Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Evagrius of Pontus:
An Answer to Constantinople
JOEL KALVESMAKI
The De fide or Epistula fidei by Evagrius is widely thought to have been
written from Constantinople around 381 to Christians back home in Pontus.
In this article, I revive and refine a thesis advanced in 1923 by Melcher, that
the letter was written in fact to Constantinople, after Evagrius fled the city
in 382. Building on Melchers insights, I argue that Evagrius wrote the letter
from Jerusalem or Egypt, as a monk, sometime in 383 or later. Thus, the letter
is not really a defense of his actions, even though he explains why he fled
Constantinople. It is rather a pastoral letter, draped in the spiritual and intellectual mantle of Gregory of Nazianzusan attack on the heresies in the city
and a demonstration to the orthodox of a higher epistemology. Revising the
date and audience of the Epistula fidei permits new insights into the development of Evagriuss theology, the state of Constantinople under Nectarius, and
the contested inheritance of Gregory of Nazianzus.
For the hypothesis developed in this article I owe a debt of gratitude to Fr. Theophanes (Constantine) of Mount Athos. He first suggested that there were problems
with the authorship and dating of the Epistula fidei, and his insights, even those I
found wanting, catalyzed my research. I also thank Robin Darling Young, Augustine
Casiday, and the anonymous reviewers of this journal for their constructive candor.
Mentions of Frankenberg and Gribomonts editions refer, respectively, to Euagrius
Ponticus, ed. Wilhelm Frankenberg, Abhandlungen der Kniglichen Gesellschaft der
Wissenschaften zu Gttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, n.s. 13.2 (Berlin: Weid
mann, 1912), 62034, and Epistula 8, ed. Jean Gribomont, in Basil of Caesarea, Le
lettere, ed. Marcella Forlin Patrucco (Torino: Societ editrice internazionale, 1983),
1:84112. Modern scholars use two systems of numbering for the letter, both of which
are followed here, unless line numbers are crucial, in which case Gribomonts numbering is followed. For Gregory of Nazianzuss Orations, I have followed Discours,
ed. Jean Bernardi et al., SC 247, 250, 270, 284, 309, 318, 358, 384, 405 (Paris: ditions du Cerf, 19781992).
Journal of Early Christian Studies 20:1, 113139 2012 The Johns Hopkins University Press
Kalvesmaki/Epistula Fidei115
fled the city in 382. Building on Melchers insights, I argue that Evagrius
wrote the letter from Jerusalem or Egypt, as a monk, sometime in 383 or
later. Thus, the letter is not really a defense of his actions, even though he
explains why he fled Constantinople. It is rather a pastoral letter, draped in
the spiritual and intellectual mantle of Gregoryan attack on the heresies
in the city and a demonstration to the orthodox of a higher epistemology.
Revising the date and audience of the Epistula fidei permits new insights
into the development of Evagriuss theology, the state of Constantinople
under Nectarius, and the contested inheritance of Gregory of Nazianzus.
Melcher and the Preamble
Modern understanding of the letter owes much to the 1923 scholarship of
Bousset and Melcher, who were essential in recovering what was forgotten sometime after the sixth century, that Evagrius was the author.5 Both
scholars extensively used the preamble of the Epistula fidei to rehabilitate
the author and explain the circumstances for the writing of the letter. That
preamble (and a bit more) runs as follows:6
Boussets opinion, that Evagrius wrote the letter as a display of theological prowess while under the tutelage of Gregory in Constantinople, has
shaped all subsequent ones. And his implausible suggestion that Evagrius
first became a monk in Caesarea is still widely circulated.12 Influential too
7. The entire quote derives from Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 36.1 (SC 318:240),
even though the opening words are found in many rhetorical treatises. See Gribomonts edition and Leonardo Lugaresi, Non disprezziamo leconomia: Linflusso del
pensiero teologico di Gregorio Nazianzeno sullEpistula fidei, in Bettiolo, LEpistula
fidei, 87143, 90 n. 8.
8. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 2.6 (SC 247:94).
9. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 2.6 (SC 247:94).
10. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 2.1 (SC 247:86).
11. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 2.6 (SC 247:94).
