Talk Back PDF

Evagrius of Pontus
Talking Back
cistercian studies series number two hundred twenty-nine
Evagrius of Pontus
Talking Back
A Monastic Handbook for
Combating Demons
Translated with an Introduction by

David Brakke
Cistercian Publications
www.cistercianpublications.org
LITURGICAL PRESS
Collegeville, Minnesota
www.litpress.org
A Cistercian Publications title published by Liturgical Press
Cistercian Publications
Editorial Offices
Abbey of Gethsemani
3642 Monks Road
Trappist, Kentucky 40051
www.cistercianpublications.org
Evagrius of Pontus, Saint, c. 345–399
Talking Back translated from the edition of

Wilhelm Frankenberg
Euagrios Ponticus
Abhandlungen der königlichen Gesellschaft der

Wissenschaften zu Göttingen,
Philologisch-historische Klasse, Neue Folge 13.2
Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1912
New Testament quotations are from New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright
© 1989 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America.
Used by permission. All rights reserved.
© 2009 by Order of Saint Benedict, Collegeville, Minnesota. All rights reserved. No

part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, microfilm, microfiche,
mechanical recording, photocopying, translation, or by any other means, known or
yet unknown, for any purpose except brief quotations in reviews, without the previous
written permission of Liturgical Press, Saint John’s Abbey, P.O. Box 7500, Collegeville,
Minnesota 56321-7500. Printed in the United States of America.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Evagrius, Ponticus, 345?–399.

[Antirrhetikos. English]
Talking back : a monastic handbook for combating demons / Evagrius of
Pontus ; translated with an Introduction by David Brakke.
p. cm. — (Cistercian studies series ; no. 229)
In English, translated from a Syriac translation of the Greek original.
Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and indexes.
ISBN 978-0-87907-329-9 (pbk.)
1. Spiritual warfare. I. Brakke, David. II. Title. III. Series.
BV4509.5.E82513 2009
248.8'942—dc22
2009004768
To Mary Jo Weaver
experienced in the movements of the soul and the ways of prayer

Contents
Acknowledgments ix
Introduction 1
Note on Texts and Translations 41
Loukios, Letter to Evagrius 45
Evagrius, Letter 4 47
TALKING BACK
PROLOGUE 49
FIRST BOOK
Against the Thoughts of Gluttony 53
SECOND BOOK
Against the Thoughts of Fornication 69
THIRD BOOK
Concerning Love of Money 85
FOURTH BOOK
Concerning the Thoughts of the Demon of Sadness 99
FIFTH BOOK
Against the Demon of Anger 119
vii
viii Evagrius of Pontus
SIXTH BOOK
Against the Thoughts of the Demon of Listlessness 133
SEVENTH BOOK
Against the Thoughts from the Demon of Vainglory 147
EIGHTH BOOK
Against the Cursed Thoughts of Pride 159
Bibliography 175
Index of Scripture Passages Used as Responses 181
Index of Scripture Passages Excluding Those
Used as Responses 189
Acknowledgments
I completed a rough translation of Talking Back while I was an

Alexander von Humboldt Fellow at the Institut für Ägyptologie
und Koptologie of the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster.
I am grateful to the Humboldt-Stiftung for its generosity and to
my host, Stephen Emmel, for his hospitality and support.William
Harmless encouraged me to undertake this project and responded
to an early portion of my translation. Robert Sinkewicz offered
sage advice and generously shared with me his own working
translation of Talking Back. Kevin Jaques lent me his expertise in
Arabic as I studied Loukios’s letter to Evagrius. Rowan Greer read
a draft of the entire book and made several important suggestions
and corrections, and Mary Jo Weaver did the same for the Intro-
duction. A group of students in Syriac at Indiana University read
portions of the text with me. I have presented the ideas found in
the Introduction to several audiences, who responded with helpful
questions and comments, especially at the North American Patris
tics Society, the History of the Book Seminar at Indiana University,
and the Fifteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies
(2007) at the University of Oxford. E. Rozanne Elder of Cistercian
Publications greeted my project with enthusiasm and patience,
and the anonymous readers provided welcome endorsements of my
efforts. Father Mark Scott of Cistercian Publications and Colleen
Stiller of Liturgical Press and her staff produced this book with
intelligence and care. As always, Bert Harrill has provided me with
ix
x Evagrius of Pontus
endless moral support. I am grateful to all of these persons and

institutions; the shortcomings of this work are my own.
Portions of the Introduction repeat material from my Demons
and the Making of the Monk: Spiritual Combat in Early Christianity
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006).
Introduction
Sometime in the final decade of the fourth century, a monk

named Loukios wrote to Evagrius of Pontus, one of the leading
spiritual guides among the monks of the Egyptian desert. Calling
him “honored father,” Loukios asked Evagrius to compose for him
a treatise that would explain the tactics of the demons that try to
undermine the monastic life; Loukios hoped that such a work
would help him and others to resist more successfully the evil
suggestions that the demons made. In response, Evagrius sent
Loukios a letter, now known as his fourth, and a copy of the work
translated here: Antirrhētikos, or Talking Back. Among the monks
of late antiquity and early Byzantium, it became one of the most
popular of Evagrius’s books: ancient authors regularly mentioned
it in their discussions of Evagrius, and it was eventually translated
from the original Greek into Latin, Syriac, Armenian, Georgian,
and even Sogdian.
Talking Back has not enjoyed the same level of popularity
among modern students of early Christian monasticism. One
reason for this neglect is linguistic: both the Greek original and the
Latin translation are lost; complete texts survive only in Armenian
and Syriac manuscripts that are either not fully edited or difficult
to access. But also Talking Back concerns itself exclusively with the
monk’s combat with demons, a topic that has not interested many
modern historians and theologians, most of whom have directed
their attention to social and cultural features of early monasticism
2 Evagrius of Pontus
or to aspects of monastic spirituality that appear more directly

relevant to contemporary persons, such as prayer or spiritual direc-
tion. Intense conflict with demons, however, especially in the form
of thoughts, lay at the heart of the early Egyptian monk’s struggle
for virtue, purity of heart, and thus for salvation.1 Opposition from
demons, whether they tempted the monk to sin or tried to frighten
him into abandoning the ascetic life, provided the resistance that
the monk needed to form himself into a person of integrity. In
Talking Back we find the thoughts, circumstances, and anxieties
with which the demons assailed the monk, and we observe a
primary strategy in the struggle to overcome such assaults: antirrhēsis,
the speaking of relevant passages from the Bible that would con-
tradict or, as Evagrius puts it, cut off the demonic suggestions.
Evagrius of Pontus crafted the most sophisticated demonology
to emerge from early Christian monasticism and perhaps from
ancient Christianity as a whole.2 Born around 345 to a country
bishop in the region of Pontus in Asia Minor, Evagrius showed
religious and intellectual promise even as a teenager and was
ordained a reader by Bishop Basil of Caesarea. He then became the
protégé of Gregory of Nazianzus, serving as Gregory’s archdeacon
when he became bishop of Constantinople in the late 370s and
assisting him in his efforts in behalf of Nicene theology. It is tradi
tional to believe that Evagrius received his grounding in an
Origenist Christian theology under Gregory and subsequently
1
See David Brakke, Demons and the Making of the Monk: Spiritual Combat in
Early Christianity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006), and Antoine
Guillaumont and Claire Guillaumont, “Démon: III. Dans la plus ancienne
literature monastique,” Dictionnaire de spiritualité ascétique et mystique: Doctrine et
histoire (1957) 3:189–212.
2
On Evagrius’s demonology see Brakke, Demons and the Making of the Monk,
48–77, and Guillaumont and Guillaumont, “Démon: III. Dans la plus ancienne
literature monastique,” 196–205. For more extensive introductions to Evagrius’s
life and thought, see Evagrius of Pontus, The Greek Ascetic Corpus, Oxford Early
Christian Studies, Robert E. Sinkewicz, ed. and trans. (Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 2003); A. M. Casiday, Evagrius Ponticus, The Early Church Fathers
(London and New York: Routledge, 2006); and William Harmless, sj, Desert
Christians: An Introduction to the Literature of Early Monasticism (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2004), 311–71.
Introduction 3
learned about ascetic practice and demonic conflict from monks

in Egypt, but we shall see below that there is evidence that even
Gregory may have contributed to his knowledge of the demons
and of strategies against them. In any event, Evagrius’s discipleship
under Gregory came to an end when Gregory had to resign his
episcopal seat and Evagrius fled to Jerusalem after he fell in love
with a married woman.
In Jerusalem Evagrius suffered an emotional and physical
breakdown, and the ascetic leader Melania the Elder persuaded
him to take up the monastic life in Egypt. In the deserts of Nitria
and Kellia, Evagrius apprenticed himself to monks such as
Ammonius and the two Macarii—Macarius the Great (or the
Egyptian) and Macarius the Alexandrian—from whom he must
have received much of his advanced knowledge about demons
and combat with them. Evagrius soon emerged as an authoritative
teacher in his own right, and around him gathered a group of
monks that at least one contemporary author called “the circle
around Evagrius.” Supporting himself as a calligrapher, Evagrius
counseled the monks who visited him and with whom he gathered
weekly for worship and fellowship, and he produced a large num-
ber of literary works of great variety, not only practical treatises
on the monastic life, but also works of biblical exegesis and of
advanced theology. Even these latter works, however, support
Evagrius’s vision of monasticism in which bodily discipline,
demonic conflict, prayer and psalmody, biblical study, and specu-
lation on higher theological questions all played important roles
in forming the monk into a “gnostic,” a knower of God. Talking
Back may be focused on the very practical problem of resisting
demonic suggestions, but the scope and precision of both its atten
tion to the monk’s soul and its treatment of the Bible reveal the
creativity and intelligence of a great theologian.
Literary Form and Function: A Manual for Spiritual Combat

After a prologue, Talking Back collects 498 biblical passages, each
preceded by the person, thought, or situation to which it should be
addressed during demonic conflict.The passages and their usually
brief directive introductions are arranged in eight books according
to the eight primary demons that Evagrius claimed attack the monk:
gluttony, fornication, love of money, sadness, anger, listlessness,
vainglory, and pride. Because of numbering errors in the manu-
script that has served as the primary basis for modern study of the
work (B.L. Add. 14,578), modern scholars have not always recog-
nized that there are 498 entries, and in fact the scribe of the
manuscript mistakenly counted 497.3 I discuss this issue more fully
in the Note on Texts and Translations. There are also numbering
problems in Book 3 at 3.19-27, which I have noted there and taken
into account in my translation.
The work is identified by a variety of titles in antiquity, but the
most likely title is Antirrhētikos, which I have translated, following
Elizabeth Clark, Talking Back.4 The scribe of the best-known manu-
script simply called it,“A Treatise of Evagrius on the Eight Thoughts,”
but ancient authors give it more specific titles. Evagrius himself
in his letter to Loukios calls it “the treatise of responses” (Ep. 4.1),
although it is not clear that he means this to be a formal title.
Around 420, the bishop and former monk Palladius states in his
Lausiac History that Evagrius “composed three sacred books,
so-called responsories (antirrhētika), for monks, proposing strategies
against the demons.” 5 Palladius’s reference to three books may be
puzzling, but there can be no doubt that our work is what he
means. The Life of Evagrius preserved in Coptic, whose original
author was most likely Palladius, provides another certain reference
to our work:
If you [sing.] want to know the experiences that he [Evagrius]

underwent at the hands of the demons, read the book he wrote
against the responses of the demons [oube niouohem ntenidemōn].
3
Among the few scholars who have seen that there are 498 entries is, as one
might expect, Gabriel Bunge; see his “Evagrios Pontikos: Der Prolog des
‘Antirretikos,’” Studia Monastica 39 (1997): 77–105, at 78.
4
As far as I can tell, Clark was the first person to translate the title into
English as Talking Back in her Reading Renunciation: Asceticism and Scripture in Early
Christianity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), 131.
5
Palladius, Lausiac History 38.10. See the Bibliography for full bibliographical
data for ancient works referred to in the footnotes.
Introduction 5
You will see their full power and various temptations. Indeed,
it was for these reasons that he wrote about these subjects, in
order that those who read about them might be comforted
knowing that they are not alone in suffering such temptations,
and he showed us how such thoughts could be mastered
through this or that kind of practice.6
The phrase “against the responses of the demons,” with its attribu-
tion of “responses” to the demons rather than to the monk, may
be a garbled translation of a Greek title that included the terms
“against” and “responses,” perhaps “Responses against the Demons.”
It is likely that the Coptic Life of Evagrius attests either a book on
Egyptian monasticism that Palladius wrote before the Lausiac His
tory or an earlier version of the History itself.7
Writing in the decades after Palladius, the church historian
Socrates Scholasticus provides a list of Evagrius’s works, including
“the Antirrhētikos from the holy Scriptures against the tempting
demons, divided into eight parts according to the number of the
eight thoughts.” 8 Socrates lists the Antirrhētikos third, after the
Praktikos and the Gnostikos, an order that perhaps Palladius had in
mind when he referred to “three sacred books” in the Lausiac
History. Here the Greek title, in its use of an adjective ending with
-ikos to describe the subject of the book, parallels the other two
books of Evagrius, lending support to its being the accurate title.
Toward the end of the fifth century, in his continuation of
Jerome’s Illustrious Men, Gennadius of Marseilles began his list of
the books of Evagrius by stating:
6
Coptic Life of Evagrius 21; trans.Tim Vivian, Four Desert Fathers: Pambo, Evagrius,
Macarius of Egypt & Macarius of Alexandria: Coptic Texts Relating to the “Lausiac
History” of Palladius, Popular Patristics Series (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s
Seminary Press, 2004), 85, altered.The Coptic text is edited by E. Amélineau, De
Historia Lausiaca, quaenam sit huius ad monachorum aegyptorum historiam scribendam
utilitas (Paris: Leroux, 1887), 115–16.
7
Gabriel Bunge and Adalbert de Vogüé, Quatre ermites égyptiens: d’après les
fragments coptes de l’ ‘Histoire Lausiaque,’ Spiritualité Orientale 60 (Bégrolles-en-
Mauges: Bellefontaine, 1994);Vivian, Four Desert Fathers, 46–52.
8
Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 23.37.
Against the suggestions of the eight principal vices, which he

was the first to observe or among the first to teach, he com-
posed eight books with testimonies from the holy Scriptures.
Doubtless he was imitating the Lord, who always met his
attacker with testimonies from the Scriptures, so that a sug-
gestion of whatever kind, whether from the devil or from
vicious nature, might have a testimony against it. By request
I translated this work into Latin with the same simplicity that
I found in the Greek.9
As disappointing as it is for the modern scholar to read about a

fifth-century Latin translation of Talking Back that apparently does
not survive, this brief notice is instructive in other ways. Gennadius
speaks not, as Evagrius does, of the eight principal demons or
thoughts, but of the eight principal vices, and he states that sug-
gestions to vice may come either from Satan or from humanity’s
fallen nature. When Gennadius says that Jesus “always” responded
to his attacker with scriptural testimonies, he seems to refer not
only to Jesus’ temptation from the devil, the model that Evagrius
cites in his prologue, but also to Jesus’ entire career, including his
interactions with human as well as demonic opponents (e.g., Mark
2:23-27). Gennadius’s use of the term vices reflects the inward turn
in how Evagrius’s teachings were appropriated in the West. John
Cassian had initiated this trajectory by speaking more frequently
of vices than of demons and by situating the monk’s conflict with
temptation more within the interior division between the fallen
human being’s spirit and flesh than within Evagrius’s cosmic divi-
sion between human beings and demons.10 Gennadius, then, says
that the evil suggestions that require refutation come not only
from the demons but also from our own vicious nature.
Gennadius considered Talking Back an example of “testimonies
from the Scriptures” (testimonia Scripturarum), an important clue to
how ancient readers, or at least Latin-speaking Christians, might
have understood the genre of the work.11 Ancient people created
Gennadius of Marseilles, Illustrious Men 11; Patrologia Latina 58:1066-67.

