20.1.kalvesmaki

8/13/2019 20.1.kalvesmaki

1/29

The Epistula fidei of Evagrius of Pontus: An Answer to Constantinople

Joel Kalvesmaki

Journal of Early Christian Studies, Volume 20, Number 1, Spring 2012,pp. 113-139 (Article)

Published by The Johns Hopkins University PressDOI: 10.1353/earl.2012.0007

For additional information about this article

Access provided by username 'treederwright' (2 Nov 2013 01:54 GMT)

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/earl/summary/v020/20.1.kalvesmaki.html
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/earl/summary/v020/20.1.kalvesmaki.htmlhttp://muse.jhu.edu/journals/earl/summary/v020/20.1.kalvesmaki.html


2/29

Journal of Early Christian Studies 20:1, 113139 2012 The Johns Hopkins University Press

For the hypothesis developed in this article I owe a debt of gratitude to Fr. Theo-phanes (Constantine) of Mount Athos. He rst suggested that there were problemswith the authorship and dating of theEpistula dei, and his insights, even those Ifound wanting, catalyzed my research. I also thank Robin Darling Young, AugustineCasiday, and the anonymous reviewers of this journal for their constructive candor.Mentions of Frankenberg and Gribomonts editions refer, respectively, toEuagriusPonticus, ed. Wilhelm Frankenberg, Abhandlungen der Kniglichen Gesellschaft derWissenschaften zu Gttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, n.s. 13.2 (Berlin: Weid-mann, 1912), 62034, and Epistula 8, ed. Jean Gribomont, in Basil of Caesarea,Lelettere, ed. Marcella Forlin Patrucco (Torino: Societ editrice internazionale, 1983),1:84112. Modern scholars use two systems of numbering for the letter, both of whichare followed here, unless line numbers are crucial, in which case Gribomonts num-bering is followed. For Gregory of NazianzussOrations, I have followedDiscours,ed. Jean Bernardi et al., SC 247, 250, 270, 284, 309, 318, 358, 384, 405 (Paris: di-tions du Cerf, 19781992).

The Epistula dei ofEvagrius of Pontus:An Answer to Constantinople

JOEL KALVESMAKIThe De deor Epistula deiby Evagrius is widely thought to have beenwritten from Constantinople around 381 to Christians back home in Pontus.In this article, I revive and rene a thesis advanced in 1923 by Melcher, thatthe letter was written in factto Constantinople, after Evagrius ed the cityin 382. Building on Melchers insights, I argue that Evagrius wrote the letterfrom Jerusalem or Egypt, as a monk, sometime in 383 or later. Thus, the letteris not really a defense of his actions, even though he explains why he ed

Constantinople. It is rather a pastoral letter, draped in the spiritual and intel-lectual mantle of Gregory of Nazianzusan attack on the heresies in the cityand a demonstration to the orthodox of a higher epistemology. Revising thedate and audience of theEpistula deipermits new insights into the develop-ment of Evagriuss theology, the state of Constantinople under Nectarius, andthe contested inheritance of Gregory of Nazianzus.


3/29

114 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

1. Palladius,H. Laus.38.2; Antoine Guillaumont,Un philosophe au dsert: vagrele Pontique (Paris: Vrin, 2004), 32.

2. Guillaumont,Philosophe, 34; Augustine Casiday,Evagrius Ponticus (New York:Routledge, 2006), 6, 203 n. 6 (speculative but possible).

3. Cf. Apophth. Patr. Evagrius 7 (PG 65:176A), where a priest says to Evagrius:We know, Abba, that, if you were in your country, you would have been a bishopmany times over and the head of many people. But now here you sit, like a for-eigner (my trans.).

4. Guillaumont,Philosophe, 36.

In his early adulthood Evagrius of Pontus (ca. 345399) seemed destinedfor a successful ecclesiastical career. He spent his youth in the city of Neo-caesarea (Pontus) and then perhaps Caesarea (Cappadocia), whose bishop,Basil the Great, ordained him a reader.1 In 379, shortly after the death ofBasil that January, Evagrius left for Constantinople. Gregory of Nazian-zus, the orthodox bishop of the city, had long known of Evagriuss literary,intellectual, and theological talents. Taking advantage of his arrivalper-haps having induced itGregory enlisted him in the work that led to thegreat council of 381.2 Gregory made Evagrius his archdeacon, a position hecontinued to hold after his masters untimely departure before the councilwas assembled. Evagrius was the citys premiere apologist, and his path

to even higher ecclesiastical ofce seemed assured.3Scholars generally agree that Evagriuss departure from Neocaesarea orCaesarea was marked by some distressing event. The story goes that afterhe arrived in Constantinople he received from the community he aban-doned a letter asking him to return to his homeland. Evagrius respondedafter December 380 (when Gregory deliveredOration 36, quoted in thisresponse). He asked for more time with Gregory, whom he had just found,and presented an argument for and exposition of the orthodox faith.4

The circumstances described in the previous paragraph, widely accepted(but challenged in this article), are derived solely from a letter commonlycalled theDe deor Epistula dei. This letter, the earliest datable writingby Evagrius, is commonly regarded as a display of Evagriuss theologicalpedigree. It is thought to reveal his seminal ideas, his intellectual and spiri-tual kinship to Gregory and Basil, and the reputation he enjoyed beforehis own untimely departure from Constantinople, in 382, when he ed to Jerusalem to escape sexual entanglement with a prefects wife. The letteris considered a window into a premonastic Evagrius.

Appearances are illusory. In this article I rene and defend a proposal rstsuggested by Melcher in 1923, neglected nearly as soon as it was published:Evagrius wrote hisEpistula dei, not from butto Constantinople, after he


4/29

KALVESMAKI /EPISTULA FIDEI 115

5. See Wilhelm Bousset,Apophthegmata: Studien zur Geschichte des ltestenMnchtums (Tbingen: Mohr, 1923), 33541; Robert Melcher,Der achte Brief deshl. Basilius: Ein Werk des Evagrius Pontikus, Mnsterische Beitrge zur Theolo-gie 1 (Mnster i.W: Aschendorff, 1923), esp. 14, 7879. Our earliest manuscript, asixth- or seventh-century copy of a Syriac translation, ascribes the letter to Evagrius.After he was condemned in the sixth century the letter was transmitted in the Greekunder other, less controversial names (Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, and Nilusof Ancyra). For the eight Greek manuscripts see, in addition to Gribomonts edition(which collates only ve, and omits the Syriac), Jean Gribomont, Ldition romaine

(1673) des Tractatus de S. Nil et lOttobonianus gr. 25,Texte und Untersuchungen133 (1987): 187202, and Paul Ghin, La place de laLettre sur la foidans loeuvredvagre, inLepistula dei di Evagrio Pontico: Temi, contesti, sviluppi; Atti delIII Convegno del Gruppo Italiano [1998, Pragia, Italy] di Ricerca su Origene e laTradizione Alessandrina, ed. Paulo Bettiolo, Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 72(Rome: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 2000), 2558. The Greek manuscriptsdo not vary greatly, so it is unlikely that the three late, uncollated manuscripts wouldsignicantly improve Gribomonts edition, which accurately captures the text as it stoodin the tenth century. In this article, however, I occasionally cite the Syriac translationwhen its variations point either to a different Greek reading or, easily overlooked, toan ancient interpretation that may prove insightful.

6. Trans. Casiday,Evagrius Ponticus, 4647 (based on Gribomonts edition, 8486),some wording adapted, especially to reect the Syriac translation (explained below),and punctuation introduced to mark quotations. Numbering is from Gabriel Bunge,Brief aus der Wste (Trier: Paulinus-Verlag, 1986), with a and b supplied to facilitatemy discussion. On editions and numbering, see unnumbered note, above.

ed the city in 382. Building on Melchers insights, I argue that Evagriuswrote the letter from Jerusalem or Egypt, as a monk, sometime in 383 orlater. Thus, the letter is not really a defense of his actions, even though heexplains why he ed Constantinople. It is rather a pastoral letter, draped inthe spiritual and intellectual mantle of Gregoryan attack on the heresiesin the city and a demonstration to the orthodox of a higher epistemology.Revising the date and audience of theEpistula deipermits new insightsinto the development of Evagriuss theology, the state of Constantinopleunder Nectarius, and the contested inheritance of Gregory of Nazianzus.

