Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
In Genesis, Adam sleeps, and the Creator removes a rib to form Eve.
Commenting on this text, Eriugena links sexual difference, sin and
creation in new and striking ways. The sleeping Adam turns his attention from God to the love of a carnal spouse. Since in Genesis Eve
does not yet exist, his fantasy leads to her creation and thereby
splits human nature into male and female, and adds the sexual, mortal body to humanitys original status as imago Dei. Sexual division
also marks the pivotal point in Periphyseons dialectic of procession
and return. Following Maximus the Confessor, John identifies sexual
division as the final stage of natures division. And its overcoming in
the resurrected Christ in whom there is neither male nor female
(Gal. 3 :28) begins the return to divine unity. This article analyzes
Periphyseons dialectic in terms of sexual division. It first examines
Eriugenas commentary on the sleep of Adam and the making of Eve,
and how it differs from his sources. It then considers three issues : this
commentarys place within Johns exegetical program ; the role of sin
and sexual division within Periphyseons account of creation ; and the
controversies surrounding Eriugenas views of sexual difference that
emerged within Periphyseon and figured in its condemnation.
The story is familiar. Adam sleeps, and the woman who will be
named Eve is made. Both of these scenes appear in a remarkable
mosaic from the Creation cupola of San Marco in Venice. [Fig. 1]
On the left, Adam reclines on a grapevine with his right hand supporting his head, as the cross-nimbed, beardless Creator removes
a rib from his left side. On the right, the making of the woman
is nearly complete, as the Creator grips her wrist and molds her
Proceedings of the International Conference on Eriugenian Studies in honor of E. Jeauneau, ed. by W. Otten, M. I. Allen, IPM, 68 (Turnhout, 2014), pp. 235-261.
DOI 10.1484/M.IPM-EB.1.102063
236
donald f. duclow
right shoulder.1 This image is among the few from the Middle
Ages that follow Genesis in separating the two scenes of Adams
sleep and the creation of Eve.2 I begin with this image because
Eriugena too distinguishes these scenes in his commentary on
the Genesis narrative, and focuses on the sleep of Adam as initiating the making of Eve. Johns detailed exegesis of the two
scenes links sexual difference, sin and creation in new and strik1 On this mosaic, see Kurt Weitzmann and Herbert Kessler, The Cotton
Genesis : British Library Codex Cotton Otho B. VI (Princeton : Princeton University Press, 1986), 54 ; and Penny Howell Jolly, Made in Gods Image ? : Eve
and Adam in the Genesis Mosaics at San Marco, Venice (Berkeley : University of
California Press, 1997), 30-41.
2 The thirteenth-century mosaics of the creation cupola are based on the
Cotton Genesis, an early Christian illuminated manuscript. See Weitzmann
and Kessler, Cotton Genesis, 18-20. They further note that A distinctive feature of the CG family is the depiction of Eves creation in two phases (p. 54).
Medieval iconography usually conflates the two scenes into one, as in the top
image of Fig. 2.
237
ing ways. Humanitys division into male and female also marks
a key moment in Periphyseons dialectic of creation. Following
Maximus the Confessor, John identifies this division as the final
stage of natures division. And its overcoming in the resurrected
Christ in whom there is neither male nor female3 begins the
return to divine unity. Sexual difference thus becomes the pivotal
point for Periphyseons dialectic of procession and return. Here
I propose to analyze this dialectic in terms of sexual division, and
to do so I shall take the view from below indeed, from the last
and lowest vantage point available to us. I shall begin by looking
at Eriugenas commentary on the sleep of Adam and the making
of Eve, and then consider three broad issues : first, this commentarys place within Johns exegetical program ; second, the role of
sin and sexual division within Periphyseons account of creation ;
and finally, the controversies surrounding Eriugenas views of sexual difference that emerged within Periphyseon itself and figured
in its condemnation in the thirteenth century.
