Bitton-Ashkelony, Brouria - - The Limit of the Mind (NOΥΣ) - Pure Prayer According to Evagrius Ponticus and Isaac of Nineveh

The Limit of the Mind (NOUS): Pure Prayer
according to Evagrius Ponticus and Isaac of Nineveh

Brouria Bitton-Ashkelony
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Department of Comparative Religion,
Faculty of Humanities, Room 6603, Mount Scopus, IL-Jerusalem 91905,
E-Mail: ashkelon@mscc.huji.ac.il
Preliminary considerations
In the seventh century, almost three hundred years after Evagrius Ponti-
cus (345-399) shaped his theory of pure prayer, and far distant from any
direct contact with Greek philosophy and the Evagrian corpus in Greek,
Isaac of Nineveh who was born in the region of modern Qatar and later
settled as a hermit in the mountains of southeastern Iraq, attached to the
monastery of Rabban Shabur questioned the entire issue.1 He was, in
fact, asking an ostensibly simple yet crucial question: What is pure prayer?
For these two authoritative spiritual teachers who certainly merit being
considered among the most original mystical authors of Eastern Christi-
anity the concept of pure prayer (kaqar proseuc; ) is
located at the very center of their ascetic and mystical theory.2 Both authors
1
On Isaac of Nineveh, see E. Khalif-Hachem, Isaac de Niniv, Dictionnaire de spiri-
tualit asctique et mystique 7,2 (Paris, 1971): 2041-2054; Sebastian Brock, Isaac of
Nineveh and Syriac Spirituality, Sobornost: The Journal of the Fellowship of St. Alban
and St. Sergius 7,2 (1975), 79-89; idem, The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual
Life (Cistercian Studies Series 101; Kalamazoo, Mich., 1987), 242-245; Hilarion Alfeyev,
The Spiritual World of Isaac the Syrian (Cistercian Studies Series 175; Kalamazoo,
Mich., 2000). The classic study on Evagrius life and works is Antoine Guillaumont, Un
philosophe au dsert: vagre le Pontique (Textes et Traditions 8; Paris, 2004).
2
On Evagrius concept of prayer, see Irne Hausherr, Les leons dun contemplatif: Le
trait de lOraison dEvagre le Pontique (Paris, 1960); Elie Khalif-Hachem, La prire
pure et la prire spirituelle selon Isaac de Niniv, in Mmorial Mgr Gabriel Khouri-
Sarkis: (1898-1968), fondateur et directeur de lOrient syrien, 1956-1967 (Revue dtudes
et de recherches sur les Eglises de langue syriaque; Louvain, 1969), 157-173; David
Alan Ousley, Evagrius Theology of Prayer and the Spiritual Life, (Ph.D. diss., The
University of Chicago, 1979); Gabriel Bunge, The Spiritual Prayer: On the Trinitarian
Mysticism of Evagrius of Pontus, Monastic Studies 17 (1987): 191-208; Gabriel Bunge,
Das Geistgebet: Studien zum Traktat De oratione des Evagrios Pontikos (Cologne,
1987); Gabriel Bunge, La montagne intelligible: De la contemplation indirecte a la con-
naissance immdiate de Dieu dans le trait De Oratione dvagre le Pontique, Studia
Monastica 42 (2000): 7-26; Columba Stewart, Imageless Prayer and the Theological
ZAC, vol. 15, pp. 291-321 DOI 10.1515/ZAC.2011.15

Walter deBrought
Gruyterto2011
you by | University of Wisconsin - Madison Libraries (University of Wisconsin - Madi
Authenticated | 172.16.1.226
Download Date | 6/22/12 10:42 AM
292 Brouria Bitton-Ashkelony
comprehended pure prayer as a mental state, an art of introspection that

centered on the inner dynamic of the mind (noj; ); thus a
major part of their descriptions of pure prayer is devoted to the nature
and experience of the mind itself.3
For Evagrius and Isaac unlike Origen and Gregory of Nyssa, for
instance using biblical exegesis to describe their theory and practice of
contemplation was not the axis of their work.4 No composition comparable
to Gregory of Nyssas Vita Mosis nor any exegesis on the Song of Songs
can be found among their writings.5 Although spiritual progress and bib-
lical exegesis are intertwined in some of Evagrius writings such as his
Scholia on Psalms, Scholia on Proverbs, and Scholia on Ecclesiastes6 and
although his debt to the contemplative methods of Origen and Clement of
Alexandria should not be ignored, his mystical theory is far better charac-
terized as speculative and philosophical rather than exegetic.7 The essence
of Evagrius mystical theory is epistemological and introspective, built on
the activity of the noj (nous). According to him, the nous is unceasingly
active at various levels of the knowledge of God, from sensitive knowledge
to the experience of pure prayer, which is characterized as immaterial and
Vision of Evagrius Ponticus, JECS 9,2 (2001): 173-204; Guillaumont, Un philosophe

(see note 1), 298-306; Alfeyev, Spiritual World (see note 1), 208-216.
3
On Evagrius doctrine of nous, see Antoine Guillaumont, Les Kphalaia Gnostica
dvagre le Pontique et lhistoire de lOrignisme chez les grecs et chez les syriens (Pa-
tristica Sorbonensia 5; Paris, 1962), 37-43; Julia S. Konstantinovsky, Evagrius Ponticus:
The Making of a Gnostic (Ashgate New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology and
Biblical Studies; Farnham, 2009), especially 77-107 (chapter 4).
4
A brief survey of Evagrius exegetical writings is provided by Guillaumont, Un philosophe
(see note 1), 136-140.
5
For a recent study concerning Gregory of Nyssas mystical exegesis, see Martin Laird,
Gregory of Nyssa and the Grasp of Faith: Union, Knowledge, and Divine Presence (The
Oxford Early Christian Studies Series; Oxford, 2004); Dania Marinov, Exegesis and
Mysticism in Gregory of Nyssas and Ambrose of Milans Commentaries on the Song of
Songs (Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2008).
6
See the insightful discussion on Evagrius contemplative exegesis, also with relation
to prayer, Luke Dysinger, Psalmody and Prayer in the Writings of Evagrius Ponticus
(Oxford Theological Monographs; Oxford, 2005), 62-103. Dysinger (especially page
66) convincingly modifies Paul Ghins opinion (Paul Gehin, ed., vagre le Pontique,
Scholies aux Proverbes [SC 340; Paris, 1987]), 18) that Evagrius entirely subordinated
biblical interpretation to his conception of spiritual life.
7
For Evagrius mystical theory, see Guillaumont, Un philosophe (see note 1), 298-306. In
the light of Guillaumonts discussion, it is difficult to support any longer Hans Urs von
Balthasars well-known statement: There can be no doubt that Evagrius mysticism in its
fully coherent unity is essentially closer to Buddhism than to Christianity. Hans Urs von
Balthasar, Metaphysik und Mystik des Evagrius Ponticus, Zeitschrift fr Askese und
Mystik 14 (1939): 39-40. This view has been rejected also by Bunge, Spiritual Prayer
(see note 2), who stressed the Trinitarian aspect of Evagrius concept of pure prayer. See
also Bernard McGinn, The Foundations of Mysticism: Origins to the Fifth Century (New
York, 1999), 144-157; Andrew Louth, The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition:
From Plato to Denys (Oxford, 1981), 104-113.
Brought to you by | University of Wisconsin - Madison Libraries (University of Wisconsin - Madi

The Limit of the Mind (NOUS) 293
formless knowledge (ulon ka nedeon gnsin).8 Moreover, contemplation

(theoria), for Evagrius, is not possible without prayer, since knowledge and
prayer operate together to awaken the intellectual power of the mind (tn
noern dnamin to no) to the contemplation of divine knowledge.9
Evagrius teaching of pure prayer, as set out in his treatises Chapters
on Prayer,10 Reflections,11 and On Thoughts,12 was one of the most in-
spiring and innovative mystical theories of late antiquity.13 In particular,
his composition Chapters on Prayer, written for an intimate and erudite
friend,14 is among the late antique masterpieces of mystical and philo-
sophical literature and had enormous importance for later Greek and
Syriac writers on contemplative prayer.15 It is worth noting that in the
second half of the fourth century the concept of pure prayer was still
8
For example Evagrius Ponticus, Chapters on Prayer (68, 66-67) (PG 79:1181a-b
Migne).
9
Evagrius Ponticus, Chapters on Prayer 86 (1185c M.).
10
The work was transmitted under the name of Nilus of Ancyra, De oratione (PG 79:1166-
1199 Migne). Following Irne Hausherrs studies, it has long ago been accepted as an
authentic composition of Evagrius: Irne Hausherr, Le De oratione de Nil et Evagre,
Revue dAsctique et de Mystique 14 (1933): 196-198; Irne Hausherr, Le Trait de
lOraison dEvagre le Pontique (Pseudo-Nil), Revue dAsctique et de Mystique 15
(1934): 34-94, 113-171. This article was revised by Irne Hausherr and published in
Revue dAsctique et de Mystique 35 (1959): 2-26; Irne Hausherr, Par del loraison
pure grce une coquille. A propos dun texte dEvagre, in idem, Hsychasme et prire
(Orientalia Christiana Analecta 176; Rome, 1966), (8-12) 9-12 (first published in Revue
dasctique et de mystique 13 [1932]: 185-188). For a full survey regarding the authentic-
ity of Chapters on Prayer, see Guillaumont, Un philosophe (see note 1), 125-127.
11
The Greek text, Skemmata (hereinafter Reflections) was published by Joseph Muylder-
mans, Note additionnelle A: Evagriana, Le Muson: Revue dtudes orientales 44
(1931): 369-383; Joseph Muyldermans, Evagre le Pontique: Les Capita cognoscitiva
dans les versions syriaque et armnienne, Le Muson: Revue dtudes orientales 47
(1934): 73-106. On the composite nature of this text, see Guillaumont, Un philosophe
(see note 1), 131-133; Robert E. Sinkewicz, ed., Evagrius of Pontus: The Greek Ascetic
Corpus: Translation, Introduction, and Commentary (Oxford, 2003), 210-211; William
Harmless and Raymond R. Fitzgerald, The Sapphire Light of the Mind: The Skemmata
of Evagrius Ponticus, Theological Studies 62/3 (2001): 498-529.
12
For the treatise On Thoughts, I used the French edition, Paul Ghin et al., eds. and
trans., vagre le Pontique: Sur les penses (SC 438; Paris, 1998). Sinkewicz (Evagrius
of Pontus, [see note 11], 136-153) provides a discussion on the nature and doctrines of
this text.
13
Stewart (Imageless Prayer [see note 2], 182) suggests viewing these three works as a
trilogy on Evagrius psychodynamics and theology of prayer. Unless otherwise noted,
English translations of these treatises are from Sinkewicz, Evagrius of Pontus (see note
11).
14
Bunge (Spiritual Prayer [see note 2], 197) speculates that Evagrius addressed his treatise
Chapters on Prayer to his teacher, Macarius the Great. John E. Bamberger, transl., Evagrius
Ponticus: The Praktikos, Chapters on Prayer (Cistercian Studies Series 4 [Kalamazoo, Mich.,
1981]), 51) and Sinkewicz (Evagrius of Pontus [see note 11], 184) suggest also Rufinus,
at his monastery in Jerusalem, as a probable addressee. Yet there is no evidence for these
suggestions, as already noted by Guillaumont, Un philosophe (see note 1), 129.
15
For instance, Irne Hausherr, Le De oratione dEvagre le Pontique en syriaque et en
arabe, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 5 (1939): 7-71; Irne Hausherr, Les leons dun
contemplatif (see note 2).

