Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
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
1955
TH E EA R LIER A M BIG U A
O F SA IN T M A XIM US TH E CO N FESSO R
A N D H IS REFU TA TIO N O F O RIG ZN ISM
by
FO LYCA RP SH ERW O O D 0 . S. B.
Proleam r ofFarology 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
&/ftzltlS.w4>selp>'
.I4ie e.
'
/Deamby'ks zglg,
t BPRNARDUS K ASrJN
A blbas Pr- s 0. S. B .
t Afovslvs 'TRAGIJA
Avcliiep. t7(4:.
%4A'idA#., '
Vicrsgsyens
Forew ord . . .
Abbreviatious .
Bibliography
PAR'
r 1:Tke AfzrlzW Ambigua - A .External Deseription
The m anuscript tradition
The ancient notices
The literary form
'rhe recipients
The atlversaries .
The authorities
'lhe them es .
Tables 1 List. of the A m bigua
' 11 Index of Citations
1II Setipture Itldex . . . . .
B . Analysis of the Single D ifliculties
W I
XI
X III
3
5
6
8
8
10
11
15
&7
zl
7Z
92
IO3
II7
Izz
Iz8
I37
I49
155
I66
I8I
I84
I92
I98
zo5
223
z25
F O R E W O R 17
H aving com pleted a w oyk of m any m onths it Ls at onee helpful
for the reader and usefulfor the author to look back again at his ainl
in undertakiug the w ork arld in the cottrse follow ed.
In M axim ian stuclies one of the outstanding lacks has been.a
knowledge ofthe Confessor's w ritings i:4their own context. M en have
writteu.of ilis dod rine, and w ritten w ell but taking here a text,
there a text on w hiclz to build their stm cture. A nd further the
Crnturies have drawn a larger share of attention. I thinl.
z of the
studies of V iller alzd votl Balthasar,the version of Pegou. But this
is a literary form notoriously apt for disguising the writer's ow n position. ltw astherefore that Isaw asan outstanding need of M axlm ian
studies an ilw entory, to say the least of the A m big'
tta one of the
ehie.f w orks of M axim us arld the one in w hiclt lze eould give freer
play to his talent of analysis and speculation. But this invelztory
m ust first of all be on the literary levelaud give a sum m ary of their
a as a group azld each of tllelu singly placed
eontent .- the A m bigu'
i11their proper coutext,so that the M axim iaztthought could be grasped in its native terrain. This is the explanation of tile first part;
.
Nqu
Ffwnwoa '
doubled the size of the study and m eant a carefuleom parison with
the N yssene doetline - a study'and a com parison whieh, T felt,
tould m oze adequately be undertaken in an 1analysis ofthe Quaestionn /1: Thatassium . lt is thus tbat I canle to bypass G regory and
with Origen 2. But even here the subject'is only partially dealt
w'ith. A fuil treatm ent m ust aw ait a study of the M axim ian anthropology.
M y task tllen w as to present the Ozigenism w itll w lkif:b M axim us had to deal - the prim ordial henad of rational creatures - ,
his outologicalargum ents in refutation thereof and his logos dod rille,
w hose fuuction was to preserve w hat tbere w as oftruth irzthe O rigenist speculatitjn. Thus there w ould have been but tw o ehapters, the
actual fi1'st and fourth ; but entering into the argum ent of the irst I
m et the fact ofecsiasis. The whole doctrine ofm an's attaining unioll
w ith God, the iinal and real auity, w ould have rem ained obscure
tznle% I sought out M axim us' m ilvd (m this debated pont 'rhus
I fotm d m yself em barked on the third chapter But, w orldng on
tllis, it soon beeam e too obvious to be neglkcted that, nam ely, the
M axim ian doetrine of ecstasis was basetl on tlle sam e triadie ontology
'
as the refutation argum elzts of the lirst eilapter Thus I cam e to
.
For- avd
raised are how ean the rational creattue essentially tm stttble irt
regard to G od by the very'fact of being creature, attain a fixity in
God whfch his nature craves and caullote#ect. Ecstasy is tlle answ er
on Gocl's part,and this has already bee'
a treated ;but on m art's part
the freew ill or m ore dosely representing the G reek term ,the selfdeterm ination m ust have its free part to play. H enee tlw third
and fouz'th sections of tbe eha
'pter on surfeit.
H ere,if m y afm had been to w rite a eonlplete study of A nlb 7.
l shoultl have em barked on an analysis of the argum ent against
the preexistence of souls. '
W hy 1 have llot done so has already
been explained. Instead I have introduced a ehapter o1L the apoeatastasis. If it has little direct eonneetion Avith the text of A m b 7,
no mte will questfon its germ aneness to the Origenian them e. ft
aloue oftlleOrigeniau positions hasbeen the object of speeialMaxim ian studies, And m oreover it perm its us to return to the ontologica! leve! ort w hich the llrst chapters of this study m oved. But
here T m ust confess it is not the lmst of the ehapters written 'but
the first. And the state, ill w hieh I now present it, fs but slightly
revised after dealing with the problem of the freewili and Eaving
For6tvord
Ix
alone ofthe Origenian positiozlshasbeen tlle object ofspecialM axizzliartstadies. A rld rnoreover it perlnits tts to return to '
tbe onttgogical levet on w hieh the lirst chapte:
:s of this study m oved. But
bere I m ust confess, it is not the last of the chapters written but
the first. A nd the state, in w hich I now present it,is but slightly
rex-ised after dealing urith the probiem of the freewill alzd having
m et w ith Gaith's inept referenee to M axinlus in his study of Gregory
of N yssa.
Such is the genesis of the present stutly. If it be worth m uch
it will be dtte to the careful presentation of M axim us' own texts.
H ere I m ay explafzl m y procedure. Citing M axm us frequently and
at length, I suppose that the readef will have at his disposal the
voltlm es of M igne. The translations are not always the best of
A B B R E V TA T IO N S
foz the works of M axim us:
Am b
= A m biguovum /j#d.
>'
Cap ie'
.
x= Capta z5
Qhar
= Centuries 5.
/ Chavty
Qom p. Eccl.
Computus f;
'cclesiasticus
DB
D ispute at .f9.
fayt4
ep
= tvpisiie
LA
M yst
Libev xz
ls
zzfstfs
M ysiagogia
PN
Ps 59
QD
= Qttaestiones etJ-lfofc
ItM
R elatio xv o/.
lt;xi.
g
Tlzal
'
rheop
Thoec
= Qaaestiones ad 7'/lt4J/4s&'
5,.
:zA?
= Quaestiones ad F/ls()#:-#/+;vz
Capita Tlologica :./ Oeconowtiea
TP
CACI
DSp
Byzantimlische Ze/xtiArf/f
Commenlatia i'
rl Avisfotelem t'
irtz6t;tz (ed.Acad.Borassiea)
= D ictionnair' d6 .
/ifz'
/zxfz/zf asstilue 6t mydfi-
D 'PC
EO
G AK L
= D d ionn@ivr de F/oltzp:
zr catlnoliq3te
= Echos #'OHtw l
= BARDENIIEW ER Gesch%t
?ltt' t
ffrr A ltltrchlchen .
Ei/8-
GCS
JTS
= D ie jfAW fi/lsr
l ps chyistiichcn .
$'t;Fl1'f//.
2JJdr
= Jouvtlql W Theologioal S/lffzr.
:
LSe
Mansi
= Conciliorlsm t4vl/'liasl'
lzfz collestio ed. M ANSI
Oohr
OCP
xzz
d bbyo%4ationa
PG
RA M
RE B
1).fjw*.1pi1:1.
R nvutf tfltzstlbr
ffgz' et #: m yst%que
R 6v'
tnc des d'
tlltft:s lyyztvsfltts
R evue t/fllzfl
R evue #'#J'
Jft)9fl esclsiastique
RHE
R SPIITh
=
:s==
Rev.
ue tfc.
ssiences phfloq
f
a/tt
N f?s </ thdologiqtes
R SR
Sth
zA M
ZkT ll
r=
=
=
B I B 1,IO G R A .
l'H Xr
Tlze following bibliography nim s to relleet tlte base of m odern stutlies
on w hich m y own work is grounded. It eoutains therefore practically aI1
the worlcs cited in the coltrse of the dissertation and.som e others which
thouglz not citefl ltave been of use i1t the preparation of the w ork.
AltNol/,R.,LeD#se de flf'
zdans 1t4.Plvilosopltze d6./Nf?/l.Parisscl (192I).
'
- -
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.
Scholeltweyk des .rtl/lt
.D>
zelv .
trtls Skythopolis. Sch :5 (194.0) z6-38.
Pyfssna :/Pepse../fssczs'
l4r ia F/zflo.
tl/t'ayeligieassde GvgtlA'
e dr .N#.
.
'.
Paris I94z.
Btlusss:
f,W . A poplttltq tnatA.Ttibirzgen z92.
$.
Calqtrvxs,M. y a.
n ScotJrgzl'.Paris 19:3.
CaDz.
ou,R . Lft /d
rzfAldr&s!Li'ovigne.Paris 19.
35.
.
Cllls&',
u alszt. Ph. D ionysiacq. Pm'
'
LS I937-z95o.
D.
u rMAIS.I.-H . L'uvye s/y'ff?
2zrVc de ; Alan mr Ir C-loAl/esJeltr.N otes .
:74r son
tftsa
pn/tl/#ep:yzz/ et sa sfgzli/itltzftp'
rl, ZiJ spivIi%elle, Stlpplm ent 1952,
:
,I6-2e6.
L a F/ltf(v' des (
Logol : des Clgc
lfzffJA'
l.
chez :' l'bfaxim r le Cltlx/:sseur.
xw
Biblioqratlty
Dq G ANDIIAAC, M . J '
uvres rol?7/lfpfs.
dt% .F%tu4#t
7-7% zl#.
Z kz4ooltqgite. P aris 194:$.
DE
s: m ontanisie. Paris zQI.3.
I
I LABRIOLI/S P I.a ;A'
Ik
r
l
'
hi
go
v
v
e
z
/
z
u
Re
l
z
v
o
ps
I4
'
z
(
oc
t
. dec. 19
H
.5
2) 1.
56-20.
5.
M JSRHARR,
AM ' 1. L6 lyfxg d. l'tvrzseAz d'E vqgrr J8 P ontqlxe tf'Ytrlft@6iN ifl.
-
z5 (z934).
34-93,Ia3-Ti'o.
Ignovana fp/iae.OCP 2 (1i):
.
;6) :
55t-G:z.
Plbitautie & la frzgffrdry:AflursoithIa cAt
vi/d stlon s.z'kft4/rfziv:16 conjesseur
.
R om e 1952-
1943) 64-:23.
H orav, K . Amphiiochius ptlx Ikoniunt in llae.zr/ Vrthtltnis zu #t?;z grossstt
.
zgr-xlot
3.
K OCH, H ugo, Pseudo-llionyszos 1/z seinsm ,llzr
afe/tzt?lg6ll .
vt%n'
t Ndl4Fltx/o'
p,
.
gptlt52
vnd Jlr
fysfdrkraypzr.
ex , M ains Igoo.
Lbifltrr.
td
lx, M ichael D issettationes D am asoenicae. PG 94.
IgsN-s, lkoger, L'ftnqge Je Iltru cAsa s. Gr/g/is: de J/yss: lksquisse #'sw: dostrine. Bruxelles-p aris xq5x.
lm osEN,J eph,Lngos ltlztf Pneu3na bei kjrzltl f:p M enschen l':M gkimus
Conjessov. M inster 1fl4x.
LossKsr V ladim ir E ssai sf4r la tloologie ztyi/fklzg de l'E glise d'Or%ent. Paris
:944.
Bibliogfathy
MARCHAL,J.,Etades Jty la J'oti/ltalogg des usfn /rzzrsat.1l, Paris 1937.
MARSH'
, b%.S., The Book oj tke H oly v
#.
N4rple().
.London 1927.
MI(4'
IarD,E..SIz'
k.
ffzxfpz:16 Ctlx/:sldr'
l4retf'zljt7stzlcuft4.
:e.R.IAfge'
Al,de Thlol.
ro (zqoz) zsp 7z.
Mvvrm sltMaNs,J., Evtngn ana Syvticf:. Louvain I952.
Plu solr,J
'., Vindoiae fjrAttztitllle.PG 5.
Pslt.
h C. S. Tlw m ae .r1quipatis .
JA hezsz B .D ionisii #: D ivinis N 6eiArfxl'
prd
PLAGNIEUX,J. .S'.GvtlgLil'
.ee de Nfzxt
zAlze TK ologten.Paris sfl (1952).
PRssTl(1It, G . L. God ,l P atyistic FA()AfjWJ. London 1936.
VILLER,M ,,.dux .
tl'
xiztifr.
de Ia '
sjarfwa/fd 46's.A'
ftl.
vp'
n::l6s tw'
utlzzs d'Evagvet
Pontique.R AM 1z (ln oj a'56-84, 2.
39-68, .
3.
3z-.36W SISWURM,A.A . Thc N tzfuA'r oj ffvm lp K '
nowlttdgc Kiccc/rffljrto S.Gr:govy
oj N yssa.Diss.W ashington x95rz.
PA R T I
..
MANN (Fk
r. Koehler de.scribed the Greek mss) Die fn stfss/ir/fzw dtw ffyrzogtichen BrBrao'
rllllc z'
u Brolj:e tsif/4/ IV : Dle Gudischen H ss (19z:).
1 S.P.N.JkftzxAzlConfeszoyis& vayih tf//it:zfH slocis SS PP Dpsyyif
etflr:jwcly' ad FAovlfzz:zg.s.libram ... x'
MA;tlpvim gim Al/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.
'
of Oehler's edition. After him Thaddeus Sinko:D 6 FymflfpAl: oraftlszo;z Gregoyii N azianzeni P an S6cunda : D e T'
rtztfiffpAl: indirecta
incomplete).
z. P aris A rsenal 237
z. P aris M azr ine 561
s. ix
s. ix
These b0t.
lz are authentic m anuscripts oi Rrigena's version of the
A m bigua *.
:
$,'raurin.z5 (Pashzi),b V 5 s.xi.G.DeRqndisdeseribing the m ssescam d
from the fre of 1904 says tltis m s is dam aged but com pletely legible.
Consentini in his inventory of r92z does not m ention tb.
ts m s. I
a!n not certain that the .4m bigua w ea'e contained in it 1
4, V at gr 15oz
s. xi-xii
5. V at gr 504
a. zIf).5
6. A ogelica Iao
s. xii
7. Coisl. 9o
's. xii
from tlle grat Laura
8. M onac. gr. 363
s. xii-xiii
9. M arcian. z36
s. xiii
zo. Paris. gr. 886
s. xiii
Dufresne's codex
II. G ud.
. gr. 39
s. xiii
z2. Vat gr 5o7
a. 1344
Seribe: Dem etrius diaconus
K aniskes K abaailas
I:J. M onac. gr, 83
s. xv
I4. A thos 6055
s. xv
from P anteleem on
z5. Paris.gr. zo94
s. xv
z6. '
V'
at gr. 5o5
a. zszo
eopietl from V at gr zjoz
x7. B arberini gr. 587
a. xvi
'Pizis is m y ow tt datfng.
lrxlsrlyzlIlescyf/e s
Scribe Cyriacus
s. xi
s. XE
iH
s. A v-xv
s. xv.
% l1z this ms (3(. Sepulchei 2oj Amb I nms from f. 298: (= zo6zA)
to 347v (= Amb Io-tI37D5).f.ao4 issupplied by a laterhanda:lo4v having
the space of 6 lines blank but w ithout a lacuna. f. :45 is also by a later
hand.
,b0th sitles of the leaf are full, containing f;s elxdg (-1Iz814 ) - xflt
%&x '
etfla (-zz3aBz)inclusive. 346:
2begins witlz'
rok evpzdaxovev'v (-z35B6).
'rhere is tlzerefore .lacuna of about a eolnm n ofM igne's text. 347v ends
wjth rk
w k ttl
h oii 16 -. 348 is by tlle sam e 1:anfl but from an uaiden.
aetid ty 7. After speaking at length of the Quaestioqtes fltf Thalassium the author m entions the A m bigua. H e w rites: '<But indeed
one who has m ade the acquaintaae of his treatises and hard-w orked
less than the former (Tha1). For in these writings se know much
is Eard to understand and m tlch w hose explanation is far from evident, espeeially what has to do &vith opinions on the theology of
by R.Dsvlksssss,AB 46 (1928):8-z.
3. The passage to be cited is fourtd
ou p. z1,lines II-T9 >Al yie of8v fsvov &#ETaJ TK v; togvov vqypvov v
<%v Dgbv L'hovwa xat y4lkgvl ;wc oyy4vv !xETa%xqkrl lv v T:$;:$leooylag,uil4g xatxv Ev xosot Bl:e vov xltToltyv/ceau evoxlva sk x 1a$:qk4xseov iycyev.ox lvvol: pgvov xaL @eQ(: pvgxtxoxp%, kli X?L pedoet
xovyspet xGLly/ sepsxakketvhv lksyqcv sllyevo,
8 Cod. 194. PCI zo3, 6531)61.
'
: 'Ex :g eoloyszq ovvx:leg. Por svvalk IoS: (s. r. 3) give syJf:rvlfc tveatisc c/p3/odf: volunne. The word is fatiliar to Photius in this
epistle to Jolm (Am b-10G4) enables one to m ake sense of his comment,
ExtrynalDaszd/sf?zl
is found also in the longer .4m bigua. In A m b 3-6 the phrase from
G regory serving as a di culty follow s but a few liaes on an expression alm ost identical to that d ted by Photitts n.
lzirstitisevidentthattheybelong tothatgenuscalledQuqesfiones
TfResionsa,1:a form widely used alike in pagan and Christian aatiquity. In fact as a form it seem s to have had two antecedents;
the scholastic tedm ique of proposing and solving di culties in the
authors studied and a hortatory form of instruetion in question
and answer13, of witich the Loges Jsctr/fclls of M axim us would ve
a palm ary exam ple. T hese anteeedents are fused and developed
according to tlle exigencies of tlze di culties put. And tlm ugh at
jymzesfchx4a6tXtv/iox.
soxes.
s,4A'l'Ecritur.'
m pfe in Rev.bib.4z (193z)zzo-zlz.
13 JORDAN,op.cit.,p.410.
Tk6 .llcf/drzllo
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.
(Io65A).
tervals Maz mus should address John directly. Twice he does this
tlle'others,then this Ior Altw rs/lzv p,lis ytilla witnerxs to the fundam 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
Tktf Adversari6s
dieulty. '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
edinAmbIzandAmbIo(II84B6,refutingtheeternity ofmatterj.
Tke zd
lz
lff/lprfn-e.
s
'fo pass nowefrom the urm am ed adversaries to'the equally un
nam ed sources w hom M axim us cites in expounding the Hght doctrine,
'we firld m ost prom inent an o1d m an. One's first thought,thinking
-
on the o1d man ofthe Liber asceticus and ofthe M ystagogla may
be that tlzis is only a fctiou, The character of tlle dtations seem
Extrrnd Descz/fn'
tr
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:ltoo rckj,with,perhaps,
a Afaxim iam rephrasing of D N z.1I - 649, The first tw o instances
ferences coneern Christological questions, in which bophronian intltlence 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,
theology and even the use of the term cdebyate (gv (lvvgvfp;
IIo8C5;III6Az;11161)5;II28B4)would seem to indicate.
Aside from Gregory him self and D enis, there Ls but one other
larly thetbird (cf.Phys.4.4-212a20). The frsttwo areofa provenance that I have not been able to identify .
IB See the foregoing note.
Io
Thr E'
trdfer x'l-kfw
The I'hsmes
phy in the attaining ofthat goal:partieipation in (ratherthaa visioa of)the Blessed W inity. 'rhese are tite grovmd swezs ofMaxim 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'
urface waves depending on
, s
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;
I8,
TS
21
from Denis (ineluding allusions)willfollow,then the other rare eitations. It is understood of eourse that the colum n num bers for the
A m bigua refer to the G reek M igne votum e 9I.' In tables 11 and IIT
..
Ps. Denis
Basil
Evagrius
Am b 8-IxoID -zzosB
D e pauperum am ore
or. 14.7 :35.8658
D e pauperum am ore
or. :4.7 ::5.86.5C
or. z4.3o /.
35.8978
Am b 9-fxo5C
In laudem A thanasll
or. zz.: !3.
5.10848
z2
A m b zo-zrosc-z20.5C
Ps. D enis
(r88A3/DN :.
3.3 :3.98017
z88124/1)N 4.lo ::
5.705 afetx
N em esius
Adstotle?
A mb 1I-zzosD -zao8A
A nlb I2-I2o8B C
A m b I:
$-z2o8D -IzI2B
'
'
A m b l8-zzg2k7-Iz,33B
A m b zf?-zz(
33C>1ag6D
I2(z8A/or. :8..
5 :36..
s
J28.
5
1z29BC/or. 28.5 :,
36.3213C
xctapD/or. c8.z :g6.:
$3B9ss.
T heologica 11
or. z8.zo ;36.37C
T heologica 11
or. 28.19 :36.528
Am b zo-rza6D-lz4ze 'Theologica 11
or. 28.20 :36.52C
Ps. Denls
Iz4zAjo/M3.
A z ::
$.997.
1.
Am b 2z-zc4xD-I256C Theologica 11
or. z8.zo T36,53.*
Am b z3-r25.
/C-I26IA
Theologica III
or. 29.2 :36.768
Ps.Denis
m b 26-z26542-I2681
or,c9.Ij :36.951
Tkeologlca III
Tabk I
z:
A m b 27-1:68C-1z)'2A
T heologica IV
or. 30.8 :36.1z2
$A
.
zz69B/or. 30.8 :.
36.1I382-4
Am b z8-.
r27zBC
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
T lteologita IV
or. 30.9 :36.1I:$C
z9-zz7zD -I273A Theologica IV
or. Jo.II .:.
36.116C
xo-lz73A -C
Theologiea IV
or. :
$0.2I :.
:
36.I:
$:$A
31-1z73D -Ic8IB In N atalicia
or. 38,2 ::$6.3I3B
52-1281.
B -1z85B In N atalicia
or. 38.2 :.36.:13R
Ps.Denis
I285A/EH 2.4 :,
3.4ooB9-CIo
A m b :$a-Ia85C-I288A
In N atalicia
or. a8.z :36.3138
A m b 34-1288A.-C
In N atalicia
or. 38.7 :36.3178 C
Am b 35-ra88D -z289B In N atalicla
or. 38.9 :36.3.20C
.
Ps.Denis
A m b 36-za89B-D
In N atalicia
or. :
$8.:3 :.36..
325C
Am b .57-128917-1c97B ln N atalieia
or. 38.17 :36.:$21)D
.
In N atalicia
or. 38.18 :36,3328
Amb 39-I3oIBC
In sancta Im m ina
I3o4B/or.34.8 136.249.
*.
2-4
z3ozjc/or.lo.4z 236.4:786-8
Am b 41-r3o4D -IJr(6A In sancta L um ina
or. 39.13 :36.34817
(
Ps.Denis
Am b 4z-I3I6A-z.
34pA In sanctum Baptism a
or. 40.2 ::6.360C
I3z4o/or.30.20 :36.129061.
I336A/ep, Iox,I ;37.18:C
.
$49B -D
Am b '4.3-t:
In sancturn B aptism a
or. 4o.Iz 236.3738
titl'
a plus
Am b 44-z3491)-I35aA In sactum Baptism a
or. 40.33 :36.4058
Am b 45-13.528 -15568 In sanctum Pascha
or. 45.8 :36.6:2C
14
Am b 46-:356C-1gs7D
In satlctttm Pa cha
or. 45.13 :35.641A.
4.7-135711-13614. In sanetm n Paselza
or. 45.14 :.
36.641Q17
4.
8-1361.1.-1365C In sand um Paseha
or. 45.:6 :36.645.
A.
49-1365C1:
In salctum Pascha
or. 45.18 :36.648C
50-1368.
A.-13690 In sanctum Pu cha
.
Amb
Amb
Am b
Amb
A m b 5z-z,369C-z3;'2E
A m b 52-z37cB C
A m b .53-z:7cC-I37B
or. 4.
5.:9 :.
36.6498
In sanctum Pascha
or. 45.2z :36.6528
In sanctum Pascha
or. 45.24 : 36.656C
In sanctum Pasch.a
or. 45.24 236.6.j6C
A m b 54-1.376C-:3778
Amb
Amb
Am b
Amb
Am b
Am b
A= b
Am b
In sanctum Paseha
or. 45.24 :56.656C
5.5-:377C
In sanctum Pascha
or. 45.24 :36.656D
56-I377D -z38oD In sanctum Pmqeha '
or. 45.24 :36.656D
p z38oD -I38zB In saltd um Paseha
.q
oT. 45.24 :36.657.:
58-1381E -z384 11. In sanetum Pascha
or. 45.24 :36.657%
59-1384.1.
-C
In sanctum Pascha
or. 4.
5.24 :36.657..
60-:.38417-13850 In sanctum Pascha
or. 4.
j.25 :36.6578
6:-1385C-z388A. In novam D om iuicam
or. 4.4.2 :36.6088
62-:3884 8
In novam D om inieam
or. 44.2 :36.608C
..
In novam D om inicam
or. 44.5 :36.6120
1:
$88C/or. 44.8 ::
$6.61617
A m b 64.
-:3898C
In novam D ornlnicam
or. 44.8 :36.6168
A'
m b 65-13'
891J-131)38 In Pentecosten
or. 41.2 ;36.4328
A m b 66-1,3938 -1396.8. In Pentecosten
or. 41.4 :36.4.33E
.
Table 11
1.
5
Ps. Denis
Valedictor!-14I7-C
Ps. Den.
ts
zzjzsA/or,41.:2 :36.44588-14
z4z6CD/or.7.Ig :35.77'
/C10-D5
;415A/DN 4.t.
:
s::.7IzAIz-B5
z4zgN4-zr/DN 1..
5.6 :.
!.()8zCz5-D6.
T A B % s 11
Index of Citations
A ristotle?
Basil
E vagrius
Gregtlr.y N mdanzen
'. 7.19
or. 7.2I
or, 14.7
tlr, I4.20
OY. 14.30
kn'. 16.9
0r. I7.4
OT. 2 I.1
or. 2I.18
or. 2l.31
or. 25.6
or, 27.I
or, 27.4
or. 28.5
or. 28.6
or. 28.7
or. 28.9
A m b zo-zl8oozz 13
Amb ,
/-$080D
A m b 7-royzC4
35i77Clo-D5
3.
5.781Q8-784.
&8
35.8658
35.8658
JJ.8&5C
35.865C
35.884A zo-B zz
35.8978
35.94528-12
35.969C9-15
35.10848
35.10848 5-10
zg.zzoxc
:
$5.1117C
3,
5.zao5B
:6.zI
zA
,
36.161)
$.J2(
I)5
.3t
z6.:JaBC
36..5zC
36.338 9/ .
