THE HOLY FOOLS:

A THEOLOGICAL
ENQUIRY
Andrew Thomas
Thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy
May 200
Abstract
!hat is the significance of the deployment of madness in the early "hristian ascetic
e#perience of holiness$ The first %y&antine holy fools ' themselves critics of monastic orders
' represent the consistent and logical conclusion of the theology and practice of the early
"hristian ascetics( and in particular that of the followers of Anthony and Pachomius) The
flight to the desert of the first "hristian anchorites and coenobites was an attempt to transform
the e#perience and theology of holiness in church and society by transgressing the rules and
thoughts of the city in a practical outwor*ing of negative theology) The transgressive
behaviour of the holy fools renewed that transformation by accepting neither secular nor
religious truth and life) !here desert fathers and mothers had transformed the production of
norms by their obedience and ascetic transcendence of human life( holy fools undermined the
religious production of norms through their masterless obedience( defeat of vainglory( and
foreignness to self) The transformation of the production of ethical *nowledge amongst early
"hristian ascetics ' through control of passions( representations( and silence ' was followed
through by the holy fools+ apophatic babble and re,ection of religious loci of *nowledge
production in liturgy( confession( religious community and ecclesial authority) As a
continuation of ascetic methods of reforming the self+s relation to society by brutal truth-
telling and truth-hearing( the holy fools used self-ostracising insult and laughter to follow
divine truth into the periphery without legislating universal modesty and submission to group
truths) As such( the holy fools e#emplify the practices most idealised in early "hristian
asceticism ' humility( suspicion of fi#ed orders and truths( apophatic criti.ue of doctrine and
legislation ' with renewed innovation and commitment to city life) They applied the strategic
moves and principles of negative theology to the "hristian theology and practice of holiness
through aspiring to desert freedom( the practice of ignorance( and the unserious self)
Table of Contents
Abstract))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))2
Table of "ontents)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))/
Abbreviations 0Ancient 1iterature2))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))3
Ac*nowledgements))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))4
Introduction...............................................................................................................................8
1: Becoin! Unnor"#...........................................................................................................$%
5)56 Negative 7bedience))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))28
1.1.1: Understanding Obedience......................................................................................31
1.1.2: Political Obedience................................................................................................36
1.1.3: Foolery as Religious Emancipation.......................................................................4
5)26 9oolery and negations6 the shape of ascetic re,ection)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))33
1.2.1: !egati"e #$eology..................................................................................................4%
1.2.2: &pop$atic 'i"ersity................................................................................................(3
5)/6 Ascetic Positivism6 the sine .ua non of renunciation))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))):;
1.3.1: Place.......................................................................................................................()
1.3.2: Prayer.....................................................................................................................61
1.3.3: *lot$ing Practices..................................................................................................64
5)36 <mpty 9ools6 =ainglory))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))48
5):6 Distracting >oliness6 Dissociation))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))8:
$: &r"cti'ed I!nor"nce............................................................................................................8(
2)56 Practices of Thought in the Desert))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))));:
2.1.1: Praise and +lame: spea,ing et$ics........................................................................-6
2.1.2: 'eat$: escaping .rom et$ics...................................................................................)1
2.1.3: /it$dra0al .rom t$e 0orld: c$allenging et$ics...................................................1(
2)26 Ascetic <pistemology))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))50;
2)/6 The !or* of a ?ilence)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))55;
2.3.1: 1aying !o to #$eology.........................................................................................11-
2.3.2: +abbling against t$e 2ac$ine..............................................................................12-
2.3.3: #elling 1ilence......................................................................................................136
2.3.4: E..usi"e 1ilence....................................................................................................141
%: T)e Un'eriou' Se#*............................................................................................................1+,
/)56 @nowledge and truth6 the insult))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))53
/)26 9earing ?peech))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))54/
3.2.1: 3ying.....................................................................................................................166
3.2.2: 4alues...................................................................................................................1%
3.2.3: E5perts..................................................................................................................1%3
/)/6 >umour)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))588
3.3.1: #$e obligation to laug$........................................................................................1-4
3.3.2: 1toc, comic .orms.................................................................................................1)
3.3.3: #$e Po0er o. t$e *omic.......................................................................................1)(
/)36 The Unserious ?elf))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))20/
3.4.1: 6umility and t$e *$ristian 1tory.........................................................................2%
3.4.2: 6umility and 7race..............................................................................................2-
3.4.3: 6umility and unserious speec$............................................................................211
Conc#u'ion..............................................................................................................................$1(
Bi-#io!r".)/..........................................................................................................................$10
Abbreviations (Ancient Literature)
Unless otherwise indicated( translations are those listed in the bibliography)
Numbering in ancient te#ts is in general according to chapter) The anonymous collection of
apop$t$egmata partum is numbered according to !ard+s edition)
Aeference to Bree* and 1atin te#ts has been to Migne( unless otherwise indicated)
&cta 1anctorum &cta 1anctorum
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9 &pop$t$egmata Patrum 8alp$.9
lib. grad. liber graduum
$. mon. $istoria monac$orum in &egypto
&pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9 &pop$t$egmata Patrum 87,. syst.9
". dan. scet. "ita 'anielis 1cetiotis
&pop$. Patr. 83at9 &pop$t$egmata Patrum 83at.9
&pop$. Patr. 8anon9 &pop$t$egmata Patrum 8anon9
Athanasius Ale#andrinus ". &nton. 4ita &ntonii
Augustinus >ipponensis c. mend. contra mendacium
Enc$. Enc$iridion
de ci". dei de ci"itate dei contra paganos
con.. *on.essionum
doctr. c$r. 'e 'octrina *$ristiana
lib.art. de libero arbitrio
mend. de mendacio
op. mon. de opere monac$orum
de trin de trinitate
%arsanuphius and Cohannes resp. responsiones
%asilius Magnus leg. lib. gent. ad adolescentes de legendis libris
gentilium
ascet. 1 sermo asceticus 1
ascet 2 sermo asceticus 2
d. bapt. de baptismo libro duo
ascet. disc. sermo eiusdem de ascetica disciplina
$om. 1 $omilia 1 ad"ersus eos :ui irascuntur
$om. 2 $omilia 2 de $umilitate
reg. .us. regulae .usius tractatae
moral. moralia
renunt sermo de renuntiatione saeculi
;ud. de ;udicio dei
"assianus Cohannes de institutis 'e institutis coenobiorum
*ollationes *ollationes
"icero Marcus Tullius tusc. disp. #usculanae 'isputationes
"lemens Ale#andrinus str. stromateis
"limacus Dohn scal. scala paradisi
Denys Areopagitus c.$. de caelesti $ierarc$ia
d.n. de di"inis nominibus
e.$. de ecclesiastica $ierarc$ia
myst. de mystica t$eologia
Diogenes 1aertius "it. p$il. 4itae P$ilosop$orum
<pictetus Enc$. Enc$eiridion
<vagrius Ponticus de orat. 'e oratione
de.in. de.initiones
e5cerpts e5cerpts
sent. ad "irg. 1ententiae ad "irginem
par. ad mon Paraenesis ad monac$os
$ypo. $ypotyposes
ep. ad mel. Epistula ad 2elaniam
ep. epistula
cap. paraen. *apita paraenetica
Pra,t. Pra,ti,os
oct. spir. de octo spiritibus malitiae
de "itiis 'e "itiis :uae opposita sunt "irtutibus
de mal. cog. 'e malignis cogationibus
s,em. 1,emmata
sc$ol. in eccl. 1c$olia in Ecclesiasten
sc$ol. in luc. 1c$olia in 3ucam
cap. 555iii capitula 555iii
Eulog. Eulogios
sent. ad mon. 1ententiae ad monac$os
<vagrius ?cholasticus $.e. $istoria ecclesiastica
Bregorius Magnus 3ib. Reg. Past.3iber Regul< Pastoralis
>ieronymus ep. epistula
". Pauli) "ita 1ancti Pauli Eremitae
1eontius <piscopus Neapolitanus ". 1ym. "ita 1ymeonis 1ali
Ma#imus "onfessor carit. 1=4 capitum de caritate :uattuor centuriae
Moschus Dohn prat. pratum spirituale
Ni*ephoros "it. and. "ita andreii
Palladius $. 3aus. $istoria 3ausiaca
Aufinus 6ist. 2onac$. 6istoria 2onac$orum in &egypto
Thomas A.uinas summa t$eologiae summa t$eologiae
Eosimas allo:uia allo:uia
Acknowledgements
?i# years have now passed since C e#plained to my wife that C could not write a
doctoral thesis because C did not have an idea) ?ince that time( C have benefited from
conversations with friends( colleagues( students and strangers that have managed to persuade
me that this was a correct assessment of the situation( but that C should still write)
To wor* and thin* several hundred miles from your academic home is always a
challenge( and the Department of Theology and Aeligious ?tudies 0not least the ever helpful
and sympathetic Danet 1ongley2 have been more than accommodating) A special than*s must
go to my supervisor Philip Boodchild( who has always been polite enough to ma*e my
glaring mista*es seem natural ones( and who has never given a comment that has not been
worth acting on) >is *een discernment( absurdly well informed thought( and his patient(
effective academic effort will always stand out in my mind as a model of philosophical wor*)
Aecent years have also seen the development of an enormously resourceful group of
research students at the department( and C have gained a great deal from their passion and
insight into the tas* of doing good theology and philosophy) The all too rare conversations C
have had with Ale# Andrews( Deff %iebighauser( Anthony Paul ?mith( Michael 7+Neill
%urns( %en @aut&er( and Thomas 1ynch have been both inspiring and informative)
C owe a further debt of gratitude to the 9aculty of Theology at the University of 7slo)
Not only have they generously e#tended library hospitality even when C have not had formal
lin*s to the institution( but C have been accepted into their academic discussions both over
lunch and in seminars) Cn particular( ?turla ?tFlsett( @,etil >afstad( <spen Dahl and Trygve
!yller have encouraged me( indicated new avenues of research( and listened to my often
incoherent thoughts on sub,ects that C really had nothing to do with) A further gathering that
has been an enormous help is the sporadic meeting of the 7slo Patristics reading group) ?tig
9rGyshov has been especially helpful( not least in chec*ing my often s*etchy understanding of
Bree* te#ts)
A source of constant inspiration has been my daughter ?unniva Brace( to whom C
have read everything from 9oucault to Teresa of Avila) ?he has been good enough to decorate
my writings and has proclaimed her agreement to our neighbours at the top of her voice)
The people that to whom my wor* owes most( though( are those who have bothered
to say no) 9riends and family who have not bought into my self-created genius cult and have
forced me to ,ustify my arguments and give up those that no longer hold water) !ithout these(
my thoughts would have long ago spiralled off into self-glorifying nonsense) My than*s go
especially to >arald Torgauten( Tom "lar*( and most of all to my ever honest( ever surprising
wife( >elene Thomas) These have long been my readers and my audience( and they are
responsible for my coherence) The remaining nonsense is all of my own creating( but C hope
that they will continue the wor* they have started in helping me to eradicate it)
Introduction
The holy fool is no stranger to the modern world) The name is used to describe
beatni*s( truth-telling weirdos( and modern ascetics) Ct doesn+t matter what you are reacting
to( so long as you challenge established truths in innovative ways( you are a holy fool)
This study is based on the assumption that it does matter what you are reacting to) The
starting point determines the range of answers available) ?pea*ing of the holy fools of late
anti.uity in the same breath as modern <uropean gurus and even early modern Aussian holy
fools implies abandoning a specific starting point) Ct ma*es transformation an unchanging
absolute rather than a negotiation of particular differences on the basis of shared practices and
thoughts)
C will here be considering the holy fools of late anti.uity and the early Middle Ages in
the <astern reaches of the >oly Aoman <mpire) Their situation is stri*ing not ,ust because
these figures are the earliest source for the Hholy fool+( but also because of their starting point)
The first %y&antine fools react against early "hristian asceticism) They emerge from the
monastic movements of <gypt( Palestine and ?yria)
Ct is the nature of early "hristian asceticism that ma*es what follows more than a list
of ways in which holy fools differ from their predecessors) At the time of our holy fools(
<astern mon*s and nuns had developed a sophisticated technology of personal and social
transformation that baptised the philosophy of late anti.uity in developing the church+s
theology( ethos( and interpretation of ?cripture) Their holiness was characterised by
discipline( disconnection( and self-mastery) Ct is in these terms that the holy fools attempt to
transform the "hristian e#perience of the holy)
Another assumption6 the "hristian e#perience of the holy is historically mediated)
There is nothing necessary( nothing timeless about it) !e e#perience the holy ' rightly or
wrongly ' in conte#t) Perhaps it will be called a >egelian starting point( but it is also founded
on the dogma of the infinity and ine#haustibility of Bod( who always e#ceeds and transcends
our current thoughts)
Ct is because of the theological practice of the early "hristian ascetics that holy fools '
who mar* their departure precisely from the norms( *nowledge( and saintly selfhood of
monasticism ' are called holy rather than simply foolish) Ct does not simply ta*e a trailbla&ing
holy man to transform the e#perience of holiness) Ct ta*es a transformed reception too)
I"ontinuity is but the phenomenon of a discontinuity)J
5
C will therefore attempt to draw up the common features and conversions enacted in
the emergence of the holy fools amongst early "hristian ascetics) ?hared theologies made it
possible for contemporaries to identify them as holyK conversions are what catch our attention
and theirs( constituting a criti.ue that elicits transformation) !e could say that the one ma*es
them holy( whilst the other ma*es them foolish)
The tas* is therefore restricted to the earliest "hristian holy fools) Parallels in other
religions( places( and times are no doubt interesting( and may even help us to understand the
material in hand) These are not( however( the domain of this study) Two reasons motivate the
choice6 firstly( in order to posit a genuine parallel( a thoroughgoing understanding is
necessary of each phenomenon( so that the parallel itself adds no new *nowledge concerning
either of them( but mere illustrations of particular features) ?econdly( even though the theme
of this wor* is ostensibly a set of historical religious figures( my underlying interest is an
understanding of the e#perience and theology of holiness( as it is negotiated in Theology+s
classical era( in the wa*e of one of the most far-reaching transformations "hristianity has
undergone( namely the birth of monasticism)
<ven this restriction is not enough( though) There have been a number of
interpretations of "hristian foolishness that have included everything from %iblical material(
through %y&antine holy fools( to modern religious radicals)
2
These wor*s attempt to draw up a
"hristian theology of holy madness) !hilst useful studies in themselves( demonstrating the
range of phenomena we are inclined to call foolish and holy( there tends to be very little to
unite the phenomena described) "hristians are called mad all the time( but that doesn+t ma*e
them holy) 7n the other hand( counter-cultural holy men and women have emerged( noticed
and unnoticed( in most historical eras( without their having anything in common with the
%y&antine holy fools)
?imilarly( madness in itself has been praised as holy in different conte#ts in church
history( without any obvious reference to each other or significant common features)
%y&antine hagiographers praised holy fools for pretending to be mad in order to hide their
holinessK
/
<rasmus praises madness because of its refusal of Aenaissance theological self-
righteousnessK
3
modern charismatic "hristians praise madness because it overcomes
5
9oucault( 582 L545M6 533( my translation)
2
Typical e#amples are the post-modern Phan( 2005 and the historical ?award( 5;0)
/
Dagron( 50)
3
in <rasmus( 5;L5:50M)
inhibitions for the sa*e of worship)
:
Therefore( this study will concentrate on the uni.ue
theology of one of these groups ' namely the early "hristian %y&antine holy fools ' in order
to e#amine that way of thin*ing in all its specificity) The common features of a "hristian
theology of madness will have to wait for another day)
<ven at this degree of specificity( however( we will have to ma*e some distinctions)
The delimiting of this field has caused enormous problems in the secondary literature( and
any preliminary definition of holy fools is bound to rule out or include figures that are
relevant) ?o C shall impose an arbitrary distinction( and remain alert to its contingency
throughout) C propose to include in this study all hagiography that includes the appellation
Hsalos+(
4
which came to be used for holy fools by the <astern church) "hronologically( C will
be considering all holy fools up until and including the time of ?ymeon the holy fool) After
?ymeon( there was very little foolish hagiography until ?t Andrew ?alos( three hundred years
after 1eontius+ silly scribblings)
8
This definition has the disadvantage of including certain desert fathers who clearly do
not adopt the lifestyle of a holy fool)
;
?ince these instances do not describe a holy man or
woman pretending to be mad for any long time( we can however discount them from our
description of holy foolery) !e are loo*ing primarily at people who adopt this way of life as a
vocation rather than as a last resort on one occasion) The other disadvantage is that it e#cludes
the story of Antiochus( recorded by Dohannes "limacus(

who pretended to be a fool 0tq_ov2

for thirteen years as an act of penance) ?ince this instance is set in the conte#t of early
"hristian asceticism 0as the natural step from obedience and enduring insults2( this e#clusion
is no disaster)
Perhaps a more controversial decision is to e#clude ?t Andrew ?alos
50
from this study)
The parallels between ?ymeon ?alos and Andrew ?alos are so stri*ing that any wor* on holy
fools that included the one without the other appears incomplete) There are( however( good
reasons for positing a brea* at this point)
:
according to( for e#ample( "o#( 5:)
4
the standard Bree* term for fools for "hrist+s sa*e6 ooio,.
8
The date of the life of Andrew ?alos has been the sub,ect of a long debate between ") Mango and 1) AydNn)
?ee the discussion in AydNn+s introduction and commentary to Ni*ephoros( "it. and.
;
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Moses ; O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: =CCC)50 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: =CCC)5/ and &pop$.
Patr. 8alp$9: Ammonas O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P=)52 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P=)5/)

"limacus( scal.: ?tep 3) A possible reference to Antiochus may be behind ?ymeon+s comments in ?ymeon the
New Theologian 5;06 =C);)
50
Te#t( translation and commentary can be found in Ayden+s edition) cf) Ni*ephoros( "it. and.
Firstly( and most importantly( Andrew does not arise from a monastic community or
lifestyle) >e receives a divine calling whilst living as a slave in "onstantinople) All the fools
in our period either live amongst religious or have been religious themselves)
1econdly( Andrew ' though himself originally from ?cythia ' does not move to the
place where he wor*s as a holy fool6 he lives in "onstantinople both before and after his call
to be a fool) Cn contrast( the early holy fools are anonymous and un*nown in the place where
they begin their calling) ?ymeon( for e#ample( moves from <dessa to <mesa( via a long stay
in the desert)
#$irdly( Andrew does not resemble a mon*( but a prophet) !hilst we can and will
interpret the early holy fools as adopting a particular mode of asceticism( Andrew ?alos is to
be interpreted against the bac*ground of other framewor*s) >e foretells events in the city( and
a large part of his life is ta*en up with an elaborate apocalypse)
Fourt$ly( Andrew ta*es foolish disciples) >e is emulated) The earliest holy fools only
reveal their way of life reluctantly and by divine command( and when they do( they do not
recommend it to anyone else)
These features force me to agree with Brosdidier de Matons(
55
who in his seminal
wor* on holy foolery and Andrew ?alos in particular argued that the hagiography of the
Mediaeval %y&antine fools is of an entirely different genre and character to its forerunners) Cts
mode of edification is at odds with that of the hagiography of early holy fools) !e could say
that whilst writings concerning Andrew ?alos draw the reader into its description( as*ing her
to become a holy fool( and thus describable by the hagiographer( the early fools retain the
reader-te#t relation) The aim in writing about the early fools is that the reader may *now that
there are holy fools) Ct is not that the reader may become one)
To the e#tent that later interpretations of holy fools similarly disregard their relation to
asceticism( they are similarly irrelevant to this study) Ct is perhaps surprising to note( however(
that the lin* to monasticism is more resilient in interpretations than in practice) ?ymeon the
new theologian( for e#ample( associates pretending to be mad 0ooio,2 not with supernatural
speech( but with a monastic economy of vainglory and control of the passions( albeit in
condemning the practice)
52
?imilarly( Dostoevs*y+s holy fools are often 0but not always2
55
de Matons( 580( e)g) on p/2;6 Hstarting out with the most original *ind of saint hagiography has to offer(
LAndrew ?alos+ hagiographerM ends up by giving holiness its most banal( conventional( and even most false
image)+ 0my translation2
52
?ymeon the New Theologian( 5;06 PP=CCC)52) Cvanov notes further fool-li*e activity in hagiography about
?ymeon the New Theologian( which falls outside the confines of this wor*( for the above-mentioned reasons)
Cvanov 2004 L53M6 583-5;2)
compared with and set in the conte#t of monasticism6 the e#egetical problems involved in
identifying authentic holy fools notwithstanding( de .acto fools 0who were generally
identifiable and *nown figures in Dostoevs*y+s Aussia2 appear in the conte#t of monasteries(
with and over against the conventional religious)
5/
!hen later interpetations refer to holy
foolishness as a way of relating to "hristian asceticism( then( they will also be relevant to the
study of the earliest holy fools)
!hat do these restrictions leave us with$ Cf we are to only regard those stories written
before 1eontius of Neapolis that use the word Hsalos+ to refer to those that embrace the life of
feigning madness for "hrist+s sa*e( a coherent group of te#ts emerges6
Csidora of Tabennesiotes( who was abused by her entire monastery for her madness
until her holiness is revealed by an angel to Piteroum 0cf) below( on page 232K
53
Abba Mar* the fool who moved to Ale#andria to play the fool at the baths of
>ippo( and who was discovered by Abba Daniel of ?cetisK
5:
the anonymous mon* living in the community around abba ?ilvanus in Palestine
who laughed and fooled around in public( but in private counted his good and bad
thoughts by ma*ing piles of pebbles( only allowing himself to eat if the good
outweighed the badK
54
?ymeon the holy fool( whose long "ita by 1eontius of Neapolis
58
represents Hthe
pinnacle of the literary development of the ideas of holy foolery+
5;
describing a
flight from the world through the common life( the desert( and the madness of the
city( where ?ymeon moc*s( steals( and shits his way through the last days of his life
in a fest of holy foolishness( always hiding( always provocative)
5/
9ather Therapon is a monastic authority and holy fool in Dostoevs*y( 53L5;;0M6 C=)5K ?emyon Qa*ovlevich
the holy fool ' though treated as a prophet ' is attended by mon*s( and connected to a local monastery6
Dostoevs*y( 2000L5;82M6 CC):)ii
53
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: P=CCC)5 Palladius( $. 3aus.: PPC=)
5:
cf) now the e#cellent critical collection by %ritt Dahlman of the Daniel te#ts6 ". dan. scet. The story of Mar*
the holy fool appears in chapter 2)
54
&pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: =CCC)/2
58
1eontius( ". 1ym.( based at least partly on the short chapter on H?ymeon the mon*+ in <vagrius ?cholasticus(
$.e.: C=)/3)
5;
Cvanov( 2004L53M6 5/0( italics original)
?o the holy fools material itself ,ustifies an e#amination of the te#ts that appear at this
time 0from the fourth to the seventh century2 and location 0<gypt and ?yria2 of transitions6
from anti.uity to the Middle AgesK from pagan Aome to the >oly Aoman <mpireK from
philosophy to doctrineK between the <astern empire and the orientK between the diaphysite
orthodo# world and the multiplying orthodo#ies around monophysitismK between the
"hristian <ast and the Muslim <ast) Ct is in this conte#t that the holy fools appear and
establish a place for themselves in religious consciousness)
There are generally three academic tas*s attempted regarding the holy fools material6
describing a previously un*nown set of te#ts(
5
which has now been largely achieved in the
online edition of @reuger+s commentary and translation of 1eontius+ 3i.e o. 1ymeon
20
and the
magisterial translations of the sayings of the desert fathers and mothers by %enedicta !ardK
25
identifying an historical and notional conte#t in which to understand them( for e#ample
amongst the desert fathers and mothers(
22
cynic philosophers(
2/
the religious phenomena of
cra&y-wise gurusK
23
and elucidating the significance of the holy fools in the grammar of a
particular practice or doctrine( assuming the details of a conte#t and logic in order to ma*e the
meanings of the te#ts emerge in that discussion)
2:
Now that we have established the set of
data( what conte#ts will we be setting them in( and how will the te#ts be approached$
A good analysis will have to argue both for a conte#t and for an understanding of that
conte#t) The reading suggested here will be against the bac*ground of "hristian asceticism as
one step in the developing conception of the philosophical life) The holy fools will be
portrayed as an internal criti.ue of "hristian monasticism understood as philosophical
practice)
The approach will therefore owe a great deal to Michel 9oucault+s interrogations of
philosophical practice in its relation to truth-telling) 9oucault+s historical writings danced
around the "hristian asceticism of late anti.uity without ever directly addressing it in any
systematic study)
24
>is concerns regarding the literature are fairly clear( however( and his
5
<#amples of this approach include AydRn( 5;5 9rGyshov( 200/ !are( 2000 ?yr*in( 5;2)
20
http6SSwww)escholarship)orgSeditionsSview$docCdOft4*3008s#TbrandOucpress( the online version of @rueger(
54)
25
!ard( 58: !ard( 200/)
22
Borainoff( 5;/6 ch) 5 Cvanov( 2004L53M6 chs) 5 and 2)
2/
@rueger( 54)
23
%outenoff( 200/ 9euerstein( 55( who is followed by Phan( 2005)
2:
Dagron( 50 "erteau( 58)
24
@ey te#ts are6 9oucault 58( 54 L5;3M( 2000 L5;5M( 2000c L5;2M( 2000a L5;/M( 2000b L5;/M( 2000
L5;:M( 200: L2005M6 lectures on 23
th
9ebruary( /
rd
March and 50
th
March( 02008a2 L5;0M( 2008b L5;0M( and
especially 2008 L2003M6 lectures from the 5
st
9ebruary to the ;
th
March( and 2006 lectures from 2
th
9ebruary and
2;
th
March)
approach to it was demonstrated both in his short analyses and in his wor* on the philosophy
of late anti.uity)
28
The method adopted here is perhaps best demonstrated in the two
tra,ectories of Platonic thought outlined in 9oucault+s final lecture series)
?ocrates+ psychagogical practice lies at the heart of much of 9oucault+s later thought(
stretched as it was between analyses of Platonism on the one hand and @ant+s article on
<nlightenment on the other)
2;
An important point made in the analyses of the ?ocratic
dialogues is that the great philosopher is not simply repeating the Delphic command to *now
yourself( but that he wanders the streets of Athens encouraging young and old rather to ta*e
care of themselves 0the Icare of the selfJ6 t ititio t ouou2) This care generated two ma,or
implications for platonic thought( two forms of telling the truth about the self in order to
mould the aesthetics of e#istence) 9oucault therefore outlines two modes of giving an account
of oneself)
9irstly( the philosopher can give an account of himself through an understanding and
elaboration of the being of the soul) ?ocratic truth-telling gives way to metaphysics) 9oucault
associates this tra,ectory with the &lcibiades( but its tra,ectory is clear in neoplatonism)
&lcibiades was important as a dialogue because it came first in the later pedagogical lists)
2
The truth-telling philosopher wor*s on his way of life by placing himself in an ontological
order( and by appealing to a different world( the realm of the soul)
?econdly( the philosopher may give an account of himself through a description of and
wor* on his life 0io,2( the interrogation of forms of life) 7ne+s self is .uestioned according
to the measure of virtue( but more enduringly according to truth) !hat *ind of life is
necessary in order for me to be able to spea* the truth$ 9oucault roots this tra,ectory in the
dialogue 3ac$es( although its heirs are the practical philosophers of late anti.uity( and in
particular the "ynics( late ?toics( and early "hristian ascetics)
!hilst these two traditions are no doubt related ' indeed 9oucault+s histories spea*
primarily of the roots of the ascetic tradition in &lcibiades rather than in 3ac$es until the 5;3
lectures ' their relation is fle#ible and varied) There is no specific metaphysic of the soul and
the other world that applies to one specific way of life) They are reconfigured again and again
in the history of the soul)
28
Cn particular( see 9oucault 52a L5;3M( 54 L5;3M( 2000c L5;2M( 2000 L5;/M( 200: L2005M( 200( and
Pearson 2005)
2;
The transition from the one to the other can be seen in a variety of te#ts from the 5;0s6 9oucault 5;/( 2008
L50M( 200;6 lectures from the :
th
and 52
th
Danuary)
2
9oucault mentions 7lympiodorus and Proclus in 9oucault 200: L2005M6 580) ?ee his longer analyses in the
first two lectures( and comparisons scattered throughout these lectures)
The following analyses of holy fools and early "hristian asceticism will be primarily
guided by the concerns of the latter tra,ectory) !here theories of the soul and the other world
are treated( it will be for the sa*e of the understanding of the truth-telling that concerns and is
produced by the true way of life)
A number of conse.uences follow from this focus) 9irstly( the traditional division of
Patristics into the more theoretical te#ts of Augustine( the "appadocian fathers( etc over
against the hagiographical te#ts of church histories( stories and sayings of mon*s( and so on
will not hold) The theory and practice of the self are constantly playing off each other)
Metaphysical theories of the other world and the eternal soul have practical implications for
ascetic heroes( and particular practices of death and hope will sometimes re.uire a particular
metaphysic( and sometimes allow metaphysical fle#ibility) Neither can be studied in isolation)
?econdly( "hristian asceticism can not be read as a mere continuation of either the
platonic tradition or the cynic ascetic tradition) Cn the monastic "hristianity of late anti.uity(
the possibility of truth-telling re.uired a particular ascetic practice( and ascetic practice
produced and assumed a set of truth games) !hilst "ynic philosophers more or less ignored
metaphysics( and neoplatonists eschewed the radical life transformations of cynics and
mon*s( "hristian philosophers united the life of withdrawal with the life of the soul) The
desert is where you save your soul)
/0
Thirdly( theology contains a vital reference to practice in two directions) 7n the one
hand( truth-telling is grounded in practice) 7nly particular games of truth and habits of
mastery over one+s thought will allow the emergence of truth about the other life of Bod and
the soul) 7n the other hand( life is assessed not only against the standards of truth( but against
those of the divine life) Cn short( truth produces and is produced by holiness)
Cllustrations of this principle can be found in the analysis of dispassion 0below( section
2)5)26 Death6 escaping from ethics2) The notion of the dispassion of Bod has troubled
theologians for some time) Brounding it in the practice of dispassion will add to our
understanding of how ancient theologians thought through the attribute( for e#ample
demonstrating that it is by no means incommensurate with love( that it is concerned with
social convention( manipulation( and *nowledge) 7n the other hand( the practice itself is
driven to a great e#tent because of the theology of divine impassibility)
A further illustration concerns the account given below of negative theology( or
apophaticism 0section C)2)5 below2) !hilst the theme will first be confronted in practical
/0
9oucault 2006 22;)
terms ' the re,ection of the city( particular forms of life( and conventional shapes of holiness
as non-divine ' ascetic practice is both driven by and a mode of producing intellectual
apophaticism) 9or this reason( we will first confront it in the section on ways of transforming
norms and then later in the description of the transformation of *nowledge)
9oucault himself did not directly address the emergence of early "hristian asceticism
0by which C mean both the anchoritic movements of Anthony and the cenobitic institutions of
Pachomius as they arose in the <astern stretches of the <mpire at the turn of the fourth
century2( he challenged his hearers to ta*e it seriously( and confessed that what he was saying
on the sub,ect was highly provisional)
/5
9or these reasons( the following analyses will not be
restricted to 9oucault+s own conclusions( for the following reasons)
9oucault+s concern with "hristianity was determined by surrounding analyses) ?o
instead of establishing fine lines of logical progression in thought and practice( he often
presented "hristianity as a fairly flat figure stretching from late anti.uity to the Aenaissance)
A case in point is his account of obedience) >e describes the practice of total obedience as a
precursor to the governmental systems that united practices of asceticism to civic loyality) To
this purpose( 9oucault+s histories portray one form of obedience to ecclesiastic authorities as a
mode of heteronomy) Cn fact( obedience was only allied to institutional hierarchy in certain
conte#ts 0namely particular cenobitic institutions2 and some time after the emergence of
monasticism) The obedience elaborated as a practice of the self amongst early "hristian
ascetics was long entirely independent of ecclesiastical order( and chapter one below sets out
a grammar of obedience at odds with 9oucault+s depressing picture of a governmental
techni.ue that in practice undermined the self confidence produced by mystical e#perience)
/2
Cnstead of aping 9oucault+s critical studies( then( we will embrace his program of re-
launching the .uestion of what way of life is necessary for telling the truth( what techni.ues
allow a transformation of morals( and what relation to the self is generated by these
transformations$ !e will e#amine the hagiographical and theoretical reflections on asceticism
as interrogations of life and self)
The .uestion that is being as*ed throughout these tas*s is6 what is the significance of
the deployment of madness in the "hristian e#perience of holiness$ Addressing this .uestion
will further involve steering between the two tendencies to assert an absolute brea* with the
contemporary religious practice( and so to deny the fool+s holiness( and the tendency to claim
/5
Cn 9oucault 2006 20)
/2
9oucault 2006 /02-/0;) "f) also the governmental analysis of obedience in lectures of 9oucault 2008 L2003M6
22
nd
9ebruary and 5
st
March)
complete continuity with e#isting e#perience of holiness( and so to deny the fool+s
foolishness)
The identification of transformations in the e#perience of holiness presents three
primary sub-.uestions6
5) >ow are the norms of the holy and the unholy transformed$
2) >ow is the *nowledge of the holy transformed$
/) >ow is the relation of the self to society in its holy and profane manifestations
reconfigured$
//
%ecause these three elements of e#perience ' norms( *nowledge( and the self+s
relation to society ' are all addressed at a profound level by the early "hristian ascetics( the
transformation elicited by the holy fools is unli*ely to be limited to simple transitions in
practical norms( the assertion of one voice in the discussion of religious *nowledge( and the
institution of one new social form of religion) Cnstead( attention will be directed to the ways in
which early "hristian ascetics and holy fools ali*e transform and undermine the activities that
ma*e norms( *nowledge( and the self-society relation possible) !hat does this mean in
practice$
1. Cn addressing norm-ma*ing activities( the holy fools insert their abnormality into the
way of life of the desert fathers and mothers through their development of the discipline of
obedience( their practices of radical dissociation( and their solutions to the practical problem
of vainglory) These disciplines are themselves practices that ma*e it possible to ta*e a critical
stance to systems of norms) 7bedience ' a dominating theme throughout ascetic literature in
late anti.uity and the early middle ages ' denies the necessity of an agent+s actions being
entirely motivated by their own will) %y brac*eting the moral ,udgment of the obedient mon*
or nun( a space for critical assessment of that ,udgment is carved out) Dissociation has a
similar function( where the moral agent becomes a stranger to herself in order to wor* on her
thought and action( and how they relate to one another) The problem of vainglory is not
simply concerned with morality( but the effects a moral action can have on the self) These are
all disciplines that wor* on norm-ma*ing activity) They do not merely change the morality
//
The a#es used here are adapted from those outlined by 9oucault in his lectures of 5;/6 cf) 9oucault( 200;6
3-8)
they have received) They are ways in which morality as such can be e#amined( assessed( and
transformed)
Against this bac*ground( the holy fools appear as challenging the holiness of ascetic
norm-ma*ing activity) They clearly embrace aspects of the religious life( but in such a way as
to clash with the values and traditions of mainstream "hristian monasticism) %y echoing
classic instances of obedient acts( practising absolute dissociation( and playing around the sin
of vainglory( they modify the way in which holiness had come to be e#perienced) They
represent a challenge to "hristian asceticism from within) This challenge is the sub,ect of part
one)
$. >ow is *nowledge of the holy produced and transformed by the holy fools$ A *ey
mode of gaining control over the production of *nowledge amongst the early "hristian
ascetics was mastery over the passions) Disciplines and practices were deployed to have an
effect on passions( which in turn allowed the thin*ing agent to e#ercise choice on how things
were represented) The ascetic production and criti.ue of *nowledge was activated both in the
realm of social *nowledge ' reconceptualising money( gender( politics ' and in that of
theology)
The holy fools continue this program of denying the institutions and practices that
support *nowledge by .uestioning the *nowledge of both the religious and secular realms)
They undermine the practices and *nowledge that configure gender( mar*et( and religion
through playing with and ma*ing contingent divisions that seemed necessary) Cn their
freedom from passion( they refuse to let holiness underwrite the present) Bod-tal* ta*es place
within the conte#t of established values and meanings) The attribution of goodness to Bod
then orders hierarchies of goodness and godliness in the world) Cn this respect( the social order
of "hristendom in late anti.uity was a theological order) >oly fools can be seen enacting a
practical apophatic theology that ta*es seriously the challenges posed by the conventions and
practices intertwined with meanings and utterances) !ith their denial of forms of life and
their play on religious acts( they perform the twin elements of apophaticism6 criti.ue and play(
or the "ia negati"a and the "ia dissimilis) Ct is such practices of *nowledge that we will
discuss in part two)
%. The holy fools address the problem of the self+s relation to society by their approach
to the universal demand of holiness) The early "hristian ascetics had appropriated the
philosophical techni.ue of fearless speech by transforming it into a hermeneutic) The
"hristian is obliged to hear true speech from anyone) The location of heroic *nowledge had
thereby been transferred from the individual philosophical spea*er to the mass of listeners(
thus posing the problem that had been underlying ancient philosophy ever since ?ocrates6 if
social and personal transformation is to be valued( who is to be re.uired and who enabled to
attain to those values$
The issue determines the holiness and the possibility of holiness for both religious and
secular) Cf the infinite demands of self-*nowledge and self-transformation are universally
obliging( then everyone has to be a mon*) Cf they apply only to a few( then the political and
personal power that results from philosophical and ascetic techni.ues is restricted to a few
aristocrats) These problems are particularly relevant to the range( public communication( and
obligations of the dogma( techni.ues( and e#perts of philosophy( and are relevant as a
framewor* of interpretation both for ancient truth-telling techni.ues and for ascetic
techni.ues of ethics li*e the humour and humility of early "hristian ascetics and holy fools) Cf
humility is a resource for the brac*eting and transformation of norms and *nowledge( how is
that resource affected if it becomes a demand rather than a choice$ And what are the political
implications of restricting the demand to a specific group of religious$
The holy fools+ response to the challenge of universal asceticism betrays a more
sophisticated approach to the self+s relation to society than might be e#pected 0outside the
ecclesiological debate ta*ing place at the time between Augustine and Pelagius2) Cn particular(
their practice of humility owes more to their fidelity to the "hristian story than to the political
and utilitarian techni.ues of their secular counterparts) As such( they are acutely aware of the
dangers of ascetic and philosophical accounts of the self that appeal to a momentous identity
that must be defended and ta*en seriously) These problems and issues are addressed in part
three)
All these three .uestions ' concerning norms( *nowledge( and the self+s relation to
society ' are part of a larger investigation6 what role does the asceticism inhabited and
transformed by the holy fools play in the theology and e#perience of holiness of their time$ Cn
order to ma*e sense whilst treating the historical problems of the bac*ground and contribution
of holy fools( C will need to assume an understanding of asceticism) Ct is unavoidable ' and
desirable ' that the understanding of asceticism be transformed by these accounts) Ct is also
necessary to mar* out a starting point)
Cn what follows( C will start by assuming that asceticism is a form of self-training that
encompasses techni.ues of physical regulation 0what one eats( where one stays( what one
produces and says2 and rational practice 0what one thin*s and says( how one feels( when and
to whom one gives an account of oneself2 with a view to determining the shape of one+s life)
Cn the conte#t of the "hristian tradition( C am particularly interested in those who aspired to
live a Hphilosophical life+( cultivating virtual and real solitude and practicing spiritual
disciplines such as fasting and regular prayer) This tradition culminates in( but is not restricted
to( the two precedents set by Pachomius 0who founded monastic institutions of the common
life ' the Hcenobites+2 and Anthony 0who initiated the tradition of "hristian desert hermits '
the Hanchorites+2) Ct is to the immediate forerunners of these 0e)g) 7rigen( "lement2 and more
importantly their e#plicit successors 0e)g) the desert fathers and mothers( %asil of "aesarea(
<vagrius of Pontus2 that C refer when C mention Hearly "hristian ascetics)+
This is not to say that the thesis is purely concerned with practical matters rather than
theoretical ' orthopra#y rather than orthodo#y( as theologians have become accustomed to
divide the field) Ct is doubtful whether this *ind of division is ever valid6 certainly the
purposes of this discussion would be hopelessly thwarted if we were to thin* the practical
elements entirely independently of the dogmatic( or "ice "ersa) Cndeed( to ta*e one e#ample(
the discussion of dispassion 0Bree*6 apat$eia2 has been repeatedly confused in secondary
literature by ignorance of either practical or dogmatic issues( instead of letting ascetic practice
throw light on the dogma of Bod+s impassibility( and vice versa) A proper integration of these
issues will attribute to dispassion a clearer relation to love( and to practical dispassion its
active character 0on which( cf) below( on page 5052)
?tudying "hristian theology and e#perience of holiness will re.uire dovetailing
considerations of practice and theory) Aecent theories of holiness have been dominated by the
description of e#perience6 holiness has become the preserve of anthropologists and
phenomenologists) Cn what follows( these approaches are partially undermined( partially
transcended) Undermined because there is no theory of an ahistorical( non-transformable
founding sub,ect behind the account given here of norms( *nowledge( and self and society)
<verything is negotiated) Transcended because the ob,ects of study are ta*en seriously as
theoreticians of holiness rather than simply vessels of e#perience)
The e#perience of holiness is intimately involved with the *nowledge of Bod)
Theology and holiness are ine#tricably lin*ed) 9or all their reticence regarding the discussion
of Bod-tal*( the desert fathers and mothers alter the way in which theology is thought by their
transformation of the practice of holiness) !itnesses can be found to this historically '
Athanasius+ thought was influenced enormously by his relationship with Anthony the Breat
and his own encounter with the desert ' and logically ' the characteristics of a holy Bod that
are ruled out by theology are bound to be selected according to criteria determined by one+s
e#perience of holy renunciation) 1inguistic reference is part of an entire language( and there
are no sections of a language that are entirely segregated from the whole( least of all the
various elements of religious language)
7ne final note on the normativity of the holy fools) !hilst C have focused on these
particular figures out of scholarly affection( C am not attempting here to present them as model
theologians or "hristians) C do not claim to Hhave found( on all essential points( the final
solution of the problems+ of Theology with this thesis)
/3
Cnstead( the portrayal of asceticism
throughout the wor* attempts to steer between the do#ological view of asceticism that has
become typical of certain Hpoetic+ ethical thin*ers(
/:
and the un.uestioning critical view that
assumes we *now precisely what is wrong with asceticism without having to state it)
Cn theological terms( this thesis is written under the aegis of the doctrine of creatio e5
ni$ilo) Nothing is assumed to be evil at the outset( but neither is anything unambiguous) <ven
the modern prison can be a tool for art and a beautiful life
/4
K even heartfelt worship of Bod
can become the conte#t of oppression and slavery) A paradigmatic case of non-evil
ambiguous practice is the ascetic aspiration to humility)
>umility is a recurring theme in this thesis) Ct is the virtue lying behind the criti.ue of
norms inherent in the foolish re,ection of vainglory in part oneK it drives the positing of
contingency in the criti.ue of *nowledge in part twoK it ultimately becomes problematic as
constituting the relation of the self to society in part three) Ct plays a vital distinguishing role
in the practice of negative theology6 is Bod un*nowable because our *nowledge is faulted or
because ?he is mysterious$
/8
Ct is the main ob,ective of most of the ascetic techni.ues we shall
spea* of in this study) Ct is also( however( a main ob,ective for techni.ues of governmentality6
that we should *now our tiny and insignificant place in the world) The negotiation of these
difficulties ' between abandoning humility and manipulating itK between espousing it and
enforcing it ' is an ongoing problem solved neither by the holy fools nor by any theory of
asceticism that C have encountered)
The merit of the holy fools is their assertion of contingency in an established ascetic
order) The contemporary relevance of this study of asceticism could be brought out by a study
/3
!ittgenstein( 545L525M6 introduction)
/:
This would apply to anyone wanting to construct their Hlife as a wor* of art+( but C am thin*ing specifically of
Nehamas( 5; McBushin( 2008 7U1eary( 2002)
/4
see 7scar !ilde+s ecstatic appreciation of his prison e#perience in de pro.undis6 !ilde( 2008L55/M)
/8
This is the theme in Turner+s recent magisterial treatment in Turner( 2003( where he suggests that we should
not thin* Bod to e#ist in a banal contained way( but that we have never really understood e#istence)
of the ways in which we are tempted and re.uired to reflect upon our own training of the self
today( which could include analyses of popular psychology( secular repentance( care
institutions( or national insurances)
/;
Cn order to see how these disciplines are neither evil nor
unambiguous( though( they will have to appear in their contingency and e#posure to
description) Cn short( their holiness must be ta*en away) Ct is precisely this process ' the
deprivation of the holiness of everyday values ' that the holy fools enable) Not in order to
condemn 0mon*s( for e#ample( are both ridiculed and commended2( but in order to clear a
space for thought( laughter and evaluation) Cn order to see the world as creation6 as divine( but
not Bod)
Ct is in the conte#t of this ambiguity and art that the holy fools have a great deal to say
about contemporary and ancient asceticism( through their infinite demands( their
transcendence of ethics( their laughter( and their moc*ery of heterogeneity) That is the tenor
of my dodgy do#ology)
/;
in short( it could include all the devices and domains studied by contemporary governmentality studies 0C am
thin*ing particularly of those inspired by foucauldians "olin Bordon and Ni*olas Aose2( for which( see %arry( et
al)( 54 %urchell( et al)( 55)
2/
1: Becoming Unnormal
!it( an Ht be thy will( put me into good foolingV Those wits that thin* they have thee(
do very oft prove foolsK and C( that am sure C lac* thee( may pass for a wise manK for
what says Wuinapalus$ H%etter a witty fool than a foolish wit)+
5
!hat is the nature of the transgression of holy fools$ At what level is their challenge
to the norms of their ascetic bac*ground pitched$ >ow do they conform to and transform the
tradition of ascetic self-ostracism( and what practices allow this transformation$
Cn this first part( we will address the way in which norms are formed( enforced( and
transgressed in the ascetic conte#t in which holy fools narratives are set) !e will set aside the
various debates on specific casuistry ' how long a mon* should fast for( how to deal with
persistent family trouble( whether to visit other mon*s ' and focus on attitudes to rulings(
issues of conformity( and the ,udgement of success and failure in ascetic morality) Attention
will in this way not simply be paid to the fact of the transformation of holiness( but its
technology)
Cn order to e#amine norms at such a level( we will first elucidate a prominent mode of
moral action in the asceticism of late anti.uity( namely obedience( and as* how it was
transformed in the tradition of the holy fools) Then we will turn to the minimalist trend in
monasticism( and in particular what was reserved from the ma#im to renounce all received
norms) This will reveal an entire economy of conformity and transcendence regarding ascetic
rules) 9inally( we will address two interpretations of holy fools+ relation to their ascetic
bac*ground( in terms of the casuistry of vainglory 0itself a mode of relating to moral value2(
and the practice of dissociation from self and society)
A note on ascetic sources6 this part will primarily consist in an interpretation of the
&pop$t$egmata Patrum collections) A strange choice( perhaps( because they are famously
unreliable as historical material)
2
They originated as oral tradition( and we only have te#tual
translations)
/
They cover an e#tensive period of time 0at least the length of the fourth century2(
and there is substantial evidence of heavy editing on the part of later generations)
5
?ha*espeare( 5;6 CC):
2
?ee Aubenson( 5:6 5; for some reasons for this)
/
Cntroduction to the te#tual problems can be found in Buy+s introduction to the Bree* ?ystematic te#ts( in
&pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: 2/-/:( and in "hryssavgis( 200/6 -55 >armless( 20006 3;3-3;4)
23
Their status in the tradition( however( is unparalleled) 1ater witnesses such as Eosimus
0.l) 38:-:2:2
3
( fathers %arsanuphius and Dohn 0.l) :20-::0$2
:
( Dohn Moschus 0.l) :8;-452
4
and
Dohannes "limacus 0:8:-4:02
8
demonstrate the stature of the te#ts in the period of ?ymeon of
<mesa 0portrayed as living around ::0K presented by <vagrius ?cholasticus as a contemporary
of %arsanuphius2 and his hagiographers 0<vagrius ?cholasticus( .l) :0-400K 1eontius of
Napolis( .l) 435-432) The fame of the desert fathers and mothers 0who are more or less
defined for later generations by these te#ts2 was such that some of the most renowned church
fathers and mothers 0Derome( <vagrius Ponticus( Dohn "hrysostom( "assian2 were connected
to them) !e also have records of various ,ourneys into the desert on the part of prominent
theologians and "hristian figures)
;
There is good reason to believe that versions of these te#ts
were being read by those who read holy fool hagiography( and indeed those who witnessed
holy fools 0to the e#tent that the hagiography reflects historical e#perience2)
Ct should further be noted that the very earliest holy fool ' which is to say 0in this
thesis2( the first story illustrating the word Hsalos+ ' comes from a story which found its way
into the 1atin collection of the &pop$t$egmata Patrum) The story of the nun from the
Tabennesiotes cloister( whom later tradition named Csidora( is probably to be found in its
earliest form in Palladius+ 3ausiac 6istory)

Ct soon arrived in the 1atin tradition( however 0as

the 1atin collection is one of the earliest versions of the &pop$t$egmata Patrum2( and found
its place in the &cta 1anctorum)
50
A very similar story was recorded of a nun who feigned
drun*enness in the Daniel of ?cetis hagiography)
55
The Csidora tradition has even been argued
to be the founding te#t for the "inderella fairy tale)
52
?o we will be using the &pop$t$egmata Patrum( in their Bree* and 1atin "ollections)
The two Bree* collections are arranged alphabetically 0with a long section of anonymous
sayings2 and systematically respectively( and the 1atin collection is arranged systematically)
Buy has helpfully appended an inde# to his critical edition of the Bree* ?ystematic collection
that shows where the alphabetical sayings are to be found in the Bree* ?ystematic
3
Wuotations and references to be found in Eosimas( allo:uia: C( C=( CP( P( PCC-P=)
:
throughout their correspondance( but note particularly the comments in %arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.:
prologue( the .uotation in 2;8( and references in 52;( 53/( 5:0( 2:4( 34)
4
Moschus( prat.: ::( 252( 25)
8
who .uotes the apop$t$egmata patrum in "limacus( scal.: ?teps :( 5( 2( although the historical characters
and themes are present at various points throughout the wor*6 cf) especially stories in steps 3 and 23)
;
Aufinus and Melania in Aufinus( 6ist. 2onac$.K "assian and Bermanus in "assianus( *ollationes)

Palladius( $. 3aus.: PPC=)

50
&cta 1anctorum: Maii( C 054;2( 3f)
55
". dan. scet.: :)
52
cf) Cvanov( 2004L53M6 :5-:/) Useful comments on the story can be found in =ogt( 5;8)
2:
collection(
5/
and by including cross references in the margin of the te#t itself) There is no such
inde# for the 1atin collection) These factors all ma*e study of these epoch-ma*ing te#ts a
little unwieldy)
Cn order to support my interpretation of the te#ts( C will be referring to four other
categories of material6
5) "assian+s writings( which were written down in 1atin some time after his ,ourneys
in <gypt with Bermanus) These are an essential resource( and became particularly
influential in the !estern tradition) >owever( they are so different in form 0the
>nstitutes
14
describe the rule of the desert fathers and the eight temptations of
<vagrius Ponticus( and the *on.erences
5:
are presented more or less as long
dictated discourses he had heard in <gypt2( and so influenced by "assian+s own
concerns and interpretive framewor* 0largely borrowed from <vagrius Ponticus2
that they are difficult to relate to the &pop$t$egmata Patrum( in spite of the fact
that both "assian and <vagrius Ponticus feature as desert fathers in that te#t)
2) >agiographical resources6 Palladius+ 3ausiac 6istory
54
( <vagrius ?cholasticus+
Ecclesiastic 6istory(
58
the hagiographic fragments associated with Daniel of ?cetis(
and Aufinus+ 6istory o. t$e 2on,s o. Egypt
5;
recount a number of stories
concerning the protagonists and conte#t of the &pop$t$egmata Patrum)
/) Ascetic theorists6 theologians such as <vagrius of Pontus and %asil of "aesarea( in
addition to be.ueathing a number of e#egetical wor*s( contain a great deal of
reflection on the day to day life and problems of anchoritic and coenobitic
monasticism( respectively) <vagrius Ponticus was located in the <gyptian desert(
and learnt at the feet of Macarius the Ale#andrian and Macarius the BreatK %asil
5/
&pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: =ol) CCC)
53
"assianus( de institutis)
5:
"assianus( *ollationes)
54
Palladius( $. 3aus.
58
<vagrius ?cholasticus( $.e.
5;
Aufinus( 6ist. 2onac$.
24
was based in Palestine( and is largely critical of the anchoritic tradition(
5
with
which he is nevertheless familiar)
3) 1ater interpretation6 the &pop$t$egmata Patrum provided later asceticism with a
touchstone for authentic monasticism in the conte#t of growing multiplicity)
20
1ater
interpreters such as %arsanuphius and Dohn(
25
Dohn "limacus(
22
Dohn Moschus and
those he met in his 1piritual 2eado0(
2/
and Eosimus
23
help us to understand how
the te#ts were applied and interpreted around the time of the holy fools studied here
and their hagiographers)
5
e)g) in %asilius( renunt)
20
As described by <vagrius ?cholasticus( $.e.
25
%arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.
22
esp) "limacus( scal.
2/
Moschus( prat.
23
in Eosimas( allo:uia)
28
1.1: Negative Obedience
Ct is remar*ably difficult to identify behaviour that would be considered mad in
anti.uity( given that the practices of giving away one+s money( getting na*ed in public( and
living in the desert on one loaf of bread per wee* ' all standard( easily recognisable monastic
tas*s familiar to the "hristian of late anti.uity ' are hardly li*ely to be counted normal in
occidental society todayV There is an element of modern madness in all asceticism)
The problem is not uni.ue to modern secular observers though) Cndeed( the desert
mon*s appear to have seen it as their lot to be considered mad by the world( as their founding
father Anthony the Breat once put it6 HA time is coming when men will go mad( and when
they see someone who is not mad( they will attac* him( saying IQou are mad( you are not li*e
us)J+
2:
Ct is possible( however( to isolate certain acts that seem to have been recounted to
religious and secular ali*e specifically because of their weirdness) Mon*s did e#treme things
' even those who were not designated holy fools ' for e#treme reasons)
Cn what follows( C will give an outline of the various *inds of strange behaviour
e#hibited amongst early "hristian ascetics before or apart from holy fools( and determine their
motivation) The practice of obedience is the main reason for weird behaviour amongst these
<astern solitaries( and needs to be understood if the holy fools are then to be seen in contrast
and continuity with it) The stories of cra&y obedience can be roughly divided into three
categories6 transgression( distorted interpretation( and cra&y tas*s)
!hat C am calling the category of transgressi"e cra?y obedience is the command to
actually brea* rules and laws) A fairly harmless form of this could be the command to lie
about one+s own virtue) !hilst discussing this( "assian records that a mon* may lie even
when spea*ers are perfectly aware of what they are doing)
9or if we also wish to consider what we recall our elders used to do unhesitatingly( ma*ing
believe that their miraculous powers and their own deeds( which had to be mentioned in
conferences for the sa*e of the younger men( were other people+s doing ' what other ,udgement
can we ma*e of these things than that they were downright lies$ 022 X 9or it is more ,ustifiable
to lie by this *ind of deception than either to conceal by an inappropriate silence things that
could edify our listeners or to brag with harmful vanity by spea*ing truthfully about ourselves)
24
2:
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Anthony 2: >ieronymus( ep.: #lv)
24
"assianus( *ollationes: P=CC)##iv)5f( and contrast Augustine+s attitude in Augustinus( mend. discussed below
on page 544ff)
2;
This is not a particularly subversive transgression( however( as it is a result of practical
reasoning based on accepted norms) The mon* still lives by autonomous ethics rather than
obedience) >e prioritises one rule over another( rather than undermining a set of rules and
rule-ma*ing practices) Ct may seem transgressive( but it is hardly weird6 when another mon*
draws the diametrically opposite conclusion( it stri*es us not as abnormal( but as simply
interesting)
28
There is a possibility for conversation)
7ther incidents go further( as they brea* laws almost gratuitously) >ere( the form is
clear6 a brother as*s another brother to do something( and the latter does it without
.uestioning the former+s ,udgement for a moment)
Ct was said that Abba ?aios and Abba Moue lived together) Abba ?aios was very obedient( but
he was very rigid) To test him( the old man said to him( HBo and steal)+ Through obedience
Abba ?aios went to steal from the brethren( giving than*s to the 1ord in everything) Abba Moue
too* the things and returned them secretly)
2;
Ct is not certain what the tradition thin*s about this particular trend ' the story is
followed immediately in the &pop$t$egmata with a story of how Abba Moue abandoned
Abba ?aios on the road( fainting from e#haustion( and as*ed the brothers to collect him
Hbecause he is lying there helpless+) Cs the radically obedient mon* helpless$ The point stands
however that transgressive behaviour is recorded as being caused and ,ustified by the
principle of obedience) The principle is to Hobey in everything( even if the matter appears to
you to be sinful+)
2
This should hopefully rid us of the idea that obedience was a necessarily
normalising force in anti.uity) 7bedience as a discipline is in this case independent of the
moral law or common rule( and sinning against a director is worse than sinning against Bod)
/0
The second category( of distorted interpretation( is also recorded as an instance of
obedience) Mon*s go out of their way to agree with the verdict of their companion out of
obedience) This form of obedience can be found both on the part of ,unior mon*s 0e)g) where
he agrees with his master+s identification of a boar as a deer
/5
2( and on the part of elder
mon*s6
28
$. mon.: C)53fK Abba Alonius recommends lying specifically to hide murderers from magistrates6 &pop$. Patr.
8alp$9: Alonius 3K an anonymous abba lies for the benefit of a soul &pop$. Patr. 8anon9: 2K "limacus discounts
lying out of prudent motives6 "limacus( scal.: ?tep 52)
2;
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: ?aius 5)
2
%arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 2;;) These matters include murder according to letter 45:)
/0
"limacus( scal.: ?tep 3 &pop$. Patr. 8anon9: 5:;
/5
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Mar*( disciple of abba ?ilvanus 2
2
>e too* the fish( intentionally coo*ed some of it badly( and offered it to the old man who ate it
without saying anything) Then he said to him( HCs it good( old man$+ >e replied( HCt is very
good)+ Afterwards he brought him a little that was well coo*ed and said( H7ld man( C have
spoiled it(+ and he replied( HQes you have spoiled it a little)+ Then Abba Athre said to me( HDo
you see how obedience is intrinsic to the old man$+
/2
7bedience for early "hristian ascetics could be associated with control over one+s
understanding and perception of the world) There is even an e#ample of two ascetics who did
not manage to follow this principle( both insisting on their identification of a bird( resulting in
conflict)
//
Cn "hristian asceticism( obedience e#erted an influence upon *nowledge and
perception)
%y far the most common category of obedient cra&y behaviour( however( is that of the
cra?y tas,s given by mon*s to teach their disciples) This *ind of story is attested in different
sources6 "assian
/3
tells of disciples who water a dry stic* 0##iv2( throw out their supply of oil
0##v2( and try to move an enormous boulder single-handedly 0##vi2K disciples can put
themselves in great danger at the behest of their spiritual director6
Ct was said of Abba Dohn( the disciple of Abba Paul( that his obedience was very great) Now
there were some tombs thereabouts where a hyena lived) The old man saw some dung in the
place( and told Dohn to go and fetch it) >e said( HAnd what shall C do about the hyena( abba$+
The old man said to him( ,o*ingly( HCf she sets upon you( tie her up and bring her here)+ ?o in the
evening( the brother went there) And lo( the hyena fell upon him) According to the old man+s
instruction( he rushed to catch her) %ut the hyena ran away) >e pursued her saying( HMy abba
says C am to tie you up)+ >e sei&ed her and bound her) Now the old man was uneasy and sat
waiting for him) !hen he returned( he brought the hyena on a rope) !hen the old man saw this
he was filled with wonder( but he wanted to humiliate him( so he struc* him and said( H9ool(
why have you brought a silly dog here$+ Then the old man set her free at once and let her go)
/:
At this point( we encounter the entire spread of reasonable and unreasonable
obedience( from the drudgery of serving food to the scandal of throwing one+s child into the
/2
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Pistos 5 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P=)40 O the first part of &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P=)3/)
"f) also the related story of the father that ate lamp oil given by his foolish disciple in &pop$. Patr. 8anon9: 5)
The tradition is appreciated in later generations) "f) %arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: ;32 ' H?trive hard(
however( to reach the point of accepting Lthe words of the fathersM( even when they tell you that dar*ness is
light)+ 0s.uare brac*ets original2)
//
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Nicetas 5 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P=CC)//
/3
in "assianus( *ollationes: C=)
/:
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Dohn( disciple of Abba Paul 5 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: PC=): O &pop$. Patr. 83at9:
PC=)3
/0
fire 0from which the father is always saved( in an Abrahamic way2
/4
) The ?ystematic
collections of sayings of the desert fathers have a chapter dedicated to obedience recounting
these tas*s) As we have seen( not all of the desert fathers and mothers restricted themselves to
reasonable re.uests)
The significance of these stories emerges both in their parallels with the behaviour of
the holy fools 0elaborated below2 and in the way in which they interrupt the ascetic+s normal
conduct) 7bedience brac*ets the importance of community norms( shared understandings( and
the sense of human limitation) All these factors license a contingent relation to normality and
reason( as well as an openness regarding the very practice of establishing and creating norms)
!hen these parallels are borne in mind( the distinction between holy fools and other
mon*s and nuns of the time is not as great) Cn fact( ?ymeon the holy fool echoes some of
these stories in his life) The most obvious one is Abba Dohn+s hyena story( which resembles
?ymeon+s dRbut in <mesa6
!hen the famous ?ymeon found a dead dog on a dunghill outside the city( he loosened the rope
belt he was wearing( and tied it to the dog+s foot) >e dragged the dog as he ran and entered the
gate)
/8
!e also witness ?ymeon stealing from his employers for no apparent reason) As soon
as he is paid to sell beans for a bean seller on the street( who had been good enough to ta*e
him in( he gave out half of the food( and ate the other half)
/;
Abba Mar* the holy fool also
steals from the mar*et( distributing his ill-gotten goods to the fools that surround him6 the
holy fools cover the category of transgressive cra&y behaviour e#tensively)
/
As regards cra&y
interpretation( ?ymeon accepts the accusation that he is responsible for the pregnancy of a
woman who falsely claimed to have been raped by him( and refuses to protest his innocence)
30
!hat do these parallels in the contemporary monastic literature tell us about the
behaviour of holy fools$ Cf there is nothing to separate the holy fool from the odd behaviour
of his predecessors( why should we mar* them out as a group$ >aving noted the continuity of
the account( we now need to identify the discontinuity)
The *ey feature that distinguishes these actions from those of previous ascetics is the
lac* of command) <arly "hristians did weird things in order to obey their companions
/4
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: PC=);( 5; O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: PC=)5:( 2;)
/8
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)53:)
/;
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)534)
/
". dan. scet.: 2)
30
1eontius( ". 1ym.: 5:5 <vagrius ?cholasticus( $.e.: C=)/3K cf) similar accounts in Palladius( $. 3aus.: 1PP
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Macarios 5 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P=)2: O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P=)/)
/5
0usually their superiors2 without .uestioning or ,udging their actions) The holy fools have no
obvious reason to do what they do) Their acts defy the interpretation given to those outlined
above( and the narrator is often reluctant to comment on them himself) "ertainly the story of
the tied up dog has thwarted interpreters eager to see some significance in it)
35
Cf we are to characterise the holy fools+ distinctive behaviour as monastic subversion
torn loose from obedience( then this is a brea* from the contemporary ascetic ethos) !e
argued above that obedience was central to all instances of weird behaviour amongst the
desert fathers and mothers) A number of te#ts witness to the priority of obedience above other
virtues generally considered synonymous with the religious life6 continenceK
32
self controlK
3/
and solitude)
33
?o it would seem that a proper understanding of the holy fools will re.uire a proper
account of the practice of obedience in anti.uity) Cn the following( C will outline an approach
to this sub,ect by first clearing the ground of modern problems( and then s*etching out an
interpretation around an unremar*able e#ample of obedience) The analysis will wor* towards
an understanding of the strategy of obedience( and its relationship to practices of dissociation)
1.1.1: Understanding Obedience
7bedience ta*es many forms( and "hristian asceticism has gone cycles of
transformations and re-creations in its two millennium history) The problems arising from the
notion of religious obedience today would not necessarily apply to the practices of the ascetic
communities of the <astern church)
9irstly( it should be pointed out that desert monasticism did not appear in a vacuum)
There are elements that were common to both early "hristian asceticism and the philosophy
of late anti.uity) 7bedience to someone who hears and spea*s your truth was not the
innovation of "hristian monasticism) Ct constituted an essential part of learning the life s*ill
that led to happiness in anti.uity) Patristic appropriation of ?toic techni.ues of confession(
moderation and calm did indeed in time introduce a new relationship to the code of the law(
but obedience to a teacher or guide was already present)
3:
35
Cs the dog a cynic reference 0so @rueger( 546 500-5032 or the god-dog Anubis 0so @islinger( 5;;2$
32
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: PC=)) The Bree* has Hascesis+ - &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: PC=)58 O &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9:
?yncletia 54) Ascesis is also compared to obedience in &pop$. Patr. 8anon9: 545)
3/
%asilius( ascet 2: 2 0en*rateia2 &pop$. Patr. 83at9: PC=)8(58 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: 53( 28 O &pop$. Patr.
8alp$9: Pambo / and &pop$. Patr. 8anon9: 545)
33
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: PC=)5 O &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Aufus 2 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: PC=)2K cf) also &pop$.
Patr. 8alp$9: %asil the Breat &pop$. Patr. 8anon9: 54/)
3:
9oucault( 20056 555)
/2
?econdly( monastic obedience was not necessarily a virtue connected to a hierarchy)
34
7bedience is praised repeatedly in the sayings of the desert fathers( but these stories never
include a bishop) Cn fact( .uite the opposite is true6 bishops are ridiculed and taunted amongst
the desert fathers( and considered failures in humility)
38
The case is a little more complicated
with reference to the abba and the disciple 0and particularly in coenobitic monasticism2(
3;
which is clearly a relationship of authority) >owever( the number of stories referring to
obedience on the part of the abba to a disciple 0cf) over( on page 22( and brothers obeying
wea*er brothers
3
would lead the reader to believe that obedience is a virtue e#ercised in
relation to people as such( particularly amongst brothers and sisters( and not solely to those in
authority)
Three old men( of whom one had a bad reputation( came one day to Abba Achilles) The first
as*ed him( H9ather( ma*e me a fishing-net)+ HC will not ma*e you one(+ he replied) Then the
second said( H7f your charity ma*e one( so that we may have a souvenir of you in the
monastery+) %ut he said( HC do not have time)+ Then the third one( who had a bad reputation(
said( HMa*e me a fishing net( so that C may have something from your hands( 9ather)+ Abba
Achilles answered him at once( H9or you( C will ma*e one)+
:0
Ct is worth emphasising this point about the mobility of the relationship of obedience(
because of the obvious connection it has to a criti.ue of the power inherent in asceticism) 9or
some critical theorists( obedience is the decisive factor that turned liberating anti.ue
philosophy into controlling discipline)
:5
Cf asceticism is a method for producing a group of
docile people
:2
then the value of obedience becomes a tool of societal control wielded by a
small group) Ct is oligarchy+s plaything)
Now C thin* it would be ingenuous to deny that the relationship between two solitaries
is a power relation as soon as obedience becomes a factor) There are naturally at least two sets
34
"lar*( 5;;6 4/: "hryssavgis( 200/6 40( although contrast %asil of "aesarea+s writings on the common life6 HC
noticed that as long as the common obedience of the others to some one leader was maintained( all was
discipline and harmony in the whole groupK+ %asilius( ;ud.: Y2K H?ince it is in every way fitting that the
community be obedient and under sub,ection to a superior+ %asilius( ascet. 1) This trend dominated the reception
history of "hristian asceticism6 %arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 232)
38
Moschus( prat.: 5)
3;
cf) the references above( in footnote 346 %asil repeatedly uses the Pauline model of obedience to the secular
authority6 %asilius( ascet 2)
3
e)g) brother Acacius in "limacus( scal.: ?tep 3) "f) also %arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 252)
:0
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Achilles 5 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P)5; O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P)5;) "f) also &pop$.
Patr. 83at9: PC=)58 &pop$. Patr. 8anon9: 545 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: PC=)28)
:5
e)g) in %ernauer( 20026 ( who describes obedience as the essence of fascism 0p8;2 McBushin( 20086 54:-548(
582 >unter( 546 5:4 Davidson( 200;)
:2
as it is appropriated to do in the modern prison and asylum systems - cf) 9oucault( 55L58:M6 2/;f 9oucault(
2004L200/M6 583( 23)
//
of interests( with strategic moves available on both sides) The fact that one commands( and
the other obeys( perhaps against their common sense or will( implies that the power flows in
one direction) >owever( when the strategic moves available to the mon* can include a
reversal of this relationship( the situation gains a game-li*e character) !hat is missing is an
institutional or scientific fi#ing of the definition of Hgovernor+ and Hgoverned+(
:/
clearly
identifiable in oligarchies 0which could be enforced by myths of genealogy or anthropological
myths of race inferiority for e#ample2 or disciplinary societies 0which could be enforced by
*nowledge of criminal tendencies or ethico-evolutionary laws2) Cn this way( the techni.ue of
obedience in certain desert communities resembles 9oucault+s description of playful ?TM
practices in its being unafraid of strategic power and unwilling to espouse techni.ues that
emphasise unidirectional flows and hide the possibility of resistance6
!hat stri*es me with regard to ?TM is how it differs from social power) !hat characteri&es
power
:3
is the fact that it is a strategic relation which has been stabili&ed through institutions) ?o
the mobility in power relations is limited( and there are strongholds that are very( very difficult
to suppress because they have been institutionali&ed and are now very pervasive in courts(
codes( and so on) X 7n this point( the ?TM game is very interesting because it is a strategic
relation( but it is always fluid)
::

