Guiu2014 “Reading the Two Books”-Exegesis and Natural Contemplation in the Periphyseon

8/19/2019 Guiu2014 “Reading the Two Books”-Exegesis and Natural Contemplation in the Periphyseon

1/28

“READING THE TWO BOOKS” : EXEGESISAND NATURAL CONTEMPLATION IN

THE PERIPHYSEON

adrian guiu

“Only through time time is conquered.”

(T.S. Eliot, The Four Quartets, Burnt Norton II)

This essay weaves together a variety of threads : its main thread isto attempt to connect the scriptural exegesis to the contemplationof nature through the lens of Maximus Confessor’s idea that the twobooks, Scripture and creation, are both Incarnations of the Logos,Christ ; thus we hope to grasp why for Eriugena ‘Texterklärung’ leadsto ‘Welterklärung’. A second thread follows how this metaphysicalgeography, underlying both scripture and creation, is crucial for a bet-

ter understanding of the structure and goal of the Periphyseon : basedon the correspondence between the levels of knowledge, the levels ofscriptural meaning and the hierarchy of sciences, I will explain howthe progression between different levels is achieved in the great dia-logue. Thus, as a Neoplatonist, Eriugena knows that the highest levelof viewing the cosmos is that of the intellect, but as a follower of Max-imus and student of Augustine, he knows that mediation is also cru-cial : in other words, the level of the intellect, theoria and theologia, canonly be achieved by passing through, by transiting through the lowerlevels. For Eriugena physiologia is about passing through the thicknessof creation and of scripture in order to discern the theophanic presenceof the Logos. So the goal of the Nutritor and his pupil is to reach thehighest level of knowledge, that of theology, but only after patientlytilling the ground of scripture, by treading the path of reason throughthe physiologia of creation and scripture.

One of the difficulties of the Periphyseon, the magnum opus ofJohn Scottus Eriugena, is with regard to the role and status of the

extensive exegesis of Genesis. How does this exegesis fit withinthe initial project of the work : to divide the genus of nature ?To a great degree, the Periphyseon stands in the tradition of the

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. 263-290.

© DOI 10.1484/M.IPM-EB.1.102064


2/28

adrian guiu264

Hexaemeral commentaries that can ultimately be traced backto Philo of Alexandria’s De opificio mundi, and which passesthrough Origen, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa and Augus-tine. Although the Hexaemeron exegesis found in the Periphyseon is embedded in a somewhat different argument (that of the divi-sion of the genus of nature), like these, it grapples with the Gene-sis account in order to make sense of creation.1

In order to clarify the role and status of exegesis in the Periphy-seon, I will pursue several avenues. First is the question about thestatus and role of exegesis : what is the connection between exege-

sis and the enterprise as a whole ? I will start with the observationthat the role of exegesis is related to the idea of the parallelism ofthe two books (creation and scripture) which Eriugena appropriatesfrom Maximus Confessor. Eriugena’s belief that both scripture andcreation are theophanic reflections of the divine is a crucial meth-odological principle in the Periphyseon and is the reason why hedoes Welterklärung by doing Texterklärung, to use the wording ofHans Liebeschütz.2 Second is the question about the genre of the

Periphyseon : how is exegesis related to the term physiologia,3 a term

used by Eriugena to describe the task of the Periphyseon.4 Anotherway to shed some light on the genre of the work is to ask whatform of knowledge physiology is and how it fits within the vari-ous divisions of sciences throughout the work. Why do the teacherand the pupil dwell so extensively on the exegesis of the creationaccount while they are involved in physiology ? In other words, whyis physiology carried out through the exegesis of the Hexaemeron ?

1 The literature on the Hexaemeron is extensive : here are several help-ful surveys : Frank Eggleston Robbins, The Hexaemeral Literature. A Studyof Greek and Latin Commentaries on Genesis (Chicago : University of Chicago,Ph.D., 1912). Also : Thomas O’Loughlin, Teachers and Code-Breakers. The Latin Genesis Tradition, 430-800 (Turnhout : Brepols, 1999).

2 See H. Liebeschütz, “Texterklärung und Weltdeutung bei Johannes Eriu-gena,” Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 40 (1958) : 66-96.

3 The question about the meaning of the words natura and physiologia isone of the more difficult issues regarding Eriugena. There have been severalsuccessful attempts to understand it. See e.g. Dominic O’Meara, “The Con-

cept of Natura in John Scotus Eriugena,” Vivarium XIX/2 (1981) : 126-145.One connection which has not been explored extensively is that between Eriu-gena’s physiology and Maximus’s theoria physikè.

4 See, for example, the beginning of book IV.741C (CCCM 164 : 3).


3/28

265exegesis and natural contemplation

My preliminary observation is that Eriugena’s exegesis of Gene-sis is related to the project as a whole and to the way he refers tothis project in several instances as physiologia.5 Moreover, I wouldlike to argue that the exegesis of the Hexaemeron and physiologia must be traced to Maximus’s theoria physikè.6 Thus, Eriugena fol-lows Maximus in regarding creation as a theophanic mediation ofthe divine. For Maximus, one does not have to circumvent creationin order to return to God : theoria physikè constitutes his solutionto the conundrums of Origenian metaphysics which tended to dis-card the mediation of materiality and visibility in order to move

promptly to union with the divine. Thus, I will try to argue thatit is from Maximus that Eriugena learns to dwell on the ‘read-ing’ of the two books in which God’s traces are manifested as the-ophanies. Eriugena appropriates Maximus’s interpretation of theTransfiguration according to which scripture and creation are thetwo vestments of Christ : both scripture and creation are theoph-anically imbued with divine presence ; therefore, in order to reachback to the divine nature, one cannot just catapult over creation(in the Origenian fashion) ; rather, one has to take the long route

of sifting through the ballast of creation and scripture in orderto attain the intelligible level : this is what the long travail of the

Periphyseon sets out to do.

The Recourse to Scripture

After the teacher’s extensive exposition of the division of natureand return of creation according to Maximus, the student is both-ered by several claims made by the teacher in his interpretation

5 For the Periphyseon I shall cite the Migne column number and the vol-ume number, page number and lines of the critical edition : Johannes Scot-tus Eriugena, ed. Édouard Jeauneau, Periphyseon, CCCM 161-165 (Turnhout :Brepols, 1996-2003). I have also used and, where appropriate, amended thetranslation of I.P. Sheldon-Williams and J. O’Meara, Eriugena. Periphyseon(The Division of Nature) (Montreal : Bellarmin, 1987). See Periphyseon IV.741C(CCCM 164 : 3 l. 2). In a footnote, Jeauneau mentions that in the Londoncodex the title of the whole work appears as Liber Physiologiae Iohannis Scot-

tigenae.6 For the notion of theoria physikè see Lars Thunberg, Microcosm and Mediator. The Theological Anthropology of Maximus Confessor (Lund : Gleerup,1965), pp. 343-352.


4/28

adrian guiu266

of Maximus : “I confess that concerning the return and unifica-tion whatever has been said by you is in all respects difficult andobscure for me.”7 There are several issues that bother the pupil :first the issue of the unification of sexes achieved in Christ throughthe incarnation, second, the unification of paradise with earth, ofearth with heaven, of the sensible creature with the intelligible.Finally, there is the question of the manner of the return whichconstitutes a thorny issue : “how the return of all the aforemen-tioned substances into the One and (their) unification will come topass, whether in the thing itself, […] or whether it is only in the

concept.”8

So the precocious student is close to derailing the entireMaximian account of the return offered by the teacher and implic-itly the entire enterprise of the Periphyseon : the unification of allcreation in all its dimensions (including the material) into the pri-mordial causes and from there into the divine source and unity.