on the periphery of Syriac Christianity. As Sebastian Brock has pointed

out, although the term pure prayer ( ) is not mentioned
in the Greek Bible, it is found in the Peshitta at 1 Chr 16:42.16 Aphrahat
in the mid fourth century mentioned the term in a general discussion on
prayer (Demonstration 1,4; 4,1.4.18.19). While dealing with the concept
of prayer as a replacement for the Temple sacrifices, he asserted that of all
offerings, pure prayer is the most valuable. It seems that the author used
the term pure prayer with a moral connotation, and not to designate a
specific category of contemplative prayer.17 It was Evagrius anticipating
various mystical themes that were later to become prominent in the writ-
ings of Christian intellectuals in the East18 who developed for the first
time the terminology and a comprehensive theory of contemplative prayer,
labeling it pure prayer and inserting it into his complex mystical system.
As Bernard McGinn has stated, Evagrius is undoubtedly one of the major
figures in the history of Christian mysticism, and among the first to make
contemplative prayer the essence of monastic life and thus powerfully link
the forces of monasticism and mysticism.19 The new terminology coined by
Evagrius in these treatises became well known and normative among the
Greek, Latin20 and Syriac authors of late antiquity and beyond.21 Among
16
Sebastian Brock, ed. and trans., Isaac of Nineveh (Isaac the Syrian): The Second Part,
Chapters IV-XLI: Versio (CSCO 555, Scriptores syri 225; Leuven, 1995), 2 (note 2).
17
For a phenomenological and psychological approach to prayer, the standard work remains
Friedrich Heiler, Prayer: A Study in History and Psychology of Religion (New York,
1958). Heiler, however, did not discuss the idea and category of pure prayer.
18
Irne Hausherr, Les grands courants de la spiritualit orientale, Orientalia Christiana
Periodica 1 (1935): 114-138; Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Metaphysics and Mystical
Theology of Evagrius, Monastic Studies 3 (1965): 183-195. Balthasar (183) recognized
that Evagrius is the almost absolute ruler of the entire Syriac and Byzantine mystical
theology, which, through John Cassians writings, influenced Western ascetic and mysti-
cal thought as well.
19
McGinn, Foundations of Mysticism (see note 7), 151.
20
The influence of Evagrius on Cassians teaching has been long ago recognized by scholars.
See, for instance, Owen Chadwicks statement (John Cassian [2nd ed.; Cambridge, 1968],
92): Evagrius was Cassians master. The general ideas which Cassian propagated to the
Latin Church were the general ideas found in Evagrius. In the Institutes or Conferences
there are few leading ideas which cannot find parallels in Evagrius. However, it is only
with Columba Stewarts study on the technique and experience of prayer that the nature
and scope of the Evagrian influence on Cassian is fully traced. Columba Stewart, Cassian
the Monk (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology; Oxford, 1998), especially chapters 5
and 7. Stewart also explored Evagrius schema of eight generic logismoi and its presen-
tation in Cassians teachings. See Columba Stewart, Evagrius Ponticus and the Eight
Generic Logismoi, in In the Garden of Evil: The Vices and Culture in the Middle Ages
(ed. R. Newhauser; Papers in Mediaeval Studies 18; Toronto, 2005), 30-34.
21
See, for example, the use of the Evagrian terminology and concept of pure prayer in the
anonymous text from the sixth or seventh century translated by Brock, Syriac Fathers
(see note 1), 181-184. See also Dadisho, a contemporary of Isaac, On Spiritual Prayer,
in Brock, Syriac Fathers (see note 1), 303-312. See also, Antoine Guillaumont, Les
versions syriaques de loeuvre dEvagre le Pontique et leur role dans la formation du
vocabulaire asctique syriaque, in IIIe Symposium Syriacum 1980 (ed. R. Lavenant;
Orientalia Christiana Analecta 221; Rome, 1983), 35-41.

them was Isaac of Nineveh, whose writings were widely circulated, and
the majority of whose collection of homilies had been translated into
Greek in the monastery of Mar Saba in the Judean Desert by the eighth/
ninth century.22 It is the merit of the works of Irne Hausherr, Antoine
Guillaumont and Sebastian Brock to have shown that Isaac of Nineveh
was profoundly influenced by Evagrius23 whom he mentioned by name,
considered his master, and quoted from in Syriac translation.24
Although Evagrius exercised great spiritual authority over Syriac au-
thors, it would be misguided to think that his model of pure prayer was
readily espoused by the generations that followed. Isaac of Nineveh, who
was among the famous Syriac Christian thinkers to incorporate the termi-
nology and concept of pure prayer into their own contemplative theory,
exposed its philosophical complexity and the intricate way in which it
might be achieved. As a thinker deeply and self-consciously rooted in
the long and multifaceted patristic and Syriac tradition, he was not sim-
ply adopting the Evagrian material.25 Rather, he was rethinking the old
spiritual practice of pure prayer already interwoven into Eastern Christian
thought and practice, seeking to achieve a better understanding of this
mystical category within the whole contemplative process and to remove
any confusion or misunderstanding. Irne Hausherr long ago claimed
that Isaac deviated from Evagrius theory of pure prayer as a result of the
mistranslation of one word.26 While accepting Hausherrs view about the
mistake, Elie Khalif-Hachem has rightly argued that Isaac did not estab-
lish his theory solely on the basis of one word, but was also influenced
by the religious anthropology and teachings of the fifth-century Syriac
22
Sebastian Brock, Syriac into Greek at Mar Saba: The Translation of St. Isaac the Syr-
ian, in The Sabaite Heritage in the Orthodox Church from the Fifth Century to the
Present (ed. J. Patrich; Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta; Leuven, 2001), 201-208.
23
Irne Hausherr, Noms du Christ et voies doraison (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 157;
Rome, 1960), 74-75; Irne Hausherr, Par del loraison (see note 10), passim; Antoine
Guillaumont, Le mystique Syriaque Isaac de Ninive, in idem, Etudes sur la spiritualit
de lOrient chrtien (Spiritualit orientale 66: Monachisme primitif; Bgrolles-en-Mauges,
1996), 211-225; Brock, Isaac of Nineveh, The Second Part: Versio (see note 16), xviii-
xix, xxxviii-xxxix.
24
There is no evidence that Isaac knew Greek, but Evagrius works were available to him
in Syriac. Some of Evagrius writings had been translated into Syriac already in the sixth-
seventh centuries. For example, the first 35 chapters out of 153 of Evagrius On Prayer
are preserved in Syriac translation in a manuscript from the 6th - 7th century. See Joseph
Muyldermans, Evagriana Syriaca: Textes indits du British Museum et de la Vaticane.
(Bibliothque du Muson 31; Louvain, 1952). For Evagrius works available in Syriac and
used in the annotation of Isaacs Second Part, see Brock, Isaac of Nineveh, The Second
Part: Versio (see note 16), xxiv-xxix. Most recently, a list of quotations from Evagrius
works by Isaac is made by Sabino Chial, Evagrio il Pontico negli scritti di Isacco di
Ninive, Adamantius 15 (2009): 73-84.
25
The sources and trends of monastic tradition from which Isaac drew have become clear
thanks to the parallels given by Brock, Isaac of Nineveh, The Second Part: Versio (see
note 16). See also Alfeyev, Isaac the Syrian (see note 1), 32-34.
26
See below, note 114.

author John of Apamea.27 Taking into consideration the entire available

corpus of Isaac including Sebastian Brocks new discovery, the so-called
Second Part,28 which was not available to either scholar, and through a
close comparison of the concepts of Evagrius and Isaac, I shall argue that
at the heart of his approach lies in a singular perspective of what I term
here the experience of the praying nous. Isaac, living in a different
cultural milieu from Evagrius and being less familiar with Greek philo-
sophical language and concepts, was preoccupied with different problems
arising from the spiritual exercise of pure prayer, tackling questions that
did not even occur to Evagrius.29 He was, in fact, working out the tension
between the speculative dimension of Evagrius mystical theory and the
very idea of the contemplative experience. As we shall see, there is a shift
from the Evagrian theoretical discussion of the subject to what seems to
be decisive for Isaac namely, the question of what exactly happens to
self-awareness and what characterizes the minds activity in this state of
prayer. More importantly, unlike Evagrius, Isaac though fascinated by
the idea of pure prayer and immersed in Evagrian terminology ques-
tioned the boundaries of this mystical technique, deliberately envisioning
its predicaments and limits.
The experience of the praying nous
In order to elucidate Isaacs perspective on the matter and his innovative

approach, I shall start by outlining the dynamism of the nous in the process
of pure prayer in the Evagrian theory. Following the prevalent definition
of prayer among such Greek thinkers as Maximus of Tyre, the late second
century orator,30 and Clement of Alexandria,31 Evagrius perceived prayer
27
Khalif-Hachem, La prire pure et la prire spirituelle (see note 2), passim. On John
of Apamea, see Ren Lavenant, Jean dApame: Dialogues et Traits, (SC 311; Paris,
1984), 15-44; Leo van Lejsen, De driedeling van het geestelijk leven bij Johannes van
Apamea, Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 51 (1999): 213-240.
28
The Syriac text of the First Part was edited by Paul Bedjan, Mar Isaacus Ninivita: De
perfectione religiosa (Leipzig, 1909). English translation of the First Part by Arent
Jan Wensinck, Mystic Treatises by Isaac of Nineveh (Verhandelingen der Koninklijke
Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam, Afdeeling Letterkunde N.R., 23,1; Am-
sterdam, 1923).
29
See especially Isaac of Nineveh, The Second Part 15 (On Pure Prayer) (CSCO 554,
Scriptores syri 224, 73-76 Brock). English translation: Brock, Isaac of Nineveh, The
Second Part: Versio (see note 16), 84-87. A first translation of this chapter was published
in 1987 by Brock, Syriac Fathers (see note 1), 293-297.
30
Michael B. Trapp, ed., Maximus Tyrius: Dissertationes (BSGRT; Stuttgart, 1994). English
Translation by Pieter W. van der Horst, Maximus of Tyre on Prayer: An Annotated
Translation of Ei dei eucesqai (Dissertatio 5), in Geschichte Tradition Reflexion:
Festschrift fr Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag 2: Griechische und rmische Religion
(ed. H. Cancik et al.; Tbingen, 1996), 323-338.
31
Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 7,39,6 (SC 428, 140 Le Boulluec); 7,42,1 (146 L.B.).
Alain Le Boulluec, Les Rflexions de Clment sur la prire et le trait dOrigne, in

as homilia (mila), a conversation, with God.32 Despite the similarity in

their definitions of prayer, Evagrius concern regarding prayer was differ-
ent from that of his predecessors in the Greek philosophical milieu. For
instance, Maximus, in his treatise on prayer Should One Pray? posed the
question whether it makes sense to pray, thus questioning the very effi-
cacy of prayer.33 This led him to draw a vigorous distinction between the
prayer of philosophers and that of others: The prayer of others consisted
of asking for something they did not yet have, whereas the prayer of the
philosopher, he claimed, is a conversation (homilia) and a dialogue with
the gods about things that one has, and a demonstration of his virtue.34
By this statement Maximus seeks, mainly, to reduce the apparent futility
of prayer.35 Though early Christian writers embraced such a definition of
prayer, they did not limit the latter kind of prayer to philosophers. Clement
of Alexandria, for his part, discussed the topic of prayer in a polemical
context, as relating to the self-identity of the gnostikos that is, the true
Christian, vis--vis others.36 Origen in his composition On Prayer (writ-
ten around 235) primarily challenges various philosophical objections to
prayer, and provides a commentary on the Lords Prayer, underlining its
communion and ecclesiastical aspects.37 Origen discusses the questions
of what the Christians should pray and how they should pray, all the
while emphasizing the vital intercessional role of the Spirit, grounding
idem, Alexandrie Antique et Chrtienne: Clment et Origne (Collection des Etudes

Augustinennes Srie Antiquit 178; Paris, 2006), 137-149.
32
On Clement of Alexandrias and Maximus of Tyres definition of prayer, see Andr
Mhat, Sur deux dfinitions de la prire, in Origne et la Bible: Actes du Colloquium
Origenianum Sextum, Chantilly, 30 aot 3 septembre 1993 (eds. G. Dorival and A.
Le Boulluec; Origeniana 6; Leuven, 1995), 115-120. See also Kevin Coyle, What Was
Prayer for Early Christians? in Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church 2 (ed. P.
Allen; Queensland, 1999), 25-41.
33
douard des Places, La prire des philosophes grecs, Gregorianum 41 (1960): 253-
72; idem, La religion grecque: Dieux, cultes, rites et sentiment religieux dans la Grce
antique (Paris, 1969), 153-170. Des Places (153) coins the term la prire cultuelle,
which represents for him the prayer of the Greeks in general, stressing the difficulty of
distinguishing between prayer in poetic texts and in philosophical compositions. See also
douard des Places, La prire cultuelle dans la Grce ancienne, Revue des sciences
religieuses 33 (1959): 343-59. For a phenomenological approach to prayer in ancient
Greece see Danile Aubriot-Svin, Prire et conceptions religieuses en Grce ancienne
jusqu la fin du Ve sicle av. J.-C. (Collection de la Maison de lOrient Mditerranen
22, Srie Littraire et philosophique 5; Lyon, 1992), especially the concluding chapter,
497-535; Simon Pulleyn, Prayer in Greek Religion (Oxford Classical Monographs; Ox-
ford, 1997).
34
Maximus of Tyre, Dissertatio 5 (BSGRT, 37-45 Trapp). 5.
35
Jacques Puiggali, Etude sur les Dialexeis de Maxime de Tyr: Conferencier platonicien du
IIe sicle (Atelier National de Reproduction des Thses; Lille, 1983), 266-81.
36
Lorenzo Perrone, Prayer and the Construction of Religious Identity in Early Christian-
ity, Proche Orient Chrtien 53 (2003): 260-288.
37
Origen used prayer as an element of Christian identity in Contra Celsum, as argued by
Lorenzo Perrone in Prayer in Origens Contra Celsum: The Knowledge of God and the
Truth of Christianity, Vigiliae Christianae 55 (2001): 1-19.

