ' , b u t n e v e r t h e l e s s persist i n c l a i m i n g t h a t A r i u s ' use o f OVK OVTLOV c o n f l i c t s w i t h t h e p r i n c i p l e ex nihilo nihil, as w e shall see. 2
A R I U S ' D O C T R I N E OF THE SON'S
O R I G I N
A r i u s r e p e a t e d l y states t h a t G o d e n g e n d e r e d (yewrjaavra) an o n l y S o n (vlov piovoyevr))', so Urkunde 6§2, cf. yevvrjfia, §3; yevvrjdets, §4, t h o u g h h e also d e s c r i b e s h i s o r i g i n a t i o n i n n e u t r a l t e r m s (VTTo(jTYjoavTo., §2; vTTGOTTj, §4), a n d , as c o m m o n l y r e c o g n i z e d , refers t o i t as a ' c r e a t i o n ' {uriopa, §2; KnaOevTa, §3; KTtoQeis, §4), t h o u g h w i t h a q u a l i f i c a t i o n d e s i g n e d t o set h i m a p a r t f r o m o t h e r creatures {KTiofia TOV deov TGXZLOV, dXK ov)( cLs 'iv rcov KTtofi&Ttov, §2) T h e n e x t f o l l o w i n g p h r a s e is a t a c i t a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t t h a t t h e use o f yew-npia etc does n o t suffice i n i t s e l f t o g u a r a n t e e t h e S o n ' s u n i q u e n e s s : yeVvr/jua, aAA' oi>x o\>$ ev TOJV yevvrjfidrojv, a phrase w h i c h his o p p o n ents d e c r i e d as i n c o n s i s t e n t , a c c u s i n g h i m o f e x p l o i t i n g t h e v a r i able sense o f yevvav a n d i t s d e r i v a t i v e s t o r e p r e s e n t t h e S o n as a c r e a t u r e tout court, w i t h a l l t h e p e j o r a t i v e i m p l i c a t i o n s w h i c h t h e y t h e m s e l v e s a t t a c h e d t o t h e t e r m A r i u s does also use t h e t e r m yevvr/pa i n d e s c r i b i n g t h e d o c t r i n e s o f V a l e n t i n u s a n d M a n e s (§3),
b u t w i t h o u t a n y clear i m p l i c a t i o n t h a t t h e y t h e m s e l v e s u s e d or m i s u s e d t h e t e r m ; t h u s w h e n h e says t h a t V a l e n t i n u s c a l l e d the ( d i v i n e ) yivv-qpa a n ' o f f s h o o t ' (rrpofioXr)), i t is o n l y t h i s latter t e r m that he means t o condemn. A l l t h i s is f a m i l i a r g r o u n d . B u t t h e catalogue o f o p i n i o n s w h i c h A r i u s d i s o w n s c o n c l u d e s as f o l l o w s : ' n o r t h a t h e w h o was b e f o r e , w a s a f t e r w a r d s g e n e r a t e d or n e w - c r e a t e d i n t o a S o n , as t h o u too t h y s e l f , blessed P o p e , i n t h e m i d s t o f t h e C h u r c h a n d i n session hast o f t e n c o n d e m n e d t h o s e w h o i n t r o d u c e these d o c t r i n e s (ovBe TOV
ovra
ov
avTos,
rrporepov, p.a.K&pie
vorepov
yevvrjOevra
TraTra, Kara.
r) kiriKTiudevTa
pi€OT)v Trjv
els vlov,
e/ciiAryrnai' xai ev
cos xai GvveSpiqj
ravTa elo"qyovu.evovs airtyyopevaas, n o t i n g that the three words u n d e r l i n e d a r e o m i t t e d i n R o b e r t s o n ' s t r a n s l a t i o n u s e d above). T h e r e is, I suppose, n o direct evidence t h a t Alexander c o n d e m n e d a n y s u c h v i e w s ; b u t t h e y h a v e been p l a u s i b l y i d e n t i f i e d as those of M a r c e l l u s — a n d , one m i g h t add, o f T e r t u l l i a n . T h e doctrine t h a t t h e S o n was i n i t i a l l y G o d ' s i m m a n e n t W o r d or R e a s o n w h o b e c a m e S o n at t h e c r e a t i o n ( T e r t u l l i a n ) or i n c a r n a t i o n ( M a r c e l l u s ) w o u l d o b v i o u s l y b e d i s o w n e d b y A l e x a n d e r , w h o v i e w e d t h e Son as c o e t e r n a l , b u t also, f o r q u i t e d i f f e r e n t reasons, b y A r i u s , w h o e n v i s a g e d a single p r i m o r d i a l a c t i o n w h i c h b r o u g h t t h e S o n - L o g o s i n t o existence, t h o u g h w i t h o u t d e p r i v i n g the Father o f his eterna l l y p r e - e x i s t e n t a t t r i b u t e s (wv ayevvrjTios e x a h> eavrco). TOUS
6
T h e passage j u s t c o n s i d e r e d seems t o m e t o t h r o w l i g h t o n a d e b a t a b l e c o u p l e t i n t h e Thalia (1 6 f , O p i t z p p . 242 1 14 f . ) : apxfjv TOV vlov edfjue rcov yev{y)rjrcov 6 arap^os «at rjveyKev els vlov eavTto roVSe reKVOTrotrjuas T h i s c o u p l e t , t h o u g h v a r i o u s l y e x p l a i n e d i n d e t a i l , has o f t e n been cited i n s u p p o r t of various f o r m s o f ' p r o m o t i o n ' theory, w h i c h agree i n m a k i n g i t i m p l y t h a t t h e L o g o s a t t a i n e d his present d i g n i t y i n t w o or m o r e d i s t i n c t stages. T h e passage discussed i n t h e last p a r a g r a p h seems t o m e t o c o n t r a d i c t a n y s u c h i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ; i n d e e d i t m a y w e l l be t h a t t h e Thalia h a d already appeared w h e n t h e L e t t e r t o A l e x a n d e r was w r i t t e n , a n d this particular couplet had attracted unfavourable comment, w h i c h A r i u s now seeks t o d i s a r m . T h e ' p r o m o t i o n ' t h e o r y s u r e l y presupposes t h a t t h e L o g o s was p r o m o t e d ' f r o m s o m e t h i n g ' , f r o m some l o w e r state; 7
8
5
'Christusseele' 26, more generally, 'Apologists and Clement'; and see A. Robertson, Athanasius, p. 458 n 12; Tertullian, Prax 7 AJ 66; R. C Gregg and D E . G r o h , Early Arianism, A View Of Salvation (London, 1981), pp 23, 96; Stead, 'Arius in Modern Research', jfTS, m, 45, (1994), 264. A n early date is suggested by C Kannengiesser, Kyriakon, F S Quasten, (Miinster Westf , 1970), pp 349-51; AJ 49 ff , esp 51 6
7
8
5
A t h c Ar ii. 19 f
VII
VII 676
677
a n d t h e p h r a s e I f OVK OVTCOV has t h e e f f e c t o f d e n y i n g t h i s . B u t i n a n y case t h e ' p r o m o t i o n ' t h e o r y is e x c l u d e d b y o t h e r phrases i n t h e l e t t e r , e s p e c i a l l y 6 irar-qp 8ov$ avrto irdvrojv TT)V KXr/povopitav (§4) w i t h its a l l u s i o n to H e b r e w s 1:3, w h i c h c o u p l e s t h e Son's o b t a i n i n g t h a t i n h e r i t a n c e w i t h his r o l e i n c r e a t i n g t h e 'ages' (altovas), no d o u b t b e f o r e our f a m i l i a r years a n d days b e g a n . 9
3
'FROM NOTHING'; F O U R I H - C E N I U R Y INTERPRETATIONS
I t seems t o m e t h a t t h e p h r a s e I f OVK ovrtov, as u s e d b y A r i u s a n d b y his c r i t i c s , c o n v e y s at least f o u r d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e nuances, w h i c h m a y be l i s t e d as f o l l o w s : (a) (b) (c)
T h e S o n , b e i n g ' f r o m n o t h i n g ' , is n o t ' f r o m G o d ' . T h e S o n ' s existence h a d an a b s o l u t e b e g i n n i n g T h e S o n is a c r e a t u r e
(d) T h e S o n is n o t t r u e b e i n g , is a n o n - e n t i t y . O f these p r o p o s i t i o n s , A r i u s h i m s e l f w o u l d c e r t a i n l y d e n y (a), b u t w o u l d a c c e p t , w i t h r e s e r v a t i o n s , (b) a n d (c); (d) e m b o d i e s a s o p h i s t r y ; i n one sense o n l y t h e F a t h e r is t r u e B e i n g ( E x o d 3:14); b u t his c r e a t u r e s possess t h e i r degrees of b e i n g as h i s g i f t . T h e f o u r p r o p o s i t i o n s c o r r e s p o n d w i t h d i f f e r e n t senses o f I K , as d i s t i n g u i s h e d b y L S I ; (a) i m p l i e s sense I I I , o f o r i g i n ; (6) s u g gests sense I I , of t i m e ; ( t ) d e r i v e s i n d i r e c t l y f r o m sense I I I ; (d) i m p l i e s sense I 4, o f s e l e c t i o n f r o m a g r o u p . 1 0
I d o n o t of course i m p l y t h a t e i t h e r A r i u s or h i s c r i t i c s e x p l i c i t l y m a d e these d i s t i n c t i o n s ; b u t c r i t i c a l d i s c u s s i o n m u s t b e g i n f r o m a clear s t a t e m e n t o f p o s s i b i l i t i e s ; w e can t h e n c o n s i d e r w h i c h i m p l i c a t i o n was u p p e r m o s t i n t h e m i n d s of its u s e r s , a n d so pass t o t h e f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n o f h o w d a m a g i n g i t was t o o r t h o d o x b e l i e f , or w h a t degree o f t o l e r a t i o n i t m i g h t h a v e b e e n a c c o r d e d (a) T h i s c h a r g e has b e e n discussed b y R. L o r e n z (AJ p p . 51 f ). A r i u s i n c l u d e s t h e p h r a s e I f avrov rov 0eoO 6 vios i n a l i s t of A l e x a n d e r ' s tenets w h i c h he d i s o w n e d (Urk i , § 2 ) , a n d is said to h a v e b l a m e d A l e x a n d e r f o r s a y i n g I K rov narpds rov vlov, t h o u g h his c o r r e s p o n d e n t G e o r g e o f L a o d i c e a suggests t h a t he s h o u l d h a v e f o u n d t h e p h r a s e acceptable (Urk 13). B u t G e o r g e ' s a r g u m e n t has t h e b a d e f f e c t o f i m p l y i n g t h a t t h e S o n is i n n o w a y distinguishable f r o m the lower creation. A r i u s ' more carefully c o n s i d e r e d Letter to Alexander does n o t discuss t h e p h r a s e I f avrov A paper of mine, delivered at the Colloquium Origenianum Septimum, Hofgeismar-Marburg, in August 1997 adverts to the difficulties which arise from different conceptions of time See note 9 above
per
se, b u t i n c l u d e s i t i n a l i s t of phrases w h i c h can e a s i l y be 6 § 5 : ei he TO ' I f avrov
m i s i n t e r p r e t e d : Urk
e£r)\dov Kal TJKOJ' OJS /xepos avrov voelrai,
ovvderos
eorai
ópoovoíov
ó rrar-qp Kai
Siaiperos
Kai
TO ' I K rod
irarpós
Kai ¿JS rrpo^oXr¡ viró rtvcov etc.
I t is r e a s o n a b l e to
i n f e r t h a t A r i u s d i s l i k e d t h e p h r a s e because i t h a d b e e n u s e d b y h e r e t i c s ( V a l e n t i n u s , M a n i c h a e u s , i b i d §2) i n a w a y w h i c h s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e S o n was e m i t t e d or p r o j e c t e d f r o m t h e F a t h e r i n s o m e p h y s i c a l sense A s L o r e n z has r i g h t l y o b s e r v e d (AJ p 51 n 30), m u c h t h e same p o i n t is m a d e b y E u s e b i u s o f N i c o m e d i a i n h i s Letter
to Paulinm;
I f avrov
r¡v) cos civ piépos avrov
f) I f
c o u l d be t a k e n t o suggest (árr'
dnoppoías
rf¡s ovalas',
he
adds t h a t
avrov the
t e r m yewr¡róv m i g h t be m i s u n d e r s t o o d t o i m p l y chs av I K rr¡s ovalas rr¡s rrarpLKfjs avrov yeyovóra e t c . , t o w h i c h m u c h t h e same o b j e c t i o n s a p p l y H e r e I f avrov rov irarpós is c l o s e l y associated w i t h I K TJ¡S ovoias rrjs rrarpiKrjs, t a k i n g ovoia to m e a n ' m a t e r i a l substance'. Athanasius, however, alleged that A r i u s denied in the Thalia t h a t t h e S o n was I K rov irarpós (c Ar. i 9 ) — a careless m i s t a k e since (e g.) t h e t e x t of t h e Thalia, w h i c h he h i m s e l f t r a n s c r i b e s i n h i s later de Synodis (15.3, O p i t z p. 243 r. 20), r e f e r s to t h e Son as TOV I K rrarpos ovra. M o r e o v e r i n de Synodis 34 he a d m i t s that h i s o p p o n e n t s d e s c r i b e d h i m as g e n e r a t e d I K roí) irarpós: cf. the ' D a t e d C r e e d ' c i t e d , i b i d , c 8. I n h i s earlier w o r k A t h a n a s i u s seems t o have a s s u m e d t h a t o r i g i n a t i o n I f OVK OVTOJV e x c l u d e s I K TOV irarpós
(loe
c i t , OVK eonv
I K TOV irarpós,
dXX I f OVK OVTOJV vireorrj
Kai avrós), w h i c h i g n o r e s t h e v a r i a b l e sense of I K , p a r t l y e x p l o r e d b y L o r e n z (AJ p. 5 r , ' z w e i e r l e i ' ) W h a t A r i u s d i s l i k e s is t h e m a t e r i a l i z i n g v i e w o f G o d w h i c h I K c o u l d suggest i f t a k e n i n a spatial sense; b u t he makes i t a b u n d a n t l y clear t h a t t h e S o n o r i g i n a t e s f r o m t h e F a t h e r , a n d i n d e e d b y t h e d i v i n e w i l l (¿Tn)pfe OeX-qaei irarptpa)—(Opitz p . 243, 11 3, 5, 11 f , 19).. A t h a n a s i u s a t t a c k s this last p o i n t also: A r i u s s h o u l d h a v e said t h a t he d e r i v e s f r o m the d i v i n e essence B u t t h e r e are o b v i o u s o b j e c t i o n s t o a n y s u g g e s t i o n t h a t G o d ' s w i l l m i g h t c o n f l i c t w i t h h i s essence. Athanasius s h o u l d have said t h a t t h e S o n d e r i v e s i n d e e d f r o m his i m m a t e r i a l essence, i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h h i s w i l l . T h e c r i t i c i s m s o f A r i u s w h i c h w e have j u s t n o t e d w i l l n o t s t a n d 11
(b) ' E f OVK ovrtov c a n be t a k e n t o m e a n t h a t t h e Son's existence h a d an a b s o l u t e b e g i n n i n g ; see f o r i n s t a n c e Urk. 4b, t h e letter 'Evos
oojpiaros
§7:
OL>K áe£
r¡v ó rov
6eov
Xóyos,
dXX
If
OVK OVTOJV
yéyovev (the W o r d o f G o d w a s n o t a l w a y s , b u t o r i g i n a t e d f r o m n o t - b e i n g ) . T h e first clause a t least is a p e r f e c t l y fair a c c o u n t of
9
1 0
G C . Stead, ' T h e Freedom of the Will and the Arian Controversy', in H -D Blume and F Mann, (eds.), Platomsmus und Christentum, FS H . Dórrie, (Munster Westf , 1983), pp 256 f ( = Substance and Illusion, London, 1985, X V I ) 11
VII
VII 679
678 A n u s ' t e a c h i n g ; see e s p e c i a l l y Urk. i 5: Kai rrpiv yewrjOf/ .. . OVK rjv, s h o r t l y f o l l o w e d b y t h e defence o f I f OVK OVTOJV e x a m i n e d above. T h e r e p o r t i n Deer 5 b r i n g s t h e phrases c l o s e l y t o g e t h e r : ov yap fjv b vids irpiv yewr/df),
dXX I f OVK OVTOJV yeyove
o w n w o r d s i n t h e Thalia
Kai avros,
and A l i u s '
m a k e h i s p o s i t i o n clear:
avves STI r\ povas r/v, Tj Svas o" OVK rjv irplv vwdp^Tj. avTiKa yovv v\ov prj OVTOS o nctTr^p 9eos kern Xomov o vto$ OVK OJV (uTTTjpfe §e $eXrjoei warpojq) povoyevr/s 8e6s hart ( A t h Syn 15: Opitz p 243 11. 1-4)
Perhaps w e should render this: Understand that the M o n a d was, b u t the D y a d was not before i t came into existence For first, while the Son is n o t , the Father is G o d ; and next, the Son w h o was not, b u t came into being by the Father's w i l l , is G o d the only-begotten M y v a r i a t i o n o f ' i s ' a n d ' w a s ' is s u g g e s t e d b y t h e tense o f t h e associated v e r b W e are d e a l i n g h e r e w i t h a s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d c o n f l i c t o f v i e w s . Alexander a n d Athanasius h e l d that t h e Son was eternally begott e n , A r i u s t h a t h i s existence h a d a b e g i n n i n g . P e r h a p s t h e m o r e i n t e r e s t i n g debate centres o n t h e associated p h r a s e rjv ore OVK rjv, o n w h i c h I h a v e a l r e a d y c o m m e n t e d i n m y 1964 paper A l e x a n d e r argues t h a t t h e use o f t h e i m p e r f e c t tense is i l l e g i t i m a t e (Urk.. i 4 § 2 2 f ) , since i t p r e s u p p o s e s t i m e , w h e r e a s t i m e c a m e i n t o b e i n g t h r o u g h t h e L o g o s ; l i k e w i s e A t h a n a s i u s , c. Ar i 14, argues t h a t t h e A r i a n d i s c l a i m e r rrpo xpdvojv is i l l e g i t i m a t e , since t h e y s t i l l a c k n o w l e d g e p e r i o d s (oiaorqpiaTa TWO) i n w h i c h t h e y i m a g i n e he was n o t , so n o n e t h e less i n d i c a t i n g t i m e s (ovokv T\TTOV xpoeous o-qpiaivovTts) a n d c h a r g i n g G o d w i t h u n r e a s o n (dXoyCa), v i z . absence o f L o g o s T h i s a r g u m e n t c a n f a i r l y easily b e c o u n t e r e d , since i t is i n p r a c t i c e i m p o s s i b l e t o a v o i d t e m p o r a l l a n g u a g e w h e n one a t t e m p t s t o deal w i t h e t e r n a l r e a l i t i e s A l e x a n d e r h i m s e l f has q u o t e d kv dpxtj rjv 6 Xoyos etc , a n d h o w e v e r t h i s is t o b e u n d e r s t o o d , i t c e r t a i n l y does n o t i n d i c a t e a p e r i o d o f t i m e i n w h i c h t h e W o r d was i n t h e b e g i n n i n g , etc. A n d A t h a n a s i u s is p a r t i c u l a r l y exposed to t h e tu quoque a r g u m e n t , since h e r e f e r s t o G o d c r e a t i n g t h i n g s ' w h e n h e saw t h a t t h e y w e r e c a p a b l e o f e x i s t i n g ' , ' w h e n h e w i l l e d , a n d i t was e x p e d i e n t f o r t h e m ' (c. Ar. 1 29). I t m i g h t m a k e sense t o t a l k o f G o d c r e a t i n g i n d i v i d u a l s , or even species, w h e n h e saw t h a t c o n d i t i o n s w e r e r i g h t f o r t h e m : fishes n e e d a sea t o s w i m i n ; b u t w h a t e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s c o u l d suggest t h e r i g h t m o m e n t f o r i n i t i a t i n g c r e a t i o n as a w h o l e ? B u t f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n m u s t be o m i t t e d , since i t w o u l d h a v e t o deal at l e n g t h w i t h a n c i e n t t h e o r i e s of t i m e , a l r e a d y d i s c u s s e d i n m y 1964 paper a n d e l s e w h e r e . 12
12
See note 9 above
(c) A s f o r t h e i m p l i c a t i o n t h a t t h e S o n is a c r e a t u r e : i n t e r m s o f f o r m a l d e f i n i t i o n , t h i s is a p e r f e c t l y c l e a r - c u t issue S i n c e the late s e c o n d c e n t u r y i t h a d b e e n g e n e r a l l y agreed a m o n g C h r i s t i a n s t h a t G o d created all beings, b o t h material a n d s p i r i t u a l , f r o m n o t h i n g T h i s excluded any doctrine o f u n f o r m e d matter existing t o g e t h e r w i t h G o d b e f o r e t h e c r e a t i o n ; a d o c t r i n e h e l d , as w e have seen, b y P l u t a r c h , a n d also b y H e r m o g e n e s , w h o was a n s w e r e d b y T e r t u l l i a n . S i n c e G o d is t h e sole s o u r c e , i t seems clear t h a t n o t h i n g else b u t h i s c r e a t i o n c a m e i n t o b e i n g I f OVK OVTOJV, SO that t h e r e f e r e n c e o f KTLOIS a n d I f OVK OVTOJV is i d e n t i c a l , t h o u g h their sense is d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e B u t p r o b l e m s r e m a i n ; w e m a y ask, is I f OVK OVTOJV an a l l o w a b l e p h r a s e , e v e n i f w e d i s t i n g u i s h G o d as t h e ' m o v i n g cause' of c r e a t i o n ? W e h a v e n o t e d t h e v a r i a n t p h r a s e I K TOC/AT) OVTOS', we k n o w f o r c e r t a i n t h a t A r i u s h i m s e l f u s e d t h e f o r m e r phrase, w h e r e a s t h e latter is a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e A r i a n p a r t y (Urk. 4b §7; A t h c Ar i 22, i i . 18). A r e t h e y r e a l l y e q u i v a l e n t ? T h e latter appears t o s i g n i f y c o m p l e t e absence o f being.. B u t i n s u c h a case i t m i g h t seem t h a t t h e r e is n o t h i n g w h i c h can b e i d e n t i f i e d or c o u n t e d , so as t o j u s t i f y t h e p l u r a l n u m b e r T a k e n l i t e r a l l y ret OVK ovra s h o u l d i m p l y 'at least t w o n o t h i n g ' ! — a n d t h e s i n g u l a r p h r a s e , b e i n g r e l a t i v e l y n o n - c o m m i t t a l , m i g h t seem t o be preferable W e c a n r e p l y b y c o n s i d e r i n g t h e c o n t e x t T h e p h r a s e I f OVK OVTOJV was u n d e r s t o o d , f r o m t h e late s e c o n d c e n t u r y , as e x c l u d i n g the theory that G o d brought things into being b y imposing f o r m o n a p r e - e x i s t e n t u n f o r m e d m a t t e r ; t h e r e are w e l l - k n o w n a r g u m e n t s against m a k i n g m a t t e r c o e x i s t e n t w i t h G o d . B u t these w o u l d n o t a p p l y t o p r e - e x i s t i n g f o r m s o f t h i n g s t o be c r e a t e d , w h i c h c o u l d b e seen as e x i s t i n g i n t h e m i n d o f G o d . I n d e e d , some a n t i - A r i a n w r i t e r s g o f u r t h e r ; t h u s A t h a n a s i u s i n c. Ar 11.75 quotes E p h 1:3-5 d T i m r : 2 - i o : t h e c h o i c e o f t h e elect was foreseen b e f o r e t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f t h e w o r l d B u t G o d c a n h a r d l y have c h o s e n t h e elect w i t h o u t f o r e s e e i n g t h e i r c i r c u m s t a n c e s ; so i t seems t h a t G o d ' s f o r e k n o w l e d g e m u s t e x t e n d b e y o n d t h e 'species and p o s s i b l y i n d i v i d u a l t h i n g s ' m e n t i o n e d b y O r i g e n (Princ 1.4 5) to i n c l u d e t h e d e s t i n i e s o f each i n d i v i d u a l ; O r i g e n i n d e e d t h o u g h t t h a t (as a l w a y s p e r f e c t l y f o r e k n o w n ) t h e y m u s t a l w a y s have e x i s t e d . I c a n n o t m y s e l f accept a n y s u c h t h e o r y o f t o t a l p r e d e t e r m i n a t i o n , b u t t h i s is n o t t h e p l a c e f o r i t s f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n . Y e t t h e v i e w t h a t t h i n g s c a n e x i s t ' i n idea' b e f o r e (or w i t h o u t ) a t t a i n i n g e x i s t e n c e i n r e a l i t y seems t o i m p l y t h a t e x i s t i n g is an a
n
2
13
13
See my Philosophy in Christian Antiquity (Cambridge, 1994), pp 232-35
VII
VIT
681
680 a c t i v i t y w h i c h can he e x e r c i s e d i n v a r i o u s f o r m s I t c o n t r a s t s w i t h a t o t a l l y d i f f e r e n t t h e o r y o f existence p r o p o u n d e d b y m o d e r n l o g i c i a n s , w h i c h e l i m i n a t e s t h i s s u p p o s e d a c t i v i t y a n d e x p l a i n s '% e x i s t s ' b y ' s o m e t h i n g is x\ i n w h i c h p h r a s e t h e ' i s ' is a n e n t i r e l y c o l o u r l e s s t e r m e x p r e s s i n g p r e d i c a t i o n , as o p p o s e d t o d e n o t i n g a n a c t i v i t y w h i c h x p e r f o r m s a c c o r d i n g t o i t s n a t u r e I have t r i e d t o e x p l a i n t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i n s i m p l e t e r m s i n m y b o o k Philosophy in Christian Antiquity, pp. 120-26; b u t I c o u l d w e l l emphasize that n e i t h e r t h e o r y can easily e x p l a i n t h e w h o l e r a n g e o f cases i n w h i c h t h e n o t i o n o f ' e x i s t i n g ' is u s e d T h e s e c o n d t h e o r y w o r k s a d m i r a b l y w h e n w e w i s h t o c o n t r a s t t h i n g s t h a t a c t u a l l y exist w i t h m e r e fictions; b u t i t is n o t easy t o a p p l y t o cases w h e r e s o m e t h i n g comes i n t o existence b y r e c o g n i z a b l e stages. T h i s p o i n t can be m a d e w i t h o u t a n y r e f e r e n c e t o t r a n s c e n d e n t a l r e a l i t i e s , o r ideas i n t h e m i n d o f G o d , t h o u g h i t does n o t exclude t h e m . W e still distinguish between intellect and matter P y t h a g o r a s ' t h e o r e m , f o r i n s t a n c e , c o m e s i n t o b e i n g at t h e m o m e n t w h e n i t is c o n c e i v e d ; i f t h e r e are stages i n t h i s process, t h e y are stages i n P y t h a g o r a s ' m e n t a l t r a v a i l ; w h e r e a s A r c h i m e d e s ' 'eureka' seems t o c e l e b r a t e a n i n s t a n t a n e o u s d i s c o v e r y B u t a t h i n g ' s c o m i n g into being may w e l l involve b o t h mental and material o p e r a t i o n s A b r i d g e m i g h t b e g i n s i m p l y as a d e s i d e r a t u m ; i t b e c o m e s a p r o j e c t w h e n p o s s i b l e m e t h o d s are s u g g e s t e d ; m o d e l s m a y be m a d e t o t r y o u t a l t e r n a t i v e s o l u t i o n s ; finally t h e b r i d g e is b u i l t B e f o r e t h a t t i m e one m i g h t w e l l say t h a t t h e b r i d g e d i d n o t e x i s t B u t t h e p r e l i m i n a r y stages c a n easily be i d e n t i f i e d , for e x a m p l e , as ' w o r k o n t h e S y d n e y H a r b o u r B r i d g e ' . Per c o n t r a , w e c o u l d say, ' I n 1900 t h e S y d n e y H a r b o u r B r i d g e d i d n o t e x i s t ' , or a d d u c e t h e goat-stag or t h e c h i m e r a as t h i n g s t h a t never c o u l d e x i s t I n s u c h cases t h e r e was n o t , or is n o t , a n y t h i n g t h a t answers t o t h e d e s c r i p t i o n , a n d t h e y c a n be d e a l t w i t h b y t h e t h e o r y discussed above T h e s e r e m a r k s o f c o u r s e take us s o m e w a y b e y o n d t h e c i r c l e of ideas c o m m o n l y r e c e i v e d i n a n t i q u i t y , w h e n w e hear s o m e t h i n g about the m e n t a l labour of conceiving a project, b u t v e r y little a b o u t t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l t e s t i n g o f m a t e r i a l devices B u t t h e f a c t t h a t e x t e n s i o n is p o s s i b l e does n o t m a k e t h e m i n a p p l i c a b l e t o a n c i e n t p r o b l e m s W e n e e d n o t suggest t h a t a h u m a n a r t e f a c t must b e g i n as a p r o j e c t ; t a k i n g A r i s t o t l e ' s e x a m p l e , a m a n m i g h t b e g i n w i t h a mass o f b r o n z e f o r t u i t o u s l y a c q u i r e d , a n d t h e n d e c i d e t o make it i n t o a statue, rather t h a n b e g i n n i n g w i t h the project and t h e n a c q u i r i n g t h e necessary m a t e r i a l B u t i f t h e r e are a n y p r i o r i t ies i n G o d ' s a l l - p e r f e c t a c t i o n , he w i l l f i r s t c o n c e i v e a n d t h e n execute
I n A r i a n t h e o l o g y t h i s p r i n c i p l e , i t seems, w o u l d a p p l y to the L o g o s ' T h e r e w a s ' — t h o u g h n o t ' t h e r e was a t i m e ' — ' w h e n he w a s n o t ' B u t f r o m a l l e t e r n i t y t h e r e e x i s t e d i n G o d his inseparable W i s d o m , w h i c h is t h e p r o t o t y p e of his p e r s o n a l L o g o s . T h i s w o u l d b e e s p e c i a l l y clear i f w e c o u l d accept t h e r e a d i n g ( A t h . c. Ar 15) 7] oofiia TTj oocp'Ca urri/pfe trot/iot) 6eov dcA-joei. B u t h a v e w e a r r i v e d at a p r o p e r a n a l o g y f o r G o d ' s creative w o r k ? I t d e p e n d s , I t h i n k , o n w h e t h e r w e accept or d e n y the d o c t r i n e o f t o t a l p r e d e t e r m i n a t i o n b y t h e d i v i n e w i l l . I f w e accept i t , t h e n p r e s u m a b l y t h e w h o l e c o n c e p t o f a l l f u t u r e events o r i g i n a t e d w i t h o u t a n y lapse of t i m e , t h o u g h i t is a c o n c e p t o f events to b e e n a c t e d i n t i m e B u t i f t h e c o u r s e o f t h i s w o r l d is at least p a r t l y u n d e t e r m i n e d , a n d t h u s a l l o w s scope f o r h u m a n f r e e d o m i n a r a d i c a l sense, w e m a y h a v e t o say t h a t G o d a l l o w s t h i n g s t o exist and w i t h i n l i m i t s to d e t e r m i n e their f u t u r e w h i l e still exercising o v e r a l l c o n t r o l . T h i s at least e l i m i n a t e s a d i f f i c u l t y w h i c h m i g h t e m b a r r a s s t h e d o c t r i n e o f t o t a l d i v i n e f o r e k n o w l e d g e . T h e ancients o f t e n r e g a r d e d k n o w l e d g e as a k i n d o f i d e n t i t y o f t h e k n o w i n g m i n d w i t h t h e o b j e c t k n o w n . B u t i n t h a t case, w o u l d n o t the d i v i n e p l a n collapse i n t o t o t a l i d e n t i t y w i t h t h e events i t s u p p o s e d l y k n o w s ? B u t i f d e t e r m i n a t i o n is n o t a l l - e m b r a c i n g , o n e m i g h t suppose t h a t G o d h a d f r o m all e t e r n i t y an o u t l i n e plan o f what was t o b e , b u t a l l o w e d f o r p h y s i c a l i n d é t e r m i n a t i o n a n d f u l l h u m a n freedom. (d) W h a t of t h e f o u r t h p o s s i b i l i t y , or s u g g e s t i o n , t h a t f r o m the language u s e d i t f o l l o w s t h a t t h e Son is n o t t r u e B e i n g , or is n o t a t r u e b e i n g , or is a n o n - e n t i t y ? I t d e p e n d s o n t h e exact phraseology W e have c o n s i d e r e d t h e l e g i t i m a c y of t h e phrase I f OVK OVTLOV itself. W h a t I have n o t so far d e t e r m i n e d is, w h e t h e r i t was used b y A r i u s ' o p p o n e n t s t o i m p l y t h a t A r i u s ' v i e w m a d e t h e S o n one of t h e 'things t h a t are n o t ' c o n d e m n e d b y St P a u l i n 1 Cor 1:28 For t h e m o m e n t , I t h i n k t h i s idea was p r e s e n t as n o m o r e t h a n an i n n u e n d o T h e case is rather d i f f e r e n t w i t h t h e a l t e r n a t i v e phrase rov /tr) ovra, w h i c h is a t t r i b u t e d to t h e A r i a n p a r t y b u t n o t d i r e c t l y attested i n A r i u s ' o w n w r i t i n g s P r o b a b l y our best source is Urk. 4b, a letter w r i t t e n i n the n a m e of A l e x a n d e r b u t d r a f t e d , I b e l i e v e , b y A t h a n a s i u s ; A r i u s is said t o believe ô yàp tov rov pi] ovra l/c rov IXT) ovros TTCTToirjKe. C l e a r l y t h e s y n t a x a l l o w s us t o t r a n s l a t e t h e p a r t i c i p l e either as ' h i m that was n o t ' or as ' h i m t h a t is n o t ' , j u s t as one can either make a statue, sc. o u t o f b r o n z e , or m a k e b r o n z e , sc. i n t o a statue. T h e exegesis ' h i m w h o was n o t ' makes t h e p o i n t already c o n s i d e r e d u n d e r (b), a n d c o u l d have been accepted b y A r i u s ; see e. g Thalia 1 20 (p. 243 14
See my 'Athanasius' Earliest Written Work', JTS,
MÎ, 39, (1988),
76-91
VII
VII 682
683
1. i ) ovve;
o n rj piovds rjv, T) 8va$ Se OVK yjv -npiv v-ndp^n T h e exegesis ' h i m w h o is n o t ' seems m o r e e m p h a t i c ; one m i g h t p e r h a p s deduce
i t f r o m A r i u s , o p c i t . , XOVTOV 6 vids OVK SJV vrrr/p^e )
&e deXrjoei
TraTpiba,
p,ovoy£vr)s 9e6s I o n T h e p r o b a b l e basis is t h a t A n u s r e f u s e d t o a p p l y t o t h e S o n t h e kyoj elpu 6 wv o f E x o d u s 3:14 E u s e b i u s ' t h e o l o g y m o v e d away f r o m t h i s p o s i t i o n . I n DE 5 3 r6 ( p p 2 2 r 28 f f ) he appears to suggest t h i s concession; b u t i t is o n l y i n h i s m a t u r e Ecclesiastical effi
Theology
6 vids TO "kyib
t h a t h e c a n say d i r e c t l y e t r ' ovv 6 TraTt)p
kip.1 o < w " , dXr/Oevot dv e/carepios b Xdyos
Xtyei
(2 20.15,
p p T29, 1 28 f . ) N e v e r t h e l e s s t h i s c r u c i a l t e x t uses o civ i n a h i g h l y d i s t i n c t i v e sense; i t c a n n o t b e r i g h t t o argue t h a t i f A r i u s d e n i e d t h i s t i t l e t o t h e S o n , he m u s t have r e g a r d e d h i m as TOV psr) t W a i n whatever sense w e ourselves care t o a t t a c h t o t h e phrase
D i o n y s i i , A r i u s accepting t h e m o r e extreme statements of the A l e x a n d r i a n w h i l e A l e x a n d e r t r i e d r a t h e r i n c o n s i s t e n t l y t o meet t h e a r g u m e n t s o f t h e R o m a n p o p e w h i l e m a i n t a i n i n g an insistence o n Teal d i s t i n c t i o n s i n t h e Persons o f t h e T r i n i t y S i n c e t h e A l e x a n d r i a n D i o n y s i u s was i n c o n t r o v e r s y w i t h Sabellians i n L i b y a , i t has been p l a u s i b l y m a i n t a i n e d t h a t he f o s t e r e d a m a r k e d anti-Sabellian reaction towards w h i c h A r i u s was d r a w n Such e x p l a n a t i o n s appear t o m e m u c h m o r e c o n v i n c i n g t h a n a supposed i n f l u e n c e f r o m A n t i o c h e n e t h e o l o g y , or a d e b t t o P a u l o f Samosata, w h i l e L u c i a n remains an enigma I t m a y well b e , however, that i n A l e x a n d r i a the doctrine of eternal generation was already established ( f o l l o w i n g O r i g e n and no doubt influenced b y Dionysius o f R o m e ) , so t h a t A r i u s was u p h o l d i n g a m i n o r i t y v i e w I n other p a t r i a r c h a t e s h i s d o c t r i n e t h a t t h e S o n was b e g o t t e n irpd xpdvcov KCLI alojvcov w o u l d h a v e been t h o u g h t s u f f i c i e n t ; i t was e v i d e n t l y a c c e p t a b l e t o E u s e b i u s of Caesarea, w h o w i t h o u t a g r e e i n g e n t i r e l y w i t h A r i u s nevertheless v e n t u r e d t o take h i s side against A l e x a n d e r b e f o r e h i s p a r t i a l c a p i t u l a t i o n at N i c a e a W h e r e I t h i n k A r i u s is v u l n e r a b l e is t h a t h e r e l i e d so largely o n P r o v e r b s 8:22 t a k e n i n i s o l a t i o n H i s e x p o s i t i o n o f t h i s text was u n d o u b t e d l y c o r r e c t , i n t h a t i t r e p r o d u c e d t h e b i b l i c a l w r i t e r ' s i n t e n t i o n s , as n o t m e a n i n g t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e b e t w e e n ' b e g e t t i n g ' and ' m a k i n g ' , or d e l i b e r a t e l y c o n t r a s t i n g t h e i r tenses, as i n t h e L X X eKnae ytwa B u t i t was a breach w i t h t r a d i t i o n ; Christian scholars h a d l o n g p u z z l e d over t h e t e x t , a n d t r i e d v a r i o u s means t o a v o i d e q u a t i n g t h e t w o v e r b s . T h e A r i a n a r g u m e n t s f o r equat i o n w e r e n o t n o t a b l y s u c c e s s f u l ; i n p a r t i c u l a r , their o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t yewav can b e u s e d i n a v e r y general sense w a s taken t o p r o v e t h a t t h e y r e g a r d e d t h e S o n as a c r e a t u r e tout court, as n o m o r e t h a n o n e o f t h e ' d r o p s o f d e w ' ( J o b 38:28; see p 6 7 4 ) B u t A t h a n a s i u s ' c o u n t e r - a r g u m e n t s are t h e m s e l v e s i n c o h e r e n t ; he can a r g u e t h a t G o d ' s acts o f c r e a t i n g , a n d again o f b e g e t t i n g , are t o t a l l y r e m o v e d f r o m h u m a n e x p e r i e n c e (c. Ar. i 24, 28 i n i t . ) a n d y e t appeal t o h u m a n e x p e r i e n c e t o p r e s e n t i t as a m a t t e r o f course t h a t b e g e t t i n g a n d m a k i n g are t w o d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s ( i b i d 24, 29) I t is d i f f i c u l t t o a v o i d t h e s u s p i c i o n t h a t h e goes far b e y o n d most earlier o r t h o d o x C h r i s t i a n s i n e m p h a s i z i n g t h e f r a g i l i t y a n d imper¬ m a n e n c e o f G o d ' s c r e a t i o n , i n o r d e r t o arouse h o s t i l i t y against A r i u s ' c l a i m t h a t t h e S o n is a c r e a t u r e ; after a l l , t h e relative 1 7
1 8
S e c t i o n 3 has s h o w n t h a t i n t h e c o u r s e o f t h e A r i a n c o n t r o v e r s y t h e phrase I f OVK OVTLOV a c q u i r e d v a r i o u s n u a n c e s w h i c h d i d n o t a t t a c h t o its o r i g i n a l use a p p l y i n g t o c r e a t e d n a t u r e A l l i t i n t e n d e d t o e x c l u d e w a s , i n A r i s t o t l e ' s t e r m s , a m a t e r i a l cause; t h e m o v i n g , f o r m a l a n d f i n a l causes are n o t e x c l u d e d A n d t h e same w i l l a p p l y t o t h e A r i a n L o g o s T h e o b j e c t i o n s r a i s e d against h i s o r i g i n a t i o n I f OVK 'OVTOJV are l a r g e l y p o l e m i c a l devices T h e real b o n e o f c o n t e n t i o n w a s , w h e t h e r A r i u s was r i g h t i n r e t a i n i n g t h e i n c l u s i v e sense o f ' c r e a t i o n ' so t h a t e v e r y b e i n g a p a r t f r o m t h e F a t h e r h i m s e l f m u s t r a n k as a ' c r e a t u r e ' 4
'FROM
N O T H I N G ' : PERVERSE
OR DEFENSIBLE?
