The philosophy of John Scottus Eriugena A STUDY OF IDEALISM IN THE MIDDLE AGES * DERMOT MORAN Exiugen’s four divisions of nature (God, the primary causes, ef fects, and unformed matter) as depieted by Honorivs Augustode CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS nensis in his Clavis physica, Paris, Bibliothéque Nationale, Latin | . 6734. 3 verso. (Photograph by permission of che ibliotheque CAMBRIDGE Nationale) | NEW YORK PORT CHESTER MELBOURNE SYDNEYPublished by the Press Syndicate ofthe University of Cambridge The Pitt Building, Trampington Seret, Cambridge cer tke 40 West 20th Sueet, New York, wy toot, USA 1 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Austais {© Cambridge University Press 1989 Firs published sot Reprinted 1990 Prine in the United States of America Library of Congress Catalogngrin-Publicton Date "Morn, Dermot ‘The philosophy of John Scotts Briugena: a study of eis in the Middle Ages / Dermot Moran Pom Bibliography: p Tacludes index sun 0-21-34549-9 1 Beiugona Johanaes Scous, «2, B1o-ca. 877.4. Tie, résessamey 1989 B7-13244 Hodes a Brith Libary Cataloguing in Puliction Dasa Moran, Desinot ‘The philosophy of John Scotts Exige: 4 stidy of tealisn in the Middle Ages. 1. Scholastic philosophy, Eviugens, Johannes Seotus ~ Ceica studies 1 Tile 854 tsa 0521-34549 hardback IN MEMORY OF MY FATHER PATRICK MORAN,CONTENTS Preface : Acknowledgments Chronology : List of abbreviations 1 European intellectual culture in the ninth century “The monastic age in Irland ' ‘The Carolingian renovatio "The patronage of Charles the Bald 2 The predestination debate 3. Eriugena’s life and early writings 4 The Greek awakening 5 The Seriphyszon 6 Bringena as philosoy ‘Eeagem’s fre im the history 0 Se che charge of Bs hitosophy ge jena and German ideatison i sgena in the context of early mediaeval Latin philosophy iugena and the Greek tradition of negative theology ‘ena and the metaphysics of hierarchy tnfiity and the relativisation of ontology Enagena and the deeonstrection of encotheolgy opeey 7 Eriugena’s sources "The influence of Plato ‘The inflnence of Plotinus and Proclss uence of Origen ‘agena’s Latin sources tee nfluence of Augustine ‘te influence of the Greck Christian Plaronists Ercgena as a Neoplatonist : 8 Dislectic, philosophy, and the ‘ife of the mind Diesetie ae che life ofthe mind fe Carolingian understanding of dsleeic page xi ” xvi xviii “ 27 35 105 0 16 123 183 114 aaviii Contents Philosophy 2s encyclopaedic knowledge The acts and dialectic The categories and dialectic Philosophy as che imitation of Christ Philosophy as dialectic The nature of the mind ‘The motions of the mind ‘The identity of knower and known, Knowledge and ignorance, difference and identity Dialectic and deification Philosophy as infinite anarchic activity 9 The meaning of human nature ‘Augustine’ anthropology Human nature in paradise Perfect hursan nature ‘Haman nature a8 absolute freedom Human nature 36 cas su “The identity of image and archetype Ofna onium Fallen human nature ‘The mind creates the body “The return of human nature Summary 10 Self-knowledge and self-definition: the nature of human knowing "Auustine’s concept of selE- knowing “The Greck concept of negative knowing The arts ab the structure of knowing ‘The ats, definition, and the meaning of place “The arte and self-knowledge ‘The definition of human being 11 The meaning of non-being “The Latin background to the concept of non-being “The Greck Neoplatonist view of non-being The five modes of being and non-being “The, meaning of the modes of non-being “TRE Tracts de niilo “The non-being of creation is privation Everything created is both eferal and made from nothing [Numbers are eternal and created Ex nila creation really means ex Deo ‘The meaning ofthe notother Conclusion 136 ny 3 135 8 9 140 1a on 146 49 154 154 137 160 165 166 108 m 14 16 a 185 186 87 190 tor 194 199 208 212 217 Contents 12 The meaning of nature The historical background to the meaning of mature The meaning of ature in ancient authors “The meaning of nature for Briugens “The four divisions of matare ‘The four divisions as hierarchy ‘The reduction ofthe four divisions to one ‘The reduction ofthe frst and fourth divisions ‘The unity of creator and created narare Universitas ad muliplex theara ‘Phe primary causes as theriae 13 Briugena’s influence on later mediaeval philosophy 14 Conclusion Bibliography Index nominum Index rerumPREFACE This book is a study of the philosophy of John Scotus Eriugena, the ninth-century Irish philosopher wha lived from roughly A.D. 800 to about 877. The whole area of early mediaeval philosophy, in the period stretching from Boethius to Anselm, is still underre-" searched and poorly understood, except among a few specialists. Nevertheless, it is impossible to understand the great philosophical systems of the High Middle Ages without a detailed knowledge of the tremendous struggle that went on in northern Europe.to pre serve philosophical and scientific wisdom after the collapse of the Roman administration until the revival of Aristotle in the middle of the twelfth century. Moreover, the imaginative, speculative system of John Scotts Eriugena is worthy of serious scrutiny in its own right, as a dating and innovative synthesis of Latin logical procedure with the mysti= cal outlook of the Greck Christian Platonists. Eriugena is a significant figure in many respects. He was a close associate of Charles the Bald, grandson of Charlemagne, a young and shrewd monarch who was an enthusiastic promoter of learning in his kingdom, under whose direction the Carolingian renaissance reached its zenith, Eriugena frequented Charles's court, where he mingled with some of the most important people of his time ~ the powerful prelate Hincmar, the lover of classics Lupus of Ferriéres, the poct and fellow Irishman Sedulius Scotus ~ and where he be~ came renowned as a niagister of the liberal arts. Eciugena’s contti- bution to the commentary on the liberal arts classic of Martianus Capella the De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercuyit (Marriage of Philology and Mercury) began a new: style of line-by-line literal commentary con non-seriptural texts, which would become one of the standard methods of the schools of the High Middle Ages. Eriugena was an innovator, being among the first (along with his rival Gottschalk of Orbais) to use the Opuscila sacra of Boethius to develop theo~xii Preface, logical argument based on grammatical niceties, which again would. become standard in the Scholastic period. Eriugena made some sig- nificant contributions to the understanding of liberal arts them- selves, by showing a deeper understanding of musical theory than his contemporaries, and by articulating a view of the movement of the planets which may have anticipated the system of Tycho Brahe. Eriugena was, of course, In the Latin West from the sixth to the hinth century there was, for various reasons, little scope for genuite philosophical develop ment, and a lack of scholars sufficiently educated to undertake'the task. Even in Ireland, which had a highjtradition of writing-ind”: illumination, the evidence for a flourishing philosophical tradition is slight, with few signs of developed abstract speculation.! Despi the wonderful manuscript illumination ab evidenced by the early” ninth-century Book of Kells and the Book ef Armagh, or the earlier Book of Durrow (described as “one of the high points of insular book. illumination”), the beautiful poetry which! indicated an understand ing of classical prosody, the mythological annals, the metallurgy of the Tara Brooch or Ardagh Chalice, and the rich tradition of bibli- cal commentary and eschatology, there is little evidence of the de- velopment of abstract speculation or systematic reasoning of a phil- osophical kind, though some of this kind of activity may have been practised under the guise of grammatical, poetic, and especially legal studies, which were of a most advanced nature.® It is hard to assess how much of the intellectual inheritance of ancient Greece and Rome was preserved in these Irish monastic centres. A high level of scholarship, very carly on, is witnessed by the activities of Columbanus, who founded the monastery of Bob- bio in Lombard Italy in 612. During the seventh and eighth cen= tries, however, there seems to have been a lessening of interest in classical texts, partly to be explained by the rising interest in the» vernacular. What exactly was available to the Irish? At one stage it 5 For 4 eeview of righ educational practice, see F. McGrath, Eaton in Ant od Mex ‘eval Ireland (Dublin: Studies Special Pbieaon, 1979) pp, 72-119. The impact of pile ‘osoghical thought, expresed in Latin, on a conserve tial society dominated BY n= tive tadiions of poet learning and a wari ethos has been che subject of ecent sad bby anthropologists. See, eg. P. MacCana, “Early Insh fdeology and the Concept of Unity," mR Kearney (ed), Te ish Mind (Dublin: WolMound, 1984). pp. s6-78, Even though prose forms developed very early in Irish history, they were not weed for abatrat or speculative reasoning. (Gn Wish grammar, see L. Holtz, "“Grammsirien lands au temp de Jean Scot: quelques pects de leur pedagogic,” in &. Roques (ed), Jean Soot Eigine et hse dea phere (Garis: CNRS, 1977), pp. 69-78. On Iris learning tn general see K. Hughes, “The Di luibution of Irish Septoria and Centes of Learning fom 9so-rsrs,” in N Chadwick (ed), Sidi tv the Barly Britt Curl (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958) PP. 243-726 Jolin Scottus Eriugena was claimed that the Irish monks had access to many classical texts in Greek and Latin, and were well versed in classical languages. Sur- veys of the extant literature, however, show a much more modest picture. ‘The Irish certainly had a strong interest in learning and wring as much knowledge as they could from the texts available. No full study of classical references in Irish literature has yet been made, but there exist summaries of classical tales in Old Irish, for example, the stories of Aeneas, Jason, and Hercules, as well as a strong in- terest in grammar and natural science. In grammar, the Irish knew Donatus, Priscian’s Institutiones grammaticae, Eutyches's Ars de verbo, Macrobius’s De differentiis et societatibus gracci latinique verbi (a work of which Eriugena may have made a florileginm, according to E. Jeauncau), and Isidore's De differentiis verborum.? Isidore’s Etymolo- ‘giae was especially popular," as was Pliny's Natural History, Virgil's Georgics, and Macrobius's Satumalia, which Eriugena may have used in an Irish recension. On the other hand, Cassiodorus’s Institutiones does not appear to have been read by the Irish and was not widely available in ninth-century Francia either, The Irish were the first | mediaevals to use Macrobius, and the three earliest commentators |, on Martianus Capella ~ including Martin Hiberniensis and Eriugena X were Irish, They read Origen with great enthusiasm and also Eu- , —) sebius and John Chrysostom. There is no doubt that ehe Irish in France and Germany commanded great respect for their learning, as evidenced by many Continental testimonia, although they seem also to have evoked a certain amount of humorous puzzlement at their extraordinary manners and fantastical style of argument.’ Re- cent research has shown that there was a considerable amount of scientific activity in the early Irish monastic centres, with extant works ‘on meteorology, eélipses, and other natural phenomena, The Irish 1 See M. Herren, "Classical and Secular Learning among che Ish before the Caroling Renaissance” Horlgm 3 (1982), pp- 118-51, and for Irish knowledge of physics sce WM. Stevens, “Scicntiie Inprection in Early Insular Schools,” in M. Herren (ed), Tnoular Lain Stiis: Lain Teas and Mamcrps of he Bnish les 50-1066 (Toronto onifieal Insite of Medieval Studies, 1981), pp. &3—12. On Ins hw see D. © Corin, Ifelind bere the Normans (Dublin: Gill Macvilln, 1972). On rsh contributions in ‘amuserpt Mlumination, stay and one work, sce M. Ryan (cl), dread and naar {Ant A.D. 500-1300 (Dublin: Royal lsh Academy, 1987). 8 See M. Hswen, "On the Ear rsh Acgositance wit Isidore of Seville,” in E. Jnes (Gi), Vaignie Spain: New Approces (Oxford: Cltendon, 1986), pp. 243-50. 9 Tor 3 recent review of Vrish acicvemengs in France see P, Riché, "Les Iandais ct les princes caolingicns aux Vile tle sicles,” in Lowe (ed), Die few wal Europ, pp Poscas. See abo E. Cocca, "Li cults ilndese preening: Miraealo © mito?" Sh ‘Medieval ser. 3 8 (S067) pp. 254-9. \ European intellectual culture 1 were deeply involved in the calculation of the date of aster, and these Computistica reveal some sophistication in mathematics.gg, well as in astronomy (especially the cycles of the sun and moon Much fof this work depended heavily on classical sources, as does Dicuil’s geography, for example. Icis almost impossible to say how much of this intellectual ac- tivity was carried out in Ireland and how much on the Continent. "The Irish travelled widely in Europe, and the Irish manuscripts pre- served in European libraries could have been produced in Ireland or while travelling, rather than in the Continental centres with which they are now associated (for example, Bobbio or Saint Gall) ‘Given this brief summary of the learning of the Irish monastic age, it may in general be concluded that despite Ireland’s rich Chris~ tian heritage, the actual revival of philosophical learning (especially the commenting on logical texts or on the pseudo-augusstinian Cr- | tegoriae decem) took place in Europe. Furthermore, the great figures of Irish intellectual development such as Dungal, John Scotus, Se- dulius, and Michael Scottus lived and worked on the European mainland, ‘The Carolingian renovatio It was Charlemagne (742~814) who initiated the revival of learning in the part of the empire under his control in the late eighth century. He issued letters decreeing that every cathedral and monastery was to open a school which taught the basic liberal arts (arithmetic, geamn:rs, and music). In his Admonitio generalis (789) and in the De liaicris colendis (written between 780 and 800), composed with the help of Alcuin (c. 735-804), he asked for the teaching of reading and writing, and for the careful correction of the Psalms, the calendar, and grammar books (psalmos, notas, cantus, compotun, grammaticun) From the mid-770s Charlemagne began ¢o attract scholars to his palace from all over Europe ~ Lombards, Visigoths, Anglo-Saxons, Franks, and Irish."® . Coolngan Epic, tans B. Mane (Oxford: Blackwell 1957: R. Fale Snengue of Decent 800, rats JE. Anderson (London: Rowe i gga. Hisbert, he Carengton Rentsance (New York: Ural, 1970 Mabie Tie Peankish Chath andthe Cain Reforms, 789-895 (London! Royal Finest Soceiy, 1979) and Te Monkish Kingdoms der the Carling (London: Len mane tgas) pr e4oe68 See also Later Tho anf Leers in Meer Ue, bp. 89 Tag, On Ceclnglan kingship see W. Uilmann, The Cuolingan Renaisnce a the Ids af Kinghip (London: Methucn, 1969)8 John Scottus Eriugena While returning from his first Italian cam gaign in 774 he recraited thé grammarian Peter of Pisa; then another Lombard, Paul the Dea- con, in 782, In 776 Paulinus of Aquileia arrived at the court as a grammar teacher. Besides these Italians, Charlemagne attracted Irishmen such as Dungal (d. 827) and Dicuil (c. 70~c. 827), a geog- rapher. Dungal was an important figure who wrote to Charlemagne regarding his gucties ééiicerning an eclipse of the sun which took place in 8ro, Dungal’s information was based on Macrobius's com- mentary on the Somium Scipionis."* Dicuil was the author of the De mensura orbis terrae (88), a work of geography relying heavily on classical sources, especially Pliny." From Christian Spain came the Goth Theodulf (later bishop of Orléans and possibly author of the Libri Carolin) and Agobard (later bishop of Lyon); and from York came Alcuin, who became Charlemagne’s closest. adviser, joining the court in 782." Alcuin was at the head of this new revival of letters, which has been called a renaissance, though more properly it was a smaller renovatio, not so much a complete rebirth as a renewal, the first renewal of learning in continental Europe since the efforts of Theo- doric."* Alcuin and the court school referred to themselves using classical and biblical titles (Charlemagne was known as King David) and saw their court as a new Jerusalem, Athens, or Rome. Although there has been much talk of a “‘palace school,” this assembly of scholats at the court had rather Joose links. Alcuin was in many a \\ 11 Atsha time Ding wa living in the Abbey of Ssint-Dens, bu n as though some NEO scholars have suggested this ia ifeent Donal) he became master ofthe schools Pavia, ‘Acthat time he wrote an important tact defending the ute of tniages in worship agains the iconechstc views of the Apaegeicam of Bishop Claude of Trin. When he died in 4827 he et his library to the monastery of Bobbio For Dict sce J.J. Tenney (ed, Dicul ber de mensie orks free (Dubin: tstitute for ‘Advanced Studs, 1957). In hit introduction Tierney talks ofthe Dungal of Saint-Denin fd of Pavia as two diferent persons. Eapeito, however, i 1957 argued for thet iden tity; see Teeney p. 6 See. Delhaye, Chison Piorphy i Ue Middle Age, tans. S.J. Tester (London: Burns 8 Ones, 1960), pp, 41-52. On Alenin, see A. Klemelaner, Alin (Pass, 948). Wale Jach, Alain end Charenague: Stdier bs Caralingian Histor and Literature (Ithaca, NY. Cornell University Pees, 1959), 8. Allot, Alain of Yor, A.D. 732-804: His Lif end ater (York: Fhor Press, 1974), andthe case study by A. P. West, Alen and fhe tse afte Chvnian Schools (rig reprint New York: Greenwood, 1969) 14 On the Carolingian renovate, see P. Lehinann, "Das Problem der Keolingizchen Renais- ance" I Polen delat erlingia x6 Mar-Apr 195, Settinane dh studio del eeneo ‘talano di stu sulfalko medigeva, vol. + (Spoleto: Presto Ia sede del Centro, 1984), and G. W. Tromipt, "The Concept of the Carolingian Renaissance” Joa of the Fstery of ews 34 (1978), pp. 3-26 ) European intellectual culture respects the architect of the Carolingian renovatié and: involved in planning the new educational programme.+Ii/hy ings on the development of Christian education, he laid g ‘on the importance of the liberal arts as the seven pillars of secing wisdom as necessary fof the development of spiritual edge and expanding the concept of Christian wisdom found f gustine.* Like Saint Augustine, Alcuin was, not in favour of s¢ Tearning for its own sake. Hé wrote several theological tract cluding a De Trinitate, a work’ on the place of the soul in life, De animae ratione, and a ‘philosophical dialogue, Disput vera philosophia, a8 well as a collection of arguments, De rhetarli) virtutibus. He appears to have had few classical sources availablé' him, and knew little even of Boethius. He did know the Consolatia§ which he referred to in his De vera philosophia, but he does not pear to have used the Opuscula sacra. He did receive a copy of thé Categoriae decem, whiclr-he presented to Charlemagne. He contribs | uted in his De dialectica ‘to Carolingian, knowledge of dialectic, and‘ divided philosophy (as Eriugena later does) into three parts ~phYaay if ics Athic}, and logic (see De dialectica, PL Cl.gs2c). He based his gt a on the Categoriae decem and his wider philosophy on’ Boethius's Consolatio. Towards the end of his life, while in volun | tary retreat at Tours, he wrote the De fide Sanctae Trinitatis. {Alcuin is not considered a great innovator in philosophy, being 4 ! mainly concerned to develop a firm foundation of knowledge as'a ) step on the road to spiritual wisdom. Indeed| the remark of Philippe Pu Delhaye is apt, namely that the philosophers of the Carolingian ree! i! novatio were not like the men of the twelfth century, who saw |} themselves as dwarfs on the shoulders of giants; rather they were ntent to remain dwarf looking up at the hejght of their ancestors." Nevertheless, some recent claims have been made for a more original philosophical tradition stemming from Alcuin and the pal= ace school. John Marenbon, in a recent study, has argued that the 15 See M.Th. @’Alvery, “La Sapesse ese sept fills: Recherches sur fey allegories deb Philosophie et des ars ibéraux da IXe au Xile sie," Mélange dedils Te mdm de [ali Grr | (Pars: Peequeur-Grat, 1949), pp. 248-78. See also G. Sein, Day Were ‘es Johones Sts Brugena it Ren des Wtsechaoetindnias eer Zee. Ee Hf 21 Peiphyeon (Monster: Aschendortl, 1982). pp. 23-35; and. Matento, From the Ce 8 Alen Yo the School of Auxeres Lege; Theology and Phlsophy the Early Dale Age, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Pest, 9b), pp. 30-86 ( x6 Delhaye, Chan Phibrphy inthe Middle Age, pas10 John Scottus Eriugena ‘Munich Passages, which include the Dicta Albini and the Dicia Can- didi, represent @ genuine attempt at philosophical reasoning con- cerning the nature of essence, the existence of God, and the cate- gories, as well as furthering theological speculation on the relation of man to God in the imago Dei.” Whether or not Albinus is to be identified with Alcuin, as has frequently been argued, itis clear that these texts illustrate the kind of philosophical argumentation being undertaken among Alcuii’s associates. The Dicta Albini consists of a commentary on Genesis 1.26, on Faciamus hominem ad imaginent et similitudinem nostram, which makes use of Augustine and Ambrose ‘Albinus distinguishes between imago and similitide: Each of ws is an image of the Trinity (intellect, will, and memoria), but we achieve similitudo through goodness. The subject-matter of these passages is unexceptional, but the passages provide a good summary of early Carolingian anthropology (as-it will larer be expressed also in the Libri Carolini) and are to‘be contrasted with Eriugena’s developed theory of human nature, which was inspired by his reading of Greg- ory of Nyssa’s De hominis opificio, a work not available to the first generation of Carolingian intellectuals Candidus is thought by, Marenbon to have been a student of Al- cuin’s from England, although Delhiaye considers him to have been a student of Hrabanus Maurus’s. The Dicia Candidi offers a dialec~ tical proof for God’s existence, based on the hierarchy of perfection, which differs significantly from Augustine's forniuilation in the De libero arbitrio Il. Indeed, Marenbon considers Candidus to have been the outstanding philosopher of his generation, on the basis of the understanding of the categories and the logical argumentation found in these passages."* Indeed, it is true that these passages do possess a crisp logical form, as is clearly demonstrated in the treatment of the question Si possit verumn esse sine veritate? This argues that truths depend on Truth. Truth is a body, corpus, and God is Truth; there- fore God is a body: Deys'veritas est, ergo Deus corpus est.'® This di- alectical argument is countered by an argument which shows that the body does not possess truth and that truth is not a body. The 17 Mareubon, Fram the Circe af Alein, pp. 33-68 and 144-69, These passages 2 contained {in Munich Corlex Latinus Mopachewse 607, 3d paetally in Bibl. Nat 13955. They have tice edited by Marenbon in his book, pp. 1St~70. 18 Marenbon, From the Circle of Alen, p $9 19 See Marenbo, pp. 164-5. European intellectual culture u argument is to be found in a more abbreviated form in Augustine's Soliloquia U1.15.28 (PL XXXII.898). ‘The definitions of substance, time, place, and body in Candidus’s work rely on the definitions in the Categoriae decem, but they are used in a manner which indicates original philosophical thought. Van de Vyver points out that there was a growth of interest in logic in the itinth ceiitury. The library of Reichenau, for example, had a copy of three treatises of the lagica vetus among, its 420 manuscripts. These were listed among the works of Bede, but had possibly been extracted from Boethian commen- taries. Boethius himself, however, was known at that time mainly for his work on arithmetic.” ‘Another important figure from the first generation of revivers of philosophy was Fredegisus (d. 834), an Anglo-Saxon student of Al- euin’s at York who succeeded him as abbot of Saint Martin of Tours in 804. Later he served as chancellor to Louis the Pious. His letter ‘on nothing and darkness, Epistola de nihilo et tenebris, argued that the term “nothing” actually refers to something, sifve every name sig- nifies something.” Obviously this thesis is a development of the views of Augustine in the De magistro 1.2 (PL XXXIL.1196) and ine stituted a discussion of the meaning of non-being which culminated in Carolingian times with the elaborate treatise on the meaning of nothing in John Scottus Eriugena. We know almost nothing else. about Fredegisus. ‘Agobard of Lyon accused Fredegisus of believing in the pre-ex- istence of the soul because of a certain phrase Fredegisus used, and indeed there is some evidence that Fredegisus went on to defend himself in a manner which substantiated that accusation.”” ‘The controversy over the pre-existence of the soul was of par~ ticular interest to ninth-century philosophers and theologians. ‘The whole debate was, of course, couched in the language of the prob- ematic left by Augustine, who was unsure as to the exact relation of soul to body and often seemed to espouse the position that the 0 See A. Van de Vyver “Les Etspes du développement philosophique du hast moyen 3ge." Revue ble de pg or hit 8 (1920). 