PERIPHYSEON

doctrine to be preached to the masses (exoteric), and another, often contradictory, to be held by the initiated (esoteric). Eriugena asserts that those who hold incorrect views on such topics as predestination do so because of their ignorance of liberal studies.

Hincmar, at whose invitation Eriugena had written the de praedestinatione, was embarrassed by the work and avoided any acknowledgment of it. Others, however, condemned it outright and accused Eriugena of vanity and reliance on mere dialectics. Nevertheless, Eriugena appears to have won favor—or further favor—in the eyes of Charles the Bald, for he was now invited to translate from the Greek the works of one known as the Pseudo-Dionysius, or Dionysius the Areopagite. This author was said to have been the disciple of St. Paul, the first of the Fathers of the Church, the first bishop of Paris, and the protector of the royal abbey of St. Denis. The Pseudo-Dionysius was, in fact, an author dependent on the doctrine of Proclus (410–485), who wrote around the first quarter of the sixth century; he was probably a Syrian lightly influenced by monophysitism original: "monophysitism" — the belief that Christ has only one nature..

His works are The Divine Names, Mystical Theology, The Heavenly Hierarchy, The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and Letters. The doctrine of these works affected Eriugena profoundly. We can mention two of the most important points here: apophatic theology (the superiority of negation over affirmation when speaking of God), and the Neoplatonic interpretation of all things as a descent from the One followed by an ascent to Him (a procession and a return)—something he may have already learned from Martianus Capella. The translation of the Pseudo-Dionysius led Eriugena to translate the Ambigua ad Iohannem and the Quaestiones ad Thalassium by Maximus the Confessor, for Maximus explained many of the more obscure passages of the Pseudo-Dionysius. Maximus was born about 580 near Tiberias. The influence of Maximus on Eriugena was even more profound; one of the salient points is that we know indeed that God is, but we do not know at all what He is. Maximus led Eriugena in due course to Gregory of Nyssa, born in Cappadocia about 331, whose de hominis opificio (On the Creation of Man) he also translated. From Gregory, he received the doctrine that matter was a confluence of invisible realities, and the doctrine of man as an image of God. It is fair to say that although he continued to regard Augustine as the main source of his doctrine, from the time of his translating these three Greek authors, Eriugena looked more to them for the inspiration of his thought. In due course, his own great original work, the Periphyseon, was deeply marked by them.

To the Periphyseon we now come. This work takes the form of a catechetical dialogue in which a “Nutritor” (Nourisher) and “Alumnus” (Pupil)—effectively “Master” and “Disciple” (terms used in some later manuscripts and some modern editions)—discuss the doctrine to be imparted. The Disciple is a mere foil to the Master, who expounds almost everything. It is divided into five “books.”