Greek Cosmic Love and the Christian Love of God Boethius, Dionysius the Areopagite and The

7/22/2019 Greek Cosmic Love and the Christian Love of God Boethius, Dionysius the Areopagite and The

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/greek-cosmic-love-and-the-christian-love-of-god-boethius-dionysius-the-areopagite 1/26

Greek Cosmic Love and the Christian Love of God: Boethius, Dionysius the Areopagite and the

Author of the Fourth GospelAuthor(s): Cornelia J. De VogelSource: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Mar., 1981), pp. 57-81Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1583359 .

Accessed: 08/03/2014 10:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Vigiliae Christianae.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 181.118.153.57 on Sat, 8 Mar 2014 10:45:07 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1583359?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/1583359?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap



VigiliaeChristianae 5,57-81; North-Hollandublishing ompany 981

GREEK COSMIC LOVE AND THE CHRISTIAN LOVE OF GOD

BOETHIUS, DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE AND THEAUTHOR OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL

BY

CORNELIA J. DE VOGEL

Not long ago Prof. G. Quispel publisheda comparatively mall

articleon the above almost excessively arge subject. He presentedhis communications n this vast themeunder a both concise and

provocative itle: GOD IS EROS.' Provocativeno doubt for most

theologians,ince n their uildthetradition hatopposes "Greekeros"to "Christian ove", a notionwhichtheyuse to indicateby theGreekword"agape", is still live.Quitea problematical radition,o be sure.At themoment,however, wish to pass over theproblems nvolvedin t and follow .'s argument.

He startswithBoethius' metrum in the ConsolatioPhilosophiae,book II, whichhe quotes in a now and thenmodifiedformof the

17thcentury nglishtranslation rinted n H. F. Stewart's dition nthe Loeb Class. Library.2Not disturbed yanyphilosophical roblemsQ. declares: "The love of which Boethius speaks is a cosmogonicEros." By introducinghis termrather mphatically rof.Q. orien-tatesus immediatelyn the direction e wishesus to take: not to the

explanationsof philosophers which in Boethius' case mightseemnatural, fter ll, sincehe was a philosophernd in hisdeepdepressionlet himself e led by the lessons of Lady Philosophia- but to theearlieroriginof Greek thought, he cosmogoniesof mythology. fcourse it is quite true that the Eros introducedby Plato in his

Symposiumn suchan impressiveway as the son of Penia and Poros,makes his appearance at a fairly ate stage of Greek thought.Thebeginnings f the Greek Eros, conceived as a god, reach back intothe7th-6thenturies,n theOrphic myth f theworld-egg.Nobody iswilling o denythis.

Whether heOrphic mythwas actually n Boethius'mind,when hewrotehis songon theamorquo caelumregitur,emains notherques-tion. Let us grantforthe momentthat it may have been somehow

0 042-6037/1981/0000-00Q0/$.50 O North-Holland ublishing ompany







58 C. J.DE VOGEL

"behind" ismind, r n thebackof histhoughts.hismuch s clear,Prof. . is so muchnterestedn theOrphicmythecause t s exactly

thiskind fcosmogonicantasiese is findinggain ndagain ntheGnosticwritingsfthefirst enturiesf our era. In theChaldaeanOracles, fwhichhewrittenormssaidto datefrom he econd artofthe econd entury.D., theres most learly divine osmic ovedescendingo the ower evels ndholdingheworld-orderogether.This s the osmogonicrosofOrphism, downward-flowingivineLove, uch swefindnProclusswell,nparticularnhis ommentaryon Plato's Alcibiades.3 roclus tookhis conceptof pwoqtpovorl]ic6K

fromheOrac.Chald., eclares . - somewhatne-sided,o doubt,for t s fairlylear hat heOracleswerebyno meansProclus' nlysourcen hisreflexionsn "divine ove".Anyhow . is notat all "atvariance" ithme,neithernmentioningheOracles s oneofProclus'sources or nfindingheconcept f "pronoeticove" in theCom-mentaryn theCratyluss well.What said inmycommentarynBoethius'm. 8 ofCons.II, n theopening r. of Vivarium,963,wasnot thatProclus' ove terminologyould occuronly n theAlcib.

commentary,utthat t s absent romhe

theologicalreatisesn the

strictense.This called remarkableact, and I do think t is. Imentioned oth theElementaTheologiae nd the TheologiaPlatonicaand,somewhatentatively,fferedn explanationf the absence fthe ermEpw0nthosewritingshich orProcluswere he cientificexpressionf his theology.My suggestedxplanation as that, nwritinghoseworks,pparentlyhe dea of divine ove wasnotverymuchlivenhismind. hefact hat eomittedhe ermEpoqpreciselyintheseworks edmeto the onclusionhat, pparently,he dea ofdivine ovedidnottake n essentiallace nProclus' heology.

Prof.Q.'s reaction which s somewhat ut of proportionndapparentlyfruit f ratherareless eading4 makes t cleartomethat haveto formulatehe boveconclusionmoreprecisely.ndeedI haveto thank rof.Q. for hefact hatbyhisverywayofarguinginthe resentrticleemakesmedo so andthus o correctpreviouslyusedformula hichpparentlyouldgiverise omisunderstanding.shall ome othatater n and continueollowing.'s argument.

FromBoethius'mor uocaelum egitur. passes mmediatelyntops.DionysiusheAreopagite,e div.nom.V 11.5He is ustdelightedwith hat assage11-18).t is "oneofthemostdaringnddelightfulinGreek iterature",o hedeclares. o which e adds: "No wonder







GREEK COSMIC LOVE AND THE CHRISTIAN LOVE OF GOD 59

thattranslators id all they ould to make it incomprehensible,rans-

lating rosby "Yearning"and glossing ver the roticrelation etweenDavid and Jonathan"

Dionysius speaks Proclus' languagewhendistinguishingour kindsof Love, (1) thecpoaocitazpitztiK6g,

of lowerthingsforhigher nesand ultimatelyorthe absolute and transcendent ood, (2) the Epoa

KOlvtOVK6g,fequal things or ne another,3) theEpoa tpovorltlK6g,,

ofhigher eingsfor owerones, 4) theEpoa GUVEKt1K6g,fthings orthemselves.

Afew backgroundroblems.(1) Did Aristotlemakeeros nto cosmological rinciple?

In mypreviouspaperI observed hatthe first f these fourkinds sPlato's eros extended o everythingn nature.Among theologians tseems o bea still ather enerallycceptedopinionthat t wasAristotlewho introduced heview ofa universal pward-strivingotion n theworld. I found this not only in AndersNygren,6who followstheclassicalGerman"authorities" uch as Zeller,and forPlato byprefer-ence Wilamowitzwhich ometimesmay ead to rather trange esults),butalso inKarl Barth'sKirchliche ogmatik V, 2 (1955).7Apparentlyfollowing he same German traditionBarth- who, by theway, didnot like Nygren nd disapprovedof the anti-Greek endencyn the

theology f the last decads8- says that Aristotlemade Eros into a

"cosmological principle",dominating the universe"as the upward-strivingurge" in matter ntorealizationby form.This is correct nso far s the"urge"of matter e understood s a naturalpredisposition

bywhichthe mpersonal rocessof nature s ruled. t turns ntomis-understandingristotle s soon as the"urge" is explainedby psycho-logical terms nd understood s eros. Aristotlenever used that termin describinghephysicalprocess.9Moreover,speakingof Eros as a

"cosmological principle" s somewhatconfusing, ecause it suggestsan universalupward-strivingf "all things" towards an ultimate

transcendentgathon, uch as was conceived in the notion of Amt-

orpopi,

firstntroduced y Plotinus, nd taught by Proclus witha

complete ros-terminology.owever,thatwas not Aristotle's iewoftheuniverse,hough omescholastics, ho followed he ead ofSiebeck,evenrecentlyttributedt to him.'0







