STU D IA A N SELM IA N A PH ILO SO PH IC A TH EO LO G IC A ED ITA A PZO FESSO RIBU S IN STITU TI PO N TIFIC II
S. A N S...
147 downloads
1074 Views
14MB 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
STU D IA A N SELM IA N A PH ILO SO PH IC A TH EO LO G IC A ED ITA A PZO FESSO RIBU S IN STITU TI PO N TIFIC II
S. A N SELM I DE JJRBE
FA SC IC U LU S XXXV I
FO N TIFIC IUM IN STITU TU M S. A N SELM I / RO M A E
1955
TH E EA R LIER A M BIG U A O F SA IN T M A XIM US TH E CO N FESSO R A N D H IS REFU TA TIO N O F O RIG ZN ISM
by
FO LYCA RP SH ERW O O D 0 . S. B. Proleam r ofFaàrology althe Ponellci lnstltute S. Anzelm oeRom e
.
O R B IS C A T H O L lC U S . / H ER D Elt z 2 O M A E z 19 55
N IH IL O BSTAT
Roma ,i' ?lPontiFcio fxx &/ïftzltlS.w4>selp>' .I4ie e. ' /Deamby'ks zglg, t BPRNARDUS K ASrJN A blbas Prï- s 0. S. B .
E Vicariatu U ehfd, di. 2: D ocom bvis zp54.
t Afovslvs 'TRAGIJA
Avcliiep. t7(4:. %4A'idA#., ' Vicrsgsyens
TIPOGRAFIA lqO X '.. VIA DEGLI IW RUSQH L 7.9 -. ROMA
T A B 1+E O kT C O N 1%E N '1*S Pagt
Forew ord . . . Abbreviatious . Bibliography
PAR' r 1:Tke AfzrlzW Ambigua - A .External Deseription The m anuscript tradition The ancient notices The literary form 'rhe recipients The atlversaries . The authorities 'lâhe them es . Tables 1 List. of the A m bigua ' 11 Index of Citations 1II Setipture Itldex . . . . . B . Analysis of the Single D ifliculties
W I XI X III
I
3 5 6 8 8 10 11
15 &7 zl
PART 11:TkeS6jsï/t4/ft)l (?/Origenism Chapter T. M axim us and Origenism A . T he Origenism known to M axim us B . T he l' zundam ental R efutation ...... Chapter II. The Triad : Substance, Pow er Operation . E xcursus I: Tlze Scholiasts of D enis. E xcurstts 11' . Variations in the Triad Chapter 111. Eestasis A .Texts in favor of Eostasis B . The Evagrian in M axim us . C. Syzithesis of M axim ian D octrine Chapter IV . Logos A . The D istirtction: Loges-Tropos . B . Logos and the U nity of Creation Chapter V , K oros A , The O rigenist U se of K oros , B . The Refutatiozt C. Iêixedness . . . D . Sdf-determ ination . Chapter :'1. A pocatmstasis A fterword Indices .
7Z
92 IO3 II7 Izz
Iz8 I37
I49 155 I66 I8I I84 I92 I98 zo5 223 z25
F O R E W O R 17 H aving com pleted a w oyk of m any m onths it Ls at onee helpful for the reader and usefulfor the author to look back again at his ainl in undertakiug the w ork arld in the cottrse follow ed. In M axim ian stuclies one of the outstanding lacks has been.a knowledge ofthe Confessor's w ritings i:4their own context. M en have writteu.of ilis dod rine, and w ritten w ell but taking here a text, there a text on w hiclz to build their stm cture. A nd further the Crnturies have drawn a larger share of attention. I thinl. z of the studies of V iller alzd votl Balthasar,the version of Pegou. But this is a literary form notoriously apt for disguising the writer's ow n position. ltw astherefore that Isaw asan outstanding need of M axlm ian studies an ilw entory, to say the least of the A m big' tta one of the ehie.f w orks of M axim us arld the one in w hiclt lze eould give freer play to his talent of analysis and speculation. But this invelztory m ust first of all be on the literary levelaud give a sum m ary of their a as a group azld each of tllelu singly placed eontent .- the A m bigu' i11their proper coutext,so that the M axim iaztthought could be grasped in its native terrain. This is the explanation of tile first part; .
it eontaius much that should flnd place in an adequate edition oftlle Confessor's works, but also m uch m ore. Readers w ho are less eurieus of these detaits m ay pass tlw m over. b'rom suclta m aterialanalysis ofthe Ambigua severalargum eztts present them selvo for furtller study, plaeed now not against tlze background of our m odern categories,but'of those tllat result from a study ofM axim tls and his m ilieu. O f these argum ents I have chosen one - the reftltation of Origenism - as being one m ore fully and eoherently developed by M axim us him self. M y study then has developecl into a fuller and philosophiealanalysis of A m b 7. From the begirm ing I exd uded from this study a eonsideration of M axim us' doctriue regarding the soul, w hieh is an integral part of his refutatiort of O rigênism 1. This I did becattse it would have
1'lYe import of the rejection ofthe preexistenceofsonlsin tlteform. atlon of the whole antiorigenist position is touched on in note 50 of the tir' st cbapter.
Nqu
Ffwnwoa '
doubled the size of the study and m eant a carefuleom parison with the N yssene doetline - a study'and a com parison whieh, T felt, tould m oze adequately be undertaken in an 1analysis ofthe Quaestionn /1: Thatassium . lt is thus tbat I canle to bypass G regory and
to fliscuss Origenism iztthe light chietly of the De PrfAlcf/zï. ç alzd the 6th centunr eontroversies. H owever in dealing w'ith self-determ inatiou I did introduce eonlparison w itli G regory as well as
with Origen 2. But even here the subject'is only partially dealt w'ith. A fuil treatm ent m ust aw ait a study of the M axim ian anthropology. M y task tllen w as to present the Ozigenism w itll w lkif:b M axim us had to deal - the prim ordial henad of rational creatures - , his outologicalargum ents in refutation thereof and his logos dod rille, w hose fuuction was to preserve w hat tbere w as oftruth irzthe O rigenist speculatitjn. Thus there w ould have been but tw o ehapters, the actual fi1'st and fourth ; but entering into the argum ent of the irst I m et the fact ofecsiasis. The whole doctrine ofm an's attaining unioll w ith God, the iinal and real auity, w ould have rem ained obscure tznle% I sought out M axim us' m ilvd (m this debated poînt 'rhus I fotm d m yself em barked on the third chapter But, w orldng on tllis, it soon beeam e too obvious to be neglkcted that, nam ely, the M axim ian doetrine of ecstasis was basetl on tlle sam e triadie ontology ' as the refutation argum elzts of the lirst eilapter Thus I cam e to .
.
.
.
develope the second chapter on substance powsy tl/t rFafigp. Fbr the logos cloetrine witlz w hich M axim us eudeavors to save an initialideal tm ity - that eiem ent of truth w hich m ay be allowed to the O rigenist m yth - , I felt it better to explairt it insofar ottly as it is corlnected w ith the O rigenist argum ent Y et the distinetion cif esseuce and m ocle, that is ldyog ql fgEtt'ç and vtlörlog 'ûrrtjtlymg, is so pew asive in tlle wim le of tlze M axim ian doctrine ' tllat som e account of it w as neeessary. It is thtts that I planned ' an excursus wllich has ended up as the lirst half of the fourth ehapter There rem ained then only the m inor refutation of the Origem ian koros t' hetn. e to 4eal with The argum ent itself is of little inzportanee' but it raises tw o im portant qupstions, rather anthropolog-' ical then ontological and therefore I beg excuse for the brevity of the treatm ent and the unusttallength of the notes The questions .
.
.
.
: See chapter V lTote 44.
For- avd
raised are how ean the rational creattue essentially tm stttble irt regard to G od by the very'fact of being creature, attain a fixity in God whfch his nature craves and caullote#ect. Ecstasy is tlle answ er on Gocl's part,and this has already bee' a treated ;but on m art's part the freew ill or m ore dosely representing the G reek term ,the selfdeterm ination m ust have its free part to play. H enee tlw third and fouz'th sections of tbe eha 'pter on surfeit. H ere,if m y afm had been to w rite a eonlplete study of A nlb 7. l shoultl have em barked on an analysis of the argum ent against the preexistence of souls. ' W hy 1 have llot done so has already been explained. Instead I have introduced a ehapter o1L the apoeatastasis. If it has little direct eonneetion Avith the text of A m b 7, no mte will questfon its germ aneness to the Origenian them e. ft
aloue oftlleOrigeniau positions hasbeen the object of speeialMaxim ian studies, And m oreover it perm its us to return to the ontologica! leve! ort w hich the llrst chapters of this study m oved. But here T m ust confess it is not the lmst of the ehapters written 'but the first. And the state, ill w hieh I now present it, fs but slightly revised after dealing with the problem of the freewili and Eaving
m etwit.h Gaith'sineptrefereuce to M aximusin his study ofGregory of N yssa. Sueh is the genesis of the presen. t study. If it be worth m uch it w ill be (lue to the eareful presentation of M axim us' ow n texts. H ere I m ay explain m y procedure. Q'itirtg M axim us frequently and at lezlgtb, I suppose that tEbe reader w ill have at lkis disposal the volum es of M igne. The translations are not always the best of
English, yet it is an honest effort at au accutate rendering' .whieh is ilzevitably also an interpretation. 1 have indeed thought it neeessary to avoid giving M axim us m erely in the Greek 'for m y interpzetation of his thought rests on the Gree.k texts only in m y own
uuderstanding of tlzem , representecl in the English vezsions.
It is a custom entirely fitting and just to give thanks at the end ()f q prefaee to those w ho have assisted in the d aboration of a
doctoral study. So then may those professors or authols whose cxlurzcil or studies I have used realize tlm't tlae present w ork is possible only because of theirs. I sense and appreciate this solidarity in the world of learning.M ay it eneourage them to continue.
For6tvord
Ix
raised are how ean the ratiolm l creature essentially tm stttble in regard to God by the very fact of bein. g creature, attairl a svv 'ty frt God which hisnature eraves and cannot effect. E cstasy istlle answ er
on God's partaand.this has already been treated ;bat on m an's part the freewill or m ore closely representing the Greek term the selfdeterm inatifm m ust have its free part to play. H ence the thircl and fourth seetions of the chapter on surfeit. H ere,if m y aim had beert to write a com plete study of A m b 7, I should have em barked on an analysis of tbe argum en. t against the preexistence of souls. W lzy I have not done so has already lyeen explained. lnstead I have introduced a chapter o1l the apocatastasis. If it has little direct conneetion with the text of A m b 7, zio cm e will question its germ aneness to the Origeniatz them e. It
alone ofthe Origenian positiozlshasbeen tlle object ofspecialM axizzliartstadies. A rld rnoreover it perlnits tts to return to ' tbe onttgogical levet on w hieh the lirst chapte: :s of this study m oved. But bere I m ust confess, it is not the last of the chapters written but the first. A nd the state, in w hich I now present it,is but slightly rex-ised after dealing urith the probiem of the freewill alzd having m et w ith Gaith's inept referenee to M axinlus in his study of Gregory of N yssa. Such is the genesis of the present stutly. If it be worth m uch it will be dtte to the careful presentation of M axim us' own texts. H ere I m ay explafzl m y procedure. Citing M axïm us frequently and at length, I suppose that the readef will have at his disposal the voltlm es of M igne. The translations are not always the best of
English, yet it is an honest effort at an acmlrate rendering which is inevitably also an interpretation. 1 have indeed thought it necessary to avoid giving :. $' Iaxim us m erely in th: Greek;for m y interpretation of his tllought rests on the G reek texts only in m y own m lderstanding of tlwm ,represented in the English versions.
It is a eustom entirely fitting and just to give thanks at the e' ad of q prefaee to those w ho have assisted iu the elaboratiotk of a dtx toral study. So tllen m ay those professors or authors whose couneil or studies I have used realize that the present work is possible only 'because of theirs, 1 sense and appreciate this solidarity in the world of learnfng.Afay it ertcotlrage them t() cxm tirlue.
A B B R E V TA T IO N S foz the works of M axim us: Am b = A m biguovum /j#d. >'
Cap ie'
. x= Capéta z5
Qhar
= Centuries 5. / Chavéty
Qom p. Eccl. Computus f; 'cclesiasticus DB D ispute at .f9. fayt4 ep = tvpisiie LA M yst
Libev xz ls çzzfïstfs M ysiagogia
PN Ps 59
Exposition t# ihe OtJR ICkATIIEIR Exlwsition oj psalm J' p
QD
= Qttaestiones etJ-lfofc
ItM
R elatio xv o/. lt;xi. g
Tlzal ' rheop Thoec
= Qaaestiones ad 7'/lt4J/4s&' 5,. :zA? = Quaestiones ad F/ls()#:-#/+;vz Capita Tlœologica :./ Oeconowtiea
TP
= Opuscala Theologica e/ Polem lca
B . for the Pseudo-D enis; QH = D e coelesti plpzhgtzv à' ïl DN = De f . fïzlzxù nom inibus EH = D e ecclesiastica Aï/ly/rtràïl MT = D e Aplzl/ïct4 tlteologia C. other abbreviations: = AB A nalecta f?fz//tzr xtsïglzdz = A CO Aota Ctpscïlïeropz Oeouv ntentcovum (ed. SCHWARYZ) BZ
=
CACI
=
DSp
Byzantimlische Zeï/xtiArf/f Commenlatia i' rl Avisfotelem t' irtz6t;tz (ed.Acad.Borassiea) = D ictionnair' d6 . ç/ifz' ï/zxfzîï/zf assétilue 6t mydfiç-
D 'PC EO G AK L
= D éd ionn@ivr de Fà/oltzp: zr catlnoliq3te = Echos #'OHtw l = BARDENIIEW ER Gesch%t ?ltt' t ffrr A ltltérchléchen . Ei/8-
GCS JTS
= D ie jfAW fi/lïsr l ps chyistiichcn . $'t;Fl1'f//. ç2JJdr = Jouvtlql W Theologioal S/lffïzr. :
LSe
= LIDDSI.L & Seo' rzr Gveek-English Lexison gth edition
Mansi
= Conciliorlsm t4vl/'liasïl' lzfz collestio ed. M ANSI
Oohr OCP
= Oygentalia ClH ïli/ffzzlfT Oviekttalia Chvistiana Prrïtl#ictz
xzz
d bbyo%4ationa PG RA M RE B 1).fjw*.1pi1:1.
Patrologia G#'qetr(z, cuvantt J. P. MIGN/ ar.v s;=
R nvutf tfltzstlbr ffgzï' et #: m yst%que R 6v' tnc des d' tlltft:s lyyztvsfïltts R evue t/fllîïçzçfl R evue #'#J' Jft)9fl esclêsiastique
RHE R SPIITh
= :s==
Rev. ue tfc. ç ssiences phfloq çf a/tàït N f?s zelv . ç trtls Skythopolis. Sch :5 (194.0) z6-38.
Pyfssna :/Pepsée../fssczs' l4r ia F/zflo. çtl/ât'ayeligieassde GvgtlïA' e dr .N#. ç. ç'. Paris I94z.
BARDV,G., Lt? /J. ' r/d du rtet't V zt ' s'v d'Ovigèns rJ Justinnen. RSR.Io (I9z(8 e24-5z.
BtlNysFov, J.-1?r. Ovigène T l'/irft/rjtlfaAl (l6 la yAllf/ltnffg th/ologiqae. gv /lrrl4g' c. ç Gaval?eva. Toulouqe 1948, 87-t45.
Btlusss: f,W . A poplttltq tnatA.Ttibirzgen z92. $.
Calqàtrvxs,M. y a. n ScotJîrïgâzl'.Paris 19:3. CaDz. ou,R . Lft /d rzfAldr&sï!Li'ovigéne.Paris 19. 35. .
Cllls&', u alszt. Ph. D ionysiacq. Pm' ' LS I937-z95o.
D. u rMAIS.I.-H . L'œuvye s/ïy'ff? 2zrVc de é; Alan mr Ir C-loAl/esJeltr.N otes . :74r son tftsa pn/tl/#ep:yzz/ et sa sfgzli/itltzfïtp' rl, ZiJ spivIi%elle, Stlpplém ent 1952, : ,I6-2e6.
L a F/ltf(vï' des ( ïLogol : des Clgc lfzffJA' l. ç chez :' l'bfaxim r le Cltlx/:sseur.
RSPh'I*h 36 (1$952) 244-49. La fftlc/rf' atfascétique de s. x 5. faxtme ?zIConjesseur tf'4?. #1, Js le ï(Libey lsre/ïcvs>.ivlnikokl :6 (T953) 17-: $9. Un drlï/# de dAzrt/ltxfdscontnm plaiive: Le covlpze' zzffzïA'zr da #c./sr Noster tfzr s. xsfaxfpzir le f;t)z2/8&s'> A'. RztM 2: (r95: 5) :23-. 59. D:)GUIBSR' ;,J., Une x stla l/rce des../84p.Damascène d& FdeorfAnt/tll' lz.RSR 3 (T9T2)356-68. llzuuflkots,J.aL'Apocatn tasrtlle1's.Cr/gr(?lr' d'.Nys. ç4.RSR 30 (194.9)328-470 Plutonisme t'fThéologie yryyfkvr.Essa.i. çlz;m. tJ;2 dey'Psgp. /tffl-D zt 7Alr)/lzsr cAsp Schyipen. Feldm kirch :895.
.
VILLER,M ,,.dux . çtl' xiztifr. çde Ia ' sjarïfwa/ïfd 46's.A' ftl. vïp' n::l6s tw' utlzzs d'Evagvet Pontique.R AM 1z (ln oj a'56-84, 2. 39-68, . 3. 3z-.36W SISWURM,A.A . Thc N tzfuA'r oj ffvm lp K ' nowlttdgc Kiccc/rffïljrto S.Gr:govy oj N yssa.Diss.W ashington x95rz.
W orœsoN,H.A.,Philo.Qambritlge (Mass.) 1948.
PA R T I
TH E EA RLIER AM BIGU A OI2 M AX IM U S A. Isx' rslkxat/llsseuzyœlox
The M anuscript Trfftff/ït?zl It is w ell know n that the only editlon w e so far possess of the
1mbigua of Maximus,that of Oehler (Ha1le 1857),is based on a
..
single m anuscript of the 13th century. O f it O ehler says: âAlâ yie of8àv fsvov ETaJ TKç v; togvov âvqypévov év
l6yotç xat'xoig aovqê 'elgtv uiv: ozolloçg aepk Ià xo9 pzyulov rvqyoplov guyyk4ygcxœ lvvvxçûv.xoivœv yàe ôg lgyev T& aollà êécânaxq övvc xat 06 cap:
1ag6D
I2(z8A/or. :8.. 5 :36.. s J28. 5 1z29BC/or. 28.5 :, 36.3213C xctapD/or. c8.z :g6.: $3B9ss.
T heologica 11 or. z8.zo ;36.37C T heologica 11 or. 28.19 :36.528
Am b zo-rza6D-lz4ze 'Theologica 11 or. 28.20 :36.52C
Ps. Denls
Iz4zAjo/M3. A z :: $.997. 1.
Am b 2z-zc4xD-I256C Theologica 11 or. z8.zo T36,53.*
Ia4gD/or. 7.2T :35.781C8-784A8 Aznb 22-:2.56D -1257C Afheologica 11
-
or. 28.2:: :36.5.38
Am b z3-r25. /C-I26IA
Theologica III or. 29.2 :36.768
Ps.Denis
xz6oC/DN 4.14 ::$,j1(aC
Am b z4-rz6;B-za64B Theologica I1I or. 2:.6 :36.81B Am b 25-1264C-12658 Theologica III
A
m b 26-z26542-I2681
or,c9.Ij :36.951 Tkeologlca III
or. 29.:6 :36.964
Tabk I
v
z:
A m b 27-1:68C-1z)'2A
T heologica IV or. 30.8 :36.1z2 $A .
zz69B/or. 30.8 :. 36.1I382-4 Am b z8-. r27zBC Am b
Am b Am b Am b
T lteologita IV or. 30.9 :36.1I:$C z9-zz7zD -I273A Theologica IV or. Jo.II .:. 36.116C xo-lz73A -C Theologiea IV or. : $0.2I :. : 36.I: $:$A 31-1z73D -Ic8IB In N atalicia or. 38,2 ::$6.3I3B 52-1281. B -1z85B In N atalicia or. 38.2 :.36.:13R
Ps.Denis
I285A/EH 2.4 :, 3.4ooB9-CIo
A m b :$a-Ia85C-I288A
In N atalicia or. a8.z :36.3138 A m b 34-1288A.-C In N atalicia or. 38.7 :36.3178 C Am b 35-ra88D -z289B In N atalicla or. 38.9 :36.3.20C .
Ps.Denis
Iz89A/DN 2.II ::.649
A m b 36-za89B-D
In N atalicia or. : $8.:3 :.36.. 325C Am b .57-128917-1c97B ln N atalieia or. 38.17 :36.:$21)D .
.
IzgzDf./or.44.: :36.6088 I-lo A m b .38-Iz97C-I3oIA
In N atalicia or. 38.18 :36,3328
Amb 39-I3oIBC
In sancta Im m ina
or, 39.6 136.34 rA Am b 4o-z3ozD -z3oyc In sancta Im m ina or. .39.8 :36.344%
I3o4B/or.34.8 136.249. *. 2-4 z3ozjc/or.lo.4z 236.4:786-8 Am b 41-r3o4D -IJr(6A In sancta L um ina or. 39.13 :36.34817
( Ps.Denis
1313A/DN z3.2 ;:.977D-980. :. 7
Am b 4z-I3I6A-z. 34pA In sanctum Baptism a or. 40.2 ::6.360C
I3z4o/or.30.20 :36.129061. I336A/ep, Iox,I ;37.18:C .
$49B -D Am b '4.3-t:
In sancturn B aptism a or. 4o.Iz 236.3738 titl' a plus Am b 44-z3491)-I35aA In sactum Baptism a or. 40.33 :36.4058 Am b 45-13.528 -15568 In sanctum Pascha or. 45.8 :36.6:2C
14
Tlw ffprli> Am biguq
Am b 46-:356C-1gs7D
In satlctttm Pa cha or. 45.13 :35.641A. 4.7-135711-13614. In sanetm n Paselza or. 45.14 :. 36.641Q17 4. 8-1361.1.-1365C In sand um Paseha or. 45.:6 :36.645. A. 49-1365C1: In salctum Pascha or. 45.18 :36.648C 50-1368. A.-13690 In sanctum Pu cha .
Amb Amb Am b Amb
.
A m b 5z-z,369C-z3;'2E A m b 52-z37cB C A m b .53-z:7cC-I37ôB
or. 4. 5.:9 :. 36.6498 In sanctum Pascha or. 45.2z :36.6528 In sanctum Pascha or. 45.24 : 36.656C In sanctum Pasch.a or. 45.24 236.6.j6C
A m b 54-1.376C-:3778 Amb Amb Am b Amb Am b
Am b A= b Am b
In sanctum Paseha or. 45.24 :56.656C 5.5-:377C In sanctum Pascha or. 45.24 :36.656D 56-I377D -z38oD In sanctum Pmqeha ' or. 45.24 :36.656D p z38oD -I38zB In saltd um Paseha .q oT. 45.24 :36.657.: 58-1381E -z384 11. In sanetum Pascha or. 45.24 :36.657% 59-1384.1. -C In sanctum Pascha or. 4. 5.24 :36.657.â. 60-:.38417-13850 In sanctum Pascha or. 4. j.25 :36.6578 6:-1385C-z388A. In novam D om iuicam or. 4.4.2 :36.6088 62-:3884 8 In novam D om inieam or. 44.2 :36.608C ..
.
.
I388B/or. zo.z :36.ro5BT3 A m b 63-z3880-13898
In novam D om inicam or. 44.5 :36.6120
1: $88C/or. 44.8 :: $6.61617 A m b 64. -:3898C
In novam D ornlnicam or. 44.8 :36.6168 A' m b 65-13' 891J-131)38 In Pentecosten or. 41.2 ;36.4328 A m b 66-1,3938 -1396.8. In Pentecosten or. 41.4 :36.4.33E .
zag6A/poem ata 11 z v. zo :37.523. 1. A m b 67-I396B-I4o4C In Pentecosten or. 4:.4 :36.433Cf.
Table 11
1. 5
A m b 68-I4o4D -ï4o5C In Pentecosten or. 4:.16 :36.449C Am b 69-:405C17 In H eronem ' or. 25.6 :35.Izo5E Aznb 7o-z4o5B -z4o80 In laudem Basilii or. 43.I :36.4964. A m b 7I-I4o8C-T4I6D Praecepta ad V irgines 37.624
Ps. Denis
Valedictor!-14I7-C Ps. Den. ts
zzjzsA/or,41.:2 :36.44588-14 z4z6CD/or.7.Ig :35.77' /C10-D5 ;415A/DN 4.t. : s::.7IzAIz-B5 z4zgN4-zr/DN 1.. 5.6 :. !.()8zCz5-D6. T A B % s 11
Index of Citations A ristotle? Basil E vagrius Gregtlr.y N mdanzen œ '. 7.19 or. 7.2I or, 14.7
tlr, I4.20 OY. 14.30 kn'. 16.9 0r. I7.4 OT. 2 I.1
or. 2I.18 or. 2l.31 or. 25.6 or, 27.I or, 27.4 or. 28.5 or. 28.6 or. 28.7 or. 28.9
A m b zo-zl8oozz 13 Amb , /-$080D A m b 7-royzC4
35i77Clo-D5
.
3. 5.781Q8-784. &8 35.8658 35.8658 JJ.8&5C 35.865C 35.884A zo-B zz 35.8978 35.94528-12 35.969C9-15 35.10848 35.10848 5-10 zg.zzoxc : $5.1117C 3, 5.zao5B :6.zI zA , 36.161) $.J2( I)5 .3t z6.:JaBC 36..5zC 36.338 9/ . 36.560 36.37*
A nzb Anab Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Amb Am b Am b
7:-1416C D 2:-:249D 6 T 7-Io9zA 7 ?r 7-zogzA t 7-Ioq3A B 8 'r 7-Io88A 7-zo93BC zo T 7-zoy6D xI T zz T 69 'P :3 T 14 'r I7-1228A lzzgB e A m b 15 T Am b zp z2z9D A m b 16 T Am b I7 ' r
16
Tlts Sllrli:r Am bigua
or. 28.Io or. 28.z7
,
or. a8.:9
36.528
or. 28.20 or. 28.:2z
36.52C 36.53A ( 36.538
A m b 18 T A m b I' y ïo77B - 1085C A m b 19 ' r Am b zo ' P A m b 2I Q* Am b z. zT
or. 29.' z or. 29.6 or. 29.15 01,. z9 .x6
36.76/ 36.8rB 36.9311 36.96A.
Am b Am b Am b Am b
z.T :4 z5 26
C)r. 3O.2 o r. .30.8
$ 36.10.58 1: g6.Iz.3A $B a-4 ,36.4I( 36.4.1,3C 36.r:62 : 56.12f.)C6f 36.!.3, 3A
Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b
62-13888 z7 T al'-z26911 z8 T z9 T 4:-1324C 3o T
36.249.1. 2-4
A m b 4o-I3o4B
()r. 38.z
36.3:.38 36.ir:3B 3f..( $13B
or. 38.7 0r. 38.9 or. 38.11 or. 38.13 or. 38.T' ;' or. .38.(8
36,31782 36.320C 36.3::zC4-324A.2 36.325C 3($.3z9D 36.3328
A m b 3I T A m b az T A m b 33 * .P A m b 34 T Am b 35 ' 1% A m b ;r-zo93D A m b 36 T A m b :7 T A m b 38 T
39,6 8 .39. Or. 39.I3 Or. Jg.I. 5
36.311A 36.344A 36.,348D 36.348D 1-5
Am b Am b Am b Am b
39 T 4o T 41 T 7-1096A
Or. 41.2 or. 4o.12
or. 4o.33 or. 40.4 I
:6.3602 36.3738 36.4058 4:78 6-8 ,36.
Am b Am b Am b Am b
4z ' r 43 T, -I349B 44 'r 4o-I3o4C
Or. 4t.z or, 4I.4 Or. 4I.4 C)r. 4I.I2 Or. 41.16
35.4328 36.4338 36.433C6. 36.4458 8-14 36.446)C
Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b
65 T 66 T 67 T 71-r4 I3A 68 T
0r. 43.I
36,496. A
Am b 7o T Aznb .'J7-yz9zD f. Am b 61 T
Or. 30.9 or. 3o.II or. 30.20 Or. 3o.2:! or. 34.8
or. or.
.
Or. 44.I OT. 44.2
36,37C 36.48C5-8 8-zo
.
36.5o8B z-zo 6088 .36.
.
T T 1* T
.
Tabl6 III
17
or. 44.2 or. 44.5 or. 44.8 or. 44.8
:6.608C , 36.&TaC 36.6I6B 36.61617
Am b A lub Am b Am b
tiz 3. * 6.3 3.% 64 '1* 63-1388C
or. 45.8 or. 4. j.1. : J or, 45.14 or. 45.:6
36.632C 36.641. â. 36.64 ëCD ' 36.645.1.
Alnb Am b Am b Am b
45 46 47 48
or.4j.18
36.648C
or. 45.f9
T 1% '. P 1%
Amb 49 T
36.6498
A m b 5o T
or.45.21
36.:528
Amb 5r T
or. 45.24 or. 45.25
36.656C-6574. . 36.6578
A m b 52-59 %' 'T Am b 6o T
ep. xol.I Poem ata IIjr,v. 2o
:J7..I8zC 37.523. 5
Am b 4' a-I$36A A m b 66-1396.1.
Praecepta ad V irgines 37.624 N em esius
Am b 7r '1*
A m b To-:489.1.15-TI93B x1
Pseudo-llenls EH CH
:5.5
DN DN 2.9 D N z.rz D N 4.10 D N 4.t3
DN
4.:4
DN DN 'D N
4.22 5.5 5.8
DN DN DN MT ep
13.: z>.3 13.6 z 9
3.4ooB9-QIo
A m b 32-z285A.