36.560
36.37*
A nzb
Anab
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
Amb
Am b
Am b
7:-1416C D
2:-:249D
6 T
7-Io9zA
7 ?r
7-zogzA t
7-Ioq3A B
8 'r
7-Io88A
7-zo93BC
zo T
7-zoy6D
xI T
zz T
69 'P
:3 T
14 'r
I7-1228A
lzzgB e
A m b 15 T
Am b zp z2z9D
A m b 16 T
Am b I7 '
r
16
or. 28.Io
or. 28.z7
or. a8.:9
36.528
or. 28.20
or. 28.:2z
36.52C
36.53A
(
36.538
A m b 18 T
A m b I'
y o77B
- 1085C
A m b 19 '
r
Am b zo '
P
A m b 2I Q*
Am b z.
zT
or. 29.'
z
or. 29.6
or. 29.15
01,. z9 .x6
36.76/
36.8rB
36.9311
36.96A.
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
z.T
:4
z5
26
C)r. 3O.2
o r. .30.8
$
36.10.58 1:
g6.Iz.3A
$B a-4
,36.4I(
36.4.1,3C
36.r:62
:
56.12f.)C6f
36.!.3,
3A
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
62-13888
z7 T
al'-z26911
z8 T
z9 T
4:-1324C
3o T
36.249.1.
2-4
A m b 4o-I3o4B
()r. 38.z
36.3:.38
36.ir:3B
3f..(
$13B
or. 38.7
0r. 38.9
or. 38.11
or. 38.13
or. 38.T'
;'
or. .38.(8
36,31782
36.320C
36.3::zC4-324A.2
36.325C
3($.3z9D
36.3328
A m b 3I T
A m b az T
A m b 33 *
.P
A m b 34 T
Am b 35 '
1%
A m b ;r-zo93D
A m b 36 T
A m b :7 T
A m b 38 T
39,6
8
.39.
Or. 39.I3
Or. Jg.I.
5
36.311A
36.344A
36.,348D
36.348D 1-5
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
39 T
4o T
41 T
7-1096A
Or. 41.2
or. 4o.12
or. 4o.33
or. 40.4 I
:6.3602
36.3738
36.4058
4:78 6-8
,36.
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
4z '
r
43 T, -I349B
44 'r
4o-I3o4C
Or. 4t.z
or, 4I.4
Or. 4I.4
C)r. 4I.I2
Or. 41.16
35.4328
36.4338
36.433C6.
36.4458 8-14
36.446)C
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
65 T
66 T
67 T
71-r4 I3A
68 T
0r. 43.I
36,496.
A
Am b 7o T
Aznb .'J7-yz9zD f.
Am b 61 T
Or. 30.9
or. 3o.II
or. 30.20
Or. 3o.2:!
or. 34.8
or.
or.
Or. 44.I
OT. 44.2
36,37C
36.48C5-8 8-zo
36.5o8B z-zo
6088
.36.
T
T
1*
T
Tabl6 III
17
or. 44.2
or. 44.5
or. 44.8
or. 44.8
:6.608C
,
36.&TaC
36.6I6B
36.61617
Am b
A lub
Am b
Am b
tiz 3.
*
6.3 3.%
64 '1*
63-1388C
or. 45.8
or. 4.
j.1.
:
J
or, 45.14
or. 45.:6
36.632C
36.641.
.
36.64 CD '
36.645.1.
Alnb
Am b
Am b
Am b
45
46
47
48
or.4j.18
36.648C
or. 45.f9
T
1%
'.
P
1%
Amb 49 T
36.6498
A m b 5o T
or.45.21
36.:528
Amb 5r T
or. 45.24
or. 45.25
36.656C-6574.
.
36.6578
A m b 52-59 %'
'T
Am b 6o T
ep. xol.I
Poem ata IIjr,v. 2o
:J7..I8zC
37.523.
5
Am b 4'
a-I$36A
A m b 66-1396.1.
Am b 7r '1*
A m b To-:489.1.15-TI93B x1
Pseudo-llenls
EH
CH
:5.5
DN
DN
2.9
D N z.rz
D N 4.10
D N 4.t3
DN
4.:4
DN
DN
'D N
4.22
5.5
5.8
DN
DN
DN
MT
ep
13.:
z>.3
13.6
z
9
3.4ooB9-QIo
A m b 32-z285A.
3.3338
A m b 14-12IsC2
3.644A
64814.3
.3.
649
.3.
3.705
3:712A :2-115
3.7+20
3.7248
3.8ao
3.824
3.97711-980A 7
3.98017
3.98:C 15-176
3.997A
3.zzo4B
A m b 7-1081C5
A m b 7-Io7.JB 9
A m b :$5-:289.1.
Am b Io-z:88C 4
Am b 7r-:4r3A
Am b 23-:260C
A m b zo-z:371$15
A m b 7-Io8oB
Am b 7-z08.5.A.8
A m b 41-r3I3A
A m b lo-l188A :
$
V al. I4I7B4-Ir
A m b zo-tz4zA lo
A m b zo-:1.378 6
T A B J.s I I I
Scyipture fxtf:.
v
Gs> sls
Am b
I.7
I.26
Am b
Am b
t.27
2vz
Am b
z.(9)17 Am b 7-lozzD
6p I4o1B
67-I4oIA
67-I4oIR
65-139:C
3.I
5.7.zz.z
Am b
Am b
Am b
Amb
lo-ll56CD
4z-z3444.
42-1344/$.
lo-:1450
18
(& sesi.
)
1 Itsovu
:7.5
z.
;.z.
/
z9.z4
zg.2o,3z
30.31.
:9
57.
7
39. 1:4
'
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
'
Vm b
.
Am b
zo-:zooA.B
4a-I344B
42-z34.48
45-zg5aCD
5z-zagzA
5z-r369C
19-:236C
zo-lz3co
Exozm s
'
3.2
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
A l'
nb
Am b
5.
. 5
7.:7
zz.x4.aI,2z
a4.33. 17
:6.1%
N ro
zo-II48D
4z-Ia44B
zo-zzooe
4z-za44B
50-::J68C
5o-za68C
4z-z.34oD
50-1368(2
7-zo85(B
6:-r,385C
A m b Io-l2oIB C
LsvzTzet!s
7.50
A m b Io-zzoob
13.A m b zo-zzozA B
14.38
A m b Io-z1254
.
D SUTERON
'
.
'
''
I,5
:.43,44
Iz.9
28.:
3o.z9
32.49
Iosv.
e
a, tz
5.z
6.1* .
7.18
zo.12
x1.10
A m b zo-zra4D t
a m b ag-zapas
'
2 RMG'
IJM
z.4
.
b'4
z4.zos
3 M GUM
z7.9
17. 18
:7. 2 3,2:
.
:8. 38
x9.q
Aanb t$z-z,388A
X m b 37-:28917
A m b zo-zz5zB
A m b zo-lz258 e,
r
.
A m b Io-IrzsB
A m b 66-:3938
A m b zo-zzzze
jy Io-zI2Iu,tx
Am.
.
'
4
2.I
2.1
ao.zs
A= b
Am b
Amb
Am b
10-1124C1*
10-1I6IC
42-1344.1.
zo-II.52B
25.7%
z zo
4. z8
OM IIJM
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
Io-zx64(
B
45-13521)
p zo/zlA
zo-:zzsA
zo-zI6IB
Io-zzzrD
Io-zzzgo
z'o-zzzyD
zo-zzzoA t
zo-zzzoB
42-::
54.4.C
Io-zzzoc
PsAm
1.4
:6.:5
1;.z
23.7
26,Io
30.3
41.3
41.7
41.8
A m b 7r-I4I6D
A m b 7-:o7gA
am : zo- yyaZ.A.e.r
A m b 60-1385..
A m b 10-112IA BT
A m b 7-Io8IA
A m b 7-Io7,3A
A m b 7l-I4o9-A
A m b 7I-z4o8D
:4:2.&
A m b Io-lIz8A
A m b 4o-z,:
Jo4A B
Am b 7I-r4o9D
A m b pz-zzjz617
Am b 2z-Ia4ID
A m b 4o-3p4A'
B
.
44.3
47.a
to .g
zoz.rs
1:8,6
144.3
.
PRO> RBIA
4.27
A m b 42-132517
22.28
A m b I3-I2o8D
.
ECCIA SIAST/S
i.9
Am b .
7I-z4z2D
Table 1II
1:9
IoB
(S .M'cfr/ltz4xsl
8.z
A m b lz-zcosI)
SAPIISNTIA
5.Iz,zo Am b 71-z4z6D
SIRACID/S
22.6
O
A m b. z4-zZI3C
sas
13.3
lsAlAs
9.6
53.2
S M -Nxcus
3'I7
Am b
9.42
Am b
16.z,9
Am b
16.19
A itzb
zI-Iz44A
Iz-1ao8A
56-:37117
3C
4z-z332C, 1.33:
S LtrcAs
4.:9
A m b 46-z357.
4
8.18
A m b 48-1.36117
9.3
A m b IO-I2oID t
.
A m b 3z-I28IC
Am b Io-rzszA
BARvc:l
.
l
3.38
A m b Io-zx48D
.
Ezslm zs:
:6.:$,4.51),7a A m b 4z-13zoD
Du m r.
9.24
10.30
,2.23
14.33
15.4
15.8
z5.zz
Amb
Am b
Am b
Am b
Amb
Amb
Amb
zo-z144.C
ItA-II53C
zo-zzaao
Io-zI53C
31-1277.
X
3I-zz7'
7A.
:
Jz-zz77A
,
:6.25
16.24
A m b Io-:I72A
Am b 7I-z4I3A
:6.29
23.43
2:.52
A m b aI-Ia53B
A m b 4I-I3o9B , 5,3-z:768
A'
m b 5:
3-z.:76C
A m b z9-zc:
$6C
S M A/
ITHASTJg
5.3
7.6
zo.gs
1:.14
Iz.z8
I4.zo
15.:7s
16.24
z7,a
Am b 51-13728
Am b 5z-z.373D
A m b 21-1256.
A.
A m b gz-z4I6D
IsltsMu s
5.22
Am b zo-z148C
z.I9
27.32
27.38
28.20
I7.:4
19.:7
21.:2
2 2.,39
24.22
25.zz
A m b Io-zz48B
Am b To-zzolD
Am b 50-13684.1%
A m b zr-zz5.5A
Am b 7-3075A.
A m b 67-1:
$961$C
Am b 67-13968C
Am b 3a-tz84D
A m b Io-z:2517
II6oC z168%
A m b ro-zzox.c
A m b zo-rzs:.
,j.
Am b Iz-zzo8A B
A m b 7-lo9zB
Am b zo-zz3z.h
Am b 7-:08.5C
:6.39
Am b 7-10768
s Ioxxss
I.z
I.z4
3.6
6.3:
10.34
z:.26
:4.6
z6.Iz
:6.:3
x7.a4
19.39
zo.:l
zo.z5
ao,26
zz.ao
2z.a5
Amb
Am b
Amb
Am b
Amb
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
Am b
Amb
Amb
Am b
A xnb
Am'
b
Amb
Am b
zo-zIa8A
zo-)z28A
zo-zz45B
zo-zz4olD
:
ro-rz57A
rzo-lza'
z.lt
7-IIooc
zo-xr4s:B, zz64A
2z-I256A
zz-zz56A
60-z:
J8.58
55-13772
5p zg8oD
zo-zzazc
Io-zz3zD
48-1:
.
564C
az-lzszc 58-zg8IB
2o
M lfus A postror.oRvM
17.28
A m b 7-Io84B
A D R ouxli'os
6.zx,z9 A m b
8.zo
Am b
8.,35
Am b
Io.15
Am b
zz.33
Am b
I z..:
J:
A nzb
,2.4
Am b
I.z:$
Am b 7-Io97A, 3z-xz8IA
3.18
A m b 50-:3698
4.I1-16 A m b '
p log6b &s
54-13761:
8-IIo4B
Io-l14411
5o-Ig68A T
zo-z!9zD
54-1577.%.
4t$-I:
J6IA
I AD Qolu le m o s
:.:5
A m b'7z-I4o9B
z.3o
A nlb '
7-Io8zD
2.z
A m b 46-1360.1.
2.9
A m b 7-1076A.
6.16,17 Am b i'-zoggll
Io.z1
Am b Io-II49D
12.4,9
A m b 68-14041)
r2.11
Am b 2I-r245C
12.27
Am b '
z-Io9aC
z2.3o
A m b 68-14041:
z:J.Iz
A m b 7-10771
B
14.24
A m b 68-14058
x4,29
A m b 68-I4o5A B
:5.26
Am b '
7-zoy6A
15.55
A m b 38-I3oIA
2 Ap QoRzpa Hzos
A m b zo-zIz9D
A m b 2o-zz36D '
P
A D G AI/ATM S
2.zo
A m b 7-Io76B
3.28
A m b 4I-z3o9A
A D Pm rappsxsss
a.8
A m b xo-Iz73B
48-1364C
3.II,Ic A m b 7-Io73A
:J.14
A lub 48-1365C
3.zs?
A m b lo-1Ia9D
A D Cot/osssysss
z.:6
A m b 7-zo77D
z.z:
A m b 7-zof)7A B
3.5
A m b 49-:3650 T
5:-1372C
'
z Ap T Iwlolilm t;:kl
a.rtl
A m b ;,-Io8jC
4.3
A m b 13-Izo8CD T
A D I'
llssuAk)os
I.Iz
A m b zo-IIg3A
4.Iz
A m b 7-to7.3A
4.z4. A m 'b 48-:364.1,
J'.3
A m b ro-tza7l'
). II4IB ,
tI4.
zC, z:441) I
7.Io
A m b 4z-l328C
8,3
A m b Io-zI4oA
8.7
A m b 7-zog;rD
10.1
A m b zz-Iz53C
Ix.13,
,39 A m b 7-Io73A
zI.c6
A m b Io-zt49B
12.2
Am b 4z-z3g3B C
IxtcoBt
4.:5
A m b 7z-z4z6D
A n Spu sros
z.8,zo A m b 4z-z:t:
3B
z-zo
(Co1.I.z6)Amb 7.zo97AE
I PET:?.
I
:.2.1.
A m b 7z-z4z6D
z.z7-23 A m b '
z-Io96B C
z 21
A m b 42-:332C,4.8-136117 I IOANNIS
1364.1.
z.z
A m b p ro92B
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
az
that as you read you are not eaptivated by the doctzine ofthe pre
'' 1
existenee, as the Origenists want
. . .
peeially from his orations on the Nativity and Easter (PG 86,897C),
neglecting passages that are quite d ear in tlle m atter. Justinian 1
sanupbiussor Justinian G are cited by M aximus save for the conclusion of the last 7, w itieh how ever is there dted for a diderent
Ptlrpose.
.
.
Tlzat thett an orthodex com m entator of Gregory slzottld have
occasion to eom bat Origenist views is no surprise. Ancl if that
'
l'Tim and that this otlr subjoined weakrtess be an edueation for our
dignity? ''
Tk 11aisk)l 4j1 cotpla,xat 1:(I.) jtya xo:so Izvgvjtltovl li jofhs'ttttttoktw jg(k Yvxfs eEov,xat dvfom v le ofwsag, 'tvfl p,
q *vl
x$A,
dkltw lxatpgEvot xtzk geutllply lzevolxtlvatppovmpsv sotiKvltm vtog, N
xii xeg B cf
lhta adn xtlt Izdzn xetk (tN t
'
lv (hk I3haEw,xalshv mn'slevygvnv flc*utqv rratayfpytav elvalto: Q kJjtttog.
1. See SINKO
or.44.42.
36.6IaA3-z4./z9#8:9531);or.45.7:36,632.
:.7-8 z/z953':t)59A;or.
z.z8: 35,437A/zo538: 9;'5D ; or. :6.9: 35.945AIc-DI/co6:: p75D
,
aa
pcvtio'
n n/God. Yet the polemic element has taken too mttch ofhis
attention that it can now com pletely drop from viem Tlm s the
whole dillieulty ends in a philosophic refutation of the preexistence
and postexistenee of souls.
Such iu a nutshell is this m ost inlportant D ifllculty ;the detailed
artalysis willfollow on the texttm l notes I shall now presetlt,
'Phe num eratiotl of.the Diflk ulties: ffOne ollly energy of God
and the w orthy ''; this phrase occurs in the present A m biguum
ofthose sent to Jolm ;bttt five were later seztt to Tltorrlas and are
found in thevast majority ofm anuscriptsin the firstplace. Therefore one m ay suppose that in M axim tts' own tim e tlle two sets
fn eollating Amb 7 witllVat.gr.Iroz (V),Monac.gr.363 (M),A14gelica Izo (A). W here variants oceurred I consulted Scotus'vers-
24
Tot$9B 5
ctbv G : 'Eiov V M A O
B 13 lzrel :Il
'aaz '
S''
MA
1o7zA 8
ytvgzvc : yevpo ct V M A
(
B8 M A O :DL VM TG
B9 xltam tvotc,v ; xa'
:*lalvoto'VM A
B :5 Jvnvov : J'
yvvqxov EX M A
xog:A4 K v 'iev :'r09 '
vofiSVM A
1)8
obxo S : -V M A T
zogp
zo8oyk.3
ffpedxt
-actg :aioiitpscrrf
7wSVM
B 14
Cg
C6
Ds
zo8zA.z
AJ3
45,
$4 : t6'
rL SVM AT
w axv : M'
evaxv loxtv & (h e& lxv'
g M yog SV M A . sed A 6 ... lyo
etm tinuo suprapungitur
D'
7 '
/lDtrt :OPORTERAT (46$z
') S
1o88A II a'
h fzlolag : '
thawktVM A
A14 d'
h pv ;qitzpm NTM A
D 3 tizsokatyel : 4aoltz'
tri lw kvopvnv SVM
Dg 'ro: Jteo 2r.
q6% 'v ol8qeov : rp 'r a'
v 'ro; o. SVM A'P
zo89A5 '
l'
v x qdpov xoov SV? :'Bv x w '
iix6oov rppyvV/M
A z3 a.g'r : la'tx'
rt'
j VM A'
.r
:092%
aohlfi : aoDutilSVMA
D4 xtttfo'
ixounlfiva.
tx'
j :'
r x.'r'
j iW MAPT
zo% C6 xuxtk'h'
k Wvim v l'a,:g'
n ?t'cv y.z.SVM A
zo97A 7
pitfhfsvxg S ; l1to 4,
e:1: V M A
zs
Jllzi : &kV VM AT
fb xt :& V M AT
apg Jll'
ql(s ...xctF o'twltw :-VM
lklotasv :lu lElrt-ratV M :defkit S
D etailea A nalysis
'rhis argument,though positing thefundamental(teleologeal)prineiple,is rather topical,redudng the answ ers given by the Origenists
to their absurd conclusions.
Argument 1 (Io;zAII-DI). Geqesis, logically at least, precedes motion (-Io7zB9). 'Plzis motion is defined (Peripaticians seem
tobedted)asa naturalpowe.r passion oroperativeenergy,driving
to an end,which isaw'
ith regard the lattertw o term s,eitller tlle im -
z6
Tlw Egrlferzfpltrk-
already unaetuatable
and not past (zo76A5-Io). This fihalunion isthen fuztherdescribed with the aid of som e Seripture texts (here om es the m onenergistpassage, see above p.:a3). There follow yet other considerations on the attainm ent of this end and on the cessation of
m otion (-IozgB9).
Up to this point,says M aximas,the diseussion has been on the
non existence ofthe henad and on the future state,a discussion based on reason and the Sedptures (-Io77B9-I3); bl
lt now f'we being
a portion of G od and slipped down from above '' will be treated
.
(-Io77Bzg-I5).
Pal'
t One, II: A refutation of the Origenist interpretation of T'we
the Logos we are portions 0/ God and realize that union as a consequent of right m otion. T his is closed w ith a eitation from B asil
(-Io8IA5). A1l logoi are not brouglzt into existence together, but
som e rem ain in potency tilltheir due tim e. God is ineffably above;
yet the one is m any and the m any one (-zo8zC7). Tbere follows
a condusion (Io8IC7-II).
z7
logoi,by referring to Denis(DN 5.8)aad thettto thesehoolofPantainos,m aster of Clem ent. It is odd that the passage ofD N should
(1952) 244-49.
Part One,IV :Deseription of the PinalState.
2.
8
oration (-Iop2BI).
A . T o establish this M axim us, i11 a long paraphrase,interprets
the thought of G regory. I?irst of ai1 the prim itive state of union
and life in God's presence is deseribed w ith the use of the analogy
29
The briefcondusion (IIoIC9-I3)thanksGod and lliseorrespondettts' 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 entrain 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
3o
Th6Earlorx'
lzzlzkx,
W ith this context in m ind M axim us says that tlle intent of this
passage is like that of the foregoing. I reff!r tlzis m ore precisely to
with the fall (IIo4Az-BIz) and how the provident God uses this
state to bring m an baek fzom a love ofpzesentthings (IIo4B13-C4).
For there are in fact three generalways God usesin healing our pass-
'
And there is perhaps a further intent in the inequality and unevenness of present eonditions:lest w e rebelagainst one another arld
A m b p xxojc : I'
n Jgsfffwr xz
lf/laxgs - 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.
A m b zo-zzojc-zzosc: In Jfw A z?l A thanasii -.- or. zI.I ;35.10840
puy'
ns (p. I68 n.3) wo tllere published tlle table ofArsenal237f19 Jean ScotS:
rgzl:.Louvain-paris 1L% 3,p. :683.
zlnaly.
Hs ol/& Single.!)tfgwlft'
:s
Jz
4r-sr. I slmllgive in the frst eolum n Scot's nam bering,izt a second bis title,in a third the eolum n num ber of M igne. The title
translate the later Ambigua (1.5)but,contrary to myselfand Maximus,counts the dedicatory letter to Joim of Cyzicus as number z.
Sextum ia ordine capitulum qtlod sie inehoat;
z:o5 D
IzIa A
....
zIzz C
. . . zzIaD
(:zo A
(4 Speculatio expugnationis tyri. . . .
z1zo C
zo Speculatio cdi enm rant gloriam D ei
.. ..
zzzz A
vz Specttlatio in hoc:pater m eus et m ate.r m ea dereliquertm t m e xzzI B
xz Sm culatio ln visione helie in choreb
zz2z C
zk
s Speculatio in elbeum . . . . .
xx24.C
:4. Specalatio in annam et snm uNel
iz24 D
:5 Speculatio d,
e im nlunda clom o .
.
zzz5 A
16 Speculatio hdie et serapthie vldue . . .
xzz.
5 C'
1125 D
z8 Speculatio paturil.
s et scd pte leg;
is . . . .
x9 D e qtdnque m odis naturalis contem plationis
zo Speculatio in m elchiyedee qnlntuplex . .
2ob
zoc
2od
2oe
.. . .. .
zz Specalatfo fn abraam . . .
2z Speculatio ln m oysen duplex
2zb
.
. . . .. . .. . . . .. ..
23 Specuhtio quom odo rzaturalis et scripta 1ex jn se ilzviCeDl reciprOclniur . . . . . . . . . . .
z.
r28 D
zz33 A
II37 C
Iz4t D
z:44 B
zz44 C
I:44 D
xz45 C
zz48 A
:z49 A
zx5z B
Izsz C
26 Specuiato de eadenz re . . .
z7 Speculatio de hleidente in ztrones . .
..
:8 Speculatio transgressionl adauz . . . . . .' .
xz53 A
::53 C
1:56 Q
:z57 B
Iz6o A
1149 C
:.
52
zz6o B
::65 1J
1165 D
Ir68 A
3tb
3Ic
3Id
,3Ie
3If
3ItI
3Ih
. .. . .. . .
32 Speeulatio de ne m undi . .
......
:5 Speculatio fle fntuto setulo irk qua d.
t easm ate lazato
sinu patriarche . . .
.' .
34 Speculatio de virtutibus . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
II68 B
:168 C
1168 C
168 D
z:69 B
z1(9f? D
xz72 D
(rI76A-Br). These are identieal with Amb 5j (z373D4r376B) and.Amb 63 (r389Bjrespeetiveiy. Tlzey are here
clearly out ofplace and are not here found in Vat.gr.r5oz
attd other m ss.
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
.
'
u
text and index with index. The foregoing table m akes m ost of
this quite pln,
'n.
'
'
(Abrahani,Moses)
jj z,
'
$-zg Abstm et eonsiderations
jj 28,:9 appear to be an intrusion,see Iinalnote below.
TW A'
tzrfi&'r Ambtklttz
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
in tlle ordering of reason. 'Phe seeond form (IIo9B5-C6) puts forward the aecustozned division ofreason into tbeoretiealand practieal'
therefore he who says reasons says also praxis. The third form
(II'IzD-xII6A,
3), aecording to the grace-illumined men. The motions 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 ana14 On lwaxis and theoyia ill Gtegory see PINAUW H . L6 J/ltzfoxsm;
de S.G'
?A ov 46 Nazianze pp. z9o-lga and PI.AGNIETJX,J
'.,S.Gr/goFz de
N tlztzelz: Thdologon pp. :48-152.
zlAltzlwsolthes'fsr?e Dimculties
,
34
to God's deseent in the Incarnation (I'IIgBIo-Cz)l:. 'rlzese pzindp1es stated, M axim us applies them to the passage through body
and w orld, the m hld not being content with the eircum seriptitm
offered to God (11164.4-15). But this osering pertains to the striving for well-being as alone in our power (being and ever being
being in God'sgift alone - this triad ocettrs also in Amb 7,4z,65).
H enee the m ind reason and sense are exercised in the way already
indieated in the frst explanation and.the soul m ay pass through
(cloud and veil) through wllich one attains to God. The second
pazt MdII deal with the m aterial dyad. The distinetion of parts is
Fk Earlier zl-lf
fgfl
(zza8.
B5 and 14). This is to aanounce the Jirst great subtheme
that wi2 hold his attention up to j:
Jz.
First there is basic enlargem ent of the perfect harm ony and
with the writtea (-zIz9Bg). In Seripture the words are the clothing,the ideas the flesh or m eat; in the natural 1aw the external
substances (II33CI3-D2). Bttt there are erroneotls views of providence and judgem ent to be exclttded - those of Origen and Eva-
Analysisolf/le SingleDi/l
czllfi:s
37
gdus. Maximus seems hea'e (II33D3-II36A4)to be usiug and correcting a text ofE vagrius 17. H oweverM axim ns does not com pletely
of Ih llenic conjusion. The other m odes are then explained: rnixture as com position of our will and virtue (II36AI3) and position
(II36B3) as moral reetitude. In addition to these considerations
taken singly there are also various com binations and reductions,
from .5 to 3,from 3 to z,from z to 1. This last (II36D6-II37Bz)
is tlle work of m ixture witieh takes all the five m odes of considering
the natural order and in a single consideration transfers them to
the m oral, the upshot being a penetration of the hum an, which
38
not entirely foreign to the m atter in hand, btlt m ore germ ane
after j z.
W ith jtlo and 31 we return to the Transfkuration. Section 31:
is an am pler consideratlon of the m ystery. According to Erigezta
it eontains 18 thsorie. 'In the Greek text ten are num bered w-ithout
Iil'
st part, apropos of the seetions mentioned above (3Ih,g,f),is
devoted to various aspeets of a rm ative theology.
j,
38 Everything, exeept God,is in place, therefore also in
tim e and so tem porally began to be.
Analy.
ni # /& Sittgl. fN#u'f#,/z'.
.
