Amphialus killing Philoxenus in Book one Chapter 11 of Arcadia is because of God’s principle in giving man “the nobility of choice” (152, Mideval Phil).
In chapter 16 of “Mideval philosophy” we see several excerpts from John Chrysostom. These excerpts deal with “divine condescension” (or a higher being stooping lower than their real form in order to communicate with lesser beings). Additionally we see Chrysostom’s “critique of philosophy” which can essentially be boiled down to all philosophies prior to christianity have failed in their respective areas, and christianity is “the one true philosophy” (149).
Chryosostom talks a lot about the idea of choice in these excerpts. As an example, he quotes the famous and controversial verse: “Jacob I have loved but Esau have I hated” (Rom: 9:11-13). God’s jurisdiction regarding his feelings for Jacob and Esau is being questioned by Chrysostom: Why would Jacob be loved and why would Esau be hated? The reasoning behind God’s decisions seem arbitrary and cruel. If God is an ultimate being with complete control over any and everything, why not love all? Or why make a being that can hate/be hated in the first place.
It’s a valid question that holds some truth. But Chryosostom eventually comes to the conclusion that God does not exist to see “a mere exhibition of works” but rather to see a “nobleness of choice and an obedient temper.” Or, God doesn’t want to simply make a perfect reality, but rather, one in which individuals have wills and are able to find their own path.
While “the nobleness of choice” sounds eloquent, it still makes God seem sadistic in a sense. Chrysostom isn’t denying God’s ultimate power, he is saying that God actively made the choice to allow humans to seek out their own destinies (for better or worse).
These themes are very present in chapter 11 Book one of Arcadia. Specifically, the battle between Philoxenus and Amphialus. Philoxenus, who was overcome by rage and jealousy was entirely convinced that his friend had betrayed him and was set on killing him out of revenge. Amphialus drew his sword in self defence but was forced to kill Philoxenus due to his aggression. The author states “He once overtook him; but Amphialus drawing his sword, which was the only part of his arms (God knows to what purpose) he carried about him, threatening to kill him if he followed him,” I think the small parenthetical, “God know to what purpose” is the clearest point of connection between the two readings, as it takes the principles from the Medieval readings, and puts it bluntly in a very relevant context. *The author uses repetition in the chapter, continuously using the term “choice” in order to further his point.*