Christ plays in ten thousand places The relationship of logoi and Logos in Plotinus, Maximus and Beyond

Abstract
A brief exploration of the relationship between the ideas or principles of all existing things as they are held in the divine intellect, and the Logos itself. I shall be pointing out that Balthasars assumption that pagan eo!"latonism is pantheistic is misleading, and that "lotinuss system is closer to #aximus than has been recogni$ed by recent commentators. Issues about %reation, the &all and the Incarnation ma'e some difficulties for this proposal, which I ac'nowledge and attempt to deconstruct.

A Preliminary Rant
#y own ac(uaintance with #aximus is tangential at best. Bertholds selection of his writings ) has sat on my shelves for many years, and I have had occasion to (uote from them, but without investigating #aximuss own philosophy at any length. I have read most of Lars *hunbergs study+, and Balthasars,, and Andrew Louths introduction to selected texts of #aximus-. I have learnt a lot from *ollefsens study of #aximuss %hristocentric %osmology., and from *oronen/, but I have not read "olycarp 0herwoods examination of the Ambigua7, nor %oopers account of The Body in St.Maximus the Confessor8. 0uch articles that I have located through 10*23 have not, so far, proved profitable 4. 0o I came to the collo(uium from which this volume issues very poorly prepared. #y only excuse was that I
) +

Maximus Confessor, Selected Writings, tr. 5eorge %.Berthold 0"%67 London )48. Lars *hunberg Microcosm and Mediator the theological anthro!ology of Maximus the Confessor, tr. Lars *hunberg 9 A.#.Allchin :%.;.6.5leerup7 Lund )4/.<. , =ans >rs von Balthasar Cosmic "iturgy the #ni$erse according to Maximus the Confessor, tr. Brian ?.@aley 0.1. :Ignatius "ress7 0an &rancisco +AA,B )st published )488 ,rd ed<. Andrew Louth Maximus the Confessor :3outledge7 London )44/<. . *.*.*ollefsen The Christocentric Cosmology of St.Maximus the Confessor :2xford >niversity "ress7 ew Cor' +AA8<. / #elchisedec *DrDnen #nion and %istinction in the Thought of St Maximus the Confessor :%larendon "ress7 2xford +AAE< E "olycarp 0herwood The &arly Ambigua :=erder7 3ome )4..<. 8 Adam 5.%ooper The Body in St.Maximus the Confessor :2xford >niversity "ress7 ew Cor' +AA.<. 4 ?xcept perhaps %hristopher %.6night @ivine Action7 a eo!By$antine #odel in 'nternational (ournal for )hiloso!hy of *eligion .8.+AA., pp.)8)F)44.

have found #aximus and his thought at least intriguing, and that I could offer some few comments especially on Balthasars approach to the !agan literature, and see' to explain that #aximus is not after all that far from "lotinus. *his is not to say that #aximus did not have his own theological and political concerns, founded in his century and in his church. ?ven if, as I believe, the philosophical vocabulary and conceptual framewor' that he employed was plainly, almost uncontroversially, eo!"latonic, the (uestions that he sought to answer were not "lotinuss F or not directly so. *he causes to which he gave his life, and for which he paid, were first of all that the incarnate ;ord had two wills as well as two natures, and second that theological F and by extension academic F intelligence should be unconstrained by political or imperial dictat. I shall not aim to consider either of these causes F and so, in a sense, I shall be (uite unfair to #aximus, who deserves far better of the philosophical as well as the theological communityG 0o to begin from Balthasar7 here too I have to admit considerable ignorance. I have rarely managed, till now, to read more than a few paragraphs of this well!respected theologian, and even in this case I am wholly ignorant of what criticisms theologians or historians have mounted against his study F except to ac'nowledge Andrew Louths observation that the first edition of Balthasars study identified ?astern 2rthodoxy with the ?ast, and that later editions pushed the division :between ?ast and ;est< still further east. 2nce again, my only contribution must be from the !agan side F and within limits for the pagan sideG According to Balthasar, the pantheistic dress of eo!"latonism does not (uite obscure the Christian eye of ?rigena :p.+4<, the voice of #aximus in the ;est. *he tension between ?ast and ;est is an inseparable dimension of the %onfessors thought :p--<, and Balthasar goes on to characteri$e that tension as follows7 the ?astern side is a way of renouncing the world F for this transitory, spatio!temporal, destiny!determined world is surely not 5odG It is a way of stripping off form, in order to find the infinite Absolute in a state of formlessness. *he world, compared with 5od, is unreality. H In contrast to such thin'ing stand the powerful forces of the Bible, 5reece, and 3ome. In the 2ld and ew *estaments, 5od and the creature

