Demons and Divine Illumination at Gregory Nazianzus

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007 DOI: 10.1163/157007207X195330

Demons and Divine Illumination: A Consideration of Eight Prayers by

Gregory of Nazianzus

Dayna S. Kalleres University of California, San Diego , Literature Department 0410 ,

9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0410 , USA

Abstract Th is article considers eight prayers by Gregory of Nazianzus (Patrologia Graeca 37.1397-1406) that are singular in their anti-demonic tone and apotropaic formulae. Reading these texts in light of Gregorys Orations 20, 27, and 38-40 elucidates the Cappadocians connection between baptism and the acquisition of divine knowledge; thus, we can acquire a rare view into the practical aspects of Gregorys endeavors with theoria in his post-baptismal life. Finally, these prayers bring into sharp relief the con-sequential materiality of the devil and demons in Gregory of Nazianzus epistemology, theology, and asceticism. In so doing, this essay seeks to turn attention to the vibrant demonologies cultivated and constructed by elite, educated Christians in the late antique cities of the Greek East.

Keywordsmystagogue, contemplation, theurgy, Fall, baptism, theoria, epistemology, Plotinus

Scholars customarily identify the fourth century church father Gregory of Nazianzus as a rhetor, a theologian, a poet, and even a reluctant ecclesiast. One would be hard-pressed, however, to nd him characterized as a practicing mystagogue. And yet in Oration 38 Gregory of Nazianzus described the cre-ation of Adam in mystagogical tones. From the moment Adam rst drew breath, he was midway on his journey toward full divine knowledge: a new Angel, a mingled worshipper, a full initiate into the visible creation, but only a neophyte in the intellectual. . . . A living creature trained here, and then moved elsewhere, and to complete the mystery, deied by its inclination to God.1

1) Or. 38.11 (Sources Chrtiennes 358:124-126, hereafter SC ).

Vigiliae Christianae 61 (2007) 157-188 www.brill.nl/vc

VigiliaeChristianae

158 D. S. Kalleres / Vigiliae Christianae 61 (2007) 157-188

Recently Susanna Elm has argued persuasively that in Orations 38-40 Gregory presented the baptismal sacrament as a necessary component in humanitys pursuit of divine knowledge.2 Th rough this ritual initiation, a neophyte came to embody a paradoxical fusion ( ) comprising a joining of two opposed ontologies: the intelligible universe ( ) and the material or sensory world ( , ).3 Th is baptismal anthropology envisioned a new mixture () that would allow the dust to know the divine. Gregory dened the rite of baptisminvolving the inscription of the correct Nicene formula directly into the souls surfaceas the rst step toward deication or divin-ization.

Elms work, informed by Claudio Moreschinis earlier treatment of Gregorys epistemology, greatly claries Gregorys fragmented and unsys-tematized discussions of a baptized Christians potential to know God.4 In their attendance to the mystagogical aspects of sacrament, Elm and More-schini have invited further exploration of the correspondences between Gregorys theory of epistemological contemplation (theoria) and contem-porary Neoplatonic discussions of theurgy (, ), and deication.5

In this essay, I would like to introduce into this set of considerations a collection of what I would describe as prayer fragments found in Patrologia Graeca 37.1397-1406.6 Th ese eight short texts echo the mystagogic or

2) Susanna Elm, Inscriptions and Conversions: Gregory of Nazianzus on Baptism, in Conversion in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages: Seeing and Believing, ed. A. Grafton and K. Mills (New York: University of Rochester Press, 2003), 1-35. I would like to thank Susanna Elm for her comments on an earlier version of this essay; likewise her recent pub-lications on Gregory of Nazianzus have strongly informed my consideration of the prayer texts described here. 3) Or. 38.10 (SC 358:122-124). 4) For example Claudio Moreschini, Filosoa e Letteratura in Gregorio di Nazianzo (Milan: Vita e pensiera, 1997), esp. 22-68, 97-116. Cf. C. Moreschini and P. Gallay, Grgoire de Nazianze, Discours 38-41: Introduction, Texte Critique et Notes, Sources Chrtiennes 358 (Paris: Les ditions du Cerf, 1990), 45-81. 5) See S. Elm, Inscriptions, footnote 16, p. 26. In fact Ruth Majercik, A Reminis cence of the Chaldean Oracles of Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 29,2: OO , Vigiliae Christianae 52 (1998): 286-292, has argued that Gregory was indeed aware of Neoplatonic commentary on the Oracles. 6) Patrologia Graeca 37 contains Gregory of Nazianzus poetic verse. For further dis cussion of Gregorys poetry in the context of his other writings, John A. McGuckin, St. Gregory of Nazianzus: An Intellectual Biography (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimirs Seminary Press, 2001),

D. S. Kalleres / Vigiliae Christianae 61 (2007) 157-188 159

theurgic connections between baptismal sacrament (described as image [], inscription [, , , ], and seal []) and divine knowledge (described as illumination [] and purication []). My analysis of these prayer texts contrib-utes three elements to current understandings of Gregory. First, the texts elucidate further the manner in which the sacrament of baptism inaugu-rated and facilitated a Christians ability to know and indeed become akin to God. Second, they oer a rare view into the practical and material aspects of Gregorys endeavors with theoriathus allowing us to move from the level of the Th eologians epistemological theory or system to that of his contemplative practice.7 Th ird, these texts bring into sharp relief what could be described as the theurgic elements of Gregorys baptismal theology.8

Finally, it is necessary to address the strong anti-demonic tone and apo-tropaic formulations which pervade these prayers. In fact I suggest that the texts overt demonic elements account for their neglect in the traditional

371-402. Most well known is Gregorys autobiographical poem, De Vita Sua (PG 37.1029-1166), a record of his dealings in Constantinople [English translation by Carolinne White, Gregory of Nazianzus Autobiographical Poems, Cambridge Medieval Classics 6 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996)]. 7) Th e Th eologian, a title given to Gregory in 451CE, has acted as a self-fullling proph-ecyan ancient dispensation to the theologically attuned scholars of modernity to strip his writings of almost all but their Trinitarian (and specically homoousian) content. Repre-sentative are Heinz Althaus, Die Heilslehre des heiligen Gregor von Nazianz (Mnster: Verlag Aschendor, 1972); J. Plagnieux, Saint Grgoire de Nazianze Th ologien (Paris: ditions franciscaines, 1952); B. Otis, Cappadocian Th ought as a Coherent System, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 12 (1958): 95-124. More recently, J. Bernardi, S. Grgoire de Nazianze: Le Th ologien et son temps (330-390) (Paris: Les ditions du Cerf, 1995). 8) I intend here the Iamblican understanding of theourgia as a work of the divine (theion ergon); though this essay is not the place to argue this point in depth, I would suggest that Gregorys understanding of the deifying aspect of the baptismal sacrament nds close con-cord with the Neoplatonic (particularly Iamblican) view of theurgy as a philosophical telos, that is accomplishing homoiosis theou. Indeed, Gregory used similar language. Rele vant here are the comments of Gregory Shaw, Th eurgy and the Soul: Th e Neoplatonism of Iamblichus (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995). Shaws arguments regard-ing theurgic practice within Christianity are particularly noteworthy, e.g., Neoplatonic Th eurgy and Dionysius the Areopagite, Journal of Early Christian Studies 7.4 (1999): 573-599. Also Sarah Iles Johnston, Rising to the Occasion: Th eurgic Ascent in its Cultural Milieu, in Envisioning Magic: A Princeton Seminar and Symposium, ed. Peter Schfer and Hans G. Kippenberg (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997), 165-194.


study of Gregory of Nazianzus.9 In light of Gregorys two accepted roles as rhetor and as theologian, it is with little surprise that any evidence suggesting the Cappadocians involvement with anti-demonic incantations has been downplayed. Rosemary Ruether established early a hermeneutic that has directed the gaze of subsequent scholars: the daemonological aspect, so prominent in non-hellenized Christian asceticism, is largely absent in Gregory.10 I believe that Ruethers comments exemplify a bias or blind-spot shaping the scholarly consideration of the urban, educated Christian of late antiquity. Th e devil was a prevailing concern in the writ-ings of Gregory, Basil of Caesarea, John Chrysostom, and their educated Christian contemporaries. And yet, scholars have either willfully over-looked the rich demonologies in the hellenized Christian East or reduced the daemonological to the metaphorics of contemporary rhetoric.11

