Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
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
INTRODUCTION
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
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
theoretical approach have a direct bearing on the answers given. In conclusion, I shall
there may be a paradigm shift occurring in Evagrian scholarship. The purpose of this
Evagrius was a heretic can (and do) exert pressure on how his writings are
whole.
scholarship must be the vastly influential work of the late Professor Antoine
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
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,
Frankenberg published, now known an S1). This discovery was the touchstone for
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
breath of doctrine that animates the unedited material and the technical
if the critic does not ascribe one page or another to our author, the very
to be examined.5
that animates the unedited material and the technical vocabulary that characterises it’
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.
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
abiding image of Evagrius that has been urged by Guillaumont is that of the
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
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
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
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
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.
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
claim, Bunge has characteristically avoided committing himself to the idea that
Evagrius’ “gnostic” works are heterodox. He has also tended to place heavy emphasis
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
them even by readers with no interest at all in the promotion of catholic Christianity.
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
The modern discussion about Evagrius and methods of approaching his material has
Ică and Dr Badiliţa are fully engaged with the latest scholarship and their exchange is
scholarship. Furthermore, because the essays appeared in volumes that are not readily
6
After an overview of twentieth-century research into Evagrius, Ică queries the
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
in its mystical aspects) is presumed to set him apart from the traditions that make up
His concern is to assert that the spiritual elements that are so much in evidence
textuality.19 It is therefore not surprising to find in this connection that Ică calls for an
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
with them is an urgent necessity.”21 In other words, he thinks it is directly relevant for
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
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
interpretation.).22
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,
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
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
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
Badiliţa takes a point of view about the intellectual climate of Egypt that is
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
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
claim (forcefully lodged by Origen’s enemies some fifteen centuries earlier) that
the point where two worlds meet: Egyptian monasticism, with all its
third hand have exploited their masters. The fathers (who, as a matter
not be impugned for the trespasses of the sons, especially when the
their fathers.30
description of Evagrius’ works that he agrees—in terms of the analysis, if not the
10
opponents of Origenism, that Badiliţa reconstructs Evagrius’ mystical teachings along
the lines laid down by the condemnations (as mediated by Guillaumont).32 These
return now to the implications of his earlier remarks about the orthodox appropriation
of Evagrius.
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
What this means, quite simply, is that there are two divergent trajectories of
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
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,
Nitrian Desert during Evagrius’ time (e.g., by Palladius, Cassian and the Historia
framework, these scholars have put themselves at a disadvantage: they have no ready
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.
There are many questions in considering which we can see how the position one takes
will consider only three of them. The questions are as follows: Are there adequate
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.
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
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
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
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
evidence. He has thus directly challenged the only textual support that has yet been
Without the references from the Scholia on the Psalms, the argument for
construe the meaning of the KG—but, as we have already noted, this maneuver has
14
How does Evagrius portray himself with regard to orthodox teaching?
Evagrius’ self-presentation. These two questions are quite closely linked because
treatise that survives in the original Greek—his On the faith—in which he aims to
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
beleaguered position with all the vigor that one might expect from a competitor who
have made use of the evidence from On the faith, but not in such a way as one could
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
profound change of perspective at any time in his authorial career; to the contrary, all
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
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
16
significant that, in the dogmatic passage, Evagrius returns to several assertions of
{As for you, my child, listen to the teachings of the Lord’s Church,
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
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.
Now, concerning the ascetic and gnostic life, what we shall fully
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
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
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
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
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
reveals the closely guarded secrets of Evagrius’ metaphysics. But this is quite simply
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
speculation that he is keen to keep from “a wider and less intellectual public.” And if
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
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
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 continue using Kuhn’s analysis, if at times there has been very little direct
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
may not be entirely satisfactory to some Evagrian scholars, because as yet there is no
nature of on-going research. This Kuhnian approach to the scholarly discussion helps
Origenism: his Nachleben and his cosmology. […] But if these other
21
elements are discounted, if the KG is not central to his thought, does
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
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
true of placing too much significance on the subject’s retrospective heresy. There are,
1
Thus, A. Casiday, “Gabriel Bunge and the study of Evagrius Ponticus,” St
22
Zeitschrift für Askese und Mystik (1939): 31-47 (anonymous ET: “The Metaphysics
OCP 5 (1939): 229-33, “Ignorance infinie ou science infinie?,” OCP 25 (1959): 44-
“Evagriana,” Mus 44 (1931): 37-68 and 369-83, “Evagriana : le vatic. Barb. graecus
15, Evagriana Syriaca (Louvain: Muséon, 1952); B. Sarghissian, Srboy horn Evagri
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,
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
l'Histoire des Religions 181 (1972): 29–56; and cf. Balthasar, “Metaphysik und
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.
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:
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
1971; Jausep Hazzaya: Briefe über das geistliche Leben und verwandte Texte (Trier:
Paulinus-Verlag, 1982); “Mar Isaak von Nineve und sein ‘Buch der Gnade,’”
terminologie évagrienne,” Mus 102 (1989): 69-91 and “Mysterium Unitatis. Der
Gedanke der Einheit von Schöpfer und Geschöpf in der evagrianischen Mystik,”
(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
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
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
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,
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
(1997): 224-30.
35
See F. Refoulé, “La christologie d’Évagre et l’Origénisme.” OCP 27 (1961): 221–
56.
36
E.g., A. Grillmeier (J. Bowden, trans.), Christ in Christian Tradition (London-
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
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-
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:
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
claims that his ascetic and gnostic teachings are drawn from what he heard from the
Mysterium Christi, SA 116 (1995): 155-78 and ‘The Fathers of Poemen and the
departure from conventional wisdom – on which, see the various studies mentioned at
available only to fully initiated Christians – and here he is in good company. See O.
Perspective” argues for an interpretation of Evagrius that is similar to the one from
29