60 C.J.DE VOGEL

(2) Greek oveterminology.Prof.Q. toucheson twootherrather omplexbackground roblems

that are still alive in the world of theologians,first, hat of love-terminologyn the Greek and laterHellenisticworld, second,that of"Eros and Agape" as theyhavebeenopposed theone to the other s

radicallydifferentttitudes f mind.Though the two problemsare

connected, heformer,whichrequires definitely hilologicaltreat-

ment, mong theologianss frequentlyassedbysomewhat oo rapidlyto cometo a correctiew fthebasicfacts.Hence tis still rathergenerally cceptedviewthat"agdpe" and "agapdn", in spiteof their

"occasional" occurrence n other writings,have a specificalNewTestament haracter.n a sense,of course,this s true,viz. in so faras the New Testament estifies o the revealedLove of God. Not,however, n this sense that thewords agdpe and agapdn, n contra-distinctionotheGreek anguageof so-called profane" ources,wouldhave been peculiarto the Septuaginta nd the N.T. This belief s arather ueer remnant f theantiquated dea that theNew Testamentwas writtenn a peculiarkind of Greek, different romthe normalGreek

language,and to be learned

by aspirantstudents f

theologyin handbooksof "New-Testament-Greek":incethebeginning f this

centurywe know that thedifferenceetween heGreekof the N.T.and thatof almost the wholeof literary reekwas not the differencebetween profane"and "sacred" sources,but thedifferenceetweenthe iterary roseof the classical era whichwas themodel of literarylanguagefor aterGreekprosewriterss well,and on theotherhandthespoken anguageofeverybodyn the first enturies. his was alsoa written

anguagesometimes sed

by quitecivilized

people,such as

thehistorianPolybius n the second centuryB.C. What about 1900was called "N.T.-Greek" is now recognized o be "Koine", which sthe generalGreek language,formed hortly fterthe disappearanceof thecity-states,fter hereign f Alexander.

Has such a well-known act to be remembered? t seems so. Or

would the words&yitrland &yaturve just a single, xceptional ase?Wordshave theirhistory. he history f theclassical wordtcpliv,

so

frequentlyound n theSocraticdialogues, s that n theconnotationof"loving"itwentmore and moreout of use from hefourthenturyB.C. onward,whiledcyantvwas more and more used instead of it.Thatas early s the2ndcent. B.C. dcyantv as thecommonword for"loving",both nthespoken nd inthewrittenanguageofeverybody,








isa verifiable act." Theresnothingsacred" bout t, ndtheN.T.use ofthe term s byno means an almost solated fact.

The Old Testament ften peaksof thekindof love thatin Greekis calledEpo3. Remarkably heSept. veryrarely se thatword. As a

rulethey peak ofrydtrl,

hichmaydenoteanykindof affectionate

relationships,ncluding ex relations,ncluding lso the love of Godfor his chosen people. The prophetHosea describesthat love as aman's love forhisunfaithful ife. n theSept. it is referred o bytheword

dydart.Apparently heword 0pwas deliberatelyvoided, nodoubt because in commonlanguage it had a rathervulgar ring. By

stating his factof coursenothing s said againstthehigherkind oferos,known o wellto Platonist hilosophers.

(3) A theologicalntithesis.Here we enter the battle-field f Anders Nygrenwith his grim

oppositionof Eros and Agape. The Swedish theologiandrew up a

mcorotxia f,on theone part,the excellencies fA., on theotherthe

perversionsf E.12 In thisscheduleall "upward-going"ove of man,

that s to say,all loveforGod, s brought ndertheE.-categorynd assuchfallsundertheverdict fbeing egocentricnsteadof theocentric;for ros scoveting,swanting ogetand to possess.Eros is essentiallyself-love, hile gape is ust theopposite: it makesself-love isappear.

We remember lato who, as thefirst rinciple f humanlife, aiddown that notman, but God is the measure of all things, nd that,before nd above all otherthings, ncluding ur own soul, man hastohonourGod. Moreover,heprescribedhat,whenhis"philosophers"

after heir ong and veryhard training ad attained to the playtiovL(OC1rllaa,

hich was: the vision of the Highest,theyshould not beallowed to stayon theheight f theirbeatificvision,but should be

compelled o do their ervice o their ellow-men,eadingthem owardsa life ccording o theright rinciples.

Obviously heSwedishtheologianhad not the faintestdea of whatthe spiritof Platonismwas. But even the "love of God" amongChristiansppearsto him a rather uspect ffair. or - any"upward-

strivingove"

belongsn the

wrongpartof the

u-ocotlia.I am glad to findthat Karl Barth did not feelcomfortable n thespiritual limateofNygren's rgument.At first e avoids mentioninghisname,butrejects he alternative hichhe thinks ziemlichbillig",and findsnnon-Christian umanism via mediabetween . and A.3







62 C.J. DE VOGEL

Ina later olume'4where e dealsmore xplicitlyithChristianoveand ts great dversary",eunderlineshe human eality"f"that

otherove",which Christianannotustdisown s ifhehadnothingto do with t.15 acedwith heworks fHeinrichcholz,ErosundCaritas,1929, nd Nygren's ork, f which heimportantecondvolume ad ppearedn1937, arth eclares hat e ikes cholz etter.In hisworkhefinds moredignifiedescriptionf "theotherove".Whenfacedwith heNeoplatonistonceptionf itp6oSognd ntt-

orpopi~l,hat iew fhow verythingssues romheDeity nd returnsto it a "Heimkehr"),e is impressedythegrandeurf thatvision,

but does notwish o see it interchangedith heChristian ove ofGod.In spite ftheirriticalttitudeowardshe harp ntithesis ade

by he wedishheologian,efind othwith arth ndwith ornkammthe dea that of course"nprincipleheGreek roswaswrong. hatis to ay, hese eformatorianheologianscceptedomewhatoo ightlythe ne-sidedndsimplistictatementhat Eros" is "selfish". encethey idnot ome o see thatnfact hepicturerawn yNygren as

nottrue.Theydidnotobserve hat, ight rom hebeginning,he"Greek ove" of a Socrates nd a Plato was essentially lovethat"caredfor heother's oul".Againthere as beenhere change fterminology:hatwhich yProcluswascalled~pw0qpovorlzlKc6,ySocrates and Plato was simplycalled

itliaUta zl WuXyf.AndSocrateshoughtthis ifetask,t thecostof hisprivatenterestsopractisehat

imsttXlta,yorder f theDelphic od.16No doubt, his

was special ase.Butwhat lsedidPlatobyhisworkntheAcademy?

What else did theCynics nd later suchStoics as Musonius ndEpictetus? ll thesemenpractised personal are forthesoulsoftheir ellow-men.owever,he

itljXicktaadalsoa cosmic imension

Platodeclaredt to beproper o "Soul" (inthe osmic ense) ocarefor ll that s notensouled.1"hus, he ater iews f Proclus re tobefoundnPlato'swell-knownlassical ialogues.

Both A. J.Festugibrend J.Trouillardould showthat, n fact,"Greekove"wasbyno means s selfishs the wedishheologianndhisfollowersouldhaveus believe. hey xpressedt in these ermsthat amour"snot nly concupiscence",ut lso "g6n6rosit6".ruelove s always uperabundant,r as Platosays, tbringsorth fruitsofvirtue".

The CanadianJ.Rist n hisbookEros ndPsyche'8wasconcerned








with he sameproblems.WhendealingwithOrigen,whothoughttjustified o attribute eros" to God, Ristl9 suggests hatOrigenhasbeen aware of the

dualityof the

theoryfrom ts

beginningn Plato

himself. ywhichhe means "that he (Plato) recognized downward-flowing pzop~s well as the normalEpouwhich s desire".- Of whatis he (Mr.R.)thinking?e explained t in a precedinghapter.20nthe Diotima-speechLove is "an appetitive motion",which impliesan egoisticoutlook. But at the same time Rist discovers "a morefruitful otion" n "that ofCreation s a result fLove perfected".

