jeauneau2014 cosmos and physis_eriugena’s periphyseon in the context of east and west

8/19/2019 Jeauneau2014 Cosmos and Physis_Eriugena’s Periphyseon in the Context of East and West

1/46

Section 2 :

Cosmos and Physis : Eriugena’s Periphyseon in the Context of East and West


2/46


3/46

FROM ORIGEN’S PERIARCHON TOERIUGENA’S PERIPHYSEON

édouard jeauneau

The author wants to show to what extent John Scottus was influenced

by Origen. The influence is already reflected in the title he gives hismajor work : Periphyseon (On Natures). The title evokes an early andimportant work of Origen : Periarchon (On First Principles). JohnScottus refers to Origen as beatus (blessed), a term which he reservesfor saints and for the Fathers of the Church. For him Origen is boththe exegete par excellence of Sacred Scripture and the most diligentresearcher of the realities of nature, two areas of study to which theauthor of the Periphyseon was deeply committed. In the area of Scrip-tural interpretation, John Scottus reveals his audacity in followingOrigen as far as possible without exceeding the limits of orthodoxy.

One of the most debated of Origen’s theses is that of the return andrestoration of the created universe to its original purity (apocatastasis).The thesis affirms that at the end of time all creation will be rees-tablished in its primordial state. John Scottus, while suspending hisjudgment in regard to the fate of the demons, adopts apocatastasis forthe rest of creation and in particular for humanity. He does, however,provide two modifications to Origen’s position. First, following Maxi-mus the Confessor, he distinguishes two kinds of “return :” a generalone, thanks to which all humans will recover the primeval conditionin which they were created, and a special one, by which some of them

will be elevated beyond and above nature to enjoy the grace of deifi-cation. In addition, John Scottus thinks that for souls separated fromtheir bodies and awaiting the general resurrection, there will be a timedevoted to purification. With that he deserves to be included amongthe witnesses to what some have called “the prehistory of Purgatory.”

Anyone looking at the Periphyseon cannot help noticing that theGreek title (περὶ φύσεων) given by Eriugena to his long philosoph-

ical dialogue bears a resemblance to that of the famous work ofOrigen, namely Periarchon (περὶ ἀρχῶν). It is highly unlikely thatthe resemblance is accidental. Father Henri de Lubac thought –

Proceedings of the International Conference on Eriugenian Studies in honor of E. Jeau-neau, ed. by W. Otten, M. I. Allen, IPM, 68 (Turnhout, 2014), pp. 139-182.

© DOI 10.1484/M.IPM-EB.1.102060


4/46

édouard jeauneau140

and I share his opinion – that the title of the Eriugenian dialogue(περὶ φύσεων) had been coined from the model of the title givenby Origen to his major work περὶ ἀρχῶν.1 In the Latin world,Origen’s work was generally quoted with its Latin title, De prin-cipiis. We may surmise that the Greek and Latin titles were some-times combined : Periarchon siue de principiis. Likewise, speaking ofthe Eriugenian dialogue, we could say : Periphyseon siue de naturis.Variants such as Periphyseon id est de naturis and Periphyseon idest de natura appear in the catalogues of medieval libraries.2

Periphyseon siue de naturis : YES. Periphyseon siue de diuisione

naturae : NO ! Of course, if the hypothesis which palaeographersseem to prefer is correct,3 it is John Scottus himself who wrotewith his own hand at the beginning of manuscript 875 of Rheimsthe words περὶ φύσεως μερισμοῦ which signify precisely De diui-sione naturae. Fine. But beware of a misinterpretation ! The words De diuisione naturae are the title of the first paragraph of Book Iof the Periphyseon, not the title of the work as a whole. The pur-pose of the Periphyseon is not to divide nature, but to propose arational explanation of it. To do this, Eriugena had recourse to

a Neoplatonic theme, that of procession (πρόοδος, processio) andreturn (ἐπιστροφή, reuersio).4 He found this theme in his favouriteauthors, Dionysius the Areopagite and Maximus the Confessor.5 Procession corresponds to the division which, coming forth fromthe supreme Unity, spreads out onto the multitude of creatures.The return is the reverse movement, the reunification (congregatio)of the infinitely varied multitude of creatures and their absorptioninto the infinitely simple Unity which is in God, which is indeed

1 H. de Lubac, Exégèse médiévale. Les quatre sens de l’Écriture, I, 1 (Paris :Aubier, 1959), p. 241. Transl. Marc Sebanc : Medieval Exegesis. The Four Sensesof Scripture, I (Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 1998-2000), p. 174.

2 CCCM 161 :VI-VII, notes 12, 15, 17, 20, 21, 22.3 É. Jeauneau – P. E. Dutton, The Autograph of Eriugena (Turnhout : Bre-

pols, 1996).4 É. Jeauneau, “The Neoplatonic Themes of Processio and Reditus in Eri-

ugena,” in Dionysius 15 (1991) : 3-29 ; repr. in Tendenda Vela, Excursions litté-

raires et digressions philosophiques à travers le Moyen Âge (Turnhout : Brepols,2007), pp. 511-539.5 John Scottus, Epistola dedicatoria Translationi Ambiguorum Maximi prae-

fixa, CCSG 18 : 4, 27-35.


5/46

141from origen’s periarchon to eriugena’s periphyseon

God.6 One cannot speak correctly of the division without speakingof the reunification :

For the procession of the creatures and the return of the same areso intimately associated in the reason which considers them thatthey appear to be inseparable from one another, and it is impossi-ble for anyone to give any worthy and valid account of either byitself without introducing the other, that is to say, of the proces-sion without the return and collection.7

The procession (or division) goes from the One to the multiple, thereturn (or reunification) goes from the multiple to the One. This

“division” makes sense only when seen in relation to the “reuni-fication”. To speak of Periphyseon siue de diuisione naturae, is toplace on equal footing a title ( Periphyseon) which covers the total-ity of the work with the title of a chapter ( De diuisione naturae)which is nothing more than the table of contents of the first part.What would one say of an editor who dared to give the major workof Origen the following title : Periarchon siue de diuisione principii ?

Just half a century ago, in 1961, Inglis Patrick Sheldon-Wil-liams demonstrated that the authentic title of the Eriugenian dia-

logue was Periphyseon and not De diuisione naturae.8 One mightthink that that settled the question. Unfortunately it was not so.It is painful to see reputable scholars continue to give the Eriu-genian dialogue the erroneous title De diuisione naturae, which,even followed by the authentic title Periphyseon (in parentheses),is scientifically indefensible.

Periphyseon is the title John Scottus himself gave to his work.9 We must, therefore, prefer it to the one that Thomas Gale, led

6 É. Jeauneau, “The Neoplatonic Theme of Return in Eriugena,” in Ten-denda Vela, pp. 641-656.

7 Periphyseon II, 529B, CCCM 162 : 8, Marginale 9, lin. 61-65, SLH 9 : 15 :Processio nanque creaturarum earundemque reditus ita simul rationi occur-runt eas inquirenti ut a se inuicem inseparabiles esse uideantur, et nemo deuna absolute sine alterius insertione, hoc est de processione sine reditu etcollectione, dignum quid ratumque potest explanare.

8

I.P. Sheldon-Williams, “The Title of Eriugena’s Periphyseon,” in Studia Patristica, III, 1 [TU 78] (Berlin : Akademie Verlag, 1961), pp. 297-302.9 “in libris ΠΕΡΙ ΦΥΣΕΩΝ” ( Expositiones in Hierarchiam caelestem II,1038 ;

IV,100 ; XI,102-03, CCCM 31 : 48, 68, 160).


6/46


astray by the twelfth century manuscript he employed,10 gave iteight centuries after the death of the author.11 As we have alreadyseen, the title Periphyseon is closely linked to Origen’s major work,the Periarchon, which had no little influence on John Scottus. Thisis what I will try to demonstrate.

We should note, first of all, that in the first three books of the Periphyseon, the name of Origen does not appear. On the otherhand, his name is mentioned seven times in Book IV and fourtimes in Book V. In my edition of the Periphyseon, I noted, with nopretense at being exhaustive, four places borrowed from Origen’s

Homilies on Genesis, two from his Homilies on Exodus, one fromhis Commentary on the Canticle of Canticles, and another from hisCommentary on the Epistle to the Romans. As for the Periarchon,Book V quotes it at great length.12 The name of the author isaccompanied by the most flattering of epithets. We read : “Origenthe great” (magnum Origenem),13 “the blessed Origen” (beatumOrigenem)14, an adjective (beatus) reserved for the saints. In the Periphyseon Origen shares beatus with Ambrose of Milan, Augus-tine, Dionysius the Areopagite, Gregory Nazianzen, James the

Apostle, John the Evangelist and Maximus the Confessor. Farfrom being the heretic on whom Justinian laid anathemas, Origenis, for John Scottus, a saint and doctor of the Church on a parwith the greatest of them.

It is evident that Origen († ca. 254) was a giant in theology.15 An indefatigable commentator of Sacred Scripture, he is, in thewords of Fr. Henri Crouzel, “the only one in the early Church

10 “Explicit liber ΠΕΡΥΦΥΣΕΩΝ (sic) ΜΕΡΙΣΜΟΥ hoc est de nature (sic)diuisione” (Cambridge, Trinity College O.5.20, p. 256). Cf. CCCM 161 : xxxvi-xxxix. Let us note that Eriugena’s command of Greek would not allow such atranslation : naturae (genitive singular) for φύσεων (genitive plural).

