READING THE TWO BOOKS : EXEGESIS

AND NATURAL CONTEMPLATION IN

THE PERIPHYSEON
adrian guiu
Only through time time is conquered.
(T.S. Eliot, The Four Quartets, Burnt Norton II)

This essay weaves together a variety of threads : its main thread is

to attempt to connect the scriptural exegesis to the contemplation
of nature through the lens of Maximus Confessors idea that the two
books, Scripture and creation, are both Incarnations of the Logos,
Christ ; thus we hope to grasp why for Eriugena Texterklrung leads
to Welterklrung. A second thread follows how this metaphysical
geography, underlying both scripture and creation, is crucial for a better understanding of the structure and goal of the Periphyseon : based
on the correspondence between the levels of knowledge, the levels of
scriptural meaning and the hierarchy of sciences, I will explain how
the progression between different levels is achieved in the great dialogue. Thus, as a Neoplatonist, Eriugena knows that the highest level
of viewing the cosmos is that of the intellect, but as a follower of Maximus and student of Augustine, he knows that mediation is also crucial : in other words, the level of the intellect, theoria and theologia, can
only be achieved by passing through, by transiting through the lower
levels. For Eriugena physiologia is about passing through the thickness
of creation and of scripture in order to discern the theophanic presence
of the Logos. So the goal of the Nutritor and his pupil is to reach the
highest level of knowledge, that of theology, but only after patiently
tilling the ground of scripture, by treading the path of reason through
the physiologia of creation and scripture.

One of the difficulties of the Periphyseon, the magnum opus of

John Scottus Eriugena, is with regard to the role and status of the
extensive exegesis of Genesis. How does this exegesis fit within
the initial project of the work : to divide the genus of nature ?
To a great degree, the Periphyseon stands in the tradition of the
Proceedings of the International Conference on Eriugenian Studies in honor of E. Jeauneau, ed. by W. Otten, M. I. Allen, IPM, 68 (Turnhout, 2014), pp. 263-290.

DOI 10.1484/M.IPM-EB.1.102064

264

adrian guiu

Hexaemeral commentaries that can ultimately be traced back

to Philo of Alexandrias De opificio mundi, and which passes
through Origen, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa and Augustine. Although the Hexaemeron exegesis found in the Periphyseon
is embedded in a somewhat different argument (that of the division of the genus of nature), like these, it grapples with the Genesis account in order to make sense of creation.1
In order to clarify the role and status of exegesis in the Periphyseon, I will pursue several avenues. First is the question about the
status and role of exegesis : what is the connection between exegesis and the enterprise as a whole ? I will start with the observation
that the role of exegesis is related to the idea of the parallelism of
the two books (creation and scripture) which Eriugena appropriates
from Maximus Confessor. Eriugenas belief that both scripture and
creation are theophanic reflections of the divine is a crucial methodological principle in the Periphyseon and is the reason why he
does Welterklrung by doing Texterklrung, to use the wording of
Hans Liebeschtz.2 Second is the question about the genre of the
Periphyseon : how is exegesis related to the term physiologia,3 a term
used by Eriugena to describe the task of the Periphyseon.4 Another
way to shed some light on the genre of the work is to ask what
form of knowledge physiology is and how it fits within the various divisions of sciences throughout the work. Why do the teacher
and the pupil dwell so extensively on the exegesis of the creation
account while they are involved in physiology ? In other words, why
is physiology carried out through the exegesis of the Hexaemeron ?
1 The literature on the Hexaemeron is extensive : here are several helpful surveys : Frank Eggleston Robbins, The Hexaemeral Literature. A Study
of Greek and Latin Commentaries on Genesis (Chicago : University of Chicago,
Ph.D., 1912). Also : Thomas OLoughlin, Teachers and Code-Breakers. The
Latin Genesis Tradition, 430-800 (Turnhout : Brepols, 1999).
2 See H. Liebeschtz, Texterklrung und Weltdeutung bei Johannes Eriugena, Archiv fr Kulturgeschichte 40 (1958) : 66-96.
3 The question about the meaning of the words natura and physiologia is
one of the more difficult issues regarding Eriugena. There have been several
successful attempts to understand it. See e.g. Dominic OMeara, The Concept of Natura in John Scotus Eriugena, Vivarium XIX/2 (1981) : 126-145.
One connection which has not been explored extensively is that between Eriugenas physiology and Maximuss theoria physik.
4 See, for example, the beginning of book IV.741C (CCCM 164 : 3).

exegesis and natural contemplation

265

My preliminary observation is that Eriugenas exegesis of Genesis is related to the project as a whole and to the way he refers to
this project in several instances as physiologia.5 Moreover, I would
like to argue that the exegesis of the Hexaemeron and physiologia
must be traced to Maximuss theoria physik.6 Thus, Eriugena follows Maximus in regarding creation as a theophanic mediation of
the divine. For Maximus, one does not have to circumvent creation
in order to return to God : theoria physik constitutes his solution
to the conundrums of Origenian metaphysics which tended to discard the mediation of materiality and visibility in order to move
promptly to union with the divine. Thus, I will try to argue that
it is from Maximus that Eriugena learns to dwell on the reading of the two books in which Gods traces are manifested as theophanies. Eriugena appropriates Maximuss interpretation of the
Transfiguration according to which scripture and creation are the
two vestments of Christ : both scripture and creation are theophanically imbued with divine presence ; therefore, in order to reach
back to the divine nature, one cannot just catapult over creation
(in the Origenian fashion) ; rather, one has to take the long route
of sifting through the ballast of creation and scripture in order
to attain the intelligible level : this is what the long travail of the
Periphyseon sets out to do.
The Recourse to Scripture
After the teachers extensive exposition of the division of nature
and return of creation according to Maximus, the student is bothered by several claims made by the teacher in his interpretation

5 For the Periphyseon I shall cite the Migne column number and the volume number, page number and lines of the critical edition : Johannes Scottus Eriugena, ed. douard Jeauneau, Periphyseon, CCCM 161-165 (Turnhout :
Brepols, 1996-2003). I have also used and, where appropriate, amended the
translation of I.P. Sheldon-Williams and J. OMeara, Eriugena. Periphyseon
(The Division of Nature) (Montreal : Bellarmin, 1987). See Periphyseon IV.741C
(CCCM 164 : 3 l. 2). In a footnote, Jeauneau mentions that in the London
codex the title of the whole work appears as Liber Physiologiae Iohannis Scottigenae.
6 For the notion of theoria physik see Lars Thunberg, Microcosm and
Mediator. The Theological Anthropology of Maximus Confessor (Lund : Gleerup,
1965), pp. 343-352.

266

adrian guiu

of Maximus : I confess that concerning the return and unification whatever has been said by you is in all respects difficult and
obscure for me.7 There are several issues that bother the pupil :
first the issue of the unification of sexes achieved in Christ through
the incarnation, second, the unification of paradise with earth, of
earth with heaven, of the sensible creature with the intelligible.
Finally, there is the question of the manner of the return which
constitutes a thorny issue : how the return of all the aforementioned substances into the One and (their) unification will come to
pass, whether in the thing itself, [] or whether it is only in the
concept.8 So the precocious student is close to derailing the entire
Maximian account of the return offered by the teacher and implicitly the entire enterprise of the Periphyseon : the unification of all
creation in all its dimensions (including the material) into the primordial causes and from there into the divine source and unity.
The tutor replies that a proper answer would require a longer
detour. The two conversants agree that every inquiry into truth
should take its beginning from the divine oracles.9 It is at this
point that the interpretation of the creation account starts and
the result is the meandering Hexaemeron commentary which will
take up the remainder of the dialogue. However, the project of the
Hexaemeral commentary does not scrap the initial logical project of dividing the genus of nature. Rather it is subsumed into it
because it helps clarify the aspect of the return, the reditus or, to
use a term from dialectics, analysis. The teacher offers a different
course of action which is supposed to shed some light on the logical division. Nevertheless, the turn to exegesis will take the conversants into the domain of ontology and physics : thus, what had
started as a classical exercise of dialectics becomes a physiology.
Why does the teacher have recourse to scripture in order to
elucidate some issues related to the nature of the cosmos ? In my
view, his approach is based on one crucial insight he acquired from
7

Periphyseon II.543C (CCCM 162 : 25 l. 525).