12. Bousset, Apophthegmata, 33537. Many have held that Basil made Evagrius a
monk, but this theory is poorly supported, based only on a letter whose recipient was
incorrectly identified as Basil; cf. Guillaumont, Philosophe, 28. Further, as pointed out
to me by Fr. Theophanes (Constantine) of Mount Athos (personal communication,
Kalvesmaki/Epistula Fidei117
2007), such a scenario would require becoming a monk twice, unattested then. If
Evagrius did become a monk anew in Jerusalem, one would expect Palladius to mention it. Instead, he reports that Melania encouraged Evagrius to make the monastic
life his goal (see Palladius, H. Laus. 38.9). If he were a delinquent monk, she should
have encouraged him to return to his discipline.
13. Melcher, Achte Brief, esp. 79, 7378.
his sexual temptation and his attempts to conquer it, accomplished only
after he had fled the city and entered the monastic ranks.
Elsewhere in the letter, Melcher notes, Evagrius commands his readers
to give an account of his teaching and to bear fruit. That is, he exerts his
spiritual authority and seems to outrank his readers, another important
contextual clue. Yet in the preamble and section 4, Evagrius speaks to his
divinely noble leaders, to whom he owes some explanation for his conduct. The preamble strikes a tone of deference, not of authority. So is the
writer above or below his readers in the ecclesiastical hierarchy? In most
letters this would be a puzzle. But Melcher argues that it is quite fitting,
given Evagriuss prominent but problematic standing. The discrepancy is
resolved by entertaining this scenario: Evagrius the renegade archdeacon
wrote the letter to the Constantinopolitans in 382 or later, after he fled
the city, both to account for his actions and to hold his brothers accountable for theirs.
Melcher entertains one very strong objection to his theory: how could
Evagrius claim in the letter to have found Gregory? Palladius mentions
nothing about Evagrius spending time with Gregory of Nazianzus after his
departure from Constantinople. Melcher answers that this is probably due
to the brevity of Palladiuss report. He inverts the objection: wouldnt it be
very strange if Evagrius, in the throes of the biggest crisis of his life, did not
have immediate recourse to the man he trusted most? It would be logical
to expect Evagrius to have spent some time in Nazianzus before going on
to Jerusalem. Or, if that is unconvincing, perhaps we should take seriously
the passing remark in Socrates history (H. e. 4.23.9499) that Evagrius
traveled to Egypt with Gregory, who introduced him to the local monks.
Rather than scrutinize the historical details and deal with concomitant problems, Melcher uses his hypothesis to re-imagine the relationship
between Evagrius and Gregory. He points out that Gregory, who ordained
him archdeacon and included him in his last will and testament, always
prized Evagriuss intellect. And we know from Palladius that Evagrius
had excellent writing skills. So perhaps he was Gregorys personal secretary. Maybe while in Egypt he was instrumental in editing Gregorys orations. After all, who in Gregorys circle was more suited to this task than
Evagrius?14 In the preamble of Epistula fidei, there are inexact quotations
from Gregorys orations. Perhaps these are not so much incorrect quotations as pre-edited versions of the orations.
Melchers hypothesis is incredible, in both senses. But its one kindbold
inventivenessis overshadowed by the otherunbelievable speculation.
14. Reinforced by three extant letters (12, 23, and 46) from Evagrius to Gregory.
Kalvesmaki/Epistula Fidei119
Kalvesmaki/Epistula Fidei121
quotations implies that the recipients knew Gregorys orations well. The
first two words echo numerous classical speeches
going back to Isocrates, and they signal to any rhetorically educated audience that a quote that should be familiar to them is about to follow. From
the third word onward
(Gribomont 1.13) Evagrius quotes (with some modification)
the opening of Gregorys landmark Oration 36, delivered in November
or December 380, after Emperor Theodosius installed him in the Church
of the Holy Apostles. In that oration, Gregory answered both detractors who accused him of seeking the episcopal throne and, especially, his
ardent supporters. Gregory begins: I am mystified. What in the world
have my sermons done to you? How can you have been so taken with the
sound of my voice, the voice of a stranger and one that is perhaps weak
and devoid of all charm, that you give me the impression of being drawn
to us like iron to a magnet?21
Comparison with the Epistula fidei is revealing. Common to both texts
is an awkward relationship between speaker and audience. In both, the
audience fawns over the speaker.22 In both, the speaker resists the acclaim.