The tutor replies that a proper answer would require a longerdetour. The two conversants agree that “every inquiry into truthshould take its beginning from the divine oracles.”9 It is at thispoint that the interpretation of the creation account starts and

the result is the meandering Hexaemeron commentary which willtake up the remainder of the dialogue. However, the project of theHexaemeral commentary does not scrap the initial logical proj-ect of dividing the genus of nature. Rather it is subsumed into itbecause it helps clarify the aspect of the return, the reditus or, touse a term from dialectics, analysis. The teacher offers a differentcourse of action which is supposed to shed some light on the log-ical division. Nevertheless, the turn to exegesis will take the con-versants into the domain of ontology and physics : thus, what had

started as a classical exercise of dialectics becomes a physiology.Why does the teacher have recourse to scripture in order to

elucidate some issues related to the nature of the cosmos ? In myview, his approach is based on one crucial insight he acquired from

7 Periphyseon II.543C (CCCM 162 : 25 l. 525).8 Periphyseon II.544A (CCCM 162 : 26, l. 546) : …quomodo, omnium sub-

stantiarum praedictarum reditus in unum atque adunatio futura sit : utrum

re ipsa […] an solo contuitu animi naturalem unitatem omnium rerum in suisrationibus primordialibusque causis contemplantis.9 Periphyseon II.545B (CCCM 162 : 27, l. 570) : ratiocinationis exordium ex

divinis eloquiis assumendum esse aestimo.


5/28


Maximus Confessor : the fact that scripture and nature reflect eachother and that their principles and character correspond ; they arelike two books in which God’s traces and manifestation can be dis-cerned. The parallelism of the two laws, as Maximus calls them, isone of the cornerstones of Eriugena’s method in the Periphyseon. Inlight of Maximus’s two-books theory and of his understanding oftheoria physikè, the place of exegesis within the Periphyseon and theconnection between exegesis and physiology gains some clarity.10

The Parallelism of Scripture and Nature in Maximus Confessor

The most extensive discussion of the two-book theory in thecorpus of Maximus Confessor is found in his Ambiguum 10. Here,Maximus attempts to clarify a difficult passage from GregoryNazianzus : “This is genuinely granted those who genuinely livethe philosophical life and transcend the material dyad trough theunity of the mind perceived in the Trinity.”11 The main issue ofthis ‘difficulty’ which Maximus needs to clarify is related to theissue of what constitutes true philosophy. Here Gregory seems to

10 Eriugena’s view of the ‘two books’ will also be put to good use by themasters of the twelfth century. See Willemien Otten, “Nature and Scripture :Demise of a Medieval Analogy,” Harvard Theological Review 88.2 (1995) : 257-284. See also her “The Parallelism of Nature and Scripture : Reflections onEriugena’s Incarnational Exegesis,” in : Iohannes Scottus Eriugena. The Bibleand Hermeneutics, eds. G. van Riel, C. Steel, and J. McEvoy (Leuven : LeuvenUniversity Press, 1996), pp. 81-102. See further Henri de Lubac, Medieval Exegesis. The Four Senses of Scripture, transl. by M. Sebanc, vol. 1 (GrandRapids : Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 76-78. See also Donald F. Duclow, “Nature as

Speech and Book in John Scotus Eriugena,” Mediaevalia 3 (1977) : 131-40.On the connections between reading nature and reading Scripture, see PeterHarrison, The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science (Cambridge :Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 11-28.

11 Amb. 10 (PG 91, 1105D). When citing Maximus directly I will give theLatin of Eriugena’s translation found in : Maximus Confessor and JohannesScottus Eriugena, Maximi Confessoris Ambigua Ad Iohannem : Iuxta IohannisScotti Eriugenae Latinam Interpretationem, CCSG 18, ed. Édouard Jeauneau(Turnhout : Brepols, 1988) ; where necessary I also give the Greek from Migne.For the translations I have used : Andrew Louth, Maximus the Confessor (New

York : Routledge, 1996). I have also used Maxim Marturisitorul, Ambigua,trans. Dumitru Staniloae (Bucuresti : Editura Institului Biblic, 2006). I havechecked the translations against the Greek original and, where appropriate,amended them.


6/28

adrian guiu268

intimate that true philosophy entails the transcendence of thematerial and fleshly and the ascent to the deification as the con-templation of the Trinity. The Origenistic resonances of the pas-sage are not to be missed : the material, visible aspects of realityare an accident that needs to be overcome in order to return tothe divine unity.

The interpretative chore of Maximus, as a post-Chalcedoniantheologian, is to prove that creation, including the material, is notjust something that simply needs to be transcended, but is actu-ally a necessary conduit (if not the conduit) to the divine.12 Thus,

in his view, the Origenistic disregard for the visible and materialis quite dangerous, and it could forfeit what it intended to achieve,the return to God.13 Maximus rejects it because of his belief thatGod is present in a theophanic manner in creation and each cre-ated being is endowed with a raison d’etre, a reason (logos) whichultimately is rooted in the Logos, i.e., Christ. Therefore, Maximusargues that the return does not simply amount to going beyondcreated beings but necessarily entails a going through (διάβασις)the ‘cloud’ of the visible and the material until one learns to dis-

cern the presence of the divine Logos. Maximus calls this exerciseof reading creation theoria physikè : it amounts to learning to viewall creations as having a divine principle or reason (logos).14

In order to prove the necessity of passing (διαβαίνειν) throughthe various levels of creation for the return (reditus, ἐπιστροφή),Maximus offers a series of exemplary interpretative exercises on a

12 Joshua Lollar puts it very poignantly : “This trust reaches its highest

point in Maximus’ teaching that a person ‘experiences the divine existence byexperiencing beings (τὸ Θεὸς εἶναι παθὼν ἐκ τῶν ὄντων)’ and intellectuallysees God manifest as goodness in creation.” See Joshua Lollar, “To See into the Life of Things.” The Contemplation of Nature in Maximus the Confessor’s Ambi-gua to John (PhD diss, University of Notre Dame, 2011), p. 301.

13 For Maximus’s debate with Origenism, see Polycarp Sherwood, The Ear-lier Ambigua of Saint Maximus the Confessor and His Refutation of Origenism (Roma : Herder, 1955).

14 Adam Cooper, The Body in St. Maximus the Confessor : Holy Flesh, Wholly Deified (Oxford/New York : Oxford University Press, 2005) ; also Torstein

Tollefsen, The Christocentric Cosmology of St. Maximus the Confessor (Oxford/New York : Oxford University Press, 2008). See also Lollar, “To See into the Life of Things.” The Contemplation of Nature in Maximus the Confessor’s Ambi-

gua to John.


7/28


variety of biblical texts supposed to convey to his interlocutor theidea that for the return to God, the mediation of creation and ofscripture are indispensable.

At the center of these readings is the Transfiguration passage,which for Maximus becomes the epitome of the passage throughthe levels of reality and the progression through the variousstages of knowledge. According to Maximus, this parallelism isgrounded in Christ, who is the Logos, the reason both of Scrip-ture and of creation. The best expression of this unity is foundin the image of the two garments of Christ in the Transfiguration

account ; the two garments correspond to the two books in which“the forms and shapes in which those things that have come tobe are put forward to be seen. […] For the creator of the universeand the lawgiving Word is hidden as manifest, since he is invisibleby nature, and is manifested as hidden, lest he is believed by thewise to be subtle in nature.”15 According to Maximus, because the

Logos is manifested both in Scripture and in creation, the symbolsof the visible creation and the syllables and letters of Scripturegive an intimation of it.

And if Christ at the time of his Transfiguration wore two vestureswhite as snow, namely the letter of the Divine Oracles and thesensible appearance of visible things, why should we be encour-aged diligently to touch the one in order to be worthy to findHim whose vesture it is, and forbidden to inquire about the other,namely the visible creature, how and by what reasons it is woven,I do not clearly see.16

Based on the image of the two vestments of Christ, Maximusestablishes a parallelism and symmetry between what he calls thetwo laws : the natural and the written law. Then he unfolds whathe understands by the two laws even more :

15 Maximus Confessor, Ambiguum 10 (PG 91, 1129C).16 Periphyseon III.723D-724A (CCCM 163 : 149-50, ll. 4351-4363) : Et si

duo uestimenta Christi sunt tempore transformationis ipsius candida sicutnix (diuinorum uidelicet eloquiorum littera et uisibilium rerum species sensi-

bilis), 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.