9) Until very recently, scholars considerations of the Nazianzen corpus have yielded char-acterizations of Gregory that adhered to two lines of inquiry. First are those interested in his theology, either his Trinitarian doctrine or his invocation of Platonic conceptualities ltered through an Origenist system. Th is interpretive tradition, established early in such works as H. Pinault, Le Platonisme de saint Grgoire de Nazianze: essai sur les relations du Christian-isme et de lhellnisme dans son oeuvre thologique (Roche-sur-Yon: G. Romain, 1925), has yielded a view of Gregory as the inferior Platonist in comparison with his younger name-sake, Gregory of Nyssa. Second are those scholars who have investigated the implications of his self-identication as a member of the educated elite, particularly in regard to his rhetorical training. In this scholarship, the interpretive niche Gregory has come to inhabit is that of the self-pitying, soft-skinned ecclesiastical failure. Scholars, drawn in by Gregorys emotive tone, tend to characterize, if not condemn, Gregory along these lines, as in the following examples: we can not acquit him of pusillanimity [R.P.C. Hanson, Th e Search for a Christian Doctrine of God: Th e Arian Controversy 318-381 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988), 705-6]; oriental soul [Paul Gallay, La vie de Saint Grgoire Nazianze (Paris: E. Vitte, 1943), 243]. 10) Rosemary Ruether, Gregory of Nazianzus: Rhetor and Philosopher (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), 149. 11) For instance, Robert Wilkens reductive treatment of the demonic in John Chrysos toms Adversus Iudaeos series: R. Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late Fourth Century (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), 112-116. Wilken locates the devil rmly within the epideictic rhetorical category psogos () or vituperatiothe oratorical opposite of the encomium. For examples of the psogos, see Gregory of Nazianzus characterization of Julian in Or. 17. Regarding the exorcistic ecacy of modern scholarship in the hermeneutical expulsion of the devil from Helle-nized Christianity, see Dayna S. Kalleres, Negotiating Cosmology: Oaths and Exorcisms in John Chrysostoms Catechetical Lectures, unpublished paper presented at the Conguring Late Antiquity Workshop, Stanford University, April 2003; eadem, Exorcising the Devil to Silence Christs Enemies: Ritualized Speech Practices in Late Antique Christianity, Dissertation, May 2002, introduction.


Underpinning the purpose of this essay, then, is my more general desire to bring attention to the consequential materiality of the devil and demons in Gregory of Nazianzus epistemology, theology, and asceticism.12

In this essay rst I present the texts and their translation; second I dis-cuss Gregorys theory of divine knowledge and its relation to baptism; third I consider the prayers as evidence of a mystagogic practice consistent with his discussions of post-baptismal theoria.

Prayer Texts and Translation13

1. [Patrologia Graeca 37.1397-1399]

1. , , . , , ; . ,

12) To this end, this essay will hopefully contribute to what could be aptly termed a revolu-tion in Nazianzen studies. Too often, Gregory has been viewed as the third of the three Cappadocian fathers. In the past decade, however, scholars have turned to Gregory in an eort to judge him on the merits of his own work and not his relationship to the other Cappadocians. For example, most recently, Gregory of Nazianzus: Images and Reections, ed. J. Brtnes and T. Hgg (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 2006); see also Neil McLynns consideration of Gregorys use of the cultural topos of the Holy Man in his establishment of authority, A Self-Made Holy Man: Th e Case of Gregory of Nazianzen in Th e Holy Man Revisited (1971-1996): Charisma, Texts, and Communities in Late Antiquity, ed. S. Elm and N. Janowitz, Journal of Early Christian Studies 6 (1998): 463-483; cf. idem, Gregory the Peacemaker: A Study of Oration 6, in Kyoyo-Ronso 101 (1996):186-216; idem, Th e Voice of Conscience: Gregory of Nazianzen in Retirement, in Vescovi e pastori in epoca teodosiana: vol. 2 (Rome: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 1997), 299-308. Also Susanna Elms work has realized the subtle brilliance in Gregorys appropriation of the ancient category of philosophical withdrawal (anachoresis) to defend his position, e.g., Gregory of Nazianzus Th eory of Orthodox Priesthood, in Orthodoxie, christianisme, histoire, ed. S. Elm, E. Rebillard, and A. Romano (Rome: Ecole franaise de Rome, 2000), 98-99. 13) Within these texts are several phrases that appear in Gregorys writings during his Con-stantinoplian period that I have identied in the footnotes. Th us, I tentatively date the prayers to his post-Constantinople period. In Prayer 2, Gregory refers to those who have cut the divine nature in two, a common expression for the Eunomian subordination of the Son; he also describes his grey hairs. In Prayer 8, he seems to refer to his brief stint as Constantinoples bishop: he had been an object of envy for a time, but had recently been thrown from luxury.


5. ; , , , , ; ; ; 10. , , , , . , 15. , . , , , . , , , 20. , .

* * * 1. You have come, o evil doer, I recognize your thoughts.

You have come, in order that you might deprive me of the light and beloved life.

Unconquerable one, how have you come as light, though you are darkness?14 You will not trick me,

Liar. How do you always assemble a bitter battle against me,

5. While openly lying in wait?15 But why do you hold a grudge against the pious,

Ever since when rst you cast Adam from paradise, A creation16 of God, and with evil you ambushed a wise

command, And provided bitter food to a sweet life;17

14) Or. 40.16 (SC 358:230); Poemata Arcana 6.65-70 [Hereafter P.A.] (PG 37.444A). Eng-lish translation by C. Moreschini and D.A. Sykes, St Gregory of Nazianzus, Poemata Arcana (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997). 15) Ibid. De Vita Sua, Carm. 2.1.11.1507. 16) Cf. Prayer 1.19; Or. 38.11 (SC 358:124-126), Or. 39.7 (SC 358:162), Or. 40.7 (SC 358:210). 17) Cf. Prayer 2.6; P.A. 8.43 (PG 460A); Or. 39.13 (SC 358:176).


How am I to ee from you? What remedy shall I nd for my suerings?

10. While at the very beginning with small sins, like a river, You attack the heart; but then you open the ground Wider; afterwards as a current both foul and great, You have come, until your chaos might take me, and

your pit. But withdraw far away, so that you might lay your

hands upon 15. Peoples or cities, as many as have not come to know God.

But I am a portion of Christ, as a temple I have been prepared,

And a sacrice; but then also a god, because my soul is mixed

with divinity.18 But surrender to God, and to the creation divine,

By standing in awe of Gods wrath and the dance of souls 20. Reverent, and the sound in the unbroken hymns.

2. [37.1400-1401]

1. , , , . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 5. , , , . , , , . , 10. , . , , . , ; , , ,

18) Th is is a bold declaration. As I will discuss below, it was Gregorys self-proclaimed divinity that allowed him a degree of apotropaic power against these demons.


15. , , ; , , , , . 20. . , , . , , . , , .

* * * 1. Flee from my heart, trickster, ee at once; Flee from my limbs, ee from my life. Th ief, serpent, re, Belios, evil, doom, chasm, dragon,

beast, Night, ambush, rage, chaos, bewitcher, manslayer; 5. You who also hurled those rstborn of our kind into ruin, Having tasted evil, baneful one, and death.19 Christ Lord orders you to ee to the depth of the sea, Down from the peaks or into the herd of swine, Just as the arrogant legion before.20 But yield, 10. Lest I strike you with the cross, before whom everything

trembles. I carry the cross on my limbs, the cross on my journey, Th e cross on my heart; the cross is my glory.

Will you not stop ambushing me, mischievous trickster? Not to the clis,

Nor to Sodom will you look, or to the herds of the godless,

15. Who, having cut in two the great divine nature, have put it to an end,

But to my grey hairs,21 and to my heart? Always with murky thoughts, enemy, do you blacken me,

19) P.A. 4.49 (PG 37.419A). 20) Or. 40.35 (SC 358:278). 21) De Vita Sua, Carm. 2.1.11.1766, 1899.