Ct may indeed be true to say that some early "hristians did actually thin* of obedience
to a spiritual guide as a goal in itself( with the latter occupying a similar place to absolute faith
in @ier*egaard+s thought(
:4
but there is good reason to see the discipline of obedience as a
means to a further end)
:8
9or some( obedience can be their rule of life ' .uite independently of
law( or rule( or will - until they die)
:;
7bedience is sufficient for them) 9or others( obedience
is most important at the beginning of the monastic life(
:
and can lead to another habit
entirely) Ct is for this reason( then( that we can as* the .uestion6 what role does obedience play
in the desert fathers+ establishment of norms$ Biven that it challenges one set of behaviours(
what is its ob,ective and function in positive terms$
:/
=eyne( 58L58;M6 540)
:3
9oucault+s argument only really ma*es sense if this sentence refers to social power( and not power in general)
The interview was originally in <nglish( so it is not possible to chec* the translation)
::
9oucault( 2000bL5;2M6 54)
:4
e)g) in @ier*egaard( 5;:L5;3/M( and cf) the above references to Abraham in n)/4 above)
:8
Ct is the way to dispassion in "limacus( scal.: ?tep 3 and progress in ?tep 2;)
:;
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: PC=)52 O &pop$. Patr. 8anon9: 5:;a O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: PC=)20( and the case of
brother Acacius in "limacus( scal.: ?tep 3)
:
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: PC=)5: O &pop$. Patr. 8anon9: 5:;b O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: PC=)23)
/3
A good e#ample of the result of obedience C want to focus on can be seen in the story
of a mon* from ?cythia who came to be guided by one of the old men in the desert) C will give
the aphophthegmaton in full( as we will be going through it step by step6
A brother in ?cetis( on his way to the harvest( approached a great old man and said to him(
HAbba( tell me what to do( for C+m going away to the harvest)+ The old man says to him( HAnd if
C tell you( will you heed me$+ The brother says( HC will obey you)+ 0obedio tibiS A|ouoo oou2 ?o
the old man said to him( HCf you will heed me( rise and ta*e leave of this harvest( then come and
C will command you concerning what you will do)+ And going out( the brother too* leave of the
harvest( and then came to the old man) The old man said to him( HBo into your cell and spend
the ne#t fifty days eating bread with salt once a day( and then C will command you something
else)+ And going out( he spent his days thus( and then he came bac* to the old man) ?o the old
man( seeing that he was a real wor*er LoperariusS@tpyoq,M( taught him how to sit in his cell)
The brother left for his cell( and there prostrated himself( face to the ground for three days and
three nights( weeping before Bod) And afterwards( when thoughts said to him( HQou have risen(
you have become great(+ he himself Lrestraining the vices of his thoughts( humblyM
40
brought
forth his defects( saying( HAnd where are all my errors$+ %ut if they again spo*e to him( HQou
have done much that you are unaware of(+ he also spo*e( H%ut C will do service LitioupytioM
to Bod( and C believe that he will deal mercifully with me)+ ?o succumbing( the spirits Lof evil
thoughtsM
45
revealed themselves to him visibly( saying( H!e have been buffeted by you)+ >e said
to them( H>ow$+ They said to him( HCf we raise you up( you run to humilityK if we humble you(
you return to the heights)+
42
Upon being as*ed what the young mon* should do( the old man first elicits a
commitment to obedience) Ct is only once the young mon* has committed himself to
obedience by renouncing wor*( fasting( and showing himself to be devoted to the tas* set him
that the old man then introduces him to the monastic life proper( by e#plaining to him how to
sit
4/
in his cell)
?itting in one+s cell was the particular activity of the desert ascetics) Ct wor*ed not
simply as a necessity of life( but as a virtuous form of life meant to combat demons and
produce goodness in religious ascetics) Ct is difficult to discover any one ethical code for the
desert fathers and mothers based on their sayings in the &pop$t$egmata Patrum 0"assian is
40
This phrase is only found in the 1atin6 Htemperans vitia cogitationum suarum+)
45
This specification is only found in the 1atin6 Hmalarum cogitationum+)
42
My translation from the Bree* of &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: PC=)2/( with reference to the 1atin of &pop$. Patr.
83at9: PC=)53) The story is also recorded in &pop$. Patr. 8anon9: 5:)
4/
The 1atin Hesse in cella sua+ is a tempting phrase ' Hhow to be in the cell+ ' but it is almost certainly a
mistranslation6 Hsedere in cella+ is more fre.uently attested in the &pop$. Patr. 83at9)
/:
another case entirely2) !hat they have in common( though( is the practice of sitting in one+s
cell) Cn this story( it constitutes the initiation of the novice into the ways of the desert fathers
and mothers) Cn other stories( it is both an ethical precept
43
and the boundary mar*er of their
way of life 0cf) the discussion below( on page :-452)
4:
The way this mon* is in his cell is an e#ample of the direction in which obedience is
meant to lead) The young mon* goes down to his cell( lies prostrate on the ground for three
days and three nights weeping( and notably develops a particular relationship to his thoughts)
Presumably as a result of the directions of the old man( the mon* controls his thoughts 01atin6
cogitationesSBree*6 logismoi2 and his vision 01atin6 conspectus2 in such a way as to ad,ust
them according to his will) >e is able to choose which of his memories he should remember(
what to have before his eyes)
There are two points to be made about this progression) 9irstly( the final state( in
which the mon* defeats the demons( is not characterised as much by a rule as by a techni.ue)
Ct is a techni.ue of control over one+s thoughts and vision) 7bedience results in a certain
relation to the norms of the self which is structured by the "hristian story(
44
whereby the
mon* can actually ma*e a choice as regards the way he is rather than be a passive receiver of
impressions( visions( etc) ?o we still have no reference to the law( te#t( or common rule(
merely a criti.ue of the sources of the self) As Dohannes "limacus has it( in the chapter that
resonates most with the desert fathers of all his steps in the 1adder of Divine Ascent(
Hobedience is self-mistrust up to one+s dying day( in every matter( even the good)+
48
The second point to be made is that in the final state( the mon*+s thoughts and visions
are sub,ect to him with the same docility( the same un.uestioning obedience with which he
placed himself in submission to the old man) The obedience has been transferred from an
inter-sub,ective phenomenon into an intra-sub,ective phenomenon) !hat had been a two
person relation has developed into a habit of individual thought) Dust as the mon* did what his
spiritual father commanded( his thoughts do what he commands)
4;
This latter interpretation of obedience is so counter-intuitive that it will need to be
bac*ed up by more than my e#egesis of one te#t) A factor that argues in its favour is that ideal
43
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: CC) O &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Moses 4 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: CC)5)
4:
H?icut pisces( si tardaverint in sicco( moriunturK ita et monachi tardantes e#tra cellam( aut cum viris
saecularibus immorantes( a .uietis proposito revolvuntur+( &pop$. Patr. 83at9: O &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Anthony
50 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: CC)5
44
>umility+s basis in the "hristian story is discussed below( on page 208)
48
"limacus( scal.: ?tep 3) "f) also %arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 2:/)
4;
The body can also be obedient6 %arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 5:)
/4
obedience is praised for being instantaneous) A story that arises in a number of sources
4
concerns a disciple called Mar*( who is called upon by an abba whilst he is wor*ing on a
manuscript) The proof of his obedience is evidenced by the fact that Mar* did not complete
the letter H7+ before running to appear before the old man) ?o the old man+s love for him on
account of his obedience is vindicated by Mar*+s immediate response to his voice)
80
7bedience is internalised as a virtue( and mon*s are encouraged to be with themselves
in solitude as their spiritual guides were with them in community)
85
Cf this is the case( we
might e#pect the forms of cra&y obedience mentioned over 0on page 2;2 also to be
internalised( and certainly as regards cra&y interpretation( we see this result6 mon*s e#ert a
freedom of choice as regards what they see and hear6
Then Abba Abraham said to him( HCf you were to find a woman lying on your mat when you
entered your cell would you thin* that it is not a woman$+ HNo(+ he replied( H%ut C should
struggle against my thoughts so as not to touch her)+ Then Abba Abraham said( HThen you have
not destroyed the passion( but it still lives in you although it is controlled)+
82
1.1.2: Political Obedience
To go even further in our interpretation of obedience( attention must be drawn to the
victory achieved by ascetics in their cells) Cn the instance mentioned over 0on page /32 the
mon* from ?cythia defeated demons( who had tried to change his attitude towards the world
through bringing certain of his thoughts to his attention) >ere it should be noted that although
the demons are obviously independent agents( it was the mon*+s own thoughts that were the
ob,ect of suspicion) The demons were not attac*ing the body( but the mon*+s own mind( his
relation to his self( his form of life)
8/
Ct is in this way that it ma*es sense to spea* of spiritual
battle6 in the attempt to gain mastery over one+s thought( ta*ing it bac* from e#ternal
influences in the world) The assertion of this *ind of obedience is the struggle for agency and
self-determination)
7bedience towards one+s direction or director is considered no more an act of
submission than disobedience is) <ither the ascetic obeys the thoughts she chooses( or those
4
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Mar*( disciple of ?ilvanus 5 0cf) also Pistos 52 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: PC=)55 O
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: PC=):)
80
"f) also Anthony in Palladius( $. 3aus.: C=)/)
85
?o Macarius of Ale#andria Hgives his mind a commandment+ in Palladius( $. 3aus.: P=CCC)58) "f) also
obedience as re,ection of society in lib. grad.: PP=)8)
82
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Abraham 5 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P)5: O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P)5) "f) also
<vagrius( de mal. cog.: /6 Hon account of holy impassibility( Ithere is no male and femaleJ+) Passions are
discussed in greater depth below( on page 5ff)
8/
Demons are also portrayed as seductively praising the mon* in "limacus( scal.: ?tep 24)
/8
chosen by the demon( or society( or tradition 0cf) the .uote by Pierre >adot( under( on page
/2) <arly "hristian ascetics would not necessarily have seen obedience to a spiritual director
as any less an act of freedom than obedience to one+s own will( because neither of these are
uncompromised) Ct is only when one is obliged to obey ' when obedience is necessary either
because of coercion or because of an established norm
83
' that one+s freedom is impinged
upon) Cf one chooses to obey( then it can not be obligatory) "onversely( if one+s obedience is
unconscious( then one cannot choose it( and it becomes necessary) 9or the desert fathers and
mothers( when people obey their own will( they are usually simply deluded into thin*ing that
they are independent agents)
8:
7ne must become aware of the principle of one+s actions)
7bedience is a way of ma*ing norms and norm-ma*ing practices visible)
9or e#ample( certain desert fathers were actually .uite lenient in terms of rules 0Hdo
not set any decrees for yourself+2
84
( but as a matter of pure freedom( they were strict with
themselves) ?isoi admits that drin*ing a number of glasses of wine would not be a problem( if
there were no spiritual force ready to steal one+s freedom)
88
?o the mortification of the will
introduced by "hristian forms of spirituality is only an act of unfreedom if the will is
otherwise entirely free from the compulsion of the Hprincipalities and powers+
8;
) The
demonology of the time is modelled upon secular power) Cn a similar way( resistance to
demons is the political act of asserting alternative authority) 7bedience is ,ustified by
reference to the "hristian political community( with .uotations of Paul+s e#hortations to
obedience to the secular authority in Aomans)
8
7bedience is central to "hristian asceticism in late anti.uity( but not in the sense that it
assumes the absence of obedience outside the community) Cnstead( monastic obedience
simply ma*es overt the *ind of relationship to which the self is sub,ect anyway) !hilst the
freedom of the city involves the right to choose the goods 0in the sense of wares2 with which
to satisfy one+s desires ' the ob,ect of desire
;0
' the freedom of the desert refuses that right in
order to choose the way in which to desire ' action upon the sub,ect of desire) The difference
between these is not as much that of the presence or absence of obedience( but between
83
The so-called Hconduct of conduct+ .uestioned in governmentality literature6 %arry( et al)( 54 %urchell( et al)(
55)
8:
This is when active force becomes reactive force in Niet&sche+s wor*6 Hhe who cannot obey himself will be
commanded)+ Niet&sche( 545L5;;:M6 CC 7n ?elf-7vercoming) "f) also Deleu&e( 2004L542M6 part 2)
84
%arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 25)
88
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: C=)/8 O &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: ?isoes 2 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: C=)3:K cf) &pop$. Patr.
8alp$9: Poius 5)
8;
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Theophilus the Archbishop 3)
8
%asilius( ascet 2)
;0
This freedom later bases 1oc*e+s conception of liberty6 cf) Boodchild( 20026 // ' I1iberty compresses the
good of human action to a single value( easing discomfort( by an arbitrary choice of taste6 cheese or lobsters)J
/;
having or not having an influence upon one+s obedience) %ob Dylan was therefore describing
ancient society as well as his own time when he wrote6
Might li*e to wear cotton( might li*e to wear sil*(
Might li*e to drin* whis*ey( might li*e to drin* mil*(
Qou might li*e to eat caviar( you might li*e to eat bread(
Qou may be sleeping on the floor( sleeping in a *ing-si&ed bed
%ut youUre gonna have to serve somebody( yes indeed
QouUre gonna have to serve somebody(
!ell( it may be the devil or it may be the 1ord
%ut youUre gonna have to serve somebody)
;5
The deployment of asceticism in late anti.uity did involve wor* upon norms of
behaviour( and ta*ing control of one+s obedience was a first step in becoming free from the
forms of being in the world necessary for urban citi&en participation) ?o obedience is not ,ust
a matter of conforming one+s will to something( but also tearing it loose from another order(
as >erbert Mc"abe has pointed out6
our obedience( our solidarity with the community( is the way in which we find oursel"es)
7bedience for us is not a denial of self but a discovery of self) 9or ' to say it again ' obedience
is not the suppression of our will in favour of someone else+s( it is learning to live in
community( in solidarity( which is simply learning to live) 7f course to discover yourself is to
unlearn as well as to learnK it is to abandon a notion of yourself that you had before in favour of
a new and deeper one)
;2
The notion of obedience ' which would later be a touchstone of good citi&enship
;/
'
was in anti.uity a tool of sanctification( setting a life apart from the ways of the ma,ority)
Although this sounds very religious 0both in the modern and in the traditional sense2( the very
point of most philosophical disciplines in late anti.uity ' li*e e#amining one+s thoughts(
being vigilant( and calling principles to mind ' was to aristocratically separate oneself from
common suppositions and attitudes) This necessarily involved a certain amount of ostracising
;5
Dylan( 58) "f) also %arsanuphius+ contrast of "hristian grace to human rule in %arsanuphius and Cohannes(
resp.: 2/)
;2
Mc"abe( 2000L5;8M6 2/5)
;/
"f) the value of Hpassive obedience+ in %er*eley( 5:/L5852M and Mill( 5L5;:M6 CC)
/
society( as opinions and preconceptions are the building bloc*s of common life)
;3
Cn this
respect( far from being the tool of conformity to the law( enforcing normal standards with
military discipline( obedience was a philosophical techni.ue naturally growing out of Plato+s
wor*( re,ecting as it does the preconceptions and insecure opinions of the masses) "onsider
the following passage from <pictetus6
?o what means can we resort to against a form of life LBree*6 et$os O custom( habit(
presupposed practiceM$
;:
The opposite form of life) Qou hear laypeople saying( HThat poor man
,ust diedV >is father died( and his mother6 he was cut off by an untimely death( whilst abroad)+
>ear the opposing analyses( tear yourself away from those voices( oppose one form of life with
another)
;4

<pictetus here clearly e#horts paying attention to one+s attitudes( and not simply
accepting everything one sees and hears) >e also tal*s about dealing with distress(
uncertainty( and scepticism( and the mental actions to be ta*en against them) This *ind of
attitude has recently been argued ' by the li*es of Pierre >adot( Ale#ander Nehamas( and
Paul Aabbow ' to constitute the essence of ancient philosophy( from ?ocrates to Plotinus)
;8
The action e#horted by this *ind of ancient philosophy involves ta*ing control of one+s
attitudes in an act of self mastery( and separating oneself from the attitudes that present
themselves in those around one)
Ct is precisely for this that spiritual e#ercises are intended) Their goal is a *ind of self-formation(
or paideia( which is to teach us to live( not in conformity with human pre,udices and social
conventions ' for social life is itself a product of the passions ' but in conformity with the
nature of man( which is none other than reason) <ach in its own way( all schools believed in the
freedom of the will( than*s to which man has the possibility to modify( improve( and reali&e
himself)
;;

Cn fact( that *ind of separation was indeed the effect of "hristian asceticism) They
were not producing docile conforming citi&ens( for the religious of late anti.uity were widely
despised for their radical se#ual mores and social habits) Abstinence withdrew them from
public space and household duty( challenging the civic norms of the time) Cn particular( the
;3
%adiou( 2005L5;M6 :0f)
;:
1ampe( 545 notes that the word is also used of liturgy in anti.uity6 liturgy as a philosophico-spiritual e#ercise
in anti.uity is unfortunately under-studied in philosophy and patristics)
;4
<pictetus( Enc$.: ##vii)3-4( my translation) "f) also the account of obedience as humbly resisting the public
super-ego in %asilius( reg. .us.: 25)
;8
>adot( 2002L5:M Nehamas( 5; Aabbow( 5:3)
;;
>adot( 5:6 502 - cf) also "lar*( 5;;6 4/2( 4/:)
30
recommendation of widows staying single and young women remaining virgins provo*ed
comment( and indeed anger directed at early "hristian communities)
;
The entire movement of
early "hristian asceticism was one of revolt and independence from society at large) Monastic
communities bro*e away from secular groups both physically and spiritually) Physically(
because they retreated to the desert and communities outside the cityK spiritually( because they
problematised the configuration of their relationship to their body( perceptions( thoughts( and
language)
This brea* epitomises the behaviour of the holy fool) After ?ymeon had spent a
number of years in the desert( fasting( praying( and through silence separating himself from
all earthly bonds( he decided to return to the city in order to Hmoc* the world+ 0toio' to
ridicule( ma*e dance( ma*e fun of2) >e and Dohn had already spent a good deal of time and
attention in tearing themselves away from their families( not least their female dependents)
Now ?ymeon decided to engage with the world( through consciously ma*ing an effort to be
contrary to it)
1.1.3: Foolery as Religious Emancipation
Cn 1eontius+ narrative( the life of ?ymeon is punctuated by ruptures in ?ymeon+s life(
as he steadily forsa*es more and more of the world) 9irst he leaves his career and normal life
by adopting coenobitic monasticism) Then he abandons the common life of the monastery for
the desert) Cn the desert( he abandons his family( both in terms of obligation and emotionally)
9inally( he abandons the solitude of the desert and embraces the city) This final step can be
interpreted as an ascetic move against asceticism( as he forsa*es the outer trappings of the
religious life 0including obedience to a spiritual father or brother2( whilst internalising them)
>is vocation is an ethical move of abandoning the vainglory of religion and constructing an
internal solitude 0cf) under( on page 8/2)
H%eware( be on your guard( brother ?ymeon( unless as the desert gathered together( the world
dispersesK and as silence helped( commotion hindersK and as much as *eeping watch brought(
you lose through sleep) %e on your guard( brother( lest the delusion of worldly things corrupt the
prudence of the monastic life) %eware( lest the fruit from the privation of women( from whom
Bod has saved you until today( be destroyed by spending time with them) %eware( lest the love
of possessions carry off poverty( lest foods fatten the body( which fasting had melted away)
%eware( brother( lest you lose your compunction through laughter and your prayer through your
carelessness) %eware( please( lest when your face laughs( your mind be dissolvedK lest when
;
%rown( 5;;6 ch) 5)
35
your hands fondle( your soul fondles as wellK lest when your mouth eats( your heart eats as wellK
lest when your feet wal*( your inner silence dances along rec*lesslyK and to spea* concisely( lest
as much as the body does outwardly( the soul does inwardly) %ut if L533M you receive strength
entirely from Bod( brother( so that whatever the forms( or words( or actions the body ma*es(
your mind and your heart remain unmoved and untroubled and in no way are defiled or harmed
by them( truly C re,oice in your salvationX+
0
The behaviour of the holy fool can be seen in continuity with the asceticism of the
time6 that much has been demonstrated before)
5
Moreover( it has to be seen in such a conte#t)
Cf it is not narrated as a form of late anti.ue or early medieval asceticism( then there is no
sense in which they are holy fools6 they are simply fools) Their holiness consists in their
conformity with the values that they 0at least apparently2 re,ect) This is the challenge faced by
their hagiographers) The challenge to interpretation is to give an account of both the foolish
element and the recognition of holiness therein)
!e should understand ?ymeon+s foolery as a step in asceticism( away from the
specific relationships of asceticism) ?o for e#ample( late anti.ue mon*s restrict their eating by
fasting and table fellowship at wee*ends with the eucharist( and in doing so separate
themselves from the eating habits of their society)
2
Cnstead of eating together with family and
friends( two or three times per day( food bought from the mar*et( priced according to its taste
and nourishment( they deliberately ate alone( once a day or less( food which had no taste and
was not especially nourishing( or with their spiritual family gathered around a ritual of
remembrance) Practices obviously varied( but moderation was the rule( and the aim of the
asceticism appeared to be to become acutely aware of Hwhere you are and what you want+)
/
!hen ?ymeon comes to town( he also separated himself from the eating habits of his
society( but in a completely different way) >e is also in control of his desire for food 0having
fasted in secret for a wee* before this incident2( but he demonstrates this control by eating
insatiably in the street 0not at a table2) >e eats superhuman amounts of lupines( on the street(
whilst giving out all the goods he has been employed to sell)
3
This is a form of asceticism(
but not the form recognisable at the time)
0
1eontius( ". 1ym.: CCC)53/f)
5
cf) on page 2( and Borainoff( 5;/6 chapter 5 Cvanov( 2004L53M6 chapter 5 @rueger( 546 chapter /)
2
Palladius( $. 3aus.: P=CCC)2)
/
%arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 3 >ence the practice of eating a little every day so as to avoid gluttonously
ending the period of fasting 0&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Agathon 202( and eating a great deal if re.uired by hospitality
0&pop$. Patr. 83at9: PCCC)/ O &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: "assian / O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: PCCC)/ "assianus( de
institutis: =)2:2)
3
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)534)
32
?ymeon brea*s away from contemporary forms of gender relations in a similar way)
"ontemporary mon*s would ' instead of supporting their mothers and pursuing their women
contemporaries ' flee from women in order to be alone with other men) %oth mothers and
wives were dangerous because they placed the mon* within a natural family rather than in the
family of Bod ' they were a sign of worldliness)
:
This *ind of behaviour radically
undermined the political unit of the household( and male leadership of women( who were
proof of his honour and virility)
?ymeon transgresses the forms of life of the time( but not in order to embrace a new
community of asceticism) >e openly befriends prostitutes( for e#ample( and demands fidelity
of them)
4
>onest women in church( on the other hand( he pelts with nuts) ?imilarly( he sits
loose to gender mar*ers6 whilst those in the city had two sets of baths for the se#es( and those
in the desert did not even allow that degree of sharing( ?ymeon deliberately goes into the
wrong bath area) And all this he accomplishes on account of his severe asceticism( through
e#erting power over his self and controlling his actions) After this last episode( for e#ample(
his confidant( Deacon Dohn( as*s him6
H9or Bod+s sa*e( father( how did you feel when you entered into the women+s bath$+ >e said(
H%elieve me( child( ,ust as a piece of wood goes with other pieces of wood( thus was C there) 9or
C felt neither that C had a body nor that C had entered among bodies( but the whole of my mind
was on Bod+s wor*( and C did not part from >im)+
8
This is the case in many of the mar*ers of asceticism at the time6 "assian goes to great
lengths to describe the attire of the desert mon*s( that separate them out from the society of
their time(
;
but ?ymeon puts all his clothes on his headK

mon*s stay silent for months out of

fear of accidentally saying something wrong
500
' Agathon *ept a stone in his mouth for three
years in order not to say anything
505
' but ?ymeon babbles away li*e one possessedK
502
the
desert fathers wor* hard in their cell to earn their *eep by ma*ing ropes( whereas ?ymeon
:
%rown( 5856 2)
4
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)5:4)
8
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)53) The Daniel of ?cetis hagiography( which is deeply mar*ed by the holy fool ethos
0including in its corpus the story of abba Mar* the fool2( includes two stories of cross-dressing ascetics6
Athanasia who pretended to be a man( and Anastasia who pretended to be a eunuch) ". dan. scet.: 8 and ;)
Another is described in Moschus( prat.: 580)
;
"assianus( de institutis: boo* C - cf) also Palladius( $. 3aus.: PPPCC)

1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)53;)

500
cf) the e#hortations to silence in %arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 28( 2;/ et passim( Moschus( prat.: 48(
5:4( 5;8)
505
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: C=)8 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: C=)8 O &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Agathon 5:)
502
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)5::)
3/
wanders the streets dancing( playing( begging( and gallivanting with prostitutesK
50/
"hristians
mar* time by following the liturgy of holy wee* with fasting and prayer( but ?ymeon gorges
himself with ca*es on >oly Thursday)
503
All this he is enabled to do by the freedom he attains
by his spiritual e#ercise6
!hen LDohnM saw him on >oly Thursday sitting in the ca*e shop having eaten since early
morning( he said to him( H>ow much does it cost( 9ool$+ And he said to him( holding forty
noumia in his hand( H>ere+s my follis( stupid(+ showing that he was eating after forty days 0of
fasting2)
50:
Ct is through these ascetic disciplines of transgression( through his obedience cut loose
from community( sitting loose to the necessities of society and the traditions of anti-social
religious life( that ?ymeon the holy fool attempts to separate himself from the necessity of the
forms of life presented to him in the city and in the desert) >e removes himself from both of
them by moc*ery( discipline( and obeying the voice from nowhere) As such( his practice
represents a thoroughgoing development of "hristian asceticism( understood as a practice of
freedom and a re,ection of history+s necessity)
50/
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)5:4)
503
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)5:4f)
50:
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=(5:8)
33
1.: !ooler" and negations: t#e s#a$e of ascetic re%ection
>oly fools deny the constructive elements of early "hristian asceticism( including
their theology and practices of holiness) %ut given the e#treme renunciation that characterises
the asceticism of their time( the .uestion arises6 what e#actly is being denied here$ And if
their spiritual practice denies the Bod-reference of asceticism( what holiness or theology is
left them$
The prior .uestion( then( is what grounds have we for giving a theological
interpretation to the early "hristian ascetics( when those most clearly mar*ed out by their
ascetic practice do not appear to have written theological treatises$ <ven if we identify certain
e#ceptions 0li*e <vagrius of Pontus2( their wor* is almost incomprehensible if we do not
interpret it as a tool for ascetic e#ercise) The .uestion of theology seems entirely lost on
groups li*e the desert fathers)
<arly "hristian asceticism was not simply a form of philosophical practice) Although
it is important to understand the debate into which they were spea*ing ' and the overall
assumptions of the philosophical pro,ect in late anti.uity ' it would be deceptive to claim that
both religious and secular philosophers were simply doing the same thing) Ct is indeed
plausible that ancient thin*ers had in common a concern for the practice of philosophy rather
than the dogma thereof( as >adot has argued)
504
>owever( the discontinuities between the
philosophical schools and monastic communities are still far too numerous and stri*ing to
claim unbro*en continuity) These discontinuities can all be associated with the particulars of
their different doctrines( and specifically their different theologies)
The founding fathers were inspired to the ascetic life for reasons distinct from those
given by their non-"hristian contemporaries) !here Plato was more or less recognised as a
uniting factor by all philosophical schools in late anti.uity ' whether ?toic( neoplatonist( or
Pyrhonnian ' the "hristians were committed to e#egesis of the %ible) <#egetical practices
may have been continuous with the philosophical heritage( but the te#ts themselves were
different) Augustine had read a good deal of platonism as a professional rhetor before he was
persuaded to adopt the Ithe blessed lifeJ by a combination of the lives and sayings of the
fathers and reading the %ible) ?imilarly( Anthony was not called out to the desert by an
argument( but by Desus+ words to the rich young man)
508
These two were to set the pattern for
their successors)
504
in >adot( 5: >adot( 2002L5:M)
508
Athanasius( ". &nton.: 2K .uoting Matthew 5)25K cf) also &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Apollo 2 amongst others
3:
This new inspiration is not seen only at moments of conversion( however) Ascetics are
e#tremely suspicious of Plato( however much he is wor*ed into the Theology of the age)
50;
?imilarly( the %ible becomes an integral part of their way of life)
50
Although it is difficult to
gauge the importance of e#egetical debate in monastic communities(
550
the sayings of the
fathers and mothers are peppered with .uotations from the ?criptures)
The %ible is also the basis of the liturgy at the time) Again it is often forgotten that
early "hristian ascetics followed a liturgy)
555
9ar from being grouchy hermits immersed in
their own thoughts( their days and wee*s were punctuated by gatherings for the celebration of
the eucharist with psalms and prayers 0the syna5is2) They also *ept to a cycle of psalms)
These things set ancient "hristian ascetics apart from the philosophers of the time)
Although it was common practice( for e#ample( to memorise phrases and .uotations so that
they were to hand when needed 0Diogenes 1aertius
552
represents a collection of these( and
<picurus+ letters and <vagrius Ponticus+ boo* against sadness in particular appear to have
been used in this way2(
55/
there was no real liturgy amongst the anchorites in terms of ordering
wee*days with set prayers and songs) And while mon*s and nuns also memorised the sayings
of their mentors( they were .uic* to form a completely new canon( re,ecting the wisdom built
up by the >ellenists and Aomans for the previous seven centuries) %y the time of Eosimas( for
e#ample( the &pop$t$egmata Patrum had already become material for constant reading
among religious) H9or the blessed Eosimas always loved to read these 1ayings all the timeK
they were almost li*e the air that he breathed)+
553

Perhaps as a result of these practices( the value content of the spiritual practices was
different amongst the "hristian ascetics) As we saw in the passage on obedience 0over( on
page /32( the aim for the religious was to attain to radical humility without losing faith in
Bod)
55:
?o the mon* in .uestion learned to resist the temptation to be encouraged to self-
confidence by his own discipline( whilst still believing in a merciful Bod)
50;
The relation between "hristianity and Platonism is too marginal to this thesis to be addressed here6 in our
literature( Plato is at least given a positive appraisal in Palladius( $. 3aus.: prologue 55 %asilius( leg. lib. gent
<vagrius ?cholasticus( $.e.: C)25)
50
<vagrius fre.uently read the %ible through the night( and most desert fathers and mothers had committed vast
sections of ?cripture to memory) cf) "asiday( 20046 525)
550
%urton-"hristie( 5/)
555
%asil of "aesarea lays out the hours of prayer for his community in %asilius( reg. .us.: .uestion /8)
552
in Diogenes( "it. p$il.)
55/
?in*ewic&( 200/6 Cntro( p) ###iii) Augustine wrote his Enc$iridion in response to a re.uest for a handboo*) >e
did not oblige) "f) Augustinus( Enc$.: =C)
553
Eosimas( allo:uia: PCC)b) 9or more on memory of the desert fathers and mothers as a spiritual practice( cf)
>armless( 20006 esp) :5/-:58)
55:
A theme also found in &pop$. Patr. 8anon9: :3)
34
This form of humility and faith is simply not to be found among ancient
philosophers)
554
The values behind most spiritual e#ercises appear to be freedom 0as we have
e#plained above2( and release from suffering) ?o <pictetus for e#ample did not wor* on the
self in order to attain a particular relation to creation 0namely humility and hope2( but in order
not to be bothered by it and other people 0cf) over( on page /26 a non-relation)
A good e#ample of the continuity and diversity of ancient asceticism can be found in
the practice of death) Ct is a common feature of ancient philosophy to be concerned with one+s
attitude towards death) "icero+s wor* in particular is concerned with undermining one+s fear
of it) >owever( an understanding of the 0non-2phenomenon of death is only half the story for
ancient philosophy) Ct is one thing to be able to thin* coherently about death) Ct is .uite
another to cease to fear it( as the ancients recognised)
7n the other hand( a response to the latter problem did include discussion as a
philosophical e#ercise) As >adot and others have taught us to realise( study of ancient
philosophy needs to ta*e into consideration both what is being said( and the result of saying it)
Philosophy has both content and function( and it is not always possible or desirable to
distinguish the two)
This is particularly the case for the ancients+ view of death) "icero+s wor* can be read
as an instance of the ?toic practice of praemeditatio .uturorum malorum( whereby the
philosopher would consider future evils in order to prepare his soul to peacefully endure
them) The aim is clearly to overcome fear and sorrow 0miseria2)
558
"hristian asceticism also cultivated a practice of meditation on death( but with
significant changes that have to do with content as well as practice) 9irstly( death is associated
with accountability and ,udgement before Bod) Much in* has been spilt concerning the
origins of the "hristian view of the afterlife
55;
( and C do not intend to write its history and
parentage here) 9or my purposes( it is simply important to note the result6 death became
associated with standing before the ,udgement seat of Bod)
<ven more significant( however( is the result this doctrine has in terms of spiritual
e#ercises) The story of the death of abba Arsenius lin*s the e#perience and thought of death to
virtues central to ancient "hristian monasticism6
554
"lar*( 5;;6 4/0 Dagron( 506 /0 and below( on page 20/ff)
558
"icero( tusc. disp.: CCC)5/f)
55;
"f) Milban*+s summary of the debate between !arburton and 1owth in Milban*( 586 ::-82( and McBrath(
200/)
38
!hen his death drew near( the brethren saw him weeping and they said to him HTruly( 9ather(
are you also afraid$+ HCndeed(+ he answered them( Hthe fear which is mine at this hour has been
with me ever since C became a mon*)+
55
"omparing "icero+s frame of mind with Arsenius( we can see that whilst the former+s
spiritual e#ercise was intended to eliminate sadness( fear( and humility( the latter+s
consideration of death actually provo*ed it) !hilst "icero+s writings inspire confidence( those
of the desert fathers undermine all confidence in one+s own righteousness( and pre-empt the
,udgement of Bod by blaming themselves for their sins)
520
Mistrust in one+s own good deeds diverts trust towards the mercy of Bod) The ancient
"hristian ascetic could never be sure that she had done right( but could still trust in the mercy
of Bod6 HC shall have no confidence until C meet Bod)+
525
This again results in the practice of
humility and trust( as outlined in the story of obedience 0cf) over( on page /326 C am neither
confident nor condemned) >owever( the practice of blaming oneself is to be found throughout
the "hristian tradition of asceticism in late anti.uity)
522
Ct is in these ways that( although we can see clear lines of continuity between ancient
philosophical and early "hristian asceticism( providing an account of these latter that left out
theological considerations would lead to substantial lacunae) Cndeed( the continuity can also
be seen in precisely those areas where C have pointed out essential discontinuity ' ?toic
avoidance of sadness must have influenced "hristian accounts of the sin of listnessness
0Haccidie+2( and "hristian values of humility gained in sophistication through contemporary
philosophical debate on the attainability of the sage and the good life ' but the practices of
thought( together with the forms of elaboration and e#planation( had irreversibly ac.uired a
vital reference to Bod and the "hristian story)
1.2.1: egati!e "#eology
?o there is good reason to assert the specificity of the "hristian thought of the desert
fathers and mothers( not least with regard to their view of Bod) Cf their way of life and values
were at least strongly influenced by the notion of accountability to Bod( what *ind of Bod is it
that determines their discourse and practice$ Cf the understanding and e#perience of Bod
55
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Arsenius 30 - cf) also Theodore of Pherme 2 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: =CC) &pop$.
Patr. 8anon9: /( 4( 53( :0( 43 %arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 20( 232 "limacus( scal.: ?teps 3 and 5:
520
"limacus e.uates the "hristian and ?toic practices of death in "limacus( scal.: ?tep 4
525
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Agathon 2 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: PC)2 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: PC)(50
522
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Agathon /( Anthony 3 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P=)2 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P=)2
Eosimas( allo:uia: PC=)a
3;
decides the way in which one thin*s( conceives ideas( and spea*s( then the nature of one+s
theology will be all important for the configuration of norms)
C will be arguing here that the asceticism of the early "hristians had a strongly
apophatic element) Ct was a theology of estrangement from the world) Ct will also become
clear that fleeing the world involved positively constructing a new way of life) ?o ' as is the
case with all apophaticism ' there is a cataphatic element to early asceticism( however
understated)
Ct will perhaps be an unfamiliar move to assert a third variety of negative theology(
namely the practical( alongside the familiar categories of intellectual and affective
apophaticism) 7f course there is no .uestion here of discerning an interpretation of Denys the
Areopagite) ?o what is meant in this conte#t with Ithe practice of negative theologyJ$
Ct is perhaps most understandable that we are not simple spea*ing here of an
intellectual movement) Doubtless ascetic practice has conse.uences ' to be e#panded on in
part two ' for speculative thought( but that is not the primary focus when giving an account of
monastic practice) The primary .uestion for the practice of negative theology is I>ow do C
live a holy life when confronted with un*nowing regarding the divine$J
This .uestion unites speculative thought regarding Bod with monastic criticism of
secularism) The secular life does not allow us to spea* of Bod because it embraces worldly
values that do not stand in the dar*ness of faith) 9light from the world is ,ustified both by the
criticism of worldly values and by the pro,ect of forming a life that will re-form our reference
system so as to spea* rightly of and to Bod)
7n the other hand( the practice of negative theology is not to be identified with the
affective tradition of apophaticism) As 1oss*y has pointed out( apophaticism and mysticism
are by no means united in early "hristian writings) !e could even oppose the two in certain
forms of negative theology) Dohn of the "ross 0whose wor* can also be described both as
speculative negative theology and a practice of apophaticism2( for e#ample( specifically
advocates re,ecting mystical e#perience because of the apophatic cause of spiritual
mortification) The unambiguous embrace of mystical e#perience does reduce the theological
agent to a passive recipient of Bod+s grace in the world rather than an actively engaging
person capable of love and creative understanding) The practice of negative theology( on the
other hand( consciously assesses life and the world in an attempt to guard itself from the
worship of idols)
3
To approach negative theology in this way is neither unnatural or innovative) Ct has
long been admitted that the wor* of( for e#ample( Denys the Areopagite owes as much to the
ascetic tradition as it does to the speculative)
52/
>is wor* is obviously rooted in monasticism6
the Ecclesiastical 6ierarc$y includes a chapter on the initiation of mon*sK
523
ascetic saints
have cosmic significanceK
52:
many of the letters are clearly to mon*s( and ma*e reference to
the monastic life)
The mastery of speech and thought is in other words an essentially ascetic tas*) Dust as
physics is to be e#amined both in terms of it theoretical content and in terms of its effects on
the soul( so negative theology has specific practical effects) ?o in our e#amination we will
both be considering what *ind of theology is being appealed to( but also how this theology
participates in the living of the godly life) !hat *ind of theology grounds confidence in
prayer 0as in the story of the mon* at harvest above( on page /32$ !hat effects does it have
on the thought and life of the ascetic$ These .uestions ' largely ignored by accounts of
negative theology hitherto ' are essential to the study of the practice of negative theology)
The first way in which early ascetic theology is identifiably apophatic is the common
refusal to e#plain or elaborate on theological themes) This happens at precisely those points
where religious authorities would be e#pected to resolve issues and deliver e#planations) Cn
particular( many religious avoid the interpretation of ?cripture6
7ne day some old men came to see Abba Anthony) Cn the midst of them was Abba Doseph)
!anting to test them( the old man suggested a te#t from the ?criptures( and( beginning with the
youngest( he as*ed them what it meant) <ach gave his opinion as he was able) %ut to each one
the old man said( HQou have not understood it)+ 1ast of all he said to Abba Doseph( H>ow would
you e#plain this saying$+ and he replied( HC do not *now)+ Then Abba Anthony said( HCndeed(
Abba Doseph has found the way( for he has said6 HC do not *now)++
524
Ct is precisely the element distinguishing early "hristians from philosophical ascetics '
namely the interpretation of the %ible ' that is treated with such reticence) As mentioned over
0on page 3:2( this does not mean a refusal to .uote the scriptures( but instead a climbing down
52/
7nce again most recently in 1outh 200;a6 :;5fK 200;b6 :;;( :5-:/)
523
Denys Areopagitus e.$6 =C)
52:
Denys Areopagitus e.$. =CC)iii)4)
524
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Anthony 58 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P=)3 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P=)3) This is not an
isolated e#ample) Arsenius 0&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Arsenius 32 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P=)50 O &pop$. Patr. 87,.
syst.9: P=)552 tried to avoid e#egesis( Eeno 0&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Eeno 3 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P)22 O &pop$.
Patr. 87,. syst.9: P)282 preferred to thin* of his sins than interpret the %ible( Pambo would refuse to answer a
%iblical .uestion for months 0Palladius( $. 3aus.: P)82( "opres chastises himself for accepting an invitation to a
bible study 0&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: "opres / O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P=)23 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P=)/;2)
:0
from authority( a refusal to set oneself up as a reference point in addition to the word of Bod)
Ct is entirely in *eeping with the refusal to close the .uestion of Bod in negative theology(
resulting in the undermining of any certain *nowledge of divine nature)
528
The desert religious would also avoid speech and the prestige of theology particularly
regarding the final ,udgement) This is notably the case in terms of the content of Bod+s
,udgement6 they refuse to hand out dispensations or predictions of the final ,udgement)
52;
Moreover( abba ?isoes even embraces un*nowing regarding the very event of final
,udgement) !hen he was approached by other mon*s plagued by very specific visions of
punishment in the afterlife( he replied6
H9or my part( C do not *eep in mind the remembrance of any of these things( for Bod is
compassionate and C hope that he will show me his mercy)+ >earing this( the old men went bac*
offended) %ut the old man( not wishing to let them go away hurt( said to them( H%lessed are you(
my brothersK truly C envy you) The first spea*s of the river of fire( the second of hell and the
third of dar*ness) Now if your spirit is filled with such remembrances( it is impossible for you to
sin) !hat shall C do( then$ C who am hard of heart and to whom it has not been granted so much
as to *now whether there is a punishment for menK no doubt it is because of this that C am
sinning all the time)+
52
The saying is particularly stri*ing because once again it inserts a doctrine of negative
theology precisely where the mon*s had a distinctive practice) Although contemplation of
death and ,udgement in these communities was neither unimportant nor indeed based on
un*nowingness(
5/0
there is certainly an element of simplicity that tempers this *ind of
philosophical e#ercise)
A second important respect in which the desert fathers and mothers refused *nowledge
is cosmology) The form is common6 a visitor comes to see a solitary( and begins immediately
to spea* of difficult problems about the way the physical and spiritual world is) The hermit
remains silent) <ventually he is challenged to come with an answer( and responds with
reference to his way of life) HThis is what C do)+ >ere the reference is not even to the nature of
the soul 0although the actions and passions of the soul are relevant2( but to simple and visible
actions)
5/5
528
<vagrius( de orat.: 82f
52;
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Agathon 2( Ammonas ;( 50( Dohn the Persian 5( et passimK &pop$. Patr. 8anon9: 58:
<vagrius( ep.: 8) This is also the case with the ?yriac community of the lib. grad.: =)55( PPP)50( 52)
52
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: ?isoes 5
5/0
9or e#amples of contemplation of the final ,udgement( cf) <vagrius( $ypo.: &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: <lias 5(
?ilvanus 2( and especially <vagrius 5
5/5
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Poemen ; O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P)/ O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P):3
:5
Thirdly( the negative theology of early "hristian ascetics is related to the reductive
nature of their way of life) >ere it is perhaps useful to compare it with the asceticism of the
philosophers)
!hilst the reasoning behind asceticism in late anti.uity was fairly constant 0subdue
desire in order to separate oneself from convention and opinion2( the techni.ues changed with
desert asceticism) Cnstead of applying their philosophy with anti-social self ostracism(
philosophers in anti.uity in general attempted to ad,ust their way of being in the world) Not to
re,ect the world( but to adapt to it) ?o ?eneca+s asceticism did not consist in abandoning table
fellowship( but in moderating his consumption) Cn general( it could be said that the practices
of the self were e#ercises in being an individual in society) They were originally political
actions)
5/2
Desert asceticism( on the other hand( is characterised by re,ecting social goods) Most
noticeably( "hristians would re,ect the security of their civil standing 0Arsenius( for e#ample(
was advisor to an emperor2 and family 0a number of mon*s refuse to see their parents2) Cn
addition( they shun eating habits( sleep( drin*( the company of others( and ownership of
property)
?o we could say that "hristian asceticism is a form of forsa*ing things and abandoning
ways of life) !hilst the philosophical life primarily regulates people+s needs and the needs of
their body( "hristians actually re,ected them( as far as was possible) Ct was an ethos of
estrangement rather than temperance)
They thought of this movement away from society as a movement from the world and
towards Bod) This is only logical( given that a good deal of their motivation to do these things
was the ,udgement of Bod( as C have suggested over 0on page 342) The practice of
estrangement may well have been associated with the refusal of idols) Cn fact( one of the more
prominent authors of <astern asceticism in the early si#th century( abba Eosimas( reveals an
acute sensitivity to the temptation inherent in this form of life towards embracing something
that is not Bod once one has torn oneself from the world) >e advocates a radical abandonment
of things in favour of the un*nown Bod who is not a thing( in terms reminiscent of Zi[e*+s
account of fetishism)
5//
5/2
9oucault( 52aL5;3M6 ;8)
5//
Cn Zi[e*( 20056 5/-5:K cf) also &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Belasius : ' HQour spirit is more enslaved by the needle
with which you wor* than the spirit of Belasius by these goods)+ and "assianus( *ollationes: C)4 "assianus( de
institutis: C=)5/ %arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: //4 "limacus( scal.: ?tep 58)
:2
HThere are times when someone will ignore large sums of moneyK nevertheless( when it comes
to a small needle( one+s attachment to it may cause one much trouble) Then the small needle
replaces the large amount of money) Therefore( one becomes a slave of the needle( or the
monastic cap( or the hand*erchief( or the boo*( instead of being a servant of Bod)+
5/3
The fourth reason C have for characterising the theology of early "hristian ascetics as
primarily apophatic is their tendency towards silence 0cf) for e#ample Agathon over on page
322)
5/:
?ilence is not simply a good alternative to saying something one shouldn+t( although
that is certainly an element of it6 as Arsenius said( HC have often repented of having spo*en(
but never of having been silent)+
5/4
?ilence was also the alternative to elaborating a theology
of spiritual things and cosmologies( in the way mentioned over 0on page :02) Ct is the
discursive e.uivalent of fasting6 we abandon words in order to embrace Bod)
5/8