Periphyseon II.544A (CCCM 162 : 26, l. 546) : quomodo, omnium substantiarum praedictarum reditus in unum atque adunatio futura sit : utrum
re ipsa [] an solo contuitu animi naturalem unitatem omnium rerum in suis
rationibus primordialibusque causis contemplantis.
9 Periphyseon II.545B (CCCM 162 : 27, l. 570) : ratiocinationis exordium ex
divinis eloquiis assumendum esse aestimo.
8

exegesis and natural contemplation

267

Maximus Confessor : the fact that scripture and nature reflect each
other and that their principles and character correspond ; they are
like two books in which Gods traces and manifestation can be discerned. The parallelism of the two laws, as Maximus calls them, is
one of the cornerstones of Eriugenas method in the Periphyseon. In
light of Maximuss two-books theory and of his understanding of
theoria physik, the place of exegesis within the Periphyseon and the
connection between exegesis and physiology gains some clarity.10
The Parallelism of Scripture and Nature in Maximus Confessor
The most extensive discussion of the two-book theory in the
corpus of Maximus Confessor is found in his Ambiguum 10. Here,
Maximus attempts to clarify a difficult passage from Gregory
Nazianzus : This is genuinely granted those who genuinely live
the philosophical life and transcend the material dyad trough the
unity of the mind perceived in the Trinity.11 The main issue of
this difficulty which Maximus needs to clarify is related to the
issue of what constitutes true philosophy. Here Gregory seems to

10 Eriugenas view of the two books will also be put to good use by the
masters of the twelfth century. See Willemien Otten, Nature and Scripture :
Demise of a Medieval Analogy, Harvard Theological Review 88.2 (1995) : 257284. See also her The Parallelism of Nature and Scripture : Reflections on
Eriugenas Incarnational Exegesis, in : Iohannes Scottus Eriugena. The Bible
and Hermeneutics, eds. G. van Riel, C. Steel, and J. McEvoy (Leuven : Leuven
University Press, 1996), pp. 81-102. See further Henri de Lubac, Medieval
Exegesis. The Four Senses of Scripture, transl. by M. Sebanc, vol. 1 (Grand
Rapids : Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 76-78. See also Donald F. Duclow, Nature as
Speech and Book in John Scotus Eriugena, Mediaevalia 3 (1977) : 131-40.
On the connections between reading nature and reading Scripture, see Peter
Harrison, The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science (Cambridge :
Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 11-28.
11 Amb. 10 (PG 91, 1105D). When citing Maximus directly I will give the
Latin of Eriugenas translation found in : Maximus Confessor and Johannes
Scottus Eriugena, Maximi Confessoris Ambigua Ad Iohannem : Iuxta Iohannis
Scotti Eriugenae Latinam Interpretationem, CCSG 18, ed. douard Jeauneau
(Turnhout : Brepols, 1988) ; where necessary I also give the Greek from Migne.
For the translations I have used : Andrew Louth, Maximus the Confessor (New
York : Routledge, 1996). I have also used Maxim Marturisitorul, Ambigua,
trans. Dumitru Staniloae (Bucuresti : Editura Institului Biblic, 2006). I have
checked the translations against the Greek original and, where appropriate,
amended them.

268

adrian guiu

intimate that true philosophy entails the transcendence of the

material and fleshly and the ascent to the deification as the contemplation of the Trinity. The Origenistic resonances of the passage are not to be missed : the material, visible aspects of reality
are an accident that needs to be overcome in order to return to
the divine unity.
The interpretative chore of Maximus, as a post-Chalcedonian
theologian, is to prove that creation, including the material, is not
just something that simply needs to be transcended, but is actually a necessary conduit (if not the conduit) to the divine.12 Thus,
in his view, the Origenistic disregard for the visible and material
is quite dangerous, and it could forfeit what it intended to achieve,
the return to God.13 Maximus rejects it because of his belief that
God is present in a theophanic manner in creation and each created being is endowed with a raison detre, a reason (logos) which
ultimately is rooted in the Logos, i.e., Christ. Therefore, Maximus
argues that the return does not simply amount to going beyond
created beings but necessarily entails a going through ()
the cloud of the visible and the material until one learns to discern the presence of the divine Logos. Maximus calls this exercise
of reading creation theoria physik : it amounts to learning to view
all creations as having a divine principle or reason (logos).14
In order to prove the necessity of passing () through
the various levels of creation for the return (reditus, ),
Maximus offers a series of exemplary interpretative exercises on a

12

Joshua Lollar puts it very poignantly : This trust reaches its highest
point in Maximus teaching that a person experiences the divine existence by
experiencing beings ( ) and intellectually
sees God manifest as goodness in creation. See Joshua Lollar, To See into the
Life of Things. The Contemplation of Nature in Maximus the Confessors Ambigua to John (PhD diss, University of Notre Dame, 2011), p. 301.
13 For Maximuss debate with Origenism, see Polycarp Sherwood, The Earlier Ambigua of Saint Maximus the Confessor and His Refutation of Origenism
(Roma : Herder, 1955).
14 Adam Cooper, The Body in St. Maximus the Confessor : Holy Flesh, Wholly
Deified (Oxford/New York : Oxford University Press, 2005) ; also Torstein
Tollefsen, The Christocentric Cosmology of St. Maximus the Confessor (Oxford/
New York : Oxford University Press, 2008). See also Lollar, To See into the
Life of Things. The Contemplation of Nature in Maximus the Confessors Ambigua to John.

exegesis and natural contemplation

269

variety of biblical texts supposed to convey to his interlocutor the

idea that for the return to God, the mediation of creation and of
scripture are indispensable.
At the center of these readings is the Transfiguration passage,
which for Maximus becomes the epitome of the passage through
the levels of reality and the progression through the various
stages of knowledge. According to Maximus, this parallelism is
grounded in Christ, who is the Logos, the reason both of Scripture and of creation. The best expression of this unity is found
in the image of the two garments of Christ in the Transfiguration
account ; the two garments correspond to the two books in which
the forms and shapes in which those things that have come to
be are put forward to be seen. [] For the creator of the universe
and the lawgiving Word is hidden as manifest, since he is invisible
by nature, and is manifested as hidden, lest he is believed by the
wise to be subtle in nature.15 According to Maximus, because the
Logos is manifested both in Scripture and in creation, the symbols
of the visible creation and the syllables and letters of Scripture
give an intimation of it.
And if Christ at the time of his Transfiguration wore two vestures
white as snow, namely the letter of the Divine Oracles and the
sensible appearance of visible things, why should we be encouraged diligently to touch the one in order to be worthy to find
Him whose vesture it is, and forbidden to inquire about the other,
namely the visible creature, how and by what reasons it is woven,
I do not clearly see.16

Based on the image of the two vestments of Christ, Maximus

establishes a parallelism and symmetry between what he calls the
two laws : the natural and the written law. Then he unfolds what
he understands by the two laws even more :

15

Maximus Confessor, Ambiguum 10 (PG 91, 1129C).