Well, as a matter f fact,accordingto Diotima's initiation, oveinspired yBeautywill alwaysbe creative.Even at thetop,when thesoul willhave reachedthevision ofBeauty-itself,hecannotbutbringforth fruits f truevirtue",because she has come into contact withtrueBeing.21This then s what Mr. Rist means by the "downward-flowing pog",whichfrom hebeginningwould have been recognizedbyPlato. However, t is Mr. Rist's terminology,t is not Plato's. Infact,Plato neverspeaks of a downward-flowingove. He does speakof an upward-strivingove and is definitelyt variancewith hosewhothink hat "love musthave and retain ome sort of physicalbasis".22

The Canadianprofessor hoexpressed imself n theseterms,pokeclear language indeed. When partingcompany with Plato whereDiotima reachedthe beautyof laws and institutions,he professorshows not to be able to follow herhigher nitiationnto Love. Ristquotes him to illustratehow difficultt is "for us" to understandwhat Plato meant. One might hink hat for a Christianwho loves aGod invisible nd unseen, t wouldnot be so difficult. re not to himthe"thingsnvisible"morereal and farmore mportanthatthethingsto be seen?- I think o. Anyhow, would suggest o followPlato'sterminology. oing so implies wothings: 1) since eros springs roma need, t cannotbe attributedo a God, (2) since eros strives pwards,it leaves behind all that can appropriately e called an appetitiveemotion.

From the firstmplication ollows, hat for a Platonist ayingthat"God is Eros" is abusivelanguage; from he second thatby itsveryobject the upward-strivingros does not seek itselfbut essentiallyseeks thatwhich s beyond t.

Rist's speaking fthe"fruits" fPlatonicerosis ofcourseperfectlywell-founded,nlyheuses thefactnotin therightway.Upward-goingeros has simply o be acknowledged s true ove to God, as well as







64 C.J. DEVOGEL

some Jewish salmist'swordswho says thathe loves God. There isnothing uspiciousabout that. t only testifies o the fact thatsomepeople are "drawnfromAbove". That such a thingmayhappenalsoin thepaganworld,belongsto thesecret f Himwho alone knows thehearts f men.Proclusunderstood omething f it when he said that,wherevermen oveGod, that ove mustbe inspired rom Above".

Proclus nd theChaldaeanOracles.

No doubt Proclus traces heorigin f the ove of the"perfect oul"back to thevorlyoiOEoiofthetranscendentrder.He does so23 while

citingrom he ChaldaeanOracles24 he words"The Father has sown

(intotheworld)the fire-laden ond of love", in orderthatthewholeworldmay be held together y the indissolublebonds of friendship.Thus Proclus oncludeswith referenceo Plato's Timaeus32 c, wherethe termqpuia testifies o the Pythagorean riginof Plato's cosmic

view.25What did theChaldaean Oracles mean by "the Father"?A modern

reader,used to thespiritual limate of Jewish-Christian onotheistic

thought,will perhapstoo easilybe inclined to thinkof "God", the

Creatoroftheheavens nd theearth, nd hemight ead thisfrom heOracles.Yet, he would be wrong.The "Father" of whomtheLogiaspeak,was certainly vorl6; nacrtflp,

hichmeans,a Father situatedat a transcendentevel,transcendentlso to the evel of the "divine"

(i.e. "perfect") oul. We know this kind ofmetaphysicsromProclusand Plotinus;we know it in principle ven fromPlato. But then weknow also that the level at which "the Father" is ranked, s, onto-

logically peaking,not the top. Whatevermaybe thought f Plato's

metaphysics, hismuch is clear, that he made a sharp distinctionbetween heaitia, theultimateCause of all Being,and that which scaused by t,that s,as its immediate ausatum, ntelligible einganditsbeingknown.26 know, fcourse,thatthe differencefontologicallevel is frequentlyot acknowledged.This is simplydue to the factthat Plato had to introduce n entirely ewmetaphysical heory ndhad to make useof hitherto nknown erms. he FirstPrinciplewhichis the Cause he spokeof as "the Form of Good" (i6ta toi &yao0oi).

Now,since he mmediateausatum,which s intelligibleeing vorlt),iscalled "Forms" as well,thebasicontological istinctions sometimesnot observed.Yet, Plato has been quite clear: he declares t to be abasic error to confound that which is "similarto the Good" (the








cya6o0tSg) with the Good itself, as elementaryn erroras con-

founding heobjects thatare illuminated y the sun and thus, n a

sense, "sunlike",with he sun itself.27Granting hen that forPlato "the Good" was beyond intelligible

Being,we have to acknowledge he fact thatin Platonicmetaphysicstherewerenotonlydegrees fbeing,but therewere lso degreeswithintherealm f"thedivine".Mr. Rist on hiswayof ookingfor rgumentsto attribute eros" to "God" as well,first omes across thefactthat

byPlato theperfect oul is called "divine": theperfect oul is a god- and it s said tohave"eros",the ove for hatwhichs beyondt.

This might eemcontradictory:fthe soul is perfect, ow is she stilldeficient? nd ifnotdeficient,ow can she longfor omethingmoredivine"?

Well,forPlato theperfect oul is not at thetop. She attainsto theview of thevollt6. These are "above" her. But again, theyare notthetop.There s theCause, thattranscends hem.

That s whatwefind gain nPlotinus nd in a more omplicatedform n Proclus. In the Chaldaean Oracles too. One shouldn't be

satisfied oo soon with the vorlztoiOoi of Proclus, nor with thertcptKpbg oig of the Oracles, and think this is "God" - as anymodernmonotheistically-mindedersonwillreadily nderstand t. For"us", letus say,thatkind ofspeech s rather onfusing.Mr. Ristwas

alreadydupeof Plato'swayofspeaking bout theDemiurge s "God"who made thevisibleworld "because He was good". The overflowinggoodness of God, well, that is nothingbut "the Love of God" inChristian erms,o hethought.28 nd so, after ll,Origenwas justified

in speaking fGod as Eros. Plato might ave done so.Buthe did not.And notonlydid he notuse theterm f Eros either

in this ase or in speaking ftheultimateCause of all Beingwhich stheAgathon, uthisdemiurge as tobe ranked t the evelof ntelligibleBeingand is, so to speak,thepersonified ymbol f intelligibleorces,working t that level. He was definitely ot the ultimate nd totalCause.

Ristis quiterightwhenobserving hat Plato and thePlatonistsdid

believe n gods that "care forman" and his individual oul. Besidesthe Apology29he mighthave mentionedPlato's admonitionto theyoungman who thoughthimselfnot cared forby the gods.30Thequestion s onlyto know at whichontological evelthesegods had to







66C..

DE VOGEL

be ranked.31And this s exactlywhatapplies to Proclus'vorlroiOEoiand the urtptlK6gotg of theChald.Oracles s well.

As forProclus,he is veryprecise n assigninghis place to Eros."One cannot rankthisgod either n the first ealmsof Being",so he

says n hiscommentaryn theAlcibiades,32or in the owestones. Forin thefirst nes he is not to be found,because theobject of love isabove love (@6 Aporbyv SwKelvatoDEpmor6ctiv), and in the owest

regions ne has not theright o place him,because the oving subjecttakespartof love. Thus he must have his place midwaybetween he

objectand thesubjectsof love and must be next n rankto Beauty,butfirst f theother

things" toi jitv Iacoi GE6tZEpovewvat, tv6S

fillmvtpSZov).This is followed p inProclus'textbya detailedexplanation bout

the precise place and function f Eros within the region of "the

spiritual nd hiddengods" (?v tot; vorlyoi KcaiKpucpiotl otg).33 Inthatregion, o we are told, there s a threefold ypostasis, f whichthefirst s characterized y the agathon-itself hich s the object ofitsthinking, hile the second is according o Wisdom "wherealso isthefirst obsis", nd the hirds "according oBeauty".Now accordingto thesethreenoeticcauses threemonadsarise,whichmanifest hem-selvesprimarilyin the neffablerderof thegods" as Pistis,Aletheiaand Eros (referenceo theChald.Oracles34). The first f these founds

everythingn theAgathon,the second revealsthegnosis n all thingsexisting,while the third makes all thingsreturn to theirSource,