11 Joannis Scoti Erigenae de Divisione Naturae libri quinque diu desiderati,Oxonii e Theatro Sheldoniano, Anno 1681.

12 Periphyseon V, 929A-930D, CCCM 165 : 98-100 (3100-3180).13 Periphyseon V, 929A, CCCM 165 : 98 (3095).14

Periphyseon V, 922C, CCCM 165 : 88 (2805).15 H. de Lubac, Histoire et esprit. L’intelligence de l’Écriture d’après Origène (Paris : Aubier, 1950) ; H. Crouzel, Origène (Paris-Namur : Lethielleux, 1985) ;M. J. Edwards, Origen against Plato (Aldershot : Ashgate, 2002).


7/46


whom one can compare with Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.”16 During the century following his death, Origen was held in highesteem. A century later things began to turn sour. Epiphanius ofSalamis (d. ca. 310/320) launched a campaign against him.17 We notein passing that John Scottus admired both of them and cited boththe Alexandrian master and his adversary the bishop of Salamisas authorities. There is a trace here, as elsewhere, of Eriugenianeclecticism. On one particular point – the resurrection of thedead – Eriugena states that reading Epiphanius made him changehis mind.18 On two other points, however – the third heaven to

which the Apostle was carried and the tunics of skin in which theCreator clothed our first parents after their sin – he takes the sideof Origen against Epiphanius.19 That said, nowhere in the Peri- physeon is Epiphanius called “great” (magnus) or “blessed” (bea-tus), as is the case for Origen.

It was only in the first half of the sixth century, during thereign of Justinian (527-565), that the second campaign againstOrigen began to rage. The emperor succeeded in having the lattercondemned on the occasion of the fifth ecumenical council (Con-

stantinople II) in 553. Origen was anathematized there alongsidesome well-known heretics : “If anyone does not anathematize Arius,Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius, Nestorius, Eutyches andOrigen...let him be anathema.”20 Father Henri Crouzel points out“the low value, from the point of view of canon law and history, ofthe anathemas imputed to the fifth ecumenical council, Constanti-nople II : they do not appear in the Official Records, having beenprobably discussed before the actual opening of the Council.”21

16 Catholicisme, X, 251.17 The city of Salamis in Cyprus, of which Epiphanius was bishop, was also

known as Constantia after Constantine II. Eriugena refers to Epiphanius as“bishop of Constantia.”

18 Periphyseon V, 899A-C, CCCM 165 : 56-57 (1778-1810).19 Periphyseon IV, 818B-D, CCCM 164 : 109-110 (3266-3287).20 Anathemas against the Three Chapters, 11, in Decrees of the Ecumenical

Councils, edited by Norman P. Tanner, S.J., volume I (Washington D.C. :

Georgetown University Press, 1990), p. 119. Cf. Enchiridion Symbolorum,definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum, ed. H. Denzinger andA. Schönmetzer, 36th edition (Freiburg : Herder, 1976), p. 149.

21 H. Crouzel, Origène, pp. 345-346. See also, p. 8.


8/46


Was Eriugena aware of the anathema placed upon one whomhe called “blessed Origen” ? We may doubt it. However, the LatinChurch seems to have been less intransigent towards Origen thanthe Greek Church. That may explain why, while the Greek textof the Periarchon disappeared, except for a few meager fragments,its Latin translations preserved it for us. In the medieval librariesof the Latin world the works of Origen are generally well repre-sented. There were even periods when these works were read withavidity.22 In the ninth century we find them in the library of Vul-fadus, a cultured prelate, to whom Charles the Bald entrusted the

education of his son Carloman between 854 and 860, and who wassuccessively abbot of Montier-en-Der (855-56), of Saint-Médardof Soissons (858) and of Rebais before becoming in 866 the arch-bishop of Bourges, where he died in 876.23 John Scottus was afriend of Vulfadus, “his very dear brother in Christ and his col-laborator in the study of wisdom.” To his judgement he submittedhis Periphyseon.24 In the summary catalogue of the books of Vul-fadus we find the following works of Origen : Homilies on Genesis,on Exodus, on Leviticus, on Joshua, and on Luke, as well as the

Commentary on the Letter to the Romans.25 One does not find thereeither the Commentary on the Canticle of Canticles or the Periar-chon. All the other works of Origen that John Scottus quotes inhis Periphyseon were in the library of Vulfadus.

In the Periphyseon there are two substantial quotations fromOrigen, one taken from the Periarchon,26 the other from the Com-mentary on the Letter to the Romans.27 I shall confine myself toexamining the first of these quotations, but it is probable that ifone were to study more attentively the complete corpus of Eri-

ugena’s works, one would find traces of the influence of Origen

22 H. de Lubac, Exégèse médiévale, I, 1, Paris, 1959, pp. 221-304 (L’Origènelatin) ; transl. M. Sebanc, vol. 1, pp. 161-244. J. Leclercq, “Origène au XIIesiècle,” Irenikon 24 (1951) : 426-439.

23 M. Cappuyns, Jean Scot Érigène, sa vie, son œuvre, sa pensée (Lou-vain-Paris, 1953, repr. Brussels : Cultures et Civilisation, 1965), p. 166, n. 2.

24 Periphyseon V, 1022A, CCCM 165 : 227 (7368-7370).25

M. Cappuyns, “Les Bibli Vulfadi et Jean Scot Érigène,” Recherches de

théologie ancienne et médiévale 33 (1966) : 137-139.26 Periphyseon V, 929A-D, CCCM 165 : 98-100.27 Periphyseon V, 922C-922D, CCCM 165 : 88.


9/46


elsewhere than just in the Periphyseon. In my edition of the Com-mentary on Saint John’s Gospel, I noted several places where onemay detect the influence of Origen.28 Later on we will encountera passage from the Expositiones in Hierarchiam caelestem in whichEriugena seems to adhere to one of the most familiar of Origen’stenets, that of apocatastasis.

A particularly interesting case is that of the De praedestinatione,a book of nineteen chapters composed by John Scottus in 851 atthe request of Hincmar of Rheims and Pardulus of Laon to refuteGottschalk (Godescalcus). Shortly after it appeared, Prudentius,

the bishop of Troyes (843-846), sent to Wenilo, the archbishop ofSens, a rebuttal of the De praedestinatione of Eriugena. From thefirst, he declares that, having read and attentively examined thenineteen chapters of the Eriugenian treatise, he found there theperfidious poison of Pelagianism and the folly of Origen (Origenisamentiam). He also notes that while John Scottus had chosen tofollow Origen, he sometimes parted ways with him.29

Was Prudentius correct in finding traces of Origen’s teachingin the De praedestinatione of Eriugena ? If one were to judge by

the list of sources compiled by the late Father Madec,30 where Ori-gen is noticeably absent from the table of authors, one would betempted to answer ‘no’ to that question. In the more recent crit-ical edition by Fr. Sergio Mainoldi, the table of authors quotedrefers to several passages in which the editor has detected theinfluence of Origen’s Periarchon.31

As already noted, Eriugena attributed to Origen such high epi-thets as “great” (magnus) and “blessed” (beatus), but two othersmay be even more revelatory of the chief qualities that the Irish

master attributed to the Alexandrian master and which qualified

28 See CCCM 166 : 177.29 Prudentius of Troyes, De praedestinatione contra Johannem Scotum XIX,

PL 115, 1338B-C. Cf. H. de Lubac, Exégèse médiévale, I, 1, p. 245 and p. 248.30 CCCM 50 : 150-9.31 De praedestinatione liber... Edizione critica, traduzione e commento per la

cura di Ernesto Sergio N. Mainoldi, Florence, 2003, p. 244. See also E.S.N.

Mainoldi, “Su alcune fonti inspiratrici della teologia e dell’escatologia del De diuina praedestinatione liber di Giovanni Scoto Eriugena,” in History and Eschatology in John Scottus Eriugena and His Time, eds. James McEvoy andMichael Dunne, pp. 313-329.


10/46


the latter to guide him in his thought. Origen is at once the exe-gete ‘par excellence’ of Sacred Scripture (summum sanctae scrip-turae expositorem)32 and the most diligent researcher of the reali-ties of nature (diligentissimum rerum inquisitorem).33 Let us note inpassing that John Scottus also attributed this double competenceto saint Augustine.34 It follows that for John Scottus Origen wasa trusted guide to deciphering these two books or these two uni-verses which God created : Sacred Scripture and Nature. When Ispeak of the Book of Nature, I mean obviously what John Scottuscalls the “third division of Nature,” that is “Nature which is cre-

ated and does not create.” According to John Scottus the visibleuniverse is a book in which each creature is a letter, a syllable, aword. Likewise, Sacred Scripture is a universe composed, like thevisible world, of four elements :

Divine Scripture is a certain intelligible world, constituted of itsfour parts, its four elements. Whose earth, as it were, in the midst,at the lowest point, like a center, is historia. Surrounding it, likethe waters, is the abyss of moral understanding, which the Greeksare wont to call ἠθική. And in this intelligible world, around these

two, as it were, lower parts, which I have called history and ethics,floats what I call ‘natural knowledge’ or ‘knowledge of nature’,which the Greeks call φυσική. Rolled around, outside and beyondall, is the celestial and burning fire of the empyrean heaven, thatsublime contemplation which the Greeks named theologia, beyondwhich no intelligence passes.35

You will have recognized, in the four elements of this intelligibleworld, the four senses of Scripture : historical, allegorical, moral,anagogical, with one peculiarity, however : in place of ‘allegory’

John Scottus introduces ‘physics’ (φυσική), which he places thirdin rank. This originality upset Fr. de Lubac somewhat, who, in hismagisterial work on medieval exegesis, seems not to have much

32 Periphyseon IV, 818B, CCCM 164 : 109 (3266).33 Periphyseon V, 929A, CCCM 165 : 98 (3095-3096).34 Periphyseon V, 992A, CCCM 165, Nota 11, 56-58 : de magno diuinarum

humanarumque rerum et sollertissimo inquisitore et copiosissimo expositore.35 Homilia XIV, 5-17, CCCM 166 : 27 ; C. Bamford, The Voice of the Eagle. Homily on the Prologue to the Gospel of St John (Great Barrington, MA : Lindis-farne Press, 1990), p. 42.


