An Orthodox Evaluation of Certain Teachings in the Writings

of John Scotus Eriugena

in Light of the Theology of St Gregory Palamas
y !eacon Geoffrey "eady
http://web.archive.org/web/20031210140924/http://www.nireland.com/orthodox/eri
ugena.htm
Contents
Introduction
A Brief Life of John Scotus Eriugena
John Scotus Eriugena and St Gregory Palamas on the Doctrine of God
John Scotus Eriugena and St Gregory Palamas on the Doctrine of Man and His
Salvation
onclusion
Endnotes
Bi!liogra"hy
#ntroduction
He ma#es a "athetic and not undignified figure$ this eager$ slightly%!uilt Irishman$
&ith his su!tle mind$ his studious ha!its$ his dee"ly reverent s"irit$
his almost fanatical devotion to the &ise men of former days$
Pagan or hristian$ &ho had lived in the light of a &ider civilisation'
called u"on to fight the !attles of the (est &ith arms forged in the East$
and re"rimanded even in the hour of con)uest for having transgressed the rules of the
field*
Alice Gardner$ Studies in John the Scot*
He deviated from the "ath of the Latins
&hile he #e"t his eyes intently fi+ed on the Gree#s,
&herefore he &as re"uted an heretic*
(illiam of Malmes!ury$ de Pontificibus*
John Scotus Eriugena stands as a remar#a!le figure in the s"iritual history of the
hristian (est* His native Ireland &as insula sanctorum - the .Isle of the Saints$. &here
/rthodo+ hristianity$ "lanted !y Saint P0draig in the fifth century$ had ta#en such root
that it had created an entire monastic culture and "roduced countless thousands of
glorified saints* By the ninth century$ ho&ever$ the A"ostolic and Patristic 1radition of
glorification &hich had transformed Ireland &as coming under an attac# &hich &ould
ultimately "rove more devastating than those of the 2i#ings &ho &ere !y no& violently
raiding monastic settlements along the Irish coasts*
In the arolingian 3ran#ish #ingdoms of (estern Euro"e$ a ne& and very different form
of hristianity &as ta#ing sha"e as a result of the 3ran#s4 desire to distance themselves
from the centre of /rthodo+ hristianity at onstantino"le%5e& 6ome' the 3ran#s$
re7ecting the East 6omans as .Gree#s. and .heretics. in the infamous Libri Carolini and at
synods in 3ran#fort and Aachen$ created a ne& 3ranco%Latin church !ased largely u"on
e+cesses in the theology of Augustine of Hi""o and an ecclesial "olity founded on
feudalism* /ver the follo&ing centuries$ this 3ranco%Latin faith &ould come entirely to
su""lant /rthodo+ hristianity in the (est$ !y ta#e%over 8the Patriarchate of 6ome in the
99th century: and invasion 8the 5orman on)uests of 9;<< and 99=;:* >et in the mid%
ninth century$ /rthodo+y &as far from a""earing as a lost cause in the (est' the
3ran#ish innovations &ere o""osed !y Irish monastic foundations throughout the
continent as &ell as 8&ith the e+ce"tion of during the Schism of Po"e 5icholas I: !y the
Patriarchate of /ld 6ome itself$ es"ecially after the Eighth /ecumenical Synod of ?=@*
It is during this "eriod that &e find the Irishman$ John Scotus Eriugena$ coming among
the 3ran#s as schoolmaster at the court of harles the Bald$ the grandson of
harlemagne himself$ and "resenting to them the theology of the Irish monastic tradition
&ithin &hich he &as raised* In order to defend the s"iritual e+"erience of glorification
8theosis:$ he turned naturally to the East$ reading as much as "ossi!le of the Gree#%
s"ea#ing 3athers*A9B Indeed$ des"ite the "re7udices of the 3ran#ish society in &hich he
found himself$ .all his sym"athies &ere &ith the East*.ACB An .enthusiastic student of
ByDantine hristianity$.AEB Eriugena dedicated himself to .finding the authentic hristian
truth in Gree# sources*.AFB Inevita!ly$ though$ his a""roach and his teaching !rought him
into conflict &ith 3ranco%Latin scholastic theologians$ and he ended u" !eing condemned
for his .heretical. vie&s*
(hile an e+haustive study of Eriugena from an /rthodo+ "ers"ective is !eyond the sco"e
of this "a"er$ &e shall evaluate certain as"ects of his doctrine of God and of man and his
salvation in light of the theology of an /rthodo+ 3ather$ St Gregory Palamas$ &ith &hom
he may !e li#ened in some "rofound &ays* Both &ere .mystical theologians$. ma#ing the
"rimary concern of their theology safeguarding the reality of man4s glorification in hrist*
Both &ere dee"ly influenced !y the a""adocians$ !y St Ma+imos the onfessor and !y
the Araeo"agite cor"us* Both &ere dra&n reluctantly into controversy to defend /rthodo+
s"iritual e+"erience against the s"eculations of scholastic theologians - s"eculations
founded ultimately$ though neither Eriugena nor Palamas com"letely realised this$ u"on
the errors of Augustinianism*
It may !e o!7ected that$ des"ite these similarities$ an evaluation of Eriugena4s teachings
from a Palamite "ers"ective is inherently unfair$ since St Gregory lived and &rote some
four and a half centuries after Eriugena* >et &e should remem!er that$ unli#e the 3ranco%
Latin (est$ /rthodo+y #no&s of no doctrinal develo"ment over time* As St Gregory
Palamas himself attests$ the fullness of revelation and glorification &as given to the
A"ostles at Pentecost, it has !een the res"onsi!ility of each succeeding generation$ not
to add to that A"ostolic e+"erience$ !ut to e+"erience ane& the same glorification* (hat
may a""ear$ in the &ritings of the 3athers and the definitions of the /ecumenical Synods$
as ne& doctrines$ are sim"ly the defence of this true s"iritual e+"erience against heresies
&hich see# to undermine it* 1herefore$ &hat concerns us in our evaluation of the
teaching of John Scotus Eriugena is not &hether or not he articulates his theology in
e+actly the same terms as St Gregory Palamas - &hich &ould !e im"ossi!le* 6ather$
using Palamite theology as a touchstone and summation of the /rthodo+ Patristic
1radition$ &e shall attem"t to determine ho& successfully Eriugena is a!le to reclaim that
tradition to defend the e+"erience of glorification in his o&n day and theological conte+t*
/n this !asis$ &hat is remar#a!le a!out Eriugena is that$ des"ite his isolation from and
limited access to the Gree#%s"ea#ing 3athers$ his theological .system$. &hile far from
"erfect$ is sur"risingly harmonious &ith that of the un!ro#en /rthodo+ 1radition inherited
!y St Gregory Palamas*
A $rief Life of John Scotus Eriugena
Before &e launch into our evalution of his theology$ it may "rove hel"ful to recall some of
the im"ortant as"ects of Eriugena4s life* His name literally means John the Scot
8i.e.Irishman:$AGB !orn in Ireland 8/ld Irish$ riu, rinn:*A<B Hnfortunately$ he is often
mista#enly confused &ith the 3ranciscan "hiloso"her John Duns Scotus$ &ho taught at
/+ford in the 9Eth century*
Eriugena &as !orn sometime !et&een !et&een ?;; and ?9G* (e do not #no& much
a!out him !efore he came to the court of harles the Bald around ?F=$ !ut &e may
assume he &as educated in his native land at one of the many famous Irish monasteries*
He &as never ordained$ !ut he must have !een a scholar of some re"utation$ for Iing
harles invited him to !ecome the head of his Palace School$ and as#ed him to translate
into Latin the &or#s of St Dionysios the Araeo"agite* 3rom certain "oems and other
&or#s dedicated to the #ing$ as &ell as from anecdotes told a!out their relationshi"$
A=B Eriugena and the #ing a""ear to have !een on fairly good terms* Indeed$ the scholar
&as to count on that royal "atronage to "rotect him from ecclesiastical "enalties on more
than one occasion*
Eriugena translated and &rote e+tensively during this time* He translated into Latin
almost all of the Araeo"agite cor"us &hich has come do&n to us, and he also translated
some &or#s !y St Ma+imos the onfessor* Profoundly influenced !y these Eastern
3athers$ as &ell as !y /rigen$ St Gregory of 5yssa$ and St Gregory the 1heologian$ he
also &rote his o&n commentaries on their &or#s$ some homilies$ some controversial
&or#s 8his &or# re7ecting Gottschal#4s doctrine of dou!le "redestination is still e+tant:$
and some "oems* /ne of his homilies$ on the Prologue of John .ran#s as one of the
greatest homilies of mediaeval s"iritual literature$.A?B and &as very &idely circulated
during the Middle Ages$ although under the name of /rigen or St John hrysostom*
Sometime !et&een ?<G and ?=;$ Eriugena also &rote his great &or#$
the Periphyseon 8peri physeos merismou:$ or de Divisione Naturae. It com"rises five
!oo#s$ and is framed as a dialogue !et&een a master and his disci"le* /ne commentator
!riefly descri!es the su!7ect of this &or# as the follo&ing' .1he first !oo# deals mainly
&ith the doctrine of God as the source of all, the second &ith the "rimal causes$ &hich
are a medium !et&een God and the creation, the third &ith the nature of the created
universe, the fourth and fifth &ith the return of all to God*.A@B
harles the Bald died in ?==$ and the follo&ing year$ Iing Alfred the Great of England
defeated the Danes and !rought relative "eace to England after many years of &ar* 1hus
the 9Cth%century account !y (illiam of Malmes!ury that Eriugena$ to&ards the end of his
life$ &as invited !y Alfred to !ecome master of the monastic school at Malmes!ury$ an
event often re7ected !y modern scholars$ is )uite "ro!a!ly accurate* 1he legend also
notes that he readily acce"ted Iing Alfred4s offer since he had gro&n .tired of the
sus"icions attaching to his &or# in 3rancia*.A9;B (hat is less certain is (illiam4s
descri"tion of Eriugena4s death shortly thereafter at the hands of his students &ho sta!