But whereas Gregory says that his audience has been unduly dazzled by his
words, Evagrius says that he himselfnot his wordshas affected his readers. Evagrius associates wordsthe words of persuasionwith his audience.23 So he identifies himself with Gregory, putting himself in his place,
but expresses amazement that he is receiving the same level of attention,
even without polished words. By quoting from Oration 36 Evagrius asks
the Constantinopolitans to treat him as they would Gregory. And he signals that the Epistula fidei will cover material comparable to Oration36,
where Gregory clarifies his motives and admonishes his audience to the
21. Trans. Martha Vinson, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Select Orations, FC 107
(Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2003), 220.
22. This is emphasized in the Syriac. Where our text reads
(Gribomont 1.12), the Syriac reads w'Ro = a= K (Frankenberg 620.12),
which suggests a slightly different underlying Greek, e.g.,
. The insertion may seem grating, but in other parts of the quote Evagrius has
changed Gregorys wording to introduce alliteration and assonance, which Lugaresi
(Non disprezziamo leconomia, 90) takes as a sign of rhetorical inferiority. Perhaps
this was intentional, to make clear he was evoking, but subordinate to, Gregory and
his beautiful rhetoric.
23. Our Greek text reads (Gribomont 1.3). The Syriac
text reads w'Ro =' w'Ro == o' (Frankenberg 620.3), suggesting a Greek text that emphasized persuasion, e.g., .
Kalvesmaki/Epistula Fidei123
orthodox faith and a virtuous life. And he indirectly warns his audience
not to expect such lofty rhetoric as Gregory delivered.
The next quote from Gregory is prompted by the subject of exile. It may
be tempting to take Evagriuss claim to be a refugee as merely a literary
trope, not necessarily corresponding to actual events.24 But the metaphor of
fugitive seems to have been raised originally by his respondents. We see in
section 1 the echoes of the original letter, something like: Remember your
friends, return to the homeland you have fled. So he formally marks a new
section in the preamble by embracing the insinuation that he is a fugitive,
and he turns to Oration 2.25 Gregory had delivered this oration in 362,
when he played the part of a repentant runaway and returned to accept his
priestly responsibilities in Nazianzus. While circulating in Constantinople
in the early 380s, the oration would have invited the Constantinopolitans
to put themselves in the place of the congregation of Nazianzus. Gregory
explains his disobedience: And now you may learn the reasons for this,
which you have long wanted to hear. First and foremost, I was smitten by
something unexpected and could not keep hold of my thoughts, as happens
when by sudden noises people are utterly taken by surprise.... Furthermore, a certain love for the good of quiet and of withdrawal overtook
me.26 The ellipses mark where Evagrius has inserted another passage of
the same oration, but from its beginning. There, concerning his revolt and
cowardice, Gregory says, Fleeing, I traveled far away and have dwelt for
some time away from you.27
Once again, the parallels would have been unmistakable to the Constantinopolitans. In both texts, the congregation beckons their renegade
clergyman to return. In both cases, the clergyman asks for understanding. Each speaker pleads that he is seeking something his audience cannot provide. The excuses differ: Gregory appeals directly to withdrawal
and retirement whereas Evagrius appeals to doctrine and its underlying
philosophy. In the Epistula fidei this alteration serves a double purpose.
It gently criticizes the city for not being a suitable place to study, without
hindrance, godly philosophy, and it once again anticipates the letters content, which focuses on the correct interpretation of Scripture.
24. See Lugaresi, Non disprezziamo leconomia.
25. The formal break in the prologue is especially noticeable in the Syriac. Where
we have (in the phrase [Gribomont 1.67]), the Syriac reads ==o u oR' (Frankenberg 620.6), suggesting
a Greek original of . This opening clause is answered by the close
of the prologue: (Gribomont 1.2223).
26. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 2.6 (SC 247:94; my translation).
27. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 2.1 (SC 247:86).
The quotation technique suggests not that Evagrius was working with a
pre-edited version of Gregorys orations but that he shaped the quotations
to cloak himself in Gregorys mantle. Evagrius could have left the sustained
quotation from Gregorys Oration 2.6 (the one with ellipses) unbroken.
But he jumped to the beginning of the oration and back again, to insert
the claim to being a longtime refugee. Evagrius draws from different parts
of the same oration to isolate three discrete events from his own life: the
sudden blow, the lengthy flight from his readers, and the yearning for godly
philosophy. As Melcher has noted, all three descriptions suit Evagriuss
flight from Constantinople. And by describing these three events in Gregorys words, Evagrius tries to disarm his readers, asking them to approach
him in his absence as they would Gregory in his. He casts himself as his
master, and his readers as his flock.