482 1 Maren, loom the Cc of Alin, pp. atk: Frategiots's leer i ited by E, Di IeMGH Fptlu 4 (Cpstolac Karin! Aco it) (etn, 1898), pp. 82-5. and in F, Wippel and A.B. Wolter (}, Medieval Philosophy fom Augustine to Nichols of ‘Guta (London: Colier-Macmillan, 1969), pp. 103-8 2 Daelhaye, Chrsion Pliowphy i the Middle Age, p. 47. Agobar’s leer is found ia MGH cours, the hole coblem ofthe pre-existence ofthe sul was12 _ John Scottus Eriugena soul hit pre-existence in heaven before it was created in this world (sce, for example, De libero arbitrio II.XX1.59.200 [CCSL XXIX, P. 309)). Augustine later offered a solution to his problem by using the idea of the seminal reasons. Gottschalk and others focussed on this problem in Augustine, and various positions on it were taken during the Carolingian period. Both Ratramnus of Corbie and Er- jugena developed fairly sophisticated responses to the problem. As the Carolingian #enovatio spread, more and more monastic ‘centres were able to produce men of learning; places such as Corbie, Tours, and Rheims produced scholars in large numbers. Many manuscripts were produced at Corbie, where Ratramnus, one of the ‘Greatest intellects of the ninth century, lived and worked; Saint Gall also grew in importance, while Lyon developed under Agobard, Remigius, and Florus (who has left copious annotations of Saint ‘Augustine in his own handwriting). Hrabanus Maurus (c. 780-856) of Mainz studied with Alcuin at Aachen in the 790s and then went to Fulda, where he was made a deacon in Sor. In 819 he became master of the’abbey school at Mainz. In 822 he was made abbot of Fulda. He produced some fascinating works, for example, the De laudibus Sanctae Crucis in 810, the De institutione clericorum, modelled on Saint Augustine's De doctrina Christiana, and a Computus (c. 819, edited in CCCM XLIY, pp. 205-321), Hrabanus composed an elaborate encyclopaedia of the knowledge ehsidered necessary for the understanding of Scripture, entitled De imiverso or De rerum naturis, around 840. He gave a high place to the liberal arts-and to. dialectic in particular, which Fe defines as “the ational discipline concerned with definitions and explanations, and able even to separate.truth from falsehood.”” It ig not only. an art of reasoning*.it is cajagble of yielding true knowledge both about things and about the self. Hrabanus was a well-read scholar who. invented some interesting poetic forms, but his knowledge of phi losophy tended towards the encyclopaedic mentality of Cassiodorus 23 Hiabanus Mavs, De insiuton ceicran Mx (PL. CVU 397 “alectica et dtcplina ‘ationalisqusereni,difinindi et disserendi, etiam vera a false discernense potens See West, Alain, p. 146; Delhaye,p. 4s. Hrabans (775-856) badly needs tobe fied from, the point of view ofthe developotent of medieval piloophy. | have not hada chance to red the discertaton of Loke Wenger, "Hrabans Mlauras, Pui, sod Catalngis “Harvard, 1973, From my own curtory examination, he does nor sppestto Fave neydlopaedist, except in hs devotional speculations on the nature of rt Sancta ie (PL CVI European intellectual culture ney and Isidore and did not blossom forth into systema It is to be noted that Cassiodotus himself did fat h culation at this time; the librarian of Reichenau, Regint to lay his hands on a copy only after a long search (ed The Carolingian period is best known intellectually fot controversy, which took many forms and involved kinggab ecclesiastical authorities. It was a lively period, ,with reason erance towards religious speculation, and was not at all the nakRow minded “dark age" some have called it. ‘The, major theologi struggles of the first generation of Carolingians were concerned adoptionism and iconoclasm,' with lesser disputes on the: il question (Ratramnus's Contra Graecorum dpposita) and the proc sions of the Trinity. \ In the early ninth century there was a revival of adoptionin heresy that Christ is not the true Son of God, but is, as it were, a “adopted” son) among the Spanish bishops led by Elipandus of Tod! edo and Felix of Urgel. It was.attacked by Alcuint, who wrote tracts fl against Felix and Elipandus, and by Hrabanus Maurus and Agobard among others. This dispute is typical of the earliest stages of the!! Carolingian revival in that the polemicists are content for the most’! part to quote Scripture in support of their claims and do not indulge |! | in much independent dialectical reasoning, unlike the later disputes . |! involving Gottschalk and Etiugena, who were inspired by the." | methodological procedure of Boethius in his Opuscula sacra, One such theological debatt, which involved kings and emperor as well as theologians, was thk Iconoclasticontroversy, which had, its origins in the late eighth céntury, and was as much a political a theological dispute.” The debate on the yse of images in wotship was precipitated by the atten}pt of the Byzantine emperor Leo Ill to convert his subjects to his view on images in 724~6. Possibly Leo was responding to Islamic presstire, which scorned Christian “idolatry.” Possibly he was also trying to replace the worship of all other images with his own. Leo issued a formal edict in 730 forbidding images, without con- sulting Pope Gregory Il, and the oppression of iconophiles began at that time. It was continued under the reign of his son, Constan-j! 24 See G. B. Ladner, “Original Significance of the Byzantine conodhsti Controversy.” in tages and Het of the Midi Ages: Seed Stes History and An (Rome: Bdaione cde Stoma © Leneratira, 1983), volt pp. 35-72"4 ‘John Scottus Eriugena tine V (741-75). The empress Irene reversed the situation during her reign from 780-802, and the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 787 formally restored images. Under subsequent emperors Leo V (813-20), Michael Il (820-9), and Theophilus (829-42), however, the iconoclasts again ad the upper hand. The problem was finally solved at the Council of 843 under the empress Theodora. ‘The his~ tory of the dispute is complex, but it continued in the Frankish church in the latter part of the eighth century and into the ninth. The By- zantines argued about images in terms suggested by Saint Basil and Gregory of Nyssa. Is the image identical with the prototype, or is it merely a likeness? Iconophiles used Saint Basil’s remark that “the honour of the image is transferred to the prototype” to justify their position, as well as a text from Dionysius, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy 1V.3 (PG Ill.4730), which argues that an artist who looks at the archetypal form, without distraction, will provuce an image which can be taken for the original (“the one in the other”), while differing from the original in essence or nature. For the iconoclasts, the Son was the only true Image of God, and they argued for the identity in substance of image and archetype. Pope Leo Ill sent a translation of the Nicene decision to Char- Jemagne. Charlemagne was outraged at not having been consulted during the Nicene sessions, and on hearing of their decision,, which seemed to support the wholesale “adoration” of images (owing to a poor Latin translation of the Nicene judgment), he commissioned the theologians of his court to reply. The Byzantines distinguished between laireia (Nerpela) and proskunesis (mpooxovnars; literally, bending the knee), but the Latin translation rendered proskinesis as adoratio."* Charlemagne come'ssioned his own theologians to ex- amine the matter in detail, This produced the Libri Carolini written possibly by Theodulf of Orleans or perhaps even by Alcuin him- self." The Libri Carolini argue against the power of the Byzantine Empire and in favour of the proper headship of the Church in Rome 15 Fole, Coronation of Churlemague, pp. go~6. See also S: Gero, “The Libri Carlini andthe Iinage Controversy," Creek Orion Theological Review 18 (993) pp. Poses Leb. Shek. don-Willams, "The Philosophy of ons," in A. Hl, Acanstiong fed) The Cambridge History of Late Grek and Early Medieval Pilerophy (Cambrage: Cambridge Univerity Pesto) pp. $06-17. Chasesage was gana ise and waned to become empctot 26 On the disputed authorship of the Libri Calin sce A. Freeman, “Theoduf of Orleans and the Lidr Caroli,” Spun 32 (1957), pp. 663-705, and "Further Studs inthe Lib Carlini» ad 2," Speculi 40 (963), pp. 263-80, which argue for Thodull os antior ‘This is challenged by L. Wallach, who argues for Alin ae the author: See L. Wallich, European intellectual culture 15 ‘The Nicene decision is criticised, and a moderate position is put forward, arguing that images should be neither worshipped nor de- stroyed. Worship is due to God alone, Religious murals are to be allowed in churches for didactic purposes, but classical figures, in- chiding nudes or representations of pagan gods, are to be forbidden. The Libri attempt to define the nature of an image, which has re- percussions on the Carolingian debate on the nature of man as imago Dei, a theme central to Eriugena’s anthropology. The debate on im- ages conginues in the ninth century, with Agobard favouring the iconoclasts and Dungal opposing them. The Libri Carolini also addressed the filioque question, which sep- arated the Byzantine from the Western Church, siding with the ‘Western version. Eriugena himself carefully develops his own con- cept of procession and tries to steer a neutral path between the Greek and Latin formulations of the filiogue doctrine in his Periphyseon (U.6r2a—b). After examining various formulations, the Magister of the dialogue allows that per filium (through the Son) is as acceptable as filio (by the Son) in describing the procession of the Holy Spirit from tis Father. Eriugena interprets the Nicene judgment that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone (the Greek view) in a tolerant fashion. He says it may have been expressed to prevent the doctrine being discussed openly (ventilaretr, 6r1d28), suggesting that they may have held a different doctrine in private! Eriugena ex- amines various texts and remarks that the issue need further dis- cussion. The main thing, however, is to believe that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father (II.613a). After the death of Charlemagne, the revival of learning waned somewhat under Louis I (Louis the Pious) as Lupus of Ferriéres (805~ 62), a close adviser of Charles the Bald’s, later lamented,” but still “the Unknown Aur ofthe Li Cari" Diuie’ Ske Honor fA eae eat anc en gp ota tora more rape a eer dong ne scloaship right tang the sh contre The Cee ed wer aban Medea Fu coped» et 90 est ant Chaar ot Pa ene many ser ach ave ee pecan16 John Scottus Briugena managed to attract educated men such as Dicuil (who dedicated his work to Louis)"* and Hilduin, who translated the Dionysiaca around 831, and thus was extremely influential on Eriugena.”” In 815 Hil- duin became abbot of Saint-Denis, where Hincmar was one of his pupils. He became a chaplain to Louis the Pious in 822 but sup- ported Louis's sons in a plot against their father in 830, for which he was deposed and banished. He returned to Saint-Denis in 83r, however. Louis was in continual power struggles with his own sons. He was ousted by Lothair in 833 but regained power in 834 with the help of his son Louis the German. In 838 he gave his youngest son, Charles the Bald, a kingdom in the north-west of Francia and included in it Aquitaine, which was under the actual control of an- other of his sons, Pepin { (and later his grandson Pepin Ip Louis died in 840, and Lothair (who had been in Italy since the failure of his attempt to overthrow Louis) returned to fight Charles the Bald and Louis the German, In 842 he was defeated at Fontenoy, and in 843 the Treaty of Verdun divided the Frankish lands among the three brothers, with Charles the Bald retaining the: western terri tory; Lothair controlling the middle part, including Aachen; and Louis the German controlling. the easternmost portion, including Mainz, There followed a period in which Lothair attempted to undermine the power of his brothers, using his position as emperor, and also using the Church. Charles the Bald, being the youngest, and also having. no blood ties with the area he controlled, was in a most vulnerable position. Nevertheless, he displayed considerable mili- tary and diplomatic skill, managing to protect himself, fight off new incursions from another enemy ~ the Vikings ~ and promote the highest levels of achievement in scholarship and learning which the / Caroliqgign peviod had seen. The patronage of Charles the Bald ‘A new impetus was given to the Carolingian programme of reform ‘when Charles the Bald (823-77) assumed the throne in a smaller 28 On Dic see Terey (ed), Dl her de mere ob tera 19 On Hidsin ce Tt, dues dnp Wa late ecw de Denys (Pars: & {? Ete de pisope mera ay) n'y anaon wet ved gy by Tey. | pie yids Dep tv, oa ) hand, goes to great pains to find new words to render Dionysivs's non-clasical Greck fino 3 Latin equivalent; however, Herat great difficulty with the European intellectual citlture 1 Frankish realm, at the age of seventeen. He immediately took an active interest in the renaissance of letters going on around him? His first tutor was Walafrid Strabo, and Charles took as his advisers the powerful churchman Hincmar (806-82), bishop of Rheims," and the letret-writer Lupus of Ferrigres. ‘Through the 840s and 8508 Charles the Bald manoeuvred with his brothers, forming alliances now with Louis the German, now with Lothair, in order to stabilise his position. In 858, while Charles was besieging Vikings on the Seine, Louis invaded his territory, invited in by the Bretons and some nobles from Neustria. Hincmar ‘was able to get Louis's intervention declared illegal. Charles could only operate with the support of thei nobles: and the church. He therefore gave grants of lands to the monasteries, and granted them the right to mint coins, to charge tolls, to gain financial support from the operation of hospices for travellers (for example at Saint Josse, a hospice administered by Lupus’s abbey at Ferritres), of td hold markets." Charles had to make various settlements also with Pepin in Aquitaine, and with the Vikings, whose raids were in creasing since the 840s. In all of these affairs Charles proved a pows erfull and able monarch. | : ‘Under his patronage, many new works were begun ~ he had an interest in mathematics-and theology — and poems were dedicated : to him. Eriugena, for example, has a poet, Auribus Aebraics, im- ploring Christ to help Charles force the barbarians to submit to him. In this poem, Charles is praised as a patron of churches and gold cc verb which takes genkive {se wl the Latin eghvalent would require an scusative tse, Here he aes the five into the Latin thereby making meaning ite cbse fo Seeith exelent sais in M. Gibson and J Nel (dy Charles he Bale Cow an Kingdom, Bish Archeologiei Rept sex 01 (Oxon: BAR sob, especaly Ne ton, pp. star and Re MeKiteriek. pp 385-400. See sho R. Mekktesik, "Chae the Bat (25-399) and His Libsry: The Patronage of Lestnng.” Enh Hera Rete 98 Unmiary 199), pp. ateag. s1 Online se} Deve, Hinemer:Arhevtque de Rein: 845-8822 wos (Geneve Doty 19}4) and B. Re Mek, Hinnar of Laon ot Casing Plt (champage Unieg oF ins Press, 1998 Hinemar bad bees brought inthe sey of Saa-Dent ar tad been edocated by Hilduin. He had spent ime at Loui the P's cor in Anchen diving the gon and was concerted bihop of Rhein In fy. He wrote & number ot important eats on the ntue of Kingsip (Dr ode pat and De ee pr) He did nt always support Chars ~ afr example nthe question of the spot the see of Bourges whee Charles supported Walled agit Hic H 32 See Mette, The Fok Kins nd the Catan (ono: Longmans ptt \ with the cates of nount governed by, for example, 28 Johny Scottus Eringena ornaments, Many illuminated manuscripts, richly decorated, were produced and often dedicated to him. There may in fact have been 4 court school of manuscript illumination, which was responsible for the richly decorated Codex aureus, for example, or the Com- piggne Antiphonary (Bibl. Nat. lat. 17436) or the Gospel of Charles the Bald (Bibl. Nat. lat. 323) Charles is frequently depicted in these manuscripts: For example, in the Psalter (Bibl. Nat. lat. r1s2) he is compared to Theodosius; in the Codex aureus he is depicted enthroned; and a work of the Tours school shows him being presented with a Bible." The Codex aureus contains portraits of the four evangelists, Charles, and a painting of the adoration of the Lamb. Some of the portraits contain tituli which were excerpted from, verses originally attributed to Alcuin, There is a partial copy of these verses in a Paris manuscript (Bibl. Nat. lat, 5577) which Jeauneau has examined. He has concluded that these verses were squeezed onto a manuscript containing Alcuinian texts but that the verses themselves are not by Alcuin, Jeauneau believes some of the verses show a similarity with John Eriugena’s Carmina and might even have been written by him, showing a con- nection between Eriugena as court scholar and the most important illuminated manuscript of the Carolingian period, One of the most beautiful illuminations of the period is of a sec- ular work = the De institutione arithmeticae of Boethius ~ which was decorated with silver and gold. Eriugena’s poems actually celebrate this new golden age. One poem, Aulae sidereae, refers to a church Charles built in honour of Mary. This church has been identified as Saint Mary's ac Compiégne, and the occasion is thought to have ) been the dedication of the church on 5 May 877. This church may have been modelled on one Charlemagne built earlier at Aachen, and it perhaps marked Charles the Bald’s accession as emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. The uncertain political climate hardly offered the best conditions for the pursuit of scholarship. To complicate matters, Charles ruled froma peripatetic court, which travelled across mainly the Isle-de- 443 On the Gales Aureus sce the beatiful edition by G, Leidinger, De Codex Auras (Munich Hugo Schmidt Ver. sgst-s, and the ay by Dy Dutton and E, Jeauneay, "The Verses othe Codex Aureus of St. Emmeram,” Studi Medieval, ter. a, 24 (0983), PP. 75-120. Charles portrait appeate on § verso, the Adoration on 6 recto. I am grateful to the Beinecke fare Bock Library 2 Yale for allowing me ta aee their topy of Leidingee 44 See H Kessler, The Med Bibles lm Tour (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979). European intellectual cule’), ty France region, stopping at various morasteries and settlements, de- pending on the-time of year. Centres visited by the court include Compiggne, Quicrzy, and Rheims." In later years he is thought to have settled chiefly at Compiggne.”* . Given the conditions of this travelling court, itis difficult to speak of a palace school, meaning an institution such as Charlemagne had at Aachen. Nevertheless there are several references to such an in stitution, chiefly, Heiric of Auxerre’s remark (in the preface to his Vita Sancti Germani) that Charles's palatium deserved the name scola because of its scholarly as well as military discipline.*” There is no evidence of the site of this school, however. Many scholars have suggested that the site of the palace school was at Laon, a fortified settlement on a hill near Quierzy, which maintained a high renown in scholarship and learning throughout the ninth and tenth centuries. John Contreni has pointed out that the importance of Laon was a function of its proximity to the Car- olingian court, as well as of the involvement in politics of Laon’s bishops, men such as Pardulus (consecrated bishop in 848) and Hincmar of Laon. Hinemar (c. 835-877), a nephew of Hincmar of Rheims, became bishop of Laon in 858 and supported Charles the Bald against Louis the German’s invasion that year. He amassed a large fortune for himself, however, and was deposed in 871. He sided with Charles's son Carloman in a revolt against Charles and was imprisoned in 873."" Laon had both a cathedral and a chapel, 435 R, McKittrick, The Palace School of Chales dhe Bald,” in Gibson and Nelson, Chatles the Bld, pp 385-400. See the important study of C. Beubl, Fadrum, gist, sere ei ‘Shufen 2 dos wivhflchn dagen Sez Konigsbans in Fane win de Rho [Nacitestaten Dewshland, Eronkreih wad Halen, vou 8 bis zur Mive des 24 Jeunes (Cologne: Becht. Verlg, 1968). pp. 39-48, which gives deailed maps of Charles's 136 On the importance of Compitgne sce P. Rich, “Les Représenctions du pais dans Ix textes literaves dh haut moyen Age," Prone (0676), ppe 161=72. On the poem of FEviugena sce M. Fowsard, "Aula sderee” Vere de Jean Scot au foi Charles," Gai ‘Anceslgiqes (1931), pp. 28-88 and ¥, Christe, "SaineMatie de Compigne et le temple dHeséhie," hn Rogues, Jean Seat Fagen, pp 47-81 137 Hrabanus Mawrus had writen extolling the virwes of military erning t Gotha Win his De aninay sce Delhaye, Ciritin Phloophy i the Midi Ages, p45; 0% Hei’ fence tothe pace ste McKiteick, "The Palace Sciool of Charles the Bal,” p. 385 Heine refers o Charles a8 a wise Soiomr 8 Sex the billanc su by.) Content, lie Cuthel Séhoo of Laon fom aso, “Manse and Maser (Munich: Arbeo-Gesellicaft,ro98), and S. Martine, ia vile de Laon soas Charles le Chauve,” in Rogues, Jaa Sot ie, pp 33-38. 8 the town's library, see Je Contteni, "The Formation of Laon's Cathedral Library inthe [Ninth Century.” Sid Medieval, ser. ga, 13 (1972), pp. 919-89. On Hincmar of Lion, fee McKittrick, ‘The Fronsh Kingdows, p18.20 an important library and setiptotium, and connections with other monasteries ~ notably Auxerre. It was also noted for its large “Irish colony.” Charles the Bald had presided over the installation of Pardulus)as bishop there in 848. According to Edouard Jeauneau, Laon had something of a reputation for Greek studies, which was also fashionable at the royal court."® Some of Eriugena’s poems use Greek words to refer to the king ~ basileus (Baowaeds), archos (&px6s), urios (kiiptos). Laon, then, was one of the intellectual centres of Charles's, kingdom, and it was certainly one of the places where Eriugena! wrote and taught, although it is not in fact possible to make the identification between the so-called palace school and the cathedral school at Laon because concrete evidence is lacking. But itis helpful to us to have some idea of the physical setting, historical background, and social context from which’the major philosophical work of Eriugena emerged. vlt is clear that Eriugena spent time at the court, but he is also listed as one of the masters of the cathedral school of Laon. After him there stretched a line of masters of the school, who may be seen as students and perhaps followers of Scottus's ~ beginning with his contemporary and fellow-Irishman Martin Hiberniensis (819- 75), a liberal arts teacher. who commented on the Annotagenes of Martianus and left behind a compilation of Greek and Latin terms which drew on Eriugena’s work," and including Manno (born 843). ‘The last master was Adelelm in the tenth century. These masters were scriptural experts, but they were also all literal arts teachers who relied heavily on the liberal arts handbook written by Marti- anus Capella Evidence of the reading resources of these Caro‘ingians comes to us in the fgrm of a number of book lists. The evidence of Charles John Scottus riugena 139 See]. Conteni, "The Wish ‘Colony’ at Laon during the time of Job Scotus," in Rogues, ea Sco rine, pp. 59°88, sod B. Bischol, "Ivische Schreiber Karolingrcich, "bi pp. 47-38. 40 Er Jesunesu, “Jean Seot Brigdne tle gre,” Archivinm Letiiats Medit Avot, Bulletin du Gage 41 (1979), pp. §-40. On the school a Laon see Jeaunens, "Les Ecoler de Laon et Aurore a0 1Xe vice” in Lt Srula well Oxide Laie dello Medioee, Setimane di Studio del Cento italiano di std sulfalto medioevo, vol. 19 (Spoleto: Presso Centro, 1072). pp. 495-523, 41 On Martin see]. Conteniy “John Scotts, Martin Hibernienss, the Libera Arts and “Teach, "in Ni Hernen (ed), Inder Loin Stade, Papers om Latin Text a Manas ofthe Bch Le: 50-2068 (Toronto: Poni Institute of Medieval Studies, 1981) pp. yaa. Alto Coniteni, The Cathedral School at Lao, pp. 95-134 ‘ede del rr European intellectual qulture a4 the Bald’s own library would suggest: that he did not use it as a school library, as it lacks manuals and handbooks.” Charles's li- brary contains Einhard’s Life of Charlemagne, Lupus of Ferritres’s De tribus quaestionibus, Hinemar on the soul, and Ratramnus and , Paschasius Radbertus on the Eucharist, a well as some works of Augustine. Presumably it algo contained the manuscript of Dion- ysius (now at Paris) from which Briugena! made his translation, Wulfad, a companion of Eriugena’s to 'whom the Periphyseeli i dedicated, was an abbot of Saint-Medard jat Soissons and later be- came archbishop of Bourges in 866. His library, the list of which is extant, gives a good picture of the reading resources of Charles's scholars." This short list contains works by Bede, Isidore, Am- brose, Jerome, and others and is a fairly typical guide to the intel- lectual ‘resources of the age. It also contains, however, several ref- erences to Eriugenian works, namely, his translations of Maximus and “Libri Periphyseon 1.1," which may mean Wulfad possessed two copies of the book or two of the five books which make up the dialogue. ' "AS we have seen, Charles was an energetic monarch, He was also an intellectual and displayed considerable interest in the theological disputes of his time. He comimissioned a martyrology from Usuard of Saint-German-des-Prés in| 86s, and was presented with Heiric's life of Saint Germanus. As has already béen mentioned with ref erence to Fredegisus, there wps a long-standing debate on the nature {\of the soul, its relation to other souls and the world soul, and the ) time of its initial connection! with the bedy. ‘Augustine had raised . 1 all of these questions in De quantitate animae, Chapter xxi, in De libero arbitrio, Book Ul, and tlsewhere in his voluminous writings. In-De quantitate animae xxxii,69, Augustine had put forward three hypotheses: that all souls arg one, that all souls are individvals, or that all souls are both one and many. Augustine could not satisfac torily resolve the issue. Alcuin had touched on the problem in his De animae ratione but left it tindecided. Hincmar, one of the most powerful prelates of Charles the Bald’s tinje, also wrote a De ratione 442 MekGiterick, “Charles the Bald (823-872) and His Library.” pp. 8-47 {5 On Walla, see], Marenton, "Wolf, John Scotts Eriugens td Chutes the Bald in Gibsoit and Nelson, Chaves the Bald, pp. 375-83. On Wolf's booklist see M. Cxp- puns, "Les Bil mdi et Jean Scot Erigene,” Recherches de théloieancinne et médiévale 38 (1989), pp. 157-9. .2 John Scotus Eriugena animae, and the Saxon monk Gottschalk made important remarks on the problem in his De diversis quaestionibus. All of these contri- butions interested Charles, But the most famous of all is the dis- cussion by Ratramnus of Corbie in his Liber de anima, which was roughly contemporaneous’ with the Periphyseon.