MELCHER AND THE PREAMBLE

Modern understanding of the letter owes much to the 1923 scholarship ofBousset and Melcher, who were essential in recovering what was forgot-ten sometime after the sixth century, that Evagrius was the author.5 Bothscholars extensively used the preamble of theEpistula deito rehabilitatethe author and explain the circumstances for the writing of the letter. Thatpreamble (and a bit more) runs as follows:6


5/29


7. The entire quote derives from Gregory of Nazianzus,Or. 36.1 (SC 318:240),even though the opening words are found in many rhetorical treatises. See Gribo-monts edition and Leonardo Lugaresi, Non disprezziamo leconomia: Linusso delpensiero teologico di Gregorio Nazianzeno sullEpistula dei, in Bettiolo,LEpistuladei, 87143, 90 n. 8.

8. Gregory of Nazianzus,Or. 2.6 (SC 247:94).9. Gregory of Nazianzus,Or. 2.6 (SC 247:94).10. Gregory of Nazianzus,Or. 2.1 (SC 247:86).11. Gregory of Nazianzus,Or. 2.6 (SC 247:94).12. Bousset,Apophthegmata, 33537. Many have held that Basil made Evagrius a

monk, but this theory is poorly supported, based only on a letter whose recipient wasincorrectly identied as Basil; cf. Guillaumont,Philosophe, 28. Further, as pointed outto me by Fr. Theophanes (Constantine) of Mount Athos (personal communication,

1. Often I have wondered what you have felt for us; why, so forlorn,you have asked so much from our wretchedness, smallness, insignicance,and even lack of lovability;7 and exhorted us with words reminding us of

friendship and homelandas if you were trying with bonds of nostalgia todraw a fugitive back to his own people. I confess, and do not deny, that Ihave become a fugitiveand now you may learn the reason why, whichyou have long wanted to know.8 And it is as follows.

2[a]. First and foremost, I was smitten by something unexpected and couldnot keep hold of my thoughts, as happens when by sudden noises peopleare utterly taken by surprise;9 but eeing, I travelled far away and havedwelt enough time away from you.10 Furthermore, a certain longingfor godly teachings, and for the philosophy pertaining to them, overtookme.11 For how, I asked, could we in any other way conquer the evil thatdwells within us? [b] Who would be my Laban, freeing me from Esau andleading me to the highest philosophy? 3[a]. But since, with Gods help, wehave as far as possible now attained our goal, by having found a vesselof election and a deep wellspringI mean Gregory, the mouthpiece ofChrista little time, I beg you, grant us a little time! [b] We ask this, notembracing the way of life in the cities (for it has not escaped us that theEvil One devises deceit for men by such means)but rather judging thatthe society of holy men is most helpful. For in speaking a bit about godlyteachings, and more frequently in listening, we are acquiring a habit ofcontemplation that is not easily lost. This is how it currently is with us.

4. As for you, o divinely noble leaders whom I love beyond all, beware ofthe Philistines shepherds, lest one of them block your wells unaware andcontaminate the purity of your knowledge concerning the faith.

Boussets opinion, that Evagrius wrote the letter as a display of theologi-cal prowess while under the tutelage of Gregory in Constantinople, hasshaped all subsequent ones. And his implausible suggestion that Evagrius

rst became a monk in Caesarea is still widely circulated.12

Inuential too


6/29


2007), such a scenario would require becoming a monk twice, unattested then. IfEvagrius did become a monk anew in Jerusalem, one would expect Palladius to men-tion it. Instead, he reports that Melania encouraged Evagrius to make the monasticlife his goal (see Palladius,H. Laus. 38.9). If he were a delinquent monk, she shouldhave encouraged him to return to his discipline.

13. Melcher,Achte Brief , esp. 79, 7378.

is Boussets agreement with the opinion expressed in the Maurist edition,that the letter was written to a monastery, in defense of his ight fromcontemplative monasticism to the city.

Melchers workthe harder to nd of the two studiesis regrettablymore often cited than read. His conclusion, that Evagrius wrote the let-ter, has been adopted along with Boussets, but the analysis driving thatconclusion is little known. This is a pity: Melchers study is quite rich, andhe differs signicantly from Bousset, offering a novel vision of the date,origin, and reason for the letter. I summarize here Melchers interpreta-tion, suspending criticism for later.13

Key to Melchers dating is the very same phrase that Bousset and the

Maurist editor took to indicate that the recipients were in a monastery: Weask this, not embracing the way of life in the cities ( ) . . . but rather judging that the society of holy menis most helpful. Under the Maurist interpretation the author is counter-ing the charge that he has succumbed to city life. Melcher disagrees: if theauthor were in the city, the (or ) would have immediately preceded . The word order implies that the recipients are in a city andthe author has ed to the wilderness.

Melcher then points to this phrase in the preamble (above, 2a): I wassmitten by something unexpected and could not keep hold of my thoughts,as happens when by sudden noises people are utterly taken by surprise;but eeing, I travelled far away. This refers, he argues, to Evagriuss hastydeparture from Constantinople. After all, what event in his life does theunexpected blow t better than the one Palladius describes? According tothe Lausiac History, while in Constantinople Evagrius underwent severesexual temptation, and in distress at the prospects of spectacular disgracehe prayed for deliverance. In a dream an angel, warning him of the dangerhe faced, imprisoned him and subjected him to threats. In distress Evagriustook an oath to leave the city, and when he awoke he acted on it, sailingfrom Constantinople the very next day. Melcher argues that in theEpistuladei Evagrius reects on this experience, which explains why he connectsthe dangers of city life to the evil that dwells within usan allusion to


7/29


14. Reinforced by three extant letters (12, 23, and 46) from Evagrius to Gregory.

his sexual temptation and his attempts to conquer it, accomplished onlyafter he had ed the city and entered the monastic ranks.

Elsewhere in the letter, Melcher notes, Evagrius commands his readersto give an account of his teaching and to bear fruit. That is, he exerts hisspiritual authority and seems to outrank his readers, another importantcontextual clue. Yet in the preamble and section 4, Evagrius speaks to hisdivinely noble leaders, to whom he owes some explanation for his con-duct. The preamble strikes a tone of deference, not of authority. So is thewriter above or below his readers in the ecclesiastical hierarchy? In mostletters this would be a puzzle. But Melcher argues that it is quite tting,given Evagriuss prominent but problematic standing. The discrepancy is

resolved by entertaining this scenario: Evagrius the renegade archdeaconwrote the letter to the Constantinopolitans in 382 or later, after he edthe city, both to account for his actions and to hold his brothers account-able for theirs.

Melcher entertains one very strong objection to his theory: how couldEvagrius claim in the letter to have found Gregory? Palladius mentionsnothing about Evagrius spending time with Gregory of Nazianzus after hisdeparture from Constantinople. Melcher answers that this is probably dueto the brevity of Palladiuss report. He inverts the objection: wouldnt it bevery strange if Evagrius, in the throes of the biggest crisis of his life, did nothave immediate recourse to the man he trusted most? It would be logicalto expect Evagrius to have spent some time in Nazianzus before going onto Jerusalem. Or, if that is unconvincing, perhaps we should take seriouslythe passing remark in Socrates history (H. e. 4.23.9499) that Evagriustraveled to Egypt with Gregory, who introduced him to the local monks.

Rather than scrutinize the historical details and deal with concomi-tant problems, Melcher uses his hypothesis to re-imagine the relationshipbetween Evagrius and Gregory. He points out that Gregory, who ordainedhim archdeacon and included him in his last will and testament, alwaysprized Evagriuss intellect. And we know from Palladius that Evagriushad excellent writing skills. So perhaps he was Gregorys personal secre-tary. Maybe while in Egypt he was instrumental in editing Gregorys ora-tions. After all, who in Gregorys circle was more suited to this task thanEvagrius?14 In the preamble ofEpistula dei, there are inexact quotationsfrom Gregorys orations. Perhaps these are not so much incorrect quota-

tions as pre-edited versions of the orations.Melchers hypothesis is incredible, in both senses. But its one kindboldinventivenessis overshadowed by the otherunbelievable speculation.


