On the Ecclesiastical Mystogogy
ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς πάντα τῇ ἀπείρῳ δυνάμει ποιήσας καὶ εἰς τὸ εἶναι παραγαγὼν συνέχει καὶ συνάγει καὶ περιγράφει, καὶ ἀλλήλοις καὶ ἑαυτῷ προνοητικῶς ἐνδιασφίγγει τά τε νοητὰ καὶ τὰ αἰσθητά, καὶ περὶ ἑαυτὸν ὡς αἰτίαν καὶ ἀρχὴν καὶ τέλος πάντα περικρατῶν τὰ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν ἀλλήλων διεστηκότα, κατὰ μίαν τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν ὡς ἀρχὴν σχέσεως δύναμιν ἀλλήλοις συννενευκότα ποιεῖ, καθ’ ἣν εἰς ταυτότητα κινήσεώς τε καὶ ὑπάρξεως ἀδιάφθορον καὶ ἀσύγχυτον ἄγεται τὰ πάντα πρὸς οὐδὲν οὐδενὸς τῶν ὄντων προηγουμένως κατὰ φύσεως διαφορὰν ἢ κινήσεως στασιάζοντός τε καὶ διαιρουμένου, πάντων πᾶσι κατὰ τὴν μίαν τῆς μόνης ἀρχῆς καὶ αἰτίας ἀδιάλυτον σχέσιν τε καὶ φρουρὰν ἀφύρτως συμπεφυκότων, τὴν πάσας τε καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσι κατὰ τὴν ἑκάστου τῶν ὄντων φύσιν θεωρουμένας ἰδικὰς σχέσεις καταργοῦσάν τε καὶ ἐπικαλύπτουσαν, οὐ τῷ φθείρειν αὐτὰς καὶ ἀναιρεῖν καὶ μὴ εἶναι ποιεῖν, ἀλλὰ τῷ νικᾷν καὶ ὑπερφαίνεσθαι, ὥσπερ ὁλότης μερῶν ἢ καὶ αὐτῆς αἰτία τῆς ὁλότητος ἐπιφαινομένη, καθ’ ἣν ἥ τε ὁλότης αὐτὴ καὶ τὰ τῆς ὁλότητος μέρη φαίνεσθαί τε καὶ εἶναι πέφυκεν, ὡς ὅλην ἔχοντα τὴν αἰτίαν ἑαυτῶν ὑπερλάμπουσαν, καὶ ὥσπερ ἥλιος ὑπερφανεὶς ἀστέρων καὶ φύσιν καὶ δύναμιν, οὔτω τὴν αὐτῶν ὡς αἰτιατῶν αἰτίαν καλύπτουσαν ὕπαρξιν.
My translation
For just as God, in making all things and bringing them into being by his limitless power, sustains them, draws them together, and circumscribes them, he also providentially binds to himself and to each other both the sensible and the intelligible. By holding all things around himself as their cause, beginning, and end, he renders what by nature stands divergent from one another convergent by the power of their relationship to him. By which power all things are brought into an uncorrupted and unconfused identity of motion and subsistence referenced to absolutely no being that is originally by some difference of nature or motion discordant and divided (since all things have been united to all other things without confusion by the oneindissoluble relationship and protection of the only beginning and cause). This relationship then nullifies and covers over all specific relationships considered according to the nature of each extant thing, not by corrupting and annihilating them and making them not to be, but by surpassing and outshining them. Just as when a totality of parts appears or rather the cause of that totality, according to which both the totality itself and its parts by nature both appear and exist (since the parts possess the whole cause which outshines themselves), and just as the sun outshines the stars in nature and power; in these ways this relationship covers the substance of things as a cause does its effects.
Jonathon Armstrong’s translation
For as God made all things by his infinite power and brought them into existence, so now he sustains them and draws them together and defines their limits, and he providentially binds the intelligible and the sensible things to one another and to himself. And, because he possesses full command of everything around him as their cause, beginning, and end, he makes the things that have been set apart from one another by nature to be the things that have converged with one another by the power of their relationship with him as their beginning. And it is by this power that all things are led to an identity of movement and existence that is indistinguishable and without confusion; all things are led to absolutely nothing that is originally and according to a difference of nature and motion discordant and divided from the things that are. All things have been united with all things without confusion according to the one, irreducible relationship and protection of the only beginning and cause. This relationship nullifies and covers over all individual relationships that are contemplated according to the nature of the things that are, not because it corrupts and destroys them and causes them not to be, but because it surpasses and outshines them, just as the totality comes into view rather than the parts of the totality and the cause of the totality itself comes into view rather than the totality. And it is by this relationship that the totality itself and the parts of the totality shine and by nature are, because the parts possess the whole cause, which shines more brilliantly than themselves.