stand in an irreducible relationship of confrontation. H 5reece reflects on this mystery of 5od and the world in 0toic and Aristotelian terms, ta'ing seriously the nature of the individual being, in its lasting structure of meaning, and finding there a revelation of the divine 3eason :p.-.!/<. And a few lines later7 there is the polarity of ?astern and ;estern styles of thought. Aristotle has no ?astern counterpartB he represents an irreversible step forward in human culture, from mythos :narrative thought< to logos :analytical thought<. H ext is the polarity between the impersonal religious thought of the ?ast and the personal categories of biblical revelation. =ere the contrast is between a religion of nature and a religion of self!communication and grace. 2rigen, ?vagrius and the ?astern %hurch all show signs, for Balthasar, of an ?astern predisposition, whereby the full reality of the creature is abandoned for the sa'e of its union with what is above nature :p.-8<. #aximus, he argues, found a way to accommodate both the ?astern and ;estern ways. ?vagrius comes off best of all. H 2ne needed only to add to his seemingly 5nostic IpassionlessnessJ : a!atheia< the charity :aga!e< of the 0ermon on the #ount and to remove the pantheistic flavour from his conception of I'nowledge of the *rinityJ by combining it with the %appadocian and Areopagite ideas of 5od :p.-4<. In this effort )seudo+%ionysius was of inestimable value, because he pointed to the indissoluble autonomy of the finite world. H othing could be more ;estern, nothing points more clearly bac', beyond "roclus and "lotinus, to decisively 5ree', anti!Asiatic sources. "seudo!@ionysius remains, with %halcedon and Augustine, the foundation stone of the ;estern spirit, which can only breathe in an atmosphere of space and freedom :p.-4<. It may already be evident that this is all very peculiar, and unfortunately redolent of one of the oldest of ;estern myths7 the dichotomy between ;est and ?astG ;ords li'e pantheistic, apathy, 5nostic, nature, freedom, analytical thought and myth, all used without examination or clear definition, signal a failure of analysis in favour of resort to narrativeG It is simply not true that Asia is indifferent to analysis, or that there has never been an Indian or %hinese Aristotle :that is, a polymath with an analytical but also synthetic intelligence<. It is

simply not true F it is actually (uite offensive to suggest ! that Asiatics would all surrender their individuality to a formless eternal, or that ;esterners :?uropeans< can only breathe in freedomG In claiming that the ?astern, Asiatic ideal undervalues natural goals by absorbing them into the ultimate supernatural one :p.).+<, Balthasar demonstrates an odd ignorance both of Asiatic thought, and of the pagan eo!"latonism that he supposes to be infected by it7 odd also in that he goes on to say, after #aximus, that in the Logos, all the individual ideas and goals of creatures meetB therefore all of them, if they see' their own reality, must love him, and must encounter each other in his love. *hat is why %hrist is the original idea, the underlying figure of 5ods plan for the world, why all the individual lines originate themselves concentrically around him. I shall return to that last image, which is itself essentially "lotinian. ;hat is even odder is that the eo!"latonic tradition, in "roclus or "lotinus, is conceived to be ?astern, un!5ree', pantheistic and so on, while the very same tradition, in "seudo! @ionysius, is (uintessentially ;estern F though that text, very much more than either of the others, is openly and confessedly mythologicalG Balthasar grants "seudo!@ionysius a certain preeminence in #aximus intellectual ancestry :p..8<, and goes on to provide a lyrical account of the @ionysian vision which is entirely "lotinian7 if this sense of the world F of existence as liturgical event, as adoration, as celebratory service, as hidden but holy dance F is the golden bac'ground of #aximus mental picture of creation :p./A<, how exactly is this supposed to differ from "lotinus visionK And what is it that #aximus abandons in the @ionysian picture that comes explicitly from "roclus and "lotinus, what gives him his eo! "latonic coloringK *he examples that Balthasar provides dont really wor', resting as they do on misunderstandings of "lotinus :who expressly denounces those who thin' that this material world is intrinsically defective, or a punishment for sin7 as Balthasar himself ac'nowledges on p.8,<. And if #aximus %hristology corrects eo!"latonic mysticism by bridging the endless chasm between 5od and the creature without a confusion of natures :p.E,<, this is only because Balthasar misLudges eo!"latonistsG ?ven he occasionally and