8/29


15. It is also possible that Evagrius wrote from Runus and Melanias monasteryin Jerusalem. But the rhetoric about city and desert as well as insiders and outsid-ers better suits the Egyptian milieu. After all, Jerusalem, as Palladius says Evagriusquickly learned, had the same temptations as Constantinople.

For example, if Evagrius wished to be with Gregory he would have traveledto Nazianzus overland, not by boat. And why should we credit Socratescomment, that sick old Gregory had the stamina to sail to Egypt in themid-380s? Where in the steady stream of post-381 letters Gregory leftbehind, all from Nazianzus, is the evidence for a voyage taken merely togive Evagrius a tour of the monasteries in Egypt? Were neither Melanianor Runus up to the task? Did Evagrius meet no Egyptians beforehandin Constantinople?

There are other problems. But as I have worked through these difcul-tiessome of which throw doubt on the traditional interpretation, tooIhave found that the best answers have prompted me not to reject Melchers

hypothesis but to rene it. I believe now that Evagrius wrote theEpistuladeiafter he ed Constantinople, but early on, sometime after mid-383,and so from Nitria, the earlier, communal phase of his ascetic career.15 The complex theological ideas we nd in the letterthose ideas that areparticularly Evagrianare the intellectual rst fruits of his fellowship withthe monks of Jerusalem and the Egyptian desert. I offer six arguments formy case. I begin with three signicant problems in Melchers hypothesis,problems that I believe can be resolved in his favor. I then present threearguments that Melcher did not consider and that strengthen my revisedinterpretation and enhance the ability of the letter to cast new light onpost-381 Constantinople and Gregory of Nazianzus.

1. ANTICITY POLEMIC

First, when Melcher argues that the letter was not directed to a monastery,he unduly stresses the position of the in the phrase . After all, the is grammatically parallel to ,which governs its own participle ( ). No matter where it is placed, the negationalters embracing, not life or cities. Changing the position of the would not change the letters recipients from city dwellers to monks.

True enough. Yet consider the rhetorical force of the sentence. It is hardto deny that by claiming that one should not embrace the way of city lifeEvagrius has introduced or addressed a wedge between himself and hisaudience. The sentence does one of two things. Either the author, now in


9/29


16. See n. 12 above.17. In the fourth and fth centuries the order of reader was an important stage formany illustrious ecclesiastical careers, like the one Evagrius seemed to be following.Readers were commonly ordained as teenagers or younger (Dictionnaire darchologiechrtienne et de liturgie [Paris: Letouzey et An, 190753], 8.2:2247), which suggeststhat Evagriuss ordination to this ofce was closely tied to his education (and his bud-ding rhetorical prowess) in Neocaesarea. The ancient sources about readers presumethat their public reading occurs in urban churches, where exegesis was important. See J. G. Davies, Deacons, Deaconesses and the Minor Orders in the Patristic Period, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 14 (1963): 115.

18. Casiday,Evagrius Ponticus, 67, suggests Evagrius had been at Neocaesarea(modern-day Niksar) since 352/53. The city, being the regional capitol on the heav-ily traveled Pontic Road, was important. Its size in the fourth century is unknown.Anthony Bryer and David Wineld,The Byzantine Monuments and Topography of thePontos, Dumbarton Oaks Studies 20 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks ResearchLibrary and Collection, 1985), 10710.

retreat to the wilderness, is warning his urban audience of the dangers ofthe city; or else he is now in a city and is defending himself before his ruralor monastic audience against the charge of having succumbed to urbanpleasures. This is not a city-to-city letter. So if Evagrius wrote the letterwhile still in Constantinople, it is implausible that he sent it to Neocaesarea,Caesarea, or any other nearby city, as one form of the conventional viewwould have it. One could suggest that he wrote to a rural monastery nearNeocaesarea, say Annisa, but this introduces yet another problem. Thereis no good reason to believe that Evagrius became a monk while he waswith Basil.16 Quite the contrary: his career path was following the con-tours of the urban ecclesiastical hierarchy, not monastic community. The

evidence for the ancient ofce of reader, to which Basil raised Evagrius, isassociated with cities and churches, not monasteries.17 One could proposeinstead that Evagrius wrote to rural parts of Pontusafter all, his fatherwas achorepiscopus, a regional bishop. But this makes aspects of the letterunintelligible. For example, how could anyone sensibly accuse Evagriusof being a fugitive to the city only as late as 379? Evagrius seems to havealways ourished in a city. He had already spent most of his life in a fairlyimportant city, Neocaesarea, perhaps for more than twenty-ve years.18 According to the behavior Palladius reports, Evagrius seems to have beena ashy, urbane socialite, not only in Constantinople but also in Jerusa-lem (at least before falling ill and repenting). Overall, the traditional viewcannot adequately account for the anti-city polemic in the prologue; thenew hypothesis makes this perfectly intelligible. Evagrius was turning hisback on the pleasures of city life.


10/29


19. Lugaresi, Non disprezziamo leconomia, 200.20. For an exploration of Gregorys active literary presence in Constantinople after

381, see John A. McGuckin,St. Gregory of Nazianzus: An Intellectual Biography (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimirs Seminary Press, 2001), 37198, esp. 37576.

2. CREATIVE ENGAGEMENT WITHGREGORY OF NAZIANZUSS ORATIONS

A second problem with Melchers argument is his incomplete analysis ofEvagriuss use of the orations of Gregory. He notes how Evagrius departsfrom Gregorys wording, but he considers only that Evagrius might havehelped edit Gregorys orations. This raises more questions than answers,and obviates a potentially rich line of inquiryWhat do these quotationsfrom Gregory tell us about Evagriuss correspondents? What rhetoricalimpact do the quotations have? How do they serve Evagriuss argument?And why Gregory?

These difculties throw doubt not just on Melchers work but also on thetraditional interpretation. Numerous scholars have extensively consideredthe letters reliance upon Gregory, but no one, including Leonardo Luga-resi, who offers one of the most penetrating studies to date, has venturedto use the quotations to develop a prole of Evagriuss audience.19 Thetraditional interpretation makes such an endeavor difcult. Consider, forexample, the simple question: were the quotations from Gregory familiarto the recipients or not? Suppose they wereas would be expected, giventhe quotation habits of ancient letter writers. How and why did Gregorysorations obtain such a mark of familiarity so soon (a few months after theirdelivery), and in such a setting (monastery or rural area of Pontus or Neo-caesarea)? Why didnt Evagrius use his own words? What extra rhetoricalimpact did the quotations from Gregory have? What did Evagrius expecthis audience to do with them? Or suppose the more unlikely scenario, thatthe recipients of the letter didnt know Gregory was being quoted. Thenwhy did Evagrius bother? To show off? Or is the letter merely a rhetoricalexercise? If so, why? As long as such questions cannot be answeredas

seems to be the case under the traditional interpretationthe letter remainsan enigma, a treatise with a faceless audience.Melchers hypothesis is uniquely positioned to explain the letters use

of Gregory. In the early or mid-380s no one would have known Gregorysorations better than the Christians of Constantinople. Many of the ora-tions were delivered there. And even the ones that werent were circulat-ing along with the numerous letters, poems, and other literary works thatGregory dispatched from retirement in Nazianzus.20 The handling of the


11/29


21. Trans. Martha Vinson,St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Select Orations, FC 107(Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2003), 220.

22. This is emphasized in the Syriac. Where our text reads (Gribomont 1.12), the Syriac readsw' Ro = a= K (Frankenberg 620.12),which suggests a slightly different underlying Greek, e.g., . The insertion may seem grating, but in other parts of the quote Evagrius haschanged Gregorys wording to introduce alliteration and assonance, which Lugaresi(Non disprezziamo leconomia, 90) takes as a sign of rhetorical inferiority. Perhapsthis was intentional, to make clear he was evoking, but subordinate to, Gregory andhis beautiful rhetoric.

