Print this article

SOMI R K T . N T BOOKS
131
‘Misspellings in legends’ (which indicate p ronunciation, and the knowledge
o f Latin in G reek areas), ‘N im bus’, ‘O fficin a’, ‘P ro p a g a n d a ’, ‘Q uinqenn alia’, ‘Scripulum ’, ‘S erp en t’ (also om itted from types index), ‘Sym bols’,
‘T ricennalia’, ‘V o ta’.
There is no glossary, no bibliography, no references to other discussions.
So readers cannot judge if prim a fa cie w rong statem ents arise from reject­
ing recent research (e.g. p .30, the first w ar between C onstantine and
Licinius in 314, not the correct 316-317), or from know ledge o f it (e.g. p .88,
the last western em peror in 480, not the trad itio n al 476), or from sheer
carelessness (e.g. p .84, V alentinian I l l ’s vicennalia dated to 425, his first
year).
Only British M useum coins are included (though this is now here explicitly
stated) so there is no picture o f the rare and im p o rtan t coins showing C on­
stantine I with the C hristogram on his helm et, nor any reference to them .
The 516 coins included are all illustrated at life size, in black and white, in
general very well, but several illustrations are too dark for details to be
clear, and the coin descriptions contain too m any m istakes to be taken on
trust.
F or ordinary readers and general libraries, Roman Coins by J .P .C . Kent,
illustrated by M. and A. H irm er, is m uch m ore useful, attractive and cheap;
for specialist num ism atists, C a rso n ’s w ork is neither a substitute nor a
useful supplem ent to the volumes o f the Rom an Im perial Coinage, despite
their inadequacies; it will be o f som e use for the period 337-364 until volume
VIII o f Roman Im perial Coinage at last appears.
C .T .H .R . Ehrhardt
A ndrew L outh: The Origins o f the Christian M ystical Tradition: From
P lato to Denys. Pp.xvii + 215. O xford, C larendon Press, 1981. NZ$44.50.
G row ing out o f a series o f lectures delivered to the Faculty o f Theology of
the U niversity o f O xford and progressively revised thereafter, Dr L outh
presents us with a work o f unusual quality. In a field in which there is much
disagreem ent ab o u t even first principles, the au th o r proceeds with m odesty
and careful scholarship. The whole is infused with a note o f heart-felt com ­
m itm ent which lifts the work above academ ic pedantry on to a plane o f high
seriousness. If there is a fault it is that the a u th o r is m ore at hom e with the
theologians than with the philosophers—but o f this m ore hereafter.
C om m encing with P lato (nothing on A ristotle) traversing Philo,
Plotinus, the Greek Fathers, Denys and A ugustine, with a glimpse forw ard
132
S O M E ΚΙ ( I N I BOOKS
to St. Jo h n o f the C ross, the book term inates with a welcome chapter on the
mystical life and the C hurch. T here is a useful bibliography. (Surprisingly,
K irk’s Vision o f G od is not m entioned).
Dr L outh has em barked on a brave venture. For what is mysticism? The
term is perplexed with m any m eanings. Should mysticism be entertained in
C hristian theology? The question is m uch disputed. At first sight the answer
is in the negative. Between the C hristian endeavour o f hum bly doing G o d ’s
will and the presum ption o f the proud to mystical enlightenm ent there is a
great gulf fixed. Does not St. Paul exalt charity and w arn us against the
knowledge which p uffeth up?
T hus N ygren and Festugiere both regard m ysticism, if it m eans the quest
for union o f the m ind with G od, as an alien intrusion into the C hristian
order, som ething that detracts from the active life in the world inspired by
agape wherein is true spirituality. H ow then are we to regard the Fathers
who were m uch given to m ystical discourses? Festugiere is uncom prom is­
ing: the adm ission o f mysticism by the A lexandrian school and those influ­
enced by them was a peril if not a disaster for C hristian theology, a
deplorable invasion o f C hristian doctrine by H ellenistic philosophy. Cle­
ment and O rigen, G regory o f Nyssa, Denys, A ugustine and Gregory the
G reat all com e under Festugiere’s rebuke (L ’Enfant, p. 141). Danielou on
the other hand is m ore conciliatory. H e endeavours to save the reputation
o f the G reek F athers by m aintaining th at the sim ilarity to the philosophers
is merely linguistic; the F athers use the mystical term s o f Hellenistic
philosophy but with radically different m eanings.
L outh accepts the condem nation o f pagan m ysticism, and indeed adds to
it in an inform ative chapter ‘T he M onastic C o n trib u tio n ’ in which he draws
attention to the anti-m ystical character o f the life o f prayer: ‘An insistence
that m an is utterly rem ote from G od, and in this w orld m ust live a life of
repentance and ceaseless struggle against the pow ers o f evil’ (p.98). In the
final chapter he endorses and extends D anielou’s solution: the Fathers never
were mystics in the pagan sense. Festugiere was misled by a mere verbal
sim ilarity. L outh writes: ‘T he F ath ers’ em phasis on grace in their mysticism
is derived from their experience o f the love o f the Incarnate C hrist. For the
P latonist mysticism is about the so u l’s w ithdraw al and ascent; for the C hris­
tian it is ab o u t the so u l’s response to G o d ’s descent and condescension in
the In c a rn a tio n ’ (pp. 196-7).
A sserting th at for the P lato n ist m oral virtues are essentially purificatory,
but for C hristian theology they are the fruits o f the spirit and evidences of
the indwelling o f C hrist in the soul o f the C hristian (p. 198), L outh resumes
the m atter in a succinct phrase: ‘It is participation, not m oral im itation,
which stands at the centre o f the New T estam en t’ (p. 199). (So the 18th C en­
tury Scots P o p u lars were right after all in their protest against the
S O M E RI C'ENT HOOKS
133
M oderates’ ‘cold clatter o f m orality ’!)
