1 Lottin, D. Odon, Psychologie et morale aux XII^e et XIII^e siècles (Louvain, 1942–60), 2: 103–349. Some of the more important texts in the medieval debate have been translated into English and published by Potts, Timothy C., Conscience in Medieval Philosophy (Cambridge, 1980).Google Scholar

2 De veritate, qq. 16 and 17. The matter is treated less thoroughly in the Summa theologiae, I, q. 79, aa. 12–13; I–II, q. 94, a. 1 ad 2; I–II q. 47, a. 6, ad 1 and ad 3.Google Scholar

3 On these matters, see especially Crowe, Michael B., “The Term Synderesis and the Scholastics,” Irish Theological Quarterly 23 (1956): 151–64, 228–45; de Blic, S. J. Jacques, “Syndérèse ou conscience?” Revue d'ascètique et de mystique 25 (1949): 146–57. Also Petzäll, Åke, “La syndérèse: De l'Aigle d'Ézéchiel à la conscience morale par le Commentaire de Saint Jérôme,” Theoria (Lund–Copenhagen) 20 (1954): 64–77.Google Scholar

4 The question about whether syneidēsis or synderesis is the correct reading was a disputed question in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It seems fair to say that the predominant scholarly opinion eventually concluded that synderesis is a corrupted reading. Crowe gives a summary of the reasons for this judgment in “The Term Synderesis and the Scholastics,” 153–55. A more complete account is provided by Blic. A brief overview of the debate is provided by Brown, Oscar James, Natural Rectitude and Divine Law in Aquinas: An Approach to an Integral Interpretation of the Thomistic Doctrine of Law (Toronto, 1981), 175–77. Nevertheless, Potts argues that synderesis or synteresis does occur, though rarely, in late Greek, and that such a reading for Jerome is therefore not impossible. See Conscience in Medieval Philosophy, 10–11.Google Scholar

5 “Alii vero, qui philosophorum stultam sequuntur sapientiam. …” ( In Hiezechielem , ed. Glorie, Francisci, CCL 75 [Turnhout, 1964], 11, lines 206–7). Throughout this essay, unattributed translations are the author's own.Google Scholar

6 “Plerique, iuxta Platonem, rationale animae et irascentiuum et concupiscentiuum, quod ille λογιϰὸν et θυμιϰὸν et ἐπιθυμητικὸν vocat, ad hominem et leonem ac vitulum referunt: rationem et cogitationem et mentem et consilium eandem virtutem atque sapientiam in cerebri arce ponentes, feritatem vero et iracundiam atque violentiam in leone, quae consistit in felle, porro libidinem, luxuriam et omnium voluptatum cupidinem in iecore, id est in vitulo, qui terrae operibus haereat; …” ( In Hiezechielem , CCL 75, 11–12, lines 209–17).Google Scholar

7 It should be noted that Plato himself seems to consider the distinction to be only provisional. At 435d, and again at 504b–d, Socrates speaks of a “longer road” that would provide a more adequate treatment of the soul. At 443a he hints at the possibility that there are more than three elements in the soul.Google Scholar

8 Trans. Bloom, Allan, 2d ed. (New York, 1991), 588b–e.Google Scholar

9 “terrae operibus haereat” ( In Hiezechielem , CCL 75, 12, line 217).Google Scholar

10 For the Platonists' assignation of the various bodily organs to the particular parts of the soul, one must look not to the Republic but to the Timaeus, where Timaeus — not Socrates — attaches passions to bodily organs (cf. 70a ff.). Presumably the Platonists did not need Ezekiel to connect these two texts of Plato.Google Scholar