We come, then, to a controversial a n d very familiar theme I w i l l begin w i t h a f e w generalities I do n o t t h i n k that A r i a n i s m s h o u l d b e e x p l a i n e d as a n i n t r u s i o n f r o m a l i e n p h i l o s o p h y i n t o Christian debate Moreover I t h i n k i t was predominantly a n A l e x a n d r i a n d e v e l o p m e n t . B u t t h a t does n o t i m p l y t h a t A l e x a n d r i a n t h e o l o g y was a u n i f i e d c o r p u s O r i g e n ' s i n f l u e n c e was o b v i o u s l y p o w e r f u l ; b u t t h e r e is reason t o suspect a n t i - O t i g e n i s t i c currents M o r e o v e r O r i g e n ' s o w n t e a c h i n g is many-faceted N o t a b l y he c o m b i n e d a d o c t r i n e of eternal generation w i t h a m a r k e d s u b o r d i n a t i o n i s m , a n uneasy c o m b i n a t i o n , b u t one f a m i l iar i n c o n t e m p o r a r y P l a t o n i s m . A r i u s w h o l l y r e j e c t e d t h e f o r m e r , A l e x a n d e r reacted s t r o n g l y against t h e latter M o r e o v e r t h e y w i l l have t a k e n d i f f e r e n t v i e w s o f t h e c o n t r o v e r s y b e t w e e n t h e t w o 1 5
1 6
See my 'Platonism of Arius' (n 1) and 'Was A l i u s a Neoplatonist?', Studia PatiViLita 32 (1997), 39-52 (against R D. Williams, Arms pp 181-232), and 'Platonism in Origen and Arius' (lecture at the Colloquium Origenianum Septimum, Hofgeismar-Marburg, 1997) See W A Bienert, Dionysius von Alexandrien, P7S, 21, (Berlin/New York, 1978) 15
16
1 9
See my 'Arius in Modern Research', (n. 7), esp. 34-36 See 'Dionysius of Rome's Letter', in C L Feltoe, Dionysius of Alexandria (Cambridge, 1904), on the distinction between yeyewijodat and yeyavivai See esp M Simonetti, Studi sull'Arianesimo (VS 5) (Rome, ^ 6 5 ) , pp 9-87 17
16
19
VII 684 goodness of t h e c r e a t i o n h a d b e e n a n i m p o r t a n t p o i n t t o argue against t h e M a n i c h e e s A n d h i s a r g u m e n t ( i b i d . i i . 19) t h a t i t is l o g i c a l l y u n s o u n d t o d e s c r i b e t h e S o n as KrCop,a . dXX oi>x OJS h Ttuv KTtojxdroiVj,
yevvrjfxa
dXX ov\ cos ev TOJV yevvyjftdrtov
is f a r
from
impressive T h e o l o g y demands an element of paradox; a n d surely n o N i c e n e s h o u l d o b j e c t t o d e s c r i b i n g C h r i s t as dvQpomos, dXX oi>x tbs €is TWV dv8pci>7To)v, r e m e m b e r i n g t h a t f o r A t h a n a s i u s h i m s e l f h e is b o t h dvdptoiTos a n d OVK 'dvdpojiros b y t u r n s 2 0
A t i u s , w e s a i d , r e l i e d t o o l a r g e l y o n P r o v e r b s 8:22 t a k e n b y i t s e l f B u t w h e n A t h a n a s i u s i n r e p l y a f f e c t e d t o d e f i n e t h e 'scope' o f S c r i p t u r e as a w h o l e , h e m u s t b e accused o f special p l e a d i n g ; as i f t h e w h o l e B i b l e w e r e d i r e c t e d t o w a r d s h i s o w n f o u r t h - c e n t u r y problems N e v e r t h e l e s s i t is t r u e t h a t a great mass o f i m p o r t a n t t e x t s assign a r o l e t o t h e S o n w h i c h A r i u s a p p e a r e d t o deny. T o d e c l a r e t h a t h e was e f OVK OVTOJV w a s a p o l e m i c a l s t a t e m e n t , a n d a tactical error. T h e u n d e r l y i n g d o c t r i n e , that t h e S o n was n o t c o e t e r n a l w i t h t h e F a t h e r , w o u l d n o d o u b t h a v e b e e n acceptable i n A l e x a n d r i a i n t h e t i m e o f B i s h o p D i o n y s i u s , as i t w a s i n other patriarchates i n A r i u s ' o w n time. B u t Alexander and Athanasius had advanced to a n e w p o s i t i o n , w h i c h they were prepared to d e f e n d w i t h t h e u t m o s t s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e , a n d w i t h c o m p l e t e lack o f s c r u p l e — t o say n o t h i n g o f C h r i s t i a n c h a r i t y — i n t h e i r t r e a t m e n t o f t h e i r o p p o n e n t s . A l i u s ' ef OVK OVTOJV m a d e h i m v u l n e r a b l e N o d o u b t h e w a s p r o t e s t i n g against c r u d e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f IK TOV irarpds: b u t h e t h u s a p p e a r e d t o d e n y , w h a t e l s e w h e r e h e c l e a r l y states, t h a t t h e S o n d i d o r i g i n a t e f r o m t h e F a t h e r H e r e p e a t e d t h i s s t a t e m e n t at t h e e n d o f h i s days i n a c o n c i l i a t o r y f o r m u l a sent t o C o n s t a n t i n e (Urk. 30, 2) B u t h i s o p p o n e n t s r e q u i r e d m o r e t h a n h e w a s p r e p a r e d t o c o n c e d e , at t h e same t i m e a c c u s i n g h i m of h y p o c r i s y A p p a r e n t l y t h e o n l y w a y t o a v o i d the charge of hypocrisy was to c o m m i t the sin 2 1
2 2
A r i u s , o f c o u r s e , was n o t w h o l l y f r e e f r o m b l a m e Y e t t h e C h r i s t i a n C h u r c h has m u c h t o d e p l o r e i n its t r e a t m e n t o f h i m . . T h e c a r e f u l l y c o n s i d e r e d phrases o f h i s Letter to Alexander attracted the same i n t e m p e r a t e abuse as h i s a d m i t t e d l y p r o v o c a t i v e Thalia. P e r h a p s t h e m o s t u s e f u l lesson w e can d r a w is t h e u n w i s d o m o f b e f o g g i n g t h e m i n d s o f s i m p l e believers w i t h expressions t h a t are better s u i t e d t o t h e l e c t u r e - r o o m a n d t h e t h e o l o g i c a l j o u r n a l
See C Kannengresser, Sur ITncarnation du Verbe (SC 199) (Paris, 1973), pp.48-51 See my 'Athanasius als Exeget', in J van Oort and U Wrckert, (eds), Christliche Exegese zwnchen Nicaea und Chalcedon (Kampen, 1992), 174-84, here pp. 177 f See Athanasius, Ep 54.2 2 0
2 1
2 2
VIII
The Aiian Controversy: A New Perspective (Magistra, fons dulcedinis, hoc i n loco desipere liceat!)
I h e text that I shall try to introduce to y o u should i think be classed as pseudepigraphical Its historical value I judge to be slight. It is indeed written i n the name o f Alius, and is presumably the work of an Arian writer, or at least of one who had some measure of sympathy with the Arian cause But it cannot have been written by Arius himself, nor indeed during his lifetime, since it clearly shows knowledge of Athanasian theology, not simply f r o m oral tradition but as it is presented i n his writings. Its evident acquaintance w i t h the Orations against the Arians shows that the work must be dated some five or ten years after the heresiaich's death, at the earliest; and i f it is seen to have used the de Synodis also, this indicates a date i n the 360's as a terminus a quo. I n view of t h e intrinsic interest o f the questions i n dispute I do not pr opose to give further attention t o its provenance and transmission, but w i l l lay it before you at once i n the English version which I have prepared I t runs as follows: f he prophet of old instructed his disciple saying " M y son, if thou comest to serve the L o r d , prepare thy soul for trials; cleave unto h i m and depart not, and endure the vicissitudes of humiliation". Indeed the Lord himself said to his apostles " I f a man do not take up his cross and follow me, he cannot be m y disciple".. Now we w i l l not exalt ourselves above measure, or presume to compare ourselves w i t h the apostles; but as followers o f them, and of the holy prophets, and of our blessed and orthodox teachers in the Church, we have indeed suffered grievous trials at the hands of proud and selfwilled m e n who malign our persistence i n the orthodox faith For as to the blessed Alexander, at one time our Bishop, we shall say nothing, though we grieved over his errors; for he showed us many kindnesses, and for a time was willing to listen to us and inquire peaceably, if by any means we could come together i n the bond of orthodoxy But i n the end he was persuaded by evil counsellors, and those not grave and experienced men, nor many in number, but by a violent and ambitious youth whose honourable name I will not disgrace by pronouncing it, since i n every place he has promoted violence and discord rather than the concord and fellowship which disposes to (auavaoiav) eternal life N o w the impious Rehoboam listened to the evil counsel of the young m e n after the death of his father Solomon; but this new tyrant, young though he was, accepted n o man's counsel, nor did he submit himself to the wisdom of that good Solomon while he was alive; but stole his affections and usurped his authority, not waiting for that death
VIII
VIII
52
The Arian Controversy
which was to him the opportunity for his ambition; and after the blessed Alexander fell asleep he was secretly appointed, as he claims, by some two or three confederates, and by specious words and gifts and promises, and by threats as well, he has corrupted the minds of the innocent, and now persecutes and drives away the orthodox and faithful brethren A n d in all this time we ourselves have done h i m no violence, nor have we incited others to this effect; for not even he himself has ever alleged this; but only, it may be, some of our brethren were provoked by his violence and injustice towards us, or sought retaliation for the wrongs they had suffered. But we for our part have never ceased to strive for communion and fellowship; or if the enmity shown towards us cannot be quenched, we have asked leave to occupy a place of worship where our brethren can assemble without fear or distraction, desiring only that God's holy altar and the sacred vessels and ministers of the sanctuary be not violated by men who are robbers, not givers o f peace But though so often disappointed, by God's grace we have not been idle, but have continued to teach and expound the scriptures as our fathers have taught us. A n d those who are free from ill-will may judge of our faith by the things we have formerly written But since the proud man does not cease to incite oui fellow-Christians against us, reviling us as madmen and blasphemers, we are moved by the divine Reason himself to come to the aid of the truth, not spewing out interminable and repetitious harangues like those of our assailant, but concisely, as Christian modesty and decency prescribe For he has inquired in some place whether names are better than the realities they denote, or inferior to them; and he goes on to complain at us for saying that God uses many words to instruct us, alleging that each word i n that case must be feeble and need the help of others to correct i t W h y then does he himself add word to word, nay rather treatise to treatise? Should he not rather follow blessed Paul, who teaches that the kingdom of God is not i n word but in power? Should he not be ashamed of his inquiry, nay rather his foolish conundrum which any Grecian sophist would have despised? But if we may answer a fool according to his folly, let him learn that there are honorable names, and also names of dishonour; for as to the word 'power', no doubt the reality is greater than the word; but if we speak of 'powerlessness', then the word is greater; for the word at least has power to signify, whereas the reality is a lack of any power So then we must distinguish between word and word, as the blessed Matthew tells us: "for by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shall be condemned". But you, proud bishop, or rather busybody (áMoipieiríoxoire), do not agree, for you contradict yourself many times over, as we shall shortly demonstrate; and i n one place you say that we should pay careful attention to the words, observing the place and the time and the character that is presented; and again you say that the words are things indif1
2
3
ferent and fit to be ignored when some person attends to the facts A n d you do not accept blessed Paul when he proclaims Christ as the power of God and the wisdom of God; for he has used two names, and thus forsooth has demonstrated the weakness of both; and you would have him say "Christ the power of God and the power of God", since it is power without wisdom that you covet and enjoy But I shall not fail to expose the falsity of those words which you misuse against us. For in the first place you traduce us as i f we had said that Christ was a mere man; and you tax us with taking the part o f the Jews and of Caiaphas and of Paul the Samosatene. But first of all, we have never said this, nor is there any writing of ours which you can quote to this effect; indeed we have proclaimed him a mighty god, as you very well know, since you quote our own words in this r e g a r d A n d we have always taught, in accordance with St Paul, that he is the first-born of all creation, and that he was with God as a beginning, and as Wisdom was present w i t h him, giving harmony at the creation o f all things. We say indeed that he was in existence before the ages and before the creation o f the heavens; and you yourself know that this is our doctrine, for you acknowledge us, and Eusebius and Asterius too, as teaching that it was by his means that God created all things. Y o u report our declaration that when God willed to create originate nature, then he first, and he alone, created one, and one alone, and called h i m Son and W o r d , that by his means all things should come into b e i n g This then is your testimony; how then do you dare to slander us, who have called him God's only Son and W o r d , as if we reckoned him a mere man and numbered him indifferently among the creatures? 5
6
7
8
9
I t is not on this account that we have called him a creature; for we have made clear his own proper dignity, proclaiming him "a creature, yet not as one of the creatures, an offspring, yet not as one of the offspring" Now that we have called h i m a creature, is both reasonable and devout; nay, we are bound to do so, confirming to the truly theological Solomon, who proclaims in the person of Wisdom "The Lord created me the beginning o f his ways with a view to his works; before the age he founded me in the beginning" But you will not have it so; for you tell us that he was created, and yet was not a creature, as if God were unable to perfect the work which he intended; and whereas Solomon says that he was created before the age, in the beginning, you vainly allege that he was installed in some new dignity quite recently, now at the end of t i m e ; and after all this you revile us as if we had said that he was i n some way improved or 10
11
12
13
5
4
6
7
8
9
1
3
1
4
See Deer. 16 Ibid Mt 12:37 Or c Ar r 54
53
10
11
11
u
Ibid. II 3 Or c Ar I 38, II 17; Deer 10; Sent Dion 3 Syn 15 Col 1:15, Jn 1:1, Prov 8:30 Or II. 24 Syn 16, cf. Or II 19 Prov 8:22-3 Or c. Ar. II 45 Ibid II 74
VIII
VIII
54
The Arian Controversy
promoted during his earthly life, which is false; while you dare to uphold that very doctrine which you condemn in ourselves! Now that he is coeternal with the Father, or shares with h i m the title 'unoriginate', we are bound in Christian duty to deny; since we have learnt from the saints that the Father himself is the beginning, and that there cannot be two unoriginates; for in that case there must be a third to mediate and distinguish between them; and if a third, then a fourth and f i f t h So we say, framing words to the best o f our ability, that he was not before he was generated. A n d you yourself must accept this view, since it is beyond question that the Father is prior to the Son; and even you will not be so reckless as to say that the Son can beget himself or can beget his own Father, or (though heaven forbid such vile insinuations!) that they mutually beget one another. But we say that the Son was begotten before all ages, for the ages themselves belong to that created nature which the Father laid down with the presence and assistance o f his Son A n d in this you agree, even though you tax us w i t h senseless riddles about the before and the after; for you yourself declare that the W o r d is the Father's counsel, and again that his counsel and purpose was made ready before the ages W h y then do you condemn us, who have but followed the Scriptures in expounding these mysteries - why, I say, do you condemn us when you yourself use the same expressions as we do? 1 4
15
16
17
Yet again, we have amply declared his proper dignity beyond all other creatures, enlightened by the blessed Paul, who declares h i m made so much better than the angels as he has inherited a more excellent name than they But this sentence does not please you, and you give to it a sense of your own, saying that no comparison is intended Moreover, when you wish to deny that the Son is a creature, though exalted above all other creatures, you are not content w i t h changing the meaning of Scripture; no, you write as if Paul had never spoken For 1 w i l l quote your very words in part, as follows: " I f the Son were a creature, but not as one of the creatures because o f his excelling them in glory, it were natural that Scripture should describe h i m by a comparison with the other works; for instance, that it should say that he is greater than the archangels... But he is not in fact thus referred to " T his is what you wrote against us. What, have you forgotten Paul's words? Or do you blame h i m for speaking incorrectly of angels when you yourself would in your wisdom have referred to archangels? W h y do you say that the Scripture does not compare h i m with the visible things of creation, or praise h i m as brighter than the sun and moon, and greater than the heavens? Do you then suppose we are ignorant of the Scriptures, that you toss them out so boldly? 18
19
2 0
21
For Job, and Solomon too, compare h i m , not even with those great lights, but w i t h rubies, pronouncing him the better A n d the inspired Paul tells us that he saw a light f r o m heaven above the brightness o f the sun. N o w what was that light but the L o r d , who spoke with h i m and gave h i m commandment? A n d that he is more honorable than thrones we learn f r o m Daniel, who writes: I beheld till thrones were placed, and one that was ancient of days did sit; for how shall the throne be more glorious than h i m that sitteth upon it? 22
23
24
But here is further proof of your unscrupulous deceit Since you will not accept that the L o r d is reverently to be called a creature in accordance w i t h Scripture, you intend by every means to make the wor d 'cr eature' a term o f dishonour , to make it appear that we dishonour h i m . A n d to that end you are not ashamed to disparage the works of creation; though even here you are not consistent, but contradict yourself in what you say For we have read that God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very g o o d A n d in part you agree; for you speak of the order and harmony of all things which, as Wisdom tells us, indicates their maker. A n d in your writing against the gentiles you quote David, who praises the all-embracing providence and disposition of the W o r d , as you explain Yet again you retract and contradict yourself, alleging that the nature of all things created is fugitive and changeable, though elsewhere y o u affirm that each one exists and remains i n its own essence as it was made. A n d as to mankind you say that they are corruptible by nature, since they are made out of nothing, supposing that they are subject to some other origin and law than the will of their Creator; and again you say that God foresaw their weakness and instability before he created them, as i f he were a meddlesome workman whose pride forbad him t o abandon his construction even though he knew it would be bad. 2 5
26
2 7
28
29
30
31
N o w that the rational creation is by nature changeable, o f course we shall admit; for both men and the higher powers are capable o f turning either towards the good or to the reverse; and what praise or merit could there be in so-called goodness i f no choice is involved, and men obey their Creator blindly, like the winds and waves, or rest immovable, like stocks and stones? W i t h good reason, therefore, we say that the Lord is changeable by nature, like every rational being; for he was not dumb and insensible, but knew how to refuse the evil and choose the good But by the resolve of his own will he is unchangeable, as we have many times declared; moreover this good resolve of his was k n o w n to the Father himself before all ages, and he is therefore worthy to be 22
23
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Cf. ibid II 26 Ibid. I 13 Or II. 2 Ibid 77 Hebr 1:4 Or I 55-7 Ibid II 23 Ibid
55
24
25
16
27
28
29
30
31
Job 28:18, Prov 3:15, 8:11 Acts 26:13. Dan 7:9 Gen. 1:31. Or II 32 Gent Or I. Or II Inc 4 Or II
46 36. 19 77
VIII
VIII The Aiian Controversy
56
acknowledged as the true W o r d and Wisdom of the Father, who also willed to beget h i m as Son But you make light of the Father's foreknowledge and reasonable ordinance, as it seems; and though we have declared h i m unchangeable through his perfection i n goodness, which G o d foreknew, you declare that these are things of no account, and give h i m no greater authority than Peter or Paul or any other man. A n d so because of your malice towards us, or it may be through pride at being Bishop of the Alexandrians, you exalt yourself like Lucifer and dare to insult the wise foreknowledge of your own Creator. Moreover you make it a matter of complaint that we speak of two Wisdoms, one in the Father and one i n the Son, just as they are two persons and two dignities; and indeed we do not deny this, and have truly said that Wisdom came into being as Wisdom by the will of the wise G o d . For the Father himself is the source of Wisdom and o f all good things, as you doubtless agree, and of this Wisdom he has given to the Son i n surpassing measure, so that he alone among God's offspring and creatures and works is honoured with the name of Wisdom. Yet i n bestowing this Wisdom the Father has not deprived himself o f Wisdom, perish the thought! - but he remains unchangeably wise, as he ever was, so that the Son converses w i t h his Father as glory w i t h glory and as Wisdom w i t h Wisdom But you do not agree; for you say that the Son is himself the essential Wisdom of the Father, so that there is nothing which the Father has kept i n his own power, unless perhaps it be an inessential and inferior wisdom, but that he must borrow f r o m his Son, like some needy householder. A n d though you affect to despise the fables of the Gnostics, which we also condemn, yet you portray the Father i n the guise of the archon falsely conceived by Basilides, who gives rise to a son who is better and wiser than h i m s e l f Nay further, if all wisdom is found only i n the Son, by what means does the Father know where to seek it, that he may borrow it? Perhaps, being himself devoid of wisdom, he does not even know his own Son, but has become which heaven forbid! - like those lustful deities of the Greeks who committed adulteries w i t h impure women, whose deeds y o u have rightly condemned Into this depth of folly, then, does your heresy lead you; nay rather, o f atheism; for to proclaim a God who is ignorant and indigent is to acknowledge no God at a l l 32
33
34
35
Nevertheless, though sunk i n such blasphemous error, you do not cease to pour scorn on our doctrine of Wisdom; for you complain that, as we expound h i m , he has the name of Wisdom but lacks the reality But who gave h i m that name, we shall ask Attend to what you have said yourself, as expressing our doctrine: "Then wishing to create us, he then made a certain one, and thenceforth named him W o r d and Son, that he might create us through him " Now you indeed present us as speaking scornfully of "a certain one", before w h o m i n fact we bow; but we shall not otherwise deny this 36
Oi I 5, Syn 16 Syn 41. Hippolytus, Ref. V I I 23 5 Gent 11-12 Or I 5
57
teaching, and we require you i n turn to uphold what you have here admitted We have shown, you have said, that it was God, the Almighty and All-Sovereign, who gave to his W o r d the name of Wisdom; and do you then turn back and insult that name, and say that on our showing it was given improperly and incorrectly, and that it is a name and nothing more - that very name which the wise G o d gave to his Only-begotten? Doubtless y o u have read, in the cosmogony of the godloving Moses, that the Lord G o d created every beast and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them; and whatsoever A d a m called every living creature, that was the name t h e r e o f Do you not see that even Adam, a weak and fallible creature as you allege, has received such authority that the names he has given persist i n truth; and do y o u think the name which God himself has given, and not Adam, to no beast but to his Son, should be of no account? W h y , even those names which human fathers bestow upon their sons to this day are valid before magistrates and governors; you yourself bear the name Athanasius; and even though you misconduct your self and abuse us i n a manner unworthy of eternal life, yet we do not deny that that is your name; then do you think it a light matter that the Father of all has named his Son after his own most precious possession, and has given him moreover the fullest measure of all that belongs to that name? But if you despise our admonition, attend once more to blessed Paul, who says that he has inherited the most excellent name; and from w h o m did he inherit, if not f r o m the Father, who is the first and original possessor of that name? 37
38
Now we have given many instances o f your deceitfulness and double-dealing; but we shall not prolong our discourse, for we have no desire to imitate the torrent of turbulent and spiteful words which your malice, rather than your piety, has poured forth. Nevertheless one chapter shall be added, i n the hope that even now you may repent and acknowledge your delusions and the injustice i n which you have indulged We o n our part have said that the W o r d was begotten before the ages by the w i l l and determinate counsel of the Father. But this doctrine does not please you; for you say that the Son is the offspring, not of God's will, but of his nature; and you have many times described the generation of the W o r d , comparing it with an outpouring of (solar) radiance f r o m the sun; and that though you yourself denounce us for comparing the Lord with created things For consider, we entreat you, what you think of these heavenly bodies D o you believe the sun to be a thing inanimate, as some of the Greeks have declared him to be a fiery mass of stone? I n that case he has neither reason nor will, and acts according to the nature that God has assigned h i m ; and how is it lawful to imagine God's Fatherhood in the likeness of such dumb and irrational beings? Or do you consider that luminary to be a rational and logical being, as the industrious Origen has maintained? I n that case it is by his will that he gives forth his rays i n obedience to his L o r d , and follows the dictates of his nature, as God has commanded, and as y o u 39
40
Gen 2:19 Hebr. 1:4. Or III. 65-7 Ibid II 33 etc
VIII
VIII
58
The Arian Controversy
yourself have asserted So then in neither case is there a conflict between will and nature; for either there is no reason and no will, or else he wills to act according to the nature which God has assigned h i m ; and so your comparison fails But you, it appears, have not only spoken contrary to the plain and well-grounded evidence of the truth; you have also, as one might expect, refuted yourself by your own admissions For you have said, we repeat, that the W o r d is the offspring, not of God's will but of his nature; and nature, you say, transcends w i l l Now how the matter stands w i t h the creatures we have already explained; but w i t h regard to the L o r d of all things, you yourself have declared that he is wholly simple and uncompounded, and is all essence, and that there are no accidents in h i m Now if this indeed be the truth, as you confidently declare, it must needs follow that his dignities and titles are identical one w i t h another, and that there is in his essence no better and worse, no before and after, but that his being consists in one equal perfection How then do you dare discriminate between his nature and his will, saying that the one transcends the other? - when truth and reason assure us that his nature is to will what is good, and his will is to express the goodness of his nature? Your doctrine is manifest folly For ourselves, we do not boast - God forbid - that we can discern the incomprehensible depths of his holiness, before whom the very angels hide their faces; but we have learnt by faith to call him the God ofpeace, and to know that there is no unrighteousness in h i m ; and if no unrighteousness, then no injustice, no distinction, and nothing greater or less A n d this truth you have in part perceived, though in your haste to condemn us you have forsworn your own sound doctrine, and blasphemously denied the indivisible unity of H i m who is all in all. 41
4 2
4 3
44
45
Nay more, this unity itself refutes that opinion that you have lately begun to flaunt, namely that the Son is one in essence w i t h the Father. For if that essence is simple and indivisible, as we have shown, how can it be conveyed or distributed to another? I h e W o r d indeed has declared " A l l things that the Father hath are mine", signifying that the Father has given h i m full measure o f all his dignities and glories; but in so saying he has distinguished between the Father and himself For did the blessed l o h n report him as saying " A l l things that I have are mine"? Or did he make the Father bestow those dignities on his own person? Yet these absurdities cannot fail to follow f r o m your doctrine If, as you say, the divine essence is one and undivided, how can there be any that shares or partakes in that essence, so as to be coessential with the Father? For if that undivided essence is wholly communicated to another, there will be two Fathers and two Creators and two First Principles and two Supreme Beings, which is abhorrent to reason and Christian piety; but if it suffers no division or distribution, then there can be no distinction of persons, but the Father himself will be Son, and the Son himself the Father,
41
42
43
44
45
Cf. Gent 40, [n illud omnia 4. Or II 2, III 62 Deer 11, 22; Syn 35 Rev 7:11. Rom 15:33, Hebr 13:20
59
even as the imprudent Galatian has declared them to be one and the same; and so by your unlawful innovations you revive the heresy of the execrable Sabellius and demolish the Church's confession of the holy Trinity - that very faith which you claim to cherish and uphold Reflect, we entreat you, on what we have said, beseeching the Lord to restore to y o u a temperate and peaceable m i n d ; put away your fury and your sophistries, and accept us even now as fellow-workers and fellow-servants. Correct what we have taught, if y o u are able, but with judgement, remembering that both together we shall stand before the judgement seat; or if we have spoken truly, then join w i t h us and with our orthodox fathers in confessing the sole ingenerate, the one Eternal, the only wise God, to w h o m Wisdom herself pays adoration
IX K N O W L E D G E OF GOD I N E U S E B I U S A N D A T H A N A S I U S
The knowledge of God i n Eusebius and Athanasius is a subject which i n competent hands might f o r m an impressive conclusion to our conference. To do it justice i n a single paper is quite another matter; it opens up a wide range of enquiries, and touches on some of the most intractable problems of philosophical theology. For instance, are we to consider what can be said about God?— that is, what sort of human language can be so adapted as to describe the hidden and comprehensive reality which underlies our whole existence? O r should we be looking for some experience of contact w i t h God which is necessarily so remote f r o m our usual acts and thoughts that i t cannot be described i n normal terms and has to be indicated in the language of paradox? Or again, should we judge it a mistake to present these alternatives? I have suggested that knowledge of God may be conceived either i n terms of rational statements or of mystical consciousness; but in pointing this contrast, I am using the categories of modern Western philosophy; we shall f i n d , I think, that our chosen authors conceive their problem quite otherwise; their most important category being the intellect, nous, which implies b o t h rational content and the directness o f intuitive perception 1.. We need, therefore, to find a simple down-to-earth point of departure; and I propose to begin f r o m a well-known passage i n the De Incarnatione, c. 12.. I n this chapter Athanasius enumerates the various means of knowing G o d which had been devised by his divine providence; previous to the Fall, it w o u l d seem, and anticipating its possibility, G o d provided for man's negligence: jrpoevoTioaxo Kai rn.£iaaiac, K a i dvOpaimvnc, E7n.voi.at; urtdpxcov .
himself; i n one passage, c. Ar
K a r iSiav E i K o v a rc£7ioin,K£ K a i TCQV OVTCOV a u r o v eecopnTfiv K a i ETucTrjuova
2.49, he designates h i m t o o dXnBwoO 0EOU
. T O dv9pcimivov ysvoc,
eiKtbv KCU 6u,oicflou;, But man was created KCIT' s i K o v a K a i K a 9 ' duoicoatv,
S i d Tfjc, Ttpoc, atJTOv 6UOICOGECD X u
o f 362, c 7, recor-
avaiaOrj-cov oo§' avo^-rov dyw 6
0V
2toTT]p, since he b r o u g h t salvation n o t o n l y t o the b o d y b u t t o t h e soul; a n d a passage i n the ad Epictetum
7 w h i c h repeats the latter p o i n t . I t is
noted t h a t n o n o u n is used f o r the soul of C h r i s t , a n d t h a t the phrase oux aci>uxov c o u l d mean s i m p l y ' n o t lifeless'; a n d f u r t h e r , t h a t Athanasius* 1
n o r m a l way o f describing Christ's incarnate l i f e persists unaltered i n his latest w o r k s ; he conceives the L o g o s b e c o m i n g , or assuming, aapi;, and locates his h u m a n emotions a n d experiences i n that cap!; V a r i o u s replies have been m a d e t o these objections O n the one hand i t has been explained ( r i g h t l y ,
I t h i n k ) t h a t Athanasius
h a b i t u a l l y t h i n k o f aapi; as just one element i n the h u m a n
does
not
compositum;
m o s t c o m m o n l y i t means, r a t h e r , ' h u m a n i t y ' . I n t h a t case the cap!; of C h r i s t is n o t t o be u n d e r s t o o d as c o n t r a s t i n g w i t h , or e x c l u d i n g , a CJ>OXT); i n d e e d , i t is added, A t h a n a s i u s ' w h o l e understanding of the h u m a n i t y assumed b y the Logos implies the presence o f a soul.. B u t i t remains diff i c u l t t o see w h y , o n this s h o w i n g , Athanasius d i d n o t make the implicat i o n clear O n the other h a n d i t has been argued ( w r o n g l y , I t h i n k ) that the question of C h r i s t ' s soul was n o t a matter of debate before 362, or at least t h a t i t was eclipsed b y the m o r e pressing question o f his d i v i n i t y
1
It
has also been c l a i m e d ( m o r e j u s t i f i a b l y ) t h a t t o a t t r i b u t e a h u m a n soul to C h r i s t w o u l d have been a n embarrassment;
either as recalling
Origen's d o c t r i n e a n d suggesting a separate personality l i n k e d w i t h the
XII
XII THE SCRIPTURES AND THE SOUL OF CHRIST IN ATHANASIUS
234
235
L o g o s by a merely m o r a l u n i o n ; or as a c c o u n t i n g f o r Christ's thoughts
v i v e d ; and the most considerable o f these, the Expositiones
a n d actions i n terms of a complete h u m a n i t y , so t h a t the operation o f
has n o t come d o w n t o us i n a complete and reliable text Nevertheless we
the Logos is reduced to a mere external i n s p i r a t i o n — a f a u l t alleged
can and s h o u l d i n q u i r e h o w Athanasius treated the texts i n scripture
against Paul of Samosata and later against Marcellus. This argument,
which
however, is two-edged; i f i t explains w h y Athanasius was reluctant to
christological significance.
profess such a belief, m i g h t i t n o t also suggest t h a t he was reluctant to
speak
of
a fyuyr\
a n a
*
have,
or
were t h o u g h t
in
to
Psalmos,
have,
a
I n the N e w Testament the ' s o u l ' of C h r i s t , his c ^ r i , is m e n t i o n e d in t h i r t e e n places. N o t all of these are significant f o r our purpose; at M t
h o l d it? M o s t recent discussion has been i n f l u e n c e d b y the w o r k of
M.
