The first question anyone will ask you when you are studying such an obscure person as Evagrius Pontus is "Who is that?"

The second question will be "Why on earth is he important?"

So to begin with, I suppose we should talk a little bit about Evagrius' life, and then we can speak more to his importance and general thought after that.

Evagrius was born in 345 c.e., the son of the chorbishop of Ibora in Pontus (that is, modern day Iverönü, Turkey).[1] He fell under the influence of St. Basil (“the Great”), who had retired to live the ascetic life nearby at his family estate in Annesi, and who eventually ordained Evagrius to be a lector at the church in that area.[2] Though his biography is, at this point, incomplete, the next clear date in his life is the year he was ordained a deacon by the bishop of Sasima, Gregory Nazianzen, in 379.[3] Gregory subsequently brought Evagrius with him to Alexandria as his archdeacon, inviting him to help reestablish the orthodox faith as he (Gregory) presided over the Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 381.[4]

Though Gregory’s role in the council was a complete disaster (he could not maintain peace between the rival factions present), the events resulted in a personal friendship between him and Evagrius, as well as Evagrius’ new position as protégé to the Bishop of Constantinople, Nectarius. Though Gregory departed back to Sasima to return to the ascetic life, Evagrius remained behind in Constantinople, fighting for Gregory and Basil’s orthodox policies. He consequently became friends with Gregory of Nyssa, the brother of Basil and the third of the three Cappadocian Fathers, who had been recently promoted to Imperial Councilor.

However, around this time, Evagrius found it very hard to control his own passions. He found himself careless, worldly, and delicate.[5] He began to take much stock in worldly success, even allowing himself to be served by slaves. He likewise fell in love with the wife of one of the social elites, a romance which he understood would never work out. Distressed, he dreamed a dream one night that he swore an oath to leave the city for the benefit of his own soul, and so, the next day, he left for the Olivet Community in Jerusalem. There he made friends with Melania the elder and Rufinus of Aquileia, forgetting, for a time, about his vow, and being “initiated into the mysteries of [Origen of Alexandria].”[6] Finally, though, he was convinced by Melania to join the Origenist Monks in Nitria, Egypt, just outside of Alexandria, who were led by the so called “Tall Brothers.” There he remained, as a student of the Marcarii and leader of the Origenist monastic movement, simultaneously writing and living the ascetic life, until his premature death on Epiphany in 399 c.e.

It is, perhaps, fortunate that Evagrius did not live to see the following year. Theophilus of Alexandria would soon go on his campaign against the "Origenism" he saw in the desert communities, expelling the Origenist monks of Nitria. Ironically, though, this ensured that Evagrian theology spread to the four corners of the empire, leading to its eventual condemnation in the West.

As for Evagrius’ theological system, its “keystone” was the immateriality of God.[7] All of his subsequent theological conclusions depended on that truth. In an extrapolation from Origen’s On First Principles, he crafted his general theological worldview as follows: his ontology (that is, his understanding of the nature of the reality) was a basic dualism common to the Christian worldview.[8] Reality can be divided into a distinction between the Creator (the One) and the Creation (the many). However, in the spirit of middle and neo-platonist traditions (transmitted to Evagrius’ thought through Origen, perhaps),[9] the lines between this distinction were, perhaps, blurred. We will examine that a bit closely when we remark on his general soteriology and eschatology.

Evagrius understands God as “the One,” that is, the ideal of all goodness, justice, and mercy, who forever contemplates himself. He alone is beyond all of time, being immutable, indivisible, and transcendent. His creation is, as far as it does not participate in him, rather subject to change and decay.

Evagrius understood the creation in a twofold way: on the one hand, there is immaterial world from which all souls fell primordially, choosing themselves rather than their creator.[10] However, there is also the material world, which was created as a second creation, a result of the primordial fall and the loss of the image of God, the creation which God intended to use to bring all of the souls back from whence they fell. Therefore, though reality is divided into a division between the Creator and his Creation, the universe is divided into things spiritual and things physical. The amount of materiality attached to souls is equivalent to the degree by which they chose to fall away from their Creator at the primordial fall.[11] The goal of this life, then, is to return to the image of God- that is, God’s immateriality- and to rejoin the creator in our original unity, as all of reality shifts once more from a dualism to a monism.

How do we do this? Evagrius hypothesized that the reason we pursue created things instead of the Creator Himself, material reality over the immaterial reality, is because of our passions.[12] Acquired by our five senses, mental images pass through our brain, inciting our passions unnaturally so that we fixate on those images (that is, we sin). Not only does this happen when we are sensing though: we also dwell on the images from past sense-experiences; likewise, we even have sense-experiences when we sleep.[13] What needs to occur, then, is a complete reordering of our passions, so that we can feel passion towards the right things (the One) instead of the wrong things (the creation). However, on our own, we cannot achieve this state of reorientation. We need some type of salvation.

