Procedimientos y acción

Traherne provides his most extensive exploration of the metaphysical nature of love in chapter 32 of his Kingdom of God. In the introductory paragraph of this chapter Traherne seeks to establish the primacy of love within God’s kingdom as ‘the best of all possible things’. ‘The best of all possible Things being made, it will Communicate its Goodness to all the Residue, and cloath them with the Best of all Possible Beauties, and inspire them with the Best of Excellencies… We will begin with Lov, becaus it is the very Life and form of his Kingdom.’94 _{That love is ‘the best of all possible things’ becomes clear as the chapter}

continues. In addition to identifying love in this way, in this introduction, he has also links love with both goodness and beauty.

As Traherne continues in chapter 32 he argues for the supremacy of love based on the biblical assertion in 1 John 4:8 that ‘God is love’, and therefore fit to function as the ‘Form’ of God’s Kingdom.

That Lov is the very best of all possible things is Manifest, becaus it is the very Nature and Essence of GOD, and so peculiar that Nothing beside it, can be like unto

93 _{Kingdom, 299.} 94 _{Kingdom, 433.}

it. That Lov is the Form of God’s Kingdom appeareth, becaus Lov is in his Dominion, what the Soul is in the Body, the fountain of all the Beauty Life and Happiness

therin.95

As the form, love function as the ‘the fountain’ and its presence can be felt and discerned throughout the entirety of ‘GOD’S Kingdom’. Traherne elaborates on the nature of the Form below.

It is the office of the Form to inspire, to animat, and to Actuate, to distinguish, and to give the essence to the Matter it informes. Since therfore Love doth inspire the Kingdom of God with Excellency, animate the Same with Happiness, and Actuat all its parts with Beauty, uniting them together, enriching them with Life, and giving them the Glory to it which is the Essence of the same; we may look upon it as the Spirit or Form of GOD’S Kingdom and Immediatly conclude the Essence of his Dominion to be answerable to his own because the Lov which inspires it, is so neer and so like unto him, as the Form, It is in evry part the Cause and the Manner of all their union.96

We find here some clarity as to how Traherne envisaged the creator/creation interaction. God ‘made’ ‘the best of all possible things’ and as we have seen, it is love. This love is not

identical with the deity but ‘is so neer and so like unto him’ that so far as it is possible God has communicated the excellency of his essence into the creation through the vice regency of love.

Adding to the titles for love as the ‘Spirit or Form of GOD’S Kingdom’, drawing again on Neoplatonic images, Traherne defines love as the ‘Soul and Dæmon of the World’.

This Lov which is the great Soul and Dæmon of the World, infuses all the Lustre into God’s Kingdom. It is answerable to his own in evry Communicable and Created Excellency: Nay (which is more) in evry imaginable and Desirable Perfection.97

Calling love the ‘the great Soul and Dæmon of the World’ Traherne might be drawing on a few ideas from Platonism. Plotinus used the term ‘Soul’ to speak of the third metaphysical hypostasis (the One, Mind and Soul), which acts not as the principle of life but as the ‘principle of desire for objects that are external to the agent of desire.’98 _{The soul, or}

principle of desire, causes the agent to move toward the object that will satiate this desire. In Plato, love also carries with it the idea of eros or desiring love. In the Symposium Socrates’ teacher Diotima, states that ‘Love, from lack of good and beautiful things, desire these very

95 _Ibid.

96 _Ibid. 97 _{Ibid., 434.}

98 _{Lloyd Gerson, “Plotinus,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta,}

things that he lacks.’99 _{Diotima continues by calling love ‘a great spirit’ or daimon, which}

acts as intermediary ‘Interpreting and transporting human things to the gods and divine things to men.’ Love as an intermediary is needed, for as Diotima continues ‘God with man does not mingle; but the spiritual is the means of all society and converse of men with gods.’100

Andrew Louth suggests that while the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo denies any intermediary space between God and man ‘Early attempts by Christians to formulate an understanding of God's relation to the world had made use of such an intermediate zone, which they identified with the Logos of God.’ Louth continues;

