Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Studia Anselmiana: S. Anselmidejjrbe
Studia Anselmiana: S. Anselmidejjrbe
PH ILO SO PH IC A TH EO LO G IC A
ED ITA A PZO FESSO RIBU S IN STITU TI PO N TIFIC II
S. A N SELM I DE JJRBE
FA SC IC U LU S XXXV I
by
FO LYCA RP SH ERW O O D 0 . S. B.
Proleam r ofFaàrology althe Ponellci lnstltute S. Anzelm oeRom e
. O R B IS C A T H O L lC U S . / H ER D Elt z 2 O M A E z 19 55
N IH IL O BSTAT
Roma ,i'
?lPontiFcio fxx
&/ïftzltlS.w4>selp>'
.I4ie e.
'
/Deamby'ks zglg,
t BPRNARDUS K ASrJN
A blbas Prï- s 0. S. B .
PAR'
r 1:Tke AfzrlzW Ambigua - A .External Deseription
The m anuscript tradition I
The ancient notices 3
The literary form 5
'rhe recipients 6
The atlversaries . 8
The authorities 8
'lâhe them es . 10
Tables 1 List. of the A m bigua 11
' 11 Index of Citations 15
1II Setipture Itldex . . . . . &7
B . Analysis of the Single D ifliculties zl
doubled the size of the study and m eant a carefuleom parison with
the N yssene doetline - a study'and a com parison whieh, T felt,
tould m oze adequately be undertaken in an 1analysis ofthe Quae-
stionn /1: Thatassium . lt is thus tbat I canle to bypass G regory and
to fliscuss Origenism iztthe light chietly of the De PrfAlcf/zï.
ç alzd
the 6th centunr eontroversies. H owever in dealing w'ith self-de-
term inatiou I did introduce eonlparison w itli G regory as well as
with Origen 2. But even here the subject'is only partially dealt
w'ith. A fuil treatm ent m ust aw ait a study of the M axim ian an-
thropology.
M y task tllen w as to present the Ozigenism w itll w lkif:b M axi-
m us had to deal - the prim ordial henad of rational creatures - ,
his outologicalargum ents in refutation thereof and his logos dod rille,
w hose fuuction was to preserve w hat tbere w as oftruth irzthe O rige-
nist speculatitjn. Thus there w ould have been but tw o ehapters, the
actual fi1'st and fourth ; but entering into the argum ent of the irst I
.
m et the fact ofecsiasis. The whole doctrine ofm an's attaining unioll
w ith God, the iinal and real auity, w ould have rem ained obscure
tznle% I sought out M axim us' m ilvd (m this debated poînt 'rhus .
tllis, it soon beeam e too obvious to be neglkcted that, nam ely, the
M axim ian doetrine of ecstasis was basetl on tlle sam e triadie ontology
'
as the refutation argum elzts of the lirst eilapter Thus I cam e to
.
cif esseuce and m ocle, that is ldyog ql fgEtt'ç and vtlörlog 'ûrrtjtlymg, is
so pew asive in tlle wim le of tlze M axim ian doctrine ' tllat som e ac-
count of it w as neeessary. It is thtts that I planned ' an excursus
wllich has ended up as the lirst half of the fourth ehapter .
There rem ained then only the m inor refutation of the Origem
ian koros t' hetn.
e to 4eal with The argum ent itself is of little inzp-
ortanee' but it raises tw o im portant qupstions, rather anthropolog-'
ical then ontological and therefore I beg excuse for the brevity
.
of the treatm ent and the unusttallength of the notes The questions
.
raised are how ean the rational creattue essentially tm stttble irt
regard to G od by the very'fact of being creature, attain a fixity in
God whfch his nature craves and caullote#ect. Ecstasy is tlle answ er
on Gocl's part,and this has already bee' a treated ;but on m art's part
the freew ill or m ore dosely representing the G reek term ,the self-
determ ination m ust have its free part to play. H enee tlw third
and fouz'th sections of tbe eha 'pter on surfeit.
H ere,if m y afm had been to w rite a eonlplete study of A nlb 7.
l shoultl have em barked on an analysis of the argum ent against
the preexistence of souls. ' W hy 1 have llot done so has already
been explained. Instead I have introduced a ehapter o1L the apo-
eatastasis. If it has little direct eonneetion Avith the text of A m b 7,
no mte will questfon its germ aneness to the Origenian them e. ft
aloue oftlleOrigeniau positions hasbeen the object of speeialMax-
im ian studies, And m oreover it perm its us to return to the ontol-
ogica! leve! ort w hich the l-
lrst chapters of this study m oved. But
here T m ust confess it is not the lmst of the ehapters written 'but
the first. And the state, ill w hieh I now present it, fs but slightly
revised after dealing with the problem of the freewili and Eaving
m etwit.h Gaith'sineptrefereuce to M aximusin his study ofGregory
of N yssa.
Sueh is the genesis of the presen.t study. If it be worth m uch
it w ill be (lue to the eareful presentation of M axim us' ow n texts.
H ere I m ay explain m y procedure. Q'itirtg M axim us frequently and
at lezlgtb, I suppose that tEbe reader w ill have at lkis disposal the
volum es of M igne. The translations are not always the best of
English, yet it is an honest effort at au accutate rendering'
.whieh
is ilzevitably also an interpretation. 1 have indeed thought it ne-
eessary to avoid giving M axim us m erely in the Greek 'for m y inter-
pzetation of his thought rests on the Gree.k texts only in m y own
uuderstanding of tlzem , representecl in the English vezsions.
It is a custom entirely fitting and just to give thanks at the
end ()f q prefaee to those w ho have assisted in the d aboration of a
doctoral study. So then may those professors or authols whose
cxlurzcil or studies I have used realize tlm't tlae present w ork is pos-
sible only because of theirs. I sense and appreciate this solidarity
in the world of learning.M ay it eneourage them to continue.
For6tvord Ix
AltNol/,R.,LeD#sïe de flïf'
' zçdans 1t4.Plvilosopltze d6./Nf?/ïl.Parisscl (192I).
BATJHASAR, H . U. von A' fdr/to hry.
çï& %nd Jjlystik d6s Stltlrizç.
F Pontikus.
zAM (4 (z9:$9)'at-4.7.
Die GAztu/ïsti/igx Crlllf4A'lfl'
l;. Freibm g iB (Die Gn.eent.).
- - K osm isclte Z'ffzsrgï'. wsftu ï- lç.
ç tfgA' B d/lfw xdr: H öhs sp# K yisis #e,
: gvte-
chischen '
Kof/tlfltfs. b*reiburg iB 1941 (K L).
- . Litsrgie Cosm ique. Paris :947. n 'ench version of tile above.W here poi;-
siblt I cite both editions otherwise tile French only.
- .D> Scholéeltweyk des .rtl/lt
zelv .
ç trtls Skythopolis. Sch :5 (194.0) z6-38.
-
Pyfssna :/Pepsée../fssczs'
l4r ia F/zflo.
çtl/ât'ayeligieassde GvgtlïA'
e dr .N#.
ç.
ç'.
Paris I94z.
BARDV,G., Lt? /J.
'
r/d du rtet't V zt
'
s'v d'Ovigèns rJ Justinnen. RSR.Io (I9z(8
e24-5z.
BtlNysFov, J.-1?r. Ovigène T
l'/irft/rjtlfaAl (l6 la yAllf/ltnffg th/ologiqae. gv /lrrl4g'
c.
ç
Gaval?eva. Toulouqe 1948, 87-t45.
Btlusss:
f,W . A poplttltq tnatA.Ttibirzgen z92.
$.
Calqàtrvxs,M. y a. n ScotJîrïgâzl'.Paris 19:3.
CaDz.ou,R . Lft /d
rzfAldr&sï!Li'ovigéne.Paris 19.
. 35.
Cllls&',
u alszt. Ph. D ionysiacq. Pm'
'
LS I937-z95o.
D.
u rMAIS.I.-H . L'œuvye s/ïy'ff? 2zrVc de é; Alan mr Ir C-loAl/esJeltr.N otes .
:74r son
tftsa
pn/tl/#ep:yzz/ et sa sfgzli/itltzfïtp'
rl, ZiJ spivIi%elle, Stlpplém ent 1952,
:
,I6-2e6.
L a F/ltf(vï' des (
ïLogol : des Clgc
lfzffJA'
l.
ç chez :' l'bfaxim r le Cltlx/:sseur.
RSPh'I*h 36 (1$952) 244-49.
La fftlc/rf'
atfascétique de s. x 5.
faxtme ?zIConjesseur tf'4?. #1,
Js le ï(Libey lsre/ï-
cvs>.ivlnikokl :6 (T953) 17-: $9.
-
Un drlï/# de dAzrt/ltxfdscontnm plaiive: Le covlpze' zzffzïA'zr da #c./sr Noster tfzr
s. xsfaxfpzir le f;t)z2/8&s'> A'. RztM 2: (r95: 5) :23-. 59.
D:)GUIBSR' ;,J., Une x stla
l/rce des../84p.Damascène d& FdeorfAnt/tll' lz.RSR 3
(T9T2)356-68.
llzuuflkots,J.aL'Apocatn tasrtlle1's.Cr/gr(?lr' d'.Nys. ç4.RSR 30 (194.9)328-470
Plutonisme t'fThéologie yryyfkvr.Essa.i. çl<'
r la (fcp
c/rïsd spirit' uelle d6 s.GV -
goive (9 N ysse. Paris 1944.
- OtigLne. Paris 1948.
xw Biblioqratlty
Dq G ANDIIAAC, M . J '
uvres rol?7/lfpfs.
ç dt% .F%tu4#t
7-7% zl#.
ç Z kz4ooltqgite. P a-
ris 194:$.
DE
II LABRIOLI/S P I.a é;A'
ïs: m ontanisie. Paris zQI.3.
IEKAMP Franz, Bie t?rïgzrAlf.
çfïstrA'zl StlreIhgkeitên im J8fl/ls/p'
/lJahrhundeyt
Ik tgstf d@s jzyx/f: gllgrmrine Crt/llcfî.M ûnster im W 1899 (Diekam p).
.
z5 (z934). 34-93,Ia3-Ti'o.
.
A. Isx'
rslkxat/llsseuzyœlox
l GutiifInvs grt
zec'
l:s 3.
9. See the descdption oîtlle m s in 0 .von H slN'
sx
MANN (Fk r. Koehler de.scribed the Greek mss) Die fn stfss/irï/fzw dtw ffyr-
zogtichen BrBrao'
rllllc z'
u Brolj:e tsif/4/ IV : Dle Gudischen H ss (19z:).
1 S.P.N.JkftzxïAzlïConfeszoyis& vayih tfï//it:ïzfH slocis SS PP Dïpsyyif
etflr:jwcly'ïï ad FAovlfzz:zg.s.libram ... x'
MA;tlpvim gim ïAl/ep/.
?4As editiit Fm v .
O > r:eR.H alis 1857,
'p.vii or PG 9z,Io3o. 'rhis title ls proper to the fkrst 5
Ambigua.(mly. The rest (Am b 6-71) are adHresstxl to Bishop John anfl
coucerned exelusively w ith passages from G regory.
z ' . lmhe irlrlïer zlA45ig.4
would like to know what beeam e of the Greek text ttsed by Erigena.
H is text of Pseudo-D pnis has been preserved in Pad s.. gr.4,
37. The.
m aterial would seem stlë cient for soh'dly estabzshing the text of -
the .4mùïgstz,
% l1z this ms (3(. Sepulchei 2oj Amb I nms from f. 298: (= zo6zA)
to 347v (= Amb Io-tI37D5).f.ao4 issupplied by a laterhanda:lo4v having
the space of 6 lines blank but w ithout a lacuna. f. :45 is also by a later
hand.,b0th sitles of the leaf are full, containing f;s elxdg (-1Iz814 ) - xflt
%&x '
êetfla (-zz3aBz)inclusive. 346:
2begins witlz' rok evpzdaxovev'v (-ïz35B6).
'rhere is tlzerefore â.lacuna of about a eolnm n ofM igne's text. 347v ends
wjth rk
w k ttlh oii ù 16 -. 348 is by tlle sam e 1:anfl but from an uaiden- .
Tk6 .llcf/ïdrzllo
Of M axim us' references to the eom position of the A m bigua
the hm dam ental one is the introductory letter itself. 'rhere w e
are inform ed that the Bishop Jolm had com m anded M axim us to
14 BARI)V ak't.cif.p.t
z:fc and note z.
1: Srxxo p. z4.
set down in writing the substance of their discussions over various
diëcult passages ofGregory the Theologian (Io64B). It Ls a eharge
that he,lzowever unfit,m ust accept. So then he will venture som e
little in the explanation of Gregory, even though the conciseness
of Gregory's style and the denseness of his thought wottld force
even the m ost skilled professor or philosopher to long deyelopem ents
(Io65A).
H a&ritlg so prefaced his work it is nattlral tllat at certaaizl in-
tervals Maz mus should address John directly. Twice he does this
iu the singular:at the outset (Amb 6 - Io65B)and irlthe cotlrse of:
bne ofthe diëculties (Amb 38 - I3()oC6). 'Phe plttralis the more
habitual use. For the nlost pat't these pmssages repeat the senti-
m ents of the prologue. M axim us is writing under eom m and con-
jecturing rather than aë rrning,and submitting the product of his
thought to his reader's betler judgement (Amb If)-I236CI2; 2I-
IZN B ;4I-I36IA ;4z-I349A ;Va1-I4IgA). It is notewodhy that he
submits h1s refutation of Origenism (Amb 7-IIoIC),with diflidence
to be sure,but without reference to eonjeeture. H is inteution was
really to eonfute. H ere and there also flz the course of his exposi-
tion,Maximusreferstohisconjectaralprocedure. Thusin the Amb 7
just m entioned he transfers the Origenist figtlres for a prim ordial
henad to a conjeetural foreshadowing of the future state (Am b
g-Io76A5). CondudingthelirstpartofAmb Io(II93BI4)Maximus
reminds tts that his eonsiderations are coajectural. M d twice in
the only difliculty draw n from Gregory's poetry he tellsus the sam e
tbirpg (Amb zz-zzjzzyt ,Bg)..
There rem ains one passage that seem s to indieate sonleting m o-
re behind the use of the seeond pergon plural than the reverenee
Maximusfelttowards Bishop Johnl'. I refer to Amb 45 (I352CIz).
He there dedares that he w rites nothing but what G od gives 'ffor
your nourishm ent, m y good fathers, to the exteut of our ability.''
Is this still'tlle coqventional plural of reverence or does there lie
behind it tlze com rzttm ity of Cyzieus? If otle should opt,.with less
probability,for the Iirst opiniop,so m aking this passage fallilzwit.h
tlle'others,then this Ior Altw rïs/lzv p,lis ytilla witnerxs to the funda-
m ental seope of a11 the A m bigual spiritual ediseation ;and as sueh
it m ay be recondled with tehe disd ple's reverence w hich M axfm us
felt for John.
'e I'or thkq reference see ep 28-31 an4 m y D ate-list item s x6-zo.
8 T& Eatliv'y zlpllhfgul
Tktf Adversari6s
Anothergroup (Amb Io-ll8oxâ.c;I4-Iz3IAI;39-I3oIB8)cleariy
indicates that in transm itting the list of passages from Gregory
John,from tim e to tim e at least,indieated illwhat way they m ade
diëeulty. '1Y e ole ctions advanced in Amb Io and 39 are eeru inly
actual diflieulties felt in the Cyzicus cirde or krlown to llave course
elsewhere.
In other A m bigua tlne existenee ofadversaries and, for the m ost
par't, contem porary adversaries is evident. The very first lines of
A m b 7 indicate the O rigenists. though not by nam e;they appear
more opeztly later (Io89BC). In Ainb 4: they oecasion the great
digressions on tbe pre- and postexistence of the soul A gainst the
.
ing this however,it is dear that this is not a polem ie in the serzse
of that agaiztst the Origenists of his tim e.
Tke zdlz
lff/lprfn-e.
s
'fo pass nowefrom the urm am ed adversaries to'the equally un -
perary. H ow eve.r the suggestion given ln the text seem s on the w hole
m ore probable.
Extrrnd Desczï/fïn'
tr 9
28-IzgzB; cg-lttgzD ,
' 35-128817.
' 39-I3OIB; 43-13498,
' 66-1393R).
That of A m b z7 is eertainly a deliberate verbatim insertion of the
o1d m an's reply. Am b 28 and .39 seem tflbe the sam e;the rest only
report his answer.
W hat are the characteristics of these replies? Izor the m ost part
they arestraightforward,philologicalexegesisofGregory'stext(Amb
29,39,43,661.TheGregorian'passageofAmb 35 isan open invitation
t()use theDioltysian vocabular'y (flxepd:ltàooç réckçj,with,perhaps,
a Afaxim iam rephrasing of D N z.1I - 649, The first tw o instances
(Am b z7,z8), however, are distinetly Christologieal(the Gregoriall
passageexacted tlzis),asisalso theone eitation ofthe o1d matzin the
later Ambigua (Am b 5-Io44B). It is probably futile to conjecture
wlm tidso1d m an m ight have been;yet ifany nam e is to be suggested
that of Sophronius seem s m ost suitable. Sueh a stp position m ay
perhaps reeeive som e color from tlle faet tllat three of the seven re-
ferences coneern Christological questions, in which bophronian in-
tltlence on M axim us is recognized. Fuzther they flrst occur ovet
Jlalf w ay through the A m bigua, by bulk, so that one m ay suppose
M axim us to have ltad tim e to com e to know Sophronitts after his
arrival in Africa and settling in the Sophronian com m unity.
There are other anonym ous citations throughout the A m bigua.
The frequent they say is too com m on and too indefinite to retain our
attention,tltough at tim es the attthor m ay be found.18 Iu A m b Io,
however,tllerefereneesand reporting ofgyacs-illumined V:Al(IIIzD5;
II3.
3AIz the saints; II93BI2, ' I204Dfi) are unusually frequent sck
that I w onder ifa reference to the Dionysiac tradition is not thence
to be inferred. Yoç the D ionysian inlluenee is here m ore pervasively
felt than elsew here, as the space given to negative and aë rm ative
theology and even the use of the term cdebyate (égvéœ (lvvgvéfp;
IIo8C5;III6Az;11161)5;II28B4)would seem to indicate.
Aside from Gregory him self and D enis, there Ls but one other
Christian author eited by name:St Basil (Amb p Io8oD7).
Evagdus is exptieitly dted,thouglïnot nam ed,foz his defnition
of end (Amb g-1072C..4). The delinition in Maxim us' use, is of a
distinctly Aristotelian flavor (cf.M et. q 2-9941716); so also the def-
initions of plaee given by cevtain fpAle.s (Amb Io-II8oC), particu-
larly thetbird (cf.Phys.4.4-212a20). The frsttwo areofa proven-
ance that I have not been able to identify .
The I'hsmes
If now one were to enquire what are the prevailhtg them es
m anifest in these D iflicultiès and in the responses of M axim us,one
w otlld certainly not err in aë rm ing:the Am bigua are an illustration
of that diabasis1% from the tem poral and thepresentto theeverlast-
ing, of the erztirely central plaee that Cllrist and the Incérnatiou
phy in the attaining ofthat goal:partieipation in (ratherthaa vi-
sioa of)the Blessed W inity. 'rhese are tite grovmd swezs ofMaxi-
m us' thought to be found in alm ost every A m biguum . There are,
in addition, v'arious other eurrents, som e of w hich concur with the
grourtd sw ells, others are, as it w ere'
, surface waves depending on
som e chance vdnd. N o single A m biguwm is a pure exam ple of any
type. It will give som e idea, however, of the variety of m atters
eontained in the A m bigua and the frequeney of their oceurrence
if I llere list some of the major them es v'ith the Ambigua where
they are fotm d.::
Of tlae Tripity: Am b 23,z4, z5,z6,35,4O, 61;
Christological:Am b z7, z8, 38, 59, 60,,
Imgos-christus: Am 1) 37, 4I, 47, 48;
anthropological:Am b I5, 3I, 41,42,45,65,
.
'
the Econom y:Am b 3I,33,36,4I,44- ,
propheey2A m b 19, 68, *
negative and a/ rm ative theology: Am b 9, Io, I6, I8,
zo, cz, 34,47,71;
antiorigenist: A m b 7', I5, 42;
against otitet errors: A m '
b Iaa 13, 15, 4:
.
2,*
,
m erely exegetical:Am b 39,43,64,7o;
philologieal: Am b 14, I8, 29, 69.
. By these notes,prefatory'to the analysis ofthe sinkle Ambigua,
I have hoped to throw into som e relief the prevailing character-of
the M axim ian responses,the existence of contem porary errors which
had to be com batted , the m onastic m ilieu in which the responses
had their origin,the fundam ental expectation on the part of M axi-
m us'sollicitaztts and on his owm to turzl altto the good ofthesoul.
A m b 27-1:68C-1z)'2A T heologica IV
or. 30.8 :36.1z2
. $A
zz69B/or. 30.8 :.
36.1I382-4
Am b z8-.
r27zBC T lteologita IV
or. 30.9 :36.1I:$C
Am b z9-zz7zD -I273A Theologica IV
or. Jo.II .:.
36.116C
Am b xo-lz73A -C Theologiea IV
or. :$0.2I :.
:
36.I:
$:$A
Am b 31-1z73D -Ic8IB In N atalicia
or. 38,2 ::$6.3I3B
Am b 52-1281.
B -1z85B In N atalicia
or. 38.2 :.36.:13R
Ps.Denis I285A/EH 2.4 :,
3.4ooB9-CIo
A m b :$a-Ia85C-I288AIn N atalicia
or. a8.z :36.3138
A m b 34-1288A.-C In N atalicia
or. 38.7 :36.3178 C
Am b 35-ra88D -z289B In N atalicla
.
Am b .57-128917-1c97B ln N atalieia
or. 38.17 :36.:$21)D .
Am b '4.3-t:
$49B -D In sancturn B aptism a
or. 4o.Iz 236.3738
titl'
a plus
Am b 44-z3491)-I35aA In sactum Baptism a
or. 40.33 :36.4058
Am b 45-13.528 -15568 In sanctum Pascha
or. 45.8 :36.6:2C
14 Tlw ffprli> Am biguq
Am b 46-:356C-1gs7D
. In satlctttm Pa cha
or. 45.13 :35.641A.
Amb 4.7-135711-13614. In sanetm n Paselza
or. 45.14 :.36.641Q17
Amb 4.
8-1361.1.-1365C In sand um Paseha
or. 45.:6 :36.645.A.
Am b 49-1365C1: In salctum Pascha
or. 45.18 :36.648C
Amb 50-1368.A.-13690 In sanctum Pu cha .
or. 4.
5.:9 :.36.6498
A m b 5z-z,369C-z3;'2E In sanctum Pascha
or. 45.2z :36.6528
A m b 52-z37cB C In sanctum Pascha
or. 45.24 : 36.656C
A m b .53-z:7cC-I37ôB In sanctum Pasch.a
or. 45.24 236.6.j6C
A m b 54-1.376C-:3778 In sanctum Paseha
or. 45.24 :56.656C
Amb 5.5-:377C In sanctum Pascha
or. 45.24 :36.656D
Amb 56-I377D -z38oD In sanctum Pmqeha '
or. 45.24 :36.656D
Am b .qp z38oD -I38zB In saltd um Paseha
oT. 45.24 :36.657.:
Amb 58-1381E -z384 11. In sanetum Pascha
..
T A B % s 11
Index of Citations
A ristotle? A m b zo-zl8oozz 13
Basil Amb , /-$080D
E vagrius A m b 7-royzC4
Gregtlr.y N mdanzen
œ '. 7.19 35i77Clo-D5
.
A nzb 7:-1416C D
or. 7.2I 3.5.781Q8-784.
&8 Anab 2:-:249D
or, 14.7 35.8658 Am b 6 T
35.8658 Am b 7-Io9zA
JJ.8&5C Am b 7 ?r
35.865C Am b 7-zogzA t
tlr, I4.20 35.884A zo-B zz Am b 7-Ioq3A B
OY. 14.30 35.8978 Am b 8 'r
kn'. 16.9 35.94528-12 Am b 7-Io88A
0r. I7.4 35.969C9-15 Am b 7-zo93BC
OT. 2 I.1 35.10848 Am b zo T
35.10848 5-10 Am b 7-zoy6D
or. 2I.18 zg.zzoxc Am b xI T
or. 2l.31 :$5.1117C Am b zz T
or. 25.6 3,5.zao5B Am b 69 'P
or, 27.I :6.zI
,
zA Amb :3 T
or, 27.4 36.161) Am b 14 'r
or. 28.5 .3t$.J2(
I)5 Am b I7-1228A
z6.:JaBC -
lzzgB e
or. 28.6 36..5zC A m b 15 T
or. 28.7 36.338 9/ . Am b zp z2z9D
or. 28.9 36.560 A m b 16 T
36.37* Am b I7 ' r
16 Tlts Sllrli:r Am bigua
T A B J.s I I I
Scyipture fxtf:.
v
Gs> sls z.(9)17 Am b 7-lozzD
I.7 Am b 6p I4o1B 3.I Am b lo-ll56CD
I.26 Am b 67-I4oIA 5.- Am b 4z-z3444.
t.27 Am b 67-I4oIR 7.- Am b 42-1344/$.
