The Omnibus Homo Sacer
Page 79
neo-Pythagorean), understands regality as an essentially hierarchical principle.
If other names (for instance, “holiness” and “Lordship”) express the superiority
and the perfection of power, nevertheless it is regality understood as an ordering,
512
HOMO SACER II, 4
distributing, and hierarchizing element that expresses most effectively the essence
of the “All-transcendent Cause” (ibid., 969c):
[ . . . ] from it [ . . . ] have sprung forth and have been imparted [ dianenemētai]
to all things the unsullied perfection [ akribeia] of spotless purity; every order
[ diataxis] and all ordered government [ diakosmēsis] which expels all disharmony and inequality and disproportion, and converts to Itself the things found worthy
to participate in It; [ . . . ] But the Scriptures give the names Holy, King, Lord,
God, to the first Orders in each hierarchy through which the secondary ranks, re-
ceiving the gifts from God, bring the unity of their participation into multiplicity
through their own diversity, and this variety the First Orders, in their Providential
divine activity, bring together into their own unity. (Ibid., 969d–972b, pp. 86–87)
According to the postulate of the governmental machine with which we are now
familiar, an absolutely transcendent thearchy beyond every cause acts in truth
as a principle of immanent order and government. That apophatic theology has
here the function of cover and serves, in fact, to found a governmental hierar-
chy is evident in the function of acclamation and liturgy that belongs to the
divine names, with which the ineffable god must—in apparent contrast with
his unsayability—ceaselessly be celebrated and his praises sung. We “must praise
[ hymnein, to sing with hymns and praise] Him of innumerable Names as Holy
of Holies and King of kings, reigning in Eternity, and eternally [ . . . ] Lord of
lords, God of Gods [ . . . ] these things must be celebrated absolutely” (ibid.,
969a–c, p. 86). Ineffable sovereignty is the hymnological and glorious aspect of
power that, according to a paradigm that we have already encountered in Peter-
son, cherubims, seraphims, and Thrones celebrate by singing the Sanctus:
For some of them [angels], to speak after the manner of men, proclaim as a “voice
of many waters,” “Blessed is the glory of the Lord, from His place.” But others
cry aloud that frequent and most august word of God, “Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord
of Sabaoth, the whole earth is full of His glory.” ( Celestial Hierarchy, 212b, p. 30) For this reason the apocryphal author can refer the final exposition of the an-gelogical doctrine back to a lost or fictitious treatise he had composed, which
bears the name The Divine Hymns ( Peri tōn theiōn hymnōn) (ibid.). The angel that shouts out the hymn of praise, is, however, in accordance with its dual nature, at
once contemplative and ministerial, an essential part of the providential machine
that carries out the divine government of the world:
[The thearchy] is alone and one of three-fold subsistence, sending forth His
most kindly forethought to all created things, from the supercelestial minds to
THE KINGDOM AND THE GLORY
513
the lowest of the earth; as principle and cause of all creation, and containing all
things supernaturally in His resistless embrace. (Ibid., 212c, p. 31)
The hierarchy is a hymnology.
א Hugo Ball was the first to grasp the true character of the Pseudo-Dionysius’s angel-
ology. Even if Schmitt’s statement that Ball sees Dionysius as a “monk who subordinates
himself to the priest, who therefore gives precedence to the priest’s hierarchical-ecclesiastical office over every ascetic endeavor, however great, and over all martyrdom” (Schickel, p. 51) is not entirely correct, it reflects the idea of the hierarchical superiority of the ecclesiastical hierarchy that is at the heart of Ball’s book Byzantinisches Christentum (1923), in which the figure of the Pseudo-Dionysius is analyzed at length.
6.6. The parallels between celestial and worldly bureaucracy are not an in-
vention of the Pseudo-Dionysius. If already in Athenagoras the angels are de-
fined by means of terms and images drawn from the language of administration
(see §2.8 above), the analogy is clearly affirmed in the passage of the Adversus
Praxean by Tertullian that we have already analyzed (see §2.11 above: “Therefore, if the divine monarchy is also administered by so many ‘legions’ and ‘armies of
angels’ [ . . . ]”: Against Praxeas, 3, p. 32) and in Clement of Alexandria: “Also the grades of the Church, of bishops, presbyters, deacons, are imitations of the
angelic glory, and of that oikonomia which, the Scriptures say, awaits those who, following the footsteps of the apostles, have lived in perfection of righteousness”
( The Stromata, Book VI, Chapter XIII, p. 505).