11/46


appreciated Eriugena’s contribution on this point.36 In fact, on thisas on many others, John Scottus is dependent on Maximus theConfessor, who in his Ambigua ad Iohannem, establishes a series ofcorrespondences between the four elements (earth, water, air, fire),the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), the four cardinalvirtues (justice, temperance, strength, prudence) and the foursenses of Scripture listed above : Fides, Actio, Physica, Theologia.37

To illustrate what has been said about the various quaternities,we may use one of the most valuable works of art of the Caro-lingian Renaissance, the Codex Aureus. Produced for Charles the

Bald by his Court school of artists, this beautiful Gospel book left Francia occidentalis shortly after the death of the emperor (877).Long preserved in the abbey of St. Emmeram of Regensburg, itwas transferred in the late eighteenth century to the BavarianState Library in Munich (Clm 14000). I wish I could show you thefolio 6 verso, that of the Maiestas Domini : it illustrates the pointmagnificently.38 The drawing fills the page, forming a rectangle.In the center, in a diamond-shaped mandorla, Christ is seated on athrone, holding in his right hand the eucharistic bread and in his

left a book that rests on his knee. Placed in the four corners of therectangle are the four evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) ;in the four points of the mandorla, the four major prophets (Isa-iah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel) ; in the remaining parts left freeare the winged animals (man, lion, bull, eagle), symbols of thefour evangelists. These paintings are explained by an inscriptionin verse. At the top of the page an elegiac couplet gives the keyfor interpreting this learned scheme :

36 H. de Lubac, Exégèse médiévale I, 1, pp. 74-75 ; transl. M. Sebanc, I,pp. 40-41.

37 Maximus Confessor, Ambigua ad Iohannem, XVII, 1-94, CCSG 18 : 136-139 ; PG 91, 1241D-1248A. The literal meaning (historia) is perceived byfaith : secundum fidem historiae (Commentarius in euangelium Iohannis VI, 59,CCCM 166 : 133). See P.E. Dutton, “Raoul Glaber’s De diuina quaternitate : An

unnoticed reading of Eriugena’s translation of the Ambigua of Maximus theConfessor,” Mediaeval Studies 42 (1980) : 431-453.38 The image in question is now available online at: http://daten.digitale-

sammlungen.de/bsb00057171/image_16 (accessed April 2014).


12/46


Ordine quadrato uariis depicta figuris Agmina sanctorum gaudia magna uident.39

And so we are told that the painting is ordained according to afourfold plan. The two hexameters which are inscribed along therim of the mandorla echo that message :

Christus, uita hominum, caelorum gloria summa Librat tetragonum miro discrimine mundum.40

Christ is said to balance a tetragonal or squared world, and theshape of this world is the result of an admirable division (miro

discrimine). The two hexameters are unquestionably Eriugenian,since we find them, with minor changes, in the well-known poemby Eriugena, Aulae sidereae :

Vita, salus hominum, caelorum gloria summa... Regnat tetragonum pulcro discrimine mundum.41

While in the poem Aulae sidereae the last verse applies to theSun, which through the four seasons ”rules the tetragonal world”of Nature, in the Maiestas Domini page of the Codex Aureus it

applies to Christ, who is the mystic Sun of Holy Scripture. Now,the universe of Holy Scripture, no less than the universe of Nature,is a “four-sided” universe (tetragonus mundus), being based on thefour evangelists and the four Major Prophets.

Let us return to the parallel John Scottus wants to establishbetween Nature and Scripture. He found confirmation of this par-allel in the exegesis of the Transfiguration of the Lord which hefound in Maximus the Confessor. Scripture and Nature are like thetwo white robes that Christ wore on the Mountain of the Transfig-

uration, robes in which the Word of God both hides himself andreveals himself : in Scripture as Word (λόγος), in Nature as Cre-

39 P. E. Dutton – E. Jeauneau, “The Verses of the Codex Aureus ofSaint-Emmeram,” Studi medievali, 3a Serie, 24 (1983) : 93 ; repr. in E. Jeauneau,Études érigéniennes (Paris, Études augustiniennes, 1987), p. 611.

40 P. E. Dutton – E. Jeauneau, “The Verses of the Codex Aureus of

Saint-Emmeram,” 94 ; repr. in Études érigéniennes, p. 612.41 John Scottus, Aulae sidereae, 77 and 6 ; ed. L. Traube in MGH, Poetae Latini Aeui Carolini, III, p. 552 and p. 550 ; ed. M. Herren, SLH 12 : 118 and116.


13/46


ator (κτίστης).42 One finds an echo of this Maximian exegesis inthe poem Aulae sidereae, in which Eriugena speaks of “the whiterobe of the Holy Writ.”43

Nature and Scripture are furthermore comparable to the twofeet or the two sandals of the incarnate Word :

One of the two feet of the incarnate Word is the rational expla-nation of the visible creation, the other is the spiritual exegesis ofSacred Scripture. One is hidden in the sensible forms of the sensi-ble world ; the other is hidden in the envelope of the Divine Let-ters, that is to say Sacred Scripture. It is indeed in this two-foldmanner that the exegetes of the Divine Law present the incar-nation of the Word of God. The first manner teaches us that Hebecame incarnate in the Virgin by taking on the human nature inthe unity of His person ; the second affirms that the same Wordbecame incarnate, that is to say, rendered corporeal in the letterof Scripture and in the forms and species of the visible realities.44

My translation – “the Word ... is rendered corporeal” – is tooweak to express perfectly what we read in the text quoted above :Verbum ... incrassatum. In fact, Eriugena is indebted here to Gregory

Nazianzen as commented on by Maximus the Confessor. Gregoryhad written : ὁ Λόγος παχύνεται, which Eriugena translated Ver-bum crassatur (the Word is fattened or thickened).45

We must keep in mind all of these allegorical meanings if wewish to understand the Eriugenian interpretation of the words bywhich John the Baptist declares himself unworthy to undo thestrap of the two sandals of Christ.46 Christ is the incarnate Word,his two sandals are Nature and Scripture. John the Baptist knowshimself to be unworthy to explain either the mysteries of Nature

or those of Scripture.47

This task, which the Precursor felt him-self unworthy to accomplish, John Scottus takes on boldly, but

42 Maximus Confessor, Ambigua ad Iohannem VI, 387-478, CCSG 18 : 57-58 ;PG 91, 1125D-1128D.

43 Sanctae scripturae cui fulget candida uestis (Carmina, ed. L. Traube,p. 552, lin. 75 ; ed. M. Herren, p. 118, lin. 75).

44 Commentarius in euangelium Iohannis, I, xxix, 55-64, CCCM 166 : 65.45 Gregory Nazianzen, Orationes 38, 2, PG 36, 313B10 ; SC 358 : 106, 15-16.

Maximus Confessor, Ambigua ad Iohannem XXIX, CCSG 18 : 166-167 ; PG 91,1285C-1288A. Cf. Periphyseon V, 1005B-C, CCCM 165 : 203 (6575-6589).

46 John 1 : 27.47 Commentarius in euangelium Iohannis, I, xxix, 59-67, CCCM 166 : 65.


14/46


not without first stating that if John the Baptist declared himselfunworthy of the task, it doesn’t follow that he should refuse toundertake it.48 Research into the double domain of Scripture andNature is not thereby condemned in advance to failure. In fact theknowledge of God, insofar as one can obtain it in this life, can beacquired only through the study of Scripture and of the Naturewhich is created and does not create : per litteram et creaturam.49

Certainly John Scottus has a great reverence for Holy Scrip-ture. To be convinced of this, it suffices to read the beautiful“Prayer to obtain understanding of the Scriptures” found in Book

V of the Periphyseon :Lord Jesus, I ask of you no other reward, no other happiness, noother delight than to understand, purely and without any error offalse speculation, your words, which were inspired by your HolySpirit. This is the sum of bliss for me and the end of perfect con-templation : for even the purest rational soul will find nothingbeyond this, since there is nothing beyond this. As you are soughtnowhere more suitably than in your words, so you are foundnowhere else more clearly than in them. There you live, and thereyou bring those who seek and love you ; there you prepare for yourelect spiritual banquets of true knowledge. And passing amongthem, you minister to them. And what, Lord, is that passing ofyours but an ascent through the infinite steps of your contempla-tion ? For you always come to the intellects of those who seek andfind you. You are sought by them always, and always are found,and always are not found. You are found indeed in your theoph-anies, in which in many ways (as it were in certain mirrors) youencounter the minds of those who understand you in the way inwhich you allow yourself to be understood – not what you are butwhat you are not, and that you are. But in your super-essence, bywhich you surpass and excel every intellect wishing and ascendingto comprehend you, you are not found. You give to your follow-ers your presence in a certain ineffable manner of appearing ; youpass above them in the incomprehensible height and infinity ofyour being.50

48 Commentarius in euangelium Iohannis, I, xxix, 41- 47, CCCM 166 : 64-65.49 Periphyseon V, 1014C-D, CCCM 165 : 216 (7019-7022).50

I quote the English translation prepared by the late John J. O’Meara forthe edition of the fifth book of the Periphyseon in the collection “ScriptoresLatini Hiberniae”. I warmly thank Dr. Mark Zier who kindly provided mewith this translation. For the text, see Periphyseon V, 1010 B-D, CCCM 165 :