2vz Am b 65-139:C zz.z Amb lo-:1450
18 Th6 S dzrlfty A m bigua
(& sesi.
ç) 1 Itsovu
:7.5 Am b zo-:zooA.B z zo A m b zo-zra4D t
z.
;.z. / Am b 4a-I344B 4. z8 a m b ag-zapas
z9.z4 Am b 42-z34.48 '
zg.2o,3z Am b 45-zg5aCD 2 RMG'
IJM
30.- Am b 5z-zagzA
- 31. z.4 Aanb t$z-z,388A
:9 Am b 5z-r369C .
' 57. '
Vm b 19-:236C b'4 X m b 37-:28917
7 .
39. 1:4 Am b zo-lz3co z4.zos A m b zo-zz5zB
Exozm s 3 M GUM
' z7.9 A m b zo-lz258 e, r
3.2 Am b zo-II48D 17. 18 A m b Io-IrzsB .
Am b 4z-Ia44B :7. 2 3,2: A m b 66-:3938
.
5.
. 5 Am b zo-zzooe :8. 38 A m b zo-zzzze
7.:7 Am b 4z-za44B x9.q Am. jy Io-zI2Iu,tx .
zz.- Am b 50-::J68C
x4.- Am b 5o-za68C '
aI,2z Am b 4z-z.34oD 4
a4.- Am b 50-1368(2 2.I A= b 10-1124C1*
33. 17 A l'
nb 7-zo85(B 2.ï1 Am b 10-1I6IC
:6.1% Am b 6:-r,385C Amb 42-1344.1.
ao.zs Am b zo-II.52B
N ro l
PsAm
25.7% A m b Io-l2oIB C
1.4 A m b 7r-I4I6D
:6.:5 A m b 7-:o7gA
LsvzTzet!s 1é;.z am : zo- yyaZ.A.e.r
7.50 A m b Io-zzoob 23.7 A m b 60-1385.â.
, 13.- A m b zo-zzozA B 26,Io A m b 10-112IA BT
14.38 A m b Io-z1254 . 30.3 A m b 7-Io8IA
41.3 A m b 7-Io7,3A
D SUTERON 41.7 A m b 7l-I4o9-A
OM IIJM
41.8 A m b 7I-z4o8D
I,5 Am b Io-zx64(B :4:2.& .
IoB (S .M'cfr/ltz4xsl
8.z A m b lz-zcosI) 27.32 Am b 51-13728
27.38 Am b 5z-z.373D
SAPIISNTIA 28.20 A m b 21-1256.
A.
5.Iz,zo Am b 71-z4z6D
S M -Nxcus
SIRACID/S 3'I7 Am b zI-Iz44A
9.42 Am b Iz-1ao8A
22.6 A m b. z4-zZI3C 16.z,9 Am b 56-:37117
O 16.19 A itzb 4z-z332C, 1.33:
3C
sas
13.3 A m b gz-z4I6D
S LtrcAs
lsAlAs 4.:9 A m b 46-z357.4 .
I AD Qolu le m o s A D Cot/osssysss
:.:5 A m b'7z-I4o9B z.:6 A m b 7-zo77D
z.3o A nlb ' 7-Io8zD z.z: A m b 7-zof)7A B
3.5 A m b 49-:3650 T
2.z A m b 46-1360.1.
5:-1372C
2.9 A m b 7-1076A.
'
6.16,17 Am b i'-zoggll z Ap T Iwlolilm t;:kl
Io.z1 Am b Io-II49D
12.4,9 A m b 68-14041) a.rtl A m b ;,-Io8jC
4.3 A m b 13-Izo8CD T
r2.11 Am b 2I-r245C
12.27 Am b ' z-Io9aC A D I'llssuAk)os
z2.3o A m b 68-14041:
I.Iz A m b zo-IIg3A
z:J.Iz A m b 7-10771 B
14.24 A m b 68-14058 4.Iz A m b 7-to7.3A
x4,29 A m b 68-I4o5A B 4.z4. A m 'b 48-:364.1,
:5.26 Am b ' 7-zoy6A J'.3 A m b ro-tza7l'
). II4IB ,
tI4.zC, z:441) I
15.55 A m b 38-I3oIA
7.Io A m b 4z-l328C
8,3 A m b Io-zI4oA
2 Ap QoRzpa Hzos 8.7 A m b 7-zog;rD
A m b zo-zIz9D 10.1 A m b zz-Iz53C
A m b 2o-zz36D '
P Ix.13, ,39 A m b 7-Io73A
zI.c6 A m b Io-zt49B
A D G AI/ATM S 12.2 Am b 4z-z3g3B C
2.zo A m b 7-Io76B
3.28 A m b 4I-z3o9A IxtcoBt
4.:5 A m b 7z-z4z6D
A n Spu sros
z.8,zo A m b 4z-z:t:
3B I PET:?.
I
z-zo (Co1.I.z6)Amb 7.zo97AE :.2.1. A m b 7z-z4z6D
z.z7-23 A m b ' z-Io96B C
z 21 A m b 42-:332C,4.8-136117 I IOANNIS
1364.1. z.z A m b p ro92B
Analysisoj/& Single.D@ fw/./r'
fw 21
A m b 6-zo65B-zoj8C:De lf
. zlfldrrllzrla1n0r6 - or.14.7:35.8658
Gregory has been speaking of the various treatm ents a m an
m ight give his body. H e goes on : 'TIf I spare it as a fellow
workery I have then no m eans of fleeing if,s rebellion or of not
falling from God,weigkted with bonds that pu. ll or hold down to
the earth.''
The diflieulty isto distinguish the pulldown and the kold #o&?Al,
it being quite tm worthy'of Gregory to have used them symonym ously
(Io65C9).
In order to indicate adequately their difference M axim us frst
describestlle state from whieh one w ould fall. It is that ofthe m an
pedected irtpraetiee and theory,in virtue and k-nowledge (-Io68A'3),
so that anger is converted into love and conetlpiscence into joy.
This reference to joy induees a further reference to John exulting
in the w om b and D avid before the ark, exultation being a sym bol
ofjoy (-Io68AIo). (These two instanees ofexuitation form thedif-
ieulty in A m b '
j7). 'i'he sense of womb - the present 1ife being
.
that as you read you are not eaptivated by the doctzine ofthe pre -
VAM or 'f are not found to the right ofthe colon they are presum ed
to confirm the printed text S is cited only when in tells positively
.
D etailea A nalysis
PartOne,I:Againstthe henad and on the future state (-Io77Bz5).
Tlgspassage (above,p.zz)many too facilely understaud oftlle
henad of rational.beiugs who, coanatural to God, had their abode
in him ;but then cam e m otion and their scattering iu bodies m ade
izz punislaznent of their form er sins. The absurdity ofsuclzan opin-
ion the following tract willmanifest (-Io69B4).
Argument I (Io69B4-Io7zAI()). Theprincipleisstated:nothing
capable of motilm rests before it llas attained its tfizmll catlse, the
uitimatedesire(Io69B4-I4). Andifitbesaidthatrationalcreatures,
tlle em d attained, have in fact seattered 8 there is no answ er to the
objectfon that they w'
ottld desert the good zzlf'?l#lC'
Jlf??9 (z()W Czz).
Ifhowever one says it is possible for them (to adhere firmly to the
good) but that they prefer not to for the sake of experiendng the
contrary,then elearly the good is no longer good in itself atld the
satisfaction of desire; rather the contrary, evil, m ust be reckoned
asa gracethatteachesthegood and isgenerativeoflove (-Io7zAIo).
'rhis argument,though positing thefundamental(teleologeal)prine-
iple,is rather topical,redudng the answ ers given by the Origenists
to their absurd conclusions.
Argument 1 (Io;zAII-DI). Geqesis, logically at least, prec-
edes motion (-Io7zB9). 'Plzis motion is defined (Peripaticians seem
tobedted)asa naturalpowe.r passion oroperativeenergy,driving
to an end,which isaw'
ith regard the lattertw o term s,eitller tlle im -
passible or the self-perfect (-lo72BI3)9. No ereated thing is its
own end, beeause not tmcaused'- here isintroduced (Io7zC4f.) a
dev ition ofend Arijtotelian in tone (d .Met.fz2-9941:16)butin faet
eited fronï Evagrius 1e not only here but also in 'fhal6o-6zIA zo -
and adds to it other passages from the Ephesians and H ebrews to-
gether w ith his ow n explanation on this '<great and ineffable m ystery
ofthe blessed hope of Christians '',altering the term s ofthe question
from poytion ojGtitfto membez'sor'
partsofa body, using once m ore
(ef.Io92C) tlze analogy of the soul's presenee and vivifying power
in the body (-IIooB9).
B . The corollary of tllis is to believe in the im m ortality of souls,
desezting the Origenist doetrine of their preexistence (-IIooC3),
zlxglydis olfâejiingle flfjKcslffss 29
Part Two,IlI: Body and Soul Form a W hole Spedes.
This last referenee *is the cue for further autiorigenist polem ic,
wholly on the philosophical level, irl which M axim us' concept of
man as a wkole species,either part of the whole having a trausc'en-
dentalrelation to the other isa ehieffactor (-IzoIC9). In.Amb 42
M axim us will treat this question m ore at length.
The briefcondusion (IIoIC9-I3)thanksGod and lliseorrespond-
ettts' prayers for auy suceess; their ow n acum en w ill stp ply any
dejiciency. x
A ooso OBsylRvAz rloNs. - The analysis of this A m bigutbm en-
train som e few , randon thoughts. First: 1 think it safe to say that
even llere tlle autiorigenist elem ent, though form ing the first part
and,tllroughout,the bulk of the difliculty,is essentially a digression,
as this elem ent definitely is in A m b 15 and 42. M axim us' ehief
aim , llis intention, is to eom m erlt Gregory; but to do this he m ust
first dear Gregory's ttam e. See the transition from the lirst to the
second part (Io89D).
Second: M axim tls' thought is profoundly teleologieal. 1:1 his
very doctrine oî m otion and end he refutes tbe Origenists'theozies,
sharply distinguishing the ereature from the ttncreate, It is in
this context that is to be placed his doctrine of tlze natural desire
forGod (1sayknolvingly IorGod and not/prtlt6vision 0/t7p#). But
to speak oftltis willbe for another tim e and place.
Third: If we eom pare the antiorigenist refutation of this Diff-
feulty with tim t of Atnb z5, we lind there the problem of the henad
redueed to a neat form ula' .genesis,sfasis kinesis to be replaced by
this otlzer:genesis, ifltvs'
:,stasis, The doctritte i!1 either D iflicultl'
-
is the sam e;but it would seem that the reflection provoked by the
redaction ofeurpreseut Diëculty indueed a elarification ofthoujht
represented in the form ula of the subsequent refutation.
Fourth:lt would be interestiug to eom pare m ore in detail the
sense ofdivine scp/psin this Amb (8.g.Io8oCI5.I092CI3, IO93Dz,
Io97cz) and ia LA. In LA it is almost exelusively salvation,llere
rather deifeation.
A m b p xxojc : I'
n Jgsfffwr xz
lf/laxgsïï - or. zI.I :35.10848
M axim us identifes in this brief explanation the unrelated and
the absolute superlative. In the present instance these are said
of God;w e touclztherefore on negative theology.
they agree with the division of Scotk save for further subdivision
in jj z,'zo,zz,:$: antl the omission of the title for j 4I. Except
in ja thesesubdivisionsarealready indicated irlthem ain title. 'rhe
identity of the divisions therefore is beyond question. Tlle titles
as given in Scot's index are often far shorter than those found in the
Greek. But for a true com parison text m ust be com pared Avith
Analysij offk Mnglr fhl cllllzks .
'
u
text and index with index. The foregoing table m akes m ost of
this quite pln,
'n.
'Phe-se divisions of the Greek original and of the Latin version,
which represent substantially the m inor articulations of the text
itself,w ill enable tts to see w hat order and shape there is in th1 ap-
parerzt agglom eration of allegorical interpretations; for, despite di-
gressions,there is a coherence to the whole.
12or clarity's sake I shall give here a sum m ary analysis of the
wllole; the reasons for these m ajor articulations will be evident
from the subsequent detailed analysis.
D îabasis,thatis Transit
I L ogos and Theoria - through the m aterial to the intelleetual
jj 1-3 The theologicaland anthropological basis of the dia-
basis
jj 4-16 The O1d Testament figures of tltis diabasis
j 17 A New 'Pestam ent figure:the Transfguration
jj 18-27 The nattual aztd written law, represented by the
shining elothes of our Lord, are in perfeet karm ony:
jj 18,19 The theologieal and aathropological basis of
this harm ony ' '
jj 2o-ca OT fgures of this harm ony 2 Melchisedech
(Abrahani,Moses)
jj z,
'
$-zg Abstm et eonsiderations
jj 28,:9 appear to be an intrusion,see Iinalnote below.
jj 30,31 Exegesis of the Transfkuration completed
jj 32-42 developements of aë nnative theology, represented
Lll M oses and E lias of the Transfguration seene.
11 The m aterial dyad and the unity understood ln the 'frinity
(being tlle second part of Gregory'diëcttlt text).
j 43 Preliminary exegesis
j,44 Arzthropological basis for tllis exegesis
jj 45-51a Scriptttral fkures of thls exegesis
j 5Ib Condusion of the whole.
W hat in faet has heretofore been lackilzg in M axim ian studies
s precisely sueh an indieation ofthe major artieulations and of the
iheme. The theme of the whole (cf.Loosen's essay) is found in
;he dië eulty itself - the diabasis, the going through or transir.
J
M TW A'
tzrfi&'r Ambtklttz
and its m odalities,through m atter and flesh as through a cloud or
veil. It is quite evident that G regory is here expressing in a few
w ords the whole of the ascetico-m ystical life; and he has done this
referring to reason and eontemplatioq flogos and theoria) without'
a m ention of praetice 1:.
To absolve Gregory from so grave an om ission, if it be real
and not verbalonly,is the object ofthe first seetion (jI),on how
praxis is neeessarily involved in logos.
'rhe sum of M aximus' explanation is that praxis is connoted
in reasou or logos. The frst form of tlle explanation, by far the
more fully developed (-IIo9B5),maintains that praxisisofthe body
and m anifestative of virtue,not ereative of it,
.virtue rather resides
in tlle ordering of reason. 'Phe seeond form (IIo9B5-C6) puts for-
ward the aecustozned division ofreason into tbeoretiealand practieal'
therefore he who says reasons says also praxis. The third form
(IIo9C6-IIzzA6), som ewhat more general, atlirms that those still
attaehed to m aterial tllings are variable in regard to practieal
affairs. K rlowing then the dië cttlty in breaking off from the m ate-
rial, G regory had said : ''T o w hom is it perm itted, passing by rea-
son and contem plation through m atter and the tleshly elem ent
(wîetherit be called doud or veil),to be allied with God...''.
The second seetion (j z,IIIaApDe)begins the exegesis proper
ofthe passage from Gregory:what is the m eaning of tlle cloud and
veil as applied to m atter and the fleshly? It is here that is stated
clearly the one term of the trallsit, aam ely attaehm ent to Ilesh
and materialthings (cf.jg28,a9). Such attachment,workingthrough
the senses, is pleasure. It is tlze aseetidsm of the virtuuxs whieh
is able to free one from it.
But tllis very explanation, the entrance of pleasure through
the sensible part of tlle soul, requires a further explanation of tlle
soul and its functioning - azz explanation fundam ental to a11 tllat
willfollow. This is the third section (j3,IIIzD-III6D).
Tlzis explarm tibn is given Srst of all from the m ystiealheights
(II'IzD-xII6A,
3), aecording to the grace-illumined men. The mo-
tions of the soulare those of its parts - m ind, reason,sense. The
first is sim ple and in im naediate relation w ith God;the second is ana-
FinalAltlfe o.
n jj2I,zz;z8,29;32,33,34.
In the index of sections placed at the head of this analysis I
have already indicated that the tw e sections found in O ehler after
j34 form no part of this Ambiguum . 'rhere are three other cases
w here, on intenm l grounds only, the hypothesis of a posterior add-
ition, by M axim us him self,.seem s im possible to exdude. Such
an addition,by M axim us him self I m ean,is quite possible as w e have
a dear indication that the Iirst A m bigua w ere edited a seeond tim e
during M axim us'own life. Oue supposes of course that these ftrst
Am bigua with their dedieatory epistle w ere copied out and sent to
JolzlsofCyzicus (this isthe frstedition)before the second Ambigua
to Tilom as w ere w ritten. Subsequently the tw o sets of A m biguq
were joined,as is dear from Maximus'own .
referenee to the second
dië culty of the earlier colleetion as ''the seventh ehapter of the
Diëculties of the g'
reat Gregory '' (TP I-33AIo). Such a second
editing of the earlier A m bigua gave M axim us an apt occasion for
40 T& Earlier ./1- 5fg1I4
the eternal reward and was given esped ally lest the little ones be
scandalized.
i - or. zI.'
A m b Iz-zzo8BC: In Iaudem A tltanasi' JI :35.III7C
.
A m b ze-zz:
qzc-zziill: Tkeologica 11 - or. c8.Io :36.37C
Au ironie phrase of Gvegory against Elm oraius needs a little
explanation. If the not-being is nowheres the nowhere perlzaps is
notat all. Eunom ius'pretention to know God asGod knowshim self
is stated azzd ridieuled.
': f)n our ignoranee of created essences see the interesting artiele of
Joseph PtsT'y)R:L'aément 'azktzff/ dgns la /)/lïl/stl/#ï: de S.T'
/mppu d'Aquin,
Dieu Vivant j tzo (r95r) 35-50.
.
ufnaiysis///#c Singl. flfjîcw/fïrs 1j5
A m b z9-Ia33C-xz36D : Tkeologica 11 - or. 28.19 :36.528
M axim us explains the three types ofprophecy to whieh Gregory
would be referring. There are visible or audible im ages im pressed
on the mind in a waking state;dreams as Avith Joseph and Daniel
ora vision of dirdne thizlgs possible for those who have attairzed the
utm ost in detachm ent; and,'thirdly, the im m ediate im pression of
future things upon the saints. 'Phis is Maxim us' eonjectural ex-
planation ;for lae has him self had no experienee in the m atter.
3D 8 read with the corrector of Gud.and M onae.gr..363.
Text.at zz.T.
M axi
-m us then adds alzother explanation of m otion in the Gcd -
lzead, observitlg that the eeonom y of Seripture presents first the
Father,then the Son,then the H ely Ghost (Iz6zAI-I()).
Clzrist bids; 1et us not resist ''. These words of Gregory occasion
V re four distinet responses. 'rhe frst alone considers the passage
in its entirety; the second (zz76Dff) is coneer'
ned wit,
h the filling
ofthe upperworld,asalso isthe fourt. h (Ia8oC);the third (I28oA)
is concerned rather wit.h the loosing 'of the laws of nature.
1. The laws (?f nature are loosed - Christ was born of the Vir-
gin,conceiving wititout seed and bearing without loss ofhervirginity
(Iz73D-Iz76Bz). But this is a restoral through the obedience of
the seeond A dam of that spiritual m anner of birth w hich w as lost
through the disebediexme of the first Adam and is therefore justly
d- lysvfsp/f* Sïng/,
: Difbcultiss 51
Am b :z-zz8zB-z2% B: I.
n N atalicia - or.38.2 36.3138
TrFpr a ckild is èpzw to '
rls and a son is given to zls and J& govsrn-
mentj'
.
&upon kis s/mlllA r (Is.q.$. Forwith the cross he was lifted
up.'' It is this gloss of Gregory ttpon the Scripturetextw hich M ax-
im us sets out to explain. The cross m ay be looked upon from sev-
eralpoints ofview - from that of form j from that of cdm position,
from that ofthe chaxaracteristic's ofthe parts, from that ofoperation
(energy)and so on. Eaeh ofthese isthen explained (form Iz8ICIz,
composition CI5,the parts D Io,energy Ia84A6). 'rhiscom
'position
A m b 56-zz8vB-D : I4 i'
Matalici'
a - or. 38.13 :36.325C
.
Gregory rem arks that the seeond fellowship of the W ord with
m an is m ue.h m ore astounding thazz the frst. H ow ever great the
im age granted m an in creation,it laeked the hypostatie union which
was'granted hunlan nature in the Incanzation. 'lY e nature rem ains,
of course,utterly unchanged in its being,but receives a divine m axm er
of being,w hich it llad not before.
Am b 42.z73,76.*.-z,34:,*.
: In Sf?Alc//4??, Baptisma - or.4o.z 2g6.g6/C
Gregory-m ade a difficulty in tllis oration by speaking of three
bid hs, that of the flesh, of baptism , of the resurrection and then
later by speaking of a fourth tthe first,the life-givhlg insulation
of Cxen.2.7 -I3I6C6)
The response is that he who is close to Gregory's thought will
know what he m eans. 12or M axim us tliis fourth is not superfluous
but com plem entary to the birth from the flesh and ipterpretative
of tlze divine logoiand tropoi.(I.
3I6CI4).
In explanation M axim us introduees a distinction between yJ-
vegkg and yévvngkg, the latter being brought ill with the Iirsttrans-
gression of Adam . Christ the new Adam hl the irst (yévegw) by
eondescension assum ed sinlessneo , but not incorruptibitity; in the
seeond he assum ed capacity to sulïer,but not sinfulness (-I3I7AII).
W hat is laeking in the lirst, Christ repares by the second ;and
whatin theseeond by the frst (u3I7B3).
Sinlessness is the prindple ofincorruptibility,sinfulness of pass-
ion and corruption So by his passion Christ renewed incorruptibility
and by his sinlessnas sanctilled the passionate element tàjtadêeml
of birtlz (-I3I7C6).
N ow lookhlg ata11these together one perceivesthat the distinc-
tion between them is m entalonly. In faet genn is and gannesîs are
tlte sam e,though genesis logieally precedes gennesis,to which latter
the vital insufllation properly bdongs (-I3I7CI5).
Sueh in substance is the frst pazt of the solution.
But M axim us has already spoken of the logos of nature and of
the tropos(z3IyCI,5);henow proceedsto enlargeon thepreservation
ofthislognsin the Incarrlation and on therenewalofthetrûpos. 'rhe
tbem e is the sam e as in the Iirst part and is one already m et w ith
in Amb 31 (-I3zIBI2).
N ow here should follow the second pal4 of the solution;but an
alternative solution of this fiz'
st part m ust first be suggested. Per-
haps,says M axim us,this distinguishing into two of tdrth from the
flesh was based on the diference of body and sottl in the hum an
composite (I3zIC).
This suggestion ocemsions a first brief digression on the relation
ofbody and souland on the time of their being joined (-I32ID-
I3c4B),a topi
. e noted by Maximus hirnself tJs I was saying I.
3zID)
as haviag already been treated. 'fihe discussion tlzen of the distinct
Analysis t
# fk SingleDfltplllffdr
s /7
thoagh simuitaneous origin of body and soul is re-sumed (I3z4C-
I3z5B4),another passage of Gregory being adduced.
This first section is then dosed by setting the threefo1d birth
in parallelwith m an's being brought to being (the twofold genesis
ofman as to body and soul),to well-being (baptism)and to eternal
being (resurrection) (-I3z5CI)..
But orte nlust interpret Gregory's words accurately. For there
are those wilo w ould see in them not a m ental distinctiou only but
a tem poral, one,pladng the infusion of our Lord's soul after his
ctmceptitm (z.3;
z5CIz).
W ith this M axim us inserts two further, long digressions: that
souls do not preexist bodies (I3z5D-I336B)and that bodies do not
preexist their souls (I3.
'
$6C-1:345C). These willbe separately ana-
lysed.
Closiug iinally these digressions, M axim us put.s the seeond pal't
ofthedië culty!why did Gregory join theInearnation with the Bapt-
ism ? (-z345D:$).
M an,M axim us is repeating his,teaehers,w as m ade in tlle im age
(Elx4v)ofCod,butwastoattain thelikenesst(TlztlltI)trkglonly onbeing
born with free-willof the Spirit through the observanee of the com -
mandments (-I345DII).
Tliis w as indeed necessitated by m an's freew ill. Y et inasm ueh
as m an, chosing the inferior, was condenm ed to carnal gerleration
(-I348A14),Chzist tmderwent lirst the birth (the Inearnation) and
then the baptism , as that by whieh m an is born williztgly in the
Spirit (-I349A4).
î-he 7-AF:: iligressions
tably in G od. They are brought into being, they develope for good
or for evil, and, according to the proper disposition of eaeh, they
are everlastingly awarded partidpation in or privation of God,who
is thus theit joy or ptmishment (-x3z9B7). 'Phe doetzlne of tize
apoctdastasis,though llot nam ed,is thus exeluded 1ê.
The consequences ofthis preexistence ofthe logoiare developed
in a sorites,w hieh, a little too broad in its scope, cond udes to the
dilemma:either the finalputting-off (tlaoyéugkg) of human bodies
is im possible or '
G od was foreed to create against his wt'll tblngs
whose logoihe did not have from the beginning (-r3z9D6)>.