rather grudgingly observes that, for example, e$en in "lotinus :p./.< there are traces of existential and personal thin'ing of a 'ind that he had previously confined to %hristians, distinguishing hy!ostasis and nature. 0ome better ac(uaintance with "lotinus might multiply such concessions. In obLecting to Balthasars characteri$ation of the eo!"latonic sources :and especially of "lotinus< I dont mean to suggest that #aximus, or %hristianity in general, contributed nothing novel to the tradition. It would be strange if they had not done so F Lust as "orphyry, Iamblichus, @amascius, "roclus and other pagan philosophers also made individual contributions, and often contradicted their predecessors. In arguing F very plausibly ! that even Aristotle was a "latonist Lloyd 5erson did not suggest that he merely recited his masters words by rote and never made a contribution, even a decisive change of direction, of his own)A. =e would not have been a genuine "latonist if he had not done soG 0o with #aximus7 in arguing F not very controversially, perhaps ! that he was a eo!"latonist, and that "lotinus especially would have found much to approve in him, I dont deny that there may be differences. *he problem is to locate them. I have similar (ualms even about *ollefsens much better informed account7 in saying that #aximus manages a %hristian alternati$e to eo!"latonist metaphysics, he leaves me very uncertain what exactly the alternati$e consists in. 2f course, %hrist features in #aximus in a way that he does not in "lotinus, but is it therefore certain that the "ogos features in any very different wayK #aybe so.

Why Plotinus was not a Pantheist

*he word that Balthasar most often conLoins with eo!"latonist is pantheist, and the charge against both pagan and %hristian heretics is that they failed to understand the gulf that separates creature and creator7 both the relative autonomy of creatures, and their inescapable subordination)). *he idea that the worlds exist as successive emanations from the 2ne,
)A ))

Lloyd 5erson Aristotle and ,ther )latonists :%ornell >niversity "ress7 Ithaca C +AA-<. *he same charge is made by ?li$abeth *heo'ritoff in %reator and %reation7 Cambridge Com!anion to ,rthodox Christian Theology, edds., #ary B.%unningham 9 ?li$abeth *heo'ritoff :%ambridge >niversity "ress7 %ambridge +AA8<, pp./,!EE.

Balthasar supposes, amounts to a denial of that dichotomy. At the same time the thought is attributed to 2rigen and to his pagan teachers that the material creation is a conse(uence of a primordial &all into multiplicity, a &all perennially repeated in an endless cycle of exile and return. #ultiplicity, individuality, creatureliness is a mista'e, or even a mista'en view of what is really and eternally at 2ne. 5od is the only reality, whether this is ta'en to mean that creatures are hardly more than figments or that they are inextricably !art of the divine. ;hether it is helpful to call this doctrine pantheism may be doubted )+, but I shall not deny that some philosophers have thought it was correct. *he wise man, so the 0toics tell us, has the mind of 5od, and understands -hate$er happens as due to the uncon(uerable will of 5od. @uring the conflagration there is not even the appearance of any other agency, but even in that other phase of the cycle F the one that we now occupy F there is no independent cause distinct from the single power that animates all things. 5od is the world itself and the universal pervasiveness of its mind.), 5od!and! ature eternally unfolds the pattern that we dimly see :and it is of course a necessary element of that pattern that our sight is dim<. 5od or Meus is the name of the single power, but it may be convenient here!now to distinguish different moments and locations of that power, under many different divine names. But this is expressly and openly something that "lotinus denies. "recisely because the 2ne is no particular thing, not even the singular totality of all particular things, it must follow that that totality is not the 2ne. It is certainly none of the things of which it is originB it is of such a 'ind, though nothing can be predicated of it, not being, not substance, not life, as to be above all of these things. But if you grasp it by ta'ing away being from it, you will be filled with wonder. And throwing yourself upon it and coming to rest within it, understand it more

)+

I examined the concept some years ago, in "antheism7 @avid ?.%ooper 9 1oy A."almer, edds., S!irit of the &n$ironment :3outledge7 London )448<, pp.-+!./, and concluded that it was, at least, ambiguous. ), %icero ,n the nature of the gods ).,47 A.A.Long 9 @.0edley The .ellenistic )hiloso!hers :%ambridge >niversity "ress7 %ambridge )48E<, .-B7 vol.), p.,+,.

and more intimately, 'nowing it by intuition and seeing its greatness by the things which exist after it and through it.)Again, if there were only one agent or agency in the world, -e would not exist at all :but we do<. It is true that we have fallen into this world, but we were individuals even before the &all, and our presence here is not simply a punishment. ;hen the soul is without body it is in absolute control of itself and is free, and outside the causation of the physical universeB but when it is brought into body it is no longer in all ways in control, as it forms part of an order with other things.). 2n the one hand, we have fallen, out of a desire to have things our own individual way, and not be togetherB on the other, by involving ourselves in this world we are re(uired to cooperate with the will of others, to endure what they decree. %reation and &all, so to spea', are conceptually distinct, even though we fell even as we began to be )/. *he material world is not an error, nor a mere seeming F though there is a sense in which the phenomenal (ualities of that world are, as it were, Lust painted on. Li'e most other ancient philosophers, of whatever school, "lotinus urges us to disregard the trials and fancies of this mortal life, but he also insists that our lives are up to us7 It would not be right for a god to fight in person for the unwarli'eB the law says that those who fight bravely, not those who pray, are to come safe out of the warsB for in Lust the same way it is not those who pray but those who loo' after their land who are to get in a harvest, and those who do not loo' after their health are not to be healthyB and we are not to be vexed if the bad get larger harvests or their farming generally goes better. *hen again, it is ridiculous for people to do everything else in life according to their own ideas, even if they are not doing it in the way which the gods li'e, and then be merely saved by the gods, without even doing the things which the gods command them to save themselves.)E
)-