11 At Republic, 586a–b, Plato uses βοσκήματα (cattle, or fatted beasts generally); at Philebus 67b he refers to the βόες (cattle or oxen). At Nicomachean Ethics 1095b 20, Aristotle refers to life of the many as a βίος βοσκημάτων (a life of cattle). The Septuagint at Ezekiel 1:10 uses μόσχος (calf). Jerome used bos (ox, bull, or cow) for the Vulgate's rendering of Ezekiel, prior to composing his Commentary on Ezekiel. Yet, in the Commentary Jerome repeatedly refers to the vitulus (calf). In the passage in the Revelation (4:7) in which the animals reappear, the Vulgate translates the Greek μόσχος as vitulus. Google Scholar

12 The various translations of the vision of Ezekiel are ambiguous in verse 11. The verse refers to something being “above” other elements of the vision. Modern English translations (e.g., The New American Bible, The New Revised Standard Version, and so forth) seem to take this to refer to two of the multiple wings of each of the four creatures that have the four faces, but some of the older translations seem to leave open the possibility that what is above is the eagle and its wings. This ambiguity may well be behind the “Platonic” interpretation's placing of the eagle above the other animals. Jerome's Vulgate renders verses 10–11 thus: “similtudo autem vultus eorum facies hominis et facies leonis a dextris ipsorum quattuor facies autem bovis a sinistris ipsorum quattuor et facies aquilae ipsorum quattuor et facies eorum et pinnae eorum extentae desuper…” The antecedents of the two italicized uses of “eorum” could perhaps be ambiguous.Google Scholar

13 “… quartumque ponunt quae super haec et extra haec tria est, quam Graeci vocant συνείδησιν — — quae scintilla conscientiae in Cain quoque pectore, postquam eiectus est de paradiso, non extinguitur, et, victi voluptatibus vel furore, ipsaque interdum rationis decepti similitudine, nos peccare sentimus —, quam proprie aquilae députant, non se miscentem tribus sed tria errantia corrigentem, quam in scripturis interdum vocari legimus spiritum, qui interpellat pro nobis gemitibus ineffabilibus (Rom. 8:26). Nemo enim scit ea quae hominis sunt, nisi spiritus qui in eo est (1 Cor. 2:11), quem et Paulus ad Thessalonicenses scribens cum anima et corpore servari integrum deprecatur (1 Thess. 5:23). Et tamen hanc quoque ipsam conscientiam, iuxta illud quod in Proverbiis scriptum est: Impius cum venerit in profundum peccatorum, contemnit (Prov. 18:3), cernimus praecipitari apud quosdam, et suum locum amittere, qui ne pudorem quidem et verecundiam habent in delictis et merentur audire: Facies meretricis facta est tibi, nescis erubescere (Jer. 3:3). Hanc igitur quadrigam in aurigae modum Deus regit et incompositis currentem gradibus refrenat docilemque facit et suo parere cogit imperio” ( In Hiezechielem , CCL 75, 12, lines. 217–36).Google Scholar

14 See Delhaye, Philippe, The Christian Conscience , trans. Quinn, Charles Underhill (New York, 1968), 69–99; originally published as La conscience morale du chrétien (Tournai, 1964); and Stelzenberger, Johannes, Syneidesis, Conscientia, Gewissen: Studie zum Bedeutungswandel eines moraltheologischen Begriffes (Paderborn, 1963), 43–63. Consulting the entry for συνείδησις in Lampe's Patristic Greek Lexicon (Lampe, G. W. H., A Patristic Greek Lexicon [Oxford, 1961]) proves the point also.Google Scholar

15 This paragraph and the following one rely heavily on Couzel, S. J. Henri, “L'anthropologie d'Origène dans la perspective du combat spirituel,” Revue d'ascétique et de mystique 31 (1955): 364–85, and Origen: The Life and Thought of the First Great Theologian , trans. Worrall, A. S. (San Francisco, 1989), 87–98. See also Crouzel, S. J. Henri, Théologie de l'image de Dieu chez Origène (Paris, 1956); and Dupuis, Jacques, “L'esprit de l'homme”: étude sur l'anthropologie religieuse d'Origène (Paris and Bruges, 1967).Google Scholar