After the Pseudo-Dionysius, these parallels become commonplace and, as in
Tertullian, are extended to profane power. A “sacred rule, which is what the term
‘hierarchy’ means, exists among men and among angels,” writes Thomas Aqui-
nas ( Summa Theologiae, q. 108, a. 1, 3, p. 121). Exactly the same as in the case of the angels, the orders of ecclesiastical functionaries are distinguished according
to the three functions of purification ( purgare), enlightenment ( illuminare), and perfection ( perficere) (ibid., a. 2, 3, p. 125). But the civil hierarchies also have to be articulated according to orders and degrees:
The very meaning of hierarchy, then, demands a distinction of orders that has
its explanation on the basis of differing offices and acts. This is illustrated in the
case of a city, where there are classes of people differing according to their varying
activities—judges, soldiers, peasants and the like are distinct classes. Yet, while
within the one city there are such classes, all are reducible to three, in the sense
that any organized group is made up of a beginning, and middle and an end.
Hence in cities there are three classes of people: some are at the top, the upper
class; some are at the bottom, the common people; some are in between, the
514
HOMO SACER II, 4
middle class [ populus honorabilis]. So too, then, in each of the angelic hierarchies there are orders, distinct on the basis of diverse acts and offices [ . . . ] (Ibid.,
a. 2, p. 127)
Having established the centrality of the notion of hierarchy, angels and bureau-
crats tend to fuse, exactly as they do in Kafka’s world. Not only are celestial mes-
sengers organized according to offices and ministries, but worldly functionaries
in turn assume angelic qualities and, in the same way as angels, become capable
of cleansing, enlightening, and perfecting. Moreover, following an ambiguity
that characterizes the history of the relation between spiritual power and secular
power, the paradigmatic relation of angelology and bureaucracy runs now in one
direction, now in another. Sometimes, as in Tertullian’s writings, the administra-
tion of the worldly monarchy is the model of the angelic ministries, whereas at
others the celestial bureaucracy furnishes the archetype for the worldly.
What is decisive, however, is that long before the terminology of civil admin-
istration and government was developed and fixed, it was already firmly consti-
tuted in angelology. Not only the concept of hierarchy but also that of ministry
an
d of mission are, as we have seen, first systematized in a highly articulated way
precisely in relation to angelic activities.
א In a short article published in 1928, which did not fail to catch Kantorowicz’s
attention, Franz Blatt had already demonstrated how, in the manuscripts of the patristic
texts, the two terms mysterium and ministerium obstinately tend to merge. Exemplary among the numerous cases cited is a passage from Jerome’s Eighteenth Letter in which
(in relation to the seraphims) some codices reveal the lectio difficilior: “in diversa mysteria mittantur,” while others (where it is not possible to think that an error might have been
made by the scribe) have the more obvious “in diversa ministeria mittantur.” Blatt cer-
tainly hits the target with his suggestion that the evolution from “ministry” to “mystery”
can be explained by the fact that, particularly in the case of the priest who officiates the mass (which is at once sacrament and service), the two terms coincide perfectly (Blatt,
p. 81). But the origin of the confusion is older and depends on the Pauline expression
“economy of the mystery” and its inversion in a “mystery of the economy” of which we
have already spoken in relation to Hippolytus and Tertullian. It is not surprising then
that the first conscious interplay—at once alliterative and conceptual—between the two
terms was in the Vulgate of 1 Corinthians 4:1, where hypēretas Christou kai oikonomous mystēriōn theou is rendered “ministros Christi et dispensatores mysteriorum Dei.” The administration (the “economy”) is essentially concerned with the arcane, while, on the
other hand, mystery can only be dispensed administratively and “economically.” It is this
link—which is absolutely constitutive of the economy of the Trinity—that explains the
frequent and deliberately promiscuous use of the terms mysterium and ministerium from the early Fathers to late Scholasticism (an instructive example can be found in Marius
THE KINGDOM AND THE GLORY
515
Victorinus, In Epistolam ad Ephesios, II, 4, 12, in PL, 8, 1275c: “dono Christi instituta sunt hujusmodi et mysteria et ministeria”; see the observations made by Benz, p. 153).
In the same letter of Jerome’s that we have already cited, it is possible to note one
of the first testimonies to the metonymic evolution that will lead the term ministerium (which signifies “service, assignment”) to assume the modern administrative significance
of “set of functionaries and offices.” Jerome asks: “Quando [Deus] Thronos, Domina-
tiones, Potestates, Angelos, totumque ministerium coeleste condiderit?” (Hieronymus,
Epistolae, I, 18, 7, in PL, 22, 365). Just as the angelic bureaucracy anticipates the human in its hierarchical perfection, so the “celestial ministry” precedes the earthly ministry that inherits from its theological model its own arcane character.
6.7. Toward the end of Question 108, shortly before moving on to discuss the
order of demons, Aquinas makes a sudden digression to ask if the hierarchies and
orders of angels will remain even after the Day of Judgment. The question is by no
means to be taken for granted nor is it avoidable. Indeed, once the history of the
world and its creatures has reached its end and the elect, as well as the damned,
have received either eternal bliss or eternal punishment, what is the purpose of the
existence of the orders of angels? How can we imagine inoperative angels?