~itcivpilcpv] and leads themtogether o the natureof the Beautiful."Thus this triadgoes out fromthereover all the divinesystems forder n the universe nd radiatesover all things he unificationwith

intelligible eing."- A few inesfurthern we read the sentencewhich

Quispel (p. 196) quotes in O'Neill's translation: From above, then,love rangesfrom he intelligibleso the intramundanemakingevery-thing evert o the divinebeauty, ruthlluminatinghe universewith

knowledge, nd faithestablishing ach reality n the good. "For

everything",aystheOracle,"is governed nd exists n thesethree"."We are constantly eryclose to the Chaldaean Oracles. The same

kind of metaphysical ntology s behindtheir maginative anguage,in whichwehear of "the bonds ofadmirable ros,whofirsteaptforthout of Mind 6KN600ou), rapping isbinding ire n the fireofNofis),thathe mightmix themixing-bowlsf the Sources, spreading herethe flowers f hisfire".35








And again, according o a nextfragment,the sparkof thesoul" is

mingledwith mindand divinewill, and as a third he Fatheradded

"chasteEros, the binder fall things nd their xaltedguide" (ititf3il-topcao'av6v).36

Thequestionwe haveto ask here s: which s,ontologicallypeaking,theplace of thatdivineMindwho is called "the Father" and "Fire"?For thewhole system hat s behind the Oracles is extremelyompli-cated. We can find t traced out in Psellos' Hypotyposis, rinted nDes Places' edition ftheOracles,and H. Lewydrawsup thescheduleof it in his above-cited ommentary,. 483. At the top we find "the

ineffable ne" ("Ev ipprlzov), n thesecond evela "natptKbg P3uO6;".The scheme s complicatedbya triadic ubdivision t this eveland bythe insertionof other "intelligible nd intelligent riads"

(-rpti66Svorl-ai -E Kai vocpai) which serve as unifyingorces not to speakof"instruments"odenote he uyyEgnd ouvoxcs;between he econdand the third evelofBeing. t is at the third evel that we find threesourcelike athers" (trlyaiot tactpeg), he first f which s theNoigtrcptK6o, referredo as 6 itca~ i~ki~tiva. From the second of the

three,which s called "Hekate" or "life-generatingource" (cwoy6vogrtrljyl),

hesouls originate.Eros, then, s said to be thefirst o spring rom he tcarptKug o;g,

and at this ource-levelwe have to situate hetriadof Pistis,Aletheia,Eros.37 It is a transcendentevel of Being,to be sure; transcendentboth to the World-soul,which will be rankedfourth,38nd to thevisibleworld. In Greek terms, husone can refer o the "Mind ofthe Father" as "God" and findEros here as a divinebeing, pringing

directlyrom God".

Onlyto

themodern readersuch a languageisconfusing,ince it evokesassociationsthatdo not correspond o thebackground f theChaldaean texts.For the "PaternalNocis" is notthe Firstand ultimate rinciplewhich s the"Ev &ipp'rlov.Nor is heto be identified iththe rzptucbg3pu06gf thesecond evel.

As we found,one has to rememberhesame at reading n Proclusthat ove comes "from bove". Whenrereadinghoseremarkable agesof hisAlcibides-commentary39n the "divine ove" of Socrateswho

by "caringforthe soul" ofAlcibiades,was his onlytrue?papcrilg,

efindthere40 "From wherewould thisparticularkind of love that sin thesoulsofmen,havecome, f it had not beforexisted n thegods themselves? or all that s good and salutaryn the souls has itsdetermined ause in the world of the gods. That is whyPlato says







68 C. J.DE VOGEL

that fall thevirtuesnd physical oods,such as health, trength,righteousnessndselfrestraint,heprototypesust re-existonder.4'How muchmore hen hallwe assume hatof theerotic irtue hefirst-workingause exists n thegods?For "it is givenbya divinegift",s Socrates imselfays nthePhaedrus."

This sGreek houghtn love, lovethat s called divine" ecauseit caresfor he oul.Proclus oesspeakof Erosas a god: he likes ospeakof "the true over" not directlys "divine",but rather s"inspired". e has thegod"within im" isEvOeo;);he "belongs o"thegod, is akin to him, fterwhomhe is named 6 ti 0erptpooClY:Cov

otnirpiotyv~inctvujio).42f this

godthenProclus

saysthathe must

havehisplace "midwayetweenhebeloved bject nd the overs",43and with egard o himhe asks: "Where hendidhe first ometosubsistndhowdoeshegooutover llthingsF1x; iri r6vtrrp6etot)and withwhichmonadsdid he "springout"?"44 (The word

,o0opehere s certainly reminiscencefChald.Or. r.42,where ros wassaidtohavefirsteaped utof thedivinentellect).

It shere hatweget hebefore ited xplanation45bout he three

hypostases"n the

regionfthe

intelligiblend hidden

ods",three

intelligibleausesfrom hich he hree monads" istis, letheiandErosaresaid to come nto eparatexistence6(pioctavttl),nder neformxistingnthe ntelligiblerder, utmanifestinghemselvesasthree) in the neffablerder f thegods".- Thenfollows he de-scriptionf thefunctionf each of the three monads", f whichEros has theparticularaskofmaking ll thingsrevert" nd leadthemogethero "theBeautiful".

ConclusionsWhen hinkinghis ver,we are ed to thefollowingonclusions.(1) Proclus'GreekEros-god oes notbetray isPlatonic rigin:

whathe inspiress theupward-goingovewhich makes verythingrevert".

(2) While aking isstarting-pointnSocrates' oveforAlcibiades,whichwasa person'saring or nothererson'soul,Proclus ssignsto hisEros-god place nthe osmic rder o as tobe able to act on

menfor hegood, nthe ameway s Platosaid n hisLawsthat,ntheirtrugglegainst vil,menwillalwayshave"godsandheavenlyspirits"s their elpers.45

(3) Proclus' ros-godxtends is care notonly omen, utto "all








things" n the cosmos, actingas a force that makes themrevert otheir source". Thus, he is presentednot so much as a cosmogonic

deity s rather n a kind of "soteriological"r61e.The "love for theBeautiful" s a "saving" love, and Eros who inspires t is a "saving"deity.

(4) Proclus' Eros comes "from bove": his origin s tracedback tothe "noeticgods". Whileakin to thewisdomoftheChaldaeanOracles,towhichhe refersgainand again,Procluspresents isdoctrine fthedivineorigin f Eros in a more theoretical nd lessmythological ormthan the Oracles did. However, n neither f themwas Eros ranked

on the evel of the First and ultimate rinciple f Beingnor even onthesecond.46Certainly, hat could not be expectedotherwise. t has just to be

noticedas a fact. More importants, when a comparisonwith "theLove of God" as known from the Jewish-Christianestimonies fRevelation smade,that nspiteofsimilarityfwords, verydifferent

spiritual ealitys referredo. On theone hand, it cannotbe said thatthe "above" fromwhicheither he Proclean or the Chaldaean Eros

springs,would be identicalwith theGod and Fatherknown from hebiblical Revelation.On the other hand, the "saving" Eros-god ofProclus and his bindingforce n the universeboth in Proclusand inthe Oracles is verydifferentndeed, both in his originand in hischaracter, romHim who accordingto the New Testamentwas sent

byGod to savemenbyhis Cross. The essential ifferences,no doubt,that n the Jewish-ChristianevelationGod is personal,whileon theotherpartthis s not so.

Exception obemadeforPlotinus?Did Plotinusmake an exception,when nEnn.VI 8,15he wrote, n

speaking f theOne : "It is ovable, nd Love-itselfnd loveto itself"?47- Explaininghimselfhe goes on in the masculin: "because He isbeautifulnot otherwise hanfromHimself nd in Himself.For also

being togetherwith Himselfwould not be possible otherwise han ifthat which s togethernd thatwithwhich t is togetherre one andthe same."