Genesis and Gendering Humanity
Before exploring Johns exegesis, let us review the two accounts
of creating humanity in the book of Genesis. In chapter 1, on the
sixth day God creates man in his image and likeness. Although
God here creates humanity male and female, we must turn to the
account in chapter 2 for details. God forms man from clay of the
earth, breathes life into his face, and places him in paradise. Saying that it is not good for man to be alone, the Lord makes the
beasts of the earth and birds, which Adam names as they parade
before him, yet none of them provides him a helper like himself. So God tries again, casts a deep sleep upon Adam, takes
one of his ribs, and forms it into a woman. [Figs. 1 & 2] Adam is
delighted with his new companion, whom he declares to be bone
of my bones and flesh of my flesh. But of course, things quickly go
wrong with the serpent, eating the forbidden fruit, and eviction
238
donald f. duclow
Figure 2. Creation of Eve & birth of the Church. Bible moralise, French,
thirteenth century. The Bodleian Libraries, The University of Oxford,
Bodl. 270b, f. 6r, detail.
239
4 Periphyseon IV, 845B-C, my emphasis, CCCM 164 : 147 : Cur te dormiente (hoc est mentis contuitum a contemplatione ueritatis in amorem carnalis coniugii coniuente) costam de latere suo traxit, de qua mulierem fecit,
quam tibi peccanti seque deserenti dedit ? Cur non eodem modo, quo te fecit,
mulierem quam tibi daret fecerit ? Tu ipse de terreno limo merito, qui caelestia deserens terrena eligisti, factus es.
5 Periphyseon II, 582C, CCCM 162 : 77.
6 See also Periphyseon IV, 835D, CCCM 164 : 134, where the Teacher
describes Adams trance as carnalis copulae appetitus.
240
donald f. duclow
241
Although ventriloquizing Gods voice, the Teachers very language tumbles and spins, suggesting the instability and intensity
of sexual desire. Foreseeing Adams sleepy desires and fantasies,
God grants him his wish. Sexual difference splits human nature in
two,9 and Adams claim that God gave him the woman to multiply the species becomes true. The Teacher finds this point anticipated in Genesis first chapter when it says, Male and female he
created them, vessels, that is, for carnal procreation of offspring,
since the dignity of the spiritual propagation and of the Divine
Image is now despised.10
Eriugena supports this view in his earlier allegorical reading
of the making of Eve (Gn. 2 : 21-22). In the removal of Adams
rib, he sees the tearing (scissura) of his nature into two sexes,
and the removal of his guardianship of the universal inner virtue which was within him before he had sinned.11 Similarly, the
flesh which the Creator puts in place of the rib signifies a devastating exchange of the guardianship of virtue and blessedness...
for the deadly folly of vice and wretchedness. Echoing Paul and
Augustine, John sees here a prophetic prefiguring of Christ and
the Church. Specifically, Adams sleep and the making of Eve
parallel Christs death and the birth of the Church.12 As Christ is
the new Adam, the Church becomes the new Eve. This parallel
had a long history, as we can see in the thirteenth-century Bible
moralise, which places Eves creation above a crowned Ecclesia
emerging from the wound in the crucified Christs side [Fig. 2].13
Eriugena stands within this tradition when he describes Adam as
G.-H. Allard (Montreal /Paris : Bellarmin / J. Vrin, 1986), 15-17 ; reprinted in
Jeauneau, tudes rigniennes (Paris : tudes augustiniennes, 1987), 326-327.
9 See Periphyseon IV, 817D, CCCM 164 : 108.
10 Periphyseon IV, 846C, CCCM 164 : 149.
11 Periphyseon IV, 836B-C, translation modified, CCCM 164 : 134-5.
12 Periphyseon IV, 836D, CCCM 164 : 135, citing Augustine, In Iohannis
evangelium tractatus IX, xx, 33-36 (CCSL 36 : 96).
13 The top image combines both scenes from Genesis 2, as the Creators
right hand holds Adams rib while his left grips the emerging Eves wrist.
Similarly, the image below retains details of the crucifixion the sun and
moon above the cross, and Mary and John mourning on the right as the
Creator receives the Church from Christs wound. See A. Laborde, La Bible
moralise illuststre, conserve Oxford, Paris, et Londres (Paris : Pour les membres de la Socit, 1911-1927), vol. 1, fol. 6r ; and Gertrud Schiller, Ikonogra-
242
donald f. duclow
phie der christlichen Kunst (Gtersloh : G. Mohr, 1976), vol. 4, pt. 1, 89-92 &
plates 217-220.
