SCOTUS ERIGENA, JOHN THE SCOT
Irish Theologian and NeoPlatonist Philosopher
c800-c880
Irish theologian and NeoPlatonist philosopher.
Translated and made commentaries upon Pseudo- Dionysius. The name Erigena
means the same as Scotus, ‘born in Ireland’. He is eulogised by Coulton as
‘coming out of the darkness like a meteor’, and by Russell as ‘the most
astonishing figure of the early Medieval period’.
Though a singular and enigmatic figure who stood outside
the mainstream, it is now widely accepted that John Scotus possessed the
finest and most original intellect of the early Middle Ages. He was highly
proficient in Greek, quite rare at that time in mainland Europe, and was
thus well-placed for translation work. Though born in Ireland he later
(c845) moved to France, where he took over the school, the Palatine
Academy, at the invitation of King Charles I (Charles the Bald, 823-77).
He remained in France for at least 30 years. At the request of the Greek
Emperor Michael (in c858) John undertook some translation into Latin of
the works of Pseudo- Dionysius and added his own commentary. He was thus
the first to introduce the ideas of NeoPlatonism from the Greek into the
Western European intellectual tradition, where they were to have a deeply
formative influence over Christian theology.
His frank, bold and free-thinking writing remained the
subject of controversy for centuries. It was filled with rationalistic
opinions and speculations, and was completely devoid of censorship or
deference to orthodox theology. His work ‘De divina praedestinationae’,
(On Divine Predestination) was written c851 to support Hincmar (c806-82)
in the Predestination debate with Gottschalk (c820-68). Many thought it
went too far, and was thus condemned by the Councils of Valence (855) and
Langres (859) as ‘pultes Scotorum’ (Irishman’s porridge) and ‘the
invention of the devil’.
His magnum opus ‘De divisione naturae’ (On The Division
of Nature), composed 865-870, fared better and was very influential. It
classified nature into 4 parts:
- that which creates but is not created:
God - that which creates and is created:
the Word or Logos - that which is created but does not create:
the sensible world - that which which does not create and nor is created:
God as supreme end.
Erigena regarded man as a microcosm of the wider
universe, because he has senses and reason to determine causes and
mechanisms. He also regarded man’s nature to be part divine and part
animal. Sin, he contended, was derived from the animal nature and the
divine in man was the means by which he would return, through grace, to
God. He was convinced of the necessity for rational explanation of the
universe and he tried to fuse reason with faith. He therefore attempted to
explain the relations between God and the created world in a rational
fashion. His ideas – derived largely from NeoPlatonists like Plotinus –
came close to pantheism, magic and, curiously, modern rationalism. He even
attempted to explain sin as misdirected will, claiming that as being and
knowing are the same, so it would follow that some sin must be inherent in
God’s knowledge. In this sense Erigena is typical of the comparative
freedom of speculation and freshness of vision and expression enjoyed by
the very early Churchmen. A condition which prevailed before dogma had
pushed its roots much deeper into the intellectual fabric of the Church.
Yet John’s basic position determined the tone of Christian thought for
centuries, being developed by all later thinkers, and being far more
influential than was ever officially acknowledged.
His work is largely based upon Augustine,
Pseudo-Dionysius and the Greek Fathers, and is blatantly NeoPlatonist. He
revived the transcendentalist standpoint of NeoPlatonism with its ‘graded
hierarchy’ approach. By going back to Plato, he revived the
Nominalist-Realist debate, which was eventually to translate into the
fundamental struggle between entrenched dogma and scientific rationalism,
and which came ultimately to undermine the power and authority of the
Church in more recent centuries.
The logical posture of Erigena was condemned in his day
for its pantheistic tendencies and thus to accessing God through direct
revelatory experience, rather than through the oppressive dogmas of Church
orthodoxy. In this sense he certainly foreshadows Bruno, St Teresa, St
John of the Cross and all later Christian mystics. In another sense, and
more distantly, he foreshadows the rich idealism of Berkeley, the German
idealists and the Romantics. And on the ‘other branch’ of philosophy he is
deeply influential in the Secret Traditions, with magicians, mystics and
Alchemists of all stripes, coming down to us through the Freemasons,
Rosicrucians and Theosophists. It is arguable that he is evident even in
the modern world in the romantic ideologies which underpin such movements
as Hippies, eco-activism, alternative medicine and so-called New Age
thought.
As he failed to submit his work for Papal approval, John
went out of favour, and through the Council of Sens in 1225 and by Pope
Gregory XIII in 1585, his works were condemned as heretical. In 1681 ‘De
divisione naturae’ was placed on the ‘Index of Forbidden Books’. Yet his
views were curiously rational and with his death serious, creative and
original philosophical investigation, which was truly independent of the
Church, came to an end for at least seven centuries.
Tradition has it that he finally returned to Britain
towards the end of his life to become Abbot of Malmesbury in southern
England, and was stabbed to death by his scholars with their pens for
‘trying to get them to think’. To what extent this story is entirely
apocryphal remains uncertain.
Sources:
Chambers Biographical Dictionary, 1996, Edinburgh
Coulton, GG, 1940, Studies in Medieval Thought, Nelson, London Colliers
Encyclopaedia, vol 9, 1983 Encyclopedia Americana, vol 10, 1980 Rogers,
Arthur Kenyon, 1960, A Student’s History of Philosophy, 3rd Edition,
Macmillan, New York Russell, Bertrand, 1960, A History of Western
Philosophy, Allen & Unwin, London