The Epistula fidei of

Evagrius of Pontus:
An Answer to Constantinople
JOEL KALVESMAKI
The De fide or Epistula fidei by Evagrius is widely thought to have been
written from Constantinople around 381 to Christians back home in Pontus.
In this article, I revive and refine a thesis advanced in 1923 by Melcher, that
the letter was written in fact to Constantinople, after Evagrius fled the city
in 382. Building on Melchers insights, I argue that Evagrius wrote the letter
from Jerusalem or Egypt, as a monk, sometime in 383 or later. Thus, the letter
is not really a defense of his actions, even though he explains why he fled
Constantinople. It is rather a pastoral letter, draped in the spiritual and intellectual mantle of Gregory of Nazianzusan attack on the heresies in the city
and a demonstration to the orthodox of a higher epistemology. Revising the
date and audience of the Epistula fidei permits new insights into the development of Evagriuss theology, the state of Constantinople under Nectarius, and
the contested inheritance of Gregory of Nazianzus.

For the hypothesis developed in this article I owe a debt of gratitude to Fr. Theophanes (Constantine) of Mount Athos. He first suggested that there were problems
with the authorship and dating of the Epistula fidei, and his insights, even those I
found wanting, catalyzed my research. I also thank Robin Darling Young, Augustine
Casiday, and the anonymous reviewers of this journal for their constructive candor.
Mentions of Frankenberg and Gribomonts editions refer, respectively, to Euagrius
Ponticus, ed. Wilhelm Frankenberg, Abhandlungen der Kniglichen Gesellschaft der
Wissenschaften zu Gttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, n.s. 13.2 (Berlin: Weid
mann, 1912), 62034, and Epistula 8, ed. Jean Gribomont, in Basil of Caesarea, Le
lettere, ed. Marcella Forlin Patrucco (Torino: Societ editrice internazionale, 1983),
1:84112. Modern scholars use two systems of numbering for the letter, both of which
are followed here, unless line numbers are crucial, in which case Gribomonts numbering is followed. For Gregory of Nazianzuss Orations, I have followed Discours,
ed. Jean Bernardi et al., SC 247, 250, 270, 284, 309, 318, 358, 384, 405 (Paris: ditions du Cerf, 19781992).
Journal of Early Christian Studies 20:1, 113139 2012 The Johns Hopkins University Press

114 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

In his early adulthood Evagrius of Pontus (ca. 345399) seemed destined

for a successful ecclesiastical career. He spent his youth in the city of Neocaesarea (Pontus) and then perhaps Caesarea (Cappadocia), whose bishop,
Basil the Great, ordained him a reader.1 In 379, shortly after the death of
Basil that January, Evagrius left for Constantinople. Gregory of Nazianzus, the orthodox bishop of the city, had long known of Evagriuss literary,
intellectual, and theological talents. Taking advantage of his arrivalperhaps having induced itGregory enlisted him in the work that led to the
great council of 381.2 Gregory made Evagrius his archdeacon, a position he
continued to hold after his masters untimely departure before the council
was assembled. Evagrius was the citys premiere apologist, and his path
to even higher ecclesiastical office seemed assured.3
Scholars generally agree that Evagriuss departure from Neocaesarea or
Caesarea was marked by some distressing event. The story goes that after
he arrived in Constantinople he received from the community he abandoned a letter asking him to return to his homeland. Evagrius responded
after December 380 (when Gregory delivered Oration 36, quoted in this
response). He asked for more time with Gregory, whom he had just found,
and presented an argument for and exposition of the orthodox faith.4
The circumstances described in the previous paragraph, widely accepted
(but challenged in this article), are derived solely from a letter commonly
called the De fide or Epistula fidei. This letter, the earliest datable writing
by Evagrius, is commonly regarded as a display of Evagriuss theological
pedigree. It is thought to reveal his seminal ideas, his intellectual and spiritual kinship to Gregory and Basil, and the reputation he enjoyed before
his own untimely departure from Constantinople, in 382, when he fled to
Jerusalem to escape sexual entanglement with a prefects wife. The letter
is considered a window into a premonastic Evagrius.
Appearances are illusory. In this article I refine and defend a proposal first
suggested by Melcher in 1923, neglected nearly as soon as it was published:
Evagrius wrote his Epistula fidei, not from but to Constantinople, after he

1. Palladius, H. Laus. 38.2; Antoine Guillaumont, Un philosophe au dsert: vagre

le Pontique (Paris: Vrin, 2004), 32.
2. Guillaumont, Philosophe, 34; Augustine Casiday, Evagrius Ponticus (New York:
Routledge, 2006), 6, 203 n. 6 (speculative but possible).
3. Cf. Apophth. Patr. Evagrius 7 (PG 65:176A), where a priest says to Evagrius:
We know, Abba, that, if you were in your country, you would have been a bishop
many times over and the head of many people. But now here you sit, like a foreigner (my trans.).
4. Guillaumont, Philosophe, 36.

Kalvesmaki/Epistula Fidei115

fled the city in 382. Building on Melchers insights, I argue that Evagrius
wrote the letter from Jerusalem or Egypt, as a monk, sometime in 383 or
later. Thus, the letter is not really a defense of his actions, even though he
explains why he fled Constantinople. It is rather a pastoral letter, draped in
the spiritual and intellectual mantle of Gregoryan attack on the heresies
in the city and a demonstration to the orthodox of a higher epistemology.
Revising the date and audience of the Epistula fidei permits new insights
into the development of Evagriuss theology, the state of Constantinople
under Nectarius, and the contested inheritance of Gregory of Nazianzus.
Melcher and the Preamble
Modern understanding of the letter owes much to the 1923 scholarship of
Bousset and Melcher, who were essential in recovering what was forgotten sometime after the sixth century, that Evagrius was the author.5 Both
scholars extensively used the preamble of the Epistula fidei to rehabilitate
the author and explain the circumstances for the writing of the letter. That
preamble (and a bit more) runs as follows:6

5. See Wilhelm Bousset, Apophthegmata: Studien zur Geschichte des ltesten

Mnchtums (Tbingen: Mohr, 1923), 33541; Robert Melcher, Der achte Brief des
hl. Basilius: Ein Werk des Evagrius Pontikus, Mnsterische Beitrge zur Theologie1 (Mnster i.W: Aschendorff, 1923), esp. 14, 7879. Our earliest manuscript, a
sixth- or seventh-century copy of a Syriac translation, ascribes the letter to Evagrius.
After he was condemned in the sixth century the letter was transmitted in the Greek
under other, less controversial names (Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, and Nilus
of Ancyra). For the eight Greek manuscripts see, in addition to Gribomonts edition
(which collates only five, and omits the Syriac), Jean Gribomont, Ldition romaine
(1673) des Tractatus de S. Nil et lOttobonianus gr. 25, Texte und Untersuchungen
133 (1987): 187202, and Paul Ghin, La place de la Lettre sur la foi dans loeuvre
dvagre, in Lepistula fidei di Evagrio Pontico: Temi, contesti, sviluppi; Atti del
III Convegno del Gruppo Italiano [1998, Pragia, Italy] di Ricerca su Origene e la
Tradizione Alessandrina, ed. Paulo Bettiolo, Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 72
(Rome: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 2000), 2558. The Greek manuscripts
do not vary greatly, so it is unlikely that the three late, uncollated manuscripts would
significantly improve Gribomonts edition, which accurately captures the text as it stood
in the tenth century. In this article, however, I occasionally cite the Syriac translation
when its variations point either to a different Greek reading or, easily overlooked, to
an ancient interpretation that may prove insightful.
6. Trans. Casiday, Evagrius Ponticus, 4647 (based on Gribomonts edition, 8486),
some wording adapted, especially to reflect the Syriac translation (explained below),
and punctuation introduced to mark quotations. Numbering is from Gabriel Bunge,
Brief aus der Wste (Trier: Paulinus-Verlag, 1986), with a andb supplied to facilitate
my discussion. On editions and numbering, see unnumbered note, above.