Periphyseon III.723D-724A (CCCM 163 : 149-50, ll. 4351-4363) : Et si
duo uestimenta Christi sunt tempore transformationis ipsius candida sicut
nix (diuinorum uidelicet eloquiorum littera et uisibilium rerum species sensibilis), cur iubemur unum uestimentum diligenter tangere, ut eum cuius uestimentum est mereamur inuenire, alterum uero (id est creaturam uisibilem)
prohibemur inquirere et quomodo et quibus rationibus contextum sit, non
satis uideo.
16

270

adrian guiu
The first law, in conformity to the Logos, depicts the harmonious
texture of the whole as a book which has as syllables and letters,
the various bodies thickened through the coming together of different qualities which are the first and closer to us ; It also has
words which are more remote and finer. Through their reading
the Logos which is woven into them is discerned. [] The second
[law], revealed through teaching, is depicted as another world constituted of heaven and earth and those in between : ethical philosophy, natural and theological philosophyit is shown that these
two [laws] are in essence the same : the written law is potentially
the natural and the natural law is habitually the written law :
both reveal and conceal the same Logos : they conceal it through
the letter and through what is seen and uncover it through what
is understood and concealed.17

Thus for Maximus, both books are conduits to God because both
Scripture and creation intimate the divine Logos, Christ, through
the letters (logoi) imprinted in them. For Maximus, scripture and
the cosmos reflect each other because they are both embodiments
and places of manifestation of the divine Logos. The task of the
interpreter is to learn to discern the theophanic presence : therefore one has to apply the appropriate level of reading. This insight
of Maximus will be appropriated by Eriugena and will become one
of the cornerstones of the Periphyseon.

17 Maximus Confessor, Ambiguum 10 (PG 91, 1129-B), transl. Louth,

Maximus the Confessor, 110 (amended).
,
, , , , , ,
,
, ,
,
,
,
,
,
,... ,
,
, ,
, .

exegesis and natural contemplation

271

In the Homily, Eriugena appropriates the two-laws theory and

explicitly establishes a parallel between the cosmos of scripture
and the cosmos of creation. He will use the same image used by
Maximus at the end of the above passage. Thus, like the visible
cosmos, scripture is also divided into four levels. According to
him, scripture is like another cosmos : Scripture is an intelligible
world composed of four parts, as the sensible world is composed
of four elements.18 Thus, the abyss, or the inferior part of the
earth corresponds to ethics. Ethics and history are surrounded
by the air of natural science [] called by the Greeks, physics.19
Above and beyond all of this, there is a fiery and ardent sphere
of the empyrean heaven ; that is this high contemplation of divine
nature which the Greeks call theologia ; no intellect could penetrate beyond it.20 Like the cosmos, scripture itself is a hierarchical world which has heaven, earth and the middle elements.
These in their turn correspond to moral, natural and theological
philosophy. From this we can see that for Eriugena, there exists a
deep correspondence between the levels of scripture, the levels of
knowledge and the levels of creation.21
Maximus gives the parallel between the elements of scripture
and those of creation a very precise exposition in Ambiguum 38.22
According to Maximus, scripture, like the cosmos, is ordered and
displays a system of ten fundamental categories. The general

18

See Jean Scot, Homlie sur le prologue de Jean XIV.291B, SC 151 : 270 :
Diuina siquidem scriptura mundus quidam est intelligibilis, suis quattuor
partibus, ueluti quattuor elementis, constitutus.
19 Idem, 291C, SC 151 : 270 : Aer ille naturalis scientiae circumuoluitur quam,
[] graeci uocant physik. The division of the science with regard to the various levels of the cosmos dates back to Plato and Aristotle. For Aristotle,
physics is the science that pertains to the movable, changeable.
20 Hom. Prol. in Ioh. XIV. 291C, SC 151 : 270-2 : Extra autem omnia et
ultra, aethereus ille igneusque ardor empyrii caeli, hoc est, superae contemplationis diuinae naturae, quam graeci theologiam nominant ; ultra quam
nullus egreditur intellectus.
21 See also the article of Bernard McGinn in this collection who calls this
correspondence an isomorphism.
22 Paul Blowers, The World in the Mirror of Holy Scripture : Maximus the
Confessors Short Hermeneutical Treatise in Ambiguum ad Joannem 41, in :
Paul Blowers, et al. (eds), In Dominico Eloquio. Essays on Patristic Exegesis in
Honor of Robert Louis Wilken (Grand Rapids : Eerdmans, 2002).

272

adrian guiu

reason of the spiritual meaning of scripture appears tenfold to

contemplation : through place, time, genus, person, occupation,
practice, natural philosophy and contemplation, presence and
future, or type and truth.23 Then Maximus offers a demonstration of how, through contemplation, one passes from plurality to
unity through the categories of scripture : the reader is shown how
to traverse the various stages until, through the threefold division
of philosophy, he ascends to the unitary Logos of scripture.24 First
one passes through the five categories of scripture : time, place,
genus, person, dignity ; these are then reduced to the threefold
division of philosophy : ethical, natural and theological. These are
further contracted into the categories of present and future ; from
here one proceeds to reduce all reasons and meanings to the one
Reason/Logos, who is Christ.
The Role of Scripture
The parallelism of the two books is also reflected in the way
Eriugena conceives of the role of scripture per se. The Bible is the
centerpiece of Eriugenas pedagogical program, which is meant
23

See Maximus Confessor, Ambiguum 38 (PG 91, 1293B) :

, , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , ,
,
,
,
, , ,
,
.
24 Maximus offers a demonstration of the passing through and unification
of the categories of creation in Ambiguum 41. There he describes how Christ
unifies creation by bringing together the particulars and universals. The logoi
of the distinct and particular are comprehended in the rationalities of the
universal and general. And the rationalities of the general and universal are
comprehended by wisdom, while the logoi of the particular, contained in a
variety of ways in the general ones, are comprehended by prudence. The logoi
simplify and forsake the symbolic variety from within individual things in
order to be unified by Christ the Logos. See Adrian Guiu, Christology and
Philosophical Culture in Maximus the Confessors Ambiguum 41, in : Studia
Patristica vol. XLVIII (Leuven : Peeters, 2010), pp. 111-116.

exegesis and natural contemplation

273

to lead the soul back to God. Not unlike Origen, he conceives of

scripture as a training ground for the debilitated human. For in
this manner of spiritual medicine God wanted to call back his
image both into himself and to him, so that fatigued and trained
by the tedium of mutable things, it would desire to contemplate
the stability of immutable and eternal things, would ardently
hunger for the incommutable forms of true things so as to rest in
their beauty without any variety.25
Although he seems to give priority to scripture, Eriugena also
regards the second book, that of creation, as conducive to helping humanity return to God. In his commentary on Dionysiuss
Celestial Hierarchy, Eriugena explains that scripture as a second
book would not have been necessary, had humans not sinned.
The book of creation would have been sufficient as a conduit to
God. For the human soul is not made for the sake of scripture,
which it would not have needed in any way, had it not sinned ; but
sacred scripture is woven from a diversity of symbols and teachings so that through its introduction, our rational nature would
be returned to the pristine height of pure contemplation.26 Thus
scripture provides more accessible and more obvious forms of discerning the divine presence for the fallen human being. Scripture,
unlike the fallen visible cosmos, is ordered and therefore consti-

25 Periphyseon V.959B (CCCM 165 : 139 ll. 4486-92) : Eo enim modo spiritualis medicinae imaginem suam deus uoluit et in se ipsam et ad se ipsum
reuocare, ut rerum mutabilium taedio fatigata et exercitata immutabilium
aeternorumque stabilitatem contemplari desideraret ardenterque uerorum
incommutabiles species appeteret, in quarum absque ulla uarietate pulchritudine quiesceret. The same idea of the multiplicity of meanings is repeated
in Iohannis Scoti Eriugenae. Expositiones in Ierarchiam Coelestem, cap. II, 1
(CCCM 31 : 24 ll. 146-51) : ita theologia, ueluti quaedam poetria, sanctam
scripturae fictis imaginationibus ad consultum nostri animi et reductionem a
corporalibus sensibus exterioribus, ueluti ex quadam imperfecta pueritia, in
rerum intelligibilium perfectam cognitionem, tamquam in quamdam interioris hominis grandeuitatem conformat.
26 Iohannis Scoti Eriugenae. Expositiones in Ierarchiam Coelestem, cap. II,
1 (CCCM 31 : 24 ll.150-155) : Non enim humanus animus propter diuinam
scripturam factus est, cuius nullo modo indigeret, si non peccaret, sed propter animum humanum sancta scriptura in diuersis symbolis atque doctrinis
contexta, ut per ipsius introductionem rationabilis nostra natura, iterum in
pristinam pure contemplationis reduceretur altitudinem.