The problem posed by the Arian controversy was how to rethink the understanding of God's relationship to the world, now that no such intermediate zone could be

admitted, and the conclusions of such rethinking were dramatic: Arius consigned the Word to the created order; the Orthodox consigned him to the realm of the (now strictly) divine. Nicaea can then be seen, as Friedo Ricken has put it, as a “crisis for early Christian Platonism”. The Orthodox freed themselves from an aspect of Platonism…101

By positing love as the ‘Form’, ‘Soul’ ‘Dæmon’ and ‘Spirit’ of God’s kingdom, whether intentional or not, love does some of the metaphysical work of Arius’ Logos without assuming the Christological problems of Arianism. Love bears some resemblance to Arius’ understanding of the Logos, for like Arius’ Christ, love is the most Excellent Being in all Worlds,’102 _{and as Dæmon, love mediates a God who is not inaccessible like Plato’s deity,}

but is fully present in, yet distinct from, all things. In addition to understanding love as mediator, a Plotinian understanding of soul and a Platonic understanding of love also carry with them the sense of eros, or desiring love, which as we will continue to see forms a main theme in Traherne’s theology. When Traherne refers to love as the ‘Form’, ‘Soul’, ‘Dæmon’ and ‘Spirit’ of God’s kingdom, we see that Traherne understood love as a richly textured theological and metaphysical reality, which functions as the center and fountain of God’s kingdom. We will spend the remainder of this section further exploring the way that love acts as the metaphysical center of God’s kingdom.

Adding to the above titles given to love, the primacy of love is articulated elsewhere in the Kingdom of God. If we remember that Traherne calls goodness ‘the first perfection of the efficient cause’, while in the quote below he calls love the efficient cause of all things.

99 _{Plato, Symposium 202D as translated in Plato, Lysis, Symposium, Gorgias, Loeb classical library}

(London: Heinemann, 1925).

100 _{Plato, Symposium, 202E.}

101 _{Louth, The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition, 74.} 102 _{Kingdom, 312, emphasis mine.}

Using the language of ‘Efficient’ and final causation to speak of the ‘Being’ of ‘Lov’, Traherne draws on a formulation he has already used of God: ‘The Efficient and the final Cause is God himself’.103

As Nothing is Capable of being the Efficient cause, so Nothing can be the End of all, but Lov. For nothing but Lov can Delight in the Glory and Happiness of all, Nothing but lov can take pleasure in the Beauty and Excellence of all. Lov which alone is able to be the Efficient Cause and the End of things is the most Excellent Being in all Worlds.104

In articulating how ‘neer and so like unto’ God love is, Traherne seems to blur the boundaries between the two, possibly merging the Arian Logos with the Trahernian ‘Lov’. However, Traherne’s articulation of Incarnation as explored in Chapter 1, coupled with his designation of ‘Lov’ as ‘neer’ and ‘like’ God and calling ‘Lov’ a ‘Being’, argue against a simple merging of Logos and ‘Lov’ in thought. Calling the ‘Being’ ‘Lov’ a clear mirror of divine love, might be the best way to understand Traherne’s usage here. In addition to showing the ‘neer[ness]’ between divine and created love, the above also shows how all goodness, beauty and the like are subsumed under love as their cause and end. He continues in this vein when he says that love

hath as Many interior perfections, and Excellencies in it, as the Sublimity of its

Relation importeth. This Freedom from Anxiety, Vexation and Care, this pleasure and Beauty, these Inward Harmonies, and outward Agreablenesses to other things, these Delights and Benefits, which it receiveth and Imparteth, are Parts of its Perfection.105

Love carries within itself a whole collection of aesthetic qualities, perfections and

‘Excellencies’ that flow forth in ‘outward Agreablenesses to other things’ and ‘Imparteth’ or communicates these internal perfections to the creation. In these words, Traherne again works to subsume the realities of goodness and beauty under the supreme entity, love.

