§4. Eunomius displays much folly and fine writing, but very little seriousness about vital points.

In these and such like antics I allow him to have the advantage; and to his heart’s content he may revel in his victory there. Most willingly I forego such a competition, which can attract those only who seek renown; if indeed any renown comes from indulging in such methods of argumentation, considering that Paul8    Cf. 1 Corinth. ii. 1–8., that genuine minister of the Word, whose only ornament was truth, both disdained himself to lower his style to such prettinesses, and instructs us also, in a noble and appropriate exhortation, to fix our attention on truth alone. What need indeed for one who is fair in the beauty of truth to drag in the paraphernalia of a decorator for the production of a false artificial beauty? Perhaps for those who do not possess truth it may be an advantage to varnish their falsehoods with an attractive style, and to rub into the grain of their argument a curious polish. When their error is taught in far-fetched language and decked out with all the affectations of style, they have a chance of being plausible and accepted by their hearers. But those whose only aim is simple truth, unadulterated by any misguiding foil, find the light of a natural beauty emitted from their words.

But now that I am about to begin the examination of all that he has advanced, I feel the same difficulty as a farmer does, when the air is calm; I know not how to separate his wheat from his chaff; the waste, in fact, and the chaff in this pile of words is so enormous, that it makes one think that the residue of facts and real thoughts in all that he has said is almost nil. It would be the worse for speed and very irksome, it would even be beside our object, to go into the whole of his remarks in detail; we have not the means for securing so much leisure so as wantonly to devote it to such frivolities; it is the duty, I think, of a prudent workman not to waste his strength on trifles, but on that which will clearly repay his toil.

As to all the things, then, in his Introduction, how he constitutes himself truth’s champion, and fixes the charge of unbelief upon his opponents, and declares that an abiding and indelible hatred for them has sunk into his soul, how he struts in his ‘new discoveries,’ though he does not tell us what they are, but says only that an examination of the debateable points in them was set on foot, a certain ‘legal’ trial which placed on those who were daring to act illegally the necessity of keeping quiet, or to quote his own words in that Lydian style of singing which he has got, “the bold law-breakers—in open courts—were forced to be quiet;” (he calls this a “proscription” of the conspiracy against him, whatever may be meant by that term);—all this wearisome business I pass by as quite unimportant. On the other hand, all his special pleading for his heretical conceits may well demand our close attention. Our own interpreter of the principles of divinity followed this course in his Treatise; for though he had plenty of ability to broaden out his argument, he took the line of dealing only with vital points, which he selected from all the blasphemies of that heretical book9    that heretical book, i.e. the first ‘Apology’ of Eunomius in 28 parts: a translation of it is given in Whiston’s Eunomianismus Redivivus., and so narrowed the scope of the subject.

If, however, any one desires that our answer should exactly correspond to the array of his arguments, let him tell us the utility of such a process. What gain would it be to my readers if I were to solve the complicated riddle of his title, which he proposes to us at the very commencement, in the manner of the sphinx of the tragic stage; namely this ‘New Apology for the Apology,’ and all the nonsense which he writes about that; and if I were to tell the long tale of what he dreamt? I think that the reader is sufficiently wearied with the petty vanity about this newness in his title already preserved in Eunomius’ own text, and with the want of taste displayed there in the account of his own exploits, all his labours and his trials, while he wandered over every land and every sea, and was ‘heralded’ through the whole world. If all that had to be written down over again,—and with additions, too, as the refutations of these falsehoods would naturally have to expand their statement,—who would be found of such an iron hardness as not to be sickened at this waste of labour? Suppose I was to write down, taking word by word, an explanation of that mad story of his; suppose I were to explain, for instance, who that Armenian was on the shores of the Euxine, who had annoyed him at first by having the same name as himself, what their lives were like, what their pursuits, how he had a quarrel with that Armenian because of the very likeness of their characters, then in what fashion those two were reconciled, so as to join in a common sympathy with that winning and most glorious Aetius, his master (for so pompous are his praises); and after that, what was the plot devised against himself, by which they brought him to trial on the charge of being surpassingly popular: suppose, I say, I was to explain all that, should I not appear, like those who catch opthalmia themselves from frequent contact with those who are already suffering so, to have caught myself this malady of fussy circumstantiality? I should be following step by step each detail of his twaddling story; finding out who the “slaves released to liberty” were, what was “the conspiracy10    σχέσιν. of the initiated” and “the calling out11    τάξιν. We have no context to explain these allusions, the treatise of Eunomius being lost, which Gregory is now answering, i.e. the Apologia Apologiæ. of hired slaves,” what ‘Montius and Gallus, and Domitian,’ and ‘false witnesses,’ and ‘an enraged Emperor,’ and ‘certain sent into exile’ have to do with the argument. What could be more useless than such tales for the purpose of one who was not wishing merely to write a narrative, but to refute the argument of him who had written against his heresy? What follows in the story is still more profitless; I do not think that the author himself could peruse it again without yawning, though a strong natural affection for his offspring does possess every father. He pretends to unfold there his exploits and his sufferings; the style rears itself into the sublime, and the legend swells into the tones of tragedy.

