Octavian GORDON, Alexandru MIHIL (Eds.)

Via lui Nabot / Naboths Vineyard studia theologica recentiora

Octavian GORDON(Eds.)

Alexandru MIHIL

VIA LUI NABOT NABOTHS VINEYARD studia theologica recentiora

Presa Universitar Clujean2012

Refereni tiinifici:Pr. Conf. Dr. Picu Ocoleanu Conf. Dr. Sebastian Moldovan

Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naionale a RomnieiVia lui Nabot = Naboth's Vineyard : studia theologica recentiora / ed.: Octavian Gordon, Alexandru Mihil. - Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitar Clujean, 2012 Bibliogr. ISBN 978-973-595-390-4 I. Gordon, Octavian (ed.) II. Mihil, Alexandru (ed.) 2

2012 Editorii volumului. Toate drepturile rezervate. Reproducerea integral sau parial a textului, prin orice mijloace, fr acordul editorilor, este interzis i se pedepsete conform legii. Redactor: Ilie Chicari Corectura: Sebastian Nazru, Anca Ionescu Consultant limba englez i traducere rezumate: Maria Bncil Tehnoredactarea: Alexandru Mihil Coperta: Raluca Mocanu

Universitatea Babe-Bolyai Presa Universitar ClujeanDirector: Codrua SceleanStr. Hasdeu nr. 51 400371 Cluj-Napoca, Romnia Tel./fax: (+40)-264-597.401 E-mail: editura@editura.ubbcluj.ro http://www.editura.ubbcluj.ro/

Cuprinsul / Table of ContentsCuvnt nainte .......................................................................................................... 7 Foreword ................................................................................................................ 11

Studii de Teologie Biblic Ilie CHICARI Lesaltazione del Servo di Dio: Is 52,13-53,12 analisi sintattica del testo masoretico .............................................................................................................. 17 Cristinel IATAN Slujirea preoilor (khnm) n Israelul antic i implicaiile ei. fiii lui Aaron, cei uni preoi ale cror mini s-au sfinit spre slujba preoiei (Nm. 3,3) .................. 75 Delia Cristina PETREANU ngerul Domnului, chip al Tainei ntruprii. Fc. 16, 7-14 i Fc. 21, 14-21 ......... 107 Teodora TECULESCU Mrturia vechi-testamentar despre moarte i nviere ......................................... 153 Rev. Bogdan BUCUR Scholarly Frameworks for Reading 2 Cor 12:1-10. A Critical Presentation ....... 175 Justin A. MIHOC . A Comparison between the Two Lukan Ascension Accounts .............................................................................................................. 191 P. Constantin PREDA Giovanni Battista tra Flavio Giuseppe e Luca ..................................................... 207 Diak. Cosmin PRICOP Literarkritische Untersuchung in den synoptischen Verklrungstexten .............. 239

Studii de Teologie Patristic, Filozofie i Istoria Bisericii Adrian AGACHI An Analysis on The Mystical Theology and the Commentaries of John of Scythopolis and Fr. Dumitru Stniloae ................................................................ 259

6

Cuprins

Arhid. Ioan I. IC jr. Mystagogia Sfntului Maxim Mrturisitorul Itinerarul ediiilor i interpretrilor ....................................................................................................... 271 Marius PORTARU The Vocabulary of Participation in the Works of Saint Maximus the Confessor ............................................................................................................. 295 Nicolae DRGUIN Elemente ale concepiei lockeene despre pcatul originar .................................. 319 Mihai-D. GRIGORE Ante omnia pacem et justitiam observari monebant: Politischer Kantianismus vor Kant? berlegungen zu den politischen Kategorien des Gottesfriedens und Kants .................................................................................................................... 335 Adrian MURARU Logos & episteme: Traducerile textelor premoderne. Cteva observa ii aplicate primei traduceri integrale n romn a lui Toma de Aquino, Summa Theologica, I ........................................................................................................ 363 Pr. Mihai SSUJAN Conceptul de autonomie bisericeasc naional la romnii ortodoci din monarhia austriac, la mijlocul secolului al XIX-lea .......................................................... 375

The Vocabulary of Participation in the Works of Saint Maximus the ConfessorMarius Portaru (Patristic Institute Augustinianum, Rome)

Keywords: Maximus the Confessor, participation, divine energies, deification, Neoplatonic philosophy. Modern scholars have written about the doctrine of participation in St Maximus the Confessor without paying enough attention to the vocabulary Maximus used to express it. The present study undertakes this missing analysis. As a result, I was able to avoid the extreme of platonizing Maximus (Perl) and of denying the existence of the doctrine of participation in Maximus (Larchet). Maxim us terminology is linguistically close to Neoplatonic philosophy, especially to Proclus, but his views are completely different, Christian. Maximus gave a new meaning to the classical philosophical terminology of participation. His sacramental - soteriological concern stands at the heart of this new vision.

IntroductionMany years ago, projecting a study of the doctrine of participation in St Maximus the Confessor, Polycarp Sherwood made this brief observation: Great attention would have to be given to the often ambiguous terminology of participation.1 It is not clear if this brilliant Maximus scholar speaks about the ambiguous terminology of participation in general or only in relation to Maximus. It is of course ambiguous to speak about ambiguous terminology in itself, because usually it is not the terminology as such that is ambiguous, but rather the thinking it strives to express. If someone understands his own thoughts well, he will normally express them clearly. If the idea to be expressed is not yet defined in all necessary aspects, then its verbal expression will not be well defined. Be it as it may, the subsequent studies of participation in Maximus are sufficient evidence that Sherwood was right. Without having paid the necessary attention to the terminology of participation, these studies either reduced the doctrine ofI would like to express my appreciation to all those who helped me to write this study. I am particularly grateful to Adina Rducanu, who reviewed and corrected the final draft. 1 Polycarp SHERWOOD, Survey of Recent Work on St. Maximus the Confessor, Traditio, XX (1964), p. 435.