M axim us then developes the eonsequenees of this latter hori't .
It m eans that created things are w ithout logos and wisdom , the wlzich
is nothing else but evil, w hose eharaeterislic is non-existence B ttt.
cam e for them to die they m ight pass easily to the future truth .
In this our God and Savior Jesus Christ helped and lead the way
(-I36ICI4).
64 T& E arlier A m bigua
And God, who gives to him that has, nam ely desire for him ,
aud is abundantly rieh, does not leave off doing good till he bring
them , always from the less to the greater, to deifeation - Jesus
the Xvord of God having gone through a11 the heavens before
us (-I364AI5).
Gregory, knowing that we have this natural desire for him ,
urges us to spiritual eating, eaeh according to the eapacity given
him by the graee oftlze Spirit (-I364BI4).
H ere only,half way through the com m entary, M axim us begins
to explain hl d'
etail this spiritual eating, stal illg w ith tbe head
(I365B3). And there are many otheraspectjunderwhich the Lamb
m ay be eaten,changing into him self by tile Spirit those that receive
him (-1.
365C5).
Am b 5z-z37zBC: f'
n sflscl'
u- Pascha - or.45.24 :36.656C
This isthe first ofthe seriesof 8 dië cttlties taken from the sam e
chapter in Gregory. Of these 7 are allon the type of the foregoing
dië culty,that is allegoricalinterpretations of personages. H ere the
figtlres are a11 taken from thv resurrection narrative, so that tlle
interpretations are m ostly coneerned w ith crucifixion and resurrect-
ion,in Christ and in us. This first one dèals with Sim on of Cyrene.
A m b j4-z376C-x3r B: In sd/Alc/'
lf'
?l Pascha - or. 45.24 :36.6560
Here there are interpretations of Joseph of Aram athia and of
the body of Christ.
rnartwho has dië culty iltbelievitlg the resttrrection ofthe virtue and
krlowsdge ofthe W ord that is in him. I'Iisconferxsion is referred
to the practieal and contem plative life. There follows a coasider-
5
66 The FfldfTr Am bigna
Atnb 6z-.
r388ABJ In v t?tzzzl Dominkam - or.44.2:36.6080
This is a single anagogic interpretation of D avid as kirzg,that
is Câzist izz is two advents.
I katetkatfamiliayity tltatpassestkr
'ough f& aiy. 'IAM Sextremely
concise plzrase of G regor'y M axim us interprets as said of fem inine
asceties who by looking out the window on passers-by of tlle ofher
sex fotm d oecasion of sinning.
Molle, well-being'
,is there in evidence only in prop. 43; but, as D cdds re-
68 Tlv é'/zff'
dr .4O krr
from Am b 51 on.
m ar.
ka itlhis preface (p.x),tlzisisa theologicaltreatise wlzerem undane and
eth cal m atters are touehed on but incidentally. It is perhaps not without
signifcance that am ong the -4Aplfg'lw this triad occurs in tlm se wlwre the
antioHgenist polem ic is m ost m arketl
Andysis()/th6SingleDiFstdties 62
The good intention to be sum m ary last.s tm til he com es to the
.
A m b K8-z4o4D -x4ojC: In P rz
lsltrctpsf,s - or. 4:.16 :36.449C
,
znd interpretation.
'e This tkteane oftbree days occurs ekqewhere. Tlm l 39 is art explana-
:ion ofthissame text (M att.z5.3z)alztlalso ashere, ofthe three laws (tlle
l
rhatutal law tlle written 1aw the spiritual 1aw or the 1aw ()f grace). In
al :9-39385 Afaxinlus refers, for a Iulley treatnzent to the IliNiculties
kom
t Gregory's Pemtecost oration. The reference catk only be satiss.ed by
m b 67-I4oID , I4o4A. M axim us' m em ory failed him ; the passage in
tm b 67 is less thau a third tlze length of the relevant partofThal39. H ow -
l
ver M mxim us did subsequently return to the them e of 3 days and the 3
aws,butstarting from anotlzer Scriptare text (Jonas ,3.3 in Thal 64-724C-
'z8A). 'fhisdilierence ofhlithlïextwillexplain certain variationsin the
heme.aslzeideaofnourishmezttizjThal39 and imb 67 antl ita abserce
w IYAI 64.
7o T& Earlierzle irfftz
...
V aledictory -z4z7A -C
H aving tinished explaiuing the 66 passages sent him ,M axim us
again professes his inadequacy for the task:paucity of intelligence
and a sin-douded m ind. Again lle aë rm s that he has proceeded
by way of conjedure rather than assertion (I4I7A5). This applies
espedally to the last dië culty,perhaps,w here twice he states that
his eemments are conjectttral (I4I2A3, B7);yet nonethdess to a11
the Ambigua. Sueh ishisintention declared atthe outset (Io6$A3);
and it 'is noteworthy that th: aatiorigenist passages of Am b 15 and
42 are consdously digressions. It is further noteworthy that M ax-
im as term l-nates his w ork w ith a dtation from the D N . Of the 9
citations from D enis in these 66 dië culties 7 are from the D N ;'in
conclusion M axim us cites from the peroration of the latter work
(DN I3.6-98zCI5-D6), indicating thus, it would seem , not only a
com m tm ity of attitttde 'H t.
II D enis llut also the souree whence he
:ad drawn tbe keenness.of his com m ent and refutation.
PA R T 11
CHA/TER I
M AX IM U S AN D O R IOEN TSM
A . T I.
m O luGSNISM KNow N 'ro M axxMvs
'ro m y knowledge the nam e of Origen occurs but once in the
M aximian corpus,hltlze Rdatio motionis $-IzoAB:when accused of
O rigenism and of leadlng others thereto M axim tls anathem atizes O ri-
gen azld all thase like-m inded. Von Balthasar has m ade m anifest
M axim us'direet know ledge and ttse of O rigen in his study D ie Gnos-
tisckrn C' eaff/aàl;lze has likewise devoted a few pages in àis K os-
Azlfsc/l: Liturgi. to the M axim ian eritique of Origenism . It is m y
presentpurpose to delineate msnearly as possiblethe physiognom y of
the Origenism refuted by M aM m us and to indicate where M axim us
m ost probably had contaet w'ith it.
'rhe texts ofM axim us in this regard are the 7th and 15th :4zAl&7
gua. At lizst sight one w ould be tem pted to include also the 4:nd
with its long digressions in refutation of the pre- or postexistence
of sottls. But the errors there envisaged are not peeuliar to Origen,
nor is the refutation ofpreexistenee,even ifdireeted against Orke-
nists, a prim ary refutation of the error tm derlying O rigenism . In
the 7th A m biguum itself the preexistence ofsouls,together with their
postexistence,istreated only by tlle way,asa corollary oftheexplan-
ation of How we .r: poriions oj God (Amb ;-IIooA-IIo4C). O(1
tlzewhole what M axfmussets out to refttte is above al1the pvîmltive
kenad W ratîonalbeings. ThisisOrigenistmyth,entailing,to besure,
both the preexistence of souls and for Origen at least an apocata-
stasis; yet the speculation of the henad once'properly exploded. the
other two dod rines as ro ulting from the frst,collapse of their owm
w eight. This is not to say that supported on other bases a doctrine
ofthe preexistence ofsouls or ofan apocatastasis doesnotneed each
Clut/fôr1.M lxï-v,
sald Origeis- 75
T& Dilc'
?Wj Tnxtboj G?zgtvy Nazianz6n
Tbe Gregorian text for the rth A m biguum , ilz w hieh alone M ax-
im us m akes a frontalattaek on Origenism ,not only ispatient of an
Origenist lttterpretatiott,but positively invites it. I have given it
in fullabove (p.za);here 1 repeatthe litigiousphrase'
.lzoiytw Sjmç
svl'fzg thoil xal dvfpozv (lEfgttvxttg.
This seem s to im ply that having onee been a part of God m an
fell away and is sue.h no m ore, Yhe prim itive ilenad of rational be-
ings is not diflicult to read into the frst phrase' the seeond w ould
indicate the falling away in diverse degrees, on which wasconsequent,
in Origen's doctrine,the binding to bodies of a density proportioned
to the degree ofthe fall. In fact the Ialling away reealls a passage
ofOrigen,preserved in the Greek in the florilegium attached to Jt1-
stinian's letter of 543. H ow else,asks Origen :, explain suelz great
variety in the world other than by x?#xokxllov v#g ('
t'
ztozrrfâgeœç vf'
iw
otk ôjtoûœg vfig lvd3og flxolpntiuow.
And this O rigenian rem iniscence in Gregory, if it truly be such,
is oftllat one place in the DefJz'iAlcï/ïfs where the word kenad witll
reasonable certaiaty goes back to O rigen him self 3.
D . Pvincipiis are i.
tl K oetschau's editîon at p, 159:6 altd. l6oL'; bRt botlt
these are take. n from Justiniazt's letter and anatizemasof55: 5lsee DIEKAMP,
p.9zl' and 9z24).whiclz as IiIIKAMP (p.97) points out is concerned with
the contem porary Origenist.si!l Palestine. BARDM (RSR Io (I9zo) zz4-5z
L 6 /4.
1./.
, dt.
ç Jo rï atcbôn tf'orijrlAl: et /'
. I4.
ç/ïlï41)) abountls in the same sense.
'flze plzraseology there used canuot be justly cited.as Origen's own.
* Am b . ;,-1069A and zo89C6-I5, êrhe ill foaurda %(L
* rçpocdlrrt:v of the
latter passage seetns better underst (1 of the fatlzers under whose nam es
thee
se m en sheltered their erroneous dod rin.e than of the false teachers
th- n- lves.
â 'lxe B ook ol H oly H ieyotheos: this title was added later probably
by the author him self due to the iniluentze of the Corpus D ionysiasum .
'l'he m nitlbody,Evagrius carried to extrem es m ay be tlatecl about 5zz-5r6.
See tlze stttdy of HArsHsxm OChr 3o (19:3) I76-2II (fasc.86),based on
the eflitlon of P. S. M Axsl.
l London 19a7. After the diseovery of the less
expurgated Syriac Evagrius by GUILLAUMONT (Rru. (f: f'H ist. des & lfg-
ions.r42 (:*52) 156-zo5j tlle extrem e.
s of Xvagrius lzim self areuncertain.
Chattrr1.M axim bfs JA?,;IOrigenism 1$
Joltn 0/ Scytlopo'kis
The Iirst witness is Jolm of Scythopolis in his com m entary on
the Pseudo-D enis â. The charaeter of the references and citations
of Origem and E vagrius iu this com m entator forbids that one place
it in the m ore advaneed stagés of the reerudeseence of Origenism in
Palestine,that is sabsequent to the death ef St Sabas in 53z; yet
O rigenists are already interpreting the text of D enis in accord w ith
their doetrine. Therefore w e m ay rouglaly date these eom m entaries
from the time ofNonnus'entranee into the New Laura ($14)to the
death ofSabas (53z)7.
The passages iuteresting us now are those com m enting the 6th
and gth chapters of the E cclesiastical H ierarcky. The analogy of
the heavenly and ecelesiastical hierarehies is not com plete in that
in the former there is no order of pttrifed beings (EH 6, 3, 6,-Pt4
.
lirm sthat tke angelic orders are stainless;tlzat should one for argu-
m ent's sake allow that som e fell then these are aggregated to tbe
group of apostates - the heavenly group rem aining ptlre. Y et
even so there is a certain puritication, a Gcd -given illum ination of
things not yet known to them ,
As to tbisJolm ofSeythopolislirstnotesthat:''Thereisno stain
in any of the heavenly pow ers, as think Origen and those that aecept
llis ideas,saying that in proportion to the turning-away each of the
heavenly ranks is allotted sueh and such a nam e and order and is
bound to a lighter lmdy ill reproof for llis turlling to evil''. Then,
having explained Denis'hypothetiea!coneession,he eoncludes:'fLet
no one then of Origen's initiates think that the present passage sup-
poz'ts his perverse opinion, sayittg that there is ever a fall a restor-
ation,and again a fall of the heavenly m inds, as O rigen says in the
lrst book of the De J'riAlcï/ffs: 'So the whole argum ent shows,I
think,that every rational (being)ean com e from any other rational
(beilzg) whatsoever.' And shortly,after:'After the consummation
'
Bananuphius
Baaanuphius and John the Prophetcome up next forconsider-
ation 19. Barsanuphius, an Egyptian and m onk at G aza w riting
in Greek,died at an advaneed age about the year 540. The consul-
tations about O rigen :1 w ill date from the iirst three or fourdecades
of the 6th century. '
rhe replies of Barsanuphius and of John are
sim ple:Cut yourselfofffrom sueh devilish doetrine;spend your tim e
seeking out your passions. John,however,does allow tlle reading
in Evagrius of what is proftable for the soul. Such an answer is
typical,but of little help for our present purpose. W e are grateful
tllerefore that the questions are set out at som e length. Their 0c-
casion w as the reading of O rigen and D idym us and the Gnostîca
ofXvagrius (89zB). The questioneris first coneerned over the pre-
existence of souls (nude minds). Seripture knows nothing of it;
Origen on Tit'
us and E vagrius 1: aë rm that it does not pertain to
ecclesiastiealtradition. In proof that there is no apocatastasis,the
questioner quotes the gospel.
'l'he questiolzers insist'for the defenders of these doetrines w ottld
involve Gregory N azianz.elz and Gregory of N yssa in their errors.
Tile situation is clear. In certain m onastie d rcles the w litings of
Origen,D idym us and E vagrius are current;those wile espottse their
peculiar doctrines (preexistence and apocatastasisj seek cover and
patronage in the writittgs ofthe Cappadodan G regories. A sitttation
this that the theological events of Justinian's relgn will not have
changed in substance and that w ill be found pea isting even in the
zt,
h century.
Tke Edict (# Justinian 54.
'
y
If the inform ation on 6th eentury Origenism given us in the
w ritings of Barsanuphius m ay be dated only w ithin a few deeades,
thatcontained itlthe edictofJustinian may be dated to the month:
Janttary 543'1:. W ith the anathem asofthisedietmay be eonsidered
%.
78 T& Rf%dation ol Orfge/lfls'?x
and
thenspe cies.zï'
e eoeternalsvith God (19018-19 excerptXI, anathema 8);
tlze m ytll of the fall, joining with bodies, reestablishment
atzd possibleotherfalls(1901:-23'txqerptsXII-XVI, X X ,anathem a 8:
the correspondances are partial only); that there will be sevem l
worlds (1901.:14 elcerpt X II,XII1). The myth ofthe ' mlndsbeing
sated and cooled into souls is'
.
stated a zttle later (19111-*2 exeelmt
XVIII, anathema 1). Tlz the whole text of the letter (apart the
exeerpts and tke anathemas) there is but one referenee to Christ
and llis soulas preexistent (198:1-:3 anathema g) 'This one refer-
.
h
en they should sin no m ore, as ptlnislfment is intended to prevent
ht,not to allet it (I9I2:-:a). There follows the general eonclttsion;
God fashiened body and sottl together, that is, h.
e fashioned taan
erfect '' (I9I'a-35)
H ence m en have to render all aceount of their actions done
xrough the body,aecording to tlte Apostle (z Cor 5.10). And it
.
Thevdoye (# Scythopolis
The Iibellus of 'rheodore of Scythopolis stands in close relation
with the anathemas of Jttsthlian's edict2s. Three quarters of it
are identiealwith the latter. Tbree anathem as (4, :
r1,Iz) of Tlle-
odore are without eorrespondent ill tlze ediet. N evettheless, tlte
last (Ia)lilldsa base iu the XVI and 77.
X exeerpts,though Theodore
rnakes in addition explieit m ention of the passing away of Christ's
body. There rem ain therefore the 4th and the 11th which express
dod rines not expressed in the edict, nam els that the kingdom of
Christ willcom e to an end and that w e shallone day be the equals
of Christ,the W ord uuiting him selfto us as he did to ltim that was
born oftheVirgin (PG 86.2.
33,z36). Itwillbenoted thatthisgreater
sptxcification of Origenist errors relates particularly to Christ. These
points are taken up again in the 12th to 14th anathem as of 55:$.
Leontius t# Byzantium
Richard has proved that the bellicose Leontius the H erm it,
atlthor of the: Advêrs'
ln Nestorianos Tf Eutyckianos libvi III (PG
86.1268-1396) is to be identifed with the Origeztist colleague of
Nonnus,Leontius of Byzantium ,m et with in the Lije ()/ Sabas:*
Richard likexvise date.s tllis work betwe% 543 and 545. Veontius
anthropology, defning the soul as a.pedec't substante witllout vel-
ation to the body,m akes possible a defense of the O rigetlist doetrine
ofthe preexistence ofsouls and with that w ould pernzit the Isochdst
doctrine. Leontius' strategy w as to give.the appearance of the
atm ost ortitodoxy;his w riting therefore giées us no idea of tike O r-
igertist position.
Cyïil ol Scytkopolis
In this review of6th century Origertist doeumentsI have joined
'rheodore ofSeythopolis Nvith the edict of Justinian,becatuse ofthe
close relation of these doeuments. Similarly I join in discussion
Justinian's letter to the synod of 553 M'ith the notiee of CyHl of
Scythopolis due to liis interview '? with Cyriacus in the spzing or
M D R KAMP, z25-29.
': L6/o'
nce t
/4 Byxanse,#ltzïf-ilOyigéniste? REB 5 (1947)3:-66;seeespe-
cially .56-60;for the date 5z. '
:' Lih ol Cyle cis'
s, SCHWARTZ, Kyyillos...,22p7-z3I1:.
84 1-h6 l'e/sfe/'
kzs p/(ïrigenisn%
:' Evagrius ls itt faet cited (f%xJ. 2,78 and 5.zz - to be corrected
from 5.z9) in the 5th anathem a (DG KAM. P 9z1-le and 923-9) but without
the siightest indieations of m ovenience. The sam e citations are founc'
t
irz John of Scythopolis PG 4.I73A, 'see GTJIIAAUMONT.p.r75 f.Cent.2,z7
isfound in auathema :4.IDISK.tM: p.9517-25 also Cnnt.4.18 in the finalphrase
(93B%-*t) of anathema 8 (GTJIIAAIJMONIG p. aoz).
3: Christ and the putting-off of bodies are found togetite/ in Thal
6o-6z5A B ' see above p.75 atld note I.
z! The term htnad is found ill the antl, 3r(1 alzd 6th artathem as with
parallels in the letter (DISKAMP,9o:B 911: gzlfj; in anathem a 7 and :4
938,6)51s)without parallels artd in theletterwithoutr
parallelin an anathem a
(6?1p1%'3V)
86 TA J?#rgNor;oj t7,+ z;*
M axim us tz'
rltf tke Textt# Origen
M axim us, then, is dearly in debt to Justinian for his grasp of
O rigeuism . That this insight is fundam ental I have indicated by
citing z modem authors (above p.8g). But has Maximus drawn
lzis knowledge of Origenism m erely from 6th eentttl'y sources or has
he also gone to O rigen him self? N o one w ho is aeqtlainted w itlzvon
Balthasar's work on the Gnostic f7rzrff4dTs (?lYOec)willquestion for
a m om ent that at one tim e M axim us did frequent O rigen. Y et
from this w e eannot conclude that this frequentation was previous
to his redaction of the A ntbigua. The question is a com plicated
Sw nm Rt'
?
So far then we have seen that M axim us works with a knowledg
oftlle O rigenist literature,not im probably ofO rigen him self;but tha
for his analysis of the Origenist virus he is indebted to Justinian
He therefore speaks ofthe henad ol rational cyeatures,for it is tlti
w hich was at the beginning and m ust be reconstituted onee agais
or m any tim es. Thatthe world processbeinitiated som e cause m as
be found; this is surfeit w ith the good or a supposititious need c
experience ofevilirtorder that the good m ay be appreeiated. Thes
points of eourse we find in M axim us. Bqt the seeond Justinian do
cum ent had im plied with suflldent elarity that the base of error 1a'
Chapter1.M aximws JAlffOrigenism 91
it1 insisting that the initial and Iinal condition .or state of thhlgs
m tlst be the pam e. To us it would then seem naturalthat M axim tus
should have m ade this the startitzg point ofhis refutation It is not
so at all. 'Phe whole trend of the direct refutation,after briefly re-
jeeting the doctrine ofthe experienee ofevii,is an ontologicalconsi-
deration ofm otion. W hen later he considers the initialunity of be-
ings in the Logos,in whom they will at the end again be united,he
isobviously trying to satisfy the principle ofbeginning and end being
alike,for what truth there is in it;but he nowhere direetly adverts
to the principle to correct it 4* '
N o,the originality and strength of M axim us' refutation lies in
another direction. Yo have distinguished the Origeniall principle of
beghm ing and end w ould have been relatively m ore sim ple and, 1
dpre say, ineffective beeause superlicial. For the Origenist m yth
gave a sense to this w orld and.to lm m an destiaies. It proffered an
explanation ofthiseosm osand itsvastvariety;how itcam e to befrom
a tm itary prineiple and how itwasto return thither. There wasthen
necessary not m erely a dialeeticalnon-set
luitur,but a realontologieal
explanation of m an's nature in regard to the el'td and for the unity
of m ankind. In a w orld view was needed to replace the H ellenie
error, M axim us does this in tllree w ays that respond to three nlo-
m ents of the Origenist m yth. 'rhe first of these is his doetrine of
the te-xt between the two passages in question it is clear that the
noetie activity of m an is tezm inated in tlle things about G od his #' ever-
lasthlgness. inâuitys indeterm inateness goodness, w isdom power. c're-
ative governative and judicative of ereation '' Char I.loo. Eut beyond
tlzese is the end Gotl him self and unlon with him in a non-diseumive non-
noetic fashion which is effed ed onl)rby the grace of G od. If m y'rem arks
are accurate, firrew ftx for M axim us w ill iztdicate especially the term ef
noetic activity anfl connote only the intuitive eoatemplation or.to hold
to tlle M axim ian vocabulary, inepable union. The things aboutGod m ay be
found eqaivalently in G regory of N yssa, H om . f.
n E c&I..V II PG 44.732A -B .
I now only w ould ask have w e here a distinction so develom d that it m ight
serve later as a ground for the doctdne of uncreated energies?
96 Tlbe R:/f4fàïp'
lzolOrk:Alis-
origenist,M axim us eautions that this is not to be taken as the sup-
pression of the freewill but as its aë rm ation,that w hence we have
- being tllenee also w e m ay desire to have m otion and as a1z inm ge
return to the arcltetype, so that the divine operation is a11 in a11
(Am b g-Io76Bzo-CI3)summ arized). 'I'heuse ofthis fgure ofimage
and archetype is com m on not only to M axim us and Plotinus but
isfound also in a passage of Gregory twiee cited by M aximus (Am b
g-Io77B5-9.Io89C8-II),to wrhom dottbtlesshedirectlyowesthisfigtlre.
The non-suppression of the freewill is found paralleled in Plothm s
in the non-suppression of m otion by stasis :e. A nd further if for
M axim us the divine operation perm eates the hum an so that there
be but one operation (Io76C),Plotinus ean sày that f'Life there is
aet (lvéeyEta)ofthe mind ''(Enn.6.9.9.line 17 Bréhier).
I have not presented these sim ilarities as indicating a direct
influence of Plotinus on M axim us m tw h less a literary dependenee, .
but rather to show tlzat the Plotinian use of stasis, as indicating the
final end of a1lm otion and desire,is one w hich gives a basis for M ax-
im us' restatem ent of the O rigenist triad. A lld indeed M axim us'
argum entation is far from Plotinian ; P lotinus w as still lleld fast
by the H ellenic cyclic conceptious.by the fall of the soul from an
unem bodied state to which it desired to return 11. ft was precisdy
this cycle that M axim us had set him self to break.
H DH tgn e'
O 'ftm v Elasw J'
vttlkpsfysv '
riiç xswitreteg 'r'l)v o'rticnv Enn. 6.3.27
line z8f BRRRM R. O 11 the reconciliatiotl of tlze concepts of stasis and.
m otion in that of everlmsting m otfon see below ehapte.
r V n. 24.
51 Com pare Eïnn. 4.8.l antl 6.9.8.
ChgptrrI.M aximus4a4/Oyigenism . 97
:2 This becom ing or genesis is in fact the creation of things, each ac-
cording to its proper logos. See below where M aXhIIUS begin: to treat of
logos (10.
770). lt has been objected that I here overlook a complete m is-
unflerstanding of tbe Origenists by M axim us and that thetd ore the argu-
.
eitlzer theory,nam ely whether genesis does m ean tlze com i' ng into a body
of an alzeatly existent spirit or the sim ultaneous com ing ilzto being of body
anll soul as parts oi a com posite w hole. T his i:a how ever and tem ains
a particular question whiclz though logically preceding,would not perm it
.
the direet treateznent of the opposing viorld-viexgs vzidch preeisely fornâ the
dië culty proposed for discussiotl. It is m ore than coincillence then tltat
(/8 T& R6jwtation oj tlrlk:sfswl
13 M'
IJ< IG RMANS,J. Evagviana Syrïtwt
z Lltibliothèq'
ue zfv: M usdon 3x,
z9.