him &ith their "ens* But as one scholar notes$ .(hether or no the ugly story of his death
!y his scholars4 "ens may contain any truth$ he had to endure shar" thrusts from the
"ens of those &hom he sought to instruct$ and &ho &ere not a!le to a""reciate his
teaching*.A99B
Although (illiam4s account ends &ith Eriugena4s reverent !urial and even notes the
inscri"tion on his tom! calling him .Saint John the (ise$. he nevertheless remar#s that
Eriugena &as thought to !e a heretic*A9CB >et since Eriugena4s &or#s &ere not &idely
disseminated or understood$ he esca"ed definite censure for centuries* It &as only in
9CCG that Po"e Honorius III ordered that all co"ies of the Periphyseon should !e sent to
6ome to !e solemnly !urned* 3ortunately$ this "roved unsuccessful$ allo&ing a fe&
"eo"le$ nota!ly 5icolas of usa in the 9Gth century$ to study Eriugena4s &or#s* In 9<?9$
1* Gale "rinted the Periphyseon for the first time, and in 9<?F$ it &as "laced on
the Inde of "rohi!ited !oo#s !y the Po"e* In this &ay Eriugena remained almost
un#no&n for centuries* It too# the modern reaction against the .definite$ 7uristic$ inelastic
s"irit$ and all the influences &hich are summed u" in the &ord Latinity$. for interest to !e
#indled in his &or#s once again*A9EB
John Scotus Eriugena and St Gregory Palamas
on the !octrine of God
3or !oth John Scotus Eriugena and St Gregory Palamas$ one of the central )uestions in
theology$ that is$ in the doctrine of God$ is ho& the transcendent and the immanent in
God can !e "ro"erly reconciled* As &e shall see$ Eriugena4s a""roach$ though finally
fla&ed$ has much in common &ith that of Palamas and the Eastern tradition* Indeed$ it is
.in his theology$ first and foremost$ that &e see the Gree# and Eastern tone of John4s
mind as o""osed to the Latin or German and (estern tendencies of his times*.A9FB
A%o%haticism& the Transcendence of God
St Gregory Palamas ma#es e+tensive use of the Araeo"agite cor"us to develo" his
a"o"hatic theology and to safeguard the a!solute transcendence of God* Palamas &rites
that God infinitely sur"asses all names that could !e a""lied to Him$ &hether
nominalistically or conce"tually, He com"letely transcends all human &ords or thoughts,
indeed$ it is not even "ossi!le to affirm$ .God is un#no&a!le in His essence$. since He is
!eyond God 8hypertheos: and !eyond essence 8hyperousios:*
Li#e St Gregory$ Eriugena derives much of his a"o"hatic theology from the &ritings of the
Araeo"agite and St Ma+imos the onfessor$ !oth of &hich he not only translated !ut
)uotes fre)uently* Eriugena4s Latin contem"oraries .ac#no&ledged in &ords that God is
incom"rehensi!le$ yet they thought they #ne& "retty clearly His mind to&ards the &orld$
and &ere not afraid to attri!ute to Him many of their o&n im"ulses and
"assions*.A9GB(hereas the farthest they are &illing to "ush their via ne!ativa is to s"ea#
of the .o!scurity. of God$ Eriugena truly ado"ts the .transcending theology. of the
/rthodo+ 3athers* E+"laining the use of .a"o"hatic. and .#ata"hatic. theology$ he &rites'
/ne !ranch of theology$ named apophati"i$ denies that the divine essence 8ousia: or
su!stance 8hypostaseis: is one of the things that are$ that is$ of the things that can !e
named or understood, the other !ranch$ ho&ever$ namely "ataphati"i$ "redicates of the
divine essence all the things that are and$ for that reason$ is named 4affirmative4 - not
so as to esta!lish that the divine essence is any of the things that are$ !ut to argue that
all the things that stem from it can !e "redicated of it*A9<B
5one of the .things that are. can !e "redicated of the divine essence$ he says$ since God
is 8as Dionysios had &ritten: hyperousios$ hypera!athos$ and even hypertheos*A9=B Much
of Boo# I of the Periphyseon is ta#en u" &ith this #ind of a"o"haticism* As one
commentator e+"lains$ Eriugena carefully e+amines each of Aristotle4s .ten categories.
and finds that none of them can "ro"erly !e a""lied to God'
1hat of relation might seem to !e im"lied in the doctrine of the 1rinity$ !ut the
"hiloso"her sho&s that any "redication of relations such as fatherhood and sonshi" to the
Divine Being can only !e figurative* Locus$ &hich he ma#es e)uivalent to definition$
cannot !e asserted of that &hich is not contained in any intelligent mind* As to #uality$
&e cannot ascri!e to the Hniversal even the highest of "ro"erties* He is not &ise and
good$ !ut more%than%&ise$ more%than%good$ and the li#e* He does not even fall under the
category of bein!$ since He is more%than%!eing* $ction and sufferin! may in Scri"ture !e
fre)uently "redicated of God* But such "redication is al&ays in a transferred or
sym!olical sense*A9?B
At the outset of his &or#$ therefore$ Eriugena clearly follo&s the /rthodo+ 3athers in
recognising the limits of s"ea#ing or &riting theology* He states this elo)uently in Boo# II
of the Periphyseon$ &riting' .But all these things are more dee"ly and truly thought than
they are "ut for&ard in s"eech$ and more dee"ly and truly understood than they are
thought$ and they are of a dee"er and truer nature than they are understood to !e, they
definitely transcend all understanding*.A9@B
Ex%erience& the #mmanence of God
Both St Gregory Palamas and John Scotus Eriugena "roceed from this realisation that
God sur"asses all human #no&ledge to the assertion that He has nonetheless chosen to
reveal Himself in "art to the &orld$ and es"ecially to those &ith true faith in Him* As &e
shall see in the ne+t section$ St Gregory ma#es a distinction in God !et&een His
transcendent and un#no&a!le essence$ and His immanent and communica!le energies*
By "artici"ating in these uncreated divine energies$ man attains an immediate #no&ledge
of God Himself 8though not His essence:* St Gregory stresses the e+"eriential and
em"irical nature of this #no&ledge of God, #no&ing God is not "ossi!le !y "hiloso"hical
s"eculation$ !ut only ac)uired !y an inner e+"erience of the reality$ an e+"erience
derived from "rayerful union &ith hrist &ho unites in Himself God and man*
Li#e Palamas$ Eriugena is an+ious to safeguard the "ossi!ility of real e+"erience of God
&ithout undermining His a!solute transcendence* As one commentator e+"lains$ it is
"recisely Eriugena4s !elief in the truth of the Bi!lical and Patristic 1radition &hich sets this
"arado+ !efore him'
1o Scotus$ as to Dionysios and his "redecessors$ God &as the su"er%essential$ su"er%
intellectual "rinci"le !eyond all !eing and thought$ though$ as a thin#ing man$ Scotus
&as !ound to find some relation !et&een that "rinci"le and the &orld of nature and of
humanity, and as a hristian man he &as !ound to !ring his as"iring theological
conce"tions into some sort of accord &ith the moral and religious teaching of the
Scri"tures and of the 3athers of the hurch*AC;B
As he "roceeds to his e+"lanation of ho& it is "ossi!le to #no& the un#no&a!le God$
Eriugena continues to follo& the Araeo"agite$ )uoting' .All divine things$ in so far as they
are manifested to us$ are #no&n only !y "artici"ation therein*.AC9B Li#e Palamas$ then$
