8. On the Testaments and the Coming of Christ

8. On the Testaments and the Coming of Christ

7. ON THE SOUL enemy and trusting in the beguilements of a woman's advice, he tasted prematurely the sweet-flavoured fruit and clothed his now heavy flesh in coats ofskin, becoming his own corpse-bearer (for Christ cut short the course of sin by death), he emerged from the grove on to the earth from which he had sprung and receiveda life of heavy toil. For him

Christ set up his fiery anger to bar him from the precious tree, in case any Adam (I mean the first Adam) should prematurely enter and, before coming to avoid the destructive food ofthe sweet branch, might approach the tree oflife in a state of evil. As a seafarer, driven backwards by wintry squalls, returns to port, having again spread his sail to gentler breezes, or has completed his voyage by laborious rowing, so we who have fallen far from the mighty God complete our own return voyage only with some effort. Such is the woe newly sprung from our first parent which has come upon wretched mortals and from this source has sprouted the crop of evil.

8. On the Testaments and the Coming of Christ Come then, enquire into the reason for the two Laws, the one older, the other revealed in its newness. At first law was for the Hebrews, as they were the first to recognize the God who rules on high, and later it extended to the ends of the earth. For God does not govern mortal man by decrees which are at variance, as if he did not know what he was doing, since the Word knows everything, nor does he rule by decrees betraying second thoughts which is a reproach even to mortals. But this is a loving God's way ofhelping me.

H'. NEPI AIAQ@HKQN KAI ENI®ANEIAZ XPIZTOY Avoojers Gre tparov Addu Badrev éx wapadeicon, KAébas dvdpodévoto dutod SyAryjpovu Kapra, ws oTpatav HynTipos GAwAdtos éyxei TUrTwY, dilero Kai Tex€ecot KaKOV Kai KHpa puTEvoat, pitas 8' otpavioro Geot KAeippovr BovAg, tpéusato Goce Bpotoio mpos odjpavov dorepderta,

458, KdAAcot mapdavdwar rebyAdrta, mpds Te PavdvTwy popdds, as érémwoe 7600s Kai wvOos Erice, motos év ov Eeivorot Kaxois, Petorns avéAeyKtos, alév érepyouévotaw aeEduevos AvedBaat.

'EBpaiwv iepmv dAodv yévos ob>x trodyrats eixov ddvpopévorat, Artalowévorow, avaKxtos pjvw dei mpodépovar, tapos ye wév GAAvov avrots. ovde ev ot BaatAjes érdpBeov, dad' dpa Kai Trav oi wA€oves Kaxious, 006° dAcea mdtrav EXerTOP, oU8' épéwv xopudas Kai Saiuovas aipardevtas. touvera kai peydAo.o Geot CnAjpova uyvw eipucay, éx 8' érivaxdev. 6 8' avrevonAPov Eywrye 459, adtpamrdv, [yAoto modnyeain odiaw EAKwr, miotw és evoeBéa Xpiotov wadivopoa dépecOat,

6wé peraorpedbciaw, eajv kopéowvrar avins, Bacxavin Aaoio vewjAvdos, w didperpbev. dAAG 7a prev peromiodev, of 8° ws véuov efyov Atop, vordtiov Tornade Bpotav yévos Eupope Tijs, vedpaow abavaroco Ilazpés cai Epypac ITadésAptorés Goov Bporéw evi cwparti KatrbeTo woipys ovpavins, Aevaowr Kaxins iro GupoPdpo.o damrépnevov oxodAtév re Bpotrwv pedéovta SpdKorta, @s Kev avaoriaetev €dv Adyos, ovw Ett vodaoY

GéAAotow édénxev dpyydow (ov yap érapKes tois peydAos mafécoot pixpdv akos), adAAd Kevwoas 6v KAéos dBavdtoio Oeot Latpos Yids apyjrwp avros kai diya watpos euoi févos vids ébavby: ov évos, €& éuédev yap 68° duBpotos WAbe Bpotwheis

11 éyyer] afeye: S, éoyes Mb 14 tpéaro TTVa"] tpédiacr' L, rpédas C, tpépar' N*, ozpéiar' MaVaN 17 éévorar Cu 19 iepdv Cu, 8' fepaw Va 21 dAvav CuMb, @aAAvov VISL, 6AAvor Mb* 23 €Aecwov [TVa*] EArmor Q 26 dé tivayfer S edd. post y. 30 dist. repi émidaveias Xproros 61' émciw C, wepi émd@aveias Xpiorod dist. NVa*™* 3I pwerémoal Caill.

34 da0v] 6" dacov Ma, docov Ns Bporéwy edd.

35 Aetoawy] Aetiowy CMaVa, corr. Va* 8. ON THE TESTAMENTS AND COMING OF CHRIST When his madly raging enemy first drove Adam from paradise, cheating him by the destructive fruit of the tree which brought death to the human race, he acted as one who attempts to strike an army when its general has been killed by a spear, seeking to plant in Adam's descendants also evil and death. By violently dividing them from the God of heaven through his scheme to mislead their minds he turned the eyes ofmortal beings to the starry heaven, rich in radiant objects of beauty, and directed them to the shapes of dead men to which their desire had given visible form and which fable had come to worship, a fable to be trusted only to bring evil on his own kind, a lying tale not likely to be refuted, growing in potency with the passing years. The race of holy Hebrews came to ruin by not submitting to prophets who lamented their fall, besought them to repent, and never ceased to proclaim the anger of the divine King. Indeed, they actually killed prophets. Not even their kings feared God, most of them worse than their people, refusing to abandon the groves and mountain tops and the demons demanding blood. Therefore they attracted the fierce anger ofthe mighty God and were displaced. As a Gentile I entered in their place on the path, drawing them on to feel jealousy, that they might be brought back and might come to accept the holy faith in Christ, at last reversing their course, when they had had their fill of distress, by experiencing envy of a newcomer people for which they had been exchanged.

But this belongs to a later time. When the Hebrews came to hold their Law in dishonour, the whole human race at last gained its share in this great honour, by the will of the eternal Father and the deeds of the Son. Christ, seeing that whatever heavenly portion he had deposited in the human body was being devoured by the evil which consumes the soul and seeing the crooked dragon ruling over human beings, in order to raise up his own possession, no longer left the care ofhuman disease to other physicians. For it was insufficient to supply a trifling cure to major ills. Rather did he empty himself of the glory which he shares with the everlasting God, his Father, and as Son without a divine mother he was revealed to us, a strange kind ofson born without a human father. Yet he was no stranger, since it was because of me that this immortal one came in mortal form, born through his

TIEPI AIAQ@HKQN KAI EMI®ANEIAZ XPIZTOY mapbevixis dia wntpds, GAov uw' 6Aos 6Gpa cawan:

Kai yap SAos wéntwxev Addp da yedow ddcrpyv. robvexev dvopopéoia kai od Bporéoros vopoigt, aeuvois év o7Adyxvoiotw a7eipoyauoto yuvaikos capKkwleis (& GauBos ddavpordro:ow amorov)

HABE Beds Ovynrds te, dices Sto els Ev dyeipas, Thy pev cevbopévyy, Thy 8' dudadinv pepdérecou, wy Oeds 7 per Env, 7 SO Gararov Gupw ery Ay. eis Beds dudorépwlev, éxei Pedrnm Kepacbeis Kai Bpords éx Gedtntos dvak kai Xpiorés taéaTn: ds kev Addy véos GAAos émtyGoviorn: daavéeis

Tov mdpos €€axéoaito, weTdGOpaTt 8' dudixadugbeis = (od yap Env xwpn7es euois wab€eca weAdoaat), Kai mivutdv Soxéovra 6gw od7jAcev déAm7ws, ws nev Addp weAdoovra, Oew b€ te dvtidcorta,

Tw@ wept KapTos EuedAev Eqs Glew KaKkdTHTOS, Tpnxetnv epi wétpav aAixtumov ds Tre OdAaooa. ws éddavn, yain 6€ kai ovpavds audi yevébAn oeiero. ovpavin pév Uuvous Katémeutre xopetn, dorhp 8' dvroAinbe Mayors db6v Hyepdveve,

Swpoddpois Adtpiar venyevéos BaaiAjos. ovtos €4ov Xpioroio véns Adyos éori yeveBAns. alayos 8' ovdeév Ereoni, eet pdvov aloyos duaprds: ta 8° ox aicyos ézeottv, érei Adyos avtov exn£ev.

462, ov6é pice: Bporén Bportés ExAero, éx 8' dpa capkés, tH [Tveip' Fyne apéobev, dvupdéa pnrépa Kedv7jv, avrorayis Bpotds hAGe, kabyjparto 8' civer' €ueio.

Kai yap wav0" brédexto, vow Operripia tivwv, 7 Kai yalopévw reuT7pia, Momep diw. aurap érei peydAoio ddovs épiAaunéi Adyvw Knpvxbeis mpobéovre yévov, mpobéovr: 6€ nvdou,

Apwotév éndv Bodwvr Oedv peadrny ev éepyjuw, é£eddvy, Aadv ev EByn wécos Gs 7' dvd THAE, ds te 7éAas (Evvds yap én' dudotépois axpdywros 44 yetow] Bpaow NVa 48 dacs edd.

50 dupuw QL) yiv 11 (jpper Mb) 55 weAdooa IIC*N] weAdcar CMaVaL §7 meAdcorra ... dvmdoovra I] weAdcavra... dvtidcavta QL

59 dAixrurov IIL] dAikreros Q @déAacoar L 60 yain QL) yale IT dé} re Caill. yevéfAny VaL 61 odpaviy ... xopety Bill. carérepure M1) warémeppe QL 64 guod QL] éuoi Il 70 zivew IT] refver QL 73 yovou... utdov TIL) yovw.. . iba Q, popu Neer 75 tiAe CMaNL] sAoo IVa

8. ON THE TESTAMENTS AND COMING OF CHRIST virgin mother, that in his wholeness he might save me wholly. For the whole of Adam had fallen through the sinful tasting of the fruit. For this reason, following laws at once human and alien to mortal men, he took flesh in the holy womb of a woman who had no knowledge of marriage (a miracle incredible to feeblest minds) and came as both

God and mortal, bringing together into one entity two natures, the one concealed, the other obvious to human beings. The one nature was

God, the other formed at the last for us. He is one God on both sides, since imbued with Godhead and as a mortal, it was out of Godhead that he existed as King and Christ. This came about that a new and different Adam appearing to the inhabitants of earth might heal the former Adam, being hidden bya veil (for because of my ills I was unable to approach), and that, against all expectations, he might overthrow the seemingly wise serpent. This creature, approaching, as he thought, Adam, but encountering also God, was planning to deploy his evil around him, as the sea surges round some jagged wave-beaten rock. When Christ appeared, earth and heaven were shaken because of his birth. A heavenly choir sent down hymns of praise, while a star from the east guided the Magi on their way, Magi bringing gifts to worship the new-born King. Here is my teaching about the novel birth ofChrist. There is no shame involved, since sin alone is shameful. To him no shame attaches, as the Word formed him. Nor was he mortal with a mortal's transience, but came from flesh which the Spirit had previously made holy, that ofa noble mother, unwedded, and asa selfformed mortal he came and underwent purification for my sake. For he undertook all obligations, paying to the Law a due return for his nurture, indeed, as I see it, a parting gift to the Law as it withdraws from the scene. But when he had been heralded by the brightly shining lamp of great light, the lamp which preceded him at his birth and preceded him in his teaching, proclaiming Christ my God in the midst of the wilderness, then was he fully revealed and went as intermediary to those peoples who were afar and those who were near, being a cornerstone joining both. He bestowed on mortals the twofold

TIEP] AAAQ@HKQN KAI ENI®ANEIAS XPIZTOY Adas Env), dtacdv b€ xafdpotov wrace Gvynrois TMVEULATOS GEvaoLO, TO LoL TpOTEepHV Exdlype capkoyery Kakinv, Kai aiwatos nueTépovo.

463, Kai ydp éudv, r6 Xptords éuds Oeds Fexévwoe piovov apyeyévwy mabéwy xéopotd 7° dzouwwov. ef pev 82 42 TpemTds Env Bpotds, aAX' ddduacros, oins Kai peydAoio Geot ypyilov édetuys, ij' éexdmet T €adw Te Kai €s péya dos deke. viv §' ot yap we Gedv redLev Oeds, dAAd yw' Exntev dudipeny KAcrov re, T6 Kai rAEévEcow Epeidet, Twv €v Kal Aoezpoio Bporois ydpts. ws yap 6Ac@pov

"EBpaiwy woré naides tréxduyov aiwate ypioTa, | 76 dAtas ExdOnpev, G7 dAETO TpwTroyévebAos Alytrrou yeve?} vuxti pif, @s Kai Eworye go odpnyis ddedixdxoto Deod 765, vymidyots wer adpryyis, de€opévoiar 8' dxos Kai odpyyis apiorn,

Xptorot dwroddérao Gedppurtos, ds kev adv£as BévOos dyous cai Batov an' dyfeos avyév' avacywyv mpos Cwiv wadivopaoy dyw 766a. Kai yap odimns aumvetoas Kauxa7o.o, vedooutTa youvaT aeipet.

Euvds nev mavrecow arp, fuv7 d€ re yaia, Euvis 8' odjpavds evpts, 4 8 dpia KbKdAos Edicoet: évvév 8' dvOpwrorot cadufporov émAeto Aoutpoéyv.

97 Gvyrois] Bporois Va, corr. Va* 98 devdoio CVICuLVa*] devvdouw MaNVa, évvdoro SMb post v. $1 dist. repi Baaricuartos bc ésaw C, wepi Bazticparos

Va™N, zepi rot Geiov Bantiopzatos Ma* 83 ypAifer L 84 éodwoe edd.

86 mAedveca: p' L 87 ta Q] av TIL 88 ypiore TT Va"?] duvod QL 89 dAcas] dAords Bill. g6 deiper 2 (detpecs C) L] éyeiper TVa* Q7 O€ ye yaia Bill. g8 46° CuVIMa?Va] dé CMaNL, dua SMb Sipe xéxdos éAioce| tT' Hediw cediry te SMbVa™ gg cadSporov edd. nepi émidaveias Xpiarot Tnaot Aéyos 7' CuVl, subscriptionem omittunt ceteri

8. ON THE TESTAMENTS AND COMING OF CHRIST cleansing of the everlasting Spirit who purged for me the former evil born of flesh and made pure my human blood. For mine is the blood

Christ my Lord poured out, a ransom for primal ills, a recompense for the world. If I had not been a mutable, mortal man, but of inflexible purpose, all I should have needed was the command of the great God to be caring for me, saving me, and exalting me to great honour.

But as it is, God did not create me a god, but formed me prone to incline either way, an unstable being, and for this reason he supports me by many means, one being the grace of baptism given to mortal men. For just as once the Hebrews escaped destruction by the anointing blood which purified their doorposts, at a time when a whole generation offirst-born children in Egypt died in a single night, so what corresponds for me is the seal ofthe God who wards offevil, a seal indeed for infants, but for those who are coming to maturity a cure and, flowing from God, the finest seal of Christ the giver of light, so that, avoiding the depth of grief and raising my necka little from its burden, I may walk the way of return to life. For I am like a traveller who regains breath after his exertions and picks up his step anew.

Common to all is air and common the earth, common too is the broad heaven and the seasons which the circle ofthe years brings round in its course. Common to al] mankind is the baptism which gives salvation to mortals.

COMMENTARY Introduction I. THE TITLE ANOPPHTA/ARCANA Ir must be conceded that there is an ambiguous, not to say arbitrary, element in this title. It is that which was given by Billius to designate the eight hexameter poems appearing in the Maurist—Migne numbering as Carmm. 1. 1 (= Poemata Dogmatica) 1-5, 7-9 (M. 37. 3974-4294,

4384-4644). It is convenient to refer to the poems by this title, but only in a conventional way. Nicetas signified by Axéppyra a wider selection of poems, nor is there any reason to take the title back to Gregory himself.* Though the restriction to these poems is no more than useful, 'Azéppnra is a fitting title.

For fundamental Christian truths are, in Greg.'s view, ultimately 'ineffable', only to be adumbrated in words, however elevated their intention.

Il. CONTENT AND STRUCTURE (a) Outline Arc. 1: On First Principles 1-24 Introduction to the eight poems as a whole.

Not even angels may fully proclaim the Godhead. Yet the poet may humbly beg the Holy Spirit's inspiration in his task.

25-39 Godhead There is one eternal God, Father, Son, and Spirit.

Heretics are warned to depart.

Are. 2: On the Son 1-56 The reciprocal relation ofFather andSon 1-4 The poet must defend the Son, man's Saviour, against detractors.

5-39 The Father is above all. The Son is his image and glory, begotten outside time and without division of the Godhead.

' See further D. A. Sykes, "The Poemata Arcana of St.Gregory Nazianzen', in 77S, xs 21 (1970), 32-42; I no longer hold that the 60 lines given in L are integral.

* Cf. F. Lefherz, Studien zu Gregor von Nazianz (Bonn, 1957), 1771.

INTRODUCTION 40-56 To lower the status of the Son to that of a creature is a disservice to the Father's Godhead. A creature-Son could not effect man's salvation.

57-83 The Incarnation The Son took a body without losing his Godhead. He was God and man, bearing flesh, yet outside the body, victim and priest. He died to raise the dead. Honour the human form the more for his having taken it.

Arc. 3: On the Spirit 1-9 Do not hesitate to honour the Spirit as God, distinguished from the Son, but of equal honour.

10-23 _Innot explicitly stating the divinity ofthe Spirit the Scriptures accommodate to the weakness of human understanding, which had still to be convinced of the Son's divinity.

24-36 The Spirit, like the Father and the Son, has been revealed in progressive stages.

37-33 The three Persons are undivided in Godhead, though distinguishable.

34-70 To say that the Son and the Spirit hold second place to the Father does not imply division. Analogies like 'source, spring, and river' are dismissed.

71-93 'Monas' and "Trias' are not conflicting terms, In "Trias' there is no suggestion of tritheism.

Arc. 4: On the Universe 1-23 False views of creation must be countered. The One God created in an absolute sense: he did not use pre-existent matter.

24-54 Manichaean views are to be totally rejected. God precedes darkness and is its master. Man is composed ofsoul and body, but is not a battle-ground ofManichaean light and darkness.

God is without beginning. Darkness hasa beginning, for it is merely absence of light. Evil is not an eternal principle but springs from specific denial of good, through Satan in the fall.

55-74 Religious writers agree that the world was formed comparatively late in time by the Logos of God. Before the creation of the world the Trinity was occupied in selfcontemplation and in contemplating the forms ofthe world to INTRODUCTION be created. 'Past', 'present', and 'future' are eternally present to God: time makes no division.

75-92 The creation of angels and human beings. The divine Mind willed to create two orders of intelligent beings, angels and men. But to prevent them from overreaching themselves and seeking equality with God, they are kept at appropriate distances from the divine glory. Man, being of earth mixed with divinity, is farther away.

93-100 There are two created worlds, one heavenly, to which deified man may rise, the other mortal. But both alike are of divine creation.

Arc. 5: On Providence 1-52 It was Mind, not chance, which founded the world and set it on its course. (Examples follow the Cosmological Argument.)

The founder of the world is the one who maintains it and continues to guide it. The claims of astrology are refuted. God controls the harmonious order of the universe and it will take many forms not yet revealed. God provides for freedom, not astral determination, which would obliterate moral distinctions.

53-71 The star seen by the Magi is quite different from the stars of the astrologers. This was a completely new star, unforeseen by astrology. Christ has allotted ways for both stars and men to follow. But they are independent of each other.

Arc. 6: On RationalNatures 1-26 As with the rainbow, so with rational beings: the degree of 'illumination' depends on closeness to the source of light,

God. Angelic beings are closest, beings uncompounded with flesh, and they are assigned functions of authority over men and nations.

27-46 The mind hesitates to approach in contemplation pure Godhead and fears to suggest the fallibility of angelic beings.

Yet Lucifer fell and it is he who is responsible for evil in men.

47-55 There are three grades: God, angels, and human beings. God is one and unchangeable. Angels suffer change, but only with difficulty. Man is very much subject to change.

56-66 When Lucifer fell, he had to be despatched far from the divine light. Sinking to earth, he shows hatred of man in seeking to INTRODUCTION prevent his rise to heaven. In his envy he drove him out of Paradise.

67-81 Lucifer brought with him in his fall other angels, and thus a great host of evils entered the world.

82-95 Christ did not destroy Lucifer outright, as he might have done. The devil has a place in the process ofrefining men. He may be punished through the defeat of his minions and in his own person.

96-99 This is the Spirit's teaching. Nearness to the divine light is the true standard of judgement.

Arc. 7: On the Soul 1-17 The soul is the breath of God and immortal, It is not to be equated with fire, air or blood, nor is it simply a bodily harmony.

18-31 The soul is not merely that which gives life to the body. The individual soul is not part ofsome common soul.

32-52 The doctrine of transmigration is rejected in all its forms. In which of the supposed successive bodily states would final punishment take place?

The true teaching about man is that he was formed by the Logos of the newly created earth and the spirit ofGod. He is the image of God, at the mid-point between heavenly beings and the animals, a being which loves the earthly state and is yet drawn to the heavenly.

78-96 Human bodies reproduce by natural processes, but souls are joined to bodies in a mysterious way, unless there is truth in the view many hold, that souls are transmitted from parent to child in a way similar to physical characteristics. It is true that a soul's activity may be affected by the state or quality of the body to which it is joined. g7-129 Adam was created to progress to divinity. He was not given absolute freedom nor yet was he completely restricted. In paradise he was forbidden only the tree reserved for his maturity. After the fall he became subject to death and was driven out, Paradise being sealed off to prevent later generations from entering upon an eternity ofsin. Manis to return to Paradise, like a sailor to port after a stormy voyage.

INTRODUCTION Arc. 8: On the Testaments and the Coming ofChrist 1-8 |The Old Covenant for the Jews and the New for the whole world are not at variance: both show God's care. g-30 Asaconsequence ofthe sin ofAdam, all kinds offalse worship came into the world through the devil, with many forms of idolatry. Israel, too, defects, paying no heed to prophets and led by kings in apostasy. God's anger calls in the Gentiles to provoke the Hebrews to jealousy and repentance.

31-59 (But this anticipates.) Because the Hebrews dishonoured the Law the Incarnation was necessary. For Christ saw that the divine element in man was being destroyed. In his Incarnation he was completely human that he might completely save man, uniting divine and human natures, one hidden, one visible.

The new Adam foiled the serpent.

60-71 Heaven and earth proclaimed the birth of Christ, a birth in no way shameful, being the work of the Word through the Spirit.

Christ pays the Lawa parting gift as it leaves, its work over.

72-96 The redemptive work of Christ was heralded by John the Baptist. Christ is the stone which joins Jew and Gentile. He brought twofold cleansing through baptism and the shedding of his blood, human blood shed to deliver man from ancient sin. As man was made mutable, he needs baptism as a means of grace, baptism which corresponds to the 'seal' of the Exodus.

97-99 Like the natural gifts of creation, baptism is commonto all.

(b) Structure What we call these poems is less important than recognizing that they fall into a clearly distinguishable group. This is Keydell's contention,' though he surely went too far in treating them as a single poem, rather that what Werhahn called 'eine Gedichtgruppe'.* While it is true that particular poems may give fairly complete treatments of individual subjects, there is to be found a coherently developing pattern of interrelated themes which build up in sequence. Poems on, say, "The Soul' or "The Son', in a sense detachable, fit also into a wider pattern.

* 'Ein dogmatisches Lehrgedicht Gregors von Nazianz', BZ 44 (1951), 315-21.

7 (= 'Dubia und Spuria bei Gregor von Nazianz', TU, 92; Berlin, 1966), 337-47 at 338.

INTRODUCTION I tried to show previously how Greg. develops his ideas about human nature and the person and work ofChrist. Though the early poems are primarily concerned with the Three Persons of the Trinity, the contrasts which they draw with divinity give clear indications of the writer's understanding of key characteristics of the human state: dependence, inability to comprehend fully, composite nature, need for redemption. The fourth poem gives man a place below the angels, in the fifth he is left poised between earth and heaven, while the next poem again sets him in third place below God and angels. When, therefore, we come to Arc. 7, a more formal approach through theories of the soul, we already have a background of thought which prepares us for the final introduction ofAdam asa figure in history. Similarly,

Greg. sets out his teaching on the person and work of Christ. The second poem is the formal treatment ofthe Son. But all the others are needed to complete our understanding. We are taken beyond the eternal relationship with the Father by considering his revelatory role as Logos, his place within the Trinity, his function in creation and providential ordering of the world. Again, we are prepared, this time for the incarnation and for exploration of the Lord's humanity, in a context of the developing theme of the human condition.

The poems then remain eight and distinct, yet by interrelating ideas in an allusive way Greg. is able to produce a more complex pattern, not that of a highly integrated structure but a more discursive assemblage ofthemes, as he comes at them from different directions.

This claim to integrity of the Arcana is broken by the MauristMigne insertion ofthe iambic poem 1. 1. 6 (M. 37. 4304—4384) between Arc. 5 and 6, for no better reason than similarity of subject-matter.

Caillau, in 1840, was going against his better judgement (cf. n. reprinted in M. 37. 4294 f.) The unity of the poems would be broken in a different way if we were to the follow the suggestion of E. Dubedout.* He wanted to separate the 'theological' poems, Arc. 1-3, 6, and 8, from the 'philosophical', 7 and 9. He claimed that the latter were aimed at a wider audience, appealing rather to the pagans than being addressed to the heretics of the 'theological' verse. But this distinction is of doubtful value. Each category contains themes which belong to the other. Such a dichotomy would not have seemed natural to Greg. and his

> *The Poemata Arcana', 34.

* De D. Gregorii Nazianzeni carminibus (Paris, 1go1), 38 ff.

INTRODUCTION contemporaries. For the subjects of the 'philosophical' poems, though they approached from the side of pagan philosophy are, without exception, directly relevant to Christian theology. Moreover, the answers to the 'philosophical' questions are frequently in direct theological terms, as in Arc. 4, where it is the doctrine of the Fall which is invoked to account for the origin of evil (vv. 46-50). Greg. shows the close connection in his mind between philosophy and theology in carm. 1.2. 10. 181 ff. (M. 37. 6934 f.), asking how people can be called codoié who do not recognize God, 76 wadvrwv aiziov mpdrov xaAdv (v. 184). He advances the claims on the philosopher's attention of the theologian's view on the worlds of épapeva and vootpeva on providence, astrology, and mythology. Greg. would have ascribed to that conjoining of divina and humana which is found in various Stoic definitions of philosophy and would have given both a specifically

Christian content. For the Stoics cf. e.g. Aét. Plac. 1. proem. 2 (Dox.

27311): Beiwy re ai dvOpwrivwy émorin. Cic. Tusc. 4. 26. 57: 'rerum divinarum et humanarum scientiam cognitionemque quae cuiusque rei causa sit.' Greg.'s words in or. 30. 20 (p. 139. 13-14, M. 36. 129A) are close to Origen's in Cels. 3. 72 (p. 263. 25-6, M. 11. 1013¢). It is precisely this interrelation of divina and humana which is found in the Arcana, interwoven in such a way as to make separation pointless.

Ill. PLACE IN LITERARY HISTORY The question has several times been asked: 'What made Greg. turn to the writing of verse?' The question has been directed not so much to the elegiac and to some of the personal verse which, for all its repetitions, contains elements of spontaneity, as to the bulk of the personal poems and the corpus of theological and moral writings which make up books 1 and 2 in the Maurist order. Why, in particular, did he write the Poemata Dogmatica ofwhich the Arcana form a part? Greg. himself gives a general answer to the question of his taking to verse composition. In carm. 2. 1. 33. 39 ff. (M. 37. 13314 ff.) he explains his purposes: to benefit from the discipline verse imposes, to provide a tepzvév . . . ddpyaxov for young readers, to rival pagan poets, to gain personal solace. We may further question whether there was any Christian tradition into which poems of this kind might be fitted.'

7 Cf. 'The Poemata Arcana'.

INTRODUCTION There are of course hymns and straightforward versifications of scripture and Greg. shows how tedious mnemonic verse can be in his carmm, 1. 1.

13-27. There turns out to be little ofsignificance in earlier Christian Greek verse, examples found in Irenaeus, Clement ofAlexandria, and Methodius offering little parallel.* Yet, while there is no Christian tradition, there are superficial examples of influence on Greg. in the hexameter verse of the Oracula Sibyllina; but they are no more than verbal reminiscences and the same may be said for metaphrases in Psalmos, questionably attributed to Apollinarius.' There is no sign of real influence.

Yet while stressing the antiquity of the didactic tradition in which Gregory stands, we should not forget its continuance down to Greg.'s time. He should not be thought ofas an antiquarian who was seized by an eccentric notion of writing 'Homeric' hexameters. Surely a misleading impression is given by what Brooks Otis has written ofGreg. as a poet: 'In one sense he is mainly imitative, like the Renaissance or English public school Grecians, showing a clever mastery of a meter and diction to which he was not really native.' There is undeniably a strong imitative element in Greg.'s verse but it is imitation of a kind long accepted as appropriate to this kind of verse. If one is going to write didactic, this is the way to do it. Whether within his chosen style

Nazianzen writes well or badly is another issue. He may be a good poet, he may be a bad one. The examination ofthe question demands a detailed study in itself, a study which cannot be taken up at this point. But we cannot begin to form a literary estimate of Greg.'s didactic verse unless we accept it for what it is, a form ofcontemporary verse, and not a purely academic pastime. Of course the world of didactic is a somewhat esoteric one. The man who could follow

Greg.'s orations might have to make some cultural adjustments if he was to feel at home with the Arcana and their like. But there is a clear link between the Greek of the reasonably well-educated church attender in Constantinople and the language of the didactic poems.

The second is fundamentally the same language as the first. To compare Greek verses written by Italianor English-speaking scholars is quite unhelpful. It is one thing to compose verses in a dead language but quite another to write for a select segment ofone's contemporaries in a carefully stylized genre, using language which is accepted as a * Refs. 'The Poemata Arcana', p. 38.

* For discussions of authorship see ibid. 39 n. 8.

'© *The Throne and the Mountain', Classical Journal, 56 (1961), 146-65 at 160.

INTRODUCTION form of their own tongue. A degree of dependence on the past is part of the didactic tradition. In drawing vocabulary, forms, and direct reminiscences from his predecessors, both remote and comparatively recent, Gregory is doing no more than showing that he understood the conventions of his chosen form."'

It is in the well-established line ofGreek didactic verse that we may hope to find a relevant tradition. This was a genre which went back to Hesiod and extends to the second and third centuries Ap in the works of Oppian and Ps.-Manetho. The range of acceptable content was very wide indeed: mythology, moral teaching, cosmology (in the Jonian philosophers ofthe sixth and fifth centuries Bc), astrology, even hunting and fishing. All that Greg. needed to do was to appropriate the tradition and extend it to include specifically Christian tenets and interpretations of standard philosophical views. By this form of adaptation Greg. may be thought at once traditional and original.

Nor is it necessarily helpful to invoke prose models of invective and influence of diatribe on the Suyxpicis Biwv, where there is ample evidence from content and the method ofpresentation. But polemic as such was always at home in didactic verse and there is no need to look for a shadowy prose model. Again, the contention of Keydell'* that there is direct dependence of large sections of the Arcana on the structure ofthe Theological Orations'* is overstated. A detailed side-byside comparison shows no more than is to be expected when similar subjects are being discussed. This in no way inhibits the verse from finding its own development.

IV. LITERARY CHARACTERISTICS (a) Language The poems are written in the accepted style of didactic, with epic vocabulary and grammar diversified by expressions drawn from other

* 'This paragraph has been reprinted from "The Poemata Arcana', 40. Cf. further D. A.

Sykes, "Gregory Nazianzen as Didactic Poet', Stud. Patr. 16/2 (= TU 129; Berlin, 1985), a As done by R. Keydell, 'Die literarhistorische Stellung der Gedichte Gregors von

Nazianz', Atti dell'VIIT Congresso internazionale distudi bizantini (Rome, 1953), i.

134-43- ' Gregorii NazianzeniDéyxpiots Biav (Wiesbaden, 1953), 75 ff.

SM. 36. 12 ff; ed. A.J. Mason (Cambridge, 1899), J. Barbel (Diisseldorf, 1963), P, Gallay with M.Jourjon (Paris, 1978), and F. W. Norris (Leiden, 1991).

INTRODUCTION sources. Adaptation ofepic meanings and the incorporation ofexpressions from totally different sources is central to didactic tradition.

Most of Greg.'s use of epic language is in the straightforward didactic line ofquarrying for words not necessarily intended to recall their original provenance and not infrequently occurring in a quite different sense. (Examples of remoulding are noted in the commentary.) Epic language frequently provides the basic, unobtrusive pattern against which key ideas are made to stand out in words with a different origin.

Much of the interwoven language is drawn from other styles of Greek verse, as was normal didactic practice. As Aristotle had said, heroic verse appears able to assimilate with ease rare words and metaphors (Poe. 1459°34 ff.). It is not surprising that Greg. draws on tragedy.

The elevation of moral tone and the concern for divine-human relationship would have a natural appeal. The reminiscences of Pindar conveya similar feeling. Again, traces ofCallimachus carry with them a certain air of elevation.'* Other didactic poets may influence the variegated style and there are similarities with poems in Anthologia

The style of the Arcana is further diversified by the inclusion of words which might appear to have a more natural habitat in prose. To find contrasted eiSea with Aq might seem to take us into the prose world of Aristotle, despite the epic ending of cidea."* Yet it was good didactic practice to allow 'prose' words as technical terms of direct communication, in preference to cumbersome 'poetic' periphrases.

When, for instance, Empedocles wanted to talk about a membrane he introduced into his verse the prose word pavyé.!? A major source for Greg. is naturally the vocabulary of LXX and NT. Though derived from prose, many of these biblical words must have conveyed something of the elevation oflanguage traditionally coming from poets.

Greg. himselfseems responsible for certain new coinages, for some of which he is the only known authority. They are quite a marked feature of the poems.""

8 Cf eg. Are. 7. 123.

'? 'There is a good survey ofliterary influences on Greg. in B. Wyss, RAC, xii (1983), 835-59, verse being considered at $39 ff.

4% Fr. 84; DK i. 342.

* The opening words ofArc. 1. 34, xoopo8érns veyeds, are both coinages.

INTRODUCTION (6) Grammar Accidence The eclectic nature ofthe vocabulary is in some degree reflected in the accidence. Homeric forms are found side by side with those of later times, as is the case in earlier didactic writers.

Syntax The feature of Greg.'s syntax which has attracted most attention is his use of the optative, in particular through the work of Sister R. de L.

Henry."! She shows that this is a distinctive feature in his writing, in both prose and verse, reflecting developments of the literary side of a spoken language, rather than mere adhesion to earlier models. It is, however, notable that in the Arcana the majority ofoptatives are in line with epic patterns. This must surely be intentional, perhaps as an indication that Greg. thought this conformity marked the grand style of epic to which he aspired.

(c) Metre As I have suggested," one of the ways in which Greg. maintains a place in a developing, rather thana static, form of didactic verse is in his use of metre. While generally following Homeric quantities, he allows himself the kind of variation which later writers of epic verse thought acceptable, similar to those found, e.g., in the Orphic Hymns."

Sometimes, one suspects, he simply makes errors," though there may have been a view that epic convention sanctioned quite arbitrary changes, as in Martial, Epigr. 9. 11. 15. In another way, however, it is clear that Greg. was not arbitrary, but following developing trends.

The hexameter was not a static form. Later writers introduced variations, for example in allowing hiatus, and Greg.'s practice may be paralleled in Quintus and Apollinarius Metaphrastes."> Similarly, in caesura and diaeresis he follows later practices, as he does in his

"The Late Greek Optativeand tts Use in the Writings ofGregory ofNazianzus (Washington, = "The Poemata Arcana of St. Gregory Nazianzen: Some Literary Questions', BZ 72 (1979), 6-15 at 14-15.

3-Cf. A. Wifstrand, Von Kallimachos zu Nonnos (Lund, 1933), for a full account of development.

3 Cf. W. Quandt, Orphei Hymni (Berlin, 1955), 41°.

INTRODUCTION placing of long monosyllables.** However, the most obvious technical change came in later writers in the proportion of dactyls and spondees in a line and here it may be claimed that Greg. has a recognizable place in a changing tradition. In Homer and Hesiod the proportion was 2}: 1 dactyl to spondee. In Quintus it is 4}: 1, in Nonnus 5}: 1. The Arcana show the same proportion as Davids discovered in his examination of Greg.,"' 5 : 1, some indication of awareness of literary movement.

(d) Word-order Once again, we find that in framing word-patterns within a line Greg. shows an awareness of literary tradition." A simple pattern is the chiastic qv Bvos, dpytepeds déBunméAos, dAAG Geds wep

(Arc. 2.75), where two syllables and four are balanced by four syllables and two:

Oios dpyvepeds OunwdéAos Oeds. Variants occur, as in Nonnus,"' in these lines: a (ce) b b a dxbos dyew xpadijow dgavpordrotow dmorov

(Are. 3. 18) a b b (¢) a oins Kai peydAo.o Geot ypyHilov édetuys (Arc. 8. 83) In a third example Gregory reinforces the 4 element: a b b b a daluoves dvdpoddvoio Kaxod BactAijos dandoi

More often he adopts the simpler 'frame' pattern, e.g.: a a éAmwpiy 7° dyadoiow és Detrepov dvidwaav More characteristic ofGregory however is the pattern aabd, as in a a (c) b b deppartivovs 5é yitw@vas édéccato odpxa Bapeiavy

26 Cf, 'Some Literary Questions', 15.

7-H. L. Davids, De Gnomologieén van Sint Gregorius van Nazianze (Amsterdam, 1949), ** "Some Literary Questions', 11 ff.

* e.g. D. 15. 39. Cf. Wifstrand, Von Kallimachos zu Nonnos, 133 ff.

*® Cf. Arc. 5. 64, 6. 66 and, for a variant, 7. 128.

*! Cf. Arc. 1. 2, 4. 63, 4. 65, 8. 10, 8. 63.

INTRODUCTION Again, an alternating pattern is found in Arc. 2. 61 a b a b in7rip duadduoew émxias tabéecov However, while clearly able to fit into an accepted style, Greg. is sparing in its uses, being equally capable ofemploying such devices as enjambement where they suit his subject-matter better.

(e) Imagery I have suggested* that, whereas Greg. can be tasteless and tedious*' elsewhere in his verse, the imagery of the Arcana is generally controlled and pointed. Similes in extended form, following some way behind Homer," are quite frequent. Of the examples I chose, one or two may suffice here. Greg. draws on nature in the picture ofa dangerous river crossing as an image of hazards of attempting to penetrate divine mysteries,*> while human life is drawn in when the disaster experienced by the human race at the Fall is likened to the confusion ofan army with the loss of its general.** Metaphors are less frequent" but, as in the words ddos omjAvyyt kaAvdbév,*® they may be striking.

Here we have a summary of the relationship of body and soul which the rest ofthe poem fills out.

V. PLACE IN GREGORY'S LIFE AND THOUGHT"

The Arcana, I hope to show, may be placed early in the last decade of Greg.'s life, at the end ofhis brushes with activity within the structures

** 'Some Literary Questions', 7 ff.

** A justifiable contention ofM. Pellegrino, La poesia diS. Gregorio Nazianzeno (Milan, " Cf V.A. Frangeskou, "Gregory Nazianzen's Usage of the Homeric Simile', 'EAAnvixd (Thessaloniki), 36 (1985), 12-26.

* "Some Literary Questions', 10.

** Greg.'s own account, De vita sua, carm. 2. 1. 11 (M. 37. 10294 ff.) has been admirably edited by C.Jungck (Heidelberg, 1974). Full discussion of his life and work is found in C. Ullmann, Gregorios vonNazianz, der Theologe (Gotha, 1866); A. Benoit, Saint Grégoirede

Nazianze (Marseille, 1876); P. Gallay, La Vie desaintGrégoire de Nazianze (Lyon, 1943); and J. Plagnieux, Saint Grégoire de Nazianze Théologien (Paris, 1951). Among shorter versions may be mentioned J. Mossay, TRE xiv. 164-73, and B. Wyss in RAC xii. 794-869 (both with full bibliographies); H. von Campenhausen, ET The Fathers of the Greek Church

(London, 1963); R. Ruether, Gregory of Nazianzus (Oxford, 1969); F. Trisoglio, San Gregorio diNazianzo = Rivista lasalliana, 40/ 1-4 (1973); R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine ofGod (Edinburgh, 1988), 699 ff; and F. W. Norris, Faith Gives Fullness to Reasoning: The Five Theological Orations ofGregory Nazianzen (Leiden, 1991).

INTRODUCTION of public church life. Born in 329 or 330, son of the elder Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus, he benefited from an extended education, at home in Cappadocia at Caesarea, before going on to rhetorical education at Caesarea in Palestine. Following a period in Alexandria he reached Athens, at the age of about twenty, for a ten-year period of rhetoric and philosophy, a time notable for his association in personal friendship and intellectual debate with Basil and for the teaching he received from Prohaeresius, who was a Christian, and Himerius, who was not. Basil was the first to leave, around 356, to set up a monastic life, while Greg. delayed his return to Cappadocia by three years, undecided whether to follow a career of rhetoric or to turn to a life of asceticism and contemplation. What came initially was neither. In 361 his father felt that he needed his son's help and ordained him as a rather unwilling priest in the day-to-day ministry of his see. Basil, however, now Bishop of Caesarea, also believed that he needed his friend's help and persuaded him to be consecrated Bishop ofSasima, by Greg.'s account a wretched collection of hovels not worth calling a village," in support of an episcopal dispute in which Basil was engaged. Greg. expressed his disappointment and disillusion by never visiting the place. He soughta solitary life for a time, before again giving way to persuasion, this time to return to Nazianzus to work with his father. Further pressure was put to him following the death of the elder Gregory in 374. He resisted and again chose seclusion, this time in Seleucia. The pattern ofhis life, however, was to be changed when it seemed possible that the Arian hold upon Constantinople might be broken following the death of the Emperor Valens. Greg. took on the modest task of preaching the Nicene faith in the tiny Anastasia but soon began to attract wide attention. The five Theological Orations®! in 380 quickly became a talking point and an encouragement to Nicenes reviving with the support of the Emperor Theodosius. That revival was greatly assisted by his action in expelling Arians from the churches of Constantinople and summoning a Council to settle the doctrinal affairs of the church at large. Almost at once the Council recognized Greg.'s place in the Nicene cause by declaring him true

Bishop of Constantinople, rather than Maximus, who had played a dubious power game there for several years. Asif this were not prominence enough for a supposedly retiring man, on the death ofMeletius he was appointed president of the Council, only to resign in an © Carm. 2.1. 11. 439fF. (ML. 37. 1059 ff); or. g—11 (M. 35. $174 ff).

INTRODUCTION atmosphere ofcontroversy and acrimony. He did not at once abandon episcopal activity, returning to Nazianzus until a regular successor could be found, none too soon for Greg.'s tired sensibilities. From 383 he lived in retirement till his death in 389 or 390.

This brief outline has referred only in passing to Greg.'s work as a writer. The orations with which we have to deal concern specifically controversial areas ofdoctrine (like the Theological Orations) but also high points in the church year, such as Epiphany or Easter, or they celebrate the lives of contemporaries like Athanasius or Basil. Others again refer to occasions in his career. In or. 2, for instance, he allows defence ofhis conduct in moving in and out ofoffice to develop into a full treatment ofthe duties ofpriesthood.*? Less creditably he attacked the EmperorJulian after his death.** Throughout most of this writing

Greg. employs a widely allusive style and one which shows awareness of accepted literary standards." His letters equally demonstrate an awareness of style which qualify them for publication.** They are not, however, set-pieces, but engage correspondents in a personal way, revealing many of the writer's interests and preoccupations, while individually approaching each reader. A small number fall outside the personal category, using the form to present the substance ofdoctrinal debate. Finally, there is the verse, diverse in content and variously judged, largely emerging in the years of retirement." Some consideration has been given above to the didactic genre into which the Arcana fit. But much of Greg.'s verse is rather different.

It is true that the remaining poems which are grouped as Dogmatica® contain, alongside tedious versified catalogues, several treatments of specifically theological subjects, like an iambic poem parallel in subject to Arc. 5" and one directed at Apollinarius.® There is in the hymns, however, a more personal element which is found extensively elsewhere, in, for instance, the series grouped as De

* Mz 35. 4084 ff; ed.J.Bernardi (SC 247; Paris, 1978).

8 Orr. 4-5 (M. 35. 5324 ff); ed.J.Bernardi (SC 309; Paris, 1983).

* Cf. D. A. Sykes, "Gregory Nazianzen as Didactic Poet', 433 ff.; id. "The Bible and Greek Classics in Gregory Nazianzen's Verse', Stud. Patr. 17/3 (1982), pp. 1127-30.

" M. 37.214 ff; ed. P. Gallay in Budé edn. (Paris, 1964-7) and GCS 53 (Berlin, 1969).

* Epp. 101-2 (M. 37. 176a ff); ed. P. Gallay with M.Jourjon (SC 208; Paris, 1974).

7 M. 37. 1974 ff., 38. 11a ff. Cf. M. Geerard, Clavis Patrum Graecorum, ii (Turnhout, 1974, nos. 3101-25; Wyss, RAC xii (1953), 808 ff. Studies ofGreg.'s verse include M. Pellegrino, La poesia di S. Gregorio Nazianzeno, R. Keydell, 'Die literarhistorische Stellung der Gedichte Gregors von Nazianz', F. Trisoglio, San Gregorio di Nazianze, ch. 14.

INTRODUCTION setpso>' While some aim at relative objectivity in giving an account of parts of Greg.'s life, notably in the long poems De vita sua** and De seipso et de episcopis,> others express feelings of fervour, aspiration, or despondency.** Much of the remaining verse fits into the pattern of the more objective treatment. The Poemata Moralia® cover a range of standard subjects like cwdpoatvy® and dperj*' or analyse the evils of anger,** while others look at the place of virginity in the life of the church® and, outstandingly in Comparatio vitarum, the 'life of the world' and 'the life of the Spirit'. The Poemata quae spectant ad alios®' include pieces written in the character of others, like sons putting their viewpoint to their fathers. Finally ascribed to Greg. are a number ofepigrams and epitaphs which cover the conventional range ofsuch verse while revealing something of his personality."

Much of this verse production is hard to date and is often ascribed in a general way to the last decade of Greg.'s life. Can we be more specific with the Arcana? | have argued that a reasonable approximation is possible.' T.Sinko™placed them after 380 and this is an acceptable starting point ifit is agreed that 1. 14-15, on how the Logos

'drove from our assembly very evil men with hearts set against God', refer to the action of Theodosius in expelling the Arians from the episcopal church of Constantinople in order to install Greg. under military protection (27 Nov. 380). A similar idea is found in Carm. ii. 1.

11194 ff), where Christ is held to be the direct participant in the conquest of heresy which made Greg. bishop. I further suggested that it would be unwise to put much weight as evidence on the forthright declaration ofthe Holy Spirit's divinity. Greg. may well have been cautious about expressing this conviction as explicitly in a ciated a view he had held privately as early as 372-3.°° Again, antiManichaean legislation in the early 380s might have affected the lM. 37. g6ga—14524.

2 2.4. 41 (M. 37. ro2ga fF).

8 3.1. 12 (11664 fF).

* Examples are 2. 1. 22 (12814 £), 2. 1. 38 (1325 ££); 2. 1. 45 (13594 fF).

Carm, 1. 2 (M. 37. 5214-9684. Cf. D. A. Sykes, 'Gregory Nazianzen, Poet of the Moral Life', Stud. Patr. 22 (1989), 69-73.

* 1.2. 9 (6674 ff), 10 (680 ff).

% 1,2. 1-7 (5214 ff).

© 1. 2. 8 (64ga ff). It is well edited by H. M. Werhahn.

*! Carm. 2. 2 (14514-16004). Cf. D. A. Sykes, 'Reflections on Gregory Nazianzen's poemata quaespectant ad alios'. Stud, Patr. 18/3 (1989), 351-6.

** M. 38. 11a-1304, © "The Poemata Arcana', 36 ff.

"* "Chronologia poezji sw. Grzegorza z Nazjanzu', Sprawodzania z Czynnosci i Posiedzeni Polskiej Akademii Umiejgtnosei wmKrakowie, 48/5 (1947), 147-56 at 151.

*S Ep. 58 (M. 37. 116 £).

INTRODUCTION fourth poem, but earlier laws may be cited." It is perhaps Greg.'s approach to Apollinarius which allows closer approximation. Between 379 and 382 he moved from characterizing his difference from Apollinarius as uyouayiav ddeAdixyv® to the hostility of Ep. 101 (M. 37.

176 ff.). The theology ofthe Arcana offers no encouragement to Apollinarian views, but it is Eunomius, not Apollinarius, who is attacked in the second poem. (Cf. the introduction to that poem.) There is a clear contrast between the language of Arc. 2 and the precise antiApollinarian polemic of Carm. 1. 1. 10. 4644 ff, with its expressions like Fyutovs Bpords and 9 capé dvous." This gives reason for suggesting that the Arcana might have been written in 381 or early 382, before Greg. found it necessary to attack Apollinarius in hard-hitting precise terms.

VI. THE THOUGHT OF THE POEMS A primary question in Greg.'s mind, one which runs through the poems, concerns the status of his knowledge. How is he to have confidence in the truth of the teachings he is putting forward? He has no doubt that there is a fundamental difference between divine and human knowledge, a gulf which separates the infinite great Mind, the 'uncontainable', from human comprehension. Even if angels know more, they too are subject to limits. Knowledge ofthe Godhead exists only internally, within the complete and ever-present contemplation of the Three Persons. Human knowledge, by contrast, exists within a created mind and is derivative, limited, and subject to error. These natural features are subject to further erosion through the effects of the fall ofAdam when the deceptions of Lucifer and his minions proliferate. Yet there is a strong positive strain. Human beings are distinct from God by their created status, but the purpose of that creation is beings who may share divine rationality, cognate if far from equal in wisdom, made in an image which is marred by the fall but not destroyed. The possibility of knowledge of God is God's choice and the intention is never rescinded that men and women should grow up

" e.g. Cod. Theod. 16. 5. 3 (372).

*? Or. 22. 13 (M. 35. 11454). The SC ed. (no. 270; Paris, 1980) by J. Mossay with G, Lafontaine questions (pp. 201 ff.) the ascription to 379, arguing that the oration could be as late as 381. This, however, would still place the 'brotherly internal strife' before Greg.'s marked hardening of attitude.

* Carm. 1. 1. 10. 35, 47 (M. 37. 4684).

INTRODUCTION into understanding of the divine. The meansofreaching this knowledge are of God's choosing, stages of revelation accommodated to human understanding. Real knowledge may be imparted through the law and the prophets. Supremely it comes in the Incarnation, yet in such a way that there remain stages of comprehension to develop in the life ofthe Church. Only when the Son's divinity is fully recognized can Christians think seriously of the Godhead of the Spirit. Greg. believes that a degree of true knowledge is possible because God wills it and thus what is designedly limited is still to be highly valued. There is always the element of hazard, as the human mind is prone to error, whether it be from pagan thought, heretical distortion, or acquiescence in false analogy. The Spirit however works truly within the Church to give correct understanding to those who meet the conditions of humility and purification and what unfolds is authentic. It is this conviction which allows Greg. to feel assurance for the genuineness of his teaching. Ultimate knowledge is not granted to the human mind, but the measure of truth is none the less real.

When therefore Greg. propounds his doctrines of Godhead he writes with commitment and belief in his insight. Yet he is careful to distinguish what is true for human understanding from the ultimate truth comprehensible to the divine Persons alone. The Trinity exists in indivisible unity. The Persons may be expressed as 'three lights', but not three Gods, for that is to misunderstand a true distinctness.

The unity is one of equality in rule, understanding, power, and will, being infinite, unoriginate, a stable harmony in which each Person is

God. This is a harmony of purpose which leaves no place for chance and no place for rival power, the ultimate standard by which all else is judged. Essential to the goodness ofGod is the creation ofupper and lower worlds, for this is a sharing designed to bring happiness and fulfilment through the unbroken manifestation of providential care.

All that has come from nothing depends upon the creator. The Trinity has chosen modes ofrevelation in human history to take human minds to the limits of their powers of comprehension and Greg. is prepared to offer analogy and to seek confirmation of Trinity in the revealed practice of threefold Baptism."

In writing specifically of the Father Greg. stresses that he is utterly without beginning, eternal Mind, the 'root', the original ofwhom the " Among the main passages are 1. 1-24, 3. 10-23, §. 1-33, 6. 27-46, 7. §§—-77, 100-4, 8. aching on the subject infiltrates the whole sequence, as will be seen from II(a).

INTRODUCTION Son is the image, while the Father remains 'timeless beginning'. In the economy ofrevelation his Godhead is the first to be recognized. In the Incarnation he remains unaffected in any corporeal sense as would result from human generation. Father and Son share in equal honour, while only within Godhead is the relationship understood."

Over the eight poems Greg. is careful to build up a cumulative teaching on the person and work ofthe Son." A fourfold division may be imposed for summary review: essential being within the Godhead, activity before the Incarnation, the Incarnation itself, and the work of redemption. The Incarnation is given careful preparation in the presentation of the timeless relationship of Father and Son. He is alone Son, the Word, the Image, unique, equal, timeless, the Father's understanding, sprung from the Father, dependent, yet not subordinate. He is sprung from the Father as everlasting light without division from the unoriginate root, united in generation quite unlike human generation, united in nature and manifest in a way known only to Father and Son. Greg. is no less eager to show the activity ofGod the Son beyond the Godhead. He is central to the foundation and providential government of the universe. In the fullness of Godhead he takes part in creation from nothing, assigning paths to the stars, and having a precise function in revelation. He it is who enunciates the divine purpose in proceeding from the creation of the world of heavenly beings to the creation of human beings who can participate on earth in the divine purpose. Yet it is part ofthat divine purpose that an understanding of the Son's Godhead should come as second phase of revelation to the human mind. The Son's relation to man, as distinct from a full knowledge ofthe Son, is emphasized in the account ofthe Fall. The Son had placed human beings in paradise and on their expulsion showed care for their ultimate return. Greg.'s teaching on the Incarnation takes up the relationship to the Father and to humanity. The human birth in no way divides the Son from his Father, as he does not emerge as a creature. While emptying himselfof the glory he shares with the Father, the Son retains the essential Godhead which gives him the power to act as the supreme physician. Mortal characteristics do not diminish Godhead, rather are they glorified by it. The birth of Christ involves no shame, no sinking into mortal transience, for he is Word self-formed of flesh made holy by the Spirit, undergoing purification solely on man's behalf and fulfilling human obligations. Heaven and earth witness to the glory of the Birth. Greg. tries

| Cf. especially 1. 25-39, 2. 5 ff.

® Cf. 'The Poemata Arcana', 34.

INTRODUCTION hard to hold together in unity the two natures, presented as they are in 'double column' contrasts at some length. The sharing of human weakness and dependence is balanced by the divine strength and governance: it is the High Priest who offers himself as sacrifice, the one who penetrates the world of the dead, who raises from the dead.

The one Person is revealed in two natures, yet the revelation may come with equal force to the human observer who finds it difficult to go beyond the surface characteristics which he shares to the full power of divinity which may remain concealed. But the reality remains of 'one God on two sides' and this is central to Greg.'s understanding of the atoning purpose of the Incarnation. Only the full power of Godhead could be adequate and only the full participation in the whole

Adam could have meaning. Throughout the range ofimages that conviction recurs. There is equipoise of natures in the physician who heals the whole Adam, in the overthrow ofthe serpent in which God is encountered in place of the supposed Adam, in divine cleansing through human blood, in the language of ransom and recompense.

Victory is won, but not the defeat of Lucifer through an arbitrary exercise ofdivine power from which the human nature would be excluded.

It is the whole Christ, God from eternity, fully revealed in the economy of revelation as the corner-stone to join Israel and Gentiles."

Into this same economy of revelation comes the Spirit, later in recognition by human minds but equal in essence within the indivisible Godhead, uncreated, self-determined, acknowledged in his divinity by the heavenly choir. He is to be distinguished from the Son in a way at which analogy may hint, as Greg. suggests that ofAdam, Eve, and Seth, Though hesitation was understandable in Christian past, that time is over. The acceptance of Christ's divinity makes possible the emergence of further truth: the Spirit need no longer remain 'halfhidden' but must be proclaimed as God. The evidence of Scripture converges on this point, as does the threefold formula of baptism. The functions of the Spirit become clear: to reveal God in unity and Trinity, to infuse divine life in human beings through knowledge and purification, especially through the cleansing of baptism. In contrast to these habitual manifestations oflife-giving power is the specific and unrepeatable action within the Incarnation pattern, where the Spirit makes pure the body ofthe Virgin who is to give birth to Christ. Again it is he who brings purity to the human blood of Christ poured in * Again II(a) will show the development.

INTRODUCTION sacrifice. Every function coheres with divine being, to the point where the Spirit may be said to bring deification in baptism."

Great as is Greg.'s concern for deepening an understanding of the nature of the divine Being, he finds an inevitable correlative in a doctrine of creation. For in positive terms it derives directly from his conception of Godhead. God alone enjoys absolute existence, but his will in creation gives value to what he has made, yet without affecting his irreducible separateness. Creation involves Godhead through will and the generous love of sharing existence, but always remains outside, above. All creation is the result of timeless contemplation in which everything which in human terms would fall into categories of past, present, and future is constantly present to the divine Mind, The Three exist eternally and bring into existence two worlds. The first is more closely cognate with their being, an immaterial world 'above', stable and harmonious (or at least relatively so), consisting ofspiritual beings, angelic, a 'second light after the Trinity. The second world below is later in creation and, involving as it does matter and existing within time, is subject to change. It comes out of nothing and is dependent on its divine creator both for its origin and for its continued existence. All this Greg. finds it necessary to state in opposition to views of a very different kind. A fundamentally irreconcilable approach attributes the world we see to causeless chance. A dualism on Manichaean lines which assigns matter to negativity and evil is no more acceptable. Nor will Greg. give any credence to a creator who shares existence with forms and matter; his creator is absolute. The forms ofthe world to be created exist in his mind and he brings things into being by simultaneous combination with matter produced from nothing, all planned and cohering. Nor again has Greg. anything but incredulity for the notion that the world itself is eternally existent. Its being depends on benevolent action outside itself, expressed through the divine will."

A major interest of the poems is the creation and history of humanity."° We find discussion oftheory, the nature ofman over against God and angels, activity within the temporal processes of history and the final destiny of human beings. Central to Greg.'s understanding is

God's purpose in creating man, a clear link with the exposition of * Main passages, apart from Arc. 3 itself, are 1. 25-39, 6. g6-9, 8. 60-71.

** Though Arr. 4 ostensibly contains the central discussion, the building-up of ideas is constant in, ¢.g., 5. 1-15, 34-44, 6. 8 FE, 7. $3 fF

© Cf. 'The Poemata Arcana', 33-4.

7l INTRODUCTION intent in the creation of the angelic world. Man is placed in the physical world to share its physicality, while granted a share in divine being through genuine participation in the image ofGod. The affinity with God gives man the ultimate purpose of travelling to God. He is represented as possessing an intellectual nature, the human soul being a breath ofGod, enjoying freedom from determinism, as befits a fragment ofGodhead, infused with divine Spirit, potentially an initiate of heaven, on earth meant to resemble God in exercising rule. Greg. opposes traditional views ofthe soul as composed offire, air, or blood, or as being a harmony of physical parts, together with any approach to transmigration, because he believes that none of these contains the truth ofGod's direct creation. His mortal qualities, though contrasting him with God, are not dishonourable but are appropriate for Christ's acceptance in the incarnate state. Yet this strong affirmation of affinity is balanced by an equally strong awareness ofman's difference from God. The human soul is not in essence divine: the whole human being is created and thus dependent, subject to change. His mutability is a concomitant of his composite nature. It makes him unstable, subject to dissolution. He may not be bound in determinism, but he is still not totally free. He is not free from passions and his longing for the divine, real though it is, may be thwarted by his ignorance and tendency towards the purely earthly. Man may be called 'another kind ofangel', but the adjective is no less important than the noun. For he is set in contrast with the simple essence ofangels and, for his own good, kept at a greater distance from the divine. Within history the human being exercises false choice in the Fall and becomes subject to sin and death. Forfeiting his place in paradise, he must contend with the temptations to evil put in his way by the prior fall of Lucifer and his comrades. The history of Israel shows a particularly poignant failure, in resistance to law and prophets. The Incarnation is the supreme acknowledgement of the worth of the whole human person,

Christ coming as God to a state which does not demean him, as it is part of divine creation itself.

In redemptive purpose is to be found final and complete affirmation of the unchanging intent ofhuman creation. Human life continues in history and Greg. concentrates on life in the church which, while not exempted from the fundamental human state, is the primary locus of divine insight and activity, in true teaching and sacrament."

" Notable passages Arc. 7 passim, 2. 40 ff., 4. 32 fF, 75 ff, 6. 52 ff. Arc. 8 sets man in history.

INTRODUCTION The question of evil is a recurring one, considered both in its theoretical aspects and through the consequences of its occurrence within the created order. Evil has no existence in its own right within any dualistic system. Rather is it to be thought of in one traditional way as the absence of good. Nor can evil be attributed to such an agency as astral influence. It is something which occurs when created beings, in either world, who are created good, reject the fullness of their creation. First Lucifer in the heavenly world loses through his insolent choice the goodness oflight, punished by banishment. Yet his evil choice does not set him up ona rival throne. In the earthly Fall human beings are deceived into evil and their successors come more and more into the power of demonic fraud. Yet what is evil is the breaking of divine commandments, not the nature of the men and women who infringe. Their composition may make them mutable, unstable. But that does not make composition bad. The rust on the iron does not produce fundamental change. The damage to humanity is not total. As God's goodness, goodness remains to be taken up in final redemption, in cleansing and cure."

This then is one way of setting out the main ideas of the poems. As the commentary should show, some of this thinking would be regarded by Greg. as direct exposition of biblical material as developed in a traditional way in the Church. At other times he makes clear his polemical intentions, whether directing himself against what he takes to be heretical interpretations within the church or attacking notions which he identifies as anti-Christian in pagan writers.

VII. SOURCES AND AFFINITIES Greg. clearly writes in an acceptably allusive way; in line after line it becomes clear how much he owed to other writers, verbally and in thought-forms, while attempting to shape his verse with some degree of originality. Literary allusions, it has already been observed, frequently stop short at the verbal level and are not necessarily expected to carry over the original ambience.

The Scriptures clearly form a primary area ofreference. Generally in the Arcana Scripture is used in a narrative or illustrative way, rather than for the purposes of detailed argument: contrast, for instance,

7* Much, ofcourse, overlaps with the teaching on humanity. Arc.4 raises questions of theory, while 5 tackles the fall of angels and men.

INTRODUCTION Or. 29. 17 (pp. 99 f., M. 36. 968 ff.), with its detailed exegetical polemics. We do find the Magi story being defended against astrological interpretation in 5. 53 ff. and events in the life of Christ support the proposition #v Bporés, dAAad Qeds in 2. 62. Scripture is appealed to for the threefold baptismal saying (3. 47). Again, it is the Bible which supplies the central argument on the nature of the soul, infused by God (Arc. 7) and the fundamental view of creation in Arc. 4, while the analogy ofAdam, Eve, and Seth is used to support an interpretation of Trinitarian relationships (3. 37 ff). Typological use of the Bible is restricted and standard, as in the correspondence of the blood sprinkled in the Exodus story with the blood of Christ (8. 87 ff.), while allegory is little used, though the 'coats of skin' instance in 7. 115-16 has significance. Greg.'s overall understanding of Scripture is one in which inspiration is assured but only gradually making itself felt through accommodation to human understanding in progressive providentially appointed stages. Sometimes he works into his pattern blocks of biblical material, like the Adam passage which follows theories ofthe soul (7. 97 ff.). But equally he infiltrates language drawn from LXX or NT in a glancing way, similar to his use of classical expressions, without invoking an original context."

A reading of these poems will quickly reveal indebtedness to, or at least parallels with, a number of patristic writers. The commentary refers frequently to Irenaeus, Clement, and Origen, for instance. But the Arcana show also something of Greg.'s independence. As early as 358 he had joined with Basil in producing the Philocalia, a selection of Origen which reveals as much by what it omits as by what it includes.

Similarly in these poems alongside a degree of dependence will be found instances of divergence or modification. Among his contemporaries we find that passages from Athanasius cited in the commentary invariably support Greg.'s position and those of his Cappadocian colleagues usually do. To Basil's views he shows deference (cf. e.g. the introduction to Arc. 4), while his relationship to Gregory of Nyssa may be more ambivalent. (Cf. n. on 4. 82-90.)

When it comes to Greek philosophy, Greg.'s knowledge as shown in these poems is fairly wide-ranging, though the scope ofthe work does not allow very profound discussion. Presocratics and Epicureans make their appearance to be refuted. The Cynic influence, prominent in other parts of Greg.'s writings," is not noticeable here. Aristotle is

™Cf D. A. Sykes, "The Bible and Greek Classics in Gregory Nazianzen's Verse', Stud. Patr. 17/3 (1982), 1127-30.

INTRODUCTION perhaps more a source for other people's views (cf. especially the commentary on Arc. 7) than a philosopher who is treated in his own right in the poems. But the value ofAristotelian logic was not lost on Greg.

As J. Focken showed,"' a number of the arguments used may be reduced to basic logical forms; he points out (p. 4) that even Platonists who would acknowledge little debt to Aristotle's metaphysics make good use of his logic. Traditional syllogisms and enthymemes occur with some frequency and it may be claimed that these forms contribute something to economy of argument and clarity of structure. It is, however, on Plato and later Platonists that most stress must fall.

Reminiscences abound, starting with the opening lines of the first poem, which recall Phaedo and Phaedrus. However, reminiscence does not carry with it acceptance of the thought of an original passage.