** Ratramnus had already written several theological works either commissioned by or dedicated to Charles, among them the De cor- pore et sanguine Domini (PL CXXI.126-170) in 843, and a De prae- destinatione (PL CXXI.12-$0) in 849-50,"* which displayed his con- siderable powers as a polemicist. But it was on the question of the nature of the soul that he made a significant philosophical contri- bution, Ratcamnus wrote two treatises on the soul, the first a short tract entitled De anima, written in 853. Ratrampus was interested in exploring the relationship of the soul, which is incorporeal, to space, which encloses corporeal bodies, using citations from the author ties; chiefly Augustine. ‘The first tract did little more than assemble a number of traditional texts and demonstrate that the opinion that the soul is corporeal holds no weight with the great authorities. Ratramnus’s second De anima, written in 863, is a much more substantial work on the relation between individual souls and the world soul, written at the request of Odo, bishop of Beauvais, Odo wanted Ratramnus to reply to a work of a monk at Fleury, a dis- ciple of the Irish monk Macarius, who had argued for the existence of a world soul, using Augustine's De quantitate animae, Ratramnus ‘opposes this view and argues that the universal sou! is only an ab- straction, since universals are themselves merely concepts in the mind, The debate therefore was-not just about the soul but initiated the debate on universals which was to reach a climax in the twelfth century, Ratramnus held that universals, species, and genera did not ‘exist in things themselves (in rebus), unlike Macarius or indeed Ex iugena, for whom species and genera were more real than atoma 44 On Ratramnus, see JP, Boubot, Ratamne de Cores Hie lindivee courovests doce Irinaes (Pare: Eaadee Augustinicnves, 1978); P Delaye, Une Conrovere sur Ue wa tere a IXe ue (Nama: Cente Exiles Médidvales, 19§0);D.C. Lambot,Ratranne Ae Conbe: Lier de anima ud Odovem Bellovaenzom (Namur: Godeane 1982), 208 A. Wi [L mare, "Ouse de Rateamne sur la navare de Mme,” Reoue Bind 43 (1931. pp 45 On predestination see Boubot, Ratrnne de Corbi, pps 35-41, and M. Cappuyns, Jean ‘Stor Erigane: Sa oe, on severe, an pene (Loavaine Abbaye de Mont CéSat, 1933), PP. 11-'The debate on predestination was one ofthe most important theological conto ‘etsies ofthe ninth century and volved not only theologians: Chale the Bald himse {ook an active interest inthe dispute ropean intellectual culture a (owe) of individuals. For Ratramnus the only true substances are individuals. It is false to say all men are one man and to say that all souls are one soul, ‘To explain his point, Ratramnus makes use of Boethius's Contra Eutychen et Nestorim, nosing that the monk of Fleury is misinterpreting this text. Ratramnus notes that the monk uses an arguinent from Boethius which states that whatever is the subject of predication is a substance, including “nothing” (nihil, since even “nothing” must signify something (aliquid). Ratramnus agrees but makes a distinction between substantia and natura, and also, following Boethius, between substantia and subsistentia (Exi- tagena appears to use these terms indiscriminately). Every predica- tion involves a nature, Ratramnus argues, butt not every nature is a substance. Furthermore, the individual things are substances but genera’ and species are more truly called subsistenta.*® This work seems to have brought to an end a controversy over the soul which had raged since Alcuin’s time, and it marks a new and higher stage of intellectual debate. The influence of Boethivs's careful grammatical approach to theology is evident as is a new rationalism Carolingians (from Alcuin and Hrabanus to Hinemar and Ra- tramnus) were fascinated by the psychology and anthropology of human nature, developing scriptural comments on man’s image and likeness to God, with the aid of Saint Augustine's writings. Indeed, we shall see that Eringena brings this interest in psychology to a new philosophical peak with his complex theory of the levels of the hhuman mind, its self-knowledge, and its fundamental indivisibility and incorporeality. — Eriugena has rarely been mentioned in conngétion avith this con- roversy on the soul, although in the tenth century another of Ra- tramnur’s works on the Eucharist, the De corpore et sanguine Dont, circulated under the name of John Scortus and played a significant role in the controversy surrounding Beiengar of Tours. It was con- demned at the Council of Vercelli in 200.” ‘The Eucharist controversy in the time of Charles the Bald had = 46 See Lambot (ed). Ratranme de Corbie, pp. 52-67. Eriugena develops another word va fonder the Greek idea of undeslying subsistence ~ Subsinurie ~ oehich bas the sense of ringing into being, and hence of een, see De pac. a8, PariphysonI.sob, V 7734 47 See Cappuyns Joss Sst Esgée, pp. 86-91; Ie Heuctevent, Duron de Troan ees wigs, de Thane hvgaiomse (Pao: Besuchesne, 1912), pp. 253-87. Sec also Boul, Rumi pep and Jean de Montclan Leufone rt Bieer La Covers case Wouvais Speiy'sm Sacrum Lovaniense, 1971)24 John Scottus Eriugena been initiated by Paschasius Radbertus, abbot of Corbie (4. 860), with his De corpore et sanguine Christi. Ratramnus then wrote his treatise on the subject.. Scholars originally assumed that Ratramnus was replying to Radbertus, but more recently Bouhot has argued that the works weré written independently." In answer to Charles's, inquiry as to whether the body of Christ was present in the Eu- charist in truth or in mystery (veritas or mysteriumn),** that is, sym- bolically, Ratramnus argues for a spiritualist position. The body of Christ is present spiritually not physically, but although it is thus present in figura, this does not mean it is not present in truth (ver- , itas). Ratramnus thus prefers the word figura to Charles's mysterium, because figura suggests that while the truth is revealed to humans, it'is also veiled in a certain way. Ratramnus further distinguishes between Chiist's historical body and his Eucharistic presence. E ugena will later follow a similar “spiritualist” position in his Hom- ily, as does’ Gottschalk, Like Ratramnus, Eriugena argued that the Eucharist was a symbol, and as he says in his Commentarius in Evan- _gelium Johannis Locxxi.gr1b, we consume Christ in the Eucharist mente non dente. As a matter of fact, the Carolingians were here relying ‘on texts, in S4int Augustine, for example, his In lohannis Evangelium tract xxvi.12 (PL XXXV.1612 CCSL XXXVI, p. 266) or his En- arrationes in Psalmos (PL XXXVI.1265 and CCSL XXXIX, p. 1386), and this position was not considered unorthodox until much later. Other theological controversies of the time, which have a bearing cn the philosophy of John Scotus Eriugena and in which Charles took an interest, include the argument on the nature of hell, which Eriugena discussed in the De praedestinatione and in Book V of the Periphyseon, arguing against the idea of hell as a parsicular place (rather it is the experience of the absence of God), and the problem of the 48 Bouhot, Retanmie de Corie, pp. 77-88, 49 Bouhor, bid, pp. 147~s3- The tem mysterio as used by Chatles seemed ro imply that, Christ’ presence wet sere, hidden, and could not be gesped ay the human mind, Ra- terminus set out to give exact definitions to the meanings of the wards figs and my term. He sees the divine presence ae revealed by he Bachari: but in 2 veld manner Gur et lambratioqusedam, quedo uleibus gud intend oendens; PL®XXL 330) "Fhe Hes ‘of truth appearing ina figure, which reveals and obscures atthe same tne, is the cetee of Eriugena's concept of theophania, Rateamms contrasts trths revealed in 2 fgurs wth euths which are reveled purely, openly, and bate, the virgin bith, ‘ucifixion, and dsath of Chvst (PL CXXI-130)..On Eriugena's use of the terms sare ‘nent nd spbolum see E-Jeaunens, appendix lt of Jen Stor: Cemmetare su Evang {de Jean, 180 (Pars CERF, 1972). pp. 397-402. See also P. Dronke, Fabula: Explorations ini the Use of Mi i Medioa! Platt (Leiden: Beil 1974), ! + European’ intellectual culture vision of God. This latter problem arose from the attempt to ins terpret Augustine's De civitale Dei xxii.29, and his Epistola ad Itali cam, in which the quéétion of the possibility of seeing God with the corporeal eyes is discussed. Many Latini Writers held that the elect will see God with their actual physical eyés, after the general res- urrection of the dead, whereas the Greck authors denied that hu- mans will ever be able to see God as He'is. ‘The problem was argued in Germany, where De videndo Deum, thought to be by Hrabainus Maurus, was produced. Gottschalk became involved in the debate while imprisoned in Hautvillers and wrote letters to Lupus and to Ratramnus on the subject, arguing that our physical eyes will be transmuted into spiritual eyes. This attracted the attention of Hinc- mar. Whether or not John Scottus wrote his own De visione Dei (there are references to such a work in library entries), he certainly contributed to the debate by introducing the Greek view of the beax tific vision in the Periphyseon (1.447b) where he argued that no-one can sce God as He is. Augustine, on the other hand, did not believe + that humans would be satisfied with less than a full vision of God, although he was unable to explain how, that vision of God took place. He specifically denied that we will see only an aspect or ap- parition of God, For Eriugena, God is seen only in His'theophanies, which is the true meaning of “face to fact” in the Pauline words (1 Corinthians 13.12). In other words, neither with corporeal nor spit itual eyes will man be able to see God as He is; man will only be able to sce manifestations of God. This argument continued on in. the thirteenth century and was referred to in the Condemnation of 1277 In summary, then, the Carolingian era was a period of intellectual revival which produced a number of significant scholars interested in the classics and in Augustine, and capable of independent intel- lectual comment. It is also noteworthy that the Carolingian intel- lectuals all seem to have known and interacted with one another, as is evident by their letters and tracts. In terms of the raging theological disputes, Eriugena had opinions relating to the subject= matter in all of these debates, but he offered his views mainly in 50 On the vison of God, sce M. Cappuyns, “Note sur le probleme de Is vision béatifque Sie ste” Recher de thelogte acon # wddidvale 1 (1920), pp. 98-107. See alo Cappayas Jean Sot vite, pp. 94-926 John Scottus Eriugena the context of his own summa theologica, the dialogue Periphyseon He seems to have intervened directly in only one dispute ~the dis. pute on predestination ~ and it is this which marks his first ap- pearance in the extant historical record, Before discussing Eriuge- mma’s life and writings, we must first examine the dispute which catapulted him onto the world stage. Eriugena, however, was not a polemicist, and after he wrote his De praedestinatione he appears to have taken no further interest in the matter. 2 THE PREDESTINATION DEBATE Ac the time of the beginning of the predestination controversy, in the 84os, Eringena was a teacher of the liberal arts at Charles's court. We can infer this from a letter written around 851~2 by Bishop Pardulug of Laon to the church at Lyon. Pardulus mentions Bri- tugena i& the letter as scott illum qui est in palatio regis, Joannem nom- ine,’ and says that John was requested to write a work clarifying the problem after the views of a number of people (including Lupus of Ferrigres, Hrabanus Maurus, Prudentius, Amalarius, and Ra- tramnus) regarding Gottschalk’s tract had been solicited. In fact, Ra~ tramnus was a friend of Gottschalk’s, as was Lupus. So it is not surprising that their answers were unsatisfactory and that Pardulus and Hincmar searched ¢lsewhere for a champion to oppose Gott- schalk. This letter represents the first recorded mention of Eriugena. Goitschalk (B0s~68) was a Saxon monk of noble bieth and re~ bellious spirit who had studied with the brilliant but eclectic Hra- anus Maurus at the meaastery of Fulda into which he had been given as an oblate by his father, before managing to be transferred to Orbais and later to Corbie.* Gottschalk left the monastery with- out permission, and his extensive travels included a Visit co Rome, ow lost sete in Prades De rts eps ier (PL, CXL, 10st) Vransation ae piven fn M. Brenna "Materials forthe Biography of Jo. 1S Scotus Eviopena,” Shui Mediewl, ser. 34,27 (986), pP- 413-60, espeilyp. ar SF cowschalh, se'Jean Jolivet, Goderle Orkais etl Trin, (Paris: Vein, 1988) and “Cision deh gramimaire pour Godesale,” i Re Rogues (Je Soot Erie hie tare dee phtsplie (Pais CNRS, 197), pp- 79-88: D.C. Lamiborfe.), Oxwretdlegges Ide Coaesale POrkas (Louvain: Spicegium Sacrom Lovaniense, 194). E ‘adgertee,"Gotschak ele probleme de a prédestintion a IXe sible,” Rem de hia Meena s06 (gs), pb. tBn235, Gotcha bal been placed in dhe monasery of Falls sere Shia by hs fer, At hac tnye the abbot as Egil. in 82g his pion t0 leave star rofused and he wa allowed fo change mouasieres instead by the new abbot, tax ‘Banus Manes, who followed hit subsequent caret with concer, Gottschalk, weit CGrbais where be began the intensive study ofthe Church fathers, expecially Augustine His paveon wat Bishop Ebbo, a longeime fval of Hinemar's28 uy 7 Jolin Scotus Bringena where he'taught his view of predestination at the court of Count Eberhard of Friuli (who was connected by marriage with Charles the Bald) in 845-6. He returned to a fierce controversy in France.” As early as 840, Hrabanus had attacked Gottschalk for his views on predestination (PL CXII.1530-33), and had written to Eberhard de- nouncing him. Hrabanis challenged Gottschalk at a council in Mainz, in 848, and Gottschalk was condemned. Hrabanus wrote to Hinc- mar the same year, asking that he imprison Gottschalk, since Gott- schalk was a priest of the diocese of Soissons and therefore under Hincmar’s jurisdiction.‘ Hincmar delayed until 849, when Gott- schalk was again condemned at Quierzy, by a a synod presided over by the young King. Charles, and his writings burned.’ Gottschalk ‘was whipped, imprisoned, and ordered to keep perpetual silence on religious matters. Gottschalk, however, had powerful friends including Bishop Ebbo and, while confined at Hautvillers, he continued his theological en- deavours and-seeméd to have had a fair measure of liberty. At this time Gottschalk became involved in a controversy on the vision of God, commenting possibly on Saint Augustine’s De civitate Dei XXil.2g or else on the Bpistola ad ::alicam on whether God will be seen with the corporeal eyes. Gottschalk wrote to Ratramnus setting out his view that the physical eyes will be spiritually transformed, a position with awhich Eriugena would later agree. (Eriugena com-fr, ments on Augustine’s De civitate Dei XXIl.2g at Periphyseon 1.447b. st Hincmar was disturbed by his writings and consulted other bish- ops, notably Prudentius of Troyes, whose reply in late 849 sup- porting Gottschalk gave Hincmar further cause for concern. In his Epistola ad Hincmatuniet, Pardulum (PL CXV.971~r010), Prudentius argued that Auigistine id actually teach a double predestination. Furthermore, Lupus of Ferritres, a former student with Gottschalk 4 See. Gans, “The Debite on Predstinaton," in M. Gibson and J Nelson (ed), Chares the Bald: Cour ond Kingdom (Oxford: BAR, 1982), pp. 383-78. Argerter gives slightly Tater dates for ie pilgstmage to Rome and fjourn at Eberhard's court). Devis in it monumental study, Mion: Avhevequ de Reins 845-882 (Genevt: Dror, 1995), gives 2 ‘etailed account of the controversy. See also H. Liebeschtz, "A Philosopher's Reinter- pretation of Augustine" A. HL Armstrong (d.), The Cartridge History of Late Greek lind Bey Mdieel Pilsophy (Carbide: Cambridge University Ftess, 1910). pp. $79~ 46; and, Schrimpf, Der Werk der Johonner Setar Eragena ln Rohner des Wisenshae bertindnse einer Zeit (Minater: Archendort, 1982), pp. 73-108 4 Aegerter, “Gottschalk ct le problime de In prédewination au IXe ae,” p. 197 § Ibid, Po 199 fwiths The(rooi The. predestination debate at Fulda, also sided with Gottschalk’s interpretation of Augustine. | In 850 Lupus wrote his Liber de tribus quaestionitus, and the influ ential Ratramnus of Corbie assembled a selection of quotations from Augustine which he sent to Gottschalk for, his use and wrote his own work on predestination. Florus, a humanist and the powerful bishop of Lyon, also supported Gottschalk and made use of Cicero’s arguments concerning free-will (which are also cited in Augustine’s De civitate Dei); Hincmat attacked Gottschalk in his pastoral Ad sii plices, making use of Alcuin and Hrabanus as authorities, He sought to watn his flock of the heresy of the monk of Orbais, and argued there was only a single predestination ~ that of the just, which de- ~ pends on God’s grace. Feeling threatened, he decided to bring in expert advice, Pardulus of Laon, Hincmat's loyal frierid, ot possibly Charles himself recommended John Scottus, the dialectician, and the result was Scottus’s work, De divina praedestinatione,® written around 8g0~1. This work, however, was not altogether pleasing to Hincmar because, although it attacked Gottschalk in the most vi- cious terms, its extreme interpretation of Augustine was itself he- retical and contrary to traditional Christian teaching as far as Hinc- / mar was concerned. of the predestination controversy go back to Augus- tine’s Be Tibero arbitrio (A.D..39§), his quarrel with the Donatists, and his attack on Pelagius (who was himself called Irish Scottus).’ There is no doubt that Augustine's views were coloured by his fierce op- position to the Pelagians and that he tended to overemphasise the total human dependence on God’s grace, thus supporting the view that we are predestined by God and are rot free to act otherwise, In De libero arbitrio II.xx.54 (CCSL XXIX, pp. 272-3) Auguistine {6 The text edited by H. J. Floss, Jonni Seat opertqucerpertumt oni, is J-P- Migne, Patelega Latina EXXUi (Paris, 1853) 355-439, The cries edition is G. Madec (ed), Iohantt Sot! De dvina pracesinatione, COCR, Series tina L.(Tuenbol: Brepol, 1978) See ago }-P. Boulhot, Le De divi pracdstinetione d> Jean Scot" Rese des Etudes Ai usinionies 25 (979) PP. 256-53. A taslation by Mary Brennan is im preparation 1 ‘Regerter, “Gotechalke le probleme de la prédestnaton au IXe sce,” pp. gaff. Pe- {agus was posibly British, but his theological commencares were always popular amorg. In scriptural excgetes, who even cited him by name along with Augustine, obviously te inegced aout ennai ea hae, el Kel, Pein, Penn the Early Christan Wish,” Mediaeval 4 (1998), pp. 99-124. Exigena was accused af having. produced rubbish, puter roveram, by the Council at Valence in 85s, reeling Jerome's jeer aginst Pelagier See also Cappuyns, Jers Set Erigine, pp. 102-2. For the iseusion in Augustin, a€6 Sancti Aurel Augustin’ Opes UL.2, CCSL 99 (Toro: Brew pols 1970, fr the text of De liber arbi30 John Scotus Bringena had argued that human will can choose either higher or lower things. ‘Owing, however, to the weakness of fallen riature, it generally tends towards lower things, that is, towards the pleasures of the body rather than the goods of the soul. Augustine in De libero arbitrio ILix (CCSL XXIX, p. 274) is unsure whether this tendency to: wards lower things is natural, like a stone falling, and hence inev- itable, or whether it is voluntary. He argues that it is both ~ our characters form in such a way that following pleasure becomes nat- ural, even though it is voluntary. In later writings, Augustine in~ troduces divine grace as an aid to the free-will to choose the good However, gradually he moved to the more extreme position that human beings were totally dependent on divine grace for every ac- tion and decision. In this sense, some are predestined by God’s will to be saved, others are predestined to be damned. The individual cannot save himself, since his nature is essentially flawed (due, ul- timately, to its ex mihilo origin), Augustine's remarks are complex and varied, and the ninth-century interpretations reflect this. Gott- schalk presents his views simply as an explication of the African father. He argues that predestination is in fact twofold: It is a genina praedestinati, borrowing a phrase found in the authoritative Senten- tiae of Isidore allowing for predestination ad vitam and ad morten.* | This means that God’s mind or will, which is unchanging, has been decided since before Creation: Human beings are predestined to either | hell or heaven, and there is nothing they can do to change this.* | Humanity, then, is divided into two groups, civ‘tates: the elect, led | by Christ, and the damned, led by the Devil. Gottschalk’s case, (based on his careful grammatical method in theology, was bravely and powerfully stated, and does indeed offer a viable interpretation of Augustine’s position. Eriugena’s response is;flamboyant. He sees Gottschalk’s position as stultissima crudelissimague insania; Gottschalk should be burned in 5 Senne 14,1, Eriygena quotes Isidore in De predeainaone DL CXXU. 366. For leidore's text se F. Arevalo (ed), Son Inari Opera Onl, in PL 3.606: "Getnina {3t pracdestinatio, sive clectorai ad requien, sve repreboram ad merc icy speaking, according to Gotashak the damned are not predestined to sia, but only punlnent becnse God foretes their sn. See Aegetter, pp. 104-5. Many passages in Augustine support thie view, and Eriugena acknowledged this, though he ced other | 1 texte the effect that God only foreknows the evil oF the wicked 2nd does not predstine i See). M. Rist, “Augustine on roe Will nd Predestnaton,” Jounal of Theolgial {Sau ms. 20, pat 2 (1969). pp: 410-47. God docs not "will ge punishment of the damned, Fle lets happen. / ° ‘The predestination debate 3 oil and pitch, in oleo atque pice (PL CXXIL.3694), and hig misun- derstanding of the authorities is due to his lack of @ucation in the liberal arts. Eriugena proceeds to demonstrate, using his own ci tations from Augustine, that there is no predestination towards evil, because in the strictest sense God could not be said to know evil at all, Eriugena is aware of the novelty of his method’® and apologises in advance to those who think he is being heretical by denying God's knowledge in this area, His argument is based on the metaphysical premiss that God is sma substantia. Although Eriugena relies heavily oon patristic interpretation and frequently cites Augustine,’ his method is more self-consciously dialectical and rationalistic. Eriugena argues from a set of propositions, for example, that God is summa essentia (366b, 4140, 416b, etc.), and is the opposite of non-being (365¢); but evil is non-being, and therefore God does not know evil and could not predestine people to evil. This self-conscious use of dia- lectical argumentation (3562, 3581~b) calling on readers to attend! to his argument and not to his style, and invoking the divisions of dialecti®, provoked Prudentius to declare it sophistry (PL CXV.104a~ c). It is clear that Eriugena’s own intention was to solve the ap- parent contradictions in Augustine's own account, thus demonstrat- ing that his theological skills were more considerable than those of Gottschalk. Any trace of dualism such as a dual predestination the- ory is basically in error about God's nature, God is a substance who is all good; therefore, He can in no sense be said to be able even to entertain the knowledge of evil. God is one, His being is His know- ing, and His knowing is His acting, It is in this sense that God can be said to predestine — stie hoc est destinare; His knowing causes things and thus destines them. Since God is good, God's foreknowl- edge (praescientia) can only be good in itself, and it does not pre~ dest > the human will a all, Furthermore, God’s knowing is eter~ nal and the concept of a “predetermining™ or “foreknowledge” in a temporal sense cannot be attributed to Him. In faety-the only sense in which we can speak of predestination is in the sense that God must be God. There is no double destination oF two destinations or one divided into two parts, Eriugena says in the Epilogue. Furthermore, we must realise that we cannot use language liter- 1 Bringens’s method i fly discussed by Sehrimpf in Dae Hed fons Seu ingen, pp. By 100. See ako Madee, "L’Augustinisme de Jean Scot dans Te De praslsinain Ir Rogues, Jen Sen Brigg, pp. 183-9032 Jol Scottus Briugena ‘ ally when we speak of God because He is incorporeal and corporeal signs cannot adequately express His nature, which is best referred to by the single word esse (390c). God is existence; evil, by contrast, docs not exist (3940). There is no death of the soul, as Eriugena alleges that Gottschalk was teaching; God does not predestine any- one to death, since God is life, and the source of life in all living things. Eriugena makes a further careful distinction between hus.an na~ ture before the Fall, which possesses truc voluntas, and the imperfect fallen arbitrium, which sometimes chooses evil (378-82), using quo- tations from Augustine's De libero arbtrio, Augustine frequently dis~ tinguishes bérween the spiritual liberty (libertas) of the blessed, and the free choice (liberum arbitrium) of the present human condition, ‘When the imperfeetjudgment chooses sin, it consigns itself to dark- ness, and the-punishetient for sin is nothing other than the sin itself. No nature, for Eriugéna, has the power to-punish another: nature. Punishment is simply the absence of beatitude, and the sinful soul remains trapped after death in the region of fire, the fourth element of the material world. The good soul also dwells in this realm, but it does not feel the fire as painful, because to the healthy eye the sun is cheerful whereas to the unhealthy eye it is dazzling and painful. In this whole treatise Eriugena deals very much with the themes which preoccupied the Carolingian philosophers, and sees himself as merely interpreting the words of Augustine, whom he acknowl- edges as 2 master of the arts. But there are quite a number of re- ‘markable and unusual features in Eriugena’s tract, worth noting at this point, First of all, his argument is based on carefull metaphysical and dialectical reasoning about the nature of God, good and evil. Second, he argues that the superiority of his own position is ‘based ‘on his more thorough understanding of the liberal arts, which gives him a better basis for the correct interpretation of the authorities. ‘Third, Eriugena’s position offers an assessment of the human place in the universe, seeing this world as an opportunity given to human ature to perfect itself. Eriugena's vision is extremely optimistic: Sal- vation