16 “… τηρήσας έν πάση τη γραφή διαφοράν ψυχής καί πνεύματος καί μέσον μέν τι θεωρών είναι τήν ψυχήν καί έπιδεχομένην άρετήν καί κακίαν, άνεπίδεκτον δέ τών χει- ρόνων τό πνεύμα του ανθρώπου τό έν αύτώ' τά γαρ κάλλιστα καρποί λέγονται είναι του πνεύματος, ούχ ώς αν οιηθείν τις, του άγιου, άλλα του ανθρωπίνου” ( Commentary on the Gospel of John , ed. Preuschen, Erwin, Origines Werke, GCS 4 [Leipzig, 1903], 32.218. English translation is by Heine, Ronald E. (Origen: Commentary on the Gospel according to John, The Fathers of the Church, 89 [Washington, D. C., 1993], 383). Thomas P. Scheck lists a number of other passages in Origen's work in which the same point is made; see his translation of Origen's Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans: Books 1–5, The Fathers of the Church, 103 (Washington, D. C., 2001), 94 n. 294.Google Scholar

17 “Frequenter in scipturis inuenimus et a nobis saepe dissertum est quod homo spiritus et corpus et anima esse dicatur. Uerum cum dicitur quia caro concupiscit aduersum spiritum spiritus autem aduersus carnem, media procul dubio ponitur anima quae uel desideriis spiritus adquiescat uel ad carnis concupiscentias inclinetur; et si quidem se iunxerit carni unum cum ea corpus in libidine et concupiscentiis eius efficitur, si uero se sociauerit spiritui, unus cum ea spiritus erit” ( Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans , Latin translation of Rufinus, ed. Bammel, Caroline P. Hammond, Der Römerbriefkommentar des Origenes: kritische Ausgabe der Übersetzung Rufins, Aus der Geschichte der lateinischen Bibel, 16 [Freiburg im Breisgau, 1990], 1.18.5. English translation by Scheck, Commentary, 94. This passage is enumerated as 1.21 in Hammond Bammel's divisions.).Google Scholar

18 Indeed, Origen is famous for his theological interpretation of animals; see Crouzel, , Théologie de l'image de Dieu chez Origène , 197–206.Google Scholar

19 This chart relies on the one provided by Crouzel, , “L'Anthropologie d'Origène,” 366.Google Scholar

20 Jerome's Commentary on Ezekiel dates from the latter period of his life, when he was at Bethlehem. His work on it was interrupted repeatedly by refugees fleeing Rome after Alaric's attack in 410, and he is thought to have finished it about 414. Since our passage is toward the beginning of the work, it should be dated early within that time frame. Jerome's translation of the Homilies of Origen on Ezekiel is usually assigned to Jerome's time in Constantinople, after his friend Vincentius urged him to this task in about 381. At any rate, Jerome clearly says in De viris illustribus 135 that he has already completed the task of translating these Homilies of Origen on Ezekiel, and the De viris illustribus was composed prior to the Commentary on Ezekiel. See, e.g., Cavallera, Ferdinand, Saint Jérôme: sa vie et sa oeuvre, Specilegium sacrum Lovaniense: Etudes et documents, 1 (Louvain and Paris, 1922), 1:69; di Berardino, Angelo, ed., Patrology , trans. Solari, O. S. B. Placid (Westminster, Md., 1988), 4:229; Kelly, J. N. D., Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (London, 1975; repr. Peabody, Mass., 1998), 76, 306; and Borret, S. J. Marcel, “Introduction” to his edition of Origène: Homélies sur Ézéchiel, Sources Chrétiennes (SC), 352 (Paris, 1989), 19.Google Scholar