23. Our Greek text reads (Gribomont 1.3). The Syriactext reads w' Ro = ' w' Ro == o' (Frankenberg 620.3), suggest-ing a Greek text that emphasized persuasion, e.g., .

quotations implies that the recipients knew Gregorys orations well. Therst two words echo numerous classical speechesgoing back to Isocrates, and they signal to any rhetorically educated audi-ence that a quote that should be familiar to them is about to follow. Fromthe third word onward (Gribomont 1.13) Evagrius quotes (with some modication)the opening of Gregorys landmarkOration 36, delivered in Novemberor December 380, after Emperor Theodosius installed him in the Churchof the Holy Apostles. In that oration, Gregory answered both detrac-tors who accused him of seeking the episcopal throne and, especially, his

ardent supporters. Gregory begins: I am mystied. What in the worldhave my sermons done to you? How can you have been so taken with thesound of my voice, the voice of a stranger and one that is perhaps weakand devoid of all charm, that you give me the impression of being drawnto us like iron to a magnet?21

Comparison with theEpistula deiis revealing. Common to both textsis an awkward relationship between speaker and audience. In both, theaudience fawns over the speaker.22 In both, the speaker resists the acclaim.But whereas Gregory says that his audience has been unduly dazzled by hiswords, Evagrius says that he himselfnot his wordshas affected his read-ers. Evagrius associates wordsthe words of persuasionwith his audi-ence.23 So he identies himself with Gregory, putting himself in his place,but expresses amazement that he is receiving the same level of attention,even without polished words. By quoting fromOration 36 Evagrius asksthe Constantinopolitans to treat him as they would Gregory. And he sig-nals that theEpistula deiwill cover material comparable toOration 36,where Gregory claries his motives and admonishes his audience to the


12/29


24. See Lugaresi, Non disprezziamo leconomia.25. The formal break in the prologue is especially noticeable in the Syriac. Where

we have (in the phrase [Gribo-mont 1.67]), the Syriac reads ==o u oR' (Frankenberg 620.6), suggestinga Greek original of . This opening clause is answered by the closeof the prologue: (Gribomont 1.2223).

26. Gregory of Nazianzus,Or. 2.6 (SC 247:94; my translation).27. Gregory of Nazianzus,Or. 2.1 (SC 247:86).

orthodox faith and a virtuous life. And he indirectly warns his audiencenot to expect such lofty rhetoric as Gregory delivered.

The next quote from Gregory is prompted by the subject of exile. It maybe tempting to take Evagriuss claim to be a refugee as merely a literarytrope, not necessarily corresponding to actual events.24 But the metaphor offugitive seems to have been raised originally by his respondents. We see insection 1 the echoes of the original letter, something like:Remember yourfriends, return to the homeland you have ed . So he formally marks a newsection in the preamble by embracing the insinuation that he is a fugitive,and he turns toOration 2.25 Gregory had delivered this oration in 362,when he played the part of a repentant runaway and returned to accept his

priestly responsibilities in Nazianzus. While circulating in Constantinoplein the early 380s, the oration would have invited the Constantinopolitansto put themselves in the place of the congregation of Nazianzus. Gregoryexplains his disobedience: And now you may learn the reasons for this,which you have long wanted to hear. First and foremost, I was smitten bysomething unexpected and could not keep hold of my thoughts, as happenswhen by sudden noises people are utterly taken by surprise. . . . Further-more, a certain love for the good of quiet and of withdrawal overtookme.26 The ellipses mark where Evagrius has inserted another passage ofthe same oration, but from its beginning. There, concerning his revolt andcowardice, Gregory says, Fleeing, I traveled far away and have dwelt forsome time away from you.27

Once again, the parallels would have been unmistakable to the Con-stantinopolitans. In both texts, the congregation beckons their renegadeclergyman to return. In both cases, the clergyman asks for understand-ing. Each speaker pleads that he is seeking something his audience can-not provide. The excuses differ: Gregory appeals directly to withdrawaland retirement whereas Evagrius appeals to doctrine and its underlyingphilosophy. In theEpistula deithis alteration serves a double purpose.It gently criticizes the city for not being a suitable place to study, withouthindrance, godly philosophy, and it once again anticipates the letters con-tent, which focuses on the correct interpretation of Scripture.


13/29


28. Gregory of Nazianzus,Or. 28.29, citing Plato,Theaetetus 175b6, quotedoften, e.g., Lucian,Pseudologista2.14, Iamblichus,Protrepticus75.1, Eusebius,P. e. 12.29.11.3. The saying was frequently attached to Thales, typifying the philosopherunaware of where he was walking: John Stobaeus,Anthology2.1.22. Bunge suggests aloose connection between this section of theEpistula deiand Gregory of Nazianzus,Or. 31.8; indeed the quote recurs there, but the most relevant parallel is inOr. 28.

29. Gregory of Nazianzus,Or. 28.8 (SC 250:118). Only in the theological ora-tions does Gregory use the paired terms and as criticism. ElsewhereGregory uses them as desirable traits:Ep. 6.3 (GCS 53:7),Or. 21 (SC 270:130),Or.38 (SC 358:120),Or. 45 (PG 36:629).

The quotation technique suggests not that Evagrius was working with apre-edited version of Gregorys orations but that he shaped the quotationsto cloak himself in Gregorys mantle. Evagrius could have left the sustainedquotation from GregorysOration 2.6 (the one with ellipses) unbroken.But he jumped to the beginning of the oration and back again, to insertthe claim to being a longtime refugee. Evagrius draws from different partsof the same oration to isolate three discrete events from his own life: thesudden blow, the lengthy ight from his readers, and the yearning for godlyphilosophy. As Melcher has noted, all three descriptions suit Evagriussight from Constantinople. And by describing these three events in Greg-orys words, Evagrius tries to disarm his readers, asking them to approach

him in his absence as they would Gregory in his. He casts himself as hismaster, and his readers as his ock.The rest of the letter is full of Gregorys thought and writings, indi-

rectly and directly invoked. To cover every case would go beyond thelimits of this article. But the penultimate reference to Gregorys orations,rarely noticed, is especially illuminating. In his peroration (Epistula dei12/3640), Evagrius discusses several topics not directly related to hereti-cal teachings. At one point (12/38) he answers a criticism, the only timein the letter where he does not portray a particular opponent as a heretic:Let no one protest by saying to me, You are philosophizing to us abouta bodiless and altogether immaterial being , though you areignorant of thethings at your feet( [Gribomont 12.20]). The proverb(the second set of italics) was as old as Plato, but Gregory had used it tospecial effect in his second theological oration.28 Denigrating theologicalbanter that was mere philosophy, Gregory had included the saying to cri-tique those who had treated God like the fth element, as being bodilessand immaterial (cf. the rst set of italics).29 The parallel suggests thatEvagrius was answering orthodox critics who had or might have accusedhim of violating the theological method Gregory set down inOration 28.That is, the audience of theEpistula deiregarded Gregorys epistemol-


14/29


30. Guillaumont,Philosophe, 44, based largely on Palladiuss account. Evagriushad to have arrived in Jerusalem before the onset of a six-month sickness that ter-minated shortly before his entry into the monastic ranks, on April 9, 383 (Pascha).

ogy as correct and Gregorys opponents as erroneous. Thus, in the restof this section of theEpistula dei(12/38), Evagrius concisely defends hisown epistemology. He adopts Gregorys admonition to use the senses tocontemplate nature, and argues that the mind functions just as naturallyas the senses. Gregorys principles, Evagrius argues, should be appliedalso to thenous.

Critical reection on the letters use of Gregory, seen in the examplesabove, detracts from the traditional view that the letter was written in 380from Constantinople. The quotations are more easily explained by thehypothesis that I have proposed. The recipients knew Gregorys writingswell, and Gregorys approach to theology was already a contested inheri-

tance. Evagrius used the quotations to identify himself with his master, tocompel his audience to think and react as if he were Gregory, and even toargue for an epistemology that builds upon the ideals outlined in the sec-ond theological oration. Of all possible audiences the Constantinopolitanswere most suited to understand such sophisticated points.