our Irish scholar insists that any true #no&ledge of God comes from e+"erience and
"artici"ation$ not from rational thin#ing a!out Him* >et in descri!ing ho& this
"artici"ation is "ossi!le$ Eriugena seems to stray some&hat from the /rthodo+ Patristic
1radition$ suggesting that it is founded u"on a )ualitative similarity !et&een God and the
human soul'
In so far as 8man: "arta#es of divine and heavenly e+istence$ he is not animal$ !ut
through his reason and intellect and his thoughts of the Eternal$ he shares in celestial
!eing**** In that "art of him$ then$ is he made in the image of God$ &ith &hich alone God
holds converse in men that are &orthy*ACCB
In other &ords$ he a""ears to !e saying that it is "ossi!le for man to #no& God .!ecause
in his inmost su!stance he is of God*.ACEB
Eriugena clearly struggles &ith this "arado+ !ecause he does not ma#e the distinction
that Palamas does !et&een God4s essence and energies 8see !elo&:* He #no&s enough$
ho&ever$ to !ac# a&ay from suggesting that man can #no& God in His essence$ saying
that this "artici"ation in God is not a vision of the .Invisi!le. 8even in the !eatific vision
of the saints:$ !ut rather a vision of the .glory. of God*ACFB He develo"s this idea !y
using the Araeo"agite4s teaching on .theo"hanies*. According to Eriugena$ God reveals
His glory in a uni)ue fashion to each angel and man according to the measure he is a!le
to receive it*
Here Scotus stri#es more distinctly the note of su!7ectivity &hich mar#s all his system !y
ma#ing the theo"hany "ro"ortionate to the ca"acity of each mind$ &hether angelic or
human* He inter"rets the saying .In My 3ather4s house are many mansions. as signifying
the revelation made to each individual consciousness* As many as are the souls of the
saints$ so many are the divine theo"hanies*ACGB
In Eriugena4s system$ though$ &ithout the essence-energies distinction$ it is never )uite
clear &hether these theo"hanies are sim"ly manifestations of God .through the medium
of creation$. or &hether the .higher manifestations. achieved !y saints are a true
"artici"ation in God Himself 8&ithout actually #no&ing the Invisi!le God as %e is:*AC<B
>et$ des"ite this confusion$ Eriugena insists that the revelation of the .hidden mysteries.
of God ta#es "lace through the God%man$ Jesus hrist* ommenting on the "hrase .In
Him &as life, and the life &as the light of men. in the Prologue of John 89'F:$ he &rites
that hrist is called the .light of men.
!ecause it &as in man that He manifested himself not only to men$ !ut also to angels
and every created thing ca"a!le of "artici"ating in the divine #no&ledge* 3or He revealed
Himself to angels not through an angel$ nor to men through an angel$ !ut to men and
angels through a man$ not in a""earance$ !ut in true humanity itself$ &hich He too#
&holly to Himself in the unity of His .su!stance$. and gave #no&ledge of Himself to those
that #ne& Him* 1he light of men is$ therefore$ our Lord Jesus hrist$ &ho manifested
Himself in human nature to every rational and intellectual creature and revealed the
hidden mysteries of His divinity !y &hich He is e)ual to the 3ather*AC=B
In this hristocentric understanding of the revelation of God$ Eriugena is "erfectly
consistent &ith the /rthodo+ Patristic 1radition*
Essence and Energies
As noted a!ove$ St Gregory Palamas affirms the "ossi!ility of God acting in the &orld and
revealing Himself$ &ithout undermining the fact that He remains un#no&a!le in His
essence$ !y distinguishing !et&een God4s uncreated essence and uncreated energies* It
is through His uncreated energies$ His uncreated grace and glory$ that God sustains the
&orld, and it is in these energies that man can "artici"ate and have communion &ith
God* 3or Palamas$ to !elieve that man can "artici"ate in the divine essence &ould lead
either to "antheism 8all is God: or "olytheism 8all are gods:* 1his crucial distinction
!et&een God4s essence and energies is founded u"on the teachings of the Holy
Scri"tures and all of the 3athers$ though the hurch &ould &ait until the 9Fth century for
Palamas to articulate the doctrine in its clearest and final form*
Li#e Palamas$ John Scotus Eriugena also strives to ma#e some #ind of distinction in God
!et&een that &hich He reveals to the &orld and that &hich remains un#no&a!le* As &e
have seen$ Eriugena distinguishes !et&een the .Invisi!le. or .God Himself. on the one
hand$ and .God4s glory. on the other* Moreover$ he clearly states that man cannot
"artici"ate in God Himself$ !ut only in the divine glory* >et Eriugena falls short of the
/rthodo+ Patristic 1radition !y failing to teach e+"licitly that this divine glory is
uncreated* As much as he tries to !rea# free of it$ he seems im"risoned !y the
Augustinian idea$ !y his day dominant in the (est$ that the manifestations of the divine
glory or .theo"hanies. must ultimately !e considered creations of God$ not really the
direct e+"erience of uncreated energies*AC?B
Eriugena4s discussion of created and uncreated is a main su!7ect of Boo# I of
thePeriphyseon. He says that the term .nature. a""lies to all things$ .to those that are
and those that are not*.AC@B He goes on to divide nature into four categories' 8i: that
&hich creates and is not created, 8ii: that &hich is created and also creates, 8iii: that
&hich is created !ut does not create, and 8iv: that &hich neither creates nor is created*
Eriugena e+"lains that categories 8i: and 8iv: a""ly only to God' only God is uncreated$
and &e may s"ea# of Him as !oth creating and not creating* 1his does not mean that
there is a division in God$ !ut only in our thought of God*AE;B 1his much accords very
&ell &ith Palamas$ for it &ould not !e too much of a stretch to say that Eriugena is
s"ea#ing of the uncreated essence 8uncreated and .non%creating.: and the uncreated
energies 8uncreated and creating: of God* Li#e Palamas$ Eriugena distinguishes these$
!ut does not se"arate them* If only Eriugena had held to this$ and taught that man and
creation - that is$ category 8iii:$ created and non%creating - are a!le to share in God4s
energies$ !ut not His essence$ &e &ould have no trou!le affirming "erfect agreement
&ith Palamite theology*
1he real "ro!lem in Eriugena4s system$ ho&ever$ is category 8ii: - that &hich is !oth
created and creating* 1his category com"rises &hat he calls the ."rimordial causes. or
the .eternal ideas., they are !asically the divine attri!utes$ or in the terminology of the
Araeo"agite$ the divine .names*. Eriugena goes on to list some of these' Goodness$
E+istence$ Life$ 6eason$ Intelligence$ (isdom$ 2irtue$ Ha""iness$ 1ruth$ Eternity$
Greatness$ Love$ Peace$ Hnity$ and Perfection*AE9B Palamas also #no&s these divine
.names$. !ut for him they are manifestations of the uncreated divine energies, he has no
se"arate category of created divine ideas or attri!utes* Eriugena himself seems &illing to
follo& this same "ath$ for he insists that in themselves these names really are one$
divine$ eternal and uncreated - and thus !elong to category 8i:$ the .uncreated creating.
