GIOVANNI CHRYSOSTOM, Saint
The greatest Christian orator and one of the greatest orators of all time was J. C., surnamed by posterity—beginning in the 6th century—Chrysostom (i.e., “golden-mouthed”).
Born at Antioch between 344 and 347, he came of a distinguished family. His mother, Anthusa, widowed at twenty, devoted herself entirely to her son, who received the most thorough education: in secular studies under Libanius and a philosopher named Andragathius (now obscure), and in religion under Bishop Meletius, by whom he was baptized about 369, and under Diodorus, later Bishop of Tarsus (and possibly under Carterius the ascetic). After his mother’s death—he had only refrained from retiring to the desert at her entreaty—he fled to avoid consecration to the episcopate (a detail not likely to be a literary fiction), lived as a monk for four years, and then for two years as a hermit. Returning to Antioch, he was ordained deacon by Meletius in 381 and priest five years later (386) by Flavian, Meletius’s successor. For twelve years he exercised his apostolate through preaching at Antioch, arousing the most ardent and passionate enthusiasm, and on occasion intervening with persuasive and fiery eloquence to give comfort and counsel in extraordinary circumstances. Thus in 387, when the city, aroused by the harshness of certain taxes imposed by Theodosius, broke out into violent excesses, toppling the Emperor’s statues and passing through a period of terror and anguish while awaiting punishment, it was only Flavian’s intervention that averted disaster.
Toward the end of 387, the see of Constantinople having fallen vacant through the death of Nectarius, he was called to that post against his will, with the consent of clergy and people, by the Emperor Arcadius at the suggestion and with the support of Eutropius, who had great influence over him, but secretly opposed by the ambitious Bishop Theophilus of Alexandria. The latter had proposed the elderly priest Isidorus, but was forced to consecrate J. as Bishop of Constantinople; yet the position was not suited to J., austere, upright, and uncompromising in character. Almost immediately he aroused enmities, jealousies, and conflicts in court circles and among part of the clergy by his bold initiatives to reform and purify. The first clash came with Eutropius himself, who was trying to deprive the churches of the right of asylum and had succeeded despite J.’s resistance. Soon after, when Eutropius fell into disfavor, he sought asylum in a church and experienced J.’s generosity, for the latter energetically and at his own risk opposed any violent removal. J.’s popularity grew as a result of these events, and from the beginning of his episcopate his efforts to convert the Arian Goths settled in the city or its vicinity met with excellent results. He enjoyed the highest prestige both for his personal merits and for the preeminent position of the see of Constantinople over the churches of neighboring regions.
Toward the end of the winter of 401, he left Constantinople for some months and went to Asia on a kind of inspection tour. On this occasion he presided over a synod at Ephesus, deposed and expelled some simoniacal bishops (thus making new enemies) and secured the election of the monk Heracleides as Bishop of Ephesus; on his return journey, at Nicomedia, he deposed Bishop Gerontius. His enemies took advantage of his absence to plot against him, among them his substitute Severian of Gabala, with whom J. broke off all relations on his return, though later he was reconciled through the intervention of the Empress. In the same year his conflict with Eudoxia began; after the downfall of Eutropius she had gained a dominant position at court and exercised an ever-growing influence over her weak husband Arcadius.
It is difficult to reconstruct in detail the phases of this conflict and to clarify its true causes, since scarcely any of the sources are free from the suspicion of partiality; even J.’s own writings, which might have been the most reliable testimony, are open to doubt as possibly partly apocryphal or interpolated. It is said that the cause of the conflict was the alleged usurpation by Eudoxia of a vineyard belonging to a widow, which provoked the patriarch’s most severe, though veiled, censure. But the authenticity of the Life of Porphyry, Bishop of Gaza, written by his deacon Mark—a work that would be valuable as contemporary—has been questioned; moreover, the report itself, which does not appear in any source earlier than the 7th century, may have been constructed from a homily of J. where mention is made of Naboth’s vineyard and Jezebel’s crime. The fact is that at a certain point the Empress and Theophilus were united against J.