51) p.34.
C//zz/fer f.M qximqsttstlOrigenism IoI
1D6 xsfyslfyïf,
s of JAMBIJCJITJS (ed.PARTHSY 1857) P.xxxii: Afdlzœv
'
ljofpoç xakvtqik 'rûvb xc'
ryoo tfvv :ldtpé:
kpek '
q xgxlk Dfwfvpw '
li xctx'lvétceuw ;
The reslxm se ks given on p.67. Por the authenticity of thfs treatise see
the note of R. Rta vss, ArckH istD octtLitf w/P. fz1 z'
p (z949) aoz'.
1 PRoclm s, Elnments prop. z69 (ed.Dodds p.:46):Ill- k voîk lv alf
vv:
'
oiv '
tv oo lxw ëv bxcl '
r'
llv êtsvtv sv )/,
q1 T$v /vétcelav.
3 Of the scholia I hez' e dte voN BALTI. IASAR (Seh z5 (1940) z9, :o)
m tlicates that '
the two on DN al'e found hz tlze Syriac. I use tlzem here as
'
being of Jolm of Scythopolis. Sve the subjoined excursus (pp. IIv-zt)
for a discussion of the scholiasts.
:70 //,> 1I.Tàe Triqd:Slis,
5ffdsr,PowerOjzrrz/ft- Io5
is explidt eom m ent o11and explanation of it*. Irt the first hlstance
an illustration stlflices:substance is the nature of iire,power its i1-
luminâtive quality, operation is the power's effeet ttlzrosézeglzal:
to illum inate and to bul'
n . In the com m ent on the seeond D ionysi-
an passage operations in heaven are said to be hypostatized sub-
stances (lvvxöezatol elgt xal otxrlttl z4oC8). But the fullest treat-
m ent is the third,where again the exam ple offireisused,though its
proper'ty this tizzle is w arm th. O bserve that w hile D eztis does rnention
habit (likç DN 4.23-725A12),John Of Scythopolis develope it,ex-
plailling power and operation by the relation obtaining between Gpe-
ration and habit.w hieh last ylolle he defm es. Thus a tetrad is im pli-
cit'
. substanee, power, habit, operation. N ow it iseuriotls that i11
Myst5-676D and 677C (itistheonly instanceofwhich Ihave knowle-
dge) Maximus employs tlzistetrad,though in quiteanother context.
The following,I tllink,m ay be retained from tkdsbriefconsider-
ation of the antecedents of the triad: substanee, pow er, operation.
The underlying doctrine, in origin Aristotelian,llas becom e part of
the com m on N eoplatonie heritage;the triad as such is Srst found in
the DeJf
fysffrrffs ofJamblidms, as a eom monplaee. Johtt ofSey-
thom lis by hiscom m ent aecented thecasualuse ofit m ade by D enis.
M axim us,to m y knowledge, is then the frst to use it extensively.
N or is it really surprising that M axim us should so develope the'
triad. I1z the letter to the Sieilians,a defense of itis orthodoxy and
one of his latest tractatess M az m tzs says: <fthe doctrine of one
and the same operation,willand nqtur. (said) of one and the same
tord arld God,isnotofthefathersbutofheretfcs ''(TP p-z:$zBlpizl.
The historical order, of cotlrse, of the Clzristological heresies thus
referred,isnaturs,operation,will. But M aximuscitesthem in their
philosophicalorder e. And wity? ifnot that this order is a reiled ion
of our triad:operation,power,substanee. And indeed for M axim us
the w111is of nature,llatural, a power eonserving nature;.
It will be the.
n only of greater interest to see M axim us'uftder-
standing ofthe doctrine ofnaturaloperation aud ofthe triad htwhich
he sum m arized it at a tim e when he w as not yet,or,at best, but
dim ly aware ofthe eontem porary heresies in the refutation of which
he w as to use it as his principal w eapen.
Coniyontatio'
n of Texfs
Am b zo-zxh B zo-zz) T htlcc z.a:
A lvntov yàk) advsfz)ç v'è dxetpov, Jtktgvoç y&(kllxç@ êBg)xat
..a
ob yt),o pxet xou xtvqM vœt vù :% (lxlvqvoç xftt &tepoç, tk zrdm)g
ôpty gevov. oftrtag xat :vvdgefz)g xatlvétlyetaç
A éaeeO tva fl:rlEttltt?ç liv.
m b zo-zz84D g-xz85A 5:
Tè ydtl t l.aeteov xaxA ativl' q xat
M yov xal ' çetiaov lcvt'v Jxewov,
xtlss o'lhcttw , xav.t't ôfvulztv, xav'
lvéeystav, xtw'(11. t+0 ' rà alpara,
l'à lvfs w àéym xal sè xdvfz),rov'
. r-
lfrrtxtzKt'
t:'
q
*v (kxvhv xql v?ptéleg.
Q fâensov 'f?* xustï :' t
%t'
v o'
llcûav,
xtû th w lvtin'rov xatà x'q
hv :'
tsvalztv,
xat xal'à 'r.
q
%v lvéoyetav (lxeetw a-
œov,xat &vatqov tïvtalêsv,xll(h fr-
àedxnxov xd' rto év loxk xt'
jJaeltjov,
xal('bûôg etagi; 'v Jlnêégvp ov,xavtk
xdvva tldeko' tov...
Am b zs-z:z7c4-D zo:
T ho ec 1.3*:
(lpxt èà adg' nç xtvn'gefzx qltstfkxiig xt-ityq oigta xùv éavrqgôeov lavs'i
ltrtkv fl l'lv xsvovgévflw yéveo'tg , crm ekcdyovtm , itlxîlxétpvxev etvttk
fltqi
' :è q g '
n rt'
isv xtvovgévttw 'fEvé- '
rfiglalsêEftleothgt-vqçtxN f xlvfsstpl..
cefog çb êEôç rbç ysvgtrkovthyös
;.
Tfq :l:'rfiv yc evngévfzw fpvesx' qg
xçwigsfz)ç véàoç 'j gvdctç lcttv,fe
xotes'zrdvo g pzexà rhv :tdptttnv
:Gv lexeoûopfvfkw $ (l:v:p((1,!#
'
j :tt'
i'rù htn' elvtxk :ttlovqpza xlga
xtllel'atxtvngtç%&v tjmckx&çxtvov-
Izlvaw,o:x Novca lokaùv saotl'e
xf; xfk xal zpèg t( xlvqN-vat,
Q vôv tlpllovta xal atlm*v tn
hv
1cJ9 2>àg lèefqtatîon of(lriqenîsnb
xdc'rlç itjtoxtx'q
hv xyvq'cEfz'ç (
'iaii:ttpftlv
a
'lsèv vélog fbg ah sov 'lxotttrlz. Y ho ec 1-10:
l'ldcqg o1v 'ft',véce.
4 ç xe xal xt- 4:,,.%
1) xfAv 6vvow xGtjtec4'
t'qcxql
v'q'gstt'g 'e v iv'
rftw dlq4h xGt xéàog' va oç ltrvlv 6 êelsç, (bç N epyfvv,
ltrtïv t$ êE?)ç, J)g li tt'
htog yeysvn- 4à),
* o'
hx auozlov' fsflFce: xat xtk
gévœv xal 3c q'
N o'
p xwovizévttw : &Lka ztllva,o(g aal
rj1t(3
tvtjvopd-
xql elg tmzèv vnxv tyxztffptv xoiqgo- Nvtls.flex.?jydy âtr.rsv J)çêqptovp-
jzévœv. y4g- xaï gstrd'r'
rjç, (bg xEelw ap'lh.
11 a'
hto'
p.b'* ,T'
qgtyxatDi*a'Nog,
xtzt Elg a'
ôvèv xti advra.
Tho ec z.3b:
adcng Dl:(Imtrlx'
lç '
rfiv Yvsfzw xt- rdctl lsà tpvckx'
l ap?)ç lvépyesav
v'
n'trslt)ç apoEasvoshtxç $ yévecsg, xlvnckt
;,x'
hg Itév 'oigttxg pztxextvo-
xdsng êà ladtre(t 3g zspoextvoeltak ovgévn- xtmisatvoovpévq 3è ' o-ig
xtn à pfgtv qe xtvngw. lvethyetag lzertsvng lflxtv,d)ç âpp o'
iv
El 'o'
liv xsvq't7Eftlg zpoEzçLvoEl'
rqt xa'
rà 'rèv p'écov qmclxf7k :iellqp.-
xaxà pfctv l
h '/é'vEgw,xkvq'cEttlg dè gl'v'
q- xal rrt-
iga l'véthyEtq v@ xav'
gs'reatvoeikttt xavtï Tfgtv 'negtdgl/;, tztssv löyf p pvgtxf;g xetltyeatgo-
'
yévecg Dnàovtiçk xql g' çtictg elvak I zlv'q, téloç lcll vqg ath?l atr' iiç
'rlv iplx.xao sàv ' lhtwltv ('igm'xa- xa'r'qxlvosav o'lhgkfo ot,ç xkvn'frettlç.
vovjâlljlfzw IX1 (%
(.
g fpvctxf'
;çMœttp
'yovgtw lxovgat xtz'
rtï '
B gégov %qAv
xlvqgw .
A m b zo-zzJ7B 8..zo:
o'
ù/ v ytkp.(L).o xlêégxnxEv j
xtx'rà o 'tftv 'rfiv dvvltw lxdtaov
ô'
tlvap,tç '
r tp'
t
ltutl)g xeùç lvlpye.stw
âxtpdpttxoç xtvntFsg.
The couviction whieh arises from this confrontation (yetothers
could be made,less germane to the presenttopic)isnotofa literary
dependence 1:, lm t of a thought and vocabulary m astered throught
the labor represented in the discussions tm derlying, and through
the effort involved in the com position of the ,fl- ôïgz
ltfl. One m ight
perhaps objeet that the Ambigua passages are expositions of the
P aralld Tyiads
The triads thelt yévEctg, xlvngtç, trrdgkç and oigtq, ôftvtzjttg, 1.-
éeyeta are properly eorrelative, corresponding to this third'4(q$,
gecöaç,séloç. Tlzese several terms corresponé, but certainly are
not identical. I have already observed how the first triad eontains
a double eschatological reference (above p. 10.
:$). The third m ust
also be distinguished. This triad is twice tThoee I.a,4) expressly
denied of God;and again it isaffirmed ofhim ('rhoec z.1o). There
11 VON BALTHASAR. D i6 (21$0.
ç1. Cent., P. IIO.
zzo TkeJt#s/z?/ïtw p/ Origênism
term and its im perm anence under the im paet of the fiftb. In fact
it seem s to disappear in A m b 7 w here the fnal rest is spoken of as
due to the one operatiou of God and the saints,rather of God alone
(Amb )'-Io76CD).
Opeyation,.:
4 Essential M lzlï/drs/tz/fbr
pl p/ N ature
It w iilnot therefore be out of place here to review som e passages
from the .4m bigua where operatioa is dearly an essential m anifee *-
tion of substance. In expounding an antiarian passage of Gregory
there is an opportunity for M axim us to distinguish tw o types of
operation. The frst prodaces som ething naturally of the sam e kind
and substance, something quite the same as the producer (Amb
26-I:68AIf). Thism ay beunderstood perhapsofnaturalgeneration
or of an im m anent, intelleetual operation 13. M axim us takes it in
the latter sense, to render it applitable to the Father, begetting
the Only-begotten. The second type of operation nlanufactures
T l'
t. Frfl,
tf in C/frïstofogïcaf Cokdroveysy
The necessities of controversy forced M axim us to plaee yet an -
other aspect of this doetriue in evidence The first certain antim on-
.
energistie piece is M axim us'reply t() Pyrrhus not yet patriareh, who
had written at some length to'solicit M aximus'adhesion to the /sdr-
phosof63. 3 lB, Underguise ofrepeating Pyrrhus'doetrine M axim us
is carefulto give expression to the necessary principle underlying the
w hole question. H e w rites: 'iThat w hieh is m ade up of diverse
.
(ep.4-:o'
;2Ca),though he cite tby text tAm b 5-to5GB Ioï. It isonly later
that he adverts to the fact (TP ;,-8,5A4).and only indirectly at that.
z14 2-#e llel%<ation ol fàrfgelïswl
Condusion
The foregoing text. s are stlfficient to show beyond a doubt that
with this triad we are in the presence cd one ofthe chiefconstituents
of the M axim ian tlm tlght. As a triad he fotm d ft a conlnlonplace,
occurrizlg also in Denis. John of Scythopolis had developed these
instances. 'rhe underlying doctrine M axim tts expressly refers to
D enis Q:'yetitisnot ofthose doctrinespeeuliarto D enis. U ltim ately
the doetrfne fs Aristoteliau. Adhered to rigidly it svould exclude
even the pbssibility of hum an participation in a superhum an,im ply-
ilzg direetly not so m ueh tlze denial of a superhum an as its incon-
ceivability for m an. ' Thus we are brought face to faee with the
problem of the supernatural, r' ather, for Afaxinlus, of deihcatiolz.
Tllis is properly an ecstasis. It is this whieh m ust now retain our
attention. That an eestasis is possible witlloat the destruetion of
the natural n'ill only be fully m anifest w hen w e eom e to treat of
that other foundation ofM axim ian thought: the doctrine oî Logos
with its prim ordial distind ion of nafural essences and existrntial
yzlpA q
w M yog (pïitnfog,'
p öaoç lxdeNfng.
E xcun us
N ote on the Scholiasts of the Pseudo-b enis
(see Cllap. 11 note 3)
neque quae legunt intelligere queunt. Sunt tam en qui calum niam
haqnc inanem non persequitaat, m ulto minus (talem ) opinionem .
4(Invenim us igitur hom inem ex anteeessoribus qui pariter apo-
logiam seripsit,pro his ae si eo etiam tem pore alii de eisdem stulte
disputaverunt, Oportet, ut nobis videtur, quae stm t illius huie
libro praemittere.Addam us.et alia (pro J= legendum !--':punc-
ta?) pro veritate et probationem apertam lzttius apologiae, quae
eontradieenda nequit: zeprehensio stultitiae eozum - vani ealum -
niatores. Legim us enim in seriptis viri sapientis D eum que tim entis,
qui eiusdem nom inis est et aequalis illi patri supra nom inato - ex
eîs fldem quandam sum ere possum us quae advocata est eorum quae
pariter dieenda erunt a nobis contra calum niatorem vanum hunc.
D um in 'eo sum us, credibilitate et virtute verba nostra donabim us.
Est enim hoc in m odo )h.
Am l the letter follows.
Izz . z-Aezèc/ufcffox 0/ (irig6nisnb
é'xcvysf:.
s 11
Variations of Sense in the 'Perm s ofthe 'Priad
:g = faculty
vaytç
= use of the faeulty;xtvngtg, lvépyEttt
:vvttvtsv = use of the faeulty:lvépyeta, xpfqtg
= end produetofthe faculty;livéeyeiaylvépm hm ,fh otl eglza
It w illbe fuû her usefulto note that from the tim e of Aristotle
at least a similar range of senses had belonged to lvëyeka. From
the Index A ristotslçcus of Bonitz it appears that lvlklyeLa was used
in diverse contexts as synonym us, or nearly so, w ith xlvqetç,
Ckapter11.Th6 TFït4fl.Excursm II zz:
#
ECSTASIS
Quaestionesad Tkalassium,foranythingthatmightaflirrrlindubitably
the Evagrian view,wltieh is known for its onlission, nay, rather its
exclusion of any thing tbat m ay properly-be calted Tcslt
lsfxç(a standiug
.
without thing and oneself). I then (3) with the aid of one or two
further passages endeavorto draw together the M axilnian doctrine in
this question,noting its deficienees and proper eharaeteristics. Thus
I hope to present with som e elarity M axim us'own positioll (orpos-
itions?)iztthis matter,so thatotherswith m ore adequate knowledge
in the general question orz whieh these passage toueh m ay draw
benefit from the follosving pages. sret,lest m y presentation of M ax-
im us seem to fall aw o -, due to laek of attention to the problem in
its m ore generalaspects or perbaps, m ore accurately, lest m y pre-
sentation seern to be prejudiced unfounded or to sttfferfrom igno-
rance of tlxe larger problem s I here subjoin a longer note$,on the
seem s to take for granted.'alld belzind that that of the Telations exlsting
between the Evagrian anfl Dionysian doctrines in the Avritings of the two
m en them selves. The latter problem is of a still broatler interest inasnm ch
as botlzautllors are com m only taketlas types of two diverse tretlds in m y-
.
s'est fait chez Mtuxim e entre 1es doctlines d'évagre et eelles de l'al
tréopa-
jjite ''(avt.ci(.,p.248,n.z4I);but by the whole tenor ofllis article he gave
the itnpression that M axim us wms a wllole-hearted diseiple of Evagrius.
H atrsllsu , but a few years later took up the suggestion in an article on
Igktoraytce intinie (OCP 2 (19:$6) 35T-36z). The abiding worth oftlais article
is the acute analysis of tlle Evagrian and Dionysian concept of the stm unit
of tlle eontem plative life. 'Por Xvagrius it is a vision ofthe m ind, puriûecl
again to its original state as im age of the B lessed Trinity. '
rhus is attained
tlte knowledge ofthe Trinity. For Denis it is an ecstasis a going or a being
outside not only ofthings (which irztleed would not distingttish his doctrirte
fvom xtlw Evagrianl but also of onesez.. Qonceptually tilexeiote the views
are m utuajly- exelusive:self'd sion ove.r against eestasy. So H ausherr. H is
concluding applicatiou of tltis to M axim us (superposition ofD ionysian term s
'
in tlze Xvaglian af
loption of the Origenist m yth. in his reekoning m otion
as evil and source of evil. But whence did Evagrius (lerive lzis doctrine
of selfvision as proxim ate m eans for knowletlge of tlze Trinity? N ot from
Origen tBousslm Apopbthegmata,p. 294-.304, in his cardul com parison of
X vagtius and Origen,m ade w ith the hltent of slm wing X vagrian dependence
nn Origen,(loes not mention this partlûularity of Evar ius'doetrine). If
not from Or/geu. tlten likely from that pagan philosophy whose dom lnallce
over Origen suggested to him his zm fortunate lzypotheses, TM s is m ore
than a guess. The very isteriorization whic.h is concom itant wlth tlze
Plotinian ecstasis,Ls ftrst,if I m ay be perm itted the word an enstasis. M A-
RAeIZ'
AI.can write:''Pour s'élever à.l'intuition supérieure du Beau et Bien
il faut se détacher des objet.s ext&ieurs sitA'd/lïzv . s$:A' soi et y...s'établiy
tzu centre Alz/ps, tfg l'esprit''(ffltfT,
ssur la #sytiAtplt/jrïe dssx' kfys/ïgufv 11 gfmtl-
vaill 1937) 61). And again further on (p.zoo):'fLe secret de l'extase plo-
.
for a Cappadocian connection of Denis tltan catz easily be tlism issed wllile
on tite otller hanfl a literary dependtnce of the Coypus Diosysitztls- on
Pr
thoclus is not proved. D enis therefore ean be datetl from the nliddle of
e 5th century,
If tltere be anything in thfs second approxim ation, tlze divergence of
tile two becom e.s ouly the m m e strildng. The explahation, doubtless
i , %
n txat ver fdelity of Evagrius te Origen antl the A lexandrian tradition.
But why thd, ! they, partimzlaHy Orlgen
, so Tesolutely rejeet alay (loctrine
o
Of ecstasis RAIINSR (& ' ff#è$4/ d''
t4.
u tftv/eïle des tifx: se'
ns fjlîrfflldlg choz
.
theï
gJ1$4,RAM t z (tt
)32J
. 13 5 and note :62 ) i
tttlî
e ve ry act of establisbing.
:is polntssuggests the answer. Tke word the doctz' ine waa stilltoo clzar-
ged wit. lka frantic tone im plyillg an am oralc'onstrahtt repugnant to h
freedoaz. um an
svere not the Afontanists his contenlporaries eestatics? (()n the
problem of ecstasis ln tite 2t1(l antl 3rfl centuries see P . DE '
L.xBtuolft,
s f-lt
syis. montaniste tparis I9x3) especially pp. z6z-Iz5 and 555-562). V 'et as
t
o the concept was it not tlte tole of Plotitlus a.lso Odgen's eontem m rat'y
l
bargely to purify it from such connotations? Thereafter it eoulfl be adoptetl,
.
A . Tsx'
l's IN I'gtvoa ov E csTasls
There are four m ajor passages2dealing with ecstasis explicitly
and two others 3 whieh,though the w ord does not appear,are deal-
ing w hith the sam e topic: the suffering of the divine. A side from
these there are a num ber of other plaees w here tlle w ord oecul's 4.
'l'he ntlm ber and gravity of these passages indicate with suflicient
eleanless that w e are in the presenee of a fundam ental them e. M y
t'
ll-st task w illbe to report on tlleir sense and m eaning.
N ow it w ill be noted that the frst tw o passages com e at the
trond usioa of their respeetive parts in Am b 7 and in effeet deseribe
the eonsum m ation of 'bliss' the first is explieitly referred to the
fature ttnion of a11 tbe blessed.
Paqsage 1
M axim us w as lead on to a consideratic?n of suiering or passion
by the need which l1e feltto explain theDionysian sltljerstkeunqual-
f#fW eited shortly before (Aznb 7-Io73B9). The type ofsuffering in
question is not corruption but is eongenitalto nature itself. 'fNvhat-
ever com es to be suffers reeeiving m ovem ellt 'as not being self-m otion
or self-pow er''s. So m an is m oved of God as beginning and end '
bttt if m oved,m oved i!t
l aecord with his nature,that is intellectually.
tirely ''(Io;-6Bzo-Cz3).
B aouoê'ij'ft
'
j aeptyeiitpov'
rp(Io7JD 5). Qf the tôx gfz'ra ofChar z.5c and
.
.
3.z.
. j.
'qv'3' A v iplv '
âzrtipxeb.%6 slv> ,xak'
rù xlvsïtzêabla/sïv zr,tefloopo (Amb
7-Io.
76B 13f). Thisimplies tlze cycle of progrecxs from a cause anfl return
thereto,on wlzich tlle N eoplatonists insisteë in tllc w ake
of Plato against
tristotle. These ideas are evident in Proclus'zztll proposition LElements
x
p. z4 witlt Dotld's com m eut p. z98); lines 18-23 touch more nearly the
M axim ian tlzought.
z/ F14 Rdutation p/Origtnism
This is the w ell-kuown m onenergistie parxsage. W e shall later
see Maximus'own explanation ofhismeaning (in PassageVI). I'or
the pre-sent 1et us note how in the whole eontext M axim us passes
from the s'
uâering tke '
lrN sdlf/âtfto a consideration ofthe rdative
passivity of eve!'y ereature and how tliis very passivity tends vehe-
meutly and by the exereiseofwilland ehoice (éxovgtfoç ...xtvsà xeoat-
pegtv Io73D4) to the loved object. The transition from what is
w ithin the eom pass of the ereature to that which is beyond it is
not here m anifest,
.but that tllere has been sueh a transition is dear,
especially from the sentence last translated. It is noteworthy that
in a11 this there is not the least m ention of contem plation, know -
ledgea vision. The w hole exposition turns on the activity of the .
P qssage 11
* This prominence of the volitive faeulty (we shall fnd som ething
corresponcling tt
o itbelow ilz Passage X I) quite apartfrom the verbalM on-
energism ,seem scharacteistic ofthe #h century;it certainly favored M on-
energism attd M onothelitism and shows that the spidtual tailieu izi which
M axim us m ovetl to have been com pound of the contem porary theological
intere.sts as well as of'the monmstic traditiolus (Isvagrian and otherwise).
Ckaptsr III.Ecstasis Iaz
lbose tllat becom e gods m akes the universe his * becattse ol his
goodness. Therefore saeh a state they well nam ed pleasure suf -
festly parallel. One Iinds the sam e im age of light diffused air and
-
Passag. 1II
So far our question of ecstasy and sugnrîng fk dinine has been
in relation w itla the doctrine of m otion and the future life. M other
dië cult text of Gregory willgiveM axim usan oppolunity to eoasider
it from quite another angle Gregory had spoken of St Paul's rap-
.
6'
pfflman.man s'
.
çgod. #f'fhe beizlg and befng called god,says Max-
im us, m an has neither of nature nor from relatiorl'but he btxcom es
and isnamed so by institution (:églg)14 and graee. 17orthe graee
ofinstitution fs entirely withoat relations alld has no power wllatso-
ever in nature receptive 1bofit,since in that case it isno longergrace
but the m anifestation ofan'energy (proeeeding)from naturalpower.
A ttd so m oreover the faet w ould be no paradox, should deititratioll
result from som e reeeptive power of uature... For the natural po-
wer of each thing is nothiug else but the undeviating m ovem ent of
nature to its operation. And how deification wculd place tlle deî-
fted man outside himself télletnlw lavw: vèv âeog-vov), if it be
eompreheuded in theboundsofnature,I simply do notsee''(Amb
zo-zzg/ztzz-ili
u )lB,
This eonstitutes a theoretical consideration of deification and
ecvstasy. H ere,no m ore than in the passages of A m b 7 is there tbe
least suspicion of a phenom enological treatm ent, Bat in our pre-
sent A m bigu'um M axim us has to apply the foregoing theory to the
ease of Paul's rapture. 'rhis gives us som e further darifcations.