3.3338
A m b 14-12IsC2
3.644A 64814.3 .3. 649 .3. 3.705 3:712A :2-115 3.7+20 3.7248 3.8ao 3.824 3.97711-980A 7 3.98017 3.98:C 15-176 3.997A 3.zzo4B
A m b 7-1081C5 A m b 7-Io7.JB 9 A m b :$5-:289.1. Am b Io-z:88C 4 Am b 7r-:4r3A Am b 23-:260C A m b zo-z:371$15 A m b 7-Io8oB Am b 7-z08.5.A.8 A m b 41-r3I3A A m b lo-l188A : $ V al. I4I7B4-Ir A m b zo-tz4zA lo A m b zo-:1.378 6
T A B J.s I I I
Scyipture fxtf:. v Gs> sls Am b I.7 I.26 Am b Am b t.27 2vz Am b
z.(9)17 Am b 7-lozzD 6p I4o1B 67-I4oIA 67-I4oIR 65-139:C
3.I 5.7.zz.z
Am b Am b Am b Amb
lo-ll56CD 4z-z3444. 42-1344/$. lo-:1450
18
Th6 S dzrlfty A m bigua
(& sesi. ç)
1 Itsovu
:7.5 z. ;.z. / z9.z4 zg.2o,3z 30.31. :9 57. 7 39. 1:4
-
'
Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b ' Vm b . Am b
zo-:zooA.B 4a-I344B 42-z34.48 45-zg5aCD 5z-zagzA 5z-r369C 19-:236C zo-lz3co
Exozm s '
3.2
Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b A l' nb Am b
5. . 5 7.:7 zz.x4.aI,2z a4.33. 17 :6.1% N ro
zo-II48D 4z-Ia44B zo-zzooe 4z-za44B 50-::J68C 5o-za68C 4z-z.34oD 50-1368(2 7-zo85(B 6:-r,385C
A m b Io-l2oIB C
LsvzTzet!s 7.50 A m b Io-zzoob 13.A m b zo-zzozA B 14.38 A m b Io-z1254 .
D SUTERON
' .
' ''
I,5 :.43,44 Iz.9 28.: 3o.z9 32.49 Iosv. e a, tz 5.z 6.1* . 7.18 zo.12
x1.10
A m b zo-zra4D t a m b ag-zapas
' 2 RMG' IJM z.4 . b'4 z4.zos
3 M GUM z7.9 17. 18 :7. 2 3,2: . :8. 38 x9.q
Aanb t$z-z,388A X m b 37-:28917 A m b zo-zz5zB
A m b zo-lz258 e, r . A m b Io-IrzsB A m b 66-:3938 A m b zo-zzzze jy Io-zI2Iu,tx Am. .
' 4
2.I 2.ï1 ao.zs
A= b Am b Amb Am b
10-1124C1* 10-1I6IC 42-1344.1. zo-II.52B
l
25.7%
,
z zo 4. z8
OM IIJM
Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b
Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b
Io-zx64( B 45-13521) p zo/zlA zo-:zzsA zo-zI6IB Io-zzzrD
Io-zzzgo z'o-zzzyD zo-zzzoA t zo-zzzoB 42-:: 54.4.C Io-zzzoc
PsAm 1.4 :6.:5 1é;.z 23.7 26,Io 30.3 41.3 41.7 41.8
A m b 7r-I4I6D A m b 7-:o7gA am : zo- yyaZ.A.e.r A m b 60-1385.â. A m b 10-112IA BT A m b 7-Io8IA A m b 7-Io7,3A A m b 7l-I4o9-A A m b 7I-z4o8D :4:2.& A m b Io-lIz8A A m b 4o-z,: Jo4A B Am b 7I-r4o9D A m b pz-zzjz617 Am b 2z-Ia4ID A m b 4o-ï3p4A' B .
44.3 47.a to .g
zoz.rs 1:8,6
144.3 . PRO> RBIA 4.27 A m b 42-132517 22.28 A m b I3-I2o8D . ECCIA SIAST/S
i.9
Am b . 7I-z4z2D
Table 1II
1:9
IoB
(S .M'cfr/ltz4xsl
8.z
A m b lz-zcosI)
SAPIISNTIA
5.Iz,zo Am b 71-z4z6D SIRACID/S 22.6 O
A m b. z4-zZI3C
sas
13.3 lsAlAs 9.6 53.2
S M -Nxcus 3'I7 Am b 9.42 Am b 16.z,9 Am b 16.19 A itzb
zI-Iz44A Iz-1ao8A 56-:37117 3C 4z-z332C, 1.33:
S LtrcAs 4.:9 A m b 46-z357. 4 8.18 A m b 48-1.36117 9.3 A m b IO-I2oID t .
A m b 3z-I28IC Am b Io-rzszA
BARvc:l . l 3.38 A m b Io-zx48D .
Ezslm zs: :6.:$,4.51),7a A m b 4z-13zoD
Du m r.
9.24 10.30 ,2.23 14.33 15.4 15.8 z5.zz
Amb Am b Am b Am b Amb Amb Amb
zo-z144.C ItA-II53C zo-zzaao Io-zI53C 31-1277. X 3I-zz7' 7A. : Jz-zz77A ,
:6.25 16.24
A m b Io-:I72A Am b 7I-z4I3A
:6.29 23.43 2:.52
A m b aI-Ia53B A m b 4I-I3o9B , 5,3-z:768 A' m b 5: 3-z.:76C
A m b z9-zc: $6C
S M A/ ITHASTJg 5.3 7.6 zo.gs 1:.14 Iz.z8 I4.zo 15.:7s 16.24 z7,a
Am b 51-13728 Am b 5z-z.373D A m b 21-1256. A.
A m b gz-z4I6D
IsltsMu s 5.22 Am b zo-z148C
z.I9
27.32 27.38 28.20
I7.:4 19.:7 21.:2 2 2.,39 24.22 25.zz
A m b Io-zz48B Am b To-zzolD Am b 50-13684.1% A m b zr-zz5.5A Am b 7-3075A. A m b 67-1: $961$C Am b 67-13968C Am b 3a-tz84D A m b Io-z:2517 II6oC z168% A m b ro-zzox.c A m b zo-rzs:. ,j. Am b Iz-zzo8A B A m b 7-lo9zB Am b zo-zz3z.h Am b 7-:08.5C
:6.39
Am b 7-10768
s Ioàxxss I.z I.z4
3.6 6.3: 10.34 z:.26 :4.6 z6.Iz :6.:3 x7.a4 19.39
zo.:l zo.z5 ao,26 zz.ao 2z.a5
Amb Am b Amb Am b Amb Am b Am b Am b Am b Am b Amb Amb Am b A xnb Am' b Amb Am b
zo-zIa8A zo-)z28A zo-zz45B zo-zz4olD : ro-rz57A rzo-lza' z.lt 7-IIooc zo-xr4s:B, zz64A 2z-I256A zz-zz56A 60-z: J8.58 55-13772 5p zg8oD zo-zzazc Io-zz3zD 48-1: . 564C az-lzszc 58-zg8IB
2o
F& Earlis'y .4* -
tzltf Epha iosj
M lfus A postror.oRvM 17.28 A m b 7-Io84B A D R ouxli'os 6.zx,z9 A m b 8.zo Am b 8.,35 Am b Io.15 Am b zz.33 Am b I z..: J: A nzb ,2.4 Am b
I.z:$ Am b 7-Io97A, 3z-xz8IA 3.18 A m b 50-:3698 4.I1-16 A m b ' p log6b &s
54-13761: 8-IIo4B Io-l14411 5o-Ig68A T zo-z!9zD 54-1577.%. 4t$-I: J6IA
I AD Qolu le m o s :.:5 A m b'7z-I4o9B z.3o A nlb ' 7-Io8zD 2.z A m b 46-1360.1. 2.9 A m b 7-1076A. 6.16,17 Am b i'-zoggll Io.z1 Am b Io-II49D 12.4,9 A m b 68-14041) r2.11 Am b 2I-r245C 12.27 Am b ' z-Io9aC z2.3o A m b 68-14041: z:J.Iz A m b 7-10771 B 14.24 A m b 68-14058 x4,29 A m b 68-I4o5A B :5.26 Am b ' 7-zoy6A 15.55 A m b 38-I3oIA 2 Ap QoRzpa Hzos A m b zo-zIz9D A m b 2o-zz36D ' P A D G AI/ATM S 2.zo A m b 7-Io76B 3.28 A m b 4I-z3o9A
A D Pm rappsxsss a.8 A m b xo-Iz73B 48-1364C 3.II,Ic A m b 7-Io73A :J.14 A lub 48-1365C 3.zs? A m b lo-1Ia9D
A D Cot/osssysss z.:6 A m b 7-zo77D z.z: A m b 7-zof)7A B 3.5 A m b 49-:3650 T 5:-1372C '
z Ap T Iwlolilm t;:kl a.rtl A m b ;,-Io8jC 4.3 A m b 13-Izo8CD T A D I' llssuAk)os I.Iz A m b zo-IIg3A 4.Iz A m b 7-to7.3A 4.z4. A m 'b 48-:364.1, J'.3 A m b ro-tza7l' ). II4IB , tI4. zC, z:441) I 7.Io A m b 4z-l328C 8,3 A m b Io-zI4oA 8.7 A m b 7-zog;rD 10.1 A m b zz-Iz53C Ix.13, ,39 A m b 7-Io73A zI.c6 A m b Io-zt49B 12.2 Am b 4z-z3g3B C IxtcoBt
4.:5
A m b 7z-z4z6D
A n Spu sros z.8,zo A m b 4z-z:t: 3B
z-zo
(Co1.I.z6)Amb 7.zo97AE
I PET:?. I
:.2.1.
A m b 7z-z4z6D
z.z7-23 A m b ' z-Io96B C z 21 A m b 42-:332C,4.8-136117 I IOANNIS 1364.1. z.z A m b p ro92B
Analysisoj/& Single.D@ fw/./r' fw
21
1l. A Narwysrs olœ Tff:e Szxgr.s D rlflqcltrtllss
A m b 6-zo65B-zoj8C:De lf zlfldrrllzrla1n0r6 - or.14.7:35.8658 Gregory has been speaking of the various treatm ents a m an m ight give his body. H e goes on : 'TIf I spare it as a fellow workery I have then no m eans of fleeing if,s rebellion or of not falling from God,weigkted with bonds that pu. ll or hold down to .
the earth.''
The diflieulty isto distinguish the pulldown and the kold #o&?Al, it being quite tm worthy'of Gregory to have used them symonym ously
(Io65C9). In order to indicate adequately their difference M axim us frst describestlle state from whieh one w ould fall. It is that ofthe m an
pedected irtpraetiee and theory,in virtue and k-nowledge (-Io68A'3), so that anger is converted into love and conetlpiscence into joy. This reference to joy induees a further reference to John exulting in the w om b and D avid before the ark, exultation being a sym bol
ofjoy (-Io68AIo). (These two instanees ofexuitation form thedifieulty in A m b ' j7). 'i'he sense of womb - the present 1ife being .
such i11 com parison weith the future - is developed in a digression.
Thesenseofptdldown is then declared to bethenegligellce ofdivine forearthly things (-Io68C6)and that ofholtlffp:@éztheindiserim inate preference ofthe body to separation from them by virtue(-Io68CIz). 'rhe form er then is said to be of the eontem plative m an,the latter
of tlle practical (-Io68CI7). The conversion of anger into love coneupiseenee into joy is a thouglzt found in various w ays in the Csntuyies pn fl/w d fy. M ore frequently love and self-m astery are presented as the ehecks of anger and eoncupiscence:LA zo,Char 1.65. .4.80, .a m ore direct illustm tioll of our present passage is Char 2.48. Y et there coneupiseence grows into eyos. It is not neeessary here tclpoint out the sim ilarity of M axim us vvith E vagrius, nor yet the dissim ilazity.
Am b 7-zo68D-zzozC:De paupevum (z-t?r: - or.14.7 :35.865C Origenists were knowa to turn passages of Gregory N azianzen to their own advantage. 'fhus the sdzoliast of V at. g' r. 2067 f. 73
(at the head of Gregory's oration on the Nativity) cautions: 'fSee
az
7-/:: lîavlier zfnbbigua
that as you read you are not eaptivated by the doctzine ofthe pre '' 1 existenee, as the Origenists want
-
. . .
.
'Plte qtlestioner pf Barsanvlphitls (d.near 540) says that m any defend the doctzine of preexistence from Gregory of N azianzen, es-
peeially from his orations on the Nativity and Easter (PG 86,897C), neglecting passages that are quite d ear in tlle m atter. Justinian 1
cites such a passage from the De j0 zgt:3 with an explanation of
the Origenistis' alm se. Fulther on 4 he affirm s this practice to ' be com m on and begins a sezies of corrqetive patristie texts with two eitations from Gregory. N one of the passages cited in Bar -
sanupbiussor Justinian G are cited by M aximus save for the conclusion of the last 7, w itieh how ever is there dted for a diderent Ptlrpose. . . Tlzat thett an orthodex com m entator of Gregory slzottld have occasion to eom bat Origenist views is no surprise. Ancl if that '
com m entator writes som e g5 years after Justiniàn's eoademnation of Origenism . it m eans only that the heterodox Origenism , though perhaps without further external histon r, was not yet finished. ' fhe text of Gregory runs:f'W itat is this wisdom that coneerns m e? aud.what is tllis great m ystezy? Is it that H e wills that we, being a portion of God and slipped down from above, lest exalted and lifted up by reasortof our digttity, despise tlke ercator,that we, I say, itz the struggle and fght with the body should ever look to
l'Tim and that this otlr subjoined weakrtess be an edueation for our dignity? ''
Tk 11aisk)l 4j1 cotpla,xat 1:(I.ê) jtéya xo:so Izvgvjtltovl li jofhs'ttttttoktw jg(k Yvxfsç eEov,xat dvfom v le ofwsag, 'tvfl p, q *vl ï x$A, dkltw lxatpùgEvot xtzk geutllply lzevolxtlvatppovmpsv sotiKvltm vtog, N xii xeèg B cf lhta adàn xtlt Izdzn xetk (tN t ' lv (hk I3héaEw,xalshv mn'slevygévnv flcê*utqv rratöayfpytav elvalto: Q kJjtttçog. 1. See SINKO
D e /A'tz#fJ5t)Az,. . . indiresla p. 3 and a6.
Z JIJSTINIAN Adversus OA'2kJ' #ld#&, ACO t. 1I1 tg31: PG 86. 9.S.TB . ô G RSGORV N AZIANZIN , De jsfjr tz,or.2.I7,PG 35.4258 xJ/, ê JUSTINIAN,o#.sit., ACO, t. 111, 205$1: I;G 86. 97sD . 5 Baasu rlpltm s cites G ttsooay N AZ. or. 45.7: PG 3(i,6.32A 7-tz. $ JTJSTINIAN'cites or.2.I7:35.425B/AC0 t.III 19311 PG 86. 9538 ;
or.44.42. 36.6IaA3-z4./z9#8:9531);or.45.7:36,632. :.7-8 z/z953':t)59A;or. z.z8: 35,437A/zo538: 9;'5D ; or. :6.9: 35.945AIc-DI/co6:: p75D ,
.
% Am bip-zo88A responds to or. z6. 9: . 35.p45C8-zz.
Anaiysîs ol/& Sîngleflïlcvlfïfw
aa
W ith such a text proposed to him ,M axim us frst of a11 rd utes tille O rigenist position as suclt and then, still befere any exegesis of Gregory is attem pted, art adequate orthodox m eaaing m ust be
given to the phrase poytion p/ Gotl, so elosely did it seem related to the henad. This constitutes Part One. Part ' rwo intends prim arily to be exega is and begins by placing the rnisinterpreted passage in its context, observing the ftm dam erttal raistake, nam ely the understanding it of m an's gena is rather thau of the w retchedness subsequent thereto. Izour other texts of Gregory are advaneed in support of this and to show that he speaks of m an's origins in anotlter-w ay. 'fhus M axinm s goes on to develope the fundam ental m ystery of m an with the help of eitations from Ephesians, A11 of this gravitates abotlt the phrase:
pcvtio' n n/God. Yet the polemic element has taken too mttch ofhis attention that it can now com pletely drop from viem Tlm s the whole dillieulty ends in a philosophic refutation of the preexistence and postexistenee of souls. Such iu a nutshell is this m ost inlportant D ifllculty ;the detailed artalysis willfollow on the texttm l notes I shall now presetlt, 'Phe num eratiotl of.the Diflk ulties: ffOne ollly energy of God and the w orthy ''; this phrase occurs in the present A m biguum
(Io76Czo). Later M aximus had to explain it. H e there (TP I-33AIO)dtes it as being hlthe seventh chapter ofthe Diëeulticxs of Gregory the great. In fact tlle present A m biguum is the second
ofthose sent to Jolm ;bttt five were later seztt to Tltorrlas and are
found in thevast majority ofm anuscriptsin the firstplace. Therefore one m ay suppose that in M axim tts' own tim e tlle two sets
were joined,so that the present DiKculty is to be reekoned as the seventh.. N aturally the tw o introduetory lettets are not to be reektm ed as dië eulties.
I here subjoin a list of variant readings, some of which are needfulim provem ents of tlle text, and a11 of whicb are attested by one or m ore m anuscripts older than the Gudian which underlies Oehler's text. This list eom prises the m ore notable variants found
fn eollating Amb 7 witllVat.gr.Iroz (V),Monac.gr.363 (M),A14gelica Izo (A). W here variants oceurred I consulted Scotus'vers-
iou (S);Ihavealso noted ThomasGale'svariants (T) and at times Tlzavedistirguished Oehler'sznanuscrip (())from hisprinted text(0). H aving consulfed V and A directly I have at tim es distinr ished
in them two readings t(and p. The 1$ readings may be corrections
24
The A'fvlï:r Am bigua
contem porary wititthe m anuscript or the result ofa posterior coll ation. T do not always attem pt to distinguish Until still other m anttserip'ts have beerteollated it does not seem woe lawltile to glve a list of a11the variants. Jn the present list I give first the reading oftile printed text,after a colon the variants and witnesses W laen VAM or 'f are not found to the right ofthe colon they are presum ed to confirm the printed text S is cited only when in tells positively for one or the other reading. -
.
.
.
Tot$9B 5
êctbv G : ê'Eiov V M A O
B 13 lzrel :Il 'aaôzî ' S'' MA 1o7zA 8
ytvögzvc : yevöpo ct V M A
( B8 M A O :DL VM TG B9 xltam tvotc,v ; xa' :*lalvoçto'VM A B :5 Jœévnvov : J' yévvqxov EX M A xog:A4 K v 'ieöv :'r09 ' êvofiSVM A
B6 dk ... th a/oik :-. S D z lv li@ évtzg' rf: i j 51:) ;l'. 4 5.' t.!.SVM AT zogtu' t8 ' hzfà: ' rcfi' ra rrâv' ctt A@ :(I.m 'r.S' VM . 1p B9 t;f;lô è ...lifiyck :1:7$ôè ...I ;fj6(S'O fzt 176 ofôttgtk Ap' .ofDayoiiVM AU .
1)8
obxoç S : -V M A T
zogpçà
qwstxf;v :qlvtxz: SVM A
zo8oyk.3
ffpedxt -actg :aioiitpscrrf 7wçSVM
B 14 Cg C6 Ds zo8zA.z AJ3
'ztcâ lë uvo ytsl1; 5*% : 14: $2 SVM A x;v A/ :x(û SVM AG ytvesa:V/AP ' .yévstM et ut videtur VaAC luarE' wewtt z tp :lxêxttvçtVM AR :SUM M A S xaldoqi ttfltv SAp :(irtoxtœlm tzow 'VM AG xto 'lttv' rftEtvasAp :xttl'afrrà v?às:vusV; s: xqe'llwx4k 'roïifr TvtltM
:084C14. tkvêklttyrtntnv .évqvgt/zqctv SVMAT Io85Ag B .9
45, $4 : ôt6' rL SVM AT êw axùv : M' evaxév loxtv & (h e& lxv' èg M yog SV M A . sed A 6 ... léyoç etm tinuo suprapungitur
D' 7 ' /lDtrt :OPORTERAT (4ô6$z ') S 1o88A II a' h fzlolag : ' thawktVM A
A14 d' h pv ;qitâzpm NTM A D 3 tizsokaétyel : 4aoltz' tîrœi lw kvopévnv SVM Dg 'ro: Jtéeoç 2r. q6% 'çèv ol8qeov : rpèç 'rù a' ôv 'ro; o. SVM A'P
zo89A5 ' l' v éx qdpov xöoov SV? :'Bv èx w ' iix6oov rpépyvV/M A z3 êa.gâ'ré : la'tx' ôrt' j VM A' .r
:092%
aohlfi : aoDutilSVMA
.
D4 xtttfo' îixounlfiva. tx' j :' rè x.'r' j iW MAPT zo% C6 xuxtk'çh' k Wvim v l'a,:g' n ?t'cùv y.èz.SVM A zo97A 7
pitfhfsvxgç S ; l1to 4, e:1: V M A
B:2 lv rcvetijttm SAp :lv cxIL (sic)VMAU
zlu lysis //tks éiizzr/' lll' lncltltzLs ïzooA. . f
zs
sfpôà p.éàog :% lsè ltfooç SVM
1)9 lpyticœxutAc :lklw géxg,.VMAP IzoIB3 I1ox1)z5 Cz-4 J CT: .
Jllzi : &kV VM AT fbç xtû :&ç V M AT apög Jll' ql(s ...xctF o'twltw :-VM lkléàotasv :lu élElrt-ratV M :defkit S
D etailea A nalysis
PartOne,I:Againstthe henad and on the future state (-Io77Bz5).
Tlgspassage (above,p.zz)many too facilely understaud oftlle henad of rational.beiugs who, coanatural to God, had their abode in him ;but then cam e m otion and their scattering iu bodies m ade izz punislaznent of their form er sins. The absurdity ofsuclzan opin-
ion the following tract willmanifest (-Io69B4). Argument I (Io69B4-Io7zAI()). Theprincipleisstated:nothing capable of motilm rests before it llas attained its tfizmll catlse, the uitimatedesire(Io69B4-I4). Andifitbesaidthatrationalcreatures, tlle em d attained, have in fact seattered 8 there is no answ er to the
objectfon that they w' ottld desert the good zzlf'?l#lC' Jlf??9 (z()W Czz). Ifhowever one says it is possible for them (to adhere firmly to the good) but that they prefer not to for the sake of experiendng the contrary,then elearly the good is no longer good in itself atld the satisfaction of desire; rather the contrary, evil, m ust be reckoned
asa gracethatteachesthegood and isgenerativeoflove (-Io7zAIo).
'rhis argument,though positing thefundamental(teleologeal)prineiple,is rather topical,redudng the answ ers given by the Origenists to their absurd conclusions.
Argument 1 (Io;zAII-DI). Geqesis, logically at least, precedes motion (-Io7zB9). 'Plzis motion is defined (Peripaticians seem tobedted)asa naturalpowe.r passion oroperativeenergy,driving to an end,which isaw' ith regard the lattertw o term s,eitller tlle im -
passible or the self-perfect (-lo72BI3)9. No ereated thing is its own end, beeause not tmcaused'- here isintroduced (Io7zC4f.) a dev ition ofend Arijtotelian in tone (d .Met.fz2-9941:16)butin faet eited fronï Evagrius 1e not only here but also in 'fhal6o-6zIA zo : See the version below p. I85 with note zI. : See the version below p.98. 18 See M ' uirm sltMAlç' s L'vaçeianavSyrfctltz. Ivouvain 1952, p. 34' ,A m b
z6
Tlw Egrlferzfpltrk-
nor self-perfeet, becattse the self-perfect
already unaetuatable
as already complete (the self-perfect is somehow uncaused); nor im passible,because the im passible is infinite. . . 'rherefore no created thing stops m oving short of its first and only cause. There Ls thtts
.
no ground for supposing the breaking-up (gxeôtltAjtöç) ofa primitive henad (-Io7cDI). ' In suppozt of this Seripture witnesses are adduced: M oses Gen. z.jï7; D eut, Iz.9; David - Ps. 16.5. z; Paul - Pl1il. 3.II; , 4I.
Hebr.4.10 (II.39); Christ - Matt.11.28 (-Io73AI4). B.After these Scriptural eitations the conelusion is m ore fully draw n. Tlle natural power, the energy have not yet fotm d their
rest, that is the end, the impassible, the immobile (Io73AI4-B4). l7or Cxod alone is the end, the ped eet, the im passible;it is for the creature-to m ove to that end and to rest his energy there and to
suffer, ''but not to beeom e essentially this unqualiûed '' thing
(-Io73BzI). This suffering, this passion (not in the m oral sense) isexplained (Icc. 3BII-Io76A5),from whieh itiselear,saysMaximus, that the partidpation in the divirte of wlkieh w e speak is ftttute -
and not past (zo76A5-Io). This fihalunion isthen fuztherdescribed with the aid of som e Seripture texts (here èom es the m onenergistpassage, see above p.:a3). There follow yet other considerations on the attainm ent of this end and on the cessation of
m otion (-IozgB9). Up to this point,says M aximas,the diseussion has been on the non existence ofthe henad and on the future state,a discussion based on reason and the Sedptures (-Io77B9-I3); bl lt now f'we being a portion of G od and slipped down from above '' will be treated .
(-Io77Bzg-I5). Pal' t One, II: A refutation of the Origenist interpretation of T'we
being a poztion of God...''(-Io8. 5A6). E' xplanation I (uo8ICII), of the Logos and the logoi. 'Phe logoi preexist united in the Logos. This he cortfrm s with a reference to D enis, probably D N 5.5 (-Io8oBzI). As preexi stent in .
the Logos we are portions 0/ God and realize that union as a consequent of right m otion. T his is closed w ith a eitation from B asil
(-Io8IA5). A1l logoi are not brouglzt into existence together, but som e rem ain in potency tilltheir due tim e. God is ineffably above;
yet the one is m any and the m any one (-zo8zC7). Tbere follows
a condusion (Io8IC7-II).
4nalysis //1ke &Wj# Di @rultirs
.
.
z7
Explanation z (-zo85A6). The W ord of God is substantial virtue;so the solidly virtuous partake of virtue itself,adding likealerss
to image (-Io84AI4). In this is the Apostle's In wkom we iive and movefxzl# ar6 (Acts 1/.28)fultilled by being,well-being,frrdr?'-zz, :lf-&ïlg (-z()84%7). Then in these terms the nzan wlm is a poztlon of God is deserlbed;the description is filled out by introducing the exchange between God and m an in the m ystery of the Incarnatiort1l. 'rhe
siipping ()#.jrom God is charactertzed as a desertion from the true prindple (-Io85A6). Pal4 One,lII:The Dod rine of the l.ogoi Defended.
Maxim us here (Io85A7-C6) ilzserts a defense of his theory (?f
logoi,by referring to Denis(DN 5.8)aad thettto thesehoolofPantainos,m aster of Clem ent. It is odd that the passage ofD N should
contain also a referenee to a philosopher Clem ent (DN 5.9). But if M axim us sim ply refers to Clem ent of Alexandria in tlle w ake of
Denis, why does he use the drcumloeution 'twhich Seotusdid not understand)? And how are we to ex-plain' that in Dettis the thoaght of Clem ent is reckoned inadequate and in M axim tts the reply to the pagan diE culty is cited with approval? 1:. In view ofthispassage there seem s to be lio question of M axim us' im m ediate source for the dod rine of Iogoî. See also D alm ais' article in RSPIZTII 36
(1952) 244-49. Part One,IV :Deseription of the PinalState.
Returning to a passage already cited (at Io77B6-9) Maximus speaks of the fnal conform ation to the divine likeness, adding a developem ent of his ewn to the eitations from Gregory. In tltese
Maximus qualiâes the deifed state as pleasure, sufering (xEïctç). joy;and indeed a joy knowing no surfeit due to fear (-zo89AIo). Part One, V :Cond usion and final Argum ent on Surfeit.
Maximusfrst statesthathe laasgiven a summary proof (against Origenism)by reason ttputrtxmçl,by Seripture and by tlze Fathers. The use ofScripture rtlajcbe seertittsection T tloe zzD-zoggA, .T(y)-6A; theuseofthe Fathersismore eddentin seetion 11(Io8oB-D)andlll (Io85A-C). So Maximus states the points already proved and tllen presents a further argum ent against O rigenism that is agaitlst tlze
11 Tlzis (Amb 7-1084Q,Dz) is a them e touckecl on elsewhe v e;cf.TNal 6' 4-725C ; A m b : $:-zz88A ; A m b 6o-z385B C.
19 See below ckap. IV, note 68.
2. 8
TIw Fadfer ztplN gu
doctrhzeofsurfeit. 'Phis doetrine has already been exeluded (above IA-Io69f),and in expounding the doetrine of m otion and eatd,a positive aeceptation of perpetual desire is given (IB-Io. 73C); 'but only abovein section IV (Io89A5)hastheword surfeititselfoceurred. M axilnus now attacks it directly (Io89BI-C6). F inally M axim us rem arks the futility and deeeitfulness of these O rigenists' but, leaving them nqw to them selves he w ill consider
tlle question in another way (Io89C6-D3). P art T tFp. ' E xegetical
Part Two, 1: Exegesis of Gregory. The passage of Gregory does not refer to m an's genejis but explains the eause of his subsequent w retchedness. This is clear from the context of the
oration (-Iop2BI). A . T o establish this M axim us, i11 a long paraphrase,interprets the thought of G regory. I?irst of ai1 the prim itive state of union and life in God's presence is deseribed w ith the use of the analogy
of the soul's presence to the body (-Io9zCI3),an analogy occurring again below (1IooAB). '
B . Then the counterpart of this bllss,the introduction of death
as punishment for the abuse offreedom is explained (-Io9. ' JA9)'and coniirmed by two eitations (-Io93C3). 'fhe thesis is then repeated (Io93C3-IO). C.M axim us then goes (m :But Gregory speaks of m an's genesis
(f'ofthe power ofthe m ystery in whicilman eam e to be'')in quite another fashion. A n(1 there follow tw o d tations,suë cient to conv-
ince unless the readers be illwitled (-Io96Bz). Part 'fw o, 11:A gain, on how w e are part of God. A . M axim us in eonllrm ation of what he has already said at such
length cites ' în extenso St Paul to the Ephesians I.r7-z' J (-Io97A5) and adds to it other passages from the Ephesians and H ebrews to.
gether w ith his ow n explanation on this '5f?%œ
have a separate exiAtenc. e, tlle soulafter dtxath retaining a nK essary relation to its own body.
Digression z (I3z5D-I336B),against the preexistenee of souls. Referring to his lirst digression M axim us declares that he follows the royal m iddle road avoiding the errors of preexistence and of postexistence by aflirm izlg tlle eoexistenee ofthe parts ofthe hum an
composite from the moment of conception (I3z,D). From this he goes to on deseribe thepresuppositionsoftlzeftrst error, nam ely,that bodies were fotm d for souls in ptm ishm ent of evil eom m itted, so that the w hole visible w-orld , w hich silentiy m anifests G od, has evil as its eause; which world G od waG forced to m ake, having at fi1'st
no intention so to do (z. ' Ja8B9). But in fact there is n'othing adventitious in God; a11 hms been
made aeeording to his foreknowledge (-I3z8D).