&nnead III.8 N,AO.)A, +8!,. :)lotinus &nneads, tr. A.=.Armstrong :Loeb %lassical Library7 =einemann )4//!88< vol.,, p.,4E<. All "lotinian (uotations are ta'en from Armstrongs translation. ). &nnead III.) N,O. 8, 4!)+. )/ #aximus /uestions to Thalassius /), cited by "eter Bouteneff %hrist and 0alvation7 %unningham 9 *heo'ritoff op.cit., pp.4,!)A/7 p.4-. )E &nnead III.+ N-EO., ,/!-/ :Armstrong vol.,, pp.E)!,<.

As Armstrong remar's an intelligent %hristian would have no difficulty agreeing with this, though maybe there is a lot more to be said for grace F even by "lotinus ! than Armstrong rec'ons)8. Again7 "lotinus reserves his chief scorn for those who thin' themselves the e(ual of the heavens and despise the world laid out for us by our sister!soul )4. *here are logoi by which the world is governed, but this is not enough to ma'e the whole world!system necessary. *hey are contained in the one "ogos, which is the Intellect, but they are not therefore identical with that whole Intellect. or is the Intellect F and here there is indeed a disagreement with orthodox, %halcedonian %hristianity F identical with the 2ne. ?verything that exists at all does so in virtue of the 2ne, but nothing that exists identically is that 2ne. 2r is that a differenceK After all, %halcedonian %hristianity does distinguish 2ne and "ogos7 each is Lust as much 5od as the other F and the same, in practice, is true for "lotinus7 5od as easily refers to the Intellect as to the 2ne, or even to 0oul =erself :which is not, remember, (uite the same as the ;orld 0oul<. *he relationship is neither identity nor non!identityG I dont mean to insist, by the way, that this "lotinian triad is Lust the same as the *rinity :though it is closer than one might first suppose<7 there is actually a better analogue of the *rinity in "lotinuss wor'. *he 2ne itself is Love, and therefore a *rinity in >nity7 it is lovable and love and love of himself :erasmion 0ai eros ho autos 0ai autou eros<+A. or do I mean to deny that "lotinus thought that everything depended on the 2ne, that it is not far from any one of us, and even that we are ourselves, one day, to be gods7 but of course #aximus and other %hristians thin' the same. In that sense, all are pantheists. And maybe there is even something to be said about the relationship of 0oul =erself and the ;orld 0oul that may cast some light on %hristian notions of the Incarnation7 I shall return to that suggestion.

)8

*he god will come when he is called for F but we must prepare the way7 see &nneads P.8 N,)O.4. 0ee also 1ohn @illon "lotinus and the *ranscendental Imagination :1.".#ac'ey ed *eligious 'magination, ?dinburgh >niversity "ress )48/, pp...!/-<, reprinted in 1ohn @illon The 1olden Chain :Pariorum "ress7 Aldershot )44A<, Q+-7 pp..8f )4 &nnead II.4 N,,O.. +A &nneads PI.8 N,4O.)..

According to Balthasar :p.))/!8<, #aximus distinguished the divine ideas, the basic outlines, in 5od, of his plans for the world, the preliminary s'etch of the creature within the 0pirit of 5od, from the created IuniversalsJ that are the immanent principles of created being. *he concentration of the ideas of the world in the %reator does not mean the dissolution of the world into 5od :p.))4<. *he divine essences are not co!eternal with 5od :p.).+<. or does =e 'now them as we F or angels F might7 they are no more than =is intentions for the world. 5od 'nows the very things which are, as =is own wills, because =e has created all by will +). As 6allistos ;are has put it, each things logos is 5ods intention for that thing, its inner essence, that which ma'es it distinctively itself and at the same time draws it toward the divine realm.++ And this too is not so far away from "lotinus7 as Lloyd 5erson has pointed out+,, the mere fact that "lotinus uses metaphors of sunlight or overflowing fountains F as %hristian theologians have also done F does not imply that he supposed that the 2ne had no choice in the matter. As *ollefsen correctly observes, "lotinuss philosophical teaching is more li'e a doctrine of creation than a doctrine of emanation. +- 2f course it is also true that the 2ne doesnt need, as it were, to ma'e up its mind or choose between a succession of tempting options, any more, on #aximuss account, than %hrists human will is a gnomic will, one dependent on unreliable Ludgment and careful deliberation +.G In fact, the 2ne cant be supposed to create the Intellect7 for creation to be possible, even a hypothesi$ed creation of the intelligible, the ideas of them must already be. +/ "lotinus is especially outraged or amused by the 5nostic idea that this world here was created by a fallen god7 if he was fallen how had he access to the divine template he was set to imitateK If he had access to it, how was he fallenK *his world here is laid out in the first