296

Marius PORTARU

participation in Maximus to ontology (Perls2 and Tollefsens3), or simply denied its existence despite the occasional use of the vocabulary through its substitution with the doctrine of deification (Larchets4). But for Maximus, deification is the supreme form of participation, the perfect participation. If Larchet sees an opposition between them, he implicitly understands participation only as some Greek philosophical conception. The ancient Platonic doctrine is instead a specific answer to the more general question of how the universe and its ground are connected. A methodological question thus arises. To obtain the best results a scholar must take at least three necessary steps: a) he must have in mind a definition of participation which is as general as possible; b) he must have a first general impression about what participation in Maximus could mean; c) applying these two prerequisites in reading the texts, he must identify expressions of participation and then obtain a more precise understanding of participation, formulating specific ways in which it will be studied, so as to propose a completely objective account of Maximus theory. This is the method I intend to use in the present study. I understand by participation the relation between the One and the many, existence and its principle and how the connection between them is made. This is, I think, the most general and open philosophical understanding of participation. In Maximus the context is that of a Christian theologian; that is, beside the ontological dimension of participation, there is also at least the soteriological dimension of the historia salutis that is present: God must save his fallen creatures: humankind and the cosmos. This is, I think, the most general way in which Christian theology can be understood, as an expression of historia salutis. This methodological approach will allow me to consider Maximus diverse and extended vocabulary of participation. I will pay attention to every word that supposes or indicates in any way some kind of relation between God and the faithful, the angels or the world. I shall be able to show that the terminology of participation in Maximus is neither ambiguous (Sherwood) - but diverse - nor occasional (Larchet)5, but present in all the works of Maximus6 and at the heart of key-texts. Since the purpose of this study is to interpret the vocabulary of participation, my concern with terminologyEric David PERL, Methexis: Creation, Incarnation, Deification in Saint Maximus the Confessor, PhD Dissertation, Yale University 1991; Metaphysics and Christology in Maximus Confessor and Eriugena, Eriugena: East and West. Papers of the Eight International Colloquium of the Society for the Promotion of Eriugenian Studies, Chicago and Notre Dame, 18-20 October 1991, Bernard McGinn, Willemien Otten (eds.) (Notre Dame Conferences in Medieval Studies 5), Notre Dame/London, 1994, p. 253-270. 3 Torstein Theodore TOLLEFSEN, The Christocentric Cosmology of St. Maximus the Confessor (Oxford Early Christian Studies), Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York, 2008. 4 Jean-Claude LARCHET, La divinisation de lhomme selon Saint Maxime le Confesseur, Cerf, Paris, 1996, p. 600-601. 5 J.-Cl. LARCHET, La divinisation de lhomme, p. 601, n. 305: Il nous semble au total que la notion de participation nintervient quoccasionellement dans loeuvre de Maxime []. 6 There are only two exceptions: Expositio in Psalmum LIX and Quaestiones ad Theopemptum.2

The Vocabulary of Participation in the Works of Saint Maximus the Confessor

297

is not to make some kind of concordance of the occurrences of different terms (which would be irrelevant in itself). My aim here is to offer a strong argument in favor of a new understanding of the doctrine of participation, an understanding focused on anthropology: in Maximus theological discourse, man has the natural power (as ) to unify creation;7 in the present fallen condition of humankind, he must strive for his own salvation through ascetical effort in order to accomplish, in Christ, his original vocation of a unifier between the parts of a creation and a mediator between unified creation and God. This anthropological lecture of the doctrine of participation might be a via media between the overemphasis of ontology or of deification.

Previous researchTollefsen was the first scholar to offer comments about the terminology of participation in Maximus.8 He considered the following terms: , , , , , , . As one can see, all these terms, except perhaps , which is a biblical term, are specific to Platonic philosophy. Then, he offers some kind of definition of these terms, but it is not evident on what basis his definition is developed, since no textual references of any kind are provided. For instance, he defines as the something which is portioned out to be shared by receivers this implies some sort of division of a participated substance.9 But for Plotinus, Proclus and for all Christian theologians this is surely not the case: the is of a spiritual nature, present in an undivided way to all participants. Plato himself had already criticized participation understood as a divided presence of the Form in the participants. And Tollefsen forgets another term present in the ancient Platonic tradition, , used many times by Maximus.10 And not only are these terms not the only ones to designate participation in Maximus, but they are not examined: how do we know why Maximus uses one term and not another? Is the context relevant?, etc. This kind of analysis is one of the keys to interpret participation in Maximus. Others scholars have also offered a limited analysis of the terminology of deification in Maximus, but that concept can and must be considered within the larger area of the terminology of participation. The first to do so was Larchet (, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ),11 the second Russell ( / , 7 8

St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Ambigua ad Ioannem, XLI, PG 91, 1305bc. T.Th. TOLLEFSEN, The Christocentric Cosmology..., p. 193. 9 T.Th. TOLLEFSEN, The Christocentric Cosmology..., p. 193. 10 I quote only two important passages: St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Ambigua ad Ioannem, VII, PG 91, 1089b; Ambigua ad Ioannem, X, PG 91, 1108b. 11 J.-Cl. LARCHET, La divinisation de lhomme, p. 60, n. 334. Larchet observes that Maximus makes wide use of and . According to the French scholar,

298

Marius PORTARU

, / , , ).12

The vocabulary of participation in MaximusIn what follows, I have chosen to classify the terminology on the basis of different meanings and images, instead of considering every work alone. I have insisted on the original uses of the terminology and not on what Maximus has in common with other classical Greek authors. a. The spatial expressions of participation The spatial expressions of participation are well attested. Most likely, they are of biblical origin: Ef. 2, 22: in whom (i.e. in the Lord) you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit ( )13; Jn. 14, 23: If a man loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him ( ). In Capita theologica et oeconomica I, 12, Maximus writes:God is the sun of justice, as it is written ,14 who shines rays of goodness on simply everyone. The soul develops according to its free will into either wax because of its love for God or into mud because of its love of matter. Thus just as by nature the mud is dried out by the sun and the wax is automatically softened, so also every soul which loves matter and the world and has fixed its mind far from God is hardened () as mud according to its free will and by itself adva nces to its perdition, as did Pharaoh. However, every soul which loves God is softened as wax, and receiving divine impressions ( ) and characters it b ecomes the dwelling place of God in the Spirit ( ).15

Maximus borrowed these terms from Dionysius, who used them instead of the classical Neoplatonic terms and . No textual references are provided. 12 Norman RUSSELL, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition (Oxford Early Christian Studies), Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York, 2004, p. 333344. 13 For the text of New Testament I used E. NESTLE, K. ALAND, Greek-English New Testament, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart, 92001. 14 Mal. 3, 20. Maximus explains this biblical image through Neoplatonic terminology: shines rays of goodness ( ), which he could have received through Gregory of Nyssa or Dionysius the Ps.-Areopagite. 15 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Capita theologica et oeconomica, I, 12, PG 90, 1088b (translation in: MAXIMUS CONFESSOR, Selected Writings, translation and notes by George C. Berthold, introduction by Jaroslav Pelikan, preface by Irne-Henri Dalmais, [The Classics of Western Spirituality], New Jersey, 1985, p. 130-131). Here and in all other translations, the words in Greek were added by me. Where I have not mentioned the

The Vocabulary of Participation in the Works of Saint Maximus the Confessor

299

Instead of dwelling place (), Maximus may use simply place (), inspired by a biblical verse (Ps. 71, 3), to which he give a metaphysical exegesis: God is the place of those who are worthy ( ) by grace, beyond the creaturely time and space, as the inheritance of good deeds.16 It seems that for Maximus there is a deep reciprocity between God and man man is also said to be the place of God: in the one concentrated on moral philosophy, the Lord inhabits () through virtues.17 The house () of God is a knowledge composed of many and varied contemplations.18 This means that the proper place of God in the human being is the mind () capable of mystical union with Him:The one who spends the sixth day according to the Gospel, having already given up the first movements of sin, acquires by his virtues the state of detachment which is removed from all evil; he makes Sabbath in his mind of the simple representations of the passions. The one who has crossed over the Jordan is transported to the region of knowledge, where the mind, mystically built by peace as a temple, becomes the dwelling-place of God in the Spirit.19