his arguments on biblical paradigms rather than on Greek philosophical

language and theory.
With Evagrius, whose main concern was personal religion that is,
the realm of selfhood rather than of institutions the notion of prayer
underwent a radical change. He comprehended prayer as an inner tech-
nique for intensifying self-perception in order to approach the divine; he
thus expanded the philosophical aspect of the definition of prayer, adding
the fundamental notion that prayer is above all the activity of the nous.
In his words: Prayer is a conversation of nous with God ( proseuc
mila st no prj Qen).38 It is difficult to trace the roots of Evagrius
insistence that the mind is the faculty that prays. He was probably
drawing on 1 Cor 14:15, where the Spirit (pnema) and the mind (noj)
appear as the two faculties that pray (I will pray with the Spirit and I
will pray with the mind also; I will sing with the Spirit and I will sing
with the mind also). Origen, who interpreted this verse in his treatise
On Prayer, believed that the words of the saints prayers are filled with
power, especially when, praying with the Spirit, they also pray with the
mind: then the mind is like light rising from the understanding of the
one who prays.39 Origen also linked this verse to Rom 8:26 (What we
ought to pray for as we ought we do not know, but the Spirit makes
special intercession with God with sighs too deep for words), stressing
that the mind would not be able to pray unless the Spirit prayed for it
as if obeying it.40 Despite the fact that in his treatise On Prayer Origen
shares several notions of spiritual exercises with late antique schools
of philosophy,41 he did not develop the concept of contemplative prayer
and the notion of what we might term the praying nous. That was the
significant contribution of Evagrius, who understood prayer as the incen-
tive power of the nous, which arouses the mind to exercise the activity
38
Evagrius Ponticus, Chapters on Prayer 3 (1168c-d M.). On Evagrius terminology of
prayer, see Guillaumont, Un philosophe (see note 1), 298-99. For a discussion on Evagrius
definition of prayer, as well as the definitions of Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of
Nyssa, and Gregory Nazianzus, see Dysinger, Psalmody and Prayer (see note 6), 74. See
also Sinkewicz, Evagrius of Pontus (see note 11), 275 (note 7).
39
Origen, De oratione 12,1 (GCS Origenes 2, 324,13-24 Koetschau): fwt oikti natl-
lonti p tj to ecomnou dianoaj; English translation by Rowania Greer, Origen:
An Exhortation to Martyrdom, Prayer, and Selected Works (The Classics of Western
Spirituality; New York, 1979), 104.
40
Origen, De oratione 2,4 (301,25-303,2 K.). On the role of the Spirit, see Lorenzo Perrone,
La prire des chrtiens selon Origne, in Prires Mditerranennes hier et aujourdhui:
Actes du colloque organis par le Centre Paul-Albert Fvrier Aix-en-Provence les 2 et
3 avril 1998 (eds. G. Dorival and D. Pralon; Aix-en-Provence, 2000), 201-221.
41
As has been claimed by Adele Monaci Castagno, Un invito alla vita perfetta: il PERI
EUCHS di Origene, in Il dono e la sua ombra: Ricerche sul PERI EUCHS di Origene
(ed. F. Cocchini; Atti del I convegno del Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su Origene e la
tradizione Alessandrina 1; Rome, 1997), 117-138.

that is proper to it, as the highest and purest activity and function of the
mind (Chapters on Prayer 83-84).42
Nor can we discern any clear tendency in the Neoplatonic milieu of
the third and fourth centuries to develop a full theory of contemplative
prayer and the praying nous.43 Plotinus, for instance in whose philosophy
prayer plays only a minor role acknowledged in a rare passage relating
to prayer in the Enneads merely this:
Let us speak of it [nous] in this way, first invoking God himself, not in spoken
words, but stretching ourselves out by means of our soul in prayer toward him
(ll t yuc ktenasin autoj ej ecn prj kenon), since this is the way in
which we are able to pray to him, alone to the alone.44
Similarly, Origen explains that one should come to prayer by stretching out
his soul instead of his hands, and straining his mind toward God instead
of his eyes.45 However, the method of prayer that Plotinus describes here
is different from that of Maximus and Clement, who stress the notion of
homilia; prayer here is in the sense of epistrophe, the turning back toward
unification of the second hypostasis the nous with the first hypostasis,
the One. As Michael Atkinson has observed, Plotinus prayer is unification,
and not merely a homilia, if we understand homilia in the ancient sense,
as an association of two distinct things.46 Atkinson draws on Plotinus
meaning of the verb ktenein, to stretch out that is, the Soul must ascend
toward the One, and it can do so only by means of the other hypostasis,
through the reversion by which it must become united with the nous and
subsequently with the One.47 Evagrius does not go so far; his doctrine of
prayer does not promote any ecstatic behavior, nor does it lead to union
with God in the classic sense of henosis (nwsij).48 He prefers to express
this experience with the imagery of a vision of light without form, to
which I shall turn later. Thus, for example, he considered an undistracted
prayer (perspatoj proseuc) to be the minds highest act of intellection
42
Evagrius Ponticus, Chapters on Prayer 83-84 (1185b M.). On how the mind works ac-
cording to Evagrius concept of pure prayer, see Stewart, Imageless Prayer (see note
2), 186-191.
43
That was the contribution of Proclus, Commentary on Platos Timaeus 2,65-66.
44
Plotinus, Ennead 5,1,6 (The Loeb Classical Library 444, 28,9-12 Armstrong). English
translation by Arthur H. Armstrong, Plotinus 5: Enneads 5,1-9 (The Loeb Classical
Library 444; Cambridge, Mass., 1984), 29. And so Michael Atkinson, Plotinus: Ennead
V.1 on the Three Principal Hypostases: A Commentary with Translation (Oxford, 1983),
128-131.
45
Origen, De oratione 31,2 (395,28-396,20 K.).
46
Geoffrey W. H. Lampe, ed., A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford, 1961-1969): 951a, s.v.
mila.
47
Atkinson, Plotinus: Ennead V.1 (see note 44), 129-131.
48
As McGinn (Foundations [see note 7], 154) has pointed out, Evagrius language is not
that of mystical union, and the standard terms for union, henosis and koinonia, are
largely absent from his vocabulary.

(nhsij),49 assuming that in order to converse with God the mind must
ascend to God.50 He provided a refined description of this anabasis of the
nous from impassibility (apatheia) to the summit of pure prayer, which
is symbolized as the vision of the place of God.51 Evagrius believed that
through true prayer the monk, in his longing to see the face of the Father,
grateful becomes equal to the angels, yet he advised against harboring any
desire to perceive angels, powers, or Christ with the senses, lest the monk
go completely insane.52
The nous in the state of pure prayer
From Evagrius writings, pure prayer emerges as a mental process, an in-

tensive and transient state of the nous, a sort of individually experienced
disjunction of brief duration in which the mind is perceived as a vivid and
active entity, stripped of all images and concepts, so as to attain a formless
mode of existence and be in commune with God, without an intermedi-
ary.53 This mental process is not only iconoclastic but also characteristic
of an epistemological movement from multiplicity to simplicity. In his
words: Prayer is the prelude of immaterial and non-multiform knowledge
(poik lou gnsewj), that is, simple, non-complex knowledge of God.54
Following Greek philosophical tradition, Evagrius identifies the nous as
the seat of representation (nhma) the image evoked by the perception of
a sensible object.55 For him, prayer is a state of mind destructive of every
earthly mental representation (pantj pigeou nomatoj).56 There are four
49
Evagrius Ponticus, Chapters on Prayer 34a (Nikodemos Hagiorites, ed., Philokalia tn
hiern nptikn 1 [5th ed.; Athens, 1982], 180), cf. Bamberger, Evagrius Ponticus (see
note 14), 60 (note 25).
50
Evagrius Ponticus, Chapters on Prayer 35 (1173 M.).
51
On the ascent of the mind in Evagrius pure prayer, see Guillaumont, Un philosophe (see
note 1), 300-306.
52
Evagrius Ponticus, Chapters on Prayer 113, 115 (1192d). See also Gregory of Nyssa
(De Oratione Dominica 1 [Gregorii Nysseni Opera VII/2, 8-9 Callahan]): Prayer is
intimacy with God and contemplation of the invisible. It satisfies our yearnings and makes
us equal to the angels. (proseuc qeo mila, tn ortwn qewra, tn piqumontwn
plhrofora, tn gglwn motima).
53
Evagrius Ponticus, Chapters on Prayer 3, 11, 117 (1168c-d, 1169c, 1193a M.). Gabriel
Bunge (La Montagne intelligible [see note 2], 15) discusses Evagrius notion that prayer
is a communion with God without intermediary and draws an interesting parallel with
Plotinus well-known phrase monos pros monon.
54
Evagrius Ponticus, Chapters on Prayer 85 (1185b M.). On this passage with relation to
psalmody, see Dysinger, Psalmody and Prayer (see note 6), 97-98. On the doctrine of
Gods perfect simplicity in early Christian thought, see Christopher Stead, Philosophy
in Christian Antiquity (Cambridge, 1994), 120-135
55
The Aristotelian and Stoic sources for this doctrine are discussed by Ghin et al., vagre
le Pontique: Sur les penses (see note 12), 23-28.
56
Evagrius Ponticus. Reflections 26 (Joseph Muyldermans, Note additionnelle A: Evagri-
ana, Le Muson: Revue dtudes orientales 44 [1931], 377); Evagrius Ponticus, Chapters

ways by which the mind grasps mental representations: through the eyes,
hearing, memory, and temperament (krsewj).57 He persistently stresses
the necessity to withdraw from the flesh, to free the mind of all mental
representations deriving from the senses or from memory or temperament,
in order to be near the frontiers of prayer (roij proseucj).58 Evagrius
does not explain what he means by the term frontiers of prayer; however,
this state of prayer is an impassible habit (xij apaqj) that by supreme eros
transports the spiritual mind (pneumatikn non), at least for a moment,
to its natural state59 that is, to the noetic realm.60 This anabasis of the
praying nous has also a transformative aspect: When the mind has put
off the old self and shall put on the one born of grace [cf. Col 3:9-10],
then it will see its own state in the time of prayer resembling sapphire or
the color of heaven; this state Scripture calls the place of God that was
seen by the elders on Mount Sinai.61 He perceives this state of the mind
(no katstasj) as an intelligible (noetic) height, resembling the color of
heaven, that arises in the moment of prayer under the influence of the
unique light of the Holy Trinity.62 Relying on Psalm 75:3 and on Exodus
24:11 (LXX),63 Evagrius explains that the place of God a term he uses
on Prayer 70 (1184d M.). See also On Thoughts 25 (SC 438, 240 Ghin), where Evagrius
states: One should start from the proposition that the mind receives naturally the mental
representations of sensible objects and their impressions through the instrumentality of
this body of ours (rkton d{ nteqen to lgou pwj noj pntwn tn asqhtn
pragmtwn pfuke dcesqai t nomata ka tuposqai kat' at di to rganiko s-
matoj totou). English translation Sinkewicz, Evagrius of Pontus (see note 11), 170.
57
Evagrius Ponticus, Reflections 17 (375 M.).
58
Evagrius Ponticus, Chapters on Prayer 61 (1180c M.).
59
On the return of nous to its natural state, see Evagrius Admonition to the Intellect
preserved in Syriac translation by Muyldermans, Evagriana Syriaca (see note 24), 128.
Here, Evagrius wrote that the Intellect needs faith in order to return to its first state,
before the movement, that is, prior to the degradation of the souls by sin. This movement
is from multiplicity to the unity of the Intellect with the Monad.
60
Evagrius Ponticus, Chapters on Prayer 52 (1177c M.). I follow here Guillaumonts read-
ing (Un philosophe [see note 1], 299 [note 1]) that xij designates a state of acquisition,
and the katstasij is the natural state.
61
Evagrius Ponticus, On Thoughts 39 (287 G.). This passage appears also in the Syriac
version of Evagrius Ponticus, Reflections 2. Evagrius states that nous is changed through
constantly gazing at multiform contemplation. See Evagrius Ponticus, Kephalaia Gnostica
2,83 (PO 28, 92-93 Guillaumont).
62
Evagrius Ponticus, Reflections 4 (374 M.), 27 (377 M.), quoted by Isaac of Nineveh, The
First Part 22 (Paul Bedjan, Mar Isaacus Ninivita: De perfectione religiosa [Leipzig, 1909],
174). English translation: Brock, Syriac Fathers (see note 1), 263. On the controversial
issue of the Trinitarian aspect of Evagrius mysticism, see Bunge (Das Geistgebet [see
note 2]), passim; La Montagne intelligible [see note 2]), 14-24), who argues against
Irene Hausherrs claim that the Trinity plays no real role in Evagrius mysticism. See
also above, note 7. On the nature of the light of prayer and the knowledge of God, see
Konstantinovsky, Evagrius Ponticus (see note 3), 94-97.
63
On the biblical metaphor the place of God and the relocation of this biblical topo-
graphy to an inner landscape, see Stewart, Imageless prayer, (see note 3), 195-198.