9
Brakke, Demons and the Making of the Monk, 242–46.

10
11
Unlike other scholars, I am not convinced that the seventh-century Syrian
Christian Dadisho of Bet Qatraye gives our work the title Demonstrations from
Introduction 7
anthologies of excerpts from written works for a variety of pur-

poses, including private study, research for one’s own work, and
self-improvement. Christians created anthologies of excerpts from
the Bible or “testimonies” primarily for apologetic reasons, to
defend Christological and ecclesiological claims, and for moral
exhortation, to encourage virtue and discourage vice.12 Scholars
debate whether already in the first or second century Christians
had created “testimony books” of excerpts from the Septuagint in
order to support their teachings about Christ and the inclusion
of the Gentiles; such books, if they existed, may have served a
polemical function in debates with nonbelieving Jews. Certainly
by Evagrius’s time, however, such works existed. Transmitted
among the Latin works attributed to Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258)
are To Fortunatus (or Exhortation to Martyrdom), which collects
scriptural excerpts in support of martyrdom, and To Quirinus (or
Testimonies Against the Jews), in which such excerpts serve to con-
demn the Jews, promote Christological claims, and exhort to
proper moral behavior.13 Closer to Evagrius’s own context are
fragments from a Greek papyrus codex, dated to the fourth century,
in which messianic verses from Isaiah, Genesis, 2 Chronicles, and
the Holy Scriptures when he cites Ant. 7.37 (see, e.g., René Draguet’s translation
in Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium 327:140, and Adam H. Becker,
Fear of God and the Beginning of Wisdom:The School of Nisibis and the Development
of Scholastic Culture in Late Antique Mesopotamia, Divinations: Rereading Late
Ancient Religion [Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006], 190).
I translate: “Those [books of Aristotle] are the ones that the blessed Evagrius
condemns with the demonstrations from the holy Scriptures that he sets out in
the book against the eight passions of sin and against the inciting demons. For
among those that he sets out against the demon of vainglory he says the follow-
ing . . .” (Commentary on the Book of Abba Isaiah 13.4; Corpus scriptorum chris-
tianorum orientalium 326:181).
12
In general, see Martin C. Albl, “And Scripture Cannot Be Broken”:The Form
and Function of the Early Christian “Testimonia” Collections, Supplements to Novum
Testamentum 96 (Leiden: Brill, 1999).
13
Cyprian, Ad Quirinum, Ad Fortunatum, ed. R.Weber, Corpus Christionorum
Series Latina 3/1 (CCSL 3/1) (Turnhout: Brepols, 1972); Cyprian, Treatise 11
[To Fortunatus] and Treatise 12 [to Quirinus], Alexander Roberts and James
Donovan, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers vol. 5 (ANF 5) (New York: Scribner’s,
1911), 496–507, 507–557.
Deuteronomy are collected without any headings or commen-

tary.14 Dating perhaps to the early fifth century, the Testimonies
Against the Jews attributed to Gregory of Nyssa presents biblical
excerpts under such headings as “concerning the unbelief of the
Jews and concerning the church of the Gentiles.” Most of the
excerpts in this last work come from the prophetic books, includ-
ing the Psalms, and are labeled with the names of the prophets
who spoke them (David, Jeremiah, Micah, and so on).15
The two Latin anthologies attributed to Cyprian provide the
closest analogies to Talking Back in terms of both form and func-
tion.16 In each case the author introduces the collection with a
prologue that states the overall theme of the book and explains
why the author has found it useful to collect the excerpts. Biblical
passages are collected under headings such as,“That they [the Jews]
should lose Jerusalem and leave the land that they had received,”
and, “That people are tried by God for this purpose, that they may
be proved.” 17 The biblical book from which each excerpt is taken
is identified. In the prologue to To Fortunatus, Cyprian presents
martyrdom as Evagrius does monasticism in the prologue to Talking
Back: it is a war with Satan, in which Christians are “soldiers of
Christ,” armed with the collected passages from the Bible as their
14
P. Ryl. Gk. 460; ed. C. H. Roberts, Two Biblical Papyri in the John Rylands
Library, Manchester (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1936), 47–62;
cf. Albl, “And Scripture Cannot Be Broken,” 139.
15
Pseudo-Gregory of Nyssa, Testimonies against the Jews, Writings from the
Greco-Roman World 8, trans. Martin C. Albl (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Litera-
ture, 2004); cf. Albl, “And Scripture Cannot Be Broken,” 142–44.
16
Scholars accept cyprianic authorship of To Fortunatus, but most doubt that
Cyprian wrote To Quirinus, although some are open to the possibility that he
compiled the third book and not the first two. Even if Cyprian did not compile
To Quirinus, he appears to have known and made use of it. See Charles A. Bobertz,
“‘For the Vineyard of the Lord of Hosts was the House of Israel’: Cyprian of
Carthage and the Jews,” Jewish Quarterly Review 82 (1991): 1–15, esp. 3–5, and
“An Analysis of Vita Cypriani 3.6-10 and the Attribution of Ad Quirinum to
Cyprian of Carthage,” Vigiliae Christianae 46 (1992): 112–28. For our purposes,
this question is not significant.
17
Cyprian, Ad Quirinum, 1.6; CCSL 3/1:11; ANF 5:510; 3.15; CCSL 3/1:106;
ANF 5:537.
Introduction 9
defensive weapons. To Quirinus now consists of three books, but

its first two books appear to have been originally separate from
the third: one prologue introduces Books 1 and 2, the testimonies
of which concern the unbelief of the Jews and the career of Christ,
and a second prologue precedes Book 3, which collects passages
that promote the proper Christian life. While the first two books,
like To Fortunatus, anticipate Talking Back’s combative or defensive
use, the third book of To Quirinus parallels Talking Back’s less
polemical function of building up the reader’s character and serv-
ing as a means of reading Scripture. The compiler calls Book 3
“a succinct course of sacred reading, so that your [Quirinus’s] mind,
given over to God, might not be fatigued by long or numerous
volumes of books, but, instructed with a summary of heavenly
precepts, might have a wholesome and large compendium for
nourishing its memory.” 18 In his prologue, Evagrius does not like-
wise present his anthology as a kind of abridged version of the
Bible for rapid reading, but Evagrius concludes his letter to Loukios
by highlighting the general benefit of “reading the divine Scrip-
tures,” which “removes even the love for representations by trans-
ferring it [the mind] to the formless, divine, and simple knowledge”
(Ep. 4.5). Talking Back, then, resembles other ancient anthologies
of biblical excerpts not only in its literary form, but also in its
functions of arming the Christian for spiritual struggle with Satan
or polemical conflict with opponents, exhorting the Christian to
a higher moral life, and providing an alternative means of reading
the Scriptures. At least Gennadius saw the connection when he
called Talking Back a collection of “testimonies from the holy
Scriptures.”
Another type of anthology to which Talking Back may be
compared in both form and function is the “notebook” (usually
in the plural, hupomnēmata: “notes, reminders”) that the cultivated
person might compile in the effort to improve himself in virtue.
For example, in a situation that anticipates Evagrius’s correspon-
dence with Loukios, Plutarch wrote to his friend Paccius,“Just now
18
Cyprian, Ad Quirinum, 3. Pref; CCSL 3/1:72; ANF 5:528.
I received your letter, in which you urged me to write for you

something on tranquility of mind and on the things in the Timaeus
[of Plato] that require more careful explication.” Plutarch professed
to have no time to compose a polished work; instead, “I have col-
lected [excerpts] about tranquility of mind from the notebook
that I happen to have made for myself, supposing that you seek
this treatise, not because you want to hear an elegant composition,
but for practical help.” 19 The work that Plutarch sent to Paccius is
indeed full of excerpts and anecdotes that he might have gathered
in a notebook as an aid to his own efforts at cultivating a tranquil
disposition. Occasionally Plutarch directs a quotation at people
with a specific problematic view of the good life; for example, he
considers an excerpt from Menander to be an appropriate cor-
rection for “those who suppose that one form of life is especially
free of pain, as some think concerning the life of farmers or un-
married people or kings.” 20 Evagrius directs some of his biblical
excerpts to monks who hold incorrect ideas about the ascetic life
or demonic conflict: such entries begin, “Against the soul that
supposes that . . .”
Michel Foucault drew attention to notebooks such as the one
that Plutarch compiled as an important tool that cultivated persons
of antiquity used for “the shaping of the self.” 21 In his analysis,
Foucault emphasized the self-formative function of this kind of
writing: the compilation of the notebook was itself an exercise in
identifying and gathering the best of what one had read or heard;
the writer then sought to unify in his own identity and rational
action the inevitably “disparate” elements that he had collected
from others. One may compare this self-forming literary practice
with Athanasius of Alexandria’s description of the young ascetic
Antony observing the diverse virtues manifested in more advanced
ascetics: Antony then “gathered into himself the virtues of each
19
Plutarch, De tranquillitate animi, 464e–f.
20
Plutarch, De tranquillitate animi, 466a.
21
Michel Foucault, “Self Writing,” in Michel Foucault, Ethics: Subjectivity and
Truth, The Essential Works of Michel Foucault, 1954–1984, ed. Paul Rabinow,
207–22 (New York: The New Press, 1994), quotation at 211.
Introduction 11
and strove to display them in himself.” 22 Athanasius later has

Antony recommend to monks a mode of writing that will develop
their character: he suggests that the monk write down “the deeds
and movements of [his] soul” as if they were to be read by other
monks; in this way, Antony says, the monks will “form themselves.” 23
Foucault, however, contrasted the appropriation to oneself of
recollected, disparate truths through notebooks with the kind of
“narrative of the self ” that Athanasius has Antony recommend that
Christian monks write, that is, “the oral or written confession [of
one’s own failings] . . . which has a purificatory value.” 24
Foucault’s analysis has drawn criticism, especially of its sugges-
tion of an aesthetic, past-oriented self-fashioning on the part of
men such as Plutarch and Seneca, but his argument that the note-
book writer “constitutes his own identity through his recollection
of things” that others have said seems to characterize also one of
the functions of Talking Back for its monastic reader.25 In this case,
the monk is not the writer or compiler of the notebook as Plutarch
is—it is Evagrius who makes the notebook—but he does shape
his self, referred to in Talking Back as “the soul” or “the intellect,”
in part through the recollection and recitation of what others have
said in the Bible. He appropriates the collected and disparate say-
ings to himself as the enunciations for diverse circumstances of a
single “monastic life” (Prol.6). In this respect, Talking Back resembles
the hupomnēmata of Foucault’s Roman philosophers more than it
does the Christian genre of self-confession of which Athanasius’s
Antony speaks.
Talking Back, however, differs from most other anthologies,
including the Christian testimony books and the philosophical
hupomnēmata, in that many of the excerpts that it collects are meant
to be addressed neither to other people nor to oneself, but to
22
Athanasius, Life of Antony 4.2.
23
Athanasius, Life of Antony 55.7–13.
24
Foucault, “Self Writing,” 209–14.
25
Criticism: Pierre Hadot, “Reflections on the Idea of the ‘Cultivation of the
Self,’” in Pierre Hadot, Philosophy as a Way of Life, ed. Arnold I. Davidson, 206–13
(Oxford: Blackwell, 1995). Quotation: Foucault, “Self Writing,” 213.
supramundane beings: God, demons, even angels. As an arsenal of

effective words to oppose demons, to enlist divine aid, or to help
persons in distress, it invites comparison also with the magician’s
spell manual. Some examples of this genre that survive from late
ancient Egypt provide a single prayer that invokes a divine, angelic,
or demonic power and follow it with a catalogue of situations in
which the prayer may be used and directions as to how to apply
the prayer to each case. For example, a Coptic ritual that may date
to the fourth or fifth century sets forth a lengthy prayer to God
(“O God, O Lord, O Lord, O Omnipotent . . .”) and then gives
a list of situations in which it can be used, ranging from medical
conditions to social problems. Here are some examples:
For the sting of an insect:

Recite it over some water, and have him drink it. . . .
For your enemies, that they may not prevail against you:
Recite it over some water, adjuring him, and sprinkle your
house and every one of your ways. . . .
For the rescue of ships at sea or on the ocean along with every-
thing:
Write it upon a clean piece of papyrus, and tie it to the tip
of the mast. . . .
To make someone desire you:
Recite it over an aparche of wine. Give it to him to drink.26
Like Talking Back, this and similar ritual handbooks address a wide
range of concerns, list problematic situations or desired outcomes
with brief remedies, and use powerful words to address God, angels,
or demons. In contrast to Talking Back, however, these rituals (or
at least the ones that I have studied) tend to use the same prayer
for every situation: either the actions performed or the substances
26
Michigan Papyrus 593; ed. and trans. W. H. Worrell, “A Coptic Wizard’s
Hoard,” American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 46 (1930): 239–62.
It appears also as No. 133 in Marvin Meyer and Richard Smith, eds., Ancient
Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco,
1994), 304–10. For rituals with similar lists of situations, see nos. 128 and 135 in
Meyer and Smith, Ancient Christian Magic, 270–73, 326–41.
Introduction 13
used or both are what vary. With a few exceptions, Evagrius does
not advise that the monk perform specific physical actions in the
situations that he lists, only that he use the most effective words
from the Scriptures. While the “magical” texts combine powerful
words, actions, and substances, Evagrius places anti-demonic power
fully in the biblical words that he gives to the monk.
Is it possible that Evagrius himself saw his work as an alterna-
tive to such ritual handbooks? Athanasius of Alexandria’s Epistle
to Marcellinus suggests that he may have done so. This letter serves
as an especially apt analogy for Talking Back because it lies close
to the monastic tradition of antirrhēsis, as I shall discuss shortly.
Athanasius suggests the recitation of certain Psalms to address
particular conditions in which Christians may find themselves,
including persecution, the desire to give thanks to God, and attacks
from demons.The words stabilize the soul through a power based
in Christ’s incarnation. Athanasius explicitly contrasts the effective
nature of the words of Scripture with the impotence of magical
spells. In ancient Israel, he explains (somewhat anachronistically),
people “drove demons away and refuted the plots they directed
against human beings merely by reading the Scriptures.” But in
recent days certain people have “abandoned” the Bible and instead
have “composed for themselves plausible words from external
sources, and with these have called themselves exorcists.” Athana-
sius says that the demons “mock” persons who use such nonbiblical
words; in contrast, those who use passages from the Bible send the
demons away in terror because “the Lord is in the words of the
Scriptures.” 27 The spell-like form of Talking Back may have con-
tributed to the efforts of leaders like Athanasius to encourage
Christian monks to be less like “magicians” by addressing supra-
mundane beings like God and the demons with scriptural passages
rather than with formulae that they had composed themselves or
had purchased from ritual specialists.
Talking Back may strike the modern reader as an odd sort of
book, but ancient readers probably saw its affinities with several
27
Athanasius, Epistle to Marcellinus 33.
kinds of ancient literary works, including Scripture testimony

books, philosophical notebooks, even magicians’ handbooks. As
diverse as these genres are, they share a recognition of the power
of words, whether that power is used to refute enemies, to shape
the virtuous self, to invoke divine or supramundane beings—or,
as in the case of Talking Back, to do all these things. And all of these
genres are practical: these books were meant to be used, not just
read. It seems unlikely that Evagrius expected many ordinary
monks to have copies of Talking Back; rather, its entries directed
to the struggling soul or intellect suggest that its ideal user is the
advanced monk who serves as a guide or spiritual director to other
monks. In his letter to Loukios, Evagrius addresses this recipient
of a copy of Talking Back as such a monastic guide—even of him-
self. “Be for me,” Evagrius asks Loukios, “a preacher of continence,
a listener of humility, and a destroyer ‘of thoughts and of every
proud obstacle that is raised against the knowledge of Christ’
[2 Cor 10:4-5]” (Ep. 4.2). Loukios must not “hesitate . . . to con-
verse with the brothers” (Ep. 4.3). Talking Back is meant for some-
one like Loukios, a monastic authority, who will give to monks
under his care the verses appropriate to their particular situations,
guiding them in the art of antirrhēsis.
The Theory and Practice of Antirrhēsis