The mystical union with God according to the mind is direct,20 the participation in God is without intermediaries. This spatial imagery might seem very far from the classical terminology of participation; inasmuch as it expresses the union between man and God, it must be considered as expressing participation. It actually highlights precisely this conception of Maximus: the very concrete, biblical meaning of participation. b. Participation in God through the incorruptibility of the flesh The mystical union with God realized at the level of the mind has no Origenistic or Evagrian meaning in Maximus: it does not exclude body and the cosmos from this union. Participation in God through body starts from the very beginning of the Christian life:Baptized in Christ by the Spirit, we have received the first () incorruptibi lity of the flesh; we await the final () incorruptibility of Christ in the Spirit, author of the translation, I preferred the translation I myself made. When I have slightly or throughly modified the translation made by other scholar, I specified modified. 16 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Capita theologica et oeconomica, I, 68, PG 90, 1108c. 17 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Capita theologica et oeconomica, II, 58, PG 90, 1149b. 18 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Capita theologica et oeconomica, II, 78, PG 90, 1161c (transl. G.C. Berthold, p. 165). 19 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Capita theologica et oeconomica, I, 53, PG 90, 1101d1104a (transl. Berthold, p. 137). 20 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Quaestiones ad Thalassium LIII (ed. Carl Laga, Carlos G. Steel, [Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca 7)], Brepols/University Press, Turnhout/Leuven, 1980, p. 433): ; Centuriae de charitate, II, 31 (critical edition and Italian translation: Massimo Confessore. Capitoli sulla carita, editi criticamente con introduzione, versione e note da Aldo Ceresa-Gastaldo, [Verba seniorum 3], Editrice Studium, Roma, 1963, p. 104).

300

Marius PORTARUthat is in keeping undefiled the first incorruptibility by a free gift of good works and by a voluntary death ( , ); according to this final incorruptibility no one who enjoys it will lose the benefits ( ) he has acquired.21

The virtue and knowledge present in mind sanctify the members of the body and its senses ( ).22 The result of this lifelong process is the full deification and participation of the body together with the soul in the final glory:When it (i.e. the soul) receives through this food (i.e. virtues and contemplations) eternal blessedness indwelling in it, it becomes God through participation in divine grace ( ) by itself ceasing from all activities of mind and sense ( , ) and with them the natural activities of the body ( ) which is deified along with it in a pa rticipation of deification proper to it ( ). In this state only God shines forth through body and soul, when the abundance of glory ( ) overhelms () their natural features ( ).23

c. Participation depends on the human free will Let us now observe how the road of humankind to the final participation necessarily includes the accord of creatures free will. To express this, Maximus generally maintains the Neoplatonic language of participation, but introduces a new specifically Christian element: the free will of creatures as a metaphysical condition of participation. Maximus conception of the free will, both of creatures and of creator, is different from the Neoplatonic one, because it presupposes the doctrine of creation out of nothing. As such, Maximus proposes a distinction between the participation in being (to exist and to exist eternally, which depends on the Creators power alone) and the participation in freedom as power of selfconstitution. , , . , , , , , . ,

21

St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Capita theologica et oeconomica, I, 87, PG 90, 1119b (transl. Berthold, p. 145). 22 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Capita theologica et oeconomica, II, 32, PG 90, 1149b. 23 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Capita theologica et oeconomica, II, 88, PG 90, 1168a (transl. Berthold, p. 167, modified).

The Vocabulary of Participation in the Works of Saint Maximus the Confessor , .24 God, as self-existence and as being Himself goodness and wisdom (to speak more truly, He is above such things), has absolutely no contrary thing. Creatures, inasmuch as all have their existence and rational, intelligent ones their aptitude for goodness and wisdom by participation and grace, do have contrary things. As contrary to existence they have not to exist; as contrary to their aptitude for goodness and wisdom, they have vice and ignorance. That they exist forever or do not exist, this is in the power of the Maker; to share in His goodness and wisdom, or not to share, this depends on the will of rational beings.25

301

For Stephen Gersh, is a general term to designate fitness or suitability within Neoplatonism.26 In Proclus it means the participants fitness to receive the participated principle.27 In Ambigua ad Ioannem 7, Maximus points out about two types of fitness or receptivity, the essential fitness ( ) and the fitness by habituation ( ).28 Maximus indicates (volitive faculty) as the spiritual creatures proper capacity to freely participate in God.29 We need to observe that this (volitive faculty) of receiving/establishing participation in God, which in the text cited above becomes will (), presupposes a synergy between human freedom and divine grace and the participation in being. Creatures are completely free and completely dependent on God; participation is precisely this convergence of complete freedom and complete dependence. Participation is complete freedom because it is participation in the supreme freedom of the Creator, expressed in Christian metaphysics through creation out of nothing; participation is complete dependence, because without God, creatures cannot even exist but if they accept to exist by participation, they will enjoy the divine freedom. The question of metaphysical freedom both of Creator and creatures is central to Maximus theological vision; he stresses it particularly in Capita XV: , , , , St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Centuriae de charitate, III, 27 (ed. Ceresa-Gastaldo, p. 156). 25 MAXIMUS CONFESSOR, The ascetic life. The four Centuries on Charity, translated and annotated by Polycarp Sherwood, O.S.B. (Ancient Christian Writers 21), Newman Press, Westminster, 1955, p. 177-178, modified. 26 Stephen GERSH, From Iamblichus to Eriugena. An Investigation of the Prehistory and Evolution of the Pseudo-Dionysian Tradition (Studien zur Problemgeschichte der antiken und mittelalterlichen Philosophie 8), Brill, Leiden, 1978, p. 37. 27 PROCLUS, Elem. Th., 39 (The Elements of Theology: a revised text, Eric R. Dodds [ed.], Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1963, p. 40-42). Dodds makes clear that the term means fitness for participation in causes and also receptive potency in general. 28 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Ambigua ad Ioannem VII, PG 91, 1080bc. 29 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Centuriae de charitate, III, 25 (ed. Ceresa-Gastaldo, p. 154).24

302

Marius PORTARU. , , , , . , , .30 He, who is participated by creatures not according to his essence, willing to be participated in another way by the capable ones, never goes out of his essential hiddenness; in fact, the mode itself, according to which he wants to be participated, remains permanently unrevealed to anyone. As God wanted to be participated, in a way that He alone knows, he also wanted to create the beings that participate in Him out of his overwhelming power of goodness, according to a reason that He alone knows. Therefore, how could what is created through the free will of the creator ever be co-eternal with the one who wanted it to be?

Creatures are not co-eternal with God in any sense, because they do not participate in the essence of God and because they are brought to existence out of nothing, out of the (free) will of the creator. The classical Greek conception of the eternity of matter is thus fully rejected. d. The subjective dimension of participation If participation in Maximus depends on the free will of creatures, it has a particular intensity for every intelligent creature. The desire for God is personal, depending on the spiritual level of the faithful and as such distinct in every person. In the active person, the Word grows fat by the practice of the virtues and becomes flesh. In the contemplative, it grows lean by spiritual understandings and becomes as it was in the beginning, God the Word.31 Maximus could express the same idea through the notion of analogy,32 widespread in all his works: The one who is involved in the moral teaching of the Word through rather earthly examples and words adapted to the receptive power of his hearers ( ), is making the Word flesh. On the other hand, the one who expounds mystical theology using the sublimest contemplative experiences is making the Word spirit.33 The subjective dimension is further underlined by the necessity to be worthy of deification ( ) .34 AllSt MAXIMUS the Confessor, Capita XV, I, 7, PG 90, 1180c-1181a. St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Capita theologica et oeconomica, II, 37, PG 90, 1141cd (transl. Berthold, p. 156). 32 For the notion of analogy, see Vladimir LOSSKY, La notion des analogies chez Denys le Pseudo-Aropagite, Archives dhistoire doctrinale et littraire du Moyen Age, V (1930), p. 279-309; Ysabel DE ANDIA, Henosis. Lunion Dieu chez Denys lAropagite (Philosophia Antiqua 71), Brill, Leiden, 1996; J.-Cl. LARCHET, La divinisation de lhomme, p. 647-652. 33 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Capita theologica et oeconomica, II, 38, PG 90, 1141d (transl. Berthold, p. 156, modified). 34 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Quaestiones ad Thalassium, LIX (ed. Carl Laga, Carlos G. Steel, [Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca 22], Brepols/University Press, Turnhout/Leuven, 1990, p. 53).31 30

The Vocabulary of Participation in the Works of Saint Maximus the Confessor

303

this presupposes the personal ascetical effort. But does Maximus limit participation to the subjective dimension of the spiritual life? e. Participation through the Church sacraments In fact, besides the personal means for becoming worthy of deification, Maximus refers to the sacraments of the Church, as the objective path of receiving the grace. In the above cited Capita theologica et oeconomica , 87, he speaks about the incorruptibility of the flesh received through Baptism. But the sacrament par excellence in Maximus doctrine of participation is of course the Eucharist. In this sense, he uses the Cyrillian syntagm of the life giving body ( )35 and the life giving passion of the Lord ( ).36 The receiving of the Eucharist makes the receivers gods by participation and grace and is proportional with their personal power. A passage from Mystagogia describes the receiving of the mystery, that is the Holy Eucharist in Neoplatonic terms: , , , , . , .37 After this [i.e., the chanting of the One is Holy], as the climax of everything, comes the distribution of the sacrament, which transforms into itself and renders similar to the causal good by grace and participation those who worthily share in it. They receive it in its wholeness, as far as that is possible and attainable for man, so that they also can be called gods by adoption through grace because the entire God entirely fills them and leaves no part of them empty of his presence.38

A term that should be noted is the verb , which designates a profound transformation of human being by grace: the whole God fulfills the man entire ( ), as much as possible ( ). Since the context is the receiving of Eucharist, I believe these images must be understood literally, not metaphorically. f. Expressions implying the graduality of participation In some of the passage quoted above we observe that Maximus admits a gradual participation. In Capita theologica et oeconomica I, 87 he speaks about a35 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Quaestiones et dubia, LIV (ed. Jos H. Declerck, [Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca 10], Brepols/University Press, Turnhout/Leuven, 1982, p. 45). 36 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Quaestiones et dubia, LVII (ed. J.H. Declerck, p. 46). 37 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Mystagogia, XXI, PG 91, 697a. 38 Transl. Berthold, p. 203, modified.

304

Marius PORTARU

first incorruptibility, received through baptism, and a final one, received at the end of our earthly life, according to the model of Christ risen, if we observed the first one through good deeds. In Centuriae de charitate III, 27, he clearly distinguishes between a participation in being, conferred by God alone, and a participation according to the free consent of man in Ambigua ad Ioannem VII, where Maximus argues against the Origenian henas, he refers nevertheless to another type of participation, the future participation, not one that existed once and was corrupted, of those worthy in the goodness ( , , ), that we have in this life only through likeness, since what is hoped for is beyond all things in this world, beyond vision, and hearing and understanding (1 Cor. 2,9-11).39 These three types of participation are synthetically put together in the triad of being well being eternal well-being:If then rational beings come into being, surely they are also moved, since they move from a natural beginning in being toward a voluntary end in well-being. For the end of the movement of those who are moved is eternal well -being itself, just as its beginning is being itself which is God who is the giver of being as well as of well-being. For God is the beginning and the end. From him come both our moving in whatever way from a beginning and our moving in a certain way towards him as an end.40

From Capita theologica et oeconomica , 87, it becomes evident that the complete and proper participation is the last one:So long as one is in the present time of this life, even if he be perfect in his earthly state both in action and in contemplation, he still has knowledge, prophecy, and the pledge of the Holy Spirit only in part, but not in their fullness. He has yet to come at the end of the ages to the perfect rest which reveals face to face to those who are worthy the truth as it is in itself. Then one will possess not just a part of the fullness, but rather acquire through participation the entire fullness of grace ( ). For the Apostle says, All of us [i.e., those who are saved], will be that perfect man in the measure of the age of Christs fullness (Eph. 4,13); in whom are hidden the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col. 2,3); and when he appears what is in part shall pass away (1 Cor. 13,10).41

39

St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Ambigua ad Ioannem, VII, PG 91, 1076a. Cf. also , Expositio orationis dominicae (ed. Peter van Deun, [Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca 23], Turnhout/Leuven, Brepols/University Press, 1991, p. 73). 40 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Ambigua ad Ioannem, VII, PG 91, 1073c (transl. by Paul M. Blowers and Robert Louis Wilken, On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ. Selected Writings from St. Maximus the Confessor, [Popular Patristics Series], New York, St. Vladimirs Seminary Press, 2003, p. 50-51). 41 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Opuscula theologica et oeconomica, II, 87, PG 90, 1165c (transl. Berthold, p. 166-167).

The Vocabulary of Participation in the Works of Saint Maximus the Confessor

305

The perfect rest Maximus has in mind is the ceasing from all activities of mind and sense, and with them the natural activities of the body,42 that is the natural activities of human nature come to rest in a state of passive receptivity and the only energy acting in the deified person is the divine one.43 This is the state of final divinisation, which is synonym of perfect participation44 and is beyond human nature: the deification will be given to those worthy, as being beyond nature ( ) and transforming by grace the participants ( ) from men to gods.45 As such, in Maximus view, deification is not opposed to participation, but is the perfect participation. What makes the difference between the perfect participation and the previous two in the above mentioned triad is the distance between created and uncreated: in the first two stages, human power is active together with the divine energy (grace), while in the third stage, only the divine energy is active. Reading through the works of Maximus, I have observed that the vocabulary of participation is used mostly with reference to this second degree of perfect participation.46 I believe this is because Maximus gives a very concrete meaning to the concept of participation: it presupposes for him the mystical experience, the ekstatic47 presence of grace. As such, the concept of participation is very close to the concept of .48 g. Participation and knowledge Participation as an ekstatic experience of grace could be spoken of in Centuriae de charitate III, 22, where Maximus points out, referring to the angels, two kinds of knowledge: the holy powers know God by participation and the created things by the grasp of the ideas in them:St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Capita theologica et oeconomica, II, 88, PG 90, 1168a. St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Ambigua ad Ioannem, VII, PG 91, 1076c. Maximus sources of deification as the receiving of divine energy might be 1Cor. 3,9 and Dyonisius, Hierachia coelesta III, 2. But he develops it by affirming the graduality of the presence of the divine energy according to the difference between created and uncreated nature. 44 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Capita theologica et oeconomica, II, 88, PG 90, 1168a: . 45 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Quaestiones et dubia, LXI (ed. J.H. Declerck, p. 48). 46 It is sufficient for the reader to observe most of the texts quoted in the present study. 47 Maximus use of the notion of is quite different from Evagrius. The latter limits the sense of to a going out of created things; the nous does not need to go out of itself, being capable by nature to know God, cf. Polycarp SHERWOOD, The earlier Ambigua of Saint Maximus the Confessor and his refutation of Origenism (Studia anselmiana 36), Orbis Catholicus, Roma, 1955, p. 137-141. Maximus understanding of is closer to Dionysius, for whom means to go out of oneself towards the beloved one and to live the life of the beloved one, De divinis nominibus IV, 13; III, 2. But he makes a step forward in respect to Dionysius, and speaks about a third form of : the assumption () of the deified one by the divine energy after the cessation of all natural energies, see J.-Cl. LARCHET, La divnisation de lhomme, p. 536. This last sense is the one predominantly present in Ambigua ad Ioannem, VII. 48 See P. MIQUEL, Contribution ltude du vocabulaire de lexprience religieuse dans luvre de Maxime le Confesseur, Texte und Untersuchungen, XCII (1966), p. 355-361.43 42

