27

SEEKING OUT THE ANTECEDENTS

OF THE MAXIMIAN THEORY OF
EVERYTHING: ST GREGORY THE
THEOLOGIAN`S 25$7,21 38
Doru Costache
Abstract: The paper begins by briefy describing the Iamous theory
oI everything` expounded by St Maximus the ConIessor in Difhcultv
41. This Iascinating Maximian narrative endeavours to give an
account oI the whole oI reality, in its complex multi-level structure.
Although St Maximus maintains, by way oI introduction, that this
teaching draws on the tradition oI the saints, nothing similar can be
Iound in the writings oI the previous Church Iathers. Contemporary
scholars have at times attempted to search Ior the roots oI this
tradition, without much success. Not claiming to be exhaustive, this
paper explores one such possible track, ignored by scholarship, within
two passages (11 and 17) in St Gregory the Theologian`s Oration 38.
T
he prologue oI Difhcultv 41
1
claims that St Maximus` theory
oI everything`,
2
presented within a soteriological Iramework
3

and dealing with fve divisions and syntheses oI reality, draws
on the mystical tradition oI the saints. Nevertheless, the subsequent
depiction has no equivalent in the written patristic tradition. This is
quite an intriguing aspect. Looking Ior the sources oI the theory, one`s
frst reaction would be then to ascribe it to the unwritten lore, which
incidentally might represent the right answer. I cannot treat this aspect
here. Nevertheless, in recent times there have been attempts to trace the
literary antecedents oI this worldview; below, I will address a number oI
such endeavours.
My purpose in the Iollowing is to expound on the sources oI
the theory, Iocusing on the input oI St Gregory the Theologian. In so
PHRONEMA, VOL. 26(2), 2011, 27-45
Volume26b.indd 27 13/08/2011 12:14:51 PM
28
Seeking Out the Antecedents of the Maximian Theorv of Evervthing
doing, I challenge the surprising disinterest maniIested by contemporary
scholarship in St Gregory when seeking out the antecedents oI the
ConIessor`s elaborations. By shedding new light on the Theologian`s
Oration 38 (sections 11 and 17) and its contribution to the process that
led to the Maximian construct, this paper intends to bring a modest
tribute to St Gregory and his legacy.
6W0D[LPXV7KHRU\RI(YHU\WKLQJ
The opening section oI Difhcultv 41 constitutes a tremendous
contribution to the Christian worldview, which should be considered
albeit in a broad sense as cognate with the current quest Ior a theory oI
everything.
4
Indeed, St Maximus attempted to map the ultimate elements
oI reality, as represented by Byzantine cosmography. This eIIort emerges
Ior instance in his strenuous contemplation oI divine thoughts, ,
5

which both traverse and bridge all realms: the uncreated, the angelic
noosphere to paraphrase Teilhard de Chardin`s coinage the cosmos,
the biosphere and the human domain. Without being articulated in the
sophisticated language oI contemporary mathematics, this concept is no
less a theory oI everything`. In Iact, and keeping the proportions, the
ConIessor`s numerological digressions
6
might suggest an intention to
give the Christian worldview an alternative mathematical shape, perhaps
evocative oI the Pythagorean system. This aspect brings the Maximian
construct even closer to the current notion oI a theory oI everything.
That said, we move to analyse the Ieatures pertaining to St
Maximus` worldview. As presented in Difhcultv 41,
7
the whole oI reality
encompasses fve irreducible divisions or polarities. In my translation,
the text reads as Iollows:
The frst |polarity| |.| separates the entire created nature (
) |.| Irom the uncreated nature ( ).
|.| The second is that according to which the entire being that has
received existence Irom God by creation is diIIerentiated into intelligible
and sensible ( ). The third is that by which the sensible
being is divided into sky and earth ( ). The Iourth is
Volume26b.indd 28 13/08/2011 12:14:51 PM
Phronema Jolume 26(2), 2011
29
that by which the earth is divided into paradise and the inhabited world
( ). And the fIth is that by which the human
being, like a comprehensive workshop oI everything and which mediates
physically between the edges oI all polarities, |.| is divided into male
and Iemale ( ).
The fve polarities oIIer an encompassing description oI reality, which
comprises both cultural and scriptural Ieatures: the frst, the most basic
Christian division oI being, considers the ultimate ontological riIt at the
heart oI reality, which separates the uncreated and created realms; the
second, the great Platonic division, addresses the diversity pertaining to
the whole oI creation, consisting oI the intelligible and the sensible; the
third, the Aristotelian division, reIers to the sensible domain, subdivided
into sky and the earth; the Iourth, reiterating Genesis 2-3, identifes on
earth the inhabited zone and the paradise; and the fIth, evoking Genesis 1,
highlights the gender division as the Iundamental polarity oI humankind.
St Maximus presents the fve divisions as existential challenges.
The human being appears to be appointed by the creator Logos with the
task oI overcoming these challenges by tapping into the divine rationality
that permeates creation. The accomplishment oI this task is possible only
Ior those that live virtuously,
8
since virtue corresponds to the ubiquitous
ground oI divine rationality. The uniIying process advances in the reverse
order oI the fve divisions, as Iollows:
9
frst, the human synthesis, by
way oI overcoming the gender division; second, the union between the
inhabited world and paradise; third, the union oI earth and sky, as the
two main zones oI the visible realm; Iourth, the synthesis oI the visible
and invisible domains; and fIth, the communion oI the created and the
uncreated. Textually, and again in my translation, St Maximus stated as
Iollows:
.|T|he human being was introduced among |the other| beings as a fnal
grace and a natural link oI sorts ( ) that in general
mediates by its own parts between extremities, bringing to unity (
) in itselI the many |things| that are physically separated |.|. By the
union that brings together all things to God, their cause, beginning with
its own division |i.e. the fIth| and advancing sequentially and orderly
Volume26b.indd 29 13/08/2011 12:14:51 PM
30
Seeking Out the Antecedents of the Maximian Theorv of Evervthing
through the intermediate |polarities|, |the human being| reaches the end
oI the ascension accomplished through all the realms by union with God,
in whom there is no division.
10

Nevertheless, humanity relinquished its task and by abandoning the
virtuous liIestyle became the origin oI what can be depicted as negative
waves.
11
These catastrophic aItershocks caused the polarities to sharpen,
threatening to disrupt the Iabric oI the universe a phenomenon
repressed by the providential intervention oI God. The process oI gradual
unifcation was boosted anew by the incarnation and salvifc economy
oI the Logos, our Lord Christ, through which all fve syntheses were
accomplished.
12

Although worthwhile Ior the Christian worldview in general, here
is neither the place Ior a detailed analysis oI this magnifcent construct
(with its theocentric anthropology evaluated cosmologically) nor an
investigation oI its cultural and theological ramifcations. I must turn
now to the various opinions on the sources oI St Maximus` theory.
6HHNLQJ2XWWKH$QWHFHGHQWVRIWKH0D[LPLDQ7KHRU\
Looking Ior the sources oI the theory, many scholars assumed that there
should have been a development oI the idea Irom simpler Iorms to the
mature elaboration by the ConIessor. Even though, in 1941, Hans Urs
von Balthasar highlighted the originality oI the Maximian synthesis, and
warned against reducing it to the numerous sources it reworked,
13
later
scholars maniIested a persistent interest in pinpointing the origin oI the
ConIessor`s theory. Thus, only a Iew years aIter the frst edition oI the
Cosmic Liturgv, in 1944, Vladimir Lossky seems to have implied that
the theory stems Irom the patristic consensus regarding the diversity oI
creation brought to unity by the human being.
14
However, his allusions
to St Basil the Great, St Gregory oI Nyssa and St Isaac the Syrian, Iail to
document a direct connection. The same goes Ior Georges Florovsky`s
loose reIerences to Philo, St Gregory oI Nyssa and Nemesius oI Emessa.
15

Forty years aIter the frst edition oI Lossky`s work, Lars Thunberg
Volume26b.indd 30 13/08/2011 12:14:51 PM
Phronema Jolume 26(2), 2011
31
discussed more thoroughly the sources oI St Maximus` construct. Indeed,
he surveyed a series oI classical and Christian thinkers, Iocusing on their
contributions to the concept oI microcosm, as an important stage in the
refective process that led to the Maximian theory.
16
The inclusion in
this survey oI the employment oI 'micros cosmos by St Gregory the
Theologian (cI. Oration 28.22) is noteworthy.
17
The Swedish scholar
concentrated however on St Gregory oI Nyssa`s On the Making of Man
16 and The Great Catechetical Oration 6,
18
together with Nemesius
oI Emesa`s On the Nature of Man 1.
19
He considered these passages
to have had a crucial impact upon St Maximus, and provided brieI
descriptions oI the respective contexts. Thus, the passages in St Gregory
oI Nyssa exalt human dignity, which consists in the Iact oI being in God`s
image, within an attempt to give a Christian spin to the philosophical
concept oI microcosm. In turn, Ior Thunberg the chapter Irom Nemesius
refects more philosophically upon the uniIying task ascribed by God to
humankind. This last aspect, however, is not supported by the text.
20

Drawing on Thunberg`s work, which he quoted, John MeyendorII
introduced his very succinct description oI the Maximian theory by
emphasising that the Cappadocians already addressed the topic oI
humankind`s task through their copious use oI the concept oI microcosm.
21

