Evagrius the Much-Less-Interesting

Synopsis: Contemporary research on the works of Evagrius Ponticus provides an

excellent example of how presuppositions about the orthodoxy (or, in this case, the

heresy) of a late ancient author have an impact upon the scholarly discussion. A

review of the status quaestionis about interpreting Evagrius reveals a lively debate

about the propriety of rehabilitating Evagrius. The paper then considers a number of

cases where the dominant assumptions about Evagrius as the intellectual architect of

Origenism are decidedly unhelpful for interpretive purposes. It is then suggested that

Evagrian research may be undergoing a paradigm shift, as the normative account of

Evagrius as the quintessential Origenist (sc., “heretic”) gives way to a subtler

evaluation of his thought.

INTRODUCTION

Evagrius Ponticus’ place in contemporary scholarship provides a fascinating example

of how attitudes toward orthodoxy and heresy continue to play an important (not to

say determinative) role in how we study late ancient sources. The state of research can

be characterized as falling, broadly speaking, into two camps: those who regard

Evagrius chiefly as the intellectual architect of Origenism, and those who regard him

especially as an orthodox spiritual guide. For the former, Evagrius’ Kephalaia

Gnostika (hereafter, KG) enjoys pride of place; for the latter, his ascetic works (and

indeed his scholia) are much more in evidence.1 Obviously, these categories are not

mutually exclusive and can be seen as existing along a continuum. All the same, there

is a lively debate between scholars who fall clearly in one camp or the other and that

1
debate is the point of departure for this paper. After describing the debate, I comment

upon some particular questions in the study of Evagrius where differences in

theoretical approach have a direct bearing on the answers given. In conclusion, I shall

then return to considering modern scholarship, by way of thinking proposing that

there may be a paradigm shift occurring in Evagrian scholarship. The purpose of this

paper, therefore, is to demonstrate how prior convictions about whether or not

Evagrius was a heretic can (and do) exert pressure on how his writings are

interpreted—and, consequently, on the scholarly discussion about Evagrius as a

whole.

THE DEBATE ABOUT CHARACTERIZING EVAGRIUS

Condemnations as criteria and a dissenting perspective

The immediate background for any evaluation of twentieth-century Evagrian

scholarship must be the vastly influential work of the late Professor Antoine

Guillaumont. In a series of publications that extended for about fifty years,

Guillaumont set the terms for scholarly research into Evagrius’ works—and he made

many of those works available for the first time in critical editions. In this way, he

crowned the work of Hans Urs von Balthasar, Wilhelm von Frankenberg, Hugo

Greßmann, Irénée Hausherr, Joseph Muyldermans and Barsegh Sarghissian who had

in the first half of the twentieth century brought out a steady stream of studies and

edited an extensive collection of Evagriana, not least the ancient Syriac and Armenian

translations.2 These scholars were themselves building on a much older tradition of

seeing Evagrius as an important figure in the history of Origenism. The roots of that

2
tradition ultimately go back at least to the events of the sixth century and the church

histories of Socrates and Sozomen,3 but more recently it had been endorsed by

modern and early modern scholars like Fabricius, Tillemont and Huertius.4 What

Guillaumont brought to the discussion was an argument for identifying Evagrius more

confidently within the history of Origenism, not as just any old Origenist, but in fact,

as the Origenist par excellence.

He brought this about chiefly through his discovery of a second version of

Evagrius’ KG (designated by Guillaumont as S2, to distinguish it from the version that

Frankenberg published, now known an S1). This discovery was the touchstone for

Guillaumont’s distinguished career of Evagrian research. The importance of

Guillaumont’s discovery (and his analysis and evaluation of it) for Evagrian

scholarship cannot be overestimated, because it satisfied a need that had been raised

only a few years earlier by Muyldermans, whose description of textual criticism in

regard to the Evagrian Syriaca is of broad application:

In the Syriac manuscript tradition, Evagrius’ name assuredly covers a

vast literature—of which, part is ascribed in Greek to Neilos. But the

breath of doctrine that animates the unedited material and the technical

vocabulary that characterises it leave no doubt concerning their

Evagrian origin, as it is asserted in the manuscript tradition. And even

if the critic does not ascribe one page or another to our author, the very

publication of these new sources will have permitted their authenticity

to be examined.5

Muyldermans rightly identified the importance of discerning ‘the breath of doctrine

that animates the unedited material and the technical vocabulary that characterises it’

for the process of ascribing contested works to Evagrius. Guillaumont’s arguments

3
about KG-S2 provided a ready set of criteria for that purpose. In fact, they even

provide criteria for interpreting Evagrius works. How they do so is a matter that needs

to be examined.

In several articles published during the 1950’s, Guillaumont criticised S1 on a

variety of fronts: he queried Frankenberg’s choice for the base-text, sketched the

history of the transmission of that version and, most significantly, identified another

version of the text in Syriac translation.6 The version that he discovered (S2)

significantly differed from the textus receptus. When it is said that S2 differs

significantly, this means that Guillaumont found S2 to bear a striking similarity to the

condemnations of Origen (and, in some cases at least, of Didymus the Blind and

Evagrius) that were promulgated in the sixth century. Guillaumont therefore argued

that S2 underlies the condemnations and thus that the theological system condemned

in Justinian’s reign should be identified specifically as Evagrian Origenism.7 The

abiding image of Evagrius that has been urged by Guillaumont is that of the

philosopher, and here one hears echoes of Balthasar’s evaluation of Evagrius’

influence in re-creating the Origenist heritage.8

Guillaumont’s arguments about Evagrius’ responsibility for the condemned

Christology were indirectly supported by any of a number of publications that had

called into question the application of those condemnations to Origen’s own thinking:

with an eye to Guillaumont’s work, one could now claim that it was Evagrius, not

Origen, who held the smoking gun.9 The confluence of revisionist scholarship that has

tended to exonerate Origen and of Guillaumont’s identification of S2 as the primary

source of sixth century Origenism has provided an economic way of deflecting

criticism from Origen. It has also paid Evagrius the somewhat awkward compliment

4
of being the engineer of a system of thought that divided Palestine and Constantinople

for decades. Such explanatory power is undeniably attractive.

In fact, Guillaumont’s argument has been endorsed so heartily that one

sometimes reads that he “discovered” Evagrius, or that he has shown that the

condemnations of 553 are taken “point for point” from Evagrius’ writings.10 Another

consequence of the popularity of his research has been an increasing tendency to take

for granted that those condemnations accurately reflect Evagrius teaching—or, in a

word, take for granted that Evagrius really was the quintessential Origenist “heretic”

(even if one is no longer prepared to take the idea of heresy very seriously as a

meaningful evaluation). Indeed, it often seems the case that Evagrius is considered

especially important precisely because he is considered a “heretic” and as such is

presumed to represent a previously “marginalized” voice. As we shall see in the

following pages, this network of ideas about Evagrius and his works is pervasive. But

over the last quarter of a century, his analysis has increasingly come in for criticism.

The major critic of this perspective has been engaged in a counter-project

(rather than a direct rebuttal of Guillaumont’s thesis). Gabriel Bunge—whose point of

entry into Evagrian studies was through the study of Syriac Christian authors11—has

advanced an argument on several fronts to the effect that Evagrius’ teaching was

typical of a surprisingly broad-based group of monks (including several who are not

ordinarily thought of as ‘Origenist’ in any sense) and in fact is actually not well

characterized by the sixth century condemnations.12 In consequence of the latter

claim, Bunge has characteristically avoided committing himself to the idea that

Evagrius’ “gnostic” works are heterodox. He has also tended to place heavy emphasis

on the scriptural interpretations that Evagrius produced. Interspersed with purely

scholarly articles, Bunge has published several short works that facilitate the

5
appropriation of Evagrius’ teachings about prayer and the spiritual life within the

catholic Christian tradition.13 In no sense, however, are we faced here with some

lowly “vulgarization” of serious scholarship. Much of academic value will be found in

them even by readers with no interest at all in the promotion of catholic Christianity.

For example, in a recent book on prayer in patristic theology, Bunge provides

numerous comparisons of Evagrius’ teaching to the teaching of other contemporary

figures that are extremely illuminating.14

In brief, Evagrius is presented by Bunge as a “spiritual guide”—but, be it

noted, a spiritual guide within the orthodox, catholic tradition of Eastern Christianity.

There is in this an implicit contrast to the idea that Evagrius was a heretically

speculative theologian. But implicit contrast slides into open controversy in the cases

that we will consider next.

The Romanian discussion

The modern discussion about Evagrius and methods of approaching his material has

recently been pursued most vigorously in Romanian publications—specifically, an

Comment: Now, in fact it is the
essay by Ioan Ică,15 a professor of theology in the University of Cluj-Napoca and a University of Sibiu, where
Staniloae taught.

Romanian Orthodox priest, and an essay by Cristian Badiliţa,16 a scholar in the

Comment: Badilita never taught
at Sorbonne, he got his PhD there
Université de Paris IV-Sorbonne and a prolific translator of ancient Christian material with a thesis on Antichrist in the
early Christian literature. He is
rather a free-lancer scholar, a bit
into Romanian. It is worth drawing attention to these essays for several reasons: Prof like N. Russel.

Ică and Dr Badiliţa are fully engaged with the latest scholarship and their exchange is

theoretically sophisticated in a way that advances the overall discussion of Evagrian

scholarship. Furthermore, because the essays appeared in volumes that are not readily

found, it may help to draw attention to them in this way.

6
 After an overview of twentieth-century research into Evagrius, Ică queries the

practice of construing Evagrius along the lines suggested by the condemnations of

Origenism, which he characterizes as “a negative image of Evagrius the Origenist

who inaugurated an intellectual and spiritualist current in eastern spirituality,

introducing a non-Biblical, Hellenistic vision of man, time and eschatology”.17 Ică

sees this as a result of too much reliance upon external witnesses about Evagrius and

his thought in the course of philological research. The point is not an idle one: as we

have already had occasion to note, Muyldermans had long since drawn attention to the

need to appeal to ideas about what counts as “Evagrian” in the process of criticizing

and editing the Evagrian corpus. For his part, Ică is critical of the image that has

resulted from this process:

The philological work of western patrologists has thus become the

pretext for an unexamined dialectical “phenomenology” for the history

of eastern spirituality in terms of which an intellectual construct is

attempted—a construct that is inadequate to the spiritual foundations of

the eastern tradition, but that applies to it an interpretive framework

which is completely foreign to its nature.18

Ică objects to a dialectic according to which Evagrius’ intellectual activity (especially

in its mystical aspects) is presumed to set him apart from the traditions that make up

the ecclesiastical community.

His concern is to assert that the spiritual elements that are so much in evidence

in Evagrius’ writings are comprehensible in terms of the traditions of eastern

Christianity—and, in so doing, to prevent Evagrius’ work from being reduced to pure

textuality.19 It is therefore not surprising to find in this connection that Ică calls for an

application of Hadot’s work on philosophy as a spiritual exercise to thinking about

7
Evagrius’ intellectual life: by invoking Hadot’s work, Ică suggests that the ascetic,

ecclesiastical and spiritual facets of Evagrius’ life must be integrated into any serious

attempt to account for his intellectual activities.20 On a similar note, Icǎ argues “that,

in order to think like the Fathers of old, it is necessary to be as they were; and in order

to recover the congeniality of thinking with them, an existential, living communion

with them is an urgent necessity.”21 In other words, he thinks it is directly relevant for

Bunge’s understanding of Evagrius that Bunge follows a monastic practice that is

quite close to Evagrius’ own. Icǎ suggests that a similarity of practice leads to a

sympathy in interpretation. And, if before his argument draws on ideas that have been

charted by Hadot above others, in this connection he can be seen to draw on

Gadamer’s thinking about the positive value of tradition (as is evident, e.g., in his

harsh words for the “philologists”—the term Gadamer used to describe Dilthey and

others—and his own affirmation of “congeniality” as the key to sound

interpretation.).22

His remarks in this connection are suggestive (or provocative, depending on

one’s position), as when he claims bluntly that “the opposition ‘intellectual-illiterate’

is an unacceptable modern anachronism, projected backward but unjustified by the

sources’.23 Although there are very good reasons for thinking that Ică is correct on

that count, it must be said that he is content simply to assert it, which is a maneuver

that is unlikely to impress a skeptical reader.24 In points of detail, Ică’s essay can be

frustrating. But it retains its value nonetheless because of its call for a sympathetic,

contextualized approach to Evagrius’ works.