energies of God - &hile it is only &e &ho eperience them as multi"le and created*AECB
3or Eriugena$ &ho is not a!le to come to the "ro"er Palamite distinction !et&een essence
and energies$ "lacing the e+"erience of God4s uncreated energies in the category of
.created and creating. is necessary to guard against saying that it is "ossi!le to #no&
.&hat God is*. >et the result of having some #ind of created medium !et&een God and
man is that it tends to&ards re"lacing the "ersonal God of the Holy Scri"tures$ the Lord
&ho encounters man directly &ith no intermediaries$ &ith a mere conce"t or idea of God
- something &hich all of the 3athers$ and St Gregory Palamas es"ecially$ strongly re7ect*
Eriugena a""ears to realise this dangerous tra7ectory to&ards ma#ing God im"ersonal$
and com"ensates for it !y em"hasising the su!7ective and "ersonal nature of the divine
theo"hanies* (hile it is im"ossi!le to #no& .&hat God is$. and His .e+istence and
attri!utes can never !e demonstrated$. nevertheless God .can !e found and &orshi""ed
in the innermost shrine of the soul*.AEEB
God the Creator
1he sco"e of this "a"er does not admit a full commentary on and evaluation of John
Scotus Eriugena4s doctrine of creation$ !ut it is im"ortant to note that his teaching
de"arts from /rthodo+y "recisely &here he fails to recognise one of the "rinci"al
distinctions made !y all of the 3athers$ including St Gregory Palamas* 3or the 3athers$
&hile the generation of the Son and the "rocession of the S"irit are from God4s nature
8physis: from all eternity$ the creation of the &orld de"ends not on God4s nature !ut on
His &ill 8thelima:* 1herefore$ as 3r John Meyendorff e+"lains$ .this creative action is
conceived as optional$ "recisely !ecause it does not involve God4s nature and e+cludes
ontological continuity !et&een God and creation*.AEFB
Eriugena$ li#e Palamas$ !egins !y insisting that God indeed created the &orld e nihilo$
and that He is the cause and "rinci"le of all things* He &rites' .(e hold that all things are
from God$ and that they have not !een made at all !ut !y Him$ since !y Him and from
Him and in Him are all things made*.AEGB >et &ithout a "ro"er essence-energies
distinction$ once again Eriugena4s a"o"haticism leads him do&n a dangerous road* He
"ulls !ac# some&hat$ saying that God cannot literally !e .reator$. for this is sim"ly one
of the divine names*AE<B In fact$ since$ .according to the a"o"hatic theology of
Dionysios$ God Himself 4is nothing$4 !ecause He is 4su"eressential4 8hyperousios:$. &hen
&e say that God created e nihilo$ it is ."ossi!le$ and even necessary$ to say that God
creates out of Himself*.AE=B
If Eriugena had only distinguished "ro"erly !et&een God as hyperousios and the
uncreated divine energies &hich create and sustain the &orld$ he could more easily have
conceived of the crucial distinction !et&een divine nature and &ill* (hereas St Gregory
and the 3athers teach that creation is a free e+"ression of God4s goodness and love$
Eriugena tends some&hat to&ards the 5eo"latonic notion that the &orld e+ists as a
necessary emanation of God4s o&n nature*AE?B 1hat is certainly the sense of his
statements li#e$ .(hen &e hear it said that God ma#es all things$ &e ought to
understand sim"ly that God is in all things, that is$ that He su!sists as the Being of all
things.AE@B - an assertion &hich &ould !e )uite /rthodo+ if he &ere s"ea#ing
unam!iguously a!out the uncreated energies of God* 1he same is true of the follo&ing
"assage from Boo# III of thePeriphyseon$ in &hich Eriugena &rites elo)uently a!out the
"artici"ation of all creation in God'
(e ought not to understand God and the creature as t&o things distinct from one
another$ !ut as one and the same* 3or the creature is su!sisting in God, and God$
manifesting Himself$ in a marvellous and ineffa!le manner is created in the creature$ the
invisi!le ma#ing Himself visi!le and the incom"rehensi!le com"rehensi!le and the hidden
revealed*** and the sim"le com"osite*** and the infinite finite and the uncircumscri!ed
circumscri!ed*** and creating all things He is created in all things and ma#ing all things is
made in all things*** and He !ecomes all things in all things*AF;B
Hnli#e Palamas$ &ho em"hasises the radical se"aration !et&een the uncreated God and
His creation$ Eriugena seems un&illing to ma#e the nature of created things a!solutely
alien to divine nature* 3or him$ creation !ecomes .the theo"hany and self%multi"lication
of God*.AF9B And in so far as creation "re%e+isted in the divine ideas of the Logos$AFCB he
says that &e may say at the same time that .all things al&ays &ere$ and al&ays &ere
not*.AFEB
'ncreated Light
3ollo&ing the Bi!lical and Patristic 1radition$ !oth St Gregory Palamas and John Scotus
Eriugena &rite e+tensively a!out the e+"erience of God as light* 3or St Gregory$ God
actually is the Light$ though not according to His essence$ !ut in terms of His uncreated
energies* 1hus$ the e+"erience of the divine light is not the e+"erience of a created
sym!ol$ !ut of uncreated grace itself* Again$ &ithout the Palamite essence-energies
distinction$ Eriugena cannot )uite s"ea# of the divine light as uncreated$ though he
comes fairly close*
By the time of Eriugena$ the Augustinian understanding of the divine light as sim"ly a
meta"hor .for good$ salvation$ life and #no&ledge$. for the hristian life as a .movement
from the dar#ness of ignorance to the light of truth.AFFB &as firmly esta!lished in
(estern theology* It is remar#a!le$ therefore$ that Eriugena goes much further than
Augustine* He fre)uently )uotes the A"ostle Paul4s e+"ression that God d&ells in
.inaccessi!le light. 8I 1im* <'9<:, indeed$ for him$ God actually is .im"enetra!le
light*.AFGB He calls God the lu mentium 8noetic light: &ho illumines the dar#ened
intellect &ith .the !rightness of "ure #no&ledge*.AF<B He also develo"s the theme of the
light in his homily on the Prologue of John$ saying that God is .the light. &ho .illuminates
Himself$ ma#es Himself #no&n to the &orld$ and sho&s Himself to them that do not #no&
Him*.AF=B
Li#e Palamas$ Eriugena is careful not to e)uate the s"iritual e+"erience of light &ith a
vision of the un#no&a!le divine essence* (hile the glorified saints advance into that
&hich is .dar# from e+cess of light$.AF?B and even see God .face to face. according to the
ca"acity of each$AF@B Eriugena says that this is not a direct contem"lation of the Invisi!le
God$ !ut a theo"hany* 1he light is thus one of the .theo"hanies of truth$ not the truth
itself*.AG;B It is also a .true sym!ol. of .the "rocession of the light of the 3ather$ in
hrist$ &ho illumines the hidden "laces of dar#ness and ignorance*.AG9B
Trinitarian Theology and the Procession of the (oly S%irit
Before &e leave our discussion of John Scotus Eriugena4s doctrine of God$ &e should note
that in his 1rinitarian theology$ Eriugena agrees com"letely &ith the /rthodo+ East'
significantly$ .follo&ing the conventions of Eastern theology$. he .s"ea#s of three
su!stances in one essence$ &hereas (estern theology s"ea#s of three "ersons in one
nature*.AGCB
During his lifetime$ the &ilio#ue controversy &as 7ust heating u", the ouncil of Aachen
convo#ed !y harlemagne in ?;@ had declared the &ilio#ue necessary for salvation* In
res"onse$ Po"e Leo III had the original Sym!ol of 3aith &ithout the &ilio#ue engraved in
Latin and Gree# on silver shields and "laced at the doors of St Peter4s in 6ome* Eriugena
&as certainly a&are of this controversy$ and since he agreed &ith the Po"e that the East
6omans had the original reed$ the "osition ta#en !y the 3ranco%Latin !isho"s
em!arrassed him*AGEB In the Periphyseon, he demonstrates that he understands the
!asis of the Gree#%s"ea#ing 3athers4 1rinitarian theology$ referring s"ecifically to the real
difference they acce"t .!et&een the common ousia and the "articular hypostaseis and
unam!iguously affirming .that the generation of the Son and the "rocession of the S"irit
are to !e attri!uted to the substantia 8hypostaseis: of the 3ather alone*.AGFB 3or him$ the
Sym!ol of 3aith clearly says the Holy S"irit "roceeds from the 3ather alone$ and
deli!erately "recludes further s"eculation or discussion* 5evertheless$ he himself "refers
the 1rinitarian formula acce"ted !y earlier Latin%s"ea#ing 6oman 3athers as &ell as some
of the Eastern 3athers$ !y &hich it is declared that the "rocession of the Holy S"irit is
from the 3ather .through the Son. 8per filium:*AGGB
John Scotus Eriugena and St Gregory Palamas
on the !octrine of )an and (is Salvation
As in his theology$ so also in his anthro"ology and soteriology John Scotus Eriugena
!ases his teachings u"on the &ritings of the Araeo"agite$ St Ma+imos the onfessor$ and
the other Gree#%s"ea#ing 3athers he read and translated* He not only ado"ts their
theocentric anthro"ology$ agreeing &ith them that it is im"ossi!le to understand man
&ithout reference to God$ !ut also !orro&s and e+tends their .5eo"latonic scheme of
"rocession and return. in order .to e+"ress the Bi!lical conce"tions of creation$ salvation$
and restoration*.AG<B
Creation and *all of )an
1he starting "oint for the doctrine of man of !oth John Scotus Eriugena and St Gregory
Palamas is the creation of man in the image of God 8Gen* 9'C<%C=:* Hnli#e Palamas$
Eriugena does not inter"ret the Scri"tural terms .image. and .li#eness. as an e+"ression
of man4s vocation to gro&th from "otential to fulfilment in God, indeed$ he &ould tend to
see a greater realisation of human "otential already in the creation of Adam than St
Gregory &ould$ for the latter insists that Adam4s fall &as actually his failure to realise his
true "ur"ose of sharing in the divine life* 5evertheless$ !oth are in agreement that
creation in the image of God means that man4s true life is only to !e found in God*
/ne of the "rinci"al characteristics of St Gregory4s anthro"ology is his re7ection of the
"agan Gree# dualistic nature of man* Ado"ting the holistic a""roach of the Holy
Scri"tures$ he "resents the human "erson as a ."sychosomatic !eing$. a unity of !ody
and soul$ not a soul im"risoned in a !ody* By contrast$ Eriugena$ dra&ing e+tensively
from St Gregory of 5yssa$ is some&hat less o"timistic a!out the human !ody and the
material &orld* He agrees &ith Palamas that it is the soul &hich is the governing "rinci"le
of man$ that it is the soul &hich is most in the image of God* Palamite theology could also
admit his vie& that .the "reference of the material to the s"iritual AisB at the root of all
mischief*.AG=B >et Eriugena then goes on to say that all matter$ including human !odies$
is a .concourse of accidents$. &ith no real .su!stance. e+ce"t on the level of intelligi!ility*
AG?B In this &ay$ he sometimes a""ears to deny the "ermanent value of .visi!le$
historical e+istence$ human achievement and creativity in this &orld*.AG@B In the final
analysis$ ho&ever$ li#e Palamas$ he is a!le to re7ect "agan Gree# dualism$ and to affirm
the reality of the resurrection of !ody - though$ of course$ this &ill !e a .s"iritual !ody.