More recently, the quest Ior antecedents continued with Andrew
Louth, who preIaced his translation oI Difhcultv 41 by pointing to St
Gregory oI Nyssa as its primary source.
22
He reIerred to two passages
in Nyssen`s Against Eunomius (I.270-2 and III.6.62-7), adding their
supposed correspondents in the critical edition oI Jaeger
23
yet without
providing details. Reading the two passages in the critical edition,
24
one
discovers that the frst treats the Platonic division oI being, which reIers
to the intelligible ( ) and sensible ( ) domains. The
text associates the two classical terms and their scriptural equivalents,
the sensible being identifed with the visible ( .
) and the intelligible with the invisible ( ). The passage
Iurther addresses the complexity oI the intelligible, ascribing to the
Platonic concept a Christian gist by highlighting a more proIound duality
Volume26b.indd 31 13/08/2011 12:14:51 PM
32
ingrained within it: the ontological riIt between the uncreated ()
and created () realms. The second passage points out the ignorance,
or lack oI insight (), oI creation regarding God`s essence.
The topics discussed by St Gregory in the two passages are undeniably
reiterated by the Maximian theory oI everything.
Nevertheless, when proposing the passages Irom St Gregory oI
Nyssa as sole sources oI the Maximian theory, Louth seems to have
been unaware oI a tension built within his own assertions. Thus, when
introducing his translation oI Difhcultv 41, he casually noted that the
chapter is 'inspired by a Iamous and infuential passage in St Gregory
the Theologian`s Oration 39.13, in his translation reading as Iollows:
'and natures are instituted aIresh, and God becomes man.
25
One would
have expected a development oI this statement; instead, Louth chose
to address the reception oI the phrase in the Byzantine tradition and
its Western parallels. Furthermore, only a Iew lines below the remark
concerning the inspiration oI the chapter, he pointed to the two passages
in St Gregory oI Nyssa, which I summarised above, as the source oI
the theory. Apart Irom this sudden shiIt, one might wonder about the
signifcance oI the Theologian`s phrase in a chapter supposedly drawing
on St Gregory oI Nyssa. Louth noted that the phrase reappears at the end
oI the chapter, by which I presume he implied that the Theologian`s
thought was not at its centre. His inIormation, however, is erroneous.
26

Even in the event oI his remark being sound, which is not the case, this
by no means would solve the conundrum.
More recently, and again attempting to trace the antecedents oI
the Maximian theory, Adam Cooper mentioned once more Nemesius oI
Emesa`s On the Human Nature 1 whilst reIerring to another work by St
Gregory oI Nyssa, the Dialogue on Soul and Resurrection (PG 46, 28B).
27

Within the same context and to his credit, he discussed St Gregory the
Theologian`s Oration 38.11, yet only with reIerence to Difhcultv 7 where
the relevant passage is quoted verbatim. In spite oI this restriction, oI
all the scholars reviewed above Cooper stands alone in his intuition oI
Oration 38 as a source Ior the ConIessor`s worldview.
Seeking Out the Antecedents of the Maximian Theorv of Evervthing
Volume26b.indd 32 13/08/2011 12:14:51 PM
Phronema Jolume 26(2), 2011
33
In the Iollowing I shall address the current claims regarding the
antecedents oI the Maximian theory in St Gregory oI Nyssa and Nemesius,
whilst pointing to Oration 38 as a Iorgotten written source Ior Difhcultv
41. This does by no means imply that I intend to reduce the ConIessor`s
contribution to another and supposedly more plausible source; I just wish
to highlight a Iew reasons why the Theologian`s legacy should not be
ignored. AIter all, to use Thunberg`s words, St Maximus was 'a deep
admirer oI Gregory oI Nazianzus, the great Rhetor among the Fathers.
28

I will begin by considering the repeated aIfrmations reIerring
to Nemesius` Treatise on the Nature of Man as a main source oI the
Maximian construct. One does not need an exhaustive analysis to realise
how, in their enthusiasm Ior Nemesius, the above scholars Iailed to
notice the striking similarities between the oIten-evoked chapter 1 oI his
treatise and passages Irom St Gregory oI Nyssa. For instance, Nemesius
29

rendered almost verbatim the evolutionary depiction oI liIe in Nyssen`s
On the Making of Man 8.3-7.
30
His interest in the Cappadocians did
not stop there though. Nemesius
31
seems to have also borrowed Irom
St Basil the Great the vision oI creation`s useIulness Ior humankind,
as discussed in Hexaemeron 5.4 and 5.9.
32
Likewise, and very relevant
to our topic, he paraphrased
33
St Gregory the Theologian`s Oration
38.10-1,
34
which depicts creation as brought to unity within the human
microcosm. These similarities lead to one and only conclusion: by all
accounts surviving the Cappadocians,
35
and being their frst reviewer,
Nemesius oIIered a very skilIul summary oI their contributions without
adding much to their legacy. ThereIore, the impact oI his synthesis upon
St Maximus notwithstanding, given the latter`s perIect Iamiliarity with
the Cappadocians
36
we can confdently assert that Nemesius` work cannot
represent the primary source oI the theory under consideration. BeIore
moving any Iurther, one more point is in order, which emerges Irom the
previous discussion. I noted earlier that Thunberg`s belieI in a ministry
oI unifcation exercised by humankind, as supposedly maintained by
Nemesius, fnds no textual confrmation. Indeed, what we see at the end
oI the frst chapter oI his work
37
does not match either the amplitude or
the vigour oI the ConIessor`s elaborations. In other words, even though
Volume26b.indd 33 13/08/2011 12:14:51 PM
34
he reiterated the ontological convergence oI the realms in the human
microcosm as pondered by the two Gregories Nemesius` synthesis
did not add to their contributions and cannot be taken as a signifcant
advancement oI the idea.
I turn now to the scholarly opinion regarding the dependence oI
the theory oI everything on St Gregory oI Nyssa as its major inspiration.
It should be noted Irom the outset that the ConIessor`s proIuse drawing
on St Basil`s younger brother is doubtless. That said, when dealing with
Difhcultv 41 and the theory oI everything therein, the idea oI St Maximus
relying on St Gregory oI Nyssa instead oI the Theologian does not
make much sense. This observation emerges Irom basic hermeneutical
principles requiring any given paragraph to be considered frst within
its immediate literary context. As a matter oI Iact, the earlier Book of
Difhculties (written around 630 in North AIrica and dedicated to John
oI Cyzicus)
38
mainly addresses obscure passages Irom St Gregory the
Theologian and is obviously meant as an interpretive Iramework Ior his
thought. Florovsky points out aptly that the Book of Difhculties is the
frst patristic attempt to consistently interpret the Gregorian thought.
39