Where parallels are cited from Plato or Plotinus they are to seen as having passed through Greg.'s mind with varying degrees of acceptance or set out for complete rejection. Levels of influence must be assessed in individual instances, rather than assumed in some general way. At times Greg. will make clear his profound differences, as when he will have nothing to do with independent eternal Forms and preexistent matter in Arc. 4 or with any with any form ofmetempsychosis in 7. At other times he uses language which has parallels in Platonic thought but gives it specifically Christian content. The purification which must precede any genuine knowledge ofGod is directly linked with baptism (3. 47). That God is ultimately unknowable is certainly a view which Greg. would share with Platonists, but his expression of it is distinctively Christian.** The creation of'upper' and 'lower' worlds naturally recalls vonzés and aio@yrés, but they are to be placed within a Christian concept of creation (Arc. 4). When we examine the language which Greg. applies to Godhead we may find expressions which may be paralleled in Platonic usage but which need to be interpreted within the pattern of Greg.'s development of Trinitarian

"! De Gregori Nazianzeni orationum etcarminumdogmaticorum argumentandi ratione (Diss.

" The influence is set out clearly in C. Moreschini, 'I] platonismo cristiano di Gregorio Nazianzeno', Annali della Scuola Norm. Sup. diPisa, xrd ser., 4/4 (1974), 1347-92Earlier discussions includeJ.Draseke, 'Neuplatonisches in des Gregorius von Nazianz

Trinitatslehre', BZ 15 (1906), 141-60; C. Gronau, De Basilio Gregorio Nazianzeno Nyssenoque Platonis imitatoribus (Gottingen, 1908); R. Gottwald, De Gregorio Nazianzeno

Platonico (Berlin, 1906); H. Pinault, Le Platomisme de Saint Grégoire de Nazianze (La Roche-sur-Yon, 1925); E. von Ivanka, Hellenisches und christliches im fnihbyzantinischen

Geistesleben, 43 ff, CHLGEMP 438-47 (L P. Sheldon-Williams).

" Cf. Moreschini, 'Platonismo', 1370 ff.

INTRODUCTION thinking.** Reference is constant, but so are adaptation and reworking.

As for Stoics, it is possible to see some influence in the terminology of pigs applied to man.* But much is in opposition, on cosmology and providence, for instance, and there is nothing to correspond to the kind ofreminiscence which Werhahn found in his edition ofXiyxpiats Biwv.™

VIII. TRANSLATIONS The early editions have been dealt with in Professor Moreschini's introduction; otherwise only A. B. Caillau's edition of 1840, reprinted by Migne, need be noticed. It remains only to mention a small number of translations. In English J. A. McGuckin has translated Arc. 2 in Saint Gregory Nazianzen: SelectedPoems (Oxford, 1986), 1-5. The French translation of P. Gallay gives extracts from all but Arc. 8, some 139 lines in all, in Poémes et lettres choisies, reprinted by E. Devolder, Saint

Grégoire de Nazianze: Textes choisies (Namur, 1960), 66 ff. In Italian a translation of Arc. 2 was made by R. Cantarella in Poeti bizantini

(Milan, 1958), ii. 56-7 and F. Corsaro translated 6 and 7 in MSZC 5 (1955), 1-42. Recently we have all the poems in a version by C. Moreschini in Gregorio Nazianzeno: i cinque discorsi teologici (Rome,

1986), 231-52, 258-73, with footnotes.

* Moreschini, 'Platonismo', 1382 ff.

§ Cf. FLX. Portmann, Die géttliche Paidagogia bei Gregor von Nazianz (Sankt Ottilien, 1954), 63 ff, 109 ff.

1. On First Principles Titleandpurpose The varying titles given to this poem in the MSS indicate the doubt felt about its purpose. Caillau, in preferring [Tepi rod [atpés, sees in it the first of a group of three poems dealing respectively with Father,

Son, and Holy Spirit. But the content shows little more concern with the Father than with the other two Persons. The title is an attempt to fit the first three poems into too neat a pattern. The title [Tepi dpydv favoured in this edn. shows an awareness that the poem has a more general function. For the purpose is two-fold. Vv. 1-24 form an introduction to the Arcana as a whole, while vv. 25-39 lead into a discussion of the Trinity (cf. Va). The notion of 'First Principles', if correct, would certainly be influenced by Origen's work.

This poem is fully discussed in a recent article by C. Nardi: 'Note al Primo Carme Teologico di Gregorio Nazianzeno', Prometheus, 16 (1990),

155-74. Cf. also R. Keydell, BZ 44 (1951), 318.

The Conditionsfor Knowledge ofGod Notable discussions ofGregory's teaching on the nature and extent of human knowledge of God and of the means of attaining it are to be found in H. Pinault, LePlatonisme de saintGrégoire de Nazianze, chs. 3 ff., J. Plagnieux, Saint Grégoire de Nazianze théologien, 81-113; V. Lossky,

The Vision ofGod (London, 1963), ch. 4 on the Cappadocians (pp. 67-70 on Gregory); R. Williams, The Wound ofKnowledge (London, 1979), 646, A. Louth, The Origins ofthe Christian Mystical Tradition: From Plato to Denys (Oxford, 1981), for the whole background of thought; and Moreschini, 'Platonismo', esp.

1370 ff. See also J.P. SheldonWilliams, in "The Cappadocians', CHLGEMP, ch. 29 (pp. 438-47 on Nazianzen), 1-5.

The gulf between man and God Gregory begins by stressing the negative side of the relationship between God and man. (Cf. Plagnieux, 279-80.) Complete knowledge of God is impossible for man, however intense his intellectual strivings. For all his knowledge ofGod man is dependent upon God. The futility of human wisdom in pursuit of divine knowledge is a subject treated in or. 28. 21 (p. 52. 11 ff, M. 36. 534) where a figure parallel to 1-2 those found in the present passage occurs: cai ofov é6pydavw pixp@ peydAa dnucovpyotmer, x.7.A. See further M. Schubach, De bd. patris

Gregoriti Nazianzeni Theologi carminibus commentatio patrologica, (Koblenz, 1871), 18; Portmann, Die gottliche Paidagogia bei Gregor von

Nazianz, 60-1). As in the passage from or. 28, Greg. may have Eunomius in mind, Eunomius with his claims to precise knowledge of God (see Arc, 2. 32b-35 n.).

Nardi 156-7 points to the poetic tradition, in both Greek and Latin writers, of perplexity and feelings of insufficiency in the face of great subjects.

1. olé@ pév: this is the reading accepted by the majority of editors and it is supported by Nicetas. The pév is to be taken as an instance of uwév inceptive (cf. J.D. Denniston, The Greek Particles, 2nd edn.

(Oxford, 1954), 382-4), a usage found in both oratory and verse.

Denniston notes that five of the seven extant plays of Aeschylus begin in this way, and we should have a suitable introduction to a poem opening a sequence ifthis were the correct reading. But oféauev, the reading of Hoeschel, found also in the scholion he prints on p. 9, is not implausible. A number of Greg.'s poems begin with similar asyndeton, e.g. carmm. 1. 1. 10.

1 (M. 37. 464A), I. I. 12. 1

1 (521). Yet Greg. may equally well be cited for wév inceptive, as Arc. 5. 1 shows. It could also be argued that there is here genuine vév ... 5€ opposition. The 'nevertheless' element

(7s) could support this. axedin here looks to the flimsy nature ofa raft, as in H. Od. 5. 33 and elsewhere. In later poetic use it comes to mean any kind ofcraft.

In Pl. Phd. 851 Simmias compares the best available teaching to a raft on which to brave the hazardous voyage of human life: da7ep ézi oyedias Kiwduvetoorta.

2. Here the bird's wing is the symbol of fragility and weakness. Elsewhere Gregory uses the Platonic imagery (cf. Phdr. 246B-c) of the winged soul soaring towards heaven; cf. e.g. carmm. 1. 2. 1.6 (M. 37.

§22C), 1. 2. g. 26-7 (669A), 2. 1. 23. 13-14 (12834). Nardi compares Anacreon fr. 52 E Diehl for the figure of feeble wings attempting to reach Olympus (p. 158).

Any attempt to reach heaven without divine aid might well suggest to Gregory the foolish pride of Icarus. (Cf. RE ix/1. 985 ff., ii 1994 ff.) gotegoevta: for the Homeric reminiscence cf. Introd.

1. 3-5 3. Oedtyt avagaiverv: the words are picked up in 36 below. Though no human mind can adequately proclaim Godhead, the Holy Spirit may inspire such proclamation. Human reason is transcended.

4. The notion of the limitation ofangels is picked up in Arc. 3. 92-3. A full discussion ofangelic faculties is reserved for Arc. 6.

5. dgovc¢: Nicetas glosses: airs 7s aodias ra Eoyata. The angels cannot grasp the bounds of Godhead because Godhead is boundless. Billius (cf. Introd.) in his verse tr. gives 'dogmata' and in his n. writes: 'doctrinae divinae per certa capita traditionem'.

This understanding is followed by Caillau's 'decreta' (mistranslated 'décrets' by Gallay, Poémes et lettres choisies, 126). Though Nicetas' interpretation is quite possible, the balance of judgement inclines towardsa tr. like 'decreta' which forms a good parallel to olaKa. oiaxa: for the quantity cf. Introd. IV (c). As a figure of government ofaé occurs, e.g. in A. Th. 3, Ag. 802. The use of the word for divine government may be parallelled in Anaxandrides Comicus (iv Bc), fr. 4. 4 Kassel—Austin, where Saiuwy is the subject of the sentence. Heraclitus uses ofaxife.w for the power controlling the universe (fr. 64; DK i, 165), with xuBepvdv in a similar sense in fr. 41

(DK i. 160); cf. Greg.'s kuBepvd in Arc. 5. 34. Nardi 160 compares aavrwy oinxa in Orphica, H. 58. 8, 87. 1. The astrological use ofthe word is not without significance when one considers that the poem in which Greg. develops the idea ofdivine government (Arc. 5) has a strong interest in refuting astrology. Greg.'s contemporary, Paulus

Alexandrinus, for instance, talks of oiaé in describing the ascendant governing a child's nativity (ch. 24, p. 54. 1-2 Boer, cf. p. xxiii. 2930). The metaphor is amplified in carm. 1. 1. 6. 112 (M. 37. 438A) and in 1. 2. 25. 535 (M. 37. 8504). M. Gigante in his edn. of Eugenius

Panormitanus, Versus iambici (Palermo, 1964), 200 cites this with other passages of Greg. as an influence upon xxii. 42. (See further

PGL s.xv. ofa€ and ofaxifw.) The opening lines express Christian diffidence about the unaided power of the human mind but also may reflect passages such as Pl. Zim. 28c2-5, where it is set out that discovery of the maker and father of the universe is difficult, exposition to human beings impossible. Cf. Gregory's ref. in or. 28, 4 (p. 26. 12 ff.). The influence of hermetic literature on such passages as this is studied by J. Pépin, 'Grégoire de Nazianze, lecteur de la littérature hermétique', VC 36 (1982), 251-60, The pervading idea ofthe 'greatness' of 1. 5-8 God is fully treated in M. Bissinger, Das Adjekttv wéyas in der griechischen Dichtung (Munich, 1966).

6-8a. Humble approach to the divine mysteries Gregory makes his bold approach to writing of Godhead in the humble spirit ofthe widow making her offering (Matt. 12. 41-4, Luke

21. 1-4), at the same time alluding to classical examples like Eumaeus in H. Od. 14. 58 and Hecale (Call. Hecale frs. 33-9 Hollis). His humility opens him to divine inspiration as a poet.

8. Oy&u AGyov: with their reminiscence of expressions like pjfar dwryv or avdyy (cf. e.g. Hdt. 1. 85, E. Supp. 710), these words suggest breaking into speech after a silence, here the silence of hesitation and awe.

8b-15. Only the pure may approach These lines introduce the more positive side of Greg.'s teaching on man's knowledge ofGod. Purity is a condition for knowledge ofGod, but it is not an unfulfillable one. For a degree of purity is possible for man and with it a corresponding degree of divine knowledge. The connection of purification and knowledge occurs at several points in Greg.'s writings, notably carm. 1. 2. 10. 972 ff. (M. 37. 7504 f.), or. 20. 1

(M. 35. 10658-1068), 23. 11 (1161C), 45. 3 (M. 36. 625cf.) = 38. 7

(3178 f.). A certain advance in purity must precede even the initial stages of knowledge of God. Only a man who has submitted to discipline of mind and body may be allowed to attempt to reach knowledge ofGod, or. 27. 3 (pp. 4 ff., M. 36.

13c—16B). The nature of this purification is discussed by Plagnieux 81~—113, where it is shown that Greg. teaches a sequence xd@apois, Oewpia, GeodAoyia. When man is purified from the distractions of the sensible world, he may approach the contemplation ofGod yuurd ...

81 (M. 37.°686a). But this does not involve abrogation of the body.

Rather is the body itself involved in the purification, a contrast with Neo-Platonist teaching (cf. Plagnieux 94) and deserving of note; cf. or.

23. 3 (p. 4. 18-19, M. 36. 13D): ... cai buyny cai oda Kexabappévwy, 7H xabatpozévey, td petpidtarov (cf. vv. g-10 below). Cf. further

Pinault 114 ff., 145 ff. and the full discussion ofC. Moreschini, 'Luce e purificazione nella dottrina di Gregorio Nazianzeno', Augustinianum,

Other aspects ofthe ideas ofpurity and purification are found in the 1. 8-11 Arcana. They are associated with the work of Christ (cf. afua ... xabdpaov Arc. 2. 1-2), baptism (Arc. 3. 47), the nature ofangels (Arc.

7. 61 ff). In Arc. 3. 70 right thinking is described as a 'pure sacrifice'.

9. For the hiatus cf. Introd. IV (c).

In warning off sinners, Gregory reproduces the words of Callimachus, Ap. 2 dams dAizpés. The pure whom he will allow to approach correspond to éo@Ads in v. g ofCallimachus. In Gregory, cf. or. 27. 3 (pp. 4-5, M. 36. 13 f).

10. BéBndou: the banishing of the 'profane' was a commonplace of ancient literature; cf. e.g. Vergil, Aen. 6.628, Horace, Carm. 3. 1. 1.

See further Nardi 162-3.

The language is reminiscent of or. 22. 6 (M. 35. 1137¢), where Greg. is lamenting the way in which the great Christian mysteries

(a7éppyra) are handed over to profane discussion and even decision, heretical or pagan; cf. or. 2. 79 (M. 35. 4858), Plagnieux 116 ff.

11-13. Here the Christian 'pure' are placed in a biblical context, through the introduction of the comparison with Moses on Mount

Sinai (Exod. 19. 12 ff.).

The figure of Moses plays an important part in the writings of both Nyssen and Nazianzen. For the former, see C. Nicosia, MSLC

6 (1956), 24 ff. In or. 28. 2 (pp. 22-3, M. 36. 28a-—294) Nazianzen identifies himself with Moses in a way similar to that found in the present passage, dismissing the impure and allowing access card ri agiav THs Kabapoews (p. 22. 13, M. 284). Other instances which may be compared are or. 20. 2 (M. 35. 1068.-B), 40. 45 (M. 36. 421D424A), carm. 2. 1. 13. 116 ff. (M. 37. 12364 f.). See also Greg. Nyss. v.Mos. (M. 44. 372C). Moses is at once the symbol of approach to God, ofthe incomplete nature ofhuman knowledge ofGod, or. 28. 3

(p. 24. 8 ff, M. 36. 29a f.) and of the awareness of a call to a prophetic function (cf. 16 ff. n.).

Ones: cf. Exod. 13, 19, or. 45. 11 (M. 36. 637C¢).

The parallel passage in or. 28. 2 (p. 22. 20 ff., M. 36. 288 f.) might indicate that this, too, is a reference to Exod. 19. 13, an injunction to stoning. Yet the language is odd if stoning is meant. cxowéAoro: suggests not stones one could throw (I can find no parallel for sucha sense for either cxézeAos or 'scopulus'), but rather a towering rock. pnyvupévocoww might confirm the view that we have here a picture of the rending ofgreat rocks, an intensification which makes it appear that the mountain is guarded supernaturally and which may well be

1, 11-15 derived from the quaking mountain of Exod. 19. 18 (Heb.). The allegorical interpretation of Nicetas, who glosses cxozéAoror as ododporépors pHyacw, is derived from parallels in Greg.'s writings: or, 28, 2 (pp. 23. 7-8, M. 36. 288) AiBor yap trois Onpiddecw of aAnbeis Adyo. kai areppoi, and or. 40. 45 (M. 36. 424A) ... AcBoBoAotpevoy TS Adyw ris GAnGeias. A very similar line is carm. 2. 1. 13.

The idea of'Christ as Illuminator' is well established in the writings ofthe Fathers; cf. H. E. W. Turner, Patristic Doctrines ofRedemption (London,

1952), ch.2. Here it is carried back into OT theophanies, following a patristic line of thought going back as far as Justin. The figure of Christ as giver of the New Law is strengthened by his representation as giver of the Old Law. Gregory follows Origen in seeing Sinai as a symbol of the holy man's approach to God, princ. 3. 1. 22 (pp. 239. 13-14, M. 11. 297¢). For Origen's effect on Gregory's thought see C. Moreschini, "Influenze di Origene su Gregorio di Nazianzo', Atti e memorie dell'Accademia

Toscana di scienze e lettere 'La Colombaria', 44 = Ns 30 (1979), 35-57.

14. xeivot pév oq toia ...: Caillau takes xeivor as referring back to BéBnAor v. 10, making the sentence express a wish: 'May they be treated similarly.' Billius, following Nicetas, understands the words as summary: "That is how they (the Hebrews) acted.' The second is the better way. Even if a verb like sa@orev could be understood to give Caillau's 'sic fiat' (and this is doubtful), there would still be a break in the natural run ofthe thought. Greg. continues not with a wish but with a further statement: 'And it was thus that (in our time) the Logos .. ". There is then a strong parallel between 14a and 14b15. Not only did the Hebrews drive away the profane but we too have seen them driven from our company. Nardi cites a parallel expression ovo: zév 6% rata in or. 28. 16 (p. 46. 4, M. 36. 47).

It is possible to take these lines as a general statement about the work of the Logos in the Church, preserving it by driving out heretics. dae would then be a gnomic aorist; cf. W.

W. Goodwin, Syntax of theMoods and Tenses ofthe Greek Verb (London, 19869), §§ 1545; E. Schwyzer, rev. A. Debrunner, Griechische Grammatik (Munich,

1953), ii. 285-6. But 1 am inclined to see in y€7époro yopoio a more specific reference. On 27th November 380 (cf. Gallay, La Mie de saint Grégoire de Nazianze, 178), Theodosius had driven the Arian occupants from the episcopal church of Constantinople and had installed Greg. under military protection. In his account ofhow he

$2 COMMENTARY ON ARC, 1.

15-19 became bishop, carm. 2.

11. 130ff. (M. 37. r11ga ff), Greg. addresses Christ as the direct author of his triumph over heresy (v.

1323, 11204). So here, he attributes to the Logos the expulsion ofthe Arians from 'our company'. We should read &s with Nardi.

Oenpayov: feoudyos or its verse form Benudyos is regularly applied to heretics (cf. PGL s.v.), This is the earliest occurrence of the form Senudyos cited in the lexica, the others being from Nonnus, Proclus, and Agathias.

Hmetégoro xogoto recalls Ar. Frogs 345-71, but may also be equated with Plato's @eiov yopod in Phdr. 24747. The Platonic motif of ¢@éves found here could well be compared with hearts 'at war with God'; cf. Nardi 165-6.

16-24. Proclamation under the influence ofthe Holy Spirit In claiming the inspiration of the Holy Spirit Gregory is placing himselfin the literary tradition ofa poet who in classical usage called upon the Muses, but as a Christian poet he goes beyond it. He claims that the authenticity of his teaching is based upon faithfulness to scripture and tradition, yet the whole tone of this section, with its interweaving of allusions to the Sinai revelation and the inspiration of Isaiah, indicates that he recognizes in his thought an element of a prophetic role in drawing out a fuller revelation. His open proclamation of the divinity ofthe Holy Spirit makes him feel that he is 'marked? (cf. v. 36) as the intermediary of revealed truth; cf. Plagnieux 113. See also 3.

36 n. and go-3 n., together with carm. 2. 2. 7 (poem.) 179 (M. 37. 1565).

16. attag éywv: these words, showing Gregory's awareness of individuality, recall parallels in Hes. Op. 10, Archilochus fr. 1.

1 West, Parmenides fr. 2.

1 (DK i. 23), Callimachus, fr. 112. 9 Pfeiffer, Ap. 71; cf. Nardi 166 n. 53. mopooipiov: the introduction is to the whole sequence of the Arcana. oehidecat: ceAis is a word which Greg. successfully naturalizes in Epic verse (cf. Arc. 3. 10.). It is found in the LAX meaning leaves or columns of writing, Jer. 43. 23 (Heb. 36. 23), and elsewhere in a similar sense, mainly in the Palatine Anthology.

19, The parenthesis recalls Mark 13. 14 and for the use of émorapeévors cf. Archilochus fr. 1.

2 West. In Gregory, cf. carm. 1. 2. 10. 720

(M. 37. 7324). Also Eugenius Panormitanus 1. 16 (Gigante 167). The 'perceptive' are not recipients of any secret knowledge of a gnostic

19-24 kind. Rather are they Christians within the traditional structures of the church who are amenable to the exposition of the faith as the true interpreter sets it out.

20. vedémrya.: this is the only citation in the lexica ofthe form veda.

Cf. veoway7js and the two forms which Greg. uses elsewhere, veommyys in Arc. 7. 7o and vedaynxros in carm., 1. 2. 1. 378 (M. 37.

21. This line represents the substance of Deut. 32. 1 and Isa. 1. 2.

Both verses occur in passages which attack Israel's unfaithfulness, as Greg. attacks the unfaithfulness of some of his generation. It is not necessary to seek in the line refinements of meaning such as Billius (based on Nicetas) attempts to find. Because the earth is the home of what is sinful, he suggests that y@av may mean those on earth destined to eternal life, contrasted with odpavds, which means the spiritual beings. But the biblical connection of 'heaven and earth' is so strong (cf. e.g. Ps. 95 (Heb. 96). 11) that Greg. could surely balance them without intending any such contrast. The words simply mark the solemnity of the proclamation. Gregory makesa similar call in or. 4. 1 (M. 35. 5324)- 22-5. Gregory points the contrast with pagan poets by calling not on the Muse, as, e.g., in Hom. Od. 1. 1, 10, Arat. Phaen. 16—18, but on the Holy Spirit. Not only does he hope that his mind will be inspired to express truth: the truth he is to utter will include an account of that same Spirit's nature.

23. The line has ancient and solemn ring, dtpéxeia occurring in Pi.

4and épiBpopos going back to the Homeric Hymns, where it describes the god Dionysus. (4. Bacch. 26. 1). The claim to truth was the concomitant of invocation in Hes. Th. 28; cf. other refs. in Nardi 168. In wishing that his tongue may be a trumpet, Gregory suggests comparison with that accompaniment of revelation in Exod. 19. 16, 19. The trumpet appears prominently in the context of purification in a parallel passage in or. 28. 2 (p. 22. 16 ff., M. 36. 288).

Cf. also Gr. Nyss. v.Mos. M. 44. 373 ff.

24. While the opening of the poem shows the gulf between God and man, this line alludes to the other side ofthe question, the kinship of God and man. Man's creation is described in Arc. 4. g1-2 y@ovés éxyevouecba | uryGelons Bedrn7. The language of 'mingling' is reinforced by its use in passages dealing with the Incarnation, e.g.

Qcot cor 700 wenryévov carmm. 1.1. 10. 12 (M. 37. 4664), 1. 1. 11. 78 (4714). A passage which holds together the ideas of kinship with 1. 24-5 God through both Creation and Incarnation is carm. 1. 1. 10. 56 ff.

(M. 37. 469A), ESP. V. 59: 7@ ovyyeve? pcyeica 4 Oeod dacs (cf.

Pinault 151 ff.). Similar language of'mixture' is found in Nyssen, or. catech. 5 (p. 23. 3-4, M. 45. 21C): dvayKxaiov qv éyxpabyjvai tt 77 avOpwrivy dice avyyevés mpés 76 Oeiov, ws dv 1a rod KaTtaAARAov mpos 76 olkeiov THY Edeaiv Exar.

Elsewhere he expresses the same idea through words like peréyery and perovoia; cf. R. Leys, LTmage de Dieu chez saint Grégoire de Nysse (Brussels, 1951), 47-51 ('Parenté'). It is this kinship ofGod and man which underlies and gives meaning to the pryévres of the present passage. Because man is so 'mingled' with God in his very constitution and because the Logos 'mingled' with human nature in the Incarnation, man, through purification and contemplation, may find in his earthly life a foretaste ofthe heavenly, émecdav 76 Geoecdés

Touro Kai feiov, Aéyw 5é Tov HpeTepov vouv TE Kai Adyor, TW oixeiw mpoonién, Kai } eikav avéA@n mpds 76 dpxéruTor, ov viv Exe THY édeawv, or. 28. 17 (p. 47. 17 ff, 36. 48c). Though man may 'mingle' with the whole Godhead, the experience on earth is an incomplete one, to be contrasted with that of the heavenly life where there is an entire 'mingling' with the whole Godhead: [Tpiddos] 6Ans 6Aw vot ptyvupérys, or. 16. 9 (M. 35. 945). See further carmm. 1. 2. 10. 59 ff.

(M. 37. 6854 f.), 2. 1. 85. 13 ff. (14324) and n. on Are. 7. 1, 79.

Yet we may see that Greg. believes in the reality of man's union with God in contemplation while still on earth, by considering the opening of or. 20 or lines from the poem De rebus suis. He may enjoy communion with God éfw capxés cai xéouov, untrammelled by the world of sense, or. 20. 1 (M. 35. 1065 ff). Greg. describes his own awareness of this communion when he writes: é& ob ydp mpwrieror arotuitas Bidroio buy ovpaviow voruaai piéa daewwois, Kal pe dépwr voos aims anéompotk oapkKos Ebner, éviev dvacrioas, axnvis S€ we xpive puyoiaw ovpavins.

(carm. 2.1. 1. 194 ff, M. 37. 9844 f.) It is something ofthis experience that Greg. desires for his readers.

25-35a. Summary teaching on the Trinity These lines offer an outline of Trinitarian doctrine which is filled out in the following two poems, in particular, with cross-references elsewhere in the Arcana. Greg.'s teaching on the Trinity is recognized as one of the most important parts of his work, involving him in lengthy debates and numerous shorter references throughout his writings. Ofsecondary works, reference may be made to J. Hergenrother,

Die Lehre von dergottlichen Dreteinigkeit nach dem hl. Gregor von Nazianz, dem Theologen (Regensburg, 1850); K. Holl, Amphilochius von [konium in seinem Verhaltnis zu den grofien Kappadoziern (Tubingen, 1904), 158-78;

J. Draseke, BZ 15 (1906), 141-60; Pinault, LePlatonisme de saint Grégoire de Nazianze 209-33; F. W. Green, "The Later Development of the Doctrine of the Trinity' in A. E. J. Rawlinson (ed.), Essays on the Trinity andthe Incarnation (London, 1928), 241 ff, esp. 280 ff.; Plagnieux 246 ff,

301-2, 441 ff; G. L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought (London, 1952), esp. 225, 234, 254, 260 ff., 291 ff.;J.N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines

(London, 1972), 252, 264 ff.; P. Gerlitz, Auferchristliche Einfliisse aufdie Entwicklung des christlichen Trinitatsdogmas (Leiden, 1963), 212-13; M. F.

Wiles, The Making of Christian Doctrine (Cambridge, 1977), 124-46; E. Bellini, 'If dogma trinitario nel primi discorsi di Gregorio Nazianzeno', Augustinianum, 13 (1973), 525—-34In writing on the Trinity Gregory is attempting not merely an outline intellectual exposition. Beliefin the Trinity is central to his whole devotional life and is a powerful emotional adhesion. Cf. F. Trisoglio,

'La poesia della Trinita nell'opera letteraria di S. Gregorio di Nazianzo', in Formafuturi; Studi in onore di M. Pellegrino (Turin, 1975),

25. eis @eds: these are words to which Greg. is to recur in Arc. 3. 75, 76, 4. 3, 39. Cf also 1. 1. 6. 20 (4314). The expression has a wellestablished place in pre-Christian Greek philosophy, opening the famous couplet ofXenophanes (fr. 23, DK i. 135): eis Feds €v re Geolor Kai dvépwmo: péyioros, of 71 b€nas Bvnroiow duoitos obbé vonma.

The precise level of monotheistic thought to be found in these lines has been debated through the centuries; cf. Arist. Metaph.

986°24 and, of modern discussions, e.g., E. Zeller, rev. W. Nestle, Die Philosophie der Griechen, i (Leipzig, 1919), 646 ff.; W.Jaeger, Theology of the Early Greek Philosophers (Oxford, 1947), 38 ff., G.S.

Kirk,J.E. Raven and M. Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, 2nd edn. (Cambridge, 1983), 169 ff., W. K. C. Guthrie, A History ofGreek

Philosophy, i (Cambridge, 1964), 374 ff., J. Barnes, The Presocratic COMMENTARY ON ARC, 1.

Philosophers (London, 1982), i. 89 ff. Certainly Clement of Alexandria saw here a genuine intimation of monotheism, quoting the lines with approval, str. 5. 109. (GCS 2 (1960) 391. 16 f,, M. g. 1658).

The Oracula Sibyllina provide other examples, as in 3. 11 (p. 47).

Christian use of the words may be traced back to 1 Cor. 8. 6 (cf.

Herm. mand. 1. 1) and in the accusative case became a common feature ofthe first clause of Eastern creeds (cf. J. N. D. Kelly, Early

Christian Creeds (London, 1977), 195).

Greg.'s tendency to emphasize the oneness of God against the suspicion of teaching virtual tritheism is discussed by Holl 173 ff.

That Greg. was sensitive to criticism on this score may be seen from or. 31. 13-14 (pp. 161 ff, M. 36. 1488-1494), where he defends himself against what he regards as a long-dead charge. He takes as the key-sentence of his reply the words piv eis Oeds, S7t pia Bedrys Cc.

14 (p. 162, M. 13. 148p). They might serve equally well as the starting point of Greg.'s exposition in the Arcana.

The repetition of efs Geds ofthe Son (v. 29) and év ITvedua (v. 35) follows the pattern of creeds like those of Caesarea and Jerusalem

(Symb. Caes. ap. Eus. ep. Caes. 3 (Opitz 3. 439 ff., M. 20. 15378 f.); Symb. Hier. (M. 33. 533A) and probably shows that Greg. is anxious to maintain an anti-Sabellian emphasis by showing clearly the distinctness of the Three Persons of the One Godhead; cf. T. H.

Bindley, rev. F. W. Green, The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith (London, 1950), 29. Attacks on the Sabellian position occur with some frequency in Greg., often paired with denunciations of the Arian view. Cf. e.g. carm. 2. 1. 11. 1176-7 (M. 37. 11094); orr. 2. 37-8

(M. 35. 444-445); 18. 16 (10054); 21. 13 (1096B—-C); 32. 16 (M. 36.

233D). Looked at from another point of view, e/s @eds could be taken as stressing the unity of the Godhead in opposition to the Arians; cf. Ath. Ar. 3. 4 (M. 26. 329A).

Gvapyos, &vaitw¢: dvapyos is applied to the Father, as here, in carm. 1. 2. 10. 988 (M. 37. 7514), where the Three Persons are designated "Avapyov, Apy7#, [Tveiuza. The parallel titles of the following line are dvairiov, yevvytov, éxopevouov. The bearing ofthe word dvapxos on the relationship of the Father and the Son is discussed in Arc. 2. 19 ff. For the use of negative epithets, cf. Arc. 3. 41-2. ov zepiyoartos: the meaning is not quite the same as that found in or. 28. 7 (p. 31. 14, M. 36. 338). In that passage Greg. is arguing that God has no physical location in space, no cdma. (Cf. Arc. 2.

37 n.). Here the issue is the rather more subtle notion of time as a COMMENTARY ON ARC, 1. 25-30 quasi-physical restriction. Divine freedom from the bonds oftime is an idea which is picked up in the Arcana, particularly in 4. 67 ff.

Nardi 170-1 traces the idea of God's freedom from all constriction, in Christian writers back to Origen, and in the works of Philo and Plotinus. Cf. Moreschini, 'Il platonismo', 1376.

27. a&xeigitos here may be thought to continue the idea of God's timeless quality, as depos does in or. 38. 7 (M. 36. 3178): prze ap&duevov, ure Tavadpevor, oldv Te TéAayos odaias AzeEtpor Kai ddprorov, cf. also c. 8 (320A-C).

28, pouvoyevois: cf. John 1. 18. In or. 30. 20 (pp. 139. 2-3, M. 36.

128p f.) Greg. explains his understanding of povoyerjs as relating to the unique manner of Christ's Sonship (cf. povotpéaws, 129A).

28-9. ot ti rexovOas ... Ndog: in writing these words Greg. had in mind the Arians and Eunomians. Arians had claimed that the Incarnation meant that the Father was za@yrdés, Symb. Ant. (345), 7

(p. 253. 16-17, M. 26. 732) and the orthodox had maintained the counter position, asserting that the generation of the Son was free from dos; cf. e.g. Ath. Ar. 1. 28 (M. 26. 69a ff). Basil took up the argument in his polemic against Eunomius, Eun. 2. 23 (G. 1. 258D,

M. 2g. 6218), while Greg. himself alludes to the question in or. 29. 4

(p. 77. 13 ff., M. 36. 770), cf. c. 2 (p. 75. 9 fF, 768): 6 wev yervyitwp Kai mpoBodAeds, Aéyw 5€ dwabds, kai dxypévws, Kai dowpdtws. Cf. further Arc. 2. 15, or. 30. 20, p. 139. 4 (M. 36. 1294), with Mason's n.

Gregory will also have in his mind the patripassian position taken up by earlier Modalistic Monarchians. (Cf. Kelly, Doctrines, 11926). He is constantly aware ofhis need to hold a stance between the Arian and the Sabellian positions; cf. e.g. or. 2. 37 (M. 35. 4448 f.)

Here both heresies may be attacked on the same issue; cf. 25 n.

On Sabellianism and the related views ofMarcellus ofAncyra cf. notes on Arc, 3. 60, 64, 69, 72, and 8s.

29. Noos: cf. Arc. 5.

2 n. Here the emphasis on God as transcendent Mind distances him from physical involvement. tig @eds &dos: Greg, refers to this Trinitarian formulation

GAAos kai GAAos in ep. 101 (M. 37. 1804-8) to distinguish it from his use of GAAo Kai dAAo in Christological debate: Aéyw 5é dAAo Kai

GAAo, EuvaAw % émi ris Tpiddos exer. exe ev yap aGAdAos Kai GAAos, iva 27 Tas év yap tTpia Kai ravrov 77 Gedy. CE. or. 37.2 (M.

30. otK @AAog: here GAAos corresponds to aAAdrpros or dvdépotos, words which mark the Arian and Eunomian position; cf. Ar. Th.fr.

1. 30-1 10 (M. 26. 244); Bas. Eun. 1. 16 (G. i. 228c, M. 29. 548c). Greg. uses Gedv GAAov in or. 31. 10 (p. 157. 2, M. 36. 1448) in the sense which we find here, 'another kind of God'. (Cf. also G. Miiller, Lexicon

Athanasium (Berlin, 1944-52), s.v. dAAos IL. 2. for this sense in Athanasius.) 31. ogonyis Kivupévy zato@ios: a number of parallels exist in Greg. for the application to the Logos of the title odpayis (in verse odpnyés). Itis closely linked with efxev, as found in Arc. 2. 8, in the line efxa@v dbavdro.o [lazpés cai odpnyis avdpxov, carm. 2. 1. 38.7

(M. 37. 1326a). Cf. odpayiop' dvdpyou, carm. ii. 1. 14. 41 (M. 37.

1248), ina Trinitarian context. In or. 29. 17 (p. 99. 13 ff, M. 36. 96c) the sequence yapaxrjp, etxwv, odpayis occurs, with John 6. 27 explicitly quoted as warrant for odpayés, and or. 30. 20(p. 139. 19 ff,

36. 1298) links the word directly, through etxayv, with the djoovar0s concept.

For the application of the title codpayis to the Logos we may begin with Philo. In his teaching on creation he identifies the Logos with the archetypal idea which, without change, itself the exact impression of God, is impressed upon the universe and upon the human soul. Philo writes: ef 8€ 76 wépos eikwy etxdvos [SAAov drt]

Kai 76 GAov eldos, cUpuTas ovTOS 6 alabyTés Kdap0s,€f peiLwr TIS avOpwnivyns éariv, uiunpa Beias eixdvos, SiHAov 6tt Kai 1) dpyétuTos odpayis, 6v dayer vonroy eivat xéapuov, autos dv ein [Td mapdderypa, dpyérumos ibéa twv (Sewv] 6 Beod Adyos (opis. mund. 6. 25, i.

5 M=i. 6 C.-W.), cf. migr. Abr. 18. 103, i. 452 M.; 2. 279 f. C.—W.); somn. 2. 6. 45. (i. 665 M.; 3. 248 C.-W.); fug. inv. 2. 12 (1. 547-8 M.; 3. gg C.-W.), There is a full discussion of these and other passages in F.J.Délger, Sphragis (Paderborn, 1911-12), 65 ff. See also G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, TWNT vii. 939 ff; G. W. H. Lampe, The Seal of the Spirit (London, 1951), 16-17, 250; J. Ysebaert, Greek Baptismal

Terminology (Nijmegen, 1962), 420. Philo thinks of the odpayis ina twofold relationship, receiving and transmitting exact likeness.

Greg.'s intention here is to concentrate on the reception ofthe likeness by the Son, as Basil does in Spir. 15 (G. 3.

Where Cyril of Alexandria later develops both the active and the passive sides of Philo's thought, with a personal Logos for Philo's more impersonal, showing that the o¢payis imprint of the Father is, in turn, imprinted upon humanity (cf. Lampe p. 251), Greg. is content to confine the figure to the passive sense.

Ktvvpévy 'living', a sense which resembles Ath. hom. in Mt. 11. 27

31-4 (M. 25. 217B): odpayis ydp éorw iodrumos év attra dexvis tov mdrepa, Adyos Cav. There is a close parallel in the passage ofJohn

Monachus quoted by Lampe (loc. cit.). Wisdom is described as 7 aoa odpayis, a term which is balanced by 6 dmapdAAaxros rot

Tlatpés eixey and 6 axpiBis xapaxrip, Hymn. Chrys. 8 (M. 96.

In contrast may be quoted or. 38. 13 (M. 36. 325B) = 45. g (633) where the Son is called 4 427) Kwwounévyn odpayis. Here Greg. is thinking of a different aspect of «:véw, denying movement equated with change.

The form xivvpévy is to be preferred to that printed by Billius, Caillau, and Migne, xuvvyévy (cf. app. crit.). There is no attestation of xivvypas beyond certain MSS of this passage. PCL marks the double v form '[*]' and suggests that it might be admissible metri gratia for xcwyévy. But metre is in no way served by the double v.

The first syllable of Kivupat, as of «xewéw and all its by-forms and derivatives, is always long without any doubling of the v. Nor, surely, is there any reason for PGL's gloss 'stamp??.

32. iso@éguotos: this passage and Arr. 4. 65 are the only occurrences of the word recorded in the lexica. For equality ofthe Persons ofthe

Trinity, cf. Arc. 3. 41b n.

33. pipvy ... 60v taken together guard against any diminution of the Father's authority. Godhead is not a physical substance which would be decreased by giving an equal share. Whether the adverbial

6Aov or the adjectival GAos is read, the sense remains the same.

34, koopobEétys: a formation of Greg.'s, on the analogy of vopoférms. vwpedis also appears to be a coinage of Greg.'s, cf. carm. 2. 2

(poem.), 3. 4 (M. 37. 14804). It is unlikely to be equivalent to voyeus, as Sophocles suggested. voeds would make little sense here without a defining genitive, such as Plato's dyafdy (Leg. 931b). The word is best taken as a nautical figure, following an established use of vwyde (LSJ s.v. I, literal and metaphorical usages), and agreeing with Greg.'s own useof the verb in carmm. 1. 2. 25. 535-6 (M. 37.

1. 573 (10134). (Cf. also, for the sense, v. 5 above.) Caillau's tr. 'gubernator' is exact. A similar coinage of Greg.'s, vwunris, is found in carm. 2. 1. 38. 11 (M. 37. 1326). The idea of vwweds anticipates the discussion in Arc. 5, as xoopobérns is amplified in Arc. 7. 55 ff. vonpa has here its early meaning of 'mind', as in H. Od. 20. 346 and in the fr. of Xenophanes quoted above, 25 n. Cf. Arc. 4. 68, ge COMMENTARY ON ARC.

1. 34-8 where véyjyza and vods are distinguished. The language corresponds to the ddvayis and codia of1 Cor. 1. 24.

35a. Arc. 3 is an extended commentary on these words.

35b-39. The hereticalare warned off Though Greg. here condemns those who deny the divinity ofthe Holy Spirit, his condemnation is modified. They are clearly not beyond help who acknowledge the divinity of the Father and the Son. The asperity of €ppere is softened by #uidaeis. Halflight is still light and a lamp does not cease to be a lamp when it is hidden away in a dark corner. In or. 31. 24 (p. 175. 14, M. 36. 160c) there is a similar reference to rods é€& yytoefas evyvaijovas, contrasted with out-and-out Eunomians. In several places Greg. claims to hold a tolerant attitude towards certain unorthodox views. While rigorously opposed to all brands of Arianism and Sabellianism, he is prepared to allow the adherents of more recent aberrations time to correct their opinions.

We may, e.g., find a parallel to the present passage in or. 41. 8 (M. 36.

440B), where Greg. is trying to win over people who hold the same inadequate estimate of the Holy Spirit's divinity as those who are addressed here. Cf. intro. to Arc. 3.

Gregory's attitude to heresy has been surveyed by F. Trisoglio, "La figura dell'eretico in Gregorio di Nazianzo', Augustinianum, 25 (1985),

36. évimwoev: when the Holy Spirit has 'left his mark' upon him the believer appreciates his divinity, being, in some sense, a 'copy'.

PGL gives the tr. 'appoint', 37. Cf. the metaphorical use of Bév@os in Paulus Silentarius, AP 5.

273: Bévéei ris Kpadins.

38. quqaeic: apart from this passage, lexical attestation of7p:darjs is slight. It appears as a disputed reading in AP 7. 478 (Leonidas,

3rd c. sc). The Teubner editor, H. Stadtmiiller, accepted the reading 7ydaei Adpvan:, as does H. Beckby (Munich, 1957). But R. P.

Waltz (Bude edn., Paris, 1928) reads nurdaye?, while LSJ suggests Heetyave', @8ovegoi: the personal motive of ¢@dvos in contention among Christians is put forward as early as Phil. 1. 15. The idea of ill-will has already been found in wv. 14b-—15. Callimachus may well be in mind: in Ap. 105-13 ®dvos is set in opposition to the poet's inspiration (cf. Nardi, 'Note', 165-6). gl COMMENTARY ON ARC.

1, 38 ottodiéaxtou: the implied contrast is with eodiSaxror. The word has thus a different slant from the meaning found in Homer and Aeschylus. In H. Od. 22. 347 the word has a commendable sense. The poet who is avrodiédaxros is marked off from the 'school-poets' by a spontaneity which derives from divine inspiration (cf. n. in W. B. Stanford's edn.). In A. Ag. 992 atrodiéaxros.

.. dvuds points to a spontaneous apprehension ofthe moral law on the part ofthe chorus (cf. nn. in the edns. ofE. Fraenkel, andJ.D. Denniston and D. Page). But here the point is not spontaneity but wilful refusal to learn from those who havea right to teach. g2 2. On the Son Title and purpose The MSS agree that the subject is the Son. Vv. 1-56 concern the relationship ofthe Father and the Son, while 57-83 introduce the Incarnation and the Work of Christ. But the purpose of the poem must be further examined. R. Cantarella in Poeti bizantini, ii (Milan, 1948), 55, in writing an introduction to his tr. of the poem, asserted that the aim was to defend the humanity of Christ against the Apollinarians and referred to vv. 3-4 and 34-5 as evidence. This is, surely, to misunderstand the text. As the notes on these passages try to show, the issue concerns Eunomius. Vy, 3-4 defend the divinity of Christ against Eunomius, not his humanity against Apollinarius. Again, vv. 34-5 treat a Trinitarian question, the unity of the divine nature, not a Christological one. They certainly contain no vindication of Christ's humanity. (Cf. Introd. IV.) Discussion of Greg.'s Christology will be found in Ullmann, Gregorius von Nazianz, 276-88; A. J. Mason, Five Orations of Gregory of Nazianzus (Cambridge, 1899), pp. xviff.; Holl, Amphilochius ven Tkonium, 178-96; E. Weigl, Christologie vom Tade des Athanasius bis zum

Ausbruch des nestorianischen Streites (Munich, 1925), 53-79; L. Stephan, Die Soteriologie des hl. Gregor von Nazianz (Vienna, 1938); E. Mersch, Le

Corps mystiquedu Christ (Paris, 1951), i. 441 ff.; R. V. Sellers, Two Ancient Christologies (London, 1940), 65-79; Kelly, Doctrines, 297-8; H. A.

Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, i (Cambridge, Mass., 1964), 370-1, 396-7, 421-2, 424; A. Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition i (London, 1975), 367 ff; H. Althaus, Die Heilslehre des heiligen

Gregor von Nazianz (Minster, 1972); D. F. Winslow, The Dynamics of Salvation:A Study in Gregory ofNazianzus (Cambridge, Mass., 1979);

A.S. Ellverson, The Dual Nature of Man: A Study in the Theological Anthropology of Gregory of Nazianzus (Stockholm, 1981). For studies dealing with specific questions, seeJ.Quasten, Patrology, iii (Utrecht,

Antwerp, and Westminster, Md., 1960), 252-3.

Studies ofGreg.'s Christology tend, not unnaturally, to concentrate on his answer to Apollonarius. As Holl 184 observed, drawing a contrast with the defence of orthodox Christology which Greg. put forward against Eunomius, 'Viel schwieriger, aber auch viel fruchtbarer war die Polemik gegen Apollinaris.' But here, as in the Theological Orations, concerned as we are with the defence against Eunomius in COMMENTARY ON ARC, 2. the period before Greg.'s Christological thinking was shaped by antiApollinarian formulation, we find that the thought may profitably be compared with that of Basil (cf. Grillmeier 367 ff.). In particular might be quoted Grillmeier's words on p. 367: 'Basil's christology is more concerned to distinguish the divine and human characteristics in Christ than to stress the unity of the person (in the language of communicatio idiomatum).' We may ask whether this is true of wv. 62 ff. of the present poem. Certainly there is clear distinction within the balanced lines between the manifestations ofBpords and feds. But, when we look at the overall pattern and purpose, we may conclude that the overriding intention is to demonstrate the unity of the Person rather than the diversity ofthe natures. The earlier part ofthe poem opposes the degradation ofthe Son to the rank of a creature, heretical doctrine which at least obviates the need to stress the reality of the human experience. What is aimed at in the half-lines which detail this experience is the presentation of a belief in the continuity of the Person of the divine Logos and the Person who undergoes the vicissitudes of human life. A parallel for this development of thought is in or. 29. 1920 (pp. 102. 7 ff., M. 36. 1004 ff.) where, as here, the balanced pév/dAAa clauses are animated by the proposition: 6 pév jv, dtéwewev6 dé ovK iv, mpoaéAafer (c. 19). See Sellers 73 ff.

It will be seen that the Christology ofwv. 62 ff. offers no explanation: the contrasting statements are held in dramatic tension by sharp juxtaposition. Even more compressed and paradoxical language is found elsewhere in Greg., e.g. carm. 1. 1. 6. 77 (M. 37. 435A) 6onv 7rep nueis, Tois Ocod wabjpaow, or. 30. 1 (p. 108. 10, M. 36. 104d) Ged

7aQmy7@. More examples are cited by Stephan 17-18 and by Holl 179-80.

The structure of the poem is described by J. Focken as 'forma orationis iudicialis' (De Greg. . .

. ratione, 53). Up to a point this is an acceptable way of characterizing a poem in which the author accepts advocacy for particular views of Godhead and defends them against his opponents. But the implications which Focken draws are to be disputed. The poem need not be dismissed as a poem, in the way in which Focken tends to dismiss it, merely because it answers to some of the formal characteristics of a prose speech.

Introduction The soteriological note is heard at the start of the poem. What is to follow is not a mere abstract debate on the relationship ofthe First and 1-5 Second Persons of the Trinity: it is an attempt to show that this relationship enables man to make sense ofthe Incarnation (vv. 57 ff.) and Redemption (vv. 75 ff.).

1. xoa@tiotov indicates the first major theme of the sequence of poems, Arc. 1 being treated as a proem to the whole. For aiua cf. below, v. 76 n.

2. xadéov: by Christ's 7a6y (v. 48), 'sufferings', man is saved from his wd@n, 'passions'. The NT associations of zd@os in the second sense are, for the most part, with sexual passions, as will be seen from Rom. 1. 26, 1 Thess. 4. 5, Col. 3. 5. In its wider sense, 7d @os included all which might distract the soul from approach to God, as e.g. in Aristotle's association of+4@y with pleasure and grief(EN 1105°21), and it is the more general meaning which may be seen here.

2b ff. These lines recur to a theme found in the opening lines of Arc. t. Ifthe angels are aligned with men in the imperfect nature oftheir understanding of Godhead, then, despite their inferior position, men may assist the angels in their task of combating false doctrine.

The masc. odpavior = 'angels' is found in Arc. 3. 6, as well as in Arc.

1. 4. In this understanding I follow Billius, who diverges from Nicetas by not accepting that 6yuac: or the like should be understood, against F. Combefis (cit. Caillau), who follows Nicetas.

3. yhooons: if any specific tongue is meant, it will be that of Eunomius; cf. 32 ff. below.

4. With avrodorijos or advoddvaco (see app. crit.) two meanings are possible. The word might have the sense 'murdering its own kin' which is found in A. Ag. 1og1, constituting a charge of causing serious harm to fellow Christians by false teaching. If it is taken to mean 'suicidal' (cf. Cantarella, together with Billius and Caillau), it implies that false teaching, whether by its internal inconsistency or through the providence of God, contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction.

5-39. The relationship oftheFatherand theSon within the undivided Godhead 5-8. These lines contain two related problems: the subject of éyec and the reading in v. 6. Caillau takes the Father to be the continuing subject. In support of this one might cite Arc. 5. 2 as parallel: vous péyas, évrds Gzavta dépwr, Kai wavTos trepfev. This meaning however is arrived at only by replacing the better attested amjopos

1-8 with uaéprepov ovdév.

Caillau, declining Billius'

"a magno pendetque Parente', does not look for a meaning for amjopos but turns to dréprepov. His difficulty is understandable. There are few examples ofdmjopos listed in the lexica and the word with a following genitive occurs with a meaning quite the opposite of Billius'.

The meaning 'hanging on high, far distant' occurs in Aratus 396 and 975 ofstars, while Pindar uses the word with a following genitive to mean 'alooffrom' (P. 8. 86). Gregory provides a parallel to Aratus in carm. 1. 2. 2. 627 (M. 37. 6274). Nicetas, on the other hand, suggests that the expression matches 6 zarpds/éxmeduds. Gregory is certainly capable of reinterpreting an uncommon word. Though most of the occurrences of the corresponding verb dzaipw or dzacipw favour the meaning of separation, C. Moreschini has pointed to a passage in Damascius, Deprinc. i. 74 Ruelle (i. 111. 17

Westerink): zaévra obv avzot amnwpyra: (from azatwpotpuat, 'Lam suspended'). Here is a sense of dependence which would support that interpretation of the present passage. The reading of LCVa? dmijopos ovdév is perhaps possible. With the disappearance of ofSev we would have to supply éo7: twice, in both wv. 6 and 7. For the reading daijopov ovdév cf. Introd., pp. xiii—xiv; it looks like assimilation to ovdév. It is clear that djopos, difficilior lectio, should be read.

There is no difficulty in making the Son subject of éye:. Similar language of 'containing' is found, e.g., in Ath. inc. 42. 6 (M. 25. 172).

7. &yoovos refers to the Eternal Generation of the Son, as set forth in or. 29. 9 (pp. 85 ff., M. 36. 840 ff.). Questions of 'before' and 'after', whether or not there was a time 'before' the generation of the Son, are quite pointless. odros yap 7epi trav xypévw diatpeTrw@v 6 Adyos

(p. 87. 5-6, 85c). See further Hergenréther 138. Freedom from the restrictions of time is an essential attribute of divinity in Greg., as will be seen in vv. 18 ff. below. It is the freedom of the Logos from these restrictions which at once sets him apart from man and, at the same time, enables him to come to man's assistance.

8. eikav aoyetixovo: the intention of this expression is similar to that of odpyyis in Arc. 1. 31, where see n. efxdv, asa title of Christ, has a long history in Christian writing, beginning with 2 Cor. 4. 4. and Col. 1. 15 (cf. Wisd. 7. 26), and taken up by generations of the Fathers. Greg. uses the word to stress the complete likeness of the Son to the Father in orr. 29. 17 (p. 99. 13 ff, M. 36. 96c), 30. 20

(p. 139. 20-140. 3, 1298), 38. 13 (325B) = 45. 9 (633C). dpyérumos is not 2. 8-11 a biblical word. It occurs in Philo and finds considerable currency in the Fathers. (Cf. PGL s.v. 4.c for the use as correlative of etxwy.)

It is to be noted that the same eixdv—dpyéru7os language comes to Greg. when he is writing about the return of the human soul to God, in the passage quoted in the n. on Arc. 1. 24. This identification in language may be taken as an indication of the reality for Greg. ofthe identification ofman and God through deification. (See

Are. 4. 95 n.) vats... ton: for dvs as the ground ofunity for the Persons of the Trinity see nn. on Are. 3. 41, 71.

9-10. The epic xAéos is made to answer to all the uses of the biblical 66£a, strengthening the e/xwv language in the same way as dd£a does in, e.g., Origen, Jo. 13. 25 (p. 249. 30, M. 14. 444A). For the statement that the Son is the glory ofthe Father, cf. Cyr. ador.

4024). Something ofthe light imagery which is found with 66£a may perhaps be attached to kAéos, if é« 5@ dadvOy and éfedadvby are taken to retain something of their Epic meaning. The passive of éxgaivw appears in H. //. 19. 17 (€€edadvén), for instance, of eyes shining like lightning. This meaning is brought out in Caillau's

'resplenduit (cf. Cantarella's 'risplende'). But the element of'manifestation' or 'revelation' in the word must not be ignored, as F.

Scheidweiler noted in BZ 49 (1956), 345, when he suggested the tr.

'er kam aus Licht' or 'wurde gezeugt', a meaning which may also be paralleled in Homer (e.g. //. 13. 278). The lines then mean that the generation of the Son is a secret known only to the Father and the Son. This use of the verb is thus in line with the meaning of the noun éxdavots which, in Christian writers, specialises in references to the revelation of the Godhead. Or. 31. 9 (p. 155. 14, M. 36. 141¢) provides a good example in Greg., and Mason's n. sums up no less for the verb than for the noun: '"Exdavois does not mean their manifestation to us, but their eternal issuing forth from the First

Source.' (Greg. is here speaking of both the Son and the Holy Spirit.) In calling the Son 'great' Gregory links him in equality with the 'greatness' of the Godhead in Arc.

1. 5 and with peyddAoio TTazpés in v. 5:

11-19a. The difference between Godand man Verse 11 takes us back to the opening theme of Arc. 1. The gulfwhich separates man from God is now seen as difference of yevé@An. 'Birth'

COMMENTARY ON ARC, 2.

11-16 (cf. Hymn. Is. 36 for this meaning) is a human term, not to be applied by analogy to the Godhead (wv. 13-14).

14. Ovow ... topiv: Greg. regards these words as countering Eunomius, resembling as they do or. 29. 8 (p. 84.

«xaTadPadé cov tas pevoets, kai ra dtaipécecs, Kai Tas Toads, Kai 7d ws wepi odpmatos biavoeioba: Ts Gowpdrov Picews: There he is arguing against Eunomius that, as even the processes of human generation are only imperfectly understood, it is futile to claim anything approaching a full understanding of divine generation. For even if one could master the complexity of the way in which a human being comes into existence, this could still mean that there was a complete disjunction from 'begetting' in the divine sense. As Norris points out in his note (pp. 140-1): "The leaders of later

Arianism would not accept this description of their positions. They know that the incorporeal is not embodied'. He suggests however that a popular understanding ofthe Neo-Arian position might have fallen into 'the corporeal trap'. For the 'flux' associated with the human condition, cf. Arc. 8. 67.

KOKOGLOXNS appears to be a coinage of Greg.'s.

Eyorye: as often, éya = 'man' (cf. e.g. Arc. 4. 32).

15. &xaOye: cf. Arc. 1. 28-9 n.; above, v. 2 n. detdc: the lexical treatment is not extensive. LSJ list only Opp. C.

4. 289, of hands 'that may be bound'. Soph. and PGL mention only the present passage, translating respectively 'bound' and 'that may be bound'. Other expressions in the poems fill out the sense. In Arc.

5. 71 men are described as d€epucior ains while in 7. 78 Adam's creation is called dpyeydévoro Bporot Séas. Cf. also 7. 81. Man, unlike the angels, is not azAovs: he is a composite being in whom the divine image is bound to the earthly element, in whom body and soul are bound together and who may thus be described as dezds.

PGL, by following the tr. in LSJ, gives a different impression. To call man one 'that may be bound' is to think not of his essential nature but ofa state to which he may (or, presumably, may not) be called.

16. God's freedom from passion is linked with his being incorporeal, cf. or. 28. 10 (p. 37. 1, M. 36. 37); for aoaparos below, v. 37 n. No other passage is cited in the lexica for dayx7os in the meaning 'not compacted, simple'. The sense may be taken to be close to that 16-21 given to dzAovs. Man is znxr6s, a composite ofparts, while God is simple in essence.

17. yevvyjotes: this Ep. form in -ces (cf. D. B. Monro, A Grammar of the Homeric Dialect, §g4. 2, p. 80, Chantraine, Grammaire homérique

(Paris, 1958), i, §93, pp. 216-17) is affected by Greg. in carm. 2. 1. 16.

40 (M. 37. 12574), al., being found also in Ps.-Manetho 3. 472, 1.(5).

219, and in or. Sib. 11. 2, al.

God, man, and time A sign ofman's subject status is his subservience to time: he exists ina world of 'before' and 'after' where he has no control over time's passage. Time, as Basil writes, is the natural environment of the created being, as eternity is of the Godhead; cf. Hex. 1. 5 (G. 1. 5 ff,

M. 29. 13B-C), Eun. 1. 21 (i. 23 ff, M. 29. 5608). For the timelessness of God, cf. v. 7 above, together with Arc. 4. 76 ff.

19. &vaoxou: as in Arc. 1. 31 dvapxos is applied to the Father. If avdpyou were read, it could be taken either with the Son (cf. v. 21) or, as Dr L. R. Wickham has suggested, construed with edryzos.

Cf. the use in a temporal sense in or. 39. 12 (M. 36. 3848), with p. 175 n. 2 Moreschini-Gallay.

Gregory shows in or. 29. 3 (pp. 76-7, M. 36. 77A-B) that he is aware of the anomaly of using such temporal language as Huos ...

Thos to describe the extra-temporal relationships ofthe Godhead, but he holds that such language must be admitted, as there is no other open to us.

21. &yoovov GoxIV: apx7 is here used to mean 'principle', as in Or.

Jo. 1.17 (p. 22. 10, M. 14. 53a): dpy? viod 6 Manjp, and Ath. Ar. 1. 14

(M. 26. 414): 6 ITarjp apy rod viot Kai yevvijrwp. Important for Greg.'s understanding of dpy7 is or. 20.

7 (M. 35. 10734). Writing about the Trinity, he says that unity will be preserved ifthe Son and the Spirit are referred to one cause: «is €v ainov «ai Yiow xai

ITvedparos dvadepopévwv. The passage goes on to equate airov with apy, and dpy% in this sense is reserved for the Father: 6 $e

Yids, édv ev ws ainiov rév Ilatépa AauPdvys, ovx dvapyos: apy? yap Yiot Ilanjp ws ainos (v.l. aizov). The Son has the Father as divine principle. Yet (according to the variant in v. 19) he is dvapyos as having no beginning in time.

2. 22-8 22. Elsewhere Gregory shows himself wary of the use of figurative language to represent Divine realities (cf. n. on Arc. 3. 60-1). Here, too, he limits the application of the figure (v. 23), while allowing it some illustrative value. The point of the figure is to emphasize continuity of substance without temporal priority. In or. 31. 32 ff.

(pp. 187. 10 ff., 36. 169B ff.) he discusses the shortcomings of the analogy ofsun, ray, and light, fearing an interpretation which would introduce composition into the uncompounded nature and would deny the identity ofthe Second and Third Persons.

The Father and the Son are indivisible 23. elém is used here to mean 'images', 'figures'. All figurative language fails to reach (cf. caz7w) God.

24. Picks up the argument from 21. The Father's priority in time would sever him in the equality of divine rule from the Son.

26-7. @eoio refers to God the Son. (Cf. v. 18 above). @éAnars carries the argument a stage farther. If the Father is prior to the Son, he may be thought to have willed the Son's existence, a view which Greg. attacks in the course ofhis anti-Eunomian polemic in or. 29. 6

(pp. 80 ff, M. 36. 80c ff). The brief reference to $éAnats in the present passage is preferable to the extended treatment in the oration. Here it is maintained simply that to say that the Father 'willed' the existence ofthe Son means that the Son was not always in existence (cf. n. on v. 7 above). In the oration there is an attempt to score a point by suggesting that the Eunomian position implies that @éAyats is some sort of mother within the Godhead, an elaboration which succeeds only in obscuring the issue. (See further Mason's n. on p. 80. 11, Hergenrother, p. 147, and Norris p. 139, where he refers to Greg.'s 'gamesmanship'.

Fora full discussion, see E. P. Meijering, "The Doctrine of the Will and of the Trinity in the Orations of Gregory of Nazianzus',

Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, 27 (1973), 224-34, reprinted in id., God Being History (Amsterdam, 1975), 103-13. tTpHELs is hapax leg. Elsewhere Greg. uses forms from the réuvw root, €.g., 77) ye ovoia wy TéuveoGar, or. 29. 2 (p. 75. 6-7, M. 36. 768) and rouy, orr. 27. 6 (p. ro. 2, M. 36. 17) and 29. 8 (p. 84. 12, 84c).

28-39. The true meaning of'generation'

28. Billius claimed to have detected an early corruption in this line in the repeated yevérys. He held that the sense requireda line like «is

T00 COMMENTARY ON ARC.

2. 28-32 Ocdés, ws Kéapnov yevérns wéyas xTA. But more than that, he held that his restoration was supported by Nicetas. This is not so.

Nicetas' paraphrase begins: xéyas wév 6 Oeds and continues with an unnecessary description of the way in which God's greatness is sung by the twofold worlds, aic@n765 and vonzés. (This is a favourite theme with Nicetas who is here merely recapitulating his comment on xoopobérps in Arc. 1. 34.) The connection of yevérys with the Son is made quite clear: 67 tarjp eo dei vio' peydAou

Unepovoiov Kai duoovoiov guvavdpxov Kai ovvaidiov (fo. 22). yevérns was used in Classical Greek with either an active or a passive sense, 'father' or 'son', according to context (cf. e.g. Jebb's note on S. OT 470). Greg. maintains the active meaning. When

Christ is called yevérns in carm, 2. 2. 3. 4 (M. 37. 14804) it is in the expression mdavrwy yevérns.

29. &poopiyy, 'starting point', 'origin', is a synonym for airiav or apx7.

31-2. Such greatness of the Father is inevitably shared by the Son. yévvynpa is a word of varying theological fortune. Its use by the Eunomians inclined Basil at one stage to reject it as a term for the Son, Eun. 2. 7 (G. 1. 243A; M. 29. 584). Previously the word had been identified with «rfoua in Arian circles, with Athanasius coming in as its orthodox defender; cf. e.g. Ar. 1. 31 (M. 26. 76c).

Athanasius represented the prevailing tendency in refusing to abandon the word to heretical subordinationism, a tendency found in Greg. in or. 29. 10 (p. 88. 2, M. 36. 884). He distinguishes

"'uncreated' and 'created' on the one hand from 'unbegotten' and 'begotten' on the other, on the grounds that the second pair imply identity of nature: airy yap duos yevvyjartos, tavrév eivar Tw yeyevvnKott KaTa THY Pvow. oenta@: Cf. Arc. 3. 41-2.

6ifav continues the notion of unity, guarding alike against separation and subordination. Cf. Arc. 3. 58.

32b-35. Thegeneralunderstanding of the lines F. Scheidweiler, 'Zu den Gedichten Gregors von Nazianz bei Cantarella und Soyter', BZ 49 (1956), 345-8, found no sense in the punctuation and translations offered by Caillau and by Cantarella.

The latter's translation he described as 'unverstandliches Gerede'

(p. 345). The solution he saw was to repunctuate:

IOI COMMENTARY ON ARC.

2. 32-5 4 8 dyévyntos Duwvyyérvynats te [latpas azo, ot Fedry70s éwAero: eidea dioed ts ExAagev, dudi 5° exeivay auddrep' extras édvta: dias 3° dxéacrtos Emorye.

In this interpretation, 7 5' dyévnros Pw is a statement that the Logos is unbegotten. The passage continues as an assertion that the Logos proceeds from the Father and not from a Godhead underlying both Father and Logos and goes on: ' ... so daB beide, Vater und

Sohn, als deren Arten (eiéea), wie jemand dies erdichtete, anzusehen waren und sich, was jene (die @eérms) angeht, auBerhalb ihrer befanden.' Now as anti-Eunomian theology (cf. below) this clearly makes sense. Scheidweiler does not mention Eunomius explicitly, but his understanding of these lines points to him. (As we have seen from the introduction to this poem, Cantarella does not appear to have any convincing understanding of the purpose of the lines, referring inappropriately to Apollinarius.) There are, however, objections to the suggestions put forward by Scheidweiler.

(i) Is it natural to write Owvy with a capital and make it equivalent to Adyos? To change from the precise Adyos to the non-technical

®wyvy would be confusing, unlikely to be understood.

(ii) Even if Pwvy were understood as = Adyos, could 4 8° dyévnros wv mean "The Logos is ingenerate'? ®av7 is in the attributive, not the predicative, position and the words would mean 'the ingenerate

Logos'. The sense is thus incomplete if we follow the punctuation of placing a colon after wy.