'fhe Iogoi ' ofallt11l'ngs,pabt,presezlt and future, preexist im m u tably in G od. They are brought into being, they develope for good or for evil, and, according to the proper disposition of eaeh, they are everlastingly awarded partidpation in or privation of God,who -
is thus theit joy or ptmishment (-x3z9B7). 'Phe doetzlne of tize apoctdastasis,though llot nam ed,is thus exeluded 1ê. The consequences ofthis preexistence ofthe logoiare developed in a sorites,w hieh, a little too broad in its scope, cond udes to the
dilemma:either the finalputting-off (tlaoyéugkg) of human bodies is im possible or ' G od was foreed to create against his wt'll tblngs
whose logoihe did not have from the beginning (-r3z9D6)>. M axim us then developes the eonsequenees of this latter hori't It m eans that created things are w ithout logos and wisdom , the wlzich is nothing else but evil, w hose eharaeterislic is non-existence B ttt in any ease the idea of force being applied to God resultsizlpositing .
.
two pzindples afte' r tile m anner of the M anicheest-l33zlk ). M axim usnow attaeksthisputting-offfrom anotherangle, nam ely from that of the Inearnation. For the Im rd, assum ing our body and taking it back with him to heaven, is the leader and author of our salvation, body ar td soul (-I333A9). But he who thus leads tts to the sum m it of developem ent and perfection eannot him self be such a leader if he neecls hirnself the fnal perfeetion of putting14 Cf. Am b 65-z39217 and see below chap. V I.
n This puttiylg-og is a distinetly Origenistic trait see below cllap 1, .
note '1.
,
Analysisp//& Singlefslcfglfït,s
59
os the body,attizatvery m omerltwhen he is to bring usto perfection (-rg, 33BIz). For the Incarnate Lord,Seripture teaclles,is not only the leader
atld author ofour salvation (H ebr.2.10)but has gone before us by hij exam ple. so that,if there is to be a putting-off,he sim uld have
efeeted if first in himself (-I333DIo).
.
Or again, if w e allow this idea of the ptztting-off, how is the word of Gregory true:that which is united to God is saved,as the
body was united (-Ir 6BI). liinally, why this dogma oj fk ecclesiastical Iaith was not expressed by the rathers in the ereed, M axim us leaves to .others to
explain (I3. 36B). Digression :$ (I336C-I345C),against the preexistenee of bodies. Theproposition thatthe soulcom esto a body already existent (postexistence ofsouls)is m ore easily stated thau proved. I/or the body thus bonl w ould be dead, before the advent of the soul,as laeldng
a principle of life and.of cohesion (-I33gB3). A medical example is here used (1336D2-1337.&6/. But if the em bryo be possessed of som e sort of soul,though not a hum an one,the father is not father
ofa son but ofa horse or ofsome plant (-I337DIz). A graver eonsequence of suelz a position is that G od., who brings
a thing into beiag eomplete (vélatov) aeeording ttl the logos preexistent in him self,would be aectlsed of lack of wisdom and power
(-I34OAIo). The inverse of this charge we have m et with above (I33cAI) in refutation of the preexistezlee of souls. 'rhe proponent.s of postexistenee m ay take fina! refuge in the thought that it.is not fitting for the soulto com e into existence sim ultaneously w ith the staiaed pleasttre of coneeption. Such a view
rexeets on the Creator (ifmarriageis evil,which would here be supposed, then the natural 1aw of generation, and so the law m aker,
is likewise evil)and is the equivalent of Manes'doetrine (-I34oC5). F urther,if it is not fitting for the rational soul to be introdueed at conception,it willnot be so untilthe tim e of the purifcation,forty
da> after birth (-I. 34oD4). Nor can the M osaie 1aw (Ex zI.zc) be an excuse for plaeing the advent ofthe soul 4o days after coneeption ; for M oses does not there indieate the entrance of tlze rational
soul,but the complete formation ofthe embryo (-t34IAI). But far m ore forceful an argum ent - if the soul com es only after 4o days,then the W ord ofGod could nothave assum ed ourflesh through
6o
Th6 Fcff. Am bigua
the interm ediary of a rationals' oul, or, better,united our eom plete
nature hypostatically to him self (-I. 54IB6). Therefore M axim us defends the m iddle doetrine of eoexistenee. opposed equally to either error and confirm ed by the m ystery of the Incarnation, w ltieh w as a renew al not of the togos of our nature
but of its tropos (-I34IC;), Renôwatis then exptained (-1.340 5) and illustrated from mtracles ofthe O1d Testament,whieh a1leoncern the motls (# optwafion not the existrnt :ssfwc: (wfsaoç vfiç êvégyettq - kdyoç siig lhxfitlett)ç I344DIo).Greater than a11sueh renewals is tllat oftheVirgin biz' tlz (-1345A5).' -
A nd Enally the cardinal principle is again asserted that any nature whatsoever com es into being as a com plete essential wllich
knows no alteration or cessation of being (-I345C3). Then the series of digressions is closed (-I345C3-7). Text: Digressions I and z (I3zID-I. 336B) were first published by G alland from a 13th century Venice m anuscript,the M areian.136
(Bibliothrca Izufgr' lf- Patyum ed. Venet. 1781) t. X IV appendix
PP'*53-58). M igne's reprint of Oehler's text has .om itted a dozell words at I.> IDI;they
are:l:e xqtdtrrtlxfû ôtaltévEt)xrzl&llov 3goke)gg(âpasog,xal'8v ylvsval ts xatN!:s(xtd 4llzE:iajd), oç... lvote @m th6 flïgressfoss
Besidesthe passages just analyzed and that ofAmb 7 (IIooC6IIoIA6)M aximus treats oftbe sotll,that it is incorporeal and retains itsproperoperationsafterseparation from the body in ep 6 and 7, .he treats of the com posite, incidentally, in ep. Iz-488D and in ep I3-5I6Df,525D . M axim us'doetrine is clearly not in the Phtonic stream represented by N em esius and Leontius of Byzantium for w hom the soul is a com plete substance w ithout azly necessary relation to the body. In this he is but followhlg Gregory of Nyssa,
whose influenee in these questions I have above (p.57)noted. But an indication of view s sim ilar to his own is to be found nearer than
Gregory. 1 mean Leontius of Jenzsalem . W hat the precise contours of his doetzine raight be is dië cult to say withottt a eareftll
study (an arduous one at that) of his two polem ical works. Yet it is rem arkable that m any ofthe conditionsofthe hum an com posite
1Azfyw:s()//A: Singlr D'rj /ks/ffks
.
-
61
are fotm d stated in his Adversus Aresforffzlt?s I tllough in the words
of tlze adversary (see especially the beginnings of ehapters 1,z,6,
7,9,Iz,1t $,I5,I6,I7,191,and in the Adversussfonopkysitas diflkulty 48 there is fotm d tlle phrase complete natuyai s/rcls. This posftion is clearly akiu to tlzat of Afaxirrztts azld Gregory, thotlgh m ore crass and far less forcibly expressed. It w ill be observed that however m ore or less stringent m ay be the argum ents M axim us advances for his position,the ultim ate basis of his convietion is the
mystery ofthe Incanlation (an example ofthe hzQuence ofrevelation oll philosophy). 'fhe pl. dting-oj of the body Maximus rejects as contral'y to dogm a ; the eternity of punishm ent he asserts w ithout reference to the oflicialteaching ofthe Church;hispositiotlilzregard to the apovatastasis will be seen in detail in the fnal chapter.
A m b 43-134:1$17) I1% stzzlc/lïv; Baptismq
or.4ozlz :36.3731$
Gregory had spoken of tlm se who, with a fever, await the criticaipoint, that,with som e assurance of a prolonged life,they m ay stili further defer tlzeir 'baptism . M axim us explains w hat m edical opinion understands by the crffïctll sweaf.
Am b 44-zJ4pD -r3JaA: ln sanctum Baptisma - or.40.. 3.3:.36.4058 Gregory had said that Christ does not like advantage to be taken
ofhimself in repeatedly forgiving sins. The objeetion is:readiness ever to forgive sins is the ver)r m ark of loving-kiadness. M axim us repliesthat,on the eontrary,a certain unwillingness to forgive again serves as a salutary clzeck on sinnirtg and helps fx one in the doing of good. Am b 4;-z3j.aB-z3;6& In . gtzptl/f/zzl Pascha - or. 45.8 :.36.6320 This dië eulty opens the longest series of com m ents ou passages
taken from any one oration ofGregory (Amb 45-60). 17or the most part they are brief allegorieal interpretations of Scriptural personages connected with the Passion - so the 8 item s taken from the
:4th ehapter (Am b 52-59). The present difllculty has,by way of introduction,an unusually
elaborate apology forM aximus'inadequaey (I35zB-D). He intends however to do prom ptly the little that lae can for the good of his correspondents.
62
TM E Jrfiez Ambigtm
In the passage proposed Gregory had chdraeterized the Iirst m an asnaked in his sim plid ty and in his tm artilieiallife,withoutany
need of dothing. Maximus'frst answer (I35cDIo-I353B) supposes Adam before the fallto have had a bodily tem peram ent diverse from that obtaining after the fall,nam ely,one itlw hich the qualities w ere not eontrary and eornlptive one of the other. In sueh a clm dition he w as im m ortalby graee and needed no d othing eitherfor sham e's
sake (for he possessed detachment,fladthkfz)or forwarmth artd protedion (for he was not subjeet to the extremes of heat and eold). In the setond answer (1.3530-1356.43) Maximus suggests that Gregory proeeeds from the present condition of m an, wldcllis charaeterized by three m otions:thatdeterm iaed by pleasure,tllat determ ined by need,and that determ ined by the leam ing of natural contem plation. N ow tlze frst m an w ould have been above all of these, being detached.by graee and so in im m ediate corttact with God and w ithout need of those things w hich now m ove him . The m aking of a.list of m otives is som ething eom m on enough in M axim us, and searcely ever are they identical See ep 9-4450 and Char 2.3z,33. The third respouse brings in theory and ktlowledgeg astuteness in the exercise of virtue. ' fhe m an w ho would return to the frst .
state of Adam must fmd :imself above allof tllese (I356AB). M axim us adds in eonclusion that there is a still m ore exalted way ofconsidering the dië culty,which sow he willpass over for the reasoa given in the preface. ' '
A m b 46-:556C-:5571): flt sttv f' lt- Paschq - or.45.1:$ ::$6 641% .
Gregory is taking tlle various specifcations of the paschallam b and applying them to our Lord, in the present case it is y6arl. ing.
And Christ Ls yearling as sun of justice. Yoz time is divided into five divisions: day, w eek, m onth. season,year,whieh aredeterm ined by the eireuit of the stm . Sueh is one of tlle m any w ays of under-
standing the passage. Yeayling isfrstexplained (-I357B9); sun W iusfic6next (-I357C3);then tyocssdin. g Sh:' ac: (-I357D2). A m b 47-x357D -z;6zA : In stléfcfzfpl P ascha - or.45 14 :36.641C17 .
It is not at all to be wondered at, says Gregory, if a lam b is sought out for each heusehold. A nd the dië eulty is then to reconcile this with the fact that Christ is one. M axim as does not answer
yllqlydïs a/th6éifly/:lli3îc%dti6s
6)
the objection directly but adapts the saying to one of St Paul:I A fft rplïzld:tf to know notking am ong you lf4/ Ckyist tzA?.ff him crsfcï/lfl
(1 Cor.z.c). Each one,continues Maximus,according to lzis own powerand virtue,crueifeshim selfand is cnlcifed with Christ. There follows a list of Iz ways ia w hich this is done,beginning with the sim ple avoidanee of aetual sin. The last w ays indicate a passage from practicalphilosophy throughy naturalconsideration and the mys-
tagogy p/ tkeologicat, scï:zlctrto tbat sepayative fzzlîfAziï/drfN drs. s attained by nq ation. 'rhis process is,as it w ere, parallelw ith a passage from the EesllofChristto his soul,to hism ind,to his divinity. For Christ becom es the lam b of eacllm an in proportion as each is able to hold and eat ltim , according to the saAring of Paul that the grace of the Spirit is given to eaeh one in the m easure of his faith. Von Balthmsar com m pnts on this passage in connection with
Thoec 1.W fDie Gn.Cent.p.I35f.), Maximus seemsnearerEvagrius in this Am b 47 than in Thoec 1.67.
Am b # -z36zA-z36jC: In sanctum Pasclta - or. 45.16 :, 36.645A Gregory in this Paschal oration is highly allegorieal; M axim us follows suit. 'fThe fleshy and nourishing part of the doctrine together with the intestines and rece-sses of 1he m ind are eaten ' artd sent down for spiritual digestion ''. Stlch a passage is btlt an hzvitation to develope the thougllt of spiritualm anducation,w hieh Afaximus llad expa % ed at tlle end of the lmst dië culty. And in fact
thisisjust what he does and with the same reference to receptivity proportioned to the measure of grace and of Spirit (I364Bzz-z3)a But,a thing that shows that these com m entaries w ere conceived
and wzitten as quite indejendent tmits,Maimus begins this eomm entary with a long disquisition on desire for God,.which is iu fact a prerequisite for this spiritual eating.
'fhis desire and passion (xdêeç,lfzlgl for himself God plaeedin rationalereaturesat the beginnhzg togetller with the power to know llow to attain its fulflm ent. Being m oved by sueh a desire w e are '
dziven to seek to attain him (-I36IBg). knowing this the lovers of truth set as their unique object the knowledge oftrttth asim aged in this world, that when tbe tim e cam e for them to die they m ight pass easily to the future truth . .
In this our God and Savior Jesus Christ helped and lead the way
(-I36ICI4).
64
T& E arlier A m bigua
And God, who gives to him that has, nam ely desire for him , aud is abundantly rieh, does not leave off doing good till he bring
them , always from the less to the greater, to deifeation - Jesus the Xvord of God having gone through a11 the heavens before
us (-I364AI5). Gregory, knowing that we have this natural desire for him , urges us to spiritual eating, eaeh according to the eapacity given
him by the graee oftlze Spirit (-I364BI4). H ere only,half way through the com m entary, M axim us begins to explain hl d' etail this spiritual eating, stal illg w ith tbe head
(I365B3). And there are many otheraspectjunderwhich the Lamb m ay be eaten,changing into him self by tile Spirit those that receive
him (-1. 365C5). A m b 49-:365C 5 : In sanctum P asclba - or. 45.18:36.648C
A brief interpretation of the imitation of Jolm the Baptist,
in conjuction with an allusion to Co1 g.5 on mortifying our members on earth.
A m b 5o-x:68A -z36kC: In sanctum Pascka ' - or. 4. 5.19:36.6498 'Phe text of Gregory contains an allusion to M att 10.9,10 azld to Rom .10.15 - which first M axim us briefly interprets in the sam e
manner as in Amb 49 (-I. 568BIz). ' Phen,with a referenee to the preceding dië culty aud a m ention ofthe Passover,M axim us proposes
an allegorical interpretation ofthe three passovers,that is in Egypt,
in the desel't,in the promised land (-I369AIo). M axim us theu passes these three stages again in rew iew ,putting them irt relation w ith the three degrees of tile spiritual life - the practical,the theoretical,
the theological (-I369C5). A m b 5z.x369C-z372B: fn sanctum Pascha - or.45.z1:36,65z8
In thls dië culty Gregory alludes to Racheland Xia (Gen 31) and to the Israelite exodusfrom Egypt. R aehelthen is the theoretical soul, J.ia the pm ctical, the wise Israelite tlze theorqtical m ind. This is the Erst of a series ofallegoricalinterpretatious ofpeoonages, only in tllis dië culty from the O1d Testam ent, extending through
Andzsis p/theSïsrî:Dimculties
6j
..
Am b 5z-z37zBC: f' n sflscl' u- Pascha - or.45.24 :36.656C This isthe first ofthe seriesof 8 dië cttlties taken from the sam e chapter in Gregory. Of these 7 are allon the type of the foregoing dië culty,that is allegoricalinterpretations of personages. H ere the figtlres are a11 taken from thv resurrection narrative, so that tlle interpretations are m ostly coneerned w ith crucifixion and resurrection,in Christ and in us. This first one dèals with Sim on of Cyrene. A m b 53-xr 2C-zJ76B: In sandum Pascha - or. 45.24 :36. 6560 H ere there are four interpretations of the good and bad thief.
A m b j4-z376C-x3r B: In sd/Alc/' lf' ?l Pascha - or. 45.24 :36.6560
Here there are interpretations of Joseph of Aram athia and of the body of Christ.
A m b J5-z377C: In sanctum P ascka - or.45.24 :($6.65617 A siltgle interpretation of Nicodemus. A m b s6-z377D -z38oB: In sanctum Ptwsc/l, - or. 45.z4:36.6569
M ary,the other M ary,Salom e and Joanna. Here we have tlle prad icaland contem plative life. There are also two considerations on the angels whom the holy w om ezlfouzzd in the tom b ;they represelzt theology and econom y. Am b 5p x38oD -z38zB: In sanctum Pascka - or.45.24* . 36.657A
Two considerations oll Peter and Jolm rllnnittg to the tom b. Peteristhe solidmess offaith and the practioetllife;John the purity of love and the contem plative life. lzt a sense they are rivals, ilt another they are allies.
Am b 5& z3%zB-I3%4A : In sfyncfzrz/l P ascka - oz.45.:4: 36.657A This dië cult)ris ofthe doubting Thom as H e rèpresents every rnartwho has dië culty iltbelievitlg the resttrrection ofthe virtue and .
krlowsdge ofthe W ord that is in him. I'Iisconferxsion is referred to the practieal and contem plative life. There follows a coasider5
66
The FfldfTr Am bigna
ation on the nails, w itnessing to tlze spiritual resurreetion whiclz one does not beneve tiH expeHenced. A m b je.z384A -C; In M zai/vzzl Pascha - or.45.24:.36.657% Tl' iis and the following dil culty eoncern tlte descent of Christ into heH and his ascension. Gregory speaks of a double descent. M axim us then,besides a m entalgoing down Avith Christ to learn the m ystery, explains the frst descent as that to save us w ho are still in thisbody,the seeos. d asthat forthe saving ofthesouls ofthe dead. A second proposal is that the habit and act of itdquit'y reeeive from
the W ord the return to virtue and knowledge. A m 6 6o-x384D -z38jC: In scpcf' lfvl Pqscka - or.45.24:36.6578 This difheulty responds to the foregoing. It treats of m an's aseension in the abundance of know ledge to the very ileights of the W ord,or as an ascent from the prad ieal to the contem plative life, or fulally,as a passage from a consideration of the econom y to that of theology, whereby m an is lifted up to God as m uch as God has torzle dowm to m azl ::
Am b 6z-x3% C-x388A) In novam D om'inicam - or.44.:;36.6088 These are anagogic interpretations ofthetabenm de,qhich Gregory had m eutioned. The lirst intreprets it of tlze E conomy;the second su tes that it m ay be undezstood as an im age of the visible and hw isible world,or ofthe sensible world alone,or ofm an as com posed of body and soul,or,finally,of the soul considered irt itself. 'lxese sam e considerations are fttlly developefl, at least the last, in M yst z-5,as applied to the churchbuilding. 1 The persons of the Trinîty are introdueed in each section ofthis dië culty:the Father as taldng com placenee or,ms rnirtd,as ideating the work;the Son as effeeting it; the H oly Ghost as pedecting it.
Atnb 6z-. r388ABJ In v t?tzzzl Dominkam - or.44.2:36.6080 This is a single anagogic interpretation of D avid as kirzg,that is Câzist izz is two advents. :: This is a proportion m et with before; see above note :1.
Analysisol/& Singlr Dï#icsfl/i:s
67
'
Am b 6ju JE8C-I3% B: In ' aopfl- Dominicam - oz.44.5 : 36.612C
'l'he dilliculty,m ore fully expounded than usual, cousistsin tlkis thatelsewhere Gregory ealls the Sunday ofthe Resurrection the m ost sublim e of allfeasts and here he ealls the N ew Sunday m ore s'ublim e than the sublim e, H ow explain this contradietion ? M axim tls lirst notes that in this sam e oration Gregory had rem arked that one should never stay put, butever advance) H ethen gives three variants of the sam e explanation, nam ely that the first Suzlday denotes the Resurrection, tlze second its com plem ent deifcation.
A m b 64..z9&.)BC: In novam D om inicam - or 44.8 : 36 6168 ,
.
I katetkatfamiliayity tltatpassestkr 'ough f& aiy. 'IAM Sextremely concise plzrase of G regor'y M axim us interprets as said of fem inine
asceties who by looking out the window on passers-by of tlle ofher sex fotm d oecasion of sinning.
Am h 6j-I3% D-zs :B:f' ?lPenteczstsn - ov.41.z:36.4:$28 Gregoz' y,in explaining the Pentecostal num ber, had said that 7 m ultiplied by itselfequalled 50 m inus onq,wlzich on6w as t-aken from the future age,a osm which is at ozlce tlze eighth and the :1st or rather one and everlasthlg;and there the sabbath of souls m ust fm d its terzninus.
And M axim us cornm ents. In Seripture the num ber ' ),has l'nn',y sip zifcatifm s; evn taken as rest it stillhas a.m ultiple gv sfs. H ow ever to avoid overcharging his com m entary he w ill speak only of .
the post exalted (-I39zA3). M axim u. s tlteu expotm dsthe.three m odes of being, tlmt is being,
wem being (or,correlatively ill-being CII,D 9),everlasting well-behzg' whieh lmst gives Erm ness to the nature (-I39zBI5):;. :7 The tllem e of these three m od. es of being is frequent in M axqm us.
Itoccurstwicein Char (3.z3-a5;4.Jz-z3);in Thal64-728. :.;iltAmb 7-zoz3c,
,
A' m b zo-III6B0, Aznb 4z-zaz5B8, r: J29A p B7, :34.8178:; in Thoec zz56. At this chapter von IBAIZHASAR gives a com m entarr. citâng Clem ent of '
Alexahtlrja and Aristotle (Di6 Gn.(Qxf..j z6g). He could there have cited Proclus lElnme%L% 0/ Theology propxsitions 43, 9z, z72, :9a). The second .
Molle, well-being' ,is there in evidence only in prop. 43; but, as D cdds re-
68
Tlv é'/zff' dr .4O krr
And thisisthemystieally blessed Sabbath ofGenesis (-I392CI4) and the eighth and first day (I39zDI3). riaally M axinm s gives tw o other brief consideratio' ns of the
same theme (-I393A5).'Compare 'rhoec 1,37-39 LDie Gn.Cent.jj 151-53), 'rkal 65-756C. co, sffrs - or.41-4 :36.43. 38 A m b 66-z3p3B-z)p6A )ln fdrs/tr ,
Gregory w as laying him self out to eite exam ples of the num ber 7 from the O1d Testam etlt. H e refet-s to Elias raising the widow's
son (3Kings17.18F.whereinfactthenumberis3notg)andthetrial saezifce with the false prophets (3 Kirlgs r8.34). M axim us explainshow the num ber7 iscontained in others. 64 ts a to the 6th power;add the originalunit to this 6 arld you have 7. (7r the:D o itJgtzfl and tztltird fïvlfl:I doubled is z,whieh tripled is6; add the originalunit and you have 7. Ilzthe firstdeeade 7 isa virgin
num ber;it neither begetszloris begotten. Three isthe firstvirsn, for though it begets (6 is its multiplein the decade)it is not begotten. 'rhis Gregory had stated elsewhere. O r,a better explanation: considering the good,1he operatitm of the triad,thatistke cardinal virtues,togetherwith theH oly 'Priad itselfone arrivesatthe virginal7. This diG eulty begius w ith w hat appearsto be a direet quotation from the o1d m an. '
A m b 67u 3p6m z4o4C) In wlzezz/zfw /z,zl - or. 4:.4 :36.4. 3. ' 3Cf. Gregory, explaining the m ystery of num bers, refers to those conu ined in the gospel accounts of the m ultiptieation of loaves
(Matt z4.z. 3-al and z5.3a-J9).
M axim us starts out to give a sum m ary explanation ; for tlle inteltigenee, he says, is already w ell exercised in the theoretical
habit by thjngs already said (I396B). This back-reference to his own work is best satisfied, I tlzink,by tlle long series ofScriptttre fgures taken frozn tke Pasclm l oration,A m b 45-60, m ore especially from Am b 51 on. .
m ar. ka itlhis preface (p.x),tlzisisa theologicaltreatise wlzerem undane and eth cal m atters are touehed on but incidentally. It is perhaps not without signifcance that am ong the -4Aplfg' lw this triad occurs in tlm se wlwre the antioHgenist polem ic is m ost m arketl
Andysis()/th6SingleDiFstdties
62
The good intention to be sum m ary last.s tm til he com es to the lz baskets of M att 14.z0. Of tlkis num ber he gives 8 distinct .
explanations (-I4oIB). Maximus then linishes his explanation of tlte narrative iu M att 14 by a brief tonsideration on the baskets
(I4OIC). 'I'he narrative of M att 15 is m ore briefly (lealt witll. 'Phere are firstzconsideration on the7loavesand the($days (-I4o4A):8. There follows a briefconsideration on the 4ooc,m en antlthen a yet briefe:
one on the 7 baskets of fragznents (-I4o4CIz). The whole fiads its Gnisitin a re-dtation of the final wotds of .
Gregory tilat had served as the diKculty (-I4o4CII-I3). A m b K8-z4o4D -x4ojC: In P rz lsltrctpsf,s - or. 4:.16 :36.449C ,
Gregonehad said: ged. 'rhe Iatter is a m enx m etttion.tlke form er does not toueh tlke m ain question. One m iglzt further ask if there be not a refutation of Origenist doctrine in ep.;-433C. There the error of som e m onks isconsidez' ed who asse: rt tlze
resunw tion-body to be stlbjeet to the same conditions of change and
.
m e-
tabolism as at present ptevail save fo' r the im possibility of flylng. It is .
Theophilus of Alexandria (ep. pasch. I.T: $,15 - amoug Jerome's letters cxp.96,PL 22.783,785)who pre-sents this as olte of Origen's errors nam ely tlm t ' the resun ection will be in bodies of Iike condition w' ith ours. but inc-
luding m ortality. There m ay be som e tzolm eçtion between the error of M nvim us; contem poraries and, tllose im puted to O rlgen over two centuries earlier. but there is not identity. See also chap. V , n. 23. .
: D if Jarfxcï/ëù, z.z.r, GCS, K OSTSHAU Io7lf. 3 The other instances I speak only of the êve.ç xdiv lo'fdxdjv, in tite
74
Th6 x6' /f4/4lfpl 0/ Orskelff-
Given t'he very special Origenist Hng hl Gregory's pkrase,M axim tls could not w ell do otlzer than undertake first a refutation of the henad of rational creatures, A nd this all the m ore so that his adversaries w ere still active, m isleading otlzers by the assum ed patronage of Gregory 4. M al m us' own exposition of the phrase is ftm dam entatly to in'terpret it of the fall into sin and wretchedness, not ofthe fallinto bodies. It does not then referto genesis,the eom -
ing-to-be of m an, as in the Origenist myth (Am b 7-1090D6 and Io% C3-Io).
Anfecedents/()r Summqrizing orkt,Alfsvlin the'Henad N ow our purpose is to see what anteeedents M axim us m ay have had forcencentrating his polem ic in the refutation ofthe henad. To this end it willbe seen,1 believe,to be suflident to eonsider only the seeonct O rigenist eontroversy,tha't iu the 6th century. U nfortunately the wtritings ofthe 6th certtury Origenists are alm ost entirdy
lost. A treatise such as the Book t# H oly f. fïtrrnf/l:t)s m ay illustrate the tem per of som e m onastie cireles,but rem ains outside the m aln stream even of Evagrian-origenist thinking. It w illbe tm necerssary to consider it here :. Y et ms our purpose is not so m ueh to seek out the various form s of Origenist dod rine but rather to see how
theorthddox estim ated aad rejeeted it,thedocumentswedo possess are not entirellr inadequate. I shall review theln in chronological order. D . Pvincipiis are i. tl K oetschau's editîon at p, 159:6 altd. l6oL'; bRt botlt
these are take. n from Justiniazt's letter and anatizemasof55: 5lsee DIEKAMP, p.9zl' and 9z24).whiclz as IiIIKAMP (p.97) points out is concerned with the contem porary Origenist.si!l Palestine. BARDM (RSR Io (I9zo) zz4-5z L 6 /4. 1./. , dt. ç Jo rï atcbôn tf'orijrlAl: et /' I4. ç/ïlï41)) abountls in the same sense. 'flze plzraseology there used canuot be justly cited.as Origen's own. * Am b . ;,-1069A and zo89C6-I5, êrhe ill foaurda %(L * rçpocdlrrt:v of the .
latter passage seetns better underst (1 of the fatlzers under whose nam es thee se m en sheltered their erroneous dod rin. e than of the false teachers th- n- lves.
â 'lxe B ook ol H oly H ieyotheos: this title was added later probably by the author him self due to the iniluentze of the Corpus D ionysiasum . 'l'he m nitlbody,Evagrius carried to extrem es m ay be tlatecl about 5zz-5r6.
See tlze stttdy of HArsHsxm OChr 3o (19:3) I76-2II (fasc.86),based on the eflitlon of P. S. M Axsl. l London 19a7. After the diseovery of the less
expurgated Syriac Evagrius by GUILLAUMONT (Rru. (f: f'H ist. des & lfgions.r42 (:*52) 156-zo5j tlle extrem e. s of Xvagrius lzim self areuncertain.
Chattrr1.M axim bfs JA?,;IOrigenism
1$
Joltn 0/ Scytlopo'kis The Iirst witness is Jolm of Scythopolis in his com m entary on the Pseudo-D enis â. The charaeter of the references and citations of Origem and E vagrius iu this com m entator forbids that one place it in the m ore advaneed stagés of the reerudeseence of Origenism in Palestine,that is sabsequent to the death ef St Sabas in 53z; yet O rigenists are already interpreting the text of D enis in accord w ith their doetrine. Therefore w e m ay rouglaly date these eom m entaries
from the time ofNonnus'entranee into the New Laura ($14)to the death ofSabas (53z)7. The passages iuteresting us now are those com m enting the 6th and gth chapters of the E cclesiastical H ierarcky. The analogy of the heavenly and ecelesiastical hierarehies is not com plete in that in the former there is no order of pttrifed beings (EH 6, 3, 6,-Pt4 .