+) ++

*hunberg op.cit., p./8, after #aximus, Ambiguorum "iber EB "5 4), )A8.b. 6allistos ;are 5od Immanent yet *ranscendent7 *he @ivine ?nergies according to 0t.5regory "alamas in "hilip %layton and Arthur "eacoc'e :eds.<, 'n Whom We "i$e and Mo$e and .a$e ,ur Being )anentheistic *eflections on 1od2s )resence in a Scientific World :5rand 3apids7 ?erdmans, +AA-< p.)/A, cited by 6night op.cit., p.)8,. +, Lloyd ". 5erson "lotinusRs #etaphysics7 ?manation or %reationK The *e$ie- of Meta!hysics -/, )44,. +*ollefsen op.cit., p./+. +. 0ee Andrew Louth xxx +/ see &nnead P.4 N.O.E

instance F though we are not to understand that this is a chronological or historical account F by the world!souls imaging of the divine intellect. ;hat exists in the divine intellect as an unbro'en and simultaneous whole exists in the soul in the mode we experience as time and space7 other, lesser souls ta'e their place here!now and are mostly so entranced as to forget their real home, and to imagine that they are really and truly divorced from each other and the Intellect. 2ur return depends on our learning to turn round again and loo' towards the 2ne, by which and in which all things exist, and which is reflected in a fragmentary, successive way in this world!here. ;e do not thereby surrender our real self, but find it, when, as it were, a god tugs us by the hair and turns us round +EF a notion, by the way, that subverts the common distinction whereby !agan philosophers are supposed to imagine that we ma'e our own way bac' to the divine while %hristians expect divine assistance :though it is true that pagans expected a little effort on our part, and doubted that a death!bed repentance would be acceptable or efficacious<.

Making My Way to Maximus

But what are we to ma'e of thisK *he principles by which we act and suffer and are here!now are not, as they are for the 0toics, the veritable laws of 5od. ous is 6ing, and we can be 'ings when we live in accord with it+8 F but though there is something there in ous by which we live, which is in some sense our eternal being, we are still only copies of that form, and copies with wills of their own. 0o we can distinguish the embedded principles, the manifest forms of ourselves and this world here, from the eternal order which we honour by imitating. ?ven in eternity, so to spea', there is a difference between the ideal form that is an aspect of the divine Intellect and the copy. In eternity we are or shall be Loined in the dance of immortal love, coordinated by our devotion to our leader in that dance +4.

+E

&nnead PI.. N+,O.E, 4f. *he reference is to an episode in =omers 'liad :I.)4Ef<, in which Athena :the goddess of good sense< recalls Achilles from a murderous rage. And note also "orphyrys testimony7 it seems that the gods often set N"lotinusO straight when he was going on a croo'ed course Isending down a solid shaft of lightJ, which means that he wrote what he wrote under their inspection and supervision :"orphyry "ife of )lotinus +, tr. Armstrong<. +8 &nnead P., N-4O.,, -/ff +4 &nnead PI.4 N4O.8.,-!-.

It is not an explicitly "lotinian thought, but it is still one, as far as I can tell, consistent with his exposition, that there are some aspects even of our life in eternity that dont have to be as they are. *hey may be variations on an eternal, necessary theme, but indeed they arent precisely co!eternal or consubstantial with the Intellect. 2n the other hand, there are some aspects of that Intellect which could hardly be other than they are. In other words, there are some things that we can say are made, and others that are begotten, simply in the sense that the latter alone reveal what the 2ne must be, and the former only what can be made in imitation of that order. ;hen 5od, the 0un of righteousness, appears to the mind, then all the true logoi of intelligible and sensible things will also appear together with him, ,A but those intelligible and sensible things have their own lesser being. %an there be anything, any real entity, that manages to be both the template and a contingent copyK %an the divine Intellect, in other words, ever be incarnateK *heologians routinely insist that no such possibility can emerge in pagan "latonism, and it is indeed true that when 0toics, for example, spea' of the wise as having the mind of 5od, and as being the e(uals of Meus himself, they did not mean to say that any particular sage -as 5od. *he bodily being is one thing and the intellect another. ;hat one such bodily being can be, so can another, without their thereby being identically, numerically one. %hristian theologians would have found that claim (uite easy to explain, as many moderns also find it easier to thin'7 the man 1esus was simply, at best, especially in tune with the divine Intellect. *hat doesnt ma'e him 5od. @o crownings, clothings #a'e that %reator which was creatureK #ultiply gifts upon his head, And what, when alls done, shall be said But F the more gifted he, I weenG *hat ones made %hrist, this others "ilate,