We may, therefore, ask whether Caillau's translation may not have more to be said for it than Scheidweiler supposed. The view that ¢wv7y means 'vox, vocabulum, verbum', that is, 'term' or 'expression', is held by Stephanus when he cites Greg. as an authority (Thes. s.v. dwvy, 1191D). The instances given in PGL (5) include Origen, Basil, and Nyssen. This fits well with Caillau's tr. 'voces ... ingenitus et generatio'. The meaning is made clearer if the sentence is read without punctuation from 7 8' ayévyros to d:ocd, and continues after the parenthesis tis érAacev from dydi to édvra: "The expressions "ingenerate" and "generation from the Father" do not constitute two different forms of Godhead (who invented that notion?) but both are externals around Godhead.' Here dui has a similar sense to zepi in or. 42. 15 (M. 36. 476) of that which is merely concomitant.

2. 32-5 The argument of the lines thus runs: "To be dyévnros is not the prerogative of one form of the Godhead (i.e. the Father) nor does being yevvyrés exclude the Son from Godhead. The Son, too, is ayévyros, "uncreated".' The Arians had tried to equate ayévyros and dyévvytos and thus to deny to the Son the title dyévyros, as being yevyyn7és; cf. Ath. syn. 16 (p. 244. 12, M. 26. 7ogc). Greg. would hold that the Son was at once yervnrés and ayévnros, as the former referred solely to his relationship with the Father while the latter spoke ofhis essential Godhead in unity with the Father. This is in line with Greg.'s argument in or, 25. 16 (M. 35. 12218), where he contrasts the distinctive characteristics of the Three Persons with their common element (xow6v). dyevvyoia, yévynors, and éxzepusis are the distinguishing marks, but in common the Three Persons have 76 yu yevovévac and 7 Jedrns. In other words, dyévyros is applicable to all

The specifically anti-Eunomian tone becomes clear in the words eidea Siocd, reinforced by é«7és. Eunomius, as Greg. argues in or. 29.

11 ff. (pp. 88 ff, M. 36. 888 ff), confuses ovcia with (d:67n5. ayévntos describes @ed67ns, the ovoia of Father and Son alike. yévynacs is not the ovoia of the Son, but his specific characteristic. eiSos here comes very close to meaning ovcéa, as it does in Arist. Metaph. 1032"1.

Eunomius elevates to the level of ovoéa: characteristic distinguishing marks which are 'outside' the essence of Godhead. As Hoeschel's scholiast observes of yévvyors and ayevvnsia: ot Gedryrés efor onuavriKai (p. 17 ofhis edn.). The eidea d:ccd ofthis passage makes a similar point to the expression ducers Dewy duwviewy in or, 39. 12

(M. 36. 348c). In both cases Greg. is dealing with the attempt to make distinctions of essence within the Godhead while still wishing to assert that, in some sense, the Son shared in divinity through his generation. The meaning of duavupos is well brought out in or. 29.

13-14 (pp. g2 ff., M. 36. 89c ff), especially p. 93. 4 ff. (g2.4-n). The effect of the argument is to apply the term 'God' equivocally in different senses. Now this is exactly what is implied by d:0cd, which means both 'twofold' and 'ambiguous'. Cf. Arc. 8. 5 n. (Cf. also or. 41.9, M. 36.

441C.) Eunomtus Much ofthe Cappadocian Fathers' time was taken up with Eunomius and his followers, with what they taught or were believed to teach.

Basil wrote three books Contra Eunomium (G. 1. 207 ff., M. 29. 497 ff; COMMENTARY ON ARC, 2. 32-41 SC 299 and 305.) Nyssen wrote extended works in defence of Basil's position (Opera, ed. Jaeger, 1. 2; M. 45. 244 ff), while Nazianzen devoteda large part ofthe Theological Orations to attempting to controvert what he took to be the position of Eunomius (M. 36. 124 ff.) Cf.

Mason's edn. and for a full discussion Norris. Texts ofEunomius are found in Vaggione and SC 305. The discussion in the present poem is comparatively slight. Full studies of Eunomius and his opponents are found in T. A. Kopecek, A History ofNeo-Arianism (Cambridge, Mass.,

1979); M. Simonetti, La crist ariana nel quarto secolo (Rome, 1975); and Hanson, Search.

32b. &yévytos: the single v form is guaranteed by metre. The confusion with the form in double v, frequent in MSS, does not arise.

37. &oaoKos: it is true that there is here no real case to answer: no one asserted that God was odp£. The Stoics held that both God and the soul were material, corporeal. This teaching was based on the view that only corporeal things could either act or be acted upon. mav yap 76 é6pw@v y Kai wooly cw@pa:... €Tt wav TO KLvOUpEVOY odd é€ort (Placit. 4. 20. 2; Diels, Dox. 410; SVF 2. 387; cf. Plu. comm. notit. 30. 2, 1073). But odpé was another matter. This is why Greg. can dismiss as absurd the association of odp£ with the Father, while finding it necessary to argue that he is docparos, or. 28. 7 (pp. 31-2,

M. 36. 33B-C). (It is questionable whether in that particular context such an argument was called for. As Mason pointed out (p. 31.9 n.),

_it was unlikely that Eunomius maintained any such position. But the point still remains that the corporeity of God could be taken seriously, whereas the idea that he was flesh could not).

39. For etyos used ofa person cf. AP 7. 27. 1 (Antip. Sid., 2 c. Bc). The collocation of vids and aécos may suggest a side-reference to Luke

15. 19, 21. This is he who is eternally worthy to be called the Son of his Father.

40-56. The Father's divinity is not safeguarded by lowering the status ofthe Son 40. éxinoa: the sense 'trying to find favour' is unaffected, whether we read éxinpa or émi Hpa (cf. H. Il. 1. 572, 578, Od. 3. 164, 5. OT 1094, etc.). In carmm. 2. 1. 17. 60 (M. 37. 12664) and 2. 2 (poem.) 1. 12

(14534) he takes pa as fem. sg. with an adjective in agreement.

41. d€0¢ here means 'awe', 'godly fear'. Classical and LXX usages 2. 41-5 regularly indicate straightforward fear induced by physical danger.

In Heb. 12. 28 our present sense is found. xoaridecar yaoacowy: cf. carm. 2. 1. 13. 212 (M. 37. 12444).

42. Rather than Caillau's 'generationem' we should render 7) pév as 'divinity'. It is the @eérns ofChrist which is denied.

KTiGuNata: xricua suggests an attack upon a basic tenet of Arianism. Arius had held that the Son was a xticpa or zoinua; cf.

Ath. Dion. 21 (p. 62. 13-14, M. 25. 5128) and «x7iorév in the anathemata of the Nicene Creed (Symb. Nic. (325), Opitz 3. 52. 3; M. 20.

1540C). But, despite the modifications in the theology ofEunomius, which encouraged him to call the Son in some sense 'God', it appears that he still retained the 'creature' language, apol. 17 (M. 30.

852c f£.). Greg. attributes to him this term «zioxa in or. 29. 4 (p. 77.

15, M. 36. 77¢), asking how it can be squared with Oeds.

44, The underlying argument is: if Christ is created, he is not God; if not God, he is not the Son of God; therefore the Father is not Father and his divinity is impaired. (Cf. or. 40. 43, M. 36. 4208 ff.)

Behind this reasoning there lies the understanding of the word 'Father' in Christian theology and, in particular, in the creeds. An earlier tendency to associate the Fatherhood of God with his function as Creator was giving way to a close connection between the Fatherhood of God and the Sonship of Christ. (Cf. Kelly, Creeds,

132 ff., esp. 134: 'As early as the middle ofthe fourth century St Cyril ofJerusalem was explaining, in his discussion of the creed, that FATHER properly belonged to God in virtue of His relation to the Son, the very word suggesting the idea of a son to the mind', citing

Cyr. H. cat. 7. 4 (M. 33. 608 f.).) érbyOy: revyerw is used of divine creation in Pi. fr. 141 Maehler, quoted by Clem. Al. Sir.

5 (GCS 2 (1960), 413. 16, M. 9. 142); ef. Did.

Alex. Trin. 3. 1 (M. 39. 784A). But frequently in Classical usage the word denotes manufacture and ériy6y) may be here used in this way, as derogatory to the Eunomian position.

45-6. There is here a side-glance at the Arian #v wore dre ovx Hv; cf. the first anathema ofthe Nicene Creed (Symb. Nic. (325), Opitz 3. 52.

2; M. 20. 1540). The argument, still directed against Eunomius, is that no difference in degree can alter a difference in kind. If the Son were created, he would remain a creature even if he attained to an exalted and permanent place in the Father's plans. To call him

'God' would not change his original status. not Env, Avtov: this reading is preferable to Caillau's avdray, 2. 45-53 which is awkward and difficult to translate convincingly. It is not at all obvious that aiv@v may be taken as xrtaoadtwv, which is what his tr. suggests, On the other hand, Auv7éy (found in Pl. and Arist.) carries the argument further with its sense of 'capable of being dissolved (again into nothing)'. The equation ofthe composite with that which is resolvable into parts and destructible, in contrast with the simplicity and indestructibility of that which is self-constituted, is found, e.g., in Proclus, Elements, 40 ff.

46. The subjunctive Ȏvy for Caillau's optative represents a stylistic variation, not a change ofmeaning.

47-50 introduce soteriological objections. How could man come to deification through the sufferings ofone who was no different from himself? The idea of the deification of man is dealt with in Arc. 4.

49-50. The 'bounds' are those of the created being (cf. above, v.

OpodovAov: a similar anti-Arian expression is found in or. 25. 17

(M. 35. 1221Cf): od yap Oeds, ef yéyove, uw Oed avvnyopay diaxevijs, Oedv avéAns, duddovdAov wo1wv 76 6udbeov, 6 Kai oé THs dovAcias éAeviepoi, dv yynciws épodoyis Seomoreiav. Cf. also Gr.

Nyss. or. cat. 39 (p. 159. 2-3, M. 45. roma).

50. avi eoio: this gives a stronger meaning than dv7iGeoio (recte dv7t@éo.0), found in L. A state ofslavery might be called 'hostile to God', cf. or. 20.

6 (M. 35. 10728), but the contrast between being a slave and actually being God is more forceful.

51-3. The Father might have created the Son as the instrument for the further creation of man. That Christ would thus be little more than a means to an end is brought out by the analogy of the smith.

He makes the hammer not for its own sake but because he needs it to make a wagon.

51, &xewta, 'at a later point in time', picks up v. 45.

6Ooyavoev appears with some frequency in Arian discussions of the nature of the Logos, the emphasis, as Athanasius brought out, being on coming into existence out of nothing; cf. Ath. decr. 23.

(p. 19. 29, M. 25. 4578).

53. The reading followed by Caillau, eds, allows the assumption that Greg. is following the argument he is attacking by using 'Apyeyévoro in a diminished sense, consonant with é6pyavov. The word dpxéyovos is applied to Adam in Arc. 3. 37, 7. 78. Greg. would be saying that his opponents' argument made the Logos, as the first

COMMENTARY ON ARC, 2. 53-61 creature, the 'author' or 'producer' of a cart. If, however, we follow the better attested Qeod, Greg. is inserting his own belief that the Logos is, in reality, the divine author of creation.

55-77. The Incarnation does not impair the Godhead ofChrist 57. txedéEato: an appropriate meaning here is that found in the 4th c. AD in POxy. 67. 11, 'to submit to'. nadéecowy: cf. above, vy. 2 n., 48 n. If dp7jywy is taken here in a strong sense of deliverance, we have an allusion to a common notion that Christ's Passion achieves for man the state of dwd@e:a, freedom from sinful emotion, a concomitant of deification. (Not infrequently we find this idea combined with that ofthe suffering of the impassible Word: cf. e.g. or. 30. 5 (p. 115. 8-9, M. 36. 1ogs): cecwopuévot tois tod dmafots maBeow). Two passages from Athanasius well illustrate this play on the senses of wafos: 76 yap md Bos avrou, yuwmv dwabed éort, inc. etc. Ar. 5 (M. 26. 992A); avrés yap évrnvbpwaycer, iva jueis Peomonbaper .

. rods 6€ maoyxovras advOpwaous, 81' obs nai ratra Uréuewev, év 7 €avtod amaleia érjper ai di€owle, inc. 54. 3 (M. 25. 1928 f.).

58. Cf. below, v. 64.

59. Greg. is bringing out what he takes to be a possible implication of the view that the Incarnation set limits upon the Godhead, that it involved Christ in sin. The argument might run: ifGodhead alone is sinless, limitation of Godhead means limitation ofsinlessness, i.e. the possibility of sin.

60. a@xéEece: dzoféw graphically describes the supposed renunciation of Godhead as 'stripping, scraping off, a metaphorical use like that of Alciphron 3. 2: awéfecas tiv aida tov mpoowmov. Elsewhere Greg. uses the word in its common sense of 'polish': carm, 2. r. 11. 1524 (M. 37. 1135 A); arr. 40. 22 (M. 36. 3894), 43. 64 (5814). dééece is contrasted with xévwoas, Arc. 8. 39, where see n. To strip off

Godhead is quite different from 'emptying' it of xAéos, a divine form of manifestation.

61. On the structure of the line cf. Jntro. IV (d). into: common in Homer ina literal sense, the word is established in Classical Greek in a figurative sense also. Heracles in S.

Tr. 1209 speaks of inrjpa ray... kaxwv. The absolute use of the word occurs in Pi. P. 4. 270 (= 'deliverer'), but the idea of healing is not lost. So here, the deliverance from 74@y is seen as the healingof a disease. In Christian literature the cognates tacts and idoua: are

COMMENTARY ON ARC, 2. 61-3 to be found in figurative use at an early date. The verb occurs, e.g., in Hermas, vis. 1. 1. 9 of the healing ofsins (cf. 1. 3. 1). But of course the idea may be carried back much farther. When the writer of 1 Pet. says ofChrist in 2. 24 ov r@ pwAw7 (a4 Oy7e, he is attributingtohim the healing functions of Isa. 53. 5, the healing not precisely of sins but of a sinful people. iacrs, too, is found in Hermas of the forgiveness of sins (mand. 4. 1. 11, sim. 7. 4), and it is ofinterest to trace the figurative sense back to Sir. 28. 3 (kai mapa xupiov Cyrei faoww) and to find it in late Plato (Leg. 9. 862). A good parallel is Philo, Leg. All.

2. 20. 79. (1. 80M., 1. 96. 5 C.-W.) iacts rod wafous. As for fazpés, of which inzjp is an archaic equivalent, we find it applied to Christ in a similar sense to that considered here: Ign. Eph. 7. 2 (Bihlmeyer, p. 84. 25 ff; M. 5. 649pf.); cf. also Grillmeier, Christ in Christian

Tradition, 87-8. A large number ofexamples ofthis figurative use of iazpés and its cognates has been collected in J. Dziech, De Gregorio

Nazianzeno diatribae quae dicitur alumno (Poznan, 1925), 207 ff. As well as listing passages from Greg. to show that it was a well-used figure by him, Dziech quoted extensively from other Fathers and from pagan writers. émukvwae: perhaps émxtarw deserves mention in PGL, as LSJ provide no example in the sense '"condescend'.

62-77. These lines are an extended illustration ofthe opening words jv Bpotés, dAAG Oeds.

63. xAdotys: the connection between the Second Person of the Trinity and the creation of man is treated specifically in Arc. 7.

57-77: oagKkogogos well illustrates the way in which words take their colouring from the thought ofthose who use them. To Apollinarius feds capxodépos (fr. 109, Lietzmann 233) is an expression which supports a one-nature Christology, a view which sees Christ as composed to form a unity of impassible divinity and passible humanity (fr. 6, Lietzmann 206-7; cf. Kelly, Doctrines, 291-2). Greg., on the other hand, without denying the unity ofthe Person ofChrist

(cf. the section Christology in the introduction to the poem), sees in capkoddpos a way ofdrawing a distinction between the divine and the human natures.

Among Gregory's predecessors in the use ofthe term in the sense 'incarnate' are Ignatius and Clem. Alex.; Ath. in ine. etc. Ar. 8 (M. 26. gg6c) speaks of @eds capxoddpos. oopatog éxtdsg: the work of the Logos in the universe, his

2. 63-9 providential government (Arc. 5. 35), cannot be interrupted by the Incarnation. The Word continues to exercise his functions 'outside the body'. Greg. is thus saying something akin to what we find in a well-known place in Athanasius, inc. 17.

1 (M. 25. 125): ot yap 89 TEpLKEKAELOLEVos Fv €v TH Capate OvdE Ev CWpaTt wéev Hv, dAAaxooe 5é ovK Hy KrA, 64. xaoGevinijs: for Greg.'s teaching on the Virgin, see or. 38. 13 (M.

36. 3258 f.) = 43. 62 (M. 36. 576c ff), ep. ror (M. 37. 177¢ fF). CE. also orr. 45.

9 (M. 36. 6330), 29. 4 (p. 78. 11-12, M. 36. 80a), carmm. 1. 1.

10. 49 (M. 37. 4684), 2. 2. 7. 172 (M. 37. 1564), together with G. Soll, 'Die Mariologie der Kappadozier im Lichte der Dogmengeschichte', 740 131 (1951), 288-319. References to the Virgin carry comparatively little weight in Greg.'s anti-Eunomian writings (the or. 29. 4 passage mentioned is little more than a side-glance). It is not until Greg. is engaged against Apollinarius (cf. ep. 101) that he puts stress in his Christology on the place of Mary. megiyoaos is not at variance with ov... wepixexAecopévos in the sentence of Athanasius quoted on v. 63. Greg. is affirming the voluntary self-limitation of Christ in the Incarnation (cf. Sellers,

Two Ancient Christologies, 71), while Ath. loc. cit. is denying his essential restriction xazv' ovoiav. Greg.'s equivalent of the latter is dpérpyros (for which cf. Cyr. Jo. 1. 3 (4. 224), applied to Christ).

65-6. Cf. Luke 2. 7, Matt. 2. 2, 9-11 and Arc. 5. 53 ff, 8. 60 ff. dwmpopooot: cf. P. Pi. 5. 86. The noun dwpedopia is used by Isid.

Pel. epp.1.18(M. 78. 1938) ofthe Magi; cf. Cyr. Ps. 8: 1 (M. 69. 7574).

67. &y@va: Origen refers to the Temptation as zpés rév d:aBoAor dya@va rot Kupiov, Jo. 10. 1 (p. 171. 15, M. 14. 308a). txépayebe: the choice lies between this otherwise unattested form and the regular Homeric Uzepéoyefe (Cu) which, however, does not here scan. The former is the more likely: Greg. might well have taken it for a Homeric form. But a line with an extra syllable, whatever his other metrical shortcomings may be, is not what one would expect ofGreg.

68. Cf. Matt. 4. 1-11, Luke 4. 1-13. (Mark 1. 12-13 does not have the threefold form).

69. Cf. Mark 6. 30-44, 8. 1-10, Matt. 14. 13-21, 15. 32-39, Luke 9. ro— 17, John 6, 1-14. a&peupe: the Gospel narrative (John 2. 1-11) uses no word to describe Christ's action, saying merely that the water 'had become'

(yeyernuévor) wine. aue(8w is a regular Classical word for effecting 2. 69-76 a change, being, for instance, Euripides' word for the change of Dionysus into mortal form (Ba. 4).

70-1. Cf. Mark 1. 9-11, Matt. 3. 13-17, Luke 3. 21-2. He who underwent baptism, described in Arc. 3. 47 as xa@apors, is himself the giver of purification.

72. Cf. Mark 4. 35-41, Matt. 8. 23-7, Luke 8. 22-5.

73. magetos = 'palsied' is found in Ap 5. 54 (Diosc.). PGL s.v. 1, points out the connection of the word with Matt. 9. 2 in Mac. Mgn. apocr. 2. 8 (p. 10. 5).

75. The structure of the line is discussed in Introd. III (a). The @ios/ @cés play may be compared with 6 6cds Gvduevos in CTrull. or. imp. (H. 3. 1652), aD 692. aozieoervs: cf. Heb. 2. 17, 3. 1, 5. 10, 6. 20, 7. 26, 8. 1, g. 11. Here dpxtepeds directs attention to the divine function of Christ: it is as the divine Son that he is able to carry out the office of High Priest.

Or. 30. 16 (p. 134. 5, M. 36. 124D) lists dpytepoodvn with tpoadopa as words concerned with 76 mdoyoy, i.e., the human side of Christ, anda similar view is set out in Cyr. Heb, 2. 17 (M. 74. 965 C-D): aurés yéyovev dpxtepeds kata 76 dvOpamwov. Cf. Thdt. eran. 2. (4. g2, M.

83. 128-9): ... jms (sc. dpytepootvn) avOpwmas padddov 7 Ged apoayKer: cf. PGL s.v.

76. The question to whom Christ's blood is offered is raised in carm.

I. 1. 10. 65-72 (M. 37. 4704), where the answer given is that it is an dvradAAaywa to God. Christ is here said to have madea votive offering to God. This is the meaning which dvé@yxe would have had in Classical Greek and PGL shows that the sense continued. The verb is used of devoting someone or something to God's service: God is to use the offering. This form ofexpression in this line points to the human side of Christ, who, gua man, accomplishes nothing by the offering of his blood until the Father has accepted and used the offering in the purification of man. But looked at from the divine side, Christ, gua God, may be said by his sacrifice to have purified the whole world.

Elsewhere Gregory is careful to guard against possible misinterpretation of this language. In or. 45. 22 (M. 36. 6538) he rejects the idea of the transactional payment ofa ransom either to the devil or to the Father. The Father however accepts an offering which he had not demanded. Yet because of the complete involvement of the Three Persons in the oixovouia, the Father himself shares in the very sacrifice which he accepts. (Cf. Winslow, ch. 5.)

COMMENTARY ON ARC, 2. 77-9 77. M. Guignet remarks on a similar image in or. 43. 64 (M. 36. 5814):

*... le péché, notion abstraite, devient une sorte d'étre immonde dont Jésus s'est chargé pour le clouer avec lui sur la croix' (S.

GrégoiredeNazianze et la rhétorique (Paris, 1911), 138).

Conclusion The life, death, and resurrection of Christ all point to his divine and human natures.

The strict pattern of contrasting half-lines is now broken. The second part of v. 78 depicts Christ's action as man, corresponding to the whole ofv. 79, his action as God. The internal contrast is taken up again in v. 80, for the last time in the poem.

78-9. For the Descent into Hades cf. or. 29. 20 (p. 106. 2 ff., M. 36.

101 B-C) and carm. 1. 1. 33. 8-g, M. 37. 514 (ifit is genuine; cf. Werhahn, 'Dubia und Spuria unter den Gedichten Gregors von

Nazianz', 342-3). épiyOn: it is no casual encounter that is implied by this verb.

Christ did not 'mingle' with the dead as, in English, observers 'mingle' with a crowd. He became one of them. (For the force of piyvope cf. Arc. 1. 24 0.) Note that the text does not specify which of the dead were raised by Christ and the possibility, which is supported by carm. 1. 1. 35. 89 (M. 37. 5174) ... €lg 6 Ke TaYTaS Taprapéwy poyéovtas Ud" aia: Atoato deopwy, is that he intended to indicate that all the dead were released. But the authenticity of this poem is questioned (cf. Werhahn, loc. cit.).

Moreover, the weight of tradition known to Greg. points to the view that Christ's Descent released the Old Testament saints and prophets, not that it signified the redemption ofmankind in general.

This latter view emerges in Rufinus (comm. in symb. apost. 16-17 (M.

PL. 21. 354 f£.)) and is developed in later Latin writers. But it is the first understanding which is found from Irenaeus (Aaer. 1. 25. 2, M.

7. 6894 f.; 4. 42. 4. 10588 f) to Chrysostom (in Matt. hom. 36. 3, M. 57.

416 f.) and it is this which justifies Caillau's addition of "'multos' to 'antea mortuos'. Additional references from Clem. Alex., Origen,

Eusebius, Cyril ofJerusalem, and Epiphanius are given in J. N. D.

II COMMENTARY ON ARC.

2. 78-83 Kelly, Rufinus:

A Commentary on the Apostles' Creed (Westminster, Md., and London, 1955), 128-9, cf. p. 121 and id., Creeds, 378 ff.

80. Caillau's éxeiva cannot stand; the suggested xdxeiva saves the metre but does little for the sense. The well-attested ¢/ xeiva gives clear sense. mhovtos: cf. 2. Cor. 8. 9, where 'rich' refers to the pre-existent

Christ. For dodprov we may cite or. 38. 2 (M. 36. 313B) as parallel: 6 aoapkos capKovrat.

81. The imperatival infinitive may be thought to give a stronger sense than the deferential optative.

82. The preferred reading xeivy ... redxyec makes an assertion of truth: Godhead exalts the earthly form. Caillau's ceivny . .

. revyew exhorts the reader to acknowledge this. touxvdéa: In Homer the word is often associated with the glorious qualities of gods. (Cf. e.g. I/. 14. 327.)

82-3. poogiy . .. woeqew@cato: though a stronger form than Phil. z.

7, popdyy ...AaBay, the cognate adds little to the sense. (Contrast this with the words found in the poem of disputed authenticity referred to in n. on vv. 78-9 above, carm. 1. 1. 35. 7 (M. 37. 5174), where éxa@v nAAdEaTo popdyy, also used of the Incarnation, introduces the element of change.) Cf. popdjy avdpouénv in 1. 1. 11. 6

(M. 37. 4714). a&@pOitos Yids: the closing words are a summary affirmation of the central thought of the poem. Strong as is the emphasis on the humanity of Christ, it is his divinity which has been attacked and which calls for defence. a&@pOutos, applied to divine persons as early as the Homeric

Hymns and Hesiod (4.Merc. 326, Th. 389, 397), came to be almost a stock term in the Sibylline Oracles; cf. ad&ros beds, orac. Sib. 5. 298,

12. 132, al. Apollinarius Metaphrastes also takes it up, e.g. in met. Ps.

2 Ludwig; M. 33. 1336p). Much ofthe importance ofthe word in this line lies in its correspondence with the prose dd@apros which formed a point of dissension in the controversy with Eunomius. He demanded that d¢@apros in its absolute sense be reserved for the Father alone, maintaining that ad@apoia cannot be shared by the Son, apol. 28 (M. 30. 868; Vaggione p. 74. g—10). Basil and Nyssen both assailed this view. (Major passages are conveniently collected in PGL s.vv. dd@apros B. 3 and dd@apoia A.) This poem throughout is adding its impetus to that anti-Eunomian thrust. It may also be said that a4¢@:70s Yiés maintains a theological

2. 83 emphasis which is found from Diognetus onwards: that the Son, immortal, incorruptible, while present in mortal, corruptible flesh, retains his dé@apoia untouched; cf. Diogn. g. 2 at one end of the time-scale and Leo Mag. ep. 35 (p. 41. 17, M. PE 54. 808c ff.) at the other. 'The exigencies ofpolemic should not figure too largely in our assessment.

3. On the Spirit Title andpurpose The MSS' title wepi (rod ayiov) [veiparos accurately describes the contents ofvv. 1-36. The remainder ofthe poem, as one might expect, concerns itself with the relationships within the Trinity of the Three

Persons, pointing to conclusions which were implicit in the first two poems but which may now be drawn explicitly, the divinity ofthe Holy

Spirit being established.

Greg.'s teaching on the Holy Spirit is discussed in books referred to for his Trinitarian thinking (cf. Arc. 1. 25-35a introduction). Additional treatment, referring more specifically to the Holy Spirit apart from the Trinitarian question, will be found in T. Schermann, Die

Gottheit des Heiligen Geistes nach den griechischen Vatern des vierten Jahrhunderts (Freiburg i. B., 1901), 145-67; P. Galtier, LeSaint-Esprit en nous dapres les Peres grecs (Rome, 1946), 175-80.

Within Greg.'s works particular attention may be given to these passages dealing with the Holy Spirit: carm. 2. 1. 14. 33 ff (M. 37.

12474 f.); orr 2. 38 (M. 35. 445), 20. to-11 (10774 ff), 21. 33 (1121¢ ff); 31 passim (pp. 145-90; M. 36. 133B-1728), 41 passim (428A-—452C); ep.

102 (M. 37. 1938 ff.).

Something of Greg.'s teaching on the Holy Spirit has already emerged in Arc. 1 (see notes on Arc. 1. 16-24, 35 ff). Greg. clearly took very seriously his role as defender of the full divinity of the Spirit. He does not think of himself as an innovator but rather as one who is privileged to make explicit teaching about the Holy Spirit which had been implicit in Christian doctrine from the start. He follows closely on the heels of Basil (cf. Galtier 175), but claims that in so doing he is loyal not only to a personal friend but to the intention of the Creed of Nicaea itself (ep. 102, M. 37. 193C). Basil's circumspection on the subject of the divinity of the Holy Spirit has been often remarked.

Thus, while Greg. continues the work ofBasil, he also goes beyond it. The arguments of the De Spiritu Sancto make sense only on the assumption that the Spirit is God, but this belief is not explicitly stated. We may compare ep. 236. 6, where 76 Geiov, rather than the reading of one codex (Harl.) rév Oe6v is surely correct. Gregory discusses Basil's diffidence in a passage of a speech in his praise, or. 43.

69 (M. 36. 58ga ff.), maintaining that his friend held a full doctrine of the divinity of the Spirit, while, to avoid the risk ofbeing deposed by heretics, allowing himself to come to an arrangement in the matter of overt expression (éauvTw pév tiv oixovopiav éxézpebev, 5894). For Basil's position, see Quasten, Patrology, iii. 231-3, with the bibliography there, and Galtier 135 ff. (Cf. also Holl, Amphilochius von

Tkonium, 158 ff) The opponents of the acceptance of the Holy Spirit's full divinity who are attacked by Greg. are the Pneumatomachians or Macedonians (cf. Kelly, Doctrines, 259-60; Quasten, Patrology, iii. 259, bibliography to Nyssen's Sermo de Spiritu Sancto adversus Pneumatomachos Macedonianos) and Eunomius (cf. Arc. 2. 32b-35 n.). The former were the object ofthe clauses on the Holy Spirit in the Creed of Constantinople (cf. Kelly, Creeds, 339-40, 342-4), while the latter, having rejected the divinity of the Son, was scarcely likely to be more favourable towards that of the Spirit. Eunomius is a thoroughgoing heretic who is contrasted with the half-orthodox (or. 31. 24: 175. 14, M. 36.

35b—39 n. Greg. clearly makes a distinction between him and the more moderate ofthe Pneumatomachi who, as he remarks in or. 41.8 (M. 36. 4408 ff.), comes very close to acceptance ofthe fully orthodox position. The tone ofthe oration is conciliatory, more conciliatory than that of, say, Arc. 1.

35b-—39 where there is a note of asperity as well as encouragement in Greg.'s approach to the yyidaeis. In addressing his congregation Greg. concentrates on the soundness of his hearers' beliefs on the First and Second Persons, regretting their failure to take the next step of professing faith in the Holy Spirit, but expressing confidence that they will, once the issues are clearly explained to them. Arc. 3, on the other hand, is much closer in spirit to the polemic of or. 31 where Eunomius, rather than progressive Pneumatomachi, is the target. (Cf., for instance, wv. 37 ff. which contain the arguments used against Eunomius in cc. 10 f. of or. 31).

1-9, The Holy Spirit is to be worshipped as God 1. Oupeé, ti SnObvers;: Keydell, 'Ein dogmatisches Lehrgedichr', 315, compares the opening words with those of Call. H. 4. 1-2: rH lepriv, w Ouué, tiva ypdvov i 767' deioes

AjjAov, Am6AAwvos xkovpotpédov; But, apart from the occurrence of @vpé, the resemblance is not very marked. Callimachus is not expressing awe or reluctance as Greg. is in ré 5y6dvecs; Closer parallels for the rhetorical figure of hesitation in the face of a great theme will be found in K. Thraede,

1-3 'Untersuchungen zum Ursprung und zur Geschichte der christlichen Poesie IP', JAC 5 (1962), 128-31 ('SchwierigkeitsauBerungen'), where examples are given from Latin poetry.

There is, however, a very close verbal parallel in Apollinarius Metaphrastes. Four times in his metrical version of the Psalms he asks Ouyé, ri Sy Ovvecs; In his versions of met. Ps. 41.6 (p. 87. 11 Ludwich; M. 33. 1369D), 41. 12 (p. 87. 27, M. 33. 13724), 42. 5 (p. 88. 12,

M. 33. 1372B) he renders the LXX iva ri wepiAumos el, 3 buyy, Kai iva ti cvvrapdaceis pe; as Bupé ri dyBdvers; ri 5E wor vdov Evdov opivers; In met. Ps. 114. 7 (p. 241. 13, M. 33. 14898) Bupeé, ré OnOdvers pera ov dvdmavow tkéoGa; represents éxiotpeov, 7 buy pov, els THY dvdzravoiv gov in LXX. It is, however, one thing to detect a verbal correspondence and another to determine its significance.

We may dismiss the possibility that the two writers independently hit on this expression, involving as it does the unusual word dy 6ivw. Three possibilities remain: (a) that Greg. borrowed the words from Apoll.; (6) that Apoll. borrowed the words from Greg.;

(c) that both borrowed froma third source.

Of an earlier source I have been able to find no trace. Should such a source emerge, the whole question would have to be reopened. But, in the meantime, we may consider (a) and (4). We cannot here set out upon an examination of the complex questions of ascription and dating which are inseparable from any consideration of this version of the Psalms. Most critical scholarship regards as doubtful the attribution of the metaphrases to Apollinarius of Laodicea. Some scholars have no hesitation in dissociating him from this work, others (in recent years F. Scheidweiler, BZ 49

(1956), 336-44) are prepared to defend his authorship (see Quasten, Patrology, iii. 380-1, and Introd., III. 58.) In favour of the view that Greg. provides the original which has been imitated bya later writer it should be observed that Arc. 3. 1 is the only one of the passages quoted where the words have any real point. y@dvw means 'I delay, hesitate' and this is precisely the meaning called for in the present passage. But 5y68vecs does not provide an obvious paraphrase of iva ré wepiAumos ei; It may, therefore, be suggested that in the metaphrases Qvpé zi SvOyAvers; is quoted as a formula and, unless some other source is proved, a formula derived from Greg.

2. For duars as the ground of unity within the Godhead cf. n. on v. 41 below.

3. 6 por Beds: the manuscript text is supported both by Nicetas 3. 3-4 (67t ot Oeds odros) and by the anonymous scholiast quoted in Hoeschel (p. 23: ézep €or Geds €or). The traditional duoiMeov of the editions is an incorrect formation found nowhere else (PGL s.v.), and not to be justified as a metrical adjustment of 6ud@eov.

Certainly, dué8eov would give splendid sense here, claiming identity of Godhead for the Holy Spirit as it is claimed for the Son in or. 25. 17 (M. 35. 1224). But can the words be taken as equivalent? There is no justification for Caillau's 'pariter Deo' or Gallay's "Dieu également'. PGL is surely right in holding that the meaning cannot be pushed beyond 'like God', and such a meaning falls below the level of doctrinal demand made in the poem. In his speech in honour of Athanasius, Greg. had shown his awareness that, in Christological formulation, éo:0s language is a 'bait to catch simple souls' (or. 21. 22, M. 35. 1108). (He was talking about Symb.CP (360), ap. Ath. syn. 30.) It is scarcely likely, therefore, that he should allow himself to slip into such language, with its obvious theological escape-clause, when he is trying to commend the full divinity of the Holy Spirit in precisely the same way as he was upholding that ofthe Son in the oration. Nor, it may be remarked, is

Greg. so metrically inept as to be forced into using a word of dubious theological import merely because he could think of no other way of keeping his hexameter right. Hence only 6 yo: @eds, which states Greg.'s beliefsuccinctly, can be considered the correct text. (Note that the following & Oedv 2yvewv, together with Ocdv in the corresponding position in the next line, would make it easy to explain by assimilation a change from 6 jor Oeds to Gpoifeor.)

The words @ @edv éyywy emphasize Gregory's belief in the directness of his inspiration to proclaim true doctrine. Cf. Arc. 1.

4. Caillau's text which reads és in both halves of the line should be retained against suggestions in his note of reading xai 6 or, with Billius, «ai as. The masc. relative is easily assimilated to the following @«és in the first part ofthe line and may well be preserved for balance in the second, in preference to the grammatically correct 6. To read «ws would be to preserve the same sense but ina weakened form: the effect of baptism would be that man should become not God, but 'as' God.

The real difficulty in the line is the meaning of évavra. Caillau tr.

'manifeste' and Gallay follows him with his 'clairement'. (Billius does not translate at all.) But lexical investigation fails to provide

COMMENTARY ON ARC, 3. 4-5 any direct evidence for such a meaning: évavra means 'opposite'.

The only way, apart from guessing, by which one could arrive at a meaning 'clearly, openly' for évavra would involve some very dubious equations. Nicetas glosses €vavta by dvrixpus, without, however, making clear the way in which he understood that word.

For avrxpus may mean either 'opposite' or 'openly' (cf. LSJ s.v.).

But it is semantically unsound to assume that the virtual equivalence ofthe two words in the sense 'opposite' makes it possible to carry over to évavra the dvtixpus meaning 'openly'. It remains, therefore, to ask whether the passage will yield good sense if évavra is taken in the attested sense 'opposite'. Now the run of the line might suggest that €vavra and évéade are contrasted. If évéade is taken as 'in this world' (a regular usage from Pindar on: cf. LSJ s.v.), évavra might perhaps mean 'on the opposite side', i.e. 'in heaven'. I can find no instance of évavra in this precise sense, but it appears a reasonable extension of the normal meaning, especially when évédde is there to point the contrast. The Holy Spirit is God in heaven, the world of eternal verity, and he is God in the physical world, where, through baptism, he deifies believers. Greg.'s belief in the deification effected by the Holy Spirit in baptism is stated in or. 31. 28 (p. 181. 11-12, M. 36. 165); cf. also Hipp.t theoph. 8. (p.

262. 4 ff., M. 10. 860a), together with Lampe, The Seal of the Spirit, 144. Greg.'s teaching on deification in general is discussed in Arc. 4. g5-6 n., where references to other passages will be found. Another possibility might be to take évavva in the sense of évavr: and supply tov Oeov to give 'in the presence ofGod.' This | find difficult.

5. mavoBevis is not found before Patristic times, when it comes into use to denote aspects of divine power. PGL cites no other instance of the application of the word to the Holy Spirit. But there may be an indirect connection in Clem. str. 7. 7 (p. 33. 18 ff., M. 9. 4648). For close on his reference to 77) wavoGeved duvdjec Clement goes on: mvevpaTixes elvar orovddoas ba Tis dopiorov aydmys Fvwrat Tw mveduart. It is suggested in the edn. of F. J. A. Hort and J. E. B.

Mayor, Clement ofAlexandria: Miscellanies, Book VII (London and New York, tgo2), 226 that it is 'best to take zvetyar: here of the Holy Spirit, rather than to translate "in his spirit".' ('His' refers to the true gnostic.) If this is so, there is association ofwavo@er7s with the Spirit, ifnot application ofthe word to him. In carm. 2. 1. 38. 10,

M. 37. 1326A wavodevés is addressed to Christ. aiokédmgov: the only other example of the word cited in the 3. 5-6 lexica is from the 6th c. sc philosopher Epimenides, who applied it to the Eumenides (fr. 19, DK 1. 36). Whether Greg. knew this passage or other instances unknown to us or whether he believed that he was coining a new compound as, apparently, he coined aioAddepuos in carm., 1. 2. 15. 11 (M. 37. 766A), it is impossible to tell.

The word admirably renders the idea of the gifts of the Spirit in 1 Cor. 12. 1 ff. and Heb. 2. 4. The variant 6Af:déwpov, reported by Caillau (it occurs in Vat. gr. 482, fo. 83), is found also in LQ. It is not difficult to account for the appearance of this reading in MSS. It represents assimilation to the text of carm. 2. 1. 38. g—10 (M. 37.

13264): ald@vos we(pnua, weyaxdeés, GABiédwpe, Uibpor', oipdue, tavabevés, dobua voov...

6AB.6Swpos itself is not a common word, being found in most MSS at E. Hipp. 749 and AP 11. 69 (Paulus Silentarius, 6th c. ap). duvnpa first appears in this passage. It is possible that dyvijs ... xopeins may include in its meaning 'casti... chori (virginum)', as Caillau suggests, but more probable that the words have reference to the heavenly choir, as do similar words in Arc. 8. 61. Perhaps Is.

6. gegéofuov: the word goes back to the Homeric Hymns and to Hesiod, where it describes the life-giving forces ofthe earth (h. Ap.

341, A. Cer. 450, 4. Hom. 30. 9; Hes. Th. 693), and it is applied to various gods by Empedocles 6. 2 (PPF, p. 108; DK i. 312), A. Fr. 300.

7, Antipho 1; cf. also Ps.-Arist. Mu. 39113. Here we may suppose that it does duty for the Constantinopolitan Cwozordv, Symb. Nic.CP (ACO 2. 1. 2. p. 80. 12; H. 2. 2888), a word excluded by its metrical intransigence. But, metrical considerations apart, it is in Greg.'s style to find words with pagan religious associations and to naturalize them in Christian use; cf. Introd., IV (a). This is a good example. As Dr A. Meredith has suggested to me, this is a very apt word to set out the range of the Holy Spirit's gifts of physical and spiritual life, leading to eternal life. ty86mKov is an expression of the equality of the Holy Spirit with the other Persons of the Godhead. Again, we find a coinage of Gregory's, used also in carm. 1. 2. 9. 148 (M. 37. 679A). It corresponds to ibipoves, which Pindar had applied to the gods (N. 4. 65,

I. 6(5). 16) and which Gregory himself uses several times of Christ, e.g. carm. 2. 1. 38. 10 (M. 37. 13264, above, v. 5 n.), and also ofhuman

11g COMMENTARY ON ARC, 3. 6-9 rulers, carm. 2. 1. 32. 34 (M. 37. 13034), ep. 154 (M. 37. 206c, GCS Pp. 113. 5)- 7. Again, a technical term of the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed is excluded by metre, for éxzropevduevov cannot be fitted into a hexameter: see Symb. Nic.-CP (ACO 2. 1. 2, p. 80. 13; H. 2. 2888).

Greg., who elsewhere emphasizes the distinction between the Son and Spirit by contrasting yévvnois and éxzépevais, or. 31. 8

(p. 154. 10 ff, M. 36. 1g1af.), ef. 39. 12 (M. 36. 3488), is here content to use non-technical language, writing Wazpdoéev épyspevov. Indeed, anyone who saw these words out of context might well associate them not with the Spirit but with the Son, recalling as they do the expression used ofJesus in John 3. 2b. He is said to have 'come from' God (épxeo@a: dé is used). In this poem, the difference between the way in which the Son 'comes from' the Father and the way in which the Spirit 'comes from' him is made clear not by distinctions in the verb but in the discussions of wv.

37 fF. avtoKéAevorov: the tone of the word is different from that found when it is used by Classical authors (cf. LS] s.v.) and once in Nonnus, par.Jo. 19. 5 (M. 43. go1A), where it indicates a certain arrogation of authority. Here it has very much the sense of 'selfdetermined' which is associated with atroxivynros; cf. Gr. Nyss. or. cat. 2 (p. 15. 7, M. 45. 17¢). It is in this meaning that adroxéAevotos is found in other places in Nonnus: par.Jo. 5. 15 (M. 43. 7884), 18. 4

(8898). Cf. v. 42 n. below.

8. Aware of the open nature of épyduevov, Greg. guards against any confusion of the First and Second Persons by asserting the uniqueness of the relationship of the Son to the Father. It is this precise question, why the Spirit is not a second Son, which produces the anti-Eunomian distinction of yévynors and éxaépevors mentioned in the previous note; cf. or. 31. 7-8 (pp. 153 ff., M. 36. 140c ff), and below, v. 34 n.

9. duddoEov: in or. 42. 16 (M. 36. 476c) Greg. asserts his right to walk a middle path between Sabellians and Arians, beginning his summary offaith by claiming that the Three Persons are 6noovord re kai 64660€a, and thus cutting away the Arian subordination. So here, the equality ofthe Persons is guarded. Cf. also the adverb 60ddéws in or. 31. 14 (p. 163. 8, M. 36. 1494) with a similar intent. ce1€05: the emphasis may be not only on the stock idea that Godhead is 'invisible' but also that it is above all notions of form.

3. 9-16 Cf. Gr.Nyss. Eun. 1 (1. 89. 11, M. 45. 3214) and citations in PGL s.v. dveideos.

10-23. Scripture accommodates to human weakness in treating the Spirit's divinity The alleged silence ofScripture about the divinity ofthe Holy Spirit is treated at length in or. 31. 21-30 (pp. 171-86, M. 36. 156c—169

4), where Eunomius is addressed as the opponent to be confuted. There, as here, Greg. devotes himself to showing that the Holy Spirit is no gévov

Gedv cai Gypador, or. 31.

1 (p. 145. 6, M. 36. 1338). The contrast between what he is in his eternal being and the way in which he is manifested to men is fundamental and confusion must be avoided. In introducing the subject in or. 31. 21, Greg. claims no originality but says that he realizes that others have treated it before (p. 171. 1 ff, M.

36. 156), principally, no doubt, thinking of Athanasius AdSerapionem and Basil, De spiritu sancto; cf. J. Barbel, Gregor von Nazianz: Diefuinf theologischen Reden (Diisseldorf, 1963), 225 n. 36.

10. 'Inspired Law' means OT Scripture in general; see PGL s.v. vouos C8 b. iii. For ceAiéecor cf. Arc. 1. 16 n.

12 ff. The many evidences ofthe Spirit's divinity which Greg. claims may be deduced from Scripture are enumerated in or. 31. 29

(pp. 182 ff., M. 36. 1654 ff.). Here he confines himself to naming the conditions which make it possible to appreciate Scripture's indirect attestation. These are: (a) readiness of the human will; (6) personal reception of the Spirit; (c) mental clarity. These lines, by concentrating attention on the human side of the apprehension of divine truth, balance the emphasis on divine initiative found in the following lines and in lines like Arc. 1. 36.

M. Kertsch, Bildersprache bei Gregor von Nazianz (Graz, 1978), 1213, sees in v. 12 a reference to the figure of the road or river which divides only to come together again further down; cf. or. 31.

(p. 145. 7 ff, M. 36. 1338).

14. eigvoev: the figure may be a Christianized version of H. //. 8. 21, where éptw depicts the drawing down of Zeus from heaven (cf. ovpavioio V. 11).

15-16. Cf. the note on Arc. 1. 1-5. yupviyy .. . paviyv: similar language is found in or. 43. 68 (M. 36.

588). Basil, Greg. says, had been unable to give plain, unequivocal I2ZI COMMENTARY ON ARC.

3. 16-23 expression to the belief 'the Spirit is God', because of the personal dangers involved (yujvijs Tis tepi tod [Tveipatos dwvijs). égavvijs: is there here an echo ofNeoplatonic thought? 76 épavvév is found in Anon. in Parm. 2. 30 as the Beatific Vision. Such an association would add another facet to the notion of the beauty of the Godhead.

16b-23 correspond, in short form, to the argument of or. 31. 26

(pp. 178-9, M. 36. 161c ff). There three successive stages are spoken of: the OT, the NT, and the present age. In the first the Father was clearly revealed, the Son more faintly. The second made clear the Son but merely gave glimpses (p. 178. 6, 161C: dwéderée) of the Spirit's divinity. In the third stage, the Spirit dwells with men, giving clearer demonstration of his divinity. Then follows an expanded parallel to our present passage: ot yap jv dodadés, urj7w mis Tob Ilazpds Gedrytos 6uodoynbeians, tov Yidv éxdijAws xnpurreaGatunde rs Tou Yiot wapadexbeions, 76 [veda 76 "Ayiov... émdoprilecba, Cf. émdoprilecBar with dyfos (v. 18).

Greg. is here adumbrating the view that the development of the doctrine ofthe Holy Spirit shows an accommodation on the part of God to the weakness of human understanding and that such has been the divine method from the start of revelation. Though it is primarily the evidence ofScripture which is under discussion, it is clear that the era of the Son's revelation, beginning in the NT, extended to Greg.'s own day, through slow assimilation. This is why the third stage has taken so long in finding recognition.

H. E. W. Turner, in The Pattern ofChristian Truth (London, 1954), 266-7, refers to this argument in or. 31 in terms which have relevance for the present passage also. After mentioning similar treatment ofthe subject in Tertullian, Basil and Epiphanius, he outlines

Greg.'s version and concludes; 'Such caution harmonises well with the theological nervousness which St. Gregory displays in dealing with the Pneumatomachi.' But is this quite fair to Greg.' The chapter to which specific reference is made (p. 267 n. 1), or. 31. 26, is part of a forthright attack upon Eunomius and contributes to an unequivocal affirmation of the divinity ofthe Holy Spirit. Far from exhibiting 'nervousness', Greg. is quite aggressive. His argument for the delayed manifestation ofthe full divinity ofthe Holy Spirit in no way plays down Scriptural evidence (c. 29 is full of it), but simply takes account of the historical fact that, while the status of the Son was a matter of dispute, the Church had given little thought to the 3. 16-22 explicit development ofthat evidence into a doctrine of the Spirit's divinity. Greg.'s clear distinction between the essence of the Holy

Spirit and the mode of His manifestation allows him a consistent, not to say uncompromising, position.

18. &y8og ... &uotov, meaning "burden of belief they could not face', recalls John 16. 12.

19, &gyopévovor: catechumens may here be meant, as the word is used in Or. Cels. 3. 51 (p. 247. 9, M. 11. 988a), with the Church of earlier times likened to a catechumenate. Or the reference may be less technical, simply to any beginners or novices (cf. Caillau's tr.

'tironibus'). Theodoret used the words oi dpydéuevor to denote 'the ignorant' in a fairly general way, contrasted with of vereAccwpévor,

Cant. 3. 9-10 (S. 2, 87, M. 81. 125.4). Some such general sense may be all that is needed here; cf. also Arc. 7. 109-10 n.

20-3. The imagery ofmental illumination may be found in Classical authors (e.g., E. /T 1026), but the sense is greatly filled out by Christian writers to whom God is not merely the source of illumination but light itself. In this passage light and fire are not simply metaphors: God may be identified with both (cf. 32 below). Cf.

Moreschini, 'Luce'. The idea of God's accommodation to human capacity is one with which Greg. would have been familiar in his reading of Origen. The Alexandrian, for instance, has passages similar to those before us. In Cels. 6. 67 (M. 11. 1g00c; GCS 2. 137.

18 ff.) he writes: Zuvyov 5é rvyydvov 76 dAnBiwov dws éxiorarat, rit pev Secxréov Eorat Tas pappapuyas tive 6é dws, od TaptaTravTos adtov Tv Aapmpétyra éav7ou bia Thy Ent EvuTdpyovoar dobéveray rois 6dbaApmois éxeivou. Pr. 1. 2. 7 (M. 11. 1364; GCS 5. 37. 14 ff) may also be compared: 'Qui splendor fragilibus se et infirmis mortalium oculis placidius et lenius offerens et paulatim velut edocens et adsuescens claritatem luminis pati .

. capaces cos efficit ad suscipiendam gloriam lucis'. (On the idea of accommodation in general, cf. Turner, The Pattern ofChristian Truth, 258 ff.).

Kertsch, Bildersprache, 205-6 cites parallels in Gregory and points to Philo, Quod deus sit immutabilis (i. 284M. = ii. 74. C.-W.).

21. a&xdnototégovo: 'excessive', a meaning which may be compared with that found in or. 21. 23 (M. 35. 11088), 'immoderate'.

22. xvgvOodnéas: cf. LSJ for the meaning 'heated in the fire'. Here, it may be suspected, the word means more than 'ardentes' (the Caillau tr.), perhaps 'cherishing with warm (beams)'. Cf. LS] s.v. @a¢A7w,

3. 23-31 23. yAvKeooio @aous: this looks like a reminiscence ofH. Od. 16. 23, where the words yAvxepév ddos are addressed to Telemachus.

24-36. The stages ofrevelation 24. xgogaivev continues the idea of light, for the word has a basic sense of 'bring to light, manifest'.

25. Kho: cf. Arc. 2. 9 n.

26. The weight of the line falls on the first two words. In or. 31. 26

(p. 178. 5, M. 36. 161) it is duvdpdrepov which points the contrast with the revelation of the full divinity of the Father. Here Greg. specifies those to whom the Son's Godhead was revealed, albeit

'rather obscurely'. The 'wise' would include Moses who received the Law from Christ and prophets who foretold his coming.

A similar theme is taken up in the lines from L published by B.

Wyss, vv. 34 ff. (cf. Textual Introd., p. xii).

28. aiyAnevtoc: this is Homer's word for Olympus (JI. 1. 532, Od. 20.

103). The noun aiyAy came into Christian use to describe, e.g., Christ's divine nature (cf. PGL s.v.). For Greg.'s use of adjective and noun cf. Arc. 6. 13 and 4. 64. tixjotoawev: Caillau's tr. 'splendide promulgavit'. But this does not fit the context which calls for a limited manifestation ofthe Holy

Spirit in the second stage ofrevelation. LSJ gives only one reference for Uzactpdarw, to Philostratus, VA 2. 24, tr. 'flash or gleam by reflection'. Soph. cites that passage, together with the present one of Gregory, tr. simply 'gleam'. What is needed is something like "began to show gleams of or 'showed half-hidden gleams of , as PGL sees by offering 'illuminate only a little, reveal only partially'. Parallel senses are found in dwoAdurw v. 29 and vaodeixvupe (or. 31. 26, p. 178. 6, M. 36. 161).

29. txéAapwe: for the meaning 'began to shine' cf. e.g. Hdt. 1. 190.

30-1. The limits ofthe second stage ofrevelation are here fixed: from the Incarnation to Pentecost. But there is clearly a certain overlap between the second and the third stages, in that the full recognition ofthe Son's deity takes place during the third stage and with it goes the gradual recognition of that Spirit, announced for those who could comprehend it—the Aauzpdrepor of or. 31. 26. (p. 179. 1, M.

36. 1644)—in the teaching of Jesus, spectacularly proclaimed at Pentecost and slowly assimilated into the understanding of the Church over the centuries. yimooyot: cf. Acts 2. 3.

31-4 ojpa: the use ofthe word to depict a sign from heaven goes back to Homer (e.g. //. 13. 244) and recurs in Pindar (P. 4. 199) and (?) Aeschylus (Pr. 498). éx yOovoes dito represents Luke's émjp6y (Acts 1. 9). Greg.'s is a vivid expression, associated as it is with vigorous action in Homer

(e.g. JI. 6, 103, of leaping from a chariot).

32. Behind the first part of the line lie passages like Deut. 4. 24, 9. 3, Heb. 12. 29. On the third passageJ.Moffatt observes, JCC, Hebrews

(Edinburgh, 1924), 223: "There is no allusion to fire as purifying; ... it is (the) punitive aspect of God which is emphasised here, the divine {#Aos.' This is how Greg. understands the symbolism of fire here. The avenging is one of the two kinds of fire of which Greg. writes in or. 40. 36 (M. 36. 412). But whereas in the oration Greg. contrasts the avenging with the purifying fire, here the distinction is between punishment and illumination. It is the former contrast which is regularly found from Clem. Alex. onwards. He sets 76

¢pdsvyzov wp, the fire which purifies sinful souls, over against 76 Tman@ayov kai Bavavoor, str. 7. 6 (p. 27. 5 ff, M. 9. 449B); cf. Hort and Mayor's edn., pp. 250-1 n. Here the stress falls heavily on the purifying, over against the purely punitive, fire and this is true in a number of places in Origen, e.g. princ. 2. 10. 4 ff. (pp. 177 ff, M. 11.

236c ff.), Cels. 4. 13 (pp. 282-3, M. 11. 1041 ff), 5. 14-16 (pp. 15 ff, M. 11. 12014 ff). The idea that the two elements in fire to be distinguished are the punitive and the illuminating is found in Basil, hex. 6. 3 (G.

1. 52Af,, M. 29. 121c f.) Taking the Burning Bush (Exod. 3.2) as his model, Basil holds that burning and light are inseparable, in human terms, but that God can hold one element of the complex phenomenon fire in suspense (cyoAdZovaayv): in a similar way God can separate in the final recompense the natural elements of fire, cai 76 rev dais, els déAavaw Trois Stxalors, 76 Be

Tis Katcews dburnpdr, Tois koAaCopévors GroTaxOyjceabar (524 f., 121D).

John Climacus mentions Greg. in a passage on the heavenly fire, glancing at the teaching of or. 40. 36 and rendering the thought of the present line: 76 atré yap wtp xatavadioxov (Deut. 4. 24, etc.) kai dwrilov dds dvondlerat, scal. 28 (M. 88. 11370).

34. Cf. above, v. 8 n. Greg. presents an objection in similar language to his assertion that the Spirit is God and ézoodoior in or. 31. 10

(p. 156. 11 ff, M. 36. 1444 f.). In the following chapter he gives the example ofAdam, Eve and Seth.

3. 36-41 36. K&v0Gd': 'at this point also'. Greg. writes as one who can claim some measure of inspiration for the doctrine he teaches, corresponding to the consistency of his proclamation of the Holy Spirit's divinity and, thus, ofthe true unity ofthe Godhead. (Cf. Arc. 1. 1624 n.) 37-43. Distinction without division in the Godhead

37-9 uses the analogy of Eve and Seth to show that different modes of origin are compatible with consubstantiality. The same argument is set out in or. 31. 11 (pp. 158-9, M. 36. 1440 ff.) and or. 39. 12 (M. 36.

348c). Eve and Seth, though coming into being in different ways, are both alike human and consubstantial with Adam. So the Son and the Spirit, bearing the differences of yévenars and éxadépevais, are both alike divine and consubstantial with the Father.

37. doyxeyovouo: the word is applied again to Adam in Arc. 7. 78, carm.

1. 1. 18. 3 (M. 37. 4814).

38. tpitopwos: Eve was composed oftwo elements, 'half being the rib 'cut' from Adam and halfthe flesh created by God around it (Gen. 2.

21-2). Cf. qu7a, applied to Eve in or. 31. 11 (p. 158. 8, M. 36. 1440).

41. nodcbe gtguwv 166° EveoGev: Billius and Caillau agree in their understanding of these words, tr. respectively 'Celsius inferiusve locans' and 'Aut supra statuens aut infra', and in this they are followed by Gallay who writes 'en mettant lun avant ou au-dessus de l'autre' (p. 129; repr. Devolder 68). Dishonour is brought upon the Godhead by introducing the distinctions of'higher' and 'lower'.

But there are difficulties in this view—which requires correcting 768' to 76 8', cf. Denniston, Greek Particles, 166. An assumed contrast between zpdéo6e and évepfev has forced a disjunction upon this half-line where none exists. Now the basic meaning of zpdade (the poetic form ofzpéo@ev) is 'in front, before' (ofspace or time). Only in a secondary sense does it denote priority ofrank. Is it not, therefore, possible to take the words simply as: 'adducing this (thing = analogy) from below'? Greg. is thus warning his reader of the dangers of analogy (cf. vv. 54-70 below). To apply slavishly to the Trinity the analogy ofAdam, Eve, and Seth would clearly dishonour it. Adam, for instance, is anterior to Eve and both are anterior to Seth. Such temporal distinctions are meaningless and totally misleading if applied to the Godhead. The following lines support this interpretation, stressing precisely those attributes of the divine

3. 41-2 nature which distinguish God from man, the only epithet which might favour the 'higher-lower distinction being éudcemrov (v. 42); in dvors, of course, as we shall see, implies the denial ofsuch a distinction.

41b. in qvorg: the words recur in v. 71 below; cf. also v. 73. In Greg.'s terms the ground of unity of the Three Persons, that which they have in common, may be expressed as ducts, odcia, or Gedrns, to be distinguished from the principles ofdifferentiation, /d.d6ryres. It is évois which takes the weight of Greg.'s answer to all heresies in or. 33. 16 (M. 36. 236A), where xia Gedrns is amplified as: piav diow év tptaiv id:67n ow. The peroration of or. 26 shows a similar pattern: pia duos, tpeis idi6THTEs, Eis Oeds, 6 éxi TavTwr, Kai bid TaVTWY,

Kai év maa, 19 (M. 35. 1252¢); cf. Eph. 4. 6. Cf. also or, 32. 21 (M.

36. 197C), carm. 2. 1. 12. 310-11 (M. 37. 11884). The unity of the Persons thus depends entirely upon the very content of the word

'God', upon the unvarying divine activity which duacs denotes. (On this, see Prestige, God in Patristic Thought, 234-5. Cf. further Barbel,

Funftheol. Reden, 292 ff.) dpetooy: the use of negative terms like duetpov and dxzorov, dxpovoy in the following line, together with dvapyos, dvairios (Are.

I. 25), dmetpiros (27), danxtos, dowpmaros (Are. 2. 16), dxéaotos, dvapyos, dd%petos (Arc. 4. 39), places Greg. in a tradition which goes back to Plato and continues into the Middle Ages, a tradition which finds it so difficult to make meaningful positive statements about the Being ofGod that it concentrates on negatives as giving a kind of approximation. But, just as Plato has a place for positive affirmation when he speaks (Rep. 308£) of the Form of the Good

(though it was left to later Platonists to make the identification with God), so Greg. finds positive affirmation possible in his attempt at definition: Oeds pév éatw ovcia, mpw@tov Kady, carm. 1, 2. 34. 1 (M.

37945 A). See further Gottwald, De Gregorio Nazianzeno Platonico, 19, Gerlitz, Aufferchristliche Einfhisse, 176-7; Moreschini, 'Platonismo',

1374 ff 42. &ktutov &yoovov: to describe Godhead thus in general terms was straightforward enough. But Greg.'s anti-Eunomian intention is that the epithets be applied individually to the Son and the Spirit. éie08eoov: again, the word is to be specifically applied to the Second and Third Persons. In particular, the freedom of the Spirit had been a point of dispute between Basil and his opponents in De spiritu sancto, where Basil had resisted their attempt to apply

COMMENTARY ON ARC, 3. 42-4 eAed@epos to the Spirit as indicating an intermediary state between that of master and servant, Spir. 51. (G. 3. 42 ff., M. 32. 160c ff).

Here Greg. is maintaining the fullest possible meaning of 'free' (cf. n. on v. 7 above), with divine freedom tacitly contrasted with man's conditional freedom as it is described in Arc. 7. 100-1. éo0)6v: classical and poetic, éo8Ads may be taken to carry all the senses of the Biblical dya@és as it is applied to God (cf. ArndtGingrich s.v. dya@ds).

Opocertov: apparently a hapax legomenon. The reader's attention is again drawn to the status of the Holy Spirit, as is the case with 6u66o€or in v. 9. The intention ofthe word is similar to that of the expression in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (ACO

2. p. 80; H. 2. 288): 76 odv [Tarpi nai Yid cuvipocxuvotpevor Kai ovvdofalouevor.

43. &paotypaot: dudpvyya deserves a mention in PGL, as LSJ offer no metaphorical use which corresponds to this application to the Trinity. A similar line is found in carm. 2. 2 (poem.), 4. 88 (M. 37.

152A): €v ddos év tptcaois duaptypacw laoféowm. This helps to make clear the imagery of the present passage. The picture is not one of three separate lights, but rather of three 'gleaming facets' as one might see light from a jewel (cf. Tryph. 71). The figure is not to be pressed too far: the facets of a gem merely reflect and do not produce light.

Koopov édicowy: cf. carmm. 2. 1. 42. 19 (M. 37. 13454) and 2. 2

(poem.), 3. 5 (M. 37. 14804) for similar words, with Christ or the Logos as subject. éAioow is something of a favourite word with Greg. in his verse; cf. e.g. carmm. 1, 2. 1. 71 (M. 37. 5274), I. 2. 14. 15

(756a), 2. 1. 11. 1945 (1165). In the Arcana it recurs in 4. 16. Caillau's tr. in the present passage is 'gubernans', a version presumably based on éxamples like E. /T 1145 (eiAicowv @:doovs) or Stratt. 66. 5 (eAiocew yopovs). But it should be noted that the fundamental sense

'turning, whirling, about' is not lost (being indeed present in Euripides and Strattis): it is in making the dancers or the bands of women 'move round' that the subject 'leads' them. The same is true here, where a suggested tr. is 'keeping the universe in its whirling course'.

44-53. The evidence from baptism Arc. 8. 87-99 offers the other major reference to baptism in the Arcana.

3. 44-7 44-5. Rom. 6. 4, together with Col. 2. 12, provides the NT idea of dying and rising with Christ in baptism. véos: cf. Col. 3. ro. éyeipopan: cf. cuvnyépOy7e, Col. 2. 12. nadioavtos is a forceful, not to say violent, word as used e.g. by Sophocles in OT 192. Here it is appropriate to describe the swift action ofbaptism which rushes a man back from death to life. és pcos; the words have a twofold meaning, contrasting the darkness of death with the light of life, but equally glancing at the concept of baptism as enlightenment. For the second idea, a common one, reference may be made, e.g., to Clem. paed. 1.6 (p. 105. 20,

M. 8. 2814), G. Nyss. or.cat. 32 (p. 122. 12, M. 45. 84), Bas. hom. 13.1

(2. 113&, M. 31. 424c) and in Nazianzen himself, or. go. 1 (M. 36.

360c) al. (Cf. Ysebaert, Greek Baptismal Terminology, 158 ff.; C. Moreschini, 'Luce'.

46. gaeoqopov tEavétersev is a reminiscence of 2 Pet. 1. 19, xai dwoddpos dvateiAn év tais kapdiats Uudv, perhaps combined with a memory of Ps. 111 (112 Heb.) 4: 8 é€avéretAev év oxdrer dws Tois evbéor. But daecddpov must be taken in a way different from any possible for dwoddpos in 2 Pet; see e.g. C. Bigg, JCC (Edinburgh,

1901), 269;J.E. B. Mayor (London, 1907), 110; H. Windisch, HNT 15 (1951), go, for discussion of possibilities. For there the word denotes a divine, here it has a human, subject. Greg. speaks ofhimselfas a 'bearer of light' in a derivative way: he is one who has been enlightened by baptism. The word is thus in Greg.'s reinterpretation analogous with Xp:oroddpos and Peoddpos, Ign. Eph. g. 2

(Bihlmeyer, p. 85. 14-15, M. 5. 6528).