306

Marius PORTARU

God knows himself of his own sacred essence, and the things created by him from his wisdom, through which and in which he made all things. The holy angels, however, know God by participation (), though he is beyond participation, and they know things created by him by the grasp of the ideas in them ( ).49

Knowledge of God, inasmuch as it is a form of union with God, is participation in God, and participation in God, as metaphysically necessary to creatures, conditions and limits the knowledge of God. The distinction between knowledge by participation and knowledge by logoi of things Maximus proposes here seems to be original in respect to classical Greek philosophy. We should observe carefully the parallel in this short text:God knows angels know a) himself b) the things created a) God b) the things created of his essence from his wisdom by participation by grasping the ideas in them

According to this scheme, of his essence is somehow connected with by participation and from his wisdom with by grasping the ideas in them. Do we have some evidence in Maximus work which could support such a parallel? I believe we do. The wisdom of God, God the Logos, is the origin of all the logoi of created things; the One Logos is many logoi and the many logoi are one Logos. God knows the things created as created by Him through the logoi, as definition and their divine purpose. Intelligent creatures can also know the logoi of created things, through which they also participate in God.50 But Maximus also underlines the limits of participation in God through logoi: the union of intelligent creatures with God is realized, from a certain spiritual level on, through something else too. The one who has fulfilled the preparation of the works of justice has arrived at the rest of gnostic contemplation. In it he divinely comprehends ( ) the principles of beings and rests from movements of the mind about them.51 But knowledge of God does not cease with the movement of mind: , , .52 And again after that, as having through knowledge overcome all the principles in beings, he leads them beyond knowledge to the unknowable Monad by the hymn49 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Centuriae de charitate, III, 22 (ed. Ceresa-Gastaldo, p. 152; transl. Berthold, p. 64, modified). 50 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Ambigua ad Ioannem, VII, PG 91, 1077c-1080c. 51 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Capita theologica et oeconomica, I, 59, PG 90, 1104d1105a (transl. Berthold, p. 138). 52 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Mystagogia, XIII, PG 91, 692c.

The Vocabulary of Participation in the Works of Saint Maximus the ConfessorOne is Holy, and so forth, united by grace ( ) and made like him by participation ( ) in an indivisible identity to the extent that this is possible for men.53

307

It is clear from this last text that knowledge of God by grace is superior to the knowledge through divine logoi of created things; correspondingly, participation as mystical union with God by grace is superior to participation through divine logoi of created things. I consider this an original metaphysical insight of Maximus in respect to classical Greek philosophy, because he admits a kind of participation different from that through the Forms (logoi, in Maximus language), specific to Plato and Neoplatonism, and because he uses only for this special and superior participation, while participation through Forms is reduced to knowledge, .54 h. The psychological and the logical sense of participation Let us now distinguish in Maximus a psychological and a logical use of the terminology of participation. While the logical indicates that a species belongs to a genus or an individual to a species, the psychological refers to giving moral support to someone suffering. The logical use might be explained by the fact that in Neoplatonism, and also in the Neoplatonic commentaries of Aristotle, there is an attempt to reconcile the doctrines of Plato with the strong criticism of Aristotle. For Aristotle participation indicates only the connection between matter and form, and between genus and species; thus its meaning remains logical. The logical sense is present, for instance, in Ep. 6: if someone is provided with reason ( ).55 As regards the psychological use, I cannot find any precedent in classical Greek philosophy. Maximus writes that it is easier for man to endure suffering when he knows that God is suffering with him, .56 i. The things participated ( ), the things that participate ( ) Starting with this section, I will analyze the ontological terminology. Maximus most important text in this respect is perhaps Capita theologica et oeconomica 1, 48-50:Transl. Berthold, p. 200, modified. is not a fixed technical term in Maximus. He uses more often and . A useful comparison between Platos doctrine of Forms and Maximuslogoi of created things can be found in J.-Cl. LARCHET, La conception maximienne des nergies divines et des logoi et la thorie platonicienne des Ides, in Philoteos IV (2004), pp. 376-383. 55 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Epistulae, VI, PG 91, 432b. Also Quaestiones ad Thalassium, LII (ed. C. Laga, C.G. Steel, [Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca 7] p. 425); Quaestiones ad Thalassium, LIV (ed. C. Laga, C.G. Steel, [Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca 7], p. 453). 56 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Capita X, XXIV, PG 90, 1188d.54 53

308

Marius PORTARU1.48. Zealous people should look among Gods works () to know which of them he began to create ( ) and which, on the co ntrary, he did not begin ( ). Indeed, if he has rested from all the works that he began to create, it is clear that he did not rest from those which he did not create. Gods works which began in time are all beings which exist by participation ( ), for example, the different essences of beings, for they have nonbeing before being. For there was a time, when beings which exist by participation were not. The works of God which did not happen to begin to be in time ( ) are participated beings ( ), in which beings which exist by participation participate according to grace ( ), for example, goodness and all that the term goodness implies, that is, all life, immortality, simplicity, immutability, and infinity and such things which are essentially () contemplated around him ( ); they are also Gods works, and yet they did not begin in time. For the nonbeing is not older than virtue, nor than anything else of what was just listed, even if beings which participate in them, in these things began their existence in time. For all virtue is without beginning ( ), not having any time previous to itself. Such things eternally have God alone as the begetter of their existence. 1.49. God infinitely transcends all things which participate or are participated ( , ). For if something has an intelligible principle attributed to it is a work () of God, even if some begin their existence through creation in time and others are implanted () by grace in creatures as an infused natural power ( ), which clearly proclaims that God is in all things. 1.50. All immortal things and immortality itself, all living things and life itself, all holy things and holiness itself, all virtuous things and virtue itself, all good things and goodness itself, all beings and being itself ( ), are clearly found to be works of God. But some began to be in time, for there was a time when they were not, and others did not begin to be in time. Thus, there was never a time when there existed neither virtue, nor goodness, nor holiness, nor immortality. Those which began in time are and are said to be what are and are said by participation in those which did not begin in time ( , ). God is the creator of all life, immortality, holiness, and virtue, for he transcends the essence of all which can be thought and said.