3. FINDING THE VESSEL OF ELECTIONGREGORY OF NAZIANZUS

There is a third, very strong objection that Melcher answered rather poorly.How could Evagrius claim in the letter to have as far as possible attained hisgoal by having found Gregorya vessel of election, a deep wellspring?Why does he plead for a little time with him? After Gregorys departure,the only way the two could have interacted was by letter. (We infer anexchange, but only because several letters from Evagrius to Gregory areextant.) The strange brief reference in SocratesChurch History regardingGregory of Nazianzuss late trip to Egypt cannot be reconciled with thenumerous letters Gregory left behind from this period, letters that placehim in Cappadocia, with not a hint of a trip anywhere. Melchers otherpossible explanation that Evagrius stopped in Cappadocia on his way to Jerusalem is even more implausible, not just for the mode of transporta-tion, but also for the chronology. If Evagrius wrote theEpistula deifromNazianzus, before he went to Jerusalem (arriving by September 382 at thelatest),30 how could he describe his departure as long ago?

This objection applies with equal force to my own version of Melchers


15/29


31. Evagrius was probably familiar with Origens exegesis of Genesis 29. See Ghin,Place de laLettre, 40.

hypothesis, that Evagrius wrote the letter from Egypt, sometime after 383.I even seem to contradict outright the claims that Evagrius makes in theletter, that he had found Gregory at the time of writing and that he wasrequesting a bit more time with him. I grant that this is one way to readthe letter, but it is not the only way. The letters prologue frames its state-ments about Gregory in a biblical metaphor, and this metaphor is crucialto reconstructing persons, places, and their relationships.

The metaphor starts with Laban (see 2b in the prologue). Evagriusasks, who will free him from Esau and lead him to higher philosophy?Naturally, we understand Gregory to be his Laban as well as his chosenvessel and deep well. LabanVesselWell: all three images invoke the

story of Jacob, who ed from Esau, arrived at Labans well, and soughtrefuge with him (Genesis 2729). Evagrius then dwells on other matters(3b), but returns to the Jacob allegory immediately after the prologue,where he admonishes his noble leaders to beware the shepherds of the Phi-listines, lest they plug up the wells they have dug (4). This refers to theyouth of Esau and Jacob (Genesis 26), when Isaac (and therefore Esau)had to move his family every time his enemies, the Philistines, stopped upthe wells Abraham originally dug.31

Some of the symbolism in the allegory is obvious. Jacobthe exile andfugitiveis Evagrius, who states at the outset that he is a refugee (1).Laban, with whom is the pure, deep well of godly philosophy, is Gregory.Evagrius is quite direct about both symbols. But what about his audience?Where do they appear in this allegory? Although not explicit, the answeris strongly implied. At one point, they are Esau, from whom Jacob ed;at another, they are Isaac, who struggled constantly to keep his ancestralwells pure. So Evagrius casts his readers as Isaac-Esau, the compoundsymbol of Jacobs lost home, the symbol of those who struggled to retainthe inheritance to the promised land.The allegory permeates Evagriuss contrast between cities and the societyof holy men. Set as it is in the Jacob allegory, the contrast associates citylife with Isaac-Esau; the society of holy men is life with Laban. Evagriussreaders are on the civilized inside, with Isaac and Esau; Evagrius is withGregory on the periphery, at Labans wells. His readers constantly strug-gle with polluted wells of hereticsan apt description of the theologicaltumult in Constantinople in the 370s and 380s. The pure well of doctrine

is with Gregory, who wanders in the readers hinterland.


16/29


Evagriuss account of nding Gregory must be understood within the Jacob allegory, which interprets but does not reconstruct events he andhis audience already knew quite well. We cannot infer from the letter thatEvagrius hadnt known Gregory until then (this would be farfetched evenin the traditional interpretation of the letter). Rather, we should understandEvagrius to be explaining his deliberative process as he struggled with hisexile and his sins. Such a struggle ts Evagriuss situation after 382 betterthan it does events before. So the Jacob allegory is yet one more reason toconsider theEpistula deito have been written to the Constantinopolitansafter Evagrius was enrolled as a monk.

Further, the letter does not necessarily imply that Evagrius wrote it

while physically with Gregory. With the Laban allegory (2b) comes anew chronology. Should the have . . . now attained (3a) phrase betied primarily to the biblical story or to real time? Evagrius leaves it tohis readerswho are already familiar with the real circumstancestodecide. If Evagrius wrote this while a monk, say in late 383 from Egypt,then the phrase doesnt contradict the circumstances; it accentuates theallegory. Further, Evagrius asks for fellowship not with Gregory but withthe saints, in the plural (3b). The phrase the society of holy men canbe read generically, as a typifying ideal, and therefore as a metonymy forGregory. But the phrase can also be interpreted concretely, referring to adiscrete number of saints, i.e. a monastic community. This interpretationcasts all of section 3 in a new light, characterizing it as Evagriuss reec-tion on the two great pedagogical stages in his ascent to godly philoso-phy. Since he has now already obtained Gregory he asks for a little timewith the saints, to turn the rumination on the divine dogmas into a deeplyentrenched habit of contemplation. This twofold interpretation of the sec-tion resonates with the penultimate sentence of the prologue (3b), wheregodly teachings ( [Gribomont 1.21]) and contem-plation ( [Gribomont 1.22]) suggest two stages, one underGregory and the second in ascetic pure prayer.

In sum, to most reasonable readers, Evagrius seems to say that he wrotethe letter while in the company of Gregory. This interpretation is under-standable, but it is not the only possible one. Evagrius assumes his read-ers know his circumstances. Gregory is mentioned by name only in thecontext of an extended biblical allegory. When this allegory is taken into

account, the letter can be interpreted sympathetically as postdating 383.


17/29


Epistula dei: Outline

Chapter, line nos.

Bunge Gribomont Topic

13 1 Preamble

413 23 1. General considerations on Trinitarian doctrine 4 2.116 Attack against heretics (against Arianizers) 58 2.1746 Response to accusation of tritheism (riposte to

Arian accusations of Nicene Sabellianism) 9 3.111 Defense of the Nicene homoousios (against the

Homoians and Anomoians) 1013 3.1153 On the correct interpretation of the wordsonly and

one (dealing with a class of Scriptures favored byArianizers)

1429 49 2. On the Son 1415 4 John 6.57: I live through the Father

1618 5 John 14.28: My Father is greater than I 1926 67 Matt 24.36: He does not know the day or the hourof judgment

27 8.17 Prov 8.22: The Lord has created me 28 8.723 1 Cor 15.28: The submission of the Son to the Father 29 9 John 5.19: The Son can do nothing of himself

3035 1011 3. On the Spirit 3032 10 Ps 118(119).91: All things are your servants (against

the Pneumatomachians) 3335 11 Afrmation of the divinity of the Spirit

3640 12 Peroration

4. THE HERESIOLOGICAL CONVERSATION

My last three arguments for the revised hypothesis go beyond the pro-

logue into the rest of the letter, best introduced through its structure, whichreveals something of the purpose of the letter. All this is best understoodthrough a modied form of Ghins outline (below).32

The rst-level headings of the outline suggest a treatise on the Trinity,following as it does thetaxis of the Son and Spirit. But the second levelreveals a principal concern, especially in the second and third parts ofthe letter, to explain Scriptures contested by several groups. This formsthe basis of my fourth argument, that the range of topics shows that the

32. Ghin, Place de laLettre, 28.


18/29


33. Numerous other treatises discuss somewhere most of Evagriuss six verses,including (in rough chronological order) Eusebius,E. th.; Athanasius,Ar.; Hilary,Psal.; Didymus the Blind,Ps.; Gregory of Nyssa,Eun. and Ar. et Sab.; Cyril of Alex-andria, Dial. Trin. and Thes.; Ps.-Cyril of Alexandria,Trin. For other parallels, seeRichard Paul Vaggione,Eunomius of Cyzicus and the Nicene Revolution (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2000), appendix, andBiblia patristica: Index des citationset allusions bibliques dans la littrature patristique, 7 vols. (19752000), now com-bined and enhanced online: www.biblindex.mom.fr/.