116 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

1. Often I have wondered what you have felt for us; why, so forlorn,
you have asked so much from our wretchedness, smallness, insignificance,
and even lack of lovability;7 and exhorted us with words reminding us of
friendship and homelandas if you were trying with bonds of nostalgia to
draw a fugitive back to his own people. I confess, and do not deny, that I
have become a fugitiveand now you may learn the reason why, which
you have long wanted to know.8 And it is as follows.
2[a]. First and foremost, I was smitten by something unexpected and could
not keep hold of my thoughts, as happens when by sudden noises people
are utterly taken by surprise;9 but fleeing, I travelled far away and have
dwelt enough time away from you.10 Furthermore, a certain longing
for godly teachings, and for the philosophy pertaining to them, overtook
me.11 For how, I asked, could we in any other way conquer the evil that
dwells within us? [b] Who would be my Laban, freeing me from Esau and
leading me to the highest philosophy? 3[a]. But since, with Gods help, we
have as far as possible now attained our goal, by having found a vessel
of election and a deep wellspringI mean Gregory, the mouthpiece of
Christa little time, I beg you, grant us a little time! [b] We ask this, not
embracing the way of life in the cities (for it has not escaped us that the
Evil One devises deceit for men by such means)but rather judging that
the society of holy men is most helpful. For in speaking a bit about godly
teachings, and more frequently in listening, we are acquiring a habit of
contemplation that is not easily lost. This is how it currently is with us.
4. As for you, o divinely noble leaders whom I love beyond all, beware of
the Philistines shepherds, lest one of them block your wells unaware and
contaminate the purity of your knowledge concerning the faith.

Boussets opinion, that Evagrius wrote the letter as a display of theological prowess while under the tutelage of Gregory in Constantinople, has
shaped all subsequent ones. And his implausible suggestion that Evagrius
first became a monk in Caesarea is still widely circulated.12 Influential too
7. The entire quote derives from Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 36.1 (SC 318:240),
even though the opening words are found in many rhetorical treatises. See Gribomonts edition and Leonardo Lugaresi, Non disprezziamo leconomia: Linflusso del
pensiero teologico di Gregorio Nazianzeno sullEpistula fidei, in Bettiolo, LEpistula
fidei, 87143, 90 n. 8.
8. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 2.6 (SC 247:94).
9. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 2.6 (SC 247:94).
10. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 2.1 (SC 247:86).
11. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 2.6 (SC 247:94).
12. Bousset, Apophthegmata, 33537. Many have held that Basil made Evagrius a
monk, but this theory is poorly supported, based only on a letter whose recipient was
incorrectly identified as Basil; cf. Guillaumont, Philosophe, 28. Further, as pointed out
to me by Fr. Theophanes (Constantine) of Mount Athos (personal communication,

Kalvesmaki/Epistula Fidei117

is Boussets agreement with the opinion expressed in the Maurist edition,

that the letter was written to a monastery, in defense of his flight from
contemplative monasticism to the city.
Melchers workthe harder to find of the two studiesis regrettably
more often cited than read. His conclusion, that Evagrius wrote the letter, has been adopted along with Boussets, but the analysis driving that
conclusion is little known. This is a pity: Melchers study is quite rich, and
he differs significantly from Bousset, offering a novel vision of the date,
origin, and reason for the letter. I summarize here Melchers interpretation, suspending criticism for later.13
Key to Melchers dating is the very same phrase that Bousset and the
Maurist editor took to indicate that the recipients were in a monastery: We
ask this, not embracing the way of life in the cities (
) . . . but rather judging that the society of holy men
is most helpful. Under the Maurist interpretation the author is countering the charge that he has succumbed to city life. Melcher disagrees: if the
author were in the city, the (or ) would have immediately preceded
. The word order implies that the recipients are in a city and
the author has fled to the wilderness.
Melcher then points to this phrase in the preamble (above, 2a): I was
smitten by something unexpected and could not keep hold of my thoughts,
as happens when by sudden noises people are utterly taken by surprise;
but fleeing, I travelled far away. This refers, he argues, to Evagriuss hasty
departure from Constantinople. After all, what event in his life does the
unexpected blow fit better than the one Palladius describes? According to
the Lausiac History, while in Constantinople Evagrius underwent severe
sexual temptation, and in distress at the prospects of spectacular disgrace
he prayed for deliverance. In a dream an angel, warning him of the danger
he faced, imprisoned him and subjected him to threats. In distress Evagrius
took an oath to leave the city, and when he awoke he acted on it, sailing
from Constantinople the very next day. Melcher argues that in the Epistula
fidei Evagrius reflects on this experience, which explains why he connects
the dangers of city life to the evil that dwells within usan allusion to

2007), such a scenario would require becoming a monk twice, unattested then. If
Evagrius did become a monk anew in Jerusalem, one would expect Palladius to mention it. Instead, he reports that Melania encouraged Evagrius to make the monastic
life his goal (see Palladius, H. Laus. 38.9). If he were a delinquent monk, she should
have encouraged him to return to his discipline.
13. Melcher, Achte Brief, esp. 79, 7378.

118 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

his sexual temptation and his attempts to conquer it, accomplished only
after he had fled the city and entered the monastic ranks.
Elsewhere in the letter, Melcher notes, Evagrius commands his readers
to give an account of his teaching and to bear fruit. That is, he exerts his
spiritual authority and seems to outrank his readers, another important
contextual clue. Yet in the preamble and section 4, Evagrius speaks to his
divinely noble leaders, to whom he owes some explanation for his conduct. The preamble strikes a tone of deference, not of authority. So is the
writer above or below his readers in the ecclesiastical hierarchy? In most
letters this would be a puzzle. But Melcher argues that it is quite fitting,
given Evagriuss prominent but problematic standing. The discrepancy is
resolved by entertaining this scenario: Evagrius the renegade archdeacon
wrote the letter to the Constantinopolitans in 382 or later, after he fled
the city, both to account for his actions and to hold his brothers accountable for theirs.
Melcher entertains one very strong objection to his theory: how could
Evagrius claim in the letter to have found Gregory? Palladius mentions
nothing about Evagrius spending time with Gregory of Nazianzus after his
departure from Constantinople. Melcher answers that this is probably due
to the brevity of Palladiuss report. He inverts the objection: wouldnt it be
very strange if Evagrius, in the throes of the biggest crisis of his life, did not
have immediate recourse to the man he trusted most? It would be logical
to expect Evagrius to have spent some time in Nazianzus before going on
to Jerusalem. Or, if that is unconvincing, perhaps we should take seriously
the passing remark in Socrates history (H. e. 4.23.9499) that Evagrius
traveled to Egypt with Gregory, who introduced him to the local monks.
Rather than scrutinize the historical details and deal with concomitant problems, Melcher uses his hypothesis to re-imagine the relationship
between Evagrius and Gregory. He points out that Gregory, who ordained
him archdeacon and included him in his last will and testament, always
prized Evagriuss intellect. And we know from Palladius that Evagrius
had excellent writing skills. So perhaps he was Gregorys personal secretary. Maybe while in Egypt he was instrumental in editing Gregorys orations. After all, who in Gregorys circle was more suited to this task than
Evagrius?14 In the preamble of Epistula fidei, there are inexact quotations
from Gregorys orations. Perhaps these are not so much incorrect quotations as pre-edited versions of the orations.
Melchers hypothesis is incredible, in both senses. But its one kindbold
inventivenessis overshadowed by the otherunbelievable speculation.
14. Reinforced by three extant letters (12, 23, and 46) from Evagrius to Gregory.