Neither trembling before God, nor the priesthood. And He, the mind of the Trinity, has become a clear

herald; 20. Even now He sees my end. Filth, do not muddy me, As one pure I will encounter pure heavenly lights. Dazzling lights, come hither to my life;

My hands I am stretching out, receive me. Greetings to you, world;

Greetings, bearer of toil; spare those with me.

3. [37.1401]

1. . ; , , , ,

; . 5. . , , .

* * * 1. I call upon God. What is this? Flee from me quickly, Flee, most evil beast, manslayer,

Why do you trouble me though you have not been wronged in any way?

Enter into the depths and ll it with your swines. 5 It will readily receive what is thrown into the depth. But from me keep away, lest I strike you with the cross,

At which everything shivers and trembles in fear of its strength.

4. [37.1402]

1. , , . , , , .

* * * 1. Flee from the writings, o Barbarian, do not trouble me. Flee wretched one; Christ is written by me,


May this collected thought not ee from me; be gone all of those,

Whom Christ does not lead far from the earth.

5. [37.1403]

1. , , , , , . , . . 5. , ! , . , , , .

* * * 1. Go away, go away, evil one, manslayer; Go away, sight of terrible suerings, raging evil; Go away, Christ is within, to whom I have oered and given my soul. Flee, giving up as quickly as possible. 5. O help, angels stand by! O a tyrant, and a thief is approaching.

From them take me away, yes, beloved ones, I am being stoned.

6. [37.1403]

1. , , , . , . , . , , 5. , . , , . . ; ; , . 10. , . , . , . , .

* * *


1. You have come, you have come, O most evil one, but you have been held in check.

I saw you as smoke and I felt the re. A smell acrid, an impression of the dragon;22 But the cross I set up, which is the guard of my life, 5. Th e cross, which binding together the entire world, oers

it to God. Have fear for it and yield, do not appear again. Grace calls me a comrade undeled. How much do you oppress me with those evils? How

much? For me God died, and again he was raised. 10. Be ashamed in front of the bath; give way, o manslayer. As with pleasures bitter you rst tricked me, Th us you malevolently wish to kill me today. Go away, go away. For I sense the battle.

Even if you might possess my body, still in my mind I will not suer.

7. [37.1404-1405]

1. , ; , . , , , . 5. , , . , , . , , . .

* * * 1. Th e image is emptied, what word will help? Th e image is emptied, a gift of the undeled God. Th e image is being assaulted; I burn, o jealousy, jealousy, With anothers [the devils] words and sophistries. 5. Font of evils, do not bubble forth, the mind be not empty. But you, tongue, do not receive mud.

22) Compare the language in Or. 20.1 (SC 270:56-58).


But you, hand, do not accept ill counsel. Th us the image in us might remain uncorrupted.

8. [37.1406]

1. , , . . . . 5. , . , , .

* * * 1. O, he has comes near, my Christ, again the dragon. O, he has come near to me and I am violently afraid. O, I had tasted the tree of knowledge.

O but jealousy had persuaded me to become an object of envy.

5. I am not divine and I had been thrown from luxury. Large Sword, quench the evil ame a little, Th at you may receive me again within the garden

[Paradise], Entering with Christ like the thief from the cross.

Gregory of Nazianzus on Divine Knowledge and Baptism23

A New Mixture! A Paradoxical Fusion!

In Orations 38-40, Gregory anchored his baptismal theology in a distinc-tive Plotinian interpretation of Genesis. In Or. 38, Gregory explained that Adam had comprised the unnatural mixing of two incommensurable

23) Many features of Gregory of Nazianzus epistemology resonate with Gregory of Nyssas own more fully developed view of the contemplative life. Still formidable is J. Danilou,Platonisme et thologie mystique: essai sur la doctrine spirituelle de Saint Grgoire de Nysse (Paris, Aubier: ditions Montaigne, 1944). R. Ruether, Gregory of Nazianzus: Rhetor and Philosopher, 129 and, more recently, C. Moreschini and P. Gallay, Discours 38-41, passim,


essences: the intelligible () and the sensory ().24 Primarily, this mixing of opposites had allowed divine gnosis to dwell within material ux. Consequently, the Fall had resulted in the loss of this delicate balance of noetic and sensory which had enabled man to know God. According to Gregory, however, this paradoxical fusion or new mixing occurred once again in a second historical event of cosmological consequence, the Incar-nationthe mixture of Logos with esh.25 In contrast to contemporaries who promoted a baptism into the resurrection or even the death of Christ, then, Gregory advertised a baptism into the Incarnation.26 As such, bap-tism restored this pre-lapsarian ontology within an individual. Gregory infused a prevailing mystagogical content into this initiation rite. It was the rst and requisite step to the contemplative life (theoria).27

Th e epistemological implications of this paradoxical fusion for Grego-rys conception of baptism cannot be overstatednor can their relevance to our prayer texts be neglected. In Or. 38, Gregory described a God who reec ted Plotinus Supreme Good or One. Dissatised with self-contemplation, God had decided to expand himself, an unfolding process leading to the intelligible universe ( ) and eventually a second, sensible, and visible world ( ).28 Of course, a very familiar litany of binaries found expression in the descending continuum from God, the Father: incorporeal versus corporeal, incorruptible versus corruptible, changeless versus changing, and so forth.

have noted that the fragmented nature of Gregory of Nazianzus own discussions have dis-suaded scholars from attempting a study similar to that of Danilou, though H. Althaus, Die Heilslehre, is rather thorough. 24) Noetic and sensory in Gregorys anthropology, see C. Moreschini and P. Gallay, Discours 38-41, 45-47, 53. For God as nous, e.g., Or. 2.74 (SC 247:186); also H. Althaus, Heilslehre, 130. 25) Or. 38.13 (SC 358:134). For a consideration of the impact of this paradoxical fusion in Gregorys baptismal theology, see Susanna Elm, Inscriptions. Cf. H. Althaus, Heilslehre, 57-60, who discusses the Stoic background of and . Also C. Moreschini and P. Gallay, Discours 38-41, 56. 26) See, e.g., baptism into the Sons death: Apostolic Constitutions, 3.16-17; on the various and competing baptismal formulas in Constantinople, see S. Elm, Inscriptions, 7, 20-24. 27) In the tradition of Philo, Gregory viewed theoria and praxis (asceticism) as coordinating aspects of the philosophical life: praxis to cleanse the soul, theoria to reunite the soul with the intelligible realm; see R. Ruether, Rhetor and Philosopher, 138. 28) Or. 38.9-10 (SC 358:120-124).


Of these binaries, the most important in Gregorys cosmology was intel-ligible versus sensory. Prior to the creation of man, each essence had dwelt within naturally separate borders ( ).29 God had desired, however, to call into being that which had a nature altogether alien to Himself.30 Th erefore, God molded a creature () in which these two opposed natures commingled. Th e creator-word formed a mate-rial body from the earths dust; He then infused it with a divine breath, which was in actuality the image of God ( ), also known as the intelligent soul ( ).31 Gregory deliberately portrayed Adam in this manner, his very creation an initiation into the contemplative life. As mentioned above, Adam was a new Angel, a mingled worshipper ( ), a full initiate () into the visible creation, but only a neophyte in the intellectual ( ). . . . A living creature trained here, and then moved elsewhere, and to complete the mystery, deied by its inclination to God.32 Gregory explained that God intended Adam to grow slowly into an intellectual (noetic) maturity, a disposition that would allow him to partake of the tree of knowledge.33 Until that moment of perfection, he had only to till the immortal plants, by which is meant perhaps the divine conceptions ( ).34

Gregory rmly embedded his articulation of the Fall and especially the ensuing condition of post-lapsarian humanity in Plotinian epistemology. Consequently, his language warrants a closer look. With the Fall, the image was outraged ( ).35 Th e fragile equilibrium between the noetic and the sensory was destroyed. Th e resulting predica-ment for humanity was irreversible; the mind or ruling power (hegemonikon)36