21 Origen, , Homilies on Ezekiel 1.16: “spiritus qui praesidet ad auxiliandum”; “spiritus praesidens animae.” For the most part, these Homilies survive only in the Latin translation of Jerome. A few Greek fragments also survive in collections of excerpts, however, and these speak of the eagle as “ή βοηθούσα δύναμις, τό πνεύμα του ανθρώπου τό έν αύτω” (1 Cor. 2:11), and “τό βοηθούν τη ψυχη”. See SC 352, 94 (Jerome's translation only); GCS 33, 339–40 (Jerome's translation with some of the Greek fragments); PL 25, 706–7 (Jerome's translation only); PG 13, 681b–c (Jerome's translation with surviving Greek fragments published as footnotes).Google Scholar

22 More to the point, neither does the passage from the Homilies use in this context the word conscientia, which Jerome could be expected to use in his Latin translation (see previous note).Google Scholar

23 History of the Church 6.32.Google Scholar

24 Ep. 33, to Paula , 4, CSEL 54 (Vienna, 1996).Google Scholar

25 “'Έδυνάμην δέ παραθέσθαι τά περί τών παρ' Έβραίοις καλουμένων σεραφίμ, άναγε γραμμένων έν τω Ησαΐα, καλυπτόντων τό πρόσωπον καί τούς πόδας του θεοΰ, καί τά περί τών όνομαζομένων χερουβιμ, ά διέγραψεν ό Ιεζεκιήλ, καί τών ώσανεί σχημάτων αύτών, καί τίνα τρόπον όχεΐσθαι λέγεται έπί τών χερουβίμ ό θεός αλλ έπεί πάνυ κεκρυμ μένως είρηται δια τούς αναξίους καί άσεμνους, μη δυναμένους παρακολουθησαι μεγαλο νοία καί σεμνότητι θεολογίας, ούχ ήγκησάμην πρέπον είναι έν τω συγγράμματι τούτω περί αύτών διαλεχθηναι” ( Origène: Contre Celse , 3 [Livres 5 et 6], ed. Borret, S.J. Marcel, SC 147 [Paris, 1969], 6.18. English translation by Chadwick, Henry, Origen: Contra Celsum [Cambridge, 1965]). Emphasis mine.Google Scholar

26 See the Clavis Patrum Graecorum (Turnhout, 1974), 2:199, which cites Sinko, Th., De traditione orationum Gregorii Nazianzeni: Pars I (Krakow, 1917), 160–67. Also see, Appel, Heinrich, Die Lehre der Scholastiker von der Synteresis (Rostock, 1891), 3–5; and Blic, , “Syndérèse ou conscience?” 151–52.Google Scholar

27 “Νομίζομεν τον άνθρωπον είναι τό λογικόν τον λέοντα, τό θυμικό ν τον μόσχον, τό έπιτθυμητικόν τον άετόν, τήν συνείδησιν έπικειμένην τοις λοιποΐς, δ έστι πνεύμα παρά Παύλου λεγόμενον του ανθρώπου …” (PG 36, 665a).Google Scholar

28 The text of The Greek New Testament , ed. Aland, Kurt, et al. (4th ed. [Stuttgart, 1994]), uses “heart” or καρδία” at 1 John 3:21, not “conscience” or συνείδησις, and does not give the latter even as a variant. Perhaps Origen is here running together in his mind “heart” and “conscience” and is not consulting the text directly; if so, he gives us the answer to the question about the relationship between “heart” and “conscience” that he raises at the beginning of the passage quoted here. Scheck points out that Origen also uses “conscience” in his citation of 1 John 3:21 in his Homilies on Jeremiah 16.3; see his translation of Origen's Commentary on Romans, 133 n. 239.Google Scholar