8/28

adrian guiu270

The first law, in conformity to the Logos, depicts the harmonioustexture of the whole as a book which has as syllables and letters,

the various bodies thickened through the coming together of dif-ferent qualities which are the first and closer to us ; It also haswords which are more remote and finer. Through their readingthe Logos which is woven into them is discerned. […] The second[law], revealed through teaching, is depicted as another world con-stituted of heaven and earth and those in between : ethical philos-ophy, natural and theological philosophy…it is shown that thesetwo [laws] are in essence the same : the written law is potentiallythe natural and the natural law is habitually the written law :both reveal and conceal the same Logos : they conceal it through

the letter and through what is seen and uncover it through whatis understood and concealed.17

Thus for Maximus, both books are conduits to God because bothScripture and creation intimate the divine Logos, Christ, throughthe ‘letters’ (logoi) imprinted in them. For Maximus, scripture andthe cosmos reflect each other because they are both embodimentsand places of manifestation of the divine Logos. The task of theinterpreter is to learn to discern the theophanic presence : there-

fore one has to apply the appropriate level of reading. This insightof Maximus will be appropriated by Eriugena and will become oneof the cornerstones of the Periphyseon.

17 Maximus Confessor, Ambiguum 10 (PG 91, 1129Α-B), transl. Louth, Maximus the Confessor, 110 (amended). Τῷ τόν μέν ὁμαλῶς ὅτι μάλιστα κατά λόγον διευθυνόμενον διά τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ συμφυῶν θεαμάτων βίβλου τρό-πον τό ἐναρμόνιον τοῦ παντός ὕφασμα ἔχοντα, γράμματα μέν καί συλλαβάς ἐχούσης, τά πρός ἡμᾶς πρῶτα, προσεχῆ τε καί μερικά, καί πολλαῖς παχυνό-μενα κατά σύνοδον ποιότησι σώματα, ῥήματα δέ, τά τούτων καθολικώτερα,πόῤῥω τε ὄντα καί λεπτότερα, ἐξ ὧν σοφῶς ὁ διαχαράξας καί ἀῤῥήτως αὐτοῖς ἐγκεχαραγμένος λόγος ἐναγινωσκόμενος ἀπαρτίζεται, τήν ὅτι μόνον ἐστίν,οὐχ ὅτι ποτέ δέ ἐστιν οἱανοῦν παρεχόμενος ἔννοιαν, καί διά τῆς εὐσεβοῦς τῶν διαφόρων φαντασιῶν συλλογῆς εἰς μίαν τοῦ ἀληθοῦς εἰκασίαν ἐνάγων,ἀναλόγως ἑαυτόν διά τῶν ὁρατῶν ὡς γενεσιουργός ἐνορᾶσθαι, διδούς· τόν δέ μαθήσει κατορθούμενον, διά τῶν αὐτῷ σοφῶς ὑπηγορευμένων ὥσπερ κόσμον ἄλλον ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καί γῆς καί τῶν ἐν μέσῳ, τῆς ἠθικῆς φημι καί φυσικῆς καί θεολογικῆς φιλοσοφίας συνιστάμενον,... τήν ἄφατον καταμηνύειν τοῦ ὑπαγο-

ρεύσαντος δύναμιν, καί ταὐτόν ἀλλήλοις κατ᾿ ἐπαλλαγήν ὄντας δεικνύοντα τόν μέν γραπτόν τῷ φυσικῷ κατά τήν δύναμιν, τόν δέ φυσικόν ἔμπαλιν τῷ γραπτῷ κατά τήν ἕξιν, καί τόν αὐτόν μηνύοντας καί καλύπτοντας λόγον, τόν μέν τῇ λέξει καί τῷ φαινομένῳ, τό δέ τῇ νοήσει καί τῷ κρυπτομένῳ.


9/28


In the Homily, Eriugena appropriates the two-laws theory andexplicitly establishes a parallel between the cosmos of scriptureand the cosmos of creation. He will use the same image used byMaximus at the end of the above passage. Thus, like the visiblecosmos, scripture is also divided into four levels. According tohim, scripture is like another cosmos : “Scripture is an intelligibleworld composed of four parts, as the sensible world is composedof four elements.”18 Thus, the abyss, or the inferior part of theearth corresponds to ethics. Ethics and history “are surroundedby the air of natural science […] called by the Greeks, physics.”19

“Above and beyond all of this, there is a fiery and ardent sphereof the empyrean heaven ; that is this high contemplation of divinenature which the Greeks call theologia ; no intellect could pene-trate beyond it.”20 Like the cosmos, scripture itself is a hierar-chical world which has heaven, earth and the middle elements.These in their turn correspond to moral, natural and theologicalphilosophy. From this we can see that for Eriugena, there exists adeep correspondence between the levels of scripture, the levels ofknowledge and the levels of creation.21

Maximus gives the parallel between the elements of scriptureand those of creation a very precise exposition in Ambiguum 38.22 According to Maximus, scripture, like the cosmos, is ordered anddisplays a system of ten fundamental categories. “The general

18 See Jean Scot, Homélie sur le prologue de Jean XIV.291B, SC 151 : 270 :Diuina siquidem scriptura mundus quidam est intelligibilis, suis quattuorpartibus, ueluti quattuor elementis, constitutus.

19 Idem, 291C, SC 151 : 270 : Aer ille naturalis scientiae circumuoluitur quam,[…] graeci uocant physikè. The division of the science with regard to the var-ious levels of the cosmos dates back to Plato and Aristotle. For Aristotle,physics is the science that pertains to the movable, changeable.

20 Hom. Prol. in Ioh. XIV. 291C, SC 151 : 270-2 : Extra autem omnia etultra, aethereus ille igneusque ardor empyrii caeli, hoc est, superae contem-plationis diuinae naturae, quam graeci theologiam nominant ; ultra quamnullus egreditur intellectus.

21 See also the article of Bernard McGinn in this collection who calls thiscorrespondence an isomorphism.

22

Paul Blowers, ‘The World in the Mirror of Holy Scripture : Maximus theConfessor’s Short Hermeneutical Treatise in Ambiguum ad Joannem 41,’ in :Paul Blowers, et al. (eds), In Dominico Eloquio. Essays on Patristic Exegesis in Honor of Robert Louis Wilken (Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 2002).


10/28

adrian guiu272

reason of the spiritual meaning of scripture appears tenfold tocontemplation : through place, time, genus, person, occupation,practice, natural philosophy and contemplation, presence andfuture, or type and truth.”23 Then Maximus offers a demonstra-tion of how, through contemplation, one passes from plurality tounity through the categories of scripture : the reader is shown howto traverse the various stages until, through the threefold divisionof philosophy, he ascends to the unitary Logos of scripture.24 Firstone passes through the five categories of scripture : time, place,genus, person, dignity ; these are then reduced to the threefold

division of philosophy : ethical, natural and theological. These arefurther contracted into the categories of present and future ; fromhere one proceeds to reduce all ‘reasons’ and ‘meanings’ to the oneReason/ Logos, who is Christ.