Theophilus had never looked with favor on J.’s election. The case of the “Tall Brothers,” four Egyptian monks accused by him of Origenism and exiled by him—who had found a welcome, together with other monks of Nitria, at J.’s hands, though he did not admit them to Communion and merely tried, unsuccessfully, to intercede on their behalf—openly set him against J. Despite the accusation of Origenism launched by the Bishop of Salamis, Epiphanius, who at Theophilus’s instigation had come to Constantinople in 403 to direct the anti-Origenist campaign, and despite the intrigues of other bishops who continued the struggle after Epiphanius’s departure and of other persons, J., still in favor with Eudoxia, at first prevailed over his enemies. Theophilus himself, the instigator of all the machinations, was summoned by Arcadius to Constantinople in 403 to answer the accusations brought against him by the monks to Eudoxia, before a council that was to be presided over by J. But when Eudoxia changed her attitude toward J., it was easy for Theophilus to reverse the situation in his own favor, also because of the moderation shown by the Bishop of Constantinople, who, as he states in a letter to Pope Innocent, refused to preside over the council that was to judge Theophilus, on the ground that, according to the canons of 381, he ought not to deal with Egyptian affairs. When Theophilus landed at Constantinople at the head of twenty-six Egyptian bishops loyal to him, he set to work to secure the adhesion of other hostile elements of the clergy and to have libels of accusation presented to the Emperor against J.; then, confident of the Emperor’s support, dominated as he was by Eudoxia, instead of appearing as an accused before a council, he convened one at Chalcedon (too great was the people’s favor for J. in Constantinople), which from the place of meeting is called ad Quercum. This synod of thirty-five bishops proceeded against J. in his absence, though he had declared himself ready to appear if the synod excluded Theophilus and three other bishops, including Severian, notoriously his enemies. Various more or less calumnious charges were brought, concerning J.’s private life, his administration, his conduct toward certain persons; to these was added the charge of lèse-majesté for having offended the Empress. As a result of this odious judgment, J. was deposed and sent into exile.
G. left for exile in Bithynia, but soon returned in triumph, recalled by the menacing attitude of the people and, it seems, by the Empress herself, frightened perhaps by an earthquake or some other disaster. However, the reconciliation was short-lived; a few months later another conflict arose between the two, concerning certain pagan-style celebrations held on the occasion of the unveiling of a statue of the Empress near the Cathedral. These celebrations had disturbed the sacred rites of the church and thus provoked G.’s most severe protests.
At Eudoxia’s instigation, a council was convened in Constantinople in 404, composed largely of bishops hostile to him, before which he was summoned to appear and was accused of illegal conduct.
Evidently wishing to oppose his deportation, he voluntarily surrendered to the imperial soldiers and left the church through the eastern gate, eluding the crowd’s expectations. His exile was particularly harsh: first to Cucusus in Cataonia, then to the fortress of Arabissus, and finally to Pontus. He died in transit at Comana in Cappadocia on September 14, 407. His last words were: “Glory to God for all things.” In 438, his remains were triumphantly returned to Constantinople and placed upon the episcopal throne in the church of the Apostles by Eudoxia’s own son, Theodosius II. It was a recognition by all the people of the holiness of the shepherd who, with his words—none more magnificent—and with the example of an ascetic life even amid the turmoil of action and struggle, had, it has been said, renewed the age of the Apostles.
BHL. Sources: Chrysostom’s own works, especially the Homilies and *De sacerdotio*. Also: Palladius, *Historical Dialogue on the Life of the Blessed G.*; id., *Historia Lausiaca*; the historical works of Sozomen, Socrates, Theodoret, and Evagrius (G. 3). Other biographies: by George, Patriarch of Alexandria (630); by Theodore, Bishop of Trimithus, *On the Life, Conduct, and Affairs of the Most Blessed G., Called C.* (10th c.); by an Anonymous Writer, *Vitae S. Chrysostomi* (10th c.); *Vitae S. G.* in Simeon Metaphrastes (10th c.), discussed in the *Suda*; an encomiastic fragment by Martyrius, Bishop of Antioch (5th c.); also in Mark the Deacon, *Vita Porphyrii*, and in *Vita Sanctae Olympiadis diaconissae* (in *Anal. Bolland.*, 15 [1896], pp. 409–23). – Studies: Tillemont, I, Paris 1714; E. Martin, *St. Chr.*, 3 vols., Montpellier 1860; A. Thierry, *St. Chr. et l’impératrice Eudoxie*, Paris 1872; F. Ludwig, *Der heilige Chr.*, in seinem Verhältnis zum byzantinischen Hof, Braunsberg 1883; W. R. W. Stephens, *St. Chr. his life and times*, London 1883; G. Rauschen, *Jahrbücher der christlichen Kirche unter Kaiser Theodosius dem Grossen*, Freiburg in Br. 1897; P. Ubaldi, *La Sinodo ad Quercum dell’a. 404*, Turin 1902; F. Cavallera, *Le schisme d’Antioche*, Paris 1905; various authors, *Χρυσοστόλιχος*, Studies and Researches on St. G. C., ed. by the committee for the XVth centenary of his death, Rome 1908; A. Puech, *St. F. C.*, Paris 1913; H. Lietzmann, s.V. in *Pauly-Wissowa*, IX, col. 1811; G. Chr. Baur, *Johannes Chrysostomos und seine Zeit*, 2 vols., Munich 1920–30; A. Puech, *Hist. de la litt. grecque chrétienne*, Paris 1930; H. Grégoire et M. A. Kugener, *La Vie de Porphyre, évêque de Gaza, est-elle authentique?*, in *Bulletin de l’Association G. Budé*, 26 (Paris 1930); G. Lazzati, *Teofilo d’Alessandria*, Milan 1935, especially pp. 49–69.