Speaking Irom a methodological viewpoint, this interpretive Iramework
points to the Theologian as a main source Ior St Maximus` theory, not
Nyssen or any other author, Ior that matter. True, the Book of Difhculties
is enriched by a Iew explicit reIerences to other Church Iathers (although
not St Gregory oI Nyssa) yet this by no means changes its Iocus.
ThereIore, even though the relevant works oI the two Church Iathers, i.e.
Nyssen and the Theologian, were published within the same timeIrame,
oI the years 379 and 380,
40
the hermeneutical signifcance oI the context
should take precedence.
Now, let us veriIy whether or not the evoked hermeneutical
principles have been observed by St Maximus. To give just an example,
in the later Difhculties (dedicated to a presbyter Thomas and published
only a Iew years aIter the original Book of Difhculties) the ConIessor
pondered the theandric` Christ in chapters 2-4,
41
without mentioning
the technical term. The cause oI his avoiding the term is straightIorward
Seeking Out the Antecedents of the Maximian Theorv of Evervthing
Volume26b.indd 34 13/08/2011 12:14:51 PM
Phronema Jolume 26(2), 2011
35
and very relevant here: by all accounts, St Gregory the Theologian
whose Christological thinking was considered there never employed
the term theandric` or its derivatives, instead preIerring the synonymous
composite.` Nevertheless, when St Maximus explored in chapter 5
42
a
passage Irom the Dionysian corpus, he made abundant use oI the term
theandric,` which pertained to it. We can surmise Irom this example that,
similarly, St Maximus interpreted the Gregorian phrase, which served as
a pretext Ior Difhcultv 41, within the context where it belonged, namely
the thought oI St Gregory the Theologian. This conclusion stands even
though the phrase in question (a poetic metaphor oI the incarnation)
has no explicit cosmological bearing; indeed, there would have been no
reason Ior St Maximus to rely on Nyssen or another author in order to
clariIy what the Theologian meant. As a matter oI Iact, any direct use in
Difhcultv 41 oI ideas Irom other authors, like St Gregory oI Nyssa, remains
improbable. My conviction is based on the Iact that toward the end oI the
chapter St Maximus did reIer to another source, i.e. the Dionysian On the
Divine Names, mentioning the author by name.
43
Thus, in the event oI
his drawing on St Gregory oI Nyssa`s ideas, the ConIessor should have
also named the author, which he did not. All these observations lead to
the conclusion that Ior his elaborations in Difhcultv 41 St Maximus was
primarily indebted to St Gregory the Theologian. True, Oration 38.11
conveys almost the same message as the frst passage reIerred to by Louth
in Nyssa`s Against Eunomius (see above). There is however a notable
diIIerence between the two texts; whereas Oration 38.11 mainly deals
with the Platonic division oI being, St Gregory oI Nyssa distinguished
within the intelligible the ultimate riIt between created and uncreated.
That said, when treating the realm oI theology` (the inner liIe oI God)
and the angelic beings in the broader context oI Oration 38.7-10,
44
the
Theologian made the same sharp distinction between the divine and the
created.
Regarding the second text evoked by Louth, pointing out the
ignorance oI creation as perceived by Nyssen, indeed a Ieature reiterated
by Difhcultv 41,
45
it should be noted that this teaching was shared by
all Cappadocians. It recurrently emerged within their respective anti-
Volume26b.indd 35 13/08/2011 12:14:51 PM
36
Eunomian discourses
46
and we also fnd it in Oration 38.7, in the very
context oI interest here. One way or the other, the Theologian`s legacy
cannot be ignored in our quest Ior the sources oI the Maximian theory oI
everything, and to it I now turn.
$QWHFHGHQWVRIWKH0D[LPLDQ7KHRU\LQ6W*UHJRU\WKH7KHRORJLDQ
BeIore moving to the analysis oI the relevant passages, another signifcant
element should be taken in consideration. As already noted, the Gregorian
sentence that Iorms the pretext Ior Difhcultv 41 ('the natures renew and God
becomes man) is taken Irom Oration 39.13, which St Gregory delivered
in Constantinople just a Iew days aIter Oration 38, considered here. This
detail is oI great hermeneutical signifcance. Indeed, by exploring a wide
range oI connotations pertaining to the Lord`s epiphany, Orations 38-40
constitute a thematically and methodologically consistent, indissoluble
whole.
47
For example, Oration 38.2
48
elaborates on the same idea as
the Iamous sentence Irom Oration 39.13. It is impossible to imagine St
Maximus, who was such a meticulous researcher oI the Gregorian works,
as unaware oI like connections. This is why even though Difhcultv 41
does not explicitly reIer to Oration 38, its infuence can be discerned in
the subtext oI the chapter.
To be sure, as noted by Cooper (see above), St Maximus was very
Iamiliar with the Gregorian writing in question, and actually included
a large passage Irom Oration 38.11 in his Difhcultv 7.
49
The passage
rendered by the ConIessor reads as Iollows (my translation):
50