as a substitute for seeing God is the rational soul (yuc logik),64 and
his dwelling is the luminous mind that has renounced worldly desires.65
As is well known, Evagrius repeatedly emphasizes that the nous should
evade any kind of contemplation that can leave an impression or form
on the mind, acknowledging that even if the mind has transcended the
contemplation of corporeal nature (qewran tj swmatikj fsewj) which
is also termed the second natural contemplation, situated at the lowest
level of Evagrius contemplative scheme and perceptible by the senses66 it
has not yet beheld perfectly the place of God, for it is still able to be
occupied with the knowledge of intelligible objects and so to be involved
with their multiplicity.67 In effect, Evagrius presupposes that the spiri-
tual mind is the seer of the Holy Trinity.68 He therefore wishes the nous
in the moment of prayer to obtain perfect detachment from the senses
(naisqhsan kthsmenoj),69 assuming that the mind is unable to see the
place of God within itself unless it has transcended all the mental rep-
resentations associated with objects.
Nor will it [the nous] transcend them, if it has not put off the passions that bind
it to sensible objects through mental representations. And it will lay aside the
passions through the virtues, and simple thoughts through spiritual contempla-
tion; and this in turn it will lay aside when there appears to it that light which
at the time of prayer leaves an impress (ktupontoj) of the place of God.70
Here again, the emphasis is on the experience of the nous in the moment
of pure prayer when it sees its own state and shines like a star71; precisely
this state indicates the highest level of encounter with the divine in Evagrius
contemplative theory.72
64
Evagrius adhered to the Platonic tradition in recognizing three parts of the soul: the
rational, logistikon; the irascible part, thumos; and the concupiscible part, epithumia.
See, especially, Evagrius Ponticus, Praktikos 89 (SC 171, 680-689 Guillaumont).
65
66
Evagrius Ponticus, Kephalaia Gnostica 3,61 (122-123 G.). On the distinction and mecha-
nism of first and second natural contemplation, see Guillaumont, Un philosophe (see
note 1), 283-292.
67
Evagrius Ponticus, Chapters on Prayer 56-57 (1177c-1180a M.).
68
Evagrius Ponticus, Kephalaia Gnostica 3,30 (110-111 G.).
69
Evagrius Ponticus, Chapters on Prayer 120 (1193b M.).
70
Evagrius Ponticus, On Thoughts 40 (288-290 G.). See also the commentary in On
Thoughts 40 (Ghin et al., vagre le Pontique: Sur les penses [see note 12], 289-291);
Reflections 23 (376-377 M.); Sinkewicz, Evagrius of Pontus (see note 11), 273 (note 62).
On the phrase light which at the time of prayer leaves an impress of the place of God,
see Bunge, La montagne intelligible, (see note 2), 12.
71
Evagrius Ponticus, On Thoughts 43 (298 G).
72
Evagrius Ponticus, Reflections 2 (374 M.). On the minds light, see also Evagrius Ponti-
cus, Chapters on Prayer 73-74 (1184a-b M.); Evagrius Ponticus, Gnostikos 45 (SC 356,
178-181 Guillaumont); Antoine Guillaumont, La vision de lintellect par lui-mme dans
la mystique Evagrienne, in Mlanges de lUniversit Saint-Joseph 50 (1984): 255-262
(reprint in idem, Etudes sur la spiritualit de lOrient Chrtien [Spiritualit Orientale 66;
Abbaye de Bellefontaine, 1996], 143-150); Guillaumont, Un philosophe (see note 1), 302-

How should all this be explained? As noted earlier, Evagrius inclusive

theory of pure prayer has no precedent among Christian writers or Greek
philosophers.73 Scholars long ago contextualized Evagrius theory of pure
prayer in the anthropomorphic controversy of late fourth century Egypt.74
However, as Antoine Guillaumont has pointed out, Evagrius did not for-
mulate his theory as a reaction to this debate; rather, his statements on
imageless prayer provoked a reaction among the anthropomorphic monks
in the Egyptian desert. Despite this theological context and the general
recognition by scholars of the importance of Clement of Alexandria,
Origen, and Stoic theories in shaping Evagrius thought, Guillaumont
believes this description of pure prayer to be the result of Evagrius
personal experience in the Egyptian desert.75 It is evident, he goes on to
claim, that for expressing this experience Evagrius used the Neoplatonic
language that was familiar to him from his philosophical background
and by which he was inspired through Basil of Caesarea and his teacher
Gregory of Nazianzus.76 In particular, Guillaumont unconvincingly in-
terprets the puzzling Evagrian notion of the nous seeing its own light in
the moment of prayer the culmination of this mystical experience in
light of Plotinus famous account of his mystical experience as recorded
in Ennead 4,8,1:
306. On the role of nous in prayer according to Origen and Evagrius, see also Dominique
Bertrand, Limplication du NOUS dans la prire chez Origne et Evagre le Pontique,
in Origenes in den Auseinandersetzungen des 4. Jahrhunderts (ed. W. A. Bienert and U.
Khnweg; Origeniana 7, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 137;
Leuven, 1999), 355-363; idem, Force et faiblesse du Nous chez Evagre le Pontique,
Studia Patristica 35 (2001): 10-23.
73
It is difficult to detect a clear concept of pure prayer in John of Lycopolis brief teaching
on the examination of purity of intention and thoughts during prayer (Historia mona-
chorum in Aegypto 1,23 [Andr-Jean Festugire, ed. and trans., Historia monachorum
in Aegypto: dition critique du texte grec et traduction annote (Subsidia Hagiographica
53; Bruxelles, 1971), 17]) as has been claimed by Elizabeth A. Clark, The Origenist
Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate (Princeton, 1992),
68-69. The answer to the question raised by Dominique Bertrand (Limplication du
NOUS [see note 72]), whether Evagrius was inspired by Origens treatise De oratione
remains unclear and needs further investigation.
74
Guillaumont, Les Kephalaia Gnostica (see note 3), 59-61; Guillaumont, Un philosophe
(see note 1), 301-302; Clark, Origenist Controversy (see note 73), 66-75. On whether
it was a dogmatic controversy, see Fred Ledegang, Anthropomorphites and Origenists
in Egypt at the End of the Fourth Century, in: Origenes in den Auseinandersetzungen
des 4. Jahrhunderts (see note 72), 375-379.
75
Guillaumont, La vision, (see note 72), 148-149.
76
On Evagrius relation with Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus, see Guillaumont, Un philo-
sophe (see note 1), 31-39; Dysinger, Psalmody and Prayer (see note 6), 8-11. For Evagrius
classical education, see Wolfgang Lackner and Hans Gerstinger, Zur profanen Bildung
des Euagrios Pontikos, in Hans Gerstinger: Festgabe zum 80 Geburtstag (ed. idem; Graz,
1966), 17-29. For a reading of Evagrius Ad Monachos in light of ancient philosophy,
see Jeremy Driscoll, The Ad Monachos of Evagrius Ponticus: Its Structure and a Select
Commentary (Studia Anselmiana 104; Rome, 1991), 361-384.

Often I have woken up out of the body to myself and have entered into myself,
going out from all other things; I have seen a beauty wonderfully great and
felt assurance that then most of all I belonged to the better part; I have actu-
ally lived the best life and come to identity with the divine . . . setting myself
above all else in the realm of Intellect. Then after that rest in the divine, when
I have come down from Intellect to discursive reasoning, I am puzzled, how I
ever came down.77
I am not aware of any comparable record of ecstatic experience in Evagri-

us writings.78 Yet one can accept Guillaumonts general statement that
Evagrius understanding of the nature of the nous is colored by Plotinus
notion that the nous is attained by turning inward and leaving sense per-
ception behind.79 Guillaumont focused on Plotinus depictions of ecstatic
moments when the One, the Good, suddenly illuminates the Intellect and
it becomes light80:
So we must be eager to go out from here and be impatient at being bound to
the other things, that we may embrace him with the whole of ourselves and
have no part with which we do not touch God. There one can see both him
and oneself as it is right to see: the self glorified, full of intelligible light but
rather itself pure light weightless, floating free, having become but rather,
being a god.81
What seems to me important in this passage beyond the analogy between

the Intellects inner vision of the One in Plotinus and Evagrius idea that
in the moment of prayer, the nous sees its own state, its own light is
the notion of the nous capacity for dual vision. I suggest that the key to
understanding the summit of Evagrius theory of pure prayer is the philo-
sophical paradigm explicitly articulated by Plotinus: Nous is competent
77
Plotinus, Ennead 4,8,1 (The Loeb Classical Library 443, 396,1-9 Armstrong): pollkij
geirmenoj ej mautn k to smatoj ka ginmenoj tn m{n llwn xw, mauto d{ esw,
qaumastn lkon rn kallj, ka tj krettonoj moraj pistesaj tte mlista enai,
zwn te rsthn nergsaj ka t qeJ ej tatn gegenhmnoj . . . p{r pn t llo nohtn
mautn drsaj, met tathn tn n t qeJ stsin ej logismn k no katabj por,
pj pote ka nn katabanw. English translation by Arthur H. Armstrong, Plotinus 4
(The Loeb Classical Library 443; Cambridge, Mass., 1995), 397.
78
Konstantinovsky (Evagrius Ponticus [see note 3], 97-102), in line with Guillaumont,
discusses some themes relating to the nature of the mystical experience of Plotinus and
Evagrius. However, unlike Guillaumont, she also points out the contrast between the
two authors mystical systems.
79
On Plotinus view on the faculty of representation and the unity of perception, see Eyjlfur
Kjalar Emilsson, Plotinus on Sense-Perception: A Philosophical Study (London, 1988),
107-140.
80
Plotinus, Ennead 6,7,36 (The Loeb Classical Library 468, 200,15-27 Armstrong).
81
Plotinus, Ennead 6,9,9 (338,54-59 A.): ste xelqen spedein nteqen ka ganakten
p qtera dedemnouj, na t lJ atn periptuxmeqa ka mhd{n mroj comen, m
faptmeqa qeo. rn d stin ntata kkenon ka aqtn j rn qmij: autn m{n
gla#smnon, fwtj plrh nohto, mllon d{ fj at kaqarn, bar, kofon, qen
genmenon, mllon d{ nta. English translation by Arthur H. Armstrong, Plotinus 7: En-
neads 6,6-9 (The Loeb Classical Library 468; Cambridge, Mass., 1988), 339.