15/46


Although somewhat more than eleven centuries separate usfrom that prayer, we cannot help but be moved by the tone ofreligious fervor that permeates it. Emotion, however, must notprevent us from noticing that in this text some of the most char-acteristic themes of Eriugenian thought are enunciated : the powerof reason to know of the existence of God, its inability to knowHis inaccessible essence, the theophanies or visible manifestationsof the invisible realities. These philosophical themes stand out likeprecious embroidery on a fabric of which the warp and woof arethe notions of passage (transitus)51 and of service (ministerium),

both borrowed from the biblical verse : “Blessed are those servantswhom the master finds awake when he comes ; truly, I say to you,he will gird himself and have them sit at table, and passing amongthem (transiens) he will serve them (ministrabit illis).”52

The fact that Eriugena exalts Holy Scripture does not meanthat he belittles the Book of Nature. Quite the contrary, as hedeclares picking up the Maximian exegesis of the two white gar-ments of the transfigured Christ :53

210-211 : O domine Iesu, nullum aliud praemium, nullam aliam beatitudi-nem, nullum aliud gaudium a te postulo, nisi ut ad purum absque ullo errorefallacis theoriae uerba tua, quae per tuum sanctum spiritum inspirata sunt,intelligam. Haec est enim summa felicitatis meae finisque perfectae contem-plationis, quoniam nihil ultra rationabilis anima etiam purissima inueniet,quia nihil ultra est. Vt enim non alibi aptius quaereris quam in uerbis tuis,ita non alibi apertius inueniris quam in eis. Ibi quippe habitas et illuc quae-rentes et diligentes te introducis, ibi spirituales epulas uerae cognitionis elec-tis tuis praeparas, illic transiens ministras eis. Et quis est, domine, transitustuus, nisi per infinitos contemplationis tuae gradus ascensus ? Semper enim in

intellectibus quaerentium et inuenientium te transitum facis. Quaereris enimab eis semper, et semper inueniris et non inueniris. Semper inueniris quidemin tuis theophaniis, in quibus multipliciter, ueluti in quibusdam speculis,occurris mentibus intelligentium te eo modo quo te sinis intelligi, non quides, sed quid non es et quia es. Non inueneris autem in tua superessentiali-tate, qua transis et exsuperas omnem intellectum uolentem et ascendentemcomprehendere te. Ministras igitur tuis praesentiam tuam ineffabili quodammodo apparitionis tuae, transis ab eis incomprehensibili excelsitudine et infi-nitate essentiae tuae.

51 On the concept of transitus and its application to biblical exegesis, seemy Études érigéniennes, pp. 280-281.

52 Lk. 12 : 37.53 Maximus Confessor, Ambigua ad Iohannem VI, 387-517 and 1067-1073,

CCSG 18 : 57-61 and 80 ; PG 91, 1125D-1133A and 1160CD.


16/46


If Christ at the time of His Transfiguration wore two vestureswhite as snow, namely the letter of the Divine Oracles and the

sensible appearance of visible things, I do not clearly see why weshould be encouraged diligently to touch the one in order to beworthy to find Him whose vesture it is, and forbidden to inquireabout the other (namely the visible creation) how and by whatreason it is woven. For even Abraham knew God not through theletters of Scripture, which had not yet been composed, but by therevolutions of the stars. . . . And if any should blame us for usingphilosophical arguments, let him consider God’s people when theywere fleeing from Egypt. Following the divine counsel, they tookspoils with them and were not reprehended for using those spoils –

especially as those who are skilled in natural science are repre-hended not because their reasoning about the visible creature is atfault, but because they have not sufficiently penetrated beyond itto its author. For they ought to have discovered the Creator fromthe creature, which only Plato is said to have done.54

These passages of Exodus55 have served to justify the borrowingthat Christian thinkers have made from pagan authors. The themeof “the Egyptian spoils” has had a long history in antiquity andin the Middle Ages.56 We find it already in Origen.57 We find it

also in Prudentius of Troyes, who turns it against John Scottus,

54 Periphyseon III, 723D-724B, CCCM 163 : 149-150 (4351-4371) : Et si duouestimenta Christi sunt tempore transformationis ipsius candida sicut nix(diuinorum uidelicet eloquiorum littera et uisibilium rerum species sensibi-lis), cur iubemur unum uestimentum diligenter tangere, ut eum cuius ues-timentum est mereamur inuenire, alterum uero (id est creaturam uisibilem)prohibemur inquirere et quomodo et quibus rationibus contextum sit, nonsatis uideo. Nam et Abraham non per litteras scripturae, quae nondum con-

fecta fuerat, uerum conuersione siderum deum cognouit…. Et si quis nobisin culpam reputauerit quod philosophicis rationicationibus usi sumus, uideatpopulum dei Aegypto fugientem eiusque, diuino consilio admonitus, spoliaferentem, ipsisque spoliis inreprehensibiliter utentem. Praesertim cum et ipsimundanae sapientiae periti non in hoc reprehensibiles facti sunt, quasi inrationibus uisibilis creaturae errarint, sed quia auctorem ipsius creaturae nonsatis ultra eam quaesierint, cum creatorem ex creatura deberent inuenire.Quod solus Plato legitur fecisse.

55 Ex. 3 :22 and 12 :35.56 J. De Ghellinck, Le mouvement théologique du XII e siècle, 2nd ed.

(Bruges – Bruxelles – Paris : De Tempel, 1948), pp. 94-95. G. Folliet, [ De

doctrina christiana, Note 46], in Bibliothèque augustinienne. Œuvres de saint Augustin, 11 (Paris : Institut d’ Études augustiniennes, 1949), pp. 582-584.57 Origen, Epistola ad Gregorium, PG 11, 87A-92B ; ed. H. Crouzel in SC

148 : 185-195.


17/46


reproaching the latter for using it incorrectly.58 Christian thinkersneed not hesitate to have recourse to pagan scholars to explain theuniverse, because it is man’s duty to understand – to the extentpossible – this universe that God has given him in which to reside,this earth He has ordered him to cultivate, and of which He hasmade him the caretaker. Be it in Scripture or in Nature, JohnScottus is an audacious searcher. He does not hesitate to suggesttheses that might surprise or even scandalize his readers. I wouldlike to give two examples, one borrowed from the domain of nat-ural sciences, the other from sacred science.

Let us begin with the sciences of Nature. In the palace schoolof Charles the Bald, our Irishman may have encountered clericssteeped in piety who reproached him for laying too much emphasison the third division of Nature, namely on Nature which is cre-ated and does not create. What is the use of trying to know thediameter of the celestial sphere, they would ask. Does Scripturenot deter us from that when it declares, “The height of heaven,the dimensions of the earth and the depth of the abyss, who canmeasure them ?”59

Such arguments from authority did not stop John Scottus. Hedeclares proudly, “I cannot admit that this world remains inac-cessible to the intelligence of the reasonable nature (the humannature), since it is for it (this reasonable nature) that it (this world)has been created.”60 This objection and its refutation – not partof the first redaction of the Periphyseon – appear in a marginalnote written by Eriugena’s hand in manuscript 875 of Rheims.61 It comes about as though it were a problem raised along the wayby a disciple who wished to dispense with the study of natural

sciences and was happy to oppose the master with the authorityof Scripture. The master quickly deals with the biblical reference(Sirach 1 :2) by declaring that it has to be interpreted allegori-cally, using the occasion to affirm his confidence in the power of

58 Prudentius of Troyes, De praedestinatione contra Johannem Scotum I, PL115, 1016C.

59

Altitudinem caeli et latitudinem terrae et profundum abyssi quis mensus

est ? (Sirach 1, 2).60 Periphyseon III, 723B, CCCM 163 : 148 (Marginale 33).61 Ms. Rheims 875, f. 246r. Cf. CCCM 163 : 616.


18/46


19/46


accomplish it ? Obviously not. One still has to have the means.In John Scottus’ century, the natural sciences were not empirical,but solely from books. What were the sources John Scottus coulddraw upon ? They were few indeed. Although he was unaware ofAristotle’s Physics, he still considered him “the shrewdest amongthe Greeks in the domain of the sciences of nature.”71 He heldPlato in high esteem, as we have seen, and he knew the Timaeus,which he quotes, but this dialogue does not seem to have had aprofound influence on his thought. On the other hand he knew theCommentary of Calcidius on Plato’s Timaeus, since he quotes it

in his Annotationes in Marcianum.72

His main sources were mod-est : the De nuptiis of Martianus Capella and the Natural History ofPliny the Elder, to mention but two of them. One should add thepatristic commentaries on Genesis. Indeed the study of the “Naturewhich is created and does not create” was made in the frameworkof a commentary on chapters 1-3 of Genesis. These chapters hadbeen amply commented on by the Fathers of the Church, bothGreek and Latin. Now these commentaries delivered a few strandsof Greek science often intertwined, it is true, with apocryphal

accounts of the mean streak in camels, the chastity of halcyonsand turtle doves, the filial love of swans,73 the phoenix rising fromits ashes,74 etc. Among the patristic commentaries on the biblicalaccount of the creation exploited in the Periphyseon, we note the Homilies on the Hexaemeron of Basil of Caesarea, the De imagine (περὶ κατασκευῆς ἀνθρώπου) of Gregory of Nyssa, the Exameron of Ambrose of Milan and the De Genesi ad litteram of Augustine.

The library that Eriugena had at hand was therefore ratherpoor in the domain of the natural sciences. With that lack of

resources our author could scarcely be expected to produce a sci-entific work of the highest level. And yet an historian of scienceranked him honorably high in the history of astronomy. PierreDuhem, the well-known author of the massive ten-volume work Lesystème du monde, saw in John Scottus not just a restorer of the

71 Periphyseon I, 463A, CCCM 161 : 32 (887-888) : Aristoteles acutissimusapud graecos, ut aiunt, naturalium rerum discretionis repertor.