?ilence is repeatedly associated with the central tas*s of the ascetic in their sayings)
5/;
There even appears to have been a debate as to whether one should spea* at all) ?piritual
leaders are repeatedly praised for teaching without saying anything) Although Poemen
appears to have tried to resolve the dilemma by recognising both apophatic and cataphatic
theology ' HThe man who spea*s for Bod+s sa*e does wellK but he who is silent for Bod+s
sa*e also does well+
5/
' the scales tend to come down on the side of silence) ?ilence is
portrayed as the ideal theology) The story of Pambo+s silence is set within the stoc* frame of a
visit for edification6
The same Abba Theophilus( the archbishop( came to ?cetis one day) The brethren who were
assembled said to Abba Pambo( H?ay something to the archbishop( so that he may be edified)+
The old man said to them( HCf he is not edified by my silence( he will not be edified by my
speech)+
530
9or some( the fear of spea*ing Hunnecessary words+
535
was bound up with the fear of
heresy( which was acute)
532
"hristian ascetics would blame themselves for everything but
5/3
Eosimas( allo:uia: =)ii)b)
5/:
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Agathon 54( Csidore of Pelusia 5( Macarius the Breat 24( Nisterus the "enobite 5f(
Poemen /( /8( 32( 5;8( 20: %arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 34)
5/4
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Arsenius 30 - cf) also Csidore of Pelusia 5)
5/8
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Eeno ;)
5/;
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Andrew 5( Arsenius 2( %essarion 50( Poemen /8( 54;( ?isoes 32)
5/
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Poemen 538K cf) also the discussion of Poemen+s ruling in %arsanuphius and Cohannes(
resp.: 2;8)
530
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Theophilus 2 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P=)32 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P=):)
535
the phrase comes from &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Macarius 24)
532
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Theodore of Pherme 3 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P)2/ O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P)/2)
:/
heresy( because to spea* words against Bod was to separate oneself from Bod)
53/
9or this
reason( e#treme caution had to be e#ercised in spea*ing theology) Teaching was dangerous
for the soul( and an ascetic does well to avoid it) The dilemma is obviously that if a religious
is obliged to spea* out of courtesy( the sub,ect should not distract from Bod( but the
arguments against spea*ing of Bod outlined above still hold) The dilemma is discussed at
great length with a casuistry of courtesy( gossip( small tal*( obedience( and scriptural
interpretation in the correspondence of %arsanuphius and Dohn)
533
!hen confronted with the
dilemma( abba Amoun decided that it is better to spea* of the sayings of the fathers than of
the %ible)
53:
The words of Bod are dangerous)
These traits of the desert fathers ' their reticence concerning theology and ,udgement(
their ascetics of estrangement( and their *eeping silence ' ,ustify aligning their theology with
apophatic theology) They refuse to spea* of Bod( discourage theological discussion( and
claim ignorance concerning Bod+s view on the world 0his ,udgement2) Negative theology is
their ideal)
>ow then do the holy fools re,ect a worldview and way of life characterised by
negation$ Cn *eeping with this approach of negativity( early "hristian ascetics li*e the desert
fathers and mothers concentrate more on what they re,ect than what they embrace) ?o their
lives are mar*ed by the grammar of negation) They do not embrace the desert ' their abode
varied from suburbs through wilderness to riverban*s ' but abandon the city) Their lives are
mar*ed by the denial of a particular order rather than the espousal of a religious way of life)
This denial of the particular opens them up to a gaping freedom)
1.2.2: $pop#atic %i!ersity
The result of this practice of negative theology is fle#ibility as regards the form of life
that is to be adopted6 ?t Paul+s principle of diversity in the ?pirit 05 "or 522 is appropriated to
identify the holy life with a Bod that can not be fi#ed down)
534
!hilst there certainly are
common features amongst early "hristian ascetics( and it would not be difficult to s*etch out
an overview of the two or three main streams of withdrawal from the world( it is stri*ing how
much diversity the movements allow for)
53/
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: P)50 O &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Agathon : O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P)52)
533
%arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 2;4-23) "f) also &pop$. Patr. 8anon9: 580( 5;4)
53:
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Amoun of Nitria 2 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: PC)20 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: PC):4( echoed
in %arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 34)
534
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Dohn the Dwarf 3/)
:3
There are four discernible attitudes to diversity in the tradition of the desert fathers(
representing various points in the range between complete conformity and unfi#ed pluralism)
They may all be ,ustified within the conte#t of the theology of asceticism and so all retain a
constant principle throughout their renunciation)
7ne attitude to plurality that emerges clearly is the tendency to e#perimentation) The
first generation of desert fathers and mothers had re,ected the world+s form of life and had no
obvious alternative to embrace as yet) As a result( a number of different lifestyles developed
amongst the anchorites( and disciples would learn their discipline from a particular abba or
amma rather than from a fi#ed rule 0%asil+s rules were not written until the end of the fourth
century( and had little or no influence in the <gyptian desertK Pachomian cenobitic
monasticism followed a rule from the beginning2)
538
1ater( Abba Antiochus is even reported
0by "limacus2 to have offered three totally different rules of life to his disciples)
53;
9or this
reason( when people approached a holy man or woman in order to learn from them( they
would not simply as* how to become a better mon*) Cnstead( the very definition of being a
mon* was open to debate)
9or our perfect fathers were not limited by any particular rule) Cndeed( their daily rule included
singing Psalms a little( repeating LversesM by heart a little( e#amining their thoughts a little(
ta*ing a little brea* for food( and LallM this with fear of Bod)
53
The Hway of life+ of a "hristian was not fi#ed( but young ascetics approach old
e#perienced ones and as* them HAbba( give me a way of life+
5:0
) Macarius the Breat tells of
his e#perience of meeting .uintessential mon*s( who re,ected the world( and were given a
way of life 0oi|ovoio2 by Bod)
5:5
Palladius describes the :000 mon*s on the Mountain of
Nitria as having different modes of life( varying according to their capacity)
5:2
At the same
time( Nisterus the Breat lays no great store by the specifics of the way of life6 none of them
allow one to refer to Bod( or delimit Bod+s nature)
538
9or plurality within Pachomian monasticism( cf) Palladius( $. 3aus.: PPPCC)2)
53;
"limacus( scal.: ?tep 3)
53
%arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: ;:( s.uare brac*ets original)
5:0
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: <lias ; &pop$. Patr. 8anon9: 5/ %arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 5; Moschus( prat.:
:2)
5:5
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Macarius the Breat 2)
5:2
Palladius( $. 3aus.: =CC)2)
::
HAre not all actions e.ual$ ?cripture says that Abraham was hospitable and Bod was with him)
David was humble( and Bod was with him) <lias loved interior peace and Bod was with him)
?o( do whatever you see your soul desires according to Bod and guard your heart)+
5:/
Cn contrast to ascetic e#perimentation( the second attitude to multiplicity presents
reasons to conform to one particular local way of life that do not ,ustify it as being the
e#clusive way of living before Bod) Cn order to avoid becoming an ascetic hero( and
endangering your soul by attracting praise and respect( a "hristian should follow local ' and
therefore arbitrary ' customs) Abba Motius+ ma#im was H!herever you live( follow the same
manner of life as everyone else and if you see devout men( whom you trust doing something(
do the same and you will be at peace)+
5:3
This ma#im assumes two things6 firstly( that a place
will have an identifiable way of life( presumably formed by a number of people adopting the
habits of certain old men or womenK secondly( that the specifics of this form of life are
entirely irrelevant as compared to the avoidance of praise) ?o this approach relativises a
particular lifestyle and at the same time subverts the economy of that way of life by refusing
to earn honour or shame within its framewor*)
The third attitude to multiplicity represents a reaction against this *ind of pluralism
however) Cn time( the particular traditions stemming from the various ascetics would not
simply act as alternatives( but as models from which the present generation has fallen away)
5::
As a result( the ways of forerunners became authoritative( such that variety became frowned
upon by some) Ct is in the nature of teaching that one way of life is recommended over
another) >owever( there is good evidence to suggest that the sayings of the fathers tended
towards a re,ection of plurality itself as well as other ways of life)
HAbba( give me a way of life)+ The old man said to the brother( HCn the days of our predecessors
they too* great care about these three virtues6 poverty( obedience and fasting) %ut among mon*s
nowadays avarice( self-confidence and great greed have ta*en charge) "hoose whichever you
want most)+
5:4
The final relationship to plurality that C want to present here comes closest to
uniformity) Although the fathers and mothers are fairly lenient with their disciples( they ma*e
it clear that they do this out of mercy rather than accepting many different ways of life) Cn this
5:/
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Nisterus 2 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: C)5; O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: C)55 - cf) also P)8)
5:3
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Motius 5) A similar moral is taught in &pop$. Patr. 8anon9: 52:)
5::
Among many sayings that tell of disillusionment( cf) &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: 9eli# &pop$. Patr. 8anon9: 4( 25;
Moschus( prat.: 5/0( 54;)
5:4
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: <lias ; - cf) also Theophilus the Archbishop 5 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P=)5 O &pop$.
Patr. 87,. syst.9: P=)/5) The .uote can also be found in Moschus( prat.: :2)
:4
way they maintain the ta#onomy of one communal lifestyle) ?o for e#ample( Doseph of
Panephysis gives one piece of advice to one mon*( and conflicting guidance to another)
5:8
>owever( when .uestioned about this( he e#plains that to only one of them did he tal* Has if to
himself+)
Cn a similar vein( Poemen 0who was one of the mon*s that went to Doseph in the above
apophthegmatum2 affirms the way of life of a mon* who wor*s hard in the fields and gives to
the poor) !hen .uestioned about it by a disciple however( he refuses that way of life as
unworthy of a mon*) Ct is certainly allowed( but it is Hnot the wor* of a mon*)+
5:;
%asil ta*es
the attitude to its furthest point and advocates uniformity for its own sa*e ' Hfor all who aim at
the same goal are ali*e in as many ways as possible+)
5:
9rom this brief overview( a picture emerges of the desert fathers as initially
e#perimenting with their ways of life( advocating many ways in different situations( but
eventually settling down into one particular form) This form would then develop its own way
of allocating praise and blame( honour and shame( so that true mon*s may be distinguished
from false ones( and ascetics could vie with each other for respect)
Abba Doseph as*ed Abba Poemen( H>ow should one fast$+ Abba Poemen said to him( H9or my
part( C thin* it better that one should eat every day( but only a little( so as not to be satisfied)+
Abba Doseph said to him( H!hen you were younger( did you not fast two days at a time( abba$+
The old man said6 HQes( even for three days and four and the whole wee*) The 9athers tried all
this out as they were able and they found it preferable to eat every day( but ,ust a small amount)
They have left us this royal way( which is light)+
540
This saying is instructive because it lays out the three options available regarding
asceticism) The first is living in the world and not fasting at all) The second is the way of
e#treme renunciation( such as fasting for an entire wee*) The third way is a compromise
between the two) Poemen calls it a Iroyal wayJ( which is significant6 the reference is to
Numbers 20)58 and 25)22( where the people of Csrael wal* along the royal road 01at6 "ia
regiaK B*6 oo, ooiii|q2( and Hnot turn aside to the right or to the left+) Ct is a standard
patristic way of e#pressing the third way between two e#tremes or two vices)
5:8
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Doseph of Panephysis / O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P)2 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P)/;)
5:;
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Poemen 22 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P)34 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P)44)
5:
%asilius( reg. .us.: 22)
540
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Poemen /5 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P)33 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P)45) This rule is also
offered in <vagrius( $ypo.: 50( and more severe abstinence discouraged in <vagrius( de mal. cog.: /: <vagrius(
e5cerpts: 2) %arsanuphius+ diet recommendation can be found in %arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 4/)
:8
Ct is tempting to see here a premature solution( to the problem of practical
apophaticism) The way of the world is re,ected( but since no form of renunciation is
unproblematically holy 0e#treme fasting can lead to gluttony or vainglory for instance2( the
mon* must follow the way of religious authority) There is no reference here( however( to the
way of divine holiness6 it is a pragmatic solution that is conscious of its failure to construct
one true way of life) The mon* continues what he has received( and the way is Hlight+( but not
necessarily Bod) Ct is perhaps beyond affirmation and denial of a holy way of life( but it
e.ually appears to have given up on the appellation Hholy+)
The desert fathers and mothers adhered to rules in different ways) Aather than
enforcing one form of life in the desert( they cultivated a number of different monastic ideals)
These were not always thought of as competing( although in time ' and with the introduction
of more rules of common life ' they boiled down into a small number of distinct forms) This
was a historical development( however( and by no means a necessary part of early "hristian
asceticism) Cn what follows( we will see this pattern repeated( whereby the mon*s and nuns of
the desert embrace a radical form of renunciation( but ultimately transmit a very concrete way
of life that will become standard for the monastic tradition)
:;
1.&: Ascetic 'ositivism: t#e sine (ua non of renunciation
Cn spite of their resistance to form and dogmatism( there are ways of describing the
positivity of the desert ways of life of late anti.uity) Cn order to contrast early "hristian
ascetics with the early holy fools( we will have to discover some specific characteristics that
mar* out both) ?o apart from their refusal of the city( what do early "hristian ascetics have in
common$
<ven in the most radical statements of pluralism( something is reserved as the sine :ua
non of the blessed life) !e saw over 0on page ::2 that Nisterus the Breat could recommend
any way of life( but insisted on the practice of guarding one+s heart 0Bree*6 p$ula5on tAn
,ardion sou; 1atin6 custodi cor tuum2) This is a common theme)
545
Ct would be a mista*e to understand the practice of guarding the heart as a vague
mental action with only indistinct symbolic force) All studies of this *ind of spiritual e#ercise
need to be specific and concrete in their descriptions)
542
Cndeed( this is the tendency of the
te#ts themselves) 9or e#ample( Agathon is .uestioned concerning the relationship between the
interior guard and bodily wor*)
54/
The systematic collection ' which represents an earlier
source than the alphabetical ' records this interchange and then adds details about what
Agathon did( in terms of wor*( thought( food and clothes)
543
Ct is clear from this that what
today might be termed a psychological state( independent of everyday life( was thought of by
the desert fathers in terms of practices and habits)
Ct is therefore natural to consider the phenomenon of guarding the heart in terms of
place( prayer( and social practices) ?ince this particular virtue is widely attested as central to
the monastic life(
54:
we will thereby gain an understanding of a fi#ed point around which the
"hristian ascetics allowed their various degrees of plurality)
545
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: PC)28( PC)/8 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: PC)8; O &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: 7risius 2) "f) also
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: PC)3:( CC)5 O &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Anthony 50( 0 K interior custodia2K
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: C=):: 0custodierunt se2( =)53 0cogitationem suam custodiens2( =CC)/3 0custodit conscientiam
suam2( PC)24 O &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Peter the Pionite 2( &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P=C)54 0custodire mentem2( and
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Poemen 5/: 0 2) Palladius( $. 3aus.: PP=CCC 0 o uio q,
oopoouvq,2 lib. grad.: =C)2( PPP)20 <vagrius( de mal. cog.: 2:( 28( /4 <vagrius( de orat.: ;8 %arsanuphius
and Cohannes( resp.: 5/8% %asilius( renunt "limacus( scal.: ?tep 3 &pop$. Patr. 8anon9: //( :;( 80( 535( 255)
Noted also by 1inge( 20006 ::/)
542
As e#emplified by Michel 9oucault( e)g) in 9oucault( 2000L5;:M 9oucault( 2000L5;5M 9oucault( 200:L2005M
9oucault( et al)( 5;; and Pierre >adot( in >adot( 5: >adot( 2002L5:M)
54/
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Agathon ; O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P)55 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P)5/)
543
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: P)55) Cn both the alphabetical and the systematic collections in Bree*( the details form a
separate apophthegm - AP ?yst 0B*2 &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P)5/(53 O &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Agathon 50)
54:
e)g) in 1oss*y( 5846 202)
:
HCf Pambo fasted for two days together and ate two loaves( would he become a mon* in that
way$ No) And if Pambo wor*s to get two pence and gives them in alms( would he become a
mon* that way$ No( not that way either)+ >e said to them( HThe wor*s are good( but if you
guard your conscience towards your neighbour( then you will be saved)+
544
1.3.1: Place
7ne of the practices most associated with guarding the heart is that of staying in the
cell)
548
!hilst this does not appear to modern ears to be a practice( it had very concrete forms
and significance for the desert fathers and mothers 0cf) over( on page /32) Ct is notable that in
the case of the mon* who came in from the harvest( the only teaching he received from the
e#perienced desert father concerned Hthe manner in which he should sit in the cell)+ 0my
translation ' 1atin6 :uomodo oporteret esse in cella suaK Bree*6 o, ti |oiooi tv o
|tiiio6 over( on page /32 Cn addition to forming a *ind of macrocosm for the soul(
54;
the cell
was a constitutive feature of the understanding of spiritual e#ercise( the presence of Bod( and
solitude)
The practice of the cell forms a bare essential in ascetic life)
54
Ct is a common
occurrence in the apop$t$egmata that a mon* approaches one of the desert fathers or mothers
to tell them how severe they are in their strict life( or occasionally to complain that they are
not able to be so e#treme) <ither way( the response is the same6 do not try to be so intense(
,ust sit in your cell)
580
The instruction is sometimes meant to prevent distraction6 the cells were bare( and
there was a good deal more temptation outside it) >owever( temptation in and of itself was not
necessarily a bad thing in these environments6 .uite the opposite)
585
%eing in the cell is a
particular practice that replaces other forms of renunciation) ?o when someone is feeling
tempted to go to live with other people in a coenobitic monastery( they come to Paphnutius
for advice6
544
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: P)4: O &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Pambo 2K cf) also &pop$. Patr. 83at9: PC)2) O &pop$. Patr.
8alp$9: Agathon 2)
548
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: CC)5 O &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Anthony 50 and &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: =CCC)52 O &pop$.
Patr. 8alp$9: ?erapion 3 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: =CCC) 0although the Bree* here uses the more philosophical
e#pression H + ' attend to yourself) cf) >adot( 5:6 5/0-5/42<vagrius( $ypo.: :)
54;
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Ammonas 3 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P)54 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P)20)
54
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Pambo ; O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: C)54 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: C)2: %arsanuphius and
Cohannes( resp.: 582)
580
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: >eraclides - cf) also Arsenius 55 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: =CC)28 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9:
=CC)/3 &pop$. Patr. 8anon9: 5:( 4/( 44( 80( 8/ <vagrius( $ypo.: 4f)
585
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Anthony : et passimK Moschus( prat.: 20)
40
The old man said to him( HBo and stay in your cellK ma*e only one prayer in the morning and
one in the evening and one at night) !hen you are hungry( eat( when you are thirsty( drin*K
when you are tired( sleep) %ut stay in the cell and ta*e no notice of this thought)+ The brother
went and found Abba Dohn and told him what Abba Paphnutius had said and Abba Dohn said(
HDon+t pray at all( ,ust stay in the cell)+
582
The significance of sitting in the cell was not simply the absence of meaningful
political activity( however6 the cell is not necessarily the place of Agamben+s bare life)
58/
The
cell was supposed to Hteach you everything+(
583
and there were good ways and bad ways of
being in the cell)
58:
9or Poemen( for e#ample( sitting in the cell was synonymous with
Hmanual wor*( eating only once a day( silence( meditation+)
584
Ct was the place of struggle with
demons and one+s own thoughts)
588
Ct was importantly a place of the presence of Bod)
58;
Perhaps the greatest significance of the cell was its solitude) The hermits would come
together on wee*ends and meet to celebrate the eucharist and pray together( and then they
would flee to their cells in order to preserve their silence) The cell was the place of the self
and solitude) Ct was the place of self e#amination)
58
Macarius the Breat defines Hfleeing from
men+ as Hto sit in your cell and weep for your sins+)
5;0
?o although the habit of staying in the cell certainly had specific significance and
content for early ascetics( its value was precisely the effort of being with oneself(
5;5
without
distraction(
5;2
in order to wor* on the self and e#amine the self) Abba Ammoes was so strict in
this matter that he did not even loo* at his cell+s contents(
5;/
and this is a natural wor*ing out
582
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Paphnutius :) cf) also freedom of thought in the cell - &pop$. Patr. 83at9: =CC)/8 O
&pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: =CC)3:)
58/
Agamben( 5;L5:M) !hich is not to say that the cell does not develop into the place of the homo sacer in
<uropean asceticism and biopolitics) %arsanuphius significantly calls his cell a cemetery( for e#ample6
%arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 532)
583
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Moses 4 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: CC) O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: CC)5)
58:
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Poemen 4 Moschus( prat.: 550K cf) also .uotation above( on page /3)
584
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: =CC)23 - cf) also P)43 O &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Poemen 54; O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9:
P)/)
588
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Moses 5 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P=CCC)52 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P=CCC)58)
58;
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Belasius 4( Daniel : O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: PC); O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: PC)54)
58
<vagrius( $ypo.: %arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 2/8)
5;0
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Macarius the Breat 28) Macarius is .uoted by Dohn( who adds Has well as to remain
vigilant so that the intellect is not ta*en captive but rather struggles( and( if it is ta*en captive( to return it to its
place)+ %arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 582) "f) also the unserious cell( below on page 25/)
5;5
Hita erunt et cogitationes e,us .ui propter Deum tolerabiliter in cella sua resederitK .uia etsi ad modicum
nutant( sed iterum revertuntur ad eum+ &pop$. Patr. 83at9: =CC)/0 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: =CC)/8)
5;2
<vagrius( e5cerpts: /2
5;/
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: C=)55 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: C=)55 O &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Ammoes /K cf) also &pop$.
Patr. 83at9: C=)54 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: C=)54 O &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: >elladius 5)
45
of the logic of the cell) Ct was the conte#t ' remar*able for its minimalism
5;3
' for the care for
the self)
>aving identified Hguarding your soul+ as a positive element in early "hristian
asceticism( we have now also isolated one aspect of its content in the practice of the cell) This
practice itself( though( can be treated both as a specific form of life 0with rules of fasting(
praying( repenting( etc)2( and as a place of inactivity) "ell solitude is also a renunciation of the
standards and conventions of the common life)
1.3.2: Prayer
As regards the prayers of early "hristian ascetics( the relations to freedom and
positivity can be seen fairly clearly) There is certainly an ideal of prayer without form( where
the solitary stays before Bod in undisturbed contemplation) >owever( even the anchorites of
the desert would meet on wee*ends to pray together in set forms( as Bould has shown)
5;:
Ct is
as a result of this that the dilemma of meeting in order to pray or cultivating one+s own prayer
life alone in the cell arose) This dilemma evo*ed various responses( some of which we have
already occasioned upon6 Motius says that one should not mar* oneself out by staying away
from the syna5is 0the liturgical office said in common by hermits of the area ' cf) over on
page ::2K many others advocated running away as soon as it was over)
5;4
There are a few
aspects that served to pin down monastic prayer in specific ways( and C will here concentrate
on three of the most significant( namely psalmody( set prayers( and the liturgy)
The most common form of prayer we see being practiced in the deserts of <gypt and
Palestine in late anti.uity is psalmody) The saying of psalms made up the main component of
the common prayer of both anchorites 0solitaries2 and cenobites 0ascetics of the common
life2)
5;8
Ct is also spo*en of as one of the *ey features of being a mon*( the way in which true
"hristian ascetics could be recognised)
5;;
5;3
as %rown points out concerning Daniel the ?tylite( who Havoided being placed+ - %rown( 5856 2) "f) also
<vagrius on the cell as non-attachment in <vagrius( $ypo.: :)
5;:
Bould( 5/)
5;4
<)g) &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Csaac the Theban 2 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: PC)38)
5;8
<)g) in %arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: ;:( 23; <vagrius( e5cerpts: 2 <vagrius( de mal. cog.: 28 &pop$.
Patr. 8alp$9: <ulogius the Priest( Dohn the Dwarf /:( ?erapion 5( ?yncletia 28 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P)85( and
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Thenaton of <naton / O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: PC)55 - cf) also C=):8( =CC)58( 28( P)20( PC)(
PC=)5) The 1atin translation of Hsyna#is+ in the systematic collection here is literally Hto ma*e the ministry of
psalming+ in &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: PC=)2 O &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Arsenius 23 and &pop$. Patr. 83at9: PC=)5
5;;
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: =)5;( =CCC)3 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: =)22( =CCC)3 O &pop$. Patr. 8anon9: /4 and
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: <ulogius the Priest)
42
The fre.uent chanting of defined te#ts is specific enough to form a constructive
element to ascetic renunciation) Mon*s and nuns would say psalms in order to e#ercise
control in their lives( but the control led in the direction dictated by the content of the psalms)
Cn addition to the specification of the te#t to be chanted( it would appear that a certain
choice of psalms was selected for the syna5is)
5;
7ften mentioned are the Htwelve psalms+(
50
so that it is not simply a case of saying psalms( but of saying t$e psalms( i)e) those selected for
the tas*) This specifies the form even further)
The practice developed over time) Csidore the Priest tells us that when he was young(
he put no limits whatsoever on the psalms that he would read)
55
7thers read the entire
psalter)
52
%ut ,ust as e#treme fasting was dampened to moderate eating 0cf) over( on page :2(
e#cessive psalmody was also discouraged in time)
5/
Cn this way we can see the practice of
saying psalms as a radically new way of life( and attaining an order that was followed in
common life)
53
The saying of set prayers was also a common feature of the "hristian ascetic liturgy)
5:
Not only did they pray together( but when in their cell( mon*s and nuns would say prayers in
private)
This practice in itself is a specific element in "hristian renunciation) !hilst
philosophers would memorise the sayings of their teachers( as well as tests( rules( and
principles by which to focus and to ,udge a situation( "hristians would address Bod when
challenging situations arose)
54
7n the other hand( some of the desert fathers could be decidedly bland on this count(
encouraging their disciples to use few words) !hilst it is most li*ely that a number of the
sayings of the desert fathers were preserved so that their prayer could be repeated( this is not
always because of their formulation) A good e#ample of a combination of a set prayer with a
bland prayer is the following story about abba Macarius6
5;
The study of psalm selection( collection( and recitation has attained a certain degree of comple#ity(
particularly in relation to ancient psalm boo*s) 9or a good introduction( cf) 9rGyshov( 200:)
50
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Macarius the Breat //( an Abba of Aome 5 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P)84 - cf) also P)8
%arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 53/)
55
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Csidore the Priest 3 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P)58)
52
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: ?erapion 5)
5/
<vagrius( e5cerpts: 22)
53
!ith a corresponding comple#ity as the tradition develops6 cf) %arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 532 et
passim)
5:
"f) the summary in &pop$. Patr. 83at9: =)5;)
54
"f) the list of practices against a wandering mind in &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P)20 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P)2:)
4/
?ome brothers as*ed Macarius( H>ow should we pray$+ >e said( HThere is no need to tal* much
in prayer) Aeach out your hands often( and say( H1ord have mercy on me( as you will and as you
*now)+ %ut if conflict troubles you( say( H1ord( help me)+ >e *nows what is best for us( and has
mercy)+
58
There does appear to have been a canon of prayers( however( and they could be
enumerated)
5;
This would imply that the prayers were short phrases or sentences addressed to
Bod( clearly identifiable as separate entities) Cf these prayers were indeed such set forms as
those suggested by Macarius above( then the practice of fre.uent or continuous prayer goes
from being a minimalist practice of focus and renunciation to being a constitutive way of life)
There is also evidence for the introduction of a timetable of prayer in the desert) The
most fre.uent conte#t for prayers in the ?ystematic collection in 1atin is that of a meeting of
mon*s( who pray before sitting down together or leaving each other)
5
Cn this way( the mon*s
and nuns inculcated in their common life specific habits that would form them in particular
ways)
Cn addition to the prayers said when a "hristian was in trouble or when they met each
other( early "hristian ascetics mar*ed time by the prayers they said) As was the case with the
psalmody( there is some debate as to the origins of the liturgy of desert fathers and mothers)
!hat is certain is that this liturgy had a particular relationship to renunciation and conformity)
@eeping the hours of prayer ' mirroring in various degrees the monastic offices of
matins( lauds( prime( terce( se#t( none( compline etc) ' was a natural part of ascetic
renunciation)
200
Cnstead of mar*ing time by wor*( mar*et( and authority( early "hristian
ascetics would Hmeasure the hours+ 0Bree*6 melein tas $Bras tBn suna5eBn2 with regular
prayer and fasting) The two go together)
205
58
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: PCC)52 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: B*) ?yst PCC)55 O &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Macarius the
Breat 5) "f) also discussion in ?in*ewic&( 200/6 Cntro( p) #i#) %arsanuphius recommends the prayers H1ord have
mercy)+K HBod( have mercy on me( the wretched one+K HBod( you see my afflictionK help me)+ %arsanuphius and
Cohannes( resp.: ;8( 53/( and compares the prayer of Macarius to the 1ord+s Prayer in letter 530) The Desus
prayer is recommended in "limacus( scal.: ?tep 5:)
5;
50/ prayers are counted in &pop$. Patr. 83at9: PCC)5: O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: PCC)5;K 23 in Palladius( $.
3aus.: P=CC)50( 52 in PPPCC)4 /00 in &pop$. Patr. 8anon9: 53;( and :00 repetitions of I1ord have mercyJ in
Moschus( prat.: 503)
5
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: =CC)23( 3/( =CCC)( P)84( PCC6/( 5:( PC=)54( P=)44)
200
More prevalent in coenobitic monasticism than in its anchoritic variant6 %arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.:
53/)
205
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Poemen 54; O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P)/ O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P)436 lat6 ministerii
horasK B*6 ... . "f) also &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: C=)85 O &pop$. Patr.
83at9: C=):;( and %asil+s and <vagrius+ re,ection of the mar*et6 H*eep yourself from buying and selling+(
<vagrius( $ypo.: ; %asilius( ascet. disc.
43
7nce again( the mon*s and nuns tend towards transcending the specific form for the
sa*e of the general virtue)
202
!hilst it is important to mar* the times of prayer( it is even more
important to be present to Bod the entire time( rather than at regular intervals)
H%y your prayers we have *ept our ruleK we carefully observe the offices of terce( se#t( none and
vespers)+ %ut <piphanius rebu*ed him and said( HThen you are failing to pray at other times) The
true mon* ought to pray without ceasing) >e should always be singing psalms in his heart)+
20/
Nevertheless( the result of this debate among the fathers has indeed been a set form of
prayers for the hours( and the influence of monastic movements upon the liturgical practice of
the church has been immense in this respect)
203
Not only are there monasteries surviving in a
direct line of descent from the fathers and mothers of <gypt and Palestine( but through the
,ourneys of "assian( Derome( and Alypius 0the close friend of Augustine2( these prayer habits
have constituted the starting point of the !estern monastic orders)
Cn this respect( the prayers of the early "hristian ascetics can also be identified as a
positive aspect of their practice that was to be embraced) !hilst "hristians were encouraged
to renounce the ways of the world( they were also given something to embrace) 7n the other
hand( there is evidence to suggest that this form was not always fi#ed down) There were rules(
and ascetics would also transcend these rules in a disciplined fashion) Cn this way( the practice
of prayer is both a support and resistance to the formation of a normal ascetic life)
1.3.3: &lot#ing Practices
There are other practices that demonstrate this tension between particular forms and a
transcending renunciation that can be found in the ascetic observance of the cell and the
prayers) The final feature that appears to have become essential to the monastic way of life
that C want to e#plore here is that of clothing)
The monastic habit was an essential identity mar*er for the mon*) "assian chooses to
open his >nstitutions and <vagrius Ponticus his Pra,ti,os
2(
with a description of the desert
fathers+ apparelK a priest of Pelusia ma*es use of the habit to include and e#clude mon*sK
204
%asil counts the mon*+s habit as a mar*er alongside that of the soldier( senator( and authority
202
%asil dictates hours of prayer so people can+t use their e#treme piety as an e#cuse not to wor*6 %asilius( reg.
.us.: .uestion /8)
20/
&pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: PCC)4 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: PCC)4 O &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: <piphanius /) "f) also lib.
grad.: =CC)20 )
203
cf) 9rGyshov( 200:6 and references there)
20:
"assianus( de institutis: C <vagrius( Pra,t.: Prologue 2-8)
204
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Poemen 55)
4:
0as well as the down and out2K
208
Csaac the priest of the "ells uses incorrect habit as a reason to
e#clude a brother
20;
K a mon* leaving the monastic life removes his habit(
20
and an anonymous
abba spea*s of adopting the habit as a rite of passage e.uivalent to baptism)
250
The principles that decided which clothes were chosen were those of renunciation)
Although "assian does give an allegorical interpretation of the clothes towards the end of his
account( the function of the main robe is to replace nudity 0elsewhere listed alongside fasting(
vigils( wor*( and reading amongst the forms of ascetic renunciation2
255
without conforming to
fashion)
252
?imilarly( the hood is in place for the Hregulation of the character+)
25/
?o( as we saw
was the case over with obedience 0on page /2 the form of asceticism appears to be based
upon a deliberate e#ercise of renunciation( wor*ing out the implications of negative
theology)
253
Cn spite of the uniformity that "assian both observes and prescribes for his own
community( there is still a movement amongst the desert fathers and mothers to transcend this
rule) Abba Csaac( the priest of the "ells( appears to have been particularly concerned about
this)
25:
7nce again we have a *ind of chronological form that bewails the development of
conformity at the cost of the radical renunciation of the first fathers6
Csaac said to the brothers( HPambo and our predecessors used to wear old and much-patched
clothes) Qou wear good clothes) Bo away( you have made this place into a desert)
254
208
%asilius( reg. .us.: .uestion 22)
20;
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Csaac( Priest of the "ells ; O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: =C) O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: =C);) Ct
is unclear what the error consisted in6 Buy claims that the Bree* |ouooouiiov has been incorrectly translated as
Hcucullum+ in the 1atin 0in a note to the Bree* ?ystematic version2( because of "assian+s description of the
desert uniform( which includes a hood ' "assianus( de institutis: C)36 de cucullis Aegyptiorum) There is nothing
to say( however( that Csaac was not simply reacting to the traditions of a uniform that diverged with his own
standard6 either as a development in his community( or simply originating from a different geographical area
0which is most li*ely( as the hooded mon* seems to be arriving2)
20
Moschus( prat.: 55;)
250
&pop$. Patr. 8anon9: 2/3) ?imilarly when ?ymeon ?alos and Dohn receive the habit in 1eontius( ". 1ym.:
C)5/5( 5/3)
255
"assianus( *ollationes: C)8)
252
"assianus( de institutis: C)2)
25/
"assianus( de institutis: C)/)
253
<vagrius( $ypo.: 3 <vagrius( sent. ad mon.: ;2 <vagrius( sent. ad "irg.: 2/ <vagrius( de mal. cog.: 4) 1ater(
the monastic vestments become a source of religious power) %arsanuphius is re.uested to send his hood to a
disciple in %arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 5)
25:
"f) footnote 4: above) Csidore flouted the rule by wearing almost no linen6 Palladius( $. 3aus.: C)5)
254
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: =C) 0translation ad,usted2 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: =C)50 O &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Csaac(
Priest of the "ells 8 - cf) also Palladius( $. 3aus.: 1P=C)2( 1P=CCC)3)
44
A further instance of ascetics transcending the rule concerning clothes can be found in
the story of the mon* who paraded na*ed down the street)
258
As with abba Csaac( the
motivation appears to have been renunciation of convention)
The negative theology of early "hristian ascetics was interpreted in constructive and
specific ways in many elements of their practice ' in the cell( in prayer( and in their clothing '
whilst throughout struggling with the ideal of transcending these ways)
25;
Cn re,ecting the
world and shunning the self-glorifying image of the ascetic athlete( they constructed norms
that avoided sin without policing a fi#ed way of holiness) Not only did the mon*s form a rule
for themselves( but they were then ambivalent in their relationship to this rule)
Ct is difficult to avoid the fact( however( that the way of the desert was a way of
holiness) Ct is not a simple matter to be adhere to a religious way of life with no appeal to
Bod) The norms of the desert were religious norms( and were ,ustified by theological and
scriptural reasoning) Monastic practical apophaticism renounced the world in historically
specific ways) They re,ected worldly norms of eating and wor*( and then embraced
disciplines of regular fasts and particular occupations 0e)g) rope bas*ets2) The negative
theology of the desert fathers had a uni.ueness that we are ,ustified in calling its cataphatic
element)
258
Palladius( $. 3aus.: PPP=CC ?arapion 53) "f) also the gra&er abba ?ophronios who went na*ed for seventy
years6 Moschus( prat.: 5:)
25;
This is the burden of 2emra 53 of lib. grad.)
48
1.): *m$t" !ools: +ainglor"
7n the basis of this analysis of the theology of early "hristian ascetics( we may now
turn to the case of the holy fools) !hat *ind of renunciation to they embrace$ Cs their practical
apophaticism more or less consistent than that of other early "hristian ascetics$ To what
e#tent do they stand in continuity with the renunciation of the desert fathers and mothers$ Do
they ta*e up elements of constructive renunciation( or do they tend towards transcending
those constructions$
7ne of the most nuanced accounts given of holy fools is to be found in an article by
Bilbert Dagron about honour in the %y&antine world)
25
>e sees the behaviour of the fools in
terms of an ascetic defence against vainglory) The monastic vice of vainglory is described as
essentially becoming a part of the honour system of the world) !hilst honour and shame have
been important factors constituting the world of the <astern Mediterranean( Dagron claims
that holy fools are characterised by their transcendence of them)
As such( their holiness consists in an intervention precisely at the point of norm-
ma*ing activity) They do not simply transgress rules( but deny the validity of their
recommendation) 9or the command Hbe honourable+ is li*e Hbe good+ or Hbe rational+) Ct has
no content( but denying its validity is part of the revaluation of all honour-based norms)
=ainglory is a particularly pernicious temptation( as it appears precisely when
someone has done something right 0even by obeying2) H1i*e the sun which shines on all ali*e(
vainglory beams on every occupation)+
220
Cn order to avoid it( religious have to be completely
unaware of their own goodness( which re.uires a certain degree of self-alienation) The holy
fools( by accepting insults( transgressing identity-mar*ing laws of the church( and hiding all
their virtues( achieve this to a uni.ue e#tent)
Dagron+s analysis is persuasive( and gets to the heart of one of the techni.ues of
renunciation among "hristian ascetics( namely the activation of the observant surroundings)
This ascetic practice consisted of a close accountability of the "hristian to his or her
confessor) A good mon* is a watched mon*)
The way this wor*ed in practice( as we *now( formed the beginnings of the general
discipline of regular confession)
225
Mon*s sift through their thoughts in order to evaluate
them) They suspect their thoughts and classify them by verbalising them( and telling them to
25
Dagron( 50)
220
"limacus( scal.: ?tep 22 ' cf) also ?tep 2 and 24 <vagrius( de mal. cog.: / <vagrius( e5cerpts: 3/ <vagrius( de
orat.: 8 %arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 28; Ma#imus( carit. 1=4: CC)/:( CCC):)
225
cf) 9oucault( 2000cL5;2M 9oucault( 2000aL5;/M on this)
4;
another) The emphasis is not ,ust on ma*ing right ,udgements( but on being e#haustive)
222
No
thought must be allowed to get through the net) All must be revealed)
!henever the demon troubles you( come to me( and this will rebu*e him( and so he will go
away) Nothing troubles the demon of lust more than laying bare his urgings) Nothing pleases
him more than the concealment of the temptation) <leven times the brother went to the hermit(
and blamed himself for his imaginings 01atin6 cogitationes2
22/
?o mon*s and nuns would present themselves to the scrutiny of their spiritual advisors
in order to produce a *ind of bodily discipline of self-mastery( conscientising themselves so
as not to uncritically accept the sins of the age or of their tradition) Cn this respect( the
confessor too* the place of the eye of Bod)
223
Mon*s would also activate the function of
societal honour and shame in order to strengthen their moral resolve) The form of the moral
rule was6 do not do anything that you would be ashamed to do before Bod6
>e said to her( H"ome with me)+ !hen they came to a crowded place( he said to her(
H"ome on( C will lie with you here as you wanted)+ ?he loo*ed round at the crowd and said(
H>ow can we do it here( with all these people standing round$ !e should be ashamed)+ >e
said( HCf you blush before men( should you not blush the more before Bod( who discloses the
hidden things of dar*ness$+
22:
Ct is this tendency that also caught @risteva+s attention in her reading of "hristian
asceticism( as e#emplified by ?t Anthony)
224
Mon*s would spend their entire lives e#amining
themselves as if their confessor were actually present) Through verbalising their thoughts(
they would place themselves in a realm of a specific public morality( even when alone in their
cell)
Biven time( the physical presence of the confessor became less essential than the
imagination of one) ?o mon*s constitute the presence of a ,udge ' and thereby of Bod ' in
order to discipline themselves)
228
Ct is in this *ind of framewor* that we may understand the
222
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Anthony /; O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: PC)2) This demand does not seem to have
continued long) Dohn specifically contradicts it in %arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 54:)
22/
Hsed magis( .uoties molestus est daemon( veni ad me( et increpatus abscedet) Nihil enim sic e#taediat
daemonem fornicationis( .uomodo si revelentur stimulationes e,us) <t nihil eum sic laetificat( .uomodo si
abscondantur cogitationes) =enit ergo frater ad senem undecies( accusans cogitationes suas)+ &pop$. Patr. 83at9:
=)5/ O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: =)54 02) "f) also "assianus( de institutis: C=)i#)
223
cf) also the Aule of %enedict C=)3( where every mon* should *now for certain that Bod sees him in every
place 0in omni loco Deum se respicere pro certo scire2( and its e.uivalent in %asil of "aesarea6 %asilius( renuntK
on the perspective of Bod as a techni.ue of morality( cf) Thomas( 2004a Thomas( 200;)
22:
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: P)25 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P)24 O &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: <phrem /) <picurus had this
role for his disciples well after his death ' cf) the discussion in >adot( 2002L5:M6 523)
224
@risteva( 5;2L5;0M6 5/0)
228
Cmagining the face of the superior is an e#pression of obedience in6 "limacus( scal.: ?tep 3)
4
contemplation of final ,udgement throughout one+s life)
22;
7nly Bod can be a right ,udge( so
thin*ing of self ,udgement involves thin*ing of Bod+s ,udgement)
Ct is at this point that the practice of negative theology can be inserted) Cf Bod is
defined by all the good values shared by one particular group of people( then shame in the
face of Bod will generate e#actly the same behaviour as shame in the face of that society)
>owever( if one+s theology includes a divergence between shared values and the character of
Bod( then the behaviour produced by the two forms of shame will be different) The desert
fathers and mothers are certainly characterised by their prioritisation of Bod over society)
That prioritisation would however have no effect whatsoever were it not for the content of
their theology) ?ince the apophatic theology of early "hristian ascetics disallows defining
Bod by the values of the city( the behaviour produced by the observing confessor and Bod is
.uite different from the manners of the city)
As 9oucault observed concerning the "ynic "rates(
22
the radically observable life can
be e#pressed both as conformed to norms and as shamelessness) "ynics were shameless
because their values were not those of the masses) <arly "hristian ascetics could be shameless
because they did not see* the praise of men and women( but of an un*nown Bod) ?o in the
story about abba <phrem .uoted here( it is the mon* that is ready to do something outrageous
before people( while the prostitute will not) Ascetics that abandon the world no longer blush
before the scandal of society(
2/0
but bring their sins before the ,udgement of a superior( or
companion) Cn this way they deny the honourSshame system of the world( only in order to
embrace the hidden honour of the *ingdom of Bod)
<ven this re,ection is not enough for the holy fool) Precisely because this form of
confession and openness is a solution to the problem of honour and shame( it allows for the
danger of vainglory) HAll recognised virtue is suspect6 so one must go beyond communal
discipline which reintroduces honour under cover of imitation( beyond individual ascetic
e#ploits which arouse admiration)+
2/5
=ainglory can only be defeated if the honour of both the
world and the desert are transcended) The holy fool does not blush before the world( or before
holy people( or anyone else)
22;
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Anthony //( Agathon 2( <vagrius 5( "ronius /( ?ilvanus 2)
22
9oucault 2006 2/3f)
2/0
As pointed out by the mon* who challenged the nun to put all her clothes onto her head in Palladius( $. 3aus.:
PPP=CC) ?imilarly( a mon* who goes bac* on his intention to sleep with a religious woman is then e#horted by
her not to Hlet shame get the better+ of him in Moschus( prat.: 203)
2/5
Dagron( 506 //f( my translation)
80
Dagron is therefore interpreting holy fools as a particular *ind of Hsecret saint)+
Ma#imus the "onfessor appeals to secrecy as the solution to vainglory(
2/2
and the holy fool
hagiography is associated with the related category of secret saints( who hide their good
wor*s from others in cunning ways) The story of Mar* the holy fool( for e#ample( is followed
by the story of a mon* mas.uerading as a blind beggar( a nun feigning drun*enness 0who
resembles Csidora2( and two cross-dressing nuns)
2//
Cn these stories( praise is offered to Bod
Hwho alone *nows how many secret servants he has)+
2/3
This analysis has advantages over its rivals)
2/:
The first is that it is substantial6 instead
of simply noting the parallels with contemporary asceticism( it applies colour to the
comparison) Ct places the holy fools in a robust understanding of their ascetic conte#t) The
second advantage is that it fits well with the reading of asceticism given above concerning the
pattern in early asceticism of renunciation accompanied by a tension between a specific form
and transcendence of that form) According to Dagron( the holy fools are simply ta*ing the
element of transcendence seriously( following through the original impetus of ascetics to
renounce all forms of honour system) As an e#ample( see %arsanuphius+ response to
compliments6
%rother( through you the ?cripture has been fulfilled in me that says6 HMy people( those who
praise you are deceiving you(+ and so on) ?uch a compliment does not permit us to loo* upon
the shame of our very own countenance) 9or C believe that it is harmful even for those who have
reached some measure( since it removes them from faith in Bod) 9or it is said( H>ow can you
believe in me when you accept glory from one another$+ Therefore( those who ac.uire the
humility of the Apostle will instead choose foolishness for themselves( in order that afterwards
they might become wise)
2/4
?o( for e#ample( where mon*s and nuns renounce the world by wearing e#tremely
simple clothing( the holy fools continue their renunciation of all forms of vainglory by
renouncing monastic clothing too) ?ymeon ta*es off his belt( then his habit(
2/8
and Csidora
leaves her veil ' ,ust as defining as the habit was for mon*s
2/;
' to wrap a rag around her
2/2
Ma#imus( carit. 1=4: CCC)42( C=)3/( C=)3)
2//
". dan. scet.
2/3
". dan. scet.: :( echoed in Moschus( prat.: /8) "f) also 50; and 555 on the same theme)
2/:
for e#ample @rueger( 54 9euerstein( 55 Borainoff( 5;/ !are( 2000 AydRn( 5;5 ?award( 5;0
9rGyshov( 200/ ?yr*in( 5;2)
2/4
%arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 524) "f) also Moschus( prat.: 550) The same verse is .uoted for the same
reason in &pop$. Patr. 8anon9: 20:)
2/8
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)53:( 53;)
2/;
%rown( 5;;6 240f)
85
head)
2/
Ct is a thought precisely in line with the consideration of clothes summarised above
0cf) over( on page 4:2) The fools neglect ascetic morality in order not to be proud of *eeping
to the code)
Cn other words( the holy fools+ re,ection of vainglory is of a piece with early "hristian
ascetic practical apophaticism) Aecognition of religious goodness is also constructive
theology) Ct claims to have identified an unambiguous and univocal aspect of Bod+s goodness)
%y transcending both the world+s norms and those of the religious life( holy fools establish a
practice of the ongoing denial of norms) !henever ascetic renunciation rests by asserting a
Iroyal wayJ( it is denied by the holy fool and her accusation of vainglory)
There are( however( certain problems with Dagron+s suggestion) Cn his article( he
argues that the fools appear at the intersection of the interpretation of the Pauline trope of
Hfools for "hrist+
230
( the social phenomenon of madness( and the moral reflection on honour
that ta*es place in the casuistry of vainglory 01atin6 "ana gloriaK Bree*6 ,enodo5ia2) The
interpretation of Paul in terms of the phenomenon of madness seems undeniable6 whatever the
meaning of the word salosSsalA in Bree*( the holy fools are also called mad 0Htouched+ '
1atin6 .atua2( and Paul is .uoted to e#plain them)
The casuistry of vainglory is more difficult to discern in their behaviour) True enough(
holy fools call down dishonour upon themselves(
235
and hide their virtue(
232
which appear to
be standard defences against vainglory( but it is less certain that they were seen as shameful
and immoral people) Their actions can ,ust as easily be seen as ultra-holy acts( however
inconvenient or embarrassing) Cn fact( parallels to the practice of the desert fathers would
suggest that the narrators of their lives would not have been the only ones to have considered
them as holy people in their society) The children that ?ymeon first encountered did
immediately recognise him as Ha cra&y abba+) <vagrius ?cholasticus( after having introduced
?ymeon as one who hid his virtue in order to avoid vainglory 0confirming Dagron2( then goes
on to recount stoc* proofs of his holiness that were witnessed by the general public6 the
accusation of fathering a childK
23/
maintaining celibacy whilst visiting prostitutes(
233
and
2/
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: P=CCC)5 Palladius( $. 3aus.: PPC=)5)
230
similarly =ogt( 5;8)
235
&pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P=C)5)
232
9or e#hortations and e#amples of the deployment of secrecy against vainglory in the early ascetic tradition( cf)
&pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: =CCC)4 %arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 2:8)
23/
cf) &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P=)2: O &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Macarius the Breat 5 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P=)/
and Palladius( $. 3aus.: 1PP UThe 1ector "alumniatedU
233
e)g) &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Dohn the Dwarf 30 and ?erapion 5 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: PCCC)58 and P=CC)/3
82
prophecy) !e cannot e#plain the entire account of 1eontius( for e#ample( with the concept of
vainglory)
At this point the analysis becomes more complicated( because we have to distinguish
between varieties of transgression) Ct is fairly simple to trace the roots of a positive morality(
but what distinctions can be made in a lac* of morality$ This problem lies at the root of many
unnuanced accounts of holy foolery)
23:
Cn order to describe this domain of anti-morality(
consider the forms of renunciation in the following story6
A brother settled outside his village and did not return there for many years) >e said to the
brethren( H?ee how many years it is since C went bac* to the village( while you often go up
there)+ This was told to Abba Poemen and the old man said( HC used to go bac* up there at night
and wal* all round my village( so that the thought of not having gone up there would not cause
me vain-glory)+
234
>ere we clearly find a case of monastic life outside the desert that is ,ustified by the
casuistry of vainglory6 Poemen transgresses the general rule in order to remember his
limitations) The reasoning is specifically not based on a test of endurance) >e goes there at
night so as not to be tempted by people) The effect it has is upon Poemen himself( to
demonstrate his own limitations and his attachment to a place) "ompare this with the account
of another transgression of space rules in the form of the Bra&ers( whose way of life ?ymeon
the fool embraced in the first part of 1eontius+ account( before becoming a holy fool)
238
Another mode has also been devised( one which reaches to the utmost e#tent of resolution and
endurance6 for transporting themselves to a scorched wilderness( and covering only those parts
which nature re.uires to be concealed( both men and women leave the rest of their persons
e#posed both to e#cessive frosts and scorching blasts( regardless ali*e of heat and cold) They(
moreover( cast off the ordinary food of man*ind( and feed upon the produce of the ground(
whence they are termed Bra&ersK allowing themselves no more than is barely sufficient to
sustain life)
23;
This way of life also transgresses the rule of the place of the cell( but they do so
simply because they can) The motivation is e#treme renunciation( transcendence of human
society( and the ascetic life)
23:
in particular( 9euerstein( 55 and ?award( 5;0)
234
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Poemen 550) "f) also &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Matoes 5/ O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: PC)8)
238
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C)5//( CC)5/8) 9or more on gra&ers( cf) Moschus( prat.: 5( 25( 2( 52( 5:( 548)
23;
<vagrius ?cholasticus( $.e.: C)25)
8/
%oth these spatial transgressions are based in a form of renunciation( the one
renouncing the discipline of the cell to avoid vainglory( and the other renouncing it in order to
transcend human order)
The crucial .uestion is6 which form of renunciation is e#emplified by the holy fools$
"ertainly the avoidance of vainglory is a *ey issue in <vagrius ?cholasticus+ treatment of
?ymeon) There are also elements of this motivation in the story of Csidora)
23
1eontius(
however( portrays the life of ?ymeon as one heroic renunciation after another) Ct is telling that
the return to the city that forms the fulcrum of the story and starts off the foolish antics is not
for the benefit of the ascetic+s soul ' to remind him of his human nature and defend against
vainglory ' but for the sa*e of the city itself)
H!hat more benefit do we derive( brother( from passing time in this desert$ %ut if you hear me(
get up( let us departK let us save others) 9or as we are( we do not benefit anyone e#cept
ourselves( and have not brought anyone else to salvation)+
2:0
This addition to Dagron+s thesis is confirmed by his best support( <vagrius
?cholasticus) Cn the chapter that describes the Bra&ers( he continues by recounting another
category of ascetic that lived in the city and hid their e#treme asceticism( in words that
indicate holy fools( not least by their similarity to his chapter on ?ymeon6
2:5
they bath with
members of the opposite se#( eat when they are not supposed to( and disregard clothing
conventions) Cnterestingly( though( he says that these ascetics represent a combination of the
ways of life of the Bra&ers and of communal ascetics of the laurae 0coenobitic settlements2)
This combination has to be further specified( however) !e may argue for a continuity
between early "hristian asceticism and the holy fools) Ct cannot be denied( however( that they
e#emplify a particularly e#treme version of that asceticism) !hereas mon*s had spent nights
in prayer with prostitutes( ?ymeon sits on their bac* while they whip himK some ascetics
spend months in silence( while the holy fool never spea*s a word of senseK desert religious
hide their virtue( but the holy fool transgresses all rules of good conduct and disappears as
soon as any of their virtues are discovered) ?ymeon and Mar* the fool dieK
2:2
Csidora
disappears into the wilderness) The problem this raises for our thesis is that it is precisely
23
Palladius( $. 3aus.: PPC=)5 &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P=CCC)5)
2:0
1eontius( ". 1ym.: CCC)532)
2:5
"ompare <vagrius ?cholasticus( $.e.: C)25 with C=)/3) Cvanov says that <vagrius ?cholasticus is being
disingenuous and Hrefusing to call a spade a spade+ - Cvanov( 2004L53M6 505) Ct is rather more li*ely that the
holy fool simply did not represent a commonly recognisable category for his readership)
2:2
". dan. scet.: 2)
83
e#treme ascetic acts that are eschewed by those trying to combat vainglory) Mon*s who are
too ascetic are criticised)
A brother came in and saw that they were drin*ing wine( and fled up on to a roof( and the roof
fell in) !hen they heard the noise( they ran and found the brother lying half dead) They began to
blame him( saying( HCt served you right( you were guilty of vainglory)+
2:/
The number of sayings in the apop$t$egmata patrum that mention vainglory
specifically is not great( despite the prominence of the theme) There are many further
instances where the thought lies behind the te#t as a motivating factor( however) The story of
Poemen and the village above is one) The ,ustification of uniformity on the grounds that it
does not set one above others is another 0cf) over( on page ::2) Cn fact( it could be argued that
this is the motivation of all the instances of an ascetic playing down or hiding their virtue)
?imple obedience to a master was generally considered sufficient and sufficiently insane for
the tas* of overcoming the temptation to evaluate oneself) Dramatic feats of madness were
unnecessarily ostentatious)
in accordance with the Apostle+s precept( ma*e yourself foolish in this world so that you may be
wise by scrutini&ing nothing and e#amining nothing of what has been en,oined on youK instead(
always e#hibit an obedience characteri&ed by utter simplicity and faith( ,udging only that as
holy( useful( and wise which the law of Bod or the deliberation of your elder has imposed on
you) 7nce you have been well established by training of this *ind( you will be able( under this
discipline( to abide forever( and you will not be drawn away from the cenobium by any trials of
the enemy or by any factions)
2:3
The point here is that the holy fools+ transcendence of the positive elements of ascetic
renunciation does not fit with the techni.ues employed to avoid vainglory amongst "hristian
ascetics) ?ure enough( the life of the holy fools does indeed meet the challenge of vainglory6
the problem that every time one does something good( one is aware of it can be solved by a
dissociation of the self) >owever( the casuistry of vainglory that is to be found in the conte#t
of <astern monasticism does not solve the problem in this way) Ct stops short at hiding virtue(
feigning vice and ' most importantly ' eschewing e#treme acts of asceticism)
2:/
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: C=):3 - and the parallel that ,ustifies the vain mon* in &pop$. Patr. 8anon9: 54K cf) also the
tale of the e#treme nun who closed herself in her cell and denied all lu#ury before falling through vainglory
0|tvoo_io26 Palladius( $. 3aus.: PP=CCC)
2:3
"assianus( de institutis: C=)35)/) "f) also the e#ample of brother Csidore who endured the dishonour of
standing by the gate and falsely claiming to be epileptic 0HEu_oi utp tou, otp, oi tiiqi|o, tii+26
"limacus( scal.: ?tep 3) "limacus elsewhere complains HC dress well or badly( and am vainglorious in either
case+ 0step 222)
8:
1.,: -istracting .oliness: -issociation
Ct is perhaps because the problem of vainglory was solved at a different level that the
holy fools were free to show their asceticism so freely) %ecause they e#ercised such a degree
of dissociation from the self( they did not have recourse to the methods of compromise
espoused by other early ascetics) They could therefore continue their program of openly
transcending the cataphatic elements of "hristian asceticism unhindered)
Cn this respect( Dagron was right to point out that the holy fools transcended systems
of honour and shame by deploying the motive of secrecy against it) They even appear to have
transcended norms that belong to the ascetic movement from which they sprang) %ut they did
not do this in continuity with early "hristian ascetic techni.ues of humility) Their wor*s seem
all too vainglorious for that) The re,ection of honour and shame is important as a device of
apophaticism( but there is more to be said about their practice)
!hat is the significance of the techni.ue of dissociation in late anti.ue asceticism and
the holy fool stories$ A brief overview of the practices in place in late anti.ue philosophy and
religion as regards perspective upon the world is perhaps in order) Cn particular C want to bring
out the philosophical view from above( the religious separation from the world( and the
internalisation of that separation( ultimately in the holy fools+ ideal of Hmoc*ing the world+)
Pierre >adot has done a great deal of wor* on the tradition of seeing things from
above in historic <uropean philosophy)
2::
9or him( the perspective from above ' or the god+s
eye view( the flight of the soul( the view from universality and ob,ectivity( the view from
nature ' was a hermeneutical *ey to the spiritual e#ercises of the philosophers) Cn order to rid
themselves of the delusions of society( passion( and pre,udice( ancient philosophers from all
schools would ma*e an effort to separate themselves from needs and desires( the very things
that connected them to the world)
This aspect of ancient philosophy is seen by >adot in a number of features of ancient
thought) The gods are thought to dwell on mountains( the sea( and the underworld6 all vantage
points of infinity that place the world) 9antasies of flight( appearing in sources as diverse as
Plato( >omer( "icero( 7vid( 1ucretius( 1ucian( and various cynics
2:4
0we might add ?t) Philip(
Augustine
2:8
( desert fathers(
2:;
and later monastic traditions of flying ascetics
2:
2( are often
2::
The theme appears throughout his wor*( but is most concisely put in >adot( 5:6 ch) )
2:4
sources and bibliography to be found in >adot( 5:)
2:8
e)g) in the ascent with Monica at 7stia in Augustinus( con..: CP)#)2/-24)
2:;
The alphabetical source alone records flying or transported mon*s in the following apophthegmata6 &pop$.
Patr. 8alp$9: Anthony /0( Ammonathas( Dohn the Dwarf 53( Macarius the Breat 53)
2:
$. mon.: P)20)
84
interpreted as the soul+s unbounded vision) Pro,ects within the discipline of physics are
embar*ed upon in order to free thought to travel within and beyond the world) "ynic
philosophers are called Hoverseers+ 0Bree*6 epis,opoi - bishops2 of the world( because they
loo* upon it and ,udge it from such a height)
7ne of the *ey perspectives from which people may see the world( however( was
death) The philosopher should consult with "haron( the gate*eeper of >ades( and die to the
world in order to see it as it is) Cn this way( ancient philosophy had a startlingly modern view
of ob,ectivity6 to see the world as it is( one must adopt the view from nowhere)
These same themes are ta*en up by another historian of late anti.uity( namely Peter
%rown( in his seminal account of the holy man)
240
>ere the conte#t has shifted from the cities
of the Mediterranean to the ?yrian desert) %rown attempts to get beyond the modern disgust
with the seeming dualism and misogyny of "hristian mon*s in order to e#amine the practical
function of these holy men( and their relation to power)
The conclusion arrived at is that the location of the mon*s ' in the desert( the cell( the
tomb(
245
or on the pillar( as with the ?tylites ' is designed to be the opposite pole of human
society)
242
The holy man would attempt to push himself away from all ties to family(
economic interest( and village society) The reason they fled from women was not that women
were disgusting6 they fled women and bishops for fear that they would be fi#ed to a place
within a public order( namely that of priest or of husband)
the holy man drew his powers from outside the human race6 by going to live in the desert( in
close identification with an animal *ingdom that stood( in the imagination of contemporaries(
for the opposite pole of all human society) Perched on his column( nearer to the demons of the
upper air than to human beings( ?ymeon Lthe ?tyliteM was ob,ectivity personified)
24/
Ct is this formation of the opposite pole of human order that constituted the holy man+s
ob,ectivity) Cnsofar as he did not participate in a public order( he could ,udge that order) This
view from the desert 0where the mon* dies to a society2 is a close relative of the philosophical
view from nowhere)
%rown goes one step further though) Cn addition to separation from the world( ascetics
would internalise foreignness in order to become dissociated in themselves) They would
240
%rown( 585)
245
Palladius( $. 3aus.: =)5)
242
beyond all its desires( power( and material concerns6 <vagrius( $ypo.: /)
24/
%rown( 5856 2 ' he ma*es his analysis more precise later( claiming that the mon*s Hmobili&ed+ the
misogyny of the ancient world Has part of a wider strategy+6 %rown( 5;;6 23/ 9or bishops placing mon*s( cf)
also Palladius( $. 3aus.: PC)5
88
cultivate the Hob,ectivity of a stranger+
243
within their own life) This is the meaning of self-
mortification6 not the punishing of the self( or even the elimination of the self( but the gradual
pushing of the self away from what it is meant to regard) Ct is a renunciation of the world and
a construction of ob,ectivity ' as %rown put it( Hthe deep social significance of asceticism as a
long drawn out( solemn ritual of dissociation ' of becoming the total stranger)+
24:
Dissociation wor*s upon ascetics+ *nowledge by not only undermining the value
systems surrounding them( but also by withdrawing them from their own understanding of
morals) Cgnoring others+ moral ,udgement is insufficient to defeat vainglory) The ascetic has
to wage the Hdouble warfare+
244
of ignoring her own moral ,udgement as well6 Hif we feel that
our wor* is pleasing to Bod( X this is the ultimate vainglory in ourselves)+
248
?o the
apophaticism of early "hristian ascetics regarding moral *nowledge has itself a moral
motivation in the casuistry of vainglory) !e do not *now when we have been good because
we refuse to *now) !e refuse to be told)
An old man said( HCf the ba*er does not put blin*ers on the beast of burden( she does not turn the
mill and eats his wagesK so it is with us) %y the divine economy we receive blin*ers which
prevent us from seeing the good we do( from glorifying ourselves and thus losing our reward)
9or this reason we are sometimes handed over to bad thoughts( and we see ourselves in order to
blame ourselves) These bad thoughts become blin*ers for us which hide from us the little good
we do) Cn truth( every time a man blames himself( he does not lose his reward)+
24;
The internalisation of dissociation was all the more important for female ascetics than
for men) !omen were more often deprived of the physical separation of the desert that
reminded them of their stranger status( so that they had to be particular over the activities of
dissociation( rather than its location)
24
Ct is perhaps for this reason that the one most
concerned with inner dissociation among the desert fathers and mothers is amma ?yncletia6 a
woman of the desert) Cn her gathered sayings( she is particularly concerned with the practice
of spiritual e#ercises
280
and the regulation of food and word)
285
?he is also very particular
about the interior life(
282
which outweighs the importance of the desert for her)
243
%rown( 5856 - foreignness is recommended in &pop$. Patr. 8anon9: 583( 2/4 <vagrius( $ypo.: /
%arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: :: Moschus( prat.: 52)
24:
%rown( 5856 "limacus( scal.: ?tep /)
244
%arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: /23)
248
%arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 45)
24;
&pop$. Patr. 8anon9: 55)
24
%rown( 5;;6 24f)
280
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: ?yncletia 8( ;( 52( 5:( )
285
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: ?yncletia 3( ;( ( 5:)
282
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: ?yncletia 52( 5( 23)
8;
Amma ?yncletica said( HThere are many who live in the mountains and behave as if they were
in the town( and they are wasting their time) Ct is possible to be a solitary in one+s mind while
living in a crowd( and it is possible for one who is a solitary to live in the crowd of his own
thoughts)+
28/
Through these forms of life( therefore( we may arrive at an understanding of the
dissociation involved in the holy fool+s Hmoc*ing the world+) Ascetics within society have to
be careful to dissociate themselves from that society by non-geographical means) They must
carry the desert within them( and thrust themselves against society( thus pushing their own
self away from it)
1aughing in this instance is a techni.ue of distancing oneself) >adot records the
laughter of flying souls when they see the world from a distance)
283
9ools carry this *ind of
distance within themselves( rendering the world ridiculous) The fool attempted to retain
ob,ectivity by a dissociation of the self( constructed as the preservation of the unmoved soul6
%ut if L533M you receive strength entirely from Bod( brother( so that whatever the forms( or
words( or actions the body ma*es( your mind and your heart remain unmoved and untroubled
and in no way are defiled or harmed by them( truly C re,oice in your salvation(
28:
The holy fools use the techni.ues of early "hristian asceticism ' in the tradition and
development of ancient philosophy ' to dissociate themselves from the world) The real
development they ma*e is that they include in their understanding of the world the place that
has been allocated to the holy man)
284
The holy fool dissociates from the desert( ascetic
e#ercise( and church practice( as they were being affirmed in the society of ancient
"hristianity) The motivation for this can be thought of both as a renunciation of honour and
vainglory( and as an apophatic denial of the specific forms of religion( the former in
continuity with the program of the desert fathers and mothers( and the latter in discontinuity
with it)
Ct is only once we have understood the holy fools+ re,ection of both worlds ' that of
the city and that of the desert ' that we gain a framewor* to understand their theology) Cn
following the Bod who was without place( the fools eluded all identification) They refused to
be placed) Cn order to become strangers to themselves( and to therefore draw near to Bod( they
28/
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: ?yncletia 5 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: CC)28 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: CC)53 0where it is
altered somewhat and attributed to Matrona( possibly a translation of UammaU2
283
>adot( 5:6 234)
28:
1eontius( ". 1ym.: CCC)53/fK cf) also the longer .uotation above( on page 30)
284
9or a discussion on the problem of becoming placed as similar and e#otic( cf) below on page 5/;)
8
had to re,ect community( ,udgement( and convention) The fool would do precisely what the
early "hristian ascetics did( all over again( this time renouncing religion)
Dust as ascetics re,ect the community of the world in order to embrace solitude( the
fools renounced community tout court) Anthony had fled to the desert) ?ymeon the holy fool
' following a similar pattern ' went further and further into solitude( re,ecting cenobitic
monasticism for the life of the hermit) ?ymeon+s re,ection of community is a pursuit of the
Bod of the desert( of no-place)
288
After Anthony( however( Hthe desert became a city+)
28;
!ith steadily more monastic
communities being planted( even those who had not espoused the community life of the
cenobites had to consider their relationship to their neighbour) More importantly for our
purposes( the desert ascetics+ homes had become places of pilgrimages) Ct is to this *ind of
,ourney that we owe a good deal of our literature about these ascetics on the edges of society)
%oth "assian+s wor* and the 6istoria 2onac$orum in &egypto are essentially accounts of
travellers that went from settlement to settlement in order to sit at the feet of the great spiritual
masters)
Cn line with the monastic habit of abandoning ,udgement( the fools abandon all
authoritative ,udgement 0apart from when insulting everyone they met( of courseV2) The desert
fathers and mothers would avoid magistrates li*e the plague(
28
and cover over any sins they
happened to witness) ?imilarly the holy fools would accept abuse without resisting(
2;0
and
overturn the ,udgements they found in place( abusing those considered to be holy 0those in
church(
2;5
those observing religious orders
2;2
2 and embracing those thought unholy
0prostitutes( demon-possessed2)
2;/
The radical separation espoused by the desert fathers had not been continued by holy
men and women of later generations who settled in the Palestinian desert) ?ymeon ?tylites(
for e#ample( whilst embracing a serenity and a detachment far greater than the heroes of the
<gyptian desert( also regularly dispensed ,udgement concerning disputes in the secular world)
Cndeed( this seems to have been a ma,or function of the holy man in the early middle ages(
according to Peter %rown)
2;3
>oliness was no longer identified with renunciation and
288
1eontius( ". 1ym.: CC)5/8)
28;
Athanasius( ". &nton.: 53)
28
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Arsenius 8( Poemen :( ( ?imon 2)
2;0
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)538f)
2;5
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)53:f)
2;2
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)5:/)
2;/
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)542)
2;3
%rown( 5856 /)
;0
e#clusion6 it had found a place in the world( albeit a marginal place in the desert( or on a pole)
Not so ?ymeon the holy fool) As soon as holy fools are placed in a situation of established
reverence( they disappear)
2;:
Dust as the early "hristian ascetics 0and their philosophical predecessors2 attempted to
wor* their way out of the conventions of the world( the holy fools also re,ect established
religious and philosophical functions) !e saw above that the desert ascetics mar*ed
themselves out with their location( their prayer( and their clothing) ?imilarly( the holy fools
ignored conventions of mar*et( table fellowship( and mar*ing time in their way of life)
Cn the ?yria of ?ymeon the holy fool( however( the asceticism of the desert fathers was
no longer something that made them offensive to the world) The cycle of psalms and liturgy
had become a part of church life( and state life) The monastic garb could be easily recognised(
and located)
2;4
Monasticism had become a part of the life of the city) The holy fools 0and here
we have to draw a sharp distinction between those of late anti.uitySearly middle ages and
those of the %y&antine Middle Ages( cf) above( on page 502 have no place in the economy of
the world6 they do not bless people( and they do not accept re.uests) They say no liturgy( and
play no part in the public life of the church)
Cn these ways( the holy fool returns <astern monasticism to its roots in the <gyptian
desert by refusing to become a part of the world) They re,ect the community of saints( refuse
holy ,udgement( and abandon all mar*ers of holiness) The structure of their life echoes the
Hnot then X not there X not that+ of negative theology)
Cn denying the Bod-reference of religious space( however( they also refuse the Iroyal
wayJ that allows practical theology to rest after its renunciation) !here early "hristian
ascetics concentrated on one negation ' that of the holiness of the world ' the holy fools hold
to an entire series of negations6 neither the good "hristian life( nor that of the monastery( nor
that of desert solitude( nor even that of the fool in the city may represent Bod) Neither
assertion nor renunciation is safe)
This is perhaps the holy fools+ practical solution to the speculative problem posed by
Denys the Areopagite+s idea that Bod is Hbeyond assertion and denial+)
2;8
Cnstead of collapsing
the two into one practice( the holy fools insist on a continued habit of laughter( denial( and
renunciation)
2;:
<#pressed most clearly in the case of HCsidora+ the nun6 &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P=CCC)5 Palladius( $. 3aus.:
PPPC=)8) The motif of a "hristian disappearing from the world in flight from honour is common in the
literature6 &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Philagrios 5 &pop$. Patr. 8anon9: 42( 584 "assianus( de institutis: C=)/0)
2;4
%asilius( reg. .us.: .uestion 22)
2;8
Denys Areopagitus( myst. 503;%) 9or a discussion of this te#t( cf) below( on page 53:)
;5
Cn embracing the continuous practice of ascetic and theological denial( the holy fool
comes close to @ola*ows*i+s type of the ,ester that opposes the priest) !hilst the latter
attempts to re-state truths in the culture of each age( the ,ester laughs each time and points out
his complete failure)
The ,ester+s philosophy always has the same role6 it reveals the sha*iness of the seemingly
unsha*eable and casts doubt on the seemingly certainK it e#poses the contradictions of the
seemingly obvious( the self-evident( the incontrovertibleK it ridicules accepted common sense
and discovers truths in absurdities)
2;;
!hilst the point may seem facile( the practice of continuous re-statement and re,ection
in the presence of an un*nown Bod has a good pedigree) The statement about Bod+s
transcendence of assertion and denial is after all part of the conclusion( rather than the
beginning( of Denys+ 2ystical #$eology( and he himself follows it up by a simple statement
of what he does as a theologianK H!e ma*e assertions and denials of what is ne#t to it+)
2;
No
silence( then( or even a re-instatement of a new transcendent theological discourse) ?imply
further assertion and denial around Bod( li*e a beautiful( and needless dance)
There is also a good deal of e#egetical support for the idea that the holy fools are
ascetics who try not to occupy a place in their search for a genuinely transcendent Bod) !e
could even say that their holiness is not to be found in space( leaving their madness to the
world) Cn trying to be holy and without space( they ta*e mortification to an e#treme point)
1et me describe for you a cra&y person( so that when you see a cra&y one who treats himself
with contempt and does not own a house or a wife and any property( not even Le#traM garments
besides his clothes( nor food apart from a day-to-day LsupplyM( say( HThese are my Lways of lifeM
and C should imitate them+) !hen you see him tal*ing insanely with everyone ' and LifM he
establishes a law for himself so that he may not become angry in order not to be found at fault(
and LifM he despises the wisdom LofM the wise sage of the world and the philosopher because he
is contemptuous of whatever is visible ' say( HThese are mine( this is the madness of the
apostles+)
20
2;;
@ola*ows*i 2003 L5:M6 240)
2;
Denys Areopagitus( myst. 503;%) A more systematic statement of the tas* of cautious denial and foolish
assertion is given below( on page 53:)
20
lib. grad.: P=C)8( s.uare brac*ets original)
;2
A crucial point( made by de "erteau( is that the fools are not seductive)
25
They do not
invite others to their way of life) "ontrary to the impression given by the continuing tradition(
%y&antine holy fools do not ta*e disciples)
The desert masters all too* disciples( who would then copy their way of life) They
were often reluctant to do so( and sometimes even seemed to repel their disciples) %ut it was
broadly understood that this was the way of things( so that when a disciple does not feel he is
learning anything( he can with ,ustification complain to the other mon*s of the area)
22
>oly
fools do not have disciples that copy their way of life) They live in solitude socially as well as
physically)
Ct is more than that( however) The holy fools do not simply decline to ta*e disciples)
They repel followers) Those who admire them are called fools( and receive nothing but abuse)
They hide their way of life( so that no-one can copy it) They live in secret and eat in secret) Ct
is impossible to ta*e up their way of life)
The only person who can even witness the holiness of the holy fools is a phantom
narrator 0to the narrator2) This is a trope of the hagiographical genre(
2/
and is re.uired for the
logic of the story6 if no-one at all recognised the holiness of the fool( then neither would the
narrator *now about it) Dohn the Deacon becomes ?ymeon the 9ool+s witness and supposedly
tells his story to the hagiographer( 1eontius of Neapolis)
The narrator could presumably not ta*e that place himself6 that would be to boast of
his own discernment over against that of the inhabitants of <mesa) ?o it is only natural that
the person pic*ed to be the phantom narrator tends to be a highly-placed member of the
church) >is merit is great( but only earned through his recognition of the fool( never his own
foolishness) >e does not emulate ?ymeon+s behaviour)
The witness does not get away from the fool+s abuse either6 if anything( he becomes a
target for it) Ct is in the witness+ presence that the fool strips na*ed
23
K it is the witness+ friend
who gets beaten up by the foolK
2:
he is fre.uently called an idiot and shares the blame for
half the things ?ymeon ?alos does) Cn this respect( the fool treats him li*e any other6 he is part
of the city order)
25
"erteau( 586 :/4)
22
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Csaac( Priest of the "ells 2) The problem is also raised in %arsanuphius and Cohannes(
resp.: 52/
2/
Dagron( 506 // @rueger( 546 2/)
23
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)53;)
2:
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)53)
;/
The witness does not share the life of the fool) !hilst he does invite him to the baths(
?ymeon the fool ma*es a point out of mar*ing their differences) They never share fasts( nor
do they act the fool together( e#cept insofar as ?ymeon ,oins in with communal games) They
are not together( even though he is a privileged observer)
Ct is perhaps for these reasons that Dagron claims that the narrator does not reveal
?ymeon+s holiness to the world in the story) >e is a witness who doesn+t see) %ecause there is
no sign in the story that ?ymeon has not received the secrecy he as*s for)
24
That secrecy is at
least a part of the story that remains intact)
>e is li*e an eye hidden away at the bottom of a consciousness which only allows
ob,ectivisation in a story of what would ordinarily stay forever concealed)
28
9urther support for the interpretation of the fools+ holiness as being the practice of a
non-place is found in the manner of the fool+s death) The revelation of holiness and the fool+s
disappearance 0or death2 coincide) Cn the case of Csidora( her holiness is divinely revealed( so
she disappears into the desert) Cn the case of ?ymeon the holy fool( he dies( and so his
holiness is revealed 0his body even disappears( and only then do people come to their senses
and tell each other of his holy deeds2)
2;
The obvious interpretation here is that it is only when the fool+s foolishness has
disappeared( when sShe has entirely disappeared( that the holiness can be recognised) Their
holiness and their foolishness can not occupy the same space) 7nly when there is no longer a
place mar*er for the holy can it be captured) Notice in particular that the holiness can not even
be tied down to the relics of the saint)
Cf we set this practice of death in the conte#t of the ascetic practices of late anti.uity
though( the picture becomes star*er) As we saw over 0on pages 34 and 842( the ancients would
use the concept of death to gain a clearer perspective on their life) ?ecular philosophers would
consider their life from the point of view of death 0the view from nowhere2( and early
"hristian ascetics would bring the final ,udgement to bear in their self-assessment throughout
their life) ?imilarly( the asceticism of the desert sought to push the self to the margins 0in
death( in the desert( in the sea2( in order to see the whole) 9or the holy fools( the truth about
themselves was not revealed until they had been pushed beyond the margins to occupy no
space) 7nce again( the fools have embraced the apophatic impetus of "hristian asceticism and
24
1eontius( ". 1ym.: CCC)533)
28
Dagron( 506 //( my translation)
2;
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)54;)
;3
radicalised it( refusing its constructive norms) They embraced not the practice of death( but
death itself)
This gives us a conte#t for understanding the non-seductive nature of the holy fools+
way of life) No-one can occupy their space in the world because it is no space) They have not
created a category in the world( but attempted to eradicate one) To want to be a holy fool is to
want death) Ct is to want to leave the world)
Cn these ways( fools adopt a practice of negative theology) They are not seductiveK they
are not spo*en about or witnessed toK their holiness is only seen in their deathK they occupy no
space) At each point( we see the holy fools using ascetic techni.ues to follow a transcendent
Bod) They identify the theology driving the norm of the religious society that places even the
asceticism of the desert( and they deny it) They undermine the holiness of their
contemporaries and push their own holiness off the edge) They follow the Bod who has no
place)
?trictly spea*ing( writing must end here) Cf fools attempt to write themselves out of
history( it is futile to attempt to describe them and categorise them) All success in that tas*
will simply mar* failure in their tas*) Cf they are trying to construct a practice of
apophaticism( then a description of that practice will inevitably be confused 0,ust as the
narrative of these stories inevitably becomes unstable2)
?o identifying the holy fools will always be a case of showing what they have avoided)
There can be no positive criteria for entry into the class until the fools meet their ultimate
failure in institutionalisation) Their view from nowhere( however( does have the effect of
circumscribing the world( ma*ing the saeculum contingent) Cn identifying themselves as not
of the world( they have an effect on the world+s self understanding)
9or now( the conclusion is clear) The theology of the holy fools forces the contingency
of the theologically driven norms of religious society) Ct challenges the way holiness is placed
and pac*aged by forcing the possibility of a radical apophaticism( subverting the production
of norms of behaviour( consumption( and worship) Ct is not ,ust that we don+t *now who Bod
is( but we don+t *now who we are) Ct is a practice of dissociation from all that is( in order to
embrace the one who is without place)
;:
2: Practised Ignorance
!e may have *nowing of our ?elf in this life by continuant help and virtue of our high Nature)
Cn which *nowing we may e#ercise and grow( by forwarding and speeding of mercy and graceK
but we may never fully *now our ?elf until the last point6 in which point this passing life and
manner of pain and woe shall have an end) And therefore it belongeth properly to us( both by
nature and by grace( to long and desire with all our mights to *now our ?elf in fulness of
endless ,oy)
5

.1: 'ractices of T#oug#t in t#e -esert
Cn discussing the holy fools+ transformation of norms against the bac*ground of the
desert fathers and mothers( feigning madness was considered as a response to the problem of
self-consciousness) !hat *ind of self-*nowledge is it licit for a "hristian to own$ !hilst most
early ascetics avoided vainglory by *eeping their saintly self secret( holy fools were
unashamed of their e#treme renunciation whilst practising such asceticism as to ma*e self-
consciousness impossible) They refuse ethical *nowledge of the self)
There is reason to further this investigation by loo*ing more carefully at the way in
which holy men and women in the patristic period treated moral *nowledge) Cf dissociation
and un*nowing is one method of being unaware of one+s own godliness( what *nowledge is
therefore licit$ Do holy fools leave worldly *nowledge as it is$ ?o we need to move from the
ethics of *nowledge to the *nowledge of ethics and the holy) Cnsofar as such *nowledge is
part of the e#perience of holiness( it will be an important part of our mapping of the
transformation the fools e#erted on that e#perience)
Cn what follows( we will build upon these studies of the practice of practice by turning
towards its awareness( e#pression( and *nowledge) 7nce again( we will not be as*ing so much
Hwhat did the holy fools and early "hristian ascetics *now$+ Cnstead( attention will be turned
towards how *nowledge is arrived at( and ways in which it is e#pressed( criti.ued( and
,udged)
Dust as the transformation of norms was e#amined through the means of producing(
transforming( and assessing forms of life( the transformation of *nowledge of holiness will be
studied through the practices of *nowledge division and production) %y loo*ing at the ways in
5
Dulian( 5056 P1=C)
;4
which *nowledge can be ratified( discounted( and assessed( we identify what could be called
the technology of epistemology) !here all science has its investigative and technological
disciplines( epistemology can be divided into theoretical and applied parts) The one as*s
whether and to what e#tent *nowledge is possible( whereas the other as*s how *nowledge
may be produced and treated) To the e#tent that these pro,ects can be at all separated( our
focus on the transformation of *nowledge dictates that the first be temporarily set aside for
the sa*e of the second) Cn the following( the technology of epistemology will be mapped out
with a view to identifying the ways in which early "hristian ascetics and holy fools transform
the practice of *nowledge)
Cn *eeping with the emphasis of the foregoing( the investigation will be further limited
to the e#pression of values( as they are encapsulated in 0firstly2 the language of ethics( and
0secondly2 the problems of Bod-tal*) <ventually this will enable the ascetic scepticism
towards language and society to emerge) Cn contrast to the above account( though( this will be
presented not in terms of ethical( but of epistemological practice6 the ascetic espousal of
ob,ectivity for the sa*e of truth and god-tal*)
?o in this part( the first theme to receive attention is the constitution and criticism of
ethical *nowledge in terms of praise( blame( and ethical representations) After a more
technical account of ancient "hristian epistemology( we will plot the fools+ transformation of
holiness onto the discussion and practice of negative theology in its practical implications for
social criti.ue( silence( and babbling)
2.1.1: Praise and Blame: spea'ing et#ics
>ow is ethics thought in anti.uity$ 1et us start with an e#ample) The verbal habit of
praise and blame( whereby things are designated as good or bad through the post-modern non-
descriptive verbalisation of one+s attitude to them( is argued by Dames ?mith to be central to
Augustine+s *on.essions)
2
Ct is portrayed as the "hristian contribution to the philosophy of
language) Not only does it have the advantage of avoiding onto-theology( but it gives us a
verbal practice that may reinstate all the hesitations and criticisms concerning the secular
world that may emerge from his "hristian Theology) !e could call it a practice of ethical
*nowledge)
?mith+s e#egesis of the te#t is e#cellent6 Augustine does indeed primarily use the
language of praise in his search for Bod through his own history) >e rummages through his
bag of memories in order to find the immanent Bod there( avoiding idolatry by attributing all
2
?mith( 2002)
;8
good to Bod( and all bad to the evil in himself) >e addresses Bod in telling his own story(
e#pressing the rather stiff truths of creatio e5 ni$ilo and evil as pri"atio boni in an elegant
literary style) "onversely( he addresses himself in his confusion and regret over the evil in his
life(
/
which is a point missed by most interpreters( who read the Hyou+ consistently as a
reference to Bod)
The praiseSblame mode of reference is actually a product of these theories as well) Ct is
difficult to call Bod a good thing when one has identified Hgood+ with Hcreated+) "hristian
theology had( at least since the third century( established that all that is( is good( because all
that is( is created) %ut Bod is not created( so the ad,ective Hgood+ needs two different modes of
reference to account for the double meaning 0createdScreator2) The practice of praise and
blame sits loose to *nowledge of cosmology( and so manages to spea* with this problem
unresolved) 7n the other hand( it is difficult to call anything evil( insofar as evil is a privation
of good) ?o there is no evil thing( only things that have not yet achieved goodness) %ut praise
and blame are not confined to the form of sub,ectSpredicate statements) Their force is
independent of their specific reference) C can say that C am fascinated by the beauty of music
and led astray by the glamour of prestige without attributing cosmological status to either
music or prestige)
!hat is missing in ?mith+s interpretation( however( is an account of the modes of
ethics of late anti.uity in general) Cn his enthusiasm for a Bod language that evades the
problems of reference in theology 0which for Augustine is more a practical problem regarding
the obligation of praise than a theoretical one touching on the violence of language2(
3
he fails
to realise the peculiarity of his own 0non-Augustinian2 theological tradition) Describing the
good in terms of praise and blame is by no means the preserve of Augustine+s wor*) Cnstead(
praise and blame were the rhetorical moves whereby morality was spo*en in late anti.uity)
A few e#amples will suffice) 9irstly( in Augustine himself6 outside of the *on.essions(
he repeatedly refers to good things and bad things in creation in terms of praiseworthiness) Ct
is even part of his famous Plotinian argument of the goodness of creation( and evil as a
pri"atio boni( where he clearly demonstrates the parallelism between goodness and
praiseworthiness6
/
<)g) Augustinus( con..: C=)55)54-C=)5/)20)
3
Augustinus( doctr. c$r.: C)vi)4)
;;
LAugustine6M Nevertheless( all things are rightly deserving of praise by the very fact that they
e#ist( since they are good inasmuch as they e#ist)
:
?econdly( Diogenes 1aertius records this techni.ue as defining ethics in the two
primary directions of thought in late anti.uity( ?toicism and <picureanism) >ere it should be
noted that these are not simply e#amples of the use of praise and blame) >is 3i"es o. Eminent
P$ilosop$ers ' which was to have a uni.ue position in later understandings of both ?toicism
and <picureanism ' ma*es it central to the philosophical theory of aesthetic life and ethical
action( relating it to necessity( freedom( beauty and action6
%y the beautiful is meant properly and in an uni.ue sense that good which renders its possessors
praiseworthy( or briefly( good which is worthy of praiseK
4
9or he sees that necessity destroys responsibility and that chance or fortune is inconstantK
whereas our own actions are free( and it is to them that praise and blame naturally attach)
8
This is similarly the place praise and blame have in "icero+s wor* on the passions of
the soul 0lat6 perturbationes6 cf) under( on pages /ff2( where he outlines the grief and
pleasure to be eschewed and embraced in the world) Cn the course of enumerating these
phenomena( he comes upon the word HAemulatio+( which can be interpreted with both praise
and blame 0Hut et in laude et in vitio nomen hoc sit+2)
;
Biven that this practice of discerning
goods and evils is central to the philosophical way of life in late anti.uity( it is significant that
"icero notes that it ta*es place in this idiom)
"icero is not alone in using the rhetoric of praise and blame as the e#pression of moral
,udgement) ?omewhat closer to the home of the desert fathers( "lement of Ale#andria refers
to the verbal device in the conte#t of the possibility of morality6 without freedom( praise and
blame is not possible)
%ut neither praise nor blame( neither honour nor punishment are right when the soul has no
command over appetite and aversion( and the evil is obligatory)