is available to all. Even if our flawed moral judgment fails us grace is available, Furthermore, Eriugena’s Gad does not merely not know evil, He did not create hell. Human sinfulness is respon~ sible for creating its own hell. In all this Eriugena shows himself to bbe not only a skilful dialectician but also a learned and subtle ex~ The predestination debate 33 positor of Augustine. The view of the rélation between religion and philosophy is Augustinian, There are also traces of Origen in his ‘work, and a reference to Gregory of Nyssa shows that Eriugena had already, by this stage, some familiarity with Greek theology. Hincmar was unhappy with this intervention on his behalf and was quick to disown it. Others ~ Prudentius and Florus ~ attacked Eriugena severely. Florus, in his Adversus Joannis Scotti erroneas def- initiones liber (PL CXIX), based his attack solely on excerpts from Briugena’s work, which Prudentius had sent him, and he makes obvious errors, accusing Eriugena of not citing texts from Augus- tine, for example. Prudenitius also calls him.a vaniloguus et garnulus homo (PL CXIX. 10x), though: he was once a friend, and sneers at him for being held in.admiration as an initellectual (scolasticus et eru- ditus). Pradentius also attacks Scottus for devising a novel way of reading the Scriptures, baséd on the quadrivium of the liberal arts (PL CXV. 10204). He remirks on-his Celtic eloquence (celtica elo- quentia) in De pracdestinationd contra Joannem Scotum (PL CXV.1194a), but says that Eriugena is distinguished by no rank of dignity within the Church, Prudentius usd scriptiral quotations against Eriugena \ and argues that human reason is insufficient to understand the world. Furthermore, history is full of cases of men being punished by God, which Eriugena had declared impossible, and Prudentius also asserts the reality of hell. Eriugena was also accused of Pelagianism, al- though he himself had disowned this position in his tract, and his works were condemned by Florus, using the old sneer of Jerome against Pelagius, as pultes Scottorunt. (This phrase reappeared in the two councils which condemned Eriugena in the 830s ~ first at Va~ Jence in 85§ and then at Langres in 859.) The dispute raged on through the 850s with various councils being held. In part, the predestination issue was a pretext for a political power struggle between Hincmar and the northern bishops, against Florus and the southern bishops of Gaul. Quierzy was in the north and Valence in the south, near Lyon. Savonniéres was neutral ground: Charles the Bald called a synod at Quierzy in 853; only a few bishops attended, however, and its declarations were overturned by the Synod of Valence in January 855. Hincmar wrote a second treatise on predestination at- tacking Gottschalk as well as Prudentius and Ratramnus. In 839 meetings were held at Langres and at Savonniéres which isstied de~ crecs explicitly attacking Eriugena, and Hincmar wrote his third’ Hl34 John Scotus Eriugena treatise. Gottschalk continued to be persecuted until his death in 868. Devisse in his careful study of this controversy claims that Eri- tugena had no impact at all on his contemporaries because his ar ‘guments were so removed from them as to be incomprehensible." Florus also complained that, unlike Gottschalk, Eriugena had: not been ordered into silence but instead was being accorded great honours. ' It is from the surviving texts of the predestination debate that we gain the most festimonia céncerning Briugena, and the overall picture emerges of a rationalist scholar, well equipped in the liberal arts and also in Scripture, willing to follow his own mind on the great the- ological problems of the day. 18 Deviese, Hinemar, vol 1, pp. 150-1 3 ERIUGENA'S LIFE AND EARLY WRITINGS » & ‘The predestination controversy marks the first written evidence we have of Eriugena’s life and activities. We do not know when or where he was born, but modern scholarship, beginning with Cap- puyns's monumental study of 1933, has agreed that he was born in Ireland near the beginning of the ninth century, probably around 800-810." Eriugena is not mentioned in the Annals of St. Bertin, which list events from 830 and were a continuation of the Royal Frankish Annals, the official record of events in the Carolingian realm, Par- dulus’s letter indicates that by the time of the De praedestinatione (c. 850-1), Eriugena was already attached to the Carolingian palace and was well known as a teacher of the arts. He undoubtedly enjoyed royal favour, because, unlike Gottschalk, he was not persecuted for his beligfs, as Florus lamented, and continued to work for Charles in the carly 860s, as his translations of Dionysius testify, Aside from what I have said about Irish and Carolingian culture in general, we have very little evidence of Eriugena’s educational background-and training. We have no evidence of his Irish school- ing or of the reasons which brought him to the court of Charles." 1 The best biogeaphy it stl M. Cappuyns, Jean Scot Erie: Sa we, son eeuue, se pede (Louvain: Abbaye de Mone Caz, 1939). Mary Brennan fis assembled and tanalaced the Sources forthe biogephy in her “Material for the Biography of Johannes Seotus Erk lugens." Shu Metical, Ser. sa 27 (i986), pp. 4¥3~460. Earlier biographies inside T. (Chris, Leben wed Ledre det JohavnerSromr Engena in ire Zasammnha il des vor Ierehende ed water Avabe iver Bertringpunkte nit er uewerca Philosophie sind Theaage (Gotha, 1860); J Huber, Jbunnes Stone Bigens: Fin Being zur Cesc der Philosophie “86:), and O. Heraiens, Daz Leb des Joomes Sto tu geel (eta, 1868), Hare" graphics reid on Willan of Malmesbury. Saen- fas 1 es Erngena at 3 youll gente like Schelling anal thus sets his beth as 838 in Fisnames Sots Enigens waddle Wasvshah seiner Zot, pate + 083arreprine Prank, 1968), pata] m2 ‘The ustal tenon ven (by Willams of Malmesbury, for example for his travel was the disturbance canied by wat in lend. The Nosse invasions of Ireland began in 795 and ‘continued all dhrugh the neh century. Esagena, however, never makes any weetence fo foal evens36 John Scottus Ei igena Although some have disputed it, we do know that John was Irish, from the remark of Prudentius that John was sent to France from that is, Ireland: "You alone, most sagacious of all men, Ireland sent across to Gaul in order that she might through your instruction possess knowledge such as none but you could master.""* Contreni has suggested that he was the “Johannes medicus" men-“ tioned in a charter of 845, and has further suggested that Eriugena may have lived for a while in the Rhine valley.* He is associated with Strasbourg, through a letter he wrote to a Winibertus, thought to be the abbot of Schiittern Abbey in the diocese of Strasbourg. There is also a suggestion that he was at Saint-Medard, with his friend Wulfad, and possibly at Rheims. There is definite evidence in the form of notes and florilegia that he had Irish scribes and stu- dents in his circle, or “colony,”” as Contreni calls it, and several Irish ‘word-lists are extant.* Some biblical glosses existing from thai circle which may in fact have been written by John Scottus (they are signed TOH) contain Trish words and suggest that Eriugena may have had to explain some of his Latin terms in Irish to his-students. These glosses are names for plants, fish, insects, and so forth, and do not reveal any philosophical intent. riugena was a priest or monk. Although he wrote scriptural Commentaries and the Vox spiritualis, which is un~ PLCXXV. 1294s. Set Mary Drennan, “Material.” p. 436 4 kone, "Masters and Medicine hi Nowthera France ring the Reign of Chats the in Gibson and J. Nelson (eds. Chiles the Bald Cour end Kingdom (Onto BAR, 1081), pp. sat-so. Content sugges Entugena'sconnectio with dhe Rhine valley in his study, "The Cael Sito! of Laon rm 850 fo ggo: la Manuscripts ond Mes (Ounich: Arbeo-Geselischat, 1978), p. 66. 5 JoJ. Content, "The lsh Cofony s¢Taon during the Time of Chale the Bal,” in R Tnues (ed), Jean Scot Erigve et histoire dela pilsophle (Pais CNRS, 1991). Pp 39 (7. "There fo iret evidence tat Ertan wrote iy Ish, and his prose aye shows few links wath Hiberno-Latin. See L. Biker “Temarks on Exugc's Origa Ltn Pros," in} J O'Meiea and L Biles (es), The Mid of Erngens (Dbl ah University Press, 1973) pp. 140-6. Somnessanueripts of bibl gloscs containing Old Ish word reve wh te nsec wth he ht colny at gn. Se of hte ler ae marked TOHE, signifying to some scholars that they were the work of Johannes (= OH) Scotts However. the wordt ise is mainly of everyday items and contains no philosophical for technical terms, Sct J.J, Conteni, “The Dial losses of Haimo of Auxerte sd Johannes Scots Erivgen. "Spee 38 (0678). Bp. 4rt-34. See alo P.O NEil, “The ‘Old-nsh Word in Entgen’s Biblia Clones,” tn G-H. Aled (68), Jeon Sen doivain {Montel init Ees Medivales, 1986), pp. ¥87~99. © IEll sce to assure 0 Teall tht 101 to be identi with Exige Life and early writings 37 doubtedly a Christmas homily, he is referred to disparagingly by Prudentius as having no distinguished rank within the Church (PL CXV. 10432), This of course could mean that he did not hold a high rank in the Church. It is also possible that he became a cleric in later life. There is some evidence that he had a brother called Aldelmus. Ic was not until the twelfth century that accounts of Eriugena’s life began to be written ~ chiefly the three separate versions giyen by William of Malmesbury in his chronicles, De gestis regum aiiglo- rum and De gestis pontificam anglorum. Here Eriugena is confused with another John who lived in England at the time of King Alfred. His time at the Carolingian court is recorded, and he is said to have then tired of controversies and returned to England, where he set- tled at Malmesbury. According to William’s version, Eriugena was something of a humourist, and two jokes are recorded which in« dicate Eriugena’s cordial relationships with the king. William also relates how Eriugena met his end, He was stabbed to death by his pupils in a manner which earned him a martyr status. Most latér accounts of Eriugena’s life are based on William's version. Sheldon Williams sees no reason for disbelieving William's account, and it is possible'that Eriugena may ‘have spent time in England, but given the lack of confirming evidence, the account must be treated with caution. i Lt Aulae sidereae, the poem Briugens wrote to commemorate the consecration of Saint Mary's Church at Compiggne, indicates that he was still alive in 877, if the identification of the church mentioned in the poem with Saint Mary's is accepted.® We thetefore know the rough dates of Eriugena's life. But he is most properly remembered by his writings, the earliest of which are tie De praedestinatione and the Annotationes in Marcianum; to the second of which we will now turn Eriugena had a repaation at the court ag a grammaticus or liberal arts teacher. There exist references to’ his learned commentaries on the De mptiis Philologiae et Mercurii of the late Latin writer Mart anus Capella, and Cora Lutz and others have thought that they have © Cappuyns, Jeon Scot Ergbie, pp. 234-6, has argued agnns the dentition he believes the poem nay be tering #0 the church at Rims uit in 862, Cappuyny believer Ee iugena died sroond #70.38 John Scottus Eriugena ified these manuscripts.” One manuscript now at Oxford, but nating from Metz, is believed by Liebeschiitz to illustrate a phase of Eriugena’s career, which predates the De praedestinatione contro- vversy; whereas he believes the other manuscript, at Paris (Bibl. Nat. lat. 12960), the basis of Lutz's edition, to be later. According to Liebeschiitz the Oxford glosses are more characteristically Eriugen- ian than those printed by Lutz in her edition, and correspond to Eriugena’s views as reported by Prudentius.* Neither Leonardi nor Schrimpf accepts Liebeschiite’s hypothesis of two versions, an carlier and a later. They suggest that Eriugena never composed a formal commentary” as such, but that he wrote glosses in’ che margins and between the lines of a copy of Marti- anus's work. These glosses, it is theorised, were then copied out again, by different copyists who emphasised different aspects of the works, the result being the two manuscripts we now know, To Seats ass ental he Bye daring Erogce's pean plas, Ts bats Life and early writings 30 complicate the matter further, Silvestre does not believe that the Metz glosses are by Eriugena at all.’ Herren disagrees with Leonardi and Schrimpf. He believes that some of the glosses are too devel- ‘oped and too long to have been marginal or interlinear comments, and furthermore they are too strikingly different to have been culled from the one exemplar. He therefore suggests that they represent ‘two stages of a commentary on Martianus which may in'fét have been written on two separate copies of Martianus’s text." This whole discussion has greatly clouded the attribution of the existing Mar- tianus Glossae to Eriugena, and greater certainty will not be achieved until Leonardi completes his announced task of editing all the extant manuscripts separately. For our purposes, however, we can be con- tent to say that Eriugena certainly did write a commentary or com~ mentaries on Martianus, and was closely associated with Martianus studies by his contemporaries in the ninth century. Thus,Prudentius says in his book attacking Scotus (PL. CXV.1294a): “Your Capella hhas led you into a labyrinth, because you have tied yourself more to the meditation of his work than to the truth of the Gospel.” Furthermore, echoes of the Martianus commentary are found in Er- jiugena’s other writings ~ the account of the planets in the Oxford manuscript being close to the version in the Periphyscon, and the accounts of the liberal arts in the Paris manuscript also having echoes in the Qeriphyseon. Other manuscripts contain portions of the com- mentary — notably Leiden BPL 88, which contains Book 9, Berne 331 and Paris Bibl. Nat. 8675, which contains Books 6-9, as well as some manuscripts at Cambridge. What influence did Martianus exert on Eriugena? Although the De nuptiis is an obscure work, Eriugena adopted many aspects of his philosophy from Martianus. Martianus’s work is by no means a systematic philosophical treatise, but Eriugeng took from it his conception of the movement of the planets, the har~ monisation of the whole cosmos through the force of love, the re~ 49 Sce H.Silvestee, Notice of C. Leonardi, "Remegio d'Ausere eri dela scuols co Slingia.” 1 Chast nel Medico nell Humans: Mlsellanes fleia 42. p. 2 ‘Bulls de sage encenne et mélévale 12 (49768), p- 59 For Leooaals views see Jean Sct érissn, pp. 181-207 to See a Hevren, “Phe Cotnmen «-y on Martians Attibuted to John Scotts: Hiberno- Tate. dackgrownd,” in Allard, jeat Set Gouin, pp. 265-86. = 1 See PLEXV.ragaa ile tos Capells. ei hue labyrinthum indus credit, evs Meditation’ mgs quai vette! evangelize animam appli40 Joln Scottus Eriugena lationships of the four elements to cach other, the nature of space, the concept of dialectic and the understanding of the liber arts as { actually conferring immortality on the human soul, the concept of the world soul, and the idea of salvation through philosophy. ‘Martianus’s allegorical work was undoubtedly the most popular compendium of the liberal arts in the Middle Ages, although it sel- dom tises above an elementary school-book level in its exposition of the trivium and quadriviun."” Nevertheless, in the absence of first hand works on Greek science and philosophy, it was an indispens- able aid until the recovery of Aristotle in the twelfth century. For the Carolingians it represented their most complete source of secular knowledge: Little is known of Martianus except that he was probably an Af rican from Carthage who flourished in the period after Alaric’s sack of Rome in 410, though some editors have given earlier dates." In his ornate and singularly bombastic allegory, Mercury is advised by his brother Apollo to marry Philology, a learned woman. Philology is carefully prepated for the wedding. Since she is human, she is wortied that she will be consumed by fire on her journey to heaven, so her mother, Phronesis, gives her a cloak to protect her, and Lady Anastasia gives her a potion to make her immortal; she is then raised up to the heavens, during which journey she passes through the planets until she reaches Jupiter's palace in the Milky Way. The wedding takes place before a council of gods and philosophers. The seven arts are Philology's bridesmaids (or dowries), who come for- ward to give speeches on their respective arts."* The work testifies to the importance of the union between elo- quentia and sapientia, between the verba of the trivium and the res of the quadrivium, as indeed the Carolingian commentators clearly understood." It belongs to a late antique attempt to celebrate the 12 See Sul eta, er ‘ap vol.f pp. a3onas, Stl compares Matisnv's section on each at to high school stay which gives a neat survey ofthe ares withthe sppestance of comprehension or» feience text-book writen by a hhamanities scholar with no seenife Canin Sec 50 ‘W-HL Stal, "The Quedeviuan of Martians Capel ex Place inthe Intellectual History of Western Eyrope,” vies lbese et plilarphic su mayor ége. Actes da IVe Congres i temtional de pilosophie médiévale (Montreal Pari, 1960). pp. 950-8, 13 Suhl eral, Marinus Capel, vo. p12, 14 Ibid, p. 24. The bridesmaids (rae deta) are infact “Indie constituting a dowry.” The pilosophers present include Heraclts, Plat, Aristotle, and Democits, 15 Tid pp. ss-71 rms Capella andthe Seven Liberal Ants, vol 1 (972). vel. 2 (e078 Life and early writings ” values of traditional pagan culture ~ the culture of rhetoric and el- ‘quence ~ over against the newer Christian values of humility, suf fering, and the renunciation of worldly knowledge. The work is influenced by Apuleius’s Golden Ass, especially the episode of Cupid and Psyche, and by Vatro's Disciplinarum libri IX, and includes many Pythagorean, Stoic, and Hermetic elements within a broad Neo- platonic framework. Curiously, the author appears to have little re- spect for philosophers and represents them in obscure ways: for éx- ample, Heraclitus appears at the wedding in a ring of fire."® The marriage symbolises the union of humanity and divinity, learning and eloquence, and the return of the soul to its proper celestial home, The many neologisms in the work unddubtedly helped to create a style for unusual words in the Carolingian period, and the many losses it generated attest to the difficulty of the text. Although Er- iugena was not the first to write a commentary, his glosses are a clear indication of the extent of his learnigg in the liberal arts and his method of line-by-line commentary was new. Schrimpf, for ex- ample, claims that Eriugena began a new movement of literal com- mentary on secular texts, which was to have a profound impact on the learning of the High Middle Ages, since it became the preferred method of the universities. Several other Carolingians also wrote commentaries ~ notably Martin of Laon and Remigius of Auxerre."” Indeed, as we have seen, the exact contribution of Eriugena to this corpus of glosses is still a matter of dispute, but all the evidence supports the view that Eriugena was indeed capable of writing them ~ in that his learning and knowledge of classical mythology and of 16 Ibid, pp. 85-90. Martinus appests not to have known, tnd in hs account philosophy i cally secondary to thet * platonie elements, including the concept of a8 {am ascending hierarchy of Being. In all ofthis ch philosophy at fast hand, fc. Nevertheless there te Neo: known One Behind all things, and of De mops smalar to Macroblur't Conmentry onthe Dream of Sopa. The sections on Disc contain an acount of A= ), sot cepa, ogi of terms, the syllogim, and He square of appoion, Dit { portayed in rather ambiguous tems — a grave nd stately but abo eatrying 2 snake in bet hand and having 2 dangerous sharpness of wi 1 Ibid pp. 614; se also J. J. Contre, “John Scotus, Martin Hiberninss, the Liberal ‘Aas ahd Teaching,” in ML. Here (ed), Islan Latiy tule: Laie Tes ad Mansy ofthe Brith ler g50-1066 (Toronto: Ponte! Institute of Medieval Stade, 1981). PR. 3-44. Content argue that John reworked his commentary several ines 3t wane Rapes in is carer. He farther says that Erugena was concerned to get 4 good text of Martane and worked with an Abbot Winibert to achieve this. Sehrimp in Dat Werk der Johanne Seems Engen, p99, says that Entugens and Martin were the fist comment on Mi tianue in 2 word-for-word manner, ths attempting 4 geninely ceil imerpetaton an43 John Scottus Eriugena Greek, as demonstrated in his other writings, do measure up to that displayed in the commentaries attributed to him. For our purposes we shall simply cite those glosses which do not conflict with Eri- uugena’s philosophy as found in the Periphyseon. “These glosses demoristrate both Eriugena’s wide breadth of learn- ing and his precise analytic mind. Eriugena articulates his clear view which correctly identifies Martianus’s “religion-of culture," namely, that the arts are a part of wisdom itself and are necessary for the saving knowledge of humankind: nemo intrat in celum nisi per philosophiam."* Many of these glosses are simply attempts to clarify and ration alise the meaning of this rich allegory, but Eriugena’s original mind breaks through at various points — notably in the section on dialec- tic,” in his view of the arts as making the soul eternal, and most controversially in his attempt to offer an account of the universe."® ‘This last item has led some interpreters, especially Duhem and Lutz, to think that Eriugena was propounding a cosmology quite at vari- ance with the accepted Ptolemaic one and leaning more towards that of Tycho Brahe. The theory of planetary movement occurs in Book VIII of Martianus in the’section on astronomy. This was one of the most popular sections ‘of the work for mediaeval readers. Coper- nicus later singled out Martianus for praise in connection with his theory that Mercury and Venus orbit the sun instead of the earth. This was in fact a traditional Greek theory argued by Heraclides of Pontus, who may have held that all the planets travel around the sun, Eriugena displays considerable interest in this thesis and in one gloss sees it as reflecting the Platonic view that the sun was at the 18 Lary, Johamis Seni Anmstationes x Madani, p 6 (5718) iogen x commenting on 2 ord in Barts, and asta "ll piloophers se by." Se Stal ea, Martone ‘pel, p- 88. On the religion of clare In aatiguty, ae H.-L. Marto, A Haar af {Eun Ausipiy, ans, Gr Lamb (New Yorks Mestor Books, 1958), pp. 100-1, In cit Gack and Renan els morsity was someting which cold be ened tough utr an scting psn ha es ch Brag, wi Chi {ening te ars and giving therm» proper role Christan development, il expresses Tinsel rns of Uta understanding of heats a xn te dt tory, Conn cals Eringen the mow complete defeae ofthe role ol thea «, Ghia edo Saber dy Alarans Capel, vol. 2, pp: 406-54. Soe alo Schimpf, Das Wark, pp. 32~ the Development of Ei HE Liebeschits, “The Place of the Marans Gloe is win O'Meara and Bice, The Mind of Erigens, pp. 55-6 4. Life aud early writings 4s centre of all things.”" In commenting on Martianus’s description of the flight of Mercury to the celestial sphere, Eriugena speculates on the nature of the planets the god will meet with, and he seems to speak as if ehe sun and not the earth were at the centre of the uni verse. Duhem suggests that Briugena coulé have discovered the Heraclidean theory in Caleidius's Commentary*on the "Tintaens. Ac- cording to Duhem, Eriugena went further than the ancient theorists by placing Mars and Jupiter in orbit around the su (p. 62). This Eriugena does in the Periphyseon I1L.698a. Lutz supports Duhem in the introduction to her edition of the Aunotationes, where (on p. 22) there is a gloss which says that all the planets go around the sun But Erika von Erhardt-Siebold and Rudolf von Etharde in two short works, The Astronomy of Johannes Scotus Brigena and Cosmology in the “Annotationes in Marcianum,” have argued powerfully that Eri- lugena’s notes by no means add up to a cosmological theory with heliocentric leanings. They point out that ancient writers frequently spoke of Mercury and Venus as merely “companions” of the sun rather than circling it. Furthermore it is argued that commitment to a Neoplatonic theory does not necessarily displace the earth as the physical centre of the universe. Von Erhardt-Siebold and von Erharde have shown that Briugena’s text can be understood withi the cinitext of classical astronomy and the authority of Pliny’s Nat- tural History, and that his discussion of the role of the sun is based not on astronomical theories but on his Neoplatonic elevation of the sun to a quasi-divine principle of being.” Eriugena’s astronom- ical interests continue in Book Ill of the Periphyseon, where he dis- cusses the size of the heavens in his Genesis commentary on the Fourth Day of Creation. In discussing the size of the sun, he says that both Pliny and Saint Basil refuse to give a fixed size, since it casts no shadow, unlike the moon, He goes on, however, to say that it is of infinite size ({I1.721¢) and that the sun's orbit is at the centre of the space (jit medio torius spatii, 722b) which extends from the earth to the highest sphere. He then ralks of the sun as.being in x 2 See P, Dale, Le Systeme dx monde: Hire de docrinescomolive de Pt Cape WoL 3 (945 repent Par: Herman, 158), Bp 44-02 22 Ee von EvhnrdtSiebold and Re vom Exhard, Coouolgy the Anton Maan: More Light on Erion Aconomy (Balimore, Mal; Willams & Wikis, 1940), pp. 1544 John Scottus Eriugena the middle place, and gives a size for its orbit. The whole account is unclear and could be interpreted in different ways. » Eriugena, aware of this problem, says he is giving an account of the philosophical arguments which should not be taken as conflict- ing with Sacred Scripture. Indeed Scripture offers no definite guid- ance as to the astronomical distances at all, [tis unreasonable, there- fore, tolmake claims of a radical nature for Eriugena’s expertise in astronomy and cosmology, as some commentators have done. Of greater interest is Eriugena’s attitude towards secular learning in general. He justifies it in terms of Romans 1.20, which teaches that ‘we can Jearn of invisible things through the visible things God has made. ‘The real originality of the Annotationes is not that it gives a new astronomical theory of the heavens, but that it follows a rationalist demythologisation of the allegory of Martianus in order to distil gencral scientific knowledge. Eriugena regards some of Martianus’s mythologies as poetica deliramenta, but his explanations of the Muses as the armonia omnium rerum and of Mercury as deriving from medius aurrens (since Mercuty is a messenger and words flow between men) are of particular interest. The glosses show that Eriugena is still heavily indebted to Isidore’s etymological explanations; but’ they already display a knowledge of Greek, and a reference to Gregory of Nyssa in the Oxford Manuscript indicates that Eriugena may have already embarked on his reading of Greek authors at this time (gssuming that the glosses were written in the 840s~850s).'