Ontological Characterization of the Relation Between Man and Created Nature in Eriugena

Ontological Characterization of the Relation Between Man and Created Nature in Eriugena 1 JORGE J. E. GRACIA JOHN SCOTUS ERIUGENA'S PHILOSOPHICAL ANTHROPOLOGY has been one of the aspects of his thought that has attracted most attention among scholars. 2 In recent years in particular, several important studies have appeared that discuss various specific aspects of his doctrine of man. 3 However, none of these has provided a clearcut ontological characterization of the relation between man and created nature, which is the basis of Eriugena's philosophical anthropology, and this despite the fact that many scholars have recognized both the importance and subtlety of Periphyseon 4.7,' where Eriugena discusses this problem at length, s The purpose of this paper, I want to express my appreciation to Russell Hatton and George Hourani for taking the time to read a draft of this paper and for making a number of useful suggestions. As early as the nineteenth century most important studies on Eriugena discussed his doctrine of man. See, for example, F. C. Baur, Die christliche Lehre yon der Dreieinigkeit und Menschwerdung Gottes (Tiabingen, 1841-1843), vol. 2; T. Christlieb, Leben und Lehre des Johannes Scotus Erigena in ihre Zusammenhang mit der vorhergehenden und unter Angabe ihrer Beruhrungspuncte mit der neueren Philosophie und Theologie (Gotha, 1860); J. Huber, Johannes Scotus Erigena (Munich, 1861); ~.nd F. A. Standenmaier, Johannes Scotus Erigena and die Wissenschaft seiner Zeit (Frankfurt, 1834). For more bibliographical information on Eriugena see I. P. Sheldon-Williams, "A Bibliography of the Works of Johannes Scottus Eriugena," Journal of Ecclesiastical History l0 (1960):198-224. Mary Brennan (University College, Dublin) is now preparing a complete bibliography of Eriugena, 1800 to the present, for Studi Medievali. 3 Most substantial and recent are the following: G. Bonafede, Scoto Eriugena (Palermo, 1969); A. Burkhart, Der Mensch-Gottes Ebenbild und Gleichnis: Ein Beitrag zur dogmatischen Anthropologie F. A. Standenmaiers (Freiburg, 1962); C. Mazzantini, La filosofia di G. Scoto Eriugena (Torino, 1964); P. Mazzarella, II Pensiero di Giovanni Scoto Eriugena (Padova, 1957); F. J. Olivieri, "La concepci6n del hombre en De divisione naturae de Escoto Eriugena," Cuadernos Filos6ficos 4 (1963):61 74; J. J. O'Meara, Eriugena (Dublin, 1969); B. Stock, "The Philosophical Anthropology of Johannes Scottus Eriugena," Studi Medievali 8 (1967) : 1-57; J. Trouillard, "L'unit6 humaine selon Jean Scot Erigene," in L'Homme et son prochain. Acres du VIIIe Congrds des Societies de Philosophie de Langue francaise (Paris, 1957), pp. 298-301. Earlier in the century there are also several important works that discuss Eriugena's philosophical anthropology. See, for example, C. Albanese, Hpensiero di Giovanni Eriugena (Messina, 1929); H. Bett, Johannes Scotus Erigena: A Study in Mediaeval Philosophy (Cambridge, 1925; reprinted, 1964); M. Cappuyns, Jean Scot Erigdne, sa vie, son oeuvre, sa pens~e (Louvain-Paris, 1933; reprinted, 1965); H. Liebeschiatz, "Kosmologische Motive in der Bildungswelt der FrOhscholastik," Vortrage der Bibliothek Warburg 1923-24 3 (1926):83-148; A. Schneider, "Die Erkennislehre des Johannes Eriugena .... " Schriften der Strassburger Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft in Heidelberg 3 (1921):20ff; and one of the most important texts, M. del Pra, Scoto Eriugena (Milano, 1941; reprinted 1951). 4Chapters 8 and 9 are also important for the understanding of Eriugena's doctrine, although they are not exactly concerned with the specific problem that interests us here. They deal primarily with theological matters. Chapter 8 concentrates on the reasons why angels are not said to contain everything, and chapter 9 discusses how this doctrine can be reconciled with the account of creation given in Genesis. s R. McKeon translated chapters 7-9 from Periphyseon 4, where Eriugena discusses this problem in [155] 156 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY then, is to repair this neglect by clarifying the kind of relation there is between man and the created order according to Eriugena and to suggest a way of answering the main criti~cisms to which it might be subjected. The discussion is divided into five parts. The first gives a general statement of the doctrine based on Periphyseon 2. 3, 4, where for the first time in the treatise Eriugena describes in some detail the relation of man to created nature as involving "containment." The second sets up the problem of interpretation against...