29) Or. 38.11 (SC 358:124). 30) Ibid. 31) Ibid. 32) Ibid. 33) Gregory interprets creation as a state of childhood or immaturity, a training period for an eventual ascended existence. H. Althaus, Heilslehre, 66-7; C. Moreschini and P. Gallay, Discours 38-41, 46; R. Ruether, Rhetor and Philosopher, 134-5. Compare similar notions in Platos Timaeus 42a and Phaedrus 248. 34) Or. 38.12 (SC 358:128). 35) Or. 39.7 (SC 358:162). 36) In Stoic thought, hegemonikon is a term for the mind or souls center of consciousness or commanding faculty; its principal occupation is to assent to or reject the sense impressionsintroduced by the sense organs: A.A. Long and D.N. Sedley, Th e Hellenistic Philosophers (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 313-323. As I discuss below, Gregory


had been overcome, immersed in passions.37 Such language, commonplace in both Platonism as well as ethical Stoicism, had long been incorporated into Christian discourse. More intriguingly, Gregory also described the diusion () of the image throughout the sensory essence.38 Th e mind had been dissipated by its opposite. In a sense, it had separated from itself into innumerable fragments and had lost its hegemony over the sen-sory. Plotinus used very similar language to describe the fall of the soul into matter. Th e soul had been interfused with the body when it tried improp-erly to share the bodys states and think the bodys thoughts.39 Th e goal of the contemplative life, Plotinus insisted, was the souls disengagement from the body; it should throw o the bodys moods and devote itself to its own actthe state of Intellection and Wisdomnever allowing the passions of the body to aect it . . .40

Gregorys concept of the damage to noetic souli.e., the image out-ragedcorresponds quite closely with that found in the Enneads. Indeed, Gregory incorporated into his post-lapsarian interpretation Plotinus epis-temological discrimination between intellection in the noetic realm and sensory perception in the psychic realm. Plotinus understood the higher noetic world to unite ontologically both knower and known. Th ere was no dierence or distance between the two. Intelligible knowledge was intuitivea possession marked by infallibility enveloping the subject. Prior to the Fall, Adam had trained to attain full initiation into noetic essence. Contrary to this, the visible world for both Gregory and Plotinus was the arena of sense perception and discursive knowledge. Th ere was an insurmountable distance between knower and known, which impressions () traversedfrom sense-object to the mindwith varying success. Th e sensory faculties attempted to seek, nd, and construct knowledge;

adapted the Stoic conceptualizations of hegemonikon and sense impressions () to articulate his understanding of demonic attack. 37) Or. 39.7 (SC 358:162). Gregory understands mans nakedness prior to the Fall as trans-parency to the contemplation of Ideas; coats of skini.e., somatic naturegrow dense, impeding theoria. See R. Ruether, Rhetor and Philosopher. 38) Or. 8.23 (SC 405:296). 39) Plotinus, Enneads 1.2.3.10-15 (Loeb 440:134): . 40) Plotinus, Enneads 1.2.3.14-15 (Loeb 440:134): , . . . - . A. Louth, Th e Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition: From Plato to Denys (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), 38.


this process engendered a product that was fragmentary, impermanent, derivative, and quite likely awed.41 Gregory described the Fall as the diusion of the nous throughout the sensory and, consequently, the demo-tion of the rst creature () to this inferior register of sensory know-ing. At that point, a human being could only chase blindly after divine gnosis, his sense perceptions capturing momentary glimpses, which his words distilled into incorrect and incomplete formulae.

Crucially, the Incarnation had reestablished the noetic/sensory equilib-rium in man, restoring the integrity and primacy of the fallen image.42 Of the several titles ascribed to the Son, the Unchanging Image of the Father invited Gregorys further comment. Rather than a motionless copy of a moving object, the Son was a living reproduction of its archetype, the Liv-ing One. In the Incarnation, the Son as Image mingled Himself with an intelligent soul ( ) for [our] souls sake, purifying like by like.43 Claiming the Logos assumed both esh and mind, Gregory established a baptism actualizing this same balanced mixture in each man.44 Th e divine image, which had been previously engulfed within sensory essence, was restored, puried, illuminated and, hence, capable of withdrawing into itself from the sensory substance. In a very real manner, baptism trans-formed man into a new creation, a diviner creation reminiscent of the rst manand, in a Plotinian sense, a novitiate in the contemplative life.45

Th roughout his writings, Gregory developed a rich language to express these complex facets of baptism. Especially signicant, Gregory referred to baptism as the restoration of the Divine Image.46 A crucial support to this eikonic concept was Gregorys identication of baptism as both purication and illumination. While such language was commonplace in baptismal

41) Or. 28.4, 13 (SC 250:108, 126-128). 42) Or. 24.4 (SC 284:46); Or. 40.7 (SC 358:210). Cf. Or. 3.7 (SC 247:250-252); Or. 22.13 (SC 270:246-248). 43) Or. 38.13 (SC 358:132-134). Cf. Or. 29.17 (SC 250:212), Or. 30.20 (SC 250:268-70). 44) Or. 22.13 (SC 270:246-248). Th us Gregory also avoided Apollinarian statements; on the anti-Apollinarian aspect of Gregorys incarnation theology, Ep. 101.32; 102.202. C. Moreschini and P. Gallay, Discours 38-41, 53. Also J. McGuckin, An Intellectual Biogra-phy, 390-394. 45) Or. 40.7 (SC 358:210). Compare the similar discussion in Plotinus, Enneads, 1.6.8-9, particularly the process and purpose of noetic withdraw. 46) Or. 24.4 (SC 284:46), Or. 40.7 (SC 358:210). Cf. Or. 2.22-34 (SC 247:118-132), Or. 30.20 (SC 250:268-270), Or. 40.32 (SC 358:270-272).


theology,47 Gregory understood all threebaptism, purication, and illu-minationas necessary rst conditions to contemplate the divine; but all three also make such contemplation possible through their potential to restore man to his original dignity.48 Gregory applied these words (, , ) in a very precise elucidation of baptism as a sacramental initiation into a mystagogical life.49 He understood his own priesthood principally as involving the restoration of his congregants image.50 To this end, baptism oered a level of ecacy in accord with an individuals apti-tude for intellection. Th e ritual oered a protective seal to the immature. To those who possessed a more perfected disposition, baptism, as eikonic rehabilitation, reinstated the noetic potential to apprehend divinity.51 In regard to the advanced individual, Gregory pursued a conception of bap-tism as forging a covenant with God for a second life, enabling a purer society ( ) between the nous and its source.52

Important in understanding the prayer texts, as Elm has shown, is Greg-orys use of inscription language to articulate simultaneously the historical moment and the cosmological relevance of the paradoxical fusions actual-ization in baptism. Gregory described the noetic lettering inscribed into the souls sensory substance. Th is event deposited the permanent stability of the immortal into the uidity of the sensory and corruptible. We note

47) G.W.H. Lampe, Th e Seal of the Spirit: A Study in the Doctrine of Baptism and Conrmation in the New Testament and the Fathers (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1951); J. Ysebaert, Greek Baptismal Terminology: Its Origins and Early Development (Nijmegen: Dekker & Van de Vegt, 1962), 158-178, 401. 48) S. Elm, Inscriptions, 17. Also C. Moreschini, Discours 38-41, 66-68. Cf. Or. 7.17 (SC 405:220-222), Or. 27.3 (SC 250:76-78), Or. 40.5 (SC 358:204-206), Or. 31.15, 21 (SC 250:304, 316), Or. 38.7 (SC 358:114-116). Plato, Phaidon 67b. 49) Illumination was the language of mystagogical ascent practice within Neoplatonism, see John F. Finamore, Iamblichus on Light and the Transparent, in Th e Divine Iamblichus: Philosopher and Man of Gods, ed. H.J. Blumenthal and E.G. Clark (London: Bristol Clas-sical Press, 1993), 55-65. Cf. C. Moreschini, Filosoa, 69-81, who provides a brief survey of illumination language in the theology in Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa. 50) Or. 2.22 (SC 247:118). Cf. Or. 40.27 (SC 358:258-260); S. Elm, Inscriptions, 19. Noteworthy is S. Elms consideration of Gregorys articulation of the eikonic and mimetic relationship between the priest and his congregants, Th e Diagnostic Gaze: Gregory of Nazianzus Th eory of Orthodox Priesthood in his Orations 6 de Pace and 2 Apologia de Fuga Sua, in Orthodoxie, christianisme, histoire, esp. 87, 95. 51) Or. 40.7 (SC 358:210). 52) Or. 40.8 (SC 358:212); cf. Or. 39.9 (SC 358:165): .