274

adrian guiu

tutes the prime tool of the great pedagogue, the Creator, to bring
the fallen human being back to the unity of creation.
This idea is expounded clearly in the Homily on the Prologue of
John when the exegete gives an exposition of the verse from the
Gospel of John : et vita erat lux hominum.27 The light of the people, Eriugena explains, has forsaken the world when the human
being has forsaken God. In this predicament, scripture, the written book, and creation, the visible book, remain the only possibilities for attaining divine knowledge. Both are written by, with,
and in the divine Word. So in order to learn to discern the hidden
presence of Christ, one has to learn to read these books. The light
of Christ can be discerned as a refulgence in the visible forms of
creation and scripture. The task of the interpreter is to become
again able to infer the theophanic presence28 of the Word, who can
be discerned in the visible forms, either those in the nature of
things, or in the sacraments of divine scripture.29 Visible forms,
either those of creation or those of scripture, are reflections of
divine providence and make it present theophanically. As Eriugena says :
And there are two ways in which the divine light makes itself
known to the world. Because the divine knowledge cannot be
restored in us but by the letters of scripture and by the spectacle of creatures. Study the words of scripture and in your spirit,
understand the signification : you will discover the Logos. Through
your corporal sense observe the forms and the beauty of sensible
things : in them you will understand the Logos of God. 30

27

Hom. Prol. in Ioh. XI. 289B, SC 151 : 252ff.

See Hilary A. Mooney, Theophany : The Appearing of God according to
the Writings of Johannes Scottus Eriugena (Tbingen : Mohr Siebeck, 2009),
pp. 85-152. For a recent discussion of theophanies and how they are interpreted in East (through Dionysius) and West (through Augustine) see Bogdan
Bucur, Dionysius East and West : Unities, Differentiations, and the Exegesis
of Biblical Theophanies, Dionysius 26 (2008) : 115-138.
29 Expositiones, I, 3, CCCM 31 : 15 ll. 510-515) : uisibiles formae, siue quas
in natura rerum, siue quas in sanctissimis diuinae scripturae sacramentis contemplatur.
30 Hom. Prol. in Ioh. XI.289C, SC 151 : 254 ll. 12-18 : Dupliciter ergo lux
aeterna seipsam mundo declarat, per scripturam uidelicet et creaturam. Non
enim aliter in nobis diuina cognitio renouatur, nisi per diuinae scripturae apices et creaturae species. Eloquia disce diuina et in animo tuo eorum concipe
28

exegesis and natural contemplation

275

Thus, in Eriugenas view, reading scripture and creation provides a necessary exercitatio for the alumnus and for the nutritor. 31 The Periphyseon itself can be regarded as a great exercise
of reading scripture : the Hexaemeron provides a privileged training ground for achieving the contemplation of creation which will
allow the discussants and the readers to discern Gods theophanic
presence. The fallen soul needs this training through the reading
of scripture in order to be able to re-learn the correct reading of
the book of creation.
From this perspective, the multiplex theoria offered by the
Periphyseon corresponds to the infinite multiplicity, richness and
difficulty of scripture. The vast and unfathomable character of
scripture is a constant adage in the Periphyseon. This is both true
of the meaning of scripture and of the possibilities of its interpretation. 32 Thus the density and variety of scripture is not problematic but felicitous for Eriugena ; he regards multiplicity of meanings and layers as a necessary exercise ground for those who want
to retrain their ability to contemplate the divine. The Periphyseon
could be regarded as such an attempt at returning to the divine
by going through the training regimen of scripture. Moreover,
going through the regimen of scripture also allows one to become
a better reader and observer of creation, as expressed in the following passage :
intellectum, in quo cognosces uerbum. Sensu corporeo formas ac pulchritudines rerum perspice sensibilium, et in eis intelliges dei uerbum.
31 I got this insight from Henri-Irene Marrous discussion of Augustines
early dialogues and the De Trinitate ; thus the convoluted character of the
dialogue is not due to a lack of rhetorical prowess but is intentional. It has
a pedagogical-performative rationale ; the digressions are supposed to refine,
train, and correct, the understanding of the readers in order to prepare them
for the contemplation of the divine realities. In a similar manner the digressions and sometimes convoluted character of the conversation are meant as a
training ground for using the arts in the proper way for reading Scripture
and creation. See Henri-Irene Marrou, Saint Augustin et la fin de la culture
antique (Paris : Boccard, 1938), pp. 297-327.
32 Periphyseon II. 560A (CCCM 162 : 46 l. 385) : sed quoniam sacrae scripturae interpretatio infinita est ; cf. also Periphyseon IV. 749C (CCCM 164 : 13
ll. 312-316) : Est enim multiplex et infinitus divinorum eloquiorum intellectus. Siquidem in penna pavonis una eademque mirabilis ac pulchra innumerabilium colorum varietas conspicitur in uno eodemque loco eiusdem pennae
portiunculae.

276

adrian guiu
For the authority of holy scripture must be in all things followed
because the truth dwells there as in a retreat of its own, but it is
not to be believed as a book that always uses verbs and nouns in
their proper sense when it teaches about the divine nature, but it
employs certain likenesses and transfers in various ways the meanings of the verbs and nouns out of condescension for our weakness
and to encourage by uncomplicated teaching our senses which are
still untrained and childish. 33

Thus, besides the practical necessity of trying to clarify Maximuss

account of the return for the pupil, the recourse to the Hexaemeron
is also related to the conviction that scripture provides a privileged
training ground for getting prepared for the task of viewing nature.
Scripture, however, also provides a clarifying lens for creation.
Although Eriugenas stated hermeneutical principle is that
the cosmos must be read through the lens of scripture, there are
instances in which he actually starts from the observation of
nature in order to bolster an argument derived from scripture :
this happens most clearly when the two discussants argue for the
necessity of the return of all creatures to God. If man had not
sinned, his view of the constitution and structure of the cosmos
would have been much more acute. In spite of the fall, there is an
overall note of optimism and trust in the abilities of the human.
Through exercitatio and training following the impulse to reason,34 one could hope to understand and discover the recesses of
creation. 35 In Book III Eriugena says :
33 Periphyseon I.509A (CCCM 161 : 92-93, ll. 2873-2876) : Sanctae siquidem
scripturae in omnibus sequenda est auctoritas, quoniam in ea ueluti quibusdam suis secretis sedibus ueritas possidet. Non tamen ita credendum est ut
ipsa semper propriis uerborum seu nominum signis fruatur diuinam nobis
naturam insinuans, sed quibusdam similitudinibus uariisque translatorum
uerborum seu nominum modis utitur infirmitati nostrae condescendens nostrosque adhuc rudes infantilesque sensus simplici doctrina erigens.
34 This reinforces the point that the overarching guide throughout this
journey is reason and the pupil and his teacher use a variety of reference
points for deciding the course of discussion : tradition, the authority of previous interpretations, scripture, natural philosophy. Nevertheless reason itself
and its ability to attain the perfect knowledge is at stake throughout the
dialogue.
35 Periphyseon V.1010B (CCCM 165 : 210, ll. 6811-6817). Concatenatus
quippe est diuinae scripturae contextus daedalicisque diuerticulis et obliquitatibus perplexus. Neque hoc spiritus sanctus fecit inuidia intelligendi...sed

exegesis and natural contemplation

277

Suppose man had not sinned or been degraded to the likeness of

the beasts : would he then be ignorant of the boundaries of this
world (that is) his possession which he would most righteously
govern according to the laws of nature ? For he who even after
his fall did not entirely lose the dignity of his nature should have
been another angel to praise God in his sensible creatures. For
there remains in him an impulse of the reason to seek the knowledge of things and to be unwilling to fall into error, although he
does so in many things, yet not in all. 36