It mustbe remembered hatany predicate ttributedo the One isappliedto it "as itwere",theolov indicatinghatour language s notadequate to express nything hatsoever f the"nature" of the First.In this case no differenceetween he subjectand its predicates an







70 C.J. DE VOGEL

be made here: the One is itsgoodness, ts essence, tswill, tsaction,- its love. No otherobjectof thatLove is thinkable ut itself.Using

Plotinus'own wordsone might sk therather illyquestion: "Whatelse could it love?" suggestinghat"therewas nothing itherbeyondor "after" t."48

I rememberhisway of speakingof Plotinusto make themodernreaderunderstand hatthere s nothing o be disapproved f or to be

despised nthe self-love" ftheOne,as conceivedbythatphilosopher.It is, on thecontrary,hemodel of the mostperfect ove, because itis theLove fortheHighest.49

However, at the same time this will make clear that Plotinus'declaration hat "the One is Eros" differsltogether rom heN.T.-writer'sword that "God is Love". This is not a question of dis-

paragement f eitherPlotinusor Neoplatonism,but the simplestate-ment f a fact: thebackground fJohn s totally ifferent.

The ps.Dionysius,who lived in the world of Proclean formsof

thinking,xpressedwhatChristiansmean by "the love ofGod" whensayingthat the divine ove "goes out of itself", eekingthe other.50

It is true,no doubt,thatthe One ofPlotinus s superabundant.t maybesaid, herefore,hat t s "overflowingoodness". t radiatesroundabout it, so thatthere s ever an encircling ight, treaming rom t

eternally. ut it cannot be said that t "goes out of itself, eeking heother". It does not "seek" anything. t stays within tself, urnedtowardstselfnan unfailingelf-intention,hichPlotinus justonce-called tsEp0g.Andthe ircumradiationhat urroundst(itcpicapWtv,like the sun's encirclingight: Enn.V 1,6.28f.) s so to speak theby-product f itscontemplation.

Ps. Dionysius n divine ove.

Dionysiusspeaks in a different ay on the "ecstatic"character fdivineLove whensaying:

"We mustdare to say also this n behalfof the truth: thatalso theCause of all things, ythe noble love of all things nd bymeansof asuperabundance f eroticgoodness,goes out of Himself

(Eo0 cautzoo

yive7at),by extendingHis providential ares

(rtpovoiatg)o all kinds

of being,and thatHe so to speak is captivated by (His) goodness,affection nd Love"."5'

It should be noticed that "the Cause of all things" s referred oherenot in theneuter, utas atbzbg iatvzovat'izog.








In my arlier aper concludedthat, ncontradistinctiono Proclus,Dionysius nnovated n tworespects:first,n thathe attributed ivine

love to God himself,heCause of all things;second, in thatby thisvery ttribution e gave to divine ove a central nd important lacein histheology.

The first-mentionedemarkwill notrequire nyfurtherxplanation,the second, however,does. For Prof. Quispel seems to be rathershockedby the implied suggestion hat divineLove would not havetaken a centralpart in Proclus' theology.To preventfurthermis-understandingt shouldbe remembered hatI was speakingthereof

"theology"n the strict nd limited ense of a sciencethat

uses itsown technical erminology.or my udgmentwas based on the factthattheterm6paq, so frequentlysed in theAlcibiades-commentary,is absent fromthe Elementa Theologiaeand hardlyoccurs in theTheologiaPlatonica,52 and thiswhile the whole apparatus of suchterms, s

1LpovolztKO6,yaOot6ilf,aOmtluKO,Zstl)etlrK6O and aouv-

EKtK6og,s fully resentnthoseworks.Apparently roclus s avoidingtherethe termEpaw.From thisfact- whichcannot be denied - Iconcluded thatapparently he notion

EpozSwas not essentialto his

theology; moreover,that apparently n the Elements he did notespecially ntendto producea counterpart o the Christiandoctrineof the ove ofGod.

Proclus n histheologicalworks.To thequestion,then,of whyProclusavoided the term"eros" in

his properly peakingtheologicalworksmyanswer s: he did so onmethodologicalrounds. fterll it shouldnotbe forgottenhat,nspiteof his inclination owards"theurgy", rocluswas a philosopherand, as Dodds observed n his Introduction o theElements, ratio-nalist.Apparentlyn a work of strictlycientificystematicalheologyhe wishedto avoid a term hatmight e considered o belongmoretomythologyhan to philosophy.

I thinkProf.Q. could agreefairlywell withme, ifhe is willing ogrant hat t is desirable nd evennecessary o make such a methodo-logical distinction.He can find it rightat the beginning f Greek

philosophy,with the MilesiansThales and Anaximandros.The latterwere preceded by the Orphics and Hesiod who created a mythicaltheogony, utseparated hemselves rom heirwayof ookingat thingsand took a differentath: that of explaining hecosmos by rational







72 C.J. DE VOGEL

principles. ertainly, ow and thenthere s still a partof mythologyin the systems f theearlyGreekphilosophers.Q. is happy to find

Eros togetherwith Aphrodite in Parmenides' explanation of theuniverse.Nonetheless, t is thisphilosopherwho knew one way oftruth nly, xcluding he other s thewayof error, one by the massofmortalswhonever ttainto anyreal insight. ruth s onlyreached

bythe ntellect, otbythe senses. s itnot rather isky hen o declareon this basis thatcosmogonic,demiurgic, ivineLove, conceivedbythe Orphics,was "received by the Presocratics"?53And is it not

interestingo see how theEp0q Kotv)vtK6q of Proclus,whichplays

solarge

apart

n Boethius'vision of the cosmicorder,

nDionysius'versionclearlybears the mathematicalfeaturesof its Pythagorean

origin?54I mention this only to remember hat the cosmic eros of both

Boethius nd Dionysiuscannot be explained by thecosmogonicEros

of mythology nly. Withoutdenying he impact of the ChaldaeanOracleson Proclus' thought, f which ndirectlyn echo is heard in

Dionysius, nd sometimesn Boethius oo, I do think hemythologicalconstituent hould not be

overrated.55t was certainly ot the only

groundof thatwhole conceptionof cosmic love, and in the form ttook in their houghts think t was not even the essential ne.

Eros and Christianove n aterGreekterminology.Dionysiusdenotes the love of God by the termEros, an act for

which he is warmlypraised by Q. Now with thisusage of languageDionysiusis findinghimself onsciouslyon the track of Origen. InthePrologue ohisCommentaryn theSongofSongstheAlexandrianmasterdeclaredthat t is just a matterof words eitherto speak of"amari Deum" (fromEpav) or "diligi" (from tyairv).One can with

equal right aythatGod is "amor" as, likeJohn,nameHim "caritas"."I rememberhat ne oftheSaints, thinkgnatius, aid about Christ

"My love is crucified". n my opinion he is not to be blamed forthat". 6

Nowif gnatius adactually rittenhosewordswith eferenceoChrist, rigen's pinionwouldbe ustified.utan inspectionf thetext eferredo57 hows s with erfectvidencehat gnatius idnotspeak fChrist henwritinghosewords, ut fhisdesires or arthlythings.58 e must onclude hen hatOrigen's pinionwas not wellfounded.Hence,we cannotfollowhim n saying hatJohn, nsteadof








writing God is agape" mighthave said withequal right: "God iseros".

Yes, evenwith a greater ight, ays Dionysius,for"agapan" is tooordinary word, "eran" for ovingGod is certainlymore dignified,and "eros" denotes a higherkind of love than the more common

"agape".Here bothOrigenand Platonismhad done theirwork. The former

had been followedby a numberof Christianwriters, nd for a

Platonist, o doubt,"eros" was the mostappropriate erm or"divine

things". t must be noticed,however, hatthisdevelopment fGreek

love-terminologyatesfrom ateAntiquity4th-5th enturies) nd waslimited o certain ircles.59

The Johannine ritingsn theN.T.Could this, r rather herevivalof theOrphic cosmogonicmythn

the Gnosticwritings f the2nd cent.,be a groundfor us to followProf.Q. in his interpretationf theJohanninewritingsn theN.T.?What he thinks bout thesewritingss thefollowing:"The prophet

John",the authorof theApocalypse,wrotea gospel for thecongre-gationof Ephesus,which was "heavilyedited" by a HellenisticJew,a member f the same community.60hat theoriginalGospel was aJewish-Christianork,appearsrather learlyfromdifferenteatures.However, n the form he texthas been handed down to us, Q. findsa number f so obvious GreekEros-elements,hat t seems mpossibleto himthat he authoroftheoriginalGospel could have written hem.And thisapplies to the text of the FirstLetterof John as well. He

gives "onlythree

xamples".1. Jo. 15.12-13. To the original commandment f loving one'sbrother . thinks he editor dded "as I have loved you", so thatourlove mightbe like His, self-denying.he additional character f the

quoted wordsmightbe not directlyo obvious to us. What followsis certainly tronger. No man has greater ove for his friends hanhe who giveshis life for them."Certainly, numberof well-knownGreekexamplesmaybe remembered,nd Latin ones as well.But is it

true,as Q. says, that there is no parallel whatsoever n the OldTestament, ecause "the Greek idea of friendships quite foreign otheHebrews"?Was it really?How could he forgethere David andJonathan heyarerememberedvenby Dionysius,Div.nom. V 12.61







74 C.J. DE VOGEL

2. Jo. 13.23, in the description f the Last Supper: "One of his

pupils,whomJesus oved" ...