The Role of Scripture

The parallelism of the two books is also reflected in the wayEriugena conceives of the role of scripture per se. The Bible is the

centerpiece of Eriugena’s pedagogical program, which is meant

23 See Maximus Confessor, Ambiguum 38 (PG 91, 1293B) : τόν καθόλου τῆς Γραφικῆς θεωρίας λόγον, ἕνα τυγχάνοντα, δεκαχῶς πλατυνόμενον θεωρεῖ -σθαι, τόπῳ, χρόνῳ, γένει, προσώπῳ, ἀξίᾳ, ἤγουν ἐπιτηδεύματι , πρακτικῇ,φυσικῇ, θεολογικῇ, φιλοσοφίᾳ, ἐνεστῶτι, καί μέλλοντι, ἤγουν τύπῳ καί ἀλη -θείᾳ, καί αὖθις συναγόμενον τούς πέντε τρισί περιγράφειν τρόποις, καί πάλιν δυσί τούς τρεῖς, καί τούς δύο ἑνί συγκλείειν παντελῶς μή ἀριθμουμένῳ λόγῳ· οἷον τούς κατά χρόνον καί τόπον καί γένος καί πρόσωπον καί ἀξίαν,πέντε τυγχάνοντες, εἰς τρεῖς συνάγειν τούς τῆς πρακτικῆς καί φυσικῆς καί

θεολογικῆς, τούτους δέ πάλιν τρεῖς ὄντας, εἰς δύο, τούς τό παρόν τε καί τό μέλλον σημαίνοντας, καί τούτους εἰς τόν τελεστικόν καί ἁπλοῦν καί πάντων περιεκτικόν ἄῤῥητον Λόγον.

24 Maximus offers a demonstration of the passing through and unificationof the categories of creation in Ambiguum 41. There he describes how Christunifies creation by bringing together the particulars and universals. The logoi of the distinct and particular are comprehended in the rationalities of theuniversal and general. And the rationalities of the general and universal arecomprehended by wisdom, while the logoi of the particular, contained in avariety of ways in the general ones, are comprehended by prudence. The logoi

simplify and forsake the symbolic variety from within individual things inorder to be unified by Christ the Logos. See Adrian Guiu, “Christology andPhilosophical Culture in Maximus the Confessor’s Ambiguum 41,” in : Studia Patristica vol. XLVIII (Leuven : Peeters, 2010), pp. 111-116.


11/28


to lead the soul back to God. Not unlike Origen, he conceives ofscripture as a training ground for the debilitated human. “For inthis manner of spiritual medicine God wanted to call back hisimage both into himself and to him, so that fatigued and trainedby the tedium of mutable things, it would desire to contemplatethe stability of immutable and eternal things, would ardentlyhunger for the incommutable forms of true things so as to rest intheir beauty without any variety.”25

Although he seems to give priority to scripture, Eriugena alsoregards the ‘second’ book, that of creation, as conducive to help-

ing humanity return to God. In his commentary on Dionysius’sCelestial Hierarchy, Eriugena explains that scripture as a secondbook would not have been necessary, had humans not sinned.The book of creation would have been sufficient as a conduit toGod. “For the human soul is not made for the sake of scripture,which it would not have needed in any way, had it not sinned ; butsacred scripture is woven from a diversity of symbols and teach-ings so that through its introduction, our rational nature wouldbe returned to the pristine height of pure contemplation.”26 Thus

scripture provides more accessible and more obvious forms of dis-cerning the divine presence for the fallen human being. Scripture,unlike the fallen visible cosmos, is ordered and therefore consti-

25 Periphyseon V.959B (CCCM 165 : 139 ll. 4486-92) : Eo enim modo spi-ritualis medicinae imaginem suam deus uoluit et in se ipsam et ad se ipsumreuocare, ut rerum mutabilium taedio fatigata et exercitata immutabiliumaeternorumque stabilitatem contemplari desideraret ardenterque uerorum

incommutabiles species appeteret, in quarum absque ulla uarietate pulchri-tudine quiesceret. The same idea of the multiplicity of meanings is repeatedin Iohannis Scoti Eriugenae. Expositiones in Ierarchiam Coelestem, cap. II, 1(CCCM 31 : 24 ll. 146-51) : …ita theologia, ueluti quaedam poetria, sanctamscripturae fictis imaginationibus ad consultum nostri animi et reductionem acorporalibus sensibus exterioribus, ueluti ex quadam imperfecta pueritia, inrerum intelligibilium perfectam cognitionem, tamquam in quamdam interio-ris hominis grandeuitatem conformat.

26 Iohannis Scoti Eriugenae. Expositiones in Ierarchiam Coelestem, cap. II,1 (CCCM 31 : 24 ll.150-155) : Non enim humanus animus propter diuinam

scripturam factus est, cuius nullo modo indigeret, si non peccaret, sed prop-ter animum humanum sancta scriptura in diuersis symbolis atque doctriniscontexta, ut per ipsius introductionem rationabilis nostra natura, iterum inpristinam pure contemplationis reduceretur altitudinem.


12/28

adrian guiu274

tutes the prime tool of the great pedagogue, the Creator, to bringthe fallen human being back to the unity of creation.

This idea is expounded clearly in the Homily on the Prologue ofJohn when the exegete gives an exposition of the verse from theGospel of John : et vita erat lux hominum.27 The light of the peo-ple, Eriugena explains, has forsaken the world when the humanbeing has forsaken God. In this predicament, scripture, the writ-ten book, and creation, the visible book, remain the only possi-bilities for attaining divine knowledge. Both are written by, with,and in the divine Word. So in order to learn to discern the hidden

presence of Christ, one has to learn to read these books. The lightof Christ can be discerned as a refulgence in the visible forms ofcreation and scripture. The task of the interpreter is to becomeagain able to infer the theophanic presence28 of the Word, who canbe discerned in the “visible forms, either those in the nature ofthings, or in the sacraments of divine scripture.”29 Visible forms,either those of creation or those of scripture, are reflections ofdivine providence and make it present theophanically. As Eriu-gena says :

And there are two ways in which the divine light makes itselfknown to the world. Because the divine knowledge cannot berestored in us but by the letters of scripture and by the specta-cle of creatures. Study the words of scripture and in your spirit,understand the signification : you will discover the Logos. Throughyour corporal sense observe the forms and the beauty of sensiblethings : in them you will understand the Logos of God.30

27 Hom. Prol. in Ioh. XI. 289B, SC 151 : 252ff.28 See Hilary A. Mooney, Theophany : The Appearing of God according to

the Writings of Johannes Scottus Eriugena (Tübingen : Mohr Siebeck, 2009),pp. 85-152. For a recent discussion of theophanies and how they are inter-preted in East (through Dionysius) and West (through Augustine) see BogdanBucur, “Dionysius East and West : Unities, Differentiations, and the Exegesisof Biblical Theophanies,” Dionysius 26 (2008) : 115-138.

29 Expositiones, I, 3, CCCM 31 : 15 ll. 510-515) : uisibiles formae, siue quasin natura rerum, siue quas in sanctissimis diuinae scripturae sacramentis con-templatur.

30 Hom. Prol. in Ioh. XI.289C, SC 151 : 254 ll. 12 -18 : Dupliciter ergo luxaeterna seipsam mundo declarat, per scripturam uidelicet et creaturam. Non

enim aliter in nobis diuina cognitio renouatur, nisi per diuinae scripturae api-ces et creaturae species. Eloquia disce diuina et in animo tuo eorum concipe


13/28


Thus, in Eriugena’s view, reading scripture and creation pro-vides a necessary exercitatio for the alumnus and for the nutri-tor.31 The Periphyseon itself can be regarded as a great exerciseof reading scripture : the Hexaemeron provides a privileged train-ing ground for achieving the contemplation of creation which willallow the discussants and the readers to discern God’s theophanicpresence. The fallen soul needs this training through the readingof scripture in order to be able to re-learn the correct reading ofthe book of creation.

From this perspective, the multiplex theoria offered by the

Periphyseon corresponds to the infinite multiplicity, richness anddifficulty of scripture. The vast and unfathomable character ofscripture is a constant adage in the Periphyseon. This is both trueof the meaning of scripture and of the possibilities of its interpre-tation.32 Thus the density and variety of scripture is not problem-atic but felicitous for Eriugena ; he regards multiplicity of mean-ings and layers as a necessary exercise ground for those who wantto retrain their ability to contemplate the divine. The Periphyseon could be regarded as such an attempt at returning to the divine

by going through the training regimen of scripture. Moreover,going through the regimen of scripture also allows one to becomea better reader and observer of creation, as expressed in the fol-lowing passage :

intellectum, in quo cognosces uerbum. Sensu corporeo formas ac pulchritu-dines rerum perspice sensibilium, et in eis intelliges dei uerbum.