The problem was complicated further by the fact that, in a passage of the First
Letter to the Corinthians (15:24), Paul appeared to indicate the elimination or
deactivation of the ranks of angels at the time of the parousia: “Then comes the
end, when he [Christ] hands over the Kingdom to God the Father, after he has
rendered inoperative [ katargēsēi; Latin: evacuaverit] every ruler and every authority and power.” The return of the messianic Kingdom to the hands of the Father implies the consummation of the historical task of redemption. In his commentary
on Paul’s Epistles, Aquinas had already discussed the problem of the end of gov-
ernment and of the function of angels from this viewpoint, distinguishing between
“glory” and “execution,” between those angels who direct and those who execute:
After he does away with every principality, power and virtue, that is, when all dominion both human and angelic shall have ceased, then we shall be immediately
under God [ immediate erimus sub Deo] [ . . . ] But will not the orders of angels
remain distinct? I answer yes, as to the eminence of glory [ ad eminentiam gloriae], by which one is superior to another, but not as to the efficacy of their executive government toward us [ ad efficaciam executionis ad nos]. Therefore, he says that those angels whose names concern the execution will be rendered inoperative, namely,
principalities, powers and virtues. He does not name those angels who belong to
the higher hierarchy, because they are not executors [ . . . ] neither does he say that
their dominations will be rendered inoperative, because although they belong to
the executive, they do not perform the activity themselves, but direct and com-
mand. (Aquinas, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 15, l. 3)
516
HOMO SACER II, 4
Even on the last day, the function of the angels is, in some ways, still thinkable;
not only, according to Matthew 25:31, will they witness the Last Judgment, but
they will also be “sent in every place to gather up the resurrected” (Daniélou,
p. 131). Moreover, according to Origen, the resurrected will be “sustained by the
angels” and “carried upon their shoulders” (ibid., pp. 133– 134). But when the last
of the blessed has risen to heaven and the last of the damned repelled into hell,
what will happen to the celestial ministers?
In the treatise De gubernatione mundi, the aporia is fully revealed. The
oikonomia, the providential government of the world, is not eternal but is com-
pleted on the Day of Judgment. “The purpose of the angelic offices is to lead
men to salvation. Accordingly the angelic offices and so their orders will not go
on after judgment day” ( Summa Theologiae, I, q. 108, a. 7, 3, p. 151). The King-
dom that will follow is what we might call radically without government. But
how can one think a Kingdom without any possible Government?
Aquinas draws certain subtle distinctions in order to resolve this aporia. It
is a case of nothing less than separating the hierarchy from its function in an
attempt to think the possibility of power surviving its exercise. In the same way
that the function of the leader of an army is different in battle and in the tri-
umph that follows it, so the hierarchy and its glory can remain even beyond the
government to which they were assigned:
We can take into account two elements in the angelic orders, the distinction of
ranks and the carrying out of ministries. As shown, a distinction of ranks among
them exists on the basis of their differences in grace and nature. Both differences
will last forever; any natural difference would be removable only by destroying
the nature; a difference in glory corresponding to a difference in prior merits will
also last forever. The carrying out of offices will, after judgment day, in some way
continue and in another way stop. It will stop in regard to offices having as their
purpose the leading of others to the end; it will continue in the way appropriate
to those in possession of the end. The duties of an army’s ranks, for example, are
different in battle and in victory. (Ibid., pp. 151–153)
The hierarchy, which appeared to be tightly linked to the exercise of an office or
ministry, gloriously outlives it.
6.8. The problem Aquinas is trying to overcome is, in the final analysis, that
of the end of the oikonomia. The history of salvation, which was the concern of
the machine of the providential government of the world, is entirely exhausted.
What happens now to the machine? What happens to the billions of angels that,
perfectly ordered in nine lines within the celestial hierarchy, have at each instant
THE KINGDOM AND THE GLORY
517
from the creation to the Day of Judgment fulfilled their tireless ministry? For
some of these Aquinas’s verdict is inexorable: “At the final consummation Christ
will bring Principalities and Powers to naught as far as leading others to the end
is concerned, since once one is attained, there is no need to strive for it” (ibid.,
p. 153). The statement in the Questions on Providence by Matthew of Acquasparta
is yet more categorical:
The final consummation allows for neither the cooperation of creatures nor any
possible ministry. In the same way that God is the immediate beginning of all
creatures, in the same way he is immediately their end, alpha and omega [ . . . ]
Therefore, all administration will cease. All angelic ministries will cease, since it
was ordered to conduct men to their end, and once this end has been reached, it
must end. All hierarchical operations will cease, all subordination and all superior-
ity, as the Apostle says (in 1 Corinthians 15:24). (Matthew of Acquasparta, p. 316)
The cessation of the governmental machine feeds back into the Trinitarian econ-
omy itself. If the latter was constitutively tied to the action of God and his
practice of providential government of the world, how can one think of God
as inoperative? If the Trinitarian economy had been able to reconcile in a single
God the Gnostic division between deus otiosus and deus actuosus, the cessation of every activity seems to put back in question the very meaning of that economy.