47. The connection ofbaptism with purification is a common one. Cf. references in PGL s.v. xé8apars A. 1. Greg.'s use ofthe idea may be exemplified in passages like carm. 1. 2. 34. 200 (M. 37. 960A), orr. 38.

16 (M. 36. 3298), 40. 8 (368). ov wevoopnat: this is an emphatic statement, contrasting the writer's loyalty to his baptismal profession not simply with the implied infidelity of all who deny the Spirit's divinity but with the actual betrayal of his baptism practised by Eunomius. The charges against him are given by Sozomen, /.e. 6. 26 (M. 67. 1361): dda: 5€

Ties, mpwrov totrov Edvéutov roAuyjoat eionyjoacbar ev pud Kkatabvce yphvat émreAciv tiv Oeiav Barrow ... Socrates writes of the Eunomians: 76 Bdmrioua wapexydpagav. ot yap eis rv

Tptdda GAA' els tév tou Xptorod Banrilova Pdvaror, he. 5. 24

3. 47-54 (M. 67. 6494), while Didymus Alexandrinus, writing at much the same time as Greg. (Quasten, Patrology, iii. 87-8, dates his De Trinitate as "composed between 381 and 392'), asserts: of 5é Eduwovavoi pév, dca 76 piav xatddvaw troreioGat, Aéyortes uovov eis T6v Odvarov tod Kupiov Banrilec@ar, Trin. 2. 15 (M. 39. 720A).

Cf. Philostorgius, f.e. 10.

4 (GCS 127. 12-16, M. 65. 5858). A rather different account, however, is given by Nyssen in one of the treatises which Jerome reports that he and Nazianzen heard read out during the period of the Council of Constantinople, de vir. ill. 128

(M. PL 23. 7138). In the second of his works AdversusEunomium he quickly comes to the baptismal command of Matt. 28. 10, claiming that the orthodox make no subtraction from, addition to, or alteration in the faith which was handed down to them from the Apostles.

Anyone who substitutes in that baptismal formula words ofhis own is zaThp wevdous. Nyssen goes on to specify forms ofheretical tampering such as speaking not of the Son but of épyov xai xriopa Kai moinua and ofthe Spirit as xrioua xriopatos Kai €pyov Epyov, Eun.

2 (M. 45. 4688ff., Jaeger 1. 363. Cf. Epiphanius Haer. 76. 54 (GCS 414. 3 ff, M. 42. 637B), where it is stated that the Eunomians baptize into the names of the Son and the Holy Spirit, but that they are explicitly designated cexziouévos and «7ofév.) But whatever the precise terms of the Eunomian baptismal formula, it is clear that its abuse by such a warjp Yevdous might well provoke in Greg. the response ov Wevoouat. Cf. orr. 33. 17 (M. 36. 2364 fF), 34. 11 (2528).

48. dtatarnSaue: for Greg.'s horror at any 'division' of the Godhead cf. Arc. 2. 25 ff. n., together with v. 35 of the same poem and v. 84 below.

49. The aposiopesis may be intended to recall Matt. 26. 24 caddy av avv@ «7A. The construction is Homeric, as Od. 20. 331 shows; cf.

Monro, Homeric Grammar, §324, p. 295. It continued in Attic use as one of a group of expressions denoting 'fitness, suitability' and the like which dispensed with av; cf. Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, §§ 416,

43350. yaoiopatos né Aoetodv is best taken as a hendiadys, expressing the assurance ofthe gracious gift which issues from baptism.

51-4. Caillau in his note shows some doubt about the text they print in v. 51, wondering whether to read dAos or 6Ay for dAov. But an understanding of the relationship between wv. 51-2a and 52b-3 makes the printed text quite defensible. The argument is: If God

3. 51-6 cleansed man in his entirety, man should worship God in his entirety. (The cleansing ofbaptism means that man is made God.) If man worships only part of the Godhead in baptism, only part of divinity is bestowed on him in baptism.

52. Billius' reading 76 8° dvicov is found in Cu. With this text 76 dvicov would be equivalent to njv dvicdéryTa, dvicdtms being a word which Greg. employs in or. 29. 14 (p..95. 5, M. 36. 934) to denote alleged inequality within the Godhead. The meaning would then emerge as: 'May whatever mortal is a sinner keep inequality (in the Godhead) ..

. (i.e., this is a doctrine fit only for sinners).' But the printed text also gives good sense, with 76 faov = 'a just recompense'. In either case the optative can be defended as good Homeric

Greek. doTIs GALtTeGs is an echo of Arc. 1. 9 (where see n.). Here the words are in the Callimachean position as the concluding feet ofthe verse.

53. Greg. is suggesting that his opponent has adopted an absurd position. He is not considering the possibility ofany partial deification but claiming that division ofGodhead amounts to its negation and that the gift of deification in the name of a divided God is illusory. yéoas here has its simplest sense of 'gift', 'privilege'.

54-70. There is no inferiorgrade within the Godhead 54-9 raise the question "What is meant by saying that the Son and the Spirit hold "second place"?

55. év Betoun Aoyors: John 14. 28, e.g., was regularly cited by those who preached the inferior status of the Son, while the 'sending' of the Spirit was held to imply his lower status.

55-6: Bevogopoiny / avdodow: PGL cites only this passage and Are. 4. 94 for the @evo-form. This is not surprising. For how often were theological writers under Greg.'s constraint of avoidinga tribrach? For the interpretation of the word in this context PGL offers two suggestions: that the word refers to the writers of Scripture, 'or perh. of theologians'. The first alternative would provide a doublet to the preceding words: the second would take cognisanceofthe use of the actual word devrepos by theological writers of note. The second is the more pointed interpretation, as Sevrepos itself, as distinct from passages which were held to imply its meaning, is not used in Scripture in this connection. If Greg. were thinking of COMMENTARY ON ARC, 3, 55-8 Fathers who had called the Son dedrepos, he might begin with Justin. In 1 Apal. 13. 3 (M. 6. 3484) he writes of the Son and the Holy

Spirit as év devrépa ywpa and év tpiry rééex respectively. These words may be cleared of the suggestion of subordinationism—cf. the edn. of A. W. F. Blunt (Cambridge, 1911), pp. xxii-xxiii, but the same cannot be said of Origen, who, in princ. 1. 3. 5 (p. 56. 3, M. 11.

150B) and Cels. 5. 39 (p. 43. 22, M. 11. 12448), makes a subordinationist position clear by his use of S5evrepos. (For other references cf. GCS 5. 55 n.) But if Greg. is indeed thinking of earlier writers, it is not with the intention ofdefending or even explaining their position. He simply asserts as a principle that no interpretation is acceptable which gives to the Son and the Holy Spirit the kind of =~ 'second place' which divides the Godhead. The implication is that the writings alluded to are amenable to this understanding, but there is no attempt to prove this. On subordinationism, v. Prestige,

God in Patristic Thought, ch. 7 and index refs.

57. soins PadvKoAnov: the adjective, literally applied in descriptions of divine or human female figures in Classical authors, is once found metaphorically in Pindar, of the 'deep-bosomed earth' (P. 9.

1o1). A shift in meaning towards a simple sense 'deep', in which the -xoA7os element is passed over, is found in Nonnus (D. 12. 327, cf.

40. 534, 21. 94). Greg. may be thought to have anticipated Nonnus.

Yet, despite the association ofWisdom with the Son—e.g. or. 30. 2

(pp. 109 ff, M. 36. 105 ff.)—carm. 1. 2. 1. 81 (M. 37. 528.) shows that Wisdom may still be a personified female figure. This may have influenced the choice of adjective here.

58. In Pl. Rep. 511 f. occurs the expression éx' apyjv aveAdévres, meaning 'going up to, back to, a first principle'. We have very much the same sense here. Wisdom goes back to an eternal source, without dividing the Godhead.

Oitav refers to the Father. Of him it is said in Arc. 2. 5: oddev Env peyddAoto [lazpés maépos. To the bare dvapyos by which the Father is designated in Arc. 1. 25 pi{a adds an image but no new thought.

Greg. is striving after the same truth in or. 28. 13 (p. 43. 7, M. 36. 44.4) in calling the Father % zpc77 aizia and in or. 29. 3 (p. 77. 8, M. 36.

778) when he speaks ofhim as 76 aiv:ov. But in all these expressions Greg. is trying to avoid the suggestion of inferiority of the Son and the Spirit which, as Cyril reported him, Eunomius held to be inherent in the use of aizcos and similar words: Setrepos €arat row watpos 6 vids, aitiov avtév Eywr, thes. g (5'. 68c). This sums up

3. 58-62 precisely what this section of the poem is concerned to deny. The language oféifa relating to Father and Son goes back to Or. fr. 69 in Jo. (p. 538. 8). Cf. Arc. 2. 31.

59. xoAvoertov: this is the only example recorded in the lexica in which the word, uncommon in any case, has the sense 'worshipped as plural'. It recurs in v. 73.

60. Greg. talks of the relationship of povds and tpids in or. 2g. 2

(pp. 74 ff, M. 36. 76a f.). Cf. especially: d:a rotiro povds dz' dpyis eis Sudda kuneioa, wéxpt tpiddos Earn (p. 75. 7 f., 76B), where da totto follows the assertion that, though the Persons differ in number, they are not divided in essence. The present passage minimizes any inadvertent suggestion of Sabellianism which might be suspected in the oration. For, despite Barbel's attempt to remove the suspicion by different punctuation (Finf theol. Reden, 13. n. 8), the substance of Mason's n. on the passage still stands, with its assertion that the language is perilously close to Sabellianism. (For the subsequent history of the influence ofthis section in or. 29, cf.J.

Draseke, BZ 15 (1906), 143 ff.) Cf. 71-93 n.

61-70 deal with, indeed dispense with, certain 77initarian analogies. It is possible that Greg.'s use of pilav in v. 58 suggested to him the wisdom ofguarding against the misuse of analogy. For ifsé{a were thought to indicate a threefold figure like Tertullian's celebrated

'radix—frutex—fructus', adv.Prax.

8 (M. PL 2. 186p ff; CSEL 47.

238. 19 ff.), objections would come to mind. He does not, however, discuss the use of pi{a, but switches his attention to countering possible errors which might spring from the parallel figure, in Tert.

'fons—flumen—rivus', in Greg. 7épos—any7j —zorauds. A similar rejection of analogy is found in or. 31. 31 ff. (p. 186. 10 ff, M. 36.

16g ff), where Greg. dismisses the images of mouth—spring— river, sun—ray—light, and the reflection of sunlight upon a wall.

But Greg. is prepared, on occasion, to allow himself some use of analogy. His likening of the Three Persons to three suns joined together and sharing one light, a figure produced in passing in or.

31. 14(p. 163. 3 f., M. 36. 149A), must be accounted careless. (Cf. v. 71 below.) On the credit side is the analogy of vots—Adyos—zvetya, orr, 12. 1 (M. 35. 8448), 23. 11 (1161¢ f.) which, though only partly developed in Greg., has affinities with the mental analogy put forward by Augustine in De Trin. 15. 17 ff. (M. PL 42. 1069 ff).

61-2. The basic figure of outflowing water applied to the Godhead may be traced back toJohn 7. 38-9, where the Holy Spirit's coming

3. 61-2 is predicted. Hippolytus indicates the relationship of Father and Logos by the figure of water flowing from a fountain, oé?. 11.

(Nautin, p. 253, M. 10. 817c). Tertullian develops the threefold pattern in adv.Prax.

8 (M. PL 2. 1868 ff.; CSEL 47. 237. 19 ff). In the Arian disputes considerable use was made of wyy7% in putting forward the orthodox answer to Arius. Athanasius, for instance, defends Dionysius against a charge of Arianism by showing that the figure of the river flowing from the spring is a perfectly acceptable image of consubstantiality: rév Adyov efvar ws worayév dé anys Kai BAaorév ané pilns nai téxvov axé yovéws Kai dds éx dwrds Kai Cw éx CAs, Dion. 1g (p. 60. 15 ff., M. 25. 5088); the text of Dionysius' letter, with the 777 illustration, is given in the previous paragraph, ibid. 18. (p. 60. 2, M. 25. 505). Cf. Ar. 1. 19

(M, 26. 524). Later Basil uses the idea in his contention against Eunomius, £un. 2. 25 (1. 261£, M. 6298) as does Nyssen in his reply to a rather naive tritheism, tres dii (M. 45. 128c); other references are collected in PGL s.v. zyy% B 6 a. Now there can be little doubt that Greg. would accept this much of the figure, the characterization of the relationship of the Father and the Son in terms of source and stream. Anyone who could use fifa in this way (cf. v. 58n.) could use zny¥%. Greg.'s misgivings begin at the point where the attempt is made to extend the analogy to include the Holy Sprit, the point reached by Tertullian long before the Arian dispute. Greg.'s objections, as he gives them in or. 31. 31

15-16, M. 36. 1694 f.), are twofold. The instability of water as a medium might suggest a corresponding instability in the Godhead. The uniformity of water as a medium does not allow a sufficient distinction of Persons: é¢@adués yap Kai my} Kai

ToTauds €v €orw apibu@, diaddpws synmatiléueva (p. 187. 8-9, 1698). "The wheel is come full circle." The analogy is accused, in the second criticism, of that very Sabellianism which Tertullian had intended it to combat. See E. Evans, Tertullian's Treatise Against Praxeas (London, 1948), 238, for discussion of Tertullian's use of this analogy and Augustine's criticism of it in defide et symbolo, 17

(M. PL 40. 189-go=CSEL 41. 18 ff).

In detail the rejected analogy differs from Tertullian's. The latter's elements are the spring, the river, the irrigation canal, while

Greg. places the spring in the middle, fed by the underground passage (zépos) and leading to the river. A third variant is found in Athanasius, who writes: 7aéAw re rod [latpds dvros anys, Tob Se

3. 61-4 Yiow worapov Aeyouévou, wivew Aeyéueba td Iveta, ep.Serap. 1.

63. Tatian, in his desire to show that the Logos in issuing forth from the Father caused no diminution in the divine economy, used the figure of the torch which lights another and subsequent torches without loss of its own light, erat. 5 (Schwartz, p. 5. 27 ff., M. 6.

817A): Womep yap a6 pds babds avdmrerat ev mupa TOAAG, Ts 8é mpwms babes b1a rH Ea taHv woAA GY Sadav ovK EXaTroObTAL Th dws, obtw Kai 6 Adyos mpoceAbwyr ex THs TOU [latpés Suvdpews ovK dAoyor memoinke Tov yeyevynxéta. The same reasoning is taken up by Nyssen in a Trinitarian argument in favour ofthe equality ofthe

Holy Spirit, when, using the same word as Nazianzen (Aay7ds), he wrote: ef 6€ kwAter oddév mip elvar Thy Tpitny Aaumdda, Kav éx apodafovons avaddudy ddoyds, tis 7 codia twv b1a Tara THY TOU ayiov Ilvetpwaros afiav afereiv aoeBuis vopuildvTwy, éxerdHmep peta [larépa xai Yidv yp.0uxbn mapa ris dwvis; Maced. 6 (M. 45.

13088). This idea of transference without diminution is found in Numenius and Plotinus; cf. CHLGEMP 102-3 (P. Merlan).

The form of the analogy to which Greg. objects is referred to in or, 30. 6 (p. 117. 11 ff, M. 36. 1128). In a context which mentions

Sabellians he rejects the image of a torch which is temporarily snatched from a pyre and then returned to it. This 'resolving back into the Father' (dvaAu@évros, 1.

12) reflects the language of Marcellus of Ancyra. Cf. or. 25. 16 (M. 35. 12214). mvoKains: the visual effect is strengthened by this word, introducing the picture ofmourners lighting torches froma funeral-pyre.

64. The teaching here attacked is related to that of the Adyos apodopixés and évdidberos, an originally Stoic doctrine which the Apologists developed to explain the relationship of the pre-existent

Christ to the Christ manifested in creation and revealed in history.

(Cf. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought, ch. 6; Kelly, Doctrines, gs ff; Wolfson, The Philosophy ofthe Church Fathers, i. 192 ff.) But, though mpoiwyv and évéo& bear a close resemblance to zpodopixds and évéiaGeros, the line refers to a specialized and individual interpretation, that of Marcellus of Ancyra (cf. Kelly, Doctrines, 240 fF.; id., Creeds, 102 ff., 108 ff.; Quasten, Patrology, iii. 197 ff). Marcellus envisaged the Word's 'going forth' as an expansion of the Monad, without his becoming a second izéoraars. His 'going forth' is thus subject to his 'remaining within' the Godhead: the duds signifies a temporary and reversible process.

Eusebius supplies several 3. 64-6 parallels for the language ofwhich Greg. complains. For Marcellus' understanding of 'going forth' cf. MdpxeAAos ov BovAerar peév aAnOa@s Tov viev ex TOU maTpds yeyevvAabar, ws vidv Ca@vra Kai

Upeatw@Ta, ola bé Adyor avrovy anuavrikéy Tivos 7 TpooTaKTLKGV mpoeAbeiv rob Geot daoxet, é. th. 2.8 (p. 106. 25 ff., M. 24. 913B). See also the following lines, which are quoted from Marcellus himself, fr. 36 (31 Rettb.) rgo. 29 ff.). €vd00: wiuvwv may correspond to évdov pwévev in Marcell. 1. 1 (p. 4. 15, M. 24. 717B): Adyos, Evdov pévwr ev novydlovTt 7m matpi évepywy bé€ év tw Thv Kriow Synptoupyeiv,

Guoiws Wueréepw ev ccwamow pev jovydlorm év b€ Pbeyyopéevors évepyouvri, unless we should read uév wv: Eusebius goes on to argue that this view is insufficiently distinguished from Jewish belief. Cf. also: Adyov S€ dnaw (sc. MapxeAdos) Evdov évta év Tw few more pev évepyeia Spactixy zporévat, wore bé Evdov evar ev avTw@ uh évepyotvra, é. th. 3. 3 (p. 157. 4 f£, M. 24. 1001B).

65-7. These lines strongly recall or. 31. 32 (p. 188. 8 ff, M. 36. 169c): paptapuyyyv tiva AAvaKiv Toixw mpooacTpdnTroveary, Kai 7eEpttpénovoar €f VbdTwr Kiwiaews, Fv 7 axtis UwoAaBotca bia Tod év péow aépos, eira oxefeioa Tw avTitiTw, maAuos éyévero Kai mapdadofos. This analogy is introduced by 'I once heard a man suggest

... but there is no hint of his identity. The precise point of the analogy is scarcely more obvious than its author. Mason (p. 188.

8 n.) is disinclined to see a direct analogy of sunbeam, water, and wall, though this may seem likely at first sight. "The point, however, appears to lie rather in the junction of unity with multiplicity (the number three being for the moment lost sight of) displayed in the vibrations of the sunbeam.' The passage before us is even less amenable to the discovery ofdirect correspondences. Greg. uses the figure merely to discredit abhorrent suggestions of flux and instability.

There is a full discussion ofthe background to the imagery ofthis passage in Kertsch, Bildersprache, 210-16. Perhaps we may single out as ofparticular interest the citations ofPlu. defacie in orbe lunae

23, 936B—-c and Bas. her. 2. 7 (G. 1. 198, M. 29. 454 f.). See also Trisoglio, "La poesia della Trinita', 734.

66. xeoitoopos: cf. Opp. H. 2. 309, together with wepitpéovcay in the passage from or. 31. The variant wepiépouos (cf. app. crit.) represents a scribal attempt to find a common word for the rare 7epitpoxos. (Oppian and the present passage are the only lexical citations.)

Copyrighted Material COMMENTARY ON ARC.

3. 66-71 aotatéovoa: something of the flavour of this word may be caught from Plutarch's use of it to describe the ever-changing, unstable motion of the sea (Crass. 17). Here it admirably presents the fleeting glints of sunlight reflected on a wall. Cf. doraros, v. 68.

67. For the structure of the line, see Introd., p. 62.

68. dgotatog: what Greg. takes to be a suitable subject of dararos is dopa, carm.

1. 1, 6. g (M. 37. 4304). Epicurus' application of the word to 7éxyy may be compared, ep. 3. 133 (p. 65 U.). b€ovoa: it is men who may be called a foujs ... yovos, carm. 1. 2.

15. 43 (M. 37. 7694). Similar expressions are found in carmm. 1. 2. 9.

10 (M. 37. 6684), 1. 2. 14. 73 (M. 37. 7614), or. 14..7(M. 35. 8658 £). Cf.

H. M. Werhahn, Siyxprocs Biwv (Wiesbaden, 1953), 95.

69. xdiav ovvioioa: again, language attributed to Marcellus seems to be in Greg.'s mind. guveéva: here would correspond to Marcellus' cvoréAAeo@ar, the verb which Eusebius uses when he is reporting his opponent's teaching ofthe 'contraction' which is correlative with the 'expansion' (7Aariveo@ar) of the Monad into Dyad and Triad, e. th. 2. 6 (p. 103. 22, M. 24. goBa), 2. 9 (p. 108. 34, 9174). t6 Euxedov: Euredos is a word which would carry with it a range of association for the well-read. Homer finds here a word to delineate what is reliable (e.g. //. 6. 352), events that are certain to take place (e.g. Od. 8. 30), or things that are everlasting (//. 8. 521), and later writers pick up these meanings. éuzedos, therefore, is at the other pole from human experience in Greg.'s thought, as he shows in the couplet carm, 1. 2. 14. 27 £., M. 37. 7574:

Eurredov obbévéywye poos JoAepow moTapoio aiév émepyduevos, éorads odbév Exwv.

Cf. Werhahn, loc. cit.

70. The idea is similar to the biblical view of spiritual sacrifice. If righteousness in general may be thought ofas a sacrifice, as in Ps. 4.

5 Heb.), the extension to right thinking is an easy one.

The relationship of'Monad'and 'Triad'

Greg. has already, in v. 60, juxtaposed Monad and Triad in a compressed, epigrammatic way. He must now try to make good his right to use both terms.

3. 71-3 71, When this line is compared with wv. 41 and 43, it will be seen that there is a change ofemphasis. ij ducts is still the ground of unity, but the separateness ofthe Three is stressed in a way which may be thought unhelpful: the three lights are like the three suns of or. 31.

14 (p. 163. 3-4, M. 36. 1494), on which cf. vv. 61-70 n. There is no hint of how they are related, in causal terms. Is one light the source of the others? If so, why is the torch analogy rejected (63)? The impression given there is that the whole figure is unacceptable, not merely the suggestion of return to a single source. Cf. Norris 198-9. éotyouctau: this is, like guzedor (v. 69), an evocative word. Cf.

Empedocles fr. 27 (DK i. 324), Hes. 7h. 779, Call. Ap. 23, A.R. 4. 816, Ps. 111 (112 Heb.). 8, Luke 16. 26 for a variety of ways in which stability, fixity, strength, are indicated. Of later writers,

Ps.Manetho is like Greg. in finding a place for the word in didactic verse 2(1). 3, 40 Koechly).

72-3. wovas vijovOuos: Marcellus may again be the target of these words or, more generally, the Sabellianism which he was taken to represent. In e. th. 2. 4 (p. 102. 24-5, M. 24. gos a) = fr. 71 = 62 Rettb.

(p. 198. 22) Eusebius quotes Marcellus as speaking ofovas .. . dd:aiperos an expression to which Greg.'s words could well be taken as: equivalent, and charges him with Sabellianism; cf. ¢. th. 3. 4 (p. 158.

14 f., M. 24. roo4B) = fr. 67 = 60 Rettb. (p. 198. 2). The poetic form viptO.0s is found in Theoc. 25. 57, Lyc. 415, meaning 'countless'.

The correlation ofpovds and tpids is an important one for Greg. to maintain, as it had been for Athanasius; cf. hom. inMt. 11. 27 (M.

25. 220A). In or. 29. 2 (p. 75. 7 ff.) Greg. includes the middle term dvds. The terms are related directly to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in language of incorporeal passionless begetting and of emission.

For Greg. tp:ds is a word of frequent occurrence and rich association. Where j.ovds stresses the inoriginate and indivisible, zpids at once reinforces the idea of absolute unity and gives scope for the development of notions of the divine relationships of the Three

Persons. Cf. Norris on or. 29. 2, pp. 133-4 n. modvoentog: cf. v. 59 n. a@kéaotos: Greg., as always, is anxious to avoid the kind of division which makes the Second and Third Persons less God than the First. He is searching for a way of expressing distinction without division and subordination, walking the path between Sabellianism and Arianism, as he says in or. 34. 8 (M. 36. 249a), cf. 42. 16 (476C).

The distinction is here made in terms of dp:Oués, not, as more 3. 73-83 regularly in Greg. (cf. v. 41b n.) in terms of /é:6rns. The use of dp:Ou6s may be paralleled in or. 29. 2 (p. 75.6, M. 36. 768): are «av apibpa diadépyn, 7H ye ovola pH téuveca:. Later Cyril was to distinguish in this way, e.g. in thes. 12 (5". 110A): 6 marhp Kai 6 vids év jév eit cata duow, dio dé év dpifuw. The principle there applied to the Father and the Son could be extended to the Holy

74. tovodovlpa: the meaning 'thrice numbered', found in Orac. apud Luc, Alex, 11, is changed to 'three in number'.

75. In this line Greg. gives concise expression to the doctrine of coinherence, the teaching that the whole of the Godhead is present in each Person. The history of this idea is traced in Prestige, God in Patristic Thought, 282 ff. (cf. xxxii-xxxiii). The stage at which we observe the doctrine in Greg. is a stage before the development of technical language like zep:yapyois. Rather do we find him writing in or. 31. 14 (p. 163. 2-3, M. 36. 149A): dAAG duéporos év wepepiopevos... %) Gedrys. (Cf. Hergenrither 44.)

76-80 state the converse. If the Three Persons may be discerned in any one, the consideration of the Three individually must not be thought of as damaging the essential unity of the Godhead. Again

Greg. is following a narrow path in his argument, this time between excessive emphasis on the oneness ofGod anda stress on the Three which might be taken as tritheism. He begins by treating tritheism as simply a species of polytheism.

76. Cf. Arc. 1. 25. The divine nature is inexhaustibly rich, in that access to one Person inevitably opens upa full relationship with all

79, pwovokgatiny totdapnéa: both words may be coinages of Greg.'s. The lexica record no other case of povoxparia, while ép:Aaumjs, apart from a recurrence in Arc. 8. 72, is mentioned only in the sth-c. Proclus (#7. 4. 13). wovoxparin stands for povapyia, the word Greg. uses in e.g. orr. 29. 2 (p. 75. 1, M. 36. 76a), 38. 8 (M. 36.

3208), 40. 41 (M. 36. 4178).

Similarly contemptuous language is used when Greg. is dismissing those who hold pagan polytheistic views in carm. 1. 1.6. 5 (M. 37.

430A): he talks of a 'swarm' of gods. Here, quite adeptly, Greg. is using emotive language suitable to Christian disparagement of polytheism to forestall a suggestion ofChristian aberration. LSJ cite

Gedy dyopa as a proverbial expression corresponding to "Babel".

81-3 develop the argument against polytheism in a form similar to 3. 81-5 that found in or. 29. 2 (p. 74. 15 ff., M. 36. 76a): without a single principle of authority divided rule must end in anarchy and selfdestruction. A parallel argument, for a different purpose, is outlined in or. 28. 7 (pp. 31-2, M. 36. 338 f.) Anything which is composite has within it the possibility ofinternal strife and ofdissolution: ovv@ects yap apyr wdyns udyy S€ diagrdcews-7 8é€ Adaews (p. 32. 1-2,

33¢). This argument itself may be traced back to Pl. Phd. 788 f.

84-6. The question oftritheism. It will be noted that Greg. is here trying to turn an argument which had been used against him. For in or. 31.

13 (pp. 161. 4 ff., M. 36. 1488 ff.) he says that he had been accused of tritheism; cf. Evag.Pont. ep. 8 ¢ Bas. (M. 32. 248); Gr. Nyss. éres dit, passim (M. 45. 116 ff.), Kelly, Doctrines, 267 ff. In the present passage there is no attempt at explicit defence. Greg. has ridiculed in general terms the notion of Christian polytheism. He now tries to maintain that the real tritheists are those who have introduced the divisive elements which he lists in vv. 84-5.

84. yoovos: cf. Arc. 2.7 n., 4. 67 ff. n. vonwa: Any Arian understanding of the creaturely ignorance of the Son, of his failure to comprehend the Father, would constitute such a division in vénua.

85. Kgdtos: Arians diminished the power ofthe Son and the Spirit. In Arc. 1. 34 the Son is called ITazpés ofévos 95é véqua.

6£).nous: again it is the Arians whom Greg. has in mind. Cf. the word of Arius quoted by Athanasius, syn. 15. 3 (Opitz 2. 243. 5, M. 26.

7088): 7 codia codia tmipge acodot Feov GeAjoe. Marcellus had strongly opposed the use of Anais or BovAnars because, as he said, to allow the Father's will as a condition ofthe Son's generation is to introduce priority in time and thus to favour Arianism: Eus.

Marcell. 1. 4 (p. 19. 11 ff., M. 24. 753¢ £) = fr. 34 = 29 Rettb. (p. 198.

15 ff.). For his pains he had directed against him a sentence in the Ecthesis Macrostichos: see Symb.Ant. (345) ap. Ath, syn. 26. VIII. (Opitz

2. 253. 22 ff., M. 26. 732), as the framers ofthe creed did not accept the view that this terminology supported Arianism. Marcellus' objections were upheld by Athanasius, who, in Ar. 3. 62 (M. 26.

4534 ff.), wrote against the use of #éAnois and BovAnas, cf. Kelly, Creeds, 276.

Greg. believed that it was possible to employ language of will, the Father willing the generation of the Son. He is the 'cause' of the Son, but only within an understanding of the coeternity of the Three Persons. The Son is thus caused by the eternal will of the Copyrighted Material COMMENTARY ON ARC, 3. #5-91 Father and is indivisibly united with and equal to him. Whether

Greg. is successful in arguing this position has been disputed, notably by Meijering, 'The Doctrine of the will'.

86. There can be little doubt that Caillau gives the basic meaning of the line in his tr. 'Cum unusquisque nunquam secum ipse consentiat' (cf. Billius). But it is difficult to see how avrou could be tr.

'secum'. The simple change to avrov, however, would ease the difficulty. The genitive is to be taken closely with d5ypcrov, on the analogy of a-privative adjectives like dxparjs. a@émoutov has here the early, Homeric meaning 'without strife'.

Later writers give it the sense 'unconquerable' (cf. A. Pr. 105) or 'undisputed' (cf. Plb. 1. 2. 3). The word recurs in Arc. 4. 29, where, contrary to earlier practice, it again has short «.

87. In writing of 'my Trinity' Greg. means at once 'the Trinity in my way of understanding' and 'the Trinity of my personal devotion'.

For the latter cf. Trisoglio, 'La poesia della Trinita', 88, Gpevotos: cf. carm. 2.

1. 11. 1176 (M. 36. 1109A) Ts dpevorov tpiddog, and v. 68 n.

90-3. Greg. is here claiming a quite definitive quality for his teaching, a feature for which Arc, 1, 16-24 and v. 36 above have prepared the 4| way. Indeed, he appears to imply that he has reached the limits of knowledge possible to human beings, leaving open the question whether even angels know more of the Trinity. This is perhaps a fitting point at which to recall that behind the poet there lies the rhetorician and to remember H. von Campenhausen's warning not to take all Greg.'s rhetorical flourishes too seriously (The Fathers of the Greek Church, 184-5).

90. @aéeoor is a play on the sense of daéeaa in y. 71 (cf. 78) above, here used in the Homeric sense of 'eyes' (cf. Od. 16. 15 etc.).

91. The imagery is drawn from biblical language of the Holy of Holies. é« rreptiywy refers to the wings of the cherubim, as in Exod.

25. 19 (20), where they are described as part of the 'mercy-seat':

Egovrar of yepouPein éxreivovres tas mrépuyas émavwHev, avoKidCovres év rais mrépuéw avtwy émi tov (Aaorypiov. This verse deals with the tabernacle, but similar language is found in the description of Solomon's Temple in 3 Kgds. 8. 6-7: (the ark was carried in) ets

7a Gyia Ta ayiwy, Urd Tas wWrépvyas TwY yepouPeEiv, Gti Ta yepovBeiv dbiaveraopéva rais mrépvéw éxi tov té7ov THS KiBwrou. Cf. ibid. 6. 26 (27), 1 Paral. 28. 18, 2 Paral. 3. 13, 5.7 f.

NETAOMATOS: révaou0 is here used in a sense different from any COMMENTARY ON ARC, 3. 91-3 found in Classical Greek, where it signified something spread or spreading out, like a carpet or antennae. Nor again does it have the meaning 'flight? which Greg.'s contemporary, Didymus, gives it when he writes of74 700 vontot derot wetdopara, Pr. 30. 19 (M. 39.

1641C). Here wéragua = xatanéracua as it does in Or. Sib. 8. 305

(GCS p. 161): vaot 8€ cy:a69 76 wéracua. Nicetas saw this and wrote xata7réraoua in his paraphrase. In both Greg. and the Sibylline Oracle passage the word means the curtain which separated the Holy of Holies from the holy place or that which covered the entrance to the forecourt, the meaning of xatavéracua in biblical literature (cf. Arndt—Gingrich, s.v.). Greg. here intends 7wévacpua to signify the veil of the innermost sanctuary as e.g. in Exod. 26. 31 ff.,

Lev. 21. 23, 24. 3 and in the NT xarazéracua does. Greg. uses Kataréragua in this sense in or. 28. 31 (p. 69. 19g—20, M. 36. 724).

The reason for this preference for zéracua is not hard to determine: the initial tribrach of xatazéracja cannot be accommodated in a hexameter. For a recurrence of the former word see Arc. 8. 54, carm. 1. 1. 20. 34 (M. 37. 4904).

The association of revelation with the mercy-seat and the cherubim is seen in Exod. 25. 21 (22). Greg. uses the same imagery in or. 28. 3 (p. 25. 1 ff, M. 36. 29a).

92-3. Fora similar suggestion ofthe limitations of angels cf. Arc. 1. 4.

Angels are discussed at length in Arc. 6.

4. On the Universe Title andpurpose The MSS agree on the title JT7epi Koopov or variants. Its subject is certainly 'God and the created order'. The first 23 lines assert creatioex nihilo against all doctrines of pre-existent matter while vv. 24-54 use anti-Manichaean polemic as a means of introducing Greg.'s teaching on the creation ofman and the place of evil in the created order. The poem goes on to set the Creation ofthe world in the pattern ofeternity

(vv. 55-74), leading to the creation ofthe two orders ofangels and men (vv. 75-100).

R. Keydell, in BZ 44 (1951), 316, pointed to a certain similarity between wv. 1-23 and Bas. Hex. 2. 2 f. (G. 1. 138 ff, M. 29. 2gc ff.) and between vv. 24-54 and Basil Hex. 2. 4 (G. 1. 15 ff, M. 20. 368 ff.), and compared vv. 55-100 with passages in Greg's or. 38. g-10 (M. 36.

320€ ff.) = 45. 5 (6294 f.).

In presenting a Christian cosmology, Arc. 4 outlines an important aspect of Cappadocian theology. In 370 Basil had already written his striking homilies Jn Hexaémeron (G. 1. 1a ff, M. 29. 4a ff), linking philosophical argument and biblical exposition, a work which Nyssen followed with his De hominis opificio (Forbes 1. 102 ff., M. 44. 125 ff.) and Apologia inHexaémeron (Forbes 1. 4 ff., M. 44. 61 ff.). These were written shortly after Basil's death, the former early in 379 and the latter in the course ofthe same year (cf.J.Daniélou, 'La chronologie des ceuvres de

Grégoire de Nysse', Stud. Patr. 7 (= TU 92; Berlin, 1966), 159-69 at 162— 3. Nyssen is at some pains to show that he thinks of Basil as his master and that his aim in writing his treatises is merely to clarify his brother's teaching (cf. the introduction to hom. opif., Forbes 1. 102-6, M. 44.

125A f.). Nazianzen is no less impressed, as may be seen from his words in or. 43. 67 (M. 36. 5854): drav rv "E€arjpepov avrot perayepilwpar, kai 1a yAwoons dépw, wera Tob KTioTov yivowai, Kai pwdoKw ktiaews Adyous, kai Pavpdlw tov kriotny TA€ov H mpotepor, Get wovy didacndAw ypapevos. Perhaps it is because he assumed the work of Basil and Nyssen that Nazianzen himselfnowhere attempts a detailed study of Creation following the Genesis account. It is notable that Greg.'s references to Creation, scattered over his writings, are very much of a piece with what is before us in the present poem. He concerns himself with the theory of creation, the idea of the world as ... pevaTra@v Kai voounévwy déais, carm. i. 2. 34. 2 (M. 37. 9464), for COMMENTARY ON ARC, 4.

1-4 instance, the argument from Creation to Creator, cf. 2. 2 (poem.). 7.

67 ff. (M. 37. 11564), the relation of 6 vonrés xdéopos to the visible material universe, or. 38. 10 (M. 36. 321 f.), the notion of the world as exhibiting harmony, or. 6. 15 (M. 35. 7418), the reason for Creation in the nature ofGod, or. 38. 9 (M. 36. 320€) = 45. 6 (629), and like questions. But nowhere is there a sustained appeal to Genesis to substantiate propositions rationally stated. A good part of or. 28. 5 ff. (M. 36.

328 ff; pp. 27 ff.) is taken up with questions similar to those raised in this poem. The commentary ofNorris (pp. 110-31) will be found helpful at a number of points.

Of secondary literature relating to Greg.'s doctrine of creation the following should be consulted: G. Florovsky, "The Idea ofCreation in Christian Philosophy', ECQ 8/3 (1949), suppl. 53-77; A. H. Armstrong, 'Plotinus's Doctrine of the Infinite and its Significance for Christian Thought', Downside Review, 73/231 (1954-5), 47-58, esp. 567; E. Osborn, The Beginning of Christian Philosophy (Cambridge, 1981), ch. 5 "Cosmos and Creation'; J. F. Callahan, 'Greek Philosophy and the Cappadocian Cosmology', DOP 12 (1958), 29-57 (this deals specifically only with Basil and Nyssen but much of the paper has direct relevance for Nazianzen); Ullmann, Gregorius von Nazianz der

Theologe, 341 f£.; Dubedout, De D. Gregorii Nazianzeni carminibus, 48 ff.; Gottwald, De Gregorio Nazianzeno Platonico, 16 ff.; Portmann, Die gottliche Paidagogia bei Gregor von Nazianz, 53 ff.; Ruether, Gregory of Nazianzus, 130 ff; Moreschini, 'Platonismo', 1375, 1381.

1-23. God created in an absolute sense, withoutpre-existent matter 1. ei 0 &ye is a Homeric formula, used here to introduce a hortatory subjunctive (cf.

P. Chantraine, Grammaire homérique, ii. §404, pp. 274-5), introducing a new poem as Homer uses the words to introduce a speech in //. 6. 376.

3-4. The assertion of monotheism is related directly to the question of «riows: it had always beena strong part ofthe Church's answer to Gnostic teaching on creation, for instance. Here it is traditional forms of Greek philosophy with which Greg. is concerned to deal.

His association of creation with the activity of the One God may be turned against Plato. The Timaeus discusses at some length the work of the Syu:ovpyds in making the world (27c-40D

5), but the intention is not monotheistic, as may be seen from 4op6—41 D2. For here Plato mentions subsidiary gods who are to be intermediaries in 3-4 the creation of the @vyn7a4. Though the passage dwells on the derived and conditional nature of their divinity (418 1-6), they are still gods. For explicit attribution of the world to the creative activity of a number of gods we may look among Greg.'s contemporaries to the writings of Sallustius Philosophus. ('He was, roughly speaking, a Neo-Platonist': G. Murray, Five Stages ofGreek

Religion (Oxford, 1925), 219.) If one accepts the identification of this Sallustius with the friend ofJulian, one may see in him a particularly pointed example of the kind of creation teaching which Greg. was concerned to counter; cf. Murray, loc. cit.: 'Sallustius then may be taken to represent in the most authoritative way the Pagan reaction of Julian's time, in its final struggle against Christianity.' Discussion of the identity of Sallustius is found in Praechter's article in RE iA. 1960-7. He hesitates over Preller's view that Sallustius Philosophus is the same as the friend ofJulian who became prefect of the East in 361, but A. D. Nock regards the identification as probable (Sallustius: Concerning the Gods and the Universe (Cambridge, 1926), pp. ci ff.) and the latest editor, G.

Rochefort, (Saloustios: Des Dieux et du Monde (Paris, 1960), Introd., pp. x ff), agrees. But even if the writer of [epi Qeav Kai kéapov does not have official support and even if Greg. did not know his work (Nock finds little evidence that it was influential in its own day, op.cit. pp. ciii ff.), there is no doubt that it represents the kind of thinking about the nature of the universe which would have appealed to many of Greg.'s contemporaries (cf. Murray 2109 ff.).

There is thus point in contrasting with Greg.'s teaching a characteristic sentence or two from this treatise: trav 6é Oedy of pév efow éyxdopot, of S€ brepxdopuior éyxoopious 5€ Aéyw attovs Tovs tov Kéopov mowotvtas Oeots: ray 6€ UTEpKoopiwy of pév ovaias movovar Gewv, of 5é votv, of 5€ uyds- (6: 1; Nock, p. 10. 28 ff.).

Now these gods are secondary; above them is the One. But both the secondary gods and the One are quite different from the One

God of Greg.'s Christian monotheism, the God who created a world out ofnothing.

The zwwvzoi are Platonists in general with their eternal Forms and creation from pre-existent matter. Plato himself does not refer to 8Ay in the sense of 'matter', cf. A. E. Taylor,

A Commentary on Plato's 'Timaeus' (Oxford, 1928), 493; but Tim. 3041-6 uses language which is amenable to the interpretation of pre-existent matter:

COMMENTARY ON ARC, 4. 3-4 BovdAnbeis yap 6 Oeds ayaba pév ravta, dAatpov 5é pydév elvar Karta dtvauiv, oftw 6% wav doov Fv dparév mapadAaBay ovy Hovyiav dyov dAAa

Kwovmevov TAnEAws Kai dTdKxTws, eis TaLiv UTA yayev éx THS ata€ias, Hyyoauevos €xeivo TOUTOU TavTwS Quevor.

Cf. F. M. Cornford, Plato's Cosmology: the 'Timaeus' ofPlato (London, 1937), 37, convincing in its opposition to Taylor, 79-80. Certainly

Plato was held by Athanasius, for example, to have maintained this view; cf. inc. 2. 3 ff. (M. 25. rooa f.); Ar. 2. 22. (M. 26. 1928). In the former passage, mentioning Plato by name, Ath. is concerned with what would be weakness on God's part ifhe had to use pre-existent, uncreated matter to make the universe. But Greg. sees in eternally pre-existent Forms an additional, and, we may think, even more fundamental restriction upon God's freedom of action. He would be subject to the indignity not only of having to work with material which he did not create but would be limited by the Forms in what he could do with it.

Argument against the existence of pre-existent matter, coexistent with God, is found several times in Origen. He attacks the idea in princ. 1. 3. 3 (p. 50. 14 fh, M. 11. 147¢ ff), 2. 1. 4 (p. 110. 7 ff, M. 11.

1858 ff.), Jo. 1. 17 (p. 22. 14, M. 14. 538), comm. in Gen. 1 (= Eus. p.e.

7. 20 (M. 21. 654D ff.), hom. in Gen. 14. 3 (p. 124. 6 f£, M. 12. 238. ff).

Koetschau notes (GCS 5. 51) that sometimes Origen is thinking of Gnostics as well as of Platonists.

We may contrast with the line of reasoning found here in Greg. the argument of Aristotle against the coexistence of Forms and formless matter. He held that forms could not produce things, insisting that form and matter could not exist apart (gen. et corr. 2.

335°9 ff.). But, whereas Greg. would see here a reason for believing that God created a world, the forms ofwhich were in his mind and which had no other existence, a world in which form and matter came together at the moment ofCreation, Aristotle saw here an argument for the eternal existence of the world (see below, wv. 55-74). ovvavapya: Greg. uses the word here in a way similar to that found in Cyr. Juln. 2 (6. 544). Elsewhere he is cautious about giving the word meaning in a trinitarian context, refraining from its application even to the Son and the Holy Spirit, unless the term is meticulously defined in a way which gives it the kind of temporal reference which in no way questions the position of the Father as absolute adpy7.

4. 5-8 5-6. The attributes of the Platonists' Forms, their eternal, unchanging qualities, are, in Greg.'s terms, applicable only to Godhead. Forms of this kind are illusory. The only things which can in any way correspond to them are direct creations of the mind of God. pHoeqapata: the choice ofuép¢dwpua to denote a Form is significant: it is a word used by other authors—and by Greg. himself in carm. 2. 1. 12. 561 (M. 37. 12064) to denote visible forms or shapes.

Its use here seems rather contemptuous, as is that of ovoia in v. 8.

7-15. Greg. is arguing for creatio ex nihilo by denying the possibility of form and matter as separate entities. God created objects in which form and matter were inseparably combined. This argument, as is seen in the n. on vv. 3-4 above, goes back to Aristotle. In Metaph.

Z 3. 1028" f., to take another instance, he maintains in the course of a discussion on ovofa that matter can have no separate existence, except by mental abstraction; cf. W. D. Ross's edn. (Oxford, 1924), ad loc. and pp. xciii f.

7-8. The expression dveideos Ay does not occur in Plato or Aristotle, but is found in a passage about Aristotle in the Epitome of Arius Didymus (Diels, Doxo. 448. 3-4): 4 wev yap (sc. GAn) dveideos,

76 6€ efSos dei, Kai # wév ov comma, cwuaTiKky bé, 76 b€ Kabdaat dowpartov. (Cf. Aristotle's use ofdecds in Cael. 306°17). The words are found also in a passage in Damascius where he is writing about the Parmenides (Ruelle, ii. 425, p. 281. 13 ff.): 76 wx) peréyor trav eidwv 7 GAn éorw7 aveideos ... GAws 5é wepi ovoid 6 Adyos, GAA' ov mepi oxécews Kai peradopav, adAAd wepi mdans THs averdéou

UAns. Cf. also the words in the parallel sections from Plutarch and Stobaeus at Diels 308, together with Sallustius 17. 6 (Nock, p. 32.

Greg. is appealing to 'common sense' observation, rather than to metaphysical speculation. He considers only the side of the question which conflicts most directly with creatio ex nihilo.

Origen had made distinctions which were not to Greg.'s purpose when he spoke (princ. 2. 1. 4 (p. 109. 22, M. 11. 185A) of matter as 'that which underlies bodies' ('quae subiecta est corporibus'), following in the line of Plat. Tim. 514. Much more germane to that purpose is the practical conclusion that matter is never actually found existing apart from qualities: 'Haec tamen materia quamvis, ut supra diximus, secundum suam propriam rationem sine qualitatibus sit, numquam tamen subsistere extra qualitates invenitur.'

4. 7-8 (ibid. rro. 4 ff, 1858). Cf. princ. 4. 4. 7 (p35729 fF, M. 11. go8a f), Cels. 3. 41 (p. 237. 10 ff., M. 11.9754 £.), 4. 57 (p. 330. 7, 124A), Jo. 13.

61 (p. 293. 18 ff., M. 14. 516c f.), together with Koetschau's n. in GCS 5. 109.

In the works of his fellow Cappadocians Greg. could look for similar denials of the severance of form and matter. But, again,

Greg. goes only so far in his use of the idea. Basil adumbrates (hex.

1.8(G. 1. 8c ff, M. 29. 214 ff.)) and Nyssen developed (hom.opif. 24

(Forbes 1. 248 ff, M. 44. 212p ff) a notion which goes beyond Origen's Platonism in advancing the view that matter might consist entirely of qualitative differences in a state of pure potentiality and without any substratum; cf. H. von Balthasar, Presence et Pensée (Paris, 1942), 20 ff, A. H. Armstrong, Plotinus' Doctrine', 54-5; id., "The Theory ofthe Non-Existence of Matter in Plotinus and in the Cappadocians', Stud. Patr. 5 (= TU 80; Berlin, 1962). Nyssen here holds that the withdrawal of properties causes the dissolution ofthe whole notion (Aéyos) ofbody and that it is their combined presence which produces material nature: a body cannot exist without such qualities as colour. Greg. makes no use of this more subtle reasoning, being content to limit himselfto the straightforward denial of the existence of formless matter in the recognized sense.

There remains for consideration a view which is intermediate, lying between the doctrine of formless, pre-existent matter and that of the simultaneous creation of form and matter. This is the idea found in Tatian, ora. 12 (p. 12. 18ff., M. 6. 829¢ ff), where two stages of Creation are envisaged. In the first God created formless matter which, in the second stage, he ordered to form the universe as we know it. Tatian could claim for this understanding ofCreation the support of Wisd. 11. 17 (xticaca 7év Kéopov €€ audpdov Ans) and could at the same time defend it against Greg. by taking seriously the questions of vv. 7-8 and answering 'God has'.

&iiLov popgiyy: is wopdy to be taken as a synonym for etéos?

The two are distinguished in Pl. R. 380p, but as Ross points out (edn. of Metaphysics, ii. 165), in Aristotle 'wop¢y is often identified with «(Sos and 7é qv efvar, but means primarily sensible shape'. It may be suspected that efSos is here a virtual equivalent for pop¢y

(cf. zopdedpara in v. 5 above), but that it carries over some of the distinctive connotations of the former.

It is easier to ridicule immaterial jzopdy, which, though technically representing eédos, has the associations of tangible 'shape' and the suggestions of Copyrighted Material COMMENTARY ON ARC.

4, 7-13 impermanency. Objections may be made to belief in immaterial eidos, but the words do not seem to contain the same internal contradiction as is present in immaterial popd%. oteopaAryet: the picture is of ideas 'whirling' in the mind as dust, smoke, or water might swirl (LSJ s.v. I). Cf. carm. 1. 2. 14. 15

9. doupos is cited in Etymologicum Magnum 161. 140 but otherwise it is known only from this passage where it is metrically convenient.

10. @vog may be taken as closely parallel in meaning to that found in Arc. 3. 2: 'its own inherent nature'. But equally it could mean 'the world of nature', the divinely established natural order.

11-15. The God who combined form and matter also created them.

The argument is that, if one is prepared to admit a divine power which could make a universe out of mysteriously separate elements of form and matter, one may as well admit that this power also created them, presumably on the grounds that such a unifying act would call for such a high degree ofcontrol over form and matter as to make easy belief in their creation by this same power.

12-13. There are two related problems in these lines: the meaning of «dopos and the choice ofreading at the beginning ofv. 13. Nicetas' paraphrase reads: ris yap dv xai ein Kéopos év Tw Eotdvar KaBdAOV mavra xwpis wév riv SAnv, ywpis bé 76 eldos; It is clear that if a reading is preferred which gives an active verb in v. 13, xéayos will be best taken to mean 'order, ordering'. If a verb of intransitive or passive meaning is read, it will mean 'world'. The possibilities may be examined in this way:

(i) An active sense. If we take Caillau's €oraxev, we have an attested active verb. éoraxa occurs in Cercidas (3rd c. Bc) as the perf. act. indic. of formu. On this interpretation the lines would mean: 'What ordering established the universe, hitherto utterly fragmented?'

(ii) An intransitive sense. (a) This could be obtained by accepting Caillau's understanding of his reading éoraxev as = éarnxev. (b)

Read éorduev, the Ep. intr. perf. infin. (c) Read éordvar, the regular intr. perf. infin. in most forms ofGreek. The translation would thus be: (a) 'What world then stood, being in all ways utterly fragmented?' (6) and (c) 'What world (was this), to stand in all ways utterly fragmented?'

COMMENTARY ON ARC, 4.

12-18 Several points should be noted. (1) There is no evidence that €ordxa Was ever used = éo7rpxa. (2) Though Cercidas may seem tenuous evidence for €o7raxev in an active sense, the form is found in compounds in writings including Plato, LXX, and Sextus Empiricus. In his edition of Cercidas, J. U. Powell noted (Collectanea

Alexandrina (Oxford, 1925), 203): 'sed €ordxa et composita transitiva sunt, velut rovs 47 mapectaxdtas Ta wopeia Tebt. Pap. i. 5, |. 196; better examples follow. But whether Greg. was as well informed as Powell may be questioned. (3) éorduev is found four times in Homer, all in the same position as here, first word in the line (J/. 4.

342, 12. 316, 15. 675, Od. 21. 261). (4) Difficilior lectio casts doubt on €ordvat: it looks very much as if it appeared first as a gloss on the epic form éorduev, especially as Nicetas uses it in his paraphrase.

The best choice appears to lie between (i) and (ii) (b). The first avoids tautology, giving 7avra a meaning which is not simply a doublet of d:auwepés. But the pleonasm zédvra d:apzepés is good

Homeric style (cf. J/. 16. 499). The second alternative gives Nicetas' sense. I incline to the second.

&vo1ya. wavta: note the Homeric reminiscence. In //. 18. 511 the words concern the distribution of spoil at the sacking ofa city.

Greg.'s habit of reusing expressions of this sort in a totally different context is discussed in Introd.

14. xegaotys: like «riotopa, the word is to be connected with advrwv. Cf. the description of Zeus in Orph. fr. 297 as wdvrwy

15. Ktiotoga: xrictwp here = xriorys, as in 6 KtioTHs aadvrwy (Sir.

24. 8), 6 mdvrwv Kriarns (4 Macc. 11. 5).

16-23. God is more than a craftsman. The distinction between the human craftsman who has to work within the limits of the material to hand and the divine Creator was one which had been developed by Theophilus of Antioch in Autol. 2. 4 (p. 102, M. 6. 10528 f.).

Amongst other passages in the same vein may be mentioned Ps.Justin, coh,Gr. 22 (M. 6. 2818), Iren. haer. 2. 10.

2 (M. 7. 7368), Ath. inc. 2. 3 ff. (M. 25. 1004 ff), deer. 11 (Opitz 2. g. 33 ff, M. 25. 433 f.).

Kertsch, Bildersprache, 152 n.4, points to the Stoic use of the figure of the potter, comparing C. W. Miiller, Die Kurzdialoge der

Appendix Platonica (Studia et testimonia antiqua 17, Munich, 1975), 303.

16. éhiaoor: see Arc. 3. 43 n.

18. Neither Billius nor Caillau is quite accurate, translating as if 18-24 dpevds were a dative. There is a difference between 'Grant to God more than would be appropriate to a human mind' and 'Grant to God something more than a human mind'.

@udavagze: an advocate of the view that forms and matter are, like God, eternal is addressed, following the contention of ouvdvapya in Vv. 3. The word is not cited in LSJ; PGL gives only this passage and or. 23. 7 (M. 35. 11604), there coupled with diAayévvyvos in a Trinitarian discussion,

19. Inert, formless matter is purely a mental concept, whereas matter, as it was created by God, given individual structure by activating forms, is part of the recognizable world.

Z0. vwoaro: the act of divine will is stressed; cf. Florovsky, 'Idea of Creation', 58 ff. For the form cf. the ep. voyjoaro (H. I. 10. 501) and the participle vwodpevos (e.g. Theognis 1298). ta... €veidea: no other example of76 éveidos is recorded in the lexica.

'yevérewog is not common in earlier literature. Pindar applied it to Hera (N. 7. 2) and Artemidorus Daldianus (2nd c. ap) to the earth.

For a metaphorical use we may look to Plotinus 5. 8. 4, where we find dAj@ea ... Kai yevéreipa Kai tpodds Kai ovata Kai tpody. modthoxos: perhaps Aristophanes' woAvaAoxov vénua may have suggested the use (7h. 463).

21-3. Unlike a painter who needs an external object to copy, God was able to create from the model in his own mind. toukds . .

. el60¢ means a plausible representation ofthe original.

There is a play upon the two senses of efSos: the 'form' and the 'visible representation' (the second frequent in Homer).

24-54. An attack on Manichaean views As useful for understanding the Manichaean position may be mentioned: F. C. Burkitt, The Religion ofthe Manichees (Cambridge, 1925);

A. V. W. Jackson, Researches in Manichaeism (New York, 1932); H. J.

Polotsky, "Manichaismus', RE Suppl. vi (1935), 240-71; H. C. Puech, Le Manichéisme, son fondateur, sa doctrine (Paris, 1949); A. Adam, Texte zum Manichdismus (Berlin, 1954); G. Widengren, Mani and Manichaeism, ET (London, 1965); S.C. Lieu, Manichaeism in the Later Roman

Empire and in Medieval China (Manchester, 1985); H.Jonas, The Gnostic Religion, 2 edn. (Boston, 1963), ch. g and elsewhere. Cf. G. Bardy,

*Manichéisme', DTC g (1927), 1841-1895, and 1954-7 for Patristic COMMENTARY ON ARC, 4, 24-5 references to Manichaeism; Quasten, Patrology, iii. 356 ff. gives full bibliography.

Part ofthe earlier argument of the poem applies to the Manichees, though it is only now that they are mentioned by name. For it was part of Manichaean teaching that there were two eternal elements, God and matter, neither ofwhich was created. The word dvapyos (cf. v. 4 above) is applied by the Manichees to éAn, according to Macarius

Aegyptius in hom. 16. 1 (M. 34. 6138), or whoever the real author may be (cf. Quasten, Patrology, iii. 162 ff.). In the Manichaean system these two elements might also be known as Light and Darkness or Truth and Falsehood. It is the Light-Darkness presentation which Greg. here selects for attack.

Nyssen introduces an antiManichaean polemic ina similar context in Aom.opif. 23 (Forbes 1. 242 ff.; M. 44. 2098 ff.), when he argues against the coeternity of matter with God, holding that the admission of dt0 dvapya xai dyévynra plays directly into the hands of the Manichees (p. 246; 2128). Athanasius writes extensively on similar themes in Contra Gentes (M. 25. 4 ff.). In attacks which include in their objects Gnostics, Marcionites, Manichees, and followers of cosmic religion, he argues for a unitary control of the universe by the incorporeal God who is creator out ofnothing and the sustainer who holds together in harmony elements which would otherwise be mutually destructive.

It is he who has placed within his providential plan human beings who are designed by their image likeness to the Creator to discern by thoughtful observation of his works some pointers to the nature of the Father and the Word who shares the unity of divine government.

24-31 form a unit of argument (argumentum ex remotione, Focken, De Greg...

. ratione, 38), designed to show that the two principles, God and evil Darkness, cannot coexist from all time. Cf. Bas. hex. 2. 4 ff.

(G. 1. 15¢ ff, M. 29. 368 ff) throughout this section.

24-5 Basil attacks the Manichees in hex. 2.4 (G. 1. 15.c., M. 29. 368 ff.) for taking the 'darkness' of Gen. 1. 2 not as a mere absence of light

(cf. v. 43b below, with n.), but as a self-existent evil power. The same belief lies behind these lines and the subsequent ones. Cf. carm. 2.1.

11. 1173 (M. 37. 1109A), where in dpy:xw oxdtw Greg. disputes the same point. mapos: here it is possible to tr. as 'before' in either a spatial or a temporal sense. The former would strengthen the picture of the COMMENTARY ON ARC, 4, 24-31 rival throned before the divine light. But the second is the more likely when one recalls that Basil had tried to answer the question

"Is darkness older than light?' He seeks a solution in the suggestion that the darkness which was "upon the face of the deep' was a withdrawal oforiginal light caused by the shadowofheaven, hex. 2. 5 (G.

1. 178 ff., M. 29. goc f.).

For the departure from the more usual postpositive prepositional use of mapos cf. S. OC 418, E. Andr. 1112, 1208. avtibgovoy: Greg. is the only writer recorded as using this word—orr. 21. 8 (M. 35, 10898), 42. 22 (M. 36. 4848)—or the related dvriGéweos of Arc. 6. 44.

'5b-31. No form of coexistence is thinkable which sets up the positive principle of darkness or evil alongside God. If evil were allowed to oppose God, he would not be God. Neither would he be

God if he permitted an 'arrangement' with evil. The possibility that God and evil are evenly matched is dismissed because there is no third power to end the deadlock. If there were a conflict, the stronger would win, But how could this conflict, once started,

Such is the structure ofthe argument. But the basis is found in v.

26 in the words ot ydp éo.xev. Greg. is assuming the omnipotence of the Christian God, not arguing for it, and he can thus advance from the starting point of what is fitting for that God. In a rather rhetorical manner Greg. is setting up positions which the Manichees did not need to hold in order to knock them down again. The impression ofan exhaustive survey ofall the possibilities is largely illusory. Though the Manichees did claim parity in some respects between the God ofLight and the power ofmatter, darkness, or evil

(e.g., both are eternal, uncreated), there is still a vital distinction.

Darkness is not a god, not the brother of Light, as he is in ancient Iranian dualism, but, in violation of strict dualism, ultimately inferior, There is not in the Manichaean system the everlasting equipoise which Greg.'s rpévos would have to resolve. The future triumph of Light, in Mani's system, would be caused not by any external intervention, but by the completion of a process which is already started—the separation of the particles of Light from the material prison in which, in the present age, they are held.

A Manichee could reply to v, 28 that the victory would, indeed, go to the stronger, but the time is not yet. Cf. Burkitt 64; Polotsky, RE Suppl. vi. 245 ff.; Widengren 43 ff., and Lieu 5-24.

COMMENTARY ON ARC, 4, 27-32 27. There is no reason for the change suggested by Caillau's n. from od to év. This would produce not a sentence but a group of words without a main verb. The text printed is amenable to Caillau's tr.

'Deus evanescit'; seeing a direct parallel with wv. 25-6 ei Oeds Her, / ot axéros, he understands sev with axéros. The meaning is thus:

'If darkness really existed, you do not know God (i.e., there is no God for you to know; 'Deus evanescit'). The same text may equally well be repunctuated to read: ei oxdtos, o¥ @edv, ofdas. This presents the same absolute choice in a different way: 'If you know

(acknowledge) darkness, you do not know God.'

&ixoopov: there is a play on two senses of the word: e.g. carm. 2. 1.

13. 182=3 (M. 37. 124A). Agreement is 'unbecoming? (cf. ot ...

Zouxe v. 26). But such agreement with evil would be a denial of the order of the universe: the result would be a «éojo0s dxoopos. For the expression cf. orac. Sib. 7. 123; AP. 9. 323. 3 (Antip. Sid.); Nonnus

30-1. This surprising end to the conflict would come about only on the assumption of Greg.'s hypothetical mediator. Mani did not teach that the conflict would end without trace and be forgotten. In the final dispensation, the powers of darkness will not simply disappear. Though they will be 'confined within their own original domain' (Burkitt 64), incapable of returning to their attack upon the world oflight, they will still remain in existence to represent the second principle; cf. Widengren 68-9. The form éye:pas (ep. aor.) is paralleled in H. Od. 15. 44.

32-50. Opposition to Mani's views on the nature ofMan and the Fall.

The poem now changes direction. Instead of continuing to discuss cosmology, Greg. follows up the Manichaean teaching on the related subject of man's involvement in the created order. According to Mani, Adam came into being at the end of a complicated mythological process as a creature in whom the King of Darkness had imprisoned a number of light particles. 'The initiative in man's creation belongs to the King of Darkness: man is not created in the image of God, by God. Only in a secondary sense can man be thought of as created in God's image, inasmuch as he was made like the Divine Messenger who, in turn, had been created by the King of Light. Manichaean teaching did not concern itself with the nature of man in the terms in which Greg. would want to describe it. For him 'man' represents a recognizable unit, a composite being about whom statement can be made. Mani did not take the idea of 'man'

4. 32-3 seriously, regarding him, in Burkitt's words as 'essentially a fortuitous conglomeration', merely 'a particle of Light enclosed in an alien and irredeemable envelope' (p. 39).

32. wuyh Kai déuag: Greg. here places himself in a long line of traditional writing on anthropology. As R. A. Norris Jr. writes, 'It is the initial commonplace of all Greek anthropology that man, as a living being ({@ov), is a composite, being made up of two parts, a body and a soul', Manhood and Christ:

A Study in the Christology of Theodore ofMopsuestia (Oxford, 1963), 21. Many examples might be cited from Greek philosophers to illustrate this dda, e.g., Pl. Phd. joaal., Plot.

1. 1. 3. In taking this as his starting point Greg. is attempting to place Manichaean teaching in the wrong, not only from the viewpoint of Christian theology, but equally of Greek philosophy.

| It is important to limit the scope of Greg.'s statement of the bipartite nature of man. What is here intended is opposition to the Manichaean depreciation of the human body and the disappearance ofman as an identifiable entity, not a contribution to the question whether man is best described in bipartite or tripartite terms.

In the anti-Apollinarian polemic of carm. 1. 1. 10 Greg. adopts a threefold division of man: wuy7}, vots, odpa (v. 3, M. 37. 4654).

This need not be thought ofas an inconsistency on Greg.'s part, but rather as a restatement of the nature of the non-bodily part ofman to answera different set ofquestions (cf. R. A. Norris 57 ff.). Greg.'s understanding of the question is discussed in Winslow, Dynamics, chs. 3-4; Althaus, Heilslehre, esp. 22-32, 51-60, 87-9, 96-100, and 207-10; Ruether, Gregory, 130-6; Ellverson, The DualNature of Man.

&xopows: Billius' tr. clearly takes this as a Manichaean expression, no less part of their 'fiction' than the root of darkness.

Certainly azoppw£ looks an admirable word for a 'particle' of light in the Manichaean scheme. Caillau, on the other hand, leaves it open to us to accept the description of the soul as Greg.'s own and to take only words about the body as Manichaean. In favour of the second view is Greg.'s willingness to use doppw€é to characterize the Spirit breathed into man at his creation (Arc. 7. 73). But the combination ofazoppw&é with dwrds dzetpecioro so much suggests the Manichaean terminology that it is difficult to believe that Greg. used it approvingly.

33. The Manichees spoke ofthe two primary elements as two 'roots' of Light and Darkness.

4. 34-40 34. modMOV G&xémpo08ev looks like meiosis for 'directly opposite'.

Greg. is claiming that Manichaean teaching about soul and body makes them so completely antithetical that no such unity as man could be produced from them.

35. Evvij ptots: what is meant by this expression may be judged from the speech put into the mouth ofthe Logos in Arc. 7. The creation of man is envisaged thus: tvvov 3° dudorépwlev soi yévos evade miEat,

Ounray 7 adavdtwy re vojova data peonyt, ktA.