:
Augustinus( lib.art.: CCC)vii)25) This e#pression of cosmology appears throughout the corpus( e)g) in Augustinus(
de trin.: =)5 0prologue2 Augustinus( de ci". dei: P)( PCC)5(3)
4
Diogenes( "it. p$il.: =CC)5)500)
8
Diogenes( "it. p$il.: P)5//)
;
"icero( tusc. disp.: C=)=CCC)
9
"lemens( str.: C)58( my translation.
;
!e can thus see that both philosophers and theologians of the Bree* and 1atin world
of late anti.uity used the practice of praise and blame to identify and e#press the good in the
world and to establish a moral language concerning actions)
50
Cn the light of this standard e#pression of late anti.ue ethics( the practice of early
"hristian ascetics stands out as unusual) To re,ect praise and blame is not a simple act of
modesty6 that would only account for the re,ection of praise) To re,ect blame as well is to
refuse to accept potentially useful criticism) Ct is the re,ection of moral ,udgment per se) ?o
desert fathers refuse to blame themselves( in a phrase reminiscent of Paul)
55
Cn order to grasp
this re,ection( we need to understand it as a reaction against the ethical *nowledge of late
anti.ue society itself( rather than as simply the association of a favourable self-assessment
with vanity( flattery( or self-deception)
This is not to say that the re,ection of praise is the innovation of early "hristian
ascetics6 we may see a similar re,ection in many of the sources ,ust appealed to) !e could say
that on the level of principle( praise and blame was the way in which to thin* ethics( whereas
on the level of practice( it was re,ected)
Amongst stoic philosophers( for e#ample( this was all a part of the program originating
in Plato of separating oneself from the opinions of the masses) A philosopher is to guard his
thought by not engaging in conversation that is entirely independent of truth( the *ind of
conversation that in fact ensures the smooth running of society)
52
>ence the philosophical
topos of the re,ection of small tal*)
%ut rarely( and when occasion re.uires you to tal*( tal*( indeed( but about no ordinary topics)
Do not tal* about gladiators( or horse-races( or athletes( or things to eat and drin* ' topics that
arise on all occasionsK but above all( do not tal* about people( either blaming( or praising( or
comparing them) Cf( then( you can( by your own conversation bring over that of your
companions to what is seemly) %ut if you happen to be left alone in the presence of aliens( *eep
silence)
5/
The avoidance of praise and blame also comes under the theme of re,ecting imperfect
goods) The praise of other people is a temptation( a good that seems satisfying but which can
50
9or further e#amples of uncritical use of praise and blame for the substantives Hgood+ and Hbad+( see <vagrius(
ep. ad mel.: /3( :0( :3 <vagrius( sc$ol. in eccl.: :5( :2( :4 0:56 Ht|oi, poyooiv C t toivtoi,+ 2
55
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Paphnutius /( Agathon 2 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: PC)2 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: PC);
%asilius( $om. 2 and Paul+s statements in 5 "orinthians 3)/)
52
This understanding of opinion and society has most recently been put forward in %adiou( 2005L5;M) "f) the
>adot .uotation above( on page /)
5/
<pictetus( Enc$.: ###iii)
0
not be relied upon( as others can be mista*en either in their good opinion of you 0flattery2 or
in their bad 0resentment2)
?igns of one who is ma*ing progress are6 >e censures no one( praises no one( blames no one(
finds fault with no one( says nothing about himself as though he were somebody or *new
something) !hen he is hampered or prevented( he blames himself) And if anyone compliments
him( he smiles to himself at the person complimentingK while if anyone censures him( he ma*es
no defense)
53
%oth these tendencies can be seen amongst the early "hristian ascetics) Their practice
of silence is particularly imposed in relation to small tal* and the assessment of others) The
theme of being entirely neutral to praise and blame is also attested6
Mee*ness is a permanent condition of that soul which remains unaffected by whether or not it is
spo*en well of( whether or not it is honoured or praised) X The first stage of blessed patience is
to accept dishonour with bitterness and anguish of soul) The intermediate stage is to be free
from pain amid all such things) The perfect stage( if that is attainable( is to thin* of dishonour as
praise) 1et the first re,oice and the second be strong( but blessed be the third( for he e#ults in the
1ord)
5:
There is reason to believe( however( that certain desert "hristians achieved this
independence in ,udgement more thoroughly than their secular counterparts) !here <pictetus(
for e#ample( accepts all negative ,udgement dealt him by strangers and ignores flattery( early
"hristian ascetics had an altogether more neutral attitude) The e#amination of conscience was
an established practice amongst early "hristian ascetics( but when it comes to reacting to
flattery( young mon*s are encouraged to disregard all thoughts of guilt) The good is good
whether it is done in order to achieve glory or for its own sa*e)
54
?o the practice of praise and blame is both less and more than we originally implied) Ct
is less than a "hristian contribution to the problem of ethical reference6 praise and blame were
a mode of e#pressing *nowledge of morality common to a wide variety of thin*ers in late
anti.uity) Ct is more than a form of e#pressing values6 conceptualising the practice enabled
thin*ers to isolate and assess their development of ethical *nowledge) ?o that discussion of
53
<pictetus( Enc$.: #lviii) 7ther e#amples of re,ecting praise as an imperfect good can be found among both the
philosophers and theologians of late anti.uity6 <vagrius( de orat.: 30 Moschus( prat.: 5:/)
5:
"limacus( scal.: ?tep ;)) "f) also ?tep 2:( $. mon.: P)55 %arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 352)
54
&pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: PCCC)4( 5 O &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Poemen :5( ?arah 8 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: PCCC)4
%arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 20 "limacus( scal.: ?tep 526 Hif a few drops of vainglory fall on you( what
harm$ Provided of course( that you become a source of profit to many)+
5
the praiseworthiness of certain practices or phenomena could then develop into discussion of
the usefulness of moral assessment) !hilst ancient philosophers too* sceptical attitudes
towards the usefulness of positive moral assessment( early "hristian ascetics adopted a critical
stance towards moral *nowledge per se( as it was e#pressed in the practices of praise and
blame) This is the first aspect to be noted of the ascetic practice of moral *nowledge)
2.1.2: %eat#: escaping (rom et#ics
There is more to be said about this technological stance( however) !e are interested
not simply in the fact of a critical distance between the ascetic and the construction of
*nowledge) There still remains the .uestion of how this critical distance was conceived) !hat
practices motivated( produced( and enacted the ascetic scepticism towards moral *nowledge$
The practice of death has already been mentioned elsewhere in this thesis 0cf) above(
on page 342) Death was a multivalent notion in the practice of early "hristian ascetics(
however) !e saw how it related to Bod+s ,udgement and acted as a place-holder for
transcendence in the desert and madness) Ct also has a function with regard to the practice of
human ,udgement)
The force of spea*ing death in the above-mentioned practices has been death as the
locus of ,udgement and death as the lac* of being) Cn other conte#ts( however( it is thought as
independence from the desire of the world) Death is not concerned with status or ,udgement)
Ct is of another order( which can not compete or react to the blessings and abuses of the world)
"rucially for us( death is not affected by praise or blame) The paradigmatic story that
demonstrates this( whilst found in many forms and sources( probably derives from the
teaching of Macarius the <gyptian 0c) /00-/02)
A brother came to see Abba Macarius the <gyptian( and said to him( HAbba( give me a word(
that C may be saved)+ ?o the old man said( HBo to the cemetery and abuse the dead)+ The brother
went there( abused them and threw stones at themK then he returned and told the old man about
it) The latter said to him( HDidn+t they say anything to you$+ >e replied( HNo)+ The old man said(
HBo bac* tomorrow and praise them)+ ?o the brother went away and praised them( calling them(
HApostles( saints and righteous men)+ >e returned to the old man and said to him( HC have
complimented them)+ And the old man said to him( HDid they not answer you$+ The brother said
no) The old man said to him( HQou *now how you insulted them and they did not reply( and how
you praised them and they did not spea*K so you too if you wish to be saved must do the same
2
and become a dead man) 1i*e the dead( ta*e no account of either the scorn of men or their
praises( and you can be saved)
58
>ere the ideal is a paralysis of all feelings that react to praise and blame) The image
implies a non-reaction to the movements of the passions provo*ed by others 0as we saw in the
case of the obedient mon* above( on page /32) Macarius e#horts the mon* to be at a
completely other level to the ,udgements of men) The aim is not a positive virtue 0mee*ness(
generosity2( but complete neutrality)
5;
7ther versions of this story are more stri*ing in their refusal to recommend a particular
way of life) Ct becomes obvious that this is not a specific and concrete "hristian virtue when
Anoub uses the e#ample of a stone idol to demonstrate the monastic life)
5
>ere once again(
the emphasis is put on negative virtues6 HDid it get angry$ No) Did it refuse to forgive$ No)+
Anoub+s fellow mon*s are being e#horted to inaction)
=ersions of this edificatory story can be discovered in foundational te#ts for ancient
"hristian asceticism) Macarius the <gyptian was the leaderSinitiator of the famous ?cetis
community( and Anoub is spea*ing to the community around Poemen( responsible for
preserving the sayings of the desert fathers)
20
?o it perhaps comes as no surprise that the story
should e#emplify a virtue central to the monastic enterprise( namely that of apat$eia) Cf we
are to understand the force of death in its meaning of the re,ection of values( we must see it in
its relation to the re,ection of passions) This *ind of interpretation of death will be vindicated
if it is also the case that the practice of apat$eia in late anti.ue asceticism also functioned to
negate the canons of *nowledge and veridiction practiced in the society of late anti.uity)
>ow is the virtue of apat$eia related to the re,ection of moral *nowledge amongst
early "hristian ascetics$ The understanding of the early "hristian concept of apat$eia is
fraught with difficulties) Ct is set in a web of meanings with a long history(
25
and even longer
conse.uences)
A few problems should be highlighted at the outset) The first is a commonplace of
modern literature on the topic6 whilst it is tempting to translate the Bree* apat$eia 0and the
1atin impassibilis2 with the <nglish Hapathy+( such an understanding would serve only to ta*e
58
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Macarius 2/ O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P)38)
5;
"limacus( scal.: ?tep ;)
5
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Anoub 5 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P=)55 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P=)52) "f) also the
comparison of death and the eradication of passions in ?ymeon the New Theologian 5;06 PPC=)/)
20
According to >armless( 20006 3;3)
25
A large part of this history is traced in ?orab,i( 20006 C draw on his wor* particularly in reference to the ancient
philosophers in this section)
/
us further from that of the early "hristian ascetics( for whom the attainment of apat$eia was
the result of e#treme effort and ascetic e#ertion)
A further distraction in these studies has been the relation of the doctrine to
Pelagianism) Although not always ac*nowledged e#plicitly( the pelagian debate must be the
cause of such studies
22
that avidly pursue the .uestion of whether a human can attain to
apat$eia in this life( to which <vagrius of Pontus ' the most prominent theorist of the sub,ect
' was frustratingly ambiguous) This .uestion need not detain us long6 it is usually associated
with the understanding of apat$eia as a condition of prayer ' and so related to the later
tradition of hesychasm in %y&antine theology
2/
' rather than a practice of asceticism( and so
does not affect our .uestion) Ct is clearly a practical ideal for Bod and humanity( whether it is
achievable on earth or not( and that is enough for our argument)
A good translation may therefore be Hdispassion+) This has a number of advantages6
firstly( it is borne out by etymology 0pat$os D passion2K secondly( it answers to the
bac*ground( entrenched as it is in the .uestion of human passionsK thirdly( it reflects the
practical implications of the concept 0which we will e#amine below2K and fourthly( it solves
the problem of partial apat$eia( as the soul can achieve freedom from some passions and not
others( and still grammatically be attributed with apat$eia ' dissociated from a passion)
23
Cn our literature( the passions were almost e#clusively understood as a problem and an
e#cess( and whatever the tradition they inherited may have thought about the desirability or
otherwise of the passions( certainly the desert fathers and mothers with few e#ceptions
2:
understood them as part of the networ* of sin and temptation)
The technology developed for dealing with passions in anti.uity was already comple#
by the time of the birth of monasticism with ?t Anthony the Breat) "ertain ?toic philosophers
had boiled the e#perience of negative passions down to two ,udgements6 an evaluation of the
favourability of the circumstances( and the appropriateness of a response) Cn this respect(
passions could be isolated( discussed( and acted upon) Ct is this *ind of attitude that constitutes
the ancient technologies of the self(
24
or Htherapies of the emotions+ in ?orab,i+s phrase)
28
22
Aasmussen( 200: is typical in this respect)
2/
9or which( cf) 1oss*y( 584)
23
1inge has a similar account( whereby apat$eia can be thought both as techni.ue and as condition - 1inge(
20006 ::8)
2:
Noted in !are( 5; !illiams( 5/)
24
9oucault( 2000cL5;2M)
28
?orab,i( 2000)
3
That passions can be treated and manipulated was the consensus view amongst ancient
philosophers( and by far the most important method was to introduce further passions)
2;
The
schools of philosophy would then differ as regards ta#onomy of passions( the role of the will
in passions( and the ideal attitude towards passions( all in relation to their various theories of
the soul) 7ne debate( for e#ample( was the e#tent to which passions should be eliminated
0apat$eia2( or controlled 0metriopat$eia2( a discussion which was to survive into the theology
of early "hristian ascetics)
The early "hristian ascetics retained this attitude towards the passions as another
aspect of the "hristian philosophy) Cn order to understand the ideal of apat$eia( we shall have
to give an account of their thought concerning the passions)
The passions were regularly thought of in terms of politics) Ct was not simply a
.uestion of suffering from distasteful passions( but of ruling them( or being ruled) !hilst
treatments and ideals concerning passions varied in anti.uity( most early "hristian ascetics
held this in common6 that the passions are to be defeated
2
and governed)
/0
Cn their turn(
passions can dominateK
/5
enslaveK
/2
attac*(
//
and move)
/3
At this point the uniformity ceases( however) "hristian treatments of passions are
almost as wide-ranging as those of the ancient philosophers) A diverse collection of sayings
such as the &pop$t$egmata Patrum
/:
brings out a number of contrasts nicely)
5) 7ne solution to the affliction of the passions is to Hlove LagapAsonM all conflicting
passions( and your passions will abate+)
/4
Another passage( in an e.uivalent conte#t
0a list of e#hortations to a young mon* in the form of commands( all in the aorist
imperative2 recommends e#actly the opposite6 Hhate the passionsV+)
/8
2) 7n the level of cosmology( there is disagreement as to the nature of the passions6
whilst one mon* categorises three distinct forms of attac*( whereby the flesh is
2;
cf) 7lympiodorus+ summary in ?orab,i( 20006 chapter 5)
2
&pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: PC=)22 <vagrius( de orat.: 5/:)
/0
&pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: C=):8 <vagrius( sc$ol. in luc.: 3 <vagrius( e5cerpts: 2/)
/5
&pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: C)55)
/2
&pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: PC)/5 lib. grad.: =CC); <vagrius( de orat.: 85)
//
&pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: =CC)52)
/3
&pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: CP)2:f <vagrius( de orat.: 8/)
/:
for the formation of the &pop$t$egmata Patrum( see above( on page 2/)
/4
&pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: =):/)
/8
&pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: PC):0)
:
different from passions which are different from demons(
/;
others refer specifically
to Hthe passions of the flesh+)
/
/) There is also a variety of ta#onomies of passions) 7n the one hand( passions are
simply negative attitudes and actions( li*e 0predictably2 fornication( unbridled
speechSgossip( and vainglory)
30
7n the other( they appear as direct temptations
towards good things li*e money( honour( and rest)
35
?ome of the mon*s appear to
ma*e finer distinctions between passions( whereby they each represent various
routes to wrongdoing)
32

The .uestion of responding to passions( however( did form a discussion that drew
various schools of asceticism together( with a common language and aim( in spite of the
varying theories and cosmologies underlying them) 7ut of the different accounts of the
passions( there arise debates over specific .uestions of application) The mon*s discuss the
e#tent to which they should yield to the passions(
3/
how to trace the origin of the passions(
33
and of course how to oppose them( to gain control over them) !hilst theories diverged( the
shared pro,ect of dealing with passions enabled a conversation)
The advice given is in *eeping with the ascetic techni.ues we have seen above) The
mon* is told to guard the heart
3:
so the passion does not produce *nowledge in the eyes( the
tongue( and pass into deeds) Ct is also important to spea* one+s passion(
34
,ust as they would
spea* or write their thoughts 0cf) above( on page 482) Again( the desert fathers and mothers
were a lot clearer about the technology of the passions than they were about their theory and
nature) Thoughts had to be *ept free from passions( or they would draw the ascetic into
illusions about self and the world) The practice of dispassion was the most important
technology of *nowledge amongst early "hristian ascetics)
/;
&pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: =):3)
/
ta pat$A tAs sar,os6 &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: C=)20K pat$A ta sar,i,A6 &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: PC)/4 <vagrius(
cap. paraen.: CCC)4) HPassions of the soul+ is also a standard e#pression6 %arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 82
"limacus( scal.: ?teps 3 and 5:)
30
&pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: =)/3( P)55S3( =CCC)4)
35
&pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: PC)/0)
32
&pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: =):5)
3/
&pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P)/;)
33
&pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: CCC):0( =)/8 <vagrius( Eulog.: 2)/5)
3:
&pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P=CCC)2/( cf) above( on page :;)
34
&pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: =CC))
4
7ne of the most sophisticated thin*ers concerning the passions in late anti.uity is
numbered amongst the desert fathers( namely <vagrius of Pontus 0.l. /;:-/2) Drawing upon
a wealth of learning from the philosophical schools( and having sat at the feet of central desert
fathers such as Macarius of Ale#andria and Macarius the Breat of <gypt( he was to e#ert an
influence upon "hristianity entirely out of proportion with the number of wor*s preserved
under his name) Cn the <ast( he was a main proponent of the 7rigenist school( and the hero of
church historian and politician AufinusK in the !est( he provides the inspiration for the wor*
of his disciple( Dohn "assian) Cn his wor*( we find that rare phenomenon6 a consistent and
systematised ascetic theology)
<vagrius Ponticus is perhaps most famous for being the "hristian originator of the
seven deadly sins( although he started with a list of nine( which he then boiled down to eight
38
0Bregory the Breat reduced them further to seven2( and didn+t ,ust term them vices 0although
his successors in both <ast and !est did2) <vagrius Ponticus is uni.ue in holding to a
ta#onomy of passions( thus helping us to understand apat$eia better)
Apart from his boo* on the nine vices(
3;
<vagrius Ponticus is fairly consistent with his
list of eight( which are6
5) gluttony
2) fornication
/) avarice 0philarguria ' literally Hlove of money+2
3) sadness
:) anger
4) acedia 0listnessness ' the Hmidday demon+2
8) vainglory
;) pride)
3
They correspond 0somewhat artificially2 to eight virtues6
:0
5) abstinence
2) chastity
/) freedom from possessions
3) ,oy
38
The Height vices+ survived for some time in the <astern ascetic tradition6 "limacus( scal.: ?tep 5/( although he
sides with BregoryUs seven in ?tep 22)
3;
<vagrius( de "itiis)
3
A list that echoes this can be found in %arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 5/8%6 Hgluttony( fornication( avarice(
sorrow( despondency( anger( wrath( gossip( hatred( vainglory( pride+
:0
<vagrius( de "itiis)
8
:) patience
4) perseverance
8) freedom from vainglory
;) humility)
Cn this way( the eight list up the plural and various ways in which an ascetic can be led
astray) !hilst it is tempting to treat these as an e#haustive list( <vagrius Ponticus+ comments
on these 0which act as a framewor* for various parts of his writings2 enlarge on and e#pand
the list e#tensively) %esides the ninth temptation of ,ealousy 0opposed to Hfreedom from
,ealousy+2
:5
( he also writes of the passions of licentiousness(
:2
irascibility(
:/
and others)
?o is this a list of passions$ 7r a list of eight deadly sins$ The .uestion is at times
difficult to answer6 some of <vagrius Ponticus+ treatments of this list ta*e the form of sayings
selected under these categories( so the definition of the categories is entirely editorial) The
most obvious reference for the list( for e#ample( is a boo* that bears the title H7n the <ight
Thoughts+)
:3
?ome manuscripts( however( have the title H7n the <ight ?pirits of !ic*edness+(
and the te#t opens 0with the chapter on gluttony2 with the words6
5) Abstinence is the origin of fruitfulness( the blossom and beginning of the practical life) S 2)
>e who controls the stomach diminishes the passionsK he who is overcome by food gives
increase to pleasures) S /) HAmale* was the first of the nations+ 0Num) 236202K and gluttony is
t$e .irst o. t$e passions)
::
?o the titles suggest conceiving of gluttony as a thought or a spirit of wic*edness(
whereas the contents immediately suggest understanding it as a passion) Ct is not always
editing that throws up problems( however) Cn general( the items in the list are e#plicitly given
four different manifestations6 vice( thought( passion( and demonSspirit) %ut when <vagrius
Ponticus is writing about the items themselves( he does not seem to care which of these he is
referring to) The list of nine refers e#plicitly to vices( and yet when describing the interaction
between vainglory( ,ealousy( and pride( he calls them Hthe three-strand chain of vices( the
threefold poisonous mi#ture of passions( the threefold tongue of heretics)+
:4
?imilarly( in the Pra,ti,os( <vagrius Ponticus uses the list to describe thoughts
0e#haustively6 unli*e the multiform passions( there are only eight possible categories of
:5
<vagrius( de "itiis: ;)
:2
<vagrius( oct. spir.: 2)50)
:/
<vagrius( de mal. cog.: 5/)
:3
<vagrius( oct. spir.
::
<vagrius( oct. spir.: 5( emphasis mine)
:4
<vagrius( de "itiis: 8)
;
Hthought+2( together with their remedies( before changing tac* in order to move on to the
sub,ect of passions) >e introduces the fifth thought of anger( however( with the words H&nger
is a passion that arises very .uic*ly)+
:8
All these factors have led commentators to assume
0rather bra&enly2 that passions( thoughts( demons( and vices are the same thing for <vagrius
Ponticus)
:;
<vagrius Ponticus+ lists are therefore not the place to loo* for a consistent theory of
how thoughts( passions( demons( and sins relate) All we can say from these te#ts is that they
all can manifest in instances of one of the 0at least2 eight categories described above) This
does not( however( mean that <vagrius Ponticus has no theory for how the thoughts and
passions wor*ed) 7utside of the lists themselves( he has a very coherent account 0pace
?inc*ewitc&2)
:
Cn order to discern this( however( we will need to pay very close attention to
his use of the terms Hthought+( passion+( Hvice+ and Hdemon+ and concentrate less on which
temptation is being treated at the time) The ,ustification for this e#egesis is the hermeneutical
assumption that a te#t is coherent rather than incoherent) Assuming that the author neglected
to distinguish between the passion of gluttony and the thought of gluttony simply because he
was elucidating gluttony rather than thoughts and passions( what distinctions does he ma*e
when e#plaining thoughts and passions$
Ct is my hypothesis that <vagrius Ponticus not only systematised the temptations into
eight 0or more2 *inds( but that he in turn systematised them into four different manifestations)
?o in all( <vagrius Ponticus is noticing at least /2 03#;2 operations6 the thought( passion(
demon( and vice of gluttony( then the thought( passion( demon and vice of fornication( and so
on)
?orab,i
40
has argued that <vagrius Ponticus+ Hthoughts+ are his conception of what
?eneca calls Hfirst movements+( which is to say the involuntary reaction to an e#ternal
phenomenon( for e#ample salivating at the smell of lamb chops( tensing one+s muscles on
hearing a gunshot( etc) They are unavoidable( they resemble more substantial emotions
0eagerness( fear2( and they may only last a moment)
!hether or not all these thoughts trouble the soul is not within our powerK but it is for us to
decide if they are to linger within us or not and whether or not they stir up the passions)
45
:8
<vagrius( Pra,t.: 55( emphasis mine)
:;
!are( 5;6 /58f Aasmussen( 200:6 53)
:
?in*ewic&( 200/6 intro( p) ##v) 1inge also claims that <vagrius pursues no ideas in a systematically connected
way in 1inge( 20006 :35)
40
?orab,i( 20006 /:f)
45
<vagrius( Pra,t.: 4)

?o much for the relation between thoughts and passions) The picture is elaborated
somewhat when <vagrius Ponticus applies it to perception and interpretation) >ere the
distinction is not simply one of succession( but of mental act) !hilst he simply appeared
confused in his account of the eight categories above( the acuity of this analysis of perception
is remar*able) Cn his account of the phenomenology of the temptation of greed( he
distinguishes precisely the elements we attempted to prise apart above6
?uppose the thought of avarice is sent by Lthe enemyMK distinguish within this thought the mind
that received it( the mental representation of gold( the gold itself( and the passion of avariceK
then as* which of these elements is a sin) Cs it the mind$ %ut how$ Ct is the image of Bod) %ut
can it be the mental representation of gold$ And who in his right mind would ever say this$
Does the gold itself constitute sin$ Then for what purpose was it created$ Ct follows therefore
that the fourth element is the cause of the sin( namely( that which is not an ob,ect with
substantial subsistence( nor the mental representation of an ob,ect( nor even the incorporeal
mind( but a pleasure hostile to humanity( born of free will( and compelling the mind to ma*e
improper use of the creatures of Bod6
42
>ere the relation between thoughts( passions( and sins is cleared up) The innocent
mind innocuously represents a morally neutral ob,ect( but the representation is attached to the
passion of avarice( which compels to sinful action) !e have a se.uence of thought-passion-
vice) The .uestion of demons is also implied) Time and again( demons are portrayed as
suggesting a thought or a passion 0more often than not( the two are connected in the memory2(
and the ascetic may decide what to do about this new *nowledge) The passion would then
have the character of a Hfirst movement+ that reacts to the initial thought) %y inserting a moral
evaluation in the middle of this se.uence( <vagrius Ponticus is ma*ing an attempt to gain
control over his *nowledge) !hilst assuming an analysis of human action that involves a self
beset with e#ternal and historical constraints( he resists a deterministic account that assumes
the passi"ity of the self) The passions denote a motivation to action and ,udgement that is not
constituted by the moral agent( and as such threaten the ascetic+s freedom) %ut where freedom
is threatened( it can also resist) 9or this reason( a control over and renunciation of the passions
is in *eeping with self-determination)
This portrayal of the demons in <vagrius Ponticus elaborates on the .uestion of
agency that has been implicit throughout the discussion of the passions) The ascetics struggle
against demons not simply because of the process demon-thought-passion-sin) They struggle
42
<vagrius( de mal. cog.: 5)
500
for self-determinacy)
4/
They struggle for the control of their own thoughts) <vagrius Ponticus+
advice is not simply HDo not fall into sin+( but H!e must not obey themV+)
43
The ideal ascetic
is not simply good( but is H*ingless+)
4:
<vagrius Ponticus+ ascetico-technical brilliance is not limited to his ta#onomy of the
passions however) >e furthers the ascetic tradition with his methods of achieving dispassion)
As we saw above( analysis and the e#amination of thoughts and conscience is an important
aspect of this( which will form an element of a number of different methods) 7ne techni.ue
he is well *nown for( though( is that of using the demons against each other)
This particular method of attaining to dispassion ta*es advantage of the theories
outlined above6 the passions and thoughts can be divided up according to the same categories
as the demons and vices) Not all thoughts are sinful( however) And not all categories are
compatible) ?o if one is able to have a thought without it eliciting a passion( then that thought
is morally neutral) Cf it is a *ind of temptation incompatible with that of the current enemy
0<vagrius Ponticus recommends the use of anger against tempting demonsK
44
one can imagine
it being particularly effective against sadness or acedia 0the si#th vice( on page 422( it can be
used against that enemy( even if they do not have the same status 0e)g) a thought against a
demon( etc2)
The demon of vainglory is opposed to the demon of fornication( and it is impossible for them to
attac* the soul at the same time( since the former promises honours and the latter is the
forerunner of dishonour) Therefore( if one of these approaches and presses hard upon you( then
fashion within yourself the thoughts of the opposing demon) And if you should be able( as the
saying goes( to *noc* out one nail with another( *now that you are near the frontiers of
impassibility Lapat$eiaM( for your mind found the strength to annihilate the thoughts of the
demon by means of human thoughts)
48
>ere the distinction between demons and thoughts is employed effectively) The
demon is not the same as( but ma*es use of thoughts) 9ar from mi#ing up the various forms in
4/
<vagrius( sc$ol. in luc.: 3)
43
<vagrius( Pra,t.: 22K "f) also the theme in the lib. grad.: P=)4( et passim Moschus( prat.: 3:)
4:
abasileutos ' <vagrius( cap. 555iii: 5)/) cf) also <vagrius( $ypo.: /( where apat$eia is associated with
resistance to principalities and powers)
44
<vagrius( sc$ol. in eccl.: :4 <vagrius( de.in.: 55)
48
<vagrius( Pra,t.: :;) "f) also <vagrius( e5cerpts: 3/ 0fornication against vainglory2) "limacus attempts to
combat vainglory with gluttony( but without the nuanced distinction between vice and passion6 "limacus( scal.:
?tep 53) >e does the same with the demons and passions of vainglory and anger in ?tep 22( and the thoughts and
demons of gluttony and vainglory in ?tep 24)
505
which fornication can manifest itself( this techni.ue is reliant upon clear distinctions in the
cosmology of the passions( thoughts( and demons)
Cn spite of the at times rather vague cosmology( and the wor*+s resistance to .uestions
concerning perfection and the enumeration of passions( <vagrius Ponticus+ writings
e#emplify a thoroughgoing ascetic theory and a systematic phenomenology of the mind) >is
thoughts concerning dispassion reveal a technology of ob,ective *nowledge( where passions
are neutralised for the sa*e of the cultivation of freedom and virtue) !here passions( reacting
immediately to praise and blame( draw the ascetic towards evaluation and desire( ascetic
practices resist relating to the world in such an unreflective way( based on the *nowledge of
received values)
The early "hristian ascetics+ dispassion was not a virtue of passive spiritual docility(
but a practice designed to have an effect on *nowledge( as a form of scepticism and criti.ue
of *nowledges that appear as given( mediated by tradition and habit) As 9oucault describes
the concept among ?toics and <picureans( HNot having passions is no longer having any
passivity+)
4;
Ct is not an adherence to the soul over against fleshly passionK it is not static
tran.uillity( and it is not a divine lac* of activity) All these attitudes might be complicit with
the world+s *nowledge) The difficulty of holding these two thoughts together ' that dispassion
means non-reaction to provocation and that it is a robust state of activity ' has caused a
number of problems in the secondary literature)
4
This analysis does not simply rely upon the theories of <vagrius Ponticus) The refusal
of passions was always meant to wor* against inactivity) 7ne of the passions to be re,ected is
that of rest 0Bree*6 anapausis2( which hinders the ascetic from progressing)
80
The passion of
vainglory is particularly dangerous for god-tal*( as it persuades the thin*er that he has arrived
at the right concept of Bod)
85
?o the person who is free from the passions would naturally not
be inactive) <vagrius Ponticus+ fifth temptation is sadness) The passion of sadness is
characterised by encumbrance and lac* of movement) Ct is li*e apat$eia+s evil twin6
82
it
resembles dispassion but is in reality a muffling of all virtue and goodness) ?omething similar
could be said for the passion of acedia 0vice 4( on page 42)
8/
4;
9oucault( 2008L2003M6 58;)
4
Aasmussen( 200:6 5:: "hryssavgis( 200/6 :;) Ct lies at the root of modern theology+s an#ieties concerning the
impassibility of Bod)
80
&pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: PC)/0) ?leep is also counted a passion in %arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 254)
85
<vagrius( de orat.: 82f( 554)
82
<vagrius( oct. spir.: 52 0:)5:2) A point also made in 1inge( 20006 :43n/2)
8/
<vagrius( oct. spir.: 54 08)202 )
502
The grammar of the passion of vainglory has the same structure) Ascetics who listen to
praise for their actions have no further need of struggle) They have arrived at their ob,ective
and received their reward) 9or this reason( <vagrius Ponticus does not simply recommend
secrecy and humility against vainglory and pride( but also perseverance)
83
The point about perseverance( the infinity of Bod always being more abundant and
more fascinating than our desire and progress can attain to( is brought out by other
theologians contemplating Bod+s infinitude) Ct is perhaps this *ind of thought that founds the
refusal of sadness and rest in the desert fathers and mothers) The contemplative life is not a
life at rest( but a Hrenewal of wonder+( as one author has put it( commenting on Bregory of
Nyssa)
8:
Ct is perhaps not surprising that the secondary literature struggles with this concept of
active impassibility) The difficulty is not simply attested at the level of techni.ue( but also
finds its conte#t at the level of cosmology) Arguments were raging in the cities whilst the
gnomic statements of the &pop$t$egmata Patrum were being composed( and one of the
crucial .uestions in these discussions was how Bod( who is impassible( could be an active
creating force in the world) !hat is the nature of Bod+s action$ The traditional way to solve
this problem was by way of divine logos or energy( a demiurge or a spirit of Bod) %ut when
the "hristological version of this argument developed on the basis of the history of the son of
Bod and the divinity of the word of Bod( the same problem arose) Cf the logos is divine( how
can it be active and still impassible$ This *ind of .uestion led the Arians to deny the divinity
of "hrist and the orthodo# to re-interpret impassibility)
There are( as we have now seen( a number of reasons to interpret the practices of the
early "hristian ascetics as e#ercises in control( criti.ue( and ob,ectivity) Ct should be
sufficient( therefore( to embrace the mastery of the passions without having to write off
passions as a whole) ?orab,i traces this option through anti.ue philosophy( and argues that it
was embraced by a number of theologians connected with asceticism( including %asil the
Breat( in his ascetic rules)
84
Cf that option was available to desert "hristians( and given the
stamp of orthodo#y by such authorities( why is it that the word for moderation of passion '
metriopat$eia ' does not appear once in the &pop$t$egmata Patrum( whilst apat$eia is a
firmly established aspiration$
83
<vagrius( Eulog.: 5/( 20) >e is followed by ?ymeon the New Theologian 5;06 C=):)
8:
!illiams( 5/6 235)
84
?orab,i( 20006 /2) @allistos !are argues something similar for Abba Csaias and Theodoret of "yrus in !are(
5;( and Aowan !illiams portrays the discussion of this sub,ect between Bregory of Nyssa and his sister
Macrina in !illiams( 5/6 esp) pp2/4f)
50/
<#planation could ta*e various avenues here) ?elf-mastery was simply one step
towards dispassion) Aegulating one+s life in order to get rid of the passions was crucial to the
ascetic life)
88
?elf mastery was not the end( but the means) !hilst ancient "hristian ascetics
cannot be divorced from their philosophical bac*ground( their appropriation was a "hristian
one6 the aim of apat$eia is love)
8;
9reedom of thought was decisive) An ascetic should try to be free from the passions in
order to thin* freely) ?o we have a tentative view of the progress of the ascetic6 self mastery
leads to dispassion( which leads to free thoughts( and prayer) Thoughts become bound to one
thing and static when that thing is represented with passion) The mind that has *nowledge of
an item with passion becomes bound to that insignificant item( and gives it more attention
than it is worth purely on account of its use for the mind as an ob,ect of passion)
8
7nly by
throwing off the passion can the mind move on( and retain its fle#ibility and freedom)
;0
7nly
by re,ecting passionate *nowledge is the person in a position to love)
The area in which the early "hristian ascetics were clearest in their need to re,ect the
passions was in their understanding of representation) This in turn is where their struggle for
ob,ectivity is itself most clear( and their function as world-re,ecting free thin*ers most on trial)
!e have already seen over 0on page 2 <vagrius Ponticus+ conception of the relation
between passionate representation and sin) The sight of gold is not sinful e#cept insofar as the
passions represent it to us as for us( an ob,ect of my pleasure) >ere the passions are the names
given to a *ind of capitalist Hseeing as+)
;5
The vision of the world without passion would be
one of e#treme intimacy and un*nowing( whereas with the passions( the world becomes a set
of concepts of things to be used( sub,ected( bought and sold)
;2
This is the e#planation both of
<vagrius Ponticus+ te#ts on sin in representation and the story of abba Abraham .uoted above
0on page /42( which continues with the words
HAgain( you are wal*ing in the road and you see stones and shards( and amongst them gold6 do
you have the power in your mind to thin* them of e.ual value$+ And he said( HNo( but C will
88
<vagrius( Pra,t.: /:)
8;
<vagrius( Pra,t.: ;5( ;3)
8
%asilius( $om. 1)
;0
<vagrius( de mal. cog.: 22( 30)
;5
cf) Mar#( 5;56 chapter on UThe Nature and Browth of "apitalU) "f) also on %ataille( below( on page 550)
;2
Hit is possible to remember gold with greed and without greed( and similarly in the case of other things)+
<vagrius( de mal. cog.: 3 cf) also 1inge( 20006 :43) The conse.uence of this is to ma*e no distinction between
people( as regards whether they are enemies or friends( helpful or adverse6 %arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 4;
Ma#imus( carit. 1=4: C)2:)
503
ma*e war against the thought so as not to ta*e it)+ The old man said( H%ehold therefore( the
passion lives( but is chained)+
;/
?o the understandings of gender(
;3
economic value( and political utility
;:
are
determined by the passions) The practice of apat$eia involves thin*ing things without their
implications and meanings for the activity of evaluation and e#change) The passionless
ascetic receives only Hbare representations+)
;4
!hilst it would be claiming too much to say that passions are identical to
representations( they are certainly lin*ed at many points in the desert corpus) Passions are
associated with mental images in the memory that distract from prayer(
;8
and <vagrius
Ponticus uses the language of Himpassioned representation+ again and again)
;;
There also
appears to have been a debate in his circles as to whether it is the passion or the representation
that comes first)
;
Cmages with passions are a particular problem when addressing the mind towards
Bod)
0
Cn <vagrius Ponticus( this is given three reasons( in terms of practice( theology( and
mental acts) 9irstly( it is distracting to thin* about images when one is attempting to direct
one+s thought to a Bod whom one has not seen)
5
?econdly( it is not in *eeping with the
principles of negative theology to have an image in one+s mind whilst praying) Bod is without
image( so all representations are necessarily not to do with prayer)
2
9inally( <vagrius
Ponticus anticipates Augustine+s doctrine of the image of Bod being seen in the soul only
when the soul remembers( understands( and loves Bod)
/
To pray to Bod is to withdraw into
oneself( and Hpassionate attachments to material things+ distort the soul+s capacity to act as a
reflection of Bod( ma*ing it incapable of prayer)
3
%eing aware of the significance of this Hseeing as+ becomes a rule in <vagrius
Ponticus) !hilst *eeping to the idea that the bare perception of an item is human and
;/
&pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P)5 0my translation2 O &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Abraham 5 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P)5:)
;3
<vagrius( de mal. cog.: /)
;:
<vagrius( de mal. cog.: 24)
;4
<vagrius( e5cerpts: 52 <vagrius( de orat.: ::f) >ere C use "asiday+s translation in "asiday( 20046 52) "f)
?ymeon the New Theologian+s condemnation of seeing things Hin accordance with their passionate desires)+ in
?ymeon the New Theologian 5;06 PPC=)/)
;8
&pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: CC)22 <vagrius( de mal. cog.: /f)
;;
<vagrius( de mal. cog.: 3(:/(:3(85 <vagrius( s,em.: 54)
;
<vagrius( Pra,t.: /8)
0
<vagrius( Eulog.: /0 <vagrius( sent. ad "irg.: 4 <vagrius( de mal. cog.: 54( /4( and ?ymeon the New
Theologian 5;06 PPC=)/f)
5
<vagrius( Pra,t.: 2/) "f) also "limacus( scal.: ?tep 2;)
2
<vagrius( de mal. cog.: 2 <vagrius( de orat.: 44 <vagrius( sc$ol. in eccl.: /:)
/
Augustinus( de trin.: 5:)
3
<vagrius( par. ad mon: 2): <vagrius( ep. ad mel.: 2/)
50:
innocent( he attributes *nowledge associated with ac.uisition( en,oyment( and esteem to
demonic thoughts( and the *nowledge of the perception as a sign of the nature of things and
spiritual principles 0essentially perception informed by scriptural e#egesis2 to angelic
thoughts)
:
The bare thought and the angelic thought are not associated with passions) %ut the
demonic thought is all to do with passions of ,ealousy( ac.uisition( and vainglory) Although
<vagrius Ponticus doesn+t ascribe to the practice of measuring the passions( his ideal of
freedom from the passions is associated with brac*eting *nowledge of values( measuring
thoughts( and determining one+s own life)
2.1.3: )it#dra*al (rom t#e *orld: c#allenging et#ics
!hat was the meaning of apat$eia for the ethical *nowledge of the desert fathers and
mothers$ Ct is clear that dispassion amongst the desert "hristians ' and especially <vagrius
Ponticus ' was a polyvalent ideal) There was general agreement( though( that the passions
were bound up with pre,udice and *nowing the world as something to be used) Cn re,ecting
the passions( they were attempting to gain control over and direction to their actions and
understanding) Dispassion was an ideal of an active life of non-passivity) This understanding
and lifestyle was still a significant part of the *nowledge and discipline of early "hristian
ascetics 0pace 9oucault2)
4
Dispassion is also a mode of emancipation from the *nowledge mediated by social
living) Passions define things as beneficial for me as a member of the e#change society) They
define people as useful for marriage 0fornication2( politics 0pride2( and honour 0vainglory2(
8
and things as sellable 0avarice2 or consumable 0gluttony2( etc) Dispassion signifies withdrawal
from these e#changes( engendering ob,ectivity) Dispassion leaves the world as it is6 for this is
the only way in which it can be beautiful)
;
9or these five causes men love one another( whether it be to their praise or their blame6 namely(
for Bod+s sa*e( as the virtuous man loves everybody and as the man who is not yet possessed of
virtue loves the virtuous manK or for natural reasons( as parents love their children and vice
versaK or for vainglory( as the man that is e#tolled loves the e#tollerK or for avarice( as one loves
a wealthy man for benefits receivedK or for love of pleasure( as the man who cares only for his
:
<vagrius( de mal. cog.: ;( .uoted below( on page 50;)
4
H!hat does the absence of pat$A( of passions( mean for "hristianity$ <ssentially it means renunciation of
egoism( of my own singular will)+ 9oucault( 2008L2003M6 58;) cf) Macrina+s argument against passive passion in
!illiams( 5/6 2/8)
8
Hthe wages of vainglory+6 <vagrius( ep.: 8)5)
;
7n this approach to art( cf) 9ried( 2008)
504
belly and things of se#) The first is praiseworthy( the second is in between( the rest belong to the
passions)

This reading of dispassion in terms of withdrawal from e#change brings us bac* to a

consideration of the meaning of the desert) The anac$oresis of the early "hristian ascetics
included both the psychological withdrawal into the heart( and the physical withdrawal into
the desert6 becoming an anchorite)
The reasons for choosing the desert for this purpose were obvious) Cn the desert there
was no food to eat( nothing to evo*e the passion of gluttony) There were certainly no
members of the opposite se# unless they were also "hristian ascetics6 late anti.ue
Mediterranean society tended to confine women to the household ' ruled by a husband or
father ' and e#ceptions to this 0e)g) women of independent means and prostitutes2 were
restricted to the city) There was very little audience for one+s heroic deeds( no-one to boast to)
There was no mar*et society( and no political structure) The desert was indeed a place for
economic and political refugees) The desert is outside the reach of even the most eager ta#-
collector)
500
?o the city was the space connected with practices of ac.uisition and manipulation(
whilst the desert refused these practices) Cn the city( one could spea* of ,ustice and mercyK
righteousness and temperance) Cn the desert( the will and means to attain these values were
not in place) The desert was the great e#ception) As such( the fathers and mothers of the desert
re,ected not ,ust the praise( practices( and passions of the city6 they re,ected its *nowledge)
Cn going out to the desert to be free from passion( early "hristian ascetics denied their
membership in the human race( for Hit is human to have passions+) !hat were considered
human functions ' eating( sleeping( drin*ing( having se#( spea*ing ' were denied) The space
of the mon*s+ cells was a place of wild animals and other non-humans)
Peter %rown puts an emphasis on this interpretation of "hristian monasticism as Hthe
opposite pole of all human society)+
505
The desert was not the place of humanity( but that of
animals) >ence the most e#treme ascetics were those who lived the life of a ruminant( the so-
called Hgra&ers+ mentioned in the histories of <vagrius ?cholasticus and Dohn Moschus)
Danger from wild animals was very real( and a number of stories represent desert fathers and
mothers braving the lairs of hyenas and big cats)
502

Ma#imus( carit. 1=4: CC))

500
"hitty( 5446 8)
505
%rown( 5856 2)
502
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Dohn( disciple of Abba Paul 5 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: PC=)3 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9:
C=): "limacus( scal.: ?tep 8 Moschus( prat.: 2( 5;( :;( et passim)
508
A further non-human inhabitant of the desert was the demon) The model te#t on desert
asceticism( Athanasius+ 3i.e o. 1t &nt$ony( is graphic in its portrayal of Anthony+s retreat to
his desert fortress where he was tormented by demons)
50/
%ut other stories are more everyday
in their approach6 one desert father wanders in search of a new location( and spends the night
in an abandoned pagan temple in the wilderness( and demons try to disturb him all night)
503
The message comes from all parts of "hristian desert writing6 the desert was first and
foremost the home of demons( and only e#perienced ascetics may go there with impunity)
All this reversal of human society serves primarily to throw light on what has been
abandoned by desert "hristians)
50:
The point of elaborating and living out a life in the desert
was to demonstrate the contingency of the world of the city) The desert fathers and mothers
went into the desert in order to deny all the assumptions of secular life)
504
!here human life
had been assumed to be contained by the ways of human society( and anything without was
simply bestial or spiritual( early "hristian ascetics made Hthe desert a city+) They lived the
alternative) Cn crossing the boundaries of possibility( they made it possible to describe and
*now what was within those boundaries as something specific( contained( contingent( and that
therefore might be otherwise) HThe world+ had lost its necessity( and the saeculum had been
placed)
50/
Athanasius( ". &nton.: 52-53)
503
&pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: =)2; O &pop$. Patr. 8anon9: 33)
50:
cf) the emphasis on disconnection from identity and society in 1inge+s account of ancient "hristian
asceticism( in star* contrast to the Hgentlemanly asceticism+ of ancient philosophy6 1inge( 20006 ::0f)
504
>ence the theme of being HstrangersSforeigners in the world+ in the "hristian literature of late anti.uity6
&pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P)20( 3:( P=CCC)30 lib. grad.: =)5;( PC=)5( PPC)/ <vagrius( $ypo.: 4 %arsanuphius and
Cohannes( resp.: :: "limacus( scal.: ?tep 3( receiving a magisterial e#position in !illiams( 200:6 ch) 2)
50;
.: Ascetic *$istemolog"
Monastic treatment of the passions developed through various tra,ectories) The most
famous being their reception as deadly sins or vices( which were a matter of dialogue between
<ast and !est in the early Middle Ages)
508
Passions also became a matter for medical science
and the understanding of humanity in modern philosophy)
50;
Cn matters of epistemology(
however( they were part of the presupposed language of philosophy) They represent the
unreasonable( the uncontrollable aspects of human nature) ?o far have they come from the
accounts of anti.uity that their relation to reason is one of patient to doctor and prisoner to
guard rather than clay to potter and glass for the eye) Ct is stri*ing that in anti.uity( unreason
can be understood as a result of dispassion( whereas in the modern age( passion is one domain
of unreason)
The domain of control over the passions has a peculiar character amongst the early
"hristian ascetics( as compared with their philosophical heirs) !e have seen that for <vagrius
Ponticus and the desert fathers( to master the passions is to insert one+s agency into the
process of representation) Cn order to discern how the holy fools transform *nowledge of
holiness( we therefore need to identify the theory and technology of epistemology among their
ascetic predecessors) >ow did their asceticism transform and produce *nowledge$
After lengthy observation we have learned to recogni&e this difference between angelic and
human thoughts( and those that come from the demons) 9irstly angelic thoughts are concerned
with the investigation of the natures of things and search out their spiritual principles) 9or
e#ample( the reason why gold was made and why it is sand-li*e and scattered through the lower
regions of the earth( and is discovered with much labour and toilK how when it is discovered it is
washed and delivered to the fire and then placed in the hands of artisans who ma*e the
lampstand of the tabernacle( and incense burner( the censers( and the vessels from which by the
grace of the ?aviour the *ing of %abylon no longer drin*s( but it is "leopas who brings a heart
burning with these mysteries) The demonic thought neither *nows nor understands these things(
but without shame it suggests only the ac.uisition of sensible gold and predicts the en,oyment
and esteem that will come from this) The human thought neither see*s the ac.uisition of gold
nor is concerned with investigating what gold symboli&esK rather( it merely introduces in the
intellect the simple form of Bold separate from any passion of greed) The same reasoning can
be applied to other matters by mentally engaging the e#ercise of this rule)
50
508
Dohannes "limacus discusses the reduction to seven deadly sins by Bregory the Breat( and concurs with the
identification of vainglory with pride( in "limacus( scal.: ?tep 22)
50;
?tarting with Descartes( 5;L543M)
50
<vagrius( de mal. cog.: ;)
50
Cn this passage( <vagrius Ponticus outlines for us one of the ways in which early
"hristian ascetics may distance themselves from their *nowledge of the world and produce
new resonances and meanings) >is angelic thought allows reality and even natural
*nowledge( but it is then inserted into an entirely different set of significations( each
themselves referring to themes of ascetic and "hristian theology) Cn this case( he ta*es the
conventional and practical understanding of gold mining( and sees it as part of the story of the
<#odus( the symbolism of the tabernacle( and the motif of the return from e#ile) These stories
in turn evo*e an understanding of the soul as the temple of Bod( its return from the e#ile of
sin( and its participation in the sacraments of "hrist( all summed up in the model of the
conversion and resurrection vision on the road to <mmaus)
The above analysis of technologies of the passions amongst desert fathers showed
early "hristian ascetics attempting to create a brea* from secular *nowledge by transforming
their understanding and associations towards thoughts and phenomena) Their allegorical
interpretation of life saturated perceptions with the presence of Bod) The everday is *nown as
holy( as opposed to being sub,ect to my desires( manipulation and mar*et interests)
Assuming that this is no mere facet of cosmological dualism( where the pristine
incorporeal mind has to be protected from the dirt of fleshly influence( what philosophical
move is being made here$ !e have outlined the ethical implications of this *ind of practice
above) >ere we will elaborate the theoretical implications for epistemological technology)
Cf the pro,ect of eradicating mar*et( gender( and political assumptions from one+s
epistemology were to be espoused by a modern "hristian movement( it would be entirely
familiar to us) ?cepticism towards the mode of representational thought is a standard facet of
contemporary post-@antian philosophy) !hether we are reading 9oucault+s wor* on the
historical a priori( !ittgenstein+s appeal to forms of life( %ataille+s religious criti.ue of
reificationScommodification( or ?aussure+s structural account of the sign( the assumption is
that the way in which we thin* ' our language( logic( and concepts ' is historically mediated(
and could be otherwise) !e are bound to thin* as we do( but others might thin* differently)
7ur signs are contingent and obligatory)
<arly "hristian asceticism on our reading resembles an inherently modern( indeed
secular pro,ect( but there are good reasons for believing that early "hristian ascetics thought
of their departure from the Hworld+ and the city as a semiotic as well as a politico-religious
tas*) The above e#egeses have certainly implied parallels with these assumptions about
thought) Aepresentations are contingent6 not only may we be led astray by the simplest of
550
images( but we are not obliged to believe our eyes) H@nowledge falsely so called is trusting in
one+s own thought that things are e#actly as they appear to us)+
550
The agency of demons was
capable of providing illusions( but bad habits would do ,ust as well)
555
?imilarly(
representations are not simply chosen( or easily manipulated6 the practice of obedience was
one way in which a mon* may challenge the felt obligation to believe one+s representations
0cf) above( on page 2;2) Biving up one+s will to another was not primarily a way of destroying
agency( but of forcing scepticism regarding thought) >umility allows the mon* to challenge
socially produced *nowledge( of which he is himself a product)
There are obviously clear differences) !hilst %ataille criti.ues the practice of Hseeing
as+ as a whole( and appeals to the intimacy of being in the world li*e water in water( the
desert fathers and mothers attempt to produce a Hnatural+ perception of the world6 HThe rule
and limit of absolute chastity is to have the same feelings regarding animate and inanimate
beings( rational and irrational)+
552
This does not deny the fact that both %ataille and early
"hristian ascetics re,ect the economic perception of the world as primarily utilitarian benefits(
e.uivalent to labour and mar*et values) Their reactions( however( diverge) !hilst %ataille
eliminates thought+s connection to the mar*et through needless and irrational consumption(
the ascetic cultivates practices of interpretation that read the world as caught up in a semiotic
system pointing to Bod through symbol and metaphor)
?o far( all these readings of ancient te#ts could be a generous interpretation of certain
ascetic practices) "an evidence be found that this ascetic approach was grounded in a thought
through epistemological technology that re.uired the "hristian to interrupt the interpretation
of the world with their moral agency$ Cn order to investigate this( we must leave the oriental
desert fathers and mothers( who eschewed the ma*ing of philosophical theories( and loo* to
the other end of the Mediterranean at another ascetic theologian)
!hy should we consider Augustine+s wor* as a contribution to early "hristian
asceticism$ There are a great number of reasons internal to Augustine+s own life and wor*
that would suggest such a move6 his lifelong monastic vocationK his correspondence with
ascetic thin*ers 0noticeably Derome2K the influence of the story of ?t Anthony in his
conversion
55/
K his debate with Pelagius on asceticism and the city( along with its reception in
the community of Dohn "assian( and more could be added) There are also a series of literary
parallels6 his interpretation of Platonism as a call to the religious lifeK the wave of 1atin
550
%arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: /8/)
555
"limacus( scal.: ?tep 24)
552
"limacus( scal.: ?tep 5:K cf) %ataille( 5;L58/M and above( on page 50/)
55/
Augustinus( con.)6 =CCC)vi)53 and =CCC)#ii)2)
555
0translations of2 hagiography into 1atin in his time
553
K Augustine+s Rule 0whose authorship '
unli*e its connection to Augustine+s circle ' is disputed2K
55:
and the general appropriation and
discussion of philosophical considerations of asceticism)
554
%ut the claim to relevance here is not a very bold one) Ct is not that Augustine was read
by the <astern ascetic tradition( or that his aims were the same) The level of philosophical and
theological reflection in his wor* ' far more systematic and speculative than even <vagrius
Ponticus ' are all but unthin*able in the <gyptian and Palestinian desert communities of his
time) >owever( precisely because the latter were silent on issues of epistemology( we may
turn to Augustine as someone who shared a starting point ' the ascetic life of monastic
community ' and faced similar moral problems of the practice and conceptualisation of
desire) The differences between them were to contribute to setting the scene for the later
developments of <astern and !estern monasticism) Their similarities are a result of their
treatment and practice of a shared heritage)
Cn what may be his most overtly philosophical wor*(
558
Augustine ma*es an appeal to
pre-discursive conditions that are vital to have in place before any good interpretation may be
endeavoured) ?o he prefaces his essay on the function of signs( which was to set the agenda
for Mediaeval philosophy of language in <urope( with a boo* on things( to which signs refer)
This boo* outlined a categorisation into things that are to be used 0uti2( and things that are to
be en,oyed 0.rui2) The latter have value in and of themselves( whereas the former are loved
because of the value they derive from another)
The relation this distinction bears to signs is comple#( but essentially( the useSen,oy
division is overlaid the signSthing distinction) !e refer signs endlessly until we reach a thing(
and we use things endlessly until we reach something to be en,oyed) Cn both cases( the
endpoint is Bod6 all signs refer ultimately to Bod through natural signs ' smo*e is a sign of
fire( the world is a sign of BodK all things are to be used e#cept Bod( who can be en,oyed)
>owever( since all things are created( Bod can be recognised 0as reference2 and en,oyed in
everything)
55;
Bod is not a thing( however(
55
and so parado#ically( the only one that can be
en,oyed rather than used( referred to rather than used to refer( undermines the general rule that
signs refer to things)
553
e)g) "assianus( *ollationesK Aufinus( 6ist. 2onac$.K >ieronymus( ". Pauli)
55:
9or a translation and discussion( cf) 1awless( 5;8)
554
Most e#plicitly in his rule and op. mon. 9or a longer discussion( cf) 1awless 2002)
558
Augustinus( doctr. c$r.: C)
55;
Thomas A.uinas( summa t$eologiae: 5a :)5(3 9or more on this line of interpretation( see Thomas( 200/
!illiams( 5;)
55
Augustinus( doctr. c$r.: C)v):)
552
Cn short( Augustine gets himself into a muddle( and bangs his head against the limits of
language) This is a result of the fact that he is directing his intervention be.ore language) >e
is attempting to lay out the ground rules for reference( in his own words) All logical
consideration of meaning will have to ma*e use of different types( or a meta-language( which
will itself re.uire a logic( en.uiry into which generates an infinite regress) Ct is concerning this
regress that !ittgenstein bids us be silent(
520
or to play with our self-conscious nonsense)
525
!e spea* of what we do not *now)
The specific warning Augustine is ma*ing concerns reference and love) >e wants to
point out that we read scriptures in order to help us to love Bod) Qet this very pro,ect is
flawed) %ecause in reading( we refer to things that we can and have identified through thought
and language) They are what we love and ma*e use of) %ut Bod is not to be used( or
identified( or read off from a script) Bod is the creator of every reader( and so cannot be an
element in a system( discourse( or instruction) Bod is to be en,oyed as the immanent presence
to all thought)
After his ethico-theological introduction to Bod-language( Augustine continues with a
treatment of signs in the interpretation of scripture) >e points out that the systems of
signification and coding that we have received are established by long years of habit and
established authority)
522
This habit and authority is neither necessary nor always desirable( so
he directs the student of scripture to the learning of these codes and institutions( but with a
critical eye towards their origin and implications) The result is what could be called the first
pro,ect of semiotic cultural criticism)
The aim is for the "hristian user of signs to cultivate their agency as regards culture
and language) To that end( the reader is directed to the origin and validity of each regime of
truth) Magical *nowledge( for e#ample( is re,ected because of its origin in contracts and
common language with demons)
52/
1ogic and number are accepted because of their rational
validity)
523
7ther areas of *nowledge are contingent6 they are useful for the smooth running of
society( but the "hristian is not bound by them) These include the configuration of gender(
ran*( measurement( and economic value6
52:
precisely those domains the desert fathers and
<vagrius called impassioned meanings)
520
This is the reference of Hthat of which we cannot spea*+ in the closing line of !ittgenstein( 545L525M)
525
!ittgenstein( 5;L588M6 43)
522
Augustinus( doctr. c$r.: CC)#iii)5)
52/
Augustinus( doctr. c$r.: CC)##)/0-##iv)/8)
523
Augustinus( doctr. c$r.: CC)###i#):;)
52:
Augustinus( doctr. c$r.: CC)##v)/)
55/
Augustine echoes <vagrius Ponticus+ use of the *nowledge of his day( baptised
through the comple# web of scriptural references) >e even recommends young theologians to
draw up reference boo*s of the ways in which the %ible refers to the various sciences6 what
animals signify what( what all the numbers refer to( and so on) >owever( this is not simply for
the sa*e of understanding the %ible but also of understanding the world) Ct is an ascetical tas*
as well as a hermeneutical one)
524
Augustine inserts love into the faculty of speech and representation) >is semiotics is
both cast as a preliminary stage of interpretation and as an ascetic e#ercise in Hseeing as+( a*in
to that of <vagrius Ponticus and the desert fathers and mothers) >is biblical interpretation is
part and parcel of this6 both appropriating non-doctrinal *nowledge for the sa*e of discerning
truth( and using the te#t to e#ert an influence upon the truth of the world)
Cf we are to accept that early "hristian asceticism proposed an epistemological practice
of inserting agency into the process of *nowledge and representations( there are a certain
number of implications) 9irstly( the *nowledge we have received in the world is contingent(
so that it is possible to manipulate it and change it into something else) ?econdly( *nowledge
is bound up with forms of life( so that the transformation of *nowledge entails a practice( and
not ,ust a thought) Ct involves assessing the production of *nowledge in the light of "hristian
ta#onomies and ordered love)
The first implication( asserting that *nowledge-ma*ing processes are contingent( is
bound to be surprising) Ct does not only .uestion common *nowledge( but common concepts
and systems of thought( the pre-re.uisites of *nowledge) ?o( for e#ample( desert fathers and
mothers did not challenge the geography of holiness in late anti.uity by discussing whether
prostitutes could be holy6 they visited prostitutes and prayed with them) Their practice
transforms the way in which prostitution is thought and *nown without discussion)
7ne way of ma*ing *nowledge contingent is to ma*e it specific) Cf a system of
*nowledge can be described( it is not all there is( but one way among many) Therefore it is not
necessary( and can be transformed or re,ected) ?o for e#ample we saw a number of different
attitudes to the law and to monastic variation in part one 0on page :326 these attitudes ma*e it
possible to e#periment with new "hristian relations to law and monasticism) They refuse to
let the practical discussion of the definition of monasticism be closed) The early "hristian
ascetics were innovative regarding new forms of life) !hilst withdrawal from the world of
524
This will mean re-casting the debate concerning the function of the de doctrina c$ristiana( which has arisen in
the wa*e of the seminal article =erhei,en( 583) 9or more on this( see Thomas( 200/ Arnold and %right( 5:
>arrison( 2004)
553
politics was a commonplace in the philosophy of late anti.uity( the communities and
asceticism constructed by the desert fathers and mothers were both radical and new)
The perspective gained by these new forms of life in the desert enabled the
transformation of a concept) The Hworld+ had for some time been thought of not only in terms
of political life( but as a system of desire( by those embracing monastic withdrawal to the
desert) The biblical source most .uoted is the definition given by Dohn6 the desire of the flesh(
the desire of the eyes( and the pride of life 05 Dohn 2)542) The geographical move( however(
gave this denomination a very concrete character) The world becomes the life of the city) Ct is
the contingent configuration of family( political alliance( money( and desire) Physical
departure from this environment allowed the desert fathers and mothers to conceptualise that
system of life and *nowledge as ,ust one among many) Ct is specifically the way of Hthe
world+( as opposed to that of angels or demons or the desert)
This is the epistemological implication of the techni.ue of dissociation outlined in part
one 0on page 8:ff2) 7nce the world could be loo*ed at as an ob,ect( it could be
conceptualised( made into a specific variable) %ecoming a stranger means seeing one+s life '
what one has become estranged from ' as an ob,ect( as one among many) Ct is the privilege of
foreigners to see very clearly the difference between what is necessary and what is contingent
in a culture)
The conceptualisation of Hthe world+ is therefore a test case of the technological
epistemological revolution of early "hristian asceticism) Ct is an instance ' along with their
control of the passions ' of someone inserting their agency into the process of *nowledge
through forcing into place a governing concept) 1ater traditions of asceticism combine the
tas*s6
?omeone withdrawing from the world for the sa*e of the 1ord is no longer attached to
possessions( that he should not appear to be deceived by the passions) Cf you have left the world(
then do not begin to reach out for it) 7therwise your passions will come bac* to you)
528
This particular techni.ue assumes that describing something involves transcending it
in some way 0virtual or otherwise2) Ct is only when the desert fathers and mothers had
withdrawn from the world that they were able to describe it as such in any detail) Ct is not that
it had no function in forms of life previous to the flight to the desert( but that it gained a set of
528
"limacus( scal.: ?tep /)
55:
functions afterwards) The specificity of these functions( and their descriptive nature( all imply
that the agent is not necessarily participating in what previously had described everything)
The grammar of Hthe world+ ' irrespective of the specific transformation forced by the
flight to the desert ' is such that it lends itself to transcendence) Dohn+s original definition in
terms of desire and pride was already revolutionary) %ecause the world is all that is 0the case2)
To describe it as contingent is to assert the possibility of revolution) Dohn+s statement implies
that everything can and has changed) <verything can be .uestioned) <verything is contingent)
%ecause everything can be compared to the realm of the 9ather) Cn concrete terms( this means
for the first "hristians that everything can be compared to the church) 9or the desert fathers
and mothers( everything 0including the church2 can be compared to the desert) And this does
not preclude comparing everything 0including the desert2 to a further situation( for e#ample
madness)
<ach comparison suggests a new bifurcation of reality and allows new modes of
description) %ut since we may in each case be describing everything that is 0the case2( the
bifurcation implies total revolution) <verything becomes liable to transformation) The simple
act of description forces contingency by transcendence6 pushing oneself away from what one
thought was the unmoveable edge)
This practice of *nowledge that ob,ectifies a contingent world of course mirrors the
modern revolutionary practice of criticising the now( highlighted in 9oucault+s e#egeses of
@ant)
52;
The .uestion as to what determines the present and what is to determine the future is
addressed by @ant and 9oucault as the paradigmatic philosophical tas*) Describing the
present by tracing its limits is merely the chronological e.uivalent of the topological practice
of placing the world through fleeing to its borders) %oth are epistemological as well as
political pro,ects)
The second implication of the early "hristian ascetic insertion of agency into
technologies of *nowledge and representations that we noted was the integration of
*nowledge with forms of life) There are obvious e#amples of this) 1iving in community will
give you a reading of Paul+s letters to the churches that sympathises much more with his
reconciliatory words than life in absolute solitude) Aituals structure one+s sense of history and
relation to the everyday( and everyday negotiations are the conte#t for one+s *nowledge of
manners and social order)
52;
9oucault presented a number of different e#egeses of @ant+s article H!hat is <nlightenment+ 0@ant(
2008L58;3M2 during the final years of his life( e)g) in 9oucault( 2000L5;3M 9oucault( 2008L50M 9oucault( 200;6
;-/)
554
The *ey areas we mentioned above ' gender( economic value( political alliances ' that
were shunned by desert fathers as generated by the passions are all both practices of life and
domains of *nowledge) Bender is configured by social roles and marital practices in late
anti.uity) Ct corresponds to a code of *nowledge concerning what is masculine and what is
feminine) This *nowledge can be adhered to or transgressed) <conomics is configured by a
mar*et( and entails *nowledge of everything+s price) Political alliances are forged through
friendship and civic duties( and yield *nowledge of the city+s life( its people( and of politics)
Cn each of these cases( abandoning the form of life threatens the necessity of the
*nowledge) ?omeone who does not care how much his property costs does not stri*e his ban*
manager as odd6 they can not have a conversation) They are strangers to each other( ,ust as
those initiated into the world of faceboo* cannot be Hfriends+ with those who are not) As
Derome says( Heach is a madman for the other)+
52
A further e#ample can be given from our above discussion of vainglory) !hilst there
are indeed a great number of practical solutions to the problem of vainglory ' secrecy(
e#posure to the elements( refusal to attempt e#treme asceticism( holy foolishness ' one
solution suggested was ignorance) Qou can avoid the practices that lead you to glory in your
own fabulousness( or you can simply be ignorant of the categories that .ualify you as a
successful mon*6 Hsimpler people do not usually succumb to the poison of vainglory( which
is( after all( a loss of simplicity and a hypocritical mode of behavior)+
5/0
Cn other words( we have an asceticism that integrates *nowledge and practice so as to
ma*e them mutually dependent) !e have seen that challenging the form of life that founds
particular *nowledges will produce effects within that *nowledge) At the same time( to
challenge the *nowledge 0by for e#ample claiming that women are not created as wivesK that
money is defined by human sovereignty( and friendship is more godly than status2 will
produce other behaviours 0as we saw in part one2)
The ascetic revolutionary epistemology outlined here is based on the ethics of
renunciation) A casuistry of vainglory and ob,ectivity ,ustifies denying worldly *nowledge)
The denial is further allied to a thesis concerning the *nowability of Bod)
The early "hristian ascetics addressed their practice to the process of *nowledge)
Their control over passions( forcing of concepts( and reflection on *nowledge-shaping forms
of life were all ways of inserting agency into the formation of the conditions of *nowledge)
52
>ieronymus( ep.: #lv)
5/0
"limacus( scal.: 22) >ence Dohn considers Hacting stupid+ as a response to vainglory6 %arsanuphius and
Cohannes( resp.: //2)
558
?ome of them even reflected on the issue and developed epistemological theories to deal with
the problem)
55;
.&: T#e /ork of a 0ilence
Ascetics and philosophers wor* on their language and *nowledge) 7nce again( we
have constructed a picture containing very little theology) !e must therefore add this one
element( in order to consider their contribution not simply to the technology of *nowledge
and epistemology( but also to the challenges of theology and god-tal*)
The ascetic and foolish approach to theology is of central importance not simply
because we are interested in their religious *nowledge ,ust as much as their religious practice)
Ct is also the foundation stone and brea*ing point of their *nowledge6 foundation stone
because they re,ect the *nowledge of the city and embrace the desert as the place of Bod and
the theological locationK brea*ing point because they embrace the desert for its featurelessness
' the desert is the place of the impossibility of Bod-tal*) This brea*ing point defines the
location and manner of the transformation of *nowledge) !hen the desert becomes a city( the
*nowledge of Bod can be spo*en) !hen the holy fools ta*e desert solitude bac* into the city(
they challenge the theology of urban "hristianity)
!e will therefore have to investigate not only the theology of early "hristian ascetics
and holy fools( but their specifically apophatic theology) The norms of the desert fathers and
mothers were described by their techni.ues of withdrawal from the world) Their *nowledge
will be described in the ways by which they refuse to spea* of Bod6 their Hpractice of
ignorance)+
5/5
>ow do they avoid the danger of misrepresenting Bod$ >ow do they wor* on a
language and *nowledge that does not reach out to Bod and yet shapes their lives$ >ow to be
holy when the holy is ine#pressible$ Cn this way( we will be forced to treat the sub,ect both
historically and notionall through elucidating the words of early "hristian ascetics and
through e#plaining the moves allowed by the domain of negative theology) Cn this way( C will
draw on two very different sources in what follows6 our closely defined historical sources will
yield arguments concerning manifestations of negative theology in early "hristian asceticism(
and the "hristian tradition as a whole 0including modern authors2 will elucidate the grammar
of negative theology as such( by showing what moves are and were available to the pro,ect)
2.3.1: +aying o to "#eology
Theology and religious practice were intimately bound up for early "hristian ascetics)
Cn spite of their reticence regarding Bod-tal* and doctrine( their asceticism demanded
reference to Bod6
5/5
"limacus( scal.: ?tep 3)
55
The man who wants to tal* about love is underta*ing to spea* about Bod) %ut it is ris*y to tal*
about Bod and could even be dangerous for the unwary) Angels *now how to spea* about love(
but even they do so only in proportion to the light within them)
IBod is loveJ) %ut someone eager to define this is blindly striving to measure the sand in the
ocean)
1ove( by its nature( is a resemblance to Bod( insofar as this is humanly possible) Cn its activity it
is inebriation of the soul) Cts distinctive character is to be a fountain of faith( an abyss of
patience( a sea of humility)
1ove is the banishment of every sort of contrariness( for love thin*s no evil)
1ove( dispassion( and adoption are distinguished by name( and name only) 1ight( fire( and flame
,oin to fashion one activity) ?o too with love( dispassion( and adoption)
X There is nothing wrong about offering human analogies for longing( fear( concern( &eal(
service( and love of Bod) 1uc*y the man who loves and longs for Bod( as a smitten lover does
for his beloved) 1uc*y the man whose fear of Bod is in no way less than the fear of the accused
in front of a ,udge) 1uc*y the man who is caught up with the &eal of loyal slaves toward their
owner) 1uc*y the man who is as passionately concerned with the virtues as a ,ealous husband
watching over his wife) 1uc*y the man who prays before Bod li*e a courtier before the *ing)
1uc*y the man who strives without end to please the 1ord as others try to please men)
5/2
The "hristian who attempts to live the good life is caught in a dilemma( according to
Dohn "limacus) <ither they call their love purely their own( and so fall into the trap of
vainglory( or they attribute it to Bod+s wor*) %ut then they stand in danger of defining Bod
according to their own life) ?o "limacus e#horts the "hristian to refuse the tas* of measuring
love and goodness( and instead fill up the measure of human goodness within them)
?o theology is a dangerous necessity of speech about love) At the same time( it is only
the person whose love has been purified that can properly engage in theology) Cn the same
step( "limacus described the pure "hristian as someone completely distracted by the love of
Bod( unaware of hunger( or danger( or self) Ct is only when these concerns of measuring the
self and the body have been brushed aside that theology can ta*e place)
?o the good life entails and warns against theology) %ut good theology is not possible
until the good life has been achieved) 9or "limacus( apophaticism and *ataphatacism are pre-
re.uisites and results of love) %y loving and not *nowing Bod( we can become good) %y
5/2
"limacus( scal.: ?tep /0)
520
becoming good( we can *now the Trinity and the analogical nature of our love) 9or HPurity
ma*es of a disciple someone who can spea* of Bod( and he can move on to a *nowledge of
the Trinity)+
>ow can a "hristian attempt to not *now Bod$ Cf all apophatic theologians were
consistent( we would not *now about it) %ecause they would not be able to tell us that they are
theologians) ?ooner or later( an apophatic theologian has to say something( and at some point(
she will say something about Bod)
5//
9or all its heuristic usefulness( the discipline of apophatic theology is not typically
something embraced by individual theologians) Denys the Areopagite is not a monolithic
apophatic theologian( because his wor*s include a great deal of constructive theology( not
least his interpretations of ecclesiastical practice in the Ecclesiastical 6ierarc$y)
5/3
Ct would
be more accurate to say that certain theologians sometimes write in an apophatic mode)
The "hristian tradition notes an overriding theological reason to abandon the
apophatic mode( brea* silence( and say something 0wrong2 about Bod( and that is described
by Augustine( after he had once more banged his head against the limits of language6
>ave C spo*en something( have C uttered something( worthy of Bod$ No( C feel that all C have
done is to wish to spea*K if C did say something( it is not what C wanted to say) >ow do C *now
this$ ?imply because Bod is unspea*able) %ut what C have spo*en would not have been spo*en
if it were unspea*able) 9or this reason Bod should not even be called unspea*able( X Qet
although nothing can be spo*en in a way worthy of Bod( he has sanctioned the homage of the
human voice( and chosen that we should derive pleasure from our words in praise of him)
5/:
?o strict apophaticism on its own is insufficient( as it is incapable of praise( and
therefore strives against the purpose of humanity to serve and praise Bod) Ct also assumes
something positive about Bod( namely unspea*ability) %ut spea*ing of Bod is also
insufficient( as it is doomed to failure) !e do not *now when we are spea*ing the truth)
!ords refer to things( and Bod is not a thing) The need for silence is accepted by those who
allow the validity of the pro,ect of *nowing Bod) %ut not accepting the tas* of *nowing Bod
also implies silence about Bod)
5//
9or Michel de "erteau( this defines the domain of spirituality as well6 where silence and speech are e.ually
impossible) "erteau( 58/6 5:/)
5/3
Denys( e.$.
5/:
Augustinus( doctr. c$r.: C)vi)4) "f) also Denys( e.$.: C)2)
525
Theology is therefore caught between disobedience and nonsense6 either it *eeps
silent( and lives in rebellion to Bod( or it spea*s of and to Bod( but only does so falsely) !hy
is Bod-tal* so doomed to failure$
Ta*e the statement HBod is immutable+) An argument for the statement could be H!e
*now that Bod is immutable because if ?he were mutable( then there would be something that
causes action in Bod) Bod is not a caused thing but the cause of things( so Bod is immutable)+
This argument 0with which C have no great problem2 is not an apophatic one) Although
Himmutable+ means the same as Hnot mutable+( it can still be thought as a positive .uality) This
can be shown both de .acto and de ;ure6 on the one hand( it is a positive .uality because it
determines Bod+s relation to movement and causality( namely that Bod is always the sub,ect
rather than the ob,ect of these predicatesK on the other hand( certain theologians
5/4
have had
problems with this doctrine( which hinders them from spea*ing of Bod+s repentance and
mercy) ?o it is not an instance of saying nothing about Bod)
This particular problem arises because of the logical form of the denial) ?uppose
someone were to assert the traditional statement of apophatic theology( that HBod is dar*ness+)
Cf we are to be strict about our language( we would have to deny this) ?o the alternative would
be that HBod is light+) That doesn+t seem to solve our problem though( so we have to loo* at
the grammar of the terms) Dar*ness and light are comparative terms6 if we are in complete
dar*ness( we can see nothing) Cf we then are able to see something at all( it means that there is
a tiny degree of light( so that it is not completely dar*) Cf it is not completely dar*( therefore( it
must be slightly light) ?o the statement HBod is not dar*+ means the same as HBod is light+( as
long as we do not ta*e either term to be complete) Cf we want to( we could say that Bod is
neither light nor dar*( but that would ' in *eeping with the grammar of light and dar* ' also
allow the statement that Bod is both light and dar*)
5/8
The only way( it seems( to preserve strict apophaticism and deny the statement that
HBod is dar*+ is to wor* on the scope of the word Hnot+) HNot+ can grammatically be treated as
an adverb( and therefore can function adverbially or sententially) !e have so far only used it
adverbially of the ad,ective Hdar*+) Cf we raise the scope of the Hnot+( it can refer to the entire
sentence( producing HCt is not the case that Bod is dar*+) Now this does not commit us to
applying the categories of dar*ness and light at all6 it has the force of a blan* denial)
5/4
e)g) @arl %arth( !alter Moberly)
5/8
@ant argues something similar to this with regard to the proposition that a body has a good smell in @ant(
52L58;5M6 % :/5K Denys the Areopagite is also acutely aware of the ambiguity of certain negations6 Denys(
myst.: C)
522
>owever( this is not .uite right either) >aving denied that we can predicate concepts
of light and dar* 0mutability( or si&e( or longevity( etc)2( we still have the problem of what we
can predicate of Bod) %ut if we loo* at the word Hdar*+( we all *now more or less what we
mean with the word) Ct has a meaning in other sentences so that we can at least be clear about
the parameters of meaning even when we use it metaphorically) 9or apophatic theology( this
is not the case with the word HBod+) The words are used in entirely different ways) As @ant
puts it6
The cosmological ideas L"i?. Hdar*ness+ etc)M alone have the peculiarity that they can presuppose
their ob,ect( and the empirical synthesis re.uired for its concept( as being given)
5/;
?ince there is no such givenness with the concept of Bod( which has been inherited by
the "hristian tradition from various sources and translations ' the pagan Hgods+ of Bree* and
Aoman religion( the >ebrew tetragrammaton( Plato+s demiurge and Aristotle+s unmoved
mover ' we can not simply assume its meaning) !e *now what it means for a night and hair
to be dar*( because we have e#perience of truly predicating things of nights and hair( and
predicating dar* of things li*e them) This is not the case with predicating things of Bod( who
is the only one of her species( so that no one is li*e him) ?o the very pro,ect of theology is
problematic before we even begin to say something about Bod 0whateverSwhoever Bod may
be2)
There are three solutions to this problem that C want to outline here( based on religious
e#perience( values( and wor* on thought( respectively)
5) !e could replace the word HBod+ with the e#pression Hthe one whom we pray
toSworshipSobey etc)+ !hilst this solution has advantages that it does not assume
much notional content( it does assume that our prayer( worship( etc) occur in the
conte#t of true religion) Prayer and worship have their own reference( and
Augustine+s *on.essions is possibly one of the most consistent attempts at a
systematic wor* of Bod tal* using the word Hyou+ as reference) >owever( spea*ing
to Bod begs all the .uestions that spea*ing of Bod does6 it assumes that he is
listening( that she interacts with the world( etc) True religion is informed by and
informs theology( but does not cut the Bordian *not of Bod-tal*)
2) !e could replace the word HBod+ with a traditional reference( such as Hthat than
which no greater can be conceived)+ Although a popular choice( this way forward is
5/;
@ant( 52L58;5M6 % :08)
52/
sub,ect to a variety of factors) 9irstly( it is fairly clear to any modern reader of the
fathers and mothers of the church that their concept of greatness is .uite different to
our modern everyday understanding) These values and definitions are presupposed
in language and theology) Augustine ma*es regular
5/
appeal to sanity in reference
to Bod6 pagan theology is not ,ust wrong( it is mad and foolish) ?uch a brea* with
the religious culture of his time is( as we have seen 0over( in 2)56 Practices of
Thought in the Desert2 in *eeping with the dissociation of the desert fathers and
mothers from the ethics of the city) Cf we are to call Bod great( then we have to be
aware of what our language also calls Hgreat+)
530
/) The third solution is to wor* on our language) Biven that our religion and
definitions have to ta*e for granted that we already live in an encoded world( that
we already have an established set of meanings( then we must deal with what we
have before we can propose new practices of true religion or new meanings of the
divine) As Aowan !illiams has put it in his attempt to define the enterprise of
Theology6
C assume that the theologian is always beginning in the middle of things) There is a practice of
common life and language already there( a practice that defines a specific shared way of
interpreting human life as lived in relation to Bod) The meanings of the word HBod+ are to be
discovered by watching what this community does)
535
The obvious e#ample for this approach in late anti.uity is the development of a
common language to spea* of Bod in the various doctrinal formulations) Cn each
case( theologians and churchmen ta*e up language already being used in ?cripture(
thought( prayer( and philosophy( and refine it for their current use) Ct is also for this
reason( C ta*e it( that Thomas A.uinas lays out the various ways in which we spea*
of Bod at the beginning of the 1umma)
532
>e did not then write HNow we *now the
truth about Bod+( but Hand this is what we all call Bod)+ >e then attempts to carve
out a language that is consistent( based on these established verbal practices) Ct has
been argued that this is what he is doing when he establishes Bod+s Hformal
features+ in .uestions 2-2: of the first part of the 1umma)
53/
5/
Augustinus( doctr. c$r.: C)i#) Augustinus( de ci". dei: =C)50 et passim.
530
Denys( d.n.: =CC <vagrius( de orat.: 8/)
535
!illiams( 20006 #ii)
532
Thomas A.uinas( summa t$eologiae: 5a)2)/)
53/
Turner( 20036 35-33)
523
Augustine does something similar with the word HBod+ in the words following his
admission of nonsense 0.uoted over on page 5202) Ac*nowledging that all who use
the word HBod+ 0both "hristians and non-"hristians2 are inspired to thin* of a
Hbeing than which there is nothing better or more e#alted+(
533
and that we *now
nothing from the name itself( he proceeds to list the values held dear by various
people( showing what they will imagine or conceive when they hear the name
HBod+) >e then describes a process of identifying superior values( eliminating
inferior ones( and abstracting high virtues from the things we esteem highest 0life
from living things( wisdom from the wise( etc)2) The conclusion of all this is
ultimately the wor* of Bod+s grace in our thoughts and character6
our minds must be purified so that they are able to perceive that light and then hold fast to it) 1et
us consider this process of cleansing as a tre*( or a voyage( to our homelandK though progress
towards the one who is ever present is not made through space( but through integrity of purpose
and character)
53:
Biven that the apophatic theologian is caught between the necessity and insufficiency
of language and *nowledge( one of these solutions must be espoused( or another proposed)
7ur *nowledge is saturated with terms that apply to the world( and belief in Bod the "reator
of that world implies that this is not a problem) !e have only to identify the goodness of
creation and apply it analogically to Bod) >owever( our standards are so burned that we never
*now when we have achieved a genuine perception of the good) Ct is only when our
*nowledge of the good has been utterly transformed that we can *now the good)
An apophatic theology that consistently suspects *nowledge of Bod must therefore be
suspicious of the language of theology) !hether it grounds its Bod-reference in religious
practice( authoritative definitions( or everyday language( it is unable to avoid the suppositions
of human culture) Ct is obliged to embrace a form of language-criti.ue) Cts voice is not its own)
7ne thin*er to have done more than most to advance the study of apophaticism in the
"hristian tradition in recent years is Denys Turner(
534
and it will perhaps be useful at this point
to ta*e his position as an e#ample of a sophisticated statement of the possibility of restating
the apophatic 0and cataphatic2 position) C choose Turner 0rather than( for e#ample( Marion(
Derrida( McBinn or 1ash2 because he gives good answers to some of the difficult .uestions C
have raised here) Ultimately these answers themselves become problematic)
533
Augustinus( doctr. c$r.: C)vii)8)
53:
Augustinus( doctr. c$r.: C)#)50)
534
e)g) in Turner 5:( 2002( 2003( and 200;)
52:
Turner bases his statement of apophaticism on the patristic e#pression of un*nowing
that unites Plato+s cave with Moses+ Hface to face+ meeting with Bod) The framewor* for this
is given by Denys the Areopagite) The apophatic theologian must progressively deny both
similarities and contrasts( progressing through the concepts of human *nowledge( from those
we are not tempted to apply to Bod 0HBod is a teapot( a body( a roc*( a dove( an angry
soldier+2 to those which we are 0HBod is being( e#istent( light( the perceiver of the universe(
our ma*er+2) !e deny both similarity and contrast because our words ' learnt as they are in
application to created reality ' are not appropriate for predication of divinity( even in the
negative) !e deny both bad and good concepts of Bod to avoid thin*ing that we have
sufficiently understood her)
538
9or Turner( theological language brea*s apart and is meant to brea* apart) No
language is appropriate of Bod) HCf it is apophatic( then it is beyond language)+
53;
1anguage
collapses as suc$) Ct is not simply that we have not managed to use it properly) Ct does not
wor*)
theological tal* has a grammar) Ct is a language) %ut that said( it is the grammar of a mystery( of
language which brea*s down according to determinable rules of brea*down) Theological speech
is sub,ect to a sort of programmed obsolescence)
53
After the brea*down of language( the theologian still needs certain strategies to ma*e
theology fall apart correctly) There must be no opening for the temptation to rest in one+s
success or to capture Bod+s essence) 9or this reason( the theologian must muster all the
resources of theological style and pragmatics ' how language is used( and to what purpose '
that will succeed in ma*ing theology act properly without positing a set of true propositions)
Turner+s e#amples of this span the mi#ed metaphors of Denys+ mystical theology
5:0
and
<c*hart+s rhetoric
5:5
that both show what cannot be said6 that this theological sentence is not
true)
>ere C shall be forced to sacrifice the canons of fairness in order to use Turner+s
presentation to demonstrate a few further problems with the apophatic pro,ect as he 0and C2
attempt it) The problems concern the necessity of language( the successful statement of
theological failure( and defaults in everyday practice)
538
for Turner+s e#egesis of Denys( cf) Turner 5:6 5-3)
53;
Turner 20036 540)
53
Turner 20036 5;4)
5:0
Turner 20026 5;)
5:5
Turner 20036 503-508)
524
9irstly( it should be noted that concerning the theory of language( Turner is certainly
not na\ve) Ct is tempting to assume that it is an easy thing to say that language is deficient) To
thin* that when C fail to e#press my thought( it is because of a fault in language( whereas my
pristine thought is prior to language and untainted by its creaturely historical nature) Cn reality(
the re,ection of language as such is also the denial of *nowledge( science( and perhaps more
seriously all the ways of being together which are entirely dependent on speech and truth) Ct is
easy to claim that our modern age lac*s the common references and standards of truth that
held previous communities together( but if that were the case( then C would surely be utterly
bewildered when a stranger as*s me for the time( small tal*s about the weather( or tries to sell
me a watch) C am not( and my lac* of bewilderment is evidence of the good functioning of
language)
C am( however( confused about who C refer to with the word HBod+( and Turner informs
me to my relief that this is because of the inade.uacy of language itself rather than my
religion) Now( leaving aside my relief 0which would no doubt be short lived when C
contemplate how who C am is constructed by what C say2( how is my language inade.uate$
Turner wants to stress that it is not merely my conception of Bod that is at fault( but my
understanding of everything ' of e#istence itself ' falls apart in light of the apophatic tas*)
Cnstead of positing that it is only theological language rather than everyday language
that falls apart( Turner embraces the connectedness of all language)
5:2
Ct is simply not possible
to challenge the grammar of e#istence and then assume that we can go on tal*ing about
physics and atoms and stars in the same way) Theology does not ta*e place in a sealed room)
C suspect that Turner will want to steer between the two dangers of denying all forms
of language-mediated community on the one hand and allowing all everyday language 0even
the *ind that appeals to theology li*e coronations( spiritual e#ercises( etc)2 to continue as it is)
>e might claim that the difference imposed on language and thought by the e#istence of a
creator who is not created but is not different from creation either is not a discernible
difference) >e calls it a displacement of reason)
5:/
Ct is a change in perspective( but not one of
substance)
The rhetoric of the brea*down of language does however bear an uncomfortable
resemblance to the values of detachment of solitude that so often accompany apophatic
theology)
5:3
Turner+s theology comes close to resulting in a silent hermit+s theology( itself so
5:2
Turner 5:6 2::K 20026 58)
5:/
Turner 20036 232)
5:3
Detachment in particular is part of Turner+s reading of <c*hart in Turner 5:6 54;-5;:)
528
easily conditioned by particular theological ,ustifications and forms( as we saw in our above
analysis of the desert fathers 0above( 5)/6 Ascetic Positivism6 the sine .ua non of
renunciation2) !e will return to the problem of telling silence below 0on page 5/42)
Turner+s apophaticism does( however( include a set of practices that contribute
specific substance to his refusal) !e mentioned issues of style and act above) !e could also
go into further detail concerning liturgy and asceticism) Turner reads <c*hart and the *loud
o. Un,no0ing( together with its cognate literature as providing a criti.ue of desire that comes
close to our above analysis of passions)
5::
Ct is crucial that the apophatic process yield such specific result because of the prior
e#istence of life and language) Apophatic theology may not simply withdraw from the tas* of
transforming language because theology is already deployed in the everday to ,ustify an
entire range of social functions( from the most obvious religious and state practices to the
subtle theological references of money(
5:4
celebrity cults 0Hidols+2 and education)
9or this reason( it is so disappointing that Turner resorts to such secular theological
discourse when describing the most specific part of his pro,ect6 namely the Hprogram+ by
which Theology falls apart) !hy does he describe the brea*down of language and theological
achievement as being Hembarrassed into silence+
5:8
or a Hcrisis of depression+
5:;
when the
theologically processed language of vainglory and dispassion is available to him$
This is not merely a challenge to Turner+s highly pri&ed orthodo#y) Ct is a warning
concerning our replacement of *nowledge about Bod with *nowledge about the ways in
which we fall short of her) Cf we do not *now who we are trying to describe with our
theological concepts( then neither do we *now Hhow to describe their degree of
inade.uacy)+
5:
!e are cut loose and there is no standard to ,udge by) That is why it is
essential to be alert to the ways in which we describe the brea*down of theology( lest we re-
insert a standard of goodness 0ade.uacy( health2 after we have undermined the idea of the
possibility of spea*ing goodness)
Turner appeals twice to the notion of shame6 first through the theologian+s
embarrassment( and then in describing the crisis of depression) The ascetic theologian feels
shame at their inability to describe Bod) ?he may also then either embrace what early
"hristian ascetics would call vainglory at her discover 0Turner deploys an Aristotelian
5::
cf) Turner 5:6 5;/-5;:K 20)
5:4
on which cf) now Boodchild 2008)
5:8
Turner 5:6 2/K 20026 5;)
5:;
Turner 5:6 23/)
5:
Turner 5:6 /)
52;
argument and calls it smugness2 or face the conse.uences of her discovery in the loss of all
standards by which honour and shame might have been allocated) This loss is also the loss of
self( and is e#perienced as a crisis of depression)
Now Turner is aware of the problems of using imported vocabulary( and therefore
includes his own analysis of depression) This is not the case with embarrassment( although C
suppose it would be possible) >ere C want to mar* out the danger) Ct is tempting to assume
that we have achieved something by grounding or e#plaining our apophaticism in lived
e#perience 0of embarrassment( vainglory( etc)2) %ut Turner wants to thin* of this *ind of
theology as an ongoing process) >e spea*s of Harrested apophaticism+(
540
and the dangers of
stopping at self-congratulation)
545
C would suggest that these dangers had already been mapped
out by those who thought out the practice of apophaticism in late anti.uity and warned against
the stagnation inherent in vainglory)
?o to sum up my reading of Turner( we can see that he certainly does ta*e seriously
the practical implications of the apophatic pro,ect) >owever( in attempting to draw the failure
of language from the inside( he ma*es appeal to a series of standards ' shame( depression(
coherent language ' that themselves are vulnerable to apophatic criti.ue)
>ow do we proceed from here to the theological practice of late anti.uity$ !hat
practices of theological brea*down are licit and able to resist the stagnation of apophatic
denial$ !e will consider first the way of holy foolishness( in its development of the criti.ue
of religious practice and *nowledge developed by the desert fathers and mothers) Then we
will continue to assess holy foolishness in the light of the diverse practices of silence and the
failure of *nowledge in negative theology)
2.3.2: Babbling against t#e ,ac#ine
Cn part one it was argued that the holy fools denied the cataphatic element in early
"hristian asceticism 0cf) above( on page 302) The techni.ues of the desert fathers and their
theological partners wor*ed towards estrangement from society) This estrangement had a
positive element6 the mon* abandons the city to fall into the arms of the common life and
ordered solitude of monasticism( with all its forms( rituals( and practices) Cn this section( we
will return to this thesis about the holy fools( but with particular reference to the
transformative technology of *nowledge and its critical relation to cultural institutions) After
540
Turner 20026 54)
545
Turner 5:6 23/)
52
a summary of the relevant aspects of the fools+ way of life( we will consider the significance
of these specific ways of challenging the smooth running of society)
>oly fools distance themselves from both the *nowledge of the city and that of
"hristian asceticism through a non-silent refusal of technologies of *nowledge) Csidora+s
reaction to her discovery by the visiting mon* is a case in point6
!hen she came in he saw the rag on her head and( falling down at her feet( he said( H%less meV+
?he too fell down at his feet and said H%less me( my lord)+ All the women were ama&ed at this
and said( HAbba( do not let her insult you) ?he is touched)+
542
De "erteau draws attention to the way in which Csidora refuses to be set up by
Piteroum in the position of a beneficent leader( wor*ing in the forms and language of the
community to support the forms of honour and shame that have become institutional)
>e loosens her from her infinity) >e fi#es her into the place he formerly occupied( that of
blessing( and of being IfatherJ 0superior of the order2) X Cn this case( the idiot defines the man-
master6 it is for Iyou(J man( to IblessJK for you( the institutional( virile( and parternal power of
articulating with a signifier 0the blessing2 the divine e#teriority on the e#teriority of the faithful)
?tay in your place( which is the ministerial power of the signifier( linguistic ob-,ectification)
9rom this point of view( she IrefusesJ to ta*e the place that he occupies in the symbolic
institution)
54/
>ere the language functions ' blessing( leading( commanding ' all serve to place the
spea*er within the culture) %y renouncing these words( this holy fool renounces the social
place of religion( and embraces the infinite) Notice the double use the author ma*es of
.uotation mar*s here6 he is .uoting an ancient te#t( but he is also e#pressing the dissociation
between the two characters) The holy fool is using the language of the spiritual leader( not her
own) ?he echoes( she .uotes) ?he becomes foreign to the language of her own community( no
longer using its words as tools( but letting them pass through her mouth and body without
gaining foothold) ?he sees the world with its language as an ob,ect)
?ystems of honour and shame appeal to a community6 when wor*ing within this
discourse( the moral agent assumes ' and thus refers to ' a common understanding of what is
honourable behaviour( and what is dishonourable) Cn this way( honour and shame wor* in
ways similar to Augustine+s values 0over( on page 5232) Therefore( when we brea* with this
542
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: P=CCC)5)
54/
"erteau( 586 :/5f( my translation)
5/0
understanding( we appeal to a different system( a different community of discourse 0in the
case of "hristian monasticism( this community would imply the notion of Bod( which is why
the holy fools+ practice was a negative t$eology rather than ,ust negativity2) Ct is one of the
conditions of language and thought that can not even be discussed) ?pecific cases of
honourable and dishonourable behaviour may be disputed in shared language( but this itself
assumes established canons of interpretation and standards of ,udgment by reference to which
the discussion may ta*e place) Cf not even this minimal agreement concerning honour and
shame as describing terms is in place( then no discussion is possible 0for a description of the
way in which this technology can wor*( cf) above( on pages 48ff2)
Again( this is parallel to Augustine+s values6 those who do not share them are not
unreasonable( simply mad) Ct is perhaps for this reason that systems of honour and shame
have provided such fruitful material for anthropologists( for they are one of the ways in which
many cultures configure our forms of life) And so Dagron describes the holy fools as radically
other) Cf one does not conform to the conditions of language( one can not be described)
7utside these conditions is the realm of alterity and madness HThe mon* and the saint come
from without( they floc* to another family( belong to another city and adhere to another
code)+
543