to see its own things and the things before it,82 since it has one power for
thinking, by which it looks at the thing in itself, and another by which it
looks at what transcends it by a direct awareness and reception.83 Plotinus
notion of the Intellects self-contemplation is likened to light seeing itself,
grounding his theory on the simple view that the actual seeing is double
and on the perception that in the intelligible world the vision sees not
through some medium, but by and through itself alone, because its object
is not external. Intellect therefore sees one light with another, not through
any intermediate agency; a light then sees another light, that is to say, a
thing sees itself (Ennead 5,3,8).84 He further provides a clear depiction
of the mechanism of the nous dual capacity to see.85 It seems plausible
that Plotinus claim that the nous needs to see itself or rather possess the
seeing of itself . . . and its seeing is its substance,86 was important also
in shaping Evagrius theory of the self-vision of the nous, the summit of
the activity of the praying nous. It should be mentioned, however, that
Evagrius does not provide an explanation for the mechanism of the nous
dual capacity to see, but only makes the following statement: Just as the
mind receives the mental representations of all sensible objects, in this way
it receives also that of its own organism.87
It is widely held that Plotinus nous is experientially based and is not
a mere theoretical construction emerging from Aristotelian and Middle
Platonic tradition.88 In the same vein, Evagrius recognizes the nous as an
experiential entity that is active in the following three spheres:
82
Plotinus, Ennead 6,9,3 (312,34-35 A.): dnatai d{ rn noj t ato t pr
ato. English translation by Armstrong, Plotinus 7 (see note 81), 313.
83
Plotinus, Ennead 6,7,35 (194-198 A.).
84
Plotinus, Ennead 5,3,8 (94-100 A.). See, for example, Plotinus statement in Ennead 5,3,17
(134,34-39 A.): And this is the souls true end, to touch that light and see it by itself,
not by another light, but by the light which is also its means of seeing. It must see that
light by which it is enlightened: for we do not see the sun by another light than his own.
How then can this happen? Take away everything!(ka toto t tloj tlhqinn yuc,
fyasqai fwtj kenou ka ut at qesasqai, ok llou fwt, ll' at, di' o ka
r. di' o gr fwtsqh, tot stin, de qesasqai: od{ gr lion di fwtj llou.
pj n on toto gnoito; fele pnta). English translation by Armstrong, Plotinus 5
(see note 44), 135.
85
Plotinus, Ennead 5,5,7 (174-178 A.), with the commentary to this passage by John
Bussanich, The One and Its Relation to Intellect in Plotinus (Philosophia Antiqua 49;
Leiden, 1988), 132-139 and 221.
86
Plotinus, Ennead 5,3,10 (104,9-13 A.): . . . toton tn non dehqnai to rn autn,
mllon d{ cein t rn autn . . . ka tn osan ato rasin e"nai. English translation
by Armstrong, Plotinus 5 (see note 44), 105. On this passage and the question why the
Intellect needs to see itself, see Eyjlfur Kjalar Emilsson, Plotinus on Intellect (Oxford,
2007), 80-90.
87
Evagrius Ponticus, On Thoughts 25 (240-244 G.).
88
Arthur Hilary Armstrong, Eternity, Life and Movement in Plotinus Accounts of Nous,
in Le Noplatonisme: Actes du colloque international sur le noplatonisme organis dans
le cadre des colloques internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique,
Royaumont du 9 au 13 juin 1969 (ed. P.-M. Schuhl and P. Hadot; Colloques inter-
nationaux du Centre National de la Recherche; Paris, 1971), 67-74; Richard T. Wallis,

Nous, while it is engaged in the practical life, is involved with the concepts of
this world (`O noj n praktit n n toj nomasin stin to ksmou totou);
when it is engaged in knowledge (n gnsei), it spends its time in contempla-
tion, and when it is in prayer, it is in a [light] without form, which is called the
place of God (topoj qeo).89
These three functions of the nous represent Evagrius hierarchy and

systematization of spiritual progress namely, praktik, gnostik, and
theologik.90 In another important passage, Evagrius illustrates the ac-
tive dimension of the mind, discerning three aspects of the nous: The
contemplative nous (noj qewrhtikj), which hunts down all impassioned
thoughts through the arousal of irascibility; the ascetic nous (noj prak-
tikj), which is like a dog, barks at all unjust thoughts; and the pure
nous (noj kaqarj), for which he chose the image of an incense burner
at the time of prayer when it touches upon no sensible object (prgmatoj
asqhto).91 The following remarkable passage describes Evagrius no-
tion of the nous as an active and dynamic entity in the state of pure
prayer:
Sometimes the mind moves from one mental representation to another ( noj
pot{ m{n p nomatoj ej nomata metabanei), sometimes from one contempla-
tive consideration to another (pot{ d{ p qewrmatoj ej qewrmata), and in
turn from a contemplative consideration to a mental representation. And there
are also times when the mind moves from the imageless state to mental repre-
sentations or contemplative considerations (p tj neidou katastsewj p
nomata p qewrmata), and from these it returns again to the imageless state.
This happens [to the mind] during the time of prayer.92
Evagrius assumes that there is only one level of prayer the conversation
of the mind with God in which the mind is without impress (Scholia on
Psalms 140,2), explaining:
I say the mind without impress is the one that does not imagine anything corporeal
in the moment of prayer; only names and words that signify something sensible
give impress and form to our intellect. However, the mind that prays should
NOUS as Experience, in The Significance of Neoplatonism (ed. R. B. Harris; Studies

in Neoplatonism 1; Norfolk, 1976), 121-153.
89
Evagrius Ponticus, Reflections 20 (376 M.). The light is absent from the Greek text.
This is Guillaumonts suggestion (La vision, [see note 72], 147 [note 3]), based on the
Syriac text.
90
The classic study on Evagrius doctrine of spiritual life is Guillaumont, Un Philosophe (see
note 1). See also Jeremy Driscoll, Ad Monachos of Evagrius Ponticus (Studia Anselmiana
104; Rome, 1991); idem, Spiritual Progress in the Works of Evagrius Ponticus, in
Spiritual Progress: Studies in the Spirituality of Late Antiquity and Early Monasticism;
Papers of the Symposium of the Monastic Institute Rome, Pontificio Ateneo S. Anselmo
14 15 May 1992 (ed. idem and Mark Sheridan; Studia Anselmiana 115; Rome, 1994),
47-84; Dysinger, Psalmody and Prayer (see note 6), 27-47.
91
Evagrius Ponticus, Reflections 6, 9, 10, 16 (374, 375 M.).
92

be completely free from sensible objects, and the representation (nhma) of God
necessarily keeps the mind without impress, because he [God] has no body.93
In another passage he elucidates what happens to the mind in this imageless

state and makes a fine distinction between mental representations (nomata)
that leave an impress (tpoj) and form (scma) on the ruling faculty (t
gemonikn), and those that do not, furnishing only knowledge.
So it is necessary for the one who practices prayer to separate himself completely
from the mental representations that leave an impress upon the mind. And you
shall investigate if it is indeed the same for incorporeals and their reasons, as it
is for bodies and their reasons, and whether the mind will receive impressions
in one way when it sees a mind and whether it will be disposed in another way
when it sees its reason. From this we come to know how spiritual knowledge
distances the mind from the mental representations that leave their impress upon
it but presents it to God free from impressions, since the mental representation of
God does not lie among the mental representations that leave an impress on the
mind God is not body but rather, among those that leave no impress.94
Despite the fact that a monk wishing to achieve pure prayer must pu-
rify his soul, expel sadness and anger from the irascible part of the soul
(thumos),95 be in a state of impassibility (apatheia), and be free from all
the predicaments of the world,96 Evagrius is not explicit about how one
can separate himself completely from the mental representations that
leave an impress upon the mind. He does, however, recognize that the
attainment of this highest stage of prayer will at times seem to be beyond
the monks grasp in spite of all his efforts, while at other times it can be
reached without any effort.97 In this, Evagrius was promoting an optimistic
view about the human capacity to exercise such contemplative experience
at this mental level of the self, locating the major hindrance in the zone
where demons are active: All the warfare that is waged between us and
the impure demons concerns nothing other than spiritual prayer.98 As is
well known, this hindrance was at the center of Evagrius ascetic psychol-
ogy and demonology.99 Nor does he express any hesitation or dilemma
93
An edition of Scholia on Psalms is in preparation by Mark Rondeau. This passage is quoted
from Ghin et al., vagre le Pontique: Sur les penses (see note 12), 294 (note 8).
94
Evagrius Ponticus, On Thoughts 41 (290-296 G.). English translation Sinkewicz, Evagrius
of Pontus (see note 11), 181.
95
See, for example, Evagrius Ponticus, On Thoughts 43 (298 G.): You who long for pure
prayer keep watch over your irascibility; idem, Praktikos 63 (646-649 G.).
96
Evagrius Ponticus, Chapters on Prayer 52-54 (1177c M.).
97
Evagrius Ponticus [Nilus of Ancyra], Tractatus ad Eulogium 28 (PG 79:1129c-1132a
Migne). English translation Sinkewicz, Evagrius of Pontus (see note 11), 55.
98
Evagrius Ponticus, Chapters on Prayer 49 (1177b M.).
99
For a full discussion on Evagrius demonology and his art of antirrhesis that is, the
technique of combating demons by citing biblical verses see Guillaumont, Un philoso-
phe (see note 1), 205-265; Dysinger, Psalmody and Prayer (see note 6), 131-149. See
also Michael OLaughlin, The Bible, the Demons and the Desert: Evaluating the Antir-
rheticus of Evagrius Ponticus, Studia monastica 34 (1992): 201-215; Gabriel Bunge,

about the minds activity in the context of pure prayer. That is not the
case with Christian authors in the later period. The fifth-century author
Diadochus of Photike, for instance, while embracing the Evagrian notion
of prayer and his technical terms, complained that the mind often finds
it hard to endure praying because of the straightness and concentration
this involves.100 Yet Diadochus was himself an author who made a major
contribution to reconfiguring the biblical notion of remembrance of God
(mnmh qeo) and transforming it into a new contemplative technique cen-
tered on the intensive activity of the nous and memory. Another voice of
hesitation was that of the abbot of the monastery at Sinai, Hesychios the
Priest (in the eighth or ninth century), who confessed that it seemed dif-
ficult for human beings to still the mind so that it rests from all thought.101
Against this evidence we can assume that Isaac of Nineveh, in the seventh
century, was not surprised when one of his disciples asked him: What
is spiritual prayer?102
Isaac of Nineveh: The limit of the language and the awareness of

contemplative experience
Before addressing Isaacs notion of pure prayer, two general observations

seem called for: First, unlike Evagrius, Isaac was not a theorist of prayer
or a systematic writer on ascetic theology; for him, pure prayer was not a
matter of metaphysical abstraction or transcendent ascetic experience but
rather of conscious experience, of which he endeavored to present precise
indications. He repeatedly reminds his reader that he is not prepared to
speak about things that go beyond nature; his aim is, rather, to speak
only about things that belong to nature and come under the category of
pure prayer. He acknowledges that many people are hesitant about such
things, and many are desirous of knowing the stage they have reached in
Evagrius Pontikos: Der Prolog des Antirrhetikos, Studia Monastica 29 (1997): 77-105.
On Evagrius system of eight logismoi and the emergence of Christian demonology, see
Columba Stewart, Evagrius Ponticus and the Eight Generic Logismoi (see note 20),
3-34. And on early Egyptian monastic demonology, see David Brakke, Demons and
the Making of the Monk: Spiritual Combat in Early Christianity (Cambridge, Mass.,
2006).
100
Diadochus of Photike, Gnostic Chapters 68 (SC 5/3, 128-129 des Places). On Diadochus
language of experience and prayer, see Marcus Plested, Macarian Legacy: the Place of
Macarius-Symeon in the Eastern Christian Tradition (Oxford Theological Monographs;
Oxford 2004), 140-150, 168-173.
101
Hesychios the Priest, On Watchfulness and Holiness 148 (Hagiorites, Philokalia [see note
49], 163-164); English translation: G. E. H. Palmer et al., eds., Philokalia 1: Compiled
by St. Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain and St. Makarios of Corinth [London, 1979],
188).
102
Isaac of Nineveh, The First Part 35 (260 B.). English translation: Wensinck, Mystic
Treatises (see note 28), 174.