that Gregory also acknowledged the existence of false writings possibly occupying the psychic fabric illicitlya heretical inscription that Gregory as mystagogue was empowered to erase and write over.53

Post-Baptismal Life

While Gregory conceived of baptism as pre-requisite to the pursuit of noetic apprehension and contemplation,54 he also insisted that the crucible of post-baptismal life would be the maintenance of this fusion enabling illumination. Th ough his comments regarding this post-baptismal struggle are vague, by tracing the eikonic references in his orations, it is possible to deduce the manner in which Gregory thought one might maintain this fusion. To begin, Gregory understood this historical moment, which inti-mately linked Adams creation and the Incarnation to the baptizands ontology, to inaugurate an arduous process of metanoia.55 Gregory described this struggle in very consistent terms. An individual must preserve () the image within.56 He did so by becoming as much as possible akin () to the archetypean act of intellectual mimesis fueled by an inclination toward and love for the divine.57 Such endeavors would lead to deication. In Or. 37, we nd a curious but clear image to articulate this practice.

53) Or. 40.2-3, 5-8, 31-38, 44-45 (SC 358:198-202, 204-214, 268-288, 300-308). Cf. Susanna Elm, O Paradoxical Fusion!: Gregory of Nazianzus on Baptism and Cosmology (Orations 38-40) in Heavenly Realms and Earthly Realities in Late Antique Religions, ed. A. Reed and R. Boustan (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 308. 54) S. Elm, Inscriptions, 17. Compare Origens view of baptism as the initiation into the mystical life, A. Louth, Mystical Tradition, 53. 55) I have in mind recent considerations of late antique conversion which stress the concept of metanoia as the inauguration of a process in contrast to the inuential conceptualization of Arthur D. Nock, Conversion: Th e Old and the New Religion from Alexander the Great to Augustine of Hippo (London: Oxford University Press, 1933), who viewed conversion as a single turning point. For example Karl F. Morrison, Understanding Conversion (Charlot-tesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1992); idem, Conversion and Text: Th e Cases of Augustine of Hippo, Herman-Judah, and Constantine Tsatsos (Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1992). 56) Or. 24.15 (SC 284:72-74). 57) Or. 1.4 (SC 274:76), Or. 6.14 (SC 405:156-158), Or. 7.9 (SC 405:198-202), Or. 8.6 (SC 405:256), Or. 24.15 (SC 284:72-74). Cf. the language of Adams creation in Or. 38.11 (SC 358:126).


You see how streams conned in lead pipes through being compressed and carried to one point, often so far depart from the nature of water that that which is pushed from behind will often ow constantly upwards. For if you conne your desire and be wholly joined to God you will not fall downward, you will not be dissipated ( ), you will remain entirely Christs until you see Christ the bridegroom.58

Such concentrated desire restored the integrity of the image, purifying it of the sensory dross.59 In concert with contemporary Platonic thought, Gregory appropriated light and illumination language to describe the images puricationthe excision of all of its discursive contaminants:

God is light: the highest, the unapproachable, the ineable (). Th at can neither be conceived in the mind nor uttered with the lips, that gives life to every reasoning creature. . . . presenting Himself to our minds in proportion as we are cleansed; and loved in proportion as he is presented to our mind. And again con-ceived in proportion as we love Him; Himself contemplating and comprehending Himself, and pouring out upon what is external to Him. Th at light which is con-templated in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.60

Here as well as in Or. 27 and 28, Gregory echoed Plotinus insistence on the inadequacies of discursivity in the pursuit of divinity. Such episte-mological practicessyllogistic argument, dialectics, sophistry, and so forthwere fragmentary and changing, producing a like product. Sensory perception and its consequent crystallization in language were ontologi-cally unequipped to grasp its essential oppositeintelligible divinity. Gregorys concept of illumination aligns well with Plotinus words: What reasoners seek, the wise hold.61 In contrast to discursive or sensory know-ing, intelligible knowledge is not by search but by possession, its blessed-ness inherent, not acquired. . . . Th e Intellectual-Principle is all and therefore its entire content is simultaneously present in that identity.62

58) Or. 37.12. 59) Purication of the image: Or. 27.5 (SC 250:82) and Or. 40.33 (SC 358:272-274). Purication and knowledge: Or. 2.39 (SC 247:140-142), Or. 27.3 (SC 250:76-78), Or. 28.1 (SC 250:100), Or. 39.9 (SC 358:164-166). 60) Or. 40.5 (SC 358:204-206). 61) Plotinus, Enneads, 4.4.12. 62) Idem, 5.1.4.


Th e Devil and Discursivity

Gregory constantly reminded his audience that this divine noetic image imprinted in baptism still dwelt in the midst of a sensible/material essence. Th at person was knit to the esh and oppressed by the clay.63 Th e hab-its of discursivitythe dening marks of a rational human beingwere detrimental to theoria; thought in the sensory realman unstable, uid, discursive phenomenonsabotaged contemplative eorts to maintain the noetic images integrity. In a very material sense, the static of sensory exis-tence deected or blocked the divine light. Error of the senses ( ), enigmas (), false light and forms of evil things ( ) carried into the mind hindered the images reception of divine light.64 A human being tethered inextrica-bly to the business of discursive knowledge received only slender rivelets, in days of mirrors and enigmas.65 It was in the next life that the image would rise to meet and conjoin with the archetype: Trinity, most pure light and perfected, no longer beyond the ken of the captive mind ( ), dissipated by the senses ( ), but entirely contemplated and possessed by the undivided mind, and ashing upon our souls with the whole light of Godhead.66

A paradox resided within the core of Gregorys understanding of the epistemological ecacy of this paradoxical fusion. While baptism actual-ized the commingling of two opposites in man, realization of the potential required keeping these two essences separate.67 Th roughout his life, Greg-ory struggled to this end: ever preserving in myself the divine impressions () pure and unmixed () with the erring tokens ( ) of this lower world.68 Th e life-long process of metanoia was

63) Or. 21.2 (SC 270:112-114). 64) Or. 7.17 (SC 405:222), Or. 40.37 (SC 358:282-284). Cf. Or. 27.3 (SC 250:76-78). 65) Or. 7.17 (SC 405:222). 66) Or. 8.23 (SC 405:296). Cf. Or. 28.13 (SC 250:126-128), Or. 7.17 (SC 405:222). Greg-ory also invoked Platonic language by describing the shattering of the mirror, a moment when the knower and the known become one, as the individual will possess () divine knowledge; see Or. 8.23 (SC 405:296), Or. 20.1 (SC 270:56-58). Compare Ploti-nus, Enneads, 6.9.11, who also spoke of the image rising to meet the archetype. Th e essential dierence lies in Plotinus assertion that the image/archetype union could take place in the present life, if only for an instant. 67) H. Althaus, Heilslehre, 56. 68) Or. 2.7 (SC 247:96); cf. Or. 20.1 (SC 270:56-58). Also see Prayer 6.3.


a struggle of a particular kind. Keeping Christ within denoted an inti-mate yet separate relationship of incommensurablesthe image dwelling within but not diused throughout the sensory substance. One must pull the noetic inward to allow its purer conversation with God. Otherwise, the mechanics of sense perceptioni.e., discursive knowledgedissipated the nous and interfered with its capacity to receive and reect light. Greg-ory understood the impossibility of maintaining more than a momentary equanimity for the image. Th e world of matter easily intruded to disrupt reception of the most slender illuminating ray. And, for Gregory, this world of material discur sivity was the devils terrain.