14 Periphyseon IV, 836D-837A, CCCM 164 : 135-6 ; see Periphyseon II, 584A,
CCCM 162 : 79, and Periphyseon IV, 818C, CCCM 164 : 109-10, where John
cites Origen, In Genesim (PG 12, 101A) and Epiphanius, Ancoratus 62 (PG 43,
128-129), and mistakenly claims that Almost all authors, Greek and Latin,
follow Origen. In La tradition de lallgorie de Philon dAlexandrie Dante
(Paris : Etudes augustiniennes, 1987), vol. II, pp. 158-159, Jean Ppin says
that Eriugena finds Origens gloss in Epiphanius ; tracing the gloss to Philo
and gnostic sources, he suggests that although Origens critics often attribute
the gloss to him, he actually discusses it avec les plus grandes rserves.
243
Hence, not only were Adam and Eve in paradise for no time at
all, but their creation in all its facets in Gods image and as
earthly, sexual beings occurred all at once. For within Gods
foreknowledge, at the same time [simul] as He created man,
He created the consequences of sin even before he had sinned.17
Indeed, the term fore-knowledge is a misnomer, since it suggests
the human perspective of looking toward the future, rather than
holding everything in a simple, eternal present.18
Eriugenas discussion of creation and Paradise also differs from
contemporary Bible scholarship on another, more specific score :
the feminist struggle against interpretations reflecting biases
against women. In her influential commentary, Phyllis Trible considers it a sexist mistake to speak of creating man in Genesis.
For in Genesis 2, the Lord simply forms an earth-creature (hdm) out of dust, and sexual differentiation first occurs when
Eve is made from Adams rib. Only with the making of the woman
15
244
donald f. duclow
does Adam become male.19 This reading could fit within Eriugenas scheme, if he too considered human nature sexless until Eves
creation. But he tells a different story. Earlier in Book IV, he
notes that his favorite sources Ambrose and the Greek Fathers
distinguish two creations of man in Genesis. The first highlights
sexless human nature as created in the Image of God, in which
there is neither male nor female but only universal and indivisible
humanity most like the angelic nature. So far, so good. But the
second creation, added as a result of the foreknowledge of the Fall
of the rational nature, makes Adam indisputably male. For this
creation, from the clay of the earth, occurs outside Paradise and
adds the male sex to the nature created in the Image of God.20
Similarly, at San Marco the Creator shapes a male Adam, whose
masculinity is on full display when he receives his soul and enters
Paradise [Fig. 3].21 Thus, for Eriugena, it is a male Adam who is
placed in Paradise where the second sex, called by the name of
woman, and drawn from the side of the first, is added to it as an
assistant in the procreation of offspring.22 Familiar sexual politics follow. In line with his broader exegesis of the paradise narrative, Eriugena insists that Adams creation as male has priority
not in time, but in honor and rank. Therefore, he concludes that
the man, although made outside Paradise (that is, outside the
dignity of his primordial creation), is better than the woman who
was created, as it were, within Paradise (that is, after the union
that added sex to the simplicity of the divine image).23 Priority
thus confers on men a superior, ruling position, and on women a
secondary and submissive one. Disappointing as this patriarchal
245
246
donald f. duclow
26
247
248
donald f. duclow
249
250
donald f. duclow
sis says that God formed the human body from clay, John considers it reasonable that the action of the creature should be referred
to Him from whom every natural action originates.41 To support
this claim, he appeals to the celestial and ecclesiastical hierarchies, where God acts through angels and bishops. More basically,
he finds it no surprise that the first man, once he turned from the
spiritual body created by God, should create for himself from
the clay of the earth a fragile and mortal habitation on the advice
of Divine Providence.42 In addition, Periphyseon offers systematic
reasons for extending human creativity to its own mortal flesh.