3.537A),corresponding to the m onastie su te. Denis strongly af-
.
lirm sthat tke angelic orders are stainless;tlzat should one for argum ent's sake allow that som e fell then these are aggregated to tbe group of apostates - the heavenly group rem aining ptlre. Y et even so there is a certain puritication, a Gcd -given illum ination of things not yet known to them ,
As to tbisJolm ofSeythopolislirstnotesthat:''Thereisno stain in any of the heavenly pow ers, as think Origen and those that aecept llis ideas,saying that in proportion to the turning-away each of the heavenly ranks is allotted sueh and such a nam e and order and is bound to a lighter lmdy ill reproof for llis turlling to evil''. Then, having explained Denis'hypothetiea!coneession,he eoncludes:'fLet no one then of Origen's initiates think that the present passage suppoz'ts his perverse opinion, sayittg that there is ever a fall a restoration,and again a fall of the heavenly m inds, as O rigen says in the
lrst book of the De J'riAlcï/ffs: 'So the whole argum ent shows,I think,that every rational (being)ean com e from any other rational
(beilzg) whatsoever.' And shortly,after:'After the consummation ' H . Urâ vtm BALTHASAR Sch I5 (I94ob 33 Das Scholïsxztteyà R s Johannss pt). Ssythopolist indtcates the genuine passages .pertat 'nlng to Origen. These passages ms they occur in the reprlnt of M igne. are PG 4.65CD , 76D -77A, x7zC-I73!B, z' 7:B , z76BC, 337C-34oA , 545C, 5498 . 7 Cb.. M osI fm > , u i 7àtzfcd' tfeAèfssg: et le s#otiàtz/cetftw ixç- : D as Akxd l
vos Chaïktdo. I (Nvûrzburg z95a)p.642,gsves the years 5:z-53z.
76
Tkr Jlr/v/fl/itw oj Orkolfsxl?i
ofallthere is agaizltlze flowfng-away tlxtkle ctgl and fall'':. And he cites Evagrius, Cont. 2.78 and 5.19.
As to the purifeation J' ohn says:f'Note that they advanee in
knowledge and that he doesnot say (he,that is Denis,not the they of the printed text) the demons are purified because of those who say that the dem ons too are saved with the saints,in their m ythol-
ogical apocatastasis *. Clearly John is fam iliar with the Origenist m' yth;but he hms
not com e to speak of it by the technicalterm :the henad t# yational beings. A s 1ze llad occasion to speak of heavenly pow ers and not of m en,there w as no reason for m entioning the preexistence of souls.
'rhe apocatastasis is m entioned by this teehnieal nam e. There is no attem pt to reftlte O rigenism , rather to show that the text of
Denis does not admi of an Origenist interpretation. Tllere is no m ention of Didym us; bttt Evagrius is cited, as we have seen. and
again elsewhere (in CH 7.4 :PG 4.7617);but'irt this latter plaee he is qualifed as impious, perhaps to eounterbalance the seeming approval ofthe person im plied in the approval of this pad icular
citation (unless of course the epitbet bq the addition of som e c/pyist). ' '
8 12or the citations frozn Origen see D e Jlrïv f/lïï. v 1.6.. 3. tK orelpscH' A'c
841*-21) the Greek te' xtwasadded later p.cxxiv. The textofJohn follows: PG 4.z7zCz-8' . ov ep'la llpxl' rlzyl vellv 'rbv:%&v oéeadow tkmdpeam ?p:oktila 'Qmyévqç,Arakoî ' vtk xoG ov ipeovoihvxu,(jlo xovteç,& t xusè x' iv âvcloylav 't' fiç Jrxwcw oa' lg êxem ov vt bv oë avltov xciypivakv vllv ' gollivôe xutôvolzatyltw xllxtqçv êxlqeisaxe, xuk gépam v lvtrêélqx v ltzcroxlpobg,etg auzstlv ' rfiç éttm r yw lat 'stl
xek ov zr zMpw oxfiç. z73A2-zI:M$ o5v xtç ' rêw 'Qvtye'vovg pa e v obéo' êftl 'rè xcpùv lqxèv o' uvqyoe îv % xaxoaltrw ttfrro: öé1'(l,(pe xft w, 5vt (lek zrvtn w xtu âvtixktow , xak e xtia-rfsgtç xt;w ofppavloàv ' yûvmia: vo/v, &% (pnesv *oetye lvng p' èv
lv o Ilet't&èy.qv rsetâ'rtp kh %$,olhtgç. 11eo volvvv h.6w g, o'fp/ak, :elxwts xaç, aëv 1;'n aoxè loykxùv âzB rtttvxèç o' frrtvoco' i?v lm kxo; ôfvtlg' êqp yevém'h t$:* xttt
p' tvlk jktqéttlaâystléytov'1$MeO x?j1atztl im ' réb ç,xtm v f' iaë levslg xfzlxfzsïizrremtç Wvevcu,..1 9 John's text seems to imply that a puzo cation of dem onsis possible yet w itlm ut their salvation. Then D erzis' shrew dness consists in tltis tlzat he avoids m ention of such puriscation altogether lest it give an opening to the Origetdsts. Sucil a pm u eation seem s at ârst sight unthinkable'
but it is the precise sense of QD 1, 3 of wltich I treat at lengtlz in the last chapter, though there the referenee is apparently only to men. Jolm 's text rtm s: PG 4.:7j 5T 881:: xat c' nltelmx t G'rt aeoxdasovo' tv Iakyvtijgkv. xaL1 51::
ôltlpovqç o: héyovgs(&1 . nam lN:lfI. l4- ha%etl xamtloeghu,&(k' to' tx çdov vxttç xz afrçol,g lv 1:t1atp'u' lrr/v Ituêetlolzév' n J,rtoxttlxlo. ttjges$fflâ@ oêtn pe' rfk'rlvtiylfôw
Chaptp 1.M aximust-ffOrigenism
77
Bananuphius Baaanuphius and John the Prophetcome up next forconsideration 19. Barsanuphius, an Egyptian and m onk at G aza w riting in Greek,died at an advaneed age about the year 540. The consultations about O rigen :1 w ill date from the iirst three or fourdecades
of the 6th century. ' rhe replies of Barsanuphius and of John are sim ple:Cut yourselfofffrom sueh devilish doetrine;spend your tim e
seeking out your passions. John,however,does allow tlle reading in Evagrius of what is proftable for the soul. Such an answer is typical,but of little help for our present purpose. W e are grateful tllerefore that the questions are set out at som e length. Their 0ccasion w as the reading of O rigen and D idym us and the Gnostîca
ofXvagrius (89zB). The questioneris first coneerned over the preexistence of souls (nude minds). Seripture knows nothing of it; Origen on Tit' us and E vagrius 1: aë rm that it does not pertain to
ecclesiastiealtradition. In proof that there is no apocatastasis,the questioner quotes the gospel. 'l'he questiolzers insist'for the defenders of these doetrines w ottld involve Gregory N azianz.elz and Gregory of N yssa in their errors. Tile situation is clear. In certain m onastie d rcles the w litings of Origen,D idym us and E vagrius are current;those wile espottse their
peculiar doctrines (preexistence and apocatastasisj seek cover and patronage in the writittgs ofthe Cappadodan G regories. A sitttation
this that the theological events of Justinian's relgn will not have changed in substance and that w ill be found pea isting even in the zt, h century.
Tke Edict (# Justinian 54. ' y If the inform ation on 6th eentury Origenism given us in the w ritings of Barsanuphius m ay be dated only w ithin a few deeades,
thatcontained itlthe edictofJustinian may be dated to the month: Janttary 543'1:. W ith the anathem asofthisedietmay be eonsidered 18See HAVSHSRR, DSp 1 (1937) z255-62. t1 P G 86.892-90:. 12 Cent. 2.64 69: see ( PRANKISNBERG p. l74, I76. 'Phe eitatiotts obviously refer to these cllapters bat diverge fronl the SyTîac text especiatly 2.64.
13 DISKAMP p. 42. conErm ed by S' rslx (AB 62 (1:44) T79) against ScHwu ttz. %.
78
T& Rf%dation ol Orfge/lfls'?x
the abjuration of Theodore of Seythopolis,whieh dates almost Io years later Decem ber B 2 11 In hissttldy ofthe edict Bardy 1:supposesJustiniau to be quite dependent on the libdlus of the m onks Sophronius and Gelasitts,
lnade at the request of Peter of Jerusalem le though tllere can bq
no proofofthis so long as that libdlusisnot to be föund (butwhy should it have been preserved independently, if the em peror took
it overin itis edict?). ror our pttrpose it is enough to see how the
.
edict approaches the O rigenist question. Bardyacom paring the text ofthe letterw ith that oftheOrigenian exeerpts and the linalanathem as,eondudes17 thatsthough in the atlthor's view Ozigen is responsible for sueh errors,yet the docum ent llas ill view the contem porary Orig 'enists;it is their errors that aredam ned in the anathem as. This is a hiddem harm ony and so a m ore forcefuleonfrm ation of what one m ay read in the textitself:frThey stand up for O rigen and his H ellenic,A rian,M anichaeart doetrines,
by which he fellinto the pit. H ow ean'such benum bered with Christians,standing up as they do for the person of him who was eager to pass on H ellenic,M anichaean,Arian aud other heretical stui.'''e 'fhroughout the letter there is a whole series of such passages1*,
the last of whiclz,ilzJustinian's surnmary (207 15),speaks explicitly ofthe Origenists.as ofthe object ofthe letter. The plaees referring to O rigen alonç are for the m ost part an aside, qualifying the doctrine stated as pazt of O rigen's ravings,m yth,or blasphem y a4.
14 The letter to Menn. ms or edict of Justiniam PG 86.945-98917,has been edited by SCRAVARTZ with full annotation of Sctripture alld patrlstic
citations in the 3rd tome of itks Acta (ibAlsïlïtlr' lfza Oocum. (r94o) I89-zz4. I B. &xDV b, as studied this docum ent in llis artide cited above, note 3. The Libetlus of Theodore is to be found in PG 86.232-36.
15 RSR to (z9zo) cz4-sz. 1e Lije oj w Ntzhcxç,cap. 85 ed.SI:I. lWARTZ, Kyyitlos. zglresfi, 1? az 1yt. cit. in note I.5, p. tz39.
1B Lette.r to M ennas,ACO T(11 189*-1901 (PG 86.947)I...'QkjsyévorgTs
sçtk 'e v çEu qvtxt' f,v xlt 'Avetavtxlv xgl M tm y- xtbv om ofiR yydxœv âvtbvm ofzv-
'rttt,6/ Jiv lxelveg elg Istsovov êvfrœozv. ot &è xotofixosaf k êt'vtwzudXpdenlvok o'evtp kêp.e. ïcrtkttkaeogéaov d' vnxoe pzvo:' rè 'Eu sv(tw xalMtwqulœv xttk'AQ6w vfsv xal xk' 6h':lh# Origenism
83
Thevdoye (# Scythopolis The Iibellus of 'rheodore of Scythopolis stands in close relation
with the anathemas of Jttsthlian's edict2s. Three quarters of it
are identiealwith the latter. Tbree anathem as (4, : r1,Iz) of Tlleodore are without eorrespondent ill tlze ediet. N evettheless, tlte
last (Ia)lilldsa base iu the XVI and 77. X exeerpts,though Theodore rnakes in addition explieit m ention of the passing away of Christ's body. There rem ain therefore the 4th and the 11th which express dod rines not expressed in the edict, nam els that the kingdom of Christ willcom e to an end and that w e shallone day be the equals of Christ,the W ord uuiting him selfto us as he did to ltim that was
born oftheVirgin (PG 86.2. 33,z36). Itwillbenoted thatthisgreater sptxcification of Origenist errors relates particularly to Christ. These points are taken up again in the 12th to 14th anathem as of 55:$.
Leontius t# Byzantium Richard has proved that the bellicose Leontius the H erm it,
atlthor of the: Advêrs' ln Nestorianos Tf Eutyckianos libvi III (PG 86.1268-1396) is to be identifed with the Origeztist colleague of Nonnus,Leontius of Byzantium ,m et with in the Lije ()/ Sabas:* Richard likexvise date.s tllis work betwe% 543 and 545. Veontius anthropology, defning the soul as a.pedec't substante witllout velation to the body,m akes possible a defense of the O rigetlist doetrine ofthe preexistence ofsouls and with that w ould pernzit the Isochdst doctrine. Leontius' strategy w as to give.the appearance of the atm ost ortitodoxy;his w riting therefore giées us no idea of tike O rigertist position.
Cyïil ol Scytkopolis
In this review of6th century Origertist doeumentsI have joined 'rheodore ofSeythopolis Nvith the edict of Justinian,becatuse ofthe
close relation of these doeuments. Similarly I join in discussion Justinian's letter to the synod of 553 M'ith the notiee of CyHl of Scythopolis due to liis interview '? with Cyriacus in the spzing or M D R KAMP, z25-29.
': L6/o' nce t /4 Byxanse,#ltzïf-ilOyigéniste? REB 5 (1947)3:-66;seeespecially .56-60;for the date 5z.
'
:' Lih ol Cyle cis' s, SCHWARTZ, Kyyillos...,22p7-z3I1:.
84
1-h6 l'e/sfe/' kzs p/(ïrigenisn%
sum m er of 546 *. Cyril dotzbtless had notes of this interviem as he had had for his lives of Xuthym ius and Sabasaband wrote from them . The tltry say which he uses eacll tim e to introduee a point of dangerous doctrine, seem s to indieate as m uelt,though naturally one oem uot be ceztain that Cyrii's fnal redaction has not been iniuenced by subsequent developem ents or by the letter to the synod. W ith these docum ents we ean afford to be m ueh briefer. In fact all the poillts of Origezlistrl m erttioned by Cyriacus are fotm d,
though aot at alli1zthe same order,in Justinian,exceptforthe lat-
ter part ofthe third point (zgoet), natnely that as Christ (tllat is,' tlleex/h'ud,notthe seeond Person ofthe Tritlity),fashioned the world, so in the restoration rationalbehlgs,even dem ons,ean fashion eons. Other than this Cyriacus m entions the bam shapedness of the resarrection bodies and their Iinal destruetion,frst of a11 Christ's, the equality of a11 with Christ in the restoration. Such doetrines are said to sprirtg from Pytltagoras,Plato, O ligerty Evagrius, Didlem us. Cyriacus' read ion is entirely in line with that of Barsanuphius. Should lzot these m onlts far rather have attended to the viztuespthe
monastie virtues,and stlbjeeted the body with fastings and prayer
than give themselves to sueh sophistries (23017-:2). 18 TMS inttxrview is dated hkre Ll-ile 0/ Cyviacwg, Kyeiltos...,zzgt-l) within the 5 years of Cyriacus'stay at the grotto ofCharlton,thatLq 542-47
(see the chrottology of Cydacus'life zlzralrf; tlle reckoniag 1s te be made from Jan. 1.449. date of Cydacus'birth). The public retzr (z2911). after which atld on account ofwltich John the Hesythast sent Cyrilto Cyriactzs, willbe the sam e pablic war.which the Origenltsm ade against the ortitodox, as meutionetl ilz txe Lifs oj S' e tz. ç 85 (:9:25. It was after tilis titat the fathea of klze Gteat Laura asked tlteir abbot Cvelasius to m esent their sitaation to tlle em peror. This voyage waa utltlertaken in tNe sum m e.r of
546 (DIRKAMP, 57). The interview then M4ll be izt the spriug-sum mer of J46. Note that by this tim e N onuus antl com pany are reestablishetl in tlte
N ew Xaura. In reckoning the date.s Diekamp is to be followed rather
than Sellwartz tsee . E,STstx,AII 6z (z944) :69-86). Schwartz'lndice: are rather uaclear as to the com ings and goihgs of Cyril. The following is tlte
funllam entalsclteme:Cyrilenters the monastery ofEqtllym iusin Jtlly 544; he remains ftxeclthere,save forvisitsto John the HesyclzastorCyrlacus,tfll passing to tlze New Laura on Pebruary zI,555 (zq91(b4t)afterthe expulsion of the flrigenista itt the autum n of 554. O nly after som e 2 years from tikis
date 40e.s he become a member ofthe Great Laura,early in 55; (8r ). 1: Liln f# Euthymius 6o. Kyyillos.... 82Rff.
Chatto.r1.An xï- tu and Orfgolïs-
85
Justinian to the Synod .z ;.5. ? In the 15 anathem as of Justiaian the ' nous Christology,which wasimplied only by Cyriaeus,is prominent and explieit (anathemas 6,8,9);it Ls a necessary presupposition of the Isoehristic doctrine (anathemas Iz,I3) as also of tlae Protoktistie,which seem s rather to be end saged in the 8th azlathem a. The classical'Origenist m yth , apart from these Christological surchargings, is expressed ratller in the znd and 4th anathem as. It is of interest to note that a11these
errorsare laid to tile charge ofPythagoras,Plato and Origen (Diekamp,9013) or to Pythagoras,Plato and Plotinus (9611) and finally Origen isto be anathematized with the errors (99$. As in the edict so here Evagrit!s attd Did' ym us are ltot nam etl84.neither have the classieal heretics, Arius and M ani, auy place. W itll the Christological aberrations and other oddities he' re condenm ed, we are not coneerned. 'fhey seem scarcely to have ' com e w'ithin M axim us' pun -iew 3l. A t the very end of the letter oecttrs a statem ent of doetrine rephrasiug a thesis m et w ith in the edict: ffBut holy Chureh follow ing the divizle W rit afiirm s that tite soulw as form ed together v'ith tlle body,and not one before, .tlle
other after,aeeordittg to Orken's mischievous doctrine '' (961'-1a' see above p.8z). * W ilat, however, does m ost nearly concern us is the seem ingly increased appreciation of what O rigenism is This is Srst evident .
in the frequent oceurrenee efthe term henad t# rationalbeings. W e llave seen above (p.73)that the term isfound in Origen and iu one of Justinian's exeerpts;yet it rem ained unnoticed and unused. ln our present docum ent,how ever,it oeeurs no less than Io tim es or 6 if we discount the parallels 3z. It is a term which ' G II later serve
:' Evagrius ls itt faet cited (f%xJ. 2,78 and 5.zz - to be corrected from 5.z9) in the 5th anathem a (DG KAM. P 9z1-le and 923-9) but without the siightest indieations of m ovenience. The sam e citations are founc' t
irz John of Scythopolis PG 4.I73A, 'see GTJIIAAUMONT.p.r75 f.Cent.2,z7 isfound in auathema :4.IDISK.tM: p.9517-25 also Cnnt.4.18 in the finalphrase (93B%-*t) of anathema 8 (GTJIIAAIJMONIG p. aoz). 3: Christ and the putting-off of bodies are found togetite/ in Thal 6o-6z5A B ' see above p.75 atld note I. z! The term htnad is found ill the antl, 3r(1 alzd 6th artathem as with
parallels in the letter (DISKAMP,9o:B 911: gzlfj; in anathem a 7 and :4 938,6)51s)without parallels artd in theletterwithoutr parallelin an anathem a (6?1p1%'3V)
86
TA J?#rgNor;oj t7,+ z;*
M axim us as a frequent designation for the O rigenist error 33. N ow the m ere use of sud t a term w ould not be of m uch siguilicaztee unless with it were connected a certain insight into the error. 'Phis is in fact the case.
Jttstinian (or his scribe) says, enum erating the errors: ''And that there willi)e a totaldoing away ofbodies,the Lord frst putting
away his om zbody,alzd (then)allthe rest;atld that allwillbe carH ed tzp again ttl tlze sam e tltzity and becozne m inds,as was the case
in the preexistence...'' (94:1-11). Again, at the end of the 13th anathem a:r'Ifany one say... (tllat)a11willbe on the right hand of God,just like their Christ,as also was the case irttheir m ythic ' preexistence 1et him be anatllema ''(958-1:). And in the 14th:T()ffl&'F (Amb 7-zo7zB, above p. 98), and therefore proceeding from and inherent in a nature or substanee. Later he will write:..the power is from the substanee and in the
stkbstance''(TP I-3:$BII). Y et 1et us not get ahead of ourselves. W e should first look te the aatecedents of this other triad. I say purposely of the triatl for of any one or two of the term s alone there would be a vast array of texts to review , from the beghm ings of Greek speculation on.
Th6 Anteca ents ol f//e Trîad Thetriad assuch islirstfound in the DeM ys* ïfsofJamblichus in ru ponse to Poa hyry's ninth qûestion:t'In w hat does a daim on diier from a hero or from a soul,as to substancejas to power,as to
Io4
Th6 lkz/sffzzlïel oj Og#dwï&??l
operation ''1. 'l'lle response does nothing to develope the m eaning of the triad. In this, its ârst appearanee, it seem s aceepted as a
com monplace. Again in zrodus' Elements oj Tkeology e we lind: ''Every ihtelligence has its existence, its poteney and its activity in eternity ''. O nee m ore the triad is rather taken forgm nted ; the subsequent exposition however nm nifests the real and logical eonneetion betw eem these tllree term s. There is then no surprise when we lind this triad in thePsettdoA reopagite. T he Grst text, in CH 11.2-284 D says no m ore than that irl a11 divine intelligences these three are distinguishedl substance, pow er, operation. The second,in D N 4.1-693B, appears to equate the three, to hypostatize them , rather than to place them as ordered aspects of one whole, The tllird text,in D N 4.23-7z4 C9, occtlrs in the m idst of the treatise on evil w ith its know n relations
with tlze Prodan D e ' pltzîpz'zfzzi s' ubstantia. In the Prodan text,parallelto the D ionysian at this point,the question turns on the badness
ofthedemons (D6malorum snbst.jj40-44),tobefozowed by similar questions regarding heroes and souls - the very sequence fotm d in Porphyry's qttestion above. N ot urm aturally D enis has om itted to m ention heroes. Y et thougll Proclus supposes the doetrine of
natural operation (...'Tangelus et daemon 'et Deus qui semmdum substantiam sem per ipsius ordinem unusquisque salvare natus est... operantur sem per seeundum naturam quam aeeepit unusquisque ''
j46,p.zI6 ed.Cotlsin) he does not name the triad whieh now oecupies our attention. In faet w e have here to do with a eom m on doetrine,sasceptible
of faeile expression in the triad sbfbstance,power,c'/drrflfit- . It was only subsequently that it seem ed necessazy to explain the m zderlying dod rhte. It is sueh an explanation that we fnd in the printed seholia on D etzis 3. H ere w itla eaeh occurrenee of the triad there
1D6 xsfyslfyïf, s of JAMBIJCJITJS (ed.PARTHSY 1857) P.xxxii: Afdlzœv ljofpoç xakvtqik 'rûvb xc' ryoo tfvv :ldtpé: kpek ' q xgxlk Dfwfvpw ' li xctx'lvétceuw ;
'
The reslxm se ks given on p.67. Por the authenticity of thfs treatise see
the note of R. Rta vss, ArckH istD octtLitf w/P. fz1 z' p (z949) aoz'. 1 PRoclm s, Elnments prop. z69 (ed.Dodds p.:46):Illk voîk lv alf vv: ' oiv ' tv oo lxw ëv bxcl ' r' llv êtsvtv sv )/, q1 T$v /vétcelav. 3 Of the scholia I hez' e dte voN BALTI. IASAR (Seh z5 (1940) z9, :o) m tlicates that ' the two on DN al'e found hz tlze Syriac. I use tlzem here as
' being of Jolm of Scythopolis. Sve the subjoined excursus (pp. IIv-zt) for a discussion of the scholiasts.
:70 //,> 1I.Tàe Triqd:Slis, 5ffdsr,PowerOjzrrz/ft-
Io5
is explidt eom m ent o11and explanation of it*. Irt the first hlstance an illustration stlflices:substance is the nature of iire,power its i1-
luminâtive quality, operation is the power's effeet ttlzrosézeglzal: to illum inate and to bul' n . In the com m ent on the seeond D ionysian passage operations in heaven are said to be hypostatized sub-
stances (lvvxöezatol elgt xal otxrlttl z4oC8). But the fullest treatm ent is the third,where again the exam ple offireisused,though its proper'ty this tizzle is w arm th. O bserve that w hile D eztis does rnention
habit (likç DN 4.23-725A12),John Of Scythopolis develope it,explailling power and operation by the relation obtaining between Gperation and habit.w hieh last ylolle he defm es. Thus a tetrad is im plicit' . substanee, power, habit, operation. N ow it iseuriotls that i11
Myst5-676D and 677C (itistheonly instanceofwhich Ihave knowledge) Maximus employs tlzistetrad,though in quiteanother context. The following,I tllink,m ay be retained from tkdsbriefconsideration of the antecedents of the triad: substanee, pow er, operation. The underlying doctrine, in origin Aristotelian,llas becom e part of the com m on N eoplatonie heritage;the triad as such is Srst found in
the DeJf fysffrrffs ofJamblidms, as a eom monplaee. Johtt ofSeythom lis by hiscom m ent aecented thecasualuse ofit m ade by D enis. M axim us,to m y knowledge, is then the frst to use it extensively. N or is it really surprising that M axim us should so develope the' triad. I1z the letter to the Sieilians,a defense of itis orthodoxy and one of his latest tractatess M az m tzs says: àg lèefqtatîon of(lriqenîsnb
xdc'rlç itjtoxtx'q hv xyvq'cEfz'ç ( 'iaii:ttpftlv a 'lsèv vélog fbg ah sov 'lxotttrlz. Y ho ec 1-10: l'ldcqg o1v 'ft' ,véce. 4 ç xe xal xt4:,,.% 1) xfAv 6vvow xGtjtec4' t'qcxql v' q'gstt'g 'e v iv' rftw dlq4h xGt xéàog' va oç ltrvlv 6 êelsç, (bç N epyfvv,
ltrtïv t$ êE?)ç, J)g li tt' htog yeysvn- 4à), * o' hx auozlov' fsflFce: xat xtk gévœv xal 3c q' N o' p xwovizévttw : &Lka ztllva,o(g aal rj1t(3 tvtjvopd-
xql elg tmzèv vnxv tyxztffptv xoiqgo- Nvtls.flex.?jydy âtr. rsv J)çêqptovpjzévœv. y4g- xaï gstrd' r' rjç, ( bg xEelw ap' lh.
11 a' hto' p. b'* ,T' qgtyxatDi*a'Nog, xtzt Elg a' ôvèv xti advra. Tho ec z.3b:
adcng Dl:(Imtrlx' lç ' rfiv Yvsfzw xt-
rdctl lsà tpvckx' l ap?)ç lvépyesav
v' n'trslt)ç apoEasvoshtxç $ yévecsg, xlvnckt ;,x' hg Itév 'oigttxg pztxextvoxdsng êà ladtre(t 3g zspoextvoeltak ovgévn- xtmisatvoovpévq 3è ' o-ig xtn à pfgtv qe xtvngw. lvethyetag lzertsvng lflxtv,d)ç âpp o' iv El 'o' liv xsvq't7Eftlg zpoEzçLvoEl' rqt xa' rà ' rèv p'écov qmclxf7k :iellqp.-
xaxà pfctv l h '/é'vEgw,xkvq'cEttlg dè gl'v' q- xal rrtiga l'véthyEtq v@ xav' gs' reatvoeikttt xavtï Tfgtv 'n egtdgl/ ;, tztssv löyf p pvgtxf;g xetltyeatgoyévecg Dnàovtiçk xql g' çtictg elvak I zlv'q, téloç lcll vqg ath?l atr' iiç 'rlv iplx.xao sàv ' lhtwltv ('igm'xa- xa'r'qxlvosav o'lhgkfo ot,ç xkvn'frettlç. '
vovjâlljlfzw IX1 (% (. g fpvctxf' ;çMœttp 'yovgtw lxovgat xtz' rtï ' B gégov %qAv xlvqgw .
A m b zo-zzJ7B 8..zo:
o' ù/ v ytkp.(L).o xlêégxnxEv j xtx'rà o 'tftv 'rfiv dvvltw lxdtaov
ô' tlvap,tç ' r tp' t ltutl)g xeùç lvlpye.stw âxtpdpttxoç xtvntFsg. The couviction whieh arises from this confrontation (yetothers could be made,less germane to the presenttopic)isnotofa literary dependence 1:, lm t of a thought and vocabulary m astered throught the labor represented in the discussions tm derlying, and through the effort involved in the com position of the ,fl- ôïgz ltfl. One m ight
perhaps objeet that the Ambigua passages are expositions of the 1: M axim us is quite capable of snch self-copying. 'rhoec z.I %E' 5-zx8oA .See D ate-list.itezn 37a.
Cap
Ckasto'rH .T#6 Triad:Sftùsfl' taz Tbwcr Operativn
109
conciser texts. 'rhis rdation is coneeivable when one rega'rds only the relative length of the confronted texts;when how ever the longer text-s are found not to follow the order, even in a single chapter, of the shorter sueh a relation becom es practically inconeeivable. A nd, furtherm ore the parallelfrom A m b 15 is part and parcel of the antiorigenist argum ent It1 Tho ec I.z, 3, Io this is not directly apparent. The ehapters appear then as a later abstraet not pos.
sibly as an initial sketeh. ' i'his connection with the antiorigenist argum ent gives these ten chapters heightezled im port, introdueing, as they do,tw o centuries devoted to O rigenist doetrine, 'rhey m ust have been so placed at the otltset, in order to sterilize, so to speak, from any germ oftm ozthodoxy,the Origenist ideas to be reproduced in the subsequent chapters. But to retura to our triad. V on Balthasar, noting the absence of the characteristically N yssene term ' . Dtdcvqlm says: ffM axim us fïihrt nur ïiber G regor hinaus die alten aristotd ischen K ategorien fiir diese Seinsbewegung ein ''''. I2or a com m entary on M axim us such em phasis on Gregory seem s to m e exaggerated. 'fhere can be po question that M axim us em ploys the Gregorian eoneept of lim it
and distanee (ôtfigxnjsa) as characteristie of the creature; but this, pritlcipally to give a rational explanation and fram ework to m otion. 'flzisdoctrine ofm otion is largely Aristotelian;by it the false Origenist-Evagrian theses eould be exduded. It is thereforeznot fortuitous
that 6ttietx qyttdoes llot appeaz in this suecint chapter tThoec 1.3), the occasion of von Balthasar'scom m ent,while it doesin the passage of Am b 15 eited above. 'flle M axim ian emphasis falls on m otion, not only in his refutation ofO rigenism bttt in tlze w hole of his phil-
osophico-theological strtld ure. P aralld Tyiads
The triads thelt yévEctg, xlvngtç, trrdgkç and oigtq, ôftvtzjttg, 1.-
éeyeta are properly eorrelative, corresponding to this third'4(q$, gecöaç,séloç. Tlzese several terms corresponé, but certainly are not identical. I have already observed how the first triad eontains
a double eschatological reference (above p. 10. : $). The third m ust also be distinguished. This triad is twice tThoee I.a,4) expressly denied of God;and again it isaffirmed ofhim ('rhoec z.1o). There 11 VON BALTHASAR. D i6 (21$0. ç1. Cent., P. IIO.
zzo
TkeJt#s/z?/ïtw p/ Origênism
is here no contradiction, but a differenee irlthe orders of causality aceording to which tlzese term s'are predicated of creatures and of the creator. Forcreatures tlze form aland m aterialcauses are rather referred;for God the suprem e eë cient eause and last end. In these chapters the distinetion is suflid entfy obvious. lh prad iee how ever there is generally,in the A m bigua, passage in the third term from the e'ssential to the eschatological sense. In one plaee at least the essential sense is very dear:'''Phe naturalpower of each single being is nothing else but the tw deviating m ovem ent
of nature to operation '' (Am b éo-Iz37B8-Io; text given aimve p. zo8). Here operation manifestly oceupies the third position. That tllis operation is also end is lzot m anifest;for M axim us here is defning natural power, and so concludes with operation. But we have already seen M axim us' defm ition of m ovem ent in term s of nat-
ural power. It runs: ''This motion (that following genesis) they call a natural pow er, preasing on to its ow n end or else pmssion, . . .
or else efective operation...'' '(Amb 7-Io7zB9;). 'fhe full
text1: tor our present parpose is at'onee som ewhat disconcerting and very aprom s. D isconeerting, because the m otion term inates '
in its own end (passion oroperation),with indication oftlle overend (if I m ay use tlle term without regard te m odern plul 'osophy);very apropos,'predsely beeause by the indieation of the overend, God him seif, the transition from ozze end to the other, from operation to stasis,is prepared.