° Of particular in- terest in terms of Eriugena’s later translation cf the Greek word atedinds (&erexvds) is his recognition that the Greek prefix ““é’ not always privative but can signify an excess, augmenting the sense ‘Thus he explains ania (anoia, avo.a) as a higher form of knowing rather than as mindlessness."* Eriugena is able to comment on the concept of the anima mundi in a manner which indicates neither ap- proval nar disapproval."* ‘The Lutz edition displays considerable knowledge of the Cate- sgoriae decem in the section of the commentary on dialectic. Ousia 25 See Jesunea’s dition of Book 1 of the Oxtord Gleuae in bis Quatre dames bigtion (Montes: Init d'Etudes Médigvaes de FUniversité de Montel, 1978), p. 122 [ine 2a], forthe reference to Gregory of Nya. 24 Ibid, p11 lines 18-20, 25 Sor hie reference to: Vara in Sennen, Quatre shames digi, p. 149, lines 15-16, and fis other reference to the sine nnd! on p. 1%, Hie #4 & a Life and early writings 4S (Obvoia) is said to be the highest genus and the unity of many forms (at Lutz, p. 84 [157, 17]), and it contains all:things below it reaching down to the lowest species and individuals (atoma &towa). This view is repeated by Eriugena in the Periphyseon, Eriugena offers defini- tions of form and species (p. 84) and explains the difference between an accident and a proprium. | act Eriugena’s commentary was reworked by Martin of Laon and,’ extracts from it appear in Laon manuscript 444, which served as 4: kind of Greek-Latin lexicon. It was also referred to by Remigius of Auxerre in his commentary. Eriugena’s work shows the extent of , the Carolingian rethinking of classical soufces. It is also important evidence of one of the primary sources of Eriugena’s Neoplatonism. To conclude our discussion of Eriugena’s early writings, it has been suggested by Silvestre that Eriugena wrote a partial commen- tary on Boethius’s De consolatione philosophiae around this time. Sev- eral sets of glosses survive from the ninth century, but Eriugena’s authorship of any of these has been disputed by Courcelle and oth- ers.” Silk published another commentary on the Consolatio in 1938 which he attributed to Eriugena, but Courcelle rejected this in his review of Silk in Le Moyen Age in 1937, although he admitted that it has an Eriugenian flavour. There are references to such a com- mentary by John Scottus, for example, in a Florentine manuscript, which mentions Eriugena in a prologue to the Consolatio, verba 1o- hhannis Scoti incipiunt, and it is entirely probable that Eriugena did write such a commentary, although he does not refer to the Con solatio in the Periphyseon.”” Glosses on the Opuscula sacra of Boethius, originally attributed to Eriugena by Rand, do “display a certain familiarity with Eriugena's 26 H. Silvestre, “Le Commentateinédit de Jean Scot Erigene a Métre IX du Live lt dy De consltone pilorapice de Bodee,” Reine dhttreeedeiastique 47 (8982), Bb. See also N, Haring, "Four Commentaries on De ensltione pilosophice in MS Heligen- reuz 130," Medieval Stas 31 (1980), pp. 281-436. Cappuyns, Notice of H. Silveste, "ean Seat Engine, Commenter de Prudence." Serpterlum 10 (1986), pp. gona. in Bulle desloge wncene et vale 7 (03 Solaton dle Pilsophe dala raion ita: Avtcedes epost de Bode (Pa pp. 22-4, both deny that Eriogena i the author of thi contmentary. See also Marenbon, ey Medieval Plzophy (480-1150): An Inaduaon (London: Roatedge & Kegan Pal 1983) p74 See abo}. C. Brakes, The Knowledge of Greck in the Early Middle Ages The Commentaies on Boethius” Canselatio," Sundi Medieval se. 38.27 (0588), pp. 38~ 1, About 16 MSS of the Canlaon survive from the ninth ceneary with two Oe thee 27 Conrclle, La Comelation,p. 253. 146 John Scottus Eviugena thought but nothing to justify the opinion . . . that John himself wrote them,” as Marenbon has recently noted.” Rand discovered a Carolingian commentary on Boethius’s Opuscula sacra in two re= dactions, one of which he suggested was written by Eriugena, the other by Remigius. Cappuyns, however, has argued that Remigius was the author of one and a disciple of his was the author of the other. Courcelle agrees with Cappuyns against Rand. Eriugena does refer to the Contra Butychen at Periphyseon V.877b, although he calls it the De Trinitate It is possible that he wrote the commentary on the Boethian translation of the [sagoge of Porphyry, which is contained in the famous Paris manuscript 12949. He may have known the De insti- \, tutione musicae of Boethias, since he uses in the Periphyseon a number of music examples which have their origin in Boethius.”® Up to the late 84os or perhaps &sos, then, Eriugena was a gran- ‘maticus, well read in Augustine, Boethius, Martianus Capella, Pliny, Isidore, Macrobins, and other Latin writers (including possibly Marius Victorinus, an extremely important source of Neoplatonic thought), but it was his reading of Greek theology which provoked him to a new reading of the Latin tradition and ultimately to the first attempt at a mediaeval synthesis’ of Christian wisdom. It is worth remembeting, however, théf"we should not try to make too strong a contrast between Eriugena the liberal arts master and Eriugena the follower of Greek Platonism. From his earliest writings, Eriugena displays a considerable knowledge of Greek technical terms, even if these were drawn from glossaries such as that preserved in manuscript 7651 of the Bibliothéque Nationale, or 28 Marenboo, Early Medieval Philorpliy,p. 15. Marcnbon, author of these glosses does explin fine of Hoethius in an Eriagenian mance ‘Thus Boethios’s remark, hat being isnot yet ir expl{ined in terme ots thing being hidden ‘he primordial castes before fee manifested in geners and species, On ands weit, Of the glosies, sce E, K. Rand, “The Supposed Conimentary of John the Scot on the (Opulence of Bocthi,” Revue ndaalatigue de pilsophie 36 (1932). BP. 89-77: P _Eeoutclle, La Caniltion de Piorphi dant la ation litre, pp. 248s lM. Cap &™ puyns, "Le plas ancen commentaire des Opie sag et son origin,” Recherches de ioe licen e mélitvle3 (0932, Pp. 23772. See uso G. AOnoitio, "Dialectic and Theology. Boethins’ Opusela:ucra and Their Early Medieval Readers,” Suni Medieval, se. 33.2) (1986), pp. 45-67, and M. Gibson, “The Opuscla sca inthe Middle Ages, in het oe thus Hts Life, hough and ifuece (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981) pp. 314-34 is The Conlaions of Muse, Lage, Theology snd Philsophy (Oxfor 81), p- 297 m. 14. There are aso important musial glosses inthe yowever, points out that the Life and early writings ” | possibly from other, now lost, glossaries. Moreover, Eriug considerable sensitivity to Greek philosophical terms, and he intro- duces technical Latin terms as equivalents. Most important for our purposes is Eriugena’s use of the term substitutio in De praedestina- tione ‘°#6b), before his anwanpt at translating Dionysiis and Max- imus, where it features prominently. Eriugena wants to use a term which conveys the sense of coming-into-being by an effort akin to making or constructing. It is different from substantia in that it seems J to include in its concept the idea of an act of making or creating, Thus, already as a grammaticus, Eriugena was developing a con- + sciousness of metaphysical structures which would finally resule in the complex four divisions of nature.Se 4 THE GREEK AWAKENING ‘The works of an elusive, possibly Syrian mystic of the sixth century who wrote under the pseudonym Dionysius Arcopagiticus," thus portraying himself as the first of Paul's Greek converts mentioned in Acts 17.34, were venerated in the early Greek Church as if they were in fact as sacted as the Acts of the Apostles themselves. The Byzantine emperor Michael the Stammerer presented a copy of these writings to Louis the Pious in 827. At that time, they were further confused with the writings of Saint Denis, patron of the Franks. Louis’s court chaplain, Hilduin, set about translating them between 827 and 834. In his Passio Sanctissimi Dionysii, Hilduin recounts that Dionysius became bishop of Athens and then travelled to France, where he became bishop of Paris and was later martyred. Hilduin’s literal rendering was a reasonable attempt to translate a difficult text, bbut it seems not to have had any impact on the Carolingian intel- lectual tradition of the 830s and 840s." On Diouysus see R. Roques, L'Univesconpsin: Site hiechiqne dv monde selon le Preud-Denys (Pars: Auber, Editions Montagne, 1954); L-P. Sheldon-Willams, “The Preude-Dionysius,” in A. TH, Atmstong (e.), The Cambridge History of Lae Grech and Eup Medien! Pilsepy (Cambige: Ce bridge University Press, 1970). Pp. 457—72 “The complete works of Dionysivs have been edited and translated Into Prench by Mi. de Gandilir Oriorer camper du Prede-Denyr L’Artapagte (Paris Aubicr, 1943) A recent ‘cL. Englah tanlation is Poouo-Dinysits The Complete Works, tans. C. Leib foreword by P. Rorem, preface by i, Roques, The Clases of Wentern Sprtality (Mahwah, N.) ‘Phulist Press. t98))- The exist reference to Dionysus was in 32. See ao G. Théry, JL. "L'Enwée hi Pseulo-Dionysis en Occident," Manges Mandel» (Bibliotheque Tho- mmiste 14) (Paris, 1940), pp. 25-30: M. Honus, "Les Recherches dionysiennes de 1955, Figbo," Reme dhs et de pliloaphi relies 4x (1962), pp. 27—30 and the exelent J ate of} Pepin, "Univers dignysen ct univers sugistiien,” Recherhe de philovphie 2 ~~ (9s6), pp. «79-224, is though dat Dionysius was 4 Chris Proc! See H.-D. Saffrey, "New Objective Links between the Pseudo-Dionysive and Proc,” in D, O' Menta (0), Neato and Christian Thought (Albany, N.Y: SUNY. Pres, 1982), pp. 64-74 2G, Théry, Ettaesdunpremer, Vol. x, Hiluin radutour de Denys (Pais, 1932); Vol. 2 Waris, 1932). Théry stys of Hikdin's translation that fe was estes tres mertore, mais texécuige't I hite par des hommes unexpérimentés, dae d'une lecture extémement dif Fle; Ia penage de Denys y Gait souvent méconnsissale, et ce travalsraurat pu servi de base aux speculations thologiques”(p. 189). One curious aspect of Erugena's use of follower (or reader) of" Ane (reek awarentnig Charles the Bald asked Erjugena to undertake a new tra which Eriugena did in the years 86042, making use of Hilduin’s | attempt as well as the one thanuseript (Graecus 437) of Dion which Louis had acquired and which today survives in Paris.4In epistolary dedication to this translation, the author signs’ hin ““Eriugena,” while singing the praises of Charles.* Presumably Qi had protected him during his theological controversies and conde nations. It is also possible that the political situation was suffice confused to prevent any agreement among the Frankish bishops in relation to the condemnation of Eriugena, and that Charles was able’ to take advantage of ilifs to promote ‘his court magister. He had cer) tainly regarded Eriugena sufficiently highly to entrust him with the: translation of the supposed writings of the patron saint of the Franks, Eriugena remarks in his Praefatio on the difficulty of Dionysius's text, due not only to its antiquity but also to the obscurity of the, sacted mysteries Dionysius is expounding. Eriugena never ques- tions the authenticity of these writings as stemming from a disciple of Saint Paul’s, but he dées remark in the Praefatio that the tradition of Dionysius coming to Rome and to Paris is not testified by the nncient writers, In fact, the authenticity ‘of Dionysius was ques- tioned for the first time by Nicholas of Cusa. Grosseteste, for ex- ample, took the works to be genuine.* Eriugena also remarks in the Hildsin’s tanshation is that he doesnot use ili’ words, even when they are more i Sf ssa th is own, See J Pepin Jen Seo tale de Dogs ergs dels + fete 1X," in Jeon Sot even, pp. aga. : La G: They, “Scot Erghne: Tadoeteur de Deny," Archibum Latinas Medi Av, Bulletin 4 Gnge 6 (931) pp. 1852178: M Cappuyns Jeon Scot Engine: Save, on eure st : ponte (Louvain: Abbaye de Mont César, 1933), 1$0-64. The manuscript giv to Lou, fn 827. was. deposited in the abbey of Saint-Denis, ahd is now preserved the Big Tothéque Nationale, Greek MS no. 437 ‘ This the only place where Eriugens sighs himself ho; the mme comes fsin the O}8 Tish Era" and means "ot the Inch race" In one of his poems Esogent ues the tet ““Geaugena (PL, CRI. 12360, which may have bees the inspiration for hil ovm name appa, Jon Sot Erigone, p14, ells Erugena’s tone in hs preface tothe Dionysos tvamlation, “peremproite, on peu haan,” noting Eriogena's challenge to, reaers who douke the accuracy of the wanslation to consult the Greck. orginal (PL CARI egn) Roques sys that Enugena came to Dionysius not simply a translator but as an estab lished philosopher and theologian who even "corrected Dionyts's thought at sever points. See Re Roques, “Traduction ou interpretation? Dreves semarques sur Jean Seat raieter de Denys,” inhi Libres seers ers egétane (Rome: Ateneo, 1999). BP 99. See). J McEvoy, The Philosophy of Reber Goserete (Oxford: Clarendon Pres, 198). P- ot. Of course Aquinas slo regarded the works as genuine. Lorne Valle i t4gh A his Encominm Sana! Thomae Aguiar, noted tat none ofthe early Choreh father ewe Dionysius and thus tated doubts about the historical dating of the work.so Jolt Scotus Eriugena preface that he was lietle suited for the task of translator when Charles appointed him, since he was only a novice in Greek studies Eriugena reworked these translations between 865 and 875. He also wrote a commentary on the Celestial Hierarchy, which develops ‘some of the central themes of the Periphyseon and is thought to be later than it, Unfortunately, it is beyond the scope of this study to explore in detail Eriugena’s commentary on Dionysius and its in fluence on the later mediaeval commentaries of Hugh of Saint Vic~ tor and Grosseteste.® It was this translation of Dionysius which brought Eriugena to the attention of Pope Nicholas I, who complained in 861 that Eriugena had not submitted this book to his office for inspection — if his letter is genuine.” Nicholas was aware that Eriugena was not always prudent in his views, although he is said by many to be a man of multa scientia, Anastasius, the papal librarian (c. 810-80), also became aware of the work at that time. He wrote to Charles that he wondered at (admiror) the learning of this vir barbarus and that he appreciated that the verbatim style of translation was done in order + {19 remain true to the diffcule thought of Dionysius.* Ansstasivs 2 { sent his own translation and emendations of Briugenas text vo Charles the Bald. i ‘Eriugena translated the whole Dionysian corpus, including the De divinis nominibus, che De mystica theologia, De coelesti hierarchia, and the De ecclesiastica hierarchia, as well as Dionysius’s letters. We shall return to the influence of Dionysius on Eriugena in later chapters; 6 Briugena's Commentary on the Celestial Hierarchy of Dionysus is thought to be 2 late ‘Work which shows that Eriugena had deeply rethought the nature of the Dionysia phi Ibsophy. las been edited by | Barbe as foes Ser Eriyenae Expoiones in fechiom CCecleem, CCOM 31 (Turnbol: Brepls, 1975). An eather edition by H. Donde was published in the Anthives histoire dente litéare a moyen dge 18 0950"), BP 245 Bon, See also M. de Ganda, “Anges et honumes dans le Commentaire de Jean Scot su Phere cee in Bout (eh) Jon Sor give thse de a pilsple (ars CNRS, 1979). pp, 395-404, which shove that Eslagena tied eatfily to distinguish the Sngghie ad hueten naures terme oftheir place in the celestial hierarchy and thet ability fovtelect snd contain all things. A fll study ofthe elauionship between the Pspyseon / Sad the Expostones is called for. 1 Sue Coppuyns, Jean Star Erjéne p60, The lower is eeproduced by Wiliam of Malnis- 1" bury i his account of Esugena' tif, See M. Brennan, "Material for the Biography of seh Jodanes Scotts Ectogena, Sta Medieval se. 3a, 7 (t986), p. 430. The let's a8- thentty has been questioned; Denman gives a version from an teventh-centary MS, a Cappuyits, few Sit Engen, pp. 54-7. Anasaivs marvels atthe Tearing and sanctity [a vir Kran who comes Ivom the edge ofthe world. See Brennan, “Materia,” p {ite for the tent and tanedation of Anas’ lester. The Greek awakening st here we shall simply state that Dionysius represents a form of late Platonism of the school of Proclus which has been adapted to ex- press a Christian theological world-view. Dionysius stresses the transcendence of the divine above the grasp of human understand~ ing, and develops a hierarchical cosmology which orders all reality ina series of outflowing from this unknowable Godhead down into sensible and material reality. This outflowing from the One pro- ceeds in g triadic manner, showing the immanence of the Trinity in all crefted things. ‘This Greek theclogical outlook to which Eriugena was exposed seemed to fit well with his own Neoplatonic outlook inherited from ‘Augustine, Martianus, and Boethius. He threw himself into the task of translating as much of this Greek tradition as he could lay his hands on — especiclly the Cappadocian fathers, notably the impor- tant short treatise cf Gregory of Nyssa, Peri cataskenes anthropou (epi Karackeviis évOptimov) or De hominis opificie (on the making of Man), which Eriugena entitled De imagine (On the image; translated c. 863). Gregory's text, which seeks to reconcile the conflicting. accounts of the making of man in Genesis, is one of the most co cise and powerful statements in patristic literature, of the place and function of human nature in the cosmos. For Gregory, man is part of the great chain of being which stretches through the universe, ‘but men has a central place and contains all things in”himself in a special «ay. Gregory produces an anthropology which foreshadows the great Renaissance treatises on man of Ficino, Pico della Miran- dola, and Paracelsus. Unfortunately, many writers discussing the theme of microcosm rely on Renaissance formulations, which in fact are rather different from Gregory's who, for example, does not ‘want t0 call humanity a “microcosm” as this would downplay its true importance as imago Dei. Gregory of Nyssa was an earlier contemporary of Saint Augus~ tine's, strongly influenced by Plotinian and Stoic ideas. His view that corporeal matter (earth, air, fire, and water) really consists of 9M, Cappuyns “Le De inane de Grégoire de Nysse trait par Jon Sco Ergin" Re Therese thélogie ancient dioale 32 (196), pp. 205-62, The translation fas no fcice of dediction and may have been made by Eriugena 26 working craton for FiSwe ses tein quoted frequently inthe Pevplysen. See Cappayas, Jean So Ege, ph. rast On Lxiogens’s use of Gregory see F. Jenineau, “i Division des sexes chet Phegdire de Nysae chee Jean Seot Brghne,” in W. Deierwales (ed), tinge: Stale [zu nen Quelle (eidelbcg: Carl Wintce Universttsverlg, 1980), pp- 33°54o 8 John Scotus Eriugena a commingling of incorporeal qualities (hot, moist, dry, cold) known only to the'mind had a strong impact on Eriugena, Actually, this view was already expressed by Aristotle in Parts of Animals Il.1.646315, in his discussion of varying levels of composition. Eriugena also took from Gregory the account of the Fall of Man, and the nature of human intellection oF thedria (Bewpla). Eriugena also discovered a work that is still relatively unstudied in the West, the Ambigua of the Byzantine Christian martyr, Max- imus Confessor (translated c. 862~4),"° and his Ad Thalassium (re cently edited by Carlos Steel)."" The Ambigua of Maximus in fact consist of two works written several years apart. Eriugena refers to, the Ad Thalassiunn (which he calls Scolia) much more rarely than to” the Ambigua, although he makes use of it in his Commentary on the Gospel of John. The Ambigua are extremely long and complex notes on problems in Gregory of Nazianzws's theology, and Eriugena’s achievement is 10 Maximus was originally thought to have been born in Constantinople c, $80, but since the publication of an alent Syrne hagiography, iis now thought that he was born ‘Tibeiss. He was 4 strong opponent of monotheism, the doctrine that Chest had only ‘one wil, and he engaged in a number of important Chrstologicsl controversies before being persecuted a6'2 heretic, exiled, and martyred in 663. Tlie position wae declared ‘orthodox in 680. He i important for hi attempt to express Cappadocian and Dionysian [Neoplatonic Christianity in eerm of Aristotelian categorie, jania and energia, See P. Sherwood, "Note onthe Life and Doctrine of Maxims the Confeston," Anion Beveicine Review 1 (1950. pp- 447-86; "Survey of Recent Work on St. Maxinns the Confessor” Trafic 20 (1964), pp. 428-37; and “Sant Maxime le Cosfestes,” Dion tire de siete, vol 3 (Pars: Beaeehesne, 1932"). pp. 295-300. On Maxis’ doc- tre, the csi studies are H. Von Balthasar, Litogie cosmige (are: Auber, 1947). 3 the excllem study of be Thonerg, Mierceam and Mediaer: The Theslggel Antnapelogy of Maxinus he Conese: Gleorup, 1963). Sc also A. Riow. Le Monde e Ul eon ‘Masime fe Ceafeey (Pats Beauchesne, 1973), and Armstrong (9), Cambridge History of Late Grece and Early Medieval Philosophy, pp. 492505. See . Shetwond, ‘The Earlier ‘Arohigus of Se. Maxinns Confer and His Refuaion of Origen, Collection Std Av teimians 36 (Romie, 1956) who argues agsinst lahore wew of Maxines as strongly influeneed by Origen” See also E.Jexunety, "La Traduction érigénienue des Amiga de Maxime le Confesseue: Thomas Gile (¢996~1703) ctle Coder Ramen, "in Rogues (el). Jean Ses Erigve, pp. t3snaa. Soe also L. Thanlerg, Man andthe Cesmes: The Pson of ‘Maxions Confeser (Crestwood, N.Y. St, Vladimir's Seminary, 198. 1 For P. Meyer's ditcovery of the Ad Thali translation se his “The Exegetca Treatises of Peter the Deacon and Lena's Latin Rendering of the Ad Tinton of Maxims the Confessor," Saris Dau 18 1983) pp. 450-8 and bie "Eelagens'e Tease lation ofthe Ad Thala of Maximos: Preliminatis to a9 Editon of This Work.” in J-J. O'Meara and L: Boer (eds). The Mind of Exngena (Dubhn: Iesh University Pres, 1973) pp. 17-88. A critical edition hs been edited by C2 Steel and C. Lapa (els) ih Masinur Corer, Quarstonet af Thain 1 (QU.LCIV, we cm line epretatione Teli Scot Eraigenas), CCUM, Ser, Greed 7 (2980). Lage ls now preparing an ein ofthe Ambign The Greek awakening 53 all the more remarkable in that he did not have an earlier translation to aid him, as had been the case for the Dionysian translations. The importance of Eriugena’s translation of Maximus is shown by the fact that manuscripts of his work actually predate the earliest known manuscripts of the Greek text. Eriugena adopted not only Maxi- mus's technical vocabulary but also his vision of human nature as originally sexless (as also in Gregory of Nyssa); Christ as the Logos runs through all things and is the being of all things; andthe five stages of the return of all things to the One, which include the reuniting of earth and heaven, and the transmutation of everything corporeal into incorporeal realities. Maximus is a devoted follower of Dionysius, but expands Dionysius’s cosinology to give a greater place to Christ as Lagos, and thus inserts’ a powerful anthropology into the heart of the hierarchial cosmology. Furthermore, his ter- minology is philosophically more precise than that of Dionysits, displaying some neo-Aristotelian and possibly Stoic influences. Charles the Bald had asked Eriugena to undertake the translation ‘of Maximus in order “to clatify the Catholic faith for all,” as Eri- tugena says in his preface (PL CXXII.1196b-c). Such favouritism angered Bishop Florus, who complained that this “enemy of truth” was receiving great honours. . As well as translating Dionysius, Gregory, and Maximus, Eri- lugena may also have translated the De fide of Epiphanius,"* and the Hexatimeron of Saint Basil, long quotations from which appear in Eriugena’s Periphyseon. Eriugena read the works !of the Cappadocian fathers ~ ‘Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (whom he seems to have known through Maxinius’s commentary on him) during the 860s, and he assimilated this new théology into his own system in the Periphyseon written between 860 and 867. Since Eriugena fre- quently calls Gregory of Nyssa the “theologian,” it has been argued that he thought Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus were the same person. Cappuyns has contended that a passage in.the Periphyseon I1.586a shows that Eriugena could distinguish them;" 12 P, Meysnert, in O'Meara and Bieler, The Mind of Engen, pp. 12-88, suggests that lng ‘quotations from Geeck ltrs inthe Priphycen, eg frm Daai's Hevaeherot and Ep Pihaius's De fide (which is referred to mainly In Books IV and V), ave indications tht Eningena may have teaslated there worke in ul 1 Jean Seo Engine, pp 177-5.x 54 John Scottus Eringena Sheldon-Williams, on the other hand, has offered a different reading of the passage in his edition, and the question has not been satis~ factorily resolved, : In the Praefatio to this translation of Dionysius, Eriugena says he was a novice in Greek studies when he began that work (1031); however, he speaks admiringly of the “sacred nectar of the Greeks” (10292) and sees himself as a faithful interpreter. Cappuyns sees Er- jugena as offering this last remark as a challenge to critics to com~ pare his translation with the original text, knowing chat few in his day would be equipped for’ the task. ‘As we have seen from Anastasius’s letter, Briugena translated with the verbatim method of his contemporaries. The manuscript of Dionysius, furthermore, lacked word breaks and almost all accents. All this produced an awkwardness of style and syntax, but, phil osophically speaking, Briugena was forced to develop an original Latin technical vocabulary, and his awkward sentences are often philosophically more correct. Eriugena had to develop terms like superbonitas and superessentialis to translate Dionysian superlatives, and here he had no dictionaries or glossaries to help him. He had to find terms for Dionysian'words such as noeros (vo€pos) and noésis (borers), and in this respect he was largely on his own, He fre~ quently varies his terminology, however, and thus will translate nous sometimes as mens, sometimes as animus, He translates epistéme (marin) as scientia or as disciplina; Seveyser he sometimes trans lates as divina operatio but sometimes he merely transliterates as theurgia. In the Carolingian period many of Eriugena’s Latin trans~ lations of Greek technical terms found their way into word-lists and Jlorilegia, ‘The Laon manuscript 444, for example, contains Greek definitions culled from Eriugena, and obviously served as a glossary in the later ninth century. Little is known of the hermeneutical principles of the time, but René Roques has shown that Eringena does not separate the task of interpre, oF literal translator, from that of expositr, or philosophical \ cominentator."