their spiritual progress.103 Isaac felt the need not only to distinguish those
stages in prayer, and to clarify every issue relating to each stage, but also
to delineate the boundary of human contemplative experience and the limit
of the minds activity, themes to which he devoted his discourse known as
On Various Experiences during Prayer and on the Limits of the Minds
Power ( ).104 As
one who has his audience permanently in mind, wishing to be as unam-
biguous as possible, Isaac explains: I do this because the majority of
diligent and illumined brethren experience these things.105 Thus Isaac
pushes the depiction of the experience of pure prayer much further than
Evagrius, who did not endeavor to clarify the personal experiential aspect of
pure prayer but, instead, cultivated its philosophical dimension. Evagrius
tentative attempt to clarify the question of the origin of the light during
prayer to which purpose he journeyed with Ammonius to consult John of
Lycopolis in the Egyptian desert is somewhat exceptional.106 Yet, this visit
shows that Evagrius was puzzled by the experience of the vision of light,
an experience that certain Egyptian monks might have.107 Furthermore,
Evagrius is known to be a systematic writer who distinguishes between the
metaphysical and the practical aspects of ascetic culture. Such a systematic
approach is hardly detectable in Isaacs writings, which tend to merge the
theoretical and practical aspects of spiritual progress.
My second observation concerns Isaacs skepticism regarding the ad-
equacy of language to describe contemplative practice. He was troubled by
the tendency of certain Christian authors to apply identical terms for dif-
ferent spiritual phenomena; according to him, they used the term prayer
to designate every excellent impulse and spiritual activity. He feared that
such terminology might be misleading: Sometimes they designate as theoria
[contemplation] what they elsewhere call spiritual prayer; or sometimes
they term it knowledge, or revelation of noetic things.108 However, he
was not inclined to formulate an apophatic theory, like Pseudo-Dionysius,
or to adopt an apophatic style as a literary strategy.109 Instead, the in-
103
Isaac of Nineveh, Centuries on Knowledge 4,64-65 (text of Centuries on Knowledge
from Ms. Oxford Bodleian syr.e. 7, fol. 26b-27a [cf. Brock, Syriac Fathers (see note 1),
298]). English translation: Brock, Syriac Fathers [see note 1], 266).
104
Isaac of Nineveh, The First Part 22 (163-175 B.). English translation: Brock, Syriac
Fathers (see note 1), 252-263.
105
Evagrius Ponticus, Kephalaia Gnostica 4,65 (164-165 G.).
106
Evagrius Ponticus, Antirrheticus 6,16 (Abhandlungen der Kniglichen Gesellschaft der
Wissenschaften zu Gttingen, N.S. 13,2, 524 Frankenberg).
107
Stewart (Imageless Prayer, [see note 3], 193-194) draws our attention to Evagrius
reticence about the experience of light during prayer, stressing that this experience is
found throughout Evagrius writings and was precious to him though it is muted in On
Prayer, and suggesting that Evagrius was aware of the dangers of this phenomenon.
108
Isaac of Nineveh, The First Part 22 (168 B.). English translation: Brock, Syriac Fathers
(see note 1), 257.
109
For instance, Isaac quoted Pseudo-Dionysius, On the Divine Names 4,11. Isaac of Ni-
neveh, The First Part 22 (169 B.). English translation: Brock, Syriac Fathers (see note 1),

adequacy of language led him to highlight the importance of awareness

( ) that is, to identify the spiritual experiences resonance and discern
the exact level of ones awareness during each contemplative experience,
rather than naming it:
All there is, is a single straightforward awareness ( ) which

goes beyond all names, signs, depictions, colors, forms and invented terms. For
this reason, once the souls awareness has been raised up above this circle of the
visible world, the Fathers employ whatever designation they like concerning this
awareness, since no one knows what the exact names should be.110
As a result, his discussions on pure prayer show his propensity to describe

with great finesse what seems at first to be beyond language. However,
the quest to understand pure prayer is for those who have mastered the
discipline of stillness, since he assumes there is a type of awareness that
comes from stillness, but it is not for the novice monk.111 Isaac openly
underscores that with what is being dealt with here is a mystical technique
suited only to the spiritual elite.112 For those who do not reach this stage,
he says, the labor and investigation involved in pure prayer will seem like
a waste of time.113 He repeatedly acknowledges that these distinctions are
not for everyone to investigate and do not result merely from theoretical
delving. Personal experience is vital for understanding such opaque distinc-
tions. As he himself declared on one occasion: My brother, the person
who writes these things down writes from experience. . . . He is to a small
extent aware of them in his own person and has received confirmation
concerning them.114
Stirrings ( ) of the mind
In Isaacs threefold scheme of spiritual hierarchy body, soul, and spirit

( ), a Pauline anthropology (1 Thess 5:23) that
he shared with other Syriac authors pure prayer occurs in the second
stage, the intermediate stage, reached after purification of the soul and
258. As Sebastian Brock has pointed out (Syriac Fathers [see note 1], 244-245), although
Dionysius the Areopagite is mentioned by Isaac on a few occasions, he does not appear
to have had a formative influence on Isaacs thought.
110
(see note 1), 257-258.
111
On awareness that comes from stillness, see Isaac of Nineveh, The Second Part 14,9 (58
B.). English translation: Brock, Isaac of Nineveh, The Second Part: Versio (see note 16),
69.
112
Fathers (see note 1), 255.
113
Isaac of Nineveh, Centuries on Knowledge 4,65 (see note 103). English translation: Brock,
Syriac Fathers (see note 1), 266-267.
114
Isaac of Nineveh, The Second Part 6,8 (18 B.). English translation: Brock, Isaac of
Nineveh, The Second Part: Versio (see note 16), Syriac Fathers (see note 1), 22.

before the highest spiritual stage ( ), which coincides with life in

the new world of the resurrection.115 Following Evagrius, Isaac perceives
pure prayer as a mental process, as an intensive experiential level of the
mind. Yet he is not content with embracing the Evagrian notion of the
praying nous and its formless aspect; he goes further and produces an
extremely clear picture of the minds dynamism in that evasive moment of
pure prayer in which one raises himself to the level of mind, yet without
losing his identity, focusing upon the movement of the mind, the stirring
( ) of the mind. Isaacs assumption is that each kind of prayer is set in
motion through the stirrings of the soul, and that a persons particular stage
is made clear from the occurrence of the stirrings that belong to each of
these stages.116 During pure prayer, ones mind is full of varied stirrings
( ), whereas in the beyond state the mind is free from all stirrings. In
his Centuries on Knowledge, Isaac describes with great lucidity the obscure
stage of pure prayer and offers a valuable key for recognizing it:
Intensity of stirrings in prayer is not an exalted part of pure prayer. . . . It be-
longs only to the second or third rank. I do not mean to say that you are not
traveling on the right path when these things apply to you; rather I just mean
that these things belong not to the highest, but only to the intermediate stages.
What is the most precious and the principal characteristic in pure prayer is the
brevity and smallness of any stirrings, and the fact that the mind simply gazes
as though in wonder during this diminution of active prayer. From this, one of
two things occurs to the mind in connection with that brief stirring which wells
up in it: either it withdraws into silence, as a result of the overpowering might
of the knowledge which the intellect has received in a particular verse; or it is
held in delight at that point at which it was aiming during the prayer when it
was stirred, and the heart cultivates it with an insatiable yearning of love. These
are the principal characteristics of pure prayer. Let these serve as indications
for you during the time of prayer. Observe in which of these different states the
mind is to be fixed during these various parts of prayer: whether in the former
states, or in those that follow on.117
Such lucid indications of the minds activity during contemplative practice

occur rarely in late antique Christian literature.118 The mind appears here
as an independent entity; it has an independent self-awareness, of which
Isaac gives indications: If the mind becomes aware of the power inher-
115
On Isaacs anthropology, see E. Khalif-Hachem, Isaac de Niniv, Dictionnaire de
spiritualit asctique et mystique: Doctrine et histoire 7 (Paris, 1971): 2048-2050; Khalif-
Hachem, La prire pure et la prire spirituelle, (see note 2), 169-171. On the level
of the soul where Isaac located pure prayer and the level of the spirit where there is no
longer any prayer, see Isaac of Nineveh, The Second Part 32,4 (131 B.). English transla-
tion: Brock, Isaac of Nineveh, The Second Part: Versio (see note 16), 143.
116
Syriac Fathers (see note 1), 267.
117
Syriac Fathers (see note 1), 268-269. The italics are mine.
118
For an exceptional and vivid image of the nous during contemplative prayer (Remem-
brance of God), see Diadochus of Photike, Gnostic Chapters 59 (119 d.P.).

ent in what it is praying and becomes illumined by the truth inherent in

the words, this is a sign that this awareness is not allowing him to travel
on.119 By invoking the intriguing issue of the minds self-awareness, Isaac
is initiating a new perspective on the mystical category of pure prayer, thus
marking a shift from Evagrius metaphysical approach to the realm of
conscious religious experience in order to appropriate it. As Pierre Hadot
stated in a different context:
Consciousness is a point of view, a center of perspective. For us, our self
coincides with that point from which a perspective is opened up for us, be it
onto the world or onto our souls. In other words, in order for a psychic activ-
ity to be ours, it must be conscious. Consciousness, then and along with it
our self is situated, like a median or an intermediate center, between two
zones of darkness, stretching above and below it: on the one hand, the silent,
unconscious life of our self in God; on the other, the silent and unconscious
life of the body. By means of our reason, we can discover the existence of these
upper and lower levels. But we will not be what we really are, until we become
aware of these levels.120
By introducing clearly and openly a new center of perspective the fasci-

nating topic of the level of consciousness during the mental process of pure
prayer Isaac is invoking the minds activity with less enigmatic language
than Evagrius had done and diminishing his speculative mystical dimension,
all the while charting in detail the inner experience. Evagrius, for his part,
simply exhorted the monk not to adopt only the outward forms of prayer,
but to turn your mind toward conscious perception of spiritual prayer.121
This new concern with awareness of the mind led Isaac to delineate the
boundary of pure prayer and articulate an innovative notion namely,
the limit of the minds activity during this experience.
Moving inwards from purity of prayer, once one has passed this boundary
( ), the mind has no prayer, no movement, no tears, no authority, no
freedom, no requests, no desire, no longing for anything that is hoped for in
this world or the world to come. For this reason, after pure prayer there is no
longer any prayer: all the various stirrings of prayer convey the mind up to that
point through their free authority; that is why struggle is involved in prayer.
But beyond the boundary, there exists wonder ( ), not prayer. From that
point onwards the mind ceases from prayer; there is the capacity to see, but the
mind is not praying at all.122
119
120
Pierre Hadot, Plotin ou la simplicit du regard (Paris, 1989). Engl. transl. by Michael
Chase with an introduction by Arnold I. Davidson, Plotinus or the Simplicity of Vision
(Chicago, 1998), 29. See also Pierre Hadot, Les niveaux de conscience dans les tats
mystiques selon Plotin, Journal de psychologie normale et pathologique 2,3 (1980):
243-266.
121
Evagrius Pontcius, Chapters on Prayer 28 (1173a M.).
122

This passage seems to indicate that the mind retains the limiting element
in itself, which, in fact, causes the separation of pure prayer from non-
prayer: As long as prayer is stirred, it belongs to the sphere of the souls
existence, but when it has entered that other sphere [that of the spirit],
then prayer stops.123 Furthermore, Isaac claims that the Intellect has the
authority to initiate discernment among different kinds of stirrings, up
to the point where it has purity in prayer. But once it has reached that
place, then it either turns back or ceases from being prayer. Thus prayer
serves as an intermediary stage, between the state of existence and spiri-
tual existence. Isaac accentuates that in the life of the spirit there are no
thoughts, no stirrings not even any sensation or the slightest movement
of the soul concerning anything; instead it remains in a certain ineffable
and inexplicable silence.124 In this non-discursive mode of life, the mind
has been raised above the forms of this world, operating with a different
kind of knowledge.125 He makes it clear that the mind is transformative by
nature, and by gazing at things to come, a gaze that typifies the spiritual
stage, the mind is changed into a state of wonder.126 At this stage, the mind
has lost its dynamic and active nature and enters the realm of wonder and
stillness, which is, in effect, an extension of the purely noetic life.
But once the Spirits activity starts to reign over the intellect the order of senses
and thoughts then the inborn, natural free choice is removed, and the intellect
is then itself guided, and no longer guides.127
In this passive state of the mind, in which the Spirit transcends discursive
reasoning, the self is no longer at the same level of consciousness as in
the second stage, and corporeal consciousness is eclipsed: Then there
is not even the strength to pray, or any thought left remaining there, in
that this person has been made silent in his body, along with his soul.128
The mind forgets itself and everything else when it reaches the state of
123
124
Nineveh, The Second Part: Versio (see note 16), 143.
125
126
For example, Isaac of Nineveh, The Second Part 8,14 (23 B.). English translation: Brock,
Isaac of Nineveh, The Second Part: Versio (see note 16), 29: Spiritual insights which
arise concerning matters of this world are quite different in their power from the luminous
reflection on things to come, for by gazing at such things the mind is changed into a state
of wonder. See also Isaac of Nineveh, The Second Part 5,8 (7 B.). English translation:
Brock, Isaac of Nineveh, The Second Part: Versio (see note 16), 9-10: Renew my life
with a transformation of mind ( ).
127
(see note 1), 259. See also Isaac of Nineveh, The Second Part 35,2 (140 B.). English
translation: Brock, Isaac of Nineveh, The Second Part: Versio (see note 16), 151-152.
128
Nineveh, The Second Part: Versio (see note 16), 136-137.