31 I got this insight from Henri-Irenée Marrou’s discussion of Augustine’searly dialogues and the De Trinitate ; thus the convoluted character of the

dialogue is not due to a lack of rhetorical prowess but is intentional. It hasa pedagogical-performative rationale ; the digressions are supposed to refine,train, and correct, the understanding of the readers in order to prepare themfor the contemplation of the divine realities. In a similar manner the digres-sions and sometimes convoluted character of the conversation are meant as a‘training ground’ for using the arts in the proper way for reading Scriptureand creation. See Henri-Irenée Marrou, Saint Augustin et la fin de la cultureantique (Paris : Boccard, 1938), pp. 297-327.

32 Periphyseon II. 560A (CCCM 162 : 46 l. 385) : sed quoniam sacrae scrip-turae interpretatio infinita est ; cf. also Periphyseon IV. 749C (CCCM 164 : 13

ll. 312-316) : Est enim multiplex et infinitus divinorum eloquiorum intellec-tus. Siquidem in penna pavonis una eademque mirabilis ac pulchra innumer-abilium colorum varietas conspicitur in uno eodemque loco eiusdem pennaeportiunculae.


14/28


15/28


Suppose man had not sinned or been degraded to the likeness ofthe beasts : would he then be ignorant of the boundaries of this

world (that is) his possession which he would most righteouslygovern according to the laws of nature ? For he who even afterhis fall did not entirely lose the dignity of his nature should havebeen another angel to praise God in his sensible creatures. Forthere remains in him an impulse of the reason to seek the knowl-edge of things and to be unwilling to fall into error, although hedoes so in many things, yet not in all. 36

In Book III, the teacher brings up this argument in order to groundhis procedure of providing measurements for a variety of physical

bodies in the context of his exposition of the fourth day. In thisquite lengthy section he discusses the opinions of Eratosthenes,Pliny and Pythagoras, offering a series of theories about themeasurement of the earth and planets. Summarizing, he states :

And although nothing definite is found in the divine scripture con-cerning such measurements of the sizes and distances of the bodiesof the world, yet the divine authority not only does not prohibitthe investigation of the reasons of things visible and invisible, buteven encourages it. For, says the apostle, ‘from the creation of

the world his invisible things are seen, being understood from thethings that have been made.’37

Nevertheless, there are several instances in which Eriugena willhave recourse to nature to shed light on difficult passages in scrip-

studio nostram intelligentiam exercendi sudoris que et inuentionis praemiireddendi : Praemium quippe est in sancta scriptura laborantium pura perfec-

taque intelligentia.36 Periphyseon III.723D (CCCM 163 : 149, ll. 195-202) : Quid si homo non

peccaret inque similitudinem iumentorum caderet ? Num possessionis suae(mundi huius profecto) terminos ignoraret, quos naturae legibus iustissimeregeret ? Oportebat enim alium angelum esse, qui in creaturis sensibil ibusdeum laudaret. Qui nec post delictum naturae dignitatem omnino perdidit.Manet enim in eo rationabilis motus, quo rerum notitiam appetit, et nequefalli uult, quamuis in multis fallatur, non tamen in omnibus.

37 Periphyseon III. 723C (CCCM 163 : 148, ll. 4336-4342) : Et quamuis indiuinis scripturis de talibus mundanorum corporum dimensionibus magni-

tudinum et interuallorum nil diffinitum reperiatur, diuina tamen auctoritasrationes rerum uisibilium et inuisibilium non solum non prohibet, uerumetiam hortatur inuestigari. “Inuisibilia enim eius”, ait Apostolus, “a creaturamundi per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspiciuntur.”


16/28

adrian guiu278

ture. Thus, Eriugena walks on a two-way street between scriptureand nature.38

At one point in book IV, the two discussants ponder possibleinterpretations of the Genesis verse : “Let the waters bring forthliving souls, both creeping things and things that fly above theearth.” In order to adjudicate the correct interpretation of scrip-ture, the teacher has recourse to natural interpretation : “Far fromanything preventing us, reason herself, in my opinion if we couldbut listen to her more carefully, insists that we should understandthe relation which exists between the sacred text and reality.”39

The argument provided by the teacher is quite telling with regardto the relationship between the facts of scripture and those ofcreation, of the rerum factarum. In his view the variety of interpre-tations of scripture reflects the way the multiplicity of creaturesin nature has its origin in just four elements ; the entire diver-sity of creatures is being brought to life by the life force throughthe “potency of seeds” contained in the four elements. So, evenas they deal with the interpretation of scripture, the conversantsrely on the authority of the natural philosophers : “Your account

is logical and likely, for it accords with the observations of thenaturalists.”40

When it comes to clarifying one of the great stumbling blocksabout the fact that God both creates and is created,41 the pupil pro-poses again to stick to the path of reason in order to avoid fallacy

38 Otten argues that this is based on the centrality of the incarnation : “[…]the centrality of Christ’s incarnation forces Eriugena in the end to regard the

difference between nature and scripture as secondary if not peripheral.” “TheParallelism of Nature and Scripture : Reflections on Eriugena’s IncarnationalExegesis,” in : Iohannes Scottus Eriugena. The Bible and Hermeneutics, eds.G. van Riel, C. Steel, and J. McEvoy (Leuven : Leuven University Press,1996), p. 91. While I concur with her position, I would add that this is also isdue to the value he assigns to the authority of reason.

39 Periphyseon IV. 749C (CCCM 164 : 13, ll. 310-312) : Non solum, ut opinor,nil obstat, uerum etiam ut ita intelligimus ea quae scripta sunt secundumueritatem rerum factarum, ratio ipsa intentius considerata nos aduocat.

40 Periphyseon IV.750A (CCCM 164 : 14 ll. 336-7) : Rata haec uerique simi-

lia physeologiaque speculationibus conueniunt.41 Periphyseon III. 650D (CCCM 163 : 47 l.1334) : Deus itaque omnia est etomnia deus ! (“that God is Himself both the maker of all things and made inall things.”)


17/28


and to be able to go beyond the surface of the letter : “Thereforethe path of reasoning must start from illustrations drawn fromnature, which no one [unless] blinded by excessive folly rejects.”42 In order to pursue this plan, the teacher proposes a detour intothe liberal arts, especially arithmetic. The task of this detour isto prove that all numbers derive from the Monad but that theMonad remains unchanged. The conclusion and proof are crucialfor the argument of the Periphyseon. “For by these arguments itis established and clearly understood wherein they are eternal andwherein and how they become made so that not without reason we

see that they are both eternal and made.”43

What is important tonotice is that through recourse to arithmetic, the two discussantsmanage to establish the principle that God both creates and iscreated and thus manage to avoid forfeiting the arch principle ofGod’s unchangeability ; the stakes of the teacher in this issue arequite high, because on it depends the entire monistic ontology ofthe Periphyseon.

The same procedure of using natural contemplation in order toascend to higher levels of contemplation is found at another cru-

cial moment : at the beginning of Book V, when Eriugena usesexamples from creation at the beginning of the explanation of thereturn. He says : “I think it is as clear as day to all who studyeither by abstract speculation or concrete experience the nature ofthe physical universe that the heavenly sphere of the fixed starsis perpetually revolving and returns to its original position everytwenty four hours.” After recapitulating the movements of the dif-ferent heavenly bodies he concludes : “the natural laws governingthe revolutions of the two greatest luminaries will provide suffi-

cient evidence for the doctrine I am trying to affirm.”44 The goalof his approach here is to discern the ‘mystical meaning’ which is

42 Periphyseon III. 651A (CCCM 163 : 47 ll. 1347—1349) : Proinde natu-ralibus exemplis, quibus nisi nimia stultitia excaecatus nemo resistit, primoratiocinationis uia incipienda est.