From participation L outh draw s the conclusion that genuine mystical
theology is essentially ecclesiastical; w hat counts is not the isolated indiv­
idual but the m ystical body which is the C hurch, and with the C hurch the
sacram ents. T he critics had m ade a false dichotom y between contem plation
and the active life o f agape. W hen contem plation is p articipatory it flows
out into the active life. T here is no dualism . (A nother way o f putting
this— not L o u th ’s— is th at extrinsic im itation is egocentric, intrinsic par­
ticipation is filial. It is egocentricity th at creates all the difficulties about
mystical theology.) T he last chapter o f L o u th ’s book in which these m atters
are set in order is o f o u tstanding m erit.
Having paid trib u te to the w ork, perhaps some interrogatories on p ar­
ticular m atters will not be unseemly.
There is the question o f creatio ex nihilo. On p.xiv, reiterated p p .75, 197
et al., it is argued that C hristian and P latonic mysticism are separated
decisively by the affirm atio n in C hristian doctrine o f creatio ex nihilo. This
principle, L outh avers, rules out P latonic notions o f the soul’s essential kin­
ship with the divine and puts the stress on divine condescension. The point
which L outh m akes is often encountered. But is it valid? C ould it not be
argued on the contrary that the presence o f uncreated m atter rules out
essential kinship, while creatio ex nihilo perm its kinship?—as indeed is
expressed in the imago dei, and by the Psalm ist (100) ‘Know th at the Lord is
God! It is he that m ade us and we are h is.’ P erhaps this question would be
resolved if we were given a m ore precise definition o f the term ‘kinship’.
On p. 197 it is asserted th at the them e o f the Divine D arkness is w ithout
parallel in Platonism . W hat then o f the ‘darkness at n o o nday’ o f Laws x 897?
(cf. A ristotle’s owls in the m idday sun).
We w onder if C h .l, on P lato , strikes an entirely happy note. (Likewise
the sum m ary p. 193 sq.) T he treatm ent follows the conventional lines: Plato
as a dichotom ous and other-w orldly sage, a kind o f gnostic seeking to
escape from the w orld to som e fantastic Sick H eart River. This rendering o f
P la to ’s theoria satisfied the generality o f 19th century com m entators, and
still lingers with Festugiere. Yet surely it is a one-sided and perverse render­
ing, with the ill consequence to boot o f creating o pposition between Greek
wisdom and the C hristian Evangel. If we read P lato in a com m on sense
way, m aking pro p er allow ance for his d ram atic hyperboles (specially
extravagant in the Phaedo on which L outh draw s heavily), we get quite a
different picture: th at o f one appalled at the sordid level o f the average o f
hum an lives and hum an affairs, who saw that steady com m union with the
great realities is needed, not to remove us out o f this w orld, but to redeem
the world (the Cave is o u r proper hom e), to m ake us m ore truly hum an in
the w orld—andreike/on, not theoeikelon (Rep. 501b). P lato so understood
134
S O M E R E C E N T BOOKS
is indeed a precursor o f C hristianity, but not in a m ystical sense, rather as
one w aiting for the Gospel.
As to L o u th ’s assertion th at to the P latonist m oral virtues are only for
purification, to facilitate the separation o f the soul from the body: this is
clean contrary to P la to ’s earnest assertions. H oliness is holy, the Just is
ju st, et al. The virtues are with us to the end; they grow in em inence as we
progress; indeed they are handed dow n to us from the U ltim ate.
As regards particip atio n versus m oral im itation: P lato is no stranger to
the m atter, n o r to the conviction that the only m imesis w orth having is that
which proceeds from methexis. M ere extrinsic im itation such as practised by
Gyges before his fall is a sham . A nd indeed w hat is the whole sophistic doc­
trine o f m orality b u t system atised im itation w ithout participation? C on­
versely, the pretence to participation w ithout im itation is the way to
fanaticism (The m odern politicising o f religion is a case in point). P lato was
wise in joining im itation and participation. A ccordingly while L outh is right
in putting participation first he w ould seem to be unwise in setting participa­
tion at odds with im itation. Leading a Christ-like life is inseparable from
the particip ato ry liturgy and sacram ents.
T h ro u g h o u t L outh confuses the issues by talking o f ‘P lato n ism ’ w ithout
sufficiently distinguishing P lato from the neo-Platonists. W hen he
castigates ‘P la to n ism ’ w hat he says m ay be tru e o f Plotinus but it is wide of
the m ark as regards P la to ’s theoria.
Lastly in this catalogue o f queries is L o u th ’s total neglect o f A ristotle. In
the Stagirite the fires o f m issionary fervour were well banked back. He
prunes aw ay P la to ’s extravagant im agery, som etim es with an unnecessarily
heavy hand. T he result is Greek wisdom in P u ritan dress. A chapter on
A risto tle’s theoria m ight have led L outh to a m ore judicious appraisal of
the philosophy/evangel situation.
These points o f dissent am ount to saying th at the au th o r has not drawn
from philosophy the fullness o f support and discipline which philosophical
reflection is capable o f rendering to theology, and in neglect o f which
theology itself cannot rise to its full height. The handm aiden has been will­
ing, but her hum ble offerings have not found favour.
How ever, let not this tendency to underrate the gifts o f nature obscure
the real w orth o f these lectures. W hat the a u th o r has given us is a m ajor
contribution to the field.
Gavin A rdley