P rogress indicates an acqaired, voltm tary detaclaznezlt, wlzieh
is a being plaeed outside natural sense activity s'pg xtu* atg/ngtv
fpvgtxfiçlvEg'mltxçRttlyevöpsvovorratheritseonversion intoa spiritual
laabit (Amb zt)-Iz. 'J7C6-z,
7).
Ascension indicates the leaving of sense objects, as no longer
operative or objevt of activity in the subjeet,and the passing over
(?h J:p(IcI.ç) the natural knowledge and eonteznplation concerning
them (Amb zo-Ia37CI3-Dg). '
A ssumption indicates the subsequent abode and settlem ent in
G od. 'Txis. the doctor, Gregory,'appropriately stated in slaowing
the apostle suffering, rather than effecting, his assum ption ''17or .
Passage IP'
'fhe 'passage in M ystagogia 23 adds one new note to what we
have already.seen,nam ely the use of m irror as a Ilgure. But thisis
in eonzlection with M axim us'use ofD enis;we shallreturn to it later.
l?or the rest,there is a tacit citation of the Dionysian suyering the
ffïpiz;:17and a quotation from him 18,in wlzich is contained the refer-
ence to m irror. W e m ay therefore pass on to the treatm ent of
suffering and deificatiollthat we find ilzthe 22nd Question forTha-
lassius.
Passage F
Thalassiushad m ade a qqestion out of the text ofSt Paulwhere
hesaysthat the end ofthe ageshave'come upon us (1 Cor.Io.zI)
and the supposition underlying Eph. z.r8, nam ely that the riclzes
of God willbe m angfest in future ages W hat is to be m ade of this
.
of the proposftfon qttalifes the prindple for soals but ft rem aîned a dîfli-
culty for the Neoplatontqf.s them selves as Dozms' comm ent (El6ments
p.zzyzf)shows. A dimculty notonly forthe pitilosophers,but also for the
theologians. 'lY e pattiarell Sergius vvriting to H onorlus assigns operation
in Clzrkst to the tlivinity and.suferi'
rlg to the hlzm anity (M ANsr rI.536A zo-
B8). 'fhis to be sure is a eitatiou from Gregory ofN yssa Lcontea . E'1IAlt?AAz-
ium,111,4,8:Jaeger,vol.II,p.12919-21 = PG 45.gTgAI-7).buttendentious.
Pyrrhus holds an analogous pcxsition (see 'PP z8-349C,35aA), The inou-
ence ofthis tentleney on Denks (see espeeially DN z.9-648Bc) and Maxim us
(cf.above n.5) in tlle question of divinization is evident.
O A't
ivupo ... Ivepyovpév'
qv (Tha1 2z-zzoD8): cf. Am b :5-:zzzB.
zl Nan-vationqlïvoekptkv tkgzéxtaç öévttlav (32oD9): I take this aflverb
to mean that the objects as known have only a relation ofreason wlth the
created know er. 'Phis w ould be a derogation of the use generally found in
M axim us of applylng trzqelog only to the causal relations of'creator to
creature. B ut here w e have to do not with causal but w ith cognitive re-
lations. See above p. Ior. -
': See below note 33.
Chapter 11I.Ecstasis I35
P assage V1
Thelastofthese majorpassagesisalso thelatestin date perhaps
a full 15 years after Am b 7 z: for which it is an apology. W e have
already seen how M axim us had spoken of f'one only operation of
God artd the worthy, rather of God alone '' (above p. Iz9). The
eharge that this is a M onenergistic passage, he says, is easily ans-
w ered. H e w as there deseribing the future state of the saints and
referred to the deifying action of God,which can be only one and
of G od alone. T he reason is sim ple enough : an operation flow s
from a pow er, w hich in its turn flows from and is in a substance;
hence w hen a eertain pow er is not to be found in a nature neither
isitscorrelative operation. But deification isnot som ething subject
to us,but the institution (êJgkç)and grace of God,who,possessing
itby nature.iatends that ffhe (God) be perfectly known hEletύ
yvtllcêij) and rem ain eompletely uncomprehended (alwvslfk thre
vtllqxvoç)'' (TP I-.
33CI3)2*. And Maximus immediately concludes:
zzI therefore did not do way with the ztaturaloperation ofthose who
willsufïer this (deifieation),the operation eeasing from its natural
functions,nordid I pointit out as only stlsering fruition ofthe good;
but I did show the supersubstantial pow er as alone effeetive of de-
ifcation and become (the possession) of the deified by grace '' (TP
1-33014-36A2)25.
Tlzis exegesis of his ow n earlier work m ay be aeeepted as per-
fectly straightforwrard. The beginning of the inezim illated passage
runs thus:'fI do not say that this is the doing aw ay oftlze freew ill...''
(above p.Iz9). 'rhe faet remains:there was a deficiency ofexpress-
ion, a defieiezlcy for w hich the N eoplatonie diaiectic of suceessive
aKrmations and negations is partly responsible. Itis a jargon that
m ust be handled deftly,alld even so, too easily perm its the sim ple
13 Date-iist. j 8o.
:4 On this oxym oron com m re Denis ep. 3-10691) '
bdt.
> The lastline (in the Mignereprint)reads;Xg.
L3:: xtilpsv '
rf:v ê'
frœêévvfzw.
'rllis xth
t xtkkk$v m akes no sense' for l'
Jz:jr translation t
'therefore I have
enlended to:xlt xaxà x4e$v...
136 Th6Relutation 0/Origenism
the sam e tim e he is able to m anifest with great foree and clarity the
perfeet gratuity of tlle gryee of deifcation. The infltlenee of D enis
is here evident throughout. but b enis in these qtlestions never a-
cbieved such clarity ; ecstasis as the state of the blessed he does not
distinguish from the eestasis rapture of the m ystic; the perfect gra-
tuity ofgrace is not indubitably propounded. M axim us, in the texts
so far presented has certainly m ade an advance.
:$..52 F r. zlo.
D .Itis forthe nude m ind to say what is its nature;to thisquery
there is now no reply, and izt the end not even tlle query . Csttt.
3.70 17r. 236.
E .Blessed is he that com es to unsurpassable ignorattce. Cent.
3.88 12r. 256.
3r-47. M y sum m ary wms com pletetl before I was able to read the GtTlr.L-
,
2: D n oratione 46, 52 .
.
z4o Th6Ae/-fsrfo.
no/œ igenism
In reviewing the works of M axim us izl order to com pare them
with the precise points of Evagrian doctxine just indicated,it will
be best first to point out som e equivalenees in vocabulary. Thus
the migration ofpure prayer llxônjzttl) is found in Char 3.zo and
also once or twiee in the verbal form (Char Iyzo,
'z.a8). Rapture
also oceurs (Char 1.12a
'z.6 and Amb Io-III3CI;Amb zo-lzgzC.4l.
But neither can be reekoned a special favorite with M axim us when
one realizesthatprayer taeogarjloecurs : .
54 timesiu the 4 centuries
(puye Jrfzyrr 6 times) and mind (voik) over Ioo times (pure mind
8 times). On the other hand ecstasis does not appear at all. The
bl6ss6d passîon jor koly ckayity (Char 3.67,66 z1) does not lill the
role of the D ionysian ecstatic eros. The w ord eros does oecur in
Char1.10,11,
.2.6,47,48). Buthereitiseonneeted with lxônjzta and
with that $funconseiotlsness '' of wlzieh H ausherr speaks in his ar-
ticle (p.35$f) and whieh,tlmuglz Evaglian (text L above), refers
rather to that ignoranee of creatures w hich is a condition of pure
prayer than to that ignoranee of G od of whieh Evagritts speaks
(texts E and I above).
A pazt from the passages already m entioned w here the w ord
rapturo occurs,there are other chapters expressing the idea. 'fhus
in Char 1.11 the m ind,w inging its way to God by pure prayer,gets
outside allthings. Again:''H appy the rnirtd that has gone beyond
all things...'' (Char z.I9). And: ffThe suprem e state of prayer
is when the m ind passes out of the flesh and the world and rem ains
entirely untouebed in prayer with m atter and forms ''(Char z.6I).
T hat the apex of prayer, subsequent to contem plation of crea-
tures,is knowledge of the B' lessed 'Pritlity, there are ehapters of
M axim us to teach us. 'fW lzen a m ind is prefectly freed from the
passions, th en it travels straight on to the eontem plation of creatur-
es,making its way to the knowledge of the holy Trinity '' (Cllar
1.86). Similar to this are chapters 94 and 97 of the iirst Centuyy;
also, tllough som ew hat differently, the 21st and 98th of the seeond.
In the fourth Csntuyy the 4gth and 77th chaptersputthe eontem pla-
tion (lhf.
t):((4 ofthe 'rrhtity in relation with faith - a point to be
noted. 'fhe only other explicit m ention of the Trinity in these
Cent- ies (4.8) emphasizes its simplidty in contrastwith any crea-
ture. W ithout such explicit m ention the sam e general thought
fmds expression elsewhere,as in Char 3.99 (the occasion of Haas-
herr's artide Ignorance .fzI#e;ïtr),iu which the perfect rnind's ''more
thatz non-know ing superknowledge of the supenm knowable '' is
CkJ.
/f.
e.?'ff1.Ecstasis I4l
D VJI:LSR som etim es does note that M axim us doea not follow Evagrlus .
P assage V II
3: '
t'oï cotkvtnienee in subezequent referenc'tws I have num beretl tbis
.
P assage V III
by whiçh the hum an elem ent is naturally indicated, being left. a1l
giving way to the better, like dazk air wholly transfused with light ''
(Amb Io-II3gB,translation BzI-C6).
Htre again there seem s to be an Evaglian elem ent D oes not .
Pan ags AY
There remain two texts from the Q'
ttaestiones 448 Thalanium
which should Srst be presented before diseussing the question of
introspeetion and ecstasy in M axim us. Tlze frst of these is the
:5th question where M axim us endeavors to expound the sense of
St Paul's th6 hsad olgrdlz'yman isChrisfwith hisinjunetion thatthe
m en pray.with the head bared and thew om en with thehead covered
(1Cor.11.3W . Maximusfrstlaysdown asfundamental:theapostle
was speakm
' g only of those who have faith.' H e then proceeds to
inteo retthe man asrnind,tllewoman assense,fkrstin the practical,
then in the throretical and fnally irl the theological orders. ..And
again,M az m us says',m an is the m ind within m ysticaltheology,hav-
ing Cilristashistmcovered head,thatis the element offaith hùv...
köyov xiigaûetztnçlwith theindem onstzable eonceived in ignorauce or.
more aceurately stated,known without concepts (âyvdloxteç vooge-
vev...(lvoljl'fz,çytvœlxtsjzsvov)...the rnilld,wlliclzexercises that praise-
w ozthy,deifyiug privatiou,lying com pletely and preem inentiy above
itself and being '' (Tha1 :z5-332C.3-13)- And later on in the same
question,explaining what it is for the m ystie to have his head cov-
ered in prayer,'fSuelzan one,hesays,must,bared ofauy idea (lvvo-
$q)and knowledge,look without eyes42 upon the veritable God and
W ord, distinctly know ing that the privations by exeellenee prove
rather to be tzue of God,som ehow indicating the divine aë rm ation
(êég$ç)by the complete denial of beiugs''(Tha1 z5-3:$3CI4-D5).
I have presented tlds passage, beeause it was an occasion for
M ad m us to speak in an E vagrian m aaner;the threefold division and
tlle prom inence of ntind are b0t.h târoughly consonant with E vag-
Han thought. The preeisions ofthought,therefore, which are here
found, are so m uch the m ore valuable.
Passage X
W e are looking for passages of an Evagrian turn;there is '
notle
m ore fitting in tllis respect than the follow ing from the rep
'ly to
Thalassius'631.d question Again I sum m azize the frst part. The
.
.
** He6ç tzfrtsv ' riv H etpov xqï lzttixetoov xtâ tizœlvtixtg tlxe mg xqvà
tplklv Jaéxstvtt rstivrœv thotsvqm (Thal 63-67317:0f,. cf. T hal 6o-6zzB t
und TP I-36A;.). This quite outdoes any thing Denis hms done in
piling tlp negatives. D enis does speak itl another connection of i
I%F-
t
lï/efy injnitejttlwzr
e.
ç(DN 8.z-88pD). 'Ixe double use of COIEPOg is common
in Proclus tKoc1I Beziehungen..., lx 785 but as in Den: is in connection
witltentities under Cxdd. 'Ax 4rqç occurs 8 tim rs in D enis but tw ice only
.
Yet forE vagriusisnot tlte utm osthzpurity ofm ind preeisely the overcom inl
of titis ncxcessity ? The true location of the difference between Evagrius anf
D enis w 111 be found not so m uell in the latter's concentration on ecstasi;
as the former'srejeetion ofit better:Evagrius'emphaskson the consequenl
role wlziclz vtsion of self is then callecl upon to play. W ith this one sltottk
not om it the Evagdan concept of m otion 1t% bad anll cause of evil.
Cà4/jtv fTT.Ecsstts';s I49
who deifies,tile result being that the soul is im age and m irror:a11
- these them es w e have in one passage.
Tlzis im age,then,retlecting God ms in a m irror,is the adorning
ofthesoul(M ysta3)orthe person (Amb Io-II37BC)with the divine
idiomata and gnorismata (consisting primarilz in goodness and wis-
dom )so thatit beeomes an example of virtue an impression of di-
vine power (xtpaxrl)e êelag hvvdttEltv) for othersf 'fhe knowledge
of God from self and of self from God,m et w ith in Passage X ,pre-
faced ms it was by the holy m en being eharad erized by the did ne
idiom ata is to be tm derstood then,not in the Evagrian selzse of an
entitative setf-vision or vision of the substance of the soul, but ill
funetion of the m oral order.
'rhis eharacterization is illustrated by incandescent iron or
light-illumined air (Passages 1, II, VIII); but the whole point of
these illustrations custom ary in Christology sz is that the iron
and the air,though having tllè characteristics of fire and light, do
not entitatively lose their proper characteristics' they are only su-
perseded.
P qssage X I
In these regards we are fortunate enoagh to have an exam ple.
The saints are itnages and m anifestations. Good. So M axim us,
having expounded the theory (Passage VIII), gives us a case in
point: M elchisedech. T ltis illustration extends over tw o colum ns
(Amb Io-II37D-II4IC)so that I have not the willto present it in
translation to the reader. The fam ous description of H ebrew s 7.3:
W itlwutfatker,u'if/ltpfzl/motker.7pf//3o'
lffgen6alogy: having zldïf/'z,r br-
ginning4)/dayszlarend p/1iy. .lsfflikened totheSon //God & continues
a #A'$'ysf/or 6v6r is didded into three,as 1 have plaeed the eolons.
The ûrst, the being without, indicates the perfect putting away of
natural eharacteristies, eiected through graee in virtue; the second
indieates know ledge overcom ing the lim its of tim e and aevum and
contem plation surpassing m aterial and im m aterial substanee; tite
third, perhaps, indicates the ability to keep unw iuking the eye:3
:: For Pyrrhug M axim us twice explai!ls tlte sim ilar exstm ple of the
incallde-seent sworcl (ep. :9-5938 and. TP z8-a37D ; compare also TP
z6-I8oC9).
:' T'4ç... (k ea
rlç xct '
&'lç...zplk '
çùv êeùv êvttxeviknre.
tx x6 vosvôv öùtjm
iwaûpvowrov... (pvlxkltt:(Am b zo-zI4oA5f). Com pare ' Phal 25-. 3331)1:'fKltv6v
f'vvoteg xat m fûtpeœç (lvoypdxfl
v ôkdv x& J'li
qêkvbv '
thèv M yov. This is not
I5z TkeRr/'
ldtllitm p/Origenism
of vittue and of the gaze towards God. '#l7or virtue, I translate,
is born to dght nature sl and true contem plation tim e and aevum ,
in order,thatthe orte m ay rem ain unenslaved to the things bdlievt'd
to be after God and undom inated as knowing Cyod alone as parent,
and thattheother (be)tgleircumseribed,abiding in noneofthethings
that have beginning and end aud im aging God through itself -
God,deO itive ofevery beginning.and end,who draws a11the think-
ing hthcvç)ofthose wlvo thtnk to himself ln unspeakabte ecsusy
(xfzxrèxfrrfxgtv dlpnTov). 'rbrough these.the divine likenesss: is
m anifest (1 m ean through virtue and knowledge)and through them
charity unshaken is kept for God ... '' (Amb Io-II4oApB3).
Tlle rest:6 is mostly a justiiication for nazaing Melchisedech,
not from things of nature but from those aeqttired in virtue aud in
contemplation or knowledge. And Enally (Amb Io-Iz4IC)Maximgs
says altsaints are in som e w ay im ages of Christ, tlie ardtetype,bvlt
M elehisedech preem inently so. Such a ftm ction of the saints in the
Cllristian econom y is expressed btzt a little later: f'P'
or God placed
in the nature of a11 alike the power for salvation, that qach who
w ished m ight 1ay hold on divine graee, and, in willing to becom e
M elclzisedech and Abraham and M oses, in sllort to transferthe saints
to him self,m ight not be bindered,excllanging not nam es and places
but im itating m anners and way of life'' (Am b Ioul44Alo-Bz;
cf. 1149C 13f).
Lest one'be tem pted to think that such a developem ent on vir-
tueeand knowledge be uniquely due to the dië eulty which was the
occasion for tlze expositios, I zefer tbe readeT to tbe prefatozy paz-
agraph ofthegreattheologicalwork addressed toM arinus (TP I-9A.
f).
12or izt this initial encom ium M axim us reproduces the m ain them es
we have just seen illustrated in M elehisedech.
A brief synthesis of M axim us'doctrine,as to the ascent to G od,
m ust now be ventured. Tkis ascent proceeds in tw o m utually
dependent m anners, in virtue and in knowledge; by the one is ex-
punged that which is due to our fallen nature ill our relations with
ourselves and w ith others, tlle erowm ing of w hieh is the passing out
of the volitive faculty so as to be w holly taken over by G od ;by the
other,sense and rational knowledge being reduced to its source in
the Logos, there is an ignorance, that is, a non-eoneeptual 1t-110w-
ledge which exteads indefnitely. 'rhis transform ation' of m an
endows him in eseet, by grace, with the divine characvteristies of
goodness aud w isdom . Its fullrealization - the union ofthe blessed
with God in heaven - is properly ecstasis, a thing quite beyond
aAd above all the native powers of m an. 'rEis too is deiâeation,
a suffering oftlzedivine,whieh doesnotrob m an ofhisnaturalpowen ,
though they be overlaid,transfused w ith the divine. The som etim es
concom itant phenomena of ecstasis in this life (:.g.in the rapture
ofStPaul)aresecondary and do not draw Maximus'interest. W hat
appears m ore nearly to be the center of M axim us' interest is the
m utualharm ony ofviztue and know ledge,by whieh likeness to God
is realized in m en. Yhis is a base. Tilere is the iniinite extending
ofdesire ('
1T I-9A8). There is the 'fseeing the true W ord and Gpd
witllout eyes ''. But above all there is the aetion of God,drawing
the m an from things and self to him selfH.
LOGOS
A . 'fl.
Is D ls'
n xcem ox: AOrOE TYIEQ Z - TPOIIO I Y IIAPZEOI
K arlH oll,in his Amphilochigq rt- Ikoni'
um 1,speaks at length
ofthe term w dxoç A g éadvymg. Rather baidly the sum ofthese
pages is that,though the term isused by Basiland Gregory of N yssa
(not however by Nazianzen)in an untedmical way, Amphilochius,
though a little clum sily, m akes it into a technieal T rinitazian term ,
which was subsequently to be current. (From being in Basila term
to express the enigm a of the intratrinitarian relations, it has becom e
a help in its solution. Prestige gives som e pages2to it,butw ithout
referenceto Holl'sstudy. Hollremarks (p.z4olthatreeerttly (1904)
the question of this term 's origin had frequently been put. H is
ow n answ er seem s to have precluded further diseussion. F ttnk
how ever, proposlttg the authorkhip of D idym .tts for the Pseudo-B a-
silian Contra fwAlovlf'
lf;zlIV and V 3,gave H ollan'occasion for a note
(p.z451)aë rming that in the tm questionetl works ofDidymus the
the sam e hom ily be speaks of the Son's origin from the I?ather, by
generation (vevvqvôg),btlt the Holy Ghost's isineffable ttlètmtfkl11.
If,however, the m ode for the H oly Ghost is unknown,there is no
question w hatsoever that the existenee itself is from G od 13. The
sense of 170th these passages is contained in one from the Treatlse
f)s f/?.y H oly Ghost46 '8. In ttxplaining to Am pbiloehius the m anifold
ways in whielz we m ay be said to have knowledge of things he m en-
tions,along with others,'.that according to the m ode ofexistence ''11.
The very casualness of this last referenee indieates that the phrase
com es easily from his'pen;it m ay stillbe only the faultiness of our
doeum entation that deprives us ofprofane exam ples 1:. 'fhere re-
m ains a passage where the word existence.w ould have been in place,
but for it we find ltypostasisysubstance. It is in Contrq S'
lfv pzfzfvl
1 15 14.
'rhe passage llas a double interest:w e ûnd in it clearly tlze sub-
stance ofthe distinetion löyog tpfgEolç-xlifsxog l
hxdtlyttx as later de-
veloped by M axîm us; artd the exem pliiication in Adam ,whiclt w ill
recur in G rego!'
y of N yssal', in D idym us ls in Theodoret l9. The
word '
tingensratsd (tlyévvqvov) tam s one's thoughts not to the what
but to the how of tlzingsz:. The illustration then follows of the
genealogical tables given by Imke, ending with Adam, wko is t#
God. And when oneisasked whatisthe substanee of Adam (otg(a),
the reply w ould be, f'not from the eopulation of m an and wom an
but form ed by tlle hand of God. But it would be said, fl am not
:1 BAsltj C.E un...1. r5: PG 29.548. :.11-8 2:.!zt lv guvôvlxtzp' oih (kvêpùç
xgl 'rvvcqxùç, tiD.*éx '
t'?ig êslo.
ç gE:
kt?ùç :jlzaluom jvttk. *Au ' o'
lzk 'tèv w éztov
'r'
lç '
saoo-rtjcpsfoç latliq'r/,Tzho'
st
'
ev&v Tl,g,âllstzlsxô xo: (kv'
V tr
mov xè ahhxèv '
bxo-
xeipo ov' 11 apllofi.:éto pzavM vetv 8:1 ' t'ijç (kaoxoûeeleç. Togso :è xat jhav
mzp.pglve:lx xiig xoB J,yevv'/lxov tpçow-iç x6 ôaeygxoi;' A og pau ev 1k(tivivdlv
tfrtsgKv êtötttvxohtéw tg.
z? lu str. ()..E'
.
l4x..1I: PG 29.5968z5-04: 'AD. 'o'
K 'ov' ?iosxe 11% W v'
q-
vatlvvouxxoelpvxfpa x1ç Ie: Afovoysvogq éxogx4ceœç. flqvvôç yie xo9 :vvû-
pévov E(ç âvxaKdvnmoç köyov lxtvoelolhztAvœvlpc l fxapllg fo9 Qeob ho'sov To9
lv J/x: övvoç ae6ç xöv hs6v e:v:bfcexlu
1: P ssuoo-B Asm a C. Jywp.. IA7: PG 29.68:J2.
': P UNK Icivshangesch. W bh.. 111, :2z.
*$ PG 39.1652C.
*6 Dm vMrs n 'agm ent IX : PG 39.z6..
$2C7-:5 : Et êt
b fpfllew I
zeqovtx
dm txèv rfqvéea & $zrfe âye xog,ô '( Yîèg w m vèg,êee pev Nt' rflw efxnè'
v
oî w tsaok,o,
è v1v érrziey œv xttl pm ltgxtt !.
a1 '
e v âaotœv xtzk âgoltlxov, o15x
llaxvofqp '
6$v âua.
v x(Bv ôpoetlcëftw,Tf
'
l Elavvov '
ll 'rè p'
sllov 'rfpêe '
M xiiiêe zrzwé-
q
xevvvç' oê yikkh aétpvxev 'cè l;v olkxûv xçzl yvosle: J,ztktn-iv, lzéw ov 'q xoaövq'ru ge-
'/é'o'
ovç ovyxptvecm ts.
Ckapter IV.Logos 15t?
17 J.&.
FAG M, II, 18011: P(7 45..
77.
38. .
19 C;. h'un. 3.6.33 JAPIGRR,ll, 1874:PG 45.781.
. 1..
:9 See note I .
'e For conventence I here tabulate the passages of Gregory in the
order of Jaeger's edition with the received book num ber arld colum n of
M igne 45.in seeontl place.
JA/GIR vol.1: T.216 p. 8417 Bk 1-316C
1.495-97 l6If 1-404
.&.z.4z 61:9 IW 6:$2D
3.ô.14 z8o:1 'VI1I-773B
3.6.3.5 18'
71 VIII-78IA (hypostasis)
:
$.6.63 197.