W e could then establish a fvefold sequence: 1) God is principle,asereator (:nlzlovtlyög,ysvetnovpydg);z) tlle substance itself is pzinciple ofits motions;3) these motions are the activations ofthe natural powers tending to their goafs;4) the goal,is in one way. the operation itselfor.in another,the result ofthe operation;5)the tendency how ever to the goal is m otivated by G od, the final cause
(téloç, xetltytlatgj). God also intervenes in or supervises the motions;lle does tlzisasprovident ('rhoec z.zo;Amb Io-II33C). Now in M axim us the vocabulary of this sequenee,especially ôfvtlpw and
lvétlyeta (= 3 and 4)isfarfrom rlgid, as he himself aërzrls. f'For stasisisnotthenaturalJperation ofgtmesis,butistheend fornature's
power or operation,or whatever else you would eallit''(Amb I5Tzr;DzI-I3). 'rlle weakest point in the sequence is the fouzth 1: See above Chap. 1, p. 98.
Chapier11.T& Trod:.s'lf& ftlv :PowerOjwr/lïtvl
III
term and its im perm anence under the im paet of the fiftb. In fact it seem s to disappear in A m b 7 w here the fnal rest is spoken of as due to the one operatiou of God and the saints,rather of God alone
(Amb )'-Io76CD). Opeyation,.: 4 Essential M lzlï/drs/tz/fbr pl p/ N ature It w iilnot therefore be out of place here to review som e passages from the .4m bigua where operatioa is dearly an essential m anifee *tion of substance. In expounding an antiarian passage of Gregory there is an opportunity for M axim us to distinguish tw o types of operation. The frst prodaces som ething naturally of the sam e kind
and substance, something quite the same as the producer (Amb 26-I:68AIf). Thism ay beunderstood perhapsofnaturalgeneration or of an im m anent, intelleetual operation 13. M axim us takes it in the latter sense, to render it applitable to the Father, begetting the Only-begotten. The second type of operation nlanufactures
13 'fhis distillction - pf im m anent and transient operation - as to
it.s suistance is m ade by Am s' rottls in the M etapltysiss O 8. zosoaza-t sl. In sum m ary: the ulttm ate w ith som e powera is the use of the faculty M :,IZtlle visualfaculty,sight - anfl nothing derives fl'om the faculty otlze: r than sight. In other cases, there is som e tbing; with thê im usebuilal 'ng . capacity, there is besides the building operation the' resulting hottse. Clearly M axim us does not depend im m edlately from A ristotle. The anovy' m ous scholia and the com m entary of Syrian give no attention to this pmsksage.
ThecommentofAlexanller (QAG I,589f)isextv sîve,butnothing suggests a connection w ltlz 'the w ay M axim us m akes the distinction. In fact his desuiption of the inzm anent lvéeygsœ im plies m ore than a m ere noetic or m ychie operatlon. This m em ber M axim us has anzplified (loubtless so as to rende. r it m ore applieable to the intrattinitadan generation of the W ord. Y etexeept fortltisgeneratlon whaiilzstance of lm m ogezleous,consubstantial
identical production jrom beings can be cited unless this identity be the logicalidem ity of tlze speeies or genus? - Applied to the 'rrînity grievous error would result.- Or would one be better advised despite appearances, to interprbt the present M axim iaa parssage ofthe psyelzic or noetic productlon with reference then to what a later philosophy, also bmsecl on ARISTOTLE
fDe zlxînztz III 4.4zga13-I8),willcall speciese-v/e sstz? 'rhepaasage,understood especially in this latter sense,is of interest for the psychological exposition oftlleTrinity. Butnote that M axim usand Gregory - in M axlm us' O terpretatiotl- m ake use of it only to stop the m ouths of the im pious. There seem s to be no wish to develope tlze thought.
zIz
Tlt6Rtr /o fïezl()/Origenism
from a prejacent material something other than its owé substance (Amb z6-Iz68Az. J-Bz). ' In cornm entilzg another antiariarlpassage of Gregoty, M axim us says; ''12or if we say that the soul's powers,which one m ight well eall a fttliilling of its substalw e, operate in that substance of whieh
they partake,yet (we do) not (say)that they are able to move at all in an effeetive operation apart from the willer's consent... for
tlle deed (dpm v) does not at a11 follew uptm the power when this latter does not have the impulse (1,0afi) of him,whose the power, is,propobing to it the concrete,actual end the power itself lacking
proper existence (llvvxögm voç)'' (Amb z4-Iz6IC2-8, Iz-DI), This passage refers prim arily to the intelleetual faculties; while tllat w hich here follows refers rather to the vital. It is taken from tlze
refutation ofthe preexistence ofbodies: 'fAnd if (the body)be totally bereft cd the soul and its vital pewers, clearly it is dead 3'
(Amb 4z-I336CIz-I4). Thepowersaad operations of the soul are reckoned as esseutially part of the sttbstanee. Of the internal powers, of theught and will, Tve lind a ftlrther determ inatitm in ep. 6.14 W ho irt his senses does not know , w rites M axim us, ''that the neverfailing m ovem ent of the soul about the fair and good isnothing other than a naturaloperation,effed ed with regard to and because of that cause to w hich it owes its being ''
'
(ep 6-4,3aBz-z()), . lzlthe folltpwing letter (ep 7-4368)the metaphysieal im possibility of the soul's substanee ever being cut o;,though
it be but for a time,from its proper eharacteristies (that is the rational and inte/ectual) is roundly aë rm ed. 'I'he soul is thus evet in active exercise of its pow ers. Tt is therefore quite elear tâat neither tlze attainm ent of tlze end norstasisean m ean that a11operation ceases.Itis then oppol-tune to recall M axim us'distinction of stasis,already m et above 11. Tlle stasis of this world of tim e and place is necessarily lim ited,because this is the realm of lim it, B ut this tim ited sfasis reeeives its end at
the adveat of the limitless stasis in wich a11 (alternative) motion rests (Thal65-7, 57CIo-z6oA). This impliesa being in God,an everm oving stasis,a stationary,identiealm otion,an im m ediate and perm anent settiug in the fkrst cause. t: Ep. 6,early. See D qtn-tist item 5. 1: Chap. 1, p. :4.
Cltaptu II.F& Triad:S' lfùs/tzAlc:PowerO/zrlfïf)s
11)
T l' t. Frfl, tf in C/frïstofogïcaf Cokdroveysy The necessities of controversy forced M axim us to plaee yet an other aspect of this doetriue in evidence The first certain antim onenergistie piece is M axim us'reply t() Pyrrhus not yet patriareh, who -
.
had written at some length to'solicit M aximus'adhesion to the /sdrphosof63. 3 lB, Underguise ofrepeating Pyrrhus'doetrine M axim us is carefulto give expression to the necessary principle underlying the w hole question. H e w rites: 'iThat w hieh is m ade up of diverse things nrithout m ixing tbem , by a natm al boad of uniou, both preserves tlleir com ponent natures unchanged and conserves un.
diminished their (several)com ponent powers for the eompletion of a single work '' (ep I9-593BI-5). The principle of the triad is expressed, scarcely m ore; butthen M axim us'pua ose w asto m ollify Pyrrhus,as he later renaarked, not to start a debate It is irtthis sarne vein that in conclusion he asks Pyrrhus to explain the m eanings of lvleyera and the differenee between lvépyetq and èvépyngfx. T he sense is 1o'be attended to, he saxs,not the m ere sound of the w ord This is llot m uch,but itis im portant. The prirtciple is indicated, as also the chief point of difiiculty - aG biguity in the use oflvéeycta. W itllin a year of tilis exehange with Pyrrhtls M axim us had an oppoliunity to express him self m ore at length. A eertain Thom as had asked for an explaaation of dië cult passages; a11 bttt tlte flrst question turn on Christologicalthem es17. It is in the first of these Christological dië eulties that M axinlus, affirrning the natttral oper.
.
ation ofQhrist's humanity,says; p. ltLlknovanceï' a/AsïsjOQP 2 (r9J6) :55,:56:360)cite.s tht Evagrian textthree tim el. In the frst citeation it is suggeasted that Xvagriuk uses a pin'ase not 1l. tq ow ltto expregs ltis own tlzought;in the tllird tlze genu
ineparelzta ofthephraseare suggestetl;thosewho expoultd theLih 0/M osrs Philo, Gregory of N yssa... In any case tlze R vagrian tlxmght wottld bd an ignorance uzllizuitecl because the know ledge that the-re is can neve
u haust the objeet to be known. It is m athematical. On Ute otller lzand there îs a m ystical ignorance (Dionysian one could say) which stp porsa une stv/g dr Arej4cfitm,sogn /'ïvz//ztlq dt?zzdaf'tz- oslr kors tf' érs lois #e l'intelli gence efly-pld- (p. 3s6)- Aze not tbmst laws of tite intelligence,howevet G at neccssity tm de.r which zuan exhts of knowing cotzceptually and witl concepts dependent m aterially at lemst on tlze im ages derivetlfrom witimut Yet forE vagriusisnot tlte utm osthzpurity ofm ind preeisely the overcom inl of titis ncxcessity ? The true location of the difference between Evagrius anf .
D enis w 111 be found not so m uell in the latter's concentration on ecstasi;
as the former'srejeetion ofit better:Evagrius'emphaskson the consequenl role wlziclz vtsion of self is then callecl upon to play. W ith this one sltottk
not om it the Evagdan concept of m otion 1t% bad anll cause of evil.
Cà4/jtv fTT.Ecsstts';s
I49
But this iguoranee creates a diflk ulty in assessing the E vagrialm ess ofthese passages 4s.
It is, so to speak,native in D ertis; yet Xvagrius ean use the term ,though not it w ould seem , as a native expression of his thought. It rem ains then am bivalent 4:. As to thq knowledge of God from self, I w ould note that M aximus accepts the Gregorian position agairzst X unornius, that we do
not properly know the essences of created things (Thal 6o-6z4D; Amb Ig-rzz5D-I228C)and that in the preserzt case itis paired with knowledge ofselffrom God - not,I think, fotm d in Evagriusx Farther this know ledge is here m ade dependent on possessing the divine characteristics. This brings us back to the im age f4p.# manihsfation
wbiell we have met above (PmssageVIIIand V11). A direet treatm ent of this willlead usto a synthesis of M axim us'doctrine in the passages so far discussed.
C. SxrlqlHssls okr M xxrm xx Ilolrrm xE
W lzat is meant by divine tz/fdhzffes (lôkd)g(=l) or ckayacteyistics (yvttletcpmt't,) of goodnesp? A simple statement of what these iditz-flfdz are is found in Char 3.z5. God has eom m unicated four of these to ltis creatures: beixg 6vtw-being, goodness and wisdom . 'l'he two form er are given with lyeisg itself the lattertwo are eonsequent
on proper use ofthe willand judgement. The former is image and by nature,the latter is likenessand by grace 4T. The ever-wem being
and ever-ill-being,of wltic: I shall speak in dealing with the apocatastasis, is of coarse also im plieit in the present chapter. Sucll are the idiom ata 48'from a slightly diferent point of view they are 44 An attem pt to assess'precisely sueh Evagriazzness w ould be futile if b:jr that we w ere to understand tlze quantity of E vagrianness contained irt the M axim ian tum bler; our aim nm st be qnite de erent: to dettvm lue that critical point where the use of the Xvagrian heritage ceaaes to be the use of the Alexandrian ancl m onastie traditfon of whiclz l vagrius was certainly a principalspokesm an atld pa esoverto a dependeltceon Xvagrius tlle system atiwer of Origen's H ellenisticdnspired hypotlzeses, m ixed also witk, N ham , otker strains and certainly V t. II his own speculation. 46 See tlle ârst part of note 44.
*7 One m ay com pare also Char 2.52, cited above note 3z. .
*8The frst to speak of ptwpeyties o/ Go# in a technical sense would seem to have beeu Philo. There is then quâte a lzistory of the concept
touching closely on the que-sfion dfthe uulrnowability of God (the negative theologyj. See W orzsoN's Phiio,II,p. I3off.
No
TkrA' e/f' #/çg/ft?zlojOzr gk4xllçz?;
reckoned as m anifesting the divine and so are rather ealled charaeteristies, gnoyism ata. To see what this'involves, 1et us return to the passages already citedv In Passage VII we saw that ê'God and m an are exem plars
(zçtp a:elyjttzva) one of another... and that m an is rapt up by God in rnind to the unknowable, so far as m an has m anifesfed through virtues the God by nature invisible 4:. Wrhat is this exem plarity
and m anifestation? Justa little abovethe passageeited,in theintro-
duction to Amb Io (see abovep.z4z),Maximus had obsexed that virtue,com pouaded of logos (Mrith the role ofeontrolling the body henee praxîs) and tkeoria, is also manifest through tlle body, though only partially. Virtue, as xtpflxvt: êelt:g ôvvdpzoç, shows -
through the body only some faint suggestiolls (gxsdcptal'tl) of itself. And tttis, not for its ow n sake,but for.those who need to
beformed to virtue by example (xtpaôstyl ztuk) (Amb Io-IIo8BC). l'or virtue is first ofa11a disposition hidden in the deptlasof the soul,
and then appearing in pyaxis through the body (Amb Io-Izo8CI-. 5). 'rhat M axim us speaks here of the m anifestation of virtue in practice as only needful beeause of the unvirtuousand not because of our nature as eom posite of body and soul, is neeessitated by the difli-
culty the Gregozian passage presents (ornission ()f praxîsj. But in fad the m anifestatiou of virtue, in the actual econom y, is quite necesmary for advauee tow ard and attainm ent of God. Advertence
to tltis necessity m ay help to explain M >xim us' use of the phrase
so /tzr as //1, natumal jltlttgr within J& 7Al ptfrmits in Parxsage VIII54 as referring rather to tlle hum an effort for virttte than to the divine qualifyitlg öz present in the sam e context. T lle eharacterizations of the saint by G otl with llis own ckaracteristie.s effect ' sirnultaneously
in the subject the image and AAllzlf/:sffz/ft?' ?sof God. This phrase as I have noted (0n Passage VIII) is Dionysian. The text ilzwhieh it oecttrs (Myst c3-7o1BC) is that forming'Passage IV . W e have therefore the them es of suffering the divine,not being of oneself but of God,and being known from and by tlze God 4: That G011 has m an as his exem pla, r Lq eonceivable only in view of the Incarnation ; this aspect I m ay here om it. :e see uote 4o.
:1 Qv lilying, from the verb aoBûyuset't as here, in tke passisre of the cliville action in adorning with virtue, oecurs in Amb 7-10731)5 (Passage 1);Alnb lo-l1378:4 (the presentinstance)and II4IBz4;ep,:-37: 785; it is used also of creating essences set up w1t. 11 qualities Cbar 4.6.
Chapter f11.Ecsiasis
I5t
who deifies,tile result being that the soul is im age and m irror:a11 - these them es w e have in one passage.
Tlzis im age,then,retlecting God ms in a m irror,is the adorning
ofthesoul(M ysta3)orthe person (Amb Io-II37BC)with the divine idiomata and gnorismata (consisting primarilz in goodness and wisdom )so thatit beeomes an example of virtue an impression of divine power (xtpaxrl)e êelag hvvdttEltv) for othersf 'fhe knowledge of God from self and of self from God,m et w ith in Passage X ,prefaced ms it was by the holy m en being eharad erized by the did ne idiom ata is to be tm derstood then,not in the Evagrian selzse of an entitative setf-vision or vision of the substance of the soul, but ill funetion of the m oral order. 'rhis eharacterization is illustrated by incandescent iron or
light-illumined air (Passages 1, II, VIII); but the whole point of these illustrations custom ary in Christology sz is that the iron and the air,though having tllè characteristics of fire and light, do not entitatively lose their proper characteristics' they are only superseded. P qssage X I
In these regards we are fortunate enoagh to have an exam ple. The saints are itnages and m anifestations. Good. So M axim us,
having expounded the theory (Passage VIII), gives us a case in point: M elchisedech. T ltis illustration extends over tw o colum ns
(Amb Io-II37D-II4IC)so that I have not the willto present it in translation to the reader. The fam ous description of H ebrew s 7.3:
W itlwutfatker,u'if/ltpfzl/motker.7pf//3o' lffgen6alogy: having zldïf/'z,r brginning4)/dayszlarend p/1iy. .lsfflikened totheSon //God & continues a #A' $'ysf/or 6v6r is didded into three,as 1 have plaeed the eolons. The ûrst, the being without, indicates the perfect putting away of natural eharacteristies, eiected through graee in virtue; the second indieates know ledge overcom ing the lim its of tim e and aevum and contem plation surpassing m aterial and im m aterial substanee; tite third, perhaps, indicates the ability to keep unw iuking the eye:3 :: For Pyrrhug M axim us twice explai!ls tlte sim ilar exstm ple of the
incallde-seent sworcl (ep. :9-5938 and. TP z8-a37D ; compare also TP z6-I8oC9). :' T' 4ç... (k ea rlç xct ' &'lç...zplk ' çùv êeùv êvttxeviknre. tx x6 vosvôv öùtjm iwaûpvowrov... (pvlxkltt:(Am b zo-zI4oA5f). Com pare ' Phal 25-. 3331)1:'fKltv6v f'vvoteg xat m fûtpeœç (lvoypdxfl v ôkdv x& J'li qêkvbv ' thèv M yov. This is not
I5z
TkeRr/' ldtllitm p/Origenism
of vittue and of the gaze towards God. '#l7or virtue, I translate, is born to dght nature sl and true contem plation tim e and aevum , in order,thatthe orte m ay rem ain unenslaved to the things bdlievt'd to be after God and undom inated as knowing Cyod alone as parent,
and thattheother (be)tgleircumseribed,abiding in noneofthethings that have beginning and end aud im aging God through itself God,deO itive ofevery beginning.and end,who draws a11the think-
ing hthcvç)ofthose wlvo thtnk to himself ln unspeakabte ecsusy (xfzxrèxfrrfxgtv dlpnTov). 'rbrough these.the divine likenesss: is m anifest (1 m ean through virtue and knowledge)and through them charity unshaken is kept for God ...
'' (Amb Io-II4oApB3).
Tlle rest:6 is mostly a justiiication for nazaing Melchisedech, not from things of nature but from those aeqttired in virtue aud in
contemplation or knowledge. And Enally (Amb Io-Iz4IC)Maximgs says altsaints are in som e w ay im ages of Christ, tlie ardtetype,bvlt M elehisedech preem inently so. Such a ftm ction of the saints in the Cllristian econom y is expressed btzt a little later: f'P' or God placed in the nature of a11 alike the power for salvation, that qach who w ished m ight 1ay hold on divine graee, and, in willing to becom e M elclzisedech and Abraham and M oses, in sllort to transferthe saints to him self,m ight not be bindered,excllanging not nam es and places
but im itating m anners and way of life'' (Am b Ioul44Alo-Bz; cf. 1149C 13f). Lest one'be tem pted to think that such a developem ent on virtueeand knowledge be uniquely due to the dië eulty which was the a contradietion, but to approadt the slm e thought irom two sides: to deny bodily vlsion Ls a m zm ner of afBrl' ning the m etttat Fxarlier in
Tlzal z5 (Ptkssage IX )'Vnvim us had spoken of the reason of faith &0 &oxçsç vomijtevov or more accurately âvofsmç 'fwclox6po ov (3z2C6) that fs the ultim ate in knowledge is non-conce' ptaat Por parallel: in Derlis see K oeE, Beziôlënngen ..., p. z6o.
5: Note this com posite supposition oftpo w for > 116% 4zt4/f4r:' ,itisrathe.r 1: Liksnn z ôjtoûofnç: M axim us is not always consistentin m aintaiqirtg the dksthzction found here azlcl i4 Char 3.25. Etxfûv is not infrequently used alone for tlze sense here given fslzolœfnç. 56 It is intere-sting in tizis n6st to see how prom inellt is txe 'fvépq and it.s conform ation through virtue. 'n is btm gs us close to Passage I w ith its
lxzdlmltaçm fagsx' ti. Above,p.4z,I have been able to snpply the lacuna occurring in tltis rem ainder at zz4oD 5. If gives us another Trinitarian referent'e.
Chattey111.Ecstasis
z54 .
occasion for tlze expositios, I zefer tbe readeT to tbe prefatozy paz-
agraph ofthegreattheologicalwork addressed toM arinus (TP I-9A. f). 12or izt this initial encom ium M axim us reproduces the m ain them es
we have just seen illustrated in M elehisedech. A brief synthesis of M axim us'doctrine,as to the ascent to G od, m ust now be ventured. Tkis ascent proceeds in tw o m utually dependent m anners, in virtue and in knowledge; by the one is expunged that which is due to our fallen nature ill our relations with ourselves and w ith others, tlle erowm ing of w hieh is the passing out of the volitive faculty so as to be w holly taken over by G od ;by the other,sense and rational knowledge being reduced to its source in
the Logos, there is an ignorance, that is, a non-eoneeptual 1t-110wledge which exteads indefnitely. 'rhis transform ation' of m an endows him in eseet, by grace, with the divine characvteristies of goodness aud w isdom . Its fullrealization - the union ofthe blessed with God in heaven - is properly ecstasis, a thing quite beyond aAd above all the native powers of m an. 'rEis too is deiâeation, a suffering oftlzedivine,whieh doesnotrob m an ofhisnaturalpowen , though they be overlaid,transfused w ith the divine. The som etim es
concom itant phenomena of ecstasis in this life (:.g.in the rapture ofStPaul)aresecondary and do not draw Maximus'interest. W hat appears m ore nearly to be the center of M axim us' interest is the m utualharm ony ofviztue and know ledge,by whieh likeness to God is realized in m en. Yhis is a base. Tilere is the iniinite extending
ofdesire (' 1T I-9A8). There is the 'fseeing the true W ord and Gpd witllout eyes ''. But above all there is the aetion of God,drawing the m an from things and self to him selfH. :7 Evagrius Denis M axim us - ifm y m ethod and judgementhave not witlely e-rretl, wlzat m ay we now say oftheirrelations?E vagrius,rèfusing any' ecstasis even purged of frantic and,fatal elem ents fzxed him self in a pm e introspection. (It would have been diK cmlt for him to do otherwise so long
as motion wasforhl 'm evilantlsourceofevil. Denis rejected neitlzerm otion nor ecstmsy, which he found also hz txe Neoplatonlc tradition. W ith him however.ecstasy seem s to be as m uch if not m ore for this life lhan for the next. The pare gratuity of attaining God in vision is not too m anifest in the flux of hissaperlative vu biage. Thesufering of thedivine is not developellin tllesenseofthedistinction oftlze natural autlsupernatural. M avlm us ' isa com pletely faithful disciple of neitber. Tlds kq ta'ue esm cially for E va-
grius,whosedoctrine heseveraltimescorrecta Eprovidence and judgement in tlle moralsense not to be reckoned ontologicz (ef.above n.z8);motion is good; knowledge of God from selfin a moralsense (from the virtues) not
J. 74
TheXd/lflfit?l olOrignnism
from the purified substadceoitlze sottll. Ksstasy he R cepts but place.sby preference, in alz entitative non-phenom enological sense in heavèn. & stasy Lq m ore connected w ith the will than w ith the m ind; the rd ation of w ill atttl m ind in bliss he does not consider. 'rhus there lacks hl his work in tlzks point a perfect harm ony of the elem ents. T his m ay partly be due
to tlle dottble influence of lvagrias anll D enis. I say pavtly because, quite apart from a question of soutce.s there is dië culty in fusing tite two elem enta of m ind and will in a pedeetly izarm onious doetrine of the atts'inm ent öf G od. But if the double initlerzee does aecount izz part for 4 th% defed in the M axim iaa doctrine one eannot say that there has beeu no reconciliation. The Evagrian doctrine hms been pruned of i' ts indigestible elem ents and itas been set in the N eoplatonic sehem e it also pruned of its inacceptable theses. Induences m ay anfl (lo Tem ain. W hat howevet is m ost proper to M axim us
Lstlmtin tlzerethinlring of01(1doctrinalelements,hemanaked to plaeenot (I4relpt($, not ëkptïpg, b%t ë tiztq hl the flrst place. This ks seen in Pa%age X I:virtue and knowlellge com bine to effect liksness and tta establish tk'fdxq and sonship. Tlze sum em e encom ium of the 1aw of grace is precisdy that it teacltes not m el'e-ly to love one auother in spirit bat to lay dow n one's
liie one forthe otlzer ('1Yal 64-7z5C). It is on a simllarnote that Mavim us conelude.s tlze Am bigua, teferring 2 1 to God: xë lv o4ptwt ' j xi 1c%1 yik
ze- à M cqg ôojq opèvtp xdeutoç, xtzt IzA nv tkausvofrv'n w.çw.$:* êvto v, vàv ek tiuliàom fpaqvfkfoatctv.
G IAIAI'SR IV LOGOS
The developem ent of M axim us' antiorigenist argum ent calls now for a treatm ent of lzis doctrirte oflogos. A fulldiscussion of his teaehing in all its aspects is here out of the question. H ow ever because of its im portance in the whole of the M axim ian syntitesis. it seem s good to look som ew hat carefully at the distinction M yogw öaog, in itj developem ent as a theological expression. Of this I shalllirst treat;in a second part 1 shall expound .M axim us'doetrine of the Logos, explahzing the unity of creation in refutation of the henad.
A . 'fl. Is D ls' n xcem ox: AOrOE TYIEQ Z - TPOIIO I Y IIAPZEOI
K arlH oll,in his Amphilochigq rt- Ikoni' um 1,speaks at length ofthe term w dxoç A g éadvymg. Rather baidly the sum ofthese pages is that,though the term isused by Basiland Gregory of N yssa
(not however by Nazianzen)in an untedmical way, Amphilochius, though a little clum sily, m akes it into a technieal T rinitazian term , which was subsequently to be current. (From being in Basila term to express the enigm a of the intratrinitarian relations, it has becom e a help in its solution. Prestige gives som e pages2to it,butw ithout
referenceto Holl'sstudy. Hollremarks (p.z4olthatreeerttly (1904) the question of this term 's origin had frequently been put. H is ow n answ er seem s to have precluded further diseussion. F ttnk how ever, proposlttg the authorkhip of D idym . tts for the Pseudo-B asilian Contra fwAlovlf' lf;zlIV and V 3,gave H ollan'occasion for a note
(p.z451)aë rming that in the tm questionetl works ofDidymus the '
lVolft/, K.,k.4mphilocltivs von Ikonium in seinem Jzw àylfsïs zu tfy,l
gvossen Fdz/htl#?azïaes. T' iibingen 1904. pp. 240-45. : PRssTlGs, G .L, God ï. n Patristic Thought. London z936, pp. 245-44. 3 FUN x, F . X ., K irchengeschichtlicke a' lb/ltzxtfir xxjza und (. r. /z/dA' a s. ?w lpsxgen, II. Paderborn 1899, pp. z9t ff.
I56
Tht e Rdl/t4/afïpAlolOrigençsm
phrase w özçog futftlhfz)ç doesnot oceur. Funk 4 rejoinsby addudng fragm ent IX :, overlooked by H oll, in w itich the phrase is found. It will be useful to review and com plete these stutlies on /@ -
parxis as a basis for understanding the M aximian doctrine. 'lhhq basie sense is sxistence, reality. This is attested in regard to God i11 the frst century before Christ. Tltis sense determ ines also its logical, gram m atical, even m athem atieal uses. It is also used for
yeal #z'o#:r/y e. Of ecdesimstical writers before Basil Prestige dtes Irenaeus and Eusebius7, where dearly this exisience is found with the eonnotation of the thing's beginning or origin. The passage from Athanasius : eited to show the sim ple sense exiztence, m ust
be set off against others where the connotation of orkin is quite patent. 'rhese are to be found in M ueller's Lexicon ZIIAI/AICIs'I Al' lfpl
s.' p.1. l'or instance in Contra a4/pllf/sfzrïf4- I 49Mary and Joseph
are said to be ofone flesh by Txïsfezlc:from pAldrnot by coition. But M ueller ilim self distinguishes only an abstraet sense existentia and a concrete one s' ubstantia. The connotation of origin perceived by
I' Ioll- das M omentdes HQ?.#:71: - is unqtlestionable,btzt not necessarily intended in every use of the word.
Prestige (p. 245) vonjectures tlmt the term was 'frescued by Basil from the sehools of logic ''. Certainly Ityparxîs was used by the com m entators of A ristotle's logie. But its use in A thanasius shows that it had no need of being reseued. If,how ever,he m eans
not the term only but the phrase w öaeg fxdpistoç then I think
ltis conjeeture must be dropped. For I have not fotmd the phrase iu the com m entators edited for the Berlin Academ y. Basilhfnlself presents the first instanee of its use. In his hom ily A gainst f/le Sabelllàns, zzlrïfzs and I/l. a azlAlpplfl'è ' rèv zpdvov ' k' ijç yevyflf x elç,46 ôè xtsx'ovlctfm 15 In tlze Stoic fragm ents collected by von Arnim not a few exam ples
of the pair ldyog-w 6rloç are to be founfl(see index underthe latterword); for exam ple III :691: w here l4yoç is a com m und syllogis' trt and K ôztog its sc 'ltem atie repyesentatiozl. The word bzr zithlsg however does not appear
iu tlle index. 14 BAsul, Contva Sx' a. p- ï' lêm 1, 15: PG 29.5458 -548A . 17 GRXGORV or N yssA. C. A$fAl., 1, jj 4:5-97:PG 45.404.