In Book III, the teacher brings up this argument in order to ground

his procedure of providing measurements for a variety of physical
bodies in the context of his exposition of the fourth day. In this
quite lengthy section he discusses the opinions of Eratosthenes,
Pliny and Pythagoras, offering a series of theories about the
measurement of the earth and planets. Summarizing, he states :
And although nothing definite is found in the divine scripture concerning such measurements of the sizes and distances of the bodies
of the world, yet the divine authority not only does not prohibit
the investigation of the reasons of things visible and invisible, but
even encourages it. For, says the apostle, from the creation of
the world his invisible things are seen, being understood from the
things that have been made.37

Nevertheless, there are several instances in which Eriugena will

have recourse to nature to shed light on difficult passages in scrip-

studio nostram intelligentiam exercendi sudoris que et inuentionis praemii

reddendi : Praemium quippe est in sancta scriptura laborantium pura perfectaque intelligentia.
36 Periphyseon III.723D (CCCM 163 : 149, ll. 195-202) : Quid si homo non
peccaret inque similitudinem iumentorum caderet ? Num possessionis suae
(mundi huius profecto) terminos ignoraret, quos naturae legibus iustissime
regeret ? Oportebat enim alium angelum esse, qui in creaturis sensibilibus
deum laudaret. Qui nec post delictum naturae dignitatem omnino perdidit.
Manet enim in eo rationabilis motus, quo rerum notitiam appetit, et neque
falli uult, quamuis in multis fallatur, non tamen in omnibus.
37 Periphyseon III. 723C (CCCM 163 : 148, ll. 4336-4342) : Et quamuis in
diuinis scripturis de talibus mundanorum corporum dimensionibus magnitudinum et interuallorum nil diffinitum reperiatur, diuina tamen auctoritas
rationes rerum uisibilium et inuisibilium non solum non prohibet, uerum
etiam hortatur inuestigari. Inuisibilia enim eius, ait Apostolus, a creatura
mundi per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspiciuntur.

278

adrian guiu

ture. Thus, Eriugena walks on a two-way street between scripture

and nature. 38
At one point in book IV, the two discussants ponder possible
interpretations of the Genesis verse : Let the waters bring forth
living souls, both creeping things and things that fly above the
earth. In order to adjudicate the correct interpretation of scripture, the teacher has recourse to natural interpretation : Far from
anything preventing us, reason herself, in my opinion if we could
but listen to her more carefully, insists that we should understand
the relation which exists between the sacred text and reality.39
The argument provided by the teacher is quite telling with regard
to the relationship between the facts of scripture and those of
creation, of the rerum factarum. In his view the variety of interpretations of scripture reflects the way the multiplicity of creatures
in nature has its origin in just four elements ; the entire diversity of creatures is being brought to life by the life force through
the potency of seeds contained in the four elements. So, even
as they deal with the interpretation of scripture, the conversants
rely on the authority of the natural philosophers : Your account
is logical and likely, for it accords with the observations of the
naturalists.40
When it comes to clarifying one of the great stumbling blocks
about the fact that God both creates and is created,41 the pupil proposes again to stick to the path of reason in order to avoid fallacy

38

Otten argues that this is based on the centrality of the incarnation : []

the centrality of Christs incarnation forces Eriugena in the end to regard the
difference between nature and scripture as secondary if not peripheral. The
Parallelism of Nature and Scripture : Reflections on Eriugenas Incarnational
Exegesis, in : Iohannes Scottus Eriugena. The Bible and Hermeneutics, eds.
G. van Riel, C. Steel, and J. McEvoy (Leuven : Leuven University Press,
1996), p. 91. While I concur with her position, I would add that this is also is
due to the value he assigns to the authority of reason.
39 Periphyseon IV. 749C (CCCM 164 : 13, ll. 310-312) : Non solum, ut opinor,
nil obstat, uerum etiam ut ita intelligimus ea quae scripta sunt secundum
ueritatem rerum factarum, ratio ipsa intentius considerata nos aduocat.
40 Periphyseon IV.750A (CCCM 164 : 14 ll. 336-7) : Rata haec uerique similia physeologiaque speculationibus conueniunt.
41 Periphyseon III. 650D (CCCM 163 : 47 l.1334) : Deus itaque omnia est et
omnia deus ! (that God is Himself both the maker of all things and made in
all things.)

exegesis and natural contemplation

279

and to be able to go beyond the surface of the letter : Therefore

the path of reasoning must start from illustrations drawn from
nature, which no one [unless] blinded by excessive folly rejects.42
In order to pursue this plan, the teacher proposes a detour into
the liberal arts, especially arithmetic. The task of this detour is
to prove that all numbers derive from the Monad but that the
Monad remains unchanged. The conclusion and proof are crucial
for the argument of the Periphyseon. For by these arguments it
is established and clearly understood wherein they are eternal and
wherein and how they become made so that not without reason we
see that they are both eternal and made.43 What is important to
notice is that through recourse to arithmetic, the two discussants
manage to establish the principle that God both creates and is
created and thus manage to avoid forfeiting the arch principle of
Gods unchangeability ; the stakes of the teacher in this issue are
quite high, because on it depends the entire monistic ontology of
the Periphyseon.
The same procedure of using natural contemplation in order to
ascend to higher levels of contemplation is found at another crucial moment : at the beginning of Book V, when Eriugena uses
examples from creation at the beginning of the explanation of the
return. He says : I think it is as clear as day to all who study
either by abstract speculation or concrete experience the nature of
the physical universe that the heavenly sphere of the fixed stars
is perpetually revolving and returns to its original position every
twenty four hours. After recapitulating the movements of the different heavenly bodies he concludes : the natural laws governing
the revolutions of the two greatest luminaries will provide sufficient evidence for the doctrine I am trying to affirm.44 The goal
of his approach here is to discern the mystical meaning which is

42 Periphyseon III. 651A (CCCM 163 : 47 ll. 13471349) : Proinde naturalibus exemplis, quibus nisi nimia stultitia excaecatus nemo resistit, primo
ratiocinationis uia incipienda est.
43 Periphyseon III. 660D (CCCM 163 : 60-61 ll. 1722-1725) : His enim argumentis conficitur clareque intelligitur ubi aeterni sunt, et ubi et quomodo
patiuntur fieri, ut non immerito perspiciamus eos et aeternos esse et factos.
44 Periphyseon V. 866B (CCCM 165 : 10 ll. 243-245) : Sufficit enim duorum
maximorum luminarium naturales leges et reuolutiones ad ea quae conamur
asserere suadenda posuisse.