Kalvesmaki/Epistula Fidei119

For example, if Evagrius wished to be with Gregory he would have traveled

to Nazianzus overland, not by boat. And why should we credit Socrates
comment, that sick old Gregory had the stamina to sail to Egypt in the
mid-380s? Where in the steady stream of post-381 letters Gregory left
behind, all from Nazianzus, is the evidence for a voyage taken merely to
give Evagrius a tour of the monasteries in Egypt? Were neither Melania
nor Rufinus up to the task? Did Evagrius meet no Egyptians beforehand
in Constantinople?
There are other problems. But as I have worked through these difficultiessome of which throw doubt on the traditional interpretation, tooI
have found that the best answers have prompted me not to reject Melchers
hypothesis but to refine it. I believe now that Evagrius wrote the Epistula
fidei after he fled Constantinople, but early on, sometime after mid-383,
and so from Nitria, the earlier, communal phase of his ascetic career.15
The complex theological ideas we find in the letterthose ideas that are
particularly Evagrianare the intellectual first fruits of his fellowship with
the monks of Jerusalem and the Egyptian desert. I offer six arguments for
my case. I begin with three significant problems in Melchers hypothesis,
problems that I believe can be resolved in his favor. I then present three
arguments that Melcher did not consider and that strengthen my revised
interpretation and enhance the ability of the letter to cast new light on
post-381 Constantinople and Gregory of Nazianzus.
1. Anticity Polemic
First, when Melcher argues that the letter was not directed to a monastery,
he unduly stresses the position of the in the phrase
. After all, the is grammatically parallel to ,
which governs its own participle (
). No matter where it is placed, the negation
alters embracing, not life or cities. Changing the position of the
would not change the letters recipients from city dwellers to monks.
True enough. Yet consider the rhetorical force of the sentence. It is hard
to deny that by claiming that one should not embrace the way of city life
Evagrius has introduced or addressed a wedge between himself and his
audience. The sentence does one of two things. Either the author, now in
15. It is also possible that Evagrius wrote from Rufinus and Melanias monastery
in Jerusalem. But the rhetoric about city and desert as well as insiders and outsiders better suits the Egyptian milieu. After all, Jerusalem, as Palladius says Evagrius
quickly learned, had the same temptations as Constantinople.

120 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

retreat to the wilderness, is warning his urban audience of the dangers of

the city; or else he is now in a city and is defending himself before his rural
or monastic audience against the charge of having succumbed to urban
pleasures. This is not a city-to-city letter. So if Evagrius wrote the letter
while still in Constantinople, it is implausible that he sent it to Neocaesarea,
Caesarea, or any other nearby city, as one form of the conventional view
would have it. One could suggest that he wrote to a rural monastery near
Neocaesarea, say Annisa, but this introduces yet another problem. There
is no good reason to believe that Evagrius became a monk while he was
with Basil.16 Quite the contrary: his career path was following the contours of the urban ecclesiastical hierarchy, not monastic community. The
evidence for the ancient office of reader, to which Basil raised Evagrius, is
associated with cities and churches, not monasteries.17 One could propose
instead that Evagrius wrote to rural parts of Pontusafter all, his father
was a chorepiscopus, a regional bishop. But this makes aspects of the letter
unintelligible. For example, how could anyone sensibly accuse Evagrius
of being a fugitive to the city only as late as 379? Evagrius seems to have
always flourished in a city. He had already spent most of his life in a fairly
important city, Neocaesarea, perhaps for more than twenty-five years.18
According to the behavior Palladius reports, Evagrius seems to have been
a flashy, urbane socialite, not only in Constantinople but also in Jerusalem (at least before falling ill and repenting). Overall, the traditional view
cannot adequately account for the anti-city polemic in the prologue; the
new hypothesis makes this perfectly intelligible. Evagrius was turning his
back on the pleasures of city life.

16. See n. 12 above.

17. In the fourth and fifth centuries the order of reader was an important stage for
many illustrious ecclesiastical careers, like the one Evagrius seemed to be following.
Readers were commonly ordained as teenagers or younger (Dictionnaire darchologie
chrtienne et de liturgie [Paris: Letouzey et An, 190753], 8.2:2247), which suggests
that Evagriuss ordination to this office was closely tied to his education (and his budding rhetorical prowess) in Neocaesarea. The ancient sources about readers presume
that their public reading occurs in urban churches, where exegesis was important. See
J. G. Davies, Deacons, Deaconesses and the Minor Orders in the Patristic Period,
Journal of Ecclesiastical History 14 (1963): 115.
18. Casiday, Evagrius Ponticus, 67, suggests Evagrius had been at Neocaesarea
(modern-day Niksar) since 352/53. The city, being the regional capitol on the heavily traveled Pontic Road, was important. Its size in the fourth century is unknown.
Anthony Bryer and David Winfield, The Byzantine Monuments and Topography of the
Pontos, Dumbarton Oaks Studies 20 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research
Library and Collection, 1985), 10710.

Kalvesmaki/Epistula Fidei121

2. Creative Engagement with

Gregory of Nazianzuss Orations
A second problem with Melchers argument is his incomplete analysis of
Evagriuss use of the orations of Gregory. He notes how Evagrius departs
from Gregorys wording, but he considers only that Evagrius might have
helped edit Gregorys orations. This raises more questions than answers,
and obviates a potentially rich line of inquiryWhat do these quotations
from Gregory tell us about Evagriuss correspondents? What rhetorical
impact do the quotations have? How do they serve Evagriuss argument?
And why Gregory?
These difficulties throw doubt not just on Melchers work but also on the
traditional interpretation. Numerous scholars have extensively considered
the letters reliance upon Gregory, but no one, including Leonardo Lugaresi, who offers one of the most penetrating studies to date, has ventured
to use the quotations to develop a profile of Evagriuss audience.19 The
traditional interpretation makes such an endeavor difficult. Consider, for
example, the simple question: were the quotations from Gregory familiar
to the recipients or not? Suppose they wereas would be expected, given
the quotation habits of ancient letter writers. How and why did Gregorys
orations obtain such a mark of familiarity so soon (a few months after their
delivery), and in such a setting (monastery or rural area of Pontus or Neocaesarea)? Why didnt Evagrius use his own words? What extra rhetorical
impact did the quotations from Gregory have? What did Evagrius expect
his audience to do with them? Or suppose the more unlikely scenario, that
the recipients of the letter didnt know Gregory was being quoted. Then
why did Evagrius bother? To show off? Or is the letter merely a rhetorical
exercise? If so, why? As long as such questions cannot be answeredas
seems to be the case under the traditional interpretationthe letter remains
an enigma, a treatise with a faceless audience.
Melchers hypothesis is uniquely positioned to explain the letters use
of Gregory. In the early or mid-380s no one would have known Gregorys
orations better than the Christians of Constantinople. Many of the orations were delivered there. And even the ones that werent were circulating along with the numerous letters, poems, and other literary works that
Gregory dispatched from retirement in Nazianzus.20 The handling of the
19. Lugaresi, Non disprezziamo leconomia, 200.
20. For an exploration of Gregorys active literary presence in Constantinople after
381, see John A. McGuckin, St. Gregory of Nazianzus: An Intellectual Biography
(Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimirs Seminary Press, 2001), 37198, esp. 37576.

122 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

quotations implies that the recipients knew Gregorys orations well. The
first two words echo numerous classical speeches
going back to Isocrates, and they signal to any rhetorically educated audience that a quote that should be familiar to them is about to follow. From
the third word onward

(Gribomont 1.13) Evagrius quotes (with some modification)
the opening of Gregorys landmark Oration 36, delivered in November
or December 380, after Emperor Theodosius installed him in the Church
of the Holy Apostles. In that oration, Gregory answered both detractors who accused him of seeking the episcopal throne and, especially, his
ardent supporters. Gregory begins: I am mystified. What in the world
have my sermons done to you? How can you have been so taken with the
sound of my voice, the voice of a stranger and one that is perhaps weak
and devoid of all charm, that you give me the impression of being drawn
to us like iron to a magnet?21
Comparison with the Epistula fidei is revealing. Common to both texts
is an awkward relationship between speaker and audience. In both, the
audience fawns over the speaker.22 In both, the speaker resists the acclaim.
But whereas Gregory says that his audience has been unduly dazzled by his
words, Evagrius says that he himselfnot his wordshas affected his readers. Evagrius associates wordsthe words of persuasionwith his audience.23 So he identifies himself with Gregory, putting himself in his place,
but expresses amazement that he is receiving the same level of attention,
even without polished words. By quoting from Oration 36 Evagrius asks
the Constantinopolitans to treat him as they would Gregory. And he signals that the Epistula fidei will cover material comparable to Oration36,
where Gregory clarifies his motives and admonishes his audience to the

21. Trans. Martha Vinson, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Select Orations, FC 107
(Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2003), 220.
22. This is emphasized in the Syriac. Where our text reads
(Gribomont 1.12), the Syriac reads w'Ro = a= K (Frankenberg 620.12),
which suggests a slightly different underlying Greek, e.g.,
. The insertion may seem grating, but in other parts of the quote Evagrius has
changed Gregorys wording to introduce alliteration and assonance, which Lugaresi
(Non disprezziamo leconomia, 90) takes as a sign of rhetorical inferiority. Perhaps
this was intentional, to make clear he was evoking, but subordinate to, Gregory and
his beautiful rhetoric.
23. Our Greek text reads (Gribomont 1.3). The Syriac
text reads w'Ro =' w'Ro == o' (Frankenberg 620.3), suggesting a Greek text that emphasized persuasion, e.g., .