* Eriigena’s. grasp of Greek was imperfect, but in ability to seck out the motivating spirit of the text, he was far su- 14 See R. Rogues, “Traduction ow interpretation? Bréves emarques a Jean Scot raducteur de Denys. in Libs seers vere Vérgenine (Rome, 1975), pp. 99-190. Eringena himself iitinguihes between interpre and expoior at Pago toasb-c The Greek awakening 38 perior to Hilduin."* Thus, unlike Hilduin, Eriugena mistranslates the Greck adverb oukoun (odxobv, therefore) as ion erge or none ergo (for example, at Celestial Hierarchy, Chapter Ill [PG Ifl. 68a}, translated by Eriugena at PL CXXII.1046a), yet he does so in a manner which allows him to interpret Dionysius correctly, when, in the Expositiones in coelestem hierarchiam, Eriugena corrects his earlier misreading,"* Briugena realizes that his translation makes sense buly if nonne ergo is taken in the interrogative sense with an-affinitive ‘answer implied. In a recent article John J. O’Meara has defended Exiugena’s translation on this point. O’Meara says that Eriugena is translating oukoun as non ergo oF non igituy since he is using won in the sense of nonne, “which preserves the sense ‘therefore’ and is a legitimate usage.’"” In any event, Roques shows that Eriugena often deliberately misread Dionysius in order to make the latter more com- patible with Eriugena’s own understanding of philosophy. Thus, for example, he translates the Greek atechs (artlessly) asvits op- posite, “artfully,” although Hilduin before him had correctly ren- Gered it as inartificose. As we have seen, in the Annovationes Eriugena says that the Greek prefix é can signify an excess of the quality as well as a privation, Eriugena uses his phrase valde artficialiter in or~ der to express more clearly the Dionysian philosophy of the expres- sion of theological statements in terms of imagery." In general, Er- jugena’s translation shows a more careful concern for the metaphysical nuances of technical terms than Hilduin’s version, which is often more accurate on the literal or commonsense level. In the Exposi- tiones, for example, Etiugena translates the Greek demiourgos (Gnwrovpyse) of Dionysius as creator, not as opifex, which was Hil duin’s term, Although Hilduin is literally more correct, Eriugena’s 15 Try is less cothusiastic shan Roques about Evgeni aiity 28 tansaor, Eringenn, Boing toThey, "lacks We" See Thery, Lites darysemies, vol t, 1d, pp. 108-7 16 See They, "Scot Erigine: Tradusteur de Denys." Lllain dCange 6 (193). pe 238, and Ioqiee ltrs emir ves Meigen (Ronse: Atepe, £979), P.r0$ ng. Hin carted ranated (olaadv) a ege oF sir ese Théry, Ets donysiones, wl. 2p. ao), Sin Eingans's car of Dionysius locked hac ie easy t0 see why he contre oineby swith obwouy 17 Se nO Mears, in Gl, Allard (el), Jeat Stor ériran (Montes. nstit Bones Meddite, roa), p_ tan. O’Measa cites similar usages at Peiphyeon IV. 7426, 1V- 78h Worore WV. 8r9d and V.g2 Qe Sees at te Ses on coms Ama tine des Har Etudes, 1965-70, 77 (1969), BP. 31-7256 John Scottus Eriugena translation shows his concern to preserve the Christian philosophy at the heart of Dionysius. It was the richness and complexity of Eriugena’s “Greek” spirit which set him apart completely from his Carolingian contempor- aries. Efforts to explain this uniqueness have led to legends that Er- iugena travelled to Greece, Arabia, and even the Orient." None of this can be substantiated, but these tales indicate the intellectual dis- tance which separated him from his peers. Ie has often been argued that Eriugena must have learned Greek in the monastic schools of Ireland, but, as I said in Chapter 1, recent scholars have maintained that the Irish did not in fact possess a deep knowledge of Greck beyond a modest lexical and grammatical un- derstanding as displayed in their reading of Priscian, for example, and thi it is more likely that Eriugena learned the language on the Continent, cither at a centre known for its Greek studies — like Lérins or else from Greek monks who we know had taken refuge in / France at this time."® Jeaunéau recently argued that knowledge of 19 John Bale jp his account of famous British write ntions that John had une dertaken a pigsnage as far as Athens, ad for many yes hid "sweated over Greek and CGhaldscan and. Arabic letters he alo vised every philosopher's sheng, clading the Grace of the Sim (eri sal, which Aescalapi had built. For 3 cxtcal comment fon Eviogen's supposed voyages see R. I. Poole, "Note on the Origin of the Legend Respecting john Scots’ Travels in Greece,” appendix 2 in Mbt of the History of ‘Medieval Pugh and Leaning (884; reprint New Vork: Barnes & Noble, £960) pp. 271— 24. See also Cappuyns, Jo Scot Ergee, 12-18, 148-7 10 The problem ofthe source of Eniagens's knowledge of Greek is one ofthe mast contro- versal in Eviugena scholarship. Cappuyns Jean Seo Evgén, pp. 28-0) believed that he Tesmed Greck on the Continent, possibly from Greeks attached to Chare's court. Bieler, however, believes he lered ifn the monastic schools of trend. On the general state ‘of Greve in early mediaeval Eorope, sce G. Stephens, The Knowledge of Greek in Egan ln he Middle Age (1931; reprinted Norwood, N.} Norwood Editions, 1978): Laine Thought and Lets in Wenern ope A.D. 500-900 (London: Methven, 1987). Bp. 23 se: Courclle, Les Letergrecges et Ocadent de Matrebe Caoore (Pais: Boceard, 148) On Gres stds in Tela see M. Esposito, “Greck in Keland during the Middle ‘Ages." inde 1 (1042), pp. 65-83; WG. Hanson, The Early Menaste Schools af Nel ‘Thet Misienarien, Saints tod Stholare (Canoridge: Heer, 1987), L Bice Teland: Hor- Anger af the Midie Ages (London: Oford Universiy Press, 1966, and "The Classics tn ‘Ancient Ireland," im RR. Bolgar (4), Clas Infencs tu Ewopem Cul A.D. s0o- 1500 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973) pp. 27-47, E, Cocca, “La cultura inlaneve procarolingis, Miracle o itor” Sti Masia, srs, 8 (9980), Pp. 357=420 ‘which seriou questions the alleged Irish knowledge of Greeks W. B. Stenford,Delond ‘nd the Clasical Triton (Dublin: Allen Figs. 1978); Stanford takes the legend of fms tavels in Greece mote seriously. See iso J.J. O'Meara, Eviagena (Cork, 1969) Pp (15, and M. Hetren, "The Commentary on Martianusatribited to John Scotts © TS HibemoLatin Background." in Alla, Jeon Sax én, pp. 265-86. For ap itel~ ‘ting ceview ofthe level of Gk on the Caninent inthe ninth eentry, sce. C. Frakes, The Knowledge of Greck inthe Estly Middle Ages: The Commentaries on Bocthins ‘nvolat,” Sti Medieval, set. 38,27 (980), BD. 29-45 RR The Greek awakening Greek was always associated with Irish colonies in Europe (e.g. at Saint Gall, Ligge, and Laon), that the Irish were especially enthu= | siastic about Greck studies, and that there are good grounds for as-_ |}! suming a tradition of Greek in Irish monasteries. One of the reasons for the popularity of Greek was undoubtedly the fact that Latin never |i became the official language in Ireland, since the country was never}. part of the Roman Empire. Wherever he learned the language, Greek not only opened up a new world for Eriugena but gave him a more precise philosophical vocabulary — terms like rows, logos, ousia, physis, and so on, which he frecly imported into his Latin writings. ‘The Periphyseon with its Greek title and long quotations from the 4 Greek fathers is the culmination of this self-conscious attempt to integrate the world of Latin learning with Greek spiritual and phil- osophical wisdom, 2 See .Jeaunens, “Jean Scot rigine et le gre,” in Archiv Latinas Medi Aev (Bulletin thu Coige) 41 (0999) Ps §-S0. Théry believes that Eiggens began his taining in Greek i in lend, bot perfected ie on the ContinentLS THE PERIPHYSEON In the 860s John Scottus Eriugena wrote the Periphyseon (later en- titled De divisione naturae, that is, “On the Division of Nature”). ‘The Periphyseon is a long work, filling nearly six hundred col- umns of the Patrologia Latina volume and containing approxi- mately 217,430 words,” written in the form of an extended dialogue between two anonymous philosophers who are known only as Natritor and Alumnus or,,in the twelfth-century manuscript edited by William of Malmesbury, as “M’ (Magister) and “D” (Disci- pulus). The work is divided into five books, and in some later ‘manuscripts these books,are divided into chapters, though this was never completely achieved. 1, Little is known about the occasion and circumstances which gave Fite to the composition of the Periphyseon. Roughly, it has been dated written between 860 and 866, As the dialogue contains many tations and excerpts from Greek authors, including Dionysius Maximus, and it is known that Eriugena did not begin trans- ling Dionysius until 860, ic is postulated that he began the work ‘the early 860s.> In his critical edition, Sheldon-Williams contends 4 The Rheims MS bears the tile Poi Physeos Merino, whereas the Pars MSS beat the tide Per Physcon. Nithecentury catalogue ents refer ¢o ic perfion and twelfihse tury references such as Honoris Augustodunensis speak of Pecos or Perphyseo (i the mysterio “ possibly israel the Grammanan). In the Trinity College (Can- bridge) MS, thought co lave been edited by Wiliam of Malmesbury, the Greek versions eri Physcos Merimou and Peri Phyeon are given, with 3 Latin explanation "divine aturee™ Whe Gale made wae of this MS in he printed edition, he wansferced she Latin tile De Divisione Netiae 10 the work, See I Pr Sheidon-Willams, The Tile of Esi- ‘gens Periphyaei,” Stale Paratca (Texte vind Untersuchungen aur Geschichte dex lchviseichen Liter 78) (Leipzig, 1981), pp. 299-302, and lone Seat Exugenae Pre {physeos, vol. x (Dublin: Insitate for Advanced Stasis, 1968), pp. $10. 2 For the word-count, sce G. Hi Allard (ed), Johamis Scat Evingenue Periphyscon: Indies ginéales (Montes stv dépudes médigvles, 1983), . vi 3. M. Cappuyns, Jean Sot Engeue Sa vic, rm ort, ponte (Louvain: Abbaye de Mont (César, 1939), 189 : The Periphyseon 89 that the work developed from an earlier book on logic or dialectic, a De dialectica. It is indeed true that Eriugena's contemporaries saw the work in this light, especially as the chief philosophies work of the day was the Categoriae decem, but there is niy other evidence to support Sheldon-Williams’s claim, and in fact his analysis seems co distort the structure of Book I of the Periphyseon.* Sheldon-Williams appears to have based his decision on the long discussion of the applicability of the Aristotelian categories to God in Book 1. This, is, however, less a treatise on dialectic than a typical Neoplatonic (both Plotinian and Dionysian) proof that God is beyond being and beyond the grasp cf the human mind. Sheldon-Williams is correct in seeing Eriugena s concern with diatectic as fundamental, but it would be a distortion of the Periphyseon to say that it grew from an initial study of the Categories. . As the dialogue is dedicated to Wulfad and addresses him as frater in Chrisio, the work is thought to have been completed by 866 — the year Wulfad was appointed archbishop of Bourges by Charles the Bald ~ on the grounds that Eriugena would have been unlikely {© address an archbishop as fater.’ The dialogue was revised con- tinually over a number of years, as is shown by the various glosses which were gradually incorporated in the text. ‘The “ialogue begins abrr.ptly, with no setting or introductory remarks. 1t makes no reference to local events or to any living writ- ers or contemporary disputes. Neither King Charles nor Gottschalk nor Ratramnus is mentioned. Eriugena had deliberately set out to write a timeless philosophical and theological treatise, associating himself only with the great Christian authorities - Augustine, Boe- thius, Dionysius, Maximus. The only living person mentioned is, Wulfad, whom Eriugena credits as the instigator of the work and 4 See Sheldon Willams, Ripon val. 5. Gy Alar etc cu he ‘atogories not ae digression but aan introductory question which ixystbe-c8RA Hse Sec fis essay in Hogue (a), Jon Sot Ergon ot Pisie dela phiesphie Parts CNRS, torn). P24 5 Cappiys, Jon Soot Ergin, p. 189. ‘Ths argument is pacicuarly weak, given chal we now 20 lide about the relations between Estagens and Wolfs, The only teal date for the competion of the Periphyeon is indicated by the Esposincy, weiten possibly inthe Bros, which refers to the Periplyscan by name (PL CXil gob, Barbet [ed p» 160) and tye thatthe doctine of csence, power, rod operation, as understood in he oul sex phined there in satisfactory manner, The Expostane is efetrig to Peiphysea .s688~ sm60 John Scottus Eringena his cooperaior in studiis (V.1022a), and whom he asks to correct and edit the work. Only one complete manuscript of the dialogue survives, and it is fiom the twelfth century. A number of earlier manuscripts are in- complete copies. The work was edited and corrected several times. Cappuyns distinguished three stages of the development of the text, basing his division on the earlier, more complex scheme of five stages, proposdd by E. K. Rand.’ The five stages for Rand were: (1) an carlier version of Rheims 875; (2) a version of Rheims with the mar- ginal additions integrated in the text; (3) Bamberg; (4) Bamberg with its marginal flotes included in the text; and (5) Paris 12964 and 1296s, which were printed by Floss. Cappuyns simplified this, roughly to: (1) Rheims, (2) Bamberg, and (3) Paris. Most scholars agree that the oldest surviving manuscript is Rheims 875, which is incomplete and contains many marginal additions in different hands." Rand postulates that a second copy was made which incorporated the marginal additions of Rheims and which has not survived. This missing copy became the basis for the Bamberg manuscript, which contains the Rheims marginalia and more, and this in turn wa corporated into the Paris manuscript (Bibl. Nat. lat. 12963), along with the marginalia of the Bamberg version. The Rand-Cappuyns account of the manuscript transmission was accepted with modifi- ations by Sheldon-Williams in his editio ‘These earlier manu- 6 Ou Walfad sce J. Marenbon, Liv the Cie of Ali tothe Sve of Anson Cambridge: Cambridge University Pest, 1981), pp. 110 Marenbon theorses that Walfad may have ben the author of same glorcs of am Erigenian natuce tha: appeat on Mazaribe 561 twhich was made at Sait Medord and owned by Wullad(p. 113) 1 See Cappuyin, Jeon Scot Ergin, pp. 194-8. For Rand's Gve wages se his appendix to Ee tyaute, “Peacocke Forsdungen, V. Autographs des ohinnes Scots,” ABan tlungen der philvepichpillogcen. Klee der king byerichon Akadeie der Wise ‘chan 36 (vor3), pt 1 For a description of Rims 87s (dtcovered in 1908, sce Sheldon- Williams, Peiphyreo, ol. ts pp. Sob: Rlcins i am imperfect copy in Carolingian miniscule of an early state St the fone, Bamberg was discovered in 1899. Bischoff believes both were made a3 ‘eiptrig in Soisons 9 Thi edition was eats by P. Lacentin in “La nuova ediaione del De divisone naire (Cerpkyion) di Giowanns Scoto Ertgens,” Shull Medial set. 38,17 (970). PP. 393- fra, Sheldon-Wiliame ditinguished tree stages ofthe tex, which he designated 38 A, Brand © (A= Rhine, B= Bamserg Pha/ss C = Paris 12964 and 1298s). Actually the thio Pats MSS, while imegrating the additions found in Nhs and Bamberg, also con- tain atone thought to be of dubious avtheniity. So C ean be divided into C and D. [Rhcins 835 is Hae’ nota fist version, but soem to include glosses, See E.Jeaens, lame de Malutesbury. premier editer anglais du Parphycon," Sapeiag Doerin ‘Melanesdethilogie ede lneatare nivale fe: au Dow H. Bascnt O.S.B., Recherches The Periphyscon 6 scripts generally lack Books IV and V, arid thus these latter bool contain fewer revisions and marginal additions. These manuscript! revisions are evidence of the care with which Eriugena’s work wi read and studied in the ninth century. ' is For many years scholars have argued over the authorship of these’ ‘marginal additions and interlinear notes and comments. In patti. ular, Traube suggested that some of the: additions to Rheims and '; all of the additions to Bamberg were in the hand of an Irish writer *!¥ ~ possibly Eriugena himself."* In fact, he claimed to have found this . ‘4 Irish hand in four different manuscripts. Rand disputed the identi~ fication of this Irish hand with Eriugena’s, and said that there were in fact two different hands at work - i’ and i’, whose work was purely scribal and not authoritative, and hence neither was the hand of Eriugena."* Bischoff and more recently!Marenbon, Jeauneau, and + Bishop have discussed the problem in detail, and all are willing to. acknowledge Eriugena’s guiding presence in many of these enlarge. ments and corrections, if not his actual hand." For our purposes, "| de Théoloieencenne w mddivale, Numéro Spéclal + (Louvain: Abbaye de Mont Cést, {a8}, p 158 n. 30. The problem of the recension is compounded by the fect that Hooks Wand V'of she Perphyteon generally soreive ins dferent set of MSS, : to Traube announced his discovery of Eniagenss hand'is 1906, and the evidence he wed vas Inter published by Rand in the appendix to Traube's "Palacogephiche Fencumgen XV" Angra des ohennes Scotus Traube examined Rheims 875, Bamberg Pha/, the Laon M&S, He thought the same hand serote the marginal comments in Rhett Slko thought he found the hand inthe glosses aided to 2 work of Maris Vicor FMhamberg MS (Date 46 [Q.Vl3a), and alto inthe atrial corrections in MS Laon ‘which contains Erigen's commentary on Joln's gospel. Rnd, however, ae dented i in his "The Supposed Autographa of John the Seat," Unoesy of Calfome Pulao 44 tn Clasid Phitogy § (0g20), pp. 135-41, plates 1-1, Rand found two insulae hands, (the acrbed neither to Seats 1 Hand fis characterised by Rand as "loose, pointed. Rowing, with few abbreviations or | Tigauces characteristic of rsh script” ("Supposed Autographa.” p. 140). Hand howe "| ‘once mote compact and eegulay nore catsive, with more ofthe specially | t 2" Rand concludes that neither no we John's, bu hat both were “tribe tmployed by him (p. 140). O'Meara, "Etiugena's Immediate Inflaence.” in We orale fd}, Srigone Redivour (Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universtitsvera, 198). pis, aaye that “ite precisely i” who snanifets the ability to think ike Eriugena i Jeneas discusses Rand's concasions concerning the Laon 81 MS in his edition of Jan Scot, Conmenaire sur Evangie de Jean (Part: CERF, 1972), pp. 70-8 Jaunean ageet ‘ih “Trtube that the emendations to. Laon 8r are “une écture auteur personele et Driginle” (79). However, BichofP's arguments, discussed by Jenoneau, pp. 26-17. ‘ k f sacs Sn srceny to make hin desert on Rand an Scope as Esageas \ | hand. DischotT argued tha was Esiugena's hand, nd that Rend was coreet to ditine fpush and The notes to Laon 8x, according ¢o Bitcho ate in On the other hand, TA. Mi. Dish a4: charter “utographs of John the Scot," Rogues, Jen Ser Ege, and ae having in their Greek serpt stylistic Hkenes to eck sip went the mil art hid qt of the ih etry a aon6 Jolui Scotus Eriugena the discussion has a bearing on understanding the process of com- position of a ninth-century philosophical work, The work was un~ doubtedly read and commented on by a group of dedicated disci- ples, and many of the glosses aim for clarity, precision, and completeness, as Marenbon demonstrated." Marenbon divided the additions and corrections in Rheims into six classes: (1) brief cor rections and additions of words-accidentally amitted; (2) short ad- ditions which have the character of glosses; (3) reference forward to subjects discussed later in the book; (4) clarifications of an ar- gument “often of a legalistically precise nature”; (5) elaboration of a train of thought which depends on discussions later in the book; and (6) rarely, fresh development of an argument, for example, 1.49gcr7—494230. "The revisions to Bamberg are less extensive, and Marenbon pre- ferred to see it more as an edition,, singe there are “very few ad~ ditions of any substance." The’ Paris ailditions were described by ‘Marenbon as rather meagre’and philosophically unsophisticated. They are not thought to have been written by Eriugena, according to Sheldon-Williams (vol. 1, p. 223 n. 14); ‘At least one of the glosses appears. to confuse his thinking, for example, 1.4438, where matriague is added to God ~ as an example of something which eludes che sense and the mind through its ex- centre of Greek sles and of Ith scholars." Bishop notes shat i app fd he seer as “tapid, serious, dnpersed, sometimes rather diorderly hand” (p. 93). latds fas more Eraugenan, calling it the band of an “Iish-cosmo- (p. 93). and he explsine the predominance of I" a8 an accident of je question in his Ctl of Alvin, pp. 89-109; Mat- ical of Sheldon-Wiliams’s condusions in his edition onehiding that ii Esigens om the "old assumption thats ne Of thesis noe John, ths the other must be" (p. 91). Marenbon finds it inconceivable ‘ould be Enigena, but heals accepts Bishop's agements against, Marenbon gues against sapilty and nervoushers a signs of an illectual hand, pouting out chat the authenticated hands of Mach of Laon and Heiric of Auxeree are "slow, deliberate, omewhat chansy” {p-92). Marenbon points out that! and arc found together only ‘Snake one MS (heim. They were he eonelades, obviously serbes working ner the Stuhor's direction, Margnbon goes on to disass other MSS tn which and ¥ appear In ito MSS? ade notes ow the lives of Church fathers possibly under his own chois Hand appearances ae mainly editorial ~ adding lermtta 0 Rheims. “Altogsther the hotes of and # reflec the interest which might be expected of two of Eriugen's closest, duocites” (Matenbon, p. 96), 13 Matenbon, Cirle of Alain, p- 97-8 14 bid p. 98, See the appendix to Shellon-Wilians, Pephyseon, vol. t, pp. 247-60, for texatipls ofthe additions to Rheims, Bamberg, and Pars. fbon agrees with Rand and i He eres Bishop f The Periphyseon 63 cellence. According to Sheldon-Williams, this is not Eriugena's in- tention in that he distinguishes materia infornis as a privation from nihil pér excellentian of God in Book Ill. However, at Book Il.681¢ Eriugena does talk about the primordial causes being identical with the materia informis of Scripture. Since the causes rannot be grasped in themselves but only in their theophanies, according to Eriugena, then itis possible to say that materia can be counted among the things which escape the grasp of the mind due to the excellence of their nature, Sheldon-Williams's analysis then is unconvincing, and a fur- ther study of the additions on the Paris manuscript is necessary. ‘A gloss to the Rheims manuscript at 1.443c-d discusses whether privations and absences might not have some form of being. This, js one of the most interesting glosses as it raises doubrs about the first mode of the division of things which have being and non-being, and modifies the overall scheme of the five divis non-being, thus representing a philosophically of Eriugena’s first draft. “S Sheldon-Williams included the glosses and additions contained in the Bamberg, Rheims, and Paris manuscripts in-his edition of the work, and saw’ the final product as the version “with which Bri- tugena finally came to be satisfied.""* This seems to be going a little too far; there is no reason for assuming that the Periphyseon ever™ reached a completely satisfactory final form (given that it was al- most certainly worked over by a lively intellectual circle presided over by Eriugena). Indeed, some of the additions to the Paris manu- script, originating from Corbie and which Sheldon-Williams in- cluded in his edition, may possibly date from a period in the late 870s or 8805, after Eriugena’s death."* To seek such a‘final form ‘would in fact be a distortion of the early mediaeval process of phil- osophical production, since the work does not seem to have been a livre d’occasion written to meet some particular request or deadline. AMhat the additions indicate is the gradual evolution of a philo- sophical position associated with and championed by Eriugena. Ic is an open-ended speculation, This is shown, for example, by the addition to the Rheims manuscript at 1.443c-d, where the first mode of being and non-being is disrussed. This'mode distinguishes beings ions of being and npertayt revision 15 Sheldon-Willams, Pariphyson, vol. 2. p27 16 Marenbon, Citde of Asam, pp. 99-10264 John Scottus Eriugena as those things which can be grasped by the senses or the mind, and excludes as non-being “things” which escape their grasp ~ in- cluding God and unformed matter. Privations and absences there- fore belong to non-being. But the addition to the Rheims manu- script at this point raises a doubt: Possibly absences and privations can be said to have some limited form of being in virtue of their association with those things of which they are the privations and absences. I shall discuss this question in detail in Chapter r1."” This doubt would, in fact, undercut the whole scheme that Eriugena is proposing, and indeed he may have grown dissatisfied with it. But it is certainly not the kind of comment one would leave in a “fin- ished” book. [As we have said, although the revisions of the Patis manuscript are not sophisticated, they exhibit a desire to develop Eriugena’s thinking. For example, the addition inte Paris manuscript to Book L.ggab glotses-the-¥rm homo to mean “man in his mortal state,” whereas “angel” is defined in the addition to the manuscript as an “essential intellectual motion about God." Another addition gives the nine orders of angels, most likely drawing on Eriugena’s com- mentary on the Celestial Hierarchy of Dionysius."