At frst, the mind |; intelligible or invisible world| and the sense
|; sensible or visible world| were distinct Irom one other (
), each remaining within their specifc boundaries
( ) and bearing in themselves the majesty oI the demiurge
Logos as silent worshippers and strong preachers oI the great work. So
Iar, there was neither a Iusion oI the two ( ) nor a
mixing oI the opposites ( ), so as to make known a
superior and generous wisdom concerning |created| beings. |Likewise,
there was| no knowledge oI the whole richness oI |divine| goodness.
Such |goodness| needing to be made obvious, the craItsman Logos
Seeking Out the Antecedents of the Maximian Theorv of Evervthing
Volume26b.indd 36 13/08/2011 12:14:51 PM
Phronema Jolume 26(2), 2011
37
willed to make the man as a single living being consisting oI both (
), namely the invisible and visible natures.
51
Taking,
thereIore, the body Irom the already structured matter (
) and blowing out Irom himselI the breath () which
according to Scripture is the conscious soul and the image oI God he
placed on earth the human being as a kind oI second world, great within
the small one ( , ), another angel, a
composite worshipper.
In its original setting, the text continues with a series oI paradoxical
statements concerning the human being`s structure and vocation.
52

Although the above excerpt does not literally appear in Difhcultv
41, its traces are still visible. Oration 38.11 indeed presents the human
being within a cosmic setting and as bridging the two sides oI reality,
namely the intelligible and the sensible; we already encountered these
aspects in the analysis oI the Maximian theory. The similarities do not
end here though. Like the soteriological Iramework oI the theory oI
everything, as represented by Difhcultv 41, the context oI the paragraph
oI interest here constitutes a comprehensive narrative oI creation and
salvation.
53
More precisely, Oration 38.9-10
54
describes the making
oI the angelic and visible domains; chapter 11 introduces the human
being as an interIace Ior the two realms, also pointing to its vocation
to deifcation;
55
chapter 12
56
narrates the paradisal experience and the
existential Iailure oI humankind; and, fnally, chapter 13
57
presents the
antidote oI this Iailure as administered by the divine pedagogy in history,
culminating in the incarnation oI God the Logos. Looking closely to our
text, Oration 38.11 evokes two oI the fve Maximian polarities the
second and the fIth which reIer to the intelligible and the sensible,
and the human being (however, deprived oI gender connotations). The
Gregorian passage ends with the paradox oI the human being as a second
and greater cosmos, which in its complex architecture recapitulates
and transcends the perIectly articulated wholeness oI the universe.
This very aspect corresponds to the ConIessor`s vision that depicts the
unifed and perIected universe as 'like another human being (
).
58
Nevertheless, the two accounts do not coincide in all
Volume26b.indd 37 13/08/2011 12:14:51 PM
38
Seeking Out the Antecedents of the Maximian Theorv of Evervthing
respects. The main diIIerence consists in that whereas the synthesis oI the
intelligible and the sensible in St Gregory occurs within the psychosomatic
makeup oI the human nature, in St Maximus this detail is implied but not
mentioned.
59
Beside this variance, the two Iathers convey one message:
there is a close connection between human existence and the cohesion oI
the universe. This conclusion allows Ior a Iertile reading oI their ideas in
dialogue with the modern notion oI the anthropic cosmological principle.
Moving to the second paragraph oI interest, in Oration 38.17,
60

we encounter a very diIIerent, yet not unrelated, approach. The whole
chapter constitutes a doxological recapitulation oI the events recounted
in the Nativity narratives, interpreting the salvifc episodes as means
by which Christ accomplished the union oI heaven and earth, and oI
everything else. This interpretation corresponds to the ConIessor`s
musings on Christ as mediator.
61
Again, the Gregorian passage should
be considered in its immediate setting, oI chapters 13 (second halI)
to 16,
62
Ior which it serves as a conclusion. The passages explore the
mystery oI Christ as the Godman, who by his kenosis brought divinity
and humankind to their utmost proximity, Ior the beneft oI the latter. The
kenosis oI the Logos incarnate is rendered in powerIul tones, through a
series oI antinomies such as 'the uncreated one is created, the limitless
one is bounded
63
etc. meant to prevent its misinterpretation. Chapters
14 and 15
64
in Iact deIend the mystery by articulating the unity oI
Godhead and humankind in the one person oI the 'twoIold ()
Christ.
65
Closer to the text oI interest, in chapter 16 St Gregory made a
crucial point, highlighting the meaning oI the Iestal season as a revelation
oI the one reason ( ) behind the mystery oI incarnation: to
achieve 'my perIection, my reshaping and my return to the frst Adam
( ).
66
With this last statement, which I
read as reIerring to a return to Adam`s (uniIying) vocation, we are led
straight to the theory oI everything.
Very likely, despite St Gregory not reIerring to any macrocosmic
echoes oI the deterioration oI the human sphere (an aspect Iar better
emphasised by the ConIessor),
67
the understanding oI the Iestal season as
Volume26b.indd 38 13/08/2011 12:14:51 PM
Phronema Jolume 26(2), 2011
39
bringing humanity back to its vocation indicates such connection with the
theory. Further developed by St Maximus,
68
this notion can be discerned
in the depiction oI Christ as bringing about the union oI the uncreated
and created, and, by extension, oI all the realms within the confnes oI
creation. This has been Irom the outset the task appointed to humankind,
although the Theologian does not explicitly say so (St Maximus flls this
gap, as we have seen, by stating that humanity`s Iall is tantamount to our
Iailure to unite the realms). St Gregory shows however a similar grasp
when pointing out that in celebrating the salvation wrought by Christ
thus, by liturgising
69
we truly join all the realms. He thus exhorts:
GloriIy |Christ| with the shepherds; sing hymns with angels; dance
with the archangels! Let this Iestival be common to the heavenly and
earthly powers | |. For
I believe that they together rejoice and celebrate today.
70