And so, Evagrius postulated that perhaps one soul didn’t fall in the primordial fall. Instead, one soul used his free will to continuously contemplate the One, so much so that He participated in the One’s essence, becoming a God with this One God.[14] And then, this soul became incarnate, took on a body, and created a new reality for us souls, so that we might once again contemplate God, and in so doing, become equal with Christ.[15]

This salvation is applied to us, however, by means of the practice of spiritual, ascetic practices.[16] First, one must realize that their passions are oriented toward the wrong things.[17] By realizing this, one can begin the task of reorienting one’s passions towards good things, which is properly called apatheia.[18] This apatheia is preparation for grace, so to say, which Evagrius commonly refers to as a “perpetual calm.”[19] From this calm, and by the grace of God, one can finally begin the ascent of contemplation- that is prayer.[20] The first step is contemplation of the created universe, which is an act of love.[21] One must see beyond the created things to understand their causes. However, one must not stop there: rather, Christianity is “the contemplation of God.”[22] And so, when one has ascended past the contemplation of created things, the second and final level of contemplation is the contemplation of God, Himself, who is formless and immaterial.[23]

However, for one to contemplate God in this way- that is, to experience immateriality- one must be praying purely: that is, contemplating, undisturbed by an images in the mind that might drag you back down to materiality.[24] And only in this way will we eventually ascend back to God, shedding all corporality, and becoming like Jesus, souls that choose to eternally contemplate the One.

This, of course, is not a complete dealing with Evagrius' thought. However, a wider examination will have to take place elsewhere. Now, however, I would like to pose some type of a caution: When we speak about Evagrius' importance, it is necessary that we make the observation that Evagrius was not some fringe theologian: he had real credentials in the capital of the eastern Roman Empire, was present at Constantinople in 381 c.e., was very close with all three of the Cappadocian Fathers, and had good relations with Melania, Rufinus, and the rest of the Olivet Community.

His disciples included the Tall Brothers (who, upon their departure from Nitria, went to Constantinople, finding refuge with John Chrysostom), Rufinus of Aquileia (who translated several of his works into Latin), and John Cassian (who preserved his teachings without giving him adequate credit). By incorporating Evagrian thought into his religious system, Cassian ensured that the mind of Evagrius would forever leave a mark upon the west, since Cassian's works were an essential part of St. Benedict's Rule. Eventually, his corpus of works were almost completely preserved by members of the Syriac Orthodox church, where they had a profound influence on traditional theology there.

What I'm getting at, then is that we have an obligation to view Evagrius not uncritically, but critically with love. Before the discovery of his Gnostikos, it was assumed he was falsely accused of heresy; now, however, we understand that the conclusion that his thought was rightly condemned is an unavoidable matter of fact. His Christology, as one could tell, is inadequate. He follows Origen into a pre-Nicene expression of Christianity that disregarded the very controversies he himself took part in.

Be that as it may, his ascetic treatises, especially his Chapters on Prayer, have been a source of comfort and instruction for monastic communities for literally the last two thousand years. His life was a life devoted to God, and he was concerned with a genuine desire to be close to him. Likewise, the Lord's Supper and liturgical context were never far from his teachings- his last act, as a son of the church, was to go to the Epiphany Day service, receiving communion with his disciples.

The moral of this story is one we must remember whenever we deal with the early church fathers: some of them are a bit crazy, but they are, nonetheless, part of our family heritage. Approaching our family, especially the more extreme Fathers, with understanding and kindness can do more for our understanding of their historical value than constantly adjudicating their orthodoxy, as we are sometimes prone to do. After all, there is one faith, one Lord, and one Baptism that unites us all.

[1] This biography is relying heavily on the John Eudes Bamberger’s introduction to his translation of Evagrius’ The Praktikos and Chapters on Prayer. See Evagrius Ponticus, The Praktikos and Chapters on Prayer, trans. John Eudes Bamberger, (Cistercian Publications: Trappist, 1972). For a more up-to-date (though briefer) biographical sketch that focuses particularly on Evagrius’ demonology, see David Brakke’s introduction in Evagrius Pontus, Talking Back: Antirrhȇtikos, A Monastic Handbook for Combating Demons, trans. David Brakke, (Liturgical Press: Collegeville, 2009).

[2] Evagrius, Praktikos, xxxvi-xxxvii. Compare with Evagrius, Talking, 2.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Evagrius, The Praktikos, xxxviii.

[5] Ibid, xxxix.

[6] Ibid, xli. I find Bamberger’s remark here a bit incredulous: it seems unlikely that Evagrius would not have come into contact with Origen’s thought during his theological training, or his intimate friendships with all three of the Cappadocian Fathers. As an old saying goes, Origen was “in the water” for those living during the Arian Controversy: it was impossible to understand the issues being discussed without reading his works.

[7] Ibid, xlviii.

[8] Ibid, lxxv ff.

[9] See Joseph Trigg’s Origen: The Bible and Philosophy in the Third-century Church, (John Knox Press: Atlanta, 1983), 103 ff. for a good discussion of Origen’s blurring of these lines. See also Origen, On First Principles, trans. G.W. Butterworth, eds. John C. Cavadini and Henri De Lubac (Ave Maria Press: Holy Cross, 2013), 91.