(Arc. 7. 65-6) Man is not a battle-ground but a meeting-ground. (Cf. the discussion in Arc. 7. 65 ff. n.) He has affinities both with the world of physical creation and with the heavenly world.

35b ff. Greg. is not denying the possibility of conflict between the elements of man's composition. The way in which, in a number of his poems—2. 1. 22 (M. 37. 12814 f.) is a good example—he writes, at times almost despairingly, about the conflict which results from the 'binding' ofthe soul to the flesh, makes this quite clear. One may say that emotionally Greg. never came to terms with the intellectual position he maintained on the unity of body and soul. But he still upheld that position. Here he is disputing the Manichaean view of an unending (cf. éuvedos) unrelenting struggle between the two elements, a struggle incapable of resolution. The stress falls upon mAext#. The elements ofwhich man is formed are capable of being

'interwoven', an impossibility if they were basically inimical.

39b-54 return to the opening theme of the One God as the only ultimate principle. As evil is not a positive principle, the Fall must be explained as rejection of good.

39 picks up and amplifies the opening words ofv. 3, claiming for God the title of "Light wrested from the Manichees. gdyjoutos: on the quantity ofthe : and the possible meanings, cf.

Arc. 3. 86 n. The most likely meaning here is 'beyond the reach of strife' (such as would arise from the Manichaean darkness).

40. dtkov: Greg. is better evidence for the application of dwAows to angels than Ps.-Dionysius Areopagita, cited by PGL s.v. A. 2. a. The other passage mentioned there is of interest here, coming as it does from a context in which Evagrius Ponticus is discussing the applicability of the word to angels. An angel, he argues, is not simple in the way in which God is. For an angel is a compound ofessence and holiness, as man is compound (€x oa@paros Kai buyys ovvecrds),

4. 40-6 ep. 2 (M. 32. 2488 ff.). This argument is a curious one, but its object is clear enough—to establish a distinction between God and the angels. Greg. is no less well aware of the need to make this distinction. Elsewhere we shall see how he can drawa line which places man with the angels on one side and God alone on the other (cf. Arc.

4. 89-92 n.). But here, Greg. is able to point an understandable contrast between God and the angels on the one side and man on the other, by using the distinction of 'simple' and 'composite'. For amAous of angels, cf. Arc. 6. 17. mheKkt@y: the word is now put in perspective. wAcxrH dats is a step above the Manichaean view ofman, but well below the status of pure intelligence. Cf. v. g2. byWedvtev: PGL cites this passage as the first appearance ofthe word. Soph. cites also carm. 2. 2 (epigr.), 17.

1 (M. 38. 91a). Greg.'s liking for dys<-compounds may be seen from the occurrence in PGL of g of them to be found in his verse. Cf. v. 51 n.

The 'dark' element in man was not there from the start, but came as a negative quality.

42. éornxvia: cf. Billius' n. "Hoc est, vel per se existens natura, vel a Deo procreata.' nepiyoagos: cf. Arc. 2. 64 n. "Circumscribed' here indicates not the limitations ofdarkness, but the supposition that it had by right a fixed territory, as it were.

43b-6. Evil is not an eternal principle, as embodied in the Manichaean darkness which was said to be in existence before the world.

It is to be traced to a point in history, the breaking of God's command. Cf. or. go. 45 (M. 36. 424A): wioteve, 7) ovata efvai tiva tou Kakxow, Are BactAeiav, 7 dvapyor, 7 map' éavTis UroarTdcay, 7 mapa Tov Qeot yevopévny, dAX' Huérepov Epyov eivat tovTo Kai Tob mwovnpov ... Gr, Nyss. argues for the same point in or.cat. 6 (p. 33.

4 ff, M. 45. 28c), as does Basil in hex. 2. 4-5 (G. 1. 16c ff, M. 29.

The idea that darkness is no more than absence of light had a long history in antiquity. Aristotle propounded it in Col. 7912: 76 axdtos o¥ xpwpa aAAd arépnats €or: dwrds. Cf. An. 418°18. A number of later examples of the same thought were collected by J. E. B. Mayor, Journal of Philology, 28/56 (1903), 289 ff., taking his title from Paradise Regained, 4. 400: 'Privation mere of light and absent day.' Mention may be made ofa few instances. Synesius used the idea without drawing from it any moral implication in Ca/v. 11

4. 43-7 (T. 211. 18 ff, M. 66. 1188c): anid 5é oddev Erepdév éorw 7 axdros: éxatépw yap Taiv é6vondtwyv dwrds dmovoia onuaiverat.

Augustine commonly refers to this view, e.g. contra ep. Man. 30. 33

(M. PL 42. 195; CSEL 25. 230. 21 ff.): 'quamquam tenebrae non sunt corporeae: totumque hoc nomen lucis absentia est; sicut nuditas carere vestitu ...' and de nat. boni contra Man. 15 (M. PL 42. 556;

15-16). Here Augustine had the same antiManichaean reasons as Greg. for discounting the notion of darkness as a positive quality. Cf. further conf. 12.

3 (M. PL 32. 827; CSEL 33. 311. 19-20), civ. Def 11. 10.2 (M. PL 41. 326; CSEL 40/1.

527. 26 ff.; CCSL 48. 331. 60 ff), contra sec. Iul. resp. imperf. op. 5. 44 (M.

We may notice that Greg., in preparing the way for the introduction of the Fall, does not use his analogy in such abstract terms as became common. Plotinus, for example, defined evil in these terms:

GAws S€ 76 Kaxdv €AAeubw tod dyafod Geréov (3. 2. 5). Again, Augustine may be cited: 'cum omnino natura nulla sit malum, nomenque hoc non sit nisi privationis boni', civ. Det 11.22 (M. PL 41.

335; CSEL 40/1. 543. 15 f.; CCSL 48. p. 341. 22 f.); 'non est ergo malum nisi privatio boni', contra advers. leg. etproph.1.5.7(M. PL 42.

607); cf. further conf. 3. 7. 12 (M. PL 32. 688; CSEL 33. 53. 23 ff), enchir. 11 (M. 40. 236). Sallustius shares this view, De dis. 12. 1 (Nock p. 22. 14 ff.). As the gods are good, evil is to be thought ofas absence of good, as darkness is absence of light. Greg. does not follow out exactly the 'privatio' notion which would parallel the light—darkness analogy, but points not to the consideration ofthe essence ofevil so much as to its appearance asa historical phenomenon. Basil treats the idea in hex. 2. 4(G. 1. 16B—c, M. 29. 37C—D) and 5 (17D—184A, 41B).

45. &vo: not 'australes ad auras', (Billius), which would be «d7w, but 'north' (cf. Hdt. 1. 143. 2; Pl. R. 435£): 'the sun's course brings in the north the icy winter'; cf. Nicetas: 6 #Avos mpés tas yeyepivas Tov attot Spduov dveAioowv. There is a touch ofartistry in the implication, rather than the outright assertion, that it is the disappearance of the sun on its winter journey which brings winter. yeipa. pouktév is exactly Ovid's 'hiems . .. horrida' (M.

46b-50. Lucifer's fall and subsequent hatred of mankind. Cf. Arc. 6.

47. As Caillau's n. points out, 3} tepowAinor is a reminiscence ofH.

Il. 1. 205, where the words are spoken by Achilles against Agamemnon.

4. 49-54 49. For Adam's 'tasting' of evil, cf. Arc. 7. 114. The metaphorical use ofyeviouar is common from Homer on, but it is particularly appropriate to Adam who 'tasted' (experienced) evil in tasting the forbidden fruit. a&vdpoqeévouo: cf. the application to the devil of dv@pwroxrévos

Savatov: cf. Matt. 16. 28, Mark 9. 1, Luke g. 27, John 8. 52, Heb. z. g, AP 7. 662. 4 (Leonidas, 3rd c. Bc).

51-4. The nature ofevil. It is like rust on iron.

51. éyydvovo: despite its acceptance by Billius and Dronke, the evidence for dysiyovos is not strong. The latter was mistaken in supposing this to be the reading of Cu (S. Gregorii Nazianzeni Carmina

Selecta (Gottingen, 1848), 198). The only recorded instance of wpiyovos is Nonnus, D. 27. 98. Greg.'s predilection for compounds of vvimight encourage its adoption and it makes good sense, in referring to Lucifer's part in the origin of evil. éyvydvoro on the other hand, by stressing the late appearance of evil, points to its secondary nature.

52. A@By is well chosen, suggesting at once 'ruin' (cf. S. Ant. 792) and the spreading contagion of a disease like leprosy (cf. Galen 14. 757;

Isid. Pel. ep. 1. 28 (M. 78. 200¢), al.) Dr A. Meredith has drawn my attention to Plot. 4. 7. ro. 46, an image of the soul restored to purity through the removal of a massive accretion of rust.

Note the quantity of « in éés. Elsewhere it is long.

Koatepoio: cf. Hes. Th. 864 ofSnpos ... kparepwrards éoniw.

53-4. In contrast to inanimate iron, man has a responsibility for his ruined state. avtoddixtos = 'killing oneself is found in AP 9. 293. 1 (Philippus, 1st c. AD) and in didactic verse in Oppian H. 2. 349.

Kakiny éqitevoa: similar expressions are in H. //. 15. 134, Od. 5.

340. Cf. Arc, 8. 11-12 n.

@8oveooio: for the relationship of envy and pride in Lucifer's actions cf, Arc. 6. 56 ff. n. aadaiopaoty: the sense of 'tricks' may be illustrated from, e.g.,

Ar. Ra. 689. qv = 'his' (the devil's) is quite Homeric. Cf. Monro, Homeric Grammar, §254, p. 220. 'Occasionally it (the possessive éés, ds) refers to a prominent word in the same sentence which is not grammatically the subject.' (He cites //. 6. 500 and Od. 9. 369 as examples.) Cf. Chantraine, Grammaire homérique, i, § 128, pp. 272-3.

4, 55-74 55-74. The world is not eternal, but createdby the timeless God Greg. now takes up some ofthe problems treated in wv. 3 ff., looking at them in a different way. Both there and here we are faced with the possibility of something eternally existent alongside God. In the earlier passage we were asked to contemplate a stage at which form was imposed upon eternally existent matter: here we must consider the view that the world itself, in its union of form and matter, is eternal. The place which the idea ofthe eternity ofthe world holds in Greek thought is fully dealt with by J. Baudry, LeProbleme de l'origine et de Uéternité du monde (Paris, 1931). Greg.'s two approaches to the question are the two which Baudry distinguished at the beginning of his study as fundamental to the whole debate (p. 6).

The notion of the eternity of the world in a developed form may be traced back to Aristotle, though there are indications ofit in an earlier writer. Xenophanes appears to have held some doctrine of an ungenerated cosmos (cf. Guthrie, History, i. 380). Aristotle wrote in Cael.

296"33-4: 4 S€ ye rod Kdapou rdéis aidios. He set his face against earlier Greek beliefs that the world had a beginning, arguing that it had neither a beginning nor an end. (Cf. Baudry 139 ff.) Aristotle's opinion gained ascendancy over many philosophers in the following centuries, not only among avowed Aristotelians, but also among some, like Crantor (¢.335-¢.275 Bc), who tried to combine it with Platonic beliefs. Baudry shows how complete was the triumphofthis notion of eternity of the world by the third century sc (p. 226).

This ascendancy was to be challenged in the following centuries.

But much of the opposition stemmed from schools of thought which produced counter-arguments scarcely more acceptable to Christian cosmology than the notion they attempted to disprove. The Stoics denied the eternity ofthe world, but asserted the eternity ofmatter and the material nature of the god who formed it into a succession of worlds. Epicureans believed that the world had a birth and would be destroyed, but allied to this a mechanistic cosmology, a chance arrangement of uncreated atoms without any moving intelligence.

The Fathers generally took occasion to deny the eternity theory as being inconsistent with the Christian doctrine of creation (cf. Baudry

191). It continued as a point ofdispute in the century following Greg.'s and later, as may be seen from the instances cited by P. de Labriolle,

La Réaction paienne (Paris, 1950), 484 ff. In Greg.'s day we may again turn to Sallustius for an example ofbeliefin the eternity of the cosmos.

In De dis 7. 1 (Nock, p. 12. 24 ff.) the argument is stated beginning: avrov dé Tov Kéopov adbaprov te nai dyévvntov etvar dvdyxyn. The relationship between this eternal cosmos and the Cosmic Gods of the previous chapter (cf. v.

3 n. above) is not easy to determine, but it is clear that Sallustius intended both ideas to be taken seriously. (Cf. further c. 17 Nock, pp. 3o. 6 ff.) Among Greg.'s immediate Christian predecessors it is Basil who treats the question most seriously. In hex.

1. 2-3 (G. 1. 2 ff, M. 29. 5c ff.) he reviews theories in rivalry with the Christian view, dealing specifically with the eternity ofthe world in c.

3 (3& ff; ga ff). Basil argues that we have no evidence of any phenomena eternally existent without beginning. The circular movement of the heavenly bodies in no way proves that the circles did not begin at some point in space and time. A circle drawn on paper has no visible starting-point but, obviously, the man who drew it had to begin somewhere. Similarly, the universe had a starting-point, and, in accordance with the principle that things which have a beginning also come to an end, is due for ultimate destruction. Cf. S. Giet, SC 26 (Paris, 1949), gg—100. But, despite this argument, Basil grounds his case mainly on the authority of Scripture. Greg. bases his entirely on authority.

If the world were eternal, 'inspired' writers would turn out to be mistaken.

In the following century the argument was taken up again. Proclus, for example, arguing for the eternity of the world, is opposed by Aeneas ofGaza. Cf. CHLGEMP, chs. 19 (A. C. Lloyd) and 31 (I. P.

55. Kkodope: in thus addressing the cosmos Greg. is not being entirely rhetorical. For where his vocative is pure apostrophe, others were accustomed to call upon the cosmos as a divine being. The association of eternity and divinity is an obvious one. The variety of beliefs compassed by this attribution of divinity to the cosmos need not here concern us (cf. A. J. Festugiére, La Revelation d'Hermes

Trismégiste, ii, Le Dieu cosmique (Paris, 1949), esp. 238 ff.). It is sufficient to notice that the divinity of the cosmos formeda significant part ofmany people's religious attitude. As Philo had claimed long before, there was a strong religious element in Aristotle's original affirmation ofthe eternity ofthe world, de aet. mundi 10 (2. 489 M., 6.

52 ff. C.-W. Cf. Baudry 104). When Sallustius writes of offering prayer directly to the cosmos, De dis 17. 10 (Nock, p. 32. 22 ff.), he is following up one aspect of the divinity theory, as others had done

4. 55-62 before him: Rochefort in his note on the passage (p. 51 n. 10), cites Manilius, Astron. 1. 523; Pliny, HN 2. 1; Porphyry fr. in Eus. p.e. 3. 9

(pp. 126 ff, M. 21. 1848 ff). See further A. H. Armstrong, 'The World of the Senses in Pagan and Christian Thought', Downside

Review, 68/213 (1950), 305-23.

57. Xovtopegot: Xpicrodépos is first found in Ignatius, Eph. g. 2

(Bihlmeyer p. 85. 15; M. 5. 6528). For the meaning 'Christ-bearing' which it there has cf. J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, 1. ii (London, 1889), 21, 56nn.. The word came into use asa title of respect for martyrs and prominent Christians: cf. Phileas ap. Eus. h.e. 8. 10. 3 (p. 760. 13; M. 20. 7648) of the Alexandrian Martyrs,

Asterius Amasenus (M. 4o. 348) of St. Stephen, Ath. inc. 10. 5 (M.

25. 113C), gent. 5 (M. 25. 12¢), in both places ofSt. Paul. In Ar. 3. 45

(M. 26. 417¢), Ath. uses the word Xproroddpor (joined with drAéxpeorot) in a context which justifies Miiller's gloss 'orthodox'

(Lexicon Athanasianum s.v.). This may be the meaning here. Another possibility is that we are to see an analogy with Geoddpos (PGL s.v. 4 b) = 'inspired': on a question such as this it would be appropriate that Greg. should invoke the authority of Scripture. Elsewhere

Greg. applies the word to the human soul or a mouth uttering praise: carm. 1. 2. 38. 8 (M. 37. 9674) and 2. 2. 7. 313 (1575).

See further, for the history of the word, F. J. Délger, "Christophorus als Ehrentitel fiir Martyrer u. Glaubige im christlichen

Altertum', AC 4 (1934), 73-80; A. Hermann, "'Christophorus', RAC li (1954), 1241-50.

58. Cf. Pindar's Qpac ..

. éAcogdpwevar (O. 4. 2 ff). For éAicow see Are. 3. 43 0.

59. For the work of the Logos in Creation cf. Arc. 7. 55 ff.

59b-62 accept the belief that Creation took place at a point fixed by God but ask what was the nature of divine contemplation and concern before the universe was in being. Origen had faced a similar issue in De Principiis. Following an attack upon those who imagined that they could reconcile the idea of a Maker of the universe with that of uncreated, coeternal matter, he continued: 'secundum hanc enim eorum rationem si ponamus verbi gratia materiam non fuisse, ut isti asserunt dicentes quia deus non potuerit aliquid facere, cum nihil esset, sine dubio futurus erat offosus, materiam non habens ex qua posset operari, quam ei non sua provisione, sed fortuito sentiunt adfuisse' (princ. 2. 1. 4: p. 110. 17 ff, M. 11. 185c). This

Origen dismisses as completely lacking in understanding of the 4. 59-66 nature and intelligence of the uncreated God (v. 63 n.). Considering where the argument appears in the present poem, one should notice that it is to the Manichees that Augustine attributes the question of God's activity before Creation: primum ergo librum Veteris Testamenti, qui inscribitur Genesis, sic solent

Manichaei reprehendere. quod scriptum est, Jn principiofecit Deus caelum et lerram, quaerunt, in quo principio; et dicunt: si in principio aliquo temporis fecit Deus caelum et terram, quid agebat antequam faceret caelum et terram? et quid ei subito placuit facere, quod numquam antea fecerat per tempora aeterna? his repondebimus, Deum in principio fecisse caelum et terram, non in principio temporis, sed in Christo, cum Verbum esset apud

Patrem, per quod facta et in quo facta sunt omnia.

(de Gen. contra Manichaeos, 1. 2. 3, M. PL 34. 174) Proclus was later to ask why, according to his opponents' view of creation, God had waited so long 'in idleness' (in 77. 88c).

60. Kivuro: for the reasons for preferring this form to Caillau's xivvoto, cf. Arc. 1. 34 n. Again, both L and Cu read the single v form (as they do in v. 67 below). For the form xivuro see Monro, Homeric

Grammar, §17, p. 18; cf. Chantraine, i, §§ 132-42, pp. 382 ff.

61. &xonKrtos: 'idle', as 'otiosus' in Rufinus' Origen, quoted in wv.

59b-62 n. a@téheotos: there appears to be no lexical parallel for the sense which is required here. LSJ give passive senses like 'unaccomplished, uninitiated' (III and IV are irrelevant here). PGL and Soph. add Christian examples in the sense 'unbaptized', mostly taken from Greg.: cf. orr. 18.

31 (M. 35. 1024.c); 40. 28 (M. 36. 4004); carm.2.

1. 1. 324 (M. 37. 994A). But here the sense must be active = 'not accomplishing anything'. aréAcoros here has the meaning found in dreAjs (LSJ II Act.: 'Not bringing to an end, not accomplishing one's purpose, ineffectual').

63-6. The Trinity's self-contemplation. M. Pellegrino, with justice, points to these lines as showing a quality of verse which is rising towards poetry (La poesia di S. GregorioNazianzeno, 30: 'Versi grandi, fulgenti di luminosa bellezza, . . ."). A finer poet than Greg. was later to write, in prose, words of similar import. 'For all Eternity is at once in Him, both the empty durations before the World was made, and the full ones after' (Traherne, 'Centuries of Meditations', i. 44, ed. H. M. Margoliouth (Oxford, 1958), i. 22, ll. 6-8).

On the thought of these and the following lines cf. Florovsky, 'Idea of Creation', 60 ff.

COMMENTARY ON ARC, 4, 63-74 63. ai@ovv Keveoiouv: they are 'empty', as devoid oftemporal events.

These ages are to be thought of as equivalent to the singular aid (= 'eternity') which Greg. defines in carm. 1. 2. 34. 14 (M. 37. 9464): aid, Sidorny' dypdvws dei péov and, at greater length, in or. 38.8

(M. 36. 3204 £.) = 45. 4 (628¢):; ala@v yap, obre xpdvos ote xypdvou Tt wépos: odb€ yap petpytév: GAA' drep Huiv 6 xpévos, HAiov dopa petpotmevos, Toto Tois didlos alwy, Td CUpTApEKTEWOLEVOW TOIS ova, ofdv T ypovixer Kivnua Kai dudornpa.

But there is one other interpretation which must be considered.

Schubach, Commentatio, 51, claimed to find here a refutation of Origen's teaching about the existence of other worlds before this one. Origen held that the Creator could never have been without a world over which to exercise his power. As we have seen, in wv. 5gb62 n., Origen will not have God idle and the form of activity prescribed is occupation with the concerns ofa succession ofworlds, as he writes in princ. 3. 5. 3 (pp. 272 ff., M. 11. 3278 ff.). Dismissing the suggestion of 'otiosam ... et immobilem .. . naturam Dei', he goes on: 'nos vero consequenter respondebimus observantes regulam pietatis et dicentes, quoniam non tunc primum cum visibilem istum mundum fecit Deus, coepit operari, sed sicut post corruptionem huius erit alius mundus, ita et antequam hic esset, fuisse alios

| credimus.' It must be said that «eveoioc could well carry this meaning. But one wonders whether Greg. would have dealt with such a theory in this passing way if this had been in his mind.

64. Kivuto: cf. v. 60 n. Taken with @jevevos it means 'active in contemplation of. Greg. writes of divine self-contemplation in or. 40.5

(M. 36. 3648): atid (sc. das) éavtod PewpytiKdy Te Kai KaTamAn«tixév, dAvya Tois E€w yeduevov.

65. tovecoqan is found in a Trinitarian context in Or. exp. in Pr. 16

(M. 17. 1968) and again applied to Godhead by Greg. in carm. 2. 1.

13. 214 (M. 37. 12444).

67-74. The content of the divine mind. For these lines cf. Florovsky, 'Idea of Creation', 61 ff. Greg.'s idea of self-contemplation may be contrasted with that ofAristotle. The latter thinks ofthe divine mind as totally absorbed in itself: its whole knowledge is self-knowledge.

For this, see Metaph. 107415 ff., especially 1074°33-5: avrév dpa voi, cimep €o7t 76 KpaTioTOV, Kai EoTW 7 VonaLs voT}GEws vonats (cf. notes in Ross's edn., ii. 396 ff.). Greg., while wishing to preserve the mystery ofcontemplation within the Godhead, stresses the outflowing activity ofGod in Creation: see e.g. or. 38.

9 (M. 36. 320€) = 45. 5

4. 67-74 (62g A), ézei 5€ OK HpKet TH AyabdryT TOUTO, 76 Kiveiabat pévoV 77 éauris Bewpia, adr' Se yebjvar 76 dyadv cai ddetcat, ws mAelova eivac 7a evepyeToUmeva (ToUTO pap Tis dxpas Hv dyab6rTytos) xrA. That passage goes on to describe how the heavenly powers were formed (cf. vv. 77 ff. below). The present passage concerns itself with another aspect of the divine activity, the way in which the mind ofGod looks from self-contemplation, not to active creation, but to regard the forms of the worlds to be created, the worlds of mind and matter.

To guard against any reappearance ofcoeternal Forms (cf. wv. 2 f. above), Greg. says that God 'established' them (v. 67). This view collides sharply with that of, say, Timaeus, where it is clear that the Demiurge does not bring the Forms into being, but merely uses them, taking them as he finds them; Tim. 2gp-31. Cf. Cornford's note in his edn., pp. 33 ff, esp. p. 41: "The model, as strictly eternal, is independent of the Demiurge, whose function it is to be the cause, not ofeternal Being, but only oforder in the realm ofBecoming.

... The Forms are always spoken of as existing eternally in their own right.' Nor is there the restriction upon God which Plotinus places upon his Divine Mind. Here, as A. H. Armstrong pointed out in Downside Review, 73/231 (1954-5), 51, the Mind is limited because the Forms which are its content are definite and fixed in number. Greg. accepts no such restriction. The Forms

(here the Forms ofthe world are specified) are no more and no less than thought in the mind of God. Greg. is thus in line with an understanding of the Forms which had been developed by Albinus, who reinterpreted the Platonic Forms as thoughts ofGod, not selfexistent beings (Epitome 9. 1-2). The relationship between these

Forms and the created order is quite direct: in creating the worlds, the intelligible and the visible, God simply follows the thoughts in his mind. With Philo there had been an intermediary stage: the Forms, starting as thoughts in God's mind, achieve the status of real, created beings which form the intelligible world, which are situated within the Logos, and which form the model for the visible world. (Cf. references in Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church

Fathers, i. 258 n. 4; the whole chapter is valuable for its account of the Patristic interpretation of the Platonic Forms: ch. 13, "The Logos and the Platonic Ideas', pp. 257-86.) For Greg., as will be seen from wv. 93 ff., the intelligible world is quite different. It is created, as the visible world is created, directly by God, while his

4. 67-74 thoughts remain his thoughts and do not take on any existence of their own. The heavenly world which is created is a world ofbeings, ofangels who, as Greg. is forced to admit (cf. Arc. 6. 53 ff. n.), may make wrong choices, not a world of ideas.

It is not necessary to trace in full the development of the notion to understand Greg.'s allusion to it. For the way it is treated in Antiochus ofAscalon, Seneca, Philo, and Albinus cf. CHLGEMP, 53 ff.,

66-7 (P. Merlan) and 142 ff. (H. Chadwick) together with A. N. M.

Rich, "The Platonic Ideas as Thoughts ofGod', Mnemosyne, 4th ser., 7 (1953), 123-33 and A. H. Armstrong, 'The Background of the Doctrine "That the Intelligibles are not outside the Intellect"', Les

Sources de Plotin (Entietiens Hardt, 5; Vandceuvres-Geneva, 1960), 393-425I. P. Sheldon-Williams points to the more dynamic function of the Forms in the thought of Basil and Nyssen (CHLGEMP, 430).

67. Kivuto: cf. v. 60 n.

68. Koopoyovos: this is the first recorded use ofthe word, but cf. Arc.

69 provides the link with the following lines.

70-4. The Forms exist in a timeless state in the mind ofGod. On these lines Schubach observed (Commentatio, 52):

'... responsum modo citatum quasi emendans pergit: wdvta QOceq@ apomdpoWev... KA.

What Greg. has spoken of up to v. 69 is Forms of the world which found expression at a point in time but which existed independently of time in the Divine Mind. Schubach meant by 'emendans' that Greg. implied in vv. 7o-4 (he added that Greg. failed to draw the explicit conclusion) the view that God contemplated not the Forms of the universe but the universe itself from all eternity. As he says

(p. 53): "ex aeterno omnia creavit vel creat'. On this interpretation mdvra (v. 70) = 'the universe', as frequently. Butwhy should there be any such implication? The natural sense of the lines makes them a continuation, not a correction, of what has preceded. 'All things'

(zdvra) are 'before' God, not in the sense that they have been created by him 'ex aeterno', but because they are present in the mind of God precisely as the Forms of the world are present. The expression 7dvra goes beyond the Forms in its inclusion of events taking place in time. (For the importance ofthe distinction between the 'idea' of the world and the world itself see Florovsky, 'Idea of Creation', 63.) That Greg. was unlikely to have adumbrated such a view as 4. 67-77 Schubach suggested may be further demonstrated from er. 38. g—10 (M. 36. 320c ff.) = 45. 5-6 (6294 ff.). Despite his proviso that temporal language has no meaning when applied to the actions of the eternal God—cf. or. 38. 7 (3178 ff.)

= 45. 3 (635 ff.) —Greg. easily slips into the use of temporal expressions. He thinks of stages of creation: it was only when the first order of creation (the world of thought) was well established that God formed the concept (€vvoei) of the material world (3214 = 629c). This is far removed from creation 'ex aeterno'.

71-2. Time is a divisive factor, 'splitting' past, present, and future as an axe splits wood. To be subject to time is essentially a creaturely condition, as Greg. has stressed in Arc. 2. 18-27, 3. 84-6; cf. also

Balthasar, Presence etpensée 4, 20.C. Moreschini in his tr. aptly compares Plot. 3. 7.

A modern writer who is affected by the contrast between immortality and human bondage to time is Edwin Muir.

One thinks of 'Variations on a Time Theme' (1934) which contains such lines: 'If there's no crack or chink, no escape from Time, ...

Imprisonment's for ever; we're the mock of Time ...' (Collected Poems (London, 1960), 48.) 73. The language becomes suddenly more personal and more biblical, recalling the thought ofDeut. 33. 27: i276 ioydv Bpaytévev aevawy.

75-92. The Creation ofangelsand ofmen 75-6. The travail figure is applied to the mind in Pl. Thr. 148k, al.

In the present passage the auxiliary idea of pain or difficulty is absent.

Again temporal language appears (cf. 7o-4 n.), with eis darepov indicating a further stage. Elsewhere the phrase denotes progression in time or alteration in status (cf. e.g. S. Ant. 1194, Pl. 77. 82b).

77. 1@eXe: this affirmation was seen by many of the Fathers as fundamental for the doctrine ofCreation: God's will was the only cause of the created order. Origen demurred, but most held that God was not inevitably Creator. Ignatius had used the words: év @eAyjjzart rob beAjoavros Ta wavTa G Eotev, Rom. proem. (Bihlmeyer, p. 96. 20, M.

5685 a).Clement, sir. 7. 12 (p. 50. 4, M. 9. 4960), prot. 4 (p. 48. 18, M.

8. 164A). siAw@ ro BovAcdecGa: Snutovpyei and Athanasius, Ar. 2. 2

(M. 26. 152A f.) are amongst those who take them up. Greg. here balances and corrects any suggestion of divine compulsion which 4. 77-81 might be thought to reside in the words from or. 38 (45) quoted in n. on wv. 67-74: éde: yePyvar 76 ayaddv Kai ddedcar. For Greg.'s understanding cf. Meijering 'Doctrine of the Will'. voroav ... @vatv places man in his primary alignment as a rational being who shares his faculty with the angels and with God himself. However much Greg. finds it necessary to point to the discontinuity of Creator and all created things, he never neglects the kinship of vods which binds together God, angels, and men.

78. Ecomtoa: where Zcomtpov is used ina figurative sense it usually directs attention to the function of a mirror in presenting a secondary image ofthe original, whether this be a close correspondence (as e.g. Lyr. Alex. Adesp. 37. 26 Powell) or an inferior or distorted representation of the subject (as 1 Cor. 13. 12). But a mirror serves also to transmit light, as in the following passage, Aét. ii. 20. 12 (DK 44 A 19. i. 404. 4 ff). DiAcAaos 6 Mvbaydperos vadoed7j Tov mALov, dexdpevov ev €v TW KOOLW TUpds THY avratyeiav, dinfodvra 5é mpds Huds T6 Te Peds Kai THY GA€éav, Ware tpdémov tiva bitrods HAlovs yiveoBat, 76 Te €v oUpavw mUpw@des Kai

T6 am' avTou mupoedes KaTa TO éaomTpoedés, el f27) Tts Kal Tpitov Aé£ec THY am6 Tov évérTpou Kai avdKAaaw d.aoTEpopévny mpds

Huds adyyv. Both representation and transmission appear to be present in é€coz7zpa here.

79. txodonoteioay: no other instance of the fem. is recorded. The word here has the same cultic sense as zodpynonjp in carm. 2. 1. 16. tr (M. 37. 12554), where Greg. is describing a dream about the Anastasia church: of 8° dp' irodpnonjpes év ciuact taypgavowow éoracar, ayyeAKis elxdves dyAains.

80. mAnoupay: elsewhere the word is used ofthe moon to mean 'with full light' (cf. LSJ and Soph. s.v., together with Plotinus' 7Anoiduos in 2. 3. 5). Greg.'s use ofthe word implies not a distinction of phases, but contrasts the permanent fullness of light enjoyed by the angels with the partial light experienced by human beings. Cf. Arc.

81. xyyaCov: there are two ideas here. The first is that of"bounty'— cf. Philo de opif. mundi 45. 133 (M. 1. 31. 44; C.-W. i. 38. 7), al.—and the second that of 'source'. The first idea is picked up by 6APi6dwpov v. 82. God, as the source ofdivinity, graciously allows it to gush forth. The meaning is coloured by NT reminiscences, John 4. 14,

Rev. 7. 17, 21. 6. We may note that Proclus, writing some time later than Greg., uses not dissimilar language: xara 5é€ rHv év éauta

4. 81-5 'Péav tpimAqv myydter (sc. Zeds) Cwiv, voepdav, wuyrxyy, acwparixyy (in Cra. p. 52. 12-13). Cf. also Arc. 6. 8n. Creation is presented as showing at once God's power (dvacay) and his grace

(GAB.68wpor), a contrast with the Manichaean doctrine ofparticles of stolen light.

82. dABiddwoov. Cf. Arc. 3. 5 n.

83. The very essence of God's rule is beneficent, his generosity and the d86vos of Satan standing in contrast. Cf. Ath. inc. 3. 3 (M. 25.

191 B; gent. 41. 81D). Augustine was to make much ofthe 'bonitas' of God in creation. Cf. Civ. Dei 11.24 (M. PL 41. 338; CSEL 40/r. 548.

4 ff.; CCSL 48. 343. 30 ff.), for instance: 'in eo vero quod dicitur: vidit Deus quia bonum est, satis significatur, Deum nulla necessitudine, nulla suae cuiusquam utilitatis indigentia, sed sola bonitate fecisse quod factum est, id est quod bonum est.' bAPov éxaCerv recalls a line ofHesiod where Hecate rewards her suppliant: xai ré of GABov dmdle: émeit Stvapis ye wapeoriv (Th.

420). But, whereas for Hesiod 6A8os means physical well-being or wealth (cf. H. J/. 16. 596; Sir. 30. 15), Greg. writes of the blessing of sharing something of the divine nature. Cf. also Ps.-Manetho 2 (1).

221: Zeds GABov oraLlet.

84-92. The purpose ofthe Logos in placing creation at some distance from God is to prevent a desire for the impossible, the full possession of God's glory. Such desire can result only in the loss of the light and glory which were granted to created beings. In other words, the Logos intended to guard against precisely the case of Satan, for the language used applies directly to him and, iféAéaon is right in v. 85, echoes v. 47 above, where Satan is the subject: 7s uzepomAinat ddos Kai Kvdos 6Aéooas. Again, the language of this passage anticipates that ofthe Fall in Arc. 6. 65-7. In the event, man did not suffer a complete loss of divine light, despite the Fall. But, whereas in his original state he was meant to live in continuous light, in his fallen state he became open only to particular acts of illumination.

84. d&vruBéoro;: there is a similar instance in Didym. Trin. 2. 15 (M. 39.

5444) = 'rivalling God', though the precise theological issue is different. Greg. several times employs the word substantivally; cf. orr.

30. 5 (p. 114. 4, M. 36. 108c), 31. 26 (p. 179. g, 164).

85. Texts disagree on whether to read 6rdle:, daly, or GAéaon as the last word: (L has 6Aéooy, Cu d7afn). The basic meaningofthe passage is unaffected by the choice. What is affected is the balance

4. 85-92 and the similarity to other lines. The real choice is between dzaly and 6Aécoyn. A subjunctive is called for by ddpa ... ua. These appear to be the relevant considerations:

(i) In favour of cAéooy it may be said that the correspondence with v. 47 has point. There would be more than a verbal reminiscence involved.

(ii) The sense is not harmed by éza{y. If it were read we should have a sentence of two balanced clauses, saying much the same thing. But this is not alien to Epic style. Nor is the different sense of émalew which would be required alien to Greg.'s style. Where 674Cew in v. 83 means 'grant', é7a¢y here would have the sense 'chase, pursue' (LSJ s.v. [[]). Yet a third sense occurs in Are. 5. 16: 'to give as leader'.

(iii) Against xidos dzdéfy it may be urged that it provides a meaning so similar to cideos (ueipovca as to be pointless. The contrast of 'yearning for' and 'losing' is much more appropriate.

(iv) The argument from assimilation might be applied to either reading. A scribe could have been influenced by v. 83 to produce an unconscious homeoteleuton or by v. 47 to make a conscious

'improvement'. 6Aéson remains the attested and more telling text.

86. W. Ackermann discussed the way in which yr@ma: appear in Greg.'s verse, Die didaktische Poesie des Gregorius von Nazianz (Leipzig, 1908), 82 ff; the Moralia naturally contain a large proportion of the total. yva@a: in general and their place in Greek literature and philosophy are dealt with in RE Supp. vi. 74go. A classic example of «ézpor is given in Pindar, P. 2. 34 (the context is Ixion's attempt upon Hera): yp 6€ kar' adrév alei ravrés dpav wérpor. In or. 43. 60

(M. 36. 5738) Greg. quotes the saying 76 wav pétpov dprorov (attributed to Cleobulus, one of the Seven Sages: cf. DK i. 10. 3, i. 63. 1), claiming it as a favourite precept of Basil, and the thought occurs in carm. 2. 1. 11. 1239 (M. 37. 11144) as: wézpor 7 dpiotov, trav coday évés Adyos.

87. Aéyog aims: the same words recur in Arc. 7. 55. The straightforward sense is that of the Logos 'on high'. But it is possible that Greg. intended also the meaning 'sheer', as Agathias speaks of 'sheerest wisdom' (aizvrdrys sodins, AP 11. 354. 2).

88. a&uqubdwKov: a hapax legomenon.

89-92. Having shown the kinship ofGod, angels, and men, the poem now turns to the other essential teaching, the relationship of COMMENTARY ON ARC, 4, 89-96 Creator and created which places God on one side of a line and angels and men on the other. This is the reason why both must be kept at a distance from God. But soon a distinction made earlier (cf. v. 40) is again introduced. The boundaries are redrawn, with the angels standing on the side of God as dzAoi, and man placed on the other side, a composite being.

92. wyOeions: cf. Arc. 1. 24 n., Arc. 7.1 n. Though I incline to the tr.

'mingled with', | accept L. R. Wickham's point that the words could be rendered 'mixed together by Godhead', The two worlds, the heavenly and the mortal On the nature of the heavenly world, cf. vv. 67-74 n.

93. &dog: for the pleonastic use of aAAos ef. eg. H. Il.

_ 94, Oevopéow: cf.Arc. 3. 55-6 n. The word here has a fuller meaning than in that passage: the heavenly beings 'possess' God continuously. povots . .

. bentov may be a reminiscence of Pl. Phdr. 247C: ovoia +. Puyns cuBepvyiry wévw Pear) va. But there is a significant difference in that the 'minds' in Greg. are complete beings.

95-6. These lines return to the subject of deification. Something of what this means was expressed in the 'mingling' language ofArc. 1.

24 (see n.), More direct reference was made in Arc. 3. 4, where the Holy Spirit was said to make man God through baptism. Here we

~ are told that a mortal may reach heaven, véov xai capxa xabjpas.

Putting these passages together, we may take it that Greg. is thinking of the 'deification' of baptism in a proleptic sense, as the 'mingling' on earth is an anticipation of the heavenly communion. The completion ofthe gift of 'becoming God' takes place in the world beyond the present. tedé0yau means 'comes into being as, becomes'. Cf. also the middle in Ps.-Phocylides 104: @eoi reA€ovrac. voov kai O@oka kaOiyOas: véov and cépxa are the direct objects of xajpas. Itis by the cleansing of both that man is deified. Some years before, in the panegyric on his brother Caesarius, Greg. had outlined his belief in the future life or. 7. 21 (M. 35. 7818 ff.). The soul of the good Christian finds in death an immediate sense of exultation in being released from the body and perceives something of the blessedness which awaits it. Greg. hesitates over the way of JI COMMENTARY ON ARC.

4. 96-8 describing what happens to the body (he calls it 76 émioxorotv).

Should he say dvaxa@ap@évros or dvorebévros? In fact, he seems to say both. For he goes on: puxpov 6° dorepov, kai 76 ovyyevés capKiov amoAaBotca, w 7a éxeibev auvediAoaddgnae, mapa THs Kai dovons Kai moTevbeions yijs, Tpémov Ov oidev 6 Tatra cuvdijcas cai d:addcas eds, roUTw cuyKAnpovoye Tis éxeifer S6€nskai xabdnep Tay woxOnpwv avrov peréoxe Sta THY oupduiay, o0tw kai Twr TepTVay €auTAs peTadidworr, GAov Eis €auTHY avaddcaca,

Kai yevouévy adv totTw év Kai mvetua Kai vots Kai Oeds, xatatobévros U6 Tis Cwijs Tod Ovnrou Te Kai pedvrTos.

(or. 7. 21, M. 35. 781¢ f.) The body which the soul 'receives back' has been both 'laid aside' and "cleansed" before it is 'swallowed up' in deification. This, then, is the way in which we are to understand the purification ofthe body in the present passage. The mind, it may be thought, is purified by its increasing apprehension ofdestined divine happiness; cf... . kai ofov 46n TH davracia Kapmotrat Thy droKemévny waxapidryTa, loc. cit. (781¢). Death and future life in Greg.'s understanding are fully treated in J. Mossay, La Mort et l'au-dela dans saint Grégoire de

Nazianze (Louvain, 1966).

On the subject of deification, cf. J. Gross, La Divinisation du chrétien dapres les Peres grecs (Paris, 1938); pp. 239 ff. are concerned with the Cappadocians, with pp. 244-50 relating to Greg. in particular. The passage quoted above bears out Gross's conclusion that deification for Greg. means not identification so much as assimilation (p. 249). Cf. also Mersch, Le Corps mystique du Christ, i.

447; M. Lot-Borodine, 'La doctrine de la déification dans I'Fglise grecque jusqu au xI* siecle', RHR 105 (1932), 5-43; 106 (1932), 523—

74; Ruether, Gregory, pp. 150 ff.; Althaus, Heilslehre, 4-5, 71 ff., 79 ff., 141—2, 166, 179, 191 ff; Winslow, Dynamics, 73-199, esp. 171-99.

97-9. The mortal world.

97. Greg. permits a false quantity in @vy7d5. Even if @vards were read, this would not mend matters, as the a here is long in the Doric form. Cf. Jungck edn. ofDe vita sua, pp. 34-6; C. U. Crimi, 'Il problema delle "false quantities" di Gregorio Nazianzeno', Siculorum

Gymnasium, NS 25 (1972), 1-26. meayn: cf. Arc. 5. 1.

98. yaots: the word here has the meaning of'beauty', or, as in Pi. O. 1.

18, 8. 57, 80, 'glory'. «jpuvé perhaps continues the sense of the first 4. 98-100 part of the line in being associated particularly with the heavenly bodies. In Pss. 18. 2 (19.

6 Heb.) it is the heavens which are spoken of as especially 'proclaiming' God.

In or. 44. 3 (M. 36. 609c), however, the whole world is called God's K7puKa.

99. eikovocg éuBaoidevpa turns to the earth. It is a 'royal palace' because it is the appointed home of man, who is formed in the image ofthe King ofCreation. éuBaciAevua is a hapax legomenon: cf. the verb éuBaoiAedesv in v. 63. For eixwy, cf. Arc. 7. 74-5 n.

100. The line summarizes the purposive, voluntary, ex nifilo creation teaching of the poem and prepares for the doctrine of continuing

Providence which is advanced in the following poem.

5On Providence Title andpurpose The title epi ITpovoias is agreed. It accurately indicates content.

After a briefassault on chance as the sole arbiter offortune, the poem settles to its central task of refuting astral determinism. The place of the poem in the sequence is clear. Just as, in Greg.'s world picture, it makes most sense to hold that the God who ordered the elements is the same God who made them (Arc. 4. 14-15), so now it is obvious to him that there is continuity between the Creator and the power which governs the established universe, the continuity ofcomplete identity.

There were many people in Greg.'s time who would have given an affirmative answer to the question 'Do you believe in Providence?' but who would have proved, at best, embarrassing allies and, at worst, blunt enemies of Greg.'s position. The followers of Plotinus could point to the section of the Enneads which deals exclusively with Providence (3. 2. 3), while Stoics could claim belief in Providence as one of their most distinctive tenets; cf. e.g. Epictetus, Diatr. 1. 14, 16 ed. H. Schenk] (Leipzig (Teubner), 1916), 56 ff; M. Pohlenz, Die Stoa:

Geschichte einer geistigen Bewegung (Gottingen, 1964), i. 98 ff. But Piotinus' treatment, starting as it does with an attack upon the automatic theory in terms which Greg. could well echo (3. 2. 1), quickly shifts to a defence of the eternal existence of the universe. Having explicitly dismissed any theory of creation out of non-existence,

Plotinus shows that he can have little help to give Greg. in his formulation of a doctrine of Providence. The kind of Providence which operates in a world which is produced by necessity rather than purpose (€£ dvady«ns 6vtos avrot Kai odx éx Aoyiapuou yevouévou, 3. 2.

3. 3-4) is not what Greg. would recognize as Providence; cf. Pinault 103 ff; Moreschini, 'Platonismo', 1374, 1382, 1386. Nor would the Stoics' rejection of chance governance of the universe be enough to counterbalance their rigid determinism of Fate and their acceptance of astral influence (cf. below vv. 15b ff.). Again, Aristotle gains a slighting reference from Greg. because of what he takes to be the philosopher's quite inadequate teaching on Providence, or. 27. 10 (p. 19.

1-2, M. 36. 248 f£.). Cf. notes in the edns. ofMason, Barbel, and Norris (pp. 100-1). Greg. himselfdefines Providence in carm. 1. 2. 34. 265 (M.

37964A): 7) 5), ofaxiopds, @ déper 76 av Geds.

Writing of the early Empire, R. MacMullen in Enemies oftheRoman Order (Cambridge, Mass., 1967), 141 pointed to 'a world dedicated to astral fatalism', a world in which astrologers could hope to rise to positions of influence. Though the Christian emperors set their face against these, there is little doubt that the power of fatalistic systems endured.

At the other extreme from Greg. we might place Carneades, the 3rd—2nd c. sceptic. He would have dismissed almost everything for which Greg. stood, being contemptuous of all dogmatic pronouncements and, deriding all concepts of divinity, would have no dealing with any notion ofprophecy or providence. Yet such is the nature of Greg.'s eclectic plundering that he has no qualms about taking over wholesale for his own very different purposes the arguments Carneades used against the possibility ofmaking astral predictions (cf.

Among Christian writers Origen had given a central place to the Providence of God and the free will of created rational beings, while

Nyssen defended similar views in his contra fatum (M. 45. 145 ff.).

Nazianzen himselfwrites a somewhat parallel poem in iambics, 1. 1.6

In Systematic Theology i. 294, Paul Tillich wrote: 'In the late ancient world fate conquered providence and established a reign of terror among the masses; but Christianity emphasized the victory of Christ over the forces of fate and fear just when they seemed to have overwhelmed him at the cross. Here faith in providence was definitively established.' This poem has some part in that establishment.

1-52. The world is ruled by the Creator, not by chance nor by stars 1. evov@épevdrov: if N's evpubéue@Aov, read by Caillau, were accepted (PGL marks it [*]), this, with carm. 1. 2. 1. 531 (M. 37.

5624), would be its only occurrence, apart froma v./. in Call. Dian.

248, reported by E. Cahen (Paris, 1942), edpt GéuerAov (ABE) or evpuGéeAov (Bergk). References to the foundation ofthe earth are frequent in the OT, e.g. Pss. 17 (18 Heb.). 16 (ra @euéAca ris ofxovwévys); 81 (82 Heb.). 5 (ra Bepédta ris ys); Prov. 8. 29; Isa. 14. 15,

40. 21. éxyEato: two established meanings of mjyvupc fit here equally well, neither excluding the other. The sense may be that offastening together different parts or that offixing, establishing (where there is often a thought of the permanence ofwhat is established). axetowv: the Ep. form carries all the meaning ofdze:pos. This is

1-3 a word with a long philosophical history stretching back to Anaximander. (Cf. Guthrie, History, i. 77 ff.) In Christian literature it is a natural epithet ofGod (cf. e.g. or. 38. 8, M. 36. 3204) or of the Logos

(PGL s.v, 3). N's reading dze:pov makes sense, though Billius found it difficult. Supposing that it must mean 'infinite' and hesitating to apply this to the visible world, he suggested that Greg. was here talking of two worlds, visible and invisible. But, as Caillau recognized, this has no support in the text. However, dze:pov need not have this meaning. Guthrie holds that as early as Xenophanes a weaker sense was possible (op. cit. 381). We should then have the world described as 'immense', the English word providing an exact parallel for the weakened sense.

There is a valuable discussion ofthe concept in Nyssen's writings by E. Muhlenberg, Die Unendlichkeit Gottes bei Gregor von Nyssa

2. The idea that the origin of the world is to be traced to the action of vous is found as early as Anaxagoras: «ai droia EueAAev Eceabar Kai é7oia Hv, daca viv wh €ort, xai dvoia €oTt, wdv7a Srexdapyae vous.

(fr. 12; DK ii. 38. to—11). He is reported to have used the words votv KkoguoTotov; Cf. Avagaydpas votv kocpozoidv tov Gedv (DK ii. 19.

36). When, however, Greg. writes the similar cxogpoydvos vows in Arc. 4. 68, he is outlining a very different conception of the relationship of the Divine Mind to the world. Plato (Phd. 97c-ggp) and Aristotle (Metaph. 985*, 988°) criticized Anaxagoras for positing mind and later abandoning it in favour of physical causes. (Cf. n. on vy.

4 below.) Greg. sees the providential action ofthe Divine Mind as continuous from eternity. For God as vous ef. Arc. 1. 29 and PGL s.v, F. 1, évtés ... teoGev: cf. Arc. 2. 5-6 n.

3. The argumentofthis line is closely linked with that ofthe previous one. The thought of the two lines is: "The Divine Mind contains all possibilities (cf. Arc. 4. 7o n.). It transcends everything. (Ifit did not, it would be contained within the universe.) But how can the immensity of the unlimited be contained?' This differs from Billius' interpretation. He takes it that Greg. is saying that the Divine Mind is beyond human comprehension.

(Caillau's 'comprehendi' is amenable to either understanding.) Now it is true that one of the meanings of dycépyros is 'incomprehensible' (cf. PGL s.v.). But there are two difficulties with Billius' tr. The passage is not concerned with man's understanding but with God's relationship with 5. 3-6 the universe. Second, Aaféoa: is middle, meaning 'to lay hold of, to obtain possession of. The lexica cite no instance of the middle that would correspond with the active 'to apprehend with the mind, to understand' (LSJ s.v. I. gb).

4-6. God sets the world in motion.

4. xnowtnys bx0 Ourijs: U6 pimjs is a Homeric expression, as in //. 12.

462 (the whirled force of a stone) or 15. 171 (the force ofthe North Wind). The reading poms (cf. Caillau's n.) seems less likely: it is difficult to think of it as meaning 'momentum' without some qualifying word (as it has in Philo Mechanicus, Bel. 69. 21). eurys: in writing about God's giving the world its first impetus

Greg. is emphasizing again the place of divine initiative. He is very far from the notion often associated with initial impetus, that once the world had been given its first 'push' it was left to run on its own.

(Cf. Guthrie's description of Anaxagoras: 'In Anaxagoras's system mind simply set the wheels going and then withdrew, leaving the cosmos to continue under its own momentum, subject to purely mechanical laws.' History i. 326.) Yet there is a sense in which the world might be thought to run by itself. In a passage closely parallel to the present one, Basil describes how the plant-world has continued to follow its own course season after season, without the need of God to repeat the initial command 'Let the earth bring forth': ws yap of orpéBiAar éx ris mpartys adtois évdobeions mAnyys tas édeéjs motovvra: wepiotpodads, Gtav mykavres TA KEvtpov év éavtois wepidépwrrar... hex. 5. 10 (G. 1. 4gcf., M. 29.

116c f.). He is drawing on Plat. Rep. 436D ws of ye arpdBiAcr 6Aor éordai re Gua Kai Kevotvrat, drav év TH adres miLavres Tepidépwrrat. The figure of the ball rolling down the slope is used to similar effect in hex. 9.

2 (G. 1. 818, M. 29. 1898 f.). (Cf. furtherJ. F. Callahan, DOP 12 (1958), 34 f.) In the thought ofthe Cappadocians this apparent independence ofnature is itself part ofdivine Providence and very far from leaving the world 'subject to purely mechanical laws'.

5-6. dopmPov: ofthe meanings ofs6u8os given in LS] only that of the 'magic wheel' could possibly fit here. But closer examination ofthe lines shows the difficulty of this meaning. Such a wheel would be driven by torsion, not by a 'blow', In any case, A. S. F. Gow doubts whether the word ever did mean 'magic wheel', in his n. on Theocritus, /dyli 2. 30, Theocritus, ii (Cambridge, 1952), 44. Caillau tr.

'trochum', giving a picture similar to that in Hor. Od. 3. 24, 27. Butif 5-9 we are to look for an otherwise unattested meaning for pouBos, there are strong reasons for choosing 'spinning-top'.

(i) The close resemblance to /ex. §. 10 (quoted in the previous n.) suggests this tr.

(ii) The word p6ufos is very similar to the Homeric ozpéufos (cf. I.

14. 413: orpéuBov 8° as ésoevoe Paddy), which means 'spinning-top', but which is metrically impossible at this point in the line.

(iii) The picture of an object 'driven on its whirling course by a blow' suits a top rather than anything else.

The suggestion that a spinning-top is meant is not new. A. Patin tr. jouBow here as 'Kreisel' in Herakleitische Beispiele (Pr. Neuberg,

1891-2), 84 n. 11, and the tr, was repeated by J. Driseke in Zeitschrift jiir wissenschaftliche Theologie, 49 (1906), 243 n. Again, 'toupie' is

Gallay's rendering (p. 131, repr. Devolder 7o). But the tr. is nowhere discussed. Some justification such as that attempted above is called for.

The picture of the top appealed to Vergil and to Tibullus. Cf. A.

7. 378: 'ceu quondam torto volitans sub verbere turbo' and Tib. 1. s.

3; 'namque agor, ut per plana citus sola verbere turben.'

6. Kivipevoy: cf. Arc. 1. 31.

@x«tvijtovot: a double reference may be seen here, to Aristotle's 7a mpwrov Kwotv dkivytov avo (Metaph. 101231) and to the 'fixed' nature of God's purposes in Creation and continuing Providence.

7-9, The automatic theory ofthe universe.

In denying that some automatic activity is responsible for the creation and operation of the universe Greg. is taking up a wellworn argument. Eusebius, having set out extracts of some length from Diodorus Siculus (p.e. 1. 6-7, 18d ff, 21. 4gc ff.) and Plutarch

(1. 8, 22b ff, 56c ff.), takes as the majority opinion ofGreek physical philosophers: ov dnuioupyov, o8 mommy twa tav GAwy irooTngapévey, GAA' 00d' GAws Beot vin Tomoayéevwv, wavy bé mH aAdyw popa cai TH avTowaTw KivtjaEr THY altiay Tov TavTos dvarefeipévwy, 1. 8 (25c, 618). Cf.

1. 7 (21d f, 568): most Greek philosophers accept this view, he claims. Theophilus of Antioch associates it specifically with Euhemerus. By his damaging writings about the gods he has left himself without any gods at all, Theophilus says dAAd ta madvra avrouation@ diadoKxeiobar BowvAerac, Autol. 3. 7 (M. 6. 1129C).

5, 7-13 Generally, however, the tendency is to hold that avréuaros and related words are the specific hall-mark of the Epicureans.

Hippolytus states that Epicurus denies Providence and believes mdvra Ka7Ta avrouatiopév yiwéobar, haer.

1. 22 (p. 26. 19, M. 16.

3049R). Cf. Methodius res. 2. 10 (p. 349. 10 ff.), where Democritus and Epicurus are associated in the atomic theory: opixpdérata Kai eidn €€ dropwr 7H OyKwv 7} Guepwv 7 duotomepw@y avToudtTw Kai dmpoatpérw diAia. Providence has no place in their system.

In the surviving literature Epicurus himselfdoes not use adréparos or derivatives, preferring to speak of t¥yy and dvdyxn. Cf. the comment of C. Bailey, Epicurus: The Extant Remains (Oxford, 1926),

341 (on Ep. 3. 133): 'Epicurus' conception of"chance" seems to be of a force co-ordinate with necessity. Natural law causes the inevitable sequence of events, but it is chance that rules the production of particular causes: e.g., dvdyxy causes the motions and meetings of atoms, but chance causes them to fall into the positions which create our world.' But Aristotle appears to associate ré6 avréuartov with Democritus and his followers, among whom Epicurus is rightly numbered, and the term became established to characterize this philosophy; cf. Arist. Ph. 196*24 ff, with the note in W. D.

Ross's edn., Aristotle's Physics (Oxford, 1936), 515. Athanasius, for instance, gives it as an Epicurean opinion that the world came into being avroudtws, cai ws érvye, inc. 2.1 (M. 25. 97¢ f.); cf. Cyr. Ful.

2 (478, M. 76. 572b). In or. 25. 6 (M. 35. 1205.) Greg. writes 76 avr6patov Emkotpou peta twv atéuwy Kai THs HOorvyns. For the thought of Epicurus see further A.A. Long, Hellenistic Philosophy

(London, 1974), ch. 2. Text and commentary are well presented in A. A. Long and D. N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers (Cambridge, 1987), i. 25 ff, ii. 18 ff.

In vv. 7-9 Greg. is making the transition to the Cosmological Argument, pointing to the splendour of the universe (rogotrov Kai rofov) as a tacit witness of design.

10-13. Examples in support ofthe Cosmological Argument. On this stock defence of the doctrine of Creation, cf. the art. 'Cosmological

Argument', in ODC 347. Greg. uses it in or. 28. 6 (pp. 29. 3 ff, M. 36.

17¢ ff), taking a lyre as his example.

12-13. These lines do little ifanything for the argument. Ifone could imagine that the universe could come into existence without a maker, one would surely find in its continued existence no great problem.

COMMENTARY ON ARC, 5, 13-33 avyyepovevtos: the word occurs in a similar context in Marcus Aurelius, where he is discussing the same questions offate, providence, or chance operating in the universe. One of the possibilities he considers is that the universe is dupuds avnyeudvevtos (Med.

14. onpavtooa: 'leader, commander', as Zeus is called bed@v onudrtopt wavrwr in Hes. Sc. 56.

15b-33. Astrology The argument switches from attacking those who deny purposive government in the universe to arraigning people who accept the notion ofcontrol but assign it to the stars.

On the general subject of astrology in the ancient world reference may be made to: A. Bouché-Leclercq, L 'Astrologie grecque (Paris, 1899);

F. Cumont, Astrology and Religion among the Greeks and Romans (New York, 1912); id., Les Religions orientales dans le paganisme romain (Paris,

1929); A. J. Festugiére, La Revelation d'Hermeés Trismégiste, i: L 'Astrologie et les sciences accultes (Paris, 1944); W. Gundel (rev. H. G. Gundel),

Sternglaube, Sternreligion undSternorakel, id., 'Astrologie', RAC i (1950), 817-31. The place ofastrology in the whole pattern ofancient thinking on fate is fully traced by E. Amand de Mendieta in Fatalisme et liberté dans lantiquité grecque (Louvain, 1945). The Cappadocians are discussed on pp. 383-439, Nazianzen most briefly on pp. 401-4.

The specifically Christian attitude to astrology is dealt with in U.

Riedinger, Die Al. Schrift im Kampfdergriechischen Kirchegegen die Astrologie (Innsbruck, 1956); J. Bidez, 'Le traité d'astrologie cité par saint

Basile dans son Hexaéméron', L 'Antiquité classique 7 (1938), 19-21; M.

L. W. Laistner, "The Western Church and Astrology during the Early Middle Ages', HTR 34 (1941), 251-75. (The influence of Eastern

Fathers, including Gregory, is discussed.) The Christian attack on astrology may be traced, for example, through Tatian, orat. 8 ff. (Schwartz, pp. 8 ff, M. 6. 821 ff.), Hippolytus, Aaer. 4. 1-27 (pp. 32 ff, M. 16. 3056c ff), Tertullian, idol. g

(CSEL 20. 38 ff; M. PL 1. 6718 ff.), Eusebius, p.e. 6 (236a ff., M. 21.

404, ff.). Many other passages might be cited, but these are representative. Most Christian writers make a straightforward attack upon astrology, if they have occasion to mention it, or dismiss it outright.

(Tatian, e.g., brands it as a demonic invention.) But Origen, more suo, discusses astrology in a wide theological context, relating it to free will, biblical revelation, prophecy, and divine powers in the universe.

COMMENTARY ON ARC, 5, 15-33 He insists on the distinction between thinking that the stars may give indications of events and believing that they are the causes of events.

He sets out his subjects of enquiry thus: mws, mpoyvworou dvros é& aiwvos Tou Jeov wepi tw Ud' Exdorov mpatTrecHat vopiCopevwy, 76 €d' quiv awlerac: kai Tiva tTpdtov of doTépes ovK eioi mornTtKO! THY Ev dvOpwrots, onpavrixoi 6€ udvov, He goes on to show that human attempts to reach knowledge are misguided. Biblical accounts show that the stars are signs (cf. Gen. 1. 14, Jer. 10. 2). But they are signs for the divine powers only. Man's free will is maintained because the stars, like prophecies, indicate, without determining, events; see comm. in Gen. =Eus. p.e.6. 11 (281a ff., M. 21. 4778 ff.) = philoc. 23.6 ff. (Robinson, pp. 194. 6 ff.), cf. M. 12. 618. Origen mentions astrology also in princ. 3. 3. 2-3 (pp. 257. 10 ff., M. 11, 314¢ ff.). The suggestion was made by Koetschau, the GCS editor, that Rufinus has omitted a compromising passage (only his Latin version survives), surmising that _ Origen's real views might be close to those attributed to him by Theophilus of Alexandria, ep.synod. 2 (M. PL 22. 764, CSEL 55. 150. 5 ff):

Praescientiam quoque futurorum, quae soli Domino nota est, stellarum motibus tribuit, ut ex earum cursu et varietate formarum daemones futura cognoscant et vel agant aliqua vel ab his agenda demandent. ex quo perspicuum est eum idolatriam et astrologiam et varias Ethnicorum fraudulentae divinationis praestigias approbare.

But there is no evidence that these were Origen's views. Quite the contrary, What we have of Origen makes it plain that for him fore- ~ knowledge 'soli Domino nota est': if the stars are signs, it is solely because God makes them so. As for the Powers who are able to read the signs, they are directly appointed by God for that purpose and they are to use their ability to interpret him to other superhuman beings and to the souls of those who have escaped the bonds of this present life: comm. in Gen. (M. 12. 81¢ ff.) = Philoc. 23. 20 (Robinson, p. 208.

22 ff.). Far from being able to manipulate events, the Powers are limited by God to certain areas prescribed for action (848 = Philoc. p. 209. 16 ff.). The sentence which Koetschau cites from Photius cod.

117 (M. 103. 396a), to the effect that astrology is rorrc«7), is surely a misunderstanding or a misrepresentation of Origen (cf. the passage from the Genesis commentary quoted above). Greg. clearly regarded

Origen as an ally in the battle against astrology, as the Philocalia selection shows, and there is no evidence to show that he was mistaken in his belief. Among Greg.'s Christian contemporaries both Basil and 15-33 Nyssen wrote on astrology. The importance of the former's Sixth Homily on the Hexaemeron throughout the Middle Ages is brought out by Y. Courtonne, Saint Basile et Uhellénisme (Paris, 1934), 99 ff. (Cf.

Riedinger 47 ff.) Nyssen devoted his Contra Fatum to the defence of free will against astrological determinism (M. 45. 145¢ ff.). See further

J. Gaith, La Conception de la libertéchez GrégoiredeNysse (Paris, 1953).

Astrology was, however, opposed by many who were not Christians.

Among the philosophers, Panaetius (¢.185-109 sc) had stood apart from most ofhis fellow Stoics in rejectingit.Eusebius cites the Cynic

Qenomaus in the 2nd c. ap as one who would have no dealings with astrology, p.e. 6. 7 (255b ff., M. 21. 4334 ff.) and the 3rd-c. Peripatetic

Alexander of Aphrodisias agreed with him (cf. RE i. 1453). The position of Plotinus is of interest. For, though he can be very scornful of the notion that the stars actively spend their time causing events in human life, thus taking the place ofthe One who controls the universe

(2. 3. 6), and though he realizes the incredible difficulties involved in the supposed interrelations ofdifferent people's astral influences (3. 1.

5), yet he does not deny that stars have a function in announcing the future. They are to take their place with other forms of augury as onuwavrixd ... ray égonévwy. He goes on: éorw troivuy donep ypdppara é€v ovpavw ypag¢dueva dei yeypappéva Kai Kwotpmeva, movouvra wév Tt Epyov Kai GAAo (2. 3. 7). Plotinus agrees with Origen in seeing the stars not as effective agents but merely as onwavrixad and, like Origen, attributes this power of signification to the dispensation of a single divine controlling force. Where Plotinus differs from Origen is in allowing that this form ofaugury is accessible to men. Cf.

J. W. Trigg, Origen, go-1.

Astrology met with political as well as philosophical opposition, (cf. v. 19 n.). Diocletian had forbidden the practice in 294 (Cod. Lust. 9. 18.

2), and Greg. could look back on a series of laws enacted by Christian emperors in a vain attempt to wipe out all trace ofthe art. Constantius, for instance, had issued an edict in 357 banning all astrological practices (Cod. Theod. g. 16. 4), followed by further legislation in 358 (ibid.

6). Yet further laws were passed in 370 and 373, but still astrology flourished. (Cf. Cumont, Astrology andReligion, 177.)

For one thing, if there were pagans who rejected astrology, there were Christians who were attracted by it. The vehemence with which Christian writers assailed astrology may show a certain uneasiness about its effects upon members of the Church. As Bidez showed, 'Au temps de Saint Basile, assurément |'astrologie ne manquait pas d'adeptes chez les chrétiens' ('Le traite', 21). Bouché-Leclercq 616 cites the 5th-c. Eusebius of Alexandria as witness to the continuing temptation which astrology held out to Christians.