Inspired by the worshiping milieu, taken as a meeting place Ior the
angelic and human choirs, St Gregory`s vision (preceding by a century
the Dionysian liturgical mysticism) reveals the Christian background oI
the theory oI everything. Centuries aIter the Theologian, St Maximus
reiterated this holistic worldview, by including the union oI the angelic
and cosmic realms as the Iourth stage oI the uniIying process,
71
and by
representing the liturgy as a union oI angelic and human doxologies.
72

&ORVLQJ5HPDUNV
The article has reviewed the main scholarly arguments reIerring to the
patristic antecedents oI the Maximian theory oI everything, as depicted
in Difhcultv 41. We discovered that despite the established scholarly
consensus, the ConIessor did not primarily build on St Gregory oI
Nyssa and Nemesius oI Emesa`s respective writings, even though their
infuence cannot be denied. Instead, we discerned that St Gregory the
Theologian`s thought played a more signifcant role than admitted by
previous scholars, both Irom the viewpoint oI the idea oI the realms
as united around the human being and the liturgical Iramework oI the
whole theory. It has likewise become clear that St Maximus was not a
servile imitator oI the Theologian. Whilst the relevant passages Irom St
Volume26b.indd 39 13/08/2011 12:14:51 PM
40
Seeking Out the Antecedents of the Maximian Theorv of Evervthing
Gregory, beyond their daring turns, depict a static and ontological icon
oI reality (inspired by the classical concept oI man as microcosm and the
theory oI recapitulation), the ConIessor oIIers a dynamic perspective,
existential in nature. In light oI this development, the human being does
not simply refect the structure oI the universe, as St Gregory holds, but
represents instead a structuring Iorce at work in the world. In spite oI
these diIIerences, time has come to give due credit to St Gregory the
Theologian as an antecedent oI the Maximian theory oI everything.
$FNQRZOHGJPHQWV
I am grateIul to my colleague and Iriend, Philip Kariatlis, and to the
reIerees Ior their patient rectifcation oI my stylistic shortcomings, and
their constructive criticism.
???
NOTES:
1
PG 91, 1304D. For an English version, see Andrew Louth, Maximus the
Confessor (London and New York: Routledge, 1996), 156.
2
The designation oI St Maximus` vision oI reality in Difhcultv 41 (and parallels,
like To Thalassius 48, PG 90, 436AB) as a theory oI everything belongs to
me. I consistently used this label throughout my unpublished doctoral thesis,
Logos and Creation: From the Anthropic Cosmological Principle to the
Theanthropocosmic Perspective` (Bucharest: University oI Bucharest, 2000;
in Romanian), and in the article Going Upwards with Everything You Are:
The UniIying Ladder oI St Maximus the ConIessor`, in Basarab Nicolescu
and Magda Stavinschi (eds.), Science and Orthodoxv. A Necessarv Dialogue
(Bucharest: Curtea Veche, 2006), 135-144.
3
PG 91, 1304D-1313B. CI. Louth, Maximus the Confessor, 156-62.
4
Perhaps exotic to some readers, the notion oI a theory oI everything is common
in contemporary cosmology. It reIers to the current eIIorts oI reaching an
algorithmic Iormula able to account Ior the entire reality. For Paul Davies, it is
the quest Ior 'a complete description oI the world which stems Irom 'the idea
that all physical laws could be unifed into a single mathematical scheme. CI.
Paul Davies, The Mind of God. Science and the Search for Ultimate Meaning
Volume26b.indd 40 13/08/2011 12:14:51 PM
41
Phronema Jolume 26(2), 2011
(Penguin Books, 1992), 136, 21, 33. See also John D. Barrow, The Constants
of Nature. From Alpha to Omega the Numbers That Encode the Deepest
Secrets of the Universe (New York: Pantheon Books, 2002), 53-76. Based on