wonder; its stirrings are submerged in a profound inebriation. This is

a genuinely ecstatic state, in the sense of going out of oneself; in the
words of Isaac: . . . The person is no longer in this world. There is no
longer any discernment of either body or soul there, or any recollection
of anything.129 In what follows, Isaac quotes his master and adds a new
theme: As Evagrius says, Prayer is the state of the mind which is only
cut off from the light of the Holy Trinity by wonder. You have seen how
prayer is cut off by wonder at the insights which are born in the mind
as a result of prayer.130 This text differs from Evagrius Reflections 27,
from which Isaac quoted here (Prayer is a state of the mind that arises
under the influence of the unique light of the Holy Trinity).131 As noted
earlier, Irne Hausherr long ago explained Isaacs insistence on the non-
existence of spiritual prayer as being the result of a mistranslation of one
word in this passage; the Syriac translator read temnomnh, cut off (Syriac
), for the Greek ginomnh, occurring/raising.132 While accepting
Hausherrs view about this mistake, Khalif has rightly argued that Isaac
was also influenced by John of Apameas threefold scheme of spiritual de-
grees in which the third degree is beyond earthly conditions and belongs
to the resurrection and did not establish his theory solely on the basis
of one word.133 Despite the mistranslation in this phrase, what seems to
me significant is that the term wonder ( ) was not in Evagrius
Greek text of Reflections 27. Moreover, the very idea of the existence of
the realm of wonder, as Isaac termed it, is absent from Evagrius theory
of pure prayer. Isaacs great imaginative power enabled him to continue
from the point where Evagrius stopped, and ask: Can a person who is
taken captive in this way have prayer, when he does not know himself?
His answer is clear: It is not possible to pray spiritual prayer and there
is no such thing as the capacity to pray spiritual prayer. At this point
Isaac openly condemns the Messalians, who claimed for themselves such
spiritual competence.134 Isaac also hints at the religious tension caused by
the Messalians tendency to neglect the visible side of worship and the
fixed numbers of prayers.135 The Messalian heresy was known to Syriac
129
(see note 1), 262.
130
(see note 1), 262.
131
132
Irne Hausherr, Appendice au fasc. 69, Orientalia Christiana 24 (1931): 39; Irne
Hausherr, Par del loraison (see note 10), (8-12) 10: Cest sur la foi de ce seul mot
que le ninivite dclare irrecevable le concept de prire spirituelle quil sait cependant en
usage chez les Pres.
133
Khalif, La prire pure et la prire spirituelle, (see note 2), 168-169.
134
(see note 1), 259.
135
Isaac of Nineveh, The Second Part 14,22 (62-63 B.). English translation: Brock, Isaac
of Nineveh, The Second Part: Versio (see note 16), 73.

Christianity already in the fourth century and figured in Ephrems list of

heresies,136 yet we know very little about this amorphous, radical ascetic
trend.137 In my view it does not seem to be the first ground for drawing
such an unambiguous distinction between spiritual and pure prayer.138
Nevertheless, having the Messalian heresy in his mind probably impelled
Isaac to sharpen his terminology of contemplative prayer in making his
claim against those who pray excessively and who maintain that only
zealous, intense, and continuous prayer can drive out the evil or the demon
that dwells within each person from birth.139
A gaze of wonder
Isaacs notion of the limit of the minds activity becomes clear through
his sharp distinction between two different kinds of contemplative prayer:
pure prayer ( ) and spiritual prayer ( ). Obvi-
ously this was a clear move away from Evagrius, who had used various
terms for designating the same mental process of prayer, such as true
prayer,140 spiritual prayer,141 pure prayer,142 immaterial prayer, and prayer
without distraction.143 In Evagrius doctrine, all these terms are synonyms
for pure prayer. By contrast, Isaac, though known for his inclination
136
Ephrem, Against the Heresies 22 (CSCO 169, 79 Beck).
137
On the Messalian doctrine, see Columba Stewart, Working the Earth of the Heart: The
Messalian Controversy in History, Texts, and Language to AD 431 (Oxford Theologi-
cal Monographs; Oxford, 1991), 52-69; Klaus Fitschen, Messalianismus und Antimes-
salianismus: Ein Beispiel ostkirchlicher Ketzergeschichte (Forschungen zur Kirchen und
Dogmengeschichte 71; Gttingen, 1998). On the amorphous nature of the Messalian
tendency, see Plested, The Macarian Legacy (see note 99)], 21, who convincingly argues
that We know that Messalianism was; we do not know what it was.
138
Irne Hausherrs view (Par del loraison [see note 10], 9) that for Isaac it was
a question of orthodoxy is not convincing. An analysis of the six passages in which
Isaac mentioned the Messalians by name is provided by Patrick Hagman, St. Isaac of
Nineveh and the Messalians, in Mystik Metapher Bild: Beitrge des VII. Makarios-
Symposiums, Gttingen 2007 (ed. M. Tamcke; Gttingen, 2008), 55-66. He also inclines
to reduce the impact of Messalianism on Isaacs thought.
139
On the Messalian doctrines in the context of Syriac monasticism in the fourth-seventh
centuries, see Philippe Escolan, Monachisme et glise: Le monachisme syrien du IVe au
VIIe sicle: Un monachisme charismatique (Thologie Historique 109; Paris, 1999),
91-123. For a brief, yet very helpful discussion on the various sources relating to the
Messalians, see Plested, Macarian Legacy (see note 99), 16-27.
140
Evagrius Ponticus, Chapters on Prayer 10, 55, 60, 64, 75, 80, 113 (1169b-c, 1177c,
1180b, 1180d, 1184b, 1184d, 1191d M.)
141
Evagrius Ponticus, Chapters on Prayer 28, 49, 62, 71, 101 (1173a, 1177b, 1180c, 1181d,
1189b M.).
142
Evagrius Ponticus, Chapters on Prayer, 70, 72, 97 (1181c, 1181d, 1188d-1189a M.).
143
Evagrius Ponticus, Chapters on Prayer, 17, 145 (1172a, 1197c M.); 34a (180 H.).
Evagrius preferred to use the term proseuc for prayer, whereas Clement and Origen
used the term ec. On this terminology, see Guillaumont, Un philosophe (see note 1),
298 (note 10).

to fluidity in the use of technical terms,144 seems to have been especially

predisposed in this case to emphasize the peculiarity of the various terms
for contemplative prayer, thus lucidly charting the realm of discursive and
non-discursive contemplative experience. Accordingly, to the question of
one of the disciples as to what spiritual prayer ( ) is and how
one can be made worthy of it, Isaac answered: It [spiritual prayer] does
not pray, but the soul perceives the spiritual things of the world beyond. . . .
It is inner sight ( ), and not the stirring and the beseeching of
prayer; and he viewed it as a symbol of the future way of existence.145
Likewise, Isaac claimed that the state of stillness of the mind is not one
acquired by human effort but is a gift, and he rejected the possibility of
calling this gift purity of prayer or spiritual prayer.146 It is precisely
at this point that he identifies the limit of the praying nous:
What should it be called? The offspring of pure prayer that is swallowed up by
the Spirit. From that point on, the mind is beyond prayer, and prayer has ceased
from it now that it has found something even more excellent. No longer does
the mind actually pray, but there is a gaze of wonder ( ) at the
inaccessible things which do not belong to the world of mortal beings, and the
mind is stilled, not having knowledge of anything here. This is the unknowing
of which it is said, Blessed is the person who has reached the unknowing during
prayer which cannot be surpassed, as Evagrius said.147
Isaac was drawing here on Evagrius phraseology in Kephalaia Gnostica

(3,88,S1)148: Happy is the one that reaches the unknowing and the im-
passable. It is worth noting that Evagrius did not utter this statement in
the context of pure prayer, nor did he elsewhere tackle the realm of the
unknowing in relation to pure prayer.149 Moreover, as noted by Guillau-
mont, the Syriac tradition misread Evagrius Greek text, and the second
Syriac version of the text (S2) has knowledge.150 In effect, Isaac, in this
144
According to Brock (Isaac of Nineveh, The Second Part: Versio [see note 16], xvii), the
fact that Isaac drew on the varied terminology of earlier writers and had no desire to
provide his readers with a systematic guide to the inner life resulted in his terminological
fluidity. On Isaacs use of the term prayer to indicate a whole range of activities that
accompany the minds converse with God, see Alfeyev, Isaac the Syrian (see note 1),
143-217.
145
Isaac of Nineveh, The First Part 35 (260 B.). English translation: Wensinck, Mystic
Treatises (see note 28), 174-175.
146
Nineveh, The Second Part: Versio (see note 16), 86; Isaac of Nineveh, The First Part 22
(175 B.). English translation: Brock, Syriac Fathers (see note 1), 263.
147
(see note 1), 263. Italics are mine.
148
Evagrius Ponticus, Kephalaia Gnostica 3,88,S1 (134 G.).
149
Although the phrase during prayer is quoted by Isaac, Antoine Guillaumont (Lex six
centuries des Kephalaia Gnostica dvagre le Pontique [PO 28; Paris, 1958], 134 [note
2]) claims that it cannot be considered as Evagrius original text.
150
Evagrius Ponticus, Kephalaia Gnostica 3,88,S2 (135 G.): Heureux celui qui est parvenu
la science indpassable. See also Irne Hausherr, Ignorance infinie ou science infinie?,

passage, used the notion of unknowing for revealing what he identified

as the sphere of wonder ( ) that surpassed the boundary of pure
prayer.151 Furthermore, the subjugating power of silence over the mind is
recognized here as an integral part of the inner experience, characterized by
the emptying of the mind ( ) of all that belongs here, and a heart
that has completely turned its gaze to a longing for that future hope.152
From the above one can witness Isaacs merging of traditions the Evagrian
notion of the praying nous and the Syriac idea of wonder, already of great
importance for Ephrem and John of Apamea thus creating a new and
original configuration of mystical space.153
The silence of the mind
Unlike Evagrius, Isaac locates the mental process of pure prayer in the dis-
cursive realm, since he asks, where thoughts do not exist, how can one any
longer speak of prayer?154 Pure and undistracted prayer, according to him,
does not mean that the mind is entirely devoid of any thought or wander-
ing of any kind, but that it does not wander about on empty subjects during
the time of prayer.155 Therefore, he sums up, one should not seek to be
entirely free of mental wandering ( ), which is impos-
sible, but seek to wander following something that is good. For even pure
prayer consists in a wandering which follows something.156 He was deeply
convinced that any profitable recollections ( ) that may
spring up in the mind from the Writings of the Spirit ( ),157
Orientalia Christiana Periodica 25 (1959): 44-52 (repr. in idem, Hsychasme et prire

[see note 10], 238-246). Columba Stewart (Cassian the Monk [see note 20], 215 [note
92]) mentions this text in relation to the question whether Evagrius recognized a form
of ecstatic prayer. The infinite ignorance was discussed recently by Konstantinovsky
(Evagrius Ponticus [see note 3], 64-65) with relation to apophatic elements in Evagrius
thought.
151
On the level of the soul and the state of wonder, see Isaac of Nineveh, The Second Part
35,4-5 (140-141 B.). English translation: Brock, Isaac of Nineveh, The Second Part:
Versio (see note 16), 152-153.
152
(see note 1), 251.
153
On the notion of wonder ( ) in Syriac spirituality, see Brock, Syriac Fathers
(see note 1), XXXI.
154
Nineveh, The Second Part: Versio (see note 16), 143. See also Isaac of Nineveh, The
First Part 22 (164 B.). English translation: Brock, Syriac Fathers (see note 1), 253.
155
156
157
Isaac of Nineveh, The Second Part 15,5 (74-75 B.). English translation: Brock, Isaac of
Nineveh, The Second Part: Versio (see note 16), 85, and note 6 for this term in Evagrius
and Syriac writings.