8cf. I or* 9G'FF:*
In "erfect agreement &ith the /rthodo+ Patristic 1radition re"resented !y St Gregory
Palamas$ Eriugena teaches that man4s true destiny is to attain glorification
8i.e.deification$ theosis: and share full communion &ith God* Part of !eing created in the
image of God involves the gift of free &ill' Eriugena teaches that free &ill$ .though a
great good$ is ca"a!le of a!use* It errs &hen it turns to itself$ to the out&ard$ and the
lo&er$ rather than to God$ to the in&ard$ and the higher*.A<;B Adam4s sin &as to use his
free &ill to o""ose God$ rather than to realise his true human "ur"ose* 1he fall &as thus
the .self%&illed turning a&ay from man4s "ro"er nature and first "rinci"le of
!eing*.A<9B As the "rivation of !eing and good$ evil itself has no "ositive or ultimate
e+istence*A<CBSignificantly$ Eriugena re7ects the Augustinian understanding of the fall$
not !y e+"licitly condemning Augustine$ nor even !y ignoring him$ !ut !y )uoting and
then com"letely re%inter"reting him* (hereas Augustine teaches that .natural man. is
sinful$ Eriugena$ li#e all of the /rthodo+ 3athers$ a""lies the term .natural. only to deified
man* Moreover$ unli#e Augustine$A<EB he denies that man lost his free &ill in the fall,
rather$ he contends that .all sin is from free &ill*.A<FB
"edem%tion in Christ
Both St Gregory Palamas and John Scotus Eriugena agree that God did not a!andon man
after the fall$ !ut through the Incarnation of His Son$ He redeemed man from death and
sin$ and set him once more on the "ath to glorification 8theosis:* Li#e Palamas$ Eriugena
includes the &hole salvific &or# of hrist in his theology of salvation$ yet focuses
"rinci"ally on the Incarnation* /ne commentator sums u" Eriugena4s soteriology in this
&ay'
1he doctrine is set forth in several forms* hrist is to !e regarded as a sacrifice &hich has
!een effectual for all$A<GB as a "riest and mediator$ as the Ar# of the ovenant full of
sacred treasures* But generally it is as the Logos entering into human nature$ and
there!y into the nature of all things &hich have !een created in man$ and then returning
to the 3ather or 3irst Princi"le$ that He is regarded as !ringing a!out the final union*A<<B
1hus$ for Eriugena$ as for the entire /rthodo+ Patristic 1radition$ the Incarnation is the
means of the deification of man$ since in hrist$ human nature has already !een made to
"artici"ate in the eternal life of God$ and the flesh of man has truly !ecome the flesh of
God* Eriugena &rites'
He &ent forth from the 3ather and came into the &orld$ that is$ He too# u"on Him that
human nature in &hich the &hole &orld su!sists, for there is nothing in the &orld that is
not com"rehended in human nature, and again$ He left the &orld and &ent to the 3ather$
that is$ He e+alted that human nature &hich He had received a!ove all things visi!le and
invisi!le$ a!ove all heavenly "o&ers$ a!ove all that can !e said or understood$ uniting it
to His deity$ in &hich He is e)ual to the 3ather*A<=B
/ur Irish scholar also ma#es the universal Patristic distinction !et&een man4s deification
and that of hrist$ noting that the glorified saints are .made God$ not !y nature$ !ut !y
grace*.A<?B
3urthermore$ in his doctrine of salvation$ Eriugena u"holds the Patristic understanding of
the need for man4s co%o"eration 8syner!eia: &ith the divine "lan of redem"tion and
glorification in hrist* He em"hasises that man must freely acce"t God4s gift of grace, he
&rites that .resurrection is effected !y the coo"eration of !oth agents$ nature and
grace*.A<@B Grace and free &ill together are necessary for salvation* In his first ma7or
&or#$ De divina praedestinatione$ com"leted in ?G9$ Eriugena refutes the "redestinarian
!eliefs of Gottschal# and others "recisely on the !asis that they &ere denying !oth God4s
grace and man4s free &ill*A=;B In this &or#$ soonafter condemned !y several 3ranco%Latin
councils$ Eriugena again cheerfully misinter"rets Augustine to su""ort his Patristic
vie&"oint and to argue against his o""onents &ho &ere also using Augustine 8though
more faithfully: to contend for dou!le "redestination$ that is$ God4s election of certain
men for salvation and others for damnation*
Theosis and the *inal "estoration of All Things
5either John Scotus Eriugena nor St Gregory Palamas vie&s salvation sim"ly as the
redem"tion of man from sin and death, li#e all of the 3athers$ they insist that God4s &or#
in hrist$ carried out through the mission of the hurch$ &ill not !e com"lete until the
accom"lishment of the .restoration of all things. 8i apo"atastasis panton:*
3or men$ this restoration 8apo"atastasis: is nothing other than full "artici"ation in the
divine life - com"lete union$ as St Gregory Palamas teaches$ &ith the uncreated
energies and glory of God* Eriugena$ &ho &as surely intimately ac)uainted &ith the
reality of glorification in the lives of the countless Irish saints$ laments the fact that Latin
&or#s on theology hardly treat the su!7ect of deification'
1his use of this &ord$ Deification$ is very rare in the Latin !oo#s*** I am not sure of the
reason for this reticence' "erha"s it is !ecause the meaning of this &ord theosis 8the
term &hich the Gree#s usually em"loy in the sense of the "sychic and !odily
transformation of the saints into God so as to !ecome /ne in Him and &ith Him$ &hen
there &ill remain in them nothing of their animal$ earthly and mortal nature: seemed too
"rofound for those &ho cannot rise a!ove carnal s"eculations$ and &ould therefore !e to
them incom"rehensi!le and incredi!le*A=9B
Eriugena turns$ therefore$ to the East and finds in the Gree#%s"ea#ing 3athers the fuller
vision of salvation in hrist he needs in order to e+"ress his o&n s"iritual e+"erience*
Hsing the voca!ulary of /rigen$ St Gregory of 5yssa and St Ma+imos the onfessor -
terms !orro&ed largely from 5eo"latonic conce"tions of restitution - he descri!es the
"rocess of "urification$ illumination and glorification of man as a return to the &holeness
of his true nature'
1herefore Acreated su!stancesB shall !e dissolved into those things from &hich they &ere
ta#en$ in &hich in truth and eternally they have their !eing$ &hen every su!stance shall
!e "urged from all corru"ti!le accidents$ and shall !e delivered from all that does not
!elong to the condition of its "ro"er nature, !eautiful in its "eculiar native e+cellences$ in
its entire sim"licity$ and$ in the good man$ adorned &ith the gifts of grace$ !eing glorified
through the contem"lation of the eternal !lessedness$ !eyond every nature$ even its
o&n$ and turned into God Himself$ !eing made God$ not !y nature$ !ut !y grace*A=CB
(hile this is a restoration of man4s true nature$ this e+"erience of glorification of the
