Introduction - Part 1

In the Greek manuscript tradition, To the Caesareans, apologia concerning his departure is ascribed to St Basil the Great and it is given in his collected correspondence as Letter 8.[1] However, largely because of the existence in the Syriac manuscript tradition of a very early manuscript which contains the letter in Syriac translation, which manuscript ascribes the letter to Evagrius Ponticus (c.344 – 399), the letter has recently been assigned to Evagrius Ponticus.

Since the letter begins with an apologia for its author’s absence from an unspecified location and refers to ‘Gregory’ in such a way as to make natural an identification with St Gregory the Theologian, Evagrian authorship would date the letter to about 379 – 80, when Evagrius went to Constantinople and became the Archdeacon of St Gregory the Theologian, after St Basil the Great’s death in 379. Evagrius would have been about 34 years old at the time of composition of the letter.

In the case that the letter was written by St Basil, it is thought that it would have been written about 360.[2]

To the Caesareans… is not a homogeneous text. There are passages in it, one very long, which summarize Evagrius’ mature mystical theology. Moreover, it can be shown that the long passage is in all likelihood an interpolation, and that the other such passages very well may be.

Let us look at the evidence. In the letter, the first section, from ¶1 [1] – 1 [3], is an apologia for someone’s absence in order to study theology and philosophy with ‘Gregory’, evidently St Gregory the Theologian. As we pointed out, historically, in the Greek manuscript tradition, the letter has been ascribed to St Basil the Great himself. To our ear, the first section does sound like Basil. Let us call it Section 1.

The tone of Section 1 is supplicatory and pleading, as one might expect from someone who is absent without leave and must not only justify his absence but also seek the permission of the other party to continue for a time where he is. Moreover, the author refers to the ‘paternal compassions’ of the persons to whom the letter is addressed in a way consistent with a relationship of subordination.

Section 1 then closes with ‘And those things which concern us are in this wise,’ something that might be taken to be the closing line of a short letter about one’s personal situation.

The letter then abruptly commences a scriptural exegesis that advances the doctrine of the divinity first of the Son and then of the Holy Spirit. The tone changes: from pleading for a little more time together with Gregory, the letter abruptly begins to teach in an authoritative manner. Let us call this Section 2: from ¶2 [4] to ¶12 [40], the end of the letter.

There is no further reference in Section 2, even in the conclusion, to the content of Section 1. Since there is very little transition from Section 1 to Section 2 and no further reference in Section 2 to Section 1, the two sections might be thought to be independent texts brought together in the manuscript tradition.

That this might be so is reinforced by the fact that Section 2 repeatedly uses the term ‘homoousios (same in substance)’, a term avoided by St Basil.

The structure of the core of Section 2 is scriptural exegesis: commentary explaining in an orthodox way a chain of passages of Scripture used by the Arians to oppose the divinity of Christ and even of the Holy Spirit.

However, in ¶6 [20] we find:

And let these things be said in a grosser way according to the previous introduction. Already it is necessary to examine the meaning of the text in a higher way and it is necessary to knock on the door of knowledge (gnosis), if indeed I should be able to awaken the master of the house, him who gives the spiritual loaves to those who ask him, since they are friends and brothers whom we endeavour to feast.

The author then proceeds to give a very long, dense and polished allegorical exegesis of why Jesus was ignorant of the hour and day of the Judgement. The style is more sophisticated than that of the preceding part of Section 2, and certainly far more sophisticated than that of Section 1. This passage ends at ¶7 [26], giving us a unitary passage from ¶6 [20] to ¶7 [26]. Let us call this Passage A of Section 2.

---

[1] Migne 32 cols. 245C – 268B. We have translated the edition of Courtonne, as given in Basil 1 pp. 180 – 95.

[2] Migne loc. cit. fn. * to the letter’s title.