the conviction that the universe is 'a maniIestation oI rational order (Davies,
The Mind of God, 22, 165), the concept represents a scientifc alternative to
what humanities describe as a metanarrative, or the underlying reason Ior some
particular developments and events. Davies argues convincingly that although
in itselI a provoking thought a single, both consistent and complete theory oI
everything is impossible (cI. Davies, The Mind of God, 167-8; see also Barrow,
The Constants of Nature, 285, 291). In the Iollowing, I will thereIore utilise the
concept with this relative connotation, as a depiction oI reality that does not
claim to encompass all the strands oI reality.
5
See e.g. Difhcultv 7, PG 91, 1077C-1080B, 1081AB.
6
See Despina D. Prassas, Introduction` to St Maximus the Confessors Questions
and Doubts (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2010), 24-5.
7
PG 91, 1304D-1305B.
8
PG 91, 1305C.
9
PG 91, 1305B-1308C.
10
Difhcultv 41, PG 91, 1305BC.
11
See, Ior instance, To Thalassius 64, PG 90, 696C.
12
CI. Difhcultv 41, PG 91, 1308CD sq.
13
CI. Cosmic Liturgv. The Universe According to Maximus the Confessor, trans.
Irom the second German edition oI 1961 by Brian E. Daley, SJ (San Francisco:
Ignatius Press, 2003), 56-63.
14
CI. The Mvstical Theologv of the Eastern Church (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir`s
Seminary Press, 2002), 106-8.
15
CI. The Bv:antine Fathers of the Sixth to Eight Centurv, trans. R. Miller and
A.M. Dollinger-Labriolle (Vaduz: Bchervertriebsanstalt, 1987), 225-6.
16
CI. Microcosm and Mediator. The Theological Anthropologv of Maximus the
Confessor, second edition (Chicago & La Salle: Open Court, 1995), 132-5.
17
CI. Ibidem, 135. Thunberg maniIested no interest in Oration 38.11, where the
concept is used under a diIIerent guise, as we shall see Iurther down.
18
CI. Ibidem, 135-6.
Volume26b.indd 41 13/08/2011 12:14:51 PM
42
Seeking Out the Antecedents of the Maximian Theorv of Evervthing
19
CI. Ibidem, 136-7. See also idem, Man and the Cosmos. The Jision of St
Maximus the Confessor (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir`s Seminary Press, 1985),
80.
20
See Nemesius` A Treatise on the Nature of Man I.1-10, in Cvril of Jerusalem and
Nemesius of Emesa, edited by William TelIer, The Library oI Christian Classics
(Louisville & London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 224-56. All my
reIerences to Nemesius are drawn Irom this edition.
21
CI. Bv:antine Theologv. Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, revised
second edition (New York: Fordham University Press, 1983), 142.
22
CI. Maximus the Confessor, 155, and 212, n. 3. Louth voiced the same conviction
earlier, at 72, however providing no direct reIerence to St Gregory oI Nyssa.
23
Quoted as 1.105-6 and 2.66-7. Whereas the frst reIerence to Jaeger`s edition is
accurate, the second is inexact; indeed, the text can be Iound at page 245 not at
66-7.
24
Contra Eunomium Libri, iteratis curis edidit Wernerus Jaeger, Pars Prior, Liber I
et II (vulgo I et XIIB) (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1960), 105-6, 245.
25
CI. Louth, Maximus the Confessor, 155, and 212, n. 2. In the original Greek (PG
36, 348D) the text reads: , ,
which in English would translate as: 'the natures renew, and God becomes
man.
26
CI. Louth, Maximus the Confessor, 156. In Iact, the ConIessor already returned
to the Gregorian text in PG 91, 1308CD, long beIore the end oI the chapter.
27
CI. The Bodv in St Maximus the Confessor. Holv Flesh, Whollv Deihed, The
OxIord Early Christian Studies (OxIord: OxIord University Press, 2005), 103-4.
28
CI. Man and the Cosmos, 28.
29
CI. Treatise on the Nature of Man 1.3, at 232-4.
30
CI. Gregorv of Nvssa. Dogmatic Treatises, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2
nd