Now Badiliţa has subjected Ică’s claims to strident criticism, on grounds that

his presentation is overly schematic.25 The criticism is fair, but what is perhaps most

striking about Badiliţa’s rejoinder is its hostility. In response to Icǎ’s assertion that

8
western philological approaches are faulty and should be corrected by recourse to

eastern traditions, Badiliţa scathingly writes,

No westerner could match the competence of a patrologist with a long

beard, a cassock or a number of prayers recited daily.—But the

important contributions to Evagrian study of the lamented Antoine

Guillaumont deserve to be reckoned according to their just deserts;

otherwise a monopoly on Evagrius by this priestly cadre (after this

cadre had marginalized him for fifteen centuries) would represent a

loss for us all.26

It is not insignificant that Badiliţa’s retort is so brazenly anti-clerical. In fact, it brings

us to one of the most interesting facets of the contemporary appropriations of

Evagrius: the idea that Evagrius’ corpus represents a tradition of Christian gnosticism

that runs counter to (and was therefore repressed by) the established Church. This line

of thinking is directly linked to the methodological decision to interpret Evagrius

according to the sixth-century condemnations: if those condemnations provide the

correct key to unlocking Evagrius’s thought, then his work is quite simply heretical—

and for some readers, it is precisely his heresy that constitutes his claim on our

attention. But this is to anticipate. Before expanding on that claim, let us return to the

Romanian debate about interpreting Evagrius.

Badiliţa takes a point of view about the intellectual climate of Egypt that is

diametrically opposed to Icǎ’s. For Badiliţa, Evagrius’ intellectual attainments (even

his very language!) set him apart from most of his peers at Kellia.27 Although Badiliţa

acknowledges that there was probably a great deal of interaction between intellectual

and non-intellectual monks, he tends to fall back on a dichotomy popularized about

forty years ago by A.-J. Festugière in the introductory volume to Les Moines d’Orient:

9
Culture, or holiness?28 Evagrius’ intellectual sophistication is such that there can be

no doubt as to where he falls on such a dichotomy.29 Even though Badiliţa’s

description of the intellectual scene is quite nuanced, he unmistakably endorses the

claim (forcefully lodged by Origen’s enemies some fifteen centuries earlier) that

Evagrius’ works are

the point where two worlds meet: Egyptian monasticism, with all its

teachings at the level of practice (praxis), and the Greek philosophical

tradition (platonic and especially neoplatonic), with all its teachings at

the level of doctrine (doxa). Doxology of a philosophical type annexed

to Christian practices (specifically, those of Egyptian monasticism) are

the two components of a work destined to last despite the vicissitudes

of history and of institutionalized barbarism. If the Second Council of

Constantinople (553) decided to condemn Origen, this fact should be

attributed to the childishness with which the Origenists or Evagrians at

third hand have exploited their masters. The fathers (who, as a matter

of fact, always avoided discussing thorny problems in public) should

not be impugned for the trespasses of the sons, especially when the

latter, flagrantly misinterpreting them, caused the condemnation of

their fathers.30

Although Badiliţa castigates the “childishness” of the “third-hand” Origenists who

garnered Origen’s (and Evagrius’) condemnation, it is nonetheless evident from his

description of Evagrius’ works that he agrees—in terms of the analysis, if not the

assessment—with classic denunciations of Origenism for attempting a synthesis

between Christian monastic praxis and later Platonism speculation.31 It is somewhat

surprising, in view of his dim estimation of the credentials of the sixth-century

10
opponents of Origenism, that Badiliţa reconstructs Evagrius’ mystical teachings along

the lines laid down by the condemnations (as mediated by Guillaumont).32 These

comments mark the end of Badiliţa’s synthetic treatment of Evagrius, so it is good to

return now to the implications of his earlier remarks about the orthodox appropriation

of Evagrius.

We have already commented briefly upon the vituperative anticlericalism

evident in Badiliţa’s contrast between the western scholar (identified as Guillaumont

in the following sentence) and the bearded patrologist (somewhat cravenly

unidentified, but certainly Bunge is intended). In this remark, Badiliţa is crying foul: it

is disingenuous, he suggests, for the orthodox to continue using Evagrius after having

condemned him in the first place. And if this is the case, it is all the more disreputable

for representatives of the Great Church, which has denounced on Evagrius’ teaching,

to try to retrieve him for orthodoxy. Badiliţa is not alone in expressing concern about

attempts to interpret Evagrius in an orthodox way.33 It is certainly clear that there are

other parties who would want to make a claim on Evagrius, as is evident from an

ambitious argument that has recently been advanced for the appropriation of

Evagrius’ writings in the context of a contemporary spiritual ressourcement.34

What this means, quite simply, is that there are two divergent trajectories of

appropriating Evagrius. According to one of them, Evagrius is to be evaluated along

the lines of the condemnations of Origen—and any contemporary spiritual use made

of Evagrius accordingly takes the metaphysical approach that is enshrined (or rather

abominated) in those condemnations; in keeping with this perspective, the attempts to

interpret Evagrius as an orthodox Cappadocian thinker influenced by Origen is

suspect, not least because the orthodox have abandoned any claim on Evagrius. It is

probably not too much to say that, for these scholars, Evagrius is interesting precisely

11
as a fourth century adherent to views that are expressly condemned within about a

century and a half of his death. According to the other line of thought, Evagrius is not

to be evaluated in the terms laid down by the sixth-century condemnations: it is, for

them, irresponsible to suppose that nothing of substance changed over those long

years, not least because we lack any evidence that Evagrius had come under fire in his

own lifetime (or immediately thereafter) owing to his theological teaching. Counter to

that practice of interpreting him, these scholars attempt to situate Evagrius and his

thinking within the context of, first, the Cappadocian reception of Origen and, second,

the intellectual climate of Egyptian monasticism as it is reported to have existed in the

Nitrian Desert during Evagrius’ time (e.g., by Palladius, Cassian and the Historia

Monachorum in Aegypto). By disavowing the condemnations as a hermeneutic

framework, these scholars have put themselves at a disadvantage: they have no ready

template for re-constructing Evagrius’ thought. However, this disadvantage can

actually be helpful inasmuch as not assuming that there is a royal road to

understanding Evagrius reduces us to picking our way much more painstakingly

through Evagrius’ writings. In this way, possibilities that have been overlooked

(perhaps in some cases deliberately) can be brought into the discussion. Some

examples follow.