saints far e+ceeds the first Paradise$ for they are .to !e deified and !rought to "er"etual
contem"lation of the highest theo"hany$ or "erha"s$ even a!ove it*.A=EB
3rom the &ritings of the /rthodo+ 3athers of the East$ Eriugena also e+"lains that this
restoration 8apo"atastasis: encom"asses$ not only men$ !ut the &hole of creation*
Indeed$ the t&o are intimately lin#ed$ since$ for Eriugena$ man is .the microcosm$. the
.e"itome of that thought of God &hich constitutes the &hole creation*.A=FB He descri!es
the restoration of the sensi!le &orld as .a return into God and into its "rimordial causes$
in &hich it naturally su!sists.A=GB - the ."rimordial causes. !eing$ as &e remar#ed
a!ove$ Eriugena4s 8some&hat defective: conce"tion of the uncreated divine energies
&hich sustain the &hole created &orld* 3urthermore$ in #ee"ing &ith the holistic vie& of
the created &orld of the Irish /rthodo+ saints$ Eriugena reserves a s"ecial "lace for
animals in this restoration of all things$ as one commentator e+"lains'
Scotus has a nota!le tenderness for the animal creation$ and refuses to acce"t those
teachers &ho &ould deny an immortal soul to !easts* He is inclined to thin# that the
intelligence and the social )ualities of the no!ler animals are due to some measure of
"artici"ation in the divine life$ &hich they cannot eternally lose*A=<B
Eriugena ma#es it clear that$ although this final restoration can !e called the .salvation of
all$. not all &ill receive glorification and "artici"ate in the life of God* Still$ his vision of
salvation is as com"rehensive in sco"e as that of /rigen or St Gregory of 5yssa$ and thus
"ro!a!ly e+tends !eyond that of Palamas* According to one modern &riter$ Eriugena sees
a
"erfectly ordered universe$ in &hich no sin or desire to sin remains$ and &herein each
living !eing en7oys that "ro"ortion of divine &isdom and ha""iness for &hich it is fitted*
1he home is of .many mansions*. All are saved$ though not all are deified* Again and
again the doctrine is insisted u"on that no substance Ai.e. hypostaseisB can ever !e lost*
.1he thoughts of the &ic#ed. "erish$ !ecause they are !ut vanity* But in their innermost
!eing even the devils are !ood in that they are$ and a suggestion is made$ though not
follo&ed u"$ that /rigen may !e right as to the final conversion of Satan and his
ministers*A==B
Echoing the A"ostle Paul4s e+"ression that .&hen all things shall !e su!dued unto Him$
then shall the Son also Himself !e su!7ect unto Him that "ut all things under Him$ that
God may !e all in all. 8panta en pasin - I or* 9G'C?: Eriugena &rites that even no&$
.God is all in all$. though only a fe& recognise this$ and that the final restoration &ill
sim"ly consist of the manifestation of this fundamental reality*A=?B
Some modern commentators have "ic#ed u" and re"eated mediaeval 3ranco%Latin
assertions that Eriugena4s vision of the final restoration of all things reflects an essentially
"antheistic theology* Even 3r John Meyendorff$ &ho is other&ise very a""reciative of the
Irish scholar4s &or#s$ &rites'
1here is no dou!t that Eriugena4s "hiloso"hical and religious vision &ould tend in the
direction of Palamism in that he stood for the full reality of deification* But the a!sence$
in his system$ of the distinction !et&een essence and energy inevita!ly leads him to
5eo"latonic monism*A=@B
>et Eriugena himself is careful to guard against any #ind of "antheistic or monistic
inter"retations of &hat he calls the .resolution of all things into their original elements$.
as another modern &riter$ Alice Gardner e+"lains'
A""lied to man$ Athe resolution of all thingsB signifies the return of his !eing into God*
But since$ for man$ to "artici"ate in God is to live in "er"etual contem"lation of the divine
glory$ and since the substance Ai.e. hypostaseisB of all things is eternal$ the vision of the
!eatified universe &ith &hich Scotus "resents us is not that of a vast sea in &hich the
"eculiar )ualities of all things are a!sor!ed in a never%ending monotony$ !ut of a
"erfectly harmonious com"osition in &hich all creatures live in unity yet &ithout
confusion of individual !eing*A?;B
5ot only is there to !e no confusion of individual !eing in the restoration 8apo"atastasis:$
!ut the distinction !et&een created and uncreated &ill still hold$ as Eriugena &rites'
.(hat difference !et&een God Himself and the one &ho is li#e Him &ill there !e for us to
contem"lateJ 1his$ that the /ne is not created$ &hile the other su!sists through
creation*.A?9B
Another criticism levelled at Eriugena4s theology of restoration !y modern &riters is that
he a""ears sometimes to suggest that the "artici"ation of man and creation in the divine
life can !e attained a"art from the Incarnation and salvific acts of hrist*
A?CB 5evertheless$ no matter ho& far he &anders$ Eriugena does al&ays come !ac# to
the Patristic em"hasis on the hristological foundation of glorification 8theosis:* In Boo# 2
of the Periphyseon,for instance$ he s"ecifically e+"lains that the unity of the final
restoration is accom"lished in hrist'
And thus ineffa!ly and su"ernaturally is the harmony of our Head ada"ted$ to &hich all
His mem!ers$ !eing united &ith each other$ shall return$ &hen they .shall come together
into the "erfect man in the fullness of the age of hrist$. and He shall !e and shall
a""ear /ne in all$ and all shall !e and shall a""ear one in the /ne*A?EB
Moreover$ Eriugena insists that the deification of man can only !e ."erfected in hrist and
through hrist$ &ho is the end and consummation of our nature*.A?FB
Conclusion
1he sco"e of this short study has not afforded us the o""ortunity to com"lete a thorough
evaluation of the &or#s of John Scotus Eriugena in light of the /rthodo+ Patristic theology
articulated !y St Gregory Palamas* (ith more s"ace$ for instance$ &e &ould surely
criticise his e"istemology$ es"ecially his inheritance from the Augustinian tradition of a
some&hat .rational a""roach to&ards the o!7ect of faith$ the "ossi!ility of understanding
the latter more "rofoundly through the light of reason*.A?GB 1he corrective to this #ind of
"hiloso"hical rationalism is the clear distinction made !y Palamas !et&een the #ind of
&isdom or #no&ledge &hich leads to salvation and the #ind &hich does not$ hel"ful
though it may for e+"loring creation and im"roving the human condition*
Still$ our !rief e+"loration of Eriugena4s thought has sho&n the remar#a!le fact that this
ninth%century Irish mystical theologian$ in the midst of an hostile 3ranco%Augustinian
environment$ &as a!le to muster su!stantial resources from /rthodo+ Patristic theology
to guard the s"iritual tradition of the Irish saints &hich he inherited* (e have held
Eriugena u" to the highest of Patristic standards$ com"aring him to that .light of
