David M. Gwynn, Athanasius of Alexandria. Bishop, Theologian, Ascetic, Fa- Ther

Book Reviews / CHRC 93 (2013) 411–484 417

David M. Gwynn, Athanasius of Alexandria. Bishop, Theologian, Ascetic, Fa- ther. Oxford University Press, Oxford/New York 2012, xvi + 230 pp. ISBN 978- 01-99-21095-4. £18.99.

Any attempt to provide a succinct exploration of the career and writings of Athanasius faces difficulties. He held the Alexandrian episcopate for 45 years, from 328 to 373, and was exiled five times, by four different emperors. The most commonly-used English translation of his works runs to over 500 double- columned pages, even though it does not include some of his ascetic writings.1 Nevertheless, in fewer than 200 pages of text, David Gwynn has produced a clear and broad-ranging introduction to this subject for his intended audience of “students and teachers of courses in patristic theology and Late Roman history” (p. ix). It draws upon a wealth of scholarship on Athanasius, including Gwynn’s own 2007 monograph, which focused on the bishop’s polemical presentation of his ‘Arian’ opponents.2 This new volume, which appears in the Oxford University Press series Chris- tian Theology in Context, is structured around the four roles defined in its sub- title. The individual chapters on these various aspects are preceded by an infor- mative account of Athanasius’s life and writings, including debates concerning the dating and authenticity of his many works, and followed at the end of the volume by an interesting discussion of the bishop’slater reputation in the Greek East and the Latin West, as well as in Syriac, Armenian, and Coptic traditions.3 At heart, the chapter entitled ‘Bishop’ is an account of Athanasius’s role in controversies, especially his opposition to (and construction of ) ‘Arians’ and ‘Melitians.’ The chronological progression of the chapter, which is largely structured around the bishop’s various exiles and homecomings, also discusses many of Athanasius’s works in order, thereby providing a valuable guide to the development of his rhetoric over time. Much of the argument of this chapter will be familiar to those who have read Gwynn’s previous monograph, since it reproduces the central the- sis of that earlier work, that ‘the Eusebians’ as an organised party of ‘Arians’ were

1) A. Robertson, St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters (Oxford, 1892). Translations of some of the other ascetica can be found in the appendices to D. Brakke, Athanasius and the Politics of Asceticism (Oxford, 1995). 2) D. Gwynn, The Eusebians. The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the ‘Arian Controversy’ (Oxford, 2007). 3) On the Syriac, Armenian, and Coptic views of Athanasius, see also D. Gwynn, ‘Athanasius in Oriental Historical Tradition,’ in Unclassical Traditions. Volume II: Perspectives from East and West in Late Antiquity, ed. C. Kelly, R. Flower and M.S. Williams (Cambridge, 2011), 43–58.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013 DOI: 10.1163/18712428-13930307 418 Book Reviews / CHRC 93 (2013) 411–484 a rhetorical product of Athanasian polemic.4 There are, however, some other important points emphasised here, including (at pp. 25–30) that, prior to the Council of Tyre in 335, Athanasius identified his primary enemies as the ‘Meli- tians,’ rather than the ‘Arians.’ Similarly, there is also the welcome argument (at pp. 47–49) that Athanasius was not opposed to imperial involvement with the Church per se, but rather to the specific policies and theological viewpoints of Constantius II in the 350s. This point therefore allows the corresponding iden- tification of the separation of ‘Church’ and ‘State’ as a rhetorical stance to be deployed when needed, rather than a supposed ‘Christian political theory.’ The chapter entitled ‘Theologian’ is the longest in the book and considers those of Athanasius’s works that can be regarded as primarily ‘theological.’ It therefore begins with an introduction to the origins of the fourth-century Chris- tological controversies, including Arius’sviews and the Council of Nicaea, before moving through the familiar territory of the Athanasian construction of ‘Ari- anism’ and on to the rising concern from the late 350s onwards concerning the status of the Holy Spirit and the definition of the Trinity, as well as the simulta- neous humanity and divinity of Christ, which was to become so important in the following century. Gwynn is keen to stress, however, that Athanasius was not a detached, ‘academic’ theologian, but primarily concerned with the practical need for correct doctrine for the salvation of mankind, which he conceptualised “as a process of ‘deification’ or ‘divinization’” (p. 69). The ‘Ascetic’ chapter, like those which precede and follow it, progresses through Athanasius’srelevant works chronologically, although in this case it does so twice: firstly to explain the bishop’s prescriptions concerning ascetic practice; and secondly to explore the ‘politics’ of these statements, including his desire to increase his episcopal authority, both against his ‘Melitian’ and ‘Arian’ enemies and also with respect to the growing phenomenon of Egyptian monasticism. As one would expect, this chapter draws extensively on recent scholarship in this field, most notably the work of David Brakke, who appears frequently in the foot- notes to this chapter.5 After a brief introduction to late-antique asceticism, the chief texts discussed here are a number of works of advice for monks and virgins (including some preserved in languages other than Greek), as well as his famous Life of Antony, with particular emphasis on how this biography presented an ideal for the relationship between the metropolitan bishop and the growing number of charismatic ascetics.

4) Gwynn, The Eusebians (see above, n. 2). 5) Of particular importance is Brakke’s 1995 monograph (see above, n. 1).