1: VIII-y93A (hyparxiswio out
reference to the Father).
Ref.Conf.Eun.ga 3(Jc1@ 11-50813 (hypar-tjs)
95 333:1 1I-509A (Tt'4=oç Y' EvWjce.
ûlçl'
A1 AMem oelm /s PG 39.538 and zza.
z6o TIV Rfr/sfafït)s 0/Orfgflsfs.
m
reason of the birth from a virgin,the other by reason of the incom -
prehensibility of (bis)existence ''!a. 'fhis ofeourse fallsin perfeetly
with the use of the term hyparxîs sueh as we have seen it in Basii
and G regoo v. The other passage is found in a brief exposition of
the faith, taken from Am philoehius' letter to Seleueus. After stat-
ing the m utual indwelling of the divine persons, he contitm es: *4I
worship Jesus Chzist eoeternal with the Father as to Godhead,lm t
subsequent to the rather as to Godhead in the m ode of essence or
existeaee '' (obx otgtag, o;x éaflpyrzlg rpöaov, veölw ov toB Ilaw èg'
xal'& x$v êEtisqta)a3. As Holl (p.z4. 3l remarks,from this there
can be no sure eondttsion that hypavxis is referred also to tlw
Father. Asto thesense that kyparxishere bears,itis worth noting
that A m philocllius, havirtg applied the above to the H oly Ghost,
continues: <fI aflirm that the Sozt was born apart from tim e and
beghm ings, ever eoexisting (ctwvztdtlmvxtt) with the Father as to
tlle G odhead ''a4. In a m om ent w e sball see that Theodoret speaks
of tize *'coexistence of the three divine persons ''. rud her on in
the sam e exposition Am philoellius says that the consubstantial can-
not be aë rm ed of one only persou,but of the F ather,Son and Spirit.
'%The differenee,he eontinues,is in the persons, not in thesubstance;
for F atker,Son and H oly Ghostare nam es of a m ode of existenee vr
relation (gzéctç),notdireetly @alf7ç) of tlze substanee''>. There
ean be no doubt - attention has shifted from the m om ent of origin
in w hieh the phrase is applicable only to the originated persons to
tlle (logieally) subsequent relation, whieh, of course, is applicable
also to the origillating person.
It is tim e to reiect a m om ent on the im port of this extension
oftheterm . Holl(p.z44)seesin theAmphilochian usea confusion
ofthe conceptskypostasis,proterty (l:töxqg) and ydation.and thence
the dië culty of establishing a real distinetion in one substance.
It is,I think,a bit hasty to condttde to a etm fusion of coneepts, in
a cetse of intim ately related V rm s,on the basis of two fragm ents.
:1 A M pl.
lrmocm r s, PG 39.5.384-7: Tù çt
flrè xe'
krrftmûov 'tlfxvlkov,'
tù (ITè
xgl optplav xct(/,:4g,g.gtwtjxpzsvov. xè pèv,ô.
uk'rflv lx Hûkmévov yévvqotv,.
z6ôfi
:$3..
%6 âxaxtizarrrev .ra
?iç ahrrtiplsçog.
B$ AMlqurm cy m vs -P(7 39.1zzB l3-Q1.
14 ztwllyHrvactlt
a vs, PG 39.:I2Cz-4.
:5 A MPRKT/I?JTTtTS, PG 39.z1aCI4-Iz: 'H êè ôvctqloptk év xvogfiaolç,ofx
lv vîio'
trgtt
l' 1;
livk trlttxùl!,Yîùç xgl Hvsijltq xö f
'
ly:ov,vvéaov '
f?xtkeletts litovv
fuégett
v èvöpuxa,tillv'o'
lg oit7taç âalfk .
C/ltz/fc?'fF.Logos I61
'1Ye dië eulty he sees is that inherent in any Trinitarian theology;
nor do I see that it is any the less present irz the B asilian use of the
term than in the A m philochian. 'fhe braee of passages, cited to
instance the continuance of this coneeptualobscurity, w itness celtain-
ly to tlle extension of tlle phrase to a11three pezsons ofthe Trinity,
butnot to an obscurity. The modeof obtaining Txfs/esce (the trans-
lation isPrestige's)constitutesnotonly theproperty,but,tm derstand-
ing property and substance together also the person; and founds
the relation. Basiland Gregory ofN yssa, seeing the positive aspect
of se4aog éatipyttx used it only of the Son alld ofthe Spirit;but
the Father m ust also have his m ode of existeneea even though it
be expressed negatively:the tm originated originator.
D idym us and Am philoehius, eontem poraries of Basil alld Gre-
gory,testify to this extended use of xpöxog éxdtjieœg. But there
is more. Gregory in ltis Contra é'lzToplï'
l:pl 1. 495-97 (see above
p. :57) has dearly stated tha.
t the spöaoç lztdtêefoç is correlative
to the àéw ç obctqg, illtlstrating identity of nature as being com -
patible with diverse m odes of obtainirtg existenee in theeaseofAdam
and Abel. Basil had dorte a sim l'lar thing in his Confya Flzlpplfz
lf-
I I5,izustrating m'ore at length w ith the sam e exam ple. But here
the corrdative phrases ltkoç obtylt!,
g .. seàxog fxdpyœç are not
nam ed,but specifted at the beginning ofthe passage and 'at the etd .
For the orte we find xl'
j x( lgvkv and for the otlzer B dxfpç poxtv 3:.
Then at the end Nvith application to God: B ixfa)g vo9 êeot gdn ov
$ e rl)v rllv (pfcrùv. (For the context see above p.157).
N ow the distinction p'ut in this way m akes operative a whole
range ofA ristoteliaa doetrine in the service of theology - as to tlze
'rrinity,as to the Econom y,as to anthropology.
W ithout long searches in subsequent authors only an oceasional
instance can be given. Cyril of Alexandria em ploys the term in
his dialogues on the Trinity, in one instanee of the tilree persons
equally and in contrast with oicrlfx, and in another of the eternal
geueration of the Son s7, 'But if only slight ittstatw es are knom t
in 5th century Alexandria, Antioch developes it quite in the sense
of the Cappadodans. 'lAhtts in the Expositio r<cff,: Fdei 3 we ilnd
a coherent statem ent that is substantially identieal w ith fragm ent
cttrious thing, kyfm xis has here the sense of physis. '''l'lte soul,
he says,is circttm scribed by Tf; àdyfll '
rsg fadelefl)g''. And later
on,speaking ofuniens;'fsom e even in union preserve xùv vàg éxtje-
yq)g hâyov ''44. Such a use m ust, I think, be explahled by the
Leont-ian doctzine of an hypostatlc union of created pedects -
the body and soul. '
In chronologieat order I should now com e to M axim us, but I
perm it m ysetf to pass frst to the Pseudo-cyril w hom I'Ioll, tm der
the name and from the text of John Damnscene, cites for being
uncertain in his use of kyparxis. W e have to do with chapters
8-10 of the D 6 sacrosancta Trinitatr4:. In the first passage41 w e
. ftnd moh p/hyparxis used of generatioh and procession as in Basil
and Gregory, Butthe authoralso 'speaksofungeneratednesst&yev-
vncta), f'wilich, lze says, does not indieate diserence of essence
btlt m ode of existenee ''. Later still spealring of generation and
procession,he refersto them as mode(# diserence*7. Then aërtning
that a2 iscom m on to the three,alwaysin derivation from tlle Pathery
except for ungeneratedness generation and procession he says:
''ror in these hyposu tic propeties alene the three lloly H ypostases
djier from one another, divided l divisibly not by essence but by
the charactezistic of each single hypostasis, W e say too that each
of the three has a ped ect hypostasis, but that in three perfec't hym
postmsesthere isone sim ple essence,m ore than m dect, allperfect*'**.
(lem ndence on cap. 26 of the Dooteina T' tz/rlçAl (hence Prestige's datiag)'
but asthis partof tlze collection m ay wellhave been eytant earlier the date
ant. t
.4$:6'4 rrlot
lz is therefore t5.
e m onothelfte controversy.
B ut one m ay ask
why does the Pseuflo-cyril consisteutly avoid nam b 'ng any of bis som ces?
I)/ GTJIBSIG (p.368)suggest.s ''que noas soyons en présence d'u:tlpseudo-
épigraphe fabriqué pour1es besoins de la controverse m onothélite ''. But i1z
that ease, could not bne restrict the posslble tim e of com position to the
periocl of tite polttical dnm inauce of Monotlttlitl
'mm , that is from the tim e
of the fullblown controversy (645) to the 6th ecumenical council (681)?
,
and that Pseudo-Uyril had worked a liu le witlt the concept of re-
lation which wasto be found in Am philochius (see above p.160).
fyaitkt/trtç'o:x o'
ôig.
,14 êèzpeoxnlpwxlxf
p I'
lç11$(0ç'
H olvdsgttw flkawévcs ôlctt-
kméàtEvcu. W ttèv / pxqccov ' rêv w e v xEletav dxew ' I
h éoxtttxv (...),â3.)? év
w kck xtrkefa!
,ç faocxficect yttw o' ûçfltzv t'iaà'
lv fzfsoxel'l xcl cr,tzu élesov.
19 Pssuoo-c' k'lta De ss.Frio.zo:PG 77.II44A7-Iz (for completeness
d . atso rz,37B):eEva yt) ,
o'A ù'
v 'fwtflcxepev,lv gévabç öà 'rg. k lôçtslmc;t 'r'
ijç xs
atzw dxntog >,i xfig ' tll6vqxeg,xtlt 'r'fiç dxrroefïcœfzzç,xlx;tk '
ri; xù 4utov xat x6 ft1-
xyttxèv,xttt e véhaov vlç 'fpxooxfiuetoç,' lhot'rùv vlq ('rrl yfzv w daov,' rjv ôktxtFo-
etkv l'
vvmogysv.
5e H orm, A m pltilocltius. p. c44; PG .
77.1t.
36CIzf artd II44A 7f (notes
46 and 49J.
Ckapter IU.Logos . I65
citezDéusy.
s1e Fsdhulo-zlr/t
pjltzgf/hfr,Avchivesd'hist.J()tl/r.etlitt.Jx M A 5 (zt)3o)
aool,3oz)tlle passage Amb 7-Io84A is to be interpreted in the light oftitis
distinction. '
63 BASIr.,.lzlIsaiamp I (v.J3)j 5o:PG 3O.I7701I-D4. M aximus cites
witlz the nam e of the author and treatise. Thls treatise whose Basilian
authenticity has been quesh oned w as know n therefore ia the 7th century
lm der Basil's name. See DavttsessE, Rev. bib. 42 (19.33) I4sf.
z'
/z The Relutatil)n (?JOrigenism
Second Explanatio.
n ol f& Lq os Docfrï-
This second explanation (Alnb 7-I()8zCIT-Io85A6) begins; ''If
the one W ord of G od is indubitably the essence of virtue in eaeh
m an,...every m an,participating in virtue with a ûxed habit,tm ques-
tionably partieipates in God...'' (Amb pIo8zCI4-D2, D9-II).
Now M axim us defends his propositien eiting z Cor. 1.30: Christ ,
'
If//la was Antpzf: for ws by Gotl wisdom ,rfgk/ztlifszl,s.
s and sanctification,
flAI,tf redsmption;and then com menting that Christ is wisdom itself,
and righteeusness and holiness itself. pot m erely attributively as
with men:a wise m an... Now Origen,in eomm enting Jolm 1.14,
had said: 4'12or the substantial righteousness itself is Christ ''B6.
O D N 5.6-8(zIA . See also Tho ec 2.4 w ith the com m ent of vox BM .-
TRASAR, D ie Gx. Cçnt. zog.
B4 Is i'otzn. (1.14) 6,.40 GCS, Origen IV IPRSUSCRRNI p. I151.1:flyie
ulrcoôvxtnoo't
'wq &h ollcsfGôqç Xpuzvtk ltntv Sim ilarly In .làr,vz.lm m . 15.6 GCS
Oligen I11 (KLOSIXRMANN) P. 13012;d.also IA; Ioan.(13.2) 32.I1, P,444:,3
and p.44;I, n Islïtl,Azhom .5.IGCS OrigettVIII IBASHRSNSIp.z63à.
Tl%eAtr/lçftzfïo,lt)/Oriqenîsm
Of course M axim us m ay not have drawn directly on Origen for this
idea e7' the faet rem ains, the thought is thoroughly O rigen's. In
the eontext of the phrase just çited Origex had developml the idea
that our righteousness and so on is derived from Chris'
t, though not
in term s of participation. A nd in fact M axim us passes at once to
a consideration of sueh partieipation view ed from a sueeessive grasp-
ing of the beginning and end w hich are the sam e com prellended
i:t the skofws of the thing (I'0843.6). Now .4as to the beginning,
a man receives'by partidpation the naturalgood (( ly(zê4v) with his
behlg; as to the end, he zealously aecom plishes his course tow artls
tlle lyeghzning aizd souree, without deviation, by m eans of good will
(yvfûg'
q)and choice (atkoalpegw) and from God reeeives deifcation,
adding to the naturalgoodness of the imageB. (r@ xttF dxövtz tpftmt
xalçlthe elective likeness through the virtues by remson of the im-
planted transition to and fam iliarity with his own proper beginning
and source ''(Amb 7-Io84A6-I4)G9.
Certainly w e have here a fairly distinet elaboration of the pro-
cess of deiûcation. M axim us w ill now enlarge uporz it, using the
triple distinction we have ourselves just enlarged upon in the iirst
explanation. For the foregoing is confirm ed by the Apostle's word:
In plfAzlwe 1iv6 and '
pltm: and havetlf4r being (Acts I7.z8). Now each
of these term s M axim us sets in relation with the logos of a m an pre-
existing in God. Beiug is referred to the logos of being,m ovem ent
to that of wembeing,life'to that of ever-being lAmb pIo84BIrg).
Ilz the (liscussion and passages cited above this triple distinction
w as abtm dantly evident,yet withottt a hint that it m ight lx referred
to the determ hling logoi. 'ro m y knowledge this reference is m ade
in tlzis passage only; nor is it overly surprising. For to deal at
length with it would be to treat ofpredestination,forw hich M axim us'
w hole fram e of m iad and life did not prepa're him . H abitually he
looked at alltllings from the point of view of the divine skopos -
the realization of m an in the Incarnate dispensation. The reverse
For all the things m ade by God irz nature, being considered by us
Hlowingly (yvfptnkxfliç) with due scienee, anrlotuzce to us secretly
the logoiaccording to which they eam e to be;and at the sam e tim e
m anifestwith them selvesthe divine skoposin theirregard,according
to tlze text: TIV k tzp:zls declare //?z glory t# God and th6 JrzzlflAzlTpf
announces f/l: work t# his /llAlffs (Ps.I8.c). Bttt the etem al power
and divinity is tlze Providenee, preservative of things, and the ae-
Maxitn.
us - after flvnhxhtx veoo'
o'
tt: (to8585,SG HXIN, P.22421) is reasom
able;lmwever it would be Clem entfntervening to complete the words ùf his
m aster. If this be so, the zrpogêéu Eç xal 'rog M yo'
tl 'rfl Efloyov has cer-
taiuly m ore m eaning.
7: Cf. IVANKA H ellenisohes axtf Ckvistliches..., p. 44f.
:3 CLsM.AlaX. Pyotvep.63.3 (GCS Clem .Alex.1 S' IAHAIN.p.4816f).
ORIGEN,In I Xcgv,I.Ir (GCS Origtm VIII BAISIIRIINS,p.211-7).
7: See for exam ple Am b 7-Io8oA .3 and Am b 42-z3z8C I.
:4 Psstroo-cvm re Ds ss. Tzïa. JI: PG 77.z145C.Jol:x DAMASCSNS
de ##: ovthodoxa I 9: FG 94.8374.. Ou Pseutlo-cyril see a'
bove note 45.
Ckapter IF.Logos 17;e
vem ent, either according to the will and w ord or fn disaccord with
the wi'
ll and word of God, prepared each to hear the divine voiee ''
expressed itt these two texts (Amb pro85C3-6) In the wake of
.
the Dionysian passage it would have been easy to speak only of the
di
vine w ill to save a11 m en, as if a11 were eventually to be restored
to bliss. 'flmt M axim tts does not. despite hfs near identifcatiort
of the essential aud providential logos of eacll m an is signz -ïicant
,
of ltis fundam ental tlzought, wilich does not adm it the Gregorian
apocatastasis. In this eontext the concise egectlvs tkougkf of the
Pseudo-cyril and Jolm Dam ascene would have been (m t of plaee .
M oh rn comm ents
It is therd oTe a reat exaggeration, on the basis of tbis eitation
of
Thibenis,to draw M axim us entirely in the wake ofthe Pseudo o enis.
-
vine essenee but ilz the energies. %*lle grounds of this distinetiotz
m ay be as aneieut as Pidlo :8'but its existenee and im port in any
single author is not to be castm lly assum ed. 'Co enter now into the
question as regards M axim us w ould be to treat it cmsually I can .
phase. I11 the fourth phase he says that apartfrom the high neg -
ative tlzeology of the Logos .4, the one logos is m any and the m any
one (Amb ;-Io8IBIo;),arzd goçs on to speak ofthe creative proces-
sion of the one to beings. The passages, appeariug in the course
of the sam e eontext, can scarcely be contradietory. 'lY e frst then
is sim ply cataphatie; the second cataphatie, having Erst m ade the
8: 'Pb.
e hypothesis of a state ofpure nature first perhalxs appeared in tlze
:.
3t.1lcentur! with W illiam de la Mare;butas an instntmentin theological
speculation lt is userl onl)r from the 16th ceutury arld becom es established
itl the selzools only after Baius. See ps Iztlju e S' urxatvvei (Paris 1946)
p. Io5 wlth p.2676 and.p. Iz'/.
81 Inasm uch aa tlzis frstpossibility is closely eonnected w I:ICtlte dognla-
.
tic deânitions of ' frent the second m ssibility w ill eitller take cognizanee
of tlte 'fridentine position a'ntl tru slate it into its owtz views or rem aîn a
mere play (but not thereby useless) of historieal theology.
e1 LossKY', Essai...x p . 91.
8a W orœ soxz P hilo, 1, p. 29g. PERA, in his edition of D N w :i
h the
c
tomme ntary of St Tho m a (Rome 1950) p. :
;5lf and 34$
)f. h.
aa brought
œ etller som e m atezial itz regard to tlzis question.
apophatie reserve. But then the sense and im port of this reserve?
D oes it sim ply regard the 'rriuae life? 'Phis calm ot be entered
into here.
Sum m ary
To restate the foregoirtg diseusslon itl a brief paragraplz:
M axim us explafns the phrase of G regory: ''w e being a portfon of
G od and slipped dow a from above '' by a tw ofold explanation of
ihe logos doetrine,identifying and distiugufshing the suprem e Tmgos
and the m any logoi 170th on the ontological and on the m orallevel.
'f'his doctrine he fnds in and conflrm s by Denis. The extent of
M axim as' dependence on D enis is hard to determ ine in regard to
a doetrine so w ide-s'pread as that of the logos. T.rtregard,however.
to the identifcation of the logoi with the divine wills M axim us
seem s ratller to report tlze doctrine than m ake it a real pazt of
his thollght.
So m uclz tlle.u for the M axim ian logos doctrine as it appears
in lds rd utation of Grigenism ; lm t there are still other elem ents
ilz tbat refutation. Im m ediately after the allegation of the Diony-
sian authority just ztow disctlssed Maximus returns to a dtation
of Gregory and exptm nds lzis conception of the fnal state. ' rhis
is Pal't One,IV of the analysis and has been used in the chapter on
ecstasis. Part One,V lm weve.rbroaehesa new argum ent,a refmtation
of one ef the necessary links in the Origeuist position:the doctrine
of xépog,sudeit. The followhlg chapter w ill be devoted to it.
CHAFTSR V
K OROS
the Izather and of the Son and of the H oly Ghost being establislzed
throughout the diverse degrees of advancem ent, scarcely, if per-
chatw e at any tim e,aTe we able to look upon the lm ly antl blessed
life;ill wllich, when one is able after m any struggles to com e to it
,
we m ust so abide that no surfeit ofthatgood ever seize tzs. R ather,
1 A0O t 1II z9Il5 and zr3li; D ISKAM/ p. 9c)31 See above Chap.
nrl. I3,4.
: K oltrslzl.
tA.
tp (GCS Origen V :59) has fnserted the 2nd through the
6th anathem asof55J (= DISKAMP p.90)in the text ofD 6Prïzltrf/fïsIf 8 z
and suppose.s tsee p.I59 for line z7) that Rufinus'text is to be eompleted
from these and from Jerom e. VON BAu ltAsu llowever quite justis-
.
ab1J refers sonle of the terznùzology to a later tivae (ZK Th 63 (1939) 9,)
Tl .
us is probably not the case here for the elem euts a're foutzd in D e .!7>.ï'
#lc
11 8,3 (p. I57a 158) and.in I 3,8 (p.6c1&f). It is then a condensation of-
Origen tllat we fnti translated in the text.
I8c TltcA:jw/flfïos olOrfg:zli.
çpl
aswe reeeive m ore ofthat blessedness,so them ore itsdesire is spread
or increased in usawhile ever m ere ardently and m ore fully we either
reeeive or hold the Father aad Son and H oly Ghost. N'et if sudeit
som etim es lms laid lmld on one of those w ho are settled in the top-
m ost and perfeet degree,I do not think that suth an one is at once
rem oved,and falls;btlt little by'little aqd gradually he rnust deseertd,
so that, i.
f a sm all lapse has befallen one, he m ay quiekly repent
and returrz to him self, not com pletely collapse, but withdraw his
foot and return to 11ks position aud again be able to establish what
had falleu ottt by negled ''8.
Tlzis surfeit is som etliiqg to be feared; its advent m eaas alien-
ation from God. That a surfeit of the good is possible is due to the
hm ate zrlutability of zllarl. Origen is qulte dear as to this point.
H e m it:s:%.But because these rationalnatures...have been m ade,
while before they dïd not exist; for this very fact that they were
not and began to be,they exist as necessarily ehangeable alld.mu-
table things,because whatsoever virtne (power) there was in their
substanee was not there aaturaliy but efed ed through the gift of
the ereator. That'therefore they are is uot proper to them nor
eterzml,but God-#ven. For,ever-existent they werenotand every-
tbing that is given ean be tvken away an4 fall baek. The cause
ofthe falh'ng baek will be fotm d to be tltis,if tlle rtloverflent of spir-
its be not jtlstly attd well directed. For the ereator granted vol-
uutaz'y and free m ovem ents to m inds ereated by him , by which of
course the good eould becom e their own wlzeu it would be m ain-
tained by their own will. But s10t11 aad the boredom of trouble
in kéeping the good, as also aversion and negligence of the better
gave an opening for the fallirig away from the good ''. Aad Origen
goes on to explain how this withdrawalfrom the good was the 0cca-
sion for m aking this variegated, sense-perceptible w orld 4 .
B. '.pHS REFIJTATION
It is tim e now to exam ine M axim us' refutation of tllis aspect
of Origenism .
Tite two passages of Am b 7 that concern sudeit directly are not
long;I shall$ve them therefore entire in translation. In tlle frst
passage tile word itse!f does not occur,but the idea is dearly sup-
posed. After the initial description of the he
'nad *, M axim us eon-
tinlzes: '' Bttt they are ignotant how im porxsible are the tldngs they
Io69BI3-CIc).
.
m ent of the end M axim us lays bare the consequenee of their posi-
tion:there catt so never be any perm anent rest in the good. The
m ere statem ent of sueh an hypothesis is its owm sttë dentrefutation.
H is adversaries then'eounter w ith another subteduge: they
coul
i d have rem ained jn the good, but they did tlot watkt to Suclz
.
lovable and capable of draw ing all m ovem eat, is not properly fair
Fbr this reason neither ean it sgitably retain the de .
sire of those
that take pleasm e in it. N o,those who are ofsuch a fram e of rnind
would fnally address their thanks to the evil, as being taught tlteir
duty through it and sttbsequextly having leam ed how to hold their
stanee in the fair;and, ifthey knew how to be consistent with them -
com passed and dishonored,as being delim ited with a sudeit and as
bdng thecattse ofsedition (stasisjfortllose whose desire it had not
been able to hold lm m oved '' (Amb p zo89A3-C6).
This second surfeit Fassage is m ore signiûcant thall m ay at first
skht appear. It is tlle eonelusion (from : 11 Iàrrér
/tlr: -Io89AIo)
of the first, sum m arizing the foregoing argum entgtion and giving
a fnal stroke in a dh'eet attack on 1he sud eit hypothesis. *rhis
the early tltird centurp For the lîterature see USBSRW aG- PRAIX HTSR.
Gyundriss d6r Geschicltt. #:r Pkilosophie I1: (z9z6) 179. O11e m ay see a di-
vezse developem ent ofthe sam e doctrine in M I/HASL oF EpHssus'com m en-
tary os the Nichnnm chean Etkics (QAG X 58IRftJ .