For dwelling among the primordial causes, humanity too creates
and is created. This creativity displays Gods image in the trinity created in our nature namely, intellect, reason and interior sense. Yet precisely as a created image, human nature does
not create out of nothing, but rather arranges existing realities
in a novel way, by assembling incorporeal qualities into a mortal
body.43 Hence, Eriugena includes the qualifying term as though /
veluti in describing this creating. He adds that this making and
ongoing care of the mortal body mirror Gods providential care
for all creation.44
As we have seen, the corruptible body begins as male, and
divides into the two sexes. This division takes on cosmic importance in Johns discussion of Maximus the Confessor, his second
Greek authority for linking sin and human sexual difference. Book
II of Periphyseon includes a long commentary on Maximus cosmic
scheme of five divisions : first, uncreated and created nature ; second, creations division into the intelligible and sensible ; third, the
sensible realms distinction into heaven and earth ; fourth, earths
separation between paradise and the inhabited world ; and fifth,
the division of humanity into male and female.45 This last division
41
Periphyseon II, 582C-D, CCCM 162 : 78. Other texts assert that God creates both bodies ; see Periphyseon IV, 802A, CCCM 164 : 85.
42 Periphyseon II, 583B, emphasis added, CCCM 162 : 79 : fragile atque mortale de luto terrae sibimet habitaculum crearet diuina prouidentia admonitus.
43 Periphyseon II, 580B, CCCM 162 : 74. Concerning the mechanics of this
making, see Periphyseon II, 581B-C, CCCM 162 : 75-6.
44 Periphyseon II, 581C-582A, CCCM 162 : 76.
45 Periphyseon II, 530A-C, CCCM 162 : 9-10 ; and Eriugenas translation of
Maximus the Confessor, Ambigua 37, CCSG 18 : 180 ; translated as Difficulty
251
252
donald f. duclow
of other circumstances of this sort of their birth and breeding. Of
the diversity of manners and opinions it is superfluous to speak
for it is obvious to all that these took their origin from the division of nature after sin.49
253
254
donald f. duclow
a kind of ineffable teaching and incomprehensible mercy, so that
man, who, by the judgement of his free will, had refused to maintain himself in the status of his nature, might, having learnt from
his punishments, seek the grace of his Creator, and by becoming
through it obedient to the Divine Laws.... might return to his
first state. 58
255
256
donald f. duclow
65
257
68
258
donald f. duclow
73
259
77
260
donald f. duclow
Conclusion
Now that we have completed our pornographic tour of Periphyseon, it is perhaps surprising to find sex so central to Eriugenas
project. But when Adam sleeps, interesting things begin to happen. His dreamy desire disrupts the dialectic of natures division,
inscribes sin into creation, and requires compensating moves by
both God and humanity. Thanks to divine foresight and human
creativity, Eve comes into being, and humanity takes on a sexual and mortal body. Further consequences follow : Natures third
division extends into the sensible world, and cosmic dialectic
becomes sacred history centered on human dreams, desires, willing and knowing. As this story unfolds, it moves towards a conclusion that will complete natures dialectic by leading all things
into the divine nature that neither creates nor is created. As anticipated in the risen Christ, humanitys resurrection will complete
this transition, when sexual difference will disappear as humanity attains the paradise intended in its original creation. Hence,
while Adams sleep initiates human sexuality and the animal
body, the resurrection marks their erasure and the fulfillment of
human nature.81
By weaving together exegesis, the Neoplatonic dialectic of
natures divisions, and sacred history, Eriugena develops this powerful new account of sin, sex, creation and resurrection. This is
among the stranger things in Periphyseon, and leads us to read the
work from a different angle. For we observe John not only drastically refashioning the Genesis narrative, but also skewing natures
very dialectic to accommodate his novel vision of human sexualitys origins and ultimate overcoming. We have seen how controversial his revisionist project has been. Indeed, Eriugena invited
controversy by pointedly rejecting Augustines authoritative views
on the sexual and mortal body. Nor did his frequent appeals to
Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus and Ambrose do much to quiet the
furor. Already in Periphyseon the Student expresses his alarm, and
later sympathetic readers like Honorius and Cusanus distanced
261
themselves from Johns views on sexual difference. The controversies came to a head in the thirteenth century, when Eriugenas
account of sexuality seems to have figured in the condemnations
of both Periphyseon and Amalric of Bne. Not for the first or last
time, sex became a burning issue.