series, vol. 5, 52-3.
31
CI. Nemesius, Treatise on the Nature of Man 1.8-9, at 248-50, 251-4.
32
CI. Basil the Great. Letters and Select Works, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,
2
nd
series, vol. 8, 77-8, 81.
33
CI. Treatise on the Nature of Man 1.2, at 228-30, and 1.4, at 235-7.
34
CI. St Gregory oI Nazianzus, Festal Orations, Popular Patristics, trans. with
Volume26b.indd 42 13/08/2011 12:14:51 PM
43
introd. by Nonna Verna Harrison (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir`s Seminary
Press, 2008), 67-8.
35
CI. TelIer, 'General Introduction to Cvril of Jerusalem and Nemesius of Emesa
(quoted above), 206.
36
CI. George C. Berthold, The Cappadocian Roots oI Maximus the ConIessor`,
in Felix Heinzer and Christoph Schnborn (eds.), Maximus Confessor (Fribourg:
Editions Universitaires Fribourg Suisse, 1982), 51-9.
37
CI. Nemesius, Treatise on the Nature of Man 1.10, at 254-6.
38
CI. Book of Difhculties, prologue, PG 91, 1064B. For a chronology oI the
Maximian corpus, see Angelo Di Berardino (ed.), Patrologv. The Eastern
Fathers from the Council of Chalcedon (451) to John of Damascus (1750)
(Cambridge: James Clarke & Co, 2006), 137sq.
39
See his The Eastern Fathers of the Fourth Centurv (Vaduz: Bchervertriebsanstalt,
1987), 116.
40
CI. Anna M. Silvas, Gregorv of Nvssa. The Letters Introduction, Translation
and Commentarv (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 40; Brian E. Daley, S.J., Gregorv of
Na:ian:us (London & New York: Routledge, 2006), 117.
41
CI. PG 91, 1036D-1045C; CCSG 48, 8-18. See also Maximus the ConIessor,
Ambigua to Thomas, Second Letter to Thomas, introduction, translation and
notes by Joshua Lollar, Corpus Christianorum in Translation 2 (Turnhout:
Brepols, 2009), 52-61.
42
CI. PG 91, 1045D-1060D; CCSG 48, 19-34. CI. Maximus the ConIessor,
Ambigua to Thomas, Second Letter to Thomas (quoted above), 5-74.
43
PG 91, 1312D-1313A.
44
PG 36, 317B-321C. See also Rosemary RadIord Ruether, Gregorv of Na:ian:us.
Rhetor and Philosopher (OxIord: Clarendon Press, 1969), 132 (I am indebted to
Mario Baghos Ior this reIerence).
45
PG 91, 1305A.
46
See John Behr, The Formation of Christian Theologv, vol. 2: The Nicene Faith,
part 2: One oI the Holy Trinity` (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir`s Seminary Press,
2004), 265, 271, 282-90, 334-42 etc.
47
PG 36, 312A-425D. CI. Daley, Gregorv of Na:ian:us, 117, 127; John A.
McGuckin, Saint Gregorv of Na:ian:us. An Intellectual Biographv (Crestwood,
NY: St Vladimir`s Seminary Press, 2001), 336-48 sq.
Phronema Jolume 26(2), 2011
Volume26b.indd 43 13/08/2011 12:14:52 PM
44
Seeking Out the Antecedents of the Maximian Theorv of Evervthing
48
PG 36, 313ABC.
49
PG 91, 1093D-1096A.
50
I am indebted to Fr Bogdan Bucur Ior the suggestions that led to the improvement
oI my initial version oI this passage.
51
Regarding this paradoxical aspect, it is true, St Gregory oI Nyssa brought
Iurther clarifcation by speaking oI the human being as 'an intermediary ||
between the divine and bodiless nature and the irrational and animal liIe (On
the Making of Man 16.9, PG 44, 181BC). This phrase, to my knowledge not
considered by those seeking in Nyssen the antecedents oI the Maximian theory,
stirrs the interest oI Peter C. BouteneII, Beginnings. Ancient Christian Readings
of the Biblical Creation Narratives (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 160.
52
See the whole paragraph in PG 36, 322C-324B.
53
For a summary oI the oration, see McGuckin, Saint Gregorv of Na:ian:us, 338-9.
For an analysis oI the context pertaining to Oration 38 (and related works),
in a complex theological, anthropological and cosmological perspective, see
RadIord Ruether, Gregorv of Na:ian:us, 130-6.
54
PG 36, 320C-321C. See a Iew remarks on this group oI chapters, extended to
7-11, in Christopher A. Beeley, Gregorv of Na:ian:us on the Trinitv and the
Knowledge of God. In Your Light We Shall See Light (OxIord: OxIord University
Press, 2008), 117-8.
55
On the Gregorian concept oI deifcation, see Torstein Theodor TolleIsen, Theosis
according to Gregory` in Jostein Bortnes and Tomas Hgg (eds.), Gregorv of
Na:ian:us. Images and Reections (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press
& University oI Copenhagen, 2006), 257-70. CI. Beeley, Gregorv of Na:ian:us,
116-22.
56
PG 36, 324BCD.
57
PG 36, 325ABCD.
58
Difhcultv 41, PG 91, 1312A.
59
St Maximus reiterates more clearly the Gregorian approach in Mvstagogv 7, PG
91, 684D-685A.
60
PG 36, 329D-332B.
61
PG 91, 1308D-1312B.
62
PG 36, 325B-329C. For a Iew remarks on these chapters, see Beeley, Gregorv of
Na:ian:us, 123-4.
Volume26b.indd 44 13/08/2011 12:14:52 PM
Phronema Jolume 26(2), 2011
45
63
Literally, in the original: , ; Oration
38.13, PG 36, 325C.
64
PG 36, 328A-329B.
65
CI. Oration 38.15, PG 36, 328C.
66
Oration 38.16, PG 36, 329C.
67
CI. Difhcultv 41, PG 91, 1308C.
68
CI. Difhcultv 41, PG 91, 1308C-1312B sq.
69
On the liturgical dimension, briefy, TolleIsen, Theosis according to Gregory`
265.
70
Oration 38.17, PG 36, 332AB.
71
CI. Difhcultv 41, PG 91, 1308A.
72
CI. Mvstagogv 24, PG 91, 709BC.
Rev. Doru Costache received his Doctor oI Theology degree Irom the University
oI Bucharest in 2000. He is a presbyter under the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
oI Australia and a Senior Lecturer in Patristics at St Andrew`s Greek Orthodox
Theological College, Sydney. His research interests are in traditional/patristic theology,
transdisciplinarity and the dialogue oI science and theology. Currently, he is undertaking
an interpretation oI Genesis 1 within tradition and in the light oI contemporary challenges.
Volume26b.indd 45 13/08/2011 12:14:52 PM