WHY ONE’S VIEW ON THE DEBATES MATTERS

There are many questions in considering which we can see how the position one takes

with regard to Evagrius’ status as a heretic is of paramount importance, but here we

will consider only three of them. The questions are as follows: Are there adequate

grounds for attributing to Evagrius an “isochrist” Christology? Do Evagrius’ writings

12
give us any sense for his self-concept in regard to fourth-century orthodoxy? What

should we make of Evagrius’ explicit tendency to hide his teaching from the

uninitiated (or, to put it otherwise, his esotericism)? We take these questions in turn.

The purpose of this exercise is to show that prior convictions about whether Evagrius

was indeed the architect of Origenism (as asserted by Guillaumont and others) tend to

restrict the scope of research in a number of key areas. To that end, the following

examples are meant to be exploratory rather than conclusive; they are meant to show

that, by holding the attribution of heretical beliefs to Evagrius as a matter that is still

sub judicio, we are able to carry forward research on questions that are otherwise

foreclosed. Consequently, the results suggested to the questions here posed are less

important than the very fact that the questions can be meaningfully posed in the first

place.

Is Evagrius’ Christology isochristic?

That Evagrius affirmed an “isochristic” Christology has been argued independently by

two scholars; by this, they mean Evagrius that taught that each nous (“mind”) is

essentially like every other mind (including that mind which, having been joined to

the Logos, became incarnate as Christ) and therefore that all created minds are

potentially equal to Christ—and will ultimately be so.35 This argument has been

widely embraced by scholars, and has even lead to the use of a term nowhere attested

in Evagrius’ works to describe his position: the “Christ-nous”.36 But it bears pointing

out that the argument itself is conjectural in that this position is nowhere explicitly

presented by Evagrius in his writings: it is only as a result of using the sixth-century

condemnations for cues that isochristism emerges from those writings. That

13
methodology is not attractive; it is not clear why we should be willing to rely on a

denunciation of some position for guidance in reconstructing an author’s beliefs

(particularly if that denunciation is considerably older than the position it denounces).

But of course dubious methodology does not necessarily invalidate the results. So it

needs also to be pointed out that the chief evidence for Evagrius’ isochristism, which

is taken from his Scholia on the Psalms, has recently been called into question.

The relevant passage is sch 7 in Ps 44:3, where (in the text as published by

J.B. Pitra)37 we read that “every power of the heavens has been anointed

[ϕ ϖθιρσαι] with the contemplation of things to come, but Christ has been anointed

‘beyond all his fellows’—that is, he has been anointed with the knowledge of the

Unity.’ But Luke Dysinger has recently argued, with reference to MS Vat. gr. 754,

that the crucial word for an isochrist interpretation of the passages (ϕ ϖθιρσαι, as

applied both to “every power of the heavens” and to “Christ”) should actually be read

as ϕ ϖθγσαι (“he has been provided with”) and that in fact ϕ ϖθιρσαι only appears

in the third and final case, wherein Christ alone is described.38 Dysinger has also

pointed to sch 10 in Ps 104:105 as a second example where precisely the same

substitution of a form from ϖθ←ξ (in this instance, ο↓ ϖθιρσο↑) for a form from

ϖθ0ξ (here, ο↓ ϖθγρσο↑) has taken place in a published version (and thus supports

an isochrist interpretation) but must be modified on the basis of the manuscript

evidence. He has thus directly challenged the only textual support that has yet been

adduced for the claim that Evagrian Christology is characteristically isochrist.

Without the references from the Scholia on the Psalms, the argument for

Evagrius’ isochristic Christology as it stands is reduced to using the condemnations to

construe the meaning of the KG—but, as we have already noted, this maneuver has

been seriously called into question.

14
How does Evagrius portray himself with regard to orthodox teaching?

Talking of Evagrius’ Christology brings us to our second point, which concerns

Evagrius’ self-presentation. These two questions are quite closely linked because

Evagrius’ Christology is unambiguously (if not exhaustively) laid out in a letter-cum-

treatise that survives in the original Greek—his On the faith—in which he aims to

promote the Cappadocian position on Nicene orthodoxy by articulating it and by

attacking the Arian and Pneumatochian positions on Christ and the Holy Spirit,

respectively. His posture in this letter is one of a champion of orthodoxy, but it is not

(and, historically, could not well have been) triumphalist: he is defending a

beleaguered position with all the vigor that one might expect from a competitor who

is down, but not out, in the fight.39

Now it should be said at once that previous treatments of Evagrian Christology

have made use of the evidence from On the faith, but not in such a way as one could

reasonably expect. In this document, we have a lengthy, developed statement of

Evagrius’ position that survives in the language in which he wrote it—and on those

counts alone it is far, far more promising than trying to puzzle out a coherent position

whilst using the KG as one’s foundation. One might want to work from KG on the

basis that it expresses Evagrius’ mature views. But in response to that point, it needs

to be recalled that we have no reason at all to suppose that Evagrius underwent a

profound change of perspective at any time in his authorial career; to the contrary, all

the evidence we have suggests a stable development.