/rthodo+y$. the ."illar and teacher of the hurch$ adornment of monastics$ and invinci!le
cham"ion of theologians$.A?<B St Gregory Palamas - and he has fared &ell* Li#e St
Gregory$ Eriugena &as called u"on in his day to defend the A"ostolic and Patristic
e+"erience of glorification to a sce"tical and scholastic &orld$ and he "roved himself more
than ca"a!le of ans&ering this challenge* Although Eriugena sometimes uses different
language than Palamas$ and although there are &ea#nesses in his theological system -
something &hich he himself readily admits - there can !e no dou!t that these t&o great
theologians are e+"ressing &ithin the limits of human language essentially the same
truth and e+"erience of the uncreated glory of God*
(here John Scotus Eriugena has erred in his thoughts and &ords$ !efore 7udging him too
harshly$ &e must remem!er his isolation$ that he is indeed the .loneliest figure in the
history of Euro"ean thought*.A?=B (hat he needed - and &hat he in fact longed for -
&as the immediate guidance of the /rthodo+ 3athers to correct his e+"lanations of his
s"iritual e+"erience* Most es"ecially$ he &ould have "rofited from access to the monastic
literature &hich e+isted side !y side in the hristian East &ith those Patristic theological
treatises couched in .5eo"latonic. language$ some of &hich he read and translated*
(ithout such s"iritual guidance$ he ended u" to a certain e+tent fitting St Ma+imos the
onfessor$ the Araeo"agite and some other Gree#%s"ea#ing 3athers into his .o&n original
"hiloso"hical system$. rather than follo&ing them into the fullness of the /rthodo+
Patristic 1radition*A??B 1hus$ 3r John Meyendorff comments'
If #no&ledge of that tradition had !een more &ides"read$ Eriugena could have easily
given a more .atholic$. or more ./rthodo+. sha"e to his system$ &ithout a!andoning
&hat is so "recious in it' his .theocentric anthro"ology. and his understanding of s"iritual
life as a free ascent to theosis*A?@B
5evertheless$ none of Eriugena4s .errors. or .&ea#nesses. is enough to undermine the
essential /rthodo+y of his theological vision* Even &hen he misses an o""ortunity to
e+"ress a crucial as"ect of /rthodo+ theology$ such as the distinction !et&een God4s
essence and energies$ he #no&s enough to resort to s"ea#ing "arado+ically in order to
"ull !ac# from the !rin# of heresy*
During a "eriod in &hich it &ould have !een commenda!le enough for him sim"ly to loo#
des"erately to the East for sources of truth$ John Scotus Eriugena managed to
accom"lish so much for /rthodo+ hristianity in the (est$ and he truly deserves to !e
commemorated as the last great (estern /rthodo+ theologian and confessorA@;B !efore
the 3ranco%Latin ascendancy and Great Schism* 3or the (est itself$ his life and &or#
re"resent an enormous missed o""ortunity$ for .if the intellect and the devotion of the
Middle Ages had follo&ed the lines of John Scotus$ there &ould have !een no
scholasticism$. and .&e should have found$ among mediaeval thin#ers$ less an+iety to
define the indefina!le$. and .more "atient ac)uiescence in the limitations of human
faculties*.A@9B A!ove all$ had the (est follo&ed our !eloved Irish scholar$ it could never
have se"arated itself from the A"ostolic and Patristic 3aith of the /rthodo+ hurch* In the
conte+t of today4s ecumenical dialogue$ therefore$ it is im"ortant for (estern hristians
to recover Eriugena and ma#e him their o&n$ not necessarily as a teacher &ith all of the
ans&ers$ !ut as a devout hristian theologian and true mystic$ &ho$ in the midst of the
Dar# Ages of 3ranco%Latin Euro"e$ turned to&ards the Light*
Endnotes
A9B (hile very fe& "eo"le in (estern ontinental Euro"e could read or s"ea# Gree# !y
this time$ there is .a!undant. evidence for fairly &ides"read #no&ledge of Gree# in
Ireland* Moreover$ .that #no&ledge of Gree# &as concerned not &ith Homer !ut &ith
Dionysios the Araeo"agite, not &ith grammar$ !ut &ith the Psalter, not &ith classical
Greece !ut &ith the ByDantine Em"ire, not &ith the Attic !ut &ith the Holy S"irit*. John J*
/4Meara$'riu!ena 8/+ford' larendon Press$ 9@??:$ ?* A6eturnB
ACB Henry Bett$ Johannes Scotus 'ri!ena 8re"rinted 5e& >or#' 6ussell K 6ussell$ 9@<F:$
9%C* A6eturnB
AEB Dermot Moran$ (he Philosophy of John Scottus 'riu!ena 8am!ridge Hniversity Press$
9@?@:$ F* A6eturnB
AFB John Meyendorff$ .6emar#s on Eastern Patristic 1hought in John Scottus Eriugena$.
in'riu!ena) 'ast and *est$ Eds* B* McGinn and (* /tten 8Hniversity of 5otre Dame
Press$ 9@@F:$ GF* A6eturnB
AGB It &as only later that Scotus referred s"ecifically to the elts of today4s Scotland*
Ireland 8%ibernia: &as also #no&n as Scotia +a,or* A6eturnB
A<B 1hat is$ as o""osed to !eing a Scotus 8Irishman: !orn in the Irish #ingdom in
Scotland or among the Irish a!road* A6eturnB
A=B It is said$ for instance$ that at a meal together$ harles once as#ed$ -uid distat inter
Sottum et Scottum. 1o &hich John daringly re"lied$ (abula tantum/ Bett$ F* A6eturnB
A?B Moran$ =@* A6eturnB
A@B Bett$ 9@* A6eturnB
A9;B /4Meara$ C9F* A6eturnB
A99B Alice Gardner$ Studies in John the Scot 0'ri!ena1$ 8re"rinted Bristol' 1hoemmes
Press$ 9@@E:$ C;* A6eturnB
A9CB /4Meara$ C9F$ C9<* 1he full 8legendary: inscri"tion reads' .In this tom! lies !uried
Saint John the (ise$ &ho &hile he &as alive$ &as enriched &ith &onderful doctrine* At
length he merited to mount to Heaven !y martyrdom$ &here all the saints reign for ever
through the ages*. A6eturnB
A9EB Gardner$ CE* A6eturnB
A9FB Ibid.$ CG%C<* A6eturnB
A9GB Ibid.$ C?* A6eturnB
A9<B Periphyseon$ Boo# I* As cited !y (illemien /tten$ (he $nthropolo!y of Johannes
Scottus 'riu!ena$ 85e& >or#' E*J* Brill$ 9@@9:$ G;* A6eturnB
A9=B Ibid. As cited !y /tten$ G9%GC* A6eturnB
A9?B Gardner$ E9* A6eturnB
A9@B As cited !y /tten$ <E* A6eturnB
AC;B Gardner$ C?* A6eturnB
AC9B As cited !y Gardner$ EE* A6eturnB
ACCB Periphyseon$ Boo# I2$ G* As cited !y Gardner$ EE%EF* A6eturnB
ACEB Gardner$ EE* A6eturnB
ACFB Ibid.$ EF* A6eturnB
ACGB Ibid.$ EG* -.v. Periphyseon, Boo# I$ ?%9;* A6eturnB
AC<B Bett$ CF* A6eturnB
AC=B %omily on the Prolo!ue of the 2ospel of St John$ 99* 1ranslated !y /4Meara$ 9<=*
A6eturnB
AC?B /4Meara$ ?C* A6eturnB
AC@B Ibid.$ ?;* A6eturnB
AE;B Bett$ C9* A6eturnB
AE9B Ibid.$ FE* A6eturnB
AECB Ibid. In actual fact$ there is a fundamental contradiction in Eriugena4s theological
system* As 3r John Meyendorff e+"lains$ Eriugena also seems to suggest that .6elative to
God$ these ideas are 4created and creating nature*4 6elative to visi!le$ "erce"ti!le
realities$ divine ideas are eternal$ and$ in that sense$ uncreated*. Meyendorff$ G?* In the
end$ Eriugena himself admits that he cannot sort this out, &ithout the essence-energies
distinction$ he fum!les as he tries to come to terms &ith the foundational tenet of