43 Periphyseon III. 660D (CCCM 163 : 60-61 ll. 1722-1725) : His enim argu-mentis conficitur clareque intelligitur ubi aeterni sunt, et ubi et quomodo

patiuntur fieri, ut non immerito perspiciamus eos et aeternos esse et factos.44 Periphyseon V. 866B (CCCM 165 : 10 ll. 243-245) : Sufficit enim duorummaximorum luminarium naturales leges et reuolutiones ad ea quae conamurasserere suadenda posuisse.


18/28

adrian guiu280

revealed “by the general and particular movements of the sensibleworld.”45

The second kind of proofs he adduces is from things that canonly be perceived by the mind. He goes through the principles ofthe various liberal arts in order to prop up their position : “Justas we have taken some illustrations of the return of nature fromthe sensible world, so in like manner we should introduce as evi-dence of the same return theories of the intelligible world whichare only apprehensible to perception of the mind…and indeedwithout the guidance of reason and intelligence these can neither

be discovered nor proved, for the true knowledge of sensibles can-not be attained by corporal sense alone.”46 Then he proceeds toshow how each of the liberal arts displays the two fundamental,cosmic aspects of reality : exitus and reditus : dialectic starts fromthe most general of the genera, ousia, and proceeds through divi-sion until it reaches the smallest species ; from there it returns“according to the rules of synthesis by the same steps by whichit descended until it reaches the same ousia.”47 Arithmetic startsfrom the Monad and descends through all the species of number

and it retraces its steps back to the Monad.We see here how the teacher and the student repeatedly have

recourse to natural philosophy in order to confirm or to verifysome interpretative decisions they had taken with regard to theaccount of scripture. Eriugena does not always use scripture to

45 Periphyseon V. 867C (CCCM 165 : 12 ll. 299) : et uniuersaliter et particu-lariter motibus….

46 Periphyseon V. 868D (CCCM 165 : 13-4 ll. 349-359) : …ut quomodo exmotibus rerum sensibilium quaedam exempla de reditu naturae assumptasunt, ita etiam ex intelligibium contemplationibus quae sola mentis concep-tione percipiuntur ad eundem reditum suadendum introducantur [....] licet etilla sine rationis et intelligentiae ducatu nec inueniri nec approbari possint.Rerum nanque sensibilium ueram cognitionem solo corporeo sensu impossi-bile est inueniri.

47 Periphyseon V. 86BD-869A (CCCM 165 : 14 ll. 360-363) : Quid tibi uide-tur ? Nonne ars illa, quae a graecis dicitur dialectica et diffinitur bene dispu-

tandi scientia, primo omnium circa OYCIAN ueluti circa proprium sui prin-cipium uersatur….


19/28


read the cosmos, but also observes the cosmos in order to gain abetter grasp of the workings of scripture.48

Thus, like Maximus, Eriugena will choose the long route ofphysiology, of sifting through the outer shells of created beings inorder to penetrate the deeper meaning. The great task of physio-logia in the view of the teacher is to penetrate through the visibleforms in order to attain the theophanies of the invisible creator.What he wants to avoid is getting stuck at the surface of visiblethings and thus not to be able to penetrate into the deeper recessesof creation ; this exercise of going beyond the surface would allow

the attentive reader to go beyond the plurality of things towardsthe unity of creation in its origin and thus gain an inkling of thedivine creator. As he says :

Therefore, it is not a small step but a great and indeed profitableone from the knowledge of the sensible to the understanding ofthe intelligible. For as through sense we arrive at understanding,so through the creature we return to God. For we ought not likeirrational animals look only on the surface of visible things butalso give a rational account of the things which we perceive by

the corporeal sense.49

Through their exegetical travail to go beyond the surface of thevisible things, not by discarding it but by dwelling on it, we findEriugena’s apparently ambivalent attitude to allegory. As willbe seen below, on the one hand he seems to embrace it, but onthe other hand, he warns the reader against too quick a transittowards allegory. Because of the theophanic view of nature, pass-ing though creation is necessary.

48 Eriugena’s position is in this respect somewhat different from that ofothers in the tradition ; through these different instances in which he uses thecontemplation of nature he contradicts the position of Harrison who arguesthat medieval thinkers mainly use nature to interpret or unlock scripture.The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science (Cambridge : Cam-bridge University Press, 1998), pp. 44-56.

49 Periphyseon III.723B-C (CCCM 163 : 148-49 ll. 4342-4348) : Non paruusitaque gradus est, sed magnus et ualde utilis sensibilium rerum notitia ad

intelligibium intelligentiam. Ut enim per sensum peruenitur ad intellectum,ita per creaturam reditur ad deum. Nam non, sicut irrationabilia animalia,solam superficiem rerum uisibilium oportet nos intueri, uerum etiam de hisquae corporeo sensu percipimus rationem reddere debemus.


20/28

adrian guiu282

The Divisions of Knowledge

The question about the place of exegesis in the Periphyseon isclosely related to the question of the genre and overall characterof the work. Eriugena establishes a suggestive connection betweenthe exegetical method and the type of science practiced in the dif-ferent sections of the Periphyseon. The connection between exege-sis, physiology and the Maximian theoria physikè will again becomeclear. I argue that the parallelism between the exegetical level andthe corresponding science could provide a map for the trajectory

of the conversation but also give us a better understanding as tothe goal of the enterprise.The diligent and cautious Alumnus is ever ready to hold the

speculative teacher accountable to the method and procedure theyare following. After a recapitulation of the traditional account ofthe primordial causes, the student retraces the entire discussionthrough the epistemological stages and the sciences necessary toascend through the hierarchy of the causes. Thus, he offers a divi-sion of the genus of the most general of the primordial causes,

goodness. From the primordial cause of goodness he descends toessence, from essence to life and from life to reason. At this pointof the division, the student distinguishes two species of reason :rational and irrational. This division gives him the occasion tooffer a division of the sciences. After he has offered an ontologicaldivision, he offers an epistemological division. The transit betweenthe two aspects of reality is made through wisdom. Therefore theywill have to dwell on this division and explain how the soul canascend to it.

The first species of reason, wisdom, is the discipline whichfocuses on the primordial level of creation which is detached fromgeneration. “For the proper definition of wisdom is that power bywhich the contemplative mind, whether human or angelic, contem-plates the eternal and immutable things of God, whether it con-cerns itself about the first Cause of all things or about the primor-dial causes of nature which the Father created in his Word.”50 The

50 Periphyseon III.629A (CCCM 163 : 17 ll. 433-437) : Sapientia nanque pro-prie dicitur uirtus illa, qua contemplatiuus animus siue humanus siue angeli-

cus diuina aeterna et incommutabilia considerat, siue circa primam omniumcausam uersetur, siue circa primordiales rerum causas, quas pater in uerbo


21/28


knowledge provided through sapientia is unitary and unmediated :at this level any exteriority or plurality is resolved into a perfectcontemplative activity of the primordial causes.

The second species, science, is different from sapientia becauseit deals with plurality. Science, which the alumnus also refers toas physics, is

the power by which the contemplative mind, whether human orangelic, discourses on the nature of the things which proceed fromthe primordial causes through generation and which are dividedinto genera and species by means of differences and properties […]

whether it is distributed over places and times, or outside placeand times, is unified and indivisible by reason of its simplicity ;and this species of reason is called physics. For physics is the nat-ural science of natures which are susceptible to senses and intel-lects ; and the discipline of morals always follows it.51

So science deals with created beings which have descended fromthe unity of the primordial causes through generation into theplurality and diversity of creation. The domain of physics, in thestudent’s view, includes all generated things. Lower than physics,

Eriugena puts ethics, which for him seems to have a preparatoryrole.52

suo semel simulque condidit. This seems to correspond to Boethius’s descrip-tion of theology : theologica, sine motu abstracta atque separabilis (nam dei sub-stantia et materia et motu caret) ( De Trin. II, 3).