Q.: "It is unthinkablehat he ditor oundhisnhissource. He

has introduced omethingnew by makingthe Last Supper into a

symposium."Did he really? thinkwe better eave this nterpretationntirelyo

Prof.Q.'s responsibility.s to myownwayofreading hattext, can

only say that, thoughGreek literatures quite familiarto me, in

reading hatpassageofJohn was notremindedfa Greeksymposium,unless n a very xteriorway.

3. I John4, 10 and 19. "All this s typically rphicand Hellenic."

Well,this s really n amazingstatement. rewe thenhearinghereabouta cosmogonicEros? I thought ohnwas speaking boutpersonalrelationships.We read there that "love is out of God". The best

parallel o this s Proclus, n Alcib.233,Q. thinks,nd for hedefinitionthat God is love" we are sentto PlotinusVI 8,15 there we find he

equivalent."Here we have to replyquite categorically: No, we do not." We

reflectedn thephilosopher'swords and found thathe meant,first,that omehow heprototypef all desirefor hePerfect, orGoodness-itselftaken mpersonally),mustbe in theGood-itself; nd next, hatof coursethe"love" or "striving" f theFirst cannotbe foranythinginferioro itself.But withthese reflexions e are certainly ot there,whereJohn (or his supposed "editor") is. For Johnby no means

speaks of the Love of God froma humanpoint of view,not as a

strivingr a prototype f striving or Perfection. ohn s thinking ftheGod of Israel who electedtheJewish eople,who spoke to them

through he prophets nd who at last sentthemHis Son. There isnothingGreek and nothingof mythology ither behind or in hiswords. There is a piece of historybehindit: Jesus Christcrucifiedand risen.On thisgroundJohn ould saythatGod is love.

Boethius ndDionysius.I am afraidthatProf.Q. is missingthe point when he finds n

Boethius nd in DionysiustheAreopagite"themostthoughtfulnd

sagaciousexegetes fJohn" n his speaking bout the ove of God.62I should ike to readQ.'s followingentence63nthisform:

"Both Dionysius nd Boethius how howeasilya Christian ormedin theNeoplatonistschool of the end of the fifth r the beginning








of the sixthcenturiesmight ome to integrate he cosmologicalandphilosophicalthoughts bout Eros into his own system, nd how

greatthedangerwas that ndoingso hewould notreally peak aboutthe ove of God in the senseofChristianRevelation."

I do think hatDionysiustransformednd correctedNeoplatonisttheology, reciselyn transforminghe dea of eros. As forBoethius'metr.8 f Cons.II, in rereadingt on the occasion of Prof.Q.'spaperI am most struck ythe factthatthis"amor" was essentially cosmiclove, primarily irected owards theworld,ruling t and keeping t

together,owardsman onlysecondarily.What strikesme next s that

in the world of man that cosmic love is aimingfirst t collectiveentities,peoples being connectedby alliances, next at connexionsbetween ndividuals, ither n the bond of marriageor of a faithfulsodalicitas. t seems as if the individualpersonas such is not aimedat at all - This is, so one might ay,a highlymodernviewof man:human existence s a being-for-the-other,nd it should be so. Yet itdoes seem to me thatJesus Christwas interestedn individualman,notprimarilyndertheaspecteither fmarriage r of faithfulriend-

ship, nd first fall, thatthe ove ofGod, as brought ut both in theOld Testament nd in theNew, was primarily irected owardsman.There eems ome,then, o be an essential ifferenceetweenBoethius'cosmic ove and the ove ofGod as it is knownto us through he Bibleand inparticular hrough esusChrist.

However,Boethius will have his XV centuriesbirthday ongressthis eryyear,64nd thiswillgiveme, hope,theopportunityfsayinga fewwordsmore on his "amor quo caelumregitur".

NOTES

SIn: Early Christian iterature nd the Classical IntellectualTradition.Thbologiehistorique 3, in honoremRobertM. Grant,ed. by W. R. Schoedel and R. L. Wilken(Beauchesne 1979) 189-205.2 Not correct is in 1.4 "the frighteningeeds of things" instead of "fighting"(pugnantia emina ) and lame instead of tame. In the last few ines,wherethe amorquo caelumregitur s mentioned, f course Eros had to come in, which causes a

completerecasting f theEnglishversion.3 Q. refers o thedialogueas Plato's. It should be mentioned hat there re decisive

groundsfordenying ts authenticity,hough t certainly ame fromPlato's immediatesurroundings.he grounds gainsttheauthenticity eresummedup byE. de Stryckerin Les EtudesClassiques1942,p. 135-151.







76 C. J.DE VOGEL

' By somekind of "photomontage"-processe makes me say indealingwithProclusthat or Greekthoughtngeneral t was a kindof anomalyto speak of divine Love.In fact,the tenorof my account of the love terminologyn Greek philosophy, s

expounded n the Vivariumrticle,was rather o contradict uch a generalstatement.After ll, such a bluntverdictas this, that "the concept of divine love (sic) was

completely lien to Greek thought" ould hardlybe expectedfrom he author of thethreevolumes of GreekPhilosophy.Nor would it have been possible to thatauthor,afterhavingfound the concept of pronoetic ove in Proclus, to declare that "thisdoes not mean anything", nd such because it would have been "an anomaly in

Proclus". In fact didspeak of thetermEpoa applied to a divinebeingas a kindof

anomaly nnature, uch as was calleda terasbyAristotle nd bythe Latinsmonstrunm.However, said that not in dealingwith Proclus p. 31, whereQ. puts it in), but on

p. 16-17,where explained hatPlato by definingros as he did,"could not,accordingto his way of speaking,have attributed n EpoS to the gods". A way of speakingwhich, ndeed, eftdeep traces n Greekthought nd language, ven in later centuries.SIn myVivariumaperof 1963 I took Dionysius,De div.nom.V, up at ch. 10 andreflectedxtensivelybout it mycomments ookmore thantwenty ensepages).6 A. Nygren,Eros und Agape, Gestaltwandlungener christlichen iebe, vol. I

(Giitersloh1930)160f.,declaresthat in AristotleEros is "zu einerallgemeinenWelt-krafterhoben": in "matter" there is already the "longing" for "'form".For this

psychologizingnterpretationf a naturalprocessN. refers o H. Siebeck,Aristoteles,1910. He neither bserves hat nexplaining heprocessof "Selbstentfaltung"n natural

objectsAristotle ever pokeofEpoc,nor did he notice that thisveryprocess s closedas soon as theforms realized n theobject.Bythis elf-realizationhetelos s reached,so thatany furtherstriving" fter n ultimate ranscendentgathon s excluded.Cp.my paper on 'La m6thoded'Aristoteen m6taphysique 'apris Metaph. A 1-2' in:Aristote t les probl/mes e methode SymposiumAristotelicum, ouvain 1960), ed.

1961,p. 147-170.

7 p. 838.

s In K.D. III, 2 (1948)341, Barthcalled that tendencyn the theologyof the lastdecads "etwas Ungutes".9 In Phys.II. Aristotle's ccountof the physical process is excellently xplainedbyA. Mansion, ntroduction la physiqueristotilicienne,aris-Louvain 1946.