In the same way that divine beauty and goodness, when communicated to the creatures works to beautify and imbue goodness on itself, love functions within this same system of reciprocity. As Traherne continues the above quote he articulates the nature of love as it communicates love to its object and receives in return. He begins, love

can Enjoy Nothing, but by giving away, yet by giving them away, it receiveth all things. It doth all things for it self, yet it doth all things for others. It preferres it Self, yet it preferres others. It altogether mindeth its own Satisfaction, but its own is to be the Happiness of other Persons. It solely intendeth its objects Bliss, and its own Glory. It soley intendeth its own glory, yet its objects Bliss. It designeth the Glory of its

103 _{Kingdom, 256.} 104 _{Kingdom, 312.} 105 _Ibid.

object wholy, and is what it designeth, its objects Glory. Its own Bliss is its objects Glory, its own is its objects Bliss.106

Traherne seems to realize how incongruous his words sound to typical human experience whereby it is only at the expense of another that an individual soul climbs to greater bliss and glory. Traherne was well aware that ‘The Burden of our Corruption presses us down, and we are accustomed so much to Malevolence, and Mishap, that our Experience makes us Blind, Sin make us acquainted with nothing but Affronts, and abuses, which causes us to assume the ‘Slavish Apprehensions’ and ‘Narrow Expectations’ of those around us.107 _{To this mind}

Traherne continues by exploring the essential unity of God’s creation, and the beautitude available to all.

These seeming Repugnances are Reconciled in its Nature with Infinit Sweetness, being Various Differences, intended in Simple unitie. The Unitie is Indivisible, yet includeth diversities innumerable. And Evry diversity is a Several face, or Appearance of Beauty. and Evry Appearance an Infinit Realitie, and Evry Realitie a Glorious delight to all Spectators. And Evry delight in all the Creatures, its own Enjoyment, both as it is their delight, and the Mirror, wherin it discernes its own Realitie.108

We notice in these words the interaction of the ‘Simple unitie’ of love and the ‘innumerable’ ‘diversities’ that spring from love. In these words we hear an echo of an ancient question of how the diversity of objects that we see originated from an ultimate principle of simple unity, or as Traherne states, loves ‘Unitie is Indivisible’. As Traherne has already articulated, however, this unity is seen not so much in singularity but in internal ‘Harmonies’, which then enables it to assume within itself ‘diversities innumerable’. The diversities are an expression of the unity of love as their source, and so each object becomes a ‘Several face, or

Appearance of Beauty.’ Not only is beauty shared with the created objects, so is ‘Infinit Realitie’, which then enables it to be an object of delight. In calling ‘Evry Appearance an Infinit Realitie’ Traherne marginalizes the part of the platonic schema (especially that of Plotinus) that posits a hierarchy of being within its cosmological construct and, therefore, denies the real being of corporeal matter.109 _{We will see in the coming chapters that the}

human person plays a special role in the created order, but here we notice that Traherne rejects the ontological hierarchy so prevalent in most Neoplatonic schemes; there is no privileged portion of creation that has received more of the divine goodness, beauty and love.

106 _Ibid. 107 _{Ibid., 313.} 108 _{Ibid., 312.}

109 _{In Ennead II.4 [12].5, 35-39, Plotinus denies any real being in physical matter, instead describing it}

One last intriguing thing to notice in these words is how love ‘discernes its own Realitie’ in the ‘Enjoyment’ of sharing in the delight of all creatures. Again Traherne discerns a moral imperative to delight, for when the soul delights in the beauty of creation, this delight is mirrored back to the divine, providing an opportunity for love to discern itself in the delight of the object.

We have seen that Traherne utilizes similar formulations when speaking of created love and God – for God is love – while also showing how Traherne attempts to maintain the Nicean distinction between God and creation. We have also noticed the similar language and formulations used for love as those used of both beauty and goodness. In this similar vein we notice that Traherne provides direct statements with regards to love and beauty. He states outright that beauty manifested in creation is a sign of love as its source in the following: ‘That Love was the Original of things is Manifest by their Beauty.’110 _{He also calls love ‘the}

fountain of Goodness’111_{. With regards to beauty Traherne makes the following remarks}

pertaining to love.