280

adrian guiu

revealed by the general and particular movements of the sensible

world.45
The second kind of proofs he adduces is from things that can
only be perceived by the mind. He goes through the principles of
the various liberal arts in order to prop up their position : Just
as we have taken some illustrations of the return of nature from
the sensible world, so in like manner we should introduce as evidence of the same return theories of the intelligible world which
are only apprehensible to perception of the mindand indeed
without the guidance of reason and intelligence these can neither
be discovered nor proved, for the true knowledge of sensibles cannot be attained by corporal sense alone.46 Then he proceeds to
show how each of the liberal arts displays the two fundamental,
cosmic aspects of reality : exitus and reditus : dialectic starts from
the most general of the genera, ousia, and proceeds through division until it reaches the smallest species ; from there it returns
according to the rules of synthesis by the same steps by which
it descended until it reaches the same ousia.47 Arithmetic starts
from the Monad and descends through all the species of number
and it retraces its steps back to the Monad.
We see here how the teacher and the student repeatedly have
recourse to natural philosophy in order to confirm or to verify
some interpretative decisions they had taken with regard to the
account of scripture. Eriugena does not always use scripture to

45 Periphyseon V. 867C (CCCM 165 : 12 ll. 299) : et uniuersaliter et particulariter motibus.

46 Periphyseon V. 868D (CCCM 165 : 13-4 ll. 349-359) : ut quomodo ex
motibus rerum sensibilium quaedam exempla de reditu naturae assumpta
sunt, ita etiam ex intelligibium contemplationibus quae sola mentis conceptione percipiuntur ad eundem reditum suadendum introducantur [....] licet et
illa sine rationis et intelligentiae ducatu nec inueniri nec approbari possint.
Rerum nanque sensibilium ueram cognitionem solo corporeo sensu impossibile est inueniri.
47 Periphyseon V. 86BD-869A (CCCM 165 : 14 ll. 360-363) : Quid tibi uidetur ? Nonne ars illa, quae a graecis dicitur dialectica et diffinitur bene disputandi scientia, primo omnium circa OYCIAN ueluti circa proprium sui principium uersatur.

exegesis and natural contemplation

281

read the cosmos, but also observes the cosmos in order to gain a
better grasp of the workings of scripture.48
Thus, like Maximus, Eriugena will choose the long route of
physiology, of sifting through the outer shells of created beings in
order to penetrate the deeper meaning. The great task of physiologia in the view of the teacher is to penetrate through the visible
forms in order to attain the theophanies of the invisible creator.
What he wants to avoid is getting stuck at the surface of visible
things and thus not to be able to penetrate into the deeper recesses
of creation ; this exercise of going beyond the surface would allow
the attentive reader to go beyond the plurality of things towards
the unity of creation in its origin and thus gain an inkling of the
divine creator. As he says :
Therefore, it is not a small step but a great and indeed profitable
one from the knowledge of the sensible to the understanding of
the intelligible. For as through sense we arrive at understanding,
so through the creature we return to God. For we ought not like
irrational animals look only on the surface of visible things but
also give a rational account of the things which we perceive by
the corporeal sense.49

Through their exegetical travail to go beyond the surface of the

visible things, not by discarding it but by dwelling on it, we find
Eriugenas apparently ambivalent attitude to allegory. As will
be seen below, on the one hand he seems to embrace it, but on
the other hand, he warns the reader against too quick a transit
towards allegory. Because of the theophanic view of nature, passing though creation is necessary.

48 Eriugenas position is in this respect somewhat different from that of

others in the tradition ; through these different instances in which he uses the
contemplation of nature he contradicts the position of Harrison who argues
that medieval thinkers mainly use nature to interpret or unlock scripture.
The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science (Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 44-56.
49 Periphyseon III.723B-C (CCCM 163 : 148-49 ll. 4342-4348) : Non paruus
itaque gradus est, sed magnus et ualde utilis sensibilium rerum notitia ad
intelligibium intelligentiam. Ut enim per sensum peruenitur ad intellectum,
ita per creaturam reditur ad deum. Nam non, sicut irrationabilia animalia,
solam superficiem rerum uisibilium oportet nos intueri, uerum etiam de his
quae corporeo sensu percipimus rationem reddere debemus.

282

adrian guiu

The Divisions of Knowledge

The question about the place of exegesis in the Periphyseon is
closely related to the question of the genre and overall character
of the work. Eriugena establishes a suggestive connection between
the exegetical method and the type of science practiced in the different sections of the Periphyseon. The connection between exegesis, physiology and the Maximian theoria physik will again become
clear. I argue that the parallelism between the exegetical level and
the corresponding science could provide a map for the trajectory
of the conversation but also give us a better understanding as to
the goal of the enterprise.
The diligent and cautious Alumnus is ever ready to hold the
speculative teacher accountable to the method and procedure they
are following. After a recapitulation of the traditional account of
the primordial causes, the student retraces the entire discussion
through the epistemological stages and the sciences necessary to
ascend through the hierarchy of the causes. Thus, he offers a division of the genus of the most general of the primordial causes,
goodness. From the primordial cause of goodness he descends to
essence, from essence to life and from life to reason. At this point
of the division, the student distinguishes two species of reason :
rational and irrational. This division gives him the occasion to
offer a division of the sciences. After he has offered an ontological
division, he offers an epistemological division. The transit between
the two aspects of reality is made through wisdom. Therefore they
will have to dwell on this division and explain how the soul can
ascend to it.
The first species of reason, wisdom, is the discipline which
focuses on the primordial level of creation which is detached from
generation. For the proper definition of wisdom is that power by
which the contemplative mind, whether human or angelic, contemplates the eternal and immutable things of God, whether it concerns itself about the first Cause of all things or about the primordial causes of nature which the Father created in his Word.50 The
50 Periphyseon III.629A (CCCM 163 : 17 ll. 433-437) : Sapientia nanque proprie dicitur uirtus illa, qua contemplatiuus animus siue humanus siue angelicus diuina aeterna et incommutabilia considerat, siue circa primam omnium
causam uersetur, siue circa primordiales rerum causas, quas pater in uerbo

exegesis and natural contemplation

283

knowledge provided through sapientia is unitary and unmediated :

at this level any exteriority or plurality is resolved into a perfect
contemplative activity of the primordial causes.
The second species, science, is different from sapientia because
it deals with plurality. Science, which the alumnus also refers to
as physics, is
the power by which the contemplative mind, whether human or
angelic, discourses on the nature of the things which proceed from
the primordial causes through generation and which are divided
into genera and species by means of differences and properties []
whether it is distributed over places and times, or outside place
and times, is unified and indivisible by reason of its simplicity ;
and this species of reason is called physics. For physics is the natural science of natures which are susceptible to senses and intellects ; and the discipline of morals always follows it.51

So science deals with created beings which have descended from

the unity of the primordial causes through generation into the
plurality and diversity of creation. The domain of physics, in the
students view, includes all generated things. Lower than physics,
Eriugena puts ethics, which for him seems to have a preparatory
role.52
suo semel simulque condidit. This seems to correspond to Boethiuss description of theology : theologica, sine motu abstracta atque separabilis (nam dei substantia et materia et motu caret) (De Trin. II, 3).
51 Periphyseon III.629A-B (CCCM 163 : 17 ll. 438-447) : Scientia uero est
uirtus, qua theoreticus animus, siue humanus siue angelicus, de natura rerum
ex primordialibus causis procedentium per generationem inque generationem
inque genera ac species diuisarum per differentias et propriates tractat, []
siue locis et temporibus distributa siue ultra loca et tempora sui simplicitate unita atque inseparabilis. Quae species rationis physica dicitur. Est enim
physica naturarum sensibus intellectibusque succumbentium naturalis scientia, quam semper sequitur morum disciplina.
52 There is a very important omission in the pupils enumeration of sciences : mathematics. In the Boethian-Aristotelian scheme the role of mathematics is to mediate between changeability and immovability. Mathematics deals with that which is not in motion and not abstract (for this ponders
forms of bodies without matter, and thus without motion ; but these forms,
since they are in matter, cannot [actually] be separated from bodies (Boethius, De Trin. II, 2 : mathematica, sine motu inabstracta (haec enim formas corporum speculatur sine materia ac per hoc sine motu, quae formae cum in materia
sint, ab his separari non possunt). Mathematics as the prime example of an
intermediary science, plays an important role throughout the Periphyseon.