Just as Evagrius’s Praktikos concerns praktikē, the practice of the
ascetic life, so too Antirrhētikos concerns antirrhēsis, the practice of
talking back. In an excellent study of the Psalms and prayer in
Evagrius’s spirituality, Luke Dysinger provides a description of the
diverse aspects of monastic antirrhēsis, which means “refutation”
or “contradiction”:
In the practice of antirrhesis select biblical verses are employed

to counteract the particular logismos [thought] against which
the monk is struggling. Antirrhesis entails the deployment of
biblical texts not only against the demons and their logismoi
[thoughts], but also against sinful tendencies within the self,
and even more broadly as “refutations” of particular groups
of people and forms of behaviour. Furthermore, antirrhetic
Introduction 15
biblical texts may console the tempted soul and remind it of

virtues opposed to the logismoi. Finally, antirrhesis also includes
the offering to God of successful biblical prayers.28
Whether the monk uses biblical passages negatively, to refute a

demon or thought, or positively, to petition God or console a
fellow monk, warfare with the demons remains the context for
antirrhēsis. Thus, its basic character is oppositional as well as
verbal—the monk speaks the biblical text in the context of warfare
with the demonic—as the English phrase “talking back” seeks to
capture.
The following statistics concerning the addresses of the biblical
excerpts in Talking Back illustrate both the diversity of antirrhēsis
and its primarily adversarial character:
1. Excerpts directed against demons or the thoughts they suggest:

315 (63.3%)
a. Against thoughts: 278 (55.8%)
b. Against demons: 37 (7.4%)29
2. E
xcerpts directed against a human soul or intellect captive to
or at risk from the demons and their thoughts: 134 (26.9%)
a. Against the soul: 114 (22.9%)
b. Against the intellect: 20 (4.0%)
3. Excerpts directed to the Lord or the angels: 48 (9.6%)
a. To the Lord: 46 (9.2%)
b. To the angel(s): 2 (0.4%)
4. Excerpt concerning a topic: 1 (0.2%)30
28
Luke Dysinger, Psalmody and Prayer in the Writings of Evagrius Ponticus, Oxford
Theological Monographs (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 132.
29
Included in this reckoning is 5.17, which is directed “against the anger
that . . .”
30
“Concerning the suffering that comes from temptations” (4.69). My statis-
tics differ from those of Dysinger (Psalmody and Prayer, 137). Although some of
these differences may be attributed to Dysinger’s mistaken view that there are
492 excerpts, I am not able to explain them fully.
Although only 37 of 498 excerpts are directed explicitly against

demons, more than half address the thoughts that the demons
suggest; that is, they repel the arrows that the demons hurl against
the monk (Prol.2). Evagrius frequently identifies thoughts by their
demonic instigators—“against the thought of vainglory that . . .”,
“against the thoughts of listlessness that . . .”—and thus empha-
sizes that the thoughts are the means by which the demons attack
the monk and not simply (or at all) dispositions of the monk’s
own soul or intellect. Likewise, the excerpts directed “against the
soul” or “against the intellect” most often rebuke or reprimand
the monk who has succumbed to or is in danger of succumbing
to a demonic suggestion, or they correct the monk who holds a
mistaken or dangerous view of the ascetic life; others console or
encourage the monk who may be in despair over the difficulty of
the battle.31 Fewer than 10 percent ask God or the angels for help
or thank them for assistance they have rendered. In Talking Back
Evagrius surely seeks constructively to form the monk as a virtu-
ous person, but this self-forming discipline takes place within a
determinedly polemical, anti-demonic context, in which the vast
majority of excerpts are directed toward agents external to the
monk, whether hostile (the demons, armed with thoughts) or
supportive (God, assisted by angels).
Evagrius would never claim that he invented antirrhēsis; rather,
he cites two biblical founders for the practice in the Prologue to
Talking Back and in other works, David and Jesus, whose precedents
earlier monastic teachers transmitted. David’s reputation as a
31
Dysinger prefers to translate “for a soul” and “for a mind” (e.g., Dysinger,
Psalmody and Prayer, 137, emphasis added). Although this translation may capture
a somewhat less adversarial spirit in the use of biblical texts directed toward
another monk than in such directed against demons or thoughts, the Syriac text
provides no support for such a distinction, using in all these cases the preposition
lwqbl. In contrast, excerpts directed “to the Lord” use lwt rather than lwqbl. In his
translation of the Syriac into Greek, Frankenberg suggests that the Greek pros
lies behind lwqbl, and this hypothesis may find support in the examples from
Scholia on the Psalms that Dysinger cites (Psalmody and Prayer, 144); but Evagrius’s
quotation of Prov 26:4-5, which urges the hearer not to “answer a fool in pro-
portion to (pros) his folly,” but rather “in opposition to (kata) his folly,” may argue
for kata instead.
Introduction 17
arrior against the demons rests on his reputed authorship of the

w
book of Psalms (Prol.6), many of which are directed against the
speaker’s persecutors and enemies, and on his successful warfare
against the Philistines, whom Evagrius equates with the demons
(Prol.3).32 Evagrius refers to “the entire contest of the monastic
life, which the Holy Spirit taught David through the Psalms”
(Prol.6) and thus places the verbal refutation of the demons at the
core of the monastic struggle against vice and for virtue. Jesus’ use
of biblical verses to respond to the temptations of Satan, found in
the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (Matt 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13),
provides the other biblical precedent for antirrhēsis that Evagrius
cites.33 He couples “what he [Jesus] did,” that is, his practice, with
“the rest of all his teaching” (Prol.2): both are gifts of the Savior
to Christians. Evagrius identifies “the blessed fathers” as those who
handed down antirrhēsis from its biblical founders (Prol.6).“Blessed
fathers” refers primarily, of course, to the experienced monks such
as Macarius the Great and Macarius the Alexandrian whose guid-
ance Evagrius sought when he came to the Egyptian desert, but
it may also include Gregory of Nazianzus, Evagrius’s teacher in
Constantinople. Gregory “planted me,” Evagrius wrote elsewhere,
and “the holy fathers” of the Egyptian desert “now water me.” 34
Gregory taught that the demons attacked baptized Christians
and composed a series of what Dayna Kalleres has called “prayer
texts,” in which attacking demons are addressed and refuted.35 In
Gregory’s view, a “paradoxical fusion” of intelligible and sensory
32
See Dysinger, Psalmody and Prayer, 131, where he cites the following refer-
ences to David the spiritual warrior in Evagrius’s works: Thoughts 10, 14, 20;
Letters 11.2; 56.8; Scholia on Ecclesiastes 10; Scholia on Proverbs 12; Scholia on the
Psalms 14. For the Philistines as demons, see Letter 58.2; Kephalaia Gnostica 5.30,
36, 68.
33
See Gabriel Bunge, Akedia: La doctrine spirituelle d’Évagre le Pontique sur l’acédie
(Bégrolles-en-Mauges: Abbaye de Bellefontaine, 1991): 111–12.
34
Praktikos Epilogue.
35
The texts appear in Patrologia Graeca 37:1397-1406. Dayna Kalleres has
reproduced, translated, and analyzed them in “Demons and Divine Illumination:
A Consideration of Certain Prayers by Gregory of Nazianzus,” Vigiliae Christianae
67 (2007): 157–88. I am grateful to Professor Kalleres for sharing this article with
me in advance of publication.
essences in Adam had enabled him to know God, but the fall upset
this balance. Baptism unites a person to Christ, in whom this
paradoxical fusion was restored, and thus sets the baptized Chris-
tian on a path toward renewed apprehension and contemplation
of God.36 Demons attempt to thwart the Christian’s progress
toward divine contemplation by introducing false impressions and
images and so distorting proper knowledge. The Christian, then,
must learn to discern, as the Stoics had taught, true and false im-
pressions, but Gregory also composed short prayers that function
as apotropaic speech to repel the demons. For example, one prayer
begins, “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.” 37 Here the speaker announces his successful
discernment of a demonic thought. Another prayer simply seeks
to send the demon away:
Go away, go away, evil one, manslayer;

Go away, sight of terrible sufferings, raging evil;
Go away, Christ is within, to whom I have offered
and given my soul. Flee, giving up as quickly as possible.
O help, angels stand by!
O the tyrant, and the thief is approaching.
From them take me away, yes, beloved ones, I am being stoned.38
In this case the presence both of Christ within the baptized Chris-
tian and of attendant angels nearby helps to send the demons away.
Other prayers refer to the mark of the cross within the baptized
person.The prayers use speech to harness this divine power against
the demons, and they draw on the rites that attended baptism,
which included exorcisms and verbal renunciations of Satan and
36
See not only Kalleres, “Demons and Divine Illumination,” but also Susanna
Elm, “Inscriptions and Conversions: Gregory of Nazianzus on Baptism,” in Con
version in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages: Seeing and Believing, ed. A. Grafton
and K. Mills, 1–35 (New York: University of Rochester Press, 2003).
37
Prayer 1 (Kalleres, “Demons and Divine Illumination,” 161–62).
38
Prayer 5 (Kalleres, “Demons and Divine Illumination,” 166).
Introduction 19
his demons.39 It is possible that Gregory composed these anti-

demonic prayers after he had left Constantinople for retirement
and Evagrius had departed for Jerusalem and the Egypt,40 but they
suggest that Evagrius could have arrived in Egypt already having
learned from Gregory about the danger of demonic thoughts and
the possibility of refuting them verbally with powerful words. He
would, then, have been well prepared for the monastic practice of
antirrhēsis as taught and performed by the monks he called “the
blessed fathers.”
One of those “blessed fathers” was Antony. Antony died long
before Evagrius became a monk, but Evagrius knew the Antony
who appears in Athanasius’s Life of Antony singing Psalms and
reciting biblical verses to repel demons.41 Verbal give-and-take
characterizes Antony’s first conflict with the devil, which comes
after he has achieved a high level of virtue already as a young man:
“The one suggested filthy thoughts, but the other repelled them
with prayers.” 42 Athanasius does not identify these prayers as scrip-
tural, but the power of biblical verses soon becomes evident when
the devil appears to Antony as a black boy. Antony gives a short
speech of refutation to the demon, concluding with Psalm 117:7:
“The Lord is my helper, and I will look down on my enemies.”
“When he heard this,” Athanasius writes, “the black one imme-
diately fled, cowering before these words and afraid even to ap-
proach the man.” 43 In Antony’s long ascetic discourse to other
monks, Athanasius has him say that when “the saints” saw demonic
appearances, they recited verses from the Psalms, ironically ones
39
See Henry Ansgar Kelly, The Devil at Baptism: Ritual, Theology, and Drama
(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985), 81–122, 136–57, and Dayna Kalleres,
“Exorcising the Devil to Silence Christ’s Enemies: Ritualized Speech Practices
in Late Antique Christianity” (phd dissertation, Brown University, 2002).
40
Kalleres, “Demons and Divine Illumination,” 161n13.
41
Gabriel Bunge quips, perhaps only half-jokingly, that Evagrius must have
known the Life of Antony by heart (“Évagre le Pontique et les deux Macaire,”
Irénikon 56 [1983]: 215–27, 323–60, at 332).
42
Athanasius, Life of Antony 5.4.
43
that refer to not speaking and keeping one’s mouth closed.44 But
here too the more significant precedent is Jesus’ use of biblical
passages to refute Satan’s temptations: “For what the Lord said, he
did for our sakes, so that when the demons hear similar such say-
ings from us they will be overturned because of the Lord, who
rebuked them with these sayings.” 45 Note that Athanasius has
Antony attribute the anti-demonic power not to the biblical words
themselves, but to “the Lord,” who first used them. This subtle
distinction may not have been clear to every reader of the Life,
which frequently portrays Antony singing Psalms or reciting other
biblical verses in his conflicts with demons without such Chris-
tological explanations.46 Antony, of course, uses other means to
repel demons—for example, the sign of the cross, the name of
Christ, and his own words47—but biblical verses, especially from
the Psalms, are his most frequent spiritual weapons.
There can be no doubt that Evagrius had read the Life of Antony
and appropriated many of its teachings. In Talking Back he explic-
itly invokes the example of Antony: confronted by “the demons
that gradually begin to imitate obscene images and to appear out
of the air,” the monk “should answer with a phrase, as also the
righteous blessed Antony answered and said: ‘The Lord is my
helper, and I shall look upon my enemies’ [Ps 117:7]” (Ant. 4.47).
Evagrius cites precisely the verse that Antony uses in the Life to
repel the devil’s appearance as a black boy. Eight more scriptural
passages in Book 4 appear also in the Life as citations or allusions,
most in Antony’s ascetic discourse on demons.48 The predominant
theme of Book 4 on the demon of sadness is the discouragement
or fear that the monk may feel in the face of demonic attacks,
44
Athanasius, Life of Antony 27.1–3, citing Pss 38:2-3; 37:14-15.
45
46
Athanasius, Life of Antony 9.2–3; 13.7; 39.3; 40.5; 41.5.
47
Athanasius, Life of Antony 35.2; 41.6; 52–53.
48
Exod 15:9: Ant. 4.7, Life 24.3. 2 Kgs 6:17: Ant. 4.27, Life 34.3. Ps 19:8-9:
Ant. 4.32, Life 39.3. Ps 26:3: Ant. 4.34, Life 9.3. Job 1:10-11: Ant. 4.51, Life 29.3.
Job 2:4-5: Ant. 4.52, Life 29.1. Matt 8:30-32: Ant. 4.66, Life 29.5. Rom 8:18: Ant.
4.70, Life 17.1.
Introduction 21
especially those that are visual, physical, or both. The temptation