Analysis of Armstrong’s translation
“And, because he possess full command of everything around him as their cause, beginning, and end, he makes the things that have been set apart from one another by nature to be the things that have converged with one another by the power of their relationship with him as their beginning.”
- An inelegant translation. I’m not convinced that περικρατέω should be translated with so strict a fidelity to LSJ (which has “have full command” as its primary definition). I rather wonder if Maximus had in mind a meaning more like that of the Apocalypse (2:1): a meaning rather of holding than of controlling. περικρατέω would then have a sense of holding things around oneself. This would, I think, make better sense of περὶ ἑαυτόν as an adverb, rather than an adjectival phrase qualifying πάντα. The doubling of περί in my reading finds ready account in the quite common doubling of prepositions in the case of compound verbs, where the radical sense of the compound is preserved. I believe this reading to be supported by the fact that Maximus directly compares God to the center of a circle not much later on. See also ἐπὶ πᾶσι … ἐπικαλύπτουσαν later.
- The use of the past perfect in translating the participles in this passage is superfluous and reads like the working translation of a Greek student. A better translation would be “what by nature stands divergent from one another he renders convergent by the power of their relationship to him.”
- My suggested translation runs thus: “And, because he holds all things around himself as their cause, beginning, and end, he renders what by nature stands divergent from one another convergent by the power of their relationship to him.”
“And it is by this power that all things are led to an identity of movement and existence that is indistinguishable and without confusion; all things are led to absolutely nothing that is originally and according to a difference of nature and motion discordant and divided from the things that are. All things have been united with all things without confusion according to the one, irreducible relationship and protection of the only beginning and cause.”
- I have no idea why Jonathon Armstrong chose to translate ἀδιάφθορος with “indistinguishable,” I can only assume that this was a typo missed in editing, because the Greek word should have been translated “indestructible,” or “uncorrupted.” In fact, that each individual nature is united yet distinguishable is Maximus’ point here (as evidenced by his use of the phrase “without confusion”).
“This relationship nullifies and covers over all individual relationships that are contemplated according to the nature of the things that are, not because it corrupts and destroys them and causes them not to be, but because it surpasses and outshines them, just as the totality comes into view rather than the parts of the totality and the cause of the totality itself comes into view rather than the totality. And it is by this relationship that the totality itself and the parts of the totality shine and by nature are, because the parts possess the whole cause, which shines more brilliantly than themselves.”
- I think Armstrong badly misreads Maximus’ extended similes. I take this passage to be comprised of two comparisons—each beginning with ὥσπερ, and a single principle clause beginning with οὕτω (see Smyth 2463). See also the ὥσπερ … οὕτω construction of the next sentence.
- Armstrong takes καθ’ ἥν to be referring to the relationship of all things to God (unless by unhappy univocation the “relationship” he is referring to here is that of a whole to its cause), but it must be referring to the cause of the totality; such an extended reference really would stretch reason. The clause in which the relative pronoun appears has a totally different subject, and the relationship between the totality and its cause is an obvious one. I take this clause to read “just as when a totality of parts appears or rather the cause of that totality, according to which both the totality itself and its parts by nature both appear and exist (since the parts possess the whole cause which outshines themselves), and just as the sun outshines the stars in nature and power; in these ways this relationship covers the substance of things as a cause does its effects.”
- That the final clause of this very complex sentence has in view the relationship of all things to God and not the shining countenance of the sun I think makes better sense of its gender and case. Additionally, in my reading, the final clause here would also be the principle one in this extended comparison, which I think makes it more likely to hold a stronger reference to a past idea.
I lack serious formal education and I’ll probably never get it. Because of this, I do not have access to resources or peer review. As such, the only way for me to get past my crippling imposter complex is to acknowledge this and plead for your help (and make sure I never commit a spelling error). Therefore, if you, dear reader, come across something in my writing objectionable, questionable, or downright wrong, I hereby place you under MORAL OBLIGATION TO CORRECT ME. I beg of you, get in touch via the link below.