18 PssuDo-BAsm IDr17YMUSI, PG 29.681B. 19 PSSTJDO-JUSTIN (THEODORETI. PG 6.:392C. M B ASII., C. A'14. /,.. 1, 15 : PG 29.5458.
I58
TheX:/f. fffdït)Asn/Origenism
seeking the mode of existettee (rtl4xoç vfig éxocxdgeœl) but the m aterialsubject ofm an,aboutwhich the reply does little to inform m e '.
Tllis happens to us w ith the w ord ungenerattd , being taught thereby the how of G od rather thaa the very nature '':'. That
éxögvtzfykç sezves as a synonym for tirrdplsç is clear from Contra E unom ivm II,where any thought antecedent to the Only-begotten's
hypostasis is said to be im possible,as the hypayxis ofthe W ord of God,who w as in the beginning with God, is above anything conceivable in the line of ancientness 21.
Prestige gives eonsiderable spaee (p.z46f)to the passage from Pseudo-Basil-Didym us:3 where diverse mades (# existence are-exem pliûed in Adam , Eve, Abel and Jesus. H oll (p, 245) merely m entions the pa% age. Only Funk :4 adduces another passage: the
X I fragment on Jolm (I4.z8):Th,6 FdI//leF is grefflfrr tkan I 2à. After exeluding the poKsibitity of quantitative com parison in divinis, llidym us eozttinues: )xîio' ltçq ,tkllft'rek l'iig (r, idl?ltrœq w 4a. 0/. 4: 80th the-setext.s(1m .38.39) are from the Pseudo-lustin. The fzrst LSBON (RH E 26 (x93o) 536-50) has vindicated for 'Pizeodoret;the second Bxkzw (DTC':5 (z946) 3.zz) reckons,in view ofits likeness with the fore-
.
goiug. as m obably of Theodoret. *1 Tnxopoxth'' r, H arv6tic. Fab. Ctpvl#,AlsN' f4al V 2 : 5: PG 83.452C = (1 4539 . 41 Iœ oza nls H m noscm . A dv. N ey/pgfozzsw. I 1o: PG 8ô.. y44zA . *3 L/ONX'HJS BMz.. . J1dv. N fvf. et Z' ll/yc/lïfip.: PG 86.1269C10-15.
C'llc/fer IF'.Lngos
I63
cttrious thing, kyfm xis has here the sense of physis. '''l'lte soul, he says,is circttm scribed by Tf; àdyfll ' rsg fadelefl)g''. And later on,speaking ofuniens;'fsom e even in union preserve xùv vàg éxtjeyq)g hâyov ''44. Such a use m ust, I think, be explahled by the Leontian doctzine of an hypostatlc union of created pedects the body and soul. ' In chronologieat order I should now com e to M axim us, but I perm it m ysetf to pass frst to the Pseudo-cyril w hom I'Ioll, tm der
the name and from the text of John Damnscene, cites for being uncertain in his use of kyparxis. W e have to do with chapters 8-10 of the D 6 sacrosancta Trinitatr4:. In the first passage41 w e .
ftnd moh p/hyparxis used of generatioh and procession as in Basil
and Gregory, Butthe authoralso 'speaksofungeneratednesst&yevvncta), f'wilich, lze says, does not indieate diserence of essence btlt m ode of existenee ''. Later still spealring of generation and
procession,he refersto them as mode(# diserence*7. Then aërtning that a2 iscom m on to the three,alwaysin derivation from tlle Pathery except for ungeneratedness generation and procession he says: ''ror in these hyposu tic propeties alene the three lloly H ypostases
djier from one another, divided l divisibly not by essence but by the charactezistic of each single hypostasis, W e say too that each of the three has a ped ect hypostasis, but that in three perfec't hym postmsesthere isone sim ple essence,m ore than m dect, allperfect*'**. 4: L EONTIUS B vz. ibid.1 ' P G 86.T285. 8 4 I304R 2. 1: Ps>iuDo-c'krjup D 6 sltlrtpw Alc// Tyinitatr 8-10:PG 77. I136-45. PRE.
s' rztj:e çGod ïs Patvistic Tltought.p.z63,cf.p.280)dates the work at the beginning of the 8th centunv. Ds G' IUBSRT (RSR 3 (t9x2) 367) tliscerns a (lem ndence on cap. 26 of the Dooteina T' tz/rlçAl (hence Prestige's datiag)' .
but asthis partof tlze collection m ay wellhave been eytant earlier the date B ut one m ay ask why does the Pseuflo-cyril consisteutly avoid nam b 'ng any of bis som ces? ant. t $:6'4 rrlot lz is therefore t5. e m onothelfte controversy. .4
I)/ GTJIBSIG (p.368)suggest.s ''que noas soyons en présence d'u:tlpseudoépigraphe fabriqué pour1es besoins de la controverse m onothélite ''. But i1z that ease, could not bne restrict the posslble tim e of com position to the periocl of tite polttical dnm inauce of Monotlttlitl 'mm , that is from the tim e
of the fullblown controversy (645) to the 6th ecumenical council (681)? I note that Prestige in his index (p. ( 511)says of this work:Q4not earlier ,
than nliddle 7th century ''. tq Pssvoo-cvm L D: ss.TH s. 8'PG 77.ïx:6C1z-D 4. 47 I PSSUJAO-CVZ RIL D e . :. ç. TgïAz. 9. . 77. zz4oc lz.
48PSEUDO-CMRII.,D6ss.Tvin.9: PG 7z.Iz4oD8-zI4zA2; *Ev ' mét' aui .
'vik pgw kç Iftk (lrloo' ctm xtt' t. g löltsvng::l, tvtfêtpovtrtv tiu ' jktav ftk tlyçfn w gk lao-
z64
TheRejutation t# Origenism *
The proper characteristic then of each person (wltieh is ungeneratedness,and so on) is the mode of existenee. Little wonder tllat shortly after he repeats' . ''W e acknowledge one God, but izl the properties only of the Fatherhood Sonship and Processiolz do we
understand the differeace,as to eattse and eaused (uhsov,ttlvtatdv) and as to the pedection of hylw stasis, that is the m ode of existence ''. 19
'rhe ârst aad last passages cited are those contrasted by H ollO to dem onstrate a laek of darity in the Greek tradltion in the wake of Am philochius. Clarity - the texts speak for them selves - is not lacking. One m ight wish for a further elucidation of how tllere ca. u be three persons itlone substance- alw ays a profound m ystery '
and that Pseudo-Uyril had worked a liu le witlt the concept of re-
lation which wasto be found in Am philochius (see above p.160). M axim us and Logos-Tropos H ow does M axim us fit illto tltis tradition ? 'lY ere are two questions: w hat use of the distinction does he m ake in llis exposition of the T zinity; and: w hat use does he m ake of it ilz general? In som e 4o instanees of the pair M y'oç - litlöaog that I have noted in M axim us, there are but tlzree thett occur in a 'frinitarian eontext. The frst is found in M yst a:. )-7oIA . God is m onad xaxà
xèv rlg obctag lil'otto9 Etvfzl hë ov and triad xcxlkvùv l'oîhaf x éxatyxetv xat f(m cçdvtzs w daov. 'flzis last m em ber with its use of the
verbalform for hypastasis iudieates the way for a sure Trinitezrian
interpretation ofeertain passages. imb 67-14001)f explains monad and triad in the sam e fashion. Am b I-Io36C is cast in the sam e
m old:löyog,elvtzs% r the m onad respond to tpdaog,atk Elvaç,afi)ç fyaitkt/trtç'o:x o' ôig. ,14 êèzpeoxnlpwxlxf p I' lç11$(0ç' H olvdsgttw flkawévcs ôlcttkméàtEvcu. W ttèv / pxqccov ' rêv w e v xEletav dxew ' I h éoxtttxv (...),â3.)? év w kck xtrkefa! ,ç faocxficect yttw o' ûçfltzv t'iaà' lv fzfsoxel' l xcl cr, tzu élesov. 19 Pssuoo-c' k'lta De ss.Frio.zo:PG 77.II44A7-Iz (for completeness d . atso rz,37B):eEva yt) , o' A ù' v 'fwtflcxepev,lv gévabç öà 'rg. k lôçtslmc;t 'r' ijç xs atzw dxntog >, i xfig ' tll6vqxeg,xtlt ' r'fiç dxrroefïcœf zzç,xlx;tk ' ri; xù 4utov xat x6 ft1xyttxèv,xttt e véhaov vlç 'fpxooxfiuetoç,' lhot'rùv vlq ('rrl yfzv w daov,' rjv ôktxtFoetkv l' vvmogysv.
5e H orm, A m pltilocltius. p. c44; PG . 77.1t. 36CIzf artd II44A 7f (notes 46 and 49J.
Ckapter IU.Logos
.
I65
t,t/etudvtxt for the triad. ' fhe Basilian distinction is lzereto the fore.1.
Asan instaneeofhow theverbalform ofkypostasîsm ay beused with hypchstatizing eGect in Trinitarias passages, see Thal I3-z96B and cap ie'3-II78B. Thisdistinction ofessenee and m ode is fundam ental. A s a forceful expression of b0th its m em bers I take the following from Am b 42:T'Every innovation,to speak genelically, lm s naturally to do with the m ode of tlze innovated thing but not w ith the logos of nature; because a logos innovated eorrupts the nature. as not retaiuing unadulterated the logos according to wltieh it exists;but the m ode hm ovated, the logos being preserved ill its nature, m anifests m ira-
culous power'' (Amb 4z-I3jIDI-6). Clearly tbis is a fundam ental law . The expressions of it are freqnent. See, for exam ple, in this sam e dië calty: Am b 4z' .I3cpA ; 13458 .* also Am b 3I-Iz8oA ; A m b I5-IzIgA ; Am b , 56-I289C. A eonsideration of som e of these pms-
sages makes quite evident that the logl)s ()/natursm ay be preselved with a considerable margin of variation in the tropos ol exfs/eAlt):. Yor the physical order titis m ay be seen iu Am b I5-I2I7A :there is the m etaplzysicalessenceentirely im m utableand tllereisthe constaut lltlx ofproperties and aceidents, For tlze m oralorderthe sam e is set forth in Am b 4z-I: $z9A-B 7,which com pletes the docktritle of Am b 7 at Io84BC. H owever in som e passages tltis'divem ity in*the tropos is exp'ressed by a scale of approxim ations to the suprem e Logos, it not being always easy to fx the exaet gradations. I irzstance 'rhala-agz. The enstting laek of transparent luddity is dtte in part to the double, we m ay so speak, preexistent logos of the rational creature - I m ean that which determ hles his essence and that which is his destiny. But I have not here to develope this aspect:2 of the M axim iart dottrineThus the distind ion of logos-tropos is seen already to be of vast im port:it m akes possible the developem elzt of a safe doctrhte of the Trinity, of graee, of divinization. The frst, in M axim us, is confessedly ofa quite seeondary intezest. Theseeond, how ever,is prim ary, but does not stand alone. In fact it depends, as the context of the passage above translated testifes, on the doctrine of'the Incanm tion.
sz See above p. z5g. 53 See below note 62.
I66,
T& Relwtatiottf# Origenism
So now if we seek exam ples of titis distinction in the iaterwzitings w hich hav: e received the im paet of the Christologlcal controversies,the chrity and htdsiveness with w hieh the prindple is e-xpressed are only euhanhuxd, ProceM lng ehronologieally, I instanee the unique Christologieal A m biguum . M axim us states: 'TW e know that one thing is logos
of being and another the mode of qualifed being (ô soîi xfkg slvftkw öxog),the one assuring the nature the otherthe eeonomy '' (Amb , 5-Io5z:6-9). It is repeated sholily thereafter (Io53BII-I4) and the followhzg column (through Io56D) is an applieation of it to the notorius th6andric M :rgy of D enis. From the later controversial w ritinr I eite but one: . Cent. pp. 96-98 adduces two ehapters
('rhoec z.83,8j) whez' e direct dependeuee on Philo seemsindabitable.
'* For thls iflentlfeation see B : klcks. G . Clem ente .4 lessandvino in
E' nciclopediA Cattolica,111. (Città de1Vaticano 1949) I8loa.
Chapt6y %F.Logos
169
all are u eated in him . 'flkis m ultiplidty of things is due to the lim itless digerence and diversity ofthings togetherwith their unconfased individuality. On the other hand the m ultiplicity of essences is seen as one by the uncozlfusing reference of all to the one hypostatlc W ord. It is here that the accent falls on the W ord with the citation from Col. I.16:in wkom aIl things 7zgr: m ade.
The second phase (Io8oAz-BII) developes the presidence of theW ord atthemaking ofa11creatures(thelogoiofallarepreexistent irlthe Logos and are realized aceordiag to llis will)and his presence in them , tkoug: infm itely above, in w hom a11 creatures proportionately participate in God. M axim us is still speaking in Ahe essential
order (therefore not of the existentiak the order of graee), as the speeifkation ofthepyoportionatdy shows,thatisë'aceording to m inda reason, sense, vital m ovem ent or som e habitual ftne-ss ''. It is here that M axim us refers the w hole preeeding doctrine; preexistent
logoiand particv ation of existents in the Logos,to Denis. DN 5.$-7 answ ers very well to the tone of the M axim ian argum ent. It too proceeds on the essential ievel. There ean be no question that M axim us' reference te D enis is veritied' but in this instance there is nothing to iadicate a partieular dependence ofthe Confessor ' fhe one is speaking in anrallusive way of the padicipation of prim e seeondary causes in the first'the other of the partieipation of existent essences itlthe W ord. .
W ith these two phases tlle m ode in which we m ay 'Iy poytions t# God lms been explained;butnow the Gregorian and slipped #o7z?Ar jrom above is instant for reeognition: 'rhe third phase (zo8oBII-
Io8IA5)here givessatisfaction. The anjweristhatwhen the angelic or hum an m otion is wholly in accord with its logos preexistent in God and hasno desire for otherthan its own source,then thatperson
willbe itlGod - lv êEi) ysvjgsvqt:E' kagrian and Maximian phrase for the sum m it of Christian life - nor w ill he slip down from him . 'rhis is a return to aud a reconstitution of the word norm ative of
his creation (t$v xeùg xùv xaê> ôv lxxlcên löyov Jvoêöv vir xtxl tlaoxfzvdnvctv):9. This is quite enough to show that we have now passed from the essential level to the existential w here the supernatural obtains Grst tonsideration. 'rhis transit is doubly asH A m b g-zo8ocz1. T lzis m ay be reckoned as a taeit refutation of the
Origenist apocatastasis by giving an acceptable sense to the term in regard to the consum m auon of things.
z2o
2-Aelbelutation n/Origenizn%
sured by the rderenee to attaining the divineskopos(ro8oCI4,Ir). *1*his skoposrecurs repeateclly in the iirstsections ofthe Liber Ascts ticus, signifyirig the Ineanm te dispensation; but in Tlzal 6o-6zIAB
lkfaximas explal s at lœ ght that the divine skopos is preeisely tke m ystery of Christ, hidden from before the founding of the world.
He defilles this skopos ms an end t'Phal 6o-6zIAIo) in the words of E vagrius that he had used above in Am b 7-zogzc4 B@.
In this Q' uestion 60 Maximus explicity distinguishes the two ordel's. 'fowards the end he says:f'rbr of a truth it was neeessary that the m aker itt'nature of the essence of things should becom e
also theefector(A tovtyöç)by graceofthedeifeation ofthe beings nzade;ia order thatthe giver of being slzould appear also asbestower
(4aetgvtxöç) of ever-wembtxing '* (Thal 6o-6z4D$-9). 'lthe reference' here to bdng and ever-welt-bring leads us to a passage itz Am b 42 where the triad being,well- or im being,ever-bdng is developed at length. I quote it in full:''O f allthîngs that do or w illsubstantially
ex-ist...the logoi,frj'nly fxed,preexistiu God,itlaceordance with which a11tllings are and have become azld abide,ever drawing near through naturalm otion to their purposed B1logoi. ' Ilhey (thethings) o
A
6: 11ïthe secotd pltase, Am b 7-Io8oB4, M a'xim us speaks of the W ord
tt. s recapitulating a11 tllings (Eph, 1.10). In Thal 6o-6zrAz5 the m ystery of Qhrist is the recapitulation. One could therefore object against my inteapretation that already itî tlze secoud ph% e M axim us wxs speaking without distinction of the essentialorde.r anf . l ofthe existential.EutStPaul
also (Rom .I3.9)usesthe word in the cu'rrentgram matiealsenbeofsumm ary. T he w ord fts as ped ectly in a eontext of the essential order as il' tthat of tlte existential. M ore of a proofis neetletl to prove that M axim us in the seeond phase is already in ' the existential order. Undoubtellly it is characteristic oftlze logos doetriue that tlzere is a perfect ease of transition from one order
to tie other - a transition not always ' rem arked perhaps b)r the autlmr lzim self. el Ktz'ri k wt sêfrgtv. Cf.Rom .8.28. M axim us is anxions to prove that there is notlting adventitious in God as the context am ply (lem onstrates. In this context Jw tstàetjtg generally refers to the divine intention with regard
to the ex ential logos and ereation. But in the passage here translate; a
distillction is at least implied between suciz an erssentiallogos (ontologieal ortler) and.a prophetie Iogos (proviiential order) whieh referstotheattaium ent of tlte end,t w ell or i11 everlasttng being. T ltere is thus a basis a hint at a doctrine of predestination. O n the sense of zrptsêecrtç in St. Paul
atlcl for Origen see the artiele Pyédnstination in DTC Iz (t935) 2812 and 1%27 (Otuosx,In Rom ..8.:8 Lib.7,7 and.8). Cf.also the seholion in Ps.Den. CH II.2 - PG 4.93. According to LossKv Llua N tlfït)Al 4e. % 'Anatogies'
Chaptôr IP.Logos
I7I
are rather constrained to being and receive, aceording to the klatl and degree of their eleetlve m ovem ellt and m otion,either well-behtg because of virt'ue and direct prop-ess in regard to the Iogos by which tlley are,or ill-beit'tg because of the vice and m otion out of îarm oay with the logos by which they ' are. Or,to put it coneisely: according to the having or the laek, in tlzeir natural partieipative faeulty, of bim whe exists by ztature com pletely aud unpartidpated and who proffers hilnselfetztire sim ply alld graeiously by reason of lzis lim itless goodness to a11 the woû hy and theunworthy,prodttcing the perm anence of everlasting being as eaeh m an of him self has been and is
(then)disposed. Forthese the respective paûicipation or impartidpation of the very behlg, w em being and ever-being is the inerease
and augment of punishment (rtytû:t)((t) for those rtot able to participate and of enjoyment for those able to participate '' (Amb 42-I3z9AI-Bg) In the above passage the distinetions of the m erely physical and m oral are well m arked. W ithin the latter order M axim us does
not here bring out the dlstinetions between the tlatural and the sttpernatural;he has the existent the supernaturalorder only before llis m lnd's eye. Y et that the distinetion is present in M axim us' thought and im plidtly in this lolzg eitation, other texts witatess as
tlzat from Thal60 ' witllwhiellI V gan'the foregoing paragraph and another from Thal 64-7z4CD ,where M axim us speaks of the natural 1aw in itself. .. T he third phase is d osed w ith a citation frpm B asil's com m entary oa Isaias e2 regarding the trtte Sabbath rest.
The fourth phase of the iirst explanation (Am b p Io8IA5-CII) rehtrns, to enlarge apon som e points already m ade and to repeat
the statement ofthe firstphase. The frstpazt (Amb 7-Io8zA5-B8) m akes 1wo points. 'rlûngs do not al1 exist ia act at ollee,w ith their
idems in God;rather he who is always creator brings thinys into being
in their proper time (ef.from the 2nd phase Io8oA6). The reasoa citezDéusy. s1e Fsdhulo-zlr/t pjltzgf/hfr,Avchivesd'hist.J()tl/r.etlitt.Jx M A 5 (zt)3o) aool,3oz)tlle passage Amb 7-Io84A is to be interpreted in the light oftitis distinction.
'
63 BASIr.,.lzlIsaiamp I (v.J3)j 5o:PG 3O.I7701I-D4. M aximus cites witlz the nam e of the author and treatise. Thls treatise whose Basilian authenticity has been quesh oned w as know n therefore ia the 7th century
lm der Basil's name. See DavttsessE, Rev. bib. 42 (19.33) I4sf.
z' /z
The Relutatil)n (?JOrigenism
is tlmt God and creatures carm ot be together. This presentation iw faulty; the dië culty w hich M axim us urges is the impossibility that there be a eoexistenee of the flnite :8 and in6nite - that is, it would seem ,an etenm lexistence ofthe realized IogoiirtGod. Im sisting then on the incom parability ofthe finite and infnite, and that
tke negative f/lTplpgy of the I' Fbrtf is not here to be considered (Amb pzo8zB8-I$),he repeats the statement ofthefrstphase. Butthis tim e the m ultipliçity in unity - the one togos is m any - is qmatifetl as a creative and conservative procerssion of the one into beings' and the unity in m ultiplieity - the m any logoiare one - is qualifed 4. as a convertive, guiding referenee and providence of the m any to the one, as it were to an am powedul eenter,precontaining the sourcesofit. s raysand gathering them alltogether ''B4. 'rhe additions here,over and above the Erst phase,a11 accentuate the N eoplatonic, the Proclan fgures. The im age of the center and rays is found in :3 In his salm m ary of this finitentss M axim us says;''A11createllthings in their essence and origin (x(tx'oéglt w Ts xat W vsgtv) are lu every wee said to be contairted by thdr proper logoiand by those of outside things .
whte.h relate to them '* (wk tilotç xat xo' q ztekè (tîil; ?t o' llct Tt7v lxvùç ktketg Jrzptudgeva - Amb p ro8IB8-to), As it stant' ls the passage needs further elucidation. This we fnd in Am b z5-I2I7A . There M axim us distinguishes an im m utable and nm table asm cts in tllfngs. The one assures tkat a m aterial thing never varies from its physical property, the essence strictly'the other regards m ovem ent whic.h is a eonstant :t17:at:d reâux m' ovem ent is a plletm m enon of generation ancl corruption. H ere A ristotelian induence is at work;or perhaps im m etliately only that of Gregory of
N yssa fd . W m sw t:w
A . A . The N atave t# H gtman A'xtlypztdz îr fr aooovdiytg
to Saint GAzjr/r'y oj Nyssa Bvashington I95z) diss. p. 72f). Sum marizing M axim us says: f'A11 beings by the logos by whieh they weze brought to being mzd are. are pedectly firm and im m ovable; by tke logchs of tidngs
setn as relatetl to them (-@ It %v aeek tt' frtà ' :stx ovpivœ. e u ytpl, by which the econom y of this universe is wisely held together and, condncted a1l
tbhtgs meve and.are umstable '' lxtmb x5-Izz7Az3-B3). It js after tlzis .
that b.e introduces lzis argum ent against the henad schem atized in the triatl gim esis, kinesis sfttsïs. Tlke kiytesis w hieh he has dlstingnished from an absolutely im m utable ground is also m oral m ovem ent. Tllis distinction is com plem entary to tlzose of tke logos of beings wellor illbeing, and ever belng. '
:4 Amb 7-Io8tC: J-7: xqs?teè x'lp ek nbq ê' yq 'tt' ;v zvokkt' lw l'zturpecm x' i'v 're xak gewtxyo' pxabv dw molzv xthXa, Lxeövottw,Jîgztee ttç d' ex' ùyrtctv' roxvttw ptx' àv
@j xévw ov ' rfiv !1 (lfrroiiE' H se v G g cl,ex4k apoeklqpög xtzk tk rttkm ow ovvayœ'tk ,eV oîaglv 2
Ckaptsr IV.Logos
1g3
D enis, in the chapters to w hich he has already referred and w ill again refer :ô. rinally in a single sentenee ' M axim us gives the substanee of his explanation:''W e are and we are said to be a portion ofGod because ofthe logoi of our being wllich preexistin God;and again w earesaid to be slipped from above because we have not been m oved according to the logos forebeing in God,according to which we cam e to be ''
(Amb pIo8zCpII). 'flle wllole of this Erst explanation has nothing in its elem ents of any oziginality; yet in the whole M axim us has so sittm ted the origin and end of m an that a11 the criticalpoints of doetrine are assured. 'lh e great suppleness of the logos doctrine izl the text of Amb 7 has hhldered as elear an expression of the relation of natttre and grace as westenl theologians usually desire. The whole explanation is sim ilar to, but far preciser than the D ionysian doctriue in DN 5.5-7. This M axim us him setf recognizes in his reference
to Denis at the end of the second phase (Io8oBIo). It isperhaps for tlzis reason that the secxm d explanation he offers is irtspired in
its Erst prinei/e directly from Origen. It mightthusperchance be m ore esective in turniilg tlte Origenists from their elw r.
Second Explanatio. n ol f& Lq os Docfrï-
This second explanation (Alnb 7-I()8zCIT-Io85A6) begins; ''If the one W ord of G od is indubitably the essence of virtue in eaeh m an,...every m an,participating in virtue with a ûxed habit,tm ques-
tionably partieipates in God...'' (Amb pIo8zCI4-D2, D9-II). Now M axim us defends his propositien eiting z Cor. 1.30: Christ ,
' If//la was Antpzf: for ws by Gotl wisdom ,rfgk/ztlifszl,s. s and sanctification, flAI,tf redsmption;and then com menting that Christ is wisdom itself, and righteeusness and holiness itself. pot m erely attributively as
with men:a wise m an... Now Origen,in eomm enting Jolm 1.14, had said: 4'12or the substantial righteousness itself is Christ ''B6. O D N 5.6-8( zIA . See also Tho ec 2.4 w ith the com m ent of vox BM .TRASAR, D ie Gx. Cçnt. zog.
B4 Is i'otzn. (1.14) 6,.40 GCS, Origen IV IPRSUSCRRNI p. I151.1:flyie ulrcoôvxtnoo't 'wq &h ollcsfGôqç Xpuzvtk ltntv Sim ilarly In .làr,vz.lm m . 15.6 GCS Oligen I11 (KLOSIXRMANN) P. 13012;d.also IA; Ioan.(13.2) 32.I1, P,444:,3 and p.44;I, n Islïtl,Azhom .5.IGCS OrigettVIII IBASHRSNSIp.z63à.
Tl%eAtr/lçftzfïo,lt)/Oriqenîsm Of course M axim us m ay not have drawn directly on Origen for this idea e7' the faet rem ains, the thought is thoroughly O rigen's. In
the eontext of the phrase just çited Origex had developml the idea that our righteousness and so on is derived from Chris' t, though not in term s of participation. A nd in fact M axim us passes at once to a consideration of sueh partieipation view ed from a sueeessive grasping of the beginning and end w hich are the sam e com prellended
i:t the skofws of the thing (I'0843.6). Now .4as to the beginning, a man receives'by partidpation the naturalgood (( ly(zê4v) with his behlg; as to the end, he zealously aecom plishes his course tow artls tlle lyeghzning aizd souree, without deviation, by m eans of good will
(yvfûg' q)and choice (atkoalpegw) and from God reeeives deifcation, adding to the naturalgoodness of the imageB. (r@ xttF dxövtz tpftmt xalçlthe elective likeness through the virtues by remson of the implanted transition to and fam iliarity with his own proper beginning
and source ''(Amb 7-Io84A6-I4)G9. Certainly w e have here a fairly distinet elaboration of the process of deiûcation. M axim us w ill now enlarge uporz it, using the
triple distinction we have ourselves just enlarged upon in the iirst explanation. For the foregoing is confirm ed by the Apostle's word:
In plfAzlwe 1iv6 and ' pltm: and havetlf4r being (Acts I7.z8). Now each of these term s M axim us sets in relation with the logos of a m an preexisting in God. Beiug is referred to the logos of being,m ovem ent
to that of wembeing,life'to that of ever-being lAmb pIo84BIrg). Ilz the (liscussion and passages cited above this triple distinction w as abtm dantly evident,yet withottt a hint that it m ight lx referred to the determ hling logoi. 'ro m y knowledge this reference is m ade in tlzis passage only; nor is it overly surprising. For to deal at length with it would be to treat ofpredestination,forw hich M axim us' w hole fram e of m iad and life did not prepa' re him . H abitually he
looked at alltllings from the point of view of the divine skopos the realization of m an in the Incarnate dispensation. The reverse 67 Gregory of N yssa speaks of Tfy svtfpç öv as ufsxiy (lw oönlç. In élswl. V II: PG 44.72417 ult. In a w ord the O rigerzi@n iflea 'm ay also be fotm d izl G tegory' .
*B Image tzptf Iikenrss. The subject has attracted not a few authors in the lmstfew yeaz' s. The M axim ian use doesnot seem to be constant. This
is a190 thejudgementofLoossN (p.4z27). See Qhar3.25;4.70, .to Loossy's references add Thal I-a69A ' Thal 64-728. A.' , T P z8-324D . 89 O n tjzis passage, see above n. 6,.
Ckapter IV.Logos
:75
of this realization,failure and the possibility, the reality of eternal punishm ent;these he recognized but an explanation of them he did not venture. H aving established then the principle of our partid pation in Cbrist through virtue M axim us once m ore developes the them e '
the divine skopcs:.ï' #lc 11 8,3 (p. I57a 158) and.in I 3,8 (p.6c1&f). It is then a condensation ofOrigen tllat we fnti translated in the text.