to lose heart in one’s battle with the demons, not an important
aspect of sadness as Evagrius describes it in his other works, appears
prominently in the Life of Antony. Athanasius portrays Antony as
facing fearsome and painful demonic appearances and yet maintain
ing his spiritual integrity and faith in God. Here the Life of Antony
has clearly influenced Evagrius’s presentation of monastic spiritu-
ality and of antirrhēsis in particular.49
Athanasius, we have already seen, attributed anti-demonic
power to the words of Scripture also in his Epistle to Marcellinus:
unlike the exorcistic texts that contemporary people compose,
“the Lord himself is in the words of the Scriptures,” which there-
fore have the power to drive demons away.50 This teaching echoes
that attributed to Antony in the Life. But in his letter to Marcellinus,
Athanasius places greater emphasis on the therapeutic value of
reciting the Psalms, which he understands to epitomize the entire
canon of Scriptures, and thus articulates the self-formative aspect
of antirrhēsis.51 The Psalms can help to ameliorate the individual’s
vulnerability to the passions and form him or her into a virtuous
subject thanks to their double character. On the one hand, the
Psalms make present Christ’s own life, the secure model to which
the changeable human being must conform him- or herself; on
the other hand, they provide a mirror of the human soul’s move-
ments and dispositions. Reciting the Psalms becomes a means of
both therapeutic recognition of the soul’s condition and ethical
formation of the soul after the pattern of Christ.52 It is arguable
that certain excerpts in Talking Back, especially those directed to
God in the first person, have this same function.53 It is not clear
49
See Brakke, Demons and the Making of the Monk, 23–47, 63–65.
50
51
See especially Paul R. Kolbet,“Athanasius, the Psalms, and the Reformation
of the Self,” Harvard Theological Review 99 (2006): 85–101.
52
Kolbet, “Athanasius, the Psalms, and the Reformation,” esp. 94–95.
53
E.g., “To the Lord concerning the thoughts of listlessness that are in us,
‘So-and-so, one of our brothers or one of our relatives, has attained and joined
a rank of honor and authority, and he has become a powerful man’: ‘It is good
for me to cleave to God, to place my hope in the Lord’ [Ps 72:28]” (6.23).
whether Evagrius had read the Epistle to Marcellinus, but his state-
ment that “the melody that is applied to the Psalms alters the
condition of the body” (Ant. 4.22) may indicate knowledge of the
Epistle’s teaching that the melody affects the soul, which can then
bring harmony to the body’s members.54
The anti-demonic use of scriptural verses appears in the Sayings
of the Desert Fathers as well, although often in a way that renders
the biblical character of the words or the precise nature of their
power ambiguous. For example, when the demons ask an old man
(that is, an advanced monk) whether he would like to see Christ,
he anathematizes them and their question, declaring, “I believe in
my Christ, who says, ‘If someone says to you, “Look, the Christ is
here or he is there,” do not believe’ [Matt 24:23].” Immediately
the demons disappear.55 The story leaves unclear whether it is
specifically the monk’s quotation of Matthew or his general rebuke
that repels the demons. When a monk plagued by thoughts of
blasphemy asks him for advice, Poemen recommends a refuting
statement that is not biblical.56 According to another anecdote, a
monk troubled by thoughts of fornication asked a more senior
monk for advice:
The brother answered and said, “What shall I do, for I am

weak and the passion defeats me?” He [the old man] said,
“Observe them [the demons], and when they begin to speak,
do not answer them, but get up, pray, and make repentance,
saying, ‘Son of God, have mercy on me!’” And again the
brother said, “I recite, Abba, and yet there is no compunction
in my heart because I do not understand the force of the say-
ing.” And he said to him, “In your case, just recite. For I have
heard that Abba Poemen and many fathers made this state-
ment: ‘The charmer does not understand the force of the
words that he says, but the beast hears, understands the force
of the saying, and submits. So too with us: even if we do not
54
55
Apophthegmata Patrum 15.90 (= N 313).
56
Apophthegmata Patrum 10.63; cf. Poemen 93.
Introduction 23
understand the force of the things we say, when the demons

hear, they withdraw in fear.’” 57
The words that the monk speaks have such power that the speaker
need not understand their “force,” that is, both their meaning and
their effectiveness, for them to repel the demons. Still, the words
that the story recommends—“Son of God, have mercy on me”—
are not precisely scriptural, although they may allude to such
passages as Matthew 9:27, and in any event the story does not
attribute their power to their possible biblical origins.The Sayings
of the Desert Fathers provide evidence for such monastic practices
of antirrhēsis as short prayers offered to God and rebuking state-
ments aimed at demons or thoughts, but unlike Athanasius and
Evagrius, they do not insist on the use of biblical verses in such
speech.
Our anecdote from the Sayings characterizes the power of the
monk’s anti-demonic words as similar to that of magical spells, as
a quality that is inherent in the words themselves, while Athanasius
attributed the effectiveness to Jesus (“the Lord”), who originally
used biblical words to refute Satan and who makes himself present
in the Psalms. Evagrius would probably not deny either of these
views, but he presented his own theory of why antirrhēsis works,
which reflects his well-developed understanding of how the
human intellect works. In the prologue to Talking Back, he cites
Qoheleth: “No refutation [antirrhēsis] comes from those who per-
form evil quickly; therefore, the heart of the children of humanity
has become confirmed with them for the doing of evil” (8:11).
Evagrius interprets this and related verses (Ezek 18:4; Prov 26:4-5)
to mean that one should refute an evil thought as soon as possible
after it occurs to one, before “it is firmly set in one’s thinking”; if
the monk does so, “sin is easily and swiftly handled.” But if the
thought is allowed to persist, it leads the soul from merely thinking
about sin to actually performing sin and thus to death (Prol.2). By
repelling the evil thought, antirrhēsis prevents the monk from per-
forming the evil deed.
57
Apophthegmata Patrum 5.37 (= N 184).
Evagrius inherited the idea behind this practice from his prede-
cessor Origen (ca. 185–254) and his contemporary Didymus the
Blind (ca. 313–98), both of whom adapted to Christian ethics the
Stoic notion of a “proto-passion” (propatheia) or “first movement.”58
In the Stoic view morally culpable passions such as anger or lust
result from our making poor judgments and assenting to an im-
pulse or impression beyond what is natural or reasonable. All
people are subject to involuntary “first movements,” which we
may either control and use to good ends or allow to develop into
a morally culpable passion. For example, I may have a visceral rush
of anger when I learn of some injustice (first movement), but I can
control it and respond appropriately by, say, calmly rebuking the
offender. But if I assent to the impulse unreasonably and allow the
full-blown passion of anger to develop, then I become guilty of
the passion. First movements may come from the movements of
the body (for example, the sexual urge), but they may also arise as
responses to external stimuli (for example, the news of some in-
justice), which Stoics sometimes called “impressions” (phantasiai ).
The Stoics argued that we encounter a wide range of impressions,
incoming images and ideas, which we must sort out as true or
false, leading to virtue or vice, and the like. However a first move-
ment arises, it is the person’s rational faculty, the intellect, that
forms a judgment about the movement and either arrests it or
allows it to develop into a full-fledged passion.
Origen and Didymus took over this teaching and adapted it
to Christian views, in which Satan could serve as an external
source for such first movements. One motivation to do so was
exegetical: the notion of an involuntary and morally innocent
“proto-passion” could explain, for example, biblical passages that
appeared to attribute emotions to Jesus or other virtuous persons.
58
On this topic see Richard Sorabji, Emotion and Peace of Mind: From Stoic
Agitation to Christian Temptation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); Margaret
R. Graver, Stoicism and Emotion (Chicago and London: University of Chicago
Press, 2007), 85–108; Richard Layton, “Propatheia: Origen and Didymus on the
Origin of the Passions,” Vigiliae Christianae 54 (2000): 262–82; Brakke, Demons
and the Making of the Monk, 38–41, 54–56.
Introduction 25
The Jewish Alexandrian scholar Philo (d. ca. 45 ce) had already
used this strategy in his exegesis of the Septuagint. Origen and
Didymus applied the idea to the Christian’s conflict with Satan
and the demons as well. Origen used the technical term “first
movements” (primi motus) to refer to impulses that arise from the
body (“according to the desire of the flesh”), which the soul can
either bring under control or allow to develop into sin. Demons
can incite to greater sin the soul that fails to stop a first move-
ment.59 Without calling them “first movements,” Origen also called
attention to thoughts that come from demons and incite us to evil
deeds; we cannot help but receive such thoughts, but we can
choose whether to resist or act upon them. He cited Satan’s sug-
gestion of betrayal to Judas—the devil “cast” the idea “into his
heart,” according to John 13:2—as an example of a demonically
inspired thought that a person could have resisted.60 Such thoughts
function like the Stoics’ impressions. Didymus likewise cited the
example of Judas, but he called Satan’s suggestion a “first move-
ment” (propatheia): rather than rejecting it immediately, Judas
allowed the first movement to persist and to become a full-fledged
passion and then a disposition of the soul, which led him to com-
mit the evil act.61
Evagrius’s teaching stands in this tradition of Christian appro-
priation of Stoic ideas. According to Evagrius, the monk must, like
the Stoic sage, exercise discernment in sorting through the thoughts
and images that confront him. He writes to Loukios:
When the battle takes place with discernment, it is filled with

many thoughts, but it creates a great purity of thinking be-
cause the demons can no longer mock or accuse the soul.
For just as practical wisdom is assigned the reasonable judg-
ment of practical matters, so too discernment is entrusted
with the impressions [phantasiai] that occur in thinking,
59
Origen, On First Principles 3.2.2; Homilies on Exodus 4.8.
60
Origen, On First Principles 3.2.4.
61
Didymus the Blind, Commentary on Ecclesiastes 294.8-20. See Richard A.
Layton, Didymus the Blind and his Circle in Late-Antique Alexandria:Virtue and Nar
rative in Biblical Scholarship (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2004), 117–29.
d iscerning holy and profane, clean and unclean thoughts. And,

according to the prophetic saying, it [discernment] has experi-
ence of the tricks of the mocking demons, which imitate
both perception and memory in order to deceive the rational
soul that strives for the knowledge of Christ (Ep. 4.4).
The first step in antirrhēsis, then, is to identify an impression as a

demonic thought, a task that requires the gift of discernment.62
Even if correctly identified, an evil thought can still function like
a first movement, inciting us to sin. A demon presents an evil
thought to us, and we have the power to put a stop to it. If we do
not, but instead allow it to persist, it will lead us into evil action.
Talking Back’s arsenal of biblical verses provides a means for pre-
venting a demonically inspired first movement from developing
into a full-fledged passion and thus into sin. Evagrius was not
unique in adapting to Christian spiritual warfare such ethical per-
spectives and therapeutic speech practices from philosophical tra-
ditions: John Chrysostom did so as well in his recommendations
to newly baptized Christians and their sponsors.63
But the goal of the Evagrian monk is not simply to avoid evil
deeds; remarkably, he seeks not to experience the first movements
that incite to sin at all. Evagrius urges his reader to become not
merely a “monastic man,” that is, someone who has withdrawn
from committing sins in action, but rather, a “monastic intellect,”
that is, someone who is free even from thoughts of sin. Such a
thought-free monk enjoys complete clarity of mind and “at the
time of prayer sees the light of the Holy Trinity” (Prol.5). The
ultimate goal is to eliminate the thoughts themselves and to pray
and contemplate God purely. The biblical verses he provides in
this book are designed, as he puts it, to “cut off ” their correspond-
ing thoughts (Prol.6).
62
On discernment in Evagrius, see Antony D. Rich, Discernment in the Desert
Fathers: ‘Diakrisis’ in the Life and Thought of Early Egyptian Monasticism, Studies in
Christian History and Thought (Milton Keyes, U.K.: Paternoster, 2007), 39–74.
63
Kalleres, “Exorcising the Devil to Silence Christ’s Enemies,” 93–98.
Introduction 27
With the use of the term “cut off ” Evagrius alludes to his
theory of mental operations, which lies behind his concept of
antirrhēsis but which he does not explain fully in Talking Back. In
his treatise Thoughts Evagrius provides a more thorough explana-
tion of this “cutting off ”:
Among the thoughts some cut off, and others are cut off: the
evil thoughts cut off the good ones, and likewise the evil
thoughts are cut off by the good ones. And so the Holy Spirit
pays attention to the thought that is given priority, and it
condemns us or approves of us based on that.What I am say-
ing is like this: I have a certain thought concerning hospitality,
and I have it for the sake of the Lord, but this thought is cut
off when the tempter attacks and suggests that I show hos-
pitality for the sake of glory. Likewise I have a thought that
I should manifest hospitality before human beings, but this
thought too is cut off when a better thought intervenes that
directs our virtue toward the Lord instead and dissuades us
from practicing it for the sake of human beings. Therefore,
should we, through our actions, finally stick with the prior
thoughts, despite being tested by the second ones, we shall
receive only the reward that belongs to the thoughts that are
given priority. Because we are human beings and wrestlers
with demons, we cannot always keep the proper thought
uncorrupted, nor conversely can we hold the evil thought
untested since we possess seeds of virtues. But if one of the
thoughts that cut off persists, it settles itself in the place of
cutting off, and eventually the person will be set in motion
by that thought and become active.64
This passage provides the broader context for antirrhēsis. Every

thought that we have, good or bad, can be cut off by a correspond-
ing opposing thought, and in fact Evagrius suggests that nearly
every thought that we have does encounter its opposite.The ques-
tion is whether we stick with the first thought despite the challenge
of the second or whether the first thought is cut off and the second
64
Thoughts 7; this discussion appears also in Letter 18.3–5.
persists and sets us on a course of action. In Evagrius’s view the

conflict between thoughts within the intellect is endemic to the
fallen human condition: we may still possess “seeds of virtues,” but
we are human beings, not angels, and so “wrestlers with demons.”
In antirrhēsis, then, the monk deliberately sets in motion a process
that would otherwise take place inevitably by consciously using
good thoughts drawn from the Bible to cut off bad ones suggested
by the demons. Antirrhēsis works because it corresponds with how
the fallen human intellect works.
It should be noted, however, that in Thoughts Evagrius gives
three sources for the good thoughts that might cut off demonic
ones, and these do not include the Bible. He writes:
Three thoughts oppose the demonic thought, cutting it off

when it persists in one’s thinking: the angelic thought; the
thought that arises from our free will when it inclines toward
the better; and the thought that is imparted naturally by our
humanity, which sets even the pagans in motion to love their
children and honor their parents. Only two thoughts oppose
the good thought: the demonic thought and the thought that
arises from our free will when it declines toward the worse.
No evil thought comes from our nature, for we have not been
evil from our origin, since it is good seed that the Lord sowed
in his field [cf. Matt 13:24].65
One might argue that biblical verses might be included in the