Adam, a creation designed to know God, had incited Lucifers jealousy. Th e former archangels eorts toward precipitous enlightenment had been met with punishment, an irreversible descent into the lower earthly regions. Losing his radiant splendor, Lucifer had exchanged light composition for total darkness. He brought with him countless demonic comrades whom he had schooled in evil.69 While Adam possessed the potential for illumi-nation, time and guidance were necessary to realize that potential. Conse-quently, God temporarily forbade access to the tree of knowledge. Once Adam had garnered the maturity of habit to enter, he could have done so freely.70 Any knowledge unseasonably and improperly imparted, how-ever, would result in unbridled contemplation.71 Th e result would be catastrophic: epistemological regression versus progression. Taking advan-tage of the precarious balance within Adam, Lucifer injected the rst crea-ture with the darkness of his own sini.e., his unrestrained, untamed desire and doomed endeavor to know God. Lucifer encouraged Adam to taste knowledge too early, distracting Adam from his safe, progressing proximity to divinity. In this act, Gregory specically referenced the fate of the new mixture in Adamthe divine image outraged, dissipated help-lessly throughout sensory essence. Gregory, then, delineated a precise role for demons throughout history. Th ey had succeeded and continued to suc-ceed in compromising the divine image in man. Th eir strategy was a simple one: disperse and conquer.

Rooted in this mythology, Gregory constructed a consistent and pro-vocative demonologyone embedded in Stoic epistemological principals.

69) P.A. 6.69. 70) Or. 38.12 (SC 358:126-130). 71) Or. 39.7 (SC 358:160-162).


In fact Stoic understanding of the impression (phantasia) as the funda-mental constituent of true knowledge was the thread stitching together Gregorys scattered allusions to demonic attack. Th e Stoics distinguished between episteme, cognition secure and rm and unchangeable by rea-son, and doxa, weak and false assent.72 Th e goal of the virtuous life was episteme, which depended materially on the impressions imprint in the soul. Th e cognitive impression (kataleptike phantasia) was the building block of epistemeone which arises from what is and is stamped and impressed exactly in accord with what is, of such a kind as could not arise from what is not.73 Such an impression allowed rational faculties to forge non-corporeal impressions: i.e., thoughts and conceptions which were the rudiments of correct reasoning.74 Th e minds highest partthe command-ing faculty (hegemonikon) presided over this process, judging whether or not to accept an impression entering from without.75 Many factors could sabotage the creation of a cognitive impression, not least of all, the mind itself. Illness or a melancholy state would hamper the minds ability to judge an impressions quality. A diseased mind could produce its own gments (phantasmata).76 Th e consequence of incorrectly assenting to a awed impression was false knowledge. And within Stoic ethics this began an inevitable decline from virtue toward vice.

Th e relevant passages in Gregorys writings lack the necessary precision to allow a rigorous comparison with these Stoic principles; nonetheless his account of demonic impressions (phantasmata), erring images, and the like, inltrating the mind, resonates with the more incisive Stoic presenta-tion of true cognition and its obstacles. Th e main dierence, of course, is that the Stoics understood the universe as entirely material. Th e disparity between doxa and episteme was a matter of degree, dened by the depth

72) Stobeaus, 2.7.4 (Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta 3.112, ed. H. Von Arnim (Leipzig: Teub-ner, 1903-5) [hereafter SVF ]): . Cf. Sextus Empiricus, Adv. Math, 7.152-7. 73) Sextus Empiricus, Adv. Math, 7.247-52 (SVF 2.65.30-45): , . Cf. Diogenes Laertius, 7.49-51. 74) See, e.g., Diogenes Laertius, 7.49-51, also Cicero, Academica, 2.21. Regarding the com-ponents involved in cognitive impression, see Sextus Empiricus, Adv. Math, 7.424. 75) Aetius, 4.11.1-4 (SVF 2.83): When a man is born, the Stoics say, he has a command-ing-part of his soul like a sheet of paper ready for writing upon. On this he inscribes each of his conceptions. 76) Aetius, 4.12.1-5 (SVF 2.54).


and quality of the impressions imprint in the mind, not the essence of the impression itself. Gregory, by contrast, employed a Platonic cosmology to articulate Stoic epistemology. Th e unbridgeable divide between sensory and noetic realms in Gregorys cosmology carved an ontological distinc-tion between doxa and episteme. Within this framework Gregory advanced a very precise notion of the demonic; they had tracked in doxa as coun-terfeit episteme and easily and constantly overwhelmed the fragile rational-ity of humankind.

Th e picture Gregory painted was rather bleak. In the sensory world, the devil and his army stand midpoint between good and evil men, seeking out and destroying those in whom noetic embers still glowed and in whom there existed the inclination toward divine illumination.77 Demons tricked a human being to search for divinity precipitously and incorrectly. Th ey oered a light deceitful and meddling . . . quite contrary to the true light, though pretending to be that light, that it may cheat us by its appear-ance.78 Learning to discern true from false lightand hence divine knowl-edge from sensible interferencewas very dicult for a human being. Gregory described the demons taking advantage of this weakness. Demons primarily were dealers in ambiguity, liars, deceivers, teachers of error.79 Th ey were able to take the form of darkness or light at will, to act openly or lie in wait.80 By whatever means necessary, they strove irrepressibly to divide the human being from God by encouraging him to search actively for divine gnosis.

Prior to the Incarnation, demonic weaponry consisted of fanciful opin-ions and impressions ( ) injected into pagans rational faculties.81 After Christianity provided a more accurate path to noetic revelation, demons inserted erring types ( ) into the minds of those pursuing theological truths.82 By feeding a hungry mind with false thoughts, images, characters, and types, these demons eas-ily tricked an ill-prepared, ill-equipped humanity to pursue divinity through discursive endeavor. With only sensory tools at their disposalrational

77) P.A. 6:86 (P.G. 37.445a). 78) Or. 40.37 (SC 358:282). 79) P.A. 6:86 (P.G. 37.445a). 80) Or. 40. 81) Or. 39.7 (SC 358:160). 82) Or. 27.3 (SC 250:76).


thought, syllogistic arguments, sophistry, and so forth, human beings chased blindly after both false deities and heretical trinities.

Gregory described the demons as tricking the mind to accept sense impressions. Th e result was deadly. Th e acceptance of one false impression would inaugurate the sense perceptions futile search for divine gnosis. For the baptized Christian, a hasty mobilization of discursive processes to apprehend God would easily distract the Divine Image from its contem-plative function, leading to its diusion throughout the sensory essence. In Gregorys estimation, a human being had insucient mental acuity to judge the origin of thoughts. Especially in Or. 40, then, he warned of the dangers. Invoking Mt. 12 he portrayed the baptized mind as indefensible and woefully porous in a world overrun by hostile beings.

But if he [the devil] nds in you a place [the soul], swept and garnished indeed, but empty and idle ( ), equally ready to take in this or that which shall rst occupy it, he makes a leap into it, he takes up his abode there with a larger train and the last is worse than the rst. Inasmuch as then there was a hope of amendment, and safety, but now the evil is rampant and drags in sin by its ight from good. And therefore the possession is more secure to him who dwells there.83

Gregory understood human beings to have been particularly vulnerable in their practice of theology. It is quite telling, then, that in Or. 40, Gregory cast the devil in the role of indefatigable exegete, ever ready with the subtle scriptural interpretation to trick even the most knowledgeable theologians. No one was safe, most especially the baptized. In fact, to the dismay of the recently initiated, the demonic attacks actually increased. From the second the individual emerged from the bath, the persecutor and tempter of light would use tools and strategies of human knowledge to destroy the image. He twisted and contorted words, improperly juxtaposing passages and leaving out crucial elements in his citation of gospel. Satan suggested a curious hermeneutical slant that tempted that individual to engage in a heedless theological debate.84 He used sophistries, dialectics, erring images and the like to procure a persons hasty assent to a false theological prem-iseanything to distance that person from his proximity to Divine truth.85

83) Or. 40.35 (SC 358:278). 84) Or. 40.10, 15 (SC 358:216-218, 228). 85) Ibid. Th is demonic factor quietly undergirded Gregorys anti-Eumonian criticism in his Th eological Orations. Gregory condemned Eunomians who fervently attempted to know


For Gregory, true philosophy (i.e., noetic contemplation) was not the province of the hasty or attention starved. Th e stakes were too high. Rather, the reception of illuminating gnosis required a certain time, place, and topic. It must be conducted within certain limits.86 Gregory insisted that it required someone who had been puriedi.e., baptized.87 More appro-priately, however, it should be attempted only by the more advanced who had been examined and were proven masters in meditation or more perfected in age. In Gregorys words: For the impure to touch the pure is not safe, just as it is unsafe to x weak eyes upon the suns rays.88 Moreover one must be truly at leisure to know God.89 Only in such a situation could a trained individual have been at leisure from all external delement or disturbance ( . . . ) . . . when that which rules within us is not confused with vexatious or erring types, like persons mixing up good writing with bad . . . ( , ).90 Gregory tried throughout his life to devote himself solely to this occupa-tion: to live the life that transcends visible nature, ever containing within myself the reections of the divine, their purity unclouded by the false images here below ( ).91 Th is was Gregorys happy dream, forever bedeviled by a frustrating reality. Sensory nature would always have the capacity to diuse the nous.