II. WORKS
G. C.’s output is impressively vast: it includes treatises, discourses, and letters. Above all, he was a preacher, and even his treatises are, so to speak, a form of preaching directed toward practical aims—to exhort, to enlighten, to instruct. The treatises span nearly all periods of G.’s life, though most belong to the years between 381 and 386.From the period preceding his diaconate are the two books—an exhortation and a letter—*To Theodore, After His Fall*, written, it seems, between 371 and 378, to bring the future Bishop of Mopsuestia (who appears to be the intended recipient) back to the ascetic life he had abandoned: the two books *On Repentance*, the first dedicated to Demetrius, the second to Stalechius, composed perhaps not at the same time, between 375 and 376, or, according to others, between 381 and 385; the three books *Against the Opponents of Monastic Life*, a defense of asceticism against pagan accusations (the inspiration of the work is Platonic, with Stoic influences, and it expresses certain personal pedagogical ideas; its date is uncertain, though it likely belongs to the same period as the other work); *Comparison Between King and Monk*, which develops a theme hinted at in *Against the Opponents of Monastic Life* (the Stoic proposition, presented in the form of a dialogue, is here applied to the relationship between the king and that figure of the practical philosopher who, in Christian times, is the monk; the word “philosophy,” moreover, takes on the meaning
of “ascetical life”); the Stoic paradox almost ceases to be such in the Christian vision of life). To the period of his diaconate and then of his priesthood belong the consolatory writing To Stagirus, a young man who in the ascetical life had not found peace of soul and was consumed by a morbid melancholy—which was attributed to diabolical obsession—which even drove him to thoughts of suicide (G. demonstrates the providential function of suffering and points to the remedy in an active life); the treatise On Virginity, perhaps from 381 (where he shows notable maturity, both formal and in thought; it is followed by the insistence of Paul, according to whom marriage is approved but virginity is considered superior; it is directed against the Marcionites); and the one To a Young Widow, a kind of consolatory letter, dedicated to the widow of Tarasius, who had lost her husband after five years of marriage (some consider an appendix to this treatise the writing On Second Marriage). Perhaps from this period—if not somewhat later, as the greater experience shown by the author would suggest—is the six-book treatise, in dialogical form, On the Priesthood, on the duties of the priest and the greatness of the priesthood: a work of great elevation and depth, which demonstrates a marvelous knowledge of the human heart, and is written in a lucid and moving style, which, together with other qualities of composition and conception, makes it an unparalleled work in all literature, even profane, of the 4th century. It cannot be determined whether the two disciplinary treatises Against Those Who Keep Virgins as Coabitants at Home and On the Necessity That Nuns Not Coabit with Men belong to the Antiochene or the Constantinopolitan period. Certainly from the earlier period is the apologetic writing Against Julian and the Pagans or On St. Babylas, composed twenty years after the events narrated therein, namely the burning of the temple of Apollo, which followed the transfer of the relics of the Saint, carried out by order of the Apostate, from Dini, where Gallus had had them brought, to the city; it defends religion from the attacks of the Emperor, basing itself on the miracles of Jesus and the wonders that occurred at the time of the translation of the martyr’s relics; and very probably also the pamphlet Against the Jews and the Gentiles, that Christ is God. To the period of exile belong two treatises that are perhaps two letters, one To Those Who Have Been Scandalized by Recent Events, which is a kind of apology for divine Providence, and the other intended to demonstrate that no one can be harmed except by himself.