2:20 oi CriTouv-cei; TT)V uxr)v xou TicaSiou c o u l d arguably be discounted, since
R i c h a r d a n d A . Grilfmeier R i c h a r d considered A t h a n a s i u s ' reply t o the
it is n a t u r a l l y rendered 'those w h o sought the y o u n g child's l i f e ' (cf i l l
A r i a n argument that the h u m a n emotions a n d experience of C h r i s t p r o -
Kings
ve h i m i n f e r i o r t o the Father; A t h a n a s i u s , he p o i n t s o u t , never makes
duplicate corresponding texts i n M a t t h e w ; and i n J o h n 10:11-18 four
the obvious r e p l y b y saying t h a t these experiences attach t o the soul of
references t o Christ's c|>ux"n appear w i t h i n a single context of thought.
C h r i s t a n d n o t directly t o the L o g o s , a l t h o u g h Eustathius is k n o w n t o
This leaves us w i t h a m i n i m u m
have used this argument a n d Athanasius can h a r d l y have been i g n o r a n t
20:28 = M k
of i t . G r i l i m e i e r showed t h a t A t h a n a s i u s pictures the death o f Christ as
15:13; A c t s 2:27 ( f r o m P s a l m 15:10 L X X ) ; and I J o h n 3:16 These texts,
a separation o f the Logos f r o m his flesh, the Logos descending t o the
again, are n o t w h o l l y independent,
u n d e r w o r l d , the flesh discarded, the soul i g n o r e d . Grilimeier however
Jesus t r o u b l e d i n his 4>ux"n ( M t . 26:38 parr , J o h n 12:27); (ii) H i s sur-
concludes w i t h w h a t looks like a 'crossbench' p o s i t i o n , h o l d i n g t h a t for
render and recovery o f his 4)uxii ( M t . 20:28 parr , J o h n 10:11-18, 15:13,
Athanasius the soul of C h r i s t is n o t a ' t h e o l o g i c a l f a c t o r ' b u t is perhaps
I J o h n 3:16); ( i i i ) The deliverance of his c^ux^U Acts 2:27
3
4
a 'physical f a c t o r ' I t is n o t necessary for his p i c t u r e o f the person and
19:10 L X X ) ; t w o references i n M a r k (10:45, 14:34) merely
list of seven passages, namely
Mt
10:45; M t . 26:38 = M k . 14:34; J o h n 10:11-18, 12:27 and but e m b o d y three t r a d i t i o n s : (i)
H o w does Athanasius treat these texts? W e may begin by considering
A n d certainly
the w o r k s most c o m m o n l y studied, viz.. those indexed by M i i l l e r f r o m
Athanasius was n o t t h o u g h t t o have excluded i t ; the c o n d e m n a t i o n of
P G 25 a n d 26, deducting (as I t h i n k we must) the F o u r t h O r a t i o n , the de
A p o l l i n a r i s i n n o way d i m i n i s h e d the h i g h regard i n w h i c h Athanasius
Incarnatione
was held b y b o t h A l e x a n d r i a n a n d A n t i o c h e n e theologians.
Sermo
w o r k of C h r i s t ; o n the other h a n d i t is n o t excluded
s
Never-
theless attempts are still being m a d e t o rescue Athanasius f r o m the u n -
Maior,
et c. Arianos,
the t w o b o o k s against A p o l l i n a r i s a n d the
besides some smaller pieces, and also the de
virginitate
p r i n t e d i n T U 29. This still leaves a large corpus e m b o d y i n g w e l l over
f a v o u r a b l e l i g h t i n w h i c h R i c h a r d a n d Grilimeier are t h o u g h t t o have
1000 N e w Testament q u o t a t i o n s i n a l l B u t o n l y t w o of our seven texts
placed h i m .
are ever q u o t e d w i t h the w o r d CJJUXTI i n c l u d e d , and they are q u o t e d only
6
I n this complex debate, i t seems t o me t h a t t o o l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n has been p a i d t o the possible relevance o f A t h a n a s i a n
exegesis.
Some
i n controversy w i t h the A r i a n s over the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Passion. J o h n 12:27 appears i n a list of texts used b y the A r i a n s at c Ar.
3.26,
scholars have even appeared t o suggest t h a t exegetical texts p r o v i d e no
a n d reappears i n A t h a n a s i u s ' r e p l y , i b i d 54 and 57; and J o h n 10:18,
evidence for the w r i t e r ' s real views. I n a n a d m i r a b l e piece of research
p r o c l a i m i n g Christ's a u t h o r i t y over his fyuyj\, is used as a k i n d of
H e n r i de R i e d m a t t e n showed t h a t Eusebius never mentions a soul i n
counterweight t o the other i n t h e same t w o chapters.. The use o f John
C h r i s t except i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h s c r i p t u r a l texts; b u t he has been inter-
12:27 by the A r i a n s is w o r t h n o t i n g , i n view of the communis
preted as s h o w i n g t h a t Eusebius denied C h r i s t a soul.. C l e a r l y one needs
t h a t they denied C h r i s t a soul.
7
opinio
t o determine h o w Eusebius understands the relevant texts i f one is to see
A few m o r e such q u o t a t i o n s can be f o u n d , however, i n some less
w h y he makes n o dogmatic use of them. A n d the same can be done for
f a m i l i a r texts. M t . 26:38 is q u o t e d i n Festal Letter 6 7 (Syriac version,
A t h a n a s i u s , t h o u g h a d m i t t e d l y the m a t e r i a l is less a b u n d a n t ; for t h o u g h
translated at P G 26, 1387A) a n d 24 ( C o p t i c version, p. 41 = p. 13 of
one can f i n d some relevant comments o n scripture i n the w o r k s most
French translation).
c o m m o n l y consulted, m u c h less of his p u r e l y exegetical w r i t i n g s has sur-
quotes J o h n 10:11 c o n f l a t e d w i t h 15:13 ( i b i d p. 111 = 89 of F T ). There
8
The C o p t i c h o m i l y O n C h a r i t y and
Temperance
XII
XII 236
THE SCRIPTURES AND THE SOUL OF CHRIST IN ATHANASIUS
237
is a n a l l u s i o n , t h o u g h n o t a direct q u o t a t i o n , t o J o h n 10:11 also i n the
said—Gei'xwi, he observes—dljouaiav e'xw Belvai TTIV fyvyip LCOU etc. S h o r t l y
Expositiones
a f t e t w a r d s he quotes Ps,
in Psalmos,
o n Ps. 46:5 ( P G 27, 217 C 3 ) ; a n d l o h n 10:18
is quoted o n 87:5, i b i d 380 C
remarked, by Richard
W e can enlarge our f i e l d o f v i e w , however, b y considering some O l d
9
15:10 complete; b u t i t has of course been
and others, t h a t his comments
o n a l l these
passages, w i t h one e x c e p t i o n , ignore the w o r d c]>ux*l> assign the ' t r o u b l -
Testament texts w h i c h were i n t e r p r e t e d i n a c h r i s t o l o g i c a l sense. M o s t
ing' t o his flesh,
o f these occur i n the Psalms; i n f a c t I have n o t been able t o t h i n k o f any
w i t h his flesh or his b o d y ; so TO LIEV yap TapavteaScii vr\), w h i c h no
f o r t u n a t e l y something between one-eighth a n d one-sixth alone survives,
d o u b t he t h o u g h t c o u l d be useful t o the A r i a n s , a n d a f f i r m s the
a n d a n abbreviated version preserved c o m p l e t e ,
sovereign power
v e r s i o n also helps t o c o n f i r m the a u t h e n t i c i t y o f the A t h a n a s i a n t e x t s
of
C h r i s t himself:
Christ not
o n l y rose
himself
(e^avaaTfjvaO b u t roused (dyetpai) f r o m the tombs t h e m e n w h o h a d been l o n g dead
H e r e t h e n , ' m y s o u l ' carries a sense w h i c h is n o t easily
distinguishable f r o m ' m y s e l f .
12
A f r a g m e n t a r y Coptic 1 3
W e shall consider A t h a n a s i u s ' comments o n the f o l l o w i n g verses: Ps, 15:10; 17:5; 21:21 a n d 30; 34:11 and 17; 46:5; 54:17-19; 56:2 and 5; 68:2,
1 1 , 19 a n d 2 1 ; 87:4 and 5 ( a l l L X X references),, Ps,, 15:10 has pride
3 57 a rather d i f f e r e n t i m -
o f place a n d w i l l be l e f t t i l l last, For these verses the Syriac longer ver-
pression is made. Athanasius has been a r g u i n g against the view t h a t the
sion is l a c k i n g , a n d the shorter version I consider u n h e l p f u l , except for
h u m a n experiences o f the Logos p r o v e h i m less t h a n f u l l y d i v i n e H e has
Psalms 68 a n d 87, O n the other h a n d a g o o d deal o f help can be gained
W h e n the psalm verse reappears at c. Ar.
j u s t m e n t i o n e d J o h n 12:27 (vuv rj cj>ux*i M- xETapaxxai,) as said av9ptoxivto?
b y considering parallels i n Eusebius' C o m m e n t a r y o n the Psalms w h i c h ,
b y the Saviour,
i t w i l l be s h o w n b e l o w , was used b y Athanasius
ou
a n d balanced
it by
lohn
10:18, where the L o r d
XII
XII THE SCRIPTURES AND THE SOUL OF CHRIST IN ATHANASIUS
238
239
17:5 deserves o n l y passing m e n t i o n , since Athanasius takes i t t h a t
Eusebius here is less systematic; he tends t o t h i n k o f D a v i d describing
D a v i d is speaking f o r himself a n d t h a n k f u l l y describing his deliverance
his o w n t r o u b l e s , b u t b y an a f t e r t h o u g h t a t p. 305 A he attributes verse 3
Ps
f r o m his enemies; a prophecy o f the 'descent' o f t h e L o r d (Christ) ap-
t o t h e Saviour xaxd TO avSpwrcivov, i n c l u d i n g a reference t o h i s ^uyt]:
pears f i r s t a t v. 8 However t h e c o m m e n t is w o r t h n o t i n g , as showing
Elnov
one o f t h e ways i n w h i c h A t h a n a s i u s w i l l use cjiuxfy riegteoxov
the Father
davdxov.
fie (hhtveq
OUSEVO?, cprjuiv, £VraG9cc TCOXEU-OU QvTjxou fi.euvT)xai, dXXa 8uvau.ecov
acpavwv, evSov X7]v c[iuxfy auxou xuxXouawv. A t h a n a s i u s
n o r m a l l y takes
xfj tpvxfj fiov
Eco-zngia GOV eifii eyed, a prayer o f course addressed t o
So also verse 12, he t h i n k s , can be a t t r i b u t e d either t o D a v i d
(301 D ) or t o t h e Saviour (305 D ) A t h a n a s i u s clearly refers verse 12 t o C h r i s t , b u t his c o m m e n t
appears t o i g n o r e tyuxh, w h i c h Eusebius
'enemies' t o m e a n o p p o s i n g p o w e r s , or demons; a n d the ' s o u l ' here i n -
repeatedly m e n t i o n s ; a t most one m i g h t say t h a t i t helps t o f i x t h e sense
dicates, n o t a b i o l o g i c a l l i f e - p r i n c i p l e , b u t t h e i n w a r d m o r a l
o f t h e w o r d dxexvi'a. A t h a n a s i u s
nature
dyadtov xai dxexviav
w h i c h is exposed t o their assaults Psalm 21 is o f course regularly i n t e r p r e t e d o f the Passion o f C h r i s t A t verse 21 we have a laconic c o m m e n t i n w h i c h t h e w o r d 4>ux*l * i g s
n o r e d : 'Pvuat and Qoiupaiac; zijv ipvxi)v fiov- TTJV xocxiccv TG>V TouSaiwv xcd xr)v civotav Sid TOUTWV aTj[JLatv£.i 8 i a poLKpaia? xai x P cannot be given a c h r i s t o l o g i c a l reference.
(especially SEiXia Bavdxou) i n v. 5 Eusebius, i n a somewhat
involved
XII THE SCRIPTURES AND THE SOUL OF CHRIST IN ATHANASIUS
240
discussion, explains t h a t D a v i d c a n n o t periences t h r o u g h o u t ;
he r e c o u n t i n g his o w n ex-
he foresees the Passion;
and
i t is he,
'the
241
u.ou is u n d e r s t o o d as T myself',. B u t at v, 5 the clause eppusaxo xrjv ^M%f\v [xou ex Lteaou axuuvtov receives t h e c r y p t i c c o m m e n t axuuvtov x w v vorjxiov
p r o p h e t ' , w h o feels h o r r o r a n d c o n f u s i o n ' w h i c h he calls foolishness' i n
8T[XOV6TI: this I t h i n k means ' s p i r i t u a l lion-cubs', i.e. demons, rather
view of the sufferings o f C h r i s t (p. 4 7 6 A ) . A t h a n a s i u s takes a similar
t h a n s i m p l y ' m e t a p h o r i c a l lion-cubs' w h o c o u l d be physical assailants;
line i n c o m m e n t i n g o n these verses; he makes the ' p r o p h e t ' refer t o the
here, t h e n , the sense o f 'fyuxh inclines to ' s o u l ' rather t h a n ' l i f e ' ; b u t once
Saviour i n the t h i r d person (p. 252 A 6, B 10-12, 15-16), a n d i t is his
again we have a m o d e l prayer a p p r o p r i a t e t o h u m a n i t y rather t h a n a
foreseen experiences w h i c h strike the p r o p h e t w i t h h o r r o r and dismay,
personal profession b y C h r i s t himself.
B u t he has also said, at 252 A 12-14, t h a t the p r o p h e t speaks,for the
P s a l m 68 was r e g u l a r l y a p p l i e d t o the Passion, a n d is so n o t e d i n the
Saviour: Tldvxa yap xd xaxd xou Eioxfjpos auufidvxa itpos xo oixeiov dva^epei
Epistle t o M a r c e l l i n u s , c 26 F o u r verses m e n t i o n a tyuxh w h i c h is at-
r:p6ato7iov; this seems to m e a n t h a t he describes the S a v i o u r ' s experiences
t r i b u t e d t o C h r i s t ; a n d here we have the help of the longer Syriac ver-
as i f they were his o w n , using the f i r s t person; thus ' m y f a m i l i a r f r i e n d '
sion
in v
A t h a n a s i u s ' w o r k closely resembles the extensive treatment o f Eusebius,
14 refers t o Judas; we m i g h t ( a l t e r n a t i v e l y ) say t h a t t h e verse is
spoken ex persona
T w o general p o i n t s are t o be n o t e d . F i r s t , here as elsewhere,
w h i c h at this p o i n t is preserved i n f u l l , a n d o f t e n a f f o r d s clues to the
Christi
P r o b a b l y , t h e r e f o r e , the same is t r u e o f w ,
17-19, where there are
m u c h briefer s u r v i v i n g r e m a r k s of Athanasius
Secondly,
however,
three references t o §ux?\ i n A t h a n a s i u s ' c o m m e n t s , the first t w o based o n
A t h a n a s i u s i n his H y p o t h e s i s describes t h e psalm as c o n t a i n i n g a prayer
the text o f v 19 L X X ; v, 19b t h e n means t h a t C h r i s t is assailed, whereas
ex 7tpoc:co7uou xfjt; dv9p6>x6x7]xo? xpoacpepojxevriv, w h i c h i n this context has t o
Athasasius nowhere suggests t h a t the ' p r o p h e t ' s ' l i f e is i n danger
m e a n ' o f f e r e d i n the person o f h u m a n i t y ' , not ' o f h i s , the S a v i o u r ' s ,
then i n vv
I f so,
17 and 18 we have C h r i s t appealing t o the Father for help
humanity'
This appears clearly i n the e x p o s i t i o n o f verse 3, 'Ev£7udyriv
XuxpwQfjvai xr]v fyuyrp auxou Coco xwv OnxoSvxtov drcoXeaat aikriv, a n d praising
ei? uXrjv puOou, xai oux e'cxtv uTioaxaan;. Eusebius attributes these words
G o d oxi STJ eioaxoiiaa? XeXuxptoaai TTJV fyuxfo ! ^
A n d b o t h these w i l l be
directly t o C h r i s t , recalling the parallel o f Jonah (2:6-7, cf M t . 12:40)
cases where Athanasius has i n t r o d u c e d a reference t o the cjmx ! o f C h r i s t
a n d r e f e r r i n g t h e m t o C h r i s t ' s descent i n t o h e l l Athanasius here takes a
w h i c h is n o t d i r e c t l y i m p o s e d b y the t e x t of the psalm,
d i f f e r e n t l i n e , since the phrase dq u'Xrp [3u9ou suggests a relapse i n t o sin
ou
1
I n these verses i t is n o t q u i t e clear whether A t h a n a s i u s has physical or s p i r i t u a l enemies i n view; b u t he generally prefers the latter i n t e r p r e t a t i o n wherever possible, a n d the use o f Xikpcooai f i t s i t w e l l ; i n w h i c h case the w o r d fyvxh leans rather t o w a r d s the m e a n i n g ' s o u l ' (as liable t o tempt a t i o n ) rather t h a n ' l i f e ' ,
The c o m m e n t o n 19b, h o w e v e r , is "Oxi oi
7uoXXot ouvieaav xax' euou pouX6u.£voi xrjv cjiux^v u.ou eEjaipeiv, w h e r e ' l i f e' is a
( a n y commerce
w i t h u'Xri b e i n g regarded as s i n f u l ! ) ; his
56 A t h a n a s i u s f o l l o w s the preface i n r e f e r r i n g t o D a v i d ' s o w n
comment
t h e r e f o r e is T a u x a yap rj dv9p(07ceia 9601? £7re:i;6v9ei, xaxevex9eicja wuo xiji; au.apx£a? dq Gdvaxov etc.. I n other w o r d s , D a v i d represents the Saviour as u t t e r i n g w o r d s a p p r o p r i a t e , n o t t o h i m personally, b u t to t h e h u m a n race t o w h i c h , as m a n , he belonged A t 68:2, however, this c a u t i o n clearly does n o t apply: Ucoadv fie, 6 Oedg, on etorjXdooav vSata
possible rendering,, I n Ps
xn
dveXa^e,
TCE.pl fifxaiv
Uwq ipv%fjc, fiov
dSuvaxar
'ExeiBrj xd? du.apxias riuwv
eixoxco? xat rcpoaeuxexai pua9fjvai
ex xuv
adventures i n the cave, b u t r e m a r k s t h a t the p s a l m can also a p p l y
7ceipaautov, xeiudp'pou hixr\v xuxXcoaavxcov auxou xrjv uxr)v.. Syriac: Because
to Christ, However
ex icpoo-omou xfj?
he t o o k our sins u p o n himself a n d for our sake was sad (Is, 53:4), f i t -
dv0pwjc6xrixo; C h r i s t t h e r e f o r e utters a prayer w h i c h is really a p p r o p r i a t e
t i n g l y also he prays t o be saved f r o m the trials t h a t s u r r o u n d e d his soul
t o a human
l i k e a t o r r e n t (op
verse 2,
he says,
is spoken
p e t i t i o n e r , a n d indeed at p. 2 5 7 D i t is half i m p l i e d t h a t the
address is made to C h r i s t , n o t t o the F a t h e r , since there is a reference t o
cit
p. 109).
H e r e there is n o a t t e m p t t o evade the suggestion o f a soul i n Christ;
I n t h i s case, t h e n , i t w o u l d
a n d {JJUX^I i i n t e r p r e t e d , not i n t h e sense o f physical l i f e , b u t o f personal
seem t h a t the t w o f o l l o w i n g references t o tyuxn s h o u l d n o t be pressed as
consciousness, as assailed by t e m p t a t i o n Athanasius must sur ely be i n -
evidence for a soul i n C h r i s t ; i n any case the clause ev oot iteicoiOe r) t|)ux^
fluenced here b y Eusebius, w h o introduces the w o r d x ^ d ^ p o u i ; , f r o m
uou is explained lm xfj cfj porjQeia TT\V eXrciBa e'xco Thus i t seems t h a t r\ c^ux^
Ps. 123:4, as a s y m b o l of t e m p t a t i o n , a n d gives a catena o f passages
C h r i s t ' s o f f e r of p r o t e c t i o n i n M t . 23:37
s
XII
XII 242
THE SCRIPTURES AND THE SOUL OF CHRIST IN ATHANASIUS
243
r e f e r r i n g t o the soul of Christ ( J o h n 10:18, 10:15, 12:27, M t . 26:38) . W e
L o g o s ; i t is something over w h i c h death m i g h t have power. W i t h TOU
shall r e t u r n later t o this theme o f the Saviour's t e m p t a t i o n a n d grief f o r
xaxaoxovxoi;, perhaps compare the f i g u r a t i v e use of xaxexeiv at DI15:
our sins, w i t h the use o f Is, 53:4 (outo? xd$ au-apxiat; f)[i.<Sv xcov, XO xat TO IxoioGv. Oi 84 \mip a>v xauTa eSpwv, ev Ttavxi xaipt£ xai xo7ca) iid axoLtaxo?
TiQOOE&oxTjoev Tj ipvxf] fiov. 'EvxeuGev ri[xtv TO Tcd9o£ SiriyeTrat 6
s i o n , w h i c h the evangelist also clearly relates to us (lot Since the Passion
has been
cit ).
i n view t h r o u g h o u t , this particular
reference t o i t seems puzzling; unless, of course, this c o m m e n t is drawn
eu.e ecpepov, a? \>nip auxoov e7toio6fJiT]v xaxoicaQet'ai; oveiBi'iovTEc u.e. Syriac: For
f r o m some other w o r k of A t h a n a s i u s ; b u t the compressed style is quite
t h e zeal o f your house has consumed me. They denied me because I
t y p i c a l of this w o r k , Eusebius here reads xapBia fortyx>yj\(compare the
r e p r o v e d t h e m for being i m p i o u s i n y o u r house. T h e evangelist tells the
Syriac), b u t is perhaps h e l p f u l w h e n he explains t h a t Symmachus and
story clearly ... , ( T h e version gives v.. 10 b a n d c o m m e n t , a n d continues
A q u i l a p r o v i d e clearer versions, r e c o r d i n g a n event rather t h a n expecta-
t h e psalm q u o t a t i o n t o v . 13): (v. 13) A n d those w h o sit at the gate
t i o n ; thus A q u i l a : 'OVEIBICU-OS cruvexpLc};e xr\v xapBtav u.ou
t h o u g h t of m e and those w h o d r i n k w i n e h y m n e d m e , w h i l e I grieved over the destruction t h a t w o u l d b e f a l l their souls, I d i d g o o d things; b u t they i n r e t u r n f o r m y d o i n g such things at a l l times a n d i n a l l places were bearing me o n their m o u t h s , a n d m o c k e d the evil things I e n d u r e d for their sake (op. tit. p
110)
P s a l m 8 7 is regularly taken as a prophecy of the Passion we have: 'On Enkr\oQr\ xaxtov r) ipvxv fiov
A t verse 4
Ei xat aik6xn
other m e n , discarding his soul w h i c h descends t o Hades a n d w i l l later be
p e r i p h r a s i s — ' m y s e l f ; so perhaps at 2 1 : 2 1 , 21:30, possibly a t 34:17,
'recovered' b y his flesh
68:19
No
12 i n V i a n ' s c o l l e c t i o n , s t r o n g l y suggests t h a t the Saviour is not
and
68:21.
r\
This leaves
could
five passages o f
be
little
less
A t h a n a s i u s ' n o r m a l v i e w — h e seems t o be represented as d y i n g l i k e I t m a y be added that the previous fragment,
In
some
clear-cut.
l 4
somewhat
more greater
significance, where the CJJUXTI is associated w i t h ( f r u s t r a t e d ) s p i r i t u a l i n -
s i m p l y speaking ' i n the person of h u m a n i t y ' and thus expressing the
fluence (34:11), w i t h t e m p t a t i o n (54:17 a n d 18, 68:2) and w i t h spiritual
hope that men should feel ( w h i c h is i n a n y case u n l i k e l y i n view of TOV
exercizes (68:11),
outov sou). The t w o fragments read l i k e a c o n t i n u o u s t e x t , and i n f r 12 i t is ' G o d '
w h o speaks, r e j o i c i n g over the salvation o f the l o s t , and
because the Father
has been gracious t o m e n . The speaker, t h e n , must
The question n a t u r a l l y suggest itself whether A t h a n a s i u s was f o l l o w U n f o r t u n a t e l y i t is d i f f i c u l t t o answer, since
Eusebius' c o m m e n t o n Psalm 15 has been lost after verse 8, a n d not m u c h can be gathered f r o m such other scattered references as I have traced (Comm 87:6; Dem
in Ps P G 2 3 , 106 C , o n 4:4, 744 D , o n 68:14,1056 C, o n
Ev, 3 2.70, GCS p
107 14; Quaest
et Sol
5 1) I can only
give the general v e r d i c t that Eusebius is noticeably m o r e inclined t o speak of the soul o f C h r i s t t h a n Athanasius.. Thus at 1056 B he gives a christological i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Ps 29:4 (Kupte, avr^yayEs ei; aSou xyjv tyvyfy aou),
though
when
commenting
ad
loc , 260 A ,
he
agrees
with
A t h a n a s i u s i n assigning the verse t o David.. B u t our e x a m i n a t i o n has, I t h i n k , s h o w n t h a t the new text o f c o m m e n t o n Ps entirely alone
m u c h less f r e q u e n t l y t h a n Eusebius, w h o m he o f t e n f o l l o w s . T h i s has n o t prevented some scholars f r o m i n t e r p r e t i n g Eusebius' l i m i t e d use o f
be G o d the L o g o s , i n his o w n p e r s o n , as d i s t i n c t f r o m 'the lost'
i n g Eusebius at this p o i n t
I t appears, t h e n , t h a t A t h a n a s i u s does occasionally speak o f aty\>xt\i n C h r i s t ; t h o u g h o n l y i n direct e x p o s i t i o n o f s c r i p t u r a l passages, and
15:10 does n o t stand
t h e t e r m as evidence t h a t 'he denied C h r i s t a s o u l ' w h i l e strenuous e f f o r t s , w i t h m u c h less evidence, t o d e f e n d A t h a n a s i u s
making Both
m e n , no d o u b t , felt t h a t such language was open t o misunderstanding; neither can have h a d m u c h s y m p a t h y for the b o l d development given i t b y O r i g e n , w h o b y b r i n g i n g i n a created soul w h i c h attaches i t s e l f to the L o g o s by an act of w i l l appears t o suggest a d o c t r i n e of t w o Christs I n general, i t remains t r u e t h a t A t h a n a s i u s sees the W o r d as t h e t r u e subject o f the acts a n d experiences o f C h r i s t , except w h e r e these a r e clearly subject t o h u m a n l i m i t a t i o n s a n d so ate assigned t o his ' f l e s h ' ; and even t h e n i t is the W o r d himself w h o adopts t h e m , as proper t o t h e flesh w h i c h H e has assumed
I n this perspective, to b r i n g i n a h u m a n soul
w o u l d seem t a n t a m o u n t t o i n t r o d u c i n g a second p r i n c i p l e o f a c t i o n Nevertheless, A t h a n a s i u s does n o t consistently e l i m i n a t e , or explain a w a y , the s c r i p t u r a l texts w h i c h speak o f a cjnjx^ i n Christ.. Occasionally
than
a
XII
XII 246
THE SCRIPTURES AND THE SOUL OF CHRIST IN ATHANASIUS
247
he can use such texts, i n t e r p r e t i n g uxh n o t simply as a physical principle
Saviour's earthly
i n the n a r r o w sense, as a basis o f n a t u r a l l i f e , b u t also as the locus of
elsewhere o n l y at DI 33, p. 153 A ; (3) the use of evavGpomTicus, w h i c h oc-
feeling, teaching, a n d s p i r i t u a l e f f o r t H e can h a r d l y be said t o exploit
curs eight times i n DI,
such language to i n t e r p r e t the w o r k of our s a l v a t i o n ; for instance, he
c o n d a n d once i n the Tomus
does n o t depict the divine W o r d as accepting, assimilating a n d p u r i f y i n g
frequency'
b i r t h (reading 68 A 13 at her p.. 423 1. 17), f o u n d three times i n the f i r s t O r a t i o n , twice i n the Sead Antiochenos,
and so ' w i t h decreasing
a h u m a n soul i n the same way as H e accepts and p u r i f i e s h u m a n flesh.
I t h i n k these arguments can be supplemented a n d c o n f i r m e d , As t o
Nevertheless soteriological content is n o t entirely l a c k i n g , i f we attach
Eusebius, M i l e R o n d e a u is disinclined t o accept arguments based on a
f u l l significance to the c o m m e n t o n Ps, 68:2, w i t h its description o f the
comparison
L o r d ' s t e m p t a t i o n a n d the use o f Is. 53:4, w h i c h recurs at Ps. 87:4, for
clesiastical
his t e m p t a t i o n a n d grief are p a r t o f the vicarious sufferings w h i c h he
p r o v e a similar date f o r the Commentaria);
undergoes for our sake
a n exegetical a n d a p o l e m i c a l w o r k , she argues, 'ne p a r a i t pas de nature
B u t we need t o relate these f i n d i n g s t o our general estimate of Athanasius'
t h o u g h t , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the context o f the theological
á
fonder
o f style and t h o u g h t w i t h the c Theology
une
Marcellum
and
o f 336-7 ( t h o u g h i n f a c t these were designed t o
chronologie
relative'.
17
such a c o m p a r i s o n between Nevertheless
significance i n the f a c t t h a t Eusebius i n the Commentaria
I
see
developments o f his l i f e t i m e I t w o u l d o f course be most f o r t u n a t e f o r
freely t o a c^ux?) i n C h r i s t , a n d t h a t he does so also i n the Eclogae pheticae
and
the Demonstrate
Evangélica,
some
refers quite
the t r a d i t i o n a l i s t case i f we c o u l d p r o v e t h a t the Expositiones
were
Ec-
as de Riedmatten
Prohas
a m o n g his later w o r k s , perhaps even r e f l e c t i n g some lessons learnt at
pointed out;
A l e x a n d r i a i n 362 B u t i n m y j u d g e m e n t this cannot be done; there is
Laus Constantini,
g o o d evidence for d a t i n g the w o r k m u c h earlier i n A t h a n a s i u s ' career.
none o f his later w o r k s . A n d w h e n de Riedmatten remarks, m o s t per-
I n a n impressive paper M.-J
t i n e n t l y , t h a t Eusebius never refers to a soul i n C h r i s t except i n connec-
Eusebius' Commentary
R o n d e a u has discussed the influence of
on the Psalms
u p o n Athanasius a n d devotes a
page or t w o to discussing the question o f dates.
1 s
A l t h o u g h the t w o
18
b u t n o t i n the w o r k s directed against M a r c e l l u s ; nor i n the nor the Theophaneia,
as he observes; and therefore i n
t i o n w i t h some passage o f S c r i p t u r e , this surely s h o u l d not m e a n that such references are t o be discounted as merely inadvertent or irrelevant
w o r k s o f t e n diverge, there are a great m a n y passages i n w h i c h the agree-
I w o u l d be i n c l i n e d , t h e r e f o r e , t o m a k e the Commentaria
ment i n t h o u g h t a n d phrasing is extremely close; s u f f i c i e n t , i n fact, to
t e m p o r a r y w i t h the Demonstrate,
exclude any t h e o r y o f mere c o m m o n dependence o n a t h i r d source; and
possibly antedating i t , and a t t r i b u t e t o Eusebius a definite change o f
if one of these writers d r e w u p o n the o t h e r , i t is a b u n d a n t l y clear that i t
mind
is n o t Eusebius
w o r k On the Soul oj Christ,
w h o expands A t h a n a s i u s ,
b u t Athanasius
who
ab-
dated c
318-20, or
This c o u l d w e l l have sprung f r o m a hostile reaction t o Eustathius' presumably t o be dated some t i m e i n the
320's; since we k n o w t h a t the t w o writers were i n c o n f l i c t s o o n after
breviates Eusebius A s t o the d a t i n g , the p o s i t i o n is c o m p l i c a t e d b y the fact t h a t Eusebius' w o r k is said t o have circulated i n t w o editions; b u t i t has generally been dated i n the years 330-337.
commonly
r o u g h l y con-
16
H o w e v e r , there are references t o the
desolation of the h o l y places o f Palestine w h i c h suggest a date p r i o r t o
Nicaea
19
A s regards A t h a n a s i u s , I w o u l d accept M i l e . Rondeau's arguments f o r an early date, a n d extend t h e m as f o l l o w s : (1) B o t h Eusebius a n d Athanasius use the rather
Platonic-sounding
Constantine's restorations; a n d i n the end M i l e . R o n d e a u leaves the
terms avapiwvai, ávapícocis for C h r i s t ' s r e s u r r e c t i o n , noted b y Mile.
question o p e n , apart f r o m r e q u i r i n g a date 'after the peace o f the
R o n d e a u o n p,
C h u r c h ' , A s t o A t h a n a s i u s ' Expositiones,
a m p l i f i e d , as f o l l o w s : PG 27, 84 B ; add 105 B (of the saints); 280 D 8
she gives reasons for t h i n k i n g
t h a t this w o r k belongs t o the same p e r i o d as the Contra
Gentes a n d the
sec
429; and
f o r Athanasius
her list can be slightly
ms ; 300 C 14; 320 D 1 1 ; 388 D 9; a d d 420 B 6 ( o f the h u m a n race).
w h i c h , however, she is prepared t o assign t o the 330's.
A s she notes, Athanasius does n o t use these terms i n his other works.
The reasons are (1) the use o f terms f o r m e d f r o m yaivto t o denote the I n -
H o w e v e r the related w o r d ávéí>)a£ occurs once, and t h a t i n DI 3 1 , p 149
c a r n a t i o n (&7Ti!pdv£t.a, Oeocpaveia, EU-cpaivetv); thus ETcupdveia so used occurs
D6.
De Incarnatione,
ten times i n the DI and nowhere else; (2) the use o f y e w r ^ ? t o denote the
XII
xn 248
THE SCRIPTURES AND THE SOUL OF CHRIST IN ATHANASIUS
( 2 ) i n the Expositiones q u o t e d by Eusebius
2Q
Athanasius
makes use o f Is
5 3 : 4 , often
The clause Ttepi TJU-WV ÓSUVCCTC» stands at 3 0 5 C 4-5
249
o f agreement i n v o c a b u l a r y a n d t h o u g h t about the Passion o f Christ, w h i c h I have n o t been able t o explore i n detail By
and 3 8 0 B 7-8 (on Ps 6 8 : 2 , 8 7 : 4 ) , and the general theme of the Saviour's
the
time
he
came
to
w r i t e against
Marcellus,
Eusebius'
grief for our sins is f o u n d at 1 3 3 C 6-8, 1 7 2 B 2-4 a n d 1 5 , 3 0 8 D 5-6, 3 8 1
christological ideas h a d perceptibly changed
A 5-8 a n d 4 6 0 A 1-2 So far as I can discover, this theme w h o l l y disap-
any r e c o g n i t i o n of a h u m a n fyuxh in C h r i s t was b o u n d u p w i t h a
pears i n A t h a n a s i u s ' other w o r k s , a p a r t f r o m one b r i e f reference at Ep,
t h e o l o g y t h a t he h a d come t o d i s t r u s t , a r e v i v a l of t h e heresy o f Paul o f
Eest
Samosata (as he conceived i t ) w h i c h denied the substantial r e a l i t y of the
2 0 . 1 ; he does indeed quote Is. 5 3 : 3 - 8 i n DI34,
b u t his o n l y c o m -
It n o w seemed t o h i m that
ment here refers t o the Saviour's d i s h o n o u r , n o t t o his grief; a n d a par-
Logos a n d his substantial u n i o n w i t h the flesh of C h r i s t By this t i m e ,
t i a l q u o t a t i o n o f v. 4 i n c, A T 3 . 3 1 (missed b y Müller) omits the clause
we have argued, i t was h a r d l y possible t h a t Athanasius s h o u l d have openly paraded a debt t o Eusebius; moreover his theology h a d m a t u r e d
i n question ( 3 ) I n his Expositiones
A t h a n a s i u s , l i k e Eusebius, makes positive a n d
a n d developed resources o f its o w n . B u t it is perfectly possible that he
u n f o r c e d use of P h i l 2 : 8 , especially the phrase vntpiooq ¡xéxpi Qaváxou; see
f o l l o w e d a similar course t o the extent o f realizing t h a t insistence o n the
1 0 4 B 1 0 , 1 3 7 A 1 1 - 1 3 , 2 6 0 C 1 1 , 3 0 8 A 1 0 - 1 1 , 3 8 4 A 4-5 and 4 6 4 C
Saviour's fyuxh, even i n the t e n t a t i v e , s c r i p t u r a l manner of his e a t l y com-
1-2
I n his other w r i t i n g s this i m p o r t a n t verse is o n l y cited i n order t o refute
m e n t a r y , c o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d as a gesture of sympathy towards a
A r i a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f it
t h e o l o g y w h i c h — d e s p i t e his personal regard for M a r c e l l u s — h e
( 4 ) A s already n o t e d , Athanasius f o l l o w s Eusebius i n speaking o f the
b o u n d t o distrust, a n d for m u c h the same reasons
was
I n his treatment o f
This theme seems t o be l a c k i n g in the
Christ's Passion he was led t o develope this p o s i t i o n i n a manner which
other w o r k s , w h i c h ignore the f o r t y days i n the wilderness a n d d o n o t
Eusebius never envisaged, a t t r i b u t i n g the h u m a n passions t o ' t h e flesh',
represent the Passion as a nzipcta\LÓt;. The L o r d ' s v i c t o r y over the demons
w i t h w h i c h the d i v i n e W o r d was directly i n contact I t may s t i l l be possi-
is always seen as completed.
ble t o defend this t h e o l o g y as a prudent a n d realistic a c c o m o d a t i o n to
L o r d as encountering t e m p t a t i o n
M o r e o v e r there is the general c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a t i n the
Expositiones
the exigencies o f his time.