God. In their endeavors to comprehend every element of God, capturing his essence within their logismoi, these philosophers produced dangerous materiala knowledge falsely so called [Or. 27.1 (SC 250:70-72). Cf. 1Tim. 6.20] assembled loosely through syllogisms and rhetoric. Th ese types of discourse, constituted of a sensible substance, were impermanent, changing, and in uxand hence susceptible to demonic manip-ulation. Due to the Eunomians profane babblings, Gregory warned the congregation, our Great mystery is in danger of being made a thing of little moment [Or. 27.1 (SC 250:70-72)]. In short, a reprisal of the rst Fall. 86) Or. 27.3 (SC 250:78-80). 87) Or. 39.9 (SC 358:164): We must rst purify ourselves, and then approach this con-verse with the pure. 88) Or. 27.3 (SC 250:76); cf. Or. 39.7 (SC 358:160-162). 89) Gregory himself took ight from ecclesiastical duties to meet these criteria, see Or. 2. 90) Or. 27.3 (SC 250:76). 91) Or. 20.1 (SC 270:56-58).


Th e Frustrations of Th eoria

Defeated ecclesiastically and theologically, Gregory began his self-imposed exile in Nazianzus in 382CE.92 He is known in this period for launching a propagandistic battle to rehabilitate his tarnished reputation, both claim-ing the Nicene heritage and ensuring the future outline of homoousian doctrine. To this end, he labored furiously to edit his works for circulation in Constantinople, most especially the Th eological Orations. Likewise he produced a great deal of poetry for public consumption, both apologetic and introspective. Th e less polished works include epigrams or epitaph rhymes, ascetical exercises, private prayers to Christ.93 It is ironic that his feverish literary eorts to rehabilitate his reputation have led scholars to characterize him, in these nal isolated years (382-390CE), as a man bit-terly consumed with his past, especially the most recent unfullling events, the opportunities missed, and the persecutions endured.94 Th is character-ization has resulted in the neglect of an intriguing aspect of this exile. Gregory had become, to a signicant degree, a man of leisurethe pri-mary criterion of theoria.95 While he was still engaged with Constantino-plian politics from a distance, this remote location and minimal clerical duties aorded him time for contemplation, the ability to live a life that transcends visible nature. At this stage of his life, he was a self-professed past-master in meditation, who could devote himself to his desire.96 And, indeed, these prayers attest to his eorts.

In Prayer 1, Gregory declared his soul is mixed with divinity through baptism. He was not only a portion of Christ; he was as a god (). In Prayer 2, Gregory alluded to the integrity of the noetic essence within that allowed him to invite divine illumination down upon him: as one pure I will encounter pure heavenly lights. Th ese prayers indicate that post-baptismal divinization was possible; however, it was practically unattain-able in this life. Soon after the baptism left its transformative mark,

92) During the council of Constantinople, Gregorys position as bishop was questioned and his pneumatology (the Holy Spirits equality with the Father and the Son) was rejected. J. McGuckin, An Intellectual Biography, 311-369. 93) See, e.g., P.G. 38.11-130. De Vita Sua, Carm. 2.1.20-27; 2.1.33; 2.1.51-66. 94) J. McGuckin, An Intellectual Biography, 371-376. 95) While Gregory did take up pastoral duties in Nazianzus, his responsibilities would have been light in comparison to Constantinople. 96) Or. 27.3 (SC 250:76-78). Neil McLynn, Holy Man, argues convincingly that Gregory was producing a self-portrait in his description of the true theologian in Or. 27-31.


according to Gregory, the divine impressed within was also the devils sole target. Demonic stimuli relentlessly attacked and contaminated the noetic core. Th ese prayers delineate a conception of theoria at its most fundamen-tal level: that is, maintaining the delicate balance of an unimaginable mix-ture. Gregory struggled, frequently in vain, to establish a cohabitation and yet a sepa ration of two dierent ontologies.

We should consider these prayer texts with three questions in mind. First, what precisely did Gregory understand these demons to endanger? Th e answer provides additional insight into Gregorys view of the baptis-mal image/inscription and, thus, his own potential for divinization. Sec-ond, what demonic weaponry did he describe and what were their methods of attack? And, nally, how did Gregory describe his means of defending himself against the devil, as well as ghting the demonic oensively?

In Or. 40 Gregory declared that baptism would indeed stop the demonic assault; however, the subsequent tranquility lacked permanency. Quite soon, the devils legions would launch an unending attack. Prayer 4 inci-sively connects the baptismal image/inscription and demonic onslaught in what Gregory recognized as his profoundly unsettling reality: Flee from the writing, o Barbarian, do not trouble me. Flee wretched one; Christ is written by me, may this collected thought not ee from me . . . From the moment after his baptism, demons strove to erase or scatter the markings actualizing his privileged status within humanitythat unlikely mixing of noetic and sensory.

Th is paradoxical fusion enabling man to be godlike correlates well with the contradictory nature of the baptismal writing/imprint. As Elm has pointed out, while inscription had a cultural value for its permanency, underlying that sense of durability were the realities of decay and erasure. Baptisms Christic inscription constituted the collected thought (Pr. 4.3) that allowed Gregory to reach for and touch divinity. As described above, the challenge for Gregory was to retain the writings integrity which con-tained the elemental truth of that noetic image. Th e demons, of course, attempted to damage the writing. Th eir attacks were intended to destroy noetic collection and induce the development of its oppositenoetic dis-persal. To that end, demonic contamination, so easily accomplished in the sensory realm, did not only inform Gregorys concern for the baptismal images viability; it fomented his anxiety regarding the integrity of his sense of subjectivity or self.

In Or. 40, Gregory warned of the consequences if the devil discovered a baptized soul that was swept and garnished indeed, but empty and idle,


equally ready to take in this or that which shall rst occupy it. Th is tempt-ing vacancy enticed the devil to bring a whole train of demons to occupy the soulcoating it with their false images/impressions and deceptive thoughts. Such activity, by debilitating a persons rational faculties, denied that person the ability to clean the image. Th is desperate state echoes in Prayer 7 in which Gregory repeatedly lamented the image is emptied! Rather than the image, which was a gift of the undeled God, Gregory discovered that he burned with the devils words and sophistries. His only recourse was to plead with his own rational faculties, contaminated as they were: Font of evils, do not bubble forth, the mind be not empty. But you, tongue, do not receive mud. Only in this way, and only if his rational faculties would obey, could the image remain uncorrupted. Th ese prayers description of the betrayal of Gregorys own mind oers penetrating insight into the psychology of theoria which his orations can only suggest.

Each prayer conveys the same theme: the devils means of attack out-numbered and often outmaneuvered Gregorys weapons for mounting a defense or an oense. Th e devils rational counterfeit, in the guise of noetic light, inltrated Gregorys mind with a disturbing ease. False or murky thoughts, impressions, heretical theological dogma, and impressions of the dragon (Pr. 1.1, 8; 2.17; 4.1; 6.3; 7.4) all clustered around the col-lected thought (Pr. 4.2; 5.3; 1.16). Words and sophistries penetrated to disperse the noetic characters actualizing Christ within. Th e devils audi-tory mode of attack transformed the urban sphere into a dangerous, unpre-dictable battle ground. In a city ravaged by Trinitarian debate, even the idle theological speculation of a Nicene Christian could harbor the devils cognitive deceits.