The rest of the letter is full of Gregorys thought and writings, indirectly and directly invoked. To cover every case would go beyond the
limits of this article. But the penultimate reference to Gregorys orations,
rarely noticed, is especially illuminating. In his peroration (Epistula fidei
12/3640), Evagrius discusses several topics not directly related to heretical teachings. At one point (12/38) he answers a criticism, the only time
in the letter where he does not portray a particular opponent as a heretic:
Let no one protest by saying to me, You are philosophizing to us about
a bodiless and altogether immaterial being, though you are ignorant of the
things at your feet ( [Gribomont 12.20]). The proverb
(the second set of italics) was as old as Plato, but Gregory had used it to
special effect in his second theological oration.28 Denigrating theological
banter that was mere philosophy, Gregory had included the saying to critique those who had treated God like the fifth element, as being bodiless
and immaterial (cf. the first set of italics).29 The parallel suggests that
Evagrius was answering orthodox critics who had or might have accused
him of violating the theological method Gregory set down in Oration 28.
That is, the audience of the Epistula fidei regarded Gregorys epistemol28. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 28.29, citing Plato, Theaetetus 175b6, quoted
often, e.g., Lucian, Pseudologista 2.14, Iamblichus, Protrepticus 75.1, Eusebius, P. e.
12.29.11.3. The saying was frequently attached to Thales, typifying the philosopher
unaware of where he was walking: John Stobaeus, Anthology 2.1.22. Bunge suggests a
loose connection between this section of the Epistula fidei and Gregory of Nazianzus,
Or. 31.8; indeed the quote recurs there, but the most relevant parallel is in Or. 28.
29. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 28.8 (SC 250:118). Only in the theological orations does Gregory use the paired terms and as criticism. Elsewhere
Gregory uses them as desirable traits: Ep. 6.3 (GCS 53:7), Or. 21 (SC 270:130), Or.
38 (SC 358:120), Or. 45 (PG 36:629).
Kalvesmaki/Epistula Fidei125
hypothesis, that Evagrius wrote the letter from Egypt, sometime after 383.
I even seem to contradict outright the claims that Evagrius makes in the
letter, that he had found Gregory at the time of writing and that he was
requesting a bit more time with him. I grant that this is one way to read
the letter, but it is not the only way. The letters prologue frames its statements about Gregory in a biblical metaphor, and this metaphor is crucial
to reconstructing persons, places, and their relationships.
The metaphor starts with Laban (see 2b in the prologue). Evagrius
asks, who will free him from Esau and lead him to higher philosophy?
Naturally, we understand Gregory to be his Laban as well as his chosen
vessel and deep well. LabanVesselWell: all three images invoke the
story of Jacob, who fled from Esau, arrived at Labans well, and sought
refuge with him (Genesis 2729). Evagrius then dwells on other matters
(3b), but returns to the Jacob allegory immediately after the prologue,
where he admonishes his noble leaders to beware the shepherds of the Philistines, lest they plug up the wells they have dug (4). This refers to the
youth of Esau and Jacob (Genesis 26), when Isaac (and therefore Esau)
had to move his family every time his enemies, the Philistines, stopped up
the wells Abraham originally dug.31
Some of the symbolism in the allegory is obvious. Jacobthe exile and
fugitiveis Evagrius, who states at the outset that he is a refugee (1).
Laban, with whom is the pure, deep well of godly philosophy, is Gregory.
Evagrius is quite direct about both symbols. But what about his audience?
Where do they appear in this allegory? Although not explicit, the answer
is strongly implied. At one point, they are Esau, from whom Jacob fled;
at another, they are Isaac, who struggled constantly to keep his ancestral
wells pure. So Evagrius casts his readers as Isaac-Esau, the compound
symbol of Jacobs lost home, the symbol of those who struggled to retain
the inheritance to the promised land.