Kalvesmaki/Epistula Fidei123

orthodox faith and a virtuous life. And he indirectly warns his audience
not to expect such lofty rhetoric as Gregory delivered.
The next quote from Gregory is prompted by the subject of exile. It may
be tempting to take Evagriuss claim to be a refugee as merely a literary
trope, not necessarily corresponding to actual events.24 But the metaphor of
fugitive seems to have been raised originally by his respondents. We see in
section 1 the echoes of the original letter, something like: Remember your
friends, return to the homeland you have fled. So he formally marks a new
section in the preamble by embracing the insinuation that he is a fugitive,
and he turns to Oration 2.25 Gregory had delivered this oration in 362,
when he played the part of a repentant runaway and returned to accept his
priestly responsibilities in Nazianzus. While circulating in Constantinople
in the early 380s, the oration would have invited the Constantinopolitans
to put themselves in the place of the congregation of Nazianzus. Gregory
explains his disobedience: And now you may learn the reasons for this,
which you have long wanted to hear. First and foremost, I was smitten by
something unexpected and could not keep hold of my thoughts, as happens
when by sudden noises people are utterly taken by surprise.... Furthermore, a certain love for the good of quiet and of withdrawal overtook
me.26 The ellipses mark where Evagrius has inserted another passage of
the same oration, but from its beginning. There, concerning his revolt and
cowardice, Gregory says, Fleeing, I traveled far away and have dwelt for
some time away from you.27
Once again, the parallels would have been unmistakable to the Constantinopolitans. In both texts, the congregation beckons their renegade
clergyman to return. In both cases, the clergyman asks for understanding. Each speaker pleads that he is seeking something his audience cannot provide. The excuses differ: Gregory appeals directly to withdrawal
and retirement whereas Evagrius appeals to doctrine and its underlying
philosophy. In the Epistula fidei this alteration serves a double purpose.
It gently criticizes the city for not being a suitable place to study, without
hindrance, godly philosophy, and it once again anticipates the letters content, which focuses on the correct interpretation of Scripture.
24. See Lugaresi, Non disprezziamo leconomia.
25. The formal break in the prologue is especially noticeable in the Syriac. Where
we have (in the phrase [Gribomont 1.67]), the Syriac reads ==o u oR' (Frankenberg 620.6), suggesting
a Greek original of . This opening clause is answered by the close
of the prologue: (Gribomont 1.2223).
26. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 2.6 (SC 247:94; my translation).
27. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 2.1 (SC 247:86).

124 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

The quotation technique suggests not that Evagrius was working with a
pre-edited version of Gregorys orations but that he shaped the quotations
to cloak himself in Gregorys mantle. Evagrius could have left the sustained
quotation from Gregorys Oration 2.6 (the one with ellipses) unbroken.
But he jumped to the beginning of the oration and back again, to insert
the claim to being a longtime refugee. Evagrius draws from different parts
of the same oration to isolate three discrete events from his own life: the
sudden blow, the lengthy flight from his readers, and the yearning for godly
philosophy. As Melcher has noted, all three descriptions suit Evagriuss
flight from Constantinople. And by describing these three events in Gregorys words, Evagrius tries to disarm his readers, asking them to approach
him in his absence as they would Gregory in his. He casts himself as his
master, and his readers as his flock.
The rest of the letter is full of Gregorys thought and writings, indirectly and directly invoked. To cover every case would go beyond the
limits of this article. But the penultimate reference to Gregorys orations,
rarely noticed, is especially illuminating. In his peroration (Epistula fidei
12/3640), Evagrius discusses several topics not directly related to heretical teachings. At one point (12/38) he answers a criticism, the only time
in the letter where he does not portray a particular opponent as a heretic:
Let no one protest by saying to me, You are philosophizing to us about
a bodiless and altogether immaterial being, though you are ignorant of the
things at your feet ( [Gribomont 12.20]). The proverb
(the second set of italics) was as old as Plato, but Gregory had used it to
special effect in his second theological oration.28 Denigrating theological
banter that was mere philosophy, Gregory had included the saying to critique those who had treated God like the fifth element, as being bodiless
and immaterial (cf. the first set of italics).29 The parallel suggests that
Evagrius was answering orthodox critics who had or might have accused
him of violating the theological method Gregory set down in Oration 28.
That is, the audience of the Epistula fidei regarded Gregorys epistemol28. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 28.29, citing Plato, Theaetetus 175b6, quoted
often, e.g., Lucian, Pseudologista 2.14, Iamblichus, Protrepticus 75.1, Eusebius, P. e.
12.29.11.3. The saying was frequently attached to Thales, typifying the philosopher
unaware of where he was walking: John Stobaeus, Anthology 2.1.22. Bunge suggests a
loose connection between this section of the Epistula fidei and Gregory of Nazianzus,
Or. 31.8; indeed the quote recurs there, but the most relevant parallel is in Or. 28.
29. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 28.8 (SC 250:118). Only in the theological orations does Gregory use the paired terms and as criticism. Elsewhere
Gregory uses them as desirable traits: Ep. 6.3 (GCS 53:7), Or. 21 (SC 270:130), Or.
38 (SC 358:120), Or. 45 (PG 36:629).

Kalvesmaki/Epistula Fidei125

ogy as correct and Gregorys opponents as erroneous. Thus, in the rest

of this section of the Epistula fidei (12/38), Evagrius concisely defends his
own epistemology. He adopts Gregorys admonition to use the senses to
contemplate nature, and argues that the mind functions just as naturally
as the senses. Gregorys principles, Evagrius argues, should be applied
also to the nous.
Critical reflection on the letters use of Gregory, seen in the examples
above, detracts from the traditional view that the letter was written in 380
from Constantinople. The quotations are more easily explained by the
hypothesis that I have proposed. The recipients knew Gregorys writings
well, and Gregorys approach to theology was already a contested inheritance. Evagrius used the quotations to identify himself with his master, to
compel his audience to think and react as if he were Gregory, and even to
argue for an epistemology that builds upon the ideals outlined in the second theological oration. Of all possible audiences the Constantinopolitans
were most suited to understand such sophisticated points.
3. Finding the Vessel of Election
Gregory of Nazianzus
There is a third, very strong objection that Melcher answered rather poorly.
How could Evagrius claim in the letter to have as far as possible attained his
goal by having found Gregorya vessel of election, a deep wellspring?
Why does he plead for a little time with him? After Gregorys departure,
the only way the two could have interacted was by letter. (We infer an
exchange, but only because several letters from Evagrius to Gregory are
extant.) The strange brief reference in Socrates Church History regarding
Gregory of Nazianzuss late trip to Egypt cannot be reconciled with the
numerous letters Gregory left behind from this period, letters that place
him in Cappadocia, with not a hint of a trip anywhere. Melchers other
possible explanation that Evagrius stopped in Cappadocia on his way to
Jerusalem is even more implausible, not just for the mode of transportation, but also for the chronology. If Evagrius wrote the Epistula fidei from
Nazianzus, before he went to Jerusalem (arriving by September 382 at the
latest),30 how could he describe his departure as long ago?
This objection applies with equal force to my own version of Melchers

30. Guillaumont, Philosophe, 44, based largely on Palladiuss account. Evagrius

had to have arrived in Jerusalem before the onset of a six-month sickness that terminated shortly before his entry into the monastic ranks, on April 9, 383 (Pascha).