category of angelic thoughts, but it seems more honest to set the
biblical thoughts of Talking Back alongside the angelic thoughts
mentioned here as opposing thoughts that come to the monk
from outside himself. In any event, Evagrius indicates that he
understands the biblical passages in these terms when in the Pro-
logue he uses the technical term “cut off ” to describe their effect
on demonic thoughts.
Persistent evil thoughts, ones that are not cut off by good
thoughts, pose great danger to the monk: not only do they set him
65
Thoughts 31; this discussion appears also in Letter 18.1–2; cf. Reflections 46.
Introduction 29
in motion to sin in deed, but they distort his intellect and prevent
him from achieving knowledge of God or seeing the light of the
Trinity in prayer.66 Here we may see a more direct debt to Gregory
of Nazianzus’s teachings about demons and divine illumination
that I discussed above. According to Evagrius, thoughts have some
(usually propositional) content (such as, “I should store up more
bread”) and can come from angels (good), demons (bad), or the
monk himself (good, bad, or neutral). But thoughts make use of
the more basic intellectual material of representations (noēmata),
which are simple concepts that Evagrius understands primarily in
visual terms (for instance, the image of bread). Representations
come to us through the body’s senses, but they can be stored in
memory and thus retrieved by the intellect or by the demons even
while the monk is asleep and his body inactive.The mind cannot
think without representations: even the thoughts of hospitality
that Evagrius mentioned above require some representation, per-
haps an image of the food that the monk would offer his guest.
Representations themselves are neither good nor bad—they are
like sheep, given to the intellect to shepherd responsibly—but they
serve as the basis for thoughts, which can be morally evaluated.
For example, the representation of gold has no moral significance,
but thoughts about gold do. The angelic thought that leads the
monk to consider why gold was created and what it symbolizes
in the Bible is good, whereas the demonic thought that suggests
acquiring gold is bad, enflaming the passion of love of money.
The close connection between thoughts and representations
means that persistent thoughts cause representations to persist in
the intellect. The intellect can entertain only one representation
at a time, but representations often move through the intellect at
a rapid pace, giving the illusion of simultaneity. A representation
can persist in the intellect if a bad thought, one that enflames a
passion, attaches to it (an “impassioned” representation); the rep-
resentation of gold, for instance, persists in the intellect of the
For the following two paragraphs, see Thoughts 2, 4, 8, 17, 22, 24, 25, 32, 36,
66
41; Columba Stewart, “Imageless Prayer and the Theological Vision of Evagrius
Ponticus,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 9 (2001): 173–204, esp. 186–89.
greedy person. A persistent representation of a corporeal object

can “imprint” the intellect, distorting the intellect in a way that
prevents the clarity of vision required for knowledge of God and
pure prayer.67 Evagrius alludes to this phenomenon in Talking Back
when he describes how the thoughts of a resentful soul can leave
the intellect “enflamed with anger” so that,“even after the thought
of this passion subsides and some time has passed, there remains a
representation of a word or transitory matter that clouds and im-
prints the intellect” (5.21). Likewise, regretting the alms that one
has given to the poor causes thoughts about money to persist and
harm the intellect (3.47). Persistent bad thoughts, then, not only
lead the monk into sin, but also, by causing impassioned represen-
tations to persist in the intellect, damage the intellect, preventing
the monk from becoming the “monastic intellect” that sees the
light of the Trinity at the time of prayer.
The practice of antirrhēsis that Talking Back facilitates not only
belongs to the first stage in Evagrius’s view of the monastic life,
ascetic practice (praktikē ), in which the monk battles the demons
and the vices and acquires the virtues; it applies also to the more
advanced stage of the monastic “gnostic” (gnōstikos), in which the
monk contemplates the material world and rational beings on his
path to knowledge of God. Demonic suggestions, especially of
vainglory and pride, continue to plague the gnostic monk, and
the practices of biblical refutation and short prayers to God help
to clear his intellect of evil thoughts and distorting representations
and thus to prepare him for the vision of the Trinity’s light.
Monastic Authority: Evagrius the Fighter of Demons

These comments have focused on the function of Talking Back
for the reader, its user, so to speak, but have not considered the role
of the compiler. By what authority does Evagrius compose a work
like Talking Back? How does the work configure the legitimacy
of its author and thus its reliability in the monk’s conflict with the
67
See Thoughts 22, 41; Reflections 23; Chapters on Prayer 55–57, 67–68, 70.
Introduction 31
demons? Talking Back invites such questions not only because all
such works do but also because the author’s voice appears most
fully only in the Prologue and surfaces only indirectly or sporadi-
cally in the remainder of the work. Leaving aside the question of
Evagrius’s authority generally within late fourth-century monas-
ticism, we can identify at least three ways in which Talking Back
legitimates Evagrius as an expert in demonic combat: it presents
Evagrius as an experienced and successful fighter with demons,
an heir to a long tradition of monastic teachers, and a perceptive
reader of the Scriptures.
Evagrius’s firsthand experience of demonic combat forms the
primary source of his authority here: it is this experience to which
Loukios appeals in his letter requesting the work. Evagrius, Loukios
claims, has lived in the desert a long time, and he is at home there
(“as if at a mother’s breast”); he has achieved such a level of success
in his contests with the demons that the demons fear him and he
has summoned others to take up the fight. It is because Evagrius
has personal knowledge of the demons and the combat with them,
not because he is learned, that Loukios seeks a treatise from him.
This picture of Evagrius remained influential in early monasticism
even after Evagrius’s death: Palladius noted that Evagrius received
the gift of discerning spirits, and he vividly described Evagrius’s
physical and mental conflicts with demons.68 While students of
Evagrius, whether ancient or modern, have noted both his edu-
cation in philosophy or theology and his experience in demonic
combat, it may be argued that his modern interpreters have stressed
the former and neglected the latter to an extent that his ancient
colleagues would not.69
Evagrius himself does not invoke his personal experience as
directly or primarily as Loukios does, but it nonetheless functions
as a powerful form of self-legitimation in Talking Back. In his reply
to Loukios, which functions as a cover letter for Talking Back,
Evagrius confesses to not having dealt with demonic attacks as
Palladius, Lausiac History 38.10–12.

68
For an example of an ancient observer who notes both Evagrius’s learning

69
and his experience with demons, see Historia Monachorum 20.15–16.

well as he should have and remarks that he has suffered greatly

because of the demons since Loukios left him. He adduces his
experience with severe demonic conflict without explicitly claim-
ing any success in it; instead, he praises God for what he has learned
of Loukios’s asceticism (Ep. 4.1). This self-presentation resembles
the opening of Letter 55, in which Evagrius calls himself “full of
passions” and “a coward.” Robin Darling Young suggests that in
Letter 55 Evagrius “presents himself as nonauthoritative and even
fearful, perhaps in order to gain the confidence of his addressee,
perhaps as part of his own strategy in the monastic combat against
thoughts and their prompting demons who, once they saw signs
of arrogance instead of humility, engaged in battle to bring down
the monastic teacher.” 70 Both motivations seem likely to be in play
here, as Evagrius expresses solidarity with Loukios and embodies
the humility that repels demons, but certainly his reference to the
“unspeakable sufferings” that the demons have inflicted on him
also represents a subtle claim to authority.
In the Prologue to Talking Back, Evagrius does not refer to his
own experience, but rather highlights his reception of monastic
tradition, to which I shall turn next. Still, in the subsequent eight
books he does frequently signal to the reader his firsthand acquain-
tance with the demons and their tricks. At the most basic level,
the frequent use of the first person (“me,” “us”) as the recipient
of thoughts or the object of demonic attacks places the author
among those who have experienced these things. But some of
these references appear too specific to Evagrius’s own situation to
be taken as merely the report of experiences that are simply typical
or that belong only to others; among these I include the threat
that the monk will experience shame for revealing “all the kinds
of all the unclean thoughts” (4.25). As evidence for the sometimes
fantastic things that he reports, Evagrius can appeal to his firsthand
visual confirmation (2.65; 4.36) and to the knowledge of monks
70
Robin Darling Young,“Cannibalism and Other Family Woes in Letter 55 of
Evagrius of Pontus,” in The World of Early Egyptian Christianity: Language, Literature,
and Social Context, ed. James E. Goehring and Janet A.Timbie, 130–39 (Washing
ton: The Catholic University of America Press, 2007), at 135.
Introduction 33
who have undergone such experiences: “those who have been

tempted by this demon will understand what I am saying” (2.55;
cf. 8.21). His explicit refusals to describe certain experiences in
writing because of their disturbing quality alert the reader that
Evagrius knows even more than the work itself contains and thus
more than even the most attentive reader who has not had ex-
periences like his (2.65; 8.21). At one point Evagrius rebukes critics
who “ridicule” accounts of demonic attack as persons who lack
experience (4.72), and his condemnations of certain seemingly
positive visions (of God or Christ) as the products of the demons
of vainglory or pride serve to label the visionary experiences of
other monks as illegitimate (7.31; 8.17, 21). He may not say so
explicitly, but Evagrius indicates that he is a veteran spiritual war-
rior, with longer and better experiences of demonic combat than
others.
Evagrius more explicitly invests authority in the monastic
tradition that he has inherited from older monks and that he claims
to be transmitting. In the Prologue, as we have seen, he professes
not to present a new program for the ascetic life, but only to make
more accessible a very ancient tradition: “I have made public the
entire contest of the monastic life, which the Holy Spirit taught
David through the Psalms and the blessed fathers handed over to
us, but which I have named in this book after these [demons]”
(Prol.6). The only innovation that Evagrius makes is to organize
this presentation of the monastic life by the named demons. Here
he refers only in general to “the blessed fathers” as the immediate
sources of his teaching, but he later mentions three of his teachers
by name: John of Lycopolis, whom he calls “the seer [or prophet]
of Thebes” (2.36; 5.6; 6.16; 7.19), Macarius the Alexandrian (4.23,
58; 8.26), and Macarius the Egyptian or the Great (4.45).71 John
appears as an authority on the workings of the intellect, wise to
the demonic images that appear in it (2.36; 5.6) and schooled in
what can and cannot be known about its nature (6.16). Each of
the four times that he names either Macarius the Alexandrian or
For sorting out the identities of the two Macarii, see Bunge, “Évagre le
71
Pontique et les deux Macaire,” 218–23.

Macarius the Great Evagrius cites them as the precedent for using
the specific verse in answering back to a demon. In his book
Thoughts, Evagrius twice mentions Macarius the Alexandrian, who
was the priest at Kellia, as an authority on the activities of demons.72
Although the distinction should not be pressed too far, John ap-
pears primarily as a source for theoretical knowledge about the
intellect, and the two Macarii for practical knowledge about
demonic combat. In any event, these three prominent monks
represent specific conduits of the traditions of “the blessed fathers,”
which Evagrius claims to transmit.
Finally, Evagrius appears as an authoritative reader of the Bible,
study of which emerges as an advanced ascetic practice. His mas-
tery appears first in his ability to select “carefully” from the entire
Bible the words that are most suited to demonic conflict, even
though they are “scattered” and “difficult to find” (Prol.3). His
cover letter to Loukios presents Talking Back as a particular form
of scriptural reading, which purifies the intellect by transferring
it from worldly matters to spiritual knowledge. Because other
ascetic practices like fasting have the lower aim of eliminating the
passions, reading the Scriptures emerges here as a more advanced
endeavor, even sequentially following ascetic practice (Ep. 4.3-5).
Appropriately, then, reading the Scriptures becomes an issue in
combat with the final two demons, vainglory and pride, which
tempt the monk either to abandon the effort or to accept the
demons’ own interpretations (7.14; 8.21, 26). Implicitly, through-
out Talking Back, it is Evagrius who can see the anti-demonic
implications of numerous biblical passages that the less advanced
reader might never have recognized. For this reason we should
not draw a sharp distinction between the allegorical exegesis aimed
at contemplation that Evagrius practices in such other works as
his exegetical scholia and the antirrhetic use of the Bible here:
references to the antirrhetic functions of biblical passages can be
found in the scholia, and the anti-demonic force of some of the
passages cited in Talking Back can be seen only through figural
72
Thoughts 33, 37.
Introduction 35
interpretation. The Bible functions diversely at every level of

Evagrius’s spiritual program.73
However Evagrius may have understood his own authority, the
publication and dissemination of Talking Back in antiquity cemented
his reputation as an outstanding opponent of the demons, familiar
with their tactics and adept at countering them.
Evidence for Early Monasticism

As fascinating as Talking Back is as a window into a crucial aspect
of early monastic spirituality, it is of interest also as a source for
the lifestyle and experiences of the monks resident in northern
Egypt in the late fourth century.To reconstruct early monasticism
in Nitria, Scetis, and Kellia, historians have relied primarily on
such sources as the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, the History of the
Monks of Egypt (Historia monachorum), and Palladius’s Lausiac History.
But these works are not entirely satisfactory: none of them was
written in Egypt during the fourth century. Although it can be
dated to the 390s, a Palestinian monk composed the History of the
Monks after he had returned home from a journey among monastic
settlements in Egypt. Palladius did live among the monks during
this period, but he wrote his account decades later as a bishop in
Asia Minor. As we have seen, though, it is possible that the Coptic
fragments of Palladian material, including the Life of Evagrius, pre-
serve an earlier work of Palladius. And the various collections of
the Sayings, although they doubtless preserve oral traditions and
even reflect smaller written collections from the fourth century,
originated no earlier than the second half of the fifth century in
Palestine. Historians, then, increasingly question the accuracy of a
picture of northern Egyptian monasticism based primarily on
these works. It is arguable that some scholars have become too
73
On this point see Dysinger, Psalmody and Prayer, esp. 142–49 on antirrhetic
texts in the Scholia on Psalms. Michael O’Laughlin draws too sharp a contrast in
“The Bible, the Demons, and the Desert: Evaluating the Antirrheticus of Evagrius
Ponticus,” Studia Monastica 34 (1992): 201–15, at 202–4.
skeptical, especially of the Sayings, but there is no denying the

shortcomings of these works as historical sources.74
Evagrius, in contrast, composed his works while he lived as a
monk in Nitria and Kellia. Although most of his works deal with
matters of ascetic theory, spirituality, and biblical exegesis and
provide few details of monastic social life, Talking Back refers con-
stantly to the everyday lives of monks, circumstances that they
regularly faced, and the emotions that monks felt. It represents a
neglected source for the texture of early monastic life.75 The monks
of Kellia would spend their weeks in solitude but gather on
Saturdays and Sundays for shared worship and conversation. The
Coptic Life of Evagrius reports that these weekly gatherings offered
monks the opportunity to consult Evagrius about their struggles
with demonic thoughts:
This was his practice:The brothers would gather around him

on Saturday and Sunday, discussing their thoughts with him
throughout the night, listening to his words of encouragement
until sunrise. And thus they would leave rejoicing and glorify-
ing God, for Evagrius’ teaching was very sweet. When they
came to see him, he encouraged them, saying to them, “My
brothers, if one of you has either a profound or a troubled
thought, let him be silent until the brothers depart and let
him reflect on it alone with me. Let us not make him speak
in front of the brothers lest a little one perish on account of
his thoughts and grief swallow him at a gulp.” 76
It seems likely that much of the data found in Talking Back, the
thoughts that it lists, came from these and other discussions
Evagrius had with his fellow monks as well as from his own ex-
perience. In any event, this work would be useful to its monastic
readers only if it genuinely reflected their experiences. Thus,
74
See my brief discussions of these issues in Demons and the Making of the Monk,
127–29, 145–46, with the literature cited there.
75
See Bunge,“Der Prolog,” 78, and O’Laughlin,“The Bible, the Demons, and
the Desert,” 206–7.
76
Coptic Life of Evagrius 17; trans.Vivian, Four Desert Fathers, 84–85.
Introduction 37
modern readers can learn from it about several facets of early