? Some of the additions do seem to speak with clear authorial in- tention, For example, at Book Lsr3d, the addition qualifies the meaning: of the “motion” (mots) Nutritor is talking about, This gloss, added to the Rheims manuscript, states that the “motion” is not the general one from non-being to being, which every creature experiences, but the more particular motion from matter to (acci- dental) form. Tho gloss reads: ‘I am not now speaking of that gen- eral motion (mots generals) that is common to all creatures, by which all things are moved from nothing into being, but of the usual mo- 17 The addition reads: “unless perhaps someone should say thatthe absences and pivations ‘of things that ens are themrelves not altogether nothing, but are implied by some steange natural virwe of those thinge of which they ate the peivatons 2nd absences and oppo- "ions, ro a8 to have some kind oF existence” (Sheldon- Wills, Perphyses, va. ty 4). is hid, pp. armas to See Sheldon-Wilisms, ibid, p. 42 n,26, nd Marenbon, Citde of Alain, p. 99, Dionysius Tits the nine orders of anges at Celestial Hierrahy, Chapter V2 (0 Il-200d-20b) claiming to have got this knowledge from Herothets, The widic ordering ofthese brbli- fal names hae no bain Serptue, nature or by att, receives qualitative forms.""” Sheldon-Willamt sumed this gloss to be Eriugena’s ~ written in his own hand WHae ever view we take on the question of Eriugena's handwi and the enrichment of meaning it brings to the discussion, sure) mark it as a product of Eriugena’s own mind or at least of a high sophisticated close colleague's. The many different kinds of tag ginalia and additions need to be studied in greater detail, but all gi the impression of careful attention to and development of Eriugey nna’s thought, often with considerable technical detail.” rhs Several florilegia of the Périphyseon have recently been discovered,’ showing the popularity of /Eriugena’s work,” but the real interest in the Periphyseon flowered: in the twelfth century with Wiliam Malmesbury's “edition” anld Honorius Augustodunensis's liber ext cerplus, the Clavis physicae.}® William of Malmesbury's edition sur4} vives as the manuscript of Gambridge, Ttinity College 0.5.20 (1301)! a complete text which originally contained a prefatory letter writtet by William of Malmesbury himself and now in the British Mue 10 Sheklon Willams, Prien, vol. p99 : 2% Seeforenampie | gathers rdiscsion othe kind of exe of gromet Bodin Ire nr if ny rao he gry of gan Sea Lot wage nce rat Dothion means Oy the “wae tings rise Bol se lone re found inthe Ron MS we “ie a2 Scere J, Marton Folio Grom he Pphyon,” Rede de hil an fe ite 47 (HRD), pp. syed bn Ck of Ali ape eo dna Totes Seals G, thon, "Un Hoge Eien 9139 Sant-Rand tenpe dacs" Recher eogie me eel ea), pareve SExCtiom teen ofthe hand beinnng of he eh eon. okra obly Aor. These fovea exes» gst many deo ot epee of Gk RS ens, bard ot show sophacd walang of Bags ene thesagy : 13 On the Clas pie se P. Lentini, “La Cai phys i Monosns Auguste Cli eadoneorogeniona nel sclo XI, in Rou Je Se gee Sod Mi-ThedAlerny, ste Conon synbligue RK ee Arie de da il ied moyen ie 28 Gos. pp. a-8%_ Arcondingt Ale, Honora dint propery ondetrand Exp agave ticle is cote tea ih. 35 m3) agin fening. ot the view that Erie Sept tught wf ‘vance of hin te’ aor dos, however ete dttion of trem eading Si ings which re and are not ss well the furl. von of ttre Honor ‘edocs paraphrase the con fom the Crck shorts howeves he ete ase Sino echene of te ve corer of being and of teens reins SP. ace (Ch, Hone Augie Cor phys Tantei (Rowe Sense Litera "ort. See my damian of Estgene' tenes bn Chaps bows66 John Scottus Eriugena seum."* The edition was written in the twelfth century at Malmes- bury by a number of scribes. William seems to have added chapter divisions and some subheadings in the margins. It is now clear that the manuscript tradition of the Periphyseon produced a parting of thgyvays between two sets of manuscripts ~ those which contained pritharily Books I-III (which Bishop calls the “uncompleted copy”) and those which contained primarily Books IV and V (which Bishop calls the “supplementary copy”)."* William's edition drew these two traditions together to produce a full text. The breaking of the work into chapters seems to have caused puzzlement and was incom- pletely carried out."* William's edition also saw the gradual shift from Nutritor (which occurs in the earliest manuscripts) to Magister (which is found in che later manuscripts).”” William's edition seems to have been a source for some later Continental editions ~ notably Avranches 230 — and although it is an amalgam of texts ftom dif- 14 For a description of this manuscrif, abe Catalogue of Royal and King’s Ma rush Museum (Royal MSS, 12A.1-App-89) (London: BrshrMuseum, 1921) pp. 398-5, The lewer ie contained in MS BL, Royal, App 8s fag~6. See Ehime de Malmesbory, premier élieue anglais du Perphysco,” pp. inedied by Jesuneas, pp. 165-71, and translated in M. Brennan, "Materials for the B= ‘ography of john Seoteas Eragens," Studi Medieval, se. 32,27 (i986), pp. 442-6 a TR MA Bishop has deserbed William of Malimesbury’s manuscript of the Periph son fh his "Perplieons The Descent of the Uncompleted Copy,” im D. Whitelock. R McKivercks and D, Durovlle eds, Hela in Eanly Medion! Europe: Stadesm Meinory of Kahlen Hughes (Cambridge: Canabridge University Peess, 1981), pp. 281~30). Ace oeding to Bishop, this version wat not copied fom 2 single exemple bat puts together ‘teres vernone ofthe text and "atleast one of therp was a complet codex.” (p- 285) ‘Malmesbury scm to have been cope two sections with efforts to bring these Sections fo line wth one another, The Malmesbury edition, helps expla some of the manner In-which Pepin manuscip erition developed. Bishop calls che anascnps (Rh, Bamberg, Pars 12964) which contsin mosty Books Ill he “uncompleted copy.” ole Towing Cappuyas, Books IV and V were contained in Pars 1296s and in Avranches. Doth the uncompleed copy and the supplementary copy bive their origin in a manuscript of Reims teaditiony they became separated and were reunited tn the Cambridge MS at Malmesbury. Sse T. A. M. Bishop, "Perplyseon: An Episode inthe Trade “Franson of the Cambige Bibigraphial Soy 7 (2980), pp. 411-26, and Jea- heat “Guillaume de Malmesbury.” pp. 154 14 See Bishop, “Priphyien: An Episode in the Tradition, pp. 415-16. Wiliam of Mal- reabury teem te have peivonalhy added sone ofthe chapter numbers. Fora Tist ofthe ‘haprer headings in the Bamberg MS see Cappuyas, Jean Sct Eigee, pp. 201213 4 SeeJetuneau, "Guilaume de Malnesbuty,” pp. 100-1. In Rheling, Baonberg. and Paris, the two digputans are indicated az N (Nv) and A (Alumnus), The ancient veay of writing capeal A, the capil ruc, could easly be confused with Dela (A), whereas The Niwas confased with J-( which became M. Thus we get D (Discipalus) and M. (Bagistc), which are Fond in, Brie Library MS (BL.Add 11035) ~ a manescrpt of {Book Tot the Perphysean which contains marginal notes by Nichols of Cass (se Shel- dlon-Wiliams, vol. tp. 17). Wiliam of Malmesbury’s edition carries all the diferent forms, indicating the differen soutees used The Periphyseon 67 ferent manuscript traditions it proved indispensable for the survival of the Periphyseon as a whole. It became the basis for Gale’s printed edition in the seventeenth century.” The diaisgue itself has bees characterised by Schrimpf as an ex- ample ot Katheketik-Literatur, a manual of instruction in Christian philosophy for students.”* Schrimpf situates Eriugena’s dialogue in the context of Alcuin’s programme of scholarly reform, and as a suiccessor to handbooks of instruction such as Martianus Capella’s popular De nuptiis and the De renun naturis of Hrabanus Maurus. Ie is, however, much more than the usual liberal arts handbook or instruction manual in Christian teaching like Hrabanus’s De in- stitutione clericorum. Comparing with the handbooks of Aleuin and Hrabanus Maurus, or even with those of Isidore and Cassiodorus, one finds in Briugena a strong sense of an independent inquiring. mind, not simply repeating old distinctions (such as the three parts of the philosophy, the definition of dialectic, and so on), but ac- tively searching for genuine philosophical knowledge, in and through a questioning reading of the sources ~ Latin and Greek. Besides of- fering commentary on interpretation of Augustine, Ambrose, and others, it introduces, at a fairly comprehensive level, the negative theology of the Greck Eastern fathers, by offering large segments of their work in translation. This means that Eriugena saw the dia~ logue as a chance to publicise the theology of Greek Christianity in the West. He not only presents an amalgam of the views of Diony- sius, Gregory, Maximus, and others, but he setg out.mn.give a sys~ tematic account of the nature of the universe, aii¢-to recdncile con~ flicting authorities on all the major topics ~ from the nature of the angels, the vision of God, the processions of the Trinity; and che meaning of ex nihilo creation, to more purely metaphysical ques~ 18 See E. Jeauneau, “ha Traduction érigénienne des Anbigus de Maxime le Confseus, Rogue, jon Ser Erlgve, p44 tg Online islogue form in Christan Werte, see R. Hirel, Der Dislg (Lipeg, 1899). fond BR Voss, Der Diag in der flier Literatur (Munich: Fit, 197). See aso J}. ODennal: Cnsiodonas(Berkcley: Universty of Caitrnia Pres, 1979) pp. 247-9. or G Sehrimpt, ae ht study Dar Werk des Johns Scots Evens ins Ralimen des Wi euclafvestinaises veer Zev, Eine Hinfiinog eu Periphyseon (Minster Aechendor ots) See exp. pp. toe—9. Talander in his erly stody compared the movement of the Ulalogye to Danis great poem. See also L. Dicer, "Remarks on Erivgens’s Oeiginal Late osey" tn). JO'Mena ad. Disler (eds), The Mind ef Brigg (oblin: Irish [University Press, 1973) p1468 John Scottus Eriugena tions of the nature of space and time, and the meaning of essence. In so doing Eriugena offers a new metaphysical framework for un- derstanding the relation between God and the world, far beyond anything available to the Carolingian scholars of the time, Furthermore, the Periphyseon provides a bold interpretion of Gen- esis which attempts to reconcile the Augustinian account of the Six Days, ag given chiefly in,the De Genesi ad litteram, with the Genesis commentfries Gf Basil and Gregory of Nyssa. Books III-V are in effect a Hexaémeron, Indeed, in Book V, Eriugena inserts a prayer (V.torob—rorta) in which he asserts that his sole desire is to have 4 proper insight into the words of Scripture, which are, as he says clewhere, “the secret dwelling-place of truth,” even if Scripture does not always use nouns and verbs in the right order (1.509). At Book lil.6gob he says that the Holy Spirit has put an infinity of meanings (infiniti intellects) in the Bible, since He is an infirnus con- ditor, and all through the dialogue, Eriugena emphasises the need to recognise the multiplicity of interpretations that can be put on Scripture, and hence the multitude of philosophical interpretations of the nature of the world which are possible. Yet notwithstanding Eriugena’s seriousness in attempting to understand the secret of Scripture, the impression the dialogue leaves is that Eriugena is reading Scripture from the viewpoint of his own metaphysics. The placing, of the discussion of the meaning of nature, being and non-being, the categories and essence, at the start of the book forces us to con- clude that Eriugena’s Hexaémeron is really a vindication of his own independently arrived at ntctaphysical insights, albeit stimulated by the suggestiveness of the Greek mystics he translated Furthermore, it is clear that the dialogue is written not merely to instruct and impart knowledge, but also to provide a vehicle for travelling on the road towards spiritual enlightenment, and ulti- mately gaining unity with the Truth itself, which is God. It is an inguistio veritatis (IV.784a, 1V.858b, V.864b); it aims to culminate in a radical intellects, to arrive at the banquet of knowledge (V. 10100) This orientation places the Periphyseon on a different scale in re- lation to other dialogues of the period. The dialogue form was es- pecially popular-in-the, early Middle Ages” until it was finaliy re- se Cappuyns, Jeon Set Evghe,p. 197, says that the dialogue form was much in voque Sanka’ Covolingian period and that using i, Esugena conformed to the best hie ‘rary tration avalable ‘The Periphyscon af placed by the summas, tracts, and quodiibetal questions’ of the! Scholastic tradition. Augustine, Boethius, Martianus, and Aleuin all wrote dialogues. Eriugena’s form has been! compared to the early dialogues of Augustine, though the opening is Ciceronian.** Indeed, it has similarities with the kind of philosophical discussion found in Augustine's De quantitate animae, De libero dybitrio, and De magisro: ‘The dialogue is not merely a device for conveying dogmatic prop- ositions, as it would later become; it proceeds in a spirit of genuine inquiry, where theses are proposed and then discussed at length. Difficulties are not glossed over but are clearly articulated, and in- deed this penchant for facing up to the paradoxes, difficulties, and even contradictions of the Catholic faith sets Eringena’s work apart from most other Christian catechetical literature; for example, he is genuinely speculative with regard to the filioque question, and even allows Alumnus to speculate that the Son may proceed from the Holy Spirit and the Father, just as the Spirit proceeds from the Fa- ther and the Son (II.611b-613a). Eriugena was conscious of the intellectual challenge posed by his translations of the Greek fathers to the rather inflexible minds of students schoole the simplicities and practicalities of the Latin ‘Church. He is anxious therefore to introduce the Greeks within the framework of the Latin authorities, notably Augustine, and to show how the two interpretations enrich and complement each other. He clearly prefers the Greek to the Latin,” spiritual idealism to practical realism. ‘The dialogue allows for choice in the matter of theories concerning the physical world, as Augustine also allows in his De Genesi ad litteram; each reader may choose the interpretation which suits him best, as long as it does not conflict with Scripture. The dialogue combines sense of speculative adventure with a firm grounding in tradition, and promotes a genuine tolerance of op- posing views that was quite unusual in that polemical age, especially {31 On the Giceronn opening line Sotpe mihi cgiteti, se P. &Hécouelle, "Une Forme Sicéronieane quia ut Fortine,” Reo dephillegie (197), pp. 81-3, and Sheldon l= lama Pre, vo p28 4 42 Hersays 1¢ much a V.9s52, Norone has expressed Eriagens’s “Greek mind better than Sheldon-Willanis See especially his seis im A. H. Avmsteong (ed), The Cambridge Histary of Lae Greek and Early Medieval Pilovophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University res 970, ps 8-37, ep. 32, shore he says Fsiggena was brought "wholly ihn the Gretk tradition as ithe had been 2 Byztosine writing in Greek" Occasionally tigen fivors a Latin a8 when he vider with Ambrose against Epiphanius 1V.8320); Inowever, Ambrose given hit interest Ploin, is surely an “honorary Greek." ¥70 John Scotus Eringena given Eriugena’s experience some years earlier in the controversy. with Gottschalk.” Eriugena consciously and carefully avoids theo- logical disputes, emphasising the provisional character of all theo- logical utterances in this life." Truth for humans is only a hope an intimation of things to come. It can never have the finality of eternal truth, which will be gained only after mortals have rid them- selves of the fleshly constraints of the body."* Bat although Eriugena is anxious to promote harmony and avoid dispute, under no circumstances is he willing to merely repeat time- worn platitudes or stock answers culled from the best-known au- thorities. The freshness of the Periphyseon stems in part from the manner in which even the most traditional Christian concepts ~ the Fall or Creation or Redemption ~ are given a completely new and thorough rereading. Eriuggna’s readers could not have been nov- ices, but were obviously skilled theologians and philosophers. ‘The overall message of the Periphyseon is at once both the simplicity and the complexity of the Christian understanding of the world, The goal of all human activity is unity with the One, with the absolute simplicity of God, but there are multitudinous paths in this essen~ tially pathless land, It is therefore up to the students to choose the * interpretations which satisfy their own reasons and their own stage in life; in the end each will be ‘illuminated according to his own ‘measure. Speaking of the resurn of all humans ta.the One, Eriugena says in Book V: «45 This tolerance of opposing viewpoints is Fequently expressed in the dialogue, especially inmattrs connected wit the interpretation Of Sexptute. Tis tolerance iin sharp con fag to he often violent paleiical tone ofthe. De presario (eg. 309i, where he ‘commends that Goutachal be burned). At Peplieon Lge he advocates that those ‘oh persist in thelr errors be left alone, He also mgkes allowances for thote wih sis Undertand ough stupicity and lek of itllctal power. Bute has plenty of harsh things to say about the fale wisdom espoused by the "perifidions Jews and venomous heretics” (V.8seb) who follow the letter f Seriptuze and not he spirit. One humorous Icrpreation of Scripture, which should be mentioned here, ogeuts at 1V.839¢, where Enugens interprets te igeaves rod by fllen manito cover his shame as “perhaps cer= {ain Spry and obscure weatss” which vel his inelectal edit. 44 Erugend even bas Nutrivr ay aI, 64od~650b that he himself had once been deceived by “Tale teasonings of human opinions that are fr from the arth,” and naw he 35% ‘down his reraction (obviously infloenced by Augustine's example) 4s This is cealy expressed a V.toatb, where Beugena says that human ineligence, whi sill the bodys an never hope #@ have wneesticted acess to the whole truth, Carnal ‘Thoughts ste a frequent cause of ertr For Erugena = in tat they deceive che mind into bblcving that this sensible world isthe most eeal. Compare the very simiat remarks of ‘Augestine in De docrina Christiana Hook il, Chapter V. where he laments the bad habit ‘of mistaking signs for things. ‘The Periphyseon n Hence it may be seen that while all men participate in one and the same nature, which is redeemed in Christ and five from that servitude under which in this life is still groaned and suffered, so that in it all are made One; the qualities and quantities of their deserts, . . . are infinitely large and manifold. Bue all these things are in due order comprehended 1 that ‘one spacious house in which the state of the universe created in and by God is displayed in many mansions, that is, many degrecs gf merit and grace. And that house is Christ. (V.984a~b; Sheldon-Williams’s transla- tion) “The image of one house and many mansions (from John 14.2), one truth but :aany revelations and understanding, is recurrent in the dialogue (e.g. I.448e-d). This appreciation of multiplicity is a sin- gular aspect of Eriugena’s outlook and style, exceedingly rare in the tradition of mediaeval philosophy. At Book IV.816d, in a discussion of the nature of paradise — whether it is a corporeal place or a spir- itual state - Eriugena opposes the Greek to the Latin ititerpretation but then says: Whether there be two paradises, the one corporeal and other spiritual, we neither deny nor affirm, We are merely comparing the opinions of the Holy Fathers: it is not ours to say which should be followed rather than another. Let each abouind in his sense and let him choose which he will follow, avoiding all controversy.” . Part of the function of the dialogue is to unfold these multifarious interpretations of the world and also of Scripture. Indeed, we are told several times that the number of interpretations of Scripture is infinite, and as varied as the colours in a peacock’s tail.”* Elsewhere (e.g. Vitorob) we are told that Scripture is a labyrinth “worthy of Daedalus.” {6 This trarsation is Sheldon-Wiliams’s version, czenly in press wih the Inte Es IMedigvaes of Montreal, Lam grateful to Profesoe J. O'Meara for allowing me co ace thir version. Se aso LaaBcnd, wets the image of many mansions (Jon 14.2) i again weed ‘7 Shldon-Wilian’swansasin. See aso Esiagns's smirks a-ABa4, IV Aha Visser, V.s89a, and V soot ‘s - 438 “The understanding of Gods words is manifold and ifaite. Why, ii’ one and the same feather of peacock. a semarkable beautf variety of countess colors is sen in ne fia the name por of 2 small part of the same feather. And indeed the very nature of ‘gs neacs to such an waderstanding™ Jobo the Seot, Pesca. On the Divison Gf Nir. ane, ML Ulfelder, with susomanes by JA. Potter Indianapolis: Bobb Merrill 1976) p36), The image ofthe peacock's tail is atonal = it occurs in Boethinn De coublaon pilvophise Sex TL se Labac, Exégie maléale: Les Quatre Sen dete, vet Pasa, top9), Pio, for 2 general discusion of the commonplace that Scripture The the world have infinitely varied meaningsn Jol Scottus Eriugena But the dialogue has another function than that of revealing dif= ferent and contrary ways of viewing reality. It is cast metaphorically in the form of a journey, a difficult sea voyage, a navigatio.®” The journey proceeds through many dangerous places in order to lay hhold of the truth, and to arrive at that crucial Neoplatonic and Augustinian point of self-understanding. The aim of dialogue must be to producé’a unity of minds and self-integration which Eriugena sees as fundamental to both philosophy and to Christian salvation. ‘Thus Nutritor says at Il.s87d, “Do not be troubled but rather be of good heart. For this discussion (consideratio) is drawing us towards an understanding of ourselves, and teaching us the things which it is right to think and to understand and declare about our God, He being out Guide” (Sheldon-Williams's translation, vol. 2, p. 141) On this road towards unity, however, many diverse difficulties are encountered. The pupil, Alumnus, sees himself as cast about on seas of doubt; he is often bewildered and at a loss where to turn. In the face of this turmoil and confusion, a guide is needed, and an orderly discipline must be followed. For Eriugena, the guide in the dialogue is God Himself, the light of minds (lux mentium)." The participants in the dialogue can only proceed as far as “‘the ray of divine power shall permit the keenness of our minds to asgend into the Divine Mysteries” (IlI.678a);" indeed, it is always crucial to re- cognise the human limitations to grasping the truth of the divine 49 See D, Moran, “Wandering from the Path: Navgatiin the Pilosophy of John Scotts Eriugens,” ‘The Crave Bag, vol 2 no. 2 (1978) pp. 96-102, reprinted in The Crave Bae Book of sh Stvies (Dubie Blacowater Pres, #982), pp. 244-0. See ako Jeauneau, "Le Symbolism de a met chez Jean Seot Engine,” in Le Neepletontsme, Callogueinterna= tional da CNRS, Royawmont, 1969 (Paris CNRS, 1973), pp. 385-94, and E. Jauncan, ‘Quatre thdgeségénennes (Montreal: lost Etudes Medieval, 998) gp Seog Vonga. hich user nager of ship buffeted in a stor and threatened with ashing on dangerous rocks, and V-gzac, where the image i of a batle (0 force a way ‘rong heavily guarded pass, See also U636, where the image of 2 bost in a storm {fel ts symbol of confusion and bewilderment, and IV-y43d~7442. The image i also Found in Acstine «41 On God a5 lx mentan sce Lega, Lara, I.gp2b,th6ore. Alko De predestination 438, fied Epil ad Cara 1051, whers he ays that the light of minds guided his translation Of Dionysius Teva favourite pease of Ertogena's. At IV.744a God is called the captain fd lclinsnan ofthe sislogue: See Uhlfelder'stanslation, p. 209, «42 Sheldon Wiliams, Prplyseon, vo. 3. p. 168. The image ls strongly Dionysian. Eiygena ‘Sadept at blensing the balanced dialogve style of the Latin (and Augustine in partial) weigthie moi homie aterance aeocated sith the Pseado-Dionysws. Engen light Inddpor continues the igh uitaphysies of both Dionysius nd Augustine. The Periphyscon mystery, and to remember the warning “'Seck not after high but be afraid." “i Given this recognition of the impenetrable darkness of the vinity, and the utter reliance of human intellects on the divine po true reason (recta ratio) to steer their course. It is astonishing how | often both participants acknowledge the need to submit everything to the rigorous measure of recta rati.* Both seem skilled in rhetotie and dialectics and know how to lay out 4n argument and follow the twists of the discussion in an orderly and comprehensive man= ner. Alumnus, in particular, is anxious to sce that the inquiry fol- lows the natural order of matters (ordo rerum, Il.g2gc) and keeps to the ordained pattern (disputations series, II.s2a, III-710¢) of the ate gument.“* Both participants set a high value on patience and caution (IV.814b) and warn against hurried judgments (IIl.690c). They tec="|? ognise that this manner of proceeding must be open to following +. the many subdivisions of the questions: "For there is no main probe Jem, I think, which does not involve incidental problems when it 49 Ik 627¢. This so quotation ffom Pal, Rotnans Hat, Shldon-Willans, vol p46 [Naat seper sed tne. have ted to ive a Heal rendering of this pre ‘ely tranasted: "do not be prood bbe aid.” Here the matter sys that since he ighes winston ate denied him, it necessary to we the ier ght (tina tanh to gn srhatver sem to on ike the wth.” See seo the blace struck Xi Iesse-d berwcen rational inguiey and espe sence. 