126 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

hypothesis, that Evagrius wrote the letter from Egypt, sometime after 383.
I even seem to contradict outright the claims that Evagrius makes in the
letter, that he had found Gregory at the time of writing and that he was
requesting a bit more time with him. I grant that this is one way to read
the letter, but it is not the only way. The letters prologue frames its statements about Gregory in a biblical metaphor, and this metaphor is crucial
to reconstructing persons, places, and their relationships.
The metaphor starts with Laban (see 2b in the prologue). Evagrius
asks, who will free him from Esau and lead him to higher philosophy?
Naturally, we understand Gregory to be his Laban as well as his chosen
vessel and deep well. LabanVesselWell: all three images invoke the
story of Jacob, who fled from Esau, arrived at Labans well, and sought
refuge with him (Genesis 2729). Evagrius then dwells on other matters
(3b), but returns to the Jacob allegory immediately after the prologue,
where he admonishes his noble leaders to beware the shepherds of the Philistines, lest they plug up the wells they have dug (4). This refers to the
youth of Esau and Jacob (Genesis 26), when Isaac (and therefore Esau)
had to move his family every time his enemies, the Philistines, stopped up
the wells Abraham originally dug.31
Some of the symbolism in the allegory is obvious. Jacobthe exile and
fugitiveis Evagrius, who states at the outset that he is a refugee (1).
Laban, with whom is the pure, deep well of godly philosophy, is Gregory.
Evagrius is quite direct about both symbols. But what about his audience?
Where do they appear in this allegory? Although not explicit, the answer
is strongly implied. At one point, they are Esau, from whom Jacob fled;
at another, they are Isaac, who struggled constantly to keep his ancestral
wells pure. So Evagrius casts his readers as Isaac-Esau, the compound
symbol of Jacobs lost home, the symbol of those who struggled to retain
the inheritance to the promised land.
The allegory permeates Evagriuss contrast between cities and the society
of holy men. Set as it is in the Jacob allegory, the contrast associates city
life with Isaac-Esau; the society of holy men is life with Laban. Evagriuss
readers are on the civilized inside, with Isaac and Esau; Evagrius is with
Gregory on the periphery, at Labans wells. His readers constantly struggle with polluted wells of hereticsan apt description of the theological
tumult in Constantinople in the 370s and 380s. The pure well of doctrine
is with Gregory, who wanders in the readers hinterland.

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

Kalvesmaki/Epistula Fidei127

Evagriuss account of finding Gregory must be understood within the

Jacob allegory, which interprets but does not reconstruct events he and
his audience already knew quite well. We cannot infer from the letter that
Evagrius hadnt known Gregory until then (this would be farfetched even
in the traditional interpretation of the letter). Rather, we should understand
Evagrius to be explaining his deliberative process as he struggled with his
exile and his sins. Such a struggle fits Evagriuss situation after 382 better
than it does events before. So the Jacob allegory is yet one more reason to
consider the Epistula fidei to have been written to the Constantinopolitans
after Evagrius was enrolled as a monk.
Further, the letter does not necessarily imply that Evagrius wrote it
while physically with Gregory. With the Laban allegory (2b) comes a
new chronology. Should the have . . . now attained (3a) phrase be
tied primarily to the biblical story or to real time? Evagrius leaves it to
his readerswho are already familiar with the real circumstancesto
decide. If Evagrius wrote this while a monk, say in late 383 from Egypt,
then the phrase doesnt contradict the circumstances; it accentuates the
allegory. Further, Evagrius asks for fellowship not with Gregory but with
the saints, in the plural (3b). The phrase the society of holy men can
be read generically, as a typifying ideal, and therefore as a metonymy for
Gregory. But the phrase can also be interpreted concretely, referring to a
discrete number of saints, i.e. a monastic community. This interpretation
casts all of section3 in a new light, characterizing it as Evagriuss reflection on the two great pedagogical stages in his ascent to godly philosophy. Since he has now already obtained Gregory he asks for a little time
with the saints, to turn the rumination on the divine dogmas into a deeply
entrenched habit of contemplation. This twofold interpretation of the section resonates with the penultimate sentence of the prologue (3b), where
godly teachings ( [Gribomont 1.21]) and contemplation ( [Gribomont 1.22]) suggest two stages, one under
Gregory and the second in ascetic pure prayer.
In sum, to most reasonable readers, Evagrius seems to say that he wrote
the letter while in the company of Gregory. This interpretation is understandable, but it is not the only possible one. Evagrius assumes his readers know his circumstances. Gregory is mentioned by name only in the
context of an extended biblical allegory. When this allegory is taken into
account, the letter can be interpreted sympathetically as postdating 383.

128 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

4. The Heresiological Conversation

My last three arguments for the revised hypothesis go beyond the prologue into the rest of the letter, best introduced through its structure, which
reveals something of the purpose of the letter. All this is best understood
through a modified form of Ghins outline (below).32
The first-level headings of the outline suggest a treatise on the Trinity,
following as it does the taxis of the Son and Spirit. But the second level
reveals a principal concern, especially in the second and third parts of
the letter, to explain Scriptures contested by several groups. This forms
the basis of my fourth argument, that the range of topics shows that the
Epistula fidei: Outline
Chapter, line nos.
Bunge

Gribomont

Topic

13

Preamble

413
4
58

23
2.116
2.1746

3.111

1013

3.1153

1. General considerations on Trinitarian doctrine

Attack against heretics (against Arianizers)
Response to accusation of tritheism (riposte to
Arian accusations of Nicene Sabellianism)
Defense of the Nicene homoousios (against the
Homoians and Anomoians)
On the correct interpretation of the words only and
one (dealing with a class of Scriptures favored by
Arianizers)

1429
1415
1618
1926

49
4
5
67

27
28
29

8.17
8.723
9

3035
3032

1011
10

3335

11

3. On the Spirit
Ps 118(119).91: All things are your servants (against
the Pneumatomachians)
Affirmation of the divinity of the Spirit

3640

12

Peroration

2. On the Son
John 6.57: I live through the Father
John 14.28: My Father is greater than I
Matt 24.36: He does not know the day or the hour
of judgment
Prov 8.22: The Lord has created me
1 Cor 15.28: The submission of the Son to the Father
John 5.19: The Son can do nothing of himself

32. Ghin, Place de la Lettre, 28.

Kalvesmaki/Epistula Fidei129

Epistula fidei was sent to an audience engaged in a doctrinal conversation

with many voices. The issue here is not chronological, since these disputes
flourished both before and after 381, but geographical. The range of groups
addressed fits Constantinople especially well.
The first part of the letter takes aim at all groups that deny the homoousios of Nicaea. It deals principally with Arianizing Christians, both followers of Aetius and Eunomius and members of the circle of Demophilus.
But it also addresses Homoians, a rather amorphous set of persons and
circles who preferred the formula of the Son being like the Father.
Evagrius turns in the second part to explain to the best of his ability a
set of Scriptures used by some opponents. The six proof texts he treats
(see the outline above) were frequently used by non-Nicenes, particularly
followers of Aetius and Eunomius. This is confirmed by other pro-Nicene/
anti-Arianizing treatises from the late fourth century that deal with the
majority of these proof texts (among others): Hilary, De synodiis and De
trinitate; Ambrose, De fide ad Gratianum; Epiphanius, Panarion; Gregory
of Nazianzus, Oration 30; Ps.-Basil, Against Eunomius 4; and (disputably)
Didymus the Blind, De trinitate.33 Even Eunomius uses five of the six Scriptures in his Apologia (written ca. 360),34 further evidence that the second
part of the Epistula fidei is aimed at those in the Eunomian tradition.
At the beginning of the third part of the letter Evagrius turns to yet
another group, namely, those who oppose the Holy Spirit. He then
addresses the objections of the Pneumatomachians or Macedonians,
whose principal centers were in Constantinople, the Hellespont, and points
south, along the coast leading to Antioch.35 The principal text, Psalm
118(119).91, is a contested proof text in several fourth-century treatises,
33. Numerous other treatises discuss somewhere most of Evagriuss six verses,
including (in rough chronological order) Eusebius, E. th.; Athanasius, Ar.; Hilary,
Psal.; Didymus the Blind, Ps.; Gregory of Nyssa, Eun. and Ar. et Sab.; Cyril of Alexandria, Dial. Trin. and Thes.; Ps.-Cyril of Alexandria, Trin. For other parallels, see
Richard Paul Vaggione, Eunomius of Cyzicus and the Nicene Revolution (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2000), appendix, and Biblia patristica: Index des citations
et allusions bibliques dans la littrature patristique, 7 vols. (19752000), now combined and enhanced online: www.biblindex.mom.fr/.
34. Eunomius, Apol. 26.22, 11.1112, 26.1416, 27.14, and 26.2223, respectively. Matt. 24.36 is not cited.
35. A further point against the traditional view. Although one could find a few
Macedonians in Cappadocia (e.g., Eustathius of Sebasteia) that was not their stronghold. I could find no Macedonians attested in Pontus. On the regional distribution of
the Macedonians, see Socrates, H. e. 1.8, 2.45, 4.4, 5.4. On the name and historical
background of this group, see R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine
of God: The Arian Controversy 318381 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), 76072.