Clbatter F'.K oros z89
Io89BI5: Io69CI:
(Cvaç)xdgov âqpogc'
ttx'qg lv r: sfiç lv x: ègxdvfp xal jzövtp
ê'
E() povtlzörqvot
;,lgEets'
ê,
n' riy ôtlsxë llt/Aitrefllg l'
xal' s xat gowqg xa-
olxetf. lv 'ro'p xöglzov paxkvnêévxa x('i loykxtl xèv t/x/ a-
p cxs3at3p.fi s'
xod e'
tlyéveo'tv cvvEto-riytcev. gpèv Lftâsv.
Another qlem ent of the eonclttding re-sum ê is the infnite ex-
teading of the desire in God. l2or this there is no correspondezzt
in the initial passage. But iu his exposition of the m ovem ent to
God (PartOne1 B atIo73CD)there isa fulierdevelopment of this
1
4
.)g
. . I'
heXdl/z
l4ïtzfï'
pAlojOA'
k eVs'
-
thought, plaeing irz fttll light tlze voluntary nature of this m otion.
It '
isTh
Passage I ofthe texts dealing Avith ocstasy (p Iz8i). .
as resultirlg from the henad. H ence its superlid ality and. failure
to touch the m ainspring of Origen's speculation To have bepm
.
the refutation w ith it w ould have been to m aintaiq the whole argu -
there was no m arriage but that a11would be like the angels of God?
(M att. za.3of.) - W ith this was another persuasion, not less w ell
fixed,that the cltief characteristic,'the essential,of these spizif,s w as
their freedom , a freedom of the will consisting necessarily in the
choice betw een good and evil, a view apparently eonfrm ed by the
g'reater part of the scriptural authority for freedom . Y et it w as
im possible not to aecolm t for the present, visible w orld in a11 its
variety. So the prim itive m zity w as broken up tllrough the sudeit
Chaptsr F.K oros I9I
17 h'
xistential ('
xatu'
rlxt'
!
'
k (zo89B4). Jt is not by chance tllat this
w ord ocfm rs in the sam m ary. See notû 15 above.
18 Qf. D e P yinc. 1 g,8 cited above note 3.
. for M axim us see p. 1t
.
).3
aud 11. z4.
I9c 7-Az Ièefuiation ojOrïg:xis,a
H enee it is no surprise that the doctrine of fxedness in G
i od
s m entioned wlzen M axinm s touches on tlle surfeit aspects of
Origenism .
But if the Origenistic concept of freedom rem ains untouched
a fxation in the good rem ains inconeeivable. It is therefore w ith
the greatest em phasis that M axim us, treating of the indeEnite
extension of da ire in God, if not in the present fnal sum m at'y but
now given in translation , at least in the first of the passages
studied above in relation to ecstasis, affirm s both the freedom and
the fixation.
It is these two aspeets that m ust uow be enlarged upon if our
understanding of the M axim ian refutation is to be com m ensurate
with the thought of A'Il
axitrttls.
C. l?xxsoNsss
:1 GREGORV oF Nvss..
t Opee'
a zl.
çctrfztt(Leiden z95z)*'De perfectiou.
e ''
ted.JAEGSR) P.2I2f = PG 46.285.
3a E p 6-429Bf. especially 432A./ . T his letter is w holly taken up w itlz
argttm ellts against those wlzo say that the soulis not an irtcorporealcreature
in otherwortlsthatitis a body. CoMBz
qlêlsthere notes (424 nott i*):'fk'ro-
cedit ve1 m axim e dispatatio haec contra Origezlianos qui sk aninm m vel
corpus ve1 corporisemper coniunetam (etsi tenuior:is substantiae...) e-xi-
stim abant... '' I'cannot how ever find evidence that O rigen or the œ igen -
ist.
s ever held tlze soul to be a body. On tlze contrary, the soul L9 itself
imm aterial howevet m uch involved in a body. (See R.CADIOTJ La ./' :v-
'nnesse d'oz%jës, (PaHs 1935) p. z98f; Bam w , Oyigèns in DTC XI (I93z)
z535). Inasmuch therefore as Maxim us' arguments are directed against
the form er, not tile latter doctrine indicated by Com befts, tlwy seem not
to be antiorigenist. Y et the essential instabilty. which the allversarles
ddend 4ep 6-4.3zBz; tlzese are tho v w wise #les of 4z9D.5f), is eminently
that ofthe Origenists. The clistinctlonsthen regarding x oanh are certainly
applicable to the Origertist dispute. See above p. I9z.
13
z94 Tke.Rz/f4/lffos oftlrfjzsù-
regard to those of others. 17or the adversaries in question,he says,
m utability w ould be endless nor w ould there be any constancy of
substance. Even further,the everh sting m ovem ent24of tile soulin
regard to the divine would,for them ,be subject to mutation,while
in faet that everlasthlg m otion is a natural energy or operation in
regard to thefairand the good,by which thesoul attains ped ection.
M utability,on the other halld,is a m ovement in things subject to
our self-disposing will (aètoxptloetx: :6h,
4!z(ut), a movement not
in accord w ith nature, a falling olï from the natural operation of
our powezs (ep.6-43zApBI3).
For M a< mus then p oa:j.as a moralterm llas a restricted and
pejorative sense. The use of our freewill in turning to God is for
him ratlzer a fulfilm ent of nature than an insu nce of its m utability.
V et this veor m utability, one m ight alm ost say deviation, rem ains
dosely conned ed with the changeableness of the created world.
T hese eonnotations are sensible in other instanees of this w ord's
use in M axim us K;.
realization of the creature in God. Tbis Lq also the sense of Thoec 1.8: on
whicizvoN BATAHASAP com ments(j z86). Thesepmqtsagespermit to besure
and the pairing of mutability with alteradon lJJ.l'
oltzwwl isdicate that
'
rkhQ;:'
/I refers seeonflarily to the sim ple non-m oralm utability itr tke life of
thls w olld. This is preeisely the sense of m utability tzAz# alievalion in a pas-
melge of Am b 8-IzosB xo where this is rsaid to be characteristicofthebod,y and,
external things, the very persistence of the instability being the only stable
element. Slmilary fxedness lrrtpvdxnçl, usually also havring m oralconnota-
tions,is used onee (ep 42-504A14) ofthe ontological imm utability of the
species.
:6 TMS use of sugcv seems an indubitable instance of Djonysiart in .-
(TP z-z7C) where ill thj:sertes of hum an acts preeeding an action yvoîp.n
eom es before election. In fad 1:0th.m ohp.
n and election presuppose flelib-
'
eration (/ofhvgtg) and tlzis presupposes ignorance. But ignorance is
absolutely im possible in Christ and is excluded in the blessed by the fnlness
of knowletlge. It is here suë dent to have indjcatecl these poin' ts' a full
consideration oi them belongs to a Chtistological stully.
Chapfvsr 7.Xoyos 197
'l'he foregoing treatm ent of surfeit and Exedness has suë eiently
shown tite im portance of freedom and it,s inherenee in'the eom plex
of eltoice and m ovem ent tewards God. Surfeit M ai m us w holly
rejects;mutability is recognized as a delident ttse of freedom . The
foregoiug points have been developed against a baekground of Or -
tltodox Origenist that was Gregory of N yssa *l. For he, rejeetirtg
#
O See above p. x9z antl p. 1q6 with note 3z.
41 Gvq ovy 0/ Nyssa,or/àfàt?.
v otigenistîI clo not intenll to imply tlmt
al1 Gregory's speculation is orthodox'he rem ains however a cloctor of the
Church. I m ay'perhaps be criticized for not havhtg eonsidered Gregory's
position in a11the foregoing chapters, as a pcesible eletnent not only in M ax-
jm us' positiqm but ZSO in that of the Origenists. It w as witlt this pos-
sible criticism in nzind thatfrom the outset(see above p.i'zf)I exeludeclthe
anthropological questixm s that ate leiks particularlr Origenist (tim pre- anq
post-existenqe of souls) and in whlch above a1lthe irï uence of Gregory is
felt. But the developm ent of the refutation of the henad has brought us
Nnally to the questiozl of freedom ;a'
nd here, as in tite fual chapter on the
gpocatastasis,Gregory cattttot be exclttded. That M axim us staltds dose to
Gregory of N yssa has always been recognize; but tltese relations have so
jar been ' the object of 11o thorough study. STéZHANOU''S artiele on La
fiog-
vù/exce initial6 ff?,
fsorpsettilyI'âm6tf',#r1 s.(iW jrtaïr, de Nrpw
ufrrts.M ax-
ime t'H omologlte (EO :J4 gzçu zl 304-. 3r5) is rathu a juxtam sition of the
tw o authors tlzan a study of their relations. Stéphanou flepentls on the
digressions of Am b 42 attd of Amb 7 (zIoo-lxoz),bat makes no mention
of O rigenism irzconnection with M axim us W eiswurm 's(lissertation (pp.48-
.
.5.
5) covez' s nm ch the sam e ground. The analyses of GM TH'S stud,y (La
floFztz/l/ïoAl (16 17 libevtê CA:J Grégoitr tf,Nysse, Paris 1953)m anifest a simi-
larity with M axim us in the followittg points: m an essentially eom posed of
body antl soul (p.481).the sim ttltaneit)rofthe parts (p.loo,101),tlle re-
lations ofbotly and soulafter death (p.185);the t' riad:nat'
tzre motion end.
bs Gregorian (p.96,97, IoI,zoz);tile sim ultaneity oi kinesis antl sttnis is
also found itl Gregory (p. a05). But ultimately one must allow a funda-
m entaldiserence betw'
een Gregory and M axim us in their relation with 01i-
gen. Gregory,afterall wasnurtured in the best Orjgenisttradition wlzeu
Chapter7.Koyos I99
koros4e, aë rm sthe neeessity,the practieal necessity at least of an
experience of evil as a springboard for the inûnite desire for God.
Gaith,in his reeent study of freedom in Gregory,m akes this point
very clear. H e w rites:'f11 faut done ehercher sile choix lui-m êm e
independamment des influences étrangeres (the devil's deceit and
the seduction of pleasure) ne eontient pas déjà le péehé comm e
une ctm dition quasinécessah'e. Elltl'autres term es ils'aglt de sa-
voir sile m ouvem ent libre ascensionnel de l'hom m e en genéral ne
eom m mw e pas norm alem ent par une chute ''48
And in speaking ofthis experience Gaith (p.137)cites in part
tlle following passage from Gregoov's D6 M prfzffs'
. %.lzor the self-
determinative (power)is as Cxod (lcöêE()v). How then tllis power
m ight rem ain aud evilbe done away witlz,the wisdom of Cvod fotm d
this idea;to 1etm an be ilztlze things he willed,that,tasting the evils
wilich he desired and learning by experience 44for what he had e-x-
changed them , he m ight willingly turn back through desire to tlze
He says (p. 106, the sequence of the passage above quoted)2 T$11
nous sem ble que cette idle se dégage de tout le systèm e de Grégoire.
Im xtm ateeckg ne devient, selon lui,un choix libre rlel c'est-à-dire
un progrè.s continu, que par une aliénation '' .
good, the Afaxhnian argunlent w ould tell but only if Gregory concdved
evil as a positive instram ent for teaching the gootl, not as an elem entwhich
eventually G sabuses m an of his illusions about appatent gtxds.
4: GREGORY ol? N VSSA D e Jo rfaz'4 PG 46.5248.
48 G AITH op. <f/..p. 8z.
.
47 Gltlooltv o, N u sa C. Eux. IIl p.6 (JAMGERJ Tol.11 p. z52t =
PG 4.
5,857C.
*: See above p. :84. '
Chapter F.ffqros zoz
will be .
m ost profitable to exam irte tlle M axirnian doctrine 49. For
no ozze w ho has read w ith attentiozz the M axinzian descriptions of
our ascent to God carlfaitto have noticed how it is a reproduetion
of the èxfttzctçse so fam iliar and dear to G regoa , that is the
right exercise of our choice resulting in the ever non-sating satiety
oî otzr desire wil
icllis the fulness offreedozn (Amb g-zo89,zogJcD,
Io76B). How wms Maximus to meet the eritieal problem of the
semse of Jp oatpeo'kg. Iu the freedom of m an rftlotttoEtytg cannot
but be central'it is so in G regory, it is so ilz N em esius :1
It does rlot seem tctbe necessary to dem onstrate llere at length
that the w'i11and choice stand at the heartalso ofM axim us'doctrine.
It hms been apparent in the m any eitations already m ade. Rather I
shall set forth llis use of the terzzt xtlotlly gw and his darifying of
the distinctilm betweezt it azld wi11.
N ow the critieal il
actor in effecting thisdistinction isthe Chdst-
ological. At the outset then I shall give M axim us' brlef defnition
ofthetwotermsilzquestion. Hewrites:'''Phenaturalwill(fïélnjtq
tpvo'lxlv) is the essential deslre of tbings corroborative of nature;
tlte gnom ic will is the self-chosen im pulse and m ovem ent of remson
to one thing or another ''51. The thing above all to note in this
disth ction is tlm t the natural w ill belongs to nature, to the logos
49 %fay I note by the way it pertaâns nlore to the next chapter that
tlzis nm biguity in Gregory faeilitated his (loctrine of tlle apocatastasis. E'
vil
and so also sin tsee the end of ihe passage translated above from the De
u'
Ubr/sïs) purîfies and.so renders m ssible sooner or later the restoration
ofa11to the prim itive state.Self-determ ination anclchoice L6le /tzt;/o of evil)
being too closely idvntified it is (lië cult, if not im possible to preserve the
form er without allowing for the universal rectification of the latter. But
of thks later.
Je M axfm us speaks of fafvqgtg in the verg r proce-ss of clistilzp lislzilzg
choice antl will ('PP z-a4CI3).
51 DOMANSKI B. Die Psychologie d6s Aoplysff:.
ç (Mitnster 1900)p,I4O:
,4Das W eâen das Gruntl und den K ernpunkt (Ie-T m enschlichen W tllensfrei-
heit bildet beiNem esiusdasW ahlvermögel ode.r die Vorsâtzlichkeit tzpoal-
eetrtç)''. H owever Nem esius does a190 tlistiugàish though without m ak-
ing any thlng of tlze (listinction betweell clzoice and self-deterznirtative
power,theform er presupposing the latter (D ewcfvl'tzhomiyds 41:PG 40.776A).
51 TP z4-z53A. That gzlomic 4d11 here replaees clzoiee (rpocleslw)
is the result of controversy. The tw o are not exactly synonp noqs; for
zrtiottte tng is deflzte; (TP I-16C after Nemesius'De nat.hom . 33: PG 4o,
733B tz) a. s ''deliberative appetite of tlzizlgs within our m wer''. But
'fvdmq is relate; to rwoftltœlng as habit to act (TP z-x7C).
coz T/f.
trRelï
-utatiohg---
- -/Orig-l
- fjjf
-fnj
of natere,and the grtom ic w iltto the persoa, to tlle troioz ormode
of existenee. And as it was the revelation of the Tiinity, frst of
all,and then the m ystery of the Incarzlation wkieh enabled the ntind
to m ake the distinedon of person and nature,so outside the direct
influence ofthe sam e,nothitzg is easier than to neglect it. rorilzthe
m ere ereature, wltich w e are, whatever springs from the nattu' al
willcan only be efeetive through our own choiee alone. Such cer-
tahlly is the ease w ith M axim us, especially if one considers only
lAis vocabulary.
It is interestingsand perhaps not entirely without signiieance,
that tlle two azl-ùkslft,where zpouûtpotg is most dearly met,are
preeisely those in whieh there is a de:nite exdtzsion ofthe Origenist,
more, of tlle Gregorian apocatastasis53. In eaeh ease there is also
found the fundam eutal triad; being, w ell- or im being, ever-being.
'
l'he flrst and the last are not within m an's power;tlle m iddle, wlzich
is of course not m ere natural goodness but the adoption ef sons
involves cltoic' and the action of the Spirit, And thi ks is necessarily'
so, beœ use of the f<self-m oving, m asterless power that naturally
is in m arz'' (Amb 42-z345D :3-15). The sam e tllought is found
in his treatment ofthe Sabbath (Aml)6$-I39cA),' but there we find
also 1he emphatie su tem ent that ever-well-being is not subjeet to
the williug of choice (t/eAf1o'
Etrrpoaseétysfoç Amb 65-I39zB8).
Iz1 these passages thqre is no hint of a distinction between will
and choice, unless one m ight, and reasonably iadeed, see sach a
hiztt in the eause assigned for the necessary exercise of elzoice in
the attaittm ent of w ell-being: nam ely, that there is in m an t'the
ianate self-m oving, m asterless pow er ''. Choice then and this m a-
sterlsss #ppzer are not perfectly identieal. Attd masterlns #pkp> is
self-determ ination aeeording to the definitien given in TP I 54 Self- .
w d ght upon it. , For itt explaining to Thalassius (Thal 4' z) how
ëe 'F'o'
r M axim us'treatm ent of this problem see the final chapter .
:4 '1*P z-17D :f.Power is iunate dom inion over thiugs to be done that
aresubjectto us;unhinderetldeminion ofthe use ofthingssubjectto us;
unenslaved appetite of things sabjeet to us '>.
O T P 28-324D 8.
Chapier F.Koros zo3
Phzist beeam e sin for us and yet did not.know sin,lte speaks indif-
ferently of the corrtlptiolt of choice in A dam and of it.s reetitude
in Christ. This is one of the passages for which afterwards he m ust
give an explanation. In TP I he observes that if som e of the 1?a-
thers have spoken of ehoice in Cluist,it was in the sense of our es-
sentialappetitive power,narftely ou. r natural will, or was an appro-
priation of our ehoice to the Inearttate God (T P I-a90). It was
ia tids sam e m anner that he him self wrote to 'Phalmssius,for in fact
there is izzChristno possible choiee (?.PP I-z9Df).
'rhe Christologicalfaetor has then dearly induced a elariâeation.
Choice in the frst treatise to M arinus is defined as a <.deliberative
appetite of things subjed s to us. For, M axim us explains, ehoice
is a m ixture,.com potm ded of m any things, being eom posed of ap-
petite,deliberation artd judgement ''(TP I-I6C). 'rizis isaa adapted
citation of N em esius s:and is therefore nothing new . W hat is new
is the em phatic denial that in Christ there can be any sueh thing
as choice. The defrtition as it stands refers to any sort of delibera-
tion,whether it be betw een diverse goods or between good a2nd evll.
But certainly it is in this latter w ay that he tends to speak of it.
At the end of the apology for the use of choice in regard to Christ,
cited above,Maximussays:''('l'heFathez's)knew trtlly thataschoice
regards both, I m ean tlle good and the evil, it pe'rtains to those
who can be moved:wiich to think,m uch,m ore to say of Christ,
the Very substanee and source of good, is full of every im piety ''
(TP I-% A).
Tt is llot only here that tlze connection of choice with selectfon
between good and evil is evident. It is im plicit in the detinition
of gnom ic willwith w hich I began. It reeurs in a fuller exposition
ofgaom ic willin the treatise on Two W ills. There <'the self-chosen
im pulse, esecting the divergence to otte or the other,constitutes
(the gnomic wl11);it is defnitive not of the uature but, precisely,
of the person and hypostasis'' (
x TP I6-I9zBI3-CI). And agaia a
little m ore fglly:f'And the httm an willl
'mg in our Savior,even being
natural,w as not nude as w-ith us,as ndther was bis hum anity,since
by the union it was did nized to tlze lim it.whetlce accurately sinless-
ness belongs to it. But ottl's evidently is nude alld ia no wise sia-
less on account of the deviation to this side or that - a deviation
z8-3z5A9),'is JwfzlveactN ç.
CHAPTSR V I
A/oczu AsTAszs
Prsvio'
t4s sfllffïes
Irl zvctz M ichatld publisâed his stttdy:S.M axime J: conjesseur
et I'az
l/pctzffls/tzs:1. After dtittg in Latin a m ultitude of texts,not
always to the point,and w ith som e giving a brief com m ent,lte con-
dudes that M axim ns taught the fnal consum m ation of at1 in the
good. Vitler1 however, states that M axim us did not take over
the doctrine as found in Evagrius. Grum el3, referring to QD I3,
aërms that M axirtius held a mitigated dod rine ofthe apocatastasis.
V on B althasar * has later given som e pages to the question ia an
epilogtle to his essay ollthe Confessor's doctdlle. I-fe present.s three
series of-texts:1) those referring to hell and eterual punishment;
z) those which speak of the effedive salvatiozt of htlman nature,
w ithout so m uch as a hint that tlzere m ight be single exceptions;
and 3)those texts wltich refuse to give a deeper doctrine,that doc-
trine being,so one reasonably supposes,tlteapocqtastasis. M axirnus'
1 M rcrtltu'
t), E. Rru. JAC/ZIZwt
r
I/JZ-tZJ: (le FW tvtpjrïg zo (z@o2) 257-71.
2 RAM Iz (1930) zlo.
3 II'IV Io (z9a8) 457.
: KL 367-721275-78.
$
2o6 ThnX#'
?4/flSt)lW Ch'
iy/:1,:-
-
suceess of the divine plan and the threat of eternaldam nation that
hangs over the sinner. H LS solution seem s to give greund forbeliev -
ing that this latter is a threat only that could rem ain unrealized .
''
ln tllis resped it is tlnaeeeptable . . . .
' But w ith the years, or perhaps with the gteater poiglzancy of
the situation under which he was writisg this fziend George was
under grave suspidon),Maximus has gained a f'urther insight . He
speaks this tim e in the frst person : '*.A.ll m e! the fearful sham e
that willnever have an end except by a citange I becom e free ofm y
m any evits, .ih m e! the m oaning and the'bitter tears. . . Instead
of light darkness,in'stead of joy grief,instead ofrehxatien punish-
m ent and distress willsurely Teceive m e. Aztd then ofa11, tlle m ost
nziserable,or m ore tnzly the m ost grievous - in saying it only I am
afllkted, how m uch m ore in enduring it: be m erciftll, Chtist, and
save us from this ajlliction - the separation from Gqd 14 and from
his holy polers,and the fanliliadty with t:edeviland hisevildem ons
that abidesfor ever without any expeetation of liberation from tlzese
tenible tlzings. For in this world by our evil aetivities we chose
willingly and deliberately to be with them ; of necessity to be with
.
13 Part of the phrasfng of this passage has been borrowe; from Gre-
gory N azianzen or. 16.9:PQ 3,5.945C. It is a passage citecl again in part
in Am b p zo88A .
14 Gregory of N azianzen is also here M axim us' forerunner' see tNe
above note.
Chapfer VI-Apocatastasis zog
reazy and truly will be, 1et us, beloved, not negleet ourselves ''
(ep 1-388D6-8902).
M axim us does not speak here conventionally of the pains of
hell'he does not repeat m ere phrases,as m ay seem the case in the
references giveu earlier. Xret there rem ains to be seen how he * 11
treat certaill problem s resulting from seriptural and. patristic texts
when he is less directly under the infuence oflfisgospelm editations.
Here the great problem is that of the concrde solidarity f?/ the
àll- flzl race1: wlzich ,if carried to its lim its,seem s to involve a cer-
tain apocatastasis,m ore or less on the fotlowirlg lines:since a11 fell
itï A dam all w ill rise and be saved in the new A dam . B tlt even
when sueh a doctrine is carried to its extrem es the resulting apoea-
tastasis, though equally false w ith the O rigenist doctrine, is not
the sam e. 'rhe latter is eoherent w itll the doctrine of the henad,
preed stenee and a certain eoneept of freedom and neeessarily llows
from it;the form er has a real,a true basis,but is a doctrine sugering,
as it were from sarcom a,nam ely that no person m ay be coneeived
as set perm anently in opposition to the good in Christ l6.
I shallnow give those passages whieh seem rnost to favor such
a view . It is here that x stichaud was m ost diligent. Am ong the
Quaestiones ad F/lflllssï'
lfvlI may refer more particularly to Thal z
and I5. In the first the harm onization of the particxular with the
general,in the second the ways of God's providenee are dealt with.
In quite a num ber of the passages dted by M iclzaud one should
note that the m oral elem ent is present, m ostly expressed with the
words granted /t? th6 worl/ly or the like U. Tllis is em phasized in
the com m entary on Ps.59 '8. H oweverthe fullest iasistence on this
aspeet is'found in A m b 3I-Iz73D , w hich deals with a phrmse of Gre-
gory's oration on the N ativity : Tfthe law s of nature are loosed; the
upper world m ust be filled; Christ bids, 1et us not resist ''. Tlze
second phrase of the pmssage naturally hw ites the doctrine of tlze
concrets solidarity t# m ankind. Nor is it surpdsing that Maximus
the heavenly choir p arlkind w hose return provides the whole scope
of the Incarnation l9. But that M axim us here leaves to a m ore
propitious oecasiop the explanation of the num bers 2, Io and Ioo zn'
is not suë eient grounds fo' r num bering this pa% age am ong those
w hieh deliberately refuse to speak on certain more :xfllfefl doctrines .
E sottwic Sïlesce?
V on Balthasar :'says that texts of the esoteric sort are frequent
in M axim us. 'fhis is not quite so. 1 have just indicated.one pas-
sage that ought not to be lm m bered w itll them A nother stteh .