72

Annotationes in Marcianum 7, 10 and 13, 13, ed. Cora E. Lutz, pp. 10 and

22-23. See also CCCM 165 : 911-912.73 Periphyseon III, 738CD, CCCM 163 : 171 (5035-5049).74 Periphyseon V, 900BC, CCCM 165 : 58 (1838-1855).


20/46


semi-heliocentric system attributed to Heraclides of Pontus (390-339 B.C.), but also a precursor to Tycho Brahe (1546-1601). Thetext on which Duhem’s opinion rests is the following passage fromBook III of the Periphyseon :

The planets which revolve around75 it [the Sun] change theircolours in accordance with the qualities of the regions they aretraversing. I mean Jupiter and Mars, Venus and Mercury, whichalways pursue their orbits around the Sun, as Plato teaches in theTimaeus ; and therefore when they are above the Sun they show abright face, but when below, a ruddy face.76

Of course, Plato says nothing of the kind either in the Timaeus or in any other of his works. But Calcidius in his commentaryon Timaeus attributes to Heraclides of Pontus the opinion accord-ing to which Venus rotates around the Sun.77 Martianus Capellaextends this privilege to Mercury, the Sun itself turning aroundthe earth.78 Eriugena goes further when he attributes heliocen-trism to all the planets known at that time, with the exceptionof Saturn. Hence the cry of admiration wrenched from PierreDuhem :

Off the bat Charles the Bald’s philosopher goes well beyond thesages of Antiquity from whom he took his inspiration. Accordingto him, not only do Venus and Mercury revolve around the Sun,but also Mars and Jupiter. Only the fixed stars, Saturn, the Sunand the Moon revolve around the earth. With the exception ofSaturn, it is the system that Tycho Brahe introduced into medie-val astronomy, and that Eriugena did before the end of the ninth

75 John Scottus wrote : circa eum. The translation of Sheldon-Williams –“about it” (SLH 11 : 207) – is inaccurate.76 Periphyseon III, 698A, CCCM 163 : 113 (3272-3277) : Planetae uero quae

circa eum uoluuntur mutant colores secundum qualitates spatiorum in qui-bus discurrunt, Iouem dico et Martem, Venerem et Mercurium. Quae sempercirculos suos circa solem peragunt, sicut Plato in Timaeo edocet ; atque ideodum supra solem sunt, claros ostendunt uultus, dum uero infra, rubeos. JohnScottus exposes the same theory in his Annotationes in Marcianum [13, 23],ed. C. E. Lutz, pp. 22-23. Cf. P. Duhem, Le système du monde. Histoire desdoctrines cosmologiques de Platon à Copernic, III (Paris : Herrman, 1910) ; repr.1954, p. 61.

77 Calcidius, Commentarius, 108-111 ; ed. J. H. Waszink (Leiden : Brill,1975), pp. 156-158.

78 Martianus Capella, De Nuptiis VIII, 854-857, ed. J. Willis, pp. 323-324.


21/46


century. Prior to Tycho Brahe, no astronomer will venture forthin that area as far as John Scottus Eriugena.79

The style, admittedly, is perhaps too triumphant : one can under-stand why an excellent historian of astronomy thought it appro-priate to temper the tone.

Bruce Eastwood has shown that to translate the prepositioncirca by “around” in such phrases as circulos suos circa solem per-agunt,80 circa eum (solem) uoluuntur81 is tantamount to makingJohn Scottus profess a theory that is, astronomically speaking,indefensible.82 Not being myself either an astronomer or an his-

torian of astronomy, I am ready to agree with him on this point.Eastwood added that in the ninth century a moderately educatedcleric could understand this.83 I am ready to agree on that pointalso. Moreover, Eastwood considers it incongruous to assign sucha thesis to John Scottus. “It is neither charitable nor wise,” hewrites, “to insult a figure with the intellectual stature of Eriu-gena.”84 On this particular point, I would disagree. Despite myadmiration – nay, my partiality – for John Scottus I would hesi-tate to declare him infallible in astronomy. In any case, we cannot

claim that he was infallible in geometry, for he says that, in acircle, the length of the circumference is twice the length of thediameter.85 This is a mistake, which, as easily as the astronomical

79 P. Duhem, Le système du monde III, p. 62.80 Periphyseon III, 698A, CCCM 163 : 113 (3275 – 3276).81 Periphyseon III, 698A, CCCM 163 : 113 (3273).82 See B.S. Eastwood, “Johannes Scottus Eriugena, Sun-Centred Planets,

and Carolingian Astronomy,” Journal for the History of Astronomy 32 (2001) :281-324, as well as his Ordering the Heavens. Roman Astronomy and Cosmology in the Carolingian Renaissance (Leiden-Boston : Brill, 2007), pp. 324-333. Itake this opportunity to express once more my gratitude towards professorEastwood, who kindly helped me when I was preparing the edition of BookIII of the Periphyseon : CCCM 163 : xxviii.

83 “These difficulties would have been obvious to any Carolingian scholarwith a reasonable knowledge of the astronomical texts available at mid-cen-tury.” (B. Eastwood, “Johannes Scottus Eriugena, Sun-Centred Planets, andCarolingian Astronomy,” p. 282).

84

B. Eastwood, “Johannes Scottus Eriugena, Sun-Centred Planets, andCarolingian Astronomy,” p. 284.85 Periphyseon III, 717A and 718A-B, CCCM 163 : 140 (4055-4060) and 141

(4103-4107).


22/46


errors mentioned by Eastwood, would have been obvious to anyCarolingian scholar with a reasonable knowledge of geometry.86

Having decreed it impossible to attribute to John Scottus thebelief that the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars and Jupiter orbitaround a center which is the Sun (circa solem), Eastwood usesa grammatical distinction. He rightly points out that the prep-osition circa can take different meanings depending on the con-text in which it is used. In its primary meaning, this preposi-tion means “round, round about” ; in a derivative meaning, thesame preposition can mean “in the neighborhood”, “near”, “close

to”.87

It is in this latter sense that, according to Eastwood, circashould be understood when John Scottus says that the planetsMercury, Venus, Mars and Jupiter orbit circa solem : this doesnot mean that the Sun is the center of their orbits, but only thatthese orbits are described in space near the Sun. I am of a differ-ent view : I think that when John Scottus says that the planetsMercury, Venus, Mars and Jupiter revolve around the Sun (circa eum uoluuntur),88 it means that these planets move in circle aroundthe Sun, which is the center of their orbits.

It is undeniable that in some cases, the formula circa solem canmean “near to the Sun,” “close to the Sun.” Thus the VenerableBede speaks of two comets which, in the year 729, appeared inthe sky of England : apparuerunt cometae duae circa solem.89 Weare at an observational level. Bede describes the phenomenon asit appeared (apparuerunt cometae) to him and his contemporaries :these comets could be seen in proximity to the Sun. In anotherplace Bede wrote : Mercurius circa solem discurrendo.90 Again wemust translate circa solem as “in proximity to the Sun.” Indeed, we

86 Patrick Inglis Sheldon-Williams commented, “As Duhem says, it hardlydoes Eriugena’s reputation as a geometrician credit that he should supposethat the diameter of a circle is half the length of its circumference” ( IohannisScotti Eriugenae Periphyseon. Liber tertius, edited by I.P. Sheldon-Williams,SLH 11 : 320, n. 64).

87 Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1983), s.v.“circa”.

88 Periphyseon III, 715C, CCCM 163 : 138 (3998-3999).89

Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum XXIII, ed. C. Plummer(Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1896), p 349.90 Bede, De ratione temporum VIII, ed. C. W. Jones (Cambridge, MA. :

Medieval Academy of America, 1943), p. 196, 38-39.


23/46


are not dealing here with the real motion of Mercury, but with itsapparent motion : this planet seems to run to and fro in the vicin-ity of the Sun. Hence, in this context, the verb discurrere evokesthe apparent movement of Mercury only, not its real motion.

The preposition circa cannot have the same meaning whenaccompanying a verb like uoluere. In that case, circa indicates thecenter of a circular movement. It is enough to consult the Data-base of the works of Eriugena for the collocation of the words circa+ uoluitur (or uoluuntur) to be convinced of that. On the contrary,Eastwood, if I understand him correctly, thinks that the phrase

circa solem uoluuntur means that the revolutions of Mercury,Venus, Mars and Jupiter are perceived by the observants as per-formed in the environs of the Sun. I am tempted to ask a question :around which do they revolve (circa quid uoluuntur) ? One wouldperhaps tell me that in Eriugena’s time everybody was convincedthat all the planets revolve around the earth, and that thereforeit was unnecessary to specify. If so, why does our author feel itnecessary to invoke the authority of Plato to support an opinionthat was the opinion of the mediaeval John Doe ? For, speaking

of Jupiter, Mars, Venus and Mercury, John Scottus wrote, “theyalways describe their circles around the Sun, as taught by Platoin the Timaeus.”91 For sure, Plato does not say anything like thisin the Timaeus, but Calcidius, in his Commentary on the Timaeus,addressed the subject.92 In his Annotationes in Marcianum Eriu-gena is more explicit. He refers to Calcidius’ Commentary onPlato’s Timaeus, adding, “Plato himself places the center of allthe planets in the Sun.”93 Things are clear : concerning the planetsMercury, Venus, Mars and Jupiter, John Scottus professed a semi-

heliocentrism, even if he did not clearly measure the astronomicalimplications of such a position, and he would probably have feltuncomfortable expressing his views in a diagram.94

91 Periphyseon III, 698A, CCCM 163 : 113 (3275-3276).92 Calcidius, Commentarius 108-111, ed. J. H. Waszink, pp. 156-158.93 Annotationes in Marcianum, 13, 23, ed. Cora E. Lutz, pp. 22, 27-28) :

Ipse siquidem Plato planetarum omnium centrum in sole ponit.94 B. Eastwood – G. Grasshoff, Planetary Diagrams for Roman Astronomyin Medieval Europe, ca. 800-1500 (Philadelphia : Amer Philosophical Society,2004).