/rthodo+ Patristic theology that there is a radical se"aration
!et&een uncreated andcreated* A6eturnB
AEEB Gardner$ FG* A6eturnB
AEFB Meyendorff$ <;* A6eturnB
AEGB Periphyseon, Boo# III$ CC* As cited !y Gardner$ E=* A6eturnB
AE<B Gardner$ E=* A6eturnB
AE=B Meyendorff$ G=* A6eturnB
AE?B 3r John Meyendorff comments' .He uses the Dionysian terminology to descri!e his
overall conce"tion of the relationshi" !et&een the transcendent uncreated Mind of God
and created realities* It is on this "oint that his !asic monistic "hiloso"hy a""ears most
clearly*. Ibid. A6eturnB
AE@B Periphyseon, Boo# I$ =C* As cited !y Gardner$ E?* A6eturnB
AF;B As cited !y Eric D* Perl$ .Meta"hysics and hristology in Ma+imus onfessor and
Eriugena$. in 'riu!ena) 'ast and *est$ Eds* B* McGinn and (* /tten$ 8Hniversity of 5otre
Dame Press$ 9@@F:$ C<C* A6eturnB
AF9B Perl$ C<C* A6eturnB
AFCB Gardner$ FE* A6eturnB
AFEB Bett$ E<* A6eturnB
AFFB Deirdre ara!ine$ .Eriugena4s Hse of the Sym!olism of Light$ loud$ and Dar#ness in
the Periphyseon$. in 'riu!ena) 'ast and *est$ Eds* B* McGinn and (* /tten$ 8Hniversity
of 5otre Dame Press$ 9@@F:$ 9FE* A6eturnB
AFGB Gardner$ 99C* A6eturnB
AF<B Periphyseon$ Boo# II* As cited !y ara!ine$ 9F<* A6eturnB
AF=B %omily$ 99* 1ranslated !y /4Meara$ 9<<* A6eturnB
AF?B Gardner$ 99E* A6eturnB
AF@B Periphyseon$ Boo# 2* As cited !y ara!ine$ 9F?* A6eturnB
AG;B Periphyseon$ Boo# II* As cited !y /tten$ <F* A6eturnB
AG9B ara!ine$ 9F<* -.v. Periphyseon$ Boo#s II and III* A6eturnB
AGCB /4Meara$ ?F* A6eturnB
AGEB Meyendorff$ GE* A6eturnB
AGFB Ibid.$ GF* A6eturnB
AGGB Gardner$ FF* -.v. Peiphyseon$ Boo# II* A6eturnB
AG<B Meyendorff$ GG* A6eturnB
AG=B Gardner$ 99E* A6eturnB
AG?B Meyendorff$ G<* -.v. Peiphyseon$ Boo# I* A6eturnB
AG@B Meyendorff$ G<* A6eturnB
A<;B Gardner$ <G* A6eturnB
A<9B Ibid.$ 9;=* A6eturnB
A<CB Ibid.$ @@* A6eturnB
A<EB In s"ite of ho& Eriugena himself inter"rets AugustineL A6eturnB
A<FB Gardner$ <G* A6eturnB
A<GB Periphyseon$ Boo# 2$ E<* A6eturnB
A<<B Gardner$ 9;@* A6eturnB
A<=B Periphyseon$ Boo# 2$ CG* As cited !y Gardner$ 9;@* A6eturnB
A<?B Periphyseon$ Boo# III$ 9G* As cited !y Gardner$ 9;<* A6eturnB
A<@B Periphyseon$ Boo# 2* As cited !y Meyendorff$ <9* 3r John Meyendorff comments$
ho&ever$ that given Eriugena4s confusion !et&een nature and &ill 8noted a!ove:$ his
synergistic conce"tion is incom"lete$ for man4s .created nature. could !e seen as sim"ly
a manifestation of the divine ideas* Ibid. A6eturnB
A=;B Gardner$ <G* A6eturnB
A=9B Periphyseon$ Boo# 2* As cited !y Meyendorff$ G<* A6eturnB
A=CB Periphyseon$ Boo# III$ 9G* As cited !y Gardner$ 9;G%9;<* A6eturnB
A=EB Gardner$ 999* A6eturnB
A=FB Ibid.$ 9;G* A6eturnB
A=GB Periphyseon$ Boo# II$ C* A6eturnB
A=<B Gardner$ 9;<%9;=* -.v. Periphyseon$ Boo# III$ E@* A6eturnB
A==B Gardner$ 99;%999* A6eturnB
A=?B Ibid.$ 9;;* -.v. Periphyseon$ Boo# III$ C;* A6eturnB
A=@B Meyendorff$ <F* A6eturnB
A?;B Gardner$ 9;9* A6eturnB
A?9B Periphyseon$ Boo# I2* As cited !y /tten$ 9FE* A6eturnB
A?CB Cf. for instance$ Perl$ C<C%C<E* A6eturnB
A?EB Periphyseon$ Boo# 2$ E?* As cited !y Perl$ C<F%C<G* A6eturnB
A?FB Periphyseon$ Boo# 2$ E=* As cited !y Perl$ C<G* A6eturnB
A?GB /leg Bych#ov$ .6ussian Scholarshi" on the Interrelation of Eastern and (estern
1hought in John Scottus Eriugena$. in 'riu!ena) 'ast and *est$ Eds* B* McGinn and (*
/tten$ 8Hniversity of 5otre Dame Press$ 9@@F:$ C=F* A6eturnB
A?<B A"olyti#ion 8dismissal hymn: for St Gregory Palamas* A6eturnB
A?=B Bett$ 9* A6eturnB
A??B Meyendorff$ G?* A6eturnB
A?@B Ibid.$ <G* A6eturnB
A@;B If not a martyr 8L:* A6eturnB
A@9B Gardner$ CC$ FG* A6eturnB
$iliogra%hy
Bett$ Henry* Johannes Scotus 'ri!ena) $ Study in +ediaeval Philosophy* am!ridge
Hniversity Press$ 9@CG, re"rinted 5e& >or#' 6ussell K 6ussell$ 9@<F*
Brennan$ Mary* $ 2uide to 'riu!enian Studies) $ Survey of Publications 34567
3489. Paris' Editions du erf$ 9@?@*
'riu!ena) 'ast and *est) Papers of the 'i!hth International Collo#uium of the Society for
the Promotion of 'riu!enian Studies 0Chica!o and Notre Dame, 387:6 ;ctober
34431. Eds* Bernard McGinn and (illemien /tten* 5otre Dame' Hniversity of 5otre Dame
Press$ 9@@F*
Gardner$ Alice* Studies in John the Scot 0'ri!ena1, a Philosopher of the Dar" $!es* /+ford
Hniversity Press$ 9@;;, re"rinted Bristol' 1hoemmes Press$ 9@@E*
Moran$ Dermot* (he Philosophy of John Scottus 'riu!ena) $ Study of Idealism in the
+iddle $!es. am!ridge' am!ridge Hniversity Press$ 9@?@*
/4Meara$ John J* 'riu!ena. /+ford' larendon Press$ 9@??*
/tten$ (illemien* (he $nthropolo!y of Johannes Scottus 'riu!ena* 5e& >or#' E*J* Brill$
9@@9*
VEZI
https://archive.org/details/studiesinjohnsc01gardgoog
The Works of Eriugena: Editions and
Translations
EXTANT WORKS OF ERIUGENA !a" #$$%#&' ( !a" #))* IN
+,RONO-OGI+A- OR.ER
An updated and detailed examination of the manuscripts and editions can be
found in the following essay (in Italian): Ernesto Sergio Mainoldi. Iohannes
Scottus Eriugena. In La trasmissione dei testi latini del medioevo / Mediaeval
Latin Texts and their Transmission. Edited by hiesa !aolo and astaldi "ucia.
#iren$e: SISME" % Edi$ioni del &allu$$o '(()* pp. +,-%'-..
1. De diuinae praedestinatione (/n di0ine predestination) (ca. ,)(%,)+)
2. In Priscianum 1also 2nown as Glosa Prisciani3 (ca. ,)()
3. Annotationes in Marcianum (ca. ,.(%,)()
4. Glosae Martiani (ca. ,.(%,)()
5. Glossae divinae historiae (,)(%,-()
6. ersio operum sancti Dion!sii Areopagitae (translation of the wor2s of
!seudo%4ionysius the Areopagite) (before ,-(%,-.)5 re0ised (,-.%,--)
. ersio sancti Gregorii "isseni Sermonis de imagine (translation of
&regory of 6yssa7s #n the Image o$ Man) (,-'%,-.)
!. ersio sancti Maximi %on$essoris Am&igua ad lohannem (translation of
Maximus the onfessor7s Am&igua to 'ohn) (,-'%,-.)
". ersio sancti Maximi %on$essoris (uaestiones ad Thalassium (translation
of Maximus the onfessor7s (uestions to Thalassius) (,-.%,--)
10.Periph!seon (oncerning 6ature) (,-'%,--)
11.Expositiones in Ierarchiam %oelestem (Exposition on the %elestial
)ierarch! of !seudo%4ionysius the Areopagite) (,-.%,8()
12.ox spiritualis a*uilae (9omily on the !rologue to St. :ohn7s &ospel) (,8(%
,8')
13.%ommentarius in Iohannem (ommentary on St. :ohn7s &ospel) (,8)%,88)
14.%armina (!oems) (,)(%,88)
+,. Epistola -Domine .ini&erte...-
WORKS OF IN+ERTAIN ATTRI/UTION
1. Tractatus in Matheum: &usta0o !iemonte attributed to Eriugena two
sections of this lost wor2 that are found in the #pus imper$ectum in
Matthaeum* a commentary on the &ospel of Matthew attributed to :ohn
hrysostom
/. ersio Prisciani L!dii Solutiones ad %hosroem regem
0. De$loratio de li&ro Am&rosii Macro&ii Theodosii De di$$erentiis et
societati&us graeci latini*ue ver&i
WORKS -OST
1. ;ranslation of the Ancoratus of Epiphanius of Salamis
/. Tractatus de uisione Dei