51 Periphyseon III.629A-B (CCCM 163 : 17 ll. 438-447) : Scientia uero estuirtus, qua theoreticus animus, siue humanus siue angelicus, de natura rerumex primordialibus causis procedentium per generationem inque generationeminque genera ac species diuisarum per differentias et propriates tractat, […]

siue locis et temporibus distributa siue ultra loca et tempora sui simplici-tate unita atque inseparabilis. Quae species rationis physica dicitur. Est enimphysica naturarum sensibus intellectibusque succumbentium naturalis scien-tia, quam semper sequitur morum disciplina.

52 There is a very important omission in the pupil’s enumeration of sci-ences : mathematics. In the Boethian-Aristotelian scheme the role of math-ematics is to mediate between changeability and immovability. “Mathemat-ics deals with that which is not in motion and not abstract (for this pondersforms of bodies without matter, and thus without motion ; but these forms,since they are in matter, cannot [actually] be separated from bodies” (Boe-

thius, De Trin. II, 2 : mathematica, sine motu inabstracta (haec enim formas corporum speculatur sine materia ac per hoc sine motu, quae formae cum in materiasint, ab his separari non possunt). Mathematics as the prime example of anintermediary science, plays an important role throughout the Periphyseon.


22/28

adrian guiu284

The Augustinian resonances in this distinction are not to bemissed.53 To a great degree Augustine’s and Eriugena’s distinc-tions are similar. But I would say that Eriugena offers a moredetailed division by dividing science itself into ethics and phys-ics. Thus, it can be said that Eriugena expands the Augustiniandistinction between scientia and sapientia through the Neoplatonicdivision of sciences : ethics, physics, theology. According to himphysics deals with things which proceed through generation andwhich are divided into genera and species. Thus, physics is thescience that deals with the realm of generation, with the division

into the variety of genera and species. In my view, Eriugena’s division of sciences is reflected inhis understanding of exegesis. In Book III, Eriugena is keen toemphasize several times that he does not offer an allegorical inter-pretation : his approach is rather more akin to physics, or as Eriu-gena calls it, physiology.54 First, he does this before launching inthe consideration of the second day. “Let us pass then to the con-sideration of the Second Day. And first it must be said that wehave at the moment no intention concerning the allegorical sense

of moral interpretations but are attempting under God’s guidance,to say a few things about only the creation of made things accord-

Therefore it is quite surprising that in this context it is not mentioned. Wouldit be possible that for Eriugena physics encompasses even mathematics ? Thiswould then underline the fact that physics has a great role of mediation andthat as a science it has a comprehensive character.

53 For the distinction scientia-sapientia, see Augustine, De Trinitate 13.24 ;see also the extensive discussion in Luigi Gioia, The Theological Epistemol-

ogy of Augustine’s De Trinitate (Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2008),pp. 81-113.

54 This seems to complicate the theory of Peter Harrison in The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science. I do not fully agree with Har-rison’s stark contrast between allegorical and literal readings and the conse-quences thereof for the reading of creation. As the case of Eriugena shows,there was much more continuity between literal and allegorical readings.There is a wide spectrum between literal and allegorical interpretation inEriugena. Nevertheless the value of Harrison’s insight is that reading scrip-ture was an exercise of reading creation and vice versa. Still he argues more

for going from scripture to creation but Eriugena also provides examples forthe reverse. This regard for the status of scriptural interpretation puts Eriu-gena’s enterprise in a clarifying l ight : reading scripture and reading creationare for him two complementary and almost coinciding ideas.


23/28


ing to the historical sense.”55 When he summarizes his approachto interpreting the text, in the preceding section, the teacher yetagain warns against moving to quickly towards the allegoricallevel. As an additional proof that his way of proceeding is correct,he offers another division of the sciences in which he underlinesthat one needs to pass through physics in order to arrive at theol-ogy : “let him carefully consider the fourfold division of wisdom :and first is πρακτική, (practical) ; second φυσική, (natural), third,θεολογία, which discusses God ; fourth λογική….”56

Finally, when he gives a recapitulation of the entire interpre-

tation, the teacher once again states this position : “Therefore, inall these instances we are not treating of allegory but only of thebare physical consideration, adapting the names of sensible thingsto signify invisible consideration, adapting the names of sensiblethings to signify invisible things in accordance with very estab-lished usage of Divine Scripture.”57

So it could be argued that in Books II, III, and the first part ofIV, Eriugena dwells on the physical interpretation of the accountof creation. When giving a review of his method, he intimates this

at the beginning of book IV : “The first intent of this our Physiol-ogy was” […].58 So at this juncture in the argument, looking backat the preceding books, Eriugena uses this term to sum up hisapproach before embarking on Book IV. What follows is describedas “a more advanced physical interpretation of man’s creation.”59

55 Periphyseon III.693C (CCCM 163 : 107 ll. 3092-96) : Ac prius dicendumquod de allegoricis intellectibus moralium interpretationum nulla nunc nobis

intentio est, sed de sola rerum factarum creatione secundum historiam paucadisserere, deo duce, conamur.56 Periphyseon III. 705B (CCCM 163 : 124 ll. 3582-3586) : Et est quidem

prima ΠPAKTIKH, (activa) ; secunda ΦYCIKH (naturalis) ; tertia ΘEOΛOΓIA(quae de deo disputat) ; quarta ΛOΓIKH (rationalis), quae ostendit quibusregulis de unaquaque trium aliarum sophiae partium disputandum.

57 Periphyseon III. 707B (CCCM 163 : 127 ll. 3657-60) : In his ergo omnibusnulla allegoria, sed nuda solummodo physica consideratio tractatur, mutua-tis sensibilium nominibus ad significanda inuisibilia frequentissimo diuinaescripturae usu.

58

Periphyseon IV.741C (CCCM 164 : 3 l. 2) : Prima nostrae physiologiaeintentio […]59 Periphyseon IV.763C (CCCM 164 : 3 l. 2) : altam valde humanae conditio-

nis physicam theoriam postulas.


24/28

adrian guiu286

Thus, in another way, Book IV also constitutes the transitionfrom physiology to theology. McGinn argues that this gear shift-ing to theological interpretation occurs when the teacher passesfrom the interpretation of the human being in genere animali tothe imago dei interpretation.60 Thus, as Eriugena moves towardsthe imago dei interpretation of the creation of man, the discussantsascend from physiology to theology. This move reflects the corre-spondence between the levels of knowledge, the levels of scriptureand the levels of the cosmos. In Book V, when giving an accountof the return of creation, the teacher offers a succinct account of

how the mind passes through the levels of knowledge : “First thetransit of mind into the knowledge (scientia) of all things whichcome after God ; secondly of that knowledge (scientia) into wisdom(sapientia), that is into the innermost contemplation of truth, in sofar as that is possible to a creature.”61

This is particularly evident in the exegesis of the Hexaemeron.Book III offers a mostly physical, historical interpretation of thecreation account. Book IV recaps the same themes and takesthe exegesis to a higher, more spiritual level by filtering every-

thing through the imago dei exegesis. The teacher argues that thehuman being was created last because all things were created init. Thus, in his view, the creation account could be read as occur-ring in the human being : the firmament (IV.783 B) signifies thecreation of the universal elements. The division of “dry land”from the “waters” refers to the creation of substance and of acci-dents within the human being. The creation of the two luminaries

60 “Book IV is crucial to his Genesis commentary because it is there thatEriugena’s ‘physical’ exposition of the creation account shifts gears. If theinterpretation of the first five days of creation (Gen 1 :1-23) could be con-ducted largely according to physica in Periphyseon II and III, as noted above,once the interpreter reaches verse 24 of chapter one and the words dixit quo-que Deus producat terra animam uiuentem in genere suo theological interpre-tation must take over.” See Bernard McGinn “The Originality of Eriugena’sSpiritual Exegesis,” in Gerd van Riel, Carlos Steel, and James McEvoy, eds., Iohannes Scottus Eriugena. The Bible and Hermeneutics, p. 67.