Of the Discourses, most are delivered; a not inconsiderable number concerns episodes and isolated passages of the Bible (Lazarus and the Rich Man, the beginning of the Acts, individual passages of the Epistles of Paul, etc.). More important (also for the overall bulk of such works, which number about 700) are the homilies commenting on entire books or significant parts of the Old and New Testaments: among them, particularly noteworthy, the sermons On the Epistles of St. Paul, numbering 250, which constitute the best commentary on the Epistles themselves. Especially the 32 homilies On the Epistle to the Romans represent the best that the activity of the Fathers of the 4th century produced in this field: for the loftiness of the speculation on dogma reached therein, the dialectical vigor demonstrated, for the fact that exegesis—just as in all his exegesis—is not separated from moral teaching, for the feeling of paternal love that warms and permeates these writings, for the sense of sublimity and almost ecstasy that is communicated to the reader. Except for the homilies on the Epistle to the Colossians and those to the Thessalonians, these homilies on the Epistles of Paul date from the Antiochene period; those on the Epistle to the Romans are from the Constantinopolitan period. Other discourses delivered are dedicated to the Psalms (about 60 psalms; they are among the most valuable works of G.), to Genesis (9 on certain parts, 67 on the whole of Genesis: the first group from 386, the second from 388), to other historical books of the Old Testament (Anna, David and Saul, from 387), to the Prophets (6 homilies on Isaiah, I-VI, and 2 On the Obscurity of the Prophets). Also commented upon are St. John the Evangelist (in 88 homilies, directed especially against the Anomoeans; from 389), St. Matthew (there are 90 homilies, written at Antioch, apparently in 390, admirable for the vigor of the exegesis and the loftiness of the moral teaching therein), the Acts of the Apostles (numbering 55, from 400-401; they seem to lack the necessary refinement). Other discourses are of a moral character (such as the homily Against the Games of the Circus and the Theatres, the 9 On Penance [the authenticity of the last three is doubtful], the 2 To Catechumens Before Their Baptism, the one On the Calends, the one On Almsgiving, the 3 On Temptations, the 2 On Prayer, the one On the Mysteries [they refer to the great solemnities of the Lord: Christmas, Epiphany, Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension, Pentecost; not all of certain authenticity]). Polemical and moral discourses together are the 12 sermons Against the Anomoeans, on the Incomprehensibility of God (in which the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father is defended), the homily On Not Anathematizing the Unbaptized, and the 8 Against the Jews (from 386, like the sermons Against the Anomoeans), of which some are however later, and the last two are also later than 389). Related to this type of homily are the Panegyrics, of which notable are the 7 delivered at Antioch in praise of St. Paul, that on Philogonius, and the Eulogies—on Job, on Eleazar, on the Maccabees—, the 3 homilies On Martyrs, and the Discourses on St. Ignatius of Antioch, Romanus, Lucian of Antioch, Eustathius of Antioch, Meletius, Balaam.
More interesting, and in various respects, are some discourses that, while always on a moral subject, are closely tied to the occasions that provoked them, such as his first homily, delivered in 386, just after being ordained priest, in which he expresses his thanks to Philagrius. Famous among these discourses are the 21 Homilies On the Statues, from 387 (actually 19, since the first is prior to the sedition, and the 19th is unrelated to the events), delivered on the occasion of the tragic events in Antioch, which they accompany and allow one to follow, day by day, in their dramatic reality; and the two discourses On Eutropius, delivered after the fall of the powerful favorite of Arcadius (particularly famous is the first of these, for the powerfully dramatic life that moral teaching takes on there; it begins with the words of Ecclesiastes—Vanity of vanities, and all is vanity—), and the two Before His Departure into Exile (from 403) and After His Return from Exile, of the same year. Some of these orations are of doubtful authenticity, and some are certainly apocryphal and interpolated or preserved in shorthand reports: very probably apocryphal is the oration that would have provoked the anger of Eudoxia and determined his second exile, from which he was not to return, the one that begins Again Herodias raves, again she rages, again she dances and demands on a platter the head of John. But the question of the authenticity of G.’s orations is far from being resolved.
G.'s eloquence is natural—expert, yet not enslaved to the suggestions of the schools—and is always sustained by the sincerity of faith and by communion, which ensures that nothing in it sounds false or declamatory. Qualities of penetrating observation, lucid and tightly reasoned argument, warmth of feeling, richness of ideas, and imagination combined to give his eloquence that power, which still lives in it, to win souls and move them. From his familiar homilies, which may be said to be his own creation, to his exegetical orations and those that might be called historical—among which the accent of great Demosthenic and Ciceronian eloquence has been rightly recognized (though there is more: the influence that comes from the Sacred Books)—there is a single breath of greatness that animates and elevates his eloquence, even when it descends to the tone of conversation, a single abundance that wells from the heart, a single breath of "charity."