Ἐν τούτοις τοίνυν καὶ τοῖς τοιούτοις τὸ πλέον ἔχειν αὐτὸν συγχωρήσας καὶ κατὰ ἐξουσίαν ἐμφορεῖσθαι τῆς νίκης πᾶσαν τὴν περὶ ταῦτα σπουδὴν ἑκὼν ὑπερβήσομαι ὡς μόνοις τοῖς πρὸς φιλοτιμίαν ὁρῶσι προσήκουσαν, εἴ γέ τινα φέρει φιλοτιμίαν ὅλως τοῖς τοιούτοις τῶν λόγων ἐνδιαθρύπτεσθαι. ἐπεὶ καὶ ὁ γνήσιος ὑπηρέτης τοῦ λόγου Βασίλειος μόνῃ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ κοσμούμενος αὐτός τε ταῖς τοιαύταις ποικιλίαις αἰσχρὸν ᾤετο κατασχηματίζειν τὸν λόγον καὶ ἡμᾶς πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν μόνην ἀφορᾶν ἐξεπαίδευσε, καλῶς καὶ προσηκόντως τοῦτο νομοθετῶν. τί γὰρ χρὴ τὴν κομμωτικὴν περιεργίαν εἰς τὴν τοῦ νόθου καὶ σεσοφισμένου κάλλους συντέλειαν ἐπισύρεσθαι τὸν τῷ κόσμῳ τῆς ἀληθείας ὡραϊζόμενον; οἷς μὲν γὰρ ἄπεστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια, χρήσιμον ἴσως διὰ τῆς τῶν ῥημάτων ἡδονῆς ὑποφαρμάττειν τὸ ψεῦδος, οἷόν τι φυκίον τὴν τοιαύτην περιεργίαν ἐνδιατρίβοντας τῷ χαρακτῆρι τοῦ λόγου: οὕτω γὰρ ἂν πιθανή τε καὶ εὐπαράδεκτος ἡ ἀπάτη τοῖς ἀκούουσι γένοιτο, κατεγλωττισμένη καὶ περιηνθισμένη ταῖς τοιαύταις τοῦ λόγου κομψείαις: ὅταν δὲ καθαρὰ καὶ ἀμιγὴς παντὸς δολεροῦ προκαλύμματος σπουδάζηταί τισιν ἡ ἀλήθεια, οἴκοθεν ἐπαστράπτει τοῖς λεγομένοις τὸ κάλλος.
Μέλλων δὲ ἤδη τῆς ἐξετάσεως ἅπτεσθαι τῶν εἰρημένων ἀμηχανεῖν μοι δοκῶ καθάπερ ἐν νηνεμίᾳ τις γεωργός, οὐκ ἔχων ὅπως διακρίναιμι τὸν καρπὸν καὶ τὸ ἄχυρον: τοσοῦτον ἐν τῷ θημῶνι τούτῳ τῶν λόγων τὸ περιττόν τε καὶ ἀχυρῶδές ἐστιν, ὡς ἐγγὺς εἶναι τοῦ μηδ' ὅλως νομίζειν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς εἰρημένοις ὑπ' αὐτοῦ πραγμάτων εἶναί τινα καὶ νοημάτων ὑπόστασιν. τὸ γὰρ πᾶσιν ἐφεξῆς τοῖς γεγραμμένοις ἐπεξιέναι μάταιόν τε ἅμα πρὸς τὴν σπουδὴν καὶ ἐπίπονον καὶ οὐδὲ συμβαῖνον κρίνω τῷ ἡμετέρῳ σκοπῷ: οὔτε γὰρ τοσοῦτον περίεστιν ἡμῖν τῆς σχολῆς, « ὡς » ἔχειν κατ' ἐξουσίαν ἐνευκαιρεῖν τοῖς ματαίοις, καὶ προσήκειν οἶμαι τὸν δόκιμον ἐργάτην μὴ περὶ τὰ μάταια κατατρίβειν τὴν δύναμιν, ἀλλ' ἐν οἷς ὁ πόνος τὸν καρπὸν ὁμολογούμενον ἔχει.