resulting in insights and spiritual understanding of the divine world dur-

ing the time of prayer, are not alien to purity of prayer. Moreover, he
considered anyone attempting to prevent his thoughts from wandering on
divine things, or to restrain his mind from wandering of its own accord
on them during prayer, to be indulging in unparalleled stupidity if he
thinks that this kind of wandering is alien to, and outside the limits of,
pure prayer.158 It is important for Isaac to clarify that when the mind is
entirely without any kind of reflection, this is silence of the mind and not
purity of prayer. It is one thing to pray purely, and quite another for the
mind to be silent from any wandering at all or insight into the words of
prayer, and to remain without any stirrings.159 This mode of silence of the
mind ( ) is a gift of the minds revelation ( ), and
it is not within the reach of pure prayer, or a matter of the will.160 These
statements of Isaac provide grounds for speaking of two modi operandi
of the mind, active and passive, rather than of an entirely new theory of
pure prayer; there is a sharp distinction between two levels of the minds
activity stirring of the mind and silence of the mind corresponding to
the relevant stage of the spiritual development.
You are wise enough not to require of the mind motionlessness as do the
fools; for this cannot be asked of (human) nature. Rather, strive to discover
stirrings that are good during the time of prayer, as the wise do. These consist
in: reflection on the Spirits insights, and sagacious purpose which considers
during the time of prayer how to please the will of the Maker of all: this is the
final end of all virtue and of all prayer. When in these matters you receive the
power which stems from grace to be bound firmly to their continual stirrings,
you will become a man of God (1 Tim 6:11, 2 Tim 3:17) and will be close to
spiritual things; close, too, to finding that for which you yearn without your
being aware of it, namely, the apperception of God ( ), the
wonderment of mind that is free of all images, and the spiritual silence of which
the Fathers speak.161
Isaac here uses the Evagrian notion of the imageless mind, yet he shifts it
from the context of pure prayer and relocates it in the framework of
close to spiritual things, a step before the third stage. This is a stage
where self-awareness is reduced yet spiritual silence is amplified, and the
apperception of God ( ) is magnified as well. Isaac
discerns two kinds of apperceptions of God that the perfect recluse might
achieve in his life: one kind born of meditation and belonging to the dis-
158
Isaac of Nineveh, The Second Part 15,5 (74-75 B.). English translation: Brock, Isaac of
159
160
161
Isaac of Nineveh, The Second Part 15,10-11 (76 B.). English translation: Brock, Isaac
of Nineveh, The Second Part: Versio (see note 16), 87.

cursive realm and another kind that falls upon a person spontaneously,
when all of a sudden the mind will stand motionless as though in some
divine dark cloud that stuns and silences it. This level of the self marks the
beginning of entry into the third high stage namely, the spiritual mode of
being ( ).162 In Isaacs mind, however, it is not dissociated from
the experience of prayer; such apperceptions, according to him, occur at
the time of prayer because of the particular attentiveness accompanying
a person, thus alluding to a probable moment of oscillation between two
levels of the self intrinsic to the mystical experience.163 Moreover, since the
notion of awareness is at the heart of his teaching, Isaac has no hesitation
in inviting his readers to a sort of conversion of attention164 in order to
discern the existence of these two levels of the self:
Sharpen your senses and purify and recollect your understanding from distrac-
tion, then let us pay especial attention to the intellect as we cross over, with its
help, to the wondrous staging post which consists in rest for all ones way of
life, for within it is situated divine rest.165
Conclusion
Isaac of Nineveh was certainly not the first or the only author in Eastern
Christianity to undertake the exploration of Evagrian spirituality. How-
ever, with regard to the spiritual exercise of pure prayer, he is the prin-
cipal representative of this strand in the Syriac tradition. Isaacs concept
of pure prayer and his description of the vitality of the mind during this
contemplative experience demonstrate the extent to which the Evagrian
legacy was firmly established in his thought. By the finesse of his observa-
tions on the movement of the mind, its wonderment, silence and limit,
Isaac reveals his creative adaptation and interpretation of the Evagrian
lore. However, in this paper I have not advocated any harmonizing view
regarding Isaacs synthesized approach a view that has been promoted
by Hausherr, who believes that the two authors belong to the same cou-
rant de spiritualit. Nor have I wanted to suggest that the two authors
represent two distinct spiritual currents, philosophical versus experiential.
Rather, I have argued that although Isaac does not create a new theory of
contemplative prayer, he provides an entirely fresh and original view on
the matter, as a result of merging the Evagrian and Syriac traditions. He
162
For a brief description of this stage, see Isaac of Nineveh, The Second Part 7 (19-20
B.). English translation: Brock, Isaac of Nineveh, The Second Part: Versio (see note 16),
34-25.
163
Nineveh, The Second Part: Versio (see note 16), 152-153.
164
A term used by Hadot, Plotinus or the Simplicity of Vision (see note 120), 30.
165

shifts the emphasis from the Neoplatonic idea of nous dual-vision in its
Evagrian theological dress and the non-conceptual aspect of pure prayer
to what he considers imperative that is, the self-awareness of the praying
nous, making it the axis of his discussion around which he organizes the
major questions evoked by such a delicate matter. But there is more than
this. The difference in approach to pure prayer between the two authors
seems to me significant, and indeed more complicated than was previously
appreciated by scholars. The divergence is not limited merely to Isaacs
statement about the non-existence of spiritual prayer; it represents a new
and more coherent approach to the subject, raising new questions about
the nature of the mystical experience. Two points of divergence seem to
me particularly noteworthy: The first consists in providing indications for
identifying the very experience of the praying nous that is, an aware-
ness about pure prayer which marks a clear move away from Evagrius
theoretical and theological approach; the second consists in Isaacs integra-
tion of the peculiar Syriac notion of wonder as a new mystical realm in
the context of pure prayer, leading to his claim regarding the limit of the
minds activity and of the conscious contemplative experience itself. The
prominence of these idiosyncratic elements in Isaacs concept, which are
nowhere hinted in Evagrius theory, distinguishes his approach from that
of his master. This divergence not only reflects a shift in emphasis but also
resonates with a shift in the religious sensibility of Isaacs cultural milieu. It
is certainly not prudent to speak about so equivocal a notion as religious
sensibility. However, it is difficult to ignore Isaacs tendency to stress the
personal dimension, rather than the theoretical aspect, of pure prayer, as
well as his accent on the key role of awareness of the experience and his
emphatic declaration on the limit of the minds activity. All these character-
ize a spiritual propensity that was seeking a more conscious contemplative
experience, a more intimate knowledge of this subtle experience.
Isaacs views on spiritual prayer were not shared by all.166 Yet he was
exceptional in his endeavor to clarify one of the most perplexing mysti-
cal techniques to have challenged Eastern Christian religious thought and
praxis in late antiquity.
166
See, for instance, the eighth-century Syriac author Joseph the Visionary, who had a rather
different view on spiritual prayer. For the text see Brock, Syriac Fathers (see note 1),
316-318 (Joseph the Visionary, On Spiritual Prayer).

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG
Isaak von Ninive ist nicht der erste Autor, der die Spiritualitt des Evagrius zu ergrnden
sucht. In der syrischen Tradition ist er jedoch der erste, der dies gezielt fr das Gebet
unternimmt. Von Evagrius bernimmt er Gedanken wie die Reinheit des Gebets oder
die Lebendigkeit des Geistes im Gebet, zugleich entwickelt er die Aspekte des Staunens
und der Ruhe weiter. Hierbei zeigen sich erhebliche Unterschiede zwischen Evagrius
und Isaak. Isaak betont besonders die Bedeutung der Erfahrung fr den menschlichen
Geist und betont vom Gedanken des Staunens aus die Begrenztheit der Kontemplation.
Isaaks Bemhungen um eine Klrung des geistlichen Gebets stellen einen der wichtigsten
Beitrge fr die ostkirchliche Theologie und Praxis in der Sptantike dar.


Bitton-Ashkelony, Brouria - - The Limit of the Mind (NOΥΣ) - Pure Prayer According to Evagrius Ponticus and Isaac of Nineveh

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Bitton-Ashkelony, Brouria - - The Limit of the Mind (NOΥΣ) - Pure Prayer According to Evagrius Ponticus and Isaac of Nineveh

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

The Limit of the Mind (NOUS): Pure Prayer

according to Evagrius Ponticus and Isaac of Nineveh

ZAC, vol. 15, pp. 291-321 DOI 10.1515/ZAC.2011.15

comprehended pure prayer as a mental state, an art of introspection that

Vision of Evagrius Ponticus, JECS 9,2 (2001): 173-204; Guillaumont, Un philosophe

Brought to you by | University of Wisconsin - Madison Libraries (University of Wisconsin - Madi

formless knowledge (ulon ka nedeon gnsin).8 Moreover, contemplation

Brought to you by | University of Wisconsin - Madison Libraries (University of Wisconsin - Madi

on the periphery of Syriac Christianity. As Sebastian Brock has pointed

Brought to you by | University of Wisconsin - Madison Libraries (University of Wisconsin - Madi

Brought to you by | University of Wisconsin - Madison Libraries (University of Wisconsin - Madi

author John of Apamea.27 Taking into consideration the entire available

The experience of the praying nous

In order to elucidate Isaacs perspective on the matter and his innovative

Brought to you by | University of Wisconsin - Madison Libraries (University of Wisconsin - Madi

as homilia (mila), a conversation, with God.32 Despite the similarity in

idem, Alexandrie Antique et Chrtienne: Clment et Origne (Collection des Etudes

Brought to you by | University of Wisconsin - Madison Libraries (University of Wisconsin - Madi

his arguments on biblical paradigms rather than on Greek philosophical

Brought to you by | University of Wisconsin - Madison Libraries (University of Wisconsin - Madi

Brought to you by | University of Wisconsin - Madison Libraries (University of Wisconsin - Madi

The nous in the state of pure prayer

From Evagrius writings, pure prayer emerges as a mental process, an in-

Brought to you by | University of Wisconsin - Madison Libraries (University of Wisconsin - Madi

Brought to you by | University of Wisconsin - Madison Libraries (University of Wisconsin - Madi

Brought to you by | University of Wisconsin - Madison Libraries (University of Wisconsin - Madi

How should all this be explained? As noted earlier, Evagrius inclusive

Brought to you by | University of Wisconsin - Madison Libraries (University of Wisconsin - Madi

I am not aware of any comparable record of ecstatic experience in Evagri-

What seems to me important in this passage beyond the analogy between

Brought to you by | University of Wisconsin - Madison Libraries (University of Wisconsin - Madi

Brought to you by | University of Wisconsin - Madison Libraries (University of Wisconsin - Madi

These three functions of the nous represent Evagrius hierarchy and

NOUS as Experience, in The Significance of Neoplatonism (ed. R. B. Harris; Studies

Brought to you by | University of Wisconsin - Madison Libraries (University of Wisconsin - Madi

In another passage he elucidates what happens to the mind in this imageless

Brought to you by | University of Wisconsin - Madison Libraries (University of Wisconsin - Madi

Isaac of Nineveh: The limit of the language and the awareness of

Before addressing Isaacs notion of pure prayer, two general observations

Brought to you by | University of Wisconsin - Madison Libraries (University of Wisconsin - Madi

Brought to you by | University of Wisconsin - Madison Libraries (University of Wisconsin - Madi

adequacy of language led him to highlight the importance of awareness

All there is, is a single straightforward awareness ( ) which

As a result, his discussions on pure prayer show his propensity to describe

Stirrings ( ) of the mind

In Isaacs threefold scheme of spiritual hierarchy body, soul, and spirit

Brought to you by | University of Wisconsin - Madison Libraries (University of Wisconsin - Madi

before the highest spiritual stage ( ), which coincides with life in

Such lucid indications of the minds activity during contemplative practice

Brought to you by | University of Wisconsin - Madison Libraries (University of Wisconsin - Madi

ent in what it is praying and becomes illumined by the truth inherent in

By introducing clearly and openly a new center of perspective the fasci-

Brought to you by | University of Wisconsin - Madison Libraries (University of Wisconsin - Madi

Brought to you by | University of Wisconsin - Madison Libraries (University of Wisconsin - Madi

wonder; its stirrings are submerged in a profound inebriation. This is

Brought to you by | University of Wisconsin - Madison Libraries (University of Wisconsin - Madi

Christianity already in the fourth century and figured in Ephrems list of

Brought to you by | University of Wisconsin - Madison Libraries (University of Wisconsin - Madi

to fluidity in the use of technical terms,144 seems to have been especially

Isaac was drawing here on Evagrius phraseology in Kephalaia Gnostica

Brought to you by | University of Wisconsin - Madison Libraries (University of Wisconsin - Madi

passage, used the notion of unknowing for revealing what he identified

The silence of the mind