Asianism, arianism, and the encomium of athanasius by Gregory of Nazianzus

The development of Arianism as a rhetorical category is an important topic in scholarship on the Cappadocian Fathers. Their polemics against opponents such as Eunomius and Aetius become formative texts in the creation of the heresiarch as a literary type. Nicene writers draw upon a formidable arsenal of techniques for character assassination in order to paint their adversaries with every form of vice and degeneracy imaginable.

This paper uses Gregory of Nazianzus’ encomium for Athanasius to show how a particular type of polemical discourse enters the literary toolkit of heresiology. Gregory’s narrative of his subject’s life offers an account of the rise and fall of George of Cappadocia (Or. 21.16-26), the “usurper” of Athanasius’ episcopal see in Alexandria from 357-361. This paper shows for the first time that the description of the background and career of the Arian George is in fact a reimagining of the major literary feud of the Hellenistic and Imperial eras. Gregory rewrites the classic account of the rise of the rhetorical school known as “Asianism” found in Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ preface to his study of the ancient Attic orators. Gregory’s treatment of George’s career is based point for point on Dionysius’ lurid account of the stylistic and cultural disease that for him was represented by Asianism. Athanasius, in turn, is made to play the part of Atticism, which returns in triumph to its position of authority after being unjustly displaced by the upstart usurper.

In the character of George of Cappadocia, Gregory conflates the two cultural heterodoxies of Asianism and Arianism. His interest in Asianism as a heresy of language puts into sharper relief his numerous attacks on Arians, both with respect to their misunderstanding of language as well as their inappropriate and untimely use of theological discourse. Ancient theories of language have played a prominent role in recent scholarship on 4th century theological and philosophical debates, and Gregory’s interest in the Asianist-Atticist controversy should be brought into the conversation. Finally, Gregory’s encomium on Athanasius enjoys a long Byzantine afterlife, and this paper concludes by exploring one episode in the reception of Gregory’s “Asianist” characterization of George of Cappadocia in the polemical traditions of subsequent theological debates: Theodoret of Cyrus' account of the rise of Nestorius in his Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium.