The Trinity, Universals, and Particular Substances: Philoponus and Roscelin

THE TRINITY, UNIVERSALS, AND PARTICULAR SUBSTANCES: PHILOPONUS AND ROSCELIN By CHRISTOPHE ERISMANN During late antiquity, an interesting doctrinal shift can be observed: Aristotelian logic and its Neoplatonic complements, in particular the teachings of Aristotle's Categories and Porphyry's Isagoge, were progressively accepted as a tool in Christian theology. This acceptance met drawbacks and was never unanimous. Among the authors who used concepts that originated in logic in order to support their theological thinking, we can mention, on very different accounts, Basil of Caesarea,' Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria ," John Philoponus, Leontius of Byzantium,3 Maximus the Confessor, Theodore of Raithu, and John of Damascus, the author of an important Dialéctica.4 In the Byzantine context, handbooks of logic3 were written specifically for Christian theologians, showing that logic was perceived to be an important tool for theological thinking. The fact that we can group together the authors just mentioned by the value they gave to logic does not mean that they share any doctrinal unity. The application of Aristotelian logic to theology gives different results according to the way in which this logic is interpreted. I will consider here See for example J. M. Rist, "Basil's 'Neoplatonism': Its Background and Nature," in J. P. Fedwick, ed., Basil of Caesarea: Christian, Humanist, Ascetic, 2 vols. (Toronto, 1981), 1:137-220 and D. G. Robertson, "Stoic and Aristotelian Notions of Substance in Basil of Caesarea," Vigiliae Christianae 52 (1998): 393-417. I would like to thank John Marenbon, Paul Thorn, Margaret Cameron, and Alain de Libera for their remarks on a first draft of this paper. My gratitude also goes to Richard Cross and the anonymous reviewer of Traditio for their very useful comments. This research was carried out during a fellowship of the British Academy. 2 According to R. Siddals, Cyril "shares with the Neo-Platonists of Late Antiquity a genuine fascination for Aristotle's Organon and Porphyry's Isagoge" ("Logic and Christology in Cyril of Alexandria," Journal of Theological Studies 38 [1987]: 341-67, at 341-42). 3 See H. Reindl, "Der Aristotelismus bei Leontius von Byzanz" (PhD diss., University of Munich, 1953) and N. J. Moutafakis, "Christology and Its Philosophical Complexities in the Thought of Leontius of Byzantium," History of Philosophy Quarterly 10 (1993): 99-119. 1 For an analysis of the philosophical sources of the Dialéctica see G. Richter, Die Dialektik des Johannes von Damaskus: Eine Untersuchung des Textes nach seinen Quellen und seiner Bedeutung (Passau, 1964). 3 On the theological use of Aristotelian logic in the Christian Byzantine context see M. Roueché, "Byzantine Philosophical Texts of the Seventh Century," Jahrbuch der Osterreichischen Byzantinistik 23 (1974): 61-76 and idem, "A Middle Byzantine Handbook of Logic I'erminology," Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 29 (1980): 71-98. 278traditio the example of reasoning on the theological problem of the Trinity with a logical system that involves a particularist ontology (thereby rejecting really existing universals). The Terms of the Problem Let us take as our starting point the Christian dogma as it is formulated by the Cappadocian Fathers in the aftermath of the Council of Nicaea (325);6 the Christian God is described as follows: One essence, three hypostases (µ?a ??s?a, t?e?? ?p?st?se??) The philosophical origin of the vocabulary that is used is obvious. In Greek, the Christian God is ousia.7 The Aristotelian flavor of this polysemous word is immediately perceptible to a reader acquainted with philosophy. Such a reader also knows that ousia, in Aristotle, can be understood in two ways, as referring either to the concrete individual or to the so-called secondary substance, which is the essence of several individuals, i.e., the genus or species.8 In this Nicene formula, ousia is not used to refer to the concrete individual, since hypostasis is used in this sense. Ousia refers here to what is common to the three hypostaseis or persons. In the thought of Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa, the distinction between essence and hypostasis was superimposed upon that between what is common (koinon) and what is particular (idion). Ousia is related to hypostasis as the common is to the particular. On this ground, Basil of...