Athanasius imitates a n d adapts Eusebius' w o r k far m o r e extensively t h a n he does i n the DI, the Demonstrate
where there are demonstrable b o r r o w i n g s f r o m
Evangélica
use o f the Theophaneia
in c
I cannot t h i n k i t l i k e l y t h a t Athanasius w o u l d
have published a w o r k whose debt t o Eusebius was unmistakeable aftet the latter had p u b l i c l y declared his s u p p o r t f o r A r i u s . This suggests that the Expositiones
were published at the latest c 3 2 0 , and m a y well be
earlier t h a n the CG a n d DI;
thus I a m inclined t o t h i n k they reflect the
impression m a d e u p o n Athanasius b y Eusebius w h e n the latter visited Alexandria c 3 1 1 A D
31
NOTES
1 7 besides the possible or supposed
Athanasius w o u l d then have been a b o u t 1 5 ,
Eusebius a b o u t 5 0 , w i t h a n established a n d g r o w i n g r e p u t a t i o n as a scholar and teacher.. M o r e o v e r Eusebius apparently s u f f e r e d i m p r i s o n -
1
See A Grillmeier, S J , Christ in Christian
7
Cf I A Dorner, DieLekrevon
History
Tradition'- p 324 n 84 = 'p
der Person Christi,
Stuttgart, 1845-56, vol
of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ, Edinburgh, 1862, 1 2 p 259; G
' L a doctrine christologique de S. Athanase', RHE Alhanase et Tame humaine du Christ', Greg M
Ortiz de Urbina,
20 (1954) p 43.
Richard. 'Saint Athanase et la psychologie du Christ selon les Ariens', MSR
p 231 11 = P G 83, 285 1
A
Grillmeier, 'Der Gottessohn im Totenreich', ZKTh
marized op cit pp
71 (1949) 1-53, 184-293; sum-
315-17 (203-5)
'
Op
had got of f t o o l i g h t l y , " i t does n o t at all f o l l o w t h a t Athanasius w o u l d
'
I am indebted to Dr
have seen the matter i n the same l i g h t ; Eusebius h a d at least p u t himself
research, though to save space I have given here only a condensed account
of
deliberate p r o v o c a t i o n ; i t is clear t h a t his r e p u t a t i o n was n o t generally i m p a i r e d . I n tetms o f this r e l a t i o n we can e x p l a i n t h e very large measure
4
(1947) 5-54 For Eustathius see fr 15 Spanneut - Theodoret£ra«/"s/esed. G. H. Ettlinger
ment for his f a i t h ; a n d t h o u g h P o t a m m o n was later t o c o m p l a i n t h a t he
at r i s k , a n d possibly owed his release merely t o an avoidance
847 = Voisin,
1 (1900) 230-1, 247; P. Galtier, 'S
36 (1955) 582-3; I
'L'anima umana di Christo secundo S Atanasio, OCP 5
214 n 1 lp
'
cit 310,321-2,325-6 (196,210-11,215-17) Alvyn Pettersen of Cambridge for a careful survey of recent
H. de Rtedmatten, Les actes du proces de Paul de Samosate,
Griilmeierop cit , iirst edn , pp
pp
68-81, esp 78; cf
180-1,195 The treatment of Eusebius in the second edi-
tion is much expanded and revised; but see e g p soul in his Christ', which seems accurate
178, 'Eusebius cannot use any human
XII
XIII
250 ' S Athanase, Lettres festoies et pastorales en copte, ed. L.-Th, Lefort, C S C O 150-1 = Scr. Coptici 19-20 (text and translation) Op. tit pp 35-7 It should of course be remembered that our habit of rendering 4»ux^ 'soul' imposes a rather precise sense and makes the transition seem more abrupt than it would to a Greek, for whom the word has a range of senses roughly corresponding to 'life', 'soul', 'consciousness' and 'self
5
10
o v
" Testi inediti dal Commento nianum" 14), Rome, 1978
ai Salmi di Atanasio
(Studia
Ephemeridis
ST
A T H A N A S I U S ON T H E
PSALMS
"Augusti-
Athanasiana Syriaca, ed R. W Thomson, Part I V : C S C O 386-7 = Scr Syri 167-8 (text and translation) In the longer version, the following psalms are preserved complete, or nearly so: 23-4, 70-2,76, 79, 100-104, 106-8, 111-16, 149, 150, with a large portion of 68 and remains of numerous others l !
11
Cf. n 4 above
b y the Expositiones
in Psalmos,'
a r e l a t i v e l y neglected w o r k w h i c h has
recently been made available f o r study b y the labours of Dr
" See e g 305 A , 308 B C , 724 D-725 C , 1053 D-1056 C , 1065 D-1068 A. " 'Une nouvelle preuve de l'influence littéraire d'Eusèbe de Césarée sur Athanase: l'interprétation des psaumes', Rech Se Rel 56 (1968) 385-434 Rondeau, op cit. p 421 n. 64, and p 420 n 60. " Op. cit. p 422 16
18
N o t m a n y m o n t h s ago I w r o t e f o r this j o u r n a l , a t t e m p t i n g t o examine the evidence f o r St. A t h a n a s i u s ' teaching o n the soul o f Christ p r o v i d e d
Les actes du procès de Paul de Samosate (Paradosis
6) p 78 n 75
" "
Socrates, H E 1 23; Sozomen, H E 2.18 See P G 23, 308 B, 736 A , 756 D, 1060 B, 1065 A , 1068 A
" "
Cf F L Cross, The Study of St Athanasius, Epiphanius, Haer 68.8
Oxford, 1945, p. 15
Vian.
2
I s h o u l d have realized at t h e t i m e t h a t Dr
recently published a p a p e r
3
G
M
Gilles D o r i v a l had
w h i c h raises serious doubts as t o the
a u t h e n t i c i t y o f this piece. There is n o need t o question its overall u n i t y , w h i c h Dr
V i a n has m a i n t a i n e d ; b u t i f D r , D o r i v a l is r i g h t i n his
assessment o f the c o m p l e x t e x t u a l t r a d i t i o n p r o v i d e d b y the Catenae, the author has b o r r o w e d m a t e r i a l n o t o n l y f r o m Eusebius of Caesarea (as n o t e d some years ago by Mme.. M.-.J.. R o n d e a u ) but also f r o m 4
O r i g e n , A p o l l i n a r i s , D i d y m u s , a n d even C y r i l of A l e x a n d r i a a u t h o r t h e r e f o r e c a n n o t possibly be A t h a n a s i u s , and D r
This
D o r i v a l thinks
o f a n A l e x a n d r i a n writer at w o r k somewhere between 440 and 500 A D F u r t h e r p u r s u i t of this q u e s t i o n w o u l d i n v o l v e detailed study o f the manuscripts a n d o f the w h o l e Catena t r a d i t i o n , w h i c h at present I have n o o p p o r t u n i t y t o undertake, B u t D r
D o r i v a l ' s paper has p r o m p t e d me
to t a k e a second l o o k at the w o r k , and I t h i n k i t m a y be w o r t h w h i l e to set d o w n some impressions of its style and m e t h o d , c o m p a r i n g i t i n particular w i t h t h e one A t h a n a s i a n Psalms
whose
Marcellinum.
w r i t i n g specifically devoted t o the
authenticity cannot
be
doubted,
the Epistula
ad
I n any case I s h o u l d p r o m p t l y acknowledge the question-
m a r k w h i c h m u s t n o w be attached t o m y earlier paper. The Epistula
ad Marcellinum
is usually considered t o be a w o r k of
A t h a n a s i u s ' m a t u r i t y I t s a t t e s t a t i o n is unusually g o o d , since a p a r t f r o m n u m e r o u s A t h a n a s i a n m a n u s c r i p t s i t is t r a n s m i t t e d b y the Codex Alexa n d r i n u s o f the B i b l e , w h i c h dates f r o m t h e beginning o f the f i f t h cent u r y , and so f r o m n o t m u c h m o r e t h a n f i f t y years after the p r o b a b l e date o f w r i t i n g , N o m o d e r n c r i t i c a l text is available, b u t the text p r i n t e d i n M i g n e m a y be t a k e n as generally reliable
The w o r k has been con-
sidered i n a n excellent study p u b l i s h e d b y M m e
R o n d e a u i n 1968, and 5
XIII
XIII 66
ST ATHANASIUS ON THE PSALMS
there is also a g o o d description a n d analysis b y H
67
J. S i e b e n . 1 w i l l of fer
treated t w i c e ; indeed Nos.. 9 a n d 106 appear three t i m e s ; o n t h e other
m y o w n brief analysis, w h i c h is n o t based o n Sieben's w o r k a n d w h i c h I
h a n d nineteen psalms are not m e n t i o n e d at a l l , i n c l u d i n g the v e r y sur-
hope does n o t t o o o b v i o u s l y duplicate i t , as a basis f o r the argument
p r i s i n g omissions o f N o s
6
that follows.
Section
The w o r k divides i n t o 33 chapters; b u t i t w i l l be convenient to group these i n t o six m a i n sections.. Section
Chapters
23 a n d 50.
1.5-26, is a l o n g section o n w h a t m i g h t be called
the d e v o t i o n a l use of the Psalter. The basic plan adopted here is very simple; Athanasius m e r e l y goes t h r o u g h the psalms i n order, sometimes
1, is an address t o M a r c e l l i n u s , praising h i m for his
a d d i n g a few psalms o f a similar character t o the one he has reached,
c o n d u c t d u r i n g the present persecution, i n w h i c h he suffered greatly,
occasionally t a k i n g one or m o r e o u t of t u r n , and f a i r l y o f t e n o m i t t i n g
a n d his study of the Scriptures after a recent illness, or conceivably a
one or more. I f I have counted r i g h t , n o less t h a n ninety-five psalms
general epidemic, Athanasius undertakes t o repeat a discourse o n the
appear i n the m a i n sequence, t h o u g h a d m i t t e d l y the f i f t e e n 'psalms of
Psalter, w h i c h he says he heard f r o m a aAAcov—as well as expelling Saul's c o n f u s i o n a n d madness.
positions
Despite D a v i d ' s example, i t does n o t seem t h a t A t h a n a s i u s approves the
t i o n ; i t is k n o w n o n l y t h r o u g h the catenae,
use of musical instruments: ' P r a i s i n g G o d ' , he w r i t e s , o n resounding
1698 was based o n f o u r Paris manuscripts; some other
cymbals
l
in Psalmos
This has n o t come d o w n t o us i n a d i r e c t t r a d i M o n t f a u c o n ' s e d i t i o n of fragments
a
published later by M o n t f a u c o n , a n d others again edited by B a r b a r o and
symbol'—0-uu.poXov TtaXtv r j v — ' a n d an i n d i c a t i o n of the members o f the
C o r d i e r have been i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the text p r i n t e d by M i g n e . I t has
b o d y being d u l y co-ordinated l i k e strings and the thoughts of the soul
l o n g been realized t h a t this text is u n r e l i a b l e ; i t o m i t s some fragments
and
on
the
harp
and
the
ten-stringed lute was
thus
b e c o m i n g l i k e cymbals, a l l conducted b y the voice and c o m m a n d of the
that
S p i r i t , so that the i m a g i n a t i o n is quickened by t h e vision o f f u t u r e
A t h a n a s i u s a large number of comments w h i c h are k n o w n to have come
goods'
A t h a n a s i u s ' exegesis here is, we may say, t y p o l o g i c a l ; he does
have
from
since
other
been
writers..
found, In
recent
but,
more
years a
serious,
much
it attributes to
better c r i t e r i o n
for
not d o u b t that the sacred b o o k describes real h i s t o r i c a l events, w h i c h
r e c o n s t r u c t i n g the text has been d i s c o v e r e d , namely the M S
however convey s y m b o l i c i n s t r u c t i o n s ; the phrase he uses contrasts w i t h
Graecus
the i m m e d i a t e l y preceding sentence describing the present practice
sources; b u t these can still be distinguished because their series of
754
Vaticanus
This M S . clearly presents a c o m b i n a t i o n of t w o older
XIII
XUI ST ATHANASIUS ON THE PSALMS
70
fragments
are
numbered
on
two
d i f f e r e n t systems
One
series,
There f o l l o w s the c o m m e n t a r y
71
' H a v e mercy u p o n me, O G o d , ac-
n u m b e r e d i n minuscule letters w i t h a fresh start for each p s a l m , has
c o r d i n g t o t h y great goodness ' H e begs t o gain the great meicy o f G o d ,
been shown to derive f r o m Evagrius; the o t h e r , n u m b e r e d i n uncial let-
seeing it is for a great offence ' A n d a c c o r d i n g to the m u l t i t u d e of thy
ters a n d r u n n i n g o n f r o m psalm to psalm to begin again a f t e r each
mercies b l o t o u t m y o f f e n c e ' For o n l y the mercies o f G o d can cleanse
complete h u n d r e d , claims to come f r o m Athanasius
the murderous hands
' W a s h me t h o r o u g h l y f r o m m y i n i q u i t y : ' he
enabled
means that o f the murder
source
adultery
'For I acknowledge m y i n i q u i t y : ' this again refers t o the
There are also some fragments preserved i n C o p t i c , a n d t w o Syriac ver-
murder
' A n d m y sin is ever b e f o r e me ' Over and over he t u r n s the
sions, an abbreviated version preserved c o m p l e t e , a n d a longer version
recollection of the sin c o m m i t t e d i n his a d u l t e r y
The i n f o r m a t i o n collected f r o m this
Vatican
MS
has
scholars to i d e n t i f y other witnesses to the same A t h a n a s i a n
' A n d cleanse me f r o m m y sin ' That is the
o f w h i c h o n l y a b o u t 1 5 % survives.. The Greek text itself consists of f a i r -
This is n o t quite the A t h a n a s i u s we k n o w ; i t gives the impression of a
ly brief scholia, and m i g h t itself be derived f r o m a still longer w o r k , for
tidy-minded and rather prosaic w r i t e r I t is perhaps u n f a i r to j u d g e h i m
we have no reason t o t h i n k t h a t a l l the missing fragments have n o w been
f r o m such b r i e f comments ( w h i c h however can h a r d l y be the e p i t o m e of
recovered; b u t t h i s , i f i t ever existed, is n o w completely lost; the longer
a longer t r e a t m e n t ) ; b u t when he writes at greater l e n g t h , the results are
Syriac version corresponds w i t h the extant Greek text U s i n g all this evidence, Dr . G
M
n o t always enlivening
V i a n has been able t o p r o d u c e , not
Here is a specimen f r o m the previous psalm,
4 9 : 2 1 : ' T h o u thoughtest w i c k e d l y that I shall be l i k e thee ' For a long
indeed an e d i t i o n , w h i c h is still a w a i t e d , b u t a h a n d b o o k t o the
Exposi-
t i m e , he says, I have been p a t i e n t , b u t I w i l l be so n o longer; f o r I w i l l
tiones
entitled Testi Inediti
Rome,
produce your sins to reprove y o u , sins w h i c h y o u t h o u g h t were no
1978
This b o o k prints 158 new f r a g m e n t s , f o l l o w e d by an elenchus
dal Commento
ai Salmi di Atanasio,
longer i n existence and w o u l d n o t be remembered by anyone
B u t 1, as
s h o w i n g w h i c h passages are to be discarded f r o m the M i g n e e d i t i o n I n
being G o d , w i l l b r i n g t h e m to l i g h t and they shall be exhibited before
the great m a j o r i t y o f cases D t
V i a n is able to indicate the name o f their
y o u ; not concealing t h e m as y o u d o , and becoming l i k e yourself But I
a u t h o r ; a n d quite a large p r o p o r t i o n t u r n o u t to have been already
w i l l produce t h e m , so that by revealing t h e m I w i l l pour shame upon
p r i n t e d elsewhere i n M i g n e ; f o r instance those by Evagrius p r i n t e d
you
under the name of O r i g e n i n V o l
the Psalmist tells us t h a t G o d spoke once; the commentator makes him
12, and those by Theodore o f Mop-
suestia to be f o u n d i n V o l . 80.. The scholar equipped w i t h V i a n ' s w o r k , w i t h photostats of the M i g n e t e x t , a n d w i t h a serviceable blue pencil, can n o w at last m a k e a sound beginning i n his study of the L e t us t r y t o give a general impression o f the w o r k given a p r o l o g u e , called hypothesis,
Expositiones Each psalm is
w h i c h b r i e f l y explains its theme,
generally f o l l o w i n g the Septuagint t i t l e f a i r l y closely
The writer then
1
This c o u l d have been p u t m o r e b r i e f l y a n d effectively, one feels;
repeat himself six times over Further study w i l l disclose a fascinating p r o f i l e , w h i c h c e r t a i n l y has some features w h i c h are characteristic o f Athanasius. For instance, the writer is clearly c o m m i t t e d to the monastic i d e a l , and his s p i r i t u a l i t y has some f a i r l y close parallels w i t h the Vita Antonii
B u t this is n o t a safe
c t i t e r i o n ; the Vita soon became p o p u l a r , a n d any w r i t e r w i t h monastic
quotes the p s a l m clause b y clause, o f t e n g i v i n g a separate c o m m e n t for
sympathies a generation or m o r e later t h a n Athanasius could w e l l have
each
been i n f l u e n c e d b y i t (The same p r o b a b l y goes for the de
M a n y o f these comments are telegrammatic i n the extreme; as a
Incarnatione,
specimen 1 w i l l take the 50th p s a l m , where the L X X title runs: 'For the
a n d m i g h t explain some resemblances n o t e d by M m e . R o n d e a u )
end
other times I seem t o detect a writer of rather l i m i t e d m e n t a l i t y , who
A psalm o f a song by D a v i d . W h e n N a t h a n the prophet came t o
7
At
hypothesis
takes some genuinely A t h a n a s i a n themes a n d w o r k s t h e m to d e a t h ; for
runs as f o l l o w s : ' H e sings this psalm w h i c h contains the confession o f
example, the Psalter's rich v a r i e t y o f imagery d r a w n f r o m Israel's
h i m , when he went i n to Bathsheba ' The c o m m e n t a t o r ' s
He
h i s t o r y , the n a t u r a l a n d created w o r l d , a n d the arts o f music a n d dance
also introduces a prophecy o f the general r e d e m p t i o n of sins t h a t is to
is reduced by a relentlessly stereotypic exegesis t o a few endlessly
come a b o u t t h r o u g h h o l y b a p t i s m , a n d i n s t r u c t i o n a b o u t w o r s h i p i n the
repeated lessons o n the s p i r i t u a l c o m b a t a n d o n life i n the C h u r c h
spirit
such impressions can o n l y be subjective A better c r i t e r i o n , I t h i n k , is to
t w o crimes, the murder o f U r i a h a n d the adultery w i t h Bathsheba
But everywhere y o u w i l l f i n d h i m deprecating his t w o offences'
But
XIII
xm 72
ST ATHANASIUS ON THE PSALMS
take the Epistula
ad Marcellinum,
w h i c h is u n d o u b t e d l y genuine, and
73
prophecy. O n Ps 104:26 f f , ' H e sent M o s e s ' , there is no disagreement;
consider the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f texts f r o m the psalms given i n cc. 6-8, and
b u t f o r Ps
in other contexts where available, for c o m p a r i s o n w i t h the interpreta-
d i f f e r e n t a n d surprising: ' B r i n g u n t o the L o r d , ye sons of G o d '
tions given i n the
of G o d ' refers t o the h o l y A p o s t l e s , f o r he taught t h e m t o say 'Our
Expositiones.
Athanasius, we have seen, explains t h a t the Psalter recapitulates the w h o l e Bible
The creation is praised i n Psalm
28:1 the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n given b y the Expositiones is quite 'Sons
F a t h e r ' . . . ' B r i n g u n t o the L o r d t h e sons o f rams'. 'Sons of r a m s ' means
18:2, ' T h e heavens
those w h o were called b y t h e m o u t of the Jewish n a t i o n t o f a i t h in the
declare', and i n 2 3 : 1 , ' T h e earth is the L o r d ' s ' . The exodus appears at
L o r d , — E u s e b i u s also refers this verse t o the A p o s t l e s , b u t takes the
113:1-2, In exitu
sons of rams t o be converts f r o m paganism, so designated because of
Israel,
a n d 104:26-31, ' H e sent Moses his servant';
w h i l e 2 8 : 1 , ' B r i n g y o u n g rams u n t o the L o r d ' , recalls the w o r s h i p at the tabernacle.
Judges inspires t w o texts f r o m Ps
106, namely vv
36-7,
their lack of reason P s a l m 106 is taken by A t h a n a s i u s in a h i s t o r i c a l sense, as we saw, w i t h
'They planted cities', a n d v. 6, ' T h e n they cried u n t o the L o r d ' . ( H e r e
an exception at verse 20 The Expositiones
we should note t h a t Athanasius is not always consistent i n his exegesis,
cerned—see V i a n ' s new fragment 55; b u t m u c h o f t h e psalm is taken i n
since we later f i n d verse 20 o f the same psalm taken o u t o f its context in
a generalized and spiritualized sense; t h o u g h at verse 21 we read 'He
agrees where verse 6 is con-
Israel's h i s t o r y : ' H e sent his W o r d a n d healed t h e m ' is referred to the
transfers his account t o the H o l y A p o s t l e s ' — w h o after all d i d recount
I n c a r n a t i o n ; so also de Inc
the marvellous w o r k s o f the L o r d , and d i d go d o w n t o the sea i n ships
40, c Ar.
n 32 and Ser. i i 8 ( t h o u g h the
last-named is a paraphrase g i v i n g a m o r e general, cosmological sense)
B u t verse 36, o n sowing fields a n d p l a n t i n g vineyards, is taken t o mean,
N o d o u b t this was a t r a d i t i o n a l t e s t i m o n i u m
The B o o k of Kings is
quite c o n t r a r y t o A t h a n a s i u s , t h a t they sowed the w o r d and established
19:8, 'Some p u t their t r u s t i n chariots and some i n
the C h u r c h , Eusebius also refers t o the s t i l l i n g of t h e s t o r m , b u t incor-
reflected i n Ps
8
horses'; and Esdras i n t w o Psalms of Ascents, Nos 125 a n d 121
Thus
far o n the O l d Testament
porates verses 36-7 i n t o a c r i t i c i s m of the spiritual
husbandry of the
Jews, One disagreement remains a m o n g the O l d Testament passages;
H o w are these verses treated i n the Expositiones'}
O n the f i r s t text,
whereas Athanasius
refers the verse a b o u t t r u s t i n g in chariots and
' T h e heavens declare', there is f a i r l y close agreement; t h o u g h the Ex-
horses t o the B o o k o f K i n g s , i n the Expositiones
positiones
P h a r a o h ' s o v e r t h r o w at the Red Sea; this exegesis also agrees w i t h
characteristically represent this as i n t r o d u c t o r y teaching
i t is connected w i t h
given by the Apostles t o the people, w a r n i n g t h e m n o t t o w o r s h i p the
Eusebius.
heavenly bodies. This latter p o i n t has a g o o d A t h a n a s i a n parallel at c
s i g n i f i c a n t disagreement over the Psalms o f Ascents A p a r t f r o m these,
Gent
in the eight O l d Testament passages actually quoted there is agreement
27
But at Ps
Expositiones
2 3 : 1 , ' T h e earth is the L o r d ' s ' , the w r i t e r of the
takes a line of his o w n
The hypothesis states, quite
This p o i n t has clearly l i t t l e evidential value; and there is no
between the Epistula
a n d the Expositiones
i n only three cases, the other
reasonably, that the psalm is concerned w i t h the L o r d ' s ascension and
five being d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t ; there are complete or partial parallels
the teaching of the Gentiles. B u t verse 1 is r e f e r r e d , n o t to the c r e a t i o n ,
w i t h Eusebius i n f o u r cases o u t of eight
but t o the sovereignty o f the only-begotten W o r d over the Gentiles i n
T u r n i n g t o the N e w Testament, Athanasius cites nine psalm-texts
consequence of his I n c a r n a t i o n ; reference to the c r e a t i o n only appears
w h i c h refer t o the I n c a r n a t i o n a n d the a c t i v i t y of C h r i s t , six w h i c h refer
at v 2, where i t is presented i n o p p o s i t i o n t o the o p i n i o n of 'enemies',
t o the Passion, and nine w h i c h forecast the Ascension, t h e c o m i n g
possibly M a r c i o n i t e s , w h o supposed t h a t the earth o r i g i n a l l y belonged
Judgement a n d the c a l l of the Gentiles
to Satan
sion texts there is no s i g n i f i c a n t disagreement; b u t I w i l l discuss one or
C o m i n g t o the Exodus passages, Ps the Expositiones
1 1 3 , / « exitu Israel,
is treated i n
n o t as h i s t o r i c a l b u t as p r o p h e t i c ; i t again refers t o the
calling ot the Gentiles
H e r e perhaps a clue can be f o u n d i n Eusebius, i f
O n the deeply t r a d i t i o n a l Pas-
t w o interesting divergences i n the first a n d t h i r d groups. P s a l m 49:2-3, 'Our G o d shall come a n d shall n o t keep silence', clearly p e r m i t s t w o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s ; Athanasius takes i t of t h e I n c a r n a t i o n , the
the p r i n t e d text is s o u n d ; Eusebius (1353 B) suggests t h a t either inter-
Expositiones
p r e t a t i o n is possible; Athanasius opts for h i s t o r y , the Expositiones
C o m m e n t a r y , p 436 A , b u t elsewhere w i t h A t h a n a s i u s , e g D E
for
of the Second C o m i n g ; Eusebius agrees w i t h this in his vi.3
XIII
XIII ST ATHANASIUS ON THE PSALMS
74
Psalm
44:11,
'Hearken,
Athanasius i n the Epistula
O
daughter,
and
consider',
is t a k e n
by
t o denote G a b r i e l ' s message t o the V i r g i n , I i
Mme.. Rondeau is r i g h t , this is a n early example of a n exegesis w h i c h 9
one
is
missing
And
where
Athanasius of the Epistula,
the Expositiones
75
disagrees
with
the
m o r e o f t e n t h a n n o t i t agrees w i t h Eusebius
Was the writer o f the Expositiones
Athanasius? Q u i t e apart f r o m Dr
became popular m u c h later; the usual t r e a t m e n t was t o m a k e i t a p p l y t o
D o r i v a l ' s arguments, w h i c h I c a n n o t v e r i f y , I have come t o t h i n k t h a t he
the C h u r c h , as the B r i d e o f C h r i s t ; a n d this is w h a t we f i n d i n the Ex-
was n o t
positiones
253 A , 401 C,
themselves, l i k e the w r i t e r ' s use o f the w o r d xayu.axa—five instances at
v,2), B u t the m o s t interesting case of this g r o u p is Psalm 109:3c,
l e a s t — a n d the theologically significant n o u n xEvcotnc,, b o t h absent f r o m
D E
a n d at least three times i n Eusebius (Comm.
There are differences i n v o c a b u l a r y , m o s t l y u n r e m a r k a b l e i n
' F r o m the w o m b before the day-star I have begotten thee', A t h a n a s i u s
M u l l e r ' s L e x i c o n , a n d the f a i r l y f r e q u e n t use of xrjpuS; to denote an
quite regularly refers this t o the begetting o f the Son b y the Father
apostle M o r e i n s t r u c t i v e is the w r i t e r ' s use o f the w o r d s yeveais/yevvriaii;
before a l l c r e a t i o n ; indeed i n Deer. 26 he cites D i o n y s i u s o f R o m e , w h o
a n d their cognates, Prestige a n d R o n d e a u have s h o w n that Athanasius
connects i t w i t h C o l
is particular a b o u t the use o f these w o r d s ; yiwr\ai, w h i c h he takes t o m e a n , and t o the f a m i l i a r w o r d . H e concludes t h a t «by means o f w o r d s we learn n o t h i n g b u t w o r d s ; i n f a c t , o n l y the noise a n d s o u n d o f words». B u t w h a t a b o u t the s t o r y o f t h e t h r e e h o l y c h i l d r e n , i n w h i c h the w o r d s <saraballae> a n d occur? D o w e n o t l e a r n o f their adventures b y means o f w o r d s ? A u g u s t i n e has a t w o - f o l d answer t o this quest i o n . First, he says, «we a l r e a d y k n e w t h e m e a n i n g o f a l l those w o r d s ; f o r instance, w h a t three boys are, w h a t a f u r n a c e is, w h a t f i r e is», a n d so o n «But the names A n a n i a s , A z a r i a s a n d M i s a e l c o n v e y e d n o t h i n g t o m e , any m o r e t h a n <saraballae> did». H i s second answer is t h a t the events described i n the s t o r y r e a l l y d i d take place as t h e y are described, a n d t h a t i t is u s e f u l , i n d e e d perhaps o b l i g a t o r y , t o believe t h i s ; b u t t h a t such beliefs d o n o t c o n s t i t u t e k n o w l e d g e K n o w l e d g e involves d i r e c t awareness; o n the one h a n d , k n o w l e d g e o f sense-qualities a n d sensible o b j e c t s ; o n the o t h e r , «those t h i n g s w h i c h w e b e h o l d w i t h the m i n d , t h a t is, w i t h the i n t e l l e c t a n d r e a s o n * ; o r a g a i n , «those t h i n g s w h i c h w e beh o l d i m m e d i a t e l y i n t h a t i n t e r i o r l i g h t o f t r u t h w h i c h effects e n l i g h t e n m e n t a n d happiness i n the so-called inner man». T h e r e is n o l a c k o f c o m m e n t s t o be m a d e at this p o i n t L e t m e t r y t o present m y observations u n d e r t h r e e h e a d i n g s : f i r s t , A u g u s t i n e ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t n o t h i n g can be l e a r n t b y means o f w o r d s ; s e c o n d l y , t h e strategy o f his a r g u m e n t at the p o i n t w h e r e he i n t r o d u c e s t h e concept o f belief; a n d t h i r d l y , the i m p r e s s i o n he gives of r a t i o n a l k n o w l e d g e
Augustine's
«De Magistral
a philosopher's view
71
First, t h e n , A u g u s t i n e ' s p r o b l e m s i n t h e f i r s t p a r t o f the b o o k are l a r g e l y a r t i f i c i a l ; at least, t h e y arise because he is w o r k i n g w i t h a defective c o n c e p t o f l a n g u a g e H i s discussion o f w o r d s is i n practice m a i n l y concerned w i t h nouns, and moreover w i t h nouns taken in isolation H e does n o t r e c o g n i z e t h a t w e n o r m a l l y gain i n f o r m a t i o n , a n d i m p a r t i t , by means o f c o m p l e x c o m b i n a t i o n s o f signs, so t h a t the i n t e r p l a y o f familiar w o r d s can give us g e n u i n e l y n e w i n f o r m a t i o n ; a n d f o r t h a t m a t t e r , the significance o f a c o m p l e t e l y u n k n o w n w o r d can o f t e n be c o r r e c t l y ded u c e d f r o m t h e c o n t e x t i n w h i c h i t occurs A u g u s t i n e fails t o see this, I t h i n k , because he c o n t i n u e s to conceive t h e p r o b l e m o n the lines o f Plato's Cratylus, w h i c h h a d c o m e t o d o m i n a t e l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r y t o a degree w h i c h was n o longer advantageous, o b s c u r i n g t h e valuable discoveries made later b y A r i s t o t l e a n d especially b y the Stoics; f o r these observed m u c h m o r e c l e a r l y t h a t t h e s i g n i f i c a n t u n i t o f discourse is n o t the w o r d , b u t t h e sentence W e m i g h t perhaps agree w i t h A u g u s t i n e t h a t n o f o r m o f w o r d s can i n t r o d u c e us t o a n experience t h a t is e n t i r e l y u n k n o w n t o us, just as a b l i n d m a n can never k n o w w h a t is r e a l l y meant b y the w o r d B u t even this is n o t b e y o n d q u e s t i o n A f r i e n d ' s w o r d s m i g h t i n d u c e i n us the t o t a l l y u n f a m i l i a r experience of f a l l i n g i n l o v e ; even blindness, i f its cause w e r e p s y c h o l o g i c a l , m i g h t be c u r e d b y a psychologist's i n c a n t a t i o n M o r e o v e r , A u g u s t i n e has p r o b a b l y u n d e r e s t i m a t e d t h e power o f analo g y Suppose he tells us, «Explain t o me t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f , if y o u can» E v e n i f we accepted t h e l i m i t a t i o n o f u s i n g o n l y n o u n s , we c o u l d surely c o n v e y some idea o f i t b y saying «Light, f i r e , soap, honey»; it w o u l d be s u f f i c i e n t l y clear t h a t heaven is s o m e t h i n g t o be h o n o u r e d and p r a i s e d ; t h e r e w o u l d be n o danger o f o u r being t a k e n to r e f e r t o the unpleasant taste o f soap or the pervasive stickiness o f h o n e y E v e n the m a n w h o is i n c u r a b l y b l i n d c o u l d be g i v e n some useful i n f o r m a t i o n , if w e w e r e free t o e x p l o i t t h e resources o f n o r m a l l a n g u a g e , since he u n derstands w h a t surfaces a r e , a n d k n o w s t h a t t h e y have d i s t i n c t i v e q u a l i ties l i k e smoothness or hardness W e c o u l d n o t , o f course, give h i m any f i r s t - h a n d k n o w l e d g e o f a visual q u a l i t y ; b u t i t w o u l d n o t be m i s l e a d i n g to e x p l a i n t h a t redness is characteristic o f b l o o d , a n d o f t e n appears o n m i l i t a r y u n i f o r m s , so t h a t i t has associations f o r us a k i n t o those aroused by the sound of a t r u m p e t S e c o n d l y , w e m a y consider the n e w t u r n g i v e n to t h e a r g u m e n t at the p o i n t w h e r e A u g u s t i n e i n t r o d u c e s t h e story o f the t h r e e c h i l d r e n H e has a r g u e d so far t h a t n o t h i n g is l e a r n t b y means o f w o r d s ; and w h e n c o m m e n t i n g o n t h e s t o r y he m a i n t a i n s this c l a i m ; the w o r d brings to m i n d o n l y w h a t w e k n o w a l r e a d y , the w o r d <saraballae> r e m a i n s o b scure Y e t i t seems o b v i o u s t h a t t h e r e is s o m e t h i n g t h a t w e d i d n o t k n o w ,
XVIII
XVIII 72 and o n l y discovered by h e a r i n g the w o r d s o f t h e B i b l e , namely the c o m plex fact t h a t the three boys w e r e p u t i n t o the f u r n a c e a n d sang praises to G o d and suffered n o h a r m A u g u s t i n e claims t h a t this awareness is n o t t o be called k n o w l e d g e ; nevertheless o n his s h o w i n g the s t o r y is t r u e and i t is useful t o believe i t . Some u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the s t o r y is t h e r e f o r e i m p l i e d ; a n d i f the s t o r y is t r u e , a n d w e c o m e t o u n d e r s t a n d a n d believe i t , this w o u l d satisfy m o s t people t h a t w e have l e a r n t i t . A u g u s t i n e does n o t concede t h i s ; he conceives l e a r n i n g as a process o f c o m i n g to see t h i n g s f o r oneself, a n d t e a c h i n g as a process o f e n a b l i n g someone to d o this T h e r e is a v a l i d p o i n t concealed here, n a m e l y t h a t the teacher c a n n o t d o t h e pupil's l e a r n i n g f o r h i m ; at best he can present the facts i n a f o r m w h i c h t h e p u p i l w i l l easily grasp B u t this useful o b servation is c o n f u s e d b y the i n i t i a l assumption t h a t all t e a c h i n g is done b y means of w o r d s , a n d t h a t all l e a r n i n g involves either seeing or somet h i n g a n a l o g o u s t o seeing I n f a c t , o f course, the u n a v o i d a b l e l i m i t a t i o n s of t e a c h i n g are e q u a l l y pressing i f the teacher w o r k s b y g i v i n g a visual d e m o n s t r a t i o n - w h e r e , as w e have seen, A u g u s t i n e believes m u c h t o o r e a d i l y t h a t the p u p i l w i l l grasp t h e p o i n t he is i n t e n d e d t o grasp. O n c e w e d i s c a r d the assumption t h a t the teacher p r o f f e r s o n l y w o r d s , i t becomes o b v i o u s that w o r d s can e n o r m o u s l y enlarge t h e usefulness o f a visual d e m o n s t r a t i o n A u g u s t i n e i n effect admits this w h i l e c o m m e n t i n g o n our awareness o f sensible t h i n g s : « W h e n w e are asked about t h e m , w e r e p l y if t h e y are present t o our senses; f o r example i f w e are l o o k i n g at the new m o o n and someone asks w h a t i t is or where» T h e curious impression t h a t w e can o n l y answer questions a b o u t t h e m o o n w h e n w e are a c t u a l l y l o o k i n g at i t is soon c o r r e c t e d ; A u g u s t i n e allows t h a t m e m o r y can supplement our o w n d i r e c t experience B u t i t seems o b v i o u s t h a t a m a n can r e c o g n i z e t h e m o o n a n d p o i n t i t o u t even i f he believes, w i t h the M a n i c h e e s , t h a t t h e m o o n is an i n f l a t a b l e bag T h e r e is far m o r e v a lue in t h e belief t h a t t h e m o o n is a spherical b o d y t h a t shines b y reflecti n g t h e sun's l i g h t ; and such a belief can be h e l d by a m a n w h o has never seen the m o o n T h i s brings us, t h i r d l y , t o the contrast w h i c h A u g u s t i n e d r a w s bet w e e n belief a n d k n o w l e d g e I n the De Magistro, belief seems t o be i n t r o d u c e d as an e x p e d i e n t e n a b l i n g A u g u s t i n e t o a d m i t t h a t a b i b l i c a l narrative is i n f o r m a t i v e w h i l e d e n y i n g t h a t i t equips us w i t h k n o w l e d g e B u t this t r e a t m e n t o f i t g r a v e l y underrates the i m p o r t a n c e w h i c h belief s h o u l d have i n his t h e o l o g y , a n d w h i c h he actually gives i t i n several other b o o k s F r o m the s t a n d p o i n t o f e p i s t e m o l o g y there is n o t h i n g i n the story o f the t h r e e c h i l d r e n w h i c h distinguishes i t f r o m other b i b l i c a l narratives; let us say, the n a r r a t i v e o f Christ's R e s u r r e c t i o n B u t f o r a Chris-
Augustine's
«De Magistro*.