24/46


Among the arguments used by Eastwood against attributing asemi-heliocentric system to Eriugena let us mention the following :“No ninth-century scholar ever remarked upon a new heliocentri-cal planetary pattern put forth in two different texts by Eriuge-na.”95 In fact, one finds an echo of this heliocentrical planetarypattern in an anonymous ninth-century commentary on Bede’s De temporum ratione, in which we read that at least two planets –Mercury, Venus, and perhaps Jupiter – have their circles aroundthe Sun and that the center of their circular motion is the Sunitself.96 The language of this anonymous commentary is very sim-

ilar to that of Eriugena’s Annotationes in Marcianum.97

Was theauthor of this anonymous commentary a disciple of John Scottus ?We may be tempted to think so. Unless, as one scholar has sug-gested, this author is no other than John Scottus himself.98

However, I don’t think that “a new heliocentrical planetarypattern put forth in two different texts by Eriugena” shouldhave been considered as dangerous for the faith and necessarilydenounced as such in the ninth century. John Scottus was not aprecursor to Galileo. He said clearly that the Sun revolves around

the earth. To do so he used the same key-words which he used todescribe the circular motion of the planets Mercury, Venus, Marsand Jupiter around the Sun : the preposition circa and the verbuoluere.99

95 B.S. Eastwood, “Johannes Scottus Eriugena, Sun-Centred Planets, andCarolingian Astronomy”, p. 323, n. 92.

96 Ch. W. Jones, Bede, the Schools and the computus, ed. Wesley M. Stevens(Aldershot : Variorum, 1994), Appendix, p. 99 : Venus [Iouis] Mercurius : ideohae duae stellae numquam amplius a sole recedunt, quia circa solem circuliearum sunt, et in sole circulorum suorum ponunt centrum.

97 I am indebted to professor Eric Graff for having drawn my attentionto this commentary on Bede’s De temporum ratione. More important, I amindebted to Eric for having helped me in preparing the edition of Books III,IV and V of the Periphyseon : CCCM 163 : xxvii ; CCCM 164 : lxix ; CCCM 165 :xxxiii.

98 Patrick Gautier Dalché, « Deux lectures et un commentaire de Jean

Scot,” Revue d’Histoire des Textes 21 (1991) : 115-133.99 ...quamuis uehiculum eius (lucis), quod solare corpus dicimus, per mediaaetheris spatia circa terram aeterno motu uoluatur ( Periphyseon I, 520CD,CCCM 161 : 108 (3367-3369).


25/46


26/46


words, this catechesis places at the departure point the earthlyparadise, and at the arrival heaven for some, hell for others.

In February 1994, Yves Christe organized a colloquium inGeneva entitled Iconographie du jugement dernier et des fins dernièresà l’époque gothique (Iconography of the last judgement and of thelast things in the Gothic period).103 He asked me to give a paperin which John Scottus would be expected to make a contribution.Imagine my embarrassment. When John Scottus speaks of thelast judgement, it is to protest against the popular representationsone proposes for it. Speaking of those who adhere to such repre-

sentations of heaven and hell, he says :They suppose that the judgement (iudicium) will be conducted insome definite place within the confines of this world, and thatthe Judge and his holy angels will descend from some place in theupper parts of sensible nature in bodily form and to a place. Andso some, for instance, suppose that the seat of judgement (sedemiudicii) will be on the frontier between the aerial and etherealrealms (in confinio aeris et aetheris), which the physicists describeas the lunar orbit ; others agree with the Jews in imagining it tobe situated in the valley of Jehoshaphat.... Those who imaginesuch ravings as we have described are clearly ridiculed by soundreason. For how shall our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom the Fatherhas given the judgement, move through time and place, after hehas raised his manhood (humanitatem suam) above all place andall time and above everything that can be thought or uttered, intothe unity of his Godhead (in unitatem suae diuinitatis) ? There hesits eternally without change at the right hand of the Father andever shall so sit, from which he rules and judges all things andever shall so rule and judge. What the Catholic faith professes inthe Creed of the Church, ‘from thence he shall come to judge boththe living and the dead,’ we should not interpret as meaning thathe moves locally or emerges in some way from the secret recessesof his nature into this world to appear in members visible to thecorporeal senses of those who are to be judged. Each man rather,good or evil, will see his coming within himself, in his own con-science (in sua conscientia), when the books are opened and Godreveals the hidden places of the darkness, and each man shall be

103 “De l’art comme mystagogie (le Jugement dernier vu par Érigène),” in

De l’art comme mystagogie. Iconographie du Jugement dernier et des fins dernièresà l’époque gothique. Actes du Colloque de la Fondation Hardt tenu à Genève du13 au 16 février 1994, sous la direction d’Yves Christe (Poitiers : Université dePoitiers, 1996), pp. 1-8. Repr. in Tendenda Vela, pp. 559-568.


27/46


the judge of his own deeds and thoughts (et unusquisque suarumactionum et cogitationum iudex erit).104

Imagine that you have to establish a link between the author ofthis text and the great Gothic portals in which Christ, accompa-nied by his mother and Saint John, his beloved disciple, separatesthe elect from the damned : sheep on the right, goats on the left !Now that’s a challenge, is it not ? Yet that’s what I tried to do atGeneva in 1994. With what success, you may well ask, but that’snot for me to judge.

My situation here in Chicago in 2011 is not at all the same. No

one among you will, I suppose, be surprised to hear that JohnScottus interprets allegorically the sacred texts which treat ofinfernal chastisements, of the fire that is never extinguished, ofthe worm which gnaws unceasingly. “It is our belief,” he says,“that the various kinds of punishment will not be found localisedin any part or in the whole of this visible creation, or, to be suc-cinct, anywhere within the whole of nature created by God. Theydo not now exist, and they never will, anywhere, except in theperverse motions of evil wills and corrupt consciences, in late andunavailing repentance, and in every kind of subversion of perversepower, whether by the human or the angelic creature.”105

Our Irishman invokes the authority of Saint Ambrose to sup-port his thesis : the view that it is not in any spatial locality orin any corporeal prison, but within the confines of his own evilwill that the devil and his associates shall be punished is clearlyput by the blessed Ambrose in his Commentary on Luke, where heexpounds the passage from the Gospel : “bound hand and foot he

will be taken and sent into the outer darkness ; there there will beweeping and gnashing of teeth.”106

What (asks Ambrose) is the outer darkness ? Is it there also thatsome prison or stone-quarry must be endured ? Not at all. Butwhosoever is outside the dispensations of the heavenly precepts isin outer darkness : for the precepts of God are light ; and whoever iswithout Christ is in darkness, for Christ is the inner light. Neither,

104 Periphyseon V, 996C- 997B, CCCM 165 : 190-191 (6182-6221).105 Periphyseon V, 936A, CCCM 165 : 106 (3382-3389).106 Matth. 22 :13.


28/46


therefore, is there any grinding of physical teeth, nor any eter-nal fire of corporeal flames nor is that worm a corporeal worm.107

The language which Holy Scripture uses to describe the joysreserved to the elect and the torments destined for the damned,is figurative language, which must be taken and interpreted assuch. The reward of the elect is to rejoice in the Truth : Gaudiumde ueritate, as Saint Augustine said.108 The absence of the Truthis the cause of the eternal suffering of the damned. John Scottussays so clearly :

The only thing that must be desired is the joy of the Truth, whichis Christ. The only thing that must be avoided is the absence ofHim, and this absence is the only cause of the whole and eternalmisery. Take Christ from me and no good whatsoever is left forme, nor is there any torment left to terrify me. For I hold thatthe deprivation of Christ and separation from Him is a tormentfor every rational creature, and that there is no other.109

Pope Benedict XVI admired this fervent declaration of love forChrist. He quoted it in an address entirely devoted to Eriugena,which he gave at the general audience in St. Peter’s Square onJune 10, 2009.110

That Eriugena understood the fire of hell as not being a mate-rial fire, and the worm that gnaws the damned as an allegory isnot at all surprising. It is the contrary rather that would surpriseus. The torments of the damned are situated in their own con-science,111 not in the “stone-quarries” like the lautumiae in which

107

Periphyseon V, 936C, CCCM 165 : 107 (3407-3418). Cf. Ambrose, Expo-sitio euangelii secundum Lucam VII, 204-206, CCSL 14 : 285-286 (2262-2286).108 Confessiones X, xxiii ; 33, CCSL 27 : 173, 10-11.109 Periphyseon V, 989A, CCCM 165 : 180 (5860-5866) : Hinc apertissime

conficitur nihil aliud appetendum, nisi gaudium de ueritate, quae est Chris-tus, et nihil aliud fugiendum, nisi eius absentiam, quae est una ac sola causatotius aeternae tristitiae. Tolle a me Christum, nullum bonum nihi remanebit,nullum tormentum me terret. Eius siquidem priuatio et absentia totius ratio-nabilis creaturae tormentum est, et nullum aliud, ut opinor.

110 Insegnamenti di Benedetto XVI , vol. V,1 (Gennaio-Giugno 2009) (Rome :

Libreria editrice Vaticana, 2010), p. 989.111 Periphyseon V, 936A, 937A-B, 944D, 978B, 997B ; CCCM 165 : 106(3382-3389), 108 (3437-3449), 118 (3800-3805), 165 (5368-5374), 191 (6212-6221).


29/46


Dionysius, tyrant of Syracuse, locked up those who botheredhim.112 But to say that the suffering is interior in no way dimin-ishes its acuteness. The sadness of heart and the sorrow of soul areneither less real nor less cruel than corporeal punishments. On thecontrary, in the course of a deep depression, into which the soulis plunged, one might say, “Why did I not break a leg ? At least Iwould know what I am suffering from.”