130 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

many on the Holy Spirit, e.g., Ambrose, De spiritu sancto; Gregory of

Nazianzus, Oration 31; Ps.-Basil, Against Eunomius 5; and (disputably)
Didymus the Blind, De trinitate.
These parts taken together, the Epistula fidei shows the greatest affinity
in the range of its heresiological proof texts with Gregory of Nazianzus,
Oration 30 and 31; Ps.-Basil, Against Eunomius 4 and 5; and Didymus
the Blind, De trinitate. The latter two are little help in confirming the date
or audience of the Epistula fidei.36 Gregorys orations, however, which are
both quoted in the letter, provide a terminus post quem and a sense of
who Evagriuss audience was.
Under the traditional interpretation of the Epistula fidei, one would
need to postulate as recipients of the letter an ecclesiastical community in
or near Neocaesarea or Ibora (Evagriuss hometown) that was struggling
with Homoians, Anomoians, and Macedonians. A monastic community is
not likely because monasteries were not the arenas for theological competition in fourth-century Asia Minor. Cities were. And both Neocaesarea and
Ibora were then still under the strong influence of Basil of Caesarea.37 It is
not impossible that a community in one of these places was struggling with
this range of theological dispute, but it seems unlikely. The setting better
suits Constantinople, the principal theological battleground in the empire.
By this same criterion there is good reason to place the letter after 381,

36. Ps.-Basil, Eun. 4 and 5 were written ca. 36263 by an indeterminate author
against a full range of heresies. See Franz Xaver Risch, Pseudo-Basilius adversus
Eunomium IVV: Einleitung, bersetzung und Kommentar (Leiden: Brill, 1992),
1318, and Thomas Bhm, Basil of Caesarea, Adversus Eunomium IIII and Ps.
Basil, Adversus Eunomium IVV, Studia Patristica 37 (2001): 2026. Book 4 starts
with general theological concerns, then turns to explain fifteen Eunomian-favored
Scriptures (85119). All six of the Epistula fideis proof texts are taken up, as well
as three other ancillary verses (Mark 10.18/Luke 18.19, John 17.3, and Matt. 20.23
= Ep. fid. 3.2021, 3.4849, and 7.3839 = Eun. 4.99100, 4.11417, and 4.118).
Ps.-Basil, Eun. 5, like the third part of the Epistula fidei, turns to the Holy Spirit,
featuring, among other texts, Ps 118(119).91. But this structural similarity is offset by
important differences in content, type of argumentation, sequence of the proof texts,
and so forth. The authorship, date, and audience of Trin., sometimes attributed to
Didymus the Blind, is very difficult to determine. See Alasdair I. C. Heron, Studies
in the Trinitarian Writings of Didymus the Blind: His Authorship of the Adversus
Eunomium IVV and the De Trinitate (PhD diss., Tbingen, 1972), who assigns the
text to Didymus in the 390s. This late date should not be surprising, since Cyril of
Alexandria addressed the same range of Scriptures in the second decade of the fifth
century, in his Thes. and Dial. Trin.
37. Ibora was near Annisa, where Basil and his sister, Macrina, established a monastic retreat. See Anna Silvas, The Asketikon of St Basil the Great (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2005), xviiixix, 44, 6168.

Kalvesmaki/Epistula Fidei131

the terminus for many a modern study on the Nicene Trinitarian controversies. The groups addressed in the letter were active in Constantinople
throughout the 380s. Other ecclesiastical events were held at Constantinople in 382 and 383, similar in scope and topic to the one in 381. Invitations to attend a council in 382 went to several orthodox apologists,
including Gregory of Nazianzus (who declined) and Gregory of Nyssa
(who attended).38 In June 383, plans for a debate or council turned into
something more like an essay-writing contest for the emperor, of pivotal
importance in a city whose religious direction was still unpredictable.39
Various factions were required to present their positions and to promise
to adhere to the doctrines of ancient teachers whose authority was universally recognized.40 Each side had to nominate representatives for the
debate. For determining its parameters the principal intellectual force on
the orthodox side was a reader named Sisinniusa Novatian, nominated
by the sectarian bishop, but approved by Gregory of Nazianzuss successor, Nectarius. At the council Demophilus represented the Arians; Eunomius represented his own faction; Eleusis, a bishop of Cyzicus, defended
the Macedonian (Pneumatomachian) position.41 The theological contest
in 383 would have required participants of the finest rhetorical and intellectual caliber, and it is telling that the orthodox in Constantinople had
to rely upon a Novatian as their guiding light. Evagrius had left a gaping
hole. Preparations for the council in 383 would have been a good motive
for Nectarius to woo Evagrius back to represent the orthodox against the
other three parties. Perhaps the Epistula fidei responds to such a petition.
But we need not hold precisely to 383; initiatives could have come even
later because the capital continued to be the center of ecclesiastical competition. Although Theodosius issued edicts in late 383 and into 384, to
forbid the heterodox from assembling, teaching, or ordaining, sectarians
flourished both inside and outside the city walls.42 Eunomius continued to
teach in the suburbs of Constantinople until he was banished a second and
final time in 389. The Arians in the city were so numerous that, in 388,
when a rumor circulated that Theodosius had been killed on campaign
38. McGuckin, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, 375. See Vaggione, Eunomius, 32225,
on the close relationship between the councils of 381 and 382.
39. R. P. Vaggione, Eunomius: The Extant Works (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987),
131. Socrates description of the 383 council is nearly twice the length of that for 381.
40. Vaggione, Eunomius, 32627.
41. Sozomen, H. e. 7.12; Socrates, H. e. 5.10. The accounts indicate only those
who accepted the invitation; presumably others (e.g., residual Photinians) were also
invited. Vaggione, Eunomius, 326.
42. Vaggione, Eunomius, 32930.

132 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

against the usurper Maximus, they burned down the residence of the
archbishop Nectarius.43
The Epistula fidei may reflect specific developments in the Eunomian
community that occurred in the mid-380s and the early 390s. According to Sozomen, the divisions among the Eunomianscentered in
Constantinoplefestered and eventually resulted in multiple fractures
after Eunomiuss exile.44 The controversies swirled around two men who
were Eunomiuss disciples. First was Theophronius, who speculated on
Gods knowledge and how God changed through what he knew and didnt.
His only known treatise, On the Functioning of the Mind, used Aristotles Categories and On Interpretation to develop his points. Second was
Eutychius, who also engaged epistemological issues. The debate du jour
concerned Matt 24.36 (But of that day and hour no one knows, not even
the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone).45 Eutychius
maintained that the Son knew the day and the hour because he had from
the Father everything and he was deficient in nothing. Eunomian leaders
rejected Eutychiuss position and this resulted in a schism in the 390s.
One of the longest passages in the Epistula fideiindeed, the fulcrum of
the letterdeals with the proof text in terms Eutychius would have recognized. Evagriuss explanation, which develops his epistemology (discussed
below) advances beyond all previous ones, including that of Gregory.46
And Evagriuss argument elsewhere in the letter against qualities in God
(3/9) is presented in categorical terms any Aristotelian, such as Theophronius, could understand.47
In sum, the Epistula fidei shows an awareness for a broad range of groups
that could be found throughout the 380s, especially in Constantinople.

43. For sources, summary, and analysis, see Vaggione, Eunomius, 35053.
44. Sozomen, H. e. 7.17. See also the briefer account by Socrates, H. e. 5.24. For
analysis see Vaggione, Eunomius, 34446.
45. This is the one proof text of the second part of the Epistula fidei not quoted
by Eunomius in his Apologia.
46. Gregory of Nazianus, Or. 30.1516, treats the verse superficially. Lugaresi,
Non disprezziamo leconomia, 99, calls it una spiegazione piuttosto pover di
questo punto, and argues that, although Evagrius pays respect to Gregorys thought,
he is presenting his own ideas. Certainly, Evagrius departs from earlier apologists for
this verse. See Vaggione, Eunomius: The Extant Works, appendix, s.v. for references.
47. Elsewhere Evagrius shares with Theophronius a lively interest in Aristotles
Categories. See Ghin, Place de la Lettre, 3136.