a philosopher's
view
73
t i a n i t seems a disastrous u n d e r s t a t e m e n t t o say t h a t the R e s u r r e c t i o n n a r r a t i v e is s o m e t h i n g w h i c h it is useful t o believe. As a matter o f general p r i n c i p l e A u g u s t i n e p l a i n l y h o l d s t h a t k n o w l edge is superior t o b e l i e f ; this is after all suggested b y the b i b l i c a l c o n trast b e t w e e n f a i t h and sight. T h e highest f o r m o f k n o w l e d g e , t h e n , is f o u n d i n those heavenly realities w h i c h w e come t o k n o w d i r e c t l y t h r o u g h the i l l u m i n a t i n g p o w e r o f C h r i s t t h e T e a c h e r , a n d w h i c h w i l l be m o r e p e r f e c t l y apparent i n the l i f e t o come. I n the m e a n t i m e , i t may seem t h a t belief is t o o l i g h t l y r e g a r d e d ; but i t is a fact o f o u r h u m a n c o n d i t i o n t h a t some t h i n g s can at present o n l y be b e l i e v e d ; i n the hereafter these same t h i n g s w i l l be f u l l y k n o w n I n a n y case, A u g u s t i n e is n o t c o m m i t t e d t o the c r u d e idea t h a t a n y a n d every i t e m o f d i r e c t awareness is m o r e valuable t h a n any i t e m o f belief H e h o l d s t h a t i n the use o f our minds w e g a i n a d i r e c t awareness o f i n t e l l i g i b l e realities w h i c h is analogous t o our d i r e c t awareness o f sensible, a n d p a r t i c u l a r l y v i s i b l e , things B u t in o u r present c o n t e x t he does n o t f u l l y develope this idea; so far as I can discover, the o n l y i t e m o f k n o w l e d g e w h i c h he describes us attaini n g b y our i n t e l l e c t u a l v i s i o n is the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t w i s e men are super i o r t o f o o l s , w h i c h i t h a r d l y needs a n i n t e l l i g e n t reader o f C i c e r o t o discover T h e i n t e l l e c t u a l v i s i o n o f the highest realities is a noble t h e m e ; b u t discussion o f i t w o u l d take us far b e y o n d the De Magistro
XVIII
XVIII AUGUS TINE S DE MAGISTRO:
Augustine's De Magistro: An Addendum I n retrospect I must add a comment on the oddity of Augustine's treatment of the meaning of words He knows the grammarians' distinction between different parts of speech; but this seems to have lodged i n his head as a mere piece of book-learning W e might perhaps excuse h i m for knowing little about the long and elaborate discussion, to w h i c h the Stoics made important contributions, w h i c h led to the recognition of eight parts of speech B u t the veriest tiro should have remembered the passage i n Sophist 2 6 l e , which makes it clear that a meaningful sentence, logos, requires both a noun and a verb (onoma, rhema) Since the word onoma signifies both 'noun' and 'name', i t seems plain common sense that the function o f naming things should be performed by an onoma; whereas a rhema has the function of indicating an 'action or inaction, an existence or non-existence' (262c) Augustine is misled by the fact that any w o r d can be used in a secondary sense to name itself; and this leads, by a further mistake, to the view that any word is normally used to name the state of m i n d that i t expresses There is certainly a very well-known text w h i c h encourages this mistake; i n De Interpretatione 1, 16 a 3 f f , both spoken and written words are 'symbols of affections i n the soul'; but this immediately follows a sentence which claims that the distinction of 'name' and 'verb' is the first point that must be determined I n his generally excellent book on Augustine (Augustine, Ancient Thought Baptized [Cambridge, 1994], pp. 314-16) Professor Rist attempts a defence 'Porphyry', he writes, 'argued precisely that a proposition about the ordinary world consists of a subject plus a concept (noema, or ennoia) w h i c h indicates the special and disambiguating features of the subject in each case Thus the reference of the whole proposition is the same as that of its subjectsign, w h i c h acquires a privileged status such as i t also enjoys i n The Master' I n m y review I considered Rist's discussion of first-order and second-order predicates w h i c h elucidates the fallacy i n (e.g.) ' A lion comes out of your mouth' This, I think, does not call for criticism. B u t the passage I have quoted above seems to me totally misleading, whether or not it correctly rep-
ADDENDUM
2
resents what Porphyry says. For the comment I have quoted only holds good for a particular class of sentences, namely definitions I t does not apply to the vast majority of statements about 'the ordinary w o r l d ' ; to take Plato's own example, ' A man learns' (262d). I t is impossible to take this as a disguised f o r m of definition; say, ' A man, qua rational, is a learner'; f o r Socrates immediately comments ' H e makes a statement about that which is or is becoming or has become or is to be'; and this comment, even i f i t applies to definitions at a l l , as 'that w h i c h i s ' might suggest, clearly does not apply to them exclusively. I t seems obvious that ' A m a n learns' is to be read, like Aristotle's example ' A m a n runs', as referring to an event Thus any theory of the identity of reference of subject and predicate is excluded ab initio I h i s of course does not reduce The Master as a whole to nonsense; it has many interesting and wise things to say. B u t i t is absurd to claim that a patent fallacy 'makes sense of The Master' To repeat what I wrote i n my review, the simple subject-predicate analysis breaks down very obviously in the specimen sentence that Augustine quotes: (Si) nihil ex tanta superis placet urbe relinqui, where (as I said) ' i t is a puzzle to identify the subject' A n d Augustine's theory fails to recognise that some words in their ordinary usage do not have a referential function at a l l ; their function is to quality other words. "The prefixing of Si transforms what would otherwise be a statement into a supposition f r o m w h i c h consequences are drawn, w h i l e non reverses the sense of adjacent words' B y neglecting the functions of words that are not nouns - and thus even of verbs! - Augustine rules out ab initio any satisfactory theory of the sentence A bold man might attempt a defence on some such lines as these: granted that The Master culminates i n a tremendous theme, our knowledge o f the highest realities, Augustine, he might argue, was not obliged to pursue this theme w i t h unremitting seriousness; he might on accasion allow himself to tease, to entertain and to beguile, by way of relaxation B u t I would hesitate to pursue this fancy Augustine was a proud man who did not like being made to look foolish; and he gives himself away by stating, w i t h an explicit warning (§33): ' I f we consider this a little more closely, perhaps you w i l l find that nothing is learnt even by its appropriate sign I f I am given a sign and I do not k n o w the thing of w h i c h i t is a sign, i t can teach me nothing I f I know the thing, what do I learn f r o m the sign?' Augustine does not warn us that his dilemma is exposed as an obvious fallacy at Meno 80e, confirmed by Euthydemus 276d. For a one-time professor of rhetoric this is a serious piece of professional incompetence
XIX
Augustine, the
Meno
and the subconscious mind
A u g u s t i n e ' s v i e w o f m e m o i y has o f t e n b e e n d e s c r i b e d , a n d is k n o w n t o be c o m p l e x
I t can indicate t h e recall a n d r e p r o d u c t i o n o f ex-
p e r i e n c e s a n d r e p o r t s t h a t o n e h a s e n c o u n t e r e d ; b u t i t also ranges m o r e w i d e l y t o i n c l u d e one's h a b i t s o f t h o u g h t a n d p r a c t i c a l a b i l i t i e s , w h e r e ' e x p e r i e n c e ' m i g h t seem t o be a b e t t e r e q u i v a l e n t T h e s e t w o c o n c e p t i o n s a r e v e r y u n e q u a l l y d e v e l o p e d . T h e f i r s t is p r e s e n t e d i n an u n f o r g e t t a b l e s i m i l e i n Confessions
Book 10, comparing memory to
a l a b y r i n t h i n e cave o r s t o r e h o u s e w i t h b r a n c h i n g passages ( 1 0 . 8 , 1 2 ¬ 13, 9.16-10.17) w h i c h contains b o t h items l y i n g ready t o h a n d and o t h e r s w h i c h a r e b u r i e d i n s o m e r e m o t e recess, h a r d t o r e t r i e v e a n d y e t n o t c o m p l e t e l y f o r g o t t e n ; o n e m u s t i n s o m e sense k n o w w h a t o n e is l o o k i n g f o r , o t h e r w i s e w h e n r e m e m b e r e d i t w o u l d n o t be r e c o g n i s e d as t h e o b j e c t o f one's s e a r c h ( 1 0 . 1 6 . 2 4 , 1 8 2 7 , 1 9 , 2 8 ) . S h o u l d w e refer t o t h e c o n t e n t s o f m e m o r y as 'objects'? A u g u s t i n e n o t e s t h a t t h e y a r e n o t ' t h e t h i n g s t h e m s e l v e s ' , ipsa,
( 1 0 . 8 . 1 3 ) ; the
t e r m ' o b j e c t s ' is c o r r e c t i n so f a r as t h e y a r e u s u a l l y seen as i n a n i m a t e , w i t h n o s u g g e s t i o n o f l i v i n g b e i n g s i m p r i s o n e d i n t h e cave. A u g u s t i n e speaks o f t h e m as ' i m a g e s ' {similitudines,
imagines);
but
w e r e m e m b e r n o t o n l y p e r s o n s a n d places w h i c h w e have s e e n , b u t actions a n d e m o t i o n s ( 1 0 8 1 4 ) ; t h o u g h such images d o n o t have the p o w e r o f present sensations
A m e m o r y o f p a s t sadness n e e d n o t
i n d u c e p r e s e n t sadness ( 1 0 . 1 4 . 2 1 - 2 ) , t h o u g h p r e s u m a b l y i t m a y d o so.. A g a i n , w e c a n r e m e m b e r
h o w w e forgot things (10.16.24);
A u g u s t i n e is p u z z l e d h e r e ; p e r h a p s he h a s c o n f u s e d t h e u n p r o b l e m a t i c 'memory o f forgetting something' w i t h the enigmatic 'remembering what
one does
n o t remember'..
There is n o puzzle
f o r g e t t i n g s ; I c a n s e n s i b l y say ' I r e m e m b e r
about
that I forgot
past
x ' and
e x a c t l y d e s c r i b e t h e x w h i c h I f o r g o t . B u t , as A u g u s t i n e h a s n o t e d , i f I now say ' I h a v e f o r g o t t e n x\ I c a n g i v e s o m e i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e x t h a t I have f o r g o t t e n ; b u t I cannot remember i t
s p e c i f y i t e x a c t l y unless I
XIX
XIX 340
Augustine, the Meno and the subconscious m i n d
O n t h e w h o l e , A u g u s t i n e seems t o p i c t u r e a n a c t i v e r e s p o n s i b l e self w h o is f a i r l y s h a r p l y d i s s o c i a t e d f r o m h i s m e m o r i e s
Trinitate
12 1 5 . 2 4 , w h e r e the
Meno
341
is c l e a r l y r e c a l l e d , A u g u s t i n e is
H e operates
s u m m a r i z i n g a v i e w w h i c h h e h a d c o m e t o reject.. B u t i n t h e e a r l y
w i t h t h e m , as w e l l as s e a r c h i n g t h e m o u t ; h e b r e a k s t h e m d o w n a n d
w o r k s , a n d i n d e e d i n t h e Confessions, he is s t i l l s y m p a t h e t i c T h e
(Conf.
reassembles their p a r t s t o p r o d u c e n e w f o r m s
10.8 1 4 ,
Trin.
Confessions
logic o f
1 0 . 2 0 . 2 9 - 3 1 w o u l d suggest t h a t i n s o m e sense
9 6 10, 11,10.17) l i k e a c h i l d p l a y i n g the game o f 'heads, bodies a n d
w e r e c a l l a p r e - A d a m i c h a p p i n e s s w h i c h w e have never e n c o u n t e r e d
tails'
i n o u r p r e s e n t lives.
B u t t h e y m a y also i m p e r c e p t i b l y m e r g e t o p r e s e n t false r e -
collections
(Trin..
12 . 1 5 . 2 4 ,
ad fin.)., T h e y
are s e l d o m c o n s i d e r e d as
A g e n e r a l k n o w l e d g e o f t h e p r e - e x i s t e n c e t h e o r y raises n o p r o b -
a c t i n g o n their o w n e r , or o n o n e another; the m o s t o b v i o u s change
lems.. I t w o u l d p r e s u m a b l y f i g u r e i n q u i t e e l e m e n t a r y l e c t u r e s o n t h e
t h e y u n d e r g o is t o w e a k e n a n d f a d e
(Conf,
1 0 . 1 1 18).. A m e m o r y o f
soul; a n y p r o o f that the soul c a n exist a p a r t f r o m t h e b o d y w o u l d
sensuous e x p e r i e n c e m a y i n d e e d be a p r e s e n t t e m p t a t i o n ( 1 0 3 0 . 4 1 ) ;
serve t o d i s p r o v e E p i c u r e a n m a t e r i a l i s m . B u t c a n w e g o f u r t h e r , a n d
y e t i t n e e d n o t b e ( 1 0 . 21..30); a n d t h e r e is n o s u g g e s t i o n t h a t i t i n t e n d s
suggest t h a t A u g u s t i n e q u i t e e a r l y i n h i s l i f e a c q u i r e d s o m e k n o w l -
to tempt, Augustine makes rather little o f the fact t h a t
unwelcome
edge o f t h e
Conf
10 14 22).
o n Cicero's
m e m o r i e s m a y f o r c e themselves o n our a t t e n t i o n (cf
Meno itself? Jusculans
C o u i c e l l e stated t h a t he is w h o l l y d e p e n d e n t for w h a t
little he k n o w s
A t 1 0 1 9 2 8 , s o m e f o r m o f p u r p o s i v e a c t i v i t y is a s c r i b e d t o m e m o r y
C h a d w i c k seems t o b e a l i t t l e m o r e p o s i t i v e
i t s e l f , as i t seeks t o s u p p l y w h a t is m i s s i n g
passages i n t h e
Buto n the whole, we
s e l d o m hear t h a t a m a n ' s m e m o r i e s h e l p t o m a k e h i m t h e m a n he is. Augustine
o f the
Meno;
2
I s h a l l refer t o some
w h i c h d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y m i g h t seem t o have
influenced Augustine..
W h a t o f the c o n t r a s t i n g c o n c e p t i o n , w h i c h w e m i g h t judge t o be e q u a l l y i m p o r t a n t ? T h i s is m u c h less v i v i d l y presented.,
Meno
3
T h e f i r s t c o m e s l a t e i n t h e d i a l o g u e , a t 9 7 a ff„, w h e r e
Socrates
claims t h a t 'men m a y be g o o d a n d useful t o their c o u n t r y ' n o t only
speaks o f 'the s k i l l s a c q u i r e d t h r o u g h t h e l i b e r a l a r t s ' , n o t i n g t h a t i n
t h r o u g h k n o w l e d g e b u t t h r o u g h r i g h t o p i n i o n ( S ô £ a âÀTiÔrjç as o p -
t h e i r case ' I c a r r y n o t t h e i m a g e s , b u t t h e v e i y s k i l l s t h e m s e l v e s '
p o s e d t o EHICTTTIUT)). T h i s passage is n o t e w o r t h y , as i t c o n t r a s t s w i t h
(10. 9 16).. R a t h e r t y p i c a l l y , h e t h i n k s f i r s t o f 'the s k i l l s o f d i a l e c t i c a l
m a n y others i n w h i c h Plato regards o p i n i o n ,
d e b a t e ' , a n d is p u z z l e d t o k n o w h o w t h e y a r e a c q u i r e d ( i b i d , w i t h
i n f e r i o r t o k n o w l e d g e (esp, Rep.. 5 0 9 d f f . , 5 1 1 d e ) . B u t ' b e l i e f
10 1 2 . 1 9 ) . H e d o e s n o t suggest, as w e m i g h t , t h a t w e c a n g e n e r a l i z e
p e r f e c t l y a d e q u a t e t r a n s l a t i o n o f SôÇa (cf PGL
a n d a b s t r a c t l o g i c a l p a t t e r n s e m b o d i e d i n t h e r e p o r t s w h i c h r e a c h us
w o u l d suspect t h a t t h e passage w o u l d b e u s e f u l t o C h r i s t i a n a p o l o -
t h r o u g h t h e senses; h i s a n s w e r is r a t h e r , t h a t t h e i r o r i g i n m u s t be
gists
f o u n d i n some r e m o t e corner o f the m e m o r y ( 1 0 , 1 2 . 1 9 , 1 3 . 2 0 )
This
a b l e a s s u r a n c e s h o u l d b e f o l l o w e d w h e r e c o m p l e t e c e r t a i n t y is i m -
b u t t h e r e is n o sugges-
p o s s i b l e , is c o m m o n e n o u g h , b u t seems t o d e r i v e f r o m s o u r c e s other
is n o t u n l i k e t h e v i e w p r o p o s e d i n t h e
Meno;
56Çcc, as m a r k e d l y 1
is a
s.v., B ) ; a n d o n e
T h e general a r g u m e n t used against t h e sceptics, t h a t reason-
Meno,
t i o n h o w t h e y c a m e t o be t h e r e . A t a h u m b l e r l e v e l 'beasts a n d b i r d s
t h a n the
also h a v e m e m o r y ; o t h e r w i s e t h e y c o u l d n o t r e d i s c o v e r t h e i r dens
t o E u s e b i u s a n d M e t h o d i u s . . B u t t h e r e is a n i n c o n s p i c u o u s
a n d nests' ( 1 0 , 1 7 . 2 6 ) . B u t t h e r e is l i t t l e n o t i c e o f t h e r o l e o f m e m o r y
w h i c h p e r h a p s deserves m e n t i o n . T h e usefulness o f b e l i e f is i l l u s -
in h u m a n p r a c t i c a l activity..
trated in the
I t is i n d e e d o f t e n suggested t h a t A u g u s t i n e ' s v i e w o f m e m o r y a n d r e c o l l e c t i o n is i n d e b t e d t o t h e t h e o r y set o u t i n P l a t o ' s
Meno,
one's i n t u i t i v e k n o w l e d g e
geometrical
o f certain facts ( i n P l a t o ,
4
M o r e o v e r , the dialogue was apparently
Meno
unknown parallel
b y the example o f ' k n o w i n g the w a y t o Larissa'
( 9 7 a f f ). W h e n i n t h e
Confessions
Augustine alludes to the m e m o r y
that
truths) derives f r o m a n exact k n o w l e d g e o f t h e m w h i c h w e a c q u i r e d in a pre-natal existence
A u g u s t i n e , after c a u t i o u s l y a p p r o v i n g t h e
2
d o c t r i n e o f t h e s o u l ' s p r e - e x i s t e n c e , c a m e t o a b a n d o n i t i n his m i d d l e
De Genesi ad Lttteram,
w r i t t e n i n 406..
1
It follows that in
De
3
te Selle, Augustine
the Theologian
( L o n d o n 1970) p p 69-70.
Orations
12 1 5 2 4 , Cicero Tusculan of Hippo
Paris 1 9 4 8 , p. 1 5 8 , réf. Augustine 3 2 2 7 7 See f u r t h e r G. B o n n e r , St
( L o n d o n 1 9 6 3 ) p p 394-5
H C h a d w i c k , Saint Augustine, n
4
E
en occident,
Trin
Augustine
l i f e T e Selle dates t h i s d e f i n i t e r e j e c t i o n o f t h e p r e - e x i s t e n c e t h e o r y t o the
P. C o u i c e l l e , Les lettres grecques
Confessions
( O x f o r d 1 9 9 2 ) pp. 185 n 12, 189
IS
Conf
6. 5 7, Ut Cred.
12,26-7; cf. m y Philosophy
brrdge 1994) p. 112 a n d n. 6; C i c e r o lucullus
m Christian 99-109
Antiquity
(Cam-
XIX
XIX Augustine, the Meno and the subconscious m i n d
342
343
o f beasts a n d b i r d s ( 1 0 1 7 . 2 6 ) i t is n e s t - f i n d i n g , n o t n e s t - b u i l d i n g ,
m a t e o b j e c t s , B u t is i t a n e s s e n t i a l f e a t u r e o f e i t h e r s i m i l e t h a t such
w h i c h s t r i k e s h i m as t h e a p p r o p r i a t e
a l i m i t a t i o n s h o u l d persist?
example
A n o t h e r passage w h i c h deserves n o t i c e is t h e s o p h i s t i c a l a r g u m e n t set o u t a t
Meno
scious.. T h i n g s c a n be t h e r e e v e n t h o u g h u n p e r c e i v e d , or h a l f - p e r -
cannot
c e i v e d , or d i m l y p e r c e i v e d ; i t is t h i s d i m p e r c e p t i o n w h i c h enables
s
w h a t he k n o w s or a b o u t w h a t h e does n o t k n o w . . F o r he
C l e a r l y b o t h w r i t e r s h a v e , i n s o m e sense, a t h e o r y o f t h e s u b c o n -
about
8 0 e : ' A m a n c a n n o t i n q u i r e either
such
u s , so t o s p e a k , t o d r a g t h e m o u t f o r i n s p e c t i o n a n d f u r t h e r d e v e l -
i n q u i r y is n e e d e d ; n o r a g a i n , a b o u t w h a t h e does n o t k n o w ; f o r t h e n
o p m e n t . . B u t t h e r e is n o t m u c h s u g g e s t i o n , so f a r , t h a t these h i d d e n
i n q u i r e a b o u t w h a t he k n o w s ; f o r he k n o w s i t , a n d so n o
he d o e s n o t k n o w w h a t he is t o i n q u i r e a b o u t ' . C l e a r l y t h e s o p h i s m
i m a g e s a n d urges i n t e r a c t o n e w i t h a n o t h e r ; i n d e e d t h i s m i g h t h i n d e r
c a n be a t t a c k e d f r o m b o t h sides. I f o n e k n o w s s o m e t h i n g , o n e c a n
t h e f u n c t i o n i n g o f m e m o r y i n t h e n a r r o w e r sense; w e are a l l a w a r e
nevertheless i n q u i r e i n t o the n a t u r e a n d g r o u n d s o f one's k n o w l -
o f a tendency t o elaborate a n d d r a m a t i z e the experiences w h i c h w e
edge, B u t t h e c o n v e r s e a r g u m e n t is p e r h a p s t h e m o r e i n t e r e s t i n g , I f
p r o f e s s t o r e m e m b e r (cf. Inn..
one does n o t k n o w s o m e t h i n g , this by n o means prevents one f r o m
be t h a t t h i s i d e a o f s u b c o n s c i o u s i n t e r a c t i o n is j u s t w h a t is needed
i d e n t i f y i n g the p r o b l e m i n t o w h i c h one s h o u l d i n q u i r e ; t h o u g h
t o u n d e r p i n A u g u s t i n e ' s c o n c e p t i o n o f memoria
no
1 1 . 1 0 1 7 , 12.1.5 24).. B u t i t m a y w e l l i n i t s w i d e r sense..
that
O b v i o u s l y w e m u s t n o t t h i n k o f t h e s u b c o n s c i o u s as h a r b o u r i n g
for-
a set o f t h o u g h t s , b e l i e f s , w i s h e s , s p e c u l a t i o n s o r w h a t e v e r , w h i c h
m u l a t e d a r e p l y o n s o m e s u c h l i n e s ; a n d t h a t t h i s r e p l y u n d e r l i e s his
are p r e c i s e l y s i m i l a r t o c o n s c i o u s t h o u g h t e x c e p t t h a t t h e y h a p p e n
t r e a t m e n t o f m e m o r y , w h e n he a r g u e s t h a t o n e m u s t i n s o m e sense
t o be g o i n g o n b e h i n d
r e m e m b e r t h e t h i n g s t h a t o n e has f o r g o t t e n , o t h e r w i s e o n e c o u l d n o t
u n d e r l y i n g Freud's n o t o r i o u s theory o f the Oedipus C o m p l e x ; it
i d e n t i f y t h e f o r g o t t e n f a c t or b e l i e f
easily suggested the v i e w t h a t a l l , o r m a n y , m e n h a d an unconscious
doubt
i n some kinds of ignorance
it will.
I t seems t o m e
A u g u s t i n e m a y h a v e k n o w n t h e passage u n d e r d i s c u s s i o n a n d
mains a puzzle at suggested, at
Confessions
' M e m o r y of forgetfulness' re-
1 0 . 1 6 2 4 ; b u t an answer
is
soon
a curtain. This, I t h i n k , was a
mistake
d e s i r e f o r s e x u a l i n t i m a c y w i t h t h e i r m o t h e r s . T h e t r u t h is m o r e p r o b a b l y t h a t s e x u a l desires a n d fantasies are s i m p l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h
10.18.27
A s w e h a v e o b s e r v e d , A u g u s t i n e p i c t u r e s m e m o r y as a k i n d o f
t h e f e m a l e f i g u r e best k n o w n t o us f r o m c h i l d h o o d . T h i s m i g h t s t i l l
c a v e r n o r store-house, T h i s d e s c r i p t i o n has n o a p p a r e n t c o n n e c t i o n
e m b a r r a s s u s ; b u t i t b y n o m e a n s a m o u n t s t o a f o r m u l a t e d desire
w i t h t h e f a m o u s p a r a b l e o f t h e cave i n Republic
w h i c h is o n l y c h e c k e d b y s o c i a l p r e s s u r e s , i n t e r n a l i z e d as a ' c e n s o r '
5 1 4 a ff..; i t is a 197c ff,,
I t m a y b e , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t A u g u s t i n e ' s cave is b e s t i n t e r p r e t e d o n
w h e r e Plato compares the k n o w i n g m i n d t o a bird-cage; k n o w l e d g e
the analogy o f our d r e a m s ; b e a r i n g i n m i n d the e x t r a o r d i n a r y v a r i -
m a y be p r e s e n t l i k e a b i r d i n t h e c a g e , w i t h o u t b e i n g i m m e d i a t e l y
e t y o f o u r d r e a m s , w h i c h m a y p r e s e n t a t o t a l l y i n c o h e r e n t succession
a c c e s s i b l e , l i k e a b i r d i n t h e hand..
o f i m a g e s , o r o n e i n w h i c h t h e r e is n o a p p a r e n t c o n n e c t i n g t h r e a d ,
distant derivative of that expounded
i n the
Theaetetus
I n p o i n t i n g o u t t h i s p o s s i b l e i n f l u e n c e , w e seem t o be t h i n k i n g o f
b u t s o m e t i m e s o f f e r us a r e l a t i v e l y c o n s i s t e n t , t h o u g h p e r h a p s sur-
m e m o r y i n i t s n a r r o w e r a n d m o r e p r e c i s e sense, as t h e r e c a l l i n g o f
p r i s i n g , e x h i b i t i o n o f a p o s s i b l e e x p e r i e n c e , or a f o r m u l a w h i c h
p r e v i o u s l y k n o w n e x p e r i e n c e s or reports.. C a n i t be r e l a t e d t o t h e
i m p r e s s e s i t s e l f as a u t h o r i t a t i v e . I n m o s t cases, o u r w a k i n g
w i d e r sense w h i c h A u g u s t i n e gives t o memoria,
r e c o g n i z e s t h a t t h i s l a t t e r i m p r e s s i o n is d e l u s i v e ; b u t n o t i n a l l . There
m a k i n g i t t h e gr o u n d
o f a b i l i t y a n d c o n s t r u c t i v e t h i n k i n g ? I t is w o r t h p o i n t i n g o u t
an
i m p o r t a n t l i m i t a t i o n b o t h i n Plato's parable and i n Augustine's. The b i r d s i n P l a t o ' s b i r d - c a g e m e r e l y f l y a b o u t , so t h a t t h e y are s o m e -
mind
are e x c e p t i o n a l cases i n w h i c h d r e a m s p r o v i d e us w i t h t h e s o l u t i o n o f a p r o b l e m , or c o r r e c t l y p r e d i c t f u t u r e events.. We
h a v e suggested
a n i m p r e s s i o n o f A u g u s t i n e ' s cave as
s i m p l y a r e p o s i t o r y o f i n e r t images
m i g h t m a t e a n d p r o d u c e o f f s p r i n g . A n d A u g u s t i n e ' s cave d o e s n o t
e x c a v a t e d , b u t a m e d i u m i n w h i c h a s s o c i a t i o n s o f ideas a r e f o r m e d
c o n t a i n p o t e n t i a l l y a c t i v e p r i s o n e r s ; t h e m a i n s u g g e s t i o n is o f i n a n i -
a n d again dissolved random
or
memories
waiting to
not
t i m e s a c c e s s i b l e , s o m e t i m e s n o t . T h e r e is n o s u g g e s t i o n t h a t t h e y
be
T h i s c o u l d p e r h a p s be seen as a p r o c e s s o f
s h u f f l i n g w h i c h l e a d s , e v e r y so o f t e n , t o a n
association
w h i c h is s u f f i c i e n t l y s t r i k i n g t o h o l d o u r s l u m b e r i n g a t t e n t i o n , a n d Cf. Euthydemus
2 7 6 d f f , presumably u n k n o w n to Augustine
may
indeed
be v e r i d i c a l ; as a v e r y s i m p l e
example, w e
might
XIX
XIX 344
Augustine, the Meno
misremembet a lesson which itself was incorrect, and so come up with the right answer. But perhaps a process of selection and combination could be located below the level of conscious attention (cf Conf.. 10.19.28); even without conscious control we could have some degree of organizing ability resembling that which enables us to coordinate the various muscles involved in executing some complex physical movement. Is this picture recognizable as a legitimate interpretation or supplement of Augustine's conception of memory? It depends, I would think, on which aspect of it we prefer to emphasize. If we reflect that he interpreted memoria in the broadest possible sense, assigning to it out ability to solve new problems and formulate new theories, our view of his cave as a storehouse of active and inter active images and thoughts will be seen as a legitimate development of his theory.. If we concentrate on his interpretation of memoria in the narrower sense, as the recalling of something which has been, or could be, forgotten, then we may note his observation that our subconscious associative power may lead us to 'think false things' (Irin, 11 10.17) or it may be to misremember Yet even thismemoria will be a useful analogy for the process of constructive thought,. Any such theory, however, will be a valuable corrective of the alltoo-common caricature of the intuitive intellect as a magical accomplishment which gets somewhere starting from nowhere at all, a process of creation which is nevertheless veridical.. The Greeks, I believe, were much misled by the analogy so commonly drawn between intellect, nous, and the sense of sight.. They were impressed by its clarity and discrimination as compared with our other senses; it did not, I think, occur to them that vision is a skill which has to be gradually acquired in infancy; at least, I cannot recall any notice of the imperfect vision of infants to compare with the frequent reference to their lisping speech and stumbling gait. We can thus be startled to find Augustine suggesting that ethical concepts and values - in particular, pure love - can be known by a process of pure intuition, analogous, perhaps, to that by which we assent to a geometrical proof.. We might perhaps see this as 6
7
8
s.v 64115.
6
See, f o r instance, the I n d e x t o C o h n a n d W e n d l a n d ' s Pbilo
7
C o n f . 1.6.8 ' p a u l a t i m sentiebam, u b i essem' m a y be n o t e d , b u t is h a r d l y typical.
8
Gen ad Lit. 12 1 1 2 2 Cf M a g 12.40, o n Truth.
a n d the subconscious m i n d
345
confirming the influence of Plato's Meno, But in fact this view of moral knowledge is, I would hold, unplatonic as well as imper fect.. It is admitted, of course, that Plato regarded geometrical knowledge as an ideal, in respect of clarity and certainty, to which our knowledge of transcendent realities may hope to approximate. But he also holds that such knowledge can only be attained by a complex process of dialectic, which in this case would involve compar ing and contrasting the various forms of our experience to which the word 'love' can be applied, and thereby coming to isolate the unique reality to which the word 'love' most properly applies and which articulates all its derivative and improper uses.. It was common ground between Plato and Augustine that there is such a supreme reality, though they do not wholly agree on its proper designation. Plato can speak of an Idea of the Good, which is the source of all goodness, and which - according to the Symposium - can be best approached through purified human affection. Augustine devotes himself to an all-encompassing G o d who unites and fulfils within himself all perfections, intellect, goodness, beauty and love. Using the language of practical devotion rather than philosophy, Augustine finds that this supreme reality can be glimpsed in a flash of illumination of inspiration,. But he also holds that a lifetime of patient discipleship is needed for us to understand it and, in the measure which our mortality permits, to offer ourselves to its transforming power.
XX LOGIC AND T H E APPLICATION OF NAMES TO GOD
M y title seems to c a l l for an e s s a y i n p h i l o s o p h y It hardly relates to the section of G r e g o r y ' s text that w e were a s k e d to e x a m i n e ; it w o u l d indeed a l l o w m e to by-pass G r e g o r y completely and investigate the problem of names for G o d in the context o f modern logical theory.. B u t this I think w o u l d hardly appeal to a company of theologians,. I prefer to begin by showing h o w the problem w a s c o n c e i v e d during the seven centuries extending from Plato to G r e g o r y , - at the risk of some overlap with Professor K o b u s c h , w h o s e contribution was not yet announced when I began to consider this paper T h e first and most i n f l u e n t i a l d i s c u s s i o n of names is found in one of Plato's earlier dialogues, the C r a t v l u s , . T h e q u e s t i o n h e r e p r o p o s e d i s w h e t h e r the c o r r e c t u s e , the • p S 6 T 1~| c;, of names is m e r e l y a matter of c o n v e n t i o n , or whether it has some basis i n nature, B y 'convention' and 'nature' I refer to the contrast between u o p o t ; and i p v j a t c ; w h i c h was already f a m i l i a r , being u s e d foi e x a m p l e by the Sophists w h e n d i s c u s s i n g the basis of morality; u b p o g then stands for accepted custom rather than enacted law,. B r o a d l y s p e a k i n g w e may s a y that Plato takes up a cross-bench position, i n c l i n i n g slightly towards the v i e w that names are significant by nature,. Socrates first interrogates Hermogenes, the champion of convention, A t the outset his position i s not c l e a r l y d e f i n e d ; he maintains that the right use of names i n v o l v e s convention and agreement, but i n the same breath adopts a p u r e l y subjectivist approach; I may c a l l m y slave whatever I l i k e without c o n s u l t i n g anyone. I n the ensuing d i s c u s s i o n Socrates shows that the notion of a purely private language is incoherent; language is a social activity, B u t this still l e a v e s the o b v i o u s point that different societies have different languages I s there any c r i t e r i o n by w h i c h w e can decide that one is better than another?