This is a typical example of how Christian authors imported Neoplatonic philosophical language to express a different, new conception. The terminology of Proclus The Elements of Theology, chapter XXIII and XXIV,57 , 57 PROCLUS, The Elements of Theology, a revised text, with translation, introduction and commentary by E.R. Dodds, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1963, p. 27-29: All that is unparticipated ( ) produces out of itself the participated ( ); and all participated substances are linked by upward tension to existencies not participated. For, on the one hand, the unparticipated, having the relative status of a monad (as being its own and not anothers, and as transcending the participants), generates terms capable of being participated. For either it must remain fixed in sterility and isolation, and so must lack a place of honour; or else it will give something of itself, whereof the receiver becomes a participant, whilst the given attains substantial existence as a participated term. Every participated term, on the other hand, becoming a property of

The Vocabulary of Participation in the Works of Saint Maximus the Confessor

309

, , is adopted by Maximus, apparently through Dionysius, but it is given a new meaning. Maximus does not use the concept , the unparticipated. There are apparently two possible explanations for this: 1. Maximus implies that God is unparticipated, when writing that God infinitely transcends all things which participate or are participated; or, 2. he does not think of God as unparticipated. I believe the second is probably correct. God is said to be above all his works, participated and participating, but he is not said to be unparticipated. From what follows, it is clear that Maximus believes that God is present to the things that participate through the participated things; but in another respect, he is above the participants. We have already noted his sentence: He, who is participated by creatures not according to his essence ( ).58 This is to say that God transcends his works in respect of his essence; we should also note that in this sentence God, not the participated terms, is said to be participated (). Therefore, Maximus does not say that God is unparticipated because he is not participated in his essence. He simply states that God is not participated according to his essence. In some other texts, we may read that God entire fills ( )59 his creatures during the mystical union; or God entire penetrates through goodness in those worthy entire (, ).60 In order to understand this antinomy between Gods transcendence and immanence, we have to consider the rest of the text.

that particular by which it is participated, is secondary to that which in all is equally present and has filled them all out of its own being. That which is in one is not in the others; while that which is present to all alike, that it may illuminate all, is not in any one, but is prior to them all. For either it is in all, or in one out of all, or prior to all. But a principle which was in all would be divided amongst all, and would itself require a further principle to unify the divided; and further, all the particulars would no longer participate the same principle, but this one and that another, through the diremption of its unity. And if it be in one out of all, it will be a property no longer of all, but of one. Inasmuch, then, as it is both common to all that can participate and identical for all, it must be prior to all: that is, it must be unparticipated. 24. All that participates ( ) is inferior to the participated, and this latter to the unparticipated. For the participant was incomplete before the participation, and by the participation has been made complete: it is therefore necessarily subordinate to the participated, inasmuch as it owes its completeness to the act of participation. As having formerly been incomplete it is inferior to the principle which completes it. Again, the participated, being the property of one particular and not of all, has a lower mode of substance assigned to it than that which belongs to all and not to one: for the latter is more nearly akin to the cause of all things, the former less nearly. The unparticipated, then, precedes the participated, and these, the participants. For, to express it shortly, the first is a unity prior to the many; the participated is within the many, and is one yet not-one; while all that participates is notone yet one. [p. 23]. 58 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Capita XV, I, 7, PG 90, 1180c-1181a. 59 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Mystagogia, XXI, PG 91, 697a. 60 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Ambigua ad Ioannem, VII, PG 91, 1076c.

310

Marius PORTARU

The participated terms ( ) for Maximus are the uncreated ( [ ]) works () of God.61 Regarding these, Maximus significantly notes: 1. they are without beginning ( ; , );62 2. they are contemplated around God essentially, that is around the essence of God ( ); 3. the beings that live by participation participate in them by grace ( ). From all these we can deduce since Maximus does not say that these works of God without beginning exist by participation , that they are uncreated, distinct from the divine essence, but not separated. Finally, for Maximus are the creatures of God. Though the terminology is almost identical with the Neoplatonic one, the differences are much deeper, constituting two distinct visions. The differences concern both the understanding of each of the three terms and their relationship. Maximus can allow for a real transcendence of God thanks to the doctrine of creation out of nothing. Proclus affirms that all that is unparticipated produces () out of itself () the participated. For Maximus, the participable terms, the uncreated and beginningless works of God are not separate entities from the essence, are not entities at all. All participated substances () are linked by upward tension to existences not participated, continues Proclus. Maximus does not affirm something similar about the uncreated works of God; he does not say that they exist by participation in the unparticipated. An upward tension presupposes a separation between the participated terms and the unparticipated, which is not to be found in Maximus. Maximus never calls the participated works of God. Further on, according to Proclus, if the unparticipated does not give anything of itself in order to establish a relation of participation with the participant, then it will remain in61 Dionysius the Ps.-Areopagite brings new insights to bear on the Neoplatonist Proclus understanding of participation. He unites Proclus imparticipable One with the participated forms as the One God. He rejects the notion of the participable terms as mean terms between the One and the participants. Rather, the mean terms are identified with God and his creative activity. This is why Dionysius can say that God is both participable and imparticipable, in De divinis nominibus V, 5 (Corpus Dionysiacum I, 183-184). It is evident that this creative activity of God and His powers () have the same ontological function as Proclus intermediate terms, yet they are totally different, being processions of God himself, while the Proclan mean terms are certain divine substances, cf. I.P. SHELDON-WILLIAMS, Henads and Angels: Proclus and the ps.-Dionysius, Studia Patristica IX / Texte und Untersuchungen CVIII (1972), p. 69-70. So, while in Proclus the mean terms are separated entities, divine hypostaseis, in Dionysius they are not separated from God and are not entities, but processions () and wills () of God. The same holds true for Maximus, in whom one may see Di onysius influence: his mean terms, taken either from Dionysius, or directly from Proclus, called works () of God, are not separated entities, intermediary between God and creation, but the works of God, his very divine activity and power. is not a separate entity or substance or hypostasis for Maximus. 62 is an adjective that Maximus uses only in referen ce to God throughout all his works.