There can be no doubt that, in addressing himself to astrology, Greg. was attacking a contemporary problem. The Manichees associated themselves with the practice (cf. Widengren, Mani and Manichaeism, 69 ff.) and Lieu, Manichaeism, 141-3. The time was not so distant that people had forgotten the Emperor Julian's championing of astrology or Greg.'s resultant onslaught on him in or. 5. 5 (M. 35.

6698 f.). Astrological literature was increasing. Before his conversion to Christianity Firmicus Maternus had written his Mathesis, in which he dealt with the subject in eight books (ed. by W. Kroll, F. Skutsch, and K. Ziegler, Leipzig (Teubner), 1897-1913). The date ¢.336 is given by B. Altaner, Patrology (ET Freiburg i.

Mommsen, [ermes, 29 (1894), 468-9. Nearer to the time when Greg.

Was writing there appeared works on astrology by Paulus Alexandrinus, cf. RE xviii/4 (1949), cols. 2376 ff. (W. Gundel), ed. E. Boer,

Leiden, 1958), and Hephaestion ofThebes (cf. RE 8 (1913), cols. 30910); ed. D, Pingree, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1973-4). These are learned treatises, making their appeal to educated men. Particular support came from the Stoics, who, as Bouché-Leclercq stresses, gave to astrological speculation an intellectual respectability which they might otherwise have lacked (544—5; cf. v. 66 n.).

Riedinger, in his assessment of Greg.'s place in the history of Patristic writings on astrology (pp. 42 ff.), while agreeing with Laist- * ner's statement ('Western Church', 258) that Arc. 5 was not widely known to later writers, points out that it was known to a number of those most concerned with the specific problems of astrology. Yet at the time ofits writing the importance of this poem was quite different.

Riedinger shows that the material on which Greg. draws is not uncommon, but that it is not often found outside monographs. The value of Arc. 5 lies precisely here. By attempting to integrate arguments on a rather specialized subject in a sequence of poems on basic

Christian belief, Greg., unoriginal as he is, assists in giving that faith more comprehensive expression.

A further reference to astrology will be found in Arc. 8. 15-17, where its origin is touched on.

15. tyepovias picks up v. 13. Is having the wrong 'guides' any better than having none at all?

16-19 16. énaCwv: érdfew is common in Homer in the sense 'give as a leader'. For other meanings, cf. Arc. 4. 85 n.

17. ovgavoy here means both the physical heaven in which the stars are set and heaven as the seat of divine authority.

€XiEevs: cf. Arc. 3. 43 n. Here there may bea play on the sense of 'revolving in the mind' and 'setting in circular motion' (of the stars in heaven). Cf. or.Sib. 3. 82 ovjpaver eiAiéy, 8. 233 ovpaver eiAiéen, 8.

18. Like Plotinus, Greg. sees in the claims ofastrology the negation of unitary authority in the universe. Each star is made to exercise an individual influence which can result only in fragmentation, a pluralism ofauthority. But where Plotinus sees this as a reason for a reinterpretation of astral divination along with other forms, within a monistic system, Greg. holds that the entire system is condemned by its failure to provide a single governing principle. (On Plotinus cf. the edn. of E. Bréhier, Plotin: 'Ennéades', ii (Paris, 1924), 24 ff., introd. to 2. 3).

19-24. Practical criticisms, drawnfrom traditional observation. Astrology is criticized on the ground that it does not 'work', in that people born under the same star follow different destinies, whereas the same fate overtakes those born under different stars; this and similar objec- > tions go back certainly as far as Carneades. Cf. e.g. Cic. De divinatione 2. 47, 97 and S.E. M. 5. 91-3. Further references are given in Boucheé-Leclereq, L'Astrologie grecque, 381, 388 and in Amand, Fatalisme, 51-5 (Carneades' arguments) and go1-4 (Greg.'s use of them in this passage). The latter deals also with Nyssen's approach in Contra Fatum (M. 45. 165 ff.) on pp. 423 ff.

There was to be a classic summary of arguments in Aug. de ctv.

Dei 5. 1-8 (CSEL 40/1. 209-22; CCSL 47. 128-36).

19. Baotievs: Basil reverses the question in hex. 6.7 (G. 1. 560 f., M.

29. 133.4), asking howa king can ensure that his son is born under a royal star.

These references to kings have an importance which goes beyond the obvious contrast which they present to beggars in the social scale. For it was the connection between royal personages and astrologers which frequently brought suspicion upon the latter, The use of the stars to predict the death of an emperor could well be regarded as disturbing, not to say subversive. Legislation may be thought often to issue from this concern rather than from any abstract consideration of the philosophical or religious principles

19-24 involved in astrology. (Cf. Bouché-Leclerg, 566; F. H. Cramer, Astrology in Roman Law and Politics (Philadelphia, 1954), 248-83;

MacMullen, Enemies oftheRoman Order, ch. 4.) Diocletian outlawed all divination (Cod. Theod. 9. 18. 2) and Christian emperors were to follow him. Greg. would have known of the laws of Constantius under which it was a capital crime, Cod. Theod. 9. 16. 4, 8, 12. avvaoteoos: the word is not found in LSJ and PGL cites only this occurrence. But the form ovvaczpos is found in Testamentum

Salomonis 13214 and the noun ovvaozpia is a regular astrological term in Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos 4. 7. 6 (p. 193 Camerarius). Cf. also Cat.

Cod. Astr. V/1. 180. 10 and LSJ and PGL s.w. ovvaczpia and ovvaorpéw. Nyssen uses cuvacrpia in Contrafatum 1688.

21. txéoqeova: the commonest meaning is 'arrogant'. IfBacAeds = 'emperor' the epithet 'arrogant' may be thought to indicate that Greg. is thinking of his old enemy Julian. In or. 5. 38 (M. 35. 7138)

Julian is coupled with Tantalus, Tityus, and Ixion, for any ofwhom twépdpwy would appear a mild description. It is unlikely that Greg. would call the emperors in general 'arrogant'. His respectful tone towards Constantius is very marked in carm. 1. 2. 25. 290 ff. (M. 37.

8334 f.), and Theodosius is treated with no less respect in 2. 1. 11.

1278 ff. (M. 37. 11174 f.), ef. 1305 ff. (11194 f.). For Greg.'s dealings with the emperors cf. M.-M. Hauser-Meury, Prosopographie zu den

Schriften Gregors von Nazianz (Bonn, 1960), 56 ff, 167 ff.; Plagnieux 429 ff.; and K. M. Setton, Christian Attitude towards the Emperor in the Fourth Century (New York, 1941), 104-5. On the other hand, it is not likely that Greg. would allow such a specific reference as Julian would provide to intrude on a general discussion. Two suggestions may be made: (a) to take BaouAeds of any monarch and retain the meaning 'arrogant'; (6) to understand izépdpova not in its usual verse meaning, but give it a sense found in prose, 'justifiably proud'

(cf. Thuc. 2. 62, D.C. 45. 43).

21-2. The picture ofdisaster at sea touched Greg. closely, as his own experience left a deep mark on him; cf. carm. 2. 1.

1037-10434); or. 18. 31 (M. 35. 10248 ff.).

22. Gidovyevé@ious: a hapax legomenon.

Opods wooo0s: cf. Homer's icdépopor Kai bu7 weTpwpevor aicy (Tl.

23-4. auvédnoas ... cuvédyoe: Greg. may here be alluding to the term ovvdeouos, which was used in both astronomy and astrology.

It meant a node, the point of intersection of the paths of planets in 5. 23-9 astronomy, and a connection of heavenly bodies in astrology; cf.

LS] s.v. VI. Here the verb refers to the supposed 'connection' of subjects of the same star and their actual joining together in death.

Greg.'s rejection of the astrological use of cuvééw is made the more pointed by its positive use in Christian theories of creation.

When Athanasius is writing of the way in which the creator Lord brought together what would appear to be opposed elements, he calls him 6 cvvdrjoas avira, gent. 37 (M. 25. 734). Cf. Greg. in 2. 2. 7.

15564): 9 r6d€ av ovvérnte Kai dpuovin cuvédnoer. (The subject is divine 7éyvy.) Elsewhere avvdéw is used to express God's action in binding soul or spirit and flesh, e.g. 1. 2. 3. 16 (M. 37. 634.4).

25-7. The argument is that those who hold to stellar influence must make a choice between individual and corporate determination. If there is some overriding (dpeiwv) necessity which determines the fate ofa group ofmen, such as a ship's crew, then personal avayxn is a meaningless idea. Any power which could arbitrate between opposing stars would introduce a quite new principle.

27. 6 pigas: Greg. uses the same expression in Arc. 7. 80 to refer to the work of the Logos in forming man as a composite being. Here the meaning is 'bringing into connection', with the auxiliary sense of 'ordering'.

28. ovvédynoe, picking up vv. 23-4, could mean connecting stars in astrological relationships or connecting human beings with the stars which affect their destiny. The point of the line is that such overall control would remove from the stars any effective power.

For the line as a whole, cf. carm. 1. 1. 6. 13 (M. 37. 4314).

29. Caillau's understanding ofthis line rests on the assumption that it is exactly parallel to carm. 1. 1. 6. 12 (M. 37. 4314); ef wév Ocov, mas m™parov, 6 otpédec Geos; cf. his n. é€e7ivaéerv must thus be made to correspond in some way to ozpédec. But it is difficult to support

Caillau's 'agitavit' as a tr. of é€éerivaéev. Billius, despite the metrical weakness of é«rwdooer, had the merit of trying to preserve a recognized sense of éxrivdcow, that of 'throwing out' ('excutitur').

Greg.'s use ofthe same é£erivafev in carm. 2. 1. 15. 17 (M. 37. 12514) favours this sense. Ifwe follow the reading of Cu, fedv éferivater, comparing Nicetas' 6 joc tév Pedy éxtivdooe:, the sentence makes very good sense: 'But if it is God (sc. who makes and breaks connections at will), why bring in the first explanation, which, asI see it, threw God out?' God cannot be introduced at this late stage merely to resolve astrological difficulties.

30-7 30. For Greg. this is the ultimate absurdity. Again the favourite éXicow appears (cf. Arc. 3. 43 n.). Both Billius and Caillau produce here very weak (and, in fact, unjustifiable) translations, with 'subdere' and 'subjicere'. €A'éns surely means 'make God revolve' subject to the stars. For the suggestion that God is subject to determination cf. carm. 1, 1.6, 17-18 (M. 37. 431A).

31. This is another form of the argument which Greg. used against polytheism: multiple sources of authority amount to anarchy. Cf.

33. MSS vary between 7 yap 5) and #5y yap. The first gives a simple 'either ... or' disjunction. The second implies the disjunction, but states itin a less direct way; 'For thus God really is in control, unless of course you believe that the stars are.'

33-44. Positive teaching on God's Providence.

34, kupBeova: the astrological use of kvBepra is shown in Zodiol. cod.

Mosq. gr. 186, cited by Bidez, 'Le traité', 20. Though it was not uncommon to find xufepyw in Christian usage, e.g. Ath. gent. 36

(M. 25. 728) (of God: xufepva@v 7a mavta) the astrological connection gives the word particular point here. (Cf. Arc. 1. 5 n.) We may note also the Stoic use of the word, e.g. Zev, dicews dpynyé, véuou péra wavra KuBepyay ... dikns wéra mavra KuBepvas, Cleanthes,

Hymn to Zeus, wy. 2 and 35 (SVF i. 537; Powell, Coll. Alex., pp. 227-8).

35. veopdv is a well-established figure of government; cf. A. Th. 3 and, in Greg., carm. 2. 1. 1. 573 (M. 37. 10134).

The Logos carries out the providential government of the world he brought into being (cf. Arc. 4. 58, 7. 55 ff. n.).

36. It is unnecessary to look for a meaning such as oyjpacc in vojpar (cf. Billius and Caillau's nn.). The word has a straightforward meaning as in Arc. 4. 68. The exercise of divine thought is directed towards the providential ordering of the universe.

37. d&gpovinv: the harmony of the heavenly world has here no connection with the Pythagorean notion of the harmony of heavenly bodies, the celebrated 'harmony of the spheres'. (For this cf. e.g. PI.

Rep. 6178, Arist. Cael, 2g0°13, Metaph. 986°, together with Guthrie, History, i. 167, 295 ff.) There is here a contrast between the calm order of the heavens and the uncertainties of earthly life. A not dissimilar sense is found in Corp. Herm. 1.14, where W. Scott, Hermetica

(London, 1924-36), i.

121, tr, dppovias as 'the structure of the heavens', remarking in his note (ii. 1-2): 'The writer seems to have COMMENTARY ON ARC, 5. 37-52 adopted the Pythagorean phrase "the harmony of the spheres"; but he employs it in an altered sense. He is thinking, net ofmusic, but rather ofcarpentry; the heavens are compared to the framework of a roofor dome fitted together by a builder.' Cf. the Budé edn. ofA. D.

Nock andA. J. Festugiere (Paris, 1945-54), i. 21 n. 39, where the tr.

'composite framework' is given (in English). It is this providential 'fitting together' of all the parts of the cosmic system, contrasted with the multiplicity of astrological government, which produced metaphorical 'harmony'; cf. carm. 1. 1. 6. 2 (M. 37. 4304). dSeodpov: cf. Procl. Par. Ptol. 136 of dpdpyor rH dorépwr.

39 ff. So far is man from knowing the secrets of the heavens that he does not yet know those of the earth.

39-40. ev xevOuaor ... 4s coding is a striking figure, recalling remote mountain fastnesses or the depths ofthe earth. Cf. carm. 2. 1.

62. 4 (M. 37. 1405) KevOucdr'és Gdov. xev8ucy is found in Apoll. t Met. Ps. (Teubner p. gt. 45, M. 33. 1373B = xpudua (Ps. 43. 22).

41. For the temporal sense of evade, 'now', cf. S. OT 488, OC gg2.

42-3. Two ideas of harvest are combined in these lines: that it comes at its own due season, that it is a time of judgement. The biblical association of harvest and judgement is seen in such passages as Joel 3. 13, Matt. 13. 24-30, Rev. 14. 15-16. ketpet is a violent word, more appropriate to the figurative than to the literal harvest. When used ofcrops it means 'ravage', e.g. Hdt.

5. 63. yenpooos is a hapax legomenon, formed on the analogy of yenz6vos. The forms cited in LSJ are ynydpos, yaudpos, and yewpudpos.

For dipia wdvra cf. H. Od. 9. 131.

44, This poetical form of dvactpos, dvdorepos, is found also in Arat.

349, Ps.-Maneth. 4. 528. But the word here has an extended sense, meaning 'free from astrology'.

45-52. The moral effects of belief in astrology and details of its technical language. Riedinger, Die hl. Schrift im Kampf der griechischen Kirche, 44, points to two lines of attack upon astrology to be found in Greg.

Man is incapable ofgrasping such a subject: it is a basic absurdity to attribute to inanimate objects like stars knowledge and power to determine events. But there is a third consideration which weighs with Greg., a moral one. He objects to astrology because he finds morally repugnant a system which destroys the meaning of human choice, which causes the disappearance of moral 'laws', it being a 3. 49-33 neouoyyy: the lexica report this form wepiwy7y (= wepraywyy) only here and in Arc. 6. 2. Metrical considerations may be thought to have produced this coinage: the initial tribrach of wepraywy7 could not be accommodated in a hexameter. For the use of zep:aywyy = 'revolution, rotation' cf. LSJ s.v. II. 1.

50. doiGotpa: 'whirled', like an arrow and with as much power of self-determination. Cf. Lycophron 1426: (av rpAdbev poloupévwr.

51. doy: it was the power to incline (jézecv) in the direction ofgood or bad which was given man at his creation (Arc. 7. 103). The word here indicates a settled disposition or propensity, as Nyssen ascribes to the devil an inclination towards evil, following his fall

(or. catech. 6, p. 35. 10, M. 45. 2gA). poz carries with it considerable associative powers, suggesting as it may the contrast in Pl. Phdr.

247B between the chariots of the gods in their perfect equipoise ('coppézws) and the chariots of mortals. There the vicious horse is depicted as ém rhv yiv pérwv te kai Baptvwv. Cf. Plot. 4. 8. 5. 26: poy atroefovoiw, with J. M. Rist, Plotinus: The Road to Reality

(Cambridge, 1967), 120-1, who cites (n. 10) H. Lewy, Chaldaean Oraclesand Theurgy (Cairo, 1956; 2nd edn. Paris, 1982), 295 n. 136 on the equivalence of jémw and vetw in discussion of the fall of souls.

See also H. F. R. M. Oosthout, 'Wijzgerig taalgebruik in de redevoeringen van Gregorius van Nazianze tegen de achtergrond van de

Neoplatoonse metafysica' (diss. Nijmegen, 1986), 215 ff.

53-71. The star at Christ's nativity It is clear that the story of the Magi (Matt. 2. 1-12) could cause difficulty to Christians anxious to disavow all influence of the stars on human life. Bouché-Leclercq wrote (1 'Astrologie grecque, 611): "Le cas des Mages ... fut pour ces exégétes et polémistes chrétiens un embarras des plus graves.' He lists a number ofplaces where attempts were made by Christians to answer charges ofinconsistency or special pleading. To that list our present passage may be added. It repeats established arguments.

53. wtya KAéos: L. Sternbach, 'De Gregorio Nazianzeno Homeri interprete', in Stromata in honorem CasimiriMorawski (Krakow, 1908),

177, suggested that the reading here should be peyaxAéos. He cites a number of instances ofthe adjective peyaxAzjs in Greg. Iris found also in Opp. C. 2. 4 (weyaxAéa). In defence of the division péya kAéos we may point to xAéos as a title of Christ in Arc. 2. 9.

Lopyrignted Material COMMENTARY ON ARC.

54-8 54. avrodinde: cf. Matt. 2. 1. There is perhaps a play on #yepnovevaag. Inv. 33 Greg. has denied that the stars are #yen0v7qes ('controlling'). He does not make an exception here: the star is a 'guide',

56-62. The nature of the star. Greg. takes his place in a line ofChristian interpreters who assert the novelty of the Bethlehem star. It was not subject to astrological calculation, as it appeared solely to announce the birth of Christ. Cf. Ignatius, Eph. 1g. 2, where it is said: dorpp év ovparw éAapwev Umép wavras robs aorépas, Kai 76 dus atrov dvexAdAnrov ny, Kai Eeviajov mapeiyer 7 Kawérns avrou

. (Bihlmeyer, p. 87. 27 ff, M. 5. 660A f.). The words gévos and xawés appear in the description of the star given by Clem. Alex. in exe.

2 (GCS 3, 130. 18 ff. M. 9. 693). Its purpose was to overthrow astrology and turn men from beliefin fate to acceptance of Providence. Origen stressed the distinction between the Bethlehem star and ordinary stars in Cels. 1. 58-9 (pp. 109-10, M. 11. 7684 ff.) and Jo. 1. 26 (24) (p. 32. 30 ff., M. 14. 72a).

58 ff. Christian thought was determined that the Magi should be seen to have derived their knowledge from sources which went back to OT revelation. The question is dealt with by J. Bidez and F.

Cumont, Les Mages hellenises (Paris, 1938), i. 48 ff. Here are cited a number of passages which attempt to show that Balaam is the source ofthe skill possessed by the Magi: cf. Or. Cels. 1. 60 (p. 111.

11 ff, M. 11. 769p ff). Origen thought ofthe prophecies of Balaam, as recorded by Moses, circulating in Mesopotamia and thus known to the Magi who recognized their fulfilment in the star; cf. hom. r3in

Num. 7 (p. 116. 28 ff, M. 12. 6744 ff).

Origen distinguished the Magi from the Chaldaeans, attacking Celsus for confusing them, in Cels. 1. 58 (p. 109. 22 ff., M. 11. 7688).

Photius reported that Diodore ofTarsus made the same distinction when he said that the Magi learned from the Chaldaeans the prophecy which they had received from Balaam (cod. 223, M. 103.

877A f.). Bidez and Cumont 33 ff, 51 show that most Christian writers think of the Magi as Persian, some as Arab, others as Chaldaean. Whether Greg. is committing himselfto the last view in v. 59 is difficult to say. The term 'Chaldaean' had come into use as a generic word for 'astrologer', as in the passage of Basil quoted above on wv. 45-6; cf. further cod. Theodos. 9. 16. 4 (AD 357), 3. 16. 8 (AD

358) and Bouché-Leclercg, L 'Astrologie grecque, 556. Certainly in or.

4. 109 (M. 35. 6454) Greg. writes: 16 5é payee ob [Tepacdy; CE. v.

COMMENTARY ON ARC, 5. 59-69 59. gotoonokevety is a hapax legomenon. dotpomddos finds equally thin attestation, PGL citing only Antiochus Monachus ('obiit post

619°) hom. 84. (M. 89. 1688c). The derivation is from woAciw/ moAéw. The first has an astrological sense (of the planet presiding over a day), the second means 'to range over, revolve'.

61. d&erupaij: the only other author recorded as using the word dpzdays is Nonnus, in this sense of 'newly shining' in D. 5. 165, and with the meaning 'newly seeing' in par.

Jo. 9. 17 (M. 43. 8284). tooyaovta: cf. Aratus' description of the Ram, oddév ddaupovepov tpoyde: Kuvocoupidos "Apxrov (227).

63-4. The adoration is taken as an abrogation of astrological claims.

Cf. Ign. Eph. 19. 3 (Bihlmeyer, p. 88. 1 ff., M. 5. 6608), Tert. idol. 9

(M. PL, 1.6724 f£,, CSEL 20. 38. 23 ff.): 'at enim scientia ista usque ad evangelium fuit concessa, ut Christo edito nemo exinde nativitatem alicuius de caelo interpretetur.' Cf. also the passage of Clem.

Alex., cited on vv. 56-62 above. Greg. elsewhere refers to this idea in carm. 1. 2. 34. 198-9 (M. 37. 959A) and or. 2. 24 (M. 35. 4338). pide: if the Magi are thought of as Persian (cf. vv. 58-9 n.), there may be a play on M7801.

65-71. Stars and men both have allotted courses to follow, but they are independent of each other.

66. deidpopot deidpouos is a hapax legomenon. Greg. coined also deimAarvis, detaberis, devotpedrs, and dedAeyys.

67. xahipnogot: Sophocles glosses 'retrograding', a technical term in astronomy to describe the actual or apparent motion ofheavenly bodies 'backward' in the zodiac, i.e. from east to west. Planets are here referred to, moving as they may against the general direction of the constellations ofthe zodiac. Though he does not refer to it much in his writings, Greg. may be thought to have had a fair knowledge

, of astronomy derived from the years in Athens when he was studying probably under Himerios. (Cf. Y. Courtonne, Saint Basile et

Uhellénisme, 7~9.; Gallay, La Vie de saint Grégoire de Nazianze, 51.) 68-9. The nature ofthe stars. Two theories are mentioned: (a) The stars consist of self-maintaining fire; (6) The stars are composed of a 'quintessence'.

(a) The entry under dtpodos in PGE cites this passage, glossing '

"tll-fed, under-nourished, met. growing no larger, constant in size, ofstars'.

But is this the point? What is being discussed in both parts of the eive ... etve is the substance of the stars. The Stoics thought of this substance as fiery. It was not fire in the ordinary sense, what

1g2 COMMENTARY ON ARC.

5. 68-71 Zeno called 76... dreyvor xai peraBdAdov els éavtd ty tpodqy, but 76. . . reyvixdv, adéytixdv re Kai typyztxov (Stob. Eci. 1. 25. 5).

Yet the stars were still composed of a fire which needed nourishment. Cicero, having said in ND 2. 4o 'sidera tota esse ignea', goes on in 2. 118: sunt autem stellae natura flammeae; quocirca terrae, maris, aquarum vaporibus aluntur eis, qui a sole ex agris tepefactis et ex aquis excitantur, quibus altae renovataeque stellae atque omnis aether refundunt eadem ut rursum trahunt indidem, nihil ut fere intereat aut admodum paullum, quod astrorum ignis et aetheris flamma consumat.

, Cf. also Tuse. 1. 43, Diog. Laert. 7. 139, 145. Plotinus, however, argued against the need of the heavenly bodies for any kind of tpogy. Cf. 2. 1. 4 and 2. 1. 8: ovdév Sei roivuv dAAov adpartos Ta ovpava@, iva pévy ...

(Il. 15-16)... ot roivuv otbé tpodrs Seiabar daréov ra éxei, ... (Il. 19-20). This, then, is the reason for the choice of dzpodos: constant size is only a secondary attribute here.

In the other passage cited in PGL, Gr. Nyss. hex.

5 (M. 44. 68a), the constant size ofthe stars is indicated. But there is no mention offire.

(6) The idea of a wéuarov oma appears in Aristotle (perhaps earlier: cf. Guthrie, History i. 270 ff.). In Cael. 270%21, Mete. 341°2,

An. 418°9, it appears as an alternative to fire as the substance of which the stars are composed. This element is a6, which, argues

Aristotle, has a circular motion which fits it for the circumference of the universe. Fire, on the other hand, moves naturally in straight lines. The wéuzrov ceia idea came to have diverse application.

Origen, for example, denies its relevance to the question of the resurrection body in princ. 3. 6. 6 (p. 288. 21 ff, M. 11. 3398 f.). Greg. here relates the 'quintessence' to its original Aristotelian connection with the stars. (Cf. Basil hex. 1.11. (G. 1. 108 f., M. 29. 258 f.). In or. 28. 8 (p. 33. 5 ff, M. 36. 364) he examines the possibility that God may be identified with this 7éz770v oda, thus perhaps taking up another side of Aristotle's teaching, that the 'quintessence' was the substance of minds as well as stars. (This is certainly the way in which Cicero states the doctrine in Acad. Post. 1. 26.) See further

Kertsch, Bildersprache, 164.

70-1. As far as the sense goes, there is little to choose between dvizev and dvouev. (For foe cf. Caillau's n. It is also the reading of L..) The notion of ascent (dvimzev) goes well with ovpavinv.

As Dronke noted (Carmina Selecta, 203), 686v dvw is a good Homeric expression (cf. Od. 3. 496), in the sense of 'completing a journey'.

The lines show a tension familiar in Greg., the tension between the divine and the earthly elements in man. In saying that man is to hasten to the attainment of a 'rational' and 'heavenly' nature, Greg. means that man will come to a nature which is wholly so. Already, in his earthly state, man shares some of the divine characteristics, holding an intermediate place between the mortal and the immortal. Cf. Arc. 7. 65 ff. déomrov: whether we read Séopi01 or Séaucor, the sense is the same: we are, our nature is, 'bound' to the earth. It is characteristic of Greg. that he should take a straightforward expression in Lam. 3.

34 and give it a metaphorical meaning. The Heb. 'asiré 'ares and the Greek Seouious ys refer simply to 'prisoners in a country' (Jerusalem Bible, cf. New English Bible).

6. On Rational Natures Title andpurpose The app. crit. reveals a variety ofways in whicha title may be ascribed.

As the titles have little claim to definitive standing (cf. Intro.) the reader may feel free to choose. Almost all of those on offer give an accurate characterization. The poem is about 'beings' or 'natures' which may equally well be called 'intellectual' or 'rational'. This means that the only inappropriate title (cited by Caillau) is zepi dowpdrwy dicewv. Human beings as well as angels are intended.

The poem picks up the subject ofcreation in dealing with the relationship to God of beings created rational, touching on Satan's responsibility for evil in the world and introducing human history in the Eden story.

1-26. Degrees ofillumination among rational beings 1-5. The image of the rainbow. G. Soutar, Nature in Greek Poetry (London, 1939), 112 ff. remarks that the Greeks (he is speaking of Classical Greek poetry) make little of the rainbow, showing 'faint appreciation' ofits colours and lacking the symbolic meaning which the Hebrews found in it. Nazianzen cannot be said to have added much to the stock ofrainbow imagery, but both he and Nyssen find a certain illustrative value in it. Nyssen uses the rainbow in a Trinitarian argument as an instance of distinction without separation, attempting an explanation in terms of refraction (ofév vis

Kapm} Kai érdvodos, diff. ess. int. opp Bas. ep. 38. 5, M. 32. 2228 ff) Earlier discussions of the rainbow will be found, e.g. in Arist. Mete.

371°18 ff; Epicurus Ep. 2. 1og—10; Sen. NQ 1. 3. Greg. gives little explanation, being content with a simple point (vv. 6 ff.).

1. Cf. Aratus 899: Aids evdtdwrros.

2. &xokgovotos: Nicander (7h. 270) has the word to describe a small boat driven back in a wind: ets dvepov BeBinrat dméxpovaros

A.Bds odpw. Here, and here only, the word has the sense 'refracted'.

For a similar meaning Arist. uses dvd«xAaors and cognates (Mete.

372° ff.). He discusses the way in which he thinks that condensed air acts as a mirror in 373°2. Nyssen uses similar language, explaining more fully than Nazianzen does how the sunbeam strikes obliquely the cloud formation (M. 32. 3338 f.). mequoyaic: the word is found only here and in Arc. 5. 49, where

2-8 see n. Dronke was mistaken in printing as the text ofCu wepiwzais (Carmina Selecta, 203). (Cf. also Caillau's n.) The MS clearly reads w€ptwyais; a comparison of the way in which the scribe writes ya here and in avyais v. 7 will confirm this (fo. 78). Nicetas has in his paraphrase the regular form wepiaywyais (cf. Arc. 5. 49 n.). The a76Kpovorot wepiwyai are circular motions ofsunlight, refracted in such a way that the rays bend back upon themselves, as in Nyssen, loc. cit.

3. Cf. Verg. A. 4. or: (of Iris) 'mille trahens varios adverso sole colores' and the similar 5. 89. thiooen: cf. Arc. 3. 43 n. Here the meaning is 'makes to curve', or possibly 'makes to turn back (in a circle)' as Homer uses éArocéuev of rounding the post in a chariot-race (J/. 23. 309).

4. cekayiCetau: the -i{w form is not common outside Nonnus. LSJ lists only the 3rd-c. ap hymn in Papyri russischer und georgischer Sammlungen. PGL adds citations from Nonnus and Sozomen, together with (in middle and passive) the present passage and the gth—1oth cent. Arethas, Apoc. 16. 17 (M. 106. 712D). We may compare Greg.'s use of céAas in Arc. 4. 65.

There is a close parallel in the image of the pebble thrown into the water, with the concentric circles of ripples corresponding to the rainbow circles, in carm. 1. 2. 2. 283 ff. (M. 37. 600a). The words éxrofc Avowévora: occur (v. 286). This figure is found also in or. 18.

19 (M. 35. roo8B). The passages are discussed in Kertsch, Bildersprache, 182 ff., cf. vv. 51-2.

For aiéyp cf. vv. 50-2 n.

5. The form é«roe (edd.) is not found in the lexica. It is better to read éx7o than to suppose éxroe equivalent to the metrically impossible €xrofev. The meaning is clear: the outer rings fade away, dissolve, melt into the surrounding air.

6-7. The application of the figure. The degree of mental or spiritual illumination depends on distance from the source of light. The application itself uses figurative language with the physical and mental senses of 'light' merging. axootidBpovtros: cf. Clem. prot. 11 (p. 81. 24, M. 8. 2364) for a metaphorical use.

8-12. These lines appear also in carm. 1. 2. 1. 15-19 (M. 37. 5234), except that in v. 11 rervwpeoGa is read for éAxcdpecba.

8. xnyyn: cf. Arc. 4. 81 n. Perhaps the association oflight and life in Ps.

35 (36 Heb.). 10 may be the origin of the expression:

6. 8-13 671 mapa coi rnyh Cwis, év T@ Swi cov dudueba das.

Cf. 4} anyy ro dwrds in Serap. Euch. 13. 5. There is in Kertsch, Bildersprache an extensive study ofthe background and development of zny% as a philosophical and religious term: see pp. 87, 116, 119,

122 ff., 135, 138 ff, 145 ff, and 205 and for anydlew pp. 148 ff.

9a-11. The theme ofthe opening lines ofArc. 1 recurs: knowledge of God is unattainable by minds less than his own. But this is not a reason for despair. On the contrary, it is seen as part of the dispensation of providence that God should lead on, always encouraging the desire for deeper knowledge.

11b-26. Angels. On the subject of angels in the Fathers, the following may be consulted: J. Turmel, 'Histoire de l'angélologie des temps apostoliques a la fin du v* siecle', RHZ 3 (1898), 299-308, 407-34,

533-52; A. Vacant and G. Bareille, 'Anges', DTC 1 (1903), cols.

1189-1222 together with DTC, Tables générales (1951), cols.

1534-7; J. Michl, 'Engel. IV (christlich)', RAC v (1962), 109-200; J. Daniélou, Les Anges et leur mission d'apres les Péres de

VEglise (Gembloux, 1952). Cf. also K. W. A. Pelz, Die Engellehre des hl. Augustinus (Miinster, 1913), where an account is given ofAugustine's predecessors; A. Recheis, Engel, Tod undSeelenreise (Temi e Testi, 4; Rome,

1958), esp. 132 ff.;J.Rousse, 'Les anges et leur ministére selon saint Grégoire de Nazianze', MSR 22 (1965), 133-52. (Cf. vv. 22-6 n.) See also Barbel 78 ff. n. 26. Among places where Greg. deals with angels are orr. 28. 31 (p. 69. 16 ff, M. 36. 69 ff.), 31. 15 (p. 163. 9 fF, 14g f.).

Origen's place in the shaping of Greg.'s thought is explored by Moreschini, 'Influenze', 54-7, which may be taken with his comment on or. 38. 10 (SC p. 122 n. 2 and pp. 64-5).

12. devtega: the angels' status as second only to the Trinity is emphasized in the view that they were created before all other creatures; cf. or. 38. g—10 (M. 36. 320C ff.) = 45. 5 (6294 ff.). This is a common Christian Greek view. Cf. e.g. Or. princ. 2. 9. 1 ff. (p. 163.

24 ff., M. 11.2558 ff); Bas. hex. 1.5. (G.1. 5c ff, M. 29. 134 ff); Pelz, 6. Cf. or. 6. 12 (M. 35. 7378) for dedrepa.

13. alydaevtes: cf. Arc. 3. 28 n. gevdées: contrast this with the application of the word in v. 36:

Gesrnros decdéos. There the word aecdxjs has the full meaning given in PGL (s.v. 7): 'both as above form and as without visible form'. Cf. Greg. Nyss. Eun. 1 (p. g4. 20, M. 45. 321). Here the word

6, 13-17 has a diminished sense. The angels are invisible, but, as creatures, they are formed after an efSos in the mind of God.

13-14. @6wKov Gui: a variant of dudiBédweos (Arc. 4. 88).

In Homer, //. 8. 439, @a@«os is found as the throne of a god. (Cf. A. Pr.

831.) Rousse, 'Les anges', 141, sees here a picture oftroops ofangels dancing round the throne 'des farandoles sacrées', after the manner of angels in Fra Angelico. It must be said, somewhat prosaically, that we are not here told what the angels are doing as they circle the throne. In the passage which Rousse claims as parallel to this we read: xai odv dyyéAots yopevtaets Tv dtavoTov xopeiav CarM. 1. 2. 3. g5 (M. 37. 6404). Here, indeed, one might argue, is a reference to dancing. But as early as the Platonic corpus we find yopeiay ... xopav used of the circling motion of the stars (Epin. g82e) and it could well be that no more is meant here. éiageoi: they are airy and nimble, as messengers (or dancers) should be. Cf. or. 28. 31 (p. 71. 8, M. 36. 728). The angels form a kéo,0s vonrés, not in the common understanding of a world of pure ideas, but as individual minds they constitute a realm ofGod's power and rule.

15-16, A reminiscenceofPs. 103 (104 Heb.). 4 6 rowdy rows ayyéAous av'rou mvevuara, Kai rods Aecroupyovs abtot mip dAéyov. Cf. Heb.

1.7and 1 Clem. 36. 3 (Bihlmeyer, p. 55. 12 ff, M. 1. 281). Greg. does not follow the line of Hebrews, where 'winds' and 'fire' are taken as marks of the instability of the angelic nature when contrasted with that of the Son. Here the thought concentrates solely on the light, refined angelic nature and its suitability to rapid motion in carrying out God's commands; cf. Ps. 102 (103 Heb.). 20. In or. 28. 31 (p. 70.

5 ff., M. 36, 72a), Greg. interprets veda as vonr} dacs and fire as referring to the angelic power of purification.

Heoos: are we to distinguish ap from aifyjp, as in v. 52? It seems unlikely that Greg. is being so precise as to differentiate between the aifjp, the natural element of angels, and the lower ap through which their commissions might take them in their concern for the world. More probably ép0s means the whole realm of air, contrasted with earth. txodpnacovat: cf. Greg.'s izodpyorjp in carm. 2.1. 16. 11 (M.

37. 12554) and vaodpyoreipa Arc. 4. 79 (with n.). For the form irodpiaow cf. A.R. 3. 274, Musae. 13.

17. Man resembles the angels in being voepés, but is distinguished from them by not being amAous. Cf. Arc. 4. go n., 77 n. and 89-92 n.

17-21 duavyées: radiant, as creatures of light, and translucent as being incorporeal (or nearly so, cf. v. 60 n.). ott' &x0 caoKdv: cf. the use of dcapKos in carmm. 1. 2. 4.8 (M.

37. 641A), 1. 2. 10. 892 (744A), referring to angels.

It will be noted that, though Greg. calls the angels doapxor, this does not mean that they are dowa7oc. Origen had taught that the Persons of the Trinity alone are incorporeal, princ.

14 ff, M. 11. 1joB f.). However refined the angelic body may be, there is something distinguishable as a caja; cf. Turmel, RHL 3

(1898), 407 ff., together with id. ("P. Coulange'), The Life ofthe Devil, 44 ff. ET (London, 1929); Michl, RAC v (1962), 121. Greg. shows that he appreciates the distinction between doapxos and dodpatos in or, 28. 31 (p. 7o. 10, M. 36. 724), where he says that angelic nature may be relatively incorporeal (compared with human nature), but in absolute terms he does not venture beyond 4 6m éyytrara.

18. me@yev: for the form cf. H. //. 11. 572. There is here an allusion to the belief that all composite entities must ultimately suffer breakdown and destruction. Cf. the application ofday«ros to God in Arc.

2. 16. Pl. Phd. 78c provides a classic statement of the view that only that which is uncompounded (dadvv@eros) can escape dissolution.

20-1. Greg. seems to realize that he is in danger ofmaking the angelic nature almost indistinguishable from God's. But it is doubtful which precise attribute of divinity is in his mind when he draws back from calling the angels dre:pées. There are two possibilities:

(i) drecpées means 'indestructible', as, e.g., areep7js describes bronze in H. //. 5. 292. The only reason why Greg. might hesitate to call the heavenly beings 'indestructible' is the implied doubt on the omnipotence ofGod. Could he not, ifhe wished, destroy part ofhis creation, albeit the highest part?

(ii) The word means 'stubborn, unyielding' (cf. LSJ s.v. H), in this case to evil (as Nicetas interprets). These lines would then be directly linked with the thought ofv. 53 and the fall of Lucifer in the following lines. (Again, this appears in Nicetas.) Certainly the meaning would have been clearer if there had been some such specifying dative as xaxia (cf. AP 12. 175. 3-4 (Strat.): dvewpis oivw). But the sense emerges fairly clearly and, in the absence elsewhere of any suggestion that Greg. was exercised over the possibility ofthe destruction ofthe heavenly beings, this interpretation is to be preferred. (Cf. Gallay's tr. 'absolument fermes et inebranlables', p. 132, repr. Devolder 71.)

6. 20-5 The figure of the horse which needs restraint is a common one.

Cf. e.g. Meth. symp. 5. 3 (p. 56. 9, M. 18. 101): Plato talks ofrelaxing such restraint in Prt, 338A: yaAdoat 7as Hvias trois Aéyous. Greg. reachesa similar point in or. 28. 31 (p. 70. 10 ff., M. 36. 724 ff). He feels 'dizzy' with speculation, iAcvyy:amev, p.7o.

11 (72A) and contents himselfwith a bare summary ofthe titles applied to angelic powers.

22-6. Thefunctions ofangels. Origen had dealt with this in princ. 1. 8.1

11. 176a ff), maintaining that angelic functions correspond to merit displayed. Greg. is content to list functions without trying to account for diversity. He contemplates the possibility ofsome kind of rank structure in or. 28. 4 (p. 27. 8 ff, M. 36.

324): some angels may have a clearer understanding of God than others cata THY dvadoyiav ms Ta€ews. But he offers no explanation of the distinction; cf. also or. 40. 5 (M. 36. 3648). On the varying ministries of angels in Greg. cf. Rousse, 'Les anges', 140 ff. Greg. alludes in these lines to most of the functions specified by Rousse.

The others relate specifically to Christ, baptism, and eschatology.

22. napaotata: cf. Dan. 7. 10. For the angels who remain in contemplation and praise cf. or. 28. 31 (p. 7o. 15 ff., M. 36. 728), carmm.

I. 2. 10, 923 ff. (M. 37. 747A), 2. 1. 1. 280 ff. (M. 37. ggr a).

23-6. Other angels are allotted various parts of the universe as their charge.

It is these angels who hold together the universe in harmony, as Greg. describes them in or. 28. 31 (p. 71. 10-11, M. 36.

72C): wdvra eis év dyovoas, mpés piav otvvevow tot 7a TavTa dnutovpyhoartos.

24. énvotacinyv: this is a regular term for an angel's office (cf. PGL s.v. Surely the present passage should there be cited under 1.c, 'of office of angels in caring for the created order', rather than 1.a?)

25. &vdoas: beliefin personal guardian angels rests on such passages as Ps. go (Heb. gt). 11-12 (cited in Luke 4. 1to-11), Tob. 5. 6, 22,

Matt. 18. 10, Acts 12. 15, Heb. 1. 14. Origen makes a good deal of the idea in e.g. princ. 2. 10. 7 (p. 181. 19 ff., M. 11. 240A), 3. 2. 4 (pp. 250 ff,

M. 11. 308c ff), Cels. 1. 61 (p. 112. 9 ff, M. 11. 772€), 8. 27 (p. 243, M.

11. 1556c ff.), 8. 34 (pp. 249-50, M. 11. 1565c ff), or. 11. 3 (p. 323, M.

11. 4498 ff), comm. in Mt. 13. 5. (pp. 190 ff., M. 13. r104c¢ ff). mutédag: pagan thought took it that each city had its own presiding deity (cf. LSJ s.v. woAcodyos). Greg. may be offering a Christian alternative to this view (cf. below), or perhaps he is associating churches with their cities (cf. Rev.).

6, 25-30 évOea: the angels of the nations play a big part in Origen: cf. e.g. princ. 1. 5. 2 (pp. 70. 28 ff, M. 11. 1588 f), where Deut. 32. 8-9 is cited), Cels. 5. 30 (pp. 31-2, M. 11. 1225 ff), together withJ.Daniélou, Origen, ET (London, 1955), 224 ff. Notice how this contrasts with the beliefs expressed by Julian, who reaffirms the pagan view that the beings who exercise authority over nations and cities are gods, (Gal. 115d... €@vdpyais nai woAtotyors Bevis).

26. The line probably refers to the charge given to angels of assisting men in prayer, cf. carm. 1. 2. 1. 83 ff. (M. 37. 5284 f.). The language reflects Rom. 12. 1: Puciay Cwoav ... rv Aoyixiy Aatpeiav Bue, and is similar to Corp. Herm. 1. zi: b€£ar Aoyixads Guaias dyvas. (Cf. the n. in Scott's edn.: 'an act of worship which consists in verbal adoration, as opposed to material offerings.' See also Nock—Festugiére, i. 27-8.) As Origen wrote in or. 11. 4-5 (p. 323. 14 ff, M. 11.

449D ff.), angels are able to use their special knowledge (cf. ém- 'oropes) to assist men to pray fittingly. Cf. Cels. 8. 64 (p. 280, M. 11.

27-46. Hesitation aboutgoingfarther with the subject We have already seen Greg.'s hesitation in approaching his theme (cf.

Arc. 3. 1). Undoubtedly there is a rhetorical element in his reluctance, but there is still genuine perplexity in Greg.'s mind. Not only is he overcome by the thought of the heavenly splendour (vv. 27 ff.). He is perplexed by the possible moral effects on his readers of having to admit that sin is possible among these heavenly beings.

28. &yhvs brings associations of the mistiness which comes over the eyes of a dying Homeric warrior (//. 5. 696), or the effect of strong emotion (Archil. 191.

2 West), or, most aptly here, the temporary blurring of the vision which the appearance of a god can produce (H. //. 20. 321). Cf. the 'dizziness' passage cited in n. on wv. 20-1.

30-5. The image ofthe river-crossing. Greg. likens himself to a traveller who, crossing a river, experiences a sudden moment of panic but decides that the only thing he can do is go on. Imagery from swollen

. Streams is found several times in Homer, e.g. //. 4. 452-6, 13. 136-46, but Greg.'s simile is more like Macbeth 3. 4. 138: 'Returning were as tedious as go o'er.'

30. ronyad£tos is a form of tpaxvs which is not recorded in literature earlier than the 2nd c. Ap, when it appears in the epic poet Pancrates

(P. Oxy. 1085. 11) and in the medical poet Marcellus Sidetes. Later it 30-8 occurs in the Greek Anthology. Plutarch describes a river as tpayts in Alex. 60. Cf. carm. 1. 2. 9. 78-9 (M. 37. 6734).

31. &véxadro: the sense is not 'recoils' or 'falls back' as Billius' and Caillau's 'resilit? must be tr. The meaning is 'leaps, is borne upwards', an accurate description of the sensation of being suddenly swept out of one's depth. (Cf. H. //. 23. 694 for the form dvémaAro and 692 ff. for the picture of a fish leaping up and suddenly disappearing.) igpevoc meg. Cf. H. Od. 1. 6.

32. Cf. H. If. 21. 551: woAAd 8€ of kpadiy mépdupe évovn. Od. 4. 427, 572; 10. 309: woAAd dé wor Kpadin mépdupe KidvTe. The middle is found in Himerios (who was probably Greg.'s teacher: cf. Arc. 5.

67 n.), or. 31. 2, and in Agathias (AP to. 14).

The artistry of this line deserves attention. wop¢upw is skilfully chosen as a word which depicts equally well the swelling emotion of the heart (cf. the Homeric exx.) and the swelling rush of the stream.

(It is used ofsurging waves in //, 14. 16, a/.) Butin the briefcompass of the verse the second meaning is only hinted at.

33. Cf. Antipho 3. 2. 1: ai ypeiar roAwav Brdlovrac.

35. yaooato: this is the point at which the traveller 'falls back'.

34-46. The application of the simile. The poem picks up the thought from v. 20. Though Greg. fears to go further in his approach to the heavenly beings, he believes that, having come so far, he must continue.

36. devdéos: cf. v. 13 n. tyumédovta: a title ofZeus in Hes. Th. 529, the word vpiyuédwy was appropriated for Jewish or Christian use in or. Sib., where bedv vgédovra appears in 1. 347, 2. 309, 8. 355. Cf. Arc. 8. 3 and carm. 1.

2. 1.6 (M. 37. §22¢).

38. Kekognpévov: this appears to be a reference to Origen's teaching on the reason for the Fall of the angels: they had become sated with goodness. Origen writes thus ofSatan in Cels, 6. 44 (p. 115. 16 ff, M.

11. 1368): Kai dv "drocdpdyiana duowoews Kai orépavos KaAAovs"év re mapadeiaw Tov Geov oiovei xopeobeis twv ayabar év dmwAeia éyévero Kata Tov eimévTa pvoTiKw@s mpds abtov Adyov:

"dnwAea éyévou Kai oy Undptes eis Tov aidva. " (Cf. Ezek. 28.

12-13, 19). Similarly, if the text which Koetschau reconstructed from the anathemas against Origen at the Second Council of Constantinople (553) is near to Origen's original teaching, then he spoke ofthe rational creatures in these or similar terms: cépov 6€ atrods

6. 38-47 (sc. vas) AaBeiv mis Geias dydmns Kai Gewpias, kai mpds 76 yeipov tTparihvat Kata THY €xdotou avadoyiar nis éxi ToUTO poms, Princ. 2.

Greg. here adapts the teaching to fit his emphasis on light as the characteristic of the angelic world and perhaps also to avoid the harshness ofan outright assertion that the angels became sated with goodness.

39, arogéoaipt: the verb is used ofpaving a road in /GRom. 4. 1431. 5, al,; cf. the passive in Hdt. 2. 138. The suggestion that even angels are open to sin might 'pave the way' for others.

40-1 show Greg.'s dilemma. How can he assert that the nature of angels is unchangeably good, when he thinks of the fallen angel,

41. Cf. Arc. 8. 36 n.

42-5. The connection of thought is: 'It must be Satan who contrives evil, for itis out ofkeeping with the mind of a good God to plant evil in man and thus set up enmity in the creature he loves. Nor is it the will of a good God that evil should subsequently arise as a rival or that it should have an eternal (or independent) existence.' Greg. is thus preparing the way, through the Fall of Satan, for the Fall of man. The two Falls are very closely linked, each being a reason for believing in the other. God did not create evil in either Satan or man. Man's Fall must therefore be attributed to Satan. But the ability of one who was created good to contrive evil shows that he has changed, has himself fallen.

Vv. 44-5 may be compared with the arguments of Arc. 4. 24 ff.

44. avidowkov is a hapax legomenon. Cf. dvriBpovoy in Arc. 4. 25.

45. a&vapyov: a word which Greg. reserves for God, in particular God the Father: cf. Arc. 1. 25 n., 2. 19 n., 21 n.

46. As in Arc. 1. 16-24, 3. 36, 3. go, Greg. is claiming a measure of inspiration for what he writes.

47-55. The three ranks: God, angels andmen 47-9. God.

47. xo@ty gives more direct emphasis than zpdrov. a&toonos: the word is applicable only to Godhead: cf. carm. 1. 2.

1. 145 f. (M. 37. 5334), where Christ is called dzpozos otpavioto eixwv. Cf. v. 40 n. and see vv. 53-4. Moreschini, 'Platonismo', 1377, parallels it as a word of Platonist background with dzpezros in orr.

18. 42 (M. 35. rogoc) and 39. 13 (M. 36. 3494).

6. 48-52 48a. Unity is here associated with changelessness, multiplicity with instability. There is here a glance at what A. H. Armstrong referred to as 'perhaps the central and most important theme of all traditional philosophy', the problem ofthe One and the Many (An /ntroduction to Ancient Philosophy (London, 1965), 8). Appearing in Orphic writers and among Milesians like Anaximenes (cf. Guthrie, History, i. 132), it became a classic subject in Platonism. Plato meets the issue as it was raised by Parmenides in the dialogue named after him and in Sophist 2448 ff. (cf. Guthrie, v. 148 ff); the problem recurs in Philebus 14c-18p (ibid. 206 ff). The segment of the question which we encounter is more moral than epistemological, the contrast between the unity of virtue and the multiple forms of evil, as found, say, in Rep. 4. 445 ff. Origen took up the idea in or.

21. 2 (p. 345. 17 ff, M. 11. 481A), where 'one' is applied to 'virtue', 'truth', 'the wisdom of God', 'the word of God', and suitable contrasts are drawn. Cf. the n. in J. E. L. Oulton and H. Chadwick,

Alexandrian Christianity: Selected Translations of Clement and Origen (LCC ii; London, 1954), 353.

48b-49. God, by definition good, could change only for the worse. Cf.

Ath. Ar. 1. 18 (M. 26. 498), Greg. Nyss. Ep. 3 (M. 46. 10208). tO 6& mAEOv Svtosg GAvENGs is a tightly-packed expression: it is small wonder that Caillau expands it in his tr. The meaning may be explained in this way. As God is the sum of all good, if it were possible to add any qualities to him they could be only evil ones.

Such apparent additions would be, in effect, a diminution. Now the word dAvéts means 'escape'. It describes Cassandra's escape in A.

Ag. 1299 and Greg. gives it this sense in v. 85 (cf. also Q.S. 12, 212). évros dAvéis is then literally 'an escape from what is', a departure from absolute being.

50-2. Angels and human beings. The distinction between the second and the third grades of beings is expressed in terms of af@zjp and ap, the upper and lower atmosphere, nearer or farther from the sun. This is a traditional Greek contrast, going back to Heraclitus.

The ai@¥p is pure, often fiery (cf. af@w), heavenly substance, 'living and divine' (W. K. C. Guthrie, "The Presocratic World-Picture',

HTR 45 (1952), 87-104 at 93. Cf. also id., History, i. 471). The ap round the earth is less pure. In Christian thought it came to be thought ofas the element ofthe demonic powers. Cf. Eph. 2. 2 (also

Ase.Is, 11. 23). Further references in Arndt-Gingrich, s.v. dp, p. 20 and for the Greek Fathers PGL s.v. dyjp A. 6.

6. 52-5 52. ntges: Greg. identifies men with the earthly 'climates', more distantly affected by the sun. (For the plural in this sense cf. Hippocrates, and Pl. Phd. 98c-p.)

53-5. The nature ofangels. The position ofGod and manis clear: they stand at opposite ends of the scale of change. It is the nature of the angels which is in doubt. Caillau's n., implying that there is a distinction between the original state ofthe angels and their later state, cannot be justified in the text ("De prima angelorum creatione haec sunt intelligenda'). There is no differentiation between the original and any later state. Lucifer fell. As his nature was no different from that ofthe other angels, angelic nature must include some possibility of change. Greg.'s problem is that, seeing the continuity between the nature of Lucifer and that of the other angels, he cannot resist the conclusion that angels are still liable to turn to evil. Origen mentions the possibility in hom. 4 in Ezech. 2 (p. 363.

698p ff.). Cyril ofJerusalem taught his catechumens that, as 'one alone is without sin', the angels needed forgiveness, though he declined to speculate on the reasons, cat. 2. 10 (M. 33. 3938). In hom. in Ps. 32

Basil is unwilling to go beyond dvaperderos in characterizing the nature of the angels:

GAN' év 7 apwity cvatdce Kai 7a olovei dupduati Ts ovaias altw@y avyKataPAnGeioav Eayor thy dytétyta. 6:6 xai Svoperdberoi efor mpds Kaxiay, edbis, olovei Rady rim, TW dyiaopw oTropwhévres Kai Ta pOvysov Els dpETHY

TH Swped 76 pdviov els dperhy 17 Swped tot ayiov [Mvetparos Exovres (G. 1. 1368, M. 29. 333¢ f) Greg. himself uses dvexivyzos in or. 28. 31: xabapas duces Kai axiBdyAous, axunjrous mpés 76 xeipor SvoKwrous (p. 70. 14-15, M. 36. 728). Cf. 6. 12 (M. 35. 737B). Mason and Barbel offer no comments in their editions, but Caillau wished to restrict the meaning to the Fall of Lucifer. He continues: 'Nunc enim ad malum immobiles sunt angeli per concessam ipsis constantiae ac perseverentiae gratiam.' But, again, the text lacks anything which would justify the interpretation. Greg. is talking about angelic nature in general. Probably, as in the present passage, it was the fall of Lucifer which made him modify his d«cv#rovs. But it is the result for all angelic nature which concerns him. Again in or. 38. 9 (M. 36. 3214.=

45. 5. 6298) we find Greg. showing precisely the same hesitation as in the present passage: Lucifer and the rebel angels compel him to call all angels Svoxtvyrous, though his inclination is for dxiwyrovs.

6. 53-6 He makes it clear that the fall ofLucifer is not analogous to the Fall ofAdam, inasmuch as Lucifer's defection affected only those angels who chose to follow him. The others lost none oftheir glory, any more than the disciples lost theirs when Judas turned traitor, carm.

1. 2. 1, 680 ff. (M. 37. 574A), cf. 1. 2. 3. 47-8 (636). In or. 40. 7 (M. 36.

3658 f.) we find Greg. groping towards an equation of sinlessness and simple, uncompounded nature, with sin adhering to the composite being. But there is an unexplained qualification which makes the simple angelic nature 'very nearly' sinless, a qualification which, if pressed, destroys the argument. Ifsin in any degree is attributable to the simple angelic beings, then it cannot be composite nature as such which causes sin. (Cf. Michl, RAC, v. 126 ff.)

Turmel discussed Greg.'s teaching on angels in RHL 3 (1898), 459-60. He saw Basil and Greg. as providing a link between earlier views ofthe angels' susceptibility to sin (pp. 457 ff.) and Augustine's assertion of their sinlessness. 'Il était réservé a Augustin d'aller jusqu'au bout de la voie frayée par les Cappadociens, et de proclamer la stabilité des anges dans le bien.' But it should be noticed that the difference between Augustine and the Cappadocians is a very important one. Indeed, it could be argued that Augustine's view is not simply the next step from the Cappadocian position. For the real dividing-line comes between arpomos and Suorporos. Here is a difference ofkind. All that separates dvaTpomos and ettpomos is a difference of degree. Though Greg. was obviously reluctant to admit it, the angels stood on the same side of the line as man in being subject to change, with God alone on the other side. Greg. does not talk about actual sins for which the angels must be purified, as did the Priscillianists whom Augustine attacks in Ad Oros. 8. 10 (M. PL 42. 674£.), but he does leave open the possibility ofchange, which must include change for the worse, sin.

56-66. The Fall ofLucifer 56. tovvexev: because evil could not exist close to God's light, Lucifer had to be banished to distant darkness.

*'Ewoopos;: one of the passages which Basil and Greg. included in the Philocalia, 1. 25 (Robinson, p. 31. 22 ff.) = princ. 4. 3. 9 (p. 33.

4 ff, M. 11. 3924) speaks of the impossibility of identifying with Nebuchadnezzar the figure who fell from heaven and who is called éwoddpos (Isa. 14. 12 mas €€€recev Ex TOU oUpavod 6 Ewaddpos 6 mpwi dvatéAAwy,). In princ. 1. 5. 5 (pp. 75 fF., M. 11. 1634 fF.) Origen

6. 56-9 makes clear the identification of the 'Lucifer' of Isaiah with the Satan who, in Luke 1o. 18, fell 'like lightning from heaven'; cf. also philoc. 26. 7 (Robinson, p. 240. 14 f£.); hom. 12 in Num. 4 (p. 105. 3 ff,

M. 12. 6554 ff.). This connection was quite widely accepted; cf.

Turmel ('Coulange'), The Life of the Devil, 1 ff. Methodius, who differed from Origen on the reason for Satan's Fall, agreed with him in seeing in Isa. 14. 12 ff. a key text; res. 1. 37 (p. 279. 1 ff, M. 41.

57-9. The background to the present passage will be found in Isa. 14.

13 ff.: eis Tév odpavér dvaBjoouat, éravw tdv dotépwv rot odpavod Ojow tov Opdvov pov... Ecoprat Guotos TH Uiorw; see too Ezek. 28.

12 ff. Cf.Jerome, in Ezech. lib. 9 c. 28 (M. PL 25. 266c f.). Theodoret, considering the common application ofthe title €woddpos to Christ, an exegesis ofPs. 109 (110 Heb.). 3 found from Justin, dial. 45.

5372p; Goodspeed, p. 142) onwards, explains: "Ewoddpov autov Kadei ovy ws TovTo dAnOds dvta, GAA' ws ToUTO efvar davracbévTa

Kai deiEar BovAnbeis riv abpoav nis weptdavetas peraBoAny, azeixacev Ewoddpw éx rob odjpavot eis piv weadvre, Is. (S. 2, 268, M. 81.

333); cf. also id., Ezech. (S. 2. 916, M. 81. 10974 f.), on Ezech. 28. 16.

Greg., however, nowhere applies the title to Christ, though Basil, for instance, did so in Eun. 2. 17 (G. 1. 252D, M. 29. 608). There is a passing reference to Lucifer in or. 36. 5 (M. 36. 269c), but no discussion ofthe title. (Cf. the passage cited on v. 59.)

Pacunida ty is a Homeric reminiscence: Saxe 5€ of tys7s BactdAnisos Futov maons (il. 6. 193, the story of Bellerophon). atyhny: cf. Arc. 3. 28 n. and v. 96 below.

59. ddov OkOtOs &vti Ozoio: the only possible sense is 'total darkness instead ofGod (as he aspired to become)'. Cf. or. 36.

269C): odros (Sc. PBév0s) kai rév 'Ewoddpov éaxdtic€ kataneodvTa duExapatv: od yap veyKe, Geios div, 17 Kai Oeds vopobyvac. In or.

6. 13 (M. 35. 737¢C) there is the simpler contrast oxéros dvti dwrés.

Cf. also or. 38. 9 (M. 36. 3214). 'Darkness', as is clear from Arc. 4.

24 ff, is, in Greg. as in the Fathers generally, a realm of total negativity and deprivation. Denied positive power of motivation, ox6éros may stand for ignorance, falsehood, the evil desires of the mind or, as here, for the demonic world ofSatan. It is the domain of evil spirits in magical papyri (PGM 36. 138) and in Matt. 8. 12, 22. 13,

25. 30 'the outer darkness' is the place ofpunishment. In the Johannine literature oxovia comes to stand for all evil powers opposing

God, as inJohn 1. 5, 8. 12, 12. 35, 46 and 1 John 1. 5, 2. 8-9, 11. oxoria 6. 59-64 is the place where demons live in Hom. Clem. 20. 9 and Const. App. 5.

When patristic writers are seeking a more positive evaluation of darkness, as we find it in Exod. 20. 21 where it is God who inhabits the darkness of a thick cloud, they tend to use yuddos the LXX tr. for arapel in the Exod. passage, as distinct from the regular Heb. word for 'darkness', hosek, for which oxéros or oxoria are used, Cf. e.g. Nyssen, hom. I in Cant. (M. 44. 7738). When the human soul is able to discard reliance on rational processes it may progress through yvédos to a true mystical experience of God (hex. M. 44.

65c; v.Mos. M. 44. 376). yvddos is the apt locus of contemplation and, indeed, may be equated with it. There is discussion of this aspect of Nyssen in Lossky, Vision, 70 ff., Louth, Origins, 8o ff. and Williams, Wound, 52 ff.

60-72 describe Lucifer's resultant state. Greg. thinks of the substance of Lucifer in quasi-physical terms. As being xodd@os he would naturally ascend to the upper air.

It is despite his constitution (which apparently remains unchanged) that Lucifer descends to the lower world. y@apadry indicates what is low both physically and in status.

6do8Gve has both literal and figurative usages in Classical Greek (cf. Ar. Ra. 690 for the sense of a moral fall).

61-6. Lucifer's envy ofmen. In a numberofearlier writers it is this that is the reason for-his Fall, Iren. Aaer. 4. 40. 3 (M. 7. 1113€); see

Turmel, RHL. 3 (1898), 280 ff., The Lifeof the Devil, 8 ff. Nyssen writes in this vein in or. catech. 6 (p. 32. 9 ff., M. 45. 288). Satan is the angel in charge of earthly creatures who falls through his envy of man's godlike status. Now in Nazianzen Satan's primary envy is aroused by God's glory and his Fall results from the proud spirit which sets itself up against God. In this view he follows Origen and is in line with such writers as Eusebius, Chrysostom, and Theodoret. (Cf.

Turmel, The Life of the Devil, 12 ff.) Satan's enmity with man follows from his enmity with God. It is as an act of spiteful revenge that Satan shows his envy for man, God's favoured creature. The envy of man is secondary.

62. For AwByy cf. Arc. 4. 52 0.

64. MWdopa cod: cf. Gen. 2. 7: cai étAacev 6 Beds tov dvblpwrov youv dxé nis ys. Justin had applied the word zAdoua to Adam, dial. 40. 1 (p.

137, M. 6. 5618). For Greg.'s use of the expression cf. or. 24.9 (M. 35. 1180R), 31. 11 (p. 158. 7, M. 36. 1440).

6. 65-81 65. tO: here in the sense of 'wherefore' as in Epic (LSJ s.v. 6 7 76 A VIII. 2 and 3).

For similar language in Greg. cf. carm. 2. 1. 54. 6-7 (M. 37. 13984).

In Gen. 3. 24 the subject of éé€8aAev is God, but the meaning is not necessarily altered if, to lay stress on Satan's part, he is said to have been the instrument of man's expulsion. Cf. Iren. dem. 16. 'man he

[Satan] caused to be cast out of Paradise', tr. J. A. Robinson, St.

Irenaeus: The Demonstration ofthe Apostolic Preaching (London, 1920), 84.

66. Paokavos: cf. M. Polyc. 17.

1 (Bihlmeyer, p. 129. 7). Greg. has the same expression in carm. 1. 1. 27. 8 (M. 37. 49ga). Gigante cites the passages of Greg. as the probable origin of Bdc«avos in Eugenius

Panormitanus 20. 8 (Versus lambici, 196).

The origin ofdemonicpowers on earth Lucifer inspired other angels with the same pride and took them with him at his Fall to become demonic tempters of men.

67. ovpavins && a&vevyos: cf. AP 9. 806 (anon.), 11. 292 (Palladas, 4th c. AD), Ps.-Manetho, 2(1). 68.

70. Greg. writes as a loyal citizen of theEmpire to whom anyone who attempted to disrupt the Emperor's power would appear 'sinful' (cf.

Arc. 5. 21 n.). If Greg. is thinking in specific, rather than general, terms, he may be remembering his old enemy Julian who detached his army from its allegiance to Constantius, an emperor much venerated by Greg.

Gxogoneas: Josephus has the passive in the sense of breaking allegiance (BF 2. 14. 3).

71-2. Lucifer provided himself with subjects to rival those of the supreme God.

73-81. Catalogue ofthe evils introduced by thefallen angels. Lists of evils are not uncommon in Christian literature. In the NT we may find precedents in Mark 7. 21-2, Rom. 1. 29 ff.,

1 Cor. 6. g-10, Gal. 5. 20.

Cf. alsa among verse writers the lists given in orac. Sib. 1. 175-9 (GCS, p. 14), 2. 255-83 (pp. 4o ff.) and by Ps.-Manetho 2(1) 301 ff.

Athanasius provides a comprehensive catalogueofthe sins and evils which assail mankind (inc. 5. 3-4, M. 25. 1058 ff.), but makes them dependent on the Fall of Adam. Here the influx of evil into the world is a direct result of the Fall in heaven. In Greg., cf. carm. 2. 1.

13. 75 ff. (M. 37. 1233 f.).

6. 73-8 73. épiaornoay: the word is well tr. by Caillau's 'pullularunv'.

74. a&vdgoqovovo: cf. Arc. 4. 49 n.

Gdéeavéa: they are weak when compared with their former angelic power. Greg. has no doubt of their strength when compared with men. oKkvoévta . .