This other community was at that time represented by monastic groups in the desert '
different ways of life( different fields of discourse( different ways of constructing honour and
shame) Ct is small wonder that ?ymeon is immediately greeted as Ha cra&y abba+6 desert
asceticism challenges the smooth running of society) !hat separated this alterity from that of
the holy fools( however( was that holy fools did not ac*nowledge the holiness of the saintly
desert either6 they embraced filth( moc*ed mon*s( threw off their habit( did not fast( and
openly e#pressed their virulent se#uality) As we noted above 0on page ;/2( a *ey witness to
this is the lac* of relic veneration6
54:
the body of ?ymeon can not be found and Csidora simply
disappears into the wilderness) Dostoevs*y is faithful to the tradition when he recounts
another strategy for his holy fool abba Eosimus in #$e +rot$ers Earama?o"( by telling how
the body of the saint began to stin* immediately after death)
544
?imilarly( ?ymeon the New
Theologian refuses to identify the world with the secular city as if withdrawal from it in the
religious life could define holiness)
548
A further witness is the way the Daniel of ?cetis stories
543
Dagron( 506 /4( my translation)
54:
Dohannes "limacus recounts how saints could be buried as confessors( where the holiest corpses emitted a
sweet fragrance6 "limacus( scal.: ?tep 3) Aelics play a ma,or part in Dohn Moschus+ hagiographical wor*6
Moschus( prat.: :4( ;3( 0)
544
Dostoevs*y( 53L5;;0M6 =CC)5)
548
?ymeon the New Theologian 5;06 =)54 and PPCC):)
5/5
are punctuated with the emptying of the ?cetis monastic settlements of mon*s see*ing the
blessing of unli*ely saints 0Mar* the fool( a blind beggar( a cross-dressing ascetic2)
54;
The
pilgrimage destination becomes its starting point) >oly fools defy the institution of the praise
of religious achievement) They subvert holiness language) <ven their own)
?ymeon+s practice echoes Csidora+s) >e is described as fleeing from honour in the
manner of a typical desert mon*)
54
Cn particular( he would distance himself from praise by
secrecy( insults( and laughter)
%ut if anyone saluted him with an inclination of the head( he would leave the place angrily and
hastily( through reluctance that his peculiar virtues should be detected by many persons)
580
1ecrecy. As previously noted 0cf) above( on page ;22 there are actually people in
1eontius+ narrative who honour ?ymeon( if only for the wonders he does) The narrative slips
bac* into more common hagiographic formulae) Ct is however only when the fool disappears
that these confessions come to light) The truth of the fool is not in himself( but in his absence)
There is no sense in his life( but enlightenment at his death ' HThen all came to their senses( as
if from sleep( and told each other X that he had played the fool for Bod+s sa*e)+
585
To the
e#tent that any can honour the fool during his life( they can not e#press that honour to others '
their acts of praise do not e#ist in the honour-shame society)
The secrecy of holy fools and secret saints undermines systems of discerning goodness
amongst ascetics that had become formalised and attached to authority by the time of ?ymeon
and 1eontius) Dohannes "limacus tells us that whilst he was handing out ,udgment and
punishment in his community ' according to codes of e.uivalence between sins and penance
that were to become more and more established and rigid in the Middle Ages ' his tas* was
confounded by secret saints6
C *new a man who sinned openly but repented in secret) C denounced him for being lecherous
but he was chaste in the eyes of Bod( having propitiated >im by a genuine conversion) X Cf a
man commits a sin before you at the very moment of his death( pass no ,udgment( because the
,udgment of Bod is hidden from men) Ct has happened that men have sinned greatly in the open
but have done greater good deeds in secret( so that those who would disparage them have been
fooled( with smo*e instead of sunlight in their eyes)
582
54;
". dan. scet.: 2( /( 8)
54
)&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Moses ; O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: =CCC)50 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: =CCC)5/)
580
<vagrius ?cholasticus( $.e.: C=)/3)
585
1eontius( ". 1ym.: 54;)
582
"limacus( scal.: ?tep 50) "f) also the deliberate confusion caused by mon*s claiming responsibility for
others+ sins in ?tep 3( and the discernment of those who feign passion in ?ymeon the New Theologian 5;06
5/2
>nsults. Cn addition to the secrecy( ?ymeon alienates himself from the city through
insults) Dust as he is re,ected through the naming of his foolery( he distances himself from the
community by naming them fools( not worthy to be spo*en to 0negating the assumption of
address6 you are one who will listen to me2) >e is especially violent towards those who come
to him as a person of theological power6
They sought him out and found him in the phous*a-seller+s shop( eating beans li*e a bear)
Cmmediately one 0of the fathers2 was scandali&ed and said to himself( HTruly we have come to
see a great sageK this man has much to e#plain to us)+ As they approached him( they said to him(
H%less us)+ >e said to them( HQou have come at a bad time( and the one who sent you is an
idiot)+ Thereupon he grabbed the ear of the one who had been scandali&ed and gave him such a
blow that 0the bruise2 could be seen for three days)
58/
This re,ection of the community and its authorities undermines the practice of praise
and blame) @nowledge of goodness and badness is formed together with others( through
discussion( shared values( and common meanings) %y continually ,arring with the moral
,udgment of a group( the holy fool re,ects its *nowledge and no longer shares in its ,udgment
even implicitly)
583
3aug$ter. Dust as the discourse of the cra&y nun did not engage with that of the abba(
?ymeon+s discourse is radically at odds with that of <mesa in the alienation of laughter) This
is inherent in the very nature of laughter at others+ e#pense) !hen one partner laughs '
without replying ' at the words of another( then communication has failed) 1aughter creates
distance between words ' the distance of a perspective) !e laugh at things that do not wor* in
our grammar6 at climbing ivy that misses a step( or mista*ing a song for a toothpic*) Ct is a
mar* of a lac* of sense( of moves that do not have any use in our language game6 the dead
wood of discourse)
58:
Through laughter( a language+s limitations are configured) Ct mar*s the border between
sense and nonsense that is determinative for *nowledge) Ct is the shared activity of ruling
statements out as what cannot be said) Cn reference to this role !ittgenstein claimed that the
depth of ,o*es is the depth of philosophy)
584
Attention to laughter shows us the limits of our
*nowledge)
=CCC)5)
58/
1eontius( ". 1ym.: 5:/)
583
9or more on the effect insults have on one+s relation to self and others( cf) below( on page 53ff)
58:
!ittgenstein( 2005L5:/M6 32)
584
!ittgenstein( 5/L5//M6 54;f)
5//
These techni.ues of the avoidance of honour might be interpreted( however( as more
than a simple moral discipline) They could be interpreted as resistance to the very possibility
of honour( to the very nature of institutions that produce discourse( honour and shame)
?ymeon is not ,ust resisting t$is way of organising community respect( he is resisting respect
in itself( as something human and obstructive of Bod-tal*)
The forms of honour bring us bac* to the point of appeal to a community) Cf the holy
fools do not sit well in any system of honour and shame( then neither will they need any
community for their status) ?igns of honour and shame re.uire at least the institution of
discourse( and the holy fools attempt to escape from all these institutions) There are a number
of reasons to interpret the lives of the holy fools as non-references( lives that refuse to be
signs)
The madness of the idiot does not enter into the discourse of communication any more than
death does) Ct is not symbolisable) Barbage does not *now how to turn itself IholyJ) The
monastic operation fails) The madness of the madwoman consists in not 0being able to be2
participating in the circulation of the signifierK in being nothing( in relation to madness itself( but
its IsimulationJK
588
Cn line with their refusal to participate in sign systems( the holy fools resist *ey
features ' signifiers( tools of *nowledge( forms of life ' of the semiotic system that allows
*nowledge of Bod) They undermine technologies of moral *nowledge)
The main signifier ?ymeon relieves himself of is monastic morality) >e does not
define Bod by demonstrating what is good and religious in his own life) 7n the contrary( he is
openly sinful( tries to bring condemnation upon himself by confessing to ma*ing women
pregnant( acting guiltily around prostitutes( stealing and gorging himself( all whilst retaining
his monastic habit and the mar*ers of his identity as religious) Cn this way( he undermines the
claims he might have to understanding the infinitely good in his way of life and practices of
holiness) >e does not give up the pro,ect of reference( merely the way in which it is practised
in his present world)
9or a drun* person is ridiculed by people( is beaten( despised( does not account himself worthy(
offers no opinions( teaches no one( gives no advice about anything( cannot discern between
what is good and what is wrong)
58;
588
"erteau( 586 :/3( my translation)
58;
%arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: /8)
5/3
The second signifier ?ymeon denied is the worship of the church) <vagrius
?cholasticus notes in particular that his solitude is one of prayer( as he affords Hnone the
means of *nowing how and when he propitiated the Deity+)
58
?imilarly( he disrupts the
liturgy ' something unheard of for a "hristian of the <astern 7rthodo# church at the time '
and does not follow the church year) >e also undermines the church hierarchy( singling out
mon*s for particularly heavy ridicule)
5;0
7ther fools focus on abbots and %ishops)
5;5
The sage who is supposed to *now ' Daniel or Piteroum ' is there purely in order to offer a
space of language to the others+ *nowledge 0that is to say( to their madness2 and in order to
thereby mar* the altering effects in the privileged places of meaning 0the patriarchate( the
monastery2)
5;2
>oly fools+ choice of targets reveals a concern to challenge the institutions of
*nowledge) Through attac*ing liturgy and liturgical persons( they .uestion the locus of
theological e#egesis( disrupt the technology of theological *nowledge in the liturgy( and
interrupt the community that is bound together by and produces speech about Bod)
The third resistance to reference comes in the deceptions and the secrets of these fools)
<ven though he is named a fool( believed to be immoral( and considered a demoniac( in all
these things he is only pretending) That is what a holy fool is( according to their
hagiographers 0including modern interpreters26 a mon* who has ,ust gone mad is not a holy
fool) This is an issue that runs through the te#t ' that the fool pretends to be what he is ta*en
to be) <ven when he babbles( he Hpretended to babble+)
5;/
At the end of the day( he is not even
mad) >is contemporaries will only penetrate the deceptive e#terior) 7nly Bod sees the heart(
and can therefore interpret the e#terior truthfully)
Aesistance to language is most obviously seen in ?ymeon+s refusal to e#press himself)
Not only does he associate with the other misfits of that society ' prostitutes and demoniacs(
those without names or recognition ' but he babbles out nonsense( refusing to confess his
truth) Cn this way( Hhe was ,ust li*e the many who babbled and prophesied because of
demons)+
5;3
<ven the demons he alienated)
58
<vagrius ?cholasticus( $.e.: C=)/3)
5;0
1eontius( ". 1ym.: 5:/)
5;5
e)g) Mar* the fool in ". dan. scet.: 2)
5;2
"erteau( 586 :/( my translation)
5;/
1eontius( ". 1ym.: 5::)
5;3
1eontius( ". 1ym.: 5:4)
5/:
therefore some daimoniacs cried out and said( H7 violence( 9ool( you ,eer at the whole world)
>ave you also come by us to give us trouble$ Aetreat from hereK you are not one of usX+
5;:
Cn all these strategies for avoiding the conditions of discourse( the holy fools are
avoiding the ways in which we spea* the concept of Bod) !hen they restrict themselves to
attaining the praise of Bod( they in reality act as if they do not accept any praise at all) Bod
does not participate in their honour-shame systems) ?ymeon tries desperately not to refer( to
be an apophatic ascetic) Cn avoiding honour( he is attempting to retreat from what should only
be given to Bod) H>e irritates( amuses( provo*es admiration or beatings( but he does not divert
language toward what has no place)+
5;4
De "erteau sees holy foolery as Hpractices of the infinite( or if you prefer( effective
and spatial deployments of the unanalysable)+
5;8
As their bodies do not signify( they can do
bodily theology without referring to the one without body) ?o the re,ection of language
primarily ta*es the form of re,ecting language that designates them as holy( even when that
language describes their avoidance of vainglory 0which is as far as Dagron+s analysis ta*es
us2)
5;;
Playing the fool( pretending to be insignificant( all constitute relations to the body that
do not then ma*e claims to portray the infinite) They are bro*en signifiers of Bod( words that
dance around the infinite without presuming to understand( contain( or define it) Their
articulate silence gestures towards the nameless one)
The foolish practice of the infinite is probably most evident in laughter) %y laughing at
the world( the fool bears witness to the possibility of being addressed by one without place)
5;
9or the laughter creates distance( but the world is all that is) The derision does not come from
the institution of holiness ' the church or the monastery ' and yet there is no other discourse
to replace it) 1aughter ob,ectifies its victim( thus undermining any society+s Hcentre
comple#+)
50
Ct is important to remember that holy fools are almost always foreigners) At the
same time( it does not define itself as anything e#cept discursive nonsense) 1aughter does not
have to see* a place to stand) Ct is a sign with no self-reference) HCt bring to a standstill the
fading of the 7ther into indefinitely trading simulacra)+
55

5;:
1eontius( ". 1ym.: 542)
5;4
"erteau( 586 :/4( my translation)
5;8
"erteau( 586 :32( my translation( emphasis original)
5;;
Dagron( 50) "f) the discussion above( on page 48ff)
5;
<vagrius warns against the temptation of reducing Bod to the place of the strange and e#otic6 <vagrius( de
orat.: 48)
50
@oyama( 5;3)
55
"erteau( 586 :32)
5/4
Cn the laughter of the mad all are brought into .uestion) The pro,ects of ma*ing sense(
of giving honour( are relativised by laughter) At the same time as it refuses the definition of
its own space( it .uestions the *nowledge of any society( so that those nearer the margins are
closer to it than those in the middle) The laughter of the spaceless one mas.uerades as the
grimaces of those who are not given space)
The holy fools are not simply on the edge of society( they attempt to undermine Bod
signification by deriding and withdrawing from those institutions that portray Bod) As
?ymeon fooled( theologians and philosophers were penning their apophatic theology( unaware
that any attempt to spea* apophaticism would be doomed to failure)
2.3.3: "elling +ilence
7ur account of the holy fools+ attitude to Bod-tal* assumes an analysis of religion+s
relation to *nowledge in late anti.uity and a thesis concerning the construction of silence)
More specifically( it assumes that the radical ascetics of the desert had assumed a particular
space in relation to Hthe world+( and it implies that this space legitimated the forms of social
life rather than challenging them) Aeligion had become describable( and its place allocated by
a *nowledge ratified and moderated by the city) Ct had become an ob,ect( and part of a social
order) Cn addition( silence is assumed to be insufficient as an apophatic strategy( in that it is
,ust as constructed( ,ust as telling( and ,ust as significant as speech) Cn this section( C will
,ustify these assumptions)
Turning to the place of religion first( this analysis is simply one further step in the
argument made above 0on page 82 plotting the progress of early "hristian asceticism from
the embrace of negativity and death to the assumption of a religio-,uridical role in the society
of late anti.uity) The very first desert fathers too* steps to avoid being placed as functional
holy men that were useful to society6
%lessed Archbishop Theophilus( accompanied by a magistrate( came one day to find Abba
Arsenius) >e .uestioned the old man( to hear a word from him) After a short silence the old man
answered him( H!ill you put into practice what C say to you$+ They promised him this) HCf you
hear Arsenius is anywhere( do not go there)+
52
Arsenius ob,ects to acting as a religious authority for the institutional urban church
and the legal system) The way he e#presses this is moreover suggestive of a deeper reaction
against being placed in relation to structures of goodness and right) >e does not want to give
52
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Arsenius 8 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: CC)3 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: CC)4)
5/8
the impression that it is easy to find holiness) >e does not want his visitors to feel they *now
where he is)
"ertainly Arsenius+ tas* was not easy6 not only do we *now of the travels of the
companies of "assian
5/
and Aufinus to visit solitaries in the <gyptian desert(
53
but the group
of cells in Nitria and the "ells ' around which the &pop$t$egmata Patrum developed ' were
served by ba*eries( doctors( and a guest house where people could find free accommodation
whilst they visit the fathers living there)
5:
The ideal( however( is demonstrated by the various stories in which the mon*s refuse
,udgement) !e have already mentioned their renunciation of ,udgement over one another)
They would also flee from the role of ad,udicator) Those among the desert fathers and
mothers who were revered were also those most sought after as ,udges) ?o they would also
have to be the most cunning in fleeing that place given them)
54
The most spectacular failure in transcending the system of the world was ?ymeon the
?tylite) This ?yrian ascetic was dramatic in his re,ection of worldly values( living a life of
severe self-discipline on top of a pillar in the desert) %ut it was only a matter of time before
his life became *nown and his pillar was surrounded by curious "hristians( people see*ing
patronage( disputing parties( and pilgrims) >e was no longer outside the conventions and
*nowledge of the world( but part of it( one function alongside others in the rural society of
late anti.uity)
58
This was not a tension that early "hristian asceticism seemed able to resolve)
Cn this way( the monastic life came to stand at the edge of urban society in late
anti.uity) Nevertheless( it played an important role in determining the truth of that community
and configuring their relations to one another) >ence Csidora refuses to ta*e the place of
religious power6 it is associated with and determinative of gender( ran*( value( and measures
0cf) above( on page 522) All those factors that Augustine allows to his young theologians are
re,ected by Csidora) They have nothing to do with the infinity she is practising) ?he upholds
her brea* with the world)
A natural application of this theory ' and one related to our topic ' would be to the
mediaeval and ancient "arnival) <ach year( social relations are turned on their head in the
5/
"assianus( *ollationes)
53
Aufinus( 6ist. 2onac$.
5:
"hitty( 5446 /5)
54
Moses feigns madness - &pop$. Patr. 83at9: =CCC)50 O &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Moses ; O &pop$. Patr. 87,.
syst.9: =CCC)5/K the problem of giving advice without ,udgment is addressed directly in &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9:
CP)24)
58
9or a social analysis of the role of ?ymeon the ?tylite( see %rown( 5856 0-/)
5/;
feast of fools(
5;
and mayhem results) !hilst the carnival could be seen as resistance to the
social power of the world( it may all too easily simply re-affirm the normal order by appeal to
the disastrous chaos of the carnival) Anyone who challenges the present hierarchy is seen to
be recommending social chaos)
There is something to be said for the celebration of the carnival( however) Biven that
this is specifically a religious ' and therefore permanent ' festival( it does maintain the
impression of the contingency of social order) Bod+s order is seen at least as much in the
upside-down relations of the carnival as it is in the ,ustice and peace of the divine *ing)
Neither orders e#haust the *ingdom of Bod on their own)
The relation of contingency to affirmation cuts both ways( however) !hilst it flags the
importance of configuring society in different ways in order to provo*e reform( it also
demonstrates the insufficiency of the contingency strategy we noted above 0on pages
55/-55:2) Demonstrating that the present order is not the only possible one may simply lead
to a polemical characterisation of the alternatives)
The danger of affirming rather than undermining social orders with one+s difference
comes into force when the alternative becomes the e#otic) !hen one has almost nothing in
common with the other( the obligation to ta*e it seriously as an alternative way of life is
wea*er) ?o for e#ample( we saw ?ymeon renouncing the various mar*ers of monasticism
with his cra&y behaviour) Cf he had also permanently renounced his habit( there would be
nothing to identify him as a serious mon*) ?o he would no longer be delivering a criti.ue( but
a spectacle) The alternative has to offer a possible( or even an unavoidable place to stand in
order to ma*e the normal appear as absurd in its turn)
Monasticism stood in danger of becoming e#otic( and the process could be traced
through the steadily more e#treme forms of asceticism espoused by various groups in ?yria)
5
The process culminated in the ?tylites on their holy poles( and the gra&ers who lived on grass
and herbs) >oly fools stand in danger of going the same way) ?o what resources do negative
theologians have to resist being placed by *nowledge of the e#otic( and so functioning as a
tool for forcing the necessity of normality$
Ct has become common to refer to Bod as HThe 7ther+( so as not to reduce >er to
something familiar) HThe 7ther+ is a placeholder for a noun that should represent the
un*nown( the challenging( the foreign) Cn ethical theories 0principally stemming from 1evinas
5;
cf) the analysis in "o#( 54( which does not consider the thesis of the social role of the e#otic)
5
Described clearly by <vagrius ?cholasticus( $.e.: C=)
5/
and 1Ggstrup2(
200
this foreign address poses a challenge to me that is constitutive of the ethical
e#perience) The move is similar to Augustine+s practice of calling Bod Hyou+( and then
critically honing one+s concept of Bod to eradicate elements of humanity and inconsistency) Ct
is a move that is least assertive concerning Bod+s nature( and may be described as apophatic)
As such( the theology of HThe 7ther+ does not fall prey to pre-given decisions
concerning divinity and religion) Ct is( however( vulnerable to a whole set of assumptions that
re.uire further elucidation to avoid6
5) Ct assumes a particular form of difference without establishing and identifying any
shared features) The grammar of difference is such that it describes any two things(
and that it fails to describe them) Two things are always different( in that were they
entirely the same( they would be only one thing) As soon as they are distinct in
time( place( or nature( they become different( and two) They might be two identical
trees( distinct in spaceK two identical grains of corn( distinct only in timeK two
attributes of an identical molecule( distinct only in character) At the same time(
insofar as we can describe them as two anything( they are not absolutely different)
Two different people are still the same speciesK a dog and a cat are two animals(
and so are of the same *ingdomK however( sovereignty can not be compared to
7rville the duc*) They are not two of anything( and so have nothing in common) As
such( it is not grammatical to call them Hdifferent+) H?overeignty is different from
7rville the duc*+ and H7rville the duc* is sovereignty+s other+ are both nonsense) Cn
this way( difference and otherness are empty ad,ectives unless they are further
.ualified by a shared attribute6 space( time( character( etc) As long as that shared or
analogous attribute is ignored( the identity of Bod as totally different will be empty
of content and critical force) Bod becomes either unthin*able or e#otic)
2) Ct is self-referential) HDifferent+ and Hother+ are two place ad,ectives) Cn this way(
what is Hother+ is entirely dependent on what is Hthe same+( i)e) myself) !hat is
200
"ritchley( 2008)
530
foreign to me might well be familiar to a Norwegian woman) !hilst sounding
specific and minimalist( the signifier Hother+ is actually general and comprehensive)
The concept 0in my case2 includes all things feminine( 9rench( feline( mediaeval(
metallic( and royal) 9urthermore( in the light of the grammar of difference and
otherness( to call Bod Hthe 7ther+ is at least to say that we have something in
common with Bod 0otherwise ?he could not be compared with us2) Cf the name is to
have any non-general sense( it must be further defined( and apophaticism must be
abandoned)
/) To the e#tent that C am addressed by this other( we are both confined to the
conditions of the negotiations of identity) The form of the self is conditioned by my
social conte#t) %utler argues that this is also the case of the one by whom C am
addressed and challenged)
!hen we come up against the limits of any epistemological hori&on and reali&e that the
.uestion is not simply whether C can or will ,no0 you( or whether C can be ,no0n( we are
compelled to reali&e as well that Hyou+ .ualify in the scheme of the human within which C
operate( and that no HC+ can begin to tell its story without as*ing6 H!ho are you$+ H!ho spea*s
to me$+ HTo whom do C spea* when C spea* to you$+ Cf this establishes the priority of rhetoric to
ethics( that might be ,ust as well) The mode of address conditions and structures the way in
which moral .uestions emerge)
205
The language of difference will not fulfil the function of a founding theological
.uality( no matter how minimalist it attempts to be) The conditions and assumptions of our
conte#t challenge the apophatic pro,ect in the very notion of address and speech)
?ilence is further insufficient as a denial of speech about Bod because it is full of
content) Cf we appeal to silence out of distrust that our words will e#press something we do
not want to say( or something not appropriate to say( then silence is not the answer) ?ilence
has a structure( a conte#t( and a significance ,ust as salient as those of language) Cn the
twentieth century( this lesson has perhaps been posited most forcefully by avant-garde
205
%utler( 200:6 5/3)
535
classical music) The silences of composers li*e Dohn "age and Morton 9eldman are ,ust as
considered and e#pressive as the sounds) They are an integral part of the music)
"hristian ascetics are very often acutely aware of the implications of silence) !e have
read above of the admonitions to silence in early monasticism) %ut in the communities of
common life( silence had to be regulated) Desert fathers and their heirs were all too aware of
the various ways in which we can be silent in the face of our companions) Dust as 9oucault
reacted against the boring Hobligation to spea*+ in pre-war 9rance(
202
"assian+s desert fathers
warned against using silence as an e#pression of anger 0the silent treatment2( and Dohn
"limacus admonished his disciples HDo not become silent in an unreasonable way that causes
disturbance and hard feeling in others+)
20/
Cf silence is always a part of its conte#t( then further strategies need to be considered
that may resist the significance of the discourse of theology) An apophatic theology can not
even ta*e refuge in not spea*ing( so how can it spea* of Bod without assumptions$ >ow can
apophaticism be thoroughgoing in its thought and practice$
2.3.-: E((usi!e +ilence
The early "hristian ascetics and holy fools were caught between spea*ing and silence)
?pea*ing of Bod and goodness was dangerous because of presumption and vainglory) ?ilence
presented the self as serenely unbothered by the confusion caused by e#posure to the
almighty6
203
HXin order that you may not be considered as being silent( say something from
what you *now( but be brief and avoid too many words or inopportune glory+
20:
was
%arsanuphius+ advice to a mon* aspiring to the virtues of non-silence)
There are three techni.ues of defying language through non-silence that will be treated
here( arising from various domains of the "hristian tradition) 9irstly( C will appeal to the
practice of glossolalia( then relate it to the "ia dissimilis( and finally to the ascetic habit of
moc*ing the world)
Blossolalia( or spea*ing in tongues( is a solution to the horns of the Augustinian
dilemma we noted over 0on page 5232) ?peech of Bod is good( but no speech is sufficient) De
"erteau describes it as a transition from HC cannot say+K through HC believe in saying+K HC must
202
9oucault( 2000aL5;2M6 522-52/)
20/
"limacus( scal.: ?tep :) ?ee the treatment in steps 3 and ;( and related points concerning Hnon-silence+ in
%arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: /53( /20) "f) also Muers( 2003( esp) pp534f( for a sensitive treatment of the
avoidance of being silenced and manipulating silence as a *ind of speech act)
203
as portrayed in "limacus( scal.: ?tep /0)
20:
%arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 4;)
532
say+K HC can say nothing+ to HC can say+)
204
Blossolalia assumes the vacuity and necessity of
language) ?o the glossolalist opts to change the currency6 all speech is bound by the
conventions and corruptions of human society( so we shall liberate ourselves by throwing off
the conditions of speech) Ct is a moment of abandon)
?pea*ing in tongues is defined by resistance to meaning) Cf the utterance ma*es sense(
then it is not glossolalia) <ven interpretations of glossolalia ' in the "hristian tradition 05 "or
52(532 ' must be divinely inspired) >uman interpretation is not interpretation of glossolalia)
?o it is entirely separate from human discourse( the language of Bod and the angels) Not
silent( but not speech either)
Ct seems that the threshold between muteness and spea*ing can be e#tended and organi&ed( can
be reconstituted li*e a Hno man+s land(+ a space of vocal manipulations and ,ubilations( already
free from silence but not yet sub,ect to a particular language)
208
This stretching may only occur at the e#pense of its neighbours( however) The raucous
babbling of glossolalia is offensive towards pious silence and critical to religious speech) Ct
not only assumes the insufficiency of speech and silence6 it also asserts them) All human
speech is necessarily subordinate to divine speech( and no theology may e#press itself
meaningfully in divine speech) As such( there is a struggle between glossolalia and
interpretation) >ence their appearance in the New Testament is invariably in the conte#t of
community conflict6 the controversial acceptance of ?amaritans into the churchK Paul+s
attempt to wrest the "orinthian congregation from their pagan habits) Cn the latter case(
glossolalia is forbidden unless it is wedded to interpretation( for the sa*e of order) ?pea*ing in
tongues was clearly e#perienced by the early church as deeply subversive)
20;
De "erteau notes that his above transition may also be reversed) Cnstead of glossolalia
as the final solution to a prior problem( it is the initial given that leads to the re,ection of a
problem6 from HC can say+( through HC can say nothing+K HC must not say+K and HC do not believe
in saying+ to HC cannot say+) This movement embraces glossolalia( but re-applies it to speech)
!e could say that the first transition mimics speech because of the necessity of language(
whereas the second transition mimics speech in order to undermine and replace that necessity)
Cn many respects li*e poetry( glossolalia produces a looser relation to speech) Ct may
serve to shift speech somewhat( by forcing alternatives) As the basis for community( however(
204
"erteau( 54L5;0M6 /2)
208
"erteau( 54L5;0M6 /;)
20;
This tendency is celebrated in "o#( 5:6 53/-5:8)
53/
it can be deeply pernicious) Again li*e poetry( it is parasitic on normal language) There is no
transgression without normality) This is of course not a criticism( but a restriction) !eird
speech only has critical force insofar as it may be considered an alternative to established
speech) Blossolalia is immediately so e#otic as to be emptied of its critical power) This is
essentially Paul+s point in his letter to the "orinthians( where he points out that an outsider
witnessing a congregation spea*ing in tongues regards it as insane and thus to be disregarded(
whereas prophecy has the power of transformation and conversion)
20
?hould glossolalia become a part of normal speech( it would act as false liberation)
The practice may be used as an illusion of freedom( the end product) 7nce achieved( the
spea*er may accept whatever other institutions are offered uncritically) Proof of the absence
of manipulation is given in the freedom of glossolalia) ?pea*ing in tongues becomes the
e#ception that ,ustifies the community+s sovereignty)
250
A further instance in which speech is freed from its debt to the conditions of language
can be found in the apophatic nonsense of the "ia dissimilis( whereby disciplined philosophers
are given free rein to spea* of Bod as they wish( unconfined by the careful and specific
language of metaphysics( and free from the fear of blasphemy) The only condition is that the
language used not have the aura of believability) Ct becomes entirely unproblematic to refer to
Bod as a roc*( a *ing( or a woman( as long as one is *eeping to this idiom) Motivations vary(
and it is certainly true to say that this trope is used as a *ey to interpreting ?cripture) Denys
the Areopagite mentions two prime ob,ectives( however6
that the divine things remain inaccessible to the profane and so that all those with a real wish to
see the sacred imagery may not dwell on the types as true) ?o true negations and the unli*e
comparisons with their last echoes offer due homage to the divine things)
255
The motivation for this is surprisingly similar to that of glossolalia) Ct is admitted that
Bod-tal* is a hopeless pro,ect( but the challenge of interpreting the wordy scriptures and
tradition necessitates belief in language( so the solution becomes to sanction all words
concerning Bod( as long as one is aware that they do not refer in the same way as they usually
do) This awareness is best preserved alongside language that couldn+t possibly be univocally
referred to Bod( and so the philosopher is encouraged to spea* nonsense of Bod)
20
5 "or 53)22-2:)
250
9or a more detailed application of this theory to %ritish charismaticism( cf) Thomas( 2004b)
255
Denys( c.$.: 53:A)
533
Cn this way the wise men of Bod( e#ponents of hidden inspiration( separate the H>oly of >olies+
from defilement by anything in the realm of the imperfect or the profane) They therefore honor
the dissimilar shape X 9or this reason there is nothing ridiculous about representing heavenly
beings with similarities which are dissimilar and incongruous)
252
Cn practice( this means that serious metaphysics becomes deeply suspicious( as it will
always tempt the writer into thin*ing that she has said something true about Bod) ?o in order
to counteract this temptation( we may replace sophisticated theological statements li*e HBod
is timeless+ with what might be considered barbarisms li*e HBod is a warrior+K HBod is a
flower+( or HBod is a clown+) And the "hristian scriptures ' which posed such a problem to
the sophisticated rhetoricians of late anti.uity ' provide us with a rich source of barbaric
attributes for Bod) Denys the Areopagite lists up the sun( stars( light( fire( water( ointment( a
corner stone( a lion( a panther( a leopard( a bear( and a worm)
25/
More could be added)
The spea*er of these barbarisms is therefore committed to spea*ing nonsense( and li*e
the glossolalist is aware of the senselessness of her speech whilst uttering it) As such( this
language flouts a number of the ma#ims of natural language) 9or e#ample( it is entirely
grammatical in this conte#t to say HBod is an animal( but C don+t believe she is+( which is a
form of proposition that is otherwise illicit)
253
Cn this respect( apophatic nonsense is a way of
wor*ing on language and thought that has direct conse.uences regarding how a spea*er
relates to *nowledge and truth-claims( dislocating the relation to language and belief)
Ct should be noted here that unli*e glossolalia( the "ia dissimilis includes a techni.ue
for adapting to the shifting conditions of normal speech) ?hould the use of grotes.ue imagery
in reference to Bod become standard fare in any theological discourse( it will no longer be the
"ia dissimilis) Cn this instance( the practitioner of the mode of reference to Bod will have to
come up with further ways of spea*ing of Bod that do not command belief) Ct is perhaps
unnecessary to draw out the practical implications for a theology of holiness and the
*nowledge of godly behaviour)
The practice can further be related to <vagrius Ponticus+ techni.ue of manipulating
thoughts 0described over( on page 5002) <vagrius Ponticus also described the temptation to
thin* of Bod through an image( and whilst he did not embrace the way of dissimilarity( he did
accept the challenge of wresting one+s thoughts from the intellectual pro,ect of believing
252
Denys( c.$.: 53:A) The theme is discussed thoroughly in chapter two of this wor* 05/4D-53:"2( and occurs
also in Denys( d.n.: ;4:%-"( ;4A Denys( myst.: 503:D-503;%)
25/
Denys( c.$.: 533D-53:A)
253
Ct is an e#ample of HMoore+s Parado#+( first discussed in Moore( 532)
53:
oneself to have identified a truth that captured Bod+s essence) >is techni.ue of summoning a
thought that he *new to be unholy in order to drive out one that he suspected of being so
corresponds to the practical significance of apophatic nonsense)
25:
This linguistic practice assumes apophaticism rather than asserting it) 1i*e glossolalia(
it can leave normal language e#actly as it is) Ct is not the habit of using dissimilar terms for
Bod that undermines the use of similar terms) This way is entirely reliant upon the choice of
the theologian) Ct is perfectly possible for the dissimilar way and the more dangerous similar
way to e#ist alongside one another)
Apophatic nonsense thereby provides a way out of Augustine+s dilemma( but it does
not further the pro,ect of negative theology as such) Cndeed( it re.uires and assumes the
practice of verbal denial in order to ma*e sense) Cnstead of pointing out what is to be denied
of Bod( it licenses speech of Bod that does not have to be denied( because it is based on
reference that does not reach its referent)
!e may identify two essential aspects of apophaticism6 the denial and criti.ue of Bod-
tal* on the one hand( and the absurd play of dissimilar Bod-tal* on the other) !ithout
criti.ue( the Bod-tal* merely sets up an e#otic alternative rather than a correctiveK without
absurd play( the denial stands in danger of assuming that its words of negation have arrived at
a *nowledge of Bod)
Ct is beyond assertion and denial) !e ma*e assertions and denials of what is ne#t to it( but never
of it( for it is both beyond every assertion( being the perfect and uni.ue cause of all things( and(
by virtue of its pre-eminently simple and absolute nature( free of every limitation( beyond every
limitationK it is also beyond every denial)
254
The final practice of negative theology to be mentioned here combines these two
ma#ims through a form of double dissociation) The practice of moc*ing the world can be
found in a variety of sources apart from the holy fool literature) Cts most common form is the
holy man+s insult) Through moc*ery and offensive behaviour( early "hristian ascetics
attempted to e#tract themselves from the moral values of the world( and to provo*e a critical
attitude in their .uarry)
!e have described the practice of early "hristian ascetics as dissociative before 0cf)
above( on page 8:ff2( and will not repeat the e#egesis here) 1et it suffice to point out that
25:
<vagrius( Pra,t.: 32( :;) Apophatic wor* on concepts is described as a specific activity in Denys( c.$.: 543D
Denys( e.$.: /4)
254
Denys( myst.: 503;%)
534
moc*ery of central structures and values in city life functions as a flight from such values) Cf
one can insult an institution such as court ,ustice or ecclesial hierarchy( then that institution
will have less influence in forming one+s own ,udgement)
More pertinent to our purposes is that the insult specifically criti.ues assumptions and
values that are not available for discussion) Ct provo*es a dissociation in its victim+s relation
to self) Ct is characterised precisely as an insult( and not merely an observation( because of its
personal nature6 it is a challenge to a person+s values and self-image) Ct is a statement that
should not be said( and this is mar*ed by the offence caused) This is the critical aspect of the
insult) Ct is a form of linguistic-normative transgression( because it both spea*s and acts in a
way not allowed by the linguistic community)
The aspect of absurdity is inherent in the fact that the insult ta*es the form of moc*ery(
mimicry( and play) Cn the case of the ascetic insult( it is not ,ust an individual that is being
moc*ed( but the entire world) As such( the insulting mon* ta*es up the perspective from
nowhere)
Ct is as apophatic moc*ery of the world that C intend to interpret the holy fools in the
final part of this wor*) Cn this respect( the interpretation will be obliged to defend two theses
henceforth regarding their strategy6
5) that it includes both apophatic ma#ims of criti.ue and playK
2) that these two ma#ims are effective as practices of apophaticism)
My methods for achieving this will be largely those already employed in the first two
parts6 to describe the holy fools as a development in the asceticism of late anti.uityK to assess
their practice philosophically as techni.ues of the self and modes of criti.ueK to plot this
interpretation in the conte#t of theological themes of obedience( repentance( and humility)
.
538
3: "#e Unserious +el(
And Dionysius with so great desire
To contemplate these 7rders set himself(
>e named them and distinguished them as C do)
%ut Bregory afterwards dissented from himK
!herefore( as soon as he unclosed his eyes
!ithin this heaven( he at himself did smile)
5
The problem of *nowledge and veridiction in early "hristian asceticism led us
naturally to the practice of the *nowing self( in its relation to its tradition( conte#t( and values)
Cn this final part( the practice of truth-telling will be described in terms of its influence and
dependence on the self) To what e#tent does truth-telling and truth-hearing allow and provo*e
the transformation of the self and its relation to society$
2
The asceticism of the desert fathers
and mothers and the holy fools form part of a long truth-telling tradition in anti.uity that has
particular forms and ob,ectives that need to be outlined and set in the conte#t of their societal
function and their place as condition and result of "hristian holiness) Are these techni.ues
appropriated for the sa*e of revaluation or in order to allow citi&ens to adapt to their societal
and political conditions$ >ow resilient is holiness$
Truth-telling and asceticism are ' by the time of the desert fathers and mothers '
intimately entwined in the early "hristian e#perience of holiness) !e will give an account of
the contribution made by "hristianity to this longstanding discussion 0specifically in its
practice of the insult2( and assess its significance in processes of transformation and
homogenisation)
The form of truth-telling most relevant for the study of holy fools is comedy) >ow
does the comic insult relate to universal truth and the transformation of the self$ Approaching
humour as a *ind of asceticism( the holy fools will be read ' alongside critical studies of
humour and an account of the problematic nature of truth-telling ' as a response to the
ambiguous place of honesty and ethics in the transformation of self and society)
5
Dante( 58L5;48M6 Paradiso( canto ##viii)
2
This .uestion should be distinguished from that of later epistemology( which as*ed what relation to self and
society allows truth-telling) "f) 9oucault( 200:L2005M6 4th Danuary)
53;
9inally( the holy fools+ ob,ective of humility emerges both as dangerous and as a
source of criti.ue( so we will have to as* what characterises "hristian and foolish humility
and whether its transformation of the self is autonomous( or whether it is unavoidably and
perpetually a tool for provo*ing conformity and social homogeneity) C will also be arguing
that humility ' and particularly the consistent humility of the holy fools ' is a central part of
the "hristian tradition( and the mainstay of asceticism)
53
&.1: 1nowledge and trut#: t#e insult
The insult is the practice of truth-telling that early "hristian ascetics and holy fools
held in common) Ct was a mode of cultivating humility and listening to strangers) A typical
description is the story told by abba Dohn the Dwarf about a young man trying to obtain
forgiveness from his philosopher guardian6
Although the young man came and as*ed his guardian to forgive him he would not receive him(
but said( HBo and wor* for three years as a ferryman and C will forgive you)+ After three years
the young man came to him again( and this time he said( HQou still have not done penanceK go
and wor* for three more years( and give away all you earn( bearing all insults)+ ?o he did this(
and then his guardian said to him( HNow go to Athens and learn philosophy)+ There was an old
man who sat at the philosophers+ gate and he used to insult everyone who entered it) !hen he
insulted this young man( the boy began to laugh( and the old man said( H!hy are you laughing(
when C have insulted you$+ >e told him( H!ould you not e#pect me to laugh$ 9or three years C
have paid to be insulted and now C am insulted free of charge) That is why C laughed)+ Abba
Dohn said( HThe gate of the 1ord is li*e that( and we 9athers go through many insults in order to
enter ,oyfully into the city of Bod)+
/
!e will e#amine the philosophical bac*ground and implications of this practice
below) This story at least outlines the framewor*) 9irstly( the insult was heard by the sinner(
and in this case as a form of penance) <arly "hristian ascetics would hear insults in order to
identify and e#pose their own sin) ?econdly( the virtue corresponding to the truth-practice is
Hbearing all insults+( which implies patience and humility) !e will see below that the insult is
associated with dispassion) Ct is the patience that puts aside bias and irritation in order to loo*
the ob,ective truth in the face) Thirdly( it is related to philosophy) The insult is a practice of
truth and part of the search for it) 9ourthly( it results in ,oy) The truth is essentially good news(
which is why it is neither vertiginous nor horrifying to face it)
The history of truth-telling which lies behind the practice of the desert fathers and
mothers revolves around the virtue of fran*ness) More specifically( the virtue of parr$Asia6
saying everything( or fearless speech) Parrhesia is the virtue of spea*ing the truth regardless
of the conse.uences to one+s own concerns and safety) Ct is a complicated concept in
/
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Dohn the Dwarf 35 "f) also the letter of Dohn the disciple of %arsanuphius( who surely
refers to this apophthemgaton when he claims that HMany people have paid a price in order to be insulted and to
learn patience) Qet you are learning patience at no cost( since the 1ord says6 I%y your patience you shall gain
your soulsJ) !e should give than*s to the person who afflicts usK for through such a person( we ac.uire
patience)+ %arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: ::3)
5:0
anti.uity( associated with democracy( courage( friendship( marriage( sovereignty( and good
character) =ery schematically ' because the most important point here is to demonstrate the
transformation carried out by the early "hristian ascetics ' we can distinguish the following
moments6
3
#$e institution o. democracy6 fearless speech is the sine :ua non of democratic rule) Ct
is only when all citi&ens are free to spea* their own mind 0rather than that of an oligarch(
monarch( or other sovereign2 that we can spea* of the people+s rule) Parrhesia is thereby both
a legal concept concerning civic order 0who is allowed to say what2 and a practical concept
describing what happens in the democratic assembly( the e,,lesia 0how decisions are made2)
9earless speech would be employed in the assembly( and is every citi&en+s right)
1pea,ing unpopular trut$s6 once this understanding of democracy is assumed(
however( there is a distinction made between those who have an e.ual right to spea*( and
those who actually do spea*) Those who spea* to the assembly must spea* fearlessly( free
from the influence of power and money) ?o whilst there is a general right concerning the right
to spea*( there is also a particular .uality limited to those who do spea*( and are thereby
heard( in the democratic city) ?o fearless speech is a practice that divides the people into those
who spea* and those who are spo*en to)
&ddressing so"ereignty6 this latter .uality can then be generalised to other political
systems( whether they be democratic or not) 9earless speech is indispensable for the sovereign
0hence its role in democratic assemblies2 in order for himSthem to govern well) 9or this to
happen( an unspo*en parrhesiastic contract is negotiated( whereby the fearless spea*er agrees
to tell the truth to the sovereign on condition that the latter gives the spea*er license to spea*
without fear of punishment) >ence the Hfearless+ element in parrhesia( because the contract
re.uires constant re-negotiation( and the one who granted permission to say everything can
,ust as easily withdraw that permission) The parrhesiast is always in danger)
Et$ical .ran,ness6 the ?ocratic appropriation of fearless speech moved it away from a
specifically political practice towards a tool for forming the good and modest citi&en) Ct is
through ?ocrates+ parrhesia that he is able to interrogate everyone concerning their own
concerns and their own wisdom) >e does so in order to turn them towards themselves and
listen to uncomfortable home truths( that they may measure themselves against truth) This
*ind of citi&en is certainly useful for the city( but li*e ?ocrates( they would not necessarily
3
Cn the summary of pages 5:0 to 5:5( C will be following 9oucault+s wor* closely( as he is most responsible for
bringing the concept of parrhesia to current debate) Until further courses are published( the most important boo*s
are 9oucault( 200;( 9oucualt 200 and Pearson 2005)
5:5
play a ma,or role in state politics 0in contrast to the *ind of bold politician we see in ?olon for
e#ample2)
:
Re;ection o. .lattery6 fearless speech is opposed to the lies and flattery told to the
sovereign or the political agent in order to curry their favour) As such( the fearless spea*er
must be both courageous( and disinterested) Disregarding personal gain and safety
corresponds to the relentless concern for truth) And the practice of fearless speech therefore
shuns the ,oys of pleasant speech 0and thereby often stands in contrast with rhetoric2)
1candalous speec$6 the "ynics too* the ?ocratic life to a different level and spo*e
fearlessly to anyone and everyone) They brave not only individual wrath by insulting the
powerful 0most paradigmatically in the case of Diogenes the "ynic+s moc*ery of Ale#ander
the great2 but also ostracism from society by transgressing social rules and taboos) 1i*e the
holy fools(
4
their sphere of activity was the street rather than the school( and their target group
was everyone)
>denti.ying a .earless spea,er6 the importance of hearing fearless speech became
generalised in the generations after ?ocrates( although still lin*ed to the political life) Ct
became important for a philosopher to identify someone who could spea* the truth to him)
?toics in particular would visit certain figures who would tell them the truth ob,ectively) The
development of spiritual guides who would listen and spea* in order to ma*e the agent a
better philosopher was prevalent in late anti.uity( and too* a number of different forms 0from
visiting gurus to attending schools2)
All these moments entail a particular relation between truth and the self) The sovereign
hears truth-telling through withholding his violent force) The parrhesiast spea*s the truth by
braving violence that threatens to annihilate the truth by destroying or constraining the self)
The truth-teller ris*s scandal( ostracism and death by challenging community boundaries and
provo*ing the wrath of the people) Truth can be prioritised or deprioritised in relation to
political power( status( and self-indulgence) Ct is therefore entirely reasonable in anti.uity to
as* Hwhat value has truth$+
Against this bac*ground( the "hristian practice of the insult is a little more
understandable) The insult is an e#ample of an utterance that of its very nature arouses anger
and puts the spea*er in danger) Ct is opposed to flattery( and can often be the conte#t of
penetrating truths that will not be heard on the lips of more polite company) Cnsults ' both in
the political sphere and in social relations ' court danger and re.uire courage( even
:
9oucault contrasts the parrhesia of ?ocrates and ?olon in 9oucault 2006 80f)
4
The comparison receives in depth consideration in @rueger( 546 chapters : and 4)
5:2
foolishness) They have a lot in common with fearless speech( and were certainly part of the
philosophical repertoire of "ynic philosophy)
The cynic practice of telling uncomfortable truths appears in the "hristian literature of
late anti.uity as characteristic of secular philosophy( and in this respect we can see the
tradition continued among the desert fathers and mothers) Naturally( "hristian hagiography is
full of stories about the transfiguration of Pagan philosophy in the "hristian philosophy 0li*e
the above story of Dohn the dwarf2) Cn our literature( however( the practice of tolerating insults
is singled out as a particular locus for comparison)
1et that foe of yours upbraid you( but do you not upbraid him) Aegard his words as a training
ground in which to e#ercise philosophy)
8
Cf perhaps in temptation your brother insists on abusing you( do you not be carried away from
your charitable dispositions( suffering the same wic*ed demon to infest your mind) And you
will not be carried away if( being reviled( you bless( being tric*ed( you remain well-disposed)
This is the philosophic way according to "hristK who will not wal* it( does not en,oy >is
company)
;
Ancient "hristian ascetics( rather than dealing out insults( set a high value on the
ability to endure them) The ideal is ,ustified in various ways( including the obvious ones of
turning the other chee*(

and being patient with one+s brother or sister)