monastic life, as long as we keep in mind that the information it
contains comes only from the monks around Evagrius and so
cannot be taken as representative of all monks, not even all monks
in Nitria and Kellia. Moreover, it is Evagrius who selected the data
that appears here: he decided which features of monastic life to
include, which to exclude, and whether and how to evaluate them
negatively (as demonically inspired or exploited).77
The evidence of Talking Back suggests that many of the monks
with whom Evagrius consulted came from relatively privileged
social backgrounds. Monks remembered fondly the feasts that they
used to enjoy in their pre-monastic lives (1.30, 36, 38-41), and
they considered, sometimes with regret, the wealth and property
that their families possessed (3.1, 3, 16-18, 22, 46, 50). Some monks
remained entangled in worldly affairs through lawsuits (3.39), and
others received criticism from friends and relatives when they
failed to distribute their (presumably significant) wealth to them
when they became monks (4.60).The prestige of a monk’s relatives
in the world could become a source of either discouragement (6.23)
or pride (8.37). To be sure, Evagrius does mention monks whose
families are poor (1.61) and monks who used to be or perhaps still
are slaves (5.44). He speaks also of monks who are truly needy
because, for example, illness has prevented them from working
(3.7, 9, 10, 37, 38, 40, 57). But such poor monks usually appear as
the potential objects of charity from the better-off monks whom
Evagrius addresses. Monastic renunciation did not entirely erase the
77
For more focused and detailed investigations of Talking Back (and other
Evagrian works) along these lines, see David Brakke,“Making Public the Monastic
Life: Reading the Self in Evagrius Ponticus’ Talking Back,” in Religion and the Self
in Antiquity, ed. David Brakke, Michael L. Satlow, and Steven Weitzman, 222–33
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2005), and David Brakke, “Care for the
Poor, Fear of Poverty, and Love of Money: Evagrius Ponticus on the Monk’s
Economic Vulnerability,” in Wealth and Poverty in Early Church and Society, ed.
Susan Holman, 76–87 (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Academic, 2008). See also the
earlier observations of O’Laughlin, “The Bible, the Demons, and the Desert,”
207–11.
monks’ differing social levels, as well-born monks looked down on

their inferiors (8.37) or taunted former or current slaves (5.44).
The loosely knit ascetic community that these monks joined
had its own economic life and measures of status. Most monks
engaged in some form of manual labor, which could either be-
come a source of dissatisfaction or be pursued too vigorously in
pursuit of greater income (1.61, 63, 64; 3.29; 6.1, 28). It seems that
some advanced monks told their disciples how much labor to
perform, a custom that could leave the junior monk vulnerable
to exploitation (3.4, 6, 8). Evagrius does not mention precisely
what kind of work these monks did (other sources suggest that
basket weaving was the archetypal monastic trade), but he does
refer to trips to the market (2.58), to loans between monks (3.40),
(possibly) to cattle that monks owned (5.18), and to cooperative
ventures in which monks transacted business on behalf of the
wider community or served as a “steward” or “overseer” (3.15, 56;
7.10). The necessities of life that the monk needed to acquire
consisted primarily of such basics as food and clothing. The pri-
mary foodstuffs that Evagrius mentions are bread and oil (1.8); to
abstain from oil was a severe ascetic discipline (1.18). Wine was
available, although discouraged (1.22, 26, 35, 67); vegetables and
fruits appear as special treats or temptations (1.32, 45, 53, 54).There
are many references to possessions in general, but few to anything
specific: Evagrius warns, for example, against using either refresh-
ment for the brothers or acquisition of a Bible as the pretense for
acquiring more things (3.35).
Like any collection of human beings, the early monastic com-
munity had its share of conflicts. Book 5 of Talking Back, on anger,
concerns mostly the anger that monks felt toward one another.
Monks gossiped maliciously about one another (5.4, 6, 11), accused
one another of bad behavior (5.14), plotted against other monks
(5.20), failed to repay loans (5.57), and held grudges (5.1). Monks
complained that their leaders were uncaring, callous, or insuffi-
ciently experienced in the monastic life (6.2, 55; 8.8). Their peers
too, they could say, were unfeeling (6.30) or such a bad influence
that the better choice would be to live alone (7.11). In a community
in which social rank was determined primarily by acknowledged
Introduction 39
wisdom, virtue, and success in the ascetic life, a certain amount of

judging others and discussion of their virtues and shortcomings
must have been necessary.78 Without such discussions we would
lack many of the apophthegmata. Yet such evaluation of self and
others brought the monk into dangerous moral territory, which
Evagrius considers here at length. To be sure, there were times
when it was proper for one monk to chastise another (5.23). But
especially for the advanced monk the danger of harshly or unfairly
condemning other monks and believing oneself to be morally
superior was very grave (8.31, 33, 38, 42, 49d, 53-54, 57).
If the moral scrutiny of his monastic brothers was not enough,
the monk could also find himself the object of criticism or even
persecution from his nonmonastic family members (5.34, 56), one
sign of how the withdrawn monk remained connected to the
world that he had left behind. Some monks wanted to try to
persuade their skeptical relatives of the value of the monastic life,
an impulse that Evagrius condemns as a desire to please people
(7.39). Indeed, Evagrius shows no enthusiasm for the desire of
monks to enter villages and cities even for seemingly good reasons,
whether simply to teach (7.9, 18) or to encourage others to become
monks (7.1). Monks could be indiscreet in talking to secular people
about the monastic life (7.17). Still, there were several ways in
which Evagrius’s colleagues exercised authority in “the world”:
they settled disputes (7.12), served as guarantors for loans (7.16),
and performed healings (7.35, 42).The wider church appears only
occasionally in this work. It seems that monks were aware of the
liturgical calendar and wanted to eat a little more on feast days
(1.3, 29, 40, 60), which sometimes the leading monks allowed, to
the mixed feelings of some (1.32). Ordination to the priesthood
was the primary way that a monk might establish a formal con-
nection to the church, and in Talking Back, as in Evagrius’s other
works, ordination consistently appears as a danger, fuel for the fire
of pride (7.3, 8, 26, 36, 40).
78
See Maud Gleason,“Visiting and News: Gossip and Reputation-Management
in the Desert,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 6 (1998): 501–21.
Finally, in these pages, we learn about some of the anxieties

that troubled these monastic pioneers. Monks worried about the
debilitating effects of their asceticism on their bodies (1.14, 19, 20,
43, 44, 47, 56, 57, 59, 65; 4.76) and about the health of their family
members (4.42). They missed the relatives whom they had left
(6.7, 43, 44, 53). They feared that they might go mad (4.43), and
they fretted about the poor condition of their cells (6.26). They
feared getting old (6.32). As we read about such touchingly human
concerns, we cannot fail to feel somewhat closer to these ancient
men who made the remarkable choice to seek God in the harsh
desert.Yet the overall point of Talking Back is that these anxiety-
producing obstacles to their knowledge of God were not natural
human feelings to be understood, but suggestions of demons to
be refuted. It is here that the spirituality of Talking Back becomes
most distant from our ways of thinking about ourselves and so
perhaps most able to say something new to us.
Note on Texts and Translations
Loukios’s letter to Evagrius survives only in an Arabic version,

published by Irénée Hausherr.1 I made an initial draft translation
from Hausherr’s retroversion into Greek, and my colleague Profes-
sor Kevin Jaques compared this draft to the Arabic text and made
suggestions for revision.
Evagrius’s Letter 4 survives completely only in a Syriac version,
published by Wilhelm Frankenberg.2 However, a Greek text for a
substantial portion of the letter, running from the middle of sec-
tion 3 to the end, appears in a thirteenth-century manuscript and
has been published by Claire Guillaumont.3 My translation follows
the Syriac, but then switches to the Greek when it becomes extant.
The section divisions follow those found in Gabriel Bunge’s
German translation.4
1
Irénée Hausherr,“Eulogius—Loukios,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 6 (1940):
216–20.
2
Wilhelm Frankenberg, Euagrios Ponticus, Abhandlungen der königlichen
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse,
Neue Folge 13.2 (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1912), 568.
3
Claire Guillaumont,“Fragments grecs inédits d’Evagre le Pontique,” in Texte
und Textkritik: Eine Aufsatzsammlung,Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte
der altchristlichen Literatur 133, ed. Jürgen Dummer, 209–21 (Berlin: Akademie,
1987), at 219–20.
4
Gabriel Bunge, Evagrios Pontikos: Briefe aus der Wüste, Sophia: Quellen
östlicher Theologie 24 (Trier: Paulinus, 1986), 214–16.
41
The Greek text of Talking Back apparently does not survive.

Complete versions are extant in Syriac and Armenian, and there
are fragments in Georgian and Sogdian. I have not consulted the
Armenian and Georgian texts at all.5 In 1912 Frankenberg pub-
lished the text of a single Syriac manuscript now in the British
Library (B.L. Add. 14,578), which serves as the basis for this trans-
lation.6 In the notes “MS” refers to B.L. Add. 14,578. In 1985
Nicholas Sims-Williams published an edition and translation of
the Sogdian fragments.7 The Sogdian fragments attest, although
under a different numbering system, 1.3-10; 2.38-42, 46-50, 63-65;
3.2-7, 13, 17-19, 53-55, 58; 4.1-2, 35-36, 43-45: 6.20-24, 29-30.8
As he edited the Sogdian fragments, Sims-Williams also collated
B.L. Add. 14,578 and several other Syriac manuscripts against
Frankenberg’s text and noted several corrections and variants.
I have sometimes incorporated these readings into my translation,
especially when they agree with variants found in Sims-Williams’s
English translation of the Sogdian fragments, and I have noted
these instances where they occur. In addition, I made my own
collations from microfilms of the entire text of B.L. Add. 14,578
and of portions of the text found in B.L. Add. 12,175, which have
resulted in a few more corrections to Frankenberg’s text, also
noted. I do not pretend to offer anything close to a new edition,
which would require an account of all the surviving witnesses,
including the Armenian and the Georgian. Should someone create
such an edition, this translation would require replacement, but
no one would be happier than I. I have benefited also from the
several abridged or incomplete translations into modern languages
that precede this one.
5
Armenian: Barshegh Sargisean, The Life and Works of the Holy Father Evagrius
Ponticus in an Armenian Version of the Fifth Century with Introduction and Notes (in
Armenian) (Venice: S. Ghazar, 1907), 217–323.
6
Frankenberg, Euagrios, 472–544.
7
Nicholas Sims-Williams, The Christian Sogdian Manuscript C2, Schriften zur
Geschichte und Kultur des alten Orients: Berliner Turfautexte 12 (Berlin:
Akademie, 1985), 168–82.
8
See the concordance at Sims-Williams, Christian Sogdian Manuscript C2,
181–82.
Note on Texts and Translations 43
I have included all of the entries that appear in B.L. Add.

14,578, and I have followed its numbering system, with some
corrections. The text in B.L. Add. 14,578 has 498 entries. Most
modern scholars have counted 492 entries by adding the numbers
that the manuscript gives for the final entries in each book.There
is, however, one unnumbered entry in Book 4, following 4.19,
and there are five in Book 8, following 8.49.These six unnumbered
entries bring the total to 498. In the translation I have labeled
these entries 4.19a and 4.19b, 8.49a, 8.49b, and so forth. It is likely
that the scribe of the manuscript recalled the five unnumbered
entries in Book 8, but not the one in Book 4, when he calculated
a total of 497. There are also numbering problems in Book 3 at
3.19-27, which I have noted there and taken into account in my
translation.
The only other Syriac manuscript that I have studied, B.L. Add.
12,175, contains fewer entries and uses a different numbering
system. Like the Sogdian fragments, it numbers all the entries in
the entire book sequentially and does not begin again with 1 at the
beginning of each book. Thus, the first entry in Book 2 is num-
bered 70. The six unnumbered entries of 14,578 appear in this
text in the same order and properly numbered, thus supporting
their inclusion in this translation. The final entry in 12,175 is
numbered 495, but this is a mistake: the text actually has 496
entries. 12,175 lacks two entries that appear in Book 3 in 14,578
(3.8, 10), and it contains numbering errors of its own. It uses each
of the numbers 267 and 269 twice and does not use 419 at all,
resulting in an undercount of 1. Although they share the same
system, the numbering in the Sogdian fragments does not appear
to match that of 12,175 precisely, suggesting either numbering
errors or a different number of entries in that textual tradition.
Any eventual critical edition of Talking Back will have to sort
through such differences in numbering. It may be that the system
in 12,175 and the Sogdian fragments is the more common one.
All that I have said thus far applies to the Syriac text of the
prologue and the entries written by Evagrius. For the biblical
passages I have translated the Greek text of either the Septuagint
or the New Testament (with the exceptions of the two cases in
which I have not identified the biblical passage), as have nearly all
my modern predecessors as translators of this work. The Syriac
text (at least that of B.L. Add. 14,578 and 12,175) is markedly
influenced by the Peshitta, and in numerous cases the relevance
of the biblical passage to the entry with which it is paired becomes
clear only when one reads the Greek. To be sure, the texts of the
modern editions of the Septuagint and the New Testament were
not those known to Evagrius, but they are doubtless closer to what
Evagrius read than what one finds in the Syriac manuscripts of
Talking Back. I have not noted the numerous differences between
the Syriac text of the biblical passages and the Greek, except in
the few cases in which the differences are striking enough that
one might question whether I have correctly identified the biblical
passage that Evagrius meant. Neither have I noted instances in
which Frankenberg’s text of the Syriac must be corrected in the
case of biblical passages. My references to Old Testament passages
are to the Septuagint, even where the Syriac text uses a different
reference (e.g., I cite as from 1 Kingdoms a passage that the Syriac
text identifies as “from Samuel”). My translations from the New
Testament are adapted from, but not always identical with, the
New Revised Standard Version.
My citations of most other works of Evagrius follow Evagrius
of Pontus, The Greek Ascetic Corpus, trans. Robert E. Sinkewicz,
Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2003).
Editorial Signs and Abbreviations