. pa@opata: the Epic form comes into an expression which looks back to Pl. Phd. 81p, where cxoed73 davrdouata refers to the souls which are still unable to escape completely from their bodies. gaopata vuKtos: cf. Soph. El. 501 76d ddopa vuntés.

76. wedora: cf. (of their leader) John 8. 44. dvddoKo)o GushoKtdiv: demons were thought to have taught men such evil practices as worshipping idols, cf. Athen. /eg. 26. 1

(p. 292, M. 6. 94D ff.) and believing in fate, cf. Tat. orat. 9 (p. 9. 23 ff, M. 6. 825 ff).

77. mxyKtou: only here and in 1. 2. 2. 318 (M. 37. 6034) is the form mAdyxTns (= wAayxrip, 'deceiver') found.

Cwooxdtou: they encouraged 'hard' drinking, i.e., of unmixed wine. guopevdées: Homer uses the form diAoupecdss ofAphrodite in Il. 3. 424, Od. 8. 362, but the tone of the present passage is better represented by AP 9. 524. 22 (anon.) where Dionysus is so described

(also in the drAoupesdyjs form). Though Greg. may be thinking of the roistering laughter which Eph. 5. 4 calls edtpazeAia, we form the impression that he was not much given to laughter in any of its forms. In or. 8. g (M. 35. 8004) he praises his sister Gorgonia for thinking that even the ghost ofa smile was something ofan event, cf. carmm, 1. 2. 34. 111 (M. 37. 9534); 1. 2. 33. 77 ff. (9334 f.). The undform is a curiosity, recalling perhaps a confused memory of Hes.

Th. 200. éyeecikwpor: here again is an epithet applied to Dionysus in the same poem (AP 9. 524. 6): Etsov, edyairny, eddumedov, éypecixwpov.

78. yonopodéyou: here too we may have a word whose choice is influenced by its possible connection with a Greek god, this time

Apollo, the god ofthe Delphic oracle. There is a contemptuous ring here in a word which early became associated with the dubious profession of oracle-monger.

It may not be coincidence that Greg. turns to epithets which had been or might be applied to Greek gods. There is a long patristic

78-9 tradition of equating heathen gods with demons, going back certainly as far as the Apologists; cf. PGL s.vv. Saysdviov 3. ¢ and Saiuwv C. 1-3. Origen, for instance, cites Ps. 95 (96 Heb.). 5 as evidence: 6: mavres of Geoi rw EOvav daiyudua, Cels. 3. 2 (p. 204.

25 ff., M. 11. g21p ff.) In 3. 28 (p. 225. 20-1, M. 11. g56a f.) he calls Apollo a Saiuwy. doEoi: it is possible that Aogoé is to be taken with ypyapoAdyor. If Greg. could break the strict pattern of four independent words in v.

76, there is no reason why he should not do so here also. Aogés describes the ambiguous character oforacles in Lycophron 14 and 1467, Luc. Alex. ro and elsewhere; cf. Aogias as an epithet of Apollo. quodjoes: PGL cites diAddnpis as a hapar. aiparoevtes: either as inciting men to violence or as encouraging sacrifice. For the second cf. Athenag. leg. 26. 1 (M. 6. 9490;

Goodspeed, p. 246): (sc. 'demons') of zpoceotyxdres rw dnd THY (epeiwy aiuatt Kai Tata TEpAtypumevor.

79. Taptapeot: this is perhaps an allusion to the view that some of the demons are in Hades while others inhabit the air. Cf. Eus. p.e. 7.

16 (p. 3298 ff., M. 21. §56c), a passage which sees the majority ofthe fallen angels as condemned immediately to Tartarus, with only a small number left on earth and in the lower air to provide good men with the necessary elements of conflict. But the epithet may mean no more than 'horrible' (cf. E. HF go7). pupoevtes: zvyders is a hapax legomenon. The word is suggested by the preceding Taprapec:, the noun puyds being regularly associated with Tartarus. Cf. Hes. Th. 119 Taéprapa 7' jepdevra uy x9ovds; or. Sib. 4. 186 (GCS p. 102) Téprapa 7 evpwevra puyoi ortyioé te yeévns, 8. 362 (GCS p. 165) ofda pvyots yains Kai

Tdprapa jepdoevra; Greg. carm. 2. 2 (epit.), 40.

5 (M. 38. 314) TapTdpeoi re pvyoi, 2. 2 (poem.). 5. 125 (M. 37. 15304) Lodepotis re puxovs, Kai Tdprapov aivov (cf. also for similar expressions

952). We might perhaps take Taprdépeo: and puyxoevres together as giving a picture of demons living in murky, underground holes in the earth but, differently from the opinion of Eusebius, emerging to harry mankind. The whole concern of the passage is with the effect the demons have upon men and it is unlikely that Greg. would here be interested in any that were immobilized in Hades. aoxryontes: dpyeydns is again a hapax legomenon. PGL glosses

6. 79-91 'arch-impostor'. But it is also possible that a reference to magic is intended. ydys has the regular meaning of 'sorcerer' as well as 'impostor'. Demons are associated with magicin Justin, /Apo/. 26.2

(Goodspeed, p. 42; M. 6. 3684), Origen, Cels. 1. 60 (pp. 110-11, M.

11. 7698 ff.), hom. 16 in Num. 7 (p. 147. 24 ff., M. 12. 6984).

80. This line gives some support to the suggestion that magic is referred to in the previous one, for «aAéw means to summon by use ofa magic formula. Cf. Origen, Cels. 1. 60 (p. 110. 23-4, M. 11. 7698)

6m payor Sainoow sutAobvres Kai rovrous 逢' & penabjxact Kai BovAovrat xadobvres Toovat KTA.

81. Aoyowvtes: cf. H. Od. 16. 369.

82-95. Christand the demons There was no arbitrary exercise of force against the devil, in whose continued existence Christ demonstrated divine purpose. The thought here is in line with what earlier Fathers had said about God's consistent desire to avoid the use of tyrannical force. Cf. e.g. Diogn. 7.

3 ff. (Bihlmeyer, p. 145. 25 f, M. 2. 11774); Iren. Aaer. 4. 59. 3 (M. 7.

I110D ff.), 5. 1. 1 (1121B ff.); Orig. hom. 20 in Jerem. 2 (p. 177. 27 ff., M.

85. Cf. Nah. 1. 6. Here dAvéis is found in its normal meaning of 'escape' (cf. v. 48 n.).

86-7. The status ofSatan. Greg. emphasizes the subordinate position ofSatan in the divine economy, over against any dualistic notion, by using ofhim the same formula which he applied to man's position: ovr' dvénxev é€Acd@epoy (Arc. 7. 100). In calling Satan péoov, Greg. is using the word in a different way from that in which Eusebius applies it to Christ, de. 4. 10 (p. 167. 34, M. 22. 2808), who is ypécos in that he participates in both Godhead and manhood; cf. Ath. Ar. 2.

24 (M. 26. 2004). Satan does not mediate between good and evil men, as Christ mediates between God and man, being himselfboth, but is intermediary only in the sense that, being totally committed to one side, he has access to the other. He may be compared to an ambassador ofan unfriendly power.

88-9. Where there is conflict between good and evil, it occurs as part ofGod's plan, not as existent in its own right. Contrast this with the Manichaean dualism ofAre. 4.

91. The common figure of refining may be illustrated from such passages as Pl. Rep. 4130 f., 503.4; Isa. 48. 10; Zech. 13. 9; Mal. 3. 2-3;

6. 91-3 1 Cor. 3. 13; 1 Pet. 1. 7; Rev. 3. 18. For the part which purification played in Greg.'s thought cf. Arc. 1. 8b-15 n.

92-5. The punishment of Lucifer.

Billius took it that Lucifer's punishment was to be eternal ('poenas dabit ille perennes'). But this distorts the meaning. drecp7js is not an adverb describing the manner of the punishment: it is an adjective depicting the character of the sufferer, as in carm. 2. 1. 1. 540 (M. 37. 1010A). Greg. is asking, albeit tentatively, whether the devil, for all his stubborn resistance

(are.pys), may not ultimately complete his punishment.

On this issue ofthe possibility ofSatan's redemption, Nazianzen contrived to be something less than definite. Origen had been strongly inclined to believe in the final restoration of the devil; cf.

Kelly, Doctrines, 474: '... the doctrine is insinuated, if not actually taught, in his writings as well as taken for granted by his adversaries.' Nyssen shows the same tendency. He writes, for instance, in or. catech. 26 (p. 98. 17 ff., M. 45. 68p) (sc. Christ) od uévov rév amoAwAéta $14 rovTwy evepyer@v, aAAad Kai avtov Tov 7H dmwAeav kal yudv évepyjoavra. Basil went quite the other way, holding out for the eternal punishment of all sinners, let alone

Satan; cf. e.g. Spir. 16. 40 (G. 3. 348 ff, M. 32. 1414 ff), Kelly, Doactrines, 483-4. But Nazianzen does not go beyond the zdya of the present passage or the possibility that there is a milder interpretation than the eternal fire of punishment: wdv7a yap tatra rs adavotixys é€omt Suvdwews: ef ur) Tw Gidov Kavravda voeiv TovTO giravOpwrérepor, kai tov KoAdLovtos émagiws, or. 40. 36 (M. 36.

412A f.). There is no doubt that he takes this alternative to eternal fire seriously and ézafiws appears to show some sympathy for it.

But more than that cannot be said.

93-5. Satan's punishment takes place in two stages: through seeing the distresses of his subordinates and in his own person.

93. daxtopévygs: this reading is to be preferred to Caillau's 8' dzropévns. The sentence certainly runs more easily without the dé.

Indeed, it is difficult to see how the particle could be fitted into the grammar ofthe genitive absolute. If Sazroyévys is read, we have an equally good verb for consuming fire (cf. H. //. 23. 183). Cf. Greg.'s own zupi Samrduevos in carm. 1. 2. 14. 128 (M. 37. 765A) and Are. 7.

8n. vis here represents the gross element in Lucifer. It is not matter in the physical sense, of course. But neither is it something purely spiritual. Greg., as we have seen (v. 17n.), is not prepared to 6, 93-9 dissociate oda from the nature ofthe noetic beings. This corporeal element, however refined its nature, must still be accounted sufficiently substantial to be affected by fire. (Cf. Turmel, The Lifeo the Devil, 71 ff., who shows that as long as the demons were thought to have their substance of, say, air, there was no problem about their punishment. It was the assertion ofcomplete spirituality which produced the difficulty.)

Gevyig = 'requital'. Cf. Inser. Prien. 105. 18, where the word means 'repayment'.

95b. Cyril of Jerusalem's description of the devil as yevvyjzwp rav kaxwv may be compared, catech, 2.

Conclusion For the claim to inspiration, cf. Arc. 1. 16-24 n.

97. Caillau's tr. 'primo et posteriore' is preferable to his interpretation of 'good' and 'bad' angels. What Greg. has been describing is precisely the contrast between the 'first' splendour shared by all the angels and the 'last' in which only the unfallen participate.

97b-98. wétoov here has a different sense from that found in Are. 4.

86, As, e.g., in Pl. Tht. 183, wérpow means 'standard ofjudgement'.

Whether in the heavenly or the earthly worlds, the standard is God.

Cf. the words of Plotinus concerning the One, pézpov yap até Kai ov petpouimevor (5. 5. 4).

98b-99. God is the fixed point, the central light, and all judgement o' worth is based upon proximity to, or distance from, him. The final words of the poem recapitulate the thought ofits opening. a4 7. On the Soul Title andpurpose Tlepi vyjs is the agreed title. The Creation ofman is linked with the nature ofthe divine element in him, the abstract discussion of the soul leading to the account ofhis Creation and Fall. In structure, the poem resembles Arc. 4, with an introduction devoted to an attack on opposing opinions leading to an exposition of Greg.'s own views.

Writing about Tertullian's DeAnima, J. H. Waszink remarked that 'this work is not in the first place a scientific treatise but a refutation of heretical doctrines about the soul' (edn. p. 7*.) This is even more true of Greg.'s much slighter ITepi uvyys. Though Greg. would not have known Tertullian's work, comparison is instructive in reflecting a mass ofcommon material.

Nyssen's Dialogus de anima et resurrectione qui inscribitur Macrinia (M.

46. 11-160) offers a survey of ideas, often in the form of contrasts with 'Greek' views. He dismisses Stoics and Epicureans in 218 ff. Going farther afield, he attacks Manes, along with Greeks he claims hold a similar position (93). Transmigration attracts a fairly lengthy rebuttal

(1088 ff.). The positive claims made for a Christian understanding of the soul include kinship to God through its status of being in God's image, coming into life and leaving it simultaneously with the body and the hope that all souls will finally be cleansed of all impurity and return to their primal state.

J. M. Mathieu has discussed certain aspects ofGreg.'s treatment in his article 'Remarques sur l'anthropologie de Grégoire de Nazianze

(Poemata dogmatica, VIII, 22-32; 78-96) et Porphyre', Stud. Patr. 17/3 (1982), 1115-19. He places Greg. within a context ofwriters who tackle similar themes, particularly showing affinities with Porphyry and lamblichus, giving a good account of Greg.'s precise understanding.

1-52. False theories ofthe soul The poem begins with a briefdefinition ofthe true nature ofthe soul, an earnest of the treatment to follow in vv. 53 ff. But the pattern quickly settles: from v. 36 on we find a series of traditional opinions processing before the reader to be controverted.

1-6 1. Gna Geo: cf. carm. 1. 2. 15. 151-2 (M. 37. 777A):

' ux 8€orw Gnua Geo, cai xpeiccova poipyy aiév dyav wodée: tHv bwepovpaviwv.

The present passage specifies the condition (uiéw avérAn) of the soul which so aspires. Gen. 2. 7 reads: xai éxAacev 6 Oeds rév avOpwrov your amo THs ys Kai évedvoncer eis TO WpSowTOV AUTON nvony Cwis, Kai éyévero 6 avOpw7os eis Wuxny Caoav. Greg's dnua is no more thana stylistic variation of zvo7. 'Flatus', the tr. of Billius and Caillau, is apt: it may mean either 'blowing' or 'breath'.

If, however, we are reminded of Tertullian's use of flatus in De Anima 11 (M. PL 2. 6648, CCSL 2. 796. 7 ff, CSEL 20. 315. 3 ff.) or adflatus in adv. Marc. 2. 9 (M. PL 2. 294, CCSL 1, 484. 22 f, CSEL

47. 345 ff.), we should notice that the intention of the two writers is different. Tertullian finds in flatus/adflatus a convenient distinction from spiritus, a distinction which he believes to correspond toa difference between mvo7 and mvedua; cf. Iren. haer. 5. 12. 2 (M. 7.

1152 ff.); see Waszink, Tertulliani 'De Anima', 10*—14*, 193-5. But Greg. equates mvo7 and rretua in Ww. 73-4.

Though, in the instances cited by LSJ, énua means 'blast, wind', the sense 'breath' may be readily derived from the verb ayuc, which means either 'breathe' or 'blow'. piéev: cf. v. 79 n.

3. &p@utos: the view that the soul is mortal and destined to perish in the death of the body was a common Epicurean one. Cf. e.g.

Epicurus Sent. II, ap. D.L. 10. 139 (71. 6-7 U.) and the passage of Lucretius beginning: nil igitur mors est ad nos neque pertinet hilum, quandoquidem natura animi mortalis habetur.

(3. 830 f.) Among the Stoics, Panaetius makes the same assertion (cf. Cic.

1. 79): 'volt enim, quod nemo negat, quidquid natum sit interire; nasci autem animos, quod declaret eorum similitudo qui procreentur, quae etiam in ingeniis, non solum in corporibus appareat.'

4-6. Does eixéva here mean the soul or the whole man? Either sense is possible in Greg. The first appears in or. 38. 11 (M. 36. 321D) = 45.

7 (M. 36. 6324), where he may be influenced by the thought of Origen. In Cels. 6. 63 (pp. 133-4, M. 11. 13938 ff), distinguishing between the Logos who is the image and man who is xar' efxdva, he

7. 4-8 dismisses the view that 'being in the image of God' refers either to the human body or to a combination ofbody and soul. That which is made in the image of God is the inner man. He concludes: dre xai

"vaés" éott Tou é€v rm "kat' eikéva" avecAnddtos tou Geo ra Tov @eob "6 oda", Tou ToL\adTnV Exovtos puyHy Kal év 7H buy Sea 7d

"kat etkova" tov Gedv. (p. 134. 10 ff. 13964). Indeed, this is in the general Platonic tradition of seeing the soul as the man; cf. or. 14. 6,

M. 35. 8654, together with J.-M. Szymusiak, Eléments de théologie de l'homme selon saintGregoire de Nazianze (Rome, 1963), 32. n. 25. On the other hand, in v. 75 below eixa@v means the whole man, the composite. There is good reason for thinking that the second is the sense intended here. It is not the soul which is made mortal by sin, but man, the composite being made 'in the image', and called simply 'the image'. The soul does not perish with the body and, thus, the 'image' does not suffer complete dissolution.

5. The ignorance ofthe beasts contrasted with man is a commonplace in Greek, as also in Hebrew, e.g. Ps. 72 (73 Heb.). 22. Shakespeare and the Book of Common Prayer continue the tradition: 'a beast that wants discourse of reason' (Hamlet, 1. ii. 150), 'like brute beasts that have no understanding' (Solemnization of Matrimony, Exhortation).

7-8. The soulasfire. This idea is found in varying forms in Heraclitus, Leucippus, Democritus, and the Stoics, with roots in popular belief

(cf. Guthrie, History, i. 466).

(i) Heraclitus. Fire was for Heraclitus the first principle of the universe, as can be seen from DK i. 109. 5 ff., etc. It may well be that Philoponus was right in his interpretation: zip dé ov rv dAdya-... aAAa wip EAeye TH Eqpav avabupiaciw: ex ravTns ovv efvat Kai THY wuyyv, Comm. inArist.

DeAnima 405°25 (p. 87. 11 ff.). Cf. Ross's edn. of Aristotle's De Anima (Oxford, 1961), 181. But clearly Greg. does not credit Heraclitus with any such sophisticated thought about the nature of the fiery soul-substance. For him it is simply the fire which burns. Cf. the distinctions drawn by Nemesius in nat. hom. 2

(M. 40. 5368). For further texts and discussion, cf. Kirk, Raven and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, 198—9, 203-5.

(ii) Leucippus and Democritus. In DeAnima 403°20 ff. Aristotle discusses the position of Democritus, linking the idea that the soul is fire or heat with the view that it is closely connected with respiration

(cf. vv. 8-g below, with n.). Taking as the characteristic of soul its 7. 7-8 ability to initiate motion (Cf. Ross, Comm., p. 174.n. on xivyats), Democritus holds that it is the spherical atoms ofsoul or fire which are best suited by their shape to set other atoms in motion.

60ev Anudxpitos ev wip mt Kai Oepudy dyaw adriy (sc. Yvyhv) efvacdmeipwv yap évrwy oxynudtwy Kai arépwy ta ohaipoedy wip Kai Yvyny

Aéyet. .. wy Ty pév Tavoreppiav atotxeia THs GAns dvaews, .

. . ToUTWw de 7a ohapoedy yuyny, ded 76 wadAtora bia wav7és Sivacbac diadvvew Tous To.oUTous puguols Kai Kiveiv 7a Aotma, xiwotmeva Kai ativd, UmoAauBdvovres THY Wuyi elvar 76 wapéxov trois Cwots TY Kivnow

The initial 6@ev connects with the primary characteristics of soul as motion. Whether Democritus meant to say that soul is fire or that it is /ike fire may be debated (cf. Aét. 4. 3. 5, Diels Dox. 388. 5 ff., and Guthrie, History, ii. 430 ff.); but again, it is unlikely that Greg. considered such refinements or went beyond Aristotle's account. For Democritus the soul was destructible and could be broken up into its component parts in the same way as the body in death. (Aét. 4. 7.

4, DK ii. 110. 24-5). Cf. v. 3 n.

Aristotle refers to Leucippus as 'agreeing' with Democritus (405*5). He would now generally be given a more original role. For the spherical atom which is both soul and fire cf. Kirk, Raven and Schofield, The Presocratic Philosophers, 427.

(iii) The Stoics. The Stoic view, as given by Zeno, is reported in Cicero Tusc. 1. 19: "Zenoni Stoico animus ignis videtur' (cf. 1. 42;

N.D, 2. 41-2; Fin. 4. 12; Acad, Post. 1. 39). Diogenes Laertius writes:

Zivwv &€ 6 Kineds nai Avrizatpos év trois Hepi Puyis «ai Tlocedavios meta Evbeppov civar rv Wuyiv: roTwW yap judas eivar €umvoous Kai Um6 ToUTou KiveioGat (7. 157). Stoic thought was able to combine the doctrine of the fiery soul with a belief in the survival of the soul. At least, some Stoics were able to do so:

Panaetius did not (cf. v. 3n.). Cleanthes believed that all souls would survive the life ofthe body until the éxapwors, when everything returns to God. Chrysippus restricts survival to the souls of the 'wise' (D.L. 7. 157). Cf. M. Pohlenz, Die Stoa, 3rd edn. (Gottingen, 1964), i. 229 ff.

Tertullian's treatment of the subject may be compared. When, writing in support of the corporeality of the soul, he cites Zeno, he does so without making any reference to fire: 'denique Zeno consitum spiritum definiens animam hoc modo instruit', De An. 5. 3 (M.

PL. 2. 6534, CCSL 2. 786. 13-14, CSEL 20. 304. 19-20). It is to 7. 7-9 Hipparchus and to Heraclitus alone that he attributes the idea that the soul is 'ex igni', ibid. 5. 2 (653.4 =p. 786. 5 ff; p. 304. 9 ff.), wrongly in the first case (cf. Waszink, edn. 127 ff.).

The corporeal nature of fire made the Stoic doctrine of the soul unacceptable to many, not least Neoplatonists. Plotinus thinks of fire as almost escaping the realm ofcorporeal things (cf. 1. 6. 3, 3. 6.

6), but the Stoic fire is consistently material.

A good deal of Neoplatonic polemic was thus directed against the Stoics on the nature ofthe soul. (Cf. R. A. Norris Jr.,Manhood and Christ, 23.) padepds is in Homer a conventional epithet offire. (Cf. J/. 9. 242, al.) By concentrating on the destructive element offire Greg. is able to make the point that the body which is liable to be consumed has at its 'heart' the very element which would consume it. But the philosophers who connected fire with soul intended to draw attention to other characteristics offire—its heat, for instance, which has a clear connection with life (cf. Guthrie, History, ii. 432). daztov dartopéevoro: cf. Arc. 6. 93 n.

For kéao cf. vv. 19-20 n. It may here have the double sense of kapdia = 'soul' (PGE s.v. xapdia C) and xapéia = 'pith, core, heart'

(LSJ s.v. xap8éa II).

&b-9, Thesoul as air (ayp is here to be distinguished from aiéyp, with its affinities to fire). The connection between the soul and the air which is breathed is very ancient and very widespread. "That the air which we breathe should be the life itself which animates us is a common idea, and the breath-soul a world-wide conception'

(Guthrie, History, i. 128; cf. the ensuing discussion and id., The Greeks and their Gods (London, 1950-4), ch. 5). This is the background against which the philosophers' teachings must be set.

Anaximenes is reported thus: Avagiuévys 8¢ 6 MiAnjatos dpyiy tay GvTwy adépa amedhyvaro, €x yap TouTouv wdv7a yiveoGat Kai €is avTév dvaAtecbat. olov 4 uy}, dynow, 7} Huetépa app ovca avyKpatei

Huds, Kai 6Aov Tév Kéopuor TVeE0pa Kai ajp mepréxe: (fr. 2; DK i. g5.

15 ff.); cf. the opinion ofhis follower Diogenes ofApollonia: év@pwmot yap Kai ta GAAa (wa dvamvéovta (we tw aépi, Kai TovTO avroio: Kai uy €or Kai vénots (fr. 4; DK ii. 60. 20-1). See further

Pl. Phd. g6n 4, Arist. De An. 405°21-2.

In Diogenes dip is held to be divine and, consequently, the human soul is puxpév . .. wéptov rob Oeod (Theophr. de Sensu 8. 42).

The Orphic poets are cited by Aristotle for the notion of the soul breathed in from outside: dyoi yap rv duyjy éx tov GAov eiorévac

COMMENTARY ON ARC, 7. 8-10 dvamvedvrwy, depouévny ind tav dvéuwv (An. 410°28 ff; the subject of dna is a Adyos found in the Orphics). Among the Stoics the identification of soul and life-breath occurs in Chrysippus, according to Chalcidius, comm. in Timaeum, 220 (SVF ii. 879), and Tertullian expounds the opinion that soul and life-breath cannot be separated in De An. 10(M. PL 2. 6618 ff., CCSL 2. 794 ff., CSEL 20.

312 ff.). Aristotle associates Diogenes with 'some others' in thinking of the soul as air (De An. 405721). As Ross notes, Aétius identifies these as Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, and Archelaus (Plac. 4. 3. 2), while Theodoret includes Anaximander (Graec. Aff. Cur. 5. 18).

Gxonvevetov: a hapax legomenon. The only other recorded instance of zvevords is in Greg.'s 2. 2 (poem.) 5. 71 (M. 37. 15264).

LOTapPEVOLO: motion might be associated with the soul in two ways. The soul might be that which initiates motion (cf. vv. 7-8 n.;

Democritus), or that which is in constant movement, as air was to Anaximenes (Dox. 579. 21 ff.). The words are here taken in a pejorative sense, implying instability (cf. LSJ s.v. formpe B. II. 2).

10. The soul as blood. As is the case with breath, there is a primitive association of the soul with blood. Plato includes both in the possibilities mentioned in Phd. 9684. At the time when the Phaedo was written, the name most firmly linked with the theory ofthe soul as blood was that of Empedocles, whose thought is preserved in these lines: ainatos év weAdyeou reOpappévyn avribopavros,

TH Te Vonpa paAtora KikAjoKetar avOpw7otowaia yap avépwmots wepixdpdiév é€omt vonua (Stob. Eel. 1. 49, p. 424; fr. 105, DKi. 350, 13 ff.). The ideacontinued to be mainly associated with him, cf. Thphr. de Sensu 2. 10; Cic. Tusc. 1.

19 ('Empedocles animum esse censet cordi suffusum sanguinem.'); Eusebius (citing Plutarch) p.e. 1. 8 (24p, M. 21. 6op). See further

Guthrie, History ii. 226, 228 ff. However, Aristotle assigns it to Critias (An. 405°6; DK i. 375. 24-6) and is followed in this by Nemesius 2. 67

(p. 16. 16 Morani, M. 40. 53b8), who unlike Greg. takes the trouble to argue against it (2. 73-5, 541B ff.). Blood is no more an indispensable part ofthe body than bile or liver. Why not call them 'soul'? Again, he claims, as some animate creatures are bloodless there is a further proof that blood and soul are not to be identified.

But the question is given a more than doxographic interest by the connection in Hebrew thought also ofblood with the soul. Gen. 9. 4

10-17 makes clear the link between mepes and dam (LXX: mAjv xpéas év aivan puyis od dayéoGat.) Cf. Lev. 17. 14, 18 and Deut. 12. 23

(with the n. ofS. R. DriverinJCC (Edinburgh, 1896), 148-9). On the link in Hebrew thought between blood and soul one might mention

A. R. Johnson, The Vitality ofthe Individual in the Thought ofAncient Israel (Cardiff, 1964), 8-9, 69 ff., 87-8.

Clement had rejected the Greek version ofthe doctrine in paed. 1.

6 (pp. 113 ff, M. 8, 2968 ff), but Origen records that Lev. 17. 14 had been used to support a theory of two souls in man, a higher and a lower, the lower being present in the blood and being subject to bodily desires, princ. 3. 4. 2 (p. 265. 4 ff, M. 11. 320¢ ff). The Dialogus cum Heraclide shows Origen again faced with the question of identifying the soul and blood. Origen's reply makes a distinction between the physical blood and the blood of the inner man, a spiritual interpretation which removes the issue entirely from its original context; see J. Scherer, Entretien d'Origene avec Heraclide et les évéques ses collégues sur le Pére, le Fils, et 'Ame (Cairo, 1949), 144-53 cf.

J. W. Trigg, Origen (Atlanta and London, 1985), 175-6.

11-17. The soul as harmony. The basic image is that of a lyre in tune (}p400u€vy). We must distinguish two ways in which the term dppovia might be, and was, applied to the soul: (a) the soul is a harmony ofcorporeal parts or ofphysical opposites; () the soul is a harmony of its own internal parts (a Pythagorean view which influenced Plato, cf. Arist. Metaphys. 985°26 ff. and Guthrie, History, i.

316-17). It is with the first that we are here concerned. This is the form of the theory discussed in Pl. Phd. 85£3-86p4, 88p2—E-2, g1c6—9543 and in Arist. An. 407°27—408°28. In Plato Simmias is made to argue that the soul is the 'blending or attunement' (Hackforth's tr. of xpdow .. . cai dppoviav) ofthe four elements, the hot, the cold, the dry, the moist. He deduces that the soul is destroyed with the destruction of these opposites in death. The counterarguments of Socrates show that this reasoning is inconsistent with the idea of the pre-existent soul which Simmias accepts and go on to claim that, on this understanding, the soul must be subject to, not master of, the elements. Aristotle's reasons for rejecting the attunement theory centre on the contention that it does not answer to what we know of the soul's functions. For instance, the soul initiates movement where harmony does not; harmony cannot account for the soul's active and passive experiences. Plotinus in his turn writes against the soul—harmony notion in 4.7.8.

11-13 Of this theory in Greg.'s time and earlier R. A. Norris Jr. has observed that it 'does not seem to have been in any sense a live option. It was known largely through the doxographic tradition of the schools, and there is no indication that it was seriously maintained by any philosopher of the imperial period' (Manhood and Christ, 22).

Yet, though Greg. may be indulging in a rather antiquarian form ofpolemics, his argument is not without interest. His objections are both anthropological and moral. His anthropology assumes an essential gulf between the soul and the parts of the body. The human body is not basically different from animal bodies. Why then should the human soul differ from that ofa well-attuned beast? But it is Greg.'s moral objection which takes the real weight. His arguments, while showing affinities with those of Plato and Aristotle, differ noticeably from theirs. Greg.'s distinction of the @vacs of flesh and soul depends on the kind of dichotomy which made Plato insist on the governing function of soul (Phd. 94c9 ff). (Cf. Aristotle on the soul's inauguration of movement in An. 407°34-5.) Greg., however, approaches the question of good and evil in a different way. Plato argued that a harmony is an absolute (Phd. 9441-4) and that the application of the theory would mean that all souls would be equally good (9448-10). Greg., on the other hand, appears to admit at least the theoretical existence of different attunements, perhaps on the analogy of different instruments which, through their varying physical components, produce varying attunements.

Greg. objects, not to the possibility, but to the morality, of applying such an analogy to the soul. To make the soul in any way dependent on the flesh is hard for Greg. To make it entirely so is unthinkable.

Moral distinctions which rest upon physical constitution would be quite illusory.

11. A unifying principle should be separate from, not a function of, the diverse bodily elements.

12-13a. According to the accepted text, the soul is called efSos a8avatov. It is possible that what produced this expression is Aristotle's way of using e'dos in relation to the soul; cf. An. 412"19 ff. dvayxaiov dpa Tiv WuyxAv ovalav elvar ws eldos capatos duvaiKon dvvdjer (wiv Eyovros. 7 5 ovata évreAéyera: rowovTov dpa owpatos évredéyeca; ibid, 412°27-8 b16 7) huxy €or évreddyera mpwry adépatos dvaikou duvauer Cwijv €xovtos. What Aristotle intended by this terminology has been much debated. (Cf. the note in Ross's

12-14 edn., pp. 166-7 and R. A. Norris Jr.,Manhood and Christ, 22-3.) But what concerns us here is the meaning which Greg. and his contemporaries were likely to place upon Aristotle's words. If we go back earlier, to Plotinus, we find that he goes straight from discussing the soul as harmony to attacking Aristotle's entelechy

He attacks on the ground that, to make the soul the eSos ofthe material body by making it inseparable from the body (Arist. An.

413°4), is tantamount to destroying all its independent experience.

His conclusion is this: ov« dpa ra eiSos eivac twos 76 elvac exer, aAA" €orw ovcia ov mapa 76 év copari Spiabar, 76 elvar AauPavovaa, add' odoa mpiv Kai rovde yevéabar, olov Lwov ob 76 oda rH buxny yevvyoes (4. 7. 8°. go fF).

There is no evidence that the Neoplatonists altered their views on this interpretation and Greg. may well have been acquainted with it as a standard assessment ofAristotle's position, one which is, it may be remarked, not necessarily an unfair one. For there is some point in Plotinus' treatment of the e'os theory immediately after that of dpyovia. It is not an ancient, but a modern, commentator,

Sir David Ross, who points out that Aristotle may have had the évreAexera idea suggested to him by the Pythagorean teaching on the harmony of the body; cf. p. 15 of his edn. of DeAnima, together with 407°27-408"28 n. (p. 195), where a remark of R. D. Hicks on the affinity of the two ideas is noted. Greg.'s e'Seos [email protected] would come as a direct contradiction to the entelechy of body. The eternal ci5os is opposed to the transient one which would depend on physical constitution. Cf. Nemesius' understanding ofAristotle. He takes it that Aristotle taught that soul was merely something latent in matter. Cf. nat. hom. 2. 93-102 (pp. 26. 10-29. 18 Morani, M. 40. s6on fF), esp. gq—6.

The w./. eideos dv8pci7axo (cf. Caillau n.) is possible as an alternative periphrasis for 'soul'. For ciéos here might mean 'essence', as it does in Arist. Metaph. 1032°1-2: eiSos 5€ A€yw 7 Ti Hv etvar éxdarov Kai Tv mpwrnv odoiav, This agrees with the Platonic tradition ofthinking that the soul is the man (cf. wy. 4-6 n. above).

Cf. Plotinus 4. 7. 1. 22 ff: 76 8€ Kupuitarov Kai auras 6 dvOpwros: eimep ToUTO, Kata 76 efdos wis mpds GAnv 76 oma H KaTa TO Xpw@evov ws mpds dpyavovéxarépws dé Wy Yuy adrés. On the other hand, Nicetas read ef$o0us dfavdrov in his paraphrase, and the attestation ofdv@pai7oco is slight.

14. Kgaous: this short a form with acute accent is otherwise unattested. The simplest explanation is to assumea false quantity; cf. Introd. IV(c). xpdots is associated with dpyovia in Pl. Phd 86°9, as was seen above. But we see here also a possible reference to that identification ofthe four elements, the hot, the cold, the dry, and the moist, with the four humours of the medical writers. This idea clearly influenced Nemesius. He accepted an anthropology in which man's material body is formed of the same four elements as animal bodies and, indeed, as inanimate objects, nat. hom. 1. 38 (p. 2.

13-17 Morani, M. 40. 5058 ff.). Cf. W. Telfer, "The Birth of Christian Anthropology', 77S, ns 13 (1962), 347-54. But in rejecting the identification of the soul with the 'temperament' of these four elements, Nemesius does not mean to dissociate the soul entirely from bodily influence. He accepts the view that virtue and vice are related to bodily temperament and answers the question why vices come naturally to men in these words: rodro dAn@ds éx ris Tov awpatos Kpdcews yiverat. ws yap dvaikas vyrecvoi Kai voowders cia Ex THS KpacEews, oUTW TiVés HUatKWs mLKPGXOAaL GvTEs GpyiAot efowv, dAAat SecAoi, GAAat Katwodepeis (2. 91, p. 25. 21-3 Morani, M.

40. 5604). But, he goes on, the soul can control bodily temperament, as the body is the soul's instrument (épyavor, |. 26). As W. Telfer,

Cyril ofJerusalem and Nemesius ofEmesa, (LCC 4; London, 1955), 275 remarks, Nemesius shows a surprising awareness, 'so unique among early ecclesiastical writers, that the spiritual life of man is essentially conditioned by the body, with its functions and limitations.' Greg. clearly goes beyond Nemesius in his rejection of xpdaots. While agreeing with Nemesius on the impossibility of identifying any kind of xpaois with soul, he would dispute also the interaction of soul and body envisaged by Nemesius. He sees the soul as much more independent ofthe body. The body is thought of in negative terms as that which weighs down and retards the soul or keeps it in bondage. Examine, for instance, Greg.'s preoccupation with the struggle of soul against body in carm. 1. 2. 14. 63 ff. (M. 37.

760< ff.), a lament which sees the development of character as the conquest of the body, and compare it with the view of Nemesius that variation in character arises both from the kind of control that the soul exercises and from the particular physical temperament on which it has to work. Elsewhere Greg. uses xpaya for the union of soul and body or 'breath and dust', contrasting angelic state with the low, heavy composite existence of the human being, err. 27. 7

(p. 12. 7, M. 36. 20), 28. 3 (p. 26. 11, 29B), 38. 5 (316), 45. 7 (6324). bed ie erode tuiae COMMENTARY ON ARC.

14-31 xpaats itself, parallelled by uié:s, takes on a Christological sense in or, 38.

13 (M. 36. 325), indicating a strong unionofthe natures.

15-17. Again Nemesius may be compared. In seeking a principle of differentiation, he argues that a temperament of elements would apply equally to inanimate objects and to living creatures, nat. hom.

2. 87 (p. 24. 4-7 Morani, M. 4o. 556a f.). Greg. argues similarly that «pdas provides no basis for distinction, but limits himself to animate creatures, finding in xpaovs no adequate explanation ofthe phenomenon of reason in some and not in others.

17. evKoates: edxparjs corresponds to none ofthe meanings given in LSJ, but = 'of good temperament'. For this ev«paaia may be compared, a technical term for the proper adjustment of the body elements (Arist. PA 673°25, Gal. 6. 31, al.).

The soul's connection with bodily life. Greg. characterizes the theories he has mentioned by saying that they equate soul with physical life. Soul is thus neither more nor less than that which distinguishes a living body from a corpse. (Cf. the summary of Arist.

An. 412°17 ff. given in Ross's edn., p. 215: 'Soul cannot be body, because it is that the possession ofwhich distinguishes a living body from a lifeless one.') In other words, Greg. criticizes all these views

4) for reducing soul to a function of body, instead of treating it as a self-existent entity. xéag. The tragic xéap takes over the meanings of xapdia as it was used by biblical and patristic writers to mean, amongst other things,

'the organ of natural and spiritual enlightenment' (Arndt-Gingrich, s.v. 1.b ), the 'seat of divine presence and grace' (PGL s.v. C. 4).

20-1. This higher element in man, Greg. argues, cannot be treated as mere fodder to keep the body's strength up.

22-31. Individual and common soul. The background of the kind of belief to which Greg. now turns is to be sought far back in Greek philosophy. W. K. C. Guthrie writes: 'Psyche for a thinker ofthe fifth century meant not only a soul but soul; that is, the world was permeated by a kind of soul-stuff which is best indicated by the omission of the article ...

Portions of this soul-substance, Alcmaeon thought, inhabit the human body, and in particular the brain.

. .' (History, i. 355-6). Something ofthe sort was taught by the Stoics, with the notion that human souls are of fiery breath which is part of the divine universal soul. Cf. the following passages: ai duyai ovvadeis twa Gew dre avtov xdépia ovcat Kai dtooTdoparTa

(Epictetus, Diss, 1. 14. 6); efs wev 7a GAoya Cada pia boyy Sujpyrac:

7. 22-7 eis 6€ Ta Aoyixd ia voepa buy?) wewépiorat (Marc. Aurel. Ant. 9. 8); pia odoia Kow?y, Kav dteipyyrat (diws wovois owWpact wupiots: ula vy, Kav dicea dsreipynrat wvpiars xai idiais weptypadgais (id.

12. 30). wegvoty has here not the meaning found in Arist. An. 402°1 (of the internal division of the soul), but means 'separated, individual'

(cf. Jul. or. 4. (11). 151); it emphasizes the separate nature of the individual soul and at the same time its connection with the common soul ofwhich it is a zépos. But the Manichees may also be in Greg.'s mind. For one of the complaints which Nemesius made against them was that they divided up the one soul of the world into fragments which were joined alike to animate and inanimate things.

This supposed division of the one soul into parts strikes Nemesius as a gross error, nat. hom. 2.

112-17 (pp. 33. 20-34. 17 Morani, M. 4o.

24. xhatopévy ... dv hégoc: these words suggest a Pythagorean account of the departure of the soul in death, as given by Diogenes

Laertius (8. 31): éxpidBeiody 7' adryy (sc. rv pvxjv) éxi yrs mAdleoGar év 7m dépi Guoiavy Tm cusart. (He is drawing his information from Alexander Polyhistor.) But, though the language is similar, the intention in Greg. is quite different. For mAafopévy here is meant to describe not the supposed fate of the soul after physical death, but the unstable, inconstant nature ofa soul which is interacting with some undifferentiated, universal soul.

24b-27. Connect these lines with vv. 8-9 above, with n. Criticism of the soul-air view took varying forms. Nemesius, for example, argues on biological grounds similar to these used to combat the equation of blood and soul: many living creatures do not breathe air, but they possess soul; therefore air is not soul, nat. hom. 2. 76

(p. 20. 6-11 Morani, M. 40. 5448 ff.; the line is much the same as that in Arist. An. 410°27 ff.). Greg.'s approach has greater affinity with another of Aristotle's arguments when, in An. 41116ff., he contrasts the undifferentiated quality of air with the distinctions within soul: e/ 8' 6 peév dp Siaata@pevos GpoedyHs, 7 Se buyt avopotopepis, To wév Tr adris Umdpte SyAov én, 76 8° ody Urdpee, avayKaiov obv auTiy 7 Gpo.omepy elvar 7 x7) evuTMapew Ev GTwWOdY jzopiw Tod mavrds (20-3). wetaxvetovtec: for the meaning 'to breathe in and out, to breathe' PGL cites only this passage. LSJ record only one instance of the verb (Opp. H. 5. 314), where the sense is 'to recover breath'.

7. 26-52 26. éxevveo: there is little likelihood in the suggestion of Nicetas that the word refers to death. The same interpretation is given by Leunclavius in his tr. 'et simul exspirantes morerentur' (1018c).

Why should the mutual involvement of the souls ofliving creatures be a cause ofimmediate death? The straightforward meaning is: 'all would be placed (i.e. present) in all.' dv must be understood with éxevro to complete the unfulfilled condition.

27. Tr.: '(and this will be true) even if it is the nature of air to flow (or vary) from time to time and from person to person.' The point is that, unless there is a fundamental principle of distinction, differences of time and place will be irrelevant. Such variation as is implied by yur} does not alter the homogeneous nature of air as maintained by Aristotle An. 411*20 ff.

28-31. These lines present the theory in a modified form. The soul becomes permanent in the body, not fluctuating as the outer air does. But it still resembles air in being drawn into the body from outside in the first place.

28-9 are awkward in grammar if Caillau is right in taking rexotcoa (understood from the following rexov'ons) as the subject of éaye.

But equally good sense and simpler grammar come from taking uy? as subject of éoye. The meaning is then: 'If the soul is permanent, what is it that it occupies, what is it that is already alive in the mother's womb, if she draws me in from outside?'

It should be noted that Greg. is not denying that the soul comes from without. All he denies is that the mother breathes it in from the outer air. Greg. goes on to assert that the soul enters the body ofthe unborn child from without, coming directly from God (cf. below, wv.

The soul here is identified with the total person (cf. above, vv. 46n.).

NOOEONAOEV: zpoomdw is a rare word. LS] record only a middle use by Diodorus Siculus, and Soph. and PGL mention only the present passage.

Transmigration ofsouls andcycles ofreincarnation. We are not here directly concerned with tracing the history of the notions encompassed by the Greek words wadcyyevecia, wereuyiiywors, and perevowudrwors, with their associations with Empedocles, the Pythagoreans, Orphics, and Platonists. (Cf. W. Stettner, Die Seelenmanderung bei Griechen und Romern (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1934);J. H.

Waszink, 'Beseelung', RAC ii (1954), 176-83.) What is here of | COMMENTARY ON ARC.

7, 32-52 particular concern is the question whether Greg. is merely producing a set-piece from a doxographic repertoire (cf. vv. 11-17 n.), or whether he is intent on controverting a living belief. There are several reasons for suggesting the second alternative.

Justin felt it worth while to distance Christianity from Platonic beliefin transmigration, dial. 4 (p. 95, M. 6. 4848). Clement's view is characterized by H. Chadwick as 'obscure', though his judgement tilts against the charge of Photius that he accepted a formoftransmigration (CHLGEMP 172-3, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition (Oxford, 1966), 49). Origen's opinions have been much debated. One can point to Cels. 5. 29 (p. 31. 6 ff, M. 11. 12258) fora denial that the binding of soul to body involves reincarnation; cf. 3.

1020A) for rjv wepi perevowpaTmacws dvovav.

The Rufinus version ofprinc. 1.8. 4 (p. 105. 1 ff., M. 11. 1808 ff.) is explicit in its denial of transmigration. Koetschau, on the other hand, assembles texts of Nyssen, Jerome, and Justinian to suggest that Origen might really have tended to, even if he did not precisely state, some form of belief in transmigration (GCS 5. 102. 12 ff., 104.

8 ff.). Whether or not one accepts Koetschau's attempted reconstruction (it is, at best, questionable), it is hard to dispute Chadwick's conclusion: 'Yet his own system presupposes a picture ofthe soul's course which is strikingly similar.' (CHLGEMP 191, cf. Early

Christian Thought, 115-16). Greg. may feel it necessary to go beyond the position which Jerome attributed to Origen, that of offering ideas akin to transmigration as a basis for speculation: 'et ad extremum ne teneretur Pythagorici dogmatis reus, qui asserit ereuyiywouw, post tam nefandam disputationem, qua lectoris animum vulneravit, "haec", inquit, "iuxta nostram sententiam non sint dogmata, sed quaesita tantum atque proiecta, ne penitus intractata viderentur."' (Ep. ad Avit. 4: M. PL. 22; Ep. 104. 4. 1063).

Transmigration was a living issue among Neoplatonists. Plato had thought that the souls of gross men might in a subsequent reincarnation pass into animals, the doctrine of 'metensomatosis'

(Phd. 8106 ff. Rep. 6204 ff.). Plotinus repeats the view in 3. 4. 2. But Porphyry modifies it to produce the teaching of 'metempsychosis' in which the souls ofrational men pass only into other rational men and the irrational souls of animals are likewise limited to passage into other animals (cf. Porphyry ap. Stob. Eel. 1. 49.60, Wachsmuth, p. 445.

15 ff). This is what Iamblichus also holds (Myst.

7. 32-52 Parthey, p. 24. 2) and Sallustius follows in the same line (De dis 20; Nock, p. 34. 25 ff). The latter argues that metempsychosis explains such facts as blindness at birth and claims that this doctrine alone saves one from having to believe in an infinite numberofsouls (cf. vv. 50-2 n.), In the following century Proclus was to continue the contention ofPorphyry in opting for an allegorical interpretation of such passages as the reincarnation ofOrpheus in a swan (Rep. 620A) when he wrote on the subject in his work /n Remp. 2. 312. 10 ff., 313.

7 ff. But for the souls of men he maintained a constant 'cyclic reinstatement; cf. E. R. Dodds, Proclus: the Elements of Theology

(Oxford, 1963), 175, who gives this tr. of dmoxardcraccs. The majority of Neoplatonists would have been with him; cf. P. Courcelle, 'Anti-Christian Arguments and Christian Platonism: from Arnobius to St. Ambrose', in A. Momigliano (ed.), The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century (Oxford, 1963),

151-92. However, Greg.'s reference in or. 27. 10 (p. 18. 2 ff., M. 36.

24B) to the transmigration theory (uerevowpardoers Kai weptddous) mentions only Plato, and that without discussion.

Again, there was a place for transmigration in Mani's system. (Cf.

A. V. Williams Jackson, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 45 (1925), 246-68; Widengren 65-6.) Nemesius connected the doctrine with the Manichees in these terms: ddoxovres ydp, dvarpéyew Tas pepodAvanévas uyas éni 7a oTotxeia Kai ovyKxarapiyvucba: aAAjAAats, madAw ards év rais petevownaTwoeot dact TiwwpeioBat, Kata 76 péyebos THY GuaptnudTwr, évotvtes atras Kai méAw ywpilovres kal' trdoracw (nat. hom. 2. 111-12, p. 33. 13-16

Morani = M. 40. 5778).

In the chapters which Tert. allows himself for discussion of metempsychosis and metensomatosis (28-31; M. PL 2. 686a-7028; CCSL 2. 815-29; CSEL 20. 335-52), in addition to attacking Platonic theory and the claims ofEmpedocles and of Pythagoras (that he reincarnated Euphorbus), he singles out as 'heretics' in the Christian era Simon Magus (c. 34) and Carpocrates (c. 35).

Nemesius, in reviewing the Platonist and Manichaean positions on transmigration, concludes that this idea is at the root ofall Greek beliefin the immortality ofthe soul (2. 115, p. 34. 18-19 Morani = M.

40. 581.4). Whether this is a fair judgement or not, it is clear that the views which Greg. is attacking have theological importance as well as contemporary significance. We may point to the strong ethical character which the doctrine had in its Platonic form, where

7. 32-8 adjustment of soul to body involved the moral question of reward and punishment. Greg. chooses to direct his irony mainly against a primitive form of metensomatosis (perhaps he could not resist the oratorical effect), rather than against the more developed, more ethical, forms of metempsychosis. But he might well argue that, in so doing, he was not guilty ofa genetic fallacy. For, ifhe could show the basic impossibility of the whole idea of transmigration, he obviates the need to discuss its supposed ethical content. If it is thought that the introduction of Empedocles' supposed reincarnations gives to this polemic an archaic, unreal effect, it must be remembered that no more tenable evidence on the doctrine had ever been offered. This kind ofanecdote, coupled with the theory of recollection (cf. vv. 47 ff.), was all that could be produced to support transmigration teaching.

33. Pl. Rep. 6170 ff. gives examples of the way in which souls between one earthly existence and the next are given choices of lives to be followed. Plato envisages a correspondence between the acquired characteristics of souls and the choices they make.

34. aiév: cf. vv. 44-5 n.

35. @prkaxing has an ancient ring, duzAaxiy occurring in one ofthe early Greek transmigration documents, Empedocles fr. 115 (DK i.

36. eivaot: cf. the use of y:7uv in representing the body as the garment ofthe soul in Empedocles fr. 126 (DK i. 362. 9); JG 14. 2241

(cama yiTav yux7s); Proclus, Inst. (Elem.), 209.

37. érmoun poybigovtes is a reminiscence ofTheocritus. Cf. 1. 38, 7.

48 érwota poxfifovr: (the first of hopeless lovers, the second of those who waste their time attacking Homer).

38. The cycle ofreincarnation is likened to the unending punishment of a prime sinner ofGreek literature, Ixion, who having attempted to rape Hera, is represented in poetry and art as eternally bound toa wheel. Cf. Pi. P. 2. 21 ff:

Gewv 8° épetpais [éiova davti travra Bpotois Aéyew év rrepdevtt tpoyd mavTd KuAwddevorHimerius (Eel. 3. 11) takes Ixion as the type of8pdcos. Greg. alludes to him in or. 5. 38. (M. 35. 7130): porloupévew tpoyd ovyxuKdovpeevos.

The idea of a 'wheel of rebirth' was found in Orphic literature.

Copyrighted Material COMMENTARY ON ARC.

7. 38-9 Cf. O. Kern, Orphicorum Fragmenta (Berlin, 1922), 326 (p. 106), 229 (p. 244), 230 (pp. 245 fF), 231 (p. 246).

39, The doctrine is here presented in its most ludicrous form, yet it cannot be accounted an unfair presentation. For Empedocles had claimed that he could recall previous incarnations as a boy, a girl, a shrub, a bird, anda fish:

989 yap mor éya yevaunv Kotpds te Kapa Te §duvos olwvds te wai €€ados EAAoTOs fybus The celebrated passage in Rep. 6170 ff. gives Plato's description of how the souls of men pass into animals and from animals into men.

Despite attempts made in both ancient and more recent times to show that Plato did not intend this to be taken literally, no one could blame Greg. for seeing a straightforward sense in this and other passages of Plato where transmigration is discussed. The onus of proof still rests with those who would discount the literal interpretation: cf. J.Adam's edn., rev. D. A, Rees (Cambridge,

1963), ii. 456, on 61843.The transmigrations mentioned include the passage of souls from man to swan, nightingale, eagle, lion, and monkey as well as from human male to female. Phd. 824 speaks of wolves, hawks, and kites as the recipients of souls previously in men. (Plato did not envisage the migration ofthe soul into plants in the way in which Empedocles had.) A more credible form oftransmigration (metempsychosis) was represented by the claims of Pythagoras to be the reincarnation of the Homeric Euphorbus: cf.

E. Rohde, Psyche: the Cult ofSouls and Belief in Immortality among the Greeks, ET W. B. Hillis (London, 1925), App. X, pp. 598 ff. But this claim also came in for both ridicule and reasoned criticism. An example of the second will be found in Tertullian's De Anima, where the arbitrary nature of this reincarnation is emphasized. It could certainly not be justified on grounds of fitting correspondence: 'ecce enim Euphorbum militarem et bellicam animam satis constat vel de ipsa gloria clipeorum consecratorum. Pythagoran vero tam residem et inbellem, ut proelia tunc Graeciae vitans Italiae maluerit quietem geometriae et astrologiae et musicae devotus, alienus studio et affectu Euphorbi.' (De An. 31. 4: M. PL 2. 7018;

CCSL 2. 828. 21 ff; CSEL 20, 351. 15 ff.) But Pythagoras is firmly associated also with metensomatosis (cf. Guthrie, History, i. 186-7,

306): the souls ofanimals and men are kindred and interchangeable, 7. 41-52 L€xpt Tivos KapTepioopev Tatra mdcxovres; Greg. cannot conceive of the rational element in soul as remaining dormant during the supposed manifestation in animal or plant form.

Oapvov: cf. the fr. ofEmpedocles quoted on v. 39.

AaKéovta Koodvy: these words are found in Hes. Op. 747, fr.

171, and Ar. Av. 609. In the second and third of these passages the crow is taken as a type of longevity, an association which may carry over into the present passage. Here the main stress falls on Aaxépula: senseless, inarticulate croaking is all that it ever achieves. But perhaps the implication 'for all its long life' may also be present.

It is possible to see in xopwvy a further reference. In his satire Gallus, Lucian had made Pythagoras, reincarnated as a cock, detail his previous lives, one ofwhich was that ofa jackdaw, xoAotéds (Gall.

20). The jackdaw, the frog, and the cock are taken by Lucian as three types of pretentious chatterers, suitable to express his own opinion of the reincarnation theory (4). It may be that the 'croaking crow contains a side-reference to the 'chattering jackdaw'. (Cf.

Courcelle, 'Anti-Christian Arguments', 164, where these and connected passages are discussed.) 43. &vavdos: the epithet for fish in A. Pers. 577.

44-52. Reward and punishment. The question here is not the interim punishment of the soul in being placed in the body of an inferior animal, but the ultimate punishment at the end of the cyclic process. Greg. argues that the advocates oftransmigration can find no logical place for a final, as opposed to an intermediate, punishment. Punishment cannot be severed from a body, and which of the successive bodies is to be chosen? We must then look at the teaching of transmigrationists on final judgement.

As far as the Orphics and Pythagoreans were concerned, there was no punishment apart from reincarnation itself. Reward consists in escape, through purification, from the cycle, while punishment is neither more nor less than absence of reward, the continuing bondage of the soul to the wheel of reincarnation. (Cf. Guthrie,

History, i. 202 ff.) In the Phaedrus, however, Plato contemplates reward and punishment between successive incarnations, with souls despatched for punishment beneath the earth or reward in heaven (249A). In the Myth ofEr he writes ofincurable sinners who are to suffer everlasting punishment (Rep. 6148 ff., cf. Phd. 113p ff, Grg. 5234 ff.). Other souls, though evil, are curable by punishment

7. 44-52 (Grg. 525A f., Phd.

1138, Rep. 6154 f.). But the nature of this punishment of souls is not at all easy to determine. For, while stressing that the souls in judgement are stripped of all physical concomitants (they are 'naked', Grg.

523£), Plato describes punishments which seem to presuppose bodies. He writes ofhanging up in prison (Grg. 523£), binding hand and foot, flaying, impaling on thorns (Rep. 615€ f.). This may be in Greg.'s mind when he writes on the difficulty of imagining punishment for a soul which was doapkos.

This is the kind of problem which Origen was trying to meet in princ. 2. 10. 1 ff. He takes up a position against fellow Christians

(nonnullos nostrorum' 2. 10. 3: p. 175. 11 = M. 11. 2358) who accept a purely physical view of the resurrection body which is to receive punishment. But his concern to preserve continuity with the earthly body may be seen from the account of Origen given in Methodius res. 1. 22. 3-5 (p. 244. 20 ff.). The form of the resurrection body will not be at the same stage as the physical body upon earth, but it will continue its «(Sos in a way analogous to that in which the efSos of the child's body is continued in that of the man in old age. The Transfiguration also is cited as an example of continuity in change.

(Cf. the valuable discussion of Origen's views in H. Chadwick, 'Origen, Celsus and the Resurrection of the Body', HTR 41 (1948),

83-102.) The nature of punishment accordingly must be thought of as that which is appropriate to a spiritual body; cf. 1 Cor. 15. 44; Or.

Cels. 5. 19. (pp. 19. 30 ff, M. 11. 12088 ff). In prince. 2. 10. 3 (pp. 175. t1 ff, M. 11. 2358 ff) Origen writes that the worthy will have a refashioned spiritual body which can live in heaven and those of lesser merit will have correspondingly graded bodies, 'ita tamen ut etiam eorum, qui ad "ignem aeternum" vel ad "supplicia" destinandi sunt, per ipsam resurrectionis permutationem ita corpus incorruptum sit quod resurgit, ut ne suppliciis quidem corrumpi valeat ac dissolvi' (p. 176. 16 ff., 2368).

The punishing fire Origen locates within the soul, the flames of conscience rather than flames external to the soul (2. 10. 4: pp. 177.

1 ff, M. 11. 236c ff.) and he compares the flames of love, jealousy, and the like (2. ro. 5: p. 178. 15 ff., 2378 f.). Origen conceives ofa punishment of the soul which is analogous to the rending apart of the limbs ofthe body, thinking ofthe state ofa soul 'extra ordinem atque compagem vel ad eam harmoniam, qua(e) ad bene agendum et utiliter sentienduma deo creata est' (p. 179. 3 ff., 2384). For Origen,

7. 44-52 then, as for those whom Greg. attacks, the punishment of a soul which was dcapxos would not seem so strange. On the contrary,

Origen would find strange the presence of flesh in the spiritual world.

When we turn to Greg.'s own view we see that the principle of punishment in the flesh is the same whether it comes after one life or many. He appears to think of resurrection as, initially at least, a reconstitution of the physical body. Consider the passage in the panegyric on Caesarius, where he describes the destiny of a good soul as escaping in death from the bonds of the body and going to meet its Lord. He goes on: pixpov 6' darepov, Kai rd avyyevés aapKiov amoAaBovoa, w Ta éxeifer auvediAoadédnae, mapa tis Kai dovons Kai mortevfeians ys, TpdTOV Sv older 6 tabta cvvdioas Kai Siadvoas Oeds, rovTw avyKAnpovopei Tis éxeiBev b6€nsKai xabdzep trav poyOypay avrot perécye bia Tv cuudviayr, o0rw Kai THY TepTVay €auTis peTediOwow, GAov eis €auTHv dvaAwaaca Kai yevopévn adv rotTw €v Kai mvetua Kai vous Kai Feds, kataTobévros Uré THs

Cwijs rod Ovnrou re Kai pedvros (or. 7. 21, M. 35. 781 ff).

Now although the resurrection body of the good Christian is to be, in Pauline language (cf. 2 Cor. 5. 4), 'swallowed up by' or 'absorbed into' life, there does seem to be a stage when it is in a real sense identifiable with the earthly human body: note the use of dzoAauwPadvew, the word found in Justin 1 Apol. 18. 6 (Goodspeed, p. 239, M. 6. 3568) for receiving back the physical body in resurrection. Greg. is in agreement with Origen in thinking of the body as being in a constant state ofchange during its earthly lifetime (or. 31.

15: p. 164. 2, M. 36. 149B), but he gives no sign ofhaving followed up the idea of continuing adaptation when he was dealing with the resurrection body. The latter is identified with some unspecified phase ofthe earthly body. It seems reasonable to suppose a connection between Greg.'s insistence on the presence of the flesh in the final punishment and his teaching on the survival ofa reconstituted body. Origen had shown the justice of punishing a soul in a body which preserves the eiSos ofthe earthly body in which sin had been committed (cf. Jerome, adv. Joh. Hier. 26. 376c, quoted by Chadwick,

'Origen', 99). Greg. would appear to maintain the same justice with a different beliefabout the nature of the body which is to share the punishment.

There is a full discussion of Greg.'s beliefon soul and body and 7. 42-51 on the meaning of resurrection in Mossay, La Mort et l'au-dela, chs.

46. If the principle of punishment after death in a physical body is once accepted, the transmigrationist might argue, there is no fundamental difficulty in supposing it to take place in the body in which the soul had sinned most.

47-52. How couldthe soul forget' previous existences? The transmigrationist was open to attacks from two sides. Ifhe admitted that he could remember no previous existences, his theory might be dismissed as gratuitous speculation. If he claimed that he could remember previous lives, his 'memories' were likely to be treated as a joke.

Plato's Ay theory in Rep. 621A was an attempt to make feasible supposed forgetfulness of previous existence. But even if the mind can be induced to 'recollect' items ofknowledge, one thing which it does not recall is detail of previous existence.

The point of vv. 47-50 is blunted if one ignores the comparative in wAeévwv. The successive incarnations must have given the soul a wider range of knowledge. It is thus all the more surprising that it should be denied the basic knowledge of what these incarnations were.

50. d007 is an otherwise unattested (Ionic) form of dopa, 'skin, hide', 50-2 ironically suggest that the reason for transmigration might be shortage of souls which would compel the repeated use ofthe same ones over and over again. A passage in Sallustius is a valuable comment, showing how some contemporary supporters ofmetempsychosis argued against a doctrine which involved beliefin an infinite number of souls or the continual creation of souls: ef yap uh ivdAw al buyai els cdeata dépowro, dvayKy dmeipous elvar 7 Ta

Gedv dei érépas moreiv.

GAA' ode ameipdv ev TH Koopwév yap meTEpaouevey atreipov Tt obK av yévoito. oUSe GAAas yivea@a: bvvaréy: wav yap év w 7m yiverat Kady, Kai areAdés efvar dvdyxy. tov b€ Kéopov Ex reAeiou yevomevov TéAccor efvac mpdanxer.

(De Dis 20. 3; Nock, p. 36. 5 ff.).

Greg. may be parodying that kind of reasoning.

51. d€tys is a hapax legomenon.

@wAdKoio picks up d0p% (v. 50), the skin containing the soul being likened to a bag. (Cf. the connection of the d0p7 root with O¥Aaxos in Ar. Eq. 370 Sepa ae O8AaKov KAoms.) The distinction is made between the 'sacks' (bodies) which would decay and whose

7. 51-5 number would thus be unimportant and the immortal souls which, on this theory, must be of an unvarying number.

Greg.'s doctrine of Man On the background ofdiscussion on the nature ofMan, see H. Karpp, Probleme altchristlicher Anthropologie (Giitersloh, 1950); R. A. Norris Jr., Manhoodand Christ, esp. 21-78; J. M. da Cruz Pontes, 'Le probleme de lorigine de l'ame de la patristique et la solution thomiste', Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale, 31 (1964), 175-229; A. W. Argyle, "The Christian Doctrine ofthe soul'. S77 18 (1965), 273-93; Waszink, RAC ii. 176-83; C. Tresmontant, La Métaphysique du christianisme (Paris,

For direct discussion ofGreg., see Ullmann 289-313; K. Weiss, Die Erziehungslehre der dreiKappadozier (Freiburg i. Br., 1903), 6 ff.; Pinault

45 ff; Portmann, Die gottliche Paidagogia, 7 ff., 63 ff.; J.-M. Szymusiak, Eléments de Théologie de homme selon saint Grégoire deNazianze (Rome,

1963); id., "Grégoire de Nazianze et le péche', Stud. Patr. g (= TU 94; Berlin, 1966), 288-305; Ruether, Gregory ofNazianzus, 130-6; T. Spidlik, Grégoire de Nazianze (Rome, 1971); Althaus, Heilslehre; Winslow,

Dynamics; Moreschini, 'Platonismo'; id., edn. of orr. 38-41 (SC 358; Paris, 1990), 45-61. Cf. also G. B. Ladner, "The Philosophical Anthropology of St. Gregory of Nyssa', DOP, 12 (1958), 59-94.

On Greg.'s teaching on the deification ofman cf. Arc. 4. 95-6.

54. Ev@ev édav: cf. H. Od. 8. 500, 'Hear my account, picking it up at that point.' téoytv: the idea ofmaking more pleasurable a didactic theme is familiar from Lucretius 1. 933 ff.

4. 8 ff.) 'carmina, Musaeo contingens cuncta lepore'. He goes on to use the picture of children who are persuaded to drink healing wormwood by the honey smeared on the rim of the cup.

55-60. The creation ofthe universe.

55. The first four words recapitulate the point ofArc. 4: the world was not always in existence, but was created at a precise point in time.

The words recall what Arius said about the Son (Symb. Nic. (325), anath. 1; Opitz 3. 52. 2; M. 20. 1540¢), surely intentionally. It is right to talk in this way about the origin of the physical universe, just as it is wrong to use this language of the Son. vov Adyos: in or. 30. 20 (p. 139. 3 ff, M. 36. 1294) Greg. discusses the relationship of Father and Son in these terms: Adyos 8é€, dr

7. 55-62 otrws éxer mpos tév matépa, ws mpds vovv Adyos (cf. the n. in Mason's edn.). aims: cf. Arc. 4. 87 n.

59-77 occur also in carm. 1. 2. 1. 81-99 (M. 37. 5284 f.). Cf. also or.

38. 11 (M. 36. 321c ff) = 45. 7. 62Q9p ff., closely parallel to this section.

59-60. Reasons for the creation of man. The second reason, that man should control animal creation, comes from Gen. 1. 26. The first, that man is to have knowledge ofGod's wisdom, is to be connected with the teaching on man in God's image (cf. v. 75) and the belief that man was made to ascend to more perfect knowledge, in time (cf.