>
a preliminary exegesis (j43)ofthe Gregerian passage (f<ofthe material dyad passed through by the saint-s, and what is tlze unlty
understood in the triad ''),there fojlows an exposition of the philosophicalbasis of the exegesis (j44),namely the divisions of the
passible part of the soul: irratiolm l, rational, coneupisd ble, iraseib1e and so on. This passage drew the attention of Cyriae.the scribe
of Vat.gr.zozo f.8 va w ho transcribed II96C to II97CI3. I give
(1204D5).
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 addition, 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
40
'
35 eontinues this,referring again to the 1in6 tvtferAl: (II76B5). Certainly then the pair 33,34 appear as intruded;perhapsalso :$z. Yet
if these be intrtlsions on an origirtal w hole, their very germ aneness
to the general them e perm its one to see how M axim us hirnself w hen
his feeling for the coherence of his owm com position had been dulled
by the lapse of tim e, eould have inserted these considerations in
the second edition. T heir coatent and style are thorouglzly M axim ian.
vsnqiysisoj/;e j(innI6flil7cv//rs
4J
Oehler's eonjeeture is wholly inadequate. I have verifed the reading in both Vat.gr.1502 and M onac.gr. 363. The Latin kere is
no longer that of Seotus.
To be inserted in Am b Io- after IIIgCzI,taken from Vat.gr.
gov (Exod 12.34 *l' elv f;)g ollzqtnqiv x$v xo9 N 'jlz'
tv lyov D15vajzLv vqg xp vt atgqvfk pvdrrEtv lrcszrox'
qgxaatzv x@ltlvxlw ovTog xv Izv tzloql'v Tetsyovstxg' ae sv voqxv xglzov Defov-
or.zr.18 :,35.II()IC
42
the eternal reward and was given esped ally lest the little ones be
scandalized.
A m b Iz-zzo8BC: In Iaudem A tltanasi'
i - or. zI.'
JI :35.III7C
.
tors would haveitihettAthanasiusused theapterinstrument. Maxim us sasrs the Lord acts as with a scourge hz pricking cqnsdences
through m en's realization of their bad thoughts and deeds; but
Athanasitzs,being a weak m an, used speech.
A m b zJ-zao8D -zzzzB: Thoologica I - or. z7.k :36.IzA
Gregoov's text is:there tzr: som e whose plegr'
;jrand tongue /ltzpdr
the itch. Maximus gives two explanations (Izo8D-I:zo9C9:Izo9C9IzI2B9). To the frst he adds a cure through reason,against ignoranee.and through salutary labor against pleasure. Sinko (p.a7)
sees M axim us here as opposing som e Pauline seholiasts.
sight and the natural1aw teaclzus tiat Gcd is and is the creative
and sustainhlg eause of all. 'lNhis M axim us does in a first part
(-Izz6CI5). Bttt some identify sight and natural law; these must
be distingulshed, the first pertainl g only to the sense order, the
Thistherefore must be explained (I2I7Az-BIo). In doing thisMaxinms speaks of the triad nature,power and opemtion (:- rgy) and
distinguished impulse (tp0()tf)from motion (x(Mnc(g). One may compare Sim plicitls in Catsgorias CA G V III 4zr,29-428,z.
This serves as an oceasion for a long digression eom pzising the
rest of the di culty, on how created things m ay be said to operate
Xnalysisoj/& Sngleflfjjjflsx/r/f,.
4/
1zI6Az xt'
tiv :x'
v VM
A z5
B .5
C6
C8
o'
M v : -V M , setl M eo loco habet xal
Ek :-VM
v :'
o; V M
xavah letp.lzv)v : xaxah lnpp:vtov V M
xzz7B 8
vvavt;v ; frvctve.
tM
olov'
l
jn'
va :ottwf/ol'
e VM
(26
D 6 et o : et o
'5v '
rfi V :El yoiv '
r% M
D 1I xvvotlgvew : ysw htvv VM
gxv : 4
5'
t$ V M
'
vnlm ::'
tsvatal '7M
44
On the negative epithets predicated of God, tm begotten, im m brtal... M axim us reckons that Gregory is here in polem ic with
tlze A rzom aeans, w ho from a privative epithet w ould cond ude to a
positive know ledge of G od's essence. B ut definitions are not derived from negations; nor is it possible that there be a predication
suited to God alone,apaz't from any relation or operation.
A m b x7-Iaz4B -zz;aC: Tlteologica 11 - or. 28.9 ::
$6.37A
gr. I5()z Maximus' text (Izz5BI0) ofers the possibility of correeting both.
zzz4B6
A m b ze-zz:
qzc-zziill: Tkeologica 11 - or. c8.Io :36.37C
': f)n our ignoranee of created essences see the interesting artiele of
1j5
future things upon the saints. 'Phis is Maxim us' eonjectural explanation ;for lae has him self had no experienee in the m atter.
ingnesstotreatofthesubj,
ect,aceeding only to thecommand (Ia4zD-
46
(-Ia45A.
'
J).
H aving m entioned . trroqet cw , M axim us hazards a dictum
coneerning it,nam ely that eveo r coneept w hie.h the m ind m ay have
difers in nothing from a teaching declarative of what is above it
Sinee then the aeceptation) about God are multiple,we learn that
God is; in the solution of the problem thus posed, w e learn w hat
God is not.
M axim us com m ents here on the problem of w hat later w ill be
called naturaltheology,first posed in itsacuity in the fouzth century.
4:
(Iz57C-Ic6oAIo).
But how does Gregory speak of tlte M onad being nm ved ? Now
for exam ple the principle of an art is said to be m oved when it is
reduced to application, when, m ore aecurately speaking, tat prindple m oves the artefact. 'fhus the divilte is unm oved,but as c'atzse
receives the predieations,without how ever any passion,ofits effects
(Iz6oAIo-BIz).
Ttzconfnnation ofthis DN 4.:4 (zzzC)is freely cited,irzwhich
passage God is said to be eros and agape atld also object oferos antl
agape;asthefirstheisrnoved,asthesecond ilem oves. H eLsmoved
inasrzm ch ashe izrtplants an irrtzrlanezztrelation oflove in those beings
eapable of it (Iz6oBIz-CIc).
Of such a sort is Gregory's m eaning. 'fhe being m oved of the
Godhead is in the enquirer's rttind. rirst the uuity is preceived,
avoiding any shadow of division;theu,lest tlle Godhead be thought
to be sterile or to have aeddental qualities, the good is perceived
'
ilz ereatures. 8 0th w ays of speaking are found in Gregory. G regorj''s iniluence in this respect is found also in PN -8PZA B.
48
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
on the willing,the generation,only through the application @w Etgqlopd)of the willer. H ence the lzather and the Son can in no
way be separated by a lapse oftim e,nor the Son be son ofthe will-
49
(-Iz6,
5I)4).
50
The '
flWfer A m bigua
d- lysvfsp/f* Sng/,
: Difbcultiss
51
Am b :z-zz8zB-z2% B: I.
n N atalicia - or.38.2 36.3138
TrFpr a ckild is pzw 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 axim us sets out to explain. The cross m ay be looked upon from severalpoints ofview - from that of form j from that of cdm position,
from that ofthe chaxaracteristic's ofthe parts, from that ofoperation
52
imus,either 1) because the W ord simple alld ineorporeal noarishm ent of the angels gives us his teaeidng in w ords alld exam ples
A'
ndyss ol/& SingleDimculties
53
Holy Ghost,not restricting toa sterile unity asthe Jews,noraflirming a further diffusion whieh 'wotlld induee the polytheism of the
G reeks. G regory the.n passes on to the diffusion of the good in creation;it isthe frst phrase ofthis subsequent passage that now form s
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.
54
of contem plations and their successive reduetions. This he introduces as a Scripture eontem platioa. The basic five are:tim e,plaqe,
hpm ankind, person,'dignity or profession. To these sueceed practical, natttral, theological. contem plation. Then eom e the present
and future or type and trutlz (arehetype). These then are a11 redueed to the one suprem e Logos from wllom they were allderived
,
3:.6 :J6.J4zA
A m b Jp-zrorno ln sancta Z?4/pa'z;, - or. .
,
Analyss0/th6.%lj@ Dimculties
55
parts. 'Phe first (-I3o8Cz)is a general explanation of the five distinctions (these same iive are founcl more briefly in Thal 48-436A8
Thesecond istheirapplication to t>eiucarnatedispensationt-l3lzlk ).
The third is considerations from logic on the unity of thimgs in the
son:N aturaezlzlpz
ptzzlf'
l:reffldlfsltomo yt/cffu est,taking upon him se.lf
to save that which was lost. M axim us tllen goes through once
m ore the five distinctions,from 5 to 1,showing how Christ realized
their union. The explaaation being thus fnished, he adds for a
tlrd part a supplem ent on the unity of things itz the tm iversals a unity valid for all that com es after God.
56
Tkef /rr/iw'
r A m bigua
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
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. Perhaps,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).
ofbody and souland on the time of their being joined (-I32IDI3c4B),a topi
e noted by Maximus hirnself tJs I was saying I.
3zID)
.
Analysis t
# fk SingleDfltplllffdr
s
/7
thoagh simuitaneous origin of body and soul is re-sumed (I3z4CI3z5B4),another passage of Gregory being adduced.
This first section is then dosed by setting the threefo1d birth
ctmceptitm (z.3;
z5CIz).
ofthedi culty!why did Gregory join theInearnation with the Baptism ? (-z345D:$).
M an,M axim us is repeating his,teaehers,w as m ade in tlle im age
mandments (-I345DII).
Spirit (-I349A4).
-he 7-AF:: iligressions
Digression I (I3azD-I324B):Maximus tells us that he has a1ready touched on this question:the tim e ofthe entrance of the soul
into the bedy. H e ean only refer to Am b 7-IIooC6-IIoIA 6.where
the sam e question is treated with the sam e argum ents, but m ore
difftlsely,as there is in addition a paragraph ortthe neczssary A'
/Q &
58
no intention so to do (z.
'
Ja8B9).
But in fact there is n'othing adventitious in God; a11 hms been
'fhe Iogoi
' ofallt11l'ngs,pabt,presezlt and future, preexist im m u
tably in G od. They are brought into being, they develope for good
or for evil, and, according to the proper disposition of eaeh, they
are everlastingly awarded partidpation in or privation of God,who
-
note '1.
Analysisp//& Singlefslcfglft,s
59
explain (I3.
36B).
Digression :$ (I336C-I345C),against the preexistenee of bodies.
Theproposition thatthe soulcom esto a body already existent (postexistence ofsouls)is m ore easily stated thau proved. I/or the body
thus bonl w ould be dead, before the advent of the soul,as laeldng
a thing into beiag eomplete (vlatov) aeeording ttl the logos preexistent in him self,would be aectlsed of lack of wisdom and power
rexeets on the Creator (ifmarriageis evil,which would here be supposed, then the natural 1aw of generation, and so the law m aker,
soul,but the complete formation ofthe embryo (-t34IAI). But far m ore forceful an argum ent - if the soul com es only after 4o
days,then the W ord ofGod could nothave assum ed ourflesh through
6o
(Bibliothrca Izufgr'
lf- Patyum ed. Venet. 1781) t. X IV appendix
PP'*53-58).
M igne's reprint of Oehler's text has .om itted a dozell words
at I.> IDI;they
Besidesthe passages just analyzed and that ofAmb 7 (IIooC6IIoIA6)M aximus treats oftbe sotll,that it is incorporeal and retains itsproperoperationsafterseparation from the body in ep 6 and
7,
.he treats of the com posite, incidentally, in ep. Iz-488D and in
ep I3-5I6Df,525D . M axim us'doetrine is clearly not in the Phtonic
stream represented by N em esius and Leontius of Byzantium for
w hom the soul is a com plete substance w ithout azly necessary relation to the body. In this he is but followhlg Gregory of Nyssa,
Gregory. 1 mean Leontius of Jenzsalem . W hat the precise contours of his doetzine raight be is di cult to say withottt a eareftll
study (an arduous one at that) of his two polem ical works. Yet
it is rem arkable that m any ofthe conditionsofthe hum an com posite
61
7,9,Iz,1t
$,I5,I6,I7,191,and in the Adversussfonopkysitas diflkulty 48 there is fotm d tlle phrase complete natuyai s/rcls. This
posftion is clearly akiu to tlzat of Afaxirrztts azld Gregory, thotlgh
m ore crass and far less forcibly expressed. It w ill be observed
that however m ore or less stringent m ay be the argum ents M axim us
advances for his position,the ultim ate basis of his convietion is the
or.4ozlz :36.3731$
Gregory had spoken of tlm se who, with a fever, await the criticaipoint, that,with som e assurance of a prolonged life,they m ay
stili further defer tlzeir 'baptism . M axim us explains w hat m edical
opinion understands by the crffctll sweaf.
taken from any one oration ofGregory (Amb 45-60). 17or the most
part they are brief allegorieal interpretations of Scriptural personages connected with the Passion - so the 8 item s taken from the
62
TM E Jrfiez Ambigtm
sake (for he possessed detachment,fladthkfz)or forwarmth artd protedion (for he was not subjeet to the extremes of heat and eold).
In the setond answer (1.3530-1356.43) Maximus suggests that
Gregory proeeeds from the present condition of m an, wldcllis charaeterized by three m otions:thatdeterm iaed by pleasure,tllat determ ined by need,and that determ ined by the leam ing of natural contem plation. N ow tlze frst m an w ould have been above all of these,
being detached.by graee and so in im m ediate corttact with God
and w ithout need of those things w hich now m ove him .
The m aking of a.list of m otives is som ething eom m on enough
in M axim us, and searcely ever are they identical See ep 9-4450
and Char 2.3z,33.
The third respouse brings in theory and ktlowledgeg astuteness
in the exercise of virtue. '
fhe m an w ho would return to the frst
.
yllqlyds a/th6ifly/:lli3c%dti6s
6)
tagogy p/ tkeologicat,
sc:zlctrto tbat sepayative fzzlfAzi/drfN drs.
s attained
by nq ation. 'rhis process is,as it w ere, parallelw ith a passage from
the EesllofChristto his soul,to hism ind,to his divinity. For Christ
becom es the lam b of eacllm an in proportion as each is able to hold
and eat ltim , according to the saAring of Paul that the grace of the
Spirit is given to eaeh one in the m easure of his faith.
Von Balthmsar com m pnts on this passage in connection with
Thoec 1.W fDie Gn.Cent.p.I35f.), Maximus seemsnearerEvagrius in this Am b 47 than in Thoec 1.67.
and wzitten as quite indejendent tmits,Maimus begins this eomm entary with a long disquisition on desire for God,.which is iu fact
a prerequisite for this spiritual eating.
In this our God and Savior Jesus Christ helped and lead the way
(-I36ICI4).
64
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
us (-I364AI5).
Gregory, knowing that we have this natural desire for him ,
urges us to spiritual eating, eaeh according to the eapacity given
him (-1.
365C5).
A m b 49-:365C 5 : In sanctum P asclba - or. 45.18:36.648C
in the desel't,in the promised land (-I369AIo). M axim us theu passes these three stages again in rew iew ,putting them irt relation w ith
the three degrees of tile spiritual life - the practical,the theoretical,
Andzsis p/theSsr:Dimculties
6j
..
Am b 5z-z37zBC: f'
n sflscl'
u- Pascha - or.45.24 :36.656C
This isthe first ofthe seriesof 8 di cttlties taken from the sam e
chapter in Gregory. Of these 7 are allon the type of the foregoing
di culty,that is allegoricalinterpretations of personages. H ere the
figtlres are a11 taken from thv resurrection narrative, so that tlle
interpretations are m ostly coneerned w ith crucifixion and resurrection,in Christ and in us. This first one dals with Sim on of Cyrene.
A m b 53-xr 2C-zJ76B: In sandum Pascha - or. 45.24 :36.
6560
H ere there are four interpretations of the good and bad thief.
A m b j4-z376C-x3r B: In sd/Alc/'
lf'
?l Pascha - or. 45.24 :36.6560
66
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 Czist izz is two advents.
:: This is a proportion m et with before; see above note :1.
67
'
I katetkatfamiliayity tltatpassestkr
'ough f& aiy. 'IAM Sextremely
concise plzrase of G regor'y M axim us interprets as said of fem inine
A'
m b zo-III6B0, Aznb 4z-zaz5B8, r:
J29A p B7, :34.8178:; in Thoec zz56.
At this chapter von IBAIZHASAR gives a com m entarr. citng Clem ent of
'
Alexahtlrja and Aristotle (Di6 Gn.(Qxf..j z6g). He could there have cited
Proclus lElnme%L% 0/ Theology propxsitions 43, 9z, z72, :9a). The second
.
Molle, well-being'
,is there in evidence only in prop. 43; but, as D cdds re-
68
Tlv '/zff'
dr .4O krr
Gregory w as laying him self out to eite exam ples of the num ber
7 from the O1d Testam etlt. H e refet-s to Elias raising the widow's
son (3Kings17.18F.whereinfactthenumberis3notg)andthetrial
saezifce with the false prophets (3 Kirlgs r8.34).
M axim us explainshow the num ber7 iscontained in others. 64 ts
a to the 6th power;add the originalunit to this 6 arld you have 7.
(7r the:D o itJgtzfl and tztltird fvlfl:I doubled is z,whieh tripled is6;
add the originalunit and you have 7. Ilzthe firstdeeade 7 isa virgin
(Matt z4.z.
3-al and z5.3a-J9).
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
(I4OIC).
'I'he narrative of M att 15 is m ore briefly (lealt witll. 'Phere are
firstzconsideration on the7loavesand the($days (-I4o4A):8. There
follows a briefconsideration on the 4ooc,m en antlthen a yet briefe:
Gregonehad said:<there is a diversity of eharism s, a diversity indigeut of another charism for the discernm ent of tlte
not of the spirits but of the charism : prophecy and the speatn-ng
with tongues are tbe bettez eharism , for tlle diseernm o t and interpretation of w hich are given the charism s of discernm ent of spirit
znd interpretation.
.
'e This tkteane oftbree days occurs ekqewhere. Tlm l 39 is art explana-
7o
xtpatrtslzpahzqThe firstisa proposition whose sense iscomplete without further addition ; the second is a proposition needing a further
d ause to com plete the sense.
Inearnation (-I4IaA).
The second explanation supposes the playing of a m iddle between the extrem es. The m iddle is vksible things;the extrem e the
invisible;the playing then is tlle pedagogic m azm duction from ,but
still through, the visible to the invisible. M avim us illustrates by
tlle ways parent.s have of leading their children from sensible to intdleettlalthings. H ere M ad m us institutes aa interesting eom parison
71
PA R T 11
M AX IM U S AN D O R IOEN TSM
A . T I.
m O luGSNISM KNow N 'ro M axxMvs
nor is the refutation ofpreexistenee,even ifdireeted against Orkenists, 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-
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
Clut/fr1.M lx-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 axim us m akes a frontalattaek on Origenism ,not only ispatient of an
Origenist lttterpretatiott,but positively invites it. I have given it
to the degree ofthe fall. In fact the Ialling away reealls a passage
ofOrigen,preserved in the Greek in the florilegium attached to Jt1stinian's letter of 543. H ow else,asks Origen :, explain suelz great
is oftllat one place in the DefJz'iAlc/fs where the word kenad witll
reasonable certaiaty goes back to O rigen him self 3.
1 In fact ill Am b 4z M axim us does also have in view the Otigenist
and 1zTlzal6o-6z5AB the hettad in its 6th century form is elearly envi> ged.
'rhe Iatter is a m enx m etttion.tlke form er does not toueh tlke m ain question.
One m iglzt further ask if there be not a refutation of Origenist doctrine
in ep.;-433C. There the error of som e m onks isconsidez'
ed who asse:
rt tlze
m e-
74
Th6 x6'
/f4/4lfpl 0/ Orskelff-
Given t'he very special Origenist Hng hl Gregory's pkrase,M axim tls could not w ell do otlzer than undertake first a refutation of
the henad of rational creatures, A nd this all the m ore so that his
adversaries w ere still active, m isleading otlzers by the assum ed patronage of Gregory 4. M al m us' own exposition of the phrase is
ftm dam entatly to in'terpret it of the fall into sin and wretchedness,
not ofthe fallinto bodies. It does not then referto genesis,the eom -
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.
'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.
expurgated Syriac Evagrius by GUILLAUMONT (Rru. (f: f'H ist. des & lfgions.r42 (:*52) 156-zo5j tlle extrem e.
s of Xvagrius lzim self areuncertain.
1$
Joltn 0/ Scytlopo'kis
The Iirst witness is Jolm of Scythopolis in his com m entary on
the Pseudo-D enis . 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 stags 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 ($14)to the
death ofSabas (53z)7.
The passages iuteresting us now are those com m enting the 6th
and gth chapters of the E cclesiastical H ierarcky. The analogy of
the heavenly and ecelesiastical hierarehies is not com plete in that
in the former there is no order of pttrifed beings (EH 6, 3, 6,-Pt4
.
lirm sthat tke angelic orders are stainless;tlzat should one for argum ent's sake allow that som e fell then these are aggregated to tbe
group of apostates - the heavenly group rem aining ptlre. Y et
even so there is a certain puritication, a Gcd -given illum ination of
things not yet known to them ,
lrst book of the De J'riAlc/ffs: 'So the whole argum ent shows,I
think,that every rational (being)ean com e from any other rational
76
ogical apocatastasis *.
Clearly John is fam iliar with the Origenist m'
yth;but he hms
xek ov zr
zMpw oxfi. z73A2-zI:M$ o5v xt '
rw 'Qvtye'vovg pa e v obo'
ftl 'r
xcpv lqxv o'
uvqyoe v % xaxoaltrw ttfrro: 1'(l,(pe xft
w, 5vt (lek zrvtn w xtu
vtixktow , xak e xtia-rfsgt xt;w ofppavlov '
yvmia: vo/v, &% (pnesv *oetye
lvng p'
v
p'
tvlk jktqttlaystlytov'1$MeO x?j1atztl
im '
rb ,xtm v f'
ia levslg xfzlxfzsizrremt Wvevcu,..1
9 John's text seems to imply that a puzo cation of dem onsis possible
yet w itlm ut their salvation. Then D erzis' shrew dness consists in tltis tlzat
he avoids m ention of such puriscation altogether lest it give an opening
to the Origetdsts. Sucil a pm u eation seem s at rst sight unthinkable'
ltlpovq o: hyovgs(&1 .
nam lN:lfI.
l4- ha%etl xamtloeghu,&(k'
to'
tx dov vxtt
xz afrol,g lv 1:t1atp'u'
lrr/v Ituetlolzv'
n J,rtoxttlxlo.
ttjges$ffl@ otn pe'
rfk'rlvtiylfw
77
Bananuphius
Baaanuphius and John the Prophetcome up next forconsideration 19. Barsanuphius, an Egyptian and m onk at G aza w riting
in Greek,died at an advaneed age about the year 540. The consultations about O rigen :1 w ill date from the iirst three or fourdecades
ofXvagrius (89zB). The questioneris first coneerned over the preexistence of souls (nude minds). Seripture knows nothing of it;
Origen on Tit'
us and E vagrius 1: a rm that it does not pertain to
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.
78
it overin itis edict?). ror our pttrpose it is enough to see how the
by which he fellinto the pit. H ow ean'such benum bered with Christians,standing up as they do for the person of him who was eager
to pass on H ellenic,M anichaean,Arian aud other heretical stui.'''e
'fhroughout the letter there is a whole series of such passages1*,
B: AeO III I9z32 z9427 1951: zgX , 19831 19914 zo4R. I have omitted.to cite the m entionsofOrigen in the excerpts or in the phrases im mediately explanatortr of tllezru
79
(coz :4-zo8n)and the anathemas are directed against Origen and his
w ritings, but only indirectly against the O rigenists 2l.
The basis for tlzis indirection, striking the contem porary heretics not in their errors but in their m aster, m ay be seen also in the
text of the epistle. ln a passage translated above O rigen is qualifiecl as eager to pass on llis errors This thought recurs wben the
.
authorbeginsto diseussOrigen'serrorasto resurrection tzo4 7), Laterin the same context he arms itas providentialthat Orken did
not die a eonfessor,but worshipped idols,lest his follow ers place his
errors under a eonfessor's and F ather's patronage. F or O rigen not
only taught blasphem ies btlt propagated them through lzis writings
(zo4 33-20.
54). I ratherthin.
k that the Origenists ware in the habit
of placing thenselves under the protection ofthe A lexandrian rnaster's great.nam e; and the therefore the author of the edict avails
llim selfofthe false legend about O rigen's apostasy to eut the ground
from under their feet. 'Phe vary phraseology of the edict gives one
to understand this. 'Phus at least 6 tim es the Origenists are qualified as standing up for Origen,for his person. for his doctrine :2. It
is wortll noting tlzat in Euthym ius'tim e the Origenists w ere m ore
num erous i11 the vid nity of C-ae
'sarea 23 wkere Xusebius had worked
in the library of Origeniang. Bttt this is not the whole story. Origenists,w hose dod rine w as m atigned - as tlzey m ight say - so'
ught
also to defend them selves w ith Scripture and patristic passages a1-
chees (z89-I9IA:),the author begins a reftttation ofthe principa!errors. First comes the preexistenee of souls (19118-193:). On this
follow 5 texts,z from John Chrysostom ,:3 from Gregory Nazianzen,
TM J?g/A IO oj Orkelf:zzl
m em ory of sin,so that ifthe soulhad preexisted three wottld be m em ory of the sin for whieh it was eonfined in a body.
'fhe text of tliis Erst series have been integrated Ndth the argum entation inasm uch as they had been oziginally written without
spedal reference to the error now tm der discussion. On them there
(zo,
514-2o4:).
The third error is the com plex ctm nected witla the resurrection.
EFirst that the risen bodies willbe bam shaped. 'rhisis exploded with
argument from Scripture texts only (zo4'-:2). 'There follows a digression on Origen and hiserrors,leading to a statem ent of the doctrine that punishm ent willhave an end and tllat the wicked and de-
monswillbereestablished in their former position (zo439-zo51B). Argumentation againststteh a doetrine then follows (zo5l1-M) which is
eonfrm ed by z passages from Gregory N azianzen,z from Basil,aud z
from John Chrysostom (z05:4-zccla). These passages were suciently explicit so as to need no eom m ent.
'
ofsols and the apocatastasisreceive m ore attention,nextthe animation ofthe stars and the ball-shaped qesurrection bodies. 'rhe list,
however, of errors m entioned and anathem atized is longer. Thus
first td all are m entiolled 'rrinitarian errors:the Son and the Spirit
are infezior to the Father, and that the 8()n cannot see the lzather
Clutpter1.xsftzxf-ll,antlOrfktrzl-
8r
and
cies.z'
e eoeternalsvith God (19018-19 excerptXI, anathema 8);
thenspe
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.
xistent souls are given bodies irt punishm eltt for arttecedeut sin,
h
en they should sin no m ore, as ptlnislfment is intended to prevent
'
82
into bodies (I9c9-l4). If one parries that the body alds in discernm ent,then the body is m ade out as the m ore valuable of the two
83
Thevdoye (# Scythopolis
The Iibellus of 'rheodore of Scythopolis stands in close relation
Leontius t# Byzantium
Richard has proved that the bellicose Leontius the H erm it,
Cyil ol Scytkopolis
': L6/o'
nce t
/4 Byxanse,#ltzf-ilOyigniste? REB 5 (1947)3:-66;seeespecially .56-60;for the date 5z.