The allegory permeates Evagriuss contrast between cities and the society
of holy men. Set as it is in the Jacob allegory, the contrast associates city
life with Isaac-Esau; the society of holy men is life with Laban. Evagriuss
readers are on the civilized inside, with Isaac and Esau; Evagrius is with
Gregory on the periphery, at Labans wells. His readers constantly struggle with polluted wells of hereticsan apt description of the theological
tumult in Constantinople in the 370s and 380s. The pure well of doctrine
is with Gregory, who wanders in the readers hinterland.
31. Evagrius was probably familiar with Origens exegesis of Genesis 29. See Ghin,
Place de la Lettre, 40.
Kalvesmaki/Epistula Fidei127
Gribomont
Topic
13
Preamble
413
4
58
23
2.116
2.1746
3.111
1013
3.1153
1429
1415
1618
1926
49
4
5
67
27
28
29
8.17
8.723
9
3035
3032
1011
10
3335
11
3. On the Spirit
Ps 118(119).91: All things are your servants (against
the Pneumatomachians)
Affirmation of the divinity of the Spirit
3640
12
Peroration
2. On the Son
John 6.57: I live through the Father
John 14.28: My Father is greater than I
Matt 24.36: He does not know the day or the hour
of judgment
Prov 8.22: The Lord has created me
1 Cor 15.28: The submission of the Son to the Father
John 5.19: The Son can do nothing of himself
Kalvesmaki/Epistula Fidei129
36. Ps.-Basil, Eun. 4 and 5 were written ca. 36263 by an indeterminate author
against a full range of heresies. See Franz Xaver Risch, Pseudo-Basilius adversus
Eunomium IVV: Einleitung, bersetzung und Kommentar (Leiden: Brill, 1992),
1318, and Thomas Bhm, Basil of Caesarea, Adversus Eunomium IIII and Ps.
Basil, Adversus Eunomium IVV, Studia Patristica 37 (2001): 2026. Book 4 starts
with general theological concerns, then turns to explain fifteen Eunomian-favored
Scriptures (85119). All six of the Epistula fideis proof texts are taken up, as well
as three other ancillary verses (Mark 10.18/Luke 18.19, John 17.3, and Matt. 20.23
= Ep. fid. 3.2021, 3.4849, and 7.3839 = Eun. 4.99100, 4.11417, and 4.118).
Ps.-Basil, Eun. 5, like the third part of the Epistula fidei, turns to the Holy Spirit,
featuring, among other texts, Ps 118(119).91. But this structural similarity is offset by
important differences in content, type of argumentation, sequence of the proof texts,
and so forth. The authorship, date, and audience of Trin., sometimes attributed to
Didymus the Blind, is very difficult to determine. See Alasdair I. C. Heron, Studies
in the Trinitarian Writings of Didymus the Blind: His Authorship of the Adversus
Eunomium IVV and the De Trinitate (PhD diss., Tbingen, 1972), who assigns the
text to Didymus in the 390s. This late date should not be surprising, since Cyril of
Alexandria addressed the same range of Scriptures in the second decade of the fifth
century, in his Thes. and Dial. Trin.
37. Ibora was near Annisa, where Basil and his sister, Macrina, established a monastic retreat. See Anna Silvas, The Asketikon of St Basil the Great (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2005), xviiixix, 44, 6168.
Kalvesmaki/Epistula Fidei131
the terminus for many a modern study on the Nicene Trinitarian controversies. The groups addressed in the letter were active in Constantinople
throughout the 380s. Other ecclesiastical events were held at Constantinople in 382 and 383, similar in scope and topic to the one in 381. Invitations to attend a council in 382 went to several orthodox apologists,
including Gregory of Nazianzus (who declined) and Gregory of Nyssa
(who attended).38 In June 383, plans for a debate or council turned into
something more like an essay-writing contest for the emperor, of pivotal
importance in a city whose religious direction was still unpredictable.39
Various factions were required to present their positions and to promise
to adhere to the doctrines of ancient teachers whose authority was universally recognized.40 Each side had to nominate representatives for the
debate. For determining its parameters the principal intellectual force on
the orthodox side was a reader named Sisinniusa Novatian, nominated
by the sectarian bishop, but approved by Gregory of Nazianzuss successor, Nectarius. At the council Demophilus represented the Arians; Eunomius represented his own faction; Eleusis, a bishop of Cyzicus, defended
the Macedonian (Pneumatomachian) position.41 The theological contest
in 383 would have required participants of the finest rhetorical and intellectual caliber, and it is telling that the orthodox in Constantinople had
to rely upon a Novatian as their guiding light. Evagrius had left a gaping
hole. Preparations for the council in 383 would have been a good motive
for Nectarius to woo Evagrius back to represent the orthodox against the
other three parties. Perhaps the Epistula fidei responds to such a petition.