Kalvesmaki/Epistula Fidei133

5. Developed Evagrian Theology

Passages in the Epistula fidei make use of Evagriuss fully developed speculative system. This shows that the formative influences on his theology
were already gestating when he wrote the letter. And some of those ideas
diverge so significantly from the thought of Gregory of Nazianzus that it is
reasonable to infer that Evagrius was then outside his teachers intellectual
ambit. This developed Evagrian theology does not necessarily undermine
the traditional interpretation of the letter, but it does leave unanswered
the question of what formative influences, intellectual or otherwise, would
have permitted a letter of this depth to be written around 380. Under my
hypothesis, these influences can be explained by Evagriuss post-Constantinopolitan changes.
Fr. Theophanes, a monk of Mount Athos, has recently argued that the
Epistula fidei is a pastiche. He has identified some passages that he says
do not sound like Evagrius and others that are characteristic of Evagrius
in his advanced thought.48 For example, the letter discusses the stages
that lead from natural contemplation to contemplation of the godhead
(67/2026), a paradigm embedded in his speculative writings. It refers to
symbolic terms that are explained only in highly developed Evagrian texts
such as the Kephalaia gnostica.49 Such parallels motivate Fr. Theophanes

48. Fr. Theophanes (Constantine), To the Caesareans . . . by Evagrius Ponticus

(Basil) (2007), translation and commentary, http://timiosprodromos5.blogspot.com
(accessed January 2009); Fr. Theophanes (Constantine), Preliminary Remarks on the
Analysis of Internal Evidence in Basil Letter 8 for Evagrian Authorship and Dating,
with Reference to the Theological Orations of St Gregory the Theologian, address
to the 2008 Conference of the North American Patristics Society, subsequently posted
online at http://timiosprodromos7.blogspot.com; and personal correspondence. He
claims that although the history of the text cannot be definitively reconstructed, its
various problems preclude complete authorship by Evagrius in 380 or 381. Although
some of his observations have merit, I do not think that the unity of the Epistula
fidei need be doubted.
49. For example, intelligible sun, referred to at Epistula fidei 7.51 (but without
explanation), is defined at Kephalaia gnostika 3.44: The intelligible sun is the reasoning nature that contains within it the first and blessed light (trans. Luke Dysinger,
St. Evagrius Ponticus (345399), [n.d.], http://www.ldysinger.com/Evagrius/00a_start
.htm (accessed May 2011); cf. Evagriuss cap. 22). The connection is interesting but
unconvincing. Intelligible sun was in common use then (found in, e.g., Asterius,
Apollinaris, Didymus, Ephrem Graecus, and Macarius), and nothing requires one to
infer that the Kephalaia gnostika and the Epistula fidei are working from the same
definition of this term. But the general observation, that the letter is intertwined with
the terminological symbolism of later Evagrian texts, holds. See the cross-references
listed in Gribomonts edition and Melcher, Achte Brief, 8399.

134 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

to argue against the letters attribution to early Evagrius along a number

of lines, most convincingly concerning influences.50 Gregory of Nazianzus
was the only viable intellectual influence on Evagrius in 38081, yet the letter conflicts with Gregorys opinions, such as in the two examples above.51
Even if these inconsistencies can be interpreted as different approaches
to the same Nicene truth, those differences are indicative of Evagriuss
intellectual independence, a point widely acknowledged. Paul Ghin, for
example, has noted that the letters appeal to a final, superior science, a
recurrent concept in Evagriuss speculative writings, is completely absent
from the Cappadocian Fathers.52
Another telling example of a developed, non-Cappadocian Evagrian doctrinetelling because it points to the influence of the monastic life when
the Epistula fidei was writtenis the double appearance of the famous
tripartite scheme of knowledge. Concerning John 6.57 and the Eucharist
(Epistula fidei 4/15) Evagrius says that the words flesh and blood pertain
to the teaching that consists of ascetical, physical, and theological elements ( [Gribomont 4.2021]) by
which the soul is nourished and prepared for the contemplation of ultimate
realities. This tripartite scheme reappears at the end of the letter, where he
considers Proverbs 6 and the symbolism of the ant (Epistula fidei 12/39).
There the ant as worker represents , the bees waxen tool is
, and Solomons contemplation of the Holy Trinity is .53
50. Fr. Theophanes, at works cited above. Another line of reasoning concerns
biography: such an advanced theology is not appropriately assigned to an ecclesiastical celebrity who was known for his vainglory and got involved with a married
woman. I find this assessment enticing but unconvincing. Evagrius was no less a
genius in 380 than he was in 383. And if Evagriuss reputation as an adulterer was
a later hagiographical embellishmenta possibilitythen he was no less spiritually
attuned. The difficulty is better framed positively: did the changes Evagrius experienced
from 382 to 384 contribute decisively to doctrines that are uniquely his?
51. According to Fr. Theophanes, the Epistula fidei contradicts Gregory in that it
radically distinguishes the kingdom of Christ from the kingdom of the Son, it claims
that the divinity can be known in its essence, and it postulates the ultimate blessedness in Neoplatonist terms (monad and henad). On these issues I find more convincing the analysis of Lugaresi, Non disprezziamo leconomia.
52. Ghin, Place de la Lettre, 5152. He notes (n. 97) that the highest form
of knowledge appealed to in the letter is called in other treatises
(fifteen times in the Kephalaia gnostika and numerous times elsewhere). For other
accounts of differences between the letter and Gregory, see Lugaresi, Non disprezziamo leconomia, and Julia S. Konstantinovsky, Evagrius Ponticus: The Making of
a Gnostic (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009), 72, 17374.
53. The ant and the bee feature in Prov 6.68 and 6.8a8c (LXX). The third stage
Evagrius seems to suggest is wisdom, appearing at Prov 6.8c. Compare the parallel

Kalvesmaki/Epistula Fidei135

This tripartite schema is inconsistent with the typical bipartite schema used
by Gregory and Basil, who opposed to , monastic to
non-monastic virtues.54 Evagrius follows a different tradition, attested in
Clement of Alexandria and occasionally in Origen,55 but he introduces a
unique terminology, notably his substitution of for . That
Evagrius differs from Gregory and Basil in seeing as an important first stage in contemplation, and not merely what non-monastics do,
suggests that he was at least outside their ambit, if not under new influences, and thinking in new ways about the ascetic life.
The various examples above, none of which involves Trinitarian doctrine,56 show that Evagrius was already indwelling and fashioning an
ascetic-speculative system that went beyond Cappadocian theology. This
in turn questions but does not discredit the traditional view of the Epistula
fidei. But the differences can be better understood and appreciated when
they are regarded as coming from Evagriuss post-Gregory phase.
6. Engagement with Gregory as a Key to
the Unity and Purpose of the Letter
My sixth and final argument for revising the date and audience of the letter revolves around its unity. Under the traditional interpretation it is at
best difficult to identify the unifying thesis (and therefore purpose); with
my hypothesis, it comes into relief.
Questions about the unity of the letter should emerge with the prologue,
which seeks merely to explain his departure. Nothing in the prefatory

phraseology in Evagriuss scholia on these verses, Sch. Prov. 7172. There the ant
is and the bee is ; the understood honeycomb is and the
honey inside it, . If Evagriuss scholia were the workshop for his more polished compositionsthat is, if Evagrius annotated his copies of the Psalms, Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, and so forth, and drew from these as he needed for his other compositionsthen the Epistula fidei postdates at least some of the Sch. Prov.
54. Evagrius Ponticus, Trait pratique, ou, Le moine, ed. Claire Guillaumont and
Antoine Guillaumont, SC 170 (Paris: ditions du Cerf, 1971), 4548.
55. Pierre Hadot, Les divisions des parties de la philosophie dans lAntiquit,
Museum Helveticum 36 (1979): 21819. But Origen more often employs the bipartite
scheme used by the Cappadocians; see Guillaumont, Trait pratique, 4344.
56. Less discrepancy between Evagrius and Gregory is evident in Trinitarian terminology. Evagrius uses key terms such as , , and in a manner
compatible with Gregory. He does not use , , and (but
see 2.29), yet this absence should not detract from the fundamentally similar ways
the two men approach the doctrine of the Trinity, e.g., the concern both have with
numeration. See Lugaresi, Non disprezziamo leconomia.