'
84
1-h6 l'e/sfe/'
kzs p/(rigenisn%
ter part ofthe third point (zgoet), natnely that as Christ (tllat is,'
tlleex/h'ud,notthe seeond Person ofthe Tritlity),fashioned the world,
so in the restoration rationalbehlgs,even dem ons,ean fashion eons.
Other than this Cyriacus m entions the bam shapedness of the resarrection bodies and their Iinal destruetion,frst of a11 Christ's, the
equality of a11 with Christ in the restoration. Such doetrines are
said to sprirtg from Pytltagoras,Plato, O ligerty Evagrius, Didlem us.
Cyriacus' read ion is entirely in line with that of Barsanuphius.
Should lzot these m onlts far rather have attended to the viztuespthe
546 (DIRKAMP, 57). The interview then M4ll be izt the spriug-sum mer
of J46.
Note that by this tim e N onuus antl com pany are reestablishetl in tlte
85
errorsare laid to tile charge ofPythagoras,Plato and Origen (Diekamp,9013) or to Pythagoras,Plato and Plotinus (9611) and finally
Origen isto be anathematized with the errors (99$. As in the edict
so here Evagrit!s attd Did'
ym us are ltot nam etl84.neither have the
classieal heretics, Arius and M ani, auy place.
W itll the Christological aberrations and other oddities he'
re
condenm ed, we are not coneerned. 'fhey seem scarcely to have '
com e w'ithin M axim us' pun -iew 3l. A t the very end of the letter
oecttrs a statem ent of doetrine rephrasiug a thesis m et w ith in the
edict: ffBut holy Chureh follow ing the divizle W rit afiirm s that
tite soulw as form ed together v'ith tlle body,and not one before, .tlle
:' Evagrius ls itt faet cited (f%xJ. 2,78 and 5.zz - to be corrected
from 5.z9) in the 5th anathem a (DG KAM.
P 9z1-le and 923-9) but without
the siightest indieations of m ovenience. The sam e citations are founc'
t
86
Jttstinian (or his scribe) says, enum erating the errors: ''And
that there willi)e a totaldoing away ofbodies,the Lord frst putting
away his om zbody,alzd (then)allthe rest;atld that allwillbe carH ed tzp again ttl tlze sam e tltzity and becozne m inds,as was the case
(rnl
'nds)only asalso wasthe case in theircrazy preexistente,1et him
be anathema ''(95:2-2$
kamp:DIEKAMP,94/18-31'xtttt$n zr.avxel'
j
k lim 'rf
kv ofopxttw vltietcw, ttllmo'
voixvklfov rw f'
retl('
iaonlsltfvov m l kov te lm ,xat '
rGw lotzrf
:v ttmivrv'xttt'
4
95a!-13:EI '
rp tyet...(tk) rrtkvre.
lx htltt'
f,v O ovrtu 'roi'
eoi,xtttiae:
attt'afrrok Xtl%tvg,Gg xcsl lv '
t'
fj xap*tti'rtplv pe Euohtvn rwoatk4et l'
t'vsm ft-
vov, tl. .
p'
vo:m l
zvot(o!veg),'
m ljtla6e xqk lv 'r'zi attk/ (zfrr)v kqpoovja'v'
(IaklliizrzklE:
'
tfrrxttvov J. :'.
'
* (t1-:E('rw l'
ysk,X t'
j tiyto'f'
;lx('
;3v voGv '
4
i em '
i 1nm % % rcpo'
rdptr, f%;
e
o'
pxlo fzropep'
q'xeouv '
h xexarrEzufzttglv,tk viv (kz'
llv '
rhv (yvllv elvtn v: '
chzt
xtz A;l>'rog '
r'
l Jpx'
h p'
xeov Etvex,(L !.
35 VoN IVANKA E.'Zuy geistesgeschioittlichen EfAlo?WxsA;g des OA# :>splss' Bz 44 (z95I) 302.
87
Origenism says; ''D ieses zykltsche W eltbild einer ewigen W iederlcehr entkleidet die ehristiiche Xehre... des fiir das Christentum
W esentliehsten: des Charakters der einm aiigen, endgiiltigen Entseheidung fiir oderwider Gott ''. Very aptly then he eites Claudian
have i!lJustinian's letter of553 an insight,however gropiag,lzowever unreflexive,is eertain. It will be this insight that givo M axim us his start.
StSimeon f/ltlF ool
Leontius of N aples in Cyprus,a contem porary of M axim us.has
lef't us a popular life of St Sim eon the Fool of Em esa. H e there
rdates how two m onks,tm able to reae.
h a conclusion about the condem nation of O rigen, traveled to Palestine in order to have their
question settled by som e w ise m onk there. For response they w ere
sent back to Em esa to Sim eon. And lzis response to them was no
m ore than an assurance that O rigen perished. W hat had espeeially drawn the attention of these m onks was the usefulness and extent of Origen's Scripture laboz's 37.
The TzD 6 Src/f.
s,,
88
the D 6Srctis. Thislittle treatisedates betweerl 57g and 607 sB, The
author is eeztainly a 'Pheodore; R ichard :9 tends to attribute it to
m ent is eternal;adrnittedly tlle word aldw tog is used also of a delinite period of tim e; but because of the parity of its predication in
M att.25.46 of% th life and punishm ezzt,it rzlust bear the sam e rzlean-
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
89
are posterior to the Ambigua and the Quaestiones (at least to those
portions where dependenee is proven), 'k-et this is not to say that
the acquaintanee with Origen m anifest in the Centt4ries is posterior.
()n the e'ontrary, there m ust have been during the elaboration of
the Ambigua alld Quaestiones a considerable time during wlzich Maxim us was colleeting ideas and sentences for the Centuries. But
even supposing thefrequentation ofO rigen,m anifest in the C6nturies,
began or w as already in eourse when the question of Origenism
w as posed in the A m bigua,this would be no proof that M axim us had
the text of Origen before him wllile preparing his reftltation. The
answerto sueh a question cal be found only in the textof the ref'
utation itself. Let us llow turn to this text.
D irect rem iniscences, not to say d tations, of O rigen's text fn
Am b 7 and :5 I have failed to find. Bt4t it does seem to m e that in
eom posiug his refutation M axim us had before his m ind's eye som e
principalexpositiotlofthe Ozigenist m srth,if not the text of the D e
only cause or been established within the ultim ate desire'' (Am b
7-Io7zCII-I4),Maxiznus adduces itl eonfinnation various Sezipture
texts. First ofa11from Moses:Taste Altlf t# tke fz'tz oj life. Thisis
not a vevbatim eitation but a elear rem iniscence of Gen.2.9 and I7.
God,fAtrstrong,f/l: livi'
ng on6,
.when shall I come Jzl# appeay k/nr:
tk6face9/ God. I have givellalso tho e other O1d Testam ent texts
tllat M axim us dtes,for othem ise the rem iniscence of Genesis seem s
to have no point. But with these otllertexts M axim us gives to un-
qo
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 ontologicalconsideration ofm otion. W hen later he considers the initialunity of beings 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
4Q 'fhis is perltaps too strongly pttt. It m ay be the m emory Justiniatz's 15th anathem a tsee Mote 34.last text)whfclzeaused M axfm usto reconsider and m odify his rst phru ing of the pritzciple in the following passage.' Speaking of the virtuous m ali who partieipates sqbstaantial virtue,
Christ, M axim us says that sue.h an one '&show s tltat the enfl is the sam e
as tlze beginning anll the beginning as the end or rathe.
r the begiltning and
the entl are tite snm e inasm uclzas the begiuning and the end of everytldng
not in that thls pair (beginning and end) doe.s not frequently oceur t(7ofl
begillning and eutl ks bestowe.r oi well-beirlg Amb 7-Io7zC7), but in this
near idetttication of beginning and e11(1 w ith the state ofa titing aad not
with its cause. And again, if M ax-im us ltad effectively eriticized Origen's
use of this prineiple applied to the eonf tions of things,could he so emsily
gz
l-h.dtT/l&ztfos p/(/riqenistn
Chapter1.Afdlx-f/dantlOrfg<af.
s-
93
visible tllings as being welland flrmly fixed arzd as enjoying an im movable movement and a caroeing (...tlxsvzhsrl) xtvovpzvokg lz xft
(pepolzvokg - Amb 15 title-lzz6A). Haviag solved tlze dieulty
M axim us launches into a rather bold.digression, as he says, as to
whether in regard to the ulziverse this earrying is said of an active
the question with the sokl, M axim us appliesthe doctrine thus elabo-
deseribed Origenfsm . W e have on the one hand: jtovj xlvqgtg yvegk and on the other: yvetrtg xtvngkg gttigtg. H ow did he happen
to hit upon it?It seem s dear from the foregoing that his descriptioa
of Origenism was not itself enough to induce the eonverse triad.
It is only later and in attother connection that the facile phrasing
com es to him , rather as a pal4 of his ontology than ofhis polem ie.
The pair m otion and rest, as w e s'
hall soon see, is a com m onplace in H ellenistic philosophy. But a Iirst thought w ould be to
see if M ai m us llas not borrow ed his use of it from D enis. H ow ever, for D enis stasis is the divine iixing of tllings in their proper
94
l'
FbA'
(5th ed. London 1948) p. 3881, and Plotiuns Enn. I.z-:.
4e N6nt- -xlwlcs= t''
t voev xlwlgk ni'(.
E'sAl.6.7.35 line z BRH m R),
See A m b I5-Ia2oA9:the soul Izovwct...Z vqtm '
rllv vdqow .
yj
rest, as against an infm ite everm oving rest. 'rhe iirst is connected
w ith the fniteness of the w orld, place and tim e, tbe latter w ith et-
jed ien ofa11to Chzist,in a passage wehave clearly seen to be anti49 'fhe questiol of infinity, 6h 6*(a, as that to wbich orte attains
rather tlzan God.him self pertains ratlzer to the negative tlzeologp But
tA.
m b Io-zIz3D3, zI68A ,o II88AI4' Am b I5-zc2oC7,9. There m ay be
m ore instances in the Am bigua, but I sllpped Am b lo last when I wms
viwy teyminative'
nxl:pojzrt/er:ymotion ,&end and tifiu&e''(I2.
I7C6-14:xlvndn)
k xv etlovxu xataxv vv x4o, 6etoxixv xtvsws iasejav iEv gkog
llxtov lxoveo. 3phen flod is ihe end of creaturely nlotion ' bnt in the'text
rst referred to Gotl is si d.notto be the lim it of creaturely m otion. T here
is no contratliction if we take into accotm t the distinction which m ay'be
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 #' everlasthlgness. inuitys 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 nonnoetic 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:/f4fp'
lzolOrk:Alis-
origenist,M axim us eautions that this is not to be taken as the suppression of the freewill but as its a 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
15,
.ithasallow ed usto see som ewhat oftlle clim atein which M axim us
w orked. B ut now it is tim e to return to the argum ent in A m b 7
(Io72A on). W eshallsee that here his in'spiration is rather Aristotelian,but by a shift of em phasis he rem ains withirz the Plotinian
m ilieu to wlzich w e have been but now giving our attention. 'fhe
w hole com posite w ill be seen, I think to have a coherence and urgeney of its ow n.
M axim us begins. T'A s to things of nlind and sense prodtzced
by God, their beeom ing is conceived of before their m otion; for
H DH tgn e'
O 'ftm v Elasw J'
vttlkpsfysv '
rii 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 Enn. 4.8.l antl 6.9.8.
ChgptrrI.M aximus4a4/Oyigenism
97
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 isunflerstanding of tbe Origenists by M axim us and that thetd ore the argum entatiotl m iscarries. For the Origenists genesis is precisely tlle advent
of the preexistent iznm aterial being lnto the body. Such would be tbe
.
to state: TTas to the things of nllnd and sense produced by God ''(xv
fx eo'
p yEvoltvtov vonxt'
v '
re xtttclcnhlstbvl. Things of ztzind and sense tllis is the universal Platonic dichotom y, w ith w hidt Origen still worked.
But there was for G regory of N ysaa and for M axim us another dielzotom y
still m ore fundam ental. W eisw urm expresses it thus: ''To Origen's division of being into 'r ttlcnxt'
w and xth voqvv Gregory, in order to
preclude any kind of identifcatlon of God w it.
lz the worltl of spirits adds
tlle distinction of xxw sv and &xngxov, i, e,, of the created atzd uncre-
Amb 7 is the cyclic view (ef.voN IVANKA cited,above p. 87), which ftrst
presupposes a primitive gnity (the henad)ofrationalbeings and in second
place, tlze preexistence of lm m an sotlls. M axinm s'm ain efort therefo'
re
is with the dod Hne of m otion, by which he established and deacribes the
liztear m ovem ent of the c eature to God. This view too has its necessary
presuppositlons,chiezy that the subject of m ovem ent is essentially im m utable,whether that subjectbe simple or composite. 'rlzis iseom prelzendetl
in the doctrine of the Iogoi. One m ay eavil that M avim us (loes not fzrst
treat of w ha.
t for us m en is m ost im m ediate and doea logieally precede in
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 forn the
di culty proposed for discussiotl. It is m ore than coincillence then tltat
(/8
ventionaldivisionsofmotion (one,threefold:linear,circularsspiral;
the other, twofold : sim ple and com posite, that is of the linear and
substanee (o:o(a). W e are then in the presence of this triad:becom ing, m otion, end. W hence ltas M axim us derived it? The ring
of the whole is som ewhat Aristotelian; a search in that direction
seem s indicated. rirst there is the defm ition of m otion as natvral
doctrine of species Tx/w ssl fDe Anima 1II 4-4z9aI3-I8), says that
the tm derstanding part of the soul, the m ind that is, m ust be xtt-
99
N g. And Simplicius in his com mentary oa the D6 Anima (Il 54l7ba8,CAG X I,I25'B)with reference to .
the above passage of D6
yBq is of the sort whieh is sm onym ous with end (cf. Alexander
Aphrod.in M et. IX 3-lo4'
7a3o, CAG I 573). M axim us therefore
cotlld easily pass from or rather over this proxlm ate and proper
elld to the last end,the overend,of which alone he expressly speaks.
I suggest rather than aflirm the above explanation.
something,so that the jor whose sake is for them the limit ofevery
motiolz''. In the M etapkysics (xz (994b9f)he says:'''PheIortp/lp.
s:
sake is end,but such an end as is not for another's sake.but other
thiags for it ''.
That a11of M axim us'idems in the passage eited above,pave the
identifcation of the end with tlze Transeendent,are to be found in
A ristotle is evident'
,but if the ideas are there the form of w ords are
too diverse to satisfy what M axim us indieates'
.a verbal rem iniseence
at last, if not a vtbw
rbatim cftatitm of som e author.. 'rhe neares't approach that I have beeu able to :nd is the following from Alexander
zcxl
impassionate (t?) lc
ixtlgl and the self-perfeet h(
%)e xotek). This
twofold eharaeterization eorresponds to the two aspeet of eom posite
m otion,considered either as passion or as efective operation. This
twofold charaeterization then seem s to be com plete. But as these
both are characterizations of the sim ple end.they m ake with that
end a triad w hieh ean in ne w ay be predicated oftlle creature. Thus'
13 M'
IJ< IG RMANS,J. Evagviana Syrtwt
z Lltibliothq'
ue zfv: M usdon 3x,
z9.
51) p.34.
IoI
is a possession of the end which is necessary to the creature's perfeetion. This M axim us states in Am b 15 in a septenee which has
served von Balthasar as a tag for llis K osm iscke Lfsfrgi<: '<That
which doesnothave an end for its naturaloperations is noteven per-
2o2
7'
& Relt4tation # Oyigsnism
Maximusassumes,quiterkhtly and naturally though withotttexplanation,that gen6sis com es frst. 'rhe fall justifcation d this he
gives later in his doctrine on logos,when l)e set.s out to explain how
w e are ealled parts of God. It will be enough to deal with itin
titat plaee. And agaittthe reader w ill have observed that M aximus
CHAPTSR 11
boneofMaximus'refutation ofthe Orkenist myth. W e have ezldeavored, w ithout too rem arkable sutzerss, to 6nd antecedents for
it in the w ritings of the N eoplatonie philosophers. One tiling,how ever,was stt eiently clear:in Plotinus stasis,responding to kinesis,
habitually bore a transm undane sense. V'et this with the other
alltecedents,is not at a11su eient to explain the force of M axim us'
argum ent. This force resides in anothertriad,tm derlying the form er.
stkbstance''(TP I-3:$BII).
Y et 1et us not get ahead of ourselves. W e should first look
te the aatecedents of this other triad. I say purposely of the triatl
for of any one or two of the term s alone there would be a vast array
of texts to review , from the beghm ings of Greek speculation on.
Io4
j46,p.zI6 ed.Cotlsin) he does not name the triad whieh now oecupies our attention.
In faet w e have here to do with a eom m on doetrine,sasceptible
1D6 xsfyslfyf,
s of JAMBIJCJITJS (ed.PARTHSY 1857) P.xxxii: Afdlzv
ljofpo xakvtqik 'rvb xc'
ryoo tfvv :ldtp:
kpek '
q xgxlk Dfwfvpw '
li xctx'lvtceuw ;
'
The reslxm se ks given on p.67. Por the authenticity of thfs treatise see
'
being of Jolm of Scythopolis. Sve the subjoined excursus (pp. IIv-zt)
for a discussion of the scholiasts.
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-
stances (lvvxezatol elgt xal otxrlttl z4oC8). But the fullest treatm ent is the third,where again the exam ple offireisused,though its
proper'ty this tizzle is w arm th. O bserve that w hile D eztis does rnention
habit (lik DN 4.23-725A12),John Of Scythopolis develope it,explailling power and operation by the relation obtaining between Gperation and habit.w hieh last ylolle he defm es. Thus a tetrad is im plicit'
. substanee, power, habit, operation. N ow it iseuriotls that i11
Myst5-676D and 677C (itistheonly instanceofwhich Ihave knowledge) Maximus employs tlzistetrad,though in quiteanother context.
The following,I tllink,m ay be retained from tkdsbriefconsideration of the antecedents of the triad: substanee, pow er, operation.
The underlying doctrine, in origin Aristotelian,llas becom e part of
the com m on N eoplatonie heritage;the triad as such is Srst found in
the DeJf
fysffrrffs ofJamblidms, as a eom monplaee. Johtt ofSeythom lis by hiscom m ent aecented thecasualuse ofit m ade by D enis.
M axim us,to m y knowledge, is then the frst to use it extensively.
N or is it really surprising that M axim us should so develope the'
triad. I1z the letter to the Sieilians,a defense of itis orthodoxy and
one of his latest tractatess M az m tzs says: <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
B Ofmtation m ust here com e ftrst for it is M axim m zseem ing aeceptance
'
N.
t,Dr ##e oythodoxa 2.22 PG ()4.p4#B.
1c:5
It will be the.
n only of greater interest to see M axim us'uftderstanding 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.
w'ith the static elements ofthis ontology (distance:sdgrqgtx:espac:v1fwJ). However, though von Balthasar does reeognlzethe antiozigenist import of the ehapter (op. cit.,110) and tlle movement
wltieh thestaticeleznentrenderspossible (op.cit.,109),stilllzeslights1
the m ovem ent elem ent, whieh in faet is prim ordial. Apparently
von Balthasar was not aware that M axim us had prepared the highly
polished concentratedltsss of the frst ten chapters in the looser and
m ore laborious A m bigua. Sueh a supposition is reasonable' but a
phraae oftb.
e last clause ofTlzoec I.3 fantld,p,ey opeu tion...). VoN BAL'
rHASAR prints:f<...die w irklichkeit Zielund.Ende der Bewegulzg Lstdam it
die Begrenzung d.
es W esens in sieh selbst ''. H is insight into M nvm us .
Chapto,rII.T& T6atL'Svlsfl'
acePow- O/:rt4ftyM
m7
Coniyontatio'
n of Texfs
Am b zo-zxh B zo-zz)
T htlcc z.a:
..a
m b zo-zz84D g-xz85A 5:
T ydtl t
l.
aeteov xaxA ativl'
q xat
M yov xal '
etiaov lcvt'v Jxewov,
xtlss o'
lhcttw , xav.t't fvulztv, xav'
lveystav, xtw'(11.
t+0 '
r alpara,
l' lvfs w ym xal s xdvfz),rov'
r.
lfrrtxtzKt'
t:'
q
*v (kxvhv xql v?ptleg.
Q fensov 'f?* xust :'
t
%t'
v o'
llcav,
xt th w lvtin'
rov xat x'
q
hv :'
tsvalztv,
xat xal' '
r.
q
%v lvoyetav (lxeetw aov,xat &vatqov tvtalsv,xll(h fredxnxov xd'
rto v loxk xt'
jJaeltjov,
xal('
bg etagi;
'v Jlngvp ov,xavtk
xdvva tldeko'
tov...
Am b zs-z:z7c4-D zo:
T ho ec 1.3*:
(lpxt adg'
n xtvn'gefzx qltstfkxiig xt-ityq oigta xv avrqgeov lavs'i
ltrtkv fl l'lv xsvovgvflw yveo'tg
,
fltqi
' : q g '
n
rt'
isv xtvovgvttw 'fEv- '
rfiglalsEftleothgt-vqtxN f xlvfsstpl..
cefog b E rb ysvgtrkovthys
;.
xtllel'atxtvngt%&v tjmckx&xtvov-
1cJ9
xdc'rl itjtoxtx'q
hv xyvq'cEfz' (
'iaii:ttpftlv
a
'lsv vlog fbg ah sov 'lxotttrlz.
Y ho ec 1-10:
l'ldcqg o1v 'ft'
,vce.
4 xe xal xt4:,,.%
1) xfAv 6vvow xGtjtec4'
t'qcxql
v'
q'gstt'g 'e v iv'
rftw dlq4h xGt xog' va o ltrvlv 6 els, (b N epyfvv,
11 a'
hto'
p.
b'* ,T'
qgtyxatDi*a'Nog,
xtzt Elg a'
vv xti advra.
Tho ec z.3b:
adcng Dl:(Imtrlx'
l '
rfiv Yvsfzw xt-
rdctl ls tpvckx'
l ap?) lvpyesav
v'
n'trslt) apoEasvoshtx $ yvecsg, xlvnckt
;,x'
hg Itv 'oigttxg pztxextvoxdsng ladtre(t
3g zspoextvoeltak ovgvn- xtmisatvoovpvq 3 '
o-ig
xtn pfgtv qe xtvngw.
lvethyetag lzertsvng lflxtv,d) pp o'
iv
El 'o'
liv xsvq't7Eftlg zpoEzLvoEl'
rqt xa'
r '
rv p'cov qmclxf7k :iellqp.-
xax pfctv l
h '/'vEgw,xkvq'cEttlg d gl'v'
q- xal rrtiga l'vthyEtq v@ xav'
gs'
reatvoeikttt xavt Tfgtv 'n
egtdgl/
;, tztssv lyf
p pvgtxf;g xetltyeatgoyvecg Dnovtik xql g'
tictg elvak I
zlv'q, tlo lcll vqg ath?l atr'
ii
'rlv iplx.xao sv '
lhtwltv ('igm'xa- xa'r'qxlvosav o'lhgkfo ot, xkvn'frettl.
'
vovjlljlfzw IX1 (%
(.
g fpvctxf'
;Mttp
'yovgtw lxovgat xtz'
rt '
B ggov %qAv
xlvqgw .
A m b zo-zzJ7B 8..zo:
o'
/ v ytkp.(L).o xlgxnxEv j
xtx'r o 'tftv 'rfiv dvvltw lxdtaov
'
tlvap,t '
r tp'
t
ltutl)g xe lvlpye.stw
xtpdpttxo 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- gz
ltfl. One m ight
Cap
109
that 6ttietx
qyttdoes llot appeaz in this suecint chapter tThoec 1.3),
the occasion of von Balthasar'scom m ent,while it doesin the passage
of Am b 15 eited above. 'flle M axim ian emphasis falls on m otion,
not only in his refutation ofO rigenism bttt in tlze w hole of his phil-
The triads thelt yvEctg, xlvngt, trrdgk and oigtq, ftvtzjttg, 1.-
zzo
TkeJt#s/z?/tw p/ Orignism
W e could then establish a fvefold sequence: 1) God is principle,asereator (:nlzlovtlyg,ysvetnovpydg);z) tlle substance itself is
pzinciple ofits motions;3) these motions are the activations ofthe
natural powers tending to their goafs;4) the goal,is in one way.
the operation itselfor.in another,the result ofthe operation;5)the
tendency how ever to the goal is m otivated by G od, the final cause
(tlo, xetltytlatgj). God also intervenes in or supervises the motions;lle does tlzisasprovident ('rhoec z.zo;Amb Io-II33C). Now
in M axim us the vocabulary of this sequenee,especially fvtlpw and
power or operation,or whatever else you would eallit''(Amb I5Tzr;DzI-I3). 'rlle weakest point in the sequence is the fouzth
1: See above Chap. 1, p. 98.
III
term and its im perm anence under the im paet of the fiftb. In fact
it seem s to disappear in A m b 7 w here the fnal rest is spoken of as
due to the one operatiou of God and the saints,rather of God alone
(Amb )'-Io76CD).
Opeyation,.:
4 Essential M lzl/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
identical production jrom beings can be cited unless this identity be the
logicalidem ity of tlze speeies or genus? - Applied to the 'rrnity grievous
error would result.- Or would one be better advised despite appearances,
to interprbt the present M axim iaa parssage ofthe psyelzic or noetic productlon
with reference then to what a later philosophy, also bmsecl on ARISTOTLE
fDe zlxnztz III 4.4zga13-I8),willcall speciese-v/e sstz? 'rhepaasage,understood especially in this latter sense,is of interest for the psychological exposition oftlleTrinity. Butnote that M axim usand Gregory - in M axlm us'
O terpretatiotl- m ake use of it only to stop the m ouths of the im pious.
There seem s to be no wish to develope tlze thought.
zIz
Tlt6Rtr
/o fezl()/Origenism
they partake,yet (we do) not (say)that they are able to move at
all in an effeetive operation apart from the willer's consent... for
tlle deed (dpm v) does not at a11 follew uptm the power when this
latter does not have the impulse (1,0afi) of him,whose the power,
is,propobing to it the concrete,actual end the power itself lacking
refutation ofthe preexistence ofbodies: 'fAnd if (the body)be totally bereft cd the soul and its vital pewers, clearly it is dead 3'
'
(ep 6-4,3aBz-z()), .
lzlthe folltpwing letter (ep 7-4368)the metaphysieal im possibility of the soul's substanee ever being cut o;,though
it be but for a time,from its proper eharacteristies (that is the rational and inte/ectual) is roundly a rm ed. 'I'he soul is thus evet
in active exercise of its pow ers.