34. Eunomius,Apol. 26.22, 11.1112, 26.1416, 27.14, and 26.2223, respec-tively. Matt. 24.36 is not cited.

35. A further point against the traditional view. Although one could nd a fewMacedonians in Cappadocia (e.g., Eustathius of Sebasteia) that was not their strong-hold. I could nd no Macedonians attested in Pontus. On the regional distribution ofthe Macedonians, see Socrates,H. e. 1.8, 2.45, 4.4, 5.4. On the name and historicalbackground of this group, see R. P. C. Hanson,The Search for the Christian Doctrineof God: The Arian Controversy 318381 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), 76072.

Epistula dei was sent to an audience engaged in a doctrinal conversationwith many voices. The issue here is not chronological, since these disputesourished both before and after 381, but geographical. The range of groupsaddressed ts Constantinople especially well.

The rst part of the letter takes aim at all groups that deny thehomo-ousios of Nicaea. It deals principally with Arianizing Christians, both fol-lowers of Aetius and Eunomius and members of the circle of Demophilus.But it also addresses Homoians, a rather amorphous set of persons andcircles who preferred the formula of the Son being like the Father.

Evagrius turns in the second part to explain to the best of his ability aset of Scriptures used by some opponents. The six proof texts he treats

(see the outline above) were frequently used by non-Nicenes, particularlyfollowers of Aetius and Eunomius. This is conrmed by other pro-Nicene/ anti-Arianizing treatises from the late fourth century that deal with themajority of these proof texts (among others): Hilary,De synodiisand Detrinitate; Ambrose,De de ad Gratianum; Epiphanius,Panarion; Gregoryof Nazianzus,Oration 30; Ps.-Basil,Against Eunomius4; and (disputably)Didymus the Blind,De trinitate.33 Even Eunomius uses ve of the six Scrip-tures in hisApologia (written ca. 360),34 further evidence that the secondpart of the Epistula dei is aimed at those in the Eunomian tradition.

At the beginning of the third part of the letter Evagrius turns to yetanother group, namely, those who oppose the Holy Spirit. He thenaddresses the objections of the Pneumatomachians or Macedonians,whose principal centers were in Constantinople, the Hellespont, and pointssouth, along the coast leading to Antioch.35 The principal text, Psalm118(119).91, is a contested proof text in several fourth-century treatises,


19/29


36. Ps.-Basil,Eun. 4 and 5 were written ca. 36263 by an indeterminate authoragainst a full range of heresies. See Franz Xaver Risch,Pseudo-Basilius adversusEunomium IVV: Einleitung, bersetzung und Kommentar (Leiden: Brill, 1992),1318, and Thomas Bhm, Basil of Caesarea,Adversus EunomiumIIII and Ps.Basil,Adversus EunomiumIVV, Studia Patristica37 (2001): 2026. Book 4 startswith general theological concerns, then turns to explain fteen Eunomian-favored

Scriptures (85119). All six of theEpistula deis proof texts are taken up, as wellas three other ancillary verses (Mark 10.18/Luke 18.19, John 17.3, and Matt. 20.23= Ep. d . 3.2021, 3.4849, and 7.3839 =Eun. 4.99100, 4.11417, and 4.118).Ps.-Basil,Eun. 5, like the third part of theEpistula dei, turns to the Holy Spirit,featuring, among other texts, Ps 118(119).91. But this structural similarity is offset byimportant differences in content, type of argumentation, sequence of the proof texts,and so forth. The authorship, date, and audience ofTrin., sometimes attributed toDidymus the Blind, is very difcult to determine. See Alasdair I. C. Heron, Studiesin the Trinitarian Writings of Didymus the Blind: His Authorship of the AdversusEunomium IVV and the De Trinitate (PhD diss., Tbingen, 1972), who assigns thetext to Didymus in the 390s. This late date should not be surprising, since Cyril ofAlexandria addressed the same range of Scriptures in the second decade of the fthcentury, in hisThes. and Dial. Trin.

37. Ibora was near Annisa, where Basil and his sister, Macrina, established a monas-tic retreat. See Anna Silvas,The Asketikon of St Basil the Great (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 2005), xviiixix, 44, 6168.

many on the Holy Spirit, e.g., Ambrose,De spiritu sancto; Gregory ofNazianzus,Oration 31; Ps.-Basil,Against Eunomius5; and (disputably)Didymus the Blind,De trinitate.

These parts taken together, theEpistula deishows the greatest afnityin the range of its heresiological proof texts with Gregory of Nazianzus,Oration 30 and 31; Ps.-Basil,Against Eunomius 4 and 5; and Didymusthe Blind,De trinitate. The latter two are little help in conrming the dateor audience of theEpistula dei.36 Gregorys orations, however, which areboth quoted in the letter, provide aterminus post quem and a sense ofwho Evagriuss audience was.

Under the traditional interpretation of theEpistula dei, one would

need to postulate as recipients of the letter an ecclesiastical community inor near Neocaesarea or Ibora (Evagriuss hometown) that was strugglingwith Homoians, Anomoians, and Macedonians. A monastic community isnot likely because monasteries were not the arenas for theological competi-tion in fourth-century Asia Minor. Cities were. And both Neocaesarea andIbora were then still under the strong inuence of Basil of Caesarea.37 It isnot impossible that a community in one of these places was struggling withthis range of theological dispute, but it seems unlikely. The setting bettersuits Constantinople, the principal theological battleground in the empire.

By this same criterion there is good reason to place the letter after 381,


20/29


38. McGuckin,St. Gregory of Nazianzus, 375. See Vaggione,Eunomius, 32225,on the close relationship between the councils of 381 and 382.

39. R. P. Vaggione,Eunomius: The Extant Works (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987),131. Socrates description of the 383 council is nearly twice the length of that for 381.

40. Vaggione,Eunomius, 32627.41. Sozomen,H. e. 7.12; Socrates,H. e. 5.10. The accounts indicate only those

who accepted the invitation; presumably others (e.g., residual Photinians) were alsoinvited. Vaggione,Eunomius, 326.

42. Vaggione,Eunomius, 32930.

the terminus for many a modern study on the Nicene Trinitarian contro-versies. The groups addressed in the letter were active in Constantinoplethroughout the 380s. Other ecclesiastical events were held at Constanti-nople in 382 and 383, similar in scope and topic to the one in 381. Invi-tations to attend a council in 382 went to several orthodox apologists,including Gregory of Nazianzus (who declined) and Gregory of Nyssa(who attended).38 In June 383, plans for a debate or council turned intosomething more like an essay-writing contest for the emperor, of pivotalimportance in a city whose religious direction was still unpredictable.39 Various factions were required to present their positions and to promiseto adhere to the doctrines of ancient teachers whose authority was uni-

versally recognized.40 Each side had to nominate representatives for thedebate. For determining its parameters the principal intellectual force onthe orthodox side was a reader named Sisinniusa Novatian, nominatedby the sectarian bishop, but approved by Gregory of Nazianzuss succes-sor, Nectarius. At the council Demophilus represented the Arians; Euno-mius represented his own faction; Eleusis, a bishop of Cyzicus, defendedthe Macedonian (Pneumatomachian) position.41 The theological contestin 383 would have required participants of the nest rhetorical and intel-lectual caliber, and it is telling that the orthodox in Constantinople hadto rely upon a Novatian as their guiding light. Evagrius had left a gapinghole. Preparations for the council in 383 would have been a good motivefor Nectarius to woo Evagrius back to represent the orthodox against theother three parties. Perhaps theEpistula deiresponds to such a petition.