,A

Maximus Confessor, Selected Writings, tr. 5eorge %.Berthold :0"%67 London )48.<, p.84 after PG 91, 1156AB.

And *his might be all *hat has been.,) *here are possible worlds, that is, where it is "ilate who had the mind of 5od, and 1esus was an atheistical Lobbing carpenter. *he orthodox answer, and of course it was #aximuss answer, is that there is no such possibility7 it is the single entity called 1esus who is simultaneously man and 5od, one entity with two wills and natures. ;hat he is as divine Intellect is necessary and eternal. ;hat he is as human is contingent and historical. But there is only one entity involved, and F li'e 5od F he exists in all possible worlds. @oes it follow that he is incarnate in all possible worlds :not necessarily with the same human features<, or is his incarnation itself only an occasional possibilityK #aximus seems to have answered that ultimate unification of the world in itself and with 5od is the ultimate motivating cause for the Incarnation and as such the first idea of the %reator, existing in advance of all creation :Balthasar, p.+E+<. *hat is, the Incarnation is not simply a response to human sin, but the original point and centre of the created universe. *his is bound to sound un!"lotinian F but perhaps it is less un!"lotinian than it sounds, even though "lotinus himself does not endorse it. *he particular way that I have expressed the issue may be significant. In spea'ing of possible worlds have I suggested that all such worlds are real, that the infinite possibilities of creation are all reali$ed somewhere :very much in the style of modern physics, with its tal' of the multiverse<K *ollefsen has suggested that it is here that we can see a real distinction between pagan and %hristian metaphysics7 for the pagan eo!"latonist all the ideas contained in the divine Intellect are mirrored in phenomenal reality :though not necessarily all at the same time, nor in the same region<. &or the %hristian only some are reali$ed here, the ones somehow selected to be companions and associates of the Incarnate "ogos34. #aybe so, though it does not seem that there are explicit statements of either possibility in the available texts ,,. #y (uestion is7 would "lotinus have definitely reLected the thought attributed to #aximusK And my answer is that he would not.
,) ,+

3obert Browning %hristmas ?ve Q)/ :)8.A<, in Collected )oems :2>"7 London )4)+< p..). *ollefsen op.cit., pp.88!4) ,, "lotinus &nnead P.4 N.O.), raises the (uestion whether only the forms of things in the sense!world also exist *here, in eternity, but does not, as far as I can see, answer his own (uestion.

*o put the point another way7 there is no reason for "lotinus to suppose that all the souls who dance around the 2ne :so to spea'< have descended into phenomena to assist in the grand creative act that mirrors the divine. or does he have to suppose that all have fallen far. *he phenomenal world is only a !artial mirror, a !artial selection from the infinite, and there is no need to suppose that every Idea is imitated here. ot all souls, even if they enter here, come further down than the stars. *his is not to say that those Ideas that are not imitated here have been held bac', as not deserving of phenomenal realityG 0o maybe there is an interesting change between the pagan and the %hristian thought. *his world here is a selection F but for that very reason, so the pagan may suppose, it is an incomplete, an imperfect copyB those Ideas, those souls, that have not entered here are immeasurably our superiors. But if the %hristians are correct, it is rather the other way round7 it is we who have somehow dared to enter who are to be the true companions of the "ogos. It is the Incarnate "ogos F incarnate by #aximuss account in the natural order, in 0cripture and finally as the man 1esus F which is to be the focus of all endeavour, not simply a 5od with whom we are to be ac(uainted Lust by intellect. 2nce again, I am not altogether persuaded that even this thought is completely non! "lotinian, but it may be a li'elier candidate than most. ote that I am not suggesting that #aximus differed from pagan eo!"latonists in holding, in *ollefsens summary, that %hrist as the Logos is not a universal at all, but is the personal divine center of all creation ,-, because I dont thin' that the eo!"latonic Logos is a universal either :and neither are the logoi it contains F as even Balthasar reali$edG<. "aradeigms arent universals. #y own F very tentative F suggestion is rather that for #aximus the divine centre is made manifest within the phenomenal world, that this is why there is a phenomenal world at all, and that what is not thus manifest :in the natural order, in 0cripture and in the Incarnate %hrist< is of less significance for us than F maybe F "lotinus would have thought. 2n the one hand, "lotinus would have been wrong to suppose :as he supposes of other sects in his treatise Against the 1nostics7 &nnead II. 4 N,,O< that %hristians despised this world here7 on the contrary, it is in this world here that the centre of creation is to be 'nown. 2n the other hand, he would have
,-