284

adrian guiu

The Augustinian resonances in this distinction are not to be

missed.53 To a great degree Augustines and Eriugenas distinctions are similar. But I would say that Eriugena offers a more
detailed division by dividing science itself into ethics and physics. Thus, it can be said that Eriugena expands the Augustinian
distinction between scientia and sapientia through the Neoplatonic
division of sciences : ethics, physics, theology. According to him
physics deals with things which proceed through generation and
which are divided into genera and species. Thus, physics is the
science that deals with the realm of generation, with the division
into the variety of genera and species.
In my view, Eriugenas division of sciences is reflected in
his understanding of exegesis. In Book III, Eriugena is keen to
emphasize several times that he does not offer an allegorical interpretation : his approach is rather more akin to physics, or as Eriugena calls it, physiology.54 First, he does this before launching in
the consideration of the second day. Let us pass then to the consideration of the Second Day. And first it must be said that we
have at the moment no intention concerning the allegorical sense
of moral interpretations but are attempting under Gods guidance,
to say a few things about only the creation of made things accordTherefore it is quite surprising that in this context it is not mentioned. Would
it be possible that for Eriugena physics encompasses even mathematics ? This
would then underline the fact that physics has a great role of mediation and
that as a science it has a comprehensive character.
53 For the distinction scientia-sapientia, see Augustine, De Trinitate 13.24 ;
see also the extensive discussion in Luigi Gioia, The Theological Epistemology of Augustines De Trinitate (Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2008),
pp. 81-113.
54 This seems to complicate the theory of Peter Harrison in The Bible,
Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science. I do not fully agree with Harrisons stark contrast between allegorical and literal readings and the consequences thereof for the reading of creation. As the case of Eriugena shows,
there was much more continuity between literal and allegorical readings.
There is a wide spectrum between literal and allegorical interpretation in
Eriugena. Nevertheless the value of Harrisons insight is that reading scripture was an exercise of reading creation and vice versa. Still he argues more
for going from scripture to creation but Eriugena also provides examples for
the reverse. This regard for the status of scriptural interpretation puts Eriugenas enterprise in a clarifying light : reading scripture and reading creation
are for him two complementary and almost coinciding ideas.

exegesis and natural contemplation

285

ing to the historical sense.55 When he summarizes his approach

to interpreting the text, in the preceding section, the teacher yet
again warns against moving to quickly towards the allegorical
level. As an additional proof that his way of proceeding is correct,
he offers another division of the sciences in which he underlines
that one needs to pass through physics in order to arrive at theology : let him carefully consider the fourfold division of wisdom :
and first is , (practical) ; second , (natural), third,
, which discusses God ; fourth .56
Finally, when he gives a recapitulation of the entire interpretation, the teacher once again states this position : Therefore, in
all these instances we are not treating of allegory but only of the
bare physical consideration, adapting the names of sensible things
to signify invisible consideration, adapting the names of sensible
things to signify invisible things in accordance with very established usage of Divine Scripture.57
So it could be argued that in Books II, III, and the first part of
IV, Eriugena dwells on the physical interpretation of the account
of creation. When giving a review of his method, he intimates this
at the beginning of book IV : The first intent of this our Physiology was [].58 So at this juncture in the argument, looking back
at the preceding books, Eriugena uses this term to sum up his
approach before embarking on Book IV. What follows is described
as a more advanced physical interpretation of mans creation.59

55 Periphyseon III.693C (CCCM 163 : 107 ll. 3092-96) : Ac prius dicendum

quod de allegoricis intellectibus moralium interpretationum nulla nunc nobis
intentio est, sed de sola rerum factarum creatione secundum historiam pauca
disserere, deo duce, conamur.
56 Periphyseon III. 705B (CCCM 163 : 124 ll. 3582-3586) : Et est quidem
prima PAKTIKH, (activa) ; secunda YCIKH (naturalis) ; tertia EOOIA
(quae de deo disputat) ; quarta OIKH (rationalis), quae ostendit quibus
regulis de unaquaque trium aliarum sophiae partium disputandum.
57 Periphyseon III. 707B (CCCM 163 : 127 ll. 3657-60) : In his ergo omnibus
nulla allegoria, sed nuda solummodo physica consideratio tractatur, mutuatis sensibilium nominibus ad significanda inuisibilia frequentissimo diuinae
scripturae usu.
58 Periphyseon IV.741C (CCCM 164 : 3 l. 2) : Prima nostrae physiologiae
intentio []
59 Periphyseon IV.763C (CCCM 164 : 3 l. 2) : altam valde humanae conditionis physicam theoriam postulas.

286

adrian guiu

Thus, in another way, Book IV also constitutes the transition

from physiology to theology. McGinn argues that this gear shifting to theological interpretation occurs when the teacher passes
from the interpretation of the human being in genere animali to
the imago dei interpretation.60 Thus, as Eriugena moves towards
the imago dei interpretation of the creation of man, the discussants
ascend from physiology to theology. This move reflects the correspondence between the levels of knowledge, the levels of scripture
and the levels of the cosmos. In Book V, when giving an account
of the return of creation, the teacher offers a succinct account of
how the mind passes through the levels of knowledge : First the
transit of mind into the knowledge (scientia) of all things which
come after God ; secondly of that knowledge (scientia) into wisdom
(sapientia), that is into the innermost contemplation of truth, in so
far as that is possible to a creature.61
This is particularly evident in the exegesis of the Hexaemeron.
Book III offers a mostly physical, historical interpretation of the
creation account. Book IV recaps the same themes and takes
the exegesis to a higher, more spiritual level by filtering everything through the imago dei exegesis. The teacher argues that the
human being was created last because all things were created in
it. Thus, in his view, the creation account could be read as occurring in the human being : the firmament (IV.783 B) signifies the
creation of the universal elements. The division of dry land
from the waters refers to the creation of substance and of accidents within the human being. The creation of the two luminaries

60 Book IV is crucial to his Genesis commentary because it is there that

Eriugenas physical exposition of the creation account shifts gears. If the
interpretation of the first five days of creation (Gen 1 :1-23) could be conducted largely according to physica in Periphyseon II and III, as noted above,
once the interpreter reaches verse 24 of chapter one and the words dixit quoque Deus producat terra animam uiuentem in genere suo theological interpretation must take over. See Bernard McGinn The Originality of Eriugenas
Spiritual Exegesis, in Gerd van Riel, Carlos Steel, and James McEvoy, eds.,
Iohannes Scottus Eriugena. The Bible and Hermeneutics, p. 67.
61 Periphyseon V.1020D (CCCM 165 : 225 ll. 7312-15) : Quorum unus transitus animi in scientiam omnium quae post Deum sunt, secundus scientiae in
sapientiam, hoc est contemplationem intimam ueritatis quantum creaturae
conceditur.

exegesis and natural contemplation

287

represents the intellect and lower faculty which can be deceived.