Tt is therefore quite elear tat neither tlze attainm ent of tlze
end norstasisean m ean that a11operation ceases.Itis then oppol-tune
to recall M axim us'distinction of stasis,already m et above 11. Tlle
stasis of this world of tim e and place is necessarily lim ited,because
this is the realm of lim it, B ut this tim ited sfasis reeeives its end at
11)
T l'
t. Frfl,
tf in C/frstofogcaf Cokdroveysy
The necessities of controversy forced M axim us to plaee yet an
other aspect of this doetriue in evidence The first certain antim onenergistie piece is M axim us'reply t() Pyrrhus not yet patriareh, who
-
ation ofQhrist's humanity,says;<<Tlze idea (yo)ofnaturaloperation is the definition of substance, by nature charaeterizing a11in
(ep.4-:o'
;2Ca),though he cite tby text tAm b 5-to5GB Io. It isonly later
that he adverts to the fact (TP ;,-8,5A4).and only indirectly at that.
z14
CkatferII.T& T6ad:SubstancePpttzs'
rOperafion
I15
and the same verily to be b# nature God and m an, not otherwise
than by the inborn attributes tts/pztaf4 eharacterizing him at onee
dil nely and hum arfly - I m eau tlte divine williug and operation
(TP 9-zzIAz-8).
These two passages from antim onothelite doeum ents are sttffcient to show the constaney of the M axim ian doctrine in this as
i1l the earlier peliods. But w e need not eontent ourselves w ith sueh
a dem onstration. Because of a looseness of voeabula'ry in Am b 7
he had spoken ef one erzergy of God and tlle sahzts - M axirnus
-
jhrp/ysstlthe triad that eoncerns us. OUT nature does not have the
power to deify. '
Poz ffof that of whielkwe do not have the pow ev,
17or aetivity (is) from power, aud power from and in substance.
There are tilen, as titey say, these three' m utually depem dent: the
wi*hl
'vl our power'' (TP I-33B7-Cz)21. The rest of tlzis passage
weshallmeetlater,dealing witk ecstasis (Passage VI). 1noterlow
only thatthecompletepassageeonfkrmsapointmadeabove (p.IIz),
nam ely that stasis and opem tion are com patible.
11 Maximus is hea'e borrowing (note tlze;thsy w y 33BIz) from NsMssn;s (D, nat- a hominis 34 = PG 4e.74oAI4-R8)and Nemesius from P1utarch. See Nem esius anll Plutarch set in parallel in B. D oMNsKz D i.
JNy/ tgthj': d6s N ,- si'
lfx, p. z48.
xr6
yzlpA q
w M yog (pitnfog,'
p ao lxdeNfng.
1:17
E xcun us
N ote on the Scholiasts of the Pseudo-b enis
Cbersetzung...'' (,A'
/. dt. zz).
This Syriae version I have shown elsewhere Lsacris ffAvtfrf 4
(I95z) 181) to date from the fi1'st half of the 8th century,that is
roughly zoo years after John of Scythopolis and 50 to 1O0 years
after M axim us. Phoeas bar Sergius, to whom we ow e this revised
or new version of Denis and that of the seholia,has given no indi-
found in one ofthe Edessene libraries and so given him 'or one was
brought from the west, and presum ably would have been m ore
reeent. T lle only certainty is our ignoranee.
m ade the seleetion him self and did not rathe translate all that his
Greek m anuscript contained? It was Phoeas' ctiticism of Sergitls
zz8
.
'
l'hc A'
c/v/tzstzzpolOrgr&wi'
vzz?
tion from the seholia. The naturalpresum pjion tllen isthathe om itted nothittg from the m anuseript before him . This does not pred ade the possibility ofa selectitm llaving beea m ade bJ-som e copyist
of the Greek. U ntil tlze scholia fotm tl in the Sydae are textually
presented and com pared philologically w ith the others found in the
G reek, the argum ent from intenzal, doctrinal criteria rem ains not
too stu'
e ground.
helped obseure tlle place due to John among the sdtoliasts. In the
long lkst of Dionysian editions in Chevalier's D ionysiaca I M axim us'
inform ation says that the scholia are praetieally the sam e as those
attributed to M axim us. The George H ierom nrm on would seem to
be no other than Pachym eres. Vat.gr.372,contairting the Pachy-
'
'
.
tz4
(the said Anastasius) towards the end of the gth century. For
George's prefatory rem arks to the letter of Denis of Alexandria
(Br.Mus.Add.IaI$I,f.4f;Orientalzgo6 f.I3b - Iappend a complete translation) show that there hasbeen a continued opposition
to the authenticity of the Diosysiaca and thatnow he would produce
a perem ptdry argum ent,the letter nam ely of the Alexaadrian Denis
Izo
The.&#ll/tz/os olOrfgTAl.
swl
'
Cbakte.
v If.TI- TdH .Excxrsxs f
'
.
rtzl
neque quae legunt intelligere queunt. Sunt tam en qui calum niam
libro praemittere.Addam us.et alia (pro J= legendum !--':puncta?) 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
es 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.
Izz
z-Aezc/ufcffox 0/ (irig6nisnb
'xcvysf:.
s 11
Variations of Sense in the 'Perm s ofthe 'Priad
In the course of the above study on the triad ocw R vaglgy
lvthy6ka, there has been occasion to see how the sectm d and third
term were som etim es distind and som etim es taken as praetically
sm onym ous, how tlze third term itself w as susceptible of at least
2 senses. elxhis uneeztainty of sense would in any case have been
a handicap,but with the peculiar theological situation of the early
7th century it was decidedly a detlirnent to the right developem ent
of doctrine. It w illbe useftllthen to dress a list of these vocabulary
fluetuations,
For the second term then w e find both vapsg and xlvnct.
'lahe form er is m ore naturally understood ms a faculty, the latter as
an operation. Y et M axim us can speak of m ovem ent to operation
(Thoee I.3,
*Amb zo-Iz37BI0).-Maximus has himself distingtti
xshed
two sense.s of boye.tft (Amb :a6-Iz6oIzff): the immanent, prodtlcing som ething honlogeneous and consubstantial,altd the transitive,
for this would be not m erely lvyov (ep I9-593B5), which does not
so m uch im ply the work,the operation,neeessary for its production,
:g
faculty
= use of the faeulty;xtvngtg, lvpyEttt
=
vayt
:vvttvtsv
Ckapter11.Th6 TFt4fl.Excursm II
zz:
#
CHAPTSR III
ECSTASIS
Tlle foregoing ehapters have show n that a treatm ent of ecstasis
in M axim us is necessary;this w ould in itself entaila throrouglt-going
treatm ent of the whole com plieated and not a little eolltroversial
problem in the authors that now ecm eern us In the present study
on the M axim ian refutation of O rigenism , however.it is quite out of
.
the question. Fil'st it alone form sthe subject ofa stoutvolum e'
,to
touch upon it direetly,even in a sm allway, w ould ruin the proportion
of the present study;further it w ould require a lirst-hand m astery of
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
lsfx(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 (orpositions?)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 axim 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 ignorance of tlxe larger problem s I here subjoin a longer note$,on the
' The problem underlying the interpretatiolt of the passages dted in
m y text is that of the reconciliation of Evagrius and D enis which M axim us
(7//,4*/.
4:111.Ecstasis
:z5
sticalflodrine:the inwarcl-looking (imm anentist)and the apophatic (transeendentalist). The problem s are quite (listinct' yet the m 'itings of M axinm s pose them both im periously. '
rhis doubtless is why, in tlle recent
discussions of tkeir relatious the problem a have been effectively com pounded into one,
Jt w aa V ILLSR in his noted artlclel .4.
..
v sources tp Ia xsAl?
zf.
?
.lffg da
S.zlz
f/
u zzld.'Les tz'lspzzs d'llvags'
e Ie T'tppfff/zxg. RAM Iz (z9go), w ho not onl)r
s'est fait chez Mtuxim e entre 1es doctlines d'vagre et eelles de l'al
tropajjite ''(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, puriecl
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
sketch tke pu'yn positions, as Gilson would mqy, of E vagrius and D eztis;ebut
to suppose without fullproofthat anotke.r author has taken over not m erely
one but both of these pure positions js a gratuitous assum ption rendering
ow'n pure position (should he have one which I do not assum e without
evidence) is dnother question to whieh I try to nd an answer in the sual
portion ofthis chapter in the final note.
So m uch for the first of the problem s.
As to the second oftlle problelns - the relations of Evagrius and D enis
the analysis of H ausherr m ay- seem to som e a su eient fm sw er. It is
perllaps an answe.r to the what not at all howeve'
r to the how or wity. Fbr
Evav ius is eoolnlonly reckoned a rtlore tlzau faithful disciple of Origen
not lemst in this latter's hypotheses, This,ot course,is tnze and is patent
-
zz6
tion ... ''. I have undezscored that wlliclz m akes evident tke sim ilatiues
w ith Evagrlus. The sam e author doe.s him self com pare Ekvagdus and
un contact une adhrenee uzle alljacence si l'on peut dire qui ne laisse
dazzs le ciamp de vision autre cltose que Dieu,sans, nanm ojns, que cette
w'ision ait son principe spcifcateur prochain en dehors de l'm e elle-m m e ''
(ihd,,p. Iz5).
The theories then of E vagrius show sim ilaritie.s with Plotinus too great
to be safely negleeted. H e no lewss tlm n Gregory of N yssa,is not an exclusive dM ple of Origen. There are tllen other currents'in thefr thought currents specically Plothzian.so it w ould seem . Bnt thett who m ore tllan
the Pseudo-D en.
is was a Chhstian Neoplatonist? There is rst of all to be
xecognizetl D enis' greate.
r am nlty W :.
IL Proclus who represeng , perhaps,
an exteriorization of the Plothtian heritage - yet,lloth Rvagrius arlfl D enis
have tlteir roots in tlze N eoplatonist soilt how explain thetr contradietory
theories? That is tlte problem .
N ow the direct com parison ofEvagrius and Denis Lq peculiarly di cult.
rirst I should like to draw attention to som e literary grotm dsfor t,
his (1/iiculty. 'n e literary fonn of the two authorsis com pletely different. hN'agrius is a m ottk, m iting for m ouks atltl em ploys, for the m ost part the
sentential form . 'rbtq form due to the concision of the single sentences
and the lae.k of continuity between them (they were hot com pxged to be
read through or studied,as a wllole,like a treatie lorbitlany long (levelom m enta. But Denis who does not m rm it any pncroachm ent ofthe m ona-
zz7
aim - nam ely to use sm iling the Egyptians. the faslzionable N eoplatonic
phtlosophy to exV ess the fundamentaltruths,phil
osophic truthsshoult'
tI
say ?on wllielz Clm stianity rest.s. .
l'itis was the easier done as the contem p
orar)r N eoplatonism w as also if not prim arily, concerned with the religious
problem , '
rhus Denis and Evagrius, though 'concerned at tim es with the
s
ame
t
ki
ng:
the ulttm ate in the life ofm ayer, never approach it in the sam e
f
.
ashlon.
Pr
t
hoclus 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
, s
o Tesolutely rejeet alay (loctrine
o
ff#$4/ d''
t4.
u tftv/ele des tifx: se'
ns fjlrfflldlg choz
Of ecstasis RAIINSR (& '
e
g
J
1
$
4
,
RAM
t
z
(
t
t
)
3
2
J
.
1
3
5
a
nd
not
e
:
62
)
i
t
t
t
l
e
ve
r
y
a
c
t of establisbing
th
.
:
is polntssuggests the answer. Tke word the doctz'
ine waa stilltoo clzarged wit.
lka frantic tone im plyillg an am oralc'onstrahtt repugnant to h
freedoaz.
um an
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,
y Christaians. But Evagriua stsill would have nolte of it altd aqceptitkg
othe.r elem ents of Plotinian dbctrine, as did ltis friend Gregonrof N yssa
, e;cised ncstasis and l
eft the Plothlian sclzem e m aim ed .
To retunz for a m om ent in cond usion, to the concept of ecstwsis Its
.
Ic8
A . Tsx'
l's IN I'gtvoa ov E csTasls
by the need which l1e feltto explain theDionysian sltljerstkeunqualf#fW eited shortly before (Aznb 7-Io73B9). The type ofsuffering in
question is not corruption but is eongenitalto nature itself. 'fNvhatever 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.
phrase oceurs agaitl alm ost verbatim in the llispute with Pyrr/la.
of 645 is
signieallt. Clearly the M onenergist and M onothelite cireles tenfleflto go too
far in this D ionisyan em phasis of the passivity of creatures before divine
action lii
vleyes(wl- a tendency from which M axim us lzimself was not free
as we shall see in tite sequence of A m b 7.
Chapter 11I.Ecstasis
Iz9
Svhole loved objeet and is comprehended by the whole, him self wim
ingly by ehoiee aeeepting the saving cireumseription ''(Iog3C9-D4)
.
W ith the result that he be known by tlze eharacteristits e of the cireum scribing factor, as in the case ofair flled with llght or of irzcan-
ofthe freewill(v?)qbsqogtov),ratheritset.situpin accord with nature,Iirm a14d im m utable - that is. there is a voluntary outpassing
(lxxffcqck yvfnjzm'
lj)that whence being comes tous, thence also w e
m ay desire to rece-ive m ovem ent ' as the im age passes over to the
archetype,and,like a seal, is wel
ladjusted to the slgnet,the archetype, and neitherhasnorcan have anywhere else to be carried or to
,
speak m fjre expressly and truly, being usable so to wish, ashaving laid
hold ofthedivineoperation, nay,rather,becom ing God by deifieation
.
tirely ''(Io;-6Bzo-Cz3).
B aouo'ij'ft
'
j aeptyeiitpov'
rp(Io7JD 5). Qf the tx gfz'ra ofChar z.5c and
.
3.z.
j.
'qv'3'
A v iplv '
zrtipxeb.%6 slv> ,xak'
r xlvstzabla/sv zr,tefloopo (Amb
7-Io.
76B 13f). Thisimplies tlze cycle of progrecxs from a cause anfl return
thereto,on wlzich tlle N eoplatonists insiste in tllc w ake
of Plato against
z/
meutly and by the exereiseofwilland ehoice (xovgtfo ...xtvs xeoatpegtv 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
< 118. It istrue thatalm ostim m ediately afterthere issueh m ention.
Given the inlinite ttistance between creator and creature,tlle ereature's knowledge of ereatures in the eonsum m ation, will be ended
in a partieipation of the innite,ineom prehensible divhze knowledge
.
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
-
for things (vflw svrrtw xstpdlakov) - upon wlkich sttffering dispassionatenessnecessarily follows;and tfmallyljoy,ashaving noelement
opposed to it eitherin tlze pastorin the future ''(Io88C6-Io89A3)1t
.
proper activity and sufering;to this sufering pleasure and joy are
joined. Above all,tite tlistinction is far m ore in evidenee between
the spllere of natural action and that due uniquely to the divine
initiative.
Passag. 1II
M other
132
Th6Sfksflfitz;lp/Origenism
6'
pfflman.man s'
.
god. #f'fhe beizlg and befng called god,says Maxim us, m an has neither of nature nor from relatiorl'but he btxcom es
least suspicion of a phenom enological treatm ent, Bat in our present 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
Chaktvw 111.ft7.
lt
z.
$i.
s
133
the apostle suffering, rather than effecting, his assum ption ''17or
assum ption is a passion of the assum ed one an operation of lzim
.
W e have in these degzees referenves to the various stages of nattlral contem plation and prayer. Jt is only the firial degree which
would fully m erit tlze nam e eestasy, as alone being fully passive
and so beyond the lim its ofnature.
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.
Passage F
''
.
Te sequel
: -y4
I'
hr##f/?4/t?z;oj()z#lli'
.
$-
p/ fke ages kave come Sf/plus. Though we have not yet received
the fuluess of Christ's graee, yet the virtues and logoi, w hich m ay
be known,are types thereof ffby whic.
h God ever wills to beeom e
of the proposftfon qttalifes the prindple for soals but ft rem aned a dfli-
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
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 inouence 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 ... Ivepyovpv'
qv (Tha1 2z-zzoD8): cf. Am b :5-:zzzB.
zl Nan-vationqlvoekptkv tkgzxta vttlav (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
Chapter 11I.Ecstasis
I35
man in the worthy ''(Tha1zz-3zIB7). The perfectiolz then of deifcation (and so ofecstasis)is to be referred to the next world;but
there is already a preparation and a foreshadowing of it irz this,in
Nrirtue of the Incaruation alzd the active life.
P assage V1
God artd the worthy, rather of God alone '' (above p. Iz9). The
eharge that this is a M onenergistic passage, he says, is easily answ 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
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 perfectly 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 ofexpression, a defieiezlcy for w hich the N eoplatonie diaiectic of suceessive
136
Th6Relutation 0/Origenism
StPaul'srapture,itcom prehendsundertheterm sprogressand ascension the alienations ofthe sensesand otherphenom ena usually assigned
dcation and meansthat the deifled subjeetis acted upon with efects
beyond its natural powers; on the part of the subjeet there is an
outgoing of the w ill to G od, w hich is w holly im pregnated w ith the
divine w ill. O ther effects, as the suspension of exterior senses, are
secondary,non-essential. This distinetion was the easier for M axim us to attain because he considers pzim arily the future state ofthe
1: A m b p zo76A 3; Io88D 8. The esect oi this divtl'
te illustration is
the possession of the divine ltfpuvtf. Com pare G lar 2,52; 3.25. H ere,
tltis is only im plied as our passage.
s are concerned w ith the future state.
where tlze m ention of virtuews is 1- necessary.
Cltav
y er11I.Ecstqsis
z:
J.
7
the Evagrian texts and doetrine,so that the doctrine just sketched
rem ains firm and uncontradicted? A eonvincing answer,if sueh is to
be hoped for from an excerpting author like M axim us,willbe found
only in a study ofthose works where the Evagrian infuenee is know n
to be greatest. If there we Iind not only the lcnown adoption but
also sul cient adaptation,the sam e m ay be assum ed w ith som e conlidenceforoecasionalpassagesi1zthe restofhiswork. %Ye havetherefore,tunling to the Centuyies on Charity,to asserxs not m erely the
faet of indebtedness to Evagrius:7,but to m easure its deptll in the
doctrine of m ind and of nature. l2or it is Evagrius'doctrine in this
point by whieh he excludes conceptually the possibiHty of any veritable transcendentalism and renders im possible any use of above
wtzf.
lfz.
e or like phrases to express the gratuity of attainm ent of God.
'fo proeeed m ethodically,I m ust lirst set forth briefly Evagrius'ow n
doctrine. In this I shall follow H ausherz and Balthasar:8.
'
pzincipalvient d'zvagre. Qe sont les dtails com muns aux deux fxx-ivains
qu'ilfaudraitsouli.
gne.
r''(p.z57). VILLSR haa no doubt that,though M axim us took tout $'
pAl systLme from Xvagrius yet he was shrewd enough to
leave asid.e a11that wms heteodox (p.z.q9). Our present question is:did
M axim as really take over a11of Xvagrius'sym m .ineluding the key posltion,
his concept oftke soul'or did.he not rather take over tlte Evagrian m ychologieal analysis of the spiritual life in whiclz analysis lvagrius brought
to its acm e the traditional m onastic wisdom ? Antl Evagrius, no le-ss than
I:
J8
ofthe miud (the nude rrtind)as being first created to tiie image and
likeness of God,of the Trinity,and in that im age having the native
power to reeeive the know ledge of the Blessed 'frirzity. That there
w as a subsequent ereation,on accotm t of m otion, an evil thing, tt)
which was due 170th the body and the inferior faculties, the irascible
and the coneupiseible, is coherent w ith the first position, but 'does
not direetly eoneern oui question,exeept that on the reeuperation of
its purity,the m ilzd sees itself, its own state alzd eondition, and so
the transit frorn the ontolo'gieal to the m oral order! u4d de A//liftvesse de
l'olgtfss- e accordiug to G uttm zttlstot'c (p. v83, tt
jt. 194.). Com pare atso
Qlzap. I note 30.
.
Chaktcr I11.Ecstasis
zg9
4o.Ia44A,
'ef. ep.39 Fr.593 m ed.;Cent.S'
l.
f#//.2 12r.424; Lib.<Al.
147 Fr. 553.
K . ...Blessed is the m ind whieh possesses perfect freedom
from forms ttigoeTl(zl during the time of prayer. De prfl/zbz;: PseudoN ili 11g.
L .Blessed is the m ind which during the tim e of prayer is pos-
apart:that the im age of the frst creation has a native capadty for
receiving know ledge of the holy 'Prinity and that this know ledge
is as am'p1e as the m ake-up of the soal perm its, w hich m ake-ttp or
eondition isseen by the pure m ind as a light, These are the coneepts
whieh exdude any idea of ecstasis,a standing outside oneselft The
ecstasis, whie.h is a standing outside beings only, would notbe foreign
.
to Evagrius'
,i1factthe formlessness ofpure prayeris jttst that,but
his term for it is rather m igration lx:nptla or rapture 2R.
2: D n oratione 46, 52 .
.
z4o
Th6Ae/-fsrfo.
no/ igenism
In reviewing the works of M axim us izl order to com pare them
Char1.10,11,
.2.6,47,48). Buthereitiseonneeted with lxnjzta and
with that $funconseiotlsness '' of wlzieh H ausherr speaks in his ar-
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 creature. W ithout such explicit m ention the sam e general thought
fmds expression elsewhere,as in Char 3.99 (the occasion of Haasherr's artide Ignorance .fzI#e;tr),iu which the perfect rnind's ''more
thatz non-know ing superknowledge of the supenm knowable '' is
CkJ.
/f.
e.?'ff1.Ecstasis
I4l
If then m y analysis of the Centuyies pzl Chayity has been adequate,we have seen that nowhere doesM axim us take over Evagria'n
thought to such an extent : that the pure or perfeet m ilzd m ay
seem to have a power receptive of knowledge of the holy Trinity
or that that know ledge is som ehow in correspondence w ith the m akeup of the soul; tlm ch less is there any hint of the soul seeing itself
in prayer. Yet these are precisely the points wlzere the Evagrian
thought is form ally in eonflict w'ith D ionysian doetrine B ut M axim us,even in speaking of ecstasis m anifestly ullder D ionysian influences has not takea over, as is,that dod rille; rather at the texast
he has transpsed it onto another plane. 'flze question then of the
m utual relation of Evagrius and Dens in M axim us rem ains open.
That is the point,and that alone, that I w ould here m ake :1,
.
D VJI:LSR som etim es does note that M axim us doea not follow Evagrlus
.
3tVILV R suggestsanotherway ofidentifying the Evagrianand Maxim tan positiolt itt his com m ent on Qllar 3.97 (p.249)ywhidtspeaks of the
nlind bei'
ng jlcl/dlr.
/l:tfajtev,b6ing tlipk
rrsrnly contovmed to gtzt;: obfeotc,jcontsmAftilo'
)z (z((/g ktrrov vt
sqrttt p'
Eqitttlg'
nj
za'
n'liee ltrrtpxs... =*6% zacrlm vqp,
a
zrm xi.t'y petctpoptpoifrlht). Now this, it is suggested,is to be understocd
in the Origenst-lvagrian context of the fall of pure spirits (from the
primitive henatl)lnto boclie.s of a coarseness proportioned to the t
'
legree
est une assim ilation relle du connaissant au coltnu '> In a footnote the
*keA,/u/qffpl 0/Oriqenisnt
'rlle Csntury literature is not a form apt for the eontinued exposition ofa thought allthe m ore so as is the case with the Centuries
on Ckarity,w hen the author pretends only to give the product of his
of m an (of body arzd soul of course). To see that the patttwning fz/feg of
Char .3.97 s to be taken not ontologieally but m orally it is enough to read
lakT.4th ode oftlze vigilselvice for Stm day (Rom an edition I885,p.4,3):
Mtfatqqpm tsov xll jtsw pgetpotrov lx xuxta p.e ztdzq rw t'kelhv,gv'
q tqqhd '
oo're m l tlvtthloto'se Tv((x ...
Ckapter 111.Ecstasis
z4:
.
)
P assage V II
ofvisible thingsin itself (Amb Io-III3A6-I4). 'fhereis thusa passageasit were from sense-pereeptible thingsto the Ngh eontemplation of creatures in God, to a m tjtion bout God com pleteiy lacking
the eoneeptual furnishings of our eustom ary thought The end
result of these grace-directed znotions is that ''m en are deem ed fit
through the Spirit to be com rningled entirely M4t.II God and bear
.
the image of the lteavenly One,as muG as men m ay '' (Am b Iozzz3Bs-zo).
On the whole sue-h a passage as this is alien neitller to Evagritts
nor to D enis. Y et if one look closely to the function of the m ind,
it m ust be said not to be specifcally Evagrian as there is no hint
of the uniorl to be aecom plished in self-vision. Rather the m otion
yvfvtng lxter
hfp'
q lczlv oyov See Dodds' citations and comment (z98).
The doctrine is com m on. But M axim us can also speak of m oving tm .
m oving unknowingly '(m otion of the m intl) to the cause known through
the m otion oi reason.
I44
TheRdutation ()/Origenism
faw oxjv)and issomething other,oneinfers,than the naturaloperation from w lzich it rests. 'fhese elem ents are D ionysian.
But at this point M axim us inserts a passage on God and m an
being exam plars one of the other, whieh at a Erst cursory glanee
Chaptev111.Ecstasis
I45
..
st
zfs'
rtz/ powe.
v ks a surpdse after the Tepeated ao m ations that dem cation
i
Ps com pletely beyotltl natural power. See Passage III = d note z5, also
u sages V anG VI.
11 H ORN G ., Le m iyoie ,/ la .
a.
s& , RAM ,8 (z927)zI5-z3z;butthisIp
osition haik not been fogowecl by subsequent writers: voN llv tplo
ts.ul D Am fxov.Lsvs. Stxe the note of this last in L 'im age & D itf'
w
t
:
/
va
&
.
t/ Nys
Cvrtkoiye
se. 1951,p.,
3.
31 (on p.:
34) = 2$fuse'
u.
m Z.
O.
Wtz.
11.pl, sect.thol. 49.
.
ID
146
TeR6/slffzft?p olOrigu s-
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$q)and knowledge,look without eyes42 upon the veritable God and
W ord, distinctly know ing that the privations by exeellenee prove
rather to be tzue of God,som ehow indicating the divine a rm ation
Chapter 11I.Ecstasis
:zj7
.
Passage X
I%Ft
l/efy injnitejttlwzr
e.
(DN 8.z-88pD). 'Ixe double use of COIEPOg is common
in Proclus tKoc1I Beziehungen..., lx 785 but as in Den:
is in connection
witltentities under Cxdd. 'Ax 4rq occurs 8 tim rs in D enis but tw ice only
of God (CH t3.4-5o4C(i'
, EH '
z.3.4-4ooC9). Th1
*$t ctm stttutes, I tltink, a.
.
:
c
s
r
xt
f
vpl
do
n
t
e
i
nam
s
.
Af
f
4
i
v
o
nl
e
s
s
or
i
s
. Rom ae zqz8 (
O
at the
rientalInstitutejp.28 note 191),al rms that thereisnoiniluence ofDenis
in Thal. And though I = ay lzere indicate the unfounfledness of the a% ertion, yet the diference of tone between Am b and Thal seerns to dem nnll
:
/8
.
Th6zk:/vfllfos olOrg:ssz
'
rlu sMt (Df4 Gn.Csnt. z55);blzt for the initial decade,see above chap.l
p. zofd . Theae rem arks lzowever are only provisory, as there is as ye'
no system atlc study of Thal.