XX
XX
A t this point the argument i s c o n f u s e d b y a f a l l a c y . Socrates argues that s i n c e statements c l e a r l y c a n be true or false, the same principle should apply to parts of statements, and therefore to n a m e s ; thus there c a n be true a n d f a l s e names ( 3 8 5 c ) W e c a n show that this argument i s . u n s o u n d s i m p l y by extending it; names are c o m p o s e d o f v o w e l s and c o n s o n a n t s ; thus i f S o c r a t e s i s r i g h t , it m u s t f o l l o w that i n d i v i d u a l letters c a n be true or false ( 1 ) N e v e r t h e l e s s the notion of a true n a m e has i n t e r e s t i n g p o s s i b i l i t i e s ; it is suggested that some n a m e s a c t u a l l y ' r e v e a l the e s s e n c e ' o f the things they denote ( 3 9 3 d; cf, 4 2 2 d, 4 2 3 e).. A s a modern e x a m p l e , w e might take the w o r d 'wash-basin ; but later i n the dialogue it is pointed out that s u c h a name i s instructive only i f w e k n o w the m e a n i n g o f its e l e m e n t s , ' w a s h ' and 'basin'; it seems impossible to continue the process by finding s i g n i f i c a n c e i n these elements t h e m s e l v e s . 1
T h e d i s c u s s i o n now turns to the process of d e v i s i n g or choosing names; it is suggested that they were introduced by some individual, the u o p o F J E T ! " ] ( ; , - or possibly by some group of talented men (401 b ) - w i t h an e y e to their purpose and the objective reality to w h i c h they are directed T h e idea that the i n v e n t i o n of n a m e s d e m a n d s an i n v e n t o r i s n a t u r a l e n o u g h , though n a i v e , and I cannot be sure h o w s e r i o u s l y P l a t o intends it; i n G e n e s i s 2 : 2 0 w e f i n d the s a m e r o l e assigned, no doubt s e r i o u s l y , to A d a m . B u t the argument i s r e p e a t e d l y interrupted by p a r o d i e s of a b s u r d attempts to find s i g n i f i c a n c e in names by far-fetched e t y m o l o g i e s , w h i c h in the last resort must be unhelpful even i f they were sound, as w e have j u s t e x p l a i n e d C a n w e then d i s c o v e r some c l a s s of p r i m a r y n a m e s w h i c h are s i g n i f i c a n t i n their o w n right? S o c r a t e s s u g g e s t s that we c a n imitate the s h a p e s and movements of things by gestures, and that hu ma n speech is a form o f v o c a l gesture (426-7) C r a t y l u s now enters the d i s c u s s i o n ; he contends that a true name indicates the nature of a thing, but tries to argue that any other name m u s t be a m e r e u n m e a n i n g noise Socrates r e p l i e s by r e c a l l i n g the picture-theory of n a m i n g ; a portrait c a n be recognizable e v e n if it i s not 100 % perfect W e are then taken back to the theory of names as imitative
304
gestures; they c a n be appropriate to their s u b j e c t s without matching them c o m p l e t e l y ; thus the G r e e k w o r d CTKA n p O Q , 'rough', c o n t a i n s the appropriate r o u g h letter p , though the s m o o t h X figures i n i t as w e l l S o c r a t e s then introduces a d i l e m m a , w h i c h leads to a point of great importance to later r e a d e r s of the d i a l o g u e . Assuming a first inventor of language, he must have c h o s e n his n a m e s in the light o f a prior knowledge of the realities to w h i c h they apply; but how could he k n o w them, if he h a d as yet no means of naming t h e m ? C r a t y l u s r e p l i e s by suggesting that s o m e superhuman p o w e r i n t r o d u c e d the o r i g i n a l n a m e s T h i s point is very l i g h t l y s k e t c h e d i n ( 4 3 8 e; s o p r e v i o u s l y , 3 9 7 c ) ; i n d e e d Socrates at once raises an objection; and the dialogue ends by making a point which Plato clearly considered more important, n a m e l y that w e do have a k n o w l e d g e of things w h i c h i s not d e r i v e d f r o m n a m e s , for e x a m p l e true beauty and goodness; w e are thus left ready to attend to the theory of F o r m s . H a v i n g made this b r i e f s u r v e y I w i l l add one or two critical comments. First, some of the d i f f i c u l t i e s are m i s c o n c e i v e d , and a r i s e f r o m the i n t r o d u c t i o n of a 'namegiver', with its c o r o l l a r y that the process of d e v i s i n g a set of names must be either w h o l l y or l a r g e l y completed w i t h i n a s i n g l e life-time, G i v e n a l o n g e r time-span i t b e c o m e s far easier to imagine the business of d i s c r i m i n a t i n g realities and n a m i n g them as two a c t i v i t i e s w h i c h go hand in h a n d and support one another. S e c o n d l y , the theory o f language as i m i t a t i v e gesture i s c r u d e and inadequate, though w e shall meet it again.. A n d the notion that words are l i k e pictures has the o b v i o u s d r a w b a c k of suggesting that w e use language only for making statements; w e need a theory w h i c h c a n deal w i t h q u e s t i o n s , c o m m a n d s , a n d other sorts o f d i s c o u r s e C e r t a i n l y the road s i g n w h i c h c a r r i e s a picture of s c h o o l c h i l d r e n c o n v e y s the injunction ' B e w a r e of school-children'; but it is not clear that m u c h further development is possible; l a n g u a g e h a s d e v e l o p e d i n t o a f l e x i b l e instrument w h o s e resources far exceed those of pictures T h i r d l y , even c o n v e n i e n c e or the reverse attaches to the w h o l e structure of a language rather than to s i n g l e words. T h e r e is c e r t a i n l y some inconvenience i f it is r e a l l y true that in T o n g a the word for 'No' i s ' H o o l i m a kittiluca chee-chee-chee'; but once again,
305
XX
XX
this i s an exceptional case.
acquire their
2. W e pass then to Aristotle, w h o approaches the theory of l a n g u a g e , inter a l i a , i n two i m p o r t a n t e a r l y w o r k s , the C a t e g o r i e s and the D e I n t e r p r e t a t i o n e . . H e sets out a distinction w h i c h is not a l w a y s clear i n Plato; the C a t e g o r i e s is intended to deal with realities or notions or w o r d s taken separately, whereas the D e Interpretatipne is concerned with c o n c e p t s or w o r d s connected to f o r m a statement; thus a name is a spoken sound significant by convention (c..2, 16 a 19); but only a combination of n a m e s and v e r b s s i g n i f i e s something true or false (c 1, 16 a 15).. There are a number of p r i m i t i v e features i n Aristotle's treatment of language w h i c h w e r e to c a u s e d i f f i c u l t i e s to later commentators w h o took these words as authoritative, F i r s t , he is handicapped by an e x t r e m e l y limited understanding of grammar. Thus0U0|JCt has to do duty both for what w e c a l l a noun and for a name; there is as yet no sign of a distinction between proper names and common nouns A g a i n , 6uop a contrasts with pf|pa; but this contrast m a r k s the d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n w h a t w e c a l l subject and predicate, whether the latter consists of a verb or of a descriptive term such as 'white' or introduces another noun, as in 'Homer is a poet' Moreover Aristotle sometimes ignores this contrast and suggests that a statement s i m p l y i n v o l v e s the c o n n e c t i n g , or i n d e e d the u n i f i c a t i o n , of two e l e m e n t s , as i f these w e r e s y m m e t r i c a l l y r e l a t e d ; i n other w o r d s , he often ignores the distinction w h i c h w e now mark by s a y i n g that the subject-term r e f e r s to s o m e t h i n g , the predicate describes it A g a i n he says that spoken w o r d s are symbols of affections in the s o u l , and that written marks are s y m b o l s of spoken words. B u t this cuts across our w e l l founded c o n v i c t i o n that the name S o c r a t e s stands for the man himself; for the name was given to h i m , and so not given to s o m e p e r s o n ' s i d e a or c o n c e p t i o n of him. I d e a s and conceptions are no doubt i n v o l v e d i n the p r o c e s s of g i v i n g n a m e s ; but is not to them that the names are attached. In Christian societies, w e baptise our c h i l d r e n , not our thoughts,
3.. T h e S t o i c s are said to have taken over the theory of n a m e s as i m i t a t i v e sounds, w h i c h w e encountered i n the Cratylus, (2) T h e y are generally described as holding that names c o m e into u s e by nature, tp vj a e L ; but perhaps their intention w a s to e x p l a i n only the origin of language, since C h r y s i p p u s points out that i n our c o m m o n usage there i s not a l w a y s the natural correspondence that w e might expect; for s i m i l a r w o r d s denote d i s s i m i l a r things and vice-versa, ( 3 ) B u t there are other more important and v a l u a b l e aspects of S t o i c philology.. F o r one thing, they i n t r o d u c e d a better c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the parts o f speech.. D i o g e n e s of B a b y l o n mentions a five-fold division c o m p r i s i n g 6 u o p cx npoariyopia pqpa. cnJu6EO-p,oc; and apBpou. Here then we meet for the first time an e x p l i c i t distinction between ouojja, the proper name, and T T p o a T i y o p i a , the common noun; this i s said to have been introduced by C h r y s i p p u s , whereas the older S t o i c s distinguished only ouopa, p f| p: a , aL)u6eo"poc;1 dpBpou T h e s e four words in fact occur with others, in a list set down i n Aristotle's P o e t i p s . . in w h i c h T T p o o ~ r ] y o p i a does not appear, ' Pf|[ja now begins to take on the more restricted sense of the ' v e r b ; CTiliu6£apoc. includes all i n d e c l i n a b l e connecting w o r d s , i„e p a r t i c l e s , prepositions and conjunctions in our notation; apBpou is what we c a l l the a r t i c l e ; there is n o m e n t i o n of p r o n o u n s , a d j e c t i v e s or adverbs
All
these
discussion; Aristotle
but is
a
points we
must
decided
of
course
pass
on,
advocate 306
require
much
remembering of
the
view
further
chiefly that
that
names
significance by
convention,
A n e v e n more important innovation introduced by the Stoic is one whose f u l l significance has only been appreciated fairly recently, namely their theory of X E K T C C , for w h i c h we m a y use the w o r d 'propositions', A n c i e n t s o u r c e s e x p l a i n their distinction between the s i g n i f i c a n t sound and the fact ,npay|jcx, w h i c h it signifies; but this fact, or proposition is not identical with the objective r e a l i t y , T 6 E K T 6 c; ijifOKELfjEuou w h i c h i n this c o n n e c t i o n i s c a l l e d T 6 ruyx^uou> w h i c h exists' or 'occurs'. ( 4 ) T h i s c a n be clearly seen in a case like that of Socrates w a l k i n g , since here we h a v e three entities of s t r i k i n g l y d i f f e r e n t f o r m : the sound-waves in the air, the p r e d i c a t i v e statement, and the human animal in motion. T h e distinction appears again i n the tenet that the sounds and o b j e c t s r e f e r r e d to are both t
n
a
t
307
XX
XX
m a t e r i a l , and therefore r e a l , w h e r e a s the X , E K T d , being immaterial, are not f u l l y real ( 5 ) It m a y also help to explain the p u z z l i n g distinction d r a w n by S e n e c a between s a p i e n t i a and s a p i e n s e s s e : s a p i e n t i a being a c o l l e c t i v e noun referring to w e l l - s t o c k e d m i n d s i n g e n e r a l , w h e r e a s s a p i e n s esse means the fact that one or more people are wise,. ( 6 ) We note that i n the context of t h i s theory, w o r d s are c o n s i d e r e d s i m p l y as i n d i v i d u a l acts of s p e a k i n g , though e l s e w h e r e the S t o i c s h a v e m u c h to s a y about w o r d s i n a p u r e l y f o r m a l context, as w e have already made clear. A E K T C C , then, seems to be distinguishable f r o m the words that express them, even though the d i s t i n c t i o n i s quite o f t e n ignored. T r a n s l a t i n g X e K T 6 u by the L a t i n word d i c t u m c e r t a i n l y m a k e s for c o n f u s i o n ; but e v e n d i c t u m can be interpreted as 'that w h i c h is signified', not 'that w h i c h i s pronounced'. As u s u a l l y p r e s e n t e d , this theory r e t a i n s the d e f e c t w h i c h w e h a v e already o b s e r v e d ; it applies most e a s i l y to statements, and there are problems i n e x t e n d i n g it to deal with other uses of language. B u t it has important advantages., I n the first p l a c e , it a v o i d s the m i s l e a d i n g suggestion that words are s y m b o l s of thoughts, w h i c h we noticed above; ( 7 ) 'misleading', that i s , as a general doctrine; w e shall not w i s h to deny that s o m e words describe and refer to our thoughts. S e c o n d l y , it s u g g e s t s , c o r r e c t l y , that the n o r m a l u n i t of d i s c o u r s e is the sentence, not the i n d i v i d u a l w o r d Aristotle had begun by c o n s i d e r i n g w o r d s taken separately, and then explained how they can be c o m b i n e d to form a sentence; the S t o i c s keep their e y e s on situations and the sentences that d e s c r i b e them D e t a c h e d parts of a sentence are c a l l e d 'incomplete i e k t a ' , X E K T C L E X X i n f j ; though here admittedly there is a danger of c o n f u s i n g the w o r d s w i t h the meaning w h i c h they express. T h e theory of X E K T d being immaterial is bound to raise problems about the effects they produce. T h e o f f i c i a l S t o i c v i e w i s that c a u s e and e f f e c t are i n t e r a c t i o n s of material things, B u t i f w e act on a command, w e are responding, not to the sounds as s u c h , but to the meaning w h i c h they c o n v e y , the immaterial X E K T 6 u .. T h e r e i s an a l t e r n a t i v e S t o i c treatment of c a u s a t i o n w h i c h m i g h t p r o v i d e the a n s w e r ; i f wood is burnt by f i r e , it i s sometimes argued that both the 308
c a u s e and thing affected are material, but the effect i t s e l f is not; the burning of the wood i s a K a T T y y 6 p F | p a , a stateable fact, and as such immaterial ( S V F 2.341), P e r h a p s , then, an immaterial f a c t o f this k i n d c o u l d be p r o d u c e d b y an immaterial X E K T D U B u t I think there i s a deep-rooted c o n f u s i o n at this p o i n t A changing substance is still a substance; for that matter, burning wood does not immediately cease to be w o o d . A n d i f w e speak of a f i r e , we are n a m i n g this p r o c e s s ; our w o r d s denote a s u b s t a n c e undergoing change, rather than simply expressing the stateable fact that it occurs, O n e c a n p i c k u p a f i r e i n a shovel: I do not see how one c a n shovel up a fact, D e s p i t e a l l s u c h e m b a r r a s s m e n t s , it i s c l e a r that the S t o i c s have e s c a p e d f r o m the n a r r o w h o r i z o n of t r y i n g to e x p l a i n language s i m p l y by a c c o u n t i n g for n a m e s ; they are c o n c e r n e d w i t h situations and events, and are at least trying to distinguish these f r o m the sentences w h i c h describe them. (8) A fortiori, they see the same i n d i v i d u a l c a n be referred to i n different w a y s , ( 9 ) a n d thus either by g i v i n g his name Q U O pet, or by borrowing what is normally a descriptive term, a npoariyopta. I f A l e x a n d e r is k i n g , it makes no difference whether w e say ' A l e x a n d e r i s brave' or 'the k i n g is brave'; but it does not f o l l o w from this that 'king' s i m p l y m e a n s the same as 'Alexander'; for 'the king of Persia' i s a meaningful phrase; 'the A l e x a n d e r of P e r s i a ' is not (
4, I think, then, that it i s probably the S t o i c s who c l a r i f i e d the meaning of a term w h i c h plays an important part i n the controversy aroused by Eunomius, namely the noun E TT C U 0 L a , T h e facts about this w o r d are not very e a s y to d i s c o v e r , partly b e c a u s e the only a v a i l a b l e m o n o g r a p h , the little treatise p u b l i s h e d by A n t o n i o O r b e in 1 9 5 5 , p a y s no attention to pre-Christian authors.. I n popular usage E T U U O L C X seems to have had the fairly ill-defined meaning of a thought or notion; it can also refer to a project, and it i s worth noting that its one occurrence i n the N e w T e s t a m e n t , at A c t s 8:22, refers s p e c i f i c a l l y to the w i c k e d project entertained by S i m o n Magus. In s o m e c o n t e x t s it r e f e r s to the e x e r c i z e of i m a g i n a t i o n , though this m a y be c o n t r o l l e d by the intellect, and thus enable us to a r r i v e at notions for w h i c h sensory
309
XX
XX
e x p e r i e n c e provides the material, though it i s not properly speaking the c a u s e of our thinking. T h e k e y passage here, given by von A r n i m , S V F 2.87, is Diogenes Laertius 7.52. T h e same material i s used w i t h p o l e m i c a l intention by S e x t u s Empiricus adv.math. 8.56, and it s e e m s that E u n o m i u s independently drew on D i o g e n e s , though his p o l e m i c a l aims are rather different from those of S e x t u s ; see G r e g o r y of N y s s a c . E u n . 2.179,. Diogenes tells us that our conceptions, T d u o o t i u e u c c , are based either on experience, nEplrrTLocnc;, or on m e n t a l o p e r a t i o n s , w h i c h he e n u m e r a t e s , a n d w h i c h mostly i n v o l v e easily intelligible modifications of experience: l i k e n e s s , analogy, transposition, composition, opposition; thus by analogy w e imagine giants and d w a r f s ; again, death is c o n c e i v e d as the opposite of l i f e (though w h y ? , one might ask; w e can have a direct encounter with death). B u t w e are then told that some things are conceived K a r a pET&Pacuu T i u a , such as XEKTd and r 6 r r o e , ; these w e note belong to the four phenomena w h i c h the S t o i c s describe as incorporeal, arid therefore as not fully real ( S V F 2 331). B u t they are not m e r e i m a g i n a r y f o r m s l i k e centaurs or giants (ibid 3 3 2 ) ; they depend upon a sophisticated process of generalization and abstraction. It appears from Sextus that the phrase r d KaT'ETTLUoiau uooupeua stands for the products of any such process, whether naive or sophisticated, as opposed to what i s k n o w n from e x p e r i e n c e , T O K a r a TTEpLTTTcoo"L U £ y u c o O | J i u o u ; for Sextus is concerned to make the f a i r l y s i m p l e point that both our conceptions and our f a n c i f u l imaginations depend on sense-experience., E u n o m i u s however wants to suggest that things qualified as K a r ' e T T L U D i a u are purely fanciful; he mentions only giants, d w a r f s , many-headed monsters and half-beasts T h i s a c c o r d s w i t h the popular meaning of £ TT i u o i a , but not w i t h its technical usage, as w e can see once again from Sextus 10.7, SVF 2,501; he tells us that if w e imagine all (real) objects abolished, the space w h i c h contains them w i l l still r e m a i n : Kdu K a T ' E T T L U o i a u 6e d n a u r a d u E X c o p E U 6 rorroc; OUK d u a i pEBfjaE r a t EU & fju Td rrduTa dXX'iJTTOjJEUEi ( U T T O U E U E T?). T h i s no doubt postulates an exercise of the imagination; but it is not idle or poetic fancy, but rather a d i s c i p l i n e d thought-experiment.
The
distinction
between
sense and
310
reference which
we
have ascribed to the Stoics becomes fairly c l e a r in a much discussed passage of Posidonius, fr„ 92 E d e l s t e i n = D i e l s D G 458; here it i s said that ouaCa and uX.n, are identical K a r a TfjU U T T O C T T a a L U and differ E T T L U O i a pouou, I think this must mean that the r e f e r e n c e of the terms o u a i a and uX,T] is identical; they differ in sense, or i n the description they convey, W e learn from fr.. 9 2 that O U C H a can mean existence as a w h o l e , w h i c h neither i n c r e a s e s nor d i m i n i s h e s , but merely suffers change; while fr. 5, if reliable, indicates that Posidonius thought of uAn, as the passive drrOLoc; ouaCa, distinguishable f r o m the a c t i v e p r i n c i p l e w i t h i n it,. T h e argument, then, is that one and the same reality is c a l l e d O U C H a in that it exists, and uX F] in that it is liable to change.
5,. W e may now turn to P h i l o , who accepts the principle that one and the same thing c a n have various E T T i u o i a L , , and indeed gives it a theological application T h e w o r d itself i s by no means infrequent; L i e t z m a n n ' s i n d e x notes 26 instances, and there are others, less easy to trace, in the Q u a e s t i o n e s In Philo's usage it very seldom refers to mere fantasy, l i k e the invention of centaurs; there i s j u s t one possible e x a m p l e , at Migr. 1 9 2 ; God's m i n d r e a l l y does pervade the u n i v e r s e , unlike man's, w h i c h can only travel round it i n imagination, ÉTTLUOÍa póuou. B y far the commonest meaning is a project, or the means c h o s e n to attain it, a n d not infrequently a w i c k e d project, l i k e that of the tower-builders of B a b e l , C o n f u s . 158, S o m n . 2 , 2 8 5 ; but s o m e t i m e s an admirable human s k i l l , l i k e that of the ship-builder, S p e c . L e g . 1.335 S o m e t i m e s ¿ T T L U O L a denotes theoretical knowledge; it can refer to o r g a n i z e d r e s e a r c h , S o m n . 1.39, or again to the knowledge of m e d i c i n e , E x s e c r . 145. T h i s leaves three contexts to be considered, of w h i c h by far the most important is H e r e s 23. Here P h i l o explains that G o d , as indicated by ó a ' Í T L O c ; , has two appelations (TTpoapu,aEL.t;), namely B E o c a n d KÚpiOC;: but i n the text under d i s c u s s i o n , Gen.. 15:2, the w o r d ÓEanórrjC; is used; and KÚpioc; a n d Ó E o r r ó r n c ; are said to be synonymous P h i l o then continues: d X X ' E L , TD ÚTFOKELUEUOU EU K a l rauTóu Éartu, ÉmuoCaic; ai KXf)0"ELCj ÓLatpÉpoucn the two titles differ i n their descriptive f o r c e , K Ú p i o c; s i g n i f y i n g f i r m n e s s or v a l i d i t y ( K Ü p o c ; ) and ÓEcnÓTrjC, implying a bond, Ó E a p ó c ; , which
311
XX
XX
again suggests 6 E O C ; , fear T h e picture i s complicated, and w e should not assume that the two terms K u p t o q a n d 6 £ a n 6 rr)c; have the same relationship as Beog a n d K u p i o c ; . T h i s latter pair are o f c o u r s e related to the one a n d o n l y G o d , but as P h i l o t e l l s u s e l s e w h e r e they n a m e t w o d i s t i n c t p o w e r s ; whereas K u p i o q a n d £i£o"Tr6Tnt; are alternative titles for o n e of these p o w e r s , and it i s this that i s indicated b y saying T O UTTOKEIUEUOU E"u K C C I T C X U T O U £0~TLU.. H o w e v e r at Q u . E x . 2 6 3 the w o r d eniuoia seems to m a r k a contrast between the t w o p r i m a r y p o w e r s t h e m s e l v e s , here d e s c r i b e d as 'the c r e a t i v e ' a n d 'the r o y a l ' p o w e r s ; f o r the G r e e k fragment reads: n p E a f j U T E p a 6E f) T r o i n T i K f ] rf\q f j a a t X i K f j g Kar'¿TTCuoL.au ( A s a rough p a r a l l e l , w e might imagine a n E n g l i s h aristocrat w h o has inherited o r obtained t w o distinct titles, one of them more d i g n i f i e d or actually more ancient than the other, though o f course there i s no difference i n the age of the m a n h i m s e l f ) . T h i r d l y , at S p e q . L e g . 2.29 w e are told that 6 r f | c ; ( p u a E c o c ; opBoc. Xdyoc, has the function both of a father and o f a husband, T T C X T p b c ; 6po\J K C U au6p6cj E " X 6 v j u a u L U , EmuoCaic; fciatpopoic;, i n that he both i m p l a n t s the seeds o f v i r t u e i n the s o u l a n d procreates g o o d designs and a c t i o n s , w h i c h h e subsequently nourishes w i t h refreshing doctrines, T T O r C f J O i C, 66yp:acuu, T h e language i s largely S t o i c , e s p e c i a l l y the phrase 6 opBbr; Xoyoc;: the sequence 6 Tf|Cj t p u a E o o c ; 6pB6c; Xbyoc, i s repeated at O p i f . 1 4 3 , w h i c h m a k e s the c o n v e n t i o n a l S t o i c comparison of the c o s m o s with a well-governed c i t y ; a n d the S t o i c s of c o u r s e d e s c r i b e d the L o g o s a s a n E p u a r i K O C ; , though I have not so far d i s c o v e r e d parallels to P h i l o ' s v i v i d i m a g e s of its intercourse w i t h the i n d i v i d u a l soul Plutarch also quotes from C h r y s i p p u s a reference to b KOLU6C; rfjr; ipuaeojc; Xoyoc;, w h i c h i s identified with E i p a p i J E u r i a n d T T p b u o i a a n d Z e u s ( S V F 2 . 9 3 7 ) ; no doubt the theory of ETTLUOICLL w i l l have been employed in making these equations. E I
A t a l l events, P h i l o c l e a r l y understands that one and the same reality c a n be r e f e r r e d to by alternative designations w h i c h d e s c r i b e its a c t i v i t y under different a s p e c t s o r by different metaphors
312
6, O u r account s o far m a y have suggested a continuous p r o c e s s of improvement and c l a r i f i c a t i o n i n terminology; but f r o m about P h i l o ' s time o n w a r d s w e have to r e c o g n i z e an i n f l u e n c e w h i c h c o n t i n u a l l y threatens to o b s c u r e the results so laboriously a c h i e v e d ; I refer to the influence of c l a s s i c i s m , the v i e w that a l l i m p o r t a n t k n o w l e d g e and understanding had already been d i s c o v e r e d by the ancients, a n d the further disposition to select among ancient authors o n the s c o r e of literary merit T h e C r a t y l u s o f Plato and the C a t e g o r i e s and De I n t e r p r e t a t i o n e o f Aristotle now c o m e to b e regarded as standard authorities; A r i s t o t l e ' s T o p i c s a l s o gains more influence than it deserves. T h u s the important progress made by the S t o i c s i n understanding the w a y i n w h i c h language is significant tends to b e o v e r s h a d o w e d b y a return to the old p r o b l e m , do names acquire their m e a n i n g b y nature o r by convention? W h a t w e c o m m o n l y find i s a compromise theory, that names are indeed to be traced to an original name-giver, but that h e s e l e c t e d the n a m e s that had a natural appropriateness to their objects, B u t here the argument all too often stops short, w i t h o u t attempting to enquire what m a k e s n a m e s n a t u r a l l y appropriate P h i l o thus argues that M o s e s d i d better than the G r e e k s in attributing the origin of l a n g u a g e , n o t s i m p l y to w i s e m e n , but to the f i r s t man created; ( 1 0 ) 'for i f many persons h a d a s s i g n e d things their names, these would have been inconsequent and illm a t c h e d , ,.. w h e r e a s n a m i n g b y o n e m a n w a s l i k e l y to h a r m o n i z e w i t h the r e a l i t y , a n d this w o u l d b e a consistent s y m b o l f o r a l l m e n of the fact or the thing signified', r o G Tuyxduouror; f\ T O O a i y i j a i u o u E U O i J , the phrases which w e have already seen in u s e among the Stoics,,
7, T o this theory of the g i v i n g of names there i s of course one major exception, the name of G o d himself, i f it i s right to c a l l it a n a m e T h i s , it i s c l e a r , c a n only be known because G o d h i m s e l f h a s r e v e a l e d i t , B u t w h a t e x a c t l y h a s he r e v e a l e d ? P h i l o ' s difficulty i s obvious, O n the one h a n d , he k n o w s that G o d h a s a n a m e w h i c h must n o t be s p o k e n , 'except by those w h o s e tongue i s purified by w i s d o m i n the holy place', V i t . M o s . 2 114, and that this name i s signified by four H e b r e w characters; he most probably d i d not k n o w how these s h o u l d be pronounced, (11) O n the other h a n d , in
313
XX
XX
Philo's G r e e k B i b l e , Moses asks G o d for his name, and is given the reply "EyoJ eCpi ó oóu (Ex„ 3:14); though an alternative is immediately suggested: T h e L o r d G o d of your fathers, the G o d of A b r a h a m this is my name for ever'. W e cannot say that ó 'Qu functions for Philo as a proper name; indeed he says explicitly that God has no need of a name ( A b r . 5 1 ) ; but he c l e a r l y regards it as a uniquely appropriate and revealing title. L e t us note that a l l other appelations w h i c h w e find applied to G o d are in one p l a c e or another referred by P h i l o not to G o d himself, but to one of his ó u u d \i E I e,. T h i s is certainly true of the titles B E Ó C , , KÚpioc;, Fjacn A E Ü C ; , noLf|Tr|c;( ó r | | J i o u p y ó t ; apxwu EUEpyÉTTiq, and I think o f d p x i l B u t the phrase ó ' Q u is never identified w i t h a ó ú u a p t c ; ; it has óuuá|_JEi.c; assigned to it. W e must not enlarge on Philo's theory of God's óuudpEic;, w h i c h has often been described; in his v i e w , G o d i s perfectly simple, but has m a n y ÓuudpEic;; the intellectual apparatus for this doctrine is d r a w n f r o m the G r e e k debate as to w h e t h e r w e c a n consistently describe the s o u l , or the m i n d , as s i m p l e , and also as having parts; i e , can w e harmonize the P h a e d o with the R e p u b l i c ? A commonly-accepted v i e w was that the soul i s s i m p l e , but has v a r i o u s functions, w h i c h can be described as 6 u u d U E l C ; , or again as i n later C h r i s t i a n theology, as EUEpYElCU. P h i l o can therefore be said to anticipate E u n o m i u s i n one respect, namely that he selects one title as uniquely appropriate and indicative of G o d ' s nature., I n other respects he is of course poles apart.. A l t h o u g h he comments on this title, he also explains that God is 'unnameable and indescribable and incomprehensible',. It is presumably because ó f¿u is a completely general expression that he d e s c r i b e s G o d h i m s e l f - as d i s t i n c t f r o m h i s L o g o s - as 'supremely g e n e r a l ' , yEUiKCura roc;, and so comparable with the w o r d r i , w h i c h for the S t o i c s included things that were not even real ( L e g . A l l . 2,86),. P h i l o ' s language, h o w e v e r , is c o n t r o l l e d by the m e t a p h y s i c s o f the P l a t o n i s t s , for w h o m 'being' i s a v a l u e term, and distinct varieties of being arise by some form of limitation OT q u a l i f i c a t i o n , rather as w e now r e a l i z e that c o l o u r s are d e r i v e d f r o m plain white light We therefore h a v e the p a r a d o x that the p u r e l y abstract and u n i n f o r m a t i v e term i s c o n s i d e r e d appropriate to denote the
314
i n e x h a u s t i b l e r i c h e s o f the s u p r e m e r e a l i t y , of w h i c h all beauty a n d p e r f e c t i o n that w e c a n o b s e r v e is o n l y a derivative of inferior rank There i s of course one further question to be raised here. P h i l o refers to the supreme being both as 6 cbu and as T O 6u - he w i l l not unfortunately delight those friends of ours w h o think he should have u s e d the designation f| cOca! A r e w e to say that the notion of pure B e i n g is i n some way qualified by the e x p r e s s i o n 6 cou, w h e r e the m a s c u l i n e gender imports s o m e s u g g e s t i o n o f m a l e , and therefore personal, b e i n g , w h i c h is appropriate w h e n w e read of G o d s p e a k i n g , and therefore r e v e a l i n g h i m s e l f to m a n ? O r s h a l l we say that it merely neutralizes the opposite suggestion of i m p e r s o n a l , and so p o s s i b l y sub-personal, b e i n g , w h i c h is encouraged by T O O U , and perhaps also affects the u s e of phrases l i k e T O B E L O U as opposed to 6 8E6C;? I do not know h o w to a n s w e r this question.. I s l i g h t l y p r e f e r the first alternative. I n G r e e k usage, of course, it is by no means true that the m a s c u l i n e gender applies only to h um an males, and the neuter only to inanimate objects; nevertheless the use of the neuter to denote males i s a little unusual; men's names are u s u a l l y m a s c u l i n e in f o r m ; the neuter being u s e d not uncommonly for women's names, and of course for diminutives.
H a v i n g dealt as best I can with Philo's usage, I w o u l d like to continue by tracing the use of the w o r d E T T C U O L c t d o w n to the Fourth Century. B u t time does not allow this; and I must offer some general comments on the logic of nomenclature B u t there i s one passage w h i c h i s important e n o u g h to d e s e r v e mention even in the briefest sketch o f the patristic e v i d e n c e , namely O r i g e n C o m m . J o . 1,20,119, 6 GEOQ pEU
ouu TTaurri E U E O * T I KCXL dnAouu; 6 6E aoorf|p t\[i(ov 6 i d Td noXA.d, E T T E I T T P O E B E T O a u r a u 6 FJEOC; iA.aarfipi.au K a t a n a p x ^ ndarjc; Tfjq KTICTEIJOC;, rroAAd ytUErat K T X . I n the event, of course, it proves that the L o g o s has several distinct r o l e s , for w h i c h O r i g e n uses the term ETTI uot a t , quite apart from the various good o f f i c e s w h i c h he undertakes for the s a l v a t i o n of m e n ; a suggested l i s t is aotpCa, Aoyoc;, scof) and perhaps d A f | B E i a . T h e strong declaration that G o d himself, 6 B E O Q ,
315
XX
XX
is t o t a l l y one and s i m p l e m a y p e r h a p s h a v e h e l p e d to c o n v i n c e E u n o m i u s that only one d e s i g n a t i o n for h i m is a l l o w a b l e B u t this of course i s not Origen's v i e w ; he argues that one and the same being is ô r j U L o u p y ô ç and B E O Ç and TT a f f] p , both of C h r i s t and of o u r s e l v e s , and is at least prepared to c o n s i d e r the argument that the titles TT a T f j p and B E O Ç indicate distinct £ T T i U O I a t : C o m m . J o . 19,5 i n i f W e m a y note that i n his use of E T U U O L C X Eusebius conforms fairly closely to Origen f E . T . 2,10.6, 14.22), and A r i u s appears to do so too (Ath. s y n . 1 5 ) ; w h e r e a s A t h a n a s i u s r e p l i e s by t r e a t i n g ÈTTLUOia as a w o r d r e s e r v e d for mere f a n c i e s or fabrications, and to this e x t e n t p r e p a r e s the w a y for Eunomius
8.. I return at last, then, to my ostensible subject, ' L o g i c and the application of names to God', W h a t are w e to understand by the w o r d 'names'? I n the broadest sense ouopcx c a n be e q u i v a l e n t to our w o r d 'noun', and thus i n c l u d e common nouns or d e s c r i p t i v e terms, m o r e accurately d i s t i n g u i s h e d by the w o r d s rrpQOT|YOpi.ai, and npoapfjaEic;.. F r o m these we can distinguish proper nouns or proper names; but w e note at the outset that these are not n e c e s s a r i l y p e r s o n a l names; there are names of countries, l i k e S i c i l y , and of mountains, like E t n a . Indeed in some w a y s these are less problematic; it m a y w e l l be that the island of S i c i l y is the only country to w h i c h this name is attached; w h e r e a s i n h u m a n s o c i t i e s a p e r s o n a l n a m e c a n o n l y p i c k out its o w n e r w i t h i n his immediate c i r c l e ; there are s i m p l y not e n o u g h n a m e s in existence to give e a c h i n d i v i d u a l i n the w o r l d a name of his own.. B u t in discussing personal names w e c o m m o n l y keep up the fiction that someone's name r e a l l y is a proper name in the sense of being peculiar to him A n d we have to recognize another f i c t i o n e n c o u r a g e d by the G r e e k p h r a s e K upt ou 0 U O |J ex, namely that a person's name in some w a y not only denotes that one i n d i v i d u a l , but c o r r e c t l y d e s c r i b e s h i m This is a state of affairs w h i c h w e s h o u l d f i n d it v e r y difficult to bring about, e v e n if w e tried to do s o , w h e r e n a m e s are normally a s s i g n e d to i n d i v i d u a l s b e f o r e their c h a r a c t e r developes W e c o u l d I think i m a g i n e p r o v i d i n g somebody with a n i c k n a m e w h i c h r e a l l y w a s p e c u l i a r to h i m and was also significant to the extent of alluding to some outstanding
316
feature of his appearance or h i s character Fictional c h a r a c t e r s , o f c o u r s e , do h a v e n a m e s w h i c h are significant and p o s s i b l y unique; M e d u s a , the c u n n i n g o n e , Prometheus, the forward-looking; and returning to r e a l l i f e , of c o u r s e it c o u l d have been the case that Xenophon's friend Cheirisophus really was c l e v e r with his hands, or e v e n r e c e i v e d this name as a s o b r i q u e t w h e n his s k i l l w a s d i s c o v e r e d , W h a t is i m p o s s i b l e i n the c a s e of h u m a n b e i n g s o r i s l a n d s or mountains i s to p r o v i d e a name f r o m w h i c h a l l their c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s c a n be d e d u c e d , as w e m i g h t c l a i m for g e o m e t r i c a l figures l i k e the triangle; but a n c i e n t theorists, under Plato's i n f l u e n c e , are often haunted by the ghost of this possibility, I n p r i m i t i v e s o c i e t i e s it seems that no e m b a r r a s s m e n t was felt i n designating gods by p e r s o n a l n a m e s T h e early I s r a e l i t e s n a m e d their o w n G o d J a h w e h , a n d w e r e quite prepared to acknowledge Chemosh as the god of the A m m o n i t e s and therefore no c o n c e r n of theirs.. It w o u l d need an O l d Testament specialist to tell us precisely w h y the name J a h w e h c a m e to be regarded as too sacred to pronounce A tentative answer might be that the w o r s h i p p e r s of J a h w e h w e r e c o n c e r n e d that he s h o u l d be p r o p e r l y h o n o u r e d , i,e. concerned about his 'name' i n the sense of his reputation, and i n d e e d attributed a s i m i l a r c o n c e r n to J a h w e h h i m s e l f ; so that the phrase 'his name' c a m e to indicate his real character, a n d . a l s o to be u s e d as a r e v e r e n t i a l e x p r e s s i o n for the d i v i n i t y . B u t there m a y w e l l be a different explanation for the avoidance of the actual name 'Jahweh', as opposed to the d e s c r i p t i v e e x p r e s s i o n 'his name'; for w e n o r m a l l y apply n a m e s to f a m i l i a r things l i k e p e r s o n s a n d places,. T h e Israelites m a y w e l l have felt that to provide the G o d of all the u n i v e r s e with a name w a s to assimilate h i m to the cultic gods of the heathen. More g e n e r a l l y , w e might suppose that it is normally the function of a personal name to pick out an i n d i v i d u a l w i t h i n a c l a s s of similar beings; i n this c a s e , to apply a personal name to G o d would be to suggest that he is not unique. T h i s w o u l d go some w a y to e x p l a i n the special appeal of a distinctively mysterious phrase l i k e 'I am' or 'He W h o Is'.
