Many thanks Jordan for your translating endeavours. This is a magnificent Letter. I love the beginning of 2.10: "For the sake of love, the very maker of nature—such an act and even its utterance truly makes one tremble!—clothes himself with our own nature, uniting it to himself immutably and hypostatically, so that he might firmly establish what is prone to being carried away and join it to himself, which then reintegrates our nature into itself such that it possesses nothing in its dispositive judgment which differs from God or from itself."
If I were to pose a question of grammar without making any other considered or useful or non-pedant comment, I would ask: do we say 'our longing for he who molded it' rather than 'for him who molded it'?
Hi Jordan! I'm curious what you think of Blowers' claim that Maximus may very well be channeling Gregory of Nyssa's argument against slavery from his homilies on Ecclesiastes here.
You translated the bit about Abraham as, "no longer regarding another human being as other to himself." Blowers translates it as "no longer (μηκέτι) ruling (ἡγούμενος) another human being different from himself." I think Blowers may very well be right in this regard, especially since Maximus uses the language of "dividing" right before the line about Abraham "ruling another human being" above, which is what Gregory says we do by enslavement: Δουλείᾳ καταδιχάζεις τὸν ἄνθρωπον, οῦ ὲλευθέρα ἡ φήσις καὶ αὺτεξούσιος. Maximus' words for division are different (μεμερισμένων and μεριστῶν), but I can't unsee the connection now that Blowers pointed it out, and I think one can expand on what Blowers has already laid down (near the beginning of Blowers' OUP chapter on Maximus, "Love, Desire, and Virtue"). Needless to say, I think it'd be a big deal if this is what Maximus was doing since it would once again put him beside Nyssen as part of the minority tradition that got things right (universalism being the other example).
Any of your thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated!
Sadly no, not the complete opuscula (the usual anthologies have two or so). I heard that an English translation of them is in the works, but that was years ago. Then again, people probably say this of mine of the letters. I promise I’m still working at them!
Many thanks Jordan for your translating endeavours. This is a magnificent Letter. I love the beginning of 2.10: "For the sake of love, the very maker of nature—such an act and even its utterance truly makes one tremble!—clothes himself with our own nature, uniting it to himself immutably and hypostatically, so that he might firmly establish what is prone to being carried away and join it to himself, which then reintegrates our nature into itself such that it possesses nothing in its dispositive judgment which differs from God or from itself."
The labor is love and love invites labor--especially in view of Maximus’s Greek!
If I were to pose a question of grammar without making any other considered or useful or non-pedant comment, I would ask: do we say 'our longing for he who molded it' rather than 'for him who molded it'?
Hi Jordan! I'm curious what you think of Blowers' claim that Maximus may very well be channeling Gregory of Nyssa's argument against slavery from his homilies on Ecclesiastes here.
You translated the bit about Abraham as, "no longer regarding another human being as other to himself." Blowers translates it as "no longer (μηκέτι) ruling (ἡγούμενος) another human being different from himself." I think Blowers may very well be right in this regard, especially since Maximus uses the language of "dividing" right before the line about Abraham "ruling another human being" above, which is what Gregory says we do by enslavement: Δουλείᾳ καταδιχάζεις τὸν ἄνθρωπον, οῦ ὲλευθέρα ἡ φήσις καὶ αὺτεξούσιος. Maximus' words for division are different (μεμερισμένων and μεριστῶν), but I can't unsee the connection now that Blowers pointed it out, and I think one can expand on what Blowers has already laid down (near the beginning of Blowers' OUP chapter on Maximus, "Love, Desire, and Virtue"). Needless to say, I think it'd be a big deal if this is what Maximus was doing since it would once again put him beside Nyssen as part of the minority tradition that got things right (universalism being the other example).
Any of your thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated!
Awesome!, have you seen any other total opusc translation other than farrells ?
Sadly no, not the complete opuscula (the usual anthologies have two or so). I heard that an English translation of them is in the works, but that was years ago. Then again, people probably say this of mine of the letters. I promise I’m still working at them!