But we need not hold precisely to 383; initiatives could have come even
later because the capital continued to be the center of ecclesiastical competition. Although Theodosius issued edicts in late 383 and into 384, to
forbid the heterodox from assembling, teaching, or ordaining, sectarians
flourished both inside and outside the city walls.42 Eunomius continued to
teach in the suburbs of Constantinople until he was banished a second and
final time in 389. The Arians in the city were so numerous that, in 388,
when a rumor circulated that Theodosius had been killed on campaign
38. McGuckin, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, 375. See Vaggione, Eunomius, 32225,
on the close relationship between the councils of 381 and 382.
39. R. P. Vaggione, Eunomius: The Extant Works (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987),
131. Socrates description of the 383 council is nearly twice the length of that for 381.
40. Vaggione, Eunomius, 32627.
41. Sozomen, H. e. 7.12; Socrates, H. e. 5.10. The accounts indicate only those
who accepted the invitation; presumably others (e.g., residual Photinians) were also
invited. Vaggione, Eunomius, 326.
42. Vaggione, Eunomius, 32930.
against the usurper Maximus, they burned down the residence of the
archbishop Nectarius.43
The Epistula fidei may reflect specific developments in the Eunomian
community that occurred in the mid-380s and the early 390s. According to Sozomen, the divisions among the Eunomianscentered in
Constantinoplefestered and eventually resulted in multiple fractures
after Eunomiuss exile.44 The controversies swirled around two men who
were Eunomiuss disciples. First was Theophronius, who speculated on
Gods knowledge and how God changed through what he knew and didnt.
His only known treatise, On the Functioning of the Mind, used Aristotles Categories and On Interpretation to develop his points. Second was
Eutychius, who also engaged epistemological issues. The debate du jour
concerned Matt 24.36 (But of that day and hour no one knows, not even
the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone).45 Eutychius
maintained that the Son knew the day and the hour because he had from
the Father everything and he was deficient in nothing. Eunomian leaders
rejected Eutychiuss position and this resulted in a schism in the 390s.
One of the longest passages in the Epistula fideiindeed, the fulcrum of
the letterdeals with the proof text in terms Eutychius would have recognized. Evagriuss explanation, which develops his epistemology (discussed
below) advances beyond all previous ones, including that of Gregory.46
And Evagriuss argument elsewhere in the letter against qualities in God
(3/9) is presented in categorical terms any Aristotelian, such as Theophronius, could understand.47
In sum, the Epistula fidei shows an awareness for a broad range of groups
that could be found throughout the 380s, especially in Constantinople.
43. For sources, summary, and analysis, see Vaggione, Eunomius, 35053.
44. Sozomen, H. e. 7.17. See also the briefer account by Socrates, H. e. 5.24. For
analysis see Vaggione, Eunomius, 34446.
45. This is the one proof text of the second part of the Epistula fidei not quoted
by Eunomius in his Apologia.
46. Gregory of Nazianus, Or. 30.1516, treats the verse superficially. Lugaresi,
Non disprezziamo leconomia, 99, calls it una spiegazione piuttosto pover di
questo punto, and argues that, although Evagrius pays respect to Gregorys thought,
he is presenting his own ideas. Certainly, Evagrius departs from earlier apologists for
this verse. See Vaggione, Eunomius: The Extant Works, appendix, s.v. for references.
47. Elsewhere Evagrius shares with Theophronius a lively interest in Aristotles
Categories. See Ghin, Place de la Lettre, 3136.
Kalvesmaki/Epistula Fidei133
Kalvesmaki/Epistula Fidei135
This tripartite schema is inconsistent with the typical bipartite schema used
by Gregory and Basil, who opposed to , monastic to
non-monastic virtues.54 Evagrius follows a different tradition, attested in
Clement of Alexandria and occasionally in Origen,55 but he introduces a
unique terminology, notably his substitution of for . That
Evagrius differs from Gregory and Basil in seeing as an important first stage in contemplation, and not merely what non-monastics do,
suggests that he was at least outside their ambit, if not under new influences, and thinking in new ways about the ascetic life.