I8c
TltcA:jw/flfïos olOrfg:zli. çpl
aswe reeeive m ore ofthat blessedness,so them ore itsdesire is spread or increased in usawhile ever m ere ardently and m ore fully we either reeeive or hold the Father aad Son and H oly Ghost. N'et if sudeit som etim es lms laid lmld on one of those w ho are settled in the topm ost and perfeet degree,I do not think that suth an one is at once rem oved,and falls;btlt little by'little aqd gradually he rnust deseertd, so that, i. f a sm all lapse has befallen one, he m ay quiekly repent and returrz to him self, not com pletely collapse, but withdraw his
foot and return to 11ks position aud again be able to establish what had falleu ottt by negled ''8. Tlzis surfeit is som etliiqg to be feared; its advent m eaas alienation from God. That a surfeit of the good is possible is due to the
hm ate zrlutability of zllarl. Origen is qulte dear as to this point. H e m it:s:%.But because these rationalnatures...have been m ade, while before they dïd not exist; for this very fact that they were
not and began to be,they exist as necessarily ehangeable alld.mu-
table things,because whatsoever virtne (power) there was in their substanee was not there aaturaliy but efed ed through the gift of the ereator. That'therefore they are is uot proper to them nor
eterzml,but God-#ven. For,ever-existent they werenotand everytbing that is given ean be tvken away an4 fall baek. The cause ofthe falh'ng baek will be fotm d to be tltis,if tlle rtloverflent of spir-
its be not jtlstly attd well directed. For the ereator granted voluutaz'y and free m ovem ents to m inds ereated by him , by which of course the good eould becom e their own wlzeu it would be m aintained by their own will. But s10t11 aad the boredom of trouble in kéeping the good, as also aversion and negligence of the better 3 De Pvinc. T 3.8 ((7CS Origell V (KOETSQHAU) 6213-637): Ita ergo indesinentierga nosope.re patris et filiiet spiritus sanctiper singulos quosque profectuum gradus instaurato vix si fozte aliquard o inttteri posstlm us sanctam et beatam vitam in qua,cum post agones m ultos in eam perveniri m tuerft ita perdurare debem us ut zzulla um quazn zlos fxm i illius aatietas eapiat, sed quanto m agis d. e illa beatitudine pereipim us tanto m agis in zm bis vel dilatetur eius desiderium vel augeatur dam sem per arclentius etcapaciuspatrem et fzilum ac spiritu. m ve1eapim us ve1tenem us. Siautem aliquaudo satietas cepit aliquem ex 1' ds qui in sum m o perfectoque constitentnt gradu, uott artdtror quod ad subftam quis evacuetur ac decidat
sed paulatinzet per partesdefuere necesse est (ita at ûeripossit interdului si ahquis irkvis lapsus accidedtaut cito resipbcat atque hl se revertatuzls zlon lKnitus ruere, sed revocare pedenl et reO e ad statunzsuunz ac rursus statuere posse id, quod pet neglegentiani fuerat elapsunz.
Ckakier #'.K oros
z83
gave an opening for the fallirig away from the good ''. Aad Origen goes on to explain how this withdrawalfrom the good was the 0ccasion for m aking this variegated, sense-perceptible w orld 4 W ith this reference to the variety of this world as due to t:e .
primitive witlldrawal from the good we rejoin tliat other passage wlzieitwasdted above ia extllainir.g the OrigezlisttlavorofGregory's dil eult passage and in witich the very w ord hnntld occurred :. Is our discussiott of the prim itive henqd of rational creatures tlp to this point we kave seen it ratller in its ontologival aspeet as condensed in the triad:genesis,sfflxWç, kinesis. N ow w e have before us the sam e concept in its m oral aspects e.
'lYe breakup ofthe orkinalunity is due to a surjeit0/th6 gtmfl or to the slotk and bore dom oj /r0' ?4#J: in àeT/fzzg the good;but this in its turn is rendered possible by the faet that the creator gave voluntarios... etiibevos zzmf' lf .: to these m inds. N ow hum an ireedom w as dear, very dear to O rigen, as to all Christians. H e defended .
it at leagth itl his De Prfv ï/ff. ç 111, 1,a defense which Basiland Gregory transcribed in their Philocalia or book of excerpts from Origen. The defense is based largely on the fact ofpraise and blam e, of the existelzce of laws, which necessarily im ply responsibility in the choice of good or evil. Prat thus sum m arizes Origen's teaching:
e'Et iltoHgenlfaisait consisterle libre arbitre,non pasdanslepou4 De farïwc.11 r),z,translatiou ofthe ftrst part whose textxuns;Verum quoniam rationabiles istae naturae quas in itlitio factas supra dtxim us factae sunt cum azlte non essent, hoc ipso,quia non erant et esse coepenm t necessario convertibile.s et m utau les substiterunt quoniam quaecum que illa inerat substantiae earuzn virtus non naturaliter inerat sed beneâcio
eonditoris effeeta. Quofl suut ergo, non est proprium nec sem piterrm m sell a deo datum . N on enim sem pe.r fuit et om ne quod datum est etiam auferri et recedere potest. lLecedendi autenl causa iu eo edt si non recte et probabiliter ditigatur m ottu anim orum V oluutarios etkim et liberos m otus a se conditis m entibus creator indulait quo scilicet bonum in eis propriuul feret,cuzn id voluntate propria servaretur' sed desidia et la% hs taedium in servando bono et aversio ac neglegentia m eliorum initium detlit .
receclendi a bono.
'
: See above, Chap.1 n. 2 and.3. : A word of caution; orztological and m oral mspeets. The diatY ction is facile for us. A fault of Origeu was precisely to confuse tlzese orders .
in tke hum an whole ltlze texts jnst translateâ give eviûence thereof);the work of M axim us was to aFtrm and by the force of his dialectie to m ake the distinction prevail against any pagan cop/fuïtm (cf. A m b 15-1217A 8; also Am b 4z-y:371)6 and A m b 10-I:7613.j. ).
z/
TkeJl/r /f/f/zffbl ojOy' #eAzisA?)
voir d'agir ou de suspendre son acte et de choisir entre plusieurs biens,m ais dans ce que 1es scoh stiques appellent liberté de contrariété dans la facultê d'em brasser le bien ou son eontraire,le 1, 11a1St?. But even surfeit and the consequent withdraw al from the good enters, according to O rigen, into the providential plazl. H e w rites that God perm its som e m ovem ents Tflest perchance,if they always keep their place, tm m oved, they be ignorant that by God's grate aud not by their strengtlkthey are established in that ft nal blessedn e% ''8
It will be useful now to m ake a sum m ary of our own of the
Origenist mytb,lmsed on the passagesjust now dted. The pzinlitive henad is of the rational creatures, whose radieal m utability is grounded itlthe fact oftheir being creatures,arld is m ade efective by their free will, consisting esseatially in the ehoice betw een good aud evil. Thus the very nahzl' e of tlle free will,tlzough it m ay develope hz an ever-expanding desire of the good actually com es to a sudeit of the good and tlm s becom es responsible for the original breakup of the henad; successive sudeits and w ithdrawals ever rem ain possible. at least that tlze creatttres m ny leam their depend-
euce on God's grace. B. '.pHS REFIJTATION It is tim e now to exam ine M axim us' refutation of tllis aspect of Origenism . Tite two passages of Am b 7 that concern sudeit directly are not
long;I shall$ve them therefore entire in translation. In tlle frst passage tile word itse!f does not occur,but the idea is dearly supposed. After the initial description of the he 'nad *, M axim us eontinlzes: '' Bttt they are ignotant how im porxsible are the tldngs they
7 PRAT,Oyiglne,1 Théologien 6tl'dw/kâ/e tpaHs z9o7)p.xxixf(without references). One m ight look at the following passages from the De f'rfxcikéis (with the page.s of Koetschau): I 8, z p. zoo7, 'III 3a5 p. a6z10' IIT 6,7 28915 for the ehoice betweertgchod and evil;I 7,5 p.944 and I 6,3 p, 841*-*1 for the ckange of statea ontologically consequent on the choice of good or evil. 8 D e P rïss. 11 3,, 3 p. I1811-:9) ne forte si inm obilem skm m r teneant
statnm ,ignorent se dei gratia et non sua vlrtute (Jerom e;fortitudine) in illo âne beatitudinis constitiase. : See above G ap.I p.9z.
Cltapter F.K oros
185
suppose and unwozkable their conjeetures,as the eourse ofthe true argum eut, given oceasion w iil prove. tfFor if the divine is im m ovable,as flling all, and everything tlzat passes from not-being is m ovable indeed as im pexed surely to som e cause,then nothing m oved has yet com e to a stop as not yet reposing its power of m ovem ent from desire in the ultirnate
desiralge; for notkdng else is apt to stop what is impelled exeept the appearance of that desirable. H ence nothing m oved has com e to a stop, as not yet attaining the ultim ate desirable, siuce that, not yet appearing,has not stopped the m ovem ent of those that are
impelled to it'' (Amb 7-Io69Bz-z3). Sueh is the fundam ental argum ent, whose m eu physieal aspects M axim us cam e to sum m arize Jn tlle triad gtxssis, kinn is, . sztuf. ç and to whieh we gave our lirst attention 1e. Bat before com ing
to these aspectsM aximus gives lir. st two rejoinders ofthe Origenisg to the above argum ents, with his own answer to the objections. He says (in immediate sequence to the above passage): .'But if they urge next that this has once happened, nam ely that rational beings,being m oved offfrom their station and abode in the ultilnate and only desirable,have got the dispersion,without m inciug words:
what proof is there? - they willprobably (then) suppose that the rational beings willnecessarily lzave t?tf t-nsnitttm the sam e ckanges of position in the sam e circum stancesn. For whatever they have btxen able once to scorn experim entally, no reasoning will prevent 'Q See Chapters 1 and IT. â1 'rhis sentence presents seve al dië culties. I construe it thus:El tkè . ..
xeletllnm is protais. Kg1'%'h( ;... (iatj& tlkg is exepegetical of the ' rogto
of the protasis'it is parasyntactie. This xofivo I unçlerstançl as referring to the pmy lxElvth aœ (jm év im m ediately precedlng or ratlzer to its appearance, which is tke hypothesis tlle protasis of M axhnus' adversaries w hose conqequeuce he explains in the follow ing parasyntactic clanse. 'Phe
apollosisthe.n is formetlby O g tttrro ...fxoe cov'rut. Anotlle' r and.a greater dië ctllty is the unusual sertse of lk êroxtiylzemoç xehzfovct. Scotus understood the words in their aecustom ed several
sknses antl renclered:ex #m :c:#/t) iubent,which in the context m akes no sense at all. I'lence I take xelt,tkn irlits root settse of prrss on ïwl s/: (lzere witk referenee to the argum ent);allfl 11 lroxtîypm og in it,s second sense ofovdey thatis not command but #' l4fin plac6. The phrmse then 14 la4vtiyprtsog ispraetically the equivaleut of an éau ctyytt'ckxf ' f,ç - subsidiarlly. xhh. l. ts untlerstood it fts in pedeetly wlth the re.st of the argum ent as I explatn it in tlte text.
Tlte Rqutgtion p/ Origenism its being forever possible. But, that rational beiags should be so boru. e aboat attd have or hope for no unalterable ground foz thdr .
fxedness in the fair- what else could be m ore pitiable?'' (Amb 7 Io69BI3-CIc). -
.
From this passage we see at once that the Origenistswith who M axim us is de m aling do tkot refute his doetrine of m otion - tlkat to have rest the ultim ate desirable m ust be attained'they sim ply a th ssert e contrary of M axim us' zrtinor. M axim us assum es, in view of tlze m anifold m otions of rational beings, tlmt the end bas not been attahled ;they aë rm that phm itively it had been attained. Agreed then otlthe doctrine of m otion and on the fact of'aetualnon attainm ent of the end M axim us lays bare the consequenee of their position:there catt so never be any perm anent rest in the good. The m ere statem ent of sueh an hypothesis is its owm sttë dentrefutation. H is adversaries then'eounter w ith another subteduge: they coul i d have rem ained jn the good, but they did tlot watkt to Suclz -
.
s the second rejoinder of the Origenists;following directly on the pieee just translated the text runs:'ZBut ifthey shoald say it Fas possible, but not w anted, because of the experienee to be had of the eontrary. And so not for itself as fair, but because of the eontrary the fair willneeessarily be appreeiated by them , not ms natura2y and m operly lovable For all,that is not good in itself and lovable and capable of draw ing all m ovem eat, is not properly fair Fbr this reason neither ean it sgitably retain the de . sire of those that take pleasm e in it. N o,those who are ofsuch a fram e of rnind would fnally address their thanks to the evil, as being taught tlteir duty through it and sttbsequextly having leam ed how to hold their stanee in the fair;and, ifthey knew how to be consistent with them .
-
selves,they would say that it (evil) wms necesharily tlle be 'eoming kenesisj, more usefulthan nature itself, sitzce, accordhtg to them , it is the instruetress of w*hat is littiug and generative of the m ost ptized possessiott of all, I speak of charity , with wrhich all tbings that eom e from God are naturally brought together itl God abidingly
and tm alterably '' (Amb 7-Io69CIc-Io72AIo) 'lxe fkst rejoinder and.reply turns on the question of whether .
a perm atzent fuxedness itzthe good is necessarily tile goal;the seeond
rejoinder supposes that there willalways be the possibility ofehoice between good antl evil;tlze craving for experience is the reason suggested for the ehoiee of evil But M axim us' position is that tlte tiualand entire absorption in the good issueh as to exclude the least .
Cltaptor F.K oros -
.-
-
L- -
-
..- -.
-
187
deviation towards evil. H is m ethod here is a reductio ad tzlsf4rlfllof the position of tlle Origenists. 'Phe positive developm ent 'of his position we shall see later.
I shall now give the second passage olz sttrfeit. 4'lhtor joy, they say, kno!vs neither past grief nor reeeives future surieit 12 from fear 1: asdoespleasure, H euee also the inspired booksand our Fathers. m ade wise by the sam e in the diviae m ysteries, lkave ev-
erywhereaflirmed joy asbeing a nam eindicative ofthe futuretruth. efIf, therefore 14 to speak sttm m arily in m y owat little w ay, it has been showrlby reason,by Scripture and by the Fathers that no ereated thing onee ntoved has com e to a stop uor has received
the release coming to it in view of the divine purpose Lskoposj,and, :2 l'k. f()Al(zt ;.gy. 36: $ and the eorreetor of Vat. gr. l5oz read 'tùv lx ' roïi
xdeov +($f$0:,.But neither the reading of Seotus and Oehler nor this varlaut give a very lueid sense. W hat are we to understand by tkefzf/llvzlsurfeit jA't?nzIear in Oehler's reafling? But ott the other hand what sense is there in 4:jutuys /Jp. rjyom szxy/eï/? W ith pleasure a present fear ofa future surfeit is entirely in place. But itzthe text the word reuclered by Iwtus'e (apociôoxégevovj statzds outsid, e the phrase s' twjett /1.0- feay tjr Jecr jkom slfrjeï/ so that even if one would em end tlze term ination from tlle aceusative to the genitive,it. s position woultl rentler agreem ent wlt. h tlze gettitive d; x xo9 xét?mz im posslble. I have thezefore retainecl Oehler's readiag.
IR That joy is unalloyed by fea' r of loss ordim inution is it seenls, a Stoic doctrine'expressed, however in the fragm eats collected by vox AR-
NIM (m ly by SSNSCA (eP.59s2,VON ARNIM III Io6t3):Scio,inquam ,et voluptatem ..,rem infam em esse et gattdiam nisi sapienti noll contingere. e-st enim anizni elatio sttis borzis vcuisque sdeutis. -- gaudio autem iunctum est non (lewsinere nee in contrarium verti. 'flle kinslzip ofifleasism anifest; but the real eonteu. t Ls vastly diverse. W ith Seneea it is due to conftfltnce in the wise m aa's own gootl works witll M axim us it is infiicqtive ()/th6 fzdfur, /rz4/#,whieh I understanclin a pregnant sense:the fature,stable gzaee-gzvezz union w' itlz (. 7()d. 14 O sHlm R'S plm d uation is m isleading. 1 Place tlle ftrst eom m a after
'rotw v rem oving that after lxt:eog. 'ù For it seem s better to unllerstand M axim us as here sum m arizing his owtz account. Fbr the retd ering of xftx'épè...'cùv pzxpt' w (cf. ep.6-43zBzz)I refer to LS*xlIë.B IV 3. Tlte protasis ls el ' coêmw ..-öç: &ezs . $ïpl). It is present even in the sllm ml 't of lm man bliss:for not being pure act, the fzxed anll beatifying exercise of the soul's powers m ust in som e f% hion be successive. V et one should not suppose that eve-ry instanee of everlasting m ovem ent js a stasis. T he so4t1 as im m ortalis coneeived as a snbstanee inseparable from the exercise of its com
natm 'alenergy (d.ep 7-4. 368 and ep 6-4328;the argument of laoth these texts Ls derived (lrom Plato in tlze Pkaedl'us z45c). 'fhe exercise of this connatm al energy is fully naturalw hen teztding to G od but is not destroyed
when divertetl from lzim but is then termetl m' utability (ep 6-4. ,2/). In a single context of A m b zo on the m ovem em ts of tlze scm l there is tw ice
m ention ofthe everlasung movememtofthe soulin régard to God.(Amb zoxIz3D2 and zzz6Bz5), as also in PN-8(u'C9 and.Thal 25-3334.5, In this latter tlle everlasting movement is qualihed as hnowlsdgdul tàrrununxsl. I hesitate to ' traaslate scientijs because diseursive thought has in the prec '
line.s bee.n excluded. 'ö I give som e instances. In Char 4.9 M axim us contrasting the utter stability antl selfsam eness ofthe creator w ith tlze com posite character of the creatm e,says: '(PG 91.29-30 n.14). Thecom m ent is true but I think over-laconie. The texts indicate that we have
here (TP I)atlevelopementof term inology,aecompanying preciser tlzougltt. 'fl' lis ispalallel w tth the c:ase of o flo n which at fwst isafe m efl ofQhrlstin-
sofar a, s it is in aceord with natare (PN -8. 77D and TP 7-8oA of the years 628-30 anflc.642). But already in TP zl of643 or shortly after lzis posi-
tjon is ehanged (TP x6-I9zA z9:A). His final position m ay lye seen in tlze Dispute with Pyrrhus (TP 28-308C)in 645.or itlT P 1 ofthe year 645-46 (TP z-z7C) where ill thj:sertes of hum an acts preeeding an action yvoîp. n .
.
eom es before election. In fad 1:0th.m ohp. n and election presuppose flelib'
eration (/ofhvgtg) and tlzis presupposes ignorance. But ignorance is absolutely im possible in Christ and is excluded in the blessed by the fnlness of knowletlge. It is here suë dent to have indjcatecl these poin' ts' a full consideration oi them belongs to a Chtistological stully.
Chapfvsr 7.Xoyos
197
If immutabîlîty has predominantly an ontological sense, jxedness in m ost of its uses is m oral :3. 'flae noun is of less frequent
oecurrence. W e find it in PN -9ooC; ill Am b Io-II7zA4 there is
the oxymoron ' movementp/ Fxedness,a referenee to that everlasting m otiqn of which sfasis is the ccm ditiorzB4. M ore frequent'how ever
isthe assertion ofthe need fyf a 1ix6d flz litfuntranslerable kabitfzlth6 rp0#,either w ith reference to the strttggle of this life 35or w ith a predorninant reference to hlleaven Be. T here is at tim es an indication of the type of relation that exists betw een these tw o tenns: nam ely, that the lixed virtuous habit illtlze good is an im itation ofthe divine im m utability e?. This certainly is not the least of the divine cllaracteristics. It is the term ofthe reasonings about God that have to do with m otion
and condude to his immovability (flxlvnxov) and henee to ids immutability l#::pEzrtovl. Lqtimately it is that God is his own end (Amb 7-Io;: JB5)and aloneisssll-motion,. s,J/-#a?z/er(Amb 7-z(yM Bz5). H ence one m ay the m ore easily perceive the urgenc'y of M axim us' argum ent against the O rigenists: .'B ut, that rational beings shottld so be borne about and have or hope for no unalterable grotm d for
theirfxednessin the faiz,what else could be more pitiable?'' (Amb 7-Io69C9-Ic)R. W hat, indeed, eould be m ore pitiable? And yet, if m an is essentially free (both Ozigen and M axim us are wholly com m itted to this) and freedom consists in a choice betw een good and evil*9 then the possibility of a surfeit, of a deseA ion of the good, re3: I have above note 25, noted an ontological use of fxedne, ss
(ep 12-5olA);others with the verb especially, could be cited s.g. Am b 42-I. Jz9A 4,f24. 34 See above note z4. O A m b 7-Io8zD I4; A m b 42-x.32IB 6; z35zA Iz; A m b 54-13774.5.
'B Amb 7-:0768 12 Lhabit does not appear); PN-885D. 3? M yst 5-676.1.; cf. A m b ro-zz45A , w here how ever it is not Jxttytös'qç
but tk:kelpta that is found. In tlus study of mntability azld Fxedness I hqve usetl for ' the m ost part only those passages wlzere the words them selves oeeur. It would lm wevem be m isleading to give to understancl that so the topie is exhausted. In evidence I would partlcularly draw attention to ep z,a letter exllorting
to constancy in atlversity ' lwititsom e Stoic traces,ep I-36qC)in widch ottr .
them e is several tim es touched upon. See ep r-364C, 369CD . 37zB. :@ Effectively such is Origen's docwtrine, though pa ages m ay be adduced perham telling in another sense,
198
Th.R:jutfllfo' l. lojOdg:lfs' m
m ains always open. H ence it is that the O rigetdan doctrine of surfeit is not properly excluded unless a suë cielzt doctrine of htltrlrtn freedom be established. I have already drawn attention to this19' we olast now see how Ataxânlus acconlpzsked lt. D . Sszvw ostrsziMtx.u zox 'l'he foregoing treatm ent of surfeit and Exedness has suë eiently shown tite im portance of freedom and it,s inherenee in'the eom plex of eltoice and m ovem ent tewards God. Surfeit M ai m us w holly
rejects;mutability is recognized as a delident ttse of freedom . The foregoiug points have been developed against a baekground of Or igenistic doctrine; but now it is im possible not to present tlhe question of freedom in M axim us against the background of the or tltodox Origenist that was Gregory of N yssa *l. For he, rejeetirtg -
-
#
O See above p. x9z antl p. 1q6 with note 3z.
41 Gvq ovy 0/ Nyssa,or/àfàt?. v otigenistîI clo not intenll to imply tlmt al1 Gregory's speculation is orthodox'he rem ains however a cloctor of the Church. I m ay'perhaps be criticized for not havhtg eonsidered Gregory's position in a11the foregoing chapters, as a pcesible eletnent not only in M axjm us' positiqm but ZSO in that of the Origenists. It w as witlt this pos-
sible criticism in nzind thatfrom the outset(see above p.i'zf)I exeludeclthe anthropological questixm s that ate leiks particularlr Origenist (tim pre- anq post-existenqe of souls) and in whlch above a1lthe irï uence of Gregory is felt. But the developm ent of the refutation of the henad has brought us Nnally to the questiozl of freedom ;a' nd here, as in tite fual chapter on the gpocatastasis,Gregory cattttot be exclttded. That M axim us staltds dose to Gregory of N yssa has always been recognize; but tltese relations have so
jar been ' the object of 11o thorough study. STéZHANOU''S artiele on La fiogvù/exce initial6 ff?, fsorpsettilyI'âm6tf',#r1 s.(iW jrtaïr, de Nrpw ufrrts.M axime t'H omologlte (EO :J4 gzçu zl 304-. 3r5) is rathu a juxtam sition of the tw o authors tlzan a study of their relations. Stéphanou flepentls on the
digressions of Am b 42 attd of Amb 7 (zIoo-lxoz),bat makes no mention of O rigenism irzconnection with M axim us W eiswurm 's(lissertation (pp.485. 5) covez' s nm ch the sam e ground. The analyses of GM TH'S stud,y (La floFztz/l/ïoAl (16 17 libevtê CA:J Grégoitr tf,Nysse, Paris 1953)m anifest a simi.
.
larity with M axim us in the followittg points: m an essentially eom posed of
body antl soul (p.481).the sim ttltaneit)rofthe parts (p.loo,101),tlle relations ofbotly and soulafter death (p.185);the t' riad:nat' tzre motion end. bs Gregorian (p.96,97, IoI,zoz);tile sim ultaneity oi kinesis antl sttnis is also found itl Gregory (p. a05). But ultimately one must allow a fundam entaldiserence betw' een Gregory and M axim us in their relation with 01i-
gen. Gregory,afterall wasnurtured in the best Orjgenisttradition wlzeu
Chapter7.Koyos
I99
koros4e, aë rm sthe neeessity,the practieal necessity at least of an experience of evil as a springboard for the inûnite desire for God. Gaith,in his reeent study of freedom in Gregory,m akes this point very clear. H e w rites:'f11 faut done ehercher sile choix lui-m êm e
independamment des influences étrangeres (the devil's deceit and the seduction of pleasure) ne eontient pas déjà le péehé comm e une ctm dition quasinécessah'e. Elltl'autres term es ils'aglt de savoir sile m ouvem ent libre ascensionnel de l'hom m e en genéral ne eom m mw e pas norm alem ent par une chute ''48
And in speaking ofthis experience Gaith (p.137)cites in part tlle following passage from Gregoov's D6 M prfzffs' . %.lzor the self-
determinative (power)is as Cxod (lcöêE()v). How then tllis power m ight rem ain aud evilbe done away witlz,the wisdom of Cvod fotm d this idea;to 1etm an be ilztlze things he willed,that,tasting the evils wilich he desired and learning by experience 44for what he had e-xchanged them , he m ight willingly turn back through desire to tlze as yet Origen was neithe, r condem ned nor com prom ised by a following of
fana'tic extrem ists from the Palestinian m onasterie.s (Evagritts coulcl then have hatl no great following); M axim us enjoyed no iam ilia' t I mean lio fam ily contact with Origen; he could attain to the m aster otzly tlzrough llis writings laboring unde. r the flisadvantage which the antiorigenist controversies an; conflem nation created for any one (lesiring to profifby Origem 's great 1earning, 'speeulation and devotion. V oN BAt/Tm ts. tlt has shown tlzat M axim us had direct acqnaintattce with Origen' I have showq above how M ae txim us had 6t1z century Origenksm directly in view in refuting the
henafl (ttirectly,ot m ediatdy, that is by the ' zth centtu' y prolongation of the 6th century positions). These are perham relatively sim ple factors. B lzt M axim us knew also Gregory', at once O rigenist and tacit corrector of
Origen; he (Maxim us) utderwent the inâuence of Psettdo-Denis. 'rhese m ake up strands of a tangletl skein. To be of tlse itz identifyiug one or the
otlle. rofthese strandsis suëcient to justify the presen. t essay. 'Po identify and K rt them cm t i. : a work of the futuze.
** GAIIII op.cit.p.2o3;IVANKA,H ellenisnhes1;A&tJ Christliches ïx Frz' iâbyzaydinischsn (Dffftvldlld' ?l (' W ien :948) p.no and.5z'B. 48 G M TII p. :06. 4f One znigllt ask does M xvl 'rntls also end aage tlzis Gregorian doctrine
in his refutation ofthe Origenist doctrine ofsurfeit tsee the passage translatetl above p.186). It would seem aot'M aximus tltere considers spirits M4th full knowledge who because of thek choice and expedence of evil have been equfpped witltbodies;Gregory has in m ittd the actualcolzditfons in which m an fknds llim self.irt which the m isertes of thks life can tur' n one to tite good. V et insofar as Gregory coneeives of m an as rutm lng tke full gam ut of evil necessarily snite anfl so necessarily m eetiug again witk the
' zoo
ThgRnfnu iion 0/Orig6hism
first N essedneoss,putting of, as som e load,whatever has to do with
passion and the irrationat being purifed either in the present life
through prayer and 'tke ascetic life fphilosophia) or after passage hertce through the sm elting of the pttrifying Iire ''4: M ueh is said or im plietl in this ' passage. N ow I w ould note .
that the intent of God's perm ltting sin and evil is to preserve the self-determ inative power which is ltyo Eov. But then there arise
some questions: is the self-determinative (rè txè:ziogtrkov) in the creature to be identifed with apclcltpecw ? And if not, im w are they to be distinguished ? Again, no one denies that sin, sugering and evilcan be powedttl pedagogiealintm m ents for the perception and desire of the good ' yet is it really a neeessity, an ontological necessity, that tlle ereattlre pass through this sehool? According te Gaith the answer to titis latter question is d ev .
He says (p. 106, the sequence of the passage above quoted)2 T$11 nous sem ble que cette idle se dégage de tout le systèm e de Grégoire. Im xtm ateeckg ne devient, selon lui,un choix libre rlel c'est-à-dire un progrè.s continu, que par une aliénation '' Of tlze reh tion ol the self-determ inative and choice he says 48 .
that tktplzb pcûa is a truly spontaneous movem ent from the essence ofthe fgo,by whicllthe person choostxs, realizes its tnle self. 'Plm s
thechoieetrœottltlEtytglin accord witllnattlreis tzue and free,while that contrarg to nature is a slavery
.
'fE But Grego'ry himself in a passage cited by Gaith (p 79)'says: very impulsive choiee taf-itm xtloateEgtg ôejznxtx4) either works .
quite in accord with the good or tends to the opposite ''ê7. 'fhere is therefore an am bigttity hl the use of ip oaltegkg, W e lzave seen above 4: how Ozigen erred in identifying freedom with clzoice. A satisfactory rd utation of O rigenism m ust esect
tltis distittctiolz. It would seem that Gregevy was ndt entirely successful in this respect. lt wi11 be from this poiztt of view that it good, the Afaxhnian argunlent w ould tell but only if Gregory concdved evil as a positive instram ent for teaching the gootl, not as an elem entwhich eventually G sabuses m an of his illusions about appatent gtxds. 4: GREGORY ol? N VSSA D e Jo rfaz'4 PG 46.5248.
48 G AITH op. . O T P 28-324D 8.
Chapier F.Koros
zo3
Phzist beeam e sin for us and yet did not.know sin,lte speaks indifferently of the corrtlptiolt of choice in A dam and of it.s reetitude in Christ. This is one of the passages for which afterwards he m ust give an explanation. In TP I he observes that if som e of the 1?athers have spoken of ehoice in Cluist,it was in the sense of our essentialappetitive power,narftely ou. r natural will, or was an appro-
priation of our ehoice to the Inearttate God (T P I-a90). It was ia tids sam e m anner that he him self wrote to 'Phalmssius,for in fact
there is izzChristno possible choiee (?.PP I-z9Df). 'rhe Christologicalfaetor has then dearly induced a elariâeation. Choice in the frst treatise to M arinus is defined as a C4f). In the Centuries on Charity etevnal Jz lfAlïs/lvlfrzl/ eom es to the fore in Char I.56, 57, ' 2.34. Von Balthasar's caveat against arguing from tids term etnrnalto a concept of tm ending punishm ent to be found izz Gregory of N yssa 8 cannot have the sam e force for M axim as, .
inasmuch as he could not have been unawire how the 6th eentuz'y antiorigenist theologians used the like qualifcation for puztishm ent
and.forlife ti1l Matt.25.46)as eternalas certain proofofthetm elzd'
ingness of punishm ent, since of the unendhlgness of the blessed life there was no possible doubting 8. Elsewhere M axim us speaks
ofa just judgement or condemnation for endless or for itïnite ages orofb0th together:4, 'or ofdestnzction or ofthe 1ot ofthe bad thiefM. A11 these are but passing references. There are how ever four letters dating from before 6z6 to 643,therefere covering the w hole period of M axim us' activity as an mscetical author, wllich contain
deseriptions of death,of the particular and fnaljudgement and of the quality and etendty of the just damnation. I refer to ep 4 on grief,to ep c4 to Constantine,to ep 8 perhaps to Sophroniusand to ep I to the eparch George on hisrecallto Constantinople in 64z '1. Let us gather a few of the phrases that refer m ore particulady to tlze endlessness aud quality of punislzm ent after death. The them e of ep 4 is salutary grief. 'fhe rem em brance of death and tlze constant anticipation of the labor at tlze soul's departure are
eminently ftto arousein ustllissentiment (ep 4-4I6A). Anflfnally, after the opening of the doom sday books, t'those who have their station allotted on the left hand reeeive eternalfre the outer darkness, the sleepless worm , the gnashing of teeth uhdryable tears 8 VON SALYHASAR Pyése*ce P. 584* ,See ZSO G AW II Op. dt. P. 190. : JUSTINIAN, .p1dv. Olïgdlxy;n ad ,V. 18Al:Fl4pl, ACO t. II1 2o5l*ff (PG 86.975). 1: Am b aI-zzszllzo' Thal z1-z93B4 anf' t M yst 14.-69: $84fl Ea: Gtthcrtv .
ckaetpol. g' re xûkâvEàr Evet%' rolç. 11 A m b r zo-za3' z'B ; A rnb 5,3-:37t J: B , z376B .