The Vocabulary of Participation in the Works of Saint Maximus the Confessor

311

sterility and isolation. This means that the relation of participation is somehow necessary to the unparticipated, an idea which does not hold true when it comes to Maximus. A basic difference between Proclus and Maximus consists in Proclus material, physical view. Proclus writes about the unparticipated: For either it [the unparticipated] is in all, or in one out of all, or prior to all. But a principle which was in all would be divided amongst all, and would itself require a further principle to unify the divided; and further, all the particulars would no longer participate the same principle, but this one and that another, through the diremption of its unity. And if it be in one out of all, it will be a property no longer of all but of one. Inasmuch, then, as it is both common to all that can participate and identical for all, it must be prior to all: that is, it must be unparticipated . If not incoherent, this fragment is difficult to understand: in order to be present to all, the unparticipated, must be prior to all, that is unparticipated; but it is participated through the participated terms, which on the other hand, are produced out of its substance. However, Proclus insufficiently explains what the precise nature of these participated terms is. In Maximus vision, the doctrine of emanation is substituted by creation out of nothing. Therefore, Gods complete transcendence is preserved. Creatures do not participate in the divine nature and there is no danger of sharing in part of it. As made clear, the fundamental weakness of Proclus scheme of participation is the status of the intermediary participated terms. If they are different entities or hypostases emanated from the unparticipated One, participating in the One and being participated by the participants [ () ] and different from the participants, then what makes the connection between the One and the participated terms? According to Proclus logic, other entities must be placed between the One and the participated terms. But in this way, there is nothing which may limit the number of the participated terms, and hence, the divisio ad infinitum cannot be avoided. This bureaucratic fallacy does not apply to for Maximus participated beginningless works of God, because they are not separate entities from the essence of God, but the participated presence of the unparticipated divine essence.63 j. Participation in the divine energies and participation in the good things One may wonder at this point, how Gregory Palamas could use the above passage by Maximus in order to defend the real distinction between the divine essence and its uncreated energies, since Maximus does not use the word energy () here. Instead he uses works () of God. The two words are cl early very close. I believe the reason for this is the fact that Maximus tries to propose anIn fact, these three chapters of Maximus were the ones that St Gregory Palamas took as a proof for his doctrine of the distinction between the essence of God and the uncreated energies, distinct but not separated from the essence, which proceed from the essence of God to creation, see Tomus Agioriticus (PG 150, 1232d-1233b).63

312

Marius PORTARU

exegesis of the biblical verse Genesis 2, 2: and God rested in the seventh day from all his works, which he created ( , ).64 It is important to note this, because it shows: 1. that the works that God did not begin to create are not considered in any sense within the created order; 2. that Maximus uses the term works () here in order to point out and explain the biblical verse. In fact, in Capita theologica et oeconomica I, 47, Maximus refers to energy (), as he does in Capita theologica et oeconomica I, 60: these surround Capita theologica et oeconomica I, 48-50, and are connected with the theme of the days of creation. The term , showing the result of an activity, is not a constant feature of Maximus terminology. In other places, he normally focuses on the activity, thus using . In Disputatio cum Pyrrho, Maximus refers to Moses, David and to all those that received the divine energy ( ): they all were moved by their free will (), after overcoming the human characteristics .65 In Ambigua ad Ioannem VII, Maximus describes the final deification as pleasure () because it presupposes a divine way of knowing ( ) and this is the end of creatures natural energies ( ). In this state, the entire man is deified through being acted divinely by the grace / divine energy of God incarnate, of Christ ( ), so that there is only one energy of God and the saints, or better, of God alone, as penetrating entirely in those worthy entirely ( , , , ). The grace or the divine energy will be seen as the brightness of the divine glory ( ).66 More simply, but no less clearly, Maximus writes that The one who has shared in Gods rest on the seventh day for our sake will also share in his activity on the eight day by our deification ( ).67 I would like to suggest further that Maximus expresses participation through the divine energies in different ways. One of them is as participation in the good things ( ). In some texts, this expression may signify the future gifts of God, which assures the eternal happiness: and they will be freed from the future torments, participating in the presence face to face of the future good things ( );68 through faith, you surely walk towards the participation face to face of the good things ( ).69 But in some other texts, the good things ( )64 65

Septuaginta, Alfred Ralhfs (ed.), Stuttgart, 1979, p. 3. St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Disputatio cum Pyrrho, PG 91, 297a. 66 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Ambigua ad Ioannem, VII, PG 91, 1076c; 1088a-1089a. 67 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Capita theologica et oeconomica, I, 60, PG 90, 1105a. 68 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Orationis Dominicae expositio (ed. P. van Deun, p. 73). 69 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Epistula ad Thomam (ed. Bart Janssens, [Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca 48], Turnhout, Brepols, 2002, p. 38).

The Vocabulary of Participation in the Works of Saint Maximus the Confessor

313

may indicate a sharing in the divine energies: As for the gnostic, it is fitting that he cry out endlessly in supplication to turn away evils and to give thanks for the sharing of good things ( ).70 The presence of the idea of ekstasis reinforce my interpretation: .71 A further expression used by Maximus, indicating the divine energies is the beautiful things ( ), which could also be translated as the good things. God never ceases from good things, as he never began them ( , ).72 The parallel with the beginningless works of God from Capita theologica et oeconomica I, 48-50 is clear. Another expression referring to the divine energies is the participation in the things divine ( ). In Quaestiones ad Thalassium, Maximus speaks about participation in the things divine beyond nature ( ).73 In a chapter of Capita theologica et oeconomica, he writes that every God-loving soul becomes the place of God in the Holy Spirit, receiving the impressions () and characteristics () of the things divine ( ).74 k. The use of and derivatives The last text already raises questions about the effects of the divine energies in Gods creatures. Maximus most significant vocabulary to describe it is derived from the word , which means seal, imprint, impression. It constitutes a basic expression to indicate the presence of the intelligible in the sensible: . , , .75 For the whole spiritual world manifests itself mystically () imprinted () on the whole sensible world in symbolic forms ( ), for those who are capable of seeing this; and the whole sensible world is spiritually () unified (), being containted in the logoi of the created things ( ) all that is perceived by mind. The sensible world is in the spiritual through the logoi of the created things ( ); the70

St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Capita theologica et oeconomica, I, 30, PG 90, 1093cd (transl. Berthold, p. 134). 71 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Quaestiones et dubia, CLXXX (ed. J.H Declerck, p. 123). 72 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Capita theologica et oeconomica, I, 35, PG 90.1096c (transl. Berthold, p. 135). 73 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Quaestiones ad Thalassium, 59 (ed. C. Laga, C.G. Steel, [Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca 22], p. 53). 74 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Capita theologica et oeconomica, I, 12, PG 90, 1088b. 75 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Mystagogia, II, PG 91, 669c. According to Maximus himself, the sources of this idea are Iez. 1,16 and Rm. 1,20.

314

Marius PORTARUspiritual world is in the sensible through impressions ( ); and their function is one, like a wheel within a wheel.