The Letters, numbering 328, are almost all from the period of exile (404–407), addressed to friends left behind in Antioch and Constantinople; two are addressed to Pope Innocent. Particularly noteworthy are those addressed to the deaconess Olympias, to whom he speaks words of comfort and hope. Though not very important for the history of the times, these letters are the full testimony of a soul illuminated, amid the hardest trials, by the light of faith.
III. HIS DOCTRINE
St. J. C. was not properly speaking a philosopher nor a theologian; one might better say he was neither an original philosopher nor an original theologian, for although he certainly possessed a wide knowledge of pagan philosophy—especially of Platonism and Stoicism and perhaps also of Neoplatonism—this knowledge did not remain inert in his mind. Though some have considered the influence of Hellenism in his work to be external and irrelevant, it was in fact a leaven that in some way worked within his thought, together—though to a far lesser extent—with the inspirations and influences that came to him from Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition.As a theologian, St. J. C. certainly did not possess the speculative spirit of an Athanasius or a Basil, of a Gregory of Nyssa; yet one must also consider that he lived at a time when certain problems were no longer felt with the same urgency as before, when Arianism was no longer as threatening as it had been, and the Trinitarian controversy seemed—and in substance was—concluded. His doctrine is therefore of the strictest Nicene orthodoxy, which he defended against the Anomoeans. The accusation of Messalianism made by Epiphanius, later retracted by the same, has not the slightest foundation. The problem of the two natures in Christ he did not treat in depth (he never gives to Mary the title *Theotokos*, though neither does he commit himself to the opposite view, even while sometimes attributing to her excessively human sentiments); yet he affirms the humanity of Christ in His life, works, and death, while at the same time glorifying His divine attributes, stopping short before the mystery of His unity. He sets forth the doctrine of the Eucharist and transubstantiation with such clarity as to earn the title of "Eucharistic Doctor," affirming with a realism that may even seem excessive the real presence of Christ. He is a vigorous and convinced advocate of free will, yet not to the point of being considered a denier of grace or an outright Pelagian; the problem, moreover, would not be posed until later. He believes, though he does not explicitly affirm it, in the existence of original sin; he believes in the dogma of hell and eternal punishment, which he describes vividly and defends against those who consider it irreconcilable with divine goodness; and against the Donatists he upholds the efficacy of Penance (and of Confession), extending it to all sinners and not limiting it to a single occasion (which was one of the charges brought against him at the Oak Council).
St. J. C.'s exegetical method was what one would expect from one who had received the teaching of Diodorus of Tarsus and had been influenced by it; it was that of the Antiochene school (of which he was the most illustrious representative), which, in opposition to the Alexandrian approach, while not excluding allegorical interpretation, gave greater weight to the literal method.
As a moralist—one of the greatest moralists the Christian tradition has ever produced, though in some respects his vision has seemed to some to be somewhat limited and not sufficiently universal—he may justly be called a reformer of Christian society. The ideal he pursued was inspired by the life of the primitive Christian communities and was a kind of "angelic society," the translation into social life of the life of those communities, the very one he wished to establish on earth: a society in which there would be no "mine" and "thine," in which at least would be reduced to a minimum the two plagues afflicting society in his day—poverty and slavery. Though he regarded the origin of wealth as often, if not always, unjust, he did not condemn private property (which he still considered an evil) or wealth in itself, but rather their misuse; and he pointed to the remedy for social inequality—which is the consequence of wealth—not in its suppression or in a distribution of it to the poor, but—here the moral dimension of the problem comes to the fore—in a kind of "adoption of the poor by the rich." Slavery he likewise condemned and looked forward to its limitation, if not indeed (which is not to be excluded) its abolition, as well as to the improvement of the condition of slaves; but both aims were placed on the moral plane, entrusted to the sense of humanity of the masters (St. J. clearly had nothing of the tribune about him).