50
The two main
,ustifications for accepting insults( however( were the struggle against vainglory and
,udgement)
=ainglory has already been treated above 0on page 48ff2( where the more &any wor*s
of the desert fathers and mothers were considered as a tool against it) 7bedience to insulting
commands is a techni.ue of opposing vainglory)
55
!hether it is accompanied by commands
or not( however( the way in which insults can be used in this struggle is to accept the unfair
,udgement over oneself as truth( in order to dethrone Hthe unrealistic opinion every man has
about himself+
52
imposed by vainglory within and flattery without)
5/
Cnsults are not to be
opposed or even endured( but embraced and surpassed( because Hevery insult falls short of the
8
%asilius( $om. 1)
;
Ma#imus( carit. 1=4: C=)/0) "f) also &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P=C)54 O &pop$. Patr. 8anon9: 255 O &pop$. Patr.
87,. syst.9: P=C)2:)

&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Daniel / O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P=)53 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P=)5:)
50
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Csidore the Priest 5( Moses /( Phortas 5 &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P=):2( ;3)
55
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: P=)43 O &pop$. Patr. 8anon9: 583 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P=);/)
52
%asilius( $om. 1)
5/
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Moses 3( ?erapion 3 <vagrius( Eulog.: 24)28 %asilius( moral.: 1PPCC)
5:/
truth+
53
) 9or this reason( Macarius the Breat would not spea* to people who approached him
with fear and honour( but if he was offered the greeting( HAbba( when you were a camel-
driver( and stole nitre and sold it again( did not the *eepers beat you$+
5:
then he would open
up and welcome the hec*ler)
The mon* should be humble in this way( *eeping silence when beaten and abused( and
offering no retaliation) 7nly in this way would he benefit his soul)
54
Nisterus the "enobite 0i)e)
who lived in a community2 was *nown for his reticence in the face of arguments and trouble)
!hen approached( he e#plained his actions by li*ening himself to a don*ey( who remains
silent though beaten and ill-treated)
58
<nduring insults therefore refers bac* to another of the monastic techni.ues discussed
above( namely freeing oneself from passion)
5;
Nisterus is another of the e#emplars of
apat$eia who wanted to be li*e gravestones( statues( or idols in their dispassion as regards
praise and blame 0cf) above( on page 52) The mon*+s attitude towards the insult becomes one
more facet of the collection of techni.ues associated with that ideal6 HDust as a dead man feels
no praise or insult( so a man of faith disdains esteem and dishonour)+
5
The desert fathers and mothers also used the acceptance of insults to oppose the
temptation to deal out ,udgements) Abba Moses instructs his disciples to accept abuse in order
to avoid ,udgement of others) As soon as one accepts responsibility for what one is being
accused of in an insult( one receives forgiveness from Bod) %ut it is still necessary to
concentrate on one+s own sins to prevent the attention from turning to others for the sa*e of
hatred or slander) Cnsults are accepted to avoid ,udgement( ,ust as freedom from passions is
pursued to establish ob,ectivity)
?o how is the insulting behaviour of the early "hristian ascetics different from that of
their philosophical counterparts$ "hristian practice is stri*ingly similar to that of the "ynic
philosophers( who can be thought of as the aggressors of ancient philosophy) These &any
thin*ers spo*e out their doctrines and perceptions regardless of the conse.uences of insulting
*ings( transgressing taboos( and challenging accepted truths) The two person relation of truth
teller to student was similarly an attempt to find the truth regardless of the potential damage
53
%asilius( $om. 1)
5:
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Macarius the Breat /5K cf) also Agathon : O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P)50 O &pop$. Patr.
8alp$9: P)52)
54
<vagrius( Eulog.: 3)3 &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Anthony 5:( Eacharias /( Csaiah 5 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: =CCC)2(
P=)58 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: =CCC)2( P=)5 %arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 52:( 2/8 "limacus( scal.:
?teps 2( 3 and ; Ma#imus( carit. 1=4: C)2; Moschus( prat.: 204
58
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Nisterus the "enobite 2 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P=)/0 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P=)34)
5;
Passion is the defining feature of an insult+s power according to %asilius( $om. 1)
5
<vagrius( par. ad mon: CC)53)
5:3
done to either party) The danger is that the one hearing the truth will be so offended by the
truth that they abandon the .uest( and in the worst case attac* the truth-teller) Cn both
conte#ts( the results ta*e place in the hearer of the truth( but the philosophical hero is the
spea*er of truth)
!ith the ascetic tradition we have summarised here( the hero-role has been transferred
to the hearer of truth6 hearing insults gives you treasure in heaven)
20
The spea*er of the insult
is no longer in focus( even in the case of a spiritual leader insulting a mon* in order to give
him Hfre.uent opportunities to gain crowns X through having to put up with insults(
dishonour( contempt( and moc*ery)+
25
Cn contrast to cynic philosophers( the ascetic "hristians
of late anti.uity do not in general go into the city and proclaim their offensive truths) Cnstead(
they withdraw to the desert in order to hear them) Cn this respect( the practice has become a
good deal more individual( and less committed to the transformation of a community) The
implications of truth-telling for democracy have become less evident)
7n the other hand( by releasing the role of truth teller from its connection to the brave
philosopher( they idealise the attitude of the community) Ct is no longer an isolated practice of
truth-telling( it is a virtue that anyone can have) Anyone can hear the truth( because everyone
is offended at some point) The element of courage is still intact( but it has become the courage
of hearing rather than that of spea*ing6 H!ith unsha*eable courage they accepted the
criticisms of the superior and indeed of those far below him in ran*)+
22
The desert fathers and
mothers do not adhere to fearless speech( but to fearless hermeneutics) Dare to hear truth that
you would ordinarily dismiss) Assume that everyone is reasonable and worth listening to) Do
not let the boundaries of your world and your view of the self get in the way of your .uest for
truth)
The transition is also one of internalisation) Although the element of courage has been
moved from speech to hearing( the ob,ect of fear has remained the same( namely the fear of
damage to one+s self( and one+s own anger and reprisals) 9earless hermeneutics is thus a
practice of the self( whereby one ta*es a decision to e#pose one+s self to the insult in order to
eradicate self-image as a hindrance in the .uest for truth) Ct still re.uires an e#ternal agent( but
only because of inner wea*ness) Cf we were able to be imaginative enough in our self-criti.ue(
other people would not be necessary)
20
%arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 52:( ?ymeon the New Theologian 5;06 C=)52)
25
"limacus( scal.: ?tep 3)
22
"limacus( scal.: ?tep 3)
5::
There are two *inds of disregard of oneself6 one is from within the heart( and the other from
in,uries received from the outside) The second is greater( namely the one that comes from the
outside) 9or the one that comes from the heart re.uires less labor than the one that comes from
other people( because the latter creates more pain in the heart)
2/
The danger of reprisals is nevertheless entirely necessary6 anger and provocation
manifest the interruption and transformation of one relation of the self to shared values) The
self is mediated by and in *eeping with the meanings and transactions of a society( so that
e#periencing insults as offensive mar*s the transgression of s$ared boundaries) 9lattery
therefore becomes an e#pression of positive evaluation within those shared values that
confirms those values( whereas an insult e#presses a negative evaluation according to shared
values that can call them into .uestion) Cf C do not share the value assumed by the flattery or
insult( then neither can C be provo*ed or soothed by it) Ct is actually very difficult to insult a
foreigner) C am not insulted when a Norwegian calls me unsporty( ,ust as a Norwegian is not
insulted when C call them a bad sport) !e do not share those values) ?o insults and flattery are
not only practices of the self( but ways of relating to and accepting shared values) Detachment
regarding insult and flattery implies revaluation of those values)
!e can( therefore( plot the insult on a logic of truth-telling) <arly philosophers
discover that truth is difficult to hear) They introduce techni.ues to overcome the
stubbornness of belief in assumed truths 0?ocratic irony( mathematical proofs( insults2) The
insult forces the thin*er to reveal and challenge their own beliefs) The thin*er enlists the help
of truth-tellers to challenge the beliefs and practices that they do not see and cannot change
because of their own convictions and self-image) "hristian thin*ers see that the insult has this
function regardless of its spea*er) They embrace the insult as a practice of truth-hearing(
ma*ing the role of the truth-teller redundant) They identify the hindrance to truth-hearing as
the vainglory of the listener rather than the flattery of the spea*er)
?omeone who notices that he is easily overcome by pride( a nasty temper( malice( and
hypocrisy( and who thin*s of defending himself against these by unsheathing the double-edged
sword of mee*ness and patience( such a man if he wishes to brea* free entirely from these vices
ought to go live in a monastery( as if it were a fuller+s shop of salvation) Cn particular( he should
choose the most austere place) >e will be spiritually stretched and beaten by the insults( in,uries(
and rebuffs of the brothers) >e may even be physically beaten( trampled on( and *ic*ed( so that
he may wash out the filth still lying in the sentient part of his soul) There is an old saying that
2/
%arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 28;)
5:4
reproof is the washtub for the soul+s passions( and you ought to believe it( for people in the
world who load indignities onto someone and then boast about it to others li*e to say( HC gave
him a good scrubbing)+ !hich( of course( is .uite accurate)
23
Cn this conte#t( the practice of the holy fools emerges as a regress in the process)
Cnstead of hearing insults( they are once again dealing them out to anyone who will listen)
They return to the city( and don+t seem to be willing to listen to anyone) 7nce again( it is the
spea*er of insults that is the hero( rather than the hearer)
This resemblance to the cynic philosophers is only s*in deep( however6 the holy fools
were still obviously mar*ed by the ascetic values of defeating vainglory by letting insults fall
upon themselves) The one to whom ?ymeon the holy fool e#clusively spea*s truth( for
e#ample 0Dohn the Deacon in 1eontius+ narrative2( only ever calls him Hfool+( and does not
show him any honour) The people who did show him honour got only abuse in return)
2:

The two distinctive features mar*ing the holy fools out from early "hristian ascetics
that we noted( however( are still valid) 9irstly( the fools leave their solitude and return to the
cityK and secondly( the insulter receives bac* the hero role) There are instances of insulting
behaviour praised amongst the desert fathers and mothers(
24
but in general it is condemned by
early "hristian ascetics(
28
and enduring offence encouraged)
There is reason to pause at this point( however) ?ymeon the holy fool did indeed go
around the city insulting people( and was thrashed for it) >e is also portrayed( however( as
accepting the accusations against him)
2;
The earliest record of a holy fool was Csidora( who
gained the nic*name Hthe human sponge+ because she accepted all the abuse and insults that
were piled upon her)
2
Cf we interpret the holy fools stories as a development of the ascetic
tradition of the insult( what should we focus on as readers$ The insults of the holy fool would
then be e#amples of words 0e should hear as truth) They are tools for our fearless
hermeneutics)
The setting of the stories of holy fools does direct our attention towards those who
recognise the holiness of the fools) The story of Csidora is about the discovery and revelation
23
"limacus( scal.: ?tep ;)
2:
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)5:/)
24
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Theodore of Pherme 2;( Macarius the Breat 3 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: =CC) &pop$. Patr.
87,. syst.9: =CC)53 "limacus( scal.: ?tep 3)
28
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Theodora 3( Nisterus : %asilius( $om. 1 %arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 453) Bould
overstates the case against insulting others6 Bould( 5/6 5/2( 5/3) >owever( the condemnation runs into the
tradition6 cf) ?ymeon the New Theologian 5;06 PP=CC)8)
2;
e)g) when accused of ma*ing a slave pregnant6 1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)5:5f <vagrius ?cholasticus( $.e.: C=)/3)
2
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: P=CCC)5 and Palladius( $. 3aus.: PPC=)
5:8
of her holiness6 it is only the first few lines that are devoted to her way of life) The anchorite
Piteroum only *nows of it whilst being chastised for pride by an angel) The clima# of the
story comes when her holiness is recognised) >er behaviour remains constant) The account of
?ymeon the holy fool in the history of <vagrius ?cholasticus is also mar*ed by the
recognition and veiling of ?ymeon+s holiness6 each story 0abusive behaviour in tavernsK the
accusation that he had fathered a slave+s childK visiting a prostituteK dancing among pillars2
includes an element of suspicion that he is not a holy man at all 0he gets angry( isn+t celibate
or sedate2( the author+s e#planation of holiness( and a moment of revelation 0confiding in
friends( a pregnant woman+s confession before childbirth( the prostitute+s poverty revealed(
the dancing revealed as prophetic2) The stories are both about holy fools and about discerning
holiness)
Ct is therefore particularly stri*ing that one of our handful of stories about holy fools
0that use the Bree* designation Hsalos+2 appears in the conte#t of a story about Daniel of
?cetis) !hilst the historical status of the collection is in doubt( it is at least established that
after the introductory story( the Daniel narratives are all discoveries of other people+s piety)
The stories witness to a tendency for early "hristian ascetics to discern holiness outside the
boundaries of their own monastic ways of life) %ut the collection gains status in time 0being
one of the seven great pateri,a ' collections of stories about the fathers2( and thereby
witnesses to the virtue not only of leading a holy life( but of discovering holiness in others)
Daniel of ?cetis has almost no other virtue to spea* of)
/0
1eontius+ wor* on the life of ?ymeon appears in a similar light) Cn his introduction( he
accuses those who do not recognise ?ymeon+s holiness of being sub,ect to passions( and not
*nowing the ?criptures) This accusation is then claimed to be the intention of the holy fool+s
life6
Cndeed( C say that through spending time in the city( hanging around with women( and the rest of
the deception of his life( he truly sought to show to the slothful and pretentious a wea*ness in
the virtuous life and the power granted by Bod to those who truly serve against the spirits of
evil with all their souls)
/5
?o the stories of holy fools are every bit as concerned with the perception of holiness
as they are with its practice) As we noted above 0on page 882( the holiness of the fools is
concealed from all6 it is this non-*nowledge of holiness that constitutes their success( because
/0
". dan. scet.
/5
1eontius( ". 1ym.: intro)522( translation modified)
5:;
awareness of holiness is a part of the principle of vainglory) The function of holy foolishness
' disrupting liturgy( transgressing taboos( babbling( and denying asceticism ' is to disabuse
all of the suspicion they might have that they are being confronted with a good person) The
morality of the witness is therefore at odds with that of the fool6 in order to be good( the
witness must attribute holiness to the foolK whereas the fool must shun that attribution both in
herself and in others) Ct is here that the holy fools become challenging6 whilst <vagrius
?cholasticus and the story of the mad nun contain stories of divine revelation( 1eontius+ 3i.e
o. 1ymeon relates divine veiling)
This parado# generates many of the tensions in these wor*s of hagiography) The fool
is holy because of the attempt to hide that holiness( whereas the unrighteousness of the world
is revealed by not perceiving what has been hidden) The concealment is proof both of the
fool+s holiness and the world+s corruption) !hat is more( the concealment is Bod+s doing 0in
answer to the fool+s prayer26
/2
it seems the dec*s are stac*ed in favour of the fools in this
struggle)
Divine concealment is not simply seen in the fool+s prayer( however6 the narrative
re.uires witnesses to the fool+s holiness in order to include a vindication that identifies the
fool as holy) Miracles must happen( not only for the sa*e of establishing the reader+s holiness
in hearing the insult( but for the fool+s in giving it) %ut this leaves the problem of how the fool
remains recognisably holy but still unrecognised) Cn 1eontius+ narrative( the problem is solved
by the natural and supernatural confounding of the witness+ speech) A merchant stays silent
because he was embarrassed( and accepts everyone else+s ,udgment concerning the foolK
//
the
fool+s former employers didn+t dare to contradict public opinion that ridiculed himK
/3
some
circus fans had become mon*s as a result of one of ?ymeon+s miracles( but they were
supernaturally hindered from saying anything about itK
/:
a local authority investigates
?ymeon( who strips and dances for him( but as soon as he decides ?ymeon is only pretending
to be mad( his tongue is boundK
/4
a Dew catches ?ymeon in the act of spea*ing to angels( but
as soon as he attempts to e#pose him( he is struc* dumb( and then reprimanded in a dreamK
/8
a
group of theologians are also struc* dumb so they could not repeat his criti.ue of 7rigenK
/;
/2
1eontius( ". 1ym.: CCC)533K cf) also HBod hid Abba ?ymeon+s plan+ ' C=)54:)
//
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)5:)
/3
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)5:3)
/:
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)543)
/4
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)5:4)
/8
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)5:3)
/;
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)5:/)
5:
others simply seem to lose their senses and not understand him until they receive divine
revelation)
/
@nowledge of the fools+ holiness becomes possible only at the time of death6 those
who lose their senses can understand and tell of the holy fool once sShe has died) As soon as
Csidora is discovered( she disappears into the desert) !e non-fools( we witnesses and readers
are not able to win the struggle with the fools over the recognition of their holiness) !e can
only await their death) Cf they strive to conceal( and we to recognise( then they always prove
to be the stronger) <ven the possibility of venerating their memory after their disappearance is
frustrated6 their bodies disappear) !e are denied the cult of the saints) The recognition of true
holiness in the world is impossible) 7nce again the reader is thrown up against the e#treme
negative theology of the hagiography) The holy fools e#ist( but we do not *now who they are(
,ust as Bod and creation are good( but in ways that we do not understand) !e have no
standards by which to recognise the holiness of the fool or the goodness of Bod 0cf) above on
page 5232)
The earliest holy fool literature has therefore an odd message6 there are holy fools( but
they can not be recognised) And the corollary of this statement is that for us( anyone may be a
holy fool) As far as the reader is concerned( holy fools e#ist and are nowhere to be found)
Therefore holy fools are concealed everywhere) No spea*er can be ruled out a priori)
The conclusion that anyone may be a holy fool is also drawn in the closing paragraphs
of the 3i.e o. 1ymeon) After ?ymeon has given an account of his life to 1eontius+ secret
informer( he instructs the latter in matters of holy living6
And he spo*e again( HC beg you( never disregard a single soul( L548M especially when it happens
to be a mon* or a beggar) 9or Qour "harity *nows that >is place is among the beggars(
especially among the blind( people made as pure as sun through their patience and distress)+
30
?ymeon was mas.uerading precisely as a mon* and a beggar) >e hid all his virtues(
but never hid the fact that he was a mon*( in spite of the respect he is reported to have had for
the habit when he first embraced the religious life)
35
?imilarly( he would often accept
charitable gifts from people and associate with beggars(
32
in spite of the fact that he obviously
/
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)5:0( 54;)
30
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)544f)
35
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C)5/5f)
32
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)54/)
540
had a great deal of money at his disposal 0he Hemployed+ a large number of prostitutes on a
permanent basis2)
3/
Ct is in this conte#t ' that of producing the e#pectation of holy fools among certain
groups of society ' that we can see ?ymeon+s other impersonations) %y his pretending to fit in
with particular identities and groups( he could challenge the impression we have that we
understand who they are) !e do not understand demon possession( because we might be
mista*ing holy fools for the possessed) Cdentities 1eontius portrays ?ymeon as contesting in
this way included the possessed 0C=)5:4( 5422( the clients of prostitutes 0C=)5::f2(
33
circus
wor*ers( dancers and fans 0C=)538( 5:3f( 54/f2( rapists 0C=)53;( 5:52( the godless 0C=)53;2(
and the mad 0C=)5:: et passim2) 7ur conception of the place of holiness in the world needs to
be re-negotiated) =alues need to be re-thought( and society+s currency needs to be changed)
9or sometimes he pretended to have a limp( sometimes he ,umped around( sometimes he
dragged himself along on his buttoc*s( sometimes he stuc* out his foot for someone running
and tripped him) 7ther times when there was a new moon( he loo*ed at the s*y and fell down
and thrashed about) ?ometimes also he pretended to babble( for he said that of all semblances(
this one is most fitting and most useful to those who simulate folly L5:4M for the sa*e of "hrist)
3:
To recap( the holy fools narratives condemn the non-recognition of holy foolsK
demonstrate that their recognition is impossible 0through the nature of the case and divine
intervention2K and direct the reader+s attention to the typical domain of holy fools in groups
that otherwise would be dismissed as unholy) Cf we apply these theses regarding the
ob,ectives of holy fool literature to our outline of the development of the interpretation of
insults( we can see these wor*s of hagiography generalising the insult) The holy fool might be
anywhere( so the insulting truth may come from anywhere)
The holy fool stories are therefore entirely in line with the early "hristian ascetic
tendency towards cultivating an attitude of listening that is open to insult) They both confirm
this approach( and aim to produce it in their readers) After hearing about the lives of holy
fools( the "hristian of late anti.uity will *now that some insults are the product of someone+s
resentment( but that some might be the prophetic act of a divinely inspired holy man or
woman) +ut 0e don@t ,no0 0$ic$ is 0$ic$) The spea*ers 0the holy foolK Bod2 are directly
attempting to hide the source of their words) The tas* of the good person is to recognise holy
fools for who they are) %ut if the corollary of this parado#ical situation is that fools are
3/
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)5::)
33
cf) also <vagrius ?cholasticus( $.e.: C=)/3)
3:
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)5::f)
545
everywhere( the conclusion regarding the insult has to be that no insult can be ruled out as
false a priori6 all are an opportunity to listen humbly) And because insults are founded upon
values that are put into .uestion( no insult is the final word) All humility is also playful)
34
The parado#ical struggle between the holy fool and the listener corresponds to the two
elements of apophatic theology we established above 0on page 53:2( namely criti.ue and play)
Dust as the holiness of the fools is necessarily hidden( and their uninhibited play mere pretence
that moc*s the values of the world( so apophatic theology will always necessarily tend
towards ignorance( and the free play of lies about Bod) Bod and the fool are hiddenK stories
about them are a pretence)
The critical element of the apophaticism of holy fools consists in the prophetic action
from nowhere) The holy fools refuse to accept the configuration of holiness that they meet in
the city 0with its centre in liturgy and its boundaries in acceptable behaviour2 and so deny
them through insult and transgression) ?ymeon puts out the candles in church and then goes
out to steal beans)
38
>e denies the centre and the perimeter of holiness because Bod has no
perimeter( and >er centre is everywhere)
The playful element consists in their pretence) The behaviour of the fools is so wild
that it is unli*ely to be ta*en as a portrayal of Bod) The only way in which it may be ta*en as
such is by recognising it as simulated) They are not really foolish) %ut that still leaves the
.uestion open as to what their holiness consists in) !hilst the hagiographer 0and the modern
interpreter2 attempt to validate the behaviour of the fool through interpretation( the holy fools
themselves will admit no imitators) They cannot condone their own behaviour)
This is of course part of the pro,ect6 an imitator would be an admiring disciple( so that
the holy fool+s virtue would no longer be hidden) %ut even when faced with someone who has
seen the holy fool+s pretence( ?ymeon begs them to follow another way) Dohn the hermit at
the beginning of the story is sent bac* to the desert(
3;
and Dohn the archdeacon towards the
end of the story is presented as an ideal observer( not as a disciple or a new holy fool)
3
Cnstead of being seductive holy figures( they cultivate apophatic observers of godliness)
The holy fools thus embrace the challenge of apophatic theology and social
transformation) Through the techni.ue of the truth-telling insult( they .uestion the placing of
holiness in their society( the values it entails( and the relations of the self) Their behaviour(
34
9or more on this theme( cf) below( on page 253)
38
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)53:f)
3;
1eontius( ". 1ym.: CCC)533)
3
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)544f)
542
and the attitude they produce in their readers( transcend assertion and denial) The fools
themselves criti.ue Theology and posit laughter( whilst their readers become sceptical to all
forms of holiness( seeing holy fools in all things ' from demoniacs to dancers( and from
prostitutes to prattlers)
54/
&.: !earing 0$eec#
%rutal truth-telling and biting insults are perhaps not standard characteristics
associated with ascetic saints in the "hristian tradition) !hilst truth is ac*nowledged as a
value in itself( the practices of truth-telling are fraught with moral danger) 9earless speech(
which started off as a way of resisting domination and asserting wisdom( has a tra,ectory that
may be traced ' precisely through the use of insults ' to the brutal forcing of humble self-
*nowledge in disciplines such as early modern psychiatry and criminology)
:0
Ct may be a tool
for the transformation of the self+s relation to society( or for forcing the self to submit to its
place in society) 9le#ibility is ambiguous)
<arly "hristian ascetics themselves were ambivalent to the practice of telling people
the truth about their lives) Not everyone could bear it( and not everyone was meant to follow
the way of the desert( as we saw in the discussion of multiplicity 0above( on page :32) This
made it difficult for disciples6
Again abba Poemen said6 C once came to lower >eracleon( to abba Doseph( and he had a really
beautiful mulberry tree by his hermitageK and in the morning he said to me( HBo and get some
for yourself( and have a nibble)+ Now it was a 9riday) ?o C did not eat because of the fast( and C
as*ed him about it( saying HTell me by Bod the reason for your telling me IBo and have a
nibble)J %ecause C didn+t go because of the fast( but now C+m ashamed of myself( because C
didn+t follow your command( thin*ing that you+d given me an instruction for no reason)+ %ut he
replied( HThe old men did not spea* clearly to the brothers at the beginning( but with great
distortion6 and if they saw anyone doing these distortions( then they would only spea* profitably
to them( realising that they were obedient in everything)
:5
Cn addition to demonstrating once more the centrality of obedience for early "hristian
ascetics( this saying shows us the subtle play of assent between master and disciple that would
lead to the *ind of relation where the master could e#ercise his or her parrhesia towards the
disciple) The practice was only meant for a few people( and they had to signal very clearly
that they were willing to listen) The parrhesiastic contract is negotiated through a play of
transgression( discernment( and obedience) 9or early "hristian ascetics( honest and profitable
truth-telling can only ta*e place within this conte#t) They are consciously hesitant about
telling the truth)
:0
According to 9oucault 2006 )
:5
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: P)/0 0my translation2 O &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Doseph of Panephysis : O &pop$. Patr. 87,.
syst.9: P)/)
543
?o it is possible to as* the .uestion H!hat value has truth$+ Cn this chapter( we will
e#amine more precisely how truth-telling constructs a relation to the self) Cn particular( focus
will be directed towards the place of and value of truth-telling 0and in particular as regards
uncomfortable home truths2 in a specific community) Truth and listening are necessary
elements of the tas* of ordering and defining any community) C will describe the practices as
relevant to ecclesiology( with its issues of obligation( dogma( and constituted e#perts)
The practices of truth-telling in late anti.uity have come under the scrutiny of certain
recent philosophers as part of a history of the present) Cn spite of his reputation as an
Hhistorian of discontinuity+( 9oucault+s wor* attempts to draw lines of descent from the
?ocratic e#ercises of ?toics through Mediaeval spiritual direction to modern relations of
government and counselling)
:2

Aather than tracing this history here( C propose to identify various respects in which
the different forms of truth-telling and truth-hearing are problematic) >ow and why is it
recommended$ 9rom where does the value of truth derive$ !hat *inds of truth are being
told$ The interface between truth-telling as a resource for self-determination bears specific
relations to its practice as a re.uirement of the community( both logically and historically) C
will be drawing on historical sources throughout the tradition depending on the particular
.uality being studied at each point) %ut instead of using the sources to illustrate an historical
progression( C will be calling on them to demonstrate a logical principle which may apply to a
number of different manifestations of the phenomenon of truth-telling) Cn this way( C hope to
avoid the twin errors of historical criticism( namely the temptations to describe history as on
the one hand a rational progression of thought( and on the other as the betrayal of a pure and
rational origin)
Truth-telling is a problem in its tendency to universalism) 9oucault considered all
anti.uity to have been a Hprofound error+
:/
because it aspired to being a philosophy for
everyone) This aspiration is dissatisfactory) Universal truth telling can either be applied as a
re.uirement or as an ideal) Ae.uiring people to tell and hear the truth about themselves in
order to be part of the universal fellowship ma*es this particular philosophical techni.ue a
way of forcing the populace instead of a tool for transformation) Positing universal
philosophy as an ideal results in the same determination of culture by techni.ues of truth-
:2
A brief summary can be found in McBushin( 20086 ch) 4) "f) also chapters one and two of 9oucault(
200:L2005M)
:/
9oucault( 54L5;3M6 344)
54:
telling( although without including everyone in the same way) <ither way( the attitude to truth
ceases to be definitive of good and desirability( and ac.uires the status of being Ha+ good)
@eeping truth-telling as the reserve of small groups of people does not solve the
problem( however) Truth-telling as a secret good will then allow the mar*eting of
philosophical techni.ues to whoever has the means to nurture the habit of telling the truth
about themselves) This mar*et may integrate its interests with the universal ideal mentioned
above( or it may simply offer its goods on their own terms) <ither way( a mar*etable lac* is
constituted in order to sell truth-telling) <ven if the techni.ue is offered freely by its e#pert
philosophers( as long as it is to avoid the above dangers of the universal ideal or re.uirement(
it will only ever be able to achieve the constitution of an aristocratic group protecting their
own access to the truth) Ct will only be natural to ma*e the transition from seeing the non-
initiated as truthless humans to untrue humans) And if the philosopher attempts to *eep the
techni.ue entirely to himself( then he loses both the telling and the truth)
?o the philosophers of late anti.uity were caught between social stagnation and
aristocracy) They chose the latter) <nlightenment social thought would later choose the former
in their theories of raison d@Ftat)
:3
9or the potential for transformation elicited by truth-telling
and truth-hearing induce fle#ibility in the sub,ect) That fle#ibility may be used to put the
sub,ect into .uestion in its relation to society and produce new forms of life) Ct may cause a
critical voice that refuses to accept its place from the state) 9le#ibility may also be deployed
as an instrument of homogeneity however) Truth-telling may simply re.uire the sub,ect to
adapt its life and truth to society) Ct may re.uire modesty and docility for the sa*e of
suppressing the socially transforming self) Truth-telling facilitates both)
Techni.ues of truth-telling and truth-hearing are not however doomed to either
aristocracy or homogeneity) Truth is not immoral but dangerous) Universalism is not the same
as forced homogeneity) Accounts of truth are not all wrong( but they do all owe us a way of
steering between the dangers of elitism and normalising coercion) This argument concerning
the nature of truth telling and asceticism will be the basis of my evaluation of truth( humour
and humility in the final sections of this thesis)
Cn order to facilitate a critical account of truth-telling in its relation to the
transformation of society and its relation to the self( let us now turn to the various ways in
which the logic of veridiction is configured positively) >ow does truth-telling become an
obligation( and what *inds of truth are included in that obligation$ Are truth-telling
:3
9oucault( 58 9oucault( 2008L2003M)
544
techni.ues committed to certain truth values( and how do those values place and restrict the
self$ !hat role does the truth-telling e#pert have in configuring particular relations between
self and society$ Cn all these issues( we will have an eye to the value of truth-telling and truth-
hearing for the pro,ects of revolution and homogenisation)
3.2.1: .ying
1ying is the opposite of telling the truth) >owever much C may believe that C am
Theology+s answer to 9riedrich Niet&sche( to ma*e such a claim would be a lie) Cn order to be
able to tell the truth about the matter( C will need good friends to disenchant me and e#perts to
give me a proper appreciation of Niet&sche+s genius)
There are a variety of lies( and not all of them re.uire good friends and philosophers)
An atlas will show me that ?weden is not the capital of Norway 0veridiction of political
cartography2( and the presentation of sweet wrappers in my coat poc*et will convince me of
the futility of claiming that it was actually my daughter who had filched the last Wuality ?treet
0veridiction of guilt and innocence2)
There was an array of opinions regarding lying amongst the early "hristian ascetics( a
selection of which are presented above 0on page 2/22) "assian+s ,ustification of lying .uoted
there was based on the duty a spea*er has towards her audience) 7thers embrace a casuistry
of prudence( results( and rules 0cf) fn)28 above( on page 2;2) The motivations given for telling
the truth appeal e#clusively to either care of others or care for the soul) Dohn "limacus
contrasts these two principles6
A man may lie on the grounds of prudence( and indeed regards as an act of righteousness the
actual destruction of his own soul) The inventor of lies declares that he is following the e#ample
of Aahab and maintains that his own destruction is the cause of salvation for others)
::
1ying effects other members of a community in different ways) There are very few
people that are seriously worried about my illusions regarding the genius of Niet&sche and
me) ?ome might be worried about any claim to be the Messiah( although this depends on
whether it appears on the record cover of a popular roc* and roll artist( or on the lips of a
toga-clad tap dancer .uaffing de-icer) 1ying about what one had for brea*fast does not
concern your fellows to the same degree as lies about whether you+d paid for it) The
obligation not to lie is not universal)
::
"limacus( scal.: ?tep 52)
548
?toics and early "hristian thin*ers were acutely aware of the variety of lies) 9ine
distinctions were made between statements of belief( truth( and ,ustification) 7n the bac* of
this tradition( Augustine wrote two fairly typical treatises( attempting to elucidate the relation
between the obligation of truth-telling and the logic of belief)
:4
>e distinguishes ; types of lie(
in a hierarchy of seriousness 0where the first is the worst( and the first five are illicit( whereas
the last three are wrong but allowable in certain circumstances26
5) concerning religious doctrine
2) un,ustly hurtful
/) that profit one at others+ e#pense
3) lying for lying+s sa*e
:) that satifies the desire for pretty speech
4) to prevent theft
8) to prevent death 0even of the guilty2
;) to prevent bodily impurity)
:8
!hilst this list ma*es the issue appear as a treatment of teleological priorities ' a
choice between the lesser of two evils ' Augustine ma*es use of a sophisticated philosophical
framewor* both to ground and apply the list) >e ta*es account of issues of agency and
consent( of intention and the moral benefit of the truth)
After opening the treatise with an assertion of the uncompromising concern for the
truth( he immediately introduces the case of ,o*es to challenge the reader+s assumption that
we *now what a lie is) >e then goes into a variety of cases where the definition of a
proposition as a lie can be challenged( before he attempts an interpretation of the various
%iblical warrants for the admission and prohibition of lying) >e considers .uestions such as
does the spea*er believe the proposition$ Does she e#pect to be believed$ Does he believe he
is telling the truth$ Cs *nowledge of the proposition beneficial$ !e can summarise these
issues most conveniently on a table showing relevant information concerning any person &+s
utterance of any proposition p6
:4
Augustinus( mend Augustinus( c. mend. !e will be concentrating on the former)
:8
Augustinus( mend.: #iv)2:( ##i)32)
54;
Table showing the moral possibilities of & uttering p)
&
believes
p
&
believes
her belief
regarding
p is
correct
p is
true
&
e#pects
to be
believed
that p
@nowing
p is
beneficial
to the
hearer
& is lying Moral assessment
Q Q Q Q Q N ideal
Q Q Q Q N N brutal
Q Q Q N Q $ malevolent
Q Q Q N N $ ironic
Q Q N Q Q N rash
Q Q N Q N N leading astray
Q Q N N Q N rash
Q Q N N N N rash
Q N Q Q Q N ideal
Q N Q Q N N brutal
Q N Q N Q N malevolent
Q N Q N N N -
Q N N Q Q N generous
Q N N Q N N malevolent
Q N N N Q N malevolent
Q N N N N N -
N Q Q Q Q Q rashSgenerous
N Q Q Q N Q rashSmalevolent
N Q Q N Q Q rashSbrutal
N Q Q N N Q rashSmalevolent
N Q N Q Q Q pragmatic
N Q N Q N Q malevolent
N Q N N Q Q cunningSpragmatic
N Q N N N Q cunning
N N Q Q Q $ generous
N N Q Q N $ malevolent
N N Q N Q Q malevolent
N N Q N N $ cunningSpragmatic
N N N Q Q Q pragmatic
N N N Q N Q malevolent
N N N N Q Q brutal
N N N N N $ cunningSpragmatic
?o the morality of truth telling is a good deal more complicated for Augustine than the
simple determination of whether someone is spea*ing true statements or not) >e finally
considers decisive not the social obligation we have to each other to tell the truth( but the
desire to tell the truth to oneself) Telling the truth is useful to ourselves because it is by
54
nurturing the truth in our soul that we produce right actions and right loves) 7nly in this way
can we become good) This consideration far outweighs physical and social benefits or dangers
that might suggest the e#pediency of lying)
Augustine+s categories of lies show us the range of social conse.uences truth-telling
can have) Cf an honest citi&en is attempting to come up with a practical solution to a social
challenge( it does not help the community if that person is entirely ignorant of its details and
bac*ground( or deceiving themselves about its possible solutions) Ct is important that
politicians not be self-deceiving about their tas*s and abilities)
This was ?ocrates+ accusation to the people of Athens) >is truth-telling was one of
uncomfortable truths that were e#pedient for the state to *now) The truth-hearing of the
democratic assembly of Athens had an immediate effect on the citi&ens of that state) They
were obliged to hear the truth and to tell the truth) Ct was not simply a matter of ta*ing care of
their soul6 they needed to legislate for their community)
"ombining these two aspects( however ' the freedom of a truth-teller and the
obligations towards a community ' radically transforms the practice of truth-telling) Cf the
truths an agent is obliged to tell to the group are the same *ind as those offered by a fearless
spea*er( the individual becomes dependent upon and e#posed to truth-tellers 0or absolutely
everyone if the moral hero is the truth-hearer rather than the truth-teller2 in order to fulfil that
obligation) This situation could easily result from a general conviction that people with a lac*
of self-*nowledge are dangerous) Cn order to protect society against them( truth-hearing would
then become obligatory) !hilst fearless spea*ing started off as a contract between a
vulnerable spea*er and a powerful hearer( it can develop into the social contract6 the governor
0representing the community2 tells the truth to the individual( which sShe is then obliged to
confess in order to remain a member of the community) !ithout a ta#onomy of different truth
obligations( it is difficult to see how the general use of truth-telling techni.ues is to refrain
from degenerating into this situation)
Cn the conte#t of a social body( telling lies about the political situation and oneself has
a public effect) Cf the phenomenon of lying is indiscriminately defined as utterances of false
statements( the obligation not to lie becomes an obligation to *now the truth as well as being
honest) Ct becomes an obligation to hear and ac*nowledge uncomfortable truths( an obligation
to hearing fearless speech) The ideal of truth-telling then results in a universal ma#im of
openness and observability)
580
3.2.2: /alues
Cf the truth-telling practice itself is committed to particular relations between self and
society( then it will not promote the transformation of that relation) Ct is therefore crucial to
discern any positive content in fearless speech6 its values( doctrine( and theory) The character
of parrhesia is critical) Ct has a negative force) The truth-teller is remar*able because she says
everything( regardless of convention or danger) There is no doctrine presented as common to
all parrhesiasts( unless it be the command aude sapere ' dare to *now) More often than not(
what the free-spea*er dares to say consists in simple contradiction of their hearers+ assumed
truths) ?o ?ocrates tells people that they are not as wise as they thin*K Diogenes claims that
the *ingship of Ale#ander the Breat is mere shamK ?toics will point out the impracticability of
daily life( and "ynics deny the rationality of the categories of public and private life)
%ecause fearless speech involves an implicit accusation of self-flattery or deception(
early "hristian ascetics were hesitant towards it( and sometimes even hostile) Many
condemned parrhesia along with chattering and gossip as an idle activity that *ept the ascetic
from their proper silence before Bod) Another reason to re,ect it( though( was the confidence
it implied in one+s *nowledge of the neighbour)
Abba Peter( who was the disciple of abba 1ot( told the story6 HC was once in abba Agathon+s cell(
and a certain brother came to him( saying IC want to live with the brothers( but tell me how C
should live with them)J The old man said to him IBuard foreignness 0Bree*6 tvitioK 1atin6
peregrinatio2
:;
you have on the first day you go to them for all the days of your life( and do not
assume boldness 0Bree*6 oppqoiooq,K 1atin6 assumas .iduciam2)J Abba Macarius says to
him( I!hat does boldness do$J The old man says to him ICt is as powerful as the summer that(
during a drought( drives everything before its face( because summer also spoils the fruit of
trees)J Abba Macarius said ICs boldness so bad$J Abba Agathon replied IThere is no passion
worse than boldnessK for it is the mother of all passions) The hard wor*ing mon* should
therefore not embrace boldness( not even if he is alone in his cell)J +
:
Cn this case( parrhesia is not contrasted with silence( but with foreignness6 being a
stranger) The virtue is then not the silence of worship( but that of hesitancy before other
people) Agathon wishes to warn mon*s against rushing in to proclaiming truths about the
brothers without *nowing who they are) And the discovery of who one+s neighbour is is an
:;
C prefer the Bree* reading here( as it retains the sense of arrival on the first day better than the 1atin does)
:
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: P); 0my translation2 O &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Agathon 5 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P)55)
9oucault completely ignores the positive virtue of strangeness in his commentary on this passage in 9oucault
2006 /0:-/08)
585
endless activity) !e are a mystery to each other that can not even be fathomed by the practice
and doctrine of truth-telling)
9earless speech is not simply about the denial of self-flattery and illusion) Ct does not
,ust ta*e courage to see what everyone is ignoring) Ct ta*es discernment) Qou have to *now
what you are loo*ing for) !hilst the ?ocratic and "ynic forms of fearless speech are the most
unadorned( ?toic and "hristian traditions developed a sophisticated set of practices that would
form the bac*ground against which the truth-teller might spea* courageously and truth-
hearers might be able to spea* the truth about themselves)
This is not the place for an e#haustive overview of these conte#ts for parrhesia) They
vary in detail( from the simple recommendation of ?t Anthony that hermits write down all
their thoughts for the scrutiny of their spiritual director( to the proliferation of handboo*s for
spiritual direction in the wa*e of the "ouncil of Trent 05:3:-5:4/2 which made annual
confession universally obligatory) The techni.ues differ enormously( but all have the same
ob,ective6 to provide a conte#t for the moral agent+s truth-hearing)
The road from the practice of truth-telling to the doctrine of truth about the person is
short) Ct is a mere practical tas* to show people( as ?ocrates did( that they are deceiving
themselves in believing their current way of life to be a rational construction from first
principles) Ct is a natural corollary of this practical tas* to believe that people are self-deceived
concerning themselves) This corollary itself may be elaborated into a ta#onomy of flattering
lies we tell ourselves concerning our greatness( and its recognition or non-recognition by
others)
The transition from shoc*ing home truths to doctrine may be illustrated by the history
of <vagrius+ doctrine of the passions) "ontinuing the philosophical tradition that attempted to
ta*e control of the passions 0particularly through ?toic consolation literature2( <vagrius wrote
his ta#onomy of passions in order to establish practices that would eradicate them) As we saw
above 0on pages 4-5052( this constituted a technology of the self in its relation to truth and
the world( whereby <vagrius aimed to produce ob,ectivity) The ob,ectivity itself served the
twin aims of truth and non-manipulative love)
These aims are less clear in "assian+s account of <vagrius+ ta#onomy( which describes
eight faults( rather than eight passions)
40
Ct is a short step from these to the description of
general sins that may describe all "hristians( monastic or otherwise 0and in this respect
40
"assianus( de institutis: boo*s =-PCC( each of which treats one fault "assianus( *ollationes: boo* =) "limacus
also has eight vices6 "limacus( scal.: ?tep 5/( although strictly spea*ing he adheres to Bregory the Breat+s
ta#onomy of seven deadly sins ' cf) ?tep 22)
582
Pelagius was by no means the loser in his controversy with Augustine6 monastic techni.ues
are .uic*ly applied to and re.uired of the secular church2) !ith Bregory+s moral comments
on Dob( a number of transformations have occurred to "assian+s list6 the faults are generalised(
reduced to seven( and connected to the eternal status of the person) They are no longer ;
practical temptations( but have become the seven deadly sins)
This ta#onomy of sins becomes a doctrine concerning the destiny and status of the
person) Moreover( the list of sins itself yields new techni.ues and interpretations of
techni.ues) They are used by truth-tellers and spiritual directors( and the confession gains the
significance of a diagnosis of the confessing "hristian+s moral substance)
45
!hilst this is simply one contingent and historical tra,ectory for the practice of
parrhesia( the adoption of positive doctrines concerning the person is not a peculiarity
e#clusive to the religious appropriation of the techni.ue) The truth-teller does ac.uire
authority in the course of the parrhesiastic contract) The two forms of courage involved
0courage to spea* despite the danger of reprisals( and the courage to hear despite the danger of
insult2 also imply two forms of trust 0that the hearer will not become violent and that the
spea*er will tell the truth2) Trusting someone to tell the truth is not grounded in first
principles( it is merely necessary to the effectiveness of the techni.ue) The parrhesiastic
techni.ue involves belief in the words of the spea*er) The transition then from choosing to
believe a parrhesiast( towards adhering to commonly held beliefs 0particularly as parrhesiasts
learn their trade from handboo*s and institutional authorities2( and finally to homogeneous
community based on shared perceptions of moral dangers is entirely in *eeping with the ideal
of fearless spea*ing whenever that ideal is held universally)
9earless spea*ers regularly ac.uired a set of disciples( and however resistant they may
have been to established opinion( they became associated with particular doctrines) Ct is not a
necessary result of the practice of parrhesia( but unless the fearless spea*er ta*es steps to
avoid it 0for e#ample through persistent criti.ue of truth-tellers themselves or a theory of the
development of doctrine2( the values and criti.ues that it is courageous to tell soon solidify
into established and fi#ed truths about the person that are no longer dangerous to spea*)
9earless speech may be transformed into uncritical assumption universally applied) These
assumptions still call the sub,ect into .uestion( produce fle#ibility and a critical stance
towards the self( but to the e#tent that they espouse fi#ed standards( their ob,ective is
45
A good e#ample is the opening chapters of Dohn of the "ross( 50)
58/
adaptability towards society rather than the transformation of normality) Cf the doctrine retains
its parrhesiastic authority( anyone denying it will be hailed not as a critic( but a coward)
3.2.3: E0perts
The practice of parrhesia has always been a two-place activity) ?ocrates spo*e the
truth not to himself but to politicians( opponents and disciples) "ynics spo*e out bra&enly to
anyone) The ?toics listened to the bold words of their truth-tellers) The desert fathers listened
to the insults of strangers( and sometimes even of sages) There may not have been a contract
negotiated in each case( and the relation was not always successful either) Nevertheless( the
truth game can only be described as parrhesiastic if there is both a truth-teller and someone to
listen to them) This concrete role can easily be adapted to the mar*et( so that in anti.uity( it
was amenable to the aristocratic tendencies of philosophers) To the e#tent that the role of the
truth-teller becomes defined and restricted by specific criteria( it will also be suited to the
homogenisation of the self+s relation to society)
<arly "hristian ascetics did not radically undermine the role of the authoritative man
in truth-telling( although they were sensitive to the aristocracy of the philosophy of fearless
speech) They did not( for e#ample( restrict the role of the spiritual master to members of the
upper classes or intelligentsia) Abba Arsenius ' who had been an imperial tutor ' was
particularly aware to this problem6
?omeone said to blessed Arsenius( H>ow is it that we( with all our education and our wide
*nowledge got no-where( while these <gyptian peasants ac.uire so many virtues$ Abba
Arsenius said to him( H!e indeed get nothing from our secular education( but these <gyptian
peasants ac.uire the virtues by hard wor*)+
7ne day Abba Arsenius consulted an old <gyptian mon* about his own thoughts) ?omeone
noticed this and said to him( HAbba Arsenius( how is it that you with such a good 1atin and
Bree* education( as* this peasant about your thoughts$+ >e replied( HC have indeed been taught
1atin and Bree*( but C do not *now even the alphabet of this peasant)+
42
As we have seen( the different forms of the techni.ue of parrhesia concentrate on
different elements of the negotiation ' the truth-teller( the truth itself( the truth-hearer( the
ob,ect of the truth( etc) The treatment of anyone and everyone as one+s truth-teller( for
e#ample( is a late development) The transfer of the techni.ue from the political sphere 0where
42
&pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Arsenius : O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P): 0where the interlocutor is <vagrius2 O &pop$. Patr.
87,. syst.9: P)8 and &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Arsenius 4 O &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P=)8 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9:
P=)8)
583
the truth-teller spea*s to the entire assembly2 to the personal 0where the truth-teller spea*s to
the individual politician2 appears in the wor* of ?ocrates and Plato)
4/
9oucault identifies
Balen as the first to listen to a neutral party who would otherwise be a stranger rather than a
friend who tells you the truth because it is in your interests)
43
"ommon to all these moments of the tradition is the recognition of the spea*er as a
truth-teller) Cn anti.uity( there was not simply a debate concerning how to *now the truth( but
also how to recognise the truth-teller6 this is the force of the warnings against flattery) Ct is not
simply that one ta*es illicit pleasure in hearing lies( but also that the flatterer apes the
parrhesiast6 he is Ha servant of devils( a teacher of pride( the destroyer of contrition( a vandal
of e#cellence( a perverse guide+)
4:
The flatterer does not help one to spea* the truth about
oneself)
>ow does one recognise the truth teller$ There are certain .ualifications and hallmar*s
by which they are *nown( and these are noted and categorised at various points in the
tradition)
44
These .ualifications have to do with the person+s honesty with himself( with his
*nowledge of the passions( his discipline( courage( and ob,ectivity)
Aecognition is a shared thing) Cf C have criteria for identifying someone who can tell
me the truth( then that person can logically claim those criteria to persuade someone to
recognise them as a truth-teller) ?o .ualifications become recommendations( and identifying a
truth-teller is in *eeping with their public recognition as such) 7nce again 0as when we
studied the doctrines of parrhesiasts2( we are faced with the social challenge of authority6 no-
one is obliged to accept someone+s authority( but neither is anyone free from the assumed
choice of some authorities over others)
The tacit or public recognition of certain authorities adds to the obligation to spea* the
truth one hears from the .ualified truth-teller) Ct is one further way in which the universalism
of truth-telling and truth-hearing is reinforced) The recognition may be informal 0as in the
case of truth-telling friends2 or more obviously formal 0as in the case of the truth-telling
priest2) <ither way( the parrhesiastic activity entails that a particular group of people with
specific values and .ualifications e#ert an influence in the determination of the truth about
individuals) As soon as the authority of truth-telling is divorced from its characteristic
elements of resistance to political authority( e#posure to physical danger( distinction from the
opinions of the ma,ority( it may be used to recommend any group of people)
4/
"f) 9oucault 2006 lecture of 5:
th
9ebruary)
43
9oucault( 200:L2005M6 /)
4:
"limacus( scal.: ?tep 22)
44
e)g) in Plutarch( 2004L5;8;M)
58:
C hold the bet that most of you have met at least one of those guys who nowadays regularly visit
a *ind of master who ta*es their money from them in order to teach them how to ta*e care of
themselves) 9ortunately enough( C have forgotten( either in 9rench or in <nglish( or in Berman(
the name of those modern masters) Cn anti.uity( they were called philosophers)
48
The Bree* philosophical tradition( both in its "hristian and its classical manifestations(
has been largely responsible for the continuation of the parrhesiastic tradition 0particularly in
middle- and neo-platonism2) >owever( its idealisation of the philosopher *ing( not least as
realised in the person of Marcus Aurelius( demonstrates the anti.uity of this governorStruth-
teller combination) The fact that the techni.ue was not used in governmental technologies
until early modernism is surely due to its attachment to the role of the advisor to the *ing( and
later to marginal ascetic communities rather than to late anti.uity+s noble resistance to state
power) The power of the parrhesiastic e#pert is difficult to resist( and is a result of reflection
on the practice of truth-telling) %y characterising and limiting the truth-teller( the tradition
defined and grounded the possibilities of truth-hearing in a particular relation to one order of
society) Truth-tellers enabled citi&ens to fulfil the ideal relation( leading philosophically
ordered society onto the horns of the ecclesiological dilemma outlined above 0on page
54/-5442)
Cn its tendencies towards imposing an obligation not to lie( establishing doctrine( and
fi#ing a class of e#perts( the practice of parrhesia is beset with difficulties) None of these are
necessary results of truth-telling( but all are contingent directions to which it may lead)
The effect of these difficulties is to rigidify the self) !hen the authority of a
courageous truth-teller is identified with established ideal .ualities and a particular class of
people( the image of the truth can thereby be confined to that ideal) <stablishing a fi#ed
ta#onomy of virtue and vice( together with techni.ues for avoiding the one( cultivating the
other( and assessing the result( has the force of defining a model to which all must conform)
The obligation for everyone to spea* the truth about themselves to the community
0represented by the truth-teller2 enforces the necessity of the ideal and the model for the sa*e
of the stability of that community)
Cn short( these are specific ways in which the practice of parrhesia can lead to social
homogeneity rather than to criti.ue) Truth-telling is not the unambiguous ethical ideal
48
9oucault( 5;/)
584
embraced by certain na\ve 9oucauldians)
4;
Ct is a practice that lies at the root of disciplinary
techni.ues of normalisation) Ct plays into the hands of aristocratic philosophy( mar*eted
citi&enship( and of homogenising ascetic ideals) 9or this reason( constructive proposals for
practical modes of criti.ue 0e)g) %ernauer+s mysticismK %utler+s giving an account of oneselfK
"ritchley+s >umour2
4
must face the implications and possible appropriations allowed by their
theories) They must find out the cost of telling the truth)
4;
This uncritical appropriation is often associated with theologians( although it can most easily be found
amongst the 9oucauldian ethical writers6 Davidson( 53 McBushin( 2008 7U1eary( 2002)
4
%ernauer( 2002 %utler( 200: "ritchley( 2002)
588
&.&: .umour
C would li*e to ta*e the e#ample here of humour( which is both the most attractive and
most relevant method of truth-telling to be found as regards holy fools) Ct also has the
advantage of having been considered by a wide range of philosophers throughout the
centuries) Ct is a prime e#ample of truth-telling that reconfigures one+s relation to oneself(
with both personal factors 0affecting one+s sense of humour2 and social factors 0through
sharing a ,o*e2) !ith its political satire and individual surprise it is a mode of truth-telling
uni.uely able to transform the relation of the self to society) %y loo*ing at the implications of
humour( and attitudes towards it among early "hristian ascetics( we will be able to assess the
significance of the playful comedy and truth-telling insults of the holy fools)
Cn this section we will loo* at the techni.ue itself( as it is interpreted by some modern
authors(
80
and argue for the interpretation of humour as a form of asceticism and wor* on the
self) 7nce the foundation of this interpretation is given( we can turn to the ways in which
humour ' and particularly the laughter of the holy fools ' falls upon the ecclesiological
dilemma( and what resources it has for solving it)
>umour can be interpreted as a mode of the fearless speech we e#amined above(
namely as an activity with implications for social life( and effects on the self) 1i*e the practice
of learning the truth through listening to a truth-teller( humour is primarily a social activity)
!e laugh at what others tell us) Cf we laugh on our own( it is usually because we have been
provo*ed by someone else+s thoughts( either in writing or memory) At the same time( we say
that people have a good sense of humour( and this is an individual .uality( in the sense that we
would not say that a football team( my relationship with my sister( or all pedestrians have a
good sense of humour)
?o there is an interaction between the relationship and the attitude6 C laugh with others
to the e#tent that C have a sense of humour that fits the interaction) %oth the laughter and the
attitude are dynamic6 they develop and are transformed) C meet new things to laugh at every
dayK C find things funny today that may have been banal or even insulting yesterday) Dust as
we saw the courage of truth-telling and the courage of truth-hearing( the comic situation
allows for the telling of ,o*es and the appreciation of ,o*es) %oth may cause the failure of
comedy)
80
e)g) "ritchley( 2002 %ergson( 200:L505M %erger( 58)
58;
>umour has an identifiable relation to truth-telling in addition to its parallel structure)
There are factors in truth-telling that e.ually rule out being funny) Qou cannot( for e#ample(
use humour to patently communicate dogma) Cn fact( it is a typical butt for comics) ?imilarly(
it is impossible to be a flattering comic) Any ,o*e that appears e#travagant in its praise for the
hearer simply has to be ta*en tongue-in-chee*) A flattering truth-teller has also renounced her
tas*)
A further similarity between fearless speech and humour is the challenge both pose to
the unspo*en assumptions of those who find the ,o*e funny) This may be in terms of simple
punning( which brings into .uestion the meaning of words) More subtle( however( is the
comic tric* of ma*ing everyday life seem absurd)
85
%y ad,usting the perception of reality
somewhat( the logic we enter into when we accept an idiom is revealed and moc*ed) Two
e#amples of moc*ing advertising demonstrate the techni.ue)
!ittgenstein closes a letter to Bilbert Pattisson with the comment H?omehow or
other( one instinctively feels that Two ?teeples No) ;/ Wuality ?oc* is a real man+s
soc*) Ct+s a soc* of taste ' dressy( fashionable( comfortable)+
82
An advertising campaign for a Hno frills+ chain reads H%uy one) Pay for one)+
The comic and truth-telling also have similar relationships to courage) %oth dare to
transgress censorship and taboos in their speech) %oth are in their element when they do so)
"riti.ue and ,o*ing ' e)g) Bree* comedy and Aoman satire ' have both been forbidden by
religious and political authorities( to the detriment of the *nowledge of truth) "omics
throughout history have had to pay dearly for their trade)
Truth-telling can be humorous) %raving taboos can be humorous) >umour is critical)
More specifically( the laugher is often moc*ed by what sShe laughs at) >umour helps us to
find ourselves absurd( which can be a long step towards self-transformation)
As such( humour involves a very specific division of the self) Ct is a division
determined by laughter6 the self finds itself funny) !hilst this is certainly not true of all
humour( or all laughter( it is at least a branch of humour that has been normatively
recommended recently by "ritchley( himself ta*ing up the descriptions of the healthy self in
the later wor* of 9reud)
8/
85
%ergson( 200:L505M6 5;( 8:f)
82
.uoted in Mon*( 506 244f))
8/
"ritchley( 20026 esp) ch)8)
58
!hen the self has been divided in this way( it becomes possible to tell the truth about
the self and ac*nowledge the criti.ue elaborated by the comic without the possibility of insult)
Cf one has found the ,o*e funny( then it simply cannot offend) Cf it does offend( it is no longer
funny) There is no guarantee here( and the comedian+s tas* is to get the audience to remain in
this ab,ective relation to themselves long enough for her to tell the truth)
Cn this respect( the sense of humour is a form of apat$eia) !e noted above 0on page
5:/2 the relation of apat$eia to insults6 to provo*e someone is to test the presence of passion)
!ithout the passion( an insult may become funny) Unless we are disconnected from our
passions on the other hand( we will be unable to find something funny) Cf we immediately feel
concern for a clown slipping on a banana s*in( it will not be funny) Cf we are worried about
our self image( we will not be able to laugh)
>ere C would point out( as a symptom e.ually worthy of notice( the A%?<N"< 79 9<<1CNB
which usually accompanies laughter) Ct seems as though the comic could not produce its
disturbing effect unless it fell( so to say( on the surface of a soul that is thoroughly calm and
unruffled) Cndifference is its natural environment( for laughter has no greater foe than emotion)
83
The candid view of oneself produced by humour 0and truth-telling2 wor*s both
inwards and outwards) !e are confronted with our absurd nature( our world( and our bodies
0which is perhaps why it is so hard not to laugh when someone farts in metaphysical
surroundings2( and forced to recognise the modesty of our lives) At the same time( we are
introduced to the possibility of another way of configuring reality) The silliness of our way of
life is not compatible with its logical necessity) "riti.ue of our modes of being-together and
our representations is made possible) <veryday life may be transformed ' or transfigured ' by
the comic vision) The comedian is a social visionary( forcing the possibility into thought that
things could be otherwise)
%ut because all this is a pleasurable e#perience( our absurdity does not awa*en
revulsion in us( or even regret) Cn our laughter( our faults seem to us li*e so many endearing
foolishnesses) ?atirist Deremy >ardy pointed this out concerning the frustration felt by the
%ritish at the bureaucracy of food regulations in the United @ingdom( that re.uires pac*ets of
walnuts to include a note on the bac* saying Hmay contain nuts+6
That+s the thing that people get most irate about isn+t it$ HCt+s outrageous( pac*ets of nuts which
may contain nuts in itV+ C *now it+s foolish( but it+s .uite .uaint and charming) Ct+s li*e the old
83
%ergson( 200:L505M6 3)
5;0
money( it wasn+t doing any harm( pounds shillings and pence) Qes( it was lunatic( but it was
.uite charming) !hy can+t we have our .uir*s$ !hat+s wrong with it$
8:
Ct is worth tarrying briefly at this understanding of humour as criti.ue) The tendency
of modern philosophy to address its critical eye towards the presuppositions of truth as well as
its content has turned into a mar* of academic rigour that is not always ,ustified) !e are as*ed
to believe a thin*er because he Hchallenges established and presupposed tacit truths+) The term
9oucault used to describe discontinuities in the development of thought ' problematisation
84
'
has become a standard academic term more or less synonymous with Hloo* at+) People e#press
their intention to Hproblematise+ the notion of the family( the treatment of se#uality or the
layout of public buildings in anti.uity or modern times)
The problem with this particular appropriation of modern philosophy is that it yields
almost e#clusively mendacious descriptions) Cf a boo* has genuinely challenged established
tacit presuppositions( then it would be deeply shoc*ing 0or unbelievable and thereby
e#tremely funny2) Cf it is not perceived as such( then we must be sceptical as to the e#tent to
which the truths it has challenged really were deep-seated tacit presuppositions) ?imilarly( if it
were genuinely possible for one researcher to Hproblematise+ a particular concept( group of
people( or practice in which they themselves participate( then that person would be some sort
of messiah figure in that culture) They would also be entirely incomprehensible to their peers)
Cn 9oucault+s terminology( at least( shared e#periences( perceptions( and eventually concepts
become problematic as a result of a variety of factors( and the last ones to *now about it are
often the academics who integrate the new terminology ' the self( ideology( the homeless '
into their thought) Cf professors can sit in their offices and discuss the social significance of
the family( this is because it has already become problematic) Cf it had not become so( it
would not occur to anyone to discuss it) Ct is not a mista*e to use the word to describe the age-
old academic process of isolating and studying an ob,ect of thought or e#perience as
problematisation 0or at least( if it is( it is a trivial e#egetical one2) %ut it is not a very
convincing evidence of truth-telling either)
Cn fact( a number of thin*ers have attempted to transform themselves and culture by
addressing what they consider tacit presuppositions( and the pro,ect is not to be denied by so
much failure) Ct is altogether more dangerous( however( to identify a success story)
Aevolutionary ideas as well as manipulative falsehoods have been offered to the world as
8:
Anderson( 200;)
84
9oucault( 20006 558-55)
5;5
unpopular truths)
88
!e have already noted the social danger inherent in a false proclamation
of liberation) As a result( 9oucault outlines his ideals for such a pro,ect in his agreement with
the school of phenomenology6
Cmpossible( as one turns these pages( not to thin* of Maurice Merleau-Ponty+s teaching and of
what was for him the essential philosophical tas*6 never to consent to being completely
comfortable with one+s own presuppositions) Never to let them fall peacefully asleep( but also
never to believe that a new fact will suffice to overturn themK never to imagine that one can
change them li*e arbitrary a#ioms( remembering that in order to give them the necessary
mobility one must have a distant view( but also loo* at what is nearby and all around oneself)
8;
The practice of criti.ue is not guaranteed to induce a radical change in language and
culture) Although C will be arguing here that humour does have the characteristics of a
particularly penetrating criti.ue that allows us to see the world differently( there is no formula
to produce the *ind of cultural transformation dreamt of by recent theorists) To the e#tent that
humour is met with surprise and resistance( however( it can be shown to be doing more than
re-organising language and culture in the surface)
?urprise is thought by some to be the very essence of humour) The punch-line to a
,o*e( or the sudden recognition of a mime+s ob,ect are not ,ust funny( but une#pected) !e had
not thought this situation in this way before) The surprise is increased the closer it gets to the
bone) ?o half the humour of satirists is based in the audience not e#pecting them to be so
daring) Note that the surprise e#plains both the humour here 0it+s the resolving punch line2
and the criti.ue 0the new way of loo*ing at the world feels li*e a resolutionSrevolution2) A
good e#ample of this is the song HThe Pursuit of >appiness+ by #$e 'i"ine *omedy) The
theme of the song is laid out as a message of love( full of flattery and noble devotion6 IDust as
long as we are together for ever C+ll never be anything other than happyJ) The lover is fulfilled
and completed by the beloved) The beloved is all that matters) Then the final line delivers a
crushing blow to its own genre6
>ey( don+t be surprised if millions die in plague and murder(
True happiness lies beyond your fries and happy burger)
8
88
Dostoevs*y+s 'emons is 0among other things2 an e#cellent portrayal of the abuse of the popularity of
progressive ideas in nineteenth century Aussia6 Dostoevs*y( 2000L5;82M)
8;
9oucault( 2002L58M6 33;
8
>annon( 58)
5;2
The final sentence is a classic punch line) %ut it also leaves us to reflect on the use of
the word Hhappy+ in the song and elsewhere) Cf Hhappy+ can be applied to a hamburger( what
value can be attributed to the happiness the lover derives from being with his beloved$ >ow
serious can love songs ever be from now on$ The punch line( during the singing of which the
instruments fade away( allowing the truth-telling conclusion to appear na*ed in its fran*
intensity( leaves us with an odd feeling of being displaced( li*e we have been fooled into
inauthenticity)
The thesis that surprise is at least one element of humour has not( to my *nowledge(
been contested) That humour regularly meets with resistance is also widely accepted) A
common criticism is that a comic has Hgone too far+( or that she is saying things ,ust for laughs
rather than the more serious business of ma*ing a point) Do*es can be in poor taste) These are
signs that the ,o*e is transgressing limits( which is not to say that the transgression is good or
bad) The fact that the resistance ta*es the form of non-cognitive criticism ' in terms of taste(
of pre-set limits to speech( of whether it+s funny or not( rather than contesting its patent truth
claim ' demonstrates that the ,o*e is not operating in the realm of logical thought) !e don+t
answer one of 9reud+s ,o*es about Dews by pointing out that it is founded in a deception
concerning Dewish hygiene)
;0
Ct is not simply false( but revealing of bad character)
7ne instance of comedy which both meets with resistance and is manifestly meant to
wor* on its hearers+ categories of thought is <ddie C&&ard+s stand-up comedy( and in
particular his se.uence on being a transvestite) Cn ma*ing the distinction between Hweirdo
transvestites+ and He#ecutive transvestites+( he ma*es patent the way in which the category of
transvestite has become defined in relation to a construction of normality and morality rather
than having the positive meaning of cross-dressing) >e attempts to prise away the concepts of
se#uality( gender( and violence) Perhaps more subtly( he moc*s the bourgeois morality that
attributes all things that have to do with the He#ecutive class+ with an acceptable status)
!hen C was in New Qor*( there was a guy in the %ron# who was living in a cave ' li*e you do(
and he was coming out and shooting at geese and ' a lot of weird things going on with this guyK
and the police pic*ed him up and they found a collection of womenUs shoes( and they thought(
HMaybe heUs a transvestite)+ And if he is( he+s a fuc*ing weirdo transvestiteV CUm much more in
the e#ecutive transvestite area) Travel the world( yes( itUs much more e#ecutive) 1i*e D) <dgar
>oover( what a fuc*head he wasV They found out when he died that he was a transvestite( and
;0
These ,o*es are scattered throughout 9reud( 2002L50:M)
5;/
they go( H!ell( that e#plains his weird behaviourV+ Qeah( fuc*ing weirdo transvestiteV 0points to
$imsel.2 <#ecutive transvestite) CtUs a lot wider community( more wide than youUd thin*)
;5
C&&ard does not fall into the mista*e of constructing a new identity for transvestites) >e
does not as* to be ta*en seriously) Ct is not that we should include in our *nowledge of
humanity categories of gender( se#uality( and cross-dressing) Cnstead( he attempts to produce
confusion and frustrate the formation of categories) Cn addition to his self-confession as an
e#ecutive transvestite( for e#ample( he also calls himself a Hlesbian trapped in a man+s body+
or Ha male tomboy+) >is comedy is a bra&en challenge ' categorise me if you canV
This wor* on the conditions of thought is of a piece with his activism) <ddie C&&ard is
also a member of Amnesty Cnternational and has organised a number of events to support
them) 7ne particular form his wor* too* was a protest against the death of =anessa 1orena
1edesma( who died in police custody in %uenos Aries( Argentina6 HC stood on Argentine
territory at the foot of their embassy and said( ICUm a transvestite( CUm on your property( so
arrest me and beat the shit out of me li*e you did with your other transvestitesVJ+
;2
>umour enables criti.ue both through its own truth-telling practices and through its
nurture of an attitude of affectionate self-criti.ue that allows scepticism and change in our
own thought) Ct is a mode of social transformation in both these respects6 we are changed by
its truth and we become open to change by the efficacy of its techni.ue) Cn this respect(
humour can be described well as a speech act) Cts locutionary force 0the patent truth claim of
the ,o*e( e)g) HC+m an e#ecutive transvestite+2 differs from its illocutionary force 0its social
criti.ue( e)g) Hdon+t automatically associate transvestites with dangerous individuals+2( and its
perlocutionary force is then laughter)
;/
Cn contrast with its transformative portrayals( the attitude comedy inculcates in us ' of
modesty and fle#ibility ' is an ongoing point of character) !e are brought down to earth by
our sense of humour) Cf we are in the habit of laughing at the world( then nothing in the world
is safe from the comic perspective) <verything can change)
This techni.ue+s most attractive attribute is perhaps that of delight) !e en,oy
laughing) Unli*e the insult( humour is not a difficult pill to swallow) Ct is a part of the
gracious ordering of creation that leads us to the good and the true through our natural
appreciation of the beautiful)
;3
7ur bodies need food( and hence the e#istence of "ornish
;5
C&&ard( 5;)
;2
Barfield( 2005)
;/
9or the theory of ?peech Acts( see paradigmatically ?earle( 54 and Austin( 58:)
;3
9or the seminal account of this in Augustine+s wor*( cf) >arrison( 52)
5;3
pastiesK we need to drin*( hence hot chocolateK we need to hear the truth( hence Dostoevs*y+s
novels and !ittgenstein+s philosophyK we need to be humble( hence comedy) The practice is
good( true( and beautiful( without the painful effort of repentance and transformation) As
"ritchley has put it( Hyour super-ego is your amigo+V
;:
>umour is not merely an interesting techni.ue of ethics and criti.ue) Ct is theologically
grounded( through its character of delight( its adherence to the truth( and its ob,ective of
goodness) The comic is the flipside of the priest( where the latter adheres to abiding truths(
reinterpreting the tradition for each new day( and the former criticises the priest+s
compromising attitude to contemporary culture( and challenges the obvious truths that
condition thought)
;4
Cn parallel with the practice of fearless speech( however( this techni.ue is beset with
dangers) The public recommendation or ethical endorsement of critical humour may license
its use to force transformation in the entire population) That transformation would be dictated
by and conformed to the sense of humour of that population( and in particular those intelligent
and powerful enough to e#ert an influence on it) >owever( if critical humour becomes the
preserve of an elite few( then all the resources of that techni.ue of the self ' fle#ibility(
adaptability( and self-*nowledge ' are restricted to that aristocratic minority) Alternatively(
the techni.ue may become a mar*etable good li*e spiritual guidance or therapy) That *ind of
mar*eting might then cultivate a sense of lac* in the population6 a sense of humour becomes
the reserve of the rich) This is the economic effect of the assertion of taste in public comedy)
Cn what follows( C shall enumerate problems that parallel those mentioned concerning
truth-telling 0cf) over( on pages 544-5832 in order to discern whether humour( and particularly
that of the holy fools( is able to avoid the slippage from critical truth-telling into the forcing of
the self+s fle#ibility for the sa*e of social homogeneity that ta*es place when truth becomes
obligatory( dogmatic( and the preserve of a few e#perts) !hen applied to humour( these
themes become the obligation to laughK stoc* comic formsK and the power of the comic)
3.3.1: "#e obligation to laug#
>umour both assumes and constitutes a community) Translating ,o*es is a perilous
affair( but a feeling of community results if the ,o*e is appreciated) !e rarely laugh on our
own) ?omething has to be e#tremely funny to provo*e solitary laughter( whereas we can
;:
"ritchley( 20026 /-508)
;4
This portrayal is given in @ola*ows*i( 2003L5:M)
5;:
laugh at banalities in the right company)
;8
Cf we unite this social function of humour with the
self-critical effects( however( humour becomes a tool of homogeneity and the policing of
cultural boundaries) This section will attempt a criti.ue of humour in terms of this reading of
comedy) 1aughter at oneself may be pleasurable( but those who cannot laugh with the ,o*er
are both ostracised thereby( and *ept outside by the truth-force of the ,o*e for those who
laugh)
!e can interpret the perceived dourness of the theologians of the patristic era in this
conte#t) A brief e#amination of what motivated the fathers and mothers of the church to resist
laughter will give the lie to unhelpfully reductionist accounts of these thin*ers as grumpy old
men)
;;
"ertainly the ascetic thin*ers were acutely aware of the social dynamics of humour(
braving ridicule and ostracism by resisting unhelpful humour6
%ut when the demons observe that we stay clear of the sallies of some outstanding wit( as
though we were avoiding the plague( they try to catch us with two seemingly plausible thoughts(
namely that we should not be offensive to the person telling the witty story and we should not
give the appearance of loving Bod more than he does) %e offV Do not dawdleV 7therwise the
,o*es will start coming bac* to you when you are at prayer) %ut do not simply run away) %rea*
up the bad company in a devout way by setting before them the thought of death and ,udgment(
and if a few drops of vainglory fall on you( what harm$ Provided of course( that you become a
source of profit to many)
;
>umour and vainglory are two *ey modes of preserving fi#ed values in a group) They
are inherently social( and hard to resist) The attitude of early "hristian ascetics towards them
is characterised by self-determination) >umour needs to be open to the critical eye( li*e a
passion) The ascetic needs to be able to Hcommand laughter+
0
and reason about the comic)
5
%ecause comedy is an e#tremely reasonable thing)
The effects of comedy are socially useful) %ergson refers to the way laughter produces
social fle#ibility so that people may adapt themselves to the demands of living in community)
1aughter homogenises)
2
"onsider the recent rise of ethnic humour6 it is now possible to laugh
at one+s ethnicity because of the national identity enforced by integration politics( which
;8
%ergson( 200:L505M6 3f et passim Augustinus( con..: CC)i#)58 ?chopenhauer( 2003L50/M6 9urther
Psychological 7bservations)
;;
e)g) in ?creech( 586 38f( et passim)
;
"limacus( scal.: ?tep 52) Dohn "hrysostom is described by Dohn Moschus not as one who never laughed( but as
one who never Hlistened to witty words)+ Moschus( prat.: 55)
0
"limacus( scal.: ?tep 8)
5
%asilius( reg. .us.: Wuestion 58)
2
%ergson( 200:L505M6 8/( ?ymeon the New Theologian 5;06 =CC)52)
5;4
relativises ethnic culture) !hilst this identity was still fragile and negotiable( one+s relation to
one+s ethnic origins was still strong and non-negotiable( hence the play on the rigidity of older
generations prevalent in this brand of humour) The young generation of multicultural %ritish
citi&ens laughs at the older generation that was unable and unwilling to adapt and hybridise its
culture) Cnfle#ible ethnic traditions are criti.ued and laughed at in ways that affirm the
adaptability of cosmopolitan <urope) And here it is important to note that the comedians are
laughing at t$emsel"es6 their own identityK their own family( which they+ve managed to
brac*et in order to fit into secular cosmopolitanism) The discomfort inherent in this analysis
ta*es us immediately into the ecclesiological dilemma6 one is suspicious of the cultural
assumptions that incline one to moc* one+s own culture( whereas forbidding this *ind of
humour implies denying a set of resources for being happy and criticising public life)
Cn what is to my *nowledge the first modern observation of the social technology of
government as the organisation and appropriation of self-control ' the art of arts
/
' %ergson
notes the social utility of an ascetic techni.ue6
1aughter( then( does not belong to the province of esthetics alone( since unconsciously 0and
even immorally in many particular instances2 it pursues a utilitarian aim of general
improvement) And yet there is something esthetic about it( since the comic comes into being
,ust when society and the individual( freed from the worry of self-preservation( begin to regard
themselves as wor*s of art)
3
This particular .uality of humour has been identified by business e#ecutives all over
the world( so that He#ecutive toys+ and He#ecutive games+ have become common practice in
various corporations and office-based institutions) The effectiveness of the wor*force is here
augmented by their rela#ation in each other+s presence and the trivialising of contingent
differences that confirms the shared assumptions of the wor* conte#t) Through humour( they
are able to spea* the truth to each other6 the wor*ing group becomes more cohesive through
the community-building activity of shared ,o*ing( and more effective through the openness
created around gentle moc*ery)
Ct is difficult not to be suspicious of this utilitarian humour) As "ritchley has put it6
/
The term used to denote the conduct of conduct essential to spiritual direction and modern government6 cf)
9oucault( 2002L5;2M 9oucault( 2008L2003M6 53;-5:3 %urchell( 546 5( largely .uoting Bregorius( 3ib. Reg.
Past.: C)5)
3
%ergson( 200:L505M6 50)
5;8
?uch enforced fun is a form of compulsory happiness( and it is tempting to see it as one further
sign of the ways in which employees+ private lives are being increasingly regulated by the
interests of their employers)
:
The .uestion is6 is it possible to resist this form of intrusion$ The game of humour is
difficult to decline without e#periencing immediate ostracism) Aefusing to be amused by
something is both to depart from the shared activity and to invite the community+s derision)
<#pressing offence and solidarity with the butt of the ,o*e is both brave and bad form) The
criti.ue inherent in comedy can cut both ways) 1i*e the obligation not to lie( the obligation to
laugh may soon turn into forced self-humiliation)
This aspect of humour is particularly disturbing because of its combination of
techni.ues of the self with social utility) Ct is not even the ostracism that is pernicious here6 we
can be happily alone when ostracised) >umour that produces humility does not necessarily
homogenise( and social utility can be a commendable virtue) !hen all these aspects are
combined( however( the automatic nature of the techni.ue of humour becomes a form of
government that subsumes the pursuit of happiness under the ob,ectives of the pursuit of an
effective wor*force( a national identity( motivation for citi&en participation( etc) These
community aims are pursued within the conte#t of a form of truth-telling that has enormous
powers of commanding assent) The techni.ue of veridiction is appropriated for the cause of
social utility)
4
Cn this conte#t( the ostracism is unli*ely to happen( because the ,o*ing acts as
an inclusive force) %ut including the useful can be ,ust as sinister as ostracising the
ineffective)
"omedy becomes a force of government for precisely the reasons that it was
considered critical above6 it is surprising( enables criti.ue( places and comforts the self( and
challenges presuppositions) Dust as the value of truth-telling can be deployed in the program
of nation-building( so can the criti.ue of humour be a function of national identity and social
harmony) The techni.ues of change beloved of 9oucault( whereby philosophical activity
consists Hin the endeavour to *now how and to what e#tent it might be possible to thin*
differently( instead of legitimating what is already *nown+
8
are relayed time after time in
homogenising and effectivising corporate wor*shops concerned with Hthin*ing outside the
bo#+) >umour is no e#ception)
:
"ritchley( 20026 5/)
4
?ee 9oucault( 586 2/ for an account of how this *ind of combination 0of the Hcity-citi&en+ game with the
Hshepherd-floc*+ game2 is characteristic of government in early modern <urope)
8
9oucault( 52bL5;3M6 )
5;;
Do the holy fools embrace this governmental force of humour$ Cs their foolery a way
of forcing people into the *ingdom of Bod by ma*ing them laugh$ ?ymeon the >oly 9ool is
certainly portrayed as an aggressive mon*) >e accepts the criticism of the anchoritic life as
unsociable and ultimately self-centred(
;
and responds by ta*ing his asceticism to town) As
such( his aim is to save souls) ?o we can not e#pect his life to pose no demands on the people
he meets) ?ymeon openly espouses the obligation ' indeed the forcing ' of humility)
L?ymeonM said to Dohn( I!hat more benefit do we derive( brother( from passing time in this
desert$ %ut if you hear me( get up( let us departK let us save others) 9or as we are( we do not
benefit anyone e#cept ourselves( and have not brought anyone else to salvation)J And he began
to .uote to him from the >oly ?cripture such things as I1et no one see* his own good( but
rather the good of his neighborJ( and again( IAll things to all men( that C might save allJ( and
from the Bospel( I1et your light so shine before men( that they may see your good wor*s and
give glory to your 9ather who is in heavenJ( and other such things) X ?ymeon said to him(
I%elieve 0me2( C won+t stay( but C will go in the power of "hristK C will moc* the world)J