44 HArs> p.
ltLlknovance'
a/AssjOQP 2 (r9J6) :55,:56:360)cite.s tht
Evagrian textthree tim el. In the frst citeation it is suggeasted that Xvagriuk
uses a pin'ase not 1l.
tq ow ltto expregs ltis own tlzought;in the tllird tlze genu
not om it the Evagdan concept of m otion 1t% bad anll cause of evil.
C4/jtv fTT.Ecsstts';s
I49
But this iguoranee creates a diflk ulty in assessing the E vagrialm ess ofthese passages 4s.
wbiell we have met above (PmssageVIIIand V11). A direet treatm ent of this willlead usto a synthesis of M axim us'doctrine in the
passages so far discussed.
and ever-ill-being,of wltic: I shall speak in dealing with the apocatastasis, is of coarse also im plieit in the present chapter. Sucll
are the idiom ata 48'from a slightly diferent point of view they are
44 An attem pt to assess'precisely sueh Evagriazzness w ould be futile
if b:jr that we w ere to understand tlze quantity of E vagrianness contained
irt the M axim ian tum bler; our aim nm st be qnite de erent: to dettvm lue
that critical point where the use of the Xvagrian heritage ceaaes to be the
use of the Alexandrian ancl m onastie traditfon of whiclz l vagrius was
certainly a principalspokesm an atld pa esoverto a dependeltceon Xvagrius
tlle system atiwer of Origen's H ellenisticdnspired hypotlzeses, m ixed also
witk, N ham , otker strains and certainly V t.
II his own speculation.
46 See tlle rst part of note 44.
*7 One m ay com pare also Char 2.52, cited above note 3z.
.
No
TkrA'
e/f'
#/g/ft?zlojOzr
gk4xllz?;
reckoned as m anifesting the divine and so are rather ealled charaeteristies, gnoyism ata.
To see what this'involves, 1et us return to the passages already
citedv In Passage VII we saw that 'God and m an are exem plars
so /tzr as //1, natumal jltlttgr within J& 7Al ptfrmits in Parxsage VIII54
as referring rather to tlle hum an effort for virttte than to the divine
qualifyitlg z present in the sam e context. T lle eharacterizations of
the saint by G otl with llis own ckaracteristie.s effect '
sirnultaneously
Chapter f11.Ecsiasis
I5t
who deifies,tile result being that the soul is im age and m irror:a11
- these them es w e have in one passage.
W itlwutfatker,u'if/ltpfzl/motker.7pf//3o'
lffgen6alogy: having zldf/'z,r brginning4)/dayszlarend p/1iy.
.lsfflikened totheSon //God & continues
a #A'
$'ysf/or 6v6r is didded into three,as 1 have plaeed the eolons.
The rst, 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
I5z
TkeRr/'
ldtllitm p/Origenism
Tlzal z5 (Ptkssage IX )'Vnvim us had spoken of the reason of faith &0 &oxs vomijtevov or more accurately vofsm 'fwclox6po ov (3z2C6) that fs
the ultim ate in knowledge is non-conce'
ptaat Por parallel: in Derlis see
K oeE, Bezilnngen ..., p. z6o.
5: Note this com posite supposition oftpo w for > 116% 4zt4/f4r:'
,itisrathe.r
1: Liksnn z jtoofn: M axim us is not always consistentin m aintaiqirtg
the dksthzction found here azlcl i4 Char 3.25. Etxfv is not infrequently
used alone for tlze sense here given fslzolfn.
56 It is intere-sting in tizis n6st to see how prom inellt is txe 'fvpq and
it.s conform ation through virtue. 'n is btm gs us close to Passage I w ith its
lxzdlmltam fagsx'
ti. Above,p.4z,I have been able to snpply the lacuna
occurring in tltis rem ainder at zz4oD 5. If gives us another Trinitarian referent'e.
Chattey111.Ecstasis
z54
.
occasion for tlze expositios, I zefer tbe readeT to tbe prefatozy paz-
the Logos, there is an ignorance, that is, a non-eoneeptual 1t-110wledge which exteads indefnitely. 'rhis transform ation' of m an
endows him in eseet, by grace, with the divine characvteristies of
goodness aud w isdom . Its fullrealization - the union ofthe blessed
with God in heaven - is properly ecstasis, a thing quite beyond
aAd above all the native powers of m an. 'rEis too is deieation,
a suffering oftlzedivine,whieh doesnotrob m an ofhisnaturalpowen ,
though they be overlaid,transfused w ith the divine. The som etim es
ofdesire ('
1T I-9A8). There is the 'fseeing the true W ord and Gpd
witllout eyes ''. But above all there is the aetion of God,drawing
the m an from things and self to him selfH.
:7 Evagrius Denis M axim us - ifm y m ethod and judgementhave not
witlely e-rretl, wlzat m ay we now say oftheirrelations?E vagrius,rfusing any'
ecstasis even purged of frantic and,fatal elem ents fzxed him self in a pm e
introspection. (It would have been diK cmlt for him to do otherwise so long
as motion wasforhl
'm evilantlsourceofevil. Denis rejected neitlzerm otion
nor ecstmsy, which he found also hz txe Neoplatonlc tradition. W ith him
however.ecstasy seem s to be as m uch if not m ore for this life lhan for the
next. The pare gratuity of attaining God in vision is not too m anifest in
the flux of hissaperlative vu biage. Thesufering of thedivine is not developellin tllesenseofthedistinction oftlze natural autlsupernatural. M avlm us
'
isa com pletely faithful disciple of neitber. Tlds kq ta'ue esm cially for E va-
J.
74
TheXd/lflfit?l olOrignnism
to tlle dottble influence of lvagrias anll D enis. I say pavtly because, quite
apart from a question of soutce.s there is di culty in fusing tite two elem enta
of m ind and will in a pedeetly izarm onious doetrine of the atts'inm ent f
G od. But if the double initlerzee does aecount izz part for 4
th% defed in
the M axim iaa doctrine one eannot say that there has beeu no reconciliation.
The Evagrian doctrine hms been pruned of i'
ts indigestible elem ents and itas
been set in the N eoplatonic sehem e it also pruned of its inacceptable theses.
Induences m ay anfl (lo Tem ain. W hat howevet is m ost proper to M axim us
ze- M cqg ojq opvtp xdeuto, xtzt IzA nv tkausvofrv'n w.w.$:* vto v, vv
ek tiuliom fpaqvfkfoatctv.
G IAIAI'SR IV
LOGOS
A . 'fl.
Is D ls'
n xcem ox: AOrOE TYIEQ Z - TPOIIO I Y IIAPZEOI
I56
Tht
e Rdl/t4/afpAlolOrigensm
s.'
p.1. l'or instance in Contra a4/pllf/sfzrf4- I 49Mary and Joseph
I'
Ioll- das M omentdes HQ?.#:71: - is unqtlestionable,btzt not necessarily intended in every use of the word.
not the term only but the phrase w aeg fxdpisto then I think
ltis conjeeture must be dropped. For I have not fotmd the phrase
iu the com m entators edited for the Berlin Academ y. Basilhfnlself
presents the first instanee of its use.
In his hom ily A gainst f/le Sabelllns, zzlrfzs and I/l.
a azlAlpplfl<flzls
Basil urges that it is rm sham e to adm it an ''ignorance, without
danger, of the m ode of the H oly Ghost's existence ''1e. Tmter itt
4 F UNK, K ivcltnng6sch. A bk J11. Paderborn 1907, pp. 32o-a3.
'
* PG 39.I6.5zC.
6 See LS9 s.p.
7 IRSNASUS, A dvevsus H aeyeses, 4.zo.5; PX SRBHJS, d6 dctll. theologia
Ckapter IF.Logos
'
I57
the sam e hom ily be speaks of the Son's origin from the I?ather, by
word '
tingensratsd (tlyvvqvov) tam s one's thoughts not to the what
but to the how of tlzingsz:. The illustration then follows of the
bakao.
b tapfllvet,xekyvamvv d lxm ,'
rl,ptv xttv Q ttfltvj56 : XI'
rR Izyc'oo A; D xt'
lkDvttjm ,'
r ti xa'
t .:* w dzcov x'
l f'rttkle,s?>' '
rv zpdvov
'
k'
ij yevyflf
x el,46 xtsx'ovlctfm
15 In tlze Stoic fragm ents collected by von Arnim not a few exam ples
iu tlle index.
14 BAsul, Contva Sx'
a.
p- '
lm 1, 15: PG 29.5458 -548A .
17 GRXGORV or N yssA. C. A$fAl., 1, jj 4:5-97:PG 45.404.
I58
TheX:/f.
fffdt)Asn/Origenism
'r'
l '
saoo-rtjcpsfo latliq'r/,Tzho'
st
'
ev&v Tl,g,llstzlsx xo: (kv'
V tr
mov x ahhxv '
bxoxeipo ov' 11 apllofi.:to pzavM vetv 8:1 '
t'ij (kaoxoeele. Togso : xat jhav
mzp.pglve:lx xiig xoB J,yevv'/lxov tpow-i x6 aeygxoi;'
A og pau ev 1k(tivivdlv
tfrtsgKv ttttvxohtw tg.
z? lu str. ()..E'
.
l4x..1I: PG 29.5968z5-04: 'AD.
'o'
K 'ov'
?iosxe 11% W v'
qvatlvvouxxoelpvxfpa x1 Ie: Afovoysvogq xogx4ce. flqvv yie xo9 :vvpvov E( vxaKdvnmo kyov lxtvoelolhztAvvlpc l fxapllg fo9 Qeob ho'sov To9
lv J/x: vvo ae6 xv hs6v e:v:bfcexlu
1: P ssuoo-B Asm a C. Jywp.. IA7: PG 29.68:J2.
': P UNK Icivshangesch. W bh.. 111, :2z.
*$ PG 39.1652C.
*6 Dm vMrs n '
agm ent IX : PG 39.z6..
$2C7-:5 : Et t
b fpfllew I
zeqovtx
llaxvofqp '
6$v ua.
v x(Bv poetlcftw,Tf
'
l Elavvov '
ll 'r p'
sllov 'rfpe '
M xiiie zrzwq
xevvv' o yikkh atpvxev 'c l;v olkxv xzl yvosle: J,ztktn-iv, lzw ov 'q xoavq'ru ge'/'o'
ov ovyxptvecm ts.
Ckapter IV.Logos
15t?
'
ex-plieity in Clm tra E l4nom ium 111. 6.14 2:: '<The Only-begotten's
: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.
:
$.6.63
p. 8417
Bk 1-316C
l6If
61:9
z8o:1
1-404
IW 6:$2D
'VI1I-773B
18'
71
197.
1:
VIII-78IA (hypostasis)
VIII-y93A (hyparxiswio out
reference to the Father).
z6o
existeaee '' (obx otgtag, o;x aflpyrzlg rpaov, velw ov toB Ilaw g'
xal'& x$v Etisqta)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
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: T t
flr xe'
krrftmov 'tlfxvlkov,'
t (IT
lv vio'
trgtt
l' 1;
livk trlttxl!,Y xgl Hvsijltq x f
'
ly:ov,vvaov '
f?xtkeletts litovv
fugett
v vpuxa,tillv'o'
lg oit7ta alfk .
C/ltz/fc?'fF.Logos
I61
butnot to an obscurity. The modeof obtaining Txfs/esce (the translation isPrestige's)constitutesnotonly theproperty,but,tm derstanding property and substance together also the person; and founds
the relation. Basiland Gregory ofN yssa, seeing the positive aspect
I6z
Th6Str/f4ffdpl H Origenism
otglag
Seth. There is som etiting fttrther of n'ote in this passage. It begins: .'G od is one by the coexistence of the three divine persons,
difering from one another not by the essenee but by the m odes of
existence '':9. And a little ftlrther on Theodoret insists on the unalterability of the M yo ogta4e. The word also occurs in the
e'
arlier sense of the rzlode of existence of the Stm or H oly tn tlst in
H aenticarum .Ffzsz
?
,/.
ftzrlf- Compendium V z,3 4t. The frst instaace
in this latter w ork is of som e interest because of the illustration:
C'llc/fer IF'.Lngos
I63
cttrious thing, kyfm xis has here the sense of physis. '''l'lte soul,
he says,is circttm scribed by Tf; dyfll '
rsg fadelefl)g''. And later
on,speaking ofuniens;'fsom e even in union preserve xv vg xtjeyq)g hyov ''44. Such a use m ust, I think, be explahled by the
Leontian doctzine of an hypostatlc union of created pedects the body and soul.
'
In chronologieat order I should now com e to M axim us, but I
perm it m ysetf to pass frst to the Pseudo-cyril w hom I'Ioll, tm der
the name and from the text of John Damnscene, cites for being
uncertain in his use of kyparxis. W e have to do with chapters
8-10 of the D 6 sacrosancta Trinitatr4:. In the first passage41 w e
.
s'
rztj:e God s Patvistic Tltought.p.z63,cf.p.280)dates the work at the beginning of the 8th centunv. Ds G'
IUBSRT (RSR 3 (t9x2) 367) tliscerns a
(lem ndence on cap. 26 of the Dooteina T'
tz/rlAl (hence Prestige's datiag)'
.
but asthis partof tlze collection m ay wellhave been eytant earlier the date
B ut one m ay ask
why does the Pseuflo-cyril consisteutly avoid nam b
'ng any of bis som ces?
ant. t
$:6'4 rrlot
lz is therefore t5.
e m onothelfte controversy.
.4
I)/ GTJIBSIG (p.368)suggest.s ''que noas soyons en prsence d'u:tlpseudopigraphe fabriqu pour1es besoins de la controverse m onothlite ''. But i1z
that ease, could not bne restrict the posslble tim e of com position to the
periocl of tite polttical dnm inauce of Monotlttlitl
'mm , that is from the tim e
z64
TheRejutation t# Origenism
*
The proper characteristic then of each person (wltieh is ungeneratedness,and so on) is the mode of existenee. Little wonder tllat
shortly after he repeats'
. ''W e acknowledge one God, but izl the
properties only of the Fatherhood Sonship and Processiolz do we
'rhe rst aad last passages cited are those contrasted by H ollO
to dem onstrate a laek of darity in the Greek tradltion in the wake
of Am philochius. Clarity - the texts speak for them selves - is
not lacking. One m ight wish for a further elucidation of how tllere
ca.
u be three persons itlone substance- alw ays a profound m ystery '
and that Pseudo-Uyril had worked a liu le witlt the concept of re-
Ckapter IU.Logos
I65
I66,
So now if we seek exam ples of titis distinction in the iaterwzitings w hich hav:
e received the im paet of the Christologlcal controversies,the chrity and htdsiveness with w hieh the prindple is e-xpressed are only euhanhuxd,
ProceM lng ehronologieally, I instanee the unique Christologieal
A m biguum . M axim us states: 'TW e know that one thing is logos
doetrine whieh Maximus made to prevail against Pyrrhus (TP z83o8D) and still that which the Pseudo-cyril has taken over and
ckm dsely expressed :3.
K nowing the im portanee of the distinction ldyog tpfigEtzu -
:$ P SICIJDO-QYRK
Chattvev IV.Logos
t67
But.not oaly this. The rest: slipped down #t)vl above, even
as it necessarily im plies som e sort of prim itive union,so it the m ore
im periously exaets an explanation not only of that unity but also
of the aetual state of m 'm hz regard to that unit'y. 'rhe answer
then orz the wimle m ust be theologieal or existentia'1. A m ere philosophkal explanation of lgos will not su ce :*.
It witlnot be nece.ssary here to repeat tlze analysis of the logos
argument that I have given in the frst part of tilis stvdy (above
p.z6). W hatI have now to treat ofis found in Amb 7 Pal't One,
II,III aztd in Amb 4z Digression z (Amb rIog7C-IO85C;42-132517z336B). rirst note that logos does not staad alone. Mavimus
begins: '.W ho, knoweing tha)
t by logos attd wisdom thugs were
VoN BALTHASA.
R has som e interesting '
pages (K L 84-96/71-80; Cyiticism.
d6 l'.(4V/Ft4j*gl and IkossKv (Essai .1e 1a. Thologie v4yx
/gl: 616 l'Xgl.
=
d'Oyitmi tparis 1944) pp.90-95, z4o). The notably Origenian (loctrine Logos-P-e lf;a Logos-soriptuva fwogcw-fu/iuzf;i(cf.Amb 48) - 57111 uot
.
enter our present eld of study anll so neither voN BAI:TEASAR'S D ie (M 0stisohsn (Q Alfuezrx.
55 It is here that .vo Bwuzllz
ksxlps use of tids paasage (K L 87f/73f)
is at fault not at all recognizing the antiorigenist cmst of the w hole. N ote
I68
TheR6jutation f# Origenksm
Stoa zo55, for Jewish theology 1069). P.H RINISCH (D6r .S%/l$I.
J Philos
tw / 6lQ Jlfysfe clwistlicke ,Eb
.
vdp zl, M itnster z9o8. p. 137-39) gives a brief
historicalsam m a'
ry of tlze doctrine. F'
or Philo one m ust now consultW oI.Fsow's treatise: P hilo, vol.Iyehap IV #G OII the w orld of Ide% , and.the Logos '' and chap. VI,I ''The Im m anent Logos ''. O1i Logos and wisdom
E'
nciclopediA Cattolica,111. (Citt de1Vaticano 1949) I8loa.
Chapt6y %F.Logos
169
his creation (t$v xeg xv xa> v lxxlcn lyov Jvov vir xtxl
tlaoxfzvdnvctv):9. This is quite enough to show that we have
now passed from the essential level to the existential w here the
supernatural obtains Grst tonsideration. 'rhis transit is doubly asH A m b g-zo8ocz1. T lzis m ay be reckoned as a taeit refutation of the
z2o
2-Aelbelutation n/Origenizn%
In this Q'
uestion 60 Maximus explicity distinguishes the two
ordel's. 'fowards the end he says:f'rbr of a truth it was neeessary
that the m aker itt'nature of the essence of things should becom e
tt.
s recapitulating a11 tllings (Eph, 1.10). In Thal 6o-6zrAz5 the m ystery
of Qhrist is the recapitulation. One could therefore object against my
inteapretation that already it tlze secoud ph% e M axim us wxs speaking
without distinction of the essentialorde.r anf
.
l ofthe existential.EutStPaul
to the ex ential logos and ereation. But in the passage here translate; a
atlcl for Origen see the artiele Pydnstination in DTC Iz (t935) 2812 and
1%27 (Otuosx,In Rom ..8.:8 Lib.7,7 and.8). Cf.also the seholion in Ps.Den.
CH II.2 - PG 4.93. According to LossKv Llua N tlft)Al 4e.
% 'Anatogies'
Chaptr IP.Logos
I7I
(then)disposed. Forthese the respective paicipation or impartidpation of the very behlg, w em being and ever-being is the inerease
and augment of punishment (rtyt:t)((t) for those rtot able to participate and of enjoyment for those able to participate '' (Amb
42-I3z9AI-Bg)
In the above passage the distinetions of the m erely physical
and m oral are well m arked. W ithin the latter order M axim us does
not here bring out the dlstinetions between the tlatural and the
sttpernatural;he has the existent the supernaturalorder only before
llis m lnd's eye. Y et that the distinetion is present in M axim us'
thought and im plidtly in this lolzg eitation, other texts witatess as
in their proper time (ef.from the 2nd phase Io8oA6). The reasoa
citezDusy.
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.
'
z'
/z
N yssa fd . W m sw t:w
that b.e introduces lzis argum ent against the henad schem atized in the triatl
gim esis, kinesis sfttss. Tlke kiytesis w hieh he has dlstingnished from an
absolutely im m utable ground is also m oral m ovem ent.
Tllis distinction
is com plem entary to tlzose of tke logos of beings wellor illbeing, and ever
belng.
'
:4 Amb 7-Io8tC:
J-7: xqs?te x'lp ek nbq '
yq 'tt'
;v zvokkt'
lw l'zturpecm x'
i'v
're xak gewtxyo'
pxabv dw molzv xthXa,
Lxevottw,Jgztee tt d'
ex'
yrtctv'
roxvttw ptx'
v
@j xvw ov '
rfiv !1 (lfrroiiE'
H se v G g cl,ex4k apoeklqpg xtzk tk rttkm ow ovvay'tk ,eV oaglv 2
Ckaptsr IV.Logos
1g3
(Amb pIo8zCpII).
'flle wllole of this Erst explanation has nothing in its elem ents
of any oziginality; yet in the whole M axim us has so sittm ted the
origin and end of m an that a11 the criticalpoints of doetrine are assured. 'lh e great suppleness of the logos doctrine izl the text of
Amb 7 has hhldered as elear an expression of the relation of natttre
and grace as westenl theologians usually desire. The whole explanation is sim ilar to, but far preciser than the D ionysian doctriue
in DN 5.5-7. This M axim us him setf recognizes in his reference
Second Explanatio.
n ol f& Lq os Docfr-
'
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. Cnt. zog.
Tl%eAtr/lftzfo,lt)/Oriqensm
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 ited Origex had developml the idea
that our righteousness and so on is derived from Chris'
t, though not
in term s of participation. A nd in fact M axim us passes at once to
a consideration of sueh partieipation view ed from a sueeessive grasping of the beginning and end w hich are the sam e com prellended
i:t the skofws of the thing (I'0843.6). Now .4as to the beginning,
a man receives'by partidpation the naturalgood ((
ly(z4v) 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
(yvfg'
q)and choice (atkoalpegw) and from God reeeives deifcation,
adding to the naturalgoodness of the imageB. (r@ xttF dxvtz tpftmt
xallthe elective likeness through the virtues by remson of the implanted transition to and fam iliarity with his own proper beginning
looked at alltllings from the point of view of the divine skopos the realization of m an in the Incarnate dispensation. The reverse
67 Gregory of N yssa speaks of Tfy svtfp v as ufsxiy (lw onl. In
lswl. V II: PG 44.72417 ult. In a w ord the O rigerzi@n iflea 'm ay also be
fotm d izl G tegory'
.
*B Image tzptf Iikenrss. The subject has attracted not a few authors
in the lmstfew yeaz'
s. The M axim ian use doesnot seem to be constant. This
Ckapter IV.Logos
:75
ever and in a11to effeet the mystery of his embodiment ''(Amb 7Io84CI5-Dz).
Thus one is part of God'but to slip dow n from above is lm reasonably to desel't one's proper source and results in a radieal disorder and inseeurity of body and soul,being a choiee of the w orse
those e o'
l:l Panta nous can be un4erstood as periphr% tie for tize m rson
nam ed. See tlte article zuw l in Ios 0 1 :1' exam ples can esily be fom l;
176
Th6Rtr/uftzfft)l otOrigenism
aAirmsthatthelogoiofthugs are also ealled divinn twi/'/s (<a E),jlm w l. Thatthe creation was not a necessary product of God's
power, but resulting from his B411, is 1zo novel doctrhle Vt. Both
Clem ent and Origen are very explleit itt this regard ?2. M axim us
too elsew here 7: sim ply refers ereation to the divine w ill. V et it
is not in this sim ple and, am ong Christians, universally accepted
positiollthat the im poztance of the passage lies;it lies rather irttlze
union m ade of t'
he Iogoi and the divine wills. W hat was in D euis
'
nal /t?:eez'also and divinity. Maxim us com m ents; 'fThe logoi of
beings prepared before the ages hz God'
he knows how ,behlg in, as .
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 f his
m aster. If this be so, the zrpogu E xal 'rog M yo'
tl 'rfl Efloyov has certaiuly m ore m eaning.
7: Cf. IVANKA H ellenisohes axtf Ckvistliches..., p. 44f.
Ckapter IF.Logos
17;e
Once m ore it is evident how allis looked upon from the heights
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 ''
M oh rn comm ents
It is therd oTe a reat exaggeration, on the basis of tbis eitation
of
benis,to draw M axim us entirely in the wake ofthe Pseudo o enis.
Thi
-
:2
178
Tke Aejsfflffo,loiOygdwpl
of western and 'rrideutine theology with that of the Byzantine doctors in this poh t is im possible,as these latter never used the hypothesis of a state of pure nature iu elaborating the distinction.
sAR's Kosmischef-/ltjrfga(Mssai...,p.941).
?: See tlze Srst part of this chapter for a history of this distinction as
a theological term .
:7 1 give a few rd erences: 'fhal a:-32IB ; 37-3.
8511; Am b 58-1:
J8:Df.
78 LossKv E ssai... p. 9g : ''L a aoEifm de la cratton vhez D enys se
trouve si rapproche de celle (le la tliiieation que l'on a peine .flistiaguer
entre l'tat prim itif des cratttres et leur term e fnal celui de l'unon avee
D ien ''.
79 K L IAj
jjoo.
Cltapter IF.Logos
1;t9
me,three possibilities:1) a straight orthodoxy,built on the supposition;2) a eorreet doctrine,safeguarding the same points (nothowever with the same appropriateness for eaeh) as those safeguarded
l)y the said hypothesis; 3) a dpctrine com prom ising one or more
poiuts necessarily to be sateo arded 81,
If the hypothesis of a state of pure natm e reaehes the very
roots of our present question, the hypothesis which Lossky m akes,
aad supposes also to be that of M axim us. nam ely that there is a
.
one (Amb ;-Io8IBIo;),arzd gos on to speak ofthe creative procession 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
:.
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 dognlatic denitions 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 an a
.
z8o
TkeRfutafion p/Ovigonism
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
CHAFTSR V
K OROS
A .'rzu Oluc zus'
r U ss ov K oRos
Satiety or surfeit was one of the cN cial points irz the Origenist
doetrine. tt serves as a convenient term to indieate the cause for
the dispersal of tlle lzenad . It oecurs in 1)0t11the Justinian doc'
u-
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
us is probably not the case here for the elem euts a're foutzd in D e .!7>.'
#lc
11 8,3 (p. I57a 158) and.in I 3,8 (p.6c1&f). It is then a condensation ofOrigen tllat we fnti translated in the text.
I8c
TltcA:jw/flfos olOrfg:zli.
pl
foot and return to 11ks position aud again be able to establish what
had falleu ottt by negled ''8.