The creation of the stars refers to the creation of the senses :
Thus the three modes of sensation are established in the three
orders of celestial luminaries. For as the sun is in the world, so is
the most sure and infallible mode of sense in man ; as is the moon,
so is the ambiguous phantasy which is, as it were a doubtful light
to the sentient mind ; as are the stars so are the imperceptibly
small numbers of phantasies which are produced by the innumerable and imperceptible species of bodily objects.62

Otten adds another, clarifying lens to this by discerning three

levels of interpretation in Book IV.63 She points to the correspondences between the levels of scriptural interpretation and the levels
of anthropology. The first level is seen in the external approach
according to which man is object of natura creata. I would argue
that this is the level of physical interpretation which corresponds
to physics. The second level, man as imago naturae, represents the
allegorical interpretation, corresponding to theology. It is at this
level that the teacher recaps the creation account and takes it to
a higher level of interpretation by reading it within the human
itself. Ottens original reading is to establish a third level of interpretation : man as the reflective subject of nature. At this level the
human intellect regains its status as an idea created in the divine
mind and is able to absorb the entire creation through intellectual
knowledge. This last level, which Eriugena elsewhere calls gnostic
knowledge, corresponds to the unification of all creation in the
human intellect and this is the goal towards which the dialogue
works its way.
If, before the gear-shifting moment of Book IV, the teacher had
insisted on sticking with physical interpretation in order to allow
all the important details to be seen, after this moment he points

62 Periphyseon IV.784C (CCCM 164 : 62 ll. 1751-1758) : Triplex itaque sentiendi modus in triplici caelestium luminarium ordine constituitur. Quod
enim sol est in mundo, hoc est clarissimus et non fallens sensus in homine ; et
quod luna, hoc est ambigua phantasia ac ueluti dubia lux animi sentientis ; et
quod stellae, hoc est incomprehensibiles et minutissimi phantasiarum numeri,
ex innumerabilibus et incomprehensibilibus corporalium rerum speciebus procreati.
63 See the extensive discussion in Otten, The Anthropology of Johannes
Scotus Eriugena, (Leiden, Brill, 1991), pp. 153-176.

288

adrian guiu

to the necessity of ascending to the higher level of allegory. The

necessity to move from the physical, natural interpretation to a
higher level is spelled out clearly by the teacher : Error and
extreme difficulty in interpretation are experienced by those who
adopt one and the same species of exposition without allowing for
transition to various figurations (absque ullo transitu in diuersas
figurationes).64
Besides Abraham, the other great example of penetrating to the
deeper levels of creation is Plato. Eriugena uses the topos of the
spoils of Egypt in quite a striking way. There was nothing problematic about the spoils, but the fact that they were not put to
good use :
And if any should blame us for using philosophical arguments let
him consider Gods people when they were fleeing Egypt and following the divine counsel took spoils with them and were not reprehended for using those spoils-especially as those who are skilled in
natural science are reprehended not because their reasoning about
the visible creature is at fault, but because they have not sufficiently penetrated beyond it to its author [for they ought to have
discovered the creator from the creature, which only Plato did].65

Maximuss account of Adams curse and the eating of earth in

Quaestiones ad Thalassium66 epitomizes for Eriugena the travail
of true contemplation of nature.67 The teachers exposition of the
64

Periphyseon V.1010B (CCCM 165 : 210 ll. 6810-6812). See also above n. 36.
Periphyseon III.724A-B (CCCM 163 : 150 ll. 4363-4371) : Et si quis nobis
in culpam reputauerit quod philosophicis ratiocinationibus usi sumus, uideat
populum dei Aegypto fugientem, eiusque diuino consilio admonitus spolia
ferentem, ipsisque spoliis inreprehensibiliter utentem. Praesertim cum et ipsi
mundanae sapientiae periti non in hoc reprehensibiles facti sunt, quasi in
rationibus uisibilis creaturae errarint, sed quia auctorem ipsius creaturae non
satis ultra eam quaesierint, cum creatorem ex creatura deberent inuenire.
Quod solus Plato legitur fecisse.
66 Maximus Confessor, Quaestiones ad Thalassium 5 (CCSG 7 : 64-67, PG 90,
277 B-280 B).
67 Periphyseon IV.857D (CCCM 4 : 164 ll. 5063-5077) : Quam terram per
practicam philosophiam per multas comedit tribulationes, purgatam per
conscientiam maledictione operum turpitudinis. Et iterum germinatas in
eo, instar spinarum, cogitationes circa corporum generationem ac (ueluti
tribulos) circa incorporalium prouidentiam iudiciumque scatentes opiniones
ratione purgans, physicam (ueluti foenum) carpit spiritualiter theoriam. Et
sic, quasi in sudore uultus, scibili intelligentiae secundum scientiam uultu
65

exegesis and natural contemplation

289

passage is a very suggestive account of the Periphyseon itself.

Like Adam, the interpreter of scripture and the contemplator of
the cosmos needs to till the earth through physical contemplation
in order to clean it from thorns and thistles so as to be able to
penetrate to the deep core of theology. Only through this tedious
work, can one hope to collect the grass of knowledge and finally
acquire the bread of theological knowledge. To Eriugena, this travail of going through the thickness68 of creation is as important
as the attainment of the highest level of contemplation. It can be
said without hesitation that he has truly appropriated the antiOrigenist sentiment underlying Maximuss thought and therefore
regards mediation as essential for the return to God. The meandering and mediated ascent performed in the Periphyseon is in many
ways the result of his Maximian Neoplatonism which regards creation, the visible, and nature as theophanic conduits to God.
Conclusion
The main question I set to answer in this article is why a work
which sets out as a logical exercise of division (to divide the most
universal genus : that of nature) dwells so much on the exegesis of
Genesis. I have argued here that the extensive Hexaemeral commentary has to be understood through the lens of the two-book
tradition : the parallelism between scripture and creation which
Eriugena appropriates from Maximus Confessor. Also, the reading
of creation and scripture is performed through the method forged
by Eriugena : physiologia, a grand project of reading the two
books, creation and scripture, as the two incarnations of Christ in
order to discern the theophanies of the creator and thus return to

incorruptibilem theologiae comedit panem, solum uere uitalem et comedentium se conseruantem ad incorruptibilitatem generationem. Terra itaque est
bene comesa ipsa per actionem cordis purgatio ; foenum uero, ipsa secundum
naturalem theoriam eorum quae facta sunt scientia : panis autem, uera secundum theologiam mysteriorium doctrina. Hactenus Maximus.
68 For an extensive treatment of thickening (incrassatio) as image and idea
in the Periphyseon, see Willemien Otten, Creation and Epiphanic Incarnation. Reflections on the Future of Natural Theology from an EriugenianEmersonian Perspective, in B.S. Hellemans, W. Otten and M. B. Pranger
(eds.), On Religion and Memory (New York : Fordham University Press, 2013),
64-88.

290

adrian guiu

the source and unity of all. I have argued further that physiologia
itself should be traced to Maximuss theoria physik which tries
to contemplate both nature and scripture in order to discern the
divine presence.69
Thus, as a Neoplatonist, Eriugena knows that the highest level
of viewing the cosmos is that of the intellect, but as a follower
of Maximus, he knows that mediation is also crucial. In other
words, at the level of the intellect, theoria or theologia can only be
achieved by passing through, by transiting through the lower levels. For Eriugena, physiologia is about passing through the thickness of creation and of scripture in order to discern the theophanic
mediation of God. So the goal of the nutritor and his pupil is to
reach the highest level of knowledge, that of theology, but only
after patiently tilling the ground of scripture by treading the path
of reason through the physiologia of creation and scripture.

69 Exploring this last connection in more detail through a stronger focus

on the Maximian background of Eriugena constitutes the task of a future
project.