The problem facing Eriugena, as we have seen, was to reconcilethe Neoplatonic themes of procession and return with the Chris-tian catechesis on the last things. No easy task ! To resolve it he

had recourse to two authors whose authority was universally rec-ognized : Saint Augustine113 and Saint Ambrose.114 Although hegleaned from them some elements of a reply, it was to Origen thathe turned in order to propose a radical solution.

One of the most familiar of Origen’s tenets is that which wedesignate by the Greek word ἀποκατάστασις (apocatastasis), inLatin restitutio or reuersio.115 By this it is understood that at theend of time all of creation will be reestablished in its primordialstate : all of creation, saints and sinners, good and fallen angels

alike.116 One readily understands that that thesis brought forthsharp criticisms : the first known to us was formulated by SaintJerome describing the apocatastasis (the ultimate restitution of allthings) as “when it will be the same for Gabriel as for the devil,

112 Periphyseon V, 936C, CCCM 165 : 107 (3412).113 Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram XI, xx-xxi, 27-28, CSEL 28,1 : 352-

354 ; Periphyseon V, 927C-928B, CCCM 165 : 96-97 (3036-3070).114 Ambrose, Expositio euangelii secundum Lucam VI, 46, CCSL 14 : 190-191.115 On apocatastasis see H. Crouzel, “L’apocatastase chez Origène,” Orige-

niana Quarta, ed. Lothar Lies (Innsbruck and Vienna : Tyrolia Verlag, 1987),pp. 282-290 ; W. van Laak, Allversöhnung. Die Lehre von der Apokatastasis. Ihre Grundlegung durch Origenes und ihre Bewertung in der gegenwärtigenTheologie bei Karl Barth und Hans Urs von Balthasar (Sinzig : Sankt MeinradVerlag, 1990) ; C. N. Tsirpanlis, “Origen on free will, grace, predestination,apocatastasis, and their ecclesiological implications,” Patristic and Byzantine Review 9 (1990) : 95-121 ; D.M. Kelly, ”Origen : heretic or victim ? The ‘apoca-tastasis’ revisited,” Patristic and Byzantine Review 18-19 no. 1-6 (2000-2001) :273-286.

116

Hans Urs von Balthasar distinguishes three conceptions of the doctrineof apocatastasis. Eriugena is a representative of the third, “that of Maximusthe Confessor” : Dare we hope that all men be saved ? Transl. Dr. David Kippand Rev. Lothar Krauth (San Francisco : Ignatius Press, 1988), pp. 234-5.


30/46


for Paul as for Caiaphas, for virgins as for prostitutes.”117 Thisjudgment of Saint Jerome was probably shared by many of thecontemporaries of Eriugena.

Eriugena himself did not encounter the term ἀποκατάστασις (apocatastasis) in the Periarchon, because the Greek text of thiswork was for him, as much as for us, inaccessible. But he found itin the Quaestiones ad Thalassium of Maximus the Confessor118 andin De hominis opificio of Gregory of Nyssa,119 where he regularlytranslated it by restitutio. However, in the Ambigua ad Iohannemof Maximus the Confessor, he translated it twice by reuersio.120 He

knew of course that reuersio implies the notion of ‘return’ ratherthan that of ‘restoration’, since in another place he translatedἐπάνοδος καὶ ἀποκατάστασις by reuersio atque restitutio.121 How-ever he sometimes used the term reuersio to refer to the highestform of apocatastasis, a form he called, as we shall see shortly,reditus specialis. Thus, in the letter to Charles the Bald, whichserves as a preface to his translation of the Ambigua, John Scottuswrote : “Reuersio uero θέωσις, hoc est deificatio.”122 Although theword ἀποκατάστασις (translated reuersio) appears in two places in

the Ambigua ad Iohannem, only one case is of interest here.123 Inthe other case, reuersio means the return of the Ark of the Cove-nant which the Philistines had stolen.124 Hence, the Latin equiv-alent of ἀποκατάστασις is restitutio. In the Latin version of the Periarchon, whose author is Rufinus, we meet twice the formula

117 Jerome, Epistola 84 (ad Pammachium et Oceanum), CSEL 55 : 129, 4-6.118 Maximus Confessor, Quaestiones ad Thalassium XXXV, XLII, XLVII,

LXIII ; CCSG 7 : 241 l. 41, 287 l. 34, 321 l. 145, 479 l. 199 ; CCSG 22 : 175 ll.449-50.

119 Gregory of Nyssa, De hominis opificio XVIII (XVII), PG 44, 188C12and 189B12, ed. M. Cappuyns in RThAM 32 (1965) : 236 l. 36 and 237 l. 18 ;CCCM 165 : 80 (2335 and 2958).

120 Maximus Confessor, Ambigua ad Iohannem XVI, 57 ; XXXIII, 18, CCSG18 : 134 and 170 ; PG 91, 1240A and 1292B.

121 Maximus Confessor, Quaestiones ad Thalassium XXXV, CCSG 7 : 240 l.35 ; 241 l. 41.

122 CCSG 18 : 4, 37.123

Maximus Confessor, Ambigua ad Iohannem XVI, 57, CCCM 18 : 134 l. 57(secundum gratiam reuersio).124 Maximus Confessor, Ambigua ad Iohannem XXXIII, 18, CCCM 18 : 170

l. 18 (arcae reuersionem). Cf. II Reg. 6.


31/46


restitutio omnium,125 and once the formula perfecta uniuersae crea-turae restitutio.126 Moreover, in the Greek fragments of the Periar-chon which have been preserved, we find the word ἀποκατάστασις applied to the healing of a blind man127 or to a ship returning toport.128 In the Latin version of the Homilies of Origen on Genesis,the word appears three times.129

It goes without saying that it required a certain amount ofcourage for Eriugena to hold the doctrine of the apocatastasis. Wedo not have the time, here and now, to follow all the intricaciesand meanderings of the solution which he elaborated. Let us be

content with quoting some extracts of the Periphyseon in whichthe master (Nutritor) and the disciple ( Alumnus) exchange theirviews on the subject. After a long discussion with the former, thelatter confesses that he accepts the apocatastasis (the return ofall things to their primeval state) as far as human nature is con-cerned, but he does not think that the apocatastasis applies to thefallen angels :

Now I perceive that there is no way out for me, and no argumentremains to show that evil, death and unhappiness shall overwhelm

human nature either in whole or in part and persist for ever ; forit is wholly redeemed and liberated in the Word of God, whobrought it wholly within the unity of his person. So, defeated bythe force of right reason (rectae ratiocinationis uirtute superatus), Iam compelled to admit that the whole of human nature must beset free in all who participate in it, and that from it every bondof evil and death and unhappiness must be loosened when thatnature returns into its causes (which subsist in its Saviour). Butconvinced as I now am about human nature, I am still uncertainwhether it is in every creature that evil shall be done away with,

or only in human nature. For I am of the opinion that the demonicintelligences shall never be without evil and all its consequences ;and, therefore, while granting that, by the bestowal of the graceof God and the cooperation of natural power, evil (malitia) shallbe wholly eliminated from the nature of man, I think that in the

125 Origen, Periarchon II, 3, 5 ; III, 6, 9, GCS 22 : 120 l. 19 ; 290 l. 14.126 Origen, Periarchon III, 5. 7, GCS 22 : 278 ll. 21-22.127

Origen, Periarchon III, 1, 15, GCS 22 : 223 l. 6.

128 Origen, Periarchon, III, 1, 19, GCS 22 : 233 l. 1.129 Origen, In Genesim homiliae II, 5 and V, 1, GCS 29 : 34 l. 8 ; 59 ll. 8

and 11.


32/46


nature of the demons it will endure forever (sine fine perseuera-turam) and will be co-eternal in them with the divine goodness

(diuinae bonitati coaeterna erit).130

We may note here once again the importance Eriugena attachesto human reason in the search for truth, not only when it is acase of deciphering the book of Nature, but also when it has to dowith interpreting the Holy Scriptures : the disciple declares him-self overcome by the power of right reason.131 Let us note also thatthe return to first innocence is the fruit of the collaboration ofnature with divine grace.132 Nothing is more Eriugenian than that.

The reply of the master to his disciple is no less Eriugenian whenhe says :

I think that you have not yet quite grasped the fact that Godpunishes no nature created by Him, whether in human or demonicsubstance, but that in all natures he punishes what he has not cre-ated, that is, the irrational motions of the perverse will.133

The master bases this affirmation on two patristic texts : the DeGenesi ad litteram of Saint Augustine134 and the Commentary on

the Gospel of Luke by Saint Ambrose.135

Commenting on the pageof Saint Luke’s Gospel in which the demons beg Jesus to let thementer a herd of swine,136 Ambrose writes, “So we are taught thatthey shall not remain forever, lest their evil should be eternal.”137 Although the master admits that this statement may be used

130 Periphyseon V, 927A-B, CCCM 165 : 95-96 (3012-3029).131 Periphyseon V, 927A, CCCM 165 : 95 (3017-3018) : rectae ratiocinationis

uirtute superatus.132 Periphyseon V, 927B, CCCM 165 : 95-96 (3026-3027) : dono diuinae gra-

tiae naturalique uirtute cooperatrice. Cf. Periphyseon V, 902D-904C, CCCM165 : 61-62 (1959-2007).

133 Periphyseon V, 927C, CCCM 165 : 96 (3030-3033) : Nondum clare perspi-cis, ut opinor, deum nullam naturam quam fecit punire nec in humana nec indaemonum substantia, sed quod non fecit in omnibus punit, hoc est irratio-nabiles peruersae uoluntatis motus.