Since G.’s morality is profoundly “optimistic,” he is perhaps mistaken in often assuming in the mass of his followers the purity of his own sentiments and his natural goodness; he appeals to the will of man (whence comes evil?), he asks in Hom. LIX on St. Matthew 2-3: from what we will or do not will, he answers; and on what does this willing or not willing depend? on ourselves, he concludes? He points to conscience, as well as to the Gospel, as the guide of action; he resorts to persuasion rather than to coercion or threats, he avoids personal attacks (he who affirms that he combats heresy, not heretics), is far from any air of complacency, places himself on the terrain of concrete, living reality, not of rigid systems and theory, and for this reason is, in the end, an indulgent moralist. He indeed considers meritorious the intention, even when the act does not follow, and he does not measure this by its greatness, e.g., almsgiving; he finds that some vices have justification in certain natural dispositions; he does not preach asceticism, does not impose bodily privations, does not demand absolute continence, does not condemn the flesh but only lust and shamelessness; he advises treating those who insult us as weak and sick persons; he finds that anger, in certain cases, can serve a good end...; he sets before men the light of hope, and strengthens their faith in divine mercy.
From all his works an entire
GIOVANNI CRISTOSTOMO - GIOVANNI DELLA CROCE
treatise on rebellion could be drawn. He suffered greatly, even spiritually, but when he emerged from it (1578), he was a saint. From that moment began for G. the period of his greatest influence: he became superior in various convents and took charge of several monasteries of the Teresian nuns. At the same time he wrote his major works. He founded several houses of his Order, the last of which at Segovia (1588). In 1591, fresh misunderstandings arose and, deprived of every office, he retired to the solitude of La Peñuela near Úbeda and, after a painful illness, died a saint on 19 Dec. 1591. He was beatified on 25 Jan. 1675 and canonized on 26 Dec. 1726. On 24 Aug. 1926 Pius XI declared him a Doctor of the Church. Feast, 24 Nov.
II. WRITTEN WORKS AND DOCTRINE
The “minor works” include: 26 letters, counsels and sayings, two short treatises read aloud (Counsels to a Religious and Precautions) and a series of poems.The latter were written in part in the prison of Toledo. The sayings, lapidary, are very pithy. The treatise on Precautions, written, it seems, for the Carmelite nuns of Beas, is a small practical compendium of the Saint’s doctrine. Only part of the counsels and some of the letters still possess their original manuscripts.
The “major works” are four, but the first two are complementary and form, so to speak, a diptych: Ascent of Mount Carmel and Dark Night, Spiritual Canticle, Living Flame of Love. Each comments on a poem.
No precise date can be given for the composition of the Ascent. It seems to have been begun when the Saint was at the monastery of Beas (from 1579), but the greater part was written at Granada (from 1582 onwards); the work remained incomplete. The Dark Night, likewise unfinished, was written later (perhaps after 1584) also at Granada. The Canticle, in its first form, was composed in 1584 at the request of Mother Anne of Jesus; it nevertheless collects, it seems, fragments of an earlier date. The Living Flame, in its first form, was written while the Saint was Vicar Provincial of Andalusia (1585-87) at the request of Doña Ana de Peñalosa. In the manuscript tradition, these last two works reached us in two forms attested by an almost equal number of copies.
In recent times discussions have arisen concerning the authenticity of the second form, especially of the Canticle. The critical edition of the Canticle, published by the Benedictine Dom Chevallier (1930), of more apparent than real value, has given considerable credence to the thesis which maintains the lack of authenticity; but hitherto no definitive argument has been presented on the subject and it remains quite probable that the origin of the second redaction is to be attributed to St. John himself.
All the doctrine of St. John is centered on union with God, to which he wishes to direct the soul, then to describe the life which it enjoys once it has reached this lofty goal. The path toward union is described particularly in the diptych Ascent-Dark Night; the various phases and degrees of it are more fully expounded in the Canticle and the Living Flame; the notion of union, which dominates the entire work, reappears continually in the various writings.
III. NOTION OF UNION
In the Ascent (I, 11, 2) he defines union: “The state of this divine union consists in the soul’s having, according to its will, been entirely transformed into the will of God, so that in it there is nothing contrary to the will of God, but that in everything and through everything that moves it there is solely the will of God.” The transformation of the soul in God, in which union consists, results from the realization of two conditions: the first, negative, which excludes in the soul’s will any contrariety to the divine will (i.e., total detachment of the soul from all things and from itself); the second, positive, by which the soul’s will is always moved by the divine will and thereforeGIOVANNI della CROCE, saint — Portrait. Detail of the Carmelite cloister at Troyes.
could form a complete code of practical morality, embracing almost all aspects of spiritual life and conduct: it would perhaps constitute what is most elevated, certainly most humane, that Christian morality has produced, not only in the early centuries.