107 ff.). cogins éxuictoga: the same words are found in JG iii. 946

(Inscriptiones Atticae aetatis Romanae, ed. Dittenberger = CIA 3).

The association ofWisdom with knowledge of the created order is an established one. Cf. Prov. 3. 19, 8. 30, Sap. 7. 22, 9. 9, 14. 2, together with Chrysostom's interpretation of 1 Cor. 1. 21 (at hom. 4 in ICor. 2 (Field 2. 31 ff., M. 61. 29 ff.). Despite the close connection of Wisdom with the Logos, Greg. can still personify Wisdom as pntpos. (Cf. Arc. 3. 57 0.) 60. Baoiija represents the sense of dpyérwoay in Gen. 1. 26.

Beovdéea: two translations are possible, 'God-fearing' or 'Godlike'. The first is the Homeric meaning, found also in later authors.

(PGL cites Paulus Silentarius and Nonnus, together with a 4th-c. source (Monumenta Astae Minoris Antiquae, i. 171) and a line ofGreg.

(carm. 1. 2. 1. 82, M. 37. 5284) which is identical with the present line (cf. 59-77 n.). But "Godlike' is also open to us, as Caillau saw ("Deo similem') and as Gallay tr. by 'a la ressemblance de Diew' (p. 134, repr. Devolder 72). Support for this understanding comes from Quintus Smyrnaeus 1. 65, 3. 775, and Chrysostom has this sense (of God's image in man) in fr.Job 1. 1 (M. 64. 509C). Both attestations and sense are delicately balanced. 'Godlike' shows man's fitness to govern and the source of his authority: 'God-fearing' points to man's intermediate status, the lord of the animal creation, and the servant ofthe God ofall creation. Perhaps the second is favoured by the parallel passage in or. 38. 11 (M. 36. 324A) = 45. 7 (6328) BacrAeudpevov avmev.

61-9. The speech of the Logos sets out the reasons for the creation of man.

62. For voes cf. Arc. 6. 17 n.

7. 64-71 64. d&yddAetou: the verb combines the ideas of joy and abundance, rather like 'laetari'.

65-6. Cf. Arc. 4. 35 n. In or. 38. 11 (M. 36. 321) = 45. 7 (632) Greg. speaks of this union as the xpdya and pigis of vois and aicfnas, elements in creation which had hitherto stood apart. Nyssen writes in a similar way in or. catech. 6. (pp. 28 ff., M. 45. 258 ff.). Divine

Wisdom effected a harmony ofopposites, giving man a special place in Creation as the éyua which ensures that the whole ofCreation may be accepted by God and share his fellowship.

In both Gregories, man maintains continuity between the higher and the lower forms of Creation; cf. Weiss, Erziehungslehre, 9: 'Der Mensch erscheint demnach als Mittelund Bindeglied der beiden Welten.'

For vorjpova cf. 75 n.

67-8. éyéqpoova means more than the Homeric 'prudent': it indicates man's possession of that which the animals lack, doyv. pvotyy / ovpaviv: cf. or. 38. 11 (M. 36. 3244) = 45. 7 (632A): ayyedov dAdAov, mpooxuvyTiy pxrév, érdarynv Tis 6panis KTicews, pvoTny THs voounévys. Here, as J. Gross observes (La Divinisationdu chreétien, 246; cf. the tr. ofC. G. Browne andJ. E. Swallow, St. Gregory ofNazianzus: Select Orations and Letters (LNPF 7; Oxford and New

York, 1894), 348), there is a distinction to be made between the initiate (uvorns) into the heavenly mysteries and the advanced initiate (€zdzrns) into the secrets of the visible, physical world. Cf. puorar in or. 28. 3 (p. 24. 8, M. 36. 29a), where it is clear that the initiates are only in the early stages of divine knowledge. For or. 38.

11, see the notes in Moreschini, SC edn.

68-9. a@yyekov dAAov / Ex yBovds: man is 'another kind of angel' in that he shares angelic vows and joins the angels in their function of praise (cf. juvyrjpa).

The form tuzvyrjp comes in the Greek Anthology (AP 7. 19. 1, Leonidas) and in Opp. H. 3. 7.

70-7. The creation ofAdam.

71. The unexpressed contrast is clear: the immortal hands of the Logos formed the mortal shape ofman. Where Irenaeus had spoken ofthe 'two hands of God' to make at once a Trinitarian affirmation and a declaration ofthe direct nature ofGod's creative action against suggestions of intermediary creators, Greg. has a simpler image of divine activity. For Iren. cf. dem. 11, p. 80 Robinson, and ibid. 51 for other passages. The language hasa straightforward biblical ring. Cf.

Job 10. 8: ai yeipés cou exAaceér pe kai émoinody pe.

7. 71-5 But Greg., no less than Irenaeus, has a need to assert the directness of divine creative intent in Adam, over against Manichaean mythology in which Adam is the result of intercourse between the male and female demons Asqaliin and Namrael. (Cf. A. V. W.Jackson, Researches in Manichaeism (New York, 1932), 248-9; Widengren

59 ff.) 72. povoyjoato: 'allotted', 'gave as his share'. Man's ipa is the sharing ofeternal life. Contrast the epic and tragic concentration in uoipa on the transience ofhuman life.

73. dxopomé: cf. Arc. 4. 32 n. There is an analogous use ofthe word in orac. ap. Luc. Alex. 40: 4 8 apodnrein Sins dpevés éorw dmoppwé. But the gift of which Greg. is thinking is a permanent one. aevdéog: it is the God who is himself 'without form' who gives shape or form to human beings (v. 71).

75. Cf. above, vv. 4-6 n. Man has been called vovjuova in v. 66. The present line raises the question 'What part has vows in Greg.'s anthropology?' Any attempt to impose absolute regularity upon Greg.'s doctrine ofhuman nature is likely to fail. In Pinault's words, it is 'assez flottante' (p. 47; cf. Szymusiak, 'Grégoire de Nazianze et le peche', 2g1, esp. n. 2). In trying to decide the meaning of this line we must be prepared to limit the area of its relevance and accept it as merely one of several ways in which Greg. tried to express his understanding ofthe nature of man; cf. Arc. 4. 32 n.

There is in this line a tripartite division of man: whatever is the relationship between vovs on the one hand and body and soul on the other, it is meant to stand over against them asa third entity.

This is true whether we tr. with Szymusiak 'car la nature princiére de l'esprit (vods) est commune 4 tous deux' or, as Gallay does (cf. also Caillau), 'car l'esprit commande en moi aux deux' (p. 135, repr.

Devolder 73). Greg. was to give expression to a clear tripartite view in his answer to Apollinarius in carm. 1. 1. 10. 56 ff. (M. 37. 4964): ézei 6° dpuxrds €avt capkiw Oeds, yux7 5€ Kai vous ofov év peratxpiw, capxés pév atvotxos, ws 8 elem Geow.

Here the image ofGod in man is specifically the mind: it is the quality ofbeing voepds which man shares with God and with the angels.

(Cf. Arc. 4. 77 n.) The soul stands on the side of the flesh. Yet there 7, 75-96 is not complete separation of mind and soul. For where does the mind come from, if it is not part of what God breathed into man at his creation? While holding the soul together as a unity, Greg. maintains its affinities both with the intellectual and with the physical worlds. There is thus a sense in which the soul in its function ofanimating the body can be said to stand on the fleshly side of the compound, man. Yet when the contrast is drawn between the visible flesh and its invisible content, it may be thought to be directly connected with the invisible world of mind. A similar kind of relativity appears in ep. tor (M. 37. 1854 f.). Human mind is at once perfect and imperfect: perfect when compared with soul and body, imperfect when compared with God, to whom it is subject. In or. 2, 23 (M. 35. 4328 f.) the soul is spoken of as having a mediating function between God and flesh: 8:4 rouro Oeds capKi bua péans puyis dvexpadn, kai ovvedéby ra Steotwra rH mpds dudw Tov peoiTevovTos oiketa7n7. The same thought is present here, but Greg. chooses to mark off mind as that part ofman which communicates directly with God, rather than treating it as the upper end of the spectrum ofsoul. (Cf. Ladner, 'Philosophical Anthropology', 61 ff.;

R. A. Norris Jr., Manhood and Christ, 35 ff.) 76-7. Greg. here returns to a twofold view ofman in which the flesh is contrasted with that which is breathed into man, the soul being identified with eiav as it is in or. 38. 11 (M. 36. 321¢ f.) = 45. 7

(6324): wap' éavrov Se mvoxv évbeis (6 5% voepav wuyyy Kai etxdva GQeok older 6 Adyos).

! otégyw here has the strong sense 'have affection for', rather than the weaker 'acquiesce in', There is a tension, with strong force likely to be exerted in both directions.

Biétov: this reading, over against Biorov, gives excellent sense, contrasting the two forms of life.

78-96, The continuance ofthe race ofAdam. The continuanceofthe race raised few problems on the purely physical side, with physical flesh propagating its like. But the continuance of the human soul from generation to generation caused considerable difficulty in patristic times. Four major views emerge: (a) souls pre-exist and are drawn at need from their own world to occupy human bodies; (+) God creates a new soul for every child conceived (creationism); (c) souls pass from parents to children as part of the same process as physical generation (traducianism); (¢) souls pass from parents to children in a way analogous to the generation of flesh from flesh, but 7. 78-90 not as part ofthe physical process (generationism or spiritual traducianism). These ideas were all current in the 4th c.; cf. Karpp, Probleme altchristlicher Anthropologie, 240; Argyle, 'Christian Doctrine',

Greg. in these lines takes up a creationist position. Material flesh from material flesh is no different in principle from flesh from material dust. But, just as soul in Adam was breathed into him from without by God, so does soul enter Adam's descendants. A passage very closely parallel to the present one (the passages in fact have two lines in common) is carm. 1. 2. 1. 392 ff. (M. 37. 5514 £). The human father is said to be father only ofthe flesh and blood, the mortal part of man. wuyy 5€ Geo' xparéovros dqua éxtofev eioninrovoa mAdoe yods. older 6 pifas mws 76 Tpwrov Exvevae Kai eixdva uifato yain.

(Caillau reads zifazvo for d7j0a70 ofthe present passage, but there is a vl. djcaro.) 78-9, Billius saw the confusion in Nicetas' words duy7 dé BAaorotca éx ivy7s, contradicting as they do the correct interpretation a line or two below in the paraphrase. doxeyovovo: cf. Arc. 2. 53 n. éxupioyet: Greg. makes considerable use ofthe idea of'mixing' in describing the nature of the union of body and soul in man. Cf. e.g. Arc. 4. gi-2, vv. 1 above and 84 below, orr. 20. 11 (M. 35. 1077),

38. 11 (M. 36. 321) =45. 7 (629 £.). In this language Greg. doubtless shows Stoic influence, intending to stress the reality ofthe union of the elements without losing the individuality of the constituent elements and their retention of their specific characteristics. (Cf.

Portmann, Die gottliche Paidagogia, pp. 64-5, together with wv. 656 n.) @itotwe: the only other instances of the adverb (cf. LSJ) have the meaning 'utterly', but here the meaning is 'in an unseen manner'.

80-1. The pattern of original creation is preserved: matter produces matter and soul enters from without. For e¢xwyv = 'soul' cf. vv. 4-6 n.

82-90. The traducianist alternative.Though Greg. does not accept any form of traducianism, it is noticeable that he details the theory at some length without offering any detailed criticism of it, a sharp contrast to his normal way with ideas which he does not accept. The suggestion of adverse criticism may be present in Bapaadéws, a 7. 82-9 word which tends to suggest audacity, excessive confidence, but otherwise disapproval is not explicit. Nazianzen may be influenced in this tolerance by Nyssen's tendency to a form of traducianism or generationism. He would be familiar with the traducianism of De hominis opificio 29 (Forbes 1. 282 ff.; M. 44. 2330 ff.) and De anima et resurrectione M. 46.

125Cc, dated respectively 379 and 380. (Cf.

Daniélou, "Chronologie', 162-3.) Nyssen himself finds difficulty in maintaining a consistent position and some scholars have detected creationist tendencies in him.

(Cf. Weiss, Erziehungslehre, 15; Karpp, Probleme altchristlicher Anthropologie, 240 ff., esp. 243 n. 3.) It is, therefore, no surprise that Nazianzen, while putting forward the creationist view, should feel disinclined to assail traducianism.

82. aorywv has perhaps an ironical ring.

83. mde20vecotv: for the prevalence of traducianist views, cf. Karpp, loc. cit.

85. vats indicates the flowing of the human race from its source in Adam, perhaps with a suggestion ofthe instability ofthe flesh when contrasted with soul; cf. the association ofsevo7ds with the perishable nature of the body, noted by Chadwick, 'Origen', 87-8. Cf. Arc.

2. 14n., 8. 67 and Kertsch, Bildersprache, 115.

87-90. On this view the soul continues by a process of natural reproduction, being divided and distributed to the human race in the same process by which the flesh is continued, or by an analogous process.

88. dotwyévebiiog: MSS vary between this reading and avroyévefAos. The former occurs elsewhere only in Orph. A. 388, where it has the literal sense of 'new-born'. In this traducianist context the soul is understood to be a fresh creation in the same sense as the body, in contrast, say, with notions of pre-existence. On the other hand, avroyéveOAos, though lexically better attested, gives doubtful sense. It is difficult to believe that Greg. would call 'self-originated' something which, for all its independence of body, is clearly created.

89. ox€ouatos admits oftwo interpretations, (a) the semen ofAdam, (b) the figurative sense of 'origin' (cf. LSJ s.v. I. 2). If the second is accepted, we havea parallel to the use of jifa in v. 86. The traducianist position would then be represented in very general terms.

The soul of Adam would be transmitted to following generations, apportioned out, but whether through the act ofphysical generation or by an analogous, but in some sense independent, process would

7. 89-96 remain undecided. But ovépyaros surely suggests that Greg. is being more specific. The question ofwhat precisely was transmitted in the sperm of the father was one which inevitably produced discussion in traducianist circles. Cf. e.g. Tertullian, DeAnima 27 (M.

PL 2. 694c ff; CCSL 2. 822 ff; CSEL 20. (344. 27 ff.), where it is firmly stated that the semen contains both 'corporeal' and 'psychic' elements to form the body and soul ofthe child. (The background of this belief and its developments are fully investigated by Waszink, edn., 343 ff.) In 27. 5 Tertullian writes: 'Unico igitur impetu utriusque toto homine concusso despumatur semen totius hominis habens ex corporali substantia umorem, ex animali calorem.' Some such debate is likely to lie behind the use of ovépyaros here.

90. pévov eldos: in referring {Sos to the soul Greg. is using language reminiscent of Aristotle (cf. Am. 412*19). But there is a notable distinction. Aristotle wrote that the soul mas the efSes of the body;

Greg. says merely that the soul Aas an e/Sos, a continuing form which outlasts the temporal body.

91-6. The meaning ofrationality in the soul. Greg. now leaves traducianism to return to pursuing his own speculations on the soul. He picks up from the traducianist argument a point which he accepts for different reasons, the eternal nature of the soul. He continues from , there.

91. yyeoin is a hAapax legomenon and wyecia is found only in Hesychius (glossed as jynors). In Stoic thought 76 Ayenovixdy is reason, the part ofthe soul in authority, looking back to 7yeyo0v in Pl. Tim. 41c7 and Ar. EN 1113°6, 76 ayovpevor. (Cf. Guthrie,

History, iii. 469 n. 2). In Zeno the Stoic form appears in SVF 1. 39 al.

Greg. uses it in or. 38. 7 (M. 36. 3170), 41. 11 (448), al.

91b-96. The analogy oftheflute and theflute-player. Nicetas took it that the point of the analogy was to contrast the behaviour ofthe rational soul in the child with its behaviour in the adult. On this understanding the problem is how to reconcile the statement that the soul is meant to exercise rational control with the observation that in small children it appears to do no such thing. As the skilled flautist is constricted by an inadequate instrument, so even a potentially noble soul is hampered by a child's body.

Another possible interpretation might see Greg. attacking a more fundamental issue, the way in which the soul may at any time be affected by the health or weakness of the body. Nemesius, as we have seen (v. 14 n.), was prepared to accept considerable interaction

7. 91-102 of soul and body. He, too, uses a musical figure, showing how the soul may be distorted (cuvd:acrpéderac) by the body, as the musician may be thrown off tune bya faultily tuned lyre (nat. hom. 2. 96 =

1. 26. 3-4 Morani). If this is Greg.'s meaning, it will be seen that he stops short of Nemesius in that he thinks only of limitation of the soul's self-expression and not of its being damaged.

92. The adjective &xtgoxog is very much a Cappadocian word, being attested in PGL only in Nyssen and Nazianzen. Otherwise only the adverb is found, once in the grammarian Erotianus (1st c. ap). The meaning 'inharmonious' is easily derived from éxrpémw and EXTPOTT.

94. evovmogos has a very literal sense 'having a wide pipe, tube'. In Homer and Aeschylus it refers to the broad paths of the sea.

95. dpeowv: Caillau's 'membris' apparently takes it that Greg. is equating ayis (which elsewhere means 'contact') with d¢x, which has the same connection with 'touch' and can also mean 'contact', but which came to mean 'ligament' in Col, 2. 19 and Eph. 4. 16. This looks very likely.

97-129. The status ofmanandhisrelation toAdam. Cf. or. 38.

97-106. Adam before the Fall.

97. If véov points to the close relationship ofthe Son with man (cf. wv.

61 ff.), the close collocation of Bporés and dd@ros stresses the divine-human distinction (cf. A. Eu. 724: ddOirous Beivar Bpozous).

For ddftros cf. Arc. 2. 83 n.

98-9 contain a clear statement of the purpose of man's creation: he is to progress to the divine life ofheaven. Cf. Arc, 3. 4.n., 4. 95 ff. n.

100-4. Man is set in an intermediary position, a position which is the mark of his temporary, earthly status, as distinct from his eternal destiny. He is in a middle position between freedom and control.

Man's freedom is limited, not in the sense that he is denied free will, but because he is limited in the area in which he may exercise his choice. God is free in being subject to no external law. Man's freedom is limited to the acceptance or rejection of a law, the framing of which is beyond his competence. Cf. carm. 1. 2. 10. 120 ff. (M. 37.

101-2. yaoaSas / év koadin: the language may be influenced byJer.

38. 33 (31. 33 Heb.). Cf. also the version of Prov. 3. 3 in Cod. Alex.: ypadov 8é avras éni 76 wAdtos THs Kapdias cov. Greg. substitutes the more forceful yapdcow.

103-5 103. G&paitadavtos is a rare word, being attested only once in the lexica outside Greg., as a neuter substantive at Anon ep. (J. A.

Cramer, Anecdota Graeca (Oxford, 1836), iii. 169. 4). Greg. himself finds a use for it several times: carmm. 1. 2. 9. 69 (M. 37. 672A); 2. 1.

13. 172 (1241), s.v.L; ep. 4 (25). Cf. pow# Arc. 5. 51 n., audipemis Arc. 8. 86; 6émw is found ina similar context in Thphl. Ant. Autol. 2.

Pellegrino, La Poesia diS. Gregorio Nazianzeno, 60, finds in this line a prosaic quality which abruptly breaks in upon the contemplation of the groves of Paradise. But this is rather harsh criticism and seems to attack Greg. for doing what he set out to do. For his purpose is not to draw word-pictures ofParadise but to show Paradise as the place of choice. The close juxtaposition of the idyllic miniature and the sharp reality ofmoral choice may count in favour of Greg.'s skill, rather than against it. Who can say that dudiraAavros is prosaic? P. Gallay conjectured that it is a word of Koine Christian provenance, but offered no evidence (Langue et style de S.

Grégoire de Nazianze dans sa correspondance (Paris, 1933), 76). But if aud.dééios is suitable for verse, or dudifdAacaos, why not dugirdAavtos?

104. yupvev both literally and figuratively. dvep repeats the sense which yupvér could have carried by itself. Cf. Hom. Clem. 6. 16: vows

... Waons Kakias yumvos. apeudétowo: cf. carm. 1. 2. 29. 298 (M. 37. go6A). This is a word which Greg. appears to have taken up in a figurative sense, adapting its literal meaning in referring to a double-ended or doublehandled object (LSJ). Here the word is concerned with doubledealing or, PGL suggests, the falsity of artificial addition.

105. For discussion of the varying patristic notions of Paradise and man's primal state see A. Slomkowski, L'Etat primitifde homme dans la tradition de l'Eglise avant S. Augustin (Paris, 1928). For Greg.'s views in particular, cf. J. Gross, Entstehungsgeschichte des Erbstindendogmas, i (Munich and Basle, 1960), 143 ff., Althaus, Heilslehre,

Winslow, Dynamics, C. Moreschini, SC edn. of orr. 38-41, pp. 45 ff. ovgavin means that Adam's status allowed him to share the life ofthe heavenly beings. There is no suggestion ofan extra-terrestrial site for Paradise. Greg. treats this as a real place, though this does not preclude his elsewhere finding in it also allegorical interpretations. (Cf. or. 38. 12 (M. 36. 3248 ff.) = 45. 8 (632¢ ff), together

105-13 with F. K. Hiimmer, Des Al. Gregor von Nazianz, des Theologen, Lehre von der Gnade (Kempten, 1890), p. 38; Kelly, Doctrines, 348.)

106, Cf. Gen. 2. 15. donotijea, poised between Adywv and yewpydv, plays on two senses. Adam is to be a 'labouring' farmer (cf. H. Od. 16. 248) and a 'doer' ofGod's commands.

107-29. The Falland its effects. In addition to the literature noted in v. ro5 n., cf. the following: Tennant, The Sources of theDoctrines of the Fall and Original Sin (Cambridge, 1903); N. P. Williams, The Ideas ofthe

FallandofOriginal Sin (London, 1924), 282-92 esp. on Greg.); Kelly, Doctrines, 344 ff.

Discussion ofGreg.'s position is found also in Portmann, Die géttliche Paidagogia, 75 ff.; B. Otis, 'Cappadocian Thought as a Coherent System', DOP 12 (1958), 95-124 at 110 ff.; Szymusiak, 'Grégoire de Nazianze et le péche'. Once the fall of Lucifer is accepted, the fall of man is readily explicable as temptation by a stronger power.

The real problem, a problem to which Greg. has offered no answer, is to explain howa fall was possible for Lucifer.

107-11. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is interpreted through Heb. 5. 12-14: the fruit ofthe tree was too strong for Adam, who needed the food of a child. Cf. 1 Cor. 3. 2.

107. teAevotégoto applies both to the tree itself, which is more perfect, more developed, than the others, and, as a proleptic transferred epithet, to Adam. It is the tree intended for the developed

109-10. Perhaps Greg. is here conflating two figurative oppositions, child ~ adult and the catechumen ~ mature believer. The second idea may be linked with the pvorys of v. 67 above. (For dpyduevor cf. Arc. 3. 19 n.) é&eSopévoiot may be compared to the réAccor of Heb. 5. 14.

111. Cf. Heb. 5. 13, 1 Cor. 2. 6, 3.1 f. vyueyouot suggests the belief developed by Irenaeus that Adam was created a child in mental, moral, and spiritual capacity. (Cf. the references collected by Szymusiak, 'Grégoire de Nazianze et le péché', 297 n. 2.) 112-18. The Fall and its effects on Adam.

112-13. Satan's part in the Fall of man has been commented on in Arc. 6. 61-6.

NapaPpaciyou szapardacin, which elsewhere means 'comfort, 7. 112-16 consolation' (cf. LSJ s.v.), here corresponds to one of the meanings of wapaidaais, 'beguilement' (AP 5. 284. 7 (Agathias); API. 5. 373.).

Eve's place in the Fall is emphasized in orr. 18. 8 (M. 35. 9938), 36. 5

114. The tragedy ofthe Fall as Greg. sees it is expressed in mpodpios.

Unlike Lucifer, who tried to seize a glory which could never have been his, Adam prematurely grasped at, and lost, something which God had intended that he should one day possess. In or. 2. 25 (M.

354304) Greg. talks of the work of Christ as restoration of the old Adam, in that he takes man to the tree of life from which he had been estranged by the tree ofknowledge. meowpuog: only Nonnus is cited by LSJ for this form.

Hovpogos is found only here and in carm. 1. 1.27.96 (M. 37. 5054).

115-16. Though he never discusses the idea, Greg. thinks that man originally possessed a body of more subtle constitution than the present human body. Cf. or. 38. 12 (M. 36. 324C) = 45. 8 (6334) Kai

Tovs Sepparivous dudiévvuTat yirw@vas, isws THY TayUTEpay odpKa Kai Ovnriv Kai avrizvmov. This flesh of finer consistency could not be different in kind from the flesh of animals, ifman was to be a link between the worlds of sense and of mind, but different in degree from their flesh and that of fallen man. Bapeiay contains also the proleptic sense 'which was henceforth to be a burden to him'.

Allegorical interpretation of the coats of skin is found elsewhere in the Fathers. Irenaeus, for instance, reports a Gnostic belief that the coats mean bodies, Aaer. 1.5.

5 (M. 7. 5014), and Clem. Al. str. 3.

95. 2 (GCS 2. 239. 26 ff., M. 8. 1196 f.) confirms this. Methodius claimed that this was Origen's view, res. 1. 4.

2 (pp. 223. 28 ff.) but sel. in Gen. (M. 12. 101-2) presents the notion merely as a possibility.

Nyssen takes the coats of skin to represent the mortal element in man (or.catech. 8 (pp. 42. 14 ff., M. 45. 338 f.)); etc. (Cf. Holl, Amphilochius von Ikonium, 202-3; Szymusiak, 'Grégoire de Nazianze et le péche', 298 n. 3.) The coats of skin replace the 'garments of light' in which man was clothed before the Fall. Cf. SC edn. of or. 38, pp. 130-1 n. 2.

116. vexgoqogos: Adam became his own corpse-bearer, the meaning found in Polyb. 35. 6. 2, Plu. Cato Ma. 9. 2. Cf. also Philo's description of the soul as vexpodopovoa Agr. 25 (i. 304, M.; ii. 95. 4

C.-W.). But Adam is vexpoddpos in a wider sense in that he brought death into the world; cf. the similar application of @avarn- @dpos to the tree of knowledge in t Dion. Al. jr. (Feltoe, p. 200. 3).

7. 116-22 Exegoev: I am unable to find a parallel for the form éxopca = éxopeoa (the form behind H. //. 16. 747). The reading éxepoev has considerable probability. €xepoa is a recognized Homeric form (cf.

Il. 13. 546) and €xepoev makes good sense. The idea that Christ 'cut short' sin by death fits closely with the thought of v. 122. The sense thus moves from punishment (Billius, Caillau) to providence.

Nicetas makes it clear that he read éxepoev and understood the passage this way when he paraphrases: d:axéxomrat pév 1) dpapria

Tw Yavdtw, ws ur drarwrilew 76 KaK6v, Kai TovTO bé Epyov ayaléTyTo0s Beau.

117. &ioog has traditional religious associations as a sacred grove or holy place (LS7s.v. If). Cf Arc. 8. 23-4 n.

118. Cf. Gen. 3. 17-19.

3. 24b reads: wai évagev 7a yepouBiv Kai rH ddoyivny popdaiar riv orpedopévny dvAdacew rhv 6d6v rod EdAov ris Cwis. Perhaps {jAov appears through association with passages such as Zeph. 1. 18, 3. 8; Is. 26. 11; Ps. 78 (Heb. 79). 5; Heb. ro.

27. All link €#Aos with fire and judgement.

120. The meaning would appear to be that given by Billius and Caillau: God provides against the approach of any second human being like Adam. But it is not easy to see how 'primi more parentis' or 'Adamus, ut ante' emerges from 6 zpéce. The only explanation which fits the grammar is to suppose 6 zpda@e to be parenthetic.

'Lest any Adam (the former Adam, I mean) ...' The distinction is thus made between the first and the Second Adam, as in carm. 1. 1. ro. 4 (M. 37. 465a).

121. The wv/. dayeiv (cf. Caillau's n.) is easily explained by the proximity of €5w4yv. But duvyeiv gives the obvious meaning. Man must learn the obedience of shunning the tree of good and evil before he may safely approach the tree of life (cf. v. 122 n.). dantoeiav: if the -efos form is correct, it occurs only here.

Dronke, following the reading of Cu, dazzpiav, supported it by pointing to other instances where Greg. lengthens a short syllable, the closest parallel being the « of x@évos. ddarpios itself is found only in Greg. carmm. 2. 2 (poem.). 3. 33 (M. 37. 14824); 2. 1. 50. 15

122. The sting ofthe line is in kaxog. Later generations ofmen are to be prevented from approaching the tree oflife for the very reasons which, e.g. Irenaeus, gave for Adam's expulsion. To eat ofthe tree of life in a state ofsin would be to gain eternity, but an eternity of evil:

122-9 "eiecit eum de paradiso et a ligno vitae longe transtulit: non invidens ei lignum vitae, quemadmodum quidam audent dicere, sed miserans eius, ut non perseveraret semper transgressor', /aer. 3. 23.

6 (M. 7. 964). Cf. Methodius, res. 1. 39 (pp. 283. 14 ff.) and G. von Rad, Genesis, ET J. H. Marks (London, 1961; German edn. 1956), g4; "... and we are also to learn that the severe denial of eternal life also has a merciful reverse side, namely, the withholding a good which for man would be unbearable in his present condition.' In Greg., cf. or. 38. 12 (M. 36. 324c f.) = 45. 8 (6334 f.).

122b-127. Man's return to Paradise. Paradise is the port to which man will return after a stormy voyage.

123. Giinhoos: cf. Call. Del. 15, A.R. 3. 1329.

124-5. xetaooas / iotwov: cf. H. Od. 5. 269. For épérys = 'oar' cf. AP 6. 4. 6 (Leonidas).

126. The Cusanus reads dzorjAe wAéov7es.

Nicetas, however, appears to support a6 THA€ weodvres, reading éxaecdvres. There is much more point in dzé riA€ weadvres than in droriA€ wA€ovtes.

Taking avoveodrres as tmesis, we find a use parallel to that in or.

39. 6 (M. 36. 341A): ms Tou Oeov Sdéys amomeceiv. (wAE€ovTEs, it might be conjectured, is the work of a scribe who wished, unnecessarily, to read nautical language at every point.)

127. The figure need not be pressed too closely. The sailor's return to port depends either on his adjusting the sails to a favourable change of the wind or ona hard pull on the oars. But the implication of ovx. duoynzi is not that man, by a similar expenditure of energy, can regain Paradise. Greg.'s doctrine ofthe work of Christ is too central for any such adumbrations of Pelagianism. The Fall laid man open to a life ofrigorous struggle, physical and moral. His return to Paradise will not take place without this struggle. But neither will it be accomplished as a result of it.

128-9. The effects ofthe Fall. As Szymusiak observes, Greg. offers no explanation of the way in which the effects ofAdam's fall are transmitted to his descendants ("Grégoire de Nazianze et le péche',

299 ff.). In particular, it will be noted that there is no attempt to relate the questions of participation in Adam's sin and sharing in the soul ofAdam (cf. v. 89 n.). arty... ota&yus: is there a half-reminiscence of A. Pers. 821-2?

UBpts yap 連avboto' éxaprwoev ordxuv ans, dev wayKAaurov efayd Gépos.

8. On the Testaments and the Coming of Christ Titleandpurpose The several titles, of varying degrees of fullness, show the content to be the two Testaments and the coming of Christ. This is straightforward enough. The only problem is to decide what the limits of the poem are. Is Arc. 8 the gg lines which are printed by Caillau and by Migne? Or should we regard vv. 82-99 as a separate poem? Again, are we to admit as an integral part the 60 lines found in L between wv. 18 and 19, the lines printed by Wyss? I have to say that I am inclined to change the opinion which I expressed in J7S 1970, "The Poemata

Arcana', 35-6 and 'Some Literary Questions'. Without questioning that these are genuine lines of Greg. and that the thought they contain is germane to the present poem, I would now doubt the correctness of placing them where they appear in L. The MS evidence is not strong and the subject-matter could well be thought an encouragement to interpolation. The lines, I would continue to hold, are of theological and literary interest and certainly fill out the argument by detailing

Israel's idolatry ofthe Golden Calf, apostasy which led to the giving of the Sinai Law by Christ as a necessary but temporary expedient. But the poem can proceed quite easily from v. 18 to v. 19 without their intervention. Billius suspected a hiatus, as Nicetas had done when he added a generalizing paraphrase: obtws e(SwAodatpeia TH Ta avopwTuY an' dps Tapeicedbdpy Biw. cai ov pdvoy of éx Taw GAAwy €Bvadv trois elpnévors todos KatedOelpovto, Hoy dé kai "EBpaiwv iepov éOvos d:a tov ABpady voysobév GAov dwoAwAeKds Boudry éatw avy brelkov Gelois mpodijrats ddupopévacs Kai €f:Aackopévors THY GpyHv rob Geod irép attrwy, of toAAdKis mpdTEpov Sid Tas ESwWAOAaTpELas aUTaY Ws

Mousorjs wai "HAtas xatexrévvucay atrots.

But, as Wyss pointed out, 'Zu Gregor von Nazianz', in Phylloboliafiir Peter Von der Muhll (Basle, 1946), 153-83 at 171 ff, there can be no suggestion that Nicetas had the L lines in front of him: he merely suspected a hiatus. We may be allowed to think he was wrong.

We may also question whether Wyss is right in being hesitant about the connection ofvv. 82-99 with the rest ofthe poem. He writes, commenting on the introduction by the scribe of Ox. Clark. 12 (C) of 1-7 separate titles before vv. 31 and 82: 'Was epi 6:a6yxwv anlangt, ist es vollig ausgeschlossen, daf Vers 31 den Anfang eines Gedichtes bildet; dagegen halte ich es fiir denkbar, daB die Verse 82-99 urspriinglich ein selbstandiges Gedicht iiber die Taufe ausgemacht haben' (p. 172 n. 1). Yet what good reason is there for believing that the Clarkianus' scribe was more justified in his second insertion of a title? (That he had a propensity for adding unnecessary titles may be seen from his introduction of [epi dyyéAwy in Arc. 4, before v. 89.) V. 81 speaks of redemption: wv. 82 ff. discuss the nature of man and his proneness to the sin which made Redemption necessary. Again, the reference to baptism in wv. 78b ff. is picked up and the thought carried on in the closing lines of the poem. Finally, it may be held that the anaphora of vv. 97-9 provides a fitting conclusion to the entire sequence of eight poems, as Keydell argued in 'Ein dogmatisches Lehrgedicht Gregors von Nazianz', 317-18. The argument is not weakened by Greg.'s use of a similar anaphora elsewhere in the middle ofapoem, carm. 2. 1. 13. g6-8 (M. 37. 1235); it is sufficient that there is particular point in its use here. Finally, if we accept the continuity between vv. 18 and 19 we are spared consideration of Keydell's suggestion (loc. cit.) of further hiatus between v. 18 and L 1 and again between L. 60 and v. 19.

1-8. The unity ofthe Oldand the New Laws The alleged discrepancy between the provisions of the Old and the New Testaments formed an important part of 4th-c. anti-Christian polemic, ef. Courcelle, 'Anti-Christian Arguments', 159-60.

2. t&eqadvOy: cf. Arc. 2. g-10 n.

4. neigaowy aing: cf. zeipara yains in L. 14 Wyss.

5. This and the following lines dispose of any ambiguity in d:acoio (v.

1): for 8cc065 may mean 'diverse, at variance', as well as 'twofold'.

6-7. d6ypaowv: 'divine decrees' (see PGL s.v. D). Two possibilities are mentioned to be dismissed. If the Testaments conflict, either the inconsistency is a divine oversight or it implies a change of mind. nadupPovhouow: perhaps the presence of the form raAipfovAos, in a line where metre guarantees the -fovAos rather than the -Bodos ending, may cause second thoughts about LSJ's dismissing waAiuBovdos asa falsa lectio for waAiuBoAos. The latter carries with it the sense of unreliability, rather than ofwiser reconsideration (cf. exx. in LSJ).

8. 9-18 9-18. The historical results ofthe Fall ofAdam The poem here picks up the thought ofArc. 7. 128-9. But, again, there is no explanation of the way in which subsequent generations are affected by Adam. Something is transmitted which is more than mere bad example, but precisely what we are not told. Instead, Greg. illustrates the effects from history. Adam's fall has laid his descendants open to all the evils which entered the world with the Fall of Lucifer

(cf. Arc. 6. 73-81 n.).

9. Avoonets: apart from its occurrence in Greg., the form Avacyecs is found only in Hesychius, where it is glossed pavicidns. Soph. mentions the present passage. The word is not in PGL. Having, as it would appear, coined the word, Greg. uses it with daiuwy as subject in carm. 2. 1. 1. 52 (M. 37. 974A) and at carm. 2. 1. 13. 43

(12304) of the devil. M.Schmid called it 'ein Lieblingswort Gregors' ('Gregor von Nazianz und Hesychios', RAM, nr 21 (1866), pp. 489-97 at 494). The Avoca association is a powerful one. In Classical literature the word may describe a fearful, supernaturally caused madness or it may refer to the raging ofthe Furies; cf. e.g. A.

Ch. 288; E. Ba. 977. Euripides once personifies Avoca as the goddess of madness (HF 823). In the Fathers it may refer to the follies of paganism or heresy; cf. PGL s.vw. Avoca, Avocdw.

Badev éx: cf. Arc. 6. 65 n.

11-12. Adam is compared to a defeated military commander. A similar figure is found in carm. 2. 1. 34. 137 (M. 37. 13174). For #yq7jp =

'leader' cf. Pi. P. 1.69 dynrijp.

Eyyet: this reading, over against aicyei, is supported by Nicetas' paraphrase xovrois xai BéAco: Kai radaw 6rAots.

KoKOov kai Koa gutevtoat: cf. H. I. 15. 134 candy péya waa dutedcar and Od. 2. 165 ddvov cai xipa du7etoar. Cf. Arc. 4. 534n.

13 appears to contain a reminiscence of h. Merc. 413 "Eppéw BovaAjar kAeidpovos. The only other recorded instance is in Ps.-Man. 1(5). g3 (Kochly, p. 88).

14-18 begin to detail man's religious deviations. Cf. Ath. inc. 11 (M.

25. 1168 f.), gent. 8 (M. 25. 16c ff.). For the practice of astrology cf.

Arc. 5. In or. 28. 14 (p. 44. 6 ff, M. 36. 44c f.) Greg. describes how pictures and images of the dead came to be worshipped. He may also have in mind the divinization ofemperors, the subject ofattack in e.g. Ath. gent. (M. 25. 20B f.).

14-29 14. Here the conventional epithet ceases to be conventional, taking the weight ofmeaning.

17. The meaning appears to be 'reliable (only) in bringing evil on his own kind', his followers or, possibly, 'reliable in bringing (all too) familiar evils'. The devil, who is supremely faithless, is represented as to be trusted only to produce evil.

19-30. The religiousfailure ofthe Hebrews 19, For Israel as a holy people cf. Exod. 19. 6, Deut. 7. 6, ai.

20. dttaQopévototy: the prophets either entreated God to spare his people (cf. e.g. Joel 2. 17) or begged the people to repent. Arrafopuat is a by-form of Afocouat, not common, but found in Oppian (C. 2.

373) and Orph. fr. 333 (Kern, p. 332), as well as in several inscriptions (cf. LSJ). Greg. uses the form in carm. 2. 2 (epigr.) 65. 1 (M. 38.

21. wiyvev Get: is this a curious play on H. //. 1. 1?

&/iwvov is the imperfect ofthe form éAAdw and is found in Archil.

27 and Com. Adesp. 608. For Israel's killing ofthe prophets cf. Matt.

23. 27, Luke 13. 34, Acts 7. 52.

23-4. of wA€oves xaxiovs: cf. H. Od. 2. 277, where the words are part of a yvdjn expressing decline, each generation being worse than the preceding: watpot yap Tot waides Guolo watpi wéAovTat, ot wA€oves Kakious, wavpor b€ Te TaTpds apeious.

(ora: dAcy regularly tr. 'asérim in LXX.

O9EWV KOQU@PEs represents such expressions as Bouvov vybnAdcv (Heb. gib 'agaboha): e.g.

4 Kgds. 17. 10, Jer. 2. 20. aipatoevtas: demanding human sacrifices. Cf. Arc. 6. 78 n.

25. PGL misprints (yAjpova as Cnyjpova.

26. x & étivayGev: cf. H. /. 16. 348 (of the knocking out of teeth).

Caillau appears to make the word refer to the Exile ('e terra sua eiecti sunt'), but the second half of the line makes it more probable that Greg. is thinking ofthe displacement ofthe Hebrews from their unique position.

26b-30. The Gentiles and theNew Covenant. Greg. writes of himself as the representative Gentile.

27. SyAowo: cf. Rom. 11. 11. nodnyeoty is a hapax legomenon.

29. Greg. here envisages the final conversion of the Jews, who will one day repent. The question of the place of the Jews in Divine

29-35 Providence was one which exercised a number of the Fathers, and some oftheir interest takes the form ofanti-Jewish apologetic. Cyril ofJerusalem appears to believe that the repentance of the Jews will come too late to be of any avail, catech. 13. 41 (M. 33. 8224 f.). His namesake of Alexandria, in many ways his inferior in charity, here displays a softer temper and looks for the ultimate conversion of the Jews, Joel 14 (3. 2138, M. 71. 353.¢ fF), glaph. Gen. 6 (1. 2006, M. 69.

3208ff), Jo. 2. 5 (4. 2008p, M. 73. 340 £.). Greg. clearly distinguishes the final repentance of the Jews from their present position, to which he shows some hostility.

He expresses delight that Julian was unable to carry out a plan to resettle the Jews in Jerusalem, ascribing the failure in graphic terms to divine intervention. Cf. or. 5. 3-4 (M.

35. 6684 ff.), also H. Lietzmann, A History of the EarlyChurch, iii: From Constantine toJulian, ET B. Lee Woolf (London, 1953), 282.

Origen had earlier taken a firm line against Judaism, as may be seen from N. de Lange, Origen and the Jews (Cambridge, a7 The whole question is fully surveyed in M. Simon, Verus Israel:

Etudes sur les relations entre chrétiens etjuifs dans [empire romain (135-425), 2 edn.

&ving: the fall ofJerusalem in ap 70 and the subsequent scattering of the Jews were taken as clear signs of their punishment for the death ofJesus. Cf. e.g. Eus. fe. 1. 1. 2 (p. 6. 9 ff, M. 20. 49).

30. BacKaviy: the story ofthe evil which envelops man begins with 6 Bdaoxavos (Arc. 6. 66). The final dispensation ofGod's grace will use

Saoxavia as a means of accomplishing divine purpose.

Thepurpose of the Incarnation V. 31 picks up from v. 24. The Incarnation follows the depravity ofthe broken Law.

Vv. 32-52 are substantially the same as carm. 1. 2. 1. 137-54 (M. 37.

5354). V. 40 from d@avdtoco to v. 45 are not found in the moralia passage and there are minor verbal differences elsewhere.

32. Eupooe tyis: the same words are found in H. JI, 1. 278, 15. 189, Od. 5. 335, 11. 338, Hes. Op. 347, Call. fr. 373.

34-9a, As a result of the Fall the divine element in man was being destroyed and needed to be reasserted.

34. woions: cf. Arc. 7. 72, 77.

35. QvpoBdpouo: cf. LSJ. Here the @uuds element indicates the soul of man which was being eaten away by evil. (Cf. PGL s.v. bupoxrdvos and #uyodbdpos).

8. 36-41 36. oxohv ... docKovta: cf. Arc. 6. 41, carmm. 1. 1. 2. 141 (M. 37.

533A), 2. 1. 45. 101 (1360). doaKovta identifies the devil with the serpent of Gen. 3 (it is a natural synonym for é¢.y) and also with the whole complexofevil which is associated with the dragon in Daniel, Rev. 12. 3, al. okoAi6y points at once to the twisting, sinuous motion of the snake

(cf. Milton, P.L. 9. 499: 'Fold above fold, a surging maze; ...'), and to his crooked, evil ways.

The suggestion was made by A. Ludwich, 'Nachahmer und Vorbilder des Dichters Gregorios von Nazianz', RAM nr 42 (1887), 233-8 at 238, that oxoAcdév.

. . Spdxovra is a reminiscence ofAratus 7o, where the words cxoAtoio Apdxovros refer to the constellation Draco. But equally well one might cite Isa. 27. 1 évi 76v SpdxovTa éguv oxoAcdv. The figure appealed to verse writers. Cf. or. stb. 8. 116 akoAtotd ... dpdxovros and Nonnus, D. 12. 319 cKoAina Spaxwy

37. Mayog: the association of the word is here not with 'lot' or 'chance'. Rather does it mean 'possession' (cf. LSJ s.v. Aayydvw II).

It thus approximates to the meaning xAjjpos in L 45 and 47 Wyss. By their sin men were passing into the power of the devil: Christ came to reassert inalienable rights over the human race.

37b-39a. The figure changes. Man is diseased with sin which Christ alone can cure. Cf. Arc. 2. 57, 61 n.

39b. Kevovous: for the doctrine of'kenosis' in the writings ofthe Cappadocians cf. P. Henry, 'Kénose', Dictionnaire de la Bible, Suppl. v (Paris, 1957), 79-85 (79-80) referring specifically to Greg.; Sellers,

TwoAncient Christologies, 7o—1; Barbel, Fiinftheal. Reden, 160-1 n. 40 on Greg. in particular. Cf. or. 29. 18 (p. 101. 15 ff., M. 36. 97c). What becomes clear from these is that nothing approximating to modern

'kenotic' theories emerges in the Cappadocians, or, indeed, in the Fathers generally.

Phil. 2. 7 contains the words éaurév éxévwoe, popdiyy SovAov AaB, év 6uoidmpare yevouevos. Greg. here defines the element of limitation in the Incarnation. The Logos limits a characteristic manifestation ofGodhead, its 'glory'. This is very much in line with what Greg. wrote in or. 37. 3 (M. 36. 2858): GAA' évecd} Kevodrar 84'

Huds, émedy Karépyerar (Kévwow 5é€ A€yw rHv Tis Sd6EnS olor bdeciv re kai €Adtrwowv), 51a roUTO ywpnrds yiverat.

40-1. Gpitwe ... diza xarteds: cf. Heb. 7. 3: dadrwp, duirwp.

8. 40-52 Greg. explains in or. 30. 21 (p. 143. 8-9, M. 36. 132): MeAyioedéx b€, chs durjrwp 76 Unep Huds, Kai dndtwp 76 Kal' Huds.

41-2. Eévog ... ob Eévog: this is not a correction but a paradox (cf.

GuBpotos ... BporwOeis). In human terms, Christ was an unprecedented son through the Virgin Birth. Yet he 'came to his own'

(John 1. 11) and took normal human form. footmPeis: Bporéw is attested in the lexica only here and in Christus Patiens 511 (Ps.-Gr.Naz., M. 38. 1774).

43-4, dhov ... bhOg ... bios: cf. or. 30. 6 (p. 116. 3-4, M. 36. 109): oAav év é€avTw@ éue Pépwv. This position was capable of development in an anti-Apollinarian direction, but, as is argued in Introd., the words are not here used explicitly against Apollinarius.

48-9. The two natures of Christ. Cf. Introd. to Arc. 2. Greg. insists on the unity ofChrist: he is év. But it is open to us to ask what this 'one' is. Greg. gives little direct answer. dyeipas is a colourless word

('bringing together') which gives no hint of the relationship of the two natures. The same is true in or. 30. 8 (p. 120. 10 f., M. 36. 1138), where see Mason's n.: €f yap Kai 76 cuvauddrepov év, ddd' ob 77 duce, 7 6€ cuvédw ToUTwr. kevbopeévyy: for the hidden divine nature cf. Arc. 3. g2 n. duda5inv means 'obvious'

(cf. PGL s.v. dvadavddv), rather than 'revealed'. The contrast, as in Arc. 3, is between the man Jesus who could be seen by any casual onlooker and the divine Logos who was concealed from many. The revelation consisted in the whole Person of Christ.

51-2. A passage from or. 29. 19 (p. 102. 12 ff., M. 36. 1004) is of value for understanding the present passage: 5:4 pécov vods dutArjoas capxi, kai yevénevos dvilpwaros, 6 KatTw Oedsére:d7) cuvexpaby

Oew, Kai yéyovev els, ToU Kpeittovos éexvixjaavras, iva yévwpac togovTov beds, Gaov éxeivos dvépwaos. Christ is one and he is divine because Godhead comes in the Incarnation not from outside to an alien community but to humanity which is akin to Godhead.

«epaobeis should be taken closely with Bpo7és. The affinity ofGod and man stems from the creation of man when he was 'mixed with Godhead'. Christ is divine 'on both sides', fully divine as Logos and partly divine as man. Cf. Norris, pp. 154-5; ef. ep. 101 (M. 37. 180):

Ta yap duddtepa év 7H avycpdoe, Feo pev évavbpwrijaavtos, avipwrov bé beabévros, 7 dmws dv Ts dvopdoete.

The ending of d¢u¢dorépw ev should not be pressed. Greg. clearly intended it to mean that the two natures existed side by side, not 8. 51-9 that any composite nature was made 'from' both. We are a long way from the misunderstanding over év duo duceaw and éx do ducewy which followed Chalcedon. (Cf. Bindley—Green, The Oecumenical

Documents ofthe Faith, 197.) Cf. also or. 2. 23 (M. 35. 429), 30. 8 (M.

36. 113B, p. 120. 10-11), 38. 3 (3130). uxéoty: the emphasis is here on a fundamental meaning of vdiornt, reality ofexistence. As Grillmeier observes ofHipp. haer.

1. 8. 2 (GCS 3. 13. 15; M. 16. 3032p), it may be taken as synonymous with dadpyew (Christ in Christian Tradition, i. 117 n. 31).

53-9. Christ as the Second Adam. Cf. carm. 1. 1. 10. 4 (M. 37. 465), or. 2.

25 (M. 35. 433¢ ff), 24. 9 (11808), 39. 2 (M. 36. 3368), 41. 4 (4334), with 1 Cor. 15. 45.

54. é§axéoauto: cf. 37b—39a n. netacpati: cf. Arc. 3.91 n. Again the word = xaraverdopuart, this time alluding to Heb. 10. 20. Access to God, prevented by human sin, is made possible through the veil of Christ's flesh.

55. ywortds: it is remarkable that a word which does not appear in LS] should call for the best part of a column's entry in PGL, with meanings ranging over 'passable', 'finite', and 'comprehensible', in the case of the second and third in contexts of theological sensitivity. Here we find the straightforward meaning 'capable of'.

56-9. The meeting of Christ and Satan. The language is that of direct conquest, of the 'overthrow' of the devil. Yet, as in or. 39.

349A), there is the suggestion that the devil, for all his cunning, has been outwitted: ére:dH yap Gero arijrrovos elvat Tis Kaxias 6 aoguoris, Gedrytos €ATibst SeAedcas Huds, capKds mpoPArpatt deAcdlerac.

Cf. also or. 30. 6(p. 116. 14 ff, M. 36.

1124) and Mason, edn. 117 n.

The interplay ofconquest and deception is discussed in the SC edn. of or. 38-41, pp. 59, 176-7.

There is perhaps a double sense in déAmzws. It might mean 'beyond man's reasonable expectation' (cf. A. Pers, 261), as well as 'unexpectedly for Satan', cf. Gr. Nyss. or. catech. 26 (p. 97. 5, M. 45.

68B): tapa 76 éAmobev.

59. This is an apt simile in that the elements go beyond mere picturesque imagery. The rock is a traditional OT figure for strength and stability, as the sea may be a symbol of the chaotic and demonic.

One is reminded also of the Homeric picture of Hector, whose attack upon unbroken ranks of the enemy is likened to that ofwaves beating upona rock (//. 15. 605-22, esp. 618 ff.).

8. 59-66 For &hixtumov cf. S$. Ant. 953, Nonn. D. 31. 113, and AiBaros in HH. 15. 619. tonyzeiny gives the picture of a jagged rock.

OT imagery of the rock is generally different. The land-locked desert rock of Exod.

17. 6 al., identified by Paul with the preexistent Christ in 1 Cor. 10. 4, is a symbol not of strength but of physical or spiritual refreshment. The most common use, ofcourse, does concentrate thought on strength, that of refuge and salvation, but it is the symbol of God's provision for human need and weakness, not of the divine power to withstand an evil power. Again, the great white rock which is identified with the Son of God in Hermas is one which towers above a mountain range (sim. g. 2. 1-2, al., interpreted in g. 12. 1).

The Coming ofChrist 60-4. The birth (Luke 2. 13, Matt. 2.

60-1. There is no need to suppose that Greg. believed that the earth had literally shaken at the birth of Christ as a parallel to the earthquake recorded in Matt. 27. 51. Both heaven and earth are in a state of commotion and excitement (cf. Matt. 21. 10). In or. 31. 25 (M. 36.

160; p. 176. 3 ff), with Heb. 12. 27 in mind, he writes of the two great changes which affected human life, the two Testaments, comparing them to cexoyoi ys, like the words used in Matt. 27. 51. (See the SC edn., p. 323 n.) 62. Cf. Arc. 5. 54 n.

63. ators here = Adztpys, 'worshipper'.

64. The 'newborn' child had a new, unprecedented birth.

65-6. The suggestion that birth involved uncleanness is simply an extension of the view that flesh is by nature unclean. Cf. e.g. Celsus in Or. Cels. 6. 73 (p. 142. 18 ff, M. 11. 1408c). Greg. appears to go beyond Origen in his answer. The latter contented himself with denying that the contact was of the kind to affect the divine nature, drawing the stock comparison of light unaffected by dirt; cf.

H. Chadwick, tr. of Contra Celsum (Cambridge, 1965), 387 n. 2. Greg. does not concede as much, avoiding the imputation of shame, not by minimizing the contact with the body, but by limiting the occasion of shame to sin. éxei Adyos avtov ExyEev.

It would be more usual to say that the Logos formed the body; cf. e.g. Ath. inc. 8. 3 (p. 12. 29, M. 25.

8. 66-77 10gc). But avtomay7s Bporés in v. 69 comes closer to the idea of producing a human body.

67. OvoEt: cf. 2. 14, 7. 85 nn. The present use combines the senses of the 'flow' of human life through the process of physical birth and instability ofmortal life.

68. a&vupqéa: this is the only certain instance ofdvujdijs recorded in the lexica (LSJ notea cj.). Cf. Luke 1. 35.

69. avtomayis: comparison with the examples in LSJ will show Greg., as often, giving a new twist to the word. Caillau comments on avtovayys 'Communius hoc Spiritui sancto tribuitur'. But in the passage of Athanasius cited on wv. 65-6 n. it is the Logos who is subject: év 797 [apbévw xatacKevdle: €avt@ vadv 76 odpa. The close connection of the Logos with man is reasserted. He formed man in the first place and it is fitting that he should form the human body in which he comes as man. ka@yjeato: Caillau shows in his note, against Billius' application of the word to Christ's baptism, that the reference is to Luke 2. 22, the Purification.

70. Ogextyov: Christ repays the Law for being brought up in its nurture by submitting to its purificatory requirements. (Is not LS]'s tr. 'return made by children for their rearing' (s.v. @pemrjptos III. 2) more apt than the PGL tr. 'price for rearing a child'? The second would suggest that the child is other than the person paying the price.) 71. mepsctyovos is a word peculiar to Greg. See carmm. 2. 2 (poem.) 5.

264 (M. 37. 1540), 2. 2 (poem.). 6. 1 (15424), 2. 1. 11. 1795 (11554).

Christ's respect for the Law is a parting gift.

72-7a. Christ and ohn the Baptist 72. @aovs...Avyven: the Baptist was a true lamp, but still secondary, deriving his light from Christ, the True Light; cf.John 1. 6-9. The explicit contrast ofAvyvos and dws is found in Origen, e.g. fr. 17 in Jo. (p. 496. 23).

73-4. Cf. Mark 1. 1-8; Matt. 3. r-12; Luke 1. 5-25, 57-80; 3. 1-18; John 1. 6-9, 15-18.

75-7a. In these lines Isa. 57. 19 is alluded to (trois waxpdv Kai Trois éyyvs ovaw) and taken, as in Eph. 2. 17, to mean Gentiles and Jews.

Combined with this is an interpretation of the 'Christ cornerstone' motif (cf. Eph. 2. 20, 1 Pet. 2. 6, Isa. 28. 16, Ps. 117 (118 Heb.). 22) in which Christ is the stone which joins the two walls, Jewish and 8. 75-81 Gentile; cf. Cyr. Js. 3. 2 (2. 3978, M. 70. 632); Jo.D. hom. 4. 30 (M. g6. 632c). The form dxpéyawvos is found also in carm. 2. 1. 14. 15 (M.

Greg.'s epic vocabulary allows him a play on Aads/Adas.

77b-84. The twofold cleansing Christ brought purification through baptism (cf. PGL s.v. ca@dpovos C. 2 for examples ofthis connection) and through the shedding of his blood. Cf. Are. 2. 2 n. éeva0v0: dévaos is applied to the Holy Spirit in Hom. Clem. 3. 12.

It is particularly apt here for another of its associations, with the water of baptism (Hom. Clem. 11. 35) and also for its suggestion of 'living water' (PGL s.v. 1.b). Greg. treats baptism extensively in or.

40 (M. 36. 3608 ff.), see SC edn.; cf. also Arc. 3. 44 ff.n., and below, wy. 86b-go.

79. aiwatos hpetépovo: in or. 45. 29 (M. 36. 661) Greg. identifies the blood of Christ shed at the Crucifixion as the human element, the water as the divine: aiza xai Gowp rjs TAeupds yeGuevov76 per, ws avOpwrov, 76 8é, ws Umép dvopwrov.

80. @&exévwoe: here used of 'pouring out', as in Theoc. 16. go.

81. dvovov is here used in much the same way as Avzpov (cf. Mark 10.

45). Cf. AP 6. 274, 7. 605, and puais in Sir. 51. 9. aoyeyovev: the reference is to Adam. Cf. carm. 1. 1. 18. 3 (M. 37.

481A), which speaks of Christ's physical descent ad' aiuaros apyeyévoro 2. 2 (poem.), 1. 346 (1476a). éxovvov: Greg. here uses the sg. (found only in /G xiv. 1389i ro) of a regular Classical word (in pl.) for 'ransom', 'atonement', 'compensation', or 'rescue'. Homer, Aeschylus, and Euripides may be cited along with 'rare' (LSJ) prose usages by Herodotus and Plato.

It would not be possible to tell from these lines what meaning Greg. attached to the 'ransom' idea. Elsewhere, however, he is more explicit. It is true that in orr. 1. 5 (M. 35. 400), 29. 20 (p. 105. 5 ff., M.

36. 101A), and 30. 20 (p. 141, 7 ff, 132.) we are met by general statements, yet in or. 45. 22 (M. 36. 6534 ff.) Greg. is quite precise in rejecting the view that the ransom was paid to the devil and is no less firm in refuting any payment to the Father; cf. carm. 1. 1. 10. 6572 (M. 37. 4704). The locus of salvation is the divine ofcovoyéa through which the Father accepts a sacrifice he has not demanded, a sacrifice made within the sphere of Godhead by the Son who acts

8. 81-90 out an integral divine purpose. There is full discussion of Greg.'s position in Winslow, Dynamics, 108 ff., Althaus, Heilslehre, 133 f£.,

Holl, Amphilochius von Ikonium, 180 ff., Turner, Redemption, ch. 3, esp. pp. 58 ff.

82-4 touch on the reasons for man's Fall. It is because man is tpenrds that he could be seduced from keeping God's command, thus necessitating redemption. It is difficult to see what purpose is served by these lines. If man is tpezzés it is because God created him so. Ifhe were dzpemros, he would not be man but God (cf. Arc.

6. 54n.), and the question of keeping God's command would not arise. The only point at which speculation takes on meaning is when it asks whether man, being tpez7ds, might still have avoided sin. toentds is very much a word of the Christian era, as it takes on the idea of mutability in the direction of sin. A determined opponent of Arianism like Greg. would be very much awareofits heretical application to the Son (e.g. in Ar. ap. Ath. Ar. 1. 9 (M. 26.

29B). In Greg.'s understanding, salvation is possible precisely because of the Son's immunity from this mortal weakness.

84. The three verbs in the imperfect (dee unaugmented is an attested early form) depict the human state as it might have been. In omitting dv or xev Greg. appears to be extending the idiom discussed at Arc. 3. 49 n.; however, «ai may be a corruption of xev.

$5-7a deal with man's actual condition. Apparently realizing that the speculation of the preceding lines would assimilate man to God,

Greg. returns to his account of historical man and the means of his salvation, through baptism.

86. aueipent is a hapax legomenon. The double p form is found later in commentaries and in scholia on Eur. Cf. dudiraAavrov in Arc. 7.

KAtt6v is also a hapax legomenon.

87b-99. Baptism 87b-90a. The 'seal' of theExodus. The 'seal' ofbaptism is likened to the 'sealing' or marking of the Israelites' doorposts in Exod. 12. 21 ff.

This typology may be traced through a number of the Fathers. Cf. e.g. Justin, Dial. 111.

3 (Goodspeed, p. 227; M. 6. 732); Or. sel.in Ex.

12. 7 (M. 12. 284c f.); Bas. hom. 13. 4 (G. 2. 1178; M. 31. 4320); for discussion, and further references, see Lampe, The Seal ofthe Spirit,

116, J. Ysebaert, Greek Baptismal Terminology, 424. Cf. Greg. or. 1. 3

(M. 35. 4794) for the connection ofthe Exodus text and the seal with 8. 87-93 the death and resurrection of Christ and or. go. 15 (M. 36. 3774 fF) for the association with baptism: ef 5€ mpoxaraAdBois ceavtév Tj odpayid:, Kai rd péAAov dodadioao TH KadAioTw Tav Bonbyparwy Kai oTreppordtw onpeiwleis Kai buyyv Kai capa, Te xpiouant Kai Ta [Tvetipat, ws 6 TopamA waAa ta vuKrepwad Kai dvAaxtiva Tav mpwrotékay aiwari, Ti go. cuLPyoETaL Kai Ti Gor mpayydrevrat; cf. carm.

1. 2. 34. 237 (M. 37. 9624). The present passage links cleansing and sealing both with baptism and with the death ofChrist. It is appropriate that the Son who is S¢pnyis xwvpévn matpwios (Arc. 1. 31) should be closely linked with bestowing the seal of baptism.

90. N. P. Williams found difficulty with the length of the second syllable of vuxzi (The Ideas ofthe Falland ofOriginal Sin, 290 n. 1). But a long vowel in a dative singular is quite normal in Homer (cf. Monro, Homeric Grammar, § 373).

90b-96. The 'seal'ofChristian baptism.

91. agonyic: cf. Lampe, The Seal ofthe Spirit, 239-40.

@)£&ukdKovo: a word associated with the pagan gods Hermes and Zeus (e.g. Ar. Pax 422) is taken over for Christian use.

91-2. vyudyots ... ceEowetvouo: these contrasts have suggested that Greg. is here foreshadowing a form of Pelagianism. It must be admitted that the charge is here more difficult to ward off than any which might be implied by Arc. 7. 122 ff. (cf. n.). Itis difficult, however, to see how original sin could be dissociated from Greg.'s position. What has happened in Adam has clearly affected man, although, as we have seen, Greg. has no very clear notion of how this has happened. This passage may be taken as another facet of Greg.'s uncertainty. He does not think of adult baptism as superior; this he makes clear in or. 40. 29 (M. 36. 4ooc ff.). But he is, apparently, here pointing to the 'cure' ofactual sin committed by one who has reached maturity. This need not mean that there was nothing in the child's condition which called for cure. But certainly there is something more obvious done in the case of the adult. (Cf. N. P.

Williams, The Ideas of the Fall and of Original Sin, 289 ff, 345, 5525 Kelly, Doctrines, 349 ff.) Cf. also or. 40. 7 (M. 36. 3650).

93. qwtod6tao: the word glances at an ancient notion of baptism, enlightenment. Cf. Arc.

3. 44n., and Ysebaert, Greek Baptismal Terminology, 173 ff., Moreschini, 'Luce'.

Qedpovtos emphasizes again that the seal is the blood of Christ.

COMMENTARY ON ARC, 8. 93-9 Oppian in Hal. 5. 9 writes of Ad#po.o Geoppu7od in reference to the blood ofTitans.

94-5. Here we have imagery drawn from the baptismal ceremony, with its symbolic sense of plunging into the deep waters ofdistress and emerging unburdened to a new life.

There is probably a play on dwos/dxos, as there is in S. Tr. 1037.

97-9. As Keydell pointed out ('Lehrgedicht', 317-18), the anaphora provides a very fitting conclusion to the entire sequence of eight poems, though it is true that Greg. uses a similar device, with a line and a halfincommon, in carm. 2. 1. 13. g6-8 (M. 37. 12354), in the middle of a poem.

Baptism is one ofthe great common gifts to man. The same idea appears in expanded form in or. 40. 8 (M. 36. 368c f.). The notion that there are great 'common gifts' of Nature is found in Menander

740 (531). 7-8 tov dépa rév Kowdv and 416 (481). 4: row FAtov Tov xouwodv. Cf. 737 (611). Greg. refers to the idea in or. 32. 22 (M. 36.

2008 f.). In talking of it in or. 33.

9 (M. 36. 2258) he claims: dpyaiws éyw xai ¢iAoaddws. Is there perhaps in v. 98 a half-reminiscence of A. Pr. 10g1-2 cb wavrwy | atdijp rower ddos ciAicowv?

Kertsch (Bildersprache, 21-2), in a context referring to influences ofMaximusof Tyre, cites as parallels orr. 14. 25 (M. 35. 889), 19. 11

(1056c), and 4. 96 (62g), comparing also Clem. str. 3. 6(p. 216. 30 ff., M. 8. 1148c f.) He is quoting from Concerning Righteousness by the Gnostic Epiphanes, who is delightfully characterized by H. Chadwick as 'an intelligent but nasty-minded adolescent of somewhat pornographic tendencies' (LCC ii; Alexandrian Christianity, 25).

99. The poem closes with the transition from the natural order established by God to the means of salvation appointed within the order of history. oadPootov: would be a hapax. The form caduPporor is found in Procl. H. 7. 40.

↑ Back to top