Tlzis surfeit is som etliiqg to be feared; its advent m eaas alienation from God. That a surfeit of the good is possible is due to the
eterzml,but God-#ven. For,ever-existent they werenotand everytbing that is given ean be tvken away an4 fall baek. The cause
ofthe falh'ng baek will be fotm d to be tltis,if tlle rtloverflent of spir-
its be not jtlstly attd well directed. For the ereator granted voluutaz'y and free m ovem ents to m inds ereated by him , by which of
course the good eould becom e their own wlzeu it would be m aintained by their own will. But s10t11 aad the boredom of trouble
in keping the good, as also aversion and negligence of the better
3 De Pvinc. T 3.8 ((7CS Origell V (KOETSQHAU) 6213-637): Ita ergo
indesinentierga nosope.re patris et filiiet spiritus sanctiper singulos quosque
profectuum gradus instaurato vix si fozte aliquard o inttteri posstlm us
sanctam et beatam vitam in qua,cum post agones m ultos in eam perveniri
m tuerft ita perdurare debem us ut zzulla um quazn zlos fxm i illius aatietas
eapiat, sed quanto m agis d.
e illa beatitudine pereipim us tanto m agis in
zm bis vel dilatetur eius desiderium vel augeatur dam sem per arclentius
etcapaciuspatrem et fzilum ac spiritu.
m ve1eapim us ve1tenem us. Siautem
aliquaudo satietas cepit aliquem ex 1'
ds qui in sum m o perfectoque constitentnt gradu, uott artdtror quod ad subftam quis evacuetur ac decidat
z83
gave an opening for the fallirig away from the good ''. Aad Origen
goes on to explain how this withdrawalfrom the good was the 0ccasion for m aking this variegated, sense-perceptible w orld 4
W ith this reference to the variety of this world as due to t:e
.
e'Et iltoHgenlfaisait consisterle libre arbitre,non pasdanslepou4 De farwc.11 r),z,translatiou ofthe ftrst part whose textxuns;Verum
quoniam rationabiles istae naturae quas in itlitio factas supra dtxim us
factae sunt cum azlte non essent, hoc ipso,quia non erant et esse coepenm t
necessario convertibile.s et m utau les substiterunt quoniam quaecum que
illa inerat substantiae earuzn virtus non naturaliter inerat sed benecio
eonditoris effeeta. Quofl suut ergo, non est proprium nec sem piterrm m
sell a deo datum . N on enim sem pe.r fuit et om ne quod datum est etiam
auferri et recedere potest. lLecedendi autenl causa iu eo edt si non recte
et probabiliter ditigatur m ottu anim orum V oluutarios etkim et liberos
m otus a se conditis m entibus creator indulait quo scilicet bonum in eis
propriuul feret,cuzn id voluntate propria servaretur' sed desidia et la% hs
taedium in servando bono et aversio ac neglegentia m eliorum initium detlit
.
receclendi a bono.
'
in tke hum an whole ltlze texts jnst translate give evience thereof);the
work of M axim us was to aFtrm and by the force of his dialectie to m ake
the distinction prevail against any pagan cop/futm (cf. A m b 15-1217A 8;
also Am b 4z-y:371)6 and A m b 10-I:7613.j.
).
z/
TkeJl/r
/f/f/zffbl ojOy'
#eAzisA?)
Origenist mytb,lmsed on the passagesjust now dted. The pzinlitive henad is of the rational creatures, whose radieal m utability
is grounded itlthe fact oftheir being creatures,arld is m ade efective
by their free will, consisting esseatially in the ehoice betw een good
aud evil. Thus the very nahzl'
e of tlle free will,tlzough it m ay develope hz an ever-expanding desire of the good actually com es to
a sudeit of the good and tlm s becom es responsible for the original
breakup of the henad; successive sudeits and w ithdrawals ever
rem ain possible. at least that tlze creatttres m ny leam their depend-
185
and to whieh we gave our lirst attention 1e. Bat before com ing
.-
L- -
..- -.
187
deviation towards evil. H is m ethod here is a reductio ad tzlsf4rlfllof the position of tlle Origenists. 'Phe positive developm ent 'of
his position we shall see later.
I shall now give the second passage olz sttrfeit. 4'lhtor joy,
they say, kno!vs neither past grief nor reeeives future surieit 12
from fear 1: asdoespleasure, H euee also the inspired booksand our
Fathers. m ade wise by the sam e in the diviae m ysteries, lkave ev-
xdeov +($f$0:,.But neither the reading of Seotus and Oehler nor this varlaut
give a very lueid sense. W hat are we to understand by tkefzf/llvzlsurfeit
jA't?nzIear in Oehler's reafling? But ott the other hand what sense is there
in 4:jutuys /Jp.
rjyom szxy/e/? W ith pleasure a present fear ofa future surfeit
is entirely in place. But itzthe text the word reuclered by Iwtus'e (apocioxgevovj statzds outsid,
e the phrase s'
twjett /1.0- feay tjr Jecr jkom slfrje/
so that even if one would em end tlze term ination from tlle aceusative to
the genitive,it.
s position woultl rentler agreem ent wlt.
h tlze gettitive d;
x xo9
xt?mz im posslble. I have thezefore retainecl Oehler's readiag.
NIM (m ly by SSNSCA (eP.59s2,VON ARNIM III Io6t3):Scio,inquam ,et voluptatem ..,rem infam em esse et gattdiam nisi sapienti noll contingere.
e-st enim anizni elatio sttis borzis vcuisque sdeutis. -- gaudio autem iunctum est non (lewsinere nee in contrarium verti. 'flle kinslzip ofifleasism anifest; but the real eonteu.
t Ls vastly diverse. W ith Seneea it is due to
conftfltnce in the wise m aa's own gootl works witll M axim us it is infiicqtive
()/th6 fzdfur, /rz4/#,whieh I understanclin a pregnant sense:the fature,stable
gzaee-gzvezz union w'
itlz (.
7()d.
14 O sHlm R'S plm d uation is m isleading. 1 Place tlle ftrst eom m a after
I88
3*k63ddjv/cffps olOyg:pfs-
in Aiexamdri tfg anim a llld m antissa. At the end of the excursus against
tlze Stoic doctril'
te that virtue is bapplne.
ssthe authorargue-s:C
rtt' NQ e.
5).o'
'
f
o
v
r
h
v
t
e'
t
'
i
v
'
r
o
o
'
(
de
a
t
h
o
r
s
ui
e
i
de
)
'
I
s
a
op
t
i
k
h
t
v
T
t
E
$
f
r
ol
p
@;
o
y
*
J
rasp
, ir
a$ 'e v Ctu tt
w nvo ofqog x(xL at s'
M tjzovltt sflkoyov H ystv, 53.
s% lp lv.
.
ote k 't/i.
v xeog eDutrtovltt xat pslr
'
pil
;. :1g 4zratkmv ytke 'e v 'rlv '
i tlqtg
xekmh 1aalh/
o n afvfbv $ vtstgold Supplenvntum Ayistoteticum 11 (Berlln
:887 ed. Bruns) p. z68D-15). BRUNS (0/) c/.p.v)is persuadellthat the
.
z89
b1e with joy, the topic of the preceding section. It is, however,
an iltsu nce of that associative developm ent of tlle thought which
does not hinder the strength of the logieal strtlcttu'
e.'In faet the
relations with the frst parssage and with the'whole explicit refuta-
o'
r/3 '
rq-glx5al'
c xtut B v :dov
1069C9:
Io69CI:
(Cva)xdgov qpogc'
ttx'qg lv r:
olxetf.
p cxs3at3p.fi s'
lv 'ro'p xglzov paxkvnvxa x('i loykxtl xv t/x/ axod e'
tlyveo'tv cvvEto-riytcev.
gpv Lftsv.
Another qlem ent of the eonclttding re-sum is the infnite exteading 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
4
.)g
I'
heXdl/z
l4tzf'
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).
.
ment ofsurleit(xpo). Thistreatmettt isofthe briefest:a deflztition, the double m ode of its realization (eac:
h itlvoldtlg a lirnited-
wotthe Lovd said that in heaven (antlthe end islike the beginniag)
.
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
I9I
I9c
i
od
s m entioned wlzen M axinm s touches on tlle surfeit aspects of
Origenism .
m asfers. In llis0n f/m M akingp/ M an 16r,Gregonra rms the imnlutability ofthe divine and the necessary m utability of the created
': N o lsszr s= D e eltzlz<r. ltom ini
's 41: '
P Q 4o. 773f.
O f give N ernesius'views at such length becattse he is one ofAfaxim u.s
m asters. 1 note especially that N em eslus distinguishes clearly betwe
ofIrtl()a'
kj1?. Afllrming that to eonsiderthe soulasbody (ep 6-4z9B)
m akes it im possible to see m an as im age of God,he goes on to expound how God isatonce im m ovableand im m utable'sim ilarly n m xn,
the m icroeosm os,one distingukshes the substantial cause of m ovem eut
:1 GREGORV oF Nvss..
t Opee'
a zl.
ctrfztt(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
stim abant... '' I'cannot how ever find evidence that O rigen or the igen
ist.
s ever held tlze soul to be a body. On tlze contrary, the soul L9 itself
-
z94
Tke.Rz/f4/lffos oftlrfjzs-
m ention ofthe everlasung movememtofthe soulin rgard to God.(Amb zoxIz3D2 and zzz6Bz5), as also in PN-8(u'C9 and.Thal 25-3334.5, In this
latter tlle everlasting movement is qualihed as hnowlsdgdul trrununxsl.
I hesitate to '
traaslate scientijs because diseursive thought has in the prec '
Ckaptsr Tr
,r.K oros
z95
the all-pervasiveness of the idea. In the prologue to the Quaestiosq ad Thalassiu,m M axim us describes in detail the progress of the
soul in perfection. H avitzg .
m entioned the attainm ent of sim ple
('rhalpro1.-z5zB8-Cz).
As so often, M axim us is here speatviog of tlze consum m ntion .
But the end is like the beginning - at least the descriptiorss of the
end exclude the elem ents'ofthe fall one by one z7. And so M ai m us
Tpoa'l
j then appearsfnally asthe ontologicaleapacity '#oftile
creature for a deficient m ovem ent in regard to God. H ence the vmst
realization of the creature in God. Tbis Lq also the sense of Thoec 1.8: on
element. Slmilary fxedness lrrtpvdxnl, usually also havring m oralconnotations,is used onee (ep 42-504A14) ofthe ontological imm utability of the
species.
r SeelAm b 67-z4o:A B.
I96
sofar a,
s it is in aceord with natare (PN -8.
77D and TP 7-8oA of the years
628-30 anflc.642). But already in TP zl of643 or shortly after lzis posi-
tjon is ehanged (TP x6-I9zA z9:A). His final position m ay lye seen in
tlze Dispute with Pyrrhus (TP 28-308C)in 645.or itlT P 1 ofthe year 645-46
(TP z-z7C) where ill thj:sertes of hum an acts preeeding an action yvop.
n
.
Chapfvsr 7.Xoyos
197
If immutablty has predominantly an ontological sense, jxedness in m ost of its uses is m oral :3. 'flae noun is of less frequent
and condude to his immovability (flxlvnxov) and henee to ids immutability l#::pEzrtovl. Lqtimately it is that God is his own end
(Amb 7-Io;:
JB5)and aloneisssll-motion,.
s,J/-#a?z/er(Amb 7-z(yM Bz5).
H ence one m ay the m ore easily perceive the urgenc'y of M axim us'
argum ent against the O rigenists: .'B ut, that rational beings shottld
so be borne about and have or hope for no unalterable grotm d for
198
Th.R:jutfllfo'
l.
lojOdg:lfs'
m
body antl soul (p.481).the sim ttltaneit)rofthe parts (p.loo,101),tlle relations ofbotly and soulafter death (p.185);the t'
riad:nat'
tzre motion end.
bs Gregorian (p.96,97, IoI,zoz);tile sim ultaneity oi kinesis antl sttnis is
also found itl Gregory (p. a05). But ultimately one must allow a fundam entaldiserence betw'
een Gregory and M axim us in their relation with 01i-
Chapter7.Koyos
I99
fana'tic extrem ists from the Palestinian m onasterie.s (Evagritts coulcl then
have hatl no great following); M axim us enjoyed no iam ilia'
t I mean lio
fam ily contact with Origen; he could attain to the m aster otzly tlzrough
llis writings laboring unde.
r the flisadvantage which the antiorigenist controversies an; conflem nation created for any one (lesiring to profifby Origem 's
great 1earning, 'speeulation and devotion. V oN BAt/Tm ts.
tlt has shown
tlzat M axim us had direct acqnaintattce with Origen' I have showq above
how M ae
txim us had 6t1z century Origenksm directly in view in refuting the
otlle.
rofthese strandsis sucient to justify the presen.
t essay. 'Po identify
and K rt them cm t i.
: a work of the futuze.
in his refutation ofthe Origenist doctrine ofsurfeit tsee the passage translatetl above p.186). It would seem aot'M aximus tltere considers spirits
M4th full knowledge who because of thek choice and expedence of evil
have been equfpped witltbodies;Gregory has in m ittd the actualcolzditfons
in which m an fknds llim self.irt which the m isertes of thks life can tur'
n one
to tite good. V et insofar as Gregory coneeives of m an as rutm lng tke full
gam ut of evil necessarily snite anfl so necessarily m eetiug again witk the
'
zoo
passion and the irrationat being purifed either in the present life
that the intent of God's perm ltting sin and evil is to preserve the
self-determ inative power which is ltyo Eov. But then there arise
He says (p. 106, the sequence of the passage above quoted)2 T$11
nous sem ble que cette idle se dgage de tout le systm e de Grgoire.
Im xtm ateeckg ne devient, selon lui,un choix libre rlel c'est--dire
un progr.s continu, que par une alination ''
Of tlze reh tion ol the self-determ inative and choice he says 48
.
that tktplzb pca is a truly spontaneous movem ent from the essence
ofthe fgo,by whicllthe person choostxs, realizes its tnle self. 'Plm s
quite in accord with the good or tends to the opposite ''7. 'fhere
is therefore an am bigttity hl the use of ip oaltegkg,
W e lzave seen above 4: how Ozigen erred in identifying freedom
with clzoice. A satisfactory rd utation of O rigenism m ust esect
tltis distittctiolz. It would seem that Gregevy was ndt entirely successful in this respect. lt wi11 be from this poiztt of view that it
good, the Afaxhnian argunlent w ould tell but only if Gregory concdved
evil as a positive instram ent for teaching the gootl, not as an elem entwhich
eventually G sabuses m an of his illusions about appatent gtxds.
4: GREGORY ol? N VSSA D e Jo rfaz'4 PG 46.5248.
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 xfttzctse so fam iliar and dear to G regoa , that is the
right exercise of our choice resulting in the ever non-sating satiety
ofthetwotermsilzquestion. Hewrites:'''Phenaturalwill(flnjtq
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 pertans nlore to the next chapter that
and so also sin tsee the end of ihe passage translated above from the De
Ubr/ss) purfies and.so renders m ssible sooner or later the restoration
u'
ofa11to the prim itive state.Self-determ ination anclchoice L6le /tzt;/o of evil)
being too closely idvntified it is (li 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
heit bildet beiNem esiusdasW ahlvermgel ode.r die Vorstzlichkeit tzpoaleetrt)''. H owever Nem esius does a190 tlistiugish though without m aking any thlng of tlze (listinction betweell clzoice and self-deterznirtative
power,theform er presupposing the latter (D ewcfvl'tzhomiyds 41:PG 40.776A).
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 rwoftltlng as habit to act (TP z-x7C).
coz
T/f.
trRel
utatiohg--/Orig-l
fjjf
-fnj
-
tahlly is the ease w ith M axim us, especially if one considers only
lAis vocabulary.
It is interestingsand perhaps not entirely without signiieance,
'
e '
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
.
Chapier F.Koros
zo3
Phzist beeam e sin for us and yet did not.know sin,lte speaks indifferently of the corrtlptiolt of choice in A dam and of it.s reetitude
in Christ. This is one of the passages for which afterwards he m ust
give an explanation. In TP I he observes that if som e of the 1?athers have spoken of ehoice in Cluist,it was in the sense of our essentialappetitive power,narftely ou.
r natural will, or was an appro-
zo4
Th6Rqutation 0/Origensm
w hieh does not alter the nature but diverts the m ovem ent, or, to
tions: the l4yog fpftrefn, the natural will, nature are on one sideon the other al'
e the m ode of existence, gnom ic will and choice,
tlle person. Self-determ ination then and freedom are of the nature
prim arily, of the person secondarily , derivatively, '#M s series of
distinctions perm its, when confronted with the Origenist and Gregorian, views, the necessary reetifeations. A surfeit of the good
properly known becom es strictly inconeeivable, fgr the expeliezlce
of evil is i.
ri no way a ftl lm ent of nature EH is properly a spzp.
tion of nature does not of necessity entail the eom plete restoradon
Butherewealready touch theproblem ofthe apocatastasis,eoncerztiug w bith the prtlnent texts and studiesm ust now be exam ined
z8-3z5A9),'is JwfzlveactN .
CHAPTSR V I
A/oczu AsTAszs
W e have seen that Maximus very deftnitely rejevtsaud explicitly reftltes the O rigenist errors coneerniug tlze henad, as also tllat
ofthe preexlstenee of souls. It w ould seem therefore that a refuta-
and 3)those texts wltich refuse to give a deeper doctrine,that doctrine being,so one reasonably supposes,tlteapocqtastasis. M axirnus'
1 M rcrtltu'
t), E. Rru. JAC/ZIZwt
r
I/JZ-tZJ: (le FW tvtpjrg 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,:-
ing that this latter is a threat only that could rem ain unrealized
''
ln tllis resped it is tlnaeeeptable
. . .
Only reeently J. Gath has iuterm eted the Gregorian tz/mctztastasis in absolute term s :,' and adds that M axim us and Theodore
Studite were quite of the sam e opinion. I am not prepared to di-
7 G.
&A K op.cit.p.z88,givesltisversion ofM aximus'QD I3-79623-0)1;
but he omits the capital phrasp : xtft ofxg 'tizoo tgeto; % lzefle:'
tt'
bv
yuit
'
iw flzrs
oajkv Ttk rvtiygw.'
n.
e oversight is a11the more gross in tlzat
'rheoclore,dtktg the wlzole passage, sitlgles out this very phrase for repeti-
Chapter VI,Apocatastasis
'zo;r
.
'rhe a rm ation of the fact of punishm ent of unendhzg dam nation ,even great em phasis upon it, afe sufiiciently conlm on in M axim us. There is first'of a11the exlm rtation to com punction oecupyipg
inasmuch as he could not have been unawire how the 6th eentuz'y
antiorigenist theologians used the like qualifcation for puztishm ent
ckaetpol.
g'
re xkvEr
Evet%'
rol.
11 A m b r
zo-za3'
z'B ; A rnb 5,3-:37t
J:
B , z376B .
11ep 4-416.
'ep 24-6z2BC; ep 8-44:11 (etern
'jl hell-flrel; ep :-388C389Cz, l'
por the dating see m y D ats-lst.
:zo8
Thtf,& /74f//r'
t?A;ojOrigenism
' But w ith the years, or perhaps with the gteater poiglzancy of
the situation under which he was writisg this fziend George was
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
Instead
of light darkness,in'stead of joy grief,instead ofrehxatien punishm ent and distress willsurely Teceive m e. Aztd then ofa11, tlle m ost
nziserable,or m ore tnzly the m ost grievous - in saying it only I am
afllkted, how m uch m ore in enduring it: be m erciftll, Chtist, and
save us from this ajlliction - the separation from Gqd 14 and from
his holy polers,and the fanliliadty with t:edeviland hisevildem ons
that abidesfor ever without any expeetation of liberation from tlzese
tenible tlzings. For in this world by our evil aetivities we chose
willingly and deliberately to be with them ; of necessity to be with
them w e shallfairly ezzough be condem ned, tlm ugh unwilling. And
m ore pusishing and terzible than any punishm ent, the bdng contiuually w ith haters and hated thisapaz'tfrom torm ents, not to m entiou with them ,and tlze having been separated from the loverand the
.
13 Part of the phrasfng of this passage has been borrowe; from Gregory N azianzen or. 16.9:PQ 3,5.945C. It is a passage citecl again in part
in Am b p zo88A .
14 Gregory of N azianzen is also here M axim us' forerunner' see tNe
above note.
Chapfer VI-Apocatastasis
zog
reazy and truly will be, 1et us, beloved, not negleet ourselves ''
(ep 1-388D6-8902).
M axim us does not speak here conventionally of the pains of
hell'he does not repeat m ere phrases,as m ay seem the case in the
references giveu earlier. Xret there rem ains to be seen how he * 11
treat certaill problem s resulting from seriptural and. patristic texts
Here the great problem is that of the concrde solidarity f?/ the
ll- flzl race1: wlzich ,if carried to its lim its,seem s to involve a certain apocatastasis,m ore or less on the fotlowirlg lines:since a11 fell
it A dam all w ill rise and be saved in the new A dam . B tlt even
when sueh a doctrine is carried to its extrem es the resulting apoeatastasis, though equally false w ith the O rigenist doctrine, is not
the sam e. 'rhe latter is eoherent w itll the doctrine of the henad,
preed stenee and a certain eoneept of freedom and neeessarily llows
from it;the form er has a real,a true basis,but is a doctrine sugering,
as it were from sarcom a,nam ely that no person m ay be coneeived
as set perm anently in opposition to the good in Christ l6.
I shallnow give those passages whieh seem rnost to favor such
a view . It is here that x
stichaud was m ost diligent. Am ong the
Quaestiones ad F/lflllss'
lfvlI may refer more particularly to Thal z
and I5. In the first the harm onization of the particxular with the
general,in the second the ways of God's providenee are dealt with.
In quite a num ber of the passages dted by M iclzaud one should
note that the m oral elem ent is present, m ostly expressed with the
words granted /t? th6 worl/ly or the like U. Tllis is em phasized in
the com m entary on Ps.59 '8. H oweverthe fullest iasistence on this
aspeet is'found in A m b 3I-Iz73D , w hich deals with a phrmse of Gregory's oration on the N ativity : Tfthe law s of nature are loosed; the
upper world m ust be filled; Christ bids, 1et us not resist ''. Tlze
second phrase of the pmssage naturally hw ites the doctrine of tlze
16 See GA.
'
1% ok. cit. p. z92. In tNe passage cited (PG 4 .z:z6CD)
Gregory asserks the incom possibility of e'vil and the divine om n4pre-sence.
zlo
TltetAt#fy/llo@lolOyigenism
hete introduceslhe parables of the lost slzeep, the lost dracbm a and
tlle prodigal son The lost elem ent is that whieh lzas fallen from
the heavenly choir p arlkind w hose return provides the whole scope
of the Incarnation l9. But that M axim us here leaves to a m ore
propitious oecasiop the explanation of the num bers 2, Io and Ioo zn
is not su eient grounds fo'
r num bering this pa% age am ong those
w hieh deliberately refuse to speak on certain more :xfllfefl doctrines
It is to these texts that we m ust now give som e attention
.
'
E sottwic Slesce?
V on Balthasar :'says that texts of the esoteric sort are frequent
in M axim us. 'fhis is not quite so. 1 have just indicated.one passage that ought not to be lm m bered w itll them A nother stteh
text he sees in Am b 45-13568 . But here again M axim us' reason
for not speaking is not a desire to honoy a doctrine in Wftrlc: but to
.
'
Question 21 zuns:'rW lzat is the m eaning of:Putting offprincipalities and pow ers etc (Co1.z.15)?Ho
'w ever was he clothed with
.
his 8th hom ily on the book of Josue33 Origen writes:'fTlle cross
1: IIANILOU. RSR.so (:t)40) :
$44,
.
2: Am b 3I-1277C1gff.
:t KL 57oI2z7.
2: See ali.
io the beg4
-n'
n'
ng of A m b 45-1:52B ;tlze tlzird text of'vt'l B .< -
'
rlu s.
t'
il (.Ymb r384C) mt'lst be a mistaken referenee. At the couneil of
Tqorence Bessarion and M ark of Ephesus together fram ed a reply to 1he
Iatins. In tllis the phrase honoy :
rl silentce Ls used to m ean pass ove.r in
silence an tm doubted error of atl honored father in this carse the Nyssetw
Ckapttr VI.Apocatastasis
J
zzl
ofour Lord Jesus Christ wastwofold ... that is,itis made up double,because visibly indeed the Son of God was eraeified in the qesh,
ztz
Tlb6Ae/uflftk.
lf)/O'
rgess-
and even if some did say som ething,srsthavjng tried outthecapaeity oftheirhearers,they leftthegreaterpart unexam ined. ''Therefore,M af m us goes on,I had thought rather to pass over the plaee
in silence, exeept I felt it w oald grieve your god-loving soul. So
then for your sake I shall say som etbing suitable to alland profte
z-
Chqpttw VI.Apocatastasis
21.
3
tree of knowledge of good and evil the senses of the body (4IaC).
Now the ftm ction ofcertain elem entsisto diseern;the znind between
intelligible and seusible,betw een eternal and tem poral;it perstm des
to adhere t tlle form er rather than to the latter, The senses
are discerning ofpleasure and paill. If then m an is discerning only
ofbodily plea-sure and pain,he eats of the tree ofknowledge of good
and evil; if he is discezning the tem poral solely in an intelligible
('Phal 43-4I3AI3-B).
W hat is the im port of this warning and distinctioq? I do not
tllink it lm reasonable to surnzise tlzat the equivoeal predicatiozt
referred to has som e thing to do with the dangerousness ofthe deeper
explanations in which M axim us refuses to ittdttlge. In fact Origen z
in identifying Christ with the good and the devit w ith evil fails
egregiously in the distinctions proposed by M axim us. And in thus
failing he constnles his tllesis for the apoeatastasis of the devil.
2z4
Th6A'tr
/zl/lfipzzojOrgenism
This illttm ines som ew hat M axim us'position in regard to the dod zine
honored in silence, whose least acceptable aspect is the tem porariness of hell. O rigen's identification leads directly to the w iping ottt of eviland so to tite liberation of all evildoels whatsoever;
M axim us' distinction is to serve as a protection.
If w e had no other texts than these,von B althasar's interpre-
taf-ion w ould likely lrin by default. But there are other texts,tex'
ts
which speak direetly or also indirectly of this doetrine. 'rhese,
thottgh know n lzeretofore, have not been studied adequately in
this eonnection. I shall present then frstxthose texts whieh refer
by nam e to tlze apocatastasis, then those whieh are coneerned with
the restoration of the powers of the soul.
'
in Greek atocatastasis Ls not an exciusively technical term of theology. 'Phus M axim us' uses it of the yearly return of the sun to
ofsin,abolition ofthe tyram ly of the devil w ho eontrolled us by deceit. The fifth and seventh tem s interest us here. M axim us expounds eaeh as being '
aecom plished in and by our Lord. The restoration :7 of nature to itself is the perfeet and im m ovable aceord of
nature and the deliberate will (yv4!zn). The abolition ofthe devil's
tyranny 28 is the effect of the Passion, the deliberately aecepted
physieal deatha by w hich the devil is foreed to vom it forth those
he has swallowed. I11 these tlses there .is not the slightest hint of
Ckaptev VI.Apocatastasis
zI5
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
cI6
Th6Ae/lftl/ip.
llolOrigenism
xfxlp xevtztqxtlsv,p.
';)ppulxa fov v'
zizfdlst,BqD 'r?:v tlvtlvfatvov z'al 'roiis:tov
pfov gcteax% vftTultitmfkw,tl11f (kxolnptotslzevog :ttkv'lg xeoapa clg, xttt x'
t
sf
ov
yev6jzevo,osTog xak'
rd'rei'rjg 4vla xlcfp lxaogfbv lv Lpf
/ 'rfiw tiw lf:v xokam'hhcrexlm
*G See note z5.
3: DAN'
llkrvov, RSR 3o (r94o) 547:.
CkaphyVI. Apocatastasis
zl7
and excludes the mode of knowledge proper to tllis life (Tha1 6o6zID). 'fhe clray FlAltlu/afgTthen wbich M aximus allowsto restored
sinners rem ains ultim ately a discursive knowledge, quite excluding
Now there are two of the Questians and Doubts (QD Io,73)
which touch on the dillieult text of St Paul saved,ye.
/ so as by /irdr
receives its powers whole,by fre and judgement '' (QD 73-84$06
848A6).