But we need not hold precisely to 383; initiatives could have come evenlater because the capital continued to be the center of ecclesiastical com-petition. Although Theodosius issued edicts in late 383 and into 384, toforbid the heterodox from assembling, teaching, or ordaining, sectariansourished both inside and outside the city walls.42 Eunomius continued toteach in the suburbs of Constantinople until he was banished a second andnal time in 389. The Arians in the city were so numerous that, in 388,when a rumor circulated that Theodosius had been killed on campaign


21/29


43. For sources, summary, and analysis, see Vaggione,Eunomius, 35053.44. Sozomen,H. e. 7.17. See also the briefer account by Socrates,H. e. 5.24. For

analysis see Vaggione,Eunomius, 34446.45. This is the one proof text of the second part of theEpistula deinot quoted

by Eunomius in hisApologia.46. Gregory of Nazianus,Or. 30.1516, treats the verse supercially. Lugaresi,

Non disprezziamo leconomia, 99, calls it una spiegazione piuttosto pover diquesto punto, and argues that, although Evagrius pays respect to Gregorys thought,he is presenting his own ideas. Certainly, Evagrius departs from earlier apologists forthis verse. See Vaggione,Eunomius: The Extant Works, appendix, s.v. for references.

47. Elsewhere Evagrius shares with Theophronius a lively interest in AristotlesCategories. See Ghin, Place de laLettre, 3136.

against the usurper Maximus, they burned down the residence of thearchbishop Nectarius.43

The Epistula deimay reect specic developments in the Eunomiancommunity that occurred in the mid-380s and the early 390s. Accord-ing to Sozomen, the divisions among the Eunomianscentered inConstantinoplefestered and eventually resulted in multiple fracturesafter Eunomiuss exile.44 The controversies swirled around two men whowere Eunomiuss disciples. First was Theophronius, who speculated onGods knowledge and how God changed through what he knew and didnt.His only known treatise,On the Functioning of the Mind , used Aristo-tlesCategories and On Interpretation to develop his points. Second was

Eutychius, who also engaged epistemological issues. The debatedu jourconcerned Matt 24.36 (But of that day and hour no one knows, not eventhe angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone).45 Eutychiusmaintained that the Son knew the day and the hour because he had fromthe Father everything and he was decient in nothing. Eunomian leadersrejected Eutychiuss position and this resulted in a schism in the 390s.

One of the longest passages in theEpistula deiindeed, the fulcrum ofthe letterdeals with the proof text in terms Eutychius would have recog-nized. Evagriuss explanation, which develops his epistemology (discussedbelow) advances beyond all previous ones, including that of Gregory.46 And Evagriuss argument elsewhere in the letter against qualities in God(3/9) is presented in categorical terms any Aristotelian, such as Theoph-ronius, could understand.47

In sum, theEpistula dei shows an awareness for a broad range of groupsthat could be found throughout the 380s, especially in Constantinople.


22/29


48. Fr. Theophanes (Constantine), To the Caesareans . . . by Evagrius Ponticus(Basil) (2007), translation and commentary, http://timiosprodromos5.blogspot.com(accessed January 2009); Fr. Theophanes (Constantine), Preliminary Remarks on theAnalysis of Internal Evidence in Basil Letter 8 for Evagrian Authorship and Dating,with Reference to the Theological Orations of St Gregory the Theologian, addressto the 2008 Conference of the North American Patristics Society, subsequently posted

online at http://timiosprodromos7.blogspot.com; and personal correspondence. Heclaims that although the history of the text cannot be denitively reconstructed, itsvarious problems preclude complete authorship by Evagrius in 380 or 381. Althoughsome of his observations have merit, I do not think that the unity of theEpistuladei need be doubted.

49. For example, intelligible sun, referred to atEpistula dei7.51 (but withoutexplanation), is dened atKephalaia gnostika3.44: The intelligible sun is the rea-soning nature that contains within it the rst and blessed light (trans. Luke Dysinger,St. Evagrius Ponticus (345399), [n.d.], http://www.ldysinger.com/Evagrius/00a_start.htm (accessed May 2011); cf. Evagriusscap. 22). The connection is interesting butunconvincing. Intelligible sun was in common use then (found in, e.g., Asterius,Apollinaris, Didymus, Ephrem Graecus, and Macarius), and nothing requires one toinfer that theKephalaia gnostikaand the Epistula deiare working from the samedenition of this term. But the general observation, that the letter is intertwined withthe terminological symbolism of later Evagrian texts, holds. See the cross-referenceslisted in Gribomonts edition and Melcher,Achte Brief , 8399.

5. DEVELOPED EVAGRIAN THEOLOGY

Passages in theEpistula dei make use of Evagriuss fully developed spec-

ulative system. This shows that the formative inuences on his theologywere already gestating when he wrote the letter. And some of those ideasdiverge so signicantly from the thought of Gregory of Nazianzus that it isreasonable to infer that Evagrius was then outside his teachers intellectualambit. This developed Evagrian theology does not necessarily underminethe traditional interpretation of the letter, but it does leave unansweredthe question of what formative inuences, intellectual or otherwise, wouldhave permitted a letter of this depth to be written around 380. Under myhypothesis, these inuences can be explained by Evagriuss post-Constan-tinopolitan changes.

Fr. Theophanes, a monk of Mount Athos, has recently argued that theEpistula deiis a pastiche. He has identied some passages that he saysdo not sound like Evagrius and others that are characteristic of Evagriusin his advanced thought.48 For example, the letter discusses the stagesthat lead from natural contemplation to contemplation of the godhead(67/2026), a paradigm embedded in his speculative writings. It refers tosymbolic terms that are explained only in highly developed Evagrian textssuch as theKephalaia gnostica.49 Such parallels motivate Fr. Theophanes


23/29


24/29


phraseology in Evagriuss scholia on these verses,Sch. Prov.7172. There the ant

is and the bee is ; the understood honeycomb is and thehoney inside it, . If Evagriuss scholia were the workshop for his more pol-ished compositionsthat is, if Evagrius annotated his copies of the Psalms, Proverbs,Ecclesiastes, and so forth, and drew from these as he needed for his other composi-tionsthen theEpistula deipostdates at least some of theSch. Prov.

54. Evagrius Ponticus,Trait pratique, ou, Le moine, ed. Claire Guillaumont andAntoine Guillaumont, SC 170 (Paris: ditions du Cerf, 1971), 4548.

55. Pierre Hadot, Les divisions des parties de la philosophie dans lAntiquit,Museum Helveticum36 (1979): 21819. But Origen more often employs the bipartitescheme used by the Cappadocians; see Guillaumont,Trait pratique, 4344.

56. Less discrepancy between Evagrius and Gregory is evident in Trinitarian ter-minology. Evagrius uses key terms such as, , and in a mannercompatible with Gregory. He does not use , , and (butsee 2.29), yet this absence should not detract from the fundamentally similar waysthe two men approach the doctrine of the Trinity, e.g., the concern both have withnumeration. See Lugaresi, Non disprezziamo leconomia.

This tripartite schema is inconsistent with the typical bipartite schema usedby Gregory and Basil, who opposed to , monastic tonon-monastic virtues.54 Evagrius follows a different tradition, attested inClement of Alexandria and occasionally in Origen,55 but he introduces aunique terminology, notably his substitution of for . ThatEvagrius differs from Gregory and Basil in seeing as an impor-tant rst stage in contemplation, and not merely what non-monastics do,suggests that he was at least outside their ambit, if not under new inu-ences, and thinking in new ways about the ascetic life.

The various examples above, none of which involves Trinitarian doc-trine,56 show that Evagrius was already indwelling and fashioning an

ascetic-speculative system that went beyond Cappadocian theology. Thisin turn questions but does not discredit the traditional view of theEpistuladei. But the differences can be better understood and appreciated whenthey are regarded as coming from Evagriuss post-Gregory phase.

6. ENGAGEMENT WITH GREGORY AS A KEY TOTHE UNITY AND PURPOSE OF THE LETTER

My sixth and nal argument for revising the date and audience of the let-ter revolves around its unity. Under the traditional interpretation it is atbest difcult to identify the unifying thesis (and therefore purpose); withmy hypothesis, it comes into relief.