More psychologically troubling was the fact that Gregorys primary mode of defensei.e., rational thoughtwas comprised of the precise set of facul ties so easily inhabited and manipulated by the devil. Gregory described a spiritual warfare that he suered alone and in silence. His bat-tles threw him into practically insurmountable turmoil. In essence, he endured a mind divided against itself. Despite what must have seemed a hopelessly bleak predicament, Gregory did identify eective weapons against these invisible enemies: 1) the skills of discernment (diakrisis)97 and 2) apotropaic language.

97) For the importance of discernment in the maintenance of Stoic subjecthood, see Gretchen Reydams-Schils, Th e Roman Stoics: Self, Responsibility, and Aection (Chicago: Th e University of Chicago Press, 2005), especially 15-52.


In several prayers, Gregory expressed that early detection was his best defense. In Prayer 1, it was the shape of the thoughts entering Gregorys mind that betrayed their true author. Th ough the thoughts seemed san-guine, Gregory recognized that only the devil would send such a deceptive light into his nimble understanding: You have come, o evil doer, I recog-nize your thoughts . . . how have you come as light, though you are dark-ness? (Pr.1. 2.). When he was fortunate enough to recognize the devil, he was able to stop him at least temporarily. In prayer 6 a presentiment of the approaching impressions of the dragon enabled him to block their entry. Reaching for victory, in Prayer 1, Gregory exclaimed: You will not trick me, liar! He understood that the devil preferred to begin by inserting small innocuous impressions, thoughts, and words. In this way, the devil created an imperceptible tear in the minds fabric, which he then widened with his more poisonous material: While at the very beginning with small sins, like a river, you attack the heart; but then you open the ground wider; afterwards as a current both foul and great, you have come, until your chaos might take me (Pr. 1.10-13). Th ese few instances of recognition enabled Gregory to call for aid: O help, angels stand by! O a tyrant, and a thief is approaching. From them take me away, yes, beloved ones, I am being stoned . . . (Pr. 5.5-7). While such language gives insight into Greg-orys methods of self-defense, they also capture moments of a loss of men-tal self and rational autonomy. How many of these thoughts were his? How many were the devils? What impresses the reader is that Gregory himself was unsure and frantically called for aid in view of his helplessness. Th e texts portray his acute sense of a human beings ultimate limitations in this life.

In his own baptism, however, Gregory discovered a more trustworthy measure of power. As he described in Or. 40, by invoking the historical and cosmological fact of ones own baptized status, a Christian cast a blind-ing light from his/her seal that repelled the devil: Say to him, relying on the seal, I am myself the image of God . . . I have put on Christ, I have been transformed into Christ by baptism. You worship me! (Or. 40.10). Th ese prayer texts contain analogous apotropaic formulae, indicating that Gregory used his baptismal status as an eective anti-demonic technique.

But withdraw far away . . . I am a portion of Christ, as a temple I have been pre-pared, and a sacrice; but then also a god, because my soul is mixed with divinity . . . surrender to God, and to the creation divine . . . (Pr. 1.14-19).


Gregory used the same baptismal language in Prayer 5, demanding the devils retreat: Go away, sight of terrible suering, raging evil; go away, Christ is within, to whom I have oered and given my soul. Again, the same warning in Prayer 4.1-2: Flee wretched one; Christ is written by me. Gregorys invocation of his own baptism was a theurgic act. By calling on the authority (exousia) of the divine seal residing within him, he asserted that divinity worked to protect him, repelling the demonic. Th e fact that Gregory identied the invocation of his baptismal qualications as apotropaic reveals a crucial dynamic of his understanding of theoria. He understood the oral formulas of the baptismal ritual (apotaxis and syntaxis) to forge the persons link to the Incarnation and hence actualize the images restoration; these spoken words materially contributed to the noetic souls purication. Hence, those words, which invoked the paradoxical fusion within the speaker, were not only invulnerable to the vicissitudes of discur-sivity but also imperative as a mimetic act of the original ritual. Th is invo-cation eected a re-actualization of the images integrity. Consequently, this phrase, as the only divine words in the sensory realm, repelled the devil instantaneously. Like baptism, they oered only temporary protec-tion. As with all-night vigils and tears, Gregory understood this baptis-mal invocation to cleanse the image. However, continual cleansing was required.

Conclusion

Th ese texts in conjunction with the orations illuminate an intense personal demonology. Gregory did not merely employ the devil and the demonic as metaphorical categories to make a theological point or reprove an errant congregation. Rather he disclosed an intimate knowledge of the devil himself. In the course of his post-baptismal life, he accumulated an empir-ical understanding of spiritual warfare which lead him to question the integrity of his autonomous identity and to develop a fear that his mental faculties were not entirely his own.

Ruethers suggestion that the daemonological aspect . . . is largely absent in Gregory is misguided. Rather than absent, Gregory understood the devil and the demonic to be invisible because they were internal to their victim. Gregorys placement of the devil conveyed a spiritual warfare that was quite dicult, if not actually maddening, in its practical stresses and strains.


On a nal note, scholars have attended closely to the ideologies and practices of spiritual warfarei.e. the Christians battle with the demonic. Such study has generated tremendous insight into the energies within early Chris tianity. Nevertheless scholars tend to conne the devil and his demons to certain locations of the late antique worlde.g., the Egyptian desert, the Syrian hinterland, heretical Christianity, Gnosticism, or monasticism.98 Most have yet to explore seriously the material expression of demonology in the urban center as understood by the educated, Hellenized, elite, orthodox Christian. Th is placement or more properly displacement of the devil in scholarship has interfered with our understanding of Christian spirituality. We can see this, in particular, in the study of Evagrius of Pon-tus, whose systematic categorization of the demonic in his development of theoria is remarkable.99 Despite his years in service to Gregory of Nazian-zus in Constantinople prior to his retreat into the hermetic life, scholars credit Evagrius interest in the demonic to his later desert isolation and contact with monks.100 As a result, he is described as a conduit through which all that was exotic about monastic Christianity could reach the mainstream, Greek urban center, such as Constantinople or Antioch. One scholar has provided a recent example employing this directional para-digm: With his Greek literary and philosophical training, Evagrius was

98) Peter Browns trebled consideration of the Holy Man has cleared a legitimate path for scholars to study the function of demonology in the construction of holy power. As a result Christians outside of the late antique civic power structure (i.e., the city) and removed from urban venues of paideia, rational philosophies, and imperial networks have been assured immortality in theoretically innovative and excellent considerations of Christian demonol-ogy. For example, David Brakke, Th e Making of Monastic Demonology: Th ree Ascetic Teachers on Withdrawal and Resistance, Church History 70/1 (2001): 9-48. See also Rich-ard Valantasis, Constructions of Power in Asceticism, Journal of the American Academy of Religion 63 (1995): 775-821; idem, Daemons and the Perfecting of the Monks Body: Monastic Anthropology, Daemonology, and Asceticism, Semeia 58 (1992): 47-79. Th e same holds true for the study of demonology in heretical Christianity and Gnosticism: e.g., Elizabeth Leeper, From Alexandria to Rome: Th e Valentinian Connection to the Incorpo-ration of Exorcism as a Prebaptismal Rite, Vigiliae Christianae 44 (1990): 6-24; eadem, Th e Role of Exorcism in Early Christianity, Studia Patristica 26 (1993): 59-62. 99) Columba Stewart, Imageless Prayer and the Th eological Vision of Evagrius Ponticus, Journal of Early Christian Studies 9:2 (2001): 173-204, for example, understands Evagrius of Ponticus as one of the pioneers of Christian mystical theology. 100) David Linge, Leading the Life of Angels: Ascetic Practice and Reection in the Writ-ings of Evagrius of Pontus, Journal of American Academy of Religion 68 (2001): 1-32.


able to translate and transform Coptic spirituality for the Greek speaking world, systematizing its insights into a gem-like brilliance.101 Th is essay has sought to challenge this view and turn much needed attention to the vibrant demonologies cultivated and constructed by elite, educated Chris-tians in the late antique cities of the Greek East.

101) William Harmless, Th e Sapphire Light of the Mind: Th e Skemmata of Evagrius Pon-ticus, Th eological Studies 62:3 (2001): 1-24.

Documents

Demons and Divine Illumination at Gregory Nazianzus