1o I am thinkingn particularof L. B. Geiger,Aristote t Saint Thomas d'Aquin(Louvain 1957) esp. p. 202.' RobertJolyof theUniversityf Brussels tracesthe history f thewords pltiv&ynratvn a comparatively ecenttreatise,Le vocabulaire hritiende I'amourest-il

original?pthsivt dyact1vdans le grec antique.Brussels 1968, 21971. He does notcease at the firstentury,utgoes on into the3rdand 4thcenturiesA.D. Jolyoffers

highlyprobable explanationfor the change in Greek love terminologyf which the

beginningsan be found n 4thcentury lassical writers.He mentions nice parallel

in theFrench dislikeof theverb"baiser". Of a particularnterests his remark boutthe frequent se of ptheiv, ccurring specially n papyrus etters f the Hellenistic

age (treatedby C. Spick, Le lexique de l'amour dans les papyruset dans quelquesinscriptions e l'6poque hell6nistique,in" Mnemosyne 955,p. 25-33). These are in-formaldocuments,writtenn everyday anguage,so one mightthink.On closer in-








spection hisappearsnot so. For the verbqpthiv s used thereregularlyn theclosingformula f letters.Now such a formula s precisely oteveryday anguage

Jolymentions he much earlierworkof B. B. Warfield,The Terminology f Lovein theN.T.' in: The Princeton heol.Rev.1918,p. 1-45, 153-203. Warfieldwas clearly

inspired ythepioneeringwork of the German scholarAdolfDeissmann,who towardstheend of the 19thand in thebeginning f the 20th cent. worked on the thennew

papyrus- nd ostraka-materialf the Hellenistic ge and on the basis of these non-

literary estimonies ealt with the New Testamentas a Hellenistic"book of the

people" (das NT als hellenistisches olksbuch). t is curious that R. Jolydoes notmentionDeissmann'sepoch-makingLichtvomOsten" bya singleword.12 The schedule s found n Eros undAgape,part , 185f.13 K.D. III 2, par. 45.2.

14 K.D. IV 2, par. 68.15 A similarprotest gainst the "sharp antithesis"made by Nygren,which led to

"fatalconsequences",was made byG. Bornkamm, esus von Nazareth Stuttgart 956,

31959) 106-108.16 Plato, Apol.29d-30a.17 Plato,Phaedr.246b.

18 J. M. Rist,Eros and Psyche.Studies n Plato, Plotinus nd Origen.Toronto 1964.19 O.c. 207.20 O.C. 25f.21 Called z6 d&rl0Xi yPlato, Syrmp. 12a.22 This was Prof.Grube'sopinion,quotedby Rist,p. 23f., by wayof introduction ohis treatmentf the themeof love in Plato. Grube thought hatwith Plato on his

upward ourney "something ad gonewrong". Why?Well, because he (G.) could notunderstandhat hecontemplationfsupremeBeauty ouldproduce satisfaction hich"we" could call "the satisfaction f love". Love, so he thought, must surelybelimited o therelations etweenndividuals".Therefore,we shouldpartcompanywith

Plato,whereDiotima reaches hebeauty f laws and institutions'."23 Procl. in Alcib.p. 26.2ff.Westerink,uoted extensivelyn my Vivarium aper of

1963,p. 33, withthe referenceo the Chald.Oracles.Quispel, 'God is Eros', p. 196,

cites theEnglish ranslation yO'Neill, 1965.24 I referredoKroll,De orac. Chald.p. 25. In the more recent dition fE. des Places

(Coll.Bud6, 1971), t is thefr.39.25 I noticethis norderto rememberhatPlato did notspeakof Epto in this context.He shared the Pythagorean iew of 6j6vota, ptlia and dpjovia as principles hatruleboth the kosmos and theworldof man,Gorg.504-507. It is almost certainthatthisPythagorean iewwas present o Proclus' mindas well, and certainlyt was toBoethius.

26 Rep.VI, 508e-509a. On this passage my contributionEncore une fois: le Biendans la R~publiquede Platon', n Zetesis MblangesDe Strycker), ntwerpen 973.

27 It is to be remembered hatfor Plato and manyof his contemporarieshe sun wasnot ust anothervisibleobject,butactuallyof a higher ntoldgical rder. The heavenlybodieswere, n Plato's terminology,visiblegods".28 Rist, o.c., p. 30f. judiciouslydefends A. E. Taylor's explanationof the divine

goodnessof theDemiurge.He also remarks uite correctlyhaton no accountPlato's







78 C.J. DE VOGEL

Demiurge"worked like a humancraftsman", s has been frequentlyaid by earlyChristianwriters. ist marks he difference: irst,he human craftsman oes not make

hisproducts norderthat ll thingsmightbe as muchas possible ike "himself";next,

he does not producethem"because he is good". He mightbe a scoundrel nd yetagood craftsman hat is right.Nonetheless, aylorwas "christianizing"when under-

standing heDemiurge s "God" the Creator n the biblicalsense,simplybecause the

Demiurgewas,ontologically peaking,not at thetop.29 Apol.30e-31a,referredo byRist,o.c. p. 32.30 LawsX 904c-905b.Cf.906 a-b.31 It is interesting though very ate parallel- to read Porphyry'sdmonition o

his wife Marcella (Ad Marc. 21-24) about divineprovidence.The passage shows a

remarkablylose correspondenceo Plato's words to theyoungman, cited above. Tobe noticed n Porphyry's assage is, thatapparently he word

08b6is used there n

rather vagueand general ense,neverwith the article nd repeatedlylternating ith

OEoi.The belief n divineprovidence5ct bt6 0co0 7tpovotcratxdv?ra)nd thatdivine

messengersthe 6tacropOej6ovwegf Plato, Symp.202e) and good genii &aiLoveg)are

perpetually upervisingur deeds,Porphyry alls a "privilege" yiypac) f thosewho"know" (about thegods) and "believe". On thecontrary,hosewho forget od (0E66,sing.and without rticle)will become the dwelling-placef daemons. "For the soulis either dwelling-placef gods (plur.)or of daemons". And never manwillescapedivine uperintendence:heeyeofthegods is alwayson him.

Up to here thecorrespondencewith Plato is almostperfect. he passage illustrates

verywell howmisleadingt is to modern ars to speakhere imply f "God".32 Procl., n Alcib.51. 1-6; p. 22f.Westerink.

33 Ibid., 51.8-52.14 p. 23 W.).

34 Fr. 46 des Places. Porph.AdMarc. 24 (Nauck p. 289.17f.)wishesto establishfour

principlesriooapa ozot~eia), adding i:hrigto the three mentionedby the Oracles.So does Proclus, n Tim. I 212.21. 'Ehxig seemsto be of Chaldaean origin. t occursalso in Iambl., De myst. I 6; V 26. Des Places,Orac.Chald., Notice,p. 275; H. Lewy,ChaldaeanOracles and Theology, airo 1956,p. 144-147,withnotes289-296.

35 Fr. 42 des P1.; Lewy,o.c., 127.

36 Fr. 44 des P1.; Lewy179.

37 Apparentlyamblichusadmitted hree ntelligible riads, viewing ach particularmember f his first riad as a new one. After hese threevorltai tptidSgand, as it

seems, fter hree thers f vocpoi Oeoi,he speaks of a vocpd 4368oL.idg,f whichthefirst hree the trlyatiotnai:peg- by Procl., In Tim. I, p. 308f., are more or lessdescribed ccordingto theirfunctions,he first f them as the iartcptuc6 ois, themiddleas the source of divine ife,while the third s identifiedwith the Demiurge.I quoted the textin Gr.Phil. III 1451b,with some comments nd related textsofDamascius a.o.

Psellus in his Hypotyposis f the Chald.Or. refers o it as the 7rrlyaia ptidg,ywhich we can rank it on the thirdontological level, which is that of the rrlycaia38o0pdgO,n which heDemiurgeNois is placed.

