The Theophany and Theoria of Natura: What John Scotus Eriugena Learns from Maximus the Confessor

It has been argued that as an ‘objective,’ systematic account of natura, John Scotus Eriugena’s (b. 815) Periphyseon lacks an ‘interior’ aspect. Marcia Colish, the late renowned medieval historian, has lodged the charge that due to its lack of references to or experiences of personal mysticism or rapture, it neglects to treat the ‘interior’ aspect of human existence. Indeed, Colish writes that in the Periphyseon, “the social, sacramental, and ethical dimensions of man’s redemption are minimal.” I aim to show, rather, that the Periphyseon develops a ‘personal’ program regarding the soul’s itinerary. I will focus on one component of a broader program that runs throughout the Periphyseon — mainly, Eriugena's understanding of the salvific function of natura. I will show how natura, for Eriugena, is a symbol of the Divine Logos that is not simply a ‘stepping stone,’ but rather, constituted within the Divine Logos Itself. Eriugena’s concept of natura necessitates that any outflowing of the Divine into difference does not destroy its unity, but rather, is an articulation of Itself in a concretized form. Thus, all invisible and visible creatures are endowed with profound symbolic significance: they orchestrate the final return of all things into God.

This regard for the role of the natura in the soul’s journey into God borrows much from Eriugena’s predecessor and fellow Christian Platonist, Maximus the Confessor (b. 580). Maximus’ Ambigua, among many other things, offers a theological construal of the relationship between creation and scripture. My focus will be Maximus’ exegesis on the Transfiguration, where he claims that scripture and creation are the ‘two books’ of revelation, and, as such, their principles and characters correspond. I will begin my investigation examining this parallel with a particular eye on how Maximus understands the work of ‘symbol.’ I will then turn to Eriugena’s discussion of the same relationship between natura and scripture, highlighting clear points of continuity with Maximus throughout. When doing so, I will show how Eriugena develops the term theophany, (θεοφάνεια) (borrowed from Pseudo-Dionysius to refer to the process of divine revelation) into a central lynchpin in his philosophical-theological system as the appearance of all natura. Indeed, in Maximus’ and Eriugena’s systems alike, both visible and invisible creations can be called theophanies. All visible and invisible creatures are theophanic phenomena that serve to orchestrate the return (reditus) of all things into God, and thus, the subjective human perception of theophany bears salvific weight. I will show the notable influence that Maximus appears to have on Eriugena’s own parallel that he draws between the “cosmos of scripture” and the “cosmos of creation” in his Homily on John. Eriugena concurs and develops Maximus’ insight that scripture and the cosmos can be read together, such that they mutually enhance one another’s interpretation.

Finally, I will show how, for Eriugena, physiologia, which generally refers to the study of nature, is offered as a method of passing through what Maximus calls the ‘thickness’ of natura to discern more immediately the theophanic presence of the Logos within the cosmos. Indeed, physiologia is made possible by this immanence between nature and scripture, as revealed at the moment of Transfiguration. The individual must ‘sift through’ these two books to ascend towards the intelligible level. This act of ‘sifting’ involves a contemplative dialectical exercise that, for Eriugena, is an act of the soul’s journey into God.