*ollefsen op.cit., p.4+.

been right to thin' that %hristians rec'oned animal humanity of more importance than the stars above us7 those stars, as it were, are the signs and habitation of souls too delicate to ris' contamination. *he angels fall, so tradition tells us, began in 0atans outrage that he could be expected to bow down before an animal,.G

Christs Play
And so to my title, drawn from 5erard #anley =op'ins poem ,/7 As 'ingfishers catch fire, dragonflies draw flameB As tumbled over rim in roundy wells 0tones ringB li'e each tuc'ed string tells, each hung bells Bow swung finds tongue to fling out broad its nameB ?ach mortal thing does one thing and the same7 @eals out that being indoors each one dwellsB 0elves F goes itselfB myself it spea's and spells, %rying What ' do is me for that ' came. I say more7 the Lust man LusticesB 6eeps grace7 that 'eeps all his goings gracesB Acts in 5ods eye what in 5ods eye he is F %hrist. &or %hrist plays in ten thousand places, Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his *o the &ather, through the features of mens faces. Andrew Louth (uotes the poem too, citing it in connection with #aximuss examination of a remar' of 5regory a$ien$en7 *he high ;ord plays in every 'ind of form, mixing, as =e
,.

;e created you and then formed you and then ;e said to the Angels, S"rostrate before AdamS and they prostrated except for Iblis. =e was not among those who prostrated. 5od said, S;hat prevented you from prostrating when I commanded youKS =e :Iblis< replied, SI am better than him. Cou created me from fire and Cou created him from clayS. 5od said, S@escend from heaven. It is not for you to be arrogant in it. 0o get outG Cou are one of the abased.S :5oran 0urah E :al!ATraf<, ))F),<. 0ee also "ife of Adam and &$e a'a A!ocaly!se of Moses, chs.),!)-. ,/ 5erard #anley =op'ins )oems, ed. ;.=.5ardner 9 .=.#ac'en$ie :2xford >niversity "ress7 London )4EA<, p.4A. 5ardner :ibid. p.+8), (uoting ;.=.5ardner 1erard Manley .o!0ins a study of !oetic idiosyncracy in relation to !oetic tradition :)44--!4<, vol.), p.+E < reports that the whole sonnet is a poetic statement of the 0cotist concept that individual substances, according to the metaphysical richness of their being, ma'e up one vast hierarchy with 5od as their summit.

wills, with =is world here and there ,E. I am sure he can comment better than I on (uite what is going on, in 5regory, #aximus and =op'ins. #y own use of the poem is only as a prompt, in trying to clarify the relationship of "ogos, logoi and the Incarnate 5od. *he 2ne, "lotinus tells us, is the productive power of all things ,8, dunamis !anton. *hat is to say both that everything depends on it, and that the power with which anything exists and spreads itself is at least an image of the 2ne, whose nature it is always to be generous ,4.*he 2ne is the power by which anything exists at all, and is to be seen, if at all, in the dynamic existence of whatever it is that does exist. I emphasise, even if only punningly, the dynamism of this view of things7 being is always a sort of doing, though the 'ind of doing that we ourselves mostly manage falls short of the continuing grace that is the 2ne. 5od is love7 that is, a continual giving. "edantically, that ongoing life can be described as 0oul or as Being rather than the 2ne incomprehensible that is the origin of 0oul and Being, but in practice there is no distinction. 0o far, so "lotinian. *hat 2ne, therefore, since it has no otherness is always present, and we are present to it when we have no othernessB and the 2ne does not desire us, so as to be around us, but we desire it, so that we are around it. And we are always around it but do not always loo' to itB it is li'e a choral dance7 in the order of its singing the choir 'eeps round its conductor but may sometimes turn away, so that he is out of their sight, but when it turns bac' to him it sings beautifully and is truly with himB so we too are always around him ! and if we were not, we should be totally dissolved and no longer exist ! but not always turned to himB but when we do loo' to him, then we are at our goal and at rest and do not sing out of tune as we truly dance our god!inspired dance around him. -A ;hat do we change by seeing or saying that it is %hrist who plays in everythingK *o be is always to be, or to be beginning to be, something, in virtue of some single call to being. And
,E ,8