To the best of our knowledge, for his entire life Evagrius moved in circles that

were sympathetic to Origen and supports of Nicaea: from his earliest days, we find

15
that he was associated with Gregory of Nazianzus and probably Basil the Great during

the time when they were compiling their anthology of Origen’s works and that, as a

young man, he turned for guidance to Melania and Rufinus in Jerusalem—who sent

him off to the Egyptian desert, into the company of the Nitrian monks whom Melania

knew from her pilgrimages.40 So the biographical evidence gives us no reason to think

that Evagrius’ view was somehow radically transformed by his association with the

Egyptian monks. It is therefore only prudent to work forward cautiously from the only

complete Christological statement of his that we have, and give it priority when

attempting to configure the elusive claims that are scattered elsewhere throughout

other writings (not least in KG).

There is in fact positive evidence that Evagrius’ early commitment to an

orthodox profession of faith was not abandoned during his time in Egypt. It is found

in the long recension of Ad uirginem 54 (which was probably within a decade of his

arrival in Egypt).41 In brief, that recension features a lengthy doctrinal statement that

is not found in the Greek tradition (edited by Greßmann from MS Vat. gr. 515), but

that is found in both Rufinus’ Latin version and the Syriac translation edited by

Frankenberg. Although he did not offer much by way of an argument for his position,

Greßmann claimed that the longer recension represents an interpolation; but Joseph

Muyldermans and Gabriel Bunge have advanced more persuasive arguments for the

authenticity of the longer version.42 It makes more sense to suppose that, by the

thirteenth century (when Vat. gr. 515 was produced), a Greek scribe had decided to

omit Evagrius’ musings about the “teachings of the Lord’s Church” than it does to

think that someone other than Evagrius added the passage at an early enough stage for

it to be reflected in both Rufinus’ translation and the Syriac translation. And it is

16
significant that, in the dogmatic passage, Evagrius returns to several assertions of

Christological orthodoxy. Here is the text in translation:43

I have seen men corrupting virgins by their teachings

and annulling their virginity.

{As for you, my child, listen to the teachings of the Lord’s Church,

and let no outsider win you over.

God established heaven and earth,

and has forethought for them all and rejoices in them.

No angel is incapable of evil,

and no demon is wicked by nature;

for God made both by his own free will.

Just as a human consists in a corruptible body and a rational soul,

even thus was Our Lord born (save for sin).

In eating, he truly ate,

and when he was crucified he was truly crucified,

nor was it an apparition to deceive the sense of men.

There will certainly be a resurrection of the dead,

and this world will pass away,

and we will receive spiritual bodies.}

For the righteous will inherit light,

but the impious will dwell in shadows.

Even in outlining the Church’s teaching, Evagrius makes mention of the “spiritual

bodies” that will be given in the world to come; but there is no indication here of the

speculative teachings that are described, and condemned, in the Second Origenist

Controversy. Is it possible, though, that Evagrius is reserving his own views (to be

17
contrasted, perhaps, to “the teachings of the Lord’s Church”) for a more advanced

work? This question brings us to the matter of Evagrius’ esotericism.

What was Evagrius trying to hide?

It is well known that Evagrius acknowledged holding back information and this

raises the question of what to make of that acknowledgment. For example, at Great

Letter 1, Evagrius writes, “You know that when those who are separated far from

each other by a great distance (which many different necessities may occasionally

bring about) want to know—or to make known to one another—those intentions and

hidden secrets that are not for everyone and are not to be revealed to anyone except

those who have a kindred mind, they do so through letters.”44 In his commentary,

Martin Parmentier writes, “Evagrius ‘has something to hide’. His teaching is, he

realizes, easily misunderstood and rejected. This is why he refrains from showing the

back of his (Origenistic) tongue in his ascetic-practical works, which are addressed to

a wider and less intellectual public.”45 But this approach to Evagrius is fundamentally

flawed, as will be seen from a comparison of Praktikos, intro. §9 and Great Letter 17.

Here, then, are Evagrius’ words at Praktikos, intro. §9:

Now, concerning the ascetic and gnostic life, what we shall fully

describe (instead of such things as we have seen or heard) are such

things as we have learned from {the Elders} to tell to others, setting out

in concise form the ascetic teachings in one hundred chapters on the one

hand, and on the other the gnostic teachings in fifty followed by six

hundred. We shall veil some things, and obscure others, lest we “give

18
 holy things to the dogs” and “cast pearls before swine” (Mt 7.6). But

these things shall be clear to those who have set out on the same path.46

Evagrius is not simply stating his intention to be secretive. Instead, he quotes Mt 7.6

after promising to give a full description of the teachings that he learnt from the

Egyptian elders. Even more importantly, Evagrius claims that the veiled and obscured

points “shall be clear to those who have set out on the same path.” So, in principle, the

esoteric teachings are available to everyone who undertakes the Christian life—or

indeed the Christian ascetic life—with diligence, attentiveness and understanding.47 In

other words, Evagrius encourages his readers to follow his instructions (rather than,
Comment: Excellent!
say, cross-referencing his instructions to later Platonic mystical writings or the like) so

that, setting out on the same path, they may come to understand what is veiled and

obscured in the concise form of the chapters. There is, in a word, organic continuity

between the ascetic practices and the mystical insights.

At Great Letter 17, we read the following:

Now if letters, in service of those far away, can signify what has

happened and what will happen, how much more can the Word and the

Spirit know everything and signify everything to their body, the mind. I

can truly say that many pathways full of various distinctions meet me

here—but I am unwilling to write them down for you because I am

unable to entrust them to ink and paper and because of those who might

in the future happen to come upon this letter. Furthermore, this paper is

overburdened with presumption and it is therefore unable to speak

directly about everything.

At this point in the letter, Evagrius concluding an elaborate simile about how the

universe is like a letter from God, by returning to the claim that letters reveal hidden

19
secrets (from §1, as cited above). It is therefore all the more surprising that, after his

belief that some secrets are best kept, Evagrius embarks on a discussion of the

mystical union of creatures to the Creator.