Questions about the unity of the letter should emerge with the prologue,which seeks merely to explain his departure. Nothing in the prefatory


25/29


57. See Gribomont 84, critical apparatus to the titulus.58. Compare the doctrines of the Eunomian Theophronius, discussed above. Heclaimed that the divinity changes with respect to his knowledge of the past, present,and future. Sozomen,H. e. 7.17.3. Evagrius addresses similar issues, but without fol-lowing Theophronius in repudiating the divinity of Christ.

material suggests that Evagriuss correspondents had asked him to providean orthodox explanation for various Scriptures, and the body of the let-ter, which deals with theological points, is written with authority, withoutthe deference and defensiveness that marks the prologue. The discrepancywas not lost even on Byzantine readers. Some manuscript inscriptionsdescribe theEpistula deias an exposition of faith, others as an apologyfor (Basils) withdrawal to contemplative life.57

To these a third hypothesis may be added. Evagriuss lengthy excursuson Matt 24.36 (the Eunomian, perhaps Eutychian, proof text mentionedabove) has nothing to contribute to explaining his departure from Con-stantinople, and only part of it attempts to reconcile the verse with the

doctrine of thehomoousios. This excursus is doing something altogetherdifferent from the rest of the scriptural explanations.The excursus begins much like the discussions on John 6.57 and John

14.28, taking a scriptural passage alleged to teach the weakness of the Sonof God and reconciling it with the doctrine of his divinity. Evagrius defendsthe proposition that Christ did not know the day or the hour by arguingthat Christs ignorance was providential, encouraging the sinner to repentand the spiritual warrior to keep ghting. Christ included himself with theignorant only because of humanitys weakness. But later, Christ excludedhimself from such declarations of ignorance: It is not for youthat is,he doesnt include himselfto know times or epochs that the Father hasxed by his own authority (Gribomont 6.1415, quoting Acts 1.67).Christs weakness is a condition of his sojourn on earth.

Evagrius calls this explanation rather coarse, and says the verse mustbe scrutinized more precisely (6/20 [Gribomont 6.1617]). He turns tooffer a second, higher explanation (7/2126), using the verse to plait histheories of knowledge and existence. His central axiom is that God knowswhat he is and does not know what he is not. Thus, God the Father knowsrighteousness but not wickedness because he is the former and not thelatter. But the Lord, unlike the Father, became incarnate. As his existencechanged, so too did his knowledge.58 When incarnate, the Lord was notthe nal blessedness, thus he could not know the nal blessedness. But asthe Word, the Lord is pure divinity and the nal blessedness, so he also


26/29


59. See n. 46 for references.60. See the critical apparatus of Gribomonts edition of 7/2126.

knows them. Our knowledge and identity is shaped by this divine know-ing and being. Our minds are mired in mud, but as the bodys beauty leadsthe mind to appreciate the powers of creation, the mind is led ever upwardand strengthened, eventually to encounter pure divinity. In similar fash-ion the apostles, who asked Christ when he would restore the kingdomto Israel (Acts 1.67), were bound by esh and blood. So Christ respondsthat they cannot know such times and seasons, which the Father estab-lished by his own authority.

Evagrius draws four words from this passage from Actsauthority,own, times,and seasonsto adumbrate a theory of knowledge. Timesand seasons are intervals in the highest levels of knowledge, and these are

known only by authorities who are not entangled by the ignorance thatcomes from lesser affairs. Evagrius doesnt explain who these authoritiesare or what this knowledge is. Instead, he closes the excursus by appeal-ing to the numerical unity Christ prayed for (John 17.21), the numericalunity that God will effect in the eschaton.

This excursus is unique in anti-Arianizing polemic for approaching acontested verse with a double explanation, the lower-then-higher exegesismade famous by Origen. Evagriuss thicker explanation engages ideasthat would have been familiar to his audience from Gregory of Nazian-zus and other writers.59 But the higher explanation ascends quickly outof the mode of traditional exegesis, advancing from christological issuesto human knowing and being in order to impress upon his audience whatawaits them as they strip material chains from their minds. Evagrius usesActs 1.67 to transition into a discussion of the metaphysical frameworkthat governs this interplay of identity and knowledge. The symbols andconcepts he uses in this excursus reappear in his other writings, such asthe Kephalaia gnostica.60 So the excursus is also unique in fourth-centuryTrinitarian polemic for inducing readers to adopt a mystical epistemol-ogy, to transcend Nicene concerns and put thenous into a loftier modeof thought.

The three ostensible purposes of the letter compel us to imagine anaudience with three different expectations, one demanding Evagrius toexplain why he ran away, another asking for answers to assorted her-esies, and another prepared to engage gnostictheoria. If the traditionalinterpretation of the letter is the only one available, one may be inclined,

short of ignoring the discrepancies, to speculate on different layers of


27/29


61. Constantine, To the Caesareans, proposes that what we have is a redactionof textual units corresponding roughly to these three hypotheses.

authorship.61 That inference, radical as it is, is understandable. After all,a Pontic or Cappadocian community merely wanting Evagrius back wouldnot ask for a lesson in gnosis, even if they had some questions about cur-rent Trinitarian disputes.

But this third hypothesis of the letter, mystical epistemology, is explainedby the intellectual presence of Gregory of Nazianzus, and that explana-tion unites the other two. The peroration of the letter is key, because there(12/38, discussed above) Evagrius defends the charge that he has violatedGregorys axiom, that one must know God, not by philosophizing aboutbodiless essences, but by contemplating the natural order of things. Heargues that the accepted epistemology of the ve senses must be applied

also to the mind. Evagrius signals that the excursus on Matt 24.36, a forayinto higher explanations, provides a mental activity that goes above andbeyond the heresiological discourse that was upsetting his audience. Afterconcluding a pro-Nicene defense of the verse, he calls on his audience toknock at the door of knowledgethat is, the traditional approach to theverse was not a product of faithful knocking. The material that follows isprofound, requiring the kind of slow reading and thoughtful ruminationthat is typical of Evagriuss other works. And at the end of the excursus(7/26) he strikes a tone of humility, inviting others to speak better ormore piously. He says that he pursued this higher investigation not outof rivalry or vainglory, but rather for the benet of the brethren, so thatthose earthen vessels containing the treasure of God (2 Cor 4.7) shouldnot obviously be deceived by men with hearts of stone (Ezek 36.26) and byuncircumcised men who have armed themselves with the arms of foolishwisdom (Jer 4.4) (Gribomont 7.6064). By invoking similes of earthenvessels and the stonyhearted uncircumcised, he reminds the reader of theprologue and of two symbols: Gregory the chosen vessel and the Philis-tine heretics polluting the ancestral wells. Evagrius invites his readers toadopt his method, to be humble, and to avoid the pride and showmanshipthat so typied theological debates in Constantinople. More than that, herequires them, in the center of the letter, to adopt his epistemology. Nothingin the Epistula deipresumes that the audience knows and understandshis method; it just compels them to adopt it. This excursus is a demon-stration of a way to do theology, a way that does no violence to Gregorysepistemology. This is, in a word, the godly philosophy Evagrius claims to

seek in the prologue. This is what life is like with Laban.


28/29


If he wrote theEpistula deito Constantinople in late 383 or after,the three purposes for the letter can be united. This is partly because itis easier to envision what kind of letter or letters reached Evagrius. Theorthodox Constantinopolitans, short on talent to engage the theologicaldebates that continued through the 380s, tried to lure their archdeaconback to his ecclesiastical homeland. They entreated the fugitive to return,perhaps with attery, and they provided the specic theological issues andbiblical verses on which they needed his expertise. Those still upset at hissudden departure needled him and challenged him to defend his loyaltyto Gregory, criticizing him along lines such as:Some say you are now nobetter than those put to shame by Gregory, the mouthpiece of Christ, phi-

losophizing as you do about bodiless and immaterial beings, ignorant ofthe things at your feet . This wheedling and needling could have come in asingle letter just prior to the council of 383, or it could have accumulatedover a period. When he felt the time was right Evagrius answered, in onecomplex letter attending to all three needs.

Joel Kalvesmaki is Editor in Byzantine Studies at Dumbarton Oaks,Washington, D.C.


29/29

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	timobota
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

20.1.kalvesmaki

Documents