MS B.L. Add. 14,578
12,175 B.L. Add. 12,175
< > text restored by the translator, without attestation in
any examined manuscript
[ ] text added by the translator for clarity
Loukios, Letter to Evagrius
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
a single God. Letter of the holy father Loukios to the holy father
Evagrius. May God grant us the blessing of their prayers doubly.
You, O father, have lived in the desert, as if at a mother’s breast,

for these many years, doing battle with the invisible enemies.
O honored father Evagrius, you have put on the weapons of the
soul’s fitting labors, and you have become such an experienced
combatant against the spirits of wickedness that not only have you
become an object of fear among the demons, but you have also
summoned others, so that they too might become combatants
against the evil spirits and filthy thoughts.
Therefore, I ask your fatherhood to classify the fight against
the beings of darkness, and I entreat your holiness to compose for
me some clear treatise concerning it and to acquaint me with the
demons’ entire treachery, which by their own efforts and according
to their own undertaking they produce in the path of monasticism.
Send it to us, so that we, your friends, might also easily cast off
from ourselves those evil suggestions of theirs. For I know that
you will attend to the one who requests from you spiritual things,
and therefore I have addressed this to you. Farewell in the Lord.
45
Evagrius, Letter 4
1. I have seen the letter of your holiness, in which you amply

demonstrated your love for us and commanded us to send you
something from our labors. I had not wanted to send anything of
my own accord because of my embarrassment in the face of your
temperance. But now, because I have been commanded, I have
readily obeyed and have sent you the treatise of responses, so that
you might read it, correct it, and complete whatever is lacking, in
case we have presented any of the unclean thoughts imprecisely or
we have not properly found the answer that opposes them. I con-
fess to your reverence that for some time I have not dealt with the
demonic thoughts as one ought because I have been frequently
hindered by them, and after your departure from me I have en-
dured unspeakable sufferings from them. But now I praise our
Lord because of the things that I have heard and learned about
you, just as I have prayed.
2. Be for me, then, a proclaimer of continence, a listener of
humility, and a destroyer “of thoughts and of every proud obstacle
that is raised against the knowledge of Christ” [2 Cor 10:4-5], so
that at the time of prayer the intellect might have the frankness of
speech that belongs to those who transcend these [thoughts] and
so that it [the intellect] might not be weighed or bent down be-
cause it is either knocked about by anger or drawn aside by desire.
Such things happen to irascible and gluttonous persons who do
not practice abstinence during the day and so do not escape evil
illusions during the night.
47
3. So you too know through our Lord Jesus that reading the
divine Scriptures is very useful for purification because it removes
the intellect from this visible world’s anxieties, from which stems
the perversity of unclean thoughts, which through their passions
bind the intellect and attach it to corporeal things. Do not hesitate,1
therefore, to converse with the brothers, to read the Scriptures at
the appointed time, not to “love the world and anything in the
world” [1 John 2:15], and to keep watch over thoughts, which is
a wolf-killing poison that the demons despise.
4.When the battle takes place with discernment, it is filled with
many thoughts, but it creates a great purity of thinking because
the demons can no longer mock or accuse the soul. For just as
practical wisdom is assigned the reasonable judgment of practical
matters, so too discernment is entrusted with the impressions that
occur in thinking, discerning holy and profane, clean and unclean
thoughts. And, according to the prophetic saying, it [discernment]
has experience of the tricks of the mocking demons, which imi-
tate both perception and memory in order to deceive the rational
soul that strives for the knowledge of Christ.
5. And so everyone who has enlisted in this army must request
discernment from the Lord without neglecting the things that con-
tribute to the reception of this gift, which are, to speak in outline,
self-control, gentleness, keeping vigil, withdrawal, and frequent
prayers, which are supported by reading the divine Scriptures—for
nothing is as conducive to pure prayer as reading. Ascetic practice
cuts off the passions by destroying desire, sadness, and anger, but
the reading that follows it [ascetic practice] removes even love for
the representations by transferring it 2 to the formless, divine, and
simple knowledge, which the Lord symbolically named in the
gospels “room” [Matt 6:6], having indicated the hidden Father.
1
Here begins the translation from the Greek fragment published by Claire
Guillaumont.
2
Most likely “it” refers to the intellect, which does appear in the (otherwise
rather different) Syriac version.
Talking Back
A Treatise of Evagrius on the Eight Thoughts
P RO L O G U E
[1] From the rational nature that is “beneath heaven” [Qo 1:13],
part of it fights; part assists the one who fights; and part contends
with the one who fights, strenuously rising up and making war
against him. The fighters are human beings; those assisting them
are God’s angels; and their opponents are the foul demons. It is
not because of the severity of the enemies’ power, nor because of
negligence on the part of the assistants, but because of slackening
on the part of the fighters that knowledge of God disappears and
perishes from them.
[2] Our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave up everything for our
salvation, gave us the ability to “tread on snakes and scorpions, and
over all the power of the enemy” [cf. Luke 10:19]. He handed on
to us—along with the rest of all his teaching—what he himself
did when he was tempted by Satan [Matt 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13].
In the time of struggle, when the demons make war against us and
hurl their arrows at us [cf. Eph 6:16], let us answer them from the
Holy Scriptures, lest the unclean thoughts persist in us, enslave the
soul through the sin of actual deeds, and so defile it and plunge it
into the death brought by sin. For “the soul that sins shall die”
[Ezek 18:4]. Whenever a thought is not firmly set in one’s think-
ing, so that one can answer the evil one, sin is easily and swiftly
49
handled. This is wisely declared to us by Qoheleth, when he says,

“No answer comes from those who perform evil quickly” [Qo
8:11]. Moreover, Solomon also says in his Proverbs,“Do not answer
a fool in proportion to his folly, lest you become like him. Rather,
answer a fool in opposition to his folly, lest he appear wise in his
own eyes” [Prov 26:4-5].1 That is, the person who commits an act
of folly and becomes angry with his brother has answered, by his
act, the fool “in proportion to his folly,” and he has become like
the demons,2 for their anger is like “the raging serpent” [Deut
32:33]. But the person who is patient and says,“It is written,‘Cease
from anger, and forsake wrath’” [Ps 36:8] has answered the fool
“in opposition to his folly,” and he has reproved the demon in its
folly and showed it that he has learned that there is an antidote
[against it] according to the Scriptures.
[3] Now, the words that are required for speaking against our
enemies, that is, the cruel demons, cannot be found quickly in the
hour of conflict, because they are scattered throughout the Scrip-
tures and so are difficult to find. We have, therefore, carefully
selected words from the Holy Scriptures, so that we may equip
ourselves with them and drive out the Philistines forcefully, stand-
ing firm in the battle, as warriors and soldiers of our victorious
King, Jesus Christ.
[4] Let us understand this, my beloved: to the extent that we
resist the demons in the conflict and answer them with a word,
they will become all the more embittered against us.This we learn
from Job when he said, “Whenever I begin to speak, they wound
me” [Job 6:4], and also from David when he said, “I am peaceful.
Whenever I spoke to them, they made war against me gratuitously”
[Ps 119:7]. But we must not be shaken by them; rather, we must
resist them by relying on the power of our Savior. For if we place
1
MS: “Rather, answer a fool according to your wisdom . . .” The LXX pas-
sage distinguishes between answering a fool “in proportion to” (pros) his folly
and answering a fool “in opposition to” (kata) his folly, and it is this distinction
that Evagrius seeks to clarify. The Syriac translator perhaps misunderstood the
particular meaning of kata here and so falsely corrected the text.
2
12,175 reads the singular “demon.”
Talking Back 51
our trust in Christ and keep his commandments, we will cross

over the Jordan and capture the city of palms.3 In this battle we
need weapons of the spirit [cf. Eph 6:11-13], which are the true
faith and, second, the teaching, which is a perfect fast, hard-won
victories, humility, stillness—to be moved only barely or not to
be moved at all—and unceasing prayer [cf. 1 Thess 5:17]. I would
be amazed if there were a person who could fight the battle that
takes place in the intellect or could be crowned with the garlands
of righteousness [cf. 2 Tim 4:7-8] while satisfying himself with
bread and water, something that quickly stirs up his anger and
causes him to despise and neglect prayer and to associate with
heretics. For St. Paul said, “Athletes exercise self-control in all
things” [1 Cor 9:25] and to all people they show constant humility
[cf.Titus 3:2], lifting up their hands everywhere without anger or
evil intentions [cf. 1 Tim 2:8].
[5] Therefore, it is proper for us, when we labor at this task, to
equip ourselves with the weapons of the spirit [cf. Eph 6:11-13]
and to show the Philistines that we will fight against sin to the
point of blood [cf. Heb 12:4], as we destroy evil intentions and
“every proud obstacle raised up against the knowledge of God”
[2 Cor 10:5]. We are zealous, so that “we will stand before the
judgment seat of Christ” [Rom 4:10; 2 Cor 5:10] not merely as
a monastic man but as a monastic intellect. For a monastic man is
one who has departed from the sin that consists of deeds and ac-
tion, while a monastic intellect is one who has departed from the
sin that arises from the thoughts that are in our intellect and who
at the time of prayer sees the light of the Holy Trinity.4
[6] Now, however, is the time, “through the power of our Lord
Jesus Christ” [1 Cor 5:4] to contend first with the thoughts of the
demon of gluttony and, after these, with the thoughts of the seven
3
That is, Jericho (Deut 34:3); see Thoughts 20. Here the Jordan River represents
the border between the “desert” of ascetic practice (praktikē ) and the “promised
land” of knowledge (theoretikē ) (Gabriel Bunge, “Evagrios Pontikos: Der Prolog
des ‘Antirrhetikos,’” Studia Monastica 39 [1997]: 76–105, at 91, citing Kephalaia
Gnostica 6.49 and Scholia on Proverbs 17.2).
4
See Reflections 15–16.
other demons, which I have written in sequence at the beginning

of the book on the monastic life.5 I have struggled “to open my
mouth” [Ps 118:131] and to speak to God, to his holy angels, and
to my own afflicted soul. I have made public the entire contest of
the monastic life, which the Holy Spirit taught David through the
Psalms and the blessed fathers handed over to us, but which I have
named in this book after these [demons]. For us the entire struggle
will take place through the thoughts that approach us from each
of these eight demons. But I have written and quoted for each of
the thoughts an answer from the Holy Scriptures that is able to
cut it off.
5
Evagrius refers to the Praktikos, in which he lists the eight thoughts or
demons in chapter 6: see the discussion of Antoine Guillaumont and Claire
Guillaumont in Evagrius Ponticus, Traité pratique, ou Le moine, Sources chrétiennes
170–71 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1971) 1:405–6.
FIRST BOOK
Against the Thoughts of Gluttony
From the Book of Genesis

1. Against the thoughts that seek without the labor of fasting
to cultivate the rational land:
Issachar has desired that which is good, resting between the
inheritances. And because he saw that the resting place is
good and the land is fertile, he subjected his shoulder to labor
and became a farmer (Gen 49:14-15).
From Exodus
2. Against the thought that says to me, “Do not torment your
soul with a lot of fasting that gains you nothing and does not
purify your intellect”:
He made the bronze basin and its bronze stand from the
mirrors of the women who fasted, who fasted by the doors
of the tabernacle of witness, in the day in which he set it up
(Exod 38:26).1
1
MS: “He made the bronze basin and its bronze stand for the washing of
the women who fasted and came to pray at the door of the tabernacle” (cf. Exod
30:18, from which likely comes the phrase “for the washing”). The entry number
“2” is missing in the MS, but appears in 12,175.
53
<From Numbers>
3. Against the thoughts that stir up in us the desire to eat meat
on a feast day and that advise us also to eat on account of the
body’s illness:
And to the people say, “Purify yourselves for tomorrow, and
you shall eat meat. . . . You shall not eat one day, not two,
not five days, not ten days, and not twenty days. For a month
of days you shall eat, until it [the meat] comes out of your
nostrils. And it shall be nausea to you because you disobeyed
the Lord, who is among you” (Num 11:18-20).
From Deuteronomy
4. Against the thought that seeks to be filled with food and
drink and gives no heed to the harm that springs from filling
the belly:
Having eaten and been filled, pay attention to yourself, lest
you forget the Lord your God, who brought you out of the
land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery (Deut 6:11-12).2
5. Against the thought that says to me, “The command to fast
is burdensome”: 3
The command that I give you this day is not burdensome, nor
is it far from you (Deut 30:11).
6. Against the thought that desires to be filled 4 with food and
drink and supposes that nothing evil for the soul comes from
them:
And Jacob ate and was filled, and the beloved one kicked; he
grew fat and became thick and broad, and he abandoned the
God who made him and departed from God his Savior (Deut
32:15).
2
The entry number “4” is missing in the MS, but appears in 12,175.
3
Frankenberg’s text incorrectly lacks a daleth before yqyr.
4
Frankenberg’s text incorrectly gives dtsbl, while the MS has dtsb>.
1. Against the Thoughts of Gluttony 55
From Samuel
7. Against the thought of gluttony that compels me to eat at
the ninth hour:
God do so to me and more besides if I eat bread or anything
else before the sun goes down (2 Kgdms 3:35).
From the Book of Kings

8. Against the thought that suggests to me the loss of bread, oil,
and other things that we need:
Thus says the Lord, “The jar of meal will not run out, and the
jug of oil will not be diminished, until the day when the Lord
gives rain upon the earth” (3 Kgdms 17:14).
9. Against the soul that wants to follow the path of the saints
while being full of bread and water:
And the king of Israel said, “Take Michaias and send him to
Semer the ruler of the city, and tell Joas the ruler’s son to put
him in prison and to have him eat bread of affliction and water
of affliction until I return in peace” (3 Kgdms 22:26-27).
10. Against the thought that says to us, “Look, the provisions that
we have gathered are not sufficient both for us and for the
brothers who come to us”:
For thus says the Lord, “They will eat and leave [some remain-
ing].” And they ate and left [some remaining], according to the
word of the Lord (4 Kgdms 4:43-44).
From David
11. Against the thought that embitters me in the life of harsh
poverty:
The Lord shepherds me, and I will lack nothing (Ps 22:1).
12. Against the thought that, even when there is no scarcity, gathers
more bread than it needs, on the pretext of hospitality:
I was young, and I have indeed grown old. I have not seen a
righteous person abandoned or his progeny seeking bread
(Ps 36:25).
13. Against the thought that is attentive to food and clothing,
but rejects attention to the truth:
I will declare my iniquity and I will attend to my sin (Ps 37:19).
14. Against the thoughts that advise us and say, “Do not live so
severely; through fasting and constant labor you will wear out
your weak body”:
And he labored forever, and he will live to the end, so that he
will not see corruption when he sees sages dying (Ps 48:10).5
15. Against the thought that says to me, “Do not wear yourself
out so unsparingly and afflict your soul by keeping vigil”:
A broken and contrite heart God will not despise (Ps 50:19).
16. Against the thought that is anxious about food and drink and
diligent about where it can get them:
Cast your anxiety upon the Lord, and he will sustain you
(Ps 54:23).6
17. Against the thought that suggests to me, “Keeping vigil does
not benefit you at all; rather, it gathers many thoughts against
you”:
I have watched and have become like a sparrow dwelling alone
on a roof (Ps 101:8).7
5
6
Evagrius often cites this verse in urging the monk to overcome anxiety
about having enough: see Foundations of the Monastic Life 4; To Eulogios 28.30;
Thoughts 6.
7
Evagrius calls the vigilant monk a sparrow in To Monks 46.
18. Against the thought that rebukes us because we abstain from

oil and that does not remember that David did this and
said:
My knees have become weak from fasting, and my flesh has
been altered by [the lack of] oil (Ps 108:24).
19. Against the thoughts that hinder us from our way of life by
instilling fear in us and saying,“A miserable death results from
austere fasting”:
I will not die, but live, and I will recount the Lord’s works
(Ps 117:17).
20. Against the thoughts that persuade me to desist a little from
keeping frequent vigils and to give a little rest to the weak
and miserable body:
I will not go into the tabernacle of my house; I will not get up
upon the couch of my bed; I will not give sleep to my eyes nor
drowsiness to my eyelids nor rest to my temples, until I find
a place for the Lord, a tabernacle for the God of Jacob
(Ps 131:3-5).
From the Proverbs of Solomon