Curiously, commentators like Parmentier seem to think that this discussion

reveals the closely guarded secrets of Evagrius’ metaphysics. But this is quite simply

to overlook an important claim that Evagrius makes: he clearly foresees the

unrestricted circulation of his letter. This being the case, it would seem that he was

happy for its contents to be noised abroad. In other words, we have strong

presumptive evidence that Evagrius was willing to make available to an unknown and

uncontrolled readership his description of the mystical union of creatures and Creator

as so many rivers flowing into the sea (see Great Letter 27-38). In terms of the

argument set forth in the letter itself, we have no real reason to suppose that these

ruminations are a secretive, esoteric and individualistic insight that he was to keeping

from the great unwashed: these mystical teachings fall within the public domain.48

Since Evagrius was made no effort to hide his mystical teachings, there is no

obvious reason to suppose that they should be taken as potentially heretical

speculation that he is keen to keep from “a wider and less intellectual public.” And if

the letter is not taken as an admission of Origenistic metaphysical speculation, then

there is no need to read it as the description of an ontological union that is potentially

pantheistic. Instead, the letter can be taken as a description of the relational and moral

consequences of reconciliation with God. The most obvious reason for assuming that

any mention of union by Evagrius is Origenistic (in the sixth-century sense of that

term) is because one has the habit of reading back the sixth-century condemnations

onto his writings.

20
CONCLUSION: A PARADIGM SHIFT?

The foregoing questions have been raised by way of suggesting that there are many

points at which to challenge many assumptions that follow naturally from interpreting

Evagrius as the definitive Origenist. It is important to be clear on this point: it is not

so much a matter of refuting Guillaumont, as it is one of identifying questions where a

presumption about Evagrius’ responsibility for the doctrines condemned in 553 and

543 leads to difficulties in interpreting his works. If the description of the status

quaestionis advanced in this paper is accurate, then what is happening can be likened

to a “scientific revolution” (to borrow a phrase from Thomas Kuhn).49

To continue using Kuhn’s analysis, if at times there has been very little direct

engagement between scholars who adhere to different perspectives, this is because

they are basically working within different paradigms. Taken in this way, what we

find is that Bunge, Dysinger and others have begun recording a considerable number

of anomalies with respect to Guillaumont’s thesis about Evagrianism. This situation

may not be entirely satisfactory to some Evagrian scholars, because as yet there is no

fully formed alternative to Guillaumont’s comprehensive thesis—but such is the

nature of on-going research. This Kuhnian approach to the scholarly discussion helps

make sense of Michael O’Laughlin’s criticism of Bunge’s work. O’Laughlin has

faulted Bunge for

offer[ing] another account which stresses different points. […] It seems

therefore that Fr Bunge is challenging the results of Guillaumont, but

addresses an issue excluded by Guillaumont. In fact, he discounts the

two points most central to Guillaumont’s picture of [Evagrius’]

Origenism: his Nachleben and his cosmology. […] But if these other

21
 elements are discounted, if the KG is not central to his thought, does

not Evagrius become much less interesting, much less paradoxical,

much less important? More to the point, are Guillaumont and Bunge

discussing the same issues? Are Guillaumont and Bunge discussing the

same Evagrius?50

It is worth noting that, on this line, the things that make Evagrius interesting,

paradoxical and important are precisely those things that garnered his eventual

condemnation. And it is worth pondering whether the modern enthusiasm for

historically marginal figures (such as those who have attracted condemnations) is in

this instance acting to reinforce Guillaumont’s paradigm precisely because it insists

on the substantial accuracy of the condemnations and thus keeps Evagrius fixed at the

margins.

The point to be taken from this is in essence quite a simple one: opportunities

for further learning can easily be jeopardized (if not lost) by attaching too much

significance on the retrospective orthodoxy of the subject—but the same is no less

true of placing too much significance on the subject’s retrospective heresy. There are,

so to speak, opportunity costs associated with thinking that Evagrius is interesting

chiefly because of his connection to Origenism.

1
Thus, A. Casiday, “Gabriel Bunge and the study of Evagrius Ponticus,” St

Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 48 (2004): 249-97

2
H. U. von Balthasar, “Die Hiera des Evagrius,” Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie

63 (1939): 86-106, 181-206, “Metaphysik und Mystik des Evagrius Pontikus,”

22
Zeitschrift für Askese und Mystik (1939): 31-47 (anonymous ET: “The Metaphysics

and Mystical Theology of Evagrius,” Monastic Studies 3 (1965): 183-195); W. von

Frankenburg, Euagrius Ponticus (Berlin: Weidmann, 1912); H. Greßmann,

“Nonnenspiegel und Mönchsspiegel,” TU 39.4 (Leipgzig: Hinrichs, 1913); I.

Hausherr, “Les versions syriaque et arménienne d’Evagre le Pontique. Leur valeur,

leur situations, leur utilisation, “ Orentalia Christiana 22 (1931): 69-118, “Ignorance

infinie,” OCP 2 (1936): 351-62, “Le De Oratione d’Évagre le Pontique en Syriaque et

en Arabe,” OCP 5 (1939): 7-71, “Nouveaux fragments grecs d’Évagre le Pontique,”

OCP 5 (1939): 229-33, “Ignorance infinie ou science infinie?,” OCP 25 (1959): 44-

52, Les Leçons d’un Contemplatif (Paris: Beauchesne, 1960); J. Muyldermans,

“Evagriana,” Mus 44 (1931): 37-68 and 369-83, “Evagriana : le vatic. Barb. graecus

515,” Mus 51 (1938): 191-226, A travers la traditions manuscrite d’Évagre le

Pontique (Louvain : Muséon, 1939), “Evagriana de la Vaticane,” Mus 54 (1941): 1-

15, Evagriana Syriaca (Louvain: Muséon, 1952); B. Sarghissian, Srboy horn Evagri

Pontac’woy. Vark’ ew matengrutiwnk’ targmanealk’i yowne i hay barbar i hingerord

daroy (Venice: San Lazzaro, 1907)

3
Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica 4.23 (PG 67: 516-21); Sozomen, Historia

ecclesiastica 6.40 (PG 67: 1381-88)

4
J. A. Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca (Hamburg: Leibezeit und Filginer, 1716-29): 8:

364-66; L.S. Le Nain de Tillemont, Memoires pour servir a l’histoire ecclesiastique

des six premiers siecles justifiez par les citations des auteurs originaux (Brussels:

Fricx, 1732): 10: 156-64, 347-48; P.D. Huertius, Liber Origenianorum 2.4.1.7.8

(reprinted by C.H.E. Lommatzsch, Origenis opera omnia [Berlin: Haude and Spener,

1846]: 24: 12-18.)