The various examples above, none of which involves Trinitarian doctrine,56 show that Evagrius was already indwelling and fashioning an
ascetic-speculative system that went beyond Cappadocian theology. This
in turn questions but does not discredit the traditional view of the Epistula
fidei. But the differences can be better understood and appreciated when
they are regarded as coming from Evagriuss post-Gregory phase.
6. Engagement with Gregory as a Key to
the Unity and Purpose of the Letter
My sixth and final argument for revising the date and audience of the letter revolves around its unity. Under the traditional interpretation it is at
best difficult to identify the unifying thesis (and therefore purpose); with
my hypothesis, it comes into relief.
Questions about the unity of the letter should emerge with the prologue,
which seeks merely to explain his departure. Nothing in the prefatory
phraseology in Evagriuss scholia on these verses, Sch. Prov. 7172. There the ant
is and the bee is ; the understood honeycomb is and the
honey inside it, . If Evagriuss scholia were the workshop for his more polished compositionsthat is, if Evagrius annotated his copies of the Psalms, Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, and so forth, and drew from these as he needed for his other compositionsthen the Epistula fidei postdates at least some of the Sch. Prov.
54. Evagrius Ponticus, Trait pratique, ou, Le moine, ed. Claire Guillaumont and
Antoine Guillaumont, SC 170 (Paris: ditions du Cerf, 1971), 4548.
55. Pierre Hadot, Les divisions des parties de la philosophie dans lAntiquit,
Museum Helveticum 36 (1979): 21819. But Origen more often employs the bipartite
scheme used by the Cappadocians; see Guillaumont, Trait pratique, 4344.
56. Less discrepancy between Evagrius and Gregory is evident in Trinitarian terminology. Evagrius uses key terms such as , , and in a manner
compatible with Gregory. He does not use , , and (but
see 2.29), yet this absence should not detract from the fundamentally similar ways
the two men approach the doctrine of the Trinity, e.g., the concern both have with
numeration. See Lugaresi, Non disprezziamo leconomia.
Kalvesmaki/Epistula Fidei137
knows them. Our knowledge and identity is shaped by this divine knowing and being. Our minds are mired in mud, but as the bodys beauty leads
the mind to appreciate the powers of creation, the mind is led ever upward
and strengthened, eventually to encounter pure divinity. In similar fashion the apostles, who asked Christ when he would restore the kingdom
to Israel (Acts 1.67), were bound by flesh and blood. So Christ responds
that they cannot know such times and seasons, which the Father established by his own authority.
Evagrius draws four words from this passage from Actsauthority,
own, times, and seasonsto adumbrate a theory of knowledge. Times
and seasons are intervals in the highest levels of knowledge, and these are
known only by authorities who are not entangled by the ignorance that
comes from lesser affairs. Evagrius doesnt explain who these authorities
are or what this knowledge is. Instead, he closes the excursus by appealing to the numerical unity Christ prayed for (John 17.21), the numerical
unity that God will effect in the eschaton.
This excursus is unique in anti-Arianizing polemic for approaching a
contested verse with a double explanation, the lower-then-higher exegesis
made famous by Origen. Evagriuss thicker explanation engages ideas
that would have been familiar to his audience from Gregory of Nazianzus and other writers.59 But the higher explanation ascends quickly out
of the mode of traditional exegesis, advancing from christological issues
to human knowing and being in order to impress upon his audience what
awaits them as they strip material chains from their minds. Evagrius uses
Acts 1.67 to transition into a discussion of the metaphysical framework
that governs this interplay of identity and knowledge. The symbols and
concepts he uses in this excursus reappear in his other writings, such as
the Kephalaia gnostica.60 So the excursus is also unique in fourth-century
Trinitarian polemic for inducing readers to adopt a mystical epistemology, to transcend Nicene concerns and put the nous into a loftier mode
of thought.
The three ostensible purposes of the letter compel us to imagine an
audience with three different expectations, one demanding Evagrius to
explain why he ran away, another asking for answers to assorted heresies, and another prepared to engage gnostic theoria. If the traditional
interpretation of the letter is the only one available, one may be inclined,
short of ignoring the discrepancies, to speculate on different layers of
59. See n. 46 for references.
60. See the critical apparatus of Gribomonts edition of 7/2126.
Kalvesmaki/Epistula Fidei139