29 “Unde necessarium uidetur discutere quid istud sit quod conscientiam apostolus uocat; utrumne alia sit aliqua substantia quam cor uel anima. Haec enim conscientia et alibi dicitur quia reprehendat non reprehendatur et judicet hominem non ipsa iudicetur sicut ait Ioannes: ‘si conscientia inquit nostra non reprehendat nos fiduciam habemus ad Deum (1 John 3:21).’ Et iterum ipse Paulus alibi dicit: ‘quia gloriatio nostra haec est testimonium conscientiae nostrae (2 Cor. 1:12).’ Quia ergo tantam ejus uideo libertatem quae in bonis quidem gestis gaudeat semper et exsultet, in malis uero non arguatur sed ipsam animam cui cohaeret reprehendat et arguat, arbitror quod ipse sit spiritus qui ab apostolo esse cum anima dicitur, secundum quod in superioribus edocuimus, uelut paedagogus ei quidam sociatus et rector ut earn uel de melioribus moneat, uel de culpis castiget et arguat; de qua et dicat apostolus: ‘quia nemo scit hominum quae sunt hominis nisi spiritus hominis qui in ipso est (1 Cor. 2:11);’ et ipse sit conscientiae spiritus de quo dicit: ‘ipse spiritus testimonium reddit spiritui nostro (Rom. 8:16)’” ( Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans 2.9.3–4; in the translation of Rufinus, English trans. by Scheck. This passage is enumerated as 2.7 in the Latin edition of Hammond Bammel; n. 17 above.).Google Scholar

30 Origen, , On First Principles 3.4.1: “non valde confirmari ex divinae scripturae auctoritate pervideo” (ed. Crouzel, Henri and Simonetti, Manlio, Origène: Traité des principes , 3 [Livres 3 et 4], SC 268 [Paris, 1980]). English trans. Butterworth, G. W., Origen: On First Principles (New York, 1966), 231.Google Scholar

31 Homilies 1.16: “… de qua etiam aliorum opinionibus disputatum est.” Google Scholar

32 Tertullian, , De anima 16.3 (CCL 2, 803, 20–25; CSEL 20, 322, 7–12; PL 2, 715a).Google Scholar

33 Bell, David N., “The Tripartite Soul and the Image of God in the Latin Tradition,” Recherche théologie ancienne et médiévale 47 (1980): 23 n. 40.Google Scholar

34 Ambrose, , De virginitate 18.112–14 (PL 16, 295a–96a), De Abraham 2.8.54 (CSEL 32/1, 607, 9–16, PL 14, 480a–b).Google Scholar

35 Both διορατικόν and συνείδησις have as their roots, however, words pertaining to sight, and both are used in Origen's writings. Ambrose does not assign each of the parts of the tripartition to a particular bodily organ, as does the interpretation discussed by Jerome; however, Ambrose does apply a cardinal virtue to each of the parts and in this way resembles Plato in book 4 of the Republic. Google Scholar

36 Crouzel suggests that Origen's concept has its ultimate origin in the Hebrew word ruach rather than in Plato, see Origen, 88; see also, however, the comprehensive account of both Christian and non-Christian discussions of spirit in late antiquity provided by Verbeke, Gérard, L'évolution de la doctrine du pneuma: Du Stoïcisme à S. Augustin (Paris, 1945).Google Scholar

37 It was the opinion of Eusebius (History of the Church 6.19) that Ammonius Saccas, the teacher of Plotinus, had also once been the teacher of Origen.Google Scholar

38 E.g., 588e, 592b. Socrates professes to marvel at Timarchus's story.Google Scholar

39 See, however, the cautionary remarks of Ernest L. Fortin in “The Political Implications of Augustine's Theory of Conscience,” Augustinian Studies 1 (1970): 133–52; repr. in Ernest L. Fortin: Collected Essays , ed. Benestad, J. Brian (Lanham, Md., 1996) 2:75–78. In Plato, Socrates' daimôn is discussed especially at Theages 128d–31a; also Ap. 31d, 40a–c, Euthphr. 3b, Resp. 496c, Tht. 151a, Phdr. 242b–c, Euthydemus 272e.Google Scholar

40 Some of the manuscripts of the early masters even mistakenly ascribe the position not to Jerome but to Gregory the Great. See Lottin, , Psychologie et morale , 2:140 n. 1.Google Scholar