23
5
Muyldermans, Evagriana Syriaca, v–vi; all the translations in this paper are my

own.
6
See, e.g., Guillaumont, “Le texte syriaque édité des Six Centuries d'Évagre le

Pontique.” Semitica 4 (1951–52): 59–66, “Le texte véritable des ‘Gnostica’ d’Évagre

le Pontique,” Revue de l’Histoire des Religions 142 (1952): 156-205.

7
See esp. Guillaumont, “Évagre et les anathémismes antiorigénistes de 553,” SP 3

/TU 78 (1961): 219–26

8
Thus, Guillaumont, “Un philosophe au désert: Évagre le Pontique,” Revue de

l'Histoire des Religions 181 (1972): 29–56; and cf. Balthasar, “Metaphysik und

Mystik des Evagrius Pontikus.”

9
Again, Balthasar’s “Metaphysik und Mystik des Evagrius Pontikus” is important in

this connection; one should also consult Henri Crouzel’s many publications on

Origen, e.g., Les fins dernières selon Origène (Aldershot: Variorum, 1990).
10
On Guillaumont as the “discoverer” of Evagrius, see G. Quispel, Review of W. H.

C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity, VC 39 (1985): 82-86 at 83; Quispel is echoed –

and expanded rather implausibly so as to make Guillaumont eclipse the antecedent

scholarship almost entirely – by M. O’Laughlin, “New Questions concerning the

Origenism of Evagrius,” in R. Daly, ed., Origeniana Quinta (Leuven: Peeters, 1992):

528-34 at 528. On the condemnations as “point for point” quotations from Evagrius’

KG, see O’Laughlin, “New Questions,” 528; Cristian Badiliţa, Evagrie Ponticul:

Tractatul practice, Gnosticul (Iaşi: Polirom, 2003): 23 n. 1. This claim is based on A.

Guillaumont, Les “Kephalaia Gnostica” d’Évagre le Pontique et l’histoire de

l’Origenisme chez les Grecs et chez les Syriens (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1962): 124-

70, esp. 147-56. In point of fact, it is an incautious overstatement to say that the any of

24
the condemnations were taken directly from Evagrius; at best, one could argue that

they bear a resemblance to KG-S2.

11
Before beginning to publish work on Evagrius, Bunge’s major works include

Untersuchungen zum zweiten Makkabäerbuch, Doctoral thesis: Bonn University,

1971; Jausep Hazzaya: Briefe über das geistliche Leben und verwandte Texte (Trier:

Paulinus-Verlag, 1982); “Mar Isaak von Nineve und sein ‘Buch der Gnade,’”

Ostkirchliche Studien 34 (1985): 3–22.

12
See, e.g., G. Bunge, “Hénade ou Monade? Au sujet de deux notions centrales de la

terminologie évagrienne,” Mus 102 (1989): 69-91 and “Mysterium Unitatis. Der

Gedanke der Einheit von Schöpfer und Geschöpf in der evagrianischen Mystik,”

Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 36 (1989): 449-9.

13
E.g., Bunge, Geistliche Vaterschaft: christliche Gnosis bei Evagrios Pontikos

(Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1988), Akedia. Die geistliche Lehre des Evagrios

Pontikos vom Überdruß, 4th rev. ed. (Würzburg: Der Christliche Osten, 1995),

Drachenwein und Engelsbrot—die Lehre des Evagrios Pontikos von Zorn und

Sanftmut (Würzburg: Der Christliche Osten, 1999)

14
Bunge, Earthen Vessels: The Practice of Personal Prayer according to the Patristic

Tradition (San Fransisco: Ignatius Press, 2002)

15
I. Ică, “Părintele Gabriel Bunge şi dilemele exegezei evagriene: filologie sau/şi

congenialitate,” in G. Bunge, Evagrie Ponticul. O introducere (Sibiu: Deisis, 1997):

5-16
16
Badiliţa, Evagrie Ponticul
17
Ică, “Părintele Gabriel Bunge,” 9
18
Ică, “Părintele Gabriel Bunge,” 9
19
Ică, “Părintele Gabriel Bunge,” 10-11

25
20
See Ică, “Părintele Gabriel Bunge,” 12 n.
21
Ică, “Părintele Gabriel Bunge,” 11
22
See Ică, “Părintele Gabriel Bunge,” 9-12 and cf. H.-G. Gadamer, Wahrheit und

Methode (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1965): 163-72, 180-185, 318-23 (“Philologen”),

202-05, 274-75, 294-95 (congeniality). For another important assessment of

continuity, with particular emphasis on the abiding discontinuity that must come with

the passage of so much time, see C. Stewart, “‘We?’ Reflections on Affinity and

Dissonance in Reading Early Monastic Literature,” Spiritus 1 (2001): 93-102.

23
Ică, “Părintele Gabriel Bunge,” 14
24
For recent work on literacy in late ancient Egypt, see the collected studies of Ewa

Wipsyzcka, Études sur le christianisme dans l’Égypte de l’antiquité tardive (Rome:

Augustinianum, 1996); for an assessment of the intellectual state of Egyptian

monasticism, see M. Sheridan, “The Spiritual and Intellectual World of Early

Egyptian Monasticism,” Coptica 1 (2002): 1-51.