134 Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram XI, xx-xxi, 27-28, CSEL 28,1 : 352-354 ; Periphyseon V, 927C-928B, CCCM 165 : 96-97.

135

Ambrose, Expositio euangelii secundum Lucam VI, 46, CCSL 14 :190-91 ;

Periphyseon V, 928B–D, CCCM 165 : 97-98 (3071- 3085).136 Lk. 8 :31-33.137 Periphyseon V, 928C, CCCM 165 : 97 (3085-3088).


33/46


in favour of his thesis concerning the final “restoration” of thedemons, he does not find it sufficiently explicit. Hence he appealsto Origen :

In case you should suppose that not only the wickedness in thedevil but also the substance shall be done away with ; and lest youshould think that death and the sting of death, which is sin andall evil, shall not be done away with in every rational creature,but that only in part of creation shall these be abolished, whilein part they shall remain, hear what the great Origen, that mostdiligent enquirer into the nature of things, says in his account inthe third book of his On First Principles (περὶ ἀρχῶν) concerning

the end of the world, that is to say, concerning the supreme goodto which the whole of rational nature is hastening, that God maybe all in all. For according to his teaching the end of the world isnothing else but God being all in all.138

Origen is described here as “that most diligent enquirer into thenature of things” (diligentissimum rerum inquisitorem), but he isalso, we noted earlier, the exegete ‘par excellence’ of Holy Scrip-ture (summum sanctae scripturae expositorem). The starting pointfor his speculation on the apocatastasis is this passage from thefirst Letter to the Corinthians :

He [Christ] must reign until he has put all his enemies under hisfeet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For God has put allthings in subjection under his feet. . . . When all things are sub-jected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to theone who put all things in subjection under him so that God maybe all in all.139

Origen comments on these Pauline verses in this way :

Let us ask ourselves what is meant by the ‘all things’ which Godshall become in all. My own opinion is that this phrase “God issaid to be all things in all things” means that even in individualshe is all things. In individuals he will be all things in this way,that whatsoever the rational mind, purged from all filthiness ofsin and utterly cleansed from the fog of evil, can either feel orunderstand or think – all is God, nor will the individual see anymore anything else but him, nor hold anything but him, and God

138 Periphyseon V, 929A, CCCM 165 : 98 (3091-3100).139 I Cor. 15 : 22-28. See D.D. Hannah, The Text of I Corinthians in the Writ-

ings of Origen (Atlanta : Society of Biblical Literature, 1997).


34/46


will be the mode and measure of his every motion. Thus God willbe all things. There will no more be any distinction between good

and evil, because evil will be no more ; and for him who no longerhas contact with evil God is all things : and he who resides ever-more in the good and for whom God is all things no longer shalldesire to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Thuswhen the end shall be brought back to the beginning, and the out-come of all things shall be related to their origin, that conditionwill be restored which the rational nature possessed at the timewhen it had no need to eat of the tree of knowledge of good andof evil. All sense of evil being removed and converted into purity,God alone, who is one and good, will then become all things for

that nature, not in some few or many instances, but he will beall in all. When death will be banished, the sting of death ban-ished, and no evil anywhere, then indeed God will be all in all . . .Therefore, even the last enemy, the devil, who is also called death,is said to be destroyed : so that there is no sorrow any more, forthere is no more death, no more diversity, for there is no enemy.The destruction of the last enemy is to be understood not in thesense that his substance, which is made by God, perishes but thatthe hostile intention and will, which proceeds not from God butfrom himself, shall be done away with. He shall be destroyed,

then, not in the sense that he will cease to be, but that he willcease to be an enemy and death. For to the Omnipotent noth-ing is impossible, and nothing is irreparable to its Creator. For tothis end he made all things that they should be, and those thingsthat were made in order that they should be, cannot not be. Andto this end shall they be endowed with mutability and variety,that in accordance with their merits they should obtain a betteror a worse condition. But substantial destruction cannot happento things that God has created to the end that they should be andthat they should endure.140

Eriugena concludes this long quotation of Origen with theseremarks :

Thus, what Ambrose left in doubt, Origen makes clear. For whenAmbrose says ‘we are taught that the demons shall not remain for-ever, lest their evil should be eternal,’ it is uncertain whether hemeans that the substance of the demons shall perish together withtheir evil, or only the evil on account of which they are calleddemons, while their nature remains incorruptible. But Origen

140 Origen, De principiis III, vi, 2-5, GCS 22 : 283-289 ; PG 11, 335C-338B.See Periphyseon V, 929A-930D, CCCM 165 : 98-100 (3100-3121 ; 3165-3180).


35/46


36/46


are somewhat surprised to hear our Irishman conclude his disser-tation in the following way :

We are not now discussing the substance of the demons, whichthe creator of all things created in them good and indestructible,as to whether that nature too, when it is purged, shall be broughtback to its Principle which by its transgression it abandoned ; orwhether it is misled in its perversity and will refuse forever to con-template the truth. With regard to that, let us for the time beingbe assured clearly of this : that the substance of the demons itselfis not punished nor ever shall be punished and that the glory of itsfirst creation before it waxed proud and seduced mankind abides

in it forever and immutably without any diminution and shallever so abide. But the wickedness which it contracted throughpride shall be totally destroyed lest it should become coeternalwith the goodness of God. Concerning the salvation of the devil orhis conversion or return into his cause we presume to assert noth-ing, for this reason : we have no clear authority on it either fromSacred Scripture or from the holy Fathers that have dealt withthis matter. Therefore we honour its obscurity with silence, lest insearching into matters which are beyond us we should rather fallinto error than ascend into truth. And so we ought by God’s aid

to pursue our enquiries into a matter which does not lie beyondus, namely our own nature.145

So, there we are sent back to the Socratic tradition : “Know thy-self,” an important theme running through the Periphyseon.146 Nevertheless, we cannot help but think – and may John Scottuspardon me for it ! – that we are here in the presence of an elegantway of circumventing the difficulty. However, it may be that onthat point, the hesitations of John Scottus reflect the hesitations

of Origen himself as stated by Crouzel : “In any case, if all theworks of Origen, and even the entire Periarchon must be takeninto consideration, we cannot assign to him the salvation of theDevil as a firmly held opinion. Sometimes he speaks in one direc-tion and sometimes in another, because he does not see clearly.”147

145 Periphyseon V, 941A-B, CCCM 165 : 113 (3619-3640).146 B. Stock, “ Intelligo me esse : Eriugena’s Cogito,” in Jean Scot Érigène et

l’histoire de la philosophie, ed. R. Roques, pp. 328-335 ; W. Otten, The Anthro-

pology of Johannes Scottus Eriugena (Leiden : Brill, 1991), pp. 184-189, 207-208, 210-211 ; É. Jeauneau, “Le Cogito érigénien”, in Tendenda Vela, pp. 543-558.

147 H. Crouzel, “L’apocatastase chez Origène”, p. 287.


37/46


Since Eriugena recommends that we concentrate on man ratherthan angels, let us follow him along this line and ask him if hethinks that at the end of time all men, good and bad, will besaved, as Origen’s apocatastasis appears to conclude. His response,formulated by the disciple, is clear :

If the whole of human nature shall ascend thither, or, to put itmore plainly, shall return into that state which it abandonedthrough sin ; if He (Christ) has, by redeeming it, raised it wholly,what are we to say ? Does it not follow that there will be no ever-lasting death of misery, no eternal punishment of the damned ?For what will be left in them to be tormented, if the whole nature,in which both the good and the wicked participate, shall not onlybe entirely set free from death and evil, but shall even return intoGod Himself ? What has become of that flaming heat of eternalfire to which the severity of the most righteous judge shall com-mit the wicked, saying : ‘Depart, accursed, into everlasting firewhich was prepared for the devil and his angels?’148 What willbecome of the eternal punishment which the impious shall incur,if no part of human nature is to remain, that may be subjected toeverlasting punishment ? For if all evil is done away with, whatevil man will be left ? For every evil man is evil because of evil,and thus when evil comes to an end, the evil man will cease toexist also. For when the cause ceases ( Deficiente quippe causa), theeffect must cease likewise (necessarium est effectum sui deficere).The same principle applies to life and death. For if ‘death shallbe wholly swallowed up in life’ as evil is swallowed up in goodnessand misery in bliss, who will be tormented by death and miserywhen no man remains excluded from life and bliss ?149

The disciple continues his case, enumerating the contradictionsimplied by the thesis whereby a part of humanity would not besaved but condemned to eternal punishment :

What a multitude of awkward inconsistencies and arguments con-trary to right reason would confront anyone who asserted thatwhile a part of human nature would return into God, the otherpart would remain in eternal punishment. He would be compelledto admit that God the Word took upon Himself not the whole ofhuman nature but a part of it, and that therefore it was not hiswill to save the whole human genus, and that he did not do so :which would be an absurd belief. Moreover, true reason and sound

148 Matth. 15 :41.149 Periphyseon V, 921C-922A, CCCM 165 : 86-87 (2750-2779).


38/46


speculation of nature would deride his division of the simplicity ofhuman nature into parts and the view that it is composed, as it

were, of many like and unlike parts, whereas it is in fact one andsimple and free from all composition and unlikeness and multi-plicity of parts. If it were not so, it was not made in the image ofGod, but rather in conformity with the manifold variety of mortaland corruptible bodies – a thing which it would be most foolishand dishonorable to believe, and totally contrary to the truth.Further, if human nature is the image and likeness of God, it iswhole in itself through itself, and whole in each individual thatparticipates in it, and admits neither in itself nor in any part ofits uniform simplicity any division or partition or possibility of

division or partition, whether in potency or in act. If the divinityin whose image humanity is created is one and indivisible, it mustfollow that the latter also is one an

jeauneau2014 cosmos and physis_eriugena’s periphyseon in the context of east and west

Documents