'fhe tdyvtt
lgkgofthe iirstpassagebutheretranslated (QD 73-84507)
I would understand in the light of the ybgvo'tg of ep 4 (4I6Dz).
36The importance of this distinction is only the more manifest hy
thesubsequent explanation of contat lcttom jgwl which m akestlte relevance
of Thal6o to QD T3 ulzm istakable. 'T1)y-cxm tact (1 m ean) the experience
by participation in goods above nature '' (Thal 6o-6z4.A5f).
87A+6 tilm ra# 0/ H nisltment: xlmtlkkovw t 'rlg xoltsefag: Com beis:
iusta azzizrzatlversicme pronaqae expiabantug. Tn the note zv.
'
jD) ile says;
ve1s'
uppticiolyrlpfzxe;utestaputlH erod.z.v,xabaloeo'
o taovqe v 'eetz
l
iatov
ve1subintellige &('
zsupplicio,jttyAzl puvgantuv. The :td.rather plemses him
as m aking tlzis text a witnessfor purgatonu The sense of the Greek seem s
to dem mzd the veo iou I have given whicll for that m atter agree.s exeellently with tke context.
a:8
The
&t#lfld
zstlAlolOrigenism
intelligence.
N ow if M axim us, urtder the reserve of the distind ion of clear
Axtl'
tfll:ffg: and tarticiptdion, aceepts the restoration cd the soul's
powers and with it the Gregorian argum ent based on the lilnitedness
of evil, there is another of Gregonr's argum ents whieh induces the
f
ull salvation of tlte persistent sitm er, tite absolute wiping out of
sin (for Gregory these would be symonymotts), that does not fm d
such aceeptanee. I refer to the Gregorian thesis that since God
Chaptev Ff.Apocatastasis
zI9
It willbe worthwhile here,before leavillg QD I3,to ask 0urselves w hat M axim usm eans by f'as the w hole of nature in the resurrection of the desh receives im m ortality at the hoped for tim e. so
atso the perverted powers of.the soul w ith the passage of ages put
off the m em ory of wickedness im planted ilz it, and, traversing all
the ages nor fndittg any stoppng placeycozne to God who lzas zm
lirait ''. W hat especially does M axim us understand by the passage
In QD 73me have seen tlltin tlze future age,sinful works passing into inexistence,nattue hasitspowersrestored wllole. Is it that
workspassagesnob merely statiug orsupposing (sueh we have a1ready seen),but positively propoundiag and defendingthefmality of
judgement at deat,h for the condition ofhfdividuals in the afterlife?
'lere are two such among the Ambigua (Amb 42 and 65).
zzo
im us refutes the O rigo ist henad and declares w hat w ill be the statr
to the term pa.rticipation rtlfhit and its contrary and what each
involves. 'fllis eertainly gives further light on that otller pair, la(-
Chapter VI.Apocatastasis
22I
rzm st be com patible with im pal idpation aud the punishm ent it
'
a:
tom lm rts .
his exposition Fhus: *%The reighth and the Nrst,rather one only
fmst-held day, is the pure, allbright presence of G od com iag after
m oving things have their rest,w llo:to those who used,by choice in
accord with nattu'e,theiresseutialbeing,grants ever-w ell-being by a
fam l'h'ar shadng, as alone very being,.ever-beilzg and well-behlg,
indwelling entire iu the entire nzan;butwho to those who deliberately
used their essential being out of harm ony with nature assigns in
fairness ever-im being instead of w em being. For with them of a
ctm trary disposition there was no longer place for w ell-being and
ptm ism entythough the oeeasion (the eighth day,wthe Sabbatil) was
propitious for developing an apocatastatie them e.
I stated but a short while ago that one looked iu vain ixt the
great polem ic of Am b 7 agairtst the hvnad for a deEnite exclttsion of the apoeatastasis. 'rhe developm ent there on tlze future
state is to be understoed for tlze blessed tm ly, for the w oztlzy.
If now I draw attention to the fact that this developm ent is in
zc2
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
verts a teatsion ittto an qntinom y and vontradktion. H eavoids even
so m uch as a diseussion of the extrem e of apocatastasis - perhaps
not only beeause oftlle futility and dangerousness of stw itdiscussions
but also because it w ould have necessitated a refutatio
,
n of Gregory
of N yssa,wlm eonfe sedly greatly abused this doctrine.
One caa now ,I think, proftably put the question : of what
abuye w as Gzegory ef N yssa guilty in hisapoeatastaticdoctrine?The
doctrine w llieh M axim us does present, he presents as eceleslastidal
tloktrine; and as sueh Theodore Studite found no di culty in reaf
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 knowledge 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
This is a rather bare description of the state of sinners. 'l'he
other passages of M axim us eom plete it. There are the unesdilzg
-
but above alla the fellow ship w ith the dem ons, w ith the hatefuland,
haters, and still m ore the separation from God and his sa
'ints.
Between Cxod and the dam ned there is no hate; for G od is essen
.
festiag hischarity forus, sufered forthe whole of m ankirtd and p anted equally to all the lzope ofresurrection, thoagh each individual
makes himselffiteitherforgloz'
y orforpunishment '' (Char I.;x).
.
A FTE RW O RD
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 endeavor to plaee the w ork of M axim us in its proper historieal fram ew ork'
This is necessary, nor is it yet com pletely done. There is
.
(and ltis relationswith Denis and the Cappadocians), the developm 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
zz4
Ap6rword
Or again,oae m ay say'
.M axim us is a m ystietheologian. Grant-
*
* *
IN D IC k?
#S '
1. INDEX olp M AxlM us CITA'
rIoNS
II. INDSX or N AM ES
1. IN DEX OY M AM M U S CITATION S
M az m us' works ar'e arranged alphabetically
Passages translated are 'distinguished by an asterisk.
.
Am b 1-1036Q
164
Am b 2-ro37CII* . .
1o37Cz.
z-I)3*
fI3
1I3
Am b 5-zo,f8A7-B z*
II4
I66
I66
1131:
10528 6-9*
Io .5:
JB I1-14 .
Io ,56B Io
Am b 7
-
. .
72f.
1o69A Io-I5 .
924:
zo69B z-z3* . . . . z85
zo69B I3-Cz2* 185f.,:8511
zo6gczz-loyzA zo*
z86f.
1o69C9-Iz* .
I97
1o72A lz-I4*
96f.
zozzB
. .
Io3
:o7cB9-C5*
1o72B9ff.*
to7zc4f. . .
zovzozl-l4*
to73B5 . .
zo7aB7-II
lo73B z4* .
to7:BI5
Io73Q
1o7:C7 . . .
98
zxo
Ioo
89
I97
Ioz
128
I97
zzI
914:
lo7:Cp-D 4*
rog:D 4 '
Io7:D 5
za9
z3o
z5o11
zo76A
,076h 5 . .
zo76B Io-Qz: .
1o76B zo-C )g*
to76CD . .
:o76C zI.I2
lo;7AB
9o
z362*
96
r29
IzI
aao
z3o
96
Am b 7-:07785-9
22o
zo7yB I2 . .
I89
to77B z.3 . '.
167f.
zog7CIf.* . .
z68
lo7yC-zo8oA 2
I69
zo8oA z-B zz . .
Io8oB II-xo8IA 5
I69
zo8ocl; .
2I4
zo8IA 5-E 8
I7I
To8IB8-I5
172
Io8xB zoff.
I79
zo8zCg-7* ,
I72
Io8IC7-Ix* .
I73
zo8ICz4-D a*
I73
Io8zD 9-II*
I73
9$10
Io84A z-:* ,
1084+ 6-14* .
T74
Io84BI-7 .
z;4
zo84B C . .
z65
1o84CI5-D c* .
z75
zo84D a-Io85A 6
z75
Io85A. C8
I8
zo85A zJf .
:757*
zo8,C3-6* . .
I77
zo86C6-Io89A3*
z3of.
1088C14
131:
:088D 6
:3319
1088D 8 . .
1362:
zo89A 5-C6*
z87f.
zo8pB lz
g51:
Io89C8-Iz
96
zo97C . . . . . z77
llooA -llolo
. 7z 19841
A m b 8- Io5B zo
:94%
A m b Io-tzo8B C .
IIo8CI-3
z5o
I5o
zz8
19539
Am b Io-zzogc6ff..
IIzzD f.
I43
4:1xB 5=lo*
T43
zzz3B zo-cz*
144
IIIJCI
r4.
4::
zIzzl)c
:94.
%
III6B z5
. 19434
Izz7B 8
. . 1284, 14.7'
12
1IIS3A -II3'
/C
I44f.
Iz:6C4. . . .
:a.5e*
II37B zz- C6+
'
:45
zz37B 14
z5o:1
Ir37D -z141C
15:f.
Iz4oA sf. .
I-SIB:
Iz4oA 7-B g*
:5z
zI4oA x5
1284
Io4oA ls
Iz8*
II4zB r4 .
z5z51
lI44A zo-.B 2*
z5z
:z4s)B
1284
I14986 .
:470
zI49CT3f.
J52
z:6517
:968:
TzpttA 4
!9.
7
zz84B zo-zz
zo7
Iz84D 9-z185.
1.3 .
log
A m b z5
.
-z2I7A
72
(y
I5
12zzck-D zo
Ioyf.
z2z7Ct$-:4*
z2z7D zI-I3*
IzzoA . .
z22oA 2-5 '
IzzoB c
zz2zB
954:
IIo
zoz
z3:1:
94
z:4.
%
.
A m b z7-I2255-:228C
r4'
a
A m b ao-I2:
$6D f.
I2:
$7A zc-B I.3*
zz37R 6-Io*
zz37B8-zo .
zzgzB zo
12 .37(26-.
13 .
zzlrcza-b ,3
1c37D :
3..4)
IzzjoA zo
zc4oB 4
r3z
Igz
Izo
1o8
zaz
zaz
z3z
zazf.
zz4
:45:8
A m b 21-124987
1z84
r2528 Io
20714
A m b z4-z2($zC.z-8 IZ-D t*
'
Am b 26-1:651712:.
I268A If.
1268A 13-82
A m j) 3y-zapgo
szgo.x .
zo9
165
A m b a:-zz88A .
144:8
A m b 36-:28962
A m b ;'
7-zz92B3
z65
A m b 42
..
-1328A.. . .
1329A.:-8 7*
1329* -R 7
1.
32917
.
1336C 12-14*
'34ID l-6*
::
5458
13159 13-15*
A m b 4s-zastgB
A
m b 46-z356178
T22
I11
214
72
2z0
.17:,22O
I65
I68
I12
I65
165
2O2
z ro
z,4
A m b 53-13738 .
zog11
Am b 6o-I38jB .
1443819631
Am b 65-1:89C-:3f)38
1j;9a.A..
za$)zB 8
zgf
pzczzj-D za*
:4.
/4:
ao2
aoz
za:
Am b 6'
Jr-z4.ooD f.
I4OZA B
:64
:9527
Am b val-z4I9C .
z.54
I65
1o81B
cap ie,3-I1z8B .
.5-1I8oA .
Cltarprol- tp6oA .
ehar 1.zo
I.zI
z.zz .
t.z9* .
z.z9
z..56
z,57
z4z
z4o
z4.o
z4o
z4o
z4.j
zo7
zo7
. . . . . . . ,
3.20 . . . . . . . . I4O
6 6: y 9 :5250
3 .25 IQ9 , 13 , 4 '
'
17469
3.44,45* . . . ' ' . 141
3.66 . . . . . . . . 14o
5.67 . . . . . . . . l40
3.71 . . . . . . . . I4O
3.97 . . . . . . . . I4Iaz
ep a5-6,3s
. . . . . . , z443.
.
.
.
'
.
..
. .
..
'*
. .
' I64
.
. I33
. 15O
' 1332
. I46
24-717*7 . . . . . . 1284
PN 8760 1-7
877D .
89:C9 .
gooc .
..
. .
..
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2I4
196*%
194:4
I97
QD 10-79225-793A2* . . 2l7
13-796* . . . . . . . 2I5
13-796. . . . .769 219,22o
..
..
. .
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19485
I4o
r74*
:
E40
37zB5 . , . . . . . 1$
051
388D 6-389C.
2* . . . zo8
:89A 8 . . . . . . , zz2
ep z-464A Iz . , . . . . . 1443%
ep 4-416A , . . . . . , . zo7
416D : . . . . . . . zz7
4z6D 8-4I7A z*. . . . zovf,
ThZ II-z93B4 , . . . . .
Th
al z:-z9:D -z96ztz:* . ,
2968 . . . .z4H
T hal 15-297 . . . . . . .
aozle
ayy
ep 6-4298 . . . . . . . . 19g
43zA * . . . . . . . z9a
4.
32A.8 .I::2, zp4, :94.
24.
> 195::
'
73-84526-848A6* . . 2I7
u;y 5-:zoAB . . , . , , 7z
z3 I28C . . . . . . . zz4
'rhalprol -2.
52B8-Cz* , . I95
ep T. , . . . . . . . , . 19/1
-
LA
4.6. . . . . . . . . :5oE1
4,8. . . . . . . . . I40
..
..
. .
..
'
3.99 . . . . . . .x4o,zz41
4.9*-. .
4.47 . .
4 .7o . .
4 .77 , .
'
229
, ...
z76f,
z65
2I8
eP 7-4368 . . . . . . .1123r94:
:
'
e 12-501A 14 . . . . .
194:E
1:8
.
ep I9 . . . . . . . . . . zo,
5B
- 593B I-5*
. . . , . )FI3
593.
11 . . . . . Izz. I5I5'
j$aoD 8 . , , . . zg4*
(.
J20D 9 . . . . . zg4ql
3zoD lg . . . . . z4:0
3zoD 7,12
. . . . I3319
'
z
Jo
Thal zz-azIBg*
zg4f.
3zzB z .
Thal 25-.332C.:J-:3*
3.3cC6 .
zo9l7
z<.s
z.s1R
333.
1.5 . . k
'rhoec r. ,56 .
r . 8:.
Z.83.84
2 'I
19434
TP f-9A .
333C :4-175*
.
I46
333D r . . .z4'
;4s, z5z53
9A 8
:2Q
z6C*
I7C
I7s
T hal 39 3938
,
14713
T hal .
4.2-.405217
r'
p6al
T hal 43-409D . . . .
4I2A I.3-B z* .
4I.
3A I,3-B *
Tl
lal 54-5258 z4
z12
2Iz
zxa
aojg7
T lzal 59-6o9Cz
Thal 60-62IA R
fk'zlA lo
62zB I
6azD
6:417
20917
7o
v'
yo
:4,/4:
2z'
p
149
zm
zzg36
85:1
624D 5-9
6z5A .5*
625.
*.8
Tizal 5z-.
6:
$:
?A
:444.
T ital 63 668C8 .
zog'?
67.3f27-D : . ,
47
67:17:-676.A 2*
z4g
6
yaD zof1.
:471:
'Ph
al 64-7ooB8 .
zo9l?
724e13
,
, .
zyI
7:,
50
:44:6, 1.94
Thal 65-,.
/5.
/08-760A.
p.j
z57Czo-76oA
zzz
.
Titoec 1.2.3.$0
Ioyf.
I .2,4
I .3*.
T.3 .
1o9
1 .10 .
Io9
I.39.
.z84
Io6
lzt
z
24013
29Cf. .
29D
338 7-C2*
33A 4, .
:
$:
301I--x,:$ .
332:3* ' '
33C14-36A 2*
7 ..
.36A.
36Cz3f.
T P g 45D
-
2 2I
194.
3%
169 7
:0810
I53
954:
. .
.
zo .57
. zo!
5z coz
19683
20 24
9549
ZO5
196%
1I5
203
13214
135
)35
I4743
l22
It)V
T P 7-7aBf2
8oA
85A.
4.
T P 9-zzzA a-8*
z32B9-:z
T P Io-I37A a-zt* .
v s y4 yjaa
.
T P :6-180(29 .
z85D
..
t9zA . ,9.3.1.
. zqaljzzw z+
2OOB8-C2*
'rp ao-
as6ru-za
TP c8-3o8C
.3o8D
(s:4D .
3z.
5A 9 .
3
3,
/5 .
.
35zA z,3
.
1I5
:05
I66
zo1
15rH
(o5?
1963:
zo3
JI4f.
zo3f.
195:1
I66
I74O
204*
I511:
1281
z3I
IT. IN D EX 0 17 N AM ES
BALTHASAR, H . U . V'
oN 43, 63, 6827
7z, 75% 88 Ioz xo43 1o6 1069
!09, zI7, 1:$7, 14743 167:: :6.
/*:
I685: z756% I751* 1.780 I78 :9421
l94O 205,207,20915 2 t(7 22I 2:43.
EAxozls'z I18
BARDEIN
MISW IR, 0 . 87:7
B'KM
G. 16858
Ba sAluox az3:
B om rz, H . z2z
BoNlirsyov,J. P.87
B oussstt,W . Iz41
Baov, L . 55
BRIJNS,J. 18816
Caolou, R . I9,3%3
CAellvvxs, M . 3o
CII:
IVAT.
J.
sR, PH . 1:8
CE
LIM SN'
.
I' OF ALEX ANDRIA z7, 168,
I76
QoM lm n s F. 1931* 19518 196BZ'116
?I7311
:
Cvpaztcv s 84:8
Cv'
m r.ov AAEXANDRIA 15I
CYRIL tl SIN A IOPOI'IR 83, I75O
xtls OF ANSXANDRIA I13:7
,G z
D v h<Alsa 1. H . 16754
D/ GCIBBRT,J.16345
D s LatBluotf
osz P. 1241
D s L UBAC, H . I7989
lllsNls oF ALSXANDRIA z19
D sNrs ttltll 'SEUDO-A Rb;OPAGITS 3,
z1418 )C24.
1. I4844 I5352 I77f., I80 ;
f47O ;
CH .3.kl z45 ; zz.a zo4; zJ.4 :
E H 2..
( rz4l8;2.3,I.t45 ;.
2.:
$.4 I4743;
6.z Iz4l; 6.3.I Ia41; D N a.9 IoI,
fz41'4.I zo4 ;
$31: I9.5:6' 3.2 1zo (
:.:
4..7 93; 4.rt z474z' 4.:
'2 :331: :-15'
.
4.23 f04.,
* 5.5-7 169, 173,
'5.6 :730 '
5.8 I75; 8 .2 I4743; Ir.6 r6856' M T
(5521'tp.4 l13'7
I.I 147*8;tp ..3 :
D s SEt'
rls 87
D svl sssE,R .48 17IB
D uw Mu s oF A LEXANDRIA
84,
155z 157
blsKM m 12 79
D lsozsR,M .*.PH ,2f. :4713
DltissKs,J.47
R RRH AR D , A . I18
E RIGENA zf..7z
E UNOMIUS GY CMZK US 44
E'
tlslm trs oF Cu sxttsA 79, l56
E VAGRIUS PONTICUS 9, 2I, 37, 63,
76f. 84f. 85O Ioo lz4l :.J797
:,
32
-
I'
ttdnx of Namos
Editors ofgo
G RUMSI?,V .2o5
G IJILLAUM ON'
I', A . and C 74% 8530
f372B
coo,214,
.DtPvincipiis :,3.8 1823;
H ARNACK , A . :7.57:
I-IATJSIU RR, 1. 745, 771: fz4z Is7,
'4Og I484* I9528
H slxlseH ,P . 1685:
H saoo otptTs cz7a7
H lsRo'rHltls 74
H tlzw , K . I.55ff., t64
P AQHVMSRIS z18
PANttzksx'
fls z7, 1:51.
PsAztstlN , J. I:8
H omq',G.145
Ps1tx,Q.1I9,l7,
7%
1.6.2 87,
* 2.1.1 73.
* 2.3.3 184; 2.8.3
z812,
. 2.9.z z8.34. :
$.6.5-9 sm a
' f.
4
Iosus 8.a zzof.
IRSNAIUS I5t5
IVANKA, X .VON 86, I241, l771,I9942
JAMBIJCHUS o3
m sjasu g.441:
PIXAUVQ K ,34X4
PI'AGNY UX'J.3411
PLXYO 85' 94., 19421
PVOYIXUS 85, 94, 1241,
' Enttet'ds
1.:-.
3 940' 3.7.2 94*
, 3.9.91 921:,
TI7fg,
Joltoax ,H ..51:
4.8.I 9651>
. 5,z.6'5 9447;6,z,z13 I3T9'
>
6.2.82e-% 94'
' 6.3.27%8 94, 960.
'6'7.
zo7:
K OCH ,H . rz4l 14743 15153
L
EHM AN'. P. 7I
LSISIGANG 1-1.1.685*
,
L RON'
m TJS ol
l BYZANTIUM 60 83, IG2
L
SRUSMWM I6z
I EONTIIJS (W JI
A
QT
J
V
N,
Y
.
l
:8
L
l'
W S, R . 14511
L oossN
, J. 1
0:9 I74O
L
ossltY, V. :67*1 I7061 I77f.
35'91Z%'6.9.SO 94,$
1*31,6 9.91? 96*
,
6.9.Iz1n 5 94 '
. 6.9.114>45 94
PITUTARCH 11571
PRAT F . z8.3f.
PR>N TIGIS, G.L. 15511., 1634E
'
paocfx s E l
nme
j Theology 6817
7 nts o
1:
93, 104, 129 , 13.
3 , z43pa, :474:
psjtm o- A ra xAxpslz A PHROD. r8816
YARZCXAL' 5. I241
M MGIN,J.zzo
M
ICHAFL OF APH SE
QSUS 1881:
M ICUAUI), E .zo5J zfa9
M
M OYLLER,CYI, 751, 88O 7zz31
'
UImRR,G.
.156
Rxuxszt K . 1241
M ARSK , P .S . 71B
R EES s 8836
S .
m chap
.o M . 25 3p, 83 88
.
R oouss, R . zo41
SABAS 75
SAJDAK,J. 1f.
N sMssrt;s 817 6o 9t
pz 1z51 19r
z 2oz, SCHWARTZ E .7713,7814
zo3
S8NICA 1870
Inifix oj u
sx#jTc/s
c,
).)
S/RGIUS,patvo t'
clt 13:
$19
SHsRw ool), P . I17
SIMION 'rls
f.Z F'
0(m 87
Snfetacrcs 99
Srx KO, l%.
w z, 6, 4If.
Szxttus,popn I:9
SMYTH, H .W . I87::
SolaHao- tls,monk 78,79:1
Sopm toNlus,patviarch 9
SG HLLN, 0 . I751*
S'
rm x,E.77S
STAPHANOU,E . 19841
S'
It
IG:MAYR,J. I19
'lNavI.oR, A , E . 944*
THEODORE ol? R AITHOU 88
THSODORE ol? SCYTHIIPOLIS 83
T> orlolts STTJDITS 2o6
'
l*HEioD oRs'
r z57
'l> ozaHm us oe ALSXANORIA 75k
U SBSRW EG, F . 1881%
V lu sR, M . 1241, 13727 14139 I4zS1
111.INDEX 0F SU BJECTS
Abraham 37
Am bigua,seeoncl edition of 39,4I
A pocatastasis 71, 76f. 80 88, 2051
A ttirbutes divine 147, 149, z5 l
B ecom ing,genesis 97:2
Being,triatlof 6717 I71,zoz,22
Charity I54,zzz
Choice zo !, zo3
in Christ :96::
Christ, substantial virtue !73
Cllristology 1t$6, 19(33: 201-.
z03
Conjectures of 3
'faxiulus 7
Contenzplation lzatural z6
Qoclkes of Gregory Nazianzen 41
Creation,double 5I,914b
Cyelic view of worlfl process 86,9752
Ileath descriptions of 2ovf.
insatiable :881*
Dionysian vomabulary 9
Ellergies,uncreatcd g.5z
Evagrius,doctrine of 1.
38ff.
and Denis com paretl :24.1 I5357
and Plotinus :241
.
Evil,experieucc of 9o, z86
Exem plar z.5o
Pixedness I92
F reedom atzd surfeit 490, 1f)7
ba Chrlt 2o4
- for kigen I83
FreeMdz Iz9, 198,.
Genesis 97:2
Gnom ie w ill zor 2c)3
Ignorance of G od :4844
of created essences I49
Im age and.likeness 1'
F4
Im m utability 196
Inftnity 9.54: 1474:
Judgement,fllalzo6ff.
K nowleflge, theory of I4.IB1
Elias 4o,68
End,defned 98,Ioo
distingttislze; from term 9.
54%
234
Inh
% V S'
l4biects
Prayer T4o
Preexistence of souls, see souls
Pzeseace of Cvcd in creaturev zI8
Puttishm ent,eternal88 zo7
m ultiple zf%ozzzo,z;u,z77
azjj.
zacy' za.z j;;
j,.yoggs,t
y.t
y.
(ozag.
'
yyutabilityaof m an z8 ? T8.4. zs y, yq
y
.
N nm es im osition pf zaz
,
p
N aturaleontem plation, m otu s of z44
N aturaloperation in r roclus zo.4
itz M axim us Io
-
old m an ss
Operataon im m auent aud transient
,
1Iz13
.
- > l'
latllzal
genism 7f.
, val
fdfty of M '
axfm as refutation
of ,4,7.'
.
Orgeufst knora ao-aa,
-
8,
zyjj.
ja ctjs.yzo jjy;y yy.y,yyj,tyt
y.
,
?7'
'H ebt'7.3 5I
s'eisf'ettrelhlatfot 1981.
-sjfquivi
lliz 2O2
ce, eosterfe a,o
sonda
, rty of m auu :
t,u zoo
K mis, exercise of powers zzza a zsjl:,
- 'f'Om aferidlity of z9a
. / pre. aun post-exfstence of zz zg
-
79f 8z 976%
'' :
' '
Stoic doctrine z
qgu zqraa
suffer tlte djvi-ue '
yolf'' zz8# za,'
I 4%
.
suj)e?
r-a,ct
1i
5
v3ity coutrastofzgal:
Surfeit 88 9o t)3
generation of I88
ineoncd vable zo4
in Origen 81
-
rkacz et.
a 50, .51, 62
rteteltz 9549
Krw ov 14743
tkrgoyvEok 58
&fqew g IoI
fkoxvo :34:1
w fs
p ttt .53
tahclxtov 98
atrrsvf/ynlov 42
ulho'rsl :8 Ioo
vdnBl 43
vtyeqgw 4.:
$
6z in qp.
rz zob, lo9
:t
rvttpkg'zzz
fwtigk exxtxn' ltrzl:
lxe:tm go' (
26
(yxrtog zpo, xp4, )76, z87
l'
cokzelfzlctg 46
vldo D xw 57
sl
l xflw 57
'rta4sta 56
veyetu 47, 96, t?8, I1I13 I2z Ia85
i
lveynp.
tt 49, I14
zpolg 63
'
alyvtocw az5-22o
rtlvalt t
aol
o'
twetoffop; 48
gthltrvtklh tc 5o
*
lzoftt
Aow 57, 1525
:
.
of?tytct, ' lz.
t, veyi:su 1(z:
a
aavuoppcpa 7o
xplg 95*
alog 63
xotdm zsoH
g'
htjsttjta 7o
oyvvtqs 4
.reoir
n'
l z9,3H
qlooti. 4z
tpabgw 1,52n