21. Against the thought that predicts to us that famine or great
affliction is coming soon:
The Lord will not famish a righteous soul, but he will over-
throw the life of the ungodly (Prov 10:3).
22. Against the thought that suggests to me desire for wine on
the pretext that the liver and spleen are harmed by water:
He who takes pleasure in banquets of wine will leave dishonor
in his strongholds (Prov 12:11a).
23. Against the thought that is bound by concern about the desire
for foods and rejects concern about achievements in virtue:
With everyone who is careful there is abundance, but the
pleasure-taking and the indolent will be in want (Prov 14:23).
24. Against the thought that weeps over simple foods and dry
bread:
A morsel with pleasure in peace is better than a house full of
many good things and unjust sacrifices with strife (Prov 17:1).
25. Against the thoughts that persuade us on a feast day to show
a little mercy to our body by offering it a few delicacies:
Delight does not suit a fool, [nor is it proper] if a servant
begins to rule with arrogance (Prov 19:10).
26. Against the thought that, in the absence of serious illness,
coaxes us to drink wine and prophesies to us about pain in
the stomach and the entire digestive system:
Wine is an intemperate thing, and drunkenness leads to
insolence, and anyone who is tangled up in it is no sage
(Prov 20:1).
27. Against the thought that seizes our intellect so that we bind
ourselves to our fast and our ascetic practice by our oaths,
something that is foreign to the monastic way of life:
It is a trap for a man hastily to consecrate some of his pos-
sessions, for regret comes after the making of the vow (Prov
20:25).
28. Against the thought that hinders us by suggesting that we
not give from our bread to those in need and by saying to
me, “That person can [find mercy] anywhere, but we cannot
approach any stranger’s door”:
The one who shows mercy will himself be supported, for he
gave to the poor from his own bread (Prov 22:9).
29. Against the thoughts that on a feast day gently approach us
and say to us that we might just once in a long stretch of time
taste meat and wine:
Do not be a wine-drinker, and do not stay long at feasts and
sales of meat, for every drunkard and customer of prostitutes
will be poor, and every sluggard will clothe himself in tattered
and ragged garments (Prov 23:20-21).
30. Against the thought that recalls delicacies of the past and
remembers pleasant wines and the cups that we used to hold
in our hands when we would recline at table and drink:
For if you set your eyes on bowls and cups, you later will go
more naked than a pestle. At the end he stretches himself out
like someone struck by a snake and through whom venom is
diffused as by a horned serpent (Prov 23:31-32).
31. Against the thoughts that entice us to fill our belly with bread
and water:
Do not give the bed of a righteous man to a sinner, and do
not go astray in satiety of the couch.8
32. Against the thoughts that we have in opposition to the shame
in which we respect the fathers when they persuade us to
relax the fast and to eat vegetables during a feast:
For there is a shame that brings sin, and a shame that is glory
and grace (Sir 4:21).
33. Against the demon that persuades me through its flattery and
says to me with promises,“You will no longer suffer any harm
from food and drink because your body is weak and dry from
prolonged fasting”:
A weeping enemy promises everything with his lips, but in his
heart he contrives deceits (Prov 26:24).
34. Against the thought that shows me God’s commandments as
if they were difficult and tells me that they bring many dif-
ficulties and miseries upon the body and soul:
The wounds of a friend are more trustworthy than the
spontaneous kisses of an enemy (Prov 27:6).
8
The text for nos. 31–32 may be corrupt.The biblical quotation for no. 31
is not clear. 12,175 reads “satiety of the belly” rather than “satiety of the couch.”
Number 32 possibly contains remnants of two entries (“against the thought that
. . .”; “against the shame that . . .”), and its quotation comes from Sirach, not
Proverbs.
From Qoheleth 9
35. Against the thought that asks for a little wine in the absence
of illness and says to me, “Look, it was for the sake of human
beings that wine was created”:
He has made all things beautiful in his season (Qo 3:11).
36. Against the thought that reminds me of past feasting and
drinking and wants [to return to] this custom:
It is better to go into a house of mourning than to go into a
house of drinking (Qo 7:2).
37. Against the vain thought that persuades us to extend our
discipline beyond what is appropriate by putting sackcloth
on our loins, setting out for the desert, living continuously
under the sky, and tending wild plants; and that advises us as
well to flee from the sight of human beings who comfort us
and who are comforted by us:
Do not be very righteous or especially wise, lest you be
deceived (Qo 7:16).
From Job
38. Against the thoughts that remind us of past feasts and show
us the difficulty that has occurred:
If we have received good things from the Lord’s hand, shall we
not endure evil things? (Job 2:10).
From Micah 10
39. Against the soul’s thought that travels to its corporeal kinfolk
and finds a table filled with all kinds of foods:
Get up and leave, for this is not your place of rest because of
uncleanness (Mic 2:10).
9
This heading is missing in the MS, but appears in 12,175.
10
This heading is missing in the MS, but appears in 12,175.
From Habakkuk
40. Against the thought of gluttony that on feast days enumerates
for me many people reclining at the finest table, exulting and
rejoicing:11
But I will exult in the Lord and rejoice in God my Savior
(Hab 3:18).
From Isaiah
41. Against the thoughts that remind us of pleasures and of a table
that has been filled with all good things and praise these
things as better than the monastic life:12
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who make
darkness light and light darkness, who make bitter sweet and
sweet bitter (Isa 5:20).
42. Against the soul’s thought that has become tired and weary
of the hunger that comes with little bread and scant water:
And the Lord will give you bread of affliction and scant water,
and yet those who deceive you will no longer come near you;
for your eyes will see those who deceive you, and your ears
will hear the words of those who went after you to lead you
astray (Isa 30:20-21).
From Jeremiah
43. To the Lord concerning the infirmity of my body, which has
been weakened by much fasting and diminished by an austere
11
MS: “Against the thought of gluttony that on feast days shows us many
people reclining at table < . . . >, exulting and rejoicing.” 12,175 reads “enumer-
ates for me” and fills the lacuna.
12
MS: “Against the thoughts that remind us of the pleasures of a table that
has been filled with good < . . . > and praise them as better than the monastic
life.” The translation reflects the text of 12,175.
discipline, and concerning my soul, which is filled with evil

thoughts of fornication:
Lord, remember me and visit me, and vindicate me from be-
fore those who persecute me without delay. Know how I have
received reproach for your sake from those who set at naught
your words (Jer 15:15).
44. To the Lord concerning the demon that chills the stomach
and all the sinews of the body, and casts great weakness into
the body as if from hunger and prolonged illness:
See, Lord, that I am afflicted, that my belly is troubled and my
heart is turned within me (Lam 1:20).
From Daniel 13
45. Against the soul that is not satisfied with bread for food and
water for drink, but wants vegetables along with these, and
does not remember the affliction of the seeds that Daniel and
his companions ate:
Then Daniel said to Amelsad, whom the chief eunuch had set
over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, “Test your children
for ten days, and give us seeds, and let us eat, and let us drink
water. And let our appearance be seen by you and the ap-
pearance of the children that eat at the king’s table, and deal
with your servants as you see.” And he listened to them and
tested them for ten days. And at the end of the ten days, their
appearance looked better and stronger in flesh than the
children who ate at the king’s table. And Amelsad took away
their supper and the wine of their drink, and he gave them
seeds (Dan 1:11-16).14
13
The MS lacks “Daniel,” which appears in 12,175.
14
Ironically, in Thoughts 35 Evagrius says that the demon of gluttony may
adduce this story about Daniel and his companions in order to tempt the monk
to undertake too severe an ascetic regime with respect to food.
From the Gospel of Matthew

46. Against the soul that at the time of attack wants to find strong
armor:
Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be
tempted by the devil. He fasted forty days and forty nights,
and afterwards he was famished (Matt 4:1-2).
47. Against the thoughts that are anxious about food and clothing
on the pretexts of hospitality, illnesses, and prolonged miseries
of the body:
Do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you
will drink, or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life
more than food, and the body more than clothing? (Matt
6:25).15
48. Against the soul that is bound by gluttony and supposes that
by refreshing the body with delicacies it travels the road of
life:
For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life,
and there are few who take it (Matt 7:14).
From the Gospel of Luke

49. Against the thought that hinders us from giving to the needy
from our food and clothing on the pretexts, “The provisions
are not enough for both us and them” or “There is someone
weaker or in greater need than this person, and we should
give to that person rather than this one, for this one is lazy
and wants to eat and be clothed without working”:
Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has
none; and whoever has food must do likewise (Luke 3:11).
15
See Thoughts 6 for a discussion of freedom from anxiety that also cites this
verse.
From Acts
50. Against the soul that loves the desires and collects food and
clothing for itself alone:
All who believed were together and had all things in common;
they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute
the proceeds to all, as any had need (Acts 2:44-45).16
51. Against the soul that grows weary in the affliction that comes
upon it from restriction of bread and water:
It is through many afflictions that we must enter the kingdom
of God (Acts 14:22).
The Apostle: From the Letter to the Romans

52. Against the thoughts that persuade us to show a little care for
our body by eating and drinking:
Make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires (Rom
13:14).
53. Against the thoughts that entice us to be comforted with a
little treat of vegetables:
The weak eat vegetables (Rom 14:2).
From the First Letter to the Corinthians

54. Against the thought that at harvest time casts into us the desire
for fruits:
Athletes exercise self-control in all things; they do it to receive
a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable one (1 Cor 9:25).
16
From the Second Letter to the Corinthians

55. Against the thoughts that arise in us because of great need
and that gradually relax the soul’s vigor:
We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but
not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck
down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death
of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in
our bodies (2 Cor 4:8-10).
56. Against the thought that depicts before our eyes a disease of
the stomach, liver, and spleen, and a blowing that exceeds [the
capacity of ] the navel:
So we do not lose heart. Even though our outer nature is
wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed day by day
(2 Cor 4:16).
57. Against the thoughts that arise in us as our entire body becomes
gradually corrupted:
For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed,
we have a building from God, a house not made with hands,
eternal in the heavens (2 Cor 5:1).
58. Against the thought that arouses compassion in us, persuades
us to give to the poor, and afterward makes us sad and annoyed
about what we gave:
Not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful
giver, and the one who has compassion on the poor will be
supported (2 Cor 9:7; Prov 22:8-9).17
59. Against the thought that depicts in us severe weakness from
diseases that are about to arise in us from fasting, and that
persuades us to eat a little cooked food:
For whenever I am weak, then I am strong (2 Cor 12:10).
17
The MS has combined the two passages.
From the Letter to the Ephesians 18

60. Against the thought that wants to be filled with wine on a
feast day:
Do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery; but be
filled with the Spirit, as you sing psalms and hymns and spiri-
tual songs among yourselves, singing and making melody to
the Lord in your hearts (Eph 5:18-19).19
From the Letter to the Philippians

61. Against the thoughts that make our soul neither want to
gather provisions through manual labor nor be persuaded to
receive something from its family because they are poor and
reside at a great distance, but rather advise it to fill its need
from others:
The Lord is near. Do not worry about anything, but in every-
thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your
requests be made known to God (Phil 4:5-6).
62. Against the thought that predicts to me hunger and loss of
bread and suggests to me the disgrace of receiving a favor
from others:
In any and all circumstances I have learned the secret of being
well fed and of going hungry, of having plenty and of being in
need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me (Phil
4:12-13).20
18
“From” is missing in the MS, but appears in 12,175.
19
The number “60” is missing in the MS, but appears in 12,175.
20
Evagrius warns elsewhere against feeling ashamed to accept material help
from others: Foundations of the Monastic Life 4; Praktikos 9.
From the First Letter to the Thessalonians

63. Against the thought that hinders us from working with our
hands and persuades us to expect to receive what we need
from others:
But we urge you, brothers, to do so more and more, to aspire
to live quietly, to mind your own affairs, and to work with your
hands, as we directed you, so that you may behave properly
toward outsiders and be dependent on no one (1 Thess
4:10-12).
From the Second Letter to the Thessalonians

64. Against the thinking that hinders us from working with our
hands and compels us to eat bread and to fill ourselves:
Anyone unwilling to work should not eat (2 Thess 3:10).
From the Letter to the Hebrews

65. Against the thought that says that the monastic discipline is
difficult and extremely burdensome, that through affliction
it cruelly lays waste to our body, and that it does not profit
the soul:
Now, discipline always seems painful rather than pleasant at
the time, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness
to those who have been trained by it (Heb 12:11).
66. Against the thinking that is diligent about food and neglects
compassion for the needy:
Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for
such sacrifices are pleasing to God (Heb 13:16).
From the First Letter to Timothy

67. Against the thought that, in the absence of pain in the stomach
and severe illnesses, advises us to drink wine by suggesting to
us the blessed Apostle’s direction when in his letter he com-
manded Timothy on this point:
Keep yourself pure. No longer drink only water, but take a
little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent
ailments (1 Tim 5:22-23).
From the Letter of James

68. Against the thoughts that turn us back toward the world and
its commandments:
Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity
with God? Therefore, whoever wishes to be a friend of the
world becomes an enemy of God (Jas 4:4).
From the Letter of John

69. Against the thought that supposes that the commandment to
fast is burdensome:
And his commandments are not burdensome, for whatever
is born of God conquers the world. And this is the victory
that conquers the world, our faith (1 John 5:3-4).
Blessed is our Lord Jesus Christ, our God, who has given us
the victory over the thoughts of the demon of gluttony!

Talk Back PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Talk Back PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Talk Back PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evagrius of Pontus

Translated with an Introduction by

Evagrius of Pontus, Saint, c. 345–399

Talking Back translated from the edition of

Abhandlungen der königlichen Gesellschaft der

© 2009 by Order of Saint Benedict, Collegeville, Minnesota. All rights reserved. No

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Evagrius, Ponticus, 345?–399.

experienced in the movements of the soul and the ways of prayer

I completed a rough translation of Talking Back while I was an

endless moral support. I am grateful to all of these persons and

Sometime in the final decade of the fourth century, a monk

or to aspects of monastic spirituality that appear more directly

learned about ascetic practice and demonic conflict from monks

Literary Form and Function: A Manual for Spiritual Combat

If you [sing.] want to know the experiences that he [Evagrius]

Against the suggestions of the eight principal vices, which he

As disappointing as it is for the modern scholar to read about a

Gennadius of Marseilles, Illustrious Men 11; Patrologia Latina 58:1066-67.

Brakke, Demons and the Making of the Monk, 242–46.

anthologies of excerpts from written works for a variety of pur-

Deuteronomy are collected without any headings or commen-

defensive weapons. To Quirinus now consists of three books, but

I received your letter, in which you urged me to write for you

and strove to display them in himself.” 22 Athanasius later has

supramundane beings: God, demons, even angels. As an arsenal of

For the sting of an insect:

kinds of ancient literary works, including Scripture testimony

The Theory and Practice of Antirrhēsis

In the practice of antirrhesis select biblical verses are employed

biblical texts may console the tempted soul and remind it of

Whether the monk uses biblical passages negatively, to refute a

1. Excerpts directed against demons or the thoughts they suggest:

Although only 37 of 498 excerpts are directed explicitly against

­ arrior against the demons rests on his reputed authorship of the

Go away, go away, evil one, manslayer;

his demons.39 It is possible that Gregory composed these anti-

especially those that are visual, physical, or both. The temptation

The brother answered and said, “What shall I do, for I am

understand the force of the things we say, when the demons

When the battle takes place with discernment, it is filled with

d­ iscerning holy and profane, clean and unclean thoughts. And,

The first step in antirrhēsis, then, is to identify an impression as a

This passage provides the broader context for antirrhēsis. Every

persists and sets us on a course of action. In Evagrius’s view the

Three thoughts oppose the demonic thought, cutting it off

One might argue that biblical verses might be included in the

greedy person. A persistent representation of a corporeal object

Monastic Authority: Evagrius the Fighter of Demons

Palladius, Lausiac History 38.10–12.

For an example of an ancient observer who notes both Evagrius’s learning

and his experience with demons, see Historia Monachorum 20.15–16.

well as he should have and remarks that he has suffered greatly

who have undergone such experiences: “those who have been

Pontique et les deux Macaire,” 218–23.

interpretation. The Bible functions diversely at every level of

Evidence for Early Monasticism

skeptical, especially of the Sayings, but there is no denying the

This was his practice:The brothers would gather around him

1. Excerpts directed against demons or the thoughts they suggest:

arrior against the demons rests on his reputed authorship of the

d iscerning holy and profane, clean and unclean thoughts. And,