38 This is in accordancewith Arnobius'account,Adv. nat.II 25, who assignsto the

perfect,mmortal nd divine Soul the fourth ank, "post Deum principem erum t

post mentes eminas".Cf. Des Places, Notice p. 29ff.The "two minds"of Arnobius'"virinovi" are paralleledbythe First nd the SecondNofisof Numenius.








39 Proclus n Alcib. 49-56 (p. 22-25 Westerink).40 55.15-56.2.

41

I avoid usingthe term "models" for itapaSeiycata, because it evokes differentassociations fromPlato's metaphysical rchetypesn the minds of modernscientistsand scholars.

42 Ibid. 50.20 p. 22,Westerink).

43 Ibid. 51.5 (p. 23,W.).

44 Ibid. 51.8ff., ited n n. 32.

45 Plato,Laws 906ab.

46 It mightbe not superfluous o notice that the idea of "a streamof divineLove

descending romAbove" was certainlynot first ntroduced nto Greek philosophicalthoughtby Proclus. Dodds in his Introductionnd Commentaryo the Elem.Theol.

remarked hatZeller was mistaken n thistopic: Proclusfoundhis explanation f theworld-processby the triad of i~v~ltv, ipotuvat and

i~tottpctvat any rate in

Iamblichus,fromwhomhe borrowed considerablepartof his terminologyDodds,o.c. XXII ff. nd 220f.).

47 Quispel,p. 194,cites: "He is loveable,Love itself nd self-love".As a matter f

fact,this is not what Plotinuswroteaccordingto the best manuscript radition. treads: Kai pdaopitovai Epoa 6 abtog cai abwo Epog. Whichwas correctlyenderedwhen noticed p. 21,1.1-2 of my Vivariumrticle,1963) that n VI 8,15we find "theFirstPrinciple alledApdoptovnd Epoa at the same time".That is what thetext ays.It is interestinghatW. Theilersuggested o deletethe 6 beforeabt6g. However,we

cannot say that the MS readingmakes no sense. Henryand Schwyzerhad goodgroundsfornot following heiler'ssuggestion. have quoted Plotinus' textcorrectly,but let it followby a non-precise ranslation,whichunfortunatelyas takenover byprof. .48 Cp. the passage in Enn. V 1,6.11-27,where he emphasizesthat the One staysalways with itself,not turning o anything lse, "for therewas not anything".commented n VI 8,15 in Vivarium963,p. 21 f.

49 Among theologians,or perhaps in the reformatorian orld as a whole, sinceAndersNygren heword "self-love"has acquired an extremely nfavourable ense.

"Selbstliebe",that s exactlywhathas to be cast out from ur hearts, nd onlywhenthat bad "Greek love" has disappeared,can the true love of God come in. I can

imaginethat t must have been almostintolerable o Prof.Quispel (who is an Eros-enthusiast)to find in my Boethius-paper f 1963 that for Plotinus, according toEnn. VI 8,15, the Love of God was "self-love".Well, there s nothing o be doneabout that.Only this much can be said withcertainty,hatforPlotinus the Love ofGod was the highest nd most perfect ove and as such could only be the love toHimself.

50 De div.nom. IV 13:"Eat

&i ctitatutC1b6g

6 0sogpto , o6bK yvfatutdv lvCt

tobgApat6dg, iXci tiv Apomtkvov.quoted thissentence f Dionysius n myearlier

paper Vivarium 963,p. 22) and noticed hedifferencerom lotinus nEnn.V 1,6.51 In thesamepar. 13 of De div.nom.V. The Greektext nd theEnglishtranslationare inmyabove-cited aper, p. 25.52 The wordsEpott 13afi, a quotation fromthe Chald.Or. (fr. 43 des P1.) in theTheol.Plat. 4.25 Portus),are not a part of the "Theology" itself.They occur in an







80 C.J. DE VOGEL

introductoryhapter I,2) on themethodto be followed nd therequired dispositionof the student'smind: his soul must be totallyfilledby that "deep love" which ismentionedn theOracles.

53 Quispel,o.c., p. 201.54 De div.nom. V 10, cited in Englishtranslationn my Vivarium aper of 1963,

p. 11ff.The Ep woiovOvtw6;nd its mathematical haracter s discussedthere, . 15f.

55 As forBoethius,his cosmicLove, as described n Cons. II m. 8, does seem to me

essentially eterminedyphilosophical onceptions, otbya mythological osmogonicEros. Elsewhere,however, racesof Chaldaean influence re manifest. am thinkingofCons. III, m. 9 (O qui perpetua), . 19 (astralbodies attachedto souls in their scent

through he heavenly pheres)and 1. 21, reduci gnereverti. it.: Fr. Klingner,DeBoethiiConsol. (Berlin 1921)48and 50; W. Theiler,Antike und christliche iickkehrzu Gott', n: Mullus Festschriftlauser) 1964,p. 359.

56 Origenes,Comm. nCant.Cant.,Prologus,p. 71.22ff.

57 Ignatius,Ad Rom. 7.2.

58 The first o remark hiswas,as far s I know,Harnack. He wrote specialtreatise,Der "Eros" in deralten christlicheniteraturSitzungsberichte.Preuss.Akad.d.Wiss.,1918, I, 81-94), in which the textof Ignatius s discussed 82-84). A. Nygren,ErosundAgape, vol. II (1937) 188f., deals extensivelywith it. On Dionys.Areop. ibid.,410-414.

59 Quispel p. 192, n. 3, quotes the Christian uthorMacarius. One other instancetakenfrom pagan author s Porphyrius, ho writes o his wifethatone mustturn

to God (Trp6g 6v Oc6vthis ime: he is speakingnow of the rpdtog0E66)and in faithtrywith ll one's forces o know the truth bout Him,and then, fter omingto know

Him, CpaaOilvat toi3yvooxivrog Ad Marc. 24).

60 The theory hatthe FourthGospel is based upon a Jewish-Christianospel,whichhas undergone thoroughgoingevision,was recently efendedby RobertT. Fortna,The Gospel of Signs, Cambridge 1970, and 'The Theological Use of Locale in theFourthGospel', in: Anglican heol.Review, uppl.Series (1974), 58-95. Prof.Q. refersto theseworks.

61 I think t betternot to speak of an "erotic relation" either n this Jewish ase orin such bonds of solid friendships, for nstance, hat of Achilles and Patroclusin

Homer,of Nisus and Euryalus n Vergil, r of thePythagoreans amon and Phintias.Neither heHebrew nor theprimaryGreek and Latin sourcesgiveus any groundsfor

usingsuch an ambiguoustermwhich for modernsevokes exactlythat kindof asso-ciations which in none of the originalswas eithergiven or implied. It should beremembered hatSocrates,who ironically alled himself n

9pomttK6nd in a sense

is described as such, accordingto a firsthand testimony that of the half-drunk

Alcibiades,praising ocratesin a symposium lato, Symp.216c-217a), whenput tothe test, "despised the beauty" of his young friendcompletely, nd that Greekphilosophers n thewhole - not only Plato and Plotinus- had an extremelytrictidea about oMtppooi6vr. hat,for nstance, lotinusheld about sex relations, id notdiffernyhowfromthe most severe nstructionsf "Humanae vitae",neither n thepositivenor n thenegative.62 Quispel,o.c., 205.

63 Q. wrote: "Both Dionysius and Boethius show how easily a Christian could








integrateheOrphicand philosophical onceptof Eros into his own system,when hewantedto speakabout the ove ofGod."64 This was writtenn 1980. The BoethiusCongresswas held at Pavia, 5-8 Oct. ofthe same year. The Records ("Atti") will be published by the Istituto Patristico

"Augustinianum",Rome (1981). My contributionwill appear in French: 'Amorquocaelumregitur:Amourcosmique provenantde la philosophiegrecque,ou l'amour duDieu de la Bible?'

4325GS Renesse,Oosterenbanweg4

Greek Cosmic Love and the Christian Love of God Boethius, Dionysius the Areopagite and The

Documents

Transcript of Greek Cosmic Love and the Christian Love of God Boethius, Dionysius the Areopagite and The