61 Periphyseon V.1020D (CCCM 165 : 225 ll. 7312-15) : Quorum unus tran-situs animi in scientiam omnium quae post Deum sunt, secundus scientiae in

sapientiam, hoc est contemplationem intimam ueritatis quantum creaturaeconceditur….


25/28


represents the intellect and lower faculty which can be deceived.The creation of the stars refers to the creation of the senses :

Thus the three modes of sensation are established in the threeorders of celestial luminaries. For as the sun is in the world, so isthe most sure and infallible mode of sense in man ; as is the moon,so is the ambiguous phantasy which is, as it were a doubtful lightto the sentient mind ; as are the stars so are the imperceptiblysmall numbers of phantasies which are produced by the innumer-able and imperceptible species of bodily objects.62

Otten adds another, clarifying lens to this by discerning three

levels of interpretation in Book IV.63 She points to the correspon-dences between the levels of scriptural interpretation and the levelsof anthropology. The first level is seen in the external approachaccording to which man is object of natura creata. I would arguethat this is the level of physical interpretation which correspondsto physics. The second level, man as imago naturae, represents theallegorical interpretation, corresponding to theology. It is at thislevel that the teacher recaps the creation account and takes it toa higher level of interpretation by reading it within the human

itself. Otten’s original reading is to establish a third level of inter-pretation : man as the reflective subject of nature. At this level thehuman intellect regains its status as an idea created in the divinemind and is able to absorb the entire creation through intellectualknowledge. This last level, which Eriugena elsewhere calls ‘gnosticknowledge’, corresponds to the unification of all creation in thehuman intellect and this is the goal towards which the dialogueworks its way.

If, before the gear-shifting moment of Book IV, the teacher hadinsisted on sticking with physical interpretation in order to allowall the important details to be seen, after this moment he points

62 Periphyseon IV.784C (CCCM 164 : 62 ll. 1751-1758) : Triplex itaque sen-tiendi modus in triplici caelestium luminarium ordine constituitur. Quodenim sol est in mundo, hoc est clarissimus et non fallens sensus in homine ; etquod luna, hoc est ambigua phantasia ac ueluti dubia lux animi sentientis ; etquod stellae, hoc est incomprehensibiles et minutissimi phantasiarum numeri,

ex innumerabilibus et incomprehensibilibus corporalium rerum speciebus pro-creati.63 See the extensive discussion in Otten, The Anthropology of Johannes

Scotus Eriugena, (Leiden, Brill, 1991), pp. 153-176.


26/28

adrian guiu288

to the necessity of ascending to the higher level of allegory. Thenecessity to move from the physical, natural interpretation to ahigher level is spelled out clearly by the teacher : “Error andextreme difficulty in interpretation are experienced by those whoadopt one and the same species of exposition without allowing fortransition to various figurations (absque ullo transitu in diuersasfigurationes).”64

Besides Abraham, the other great example of penetrating to thedeeper levels of creation is Plato. Eriugena uses the topos of thespoils of Egypt in quite a striking way. There was nothing prob-

lematic about the spoils, but the fact that they were not put togood use :

And if any should blame us for using philosophical arguments lethim consider God’s people when they were fleeing Egypt and fol-lowing the divine counsel took spoils with them and were not repre-hended for using those spoils-especially as those who are skilled innatural science are reprehended not because their reasoning aboutthe visible creature is at fault, but because they have not suffi-ciently penetrated beyond it to its author [for they ought to havediscovered the creator from the creature, which only Plato did].65

Maximus’s account of Adam’s curse and the ‘eating of earth’ inQuaestiones ad Thalassium66 epitomizes for Eriugena the travailof true contemplation of nature.67 The teacher’s exposition of the

64 Periphyseon V.1010B (CCCM 165 : 210 ll. 6810-6812). See also above n. 36.65 Periphyseon III.724A-B (CCCM 163 : 150 ll. 4363-4371) : Et si quis nobis

in culpam reputauerit quod philosophicis ratiocinationibus usi sumus, uideatpopulum dei Aegypto fugientem, eiusque diuino consilio admonitus spolia

ferentem, 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.

66 Maximus Confessor, Quaestiones ad Thalassium 5 (CCSG 7 : 64-67, PG 90,277 B-280 B).

67 Periphyseon IV.857D (CCCM 4 : 164 ll. 5063-5077) : “Quam terram perpracticam philosophiam per multas comedit tribulationes, purgatam perconscientiam maledictione operum turpitudinis. Et iterum germinatas in

eo, instar spinarum, cogitationes circa corporum generationem ac (uelutitribulos) circa incorporalium prouidentiam iudiciumque scatentes opinionesratione purgans, physicam (ueluti foenum) carpit spiritualiter theoriam. Etsic, quasi in sudore uultus, scibili intelligentiae secundum scientiam uultu


27/28


passage is a very suggestive account of the Periphyseon itself.Like Adam, the interpreter of scripture and the contemplator ofthe cosmos needs to till the earth through physical contemplationin order to clean it from thorns and thistles so as to be able topenetrate to the deep core of theology. Only through this tediouswork, can one hope to collect the grass of knowledge and finallyacquire the bread of theological knowledge. To Eriugena, this tra-vail of going through the thickness68 of creation is as importantas the attainment of the highest level of contemplation. It can besaid without hesitation that he has truly appropriated the anti-

Origenist sentiment underlying Maximus’s thought and thereforeregards mediation as essential for the return to God. The meande-ring and mediated ascent performed in the Periphyseon is in manyways the result of his Maximian Neoplatonism which regards crea-tion, the visible, and nature as theophanic conduits to God.

Conclusion

The main question I set to answer in this article is why a work

which sets out as a logical exercise of division (to divide the mostuniversal genus : that of nature) dwells so much on the exegesis ofGenesis. I have argued here that the extensive Hexaemeral com-mentary has to be understood through the lens of the two-booktradition : the parallelism between scripture and creation whichEriugena appropriates from Maximus Confessor. Also, the readingof creation and scripture is performed through the method forgedby Eriugena : physiologia, a grand project of reading the ‘twobooks,’ creation and scripture, as the two incarnations of Christ in

order to discern the theophanies of the creator and thus return to

incorruptibilem theologiae comedit panem, solum uere uitalem et comeden-tium se conseruantem ad incorruptibilitatem generationem. Terra itaque estbene comesa ipsa per actionem cordis purgatio ; foenum uero, ipsa secundumnaturalem theoriam eorum quae facta sunt scientia : panis autem, uera secun-dum theologiam mysteriorium doctrina.” Hactenus Maximus.

68 For an extensive treatment of thickening (incrassatio) as image and ideain the Periphyseon, see Willemien Otten, “Creation and Epiphanic Incarna-

tion. Reflections on the Future of Natural Theology from an Eriugenian-Emersonian Perspective,” in B.S. Hellemans, W. Otten and M. B. Pranger(eds.), On Religion and Memory (New York : Fordham University Press, 2013),64-88.


28/28

adrian guiu290

the source and unity of all. I have argued further that physiologia itself should be traced to Maximus’s theoria physikè which triesto contemplate both nature and scripture in order to discern thedivine presence.69

Thus, as a Neoplatonist, Eriugena knows that the highest levelof viewing the cosmos is that of the intellect, but as a followerof Maximus, he knows that mediation is also crucial. In otherwords, at the level of the intellect, theoria or theologia can only beachieved by passing through, by transiting through the lower lev-els. For Eriugena, physiologia is about passing through the thick-

ness of creation and of scripture in order to discern the theophanicmediation of God. So the goal of the nutritor and his pupil is toreach the highest level of knowledge, that of theology, but onlyafter patiently tilling the ground of scripture by treading the pathof reason through the physiologia of creation and scripture.

69 Exploring this last connection in more detail through a stronger focuson the Maximian background of Eriugena constitutes the task of a futureproject.

Date post:	08-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	roberti-grossetestis-lector
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Guiu2014 “Reading the Two Books”-Exegesis and Natural Contemplation in the Periphyseon

Documents