317
XX
XX
9. B u t w e need to come back to E u n o m i u s ; for it is clear that the c o n t r o v e r s y w h i c h he p r o m p t e d d o e s not turn on p e r s o n a l n a m e s ; the q u e s t i o n at i s s u e i s r a t h e r , whether there i s some one descriptive term for G o d w h i c h e n j o y s a p r i v i l e g e d status E u n o m i u s made this c l a i m for the w o r d d y e u u r } T O t ; . . H i s argument, I think, must be that G o d i s p e r f e c t l y s i m p l e as r e g a r d s his e s s e n c e , though he has v a r i o u s operations, p o w e r s , and energies,, H e c a n therefore h a v e o n l y one proper d e s i g n a t i o n ; i f more than one term w e r e applied to h i s e s s e n t i a l nature, this w o u l d i n e v i t a b l y i m p l y that there were distinguishable aspects o f h i s essence named by the different terms, so that it w o u l d be no longer simple I find this argument u n c o n v i n c i n g ; and I think it can be a n s w e r e d e v e n without appealing to B a s i l ' s theory of ETTLUOLCtt ; for it s e e m s to i m p l y that the actual w o r d dyEUUF|TOC; is indispensable. W o u l d E u n o m i u s then insist that no L a t i n or P e r s i a n speaker c a n hold correct theological v i e w s ? B u t ifdy£Uur|TOc; can be translated, w h y should one r e f u s e to admit that it can be r e p l a c e d i n G r e e k by a s y n o n y m w h i c h ' i s e q u a l l y c a p a b l e of r e p r e s e n t i n g G o d ' s perfectly simply essential nature? It may be answered, p e r h a p s , that there is no p e r f e c t l y adequate s y n o n y m ; but then, c l e a r l y , there i s no p e r f e c t l y adequate translation either E u n o m i u s therefore has to c h o o s e ; either he must insist that G r e e k i s the only language i n w h i c h theology can be a c c e p t a b l y stated, or he m u s t admit that roughly s y n o n y m o u s e x p r e s s i o n s may be admitted, w i t h a l l the risk of a variation o f nuance w h i c h w o u l d c o m p r o m i s e the divine simplicity., T h e word ex p X M. . f ° instance, might be suggested as an appropriate s y n o n y m r
E u n o m i u s c o u l d a n s w e r , of c o u r s e , that d p x u. w i l l not do, since it has a wide range of applications; whereas, i n his o w n time and m i l i e u at l e a s t , it c o u l d be argued that d y E u u r y r o c ; - spelt with u u - w a s only used in connection with the divinity A n d its compound, negative f o r m does give it a certain advantage o v e r other d e s c r i p t i v e terms,, If w e take a word s u c h as TT O I T\ T f j c;, it could be argued that w e only l e a r n the use of this w o r d by meeting it in ordinary contexts, and that therefore it must have associations w h i c h render it unfit for describing the unique source of all life and being B u t this argument ignores the f l e x i b i l i t y w h i c h our
318
language d i s p l a y s , and the extent to w h i c h it i s affected by its context What i s normally a descriptive term, 'the X ' , can often be understood a s 'the X to w h i c h it is proper to refer in this context'; w i t h i n a f a m i l y , for instance, the word 'Father' quite properly means 'the father of this family', without any sense of a conflict with its use as a common noun. A more sophisticated variant of this is the case where 'the X ' denotes some i n d i v i d u a l K a T ' E ^ O X n > Aquinas refers to Aristotle, c a l l i n g h i m p h i l o s o p h u s . 'the philosopher',, T h i s logic governs our use of the word 'God'; w e learn the use of the word partly by learning what c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s v a r i o u s societies a s c r i b e to their gods; at a later stage we refine our conception, and also understand that the being w h o fulfils our specification must be unique, 'I b e l i e v e i n one G o d ' , w e then s a y , thereby excluding the conceptual possibility of a plurality of gods, It may still be true, h o w e v e r , that this e x c l u d e d possibility has played a part i n our coming to understand the word 'God', u
a
s
10 E u n o m i u s , I think, makes two distinguishable errors. T h e first is to say that only one term i s properly applicable to G o d , as signifying his essence, T h e second is to suggest that this term d y E U U T y r o c ; , is proper i n the sense of g i v i n g a complete specification of what is c o m p r i s e d i n the being of God, T h i s latter point is so generally condemned that I shall not enlarge on it T h e former point has rather more basis in tradition; thus P h i l o maintains that the phrase 6 ' O u i s not really a name, since there is no name at all w h i c h properly applies to G o d - O U 6 E U ouopcx TO r r a p d r r a u ETTEpoO KUpLOXoyELTCXl t j j pOUQJ TTp6aEO"TL T O E l U C t l , . But P h i l o does not develope this last phrase; on the contrary, as w e have seen, he pictures G o d as r e v e a l i n g a name to men, and also as e x e r c i z i n g a variety of functions, 6 U U d p E l c;, in virtue of w h i c h w e may use names l i k e K u p i o c ; and B E or;, Unfortunately these powers often appear to detach themselves as autonomous beings l i k e the angels, who are at least theoretically able to escape from G o d ' s control, l i k e the A e o n s of the G n o s t i c s A t this point a better picture is already outlined by Justin f A p o l . 2,6,2): 'the Father of a l l has no given name, being ingenerate', s i n c e , he adds rather n a i v e l y , this w o u l d imply some more senior divinity who g a v e him s u c h a name; 'but " F a t h e r " and " G o d " and " C r e a t o r " and " L o r d " and " M a s t e r " are not n a m e s , but appellations ( T T p o a p f i C T E L C ; )
319
XX
XXI derived
from
follow,
broadly
have one
no
fault to that
find
'simple'
I
or energies
actions'
this them
I am they
I
would
the
Biblical
with
question
must
i t s e l f requires
be
that
track,
think
which
squaring
we
with
which
important divinity
in
a perfectly s i m p l e
operations
term
beneficent
speaking,
assumption,
namely of
his
being
can
this
tradition. it
uneasy
can
and
Gregory
this
respect I
with
with
regard a
intelligible,
let
the
alone
enormously
P o s s i b l y the
should
plurality
of construing this
to
Eunomius,
exercize
way But
set a s i d e
must end by c o n f e s s i n g , o m n i a
in
share
see no
make
Basil and
nature
not
be
answerable,
exeunt
in
rnysterinm
of
Divine simplicity as a problem for orthodoxy
and
' I h e e v o l u t i o n o f o r t h o d o x y ' m i g h t easily b e u n d e r s t o o d as a process which
belongs
w h o l l y t o the past:
doctrine, o n which
the development
Henry Chadwick
of Christian
has shed s u c h a g r a c e f u l a n d
p e n e t r a t i n g l i g h t , w o u l d t h e n be c o n t r a s t e d w i t h a c o m p l e t e a n d stable 1
Plato himself
later c o i r e c t e d the f a l l a c y ; see T h e a e t e t u s
c o n s t r u c t i o n i n w h i c h C h r i s t i a n i t y has c o m e t o rest. B u t t o c a l l i t
203.
c o m p l e t e a n d stable n e e d n o t m e a n t h a t f u r t h e r p r o g r e s s is e x c l u d e d ; at
2 . S V F 2 146, = Origen C e l s . 1.24; c f . 2 895
t h e v e r y least, n e w challenges are l i k e l y t o arise, a n d o l d t r u t h s w i l l need
3
S Y E 2 151,
4
S V F 2,166; and for X E K T C X
fin.
The
differently
t o be re-stated A n d m o s t o f o u r g e n e r a t i o n , a n d o f o u r j u n i o r s , w i l l t h i n k
same by
threefold
Origen,
5
r d
distinction
Philocalia
(pooufj, d f i L i a i u o L J E u a , KEturai
« n p a y p a
expressed
rather
4; here the terms u s e d are
and
ar||jaıuüLJEua
is
r a , 3 Diog,, 2 0 ad
n p d y u a r a
KaB'&u
; cf, also S V F 2.168,
Ep
7
Cf
8
Cf.SVE
p r o c e s s , i n w h i c h established p o s i t i o n s n e e d t o be c l a r i f i e d a n d some
117 (not in S V F V . but cf. 2.132. S V F 2.167 with the misleading
QxdL
handbook
2.171
beginners
148, L e g . A I l . 2.14 f , M u t . N o m . 6 3 f ; contrast,
11 Cf. V i t . M o s . 115 init: T E T p a y p d p u a r o u ö
BeoXöyoç
a n d better
F r o m such a s t a n d p o i n t o n e can t u r n w i t h a r u e f u l a d m i r a t i o n t o a
168,
h o w e v e r , V i t . M o s . 1.130, D e c a l . 23 cprıaıu
static. I f o r o n e w o u l d c e r t a i n l y w i s h t o see its e v o l u t i o n as a c o n t i n u i n g
a r t i c u l a t e d consensus o f b e l i e f m a y be a t t a i n e d
9. S Y E 2.151. 10
far t o o t a m e : i n t h e i r eyes, o n l y a n o b s t i n a t e a n d
s e c l u d e d m i n d w i l l p e r s i s t i n d e f e n d i n g a n o r t h o d o x y t h a t is p u r e l y
false steps r e t r a c t e d , i n t h e f a i t h t h a t a b e t t e r g r o u n d e d
S Y E 2.166, 170, 331,
6
this p r o g r a m m e
EÎuaı.
6e
rouuoLJd
which
has g i v e n
invaluable
i n t h e o l o g y , t h e Entbiridion
service t o a succession Patrtiticum
of
o f M J R o u e t de
J o u r n e l , c o m p l e t e d i n 191 r a n d a p p e a r i n g i n its t w e n t y - f o u r t h e d i t i o n i n 1969
T h e l e a r n e d a u t h o r has c o l l e c t e d o v e r 2,400 b r i e f passages f r o m
t h e F a t h e r s , a n d offers a g u i d e t o h i s s e l e c t i o n i n a n ' I n d e x A n a l y t i c u s ' , a r r a n g e d so as t o s u g g e s t t h a t t h e F a t h e r s p r o s p e c t i v e l y u p h o l d the e n t i r e s t r u c t u r e o f m o d e r n c a t h o l i c o r t h o d o x y as d e f i n e d i n t h e t r a d i t i o n o f St T h o m a s simpluissimus,
Aquinas tta ut nullum
A s a r t i c l e 97, w e find t h e h e a d i n g omnino admittat
cited include TeituUian, Athanasius,
compontionem.
Deus eit
The authorities
Basil, G r e g o r y o f Nyssa,
John
C h r y s o s t o m , A m b r o s e , A u g u s t i n e a n d C y r i l : and m o s t o f t h e m , i t must be s a i d , a r e c o n s o n a n t w i t h t h e a u t h o r ' s f o r m u l a t i o n a n d seem t o have no
reservations
about
the black-and-white
c o m p o s i t e , o n w h i c h i t is based.
320
antithesis,
simple
or
XXI
XXI Divine simplicity as a problem for orthodoxy
I shall submit that this is an over-simplification: we must not t h i n k that simplicity is itself a simple notion B u t h o w eise can one explain the fact that the theme of divine simplicity has been so little discussed ? I t figures, no doubt, i n text-books of dogmatic theology: but I cannot discover that much detailed attention has been given to the actual usage of the key words baplous and haplofës or to their Latin equivalents. The entry i n H . J Sieben's Voces makes it appear that simplicity has been examined only i n its guise as a moral virtue, i n w h i c h a modest disposition is expressed i n t r u t h f u l unaffected language and unassuming reliability of conduct. The article ' E i n f a l t ' i n the Realiexikon für Antike und Christentum surveys much the same ground Nevertheless there are some unexpected features i n the philosophical use o f the words for simplicity, and some transitions o f thought w h i c h I believe cannot bear the weight that has been p u t upon them
construction which Gregory omits is the doctrine that G o d is strictly immutable: but this is commonly based on a rather different understanding of 'composite b e i n g ' , in w h i c h change is explained as a rearrangement of the minute particles, atoms or otherwise, of which material things ate composed: thus also they w o u l d come t o an end when their constituents lose their cohesion and are absorbed i n t o the surrounding matter Conversely, if G o d is not composed of such particles, he is immune f r o m change. This argument can easily be
We may begin by taking an example of the standard exposition f r o m
The origins of this train o f thought ate clearly pre-Christian, and illustrations can be found i n P h i l o ; but for the moment I w i l l postpone this enquiry, and consider some other, and less rigorous interpretations of simplicity which entered the Christian tradition
Gregory Nazianzen's Second Theological Oration in the Enchiridion)
(Oratio
2 8 ) , 7 (not included
:
For what will you conceive the Deity to be, if you rely on ail methods of reason? A body? How then is he infinite and boundless and formless and intangible and invisible? . For how shall he be an object of worship i f he be circumscribed ? Or how shall he escape being compounded out of elements and resolved into them again, or indeed totally dissolved? For composition is a source of conflict, and conflict of separation, and this again of dissolution ; and dissolution is totally foreign to God and to the first nature So there can be no separation, to exclude dissolution : no conflict, to exclude separation ; no composition, to exclude conflict ; and therefore He is not a body, to exclude composition So the argument is established by going back from the last to the first. The rhetorical and allusive style w h i c h Gregory adopts, while addressing a largely uninstructed congregation, shows that he takes his argument t o be thoroughly established and familiar. The w o r d baplous does not i n fact appear i n this passage, but Gregory makes his point clearly enough by saying that G o d is ' n o t compounded of elements' (ek stoicheidn sugkeistbai) and is immune f r o m composition (suntbesis); composition w o u l d imply conflict (mache). The mention o f conflict suggests that Gregory is using ' elements ' i n the fairly precise sense to indicate the traditional four, earth, air, fire and water, which were thought t o display contrary qualities, h o t and cold, wet and dry : it was a favourite topic o f Christian apologetics t o say that God's wisdom is manifested i n the art w i t h w h i c h he combined potentially discordant elements i n t o an harmonious w o r l d order. One feature o f the traditional 1
256
illustrated (e g. Athanasius Contra gentes 4 1 , De decretis
11);
but i t is not
easy t o see w h y change or dissolution should result f r o m conflict among minute bodies such as atoms: one w o u l d rather t h i n k of a failure to cohere or t o maintain their orderly disposition This may already suggest that the orthodox case is not quite so simple and straightforward as appears at first glance
(1) First of all, a student o f Aristotle cannot read fat w i t h o u t encountering the phrase 'simple bodies', hapla somata. 'Simple' i n this connection means that they do n o t consist of other elements which could exist separately The last four words are important, since the four elements, w h i c h are simple bodies i n this sense, were thought t o result f r o m the imposition of qualities o n formless matter (see e. g Hippolytus, Kefutatio omnium haeresium 1 19 1 for a doxographic account): b u t this is a purely theoretical analysis, as one cannot actually find matter existing w i t h o u t qualities, or vice versa, t o use as ingredients which could actually be combined o r compounded. Further, 'simple bodies' have no structure o r pattern; or more exactly, to say that they are simple makes no stipulations about their location or distribution. I t follows that things which are simple i n this sense need not be indivisible; the element fire, for example, appears i n a multitude of separate places, i n the stars, for instance, and in a modified f o r m i n animal bodies. Arius DkTymus mentions the division o f simple bodies.. 2
W i t h i n the Christian tradition this usage is best illustrated by Tertullian, w h o o f course makes use of stoic teaching o n matter and its qualities The Stoics held that the elements can change one into another ( 5 VT 2 4 1 3 e t c ) , so that none of them is imperishable except the fire f r o m which they originate and t o which they return; while in the short 257
"1
XXI
XXI Divine simplicity as a problem for orthodoxy
run it is admitted that fire itself can be extinguished and ' d i e ' (ibid. 430,
which Christ is anointed (Psalm 4 4 : 8 L X X )
446).
powers and functions are suggested by the composite ointment
The whole process is controlled by ' s p i r i t p n e u m a (ibid
416),
priests
in
Exodus
30:221!
prescribed
(ibid ), sometimes as fire (ibid 4 2 1 - 3 ) or a compound of air and fire
implication is not to be taken seriously, any more than the suggestion
4 3 9 - 4 1 ) ; but i n each case i t functions as the rational directive
that God's w i l l is, so to speak, the matter and substance f r o m w h i c h the
process i n the universe, or G o d (ibid 1045).. G o d , then, is i n some sense
universe is derived. I n Eusebius' view G o d is a unity, monas - indeed he
But
the
physical
surpasses the monad as the source of all creation (ibid. 4.1 5 ) ; and i n a
simple (suneches), but is not unchangeable. These doctrines appear w i t h some variation i n Iertullian's teaching about the soul. He takes i t for granted that the soul is i m m o r t a l ; but i f indissoluble, i t must be indivisible, and therefore simple (singularis simplex,
the
many (muron)
whose status is unclear; it is sometimes identified as a separate element (ibid
for
whereas God's
later w o r k , the Ecclesiastical
Theology (2.14.6) Eusebius insists o n the
absolute simplicity of the divine being
et
De anima 14). But i t is only simple i n a very large and loose sense;
(2)
Iertullian's o p i n i o n that the soul is a simple substance but is also
I e r t u l l i a n immediately notes that i t is commonly divided into ' p a r t s ' ;
subject to change could be endorsed by many thinkers, both Christian
t h o u g h these are more properly called ' faculties' or ' p o w e r s '
and pagan, w h o w o u l d not accept his peculiar doctrine of a corporeal
aulem non tarn partes
14.3)
(huiusmodi
animae habebuntur quam vires et efficaciae et operae, i b i d
soul
I t seems likely, i n fact, that the whole argument about
the
O n the other hand he believes that the soul is corporeal and has
simplicity of G o d begins w i t h a debate about the soul, i n w h i c h Plato
a shape c o n f o r m i n g to that of the body (ibid. 9 ) ; i t is hard to see h o w
played the leading part I n the Phaedo 78a, he draws a distinction between
it can fail to have ' parts' i n the sense o f limbs and other members; and
composite things and those that are uncompounded
if so, i t is ' simple' i n a much weaker sense even than ' simple bodies' like
argues that i t is the former that ate liable t o change, whereas absolute
fire or spirit
Moreover I e r t u l l i a n , while repeating that the soul is
essences, for instance o f beauty or equality, persist unchanging.. B u t the
(22 2), also insists that i t is subject to change ( 2 1 ) ;
sou! is akin to these realities; i t is ' most like the divine and immor tal and
substantia
simplex
(axunthetos),
and
otherwise there could be no possibility of human free w i l l One m i g h t
intellectual and u n i f o r m (monoeides)
compare the stoic doctrines that both G o d and the soul are ' s p i r i t '
(ibid. 80b) The natural inference w o u l d be that the soul can properly be
( 5 I / T 2.1035)
described as simple. O n the other hand, i n the Phaedrus and the
a n
d
t n a t
G o d is subject to change (ibid 1045,
1049!!);
t h o u g h on the latter point I e r t u l l i a n dissents and takes the normal v i e w : only G o d is unchangeable (De anima 21 7 ) ,
and indissoluble and unchanging'
be compared w i t h the ' composite force' (sumphuto(i)
I n other respects, however, I e r t u l l i a n stands apart f r o m the main
Republic
he introduces the well-known theory o f three elements i n the soul: i t can winged
horses
and
their charioteer, w h i c h
dunamei) o f a pair of
represent desire, im-
2 4 6 A ) . Plato is very sparing w i t h
tradition, and I am not clear that the Fathers commonly understood the
pulsiveness and reason (Phaedrus
simplicity of G o d o n the analogy of simple bodies I t m i g h t certainly
technical terms; he does not refer to ' p a r t s ' of the soul, but to 'natures'
have provided an answer to anthropomorphic theories; the idea that
(phuseis)
G o d had man-like limbs and features could be contradicted by p i c t u r i n g
(homophues:
h i m as u n i f o r m l y distributed t h r o u g h the universe, and Augustine tells
discussion by asking whether we learn and lust and rage w i t h three
or ' forms of being' (tide) Republic
w h i c h are not ' identical i n nature'
4 3 9 e , 440c, 441a). H o w e v e r , since he introduces the
us that he came to rest for a time i n a conception of this sort (Confessiones
d i s t i n c t ' t h i n g s ' (trisin ousin, cf trito\t) tint) or w i t h the whole soul - 43 6a
7 1 1-2). Again i t m i g h t seem a natural deduction f r o m the statements
— i t was natural to represent h i m as analysing it into three parts Finally,
that G o d is light, and fire, and spirit (1 John 1:5,
a perplexing passage i n Republic
Deuteronomy 4 : 2 4 ,
John 4 : 2 4 ) ; but i n a well-known passage (De principiis
1.1.4) Origen
10, 61 la-d suggests that the description
of the soul as simple only applies to its ideal condition or ' truest nature'
explains that these words are not to be interpreted i n physical terms, and
(fe(i~) alethestafe(i)
he could probably count on general agreement. Some suggestion of the
chatacteis, i t is t r u l y described as composite, and
'simple bodies' interpretation m i g h t be f o u n d i n Eusebius, w h o argues
compounded (61 i b and c).
(Demonstrate
evangelka
4 15 .16) that God's simple, uncompounded
and
unmixed nature may be symbolized by the simple ' o i l of gladness' w i t h 258
phusei);
i n its actual state, as manifested in disorderly not even
well
Aristotle makes i t clear that i n his day there was a debate as to whether one should refer to ' p a r t s ' of the soul (mere, moria)
or regard i t as 259
XXI
XXI Divine simp/icily as a problem for orthodoxy
undivided but exercising a variety of functions, dunameis. The latter opinion seems to have gained g r o u n d ; at any rate Galen reports that both Aristotle and Posidonius preferred to speak of ' p o w e r s ' in the sou! rather than 'parts '; but arguments about ' p a r t s ' of the soul continued, at least i n the doxographic literature, and are frequent i n P h i l o . Posidonius accepted Plato's threefold analysis and claimed the support of Cleanthes, whereas Chrysippus apparently adopted an intellectualist theory which regarded emotions as judgments and so thought o f all the operations of the soul as proceeding f r o m a single source Posidonius complains that Chrysippus' language is confused, but Tertullian is probably mistaken in saying that he reckoned eight parts in the soul; this was a common Stoic opinion, but not that o f Chrysippus himself 3
4
5
6
7
8
I n the later tradition opinion seems to have veered to the view that is i t correct to speak of ' p o w e r s ' o f the soul rather than ' p a r t s ' ; so I e r t u l l i a n , as noted above: Galen, Alexander of Aphrodisias, Calcidius 223, Porphyry and Severus, in Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica, 13 17 6, all noted by J H. Waszink ; Iamblichus is inconsistent, but on the whole prefers ' p o w e r s ' . 9
10
Meanwhile i t had become customary to apply the same principle to the d i v i n i t y ; Philo draws a parallel between our m i n d and the divine one (ho huper hemas), explaining that both are w i t h o u t parts and undivided (quit
rerum divinarum
beres?
2 3 4 - 6 ) ; but this apparently applies to
out
m i n d only, as distinct f r o m other 'parts' o f the soul Philo seems to speak of such 'parts' w i t h o u t embarrassment; but his enumeration of these parts can be precisely paralleled i n terms of ' p o w e r s ' , seven lower powers plus the reason (De mutations nominum 110-11). But G o d is a whole in which there are no parts (Deposter itate Caini 3 - 4 , Mut. nom 184); moreover to speak of parts w o u l d suggest the picture o f a G o d in human f o r m , which the scriptures introduce only as a concession to human weakness (De somntis 1 234-6). I t follows that G o d must be seen as operating t h r o u g h his powers 1 1
A similar parallel between G o d and the human m i n d could be drawn by considering not their constitution but their operations I t is a commonplace that the m i n d does not impair its o w n power by expressing itself in words or by making an act of w i l l (so e g Philo, De gigantibus 25). I n the same way Christian theologians could argue that the divine Logos proceeds f r o m the Father w i t h o u t any loss or division, as spoken W o r d or as expressing the Father's w i l l (Justin, Dialogus 61 and 128, Tatian, A d Graecos 5 1, Theophilus, A d Autolycum 2.22 etc.) ' w i t h o u t cutting off any part of the m i n d ' (Origen, De principles 1.2 6). 260
This notion of 'undiminished g i v i n g ' , accepted also by neo-Platonist philosophers, has been much discussed, and probably needs no further illustration F r o m the above reflections it w o u l d seem that there are radical defects in the neat antithesis of simple and compound which is presupposed by Gregory and has been adopted by orthodox Christian theologians. For, i n the first place, an object w h i c h has no parts need not be wholly undifferentiated; i t might have distinguishable features, like the colours of a rainbow, which could not properly be described as parts (whether we think of the colours themselves, or of the coloured areas which merge one into the other) A g a i n , if an object consists o f parts, i t does not f o l l o w that i t is constructed by assembling those parts: a tree has a t r u n k , branches, and twigs, but i t is not brought i n t o being b y taking those parts and p u t t i n g them together, as a house is built by collecting and then assembling bricks, beams and roofing tiles i n the appropriate order. A n d the converse is also probable; i t is not intuitively obvious that physical objects can only perish by the separation of their parts; w h y should not some things simply fade away, like a spark? A g a i n , a tree may die w i t h o u t its branches falling apart f r o m the t t u n k ; this will occur later, i t may be, when b o t h have begun to r o t ; the total dispersal of its constituent atoms w i l l take still longer 12
Where the soul is concerned, i t seems reasonable to use the comparison of a natural organism; and the Stoics may have partly seen this possibility, even though they expressed i t in the rather absurd form (as we w o u l d think) that the universe is a rational a n i m a l ; for they represented the cosmos as an organic whole whose parts reacted one upon another by ' s y m p a t h y ' , and taught that thete is an analogy between the cosmos and man, w h o can be called a 'little universe' or 'microcosm' 13
14
1 5
O n the other hand i t w o u l d seem that a soul which exercises a variety of powers cannot be simple i n any very rigorous sense; for if they are to be powers of the soul, rather than auton6mous agencies that just happen to sympathize w i t h its activities, there must be modifications in the soul w h i c h explain why i t exercises one power rather than another on a given occasion or towards a particular object This w i l l be true, I think, whether the powers are seen as t r u l y intrinsic to the soul or as semi-independent auxiliaries; if such auxiliaries merely go into action on behalf of a rigorously simple soul, the soul itself is not acting.. A n d the same should be true of God, whose action is sometimes seen as delegated to quasi-independent powers or even to angels, w h o can act o n a lower 16
261
XXI
XXI Divine simplicity as a problem for orthodoxy
level (Philo, De opificzo mundi even rebel (Gig. 6.17)
7 4 - 5 ! ) , misunderstand their instructions or
There is of course the alternative of supposing that
To resume: if we now consider a scheme i n v o l v i n g four members, primus,
unicus, simplex,
constans, it w i l l be difficult to resist the claims of
all God's powers are mutually compatible, and that he exercises them all
t w o other candidates, namely bonus and verus, since these constantly figure
perpetually.
A n d this view can be advocated i n impressive terms; G o d
in ancient discussions i n conjunction w i t h the n o t i o n of unity. Plato for
confronts us i n a single undifferentiated blaze of majesty and mercy by
instance argues that a god must be both simple and unchanging, and sees
which we are b o t h humbled and uplifted But this can only be made
i m m u n i t y f r o m change as a sign o f goodness (Rep. 2 380 d-e). Aristotle
17
convincing i f stated as a generality; we have no grounds f o r believing
discusses the relation between unity and t r u t h , w i t h o u t i t seems reaching
that ' G o d opposes the proud but gives grace to the h u m b l e ' ; we have
a final conclusion. O n the one hand he asserts that knowledge implies an
to say that the proud are frustrated because they miss their way to the
identity - at least an identity of f o r m - between the m i n d and its object
goal w h i c h w o u l d truly satisfy them, and, more sadly, that the humble
(De anima 3 5, 430 a 20 etc ) ; on the other hand both truth and falsity
ate uplifted if they can find the confidence to overcome their dejection. The identity of God's attributes and powers cannot be combined w i t h
entail
a composition of thoughts into a unity (ibid. 3 6, 4 3 0 a 2 7 - 8 ) ; o r , w i t h a different emphasis, both t r u t h and falsehood involve a combination of
a genuine doctrine of particular providence
notions (432 a T2).
(3) One reason w h y simplicity is easily misconstrued is that i t is one
relations between the six attributes we have named I n practice, i t would
possible interpretation of the n o t i o n of unity, and is liable to be
I n theory, it w o u l d be an admirable project to consider the logical be an impossibly complex task. A set of six members exhibits 6 x 5 = 30
180-93,
possible combinations, and each of these w o u l d have to be tested i n
I referred to three interpretations of unity w h i c h can be labelled by the
both directions; if a, then b ; but also, i f b, then a B u t what finally puts
catchwords unicus, simplex,
I t m i g h t have been
this project out of court is the fact that several, and possibly all, o f the
to take note of the v i e w ,
attributes in question have been understood and explained i n different
probably Pythagorean in o r i g i n , that the structure o f the universe can
ways by different writers We have been considering simplicity; but this
be explained i n terms o f numbers, and that numbers derive f r o m the
is a minuscule discussion compared w i t h the vast literature devoted to
One, w h i c h is therefore the o r i g i n of all things.
the nature of goodness, and to theories of truth.
influenced by its neighbours I n my book Divine constans (or immutabilis)
helpful to have added a f o u r t h , namely primus,
Substance, pp
W h y ' p r o b a b l y ' Pythagorean? Because Aristotle, our most reliable
I t is possible, however, to say something about the logical links which
witness, represented them as teaching that the One is derivative; see
were thought to connect simplicity in particular w i t h its neighbours;
A 5, 987 a i ; f f - t h e y reach two first principles - and
Metapbyma Ethica
Nicomachea A 4 , 1 0 9 6 b 5, they place the One i n the column of goods
(and so not at its head). But contrast Metaphysica
A 6 , 987 b 231T: Plato
and I w o u l d begin by observing that most of them are pre-Christian, and can be illustrated f r o m Philo Some further precision may have accrued in later discussion; but i n the main they belong to the inheritance, rather
said, like the Pythagoreans, that numbers are to other things the cause
than to the evolution, of Christian orthodoxy I t hardly needs repeating
of their being, but differed f r o m them i n postulating a dyad instead oj the
that Philo takes over the Pythagorean teaching that a simple u n i t y is the
unlimited
source of all reality; at Heres
as a unity
Probably, then, some members
o f the school
190 he recalls the purely arithmetical
reckoned the monad as the first principle. A m o n g later critics, Aetius
doctrine that the monad is not a number (i e. plurality) but the source
seems to make them teach t w o principles, of w h i c h however the monad
of all number; at Somn
has the active and formative role and is identified as G o d ;
in
as to equate the monad w i t h the Maker I t might seem otiose to maintain
omnium
that the monad is unique; but the Pythagoreans exploited the verbal
Hippolytus' account the monad is the sole source (Refutatio haeresium
1.2.6) Philo refers to G o d as monad (e.g. quod Deus
1 8
immutabilis
sit, 11, beres 183), but also teaches that the monad merely symbolizes G o d (Legum
allegoriae
2. 3, De specialibus
legibus
3 180, cf
De praemiis
et
poenis 4 0 ) ; the dyad is, or symbolizes, created and divisible matter (Somn. 2.70, Spec 262
leg. 3 180) and is given a radically inferior dignity.