136 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

aterial suggests that Evagriuss correspondents had asked him to provide

m
an orthodox explanation for various Scriptures, and the body of the letter, which deals with theological points, is written with authority, without
the deference and defensiveness that marks the prologue. The discrepancy
was not lost even on Byzantine readers. Some manuscript inscriptions
describe the Epistula fidei as an exposition of faith, others as an apology
for (Basils) withdrawal to contemplative life.57
To these a third hypothesis may be added. Evagriuss lengthy excursus
on Matt 24.36 (the Eunomian, perhaps Eutychian, proof text mentioned
above) has nothing to contribute to explaining his departure from Constantinople, and only part of it attempts to reconcile the verse with the
doctrine of the homoousios. This excursus is doing something altogether
different from the rest of the scriptural explanations.
The excursus begins much like the discussions on John 6.57 and John
14.28, taking a scriptural passage alleged to teach the weakness of the Son
of God and reconciling it with the doctrine of his divinity. Evagrius defends
the proposition that Christ did not know the day or the hour by arguing
that Christs ignorance was providential, encouraging the sinner to repent
and the spiritual warrior to keep fighting. Christ included himself with the
ignorant only because of humanitys weakness. But later, Christ excluded
himself from such declarations of ignorance: It is not for youthat is,
he doesnt include himselfto know times or epochs that the Father has
fixed by his own authority (Gribomont 6.1415, quoting Acts 1.67).
Christs weakness is a condition of his sojourn on earth.
Evagrius calls this explanation rather coarse, and says the verse must
be scrutinized more precisely (6/20 [Gribomont 6.1617]). He turns to
offer a second, higher explanation (7/2126), using the verse to plait his
theories of knowledge and existence. His central axiom is that God knows
what he is and does not know what he is not. Thus, God the Father knows
righteousness but not wickedness because he is the former and not the
latter. But the Lord, unlike the Father, became incarnate. As his existence
changed, so too did his knowledge.58 When incarnate, the Lord was not
the final blessedness, thus he could not know the final blessedness. But as
the Word, the Lord is pure divinity and the final blessedness, so he also

57. See Gribomont 84, critical apparatus to the titulus.

58. Compare the doctrines of the Eunomian Theophronius, discussed above. He
claimed that the divinity changes with respect to his knowledge of the past, present,
and future. Sozomen, H. e. 7.17.3. Evagrius addresses similar issues, but without following Theophronius in repudiating the divinity of Christ.

Kalvesmaki/Epistula Fidei137

knows them. Our knowledge and identity is shaped by this divine knowing and being. Our minds are mired in mud, but as the bodys beauty leads
the mind to appreciate the powers of creation, the mind is led ever upward
and strengthened, eventually to encounter pure divinity. In similar fashion the apostles, who asked Christ when he would restore the kingdom
to Israel (Acts 1.67), were bound by flesh and blood. So Christ responds
that they cannot know such times and seasons, which the Father established by his own authority.
Evagrius draws four words from this passage from Actsauthority,
own, times, and seasonsto adumbrate a theory of knowledge. Times
and seasons are intervals in the highest levels of knowledge, and these are
known only by authorities who are not entangled by the ignorance that
comes from lesser affairs. Evagrius doesnt explain who these authorities
are or what this knowledge is. Instead, he closes the excursus by appealing to the numerical unity Christ prayed for (John 17.21), the numerical
unity that God will effect in the eschaton.
This excursus is unique in anti-Arianizing polemic for approaching a
contested verse with a double explanation, the lower-then-higher exegesis
made famous by Origen. Evagriuss thicker explanation engages ideas
that would have been familiar to his audience from Gregory of Nazianzus and other writers.59 But the higher explanation ascends quickly out
of the mode of traditional exegesis, advancing from christological issues
to human knowing and being in order to impress upon his audience what
awaits them as they strip material chains from their minds. Evagrius uses
Acts 1.67 to transition into a discussion of the metaphysical framework
that governs this interplay of identity and knowledge. The symbols and
concepts he uses in this excursus reappear in his other writings, such as
the Kephalaia gnostica.60 So the excursus is also unique in fourth-century
Trinitarian polemic for inducing readers to adopt a mystical epistemology, to transcend Nicene concerns and put the nous into a loftier mode
of thought.
The three ostensible purposes of the letter compel us to imagine an
audience with three different expectations, one demanding Evagrius to
explain why he ran away, another asking for answers to assorted heresies, and another prepared to engage gnostic theoria. If the traditional
interpretation of the letter is the only one available, one may be inclined,
short of ignoring the discrepancies, to speculate on different layers of
59. See n. 46 for references.
60. See the critical apparatus of Gribomonts edition of 7/2126.

138 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

authorship.61 That inference, radical as it is, is understandable. After all,

a Pontic or Cappadocian community merely wanting Evagrius back would
not ask for a lesson in gnosis, even if they had some questions about current Trinitarian disputes.
But this third hypothesis of the letter, mystical epistemology, is explained
by the intellectual presence of Gregory of Nazianzus, and that explanation unites the other two. The peroration of the letter is key, because there
(12/38, discussed above) Evagrius defends the charge that he has violated
Gregorys axiom, that one must know God, not by philosophizing about
bodiless essences, but by contemplating the natural order of things. He
argues that the accepted epistemology of the five senses must be applied
also to the mind. Evagrius signals that the excursus on Matt 24.36, a foray
into higher explanations, provides a mental activity that goes above and
beyond the heresiological discourse that was upsetting his audience. After
concluding a pro-Nicene defense of the verse, he calls on his audience to
knock at the door of knowledgethat is, the traditional approach to the
verse was not a product of faithful knocking. The material that follows is
profound, requiring the kind of slow reading and thoughtful rumination
that is typical of Evagriuss other works. And at the end of the excursus
(7/26) he strikes a tone of humility, inviting others to speak better or
more piously. He says that he pursued this higher investigation not out
of rivalry or vainglory, but rather for the benefit of the brethren, so that
those earthen vessels containing the treasure of God (2 Cor 4.7) should
not obviously be deceived by men with hearts of stone (Ezek 36.26) and by
uncircumcised men who have armed themselves with the arms of foolish
wisdom (Jer 4.4) (Gribomont 7.6064). By invoking similes of earthen
vessels and the stonyhearted uncircumcised, he reminds the reader of the
prologue and of two symbols: Gregory the chosen vessel and the Philistine heretics polluting the ancestral wells. Evagrius invites his readers to
adopt his method, to be humble, and to avoid the pride and showmanship
that so typified theological debates in Constantinople. More than that, he
requires them, in the center of the letter, to adopt his epistemology. Nothing
in the Epistula fidei presumes that the audience knows and understands
his method; it just compels them to adopt it. This excursus is a demonstration of a way to do theology, a way that does no violence to Gregorys
epistemology. This is, in a word, the godly philosophy Evagrius claims to
seek in the prologue. This is what life is like with Laban.

61. Constantine, To the Caesareans, proposes that what we have is a redaction

of textual units corresponding roughly to these three hypotheses.

Kalvesmaki/Epistula Fidei139

If he wrote the Epistula fidei to Constantinople in late 383 or after,

the three purposes for the letter can be united. This is partly because it
is easier to envision what kind of letter or letters reached Evagrius. The
orthodox Constantinopolitans, short on talent to engage the theological
debates that continued through the 380s, tried to lure their archdeacon
back to his ecclesiastical homeland. They entreated the fugitive to return,
perhaps with flattery, and they provided the specific theological issues and
biblical verses on which they needed his expertise. Those still upset at his
sudden departure needled him and challenged him to defend his loyalty
to Gregory, criticizing him along lines such as: Some say you are now no
better than those put to shame by Gregory, the mouthpiece of Christ, philosophizing as you do about bodiless and immaterial beings, ignorant of
the things at your feet. This wheedling and needling could have come in a
single letter just prior to the council of 383, or it could have accumulated
over a period. When he felt the time was right Evagrius answered, in one
complex letter attending to all three needs.
Joel Kalvesmaki is Editor in Byzantine Studies at Dumbarton Oaks,
Washington, D.C.