W e are left then with three really germ ane texts: Thal m ol-
z6oA ; 'l*hal 4g-4IzA z Thal aI-3I6D . Let us begin with tke last;
'
for the other tw o are m ore im portant an4 related one with the other.
.
plici' quia visibiliter quitlem âlius D eî irz earne cruciiixus e-st invisibiliter
vero in ea crucediaboluscam pvi,
gcqpqtibas.
slds6t#cfesftz/ïèusAflxm esfc'
rtxf .
Ckapttr VI.Apocatastasis J
zzl
ofour Lord Jesus Christ wastwofold ... that is,itis made up dou-
ble,because visibly indeed the Son of God was eraeified in the qesh,
while invisibly on that (same) cross tlle devilwitk kis JrïAlcï/wfïfïes
and #p7z?>s is Exed to the eross'' (cf.Col.c.:r4, 15). At the rnd '
of tlle subsequent developm ent on the apocatastasis Origen returns
to tliis text and joins it to another24:f'l'or wlmt good does it do
me if I know that tke king W H ai is /ltzzlgTff on a ff(,f45/: wood? But
ifT lcrzow that the pewer oftlle cross is twofold tm which * :,.
1: Christ
is hanged in the tlesh and the devilwith his arm y is routed - from
understzandizlg the m ystery m y soul is edified. And yet m ore per-
haps,to enlarge greatly the scope of the m ystea , on this wood is
understood to be the knowledge'olgood and ol evil (cf.Gen.z.9)on
which 1:0th Christ tlte good and 1he evil devil hanged - the evil
to perish , the good to'live by power...''.
Maximus then,after giving his interpretation ofthe P'
utting (?#
principalities tzlfî poweys m anifests his unwillingneu to propagate
a11 the interpretations w hich he knows and condudes in tllis wise:
''It w ould be possible otherw ise to consider the sense of this passage,
m ore m ystically, m ore exaltedly; but since,as you know ,one should
not set down in w rithlg the m ore ineffable of the divine doctrirles,
1et us be content w ith what has been said,enough to hold tlle m ore
curious in tlzis m atter. But,'God grazzthzg that w e be ilz onq an-
other's com pany, we shallstudiously exam ine together the Apostle's
mind '' (Tha1 2I-3I6D).
Tltis is not a com plete esotezic silenee; M avim us is wm ing to
discuss the m eaning of St Paul; the m ore risky interpretation,it is
not prudent to ptlblish. The m ol'e m ystzcal sensç m ay vez'y well
be som ething akin to that hinted at in the above citations from
O rigen;that it is so m ust rem ain a supposition. O n the other hand
it is patent that M axim us does not propose to explain such a sense
when he and T halarssius m ay be together, lm t to exam ine the
*e PN -876CI-7.
Z? PN -877D-88oxk.
:: P N .-88OC.
Ckaptev VI.Apocatastasis zI5
W e com'e now to the one expticit treaiment of the danmable
apocatastasis, the 13t11 of tlle Qu6stions and D oubfs. It m ust be
given in its entirety. ''Since Gregory of N yssa very frequently
irt his writings,to us who do not understand the depth of his bigh
theory, seem s to suggest the restoration, tell us plemse w hat yeu
understand of it.
<<The Church knows of three restorations. 'Phe frst is that
of single persons by reason of virttte in w hich eaeh is restored,ful-
flliltg the pzinciples of virtue in him self. 'flte seeond is that of
the whole nature in the resurred ion - restoration to incorruption
and im m ortality. 'lhhe thirdyw hieh Gregory ofN yssa has especially
abused in.llisworks,is tllis:the restoration again oftite soul's powers,
falle.n under sin,to that (state) in which they were created. Por
it is needful that,ms the w hole of nature in the resurrection of the
flesh receives im m ortality at the hoped-for tim e,so also the perverted
powers of the soul w ith the passage of ages pttt off the m em ory of
wickedness im planted in it,and, traversing a11the age. s nor futdl
-ng
any stUpping place,eom e to G od who has no lim it. Thus by dear
knowledge (àaûyvfpcw) not by partidpation (pO qlg) in the diviae
(goods) the soul reeeives (its) powers and is restored to its pri-
mitive (state)and the creatorisshown notto be the eause ofsin ''
(QD 13-796)'9.
W hat is to be said .
of this passage? Exam ples of '
the frst sense
ofrestoration I have given above (p.zl4;cf,p.173 and I$z),
.the
second calls for ao com m ent. In the description of tlze third sem se
M axim us is content to sum m arize .Gregory's 21st chapter in the
De hominis tl/ïJcfp (PG 44.201). Bttt whi!e in Gregory the subject
of the restoration is the nature of m an or we in M axim us'sum m ary
it is only the pow ers of the soul. r ttrther it is not a com plete sum -
m ary of G regory's doctrine. 'rhe bishop of N yssa envisages,in the
coun e of long ages,the restoration not only of tlle w hole hurnnn raee
btlt also of the inventor of iniqulty, the devil H. .M 1 this of course
is in virtue ef the Incarnation. Or elsew here he speaks ofthe w ip-
ing out of iniquity,w hen all wills will be fxed in God :1.
conauston
W hat results then from our inquisition ozt the apocatastasis in
M axim us? The tensiotl - universality of salvation and etentity of
dam nation for som e - really exists in the M axim ian theology, since
eitlzer pote is m aintained. M aintaiued in their integrity, yes; btvt
not w ith that extrem ism and tm reasonable consequeuee that con -
firm ing it alm ost two centuries later. Then as tlzere is the universal
resurrectien,this is to be understood not only of the body, lmt atso
of the inteileetttalfactllties. It brings with it then a certain know-
ledge of God, lmt disjoined from communion with him . Gregol'y,
how ever, w ent further, teaehiug that even sinners will eventually
com m unieate in the diville goods. 'Phe putting off of the m em ory
of sins rem ains obscure .
Com e alike to the end ofthis essay and of the labor of revision
and of m aking the fair eopy, I realize that throughout there has
been a lack of theological thought. It has been m y m ethod to en-
deavor to plaee the w ork of M axim us in its proper historieal fram e-
w ork'
. This is necessary, nor is it yet com pletely done. There is
yet to be studied the import of his anthropology (and his relations
with Qregory), his doetrine of aë rmative aud.negative thcxology
(and ltis relationswith Denis and the Cappadocians), the develop-
m ent of his Chzistology in its relations with the 6th centuoeLaontii
azld in its reaetion Mitb llis m onophysite 1and M onopllysite rnilieu.
As m y own study has been,these too are studies of details and of
texts. Undoubtedly; y:t underlying them are there not greater
questions of the developm ent of a proper philosophical aw areness
in theology (already pereeptible in Gregory of Nyssa) whieh
distingaishes sedulously between the m oral and tlle ontological
developing a m etaphysics of being, wllieh the fadle use of triadic.'
scbem es cannot disguise. The positions thus m ailztained, the on-
tologieal, the anthropologieal, are dosely akin to those fam llz 'ar
to lls fn the west. W hat theu are the reasons for so greata diFer-
ence in tonality ? I throw out tw o suggestions.
The very tenor of the O rigenist reo tation exaeted a preocett-
pation w ith the last things wholly congenial to m onastic circles.
This has m eant that the w hole of theology tends to be view ed under
the form ality of the consum m ation of a11 in Christ. It was this
that m ade O rigenism still a live issue a century after its eondem na-
tion. Even at the Cotm eil of Florence the purgatorial fre of the
Catholies was a dië culty beeause of apprehension for a resuscitation
of the Origenht errorâ.
the Palam ite tendencies in the 14th century. And the authorities
that Gregory Palam as especially alleges in the fam ous Tom' us fft#-
gioriticus? M acarius and D enis' bttt it is M axinltts alone whom he
cites :. I cart do no m ore than pose the question.
In a word,I tilink students of M axim us w111not com e fully to
know their author untila not only recognizing llis sources and fore-
rtm ners,they also know wlzat his sueeessors drew from him and how
they too ât into a living tradition. 'ro know these things will be
in that very fact a help in understanding tlte diferenees between
the B yzantine and w estern theologies T o m lderstand these dife-
.
renees in their sources and reasons w,111 rettder m ore feasible that,
though w e are not ôyöyloltm otyet w e m ay once m ore be ôgöxtgtol4.
*
* *
4 .77 , . .. .. . . :
E40 'rhalprol -2.
52B8-Cz* , . I95
ep T. , . . . . . . . , . 19/1 252B1I . . 1281 147*
- 37zB5 . , . . . . . 1$-
051 257A E,2D . . . zI2
388D 6-389C.
2* . . . zo8 26oA 6-z5* . . . zIa
:89A 8 . . . . . . , zz2 vsu ,- z6ga , . . . . . , ::4.
ep z-464A Iz . , . . . . . 1443% Th< 2-272. . . . . . . . I65
ep 4-416A , . . . . . , . zo7 ThZ II-z93B4 , . . . . . aozle '
416D : . . . . . . . zz7 Th
al z:-z9:D -z96ztz:* . , z76f,
4z6D 8-4I7A z*. . . . zovf, 2968 . . . .z4âH z65
ep 6-4298 . . . . . . . . 19g T hal 15-297 . . . . . . . 2I8
43zA * . . . . . . . z9a
4.
32A.8 .I::2, zp4, :94.
24.
> 195:: T uaj a:-o ztks v , ... ayy
eP 7-4368 . . . . . . .1123r94:
'
: Thal 22-317D 10 . . ... . 20911
e 12-501A 14 . . . . . 194:E 3209 7-321* 12*. . 134 '
1:8 . 3zoD 7,12 . . . . I3319
ep I9 . . . . . . . . . . zo, 5B j$aoD 8 . , , . . zg4*
- 593B I-5* . . . , . )FI3 (.
J20D 9 . . . . . zg4ql
593.
11 . . . . . Izz. I5I5' 3zoD lg . . . . . z4:0
z
Jo . Index ol M aximus Citations
Thal zz-azIBg* zg4f. 'rhoec r. ,56 . 2 2I
3zzB z . zo9l7 r . 8:. 194.
3%
Thal 25-.332C.:J-:3* z<.s Z.83.84 169 7
3.3cC6 . z.s1R 2 'I :0810
333.
1.5 . . k 19434 TP f-9A . I53
333C :4-175* . I46 9A 8 954:
333D r . . .z4'
;4s, z5z53 :2Q . . . zo .57
T hal 39 3938-
14713 z6C* . zo!5z coz
,
I7C 19683
T hal .
4.2-.405217 r'
p6al I7s 20 2ö4
T hal 43-409D . . . . z12 24013 9549
4I2A I.3-B z* . 2Iz 29Cf. . ZO5
3A I,3-B *
4I. zxa 29D 196%
Tl 338 7-C2* 1I5
lal 54-5258 z4 aojg7 33A 4, . 203
T lzal 59-6o9Cz 20917 :
$:
301I--x,:$ . 13214
Thal 60-62IA R ï7o 332:3* ' ' 135
fk'zlA lo v'
yo 33C14-36A 2* )35
62zB I :4,/4: .36A.7 .. I4743
6azD 36Cz3f. l22
6:417 2z'p T P g 45D
149
-
It)V
624D 5-9 zm T P 7-7aBf2
6z5A .5* zzg36 8oA
625.
*.8 85:1 85A.4.
Tizal 5z-.6:$:
?A :444. . T P 9-zzzA a-8* 1I5
T ital 63 668C8 .
-
zog'? z32B9-:z :05
67.3f27-D : . , ï47 T P Io-I37A a-zt* . I66
67:17:-676.A 2* .z4g v s y4 yjaa
6 .
zo1
yaD zof1. :471:
'Ph T P :6-180(29 . 15rH
al 64-7ooB8 . zo9l?
724e13 z85D .. (o5?
, , . zyI t9zA . ,9.3.1. 1963:
7:,50 :44:6, 1.94 . zqaljzzw z+
zo3
Thal 65-,./5./08-760A. . p.j 2OOB8-C2* JI4f.
z57Czo-76oA zzz 'rp ao-
as6ru-za zo3f.
Titoec 1.2.3.$0 Ioyf. TP c8-3o8C 195:1
I .2,4 1o9 .3o8D I66
I .3*. Io6 (s:4D . I74O
T.3 . lzt
z 3z.
5A 9 .
. 204*
1 .10 . Io9 .33,
/5 . I511:
I.39. .z84 35zA z,3 1281
Intlkx t)/ N ames z3I
IT. IN D EX 0 17 N AM ES
A r.SX-
&NDSR A PHROD.99f., II1*Y, I23 D s LatBluotf
osz P. 1241
A MPIH LOCHIUS,155,16o D s L UBAC, H . I7989
A NASTASIUS 'PHP: SINM T/ Al8. lllsNls oF ALSXANDRIA z19
ANDRSW, Comm entator W Denis I18 D sNrs ttltll 'SEUDO-A Rb;OPAGITS 3,
A lustrcfrtfls 4:
$. 99, t1I z1418 )C24.1. I4844 I5352 I77f., I80 ;
A RNIM , H . vf)N 15715 CH .3.kl z45 ; zz.a zo4; zJ.4 : f47O ;
A RNOU, R . 9243 1241 E H 2..( rz4l8;2.3,I.t45 ;.
2.:
$.4 I4743;
ATHANASIUS I56 6.z Iz4l; 6.3.I Ia41; D N a.9 IoI,
$31: I9.5:6' 3.2 1zo (
:.: fz41'4.I zo4 ;
BALTHASAR, H . U . V'oN 43, 63, 6827 4..7 93; 4.rt z474z' 4.:'2 :331: :-15'
.
7z, 75% 88 Ioz xo43 1o6 1069 4.23 f04.,* 5.5-7 169, 173,'5.6 :730 '
!09, zI7, 1:$7, 14743 167:: :6./*: 5.8 I75; 8 .2 I4743; Ir.6 r6856' M T
I685: z756% I751* 1.780 I78 :9421 I.I 147*8;tp ..3 :
(5521'tp.4 l13'7
l94O 205,207,20915 2 t(7 22I 2:43. D s SEt' rls 87
EAxozls'z I18 D svlœ sssE,R .48 17IBâ
BARDEINMISW IR, 0 . 87:7 D uw Mu s oF A LEXANDRIA 84,
BARDV G. 513 6, 75% 78, 19323. 155z 157
B ARSANTJPHIUS z2, 77 blsKM m 12 79
B ASIL O1?CA/SAREA 9,155, 15bf., I7 1, D lsozsR,M .*.PH ,2f. :4713
183. D oDos, E.R 69 7 10151 Iz97 :.331:
B'KM G. 16858 D oMâxsxz B. zI5:' col'l
Ba sAluox az3: DltissKs,J.47
B om rz, H . z2z R RRH AR D , A . I18
BoNlirsyov,J. P.87 E RIGENA zf..7z
B oussstt,W . Iz41
E UNOMIUS GY CMZK US 44
Baov, L . 55 E'tlslm trs oF Cu sxttsA 79, l56
BRIJNS,J. 18816 E VAGRIUS PONTICUS 9, 2I, 37, 63,
76f. 84f. 85O Ioo lz4l :.J797
Caolou, R . I9,3%3 z38f. 1E4In 1481% I5:/7 z05
CAellvvxs, M . 3o
CII:
IVAT.J.sR, PH . 1:8 P IJNK ,F.X . 15.5. z59
CE
LIM SN' .
I' OF ALEX ANDRIA z7, 168,
I76 GAD H J. 198*1 I99f.,2O6 2oPB
QoM lm n s F. 1931* 19518 196BZ'116 G sta slus, m onk 78, 7991 84*
?I7311
: G SORGS or B M SHAN II9f.
Cvpaztcv s 84:8 GF/ARGR H I/ROMNEMON, see Pachy-
Cv'm r.ov AAEXANDRIA 15I
CYRIL tàlê SIN A IOPOI'IR 83, I75O GSRMANUS 1, patyiaych 1I8
,G zxtls OF ANSXANDRIA I13:7 G ILsoN,E . I241
GM GOIW N M IANZBN 75, 77, 79,
D v h<Alsa 1. H . 16754 zzID z3I,155,183,208D ,20811 zIo
DMqltrœov J.5111 14541 2090 21019 GR/GORY OlêN YSSA 5I,60 77, 914*
zI6. :5,:* xz41 z3414 z4844 z55, z57,
D/ GCIBBRT,J.16345 zgz, :9841 2ol 207, 2I5, 2I8f.
:,
32 I'
ttdnx of Namos
- Editors ofgo N ONNUS 75, 8428
G RUMSI?,V .2o5
G IJILLAUM ON'
I', A . and C 74% 8530 O SIR SR, F . z z1 :8711
f372B ORIGSN 37.I73, 176, I83, I9If.,19841
coo,214,
.DtPvincipiis :,3.8 1823;
H ARNACK , A . :7.57: 1.6.2 87,* 2.1.1 73.
* 2.3.3 184; 2.8.3
I-IATJSIU RR, 1. 745, 771: fz4z Is7, z812,. 2.9.z z8.34. :$.6.5-9 sm a
' f.4
'4Og I484* I9528 Iosus 8.a zzof.
H slxlseH ,P . 1685:
H saoo otptTs cz7a7 P AQHVMSRIS z18
H lsRo'rHltls 74
.
PANttzksx' fls z7, 1:51.
H tlzw , K . I.55ff., t64 PsAztstlN , J. I:8
H omq',G.145 Ps1tx,Q.1I9,l7,
7%
Pltlt'o 13319 14841 14918 :68.8 zgq
IRSNAIUS I5t5 PJIOCAS BAR SFI RGIUS II7
IVANKA, X .VON 86, I241, l7ô71,I9942 CI'
IOW US 4f.
m sjasu g.441:
JAMBIJCHUS ïo3 PIXAUVQ K ,34X4
JOHN.béshot t?/ Cyzicus 6.7,3f). PI'AGNY UX'J.3411
JOIIN f/t: Hssyobm t84 PLXYO 85' 94., 19421
JOHN the .I7r6'
#/;:/77 PVOYIXUS 85, 94, 1241,
' Enttet'ds
Joltx ov scvwlolyoras 75f., zil4.a 1.:-.
3 940' 3.7.2 94*
, 3.9.91 921:,
TI7fg, 4.8.I 9651>
. 5,z.6'5 9447;6,z,z13 I3T9'
>
Joltoax ,H ..51: 6.2.82e-% 94'' 6.3.27%8 94, 960.'6'7.
JUSIINIAN 22 73, 7711., 85ff. IS1
- 35'91Z%'6.9.SO 94,$
1*31,6 9.91? 96*
,
zo7: 6.9.Iz1n 5 94 ' . 6.9.114>45 94
PITUTARCH 11571
K OCH ,H . rz4l 14743 15153 PRAT F . z8.3f.
L PR>N TIGIS, G.L. 15511., 1634E
EHM AN'. P. 7I '
paocfx s E l
LSISIGANG 1-1.1.685* nme
7 nts o j Theology 6817
1:
,
L RON'm TJS oll BYZANTIUM 60 83, IG2 93, 104, 129 , 13. 3 , z43pa, :474:
L psjçtm o- A ra xAxpslz A PHROD. r8816
I EONTIIJS (W JI SRUSMWM I6z psstm o Basm , see D idym us
-
l'
W S, R . 14511
L oossN ï77
, J. 10:9 I74O Pssvpo- lm zu s,see D sytis
L
ossltY, V. :67*1 I7061 I77f. '
tauyxx It ()t4. :4,
.
/4a
YARZCXAL' 5. I241 PYRRHUS II3,15Iö2' I66
p
M ARSK , P .S . 71B vvsaooRAs 85
M MGIN,J.zzo
M Rxuxszt K . 1241
ICHAFL OF APH SE
QSUS 1881: R EES s 8836
M ICUAUI), E .zo5J zfa9 S .
m chap
M .o M . 25 3p, 83 88
.
M OYLLER,CYI, 751, 88O 7zz31 R oouss, R . zo41
'
UImRR,G. .156
M TJYLDIRIU NS,J. 1O0 SABAS 75
SAJDAK,J. 1f.
N sMssrt;s 817 6o 9t
pz 1z5û1 19r
z 2oz, SCHWARTZ E .7713,7814
zo3 S8NICA 1870
Inifix oj u
sx#jTc/s c,
).)
i
S/RGIUS,patvo t'
clt 13:
$19 'lNavI.oR, A , E . 944*
SHsRw ool), P . I17 THEODORE ol? R AITHOU 88
SIMION 'rlsf.Z F'
0(m 87 THSODORE ol? SCYTHIIPOLIS 83
Snfetacrcs 99 T> orlolts STTJDITS 2o6
Srx KO, l%.
w z, 6, 4If. '
l*HEioD oRs'
r z57
Szxttus,popn I:9 'l> ozaHm us oe ALSXANORIA 75k
SMYTH, H .W . I87:: U SBSRW EG, F . 1881%
SolaHao- tls,monk 78,79:1
V lu sR, M . 1241, 13727 14139 I4zS1
Sopm toNlus,patviarch 9
SG HLLN, 0 . I751*
S'
rm x,E.77S W m sw t-
ptkM , A .A . 97:2 ::841
STAPHANOU,E . 19841 W OLIY ON, H .A . ï3319 124. 94* 168:8
S'
It
IG:MAYR,J. I19 I798%
111.INDEX 0F SU BJECTS
Abraham 37 Ellergies,uncreatcd g.5zê
Am bigua,seeoncl edition of 39,4I Evagrius,doctrine of 1. 38ff.
A pocatastasis 71, 76f. 80 88, 2051 - and Denis com paretl :24.1 I5357
A ttirbutes divine 147, 149, z5 l - and Plotinus :241 .
Evil,experieucc of 9o, z86
B ecom ing,genesis 97:2 Exem plar z.5o
Being,triatlof 6717 I71,zoz,22ï
Pixedness I92
Charity I54,zzz F reedom atzd surfeit 490, 1f)7
Choice zo !, zo3 ba Chrlt 2o4
- in Christ :96:: - - for ûkigen I83
Christ, substantial virtue !73 FreeMdz Iz9, 198,.
Cllristology 1t$6, 19(33: 201-.
z03
Genesis 97:2
Conjectures of 3
'faxiulus 7 Gnom ie w ill zor 2c)3
Contenzplation lzatural z6
Qoclkes of Gregory Nazianzen 41 H enatl of rational beings 73, 76,85,
Creation,double 5I,914b 9o
Cyelic view of worlfl process 86,9752 - itlits m oralM peets I83
Ileath descriptions of 2ovf. Ignorance of G od :4844
Denis and Evagrius
' com pared Iz4l, - of created essences I49
z53:7 . Im age and.likeness 1'F4
Desire for Gotl z9,64 Im m utability 196
- insatiable :881* Inftnity 9.54: 1474:
Devil salvRtion of a15
D iabaa'
is k
J:, (
3.5 Joy, as Stoie concept 1871:
Dionysian vomabulary 9 Judgement,fllalzo6ff.
K nowleflge, theory of I4.IB1
Elias 4o,68
End,defned 98,Ioo Iyaw ,written and natural 35
-
distingttislze; from term 9.
54% Logos doctrine defense of I75D.
234 Inh
% V S'
.
l4biects
Xogos doctrine, history of z6856 Origenist m yth r84, zpo
, neetl to expounfl zt pl
--
Ozigen's text in M axim us 886.
- - and Origenism r57
- -
, poss ible contradiction in Palam ite tendencies 9541 :68* z24
- -
and w esterzt theology z78 Participation zz5f., 218 zzo
Logos-tropos 1555 . * Passage of ages 2zq
-
, Stoic ttse of z5715 Plotinus anll Evagrius zz41
- M axlm usz '
, ase ef :646, Pyaxis and theovia :54:4 .
-
as divine wllls z75f. R est m otion and gaf,
-
m ultiple zf%ozzzo,z;u,z77 Salvation universality of cof;
safiftx ' See Jlr/lff
M auuscripts of tlze .dm bigua :f. e
- readings from zaf ao ga #1 4, se ''f0#6' & 29,91O I7o z74 z77, z8g
. , , a . konasts of o ex s :ry.
.
44, 4b, 48, 49, oo, I8;,1z. pu/ gy. se.!.kpttuv ejjatjous, irj the vjm bigua
zozo 4:, zrsta: pu /, gp.Jvo;7'ay.
S Sepwlclwizo ye , x e pgog ggg p.z7
.
M elelziselleelz Jg ' - zG6' *.1.26 81;2.9 z,r.z.p :z 8ç).
p 3; 4z
>.a g. ,
M iror 14 5 .
-V. 16.5 89; z8.2 Ig6 p.
Y*/. I.4 2I8; 9.r, 2 z68' zz z a'
M oses .57 ajo
Mb , )8
azjj.
'
zacy' za.z j;;
j,.yoggs,t
y.t
y.(ozag.
tion, tralfne
de ford M(' M tut' 7*Y3 I771 :5.32 6P8.z:
- , C*D
axfm us zo9
.
a.3c1
- -
and rest 9: 190, 25.46 82, 88' zop; Luc. z6.
o
M otiens of tbe soul L4s 19-2% 79;Jytl1. T.z.
1: ( z7.,; A ct. zy.a:
.