2.70 he applies this doctrine to theology, so
similarity of monasjmonosjmonimos,
and Philo in t u r n observes that the
monad is like G o d because o f their singularity, monosis (Heres
183, Spec
leg 2.176) A t Somn. 2 221 Philo speaks of the constancy o f the ultimate source; at De confusione linguarum
180 he associates 'the eldest of things
that are' w i t h 'the most perfect g o o d ' ; at De praemiis
et poenis 40 'better 263
XXI
XXI Divine simplicity as a problem for orthodoxy
than the g o o d ' is coupled w i t h 'older than the m o n a d ' cited above Finally the monad is absolute reality (Immut n ) , and De ebrietate 4 ; refers to 'the one true G o d ' I n terms of our catchwords, therefore, the monad is simplex,
primus,
unhus,
constans, bonus, verus
I h e source of these connections must be looked for in a region of ancient philosophy which remains obscure despite intensive discussion: the Pythagorean philosophy before the time of Plato, and the Pythagorean teaching which Plato adapted in his theory of ideal numbers, and above all in his enigmatic lecture on 'the One and rhe G o o d ' We are nor concerned at present w i t h the question, how Plaro thought the numbers are derived f r o m the O n e ; nor w i t h the connections o f thought w h i c h Plato must have tried to establish between individual numbers and basic concepts (of w h i c h the traditional example is that four — justice, i n v o k i n g the 'four-square' right-angle as the basis of exact division, o f equality, and of stable constructions) Our main interest is the One itself; and I suggest that we can trace back to these early discussions t w o principles which came to f o r m part of the Christian tradition The first is that the One is the ultimate source of a multiplicity of Forms which provide the permanent structure of the universe and also the pattern of its values. These Forms themselves exhibit b o t h unity and goodness, but in a lesser degree and a relative mode compared w i t h their source; they are each of them a unity relative to their multiple instances, but they are distinct f r o m each other as contrasted w i t h its absolute u n i t y ; and they are each of them the source of goodness, or pattern of goodness, for some class of beings, 'a good so-and-so', rather than being the sole source of all goodness The second principle is that the One is the highest reality and absolute t r u t h , since it holds the key to the Forms on which all true predication must be based; but i t is a t r u t h which is inconceivable and inexpressible, certainly to us men, and possibly to any being other than itself; the reason being that true statements were conceived on the model of a synthesis of t w o notions (and, for that matter, knowledge was seen as the identification of the m i n d w i t h its object); but in neither case was pure and absolute unity achieved; a true statement could only be significant if t w o distinct notions were brought together (a theory opposed to the view put about by Antisthenes that the only unquestionably true statement was the unqualified identity ' X is X ' ) ; and the mind's ' i d e n t i t y ' w i t h its object could only be an identity of f o r m , not a wholesale coalescence. I t followed that the One had to be exhibited as, on the one hand, good, being the source of all goodness; but contrariwise as unknowable and 19
264
indefinable; not simply devoid of qualities ( e g sense-qualities) but unconditioned by any attribute whatsoever, since any statement about it could not be true unless i t was in formal correspondence w i t h its object (i e simple) and could not be significant unless it were composite, attaching a predicate which was distinguishable f r o m its subject W i t h i n the Platonic tradition, Plotinus made the most sustained and coherent effort to w o r k out these principles, concluding inter alia that the ultimate source could not have knowledge even of itself, since even selfknowledge implied a distinction between the mind as Knower and the mind as K n o w n ; thus the traditional 'scale of being', ascending from inanimate nature to conscious minds and upwards through progressively purer and more penetrating intelligences, was apparently interrupted; not simply lost in the clouds of heavenly glory, but brought to a stand by the paradox of a Being w h o is the source of all goodness but cannot be good.' Christian thinkers, inheriting a richer though far more complex tradition, struck out new lines o f thought w h i c h were never (I think) connected in a logically coherent whole, but which, if pursued, should have exhibited the n o t i o n of w h o l l y undifferentiated divine simplicity as an unwanted survival. 20
W i t h i n the compass of this essay, there are only t w o critical principles which I have space to develop One of these might be labelled 'the diminishing returns of u n i f i c a t i o n ' ; the other I take to be simply an application of a fairly recent movement in philosophy, namely the rejection of the picture theory o f meaning. However, no originality is claimed for the first principle either. It relates to a proposal made by Leonard H o d g s o n , which perhaps never attracted as much attention as it deserved. Hodgson contrasted 'mathematical' w i t h ' o r g a n i c ' unity, explaining that ' A p p r o x i m a t i o n to the ideal o f mathematical unity is measured by a scale of absence of m u l t i p l i c i t y ; but approximation to the ideal o f organic unity is measured by a scale o f intensity o f unifying p o w e r ' (p. 94) Hodgson considers the case of human character, in w h i c h a divided mind or a split personality is a grave disadvantage ' I n the case of the human self, the u n i t y is by no means always perfect . But in whatever measure it is achieved, this is not affected by the cancellation of factors until nothing rs left but an undifferentiated unity. far more intense is the unity manifested in a life which unifies a wider range ' 21
One m i g h t , alternatively, consider the role o f unity in personal relationships, taking a single pair of friends to deputize for the more complex interrelations of a group or of our whole society Clearly there 265
XXI
XXI Divine simplicity as a problem for orthodoxy
must be some correspondence or similarity of interests, fortune or temperament if any personal relationship is to begin; and the process o f g r o w i n g together, of assimilating another's experience and imitating his judgments and values, can be exciting and rewarding. But the partnership needs refreshing by the maintenance o f outside interests and the bringing in of fresh experience by each of the partners and ideally by a love shared by both partners but directed on to another person or cause; for however attractive initially the recognition o f an alter ego provided by fortune, or the attempt to realize it as an ideal, the project is self-defeating: to make one personality an exact replica o f the other is to reduce by one the number of distinct moral agents; and a mutually monopolizing partnership has no great advantage over a self-absorbed individual Hodgson used his concept o f unity to formulate a doctrine of the Trinity in social terms ' I h e true pattern of unity for men w h o are made in the image of G o d is one in which there is a place for all our different selves, so far as they are good selves, a unity in which each is to remain its own self in order that it may play its part in enriching the w h o l e ' (p 185) I w o u l d not follow him at every p o i n t : the sentence just quoted could easily provoke the reply that there can be no analogy of this k i n d w i t h a G o d w h o needs no enrichment, since he is himself the source o f ah good things But the alternative seems to be that we treat the substance or inner being of the Godhead, characterized by mysterious and incomprehensible but absolute simplicity, as something totally unrelated to the Trinity of Persons in w h i c h we believe i t is deployed A n d I w o u l d think also that there is no escaping the conclusion drawn by Plotinus: an absolutely simple Godhead cannot undersrand 01 control the influence and attraction that he exerts M y second point is that i t is a mistake to think that a descriptive sentence can only be true if i t is in a structural correspondence w i t h the reality or state of affairs which it describes L i k e so many philosophical theories, the picture theory of meaning is a Cinderella's glass coach so long as one is content to go along w i t h it and accept it on its o w n terms, but collapses into dust and cobwebs when the spell is broken I t seems beneath the dignity of a serious objection if one observes that, on such a theoty, to state that there are four people i n this room one would have to formulate a sentence embodying four identical symbols- A n d of course the theory can be developed so as to escape such simply conceived objections: we have to incorporate conventions in which ' f o u r ' replaces a symbolism of the f o r m a, b, c, d, and ' i n the r o o m ' is 2 2
266
a conventional equivalent for an ideal symbolism in which the symbols for the four people w o u l d be actually enclosed by the symbol for ' room' Theories of this k i n d , however, seem to have affected ancient discussions on the nature of G o d ; it could be argued, for instance, that G o d cannot be k n o w n because he cannot be defined; he cannot be defined because that w o u l d involve assigning him to a genus within which he is distinguished by a differentia; and this would mean he consisted of t w o distinct elements, and was no longer simple. The answer, reduced to its simplest terms, is that there is no reason to think that a correct description mirrors the structure of the thing described If we describe man as a rational animal, we cannot point to the two elements named by this phrase; and if we tried to do so - perhaps by saying that he has an animal body plus a directing intelligence — we can only make this plausible by ignoring the relatedness o f the two components Man lives his animal life in a way prescribed by reason, but conversely the exercise o f his reason is qualified and sometimes interrupted by his animal nature. Why not then ignore the attempt to conform him to his definition, refer to h i m as a psycho-physrcal unity and be done w i t h it? 23
I t is a mistake of this order which I take to be a peculiar weakness of the Cappadocian theology of the T r i n i t y : the three Persons are defined as possessing the same simple undivided divine substance qualified by three distinguishing peculiarities. But this is not presented only as a way in which they may be conceived; the definitions are supposed to conform TO rheir inner structure, so that the undivided Godhead which they share is not so much manifested in three personal beings o r modes as contradicted by the imposed characteristics by which they are distinguished O n the other hand the Cappadocians most opportunely, though unexpectedly, insist that the simplicity of the Godhead does not preclude a multiplicity o f descriptions, epinoiai These, however, were thought to relate to the energies and relationships of the Godhead, leaving hrs simple substance unaffected; a position which I have given reason to reject To return, in conclusion, f r o m the intricacies o f exact theology to the burdens imposed on our mortality by faith in a transcendent spirit: the concept of divine simplicity should present a challenge to an over-simple faith One cannot help feeling that there is some force in the sceptics' objection to 'God-bothering'; it is less easy for us than it was for an earlier generation t o assert w i t h o u t misgivings that 'the eyes of the Lord 267
XXI
XXI Divine simplicity as a problem for orthodoxy are o v e r the righteous and his ears are open unto their ptayer'. I f w e
11
c l a i m that our prayers are h e a r d and a n s w e r e d , does this mean that w e expect G o d to g i v e us his u n d i v i d e d attention? N o t , surely, in the sense
For which see Quts rerum divinarum beres? 232; De opificio mundi 117;
12 R T WalHs, Neoplatonism, London 1975, pp. 34, 62
C a n w e then imagine a
r ; SVF
2.92, 633-5, 638, etc.
m i n d w h o s e capacities are so vast that it can r e s p o n d to the i n d i v i d u a l
14 SVF
2.475, 534,
that w e ask h i m to neglect all other petitioners
needs of m e n w h o s e n u m b e r s are m u l t i p l y i n g beyond all
capacity o f our o w n minds to c o n t r o l m a n y c o m p l e x m o v e m e n t s
and
activities w i t h o u t a c o n s c i o u s effort of a t t e n t i o n ; w e m i g h t suppose that in some similar way G o d automatically distributes his b o u n t y , ' m a k i n g
546, 1023,
16 C f W
106); Philo, migr
Pannenberg, in Baste Questions in Theology, vol 2, London 197 [, pp
170-1 17 Irenaeus, Haer 2 15 3, see my Divine Substance, Oxford 1977, pp
187-9;
Pannenberg, Basse Questions, p. ¡67. 18 Diels, DG 281a 6-12,
creatively, distributing
19 F o r which consult, e g , W
the help or c o r r e c t i o n that his
( = Posidonius fr
is Philo, Heres 155, cf Migr 219-20
the s u n to rise u p o n the e v i l and u p o n the g o o d ', or m o r e personally and to each m a n
1211
178-80; Marcus Aureiius, 6.38
imagination?
T h e p r o b l e m here is that this is m o r e easily i m a g i n e d if w e note the
Legitw
allegoriae 1 w; Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat 168; De agrkultura 30 etc
502a
7-10 D. Ross, Plato's Theory of Ideas, Oxford 19; 1,
c o n d i t i o n requires. B u t this still does not suggest a G o d w h o stands in
and the passages collected by C. J. de Vogel, Greek Philosophy A Collection
a caring r e l a t i o n s h i p ; and it m a y p r o v e that the only w a y in w h i c h this
of Texts, vol 1: T'hales to Plato, Leiden 1950, undec the heading ' The Ideal Numbers'
can be u p h e l d is by g i v i n g full w e i g h t to the doctrine that the F a t h e r exercises
this
condescending
grace t h r o u g h
incarnate C h r i s t made m a n for us
his
expression in
the
20 Plotinus himself did of course identify the first principle as 'the G o o d ' , as well as ' the O n e '
T o suggest this puts the o r t h o d o x y
of N i c a e a and C h a l c e d o n under the severest s t r a i n ; w e w o n d e r w h e t h e r
21
it can support the u n i o n
22 I use the phrase rather loosely, without specific reference to Wittgenstein's
intimacy
of
o f infinite, all-regarding majesty w i t h
a man-to-man r e l a t i o n s h i p ; so that
u n d i v i d e d , the majesty u n i m p a i r e d
the operations
by an unlimited
are the
intimacy
preserved without
concern
T h i s is a p r o b l e m o n w h i c h e v e n the A r i a n s , i f g i v e n their due,
m i g h t have s o m e t h i n g
distraction over
distribution,
the
a c o s m i c extension
to teach u s ; and o n w h i c h the e v o l u t i o n
o r t h o d o x y m i g h t b r i n g much-needed
of
The Doctrine of the Trinity, London 1943, pp
ScjrT, esp pp
94-5
theory, for which see G H. R Parkinson, The Theory of Meaning, Oxford 1968, p 5 23 Cf Pannenberg, Basic Questions, p
132.
of
light
N O I ES 1 Methodius, De resurrections 2 10; Eusebius, Laus Constantin! 11 r ; , 12 r i ; Constantine, Ad sanctos 7 3-2;
Athanasius, Contra gentes 27 fin, 36—7; cf
Severus in Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelua 13.17
2
2 Diels, DG, p 449, fr 5 3 See De anima 1 5, 411b
1-19,
2 2, 413b 13ft , 28, cf 2 3 init ; De iuventute 1,
467b 17; Etbica Eudemia 1 1, 1219b 4 Posidonius, fr
;z
142-6 Edelsrein
; Diels, DG, Index, p
781b
6 See J Leisegang's index (vol v n
2, Berlin 1936), 868b 869a, to L Cohn
and P Wendland's edition of Phiio 7 Fr 3 2 — 5 V F 8 F r 34, cf S VF
1 571 2 283.
9 Tertullianus de anima, Amsterdam 1947, p
21;.
to A - M Festugière, L.a revelation d'Hermès Trismègiste, vol 3, pp 194—5. 268
269
INDEX
Abramowski, Luise: fil 140; X 76 Adeodatus, son of Augustine: XVIH 63 64-5 66, 67,69 Adoptionism heresy: IV 30 Aeschylus, Prometheus
Bound:
XVi! 3
Aetius: VI 154; X X I 262 Africanus: III 144, 145 Albinus: II 9; V 44; X V I 6 Alexander of Aphrodisias: III 144; V 47 48; VII 675, 676.. 678.68] 683 684; X X I 260 De Fato:
V 49: VII
674
Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria: IV 24 25,26, 27., 30, 34, 36; V 41, 42, 46,47, 50-51; VI 157; Vlil 51, 5 6 ; X 76. 82, 85-6,90 e philarchos, analysis: X 76-91 Alexander of Lycopolis: V 43, 44 Alexandria: I 177; III 146; XII 248 Ambrose: X V 73; X X I 255 analogy, doctrine of: II 12-13 Anatolius: V 39, 40 Antichrist: X 80 Antinous: IX 231 Antioch, Synod of; III 140; X 76 Antipodes: X V I I 9 Apollinaris the Younger: X I I 233. 234 235; XIII 65, 69, 77 Apuleius: X V 73, 75; X V I 8 Aquinas: X X 319; X X I 255 arche : II
9-10
Archimedes: I 180; VII 680 Arianism; II 14; VIII 51-9 doctrine: X 83-5 see also Arius Aristotle: II 18; VII 680; X I V 154 156: XV 84, X V I 3 : X V I 1 I 6 6 ; XVIII (Add) 2; X X 319 Categories:
X X 306., 313
on change: I 183 De Anima: XVIII 66; X X I 263 268 De Ceneratione
et
Corruptions:
VII 673 De Interpretation:
X X 306
3]3
De luventute: X X ! 268 Elhica Eudemia: XXI 268 Ethica Nitomachea: X X I 262
on on on on on
Forms: I 182 knowledge: II 12 language, theory of: X X 306 light: X V I I 6 logic: I I 77-8
Metaphysics.
II 15; V 49; VII
673:
XXI 262 on names: X X 306-7 on participation: V 48 Physics: Poetics:
II 9 X X 307
on simple bodies: X X I 257 on the soul: X V I 4: X X I 259-60 Topics:W
43,
313
on virtue: I 178-9 Arius: IV 34; X X 316 and the Logos doctrine: I V 25, 26, 2 8 , 3 0 , 3 1 , 3 2 , 3 3 , 3 6 ; V40-41, 45; VI 153-7, VII 671-84; VIII 51-9: X 85 88-90 in Athanasius' De Decretis: VI 154 Letter
to Alexander:
VII 676-7
684
and Neoplatonism: V 39-51 sources on: IV 24-5 Thalia:
IV 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 33;
V 41. 42.45. 46; VI 153, 154: VII 672, 675 678,681,684; X 82, 85, 86-7.. 88-9,90-91 theology: IV 26.. 32-3;V 47. 51 see also Arianism Arius Didymus: X X I 25 7 Armstrong, A.H : I 185: X V I 9 Aspasius: 111 144, 145 Asterius: IV 25, 29; VIII 53 astronomy, and Augustine: X V I I 10-11 Athanasius: II 14; V 41, 43, 49; VI 157; VII 671; X X 3 1 6 ; X X I 2 5 5 ad Epictetum:
XII 233
as an exegete: XI 174-84 Arius, criticism of: IV 24. 25, 26-7. 28, 29, 31,32. 33, 34: VI 153
2
156; VII 679 681,683. 684; X90 Contra Gentes: IX 230 232, 233, 234, 235,236. 237. 238,239, 240; X 91; XI 178, 179: XII 246, 248; X X I 257, 268 De Decretis: VI 154; X X I 257 De Incarnatione: IX 229, 230. 231, 232, 233,236. 237, 238; X 77-8; X 91; XI 179; XII 246, 248; XIII 71 De Synodis: IV 24, 27, 28; VII 677, 678; VIII 51; X 80, 91; XI 78 Epistula ad Marcellinum: X 78; X I 174. 179, 180; XII 241; XIII 72; analysis: XIII 65-9 74 Epistulae Festales\X\ 175, 178, 180, 182, 183, 184; XII 248 Expositio Fidei: X I 176 Expositions in Psalmos: X I 1 74; XII 235. 236, 237,246,248; XIII 65; analysis: XIII 69- 78 henos somatos analysis: X 76-91 Historia Arianorum: X 80 In Iliud Omnia: XI 175; XIII 74 on knowledge of God: I X 229-42 Orations: XI 175, 179, 182 Plato 's Politikos cited: XI 179 on the soul of Christ: XII 233-50 Tomus ad Antiochenos: XII 233, 247 Vita Antonii: X 80; XIII 71 Athanasius of Anazarba: VI 154 Athenagoras: II 8; XI 181 Atticus: II 8; V 50 Augustine: I 179; II 18; IX 231; X X I 255 Against the Academics: X V 72 on astronomy: X V I I 10-11 on belief: X V I I I 73 cave simile: X I X 339, 343 City of God: X V 75; X V I 13; X V I I 9 Confessions: X V 74, 79; X I X 339. 340,341. 342; X X I 258 on cosmology: X V I I 1-13 De Interpretation: XVIII(Add) 1 De Magistro, analysis: XVIII 63-73 De Trinitate: X I X 340, 341 on Ecclesiasticus: X V I I 4, 5 on the firmament: X V I I 11-12 on the four elements: X V I I 9-10 on Genesis: X V I I 4-6 on heaven: X V I I 12-13 on human life: X V 80-81 on intellect; X V I 1 on the intelligible world: X V I 11-14 on knowledge: XVIII 73
INDEX
3
INDEX
on learning: X V I I I 72-3 life: X V 71-2 on light; XVII 6-7, 8 literal Commentary on Genesis: X V I 1, 13; X V I I 2, 4; X I X 340 on the meaning of words: XVIII 66-72; XVIII (Add) 1-2 on memory: X I X 339-45 on the natural world: X V 74-5; XVI 6 on the nature of God: X V I 13-14 on nouns: X V I I I 66-8 On Free Choice: X V 80 on permanence: X V 83—4 on the philosophy of being: X V 71-84 on the philosophy of language: X V I I I 63-72 on Platonism: X V 72-3, 74; X V I 2-4, 11-14 on seminal reasons: X V 79 on signs: X V I I I 66-70 Soliloquies: X V I 13 on speech: X V I I I 64-5 on spirits: X V 80 on teaching: X V I I I 72-3 Aurelian: III 147
X X I 260 Chrysostom, John: X X I 255 Cicero: I 179; II 9 De Natura Deorum: X V I 8; XVII 5 Horiensius: X V 71 Lucullus:XlX 341 Tusculan Disputations: X I X 341 Cleanthes: X X I 260 Clement: II I I ; III 147; V 43, 44; VII 671, 674; IX 232, 236; XI 181 Codex Alexandrinus: XIII 65 Cohn, L : X X I 268 Colluthus: X 9 1 Constantine, Emperor IV 24: V 39; VII 684; X 90 Adsanctos: X X I 268 Constantinople, Council of: X I V 350 Coquin, R G.: X I 175, 180, 183 Cosmas Indicopleustes, Christian Topography: XVII 9 Cosmology, and Augustine: X V I I 1-13 Courcelie.. P.: X I X 341 Cross, F L : XII 250 Cyprian: I 176 Cyril of Alexandria: XIII 65, 7 7; X X I 255
Bardy, G : III 140-41; IV 36; VI 153, 154; X 76, 91 Barnabas: XI 181 Barnes, T D . : Ill 141; X 76 Basil: I V 28; X V I 6; XVII 3, I I ; X X 3 1 8 , 320; X X I 255 on light X V I I 6 Basi!ides:II 10; VIII 56; X V I 6 Bauer. W : V 48 Beryllus of Bostra: III 142, 148 Bienert. W A : VII 682 Blume, H -D.: II 15; VII 677 Brennecke.. H.C : III 141; IV 35 Bultmann, R K : II 18 Burnyeat, M F : X V I I I 63, 68, 70
Decartes, R : X V 72 demiourgos: I 181 Didymus: XIII 65 77 Dinsen, F : V 49 Diogenes of Babylon: X X 307 Diogenes Laertius: II 9; III 144, 146, 147; X X 310 Dionysius of Alexandria: I V 34; VII 683. 6 8 4 ; X 88 Dionysius the Areopagite: X V I 8 Dionysius of Rome: VII 683: XIII 74 Domnus, Bishop: IV 35 Dorival, G : XIII 65, 75, 77 Dorner. I.A.: XII 249 Dörrie, H : II 9, 15; VII 677 Dyad, The: V 45- 6
Calcidius: X X I 260 Callias: V 48 Calvenus Taurus: X V I 5 Carneades: X V 72 Chadwick, H.: I 185; III 141; X I X 341; X X I 255 Chalcedon, Council of: I 185 Christian thought, Greek influence: I 175-85 Christianity and Platonism: II 2 Chrysippus: I 183; X X 307, 312;
Ecclesiasticus, and Augustine: XVII 5 Elipandus:IV30 Empedocles: VII 672 Epicurus: X V I I 2-3 epinoia: X X 309-10, 3IS-12, 315, 316. 318; X X I 267 Epiphanius: X I 184; X V I I 7 Ettlinger., G H . : XII 249 Euclid, and geometry: I 180 Eudorus: II 9
Eunomius, Bishop : IV 28; X X , 309. 314,316 on names: X X 318-19 Eusebius of Caesarea: II 8; III 140-50; IV 29; V 4 3 , 45, 49; V I 157; VII 674, 683; VIII 53; I X 236; X 81; XII 239, 241.. 242,243, 244, 246, 248; XIII 65, 73, 77. 78; X I X 341; X X 316 Commentaria: XII 247; XIII 74 Demonstratio Evangélica: XII 247, 248; XIII 74; X X I 258-9 Ecclesiastical Theology: X X I 259 Eclogae Propheticae: XII 247 on knowledge of God: IX 229-42 Laus Constantini: X I 2 3 1 , 237; XII 247; X X I 268 Praeparatio Evangélica: V 39; IX 231, 238, 240; X X I 260, 268 on the soul of Christ: X 234 Theophaneia: XII 247, 248 Eusebius of Nicomedia, Letter to Paulinus: VII 671, 677, 682 Eustathius of Antioch: 111 149; I V 33, 35. 36; X I I 234 On the Soul of Christ: XII 247 exegesis, examples: XI 181-4 principles: X I 177-81 existentia/existentialitas: X V I 10-11 Feltoe.. C L : VII 683 Festugiere. A -M : V 4 5 ; X X I 268 firmament, the, and Augustine: X V I I 11-12 Forms. Platonic: I 181-2; V 47; 1X240; X I V 158, 159. 160; X V 79; X V I 3-4; X X 305; X X I 264 Frend, W H C : III 141 Galen: X X I 260 Galtier, P: XII 249 Genesis, and Augustine: X V I I 4-6 geometry, and Euclid: I 180 George of Laodicea: VII 676 Gnosticism: II 5; VIII 56; X X 319 God, immutability: II 14-15 knowledge of: I X 229-42; X X I 267 as mind: II 6; I X 239-40; X X I 268 naming of: X X 314-15 nature of: X V I 11, 13-14 view of prophets: II 7 goodness: X X I 263 Greeks, The, and Christian thought: I 175-85 and mathematics: I 179-80
4
and monotheism: II 6, 17 Gregg, R C : IV 25, 26,28; VI 153; VII 671, 675 Gregory of Nyssa: IX 242: X X 310 320; X X I 255. 261 Ad Eustathium de sancte trinitate: X I V 149-50 AdGraetos: X I V 149 on the Trinity doctrine: X I V 149-63 Gregory Thautnaturgus: I X 236 Grillmeier, A.: [II 141; XII 234, 249 Groh, D : IV 25, 26; VI 154; VII 675 Hadot, P : X V I 2 Hadrian, Emperor: I X 231 Hall, S G : VI 154 Hanson, R P C : III 141; VII 671 Harnack Adolf von: II 1,2, 18 Hatch, E : I 185 Heaven, and Augustine: X V I I 12-13 Hephaestus: 1 176-7 Hera: I 176-7 Heraclides: III 142, 148 Heraclitus, on change: I 181, 183 Hermogenes: VI] 679 Herschel, W : X V I ] 10 Hilary, Pope: XI 181 Hippolytus : HI 144 145: X V I 6; X X I 25 7 Refutatio omnium haeresium: X X I 262 Hodgson, Leonard: X X I 265-6 Homer: I 176, ]77 Hübner, R : VI] 671; X I V 150 hypostasis, meaning: I 183 and the Trinity: I 183-5 lamblichus: V 39, 40 44, 51; X X I 260 On the Mysteries of Egypt: V 50 Theologoumena Arithmeticae: V 46 immutability: II 14-15 Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses: II 8, 11, 16; III 144, 145; VII 671; 1X 232 238: XI 181; X X I 269 Jaeger, W : I 185; 11 4 Jerome: I 176; III 143, 144, 146. 147 Jews. The, and monotheism: II 6 John, S t : I 181 Josephus, Contra Apionem: XI 176 Justin Martyr, St.: 114.8. I I ; X X 319 Dialogus: X X I 260 Kannengiesser, C : IV 27. 28 29; VI )53; VII 675 684; I X 2 3 S ;
INDEX
INDEX
X 7 8 ; XI 177 Kelly, J N D : III 141; X 76; X I V 157-8 Kettler, F.-H : VI 155, 157 Kirwan, C A : X V I I I 63 Klostermann, E ; III 147; VI 156 knowledge, theory of: II 12 Knowles D.: XVI 13 Kohnke, F W : X V I 9 Krämer. H J : X V I 2 Lactantius: 119; X V I I 9 language, philosophy of, and Augustine: XVIII 63-72 Lefbrt, Lh : XI 175, 178 Leisegang, J : X X I 268 Lietzmann, H : X 76 light, and Aristotle XVII 6 and Augustine. XVII 6-7, 8 and Basil: X V I I 6 Hebrew notion of: XVII 6, 8 nature of: X V I I 3 and Plato: X V I I 7 and the Stoics: XVII 7 Livingstone, R.: ] 185 Lloyd, A C : X V 73 logic, and Aristotle; I 177-8 Logos, The and Arianism: I V 2 5 26 28 30 31. 32 33 36; V 40-41 45; VI 153-7; VII 671-84; VIII 51-9; X 85, 88-9 and Marcellus: VI 157; XII 234 and O r i g e n : X X 3 1 5 and Paul of Samosata: IV 34; X 85; XII 234, 249 and the soul of Christ: XII 234, 244 Loofs, F.: II 2; III ]41 Lorenz R.: III 141: IV 25, 26, 27, 29-30,31 3 2 , 3 3 , 3 4 , 3 6 ; V I 154-5: VII 671 672 . 676 677; X 76. 82.. 83-9 Louth, A.: 1X 230 231. 232 Lucan: V 47 Lucas, L : X V 83 Lucchesi, E : IV 28; XI 175 Lucian of Anrioch: ]V 34. 35.. 36; VII 683 Luther: II 11 18 Malchion: III 141 Manichaeism: V 44; VII 684 Manichaeus: VII 677 Manichees: X V 71-2; X V I I 3 Mann. F : II 15; VII 677 Marcellus r III 149; IV 29; VII 675; X 91; XI] 249; XIII 74
and the Logos doctrine: VI 15 7; XII 234 Marcus Aurelius: XVII 7; X X I 269 Margerie, B. de: XI 177 Markus, R A : I 185 Martin, A : IV 24 Mathematics, and the Greeks: I 179-80 Maximus of Tyre: X V I 6 Melissus: II 9 memory, and Augustine: X I X 339-45 Merendino, P : X I 175 Mesopotamia: X V I I 4 Methodius: VII 671; X I X 341 De resurrectione: X X I 268 Meyendorff, J : X V 78; X V I 12 Moderatus: V 44 Möhler, J A : X 76 Monad, The; V 4 5 - 6 monotheism, and the Greeks: II 6, 17 and the Jews: II, 6 Müller, F.: X I V 149 Müller, G : X 78 names, application to God: X X 314-15, 317-20 and Aristotle: X X 306- 7 and Eunomius: X X 318-19 meaning: X X 3 I 6 - 1 7 and Philo of Alexandria: XX313-15,319 and Socrates: X X 303-5 and the Stoics: X X 307, 309 Nazianzen, G., and simple bodies: X X I 256-7 Nebridius: X V 81 Neoplatonism, and Arius: V 39-51 Nestorius: ill 140 Newman, J H : X 76, 80, 81 Nicaea Council of: I 184; IV 24 nomos: X X 303 Nords, F W: III 141 Nouns, and Augustine: X V I I I 66-8 nous: IX 233, 234, 235 numbers, nature of: 1 180; X X I 262 Plato's theory of: XXI 264-5 Numenius: V 44, 45 Oort, J. van: VII 684 Orbe,A:XX309 Origen: II 18; III 142, 145, 146, 147, 148; I V 25; V 45, 50; VI 157; VII 672, 679,682; 1X232-3, 238, 2 4 2 ; X 8 1 ; X I 179, 181; XIII 65, 70, 7 7; X V I I 6; X X 3 1 5 , 316
5
Against Ceisus: I 177; III 144 Commentary on John: VI 155. 156 De Principas: 1 177; IV 32; V 4 4 ; VII 671; 1X239, 240; X I 182; X V I 6; X X I 258; X X I 260 on knowledge of God: I X 239 on the Logos: X X 315 on the soul of Christ: IV 26, 28, 30 31-2, 33; XII 233-4, 245 Ossius of Cordoba, Bishop: X 77 ousia: I 182, 183, 184; V 40, 46, 47,49; X I V 149, 150, 155, 157; X X 311 Pannenberg, W : II 1-18; X X I 269 Parkinson, G H R : XXI 269 Parmenides: I 181, 182; II 9; V I I 672 Paul . St : I 178; IX 231, 236; X V I I 12; XVIII 67 and the Stoics: I 179 Paul of Samosata : III 140, 143, 147-8, 149, 150; IV 26, 30, 34, 35,36; V 4 9 ; V I I 683; VIII, 53 and the Logos doctrine: I V 34; X 85; XII 234, 249 Pease, A.S : X V I 8 Peel, M L : X V I I 7 Pepin, J : X V I 2 Peter of Alexandria, Bishop: I V 33; XIII 76 Peter, St : XVII 13 Pettersen, A : X I I 249 Philo of Alexandria: I 177; II 7-8, 9; V 44, 45; VI 156; I X 230 232, 234, 236, 240, 241.242; XII 248; X I V 159; X V I 6; XVII 4, 5; XXI 257, 262 De agricultura: XXI 269 De confusione iinguarum: X X I 263 De ebrietate: X X I 264 De gigantibus: XXI 260, 262 De mutatione nominum: X X I 260 De opificio mundi: X X I 262, 269 De posteritate Caini: X X I 260 De praemiis etpoenis: X X I 262. 263-4 De Somniis: X X I 260 De specialibus legibus: X X I 262 on epinoia: X X 311—12 Tieres: X X I 263,269 Le gum allegoriae: X X I 262, 269 on names: X X 313-15. 319 Quis rerum divinarum heres?: X X I 269 Quod deter ius potior i mdidiari soleat: X X I 269
INDEX
6
on simple bodies; X X I 259-60 on the theory of Ideas: X V I 5 phusis: X V 75; X X 303 Plantinga, C : X I V 158 Plato : I 176; II 18 Cratylus: XVIII 71; X X 303, 304. 305,307,313 Euthydemus: X V I I I (Add) 2 First Alcibiades: IX 237 on Forms: I 181-2; V 47; IX 240X I V 158, 159, 160; X V 79; X V I 3-4; X X 305; X X ] 264 on God as mind: II 6 on ideal numbers, theory of X X I 264-5 on Ideas, theory of: X V 75, 76-8; X V I 2-3, 4-5 on immutability: II 14-15 on intellect: 1178 on justice: X V 76 on knowledge: II 12 on light: X V I I 7 Meno: XVHI(Add) 2; X I X 340 341-2, 345 on numbers: X X I 264-5 Parmenides: V 44, 45 Phaedo: I 176; IX 234; X X I 259 Philebus: X V I 6 Politicus: X V I 6 Republic: I 176; II 12, 14; IX 233 236, 238; X I X 342; X X I 259, 263 Sophist: X V I 3, 6 8; XVIII (Add) I on the soul: I 178 179; X V I 2; X X I 259 Symposium: I 178; X I X 345 Theaetetus: X I X 342 Timaeus: I 180-181; II 8, 16; V 50; IX 238; X V 73, 74, 77; X V I 2, 4; X V I I 5, 7 vision, theory of: IX 238-9 Platonism, and Augustine: X V 72-3 74X V I 2-4, 11-14 and Christianity: II 2 Plotinus, Enneads: II 4; V 39, 40, 46, 47. 49. 50,51; 1X238, 239; X V 72. 73,77, 78; X V I 3, 5-6, I I , 12' X X I 265,266,269 Plutarch: III 144, 145, 146, 147; V SO VII 674 679; X X 312 Platonic Questions: VII 671 pneuma: X X I 258 Pollard, I" E : X I 1 77, 178, 180 Porphyry: V 39, 43, 44, 48, 50, 51; 1
:
X V 72, 73; XVIII (Add) 2;
7
INDEX
X X I 260 De Abstinentia: V 43 lsagoge: V 40, 41, 42, 47, 49 Tree of: X V I 6, 8, 9; illustration: XVI 7 Posidonius: IX 238; X X 311; X X I 260, 268,269 Proclus: V 45 prophets, view of God: II 7 Psalter: XIII 66-78 Pythagoras: VII 680 Pythagoreans : II 9 and simple bodies: X X I 262-4 Ramos-Lisson, D : V 39 Richard, M : III 141, 142, 143, 144. 145, 146, 147, 148, 150; I V 35; XII 234, 249 Riedmatten, Henri de: III 140, 141. 150; IV 35; XII 234, 247, 249 Rist, J.: X V I 2; X V I I I (Add) 1 RitschI, A : II 2 Ritter, A M : II 2 Robertson, A : VII 675; XI 175; X 76, 81 Rondeau, M.-J : XII 246, 250; XIII 65, 71, 75, 76 Ross, W D : V 45; X X I 269 Rouet de Journel, M.I : X X I 255 Rufinus: III 143, 146, 147; IV 32; IX 239 Russell, B : I 180 Sabellius: III 149 Saffrey, H D : IV 28 Sample, R L : III 141 scala naturae: X V I 6, 8, 9 illustration: X V I 7 Schwartz, E : X 76 Selle, E te: X I X 340 Seneca: X V I 6; X X 308 Severus:XX1260 Sextus Empiricus: III 144, 145; X X 310 Sieben H J.: XI 177, 1 78; XIII 66; X X I 256 signs, and Augustine: XVIII 66-70 Simonetti, M : III 141, 142, 143, 146, 150; IV 35; VII 683; X 76 simple bodies, and Aristotle: X X I 257 and Gregory Nazianzen: X X I 256-7 and Philo: X X I 259-60 and the Pythagoreans: X X I 262-4 and lertullian: X X I 258-9 Simplicius: VII 672 Socrates: [ 182; V 39, 48; 1X237; X 81; XVIII (Add) 2; X I X 341:
X X 307 on names: X X 303-5 Solomon: I 180 Sophocles: X V I I 3 Sorabji, R : II 9 soul: X X I 260 and Aristotle: X V I 4; X X I 259-60; of Christ: and Athanasius: XII 233-50; and Eusebius: X 234; and the Logos: XII 234, 244; in the New Testament: XII 235 and mind: I X 234-5 as mirror: IX 236-7 and Plato: I 178, 1 79; X V I 2: X X I 259 purity: I X 235-6 and the Stoics: X X I 261 Sozomen: V 39 Speusippus: X V I 4 Stead, G C : VII 671, 675, 677; XI 174; X X I 262 Stoics, and light: XVI] 7 and names: X X 307. 309 and 'propositions': X X 307-9 and St Paul: 1 179 and the soul: XXf 261 Stupperich R : VI 155 Tatian, Ad Graecov. X X I 260 Taylor, J H : X V I I 1 lertullian : I 176, 183; II 4; VII 671, 675, 679; X 90; X I 181: X V I I 3; X X I 255; X X I 257 on simple bodies: X X I 258-9 Thagaste: X V 71; XVIII 63 Theodore of Mopsuestia: XIII 70 Theognostus: VII 671 Theophilus : XI 236
AdAutolycum: X X I 260 Thcophrastus: V 45 Ihomson, R.W : XII 250 Iorrance, I F : II 2 Trinity The, doctrine of: I 183-5; X I V 149-63; X X I 266 267 Urbina, I Ortiz de: XII 249 Valentinus: VII 674-5,677 Verbeke. G : VII 671, 672 Vian, G M : XI 174; XII 237. 238 239 243; XIII 65, 70, 73 77 Victorinus, Marius: X V 73 Ad Candidum: X V I 9 on the intelligible world: X V I 9-11 13 on the nature of God: X V I 11 vision , theory of: IX 238-9 Vogel, C.J de: 112, 9; X X I 269 Voisin G : XII 249 Wallis. R I : X X I 269 Walzer. R : II 8 Waszink, J H : X X I 260 Wendland, P: X X I 268 West, M L : IV 27; VI 153 Wickert, U. VII 684 Williams, R D : III 141; VII 682; X 91 thesis on Arius and Neoplatonism: V 39-51 Wittgenstein L : X X I 269 Xenocrates: X V 77; X V I 4 Xenophanes: II 5, 8. 16 Xenophon: III 147 Zeno:l 183:111 146 Zeus: ]176-7