Ὅσα τοίνυν εὐθὺς ἐν προοιμίοις ἀποσεμνύνων ἑαυτὸν ὡς « ἀληθείας » προστάτην τῷ τῆς « ἀπιστίας » ὀνείδει τῶν ἀντιτεταγμένων καθάπτεται λέγων « ἔμμονόν τι καὶ δυσέκνιπτον αὐτοῖς ἐντετηκέναι τὸ μῖσος », καὶ ὡς ἐπισοβαρεύεται τοῖς ἔναγχος « ἐγνωσμένοις » αὐτῷ, τίνα μὲν τὰ γνωσθέντα μὴ προστιθείς, « κρίσιν » δέ τινα τῶν ἀμφισβητησίμων ἐν αὐτοῖς γεγενῆσθαι λέγων καί τινα δίκην ἔννομον τὴν τοῦ σωφρονεῖν ἀνάγκην τοῖς οὐκ ἐν δίκῃ θρασυνομένοις ἐπάγουσαν, λέγων οὑτωσὶ τῇ ἰδίᾳ φωνῇ κατὰ τὴν Λύδιον ἁρμονίαν ἐκείνην: « καὶ τῶν οὐκ ἐν δίκῃ θρασυνομένων ἐννόμῳ δίκῃ σωφρονεῖν ἠναγκασμένων », ἣν καὶ « ἀπόρρησιν τῶν ἐπαναστάντων » ὠνόμασεν οὐκ οἶδ' ὅ τι νοῶν τὴν « ἀπόρρησιν », καὶ πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα ὡς μάταιον ὄχλον καὶ εἰς οὐδὲν φέροντα χρήσιμον παραδραμοῦμαι τῷ λόγῳ: εἰ δέ τινα τοῦ αἱρετικοῦ φρονήματος συνηγορίαν πεποίηται, πρὸς τοῦτό μοι καλῶς ἔχειν ἡγοῦμαι τὴν πλείω ποιεῖσθαι σπουδήν. οὕτω γὰρ καὶ ὁ τῶν θείων δογμάτων ὑποφήτης ἐν τῷ καθ' ἑαυτὸν λόγῳ πεποίηκεν, ὃς πολλῶν ὄντων τῶν δυναμένων εἰς πλάτος ἐκτεῖναι τὸν λόγον διὰ τῶν ἀναγκαίων προϊὼν μόνων συντέμνει τὸ πλῆθος τῆς ὑποθέσεως, τὰ κεφάλαια τῆς βλασφημίας ἐκ πάντων τῶν εἰρημένων ἐν τῇ βίβλῳ τῆς ἀσεβείας ἀναλεξάμενος.