Cn line with this stated intention( he forces certain people to respond to his teaching of
orthodo#y) 1eontius relates a number of occasions when the holy fool miraculously obliges
the unorthodo# to accept "hristianity) The specific methods vary ' a ,uggler+s hand is
shrivelled until he swears to renounce the theatreK some Hacephalic heretics+ 0monophysitesK
diaphysites in the ?yriac te#t2
500
receive a destructive demon in their shop until they confess
orthodo#yK ?ymeon brea*s all the wares of a Dewish glassblower until he converts ' but the
general form is a threat of violence followed by conversion) The stories are all miraculous(
even when the secrecy narrative does not re.uire them to be 0it is presumably fairly easy to
destroy the produce of a glassblower( but ?ymeon does so by simply ma*ing the sign of the
cross2)
505
Ct would be a mista*e to leave out the aggressive miracle-wor*ing characteristics of
the holy fools) They are warriors for 0diaphysite2 7rthodo#y in a time and place in which
7rthodo#y was confronted with its neighbours 0the monophysite churches( along with many
other movements defined as heretical and forced into the <ast li*e Nestorianism(
Manicheanism( and Messalianism2) This is what constitutes their mar*ers of holiness in the
;
e)g) in %asilius( renunt "limacus( scal.: ?tep 3) This theme also underlies "assian+s treatment of the two forms
of monasticism in "assianus( *ollationes: PCP)

1eontius( ". 1ym.: CCC)532f)