Louth op.cit., pp.)/,f, in connection with %ifficulties E) :"5 ,E./+-< &nnead III.8 N,AO.)AB see ?ric @."erl *he "ower of All *hings in American Catholic )hiloso!hical /uarterly E).)44E, ,A)!),. ,4 &nnead P.- NEO.), ,-!/ -A &nnead PI.4 N4O.8, ,-!-..

being something is always, for us, to be a member of the whole7 failing in that, we fail in being at all. But where are we to loo'K In the pagan cosmos we can be guided only by memories and imagination, loo'ing towards the ordered beauty of the stars, or mathematics, or such images of virtues as we can internali$e. But perhaps there is a problem7 on the one hand, there is nowhere short of the whole world to serve as a guiding image for each and all of us, but on the other, that whole world, though we spea' of it as if it were wholly unified, a single beautiful cosmos, does not in fact exist save in the fragmented, barely sociable mirror of the many souls seemingly caught up in it. ;ithout soul there is only dar'ness -). If we are to believe that there is indeed a single, unified cosmos, it must be that this cosmos is contained in a single soul. If there is to be a way of seeing things right, there must be an 'ntellect indeed that contains and decrees right answers-+, but if there is no e(uivalent single 0oul then the phenomenal world is always far astray. 2ur experience is always delusory by comparison, and delusory in multiple, transient ways. If we are to believe not only that there are right answers, but that we can discover them, it must at least be !ossible for Meus himself to be incarnate-,, for there to be someone, somewhere, who has not only the Mind of 5od, but =is actual life. &or "lotinus, that incarnation was in the ;orld 0oul herself7 at once our elder sister and the fullest possible expression of 0oul =erself. But maybe there has to be a more particulari$ed embodiment, and one that can be grasped from within the pagan synthesis. *hat man 6 each man ! is a microcosm of the larger cosmos is not to be understood as saying that the cosmos has arms or legs or eyes. ;hat good would such limbs or organs beK *he point is rather that for each of us there is an experienced world, our world, our being, that is a copy or mirror image of 3eality. But how could we ever 'now that any of these copies were even partially correct unless there was someone, somewhere, whose experienced world Lust was the real world, whose ex!erience and not Lust his intellectual insight, provided the model for us all, someone who is indeed the centreK And the orthodox %hristian claim, turning from all the
-)

0ee &nnead P.) N)AO.+, +/!8. -+ 0ee my A "lotinian Account of Intellect in American Catholic )hiloso!hical /uarterly E).)44E, pp.-+)!,+. 0ee &nneads P.8 N,)O.).

-,

easy answers, has been that there is such a one. *he template for human, and indeed for all animate life, is the man 1esus7 it is his life that provides the model, and the power, for us to live by, not because he was moulded to resemble the 2nes life :that would merely reintroduce the problem< and might, as before, have lived as an atheistical, Lobbing carpenter, but because the 2nes productive power too' shape, from the beginning, as that very individual. or is it that the eternal ;ord too' on a pre!existent human or animal nature, as a cloa' on its identity7 to be human, to be alive at all, is to be little li'e that actual, historical individual F or li'e enough, at any rate, to be able to Loin, as it were, his party. It is in 1esus that 5od in$ented human natureG It is there, in %hrists world, so #aximus tells us, that all divisions and differences are overcome. It is a notion endorsed elsewhere in the 2rthodox tradition, and largely F though not entirely F forgotten in the ;est. 3ather than seeing 1esus %hrist as a trinitarian person who irrupted into linear history +,AAA years ago, the patristic and apostolic perspective is that of 1esus %hrist as the foundation of all history :by whom all things were made<, the centre of creation, and the image of 5od :=eb.).,B %ol.).).<, according to whose image we are made F and not Lust as a pre!existent Logos, but eternally as the crucified one, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world :cf. 3ev.),.8<, destined before the foundation of the world but made manifest at the end of the times for your sa'e :I "eter )8.+A<. -*his is of course an extraordinarily grand claim, both metaphysically and ethically. It is hardly surprising that even many fellow!travelers have preferred some more intellectualist approach, choosing to see the "ogos as embodied, at best, within a boo' or a theory or an architectural marvel, but as remaining essentially distinct from all its representations in the phenomenal world. It is not the part of a Lobbing philosopher to show that %hristian orthodoxy is correct, nor to pretend to any special insight into ho- exactly to live with an eye to the Incarnate "ogos rather than Lust to our own best theory of the divine reality :however we may identify that best<. It is, I suppose, my part to try at least to get some idea of what
--

Bouteneff op.cit., p.4/. 0ee also my 1od2s World and the 1reat A-a0ening :%larendon "ress7 2xford )44)<, pp.),)!..

disagreements there may be about the one true path to excellence. And as #aximus also said-., with more courage than, fortunately for me, I need now display7 if I am wrong, refute meG

-.

#aximus xxxx