Εἰ δέ τις ἐπιζητεῖ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ λόγου τάξιν ἀκολούθως ἀντιταχθῆναι καὶ τὸν ἡμέτερον, εἰπάτω τὸ κέρδος. τί πλέον γενήσεται τοῖς ἀκούουσιν, εἰ τὸν γρῖφον καὶ τὸ αἴνιγμα τῆς ἐπιγραφῆς διαλύσαιμι, ὃ κατὰ τὴν τραγικὴν σφίγγα εὐθὺς ἡμῖν ἐν προοιμίοις προτείνεται, τὴν καινὴν ἐκείνην « Ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀπολογίας ἀπολογίαν » καὶ τὸν πολὺν ἐπὶ τούτῳ λῆρον καὶ τὴν μακρὰν τοῦ ὀνείρου καταλέγων διήγησιν; οἶμαι γὰρ ἱκανῶς ἀποκναίειν τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας καὶ ἐν μόνῳ τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ Εὐνομίου σῳζόμενον τό τε γλίσχρον καὶ μάταιον τῆς ἐν τῇ ἐπιγραφῇ τοῦ λόγου καινότητος καὶ τὸ φορτικὸν ἅμα καὶ περίαυτον τῶν οἰκείων διηγημάτων, οἵους « πόνους καὶ ἄθλους » ἑαυτοῦ διεξέρχεται « διὰ πάσης γῆς τε καὶ θαλάττης πεφοιτηκότας καὶ ἐν πάσῃ τῇ οἰκουμένῃ κηρυσσομένους ». εἰ δὲ ταῦτα πάλιν γράφοιτο καὶ μετὰ προσθήκης, ὡς εἰκός, τῶν τῆς ψευδολογίας ἐλέγχων πλεοναζόντων τὸν λόγον, τίς οὕτως στερρὸς φανεῖται καὶ ἀδαμάντινος, ὡς μὴ προσναυτιᾶσαι τῇ ἀκαιρίᾳ τοῦ πόνου; εἰ δὲ καὶ τὴν ἔνθεον ἐκείνην ἱστορίαν ἐπὶ λέξεως γράφοιμι, τίς « ὁ κατὰ τὸν Εὔξεινον Πόντον διὰ τῆς ὁμωνυμίας αὐτὸν προλυπήσας », οἷος ὁ βίος, τίνες αἱ σπουδαί, πῶς « διεφέρετο πρὸς τὸν Ἀρμένιον διὰ τὴν ὁμοτροπίαν τοῦ ἤθους, εἶτα ἐπὶ τίσι συνέθεντό τε μετ' ἀλλήλων καὶ κατηλλάγησαν, ὡς ἐπὶ τὸν ἄμαχον ἐκεῖνον καὶ τῇ δόξῃ πολὺν Ἀέτιον », τὸν διδάσκαλον αὐτοῦ, « συμφρονῆσαι » (τούτοις γὰρ αὐτὸν ἀποσεμνύνει τοῖς ἐπαίνοις), εἶτα τίς « ἡ καθ' αὑτοῦ μηχανὴ καὶ ἐπίνοια, δι' ἧς εἰς κρίσιν » τὸν ἄνδρα « κατέστησαν, ἔγκλημα ποιούμενοι τὸ εὐδοκιμεῖν » αὐτὸν « καὶ ὑπὲρ τοὺς ἄλλους εἶναι »: εἰ ταῦτα λέγοιμι πάντα, ἆρ' οὐχὶ καθάπερ οἱ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν τὴν νόσον ἐκ τῆς πολλῆς ὁμιλίας τῶν προνενοσηκότων ἐφ' ἑαυτοὺς ἕλκοντες, οὕτω καὶ αὐτὸς συμμετεσχηκέναι δόξω τοῦ περὶ τὴν ματαίαν σπουδὴν ἀρρωστήματος, ἑπόμενος κατ' ἴχνος τῇ φλυαρίᾳ καὶ τὰ καθ' ἕκαστον ἐξετάζων, τίνας φησὶ « δούλους εἰς ἐλευθερίαν ἀφιεμένους καὶ τίνα μυουμένων σχέσιν καὶ ἀργυρωνήτων τάξιν », καὶ τί βούλονται « Μόντιος » καὶ « Γάλλος » καὶ « Δομετιανὸς » ἐπεισιόντες τῷ λόγῳ καὶ « μάρτυρες ψευδεῖς » καὶ « βασιλεὺς ὀργιζόμενος » καὶ « εἰς ὑπερορίαν » τινὲς « μεθιστάμενοι »; τί γὰρ ἂν καὶ γένοιτο τούτων ματαιότερον τῶν διηγημάτων τῷ γε μὴ ψιλὴν ἱστορίαν διηγήσασθαι βουλομένῳ, ἀλλὰ διελέγξαι τὸν ἀντειπόντα τῷ τῆς αἱρέσεως δόγματι; πολὺ δὲ μᾶλλον τὰ ἐπὶ τούτοις διὰ τῆς ἱστορίας δηλούμενα πλείονα τὴν ἀχρηστίαν ἔχει: οἶμαι γὰρ μηδ' ἂν αὐτὸν τὸν συγγραφέα διελθεῖν ἀνυστάκτως, κἂν φυσικῇ τινι στοργῇ κρατῶνται πρὸς τοὺς ἐξ αὑτῶν οἱ πατέρες. δηλοῦται γὰρ ἐκεῖ δῆθεν τὰ πεπραγμένα καὶ τὰ πάθη διὰ τοῦ λόγου εἰς ὕψος αἴρεται καὶ εἰς τραγῳδίας ὄγκον ἡ ἱστορία μετασκευάζεται.