In Capita theologica et oeconomica, Maximus writes that every God-loving soul becomes the place of God in the Holy Spirit, receiving the imprints and characteristics ( ) of the things divine ( ), while every matter- and world-loving soul separates itself from God, being willingly shaped in a manner contrary to virtue ( ).76 Further on in the same work, he writes that the one who, by practicing virtues, puts an end to the passions in him, is given the basis of another type of imprints, more divine ( ). They are the result of the good things without beginning from God.77 The concrete result of the divine imprints is that human beings receive the divine qualities: The mind which attains God and abides with him through prayer and love becomes wise, good, powerful, benevolent, merciful, and forebearing; in short, it carries around almost all the divine qualities ( ) in itself. But when it withdraws from him and goes over to material things it becomes pleasure-loving like cattle or fights with men like a wild beast over these things.78 The culminating point of this ascending way towards God is the receiving of the likeness with God ( ).79 In Orationis Dominicae expositio Maximus uses some strong terms to name this profound, ontological transformation of the human being living in God: ,80 ,81 .82 l. Some distinct terminology in Ambigua In Ambigua ad Ioannem the vocabulary in general is more ontological, and thus the vocabulary of participation is classical Neoplatonic. We encounter the usual expressions: ,83 ,84 ,85 ,86 but also some distinct terminology:

St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Capita theologica et oeconomica, I, 12, PG 90, 1088b. St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Capita theologica et oeconomica, I, 35, PG 90, 1096c. 78 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Centuriae de charitate, II, 52 (ed. Ceresa-Gastaldo, p. 118; transl. Berthold, p. 54). 79 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Mystagogia, XIII, PG 91, 692cd; Mystagogia, XXI, PG 91, 697a. The expression in this form originates from Plato, Theaetetus 176b. 80 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Orationis Dominicae expositio (ed. P. van Deun, p. 34). 81 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Orationis Dominicae expositio (ed. P. van Deun, p. 47). 82 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Orationis Dominicae expositio (ed. P. van Deun, p. 47). 83 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Ambigua ad Ioannem, VII, PG 91, 1081d. 84 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Ambigua ad Ioannem, VII, PG 91, 1088c. 85 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Ambigua ad Ioannem, VII, PG 91, 1089b. 86 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Ambigua ad Ioannem, X, PG 91, 1108b.77

76

The Vocabulary of Participation in the Works of Saint Maximus the Confessor

315

:87 as above, through virtue and contemplation, the divine form is imprinted in the ascetic; :88 becoming familiar with God; :89 interpenetration. The Lord entire offers himself to those worthy through virtue and knowledge, producing the likeness with him in them, that is, making them sons () and being made father to them ( ). :90 indicates a direct union with those worthy. :91 the power of creatures to participate in God depends on creaturely free will and love and desire for God. This may shed some light on an original and significant term, , used in Amb. Io. XLII:92 the analogical participation or non-participation () in being, well being and eternal being. We have seen that the first and last elements of the triad depend exclusively on Gods will. How then does Maximus speak about non-participation with respect to them? The only explanation I am able to provide is that the creaturely power of selfdetermination somehow affects their participation in being. Understood as such, this term is adapted to describe the otherness of creatures. To my knowledge, it has never been used in pagan Platonic texts; Proclus affirmed that the One is imparticipable, , but in Maximus it is clear that the depends on the free will of the rational creatures. The use of the adverb (in a certain measure),93 which expresses an analogical and gradual participation, may shed some light on . m. Definitions of participation At the end of this study, we may wonder if, among so many references to participation, Maximus offers a definition of it? In the whole corpus of his works, I was able to find only two definitions. The first runs as follows: . .

St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Ambigua ad Ioannem, X, PG 91, 1109b: . 88 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Ambigua ad Ioannem, X, PG 91, 1109d. 89 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Ambigua ad Ioannem, X, PG 91, 1121b. 90 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Ambigua ad Ioannem, XLI, PG 91, 1308b. 91 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Ambigua ad Ioannem, XLII, PG 91, 1329a. 92 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Ambigua ad Ioannem, XLII, PG 91, 1329b: . 93 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Ambigua ad Ioannem, XLII, PG 91, 1337b.

87

316

Marius PORTARU. .94 The ceaseless and continuous joy means the participation beyond nature in the things divine. The participation beyond nature in the things divine is the likeness of the participants with the participated. The likeness of the participants with the participated is the received identity as likeness in act of the participants in respect to the participated. The received identity as likeness in act of the participants with respect to the participated is the deification of those worthy of it.

The most significant terminological features here, as in Capita theologica et oeconomica II, 48-50, are of Neoplatonic and Proclan origin (the syntagm is of course of Aristotelian inspiration), but they are given a new sense within the Christian doctrine of divinisation. Here Maximus speaks no longer in terms of uncreated created works of God, but the participation is: (1) beyond nature; (2) in the things divine ( ). So, is assimilated here to these things divine. Also, the (Platonic) is more intense than in classical philosophy; it becomes a received identity ( ) with these things divine, that is, willingly received. This identity with the things divine, fully and eternally manifested, is divinisation, according to which the man is all that God is, except the identity of essence. By participation in the things divine, Maximus intends to say that it is impossible for man to participate in the divine essence. Besides, if we consider the expressions and , we could conclude that these things divine, which assure participation, confer both the content of the participation (the - ) and the capacity of receiving the content ( ). The second definition runs: , , , , ).95 The salvation of the souls, as the final end of the faith, as I think, according to the highest among the apostles, Peter, is the participation in the things beyond nature.

As focused on soteriology, this last definition of participation fully supports Maximus fundamental anthropological understanding of participation.

94

St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Quaestiones ad Thalassium, LIX (ed. C. Laga, C.G. Steel, [Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca 22], p. 53). 95 St MAXIMUS the Confessor, Quaestiones ad Thalassium, LIX (ed. C. Laga, C.G. Steel, [Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca 22], p. 55).

The Vocabulary of Participation in the Works of Saint Maximus the Confessor

317

ConclusionsIn the course of this study, I have paid attention to every word that presupposes or indicates in any way some kind of relationship between God and humankind, the angels or the world. I have been able to show that the terminology of participation in Maximus is neither ambiguous (so Sherwood) but diverse nor occasional (so Larchet), but present in all the works of Maximus and at the heart of key-texts. There are only two works where it is absent, Expositio in Psalmum LIX and Quaestiones ad Theopemptum, and even in the Christological writings, Opuscula theologica et polemica, though rare it is still present. Maximus has a doctrine of participation at least to the extent that he has a doctrine of deification, and this is grounded on a profound ontology, inspired by Neoplatonism; hence, for instance, the Proclan terminology of mean terms can be recognized, as in Dionysius. Philosophical concepts of Aristotelian inspiration can also be found. Where Greek philosophical language of participation appears, it is integrated into a Christian context. It is this fact that Perl has somehow overlooked, in his treatment of texts which are linguistically very close to Neoplatonic philosophy. I have tried to offer a strong argument in favor of a new understanding of the doctrine of participation in Maximus, an understanding focused on his anthropology. One of the definitions of participation Maximus provides is: the salvation of the souls, as the final end of the faith, as I think, according to the highest among the apostles, Peter, is participation in the things beyond nature. As a matter of fact, just by itself the language of participation in Maximus tells us a lot about the directions one must follow in analysing participation itself. It is immediately obvious that Maximus admits a direct participation in the uncreated works of God; this appears as a direct union of the mind and the body with t he uncreated participable works of God. It is a participation by knowledge and ekstasis. There is also a mediated participation through Christ: Christ is between God and man, He descended into the flesh in order that man might be deified. We obtain communion with Christ in the holy Eucharist, when we receive his vivifying body. Also, Christ is present as model and power in the ascetic struggle of the faithful. This type of participation is improperly called mediated, because Christ is God and communion with Christ is thus an immediate communion with God. I have called it so only by comparison with participation in the uncreated works or things divine of God. The key of Maximus view of participation resides in his anthropology. In the center of his anthropology, Maximus puts soteriology: in his relation to God, man must pass from his fallen condition to an eschatological deification.