[10] The concept of “Free Will” is the hallmark of Origenist theology. See TIgg, Origen, 115-120 for a longer discussion.

[11] The regular Origenist categories are Planets, Angels, Humans, and Demons. See Ibid, 103-108.

[12] That is, passions distract us from focusing on Divine Things, because our thoughts fix on them.

For example: “The passions are accustomed to be stirred up by the senses, so that when charity and continence are lodged in the soul the passions are not stirred up” (Evagrius, The Praktikos, 26).

Passions are also manipulated by the logismoi of both angels and demons. For an elaborate treatment of Evagrius’ demonology, see David Brakke’s introduction to Evagrius, Talking Back, pp. 1-40, as well as Bamberger’s brief treatment of the topic in Evagrius, The Praktikos, pp. 3-11. See also sentence 48 in Evagrius’ Praktikos (Ibid, 29).

[13] That is, dreams. Evagruis maintained that when one sleeps, he should not dream, but if he does dream, then there’s something unhealthy about him.

[14] Evagrius picks this theme up from Origen’s Commentary on John. For a further elaboration of Origen’s views concerning Christology, see Joseph Wilson Trigg, Origen, 95-103.

[15] Evagrius: “Remember your former life and your past sins and how, though you were subject to the passions, you have been brought into apatheia by the mercy of Christ. Remember too how you have separated yourselves from the world which has so often and in so many matters brought you low. “Put this also to my credit (says Christ) that I preserve you in the desert and put to flight the demons who rage against you.” Such thoughts instill humility in us and afford no entrance to the demon of pride” (The Praktikos, sentence 33; located in Evagrius, The Praktikos, 25).

Also: “If you wish to pray then it is God whom you need. He it is who gives prayer to the man who prays. On that account call upon him saying: ‘Hallowed be thy Name, thy Kingdom come,’ that is, the Holy Spirit and your Only-Begotten Son. This is what our Lord taught us when he said: ‘The Father is adored in Spirit and in Truth’” (Ibid, 64).

[16] It is unclear what role the liturgical life of the church played in Evagrius’ system as described in his Gnostikos. Perhaps Evagrius himself purposely left this tension unresolved.

[17] As Evagrius says in sentence four of his Chapters on Prayer, “If Moses, when he attempted to draw near the burning bush, was prohibited until he should remove the shoes from his feet, how should you not free yourself of every thought that is colored by passion seeing that you wish to see One who is beyond every thought and perception?”

And again, in sentence seven: “Though fountains of ears flow during your prayer do not begin to consider yourself better than others. For your prayers have merely obtained the help you need to confess your sins with reediness and to conciliate the favor of the Lord” (Evagrius, The Praktikos, 56).

[18] Evagrius: “The Kingdom of Heaven is apatheia of the soul along with true knowledge of existing things” (Evagrius, The Praktikos, 15).

This is not the normal use of this word (apatheia). Evagrius has effectually taken this term from its Stoic context and refashioned it for Christian purposes. See Bamberger’s remarks on apatheia in ibid, lxxxiii.

[19] See Ibid, 63. Also, Evagrius maintains that “If you long to pray then avoid all that is opposed to prayer. Then when God draws near he has only to go along with you” (Ibid, 65).

[20] This is Bamberger’s conclusion concerning Evagrian prayer: it is contemplation (Ibid, 46). However, Evagrius seems to envision prayer as something that penetrates the whole process of salvation: “First of all pray to be purified from your passions. Secondly pray to be delivered from ignorance. Thirdly, pray to be freed from all temptation and abandonment” (Ibid, 61).

In Bamberger’s favor, though, is Evagrius’ remark: “Prayer is an ascent of the spirit to God,” which is precisely what is happening in Evagrian contemplation, though this could, of course, apply to the entire process (Ibid, 60).

[21] Ibid, 49.

[22] Ibid, 15. Evagrius, of course, does not think that one can actually partake in God’s essence. Rather, this level of contemplation is the “continual intercourse of the spirit with God,” that is, an experience of the Divine through “pure prayer” (Ibid, 56).

[23] See Evagrius’ discussion in Ibid, 66 ff.

[24] Evagrius: “If your spirit looks around at the time of prayer, then it does not yet pray as a monk. You are no better than a man of affairs engaged in a kind of landscape gardening” (Ibid, 61-62).

And again: “When you pray keep your memory under close custody. Do not let it suggest your own fancies to you, but rather have it convey the awareness of your reaching out to God. Remember this- the memory has a powerful proclivity for causing detriment to the spirit at the time of prayer” (Ibid, 62).

Furthermore: “Even if the spirit should rise above the contemplation of corporeal nature, still it does not as yet see the perfect place of God. For it might well be engaged in the contemplation of intelligible things and partake of their multiplicity” (Ibid, 64).