Ascetic Culture: Essays in Honor of Philip Rousseau

Chapter 9: Waiting for Theodosius, or The Ascetic and the City: Gregory of Nazianzus on Maximus the Philosopher

C h a p t e r N i n e Waiting for Theodosius, or The Ascetic and the City Gregory of Nazianzus on Maximus the Philosopher SuSANNA ElM This is a book that was written in some ways backwards: not as a search for roots, but as the exploration of . . . the ordered discovery of attitudes (above all on authority) gradually accumulated in the minds of Christians . . . after Constantine. The book is about ascetics, but the inquiry began [and ends] with bishops. . . .What reputation could [these men . . .] acquire? What hold did [they] have over the imagination [of their audience]? —Rousseau, Ascetics, Authority, and the Church A sceticism, authority, and the church, the individual and the community as illuminated through “exploration of [their] literary heritage,” are among the themes that fascinate Philip Rousseau.1 Focusing on a broad cast of characters, ranging from SidoniusApollinaris via Jerome,Augustine, and Pachomius to Basil 182 of Caesarea and Theodoret of Cyrus, Philip Rousseau has repeatedly explored whether these ascetics of great authority displayed in their literary legacy “an understanding of the human heart and what was required in those who wished to form and guide it.”2 That capacity, rather than, say, the institutional ramifications of the organizations and communities created by and reflected in this literary legacy, is Philip Rousseau’s litmus test for authority. What did the individuals in question do or write to ensure that their community would be both lasting and humane? The answers are rarely straightforward. After all, many of these persons were “rather odd” (e.g., Basil), “tentative and gradual [in shaping the] alliance among men and women” whom they sought to guide. Mistakes were made.3 As ascetics, these men were not “secluded and self-protective,” but, having carefully assessed “the relation between the pursuit of philosophy , as [they] interpreted it, and engagement with the pastoral life,” they “made a definite commitment, and stuck with it.”4 Maximus the Philosopher might therefore be a man at least somewhat after Philip Rousseau’s heart insofar as he too was rather odd and engaged in consciously assessing the relationship between philosophy and “pastoral care.” The same cannot so confidently be said for his literary impresario, Gregory of Nazianzus , whom Philip Rousseau had in mind when making the remark cited above. Gregory had not made a definite commitment to the pastoral life and stuck with it (or so it could easily appear). His literary legacy, moreover , certainly encourages readings that portray him as a reclusive “theologian of the inner life of the Trinity” whose concerns regarding the κοινωνία, its longevity and humanity, were secondary to theological concerns .5 No wonder that Gregory of Nazianzus features less in Philip’s oeuvre. Still, not all is lost, and perhaps even Gregory may be brought closer to Philip’s standards. Those for whom Philip Rousseau is an admired mentor know how high these standards are. Philip’s “understanding of the human heart,” his wisdom in knowing what is required when forming and guiding, is a precious inspiration. Maximus the Philosopher, or Maximus of Constantinople, as portrayed by Gregory, was at the very least not frail as “a spider’s silk swinging widely at the slightest breeze, [nor] too tender for this tumbling world of mountebanks, and quacks and gobs.”6 Gregory’s picture of the man may, however, suggest that Gregory, by contrast, was not suited to action Waiting for Theodosius, or The Ascetic and the City 183 and leadership but was easily duped by others more at home in the world and ready to make commitments and stick with them. Yet his portrayal of Maximus of Constantinople was, as so often in his work, a calling card: to praise and then to condemn Maximus let others know what Gregory considered the true ascetic life, how he interpreted the pursuit of philosophy , and what that implied for the situation in which Gregory found himself. Gregory’s philosophy was an active one in which service (λει- τουργία) to the community was the raison d’être. This community was the οἰκουμένη of the Romans, metaphorically and literally represented by the “city” (Constantinople), an earthly city intrinsically tied to “the city above” (Gregory Nazianzen, Or. 19; 26.17). “THE NoBlEST oF THE NoBlE” Maximus the Philosopher is a figure integral to Gregory’s time in Constantinople , the intense two years between his arrival in 379 to lead a small Nicene community and his...