500
Aompay( 536 /;;)
505
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)54/)
5;
hagiographic world)
502
Ct is also pertinent( however( to address the .uestion of their foolish
practice and use of humour ' .uite apart from their miraculous wor*s ' as regards the element
of force and obligation)
Ct is difficult to reconstruct any one culture+s sense of humour) !e find it hard enough
to identify the reasons we find things funny in our own conte#t( without crossing seas and
centuries in our observation)
50/
?o in the following( C shall have to simply assume that the
behaviour of the holy fools is meant to seem ridiculous)
?ome people do laugh at the foolish behaviour of the holy fools( although it is
remar*able that *ey witnesses do not respond in terms of laughter or confusion) Those who
associate with the fools on their own level tend to laugh and play6 those on the margins( and
the prostitutes he dances with)
503
%ut the average citi&en of <mesa does not) Neither indeed
does the e#emplary witness( Dohn the deacon( who gravely refuses to be scandalised)
7nce his friend( Deacon Dohn( invited him to lunch( and they were hanging salted meats there)
?o Abba ?ymeon began to *noc* down the raw meat and eat it) The all-wise Dohn( not wanting
to say anything to him with a loud voice( drew near his ear and said to him( IQou really don+t
scandali&e me( 0even2 if you eat raw camel) Do whatever you+d li*e with the rest)J 9or he *new
the 9ool+s virtue( because he also was a spiritual person)
50:
!e are at least far from the pernicious obligation to laugh that renders humour
suspicious) Cf laughter was meant to be the moral response( then Dohn the Deacon would laugh
as well) Aecognition 0cf) the discussion over( on page 5:42 is distinct from comic
appreciation) The response to the holy fool is much more biblical) The people of <mesa 0apart
from the ideal observer2 are scandalised) !hen holiness is revealed to them in a way they do
not e#pect( they can not accept it( and the holy one becomes a fool for them( ,ust as the
message of "hrist was foolishness to the Bree*s)
504
Cn this respect( the holy fool+s audience
combines the mista*es of Paul+s Bree*s and Dews6 to them( he is both scandalous and
foolish)
508
People are not obliged to laugh at or with the holy fools) This much is obvious from
the deafeningly laughterless silence accompanying most of his actions) Cnstead( his moc*ery
502
Moschus( prat.: 25/)
50/
Dohn >aldon has braved the difficulties with moderate success6 >aldon( 2002)
503
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)54/)
50:
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)5:;)
504
5 "orinthians 5)2/)
508
9or a description of the holy fool tradition as reception history of this passage in 5 "orinthians( cf) =ogt(
5;8)
50
functions as so many failed ,o*es) >oly fools ostracise themselves with their humour by
appealing to a community that is almost permanently absent) Their laughter defines their
society( but their society is not that of the city( but of the periphery)
>owever( in *eeping with his practical outwor*ing of the "ia dissimilis( the
community appealed to by the holy fool+s laughter does include the members of the religious
periphery) Prostitutes and beggars( Mar* the fool+s crowd of lunatics(
50;
those most patently
unblessed by this present order( can all laugh with the holy fool 0at least( in 1eontius+
account2)
50
Their lot renders them unli*ely holy men and women) They do not direct thought
towards Bod nor claim to be >er representative on earth)
The holy fools+ wor* of self-ostracism ma*es their humour fail) They have so few
people to laugh with that no-one can be obliged to appreciate it) Cn denying the holiness of
their community+s laughter( they ostracise their own) Cn their humorous solidarity with the
periphery( everyone in the city becomes the butt of the ,o*e 0whether they are dispassionate
enough to appreciate it as a ,o*e or not2) Ct is not a sufficient tool to prevent subse.uent
recognised holy fools representing Bod in such a way as to religiously oblige people to
submit themselves to their crushing moc*ery( but this obligation is not owing to their
foolishness( but to the ac*nowledgment of their holiness) And successful fools are not
recognised) Therefore( to the e#tent that people feel obliged to accept the holy fools+
moc*ery( the original pro,ect of ascetic holy fools has failed or been replaced)
The holy fools certainly oblige and force their audience to ta*e their message
seriously( through miracle and ,udgement) Their humour and moc*ery( however( repeatedly
fall on deaf ears) Ct causes a scandal and ultimately ostracises itself)
550
As such( it offers a
choice of solidarity rather than forcing community) People can overcome their sense of
scandal and see the holiness of the outcasts in their community rather than re,ecting the holy
fool as demonic) %ut any moc*ing claim to represent that holy periphery will diverge from the
e#ample of the first holy fools( whose holiness is re.uired to be secret)
3.3.2: +toc' comic (orms
>ow does the form of humour contribute to or oppose the transformation of the self+s
relation to society$ >owever uni.ue and radical comedians may be( it is unavoidable that
their form of humour will be emulated) A brief search of the internet will inform us that <ddie
50;
". dan. scet.: 2)
50
1eontius is admittedly one of the most socially conscious hagiographers of anti.uity6 cf) his other e#tant wor*
on Dohn the Almsgiver in 9estugiNre( 583)
550
%asil ta*es it as analytic truth that the insane are not to be ta*en seriously in %asilius( $om. 1)
55
C&&ard is no longer the only self-proclaimed e#ecutive transvestite in the world) Do*es are
retold( added to( and given new conte#ts) They ta*e on new roles and gain different social
dynamics) As the humorous tradition develops( it may still retain the authority 0in the case of
humour( this will include the obligation to laugh2 of its comic origin) !e recognise
derivatives of forms of humour as funny in spite of their transformations) As a comic form
rigidifies( so will its re.uisite cultural assumptions( so that it leaves its power of self-criti.ue
behind and ma*es the ostracised element it moc*s almost irreversibly lost)
7ne comic form that has been noted as archetypically %ritish is self-deprecating
humour that laughs at one+s own 0failed or corny2 attempts to be funny) ?omeone ma*es a
smart remar*( immediately becomes aware that it was unacceptable in some way 0a bad pun( a
tired double-entendre( etc)2( and then laughs at their own lac* of subtlety by as*ing HDid you
see what C did there$+
This form of humour is a classic e#ample of the modesty-inducing smile beloved of
"ritchley( the H.uiet ac*nowledgement of one+s limitedness)+
555
Cn recent years it has become
an e#tremely common form( at least in %ritish society( so that the uninitiated have observed it
as a %ritish curiosity)
552
Cn becoming conversational bread and butter( the form loses some of its spontaneous
modesty( and attains the shape of a confession) Ct has turned into an idiom that one feels
obliged to resort to when feeling the disapproval of one+s listeners) The spea*er offers a bad
pun( and instead of covering it over or moving on( sShe now feels obliged to confess to being
rubbish at telling ,o*es) And if the confession is not forthcoming( the form can be turned onto
the spea*er( with the stinging HC see what you did there)+
The combination of humour+s power to incline us to modestly find ourselves
ridiculous with its appeal to communal appreciation can in other words have a homogenising
effect) The road from humbling humour to humiliating hec*ling is short) This stoc* form of
comedy 0at the time of writing2 shows modesty+s homogenising potential)
>umour relates to its community in a number of ways) !e have seen here how it
provo*es a confession of humility) Ct can also cultivate mediocrity) !hilst the powers of
parody may wor* well to produce social change when directed towards current situations( it
may also act as a criti.ue of divergence)
555
"ritchley( 20026 50)
552
Cn considering this form( C have benefited greatly from conversation with Deff %iebighauser)
52
Parody can be heard as a deterrent) Cf directed towards something that we are not
rather than something that we are( humour simply produces cultural stagnation) %y finding
ourselves absurd( we produce change) Cn turn( finding development and change absurd stifles
abnormality and transformation) 7ne *ind of comedy that falls into this latter category is the
Hthin end of the wedge+ variety( which often starts out Hwhat+ll they thin* of ne#t( X$+
?omeone ob,ects to the opening of borders to wor*ing immigrants( and e#presses it as
H!hat+ll they thin* of ne#t( a no-frills bus service from Poland$ !arsaw to 1ondon6 that+ll be
five .uid and a new bathroom for Mr Pic*lestop at number /2V+ ?uch parody actually stifles
the courage to thin* innovatively through vilifying divergences from the status .uo)
?toc* techni.ues of this *ind of comedy include the hyperbole of the un*nown) And
here we shift from the simple writing off of new ideas to the ridiculing of strange thoughts)
>yperbole of the un*nown may ta*e more forms than mere verbal moc*ery) Aepresentational
parodies can be included) The parody of the religious nut on the street corner can be used to
prevent us from ta*ing seriously the inter-religious debate that ta*es place between
fundamentalists that engage in preaching and debating on the street)
55/
More perniciously(
portraying political process as impossibly complicated( contrary( and run by bureaucrats will
restrict political activity to certain *inds of administratively minded citi&enship much more
effectively than party elections do)
A further techni.ue of humour that may stagnate rather than criti.ue is the self-
effacing humour of the powerful) >ere the techni.ue involves modesty on the part of agents
who have access to a great deal of resources and political authority( as they find themselves
ridiculous) !hilst the effect may be that they thereby listen to criti.ue( it is not a necessary
result) %ut those witnessing the humour are put at ease( no longer rightfully suspicious of the
stubbornness and self-interest of the powerful) %eing honest about innocent shortcomings
hides ideological disagreement) Cn this way( humour may become a techni.ue of discouraging
the use of parrhesia( the fearless speech of the governed) Ct gives authority an element of
inevitability6 C will rule even though C am incompetent( because there must be a master)
553
Biven our interpretation of holy foolery as resistance to ascetic practice( it is difficult
to tie down any specific holy foolish techni.ues of humour) >owever( we have also branded
the holy fools as a variety of ascetic( and they are at least recognisable as a group against that
55/
9or a sympathetic account of which( cf) "o#( 5:6 ch) 50)
553
Cn this respect( intellectuals who arrogantly ridicule American presidents for their stupidity appear to be
suffering from amnesia regarding all the ridiculous sovereigns of <uropean history( from the ?ha*espearian
monarchs through mad *ing Beorge to the diminutive Napoleon %onaparte) "f) "ritchley( 20086 Appendi#) 9or
this criti.ue applied to the bungling administrator( cf) 9oucault( 200/L5M6 5/)
5/
bac*ground) ?o we shall e#amine their practice as transferable techni.ue in terms of their
refusal of asceticism and embrace of transgression)
The identification of the practice of holy fools as an ascetic criti.ue of asceticism does
allow a description of their practice in terms of negative forces) The holy fools deny the truth
of the self offered in their culture+s conceptions of holiness) >oliness is redefined as freedom
from ascetic determination) ?o what effects will a general application of this principle have$
"an this *ind of refusal be generalised$
>oly fools demonstrate their freedom from religious( cultural( and ascetic definitions
of holiness through transgressing them) They wor* free from ecclesiastic holiness through
disrupting the liturgy and moc*ing ecclesiastical order 0?ymeon dons a stole of sausages
while parodying a deacon one ?unday2)
55:
They wor* free from cultural holiness through
transgressing civil law through stealing( acting aggressively( fornicating( and moc*ing civil
authorities 0including a Hvillage headman+2)
554
They wor* free from ascetic holiness through
ignoring religious mar*ers of time( diet( and place6 they do not fast at the right time( they eat
waste food( they leave the desert) Cn these ways( they challenge contemporary ways of life and
godliness)
The praise of transgression wor*s li*e humour( however( in its social function of
provo*ing people to Hthin* outside the bo#+) There are at least two problems with valuing
transgressions) 9irstly( it averts us from ta*ing time over the difficult ,ob of evaluating our
present6 is this way of doing things desirable( true( and good$ ?uch .uestions re.uire at least a
preliminary analysis of one particular situation) <mbracing transgression does not allow the
stability re.uired for cultural criticism and appreciation( thus enabling a contented
cohabitation of surface cultural radicalism on the one hand and irreproachable practical ways
of life on the other6 discuss as much as you li*e( ,ust as long as you obeyK transgress as much
as you li*e( as long as you pay)
558
The demand to transgress is a call to action whose function
is to drown out reflection) Aeform is a political tool for deferring criti.ue)
?econdly( the praise of transgression focuses attention on particular accepted standards
to which we ob,ect) "ontemporary <uropean culture( for e#ample( has developed a
sophisticated e#pertise in re,ecting 0perceived2 =ictorian se#ual values( at the e#pense of any
honest analysis of the present or nineteenth century se#ual mores) Cts complete inefficacy in
this aim of criti.uing that period of history+s values and art can easily be witnessed in the
55:
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)540f)
554
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)5:4)
558
@ant( 2008L58;3M6 /5) "ontemporary capitalism+s Hdefault ontology+ determined by the spectral logic of
capital is laid out in Boodchild( 200:)
53
emotive power and popularity of =ictorian romances evidenced in the success of film
adaptations of the novels of Dane Austen( Dic*ens( and the %ront] sisters)
The praise of transgression can function both to transform the present and to conform
to it) Csolating this particular techni.ue of the holy fool will betray its critical tas*) Ct also
eradicates the nature of the holy fool) As soon as the holiness of the transgression is
identified( it can no longer be used to combat vainglory) Ct is precisely when the holy fool is
revealed 0by divine revelation in our literature2 as such that the holy fool disappears 0cf)
above( on page ;/2) Cdentifying any techni.ue ' even persistent criti.ue ' as generally holy
tears it away from the ascetic repertoire of the holy fools( whose main tas* is to become
unaware of their own holiness)
A related e#ample could be my use of the word Hmad+ in this thesis) Ct is an act of
devotion to 9oucault( who brought the term bac* into circulation with his own doctoral thesis
on the history of madness)
55;
>e used it originally because it was an unscientific term that
avoided the deployment of the power of medical and social *nowledge over those
conventionally called mentally ill) The term was not e#pected to be ta*en seriously as an
academic denomination) ?ince his boo*( however( the coinage has regained academic
seriousness( and no longer serves this purpose) ?o that devotion to 9oucault in this conte#t
betrays his own critical practice)
55
The techni.ue of the praise of folly ' which is to say( the techni.ue of the
hagiographers ' may be generalised into a force for social cohesion and government) The
discipline of psychiatry( after all( was based upon the notion of the noble innocent madman( in
Pinel+s claim that the confined madmen of the %astille were only driven mad by their chains)
The asylum was defined as an enclosed space of tolerance) >owever( the techni.ue of acting
mad 0or drun*( or sinful2 specifically in order to deprive oneself of apparent virtue can not be
generalised into a governing techni.ue of producing social cohesion because it simply does
not posit one form of behaviour that can be recommended 0not even transgression2) Cts
humble and practical denial of any identifiable holiness refuses to accept or offer *nowledge
of itself and does not recognise the logic or morality of e#isting ways of life or thought)
"omedy and comic transgression is therefore full of complications as a techni.ue of
criti.ue and social transformation) Ct includes fi#ed forms filtered into culture that impose
demands( confession and humiliation( oppose unorthodo# thought( and distract criticism from
55;
9oucault( 2004L545M)
55
The critical practice was never sufficient however6 HThe word from beyond is a dream that we *eep
renewing)+ 9oucault( 54L584M6 5;)
5:
its most relevant targets by aping criti.ue) 9or all their satirical and political potential( stoc*
forms of humour can result in the muffling of criti.ue and abnormality) The repetition of
comedy mirrors the universalisation of asceticism) Not that any of these are its essential role6
humour is neither solution nor social ill( ,ust dangerous)
3.3.3: "#e Po*er o( t#e &omic
Mystics and comedians are praised on all sides) Ct ta*es a particular *ind of dry and
humourless scholar to criticise either of them) C am surely not the only researcher to have been
vilified for not appealing to e#perience in every sentence) Ct ta*es the courage of
Dostoevs*y
520
to point out that there are also evil mystics( that power over truth-telling and
criti.ue is not identical with goodness) The identification of humourous people( together with
their use and abuse of this power( are decisive for the implications of humour in relation to the
transformation of self and society)
Cf comedy is a practice of the self as well as an attitude to truth( it gives the comic
enormous power) This *ind of power is a *ey feature of Pyle+s analysis of the fools in
?ha*espeare( as she portrays them each as holy fools( drawing parallels with the silly theology
of the Mediaeval mystery plays)
525
Pyle+s ?ha*espearian fools are far from those of %y&antium that we are studying
however) Cnstead they are portrayed as doctors that heal the moral ills of the ?ha*espearian
world) They manipulate events and truths in order to conform their Hpatients+ to the ideal of a
?ha*espearian moral hero) Aather than employing asceticism to undermine the Bod-reference
of the present+s way of living( Pyle claims that ?ha*espeare+s fools attempt to produce ascetic
morality in others) "ertainly the ?ha*espearian fool e#ercises a forceful moral presence in the
plays)
!ithout going into the parallels between and identification of ?ha*espearian and
%y&antine fools ' which would be an entire study of its own ' what C wish to observe in
?ha*espeare+s clowns is the influence and status of the comic) The paradigmatic e#ample is
perhaps given in 9este the "lown of ?ha*espeare+s #0el.t$ !ig$t) Cn Act C=( ?cene CCC of that
play( 9este ' at the instigation of the other comic characters in the play ' dresses up as a
curate by the name of ?ir Topas 0a *nighted priest6 it is tempting to hear a reference to ?ir
Thomas More2( in order to torment the play+s humourless steward( Malvolio( around whose
downfall the play revolves)
520
Dostoevs*y( 53L5;;0M6 540( 304)
525
Pyle( 5;)
54
The comic subplot of the play functions to save Malvolio from vainglory( but it goes
much further than that) The main ,o*e that is played on him ' sending him a fa*e love letter '
provo*es in him ridiculous and humiliating behaviour) %ut in the episode with 9esteS?ir
Topas( he is forced to bring his own sanity into .uestion)
As a comic situation( we are not as*ed to be suspicious of the story at all) >ere is a
clear case of the audience and characters laughing at someone who deserves to be ta*en down
a peg or too)
Malvolio is confined within a dar* cell and visited by tormentors) 9irst Toby %elch(
then 9este the clown ' both as ?ir Topas( then again as himself) They attempt to persuade
Malvolio that he is mad( through the confinement itself 0presumably carried out by %elch2(
and by 9este+s deliberately confusing discourse( of which he has a ine#haustible supply( as he
demonstrates first to %elch6
%onos dies( ?ir Toby6 for as the old hermit of Prague( that
never saw pen and in*( very wittily said to a niece of @ing
Borboduc( UThat that is( isUK so C( being master parson( am
master parson6 for what is that but that$ and is but is$
?CA T7%Q)
To him( ?ir Topas)
522
9este then ta*es to persuading his Hpatient+ to believe his dar* confinement is light(
that Pythagoras was orthodo#( and that he is tal*ing complete nonsense) HAnswer a fool
according to his folly( or he will be wise in his own eyes)+
52/
The reversal is brought out time
and time again) >ere we have a fool who is aware of his foolery( and a worldly man who is
not)
523
9este+s behaviour is not only sinister because of his abuse of his authority as comic)
>is practice e#emplifies the societal use of comedy to produce a particular( acceptable form
of the self+s relation to the world) Malvolio is obno#ious( but not simply in the eyes of the
audience6 his downfall consists in his being arrogant towards the comic mass) 9este the
522
?ha*espeare( 5;6 C=)CCC)
52/
Proverbs 24):)
523
?ha*espeare( 5;6 C)=( CCC)C( =)C ' including 9este+s final spo*en line6 HI%y the 1ord( fool( C am not madKJ--
%ut do you remember$ IMadam( why laugh you at such a barren rascal$ An you smile not( heUs gaggedJ$ And
thus the whirligig of time brings in his revenges)+
58
clown( ?ir Toby %elch( the maid Maria( and 9abian all constitute the bac*ground community
to the play6 they are the chorus) And when they ta*e ob,ection to Malvolio+s attitude( they
destroy him through humour)
The genius of the play is not simply the humour and moral purpose of its comedy( but
the way it ,ars with the audience towards the end) ?ha*espeare as*s us both to laugh at the fall
of the arrogant( and to be critical to our own laughter) The proud Malvolio is presented in
humiliated indignation( refusing to laugh at his downfall( and then he is vindicated) H>e hath
been most notoriously abused+)
52:
And it is perhaps only once this has been said at the play+s
conclusion that the discomfort the audience felt during the prison scene can be e#pressed) Cn
this comedy( ?ha*espeare is reflecting on the role and tas* of the comic writer( ,ust as he
portrays 0and laughs at2 the tas* of the religious writer in his pious 2idsummer !ig$t@s
'ream)
This is a particular e#ample of the way in which the comedian+s power can be directed
towards social cohesion and normality rather than criti.ue and diversity) >owever( the use of
theatrical techni.ues to convince the mad of their medical status in the classical age would
indicate that it is not an e#ceptional instance)
524
Ct becomes a natural function of the way
humour e#presses and is limited by the community) Do*es re.uire shared assumptions in order
to wor*) ?o laughter at what is unacceptable to those who share those assumptions is not only
a possible( but a logical use of comedy) ?ha*espeare+s comedy is so interesting because it
both uses that comedy to reveal the absurdities of normal life 09este+s humour wor*s in this
way throughout the play as well2 and it portrays the comic as an arena of moral danger( where
the truly foolish are manipulated into violence 0the foolish but harmless aristocrat Andrew
Aguechee* is reduced to sabre-rattling2 and the truly immodest are forcibly humiliated)
There is no obvious essential difference in the form of the comic between these
pernicious uses of humour and the more positive( critical use 0pace "ritchley2) Cn the e#ample
of #0el.t$ !ig$t( it is precisely the benign modesty-inducing humour that is used violently)
%ut this is also true of the stoc* comic forms and the community obligations) !e use the
same forms for self-criti.ue and for moc*ing the different) Ct is precisely because we are
obliged to laugh that comedy is effective against our own pig-headed arrogance( but it is also
the obligation that ma*es it into a sinister tool for office management)
Ct is not difficult to see how the holy fools+ techni.ue of the insult may be abused) Cf C
decide to ta*e all insults seriously as potential revelation( then C ma*e a choice concerning my
52:
Act =( scene C( echoing Malvolio+s complaint in C=)CC ' H9ool( there was never man so notoriously abusedK+
524
9oucault( 2004L545M6 /2-//3)
5;
relation to the truth) %ut if C recommend that others hear my insults as the very word of Bod(
then C am imposing an authority onto them) The moral valuing of the insult gives spea*ers of
insults greater freedom to e#ercise their power)
Ta*ing insults seriously 0and not ruling them out a priori2 may indeed allow us to hear
a liberating truth that we otherwise would not be e#posed to in the presence of polite society)
9earless listening is part of the courage of fearless speech) The generalisation of this courage(
however( can easily form part of a technology of particular sub,ectivation into a specific
community) Ct enables the hearer to put aside established truths of the self( but the thrill of
fearless listening 0and radical criti.ue2 can then continue to support the rigidity of the new
values implied in the insulting truth) Cn this manner( it is both a force for attaining critical
distance from one+s culture( and a way of further entrenching the necessity of a newly
embraced culture) Ct could be said that the insult can be deeply critical to one reference of the
word Hus+ but it is e.ually able to ta*e for granted another reference of Hus+)
528
Ct would be misguided to claim that the "hristian story saves us from this *ind of
manipulation) !e have already noted the role homogeneity plays in combating vainglory
amongst the desert fathers 0above( on page ::2) Ct is also fairly clear that the value of societal
criti.ue and the courage of being distinctive supports a great deal of modern "hristian
counter-cultural movements( not least certain forms of charismatic "hristianity)
52;
Ct is a
genuine danger for all religious communities ' whether monastic or otherwise ' that ta*e
societal criti.ue seriously) Ct is further the danger for all models of holy people such as that
presented by the holy fools)
The holy fool tradition at least attempts to deal with such issues( even if it is not aware
of them in these terms) !e can see them addressed by a range of holy foolish characteristics6
firstly( the criti.ue of ascetic identitiesK secondly( the criti.ue from nowhere( thirdly( the value
of secrecy( and finally the opposition to seduction) All of these are features we have already
mentioned in our e#egesis6 here C simply want to apply them to the problem of the
transference of the techni.ues and e#pertise of the holy fools)
9irstly( we have argued above that the holy fools ta*e ascetic transcendence to its
natural conclusion) Dust as early "hristian asceticism embraced both a standard moderated
form of asceticism and a transcending hyperbolic form( the holy fools both reveal monastic
form to be contingent( and transcend it through their transgression) ?o when the asceticism of
528
9or the e#pression of cultural criti.ue as distancing oneself from Hus+( see 9oucault( 200;6 53)
52;
9or the description of difference as an absolute value in the conte#t of conservative "hristianity( see amongst
many other boo*s( Aoberts( 2000) C have analysed the function of certain daringly abnormal Hmanifestations of
the ?pirit+ in charismatic communities in Thomas( 2004b)
5
late anti.uity had established particular forms of world-denial ' particular dress( particular
calendars( particular eating habits ' the holy fools would ta*e into use others) Cnstead of
wearing the humble habit( they would don a scullery maid+s rag( or nothing at all) Cnstead of
following the church+s lectionary( they would eat ca*es in holy wee* and sausages on
?undays) Cnstead of eating only one modest meal a day( they would eat the remains of the
meal or gorge vast .uantities of beans in public)
52
The holy fools of late anti.uity are therefore acutely attentive to the institution of
specific forms in the practice of ascetic ab,ection) Their departure from desert life is an
e#ample of the continuous refusal of the located and particular practice of the absolute) They
leave the life of the secular city for the common life of the monastery( from there to the
desert( and from there to the solitude of the city) <ach time( the move is the same) <ach time(
they renounce a way of life) They refuse to be satisfied with only one division 0worldScity2(
and see* Bod each time in the margins of the community( geography( and reason)
The rhetoric of holy fools will nevertheless have the potential to found a community
on one particular division 0secularSreligiousK normalSfoolish2) %ut C am also ma*ing an
historical claim6 it is not impossible for asceticism to become( as it does with the holy fools(
fle#ible and innovative enough in its criti.ue to refuse the authority of any ascetically-
founded community) 7r a community founded on insult and in,ury)
?econdly( the holy fools ma*e use of the criti.ue from nowhere) Their efforts to
combat vainglory involve developing strategies to divert attributions of holiness) They
deliberately act in such a way as to be thought unholy) The holy fool thus differs absolutely
from the prophet( who claims to deliver the words of BodK from the religious teacher( who
claims to *now the truth of BodK from the mystic( who has been burnt by the encounter with
Bod into spea*ing pregnant mysteriesK and from the parrhesiast( whose authority derives from
their own courage) The criti.ue of the holy fool has no obvious authority)
Those adhering to the values that are being ,udged will consider holy fools to be
transgressors) >owever( the fool attempts to deceive even those who are well-disposed) !hen
some monastic leaders with a .uestion about 7rigen are sent to ?ymeon the holy fool by his
brother in the desert( they recognise his holiness( but all they get is abuse6
As they approached him( they said to him( I%less us)J >e said to them( IQou have come at a
bad time( and the one who sent you is an idiot)J Thereupon he grabbed the ear of the one who
had been scandali&ed and gave him such a blow that 0the bruise2 could be seen for three days)
52
?omething %asil finds unthin*able even for non-"hristians ' %asilius( d. bapt.: CC)W;)
200
And he said( I>ave you found fault with my beans$ They were soa*ed for forty days( but
7rigen would not eat them because he plunged into the sea and was not strong enough to get
out( and he drowned in the deep)J They were ama&ed that he said all this in advance^and also
this( IDoes the 9ool want the ten$ >e+s as much an idiot as youV^Do you want a *ic* on the
shin$J he said) IQes( yes( go away)J And immediately lifting up a ,ug of hot wine he burned the
two of them on their lips( so that they were unable to repeat what he had told them)
5/0
Cn these and other ways( the holy fools attempted to eschew the role of religious
leader) They not only turned away all admirers( but they devised a whole repertoire of
particular techni.ues 0disrupting the liturgy( pretending to be possessed2( of semblances to
simulate folly( that would prevent people from associating them with divinity)
Thirdly( holy fools hedge their techni.ues of ascetic madness with the security of
secrecy) Not only do they create a myth of unholiness around themselves for the sa*e of
humility( but they *eep their real identity a secret)
?ecrecy is a decisive character amongst the holy fools)
5/5
Ct is not only ?ymeon the
holy fool that has to cover over his virtues and miracles with scandalous acts 0as when he
pretended to rape the tavern-*eeper+s wife after saving him from a poisonous sna*e2
5/2
6
Csidora is only holy in secretK Mar* the holy fool is one of the many secret saints in the
narrative of Daniel of ?cetisK
5//
and the few things mentioned about ?ymeon in the account of
<vagrius ?cholasticus mainly concern his secret piety)
5/3
Acting scandalously was only one part of this) The saints would further *eep out of the
public eye 0the Tabennesiotes convent was deep in the desert( and Csidora stayed in the
*itchens2( and pray that no-one would find out about them)
5/:
?ymeon similarly would
practise his asceticism in secret( *eeping a hiding place in the city where he could freely be
ascetic)
This wise man truly *ept nothing in his hut^for he had a hut to sleep in( or rather in which to
stay awa*e at night^e#cept for one bundle of twigs) 7ften he passed the night without
sleeping( praying until morning( drenching the ground with his tears)
5/4
5/0
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)5:2f)
5/5
de Matons( 5806 2/ Dagron( 506 //) "f) also above( on page 80)
5/2
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)538f)
5//
". dan. scet.: 2) Dahlmann notes the characteristic throughout the wor* in chapter CC of her introduction to the
te#t)
5/3
<vagrius ?cholasticus( $.e.: C=)/3)
5/:
1eontius( ". 1ym.: CCC)53:)
5/4
1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)544 ' contrast 53;( 5:4)
205
?ecrecy in itself is not enough however) Ct is a perfectly natural part of a counter-
cultural community to *eep its common life secret( whether from fear of violence or to
preserve its authenticity and purity) The secrecy of the holy fool( however( is absolute) Ct is
not possible to *eep the secret of the holy fool as a community truth( because it can not be
shared) Those who *now the truth about the holy fool do not *now about each other) ?hould a
community find out about the holy fool( then the fool disappears 0cf) above( on page ;/2) The
whole point of the fool+s madness is that they cannot tell t$emsel"es about their holiness6 they
embrace Htwo solitudes( from the interior me and from the town)+
5/8
Cn this way( the insults of the holy fools cannot be shared as a common truth that may
found a community) The truth of the holy fool 0that they are not really fools2 is an absolute
secret) As such( they do not draw people into community with them) There is no shared
assumption about the insulter around which a community of the fool may gather) <veryone is
an outsider to the holy fool)
9ourthly( the holy fools are not seductive)
5/;
There is no community of holy fools into
which people can be inducted) This is not to deny that the tradition of holy fools has
continued in the <astern 7rthodo# church to this day( and that this tradition no doubt has at
times included apprenticeships and learning from the holy fool master) >owever( in the te#ts
from late anti.uity and the early %y&antine Middle Ages we are studying( there is no evidence
of any community of holy fools) The only te#t that comes close is Mar* the holy fool+s chorus
of genuine lunatic( to whom he distributes the alms he receives)
5/
<ven at the level of hagiography( among those who consider the fools to be holy( the
identity of believers is not constituted by emulation( but admiration) 1eontius( the holy fool+s
hagiographer does not aspire to be a holy fool) >e simply recognises ?ymeon to be one)
?imilarly( the community around Csidora did not all start to feign madness after the divine
revelation of the holy fool in their midst( they simply honoured the nun who had done so 0and
who could no more2)
They fell at LPiteroum+sM feet( confessing various things( one saying how she had poured the
leavings of her plate over herK another how she had beaten her with her fistsK another how she
had blistered her nose) ?o they confessed various and sundry outrages) After praying for them(
he left) After a few days she was unable to bear the praise and honour of the sisters( and all their
apologi&ing was so burdensome to her that she left the monastery)
530
5/8
Dagron( 506 /0( my translation)
5/;
"erteau( 586 :32)
5/
". dan. scet.: 2)
530
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: P=CCC)5 Palladius( $. 3aus.: PPC=)
202
This non-seductive character ' common to all the holy fools we have discussed ' is
significant because it precludes the desire to conform to a model) !e can not envisage a
group of 1eontius+ friends going around Neapolis with H!hat !ould a >oly 9ool Do$+
wristbands and paraphernalia) Cf the holy fools re,ect the norms of one community( they at the
same time attempt to prevent the assertion of new norms by their ascetic power) And so they
continue to push away admirers( rather than initiating them into secrets of conformity that
have been earned by enduring abuse and insult)
The holy fools do not offer spiritual benefit for enduring ascetic hardship) They do not
as* others to be conformed to their e#ample( and nor do they praise those who recognise
them) Through their non-seductive( secretive ascetic criti.ue from nowhere( they attempt 0and
do not always succeed2 to escape from the power of their own e#pertise( techni.ues( and
dogmatic demands) They are aware of the danger of their enterprise)
There is no easy solution to these problems with humour) Cf we are continually
suspicious of comedy( it will become ineffective in revealing to us our presumption and
absurdity) Cf we embrace it as a value in itself( we are deprived of resistance to its constitution
of a homogeneous community) As a techni.ue of the self( humour is dangerous( whether we
are aware of the danger or not) And that danger is precisely why it is helpful in the critical
tas*)
20/
&.): T#e 2nserious 0elf
>umility has been central to the ways in which humour and fearless speech have had
an effect on the relation of self to society) Avoiding flatterers( modestly becoming aware of
one+s relation to one+s body and placing oneself in society are all pro,ects of the humble self)
They are also sites of moral danger6 how to espouse the virtue of humility without legislating
it for others and thus re.uiring adaptation to my demands and the demands of my society$ Cn
this section( then( we turn to the "hristian and ascetic understanding of humility)
The boo* on humility in the &pop$t$egmata Patrum is scattered with stories of
ascetics who accept accusations against themselves) They do not resist re,ection and confess
sins that are not their own) Dohn Moschus relates a story that had become associated with the
saying of abba Poemen Hthat each man should always .uestion himself on every matter)+ A
mon* accused another of a particular 0unnamed2 sin( and ostracised him because of it) After
protesting his innocence( the accused mon* reasoned with himself thus6
IThe *indly deacon loves me and( prompted by his love for me( he has confided to me that
which was in his heart concerning me to put me on my guard) C will ma*e sure that C do not do
that deed in future) %ut( oh( wretched soulV !hile you say you have not done t$at deed( are
there not thousands of misdeeds done by you which you have forgotten$ !here are the things
you did yesterday or the day before that or ten days ago$ "an you recall them$ Cs it not possible
that you have done this deed as lightly as you did the others( and have forgotten it as readily as
you forgot them$J And so C Lthe accused mon*M disposed my thoughts to accept the possibility
that C had in truth committed that deed( but had forgotten it ' ,ust as C had forgotten my other
misdeeds)
535
This narrative activates many of the themes we have described above6 for e#ample
guarding oneself( accepting criticism( and placing the self by controlling one+s thoughts) The
acceptance of guilt resembles the distorted interpretations with which we opened our
interpretation of obedience 0cf) above( on page 2;2) >aving since e#amined the ascetic
practice of truth-hearing( we can identify the mon*+s acceptance of guilt as an instance of
receiving truth from all .uarters) C am a mystery to myself( and have no inherent authority to
describe my own truth)
The mon*+s docile openness to the truth of the self can ' as we have now established '
wor* in different directions) Ct is based on a severance of the self from its established
535
Moschus( prat.: 25)
203
mediations by society and tradition6 the humble mon* is not allied to previous truths about
himself) >owever( the docility is useful both to the mon* and to society) The mon* is thereby
free from determinations of the self+s relation to society that he may not have chosen himself)
>e is free to negotiate his own values) >owever( he is also able to shape his relation to values
according to the e#pediency of the state) >is docility has utility for the state) A person who
does not insist on the truths of their own self will not resist the community+s truths about the
human either) The sub,ect has become a problem for itself) 9rom this docile self derive
revolution as well as adaptation to a fi#ed environment)
532
The story of this mon*+s confession tells us more than his docility however) Ct shows
us how unimportant he considers the truth of the self+s assessment) !hen the mon* discovers
a difference in opinion with his brother concerning his goodness( he effortlessly changes his
own view of the matter( as if he were considering the life of a complete stranger) !hen ' in
the se.uel ' his brother changes his mind too( there is no agonising over what was true and
what was false( but pure ,oy at the reconciliation)
The truth about the self+s moral assessment is un*nown and unimportant for the
humble "hristian) Ct is not simply that she is open to others+ opinion( but she does not care to
dwell on the sub,ect at all) >umility results in unseriousness concerning the self+s morality)
Ct is fitting that we return to humility and unseriousness at the end of a wor* on holy
fools( because a feature common to the ma,ority of holy fool stories is reference to ?t Paul+s
claim to be a fool for "hrist 05 "or) 3)502) Paul+s appeal to foolishness is part of a networ* of
references to cross( transcendence( ,ustification by faith( and boasting) ?o the e#plicit wor*ing
out of his theory of foolishness is not simply in his polemics against Bree* thought at the
beginning of the "orinthian correspondence 0pace %reton2(
53/
but in his declaration of
wea*ness at its end)
Paul+s choice to play the fool and do a little boasting in 2 "orinthians 0chapters 55 and
522 is shoc*ing) >e had already e#plained that the transcendence of the law meant that
boasting was e#cluded( leaving no room for confusion6 HBod chose what is wea* in the world
to shame the strongK Bod chose what is low and despised in the world( things that are not( to
reduce to nothing things that are( so that no one might boast in the presence of Bod)+ 05 "or
532
9or a good illustration of the conception of the problematic self as a prelude to adaptation to state normality(
see 9oucault+s stubborn refusal to analyse himself on T= in 9oucault and "homs*y( 58L583M6 5236 H<lders6
!ell( C+m wondering what are the psychological reasons for thisX S 9oucault6 GprotestingH !ell( you can
wonder about it( but C can+t help that) X C+m not ma*ing a problem out of a personal .uestion( C ma*e of a
personal .uestion an absence of a problem)+
53/
%reton( 2002L5;5M)
20:
5)28-2( NA?= translation2 HThen what becomes of boasting$ Ct is e#cluded) %y what law$
%y that of wor*s$ No( but by the law of faith)+ 0Aom) /)28( NA?=2)
%oasting is e#cluded because it is based on a fi#ed set of evaluations) To boast of
one+s achievements implies that both spea*er and hearer share the high value set upon the
ob,ectives and performances achieved) No-one can boast to me of their great
accomplishments in the game of /arcra.t until C have also been initiated into that particular
mystery) ?o any boasting is vain on two counts6 C boast because C feel C+ve achieved
something great( and C consider boasting possible because C thin* the values according to
which my greatness is measured are true) C have both perceived and achieved the good)
Against this( Paul e#cludes boasting not according to an ethical law( but according to
Hthe law of faith+) %oasting is invalid because it is allied to the value of achievements) Cf we
do not *now what achievements are good( then we can not boast) !e must simply have faith)
%oasting is therefore based on a law( and does not allow the transformations we have
been spea*ing of in relation to the way of life of early "hristian ascetics) >umility( on the
other hand( refuses the assumption of a fi#ed law)
Paul+s alternative 0in 2 "or) 552 is to ape others+ boasting according to standards he
does not respect) This refuses the tas* of defining a set of values by which he may be
measured( because he refuses to stand out as a model of any standard he accepts) Aping
others+ boasting empties e#isting standards of their validity) The one who fulfils the law to a
uni.ue e#tent does not espouse it as his own measure) This is the flipside of the refusal to
,udge oneself we noted above 0on page ;2) Cnstead of resisting ,udgement according to one
measure( Paul submits himself to the measure( and demonstrates how little has been achieved
by that ,udgement) >e does not ,ust write off the law( but e#hausts it)
7nce again( though( it is stri*ing that Paul does not consider the refusal of law to be an
ethical commandment) !hen he succumbs to the temptation to measure himself according to
old and new standards 0as a good Dew and a good Apostle2( he is not doing something wrong(
but something foolish) There is nothing to gain by it) >e is free from the economy of honour
and shame that earns and loses by attention to one+s morality)
>umility is therefore not a moral virtue as much as an attitude towards virtue) Ct
identifies and assesses one+s relation to the norms and *nowledge of the self( their mediation
by one+s community and tradition) Ct allows free transformation of the self in its relation to
received values through brac*eting moral re.uirements and assessing their validity from a
distance)
204
Ct is not entirely honest though to claim that humility is not a moral virtue) >umility is
after all a character trait aspired to both by early "hristian ascetics and modern philosophers)
Cf humility describes a .uality of relation towards morality itself( how can that .uality be
assessed$
As soon as we claim that one+s relation to values needs to be assessed( we assume that
there is such a thing as a good relation to morality) Boodness itself( however( is a value) ?o
the implication then becomes that our relation to values is assessed by meta-values) Cn other
words( there is an ethical demand concerning our relation to ethics) Cf that ethical demand is
itself problematic( then we have an infinite regress of ethical demands) This is the alternative
,ustification for e#cluding boasting in Aom) /)28) ?hould we be humble because of a law of
wor*s or out of the law of faith$ >umility is not a wor*) Ct cannot be legislated( but believed)
?o if our ethical demand is posed wrongly( then humility will not help us) Cf we try to
be virtuous in order to earn the approval of the citi&ens of the country we live in( we will very
li*ely also try to be critical( transgressive( and humble in order to earn their approval)
Aecent moral theorists have attempted to substitute the ethical demand for an
aesthetical one) <thics is not determined by convention or by truth( but by beauty) >owever(
the ethical discourse is so forcefully associated with moral demands rather than aesthetical
assessment that the aesthetic revolution repeatedly reverts to an ethical demand to be
beautiful) Cn other words( the set of values is transformed( but their assertion retains the form
of an ethical demand)
The transformation and re,ection of law is fraught with difficulties deriving from the
persistence and prioritisation of the good rather than beauty and truth) Ct is to this last
transcendental then that C believe humility ma*es its appeal) "hristian humility does not assert
a rule but a truth) The human is related to the un*nown Bod in a particular way( with a
specific history) To this e#tent( humility competes with the human sciences+ virtues of
modesty) !here a psychologist might assume that a human lac*s something and therefore
asserts non-,udgement in order to allow the person to modestly confess that lac*( a "hristian
*nows that the human lac*s nothing( and so must e#plain the obvious problem with an
unalterable history of fall and forgiveness) These competing truths produce competing
grammars of confession and relations to morality that can be described and e#amined)
9or the purposes of our account of early "hristian asceticism and the way of life of the
holy fools( we will describe the humble mode of relating to morality) There are at least three
ways in which "hristian humility can be distinguished from its contemporary philosophical
208
e.uivalents) 9irstly( it is a function of a story rather than a solution to a practical ethical
re.uirement) ?econdly( it is founded on the grace of Bod rather than the courage of the
individual) Thirdly( it produces unserious speech( rather than final truths about the self)
3.-.1: 1umility and t#e &#ristian +tory
The techni.ues associated with humility in ancient non-"hristian philosophy were
primarily practical moves aimed at producing modesty( preventing disappointment( and
cultivating prudence) They combat hubris rather than vainglory( and produce modesty rather
than humility)
The "hristian virtue of humility ' although it draws from and has affinities with this
philosophical tradition ' is both motivated and ,ustified by the "hristian story) Aeference is
not usually made to the nemesis brought on by hubris( but rather to "hrist+s in,unctions HTurn
the other chee*+K H%lessed are the poor in spirit+)
533
?imilarly( vainglory is the reversal of
Messianic *enosis) "hrist+s emptying himself 0*enosis2 of glory renders all glory empty
0*enodo#aOvainglory2)
The grammar of "hristian theology re.uires and produces humility) The doctrine of
"reation and 9all places humanity at the pinnacle of all that is( and tells of its self-inflicted
corruption of creational bliss) The event of the incarnation and redemption spea*s of Bod+s
initiative to save humanity independently of the law( so that ,ustification is not the wor* of the
self( but gift) "hristian humility is given its specific character as a result of this story) Ct is
consciousness of one+s own corruption and then salvation through another+s wor*) Ct is refusal
to recognise the efficacy of moral law to transform my worth) Ct is relief from the obligation
to be perfect( and the related recognition of need and fallenness) >umility is therefore not as
much a moral re.uirement in the "hristian tradition( as it is a function of revealed doctrine)
>umility recognises the danger of being in the right ' gives it the religious designation
of Hself-righteousness+ ' and embraces the ,oy of being alive and wrong) Ct divides good living
from consciousness of righteousness by withdrawing the practice of godliness from the
allocation of blame) This is the grammar of righteousness by faith6 that it is possible to be
good without attempting to measure one+s goodness)
Cn the e#ample e#amined in depth above 0on page /32( the control the mon* e#ercised
over his thoughts was not a .uestion of sheer mind control ' HC refuse to thin* these sinful
thoughts+ ' but one of calling to mind his "hristian narrative( both doctrinally and
533
Matthew :)/S1u*e /)2) Aeferred to in &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P=)53( :/( P=C)54 &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9:
P=)5:( 85( P=C)2: &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Daniel / and &pop$. Patr. 8anon9: 54: and 255)
20;
biographically) !hen brought high by the elation of his successful attempt to pursue the
ascetic life( he remembered his sins( denying the importance of ethics) !hen brought low by
the accusations of sinfulness( he recalled the faithfulness of Bod( denying the importance of
guilt)
All this is to say that "hristian humility wor*s in the same way that a ,o*e does) Ct is
not a moral decision( but a reaction to a relationship of truth) Qou cannot consider whether a
,o*e is funny whilst it is being told) Qou laugh or you do not laugh6 afterwards you can tell
whether it was funny because you *now how you reacted) ?imilarly( you cannot tell whether
you are thin*ing humbly at the moment) Qou are or you are not) %ut you can ma*e the
,udgement afterwards( and you can ma*e an attempt at spea*ing humblySfunnily)
This is a phenomenon most people are familiar with) Qou can assess yourself on
intelligence( on loo*s( even on personality) %ut as soon as you consider your modesty( it is
impossible to say anything6 HC am by far the most humble person C *now+K HCn front of others
Lthe insensitive manM critici&es himself for being vainglorious( and in ma*ing the admission
he is loo*ing for glory)+
53:
!e are reduced to silence)
534
>umility defies language)
>umility is in this way founded on truth rather than convenience) Ct is not a virtue that
is valued because it wor*s practically6 that is not the force of the concern of ascetics with
practice rather than doctrine) Aather( it is the practice of a truth) And here truth needs the
resonance it has in other <uropean languages of Htro+ ' loyal( truthful( in the sense we still
have of being Htrue to form+( or *eeping a Htroth+)
538
Cn this respect( humility is the archetypal mode of faithfulness to the event of the life
of "hrist)
53;
Ct is cultivated through telling the story of creation and redemption) Ct is the active
component of the hermeneutical circle) The recollection of this event produces a mode of self-
relation that brac*ets former systems of ethics and social interaction) >umility forms a
community incongruous with the world before the event which can only relate to it through
criti.ue and re,ection)
3.-.2: 1umility and 2race
>umility is further distinguished from philosophical techni.ues of the self in its
grounding in grace rather than courage) >umour has the power to brac*et our ridiculousness
53:
"limacus( scal.: ?tep 5;)
534
which is how abba Alonius responded to praise6 &pop$. Patr. 83at9: P=)/ O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P=):3
O &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Poemen ::)
538
"ritchley( 20086 3/)
53;
The reference is of course to %adiou( although C see the culmination of the "hristian story in the life of "hrist
rather than purely in the resurrection) cf) %adiou( 200/L58M)
20
by having the courage and cheerfulness to see our .uir*s as funny rather than as signs of our
doom) Nevertheless it still involves courage( and the ability to laugh when the ,o*e is on you
is a sign of greatness as well as of a sense of humour) "hristian humility is founded on grace(
however6 the conviction that our life is underwritten by Bod( so that humble criti.ue does not
simply cause the silliness of everything to emerge6 it vilifies social values for the sa*e of what
really matters) Ct constitutes a reconfiguration of values rather than simply ma*ing it easier to
live with those we have)
Ct was argued above that the ability to see ourselves as ridiculous produces social and
personal transformation( and not necessarily both at the same time) !e become fle#ible both
in order to adapt ourselves to the state of normality we are presented with( and for the sa*e of
re-thin*ing our mode of being in society) The contingency of the self may serve stability as
well as revolution)
"ritchley+s reading of humour bears out the double implication) 7n the one hand( he
embraces it as a *ind of critical social anthropology that relieves us of shared cultural
assumptions)
53
7n the other( he posits it as a celebration of all the standards by which we
,udge ourselves) >e accepts that we are confined by our conditions ' that we are wretched
beings ' and sees humour as therapy for the acceptance of these conditions) These two
functions of humour ' of consolation and liberation ' are in tension throughout his account(
and nowhere more strongly than in its conclusion6
9or me( it is this smile ' deriding the having and the not having( the pleasure and the pain( the
sublimity and suffering of the human situation ' that is the essence of humour) X Qet( this
smile does not bring unhappiness( but rather elevation and liberation( the lucidity of consolation)
This is why( melancholy animals that we are( human beings are also the most cheerful) !e
smile and find ourselves ridiculous) 7ur wretchedness is our greatness)
5:0
!e should not pass over the non-oppressive function of this conformity to our values
too .uic*ly) "onscious conformity to a non-remar*able state is also a form of self-
determination for early "hristian ascetics 0cf) Motius above( on page ::2) Ct is resistance to the
community imperative to e#cel within the limitations of social acceptance( normality+s
tempting offer to try out your transgressive freedom so it can e#pand its boundaries and
distract you from its contingency)
5:5
Transgression and individuality are not necessarily free
from social forces) Cndeed( .uite the opposite is the case in late modernity)
53
"ritchley( 20026 48)
5:0
"ritchley( 20026 555)
5:5
A theme also ta*en up in Zi[e*+s interpretation of "hesterton( in Zi[e*( 200:6 :2)
250
!e laugh together at our own foolishness) The ,o*e is on us all) !e laugh in order to
be able to conform to the re.uirements of our community( but the ,o*e is only funny in the
company of that community) Cf we did not laugh( others would laugh at us)
>ence the difficulty and courage inherent in laughing at our entire community) The
critical function of humour is not guaranteed by the community) 1augh at ourselves( and no-
one mindsK laugh at everyone+s shared values( and we may laugh alone) !e may end up doing
everything alone)
Ct ta*es courage to see the ridiculousness of one+s own way of being( and even more
courage to point it out) This *ind of ,o*e ris*s not being laughed at) Cf C ,o*e about my own
idiosyncrasy( C may ,ust be thought weird) A bishop ,o*ing that he is actually only wearing a
dress because he+s an e#ecutive transvestite might not get a lot of laughs in the 1ambeth
"ouncil) Do*es about bishops installing ""T= 0Hepi-scopes+2 in their vicars+ bedrooms even
less so) The one laughs at the self in a way that challenges the shared values e#pected in
humourK the other laughs more directly at the common language of the group) %oth ris*
ostracism)
The point C am ma*ing about this courage is that it may simply be foolishness) Ct is
foolish rather than brave to rush unarmed into battle) Cs the transgressive humour of the
radical critic brave or foolish if absolutely no-one agrees with her$ There is a fine line
between transgression that is trail-bla&ing and self-imposed and transgression that is sad and
lonely)
5:2
The humility lying behind the humour of early "hristian ascetics does not depend
upon the superhuman courage of the martyr-critic) Cnstead( it witnesses to a different order) Ct
undermines shared values because it has already e#perienced the neutralisation of those
values) The humour of the holy fools is both a moral criti.ue and a statement of fidelity to the
"hristian story) Ct is both e#ile from the world and a struggle for the @ingdom of Bod) Ct
denies the ,udgment of the world because it has heard the ,udgment of Bod)
5:/
>umility is the
abandonment of one ethic whilst embracing the grace of another( as abba Alonius put it6 Hthat
you be below the irrational animals( and *now that they are not condemned)+
5:3
5:2
The best portrayal C *now of this is to be found in the character of the founder of the order of wedding
crashers in the film of that name( who ends up crashing funerals in order to get laid6 Dob*in( 200: 0written by
?teve 9aber and %ob 9isher2)
5:/
%arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: /386 HDo not see* answers from anyone in regard to yourself( but create
the answers for yourself)+
5:3
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: P=)/4 O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P=):/ O &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Poemen 35)
255
Ct is through this humility that the fools are holy) 9reed from the pressure to be good
and religious( the fools glory in the non-condemnation ' indeed the holiness ' of the physical(
the animal( and the shameful) ?o by embracing the scum and detritus of the community
0Csidora+s cleaning and ?ymeon+s street shitting2( they portray themselves as worthless
members whilst celebrating the holy world of the new order)
LCsidoraM never sat down at table or ate a scrap of bread( but she wiped up with a sponge the
crumbs from the tables and was satisfied with the scouring from the pots)
7ften( indeed( when his belly sought to do its private function( immediately( and without
blushing( L?ymeonM s.uatted in the mar*et place( wherever he found himself( in front of
everyone)
5::
All this humour is underwritten by Bod) Not that it is necessarily funny or successful
0that depends on the hearer2( but it no longer sets their self into .uestion or puts them in
danger of being ostracised from the new community) They share their laughter with those
who also gain by the redemption of the entire world ' prostitutes( beggars( and children ' but
they are ostracised by those who have invested in the old order ' tradesmen( religious
authorities( and the learned) They nevertheless have courage for this because( li*e the martyrs
of old( their lives are *ept with "hrist in Bod) The holy fool never laughs alone)
3.-.3: 1umility and unserious speec#
Cn distinction to truth-telling humour( humility ' being the telos of "hristian humour '
results in no static truth about the self) Cn fact( the only truly humble confession is one that
refuses to be ta*en seriously) Telling the truth about the self is only a means to an end for
early "hristian asceticism)
!e have portrayed humour as a mode of truth-telling) Ct tells us the truth about
ourselves) "omedians portray us in an amusing light so that we may be modest in our claims
about our place in the world( and ultimately so that we will not be disappointed with our own
greatness)
%ut this truth about ourselves is always dependent upon dogma) Ct is not a pure refusal)
<ddie C&&ard attempts to confuse the relationship of se#uality to gender( because he subscribes
to the dogma that these are two distinct and separate phenomena that can be configured in
many different ways) ?o he tells the truth about himself in terms of fi#ed and distinct
5::
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: P=CCC)5 Palladius( $. 3aus.: PPC= and 1eontius( ". 1ym.: C=)53;) The scatological
element of these stories is brought out particularly well in "erteau( 586 esp) :32f)
252
determinative categories in each realm) C am heterose#ual) C am a transvestite) C am butch)
And these are categories he forces us to ta*e seriously) >e asserts his right to be a transvestite)
>e is a comedian who is deadly serious about the truth concerning himself)
The truths that "ritchley gains from humour are altogether more cosmological) Ct is
not simply a case of displacing ourselves in the values of the world) >umour posits our limits)
Ct places us in relation to transcendence and bodiliness) Ct describes Hthe eccentricity of the
human situation+6
between beasts and angels( between being and having( between the physical and the
metaphysical) !e are thoroughly material beings that are unable to be that materiality) ?uch is
the curse of reflection( but such also is the source of our dignity) >umour is the daily bread of
that dignity)
5:4
There is no one truth central to all humour( and "ritchley+s account does not imply
such a single truth either) >owever much he generalises here( this *ind of insight is only
applicable to one particular *ind of humour( namely the risus purus of which he is so
enamoured) Nevertheless( it would be no e#aggeration to claim that each instance of humour
rests upon a dogma) At the very least( to the e#tent that humour is a techni.ue of the self in
the way described above( it is also dogmatic concerning the self) The .uestion is( does
"hristian humility follow humorous modesty in positing such dogma$
7ne *ey moment of transformation in the <uropean ,ourney from ?ocratic self-
government through "hristian humility to modern therapy is the boo* on pastoral care by
Pope Bregory the Breat)
5:8
>ere he gives practical advice on how bishops and spiritual
directors should live and spea* in order to direct their people well) The wor*+s third boo* 0out
of four2 is divided up into chapters on human characteristics and addresses how these affect
the way in which people are to be directed) The characteristics are set out in pairs6 men and
women( poor and rich( ,oyful and sad( lovers of strife and peacema*ers( and so on) Cn each
case( the identity of the person 0as ,oyful( female( peacema*er( etc)2 is assumed before the
direction can ta*e place)
Cf we set to one side the historical development of this passage ' its use in <uropean
Mediaeval government( <piscopal "isitatio( and thence to modern ,uridical procedures
5:;
' the
techni.ue+s grammar is clear) The truth about people is ta*en for granted rather than given
5:4
"ritchley( 20026 50)
5:8
Bregorius( 3ib. Reg. Past.
5:;
9oucault( 2002L58/M6 34-:2)
25/
them( and they are governed towards further virtue) Telling the truth about the self is a means
to a further end rather than an end in itself) Cn other words6 the in,unction to H*now yourself+
is neither the final desire 0as in modernity2 nor the final moral ob,ective 0as in anti.uity2)
More often than not( the advice to be given to people distinguished by a particular
human truth is that they should not allow themselves to be defined by it) They should live as
if the truth about them was not determinative for their life and practice) The ,oyful and the sad
should not be essentially so( but fle#ible6
Differently to be admonished are the ,oyful and the sad) That is( before the ,oyful are to be set
the sad things that follow upon punishmentK but before the sad the promised ,oyful things of the
*ingdom) 1et the ,oyful learn by the asperity of threatenings what to be afraid of6 let the sad
bear what ,oys of reward they may loo* forward to)
5:
The wise and the dull are similarly warned to act independently of their *nowledgeK
the patient and the impatient are warned to be ignorant of their own endurance of hardshipK
the tal*ative and silent are warned to hold to the truth rather than to the opportunity to spea*)
The admonitions are more than so many golden means) They e#hort people to refuse
caricatures of humanity) They distract people away from silly descriptions and towards the
mystery of the indescribable divine)
?uccessful humility will therefore shrug off the truth about the person) Ct no longer
ta*es confession seriously) The humble ascetic does not e#pect her words to provide a
solution to the problem of truth) The unserious self is relieved of the obligation to spea* the
truth about the self) Ct does not set itself up as a ,udge of statements about itself) Ct does not
feel bound to adhere to a particular view of the self) Ct has renounced ,udgement and refuses
to ta*e itself seriously6
A brother as*ed Poemen( H>ow ought C to behave in my cell in the place where C live$+ >e
answered( H%e as prudent as a strangerK and wherever you are( do not e#pect your words to be
ta*en seriously when you spea*( and you will find peace)+
540
At this point( the practice of being a fool can be universalised) 9or all "hristians are
fools to the e#tent that they do not *now the truth ' refuse to *now ' the truth about their
moral status) The "hristian is not sub,ect to moral measurement6 not good( but not condemned
either) "hristian words carry no burden of truth( as they come from the frivolous and
5:
Bregorius( 3ib. Reg. Past.: CCC)/( admonition 3( translation modified)
540
&pop$. Patr. 83at9: P=)// O &pop$. Patr. 87,. syst.9: P=)3 O &pop$. Patr. 8alp$9: Poemen 55S?3)
253
forgivable source of displaced amorality)
545
The "hristian is shown *indness but released from
the demand to be serious)
This is the force of being a stranger in the world) Not only to accept re,ection( to
renounce attachments and obligations( to adhere to a different set of values) %ut also to e#pect
to be misunderstood( to be indifferent to the ,udgement and truth games that you inhabit) All
this because one accepts another order( another truth( rather than simply nihilistically denying
the validity of the truth about the self offered by governors and insulters) And the other order
can be witnessed in anyone( so that everyone should be ta*en seriously)
>as someone insulted you$ %less him) >as he struc* you$ ?uffer it) >as he despised you and set
you at naught$ Aeflect that you are made of earth and that you will return to the earth) !hoever
arms himself beforehand with these considerations will find that every insult falls short of the
truth)
542
Ct is for this reason holy fools do not simply deal out insults and biting home truths to
the people they meet) They also accept every appellation( every insult they are dealt( not
seriously( but playfully) They accept the accusations 0adulterer( idiot( wretch( madman2 and
fling them bac* again( calling everyone idiots and madmen) %y offering no resistance to
truths about themselves( they moc* the attempt to tie them down to particular roles and
categories)
This is the element of play which is added to the apophatic criticism) The holy fools
moc* the institutions of holiness ' in liturgy( power( and asceticism ' and then embrace all
*inds of truth about themselves) %ut nothing stic*s) Their humour aims at a humility that
dislocates the self from truthful speech 0as we argued above on page 8:ff2) Their speech and
their lives are unserious( and there is no truth to be told about the holy fools)
545
The fool is defined as infinitely forgivable in %arsanuphius and Cohannes( resp.: 4;)
542
%asilius( $om. 1)
25:
&onclusion
The recurring theme in this study has been that the holy fools ma*e up a criti.ue of
early "hristian asceticism from within the movement) They are to be understood as embracing
and perfecting the religious vocation) They ascetically undermine asceticism)
%ut this much was stated in the introduction6 we need to discover the holy fools+
continuity with the ascetic bac*ground in order to establish their holiness( and discontinuity to
locate their foolishness) Ct is a necessity of historical investigation that any description of
historical phenomena in their conte#t will always point out the continuity and difference of
the ob,ect of its study) !ithout the former( no frame of description is possibleK without the
latter( no ob,ect is discernible to later tradition)
<ven the incarnation is to be framed as an understandable contribution to the history of
the people of Csrael( and the annals of the Aoman <mpire( with similar precedents 0Dudas the
Balilean( the *ings and prophets of Csrael2 and similar successors 0Paul( Peter( 9rancis2) Ct is
part of the scandal of the cross that it was ,ust one more sign of the power of Aome) An
historical phenomenon needs to be isolated before it may be described however( and this is
done by noting its discontinuity) The most radically transforming events in history li*e the
9rench Aevolution and the conversion of "onstantine are noticeable because they mar* a
transition from a past in which they ta*e part ' feudal society and the Aoman <mpire ' into a
future which they initiate ' the 9rench republic and the >oly Aoman <mpire) The events
themselves( though causing radical transformation( are entirely continuous with the history to
which they contribute)
?o in order to answer our .uestion of the significance of the deployment of madness in
the "hristian e#perience of madness( we had to as*( in turn( in 0$at particular 0ays did the
holy fools and their hagiographers assume the holiness of early "hristian ascetics( and how
did they criti.ue it$ !hat specific features were constants( and what was changed$ >ence our
tas* of drawing up the shared features and transformations fools wor*ed on the tradition
functioned not simply to define their holiness and foolishness( but also to carve out their
historical specificity)
Cn e#amining the practices of norms( we discovered that the holy fools and their
predecessors held in common the will to transcendence) The spiritual techni.ues of early
"hristian ascetics were an e#ercise in gaining control of( and even obliterating( their need for
food( clothes( se#( and other necessities of life) This included the need to feel moral(
254
manifested in the passion of vainglory) There were those who radically re,ected these needs(
and those who moderated them( catering to them in specific forms) ?ome fasted for wee*s(
some ate only once a day( and others chewed grass) ?ome too* the habit( some wore only bad
clothes( and others got na*ed) Cn time( however( monasticism gained a specific form
throughout the <ast( with recognisable attire( and well-defined eating habits)
The holy fools e#pressed this will to transcendence by controlling their needs in other
ways) !hilst mon*s fasted according to the church year( holy fools paraded sausages and
ca*es on fast days( and ate inhuman .uantities of beans) "hristian ascetics controlled their
need to feel moral by eschewing e#treme asceticismK holy fools by secrecy and mental
dissociation) They did not ac*nowledge the new religious order)
!e can summarise the holy fools+ challenge to ascetic norms in terms of their
continuing the practice of becoming a stranger) As Anthony became estranged from city life
and embraced the barren desert( the holy fools become estranged from religious life and
embrace the unreflective life of the distracted fool) They have no time to *now if they are
good or who they really are) Their lives are a secret even to themselves)
The practice of *nowledge revealed further continuities and divergences) Many early
"hristian ascetics had espoused a way of generating *nowledge through a form of semiotic
criti.ue around the practice and control of the passions) Through .uestioning the significance
and semiotic system of their representations( they force alternative *nowledge and construct
new ta#onomies of signification and practices of thought)
The holy fools are presented as already dispassionate( as not part of the systems and
desires that tempt us to represent the world in terms of ac.uisition and pleasure) They do not
recognise distinctions of male and female( economic and moral evaluation( friend and enemy)
>owever( neither do they recognise the practices that form new ta#onomies of *nowledge6
they disrupt liturgy( moc* religious authority( and play around religious language)
!hilst this may appear as a mere practical renunciation( consideration of problems of
apophaticism ma*e us aware to the practices of reason that allow us to conceptualise both the
things we describe( and the attributes we predicate of them) The holy fools ma*e a concrete
contribution to theology by denying the location of holiness( modifying the force of attributes
such as holiness( dispassion( and goodness) Their practice enacts the criti.ue of the "ia
negati"a ' by not recognising the authority and Bod-reference of religious practice ' and that
of the "ia dissimilis ' by playing at being holy amongst those assumed unholy and ungood)
258
Describing the holy fools+ continuity with and transformation of the "hristian tradition
in terms of a practice of negative theology is not meant to imply that their contribution is
merely practical) Cnstead( their criti.ue has a double thrust6 against those apophatic
theologians that have not considered the force of their forms of life( and against those
practical and ascetic theologians that have not been sufficiently critical in their apophaticism)
Much has now been said concerning the way in which early "hristian ascetics and
holy fools configure the relation between self and society) Their attitude is one of
renunciation6 the abandonment of the norms and *nowledge of society) They refuse to be
placed) >owever( the renunciation of any community( and the recommendation that others
renounce it( is the first step towards founding a new community( with specific and human
forms of life every bit as contingent and placed as the one renounced( although not necessarily
as secular)
The dilemma of monasticism that we noted concerns the problem of ecclesiological
universalism6 should everyone be a mon*$ Cf so( then everyone will be obliged to e#ert the
tremendous force of monastic holiness upon themselves for the sa*e of self-transformation) Cf
not( then this force ' with all its political and personal conse.uences ' is denied an entire
group of people) The dangers of leaning in either of these directions can be noted in the way
criti.ue slips into dogma that define the self( spiritual e#ercises slip into rigid forms of
control( and free-spea*ing agents slip into powerful moral e#perts)
The holy fools may not be able to wor* themselves free of these dilemma6 the later
holy fools tradition in Aussia and the %y&antine empire stemmed largely from the story of ?t
Andrew the >oly 9ool( who certainly posed as an e#pert that plied his trade in controlling
people through his holy foolishness( and his way of life was modelled on the earliest holy
fools 0especially ?ymeon2) >owever( the early fools+ refusal to ta*e disciples( their
un*nowledge concerning holiness( and their espousal of continuous criti.ue and renunciation
are at least attempts to avoid the asceticism of hegemony and aristocracy)
All these considerations lead us to reconceptualise the role of humility in negotiating
the self+s relation to society) >umility may of course serve either stability or revolution6 it
may brac*et the self in order to embrace normality( or it may brac*et society+s demands on
the self for the sa*e of the individual+s way of life) Ct may also construct an infinite demand at
the heart of civil society( as it may constitute the condition of sanity and the touchstone of
good morals( but it is driven by a contradiction) HC am humble+ is ungrammatical) ?o the
re.uirement of humility can never be consciously fulfilled) The practice and theology of
25;
humility that has been developing in this study of holy fools and "hristian ascetics has a
number of features that address this problem) >umility is driven by another order( and so
re.uires no courageK it is practiced by faithfulness to the "hristian story rather than any
specific truth of the selfK it is critical of systems of evaluationK it refuses to adhere to the
seriousness of a substantial self)
The e#perience and theology of holiness is shared and transformed by early "hristian
ascetics and holy fools) They share the practice of the transformation of norms( *nowledge(
and the self+s relation to society) The holy fools modify this practice by continuing it where it
had created new forms and given the impression of necessity and e#clusive holiness) They
retain the theology of holiness that denies its centre and circumference( by moc*ing the holy
and laughing with the unholy)
The holy fool therefore adheres to a practice of theology that refuses to believe the
myths and assurances that tell them they have arrived) Ct is true6 they are lies) They wander
the cities and religious communities of late anti.uity laughing at themselves and others(
re,oicing in the ridiculousness and unseriousness of the search for holiness) The search for a
way to be un*nowingly good)
25
Bibliograp#y
4erba 1eniorum 0&pop$t$egmata Patrum 83at.9 - ed6 Aosweyde( >)( 5;3/2( Patrologia
1atina6 8/
6istoria monac$orum in &egypto : Fdition criti:ue du te5te grec 0$istoria monac$orum in
&egypto - ed6 9estugiNre( A) D)( 5452( ?ubsidia hagiographica( ?ociRtR des
%ollandistes( %ru#elles
&pop$t$egmata Patrum: &lp$abetical 1eries 0&pop$t$egmata Patrum 8alp$.9 - ed6 Migne( D)
P)( 58:a2( Patrologia "ursus "ompletus( ?eries Braeca6 4:( Paris
#$e 0isdom o. t$e 'esert Fat$ers : t$e &pop$t$egmata Patrum 8t$e anonymous series9
0&pop$t$egmata Patrum 8anon9 - trSed6 !ard( %)( 58:b2( ?)1)B) Press( 7#ford
3es &pop$tegmes des PIres: collection systFmati:ue 0&pop$t$egmata Patrum 87,. syst.9 -
trSed6 Buy( D)-")( 5/-200:2( ?ources "hrRtiennes6 /;8( 383( 3;( 1es _dition du
"erf( Paris
&cta 1anctorum 0&cta 1anctorum -( 52( Pro.uest 11"
#$e +oo, o. 1teps 0liber graduum - trSed6 @itchen( A) A) Parmentier( M) 9) B)( 200:2(
"istercian ?tudies6 54( "istercian Publishing( @alama&oo
1aint 'aniel o. 1,etis 0"ita 'anielis 1cetiotis - trSed6 Dahlman( %)( 20082( in Dahlman( %)
0ed2( 1aint 'aniel o. 1,etis: & 7roup o. 6agiograp$ic #e5ts( Uppsala University
1ibrary( Uppsala
Agamben Biorgio 05;2 L5:M 6omo sacer : so"ereign po0er and bare li.e 0tr6 >eller-
Aoa&en( D)2( ?tanford University Press( ?tanford( "alif)
Anderson "olin 0director2 0200;2J #$e !e0s Kui?( 9riday Night "omedy on Aadio 3( %%"
Aadio 3
Arnold Duane !) >) and %right Pamela 0<ds)2 05:2 'e doctrina *$ristiana : a classic o.
0estern cultureJ University of Notre Dame Press( Notre Dame)
Athanasius Ale#andrinus( #$e 3i.e o. 1t &nt$ony 04ita &ntonii - trSed6 Deferrari( A) D)( 5:22
9athers of the "hurch( a new Translation 5:( New Qor*
Augustinus >ipponensis( &gainst 3ying 0contra mendacium - trSed6 %rowne( >)( 5;;8a2( in
?chaff( P) 0ed2( !icene and Post=!icene Fat$ers( CCC( TTT "lar*( <dinburgh
Augustinus >ipponensis( On 3ying 0de mendacio - trSed6 %rowne( >)( 5;;8b2( in ?chaff( P)
0ed2( !icene and Post=!icene Fat$ers( CCC( TTT "lar*( <dinburgh
Augustinus >ipponensis( On Free /ill 0de libero arbitrio - trSed6 Aussell( A) P)( 54;2 9athers
of the "hurch( A New Translation :;( The "atholic University of America Press(
!ashington D"
Augustinus >ipponensis( #$e #rinity 0de trinitate - trSed6 >ill( <)( 552 The !or*s of ?t
Augustine6 a translation for the 25st century( New "ity Press( New Qor*
Augustinus >ipponensis( *on.essions 0*on.essionum - trSed6 "hadwic*( >)( 522 The
worldUs classics( 7#ford University Press( 7#ford K New Qor*
Augustinus >ipponensis( On *$ristian #eac$ing 0'e 'octrina *$ristiana - trSed6 Breen( A) P)
>)( 582( 7#ford University Press( 7#ford
220
Augustinus >ipponensis( #$e city o. 7od against t$e pagans 0de ci"itate dei contra paganos -
trSed6 Dyson( A) !)( 5;2 "ambridge te#ts in the history of political thought(
"ambridge University Press( "ambridge K New Qor*
Augustinus >ipponensis( #$e &ugustine *atec$ism : t$e Enc$iridion on .ait$J $opeJ and lo"e
0Enc$iridion - trSed6 >arbert( %)( 52 The Augustine series( New "ity Press( >yde
Par*( N)Q)
Augustinus >ipponensis( O. t$e /or, o. 2on,s 0de opera monac$orum ' trSed6 %rowne( >)(
5;;8 L5;38M2 in ?chaff( P) 0ed2( !icene and Post=!icene Fat$ers( CCC( TTT "lar*(
<dinburgh)
Austin D) 1) 058:2 6o0 to do t$ings 0it$ 0ordsJ The !illiam Dames lectures( "larendon
Press( 7#ford
%adiou Alain 020052 L5;M Et$ics : an essay on t$e understanding o. e"il 0tr6 >allward( P)2(
=erso( 1ondon K New Qor*
%adiou Alain 0200/2 L58M 1aint Paul : t$e .oundation o. uni"ersalism 0tr6 %rassier( A)2J
"ultural memory in the present( ?tanford University Press( ?tanford( "alif)
%arry Andrew( et al) 0<ds)2 0542 Foucault and political reason : liberalismJ neo=liberalismJ
and rationalities o. go"ernmentJ University of "hicago Press( "hicago)
%arsanuphius and Cohannes( 3etters 0responsiones - trSed6 "hryssavgis( D)( 2004-20082 9athers
of the "hurch( A New Translation 55/-553( "atholic University of America Press(
New Qor*
%asilius Magnus( &ddress to Loung 2en on t$e Rig$t Use o. 7ree, literature 0ad
adolescentes de legendis libris gentilium - trSed6 Padelford( 9) M)( 5022( Lale 1tudies
in Englis$( <ssays on the study and use of poetry by Plutarch and %asil the Breat 5:(
>) >olt and company( New Qor*( -520
%asilius Magnus( &n ascetical 'iscourse 8>9 0sermo asceticus 1 - trSed6 !agner( M) M)(
5:0a2( in !agner( M) M) 0ed2( &scetical /or,s( 9athers of the "hurch6 A New
Translation( "atholic University of America( !ashington D"
%asilius Magnus( &n ascetical 'iscourse 8>>9 0sermo asceticus 2 - trSed6 !agner( M) M)(
5:0b2( in !agner( M) M) 0ed2( &scetical /or,s( 9athers of the "hurch6 A New
Translation( "atholic University of America( !ashington D"
%asilius Magnus( *oncerning +aptism 0de baptismo libro duo - trSed6 !ace( >)( 5:0c2( in
!agner( M) M) 0ed29athers of the "hurch6 A New Translation( "atholic University of
America( !ashington D"( //-3/0
%asilius Magnus( 6omily 1: &gainst t$ose 0$o are prone to anger 0$omilia 1 ad"ersus eos
:ui irascuntur - trSed6 !agner( M) M)( 5:0d2( in !agner( M) M) 0ed2( &scetical
/or,s( 9athers of the "hurch6 A New Translation( "atholic University of America(
!ashington D"
%asilius Magnus( 6omily 2: O. 6omility 0$omilia 2 de $umilitate - trSed6 !agner( M) M)(
5:0e2 9athers of the "hurch6 A New Translation( "atholic University of America(
!ashington D"( 38:-3;4
%asilius Magnus( #$e 3ong Rules 0regulae .usius tractatae - trSed6 !agner( M) M)( 5:0f2( in
!agner( M) M) 0ed2( &scetical /or,s( 9athers of the "hurch6 A New Translation(
"atholic University of America( !ashington D"
225
%asilius Magnus( 2oralia 0moralia - ed6 !agner( M) M)( 5:0g2( in !agner( M) M) 0ed2(
&scetical /or,s( 9athers of the "hurch6 A New Translation( "atholic University of
America( !ashington D"
%asilius Magnus( On Renunciation o. t$e /orld 0sermo de renuntiatione saeculi - trSed6
!agner( M) M)( 5:0h2( in !agner( M) M) 0ed2( &scetical /or,s( 9athers of the
"hurch6 A New Translation( "atholic University of America( !ashington D"
%asilius Magnus( On t$e Mudgment o. 7od 0de ;udicio dei - trSed6 !agner( M) M)( 5:0i2( in
!agner( M) M) 0ed2( &scetical /or,s( 9athers of the "hurch6 A New Translation(
"atholic University of America( !ashington D"
%asilius Magnus( & 'iscourse on &scetical 'iscipline: 6o0 t$e mon, s$ould be e:uipped
0sermo eiusdem de ascetica disciplina - trSed6 !agner( M) M)( 5802( in !agner( M)
M) 0ed29athers of the "hurch6 A New Translation( "atholic University of America(
!ashington D"( //-/4
%ataille Beorges 05;2 L58/M #$eory o. religion 0tr6 >urley( A)2( Eone %oo*s( New Qor*
%erger Peter 1) 0582 Redeeming laug$ter : t$e comic dimension o. $uman e5perience(
!alter de Bruyter( New Qor*
%ergson >enri 0200:2 L505M 3aug$ter : an essay on t$e meaning o. t$e comic 0tr6 %rereton(
") Aothwell( 9)2( Dover Publications( Mineola( NQ
%er*eley Beorge 05:/2 L5852M `Passive 7bedience( 7r the "hristian Doctrine of not resisting
the ?upreme Power( proved and vindicated upon the principles of the 1aw of Nature)
Cn a Discourse delivered at the "ollege "hapel` Cn #$e 0or,s o. 7eorge +er,eley( The
wor*s of Beorge %er*eley( =ol) =C 0<d( Dessop( T) <)2 Nelson( 1ondon pp) 5-34)
%ernauer Dames !illiam 020022 `Michel 9oucaultUs Philosophy of Aeligion6 an Cntroduction
to the Non-9ascist 1ife` Cn 2ic$el Foucault and t$eology : t$e politics o. religious
e5perience 0<ds( %ernauer( D) !) "arrette( D) A)2 Ashgate( AldershotK %urlington pp)
88-8)
%outenoff Peter " 0200/2 ``!hat *ind of fool am C$` 9urther Bleanings from >oly 9olly` Cn
&bba: #$e #radition o. Ort$odo5y in t$e /est 0<ds( %ehr( D)( 1outh( A) "onomos( D)2
?aint =ladimirUs ?eminary Press( "restwood( New Qor* pp) //:-/3)
%reton ?tanislas 020022 L5;5M #$e /ord and t$e *ross 0tr6 Porter( D)2J Perspectives in
"ontinental Philosophy( 9ordham University Press( New Qor*
%rown Peter Aobert 1amont 05852 `The Aise and 9unction of the >oly Man in 1ate
Anti.uity`J #$e Mournal o. Roman 1tudiesJ 112 ;0-505)
%rown Peter Aobert 1amont 05;;2 #$e body and society : menJ 0omenJ and se5ual
renunciation in early *$ristianityJ 1ectures on the history of religions K new series( 5/(
"olumbia University Press( New Qor*
%urchell Braham 0542 `1iberal Bovernment and Techni.ues of the ?elf` Cn Foucault and
Political Reason 0<ds( %arry( A)( 7sborne( T) Aose( N)2 Aoutledge( 1ondon pp) 5-/4)
%urchell Braham( et al) 0552 #$e Foucault e..ect : studies in go"ernmentality : 0it$ t0o
lectures by and an inter"ie0 0it$ 2ic$el Foucault( University of "hicago Press(
"hicago
%urton-"hristie Douglas 05/2 #$e /ord in t$e desert : scripture and t$e :uest .or $oliness
in early *$ristian monasticism( 7#ford University Press( New Qor*
222
%utler Dudith 0200:2 7i"ing an account o. onesel.( 9ordham University Press( New Qor*
"asiday Augustine 020042 E"agrius Ponticus( Aoutledge( 1ondon
"assianus Cohannes( Mo$n *assian : t$e con.erences 0*ollationes - trSed6 Aamsey( %)( 582
Ancient "hristian writers :8( Paulist Press( New Qor*
"assianus Cohannes( *assianJ t$e institutes 0'e institutis coenobiorum - trSed6 Aamsey( %)(
20002 Ancient "hristian writers :;( Newman Press( New Qor*
"erteau Michel de 058/2 3Nabsent de lN$istoireJ ?ciences humaines et idRologies( 3( Mame(
Tours
"erteau Michel de 0582 `1e ?ilence de 1Uabsolu6 9olles et 9ous de Dieu`J Rec$erc$es de
1cience ReligieuseJ 1,2 :2:-:34)
"erteau Michel de 0542 L5;0M`=ocal Utopias6 Blossolalias` 0tr6 Daniel Aosenberg2J
RepresentationsJ (12 2-38)
"hitty Derwas D) 05442 #$e desert a city: an introduction to t$e study o. Egyptian and
Palestinian monasticism under t$e *$ristian Empire( %lac*well( 7#ford(
"hryssavgis Dohn 0200/2 >n t$e $eart o. t$e desert : t$e spirituality o. t$e 'esert Fat$ers and
2ot$ers : 0it$ a translation o. &bba OosimasN Re.lectionsJ Treasures of the worldUs
religions( !orld !isdom( %loomington( Cnd)
"icero Marcus Tullius( #usculan 'isputations 0#usculanae 'isputationes - trSed6 @ing( D) <)(
5282 "iceroUs Philosophical Treatises( 17<% "lassical 1ibrary( !) >einemann(
1ondon( New Qor*(
"lar* <li&abeth A) 05;;2 `9oucault( The 9athers( and ?e#`J Mournal o. t$e &merican
&cademy o. ReligionJ (12 45-435)
"lemens Ale#andrinus( 1tromataJ or 2iscellanies 0stromateis - trSed6 !ilson( !)( 5;482( in
Aoberts( A) Donaldson( D) 0eds2( &nte=!icene Fat$ers >>: Fat$ers o. t$e 1econd
*entury( <dinburgh
"limacus Dohn( #$e ladder o. di"ine ascent 0scala paradisi - trSed6 1uibheid( ") Aussell( N)(
5;22 The "lassics of !estern spirituality( Paulist Press( New Qor*
"o# >arvey Ballagher 0542 #$e .east o. .oolsP a t$eological essay on .esti"ity and .antasy(
>arvard University Press( "ambridge(
"o# >arvey Ballagher 05:2 Fire .rom $ea"en : t$e rise o. pentecostal spirituality and t$e
res$aping o. religion in t$e t0enty=.irst century( Addison-!esley Pub)( Aeading(
Mass)
"ritchley ?imon 020022 On $umourJ Thin*ing in action( Aoutledge( 1ondon K New Qor*
"ritchley ?imon 020082 >n.initely 'emanding: Et$ics o. *ommitmentJ Politics o. Resistance(
=erso( 1ondon
Dagron Bilbert 0502 `1U>omme ?ans >onneur 7u le ?aint ?candaleu#`J &nnales E1*J +(2
2-/)
Dante Alighieri 0582 L5;48M #$e 'i"ine *omedy 0tr6 1ongfellow( >) !)2( Butenberg <te#t
Davidson Arnold Cra 0532 `<thics as ascetics6 9oucault( the history of ethics( and ancient
thought` Cn #$e *ambridge companion to Foucault 0<d( Butting( B)2 "ambridge
University Press( "ambridge pp) 55:-530)
22/
Davidson Arnold Cra( 0200;2 `Cn Praise of "ounter-"onduct`( at
http6SSfiles)openomy)comSpublicScw*oopmanSaDavidson)mp/( accessed 53S0;S0;
de Matons Dose Brosdidier 05802 `1es ThNmes dU_dification dans la =ie dUAndrR ?alos`J
#ra"au5 et 2emoiresJ +2 288-/2;)
Deleu&e Billes 020042 L542M !iet?sc$e and p$ilosop$y 0tr6 Tomlinson( >)2( "ontinuum(
1ondon K New Qor*
Denys Areopagitus( #$e *elestial 6ierarc$y 0de caelesti $ierarc$ia - trSed6 1uibheid( ")(
5;8a2( in 1uibheid( ") Aorem( P) 0eds2( Pseudo='ionysius: #$e *omplete /or,s(
"lassics of !estern ?pirituality( Paulist Press( New Qor*( 53/-55
Denys Areopagitus( #$e 'i"ine !ames 0de di"inis nominibus - trSed6 1uibheid( ")( 5;8b2( in
1uibheid( ") Aorem( P) 0eds2( Pseudo='ionysius: #$e *omplete /or,s( "lassics of
!estern ?pirituality( Paulist Press( New Qor*( 38-5/5
Denys Areopagitus( #$e Ecclesiastical 6ierarc$y 0de ecclesiastica $ierarc$ia - trSed6
1uibheid( ")( 5;8c2( in 1uibheid( ") Aorem( P) 0eds2( Pseudo='ionysius: #$e
*omplete /or,s( "lassics of !estern ?pirituality( Paulist Press( New Qor*( 5/-2:
Denys Areopagitus( #$e 2ystical #$eology 0de mystica t$eologia - trSed6 1uibheid( ")(
5;8d2( in 1uibheid( ") Aorem( P) 0eds2( Pseudo='ionysius: #$e *omplete /or,s( The
"lassics of !estern ?pirituality( Paulist Press( New Qor*( 5//-535
Descartes AenR 05;2 L543M #$e passions o. t$e soul 0tr6 =oss( ?)2( >ac*ett Pub) "o)(
Cndianapolis
Diogenes 1aertius( 3i"es o. eminent p$ilosop$ers 04itae P$ilosop$orum - trSed6 >ic*s( A) D)(
52:2 The 1oeb classical library) LBree* authorsM( !) >eineman( 1ondon( New Qor*
/edding *ras$ers( 0200:2 Dob*in David 0director2( New 1ine "inema( U?A
Dostoevs*y 9yodor 0532 L5;;0M #$e Earama?o" brot$ers 0tr6 Avsey( C)2J The !orldUs
classics( 7#ford University Press( 7#ford
Dostoevs*y 9yodor 020002 L5;82M 'emons 0tr6 Pevear( A) =olo*hons*y( 1)2( @nopf( New
Qor*
Dylan %ob( 0582 `Botta ?erve ?omebody`( at http6SSwww)bobdylan)comSsongsSserve)html(
accessed 2:S0;S04
<pictetus( Enc$eiridion 0Enc$eiridion - trSed6 7ldfather( !) A)( 524b2( in 7ldfather( !) A)
0ed2( EpictetusP t$e 'iscourses as reported by &rrianJ t$e 2anual and .ragmentsJ 0it$
an Englis$ translation( 1oeb "lassical 1ibrary 258-25;( >arvard University Press(
1ondon( New Qor*
<rasmus Desiderius 05;2 L5:50M `The praise of folly` Cn #$e praise o. .olly and ot$er
0ritings : a ne0 translation 0it$ critical commentary 0<d( Adams( A) M)2 Norton(
New Qor* pp) /-;8)
<vagrius Ponticus( *$apters on Prayer 0'e oratione - trSed6 ?in*ewic&( A) <)( 200/a2( in
?in*ewic&( A) <) 0ed2( #$e 7ree, &scetic *orpus( 7#ford University Press( 7#ford(
5;/-20
<vagrius Ponticus( E5$ortation to a "irgin 01ententiae ad "irginem - trSed6 ?in*ewic&( A) <)(
200/b2( in ?in*ewic&( A) <) 0ed2( #$e 7ree, &scetic *orpus( 7#ford University Press(
7#ford( 5/5-5/:
223
<vagrius Ponticus( E5$ortations to 2on,s 0Paraenesis ad monac$os - trSed6 ?in*ewic&( A) <)(
200/c2( in ?in*ewic&( A) <) 0ed2( #$e 7ree, &scetic *orpus( 7#ford University Press(
7#ford( 258-22/
<vagrius Ponticus( Foundations o. t$e 2onastic 3i.e: a presentation o. t$e practice o.
stillness 0$ypotyposes - trSed6 ?in*ewic&( A) <)( 200/d2( in ?in*ewic&( A) <) 0ed2( #$e
7ree, &scetic *orpus( 7#ford University Press( 7#ford( 5-55
<vagrius Ponticus( 2a5ims 1=3 0*apita paraenetica - trSed6 ?in*ewic&( A) <)( 200/e2( in
?in*ewic&( A) <) 0ed2( #$e 7ree, &scetic *orpus( 7#ford University Press( 7#ford(
22;-2/2
<vagrius Ponticus( #$e 2on,: & #reatise on t$e Practical 3i.e 0Pra,ti,os - trSed6 ?in*ewic&(
A) <)( 200/f2( in ?in*ewic&( A) <) 0ed2( #$e 7ree, &scetic *orpus( 7#ford University
Press( 7#ford
<vagrius Ponticus( On t$e Eig$t #$oug$ts 0de octo spiritibus malitiae - trSed6 ?in*ewic&( A)
<)( 200/g2( in ?in*ewic&( A) <) 0ed2( #$e 7ree, &scetic *orpus( 7#ford University
Press( 7#ford( 44-0
<vagrius Ponticus( On t$e 4ices Opposed to t$e 4irtues G#o EulogiusH 0'e "itiis :uae
opposita sunt "irtutibus - trSed6 ?in*ewic&( A) <)( 200/h2( in ?in*ewic&( A) <) 0ed2(
#$e 7ree, &scetic *orpus( 7#ford University Press( 7#ford( 40-4:
<vagrius Ponticus( On #$oug$ts 0'e malignis cogationibus - trSed6 ?in*ewic&( A) <)( 200/i2(
in ?in*ewic&( A) <) 0ed2( #$e 7ree, &scetic *orpus( 7#ford University Press( 7#ford(
5/4-5;2
<vagrius Ponticus( Re.lections 01,emmata - trSed6 ?in*ewic&( A) <)( 200/,2( in ?in*ewic&( A)
<) 0ed2( #$e 7ree, &scetic *orpus( 7#ford University Press( 7#ford( 250-254
<vagrius Ponticus( #$irty=#$ree Ordered *$apters 0capitula 555iii - trSed6 ?in*ewic&( A) <)(
200/*2( in ?in*ewic&( A) <) 0ed2( #$e 7ree, &scetic *orpus( 7#ford University Press(
7#ford( 223-228
<vagrius Ponticus( #o Eulogius: on t$e con.ession o. t$oug$ts and counsel in t$eir regard
0Eulogios - trSed6 ?in*ewic&( A) <)( 200/l2( in ?in*ewic&( A) <) 0ed2( #$e 7ree,
&scetic *orpus( 7#ford University Press( 7#ford( 52-:( /50-///
<vagrius Ponticus( #o 2on,s in monasteries and communities 01ententiae ad monac$os -
trSed6 ?in*ewic&( A) <)( 200/m2( in ?in*ewic&( A) <) 0ed2( #$e 7ree, &scetic *orpus(
7#ford University Press( 7#ford( 55:-5/5
<vagrius Ponticus( 'e.initions 0de.initiones - trSed6 "asiday( A)( 2004a2( in "asiday( A) 0ed2(
E"agrius Ponticus( The <arly "hurch 9athers( Aoutledge( 1ondon( 5;/-5;3
<vagrius Ponticus( E5cerpts 0e5cerpts - trSed6 "asiday( A)( 2004b2( in "asiday( A) 0ed2(
E"agrius Ponticus( The <arly "hurch 9athers( Aoutledge( 1ondon( 582-5;0
<vagrius Ponticus( #$e 7reat 3etter 0Epistula ad 2elaniam - trSed6 "asiday( A)( 2004c2( in
"asiday( A) 0ed2( E"agrius Ponticus( The <arly "hurch 9athers( Aoutledge( 1ondon(
4/-88
<vagrius Ponticus( 3etters 0epistula - trSed6 "asiday( A)( 2004d2( in "asiday( A) 0ed2( E"agrius
Ponticus( The <arly "hurch 9athers( Aoutledge( 1ondon( :-42
<vagrius Ponticus( 1c$olia on Ecclesiastes 01c$olia in Ecclesiasten - trSed6 "asiday( A)(
2004e2( in "asiday( A) 0ed2( E"agrius Ponticus( The <arly "hurch 9athers( Aoutledge(
1ondon( 5/0-53
22:
<vagrius Ponticus( 1c$olia on 3u,e 01c$olia in 3ucam - trSed6 "asiday( A)( 2004f2( in
"asiday( A) 0ed2( E"agrius Ponticus( The <arly "hurch 9athers( Aoutledge( 1ondon(
5:/-545
<vagrius ?cholasticus( Ecclesiastical $istory 0$istoria ecclesiastica - trSed6 !alford( <)(
5;342( ?) %agster and sons( 1ondon)
9estugiNre A) D) 0<d)2 05832 4ie de 1ymFon le Fou P 8et9 4ie de Mean de *$ypreJ P) Beuthner(
Paris)
9euerstein Beorg 0552 6oly madness : t$e s$oc, tactics and radical teac$ings o. cra?y=0ise
adeptsJ $oly .oolsJ and rascal gurus( Paragon >ouse( New Qor*( N)Q)
9oucault Michel( 05822 L545M 6istoire de la .olie Q l@Rge classi:ue( Paris 6 Ballimard)
9oucault Michel( 0582 `7mnes et ?ingulatim6 Towards a "riticism of Political Aeason`
paper given at #$e #anner 3ectures( ?tanford University(
www)tannerlectures)utah)eduSlecturesSfoucault;5)pdf
9oucault Michel( 05;/2 `The "ulture of the ?elf`( at
http6SSsunsite)ber*eley)eduS=ideoTestSfoucault-cult5)ram( accessed 5:S02S08
9oucault Michel 0552 L58:M 'iscipline and punis$ : t$e birt$ o. t$e prison 0tr6 ?heridan(
A)2( Penguin boo*s( 1ondon
9oucault Michel 052a2 L5;3M #$e *are o. t$e 1el. 0tr6 >urley( A)2J The >istory of
?e#uality( /( Penguin( 1ondon
9oucault Michel 052b2 L5;3M #$e Use o. Pleasure 0tr6 >urley( A)2J The >istory of
?e#uality( 2( Penguin( 1ondon
9oucault Michel 0542 L584M `The social e#tension of the norm` 0Cnterviewed by !erner(
P)2 Cn 1otringer( ?) 0ed2( Foucault 3i"e: *ollected >nter"ie0sJ 1)61=1)-4(
?emiote#t0e2( New Qor* pp) 54-5)
9oucault Michel 0542 L5;3M `The Aeturn of Morality` Cn Foucault 3i"e: *ollected
>nter"ie0sJ 1)61=1)-4( 9oucault 1ive6 "ollected Cnterviews( 545-5;3 0<ds(
%arbedette( B) ?cala( A)2 ?emiote#t0e2( New Qor* pp) 34:-38/)
9oucault Michel 020002 `Polemics( Politics( and Problemati&ations6 An Cnterview with
Michel 9oucault` 0Cnterviewed by Aabinow( P)2 Cn Aabinow( P) 0ed2( Et$ics:
sub;ecti"ity and trut$: #$e Essential /or,s o. Foucault( =ol) 5( Penguin %oo*s(
1ondon pp) 555-55)
9oucault Michel 020002 L5;5M `?e#uality and ?olitude` Cn Et$ics : sub;ecti"ity and trut$( The
<ssential !or*s of 9oucault( =ol) 5 0<d( Aabinow( P)2 Penguin %oo*s( 1ondon pp)
58:-5;3)
9oucault Michel 02000a2 L5;2M `Michel 9oucault` 0Cnterviewed by Aiggins( ?)2 Cn Aabinow(
P) 0ed2( Et$ics : sub;ecti"ity and trut$( The <ssential !or*s of 9oucault( =ol) 5(
Penguin %oo*s( 1ondon pp) 525-5//)
9oucault Michel 02000b2 L5;2M `?e#( Power( and the Politics of Cdentity` 0Cnterviewed by
Ballagher( %) !ilson( A)2 Cn Aabinow( P) 0ed2( Et$ics : sub;ecti"ity and trut$: #$e
Essential /or,s o. Foucault( =ol) 5( Penguin %oo*s( 1ondon pp) 54/-58/)
9oucault Michel 02000c2 L5;2M `Technologies of the ?elf` Cn Et$ics : sub;ecti"ity and trut$(
The <ssential !or*s of 9oucault( =ol) 5 0<d( Aabinow( P)2 Penguin %oo*s( 1ondon
pp) 22/-2:5)
224
9oucault Michel 02000a2 L5;/M `?elf !riting` Cn Et$ics : sub;ecti"ity and trut$( The
<ssential !or*s of 9oucault( =ol) 5 0<d( Aabinow( P)2 Penguin %oo*s( 1ondon pp)
208-222)
9oucault Michel 02000b2 L5;/M I7n the Benealogy of <thics6 an 7verview of !or* in
ProgressJ Cn Et$ics : sub;ecti"ity and trut$( The <ssential !or*s of 9oucault( =ol) 5
0<d( Aabinow( P)2 Penguin %oo*s( 1ondon pp) 2:/-2;0)
9oucault Michel 020002 L5;3M `!hat is <nlightenment$` Cn Et$ics: 1ub;ecti"ity and #rut$(
The <ssential !or*s of 9oucault( =ol) 5 0<d( Aabinow( P)2 Penguin %oo*s( 1ondon
pp) /0/-/5)
9oucault Michel 020002 L5;:M `The %attle for "hastity` Cn Et$ics : sub;ecti"ity and trut$(
The <ssential !or*s of 9oucault( =ol) 5 0<d( Aabinow( P)2 Penguin %oo*s( 1ondon
pp) 5;:-58)
9oucault Michel 020022 L58/M `Truth and Duridical 9orms` Cn Po0er( The <ssential !or*s of
9oucault( =ol) / 0<d( 9aubion( D) D)2 Penguin %oo*s( 1ondon pp) 5-;)
9oucault Michel 020022 L58M `9or an <thic of Discomfort` Cn Po0er( The <ssential !or*s
of 9oucault( =ol) / 0<d( 9aubion( D) D)2 Penguin %oo*s( 1ondon pp) 33/-33;)
9oucault Michel 020022 L5;2M `The ?ub,ect and Power` Cn Po0er( The <ssential !or*s of
9oucault( =ol) / 0<d( 9aubion( D) D)2 Penguin %oo*s( 1ondon pp) /24-/3;)
9oucault Michel 0200/2 L5M &bnormal : lectures at t$e *ollIge de FranceJ 1)%4=1)%( 0tr6
%urchell( B)2( Picador( New Qor*
9oucault Michel 0200:2 L2005M #$e $ermeneutics o. t$e sub;ect : lectures at t$e *ollIge de
FranceJ 1)-1=1)-2 0tr6 %urchell( B)2( Palgrave-Macmillan( New Qor*
9oucault Michel 020042 L545M #$e 6istory o. 2adness 0tr6 Murphy( D) @halfa( D)2( Aoutledge(
1ondon
9oucault Michel 020042 L200/M Psyc$iatric Po0er: lectures at t$e *ollFge de France
1)%3=1)%4 0tr6 %urchell( B)2( Palgrave Macmillan( New Qor*
9oucault Michel 02008a2 L5;0M I?ub,ectivity and TruthJ Cn #$e Politics o. #rut$(
?emiote#t0e2 0<d( 1otringer( ?)2 MCT Press( "ambridge( Mass) pp)538-548)
9oucault Michel 02008b2 L5;0M I"hristianity and "onfessionJ Cn #$e Politics o. #rut$(
?emiote#t0e2 0<d( 1otringer( ?)2 MCT Press( "ambridge( Mass) pp)54-55)
9oucault Michel 020082 L50M `!hat is "riti.ue$` Cn #$e Politics o. #rut$( ?emiote#t0e2 0<d(
1otringer( ?)2 MCT Press( "ambridge( Mass) pp) 35-;5)
9oucault Michel 020082 L2003M 1ecurityJ territoryJ population : lectures at t$e *ollIge de
FranceJ 1)%%=1)%- 0tr6 %urchell( B)2( Palgrave Macmillan( New Qor*
9oucault Michel 0200;2 3e 7ou"ernement de 1oi et des &utres: *ours au *ollIge de France
81)-2=1)-39J >autes Rtudes( BallimardS?euil( Paris
9oucault Michel 02002 3e *ourage de la 4FritF : 3e 7ou"ernement de soi et des autres >> :
*ours au *ollIge de France 81)-3=1)-49( >autes Rtudes( BallimardS?euil( Paris)
9oucault Michel and "homs*y Noam 0582 L583M `>uman Nature6 Dustice versus Power`
0Cnterviewed by <lders( 9)2 Cn Davidson( A) C) 0ed2( Foucault and $is >nterlocutors(
University of "hicago Press( "hicago pp) 508-53:)
228
9oucault Michel( et al) 05;;2 #ec$nologies o. t$e sel. : a seminar 0it$ 2ic$el Foucault(
University of Massachusetts Press( Amherst
9reud ?igmund 020022 L50:M #$e ;o,e and its relation to t$e unconscious 0tr6 "ric*( D)2J
Penguin classics( Penguin( 1ondon K New Qor*( N)Q)
9ried Michael 020082 `Deff !all( !ittgenstein( and the <veryday`J *ritical >n:uiryJ %%2
3:-:24)
9rGyshov ?tig A 0200:2 `%Gnnens pra*sis i den egyptis*e Gr*enmonastisismen 6 en
innledende studie`J !ors, #eologis, #idss,ri.tJ 1312 538-54)
9rGyshov !enche =alentina ?tray 0200/2 `@risti dFrer`J O"er &lt2 32-3)
Barfield ?imon 020052( `9roc* Tactics` Cnterview in #$e Obser"er 28S0:S2005
Boodchild Philip 020022 *apitalism and religion : t$e price o. piety( Aoutledge( 1ondon
Boodchild Philip 0200:2 `"apital and @ingdom6 an <schatological 7ntology` Cn #$eology
and t$e Political: #$e !e0 'ebate( ?C" 0<ds( Davis( ")( Milban*( D) Zi[e*( ?)2 Du*e
University Press( Durham and 1ondon pp) 528-5:2)
Borainoff Crina 05;/2 3es .ols en *$rist dans la tradition ort$odo5eJ ThRophanie) <ssais(
DesclRe De %rouwer( Paris
Bould Braham 05/2 #$e desert .at$ers on monastic communityJ 7#ford early "hristian
studies( "larendon Press( 7#ford
Bregorius Magnus( #$e +oo, o. Pastoral Rule 03iber Regul< Pastoralis - trSed6 %armby( D)(
5;:2( in ?chaff( P) !ace( >) 0eds2( 3eo t$e 7reat and 7regory t$e 7reat( Nicene and
Post-Nicene 9athers CC)PCC( TTT "lar*( <dinburgh
>adot Pierre 05:2 P$ilosop$y as a 0ay o. li.e : spiritual e5ercises .rom 1ocrates to
Foucault 0tr6 "hase( M)2( %lac*well( Malden( MA
>adot Pierre 020022 L5:M /$at is ancient p$ilosop$yS 0tr6 "hase( M)2( >arvard University
Press( "ambridge( Mass)
>aldon Dohn 020022 `>umour and the everyday in %y&antium` Cn 6umourJ 6istory and
Politics in 3ate &nti:uity and t$e Early 2iddle &ges 0<d( >alsall( B)2 "ambridge
University Press( "ambridge pp) 3;-82)
>annon Niel( 0582 `Cn Pursuit of >appiness`( at http6SSwww)thedivinecomedy)comS$
pageaidO2/balbum?hort( accessed 08S0/S0;
>armless !illiam 020002 `Aemembering Poemen Aemembering6 The Desert 9athers and the
?pirituality of Memory`J *$urc$ 6istoryJ 102 3;/-:5;)
>arrison "arol 0522 +eauty and re"elation in t$e t$oug$t o. 1aint &ugustineJ 7#ford
theological monographs( "larendon PressK 7#ford University Press( 7#ford( New
Qor*
>arrison "arol 020042 `De Doctrina "hristiana`J !e0 +lac,.riarsJ 8,2 525-5/5)
>ieronymus( 3etters 0epistula - trSed6 9remantle( !) >)( 1ewis( B) Martley( !) B)( 5;22( in
?chaff( P) 0ed2( #$e Principle /or,s o. 1t. Merome( Nicene and Post-Nicene 9athers
2-04( TTT "lar*( <dinburgh
>ieronymus( #$e 3i.e o. Paul t$e 6ermit 0"ita 1ancti Pauli Eremitae ' trSed6 9remantle( !)
>)( 1ewis( B) Martley( !) B)( 5;22( in ?chaff( P) 0ed2( #$e Principle /or,s o. 1t.
Merome( Nicene and Post-Nicene 9athers 2-04( TTT "lar*( <dinburgh)
22;
>unter Can 0542 `Assembling the ?chool` Cn Foucault and Political Reason 0<ds( %arry(
A)( 7sborne( T) Aose( N)2 Aoutledge( 7#ford pp) 53/-544)
Cvanov ?) A) 020042 L53M 6oly .ools in +y?antium and beyond 0tr6 9ran*lin( ?)2J 7#ford
studies in %y&antium( 7#ford University Press( 7#ford K New Qor*
C&&ard <ddie 05;2 'ress to Eill( ?an 9rancisco( Universal Pictures U@
Dohn of the "ross 0502 'ar, nig$t o. t$e soul 0tr6 Peers( <) A)2( Cmage %oo*s( Doubleday(
New Qor*
Dulian Norwich 05052 Re"elations o. 'i"ine 3o"e 0tr6 !arrac*( B)2( "hristian "lassics
<thereal 1ibrary
@ant Cmmanuel 0522 L58;5M *riti:ue o. Pure Reason 0tr6 ?mith( N) @)2( Macmillan( 1ondon
@ant Cmmanuel 020082 L58;3M `!as Cst Auf*lcrung$` Cn 2ic$el Foucault: #$e Politics o.
#rut$ 0<d( 1otringer( ?)2 ?emiote#t0e2( 1os Angeles pp) 2-/8)
@ier*egaard ?Gren 05;:2 L5;3/M Fear and trembling 0tr6 >annay( A)2J Penguin classics(
Penguin %oo*s( >armondsworth( New Qor*
@islinger <wald 05;;2 `?ymeon ?alosU >und`J Ma$rbuc$ der Tsterreic$isc$en +y?antinisti,J
%82 54:-580)
@ola*ows*i 1es&e* 020032 L5:M `The Priest and the Dester6 Aeflections on the Theological
>eritage of "ontemporary Thought` Cn Eola,o0s,i: #$e #0o Eyes o. 1pino?a U
Ot$er Essays on P$ilosop$ers 0<d( Danows*i( E)2 ?t) AugustineUs Press( Cndiana pp)
2/-242)
@oyama @osu*e 05;32 2ount Fu;i and 2ount 1inai: & *riti:ue o. >dols( 7rbis %oo*s(
Michigan
@risteva Dulia 05;22 L5;0M Po0ers o. $orror : an essay on ab;ection 0tr6 Aoudie&( 1) ?)2J
<uropean perspectives( "olumbia University Press( New Qor*
@rueger Dere* 0542 1ymeon t$e $oly .ool : 3eontiusNs 3i.e and t$e late anti:ue cityJ The
transformation of the classical heritage K 2:( University of "alifornia Press( %er*eley
1ampe B) !) >) 05452 & Patristic 7ree, le5icon( "larendon( 7#ford K New Qor*
1awless( B) 05;82 &ugustine o. 6ippo and 6is 2onastic Rule( "larendon Press( 7#ford)
1awless( B) 020022 IAugustine+s decentring of asceticismJ in Dodaro( A) and 1awless( B)
0eds2 &ugustine and $is *ritics( 1ondon6 Aoutledge( pp) 532-54/)
1eontius <piscopus Neapolitanus( 4ie de 1ymFon le Fou 0"ita 1ymeonis 1ali - trSed6
9estugiNre( A) D) ed6 AydRn( 1)( 5832( in 9estugiNre( A) D) 0ed2( 4ie de 1ymFon le
Fou P 8et9 4ie de Mean de *$ypre( %ibliothN.ue archRologi.ue et histori.ue :( P)
Beuthner( Paris
1eontius <piscopus Neapolitanus( #$e 3i.e o. 1ymeon t$e Fool 0"ita 1ymeonis 1ali - trSed6
@rueger( D) ed6 9estugiNre( A) D) AydNn( 1)( 542( in @rueger( D) 0ed2( 1ymeon t$e
$oly .ool : 3eontiusNs 3i.e and t$e late anti:ue city( University of "alifornia Press(
%er*eley( 5/5-585
1inge David < 020002 `1eading the 1ife of Angels6 Ascetic Practice and Aeflection in the
!ritings of <vagrius of Pontus`J Mournal o. t$e &merican &cademy o. ReligionJ 182
:/8-:4;)
22
1oss*y =ladimir 05842 #$e mystical t$eology o. t$e Eastern *$urc$( ?t) =ladimirUs
?eminary Press( "restwood( N)Q)
Mar# @arl 05;52 /age 3abour and *apital 0tr6 <ngels( 9)2( the original 5;5 pamphlet
Ma#imus "onfessor( #$e Four *enturies on *$arity 0capitum de caritate :uattuor centuriae -
trSed6 ?herwood( P)( 5::2( in ?herwood( P) 0ed2( 2a5imus t$e *on.essor: #$e ascetic
li.e. #$e .our centuries on c$arity( Ancient "hristian !riters PPC( Newman Press(
!estminster( Md)( 5/4-20;
Mc"abe >erbert 020002 L5;8M 7od mattersJ "ontemporary "hristian Cnsights( Mowbray(
1ondon
McBrath Alister <) 0200/2 & brie. $istory o. $ea"enJ %lac*well brief histories of religion(
%lac*well( Malden
McBushin <dward 9) 020082 FoucaultNs as,Fsis : an introduction to t$e p$ilosop$ical li.e(
Northwestern University Press( <vanston( Cll)
Milban* Dohn 0582 #$e 0ord made strange : t$eologyJ languageJ culture( %lac*well
Publishers( "ambridge( MA
Mill Dohn ?tuart 052 L5;:M On 3iberty( %artleby)com( New Qor*
Mon* Aay 0502 3ud0ig /ittgenstein : t$e duty o. genius( 9ree Press 6 Ma#well Macmillan
Cnternational( New Qor*
Moore B) <) 05322 `A Aeply to My "ritics` Cn #$e P$ilosop$y o. 7. E. 2oore 0<d( ?chilpp(
P)2 Tudor( <vanston pp) :/:-488)
Moschus Dohn( #$e 1piritual 2eado0 0pratum spirituale - trSed6 !ortley( D)( 522 "istercian
?tudies ?eries 5/( "istercian Publications( Michigan
Muers Aachel 020032 Eeeping 7odNs silence : to0ards a t$eological et$ics o. communicationJ
"hallenges in contemporary theology( %lac*well Pub)( Malden( MA
Nehamas Ale#ander 05;2 #$e art o. li"ing : 1ocratic re.lections .rom Plato to FoucaultJ
?ather classical lectures K v) 45( University of "alifornia Press( %er*eley
Niet&sche 9riedrich !ilhelm 05452 L5;;:M #$us spo,e Oarat$ustraP a boo, .or e"eryone and
no one 0tr6 >ollingdale( A) D)2J Penguin classics( Penguin %oo*s( %altimore
Ni*ephoros( #$e li.e o. 1t. &ndre0 t$e Fool 0"ita andreii - trSed6 AydRn( 1)( 5:2 Acta
Universitatis Upsaliensis) ?tudia %y&antina Upsaliensia( Uppsala University K
Alm.vist T !i*sell Cnternational( Uppsala( ?toc*holm
7U1eary Timothy 020022 Foucault : t$e art o. et$ics( "ontinuum( 1ondon K New Qor*
Palladius( #$e 3ausiac $istory 0$istoria 3ausiaca - trSed6 Meyer( A) T)( 54:2 Ancient
"hristian writersK the wor*s of the 9athers in translation /3( Newman Press(
!estminster( Md)(
Pearson Doseph 020052 2ic$el Foucault: Fearless speec$( ?emiote#t0e2 6 LDistributed by MCT
PressM( 1os Angeles
Phan Peter " 020052 `The !isdom of >oly 9ools in Postmodernity`J #$eological 1tudiesJ 1$2
8/0-8:2)
Plutarch( 020042 L5;8;M `>ow to Tell a 9latterer from a 9riend` 0tr6 Tullie2( at
http6SSwww)bostonleadershipbuilders)comSplutarchSmoraliaShowatoatellaaaflattererafr
omaaafriend)htm( accessed 2:S0S0;
2/0
Pyle ?andra D) 05;2 2irt$ and morality o. 1$a,espeareNs $oly .oolsJ ?tudies in %ritish
literature K v) //( <dwin Mellen Press( 1ewiston
Aabbow Paul 05:32 1eelen.V$rungP 2et$odi, der E5er?itien in der &nti,e( @dsel-=erlag(
Menchen(
Aasmussen Mette ?ophia %Gcher 0200:2 `1i*e a roc* or li*e Bod$ The concept of apatheia in
the monastic theology of <vagrius of Pontus`J 1tudia #$eologicaJ (02 538-542)
Aoberts =aughan 020002 'istincti"es( Authentic 1ifestyle( "arlisle
Aompay 1ucas-=an 0532 `The ?yriac version of the `1ife of ?ymeon ?alos` 6 first
soundings` Cn P$ilo$istor: 2iscellanea in 6onorem *. 3aga 1eptuagenarii 0<ds(
?choors( A) =an Deun( P)2 Peeters( 1ouvain pp) /;5-/;)
Aubenson ?amuel 05:2 #$e letters o. 1t. &ntony : monasticism and t$e ma,ing o. a saintJ
?tudies in anti.uity and "hristianity( 9ortress Press( Minneapolis
Aufinus( 6istoria 2onac$orum in &egypto 06istoria 2onac$orum in &egypto - ed6 Migne( D)
P)( 582 Patrologia "ursus "ompletus( ?eries 1atina 25( 54/
AydRn 1ennart 05;52 `The >oly 9ool` Cn #$e +y?antine 1aint( ?tudies ?upplementary to
?obornost( =ol) : 0<d( >ac*el( ?)2 The %emrose Press 1td( 1ondon pp) 504-55/)
?award Dohn 05;02 Per.ect .ools : .olly .or *$ristNs sa,e in *at$olic and Ort$odo5
spirituality( 7#ford University Press( 7#ford K New Qor*
?chopenhauer Arthur( 020032 L50/M `?tudies in Pessimism` 0tr6 ?aunders( %)2( at
http6SSwww)gutenberg)orgSfilesS508/2S508/2-;)t#t( accessed 50S50S0;
?creech M) A) 0582 3aug$ter at t$e .oot o. t$e cross( Allen 1ane( The Penguin Press(
1ondon K New Qor*
?earle Dohn A) 0542 1peec$ acts: an essay in t$e p$ilosop$y o. language( "ambridge U)P)(
1ondon(
?ha*espeare !illiam( 05;2 `Twelfth Night( or !hat Qou !ill`( at
http6SSwww)gutenberg)orgSdirsSete#t;S2ws2;50)t#t( accessed 5S0/S200;
?in*ewic& Aobert <) 0<d)2 0200/2 E"agrius o. Pontus : t$e 7ree, ascetic corpusJ 7#ford
University Press( New Qor* K 7#ford)
?mith Dames @) A) 020022 1peec$ and t$eology : language and t$e logic o. >ncarnationJ
Aadical orthodo#y series( Aoutledge( 1ondon K New Qor*
?orab,i Aichard 020002 Emotion and peace o. mind : .rom 1toic agitation to *$ristian
temptationJ The Bifford lectures( 7#ford University Press( 7#ford K New Qor*
?ymeon the New Theologian 05;02 'iscourses( 0Translated from ?ymeon 54/-: by
de"atan&aro( ") D)2 The "lassics of !estern ?pirituality( Paulist Press( New Qor*)
?ymeon the New Theologian 054/-:2 *atFc$Ises( 0ed6 @rivochRine( %)K tr6 Paramelle( D)2
?ources "hrRtiennes 4( 503( 55/( 1es _ditions du "erf( Paris)
?yr*in Ale#ander Q 05;22 `7n the %ehavior of the `9ool for "hristUs ?a*e``J 6istory o.
ReligionsJ $$2 5:0-585)
Thomas Andrew( 0200/2( &ugustine and 1igns( MA thesis at Department of Theology and
Aeligious ?tudies( University of Durham
Thomas Andrew 02004a2 `Bud som ser`J Eir,e og EulturJ 1112 25-2//)
2/5
Thomas Andrew 02004b2 `Pentecostalism and normali&ation` Cn 1pirits o. globali?ation : t$e
gro0t$ o. Pentecostalism and e5periential spiritualities in a global age 0<d( ?tFlsett(
?) D)2 ?"M Press( 1ondon pp) ?) 540-54)
Thomas Andrew 0200;2 `Bod( =ision and Power6 1oo*ing at %er*eley+s cosmology and
disciplinary power`J 1tudia #$eologicaJ 1$2 ;0-8)
Thomas A.uinas( 1umma #$eologiae 0summa t$eologiae - trSed6 Dominicans( <)( 20042(
"ambridge University Press( "ambridge
Turner Denys 05:2 #$e 'ar,ness o. 7od: !egati"ity in *$ristian 2ysticism( "ambridge
University Press( "ambridge( New Qor*
Turner Denys 020022 IApophaticism( idolatry and the claims of reasonJ in 1ilence and t$e
/ord: !egati"e #$eology and >ncarnation 0eds( Turner( D) and Davies( 7)2
"ambridge University Press( "ambridge( New Qor*( pp) 55-/3
Turner Denys 020032 Fait$J reasonJ and t$e e5istence o. 7od( "ambridge University Press(
"ambridge( New Qor*
Turner Denys 0200;2 IDionysius and some late Medieval mystical theologians of Northern
<uropeJ( 2odern #$eology( $+:+( 4:5-44:)
=erhei,en 1 05832 `1e De Doctrina "hristiana de saint Augustin6 Un manuel
d+hermRneuti.ue et d+e#pression chrRtienne avec( en CC( 5022-3204/2( une Icharte
fondamentale pour une culture chrRtienneJ`J &ugustinianaJ $+2 50-20)
=eyne Paul 0582 L58;M `9oucault Aevolutioni&es >istory` Cn Foucault and $is
>nterlocutors 0<d( Davidson( A) C)2 University of "hicago Press( "hicago pp) 534-5;2)
=ogt @ari 05;82 `1a Moniale 9olle du MonastNre des TabennRsiotes6 Une CnterprRtation du
chapitre /3 de lU>istoria 1ausiaca de Pallade`J 1ymbolae OsloensesJ 1$2 :-50;)
!ard %enedicta 0<d)2 058:2 #$e sayings o. t$e 'esert Fat$ers : t$e alp$abetical collectionJ
Mowbrays( 1ondon)
!ard %enedicta 0<d)2 0200/2 #$e 'esert Fat$ers : sayings o. t$e early *$ristian mon,s
8#ranslated .rom t$e 3atin9J Penguin %oo*s( 1ondon K New Qor*)
!are @allistos Timothy 05;2 `The meaning of `Pathos` in Abba Csaias and Theodoret of
"yrus`J 1tudia PatristicaJ 442 /5:-/22)
!are @allistos Timothy 020002 `The 9ool in "hrist as Prophet and Apostle` Cn #$e inner
,ingdom ?t) =ladimirUs ?eminary Press( "restwood( NQ)
!ilde 7scar( 020082 L55/M `de profundis`( at http6SSwww)gutenberg)orgSfilesS25S25-
hS25-h)htm( accessed
!illiams Aowan 05;2 `1anguage( Aeality and Desire in Augustine+s De Doctrina`J
3iterature and #$eologyJ %2 5/;-5:0)
!illiams Aowan 05/2 `MacrinaUs Deathbed Aevisited6 Bregory of Nyssa on Mind and
Passion` Cn *$ristian Fait$ and 7ree, P$ilosop$y in 3ate &nti:uity: Essays in #ribute
to 7eorge *$ristop$er 1tead 0<ds( !ic*ham( 1) A) %ammel( ") P)2 < D %rill( New
Qor* pp) 228-234)
!illiams Aowan 020002 On c$ristian t$eologyJ "hallenges in contemporary theology(
%lac*well Publishers( 7#ford( U@
2/2
!illiams Aowan 0200:2 /$y study t$e pastS: t$e :uest .or t$e $istorical c$urc$J ?arum
theological lectures( Darton( 1ongman and Todd( 1ondon
!ittgenstein 1udwig 05452 L525M #ractatus logico=p$ilosop$icus 0tr6 Pears( D) 9)
McBuinness( %) 9)2( Aoutledge T PaulK >umanities Press( 1ondon( New Qor*(
!ittgenstein 1udwig 05/2 L5//M `Philosophy` Cn P$ilosop$ical Occasions 1)12=1)(1
0<ds( @lagge( D) ")( Nordmann( A) Nyman( >)2 >ac*ett( Cndianapolis pp) 5:;-5)
!ittgenstein 1udwig 05;2 L588M *ulture and "alue: & 1election .rom t$e Post$umous
Remains 0tr6 !inch( P)2( %lac*well Publishing( 7#ford
!ittgenstein 1udwig 020052 L5:/M P$ilosop$ical in"estigations 0tr6 Anscombe( B) <) M)2(
Macmillan( New Qor*(
!right N) T) 0542 Mesus and t$e "ictory o. 7odJ "hristian origins and the .uestion of Bod K
v)2( ?P"@( 1ondon
Zi[e* ?lavo, 020052 On belie.J Thin*ing in action( Aoutledge( 1ondon K New Qor*
Zi[e* ?lavo, 0200:2 `The `Thrilling Aomance of 7rthodo#y`` Cn #$eology and t$e Political:
#$e !e0 'ebate( ?C" 0<ds( Zi[e*( ?)( Milban*( D) Davies( ")2 Du*e University Press(
Durham( U?A pp) :2-85)
Eosimas( #$e Re.lections o. &bba Oosimas 0allo:uia - trSed6 "hryssavgis( D)( 20032( ?1B
Press( 7#ford