As in Qualitie of Inclination it resembles the Lov of GOD, being prone to Delight in others Happiness, and to Cloath it self with Beauty, that it might becom Desirable, to lov Beauty and Delight in it, to take pleasure in good Works, and to be profuse in Giving.112

Cloathing itself in beauty, love attracts the desire of the delighted soul, bestowing felicity and delight. The allure of beauty draws the soul into the reciprocal giving and receiving of love. This clear identification of beauty as the entity that draws desire is echoed again in chapter thirteen of the Kingdom of God, where Traherne points the reader to the Beauty of God, for God’s beauty not only ‘obligeth us to admire him It Enflameth us to Lov him,’ and calls us to ‘Enjoy him’.

And the Beauty which we undertook to discover in his Being, upon the Single Account of its Profitableness unto all, consisteth in this, that while it obligeth us to admire him It Enflameth us to Lov him, it maketh us able to delight in his Happiness, and while it is Infinitly profitable to Him self, it delighteth us with Endless pleasure, becaus we Lov him in all his Appearances Attributes Perfections, which are infinitly Profitable to us in him, and in us to him, becaus it is delightfull to those who Enjoy him, and to him especialy, whose pleasure it is to be enjoyed. Infinit Mysteries, Perfections, Beauties, and pleasures are interwoven here with most agreable Harmonies.113 110 _{Kingdom, 310.} 111 _{Ibid., 312.} 112 _{Kingdom, 434.} 113 _{Kingdom, 318.}

The central purpose in Traherne’s contemplation of the dynamics of mutual ‘Profitableness’, is that his reader might ‘discover’ divine ‘Beauty’ ‘in his Being’, for once discovered God’s beauty initially invites admiration, but then ‘Enflameth us to Lov him’. This dynamic of divine beauty enflaming love for God is extended to all creation ‘becaus we Lov him in all his Appearance’. God’s love and beauty are mirrored, imaged, embodied, and made objects of the intellect, enjoyment and delight, that human desire might be enflamed to love God, and allured back into union with God.

For Traherne, love, as the Form of God’s Kingdom, functions as a principle of union114_{, linking all things together into one entity. Traherne remarks ‘What a Strange and}

Mysterious Being is Lov, which unites the Soul to the Goodness of her objects, feeds upon their Sweetness, and produceth the pleasure that is felt in the Enjoyment!’115 _{Love makes}

enjoyment possible. It allows the human soul to feast on the very love, goodness and beauty of its object. And love which is the ‘very essence of God’ draws us with desire into union with ‘Eternal Lov’.

What can the Soul of Man desire more then that God should be Infinit and Eternal Lov? Lov which is the fountain of all Benefits, Honors, and Pleasures, Lov which is the Glory and Happiness of its Object, Lov which is the Tender, and compassionat Principle, its Objects Bliss and Security. Lov which is the End of all Endeavors, and the Soul of Enjoyments Lov which is the Wary, and circumspect affection, studying all ways how it may pleas, and oblige its Object, Lov which Crowns its Object with Delights and Pleasures, and the more it is, is the more pleasing: Lov is infinit and Eternal in God, Nay tis God! for God is Lov, and he that dwelleth in Lov, dwelleth in God, and God in him. The very essence of God is Lov unto all, and Lov unto me.116

Love is the unifying reality that calls ‘objects’ back into union with their ‘subjects’. In this unifying force of love, the lover and beloved experience each other in enjoyment. God has not only taken the place of lover, he also becomes object, namely the object of human love. The human desire and capacity to enjoy an object come from this same capacity in God,

For GOD is an Infinit object, and an Infinit Enjoyer: And all the Created Enjoyers are like him, objects of his and Each others Enjoyment. But Lov efflagitates and calls for our Return. As it is the Fountain of Life and operation, it is the Form of God’s

Kingdom. All the fragrancy that is in sweet perfumes, all the Fructifying power in Trees, all the Lustre in precious Stones, all the splendor of the Sun and Stars, all the Influences of Heaven, are actuated by Lov, and by Lov Enjoyed.117

As God is an object to be enjoyed and an enjoyer seeking objects to enjoy, God has created

114 _{Kingdom, 433.} 115 _{Ibid., 435.} 116 _{Kingdom, 477.} 117 _{Kingdom, 434.}

humankind as ‘Created Enjoyers.’ The love of God has infused the created order with countless objects to enjoy and part of the human calling is to do just that, enjoy them.