11ep 4-416. 'ep 24-6z2BC; ep 8-44:11 (etern 'jl hell-flrel; ep :-388C389Cz, l' por the dating see m y D ats-lést.
:zo8
Thtf,& /74f//r' t?A;ojOrigenism
and endless sham e over which every m an condem ned to tm ending torm ent for agesis m ore ae icted titan over allotherform s ofpunisî -
ment put together'' (4I6-D8-4I7Az). In ep 24 he refers to tbe peaee obtained (that over Chosroes in 628) and then exhorting to a right and w orthy use of peace contitm es: z'1et us be m indftll of the bitter aë iction of eonscience that com es to the soulin hellatthe m em ory ofits deedsim donein the body;1et usbe m indfulofthe con -
summation of the entire world ''(6IzBI-4). Then heeomesto the dtxscriptioh of the 1ot of the blessed and the dam ned. These latter' . 'ffor the tm naturah ess oftheir deeds w i11receive the outer darkness the sleeplerss w orm , the tm quenchable iire of gehenna and, m ost
grievouk ofall,sham e ofconscwience that has no end ''(6I:Cg-II)&3 .
' But w ith the years, or perhaps with the gteater poiglzancy of
the situation under which he was writisg this fziend George was
under grave suspidon),Maximus has gained a f'urther insight
He . speaks this tim e in the frst person : '*.A.ll m e! the fearful sham e that willnever have an end except by a citange I becom e free ofm y
m any evits, .ih m e! the m oaning and the'bitter tears. .
.
Instead
of light darkness,in'stead of joy grief,instead ofrehxatien punishm ent and distress willsurely Teceive m e. Aztd then ofa11, tlle m ost nziserable,or m ore tnzly the m ost grievous - in saying it only I am afllkted, how m uch m ore in enduring it: be m erciftll, Chtist, and save us from this ajlliction - the separation from Gqd 14 and from his holy polers,and the fanliliadty with t:edeviland hisevildem ons that abidesfor ever without any expeetation of liberation from tlzese tenible tlzings. For in this world by our evil aetivities we chose willingly and deliberately to be with them ; of necessity to be with them w e shallfairly ezzough be condem ned, tlm ugh unwilling. And m ore pusishing and terzible than any punishm ent, the bdng contiuually w ith haters and hated thisapaz'tfrom torm ents, not to m entiou with them ,and tlze having been separated from the loverand the .
loved one. P'or God judging justly,who by nature is and is called love,isnot hated by the judged; nor does he hate the judged, for
naturally he exists free of passion . As we believe that these things
13 Part of the phrasfng of this passage has been borrowe; from Gregory N azianzen or. 16.9:PQ 3,5.945C. It is a passage citecl again in part in Am b p zo88A . 14 Gregory of N azianzen is also here M axim us' forerunner' see tNe above note.
Chapfer VI-Apocatastasis
zog
reazy and truly will be, 1et us, beloved, not negleet ourselves ''
(ep 1-388D6-8902). M axim us does not speak here conventionally of the pains of hell'he does not repeat m ere phrases,as m ay seem the case in the references giveu earlier. Xret there rem ains to be seen how he * 11 treat certaill problem s resulting from seriptural and. patristic texts
when he is less directly under the infuence oflfisgospelm editations.
Here the great problem is that of the concrde solidarity f?/ the àll- flzl race1: wlzich ,if carried to its lim its,seem s to involve a certain apocatastasis,m ore or less on the fotlowirlg lines:since a11 fell itï A dam all w ill rise and be saved in the new A dam . B tlt even when sueh a doctrine is carried to its extrem es the resulting apoeatastasis, though equally false w ith the O rigenist doctrine, is not the sam e. 'rhe latter is eoherent w itll the doctrine of the henad, preed stenee and a certain eoneept of freedom and neeessarily llows from it;the form er has a real,a true basis,but is a doctrine sugering, as it were from sarcom a,nam ely that no person m ay be coneeived as set perm anently in opposition to the good in Christ l6. I shallnow give those passages whieh seem rnost to favor such a view . It is here that x stichaud was m ost diligent. Am ong the
Quaestiones ad F/lflllssï' lfvlI may refer more particularly to Thal z and I5. In the first the harm onization of the particxular with the general,in the second the ways of God's providenee are dealt with. In quite a num ber of the passages dted by M iclzaud one should note that the m oral elem ent is present, m ostly expressed with the words granted /t? th6 worl/ly or the like U. Tllis is em phasized in the com m entary on Ps.59 '8. H oweverthe fullest iasistence on this aspeet is'found in A m b 3I-Iz73D , w hich deals with a phrmse of Gregory's oration on the N ativity : Tfthe law s of nature are loosed; the upper world m ust be filled; Christ bids, 1et us not resist ''. Tlze second phrase of the pmssage naturally hw ites the doctrine of tlze
concrets solidarity t# m ankind. Nor is it surpdsing that Maximus 15SeeDANI*LOIJ,RSR 3o (z94o)3447forsome literatureorttlzissubject; see also voN Bzktalfasalt,Pq sence p. 58f, especially 58:.
16 See GA. ï' 1% ok. cit. p. z92. In tNe passage cited (PG 4 .z:z6CD) Gregory asserks the incom possibility of e'vil and the divine om n4pre-sence.
I shallretm.n to this toilic below (p.zl8.Thal15). 1:See Thal 22-:JI7Dzo, 32IB7;54-jz5B:z;; 59-609C2; 63-668C8;64pooB 8. 18 Pe 59-8.574. . 14
zlo
TltetAt#fy/llïo@lolOyigenism
hete introduceslhe parables of the lost slzeep, the lost dracbm a and tlle prodigal son The lost elem ent is that whieh lzas fallen from the heavenly choir p arlkind w hose return provides the whole scope of the Incarnation l9. But that M axim us here leaves to a m ore propitious oecasiop the explanation of the num bers 2, Io and Ioo zn is not suë eient grounds fo' r num bering this pa% age am ong those w hieh deliberately refuse to speak on certain more :xfllfefl doctrines It is to these texts that we m ust now give som e attention .
'
.
.
E sottwic Sïlesce? V on Balthasar :'says that texts of the esoteric sort are frequent in M axim us. 'fhis is not quite so. 1 have just indicated.one passage that ought not to be lm m bered w itll them A nother stteh text he sees in Am b 45-13568 . But here again M axim us' reason for not speaking is not a desire to honoy a doctrine in Wftrlc: but to .
pass it ove.r for the prçsent,because he is not equal to the heights of Gregory's teachiug D. O tller pl sages of the sort I do not kuow W e are left then with three really germ ane texts: Thal m olz6oA ; 'l*hal 4g-4IzA z Thal aI-3I6D . Let us begin with tke last; for the other tw o are m ore im portant an4 related one with the other. .
'
.
Question 21 zuns:'rW lzat is the m eaning of:Putting offprincipalities and pow ers etc (Co1.z.15)?Ho 'w ever was he clothed with .
them at all,sinee he was without sin? '' N ow this Sczipture text is ,
one involved hl O rigen's developem eno of the apocatastasis. In
his 8th hom ily on the book of Josue33 Origen writes:'fTlle cross 1: IIANIéLOU. RSR.so (:t)40) : $44, . 2: Am b 3I-1277C1gff.
:t KL 57oI2z7. 2: See ali. io the beg4 -n' nî' ng of A m b 45-1:52B ;tlze tlzird text of'vt'lç B .< -
' rlu s. t' il (.Ymb r384C) mt'lst be a mistaken referenee. At the couneil of Tqorence Bessarion and M ark of Ephesus together fram ed a reply to 1he Iatins. In tllis the phrase honoy ï: rl silentce Ls used to m ean pass ove.r in silence an tm doubted error of atl honored father in this carse the Nyssetw
dodrine of the apocatastasis fFw vologia Orïtrsfcs. ç ï5.71 j z4). ls such a rsense quite exclutled from M axim us ?
:a In Iosue hom .8.3 (GCS IIASHRISNS, Origen V1I)p. 3389-43: Crux Dominx 'nostrise. tu CIZAW gem ina fuit. Mirus tibisermo forta e et novus vitletur quod (lico:crux gem irza fuit hoe est gem ina ratione eonstat et du plici' quia visibiliter quitlem âlius D eî irz earne cruciiixus e-st invisibiliter -
vero in ea crucediaboluscam pvi, gcqpqtibas. slds6t#cfesftz/ïèusAflxm esfc' rtxf .
Ckapttr VI.Apocatastasis
J zzl
ofour Lord Jesus Christ wastwofold ... that is,itis made up double,because visibly indeed the Son of God was eraeified in the qesh,
while invisibly on that (same) cross tlle devilwitk kis JrïAlcï/wfïfïes and #p7z?>s is Exed to the eross'' (cf.Col.c.:r4, 15). At the rnd ' of tlle subsequent developm ent on the apocatastasis Origen returns
to tliis text and joins it to another24:f'l'or wlmt good does it do me if I know that tke king W H ai is /ltzzlgTff on a ff(,f45/: wood? But ifT lcrzow that the pewer oftlle cross is twofold tm which * :,. 1: Christ is hanged in the tlesh and the devilwith his arm y is routed - from understzandizlg the m ystery m y soul is edified. And yet m ore perhaps,to enlarge greatly the scope of the m ystea , on this wood is
understood to be the knowledge'olgood and ol evil (cf.Gen.z.9)on which 1:0th Christ tlte good and 1he evil devil hanged - the evil to perish , the good to'live by power...''.
Maximus then,after giving his interpretation ofthe P' utting (?# principalities tzlfî poweys m anifests his unwillingneu to propagate a11 the interpretations w hich he knows and condudes in tllis wise: ''It w ould be possible otherw ise to consider the sense of this passage, m ore m ystically, m ore exaltedly; but since,as you know ,one should not set down in w rithlg the m ore ineffable of the divine doctrirles, 1et us be content w ith what has been said,enough to hold tlle m ore curious in tlzis m atter. But,'God grazzthzg that w e be ilz onq another's com pany, we shallstudiously exam ine together the Apostle's
mind '' (Tha1 2I-3I6D). Tltis is not a com plete esotezic silenee; M avim us is wm ing to discuss the m eaning of St Paul; the m ore risky interpretation,it is not prudent to ptlblish. The m ol'e m ystzcal sensç m ay vez'y well be som ething akin to that hinted at in the above citations from O rigen;that it is so m ust rem ain a supposition. O n the other hand it is patent that M axim us does not propose to explain such a sense when he and T halarssius m ay be together, lm t to exam ine the
24 ORIGEN loc. 5il. p. 3429-16: N am qttid m ihi pt rodeFt si sd am quchd
ïs gem ino ligno Az. v Gait rvsjp,a n. çzg. çestîK aqtem sciœm duplicem esse virtutem crucis,in qua et Christus itz carne suspeaditur et cliabolus eum suo exercitu trinm phatur ex intelligentia saeram entiaeaificabitur anim a m ea. Et m agis foztasse ut adhuc excelsius Jtm plituflinem m ysterii (Xlatem us in hoc ligno intelligitur esse sséentia èn' aï 6t Antzfï,ixz quo et bontls Christus et cliabolas m alas pependit setl m alum 'quidem ut interiret bonum vero ut viveret ex vM ute ...
.
ztz
Tlb6Ae/uflfïtk. lf)/O' rïgesïs-
m eanhtg of the text itself,in doing which,ofcourse,thiss6ns6would have to be discussed.. Our other two passages are twins;they 1:0th are in reference to the tree of gotd and evil;they both bttry fhe higher teaclling in absolute silence; neither offers the possibility of a subsequent discussion.
In the prologue to 'fhala% ius ('rhalpro1-z53A) M aximus gives a defnition of evil and explains that this failure to tend to tlle end has as its effeet igrtoranee of the cause. From this he passes to self-love and to a long list of viees. H e then begins a second devel-
opment with a derived defnition of evil as ignorance p/ tlbe good cause t# beings. It is from this that he passesto the them eofidolatry, the prefening of the creature to the creator and to that of self-love, m entioning the tree of disobedience, of the knowledge of
good and evil (257AB). 'fhis tree he then explains. 'fhere is a spiritual knowledge of the visible ereation - this is good;a bodily
(understand: sensual) knowledge of this creation is evil (z57CD). H e goes on then to explain why he here dilated on the tree of disobedience: ff' lY us one should here tlzink ofthe tree, in a w ay w ithin the reach of all;the better and m ore m ystic reason being reserved for the m ystival m inds and honored by us ill silenee. I but now m ade m eution,by the way,of tlle tree of disobedienee, as I w anted to show how igrm rance of G od m ade a god of creation, of w hich the
corpoml self-love of mankind is the pafent worship '' (T11a1 prol.z6oA6u5). In anotller qttestiott, however, Thahssius forced M axim tts to deal wit.h the trees of paradise. Thal 4g-4ogDf reads:.*Iftlze tree of life is said to be wisdom itl H oly Seripture,and the work of wisdom is to diseem and know,in what then does the tree ofknowledge
ofgood and evildiffer from the tree oflife?''In response (4IzA-Bz) M axim us frst says that the doctors.of the Church w ere able to say a great deal on the present question, but honored the place rather w itlz silence, thl -nkilzg it better not to deepen the diflleulty when already m ost people could not attain to the depth of the Scriptures;
and even if some did say som ething,srsthavjng tried outthecapaeity oftheirhearers,they leftthegreaterpart unexam ined. ''Therefore,M af m us goes on,I had thought rather to pass over the plaee in silence, exeept I felt it w oald grieve your god-loving soul. So then for your sake I shall say som etbing suitable to alland profte z-
b1e to thegreatand littleofraind ''('rhal43-4IzAI3-Bz), Maximus
Chqpttw VI.Apocatastasis
21. 3
then proeeeds to give lzis explanation. Inasm ueh as there is the tree of life itsopposite can only be that ofdeatlz- the tree ofknow ledge of good and evil. Of these the one is m aker of life,the other
ofdeath (4IzB). The tree oflife iswisdem ,that isaitisrelated with the m ind and reason' ,its opposite therefore is eonnected with irrationality and sense. Or agailz, as m an is m ade up of intelligible soul and sensible body, the tree of life is the rniad of the soul,the
tree of knowledge of good and evil the senses of the body (4IaC). Now the ftm ction ofcertain elem entsisto diseern;the znind between intelligible and seusible,betw een eternal and tem poral;it perstm des to adhere tö tlle form er rather than to the latter, The senses are discerning ofpleasure and paill. If then m an is discerning only ofbodily plea-sure and pain,he eats of the tree ofknowledge of good and evil; if he is discezning the tem poral solely in an intelligible
way,he eats of the tree of life (4IcD ,4I3A). Sueh then is the explanation suitable and proftable for aH. But is there no ltillt of the nature of tlle explanations Jt?, ?;t/re,ff in si/e' lxz other than the surrnise that they are related to the doctrine advanced in the passagesofOrigen dte'd above? Let usread M az m us' Enalw ord to Thalassius. f'So then there is a g' reat diEere-nce between the two trees and betw eeu the discemnm ezzt naturalto each and in the signiiicauce connatural to eaeh. Since the predication of good and of evil is m ade equivocally without distinction, there cau be done Efgreat harm to those wlm read the words of the Spirit unw isely and unrefleetingly. But as you are w ise by g' race you know that what is said sim ply evil is not entirely evil,but evilin a ceztain respect and not evil in another;sim ilarly w hat is said sim ply good is not entirely good,btlt good in a eeztain respect ahd not good in another. And you are preservetlfrom the harm ful equivocation ''
('Phal 43-4I3AI3-B). W hat is the im port of this warning and distinctioq? I do not tllink it lm reasonable to surnzise tlzat the equivoeal predicatiozt referred to has som e thing to do with the dangerousness ofthe deeper explanations in which M axim us refuses to ittdttlge. In fact Origen âz in identifying Christ with the good and the devit w ith evil fails egregiously in the distinctions proposed by M axim us. And in thus failing he constnles his tllesis for the apoeatastasis of the devil.
'J Sée the passage dted fz1note z4.
2z4
Th6A'tr /zl/lfipzzojOrîgenism
This illttm ines som ew hat M axim us'position in regard to the dod zine honored in silence, whose least acceptable aspect is the tem porariness of hell. O rigen's identification leads directly to the w iping ottt of eviland so to tite liberation of all evildoels whatsoever; M axim us' distinction is to serve as a protection. If w e had no other texts than these,von B althasar's interpre-
taf-ion w ould likely lrin by default. But there are other texts,tex' ts which speak direetly or also indirectly of this doetrine. 'rhese, thottgh know n lzeretofore, have not been studied adequately in this eonnection. I shall present then frstxthose texts whieh refer by nam e to tlze apocatastasis, then those whieh are coneerned with the restoration of the powers of the soul.
'
Toxts N aming tlte Apocatastasis Speaking of the word itself,it m ay be worthwhile to note that
in Greek atocatastasis Ls not an exciusively technical term of theology. 'Phus M axim us' uses it of the yearly return of the sun to
the same position (Am b 46-:356178),of the replacement of the ark (Amb 3p zz9zB3),also ofthe return oftheindividualsoulto a dxed oeetlpation,with God,either with the help of pastoral care (TP 77zB8)or withoutit (Amb g-Io8oCII;zo-lzyoAzol. In the eom m entary on the P atsr Aros/fr M axim us proposes 7 item s as the purpose of the prayer 16:theology,adoptiou by gracea equality w ith angels, partid pation in eterzlal life, restoration of nature im passionately in accord w ith itself, the loosing of the 1aw
ofsin,abolition ofthe tyram ly of the devil w ho eontrolled us by deceit. The fifth and seventh ïtem s interest us here. M axim us expounds eaeh as being ' aecom plished in and by our Lord. The restoration :7 of nature to itself is the perfeet and im m ovable aceord of
nature and the deliberate will (yv4!zn). The abolition ofthe devil's tyranny 28 is the effect of the Passion, the deliberately aecepted physieal deatha by w hich the devil is foreed to vom it forth those he has swallowed. I11 these tlses there .is not the slightest hint of
the apocatastasis in its objectionable sense. *e PN -876CI-7. Z? PN -877D-88oxk. :: P N .-88OC.
Ckaptev VI.Apocatastasis
zI5
W e com'e now to the one expticit treaiment of the danmable apocatastasis, the 13t11 of tlle Qu6stions and D oubfs. It m ust be given in its entirety. ''Since Gregory of N yssa very frequently irt his writings,to us who do not understand the depth of his bigh theory, seem s to suggest the restoration, tell us plemse w hat yeu understand of it. . 5,z.6'5 9447;6,z,z13 I3T9' > 6.2.82e-% 94' ' 6.3.27%8 94, 960. '6'7.
JUSIINIAN 22 73, 7711., 85ff. IS1 -
zo7: K OCH ,H . rz4l 14743 15153 L EHM AN'. P. 7I LSISIGANG 1-1.1.685* , L RON' m TJS ol l BYZANTIUM 60 83, IG2 L
SRUSMWM I6z I EONTIIJS (W JI A QT J V N, Y . l :8 L l' W S, R . 14511 L oossN , J. 1 0:9 I74O L ossltY, V. :67*1 I7061 I77f.
35'91Z%'6.9.SO 94,$ 1*31,6 9.91? 96* , 6.9.Iz1n 5 94 ' . 6.9.114>45 94 PITUTARCH 11571 PRAT F . z8.3f. PR>N TIGIS, G.L. 15511., 1634E ' paocfx s E l nme j Theology 6817 7 nts o 1: 93, 104, 129 , 13. 3 , z43pa, :474: psjçtm o- A ra xAxpslz A PHROD. r8816
psstm o Basm , see D idym us -
Psstm o cvltlr: 163, :66, :68* :76::, ï77 Pssvpo- lm zu s,see D sytis ' tauyxx It ()t4. :4, /4a -
.
YARZCXAL' 5. I241
PYRRHUS II3,15Iö2' I66 p vvsaooRAs 85
M MGIN,J.zzo M ICHAFL OF APH SE QSUS 1881: M ICUAUI), E .zo5J zfa9 M M OYLLER,CYI, 751, 88O 7zz31 ' UImRR,G. .156
Rxuxszt K . 1241
M ARSK , P .S . 71B
M TJYLDIRIU NS,J. 1O0
R EES s 8836 S . m chap .o M . 25 3p, 83 88 . R oouss, R . zo41
SABAS 75 SAJDAK,J. 1f.
N sMssrt;s 817 6o 9t pz 1z5û1 19r z 2oz, SCHWARTZ E .7713,7814
zo3
S8NICA 1870
Inifix oj u sx#jTc/s
c, ).)
i
S/RGIUS,patvo t' clt 13: $19 SHsRw ool), P . I17 SIMION 'rls f.Z F' 0(m 87 Snfetacrcs 99 Srx KO, l%. w z, 6, 4If.
Szxttus,popn I:9 SMYTH, H .W . I87:: SolaHao- tls,monk 78,79:1
Sopm toNlus,patviarch 9 SG HLLN, 0 . I751* S' rm x,E.77S
STAPHANOU,E . 19841
S' It IG:MAYR,J. I19
'lNavI.oR, A , E . 944* THEODORE ol? R AITHOU 88 THSODORE ol? SCYTHIIPOLIS 83 T> orlolts STTJDITS 2o6 ' l*HEioD oRs' r z57 'l> ozaHm us oe ALSXANORIA 75k U SBSRW EG, F . 1881% V lu sR, M . 1241, 13727 14139 I4zS1
W m sw tptkM , A .A . 97:2 ::841 W OLIY ON, H .A . ï3319 124. 94* 168:8 I798%
111.INDEX 0F SU BJECTS Abraham 37 Am bigua,seeoncl edition of 39,4I A pocatastasis 71, 76f. 80 88, 2051 A ttirbutes divine 147, 149, z5 l B ecom ing,genesis 97:2 Being,triatlof 6717 I71,zoz,22ï Charity I54,zzz Choice zo !, zo3 in Christ :96:: Christ, substantial virtue !73 Cllristology 1t$6, 19(33: 201-. z03
Conjectures of 3 'faxiulus 7 Contenzplation lzatural z6 Qoclkes of Gregory Nazianzen 41 Creation,double 5I,914b Cyelic view of worlfl process 86,9752 Ileath descriptions of 2ovf.
Denis and Evagrius ' com pared Iz4l, z53:7 .
Desire for Gotl z9,64 -
insatiable :881*
Devil salvRtion of a15 D iabaa' is k J:, ( 3.5
Dionysian vomabulary 9
Ellergies,uncreatcd g.5zê Evagrius,doctrine of 1. 38ff. and Denis com paretl :24.1 I5357 and Plotinus :241 . Evil,experieucc of 9o, z86 Exem plar z.5o Pixedness I92 F reedom atzd surfeit 490, 1f)7 ba Chrlt 2o4 - for ûkigen I83 FreeMdz Iz9, 198,. Genesis 97:2 Gnom ie w ill zor 2c)3
H enatl of rational beings 73, 76,85, 9o -
itlits m oralM peets I83
Ignorance of G od :4844 of created essences I49 Im age and.likeness 1' F4 Im m utability 196 Inftnity 9.54: 1474:
Joy, as Stoie concept 1871:
Judgement,fllalzo6ff. K nowleflge, theory of I4.IB1
Elias 4o,68 End,defned 98,Ioo distingttislze; from term 9. 54%
Iyaw ,written and natural 35 Logos doctrine defense of I75D.
234
Inh
Xogos doctrine, history of z6856 l to expounfl zt pl , neet - - and Origenism r57 , poss ible contradiction in and w esterzt theology z78 Logos-tropos 1555 * c ttse of z5715 , Stoi
Origenist m yth r84, zpo Ozigen's text in M axim us 886.
-
Palam ite tendencies 9541 :68* z24 Participation zz5f., 218 zzo Passage of ages 2zq Plotinus anll Evagrius zz41 Pyaxis and theovia : 54:4
.
-
M axlm usz ' ase ef :646, Logos and c'reation z69 -
-
,
.
.
and the henaclï67 and witlsom ,68
Logoi of ereatures, preexistent $69f.. czo
not eternally realhed in Cxod 17z as divine wllls z75f.
-
% V S' l4biects
.
Prayer T4o Preexistence of souls, see souls Pzeseace of Cvcd in creaturev zI8 Puttishm ent,eternal88 zo7
Rapture I3zf., T4oa z5:J .
.
R est m otion and gaf,
m ultiple zf%ozzzo,z;u,z77
-
Salvation universality of cof; safiftx ' See Jlr/lff M auuscripts of tlze .dm bigua :f. e & 29,91O I7o z74 z77, z8g ''f0#6' readings from zaf ao ga #1 4, se . , , a . konasts of o ex s :ry. 44, 4b, 48, 49, oo, I8;,1z. pu/ gy. se. !.kpttuv ejjatjous, irj the vjm bigua zozo 4:, zrsta: pu /, gp.Jvo;7'ay. S Sepwlclwizo ye , x e pgog ggg p.z7 . M elelziselleelz Jg ' - zG6' *.1.26 81;2.9 z,r.z.p :z 8ç). p 3; 4z >.a g. , -V. 16.5 89; z8.2 Ig6 p. M iror 14 5 .
Y*/. I.4 2I8; 9.r, 2 z68' zz z a'
.
M oses .57 ajo Mb , )8 tion, de tralfne ford M(' axfm us zo9 C*D , and rest 9: - M otiens of tbe soul L4s M otives lists of 4$2 M ovkclel' tt everlastflzg t().4:4
azjj. zacy' za.z j;; j,.yoggs,t y.t y. (ozag. '
M tut' 7*Y3 I771 :5.32 6P8.z: a. 3c1 190, 25.46 82, 88' zop; Luc. z6. o 19-2% 1: 79;Jytl1. T.z. ( z7.,; A ct. zy.a: 174 ;R om . 1.20 I76' I Cov g. za-y5 QTZ; 150.JT . T. 3. 3, * zz.g z46; zj.2éy
.
.
.
.
yyutabilityaof m an z8 ? T8.4. zs y, yq y .
.
N nm es im osition pf zaz , p N aturaleontem plation, m otu s of z44 N aturaloperation in r roclus zo.4 itz M axim us Io -
x atural win zoz 5
old m an ss Operataon im m auent aud transient , 1Iz13 .
- > l' latllzal
genism 7f. , val fdfty of M ' axfm as refutation of ,4,7.' . Orîgeufst knora ao-aa, -
8,
zyjj. ja ctjs.yzo jjy;y yy.y,yyj,tyt y. ,
cw ygjyzu .agyzzo.j g zjx .a,yyy .
à?7' 'H ebt'7.3 à5I s'eisf'ettrelhlatfot 1981. -sjfquivi lliz 2O2 ce, eosterfe a,o
siu wjs ug out ofz,y,-azq
sonda , rïty of m auu : t,u zoo K mis, exercise of powers zzza a zsjl:, - 'f'Om aferidlity of z9a . / pre. aun post-exfstence of zz zg -
79f 8z 976% '' :
' '
Stoic doctrine z qgu zqraa suffer tlte djvi-ue ' yolf'' zz8# za,' I 4% .
suj)e? r-a,ct 1i 5 v3ity coutrastofzgal:
fndex ()/ Gvesk Tsrorffs Supernatural distïllct from natural Traustiguration the 35,tszf. 169/. t7Lj,178 Tree of good auclevilzz2 . T riad aud Christology x4:3f . -- in Origen 92 bting. wise, tzfftz 145 - being, tpéqlî-àheïAzjf e:terlasting being 674: I7. . r aot z zzz 'Pext' im provem eqts in see plfzA2f. :' ' ' Triads am biguity in 1Io nvlêlpt. b . ' Ixrinfty' 44 5, I64f. J . 'rheandric energy t66 'rheology,athrm ative Jsf., ( $8 virtue substantialSIIIB I7.3 ne gat i ve j 494 8 za g , Tom us H agiorilicus zz4 W i11 natural arld gnoznic 2oz
Surfeit 88 9o t)3 generation of I88 ineoncd vable zo4 in Origen î81 -
-
-
-
IN DP:X OF GRSE K W ORD S âstxtvngla 19424 arti lvtog 88
fksozrtcffttTtbv Jwoctpaftw 741
:éou z3z'4 135, 144, I46 ëztmfykg 14.53: 14.559
rkacz et. a 50, .51, 62 ârteteltz 9549 Krœw ov 14743 tkrgoyévEokç 58 &fqew g IoI fkoxévçoç :34:1 âw fs p ttt .53 çtahcâlxtov 98 atrrsvéf/ynlov 42 ulho'rsléç :8 Ioo
vdnBl 43 vtyeqgw 4.: $
6z in qp. rz zob, lo9 :t rvttpkg'zzz ôfwtigkç êexxtxn' ltrzl:
lxe:tm go'ç ( 26 (yxértog zpo, xp4, )76, z87 l' cokzelfzlctg 46
vldoç D xw 57 sl l xflw 57 'rta4êsta 56 êvéeyetu 47, 96, t?8, I1I13 I2z Ia85 i lvéeynp. tt 49, I14 zpolg 63 ' êalyvtocw az5-22o értlvaltç t aol
o' twetoffop; 48 gthltrvtklh tc 5o *
ôlzoftt Aow 57, 1525 : . of?tytct, ' lz. tç, évéeyi:su 1(z: a
aavuoéppcpa 7o xéplg 95* aölog 63 xotdm zsoH
g' ôhtjsttjta 7o oyvvtqs 4
.reoir n' l z9,3H qlooti. 4z tpabgw 1,52n