25
Badiliţa, Evagrie Ponticul, 7
26
Badiliţa, Evagrie Ponticul, 7-8
27
Badiliţa, Evagrie Ponticul, 19-23
28
A.-J. Festugière, Culture ou sainteté: Introduction au monachisme oriental (Paris:

Cerf, 1961)
29
Badiliţa, Evagrie Ponticul, 20-22 (NB: Badiliţa cites Festugière at 20 n. 1)
30
Badiliţa, Evagrie Ponticul, 23
31
See especially the accusations reported by Cyril of Scythopolis in his Life of

Kyriakos 12-13 (TU 49.2: 229-30). For another modern echo that lacks the

denunciation, but retains the analysis and strongly emphasizes Evagrian thought as a

26
system, see Stewart, “‘We?’,” 97: “Evagrius subordinates everything to a grand

scheme he derived from Hellenistic philosophy and from the work of Origen.”
32
Badiliţa, Evagrie Ponticul, 29-34
33
Cf. E. Clark, The Origenist Controversy (Princeton: Princeton University Press,

1992): 44 n 4: “The absence of reference to Evagrius in the controversy is noted by J.

G. (Gabriel) Bunge, ‘Origenismus-Gnostizismus: Zum geistgeschichtlichen Standort

des Evagrios Pontikos,’ [VC 40 (1986)] 25-26, but Bunge uses the absence of explicit

mention as a support for Evagrius’ basic orthodoxy, rather than as a stimulus for

inquiry about other possible interpretations of this silence.”

34
See especially M. O’Laughlin, “Evagrius Ponticus in Spiritual Perspective,” SP 30

(1997): 224-30.
35
See F. Refoulé, “La christologie d’Évagre et l’Origénisme.” OCP 27 (1961): 221–

66, esp. 248-49; A. Guillaumont, “Évagre et les anathémismes antiorigénistes” and

Les «Kephalaia Gnostica» d’Évagre le Pontique et l’histoire de l’Origénisme, 147-

56.
36
E.g., A. Grillmeier (J. Bowden, trans.), Christ in Christian Tradition (London-

Atlanta: Mowbray-John Knox, 1975): 1: 377-84; J. Bamberger, Evagrius Ponticus:

The Praktikos; Chapters on Prayer (Spencer, MA: Cistercian Publications, 1970):

xxxiii-xxxiv, xlviii-lix, lxxi-lxxxi; R. Sinkewicz, Evagrius of Pontus: The Greek

Ascetic Corpus (Oxford: OUP, 2003): xxxvii-xl; cf. Clark, Origenist Controversy,

249.
37
See J. B. Pitra, Analecta Sacra (Venice: San Lazaro, 1883): 3: 40-41.
38
See L. Dysinger, OSB, Psalmody and prayer in the writings of Evagrius Ponticus

(Oxford: OUP, 2005):152-71 and Appendix 2.

27
39
This work was preserved in the corpus of Basil’s letters as ep. 8. For a critical

edition with Italian translation, see Jean Gribomont’s edition in ed. M. Forlin-

Patrucco, Basilio di Cesarea, Le Lettere (Torino: Società Editrice Internazionale) 1:

84-112. The Loeb translation is still useful: R. J. Deferrari, Collected Letters of St

Basil, LCL (London: Heinemann, 1926): 1: 47-93.

40
In this connection, one of Tillemont’s observations bears repeating (Memoires pour

servir, 10: 214): “Il faut néanmoins remarquer qu’Évagre qu’on met ordinairement

comme le maître des Origenistes de Nitrie, ne vint en Egypte qu’en l’an 382.” In other

words, such Origenism as could be found in Nitria would have been there before

Evagrius.
41
Cf. A. Guillaumont, Un philosophe au désert: Évagre le Pontique (Paris: Vrin,

2004): 163-70
42
See Greßmann, “Nonnenspiegel,” 144; Muyldermans, “Evagriana : le vatic. Barb.

graecus 515,” 208-14; Bunge, Evagrios Pontikos. Briefe aus der Wüste (Trier:

Paulinus-Verlag, 1986): 32-35.

43
The Greek text is found at Greßmann, “Nonnenspiegel,” 150-51; the Syriac, at

Frankenberg, Euagrius Ponticus, 564; the Latin, André Wilmart, ‘Les versions latines

des sentences d’Évagre pour les vierges,’ RBen 28 (1911): 150. For the material in the

longer recension, I translate from the Latin with an eye to the Syriac.
44
For the text, see Frankenberg, Euagrius Ponticus, 610-19 (for §§1-32) and G.

Vitestam Seconde partie du traité qui passe sous le nom de “La grande lettre

d’Evagre le Pontique à Mélanie l’Ancienne” (Lund: Gleerup, 1964) (for §§17, 24, 25,

33-68). This is ep. 62 in the Syriac collection, which is widely (but wrongly) called

“Ad Melaniam;” see Vitestam (1964): 4-5 n. 4 and Bunge (1986): 194-200.

28
45
M. Parmentier, “Evagrius of Pontus’ ‘Letter to Melania’,” Bijdragen, tijdscrift voor

filosofie en theologie 46 (1985): 2-38 at 21; reprinted in ed. E. Fergusson, Forms of

Devotion (New York: Garland, 1999)

46
Recent research has made it entirely plausible to take Evagrius seriously when he

claims that his ascetic and gnostic teachings are drawn from what he heard from the

abbas; e.g., J. Driscoll, ‘Exegetical Procedures in the Desert Monk Poemen,’ in

Mysterium Christi, SA 116 (1995): 155-78 and ‘The Fathers of Poemen and the

Evagrian Connection,’ SM 42 (2000): 27-51; M. Sheridan, ‘The Spiritual and

Intellectual World of Early Egyptian Monasticism,’ Coptica 1 (2002): 1-51. This is a

departure from conventional wisdom – on which, see the various studies mentioned at

Casiday, “Gabriel Bunge,” 266 fn 37.

47
The further implication of Evagrius’ esotericism is that the secret teachings are

available only to fully initiated Christians – and here he is in good company. See O.

Perler, ‘Arkandisziplin,’ Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 1 (195): 667-76.

48
If I understand it correctly, O’Laughlin, “Evagrius Ponticus in Spiritual

Perspective” argues for an interpretation of Evagrius that is similar to the one from

which I wish to distance myself.

49
Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 1996); for what follows, see esp. 42-65.

50
O’Laughlin, “Concerning the Origenism of Evagrius,” 531

29