Kevin Clarke: Maximus the Confessor's Anti-Severan Polemics in the Opuscula

Severus of Antioch is mentioned just as often in the Opuscula as is Nestorius; so why is there not a more specific polemic against the theological opponents of Maximus’s own day? Maximus is convinced that there is nothing new in the innovation of his day, but that it is a repetition of the Severan approach to nature (φύσις). This is a fascinating twist of irony in light of Severus’s anti-Chalcedonian attempt to be faithful to the thought of Cyril of Alexandria. Maximus shows how Severus not only fails to align with Cyril but actually sets himself up against Cyril, albeit in a reciprocal fashion from Nestorius’s opposition. For Maximus, Cyril is the midpoint between Nestorius and Severus, each of whom treads out his own path of resistance to Cyrillian Christology. With Nestorius, there is difference in the wrong place, while with Severus, there is mixture in the wrong place. It is quite a clever strategy because Maximus’s Constantinopolitan opponents do not want to be Severans any more than Maximus does. Such polemics also helps to explain why Maximus is not as keen on naming names in the more traditional sense of polemics, which would also present quite a risk if he were to openly indict his imperial adversaries by name. This essay will present a brief treatment of Maximus’s thought on nature against that of “Severus the senseless sophist” in the Opuscula. The Severan approach to nature renders the question of will and operation moot.