4 Sc, asthe prayer in Book HL S90, wh pays God to shtter the ods of Gta ionir toner fata) sich ind the mind, and open upto recive the grace of theophany 45 Rear vera ri favourite phrases of Augustin’, appear éxeemey quel the logue! GH Allard even go 0 far ato dar that Reason the ied pata inthe dnlogues aces" Quelgues marques aut adits sre,” Rages Jon Siu Engen, pp ai1~a4. Ret ato or nat appeas at 4st 46a-b, age te 52) ctr tnd equny there ae expreons suck reason of ne wo ado (L364 Serb, sores Ly 3b), At IV. yeaa there i 3 string encomivn ofthe power of reson fo fvople bravely ox fod tersin. "reson doce note any tres of waves or bens or Syrtes or rocks. Ir takes greater delight in fuercsing its power inthe hidden srr of the divine oven than fn festing at ete bn Sooth tad open wary whee lot eel re (Uhiders vamp 0) For aan of heart teen reson and iumiaton, see I Roger, Temarqucs sri sgufion Ge ean Scot Erigene," Mixtllone André Combes, val. tes. pp 265-70, ve 46 Several scans have atempeed to give an account ofthe dniecical mod atid by Erjogens in sctng out the argoinet of te Priphysean. Some have vetered to the chapter fending or these of topes sceced by Honors Augustoduncnais to hi paraphe, "Now enoogh i known about Esiogens's Galea training or about the methodology of nlp! argumentation of the tine to give a convincing account. Suc to sy thot Coapaicipan inthe dialogue ar quite ste tat they oe alongs et nde of ope."4 John Scottus Eringena is being investigated by a diligent mind” (IIL.6x9)."”_ Although ‘Alumnuis is good at bringing the discussion back from @ digression (6902-b), Nutritor argues the need for copious repetition and re~ capitulation, even co thé point of worrying whether perhaps the readers of the dialogue are being bored by the constant reiterations of the same point. He decides, however, that | when a subject is complicated and has many different aspects, it is inccessary that the explanation be complicated and repetitive. And perhaps there are not a few who would prefer to hear the explanation repeated many times than a brief and cursory summary of so difficult matter, Which would be more likely to pass over the difficulties than resolve them, hd increase ambiguity instead of removing it. (V.978e; Sheldon-Williams's translation)” Of course recapitulation is itself a form of recollectio or return of all things eo the One. In gathering everything together, the participants are themselves participating in the cosmic cycle of nature. ‘The structure of the Petiphyseon is announced by the participants themselves, who state that they are going to give an account of the four divisions of nature which are proposed in the opening para~ graphs, and that each division will be deale with separately. The first three books attempt to deal with one division each.*° After a long digression on the nature of “nothing” in Book III, however, a dis- cussion of the Six Days of Creation overflows into Book IV, and 4 Digressions ae a standaed feature of mediaeval philosophical discussions fact, Jeauneau tohipres thi scare syle Plat in is Jo Sex Handle sr ie rl de Jeon Ghak CER ag6s), pass and says tat the Periphyeon follows une trjecore hile 18 Recrialaion (ein, ancéphalnss) is 2n impor be rematks on several times (rs54c, M684, 1.6 ong history in Greck and Latin cheology. Pal we ify the collection of all dene Eat Irenaeus, Terlan, and Ambrose all made we ofthe concep. Sez J Bee Soo Shad to Rely: Sides i ihe Bible! Typlogy of the Fathers (Condon. Bae Once 1960), Recapnaio means taking a topic up from one level to another, Fheologicly iment, for exainple, the manner in which Christ kes up (recapitulate) ‘laos fsa e}, Entgena found the term in Maximus, Reaplnlatio closely connected Ae Giktie See} "Froullard, "La Notion analyse cher Jean Scot” in Rogues, Jear ‘Stat Engen, pp. 343-86 ‘go ach wae Uibjcc is ecpeated, it js drawn up to 2 new level ofthe syathesis Esigema is completing, 0 Sheldon-Wilkams, in the Cambridge History, p. $21, stsuQT that the erphyson follows Ine Gand division of patare, and O'Mesea,in*Erivge (Cork, 1960), sees the fist, thoes books as desig with one level of nature each 1d the lst eo a dealing withthe eee ofall things God. Sheldon-Wilams qualified his remark in Mind of Lnugene, Feith where hesays there are Tout, thee, oF two divisions in Penphyian, depending Sn ons starting-point. Fearne of Esters’ syle which sb, V-xonga). The ten has The Periphyseon 8 Nutritor is forced to announce that these complex matters will re= quite a fith book (IV.744a). ‘The disputants recognise that their books are too long (IlL.715d), bur feel that this is necessary to do justice to the complexity of the task. The dialogue, however, also follows the familiar Neoplatonic cycle of unity-diversity-reunification or the Christian pattem of Creation-Fall-Redemption. This patter is clearly followed from the beginning, and it is unnecessary to postulate a primitive form of text, dealing with dialectic, as Sheldon-Williams argued for in his edition.” Previous commentators have not notiged any distinguishing fea~ tures of the master and pupil such thatthe owo might be seen as genuine individuals. Generally speaking the pupil is thought to be merely a foil for the master, who is Eriugena.** Some points of difference between the two participants can be noted, however, and these do have a bearing on the movement of the dialogue itself. Nutritor is an austere figure, learned, wise, and patient (V.923¢, ILs7ab), He is marked by his knowledge of, and reverence for, the Greek patristic writers, At Book V.955a, for example, Nutritor says that the Greeks, as usual (solifo more), display a greater shiarpness of intellece and a more subtle accuracy in their choice of technical terms. He introduces and explains these new terms to Alumnus. He sets himself up as an authority not only on philosophical theology but also on biblical exegesis and interpretation, making use of several levels of .xegesis.® He also gives the impression that he speaks as 1 Sheldon-Witimy's argument fara primitive De dein seems to have been inten sree appreciation of Eringena’s considerable skills a2 dinketician, ane believes that Pus etheme of nature» metaphysial councerpare of che “dilectcian’s rable of saeee and contradictions" (Cambridge Hiulory, p. 1). Allard, on the othe hand, i BAe dtthireInteraee def composition du De doione nara,” in O'Meara and Dee The Mod of Eregena, pp, 37, has suggested chat the sche of te Perphyson pees gut athe fourtad division a2 given by Sheldon-Wllams, O'Meara, and others ee periphpiun has de stracace of 2 Hexaeneron (Ala, p. 147) and i articulating, he meaning f the fiat thee chaprers of Genes 2 Sanaa O'Meara, Enugnt,p- 38. D- Desrsiers-Bonin, “Erades des radia et de eur Tepbelicn dans Le’ dialogoc du Peiplyseon.” in Allard (e.). Je Seat viv, p- 382 serene sme ods se mainly tad by the master and sorte By the pol: the maser Freee ie ke "apophate™ and "katophatie,” This is im general agreement with my ob- 53 ches ue of the four levels of interprctaton of Siu x most comple (te, © Fee a ute indivial, See He de Lubac, Exeqse mile, vol 2, . 8 0-4. wide cSancas Sappencix 3 of Jeon Scat LHe si ie Prologue de Jean, pp. 327-8 Maes obginal hy ERogens'stormlain is his se of the “Bstorieal” lve of ierpreta- Fe Ranch in Deut dent distinguishes four seis ~ histori, ately76 John Scottus Eriugena ‘one who has been illuminated by a theophany, a divine revelation, and that this is the inspiration behind his pronouncements, He says to Alumnus in Book IIL: You have a high opinion of me, a5 Ise, since you assign to me the things that are harder to seckzand find and demonsteate, However itis my part to seek, but WO is His alone Who illamincs the hidden places of dark hess, His also is the demonstration beease He [alone] can open the sense of those who seek and the intellect, For of what use js 2 demonstration from without (exterior suaio) if there is not illumination within (interior iluninatio)?(11-6564~657)"* Since he goes on to expound the doctrine, he must have had a rev- clation of its truth. Elsewhere in the texts he prays God to grant him continued theophanies of the truth (e.g. II.6s0b). But he is also more than happy to defend his conclusions with powerful argu- ment, and he makes full (and often ostentatious, e.g. 1-498c, 4910) use of the dialectician’s tools, enthymemes, syllogistic reasoning, dilemmas, and so di. He is’also well versed in the figures of rhetoric (e.g.. metonymy, [.480b). Yet he rather modestly describes himself as scarcely holding “a place among the least of the followers of the great philosophers” (Ill.627a) and refuses to make any rash promises about how far he will be able to ascend along the steps of contem- plation.! In Neoplatonic and Gnostic terms he describes the steps which being the philosopher's contemplation to the “most sacred an allgori. The frst dee serie belong tothe tera lovsl and the fourth i spirit Seede Lubae vol 1, pp. 178-9. Sheldon-Willams says that Erugens's system owes more to Dionysiis (vol. 3. p,317 on. 43 and 44). However, Alunmus appears more unfair ‘with the literal type of interpretation; see for example 1.693, where Alums says he Knows enough about the allegorical (or mor evel of interpretations ofthe Six Days. At V 9960-6, Notritorarguct spat shore who accept dhe allegories interpeeeaton only Sind neglect the eral. Atl 7ose Esagens add the "historical account ofthe estab tment af things” to thie fourfold division of wisdom. For the concep of historical ter pretation sce. rosb, 723b, LV. 818%, Bsc, fe9b, V.gssb-e, V-ogoe For Exiugem, there Sothing wrong arith the hist interpretation a long a spaced in proper context tnd is not debased by camal minds, who take place and time literally. Erugens's use of the for level of thea needs to be examined im gremter detail 4 Sheldon-Williams, vol. 3p. 185 S$ His modesty isles siguticnt bere than the fat that he is ranking hime in ong fine ‘igre philosophers = from Plato to the Chore fathers. He is not placing hiself below Ue level of contemporary thinkers, This similar to AJe Ayer tho in a recent interview fom lah ado (ep8q) sid that he woul place himel inthe eon rank of modern phi Tosoplers However, when asked who he thought ma of Greerank eater, he could not think of 209! The Periphyseon 1 shrines of the celestial mysteries.’"* Yet he regards the entrance into this state as belonging only to the most enlightened and does not scem to expect this illumination while he is still in the mortal frame. ‘Alumnus for his part is not the characterless pupil or novice that many commentators have seen in him. He is a practising philoso- pher (IIl.735¢)” and skilled in'the arts (peritus artiwm, 1.so8b), having studied them from infancy (I.604¢).-In particular he has a special knowledge of natural cosmotogy and’ the working of the four.ele-* ments, as well as considerable understanding of mathematics (I.604c, ML.6s4a, U11.713¢, 715d). He displays a broad familiarity with Latin theological authorities and with some of the more subtle points of the doctrine of thé Trinity. Alumnus is, however, ignorant of the Greck authorities, whose ideas deeply shock and disturb him.*? For example, at Book Ill,646c, he says that he is “bewildered and struck dumb as a dead man yrith stupefaction™; at 647b, he says he hears things which “disturb me greatly and turn me reluctantly from what Thitherto firmly held”; at 661a, he says he is like a “'sleeper awak- ened" (expergefactus). He has difficulty accepting that there will be a general return of all beings to God and not just the return of the elect (V.g2rb-c), and in general he finds the teacher's immaterialism and denial of physical reality hard to understand. But he does rec- ognise the superiority of the intellect to sense-knowledge and can 36 lL627b, “seats calesion meron aya; Sheldon-Wilians vol. 3. . 48. Eri tugena sees philosophy as aiming to attain Unity with the One, not just reiby abot fe ere he i n agreement with Plovinus snd Proch, 57 ALIIL 35 he includes himself among thove who “prsctite philosophy or read the phe Josophers 48 Alumnus takes special interes in discussions of cosmology in Book ill snd shows con- siderable knowledge i this field” At IL. 654x Nutrtor remarks to him see you me ‘gnorant of the art of arithmetic (arhmete dipling) Alumina gives 2 Tong account ofthe elation of numbers tothe monad at IL Ss2c-Gg6¢. At Il-6o4b-< he shows know fige of what the sapietes mundi have to say about fre and the other cements, and he “develops this account at ME 789e a4 wue flew (724b)) At 7494 he aks Nutitor for an account ofthe orbits ofthe celestial bodies, and makes Enowledgesble comments of hit 9 For example he knows that “ll or almost all ofthe masters ofthe Latin tongue (I s4g6) are opposed to the Gresk ides thatthe resurrected body will be without sexaal dire ‘nvaion. Alummaas's knowledge ofthe Latin secount of the Trinity seen at 610 fx Where he gives an Augustinian version of the reflection of the Teiity in man nate, Sec alo Th633b. > AL Lafob Alurnnus ie cast the roe of spokesperson for those ho believe in corporal ubstanees, which Nutrtor see a stopdty (489°). tn general Alum ha cay wth il the specifically Greek theses, ep, om diferentation of the sais, onthe incest OF God, the meshing of theophany, andthe nature of patsdze,B John Scottus Briugena be persuaded by rational demonstration. Part of his function seems to be to voice the difficulties the ordinary Latin theologian will have with these new Greek ideas. At 1.499a he explicitly says that he is raising the objections others will have. He sees his own role as that of criticising and at I11,6goc he sets forth his aim as that of following and learning the interpretations of others and of the master himself, and to choose from.them whiat reason recommends.** Clearly, no blind subservience to the master is involved here, and most of the time the discussion proceeds as if between two equals in philosophical rank ‘The interplay between the personalities of the Magister and the Discipulus provides a dramatic tension which gives dynamism to the work, so that it is certainly a genuine essay in dialectic, an au- thentic dialogue. Given the stress Eriugena places on the role of the | arts in the development of the understanding, and the necessity of philosophy for salvation (or at least for entry into the higher realms), | itis'important not to ignore the dialectical development produced by the deama of the dialogue itself. There is a recurrent emphasis ‘on the need for a move from darkness to light, from ignorance to knowledge, away from sense-knowledge towards intellectual illu- mination, from the lower to the higher.” Eriugena is particularly scathing of those who cannot scale the lofty heights of his contem- | plation, but who remain caught up in carnal thoughts (carnales cog- | jtationes, V.xorsb).® What is called for jn the dialogue and-what | gradually takes place in Alumnus and in the reader are a genuine shift in viewpoint, away froin the limitations of the senses towards appreciation of the crue nature of things, and their ultimate unity ithe Inaccessible One. Those who refuse to grasp this must be ted or ignored. In the end the philosopher's way will be justified coming of the genuine illumination of God: “Let every man mane thereore dots no just assemble the interpretations of the great philosophers ed autores but offers some new interpretations hell Erogena is conscious of is | emmetilc and ec to call enon tose Thin is exremely unostal ins mediacval Ne {The images of light and darkness, knowledge and ignorance are deeply Dionysian; Ei- however, sto uses many typically Augustinian images ~ for example che gcnceal from lower to higher things (ex ifertobus al speror vations it, Lso4a). For Tongs, see V-9044 nes riage (fequenly contrasts chore who have Qeshly and material ‘wth thore who have sve sprtal insight. The imagery and terms are P ies IV.t4ib-<, 843e “The Periph 79 be lavishly endowed with his own interpretation, until the coming, of that Light which converts to darkness the light of false philos- ophers and changes into light the darkness of those whd rightly know” (Uhlfelder’s translation, p. 360). After the Periphyseon, Eriugena wrote a Homilia on the Prologue to theGospel of John. This work ranks as one of the greatest homilies of mediac~ al spiritual literature. and was widely disseminated in the Middle Ages, circulating, however, under the name of Origen or John Chrysostom.* ‘Modern commentators since Cappuyns have seen it as closely complementing the Periphyseon, especially on the theme of the as~ cent from darkness to light, from lower to higher, from carnal un- derstanding to spiritual contemplation. The Homilia of Eriugena was of course influenced by Augustine's tract on the Gospel of John, but it contains a number of particularly Eriugenian themes ~ in- cluding the concept of transcending all that is and all that is not, the idea of theophany and thedsis (éwous), and the idea that the procession of the Word from the Father is identical with the creation of all things by God. Eriugena explains that outside Gad thd is nothing. John is seen as a mystic and is symbolised by the eagle, which can soar above the whole world. John is able to surpass the created intellect and gain an insight into the nature of the divine plan itself. John thus symbolises theology, which is the highest form of contemplation, or thedria, and can penetrate into the highest dark- ness of the spiritual mysteries (284b). In the Homilia, Eriugena continues the Periphyseon theme that faith is necessary but is merely preparatory to the work of inteljection and of contemplation, which must be carried out by the pure de- tached mens of animus. John symbolises this intellect, whereas Peter signifies faith and action (284b). ‘The Homilia develops its rich spirituality until it reaches the high= est point in the recognition that the Word runs through all things, and that all things radiate out from the Word, like the innumerable radii of a circle (289a). God is the Light which illuminates Itself, Lats itaque eget seipsum illaminat (2896), a8 well asthe whole worl, (4 The Homila has boon edited by Jenunens, Jens Scot Homilies te Pole dé Joa, A ‘eal translation ino Engl in contained in O'Meara, Lage! (Ontond: Clarendon Press, 1988),80 John Scottus Briugena “Through the Word, however, we, who are no longer the Light, can once more participate in the Light. The Light comes to us in Serip= ture but also through the lights of created natures (2899). Our na~ ture is at present a fenebrosa substantia, but it is capable of the Light (capex cis, 290¢). The Light itself is so bright that to us it is an impenetrable darkness, The whole theology of light and darkness is Dionysian, but as we shall see Eriugena incorporates the dialectic Of light and dark into his metaphysics of creation. In the Homilia Eriugena succeeded in conveying, his key ideas, without invoking philosophical theories, and the Homilia represents the best short in- troduction to Eriugena's distinctive cast of mind. We shall not be “le to investigate it more fully in this book, as we must now turn to a more detailed investigation of Eriugena's philosophy. 6 ERIUGENA AS PHILOSOPHER How are we to interpret Eriugena’s philosophy? He made use of the logical and dialectical material available to the ninth century in his metaphysical discussions of the nature of es- sence, substance, accident, and the categories, but he stands above his contemporaries in offering a unique metaphysical system ~ the four divisions of nature ~ which introduced to the West not only a new cosmology but also the first important meontolagy, or study of non-being — mé on (1% dv). In the following chapters I shall argue that Briugena’s ‘system, while seeming to provide'an objecive hierarchical metaphysics of order, actually presents a ubjectivist and idealist philosophy, in the sense that all spatiotemporal reality is understood as immaterial, mind dependent, and lacking in independent existence; and also in the He- gelian sense, whereby all finite reality is understood to require in- finite reality for its full intelligibility and completion." For Eriugena the hierarchical order of nature is in fact a product of mind, and is absorbed and transcended by the mind of the spiritually liberated 1 For Hegel's discussion of iealiam, sc his Scirice of ai, rans. by A. V. Miller (London: Allen & Unwin, 1963), pp. 154s Ie in the Iter sense that W. Windelband, im his Pisory of Philosophy, vol 2 (tooss reprinted New York: Harper & Row, 1958) p. $66, defines idealism as the dissolution ot reslucion (Aufisnng) ofthe world of experience In the process of eonsciousnes." In» recent sly, M. Burnyeat list argued psig the estence oF even the possibility of idealism in ancient plilosophy, se his "Weal i Greck pilsophy: Whit Dercarte Saw and Berkeley Mise,” G. Vescy (ed). Healing Ps aid Dresenr (Cambridge: Cambridge Univesity Pees, 1983), pp. 19-so: “Weal, whether we rican by dht Berkeley's ovn doctrine that eet penip ors more vapoely oneeved thereto the effect that everthing tin some substantial sense mental or ital is one of the very few major philosophical positions which didnot recive ie fre formulation in anigaty.” Sebi, in is Time, Creston and Conn (London Duckworth, 1983). p. 288, has convincingly argued! spain Bornyent ting a8 Ws ex: ple the immaterial teaching of Gregory of Nya idealem doce not jut aie a8 am Bnswer fo scepticism: in Gregory's cae it was an ttempt to deal withthe difficult poe leov ot how an ramateral being could create matter, especially a the effet mest resem its cause, What i te for Gregory of Nyssa is even tree for Eriogens, who isan Heals to nthe immoterialist and inthe Hegelisn/Windlbandian meaning.82 Jol Scottus Eriugena person, the Pauline homo spiritualis (x Corinthians 2.12). OF course, rere difficult to use the term “idealist” without a thoroughgoing examination of Eriugena’s doctrines. In some respects Eriugena is Qrealist. Thus, for example, iinlike Ratramnus of Corbie, Eriugens js committed to a realistic theory of universals. For him, genera and species are two ontological grades of fealty and not just two logics! tegories, Furthermore genus and species have a higher kind of being than individuals (which Eringena terms afome), The greatest reality is ousia which is infinite and One, but it proceeds outwards through genera and species into the individuals such that everything fan be said to partake of ousia. Ousia itself, however, remains in fuwelf during this procession and “is not less in the most specified species than in the most general genus” (1.4928). Eriugena’s realism ‘with regard to the universals cannot be simply translated in the terms atdebate which occupied cwelfth-century thinkers such as Abelard, ‘Although he regards genera and species as real, the manner in which they partake of the reality of ousia is of crucial importance, Ousia both transcends everything and can alone be said fo be reals it is also present everywhere, though [Eriugena says that “it is not greater in eimen than in one man” (1.4922). It is not always clear that Eri- ligena sees genera and species in an ontologically realist manner, because for him, they can be resolved back into ovsia. What is truly eal for Briugena is the ousia, which is incorporeal, invisible, and eanscends the whole material spatiotemporal universe. Ousia is ideal fealty, in its eternal, unchanging, immaterial nature, and in this Sense Eriugena is an idealist, He is an idealist in his belief that matter ie.a combination of immaterial qualities, and also in his identifica tion of objects of knowledge with the mind which grasps them, a difficult doctrine that he found in Dionysius and Maximus. For Er- jugena, the human mind, as evidenced by the perfect human nature fof Christ, has the capacity to contain all things in itself; it contains them as ideas, ‘which of course is their full reality. ‘This idealist system is consistently the most radical in ancient or mediaeval philosophy, even more radical than that of Gregory of Nyssa, and can be compared to the immaterialism of George Berke ley (1685-1753), or more recently to the systems of the German absolute idealists of the nineteenth century, especially G. W. F. He- gel. Erugena’s idealism is, as we shall see, not simply a version of German idealism, as many of the German nineteenth-century com- Eriugena as philosopher 83 mentators assumed, but is a more difficult and problematic for~ mulation of idealism, which struggles with theultimate reduction of everything to infinite subjectivity without wishing to let go of diffrence. Eriugena frequently speaks of God as wun multiplex (8. 11,6740), as a complex unity, like the Plotinian reference t0 nous as hen polla, the One-many, at Emnead V.3.15. This doctrine will later be aystem:used by Nicholas of Cusa as the doctrine of coincidentia oppositoram and the nom aid. ‘As we shall see, the doctrine that everything is a phanfasia (avracta) and a theophania (eopévra) is part of Eriugena’s answer to this problem of how the One can remain in itself and also partake in the ereated order, which it creates, and which is fundamentally other than the One (see Chapter 12). Before we can properly interpret Eriugena, it will be instructive to examine briefly how he has been understood in the history of philosophy. Briugena’s fate in the history of philosophy... ~ a Following the condemnations of the Periphyseon in 1210 and 1225, Eriugena’s writings became almost unknown in mediaeval philos- ophy, and references to him are’rare from the thirteenth century onward, He seems to have attracted little or no interest until the seventeenth century, except among a few scholars such as Eckhart, [Nicholas of Cusa (who advised his readers to study the Periphyseon) and Giordano Bruno. In the seventeenth century, the religious con flicts arising from the Protestant Reformation and Catholic geaction ‘once again focussed attention on some of the topics discussed by Eriugena ~ the issues of the relations of reason and authority, nature and grace, and, above all, free-will and predestination,” His works first appeared in book form in the seventeenth century, beginning with the De praedestinatione, published in Paris in x50 and occa~ Sioned by the Jansenist controversy raging at the time, The De di- visone natuae was printed by Thomas Galen Oxford in 1681.! One 2 See the intrducton to G. Mae (ds), foo Scot de diving pe Series Lana L(Turnbolt: Brepols, 1938), p. xv 4 Theshas Cate'wat an English Hellenat who believed Scots co be Ens, See Jae Tomas Cal aston ceuénienne des Ammbigur de Maxime le Confeswur: Mons Gale rea na) cee Caton nines” hv It Rogues (ed) Jom Sot Urge ot Itoi deo (iebzple sin CNRS, 197), pp. 146-42, The Perna wea one ofthe Bat books forbe printed a0 the press in Oxford hinatone, CCM,